CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 T, I BRARY 
 
 The Robert M. and Laura Lee Lintz 
 
 Book Endowment for the Humanities 
 
 Class of 1924 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924091300883 
 
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES 
 Vol. 1 
 
CODEX B 
 AND ITS ALLIES 
 
 A Study and an Indictment 
 
 PART I 
 
 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). 
 
 6 Bios fipaxvs^ h 8i T^X"^ Mtt^Mt 
 i Sf Kaipiii i^vi, 11 8e Tt7pa tr^aXfpiif T] hi Kpiats X'^^^^V- 
 
 Act Si ot) fiivoy iavrhf irofx'xci*' ri 84ovTa nouovTUj a\Ka 
 Ka\ riif yoffeovTOf Kal TOvs irapeiyras, Kal rdi f{w9ei'. 
 
 — Hippocrates (Aphor. I.) 
 
 LONDON 
 
 BERNARD QUARITCH 
 
 1914 
 
LONDON 
 
 nilNTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND B0H8, LIMITED, 
 
 DUKE STREET, STAMFORD STREET, 8.E., AND GREAT WINDMILL STREET, Vfi 
 
 i 
 
 THIS ESSAY IS RESPECTFULLY 
 
 DEDICATED TO 
 
 THE NEXT BODY OF 
 
 REVISERS 
 
 IN THE HOPE THAT 
 
 IT MAY PROVE OF SOME SERVICE 
 
 TO THEM. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 ou yap eV 'Ktiyu ij ^ntriXfi'a Tov Qfov aW tv Rvvaftrt, — 1 Cor. iv. 20, 
 
 . . . (KofTTOi Si j3Xf n-e'rw Trwr cVoiico8ofif I. — 1 Cor. iii. 10. 
 
 o 8t XotTTOv frjrfTrni (V rnlp otKoi/d/iotr (I'd n-itrrdr rtf tvptcij. — 1 Cor. iv. 2. 
 
 1. It is high time that the bubble of codex B should be pricked. 
 
 It had not occurred to me to write what follows until recently. 
 I had thought that time would cure the extraordinarj' 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 I trow — 
 most people still confuse with purity and " neutrality." 
 
 I proceed to " name " the aforesaid scholar, since he has challenged 
 me. Dr. A. Souter began a review of my ' Genesis of the Versions ' by 
 saying that — " It is the business of a critic first to destroy his enemy's 
 position before he seeks to build np 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 Neio 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." 
 
 1 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 sufficientl)' acquainted to be 
 able and qualified to discuss it with those few who have pursued a 
 parallel course of stud}'. 
 
 I present therefore an indictment against the MS B and against 
 Westcott and Hort, subdivided into hundreds of separate counts. I do 
 
 t When this was written I l>elieved that the Revised text to which Dr. Souter added 
 some critical apparatus (published by the Clarendon Press in 1010) really represented hia 
 views as to the text. He informs nie, 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 hia notes in certain places {e.g. John xiii. 18 as 
 to Ti'i/nj pro oit) the evidence of B al. upon which the readings of Hort were founded, 
 and which the Bevisers rejected in those places. The inference is obvious and almost 
 indubitable that Dr. Souter must agree with the Bevisers againal Westcott and Hort in 
 such places, or ho would have given the alternative readings and the evidence for tbcm 
 in his notes. 
 
 b 
 
11 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 not believe that the jurjmen 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 X. 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. 
 
 ISIany errors of omission may j'et 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 Schcpss. 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 H, it 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 N, 
 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 le a rout and a " sauve qui peut," it is not owing to lack of patience 
 on the part of the other side. But it will be owing to apathy, to 
 unfaithfulness, to pride, to incomplete 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.f A reference to the innumerable places where he is 
 
 t This is strong language, but compare Mark i\. J/12, where Origen at different 
 limes employs two different recensions without seeming to observe it. 
 
 PREFACE. Ill 
 
 upon both sides of the question, as set forth in detail herein, will show this 
 clearly. Add the places where he is in direct opposition to N and B, and 
 we must reconsider the whole position, pending which a return to 
 Wetstein's text might be an improvement. 
 
 I ask for a patient hearing of what must take a considerable time 
 in the telling (although I have condensed the matter as much as seemed 
 possible), while I proceed to sing the Death-song of B as a neutral text. 
 
 2. Now as to the supposed Antioch revision, and as to an Egyptian 
 revision, history is very silent. I know of no book where the matter 
 is succinctly sketched except ' The Introduction to the Old Testament 
 in Greek,' by Dr. Swete (1900). Here (p. 78 seq) Dr. Swete distin- 
 guished between the later and the earlier Hesychius, and seems to 
 accept as probable that Fhileas and Hesychius (the earlier) at the end 
 of the third century, with or without Pachymius and Theodore, engaged 
 in Egypt in a revision of the Greek New Testament scriptures as well 
 as of the Old Testament. And it is to be assumed that St. Jerome 
 was referring to this Hesychius as to a revision possibly of both 
 Testaments. The Decret. Gelasii to which Dr. Svrete 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, vnth or without Dorotheas, and his presumed revision 
 of the Scriptures at Antioch, probable as this may be, we are again in 
 a difficulty. This Lucian died in 312, but he is not the same Lucian 
 [circa 120-190] to whom Origen [186-253] refers as having probably 
 altered the Scriptures (contra Celsum ii. ch. xxvii). " Now I know of 
 no others who have altered the Gospel save the followers of Marcion and 
 those of Valentinus and I think also those of Lucian." 
 
 To Lucian and Hesychius together Jerome refers in his letter to 
 Damasus : " Praetermitto eos codices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nun- 
 cupatos paucorum hominum adserit perversa contentio quibus utique 
 nee in (toto) veteri instrumento post septuaginta interpretes emendare 
 quid licnit nee in novo profuit emendasse cum multarum gentium Unguis 
 Bcriptura 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 laudat auctorem. Constantinopolis usque 
 Antiochiam Lnciani martyris exemplaria probat. Mediae inter has pro- 
 vinciae Palaestinos codices legunt ; quos ah Origene elaboratos Eusebius 
 
 t As to the date of the Decretum Gelasii itself see article by F. C. Durkitt in 
 ' Journal of Theol. Studies ' for April 1918, p. 470. 
 
 I 2 
 
iv ConEX n AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 et Pamphilius vulgaverunt : totusque orbis hac inter se tiifaiia vatietate 
 compu<'nat . . . ." Here he is certainly only referring to the O.T. directly, 
 wliether or not Hesychius i and Phileas are the ones responsible 
 for the Egyptian revision of the Neio Testament, there was evidently such 
 a revision, which is what the following pages are concerned to exhibit. 
 
 I do not deny that Lucian ii perhaps also revised the ^ew 
 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 a^e with the other forms of text. 
 
 But I do not see how it is possible to accord to the XB 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 (i) 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: " Wlw is responsible for the greater 
 revising ? " And the answer seems decided that the «B group should 
 be given the palm. Otherwise we cannot explain the facts. For it is 
 inconceivable that Lucian il or anyone else removed what are con- 
 sidered such good readings in NB as : 
 
 IMatthew vi. 7. vn-oKpirai (pro e0viKot) 
 
 xvii. 15. xaKo)'; e^et (pro Kaxiix; Traa^x") 
 xix. 4. KTio-a? (2>ro ■ttoit/o-o?) 
 XX. 34. Ofiiiarasv (pro o<}>0a\fia>v) 
 xxii. 10. vvfi<f>a>v (pro yafiot) 
 Mark v. 36. ■n-apaKova-at (pro aKovtrat) 
 
 vii. 4. pavTttravTai (pro ^awTia-avTai) 
 X. 10 KaTevXoyei (pro evXoyei) 
 
 Luke xi. 33. <^a)9 (pro (^6770?) 
 
 xii. 28. afi(j>i.a^ei (pro aii^ievvvcri) 
 xii. 56. ovK oiha-re ZoKiiiai;(iv (pro ou SoKiMofeTc) 
 xxii. 55. TrepiayfravTMV (pro afavTwv) 
 xxiv. 33. v^poKT/ievou? (pro avirnOpota/ievov;) 
 
 John iv. 15. gjepx"/^"' (?''" fpX"/"") 
 xi. 57. evToXat (pro eino\r)v) 
 xix. 41. V TeSei/tevo? (pro eredri) 
 On this ground alone then, however pure or impure, neutral or 
 expanded, may be the narrative in the Antiochian or Constantmopol.tan 
 text it bLows a base in such places free from the "improvements 
 
 •^^' UntiSmatter be disproved, and I see not how i^ - ^e ^o- 
 away with, we must refuse to allow the priority or punty of the NB recen- 
 siTover tLat of Constantinople and Antioch as to genuine neutral base. 
 
 My thesis is then that it was B and N and their forerunners with 
 Origen who revised the " Antioch " text. And that, although there is an 
 older base than either of these groups, the "Antioch " text is purer in 
 many respects, if not " better," and is nearer the original base than much 
 of that in vogue in Egypt. 
 
 I have recently published a fresh collation of Evan 157. I was 
 anxious to do this for several reasons, but I was surprised at the 
 result ; principally because I found that the text of the MS had, like 
 so many others, passed through Egypt at some time and become 
 imbued with a good many Coptic readings which are of such a nature 
 that they could only have been obtained through the agency of a 
 graeco-coptic document. 
 
 This matter illustrates our point very thoroughly and very decidedly. 
 Where 157 opposes NB and coterie we are to suppose that upon its 
 return to Constantinople the archetype of 157 was subjected to a 
 rigorous comparison with a standard which caused the removal of all 
 the " good " readings of the NB group ! Such a thing is unthinkable. 
 On the contrary, 157 is a good example of a text full of " old " readings 
 and having a very ancient base, yet not " improved " on the principles 
 of NB. But 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 saij that 
 Hort's whole classification is now admitted to he 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, if ice accept 
 Hort's classification." — Crum and Kenyon, J.T.S. vol. i. p. 432, 'Of the 
 middle-Egyptian graeco-coptic fragment.' 
 
 " Tischendorf's text is, in my own opinion, right in many places ichcrc 
 the text of Hort is wrong ; but it is right, as it were, rather because a sort 
 of divining instinct, the result of his long acquaintance with his material, 
 led him to the truth, than because he had really, at least in the sense that 
 Hort and von Soden have done, argued out his principles." — C. H. Turner, 
 J.T.S. vol. xi. p. 183, ' Historical Introduction to the Textual Criticism of 
 the N.T.' 
 
 [But Tichendort " argues out his principles " on every other page 
 of his N.T., and although he often follows B against N, it is N as a 
 " neutral " text that he is following just where Turner no doubt agrees 
 with his critical acumen. — H.C.H.] 
 
CODEX D AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 " Some tew of these ' interpolations ' may possibly not be interpolations 
 at all, but portions of the true text which have fallen out of XB. . . . 
 
 " As soon as the Latinity of the ' Italian ' group is studied without 
 special reference to the type of Greek text represented by the various 
 MRS, it bccomc.t at once evident that Dr. Hort's classification is imsatis- 
 factory. The first blow to it was dealt by Mr. White in his edition 
 of <?. . . ."— F. C. Burkitt, Texts and Studies, vol. iv. No. 3, 'The Old 
 Latin and the Itala,' pp. 52 and 55. 
 
 " The text of Westcott and Hort is practically the text of NB. The 
 Old Syriao sometimes supports the true text of the NB family, where X 
 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 N 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 N and B 
 occasionally " [over 3,000 real differences between N and B are recorded 
 in the Gospels alone !— H.C.H.] " are inconsistent with themselves appears 
 certain in several places. Carefully as B is written, now and again it 
 presents an ungrammatical reading, which proves on examination to be 
 the fragment of a rival variant. Thus at Matt, xxiii. 26. . . . Other 
 instances are .... In all these instances" [Matt. xxi. 31, xxiii. 20, 
 xxvii. 17, Luke xi. 33, xix. 37] " B presents us with lohat is evidently 
 a doctored text."—F. C. Burkitt, ' Ev. da Mepharreshe,' vol. ii. pp. 233/4. 
 
 Now in the following pages I submit a vast number of other 
 instances where B has a doctored text, plainly, indubitably doctored. 
 Hort and my side cannot both be right in their estimate of this " neutral " 
 text. I claim merely that it is not neutral, and may not be followed 
 unless standing with strong independent company apart from the other 
 usual " Egyptian " supporters. I had thought von Soden agreed with me, 
 but his new text is very eclectic, and I wish to submit my side of the 
 question independently of his views. I have had no correspondence with 
 him on the subject. Adalbert Merx is decidedly on my side. 
 
 [Note.— As to Hesychius referred to on p. iii we have really to 
 distinguish between four men of this name (and possibly a fifth may lurk 
 between them). 
 
 Hesychius circa 200 in Egypt. 
 
 Hesychius the Alexandrian and lexicographer fa. 380. 
 
 Hesychius of Jerusalem stated as ob. 609 by Gregory, but in Gallandms 
 
 vol. xi. Pro-/, p. vii as ob. in 433 or 436. To this man is 
 
 attributed the Concordance or harmony republished (?) by 
 
 Severus in 513. 
 Hesychius of Miletus circa 540, author of an Onomasticon and 
 
 Chronicon.] 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ritiiTa SoKifiaCfTt ' TO Ka\ov KaTfj((T€. — 1 Thess. V. 21. 
 rlvfafff TimTzfC^Ttii duKi^ot. — Apelles Epipli. 
 Origea ■'"'' 
 Soy yap, (fjtjiTiv [o Ki'^mr] , tivOpatre, rovs XiiyoiT fiov oir upyvptov fVi Tpnrrf firii* Kal wp 
 XpjjpaTa doK(/iiiV(ti. — Clem''0'"' 
 
 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 bis article 
 in the J.T.S. for January 1910, t which I think shows a smaller 
 
 t ' Historical Introduction to tlio Textual Criticism of the New Testament.* 
 V : The Languages of the Early Church ; (B) Syriao and the first Syriac Gospels. 
 
 Turner's two examples in textual criticism (Matt. i. 16 and Luke xiv. 6) 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 vios in Luke xiv. 5 the 
 origin of the change may perhaps be referred merely to the propinquity of other words 
 with similar commencement or termination. If he will turn up the Codex Sinaiticus 
 the following will be found : 
 
 CENKAIAnOKPieic 
 
 nPocAYTorSeineN 
 
 TINOCYMOJNONoo 
 
 HBOYceic<)>peAPne 
 
 At first sight it looks as it the corrector had misplaced YC (YIOC) over the wrong 
 ON, but he is apparently correcting avrnv to avrovs. It is possible that a similar chEuige 
 whsre YC was written by mistake over the wrong ON (in ONOC) led to tlie trouble. 
 
 Now if we turn to B : AYTONKAIAneAYC€N 
 
 KAinpocAYTOYceine 
 
 TINOCYMWNYIOCHBOYo 
 
 eic*P6APn6ceiTAiK 
 
 we find vwi comes below avrovs, as in ^ ovus comes below avroi/. Hence there was a 
 possibility of erroj- oculi in both places, making for vios in one and ofos in the other. 
 A faint or interlined original therefore may be tiio cause of the trouble, a« we see from 
 syr cu's conflation. 
 
 Note further that AS and U have OYIOC, retaining an O, while D's rpoffaror is 
 faithfully reproduced in d OVIS (ovis et bobis). We may even hazard that OVIS might 
 have influenced ONOC in that dim j'eriod when "Western" and "Alexandrian" texts 
 were linking up. 
 
Ml' CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 acquaintance with the testimony of the MSS themselves than I expected 
 to find in his writings. 
 
 On p. 183,4 he says " Hoi't 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 
 ■JiiAT issPE WILL NEVEn HAVE TO HE 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 documents is (as evidenced by the contents of those which we 
 know) and what the testimony may be of those which arc yet unexamined, 
 of which of course there are hundreds and hundreds. 
 
 To take Eendel Harris' 892, published in 1890, or Schmidtke's Paris 
 nai" for example (the latter variously known as Scrivener 743, or 
 Gregory 579, or von Soden e 376, oHin Eeg 2861, olhn Colbert 5258) 
 which was published in 1903, we find texts which at first sight are in 
 large accord with NBL^. Yet if we examine them more closely, as I 
 hiive had occasion to do in reading them a score of times, we find a 
 strange state of things. For if, where they accord with NBL^, 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? It 
 the question be cloned, as Turner says : " and that issue will never have 
 to he tried again," how are we to judge of the issues where N and B are 
 opposed, in over 3,000 places ? for he says on p. 183 just previously : 
 " Tischendorf's text is, in my own opinion, right in many places uhere 
 the text of Ilort is wrong...." It is in such places that I claim the 
 testimony of 892 or Parib" 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 imderstood that the oldest 
 documents in profane literature unearthed by Grenfell and Hunt are 
 
 t It is well to bear in inind nt all times that the questions at issue are not those 
 of the XVI'" century versus those of the iv'\ It is a question of the 5iss of the 
 iv'" + L* of viii/ix + ETQ of vi/v [WX with D occupjing a position midway] 
 n"ainst a large band of other uncials of nearly the same dates. The textual questions 
 involved are all back of the iv'" cent. In other words it is not a question of Turner's 
 "later siss in favour of the earlier Greek mss," but as to who was right a.d. 125-400, 
 when these questions arose. Turner is misstating the case. Hort did not do this, 
 lie recognised the Textus receptus as being quite as old as 350 a.d. or older. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 often woefully inferior in places to more modern documents of the same 
 writings, and often very corrupt.t 
 
 On pp. 185-6 Tamer 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 he fairly held to carry bach 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 he recopied. Indeed— judging from certain early 
 Syriac documents in the British Museum, as well as from the varying 
 order of the Gospels as recopied and bound — it was the practice in the 
 early centuries to carry one or two Gospels bound together. Hence, 
 after the stress of a persecution had abated, and a Church copy of the 
 Tetra-evangelion was required, it was often unconsciously made up of 
 different recensions. Therefore, because B accords in St. Matthew with 
 the Oxyrynchus papyrus. No. 2 (plate i) vol. i. 1898, it does not 
 necessarily follow that the same applies to the other three Gospels.t 
 This in first place. But, secondly, does B find the support claimed 
 by Turner here (and by Burkitt, ' Introduction to Barnard's Clement of 
 Alexandria,' Texts and Studies, vol. v. No. 5), or is not 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 a.d. 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 (toO Se 'Irja-oS Xpurrov) it 
 agrees with the codex Sinaiticus." 
 
 t Note also the following opinions : " Tbere is this peculiarity about the mss of the 
 treatise De statu anvmae [of Claudius Mamertus] that their value is in almost inverse 
 ratio to their age." — Sanday, ' Classical Review,' Feb. 1888. 
 
 " However, as we shall see later, age is no certain criterion of value." — L. J. M. Bebb, 
 ' Studia Biblica,' vol. ii. No. 5, p. 201 (1890). 
 
 X Obs. Soden't MS 050 with M in Matt, and John, with BD in Mark, with B in Luke. 
 
X CODEX D AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Now bear Dr. Burkitt before we proceed {<>}). cit. pp. viii, x/xi) : 
 " Mr. Barnard has paid a longer and less hurtied 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 llevised Version and Dean Burgon's strictures on it, investiga- 
 tions and discoveries have been made which bear directly on the subject. 
 The general result is quite clear. Whether S and B are, as Dean Burgon 
 has it, ' two false witnesses,' B, at least, can no longer be regarded 
 as a mere 'curiosity.' There can now be little doubt that this MS 
 represents in the Gospels with great accuracy the type of text current 
 in Egypt from the middle of the third century A.D., although B itself 
 may very well have been vreitten 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 MS. The fragment is older, 
 probably by a century, than any known MS of any part of the New 
 Testament, and most fortunately covers a passage where the variants 
 are extremely well marked (viz. Matt. i. 1-20). What, then, does this 
 voice from the dead say? Does it support Burgon or Hort? The 
 answer is most decided. It sides with N and B. With N and B (and 
 of course ' Westcott and Hort ') it has Bocs f for Booz, Ivbed for Obed, 
 yl.ffljj/tt for Asa. Nor is this agreement confined to the spelling of the 
 names of Jewish kings, seeing that it has yivea-ti in Matt. i. 18 (not 
 yivvT)aK), a 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 Seey/nariVat ioi ■jrapa&eiyfiaTtaai 
 {ver 19) and the omission of o ^cuTi.\ev<; in vcr G, and of yap in I'Cr 18. 
 Nor does the papyrus give support to ' Western ' texts any more than 
 to the ' Iteceived Text.' Both in vv. IG and 18 it rejects the readings 
 of Codex Bezae and its allies. In one word, it is just such a document 
 as Dr. Hort would have expected it to be." So far Burkitt. 
 
 Commenting on this, the first thing which attracts our attention is 
 the notice of — o /9ao-tXeu? in vcr 6, followed by the statement that " the 
 papyrus gives no support to 'Western' texts." Yet, the omission of 
 d /3a<ri\eu9 is found in the Latins § 17, (72 /f gat dim and vulgates JW with 
 
 t = Coptic, as the Coptic in Luke iii. 32, but tliera not NB. 
 
 X Consult Salmon, ' Some Tlioughta on Textual Criticism,' as to this. 
 
 § I take this opportunity of eoirecting a mistake in my ' Gen. of the Versions,' 
 vol. ii. p. 200, where I said " [non Oryr'y for this omission. G. and H. professed to give 
 a collation with tlie Text, recept. and W-H, but were sileut as to verse 6, and I failed to 
 compare the original text. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. Xl 
 
 Auct op imp. However this is a small matter. 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 fragmerit 
 from these very few verses. As a mitter of fact the agreement is 
 overrated and quite spasmodic. Here is a collation of B and the 
 fragment : 
 
 Collation of B with Oxyr-. 
 
 Matthew. 
 i. 1 
 
 AGREEMENT. 
 
 3 ZAPe 
 
 1 
 
 6 BOeC (but BO also }< coiH k) 
 
 IWBHA ( „ „ S'Ca copt a/.) 
 
 6 -oPwiKev! ( „ „ uraletlair) 
 
 COAOMCjJNA ( „ „ most Mss) 
 
 7/8 ACA* ( „ „ NCD at.) 
 
 8/9 0Z6IAN OZeiAC (but papyrus iS faint 
 and py loco looks like OZI AN) 
 9'-12" missing 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 DISAGREEMENT. 
 
 Oxyr. YY 
 „ AAYIA 
 
 B YIOY 
 B AAY€IA 
 
 AMMINAAAB6is B AM6INAAAB Ms 
 
 AAYIA bis 
 
 B AAY6IA bis 
 
 THC OYPeiOY B THO TOY 
 
 OYPeiOY 
 AB[ei]A2iiiH> B ASIA 
 
 AB6IA sec B ABIA 
 
 „ ere[NHG6N]piHiB r€NNA2<r:»it 
 „ illeg B TON CEAAeiHA 
 
 „ illeg B C6AAeiHA AE 
 
 reNNAt 
 13/U Oxyr. i«f? but: « ABIOYT(f/?aO 
 
 Oxyr 
 
 18 
 
 r6N6CIC (but so also fjCPSZA) 
 
 19 
 20 
 
 IvIAeeAN bis 
 IWCH* 
 
 reNSAi 
 
 AAYIA prtHl 
 AAYIA' sec 
 \Ater 
 
 lY XY 
 
 B MASGAN sic bis 
 
 B TON IWCH* 
 
 B Al r6N6AI 
 
 B AAY€lAj)iim 
 
 B AAY6IA sec 
 
 B A6KAT6CCAPEC 
 
 tcr 
 
 B XY lY 
 
 „ AeirMA|TJ€ICAIt B A€irMATICAI 
 „ AAYIA B AAYEIA 
 
 t Cf Prolcv'" ad Liici.ai. 
 
 X Burkitt claims this as against irapaStiytia-rKrat 
 but it is not absolutely clear whether the papyrus 
 had irapa. G. and H. merely say '* there is barely 
 room for napa at the end of the Hue." 
 
 Now this more complete tabulation is rather interesting. If it 
 proves Burkitt's case as against Burgon then "figures lie." I do not 
 wish to draw any conclusions against B from the comparison, but as to 
 the few agreements supporting the views of any particular school of 
 criticism the matter is simply absurd. Far more important than B06C 
 
•^" CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 IWBHA or -0 ffaaiXfv; is the Oxyr opposition to B's yewa 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 NBLTW^ as repre- 
 senting merely an " Egyptian " agreement inter se. But, as I have said, 
 what are we to do when they differ? We are certainly not going to 
 waver simply between N and B. That would be a reductio ad absurdum. 
 I write this feeling most earnestly that we have much to learn from the 
 junior documents, and Turner is so capable a man that I dislike to read his 
 dictum " and that issue will never have to be tried again "—that is to say 
 the issue between the later and the earlier ( = ^<B) iiss. 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 mib jiidicc. 
 
 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 Boman Greek MS of the Gospels in the third quarter 
 of the second century. . ." 
 
 Observe, a Roman-Greek Ms, but by this he does not mean a graeco- 
 latin (for on p. 184 he accepts the common view of the liatin : " the Jirst 
 stratum of the old Latin version in the African Mss k and e"), but he 
 means only a Greek MS of Boman provenance. So much then is 
 definitely accepted today, i.e. that Tatian's harmony was based on a Greek 
 MS used by him in Bomc and no doubt carried away with him circa 
 A.i). 17.5. 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- 
 
 t 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.d. 400, and the " Syrian " part of this text cannot be separated from a 
 " pre-Syrian." 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 existent in Tatian's day in Eome ? 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 Eome before a.d. 17.') and not 
 only to a " Koman-Greek ms." 
 
 It 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 Kome in 175 a.d., 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 oppose 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, syrpesh, syr liter 
 and the diatess arab (not to speak oi pers, which combines elements of all 
 the Syriacs but principally of syr 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 Bevue 1913, No. 18, 
 p. 538 col. 1, as to Luke xxiv. 12, 36, 40 : " Solche Beobachtungen weisen 
 auf Schwierigkeiten hin, die noch der Losung barren." 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 Jntrodiictioii 
 
 CIIAI'TER 
 
 I. 
 
 ir. 
 
 III. 
 
 IV. 
 
 vr. 
 
 VII. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Hort's criticiil pi'iiu'iplos 
 
 B in St. Matthew's Gospel . , , ' ' ' 
 
 Editiiig-Solecisms-Latiu sj-mpatli)- -Coptic sy.npatliy- 
 
 Synac traces-Form-Synonyms - Grammatical changes 
 
 ^d^-44) — Harmonistic— General improvement (48-C81— 
 
 Conflict with Origen. 
 
 1? in St. Mark's Gospel 
 
 General-Editing— Solecisms-Latin sympathy-Coptic- 
 Latm and Coptic-Syriac-Form-Synonyms-Homoiotelen- 
 (oii-(,iammatical changes (91-104)-Harmonistic-General 
 improvement (107-1 14)-Diction of Mark-Improvement 
 an.i Change without improvement— Opposition to the harder 
 rending— Conflict with Origen. 
 Concerning the Latin Version of St. Mark . 
 
 (!cneral-AB to 1>' a and ^-As to J-Testimony of the 
 Cutacomb.1— As to c-The Irish texts— Base of St. Mark— 
 ^ Mark vi. 3G— Retraiislation in W— In others. 
 Two or more Greek recensions of St. Mark . 
 
 Selected examples of varieties of readings and rcnderin-rs 
 throughout the Gospel. " 
 
 Concerning the Latin base of St. Slark. 
 
 Further remarks as to the unity of d&nd the Ilalam a 
 whole— As to difficulties at i. 41, iv. fi, iv. 1.5, vi. 31, xiv. 72 
 ii. 7, ii. 12— As to the Greek article— General. 
 Concerning tlie Greek of 1) and the testimony of the Fathers in 
 
 St. Mark's Gospel 
 
 Conchiding remarks — The methods of })" — Patristic 
 testimony- Clement of Alexandria (x. 22 scy.)— Tertullian 
 (.\iv. 1.3)— Justin (viii. 31). 
 5Iap of Courses of Transmi.-sion of St. JIark's Gospel 
 
 B in St. Luke's Gospel 
 
 Editing— The longer text in B— Solecisms— Latin sympathy 
 — (N.T. use of ?(,.? 221/5)— Coptic— Utin and Coptic— Syriac 
 traces— Syr-Lat against Coptic— Syr-Lat and Coptic— Syr- 
 Cojit against Latin- Synonyms— Form— Grammatical changes 
 (242-263) — Genitive before thj noun— Ilarmonlstic — 
 "Xeutral" " Pre-Syrian " " Prc-AIeiandrian " misnomei'S— 
 General improvement, etc. (272-207)— Conflict with Origen. 
 
 rARF9 
 
 i-vi 
 vii-xiii 
 
 1-13 
 14-71 
 
 72-125 
 
 126-139 
 
 140-171 
 
 172-194 
 
 195-206 
 
 207 
 208-298 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTRR' 
 
 IX. 
 
 B in St. .John's Gospel ....... 
 
 Editing — Solecisms — Latin sympathy — Coptic — The 
 corrector of B — Coptic and Latin — Syriac traces — On ««»o? 
 in St. John — Form— Synonyms — Homoioteleuton and homoio- 
 arcton — Compound and siinplc verbs, on t/);(o/iai and Supxo/Mai 
 (344-347)— Grammatical changes (34S-3(;3)—Order— Con- 
 cerning ix. 21 and the Diates;. — Hopelessness of considering 
 B neutral — Harmonistic — Conflation— General improvement 
 (374-396) — Change without improvement — Indeterminate — 
 Conflict with Origen. 
 X. Epilogue .......... 
 
 liuke xxii. 43/44. Medical langnage of St. Jjuke — As to 
 ycfo/xcro; and eyci-cTo — xxiii. 34 new evidence for and against — 
 As to 0<!cumcnins — 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, Aristidcs, Theodotns, Athcnagoras, Thcophilns, 
 Naasseni, Hippolytns, Marcion, etc. — Enstathius and Antioch 
 — On changing symbols of codices — Singular cursive testimony 
 (435-454)— Von Soden's N.T.— The Koh.^ (456-400)— As to 
 Jlcrx, Rnmsay and Sodcn — Burkitt, Merx and Vogels — The 
 verdict — Horlian heresy — Other pseudo-scientific heresies, 
 Robinson Smith, Uean Inge on St. Paul, etc. — Conclnsion. 
 
 Postscript (on rtpt and vwtp) ...... 
 
 General Index . . ...... 
 
 PAOKS 
 
 299-405 
 
 406-187 
 
 488 
 489-497 
 
 PART n— VOL. II. 
 
 Vauiations iietween N and B. 
 
 St. Matthew 
 
 St. Mark 
 
 St. Luke 
 
 St. John ........ 
 
 Postscript (" Gleanings") ...... 
 
 Index of Scriptural Quotations, covering vol. I. and vol. II. i 
 
 1-57 
 
 58-112 
 
 113-195 
 
 196-341 
 
 343-382 
 
 383-412 
 
Views of Dr. Salmon-, 'Some ThoHghU on the Textual Crilieiem of the 
 New TcatnmenI,' London, 1897. 
 " Yet, great m lias been my veneration for Hort and mj- admiration of the 
 good work that he has done, I have never been able to feel that hi.s work was 
 linal, and I have disliked the servility with which his history of the text has 
 lje(Mi accepted, and even his noTueiiclaturc adopted, as if now the last word had 
 been s.iid 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 theio were no reading so improbable that he could not give good reasons for 
 thinking it to be the only genuine . . . ." (p. 33/4). 
 
 I' 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). 
 
 " I strongly feel that Hort would have done better it 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 
 tlie third century were most preferred at Alexandria. Thus Hort's method 
 inevitably led to the exclusive adoption of the Alexandrian text." (p. B3). 
 
 "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 
 AV'-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 
 \V-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. 1 57/8). 
 
 PAKT I. 
 
 ; 
 
 " 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 arg Alexandrian." — Salmon, op, cit, p. 62, 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 
 Borne. The reasons for regarding the text of B as Alexandrian remain the same no 
 matter where this particular MS chanced to be copied." — Salmon, op. cit. p. 60. 
 
 CHAPTEB I. I 
 Codex B. 
 Hort's Critical PrincipIiES. 
 
 Dr. Hort sought for a "neutral" text, uninfluenced by "Western," 
 "Alexandrian," and " Syrian " readings, and claimed to have found it 
 in B alone. This view has been accepted in England, and nearly as 
 much in Germany, although the late Adalbert Merx did his best to 
 discredit B as a foundation text, and to put the matter in the right light 
 to his countrymen. Great has been our loss by the death of Blass and 
 Merx, and more recently still by that of Nestle. 
 
 It seems time to call attention to the lack of basis for Hort's 
 theory, because scholars and writers still speak of a "neutral text" 
 (by which B or readings supported by B is practically always implied), 
 whereas the present writer knows of no such text. 
 
 There is ample ground for the opposite view that B had already 
 been influenced by the Syriac and the Latin version, besides the 
 pecnharities 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 afiSnity for the B group, ties the matter more and more down 
 to Egyptian soU, and this simplifies the problem. When W and the 
 ctursives 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 
 
i CODUX 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 soli at 
 Luke xiii. 27,t of NB soli at Luke xviii. 12, xix. 48, of BA soli at 
 Luke xxi. 24, of BK soli at Luke xiv. 1 (square brackets) and of B fam 
 13 soli at Luke vi. 424 
 
 Further, readings of B absolutely alone are digniBed by textual 
 notice. Matt. vii. 18 evpyKuv. .-n-oiuv is read absolutely alone by B (see 
 note on this elsewhere), and in Luke iii. 33 tov afuvaSaff, omitted only 
 by B, finds no place in Hort's text; observe also Luke v. 2 -rrXoia Bvo 
 order of B alone among Greeks ; v. 3 e* tov irXowv eSiSaaxev B alone ; 
 the omissions by B only of air' Luke xii. 58, of iv Luke x. 31, of vpo^ 
 auTov 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 
 (TTavpaa-ai Luke xxiii. 23, Bporjdevre^ Luke xxiv. 37. Observe also the 
 extraordinary ck to ev Tpv^Xiov 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 xai t) aXr^deia 
 in the threefold claim " I am the way and the truth and the life," which 
 Evan 137 does, it is practically certain that Hort's text would have done 
 so also. Had B added empeiTTiKr} in Luke xviii. 3 as an attribute of the 
 importunate widow, as does Evan 28, we should surely have found 
 it in Hort's text.§ Had B omitted ev avrr/ tt) mpa in Luke xii. 12 
 with 33 and Origen we should have been favoured with this omission. 
 Had B omitted tt;!/ before irumv in Luke xviii. 8 with D 240 244 we 
 should have been asked so to read. Soden adds two fresh cursives for 
 omission. 
 
 Had B added o irjo-ov^ after Ta 6avfiaa-ta a e-rrotijaev in Matt. xxi. 15, 
 as does Evan 28 with Origen and syr hier and if' (ab c e f ffi,i gi h r, 
 p. dim gat Wurz' ugrDEQR) .^e should certainly have found it in Hort's 
 text [d gi I q vg^' do not add, but e does. 'Tisoh. errs in the N.T. as to 
 this witness]. Soden adds S 30 and e 1091 for this. Observe Origen 
 and Ti alone omit ev to> i€pa> in this verse. 
 
 Had W-H known that Sod"^' 604 supported B at Luke viii. 25 for 
 the omission of xai viraxovovaiv avTo> we should doubtless have lost the 
 
 t Such Mss can easily be shown to bo but one in stem. For instanoe B*R 
 together alone at Luke v. 30 fyyoyvCav for tyyoyv^ov^ and again vi. 23 ev rois ovpavoit 
 for ev T(0 ovpavu). For some reason W-H do not like this combination. R is the 
 famous v" century M3 from the Nitrian desert. In the second case the BB combination 
 is supported by fam 13 and ten otlior minuscules and by e / golh Cypr. 
 
 X Many are the places where JJBL are followed alone, and this also represents but 
 one siiigle tradition. 
 
 § This is a reductio ad absurdum of the critical principles which people do not 
 seem to grasp or follow. This would have resulted in perpetuating blunders of two 
 jiss contra mundum. Many others, probably as grievous, are to be found in the text. 
 It is thereby rendered unfit for serious study as a whole, and must be banished from 
 our class rooms. 
 
 HORT S CBITICAL PBINCIPLES. O 
 
 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 -oi Trarepe? avTcov B 604 {+ sah syr SMi). neglected by 
 W-H, yet vi. 31 —km vp,eK B then alone (omitted in W-H txt) has 
 support of 604 and Paris". There is absolutely no science in intro- 
 ducing dpoijOevTef 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 Kat vrraKovovaiv avToi, 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 a^iov; KapTrov; into their margin. While 
 at X. 1 — avTov; B e Eus (now supported by 604 and Paris" and Sod' '") 
 is not omitted by W-H. At vii. 47 +Kai ante oXiy. ayawa 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 vpo^ avTov 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 vrrong, because 
 a little further in Luke x. 1 they leave avTovt alone and do not brand 
 or bracket it although B omits. Yet here B had support from e Etis^"° 
 and now we find that both 604 and Paris" also omit. Had Hort knovni 
 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 ovra text condemns Hort's mctlwd 
 while he still clings with a curious loyalty to the man.\ 
 
 Further as to Origen, observe Luke xviii. 31 TeXewoft/o-erai (for reKxa- 
 Brftrerai), which is found in Paris" 60 y""' z"' and some other important 
 cursives, is Origen's reading, yet not found in NB. 
 
 Or as at Luke xxii. 4 where Orig reads oirws (and Eus iva), with the 
 13 family only, for to -n-av of HB and all the rest [except D d arm irw? ; 
 d follows D with quomodo against quemadmodtim of the rest]. 
 
 Or as at Matt. xv. 22 where 1 [non fain] and Origen read Ztivax; for 
 KaKm(!, but not NB or any others known (although there may be other 
 cursives) ; Seiva><; occurs at Matt. viii. 6 and Luke xi. 53. 
 
 Or at Matt. xvi. 25 fin for ci/pijo-ei avrriv where Orig Iren and fam 1 33 
 read outw? (Touth avrriv. 
 
 Or as at Luke xxii. 22 where Origen (recollecting eypa-^jrev wepi avTov 
 of Matt Marc) adds avrto after to) mpitrfievov with sah syr hier, syr cu [non 
 sin] aeth irepi avTov. Had B done this we should have been told it was 
 
 t Dr. Souter has informed me since this was written that he had nothing to do with the 
 text itself of the Oxford edition of 1910 and that he favors the Hort text practically entire. 
 
 B 2 
 
4 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Lucan. It is clearly an addition, as sa/t MSB are divided among them- 
 selves, four for avTto, and one for trepi aviov ; while syr sin by its silence 
 accuses cu of harmonizing. 
 
 Origen says we must pay attention to the letter of Scriptnre 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. IMark's aTravTTja-ei with D min' (against unavTiiaei, CLX, and 
 tTvvaiTrjrret NB uiic^^rcU), while at Mark xiv. 13 he incorporates into the 
 narrative eiaeXOovTwv vfioiv et? ttjv ttoXiv from Luke xxii. 10 with only 
 fam 13 28 91-299 2i". 
 
 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 acih Nyss 
 writing ov^i BrjvapLov (Tvve<j>a)vr] a a aoi, and again '•"', again ""o''"""'? ov)(^i 
 Bi]vapiov irvve<l>a>vr)a-ai! fioi with NB and all the rest, and latt syr rell arm 
 Aicct"^ Imp et de voc gent rpjjjg ^^^^ 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 : " Kat o liapKot Se KaTa tok tottov outw? aveypaifre " Kai ot£ eyyt^ovirw 
 ei? ifpoeroXvfia xai 619 ^ijOavtav Trpo? ..." and again '■"" " liaiiev te irept 
 TTj'; ^r]d<f)ayri fjLeu Kara fiardaiov, ^TjSavia'; he Kara /lapKov, ^Tifftfyayi] Se 
 Kat ^7jdavia<; Kara top \ovKav." 
 
 Nothing could be plainer as to the Marcan reading of ei? lepoaoXviia 
 Kat €69 fiijOaviav without €t5 ^r]0<j)ayri, and yet when in another place 
 Origen comes to write out Mark xi. 1-12 he has there c«9 tepoaoXv/ia eiv 
 fir]0if>ayri Kat firjdavtav. 
 
 We note in these two places — these two codices as it were — of Origen 
 that they vary in the spelling of evOvt and euflew? (xi. 3) and dcnbtless 
 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 ovrra, 
 in the other it is present ; again ver. 3 he leaves out in one place -n-aXiv, in 
 the other it is present. 
 
 Again ver. 3 one place rt Troietre touto ; in the other rt Xvere tov iraiKov 
 with D. 
 
 Ver. 4 one place «oi atrriXdov in the other Kat aweXffovre'; 
 
 ,, ,. Oupav „ ,, TV Bvpav 
 
 ,, „ TOV TrmKov discrte „ two others TraiKov. 
 
 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 afifords much help. 
 
 I refer to this substitution : For Kat to Saveiov aifrriKev axnat, Origen 
 with 1 only and ffi sah boh (ex xviii. 32) says iracav tijw o^eiXriv. 
 
 HORT S CRITICAL PRINCIPLES. 
 
 Origen's quotation, as given in Tischendorf, is 8e airXayxvto-Ofiv f"" auTo) 
 Kvpto^ ovK . . . a<f)rjK€v avTOV fLovov aXXa . . . Tratrav Tr/v o<l}€tXt]v at/rto. While 
 this does not convict Origen absolutely of appropriating the wording of 
 verse 32, and inserting it in verse 27, it comes so near to it that 1 and 
 sah boh must have thought it a good idea to make the transfer. In other 
 words they were following Origen, as Vulgate mss followed Jerome's 
 other writings. (Soden adds his family <^".) 
 
 The principal point is this (for SB do not agree to make the 
 substitution) : For many verses previously the testimony of Evan 1 
 (without 118-209) has been bolstering up B. I use this expression 
 advisedly, for on the testimony in Matt xviii. 25 of B 1 56 58 124 Orig 1/2 
 Hort has inserted in his text ex" 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 exetvov [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 xviii. 27 in this very same verse where they ask us to 
 read waaav t^v oij>ei.Xriv for TO Saveiov. 
 
 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 thein for an Egyptian 
 
 and private post-Origenian recension. I will illustrate further : — 
 
 Matt. xvii. 8. Hort prints avrov Itjo-ovv /j-ovov. This is read by B and 
 
 by B only. N supports with Irjcrow ovtov fiovov, both readings 
 
 being obtained via the Coptic by N and B. Hort did not 
 
 know this, for the Coptic or Syriac has never been alleged 
 
 in the critical apparatus as containing this avrov, nor does 
 
 Horner connect the readings of NB with Coptic in his sah 
 
 apparatus. But it seems perfectly clear to me where XB got the 
 
 avTov. Hort's margin has tov in place of avrov. [Sod°^° = B.] 
 
 14. eXOovToiv { — avTwv) 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 
 
 DOW in process of demonstration) against Origen because it 
 
 is a "shorter" text. Hort counts seue;i witnesses I suppose, 
 
 but it is merely one. 
 
 xviii. 1. Hort's margin is dignified by the addition of Se here, to read 
 
 ev exetvri Sc ti; copa with BM e sa/i.^° Jo/i"'"". These are the 
 
" CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 .M«lt. 
 
 only witnesses {+Kat sijr cu). Boh'""" e is very suggestive, 
 
 against the shorter text for G/"""" Laf""" Syr^'* 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' e ffi nah boh^^ sijr sin liier 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. 
 
 10. Hort's margin receives the order irapaXa^e en eva ij hvo fiera 
 
 - aov of B ffi and holi (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 (fi/. also salx). 
 
 To go back a little xvi. 21 ic xc stands in Hort's text without the 
 
 alternative o ic. I beg to say that only N'B* read thus (both corrected) 
 
 and that their only support is srt/i--" io/i™"" !"■»='<■' <'"''• Whereas N™ 892 
 
 Oriij and Iren omit altogether. 
 
 If^right here then in the name of all that is consistent why does 
 Hort reject the -l-TOTe in xiv. 3 of B and fam 13 with sail most decidedly : 
 " tv loxnio TO) Kaipw"? Even k suggests it with "cum detinnisset " 
 against " Herodes enim tenuit " but Hort prints KpaTri<ra';.X For at 
 viii. 18 Hort does not scruple to accept B and sah alone for his text 
 of o^\ov against o^xXov; etc. And at ii. 21 he reads eia~t]\6ev (for 
 7i\6eu) NBC alone, merely confirmed by sah boh iqfiioK eg,pi.l, i.qi 
 
 Now these conjunctions NB and NBC and NBD have been given 
 too much weight when insufficiently supported otherwise. 
 
 Observe xii. 17 iva {pro ottw?) NBCD 1 33 Orig Eus 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 viii. 34 where iva 
 {pro oTrm?) is read by B alone and boh. [Soden adds nothing.] 
 
 Hort does not follow B here in viii. 34, but why not? If wa is 
 ne;itral 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 M9 and that ^\ni. caught B's eye instead of ottox;? If so, where 
 is the neutral text? 
 
 The same remark applies to eai and 6<<)9 ov. In Matt, xviii. 30 
 
 t As N in Matt. xiv. 1 etc. rtrpaapx')' '"ore copt. % Soden'a text accepts +roT« with ' 
 
 HORT S CRITICAL PRINCIPLES. I 
 
 NBCL write ««? airoSw for e&xr ou aTroSio of the rest; but in xviii. 84, 
 only four verses beyond, B alone writes ew? ottoSw. (See full list in 
 Luke.) Possibly ov is dropped for fear of confusion with oi. 
 
 After a thorough re-examination of the subject I re-a£firm my 
 belief that however good a base the lis 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 Tertallian and Epiphanius 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 Syriao when 
 opposing B in favour of N 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 MS3. {Of Adalbert Merx, ii. Theil, i. Halfte p. 20, etc.) 
 
 I re-affirm my belief that a polyglot text influenced N throughout.t 
 And I charge B with being the child of a Graeco-Latin recension; and by 
 its scribe or by its parent of being tremendously influenced by a Coptic 
 recension or by a Graeco-sahidic ^ a Graeco-bohairic Ms. J 
 
 I cannot allow that NB influenced the sahidic or bohairic versions 
 (except perhaps a few separate MSS of each or either of them) ; for the 
 sympathy visible between N or B or both and the Coptic versions 
 is a sympathetic bond which antedates the mss X and B, and which 
 contributes to place these versions (where they oppose XB) on an 
 independent footing implying a Greek text of older date than that of XE, 
 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 
 
 t In the list of differences between K and B in Fart II will be found plenty of 
 material to support this proposition. 
 
 } Proof to this effect may be seen throughout the following pages. 
 
Upon many occasions this 
 the shortest text (against B). 
 text is the one which has 
 
 O 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. 
 ' Western " text is the one which furnishes 
 We have been taught that the " Western " 
 the most additions and accretions. This 
 feature is quite distinct from the other, and whether the addition's 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 ns less 
 influenced by side influences than the other recensions. 
 
 Take one instance. At Luke xix. 2 there are great varietiea of 
 reading, where D d e and sah preserve the shortest text, giving us (as to 
 Zaccheus) simplj- •Tr\ouir;os for km ttXovo-iov of I s, xat r)v 7r\oir<rjo? of NL 
 245 892 goth stjr hier (and W-H inarg), km •n-Xouo-io? tjv boh syr cu sin, xai 
 ai/TO? T-Xova-io^ BKO biq vg {W-H ixt), km aVTo<; tjv ttXovo-ws U al. latt, km 
 oi/To? T/K T-Xova-io^ A ?/;(c" al.f, ovTm rjv TrXovtriof W 108 157, ttX-ouo-io? tjv 
 ante Kat op;^tTeXo)i'i79 sijr pesh, ttXouo-io? (taiitum) ante km ap^iTeXavr)<; 
 diatess arab, (^f and Evst 47 omit altogether). W-H adopt B's reading 
 in text and N's in marg, and neglect D d e sah {diatess) altogether. Then 
 why at Luke xxiv. 12, 3C, 40, 51, 52 double-bracket the " Western non- 
 interpolations " ? Where is the science involved of the " shorter " text ? 
 Dr. Salmon (' Some Thoughts,' etc. p. 98) sa)'s " I am persuaded that 
 critics will be forced to acknowledge that the Gospel as read in the 
 II"'' century in the Church of Eome 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 WH 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 
 
 HOET S CnlTICAL PRINCIPLES. 
 
 represented by B, is " neutral " and fundamentally correct as opposed to 
 all others.f Their "selected readings," few and far between, can 
 certainly not be considered proof of their contention, and we are prepared 
 to challenge their assumption as to the supremacy of B. Meanwhile we 
 would like to place on record again what Canon Cook had to say aboat 
 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.d. 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 N 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 uss which came to Alexandria in the second century viay 
 be but an elaborate lochiiig of the stable door after the horse has been 
 stolen." 
 
 Again the same authority (pp. 128/9) : " When W-H refnse 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. 131/132): "Thus the task of discrimination may be 
 difficult ; but we must not conceive that we have solved a problem because 
 for our convenience we have simplified it. The problem has not been 
 completely solved until we have taken account of the evidence which has 
 been temporarily neglected." 
 
 And again (p. 157) : " I hold, on the contrary, that in critical science 
 the rule 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 
 
 t However Origen and B are Qoti infrequently in oonflict. Observe Hort on those 
 occasions. See beyond at the end of my notes on each Oospel. 
 
10 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 advantages, and he used them with greater success. Every available 
 source of information he studied carefully. Manuscripts and versions were 
 before him ; both manuscripts and versions he examined, and brought out 
 the results of his researches with unrivalled power. But no one who 
 considers the peculiar character of his genius, his subtlety, his restless 
 curiosity, his audacity in speculation, his love of innovation, will be 
 disposed to deny the extreme risk of adopting any conclusion, any 
 reading, which rests on his authority, unless it is supported by the 
 independent testimony of earlier or contemporary Fathers and Versions. 
 The points in which we are specially entitled to look for innovations 
 are : (1) curious and ingenious readings, such, for instance, as those 
 which we have noticed in St. Mark and St. Luke; (2) the removal 
 of words, clauses, or entire sentences which a man of fastidious taste 
 might regard as superfluities or repetitions " [see my remarks on " pairs " 
 and Origenistic " niceties "] ; " (3) a fearless and highly speculative mode 
 of dealing with portions of the New Testament which might contain 
 statements opposed to his prepossessions or present difBculties 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, ' Kevised Version of the first three Gospels,' pp. 155/0.) 
 
 Hear also Bishop Marsh on the same subject ('Lect.' xi. ed. 1838, 
 p. 482): "Whenever therefore . grammatical interpretation produced a 
 sense which in Origen's opinion was irrational or impossible, in other 
 words irrational or impossible according to the philosophy which Origen 
 had learnt (sic) at Alexandria, he then departed from the literal sense." 
 
 This sums up many other matters connected with Origen's treat- 
 ment of textual matters (to which the following pages bear witness), so 
 that we do not necessarily recover Origen's manuscripts when we are 
 inclined to follow NB Orig, but very likely only Origen himself. (The 
 MS 33 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 to a graeco- 
 latin: Matt. xxii. 9 Trpo? {pro et?) 127 sol = latt ad exittis viarum.) 
 
 To begin at the very beginning, when Hort says : 
 
 "But we have not been able to recognise as Alexandrian any 
 
 alexandbiak readings of b. 
 
 11 
 
 readings of B in any book of the New Testament lohich it 
 contai7is" (vol. ii. p. 150) 
 had he never noticed the frequent preference given by B (and )^) to 
 eairrov and cavTwv over avrov and avrav 1 In order to keep small detail 
 out of my apparatus I began stupidly enough by not chronicling these 
 things in N and B, but some examples will be found. Now turn to 
 Clement of Alexandria and see his preference for the same course : (on 
 Matt. XX. 28, Mark x. 45) Kai Sovvai tt/v yfruxv "rv e avrov. 
 Then turn to Athanasius : 
 1 Pet. iv. 19 (where B alone omits avTwv after T/fux"^) -^ ''' ^*y^ '''"' 
 
 eavrmv ■\jrv)(^a'; in the Coptic manner. 
 Observe further : 
 
 (1) Jo.x.31. " e/SaoT-oo-ai/ 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 oi wvSaioi 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. a^e5i;<rcTot v/iiv tok av6pa>TT0i<s B 1 sah and 
 
 Athanasius only. 
 
 (3) Matt. xxvi. 45. iZov +yap BE and sah Ath*''. 
 
 (4) Luke xi. 19. avrot vfiav xpirai eaovrai BD 604 Paris" only of 
 
 Greeks, a^c dt of Latins, with Athanasius, choosing this 
 order out of five or six differing orders by the other 
 authorities. 
 (5)tJo.i. 13. -ovie CK ee\r,iMno<; avZpoi B* 17* Eus Clcin^""'^ and 
 Athan'"' """ Ps. xxi. 
 
 (6) Jo. V. 37. exetvo? {pro avra) NBLW a {goth) and Athanasius 
 
 (D d iKuvo^ auTof). Om avToi 892 = syr cic pers georg. 
 This exewo'; 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 e/tttfo? beyond under " Syriac " heading 
 in St. John's Gospel at iv. 11. 
 
 (7) Jo. vi. 42. TTiat vvv {pro ttw? ovv) BCTW fco/if' goth syr hier 
 
 only and Athanasius^"^* {teste Tisch). Add Sod"''. 
 
 (8) Jo. X. 32 //t. Order >6/ie Xt^ofere of NBL'J' 33 157 Paris" Sod'" 
 
 only of Greeks, but of it^^ vg, is the order of Ath. against 
 DW and the rest and c d f I h sah boh syr goth Epiph Hil 
 
 I And this matter has some bearing upon oar contention as to "pairs" of 
 expressions. 
 
12 CODEX 13 AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Thdf. When NBL oppose sah boh and have Athanashis 
 with them we may surely take it into account. 
 (9) Jo. xii. 28. So^aa-ov fiov to ovo^a (pro Sof. a-ov to ovofta) B"' 
 cum Evan 5. But so L X and Athanasius So^aaov cov tov 
 viov {Cyr refers to both). 
 
 (10) Jo. XV. 21. aWa TavTa -rravra iroi-qaovaw ets v/ia^ BD*LS^ 1 33 
 
 Paris" Petr'^^"^, all others vfia^ or v/iiv. 
 
 (11) Jo. xix. 31. t] tifj-epa exeivri tov <ra^/3oTou {pro r) rj/iepa €K€ivov 
 
 TOV o-a^^aTov B*H 7ni)i 2>auc EW* pcrs c f g vgg and Cijril''''^, 
 all others exeivov. 
 
 (12) 1 Peter i. 11. Ot the prophets of old: epevva>vTe<; et? Tiva t) ttoiov 
 
 Kaipov eSriXovTO ev avToit irvev/ia ( — XpiaTOv) Trpo/iapTvpo/ievov 
 TO ft? XpicTTOV TradrjfiaTa. . . . B'"' 
 Von Soden now adds the testimony of Athanasius to that of B for 
 omission of Xpia-Tov. In the Benedictine edition of 1G98 of Ath. the 
 word is not omitted, but if A i/t™''', presumably examined by Sodeii, really 
 omit, we are thoroughly justified in connecting this strange omission with 
 Alexandria. 
 
 But in another place Hott 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 
 (D(0?)i/sj7(.5, 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 ot 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. 
 
 HOnT S system. EGYPT FREE FBOM ANTIOCH BY REVISION. 
 
 13 
 
 Paris" is not extant for control in St. Matthew in Schmidtke's 
 edition, and '^I' only begins at Mark ix. 6, but 892 is valuable in Matthew. 
 I do not overlook the fact that the side opposed to KB sometimes 
 also tried its hand at improvement. See Matt. xv. 6 ttjv emoXijv 
 {ex Marco vii. 8) for tov Xoyov of BD and versions, but even here X is not 
 agreed with B and writes tov vofiov with CT° fam 13 and Ptol. The 
 support of Ptol puts TOV vofiov into the second century, and is not far 
 removed from t))v evTo\i]v. 
 Bnrkitt says : 
 
 " The Antiocbian Greek text seems never to have influenced 
 Egypt — 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,' 
 Encyo. Bibl. 1903. 
 But precisely because long ago Egypt had revised this Antiocbian 
 text. 
 
 This revising process will now engage our attention for many 
 
CHAPTEK II. 
 
 B IN St. Matthew's Gospel. 
 
 Example of editiitg hy B. 
 
 Matt. V. 37. " Let your -word be yea yea, nay nay." For earw B alone 
 
 ■with t, min' Eus substitutes eaiai. Hort actually dignifies this 
 
 with a place in his margin. Now if B be right, N and every 
 
 other MS and Father are wrong and the copies in their bands 
 
 most curiously mutilated. 
 
 For Justin Martyr, Clement and Clem"""" several times, Tertullian, 
 
 Cyprian and Iren. all witness to eo-ro), while John Damascene confirms it 
 
 absolutely, for quoting the same saying from St. James v. 12, where 
 
 the rare form j/tm obtairs (and is constant in all Mss), he quotes it 
 
 »'" as a matter of tact seems to be on both sides and both in 
 
 (Clem' 
 Strom. This is not indicated by Tisch.) 
 
 Examples of Solecisvis or practical Sokcistns ofB. 
 
 V. 11. 61/e/fO ^ 
 
 vi. 18. > vrjcrTeveiv toi? avOpcoTroLi B {k) only 
 
 21 — xai B and one boh codex 
 
 33. > Trjv SiKaioarvin)V xai ri)v fiaaiKeiav avrov B'° 
 
 ibid. XPV^^ (V" Wf"^) ■^' "" 
 
 xii. 20. No one seems to have emphasised Xiji/ov by B (for \tvov, flax). 
 I do not think this is an itacism because k and vg'' check us. 
 Xrjvoi or ^avoi means wool ("smoking wool"), but also in a 
 sense wood (wooden winepress, trough, coffin, etc.), hence 
 probably the lignum of Je, which the very old Vulgate text of 
 vg'^ confirms. B and k 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. 
 
 Sail boh imply a wick of flax, but aeth suggests the woody 
 fibre of flax. 
 32. ovK a(t>e0rj<TeTat {pro a(f>ed7i<TeTai prima loco) B'°' 
 
 B IN ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 
 
 15 
 
 ibid, ou /irj a^iOrj {pro ovk a<f>e6i)a-eTai sec loco) B 
 38. — xai ^apuraiav B mtV ? against all others 
 
 48 fin. -fiov (post ot aSe\^i) B™' vid cum Ev Ebion^''"'' 
 xiii. 4. KM eXOovra ra Trereiva Kareipayev B fam 13 only vid (and 
 
 not from a parallel) but cf. von Soden 
 
 5. tt;? 717? {pro 71??) B""' {De novo B*"' ti;? y^i Marc iv. 5) 
 
 6. eKav/j,aTo>07i B {rell et N exav/iaTiaffr) et D €KavfuiTi<r0-r}<rav) 
 17. —KaiSiKawi B"°' 
 
 24. e\a\ri<Tev {pro napeffr]Kev) B* vid et k [Negl. Soden] 
 
 2. 
 
 6. 
 
 -Smtovto B"" [Habet Marc Til 14:] 
 
 cTTft {pro oTi) B* •"' cum 604 ; eweiSr) 2N {sah expresses this 
 curiously) Cf. xxi. 46 which B was considering. 
 
 19 
 36 
 
 XV. 11 
 
 Ke\ev<TaTe {pro weXeuao?) 
 TapcKoKovv { — avTov) 
 €pxoit€vov {pro eitTepXP/itvov) 
 15. avrco eiirev {pro eiwev avrm) 
 17. ei<7ep-)(Ofievov (pro etavopevofievov) 
 32. -7,87 
 4. anei (pro f»;T«) 
 
 B* Sod"" 
 
 B 892 Orig 1/2 Chr 
 B«oi 
 
 B"' pers 
 
 B Orig 1/2. Add Sod°'' 
 B 106 301 I vg^ (cf syr copt aeth) 
 B"' (cum pers'"*' arab'"^ ; cf. syr 
 ancipitem cura^n linguae) 
 14. 01 Se (pro aWoi Be) B"" et Eus (Chr) 
 
 17. -oTt B"'. MiSod"^' teste Sod,sedco7itraed. 
 
 21. SeiKvvvat (pro SeiKvveiv) B'°' cum Orig"'"'^ 
 
 22. \eyfi avra eTriTt/iaiv B™' (pro T/p^aro emTifiav avTio \f7(ui') 
 
 and W-H viarg 
 xvii. 25. OTTO Tivot {pro airo rivav) B 238 sol. Cyr 2/4. Add Sod''^^'* 
 
 xviii. 9. (TKavSaKei (pro aKavSdXi^ei) B""'. Correctors have not 
 changed. It is accented trxavSaXel. 
 28. —eKetvot B 245 pers sol (arm'"^ contra codd) 
 
 30. > avrov 01 avvSovXoi B"' et copt 
 
 xix. 22. ypriiiaTa (pro m-tifiaTa) B"' (Chr) Is this "simple" and 
 " inartificial " ? Hort says " no," for he rejects it from his text and margin. 
 C/Liddell and Scott sub ypfnia: "The interchange of XPW« and 
 icriifia is frequent, yet the same distinction holds as between ■xpaofiai and 
 KToofiai, so that KTrj/ia is strictly a possession, ■xprip.a what one wants 
 or uses." 
 
 In other words " money " to B or the scribe of B was more 
 familiar (-xprfiuiT' avrip "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 m-rifiaTa and ■yprniaTa in x. 22/23 of 
 the parallel.t 
 
 t See further remarks as to this in section on Patristic qnotations and Clement 
 of Alexandria. 
 
16 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 St. Luke ( = Mark x. 23) uses yprffiaTa, having in the previoas verse 
 said merely iji' 711(5 TrXoi/o-to? aijioSpa. In Mark x. 22 it is D which sub- 
 stitutes '^prj/JiaTa for KrrjfiaTa. 
 
 In this connection consider next (out of the regular order) : 
 
 Matt. 
 
 xxv. 27. ra apyvpia fiov (tor to apyvpiov fiov) 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 
 n to It, gives the plural with NB. I think these two places 
 looked at together are very instructive. t 
 XX. 18. — et5 Bavarov vel davaTw B aeth 
 
 2-5. KaTaxvpievaova-tv. B 124 al. perpauc (contra rell et verss) 
 
 27. eivai v/iiov vrprnTo? B alone among many variations, 
 
 apparently the nearest to copt. 
 xxi. 19. ov firixeTi (tor /itjKeri.) BLH only, being *a strengthened 
 negative but against all the rest and Orig^'' Meth and even 
 Peter of Alexandria. 
 31. After varying the order of vv. 29/30 B with only a very few 
 cursives and sah boh etc., remains alone at verse 31 with 
 6 uo-T€po?, for Evan 4 has Sevrepo^, and D with the other 
 few o €cr;^aTo?. Hort places o va-repo's in his text, 
 xxii. 39. t ofioia<; (pro o/ioia) B'°' vid "1 The one change hangs on 
 
 ibid, —avrrj 'B"'' vid J the other, 
 
 xxiii. 27. ofioia^ere (pro Trapo/iota^ere) B 1 [nonfani] 
 
 37. -eauTT)? B 604 soli (libere Clem IjS Orig 2/6 Eus 4j5) 
 
 xxiv. 1. €K (pro otto) B 4 Soden" "" »" (syr) Gf Marc xiii. 1 
 
 23. 
 
 ■jruneviTe B 262 Orig 
 
 «"•'" (cf Marc xiii. 21) 
 
 38. 
 
 yaiiKrKovTei B et Sod'"" 
 
 
 xxv. 6. 
 
 £7ei'eTo (pro yeyovev) 
 
 B (cf xxiv. 21 eycMTo BD C04) 
 
 23. 
 
 ■ma-TO^ »)? (pro ■>;? itktto';) 
 
 Bhr (Ireji'"') syr 
 
 40. 
 
 — Twv aSe\^o>v fu>v 
 
 B3/i. 1 vg'^ arm ? Clem 4/5 lib Ath 
 
 42. 
 
 — ovxpr. (ante eSoixaTe) 
 
 B'etvg^ soli 
 
 42. 
 
 + Kai (ante eSi,-\jrri(Ta) 
 
 BL aeth syr pesh diatess (contra 
 rell omn et copt) 
 
 xxvi. 4. 
 
 — Kai airoKT^ivovuiv 
 
 B mill* ri vg^' [non al.] 
 
 42. 
 
 — Xeyav 
 
 B (7i soli vid 
 
 51. 
 
 /leT avTov (pro fiera irj<Tov) 
 
 B'°' >''" cum Hit 
 
 53. 
 
 Swo/iai 
 
 B 
 
 61. 
 
 oiKoSofiijcrai ( — avTov) 
 
 B 1-209 [twn 118] 69 [non /am] 
 
 
 Orig 2/4,. Sod"^'^- 
 
 (Origen gives three readings here.) 
 
 t Cf Hawiins' ' Horse Syn." p. 4. Plural never used in the LXX, where the singular 
 oconrs over 850 times. Sodeti adds "*' for the plural. 
 J Male Horner ofiota. 
 
 B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 
 
 17 
 
 Malt. 
 
 xxvii 
 
 0. Kop/3av B* (/ gi q r^ aur gat rg", corbam a d h r) aeth 
 13. oa-a (pro Troaa) B*"' (D Too-a) 
 
 17. Tov ffapa0^av B 1 Sod"^'' Orig soli vid [iwn copt] 
 
 (21. TOV 0apa^fiav NBL 1 33 122 892 (sah boh xe BippA&A-C 
 
 «/ sy) If improvised in ver 17, probably also here) 
 24. KarevavTi (jyro airevavrt) BD soli vid et W-H [iioti al. Sod] 
 29. TrepteOriKap B 131 ? for eOrjKav of KNWAII syr boh latt longe 
 plur and eireOt^Kav N MncP' min^^ d h vg'^ Eus (sah) 
 This is a clear improvisation by B, and would equate such a thing 
 as irepteXeixov of 157 at Luke xvi. 21, except that it comes from 
 Mark xv. 17 " Kai irepiriOeacriv avTco TrXefapre? axavO. aTe(f>." 
 33. €« TOV roTTov TOV B'°' (pi'o eti TOTTov) cf. Sail boh et Luc xxiii. 33. 
 
 See under " Harmonies." 
 43. eiri Tu> 0€a> (pro eiri tov 0eov) B 213 soli latf' Eus 1/2 Juveitc. 
 
 W-H"" 
 This seems to be a delicate choice of the dative after Treiroidev. 
 The ace. or dative can accompany Tret^w according to its various shades 
 of meaning. Here apparently " He was fully persuaded of and conformed 
 to God." 
 
 B and Latin Sympathy. 
 
 It is quite impossible to divorce B from Latin a£BIiations. 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. 
 
 Kvptov ( — tov) NBCDWZ a (observe both D and A are present) 
 ea)5 eT€Kev (pro €<»? ov eTexev) B""' [JK-/fJ (cf Luc xii. 59) 
 
 1. 
 
 22. 
 
 
 25. 
 
 ii. 
 
 13. 
 
 vi. 
 
 10. 
 
 
 18. 
 
 ix. 
 
 28. 
 
 X. 
 
 4. 
 
 
 16. 
 
 
 23. 
 
 xii. 1, 
 
 12. 
 
 xii. 
 
 4. 
 
 XUl. 
 
 5. 
 
 e<t>avr) (pro (l>aiveTai) 
 Kai eirt yij<; ( — tt;?) 
 
 > VJ](TTtV(i>V TOtt avOpiilTTOl^ 
 
 > TOVTO Svvafiat •jroiTjaat 
 
 B 372 and latt 
 SBWZA Clem Orig'"'" 
 B (A) .soli 
 B I q vg^" 
 
 39. 
 
 Kavavaio^ (piro KavaviTrft) BCD (x"") L min patic copt itvg etS 
 £t? TO lieaov (piro ev tqj fucrm) Xvkwv B'°' cum ffi k vg^ Lucif. 
 \crpart\ (-Tov) BD [W-H] latt (cf Marc xv. 32) 
 
 aa^paTOK (pro tra/S^aatv) B'"' et vett sabbatis 
 
 o (pro ovi) BDW 13 22 124 bd k q aur vg'- .syr 
 
 e^aveTeiXav (pro e^aveTetXev) B'"' Cf latt exorta sunt. See 
 
 " Change of Number." 
 CTreaev e(? B* (pro eirea-ev em) sed B ipse vid em substituit 
 aiwvo's ( — tov) HBDfam 13 33 Orig 1/2 latt (contra sah et boh 
 diserte tovtov tou aicovo';) 
 
 
 
J8 
 
 CODEX D AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 xiii. 40. The above is followed suspiciously closely by KaraxaieTac 
 NB (D - ovra) 1 [noil 118-209] Ct/r and latt " comburuntur," 
 " exuruntur" {contra rcll Gr). The Coptic word, one chosen 
 out of many, cepoKg,Oir (hence " sirocco ") may also 
 intimate xaTaKaterai rather than Kat€Tai. W with the rest 
 Ka thrill. 
 [xiii. 4(3. A very curious case occurs here, where NB and all agree in 
 
 ■n-mpaxev against the aorist of D alone errtoXria-ev] 
 xiv. 9. \vn-ri6ei<; (pro eXtmrjOrj) BD 1 fam 13 604. Some Latins 
 contristatus without est (against the other Greeks and the 
 important witnesses c f k q* copt arm syr). This \vTrri0ei<; 
 looks strangely like the Latin contristatus ( — est), for the 
 copula Se wanting in BD is found in the Latins cfkq* (copt 
 syr), which have contristatus est, showing that est did not slip 
 in there by mistake. 
 
 10. laavvTiv ( — Tov) only BN*Z6 1 as lat. Otherwise sah boh 
 " he took off the head of John." 
 
 29. Trerpo? ( — 6) NBD [non minii] W-H 
 
 32. uvaPavTwv (pro e/j-^avTrnv) NBDT° 892 (latt : ascendentibus) 
 XV. 31. Ko><j}ov<; iiKovovTat (pro koxJ). \a\oiii/Ta?) B4> 59 115 238 and 
 e " surdos audientes " (while d using surdos yet has loquentes, 
 as also A). All the rest and latt have XaXovvTai. I class this 
 here because of the acceptance hy d e k ot surdos for mutos. 
 Koj^'ot is used in N.T. both for dumb and deaf (vide our Eng. 
 transl.). Boh turns the difficulty by beginning vmtos 
 loquentes, continuing et clodos amhulantes et caecos videiites, 
 and closing with the addition of surdos audientes, while a 
 cuts out nearly the whole verse. 
 
 37. >■ TO wepiirerevov Tfav k\. rjpav, Latin Order, supported only by 
 BD 1 33 892 against the Greeks and other versions, 
 xvii. 3. <o^6r] (pro to^Orjcrav) [fioDvcrr]^ Kai r]\eia<; following] corres- 
 ponds to latt mult "paruit." 
 The polyglot character of NB is shown in this same verse 
 where they change the order fier avrov (TvXKdKovvTei; (cum eo 
 loquentes) to <rvv\a\. fier avrov with W 1 ff}.^ q sah boh aeth 
 and syrr Cyr. So again xvii. 7 irpoa-rfKBev o iria-ov; xai 
 a^a/ievo'i NBD fam 13 G04 it''^ vg syrr against -rrpoacXBaiv . . . 
 ■tjijraTo of the rest. 
 
 22. avcrTpe<f>ofievci)v Se avrav (pro avaa-Tp€<f>. Sf avrav) NB 1 892. 
 
 Cf lat^' conversantibus ; ette ceffr, et Orig (" neutral ") 
 
 cTpefpofieroji' Be avTwv. 
 xix. S. <j>api<Tatoi (-ot) BCLMW^WS, al. pauc boh Da7n. 
 
 IG. irx'" (pro e^o)) BD Sod'^' latt Orig 1/2 (contra NL KXr]povo/j.r)aii>) 
 
 21. Xeyei (pro eipr]) B Sod"''" fam 13 only of Greeks with all Latins. 
 
 24. -oTj Bi)lur a,nA latt (but against aClil'lZ copt syr) 
 
 B IN ST. Matthew's gospel. 
 
 19 
 
 JIatt. 
 
 XX. 20. air avrov (pro Trap avrov) BD 604 W-H. Cf latt sah 
 33. > 01 o<f>ea\fioi. niiav NBDLZ 33 892 Sod^ "' »' * latt 
 
 xxi. 28. > hvo TCKva Bj 142 299 Sod" ' latt"""" 
 
 xxii. i. vToifiaKa NBC*DL 1 22 33 604 892* ; against i;Tot/xao-a of the 
 rest, strengthened by Orig Cyr Chr Dam. Hort uses ■^Tot/iaxa 
 here without a sign in the margin. This is not Origen. 
 5. etri TT?!; efiiropiav (pro ef? ttjv efiTr.) NBCDT''2*/a?» 13 38 
 125* 157 [no7i 28] 604 Orig and Latt. 
 30. -Tou 0€ov BD fam 1 [nonfam 13] 604 abed efff, h q r 
 vg^^' syr cu sin sah arm Orig^" W-H, but cf Marc xii. 25 
 Note that W has rov 6eov with the rest and does not go 
 vrith D here, 
 xxiv. 3. - TJ/? (ante a-vinc\eia<;) NBCLH Sod"'" fam 1 33 157 892 Cyr^'" 
 
 38. +e««mt9 BD Sod''"" latt SiTid sah 
 
 XXV. 16. eKepSrjcrev (pro eTrotrjaev) , and —raXavra fin by BCDL, and 
 BL respectively, shows very strong Latin affiliation, both 
 being against N and the mass. 
 29. Tov he /IT) exovTO^ (pro avo Se tov /irj exomoi) NBDL 1-209 
 
 [nan 118] 33 124 [nonfam] = Lat. 
 41. KaT-npafievoi(-oi) NBLT' 33 Sod"" boh Cyr 1/2 (cotitra 
 rell et Patr Gr permultos) et Orig''''. 
 xxvi. 45. KaBevSere Xoiiroj (pro Ka0. to Xotnov) BCLW 273 348 m*" 
 p*" 892 Sod'''- seems to equate ijStj and the Latin jam [see 
 Liddell and Scott]. Syr with sah and aeth - " ergo." 
 53. nXeia (pro irXeiov;) ii'BD W-H[nonminn]latt (agamstOrigen) 
 xxvii. 43. CTTt ™ Oem (pro e-iri rov 0eou) B 213 soli lattr' et W-H mg. 
 49. fiTvav B fam 13 (and eiirov D 69) W-H txt = a b c dffi 
 gi q but not the others and no vulgates. All other Greeks 
 oppose with e\e7ov. 
 xxviii. 14. VTTO TOV vyefiovo^ (pro eiri tov vy.) BD 59 892 only with W-H 
 
 marg. Cf lat " a praeside." 
 15. apyvpia(-ra) N'B'W Sod"""-' ct W-H txt. Cf lat 
 
 " pecunia." 
 ibid. tTTi/iepov +rip.epa<s 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 : 
 xxviii. 17. TrpoaeKvvriaav ( - avTm) NBD 33 only and latt (except q) vg Bus 
 Chr against all other Greeks +avTa> with q syr and Coptic. 
 Observe now from xxviii. 19 where B adds ow with AH, and where 
 D adds vvv (and some Latins both ow and vw), that this Latin text 
 favoured by B was not of the purest most neutral stock, for N and all 
 other Greeks add nothing, having iropevffcvre's only with evert Gbeek aud 
 Latin Father from Irenaeus to Amphilochius. And the same remark 
 
 c 2 
 
20 
 
 CODEX D AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 i. 5. /3oe? 
 
 ii. 21. (to-r)\6ev (pro ^i\6ev) 
 
 iii. 2. — Kai {ante Xeymv) 
 
 applies to the /3airT«7ain-69 of BD (soli ; Soden adds none) latt in this 
 verse against Painifyvrei; of all the rest, and the same array of Fathers. 
 I am sorry to say that Hort swallows ovv without marginal comment, and 
 ventures to put ^a-miaaviK in his margin. 
 
 As to B and Coptic sympathy. 
 
 I Again here observe W, Where W joins is for the Egyptian method 
 of the possessive before the noun (vii. 24, 20) and for iva instead of owax; 
 (viii. 34), which p,ini. 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. 
 
 Mntt. 
 
 NB Oxyr' k sail boh W-H 
 
 NBC 157 273 soli et sah (iq5.uuK 
 eg,pA.i) boh (iqi eiiotn) 
 
 NB sah boh aeth g^ q W-H Sod. 
 vii. 17. Amid vastly differing orders (see under NB in Part II for 
 details) B alone with v^'"^ gives us Coptic order Kapirov; 
 rcoiei. KoXov;, bringing koXov^ last. Tischendorf does not 
 notice this and Horner for some extraordinary reason is 
 here absolutely silent. Yet Hort places this grandly in his 
 margin. It 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. auTov Tt)v oiKtav NBCWZ 1 33 892 Orig sah boh (ex more 
 copt) contra rell omn et latt ti)u oixiav axrrov. [Anyone 
 who will compare what N does elsewhere in this chapter 
 (see Part II. under N 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 woXKa to Sat^oriaJ. 
 2G. avTov T,]v oiKiav NBWZ 1 604 892 So*''"i sah boh (more 
 
 copt). Contra rell et Orig (hoc loco) ! 
 viii. 8. aTTOKpteeK Se N»B 33 372 sah [non boh] W-H 
 
 aireKpidr) . . Kat enrev syr et k t 
 
 «ai aTTOKpiBea N'' C et rell et latt 
 
 t This 13 rather a pretby picture in an unimportant place ot my contention as 
 to A (Tisch does not refer to it, so I wisli to call attention to it). 
 
 B IN ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 
 
 21 
 
 viii. 18. ox^ov B sah soli (et W-H txt) 
 
 oxKovt N boh soli (tout o^Xovt; boh) 
 The rest ttoXw o^Xov, o^Xov ttoXw (W), TToWou? o)(Xov>! or o^ov^ 
 
 TToXXoVt. 
 
 A curious place occurs at viii. 27 fin where NBW 1 33 892 Ens Chr 
 W-H make the order avro) waicovovaiv against maKovovaiv avro) of all 
 others, including Coptic and the versions ; k alone varies, with obandientesf 
 tantum, and Hil 1/2 obedisse. In Luke the order of all is also kcu 
 tnraKovovatv airrci), but B omits there with 604. Why this change of order 
 in Matthew against Coptic, latin and syriac ? d ia available again here 
 for the first time and reads obaudiunt ei with the mass. Sod adds °'° to 
 NBW. 
 
 si>tt. 
 
 viii. 34. iva (pro otto)?) 
 ix. 9. iiaOOaiov 
 
 12 init. Se ( — ir/aov;) 
 
 32. KMfjjov ( — avOpwirov) 
 
 X 
 
 HW alone and boh g,mA. (sah xeKic) 
 NB*D sah [non boh], so at x. 3 again 
 NBD2 248 892 d sah [non boh] aeWi"'"' 
 
 syr sin 
 NB 71 892 sah boh (noifeAo) aeth syr 
 W-H contra rell omn. 
 X. 32. ev Tot? ovpavoK (pro ev ovp.) BCKV al. sah boh Cyr'' 
 
 sed Orig 1/4 
 33. ,, ,, ,, ,, „ ,, BYX. al. sah boh Cyr sed 
 
 Orig 1/3 
 xi. 16. ev Tail; ayopat<; (pro ev ttr/op.) NBZ (1) 124 157 892 al. 
 W-H Sod. sah boh contra rell et Clem (sed ev ttj ayopa 
 D syr sail"""', in foro d latt aeth gotli) ' 
 
 xii. 13. <Tov ■n)v %iipa (pro rr\v yeipa aov) NBL min pauc and 892 is 
 the Coptic manner. See above, and beyond for such preference 
 under " Genitive before the Noun in Luke." 
 iva (pro oTriot) NBCDJ 1 33 Orig Ens boh (see above, viii. 34) 
 See under " Change of Voice." 
 
 a<l>e07]aeTai v/iiv TOi? iivOpanroK B 1 [non 118-209] Sah 
 
 syr^'^" Ath [non boh latt] 
 xiii. 28. oi Se (-SovXoi) B 157 g, h boh sah [non aeth rell] W-H txt 
 This seems to be a nicety of "pairs." o Se e<f>j] airrot?. .o Se Xeyovaiv 
 avria. 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 SovXoi. Besides Manich^^'''''' opposes B and has it. 
 
 Mitt. 
 
 xiv. 3. +T0T6 B'"^ cum fam 13 Sod"" et txt, et sail diserte (ev TovTo) 
 ra> Kaipw) ; et cf k " cum detinuisset." 
 
 17. 
 22. 
 31. 
 
 t This may be primitive. 
 
 X Observe the different character of support to B in these three places while tah 
 hoh are constant. 
 
22 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Thi3 is clear B and sah sympathy and nothing else, 
 not join nor N nov D nor W nor others. 
 
 Boh does 
 
 Mali. 
 
 xvi. 21. 
 
 xvii. 8, 
 
 pro Tov vr\aovv /lovov. This is 
 
 ic xc (jjjooii;o-ou?) N*B'Sorf""so/i 2/3 io/i""""'""'"'''"' against 
 
 the rest, and they themselves corrected.t and against the other 
 
 versions. (Dominus Jesus aeth, as often = merely " Jesus.") 
 
 N-^" 892 Orig /»rn'"' iilanc om. W-H follow XB. 
 
 tv avTov fiovov a 
 
 auTov IV fiovov B 604 Sod 
 
 rendered perfectly clear from the Coptics, where auro? is tacked 
 
 on to the word for /lovoi. The Latins do not do it, so we 
 
 may clearly refer this as to both N and B to Coptic I think 
 
 or possibly SyriacJ Following so close on xvi. 21 it is 
 
 instructive. 
 
 14. €\0ovTmv (-avTKov) NBZ 1 124 245 Sod"" sah 
 1 init. ev eiceivv Be BM Sod^'" and only sah 3/G boh""" 
 
 11 vers om. NBL* 1* [)io?i fam] 13 [non fayii] 33 892* e /, sah 
 hoh''^ syr hicr sin Orig {contra rell et syrr rell latt rell aeth ?). 
 D has the verse and also W very specially. Observe the 
 spacing fo 0-5 in W. (Sod"''" also omits.) 
 
 14. TTOTpo? fi.ov (pro iraTpo'; v/jLtov) 'BFVllT al. sah boh , only r, oi 
 Latins, arm aeth, syr sin (only of syr) and Orig^*' 
 Matter of order : irapaS-a^e (en) (va t) Si/o ii-era a. B ffi 
 
 boh sah only [iion ah Sod] 
 TOV SovXou (-EKeivov) BSod'''"! 124 only with sa/i 4/7. It may 
 be useful to mention the sah mss as they are very definite here. 
 They are 111 112 114 f. (avrou syr eu sin, et aliier pers). 
 >avTov 01 avvhovKoi B "' cjini sah boh 
 ;. 10. (T-)(ai ( 2)ro e)(ci) vel KXrjpovoiirjirai) BD Sod"' Orig 1/2. Coptic 
 has no verb for ex"' ^^d although axm probably approxi- 
 mates the Latin here, it is interesting to see that sah has eiexi 
 " take " as against boh nTA.epKXHpoitOXf.in " inherit " 
 transliterating the Greek of NL and some. 
 
 21. T019 TTTOjp^oi? (pro TTTaxoi';) BD only with sah boh against 
 all the rest and against C!em Orig'-" with a host of Fathers. 
 
 29. TOV e/iov ovoiiaToi (pro toij ovo/iaTO^ fiov) NB Sod"'" "' 
 124 [nonfain^ § sah boh et W-H tit. 
 ibid. ■n-oWairXatnova (2>ro exaTovTaTrXaa-.) BL Sod fam tj}" sah syr 
 hier Orig'''"'"' soli W-H txi [non it veil] 
 
 If). 
 
 27. 
 
 31. 
 
 t So it i3 not likely that either of the mss N or B influenced boh or sah, seeing that 
 the corrections stared the oopts in the fooc. Obs. a place like x.ivii. 4 where uflmo^ is 
 used by XB* and the mass, while Smaior is transliterated by aah. 
 
 X Syr uses the same expression xrii. 19 ; not so Coptic. 
 
 § Therefore, as I supposed, the JUtthaean recension of 124 was revised in Egypt. 
 
 B IN ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 
 
 23 
 
 XX. 9. e\dovT€<; 8f B'"' et W-H txt cum sah boh'"'"''- (rj syr cu non sin). 
 10. —TToXKoi, -yap etcrt K\r)Toi oXiyoi Se eKkderoi. NBLZ 36 892 
 sah boh''' (aeth aliq, non Walton) against all the rest and 
 lattf""" syi^"'" arm Grig'"' 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 e nor r, nor ^ countenance the removal here and 
 syr lat are a unit for the clause. 
 34. >avTwv Twv o/i/iaTii>v W et copt (contra Orig) 
 xxi. 11. >o ■7rpojn]Trji; irja-ovt XBD 157 Sail boh arm Orig 1/3 Evs 
 against all the rest and latt syrr aeth Orig 2/3 
 This Origenistic division is most illuminating in all these places, 
 leaving XBD alone with Egypt for a base. (Cf BD snpra xix. 21). 
 It is immediately followed by 
 xxi. 12. efs TO tepov (-tou 6eov) NBL 13 [non fam] 33 73 604 892 b, 
 sah boh again, with ai-m aeth OrigijS Meth C/irffii, but seems 
 to be a clear harmonistic omission, for tov 6eov is absent from 
 Mark (xi. 15) and Luke (xix. 45). (Sod adds "" •' •'"»•) 
 Note how closely XB stick to copt here, with Origen again a poor 
 wavsring witness. 
 
 In such cases Tischendorf (as Turner has pointed out in a general 
 way) abandoned his favourite X with great judgment and placed tov Oeov 
 in his text, while poor Hort, abject slave to his standard, can only find 
 room for tov 6eov in his margin. The Eevisers restore it to their text (but 
 in Souter's note he says " 13 &c. 33 700," implying the family 13, 
 whereas the other members do not support 13). 
 
 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.f Observe then that -iroieiTe of XBL 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. +T0U9 (ante xpa^ovTav) XBDLN (sah) boh arm syr against 
 the rest and the usual cursives and Orig Meth. Bo/i is very 
 definite here. Tisch. omits to add the versions. 
 Again Hort follows what is really a version tradition here against 
 Origen and Mtthodius, L and the rest. 
 
 xxi. 29/31 vers invert. B pane, cum sah boh etc. 
 xxii. 37. o 8e €(^7; avrto XBL 33 sah boh Orig'"*- (against D latt eifnj 
 avTca i7j<rou9, and Se n]crov<; e^i} avrco of most, and o Se iTjtTovi 
 enrev avra of some) 
 
 t A more elaborate subdivision will be found elsewhere including " Form," which 
 sometimes finds a place under the unique readings of B. 
 
24 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 xxii. 39 iiiit. SevTepa {-Be) H'B 137 sah"' boh''"'-' W-H. There seems 
 no other attestation. {Sod adds "' [S or c?] "'). Other sah 
 and hah codd have ^e, but some boh xe- Latins have <mtem, 
 while st/rr diatcss and Ci/pr have /cat Sevrepa. Mark xii. 31 = 
 " Sevrepa aimj," hence this seems Marcan influence, for 
 Luke X. 27 continues simply " xai tov TrXt/o-iov." 
 
 xxiii. 9. > viia,v o Trarnp NBUS 33 892 Sorf'-'""^" Evst 48 ai" Nyss 
 et sah boh W-Het Sod txt {contra rell gr ct sijr lat o Trarrip v/kov) 
 38. —eprj/j.o'i BL ff'i 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""'f' 
 _g„ssacrc ag -^gU g,g Qig„^ g^jjj Qy^,. g^jj^ g^^ oihet GrBcks and 
 
 Latins, ffi 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 ffi sah boh syr sin are only complicating the synoptic pro- 
 blem here once more. Soden has no new witness for omission. 
 Diatess § 41 is quoting from Matthew and has epij/zo?. 
 W-Hort here in Matt, exclude eprjfioi; from the text but have it in the 
 margin. Souter has it in his text but puts a footnote " om. epr/iio^." He 
 gives the evidence of BL, adding a black letter K''*'). The ffi is so 
 small one can hardly see it, and black letter L makes one think it has 
 large Latin support, whereas ff^ here is representing Egypt, against e and 
 all the rest and all vulgates. 
 xxiv. 31, 37, 38, 39 taken together have some significance. 
 
 40. > eaovTM Svo N*B p'" 892 h r r^ vg'^'" and sah, against 
 boh and the rest. (For the conjunction h r r^ see under Lists 
 for N and B at xxiv. 11 as well as here. This seems conclusive 
 as to h for Irish origin. No other Old Latins join them ; and 
 observe the full array otahn r r^ at xxvi. 56). Add Soden^'^" 
 48. > fwv o Kvpw NBCDIL 33 157 209? 409 604 892 Sod''^- ''"P""^- 
 
 Eph r ? sah boh 
 ibid. ■xpovi^u{-e\£eiv) NB 6 33 604 892 sah boh Ephr Iren'"^ 
 (against all the rest and against all Latins but Iren'"^ which 
 shows this is Iren'^' pure) 
 XXV. 1. v-rravT-qiTw {pro rnravT.) NBOZ 1 [non /am] 892 {Meth 1/2) 
 
 [male Soden de 157] Cf e^pen boh 
 This in connection with xxv. 6 fin e^ep^ecrOe ck anavrrjaw 
 {-avTov) by NB 604 alone -1- Cyr Meth shows such a nice appre- 
 ciation of the difference between viravT^aiv avrov and aTravr-qaw without 
 avTov 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 TrapeXdeiv { — air e^iov). 
 
 B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 
 
 25 
 
 Note further that at 
 
 Matt 
 
 viii. 28. vTr,,vrr,aau aura, is used by all on this the first occurrence of 
 the expression. 
 34. CK VTravrqaiv rov irjirov N 33 
 ei<! vvavrrfcnv T<a irjaov B 1 Sod 
 
 m avrnvrvrc tov iv^ov C 157 892 y'" Cyr u, airavrv^tu 
 CK a-vvaimiatv Tw iritrov Bell omn I rati. Sod' •^ 
 
 xxviii. 9. .™-,,rr,«.' avraa is used again by N^BCnSj fam 1 fam 13 
 {partim) 604 892 min^ Orig Cyr against aTrvvTr,<rev avr. of the 
 rest 
 
 Mark 
 
 V. 
 
 2. VTrrivrrjiTcv avro) 
 
 xiv. 13. airavTT](7ei vfuv 
 
 Luke 
 
 viii. 27. uirrjvTJjo-ei/ ( — ouTO)) 
 
 ix. 37. <rvvr]vTn<T€V avTio 
 xiv. 31. vTravrqaai Tft) i^era 
 
 i^^vii. 12 
 
 airavTijtrai T<d fiera 
 V7rr)in7]aav aiTft) 
 
 vTrr]VTr]<Tav { — avrai) 
 
 a7rrjVTi]€rav avT<o 
 
 airrjinrjaav { — axrrm) B et W-H txt 
 
 [ovov r)<Tav V> d e {latt)] 
 
 NBCDGLA \fam 13 28 aP Dam against 
 
 a-rrrjvrnaev of All tine' al. pi 
 unchanged by all (except v-n. 28 Sod""^) 
 
 NBEWH 1 33 157 604 o.^" (rell vTTr,VTr,(rev 
 
 -f otn-o) practer T al. pane aTrrjvT.) 
 All (except D aweXOeiv B avvnvTijaav) 
 NABDBXA 1 33 fam 13 {partim) 157 
 
 Paris" 892 Sodi''"' 
 LWFAn unc' al. pi Bas 
 NN Sod.°" fam 1 fam 13 [wore 124] 157 
 
 [male Sod] 892 al" Bas Davi 
 L et Sod txt 
 AWXrAAn unc^ al. pi et B-V 
 
 xxii. 10. vwavTija-ei. Vfiiv 
 a-navTt]aei vp.iv 
 avvavTijO'et vp.lv 
 John 
 
 iv. 51. WTjvTTjaav avrm 
 
 aTrrjvrrjtrav avna 
 
 xi. 20. vrrrjvTTicTev avTCO 
 
 30. vTrr)VTr]crev avTW 
 
 xii. 13. £t? vTTavTTjaiv avrw 
 
 6t9 aTravTtjaiv avTo> 
 
 CXL al. pane 8d2 Sod'''' 
 D 124 (air.) al. pane. Orig 
 NABPKWrAAn unc' al. pi 
 
 NBCDKLAV 1 al"> ct 892 
 AFAAIl unc' al. pi Orig Cyr Chr 
 hy all (except Sod''") 
 by all (except one) 
 NBEFHMQSWrAA al. pi 
 AKUn ar Orin''" {avTOv Sod'*^ 
 ti? (Tih/avrqciv avrcD LX 157 al. pane I 
 €1? avvavTqinv avrov DG al' I 
 
 18. VTrrjVTTicrev avrw by all {uTn)vrr)(Tav D C d) 
 
 Acts 
 
 X. 25. cvvavrrfaa'i avrw by all {avvavrr)aavra avrw two) 
 xvi. 16. vrravrrtaai r/p-iv ^5BCE min' Orig {avvawavr. two) 
 
 arravrriaai vf^iv ADHLP al. pi Eustath Chr 
 
2G 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 XX. 22. 
 
 xxviii. lij. 
 
 1 Thess. 
 iv. 17. 
 
 Heb. 
 vii 
 
 crvvavTTjaoma fioi 
 avvavTr^amna fioi 
 av^^rjcofiepa /moi 
 
 6J? VTraVTIJtTlV VfltV 
 
 €(5 viravTr]criv rjfjiav 
 ei; airavTrjcnv rjfiw 
 et? airavTrjo'iv ■rjfj.oyv 
 
 NBLP al. pi Ath C/ir (NB e/iot) 
 
 ADEH al. 
 
 C min' 
 
 a* sic (i^iiiv Sod-^"" '< 
 
 40 
 
 ABHLPN" etc Chr Thpyl 1/2 
 
 I miir' Thpyl 1/2 
 
 fi? VTravTr]a-(v T&) ■^piaTo) em aepa 
 6(s VTravTr)<Tiv Tto Kvpim et? aepa 
 ei% avvavTr)tnv tov Kvpiov €(? aepa 
 et9 atravTrja-iv tov KVpiov fi? aepa 
 
 D'E'FG 
 D" 
 Epiph 
 
 NB rell Orig^'" Hipp Dial 
 Eus'''' Bas al. 
 
 1. (JVvavr-q<Ta<;, Heb vii. 10 (rvvqiTqcrev 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 vTravraw is purely Johannine, that St. Luke rather favours 
 trvvamaa (as shown by Acts x. 25, xx. 22; Luke ix. 37, xxii. 10), 
 but also used im-avr. or a-rravr. elsewhere, where the MSS try to confuse 
 us. St. Mark uses aTravrao) xiv. 13, and the MSS are divided as to 
 awavT. or viravT. at V. 2. St. Matthew uses v-rravTija-av in viii. 28, 
 where all are agreed, and doubtless avvavrria-iv at viii. 34, which NB wish 
 to change to hir. He seems afterwards to employ airavr. 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, xxviii. 9 (probably Mark v. 2, 
 Luke xiv. 31) and Acts xvi. 16, where Eustath t contradicts Origen. 
 Certainly someone is revising. Is it Antiooh or Alexandria or Caesarea? 
 Well, observe Luke xvii. 12 and Acts xxviii. 15 for the keys and there 
 will be found N and B opposing each other ! There seems to be no kind 
 of doubt in view of the wavering courses of L and H and C and X 
 that accommodation and revision went on in the different places. 
 Instead of " neutrally " keeping clear of these matters, SB 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 <t W-H soli, L tt Sod soli I). 
 
 Epiphanius shows us at 1 Thess. iv. 17 how carelessly he differentiated 
 between the language of one or of another passage. 
 
 After this digression we continue as to coptic sympathy : — 
 
 t Nor is Eustathius' text of Acts any commoo " Aotioch " revision. He has a 
 most peculiar cast alone with D in one of the few places which survive in his writings. 
 
 n IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 
 
 27 
 
 Matt 
 
 XXV. 3. at yap {pro ai Se Z 157 it^K ai ovv D d /j, anivef X plur) 
 
 NBCL 33 892 hoh sah 
 C. - epx^rai NBCDLZ 604 892 sah hoh d Meth 1/2 Cyr [contra 
 
 rell omn et syr lat] 
 
 xxvi. 28. -Katvv! {ante haOriKr,,) NBLZ 33 Sod?'^'''^ boh""" [non sah, 
 cf " Pisfis "] Cyr, against all the rest and Origen Iren. This 
 hardly belongs in this list, but I do not know where to place 
 it. I do not charge this as a deliberate omission, yet it looks 
 like one. The evidence is overwhelming for the reception of 
 Katvv!, 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 (e is wanting). Hitherto Cypr had 
 been given by Sabatier and Tisch on the other side. 
 
 45. iSov +yap BE p*" = sah syr sin Ath''^'\ 
 
 55. Kadrjiiepav (-Trpo? vp-a^) XBLJ 33 004 892 sah boh syr 
 sin Cyr'''' Orig'"'' 1/3 against all others and against Latin. 
 
 71. ovTo^{-Kai) NBD Sod™ [no»G04]sa/jsj/rsm (against all else), 
 xxvii. 2. TTtXaxM (—KovTim) NBLS 33 sah boh syr Orig Petr. This 
 is a 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. -vyeiiiov HB Sod"" 33 69 [nonfam] sah [non boh] syr'''" arm 
 
 {syr'") W-H 
 
 42. l3aaiXev^ L<7par,\ eaiiv {-ei) NBDL 33 892 d sah (against 
 boh and everything else including syr sin Eus Ps-Ath) 
 
 46. eXwei e\aei B et sah literatim soli I cf Marc 
 €\wt 6\(<)t N et boh literatim cum 33 al. pane i'(7»"ij xv. 34 
 
 In Mark xv. 34 both NB have e\a>i e\u>i, while sah repeats eKaei 
 eXcDft and boh cXiei e\cai, 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. 100. Hort did not 
 look very far. How about Athanasius here ? 
 
28 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Matthew. Similarly, ag often before, N runs with boh here. It is 
 probable that N had before him either sah and boh, or an edition of 
 boh which was nearer to sah than our surviving boh jiss show. 
 
 M»tt. 
 
 xxvii. 40. Xefia NBL 33 273 G04 Evst 21 22 et boh {al boh eXeJULi 
 cum sah). The rest Xtfia or Xei^ui, and >uifia D 
 ibid. aaffaKTavei. B""' vid cum 22? aP sah (pro aaffax- rell) 
 51. Order : ftrxK^Ov (air') avwdev em? Kara ei<; &vo {hoc loco) BC*L 
 sah boh aeth (As sijr sin omits Karm et? Svo and J Orig Eus 
 omit et? Suo this can only come from Coptic). [K goes with 
 the rest and Latin order, placing ej? Svo after e<rxKrOrj.] 
 58. a-TToBoevvai (-to errata) XBL j/ii'n" against all the rest and 
 the Latins and arm aeth goth syr pesh Orig'"^. The support 
 is confined to sijr sin and the Coptics which include avro in 
 the verb, while aeth is very definite against them. When aeth 
 has shown such intense sympathy with N and B (being alone 
 with B in Matthew three times, alone with N over a dozen 
 times) it seems fair to bring it into play in a case like this, 
 xxviii. Gfii. exeiro {-6 Kvpio:;) KB 33 Sod^'" e sah boh arm aeth syr 
 sin Orig'"^ Cyr against the rest and D d, all Latins but e, and 
 syr pesh pcrs {Aeth "sepultus fuit," the Latins "positus 
 erat," but c " jacebat," and observe Coptic imperfect). 
 The e recension hangs absolutely to NB, for at xxviii. 8 e uses 
 abissent {aTreXffovcai NBCL /am 13 33) for exierunt of all other Latins 
 (and e^eXBovaai all other Greeks). 
 
 See again xxviii. 14 - avrov NB Sod"^" 33 O/-/*/"" and c only, against 
 
 all else, all Latins, syr copt and Cyr^'" 
 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. 
 jratt. 
 
 xi. 28. >aifv <roi yevo/j-evai B (instead of ai yevofievai ev aot, of all 
 
 other Greeks and Latins and Coptic) is found to be the order 
 
 of syr sin (against sijr 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 Homer in his notes to sah, but standing plainly in Burkitt's 
 
 notes to syrcusin {Eng and Syriac sides) and inMerx' translation. 
 
 I have been accused of seeing fanciful resemblances which are 
 
 merely coincidences and at first sight this might appear to be a mere 
 
 coincidence. I am glad of the opportunity to be more precise and to 
 
 show that these things are not mere coincidences and that the study of 
 
 them is an absolute necessity (quite overlooked hitherto) if we are to 
 
 make progress in tracing the text-history behind Origen. 
 
 B IN ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 
 
 29 
 
 It is to be noted then that NBC 1 33 and a few cursives change 
 efietvav to e/ieivev 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 o-oSo/iok, 
 but the Syriacs with the diatess arab have in Sodom and a singular verb. 
 The bohairic has ^eit C02s.0JUi.<i. and a plural verb. Syriac then and 
 XBC are in sympathy here alone, whatever we may think of the whole 
 situation, iore/iewav may possibly be revision here for a basic e/xeivev. 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 t<BC are shown alone together here for €/xetvev (against the 
 otherwise friendly Coptic and Latin) it is clear the previous point as to 
 special order in the verse with syr sin is well taken. Horner and Tisch 
 are both silent as to the versions, which is a pity. 
 
 xiii. 36. Bia<Ta^ria-ov {jiro <f)pa<Tov) NB Sod°'°*^ [none of the sympathis- 
 ing cursives] Orig and syr copt. Obs. also the use of the word by 
 Clem^'" {Strom vi. 15 : xal Kara r'ov rj)? a\?)^ei'a? xavova 
 hiaaa<f>ovvTe<t Ta? ypa<f>d<,). [In XV. 15 Greeks all ifypcurov. 
 Copt and syr use the same word as in xiii. 36, Latins vary as in 
 xiii. 36]. Both W-H and Sod place iiaaaj>i]<rov in their texts, 
 xii. 22. See under " Change of voice." B shares (alone among Greeks 
 and Latins) the active voice of syr copt aeth. 
 31. a<j>e0r]aerai vfiiv toi<; avBpcovoK B 1 So(i"" and syr^'^" sah Ath 
 [nan boh nan 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. Xeyw Se vp.iv on irav pTjfia apyov o XaXijaovtriv oi avOpcoiroi. So 
 NB Sod'"' and cojjt syr. The common Gk text read by nearly 
 all is o iau XaXTjcraaw. NB drop (av and change the subj. to 
 the indicative. The Latins all say quod for o eav (except h 
 qnodcunque) with Jjeii'"' and Gypr, but have the subjunctive, 
 BO they no doubt read o iav XaXijaaxriv. 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 viay speak " {Lat Or) and 
 " which men shall speak " {syr copt KB). D also omits eav 
 and has XaXova-w with d, C has eav but writes XaXTjo-ouaiv. 
 Observe now that L and Orig are against NBD, writing o av 
 XaXrjatoaiv. {W-H foUow NB without marginal comment.) 
 
30 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 xii. 47 vers om. K*BLr 120 225 238 400* Sorf'"' (not particularly sym- 
 pathetic cursives otherwise) .^i k sijr cii sin sah (against boh 
 acth si/r jicsh arm and the rest of the Latins). I place this 
 example here because ff, k 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 4G and ver 47 both end with \a\ria-ai in most 
 Greeks, but in ver 46 BCZ end XaKriaai, avTio, while X omits, 
 xiv. 24. aTahtou<; ■ttoWovi airo T?;? "yj;? (pro fieaov T17? 6aKat7(Tr)<; vel rjv 
 ei5 fietrov t?;? 6aX.) B {Sod"'''} fain 13 syr sah boh 
 
 29. Kai riXOev {pro eXBetv) BC* 604 Sod''""""" syr (ut veniret lat) 
 xvi. 4. ami {pro fijTel) B*'°' {syr word serves for either expression 
 but actually j]e»-s'"' gives this petit following other B sympathy) 
 xvii. 8. avTov IV fj-ovov B*"' cum Sod"^' (and N"" iv avrov fiovov) Cf. 
 
 syr and copt and see under " Coptic influence" as well. 
 15. Kvpie e\€r]a-ov jiov Toi/ VLov /lov B**". Cf. syr sol Kvpie fiov 
 eKerjaov fie ' uto? ^ou . . . et aeth Domine miserere mei iiliique 
 mei 
 xviii. 19. ef vfj-av {pro v/iav) 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 XBL in verse 10. 
 XXV. 23. > TTjo-To? t;<; B h r syr soli {et hoc loco et ver 21 h r syr; in 
 ver 21 «<;'') quia super pauca fidelis c ( — 1;?) 
 42. I do not know whether we ought to attribute + nai before 
 eSi^rjo-a 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). [IF-il txt]. 
 Add to the above an interesting place at vi. 1 where for eXerifuxrvvijv 
 of most Greeks and k, hiKaioawqv is read by X"'BD t t^'"' syr sin hier, 
 while Soaii' is given by that early corrector N' with boh and syr cii {Sapa 
 Ephr). The end of the words for "gift" and "righteousness" is the 
 same in Syriac. Sticatoa-vvriv and Soa-iv probably grew out of a revision, 
 comparing with syr. But in verse 3 all have ekerjfwawrjv. 
 
 [Observe the scant support NB get from the MS W in all the above.] 
 
 As to "Form." 
 
 I have neglected most small matters of form, as enrav, KaTa^ara, 
 fiera^a, ^o^eicrBe, fioi.^evdr]vai {pro /lotxaadai), etc. 
 
 I might call attention to Matt, xxviii. 4 where NBC'DL 33 have 
 ey€vridT]<7av and the rest eyevovro with Dion ? Bus, while syr sin omits the 
 verb altogether. 
 
 t Harris gives 892 lot tiKatovwrfv in verse 2. 
 
 B IN ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 
 
 31 
 
 Observe Mark i. 27 e0ap.^T]9ij<Tai> NB and all except D who with 
 Orig writes eOanfiiiaav, while W alone has eBav/ui^ov. (In Luke iv. 36 
 the expression is km eyevero Safi^o';). 
 
 Synonyms. 
 
 xiii. 30. axpi, S"^"=L C/u- 1/3 
 «<»s BD Chr 1/3 Eulog 
 fiexpi C rell et N'' Chr 1/3 
 
 See also 
 
 xxviii. 15 ew NDJ 213 Orig 1/2 
 li€XP'' B *■*'' Orig 1/2 
 C and D alone are constant re- 
 spectively in both places. 
 
 This tells a tale of preferences. 
 
 Cf note on irepilmrep under Luke vi. 28. 
 
 C/Matt. XX. 20 air avTov (pro Trap avTOv) BD 604 (latt sah). 
 
 :xi. 2. KarevavTi XBCDLZ* 892 mill" Orig^''' Eus 1/2 (parallel Mark 
 xi. 2 and Luke xix. 30 xarevavTi all) 
 a-irevavTi B rell Orig"^ Eus 1/2 
 vii. 24. KaT€vavTi BD soli et W-H txt 
 a-rrevavTi N rell et Acta Pit 
 61. KaTfvavTi D""' 
 airevavTi 1<B rell 
 eirt W°' 
 
 XI. 
 
 xii. 
 
 2. 
 41. 
 
 3. 
 
 KarevavTi 
 
 a-wevavTi 
 
 Karevanriov 
 
 KarevavTi 
 
 KaTevaim 
 
 fere omn (parallel Matt. xxi. 2, Luke xix. 30) 
 
 BU 33 mill'" Dam 
 
 (fam 13) 
 
 N rell et D et Orig'''' 
 
 omn 
 
 Luke 
 
 xix. 30. KarevavTi fere omn (parallel Mark xi. 2, Matt. xxi. 2) 
 I think this tells the tale, without going outside the Gospels. In 
 Matt. xxi. 2 KarevavTi has been borrowed from the parallels (Mark xi. 2, 
 Luke xix. 30) where Karevavri stands without variation. Why should 
 "Antioch" vary uselessly in Matthew? It is the group KBLZ which 
 " accommodated." The adhesion of D is nothing, for he prefers Karcvavri 
 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. KUTevavTi NBCDLZ Orig 1/2 Eiis 1/2 {contra rell et Orig 1/2 
 Ems 1/2) 
 xxvii. 24. KaTevavTi BD soli (contra rell omn) 
 61. KaTevavTi D solus (contra rell omn) 
 These are the only occasions where the word ia used in St. Matthew. 
 Could there be a prettier picture that airevami is Matthaean ? In the 
 only place where we have the conspiracy of NBCDLZ both Orig and Em 
 
32 
 
 CODEX D AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 are found to hold both readings, of which KaTevavri was preferred by 
 the Mss. Where their testimony is absent B ventures to join D in one 
 place and not in the other. D alone is consistent in all three places. 
 If D be right, the others are clearly wrong in not giving us KarevavTi, in 
 all three places. 
 
 But I am pretty sure that arrevavTi is Matthaean, and Karevavn 
 Marcan. Note again the Marcan wording : 
 
 Mark 
 
 xi. 2. KarevavTi all but a few scattering witnesses, 
 xii. 41. KarevavTi all and G9-124 (and /taTevminov 13-346- 55G) except 
 
 BU min" Dam airevavTi 
 xiii. 3. KarevavTi all 
 And note in St. Luke : 
 
 xix. 30. KmeuaiTi all but a tew scattering witnesses. 
 So that although B tries to obscure the issue again in Mark (where 
 the absence of SD shows he is wrong) he cannot do it. aTrevam-i remains 
 Matthaean, and Karevavri Marcan and Lucan. 
 
 [In the epistles Karevainov is the expression. Hence the reading 
 above of part of the 13 family.] But it is just in such places that our 
 tables of synoptic wording have become muddled owing to the use of the 
 Westcott and Hort text. 
 
 As to mvavrao), cvvavTaa, vwavTao) 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. 
 
 Mall. 
 
 xii. 22. -rrpoa-ijvijKav avrio Bainom^o/ievov tv^Xov xai kox^ok B (xyrr 
 diatess sail boh aeth) against all Greeks and Latins : 
 7rpoa-r)ve)(0r; avTo) Sai/iovi^o/ievo^ Tv<f>Ko<; xat Kaxfiot. 
 This is a most important passage, for it is uncomplicated by the 
 parallel Luke xi. 14 (q.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 ^D and all other Greeks and all the Latins 
 conjoined. Sedcn now adds J (8 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 sijr which (with ffi h) expresses " and they brought to him a certain 
 demoniac who was dumb and blind " {syr pesh ; " blind and deaf " syr cv). 
 The matter is in a nutshell here for any who will examine it. 
 
 B IN ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 
 
 33 
 
 xix. 20. €</>i/Xafa (pro e(j)v\a^afir]ii) NBDL 1 22 Afh'^'^ against the 
 
 rest and Origcn Ath^'' Chr. In Mark x. 20 eijivKa^a is read by 
 
 AD 28 892 Clem Orig (the more Semitic iwoirjira by fam 1 2>" 
 
 syr sin, as Ephr Aphr in Matthew) but e<t>v\a^a/n)v by KB 
 
 rell. In Luke xviii. 21 e^uXafa by HKBLifam 1 Dial against 
 
 e<f>vKa^afiriv D and the rest. The question may well be asked 
 
 why syr sin uses enoi-qaa only in Mark, with fam 1 2'^- This 
 
 Marcan recension must be further enquired into. Servavi 
 
 is there used by tij;"''* See further remarks under the head 
 
 of " Improvement." 
 
 Observe at Matt, xxvii. 57 NCDS fam 1 33 273 004 Evst 17, but no 
 
 others, change the voice of e/ia^TjTeua-ec, by B and the rest, to cfuidriTev6Tj, 
 
 probably because it follows koi avro<;. 
 
 fiadijTevio is essentially Matthaean (and only occurs elsewhere once 
 in Acts xiv. 21 /laO-qrevaavTe^). At Matt xiii. 52 we read fiaOj]Tevdei,<;, 
 and at xxviii. 19 futOrfnvaare. I only mention it to show how liberties 
 are taken, even when the combination N 1 33 604 includes D. B is 
 absent here from this combination and on the active side, and rightly, 
 for the classical synonyms are generally used in the active voice. 
 
 Ignatius (ad Bom § v) however : " 'Ei» Se tow aSiKijfuKriv airr&v fioKKov 
 /ladfiTevo/iai ' clXX' ov irapk tovto ScSwai'wfuM " uses the middle. 
 
 Change of Mood. 
 
 xii. 36. o\aXr]iTov(n.v (pro oeavXaXriatiXTiv) NB (and D (? o XaXouo-(i') 
 against the rest and L and Ori<i. (See further under " Traces 
 of Syriac") 
 
 Change of Participle Tense : aorist for present. 
 
 xiii. 18. (nrcipavToi (pro aireipovToi;) N'BXW* 33 213 SotZ"- = Evst 4 
 soli [seminantis latt copt (syr), D rell c77retpoi/Tos] 
 24. cnreipavTi (pro a-rreipoim) NBMXWAII min aliq latt pi ct 
 verss [sed seminanti d h k S vg^ ct rell gr et D] 
 It looks as if while aireipavri may be right in xiii. 24 that 
 (TTreipovn is right in xiii. 18 and that KEXW* there are merely trying 
 to equate the two passages, which should not equate but differ 
 slightly. 
 
 xiii. 23. a-vvKK (pro (Tvviav) NBD^'* 238 892 Sod"" Orig. This 
 appears very deliberate, as much for the sake of euphony 
 with avapeK perhaps or for contradistinction of the pair 
 axovav . . avviiav as for anything else ; . . inrapeii; ovto<; e<Triv o 
 Tov \oyov axovwv Kac trvvieii;. They do not write cvvei^ but 
 auvteit; so that apparently the present participle is intended 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 CODEX H AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 but in a different form. But see Eoni. iii. 11 where avvitov is 
 accepted by all. 
 Observe however B at Luke xxiv. 45 alone writing aweivai (aor. inf.) 
 for <Tvvievai. (W (Tvveievui.) 
 xxiii. 17. o ayiaaa'i (2"'0 ° ayia^iov) NBDZ 892 d (d no doubt 
 following his Gk, because all other Latins are against d). 
 No cursives appear to join NBDZ besides 892, and sah 
 boh arm acth with the Latin appear to be against the 
 change. I believe o aytaaa^ to be an " improvement," 
 followed however by Sode7i as well as Hnrt. The place, 
 however, should be considered in connection with : 
 21. KaToiKovvTi {pro KaToiKrjiravTi) NBHS^l' fam 1 /am 13 etc. 
 txt. recept. latt copt et verss vid. Here CDLZrAFI al line'' 
 oppose with KaroiKrjaavTi, as do W2^ and as does 892. 
 Here the versions reverse their position and go with KB. One's 
 preference would be against NB in xxiii. 17 and with them in xxiii. 21 
 whore they hold the textus receptus. 
 
 Hort has a very unsatisfactory solution, for he places ayiaaat in his 
 text verse 17 without marginal comment, while in verse 21 against 
 KaToiKovvTi he has in his margin KaroiKijaavTi, so there seems to have 
 been no system, unless D was considered an absolute balancing factor. 
 Sodeil has ayiacrat and KaroiKijaavTi. 
 
 As to Infinitive. 
 
 Interchange of present and aorist infinitive and imperative. 
 Examples : 
 
 _ „ [ where N and B are on different sides. 
 B rell I 
 
 NDLMXW minn aliq 
 
 B rell 
 
 B"" cum Orig'^'"'^ [Soden adds nothing] 
 
 N rell et Orig'-"^'' 
 
 NBL x»" 7^° 
 
 CD rell omn 
 
 As to infinitive tenses cf Orig Ens ad Matt xxiii. 37 evia-wa^at 
 
 {pro eTTurvvayayeiv) and cf Luc. 
 
 xii. 10. 6epaTr€v<Tai 
 
 depaireveiv 
 xiii. 3. (Tirecpat 
 
 (TTreipeiv 
 xvi. 21. BeiKvvvai 
 
 BeiKvvetv 
 xxiii. 23. nij>€ivaL 
 
 a(pi€vai . 
 
 V. 42. 8o5 
 
 Sl&OV 
 
 xix. 17. Tfjpei 
 
 Ttiprja-ov 
 
 Imperative. 
 
 NBDW/am 13 [non 340] 892 Sod'''- f"" Clem 
 
 plur 
 
 BD soli et WII txt (Tvpn 2'*) 
 
 NCL rell 
 
 B IN ST. MATTHEW 8 GOSPEL. 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 ( So at xxii. 17. eivov 
 
 LZ33 
 
 .viii. 17. eiTTov 
 
 NL Orig ] against eiwe 
 
 NB rell 
 
 eiTre 
 
 B 
 
 rell Cyr Bas j and xxiv. 3. eiwov 
 
 L 1 33 
 
 
 
 ( against eiire 
 
 NB rell 
 
 xxi. 2. iropeveaOe 
 
 
 NBDLZJ TOiu" Orig Bus Chr 
 
 
 iropevBrjTe 
 
 
 Crell 
 
 Change of Case. 
 Genitive Absolute. 
 
 
 viii. 1. Kora^avTo^ he aurov {pro Kara^avTi, Se avra) BC(Z)W Sod"''" 
 
 and N" 892 min aliq W-H d 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 N 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 KaraPavri avra, 
 viii. 5 eia-eXdovTi no I., viii. 23 efi^avri avrto, viii. 28 eKOovri avrco, ix. 27 
 Kai TrapwyovTi ra> I., ix. 28 itSovri Se, xxi. 23 xat e\0ovri avrui. 
 
 Now as B does not change all these datives, it might be thought 
 that " Antioch " lor some reason had made a harmonious whole and 
 turned some genitives into datives in the supposed revision. It is just 
 here that N offers its important testimony, for N does not use the 
 genitive on the first occasion, thereby showing that it was Egypt which 
 revised some of St. Matthew's datives, and not Antioch which cancelled 
 some genitives. See further remarks under this head in St. Luke and 
 St. John. 
 
 The second case occurs four verses later, at : — 
 viii. 5. £ia€\9ovToi Se avrov NBCZ 892 min aliq W-H d- Sod txt 
 
 (Orig eiireKdovTo^ tov xvpiov) 
 all the rest 
 BC et N" * Sod"' et So^^' 892 min 
 
 pauc (Kai eXBovTcov avrcov ti') 
 all the rest 
 
 NBCDL* 1 fam 13 33 604 892 
 Sod"" [non al.] Orig bis W-H ,£■ Sod txt 
 Kai ekBovri avra the rest 
 
 "What is this but a Greek " improvement " ? The small limited group 
 speaks for itself. 
 
 but eureKBovTi Be avra 
 viii. 28. Kai eXOovToi; avrov 
 
 Kai ekdovri avT(0 
 xxi. 23. Kai e\6ovTOi avrov 
 
 t ' Last twelve verses of St. Uatk,' p. 141. 
 
 D 2 
 
80 
 
 CODEX 1! AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 It is noteworthy that avrro ZihaaKovri remains unchanged later in 
 the verse (although some Latins and Syr omit ZihaaKovTi, expressed by 
 the other Latins ad cum doccntcm) so that the dative absolute rather 
 hangs together throughout : kui e\6ovTi avrm eii to lepov irpoa-qKBov 
 avTot SihacTKOVTi, . . . 
 
 See beyond in the other Gospels as to Genitive Absolute, where we 
 find the same revision to the Genitive in St. Mark, but nothing of the 
 kind in St. Luke and St. John, because there were no datives to revise ! 
 
 Kind of Accusative Ahxohttc (involving Change of Order). 
 
 Jlntt. 
 
 xxvi. 40. L alone [^Sodcn adds no others] changes evpev avrov; KaOevBovTai; 
 to evpev KaOevSovra'i avTov<; 
 Observe in the parallel in Luke xxii. 45 NBDLT^ do the same : 
 evpev Koi/ia/ievov^ avTov; instead of evpev avrov^ Koi/i. Observe 
 further that T is a graeco-sabidic, and therefore this Greek is contrary to 
 Coptic order. Note that d (alone of Latins) follows with dormientcs eos, t 
 and note that in Matt. xxvi. 43, Mark xiv. 37 40 no change is made in the 
 order, and it becomes a personal matter where the change is made. 
 To this add : 
 xvii. 25. Among a tremendous variety of readings distributed over the 
 " clever " mss, the usual reading ore eiarjK0ev by the mass of 
 Greeks is confirmed by the versions, but where T) dh n use a 
 dative (absolute) eta-eXOovTi, and 33 a genitive abs. eXBovrtov 
 avTcov, and Sod"" fam 13 eiaeXOovTav, and a is content with 
 intrantes, N and B use an accusative, N* eureXOovra eK ttiv 
 OIK., BN" 1 892 eXBovra ei,'; oik. In view of the immense 
 variety of expressions [see under "Differences between N 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 ace. absolute, 
 for they suppress avrov in e^e\6ovTa Se avrov, the reading 
 of nearly all others. D* Evst 17 have e^eXBovToi Be avrov [d 
 latin wanting) and the Latins mostly favour exeunte autcin 
 illo, but a n "egressus." As to 6 r they actually give us a 
 Latin ace. absolute " exeuntem autem ilium," ffi as printed 
 " exeunte autem ilium," g^ " exeuntem illo." 
 W confirms e^eXOovra Se avrov, and from the Latin testimony it looks 
 as if auTov had been suppressed by NBLZ. 
 
 t As if " dormientibus illis invenit eos." 
 
 But not elsewhere in the other four passages (Matt, and Mark), bo that, as I have 
 often thought throughout the study of Luke, the conjunotion of D with NBL has a different 
 significance in this Gospel to what it has elsewhere. It is not " AVestem " agreeing with 
 NBL, but NBLD in St. Luke's Gospel the outcome of some common text tradition. 
 
 B IN ST. MATTHEW S GOSrEL. 
 
 37 
 
 Change of Case. 
 
 Matt. 
 
 X. 16. ei9 TO peaov Xvkwv B (for ev toj /ie<ra) \vKa>v)ffi k vg^ (Lucif). 
 This is clear "improvement" after a-noaTeWm v/jat. C/also 
 Matt, xxvii. 5. (Note D™' at Luke x. 3 fteaov Xvxav). 
 25. Tft) oiKoSeaTroTf) and tok oixiaKoi'; B* alone {pro tov oiKoSeiriroTriv 
 and Tou? oiKiaKov<;) (governed by eTreKaXea-av) ; common text is 
 exaXecrav, but nearly all authorities are for evexaX. eiriKaXeco 
 would seem to favour a dative, while xaXew (except in middle) 
 takes accusative. Lachmann and W-H mg follow B. 
 xiv. 19. e-Ki TOV xopro NBC'IWS* Sod"'" 1 22 33 aV" Orig"'^'" 
 
 W-H Sod txt 
 em TOV xopTov D IG 61 892 latt sah boh pi aeth arm (syr cu) 
 e-TTi Tov<; yopTov; CE rell unc omn 7nin pi \i\on verss praeter 
 
 hoh^ syr sin .'] 
 eiri Tijv (ttj?) yrjv {yv<:) boh^ syr pesh 
 firi TOV xopTov<; sic L (c/ ejTJUl nexopTOC sah) 
 
 Whether "herbage" plural or "grass" singular is original cannot 
 be determined. I incline to the reading of D, regarding the genitive after 
 ewi here as an " improvement " of HB Origen. 
 
 The foregoing is more important than it seems, for very close after 
 occors another case which I think illustrates the matter perfectly, and 
 fixes the authorship of both changes as that of Origen. 
 
 xn. 25. ewiTyveaXaatrav NBPTnVAe* Sod"'" 1 [non 118-209] 
 
 fam 13 22 238 Sod"- »'"' Orig 
 e-TTi T77? OaXacrari^ CD rell E^ls'''' 
 Observe this is a change in inverse ratio to the last. The genitive of 
 rest — (we can almost see Origen at work) — belongs to itrl roO ^pprov in 
 ver 19, but the accusative of motion belongs to tVl riiv OdXaacrav in ver 25. 
 Tisch emphasises our point for us by saying of Origen "praeterea notat : 
 01/ yeypawTai ■ rfXderrpo'i avrov; irepvwaTwv eiri ra KVfxara, aXX etti ra vSaTa." 
 Clearly then Origen employed the accusative after evi here as of motion 
 on or over the waters, and the accusative must be an emendation for the 
 poor fisberfolk's Greek genitive. 
 
 It is true that in the next verse 26 NBCD(T') have iSovrei; avrov em rijt 
 OaXaaai]^ Trepirrarowra and not em ttjv 0aX. vepirr. 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 N gets an 
 opportunity and avails of it (xvi. 19) to exhibit the difference between 
 Stjo-ij? 6Tri TIJ9 71)9, which he leaves unchanged, and Xi/o-?;? em t?;? 71;?, 
 which latter he changes to Xvarj^ evri rrjv yrjv. 
 
 But these little things were done in passing, because at xviii. 18 
 Xv<rriTe em tt;? yij:; (following SrjirJire em tt;? 77;<;) is left nrchinged hy H. 
 
38 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 XXV. 18. See p. 67. Nothing further occurs until 
 
 xxvi. 7, where NBDM0" /«'» 1 (118 hesitaits) fam 13 [non 124] 106 
 301 604 ct Evst'"'"" prefer cttj tt;? Kcc^aX?;? for em tijk K€<pd\tiv 
 of the rest and Basil. In Mark xiv. 8 a partitive genitive is 
 used Karexeev avTov tjj? KeiftaXtjt; ( - ctti). I'erhaps the Marcan 
 diction influenced NBD in Matthew. The presence of ten 
 Lectionaries and but few cursives lends some emphasis. 
 
 xxvii. 48. veTTOiOev em rm ffeio B 218 alone for Trtir. em tov Oeov with 
 '«<<''' [non cd fg^ r^n^'E] with Eus 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 tw ffcw in his margin. 
 
 Change of Number. 
 vi. 5. See under " Improvement." 
 
 28. av^avovcriv and Koiriaaw and vriOovaw NB Sod™ fam 1 4 33 
 273 Sod'" Ath copt ct verss for av^avei . . Koma . . mjAei (after 
 Ta Kpiva TOV aypov) of all the rest. Soden txt plural as well as 
 Hort. 
 32. €Tn^rjTova-ii> (pro en-i^rjTet) after ra eBvrj NB mitt pauc copt 
 contra rcll. We have to assume that all others strove for im- 
 provement by writing the verb singular, or that NB thought 
 it best to employ the plural. Soden txt plural like Hort. 
 [xi. 28. e/i£tvev (pro efieivav) see under " Syriac."] 
 xii. 4. (Improvement) e^a'^ov for e<f>ayev NB o"". W-H not Sod. This 
 follows eiarjXOev, but is accommodated to the previous verse 
 8 ouK aveyiKore ti e-rroiijiye AaS on eTreivaaev (auTo?) xai oi fieT 
 avTov. Obs. here that the Coptics oppose NB and have e(t>ay€v. 
 xiii. 5. e^avereiKav (pro e^avereiKev) B only with vg and some latins 
 "exorta sunt" (and k fructicaverunt) and Coptic. 
 16. aKovovaiv (pro axovei) following ara (to accord with ffXenovaiv, 
 following however o^BaXiwi) NBCDMXS al Orig latt contra 
 unc'^ al. pi. 
 [xvii. 2. L (and HUT) change eYEvero following i/iaTia avrov to eyevovTo. 
 Not so Ds"- (although d is facta sunt) nor B rell. It is 
 mentioned to show the tendency as represented by L.] 
 xvii. 4. See under " Improvement." 
 XXV. 82. avva'xOritTOVTai {pro crvva^ffliqaeTai) as to iravra ra eOvr) 
 
 NBDGKLUn al. 
 xxvi. 31. &iaiTKopina6ri<Tovrai (pro -aerai) as to ra irpo^aTa 
 
 NABCGH'ILM al. copt Orig 1/2 
 xxvii. 52. nyepdrjcrav (pro r/yepdri) as to ttoXXo aayfiaTa by NBDGL [non 
 W] }nin perpauc copt Orig Eus (avecrrjcrav Cyr) seems clearly 
 Egyptian. 
 
 B IN ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 
 
 39 
 
 [The singular verb after neuter pi. is not unusual in N.T. Greek. 
 Cf Matt xiii. 4 Kare^ar/ev all as to TO TTereiva, although some have rfkOov. 
 The Latins and d all venerunt and comederuji^ incl. d agst D^ 
 TjXOov . . KaTetjiayev. 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 go6d 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 hkely 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, 82 and xiii. 5 (B alone), 
 are to be considered more especially in this connection. 
 
 Change of Order. 
 
 vi. 33. > xai Tr)v SiKaioavvTjv km ti)v fiaatXaav airrov B alone 
 
 xi. 9. > Trpo^Tp^Tjv tBuv for iBew ' tt/jo^t/ti;!; ; N'BZW 892 Sod^-*^ Orig 
 
 26. > evSoKia eyevero NEW Sod"" 1 33 892 k (copt) Sod txt 
 
 xii. 44. > 6(5 TOV oiKov fiou eTTiarpe-^ii) NBDZ 7 33 892 aeth against 
 
 rell and all other versions. Sod txt follows NB. 
 xiii. 39. >o Se exdpoi; eaTip o aireipa'; ama o 8(a/3o\o? B alone 
 
 etrriv alone occupies this position in B. He may have 
 hesitated as to omission of aura, or of ex6po<; as some, 
 xiv. 18. > (f>epeTe fioi toSe ai/rou? (pro ^epere fioi avrov^ (»8e) NBZ 
 33 vg^ only. This is a small matter but an almost impossible 
 order, and against sah and (boh). aSe is omitted (and the 
 " neutral " text me judice is without it) by D <^ 1 boh aliq 
 syr cu sin if' [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. 
 
 xvi. 21 . > oTt Set avTov CK lepo(roXvfia arreXOeiv NBD" 1 /am 13 33 157 
 y"" c Orig Ireii^'"' Hil (for ort Bet avTov oireX^eiv eit lepo<r.). The 
 change savours of improvement but Soden likes and adopts it. 
 xvii. 4. > (TK,i/a? rpeit B e (c/ Ltic ix. 33) W-H marg. 
 XIX. 10. > TTpoaeXOtav avTa> enrtv (pro irpoaeXOwv emev avTw) NB Sod"^" 
 /am 13 157 892 Socf"""^ {et txt) e/ sah arm aetli Chr Aiictff^'"f 
 (Just) against the rest and syr. This involves a change in 
 the sense. Boh and Old Latins a b c g h q complete with 
 wpoKreXOcov avro) eivfv aura). 
 It is rather indeterminate, for vyhile /«s/mi»p°' says wpo(TcX6ovTo<; avrot 
 TITO? Kai Hwoino<;, in Trtjpho he says XeyovTo:; avrw rtra? {Cletn'""" and 
 Marcos^"" are indeterminate). 
 
 xxii. 28. > fv rri avaaTcuru ovv XBDL /am 1 /am 13 2""' (Sod) G04 
 ,Sod'"' boh syr (om ovv syr sin) for (v rri ow avaa-raaci 
 of nearly all other Greeks and sah. Sodeti follows Hort 
 and NBDL. 
 It seems to be a sheer improvement. D joins probably because 
 d had it with the other Latins, who had already changed the 
 order when translating, as syr pesh (but syr sin omits). ^Vhat 
 reason on earth could there be for poor " Antioch " to change 
 to ev tt; ovv ava(TTa<T(i ? 
 40. (involving change of number) A most important place : 
 
 ev Tavraf; Tait Sv(tiv evToXaii oXoi (om N3 syr diatess copf) 
 
 o vo/Mo'; >Kpe^iaTai km. oi ■!rpo<j>i]Tat NBDLZS 33 892 (pro 
 
 ev TiivT. T. hvaiv evT. oXo'; o vop.o'; >Kot oi vpo<f>r]Tai Kpep-avrai 
 
 W* KHc" rdl min et/am 1 13 604 2'° omn) 
 
 The change is very old but still looks like " improvement." With 
 
 NBDLZS 33 892 are ranged the Latins including TerF''"" with syrr [but 
 
 diatess"* " are hung the law and the prophets," as a«//j'°' "pendent tota 
 
 lex et prophetae " ; notice the order], while -for W4> and the mass, 
 
 including all the important cursives (but 33 892) are to be added sah boh 
 
 very distinctly — salt : " The law and the prophets are hanging on these 
 
 two commandments," boh : " On these commandments two the law with 
 
 the prophets were hung "- — together with C?em'''' (ev tovtw oXo^ o vopot xai 
 
 01 Trpo^Tac Kpefiavrai, and : ev ravraii; Xeyei rati; evToXat^ oXov Tov vofiov Kai 
 
 Tovi ■rrpo<j>r]Ta^ xpefiaaOat re Kai e^r)pTT)<r6ai), also Orig^'* 1/5 and Orig^'"^. 
 
 Basil is on both sides. Thus it is by no means certain that KB are 
 
 right. Their great allies the sah and boh desert them,t and I prefer the 
 
 harder reading of W. (Soden txt follows Hort and XB etc.) 
 
 xxiv. 44. >ri ov SoKene oipa (})ro ij apa ov Soxene) NBDI 604 892 d fg 
 
 boh Ath contra veil 
 It is a little suspicious for Ath joins, and L says v apa i) ov 
 Soxeire, not going with NB, but Sod follows Hort and NBDI. 
 
 t Plainly then neither sah nor boJi used K or B. 
 
 n IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 
 
 41 
 
 lUtt. 
 
 xxvi. 36. > .«» ■.po.ev^<o^.ac (pro -.po.evl ««) NBDL /am 69 [non 
 
 124]t 33 157 892 Sod'' et txt abed/ ff^ hqr sah boh Orig 
 (f, (7,.2 aeth illuc et orem). This is a place where with a 
 good many others (not noticed) copt and lat together support 
 NB. Bead e«i ev^op^ai 604 [nm - ; corrige erf.] after the 
 Egyptian form. 
 Thus at xxvi. 39 ■,rpoeXe»,v (for -^rpoaeXOwv) BMn» are supported by 
 Latin "progresBUs" (d only accedens) and sah boh very distmctly also 
 support TrpoeX0o)V. 
 
 Historic Present. 
 " It 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 Kon;ij or Hellenistic Greek .. . 
 And Dr. J. H. Moulton says that it is common in the papyri." (' Horffl 
 Synoptic8B,' Hawkins, pp. 143/4.) 
 
 It follows from this that St. Matthew and St. Luke changed the 
 historic present of St. Mark's source it that source was a written one 
 and the one from which they drew. Or that they found in their " Q 
 few historic presents, or it they found them that they changed them.J 
 
 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 N and B in Matthew, Luke and John (<-/. Matt xiv. 19 KeXevei Ong 2/3). 
 It one consults Tischendorf at Apoc. xii. 13 as to eSic^^ev, we read in 
 his note : " N" e^eSia^ev (N* corriipte eSoiKev):' But it is nothing of the 
 sort. eSo>K(v is corrupte for ehiwicev. I found this confirmed by the full 
 commentary of Oecumenius in Apoc 146 (Messina") where the imperfect 
 stands in his text and is repeated three times over in his commentary. 
 Gigas' latin also gives the imperfect. I mention this in an introductory 
 manner, because the text of Oecumenius' ms of the Apoc. is thoroughly 
 Alexandrian and unites the base of N and A, and this (unpublished) 
 passage gives us a true picture of Alexandrian usage. See my article on 
 Oecuvienius in American Journ. of Philology, Oct. 1913. 
 
 t Rial 13 ; irpotrtv^aiiai icawi 124. Om tin 4 . 2" arm syr. 
 
 t This " Q " business seems to me to lack a proper foundation. St. Luke's language 
 is BO utterly his own that he could hardly have used any other written source than notes 
 prepared for his own use. Consult Dr. Hobarfs work on the ' Medical Language of 
 St. Luke," DubUn, 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. 
 
 \m. 28. XeyovTtv (jno enrvv) NBCD 33 {Sod) 157 892 Sod*'"" 
 latt pi (against rell and fffi q sah hoh aim acth) 
 How come NB to desert Coptic here? The authorities do not agree 
 about this verse, for B drops the SovXoi so as to make a pair o Be (ij>r) 
 avToti; . . 01 Be Xeyovaiv avrto, and BC write avrw Xeyovtriv while ND 
 Xeyovaiv avrai ; and edyj; at the beginning is changed to the present 
 by the Latins ait. Cf the next verse tjirjatv or Xeyei. NBC latt (all 
 varying among themselves) against e^r/ and enrev of the majority. Cf also 
 long quotation from Epiph"'"'^'^ in Tisch. showing some interesting 
 variations. ( - avroy Sod"^* cum 2>ers) . 
 
 xiii. 52. Xeyei {pio et-n-ev) B"D3 892 Sod"" "" vg it 
 But this is more than a historic present {Xeyov<nv avrw vat ■ Xeyet 
 uvToi<i. . .) to conform to the Xeyovaiu preceding, for it shows that when 
 Xeyet follows Xeyov(rcv 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) Xeyoim is substituted for enromi following 
 enrei'. 
 
 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 N (who also elsewhere prefers this) deliberately siding with D 21 892 
 d alone of all authorities i + Sod^'" et Sod txt !) for ijKoXovOet here instead 
 of rjxoXovOrjarev, 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. 13) NBCLW 892 aZ""'' prefer 
 
 eXeyov with many latins to eivov against the rest and d k copt. Sodeii txt 
 
 does not adopt eXeyov although his same new MSS as in ix. 9 do so. Again 
 
 ix. 19. vx^oXoveei NCU 33 Sod"" {nan txt) latV ; r,KoXov0w(v B rell 
 
 copt f k 
 23. They prefer this historic imp. even above the historic present, 
 having here eXeyev NBD 892 it'"' boh, against dixit c gi h 
 k sah syr Sod}'" emev, and Xeyei CW tcnc" gr mult 
 The same applies to ix. 30 where NB* fam 1 22 892 (those faithful 
 adherents, see at vi. 5, 18) Sod"' et txt prefer evefipt/iriSi] to evefipi/irjaaTo 
 of all the rest and versions (but comminahatur by (i«<7i'"'^^*"°"). 
 
 XV. 25. irpoa-eKvvei (pro irpoaeKviirfaev) N*BDM 1 fam 13 33 al. txt 
 
 rcc Orig h c d ff^ g^^ k hoh>""" (sah adorans) 
 
 This is against all other uncials and W for irpotrexwrfaev including hoh. 
 
 (At XV. 31 B has eBo^aaav with most, but NL miii*° and Latin have 
 
 eSofafov. I mention it because k* not content with clarifica- 
 
 hant actually has clarificant.) 
 
 XV. 86. eBiBov (pro eBaxei) NBD 1/am 13 33 157 892 d Chr Thdor"""" "^'«" 
 
 This against the other Greeks, all other Latins and versions. "Why 
 
 should the " Antioch " revision have constantly cancelled the historic 
 
 injperfect? 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 k it legitimate. This remark is the 
 more apposite because immediately afterwards at xv. il B alone with D 
 and nearly all Latins has an important change of order which is clearly 
 influenced by the Latin. (eBiBov xv. 36, Sod"" only new witness, but also 
 Sod txt). 
 
 *"xvii. 20. Be Xeyei (pro o Be eiirev) NBD 1 /am 13 33 «'<"' syr et Sod 
 
 txt contra C rell gr et a f g, n q copt. 
 xviii. 25. 6^61 {pro eix^v) Not content here with eixev and hahcbat of 
 all Latins, B with only Sod'" 1 56 58 124 Sod"" Orig 1/2 
 makes a deliberate change to the present, 
 xix. 21. Xeyei (pro e<f,7i) B Sod"" and fam 13 only of Greeks, with latt. 
 xxi. 13. This is a very important place (following xxi. 1/12 where the 
 synoptic influences are all at work). NBL 124 [contra fam'] 
 892 with boh aeth"^'' Orig 2/4 and Eus (and only these +Sod"") 
 read iroiene, 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 ewoiriaaTe as Basil (and St. Luke), and 
 1 Justin Orig 2/4 venron^KaTe (as St. Mark) and as latt "fecistis" 
 with sah arm and Iren^"': But Soden txt prints iroieiTe. 
 Now the reason for the change by Orig 2/4 and Eus with boh aeth 
 and only NBL 124 892 to Troietre 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 fin : to p.r) iroteiv iravTa ra ^BeX. ravra con- 
 tinuing (11) p-r) awrfXaKov XriaTiou, SO that, as "to p-r/ iroieiv" is used, there 
 seemed liberty here in Alexandria to employ the favorite historic present, 
 xxi. 43. Observe a place emphasising the historic present [which 
 here stands unchanged by all] for after Sia tovto Xeyto vp.iv 
 NB Sod"" 28 64 118-209 243 2^' 604 892 Sod"^ "' Ei-si""!""" 
 with Arnob omit ori. Here boh sah [except to/t''] retain 
 the usual introductory xe, as also syr and lat. This matter 
 is omitted in Tisch N.T., but supplied in 'Emendanda.' 
 Note. — I dare not extend this essay to cover peculiarities of other mss. 
 Yet note (hat the historic present is favoured by L alone even when the 
 others do not use it, e.g. xxii. 4 wn-oareXXei, pro aTreareiXev L only, 
 although leaving aTreffreiXei' in ver 3 [Iren vers 3 " et mittenti " ; Hil. 
 ver 4 " qui vero iterum cum proeceptorum conditione mittuntur "]. L of 
 course is close to the " family " NB, and observe soon after that L Orig 
 Iren'"'' are alone in omitting avrov at xxii. 6, so that the text is "old" 
 enough for atroaTeXXet, in ver 4 to attract attention. Origen, as I have 
 said before, is no fair representative of any pure text, for hereabouts he 
 goes jumping about in his preferences, using aveiXei' at xxii. 7 (and 
 deliberately, for he repeats avaipovm [observe the tense] soon after) with 
 fam 1 22 against aTra>Xe<rev of NB rell. Again, ver 8 he omits eimv 
 with Chr Dam and AS only and Sod^"". 
 
44 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 I may also call attention to the use by N alone at xxvi. 21 of \eyei 
 for eivev 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 kuI v axorta avro ov KariXa^ev, Tatian 
 says : xai roino iariv apa to elpTjfiivov f/ o-KOTia to <f>a)^ oi/ KaTaXa/i^dvct. 
 
 Next we will consider Harmonistic Readings, and finally General 
 Improvement. 
 
 Harmonistic Omissions. 
 
 Slatt. 
 
 XX. IG. The final clause ttoXXoi yap ckti /cXtjtoi 0X1701 Se exKeKToi is 
 
 removed by XBLZ 3G 892 salt boh (some aeth MSS, not 
 
 Walton), but only by these, as being an importation from 
 
 xxii. 14. But 0)('j'''' witnesses for it at this place (besides 
 
 thrice at xxii. 14). The Latins are a unit with all the Syriacs 
 
 (both cu and sin being extant here at xx. 16) for the clause, 
 
 not even e or ff or jj 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 underlj'ing 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 silentio 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 '" '*"*°), 
 
 A light is thrown on the proceeding (but we do not observe these 
 
 things contextually as we should) for at the beginning of the next verse 
 
 B and 1 alone of Gks, with sah boh and Orig (only 2/3), write fie\\a>v 
 
 Se at'a/3aiveiv for tai ava^aivoDv against N and the rest. Thus if the 
 
 text were basic in xx. 10 fn for the " non-interpolation," why should N 
 
 desert B here ? It must be because B was following sah. 
 
 Again (same verse xx. 17) tow StaSexa { — /xa6ijTat) is read by XLZ 
 and D 1 892 with boh, but sah joins B in writing T01/9 SaSexa fiadrjTat 
 ( + avTov sah 1/2), so that sah and B are very close here. As to an 
 underlying text, it is N (or syr etc sin tow SmSexa avrov) which preserve 
 it, for Orig (quater) goes with N against B here. Besides N gives us the 
 syr base in the next verse xx. 18 ei? Bavarov with boh^^ pers for ev Oaparta 
 (which B aeth omit), 
 xxii. 30. — Tou 0eov BT) fam 1 and all latt vett (but/"i gi.^ I) syr cu sin 
 
 sah arm and Orig, but probably because of Mark xii. 25. 
 xxiii. 38. —ep-rjfio'i fin. Only BL^j syr S boh (some) and sah 3/4. The 
 group clearly belongs together, except perhaps syr S. Origen 
 opposes (except Orig'" scnie.l) and Clrm, arm aeth Evs Cyr 
 
 B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 
 
 45 
 
 '""■ 7/ni'°' Cypr have it. What is this but a harmonistic 
 
 "shorter" text based on the omission in Luke (xiii. 35)? 
 Many add ipniio'i 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. -1-o-ou (post o^ea\^^<; prim.) B 372 i«P' vg'' aeth Orig'"' ex 
 
 Luc xi, 34 against N and the rest, 
 viii. 9. +Taa<7oiJ,evo'; (post eifit imo e^ovctav) NB 4 238 273 372 421 
 q'" (observe the extraordinary comment these six utterly diverse 
 cursives offer on the situation, for it is not fam 1 or fam 13 
 or even 22 or 28, still less 157 or 33 or 892, which add with 
 NB ; such a point is quite lost by Soden who neglects the 
 cursives previously reported, naming only 273 372) boh (sah) 
 latt multi Chr (semel !), against all the rest ; comes from Luke 
 vii. 8. (The excuse for the Latin [but //, I vgg^" Hier 
 and some others do not add] is that the Latin sub potestate 
 is rather bare without the addition of constituttis.) 
 XV. 38. +o,<: (ante T€Tpa«.o-xtX.oO B (N) Sod'" 1 fam 13 22 33 167 
 Sod^'^'ffi (sah) arm aeth (ex Marc viii. 9) Sod outdoes W-H 
 (marg) adding txt outright. 
 N 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. 36. +oi;8€ o wo? N*""=''BD<I> 13-124 28 86 Sofi""""""' aeth arm 
 
 !<''' syr hier [non sin j^esli] 
 This must come from Mark xiii. 32 where practically all have it. 
 I do not wish to discuss this as it borders on another province of criticism, 
 merely pointing out that HB 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 § xiii. 32 and running 
 Mark xiii. 32/37 straight on. 
 
 Harmonistic Changes. 
 
 Matt. „ 
 
 x. 13. See under " Improvement, 
 xiv. 5. €7r£i (pro on) B alone with 604 (eiretSTi NSH) Cf. xxi. 46 
 
 for the parallel under consideration. 
 
 xvi. 20. eTr€Tiiiv<rev B'D IF-If" tie si/r c« against the rest and Orif?"""*' 
 
 (ex Marc et Luc). Soden adduces no new witnesses and excludes. 
 
 . xviii. 6. (improvement) Trept tou Tpa;^Xoi» only NBLZSH 28 157 y'" 
 
 Sorf"'''"™ [iwn txt] Orig 1/2 Bos Cyr ( = Marc ix. 42, Luc xvii. 2). 
 
 The Latins here (even e) in Matt have in (against circa Mark, 
 
40 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Mntt. 
 
 M.irk 
 
 Luke) with most Greeks inclading 1 13 22 Orig 1/2, while 
 only DU d have eiri. 
 
 Orig 1/2 is exceedingly suspicious, and why should trept be 
 
 changed it original ? 
 t. 
 xix. 24. Tpii/iaTot N*B Orig 1/3 {Orig 1/3 Tpu/to\m? c»(?/i p/«r, 
 
 Orig 1/3 Tpinr?;?) 
 X. 25. rpij/iaro? N* so/ (7?f/J TpvfioKia^ et Bf ; a/. TpuTTTj/taTo?) 
 
 I.uko 
 xviii. 2.5. TpT/^axof NBD 49 (Tpirn-rjfiaTo^ LB 157 ^OMC, rpv/iaKiat plur) 
 
 Thus X 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 : 8ta ttj? rpv/iaKia'! tt/? /3e\., 8m Tpr)p.aTo<; pa<j>iSo<!, 
 Sia Tpuirv/taTOi ^e\., and fourthly simply 8ta /3e\oi^?.) 
 
 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 Ski TpinfrniaTO'} pai^tSof, 
 
 St. Mark „ „ 8io (tij?) rpv/uiKiai (tj;?) pa^t&ot, 
 
 St. Luke „ „ 8"» Tprifiara ffeXovT/v. 
 
 Wo find NB changing St. Matthew's TpxnrrniaTot to St. Luke's 
 Tpr]fj.aTo^, but retaining St. Matthew's pacfrtSo?. We find N changing 
 St. Mark's Tpv/ia\ta<; to St. Luke's Tpij/iaroT, while retaining the patf>tSoi 
 belonging jointly to St. Matthew and St. Mark, which however fam 13 
 changes to /9e\oi/7;<; in Mark, as rudely Clem, who mixes up the passages. 
 
 Then we find that while NBD give us correctly Tpj^/iaros ^eXowj? in 
 St. Luke, the others harmonise there by writing, incorrectly, Tpinrjj/MiTo? 
 of Matthew or Tpvp.aKia<t of Mark, and many pa(^tSo? for fieXovri^. 
 
 I say " incorrectly " because the wording Sia Tpjy/iaro? ^eXovij? 
 harmonises so beautifully with other medical diction of St. Luke that it 
 is hardly possible to challenge the reading of KBD(L) here. I quote from 
 Dr. Hobart, ' Medical Language of St. Liike,' Dublin 1882, p. 60 : " The 
 words used by St. Luke are those which a medical man would naturally 
 employ, for ^eXovri was the surgical needle, and rpijfui tlie great medical 
 word for a perforation of any kind. But still further, we meet with 
 the same expression in Galen : axrairriu? Se kuI on pd/ifta toO 8toTp^/ioTo? 
 T)}s /SeXoi^? Ziripriiiivov evexa too trvvdyeiv a\\y\oi<! ^oi ra p.6pta rov 
 SiaTeTfi.ijfi.hov JmfiaTo<!. And to express the puncture made by the needle : 
 Sia ToO icara Trfv ^eXovrfV rp^^ro?. Tpv/m, 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&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 « harmonised all three passages by employing §t. Luke's rpv/iaro? 
 
 t The reading of B* is uncertain, but not Tp7/nirot. 
 
 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 Tpv/uiXiw; or Matthew's ipirn-qiiaToi;, 
 the matter being self-evident by their employ of patfuSoi instead of 
 /SeXoiTj? in Luke. 
 
 M«tt. 
 
 XX. 17. For Kai ava^atvtov B says iieWmv Se ava^aiveiv. B is 
 
 supported by 1 [nonfam] sah boh syr pesh pers and Orig 2/3, 
 
 but it seems a clear reflection of Mark x. 32 (whence the 
 
 diatessaron draws) " t/o-ov Se ev tt; oSto ava^aivovrev «? 
 
 lepo<To\viia." I place thi? here and not under " Coptic," but 
 
 a glance under " Coptic " will show that at xx. 8, IG,. 34 
 
 there is an Egyptian conspiracy involving B in the four 
 
 places, including xx. 17, so close and careful as to reveal B 
 
 and Coptic as editors, and not as neutrals. 
 
 Just so N +min' exhibits the process on its side at xx. 24 by writing 
 
 rip^avTo ayavaxTeiv with Mark (x. 41 [the diatess § xxxi. opens with the 
 
 account from Mark x. 41/44]) instead of TjyavaKT'rjaav. And if we look 
 
 beyond to xxii. 40 we find — o\o^ by Hi alone is the way of the diatessaron 
 
 with all the syriacs and sah 6o7ip'; so that Coptic is in sympathy here too. 
 
 xxi. 2. KaTevnvTi (j)ro airevavTi) NBCDLZ* 892 al^" Orig 1/2 Ens 
 
 1/2 borrowing from Mark xi. 2, Luke xix. 30 where xaTevavTi 
 
 stands by all. (See under " Synonyms.") 
 
 7. err axntov (primo loco) XBDLZ* 33 09 892* So*'"" Onj/''" 
 
 (against eiravto avraiv of all the rest) 
 
 This seems to be merely a reflection of Mark x'. 7 e-rr avTov and 
 
 Luke xix. 35 eiri tov Traikov. 
 
 Tisch forgets to say that the rest of the 13 family omit the preposition 
 altogether and write airrw. 
 
 xxi. 12. —TOV 0eov (cf Marc xi. 15 Lu^ xix. 45) See under " Coptic " 
 and beyond under " Improvement." 
 25. ev eavTOK; (jMO trap eavTOK) BLM'Z 157 372 892 jnin' (cop>t) 
 Cyr. This seems merely a "nicety" of harmony to ^fatt. xvi. 
 7 and 8 where ev eavToi<! is used on both occasions without 
 fluctuation among mss. Why then should " Antiooh " 
 change at xxi. 25 to nap eavroK ? What reason would 
 there be 'f 
 xxii. 39. SevTepa {-Se) NB 4 157 Sod'" only (against the versions 
 and sah boh pi) with sah^^^ boh'-'"^^'' comes from Mark xii. 31 
 " Sevrepa avTt]." Observe that B improvises (alone) in Matthew 
 by substituting o^otuf for o/xoia avrr/. 
 xxvii. 29. irepieerfKav B 131. cf Marc xv. 17 ■jrepinOeamv. 
 
 33. eit TOV TOTTov Toi/ B*"' cf Luc xxiii. 33 exactly. 
 
 Here is harmony in full blast in this " neutral " text. Consult in 
 the same verse 33 -f^eyo/ievov by N alone { = Marc xv. 22) and the 
 
48 
 
 CODEX B AKD ITS ALLIES. 
 
 picture i3 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. 
 
 [I would call attention to xxvii. 3.5 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* Sie/iepia-av for Sie/iepitravro. In the 
 photograph it reads Ai6M6piCA™ 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 hiefupiaavro. If Siefiepi<Tav B* be correct we 
 have an elimination of sibi after divisenmt with cfff^ gi.2 r r^ Aug'"*' and 
 vg omii (cxceptis BQX Cerne dimma) t and syr, but sah boh are explicit 
 "among them." In Mark xv. 24 the expression is iiap.ept^oi'Tai ra 
 t/iaria avTov, but in Luke xxiii. 34 (where B had just been looking ; see 
 above as to «? rov tottov tov) it is Sta/iepi^ofievoi, Se to ifiarca, without, 
 any reflexive attribute. In Jo. xix. 24 the quotation shows Sie/iepuravro, 
 while in verse 23 the procedure is carefully explained, involving the 
 middle voice, for it is said of the soldiers e\a0ov ra ipkaTia avrov xai 
 CTTOirjcav recrcrapa fjeprj exacrTa) (npariunri p.epo's, Kai rov yiriava.l^ 
 
 Matt 
 
 xxvii. 4G. €fior,a€v BLWS 38 C9-124 218 604 Sod'^'"' only as Mark xv. 34. 
 All others with N and Eus Bas ave^orja-ev and a d ffi g-i h 
 ^,j^nmi.iB (jo/f) exclainavit. 
 ibid. fXa>€t eXaet B (and sah) with eXiai eXac N 33 (and boh) 
 seem distinctly to favour the Marcan form. Observe that 
 syr differentiates between the words used in St. ISIatt. and 
 St. Mark as do most Greeks, whereas NB alone, as usual, 
 obscure the issue. Yet Hort found absolutely nothing 
 " Alexandrian " or " Egyptian " in codex B. Here, absolutely 
 alone, it is with sah in a particular form. He abandons the 
 spelling of B here for that of N, although he was glad enough 
 to seize efiorja-ev of B in the same verse against N. The 
 Bevisers recognise the harmony, and go back to aveporiaev 
 and H\i H\i, but the evidence in Souter's footnote is wrongly 
 stated. 
 
 General Improvement. 
 
 ii. 22. ^aaCkevei Trf<; lot/Sata? ( — eTrt) NB 892 min pauc arm Eus. 
 Contra rell et it et sah o Rupo exH 'f"OTr2iili. sed 
 boh plane xe i.p^x.'^'X^oc CToi itoirpo ei" loir^ei. = 
 NB. NB ex boh, vel boh ex NB ?? {Soden follows NB.) 
 
 t In the qoottttion itself, omitted by most Greeks and d f ffi.t gi I vgg^^*, eibi is 
 found in ab c g2 h qr2 {mut r) vgg, but omitted by two vulgates'ro- 
 
 B IN ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 
 
 49 
 
 The answer seems given in this same verse where NBC*W alone 
 change the order of i^paSov rov Trorpo? avrov of all AND sah boh to rov 
 ■jTrtTpo? avrov TjpcaSov. (Sod does not follow, recognising synoptic influence.) 
 Had sah or boh been copying NB they might have used this order. 
 
 V. 10. evexa SiKawavvrji; (pro cvexev Stx.) B solus. This is as clear 
 as can be, preferring evexa before a consonant, besides being 
 largely Homeric and classical. Cf \oyov evexa " dicis causa," 
 or rex'^'! e^vexa (Anth). But B repeats evexa next verse 
 before ep.ov. [N does not join B. Soden forgets to record B.] 
 
 Observe, however, that B leaves eveKtv efiov alone before a vowel 
 at X. 18, 39, xvi. 2-5, Mark viii. 35, x. 29 primo loco, Luke ix. 24, but 
 alone makes it evexa e/iov at Mark xiii. 9. 
 
 At Matt. xix. 29 it is N which objects to evexev rov e/*oi/. N, with D 
 and Cyr, writes evexa tou e/iov, while B here remains with the rest. It 
 B changes in one place and N in another we may be perfectly sure that 
 it is editorial. 
 
 At Mark x. 29 cvexev rov cvayyeXwv is now left alone by NB rell, 
 and only changed here to evexa rov evayy. by D 71 and as Tisch. says 
 " caH™" " (a few omit the clause). At Luke xxi. 12 all evexev rov ovofiaroi; 
 except D 71 who are for evexa rov ovofi. 
 
 At Luke vi. 22 all are agreed as to evexa tou viov except inconsistent 
 D who with FTWr writes evcKcv rov viov, reversing his position. 
 
 At Luke xviii. 29 NB with Sod' '" prefer eivexev ttj? PacriKeiaf (evexev 
 TTj'i /Sao". the rest, except U 71 which here desire evcxa). 
 
 At Matt. xix. 5 NBLZ Orig change evexev ro<nov to ev^xa rovrov. 
 It Seems quite clear that Matthew wrote evexev throughout his Gospel. 
 
 At Mark x. 7 eveKev rovmv is left unchanged by all. 
 
 At Luke iv. 18 eivexev eyxP^f^^" or euexev ey^P"^^" ^^re found. 
 
 I am far from saying that N=""« or B'""'^ or even D'^'""' 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 evexev avvekrfKvOeia-av most, 
 but evexa a-vve\. NAB and four cursives ; xxvi. 21 evexa rovriov apparently 
 all ; xxviii. 20 evexev yap ti;? eXmSo? all but N*A which write eivexev here ; 
 Bom. xiv. 20 /ir/ evexiv /Spcoiuiro^ all ; 2 Cor. iii. 10 evexev ti;? vn-ep^aW. 
 6of/;? most and many Fathers, but fwexev tj)? vrr. Sof. by NABDEF**GP ; 
 2 Cor. vii. 12 evexev ter with infinitive by most including NB, only etvexev 
 E and L {primo loco) Thdt Occ. Prom this it is abundantly clear that 
 changes everywhere are wilful. (Sod adds a few codd. varying.) 
 
 vi. 7. uTTOKptrai BJ and syr cu \iion syr sin pesh diatess'\ 
 
 edvmoi n\\ the rest 
 
 The verse runs : " rrpoa-euxoiievot Se p,r) ^arro\x)yr)a-r)re axrirep oi eOviicoi • 
 Soxovo'i yap on ev rr) iroXvXoyta avrmv eiaaKOvOrjaovrai." 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Clearly viroKpnai is an " improvement," being set up as a better 
 antithesis to ffaTToKoyrjcniTe than eOviKoi would seem to be. There is 
 nothing " neutral " about this, and Origcn is against it. Mirabile dictii 
 W-H do not follow B here- How can Hort then account for v.-hat 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 Edgs.' p. 10 on Matt. vii. 13 " Or, as we 
 rather suspect, as one of those rare rdgs. in which the true text has been 
 preserved by X without extant support, owing to the exceptional intrusion 
 of a late clement into B (of which some examples occur further on in this 
 Gospel)." But B is full of these intrusions and not only in Matthew ! 
 
 llatt. 
 
 xi. 1!}. — axovew BD 32 174 604 d k sijr sin (o ex<'>v oira [aKOvetv] aKoverai) 
 
 xiii. 9. —aKoveiv NBL a e ff-^ k syr sin (o ex^v una [ciKoveiv] aKoverai) 
 
 Here it is clearly seen that B k and syr sin are the consistent ones 
 
 in omitting. It might be thought basically "neutral" (= shorter text) 
 
 but that there would be no reason to add uKovetv as all the rest do 
 
 including cojif. 
 
 xiii. 43. -anoveiv ti'B Sod"''" GOi a b e k vg" [nonD d syr sin^ 
 
 xii. 48. TO) Xeyovn {pro tco uttovti) NBDZII* 7 33 892 Evst" aliq. 
 
 Following fiTTcv 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 
 
 evxapi(7TT]a-a<; of most (and W 28) evXayqaas is substituted by text recept 
 
 with NBDLCGZ wiiji""'! for the blessing of the bread. This appears 
 
 very like an effort to vary the evxapifTr/aai occurring again in the 
 
 following verse 27 of the cup. For note that in St. Paul's account in 
 
 1 Cor. xi. 24/2.5 the expression is evxapurTTjaai; and that of the beead. 
 
 24/2.5. eXafiev aprov Kai. ev^apiaTijcrai; exXaae kiu etne (\a/3eT6 
 (payeTe) tovto fiov eaTi to aa)p,a to virep Vficov {KKoyfieitov) toito 
 TToieiTe ei<; Trjv efi,t]v avafivqaiv. aaavTait Kai to TTOTrjpiov, . . . 
 Thus evj(api(TTrfaa<; is tied to the bread, and lao-ai/Ttu? implies evxapi- 
 aTtjaa^ dc 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 receptiis 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 evxapicTrjaa'; in Matt. 
 
 Malt. 
 
 xiii. 36. Siacratprja-ov {pro <j>pairoi') N'B {Orig seinel) syr, but no 
 cursives. Sod adds 3 and °'° of uncials, oifam <p' four cursives, and prints 
 Sia(Ta<f>ricTov in his text. Of the five next, four are omissions : 
 
 t But 81/r sin has 
 xi. 15 and xiii. 9. 
 
 of tyr cu. Syr cu has anovfir both at 
 
 B IN ST. Matthew's gospel. 
 
 Jllatt 
 
 51 
 
 XMi. 45. efiTTopa, {pro avdpawu, 6/t7rop<a) N'BJ 50 59 Sod''"- Ath Cyr 1/2 
 Chrys Amhr [Habent Orig Cypr gr plur syrr diatess drab latt^ 
 om c/iTTopo) vg'^' '"•t"" 
 
 The two words occupy one line in D d, and Cyr 1/2 is significant, 
 while Ong and Cypr flatly contradict NB [Tert is silent]. 
 
 The Coptic is interesting, for unlike Gr-syr-lat order: a,,0p. e^7ropa> 
 they Ba,ye^Tropu,av0po>7ru, a "merchant-man " as we would say in English. 
 XVI. 13. Tim (ne) Xeyovaiv oi av0pcoTroi eivai (tov) viou tou ai^ 
 quem (me) dicunt homines esse filium hominis 
 
 This ^. is omitted by NB 604 Sod""- [no other Greeks] syr hier copt 
 aet/i oulyc of O.L. and some vgg codd (8) against Hier specifically. 
 
 fi€ IS included by syrr it pi and Iren and all other Greeks. Clearly this 
 omission is not " shorter " text, but constructional improvement. There 
 
 ""^ .1°"^ ^ °'^*"'^' '^'^ ^^^'^ "^^ ^y"""^ ^'^ specific with the Latin, 
 and the Coptic only support XB as a distinctly Egyptian group joined 
 by aeth s.nd c also clearly of Egyptian provenance, yet Soden excludes. 
 ■ kr ' g''^e'=o-latm tendency is seen clearly in the neighbourhood 
 
 ''"'!,■ Ju '"V'^" ^'"' '^'"'^"' "^'"^ ^ ^'"»''''' D*^ Tvv -rrpa^w] opera sua 
 
 and other Latins and copt. r , j j- 
 
 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 H'F mm'"-) divide squarely here, the Latins did 
 not get It from the Greeks but from the Syriac 1 
 
 Matt. "^ -* 
 
 XXI. 12. " KM eia-tjXdev o Zo^ eti to lepov tov 0eov " 
 But NBL 13 33 73 604 892 Sod'"n salt boh aeth b Meth Chr Hit and 
 Oni,e« 2/5 omit TOU 0eov. 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 rou 0,ovf "And Jesus went into the 
 Temple is quite sufficient. If the original writer did not have tou 0eov 
 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 bv 
 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 " f evidence for omission 
 J»L^ Bee ovenvhelming" meaning only three uncials (closely 
 related), a pitiful handful of cursives, the arm (all mss?) aeth, and copti' 
 
 all p1^ ^ ''^ ." ■ u^ *'''™°^ °' "" ^"'" f™" M" "■ 15 Lc xix. 45 (,•/ Jo. ii. 14) at 
 But tt n ^7\ T^'' ""' overwhebmng documentary authority tor om s ii " 
 
 moo wsi^r'r V^^'^'^ *""=*^'''^ ^ °^Scn, who in hi. commentary on John 
 Mark and M.l' wh %^''' ""r^' '""'°""=' '^"^8 out ro„ O.o. in MatScw, as in 
 OH^L hl^ T. uT/''" "' '"^y ''''"°'- Elsewhere when quoting Matthew 
 Ornen. has them Soden holds rou A„„ against NBL and his '^, although he has been 
 
52 
 
 CODHX D AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 with Origen against them in proportion of 3 to 5 on the side of all other 
 Gk documents and all Latins but 6, and all syrr, while sijr 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 aetli " overwhelming " is undignified. It 
 represents one single tradition. See under " Coptic " for probable 
 harmonistic reasons for the omission. Soden does not omit. 
 
 Malt. _ 
 xviii. 0. wepi tov Tpayrjkov (pro eirt or ei? top rp.) NBLZSH 28 l-O? 
 
 237 253 258 y»" al. pane. Orig (sembl) Bas Cyr bis 
 
 This clearly tells the tale. Orig only once, Cyril twice. The Latins 
 
 oppose and the Syriac, but XB 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 coUum" for the same syr expression. 
 
 Only Burkitt says " about his neck " for the same syr preposition. It is 
 
 clearly only a matter of taste, and in view of the circumlocutory nature 
 
 of syriac prepositions (Schaaf p. 114 "circum, circa, ad, juxta, prope") it 
 
 seems evident that NB are only " improving." How could nept have 
 
 dropped out of the rest if basic? Soden refuses this "nicety." 
 
 xviii. 15. eav Se afiapTrjar] ( — ej? ae) o aSe\(f>o'; aov This is a radical 
 
 and important change committed by NB 1 22 234* sail Orig 
 
 Cyr Bas^'^"''" and clearly wrong. When D parts company 
 
 with XB 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 
 
 hucij Hil etc. who are all conjoined with -ni'y'i.- of the Greeks 
 
 plus Lat and Syr. W^' does not omit nor 604 nor 892. 
 
 (A reference to Luke xvii. 3 where NB Sod'''" again omit with AL 
 
 fain 1 42 254 892 but also lat syr copt Clem Dam (Tert) shows that 
 
 the omission in Matt, was probably influenced by their Lucan text.) 
 
 This is immediately followed by an addition which I do not believe 
 is original but due to the " version tradition." 
 
 Matt, xviii. 19 for viimv of most Gks NBDL 892 substitute ef viiav 
 with syrr [this seems to be opposed by a much older authority namely 
 Ignatius^t>ht> i] 
 
 xix. 4. KTKrat ayr apxv! cip<rev xai, 6ti\v eTroitjaev avTow. B 1 22 
 
 83 124 604 Sod°'° '" <£■ Sod"" boh sah Orig^'" Tit Bostr Method 
 
 Ath Chin'""" use KTia-a<; for the more Semitic irovqaa^ of all 
 
 the rest. 
 
 I ask what can be more clearly an endeavour to improve ? Tt avoids 
 
 the tautology involved and seems clearly borrowed from Mark x. 6 " qttj 
 
 Se apxV^ KTicreo)'; apcev xai OrfKv eiroiijaev avrov;." 
 
 The double use of Troieco in Matthew is not abhorrent to the Latins, 
 
 B IN ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 
 
 53 
 
 and the Syriacs use the same word xa^ twice. Nor was it abhorrent 
 to the translators of the LXX, who render Gen. i. 27 : 
 
 Kat €Troii]aev o 6eo<; tov avOpunrov ' Kai axova Seov aroiricrev avTov • 
 ap<Tcv xai OrjKv etroirjaev avrov^. 
 
 (Hebrew is yivra Nn3'l bara Kl3 bara Ki3.) 
 
 In the small support accorded to B note that 124 opposes the 
 family traditions of fain 13 which do not agree, and 1 opposes 118-209. 
 Nothing can be clearer that KTiaa<; is editorial. 
 
 Similarly in the same chapter verse 18 B 13-124-346-556 write e<^ 
 for emev opposing all the rest and 69. Can we really suppose the later 
 eifyr) 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 etf>r), and returning to Matt. xix. 18 note that at the 
 beginning instead of Xeyu avrco 7rota<r, NL substitute ■n-oiai (prjaiv, and 
 B 13 €(^7/ avra iroia^, 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 Ath) 
 
 opposing the correction of NBDL 1 22 604 of c<l>v\a^a for e^vXa^afirjv, 
 
 while €<f>v\a^a 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 e<j>vKa^a/ir;v but NABL /am 1 e(f>v\a^a. It would seem as it 
 
 in both Matthew and Mark NB take the wrong line. 
 
 xxiv. 16. <j>€uyeTa>a-av et? ra oprj BDAS 892 mill aliq Patr et latt for 
 
 (j>. eiri Ta oprj. It is much more likely that eiri should 
 
 be changed to ei5, than et? to e-iri. The idea being in the 
 
 minds of the grammarians that it was a flight to ("in 
 
 montes " Orig'"'' Iren'"'- Cypr Aug Hier r vgg) although 
 
 most Old Latins retain the abl. in montihus (with only vg^), 
 
 whereas firt to oprj 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 «? 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 ettj in Matthew. 
 
 Improvement (Addition). 
 
 Uatt. 
 
 xxvi. iifin. TOV avrov \oyov emcov +TraXiii. This iraXiv is added by 
 NBL Sod"''" 124 (against the family) t a and boh \jion sail]. 
 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 TrdKiv occurring above 
 " TToXtv aireXQai' irpotrrji'^aTOj" for "tov avrov \oyov enriav*^ is 
 quite sufficient. Here is an absolute contradiction of the 
 
 t Soilen misquotea his '»; (Scrivener "a" Adv. Sacr.) 
 
54 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 "shorter" text theory, and an abominable redundancy. No 
 cursives but 124 seem to join, and as to a it occasionally 
 does this kind of thing, e.g. John iii. 4 homo +«< nos.\ Sodcn 
 places this second 7ra\(i» in his text. 
 Given the ordinary copying of Mss, which vras faithful enough 
 in the main, how could iraXiv be dropped by all the rest? 
 
 Bemoving redundancy. 
 
 XI. 2.5. OTt eKpuyfraf Taura avo <ro<f)wu xai avveTtov NBD 12 
 Clem^""' (sed Clein^'"^ lihere) Sod^^^ "°" >"= 
 A.11 others have aTreicpvyjrat . .airo with Iren^ Eus Orig. 
 This seems clearly to savour of the removal of redundant air 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 
 favour NBD " thou hiddest these for," but boh is "from." Coming 
 so close on syriac influence in verse 23 (see elsewhere) eKpinfra<! 
 may trace to this.) 
 
 See in St. Luke as to simple and compound verbs. 
 
 Further, consider the following improvement : 
 
 vi. 5. Kai oTav •irpoiTev)(rja6e ovk ecreaffe <»? oi inroKpnai Sf BZ 1 22 
 372 892 Sod''' a b (c h nolite esse) //, g^ 8 [contra A''] 
 I ti(7 goth sah boh aeth syr hier news'"'"'' Orig Chr Aug 
 
 Kai OTav irpoaevxTj ovk ea-q acirep oi mroKptrav DW rell syr 
 cH d k q \om ver. sin] diatess {hiant e ff^ m r r^) 
 
 t In this connection it may be intoresting to connect a with HP, which can be done 
 in several places. But they touch in quito a peculiar matter of order, which deserves 
 notice, at Luke viii. 23. For 
 
 j Km KnTf^Tf XutXa^ avtfiov €tt ttjv Xtfiv/jv o( all Oks 
 \ et descendit procella vent! in stagnum of Latins 
 B alone has ic, Kart^r] XtitXa^ fts tj\v \tfivr]v avffiov I 
 and a et descendit turbo in stagnum venti t 
 Wordsworth docs not notice this order in a, although quoting G 6 e { g for omission of 
 in Bfatjmini (add for omission ,^ ae 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 European or Italian (although a is really 
 groeco-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 
 B a. in 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 ijXflurero ujro rou Sni/ioviou fij rar tptjtxovt, B supported 
 only by S (against X and all the rest) allows himself to substitute iin-o for viro, which must 
 equate latin use of a daemonio for agency as sometimes elsewhere. 
 
 X N* leaves out on< to-tirfff by mistake. S* in correcting gives koi orav npoa-tvxn 
 tivK fo-iadi (showing lie knew both readings) and ^^^ has to set the matter straight. 
 
 13 IN ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 
 
 5.5 
 
 This is absolutely and clearly an improvement by a small coterie 
 as above. In verse 3 it runs crow Se ■iroiovTo(; eXerjfioavvriv so that at first 
 sight we might think that the majority had corrected the plural in 
 ver. 5 to accord with this singular in ver. 3, but why then, in the first 
 place, allow the plural oi vn-oKpnai to stand in ver. 6 ? 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\ q and syr cu pesh 
 diatess definitely [sin, the cautious, omits the veree]. For some reason 
 Tisch misstates the evidence, only giving q on the side of D d, while be 
 gives i^P' on the other side. But it ever there was a place where we 
 must balance correctly this is one. We now see that tC' is wrong, iotdkq 
 witness for the side of D d, and S opposing A^' shows it was the later 
 latin witness which caused this. Sod cannot even produce "" for this. 
 
 One word more. Origen, who approves the course of NBZ, 
 nevertheless writes oxrirep for a<; (of NBDZ 33), showing that while 
 they were about it NBZ took the opportunity to make this other change, 
 for they prefer wt to o><nrep on a good many other occasions. 
 
 We might refer to Luke xxii. 31/32 for further illustration : liiuav 
 'S.ifuov ISoii 6 aarava.:; efpTijo-aro u/ias toO trtvidtrat, a>9 tov alrov' iyi> Si 
 eierjO'qv Trepl aov iva fii/ ekX/tti; ^ ■ttiVti? auv. 
 
 Here c seeing the diflSculty writes ad cernendum without v/idi, but 
 Tertullian "uti cemeret vos," and Cyprian " ut vos vexaret." 
 
 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 : ax; Se iiravaaTo \a\oiv eiirev irpoi 
 TOV iifuova : eTravdyaye eh to ^ddot, kol ■)(^a\d<TaTe tH SiKTva vfiSni. 
 eiV aypav. We cover this transition in English by saying " Launch out 
 ['put out,' B.V.] into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught," but 
 the Latins cannot cover it, and they say " Due {or adduc) in altum, et 
 laxate...."1: 
 
 St. Paul is not averse to the method. Observe 2 Cor. xi. G "el H 
 Ka\ lSlMTrj<; tm Xoyto, uXX' ov Tr) yvaxret ' dW' ev Travrl <j)aiepa>0evTe<t (or 
 (\>avepm<TavTe<;) ev Tracriv ek vfid<;." This is not quite so obvious, as eyco 
 
 t Homer simply follows Tischendorf and only quotes q, so that he has tailed to 
 clear the matter, i has "et cum adoras non cril siout hypocritae." Unfortunately 
 e ff, are wanting and m r Tj. If we refuse d k syr ch (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 Ihou into depthe, and slake your nettis to 
 take fisch." 
 
m 
 
 CODEX 1) 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 K.V. 'yet am I not in knowledge'] but ive 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 I am tempted to reproduce here and put 
 it on record in this connection. I reler to Eom. xii. 16-20. 
 T er 10 is plural : to airro et? (l\X7iX.oi/; <f>povovvTe<; ■ /j,}] to, iii^»;\a <j>povovvrev , 
 aWa Toi? Tairavols a^viiaTrayo/ieiioi ' /ir) yivecrde ^povi/ioi Trap' iavToU. 
 Follows a kind of singular idea holding the plural : 
 Ver 17, 18, 19. p,rtSevi kcikov avrl Kaxov aTrohihovre'; ' irpovoov/xevot xaXa 
 evcoirtov iravTav avOpmirwv ' el SuvaTov, to e'f vpi5>v, fiera irdvrtav 
 avdpwTTKOv elpijvevoiiTf; • firj iavToi); 6*8iKoOiTe<f, ayairi)Toi, aWa 
 JoT6 TOTTOK Tj) opyjj (yiypatnai yap " 'E^ot t'/tSi/njaj?, iyio 
 amaTTohfoa-w, Xeyet /ci5pi.09.") 
 Now follows immediately the singular, only separated by the 
 parenthetical quotation above : 
 
 Vcr 20. F-^av oui' (vcl <\Wa enif) ireiva 6 e-j^Bpof aov, ^wfii^e avrov ' 
 eav Bi-^n, ttoti^c avToV tovto yap iroiCyv, avOpaxa^ Trvpoi 
 trajpEvaett; €7ri Ttjv Ketl>a\ifv avrov. 
 The interesting part is that he holds this singular in ver. 21 instead 
 of summing up with the plural : 
 
 fii) VI KU) VTTO TOO KaKOv, aWa viKa iv Tw ayaOm to kokoi'. 
 This again is lost in our English, for we translate : 
 
 " Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good," 
 which might be " Be tbou. . . " or "Be ye. . ." 
 Now to return to Matt. vi. 5 and Luke v. 4. Of course there are 
 no cross references between these two verses, yet it is instructive to note 
 a point which occurs here. There are no variations among mss in 
 Luke V. 4 except as to «? 8e or oTe (D d a e) at the beginning, but at the 
 end/om 1 and 22 Sod}'^ omit ei<; aypav. Now these (Jam 1 and 22 Sod"') 
 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 Evati 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 
 further on, Kpvtj>ata> (for KpvTrra) his 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. [372 ( = Sod'''") joins here, absolutely of B family, not 
 recorded above.] Soden^^'' Kpv<j>am. 
 
 Kpv^aio<; is more classical (or poetic, Pindar Acsch Soph ; Xcn Plato 
 use both) than KpvTrrm, but only occurs in the N.T. as Kpv^n Eph. v. 12. 
 
 But, I may be told, do you mean to put aside NBZ Orig supported 
 by salt boh goth it' Aug ? And I say yes, because before the benevolent 
 
 U IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 
 
 57 
 
 reader will have finished perusing these pages he will find that NBZ 
 Orig sah boh represent but one text recension, and it' Aug no doubt are 
 turning a difliculty t as well, seeing that they are not supported by d k 
 (unfortunately ff, is wanting here in the early part of Matthew). 
 Adhesion of the goihio 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 synac stand 
 aloof from NBZ with (J fc 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 dov?n 
 in the market place " (meaning " Do not thou be like. . .") Similarly 
 the French say: "Ne sois pas oomme les Anglais qui...' or the 
 Germans : " Sei nicht wie die Amerikaner. . ." t 
 
 Finally observe in the same chapter vi. 16 a<j>aiu^ovaiv yap to 
 -rrpoawTTov H 244 ;/, Jc sijr pesh pcrs for a^avi^ovaw yap to. Trpoawira. 
 
 Note also in Matt. vii. 16 /^t/ti avXKeyovaw otto aKavOoiv <TTa<f,v\vv 
 C'EGKLMSU VWXAn al. pi arm aeth Lucif (although opposed by NB(C) 
 favi 1 22 892 latt syr goth copt with ,rTa<t,v\a^) may be the right reading ; 
 observe LWX for o-Ta<j>v\vv and Clem (but cf. Luke vi. 44). 
 
 Improvement (continued). 
 
 "'" vi. 8. Addition : o Geo, o TraTr,p v^^v N'B sah [IF-H] non Sod'"'-^ 
 o iraTTip vp.a>v D rell et verss sine o Seo? 
 
 vii. 8. avoiyeTai (pro avoiyr,a€Tai fin) B only (and syr cu boh Aphraat). 
 Clear "improvement" to correspond with \ap.^avei and 
 evpKTKu above, against Clem N and all other Greeks, Latins 
 and sah. B does it again (alone with D, which is here 
 wanting) at Luke xi. 10 absolutely for the same reason. Sod 
 attributes both readings to mere error (p. 908 Band I Abt. li). 
 He is indeed charitable. But W-H do not agree with him, 
 printing them marg. in both places, 
 ix. 28. Order: oti, tovto ivvap.aivoivaai only B i 7 and I'j"''' against otj 
 hvvapMi in first position all others and versions (although 
 varying somewhat otherwise ; see under KB in Part II). 
 X. 2. +KaianteiaKwPo<; HB d (contra D") syr (contra rell gr et latt 
 sah boh aeth). When XB abandon coptic sympathy there is 
 always a reason, and this must have been considered an im- 
 provement. Why should all the rest drop it ? ( + nai Sod"' ""). 
 
 t They are clearly wrong with 13 again in vi. 22 reading, " The light of the body is 
 thine eye " (from Luke xi. 34) instead of " the eye." X here opposes B, and with fgolh 
 tyrr tah™'" fco/i""™ and Clem Eua is certainly right. 
 
 t See Winer, p. 778 (' Breviloquence,' section 2 t.) comparing Xenophon (Cyr. 6, 
 1. 8) o^o.av rmj 8ovXo.r f.^t r,- .<r9,r(.. As to Luke V. 4 it is referred to on p. 725. 
 
58 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 X. 3. eaBSaw<s{pro\ePaw^) HB 17 nisahhoh cff,g,l[Non dare Sod] 
 13. e<f> y/ia<; (pro irpo^ vfiat) NBW 174 (243) 372 892 Sod'""". 
 This is done to complete the idea of " pairs " in the sentence 
 e(pr)i'r] v/iwv evr' oi/tt/k, and etptjvri v/iav e^' vfiat e-m<rTpa^T)Ta, 
 if indeed it be not borrowed from Luke x. 6 ew' avTov..«}>' 
 vp.a^. Actually 243, instead of strengthening NB, shows this 
 by adding avaKaii.y\ret. from Luke. There is no earthly reason 
 why all other documents should substitute -irpo's for e<l> if e<f 
 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 X (with C 157 Sod'* "•» only) confinns my view 
 as to "pairs " immediately afterwards, for at x. 15, not content with -yr, 
 aoSopcov Kai yopoppwv, it adds a second yr,, writing yr, aoSo/icov Kai y>) 
 
 yofioppcov. 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. 20. OTi oi^TM? >evSoKca eyevcTO ep.Trpoa-0ev aov NEW 1 33 892 k 
 
 oTi ofTco? >ey€veTO evSoKia efnrpoa-dev aov Rell 
 The versions do not support NB here. In Luke x. 21 BC'LXH (a 
 perfect family coterie, but against N as well as the rest) have also evSoxia 
 eyevero and there with many Old Latins. 
 
 Ltqirovemcnt " Niceties." 
 
 xi. 29. ■7rpav<; iiBC'D Sod''' Chmlj2 0rig bis Athl/i Bas 1/4 Cyr 1/2 
 
 Trpaoi Hell omn et min omn vid Orig'"^' Ens'"'" Ath 1/2 
 
 Bas 3/4 Cyr 1/2 Clir; et Clem{Strom) \a/3eTe rov itpaov 
 
 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 Trpao?. Hort says (voli. p. 549) 
 
 " The perpetuation of the purer text may in great measure be laid to the 
 
 credit of the watchful scholars of Alexandria, . . ." but here, as elsewhere, 
 
 the readings vary in different places in their writings. They were far 
 
 from being "watchful," but they did enjoy "niceties" even if not 
 
 consistent in the application of them. 
 
 ix. 13 and xii. 7. Under this head may perhaps be placed «\eo9 (for 
 e\€ov) by NBCDe' 1 33 in both places (and again xxiii. 23). 
 Note that all others oppose as well as d and Clem''" (against 
 Origen). The LXX reading (of most of its Mss) of e\eo? 
 would account for eXeo?. 
 For observe in this connection, and in this vicinity. Matt xii. 17/18 
 iva TrXrfpad-q to pr]9ev Sia Ua-aioi (xlii. 1/4) Tov 7rpotl>T)Tov \pyo1rr05 iSov o 
 
 J> IK ST. MATTHEW S GOSrEL. 
 
 59 
 
 Trait fiov ov ripCTKra, nyaTrrjTO'; fiov ov (pro ei? oi') evSoKrjo-ev r; ijrv^r] fiov. 
 
 So N'B 115 244 892/, Ens*''' 1/2 against ct? ivIvBoKnaev of all the rest 
 and latt syr copt. A reference to Isaiah xlii. 1 (Septuagint) shows taparjX 
 o exXe/rro? pov, -rpoaeSe^aTO avTov i) '^v^'j /iou. 
 
 [D'f' indeed here writes ei? ov for the ^rs< ov (as syr) against qveyn of 
 d opposite, and D" has ev a for the second et? ov.] 
 
 (Questionable.) 
 xii. 29. apiraaai (pro ZiapTracm) BC*WX 892 min""'' sah 1 against 
 SiapTToa-ai ND rell omn et latt (diripere) et Marc iii. 27 
 
 " Nicety " : 
 xii. 32. (sec loco) ov pr) a<f>ed!i B'"' et W-H nig. 
 ov pt) a(f)e6rj(T€Tai K* 
 
 ovK a(fie0ri(TeTn I N™'' rell omn 
 
 This seems a strengthening " nicety " on the part of B, for 
 Luke xii. 10 = ovk a^eOrjaeTai, and Mark iii. 29 ovk ex^i a(f>€<nv. 
 
 Another " nicety " (favoured by W-H and Sod txt" "" '*) occurs at : 
 
 • xiii. 48. Ta KoKa eit 07717 (pro ra Koka ei? ayyeia) NBCM**N 1 [lion 118- 
 
 209] 124 [lion f am] 892 Evst 48 (notable conjunction among 
 
 our minuscules of editorial work) Orig'''' Cyr'''' Isid. ayyeiov 
 
 is a pure Matthaean word occurring only here and at xxv. 4 
 
 where ev tok ayyeioK is left alone by all. I consider ayyr), the 
 
 non-diminutive form, to be a " nicety " of Origen. The Old 
 
 Syriac omits here at xiii. 48 saying " the good (as) good," hut 
 
 DW and the rest have ei? ayyeia (or ut Ta ayyia D). 
 
 57. The "pair" of clauses here: "in his coui;try and in his 
 
 house " has given rise to a great deal of variety. 
 
 I believe the " received " text to be correct : ev tij TrarptSt avrov Kai 
 
 ev rri otxta avTov. It is read by eleven uncials and LXWfl^S min pi latt 
 
 pi syrr Bas Chr and Grig 2/3, and is Semitic. BD 33 004 (al ? pcrpavc) 
 
 a d k = ev Ti) TraTpiSi ( — atrrov) Kai ev tij oiKia avTov making the possessive 
 
 serve once for the two as W-H. This Origen does not agree to. NZ fajn 
 
 13 892 ffi Orig 1/3 = ev Trj iSia iraTpiZi Kai ev ttj oixia avTov as Sod^^*". 
 
 L / ji vg'' omit the second clause, but L with 15 uncials including W 
 
 has ev Tti TraTpiBi ovtov. C conflates ev ttj iSia iraTpthi avTov Kai ev tt; 
 
 oiKia avTov exactly as sah (which probably gave rise to some of the 
 
 trouble) neq-fxne ixjULin ixAJLpq . . . 
 
 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 good deal of information. Thus 
 at Luke xx. 20 : To " deliver him unto the power and authority of the 
 Governor." N 157 Paris" and three lectionaries write tjj ap)(T] Kai 
 e^ovcria Toy ■1776/1., eliding the second article before e^ovaia. I mention it 
 because Tisch omits this in his notes (it is added in Gregory's ' Emendanda ') 
 and because the Coptic neix. for Kai (although it retains the article 
 
GO 
 
 CODEX 13 AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 prefixed to the Becond noun) may have given rise to this. "Fairs," 
 therefore, are always worth watcliing.f Sod has no new support for N*. ' 
 
 xiv. 33. NBC^T' 1 22 892* min"> /, copt acth (Orig ?) Bid omit eXflorre,. 
 
 This is peculiarly interesting, for although 1 omits, 118-209 
 
 with 28 substitute ovret. The very manner of the Coptics 
 
 shows that they had well considered the place, and they too 
 
 make a great show of ovt6?. The rest and DW all have 
 
 iXOovre^, which represents a far more graceful act, and stjr cti 
 
 si)i : " came near and." The point is this. In ver. 32 we read 
 
 K<u ava^avTav {(fiffavTav) avrav eii to irXoiov exoTraaev o avefio<;. 
 
 They had already entered the ship, and for some reason 
 
 e\0ovTe<; seemed out of place in ver. 33. It is true it does not 
 
 read (as Tischendorf would have one suppose) oi Se e\6oin-e<s fv 
 
 ra> ttKoim ... , but oi Se ev to) ifKoco) eXdoirre^ TrpoaeKwritrav aino). 
 
 But eXdovTei; has been removed and not added, I feel sure. 
 
 Another " nicety " obtains in the following verse : 
 
 xiv. 34. Tj\0ov eirt ttjv 7771/ NBCD'^NT'=WA2;<I>n t fam 13 38 157 238 
 
 245 .9o(i™^-" e "ad terram " {sail eg,pil elnKip, hoh 
 
 ei^otw. elnKi.g^i) nyr, et syr cu sin diserte 
 
 v\9ov eit T77K 77,1/ E veil omn latt " in " et d Orig^ et Sod txt 
 
 This is a distinction and a " betterment." d opposes D and Origen 
 
 is against the NB group, whose adherents are none too many. I consider 
 
 c to be wrongly grouped by Tiacli and Horner and to belong to the side 
 
 I have put it on. 
 
 [ A touch suggested by Origen in xiv. 36 is rejected by NB, but not 
 by some of their followers. He would have (his) iva xav liovov ayjravrai 
 with O 1 [non 118-209] /aw 13 [iion 124] 22 33 al. aliq. All the uncials 
 have wa /lovou aijrmvTai. The vg and some itala (but not de " ut tantum") 
 have " ut vel fimbriam. . . " and/ " ut tantum vel fimbriam." ] 
 XV. 35/36. Kai ■wapayyuXa'! . . .eXa^ev NEDS' 1 fam 13 33 W-H Sod 
 
 {Orig evflaSe Se ou KeXevei aXXa irapayyeXXci) 
 Kat exeXevcre. . ./cat Xa^iov Jicll Gr fl q vg 
 
 <?..qn<5.pivvtiXe :\e-.i.qxi sah 
 
 o-ffogj ^.q£,ong,ert- .^qdi hoh 
 
 Kai cKeXeta-e. . .xai eXafiev sijr ah c e gyk (et praecepit 
 
 et accepit) 
 et cum jussisset. .accepit d. 
 
 First observe that Origen directs this operation on the part of 
 
 t We may cite another instructive instance where N and not B ia offended at a 
 "pair" of readings and cancels the second. It is all in the same neighbourhood (see 
 xiii. 28, under Coptic). This occurs at Matt. xii. 37. M alone prefers cic yap twj Xoyuv 
 iTou ^iKaicu^ijiTf] Kai (K roiv Xoyui/ ( — (rou) KaTaSiKatT67]trrj. Sodcn does not add one single 
 new witness. 
 
 I Sodcn refuses tm (upon what principle ?) against all his w family and nine new 
 witnesses. 
 
 B IN ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 
 
 01 
 
 NBDi^. The comparison is with xiv. 19 where NZ Orig had exeXevaev 
 (against KeXfi/o-a? of most, KeXfvaare B* Sod'"'). Observe sah uses a 
 diflFerent word here from the one in xiv. 19, transhterating in xv. 35 but 
 not using the participle, d does not agi'ee with the exact participial form 
 of D, nor do any Latins, nor is it borne out by syr. As in 30 init. Syrr 
 and latt (except d) maintain the «ot cXa/Sei/ of the Greeks, it looks very 
 much (whether xai waprjyyeiXe be correct or not), as if NB had inverted 
 the construction and that xai wapriyyetXe (or wapriyyetXe Se aasah)... 
 Xapwv or Kai Xafiav was what was intended, and not Kai waparfyeiXa'i . . . 
 €Xa0ev. For the question is as between " Commanding the multitude 
 to sit down. ..he took the seven loaves..." or "And he commanded 
 the multitude to sit down . . . and taking ..." 
 
 Follows another case of probable " finessing " : 
 
 Matt. 
 
 xvi. 19. Tai KXciSai {pro to? KXei<;) N*B* (both corrected) LW Sod"" 
 
 Orig 4/5 against ra'; KXeit by all others and N'^B" Orig 1/5 
 
 Ens Chr Phot. Doubtless Origen caused this. 
 
 xvii. 4. iroiricrio {pro iroiria-wfiev) NBC* 174 004 h ffi ff^. This is 
 
 different. Because, as ■woir]au>iiiv obtains in Mark and Luke 
 
 (ix. 5, ix. 33), it might be thought that this -noiriaa was the 
 
 " neutral " text in Matthew. I think it is a mistake however, 
 
 as both Coptics are against it, as all the syriacs and Origen 
 
 distinctly. This is a place where we may emphasise the 
 
 importance of a concurrent study of the versions. 
 
 They are so often with ns in whole or in part, that their absence 
 
 here is very important. How come h and ffi., of the Latins to join ? 
 
 In the first place faciam occupies the last place in the short line of h and 
 
 a ligature for ns may easily have disappeared or been omitted in copying 
 
 h or the parents of 6 ffyi. As to the parallels, D only indulges in Tronjaio 
 
 in Luke {d facio), but in Mark D d for irotijo-m and faciam are joined 
 
 by no Greeks but by 6 t ff^, all Latin support therefore. The point is 
 
 perhaps not worth debating, but I incline to think it is an ancient Latin 
 
 error which has crept into the three places. It is very curious that D, 
 
 who perpetrates Trotrjo-w alone among Greeks in Mark and Luke, should 
 
 be absent from NBC in Matthew. But the other versions are check 
 
 enough, without speaking of the absence of 892 and others. 
 
 A little matter of order follows however in the verse which is highly 
 instructive. B and e alone write o-ktji/o? rpeit for rpem irK-qva's of all the 
 rest and the versions, incl. Latin. But in Luke this is the order 
 (and of some in Mark). Ergo, B zoas looking at a parallel, and that 
 parallel probably Luke ix. 33, and his conjunction with e in Matt, 
 shows a Latin sympathy which may have extended to and account for 
 iroiri<r(o as well. 
 
 xvii. 7. Kai ayfra/ievot avrmv for Kai Tji/raro avrmv Kai NB 892 only. 
 Anyone who will consult the beginning of this verse with its 
 
()'2 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 three verbs will see that there is an opening for fincssirg; 
 XB avail of it ; so does sah, and so do some Latins in 
 other respects. But I expect boh or mjr is nearest the truth. 
 Sudcii follows NB 892 with »=". See his note, 
 xvii. 15. KoKtoi ex^t {pro KaKai -rraa-xei) NBLZ''''Sn SoiV'^' cum Orig 
 C/i)""'. This is against the versions as well as the remaining 
 Greeks. Sodcn refuses e^e*. Gf Marc ix. 17 e-xpina wva d\a\ov. 
 20. oXtyoTTKTTi.at'. . .fifTa^a. . .evOev. . .ioT aviiTTiav. . .fierajSrjOi.. . . 
 eiTfu^ei/ may be considered, as the variations are so numerous. 
 See the evidence, 
 xviii. 1 . avayKt] yap (- e<7Tiv) BJj^l^tli Sod°'^' 1 33 al. pauc. This 
 seems to be an " improvement" (c/ Hebr ix. 16 23 etc) and is 
 not witnessed to by N rcU nor the Latins. In the Gospels we 
 can only compare with Luke xiv. 18 exai avayKtjv, and xxi. 23 
 ecTTai yap avayKt), where all are agreed ( + Luke xxiii. 17 
 avayKTjv he eix^v). BL are opposed here in Jlatt. by Origcn. 
 8. Here is another question of "pairs." "If thy hand oc thy 
 foot offend thee cut them off." This plural offends our super- 
 sensitive Alexandrian ear, so avrov is substituted for avra by 
 NBDL Ifam 13 157 243 245 Sod"'"' vnVh lati sah [contra boh] 
 sijr arm aeth Lucif Hil, and avTr)v U 28. I prefer the harder 
 and less smooth reading avra with EFGHKMSVWXrAIlS* 
 min 2d and boh. Observe X deserts the Latins here and W is 
 against XBDL. W-H and Sod follow Alexandria. {Syr cit sin 
 eKKo^lroii { — avTov) xdi ^aXe avTov avo crov.) Cf Marc ix. 
 43/45/47 where ;^€(p, ttou?, and oif>6a\iio^ are treated separately. 
 Note NB are running with the Latin in this verse. We have the 
 Latin order kvXKov ij x'^^"^ by KB 157 f"^' against D and all the rest 
 and sah boh sijr arm aeth Orig for x^Xov r) kuXXoc. Also avTov for avra. 
 xviii. 14. ev {pro eU) NBDLM"'"«NSn 82 157 892 aP e* vg'-' 
 
 As regards the two Latins, unus being occasionally abbreviated 
 
 might have led to unmn. As regards these few Greeks it is plainly 
 
 an accommodation to and antithesis of ainb in verse 13 of the lost sheep, 
 
 and a reference to the earlier verses 4/6. There would be no reason to 
 
 change cv to eh, but some reason to change el? to ep. Hence I charge 
 
 another " nicety " to NB. This time Origen opposes them with fifteen 
 
 or sixteen uncials and all the other Latins. 
 
 xviii. 25. Another question of " pairs." . . .irpadrivai xai ti;i/ yvvaixa Kai 
 
 TO TeKva So NB 1 {non fam] 258 604 Sod'"t i«t only, against 
 
 ■irpaO. Kai ttji/ yvvama avTov Kai Ta rexva of all the rest, and 
 
 of John Damascene ; the sijr and Coptic versions add the 
 
 possessive to both ywaixa and Texva, so it surely belongs in one 
 
 place. The Latins (except h r,) are with the mass of Greeks for 
 
 " ct uxorcm ejus ct filios ; only vg^ adds ejus after filios in line 
 
 with its syriac stem, and h r^ transfer from uxorcm to filios. 
 
 B IN ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 
 
 63 
 
 xviii. 31. ow {pro Sf) Only NBD 21 33 i c W-H, non Sod. 
 
 All others including boh sah latt have he, except aeth {km as usual) 
 and r2 artn which omit. 
 
 The exigencies of the situation are well illustrated by Homer, who 
 translates the boh T^^e by. "So his fellow servants..." Burkitt syr: 
 ".Now when his fellow servants." 
 
 XX. 21. Yet another question of "pairs." From e!<; ex Se^uov a-ov 
 Kai ei's ef evavv/iiov aov NB Dam wish to drop the first 
 (Tov, against all others, including Coptic and the versions. 
 Soden cannot produce another MS. A reference to the parallel 
 at Mark x. 37 shows (tov occupying there the foremost place : 
 €1? <rou CK Se^iav Kai eh aov ef evauvfiav {vcl apiinepmv) . There 
 BDWA3 (but not N) with 1 2'"' Sod"^ bcdff^gt^JJcq omit the 
 second aov. (D and some Latins omit the second <tov in Matt.) 
 34. op-fiaTiav for o^BaX/iiov B with DLZ fam 13 892 only and 
 Orig 1/2 against N and the rest, ofifia is much more classical 
 than o^6a\p,o<! in the connection in which the word is used 
 here ; it occurs but once in N.T. at Mark viii. 23. (B varies 
 the order alone here, placing the possessive first with Coptic. 
 Orig does this once but with o^QaXfitov, and his other quotation 
 places avrav after o/ifiarmv.) Sod o/i/iaToiv txt without new Mss. 
 xxi. 5. Yet another question of " pairs " : 
 
 eiri ovov Kai ewe irmXov NBLNSH 1 [non fam] 124 [non fam] 
 2"' {Sod) 604 Sod"' "" syr sah aeth ; but om. em see. with CDW 
 and the mass, all latins boh dis. arm and Orig^^' Cyr as LXX. 
 This seems to be a clear "improvement" (against Origcn). 
 We may be told that as the quotation of the mass agrees with 
 the LXX it is the mass which elided the second eiri. The 
 reply to this insinuation is contained in my other examples of 
 " pairs." I will say no more except that Sorf"' follows Hort. 
 
 Note. The LXX quotation (Zach. ix. 9) is e-n-i mo^vytov Kai 
 Tr<o\ov veov. Origen cites five recensions [see quotation in 
 Tisch] where Aquila has eiri ovov Kai ttoKov viori ovaStov, 
 Symmachus : e-rn ovov Kai TrrnXov viov 01/0809, Thcodot ; cttj ovov 
 Kai irioXov viov ovov. In no case does a second ctti intrude. 
 In the face of this Westcott and Hort have the temerity (there 
 is no other word for it) to print the LXX quotation in capitals 
 following B : gn, o^oN 
 
 KAI eni nwAON yion vnozYnoY 
 6. The very next verse shows uvveTa^ev (for Trpoaera^ev) borrowed 
 from Matt. xxvi. 19, xxvii. 10 by BCD 33 G04 Sod"" 
 Evst 48 against NW and all others and Orig^' Eus*''', yet 
 actually incorporated by W-H into their text witJwut marginal 
 alternative. The Latins differentiate with praecepit in xxi. 6, 
 but constituit in xxvi. 19, xxvii. 10, yet the Kevisers follow 
 
64 CODEX n AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Hort in both xxi. 5 and xxi. G, and Souter gives us no foot- 
 note evidence. Note that d has praeceperat in xxi. G over 
 against a-vvera^ev. The parallels in Mark and Luke express 
 the matter differently, so that BCD are merely harmonizing 
 Matthew's language later, forgetting vpoaera^ev formerly at 
 i. 24 and viii. 4. (crucTao-o-o) occurs only in the N.T. at 
 ISIatt. xxvi. 19, xxvii. 10.) Sod refuses awe-ra^ev here in Matt. 
 
 But Hort says (vol. i. p. 556) . . ."render it morally certain 
 that the ancestries of B and N diverged from a point near the 
 autographs and never came into contact subsequently." 
 
 Well then, either B or N is right here. The whole matter 
 is thus confined to St. Matthew's Gospel. For B we have 
 six witnesses, C and D'' Evan 33 604 Sod'™ and Evst 48, all 
 witnesses in such a case of rather peculiar character. For 
 N we have about 2000 witnesses of every possible shade of 
 transmission, including W 892, plus the Latins-^en bloc — 
 distinctly, plus Origen three times and Eusebius twice. Yet 
 Hort's and the Eevisers' intuition tells them that Origen and 
 Eusebius are wrong to back M, and that B and six witnesses 
 kept pure from the common herd "at a point near the 
 autographs." This is criticism gone mad. If X and B 
 divided at a point " near the autographs and never came into 
 contact subsequently " then it is N here which holds the 
 balance of power by an overwhelming majority. There is 
 practical agreement that St. Matthew used Trpoo-fTofev twice 
 previous to the passage in xxi. 6, and trwera^ev twice sub- 
 sequently. The central and fifth passage is the one in dispute. 
 By all canons of Law and Logic we declare that N Origen 
 and Eusebius here give the lie direct to BCD^' Evan 33 604 
 and Sod"^ Evst 48, Hort and the Eevisers. 
 xxi. 18. -rrpai {pro ■rrpo)ta<t) N*BD x'" only {cf copt) W-H [non Sod] 
 
 This appears certainly a preference. If " Antioch " changed 
 T-paii to Trptoia^ here why did they not do it elsewhere ? 
 
 ■n-paia<; is left alone at Matt, xxvii. 1 because it is irpaiav Se 
 ■yevopevT]<s, and 86 yevonevrji; is probably conveyed by ellipse 
 here at xxi. 18. But NBD wish to be more precise, preferring 
 to emphasise another " nicety " of scholarship, and write 
 ■jrpoii,. Consult St. Mark, irpat everywhere. Upioiut is 
 Matthaean and Johannine. 
 25. Almost another question of " pairs." to ^airrtciia to \(i>av(v)ov 
 NBCZ 22 33 372 Sod"" [non 157] Evst 48 Orf;; against to 
 jSa-mia-iia loiavvov D rell omn Cyr. In Mark (xi. 30) 
 NABCDLA Sod"'-" 33 favour the second to, in Luke (xx. 4) 
 NDLNR favour it. (Sod quotes it but N only extant.) In 
 Luke then B omits with the mass. 
 
 n IN ST. Matthew's gospel. 
 
 65 
 
 xxi. 46. Another probable "nicety " of Orig. cTrei (pro errei&ij) ttifm) B 
 D(67r() L fam 1 22 33 892 Orig"" Sod'" et txt. All the rest have 
 etreiSri (except oTt Sod'^'""""'). Now eveiSy is apparently not 
 Matthaean except here. C/ Matt, xviii. 32, xxvii. 6, where eirei 
 is used. I do not care to emphasise this place for several 
 reasons, and I may be told that D strengthens the combination. 
 Yet observe two things, first that D is not wholly with it, 
 because D says ettj ai while NBL 1 22 Orig''"'^' say c7r« (c<s 
 against the mass, and secondly because both Coptics have P,U5C 
 thus contradicting NBL here. Tisch refers to xxi. 20 and 
 xiv. 5 where w? remains unchanged. Further note that B C04 
 ALONE at xiv. 6 substitute cn-ec for otj there, almost clearly 
 accommodating to xxi. 46. This shows that B fully meant 
 e-rrei in the latter perhaps, but it also reveals consideration 
 of the parallels. Tisch adds " Contra vero et. in Or duobus 
 locis (de sex) codex praebet <u5 pro et?." 
 xxii. 10. This is a most important place. NB*L 892 Sod"" ' Cyr and 
 W-H (against Origen) and Soden text are for forcing St. 
 Matthew to use wfi^iov here instead of yafio<;, which latter is 
 used by DW and all other Greeks, Soden naming but one new 
 witness against it. Observe carefully that none of the critical 
 cursive codices join here except 892. It is certainly a false 
 reading, but how did it occur ? 
 First of all let ns enquire where vvfKJxov is used in the N.T., and we 
 find it in Matt. ix. 15, Mark ii. 19, and Luke v. 34, and in every one of 
 these three cases it is used in alliterative antithesis to vvp.<t)wt. 
 
 " firj SwaTai oi vwi Tov vv/ji,<j>a)vo<; trevdew eij> oa-ov fier avTcov €<TTtv o 
 vv/j,(t>ioi;." Matt. 
 
 " fiyj Bwavrai oi vioi tov vvp,<j>o)vo(; ev w o vvii,<f>i,o^ fier airrcov €<ttiv 
 vr}<neveiv." Mark. 
 
 " fii) SvvaaOe tov; vtov; tov vvp.^wvo'; ev a o vvp,<j>io^ /xer avToiv eaTiv 
 (TTotTjtrai) vr]a-Teveiv." Lnke. 
 
 It is used nowhere else and never in the nominative. It is a rare 
 word anyhow ; claEsically it is used by Pausanias, of the temple of 
 Bacchus, Ceres and Proserpine. 
 
 Again I ask how did the three Greeks NBL work this into their text, or 
 rather I should say, to be quite fair, how did they find it in their texts? 
 
 The Latin texts give no assistance, for in accord with the language 
 they all turn xai errXTjaOT] o yap,o^ into the plural (even d opposite 1)^') et 
 repletae sunt nuptiae. The Latin then is hardly involved. But upon 
 consulting the Syriacs we find they say, not " icedding-fcast," but "locus 
 convivii," and this is also found in sah (and aeth) very definitely : "the 
 place of marriage," R<rinju.i. RiyeXeex, against hoh n2£eni£,on 
 exactly the same word as used in xxii. 2, 3 for yaftovv. 
 
 I maintain then that this is one of the choicest places we can find 
 
 F 
 
GO 
 
 CODKX li AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 to investigate the matter of the iufluence of the versions on NBL and to 
 ascertain ivhich versions. Here we can exclude Latin and Bobairic, and 
 we are left with syr and sah. It is quite certain that sah or syr is 
 responsible for this direct influence on NBL. It is beyond dispute 
 that o ya/io'; and not o wfi^x^v is the proper reading here. D is a clear 
 witness here for ya/io';, with all other Greeks and Origen twice and Chrys. 
 I think it is criticism gone absolutely wild and mad to accept vv/i<f>a>v 
 here, and it is unpardonable of Hort to put vvn<t>a>v in his text without 
 any alternative in the margin and equally wrong of Soden. The 
 llevisers, to their credit be it said, eject it, but Souter will not give his 
 reasons (as he should) in a footnote. If Hort conld have seen (as we can 
 now see) the original page of Codex B he would have observed that the 
 B-, who went over the whole text, carefully refrained from inking over 
 o NYM4>U)N (o r<iMOC stands in the margin by his hand or that of another 
 corrector). The Revisers by the restoration of ya/ioi now admit that 
 Hort was wrong. If vvfi^wv then be not basic and " neutral," my point is 
 absolutely proved that the versions produced it and influenced NBL. If 
 vvfi(j>(ov be not "the true text," then I have won my point all along ihe 
 line, and the other matters treated of here fall into the regular category of 
 " Improvements," for the same influences bear directly on these matters. 
 
 I hope in future, when we observe in other places that not a single 
 sympathising cursive stands with N or B or L or NBL, that we shall 
 make it a canon of criticism to exclude their mal-editing of the text. 
 
 [Note, as to absence of minuscule support here, a place like xxii. 25, 
 where 717/^09 (for yaiJLrfaa^) by NBL is supported by 'S.'iffam 1 (including 
 299) G 22 33 GO 75 91 124 {)xon /am] 157 G04 892 Evst 48 Sod°'° Origen, 
 and is quite on another footing. I mention it here, as I have not 
 listed it elsewhere, and the support is of the regular flock of minuscule 
 birds. 
 
 As regards the intimacy of sah and syr (without NB) observe xxii. 18 
 enrei/ + avToi% Z'""'' 33 892 sail syr cu sin and some pesh and e and acth. 
 
 Note that in xxii. 11 12 ei/Svfia yaftou is again rendered by sah " the 
 clothing of the place of marriage," while syr omits this " locus," nor do 
 NBL repeat anything but ev&v/ia ya/j.ov in both places. Possibly then at 
 xxii. 10 the matter narrows down to syr influence on NBL. 
 
 When Cyr on the side of NBL opposes Origen it is always suspicious 
 of Alexandrian accommodation. See other places. Besides which, Cyr 
 and Origen are often on both sides of a question in different parts of their 
 writings.] 
 
 M-ltl. 
 
 xxii. 10. Xeyovia:; {pro Xeyovre';) NBLT" 27 CO against all the rest 
 and Dam. This is quite a clear case in order to refer to 
 aTToa-TeWovacv toi/? fiaffyra^. . . It would have been impossible 
 for " Antioch " to revise here. Xeyovrav is clearly the more 
 natural, and Xeyoi'Tei (eschewed by NBL) the more diflicult. 
 
 IN ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 
 
 07 
 
 Notice the lone and lorn company of the cursives 27 CO 
 added here. The passage is Kai awoaTcWovaiv avrw tow? 
 HadriTai avTwv /lera tcov lipoiStaviav Xeyopra'i ' BiSaaxaKe k.t.X. 
 Hoden misquotes G04. 
 XXlii. 9. TraTTjp ovpavioi \^pro o TraTrjp o ev (toi?) oi/pawot?] NBL /awl 
 
 13 [noil 340] 33 288 892 Bas 1/2 Cyr 1/2, against the rest and 
 latt co]>t Clem Bus Nyss Bas 1/2 Cyr 1/2 Daju. This is more 
 important than it seems at first sight, for it appears to be a 
 " nicety " of NBL to conform to supposed Matthaean usage. 
 Bas 1/2 and Cyr 1/2 are suspicious marks. Turn to Sir John 
 Hawkins' 'Horae Synopticae,' p. 32, and there will be found the 
 remark that ovpavio^ is Matthaean (being only used elsewhere 
 once in Luke ii. 13t and once in Acts xxvi. 19). He lists the 
 Matthaean passages as v. 48, vi. 14 20 32, xv. 13, xviii. 35, 
 xxiii. 9. This from Westcott and Hoit's text. J Now as to 
 the passages intervening between the first and the last, the 
 remark is correct, but at v. 48 as here at xxiii. 9 the authorities 
 are divided. Clem is on both sides at v. 48, and a considerable 
 number witness there for ovpavio<;, but here at xxiii. 9 it is 
 different, and Clem Orig Eus the Latins and Coptics besides 
 all other Greeks witness against NBL and three cursives. 
 It is probably therefore a wish to conform to Matthaean 
 diction here. At this rate all individuality will be 
 lost to our synoptists and the problem thrown into con- 
 fusion. See under xxi. 18 and elsewhere for the same kind of 
 thing. [Sodeji has o ovpavwt in text but only cites ' "' new.] 
 XXV. 18. bipv^ev yriv NB (tjiv yrjv C* 604) L 33 ffi vg^' arm boh acth 
 (om ffi yrjv) against mpv^ev ev ttj 77/ by all the rest, including D 
 latt sah syr Orig^"*-. I charge this (observe against sah syr 
 /a^P') to be a deliberate improvement, greedily seized by West- 
 cott iC Hort and Sod (for they have no marginal alternative), 
 but an improvement nevertheless. Why should "Antioch" 
 and even 892 have revised to ev T-q yq, when wpv^ev nearly 
 always takes the accusative ? This is a deliberate Alexandrian 
 nicety of grammar. The word occurred at Matt xxi. 33 " xat 
 copv^ev ev avTO) Xtjvov," and occurs once more only at Mark 
 xii. 1 " xat oipv^ev vTToKqvtov," where there was no room for 
 improvement, although even at Matt. xxi. 33 N saw fit to 
 remove o» before avrio. I do not charge this as a harmonistic 
 improvement at all, for in the parallel in Luke xix. 20 the 
 servant hides the talent in a napkin, nor did "Antioch" get 
 
 t ovpavwv iB here used, but Ji*l>*d recognizing that ovpnvms is not Lucan change to 
 ovpavov. No others change. 
 
 t Which has befogged the sjnoptic problem. 
 
 F 2 
 
GH 
 
 CODEX 13 AND ITH ALLIES. 
 
 (V rr y-q from !Malt. xxv. 25 (Kpmjra to TaXavTov aov cv tij yti.] 
 It is simply a grammatical improvement. The company kept 
 is merely of a sympathetic order which our other studies lead 
 us to expect here. 
 x.w. 27. eB€i(T€ovv{proe&€touv<Te) KBCL 33 604 892 y^'Sor?""'", against 
 all else and against Coptics and Latins, savours of improvement, 
 xxvii. •'). pji/ra? Ta apyvpia eit tov vaov (pro (v ra) vaui) NBL3 H3 
 fam 09 99 157 273 604 SoiV"-" "" and versions, but not latin 
 nor (I. Orig and Eus are on the side of NBL for this improve- 
 ment with Sod. Cf B alone at Matt. x. 16 tSoy €ya> a-n-oaTeWot 
 v/J.a'; 0)9 7rpo/8uTa €i<; fiecTov Xvkwv, instead of ev tieam Xvkwv. 
 42. TTiffTei;. en avTov NBL 33 42 40 238 243 273 892 
 Sof?-"""'"" Evst 00 (-2 ("ol inter latt cum Aug) (syr) C//;""'"' (c« 
 avTov S mill*, avrov sail holi, avrm AD mill aliq Eus Ps-Ath et 
 latt ei, sed eir avrm EW tow" ??«'«•'') 
 44. avv(TTavpu>6eine'; aw avrai NB 892 
 
 (TTavpu>6evTe<; <ruv avrm DL latt verss 
 
 aivcrTavpcodevTe'S /xer avTOv 0' 157 
 
 ,, avTto AW unc'^ rell omn vid 
 
 I should hesitate to class this as an improvement, but for tour 
 things, first because (9' by improvising ^er avrov shows that there was no 
 avi' in his copy or he would no doubt have used it, secondly the absence 
 of any minuscules to support NB, but 892, thirdly the simpler reading of 
 DL, and fourthly the general bad record of NB in such matters. Someone 
 has revised here. I would be willing to accept the reading of NB if need 
 be, but we should require a good number of cursives to tell us it was 
 right, whereas neither 1 nor 13 (28 wanting) nor 2r* nor 604 come into 
 play at all, while 157 sides with B'. 
 xxvii. 64. —avrov Only KB arm pers, but no cursives, and Tisch W-H 
 
 txt [non B-V Sod] Sodeii can find no cursives to support, 
 xxviii. 8. amXeova-ai {iirOf^eX0ova-ai) NBCL/ttHil333So(Z»''"'-*.S'o(P''c<c. 
 No others do it. Neither W nor 892 nor the Coptics. 
 Burgon points out ('Last twelve verses of St. Mark,' p. 84) that 
 this group NBCL 13 33 e, has ignorantly effected revision here, forgetting 
 that the women were inside the grave (Mark xvi. 5 xai etaeXOovaai et? to 
 p,vrip,eiov . . . xvi. 8 Kai e^eXOovaai e^vyov ano rov fivrj/j,etov', Luke xxiv. 3 
 eicreXdovaai Se ov^ evpov to aa>/jui ... 9 xai VTrotrrpeifraaai airo rov fivrifieiov) 
 and therefore that this is a purely gratuitous emendation by NBCL in 
 Matt, because in St. Matthew's account the entrance into the grave is 
 not specified. I agree with him. 
 
 This should, perhaps, come under the head of " Exchange of 
 Prepositions." 
 
 t In verse 18 "he dug ('a hole' understood) in the ground." 
 thy talent in the ground" is different. 
 
 In verso 25 *' I hid 
 
 B IN ST. Matthew's gospel. 69 
 
 Lastly we will adduce some of the passages where 
 B and Origcn are in conflict i 
 
 M«tt. 
 
 vi. 7. viroxpirai Bi(= Sod"'") syr cu only 
 (dviKoi the rest and Orig 
 
 B or KB and Origen in conflict. 
 
 xii.' 36. Most serious opposition as to the Greek fundamental text : 
 8 eav XaXrjXmaiv Orig L and most, against NBD (NB o (-eac) 
 XaXijiTova-iv ; D o {-eav) XaXova-w), where KB take the side of 
 Coptic and partially of Latin, but Latins (except d) have quod 
 and the subjunctive. "What are / and k doing with " quod 
 locuti fuerint" if NBD be right (and these do not agree 
 among themselves) ? Has Origen gone crazy here too ? Why 
 should we think Origen wrong here now with the mass of 
 Greeks including all the cursives usually otherwise sympathetic 
 to the NB recension as against these Mss ? 
 
 xiii. 43. NB «mc" rell = eKXa/ifovaw, but D (d lucebunt) 124 238 Cyr 
 OKIGEN'«'and {Justin) have Xafi^ovaiv {Justin orav oi fiev 
 hiKaioi Xa/iijraiatv for TOTe o( Six .Xa/i-^ovaiv). Hence if we 
 want Origen's text with D, it is the uncompounded word (for 
 which also syr^ copt and latt rell " fulgebant " may also stand) 
 which we need. Not a whisper in Westcott and Hort's text or 
 margin oiDd Justin Cyr Orig^ ! (To these add Sod"" fam <f,".) 
 
 xiv. 22. Twice in this verse B opposes Origen, once specifically. B 
 adds ^with the versions) avrov after tou? fia6rira<; against Orig 
 diserte, and writes rrXoiov for to ttXoiov against Origen and 
 the mass. 
 36. ^-Kav 1 22 33 al. Origen but ^t■ovov NB and the other Greeks. 
 XV. 22. Seti/m? 1 ["«« fani] and Orig (cf a sevissime). 
 
 KaKb)'i NB unc omn rell minn. 
 
 xvi. 20. eTrertfiria-ev B*D syr cu d e against the rest and Orig'i'"'^'. 
 Sie(TreiXaTo and Orig diserte " o p.ev ovv /lard. -rrewoiriice Kara 
 riva ro>v avriypa^wv to tote hieareiXaro . . . lareov 8e ot( riva rav 
 avriyp. rov Kara fiarO. exei ro errerifir](Ti.v " since he himself uses 
 &ie<TTetXaro four times. Hort sees a necessity to put eTrertp.7ia-ei> 
 in his text. 
 
 xvii. 22. avarpe<f>otievav Se avriov NB 1 [non fam] 892 W-H txt. Sod mg 
 
 latt pi conversantibus. 
 avaarpe^oiievuiv he auriov CD rell omn et boh etie.. .ffi c e. 
 
 The " neutral " text is found in Origen <rrpe^oiJ,eva>v Ze avrav 
 (cf sail syr) . 
 
 t Syr cu sin vary, fit "gleam," tin "shine," almost imperceptible difference in 
 writing the syriac words. 
 
70 
 
 Mslt. 
 
 (xviii. 
 
 XX. 
 
 xxi. 
 
 OV ll')KeTl 
 
 xxii. 4. tp-oifuiKa 
 riToiixaaa 
 10. vvfi^av^ 
 o ya^o<: 
 xxiii. 37. eirnTwa^ai 
 XXV. 41. 01 KaTtipafievoi 
 
 xxvi. 28 
 
 CODKX ]J ANU ITS ALLIES. 
 
 10. I forbear )o eay anything about Oiig and Bus +Ta>v ev rr) 
 
 €KicKr](ria after opare firj Ka7a<f>povri<TriTe fro? Tav filxpav toittmi') 
 10. (See under " Coptic") 
 5. See under " Iiuprovement." 
 
 C. See under " Improvement " o-uwrafeK BCD 33 004 Evst 48 Sod"" 
 
 trpocma^fv N rell omn Orig^ JSh.s'"'' 
 19. OV fi.t]K€Ti BLH against 
 
 N rell and Orig*'^' 
 NBCDLSJn 1 22 33 892' Sod"" 
 rell et Orig Cyr Dam 
 NBL 692 Sod"' only (uo other mill), 
 rell omn et Origeii bis 
 
 Orig Eus (eintrvvay^iv N, eTnavvayayew B rell) 
 Orig^'^' Hipp Const Eus Caes Has (xartipafievoi 
 NBLT' 33 Sod"*' boh Cyr 1/2 soli) 
 Tj;9 Kaivrit Zia6rfKr)<; Orig and most ( tt;? Sia6riKi]<; KBLZ 33 Sod''" 
 
 bohutm, Cyr {Cypr) ) 
 39. Of our Lord's prayer : varep tantum Orig'"'""'' (et Celsiis) ct 
 Justin Iren''' Eiis'"^" Ath*^ Ps-Ath Cypr Did Cyr JBas'^"" a 
 S /i vgg' et dim Orig''^'-^ with LAS /am 1 802 al'", witness 
 against Trarep fiov of KB and the rest. 
 
 In "Westcott and Hort's margin there is not a sign of any 
 alternative to Trarep /iov, and yet surely Celsus' and the 
 Valenlinians' " a Trarep " deserves a hearing ! 
 .53. wXeio) only NBD {latt) against Origen TrXeiou? with all the rest ; 
 Soden quotes Orig for wXeiw. 
 Sm&eKa ( — 17) NBDL 004 b d against Origen r) SoiSt/ca with all 
 the rest. 
 Above we have certainly two really " neutral " readings of 
 Origen, as against NB, xiii. 43 Xafiy^ovaiv and xxvi. 39 Trartp. 
 
 Hort, vol i. p. 5.57 : " On the other hand every combination of N with 
 another primary MS presents for the most part readings which cannot be 
 finally approved ..." But thereagaiust note : 
 
 Origen and X against B. 
 
 Matt. 
 
 vi. 7. edviKoi a omn et Orig (contra Bj syr cii viroKpirai) 
 
 21. xaL T] KapSia N omn et Orig (contra B m aeth boh""""' —xat) 
 vii. 14 init. on ( — Ze) N*X m boh Orig Naass etc (on Se B sah 4/0) 
 x. 37. Habcnt km o <j>i\a>v. . .fiov a^to<; N plur Orig On'j'"' Eus 
 
 Cypr 2/3 (contra BD 17 243 ni*"" d Cypr 1/3 om) 
 xi. 15. Habent axoveiv N plur Docet Just Orig Orig^"^ (contra om BD 
 
 32 174 004 d k syr sin) 
 
 t 0/ article under " Iniprovemeot " and sah ai/r. 
 
 B IN ST. MATTHliW S OOSrEL. 
 
 71 
 
 xi. 2J. Habent Ka0r,fievoi NCU 33 al. Orig Orig'"'' (contra om B 
 
 p>lur sah boh syr lat) 
 xii. 49. x"?"" ii(D) latt pi Orig Ecang^''"'"( + avTovB plur) 
 
 xiii. 4. Kill jjX^ei; ra Trereiva Kat KaTC<f>aycv ND ^)Zmc Orig (km 
 e\0ovra to ireTeiva xare^. B /am 13 Soff'™"'"! et txt) 
 ( XV. 32. ruiepat rpei? N mill Orig'''' (rpeis rifLcpat B al.) 
 I xvii. 4. Tpei? (TKi}va<; X plur Orig'''' (aKi]va^ rpeK B e) 
 xvi. 1. ewripa>TO}v H min aliq boh Orig (cTrrjpioTricrav BCD al.) 
 
 14. aXXot Be N plur copt lat syr Orig (01 Se B Etui) 
 
 20. SieareiXaro N plur sah boh Orig''"'"^' (eTreTi/iria-ev BD) 
 xvii. 9. avaoTTi N plur Orig (eyepdi; BD Sod'^^') 
 
 10. -amov NLWZ Sod"'" al. Orig (Habent B plur) 
 
 25. ttTTo Tivwv a plur Orig Cyr 2/4 (atro t«/o? B Sod""'' Cyr 2/4) 
 
 xviii. 7. Habent e<TTiv H plur Orig (om BliS,^ al.) 
 
 10. hvo rj rpuav naprUpav X al. Orig (Bvo fiapr. tj rpiwv B al.) 
 XX. 17. TOW! SmSeKa tantum NDLZ etc Orig''"*'" (contra B et rell) 
 xxi. 0. ■n-poaera^ei' N plur Orig'"' (o-uwrafei/ BCD 33 004 Evst 48 
 
 Sod"") 
 8. (.sec loco) earpaaav XD"' c e ff^q boh Orig (eoTprnvvvov B rell} 
 19. yevoiTO (tor yevrtrai) ti Sod°^° Orig*^' 
 Etc etc, and often 892 is on the side of N in the above list. 
 Further note that NB when they are in sympathy with the Evauy^'''°" 
 do not keep on the same side. At xii. 48 B is with this Gospel. At 
 xii. 49 it is K. 
 
 But see as to N in detail Part II. where the main differences between 
 N and B are recorded with the supporting authorities. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 B IN St. Maek's Gospel. 
 
 " Ubci'blickt man in Grossen die Ergeboisse fUr Markus, so Bind sie der Annabme, 
 dass in ihm die iilteste Aiifzeichnung vorliegt, nicbt gUostig. Er ist dem Judentum 
 entf lemdet . . . Ausscrdem ist MarkuB vielfach Ubermalt. . ." — Merx : Die vier Jcanonischcn 
 Evangelicn, etc. ii. Tbeil, ii. Halfte, p. 173. 
 
 " And what means are there to decide such questions? As long as scholars dream 
 of one definite primitive Gospel, in open contradiction to Luke*s proem, they will both 
 raise and answer them ; but as soon as that unwarranted supposition is removed we get 
 rid of a host of inextricable questions." — Blass: Philology of llic Gospels, pp. 178/179. 
 
 I would like to preface what I have to say as to St. Mark's Gospel 
 by the remark that all I have written should be included between two very 
 large square brackets ; for the problems offered in this Gospel are utterly 
 different from those which exist in the other three. It is true that the 
 same features as to XBCL exist to some extent in St. Mark as elsewhere, 
 but they must be considered from a different point of view. One new 
 feature is the constant addition of A in St. Mark to the NBL group. A 
 in St. Mark is purely NBL ; I cannot say " Egyptian " exactly, although 
 there is Coptic sympathy with this group, because W comes in here to 
 show us an absolutely different Greek recension existing in Egj-pt side 
 by side with that of NB. Although DW are close, W e are tvrin brethren 
 from Mark i.-iv. fn and it seems that I was perfectly right to speak 
 of two or three Greek recensions in St. Mark. 
 
 Consider this : iv. 1. 
 
 KBCL: 
 
 KaOrirrOai ev tt] BaXatrar) xai Tra? o ox^a Trpo? tt/k BaKcurtrav eiri 
 
 rr)^ 71;? ri<rav 
 D: 
 Ka6r)(TTai irepav tjj? OaXaacnj^ Km ira'; o-)(\o'! wepav t?;? OaXcurari^t rjv 
 d circa mare a d I q circa mare 
 
 W: 
 KaOrjaOai irapa rov aiyiaXov xai tto? o^o<; ev to) aiyiaXo) ijv 
 he ad htus h c e f ff^ g, in litore 
 
 (■ ffi proxime litus OciV;'"' secus mare in terris 
 
 I'g circa mare super terram 
 As to 711' {pro rjaav) erat is read hy ah g^l q vg Orig^"^, erant by d, 
 stahat is found in fffi gi, while c (?) reads staret, and it is left to e to write 
 scdehat. As W does not confonn to thia last, we must suppose that W 
 was not deliberately following our e, but something much older, and 
 note b has erat and d has erant. 
 
 How is it that neither S"" nor G04 have any relation to W and the 
 
 B IN ST. mark's gospel. 
 
 73 
 
 Latins here ? All the Old Latin and Coptic ehde e^. r,, 7^9 or include 
 it in the expression in litore. It is left for W alone to graecze this 
 
 Eight after this, the common base of W 6 c .apart from the rest 
 and apart from D d omit in iv. 5 Ita to m ^X"" ^o^ "IT' _ . ■ „o 
 
 That the Greek of W is an independent translation is seen at .v. 20, 
 for W alone writes TO c. (<.,) for e. t And at iv. 21 ^'^^^^'^t^l^l^^'^^'^ 
 where D has a-^era., which can be read m wo ^^f ^ ^f ^.^'^Jj^ J^ 
 might think that e obtained d^mm from the 8«>/^. of W ("• ^O, othe« 
 4- or .apaPoK^i^v), or that 6 e got crescrt from a.J. of W (iv. 32, 
 others avaPmvu), instead of W obtaining th>s Greek via the Lat n. 
 
 An interesting point is the doubling of pudla hj em v. 41, but W 
 with the rest ro /o/a-o., so that e obtained this later than h tm o 
 W, and Aphraates' remarks on this subject appear to be the merest 
 tradition. This is helpful as to dates. „„nfhfr 
 
 W (which breaks in at vii. 33) seems further to be another 
 independent translation. 
 
 Mark. 
 
 In Mark we must be exceedingly careful and avail ourselves of every 
 scrap of new evidence. I will therefore recapitulate the position as to 
 several important witnesses. ■ ^ , ■ i„ 
 
 it only begins at viii. 8, but e is available for .. 20-vi 9 (again only 
 at xii. 37-xiii. 3, xiii. 24^27, 33-36) and .. fills in the gap between e and 
 
 k from vi. 13-viii. 8. ^ ■ -. ■ nn \sf ^nW 
 
 2 gives us all Mark to xvi. 14 middle; * 1. 1-xiv 62; ^ only 
 from ix' 6 (shortly after k begins) to end Paris" and <504 -d 2Pȣe 
 us all St. Mark. Syr sin begins at 1. 12/13 and g'^^^^^^"/*" ™ 
 to xvi. 8 except i. 44-ii. 21, iv. 18-41 and v. 26-vi. 5. Nothing of Syrci, 
 survives except xvi. 17-20, which is interesting as giving part of the 
 portion at the end after xvi. 8. Finally we have the inestimable new 
 witness W, which gives us all St. Mark (except xv. 12-38) including 
 
 xvi. 9-20 with a long addition therein. 
 
 We have also Horner's completed labours on so7i and 60/1. 
 
 The Palestinian syriac replaces syr cu sin at 1. 1-12 and in the 
 
 ii""" and v'*" chapters, but not in the iv'". 
 
 , The cursives Laura* •« and Paris" I continue to quot« thus as 
 
 Gregory's and Scrivener's numbers differ. I have also used by number 
 
 892 1 collated by Eendel Harris in 1890, as this number is the same in 
 
 t Consider also owara. W alone at iv. 31 for ot orav (orn. K*) or o or. a. D. Note 
 the absolute independence of W at iii. 3 .k rov ,i,<tov for ..t ro M«"-o- C« * -* « / i?, ? « 1° 
 raedium) or ,. .L D^ Paris" (c I vg^^ in medio). Also «8o. W"' at ... 12 (or «Joj.,.) 
 = vMe^^t of c (fc) (vidisse se a 5) while . has vi^ir,,,... So that here 5 c W are e.ther 
 basic or the reverse. Which ? N seeks to improve by substituting alone .4>a^ .|. r» ^^o,\. 
 
 t =8od""<'. Apparently not used by Souter, but it seems even closer to NB than l-ana . 
 
74 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Gregory and Scrivener-Miller, and it has much affinity with NB and is 
 useful before chapter ix where I' begins. 
 
 Example of Editing by B. 
 
 Murk ^ 
 
 xiii. 33. — Kai TrpoffevxecSe BD 122 acdk vg^' W-H soli contra mundum. 
 I wish to point out that k does not strengthen here because we 
 catch k (alone among Latins) going with B two verses further on (xiii. 35) 
 in a question of " pairs." Besides, why are N and L absent ; why do 
 604 892 and Paris" withhold their support ? And where are the Coptic 
 and the Syriac versions, which scholars tell me merely share the base 
 of B ? Not even 2i" joins BD here. And W abstains with 28 and 157, 
 fam 1 and/aw 13. [Von Soden adds no fresh Greeks, not even S 30 or 0-50.] 
 
 Solecis?ns of B. 
 
 Mark 
 
 i. 18. rjKoXovdovv (pro •qKoXovBrjaav) B™' (See Under Historic present) 
 TO nxaOaprov ( — TO TTveviM) B"'. Observe e r TO irreu/ia ( — to 
 
 axaBaprov) while W omits the whole. 
 -o! B*™' 
 
 B'"' {sail boh on Kvpie, sed al. vel om xvpie 
 
 vet on vel ambas lectt) 
 B°'. Why not hvva? [See ix. 22, 23.] 
 B'°' ( — r)v KM b e soli inter verss) 
 
 These three points occurring thus 
 
 together after an interval of two 
 
 chapters are absolutely indicative of 
 
 editing. The central one shows 
 
 boh influence and the sympathy of 
 
 two Latins. 
 
 5. Kat OTTov ■ B™' (a ?) The others have ottou, or /cat otj DW 
 
 it^^ It looks like a kind of " conflate " here in this " neutral " 
 
 text. Hort prints [x-ai] ottou, quite disguising the real 
 
 situation. 
 
 ibid. 0aeo<; tij? 717? {pro ffaeoi 717?) B™' cum Sod"" [ut B"" in Matt. 
 
 xiii. 5]. D"' alone agrees to insert an article PaBot ttjv yr/v. H 
 
 and all the rest against them, [W and its faithful allies bee 
 
 omit the clause.] The addition of the article alone by BD 
 
 looks like translation from Latin. 
 
 e^mOev (pro ffoj) Bti (centra rell et Orig''") 
 
 01 orav (pro Kai orav) B™' (cf pcrs) 
 
 20. 
 
 30. -01 
 40. Kvpie on 
 
 ibid. Swi] (pro Svimtrai) 
 45. — Tjii 
 
 . 34 init. —xai 
 
 -Q.A 
 
 35. —yap 
 
 B boh b e 
 
 ibid. Ta OeKrffuna 
 
 B"' 
 
 11. 
 
 15. 
 
 10. OTav (pro 01 orav) 
 20. — ev sec et tert 
 22 Jin. ipavepaiffri 
 28. 7r\j7/}e? o-eiTo? 
 
 32. KaTOCTKtJVOlV 
 
 B"' 
 
 B"' et i (cf syr) 
 
 B"' (cf syr sah pcrs aeth) 
 
 B (DW •n-\rfpr]<; o erttTO?) 
 B 
 
 1) IK ST. mark's gospel. 
 
 75 
 
 Uark 
 
 V. 3(5. +TOV (ante \a\oviievov) ' rov \oyov rov >M\ovptvot 
 
 B" 
 
 38 /n. iTo\\a(t (pro noWa) 
 vi. 17. —TrfvyvvaiKa 
 33. eyvaa-av 
 39. ev (pro eirt) 
 
 54 init. xai e^eXOovrcov (-avTav) 
 vii 4. a-rep eXa^ov (pro a irapekafiov) 
 
 14. \eyei (pro eXeycv) B 59 soli (see under " Historicjresent ") 
 
 15 t TO Koivouv avrov (pro Swarai avrov Koivatrat) B"" (cf Aug) 
 
 ibid fin. -Tov (ante avOp^Trov) B-""" (against sah; this is to be 
 
 noted because boh acts peculiarly in verse 15, and it is with 
 
 boh [mm sah] that NBLA omit the verse 10 following). 
 
 B""' (iroXXou? Sod"'''') 
 
 B* txt sol cum Sod'"" 
 
 BD fam 1 
 
 B'°' 
 
 B°' 
 
 B Paris" Sod"" 
 
 €Ku6e (pro cKetOev) 
 +0)? (post ireiroirjxev) 
 
 B. This is a " nicety " before Be. 
 
 B. See under " Coptic." 
 
 B'°' cum 892 (Harris, Journ. Bib. Lit. 
 
 1890, vol. ix.) 
 BL, no others, no versions, not Origen. 
 But W omits both Xeyw and vfitv, having only afivv. 
 32. > Trrrpo? avrov BL a soli W-H Sod (sed cf sah boh). There 
 is no good reason for the change by BL : km irpoo-Xa/So/wi/o? o 
 TreTpo? avTOV t,p^aTO instead of koi irpoaX. avrov ■ireTpo'; rip^aro. 
 + (ante avdpioiroi) B"'. See under " Coptic." 
 
 aSe -rwv eeTVKOTuv B(D'), cf c f I vg [contra N, contra 
 
 Orig] 
 eo,, B""' (60)9 ov Sod'") 
 
 30. ^oniv aiMviav (pro ^wriv ato>viov) B"". Here is a purist for 
 you. No others seem to change. Clem turns it " ^aijv itrnv 
 alwviot," Q.D.S. § 25, but Barnard in his note to ' Clem, of 
 Alex. Bibl. Text,' p. 35 = foji; i<rnv amvtot. 
 Bvvo/ieda (pro Svvapeda) B""' "' 
 
 avToc TToWoi (pro avrw vel avrov iroWoi) B °'. Cf Orig avrot 
 
 01 TToXXoi and sah 
 . 1. /S,8<^a77, B-|(c/sfl7, 1/5) 
 
 ibid. TO ekatwv (pro Ttov eXonai-) B""' (cf « et k) 
 
 7, 8. eavrav bist B"" cum 892 (vide infra xiii. 44) (Sod"''" '"'^ 
 
 24, 
 
 37, 
 . 2. ri/iepaK Tpiat 
 
 12. — VfllV 
 
 37. 
 , 1. 
 
 21. 
 
 39. 
 
 48. 
 
 11. -T77?o)pa? B™' cum. 
 
 :i. 5. avoKTevvvvre'! 
 8. £fe/3aXai/ 
 17. —avToii 
 
 30. — (V (ante tw Trvevfian) 
 ibid. Kadtaov (pro KaBov) 
 
 J Sorf""""" (cf aeth syr sin) 
 B 892 Evst 1.50 
 B"' 
 
 BD d [non al.] 
 B'°' cum Sod°'' 273 
 B"" 
 
 t This hardly seems a change " guiltless of ingenuity or other untimely activity o{ 
 the brain and unaffected by mental influences except of the most limited and unconscious 
 kind " (Hort) tor in vv. 13/15 B opposes H eight times ! 
 
 i See page 11 as to this Alexandrian preference. 
 
7G 
 
 CODEX 13 AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 XU, 
 
 xiii 
 
 40. 
 
 3. 
 
 7. 
 
 9. 
 12. 
 
 13. 
 30. 
 
 32. 
 
 34. 
 
 . 20 
 
 24. 
 32. 
 43. 
 49. 
 
 eo. 
 
 03. 
 09. 
 4. 
 12. 
 1.5. 
 3.5, 
 
 45. 
 5. 
 
 KareadovTef; 
 
 KuffiSiav 
 
 aKOUTjTe 
 
 eTTavaaTijaerai 
 
 6(? fTTeXot 
 
 e&j? oTov 
 
 ayyt\o<: (pro oi ayyeXoi) 
 eavTov pr et sec {pro avrov) 
 fin. +(v (inter TO et Tpv^Xwv) 
 
 B C/L?(cvii. 33 
 B * 
 
 B et Sod^™ 
 
 J^aol vltl 
 
 B"«' aim Sod'o" tc (c.f BA Uatl. x. 21 in loco 
 
 2^aral!.) 
 B"' 
 B'°' (rariant pbirimum rell, 
 
 vide Part II.) 
 B"' (et io/i'i""'"!"' Aug"'"'') 
 B""' "'' (vide supra xi. 7, 8 
 B"" (C* ??) Sod''" 2^ See 
 
 under " Coptic." 
 B™' 
 
 B'°' (avTov pro o>&€ fam 1) 
 B™' 
 
 B*' (expaTene V) 
 BW^' soli (cf boh) (toi 13) 
 B"" (Mi N alibi) 
 B^'. See under "Coptic." 
 B Paris" soli vid 
 
 — lohe 
 
 a-TTO T(Mi/ ap-)(^. (pro -rrapa tojv ap-^^.) 
 
 exparet (pro expaTrja-aTe) 
 
 oTi (pro Tl) 
 
 KtTCOVa'^ 
 
 enrev (2)ro rjp^aro \eyew) 
 
 — ovBev 
 
 ■n-onja-o) Xeyere (pro BeXcre ■jrotijaai ov \e76T6) B"' et W-H [01/] 
 
 TTotew (pro TToi^a-at) B'°' cum Laura*"" 
 
 e,7Tr,K0Ta,v B-°'(A) (pro irapec^TroTcov NDU al. pane, 
 
 Tapeo-TijKOTwv al.) 
 (tuo-i; (jyro iw<Tr)^) BW soli 
 
 eXBovcrai (pro (laeXOovaai) B 127 .loli 
 
 B and Latin Sympathy. 
 
 It continues to be impossible to divorce B from the Latin and to 
 treat its text as " neutral." 
 
 Consult Mark xiv. 30 /te airapvii)<rri (jiro awapuriari /it) NBDAC (fam 13) 
 (fie apvr,,Tv W) and latt (W-H Sod) . All others and ^ havelhe common 
 order. The point being that B is supported by both the graeco-latins 
 DA (L 09* Sod"'" and k* alone omit /le, evidently seeing in their copies 
 the two orders). In this case, by Hort's canons, L 69 Sod°'° and k would 
 represent the "true" "neutral" shorter text against B. But this is 
 very unlikely, as fie is required in this sentence. 
 
 In xiv. 72 the same order occurs in NBCLWA^F Old Latins and copt 
 (W-H Sod). 
 
 As bearing on this in the immediate context note Mark xv. 1, where 
 BDL^J Sod"'" 40 2'' 892 Sod"=' omit eve to before wpm, agreeing exactly 
 with the Latin mane. Again here D supports (so W-H trt, not Sod). 
 
 ]) IN ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 
 
 77 
 
 In the same neighbourhood, Mark xv. 32 NBCKLAH (W-H Sod) 
 omit Tou before lapaqX. Here we have conjunction BDA once more 
 with the Latin. W is wanting but 28 157 604 Paris" do not omit. 
 
 Again xv. 30 for km Karaffa of Greek and Syr we find KaTa^a<; by 
 NBCA^ Sod'" and k I n vg copt (W-H Sod). 
 
 Again xv. 27 for oTavpovcriv of the usual text we find ecnavptoaav 
 by B 2'" agreeing with e d ffi k n not followed by W-H or Sod. 
 
 Incidentally we may ask why BDW and c'" Sod'^"'' are found alone 
 in conjunction at xv. 44 with rfir) for -naXcu. Is this small group really 
 " neutral " here against all else ? If so it is a graeco-latin (jam . . . jam). 
 Hort has it in his text, so that it must be " neutral " as well ! 
 
 Keferring to k'u omission in xiv. 30, we find another case at xv. 8, 
 where there are two very different readings to choose from, ovo/Sa? 
 (of NBD 892 sah boh goth (a) c d ffi I r B vg) and avafiorjaa<; (of the 
 great majority of Greeks, of the syriac, of arm and of diatess^"^'') . b e fi q 
 are wanting, but S writes ascendisset over ava^or)aa<;. Acth conflates 
 both readings. 
 
 We know then that in k's time both readings must have been extant 
 — as k omits— and B chose (siding with ND on the Latin side). 
 
 It is quite noteworthy that B goes with the Egyptian versions 
 here, besides the Latin, against the syriacs and the diatessaron, and 
 against N°''A fifteen uncials and W and all the cursives including fam 1 
 fam 13 28 and 157 435 and 2'" 604. 
 
 This is a very remarkable place and merits more attention in these 
 discussions than it has hitherto received. The new uncial W with S 
 ("t wanting) '^ and the notable cursives Paris" and Laura*'"* with all 
 Soden's other codices go with the mass of Greeks for avafiorja-a<! against 
 NBD 892 latt, while the Latin here is hopelessly opposed to the Syriac 
 and to its great friend the diatessaron. Further observe extraordinary 
 unanimity here among the Latins (the Latin diatessaron rg^ is confused 
 here and leaves out Mark xv. 8). Sod follows Hort with ava0a<;. 
 
 Jebb refers to a similar case in the Old Testament as regards 
 ave^rja-ev and avaPotfaev 2 Kings xxiii. 9. 
 
 For further detail, observe the following : 
 Mark i. 2. -eyai BD Sod"''" 2'" latt 
 
 10. fi? avTov (pro e-TT avrov) BD fam 13 a d I and vg in 
 
 ipso, 6 in eo, against all the rest and the sympathising 
 cursives. W seems to have changed Gic to en at the time 
 it was written. Sod follows Hort for ei<;. 
 iv. 1. o-)(\o<; Tr\ei<TTo^ pro oxXo<; TToXv^ NBCLA and only these pZHS 
 W 892 W-H Sod. Possibly from an original turba multa mtdta 
 (this redupl. is quite common), but cf. Matt xiii. 2 at the parallel 
 where ira? o oyXoi; is used. ttXcio-to? is unusual, occurring only 
 in the Gospels at Matt. xi. 20 at TrXeio-Toi Swafieit avrov and 
 Matt. xxi. 8 o Se ttXcio-to? o^Xo?. As W joins exceptionally 
 
78 CODKX It AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 M>rk 
 
 I should think viulta multa must have stood in the copies. 
 (See note to John vii. 39 in Part II). Nor do I need to be told 
 that this is far-fetched, because in the very next words W 
 "gives away " a purely latin reading known only from 6 e which 
 have ad litus for ei* tt; BaXaa-a-i) (prhno loco) while W has irapa 
 Tov aiytoKov. D has only -rrepav rrj^ OdKaaarit and 131 wapa 
 r>)v OiiKaaaav. d = circa mare, a circa litus marls, c ff^ pro.xime 
 litus, 2'"' = eiri TT} 6a\a<r(Tri and 5 super mare. 
 In secimdo loco where most have -wpiys tt/i/ BdKacraav, but D^ 
 Trepav tj;9 Bdkacrar)'; (a d I q circa mare), W has ev tw aiyia\a 
 with h c efffi in litore. 
 iv. 3. iTTTupai (pro Toi; aiTHpai) N'BWT" Sod^"'' et W-H [Sod txt] 
 
 Cf seminare if^ et d (om D^O 
 V. G. TrpocreKwriaev avTov {pro Trp. ama) BACLA 892 al. d [contra 
 
 T)"] S et latt copt {et W-H Sod) 
 
 21. er -rrXoia (-tw) B 447 soli inter gr. ct vg et / S 
 
 [cnntra^ copt ct NW rell ev tw irKoioi, sed om ev rai irXoio) D if^] 
 
 vii. G. >o \oo9 ovroi BD 372 Laura* '"^ latt against all 
 
 others as well as W and copt. Not followed by W-H Sod txt. 
 
 viii. 10. +avTo^ (post efi0a<;) B'"' 372 IF-if TO?, +ai/Tos a7i<e e/t/9as 
 
 b d i r, et D k ipse ascendit 
 X. .SO. ^u>r}v aiiaviav B'"' Cy vitam aetemam 
 
 .'i7. -<rov sec. BAVDA^IO 21" Sod"" b c ff, g,,^ kqrZ 
 
 xi. 2. fxadia-ev {pro KeKadtxev) NBCLA^. No doubt on account 
 of sedit all Latins. Only Sod"'""'-' 2'" 604 892 Paris" and 
 Evst 3G join '^ in supporting NBCLA. Soden txt refuses it. 
 xii. HO. — Ti;? ante Kaphiat 
 
 — Ti)? ,, ■^vyrj'i B""' vid 
 
 — tt;? ,, S(arota9 
 
 This is quite striking. D'X* omit the first one only, 
 xiv. 10. -o {ante urKapitoTV!) N'BC'DW ?J/aTO 13 [non 124] 28 440 
 Laura* '"* Sod<^^''i Orig, against sah boh and the rest and refused 
 by Sod. 
 (But immediately after NBC*LM^ have o eh (for th) accepted 
 by Sod with boh (niOTfi-O against sah ott. and latt : unus) 
 21. -t)v {post KoXov) BL el W 892 c ff.i I q aur t'^'"'™ but 
 refused by Sod. Neither ^ nor Paris" omit and none of the 
 others, not even 2''°. The d (si) following may have been 
 contused for eZ (est) " koXov avrm tJ ovk eyfi'vrjOri " but the 
 Latins who omit t^i- say " bonum illi si non esset " (fuisset g). 
 XV. l.'i. ToiKavoviroiei.v{proToiK.iTotj](Tai) B Laura* '"* soH. Refused by 
 W-H Sod. Cf lat satisfacere [sed dff^k »■'''' om clans cum D", 
 et hiant b efi q, ct a mutilus ab Pilatus autem. . .xv. 15]. 
 27. ea-Tavpaa-av {j)ro a-ravpovaiv) B 2'" C d ff, k 71 {= W^"'"', 
 hiant b e f i q r r-,) anr gat ri?""', refused by W-H Sod. 
 
 I) IN ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 
 
 79 
 
 XV. 4'1. i;8i; {pro iraXai) sec loco BDW c" Sod"" soli vid. This 
 
 corresponds to theynj«. . .jam of the Latins. 
 W goes as far as to repeat the reOvTixev in the second place for 
 a-rre6avev of nearly all. T) says redvijKei (syr sin omits -rraXai, and 2'" 
 n rj omit the clause). 
 
 xvi. 2. - TTj {ante p.ia) BW 1 soli et [ W-H]. Cf latt una vel prima. 
 Soden holds tij? /ua^, but his notes are confusing in the 
 extreme. 
 
 As to Coptic. 
 
 ""' i. 4. Kijpviramy (- Kai) B 33 73 892 W-H sah boh^"" [non al] 
 
 34. ra Sai/iovia XoKeiv B"" vid cnm boh {hiat sah). The others 
 have \aXetv ra Sat/iovia, but D d latt syr sin aeth : avra XaXeiv 
 in the order of B, but more simply. 
 37. Koj evpov avTou xai Xeyovaiv NBL 892 soli et W-H cnm e 
 
 boh"'"^ aeth 
 This is a very noteworthy place. All the sympathising 
 cursives oppose and with the bulk of the uncials and boh''^ have 
 Kai evpoiTK avTov Xey., or as D lat syr arm goth sah xai ore 
 evpov avrov Xerj. Tisch records 6 c for "nil nisi dicentes." 
 To these two Old Latin witnesses add the new W^, and it will 
 be seen that NBL 892 e are left completely alone with boh ^'"^ 
 and aeth. 
 To insist that these boh codices and aeth got it from KBL is to do 
 violence to the other passages witnessing to quite the contrary course. t 
 A curious and innate sympathy then remains here between these three 
 boh codices aeth and NBL e, while W breaks loose from e here, and with 
 b c gives us much the shortest text. 
 
 i. 39. v^6ev {pro vv) ^<BL Sod'^" 892 sah boh aeth W-H Sod 
 against all else and syr latt arm goth. The " erat praedicans " 
 is not very pretty in Latin, and yet the Latins held it. I am 
 convinced that ijXffev is sheer improvement by NBL. Even 
 33 and Paris" desert them, and they had upheld them in two 
 violent changes in verse 38. Why on earth should " Antioch " 
 have substituted iiv for riXdev? H goes further and after 
 r]X6ev substitutes leqpvaiTeiv for Kijpvaaav with boh. 
 ii. 1. -Kai (ante ijkouo-^t;) NBL 28 33 124 [non fam] V C04 
 
 Paris"' W-H Sod. a c sah boh arm. 
 2. -evOeto^ NBLW 33 G04 Paris'" 892 W-H {non Sod) 
 
 b gil »"2 vg sah boh arm aeth sj/?*^'' {contra D rell qui saepe 
 in ch. i evOew; oni.) 
 
 t For consiier aeth at i. 34 where aeth goes with syr sin D d aod all Latins ; at i. 11 
 where it goes with a {f goth) ; at i. 15 with syr j^esh ; at i. 21 where it steers its own 
 course ; at i. 29 with £ ; at i. 38 with syr sin. 
 
80 
 
 CODEX H AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 ii. 4. irpoaeveyxai NBL Sod"''" (33) 63 253 372 892 Evst 48flvg 
 (offerre contra accedere it) sah hoJi acth. This is an important 
 place. D with the rest and it syr has wpotreyyitrai (a few 
 tyyiaai) and W irpoa-eKOew. As to 28 2''° 604 Paris" they con- 
 tradict flatly NBL copt and have Trpoa^eyyiaai. W seems to be 
 retranslating accedeicol the Old Latin. Sod refuses ■rrpo<TeveyKat. 
 7 iiiit. oTt {pro Ti) B Sod'''" p»" only. Cf on ri of sah boh with 
 
 the usual introductory XB- Also sijr. [But see ix. 11, 28.] 
 16. Kai (oi) ypafifiaTeii; tcov <j>api<Tai(i>v (prp Kai oiypap,. Kat, oi <t>('p.) 
 read by NBLAW 33 28 124 (against the rest) b copt {not sijr) 
 The points which particularly appeal to me in such passages are the 
 opposition in the fam 13 group and the absence of such controlling mss 
 asfam 1 1.'57 2"" [Soden quotes 93'V] 604 892 Paris.". 
 
 Here, where Tisch. quotes copt (" ita certe cop'^°'' cop"''' '' ''^ ") we 
 must correct from Horner. Sah reads km oi if>ap. (i.e. " with the 
 Pharisees ") and only the boh mss diF*?0 are reported for twv <f)ap. This 
 is important. For if while considering Egyptian or Alexandiian influence 
 on tin we are likely to be held up and the point made that NB influenced 
 the Coptic versions instead of vice versa, we point to a passage like this 
 where the Egyptian versions refused to be influenced ; at any rate a trace 
 remains only in two bohairic mss and possibly in the first hand of a third, 
 ii. 17. + OTt {ante ov xpeiav) BA Sod"'" S 2p» Laura*"" Sod'" sah boh. 
 Absolutely no others yet greedily seized by Sod^''' [IF-fl"'""]. 
 This is noteworthy for it is followed five words further by : 
 ibid. aWa {pro a\\') TiV/ soliciimsahboh{moreco2}t), tetusedby Sod. 
 18. 01 8c iTOL (-ixafij^rai) B sol cum 127 2"° boh"', refused by Sod. 
 This therefore establishes an absolute relationship between 
 B and Coptic (= boh"''') in di'. 17 and 18. 
 22. aTToWurai xat ot aiTKoi B 892'''' only, and so exactly boh. No 
 others, but accepted by W-H Sod. This among a very com- 
 plicated number of changes in the account of the wine and 
 Isottles is most striking, coming right after the minutiae 
 noticed above, 
 iii. 6. eStSovv pro tiroiow BLifam 13 28 2"" C04 Sod'" only with 
 
 boh^i^i^fi, adopted by W-H and Soden. 
 This is interesting (and cannot be classed beyond under 
 "Synonyms") because the syriac can lend itself to either inter- 
 pretation and is indeterminate (rendered ceperunt by syr'"'-). 
 I hardly think it is fair to suggest that e&i&ovv is " neutral " ; 
 rather is it a correction. Notice that X is absent, reading 
 with CA Sod™ 2'" eiroirjo-av. The latins and d use facicbant 
 (3 iniebant). Paris'' cttoioiii; with most. T)" a -rroiovvTa. W 
 Sod^'^^'' eTToiovvro. As to the Coptic, notice A,0 again come in 
 for eiiiovv as they did above for twv ipaptaaiav (ii. 16). 
 892* is uncertain with eTrotrjaav in the margin. 
 
 B IN ST. MAEKS GOSPEL. 
 
 81 
 
 iii. 8. 7roi6i(j))0€7ro(6») BL IF-H (none of the sympathising cursives) 
 and sah lo/i'''""''"" against ND and the rest -t-WS*. 
 15. -Oepa-ireueiv to? voaovi Kai KBC'LA 892 2''" sah boh, against 
 all else [none of the other sympathising cursives nor Latin nor 
 Syriac nor Arm. nor Goth] yet followed by T Tr W-H liev 
 and Soden txt. Observe acth which evidently put the clause 
 in after considerable research, for aeth adds it after eicfiaXKew 
 Ta Saifiovia instead of before the clause. This is not necessarily 
 ex Matt X. 1. 
 
 The community of Egyptian origin for NBLA is hereby 
 set forth, and the "neutral" text transferred bodily to 
 Alexandria, and I claim that the " neutral" text is part of a 
 revision by the Alexandrian School and not a survival of 
 Apostolic days. Here NBCLA are supported not by a single 
 Greek cursive [except 2'" (against 604) 892], not by any syriac 
 or arm., not by any Latin, but by all the mss of the sah and 
 boh which we know. 
 
 In boh I may point out that there might be confusion and 
 exclusion from similarity of appearance between cywlH. and 
 ajtjoni (infinuus). See Homer's note in boh as to addition by 
 codd. F'^G". 
 
 The new Codex W does not omit, and adds after Rai/iovia 
 end of verse xai irfpiayovret Kripva-aiv to evayyeKiov. The place, 
 folio 319, is worth study, for no {rri'xoi; space is found between 
 voaov; and km CK^aWeiv, while there is one between SM/iov.a 
 and the addition. 
 35. -yap Bbe boh et W-H txt [non Sod] 
 
 iv. 21. +oTt {ante fiijTi) BL 892 so/i = cop< -t-xe- Accepted by 
 
 W-H, refused by Sod. 
 Fam 13 and 28 add iSeT*. The rest all omit. 
 The sentence runs : km eXeyev ai/Toi? [oti] imtjti ep^^erai {wmfTM D 
 
 latt) \v^VQ^ LVa VTTO TOV fioStov T€^7;. 
 
 Is it possible to imagine that BL preserve the original and that aZ? others, 
 
 including the other important sympathising cursives, have dropped itV 
 
 More likely again BL show Egyptian or Alexandrian minds or eyes at work. 
 
 iv. 34. Kat j(;o)pt? {pro xwpt^ 8e) B<1>3 604 {soli inter gr-lat) cum sah 
 
 syr pesh aeth boh"' but refused by both W-H and Sod. 
 v. 42. Kat efeo-TTjo-ai/ +€v6v<; NBGLA 33 892 [non al. min] boh aeth 
 
 W-H Sod txt [contra DW rell et latt sah syr]. 
 vi. 2. -1-ot {ante troXXot) BL fam 13 [non 124] 28 [non W] 892"'' 
 
 sah 6o/i'i"»""°' {syr emph) W-H Sod txt [Non Paris" non N]. 
 
 Very strange it this ol should have been cut out of all other 
 texts, including N [^ does not begin until ch. ix]. 
 8. >fiv aprov fir, Trrjpav NBCLA SoA"^"^ 33 892 Paris" boh 
 [non sah] aeth W-H Sod [contra W et D et rell omn et sah et 
 minn rell omn\. 
 
 a 
 
82 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 ■vi. 9. This is instantly followed by aWa for o\X' (before uTroSeSe/ieyou?, 
 forming a hiatus) ex more cojH by NABCDLUNS 28 scr' 
 Paris", but W is careful to write aW and insert an apostrophe ! 
 11. This is again shortly afterwards followed by a pure coptic 
 form. For observe that Coptic is always precise. It does not 
 say iibi or quo but always in loco quo. So here : 
 
 0? av TOTro9 M SefTjrat NBLA^W fam 13 28 W-H Sod is 
 found in boh (nah) acth vg'-, while the others have : o? av fir) 
 Sefijrai C {fatii 1) and AD and the large majority oaoi av fir) 
 ht^fovrat, latt etc. W here apparently shares the bohairic 
 influence against the Latins, but as c is missing now we cannot 
 be sure that it did not have it. A Latin trace remains in 
 vg^' only, ii is missing and only begins again at vi. 14. 
 20. - Kat, (ante avvernpei) B'°' cuni sa/i 1/3 (= sah") 
 The previous places have all considerable importance and should be 
 observed carefully for they lead up to : 
 
 vi. 20. TjTTopei (pro ewotei) XBL Sod"^" (and W rrrropeno) sah hoh, 
 
 against all the rest, against the friendly cursives, and against latt 
 
 sijrr and aeth yet willingly incorporated by W-H dc Sod texts. 
 
 The Semitic woXKa enoiei appears to have offended the early 
 
 Alexandrian recensors of Greek and Coptic texts. But this clear Coptic 
 
 adherence against all else destroys "neutrality" for NBL and for \V 
 
 herc.t See also the parallel in Luke. 
 
 vi. 27. eveyxai (pro evex^vvai) KBCA"' 892 copt W-H [non Sod] 
 
 against all else and DW as well as L and Latt adferri. (See 
 
 under " Change of voice ") . 8 over A*' has " adferri vel adduci . ' ' 
 
 40. Kara bis (pro ava bis) NBD 21 boh et W-H Sod txt. 
 
 vii. 4. pavTKTwvrai (pro fia-rrTiaavrai) NB tiiin' sah Eiithym. See 
 
 under " Improvement." 
 C. +oTi (anteovTo<;o\ao<;) NBL 372 892 Laura*"" 6o/i sa/i 
 
 (sijr) W-H Sod txt [turn Paris"] 
 IG. Om vers boh [non sah] cum NBLA 28 [hoh W rell] W-H, non Sod. 
 29. See under "Order." 
 
 37. -hoy<; post ire-rroir^Kev B"°' W-H""" (boh) , c/sah + g^UJCTG et 6o/t""'' 
 viii. 2. Trpoa-fievova-t (-/ioi) B"" ciMii io/i""''' """" (Cf latt ahe eiatv) 
 3 Jin. etciv (pro rjnamv vel ■nxovrnv) BLA"'' 892 sah 1/5 6o/ti-""<" 
 
 W-H [non Sod, non al. nee latt syr] 
 4. +OTI {ante 7ro6ev) BLA 11.5 892 Paris" sah boh [non al.] 
 
 W-H it Sod.i 
 
 t It is exceedingly important to distinguish and appreciate this overlying Coptic 
 inlluenco on W. 1 have observed that soon after the beginning of ch. v. W began to 
 drift away from e. Since vi. 8 c is missing, but we have seen above (vi. 11) the same 
 overlying Egyptian influence on W. Probably from v. onwards W used another graeco- 
 coptic MS. 
 
 i Observe Socleii's thoroughly Alexandrian mind, adopting this but refusing the same 
 gronp above. 
 
 B IN ST. MADK S GOSrEL. 
 
 83 
 
 In view of varying treatment here by others (see Tisch and 
 evidence) this seems purely " Egyptian." 
 viii. 9 — 01 (payovret (See under " Improvement.") 
 
 20. +a'.T(» (ante e-n-Ta fin) BCLA 892 Sofi"""" [hoh <x<] bohsahaeth 
 
 21. vbeiT€ (pro a-vvterf) B 372 Sod"^' "" "" sed B"' awvoeire 
 This is rather a curious place. At first sight it looks simply 
 
 harmonistic from Matt xvi. 11 where voeire is used, but the avwoeiTe of 
 D^ may be meant for ow voene, and ovv is present in some Greeks 
 (fam 13) and in sah, but there it is (Je not oirtt as it would be in boh 
 it present there, where it does not find a place. The boh word for 
 o-wtere is Texeiti'f'l but in sah = nxexirrtosi- It seems clear 
 therefore that B may have seen this itOSI in a close parallel column and 
 written vocire by mistake rather than have recollected or borrowed from 
 St. Matthew. 
 
 viii. 23. /SXtTTW (pro /9\€irft) BCDe^AP-Sofi"'" 372 2i" Paris" S(^/^6o7^ 
 aeth (strengthened by syr sin diatess) but against all else. 
 W writes /9\eTr£t, and 28 after hesitating (and doubtless consulting 
 his authorities) decides to do likewise ; so does Sod txt against W-H. 
 viii. 28. +oTt (ante io>avvr)v) NB copt (ut solet) (syr) et W-H txt 
 
 contra rell et latt omn. Clearly from copt yet Sod txt has [ori], 
 ibid. +OTI (ante eti) NBC'L 892 copt (ut solet) (syr) W-H Sod txt 
 (latt pi quasi unum, a><; eva D, sed G?""' et W cva tantum). 
 35. rrjv eavTov ■^v^rjv (pro ttjv yjrvj^rjv avTOV prim) B 28 COpt (ut 
 
 solet) Orig W-H txt. No others. 
 37. +0 (ante av0pa>7ro<;) B'°' cum sah et boh. Why do W-H 
 
 avoid ? 
 . , X. 1. -\-Kai (ante Trepav) NBC*L^ 892 sah boh (against irepav 
 
 others and latin, and Sta tov irepav others, xai Sia tov irepav 
 Laura*""). So W-H, and Sod in square brackets. Latter 
 omits copt. 
 6. -o0€o9 i<BCliA [non ^] Sod'" c&[n<)nff, male Sod.] sah boh 
 W-H [non al. latt gr non syr arm aeth] cf Matt xix. 
 24. —Tovi irerroiOoTa's eiTi (tok;) ypriiuunv XBWA^ k sah boh"^ 
 (aeth) [contra rell syr sin et Clem*''] Cf Merx ad loc. p. 122 seq. 
 26. \670rre? Trpo9 avTov (pro Xey. ■jrpo's tairrow) NBCA'*!' 892 
 So(J"" S sah boh W-H, non Sod [contra rell et W et latt syr 
 aeth arm goth (om irp. aur. Clem ut Matt Lice)] 
 As Tisch says " at nusquam ajiud Mc \eyeiv irpot; nva." He 
 accordingly retains Trpo? eavrov; in his text. Not so W-H, who of course 
 follow the little " Egyptian " (not " neutral ") group. Souter's B-V also 
 leaves amov in the text, but places eavrov; in the sub-margin. 
 
 X. 29. >v M-^epa V irarepa BCA et W* [non "ir] Sod"', 01 lOG 2'" 
 
 604 Sod''"'"'""' only of minuscules, cf q only of Litins, with sah 
 
 boh order against the rest and Orig*'', but followed by Sod txt. 
 
 35. 01 Svo vioi (pro vioi vel 01 vtoi) BC Paris"' soli cum sah boh aeth. 
 
 a 2 
 
84 
 
 COIiEX 13 AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Miirk 
 
 This is against ND rell omn vid and W<1>'<' and Orig with nyr lat 
 arm. It is a clear improvisation from the account in Matthew (xx. 20 seq) 
 whore the mother conies, but it dees not say there " with her two sons"t 
 hut in verse 21 only does she ask " that her two sons. ." B is convicted 
 here of running with a Coptic error against t< and Orig. How many 
 more instances of this Ivind must I adduce before the worshippers of B 
 and the obsequious slaves of Hort will allow that I am right? Co-ptk 
 and BC no more got this from a common original with Coptic than B obtamed 
 his aiwvt^v in verse 30 from an original.^ B and Coptic conspired to add 
 Suo, and B wanted to exhibit the real gender of t,ar,v in verse 30. Because 
 the unfortunate and erring MS C supports B here in verse 35, Hort places 
 Suo in hia text in square brackets. Can any system be more vicious? 
 Not even L or ^1' is found to support BC copt, and even A pulls away 
 from the harmonising consortium of BC. ^^ really belong to the base 
 NBL, so that their defection here is absolutely conclusive. Nor is the not- 
 able cursive 892 recorded by Harris nor Soden's other mss for this +8uo. 
 
 X. 37. > Tov €K Selmv {pro e« H"«v aov) KBC'Ld^ 892 boh [von 
 .sn/i] S. In the second clause boh repeats <rov ef aptarepav h", 
 <Tov ff evavvixav N«', against most ef ivwvviiaiv aou, hut BDA 
 and W^O 1 [»o» fani\ 2i"= Sod"'"' omit the second tov with 
 be dff,g,iJc (am bis) q S rg" "" «<?" . It may be worth while 
 to exhibit here boh and sah, which differ, as boh goes with 
 NBC*LA^ in the first place : 
 boh ^irn. ttxe oifA.1 g^ejuLci c^.^-eKo-»m^..«. oirog, o-r<Li 
 
 .■ia/i xeKic epe otta. JU(.juLOit^g,A*.coc g,! otni-XJ. xxxxok 
 ^.TOD Ofi. £jl a&O-irp JULJULOK £,JUI. ngooif RxeKAXit- 
 
 46. ZpZ°iTn^ {pro ■jrpo.raiTuiv vel eiracT,ov) (N)BLA^' 892 A' and boh 
 
 Sod txt {contra Merx p. 130) but against the rest and against sah. 
 
 47 €<JTW {post <7,o-oi/9) B 273 Paris" Sod''" sah {ct syr), contra 
 
 Hrellomnetbohlatf""". 
 
 49. enrev ■ (jicovritTare avrov {pro emev avrov (jxovn^vvai) NBCLA^ 7 
 892 Sod"" k 8 and boh only W-H Sod txt, against the rest and 
 sah specifically and Origen. Here in two places within three 
 verses we see B with sah and then with hoh, as so often. 
 Instead of a B text governing the joint base of boh sah, it 
 would appear that B consulted both Coptic versions, and 
 possibly if we had the third Coptic version we should see 
 other points of sympathy there, 
 xi 1 Pr,Z,t>ayr, B Cf. sah 1/5 &hM*-KH (sah 4/5 &Hecl>i.ri-) 
 xii. 19. > Ka, M <"^'! """"' NBCLA^? 33 892 Paris" Sod""/, sah 
 
 t But utTa Tmv VIM"' (ivn)9. Only U rj add fivo there. 
 X See under " Change of Gender." 
 
 B IN ST. MABK S GOSPEL. 
 
 85 
 
 15. 
 
 32. 
 
 [noil boh] {syr sin). See remarks above. This order opposes 
 everything else, and is refused by Soden text. But why ? 
 
 xii. 27. " TToKv nXavaaOe " NBCLWA'^I' 892* Sod"" "" it sah boh 
 against everything else including 33 and Paris" and verss : 
 " vfifK ovv TToXv trKavcurde." Here Sod encloses viieK ovv in 
 square brackets. 
 38. Out of three deliberate and distinct recensions NBLA^? 892 
 («oi ev T-q BiSa-xr) avrov eKeyev) follow boh (against sah). Bo 
 also Sod txt. See under " Two or more recensions in Mark." 
 
 xiii. 7. Set { — yap) N'BWSl' soli vid., sah hoh syr pesh'^''' against 
 all else and Paris" and syr sin pesh"K Sod [yap]. No new 
 evidence. 
 
 Why should we attribute this to Coptic influence and not to 
 a common base ? Because at : 
 8. (N)BL(W)^ (28) elide both copulas eaovTiu aeiafioi. . .erromat 
 Xifioi, which is simply the Coptic manner. It appeals to Soden. 
 — ea Tufv oiKiav NBL^ 245 892 Sod'^^" c k sah boh syrpesh [jion 
 sin]. See under " Improvement." (This does not appeal to 
 Soden). 
 
 ayyeXoi {pro oi ayyeXoi vel oi ayyeXoi oi) B"**' et W-H'"'. This 
 is a vei7 pretty place and one of the few where we can swear 
 that B saw the Coptic and was influenced by it. In the first 
 place observe that NDKLUWS and some twenty-five minus- 
 cules write oi ayyeXoi. In the second place note that all the 
 rest, i.e. twelve uncials plus W4)^ and mvm, with sah, write 
 01 ayyeXot oi. B then did not get this from sah although both 
 sahidic and bohairic plurals do not change their tenwination, 
 and in sah we read otT^e itA.vveXoc exg,R Tne'onf^e 
 ncijHpe etc. B could not have been copying sah or he would' 
 have seen the e-r in exg^ft following, which corresponds to 
 the o(' following ayyeXoi in most Greeks. "What was B doing ? 
 Well it may be that sah influenced boh for a singular, for 
 boh, instead of sah'a 0Tf2i.e HivreXoc etc, has simply oYJ^e 
 ^rr e Xoc .^ett Tcfe. At any rate B agrees with five or 
 six codices of the bohairic alone here (with Aug libere)^ 
 Whatever may be said of our other examples I pray the gentle 
 critic, and benevolent reader to ponder this very specially. Nor 
 can it be said to me that these bohairic codices were following 
 B. I deny it utterly. For in the very next verse B omits xai 
 TrpoaevxecrOe, which no Coptic MSS do. And B is alone here with 
 T) a c d k against all else but one poor little cursive 122 which 
 stands out thus like a lost sheep, apart from 1 13 28 157 2"" 604 
 892 Paris"" Laura* '" which with ^ and W go against BD here. 
 Yet W-H om. xai irpocrevxfffe, and have 0776X0? in margin. 
 Consult xiv. 18 beyond as to Coptic methods by B. 
 35. (See under " Improvement.") 
 
80 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Mark _ 
 
 xiv. 3. a-viTpi-faaa (- Kai) NBL'^f io/i. All the rest have the copula. 
 
 Even D 2''' with xai Bjiavaaaa, and syr pesh at aperuit, and sah 
 
 2^.6, yet .Sof? txt [no new mss] omits km as well as W-H. 
 
 7. +7raiT0Te in sec loco BLN^'I' 892 Laura*'" soli cum sah hah. 
 
 10. el? {pro (h) NBC'LM^ 892 = hoh nioirii against salt 
 
 (oTfi) (But immediately before N*BC'DW?J 13 28 440 
 
 Laura*"" Orig omit o before icrxaptaTri^ with Latt against 
 
 sah and boh.) 
 
 18 /jJl. Toji/ ea-dwiTwv /ler e/Mov {pro o faOtwv ficr efiov) B""' cum sah 
 
 boll . [ VonSoden omits io/i, but adduces no newGreek evidence]. 
 
 This, coupled with the places at viii. 37, xiii. 32, noticed 
 
 above, is absolutely conclusive that B saw the Coptics. They 
 
 alone have the matter thus in the plural. Not one Latin even, 
 
 as far as I can see, has mandncat. All have the verb in the 
 
 singular. And all Greeks, including W and the friendly 'V, 
 
 make no change. 
 
 20. -ex XBCL et Wiri 7m»»"'i et 892 [non 28 7ion Paris"] sah 
 hoh. The presence of W here (against 28) may be due to 
 Coptic. The other seventeen uncials with all latf (which have 
 to render ex) and syr oppose with ex. 
 
 ibid fin. Observe the strange (but for possible support of C*? 
 Sod°'° 21") ercToeNTPYBLiON for f? to rpv^iov by B. Tisch 
 says " et? to ec rpvffXtov (sive evrp.) " but there is no such word 
 as evTpv^iov. The hand which went over B has added a 
 
 smooth breathing over €N, but Westcott and Hort read it as 
 €v, and actually place this in the text in square brackets. 
 May it not be due to an error oculi from the Coptic column 
 i)en. 't"2£K the EN coming directly before to TpvffKcov 
 there ? 
 
 21. We cannot neglect the possibility of the previous point, when we 
 see immediately following at the head of this verse the intro- 
 ductory Coptic xe followed by KBL^ 892 Paris" only seized 
 again by Soden's Alexandrian mind. (W does not have it, yet 
 it conflates inrayei and irapaSiSoTai immediately afterwards). 
 
 24. to exxvuvo/jievov vwep woWwu NBCL et "9 892 {sol. inter 
 minn) sah boh aeth W-H d- Sod txt. 
 TO virep {vel trepi) ttoWoiv exy^vvvofieuov D wic" et WS<I' minn 
 
 omn vid. latt syr. 
 35. e-n-tTTTei' {pro e7re<Tec) NBL^ 892 hoh [non sah] W-H & Sod 
 
 txt. See under " Historic present " (imperfect). 
 40. > avTo>v 01 o^OdK/Mt {pro oi o<f>0. avrmv) NBCLA et *^' Sod'""" 
 108 115 127 238 e'" 892 Paris" Laura*"" Sodf'"' sah boh {more 
 copt, non "ex more Marci " ut Tisch). Against them are all the 
 rest and W and the Latins and Sj-riac. (See below xiv. 0-5). 
 50. For xai a^evTet avrov irai'Tc? cifivyav of D, most Greeks {syr) 
 sah and latt (as Matthew), the order is changed by NBCL^i^ 
 
 B IN ST. MAKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 87 
 
 61 258 435 892 Paris" Laura*"" z»" H"" Sod"""'! goth boh to xai 
 a<f>€VT€'s avTov eipvyov iravTef;, adopted by Sod. 
 It is noteworthy as exhibiting this well-known group of uncials 
 hanging together with boh against sah. 
 
 (For the variations see Horner's note in sah.) The new MS W is 
 with D and the mass and sah against boh. 
 
 xiv. 60. oTt {pro Ti) BW^ soli et W-H''^ {cf. hoh xe) 
 
 61. ovx airexpivaTo ovSev NBCL^ 33 892 Laura*"" sah both aeth 
 Orig 1/2 W-H Sod, against ovSev airexp. of the rest and W 
 Orig 1/2. 
 G5. >ayToo to -irpoaairov NBCLUA'^' 33 108 127 892 Paris" 
 Soti''"'"''" copt (See above xiv. 40) Sod follows both here and 
 above. 
 C8/«. Om. NBLW'I' 892 Paris" Evst 17 c boh sah syr sin [non 
 
 Sod\ See under " Harmonistic." 
 69. enrev {pro ijpfftTo \eyeiv) Only B and sah boh aeth W-H'°*. 
 Nothing else. Take a cross reference from this (in Matt. xxvi. 
 71 \e7ei) and see under " Harmonistic," and if it does not give 
 my readers a startling picture of a Coptic conspiracy with B 
 I shall be surprised. In these other places B has some little 
 support. Here however B is in solitary grandeur with sah 
 hoh aeth and these alone. N deserts him, CLA^ desert, W 
 avoids it, D and all Latins contradict absolutely, and so do 
 both syriacs. {Soden neglects to chronicle boh and aeth. 
 This is careless for boh agrees absolutely, and this must be 
 considered with xv. 15 below.) 
 XV. 12. —deXere See under " Harmonistic." 
 
 15. TrapeStoxev Se tov iv tppay. B Sod^"'* and boh alone. See under 
 "N and B differences" in Part II for the three 
 varying orders. 
 23. - TTieiv NBC'LA^ 604 Sod"" n boh arm syr sin Cyr'''" (against 
 
 the rest and sah, all other Latins extant and syr and aeth). 
 36. — XM {an te ye/iiaa^) BL^ [non minn vid] c {ff^ i) vg" ^' boh {sah) 
 
 39. -xpa^a, NBL et "9 892 copt W-H Sod txt. (See 
 
 "Improvement.") 
 
 40. -t-17 {ante latr. iirfT-np) B4' 131? soli et {sah boh) 
 
 Latin and Coptic. 
 
 i. 2. -eycj BD Sod"" 2''' latt sah S/i 
 
 24. Xevwy ( - ea) NBDWA Sod"" 28* 157 372 2'" latf syr aeth boh 
 {Mat sah) [Habent 604 Paris" rell mic et 2* Orig Eus^' Cyr] 
 ii. 22. pj;|et {pro pr,a<Tet) NBCDL Sod<"'° 33 892 2'" latt aliq et sah 
 
 [non boh] W-H txt [non Sod] Cf Luc v. 37 
 Tisch asks if other cursives besides 33 give the future. Apparently 
 
88 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 iii. 18. 
 
 Tin, 
 
 33. 
 
 8. 
 
 only 21" and 892. The rest all have the present, and W gives the passive, 
 retaining the present tense StapptKra-otnat oi acKoi 
 
 -Mark ' 
 
 111. ^. -n-Xoiapta (pro irXoiapiov) B"' cniii sah. [Sod om\tB sah]. I 
 place this here under Coptic and Latin, becauee the Latin "ut 
 navicula (most omit in) deseruiret" may be responsible. 
 Tov Kavavaiov NBCDLA 33 372 21" Paris" Sod"' " '^' latt 
 (o KavavM'; W = hoh niKi.nitteoc) Contra KavaviTrt<; sail et 
 Gr rdl ct Sod'"' 28 157 604 892 etc. arm goth. 
 See under " Latin." 
 
 X€7. ovoiw. fioi +«ntv B (D) fam 13 238 372 latt"^ sah boh 
 ■wpoctiivovai {-/loi) B"" cum io/i'"-""" Cf D mSe utriv et 
 
 d ex quo hie sunt. 
 - Tft) {ante Trerpai) NBDL 21 only [nan al. minn vid) W-H iC- Sod. 
 fiera eavravpont ei&ov (instead of /«) B 33 Paris" c/and sah 
 
 (syr sin) W-H, non Sod. 
 As it does not appear in Matt. xvii. 8 (except that 33 inserts there) 
 it may have been early deleted from Mark and then added in the margin 
 whence B copied into the wrong place, or else may mean sympathy with 
 sahidic order, but boh keeps the usual order. 
 
 X. 28. VKo\ou07iica/J.ev (pro riKoXovOriaa/iev) BCDW Sod"" (Sod^") 
 
 lat copt 
 This follows a<t>i!Kafiev and is probably alliterative as well. If 
 7lKo\ov6i]Kafi€v be " neutral " then all the rest of the Greeks have fallen 
 into a curious error ! Even Sodcn recognises this. 
 
 X. 43. (pr loco) eoTiv {pro farai) NBCDLA W^' Sod"''* {<"' copt 
 xi. 17. TreTToiriKaTe {pro eirofqaaTf) BLA^ Orig only W-Hii Sod txt 
 xiv. 40. Trdktv eXdav eupev auTou? NBL^' 892 copt q [non Sorf] I 
 
 Kai eXBav tvpev avTov<; T) a c d ff^ ^' I 
 
 against inro(7Tp€-\jra'; eupev auTou? waXiv W rell pi. 
 
 txv. 1. npmc NBCDL et *J Sod"''' 46 892 Sod""" 2'" latt boh Orig 
 [for ewi TO Trpioi q A M«c" et W— minn ct 604 Paris" syr arm 
 goth W-H tC- Sod {k* e mane)] 
 Sah acth and e = cum autem mane factum esset 
 8. avaPat NBD 892 latt copt goth, against ava/Soijo-a? of the 
 rest and even A'^LW and 'V all minn (but 892), syr arm and 
 diatess, while k omits, and aeth conflates. 
 
 Traces of Syriac. 
 
 iii. 17. ot'ofia {pro ovofiaTo) 
 
 iv. 20. —ev sec et tert 
 
 ii fin. <j>av€p(oOi] 
 V. 2. — fyCew? 
 
 t Thch omits the evidence of 2'". 
 
 BD"' 28 225 271 .vjr {boh"""') W-H 
 
 [non Sod] i 
 B""' c«»« J {Cf syr pesh, hiat sin) 
 B'°' et (sah syr pesh) 
 BW Sod"''' [non ND d rell] sed 
 syr""^ .Id pg,.g 1^2 etb ceffti vg^ 
 
 % Cf. Mcrx, pp. 40, 41. 
 
 B IN ST. MAHK S GOSl'EL. 
 
 89 
 
 X. 47. euTiv trsfert post njaov^ B™' cum 273 Sod"" Paris"" syr pesh 
 
 syr sin {et sah) 
 XV. 40. /iapia/j. 77 fiayS. BCW^ fam 1 syr W-H [non Sod]. 
 
 Form. 
 
 i. 38. 
 39. 
 
 40. 
 
 iii. 25. 
 26. 
 
 vi. 41. 
 
 vii. 9. 
 
 24. 
 
 viii. 6. 
 
 ix. 18. 
 
 22/23. 
 
 X. 39. 
 xii. 40. 
 xiv. 46. 
 
 XV. 21. 
 
 e^n^Oov NBCL Sod"" 33 179 Paris" Sod"" et Sod txt. Al. 
 
 et T>s' e^eXriXvOa, vel eXriXvOa WA0' 28 892 al. et latt et d. 
 This is followed by v^Of pro v by NBL Sod'" 892 [not even 
 33 or Paris"] sah boh aeth against all else and the other syr 
 arm goth versions, which are solid for r/v. To show that this 
 is Coptic reaction consider the unique Kripva-trtv of N following 
 (for KTjpvaaaiv) = boh. But Soden swallows rjxOev as W-H. 
 hvvq (pro hwaaai) B. This presupposes that every other 
 Greek has changed ivvtj or ivva to Svvaaai. Soden's 
 sympathetic Sinai mss do not join. See below, ix. 22/23. 
 arrival {pro ara6i)vai) BL 892 Paris" and so W-H Sod txt, 
 
 but apparently no other support. 
 arrival NBCL Sod'" 213 892 and W-H Sod (om claus arrival 
 , . . arrival Paris" ex homoiotel.) 
 N*BLM*WAn Sod"" et txt, TrapadaaivJ) rell. 
 B Evst 15 {pro rripriarire) ; arriarire D aliq. 
 NB only with Sod" for iiSvvriffri. 
 NBCLMA 372 892 at'' Sod txt {rell ■irapa9a,at) 
 NBFLW* 2'" W-H cC Sod (eiwov rell et Paris") 
 hvvri pro Svvaaai bis See under " Change of Mood." 
 
 B 
 
 B (C/ Luc vii. 33) 
 NB 
 
 eyyapfvovaiv {pro a-/yapevovaiv) N*B* scr'' [non W-H Sod] 
 (D has avyap... here). This is almost purely a N.T. word. 
 Only N at Matt. v. 41 changes to evyap. At Matt, xxvii. 32 
 riyyapevaav is used by all (including NB) except D rivyap. . ., L 
 vyap., and some min riyicap. It does not occur outside of these 
 three passages. 
 
 rraparidoaiv 
 rtipryre 
 riSvvaadri 
 rrapariBtoai 
 
 Svvo/ieOa 
 
 Kareadovret 
 
 errefiaXav 
 
 Synonyms. 
 
 lUrk 
 
 ii. 12. ep-rrpoaffev (pro evavriov) NBLW 187 mg 604 892 Paris" 
 only, while evamiov is read by 0'* Sod™"- ^ 28 33 511 Evst 29 
 Laura* "", and evavriov by the mass and D. {efiirpoaSev evavriov 
 Sod""). 
 
 If the original Latin coram is primitive and antecedent it will 
 account for this more clearly than any " provincial " preferences. 
 
 Here coram is absolutely constant in all Latins. But observe 
 
90 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 elsewhere what happens when the Greek ia paramount (this list is 
 quite imperfect) : 
 
 Luke V. 19. Gr. efiT-poaOev ante laiV^ et vg, coram ?, in con- 
 
 speclu a d 
 xii. 8. (fiirpoaOev coram iatV'^ et vg, in conspeotu d 
 
 9. eva-mov vcl ep-TrpoaOev D al. coram latt, in conspectu d 
 
 xiv. 2. efiTTpoa-Oev avTov ante ilium, latt''\ apud ipsum e, pre- 
 
 sente illo 8, in conspectu ejus d 
 xix. 4. eit TO efiTTpoa-Bev Variant plur latt 
 
 27. EpLTrpo<T0ev fiov ante me latt''^ et vg, coram me e, in 
 
 conspectu meo a d 
 xxi. 30. efiTrpoaOev rot/ viov tov aiov ante fil. hom. latt^^ vg, in con- 
 
 spectu fili hom. d f 
 Jo. X. 4. efnrpo(r0evavTiov7ropeveTai ante eas vadit latO'^ et vg, coram eas 
 
 vadit 8, praecedit eas r 
 xii. 37. efj-Trpoa^Oeii avrav coram eis latV'^ et vg, in conspectu 
 
 eorum d f (i) 
 Lukei. 0. eravrtov (vel evwTTiov) ante Za«''' et vg, ante faciem f, in 
 
 conspectu d f Hier 
 xxiv. 19. evauTtov (evwrnov D) coram7a^<'''e<i'<;,incon8pectucde.4Mj 
 
 Actvii.lO. (vavTLov (vcl evavTi) in conspectu latf" et vg, ante ji'!/, 
 
 coram d 
 viii. 32. evavTLov coitiin latt''^ et vg, ante Iren lj2 Tert, 
 
 in conspectu Iren 1/2 
 Lukei. 15. evayiriov cortna latf'eti^g, in coBSTpectu a diren 
 
 17. evanriov ante /a^<''' e< t'j', in conspectu, a d 
 
 Iren Avihr, coram Tert 
 19. ivunnov ante ?aY;''' et rg, in conspectu a rf/, 
 
 oinff. 
 This will be sufficient without going further to show what I mean. 
 But I do not know whether I have made the matter clear. The point is 
 that an original Latin coram in Mark ii. 12 may have given rise to the 
 tico Greek readings, while coram is constant among the Latins. But in 
 the other Gospels and Acts the Greek rarely varies whereas two or three 
 varieties are to be observed among the Latins throughout. 
 
 Note also : 
 Mark xii. 41. ai^evavTi BU^ 33 Paris" Sod"" Karevaim^iD mie" etVit^ 
 
 (KaTevojTTiov 13-346-556.) 
 
 andver. 30. vn-oKaTio {pro vTroTroStov) BD«'T''W^ 28Sod""so/i6o7isj/r sw 
 
 vTTOTToBiov a rell et it it d et rell verss et LXX. 
 
 This is quite an important place. For B makes several other 
 
 changes in this verse. It omits ev before tw Trvev/juni, omits o before 
 
 Kvpiot, and substitutes alone KaOiaov for xadov. Hort makes a positive 
 
 caricature of the LXX quotation, following B even to the placing of B's 
 
 unique xaSicrov in his margin. 
 
 B IN ST. mark's gospel. 
 
 91 
 
 vKOKaTot here is read in Matt., but vttotto&wv by Luke and the LXX 
 and by all Latins in Mark. 
 
 NB, contra rell omn et WS^ mimi. 
 NC (W 2'") Hes^', contra rell omn, 
 c/^.3) 
 
 XV. 46. fimj/iari {pro iivtifitia) 
 { xvi. 2. /iinjixa {pro /itnifiewv) 
 
 Omission from Homoiotelenion. 
 
 XV. 10/». -01 apxifpet<! B 1 [nonfa7n] 115 349 Paris" [non 892] 
 Sod^" 337 1225 ^^gf 23 47 gy^ sj,, loji ^„on sah]. 
 
 This is clearly an error from the repetition of the words at the 
 beginning of the next verse. We have a nice check here of sah against 
 boh, pesh against sin [Mat cu] and ^ (besides all the other uncials) 
 against B. "¥ is so extremely friendly to B otherwise (and in this 
 neighbourhood) that to me its witness is conclusive for the words, 
 although they are put into square brackets by W-H. But this may be 
 due to the omission in Matt, xxvii. 18. 
 
 trark 
 
 viii. 17. -ert by no less than NBCD»'LNWA8'S Sod"" fam 1 28 33 124 
 [non rel fam 13] 225 245 2" [iwn 004] Paris" 892* a sah boh arm aeth 
 [non syr si7i pesh diatess 7ion rell latt] 
 
 This occurs from CYNieT€eTin€nu)PWM6NHN and I claim that the 
 omission is an error on the part of all these authorities, including B, for d 
 goes against D, 8 goes against A, and syr sin with the other Latins 
 witnesses against the Coptic. 
 
 The opposite side of the picture is seen immediately after at 
 
 Mark 
 
 viii. 19, where 28 with fam 13 99 Sod-'" a.ni h c d ff i A; add ow after 
 aprov^ (APTOYC OYC €KAACA) against all the Greek uncials [except D 
 "tow" borrowing from Latin]. These errors control themselves when we 
 balance the evidence properly. 
 
 Cf viii. 14 +quem j)os; panem latt, but no Greeks which we know have 
 APTONON. 
 xii. 36. -61/ {post enrev) B""' cum 273 et Sod"'" {teste Sod contra ed. 
 
 Beermann it Gregory). 
 
 Grammatical Changes. 
 Change of Voice. 
 There is nothing surprising in attributing the changes of voice to 
 Alexandrian revision. Observe how the MS W acts at times, e g. in the 
 matter of the sons of Zebedee at Mark x. 35 where we are to read 
 airi]<rojii(8a instead of aiTijcrai/iev B etc. {aiTTja-o/iev H" [N omits clause] 
 A, or epa>Tri<Ta>p.iv D 1, 21"), or at vi. 20 Tjiropeno W instead of the tpropii 
 of NBL (and eiroia D rell). In these places W stands quite alone. 
 
 vi. 27. fveyKai. NBCA^' 892 copt (active) for ti-ex^'/''"' (passive) of 
 DW and L and all the rest and Latt adferri {b auferri). 
 
92 
 
 CODEX 1) AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 As bearing on thig matter of voices, perhaps it has something to do 
 with retranslation. Observe that at Mark xiv. 14 for <}>dyco, DW 1-209 
 fam 13 have ^ayofiai and G 28 118 346 ^dyrofiai. 
 
 In St. Luke (xxii. 11) all have i^aYw without change. 
 
 In St. Matthew xxvi. 18 the expression is iroico (toitjo-o) D d q 
 Oric/"'^. Cf. aah. It is impossible to divorce D from a Coptic background). 
 
 Change of Mood. 
 
 iv. 29. TrapaBoL (pro irapoBo)) N*BDA Sod"''" 28 2"= [non W] 
 
 (observe variations in hoh Mss here) 
 xiv. 10. irapaSuL {pro irapaBw) BC*?W 28 (D TrpoSoi) 
 
 (observe variations in sah mss here) 
 11. Trapahot {pro TrapoBto) BDW 
 
 In these passages in c/i. iv. and xiv. the sense is different, so 
 that the change is purely that of the grammarian. 
 
 In the first case in ch. iv. it is orav Se vapaSoi o Kapna, 
 in the second and third in ch. xiv. tva avrov trnpaBoi avTOK (of 
 Judas), and avrov evKatpo)^ irapaBoi. 
 viii. 37. ioi (pro Sacrec) N'B and W-H txt while N"L and Sod txt 
 
 write Ba>. 
 The sentence is (r/) ti yap Bmaei (or Bw or Sot) avov amaX- 
 \(iyp.a Tt}<; ■^I'x^? avrov ; 
 
 The Latins support Baaei, with dahit. The sail and hoh are 
 equally emphatic with a future indicative. 
 
 It remains for N'LSoff to give the Bubj.andX'B IF-fl^theopta- 
 tive against Origen . Who is revising here ? [See for a change 
 in the context under " Infinitive for the eav construction."] 
 ix. 30. yvoi (pro yva) by NBDLC (cf sah) apparently nc cursives, not 
 even 892 Paris" nor 28 (me teste) nor 2"', which have 
 TTnpaBot above at iv. 29. Surely this would not have been 
 changed to yvoj, if yvoi were original. W does not join here 
 but does at xiv. 10, 11. Lake prints 71'M for ^. 
 v. 43. yvoi for yvm by ABDLW Paris" [not 28 or others]. Westcolt 
 and Hort (ii. 168) treat this termination ot for « as conjunctive 
 not optative, but see Moulton's Winer, edition 1882, p. 360, 
 note 2. And consult further : Luke i. 62 ffe\oi, Mark xi. 14 
 <f)ayoi, Act XXV. 16 ex°'-- •^/S"'. Act ii. 12 8e\oi (NE rell ; ffcXei 
 ABCD), xvii. 18 OeXoi (all except D* 0e\ji, four cursives 0e\et). 
 Also : Act xxii. 24 eviyvca by all. And finally : 1 Thess v. 15 
 avoBoi N»D'' (D* etiam a-rroBoirj) FG 
 aTToSo) N^ABCEKLP al. et Patres 
 
 Also note Luke i. 4 of Theophilus iva eviyvoK by N* alone. 
 See Sir John Hawkins (' Horac Syn.' p. 53)... "It is well 
 known that the optative was obsolescent in the ordinary Greek 
 of N.T. times." Therefore is it not " revived " by B ? Note 
 
 D IN ST. MABK S GOSPEL. 
 
 93 
 
 also Luke xix. 15. yvoi {piro 7i'a>) NBDL 33 (against Origen). 
 It should be observed that in this same verse XBDL 1-131 25 
 157 employ BeBwKn for eBwKe and Origen eBeSmKet, as if gram- 
 matical consideration had obtained here, t This is further 
 emphasised bj' a complete change from ni ti BieirpayfiarevtraTo 
 to Ti BteirpayfianvaavTo by XB(D)L(R)3 157 d e copt aeth 
 (sijr) in the same verse, t 
 
 U>rk 
 
 (ix. 22. ei Ti Bvvr, NBDILAW^ Sod'"' /am 1 273 [no7i 28 hoc loco. 
 
 Errat Tisch] pro et ti Bvvaaai rell omn. 
 23. TO ei Svvri N*BD(- TO D S'od°'°)NAW (tovto pro to ut copt) 
 2 Sod"'" fam 1 28(- to 28) 892 pro to et Buvaaai rell omn et "V 
 [om TO KUn*] ) 
 But this Bvvri may be merely a change of " form" of the indicative, 
 and not the subjunctive. 
 
 Anyway ^ shows consideration by having Swrj ver 22 with the 
 minority, but not in verse 23,t while Paris"' retains Bwaaai in both places 
 and is unfaithful here to NB. Fam 13 also holds Bwacrai in both places. 
 We cannot judge of singular places like this without a correct 
 tabulation. For instance Tischendorf makes no cross-reference here to 
 Mark i. 40, but if we turn back there we find B indulging in Bwri for 
 Bwacai at that place and quite alone I Comment is unnecessary. With B it 
 is simply a preference. 
 
 Change of Tense. 
 iluk 
 
 i. 32. eBv<T€v (pro eBv) BD 28 Sod"""*' [non Sod!"'"] W-H. 1st 
 
 aorist for 2nd aor. 
 ii. 5. a(f>i£VTai (pro aipeavrai) B 28 33 2'" [non 604 Paris"] it''^ syr 
 goth sah boh against the rest and WS* rell and bfq. 
 9. a^ievTai KB 28 2"° hoh (remittuntur a c e f g^ ff q) against 
 a^eavrai of the rest and h (remissa sunt). Cf sah " Thy sins 
 ivill be forgiven thee," showing Egyptian consideration of this 
 passage. W-H and Soden follow NB. 
 22. pri^ei (pro pi]rr<Tei) See under "Latin and Coptic." 
 iv. 1. a-wayerai (pro <Tvvr,x9ri) NBCLA fam 13 28 604 892 Sod™"^ 
 (fam 1 avvepx^rai) against trvvTJxSi] of the mass (and avvi]y6ricrav 
 A etc.) and the versions. W-H and Soden print awayerat. 
 vi. 22. r}pe<r€V (pro Kai apea-aa-rp) NBC*L(A) 33 c ff^ copt. This 
 
 should probably come under " Coptic." It is rejected by Sorfen'^'. 
 viii. 25. eveffXe-rrev (pro eve^Xefev) H'Bli 28 273 (WA/a!?i 13 244 440 
 
 Here we get an expressive imperfect (Alexandrian? NoteN* 
 was corrected to it) and very unlikely to be dropped by the 
 mass if it stood originally in the text. Soden accepts it. 
 
 t So Soden^^^ ; while neglecting yvoi and all prerious optatives. Is it consistent ? 
 X Thus reversing the attitude of 28, which latter would seem the more correct. 
 
04 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Change of liaise in participles. 
 
 k 
 
 iv. 18. aKova-avret; {pro axovovre^) NBCDLA Sod"'' 1 10 fam 13 28 
 71 240 244 892 2'"= Laura-*"" [non Paris"] So(i""""»» sj//-"'- re.h 
 copf, against rest and Latin arm and aeth. As regards 
 possible Egyptian influence there is very little difference in the 
 writing of the two forms. Soden accepts aKovaavrei. 
 [.X. 17. yovvrrerav J) 28 fain 13, geniculans latt (praeter a = genibns 
 
 prostratus) 
 7oi.u7reT7)o-a<t Bell ct W (et W-H Sod).] 
 
 Thus W"' at ix. 8 irepiffXeTrofievoi (circumspicientes latf^ for 
 ■n-epi^Xeylra^ievoi rell and circumspexerunt 1c). 
 
 Imperative. 
 
 Mark ii. 9. eyeipov BL Sod'" 28 372, eyeipe ND plur and W (eynpai at.) 
 (In. ii. 11. eyeipe HBVf Sod"" plur, eyetpai BOJne, abA eyeipov K) 
 (Consult also : vi. 22. ant^a-ov B plur, but anijaai N 2'" Evst 54 and 
 anr](re NS, €Tr]crai W). 
 
 xii. 3G. Kadtaov (pro koOov) B alone. In this connection observe 
 the other changes in this yerse by B, not only slavishly 
 followed by Hort against the usual LXX text, but KaOiaov 
 placed in Hort's margin. 
 
 Infinitive for the eav construction. 
 
 viii. 30. " Ti yap <i)<j)e\ri<Tei (oxfieXet) avdptoircv eav Ki pZ^qari (nepirjcTfi) 
 TOP KOCfiov oKov Kai ^7) fi Kodtj T1JV yjrvj^rjv axjTOU," 
 
 Here Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort and the Eog. Revision substitute 
 the infinitive KepSr/a-ai (with NB 892, L wepSijo-at) for eav xepS., and 
 ^riiitmOrjvai (with NBL 892) for ^rifiLuOr). Soden refuses this change. 
 
 Winer is silent. I ask can it be possible that NBL (against DW, the 
 rest of the uncials and all the minuscules, against the Coptic and the 
 Syriac, against the Gothic and all Latins) are really here the purveyors of 
 a " pre-syrian " text ? Or is it not an Alexandrian Greek preference and 
 not even " neutral " ? 
 
 Note that it is immediately following this (Mark viii. 37) that X'B 
 alone use Sot for Stoa-ei, (N°L Sm). [See above under " Optative."] 
 
 Note that the new witness W, in close agreement with B on both 
 sides of this passage, yet knows nothing of these infinitives. 
 
 As a matter of fact N goes quite wrong here for he has already 
 substituted avdponro^ (for avffpoTrov) previously with Coptic, making it the 
 subject of o><f)e\€i and not dependent on it. Thus : ti yap a^eXei avSpairov 
 
 B IN ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 
 
 95 
 
 Kephrjaai is clearly not good, ri yap tafeXec avBpunrov xephriaac of BL will 
 stand, but since coptic says n yap avOpwiroj to(f>e\ii<rei it follows with the 
 eav construction. 
 
 Let us examine further now Grammatical forms : Change of case. 
 
 Genitive Absolute for Dative. 
 
 Mark v. 2. efeXfloin-o? amov {pro e^eXOovri avrai of the mass) NBCLA 
 
 Sod"^" some twenty cursives of the same type and 892 Paris". 
 
 This seems to aim at improvement, but D is absent writing 
 
 e^eXOoirrwv avrav with cdeff and W*'. Soden follows KBCLA. 
 
 That B had considered this matter is seen elsewhere, for at vi. 54 B 
 
 alone cancels avrav in xai e^eXBovrwv avrav (not approved by Horf). 
 
 Genitive AbsohUe for Accus. Abs. 
 
 Mark ix. 28. eia^e\6ovTo<; atrrov {pro eureXBovra avrov) with KBCDLAW^ 
 Sod"" fam 1 fam 1328 2"' 004 892 [non 33 Paris"] W-H d Sod 
 (it vg cum intrasset) 
 
 Here again this seems grammatical preference, and very questionable 
 at that, seeing that it is a question of motion :t icai eureXOovra avrov «9 
 oiKov 01 iia9r)Tai avrov Kanhiav eTnjpamov avrov. 
 
 These cases in Mark must however be treated differently from those 
 in the other Gospels. If it be a case of translation from Latin, it would 
 not be " Egypt " or " Antioch " preferring genitive or accusative absolute, 
 and changing an existing foundation Greek text, as much as two separate 
 lines of translation appearing. (See remarks under this head in 
 St. Luke.) 
 
 Change of Case. 
 
 Mark vi. 3. ta>a^r,T0'; {pro laai,) BDLA Sod'"'" fam 13 33 QT 604 Paris" 
 
 a d boh W-H ,t Sod'"' [non sah]. 
 
 The sentence runs ot/^ oirro? e<rTiv o reicrav o wo? (or o tov tcktovos" 
 vw;) [t»J5] /uipta^ Kai aSe\ij>o<; laxapov xai toxrijTO? koi lovSa koi aifuavov ; 
 
 This has a double significance. If it is a genitive for the apparent 
 indeclinable iwar) (or i(o<rri<f>, as K 121, many latins, vg and aeth have it) it 
 is a grammatical improvement to agree with laKutfiov and aifiwvo^, but 
 while sah has ju.it IcocHi boh vyrites iteJUL ItocHXOC " with (and) 
 losetos," as if boh had copied a text similar to that of BDLA, or they in 
 turn had wandered to the boh and thought it a good idea seeing icucHXOC 
 to decline taia-Ti and make a genitive of it. Anyhow I do not believe 
 tmo-j/TO! to be "neutral," but to stand at the opposite pole. N, very 
 
 t But St. Luke tulopts the gen. abs. (or this at ii. 
 avapaivovTap avruv Kara to t$ot tijs topTijs. 
 
 42 
 
 Kat OTf fytVtTO (T(i>V 
 
 8o>dfi 
 
90 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 useful as a control in this and nianj- places, disagrees as above, while 
 892 writes iwa-rj. 
 
 Change of Ninnhcr. 
 
 Mark i. '!G. xaTeSitufei/ (pro xaTeSiai^av) NBMU Soff°" 28 273 21" 004 
 "/'"t Oi I '-J vg and S, as to " avrov %cfi(ov km ot /ier' avrov." 
 To this W does not agree but, with S*D and all the rest of 
 the uncials and Paris" syr, gives us KareSuo^av, as also all 
 otlicr Old Latins and vg"^''. These are not really vuIgates, 
 but Old Latin in Mark as well as in Matthew. 
 
 St. Jerome followed the NB reading, no doubt for the same 
 preference. Sodeti retains Karehw^av. 
 iv. 1 fin. ijirav (pro ^jv) NBCLAf"- T" 7 892 SoiV"" d [contra S erat 
 et T>" I}"]- This not only seems a pure "Egyptian" prefer- 
 ence after Tra? o o^Xo?, but is opposed by all other Greeks and 
 W and all the Latins but d, which is here aberrant since 
 the other Latin company deserts it exceptionally in this place. 
 Sodcn reverses his position and adopts rjaav. 
 V. 13. eia-7]\0ev (pro eia-rjXOov) of Ta wvevfiara ra axadapra B against 
 the rest, and exceptional on the part of B. (W is emphatic 
 against B with the contemporary form eiariXdav.) 
 Particular use : 
 Mark xiii. H. eTri)pa)Ta(procm]pa>Ta)v) NBLW4 13- 09-340-550 [«07s 124] 28 
 83 49 229 348 892 Paris" Sod'-"' '«» (envp'OTV'Tev''') (boh'"'' sail'"") 
 This makes Peter the spokesman, and looks very like revision [see 
 above on i. 30]. The sentence is: km Kadrj/Kvov avrov et? to opo<; twv 
 eKaicov Kareiiavri tov lepov eirrfpuTtov (eirrjptoTa XBLW) avrov KanStav 
 rrerpo'; Kai laKw^ot Kai iaiavvr)<s Kai avSpeai; eirre ijiuv... 
 
 The Latins and syr arm aeih all oppose NBLW, the Coptic Mss 
 are divided and this small Greek group seems to be forcing the matter 
 on Peter, because in the parallels there is absolutely no trace of this. 
 Matt. xxiv. 3 is KaOrnievov Se avrov em rov opov; rtov eKaiav 7rpo<rri\0ov 
 avro) oL fiaOi}rac KanBcav Xeyovref; etire ijfiiv . . , and Luke xxi. 7 
 ^mjpQtrTjaav 5e avrov \€yovre<; StBaa-KaXe irore ovv ravra earai . . . 
 Sodcn follows Hort however and accepts eirrjpara here in Mark. 
 
 Plural for Singular. 
 
 Mark iii. •!.'5. ra OeXrj/iara B quite alone (and W-H mg) for ro ffeXij/ia 
 of apparently all others. Can it be supposed for a moment 
 that B represents the foundation text here against all else ? 
 " ra OeXrifiara rov Beov " grates very harshly on the ear. 
 (Here again in a graeco-sah the change of the letter n to jt 
 
 t 15 40 03 236 237 202 259 273 433 Evat 08 209. 
 
 B IN ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 
 
 97 
 
 makes the difference of the plural without change of the 
 noun's termination). Sod cannot find a single witness for B. 
 X at Matt. vii. 21 has the plural alone against B and the rest. 
 In the whole range of N.T. writings ro ffeXrifia is essentially 
 Matthaean Marcan Lucan Pauline Petrine and Johannine as well as 
 being the expression of our Lord. The singular occurs 58 times. Only 
 once a plural form (Acts xiii. 22, being an O.T. quotation of David). 
 Mark vii. 28. eaOiovaiv (])ro e<r0i.et) following Kvvapia. So NBDLWA 
 Sod"''" and some cursives and 892 Paris" against the rest. 
 (At another place like Mark xiv. 27 following rrpo^ara the uncials 
 are more evenly divided, but the same group as above less W and 
 4 ACFGKN adopt the plural.) 
 
 Mark ix. 15. iSovret (pro iSav) 3NBC(D)ILWA>V 1 13 28 33 892 
 
 e^effa/i^ijOrjirav (i)ro e^effa/iffrj0ji)i Paris'^ Sod" syr go fli n be dffi 
 following rra^ o o)(Xo<;. 
 The question is Who made the change ? Sodcn follows Hort. 
 
 Plural for Singular. [Not grammatical in the j'rcvious sense.] 
 
 Mark viii. 22. tpxovrai (pro epxerai) N'BCDLWA Sod^''° a few cursives 
 
 copt aeth arm goth it vg, changing the sense against X' 
 
 the rest of Greeks and syrr diatess. 
 
 The sentence is : 
 
 Kai ep^erai (or ep\ovrai) eis 0i)6<raiSav xai ij>epov<nv avrto 
 
 rvtfjXov Kai mapaKoXovv avrov. . . 
 
 Does it not seem that the " neutral " text (as opposed by N* and 
 
 syrr) is in danger of being accused of harmonising epxovrai with (pepoucnv, 
 
 for which there can be no adequate reason. 
 
 Why should the Syrr oppose the Latins here ? There is a curious 
 
 method in these things. Soden adopts epxovrai. 
 
 Again 
 
 Mark ix. 14. eX^ovre? ?))o €\0wi/ 1 „„^,„. . o_, , _ , . , ., . 
 
 » ■!■ i i<BLWA^ 892 k arm. Sodcn rejects this. 
 
 eiooi» ,, ibev ) ' 
 
 33. 17X^01/ (pro v>^0ev) NB(D) WJ 1 etc 2"" Sod'" it syrpesh diatess 
 
 sah (not syr sin boh which go with the large majority) 
 
 Here riX0ov is the harder reading, for the sentence is : 
 
 Kai rjXBov ft? Ka^apvaov/M Kai ev rj) oiKia ycvofievo<; eTrjjpmra 
 
 avTov<i. 
 
 Possibly here NBDW are right (but Sodcn rejects). They have the 
 
 support of lat and .fyr vg diatess sah, so that syr sin and boh may be 
 
 wrong here. 
 
 In Evan 28 the text is »;XSev, but in the margin the chapter inserter 
 
 has written tm Kaipa (xeti'io rjXBev o ir)trov^ Kai 01 p,a6r)rai avrov 
 
 €t9 KaTTcpvaovfi. 
 
 Therefore the Church lesson may on the other hand have given rise 
 
 to rjXBov. 
 
 II 
 
98 
 
 CODIiX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Change of Gender. 
 
 Mark X. 30. Zwijc atMi/ia / {pro ^rorjV aiaviov) B'"' 
 
 This is not exactly a change of gender, but merely the emphatic 
 form of the feminine. I have been curious enough to go through 
 every cither passage where aia>vto^ is involved. The result is that 
 in the Gospels nowhere else does B change aiavtov to aiwviav, not 
 even with Ko\a<7K at Matt. xxv. 40, nor does B modify "to? amviov(; 
 (TKriva<;" at Luke xvi. 9. In the rest of the New Testament, of the 
 many places involving ^(orjv aicovtov, B changes to auoviav only at 
 Acts xiii. 48 and at 1 Jo. ii. 25 ttji/ foij/v tjji' amviav [not at 1 Jo. i. 2, 
 iii. 15, V. 11, 13]. 
 
 For the rest, at 2 Thess. ii. 16 ivapaK\i)aiv aiaviav is read by all 
 except FG aiwviov. 
 
 At 2 Pet. i. 11 C* 42 read en tyiv aiaviav ^aaCKuav, but B and the 
 rest ataiviov. 
 
 At 2 Cor. V. 1 all hold aiavtov although following two feminine 
 nouns : oiicoSofirjv . . .oixiav a-yeipoiroirfTov aiioviov. 
 
 So that there is no rule guiding B or the others, only an occasional 
 preference. 
 
 At Hebrews ix. 12 auaviav XvTpaxnv seems to be read by all, but 
 auoviov is not modified elsewhere in Hebrews, while at 1 Peter v. 10 
 (i<; Tqv aimnov avTov Bo^av is read by all and not attoviav as we might 
 expect of B. 
 
 Mk. xiv.3. Common text and GMW* min to aXafiaarpov (in sec loco); 
 N*ADEFHKSUVW"XY'-"-rASTIJ tov aXaff. but BLN'CA^I' 
 Paris" TTjv a\a^. 
 
 The Greeks made alabaster masc. or fern. (Liddell and 
 Scott), Herodotus using the masc. and Plato the fern, article. 
 Perhaps there was a difference in the use to which the 
 word was put. In the parallels and above in this verse 
 no article is used. It certainly looks as if B and com- 
 panions had wished to show their grammatical instinct and 
 had made a change here, for X has tov, and only N' brings 
 his text into conformity vdth B. As to \V, it with * (and 
 GM reported by Tisch.) has to. W does not even agree with 
 28, the latter having tov. 
 
 Change of Order. 
 
 As to Order consult 
 
 Matt. V. 4/5, where for fiaxaptoi oc Trpaei?, to come before fiaxapiot ot 
 -TTfveovi'Te';, DSSacffi j/i.j h h I vg syr cu witness with Cle7n 
 Origcn (specifically, see Treg ' Printed Text,' p. 187) Nyss Bas 
 
 D IN ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 
 
 99 
 
 Hit and the Eusebian canons, while tiB and the rest, with 
 
 b fq syrsinpcsh copt arm acth and Tcrt, followed by W-H, 
 
 put TTivBowTet first. [^Sod errs as to A and 004.] 
 
 The question is whether this is scientific. If W-H want Origcn's 
 
 text, he is a witness here against them and supported by the section 
 
 authority of Eus Am. This passage was omitted from consideration in 
 
 its proper place. Now as to St. Mark observe : 
 
 Markii. 10. a4>ievaiaixapTta';f7nTv<;yv<! B4'Sorf°™142157278aPac</t W-H 
 against a<^. ctti t?;? 7?;? a/i. A etc. (et Sod txt) 
 
 tTTt Ti)? 71;? a<^. ail. N D mult ct verss 
 
 and — cTTi T7)? 71)9 W 6 5 
 
 Probably B omitted and found ctti t?;? 7?;? in his margin, adding 
 afterwards. At any rate W points this way, as that Greek Ms now 
 comes to join the Latin b-q for omission of ein ti)? 7?;9. 
 
 An exceedingly useful commentary on this supposition is offered in 
 the very next verse but one. Instead of koi riyepOrj cvOew; km apa<; tov Kpafi. 
 of most MSS and versions, NBC'L 33 and four boh irss (anw?) say km 
 riyepOij km evdv<; apas toi' Kpafi. which is not the same thing at all. Now 
 fvOv; is omitted outright hy b c e ff q, and the new Greek Jis W not only 
 comes to join them but gives the Greek in the Latin fonn of 6 17 as ille 
 autem surgcns tulit by writing : he eyepdeK km apa^. . . Probably again 
 here NB took ev6u^ from the margin of their exemplar and slipped it in 
 the wrong place. W-H and Soden follow NBCL. 
 
 Mark v. 25. SaSexa eTij (pro eri/ Sw&fKa) NBCLAW fam 1 [nan 118] 28 
 
 fam 13 Paris" 892 al. perpauc and Coptic W-H if Sod txt, 
 
 not syr nor lat. 
 
 This needs no comment. 
 
 vi. 2. >Ma<rKeiv ev tt, avvc^ay^r, NBCDLA Sod"^" aP 33 892 7''" 
 
 Paris" dfffa (r) sah boh aeth syr arm. Contra rell omn ct W 
 
 et latt et goth. 
 
 I am convinced that the change of order is an improvement and 
 
 wrong, although D dfffi join NB here for it. The other Latins (which 
 
 from V. 40 to v. 43 hung absolutely together) oppose and have the 
 
 support of W plus eleven uncials and S4> and 1 13 28 2''^ 004. Besides 
 
 goth opposes and neutralises / here, as W e neutralise D d. It is doubtless 
 
 the Egyptian order to which D d have been accommodated in this place. 
 
 Sod rejects, and most unscientifically, having followed the group at v. 25. 
 
 Mk. vi. 26. > aeeTr,<rM am-qv NBCLNAS Sod"'-" 179 Sod^''^ '"' 892 against 
 
 DW and all the rest and the Latin order avrriv aBerrjo-M (om 
 
 avTtjv 69 265 Sod'*" c syr sin) Sod again stultifies his method 
 
 by following NB etc. 
 
 49. > e-n-i Tri<! BaX. TrepmaTovvra NBLA Sod"'-" "' 33 892 Paris" 
 
 c'" syr sin (cf Matt. xiv. 26) W-H ct Sod against DW and all 
 
 the rest and against the order of the versions, including Coptic. 
 
 It might be thought that NBLA were original and " neutral " here 
 
 (obs. syr sin), but why should all the rest change? Further, observe that 
 
 H 2 
 
100 
 
 CODEX li AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 immediately following, the same group NBLA 33 892 Paris" (without Of" 
 
 G04 al.) change ^ainaana nvai to otj ^avraafia «rrtv with co^j^f (r/ syr). 
 
 Both changes cannot be right. The latter (if not the former) seems 
 
 a clear theft from Matthew. It is rejected by Soden. 
 
 Mk. vii. 5. > ov TrepnraTova-w oi fiadriTai trov NBLA 33 179 892 Paris" 
 
 Sod'-" Erst 49 boh aeth, against sah all the other Greeks and 
 
 DW and latt syr arm gotli. There can be no question here but 
 
 that the same vicious little group is wrong, yet Soden follows. 
 
 Not only does sah oppose, but all the Latins and DW and the 
 
 other important minuscules. Tisch merely quotes " copt " 
 
 for the change. We know now that it is boh and not sah. 
 
 27. >Toi9 KvvapioK ^aXetv NB Sod'''" fam 1 28 {nan W] 892 
 
 .Sod"" ' '"' Evst 49 1-50 q against >/3a\. toi? kvv. everything else 
 
 and D and W and all latt (but g) and copt syr. Even Paris" 
 
 opposes KB here. It is nothing but an " improvement " on 
 
 their part yet Soden follows ! 
 
 Here there is not agreement with Coptic or Latin order (except g) 
 
 so that there must be another reason for it. The fact that the Latins 
 
 and copts put the ^aXeiv ahead of toi? xvvapioK does not lend colour to a 
 
 " neutral " order here. It would seem like an Alexandrian preference 
 
 and rounds out the sentence better. Besides when W and 28 oppose 
 
 each other it is always wise to go carefully. Here the younger codex 
 
 goes with NB against the one which is a contemporary of NB. 
 
 vii. 29. >£« T?;? Ovyarpo's aov to laip.cviov NBLA Sod"^' 892 Laura* ">* 
 .Sod"" boh et W-H Sod txt {contra sah et rell omn et DW vers.i). 
 ix. 1. A small matter. Practically all Greek authorities write : 
 oTj eia-i Tiv€i Tiiiv toSe eaTrjKorwv while B(D*) says on ckti, 
 Tiv€? ftiSe rtav ecryKOTwv, refusing to separate the article 
 from e(7Ti]icoTcov. W-H follow this without marginal comment, 
 so that it evidently commended itself strongly to them. So 
 do Tisch Treg (cf. latt) not Soden. But why should all other 
 Greeks oppose B if B be right here? Is it not more like 
 the grammatical preference of a purist ? 
 xii. 19. See under "Coptic." 
 
 xiii. 10. >7rp(oTov Sei (pro Set Trparov) NBD»^ 28 299 892 Laura* "" 
 .Sod'"'" Evst 53 al. pane, a n I vg W-H if Sod txt. 
 and Trpwrof Se Bei W Sod"" 108 115 124 [non 
 
 157 crrat Birch] 21'" al. pane, c dff^ g^ i (*) r sah. 
 This is bound up with a matter of punctuation as to whether the 
 first part of verse 10 belongs to verse 9. It has led to sah and .<:yr i>csh 
 I not Si'wJ transfeniug ei? TDivra Ta edvij to the end of verse 10, and to 
 a very curious conflation in D d ff^ g-., where holding xai ett iravTii eOvri 
 at the beginning they add ev Train toks effveaiv at the end. 
 
 That a n do not do this proves once more that this happened in D d 
 
 t Which Tisch omit-. 
 
 B IN ST. MABK S GOSPEL. 
 
 101 
 
 after the old base (which a n used) had been modified. Observe W here 
 has a space before -rrponou Se iet (W alone now comes to join a very small 
 J;roup) definitely reporting back «at €^? Travra to fSvi; to verse 9. As 28 
 only has irpioTov Su with NBD^ it looks as if the 28 base were older 
 than W and that the parent of W had inserted Be in order to make this 
 matter of punctuation secure, after the NBD type had changed Sei -irpanov 
 to trpterov hei. 
 
 Birch has erred a3 to 157 reading irpanov Be Bei. Correct Tischendorf 
 and Horner. 157 reads Bei irptoTov. 
 
 N' really reads irpanov (or irptoTo;) Xaov Bei which Tisch does not 
 refer to in his edition of the N.T. [Paris" has Bei Trpmrov.] 
 
 xiv. 64. avTOV evo-^ov eivai {pro aurov etvai evoxov) NBCLA^ 33 892 
 Paris" Sod"" et Sod!'''^ I q. This seems to be in the nature of 
 improvement. D d ff, omit eivai; Laura*"* places it last. 
 W goes with the majority of Greeks and Latins for 
 eivai evoxov. 
 65. This is followed by > avrov to irpoatoirov NBCLUA'I' 33 
 108 127 892 Paris" Sod"" et Sod^""- bringing the possessive first 
 as Coptic. The usual conspirators remain well together here, 
 only joined by U 108 127; W and the rest are against it. 
 Observe 108 127 do the same at xiv. 40. 
 67. See under " Differences between N and B " no less than seven 
 differing orders. Of these BCL^ So(i"° 892 alone cling 
 together for /nera tov vof. r)a6a tov itjo-ov, which, instead of being 
 neutral and basic (as Hort dc Soden would have us believe by 
 using this order in their texts without marginal comment), is 
 opposed by all others, thus : 33 remaining alone with sah boh, 
 N alone with both syriacs, W with fam 1, 2'" and 604, while 
 the large groups are represented by DA and all Latins, and 
 AN unc''^ on the other hand. But in this division none place 
 Tou tj)<rou last ! Eusebius is extant and he goes with Paris" 
 and DA latt practically, although having y<; with W fam 
 1 2'" 604. It must be an " improvement " by BCL^I' 892. 
 
 Historic Present. 
 
 See hsts in Hawkins, ' Horae Syn.' p. 144/149. There is a difficult 
 place in 
 
 Mark xi. 7 where N*CW Sod"''" fam 1 including 91-299 fam 13 28 Sod'"' 
 
 substitute ayovcriv for the r/yayov of most (= Matt. Luke), 
 
 while BN"^LA 892 Laura*"" Orig., holding the present, 
 
 substitute ^epovaiv as W-H Sod txt. [D = 7770701'.] 
 
 These groups come together in the same verse ( + D) for e-n-t- 
 
 PaWov(7tv instead of eTre^aXov. 
 
 Are these authorities forcing an historic present on Mark, or do they 
 represent the real "neutral" text here? The only commentary offered 
 
10'2 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 18 at the close of the verse, where /taS.fe. is substituted for exaOiaev 
 but only by ]>' (,; sedebat) \Y fam 1 28 91 241 2'" {Cronin) 604. 
 
 Here W 28 conspire to indicate a completer revision, while D 
 remains composite: vy<iyov. . .eTnjSaWovcnv. . .Kadi^ei. 
 
 At the close of the verse NBCDLA Soir" vim" ]V-H Sod substitute 
 €7r avTov for (TT avTo, of all the rest (including W and 28). While in the 
 next verse WD 28 and two of the cursives (2'" 004) which wrote ett' avrov 
 conspire to substitute with the Latins earpaivvvov for eo-Tpaxrar. In this 
 verse 8 NBLA 892 I W-H Sod M write Kofavre, for e^o^ro.,. There are 
 other clear indications of revision hereabouts. By whom is the question. 
 The apparent Alexandrine preference for the imperfect over the aorist, 
 a kind of historic present or imperfect.t is seen in some other places as 
 Mark ix. 38. €kq>\voij.€v (for exaXvaafiev) by NBDb'LA Sod"^' fam 1 W-H 
 Sod, and it is noteworthy because repeated in Luke ix. 49 by 
 NBL5 157 Paris" abcl W-H Sod against the mass in both 
 places. 
 See also 
 Mk. viii. 25. eve^Xeirev for eve/SKefev N'BL 28 273 (WA/a)« 13 244 440 
 
 syr) W-H Sod. 
 That the historic present was revived can be seen in other mss as C* alone 
 at Luke x. 30 xaTa^atvet for xaTeBaivev. Gf. Orig 2/3 Matt. xiv. 19 xeXevet. 
 B is absolutely alone at Mark i. 18 using r)KoKov6ovv for riKokovBriuav 
 against all Greeks and versions. 
 
 Mark ii. 8. Xf7f/, (j)/o env(v) NBLW 33 892 [nmi min al. magni momenti] 
 
 efOiVO W-HttSodtxt. 
 10. pr loco OTi eaOiu {pro on r,<r0iev NDL Sod"-') B 33 2'" Paris" 6 d 
 [sed T)"' rj<Tdiev] ff r syr boh arm aeth W-H (avrov eaBiovra 
 A X)lt'r afq gotli). W c sec loco {pr. om) eaOiei et manducat. 
 iii. 8. TToiei {pro eiroiei) BL only W-H txt [non Sod] against ND and 
 all the rest + WS* and cursives. Only sah and io/i' support BL. 
 a-vi'cayeTat HBCLA^' fam 13 28 004 892 Sod"*' ct txt, {fam 1 
 see below), against avvrix6v DW vnc' and S* all Latin and 
 8 and versions, and o-vvrix6r}<rav A 2''" al. pauc. and some 
 voss, as Matt, while the 1 fam is hopelessly divided, 1-209 
 reading a-vvep-^^erai, 131 a-vv(pj(ovTat and 118 avi^x^i). 
 tpxerai {pro v>-0e'') NBCLA 892 W-H it Sod txt, scd 
 
 confuse Sod in notul. {a ? venit, al. alitcr : abiit ut D KairrfKOev 
 sic) No minn except 892 join and this would seem a purely 
 arbitrary change. Note that W elides CKeiO^v xai rjXffev and 
 has only xai e^ifXOev 6(9 ttji/ irarpiSa avrov. (Obs. epxerai i. 40, 
 v. 22, vi. 48, X. 1, xiv. 17, 37, 41, GO by all ex lat? venit.) 
 The reading of the group NBCLA is absolutely opposed by 
 Origen : " xai p.apKO'; Se tfnjaiv xai, rfKOev ei<; ttjv ..." 
 
 iv. 1. 
 
 vi. 1. 
 
 t Observe W alone at i. 26 iiimcpaytp for tftamtatw of NBL 33 Paris" Orig WH Sod 
 and Kjm^us of D and Kpa^nv of the rest. 
 
 B IN ST. MAEK S GOSPEL. 
 
 103 
 
 Mark vi. 10. tXeyev 
 etTreu 
 14. Xeyei 
 
 Vll. 
 
 viii. 0. TrapayyeWei 
 
 •jrapayyeiXai; 
 TrapriyyeiXe 
 
 [A place of great conflict. I lay no emphasis upon it because tenses are 
 nil mixed up in this chapter : 
 
 NBCLA^^ 33 892 / boh \ ait Sdetb g,,2 ilqr vg 
 
 AD«' 33 uiic" et W acff, sah goth syr So(?""] 
 
 B 59 only (against eXeyev NDW rell omn ct latt 
 
 et enrev Sod"^" 2'" a n syr copt) 
 
 NBD^L 892 I vg' W-H Sod txt (praecipit, non 
 
 al. latt et d = praecepit et cfft jussit) 
 Sod"''" 2'" 
 
 Bell et W et eTrerafe vid Orig {kui o Mapxo? . 
 eireTafe (^ijerti/ auToi? Travraf avaKXivai- evOaSe Se ov KeXevet 
 aXXa wapayyeXXei tco o-xXa> avaKXi9i}vai. Hinc perperam {^) 
 ■rrapayyeXXet NBD^'L. 
 To these add perhaps of the man cured of the Legion of Devils : 
 V. 18. iva p.er avrov tjv (j))-o if) B* A^' only. The copts stopped 
 to consider this passage, for instead of esset of the Latins, 
 they have " follow " or " remain with," or " go with " as aeth, 
 but all in indirect discourse, 
 viii. 30. o)<f>eXet {pro wifyeXria-ei) NBL and Wj'"' 892 a n q Aug 
 
 W-H Sod txt against all the rest (and against 33 Paris" 
 axfieXtidijaerai cf syr) and against sah boh Orig. Correct Tisch, 
 for sah boh are clear. 
 
 NBC'Ds' [contra d]L^ 892W-H Sod txt, cfboh 
 
 (k oportebat ilium facers) 
 A unc rell" WS* minn et Paris" latt [Male Sod] 
 et d voluerunt sah. 
 NBLA^ Sod"''" min pauc et Paris" Laura*'"* 892 
 
 IT'-Jf <e Sod txt 
 C c'" 
 eTrr)poi)rr](Tav D rell omii (■< WS<t minn longe pl.latt copt syr goth. 
 [hi ver. 13 NBCLA^ reverse thisf and write the aorist against 
 the imperfect, but in Mark these matters are verj' much involved.] 
 xiv. 35. eTTiirrev {pro errea^ev) NBL'^'T" {eviirtTrrev) 892 [non Paris"] 
 boh W-H Sod , contra sah ctlatf""'. This is nothing but a crib 
 from boh [not sah, observe] and notice the manner of boh in 
 expressing it. (Cf. D Clem sol. avairtirrepro avaveae Luc xiv. 10) 
 eKparei B sic, sed exparetre '4'"'' (pro eKparrjaare rell). Until 
 INIr. Lake published the text of ^, B stood alone ; not even 892 
 has CKpareire. 
 X. 43. (pr loco) eo-Tir (pro earai) NBC'DLA et W* Sod"''" if' vg 
 
 copt W-H Sod txt (contra rell). 
 Observe inxii. 41 where X 273 use Oeaipu (only c vidit) against e9ea>pei 
 Gr rell and latt boh ' aspiciebat ' or ' videbat,' Origen once uses deapet and 
 once fdeapei. 
 
 ix. 13. rtdiXov 
 
 r)0eXi)aav 
 X. 10. eirripoiriov 
 
 €7rTjpo)TOVl' 
 
 49. 
 
 t Soden amusingly abandons ]V-H and the group bere, for he loves the imperfect. 
 
104 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 And, as bearing on Alexandrian custom, exhibited elsewhere, observe 
 the preference for the imperfect even over the present at 
 
 vi, 35. 6X^701/ NBLAi!' Sod"'" 33 892 Paris" boh W-H Sod (quite 
 a cliaracteristic group) against Xeyovatv of nearly everything 
 else and DW, while if' say diccntes as sah. 
 vii. 27. (\e-iev NBLA Sod"'-""" 33 892 Paris" hoh W-H Sod {\eyu 
 D" G04 a q, Bell W ct laW' ct d sah emev) 
 
 X. 23. e\€yev N*C Sod"" (against \(yei of B plur) 
 
 And observe Clement when quoting x. 17 avoids both yovwfToiv 
 of D 28 Jam 13 (geniculans latt^'^) and yovimeTT)<Ta<; GH'' (genibus 
 prostratus a, et cum prodisset genibus k) and says iyovtnreTci. 
 
 But the treatment of this matter generally in St. Mark by the 
 NB family is quite different from that exhibited in the other Gospels. 
 Infrequently they render an aorist for an imperfect. They were so bent 
 on having their own way that I infer from this that if they were 
 translating from Latin they often supposed the Latin imperfect would 
 be better rendered by an aorist, but this subject is extremely com- 
 plicated in Mark as in everything else in the Gospel. Take vi. 5G for 
 instance. There are five imperfecta in this verse ; '^Untroibat, '-^poiiebant, 
 '■^''dcprecahantiir, ^*^ tangebant, and '■^^ salvi fiebant. The first and third 
 are agreed to by all, but NBLA W-H Sod and five lectionaries prefer 
 eriOecrav to ertdoiiv, NBD^ (against d latin taiigebant) LA min' a ffi and 
 W-H prefer ijyjravTo to ■/jtttovto, and while nearly all are agreed as to 
 ((Tw^ovTo {Ste<Ta>^ovTo N 7nin alii]), 33 2'"' I'aris" want eawBr^aav with n, and 
 A ^iccwO})(Tav. 
 
 HAinroNTSTic. 
 
 Omissions. 
 
 ix. 38. — 09 ovK aKo\ou0ei i)ii,iv {vcl /uB rj/Kov D a d k) NBCLA^' 
 Sod!"-" 10 ll.'i 346?? 892 Paris" Laura-^"" Sod'"'' '"" [non txt] 
 Evst 44/ [non goth] boh syr pers aeth. The character of this 
 group makes it probable that they all consulted Luke and 
 found the clause absent and so excised it from Mark. Why 
 should nearly all the rest of the Greeks be so pleonastic it not 
 genuine : o? ovk axoKovBei ri/uv xat eKoiXvofiev avrov on ovk 
 T]KoKov6ei Tifiiv? But DXW latt complicate matters with 
 Soden by leaving out the oti ovk riKoKovBei ri/iiv at the end. 
 
 X. r,. -0 0fo? by only NBCLA Sod^"' [non Sod"'] c S sah boh. Not 
 even "i' omits, and all others and sijr, rell latt, aeth arm 
 goth have it. The passage here must be influenced from Matt, 
 xix. 4 where it is absent. 
 19. Here again BKAnWI* invite us to throw out St. Mark's 
 /4i/ aTTotTTfpi/n-?;? witnessed to by all Latins, by syr pesh sah 
 boh aeth, by X and T> and most Greeks, as well as by CL and 
 c I- which were with B at x. 13 fn (see above), which seems 
 to be simply because the words are absent in the parallel 
 
 U IN ST. MAEK 3 GOSPEL. 
 
 105 
 
 Mark 
 
 accounts of St. Matthew and St. Luke. In A there is a big 
 space showing the writer was aware of his strange recension. 
 Syr sin and arm support B cCc. and one lorn vg'^. But the rest 
 and the Coptics are all against this excision nor do W-H Sod 
 accept it. 
 xiv. mfn. icat (fi/^ews) aXexrap €<j>tovv<Tev. This is omitted by NBL and 
 W [non 28] * 892 Paris" Evst 17 c syr sin sah boh [non aeth] 
 W-H [non Sod] but by these only, and no doubt because not 
 found in Matthew and Luke. The whole chapter has been a 
 tissue of harmonies (in which Origen and D have played a 
 part) and I do not refer to many of them. The presence 
 of W here, absent for the most part from the NB combinations 
 in this chapter, is probably due to Coptic influence, for both 
 versions of the Coptic omit here. But the Latins speak 
 with no imcertain sound including h, and with syr pesh and 
 the rest of the Greeks including D and GA (otherwise 
 generally with NBL^-) oppose c, which here shows its 
 frequent critical Egyptian tendency. 
 
 Observe B in the next verse omitting ■TraXtv alone with 
 M Paris" Coptics and W. Practically all oppose, including 
 the friendly 892 and NCLA and "V, only varying the position. 
 XV. 10. -m apx'-fp"'! B 1 [non /am] Paris" [no« 892] Sod""" Evst 
 
 13 17 boh [non sah] syr sin [non pesh] 
 
 Gf. Matt xxvii. 18 where the words are absent, but we can 
 give B the credit of omitting from homoioteleuton in Mark as 
 the next words in xv. 11 are a repetition " oi Se apx'fp«'?-" ^ 
 I concede this, I would Uke my critics to allow me to date boh 
 here quite as early as B, and not relegate poor boh to the 
 vii"" century. 
 12. -0c\€T6 (ante irointrm) NBCA et ^S!'^' 1 [non f am] 13-69 
 [non 124-346] 33 291 892 Sod'"'^'^ sah boh (ut Matt xxvii. 22) 
 contra rell omn et Paris" latt syr aeth arm. Soden accepts the 
 omission. 
 
 Again here the presence of W is accounted for from Coptic 
 sympathy. 
 
 Additions. 
 
 i. 34. +X"' f""" P"^^ "'^' riZfiaav axnov by BLW2 892 and CGM al. 
 (tov x^) ««"' anci &o/i {ex Luc iv. 41) but absolutely contra- 
 dicted by ND and the rest and even Pains" [against 28 2'" 604 
 etc.] with syr goth pers and Ftc<*"' diserte. Soden excludes. 
 38. -haWaxov NBC'L 33 Paris" sah boh arm aeth, but against 
 all others and W as well as 28 2''= 604 and latt syr {ex Liic iv. 43 
 '•km 6Tepa(? TToXeaiv evayy. fie Sei." . ■ ■)■ Sorfcu excludes. 
 
 [This combination here of NBGL 33 Paris" against the rest 
 is only one recension, for at the end of the same verse they 
 
^^^ CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Mark 
 
 have e^Tjxeov together against all the rest again, who have 
 eieXri\v6a or eXyXvffa.] 
 i. 40. +>cvpie BCLWS raris" a^"" copt arm aeth c e ff vf (ex Luc 
 V- 12 d Matt viii. 2) Not received by Soden. 
 111. 14. +0W Kai a-n-oaTo\ov<; (ura^jao-ev NBC*"''' WA /aim 13 28 238 
 Sod'"-- \mu Sod'^'] S only with boh sah aeth (ex Luc vi. 13). 
 This is opposed by all the rest and D and latt arm and goth and 
 sijr. Ilort unfortunately takes it into his text without marginal 
 comment but R- V and Sodcn cast it out as Tischendorf had done 
 before them. W is errant here writing xai e-rroirjcrev i^ fiaOriTa's 
 iva oKTiv /icT avTov 0U9 Kai airoo-yoXou? avofiaaev, for "W adds 
 liaer,Ta<! first and interposes wa wa-iv fier avTov before making 
 the addition. D and the Latins control the situation. 
 VI. 20. (= Luke ix. 7) TjTropet for -rroiet. See under " Coptic." 
 
 49. OTi <j}avTaa-tia eajiv (pro ^avraayia uvai) NBLA 33 892 
 
 Paris" W-H [non Sod] = Matt xiv. 26. 
 
 Observe in the same verse the order €7rt t>;? ea\aear,<: 
 
 TrepmaTovvra, of XBLA Soci"'"" 33 c"" 892 Paris'" syr sin 
 
 only, is the order of Matthew, accepted by W-H and by Soden. 
 
 Changes. 
 
 (viii. 21. vouTe (pro ^vviere) B'"' (D) Firfe s!(i " Coptic." 
 
 I prefer not to regard this as harmonistic from Matt xvi. 11 
 because of the presence of ow in some copies and of ffe in 
 sah, and because the sah word is almost vo^ne transliterated. ) 
 ix. 14. eX6loi'Te? . . . 6jSok (iiro ^XOmv. . . eil^v) NBLWA^ 892 k sah arm 
 Cf Malt, and Luke. See remarks elsewhere as to opposition to 
 the rule of preferring the harder reading. Eejected by 
 Sodcn. 
 X. 13 Jin. avTOKs NBCLA'P Paris" 892 c k boh sah'""" 1/2 W-H 
 
 tok; irpoc^epovaiv practically all others and W2* minn omn 
 vid and the other versions and all other Latins. 
 This is simply accommodation by NB etc to the Matthaean 
 and Lucan accounts and about as vicious a matter as we can 
 find. There are only two sah codices here extant and they 
 oppose each other. Westcott and Hort have the temerity to 
 place avTof; in their text without a word in the margin. And 
 —would it be believed ?— 76- K ed. 1910 follows suit, with no 
 footnote. It bad corrected the harmonising blunder above of 
 the same authorities, who wrote wa avraiv a-^jai instead ct 
 wa a^jrt]Tal avTO)v against Origen's specific information, and yet 
 here Souter's edition perpetuates a fourth-century harmony, 
 in very bad taste then as it is now. Soden avoids this. 
 (Souter even restores eTrert/icov for eTreri/itijaav of the same 
 blundering authorities and W-H.) 
 
 n IN ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 
 
 107 
 
 I suppose the Kevisers thought c h strengthen the NB 
 cojnbination here for avrotq, but what of all the others ? The 
 Latin side is the important one and all but c h are with 
 D d for Toi? wpoa-ipepouaw. How we can expect to proceed 
 on any such unscientific lines I fail to see. Souter's text 
 corrects two trumpery mistakes in this verse of the same 
 Greek group, one of order and one of tense, and then leaves 
 the worst one in the text and the editor gives no authorities 
 below. We shall never advance at this rate.. Did they not 
 realize when they accused NB of had faith in taking the 
 Lucan order for wa avrav ayjrrjTai that NB were looking at the 
 parallels, and hence the further blunder ? 
 
 I hope to show elsewhere that the Latin of h d is the 
 important thing in Mark. And here we throw away the 
 testimony of DW and sixteen other uncials, practically all 
 cursives, all Latins but c h, the syriacs including sin, goth, 
 arm, and aeth in favour of the usual coterie of blind guides. 
 They are only one, an entity, and that a critical recension. 
 Not the neutral text. 
 
 I merely make suggestions elsewhere, but I make free here 
 to demand of the next revisers that toi? Trpoa-^epovaw be restored 
 to Mark x. 13. Even Soden's text holds it. 
 (xiv. C9.) Finally here B alone adopts the enrev of sah hoh aeth for 
 ijp^aro Xeyew of absolutely everj'thing else. All B's friends 
 desert him and leave him self-accusant of Coptic conspiracy. 
 This eiwev in copt is the same here as at Matt. xxvi. 71 (where 
 the Greek is \eyei). Horner has spoiled my picture in sah by 
 quoting B for rjp^aTo \eyew in error. 
 XV. 40. eveiXijaev tt; irwSovi Kai edrjKev ( j))0 KaT€9t]Ken) avrov ev fiitifiari. 
 HBC'DhWliT- 2''= 892 Sod''"' [non Paris"] W-H prefer 
 eOrfKiv to KaTedr)K€v. eOijxev is found to be the expression in 
 St. Matthew (xxvii. CO) and St. Luke (xxiii. 53) and this may 
 be classed as harmonistic on the part of NBC-DL, but it is 
 worse ; for why should they deny free speech to St. Mark 
 when the very catacombs at Rome re-echo Kareffr/Kev ! For 
 this expression is found on some early sepulchral tablets in 
 the Christian catacombs, and doubtless St. Mark it writing 
 in Greek wrote KaT€0t]Kev and not eBijKev. [A = leaffriKev ; 
 Soden and Tisch retain KaTe0}iKev.] 
 
 Improvement. 
 
 i.7.€p^€Tai laxvpoTepot fiov ottkto) (—pov scq) only B and 
 Orig 1/2 against all others and against Origcn close by 
 distinctly fiov o-mtro> fiou. Hort places this second p.ov in 
 square brackets, but it is quite against the weight of evidencg 
 
10^ CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Mark 
 
 The only others to vary are 6 i 5 which elide the first /lov, and 
 Aj 273 Sffi t which leave the first nov and elide oTna-a fiov. 
 1. 27. ware (rvv^rfrtiv avrov; (pro aare ffui/f. npof tavTou? tell) KB only 
 W-H (cf. h effq -avTov;) against Paris" and the rest. 
 Sod has no new witness. W has xai avve^ijTovv irpo'; eairrov^, 
 cf sijr. 
 
 ii. 18. A question of "pairs" as in Matthew, or rather of triplets. 
 hiuTL M fmff. Iwavvov xat 01 fioB. twv tf>ap. vrjaTevovtriv 01 Se (Toi 
 ( - fiaOrjTat) ov vrjar. B elides the third fiaOrp-ai. (fourth in the 
 verse) with only two cursives (127 and 2'") and most MSS of 
 the bohairic ; so [ ]V-H]. Tisch does not record this for boh 
 and Horner forgets to put it in his sah apparatus. 
 23. ohmroKiv {pro ohov -jroiew) BGH 1 372 892 Sod'""" (Om \V, 
 
 habens nWeiv pro rtWovre^) . 
 
 iii. C. (Tvfi^ov\tov eiiSovv {pro crvfi^. ewoiovv vel eiroii)<rav) BL 
 Jam 13 28 2i'» G04 6o7i'™ Sod""" et txt, against Paris" and d 
 (TTotovv with the mass, against e-iroiovmo W Sod"''', against 
 enoiTiauv NCA Sod''" 6o7i'" sah, and against D^' and a Troioum-e?. 
 33. -/iou Jill BD"' arm? W-H only [contra d rell omn et verss\ 
 This is another question of " pairs " where we have so often 
 found B guilty before. It is quite natural. The phrase is tk 
 ear IV rj /ij;T7)p /lov Kai 01 aSeX^oi /.wv, witnessed to by all other 
 Greeks (but W, see below), all Latins and syr copt aeth. 
 Ambrose 1/2 and Aug agree (libere) with liB", and W goes 
 further and elides fiov after fivTVP retaining it after aSe\<j>oi., 
 thus giving the lie direct to BD^', although not as usual 
 wholly supporting the Latins. Westcott and Hort adopt 
 the omission of BD" just because B and D" happen to agree. 
 It is wholly unscientific, because small d is supported by all 
 others. Soden avoids this. 
 
 iv. 28. eiT€u {pro ena) bis BLA W-H. Ionic form. N has tnev 
 sec. (but omits eira a-raxw altogether). N'^ inserts ena a-raxvv 
 but allows aTev 7r\. following to stand. 
 38. For " Kai i)v avToi ewi rt] ■irpvfivr] tin to irpoaKe^aXawv 
 Ka0€vSo)v " NABCDLAW fam 1 fam 13 17 28 53 61 77 116 
 273 604 892 Laura'*"* Sod'"^ Evst 48 222 semel it vg etc. 
 would substitute ev for the first eiri : "in puppi." But can 
 we conceive that a revision would put in this evt? Rather 
 is it the hand of revision which removes this en-t so as to 
 have but one eTri in the sentence, and substitutes ev for the 
 first. This seems logical. I assume here a Greeh original. If 
 we assume a Latin original, then the matter simply is a question 
 of two recensions or translations. Soden prints ev as W-H. 
 
 The sah here is a little picturesquely amplified, while boh 
 expresses e-ni (or (v) T17 irpv/ivij by one word P,l({)A.poT 
 " behind," " retro." 
 
 B IN ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 
 
 109 
 
 V. 27. 
 
 36. 
 
 See Wetstein ad loc. quoting Horn. Od. " . . .eir' ixpio^tv 
 y\a(f>vpr)'; wa vriyperov evSoi Trpv/imi';." Cf Liddell and Scott 
 under ixpia and Homer Od. iii. 3.53. 
 
 axovaaa-a ra wepi tov Iv X'BC'A Evst 33 W-H [noil Sod]. 
 Either due to re translation, improvement, orfromAKOYCACAnepi. 
 irapaKO'xraf {pro aKouo-o?) H* '' ='' BLA^- et W 892* ? e {contra 
 rell omn et latt rell omn copt syr). This must be a "nicety," 
 as rendered by e " Ihs autem neglecxit sermonem," referring to 
 the previous verse where the messengers report that the daughter 
 is dead and add "Why dost thou trouble the Teacher?" 
 Sod follows Hort and Tisch, but adds 2"" [co7ttra Crotiiii]. 
 
 All Latins oppose with D, but e joining W and NBLA 
 shows the hand of revision. 
 As Dr. Scrivener comments on this in his ' Plain Introduction ' I will 
 add here the other two examples in St. Mark which he discusses : 
 
 X. 16. KarevXoyei NBCA Sod"''' 892, Karr/vXayei LN'I' Paris" y'" P'"' 
 (pro evXoyei {nvKoyei PS* 28 al.) ADBHK'MSUVXH et W 
 minn, euXor/rja-ev FGK'' e'" u»" z'" Sod""^) I give the evidence 
 in full. Scrivener did not know of NWS<I>^ or Paris". 
 {Latt = benedicebat). Soden prints KarevKoyei. 
 xii. 17. efeflau/tafoi/ NB* 6 W-H Sod. eOav/ui^ov D=LA Sod"'" ■" » 2<" 
 Laura*'"* 892 latt boh {effav/ia^ovTo D*), effavfiaaav ACNXFII 
 al. uiic' et WS* al. pi. k sah. I add here the evidence of 
 WS<1> and ^ unknown to Dr. Scrivener. 604 and Paris" read 
 cBavfiaaav. 
 Now hear Dr. Scrivener : 
 
 " irapaKova-av, ' overhearing,' instead of axovtra^, may be deemed 
 probable on the evidence of N'BLA and the Latin e, which must have had 
 the reading, though it mistranslated neglexit." (A note to this observes 
 that Lucian certainly gives the word this meaning.) " We gladly credit 
 the same group (NBCLA 473t Evst 1.50 259) with another rare compound 
 KarevXayei in X. 16 whose intensive force is very excellent. In xii. 17 
 a similar compound e^eOav/m^ov is too feebly vouched for by NB alone." 
 
 Thus Dr. Scrivener. I cannot agree with him. This is very old- 
 fashioned criticism and neglects the force of the grouping. As a matter 
 of fact the last illustration is rather better attested than the others in 
 a way, because an independent enters in, in the person of the Latin MS b, 
 which by adding vehementer to mirabantur, alone among Latins, provides 
 the force of e^eOau/ia^ov. The Latins also give us the imperfect. If I 
 am correct as to b being the most important base key of the whole Old 
 Latin in St. Mark, this is a most serious place, as showing (if b has not 
 been revised here on an Old Greek like HB) that NB* got e^effavfui^ov when 
 translating a Latin like 6, or using a Greek base the counterpart of b.i 
 
 t But 473 (2»') is wrong. 
 
 t cffx "s^ (Tffmirabantur, k ar^mirati sunt, but tlie others mirahanhir. 
 
IJO 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Now as to the other two places. Dr. Scrivener favours TrapaKovaa<; 
 supported by N*"''''' BLA" and W e, and KareuXoyfi supported by NBCA 
 (LN* Paris" y'-"- 1'"'). I believe, on the contrary, that this is either pure 
 revision (" improvement ") or is to be accounted for by translating into 
 Greek, at any rate in the second place " hcncdicchat." The reason is this. 
 Why should " Antioch " or any other revision have sought to displace 
 irapaKova-at; and KarevXayet if they were such good expressions that they 
 commend themselves to the critic as having intensive force? Is it 
 reasonable, is it probable, is it possible that all the other recensions and 
 documents cast out these good intensive expressions? Where are the 
 1 family, the 13 family, and 28 and 33 and 157, 2"'" and 004 and others 
 usually so friendly ? To support the theory of ■rrapaKov<Ta<; and KarevKoyd 
 being original and basic, we must do this : we must accuse 33 of having 
 come to this place t and having deliberately rejected these good 
 readings. We must similarly accuse fajii 1 fam 13 in their entirety 
 of the same course. We must accuse 28 (sister of W) of having 
 seen -rrapaicovcra^ and KarevXayei and of having rejected them. Similarly 
 we must accuse 2''° and G04 of the same proceeding. I wish to state 
 this matter thus, once for all. It has not been put to us thus before, 
 but daily and hourly for years I have been confronted with this 
 proposition, and it is this which causes ine to write this whole essay 
 on NB. 
 
 Cursive Jiss, most friendly otherwise, desert the revisers of Egypt 
 just when they should be expected to support them in " good " " plausible " 
 or " improving " readings. And it is this which causes me to believe that 
 the hoot is entirely on the other foot and that what we have been taught 
 were revisions at Antioch or elsewhere are nothing of the sort, but that 
 it is the beloved group NBCL, +A in St. Mark and *, which come 
 from the same parent-rcvisor of the " true " text. They sought to 
 improve. 
 
 It was old-fashioned and unscientific of Dr. Scrivener to welcome e 
 as strengthening the cause of the small group (which is simply an 
 integer recopied) for TrapaKova-a<!, although W^ now upholds, because, 
 as I have shown, W e are simply one, and because e is away from all 
 other Latin support here. Similarly KarevXoyei is not strengthened by 
 ^ Paris" particularly. It merely indicates that these mss found this 
 in their exemplars (of the same stem exactly as NB) and if they found 
 this here why should they not also he truthfully copying when they do not 
 reproduce other doubtful things which we find in ^5B ? That is the 
 question. And that is why the MSS junior to NB in years, but of the 
 same parentage, should be useful to us in checking the traditional text, 
 and not by casting away their check when it displeases us, lead to the 
 perpetuation of erroneous readings or renderings in NB. 
 
 t 33 is wanting at x. 16, but extant at xii. 17. 
 
 B IN ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 
 
 Ill 
 
 As to Paris". 
 
 Thus Paris" does not read irapaKovaa'; in v. 36. I subjoin a com- 
 parison of some readings of Paris" in this same chapter (verses 1/18) to 
 show exactly how Paris'" stands compared to N and B. 
 
 Hnrk 
 
 V. I. yepyea^jjvcov 
 
 2. efeX^oj'To? avrov 
 wrjirrrjcrev 
 
 3. /ivrt/iaaiv 
 a\v<T€<nv 
 ovKeri ovSeii; 
 
 4. Sia TO avTov ttoW. 
 
 6. 
 
 Kai iSotu 
 trpoaeK. ainu) 
 
 8. eXeyev yap 
 
 9. ovofjia iu>i 
 
 10. airotTTeiXt] avrov; 
 
 13. iiarjXBov 
 
 ■qaav h( (<>s hi<T\iX 
 and so it runs to 
 36. aKovaa'i 
 
 Paris" LUA etc {yepacrnvcov NBD) 
 NBCLA 892 
 NBCDGLA 
 
 NB plur {fivi)iJ.€toi<; DH al.) 
 N plur {aXva-ei BCLW) 
 
 NBCDLA 892 
 
 B plur (Si avrov iroXX. N, hia to 
 TToW. W, oTi iroXX. avrov D) 
 NBCLA 892 
 
 ND plur (irp. avrov BACLA) 
 B plur {icai eXeyev N) 
 N plur (-hea^Ttv B) 
 AM al {avTovi air. DS'EFGHSU, 
 avra aitoar. BOA, avrov airocrT. NL, 
 OTToo-T. avrov KH, — avrovi 892) 
 „ N plur (eiavXeev BT° Sod"") 
 
 A unc" (om va-av Be NBCDLA 892) 
 
 Paris" plur et 892 ex emend {irapaicova-a^ 
 
 NBLWA e) 
 
 Improvement (continued) . 
 
 Mk. vi. 24. Tou /3a7rTt?oi/T09 NBLA"' Sod"^" 2'" W-H Sod against all 
 the rest (and 28, Scholz misled Tisch as to 28) tov fia-n-Tta-Tov 
 and W as copt and latt. 
 
 It is difficult in Mark to know where to class this. It 
 may be due to retranslation. If " foundation " on the part 
 of NBLA'"' then how did all the rest get tov PatmaTov ? But 
 if the Latin baptistae was original, then we can see NBLA'"' 
 translating independently of DW and the rest. 
 
 25 fn. Of course the Latin remains constant here with baptistae. 
 L repeats tov /Sairrtfojo-o?, but NBA 2i" here go with the rest 
 for Tou PaiTTKTTov whilc it is 604 and 892 which go alone to 
 join L here. 
 
 Sy fin. e^KTTavTo (pro fftcrrain-o xai eOavi^a^ov) NBLAA* (fam 1) 
 28 [non 604 nmv Paris"] 892 copt cff.,ilhvg syr sin W-H Sod. 
 This is seeking to remove a conflation and is a very interest- 
 ing example. Various proof offers as to this. In the first 
 place both D and W with the rest hold the double expression. 
 
112 tODEX II AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 M»rk 
 
 d is strengthened hy b q f r siji'""'' arm aeth (a adds ciivi 
 (tilmiratioiie). Further the 1 family substitute €^(ir\7iiTcrovTo 
 tor e^tcTTavTo while cancelling /cat e^au^afov, showing what they 
 were driving at, and, may I ask, why should all other Greeks 
 conflate including Paris" ? This MS has been consistently 
 following the fortunes of NB in this chapter (against D 2'" 
 rcll) but now deliberately says that this is not a conflation, but 
 is original. Nor is it imported in any way from St. Matthew. 
 The " conflation " was undone by NBLA in my opinion as an 
 " improvement," and upon reference to John vi. 19 where km 
 e<^ojir]dT)<Tav is the expression. Finally note that 2'", hke the 
 1 family, was exercised here, and while omitting \iav earlier in 
 the verse, finishes thus : e^iaravro xai edav/jta^ov \tap ev eavroi';. 
 vii. 4. pairriaiomai SB 40 53 71 86 179 237 240 244 259 sah Euthym 
 W-H instead of painiaaivTai D rell and W with the important 
 minuscules and latt. In Apoc xix. 13 N* and N'' with P favour 
 " sprinkling " as against ^efia/ifievov of most, but there Hij^p 
 and the Latins are with them. Here in Mark the character 
 of the cursives suggests distinctly that the change was made by 
 NB, and not by the others. Not only do DW rell oppose, but 
 fam 1 13 28 157 2'" 604 892 and even Paris" have Painiamnai. 
 This is the more important as to the latter because imme- 
 diately following So(P*" Paris" alone with B write a-rrep 
 e\al3ov for a -rrapeXa/Sov showing the B base in this detail and 
 contradicting pavTtamvTai. Of. Merx, p. 70, ad loc. ' deren 
 schlimmste und sachlich ganz verkehrte in NB.' 
 
 1.'). -exeiva NBLA Sorf"'" *' 21"' Paris" £rs< 48 49 fto/i (against 
 snh and the rest of Greeks and all Latins). This seems a 
 distinct effort to remove a superfluous word, which no doubt 
 from the testimony of DW etc. is basic. Cf. Paris" which goes 
 further and elides ca-nv, writing " ra Kotvovvra tov avffpanrov " 
 (almost the antithesis of B's unique to koivovv amov above, 
 which Paris" does not adopt). Soden omits exeiva. 
 viii. 9. -06 <t>ayovTe<; NBLA .Sod*""""' 33 892 Paris" Ersf 18 
 19 49 150 sah""'"- 6o/('"". The same group approximately 
 as above, although a whole chapter further on. There is no 
 particular reason for adding oi <j>ayovT€i; (which all the rest 
 and DW have) but there is a possible " nicety " involved in 
 removing the words as unnecessary. Sod'''' omits. 
 
 25. eti-qKev raf x^'pa? e-rri., for eTre0T]K€v Tat ;;^€ipa? eiri only by 
 BL 892 Sorf"" against all else (if we except stjr copt) and all 
 Latins jjiposuit (or ijiponens as a with D" ^i" 604 eTri0ei<;). 
 This seems to be from a desire to avoid the double em. If 
 edriKev . . . cTrt were original, u-hij should a revision strive for 
 pleonasm by changing eOjiKev to e-Tredvccv ? Sodcn refuses eOtjxev. 
 
 B IN ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 
 
 113 
 
 ix. 29. — Kai vrjareta NB k Clem W-H [non Sod] against everything 
 else as well as the new WS4> and even ^ and Paris" and 892. 
 Cf. Merx, pp. 103/4. 
 
 [i' has "in orationibus" not "in oratione" for ev Trpoa-evxv, 
 but so have b q and r d {contra D") " in orationibus et 
 jejuniis," and i vg'' " in orationibus et jejunio."] 
 
 The syriacs (with boh^ arm aeth) give "fasting" the place 
 of honour, reading (v vritncia Kai irpoaev^rj. 
 41. (V ovofuni fiov oTi xpuTTov eare. No leSB than ABC'KLNII* 
 and S*S'J 1 [non /am] 892 Paris" Laura-* "^ and eight other 
 cursives + five of Sod remove this /mov. Tischendorf says " vdtr 
 propter pleonasmiim omissum esse ; si quis intulisset fu>v, 
 eiecissct opinor on yy «rre." He found that N not only held iiov, 
 but substituted e/ioi/ for ^larov afterwards, reading " tv ovonxni 
 fiov oTt efiov carat," hence he was trying to account for the 
 absence of p.ov in B. His explanation is quite possible, for all 
 Latins have meo and quia xpi estis (only ^^fa substitutes Diil 
 for ^i and k suppresses cstis) and if we regard the Latin as a 
 whole to be basic we must come to the same conclusion. In 
 other words it is a smoothing away of a supposed dilBculty. 
 xi. 17. Kai (SiSaaxev Kai e\ey€v NBCLA^ 6 fatti 13 k S boh {aeth) 
 
 {sijr) Orig W-H <C Sod txt. 
 
 This I believe to be another clear case of improvement by 
 " pairs."t For sixteen verses we have had much disagreement, 
 but the Latins have been more or less divided. Here they rise 
 in a body and with sah (against boh) they contradict the group 
 NBCLA* Orig W-H Sod, and have with all other Greeks, in- 
 cluding WS* 2'" 604 Paris" and Laura* '<" , xai eSiSaaxev Xeytov. 
 
 In xi. 1-10 Orig and NB have been much divided but here 
 they conspire together. 
 ibid. This is followed closely by TreTroiriKaTe by BLA*!' Orig W-H Sod 
 only. The LXX quotation, as pointed out in the notes on 
 Matthew, does not lend itself to any particular form of the 
 verb. But nearly all Greeks use eiroiriaaTe here, including the 
 Latinisers 2'" and 604 and the friends of NB, viz Sod"^" 892 
 Paris" and Laura*"" , and if -n-eTroirjKaTe had been basic why 
 should all change, for the aorist is hardly an improvement here ? 
 24. Within seven verses we here get another illustration of 
 improvement by " pairs." 
 oaa irpoaevxeade Kai aneiaOe NBCDLA* 892 Paris" 
 
 Laura*™ [twn al. Sod] a c dff^ k syr Cypr W-H ct Sod txt. 
 ocra 7rpoaevxo/j.evoi aireiaffe A unc rell" et W24> minii 
 
 rell omn vid b et latt rell. 
 
 t Aa a matter of fact A repeats the performance in verse 18, writing «at ijitouox. 
 
 Km f^TjTOw for Kai rjKOi/trav . . . Kai t^TjTovv. 
 
114 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Mirk 
 
 The three cursives seem to be the only Bupporteis of the five 
 uncials with NB. D rf of course lend support, but in view of 
 the other arguments against such "pairs" Drf may have 
 followed the "improvement" here, which W' and b, two 
 equally good witnesses, take pains to contradict. Besides, if 
 ■jrpoa-evxeo^ffe "at aiTetaOi were fundamental, why should a 
 revision change to vpoa-evxo/J-evot aneiaOe'7 Whenever a 
 copula has to be added to make such a change it is suspicious. 
 (Suh boh here do not help to recover the original reading). 
 If I submitted this without the one at xi. 17, the correctness 
 of the inference might well be impugned. Kindly consider the 
 two matters together and then the addition oi D d may not be 
 considered so weighty in the second place. (Sod"'' abstains.) 
 
 Besides, consider Origen^"''"^" eav otij/ojte irpocrevxa/ievot 
 7r«7T€i/6Te OTi Xafi^avcTe Kai XrjiJreaOe, thus merging 24/25 but 
 implying a probable antagonism to NB. 
 xii. 24 iuit. e^v <"^o« " "?o^ow NBCLA* 33 892 Paris" Sod"" ef 
 
 Soc^""^ sah boh stjr pesh [cmitra syr sin'\ 
 This is the " shorter " text. Such introductions have 
 occurred several times already in this Gospel (and see below 
 xii. 29). I have hesitated to brand them as " improvements " 
 iu deference to the shorter text. But here Origen^-^^ (with 
 the rest of the Greeks and all the Latins) comes to say that 
 airoKpiBei^ o irjaovi enrev (oirroi?) is the Marcan text. There- 
 fore the previous passages involving this " cutting " (generally 
 %vith cojjt) must be viewed with suspicion. The group itself 
 is plainly self-accusant of a special line of work, and as it 
 would appear editorial, some time back in the third century. 
 Consider xii. 27 fn again the " shorter " text "woXv vKavaade" 
 NBCLWA* 892* Sod^'''^* "" A- sah boh against all others (even 
 33 and Paris" oppose) and we see the same group at work. 
 For the others including syr pesh have the longer expression. 
 37. Out of six varying orders BLT'' 2'" 892 Sod'"'' "" et fxt elect to 
 use avTov eaTiv vw<!. Cf remarks on " Genitive before the 
 noun " in Luke. Here in Mark the possessive precedes the noun 
 according to Coptic usage but the verb comes last : avrov t/io? 
 €(TTiv by sah boh and 179 T" goth, so that (taking into con- 
 sideration 1)10? avTov ea-Ttv of N veil pi. and 6, and eorii' iko? 
 avTov of D d i<''', and etjriv avrov uio? of A A 8) the order of BLT' 
 seems to be a grammatical preference combined with Coptic, 
 xiii. ir>. -6(9 rrjv oixiav NBL'P 24-5 Sorf"'"™" c A .so/i 60/1 [non aefh] 
 
 syr pesh [non sin] W-H [noji Sod] 
 This I think is a clear case of improvement. It is opposed 
 by D and all the rest, including not only W 28 and the 
 minuscules (2''" only has the shortened clause " rat o ent tov 
 
 V IN ST. mark's gospel. 
 
 115 
 
 hafiarot firj Karaffara ei? tt/c oiKiav axnov") but by 892 
 Paris" and Laura*™ syr sin and all the other non- Egyptian 
 Latins, arm and aeth. The reason is to avoid Mark's 
 characteristic pleonastic touch, for he undoubtedly wrote: 
 o Se (or Kai D i<'") an tov Bo>/mTot /xri xara^aTo) et? tijv oiKtav 
 fiTjSe eiaeXdaTa apai ri ex ti;9 oikm'; avrov. The compiler of 
 the NBL'l' recension seems to have forgotten Mark's method. 
 See below again at xiv. 19. This will be a good place to 
 exhibit it. 
 
 Mark's Diction. 
 
 I take the liberty of extracting from Sir John Hawkins' list some of 
 the longer expressions in St. Mark's synoptic diction. f They are very 
 interesting as showing on the one hand Semitic pleonasm (and no doubt 
 more true to life than the shortened forms in St. Matthew ^ St. Luke) 
 and on the other a kind of Roman rhetoric which Mark may have 
 imbibed amid Eoman surroundings. 
 
 i. 32. o^KX? Se yevofiemi^ ore eov {eSvaev) j;\(o? 
 
 42. airrfkOev air avrov t) Xerrpa Kai CKaOepiadrj 
 
 45. Kttpv<ra€tv -rroXXa xai BuKJ>r)fu^eiv tov Xoyoi/ 
 
 ii. 20. Tore vi^arevtrovaiv ev CKeim] rt] ijnepa 
 
 25. vpetav €a)(Cv xai errtivcurev 
 
 iii. 26. ov hvvarai aTadrjvat. aXXa reXof e)(ei 
 
 IV. 5. em TO TrrrpwSe? {vel em to verpaBri) Kai ovk eixev y^v ttoXXtiv 
 8. KapTTov ava^awovra Kai av^avovra (pel av^nvo/ievov) 
 21. wo TOV fio&iov Te6r) r) two Ttjv kXivtiv 
 39. eKOTTOcrev avefioi koi £761/6x0 70X171/?) /ieyaXt) 
 V. 19. et? TOV oiKOV trov irpo<! tou? o'oti? 
 ibid, otra Kvpiot aoi ireTronjKev Kai ijXeijaev ae 
 23. iva aaiBri Kai ^T)(rr) 
 
 26. Kai iirfiev a>j)eXt]0ei<Ta aXXa /laXXov «? to J^cipoi/ eX6ovcra 
 33. <f)0^T)6eura Kai Tpep.ovaa 
 
 39. Tt Bopvfieiade Kai (ti) KXaieTe 
 vi. 4. xai ev toi? avyyevevaiv avrov Kai ev tt) oiKia avrov 
 vii. 21. eaadev. .eK tj;? KopSiai 
 viii. 17. ovrrto voeire ovSe avviere 
 ix. 2. KariBiav fiovov; 
 
 12. iva iroXXa rradri Kai e^ovOevooOr] 
 35. earai rravrav ea')(aro<i Kai iravriav StaKovo<! 
 X. 22. arvyvatrav . .XtnTOvfUvot 
 30. vvv ev TO) Kaipa rovra 
 
 t Pp. 189/141. I have modified some passages slightly to embrace some ms 
 evidence, and excluded others where the mss vary. 
 
 I 2 
 
]1C 
 
 I'ark 
 
 XII. 
 
 xiii. 
 
 CODEX B AKD ITS ALLIES. 
 
 44. iravTa oaa €i^(v. .o\ov tov fiiov 
 
 28. airaKo^ yevtjrai Kat €K<f)vij ra ^vWa 
 
 29. eyyv; ((ttw ewt 6vpai^ (and Matthew, not Luke) 
 
 1. TO iraa-)(a Kai to a^vfia (Compare Liuke) 
 G. a<j>fT€ avT7)v • Ti avTT) KOTTOv^ TTape^eTC 
 
 15. ecnpojiKvov €Toifiov (Some Latins and Oiig expand further.) 
 
 30. arj/xcpov Tavrt) ttj vvkti 
 
 61. €<Tiii>Tra Kai ovk aTrexptvaTO ovSev (i'fi Kai ouSep aircKp.)^ 
 
 21. irapayoi'Ta . . ep')(Ofi€vov aw wypov 
 
 32. iva iBa>fi€v xai in<TTev<T<i>fieu {avrco) 
 
 42. CTret rjv irapacKevr] o vttiv npoaafilSaTov (vel Trpo? aaffff. vel trpiv 
 
 2. (Xiav) irpwi. . (6ti) avareCKavToi; rov TJKwv 
 
 [Add xiii. 15, xiv. 19.] 
 
 Improvement (continued). 
 
 ""xiii. 35. 'i of £ fi iieT. {pro ofe v p-e<T.) HBCLA''"1'J 892 Sod"'''' ™">">*» 
 
 ct Sod^'"'- k ? sail boh aeth 
 
 The iSrst ^ is an addition by these authorities to make the double 
 " pair " t against all else, and WS* Origeiv"'"' and Ojiff"" '»". 
 
 In this we cannot tell whether the sahidic got it from these six 
 Greeks or the Greeks from the sahidic, as in sah the expression is 
 literally the same : h- • • H ; in hoh it is ei ■ ■ ei- 
 
 To xiii. 15 now add xiv. 19 /in. where xai aWm p.r)ri eya is omitted 
 by NBCLPA et W [non 28] * viin aliq g, I S vg sah boh syr aeth. This 
 looks like a strong combination, but for the clause are ranged DAW'Xni 
 i/nc' et S*, all the important mitm including fam 1 fam 13 (both in their 
 entirety) 28 {Mat 33] 157 2'" 604 892 Laura*"" etc (and Paris", the 
 latter apparently having km o aWot without ^tjtj €701 .sec) § a {miit b) d 
 f (mut goth) ffiik q (mut r) Orig, and it is decidedly in Mark's manner. 
 Absent in Matthew it may well have been thought redundant here and 
 early removed. As Sir John Hawkins' book is based on Westcott and 
 Hort's text he naturally does not have on his list this place or xiii. 15. 
 The full context here at xiv. 19 is : "{km vel 01 Se) rjpfavTo XtmeiaOai km 
 Xeyeiv avra tt! Kara {vel koB) £« /tT/Tt eya> Kai aXKo's /iijTt eya." It 18 
 this Kai aXKoi firiTi eym which the itala supports with D uiw" minn longe 
 pi and Origen against the Egyptian coterie of uncials plus a few scattering 
 
 t nTrfKp.tfi) of D is a form no doubt later than the seeond century. See Moulton's 
 review of Thackeray's Qrammar 0/ Old Testament Greek in J.T.S. January 1910, 
 
 pp. 299/300. 
 
 X " tj o-^t >l |ifO-., ri a>.<KTp. I) irpoii " instead of " o^f ?; fitiT. I) nXtitTp. ij wpm. 
 
 § C/c in peculiar manner inverting : " nunquid ego ant alius hoc singuli cocperunt 
 dicere." 
 
 B IN ST. mark's gospel. 
 
 117 
 
 cursives (see below) and sah boh syr aeth [not arm apparently]. To the 
 previous evidence for omission we have now to add W, but given its 
 Egjptian environment this witness has not here a vei^ grave importance, 
 and 28, its sister, contradicts it. It seems almost incredible that this 
 very pleonastic clause should have been added, but very natural that it 
 should have been subtracted as quite redundant. We are however doing 
 violence to Mark's own distinct method (as exhibited above) if we elide 
 the words, and Origen is a witness here for the words **" distinctly 
 Marcan (0 8e p.apKO'S on ijp^avro XvweurBai Kai Xeyeiv aura €t? xaB eva . . . . ) 
 but Origen is here put out of court by the critics because he fails to 
 uphold the doctrine of codices otherwise sympathetic. Thus we are up 
 against a wall of prejudice which has forced the critics to follow certain 
 rules involving the impeccability of certain witnesses. The addition here 
 is absolutely Mark-like and I believe in D and the itala with Origen 
 against the other versions and NBW etc. This is practically a key place 
 as to how much force such a strong grouping for omission should 
 exercise. And we cannot consider it apart from Mark's habitual 
 manner. Soden does not omit, although retention stultifies his other 
 readings with the same group. 
 
 Tisch claims miti" for omission, but I doubt if there be as many. 
 Among them are 17 106 131? 218 a"' Evst 7 9 10 12 14 17 36. Thus 
 none of Matthaei's codices and only one of Scrivener's. Soden adds five. 
 
 Finally consider the Latin expressions for eii Kaff eit (ct? Kara ti? 
 NBLA [710)1 W] ^ 892 ; Beza ej? xara [= xai eiTo] ck; em encao-To? C; 
 ei? Trap et? 244 ; et? Kaff" eva Orig) for there is quite a difference between 
 singillatim of vg g^ I, and singuli of the principal vett. The singuli 
 allows of numqtiid ego with the addition et alius nunquid ego, while 
 singillatim assumes the stop after numquid ego without further addition 
 as if when Jerome was translating his Greek he adopted this on purpose, 
 not proposing to amplify the clause. 
 
 k indeed transfers singulis to the end after the double clause, 
 thus : " lUi autem coeperunt contristari et dicunt illi numquid ego alius 
 numquit ego singulis." Observe c, cited above. 
 
 xiv. 29. Indeed it is a question whether Mark's pleonastic manner 
 has not been pruned at this place also. For et Kai Travret 
 (TKavSaXicrdria-ovTai aW ovk eyio there is added by D d ffj 
 q r? vg° ov <TKavSa\ia8riaofiai. And to this witness now add 
 {teste Buchanan) b : nunquam .icandalizabor, exactly as {teste 
 Horner) the sah ms'"K 
 36 fin. Or at this place, where to: aXX ov Tt eyeo OcXio (or aXX 
 oux eyci) 6eX(o D) aX\a Tt av (or aXX av D) there is found 
 the addition of ^eXei? in D Sorf"" 2i"^t c" a b c d/ff., {Mat i) 
 
 t Tisch. omits 2". 
 
118 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 9i 1 ('■ ?) t'?'" sail huh arm actli. It is rather curious that the 
 Coptics add, l)ut not NB rell gr nor W. Buchanan now adds 
 h to all these other Latins. 
 XV. 46 init. Or indeed here, where all Latins have o Se ia(rii<j> 
 (following TO) to><Tr)<l> ver 45 fin) with DS \liiant N<I>] Sod"^" 
 2'" and a very tew cursives against all Greek uncials and W. 
 It is quite possible that the first Latin draft of Mark contained 
 this, and that it was removed in the first Greek as rather 
 unnecessary and xai substituted. At any rate it is very 
 peculiar to find such a clash of arms as occurs here when 
 all Greeks and W are for Kai against all Latins and D2 Sod"'"'' 
 38 106 435 21" Sod'-" ' '"^ for o Sc t«o-^(^ (;i syr^'-'^ "'" " km 
 luKTijtf)) especially as in the previous verse W is with D 1 124 
 2''' Sod"''' substituting irapa tov Kemvpitovo'; for awo rov 
 KevTvpu>jvo<!, and yet here opposes. And in verse 46 again goes 
 with D d {2'") alone for ck ti/k invSova (pro T17 aivSovi). 
 
 Consider also xi. 11 oyjna'; ova-rj'; ( — tt;? apa';) by B3 alone. Cf. 
 John XX. 19 ov(T7]i; ovv o-^jria'i and Thucyd. (i. 50) tjS?; Be ijv o-<fre. 
 
 And Mark xiv. 3 of the contents of the alabaster box : 
 
 Kare^eev avTov Kara tt;? /te^aX?)?. This Kara is removed by 
 XBCWA S 1 [non 118-209] 28 435 892 Sod''""'" et Sod'^' {k : et 
 perfudit cum a capite). eirt is substituted by D Evst 20 sah 
 boh {syr) it, hut Arriaii (quoted by Wetstein) supports the N.T. 
 use: " /9a\€ eXuStor iraihaptov et? to ^aXaveioVf €^a\ov av 
 yapiov, Kat atreKdoiv Ka-ra t^? K€if>aXr)<; avrov KaTe^eov." 
 xiv. 38. " npoaevxeade iva jirj et<TeK6r)Te fit ■7reipa<Tfiov." N*B 13-346- 
 556 Sod'"'^ and q are for making it irp. iva fiv eXBtire ei<: 
 ■Kupaap-ov to remove the double en. Sod follows NB and W-II 
 here. 
 
 The other 21 Greek uncials, including CDLA and *T^ and 
 W as well as the great cursives and 892 Paris" Laura* '"^ are 
 all against MB, while 69-124 give the lie to 13-346-556 of this 
 family. When the NBCLA^ family (for it is a family of 
 uncials in Mark just as much as/a;)i 13 of cursives) is divided, 
 and only two of its members, NB, go apart, and CLA^, four 
 of its members, join the great majority, why should we favour 
 XB ? Consider for a moment, if eKSryre were original, why 
 change to fwreX^TjTe and invite the pleonasm ? The answer 
 would be that all these 21 Greek uncials have been 
 accommodated to Matthew and Luke, where we read 
 eiaeXdTiTf 6J9 ireipaafiov ! I think the charge here is rather 
 ridiculous, for if so it is a conspiracy of AV (the contemporary 
 of NB) as well as of 20 other uncials and 1,000 cursives. 
 Bather is it that the Greek recension of Mark, as I am 
 trying to point out, is a thing apart and must be reckoned 
 
 B IN ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 
 
 119 
 
 with as such, and that here NB were merely "improving" 
 (weXBrfTe 61? and do not hold the neutral base against all else. 
 I have excluded, as a rule, passages which were liable to 
 reaction from synoptic parallels, and only adduce this with 
 some hesitation. See below for confirmation at xvi. 5. 
 XV. 36. T(9 {pro €/'?) NBLA^ 892 Paris" 8 (arm) against all else, 
 all Latins (but h), sah boh aeth, and syr (although it will 
 bear both interpretations). The above little group is simply 
 an entity deriving from one revising parent. I do not cite 
 it as a special case of improvement, for gic may have 
 been simply misread as TIC, but in order to emphasise the 
 basic entity of this group as a whole. Not a " neutral " 
 entity however, as Hort the Revisers and Soden [against all 
 other Mss] indicate by placing ti? in their texts, because all 
 the Latins oppose, except h over A"'' of the group. 
 
 39. More grave is the omission of xpa^a^ here by NBL'P 892 
 and copt. No others. W, which has a lacuna xv. 12-38, 
 begins again just before this, and has /rpafa? with all the rest. 
 See my ' Genesis of the Versions,' vol. i. p. 403 seq for the 
 explanation. A avoided this in the eighth century. Hort 
 revived the error in the nineteenth, and R-V followed suit, 
 and Souter's edition of 1910 maintains it and Soden also omits. 
 As to k that ms merely substitutes exclamavit for e^einieva-ev. 
 
 40. - vv NBL [mn A1'] p^' 892 vg 1/2 W-H d- Sod tit. 
 
 + nv all the rest and W2^P Paris", DA and all Old Latin 
 extant and 1)17;/"+ boh (sah eo-Tt). As to the Latin Wordsworth 
 remarks " emendatio Hieronymiana nt videtur ex graeco " for 
 Amiatinus and ten vulgates omit against the Old Latin. 
 (The syriacs and aeth omit ev ait tqv). 
 xvi. 5. (\6ov<rai (pro tiaeXdovaai) Only B 127 against all the other 
 Greeks friendly to B. This is another case of real " improve- 
 ment" on account of the tjs following: " Kai etiTe\6ovaai. fii 
 TO fivrjfiewp." See B in the other Gospels. Hort places 
 eXOovaai in his margin, obviously liking B's method. 
 
 Change without Improvement. 
 
 Among many we fasten at once upon xvi. 4. Here we are on firm 
 ground before the famous dispute as to what follows xvi. 8. 
 
 xvi. 4. avaK€KvXi<rTai.(proaTroKCKvXi(7Tai) HBlj W-H li.V. Sod. This 
 is of the stone, and appears to represent a mistaken view of the 
 way in which the stone was placed in Jewish burial places. 
 Neither A nor ^ join NBL here, nor any minuscules, not 
 even 892 or Paris", while the itala mss with D (awoK(KvXj.afievov) 
 all have revolutum except n = amotmn. The question is of 
 
120 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 k: 
 
 rolling away, rolling away from, not lifting or rolling vp. 
 To think NBL (as Hort and B.V., Sod text) represent a 
 "neutral " text because airoKex. is the expression in Matthew 
 and Luke is to do violence to the whole synoptic problem. 
 The mass of authorities did not accommodate to Matthew 
 and Luke here (against NBL) for ^ witnesses against its 
 fiiends with the rest, but it only proves once more that the 
 textual situation in St. Mark is quite different from that in 
 the other Gospels as regards NBL, and the matter of 
 retranslation here in St. INfark must be taken into account. 
 Observe the amotum of n. Under avaKvKiviea or avaxvKuo in 
 the Lepcicon the significant and only remark is Alex. Kvl3epv. 
 i. 7. Thayer gives also Alexis in Athenag. Lcian. Dion Hal. 
 Plut., but under aTroxvX. Josephus and the LXX three 
 times. [See Postscript in Part II. Tisch has misreported NJ. 
 iv. 8. av^avofieva {pro av^avovra IIS* imc' vel av^avofievov 
 ACDLAW) by NB Laura* i"' only. Even 892 has av^avonevov 
 and Paris'" av^avovra. Om. 2'". 
 
 NB would have " xai e&i&ov xapTrov ava^awoira xai 
 av^avofi€i/a " which seems simply to be a mistake (even if it 
 does refer to aXKa in it.) which however both Hort and Souter 
 follow. Wiser are Tischendorf and Soden with av^avo/ievoi>. 
 
 aXXa init. is read by NBCLW 28 33 124 892. Even with 
 aWa (2)ro aWo init.) CLW 28 33 124 892 still give us 
 av^avofievou or av^avoiTa. 
 
 Opposition to the Rnlc " Proclivi Icctioni praestat ardua." 
 
 viii. 16. exova-iv pro exo/iev. This is distinctly the easier reading. 
 
 " Kai BieXoyt^opTO Trpo? aWriXovs {Xeyovre^) on aprou^ ovk 
 exova-iv. ' ' NBDW fam 1 28 2'" 604 i<'" (non syr) omit Xeyovre'i. 
 exovacu is read by BW fam 1 28 QT 604 c g.. k (D eixav), a 
 
 b d i q r non haberent, ff, haberent 
 eX"/^^" l>y the rest {eXa^ofiev Paris") with the Vulgate, while 
 co2>t = (dicentes) nullus panis iis, 
 syr = panis non est (nobis). 
 The matter turns on the omission of the word Xeyovrei; and 
 the original Aramaic expression for " have." But when 
 XeyovTe^ is dropped exo/ieu becomes more difficult. Hence 
 apparently B writes ex'>"°'"' (followed by W-H d Sod) while 
 X holds exoiiev with the mass, although it omits Xeyovrft with 
 sail, which boh and syr retain. 
 
 ''■^^"''/TL^T^'^^"^i«BLAW^J'892it.a;,an«IF-ff[«onSorf!] 
 61001/ (pro loev) \ l ">- j 
 
 B IN ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 
 
 121 
 
 There is a difficulty here, and apparently overcome by the 
 " neutral " text, and hence opposed to the above rule of 
 preferring the harder reading. In the previous verses our 
 Lord discourses with'the apostles who had been present at his 
 transfiguration. Then in verse 14 the majority of witnesses 
 read : Kai eXBwv irpot tou? /laBriTai; iSev oxXov ttoXw irepi 
 avTov<!. . ." He came to the discijiles." As verse 13 said "a\Xa 
 Xeyw viiiv " etc, some scribes perhaps jumped to the conclusion 
 that our Lord was speaking to the body of disciples (while the 
 record is of Peter, James and John) and thought eX6tov irpm 
 T0U9 fiadriTa<; should be eXOovre's. 
 
 As a matter of fact syr sin] says "When he came to his 
 disciples they saw ". . .using half of the change of NBLAW*!' 
 892 k sah arm, and showing that the difficulty was known and 
 ancient probably before B's day. 
 
 The matter may be merely harmonistic (<■/ Matt xvii. 14, 
 Luc ix. 37). 
 
 Other passages bearing on this rule may be found under 
 " Improvement." See ix. 41 etc. 
 
 Origen and B in conflict. 
 
 To complete the picture of an already composite text in B we must 
 consult Origen closely. 
 
 Hark 
 
 oTi N c vg^ Orig syr sin 
 
 Kai \eya>v oti B etc (Others Xeyuv oti as AD U7ic' sah goth, 
 
 60 that B here has the longest text of all with a b boh) 
 evvvxa NBCDLO'W viin aliq 28 372 892 etc. W-H <f 
 
 Sod txt. 
 evvvxov A unc^' et S'^ et Orig et 2,'" 604, et evvvx'ov Paris" 
 
 al. aliq. 
 Biy soli 
 Orig''"' et rell 
 
 Orig et gr pane, \_negl. Orig von Sod] 
 ttB rell 2>l (W — /9\e7ro)o-« «aj. Cf. syr sin) 
 Origen plur., sed ttoxi NBCLWA 7 28179 SocT" 
 ibid, ev rcvt {sec loco) Origen et NBCLWA 7 28 et Soi"'. 
 
 This seems to be a question of " pairs " again, for D al. 
 change in the second case to €v irota, having tivi 2)rimo loco. 
 Origen's quotation seems quite important here. W-H 
 naturally follow the apparently strong group against Origen. 
 
 i. 15. 
 
 35. 
 
 iv. 11. e^coOev 
 
 12. /iT) fiXeiraai 
 30. nvt {pr loco) 
 
 t liecte vid BurJiiti ct Merx. Mate Lewi$ Horner. 
 
122 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 IV. difin. fTTfXuei- avTa<; DW effiiq rani OligeiiiOm.THpotsah 1/2) 
 
 (■n-eXvev -rravTa NB rcll et rcll latt, sah boh, syr aeth 
 vi. 1. Tjxeev riur ct Origai'^" against historic present epxfrai 
 
 by NBCLA Sod"'' ct txt [non minii] (om €Kfi0ei> xat TiX^ev W) 
 40. KaTa NBD 21 W-H Sorf'", but ava Bell gr Orig. 
 
 avipei p (pro ava (xaTov) W 
 *i.5. npoayav HB gr plur 
 
 ■wpoayuv avTov DNS* mill aliq latt et vcrss et Orig 
 ibid. -Kpoi 0-qe<T. NBDWpiiK- 
 
 €(■> /97?(9cr. Sod"" /am 1 28 2'" 604 Orig 
 
 \ii. 24. - Kat aiSa,vo<; OnV/'"' ct DLAW Sod'^" 28 2^' abffiin sgr sin hier 
 (Correct Merx p. 75 by adding W Sod"^' 28 syr liicr, and make 
 Orig: Orig"^' ■"'). 
 
 Habent NB rell et W-H Sod txt. 
 Who is right ? Orig"' "" "" and DW 28 b etc. syr''" ""', or NB ? 
 ibid, ei? Tj;!/ oiKiav Orig et DW* Sod'"' 71 179 2'" s'" al. 
 €19 oiKtav NB ^?itr. 
 
 (Following this observe rfdekriaev NA 2''= oZ' On'i/ and ij^t'^^f 
 BDW rell. Origen stops at yvwvat, but NB Sort" (alone) 
 
 write r)Svvaa0r] for rfiviniOrj) . 
 viii. 0. An interesting matter occurs here referred to also under 
 "Historic present." While NBD'^L 892 W-H Sod have 
 ■n-apayyeXKei the rest have irapriyyeiXe {wapayyeiKa'; Sod°^° 2""^). 
 Now Orig^^^" says /caxet /lev KeXevei tou? oxXovi avaic\i0r]vai tj 
 avaireaeiv (ttl tov yoprov ' xai yap o XovKaf xaTaKXtvare avrovi; 
 avfypa^t, Kai o p.apxo'i " encTa^e, ^ijaiv, avroK Trarra? avax- 
 Xtvat • evdaSe Se ov KeXevei aXXa TrapayyfXXa to) oyXco 
 avaKXiOrivai . , . 
 
 From this it would appear that Orig did not say Mark used 
 rrapayyiXKei. He merely uses two historic presents to 
 explain the matter. If NBL followed this we have a good 
 key as to the responsibility of Origen for much that has been 
 attributed to the " neutral " base of NBL. [Observe I leave 
 D" out, because he is contradicted here by all Latins but I 
 and five vulgates.] Apparently then eTrerofe is St. Mark's word 
 according to Origen. This makes a further complication in 
 our troubles as to a Latin or Graeco-latin original for Mark. 
 c and ffi nse jussit here, but elsewhere in Mark vi. 27, 39, 
 ix. 25, they use praecipio with the rest of the Latins for 
 cirnaaaw. At i. 27 on the other hand iiiperat is generally used. 
 At any rate we find NB and Origen disagreed here at viii. 0. 
 
 12. ar)fietov eiri^rjTei Orig and many with W, against fiyret ar/fietov 
 
 of NBCDLA. 
 
 3G. a>(t>eXet NBLW3 892 anq W-H Sod txt 
 
 io<j>eXria-€L All the rest and Oni/ (oxfeXij^^afTai 33 Paris", r/, syr) 
 
 Uirk 
 
 viii. 87. Sot 
 
 n IN ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 
 
 Sa N'L Sod' 
 
 123 
 
 ywovrai Orig 
 
 N*B W-H txt 
 Swaei Orig rell omn. 
 ix. 1. Tiav f(TTr)KOTfi>v a)Se 1 sah 6o/t Ojf'j/ [c/ 6 de circumstaiitibus 
 mecum (-hie) 6"" ; -hici r et d (D")] 
 (a8e Tiov €<TTriKOTa)v B (syr sin aeth) 
 Ttt)V (oSe ear. N al. 
 
 t 2. +61/ TO) -irpoaivxaoOai axnov Sod"^" 28 2"* c"' Orig'^" 
 
 4- ,, „ „ avTov; W f am 13 
 
 Omit NB rell 
 
 3. cvfi-ero NB itnc' et W* Sod"'' 
 
 eyevoiTTo AGKLNVXW'TII et 1 
 
 cyevevovTO D 
 
 X. 13. tva a-frjToi, avrmv Longc plur ct W Sorf'"'' ct Orig'"" " Kara 
 /i(i/ Tov parBawv iva Ta^-.Kara he tow papKov, iva a^T)Tai, 
 avTO>v ■ KaTa Se tov XovKav, iva avTiov aTTTijTot." 
 scd iva avrmv a^rfrai NBCLA^ Sod""" 124 892 Evst 49 y'" al. 
 pane, et Paris" etfh W-H. In the light of this, when we meet 
 A 124 Evst 49 Paris" elsewhere with NBCL does this inspire 
 confidence in them as supporters of NB ? It merely indicates 
 a similar text faithfully copied, but the group is to be treated 
 as one eclectic group, not as a tenfold authority. They stole 
 the Lucan order here and created a hiatus in Mark to do it. 
 And we know they did this, for they substitute ain-ot? of Luke 
 and Matthew (see mider " Harmonistic ") for toi? wpoa^cpovaiv 
 of the great majority of authorities at the end of this very verse. 
 20. t^vXa^a AD 28 892 Clem Orig 
 
 e<f>vXalafiriv NB rcll (evoirtaa 1 2f° Sod'^^'' syr sin) 
 
 29. 1) iiiyrepa i) irarepa BCAW* Sod"'"" al.pc. ct txt. Boh sail 1/2 
 1) Trarepa r; pirirepa N rell ct "V Orig""- ■"' quamvis Marcus 
 , .cum dicit qui dim. patrem et matrem. . . 
 35. 01 Svo vioi BC Paris" sah boh aeth. No others, 
 
 not even ^, and Orig with N and the rest flout the proposed 
 addition. (Soden however quotes Origen for it.) 
 46. epxeTai (pro fpxovrat) D viin' a b d _fii gt i r syr sin 
 
 diatess Orig"'' contra rell. 
 ibid. €Kei0€v (pro airo leptxo) D 2'''?? t a b d f ffi i q r goth 
 
 Orig"'' contra rell 
 ibid. ciraiTiov D Soii"" 2'" Orig (et irpoaanav A plur WS* verss 
 
 plur) 
 ■wpoaanrfi NBLA^ 892 k W-H it Sod txt [sed cj. Merx 
 
 p. 130] Om. C* Paris". 
 48. ot TToXXoi Orig (cf sah) No others add oi but B* has aurot 
 
 t Male Titch de 28. Habet 28 avrov icil W avrovs. Om. Orig von Soilai. 
 
 X Errat Murall de 2" 1 ottii itptix" habet Behlteim ncc aliter Cronin. Vide Sod. 
 
^■24 CODEX D AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Mnrk 
 
 TToWoi for avTto or avTov TToWoi. Serf does not quote Oria or 
 
 Cf Cton"" hi) afieXec xai rusv eTrtl3oa>iievmv rov Kvptov avTov ot 
 fiev TToWot. . . 
 X. 49. avTov (jxoi'ridTjvai Orig"' cum phir et "W, contra NBCLA^ 7 
 893 Sod}'" ct Sod''^^ tjxovtjaaTe avTov cum hoh. 
 xi. 1/12. See remarks elsewhere (pp. 4/5) about Origcn's double text here, 
 xi. 3. a-woTTeWu NBD" vmlt et syr h c I W-H Sod, sed airotrTcXei 
 vbique Orig (ter vol Hi, et vol iv) cum GUIl et W*^' [twn 1] 
 a d [contra T)"] fff^ g, q r S vg sah boh arm aeth. 
 11. -Tr,?«pa9 B"" cum y'""^' "'' {Habet Orig rell) 
 
 13. NB and Orig at variance here also. 
 
 14. (fiayoi NB etc. 
 
 <t>ayrt DW etc Orig"' 
 
 xii. 1. avOpatro<; Tc<; e(fivTev(Tev afiweXava Orig et 'XV fam 1S2'" Sod"" 
 
 c syr pesh aeth al. pauc. 
 a/j-TreXava av9paTro<; e<\)VTev(Tev XBC(L)A4>'I' etc. 
 (Cf. rell sub " Two or more recensions.") 
 24. Origen is specific as to avoKpidfK eiirev for Mark against e<j>rj of 
 NBCLA^ 33 892 Paris" Sod"" cf: Sod"" copt, that thoroughly 
 representative group, all hanging together for this (as on 
 several previous occasions) an apparent improvement. Syr 
 pesh joins this group here, but is opposed by syr sin which 
 takes the side of the Latins and other Greeks and Origen. 
 ibid. D Orig firj yuvaxrKovTet pro /jlt) etSoTet of the rest and W. 
 This seems to be a clear case of retranslation by Origen. 
 See p. 1.59. In Matthew (xxii. 29) eiSoTa is used. 
 41. fo-To)? Orig diserte bis {xara fiapKov) cum W Sod"''" fam 1 
 fam 13 28 2"'= Soi'"' arm syr sin, contra Ka0iaa<; NBD et rell omn 
 et latt copt syr pesh diatess {ex Marco) Hiat goth. 
 I would like to point out here that syr pesh and diatess arab keep 
 with NB and the mass against syr sin and Origen. One sliould remember 
 this place when praising S7jr sin elsewhere if it supports NB and contra- 
 dicts syr pesh. The matter here is of course irreconcilable. 
 
 Mr. Sanders does not record this place as to W in his notes 
 on p. 80 owing to his self-imposed limitations (see p. 74). 
 
 xii. 41. KarevavTi Orig'''' with N and most, but a-n-evavTi BU^ 38 
 71 179 280 348 Sod""'"'"' [non So^?"] Paris" only. 
 43. 1} xvpa V -^raxn a-vfV Orig''" et DS"]' Sod"^" 7 004 2'" Evst''"''^'^'" 
 
 Sod"' '"'■■ abdiq 
 (contra rj XVP" avTrj rf tttooxti KB rell et W^l') 
 
 aijTti T) xnpa V ■n-Ta>xi 28 Cf syr, et 21 t ( - Trrioxn) 
 xiii. 8. +icai Tapaxai Ony""'" (" Marcus addit et turbelas ") co»<)rt 
 NBDL^ Sod'"^ it (praeter q) boh. This is a square division, 
 with sah on Origen's side and most Greeks, but practically 
 
 B IN ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 
 
 125 
 
 all Latins go with NBDL against him. W however comes to 
 his rescue and has it (" eaovTai awnoi Kara tottovi; ' Xi/ioc 
 Tapaxat ") as also S* Sod"^". 
 xiii. 11. Orig here goes with W28/aHi 13 91 299 2>'= Sod'™ k for cxewo, 
 against touto of NB and most, and avro of D"' c. Unfortunately 
 b is here mutilated. Small as is the place, the fact that Origen 
 with W 28 contradicts NB p?u)- shows a possible foreign base t 
 (with D*' c opposed to d) and t's testimony would have been 
 most useful for control. As to 91-299 they are really part of 
 the 1 family, but 1-118-209 apparently have tovto, so that 
 this family is divided amongst itself, but fam 13 holds 
 together. Compare this place with xii. 24 above. 
 12. Orig and all eiravacrTrjcovrai, but B Sod'""'' eTravaaTrjaerai (as 
 BA 28 Sod"" at Matt x. 21) with k exsurgebit. 
 
 23. TToiriaovatv D Sod''" 2^" min""^ adet Orig"" (iroiricrei notei) 
 
 contra NB rell Bia^ovaiv 
 35. -1-^ (ante o^fre) NBCLA^ 892 Sod''" '»' '"" *» et Sod}^* k ? sah 
 boh aeth against all the rest and Origen. 
 ibid. fieaovvKTio) Origen with Hipp ? 2 238 511 604 c'" Sod'™ and 
 latt media nocte, against varying forms in the rest, 
 xiv. 10. o €?? (pro eU) NBC'LM^ 892 Sod"" " "" boh against sah 
 the rest and Origen (who was with them just above in dropping 
 before t(rKapi,u>Ti)t with latt). 
 ibid. Neglect -n^poa^ijXde here of Origen alone for airr)X6ev of the 
 rest (jjXOtv L) as the ■n-po<; following no doubt accounts for 
 Orig (libere). 
 Id fin. Habet Origen km aXXo<; firin tr/ai cum D unc'^ 2<I> minn''' 
 
 Sod'"' it'" contra NBCLPAW^ copt syr aeth. 
 63. -1- evOv; W 124 2'" 604 a sah arm Orig (syr sin) against the rest. 
 XV. 1. evroiri^av Orig Da Sod"" 245 2"' Sod'"''™"" et latt (contra 
 B plur ■Koi'qaavTi'i, et NCL 892 soli cum Sod''^'' cTot/tao'aj/Te?). 
 ihid. avriyayov Orig CDGNWS [Hiat *] al. patw. (latt) [contra 
 
 anrjveyKav NB plur^. 
 
 t See below, xiii. 35 fuo-owKTuo. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 CONCEnNINC. THE GENESIS OF THE LATIN VERSION OF 
 
 St. Mark's Gospel. 
 
 " Thia (Western) text was triinalated into Latin before the time o/ Tatian, and the 
 primitive hilingual in which the trauelation stood is a docuvient of patriarchal dignity 
 and largely cajiable of restoration."— Hams, 'Codex Bezae,' p. 177. 
 
 •' But, beyond this, when translations were made into Syriae and Latin (the former 
 certainly, the latter probably, as early as the middle of the second century) the alle7ition 
 of scholars was necessarily directed to the difficulties in interpretation of the text, with 
 its occasional archaic expressions, obscure words, and harsh construction*; and the 
 practical usefulness of a simplified and modernised text was suggested" — Bamsay, 
 ' St. Faul the traveller and the Boman citizen,' p. 2S. 
 
 To put the matter into as few words as possible, before the new 
 Greek ms W was discovered my studies had already led me to consider 
 that the ancients were probably right when they said that St. Mark had 
 both preached and written his Gospel in the Latin tongue [see sub- 
 scriptions to the Syriae vulgate and to some of our Greek manuscripts]. 
 But this MS W in St. Mark is a perfect mine of wonderful information 
 on this subject. 
 
 My impressions to-day are that the Gospel of Mark was written 
 originally in Latin and in Greek, and circulated separately — that the 
 Latin went to Latin Africa— thence to Greek Egypt, where it was 
 translated into Greek. [But see the quotation further on from St. Jerome 
 in connection with the testimony of Clement of Alexandria.] Hence a 
 double Greek recension visible all along the line. This matter appealed 
 to Blass, for he says (' Philology of the Gospels,' pp. 203 and 20-5), " To 
 use a simile : reading Mark (with due attention given to the variants) 
 reminds one of walking on quicksand .... for the difference of readings 
 mainly rests in the expressions and does not affect the sense. But, 
 nevertheless, we feel unsafe and wonder in what way such a condition of 
 the text may have been produced .... But one of the authors seems to 
 be Luke. Well, and then? Did Luke perhaps interpolate or revise 
 Mark? No, but he translated it, as the original Mark was in Aramaic, 
 or had it translated for his own use, and then revised the translation. At 
 a later time Luke's copy got into circulation and was again copied, and 
 those copies went side by side with copies containing a translation made 
 by somebody else . . . ." 
 
 Thus Blass. I do not think there is much which points to an 
 Aramaic original. The whole matter can be understood if to St. Peter's 
 Semitic background we apply Mark's Latin surroundings when he wrote, 
 but Blass clearly apprehended the double Greek recension and was 
 striving to account for it. 
 
 THE LATIN VERSION OF ST. MARK'S GOSPEL. 
 
 127 
 
 As to D*', a and d. 
 
 At first it seemed as if d were the king, but there are certain 
 independent features in D" which stamp it as of almost equal importance, t 
 For instance in Sir John Hawkins' list of words peculiar to St. Mark's 
 Greek, we find among them (p. 200) e-mpaTrrm and eTrtavin-pexa, but in 
 D"' for evipaTTTei (ii. 21) that MS has e-Tnavvpa-mei and W*' eTrt<Tvvaim. 
 So that this form eviavv applies to another word in the Marcan Gospel as 
 well as eTTtcrvvTpexm. EintTvvpavTei stands opposite adsuit (the Latins 
 hardly vary here at all) and adsuit can scarcely have influenced eTriavv- 
 pawTet or eina-vt'aTrret. Excepting (Triavvayco (Matt., Mark, Luke) no 
 other verb in the New Testament is compounded with eirtcrvv; besides 
 eiria-vvTpex<o above mentioned, peculiar to Mark's Greek text at ix. 2.5. 
 For this the Vulgate and most Latins have ccmctirrentem, but a = conlisissit, 
 while b d i —concwreret, f ffi =concurrit, h = concurrunt, q =conciirrct, 
 and 8 ^concurrehat. [paTrret 71 only in ii. 21.] 
 
 Of course D" of to-day is not the exact original of D'' foundation 
 text. We have a splendid illustration of this at xii. 38 in one verse. 
 D^ (against d) adds a/ia. This a (alone % of Latins) maintains with the 
 addition of sivml. But two lines below D"' goes wild (against d'a Latin 
 ct qui volunt) by writing xai rmv tcXodpiov (for Ttov ffeXomoiv). This a 
 opposes, having qui volunt. The addition of et in <7is due to some curious 
 reaction § which, however, did not conform d to D"' or D" to d, so that we 
 have the opportunity to observe a process at work which is quite 
 interesting. This is followed in the so?»e verse by another illustration 
 which seems helpful. For D<I> 2''° add iroietaffat at the end of the verse 
 as d facitis, so that D" d hold together. How do the Latins stand ? 
 The Greek expression is : Kai aairatTfiov^ ev tok; ar/opaK dependent on the 
 original twj/ OeXovrmv. A few cursives only add (fiiXovvTwv before aa-Traa-fiov; 
 (borrowed from Luke) as do syr pesh and syr sin, while sah repeats todv 
 6eKovro)v (A-iruj eifoireaj) as arm and c : " qui volunt salutari " but c 
 abandons aa-Traafiov; (tou? aairatTp-ov; sail holt) or salutationes oil) d e for 
 sahitari oi a k i q r S [above a<rtra<Tfiovi] thus making a composition of 
 salutationes and sahitari and adding volunt. Here therefore h d c have 
 
 t From this Greek the Latin of a seems to have been made, qnite independently of 
 d. For a beautiful although infinitesimal example see vi. 18 licet te says a, and so D" 
 alone: ^^ttrriv ot right opposite d: "licet tibi." All other Greeks and Latins use croi 
 and tibi. So in other small places, as vi. 35 78.) it D" 2" 604 n, but Km 1)87 the Greeks 
 and d. See xii. 37 libentisaime for lihenter by a and D d : gat rj^ftov. In the very next 
 verse xii. 38 a follows D" alone, against d, for a has simul alone and D" afia alone. At 
 ix. 31 D rf (aa we have them) make bold to remove the apparently pleonastic airoKTavOas 
 (following awoKTtmivaii'). The only support is from x"" y"' and a c k. All Greek uncials, 
 including W* retain, as do b and the rest of the Latins. That a is found here with 
 D is significant. Here b doubtless holds the base and not <?. 
 
 t As we pass through the press f on Soden teaches us that his new Greek MS 050, 
 sister to D, does not have nfia. But he obscures the Latin issue by grouping ah r i 
 together, whereas 6 r t do not have simul as a. Sod'^ has irotttirffat fin. 
 
 § Add for +i!ni ante rav StXairrav Von Sodcn's t 1091 (Sinai 186, Greg. 1223). 
 
128 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 the simple sahUationcs dependent on the original qui volunt ; against 
 sahitari oi a i k q r S vg. We arrive at the conclusion then that irouiaffai 
 and facitis of D'l' Sod"''" i'" and d is a late accretion to both D and d, for a 
 rejects it, unless indeed salufaii of the others is supposed to be a composi- 
 tion of a(nra(7/j.ov<; TToteiadai, but then salutaie would have been used. 
 
 At xiii. 14 D adds ti avayeivaxTxei. after o avayeivcoaxwu voenoi. a also 
 adds quidquid legit and n quod dicit, while d has quod legit, so that although 
 D d here are together, D"' here probably reacted on d latin, as d differs 
 from a n who probably translated from D's Greek. At xiii. 22 a has 
 facial t with d and D Sod"" 2'" iroirjo-ovaiv against haxrovaiv of other Greeks 
 and Latins, xiii. 33 a alone follows D"' against d and all else omitting 
 ecTTiv fin. (Cf c which however turns the phrase.) 
 
 I wish to add here a most important matter which I think has never 
 been pointed out before. "Where D and d differ we can frequently 
 discover, by the help of a, which reading is basic and which is not in 
 D oxd. 
 
 Thus at xiv. IT) d and a fft and only these omit km ra a^vfia. This 
 occurs in connection with one of St. Mark's well-known doublets or pairs. 
 tSv 86 TO TTiiaxa xal m a^vfia. f We know from the absence of other D d 
 sympathisers like 2'" etc i that this must be a correction to remove apparent 
 pleonasm, but how came both D and d to excise the words ? The answer 
 is that Greek D reacted here on small d. We know this because it is the 
 Greelc of D and not the Latin of d which a habitually foUows. Further 
 proof offers in the same verse. D"' and a i omit ex SoKto but d has it. 
 Here therefore D-' did not react on d latin, although a, as usual, follows 
 D's Greelc. There are several other places where at first sight a would 
 seem to strengthen the small combination Dad, but as a matter of fact 
 it is now proven that D simply overflowed back as a (wrong) influence 
 on d, and a is merely an accessory and a witness that this influence came 
 from D"' only. 
 
 This is well illustrated again at xiv. 25 where D Sod"''' 2'" have ov fii) 
 TrpocOo) ineLv as a (differing in latin expression from d) d and / only, for ov 
 fir) TTia) of all others. This Greek of D, found only in af otherwse, 
 must have flowed back on to d. 
 
 The retranslation of a (and k and sometimes i) is often illustrated. 
 It occurs again immediately after at the opening of xiv. 26. The Greeks 
 maintain km vfivijaavre^, the Latins and the vulgates " et liymno dicto," 
 but exceptionally : 
 
 (I = Et cum hymnos dixissent 
 I = Et cum laudem dixissent 
 k = 'Et cum heminum dixisset 
 
 t Only * Sod'"^ vary the order rjv 5f ra a^vpi kgi to TraiT\a, while ft r^ do not like the 
 doublet and have paacha azumorum or azemorum as sj" and (gat). 
 X Von Soden'a 050 appears also to go against D daff here. 
 
 THE LATIN VERSION OF ST. MABK'S GOSPEL. 
 
 129 
 
 r = Et cum hymnum t 
 
 Z = Et ymnum dicentes 
 8 = Et nmnisantes 
 In the same chapter again at xiv. 32 D a d alone substitute airroi? 
 
 (illis) for TOW fm6rfTai<i avTov of all others. 
 At xiv. 44. a (and c ft r) go with D" only eStoKev (Se&toKev Sod"") by 
 writing dedit for dederat of all others and d. 
 But at xiv. 47 D (I d together omit toiv rrapeaTriKOTo>v showing D" has 
 here influenced d. 
 At xiv. 67. where D" alone omits km before <tv, we know it is an 
 
 error, because a does not follow. 
 At xiv. 70. — Toi werpai Dad, 
 
 and 72. — ort irpiv oKeKTopa (jxavija-M Sii /le aTrapurjar] Dad, they 
 are seen together. 
 Further, when, as at xiv. 48, both D and d omit w? and tanqttam 
 before ciri Xijo-tt/v, we must assume this to be a common error in the last 
 copying of the MS, as neither a k nor any others omit. We thus learn 
 that at the last copying even, an effort was made to bring Latin and 
 Greek into conformity. 
 
 And when n replaces a (as it does from xv. 22 onwards) we must 
 note that n does not support D" at xv. 34 amSto-o? with c t J (?) but has 
 me derelilquisti] against them. Thus probably D" and c i h are con- 
 spiring in an error against the mass, and n controls the old D^ as a did 
 before. 
 
 Obser\-e the independence of n throughout this section, and especially 
 xvi. 4 amotum for revolutum of the rest of the itala, which although 
 agreeing with the awoKeKvKuTiievov of Di^ (d =revolutu7n) against airo/cexri/- 
 \ia-TM of most, yet appears to hang on a different treatment. 
 
 Note also at xvi. 6 where D(W) has ^oPiKrOM (for eKeap.fiei<r6€) and d 
 timere, that n follows suit with timere against expavescere of the others 
 (A; stupetin). 
 
 As to b : 
 
 The most important Latin witness in St. Mark for " control " is 6 
 [it is wanting i.-viii.] a feature which Buchanan has quite forgotten to 
 mention in his new and valuable edition of fc.f The text of 6 (far 
 removed from ff in this Gospel) is a most ancient one. All the O.L. join 
 
 t Obsene in Mark iii. 32 (where f icadijTo bothered a e so much that they deliberately 
 alter the sentence, although no others know any different verb) that K alone of Greeks 
 lias Trpoi avTov oxKot (for fffpt tivTov oxkoi). We look to d and find circa euni turba as 
 th6 rest of Latins. "We look to D and find npot rov ox\o and do not understand it. 
 But 6 says alone of Latins AD ilium turba, so that N 6 are giving us what D means to give, 
 roK standing for avrov. See Harris, ' Study of Codex Bezae,' page 20, where he shows 
 \oy for Xoyoi' twice and Xtit for Xrytit. Add X«t for Xrytii John xiv. 9 and frum for 
 fruclum in d at John xv. 2. Wo find even ir< for jr»/ii (Afc. v. 27). (Cf. xiv. 68 rm vmv 
 ( — Toxiroii) Ds' alone against hunc templum by d opposite.) 
 
 E 
 
lao 
 
 CODF.X I) AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 D dao largely in Mark as a unit (with the exception of a) that it has a 
 very deep significance. But b goes farther than this and invites inspec- 
 tion as to the fundamental d text sometimes preserved in b where d has 
 lost it. As to a the condition is quite dififerent as sketched above. It 
 would seem as it a had been independently translated into Latin from a 
 Greek which had already beeamade from the original Latin. 
 
 Long and long ago critics found certain Latin words graecised 
 especially the property of St. Mark, as aireKovKarmp, Ketnvpuav, ^c<nrff,'\ but 
 explained them away. Sir John Hawkins calls attention (p. 132) to v. 23 
 €a-^aTa><; E;^€t, saying in a note "This expression is condemned by 
 rhrynicus, see Thayer's Lexicon," but if retranslation from the Latin 
 " in extremis est " it could not very well be rendered eo-p^aro)? eo-Tti/. As to 
 Ovyarpiov mentioned just above th\a, filiola is found in e. Now the problem 
 is both simplified and complicated by some of the extraordinary agreements 
 of W" with e latin. How it will all work out I cannot say at present. 
 
 It is quite unnecessary to repeat that St. Mark probably wrote his 
 Gospel at Home for Eoman readers, and it is beside the mark to say that 
 Greek was the current or polite language of the city or that the names 
 of the early leaders and Popes were Greek names. The oral Gospel 
 ajipealed first as thoroughly to the oppressed servants and slaves of the 
 Itoman households as to their masters ; and what was the language of 
 the common people ? Of the converted butchers, bakers and purveyors 
 to these households? Of the masons, blacksmiths, carpenters etc? Of 
 the Christian attaches and employes of the baths and places of public 
 entertainment ? The catacombs tell us, and the inscriptions speak in no 
 uncertain voice that the Latin and Greek tongues were in a state of flux 
 in St. Mark's day. "We find Greek words transliterated to Latin, and 
 conversely Latin words expressed in Greek letters. We find ^Xt<tKr<rt/to? 
 {or felicissirtuis, /9tf for bixit or inxit, tjtiKto ioifilio ; or cosmou for Koa-f^ov, 
 itaira for eratpa, Theos for Oeo? and so forth. In fact some could speak 
 Greek but only knew the Latin alphabet, others, while knowing enough 
 Latin to speak it, could only write the Greek letters. t Hence a Latin, 
 
 t Cf also Mk. vi. 8 (17 tis tijv (aviv x"^''" ("neque in zonS ae> ") as against St. 
 Ijukc (ix. 3 *^ fujre apyvpinv"), Cf also Mk. lii. 42 Xejrra Svo o tffTtv KoipavTrts (*'duo 
 jii'muta quod est qitadrans," the lowest Eoman coin) as against St. Luke (xxi. 2 *^ivo 
 XtTTTn tantmtt, inacter D +0 timv Ko&pnvrijs "). 
 
 X We find the very hybrid graecolatin words bisonwa, It-isomnt and quadriaomut in 
 common use in the catacombs (to the exclusion of other expressions) for burial space for 
 two bodies, three bodies, and four bodies. 
 
 Sometimes A occurs for D throughout a Latin inscription (see No. 142 in Maruccbi 
 tind otiiers). 
 
 We come across such a thing as this : 
 
 KALEMERE DEVS REFRI 
 GERET SPIRITVM TVVm 
 VNA CVM SoRoRiS TVAE HILARAE. 
 
 Or benemn-enli, el, and 0eiXif in the middle of a Greek inscription, and observe 
 the Greek rlio in hcncmercnii. 
 
 THE LATIN VEBSION OP ST. MARK'S OOSPEL. 
 
 181 
 
 or a Graeco-Latin written Gospel seems a priori to have been perfectly 
 natural and called for under the circumstances ; and not necessarily a 
 bilingual, but two separate editions, one in Greek and one in Latin. The 
 Latin original, if represented by 6 and d, seems to have parted company 
 with the Greek original very soon if not immediately. It reappears in a 
 and part of k to some extent, but a is a fresh translation from the Greek 
 as k seems to be in many places.! The consensus of Latins with h d 
 
 AHMHTPIC ET A60NTIA 
 CeiPIKe <t>6IAI6 BeNEMePgN 
 Tl MNHCeHC IHCOYC 
 O KYPIOC TEKNON. 
 
 We find teplem (E6PT6 tic) with ANN in the middle, at the end of a Greek 
 inscription : 
 
 EPMAICKe <1>U)C Z 
 HC 6N eeO) KYPI6I 
 (1) XP6ICTU) ANN 
 OJPOYM X MHCU) 
 POYM ZePTE. 
 
 In the middle of a Greek inscription (Maruccbi No. 344) occurs BONI<J>ATIE. 
 
 From the catacombs of Domitilla, observe two Latin lines followed by Greek in 
 Latin letters: 
 
 ANNIBONVS FECIT SIBI ET SVIS 
 
 LOCVM HOMIBVS N VIII INTRO FORMAS 
 
 ^ TON €MON PANTON TVTO 6 MON. 
 
 This lasted a long while. There is a Latin inscr. in Greek letters throughout, 
 dated 269 a.d. 
 
 KUJCOYA6 KAYAIW EA nATEPNU) NONEIC 
 NOBENBPEIBOYC A6I € BENEPEC AOYNA XXIII 
 AEYKE *IAI£ CHBHPE KAPECCEME nOCOYETE 
 EA EICnEIPITU) CANKTW TOYOJ. 
 
 On the shorter and earlier inscriptions such Latin names as Flavut or Flaviut, 
 SeplimiuB etc ate written in Greek characters : 
 
 For instance : •tA • CABEINOC . KAI 
 TITIAN H ■ AA€A*OI 
 
 And again : 
 
 CERTMIOC nPAITEXTATOC 
 KAI KIAIANOC 
 
 Or 
 
 ANNIA <(>AYCTEINA 
 
 Or 
 Or 
 
 ANNIOE KATOi: 
 AIKINIA <)>AYCTEINA 
 
 t A good example occurs at xiv. 54 where the 23 uncials and W write iji- trw (or 
 trvy) KaBqpevos but D it vg ijv Kn6jjp.tvoi, Tischendorf obser^'Cs *' I'C' vg erat sedens, 
 sedens, sedebat ; h accurate fuit simul sedens," but he should have said... ft ex 
 graeco fuit simul sedens." The Latins all hang together against any conaedent or 
 aimul aedena except 7c, which as we thus see is bringing back his Latin into conformity 
 with the Greek, while D" alone follows the Latin. 
 
 K 2 
 
132 
 
 CODEX n AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 shows that the Latin as an entity remained knit together. With the 
 Greek it is quite different. D reappears in Egypt in W but with 
 modifications incident to a passaRe of d through Carthage previously, 
 where it had become modified to c and e. The Greek of KB is quite 
 different afjain from that of DW, although N shows occasional traces of 
 W e, and ]? of W or D. Did the Greek of D perish by shipwreck or 
 otherwise on its way to Alexandria ?t Or did they use at first only 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke in those parts? The early Fathers are 
 strangely silent as to quotations from St. Mark. 
 
 Among one of the first distinct quotations from St. Mark (v. 34) 
 it is noticeable that C/fm*'" gives us a-rreXBe €i<; eiprjvriv for viraye en? 
 "/"?«"!''■ [Luke says -rropevov.] The Latin is vade. See later for remarks 
 as to Clement in connection with what St. Jerome says of Mark's 
 personal arrival at Alexandria, bringing his Gospel with him. 
 
 As to c : 
 
 I- is also a valuable adjunct for control as to the original base 
 h c d e. Its glosses are reproduced by W^, and it has many Egyptian 
 characteristics. Whether it ever had an accompanying Greek column 
 we do not know, but the corruption per labia for per maims in vi. 2 
 probably arose from confounding ^eiXfcov or yeiXav with x^P'^"- One 
 thing is very certain, aeth and c are very close in Mark. Among other 
 places observe Mark vi. 38 -xai yvoine<! c aeth and syr sin. The latter 
 adds force to the basic age of the recension. 
 
 Then, as shown beyond, Terttillian and aeth share the otherwise 
 unique reading in xiv. 13 invenietis liotninem for occurret vobis homo. 
 
 Besides this c and Tert are in apposition in other Gospels. 
 
 A curious coincidence occurs at Mark ii. 20, where for eiarfKOev, W 
 alone substitutes eiaeXOav, not supported by our Latin witnesses, but by 
 Jerome with ingressus (Ep ad Pamvi : "Idem Marcus inducit ad 
 I'harisaeos salvatorem loquentem ' Nunquam legistis . . . quomodo 
 ingressus domum Dei sub Abiathar . . .' "). 
 
 St. Mark in the Irish Latin texts. 
 
 One striking fact deserves notice, and that is that when the Irish 
 text of the four Gospels was copied St. Mark's Gospel alone appears in 
 almost pure Vulgate dress. Why was this? It must be concerned with 
 
 t Observe v. 37 nnpnKoXovgritriil DW fam 1 2R 124 2Pe 604, OKoXovSijirni AKH* 
 
 aJ", at>vaKn\nv6r]<Tni UTi reJl. Willie the Latins use acqtii, W elides fitr avrov, and e 
 haw inlroire with SotV"'^ ficrtXdeiv. But the point is that TrapnKo\ov6j}iTat bears directly 
 on the wording of the end of Mark, for at xvi. 17 napaKoXovSTjirn occurs, and this has 
 been challenged as not being a Marcan compound or occurring elsewhere in the Gospel, 
 whereas PW confirm it in Mark v. 37, at any rate as to their Greek. 
 
 THE LATIN VERSION OF ST. MARK'S GOSPEL. 
 
 133 
 
 the irreconcileable differences observed between the two separate Greek 
 lines or recensions to which I wish to direct attention. Not being able 
 to decide to follow the itala, bo largely interwoven with the 6 d base, 
 which disagreed with the Greek line of NB, except in spots, it was 
 evidently considered judicious to swallow St. Jerome's revision almost 
 completely for St. Mark. That there was a reason for it is obvious. 
 Have we found the true reason in assuming a double Greek recension? 
 This must be further investigated, but I see no other outlet. 
 
 Base of St. Mark's Gospel. 
 
 So much has been written concerning St. Mark's Gospel that it may be 
 thought that the subject is threadbare. This hardly seems to be the case, 
 but I would fain bring forward something new if possible. What I suggest 
 has already found circuitous admission by other minds. For instance, 
 in Sir John Hawkins' Horae Synopticae, p. 207, after referring to the pro- 
 portion of classical and non-classical words in the four Gospels, he says : 
 
 " It thus apjjears that the non-classical words (like the no^i-Septuagintal 
 words) occur with considerable vwre frequency in the spiecial vocabulary of 
 St. Mark than in those of the other synoptists." 
 
 In other places he agrees with most authorities in giving priority to 
 the Marcan Gospel as regards its foundation, where roughnesses, not of 
 diction but of the manner of presenting facts, have been smoothed by 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke. 
 
 Taking these two observations together, they make for a later Greek 
 than that of Matthew and Luke, with an earlier base. Now it that base 
 be Latin the matter is to a large extent explained. Little things like 
 €<rxaTov (Mark) for vartpov (Matt. Luke) then assume a greater force 
 than we have been disposed to give them. 
 
 Sir John emphasises the historic present as being one of Mark's 
 strong preferences. Indeed, this also bears upon the point. For the aits 
 of d often bear opposite in D" eiirev, while the itala coincides with the ait 
 of d. t Further than this, where the strong Alexandrian preferences for 
 the historic present and imperfect over the aorist make themselves felt 
 
 t This matter deser\'e3 considerable attention. Compare Dr. Nestle's too brief 
 notice of the subject in Joum. Theol. Studies, July 1911, p. 607, and consider the figures 
 given for b and d in St. Mark in connection with such a Roman writer as Plautus, whose 
 plays are crammed full of ait and ai$ and aio. Cf. Amphitruo I. i. 188-189. 
 
 Merc. Ai* n' vero ? 
 
 Sos. Aio eniinvero. 
 
 Merc. Verbero I 
 
 Sos. Mcntiris nunc jam. 
 Merc. At jam faciam ut verum dicas dicere. 
 
 Sos. Quid eo 'st opus ? 
 Notice also the frequent appearance in Mark of (p^frai (for the indeterminaic Latin 
 vcnitf present or perfect) against the synoptic yjXdtv. 
 
134 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 bt. Mark and although I chronicle a fair number of these additional 
 
 confused there and sometimes the aorist is preferred to the imperfect 
 
 Before we can deal with the list of " Rude, harsh, obscure or unusual 
 words or expressions which may therefore have been omitted or replaced 
 by others (op. at. pp. 131/4) we must consider more fully what the 
 L.atm texts have to say, and variations in Greek mss. Thus, as to the first 
 example, 
 
 i. 10 axiioiJ.,vov<;, did St. Mark himself really use this ? The Latins 
 " <U fi 0, g, h I r r, B {hiant i q) all say apertos (even a adaperiri 
 c aperiri). So D" sol. ^ ' 
 
 Then, ii. 4 etc Kpa^arro,. This surely belongs among the Latinisms, 
 cited lower down. 
 
 As to ii. 21 e7rcpa-^T€i, we must observe D's e-^iavvpairTei and AVs 
 ona-vvaTrri. as to retranslation, or as to two lines of Greek. 
 
 xi. 1. eiaw ni-e, mSe tu,„ e<rT,«oT»^ "an awkward arrangement of 
 words says Sir John Hawkins, but the mss vary here 
 considerably. (See ante p. 100.) 
 xiii. 11. fir, Trpofieptfivare, " a verb not found elsewhere in N T LXX 
 or classical writers." But if coffitare were original we can 
 understand it. {a here retranslating, as usual, has prae- 
 viedetare {of. Trpo/^Xerare ^I'D), k exceptionally satagare but 
 both a and k have been influenced by Greek recensions as 
 compared to the other Latins in St. Mark). 
 16. o €t9 Tov aypov, a very probable Latin construction, 
 xiv. 31. (Kirepurcrax;^ "is found nowhere else in Greek." 
 
 Perhaps from a Latin colloquialism " tajito vtagis " as indeed 
 re-rendered by a (while k has " plura loquebatur mar/is diccre " 
 against amplitis of most vett). 
 Xlll. 19. ecroi/Tai, yap ai T,fi(pac €K€Wai ffXifti (or ffXifcK;). This is far 
 
 more difficult, in fact insoluble from our available Latin 
 
 materials, which do not agree with the Greeks, who here seem 
 
 to be a unit, yet an original dies illi tribulationes, meant for 
 
 dies illi tribulationis which cff^ i I hold, might have led to (he 
 
 Greek, which is opposed hy a b d k n q r •' (in) illis diebus 
 
 tribulationes " and which in these may not represent an original 
 
 base but revision. 
 
 Unfortunately, for such Greek words— unique in Mark— as <7*<u\,f, 
 
 aTaatatTTr,<i we have no synoptic parallelisms to use for purposes of exact 
 
 comparison. <rTa<rtao-Ti;? of Mark xv. 7 (jiera rav uramaaraiv SeSe/tfio?) 
 
 is however beautifully confirmed by St. Luke's hia o-too-ii/ (xxiii. 19). 
 
 t It is exceedingly curious to find that the notorious latinisers 56-58-61, apparently 
 alone among cursives, join NBCD*"!" for iKirfpiaaas. Add Paris". 
 
 THE LATIN VERSION OF ST. MAUK's GOSPEL. 
 
 13-5 
 
 aavZoKta Mark vi. 9 (not appearing in Sir John Hawkins' list of words 
 peculiar to St. Mark, probably because it occurs in Acts xii. 8) may be 
 emphasised as compared to the vrrohr,fiaTa of Matt. x. 10. 
 
 In !Mark d i have sandalia, h f I q = nandaliis, so that probably soleis 
 of a, soleas of e, caligidas of c, galliculas of ^^fi are retranslations. 
 
 vjrokTjviov Mark xii. 1, unique as to Mark and as against \rivov of 
 Matt. xxi. 33, is indeterminate. 
 
 In Mark 6 c d/g^ I (q locum) h vg have locum {a ffi i k torcnlar). 
 
 In Matthew a h c d (e torcularem) ffi g I q vg have torcular (ff^ h 
 lacum). 
 
 Locum would appear original in Mark, and torcular in Matthew. 
 But it is almost impossible to draw any inferences, although woKrivtov 
 may be considered more probable for tacua. 
 
 Important example of harmony among the Latins at St. Mark vi. 3(5. 
 
 One of the most striking places is the eyytara of D 004 and all latt 
 PROXIMAS at vi. 36 against kvkKw of the other Greeks. Not a single Latin 
 tries to express KVKka otherwise here in Mark.f But how turn to the 
 parallel in Luke ix. 12 and see a very different state of things. The 
 Greek of both passages is the same : 
 Mark vi. 36. airoKvaov ainov! iva airc\0ovTe<; eit tov; kvkXco aypov^ kcu 
 
 KWfjLa'i . . . 
 Luke ix. 12. aTroXvaov tov o^\ov iva Tropevdeme^ ) 6t? to? kvkXu Ka>fui<; xni 
 
 aTTe\6ovT£<s 3 aypovi;. . . 
 
 (Matthew omits kukXw.) 
 
 In Mark then the Latins have : in pnoxiMAS villas et vicos.X 
 But in Luke a = adjacentes vicos et agros 
 h e ffil q r = circa castella et villas 
 fi = circa castella et vicos 
 c = in castella adjacentia 
 (i = in proxima castella et villas 
 S = in circum castella et villas 
 / = in castella et villas quae in circuitu sunt 
 vg = in castella villasque quae circa sunt 
 I submit that this has a distinct bearing on a common Latin base in 
 Mark of proximas, and a common Greek base in Luke of kvkXoi, when 
 we see in Luke the variations circa, adjacentes, adjacentia, proxima, in 
 
 t Cf. also xi. 32 Jihiiaav {pro tixoi') DW Soit^' 2'" and oiSncri 604 = eciebant of it" 
 against babebant of all vulgates. The^roo/of retranslation is here afforded by 604. 
 X All have in proximas. a = in proximas villas et municipia 
 b c fff.2 7 = in proximas villas et castella 
 
 d i I = in proximas villas et ( + in i) vicos 
 r^ = in proximas villas et vicinos 
 
 Id vk-nB ) 
 
 (7im«( c k q) A 5 = < ^.q 
 
 TOUC KUKXU) ATPOYCJ 
 
13fi 
 
 CODEX J) AND ITS ALLIKS. 
 
 circmn. guar circa sw,t. and quae in chruitn sunt, against the steady 
 pniximas m Mark. 
 
 For the rest I must refer to the following lists. 
 
 Am} first as to Uetranslation in W. 
 
 Tlie following is a list of some of the apparent retranslations in W 
 It IS stiirthng enough, hut there is much more to he ohserved 
 
 Mark 
 
 i. 27. eOavfia^ov (pro €0o/i0ri0i]<Tav) 
 
 44. KaOapaiov {pro KaOapitrfiov) 
 
 11. 4. Trpo(7e\6eiv (])ro irpoaeyyiaaC) 
 
 12. 0avnai;ei.v ai/rou? (pro e^caraaSai TravTat;) 
 23. (aTrap/ievcov {pro cnTopifuuv) 
 
 iii. 11. liov {pro eOempu) [Negl Sod. W. Male Sod. del> etSov, hahct 
 
 30. e^efi/ avTov {pro fx^') 
 
 34. kvk\u avTOv {pro kvkXm Tout Trepi amov) 
 IV. 4. Ta opvea {j>ro ra TreTetva) 
 20. TTtiTToi'TCT {pro o-TrapevTe?) 
 
 32. av^ei {pro ava^awu) 
 
 V. 31. (TvvTpifiovTa {pro (rvvOXifiovTa) 
 vi. 5. ovKeri {pro exei ovSe/j-uiv) 
 
 13. efeTre/i-TToi' (j);-o e^e/3a\\oi') 
 
 31. XotTToi' {2iro oXiyov) 
 vii. 10. aOeraiv (pro KaKo\iyyu>v) 
 
 19. hiavoiav {pro KapSiap) 
 
 31. et? TT/i/ SexaTroKiy {pro SeKairoKeiu^) 
 
 33. TrpoaXapo^eio'i {p>ro airoXa/So/ifro?) 
 viii. 11. o-n- Qj)o -Kap) 
 
 23. ev-nrvcra^ {pro ■mviraf) 
 
 ix. 8. ■wepiP'Xeirofievoi (p>rc TreptffXeyfrafievoi) 
 
 11. Tf ovv (^H'o on prim) 
 
 32. eptemjaai {p>ro eTrepuyrrjaai) ((?/■'"'') 
 45. Koyjrov (j;;o aTroxoipov) 
 
 49. aXjo- yrjdiiaeTai (pro aXicrOiiaeTai,) 
 X. 22. aTTO TOW Xoyou (pro €7rt rea Xo7(i)) 
 
 35. aiTrjo-co/ieOa (2)7-0 aiTri<TO>/iev) 
 xi. 12. avpiov (jjro eiravpiov) 
 
 25. ai/j; (p)-0 ai^i;) [iVfi/?. Sod'\ 
 30. airdno e^ pr.) (a/"'"') 
 xii. 1. e^wpv^ev (piro Kai copv^ev) 
 
 3. eSipav +Kai airexTivav (340) 
 10, 26. ai'eyi'toKare (pro aveyvwrc) 
 xiii. 2. a(j>e6Ti ovSe BtaXvffrjaeTai (2)ro KaraXvOri) 
 
 12. apaa-Tijo-ovTai (2Jro eTrai>a<TTr](TOPTai) (348 Soti""') 
 
 Xiv. C>. KOTTOV (2)rO KOTTOV;) 
 
 THE L.WIN VEH3I0N OF ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 
 
 137 
 
 xiv. 27. tTKopTno-0r](T€Tai (pro Biao-KopTna-Bria-cTat) [Negl. Sod] 
 30. apvri<Tri (pro atrapiniari) 
 32. e^epxovrai (j)ro epxovTai) 
 53. awiropevovrai (pro avvepxpvTai avTot) (Sod"''') 
 CI. evXayr/fievov (pro evXoyjfrov) and so ^ 28 c"' 
 70. TrepU(TTr)KOTe'i (2»'0 irape<TTO>Te<;) (cf. a) 
 xvi. 1. eiaeXOovaai (j^ro eXOovcai) 
 5. deiopovaw (pro eiSov) 
 In e/i. i.' v., where the e and 6 c f sympathy is paramount, the 
 retranslation is very thick. Afterwards it shades off but does not 
 disappear. What is there is not only retranslation from Latin, but from 
 the other Versions. Of these 45 cases only 5 find an}' support. 
 
 Observe also in iii. 1 a genitive absolute xm eureXBovrot ainov for Kai 
 (KTTiXffev, which cannot come from the parallels, and must be from bee 
 " et cum introisset." The others have " et introivit." Cf ix. 28, where 
 for " et cum introisset " of all Latins the Greeks only vary between 
 etaeXOovTO^ avTov and ciaeXOovTa avTov. 
 Consider also yiverai and eyeiero : 
 At iv. 37 D writes e7ei'6To with which Tisch groups all the Latins, while 
 yiverai (so W) is the reading of the other Greeks. But 
 observe the reverse at : 
 ii. 15. ywerai only NBLW 33 2'" 604 892* W-H d Sod txt, and 
 eyevcTo D and all the rest. [Om. Sod°^°.] 
 
 It seems clear that /actus est or facta pst or factum est is 
 
 rendered either ytverai or eyevero. And the way in which the 
 
 Mss occasionally go apart looks like a Latin base out of which 
 
 the variations sprung. 
 
 When I published Evan 604 it became apparent that there was a 
 
 reason for the Latinisms in that mr, when we took into consideration the 
 
 sympathetic bond between D 2'"" and 004. It became clear to me how 
 
 ancient was this Latin base. Lest some should still think that the 
 
 Latinisms and evidences of retranslation in 1 13 28 2"" and 604 are late, 
 
 I have exhibited first a typical list in the great MS W. 
 
 Now there is much less of this in 28 and not more as we come down 
 the line, as far as actual age (not actual text) is concerned. But to show 
 how the matter is interlocked I will exhibit these examples. 
 
 We find in 28 at : 
 i. 19. KaTaaxeva^ovTa^ (j)7-o KaTapTi^oin-a<:), but this is visible in 124 
 
 [noil fam] although not in W. 
 xii. 34. a-vvanax; (= avverw^) pro vovvex'o'; apparently unique by 28. 
 xiv. 1. KpaTtfauMTw Kai (pro KpaTqaavTK) = latt syrr (et Sod minn^). 
 
 As to 28 and 604 : 
 iii. 14. Here 28 and 604 conspire alone to give us -n-epi avrov (pro /ut 
 avTov) 
 
i 
 
 18. 
 
 iv 
 
 41. 
 
 V 
 
 1. 
 
 ix 
 
 10. 
 
 xi. 
 
 32. 
 
 vi. 
 
 37. 
 
 X. 
 
 IG. 
 
 xiii. 
 
 8. 
 
 xiv. 
 
 29. 
 
 xiii. 
 
 17. 
 
 vi 
 
 47. 
 
 viii 
 
 17. 
 
 xiv. 
 
 .5-5. 
 
 1-^8 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 As to G04 alone : 
 
 Mark 
 
 \iav {pro SiKTva) 
 e\a\ovv (pro eXeyou) 
 
 Xifivrj^ {pro BaKaaar]';) {Cf. Morx de Xlfiv. ctOaX.) 
 eTripr]<Tdv {pro dcpaTrjaav) [Cf. D vii. 4 Trjpeiv alone for Kpareiv] 
 oiSao-i {pro r]Bei(Tav DW ; sciebant latt) 
 2'" aloue : 
 vi. .50. nuTot? {pro /xfT auTOJi'), where D 33 C04 Paris" have irpo^ avTov; 
 Om. Sod""" *". Om. fier avrtov xai Xeyei 273. 
 2'" and C04 : 
 n'o ipayaaiv {pro ijiayetv sec.) Cf. a b q. Cf. syr silt. 
 €Tnd€i(; {pro Tidei<;) 
 
 ofatTTTjo-CTai {jno eyepdr/aerai) [Sod adds "'"] 
 Kav {pro Kat et) Add Sod'"''' "" and D (xai eav) 
 
 D28: 
 OrfKafyiitvai'i {pro BrfKa^ovaai';) 
 
 D 21" : 
 ev iiearj tt} OaXaaarj {pro ev /*. tt;? 0a\a<T<T7]'i) 
 etTTip tj Kaphia {pro ex"^ ''^^ KapSiav) Add Sod"'" 
 iva OavaTwa-ovcTiv {pro ei<; to BavaTuxrai) et 3 Sod"'" Laura* "" 
 DC04: 
 vi. 30. eyyia-ia {pro kvkXco) latt""'" proxinias 
 
 D 21" G04 : 
 vi. 48. xai e\avvovTa<; {pro tv tm eXavveiv) [Sod adds "''" ?] 
 5G. TrXaTftot? (j"'0 ayopai^) 
 W C04 : 
 ix. 18. TjivnTtdTjaav {pro ur^vaav) Add Sod'""' 
 
 W28: 
 vi. 29. KrfievaaL {pro xai. ^qpav) 
 ix. 31. eyeiperat {pro avaaTtiaerai) Add Sod'^^^ 
 
 33. SieXex^n-r^ (pro SteXoyi^eaOe) Mifam 1 and Sod'^"^ 
 xiii. 27. eiruTWUTpf^ovaiv sic et W ct 28 {pro etnavva^ei vel eTrurvva^ovai) 
 
 [Male Sod de W] 
 XV. 41. Bc7]Kovou<rav (^)ro xai hr^Kovovv) W ; hiaxovovaai 28 [Recte Sod. 
 
 Male Scholz 6ja«oi/>j(TOi] 
 W 28 2'"' C04 : 
 V. 2'2. w ovofia {pro ot'op-aTi) [Ncgl. Sod G04] 
 
 D(W) : 
 ix. 3. 6)? {pro oia) Cf. W 
 
 37. ev TO) ovofiaTi {pro eiri tm ov.) Add 69 Sod™" in nomine latt 
 42. epX-qe-q (pro /Se/SXiJTnt) 
 
 DW 2'"' : 
 xvi. 0. <j>o^ei(T0ai, (pro (Kdafi^eta-de) Add 11-5 
 
 THE LATIN VERSION OF ST. MjVBK S GOSPEL. 
 
 139 
 
 and Buch a thing as in K : 
 
 NW Snd"" 1 13 28 2'" G04 : 
 xii. 41. +TOV (ante xaX'""') [Add Sod'^'\ Ncgl. Sod N iU Tisch om. 
 
 ed"'"] 
 or in C : 
 vi. 19. efijTft (pro ri6e\€v) C latt 
 
 or in A* : 
 xiii. 8. avn e0vov {pro err eOvo<;) A* ; so contra gentem h c d h* 
 i;(/*"'', adoersus gentem q. [Sod neglects A* : A* '''^ has err 
 edvo^ supra but as an afterthought.] 
 or Origen : 
 xii. 24. ytvto(TKovTe<; (pro eiSoTe<;) D Orig alone (cf. latt vetf') 
 not to speak of N, which has a good many personal retranslations, but 
 they are involved frequently with parallels.! 
 
 At any rate the matters in question are all easily reducible to a very 
 early age. 
 
 As to a thing like xii. 18 ava<rra<ri<! ovk eoTiv fain 1 13 28 [jwn DW 
 relV\ for avaaraaiv fir) eivat, this is probable retranslation, but has no 
 reference to other features. 
 
 We will now allow to follow a list of some of the evidence for a 
 double or treble Greek recension in St. Mark as opposed to what comes 
 very near a single line among the Latins. 
 
 It ever Bishop Westcott's dictum t holds true it is as regards the 
 authorities for St. Mark's Gospel. It is useless to seek the truth in any 
 one document here, and although D d have an ancient base, & is found 
 to share it and go beyond them in brevity, while W in connection with 
 b e k and the other Latins is absolutely essential to a true understanding 
 of the mixture (old as it all is) which pervades the text. NB alone 
 here are more than useless. 
 
 t It does not seem necessary to tabulate the many unique retranslations of D" from 
 Latin, as they are so well known, although I know of no complete list. 
 
 X " No authority has an unvarying value. No authority is ever homogeneous." 
 Compare also Blass (' Philology of the Gospels,' pp. 58 and 70) : " In reality the blame is 
 to be cast upon the textual tradition and not upon the author, and we may learn from 
 this quite evident case that those written copies (not to speak of editions) which we are 
 accustomed to rely upon by no means deserve implicit trust. Which copies, then, do 
 deserve it ? No single copy at all, but if anything the tradition taken as a whole, with 
 entire liberty to select in each individual case that branch of the tradition for our guide 
 which shall seem to us to be in this case most trustworthy, even if it is a heretical 
 witness like Marcion." 
 
 " Of course, the fact that npayTt in one of these passages, and .\i0ipTluar in the other, 
 is almost universally attested, is not to be understood as being the result of one great 
 deliberate action, viz., of a revision of the text made at a definite time by definite men, 
 and then imposed upon the whole Christian Chnrch. If such a revision had taken place 
 in the ancient Church, like those revisions which have been made for instance at diCTerent 
 times in the English Church, we should certainly hear of that fact from some of the 
 numerous ecclesiastical writers whose works have come down to us." 
 
CHAPTEK V. 
 
 Two on MORE Greek Recensions in St. Mark. 
 
 " "We have now phown reasons for believing tliat the whole body of "Western Latin 
 readings go back into a single bilingnal copy, the remote ancestor of the Codex Bezae ; 
 and we have aleo seen that the Greek of the Beza owes the greater part of its textual 
 and grnminatical peculiarities to the reflex action o/ ifa own Latin." — Rendel Harrip, 
 ' Codex Bezae,' p. 171. 
 
 " There are cases where a book or paper, whose actual results cannot be accepted, is 
 far more valuable and suggestive than many statements of certain and indisputable facts 
 are. Hicks* paper is one of these cases ; its value in method is quite distinct from its 
 value in results." — Eamsay, 'St. Paul at Ephesus' in ' Tlie Church in the Roman 
 Empire,' p. 118. 
 
 The verj" imperfect suggestions offered in my ' Genesis of the 
 Versions,' vol. I. p. 28 seq., are much more fully illustrated here. Any 
 examples which seem beside the mark are amply compensated for by 
 others which show a definite Latin background. 
 
 Mark 
 
 fi. G. Scppr/K D'' pellem a (Cf. p. 127 seq) \ vestem depilis r (syr) 
 
 Tpi.-)(a<; rell gr cf d 
 fi. 7. Kai €\ey€v avToi<; D d a (r) 
 
 Kai eKfipvaaev Xtyiov rell 
 10. Tov aleX^ov avrov DGF et WJ 28 33 372 al. if' vg syr aetli 
 
 „ TOV crt^eum- E'FHKSUVn et S* al. 
 
 mnlt goth slav 
 „ „ rov crifiiovot AE^A viin'"' I 
 „ ,, triiKovot XBLM z"^' al. ) a r S coj^t arm 
 
 24. oiSa/iev NLA«' 892 boh {Mat sah) arm aeth Orig"' Orig"" 
 Evs'"'""BasCyr''"'Chr'"""'Iren""{Text^'" t)Hil''"Atig al. Sod'--' 
 oiSa BD rell et W24' minn omn rell vid, latt omn rt h 
 
 [contra A*'] syr pers goth W-H""^ 
 31. eKTeiva<; tijk x^'-P" f/«""j;(ra9 rjyecpev airrijv T) b d r q { — avrrjv) 
 
 if +avTvv) 
 T/yeipev avTTjv KpaT-qaas rqf x^(po? Rell el al. !at (tenens e) 
 CKTiva^ T-qv x^i^P"- *"' ein\a/iofi€voi! eyeipev avTT/v W 
 ii. 15. ytperai NBLW 33 2i" 604 892' 
 
 676i;eT0 D rell {Om. Sod"''") 
 
 23. iiairopeveaBai BCD j 
 
 ■n-opeveaBai W /am 13 Sod"" Cf latt 
 
 7rapa7ropeve<T6ai N plur ' 
 
 20. ix€T avTov DWS Sod"'" 2'" 004 al" 
 
 cruv avToi NB rell et <t> 
 
 t But such circumscribed divisions I do not add to further. 
 
 X But Tcrl""" " scio " doubtless ex Luc iv. 34 and Terl"" probably refers to Luke iv. 41 . 
 
 factum est latt 
 
 GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 
 
 141 
 
 ill. 3. TM Ti/v ^r)pav X^'P"' ^X""^' 
 T&> Tijp x*(/)a exovTi itpav 
 
 T6) ^Tipav ep^oyri Ti;i' Xftpa 
 
 TO) e^ripa/iii€vt]v e;^otTi Tiji/ x^V 
 
 TQJ exovrt TijV X^tpi e^ripa/ievriv 
 TO) ex*"""' ''''''' X^P" ^P"-" 
 TO) Ttjv X'^^P"' 'X*"^' e^ijpa/ifievriv 
 Toj TTfv e^ripafifievriv X^'P" exov-n 
 
 NC'A SoiP^iTisch ed™txt 
 B(L) 21" 892 a boh sah 
 acth (syr — exovri) Treg W-H txt 
 83 
 Unc^' al. el 2<[> txt rec. et 
 
 Tisch vii. 
 D cf lot 
 W 
 
 28124 
 Sod txt 
 
 ABSQUE ULLA 
 AUCTOBITATE. 
 
 7rpo9 
 
 TTpOS 
 
 irapa 
 aKOVome's 
 
 aKov<TavTe<; 
 31. cnain€<s 
 inrjKOVTe^ 
 eoTijKorcf; 
 
 CtTTfiJTf? 
 
 ibid. KoXovvje'! 
 ^mvoi/i'Te? 
 ^TjTovvre'; 
 
 Om. A 8 a 
 av^avofievov 
 
 DHP 131 209 238 y'^' z"' 
 
 aP' Paris" 
 S al. ? [non apud Sod] 
 NB plur et W* 1 al. mult 
 
 I sic 118 
 
 fam 13 28 Sod'"' 
 
 NBA et W fam 1 fam 13 
 892 2'" copt W-H Sod'^^ 
 
 D" rell pi a syr arm 
 
 N (cf lat stantes) 
 
 BC'A 28 
 
 CGJj fam 1 124 604 892 Sod 
 
 DW rell gr minn et 2'" 
 NBCL etVfl 13 28 892 W-H Sod 
 D rell (\aXovvTf<; 2"") 
 A 
 
 Lat : ad 
 
 andientes latf' 
 
 vocantes latt 
 
 iv. 8, 
 
 crescentem cdffjilqrS 
 vg et increscentem 6 
 (mut e k) 
 
 DACLA et W 
 238 892 Sod""^ 
 av^avovra IT line' et 2<I> 
 
 28 minn txt rec. 
 cum incremento a (om 2'"') 
 sed av^avofieva NB soli et W-H B-V (De aX\a init??) 
 
 10. 01 fuzdilTai. avrov DW Sod'^" fam 13 28 2,<" it omn (non f) syr-'° 
 01 Trepi avTov avv toi? SaSexa XB rell omn syr pesh vg copt aeth 
 ibid. Tit r) Trapa^oXri avrr) DW SodP" fatn 13 28 2'" it omn et f 
 
 Taf irapa^o\a<: NBCLA 892 et W-H txt (syr sin) 
 
 Trjv Trapa^oXrjv A ttJic" et '^'b et Sod txt 
 
 De parabola ilia vel de parabolis illis syr boh (e©fi.e) et sah 
 
 Toiv trapaPoXtov 
 12. a^e6ri(T0fLai D* dff^iq r vg" aeth (a^tja-w D") 
 a4>eer, NBLA unc' et WS* Sod'" Orig 1/2 j 
 
 a<l>e6r]<T€Tai AKH min aliq Orig 1/2 
 
 (sah boh syr) 
 
142 
 
 iv. IC 
 
 21. 
 
 CODEX n AND ITS ALMES. 
 
 D 
 
 W28 
 
 NCA {Malt.) 
 
 B pliir 
 
 epei 
 
 apTra^ei 
 
 aipei 
 
 {if' vg aufert re? toUit, auteret c d I q) 
 
 €p)(^eTai 
 
 adtertur 
 
 airTCTai 
 Kaierai 
 
 OTTOTai' 
 
 0T( av 
 OTav 
 0? OTav 
 6)9 OTav 
 av^ei 
 ava^aiiei 
 Om 
 
 Ji9. (f)tfJL(iy6TJTt 
 
 aioyira Kat <j>ifi(a0T}Ti 
 (TKoira TretfiifKoao 
 
 d (accenditur) 
 
 aeth accendit 
 luc. et afferet 
 
 31. 
 
 32, 
 
 Phir ct syri^csh I q rg Om. Sod' 
 
 h 
 
 D {vis duplex) 
 
 W sail boh it pi 
 
 W 
 
 D 
 
 B pliir 
 
 C*A 
 
 W b e r (cf. c q) 
 
 iiBrellpi 
 
 D d i, habent Kai yiverat tantum 
 Wbceffi 
 
 D" aeth sah boh wgrAfLT 
 NB rell, d et latt veil syr {hiat sin) 
 
 19, 
 
 t 22. 
 
 3. fiVTjfMaaiv 
 fivr)fj.€toi<i 
 
 0. 7rpO<T€BpafL€V 
 
 eBpafiGV 
 
 avayyeiKou 
 TTpoaeTreaev 
 
 TTpOaTTlTTTL 
 TTtTTTet 
 
 46 
 2. 
 
 et 
 
 L [Om. claus. A B] 
 NABCLAn live' Sod"" I Cf xv. 
 DH al. et W ( xvi 
 
 "Sy d b c e i q, r (occurrit) 
 NB rell et D«' 
 
 NBCA2 Paris" Sod'""'"" et txt 
 DW/aml 13 28 004 
 A rell et <t> minn pi et2^ 
 D", e-Trecrev Sorf'^" 1 procidit a b c/ff^ l q r S vg 
 W fain IS J (prooidena rf) 
 
 SB rell et Sod"'-" et cadens e 
 aWa /laWov €t? to -xeipov eXdovtra Plur et W {vide post) 
 
 „ 67rt TO xetpox eXOovaa Sod'^' 2'" 604 
 
 „ ,, eiri TO ■)(ei.pov { — e\0ova-a) D^ 
 
 d and / rg^' have sed magis detenus habebat, but b c ffj only sed 
 peius habebat, e sed deteriua haberet, q r sed deterius habebat, a ? sed 
 peius deterius habebat, S sed magis in deterius venit. 
 
 D alone seems to elide the verb. Possibly the expression erri was 
 supposed to be sufficient without it {cf. syr'"'" miit syr""), but 2'" 604 
 retain eKdovara. Coptic retains the verb. 
 
 I give this at length because there has evidently been trouble about 
 the double eXdovaa in ver 27 fin and ver 28. In the following verse 28 a 
 large change of order obtains as to the position of eXBovaa. Indeed W 
 
 2G. 
 
 t This marks the extreme limit of e'a great influence on W heretofore in Mark. 
 
 GBEEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 
 
 143 
 
 (alone) makes the one serve for both : eXBovaa koi uKovaaaa irepi Toy lO ev 
 TO) oxXat oTTiaBev TpfraTo avrov eliding the second e\0ova-a, as D does the 
 first. But as there is a slight space in W after eXffovaa we must treat the 
 omission as in ver 28. We then get this result : 
 
 W Kat aKOvcatra irepi tod w ev tu> o-)(Km ij-y^aTO avrov 
 D 2'" aKOViTa(Ta irepi tod lO eXBova-a oiriaOev xai TjyjraTo tou tfi. avrov ev 
 
 TOD o^Xto 
 
 d audito de ihu venit de retro et tetigit vest, ejus inter turbam 
 
 i „ retro et tetigit vest, ejus in turbam («? tov 
 
 oxXovfam 13 28 N2) 
 a cum audisset de Jesu venit a retro et tetigit tunic, illius inter 
 
 turbam 
 q audito de itu venit retro et tigit vest, ejus inter turba 
 
 b „ ,, in turba et tetigit vest, ejus 
 
 Hli 2>lur aK6v<ra<Ta { + Ta NBCA Evst 33) vepi tov iv tXOova-a ev Ta> op^Xm 
 oTTia-dev jjifroTo . . . fam 1 Sod"' ""* e om ev Tto oxXa. 
 Mark V. 36. tov Xoyov (4- tov B) XaXovfievov Plur 
 
 TOVTOV Tor Xo70i' D latt'' 
 
 Latin = audito hoc verbo etc, but 6 simply audito. It looks 
 as if the differences arose simply from translation from Latin. 
 Amplified in retranslation by copt and vg as : " Jesus autem 
 veibo quod dicebatur audito." 
 ibid. irapaKovaai NBLA"^ W e 892*? W-H Sod txt [Male Sod de 2'"] 
 aKovaa<! AD rell omn Sod"'^" et 2"* {e sil. Cronin) et verss 
 
 37. irapaKoXovdv'rai, D" W/a»re 1 28 124 This bears on the wording 
 
 21" 604 of Mark in xvi. 17 
 
 avvaxoXovBriaai XB rell et Sod°''° irapaKoX. 
 
 oKoXovOriaai AKIl* minn aliq ; etaeXBeiv Sod"", e introire. 
 vi. 2. io0ei<ra toi/to. NBCLA 892 W-H txt 
 SoOeia-a avTco D rell et W ct Sod txt 
 
 The Latins have illi for the most part {ei a e) and re- 
 translation is a more probable influence here for this change 
 than anything else. 
 5. exei TTOirjaai ovSe/itav Svva/uv NBCLA fam 1 [non 118] 273 
 892 W-H {etc. TToi. ov&efuv sic SodP^") 
 exet ovSe/Miav Troirjaai Svva/iiv T) a d Orig'''' Hier 
 exei ovSe/itav Swa/iiv noiiiaat A plur fam' et Sod txt [Male de 
 
 fam'] 
 sed ovxeri TTotJjo-ot Svva/iw W ( — «««) 
 
 9. See Latin and five varying Greek forms. 
 
 19. quaerebat a b c d i q r {hiant e k) et e^rp-ei, C* 
 volebat f ff^^ I 8 vg et Gr omn rell et WA ii0eXev 
 
 20. aKovaaf Unc et plur 
 
 axovaiv 28 157 Paris" »»in aP° audiens&/ir 
 
 axovaat is much more correct here, therefore how came axovav 
 into 28 al. except via Latin ? 
 
14 4 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 """ vi. 2t. Tou ySaTTTjfoi-To? NBLA" S"-' [»io« 28] + Sod"'"^ et Sod>'' 
 TOO /SaTTTKrrou DW rcll onm minn et latt copt 
 25. TOU /3a7rTt?oirro? L 604 892 only ! 
 
 TOU ^aTTTia-Tov ^5BA 2''» >■«?« I 
 ;!6. j-y-v-"^'" U 004 et it vg proximas (praeter 8 om. Habet 
 
 vicos supra kukXo) !) 
 /fu«Xa. XBW veil 
 
 [Observe in this verse +i.va before ayopaaaatv D" alone 
 apparently with Paris" ; d has et not «<] 
 t 40. Kara exaroi' Kat Kara tt^vt. NBD 21 6o7^ (literatim) W-H Sod. 
 ava „ ,, ava „ A /'e^Z «nc miim et sah {literatim) 
 p{-ava prim) km ava N W ( - ava sec 33c I r Orig) - ava bis a. 
 The Latin per. . .per serves for this, and there could not be a 
 more certain place for bohairic influence than this. Boh uses 
 K^T^. . .KAT A. literatim, while sah has rtA.- ■ -ItA. or «*■" 
 . . .ttA.rt- W also uses ava (once) and not Kara. 
 .50. e\a\. fier avrav Pllir, but e\a\. Trpo? aurou? DJ 33 604, 
 and auTOKT 21'". " Ad eos" adfff^iq r. Ad illos c, but 6 = 
 "illis." 
 
 I refuse absolutely to connect this with a " provinciahsm " 
 as Gregory and Souter imply by their criticism of other 
 examples adduced previously. This is simply a double 
 recension, and 6 seems to hold the original "illis" (as 2'"= 
 auTot?) whence fier airrcov in translation. 
 51. In the verse following Xtav is omitted by DW:>'" Sod"'' >"' 1 28 
 273"'' 004. Here W comes to join us (rather exceptionally 
 hereabouts) and with 6 " abundantius " (against the latin plus 
 magis) witnesses to a base without \iav. The Latin plus 
 magis, or inagis plus of c can equally well be a translation of 
 the Greek ex irepiaaov or e/e irepuram'; {irepiiram D) without 
 \Lav. I see two recensions here. [Confuse Sod /am P.] 
 ,5.5. x"pa>' «BLA Sod"" " '"" *" 33 892 Paris" copt W-H Sod txt. 
 (Again the same group which we have charged with other 
 matters hereabouts, so that the issue is very square as to who 
 holds and who does not hold the original base) against 
 ■rr€ptx'opov DW uno rell et 1^ et WQf" GOi mmn. 
 
 The Latin of d is merely regionem it is true, as of it^\ but 
 h-q <together proving their base) say confinem regionis, so that 
 either this reproduces irepvx»>pov, or if regionem be basic the 
 double Greek recension is accounted for. 
 
 t Tiscl. qnotea 2^ for «nx„ as does Honur following him, but Cronin d<«s not 
 report thi. nor .on Soden M.d BeUheim print, n.« uncorreoted by Cron.n. A, Pans" deserts 
 Loth K and n hero (it generally sides with one or the other) «»r« seems pretty clearly a 
 nrcterence of XBD, for Origen opposes with nva. 
 
 t Tinch writes auro.i here in error m to D. Add Pans ' for npm avrcm. 
 
 GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 
 
 145 
 
 \ crebro pugillo aur 
 
 ibid fin. Here are any amount of variations, all bearing on retranslation 
 
 and consideration, the actual basic reading being ver}' doubtful. 
 
 vi. 50. Kai oa-vi (-av) NDA 1 33 Paris" Sod'"' "" contra B veil icat 
 
 oaoi av {rel eav). 
 vii. 3. TTVKva aVi b (siihinde) f g2 1 vg goth copf) 
 
 syr aeth 
 TTvyntf BD(7ruK/ii;) rell et S$ min 
 
 (vvy/ico Sod"") et c ff,ii q r Orig] 
 (primo d, momento a. Om A h sah syr sin. Hiant e A) 
 
 Siibinde of b if basic, as is possible, may have caused the 
 trouble. At any rate retranslation is quite possible here. W 
 seems to show that e Ic probably opposed BD here, but what 
 they read must remain uncertain. [See my edition of the 
 ' Morgan Gospels,' p. Iviii.] 
 
 4. pavTiaoivrai. NB 40 53 71 80 179 237 240 244 259 Euthym 
 ^airrKTfovrai DA pl et W24> viinti al. ct Paris" Orig. 
 
 As to pavTi^a cf Hebr ix. 13 19 21 x. 22, but especially 
 (not in Concordances) Apoc xix. 13 pepavrur/ievov P, eppavna- 
 fievov Hipp, ■n-epipepavTiiTfievov N° and irepip€pap,p,evov H* (for 
 fiefia/ifievov) showing that NB probably made a deliberate 
 change above at Mark vii. 4. In the Apoc the Latins agree 
 as to " sprinkling." [Cf. Merx, p. 70 ad loc. Mc. vii. 4.] 
 ibid. Tripuv D } d et it''' vg servare, 
 
 Kpareiv B rcll et W24> mitm omn vid ) sed b tenere 
 
 There must be a reason for these things, and that reason 
 has already been suggested. Unfortunately here a (which I 
 have shown elsewhere was probably retranslating from the 
 Greek of D) does not express it " quae acceperunt tradita." 
 Whether we are to regard 6'b " tenere " here as basic I do not 
 know, c has servare and e k are wanting. Above, tenentes of 
 d latt = KparovvTei; of all Greeks and D, so that tenere of b 
 may well be basic, Tt/peiv simply D's translation, and servare 
 retranslation from D. (Cf. ix. 10 iTriprjaav pro (KpaTrja-av 
 004 alone.) 
 
 5. Tat? x'^P"'"' DW 28 2'" soli vid I must indicate a translation 
 X^pa-iv Bell. I change in all probability 
 
 14. uKoviraTe BDHL Sod"" 21 2''' 892 W-H d- Sod txt\ 
 
 axovere N rell ct W minn et Paris" ( '^"^"'^ '"" 
 
 IT. Toi' oiKov NA (D) al. pane sah boh syr 1 most likely from re- 
 
 oiKov B 2>lnr et W ( translation 
 
 19. eia-epxerai T>^ 
 
 eicnropeverai Itell ct W {d introiit ut latt rell) 
 ibid. e^epx^Tai D" 
 
 exTTopcveTai B plur (Trop€V€TatA,eKirop€vovTat Sod™ [ = Paris"] 
 in cd. N.T. contra ed. Schmidtle) 
 
146 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Mark 
 
 X^P^i- W (c/. i ct boh) 
 
 mi. 24. n^dev U 28 273 2i"' 004 Evsf Orig 
 
 (^■nXOeii LA {(iari\0ev 24-5) 
 
 airrixeev Plur et UW (abiit Latt) 
 
 33. •Rpo(T\a^ofi(vos W 
 
 a7roXay9o/i6i/o<r NBD /)??<»• 7«(H»t ^?Mr c< 2'" Paris" 892* 
 e-^iXafiofievo:, ET 118 -131-209 157 213 604 892"aPe<£rsr " 
 
 Xay8o/X€i/09 A 03* • SocV" 
 
 adprehendcns a 1 S vg, scd suscipiens b d i r, accipiens c <?, 
 
 adcipiens ffi, adsiimens / 
 
 In these cases where the Latins vary so much.f there has 
 
 been already Greek reaction on them. We must assume 
 
 suscipiens oi b d i r or accipiens of cffi q to be the more basic. 
 
 Probably c {= e k? which are wanting) =W". 
 
 35. r,voty-q<Tav BA 1-209 [noti 118] 892 W-H Sod txt, ijvvyv^av ND 
 
 ■qvoLxOriaav L Sod'"^ {Sod"'"'' 
 
 Sir)voiryriC7au 124 2'" 604 &frivvyr]aav W 
 
 hirivoi-)(6r)(Tav AN rell ct %<^ minn pi et 28 Paris" 
 
 (The latin remains unchanged : apertae sunt, and none 
 
 apparently adapertae sunt.) 
 
 36 init. Here &\so piraecepit of latt is uniform and the Greeks (including 
 
 \V) agree on hiecmCXaTo. Only A and Paris" vary with 
 
 (vereCKaTo [A repeats at viii. 15 but not Paris"]. 
 
 ibid. \e7a)<7». NBLWA et W Sod"^" 28 33 892 2'" Paris" W-H Sod'-' 
 
 enraxriv D rell et 'S,^ minn pi 
 ibid. Although T> d b c ff^ i omit oo'oi' Se ai/Toi;? hieimWero, it is 
 noteworthy that W (which retains with the other Greeks 
 and a f Qi l q vg) writes oaio. . . = quanta of / g^ (quando) 
 vg so that even here W^ sympathises with Latin. 
 ibid. n€piacTOTepa,<! NDW" 61 604 Sod"" ' ™^ 
 
 ■wepKraorepov B rell et W 
 
 37. vmpeKireptaaio'i DU fam 1 435 604 
 
 W. vnepwepiaaov 3 Sod"^* | 
 W" 
 
 KB et !S4> mhm pi vid 
 NBLA 892 Paris" W-H 
 W 
 
 M Sod"'''' 
 D rell et 2* Sod'"- 
 interrogavit it ovm (praetcr a interrogabat) 
 0. TrapayyeWei NBD^L 892 I t)grD3>tQEY jy.H Sod. vet Trapr/yeiKe 
 rell et latt''' praecepit {vapayyeiXat Sod"^' 2^. 
 
 virepTiepiaata 
 
 mrepTrepicraco's 
 5. rjpioTa 
 
 7]pb}Tr)t7€V 
 
 €'7rt]pQ>Trj(r€v 
 €7r7jpo3ra 
 
 eo amplius lait 
 
 t Sec the other Lists where they do not yary among themselves. 
 
 GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 
 
 147 
 
 llirli 
 
 eTTfTofe OnV/cn ( = ;a<< praecepit, vi. 27 89) 
 
 viii. 7. Trapeevxev N* tantum et Tjsc/i'"' 
 
 exeXevaev trapaTei0emi D iiassit latt sah aeth?) 
 
 eiTTfv irapaTtdemi BLAN" 179 372 892 Soi"' "" "" W-H 
 
 Sod. (fitrev TrapaTedrivat A c"' i (*)) cf latt apponi 
 (i-rrev Tvapadetvat GM'NU VXHS et W 2'" al. cf syr copt 
 eiirev TrapaOrivai EFHKSWT 28 al. mult 
 enrev irapadere C 33 (Paris") 
 
 Cf verss. Male Tisch de d " dixit pro jussit." Habet d: " et gratias 
 agens dixit (ob T>" xai evxapt<TTTiaa(; pro xac ev\oyiiaa<;) et ipsos jussit 
 adponi." 
 
 Cf compositioncm et conicxtum in docum. diversis. 
 viii. 12. f7,T6i ,Trt,i€iov NBCDLA Sod"'-" fam 1 28 33 2'" 604 892 
 
 Paris" W-H Sod. 
 qiiaerit signum abed (quaeret) ffi it S vg'"" copt aeth syr 
 a-Tj/ieiov CTTtfTjTfj AN rell et WS* Orig 
 signum quaerit fg,iqr vg'"'' goth arm 
 N.B.— Here, with differing order, the simple quaerit is constant 
 among Latins. This kind of thing is quite different from what occurs 
 in the next verse viii. 13 where NS substitute A-araXtTraj/ for atfiei^. 
 This is simply ex Matthew. 
 
 viii. 15. opaTf fiXeirere NB most and \V2 (4> : opare xai /SXeTrere) 
 but D Sod'"' '" fam 1 2 2'" omit opare, and A 604 omit fiXeirere. 
 The Latins (all except cfg^ I gat aur vg) and syr sin only use one 
 expression, but this varies : a k vg'' syr sin using cavete 
 while : b dff^ i q r use videte 
 
 n • A , , tcavete 
 
 Uver opare in A stands . , , 
 videte 
 
 In view of all that has passed before it is probable that either cavete 
 or videte is basic. Cavete may have grown out of videte, and opare 
 ffKen-ere out of cavete. 
 
 viii. 17. TreTT. e^^Tc tijv xapBtav v/iwv Flur ct W f g^l vg (habetis) 
 
 f\OVT€<S 28 
 
 TTCTT. ecrrtf r] xapSia vfiwv D^' a q syr 
 
 Ttev. vfuov eariv t? KapSia Sod"'' 2'" 
 
 irev. euTi at KapSiai v/iwv b c dffti {hiat k) 
 
 [Male Sod. de W ; nan accurate de latt. et d]. 
 Sah : your heart (is) hard. Boh : Is your heart hardened. 
 23. This whole verse shows signs of peculiar handling. D starts off 
 with XaPofievot T171/ ;;^«pa for CTriXaffo/ievo'; tj;? ;^6ipov, as to 
 which, curiously enough, all other Greeks are agreed among 
 themselves for adpraehendi inanum of d (adpraehensajnanu 
 o{ a c k S, adprehendit manum olb i q r, adprehendcns manum 
 
 X " impaTtSrivm is the reading commended by the usage of the language." 
 Buttmann, Blass. 
 
 L 2 
 
148 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 of / fi\ Ci 2 I vg). For tov tv<J)\ov W 1 28 2'" G04 substitute 
 avTov against Latin, 3 131 229 238 Sorf""*™""'' conflate avrou 
 Tou Tv<j>\ov, as diatess. 
 
 For (^veyxev NBCL(A) 33 Paris" Sot? °'° "'■ '""' e< /J^ the 
 rest and \V have e^ry^ayev. The Latins vary between duxit 
 (h c ff-i g., i r gat), eduxit (d f I S vg), produxit (a k), eicit (q). 
 Then W alone has cvtttuo-o? for ■KTV(Ta<; (exspuens latt) and adds 
 /cot before eTndiK with G 1 13 28 273 Sod:^"° and ah c d against 
 D"'. Paris" omits ei? before ofifiara. For aurw a few have avrov 
 but W €v airra. For iiiteriogabat of d and Latins, eirripwTa 
 most, but 77/)6)Ta W 251* So(J'"', errrip<,ynjacv NS, D^ has 
 €7rep<oTa. For indirect question 6t ti /SXcTret of N and most Greeks, 
 all Latins, and syr goih arm, BCD"A Sod"'" 372 2'" Paris" 
 co])t aeth substitute direct oration et rt ^Keireit, and W has 
 ei /JXeirei eliding ti, while k alone puts aliquit after videret. 
 (l3\eireiv 13 [nonfani] perhaps a good way out of the difficulty.) 
 
 Surely this must mean retranslation. 
 viii, 25 init. ena ■vakw Greeks, but km iraXiv D and et iteritm by b 
 d ffi i k q 7- (c " et rursus ") syr sin. 
 
 Of further remarks as to this under caption "Itala as a 
 unit." 
 ibid, icai 8(e/3Xfifrf„ NBC'LWA^'/a'" 1 28 Sod"""' 
 
 Kai eve^Xeijrev C^ boh {cf sail aeth aliter) et vidit k {syr sin ?) 
 Kai rjp^aro ava^Xe-^ai D 6 c d g^ ffi i I r B vg pers 
 
 Kai erroiriirev avrov ava^eijrai ANX nnc" et S<I> al. afq. 
 
 Om syrpesh. 
 Kai e-rroiria-ev avrov ava^eijrai Kac StepXetlrev /am 13 [lion 124J 
 
 ibid. oxTTe ava^e\jrai 
 Kai e/3\ei|rei/ 
 
 Kai €l'€/^€7r£V 
 
 D it vg 
 
 N Sod"^' ' '" 348 2'" sah S, xai effXeirev 244 syr 
 BL 28 13-69 273 V" W-H Sod, Kai 
 av€^\e7r€v A" 346 
 
 Kai ave/3\eTrev sic W*, xai ave^eijrev FM 124 157 al. 
 
 Kai eve^Xetjrev A rinc" al. pi. (Om. Paris"). 
 
 26. Compare the different recensioDS here in Tisch. 
 
 27. et! Kaitrapiav "Dahdffiiqr 
 
 eit TO? Koifiat Kaiaapiaii NB rell et WS4>. c f k I S vg 
 
 28. eiwav NBCLA Paris" (892) k S copt syr aeth [nan Sod""] 
 aireKpi6i](rav D unc^* et WS4> minn it omn (praetcr k S) vg goth 
 
 {arm xtt Luc oi 8e airoKp. enrav) 
 
 ibid. oTi eit todv Trpocf). 
 [cK TMV vpo(f>. 
 ei'a TOiV Trpo^. 
 (W? €va TQiv 'Trpo<f). 
 29. eiTTjpcuTa aVTOVi 
 
 NBCL 892 Paris" copt {syr) W-H Sod txt 
 2'" test. Muralt Tisch, non Belsh Croiiiii] 
 A jHic" et WS* Sod°''° minn et k S 
 T> Sod""* »« it vg {praetcr k) 
 NBCDLA 53 892 2'" Sod'*" et Sod}'' a ff-, q 
 
 {c) S copt 
 
 GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 
 
 149 
 
 A unc rell et WS* Sod"'' b i I r vg {/ k) 
 goth arm aeth syr {eXeyev Sod'"°) 
 CDG Sod'" 
 
 NB rell et W {Xeyovaiv) S4' minn 
 NBDL 21 hi soli et W-H Sod txt {cf copt lat) 
 A unc rell et WS4> minn et Paris" 
 
 Xeyu avroit 
 
 viii. 30. enroxTiv 
 X^yaatv 
 
 33. TTCTpa 
 
 Till ireTpQ) 
 
 34. (I Tt9 NBCDLA et W fam 1 Jam 13 28 115 183 21"^ 604 
 
 892 Paris" Laura* ■"< Sod""' ""» "" '"" *» Evst 31 48 
 it vg arm Orig Orig'"' Synops {Ath) W-H Sod. 
 ocTTt? A unc rell" et 2* Sod'"'' minn reW""" copt syr 
 ibid. aKoXov0£w C»DX unc' et W* 1 28 al"" it'" vg 
 
 goth aeth (adhaerere aeth""^) sah et Sod txt 
 eXOeiv NABC'KLFAnSa al. c k I gat boh syr 
 
 arm Orig*"'' Synops et W-H 
 c\6ew Kai aKoXovBtv A 8 
 ix. 2. avayei DW 2'", d ff, i q k" ? I et B {super A" ava<f>€pei) = 
 ducit. Rell ah cf g n vg duxit, A;* insefujt. 
 ava(f>€pei NB rell omn gr et WS* Sod'^' 
 3. Tt? D d eth i {avOpmnoi syr pesh pers) 
 
 yi'a<j>ev'! SB rell gr et WS* minn {et 2'" rell) copt aeth latt rell. 
 Om. clans. X a n syr sin 
 
 [Hoc loco incipit ^] 
 
 6. a-n-oKpidi} BC'LAi"^ 1 28 33 2^' [Male Sod de c"' et s"'] 60f 
 892 Paris" Sod'""'-'^ k boh W-H Sod txt {a-n-eKpiBv ti Orig"") 
 XaXTjo-T) C^U** al. pane \ a c ff^ n q loqueretur, b f i I r 
 XaXria-ei D rell pi et % ( r, vg Tert aeth diceret 
 XdXei W. e\aX6i Sod''''. Cf syr sah 
 
 ibid. eK<f>oPoi yap eyevovro NBCDLA^ Sod"" 33 892 2'" Paris" 
 
 Sod'*", cf latt pi sah W-H Sod txt 
 ricrav yap eK(/)o/8oi AN rell et WS* cff I g vg boh 
 
 (The point is not the order as much as vcav and e7ei'owTo. Cf. 
 the Latin expressions, extfi. yap r/aav J Sod"' ' "'.) 
 
 7. eyfvFTo ifioovr, NBCLA^ 892 Paris" boh syrpesh et B W-H 
 TjXdev (fxovri D rell et latt omn {non B) goth sah syr sin Soc^''* 
 
 [Om tiX0fv vel eyevero W 1. 7 Sod'*" k (o) ex Matt ?] 
 t 8. e^amua NB phir et W24> minn pi 
 
 evOem<: DW' Sod'" 28 66"" 69 21"^ Sod"" '*" (statim a d j/,,, 
 i I n r vg) {cffi repente, /confestim, k subito, q continuo) 
 Om h cum diatcss ; cf Luc ix. 36 
 
 t Note Jlareh'B Michaelis vol. i. pt. i. p. 144 aB to the " Alexandrian idiom in the 
 N.T." where he Bays : c^n<rci:n which is used in the Gospel of S. Mark and in the Septna- 
 gint (Lev. Numb. Josh. Isai. Psa. 2 Chron.) and of which Thomas Magiater says that it 
 is absolutely no Greek word and perfectly spurious, has been found by Kypke in 
 JamhUchttt (Protrcpt xx. 125). Not mentioned in Liddell and Scott. 
 
150 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS' ALLIKS. 
 
 ihid. aXXa ACLXrAII «»c» et W* SodP" minn'-' arm Sod"-' 
 
 £t M XBDN et W'S^J 33 Gl 892 Evst 48 49 et Paris," 
 
 Sod'" W-H tit (ttcA. sail, e&HX boh) 
 a\\ n 27 .S()(Z"' '"' Laura-^ "" (to^c Sorfm non Lair). 
 
 Latt omn nisi gotli alja c/syc .>_r^ rcdrC 
 
 This is one of the most peculiar places on record. All the Latins 
 use nisi. In Matt xvii. 8 the Greeks use « fn}. (In Luke it is different : 
 Kai ev T6> yevecrBai Tr;i> (jxuvriv evpiOrj Ijjitoii? fiovo^.) 
 
 If 61 firj in Greek he original and not drawn from Matthew, or 
 translated from the Latin nisi, why should all the other Greeks use aXXa 
 here, which corresponds curiously enough almost literatim to the gothic 
 alja (German ah) and to the syriac for nisi. In St. Matthew where 
 the Greek is ei /t?; the Latins have again naturally nisi. But according 
 to all roles of criticism, as ei firj is the Matthaean Greek expression, aXKa 
 in St. Mark (heing different) should he looked upon with favour (since 
 it could not be drawn from there) especially as \V supports the other 
 seventeen uncials which use it and thus Soden acts here instinctively. 
 Very few minuscules support the ei firj of NBDNWS'^ in Mark. 
 
 Sail uses eiJULHTI '" Matt (against RcA. in Mark) but boh uses the 
 same efillX i'l Matt as in Mark; the syriacs use the same word in Matt 
 and Jl/rt;7i' (in Matthew /juth is wanting). 
 
 Of course Hort forces t ft fJ-V into his text on the strength of 
 NBNW' + D (to which add since bis day 2^ Paris") without a thought 
 of anything except that such a combination must be paramount. But it 
 is nothing of the sort. The syriac did not influence an aXKa in Matthew, 
 so why should it have any influence on ACL etc in Mark? That can he 
 ruled out. We are left to face either a translation by two Greek groups 
 of an original Latin ni.n, or an original aWa in St. Mark's Greek. We 
 must look into this matter more carefully. Because the Greek of D 
 happens to coincide with that of NB here it need not worry us. On the 
 contrary, D would most probably thus translate the 7iisi of d. Why does 
 C desert the XB combination here ? Why does L desert it ? Why does 
 W desert it? Why does Sod"''" desert it? And why *? Here L is 
 the most important witness of all against et /itj. 
 
 Nowhere else in St. Mark is aWa translated nisi in Latin. But 
 there would certainly be an excuse here in ix. 8 for nisi to be rendered 
 back into Greek by aWa. The proper place then for this small matter 
 is here under the caption of " Two or more Greek Recensions," and once 
 for all it shows very clearly how the authorities are divided. That 
 ^ joins NB is perfectly natural. We have to explain the defection of 
 CL from the group and their adherence with W* Sod"'^" to the other 
 preponderating side. 
 
 As to an argument for retranslation from Latin, a glance at the other 
 
 t No otlier expression will ndequately express the matter. 
 
 GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 
 
 151 
 
 subjects for discussion submitted just above in verses 6, 7, 8 seems very 
 pertinent. 
 
 Further as to accommodation to Matthew, note that BD [^ Sod sed 
 j»a?e''°''J 33 i"' have ex tov opovi in the next verse (as Matt.) for otto tov 
 opov^ of the rest. 
 
 Compare, for another case of aXka and si (or quodsi as a has it) 
 Mark xi. 32. Observe here at ix. 8 that both e^a-mvajevOeoK and aWajei 
 /iri occur in this one verse. 
 Mark ix. 8. Trept^eirofievoi W"' et latt 
 TrepifiXeylrafiei'Ol Bell 
 
 I only mention this to show that W prefers the present tense as 
 Egypt elsewhere favours the historic present and imperfect. And because 
 W here resumes its Latin sympathies, as in verse 11 W writes ti ovv (for 
 on prim) apparently alone of Greeks. (« on Sod'^'' (cf. 2"^ claus. seq.)). 
 
 Hark 
 
 ix. 14 (pr. loco) irpo<; avrov^ D it''' (et k aput eos, 3 cum ilhs) (syr) 
 
 irepi avTovi Hell gr, et soli f I g vg inter latt circa eos 
 
 ihid. (sec loco) irpo? avrovi NBCGILWA*' (KG eavTov<;) Sod^''" 
 fam 1 28 33 ? 115 124 604 892 k Om. Sod"" 
 ■jrpo<; avTov -V Sod?"' (avrov Sod"""^ 
 
 auTot? D rell et 2* minn"' latt com eia 
 
 et 8 [eotitra A«'j stjr copt (aurou? 179 Paris" Sod}'") 
 le. Trpoi eauTovt NAGMP et W 33 157 al. et 892 Paris" 
 
 ■jrpoi avTovi BCLNX rell et 24>^ 
 
 Trpo9 aK\ri\ov<! Sod°^° min pauc et 2''° 
 
 Trap eavrof; 179 
 
 p,(T avrtov /So(i'°" 
 
 ev v/iiv T> if' vg (S inter vel ad vos supra A^' Trpo? ain-ou?) 
 
 (Om k) 
 These three examples so close are instructive. I have left out 
 another in verso 13. 
 18. ovK rjSvviidriaav W 115 604 
 
 ovK iiT-)(y(jav Hell et S<1>^ 
 
 This rfivin)6r)(Tav must come from retranslation, because W ^negl. Sod}, 
 with only D Sod"'^' a b d r 2'", adds in St. Mark's truly pleonastic manner 
 eK^aXttv avTo with sail arm (acth + curare eum). 
 
 [Observe 604 at iv. 41 eXaXow pro E\e7oj', v. 1 Xt^vi;? 2""° 6a\a<r<rr)<;, 
 V. 24 CTTopeveTo 2)ro ainjXOe, ix. 10 erijprjaav pro eKpanja-ap}. 
 
 Besides, in W it is followed immediately by the Latin introduction 
 of the next verse (19) Kai for d Se. 
 
 Mark 
 
 ix. 20. erapa^ev D" 
 
 ctnrapa^ev AINXm JOIt" et WS*, ^ (sed ^ €YeYCOYN€C- 
 
 nAPAH€N) minn 
 <Tvv€(nrapa^ev NBCLA 33 372 892 Paris" (latt conturbavit et 0) 
 
152 
 
 Mail: 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 21. €W? 
 
 ff ou 
 
 ibid. 
 
 cf latt copt syr 
 
 27. 
 
 28. 
 
 ibiil. Siari 
 
 B"'i (€0,9 ov Sod-'") 
 
 N'AC'D"XriI uHc' et * al. pi {goth " ei ") W-H 
 
 C*LA et N=W^J? Sod"''" 28 33 892 2'"' 
 Paris" Gl mg Sod.""'' ct txt 
 
 Gl Sod""'» 
 a<i> ou ^Sfam IS [noil (id] 40 Sod'*"'"" 
 ex ■jraiSo<; J) Sod""' (ex weJo?) 2''° Chr 
 (K naiSoOev IN et Vfli fam 1 ) . 
 (K TraiSioOev NBCGLA et <I>^ 33 ! ^^ '"fantia a, ab infantia 
 
 892 c'" al' I '■''" '^^ ^ 
 
 ■rraiSoSa' E ? 2 238 e"" 
 
 ■n-ai&ioffev APII unc' al. pi 
 
 a pueritia sua syr aeth copt 
 
 Tv<; x€ipo<; avTov ^<BDLA^I' Sod"'" fam 1 /am 13 [iion 124] 
 
 28 53 115 892 I'" y"' latt copt W-H Sod txt 
 T179 ^^etpo'i W 
 
 avTov Ti;? xetpot Bell et S* mill''' et 604 Paris" 
 
 avTov T7?v ;^;6t(t)o? aurou C* syr 
 
 eio-eX^oi/To? auTou NBCDLA e« W^ Sod°^' 
 
 fam Ifam 13 28 604 892 Laura* '»* 
 (e\0oino<; avTov 2'" lion al. Errat Sod) 
 
 eiaeXBoiTa avrov Hell et <I> miniO'' et 
 
 Paris" ( - avTov 273) 
 (e\6ovra axnov NS al. pane ct i'" male Sod de""" '• " ''-' = i''') 
 
 Et cum introis- 
 set latt 
 
 ADKn c< <I> aV* 
 
 ■lyr pcsh latt (cur h, quare 
 f? >cW) 
 U 131 238 aV* copt syr sin (cf Eiithym) 
 aliq pane 
 NBCLNXPA «;ic' ct Wl^V Sod"" gr longc pi 
 
 on Stan 
 Ti on 
 on 
 
 (cfix. 11) 
 
 (t. 1. -jrepav DGAC et W Sod"'" mill"'' et Paris" it vg syr goth arm 
 Tov irepau % 
 
 Kai Trepav NBC'L^ 892 .sah boh et W-H txt 
 
 Sia Tou Trepav AN !Wic" et i' aeth 
 
 xai Sia rov Trepav Laura'^ "". Ita Sod'^'"'- [xai] [hia tov] Trepav. 
 ibid. The rest of the verse varies a great deal also. See Tisch and 
 observe W aviTropeverai o;^Xo? tt/lo? avrov xai w? lajffei TraXw 
 ektSaaxev avrov;. 
 ;l. ereiKa-o D 28 [mm W noil Sod™ I'id] (inandavit A) 
 
 evereiXaro NB rcll ct WS*'"!' miim''" (praecepit rell latt) 
 12 Kai eav avrt] aTToX. tov avBpa nuTij? XB(C)Ij(A) 892 (Paris") 
 
 boh aeth {sah) 
 xai eav yvvrj uttoX. toi' avSpa avrrji; AN «»c'^ et S* (a) (c) / 
 
 (l) I vg syr goth 
 
 GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 
 
 153 
 
 nat eav yvvrj e^eXOr) awo rov avhpot xai D fam 13 28 2'" 604 
 
 (a) b{c)dff^g,a)g 
 (Aliicr WJ 1 syr sin ; aliter^; cf. Sod"-") 
 
 X. IC. TrpocrxaXeaafievo^ D c d fffi q r syr sin {b ??) f 
 
 evayKa>taafievo<; NB rell et WS<1>'^ miiin rell latt sah boh 
 
 goth {aeth syr pesh a) 
 {ayxaXeaafieva 238) 
 
 As Buchanan throws out our star witness b, possibly 
 TrpooKaXeaafjievoi; crept in from Luke, hut it is uncertain. 
 ibid. KarevXoyet NBCA 179 892 goi"'""" ""= et txt, Karr,vXoyei 
 JSV f" p«r Paris" Sod'"', KarrjXoyi N {Crotlin) 
 evXoyei ADEHK'MSUVXH et W 7;.;Xo7£i FS* 28 al. 
 
 evXoyrjaev FGK^ al. 
 
 (See under " Improvement " in the Mark section) 
 20. fc^uXttfa AD 28 892 Clem Orig 
 
 errotrtaa fam 1 2'"' Sod"" syr sin {cf Ev. sec. Hebr. in 
 
 Matt, apud Orig'"') 
 fc^uXafa/iT,!/ NB rcll omn vid et WS*^ Sod'^' 
 22. TToXXa ;^77/iaTO D 
 
 multas pecunias d 
 
 magnam pecuniam a 
 
 \pr]fiara ttoXXo IIG 
 
 Xprjf^^tira TroXXa xai aypovf; Clem 
 
 multas pecunias et agros 6 
 
 multae divitias et agros Tc 
 
 multas possetsionis et pecunias fft 
 KTiifiara rroXXa KB rell et "WS*^ Sod'''" 
 
 multas possessiones c sah {boh) 
 
 divitias multas / q 
 
 possessiones multas I S fi 
 i 35. airrjawfiev B line pi et S<I>^ 
 
 airri<Top.ev N"'A 124 [.saltu N* ex horn om verba ab 
 
 iva/iva 35/37] 
 epwrrjcafiev D Sod"^" {test. Bccrm. cC G.) 1 [lion fam] 2"" 
 
 airr)iTa>p.eda W Latt omn petierimus 
 
 3G. n ffeXere iroitjaai /le vfitv ANXFIl line' et S* minn et 
 
 Laura*"" et Soden txt 
 
 t Here J}iichanan hopolcssly coutradicts Bianchini, for the latter (as TUch) has 
 convitana for h, but Buchanan has amplcrua without stating whether conviiixns ia an 
 emendation in 6 or an invention of the previous editor. A mplcxua throws 6 to the other 
 Bide of the testimony. The others on the side of D use couvocana. On the other side 
 / vg — coinplexans, h complexus, vg^ complectens and r^ complectans {a Et in siuu suo 
 ben. illos as ayr). An original convectans might have caused trouble. 
 
 In Afark ix. 36 tvnyKoXiaantvos has already been used (the only other occasion in N.T.) 
 where D has avaKXurnntvot and d conplexus as b c fffj ^^ Q and the rest there. 
 
 X Consider also +itc NB rt/., — ii/n by D" i (&) h r, and the varieties o av D, ori nv C, 
 o tav li rdl. 
 
154 
 
 Msrk 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 71 6e\eTe fie troiritTat vfiiv 
 
 TTOtrjaai vfiiv 
 fie irottjara ,, 
 
 TTOlTJCTft) ,, 
 
 TTOtijaofiai ,, 
 tva 7roirj(70} ,, 
 
 TTOirja-a) v/iew ( — Tt ^fXere) 
 
 LN''" '"' 892 Paris" et W" '•""'' 
 
 Sod''" '"* 
 WA 273 282 348 aP, quid vultis 
 
 faciam vobis q 
 BH" et ^ TiscV W-H°" 
 C Soir"' fam 1 13 [non 124] 2"' 
 al. pauc. et W-H txt 
 
 yscr 
 
 106 251 Sod'"' '"" "' quid 
 
 vultia ut faciam vobis cfffi I S vg 
 D, d praestabo vobis (quid praes- 
 tabo vobis r ?) 
 quid faciam vobis (-fJeXexf) abi Om. vers. k 
 
 X. 43. /ie^a? yeveadai ev v/j.iv NBC'LA^ mill pauc W-H Sod txt 
 8 (major fieri in vobis) fffi q (major esse in vobis) 
 y(ve(T0ai fieyat; ev vfitv AXm line' et S* (eivai Sod"") 
 
 (eopt gotli) 
 D d (major inter vos esse) 
 Sod""" vid 
 
 W 2'" Sod' =" (in vobis major esse o 6) 
 r (cf. Sod''-" vv. 43/44 invert.) 
 c 
 Sod'''" ver. 44 
 k 
 in vobis voluerit major esse i 
 
 (Thus W 21" Sod"'-"'="' alone give Latin order of a 6 r) {Cf 
 
 vers 44) 
 40. Ttpoaanwv A plur et W£4) 
 
 enranav D Sod"''" 2"' Orig (cfL uc) 
 
 TrpotraiTri's BLA^ 892 k boh arm (xai Trpoa-airri^ N) Om. C* 
 
 Paris" 
 NBCLA^J minn'" 892 et 
 Paris" k B et boh W-H Sod txt 
 D plvr et W^t" minn d sijr Orig''^' 
 179 273 004 aP 
 
 fj.eya'; ev vfiiv eivai 
 /Meya:; ev vjiiv yevecrffai 
 ev V/J.IV fieyat yevetrOai 
 in vobis primus esse 
 in vobis esse major 
 ev vfiiv eivai jxeya^ 
 in vobis e/se majjiius 
 
 sijr arm (aeth) 
 
 latt syr goth aeth sah 
 
 49. eiirev tpQyvTjaare avTov 
 
 enrev avTOv if>ii>vr)9r)vai 
 eiTrev avTO) <f>o>VT)&7)vai 
 enrev <f)Oi)Vi]0rjvai, avTOV 
 eiceXevtrev <j>a>vri6j]iai avTOv 
 eKeXevtrev auToiv tpoDvij&Tjvat avrov 
 eKeXevaev avrov ^Qivrjdrjvat 
 ibid. Kai <^o}Vov(Tiv Tov TuffyKov \eyovTe<; avTOJ Plur et W { — airrto 
 
 cf. c k) S<I>^'/ 1 S vg et syr pesh sah boh aeth 
 et olamaverunt dicentes A- ( — auro) xit W et c infra) 
 
 01 he \eyovaiv T(u TV(f)\a> D^' i 
 
 oi Sf eiTToiv {eiTTov ?) Tw Tu<j)\(o 2"' a d q (6 ff^ breviter 
 
 qui dicunt caeco) 
 
 SlaY. ?So<i'»""^"'"'(7o;A 
 
 Evst 48 a arm aeth 
 
 sah 
 
 c'" b c fffi g,,i i I q (mut r) 
 
 OnEEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 
 
 155 
 
 Se e<l>a>vr]ae tov tv<j>\ov Kai \eyovaiv avru) syr sin 
 
 (Hesitabant librarii 28 et Paris") 
 et abierunt vocare ilium dicentes c 
 X. 50. ava<TTa<; ACM'^'XII unc' et WS* minn"^ syr pesh arm 
 
 aeth (init vers) sah 3/5 
 ai/a7rvS7,<7o? NBDLM""A et ^ Sod"" 892 2"' Paris" Laura*'" 
 Evst 34 48 z" boh goth syr sin {init vers) Orig {avair'rfir)<Ta<; 
 et eodem loco mox aveirrjSriae km avea-rri) 
 eic7ri]Sriaa<! cat""" {e^a\\oiievo<! Veles) 
 
 Omn ex latt""'" exiliens ??? (exurgens rj [sed exiuit k, exiliit q, 
 {Om r Sod'-*") cucurrit sah 2/5] 
 
 51. Tt OeXeif {iva) ■jroiija-m act ADXn'"^ unc' WS* a b c d f ffi 
 
 boh {sah) goth aeth syr 
 Ti act ee\ei<! -rrovnam NBCKLAD*^ Sod"'-" min'"" et 892 i 8 vg"^ 
 quid vis tibi faciam g^hlk q p. vgg"^ 
 — trot Orig (ae pro aoi 348) 
 
 t xi. 2. KeKaOiKev ADXni unc" et S* al. pi, Sod'^"- et : 
 
 eTTiKexadeiKev W {cf sah g^jU-OOC £,IZl0q) 
 exaetaev NBCLA^ Sod"''" 4. 7. 2"" 004 892 Paris" Soi"' 
 
 Evst 30 W-H'"' Orig'" {ambobus locis) 
 (sedit latt omn, sed cf copt de insedit ut W") 
 t 4. KM a-7n]\6ov Kai NBLA^ 892 (c 8) boh syr sin Orig 1/2 
 
 W-H Sod 
 KM aireXeovTei D Sod"'^ 2"" 604 latt'" { - km a) syr'"' Orig 1/2 
 air7)\0ov Se km A plur et W2* minn^' et Paris" 1 
 
 aTnfK.6ov he {-km) Sod™ sah ) 
 
 airrjkBov ovv km fam 1 13 28 al. 
 
 (the same applies to wtoKov and tov -rroKov, Ovpav and ttjv 
 Ovpav here) 
 0. €17761/ «BCLA et \N^ fam 1 28 115 124 892 Sod''"" k 
 
 sah boh arm aeth Orig W-H Sod txt 
 etpriKev Paris" 
 
 eiprjKei T>^' 
 
 dixerat b cff^i q S {siq^r enrev A") syr sin 
 
 evereiXaTo A plur 14> Sod"^" goth (praeceperat dafl vg) syi'^"-'''' 
 (Paris" eipijKev and D eiprjKei are very suggestive) 
 7. KM (f,epovMv BLA" et "ir et N' 892 Laura* ™ Orig W-H Sod txt 
 KM ayovaiv N*C et W SoiX''^" fam 1 13 28 Sod'^" 
 KM rjyayov D rcll et S4> c d f I g h vg copt syr goth aeth 
 
 minn''' et Paris" 
 ducere { — km) a b ff, i [Silct Sod de his] 
 
 t In xi. 1/12 a compnriBon with Origcn shows that what he was copying out at one 
 time absolutely disagrees with what he says about Mark's text at another. So that two 
 recensions of this existed distinctly in his day, which he ovxitted to observe. I have not 
 reproduced here all the points involved. 
 
l'^6 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Jlark 
 
 ibid. (TriffaWovatv NBCDLA=' ct W^ Sod"'' /am 1 2'" {Cronin) 
 (604) 892 Paris" bdff^il vg, r, (ponunt) Orig W-H Sod 
 €7re0a\ov A rell ct S* (a) c f g., k q boh""' {sah) syr actli goth 
 xi. 11. Vide sub " NB divide " in Part II. 
 
 i;i. eiSetp eav ti eanv D videre si quid esset b c d ffi g-i i k r 
 
 t (B? evprjawv ti Sud"^" 2'" 604 Orig"" '■''- quasi inventurus 
 aliquid a q (quasi aliq. inventurus /) 
 ei apa ti evprja-u NABCKLNUAIl* ct wf*^ al. I 8 vg 
 
 W-H Sod 
 (I apa cvprjirei. ti EGHMSVXm' al. pi sah boh {sijr) goth 
 videre si fuisset quern inveniret fructus aethi ^ . 
 videre si quid forte inveniret aur gat vg°'-'^ j 
 ibid, firi&ev evpav D«' 2"" (a 5) Orig (ord lat) 
 
 ouSev evpev NB rcll ei WS<t>* Sod"''" minn 
 
 ov&ev ovx evpev L (c/ syr sin) 
 
 evpev ovSev copt 
 
 ibid, o yap Kaipo^ ovx ijv avKwv NBC*"'' L A c< ■>? 892 {copt) syr 
 
 W-H Sod 
 ov yap Tjv (o) Kaipo^ (twi') (tvkcov A rell ct WS* minn latt 
 
 arm aeth goth Orig 
 {Om vid Paris") 
 
 15. T)pXOVTO C 
 
 venerunt a c f ff^ syr pesh goth boh 
 
 intraverunt d {sah S/G) 
 
 eicreKOaiv D" cf syr sin 
 
 epxeTat ()04 6 i r (sah 3/6) 
 
 epxovTai NB plur ct WS**' So^''' minn g k I q vg 
 
 Om clans 28 
 
 (Postea Kai ore t/v D (i pro xai eiaeXdiov) 
 21 fin. (^-npaver, DLNA et S^ Sod''" 1 33 2'" 604 Paris" al" Orig 
 e^rfpaTai X 157 al"' ct Sod"^- "> 
 
 e^Tjpamai, NB rell et W* minn''^ 
 23. aperjvai.. . .^\r,ei]vat W fam 1 28 124 [nan fam] Sod"" latt 
 apOrjTi, . . . ffXtjffrjTi Rell Gr. 
 
 Tischendorf here suppresses the Latin witness, rather 
 spoiling the inference. 
 ibid, \a\ei iKEljii^etW Sod"'""'-' ettxt.S^miV'Vaxis" Evst^^ak 
 \eyu A rcll ct W* q (,0e\ei c"') 
 
 €6777/ 238 al. pane (f I vg) 
 
 TO fieWov. .. T) b c d ffi i 
 
 This is a good place to consider once more the retranslation 
 from Greek of a (loquitur) k (locutus fuerit) as against the 
 other independent method of the Latins, t 
 
 t Sodcn quotes us tvprjatav without n, but this must be a mistake, 
 t Consider shortly afterwards at xii. 14 copilularium of It and (Trutnii/inXaioi' of D" 
 SoiT'^ "if" Laura"* "" (but d tributum). 
 
 GREEK BECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 
 
 157 
 
 xi. 24. iKafiere NBCLA^' et W*? 892 W-H et Sod txt 
 \a/i^av€Te A wic" et S* al. fere omn et Paris" I 
 
 Laura* "" syr goth arm \ cf Orig. 
 \r,ij.f«re€ D Sod'"'" fam 1 2'" 604 latt aeth Cypr \ 
 Variant sah boh codd inter se 
 
 31. ■irpo<Te\oyi^ovTO N* " "' 
 
 SieXoyi^opTo BCD'GKLMAII et W^ Sod"'" al. et 892 
 
 Laura'^^o* W-W* {Zi^Xoyt^ov D'') 
 e\o7tfoirro AEFHNSUVXP et S* al. et Paris" Soi*^' 
 
 (Latt omn cogitabant praeter c cogitare coeperunt) t 
 
 32. aXKa NABCLA«'2 33 al. k" vg^' (a\V XPH unc' et * 
 
 (■^) al. pi) goth " ak." 
 quodsi a 
 
 eav D 604 a?" d g^ q S vg " si " 
 
 t tav 8e 2"' Sod™' c f ffi" si autem " 
 
 a\\ eoK W So^'" min'""* txt rec ¥ I " sed si " (boh) (sah) 
 Kai eav Sod"' i r syr aeth 
 si vero 6 
 (Cf Marc ix. 8) 
 ibid, ^ffovfiev D 
 
 ^oPoviieOa D'NWS fam 13 28 106 253 2'" 604 o«' o'" 
 
 Sod''" " ""• if' et 8 contra A" vg 1/2 sah 4/6 boh aiin aeth 
 e^ofiowTo NB rell et 4> minn''' h k (metuebant) I vg 1/2 
 
 (fio^ov. . .(spatium) ■*■ 
 (timor est a populo timor syr) 
 ibid. Tov \anv D phir et W^ minn fere omn et sah (ju.nXA.oc) 
 
 syr (Om. Sod'"). 
 TOV ox?""' NBCN et E* 33 106 et Paris" Sod""'' Sot?" et boh 
 JuLniJULHUI = (tov oxKov in Matt xxi. 26, Xao? otto? 
 
 L«c XX. 6) 
 plebem d et b i q r populum a cfff, g^k IS 
 
 II ibid. riBiicrau D, W Sod"'" (riBiaav), 2" a bed f ff^ikq (mut r) 
 
 sciebant 
 otSa<n 604 
 eixocav 28 (cf eiSoaav D in ix. 9) 
 
 t It is interesting to notice that while the Latins are constant here and the Greeks 
 vary in threefold fashion, yet that immediately following, for the irpot tavrovf (constant 
 among Greeks except in 38 and Paris'^ Sod*"' = ev eauroir, W irpoc avrour, 115 irpos akXrjXovt) 
 the Latins vary considerably, thus : inter semetipsos d, inter se a g vg"^, intra se /, seoum 
 jj ? Irvg, aput se k, ad invicem ff.„ secum ad invicem t, adversum se b ; ond omit c with 
 syr sin. Such small variations may well be " provincial " and not all from varying 
 translations of the Greek, while cogitabant with all may be a foundation, for the Latins 
 could well use other words. Cf Mark ix. 33 and other places. 
 
 t Ncglexil Tisch 2" cumcfff,. 
 
 I The student may look tor this on p. 79 of Mr. Sanders' notes, but his limitations 
 (see p. 74) unfortunately excluded it. 
 
158 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 eXovTiv S cf Matt xxi. 26 (€Xov^i<; SocV") 
 eiX"" NB rell cf <h minn''^ et Editt. 
 
 (nv copt, lion habcnt hoh xah e^™) cf Luc xx. G cariv. 
 The fact that W goes with D, and that 28 gives the form 
 fixocrav (a favourite form with D, see eiSoa-av ix. 9) may show 
 some ambiguity in ancient Greek copies, but the Latins here 
 give no uncertain sound and 004 confirms sciebaiU by using 
 oiSacrc. The matter, if a Greek one, seems to hinge on an 
 original (iSoaav, but this may not precede the Latins, but 
 follow them, and have been changed subsequently. This 
 place deserves earnest study, for the parallels are slightly 
 different. 2 is the only Greek to accommodate to Matthew 
 and none accommodate to Luke (excepting Coptic which 
 cannot help it). 
 In Alatt. XXI. 26 = Travre^ yap o>^ Trpo^Tp-rjv €vov<tiv top laawTjv 
 In Luke xx. 6 = weireurfievo'; yap eanv \(i>aiiV7]V irpo^rriv eivai 
 In St. Matthew the Latins a cfffi g, h q vg have eixov. 
 In St. Luke D^' has ireirfiaiievot and a = "sciunt," but d = scit, and 
 the rest ccrti sunt, while .^^ = ccrtmn est. There is a very intricate inter- 
 relation in the passages. 
 
 But while an original eiSoa-av in Mark xi. 32 might have grown out 
 of a Latin scicbant, scicbaiit could hardly grow out of eiSocrav or we should 
 have had traces of vidcbaiit among the Latins. t See remarks on 
 Clement's text as to possible age of the basic Latin underlying the Greek 
 and occasional unusual retranslation in W as at Mark xi. 2.5 avrj pro atfnj 
 for dimitlat. 
 
 Mark 
 
 xii. 1. a/iireXava av6p. e<j>VTev<T€v NBCA et ^'V 33 262 Laura*"" 
 
 W-H Sod 
 
 ,, ,, eiroir]a€v L 892 
 
 afnre\o)va e^vrevaev av6pu>wois DA «»c'' minn et latt goth 
 avOpa-jro'i Tit e(j>vTevcrev afiireX. W Sod'^" fam 13 2'" Sod"" c 
 
 syr pesh aeth Orig 
 avdpa>7ro<; ( — Tt?) ,, ,, N2 433 Paris" syr sin sail 
 
 r)v avBptnrot €<f>vTeva€v afiir. hoh 
 
 (plantavit a c rf/i 5 r pastenavit 6 jfj i novellavit J) 
 2. Xa/3i7 B plar et W2*^ (Xa^oi N Sod' "') j, I vg sail 
 
 acciperet syr pesh hoh 
 
 Sa><70V<TIV D t<''' 
 
 TrefiyjroviTiv syr sin 
 
 afiferrent acth'"'- 
 
 t Compare xii. 15 uSisr all Greeks but KD, while K iSav, D tiiaf, and c dff^ videos, 
 b i g r cum vidisset. Compare xii. 24 ytvuxTKovrts for tt8oT<s by D and Origen only. 
 Cf also xii. 28. 
 
 GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 
 
 159 
 
 5. ou? fiev . . ovi Se 
 
 0U9 fiev . 
 T0U9 fiev 
 T0U9 86 . 
 on? /tev 
 
 . Tou? 8e 
 . . Toi/9 Se 
 . rovi Sf 
 , aXXou*? Be 
 
 NBLA et ^ Sod"' 1 33 2"' 604 892 al" 
 
 et Paris" W-H Sod txt 
 <1> (tou9 /Mev . . ovt Se Sod""^ 
 ACN(X)rn mic' et 2 
 W 
 Dlatt 
 
 14. fX^oiTf? \eyov<nv avra NB plur et 24>^ g^li vg boh W-H txt 
 
 (sah goth aeth) 
 venientes interrogabant ilium a (syr pesh) 
 
 venientes interrogabant eum subdole i (q) r 
 eXdovra Tjp^avTo CTrepwTav avrov ev \oya Sod"" vid 
 eXdovrei; ijpfain-o cp(OTav avrov ev ho\u> W 251 (syr sin — eXffoirret) 
 eX^oin-f? rjp^avTO (potTav avrov ev &oXa> Xeyovrei; G/am 1 13 28 
 
 Sod-" et txt ! 
 eXdovTe<s eTTriptoTTjaav avrov ev BoXio Xeyovret 604 
 eXOovTet eirriptoTtov avrov ev BoXco X€7oi'T£9 Sod°^° 2'" Sod'"" ' '' 
 
 h arm 
 eiTTjpbJToyv avrov oi tftaptaaioi ( — cX^., —ev SoX. X€7.) D d 
 
 (phar. eum) 
 interrogabant eum farissaei dicentes k 
 
 venientes pharisaei interrogabant eum dicentes c ( = etiam c" ^") 
 
 „ subdole #2 
 17. e^edav/ia^ov HB'V W-H it Sod txt b (mirabantur + vehementer) 
 
 admirabantur c ff^ 
 eOavfia^ov DLA Sod'" 892 2'" Laura* "* Sod"" "", mirabantur 
 
 a d il q r S boh (D' eOav/jui^ovro, D' eOavpa^ov) 
 eOavfuurav ACNXFII unc' et WS*, k (admirati sunt) sah 
 (See under " Improvement ") 
 
 19. exv DW if' syr sin, axn Sori""'" •'")"=', exei 28, ex^v 604. 
 KaraXirrr) Bpltir et 24>^ {xaraXet-^ N Sod"", KaraXeiyjrei C 433) 
 
 20. arroOvrjaKav NB rell et 2*^ minn^' 
 
 arreOavev Kai DW Sod"'" 1 28 604 (91 92 2'") Sod"" it vg syr copt 
 Kai arreOave Kai aTtoBvrjaictav Laura* '"* 
 
 This looks like a very square basic division. Compare the 
 differences in the next two verses. 
 24. /11J yeivuMTKOvret D" Orig 
 
 firi €i8oT€9 NB rell et Vft<b^ minn'"^'' "'' iricl 28 (iSarei) 2"" 604 
 I place this here because of Origen's unique adhesion to D". He 
 could not have got it from the Greek of Matthew because eiSorei; is there 
 used. We may well enquire how it is that W is absent from this dual 
 combination, and where are 28 2'" 604 and Sod'"? All absent. No 
 minuscule support. As to the Latins, while ale I g^h vg use non scientes, 
 b c d ffii r have non intelligentes (nescientes r2 vg^'*^, ignorantes q). 
 
 D d only add oiiare at the end of the verse, differentiating between 
 intellegentes scripUiras and virtutem di scitis. 
 
160 
 
 CODEX n AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 In this connection we must refer back to xi. 32, xii. 15 and forward 
 to xii. 28 and xiii. 11 and then we shall begin to understand something of 
 the influence of more than the Greek language on the minds of the Church 
 Fathers. Observe in the 2()th verse Origen 2/3 writes Oeot for o Oeot sec. 
 with only DW Evst IS, and again Seo? Orig''" with BDW tert et quart. 
 
 ilnrk 
 
 xii. 2G. 
 28. 
 
 ibid. 
 
 •n-6)9 NBCLUA^f 892 al-" W-H Sod txt quomodo d et latt 
 (u? AD" ?«ic" et WS* minn pi et Paris" Orig sicut q 
 
 ihav N*CD (eiSo.!/ ut 2"") L et WS* SodP^' min" Sod'"'" •" Evst" 
 
 latt syi- pesh aeth arm Sod'"' 
 ei8fi)? B veil et ^ minji''' et Paris" salt boh 
 
 (Cf h syr sin) See above at xi. 32, xii. 15 24 
 TTOia eo-Ttv evToXri TrpwTij wavTosv NBCLUA^ 33 108 127 131 
 
 Paris" boh syr aeth W-H Sod 
 
 iraaav 892 Sod'"'"" 
 
 „ ei'ToXi] irpaiTTj { — Travrmv) D Sod"^" i^'acdffti 
 
 k q syr sin sah 3/7 (amplitis sah rell) 
 „ „ TTpQiTT] iravywv emoKr) A plnr et 2<1' et 124 I 
 
 vg (irtuTwv M al.) (twv evro\o>v Sod^") 
 
 81. 
 
 ,, ,, irpotTt) evToKr] { — iravTrov) 
 TToia e(TT(v iravTwv irpMTT} evToXrj 
 
 TTOia TTpWTf} etTTW TTaVTOiV €VTo\r} 
 
 TTota €vto\t) TrpMTtj eariv 
 
 TTOia eifToXrj eo"Tt Trpuyrr) { — Travrtav) 
 
 Obs -wpaiTri Tear emoXMv {ver 28) Mcell^"' Cf also ver 29 
 
 W 1 jam 13 [)I0?^ 124] 
 
 28 b gz r. 
 Sod""'""" 
 irS vkl 
 
 Sod"'' (+iravTo,v?) 
 604 (+navTo>v? Sod'""*") 
 
 aVTTJ 
 
 Ofiota avTTj 
 Ofxaia TavTr) 
 
 BLA et Nl' 892 Paris" sah 2/8 S W-H et Sod txt 
 
 AJ Laura*'" Sod'*" 7- 
 AE plur et S* 
 
 (hujus) 
 
 Sod"° (avT,) 
 vel aim}) 
 D/am 13 Sod'-^^ Mcell^"' 
 
 Cf Clem infra 
 simile illi2> (2/ r 
 similem huic i 
 similis huic k 
 simile huic q 
 
 83. 
 ibid. 
 
 Ofioio)^ avTt] W 
 
 simile est huic cff^ 
 
 Om a. Liberc Clem : Sevrepav Se rafej xat ovSev n /iixpoTepov 
 
 TavTi]<! eivai Xeyei to • ayaTrtjacK . . . 
 a-vvea-eoii;, Suva/teo)?, taxvo<!, item intellectu, anima, virtute, 
 
 viribus, fortitudine mixta sunt. 
 
 NBLA 33 892 Paris" W-H cf Sod txt 
 
 D rell, et W Sod'^'iirXiov), S* minn, sed : 
 Cf. meliora k et syr sin (aliter ancepspesh : 
 1^/u) arab et diatess. [Latt rell maius praeter a : plus]. 
 
 ireptafTOTepot' 
 
 TrepicriTOTepa 
 
 ■jrXeLov 
 
 Kpeiaaov Sod'*". 
 
 GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 
 
 161 
 
 xii. 37. tiTTiv vio<; avrov 
 avTov €<mv vw; 
 ctTTiv amov 1/(09 
 iiirrov wo? etrriv 
 uio"? avrov eartv 
 
 D a c d f'i gi i I q r r^ vg arm 
 BLT'' 892 2'" Sod"'" "" W-H ,(■ Sod t.Tf 
 A k (et ejus filius sic) 8 
 179 7"* goth sah boh 
 
 N rell'" et WS*^ minn'" et Paris" b syr 
 
 aeth 
 1/(0? eoTiv avTOv vg" 
 ibid. -rroXv! KDW Sod""" 28 115 213 372 2i'' 604 Sod""' "'' ' ' " 
 
 o TToXw B rell omn vid et S*^ Paris" 
 
 38.t (1) o Se ScSaaxav a/ia eXeyev avroK D" a (Ad ille docens simul 
 
 dicebat eis) 
 Se hihaoKiDV eXeyev outo(? ( — nfia) Sod°'" 2'" 1 
 et ille docens dicebat eis d I 
 
 ad „ 6 (»■) r 
 
 ipse autem docebat illos dicens c 
 
 ipse autem docebat eos dicens illis ff^ 
 
 (2) KOI 61/ Ti; StSaxv ain-ou eXeyeu XBLA^ & 892 boh 
 
 „ „ ,, „ „ avToK 33 Paris" .sj/r ;)cs// 
 
 et in doctrina docebat e 1 _ 
 
 et in docendo dicebat k I 
 
 (3) Kai eXeyev avTOK ev ttj SiSaxq avrov 
 
 A nnc'' 
 
 et %'P I q vg 
 goth aeth 
 W fam 1 28 124 
 sah 
 
 syr stn 
 28 124 e 
 
 Kai eXeyev ( — oi/Tour) 
 
 eXcyev Se avroK ev tt] SiSa^V avrov 
 
 And he was saying while teaching 
 
 (Observe - ovtok NBLAW^' 1 
 boh S) 
 41. e<7TO? W So(f •■° fam 1 fam 13 28 2'" Sod"" arm 
 syr sin Orig'"' "' " Kara fiapKov" 
 Ka0ia-a<; NB {et V Ka0e^ofievo<;) rell et I'^^V syr 
 pesh sah boh latt 
 t 42. eX0ova-a Se D Sod'"'" 2'" 604 it vg sah, boh'" Orig 
 
 Kai eX0ov<ra XB rell et WS*^ syr ann aeth (Om. xai " Sod 
 
 /"•«•" 9?) 
 
 k {et — avTov) 
 
 hiat goth 
 
 t This is ftn excellent place for Btmly of three recensions. Observe how a follows 
 D" with ninittl ; how it is boh [not »n/i] that the small group NBL^* follows ; how 
 Ktih is with goth and A unc" ; how W joins this with 28 less nvrnts (tho omission 
 of which with r k may be basic) ; and hpw So(F°° and 2" go with b. The shortest text 
 is exhibited by r ft both extant for a short time from here onwards. 
 
 X So as not to overburden this apparatus I have left out hitherto all such cases. 
 I give this instance as it is strongly supported, because we must consider these places. 
 Sir John Hawkins (op. cit. p. l.'iO) says " The two most constantly recurring causes of 
 tlie agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark are two preferences of Mark, (i) for 
 Xtyfii' instead of <iirfii', and (ii) for icni instead of ht." Bot we must be careful to see 
 what the real base of Mark has to say about this. 
 
 M 
 
162 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 "xiii. 1. cK 6« T,ov DAFXA Sod'"' 1 13 28 2"" 004 892 Paris" ai» latt 
 
 {sah) boh si/r 
 
 9. /3X€7r6Te 86 u/i€i? -irapaiaiaovtnv yap vfUK! et<; avvdpia N 
 
 ^evcTi &€ Vfiftt eavTOv; vapahtiXTOvaiv vfia^ fK o-weSpta BLI' 
 
 boh sah arm aeth 
 (item +yap al. mult et S* Paris" c 3 8 stjr pcsh) 
 Kai vapaBmaovaw viJ.a<! et? a-vv. 1 [non/awi] 28 124 [nonfam] 
 ena (Se) vp.a^ auTou? TrapaSttxrouo-iv en <tuv. D 2"" 604 abffiinr 
 €Ti he u^a? avTovi; TrapaSayaovtxiv ei? crvv. Soar 
 Kai Scocrovaw vfuKS 6i« avvehpia W simpUcUer Cf syr sin 
 videte deinde vos . . .""'''. . . ipsos tradent in concil. k 
 11 €Knvo Vffam 13 28 91-299 ( = fam 1) 2>" Soi'^" Orig (syr) 
 
 (iUutfc illudpr/'™") 
 auTo D*' (c ipsum) 
 
 TOKTo KB rell et S4>^ SocJ"" (coj)<) (hoc adinr; ii ff^ 
 
 Iqvg'") (mut bef) 
 ibid. Cf. also fiepi/ivaTe MFJ 33 892 mult., Trpotupi/ivaTe plur, 
 Trpotr/ieXeraTe ^3, ir poiiepip.v7)ar,-ri Sod'"' QT Laura*"" 
 14. e<7Tij<coTa NBL 
 
 eo-T7,«:o<r D ct^ Paris" 
 t ffTT/Kov W fam 1 fam 13 28 Sod""" arvKovra 892 
 e<rT09 AEFGHSVAn* ai. c< S* Sorf-'^" Laura* •<» 
 fffTO? KMUXrn' ai. 
 
 (L(i<( et d =6t8.ntempracter k stans, a n stare) 
 16. OTTKTO) «D 11 Paris" Soti'"' (J et latt nil nisi retro 
 
 et? ra oTrto-eo B re^i et Vfl^'iT Sod''° (ew. ra oir. M) 
 18. <i.a ^^ yevvrat ^et^wo? N'""" B «< W [non ord lat] cf copt 
 
 wa liT) xeipMvo'i yevwvrai D c (.(fj i I vg A lig) 
 
 I ut non hieme veniant (i 
 
 ,va p.n xufuot'O'! ravra ywerat L Sod'" (50 262) (I (b) n' q 
 wa tin y€vr)Tai Tavra xei/to)i/o? fam 13 [non 124-346] 28 299 
 2'"' Sod"^^ vg^^^, cf Latt qui variant. Hi absque n tpvyv 
 vpMv cum syr sin if' et Aug '. 
 Habent rell gr et A2*^ tra m yevvrai v i>vyn vp.o,v 
 veiuMvo-; cum Qi k S gat sah boh syr goih aeth. 
 19. €<TTai (eaov-rai Sod'"") yap iv Tat.'; ■m^paii tKuvaii 1 hod 
 (abdknq erunt enim (in) diebus illis) (syr sin) sah 1/2 boh"" 
 eaovra, yap at nma. eK,,vai NB D" rell et Wl^^ minn et 
 
 sah 1/2 rell vcrss 
 
 ibid. eXifK (ffXt-^eif pauc) oia ov ytyovev ToiauT?; NB unc" et W2*(^) 
 
 copt syr aeth goth 
 SXiifri'; Ota ov yeyovev ttotc touivti] 604 
 
 t fam 1 hoc loco, 1-118-209-91-299. Male Tiich de 28 .<rr,,oc. 
 X Male Tisch banipro veniant d. 
 
 GREEK BECENSIONS IN ST. MAEK. 
 
 163 
 
 ffKiyfreK oiai ovK eyevomo rotavrai D 299 (y'") it vg arm 
 0\tyfr€it oiai ov ye^ovaatv iroTt roiavrai 2"^ I 
 
 OXi-^em oiot (ota Sod°'^°) ov yeyovav ovSeTrore roiavrai > a n 
 
 <I> Sod'" "■" I 
 ( - TOiavrr, ^ 270 892 Sod"' '"') 
 
 [ - KTitreto? W 28 299 sah 1 /4 arm ; cf. Laura* "» Sod'*", syr""] 
 xiii. 21. t8e NBL^ 892 
 
 tSou Eell et WS* et Paris" 
 26. fTTt TtoK vf<j)e\a>v D" syr sin 
 
 ev 1/e^eX.ai? NB plur et 'S.^'V c ( + coeli), Ih vg copt\ 
 
 €v ve4,c\ri W Sodf" 1 13-69 [non 124] (vec^eXatr^^. ^'' 
 
 346) 28 Sod'"' k | 
 cum nubibus ab dff^i q vg^ boh^ ( + cae)i) 
 (Om. X e vg") 
 
 ecce latt 
 
 2" vid 
 
 t30 
 
 28. eK(f)VTj 
 
 eK<l>w') 
 (eK*YH 
 
 flf^lt OTOV 
 
 p-expK ov 
 
 ay^pit ov 
 eiat 
 eo)? ov 
 £0)? av 
 
 fieaovvKTiov 
 fieaowKTiai 
 8o\(u 
 ev SoXoD 
 
 FSUr al. a k (eK<t>vei. 56 131 157 258) 
 
 EGKM al. dilqffi vg 
 
 NBCD al.) (c copt prodeunt) Om. 124. 
 
 B 
 
 ACL mK" et S4>, et ^ (ffXP' '"') """"''' et Paris" 
 
 N (/texpt? ovv Sod' "«) 
 
 Sod"" 
 
 ^Y Sod'" 259? 2"' 
 
 D Sod"'" 
 
 fam 1 /am 13 28 Sod""''" 
 (Latt omn et d = Aonec, praeter k adusque ; om vidffi) 
 35. fieaovvKTwv V plur et <P SodP" 
 
 NCLAB' et ^ 892 ; fieaawKTwv B* et W 
 
 S 238 604 c"' Sod'^" Orig (et Latt media nocte) 
 
 WAS 1 13 28 348 al. it ct d h vg 
 
 NB rell et 4>^ Sod'" 
 (Om. D" a i et r^ [me teste] ; ev X070) U ; insidiis k) 
 
 2. eo-rai %u/3o? NBCD^L et ^ Sod'" 2"' 604 892 (k fiat tumultus) 
 ffopvfio^ eoTat A plur et WS* a (tumultus sit) 
 
 dopvfioi; yevrjTai, M 28 al.pauc. et Paris" sah boh d 8 (tarn, fieret) 
 tumultus oriatur c (ff^) (?) (''). tum. operetur i 
 
 Sopvfiov OVTO? A*' 
 
 3. avTov TV'! Ke<f>aXv'; NBCLA c« W 1 [non fam] 28 435 Sod'"' (k) 
 avTov rri Ke<l>a\rj ^ 
 
 avTov KaTa tt;? Kec^aX?)? A rell pi ct "Ifb Sod'" minn pil et Paris" 
 KaTa tt;? Ke<f>a\Tii; avTOv patici 
 
 art tt;? K€<j>a\i]<; avTov D Ev-it 20 d et latf' (sah boh) 
 7. /led v/uDv DW 91-299 it vg vobiscum 
 
 p.€0 eavTmv NB rell et 2*^ et Sod!"" 28 2^ 604 Paris" 
 
 t This may be dae to " provincial " handling, but the fact remains that donee is 
 constant is all Latins but k : adusque (hiat c). 
 
 M 2 
 
164 
 
 c 
 
 (Inrk 
 
 
 ibid. 
 
 eviroieiv 
 
 
 evTroi7](rai 
 
 xiv. 19. 
 
 6(9 Kara eit 
 
 
 ei? Kai eira €i? 
 
 
 6(9 e/cacTTo? 
 
 
 €1? x-a^ era 
 
 
 £1? trap €1? 
 
 
 ei9 Ka^' fK 
 
 20. 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALI.IKS. 
 
 D'A rt ^ mill aliq et Sod"" 
 Bell et Sod!""' 
 NBLA et ^ 892 
 Beza (.Kara) 
 
 c 
 
 Orig 
 244 
 
 DA rell tmc" et WS* miiiii 
 (.singuli rf et vetf pi, siiigillatim vg g.^ I) 
 
 Ohs c : nunquid ego ant alius hoc coeperunt singiili dicere 
 Ohs I) : numquid ego alius numquit ego singulis 
 619 Ta>u NBCL et W^J 38 60 78 127 c"' 8<" et 892 Sod^- sah boh 
 619 6« TO)!/ D «»c'= et%<P minn"^ et 28 Paris" latt"""" (" at lat- 
 ini nee 6i9 tiuv aliter possunt reddere " ut Tisch. dicebat) nyf 
 21. TrapaitioTe Dai (traditur) c d (tradetur) r? 
 
 TrapaSiSoT€ mrayei W 
 
 virayei, NB rell omn vid et verss (ned futnnim 
 
 habent sah 6o/i)t 
 Kara to wpicr/ievov Tropcverac Paris" 
 iliid. Observe ea-rtv yeypafificvov T) {latt scriptum est) 
 
 yeypaiTTai Hell 
 
 I have not indicated the many other places where D's 
 (ireek is evidently an independent rendering of the Latin, 
 such as aXrjBm'i (alone) for oi'T(U9 etc etc. 
 29. €1 Kai NBCGL et W^ fam 1 fam 13 892 
 
 Paris" Laura* '»< Sod'"'""'" 
 A jtliir et S<1> viinn i>l etsi latt 
 
 D 
 
 Sod"''" 2>" G04 Sod' ■"' {Cf boh xe Ki-rt) 
 c"" {i ?) sah (xe eojxe) "y ae"' 
 
 NBCD et "ir 56 58 61 Paris" 
 L Sorf"'" fam 13 2"' Sorf'-''" 
 W 
 
 /Vi?)i 1 
 A 
 
 A unc" et 2* wtwDi"' et 892"'' 
 (amplius i r ( + inulta dicens) dfff^ i/j i ? »" S t'j ; tanto magis 
 (I rg^, magis ?■(/''; abundantius 5; " plura loquebatur magis 
 dicere " /•, <■/. c «;•«; a(?^/i) 
 40. xai TToXiv (K6q)V evpev anTov; NBL'^I' 892 (q) Copt 
 Kai eXdoDV evpev auTou9 D a b c d ff^ k 
 
 Kai vTro(TTpe-\(ra<; evpev avTov; TraXiv "W J)lin/vg { — -rraXiv 2 90 
 
 265 FA-st 6) 
 
 t Ln(t vadit, .1;/''°' abit. 
 
 Kai 6t 
 Kai eav 
 Kav 
 
 31 . 6K7r6p«7(rO)9 
 
 irepKTam'i 
 fiaWov -n-epiaauK 
 fiaXXov ex irepitrtrov 
 ex Trepiaia^ 
 eK TreptaiTou 
 
 OHKEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 
 
 165 
 
 KaTa/SapovfLevoi 
 KaTa^apwofLevoi 
 
 Kara^aiTTt^ofievot 
 
 ^apwofievoi 
 
 ^e^apri/ievoi 
 
 The differences are as between reversiis and rursiis, as to 
 the omission of iraXiv, and " veniens iiivenit," as to the Greek 
 renderings {ttoXw after KaOevh. NX, before evpev Sod'"' 2'" al^ . 
 ibid. KarafiePaprjiievoi N* Sod'"' 
 
 DW 238 253 
 
 BAKLNUAB* et ti't^Vi miii^' et fam 13 
 
 Paris" 
 Sod"'' 
 
 MY«"=« 1-209 56 et 892 Sod"" "" 
 CE tmc' et * Sod"" al. mult (ut Matt) ct 
 28 157 2"" 604 Laura* "* 
 d S both have gravati (opposite Karafiap.) as most other Old 
 Latin, cfff^ k <J ('' mut) r^ ft aur and 17 vulgates, so that the 
 Greek variations may spring from this simple Latin. Degra- 
 oati is read only in a and 6 (it Buchanan be right here), while 
 Amiatinus and seven vulgates with I gat have ingravati, clearly 
 a variation of St. Jerome to all appearance, 
 xiv. 41. TO XoiTTOK NBGHKMNUVTAn et S* Sorf"'" j 
 
 al. et Paris" | Latt jam 
 Xonro./ AGDEFLSV^X et W^ al. ) 
 
 (Cf sah xenoTf sah al. ffe TCnof) 
 44. SeSoDKei NB j)lur et Wt^^ minn dederat b d f ff^l 
 
 q H S vg 
 (tiehuKei 118 209 258) 
 t ehwKev D"" sol. ackr? [contra d] vg'^ (SeBaKev Sod"'"). 
 
 47. oiTapiov NBD et "i^ fam 1 et Soti"" 
 
 (OTiov ACL unc" et AW2* Sod"" minn 
 51. Kai veaviaKoi TK UTiCIj et 'V Sd^ a syr arm 
 
 veaviiTKO'; Se Tt9 D (b) c dfff^ {Buchanan) h I q vg 
 
 (eii;) veavuTKo^ ie sah Kai. . .(ei<;) veaviaKot boh Cf aeth 
 
 Kai eii Ti9 veaviaKoi A unc" et AWS^ viinn" et Paris" goth 8 
 
 Kai aWoi Dab (certe Buchanan) d ff^k q r Orig'"'- (hiat f) 
 
 aWoi arm 
 
 aWoi Se Sod"''" (test. B it G) fam 13 21" 604 c 
 
 T(i'f9 Be sah syr 
 
 Kai Tti'69 NB rell et 2*^ boh goth vg rell latt 
 
 TlI/69 7'2 ri/s" 
 
 (In "W om. Salttcs ab xiv. 56 xat laai usque ad 57 X6yoi'T69.J 
 
 Latt auriculam 
 
 t. 
 
 57. 
 
 t Consult all these last entriee together, ami theu observe the Greek of D away 
 from f/, yet foUowetl (in a retronslation), just as we would expect from our previous 
 studies, by <i c A". In this verse DJI SotV*^* 2'* and very few others have fT^fitiov for 
 'Tvirfnjfinv of the rest. 
 
 X I neglect xiv. 55 tva 3avaTia<Tov<riv {pro ett to Bavaroa-ai) by DJ SoiT''^ 2''*' as latt, 
 although note that Laura* *"* supports this, while more generally running with Kli. 
 
IGG 
 
 tinrk 
 
 xiv. 58 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 I. oiKoBoftijo-w HB 2)lur Sod"' et) 
 
 W£*^I' miiin j aedificabo vg Seflq {mut b f r) 
 
 amarriao) T) a c d ffi suscitabo, /r excitabo 
 . iroi-qaco Paris" ayr sin 
 
 GO. Ti BW^f {(•/". sail huh) 
 
 X 
 
 variant Jatt 
 
 Tt N rcll et L 
 71.. o/ivvi'at BEHLSUVXr min'° et W-H txt 
 
 § of^vveiv NACOKMNAII et WS^ min'" et 892 Paris" Eiis Sorf'' 
 Xeyetj/ D (a) rf 5 !'<;"' 
 Ofiv. Kai \eyeiv arm 
 72. TO pij^a ojs- NABCLA et ^' 892 jhih" 8 sah 1/2 60/t j/o^/i 
 
 TO prifia D"NXrn «)ic' f< S Soff'" wim"' e< So(f'' 
 
 Tou prifiaTot ov MW/n7« 13 al. pane txt rec vg 
 Tov p7;/«iTo? Tou irfiTov Paris" (c/. J 28) 
 
 Tou p-qfiaTo<! TOV iv eiTTovTo? /a?H 1 {syr arm aeth sah aliq) 
 (verbum quem a ; verbum quod c ff,k I q; verbum sicut 8 ; 
 verborum (.tic) quod d ; verbi quod vg) 
 XV. 1. aTrrjveyKav NB «wc'- «< Nf ?«i»i)i et Paris" arm 
 
 aTTTjyayov CDGN e< WS Sod"" /aw 1 124 179 258 a"* 604 
 
 892 Evst 13 17 150 semel Sod'"^ "' "" Orig 
 (cluxenmt c d ff., I q (hiat b) S vg ; perdux. a ; addux. ^) Gf syr copt 
 ibid. TreiXaTw NBD Sod"'" et CLA^ fam 1 2"= 604 892 
 
 c"' Sod""" TTiXaTo) /a« 
 TO) TTtXaTM N joic'" <■< WS 7h;hh ft TO) TretXaTo) A Paris" 
 
 iXniXiXOC sah boh 
 4. ovK airoKpivT] ( — ovSev) B' Paris" 
 
 ovSev avoKpivri ( - qvk) V' {Sod"" """) 
 
 ouK aTTOKpiin] ovhev ND"B^ rell et A'^'WS^ viinn 
 
 non respondes nihil a k 
 
 (sed) noil respondes quidquam d ff^ 1 q S [svpra ovScv], c (+ eis, cf. 
 
 syr sin) boh 
 non dicfs quidquam sah 
 
 non reddis responsuni .lyr, cf. pers iit solet. ( + eis syr sin, cf. c) 
 iionne habes quid respondeas aetW"- 
 ibid. KaTrjyopovaiv NBCU et Wi^ /am 1 267 604 [non 2"'] 892 
 
 Evst 48 boh aeth accusant latt et S Orig'"' 
 KaTa/iapTvpova-iv A line" et A^'S Sod"''" 7mnn''' et Paris" sah 
 
 syr arm goth 
 
 t I neglect xiv, 60 ftp fitaoy or its to ^tfrnv. 
 
 X I neglect xiv. 69 nnfjunattTtf and jrapiirrTjKoati' as well &a several other things 
 hcreaboutB. 
 
 § It is no use thinking that ofti-vtiv is ex Matt, and B neutral. Refer to B's bad 
 record in 68/69 under " Harmonistic." 
 
 OREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 
 
 167 
 
 liapTvpovaiv 259 
 
 [Observe sah on the secondary side for the age of this 
 variant.] 
 XV. 6. ov TrapT/Touin-o N'AB* Sod'""*" ft qnem postularent 
 
 ov av r,TovvTo DG fam 13 2^' Sod"' "» ' "' 
 
 ov jjToyiTo W 1 [lion fam = ovirep ijToufTo] 115 Sod'"'' 
 
 cf. sah boh aeth 
 ov ■ ireprjTovvTO A sic ov ire p'avrfrovvTO SodP^ sic 
 
 owep ijiovvro C plur et N'B' t^ minn et 604 892 Paris" 
 
 (quemcumque a c d ffil \inut b q, b ab xiv. 61, q ab xv. 5, 
 
 vsque ad xv. 36] 8) 
 7. o-Tao-tao-Twi' NBCDKN et WA'^' 1 [non fam] fam 13 
 
 [non 124] 2"' Paris" al. pane et Sod'"'' sah (syr) 
 a-vvcTTCKTiaaTQiv A rell et 2 minn et 892"'' 604 rell boh 
 
 goth (oTaaiaaavTwv Sod!''") 
 seditiosis lat 
 
 (cum seditiosis et homicidis breviier clans habet aeth) 
 t 8. ava0a<! NBD 892 c d ff^ I r vg et & (supra A ava^oriira's) 
 
 sah boh goth W-H <(; Sod txt (ava<rrTiaa<; Sod'") 
 ava^or)aa<t A 7<Hc" et N'''W2S?' minn omn vid (praeter 892) 
 syr, arm (instanter) diatess'"'' (confusi vg^'"''"' cm xv. 8) 
 Om. k (accensa iota turba a) [Hiant b efi q] 
 
 ascendit et clamavit aeth (conflat) 
 
 [Gf Jebb de avcPrjaev et ave^orja-ev in Beg ii. 23'.] 
 ibid. Ka0w<! e-n-om NBA et W^J" """ 892 Paris" Sod'"^ "" boh k B 
 
 Ka0to^ a eiroiei 13 [twit fam] 
 Ka0w<i aei eiroiei D rell omn et S minn latt rell vg arm goth 
 
 .ae<o, eeo, r,v.... Sod-- 2- 604 [ ' '"'' '^ P'''' "^''' ""^ 
 (Om Ka8w<; et aei syr sin). 
 The original here was probably indistinct KAeti)CA€l€noi€l 
 and corrupted to KAeu)cenoi€i 
 vi'hich 13 [contra fam] shows, omitting 61, by KASWCAenoiei 
 and could also be misread KAewceiCijeei, 
 as Matthew, and c sah syr pesh aeth arm indicate, but 2'" 604 having 
 e0o<! ijv merely make a harmony of independence. 
 
 But are not NBA W^ 892 Paris" all in the same boat ? And is not 
 their text younger and more corrupt than that of the original Latin (for 
 all but c ft 5 have semper) and that of D unc^^ fam 1 fam 13 28 33 157, 
 all Wetstein's codices, all Scholz's, all Birch's, all Matthaei's, all Scrivener '.s 
 and all but three of Soden's? 
 [L is wanting here.] 
 This question is not impertinent because if the papyrus exemplar 
 
 t The early collators missed this in Codex B. Not recorded in Trei/ or Tiich vii. 
 
](>8 
 
 CODEX ]i AND ITS AfJjIKS. 
 
 rdl latt 
 
 were faint or torn here, then just above it might be in the same case and 
 account for the variation ava^at. 
 
 .M»rl; 
 
 XV. 10. -n-apeSioxav IJ^'HS ct W 1 [iioii /am] fain 13 2'"^ c"" 604 
 
 Ev.it 47 Paris" '^ {Sod) Sod''' """ a (k) (iit Matt) 
 ■!rap€S(oK€t(Tav AEGNVXA et SD al. 
 
 ct Paris" {Schmidtke) 
 ■n-apaSeSoiKeiirav NB rell et ^ {pauc. 
 ■jrapeSeBaiKeKTap) 
 
 14. (Kpa^ov DAGKMPn' mill" latt ct S syr arm boh 
 erpavya^ov 2'"" Laura* '"^ 
 
 (Kpa^av NB rell et 2^ minn''' aeth goth sah {(Kpa^av A") 
 
 15. fiovX. Tio oxXm to iKavov ttokiv B \negl. W-H'^^'""^] Laura*"'* 
 
 soli (cf. c I vg satisfacere) 
 „ „ ,, „ „ TToiijcrai, A plicr et 1^ minn goth 
 ffovX. ■Trowjcrai to iKavov tw o;^\m NO SotJ"^" sah boh sijr pesh 
 
 ct sin {aeth) 
 (Om. clans D d ff.^ k )•'''' diatcss) 
 18. y8a<7t\€u NBDMPSVX et ^3 Sod"'''' al. et 2'" 6041 
 
 o ^acriXfi,? AC= {latct C) EFGHKNUFAn al. et S rex latt 
 et 892 Laura*"' Paris" ) 
 10. KOL eTWTov avTov (avTov 2''" ncc corr. Croiiin) KoXap-ai ft? ti)v 
 
 xe^. D 21"" c dffik sah syr sin 
 Kat €TuirTov avTou Tr}v Ke^a\t)v KoXafifo NB phtr ct ^V miiui 
 
 ct Sod'"'" Paris" boh goth {-avrov 2(i7 arm) 
 Hat CTviTTOP TTjv Ke{f)aXT}V avTOV KoKa ^o> C al. ct —3 892 / vg 
 
 aeth syr 
 
 22. nyova-iu M" jam l^non 124] 2"" (adducunt/., perducunt / S vg) 
 duxerunt c scd porduxerunt d 
 
 <j>epov<Ti,v NB rell et 2^ Sod"'^" minn ct k ferunt {hint a) 
 
 23. o? B€ NBP'V ct S 33 ct Paris" [iwn 
 
 892 vid] Sod.'" 
 o Se A rell 111 ct A (S ille autem) 
 
 ct M' ,Sor?'=" ;»wi» fli/oHi 13 2'"' (!04 
 ««t ]J fam 1 aeth c d /, klnr vg Aug (= latf""" ; 
 
 /( irt« i CH iin a b c f i q ri) 
 Kill avToi; syr sin 
 This place has more interest than appears on the surface. If the 
 original had been o Se or ov 8e, the Latins would not saj' "et non accepit," 
 but " ille autem non accepit " as syr j'csh and cojH with Greek. But an 
 (iripinal " et non accepit " might well have been rendered d? &e or d St, and 
 the fact that all the Latins (including k) are agreed on the one hand, while 
 the Greeks are divided between o? he and o 8e lends force to our argument. 
 The absence of Sod™ 2i"' and ()04 from the Latin column here seems to 
 show something of interest. Syr sin appears conflate already. Observe 
 M' goes against NB here. ( Soden's notes (separated) are inadequate.] 
 
 .sa7i boh syr pcsh 
 
 GHEKK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 
 
 169 
 
 XV. 24. Observe also this verse under " Differences between N 
 
 and B." 
 [ XV. 2.5. ei^vKaaaov pro earavpuMTav D d ff.^ k n r. This must be 
 noted but excluded owing to the probability of the change 
 having been made by D and these Latins and sah to obviate 
 the difficulty as to the third hour (see IHsch ad loc). 
 Note that syr pcsh^^ says "about the third hour." Aeth {cf. 
 Acf" Hier'"") makes it the sixth hour when they crucified 
 him. If €(f>vXa<T(rov were original the difiBcuIty would be 
 lightened, but hardly following the account in verses 20/24. 
 (The t;^''' conflates with sah 2/3 adding et custodiebant eum 
 after ct crucifixcrunt eum.) SocV"'" contradicts D.] 
 
 29. 01 irapayoirret IV" (irpoayovrei 2<" vid) £h.s'"" "" '' '"'' '■''"°' 
 praetereuntes c d ff^ k I r aur gat Z vg [ = o?»h (n qui 
 
 transiebant) ; hiant b ef i q rj] 
 01 TrapaTTopevofievoi. NB rell gr et 2^ iSoff minn 
 Om. syr sin 
 ibid, rpiaiv vf^epaa AD^'l'VY""' Sod"'" 21 122 2'" Scr"" Sod"" 
 
 Erst 48 ck 
 ev Tpiaiv Tj/iepaii; NB rell ct S^ minn''' et Paris" dff2 1 n S vg 
 
 30. «:aTa/3a? NBD'^LA et ^ Sod'"'' et SocP-'- kln'h vg boh 
 Kai KOTafia AC pi et S miitn^' { — Kat Sod™) c d ff« goth syr 
 
 arm aeth 
 Kai KaTa0i)0i. V 1 al. ct Laura*"" Paris" Ens {xai Ka-raParw 
 
 Sod"") 
 Invertens sah xara^a. . .xai aaxrov creavrov 
 34. TJ) €vaTr) 2.58 2''° <ll. pauc. (ev tt; evarr) c'"). 
 
 T.; emTT, wpa NBD^^'FL et ^ Sod'"'°fam IfainlS [non 124] 892 
 Paris" Laura*'"' al. pauc. c ff^ {Buchanan) goth syr Ens W-H 
 tt; apa Tij evaTT) A relV ct % d i {incip. i xv. 33) I n S vg boh sah 
 TT) apa evarrj Sod'^' {cum d ct latt contra D"') sine auctori- 
 
 tate Gr. ! 
 Om. k 
 3(). T19 NBLA ct ^ ct 892 Paris" (.wli vid inter minn) B {sol 
 
 inter latt) {arm) W-H ct Sod txt 
 ei? D rell omn 2 ct minn ct sah boh ct latt"""' (unus) et aeth 
 
 syr {potius quain quidem) 
 This again is but a small matter, but seems a perfectly clear 
 " revision " by the hand of the originator of the group NBLA^ 892 
 Paris". (W wanting.) Syr lends itself to either interpretation. But if 
 Ti? were original quidem would appear in some other Latin besides 8. 
 XV. 39. ef ei'aiTia? avTov NB jilur ct "iV minn c ffi k I 8 rcrss pltir 
 
 €KU D Sod"''" 2'"' {d) i n q arm? Orig"" (illic 
 
 aderat pcrs) . 
 Om. T2 251 arm ? avrm { - ff ev.) W 1 22 .59 Sod"^' syr. 
 
170 
 
 Murk 
 
 CODEX I! AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 XV. 42. TTpoo-a/S/SaTov 
 7rpo(TiTa00aTov 
 iTpiv aaPfiaTov 
 ante sabbatuin 
 
 NB'CKMAn* et W^ Sorf"'" 1 33 al mvlt 
 AB^ rell plur et 2 viin mult 
 D" (aafi^aTOv Sod'*") 
 d lalf' 
 
 4'i. KOI ouTo? r)v ( — oc) N* 157 soH {Cf sah aetJi gat xyr) 
 o? Kai avTo^ riv B plur et WS^ minn I & i^g 
 
 09 j;y rat auTO! D Socf^" 2"" c d ff, k n q 
 
 47. eBeacTavTo T><" Sod"'" 2<" {cf Luc xxiii. 55 e< Marc xvi. 11) 
 
 e6eu>povv NB jp/i f( W HtMDt co^< {J, vg aspiciebant) 
 
 notaverunt c d ff^g 
 
 viderunt k n nyr 
 
 xvi. 1. itiit. C/D d n {k q) contra rell. 
 2. lua TODv aa^^mtov BW 1 
 
 jxia aaPfiaTtov 1 vg 
 
 fiia Tov o-a/8/3aTou c (? jfj Una sabbati, k q ri (prima 
 
 sabbati) aeth 
 TT] fiia Ta)v a-n^^aTwv NLA et ^ So<f"° 33 2'" 892 al. pauc 
 
 boh (Mat sah) Eun lies'" 
 /im? crafi^aTov D 
 
 Tj;? /im? o-a/3/9aT(Bf AC 7'e?Z fi 2 ?rti;iw pi et Paris" 
 
 Dj'oji*'"" Ps-Nyss 
 T?;9 ^la? raiK aa^Parmv TLfam 13 Sod"'' (tov <ra/3/3. flii^.) 
 (prima septimanae .sy;) 
 /6((7. oriente sole c d nff^ q Tick, Aug ( + jam) 
 
 avaTeXKovTo:; tov tjXiov D lies'" Tich'"' 
 
 avaTftKavToi; Tou riXiov NB rell et %^ boh Eus lj2Dion"" Ps-Nyss 
 eTi avaTeCXavTO^ tou tjXiou KWH' Sotf"" 1 2"" 229 248 w"" 
 
 Sod'"" Eus 1/2 
 orto jam sole I vg 
 
 Om. k [negl. Soden] 
 quum exortus esset sol syr 
 
 Ji. ad inviceiu c d ff^l q vg 
 
 inter se n 
 
 TTpCT €avTov<; D 
 
 ■rrpo<; eoura? NB rell et WS'^P TO?)I« 
 
 0)«. k 
 4. et veniunt et inveniunt d et c n 
 
 et venerunt et invenerunt ff2 syr sin 
 Kai ep)(oiiTat Kai evpitTKOvaiv D Sod"^" 2'" Eus 
 Kai avaP\e<^a<iai Bfiopovaiv NB rell et W2'4' w((«n I q&vg boh 
 
 syr pesh 
 et accurrentes viderunt aeth (Mat sah) 
 (accesserunt et vident /r) 
 ibid, araotum n 
 
 airoKfKv'Kia-ixivov P Sod!'''" 2'" c dff^ k I q vg 
 
 Olir.EK HECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 
 
 171 
 
 awoKeKvXiarrai Apluret WS^jhhih Ps-Nyss (cf. Matt Luc) 
 avaKeKvXKTTai male NBL et W-H Sod txt [Vide Postscript 
 
 in Part II.] 
 xvi. 8. <^o/3o9 D"' n* Sod'''" et W timor c/jJig 
 
 Tpofio<! NB re?/ f < S^ wn';(» e? Si" tremor k I vg et d^ \ sah 
 
 boh goth 
 Om. claus syr sin <^o/3o? ( — Kai cKcrra<ri<;) arm 
 tremor et pavor aeth'"' (pro Tpofioi [vel <^oy3o?] xai cKaTaa-is:) 
 (cf syr pesh) 
 
 [Ow xvi. 9-/)i NB si/?siH. Cf. li'V k aeth.] 
 9. TrpmTi] Plur (Om. Sod"", Trpanris; Sod'"", vptoTov aliq) 
 
 TT] fiia Eus"' 
 
 Om. irpoyTr, ffa^jS. Sod""", 
 ibid. e<j>av€pa>aev ■npoiTOi'; T>" (hiat d') 
 
 eijiatni vpanov Plur et I'V (Eus 1/2) et verss (-irpaTti 2'") 
 
 e<f>avri ( — Trparrov) W arm Eus 1/2 
 ibid, trap C*D«'L et W 33 892 Paris" copt'"'-'"" et Sod txt 
 
 a<f, A rell et t Eus''" 
 
 de qua c d' ff I q S vg ; a qua n 
 
 10. Tropv9eta-a \) plur et Vi'S.'V miwi pl et 2" 
 
 airexeovaa KO 892 al'' Sod'"^ Paris" Hier'"'"' abiit et n 
 videns / vg' (vadens a" d' vg) 
 
 praecunens cffi 
 
 [ET2)licit % xvi. 14 a-martav av Explicit goth xvi. 12. 
 
 Explicit n xvi. 13 crediderunt. Incipit o xvi. 14.] 
 15. -airaina D" 225 gat [Hiant a* n] 
 
 Habent rell et "WS^ Sod"'-" minn et boh latt et d' a" 
 
 (vere xai pro avavTa D +Kai c q syr pesh boh aeth) 
 
 [ET2ilicit V" xvi. 15 ad vcrbiim €iia77fXioi'.] 
 
 17/?i. -KawaK C'LA"' et ^J' boh arm 
 
 Habent rell et WD^ minn latt et o d^ S syr pesh aeth Const Hipp. 
 19. avi\r)pi<^6r} ACD= et W SodC"''' 1 assumptus est cd'hl aur S fj. vg 
 
 avf\r)^9ri Hell et '^ minn ( receptus est ^j q Iren 
 
 ave<f)epeTo 3C 40 
 
 ave\r)<f>0Tj Kai ave<f>ep€To 08 [De his omnibus tacet Sod]. 
 
 ascendit o syr pesh diatess 
 
 ibid, ex Sf^iwv Plur et "W^ Iren | „ j„„4.,;„ .,„ 
 ^ a dextns vg 
 
 €v be^uov JJ- ) 
 
 ex Se^ia 179 
 
 cv Sffm CA3 d"' p'" S boh (syr) ad dexteram c o q Vi 
 
 t Exttal D"* xvi. 7-15 tvayytXiov, hiat rf* xvi. 6 j<o»( quaerilis. Siippl d'' xvi. 6 
 utque ad 20 fin cl V)'" xvi, 15-20. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 FnmiER itK.MAiiKs AS TO Latin hash in St. Mahk. 
 
 "Salutimt vos omnos sancti ; iimxime autem qui de Cacsaris domo sunt."— 
 I'hil. iv. 22. 
 
 I have stated that in St. jSIaik's Gospel there appear to be two or 
 three separate Greek recensions, and have asked the question whether 
 the old subscriptions to some of the Greek and Syriac Mss, stating that 
 St. Mark not only preached but wrote his Gospel in Latin, were not 
 perhaps founded on fact, or at any rate whether a Greek and a Latin 
 version did not issue from his hands simultaneously. Let us try to 
 examine the matter a little more closely. And next, what strikes the 
 investigator at once is that there is vk. most remarkable agreement 
 between the famous Codex Bezae's Greek in Mark and the whole body 
 of the Latins. In Buchanan's edition of 6 (p. xxi.) he says " In St. Mark 
 the texts are more divergent than in any other Gospel." If he means 
 the Latin texts I hardly think he is right. 
 
 Some of these places of agreement are as follows : 
 
 '2 
 
 -e7(w 
 
 BD Sorf"" 28 iC \ W, although 
 ;t. Toy 0eov vfiMv 1)" sic, (rf j<'") I extant, is absent 
 
 4. >ei'Triep>]fia>ffanTc^a>vDSod''^°itvg(piacteif) from this com- 
 
 at 
 of 
 
 the 
 the 
 
 bination 
 opening 
 Gospel. 
 It is most pecu- 
 liar, because e is 
 wanting from 
 i. 1-20. 
 
 10. ijvvy/ievovi; D it vg {pro <7;^ifo/i€i'ow) 
 13. -exei NABDL Sod'"" "' 21 it vg etc 
 
 ibid. +Kai (ante Trcipafo/iei'O?) D it vg 
 \->. TreirXrjpwvTai oi Kaipoi D li"' vg (pro 
 
 ■rreTrXrjptoTai o Kaipo<;) 
 ](). Kai Trapaywv HTSTlIj it vg etc 
 
 (pro vepnrarmv he pltir ut Matt) 
 ibid, rou aSeXtjiov avrov DGrj Sod!"''' 33 al.pc. it (practer a r i) vg 
 
 syr pcsh ct sin aeth. Add W. 
 
 20. ^r]Ko\ov0rja-av avTo) (pro aTrrjKdov o-mtru) auTov) Di soli et it vg. 
 
 To these add W (and note i\ffov jjro a-irvXdov Sodf'"). 
 
 21, ii. 1. Ka^apvaovp. NBDA Sod""' mimO"- it vg goth copt. Add W. 
 ibid. eSiSaaxev -|-aiiTou? D Sod"^" if' vg arm acth goth. 
 
 24. -ea NBDA? Sod"'-'" 28* 157 372 2"' it vg verss. To this 
 array add W. Notwithstanding Orig and Eiis it is probably 
 bronght in from Luke. 
 
 t A very good exainple. For " scctUi smit cum " could readily be translated airijXBov 
 (or r]\Sni' as Sod"'"') mriiru nvTov. The other translators vary the expression in ver 18. 
 
 LATIN BASE IN ST. MAliK. 
 
 173 
 
 i. 25. ex TOW ai'dpoinrou (pro ef avrov) DW (Sod''" arro, 2'""") it vg 
 
 (praeterf) t 
 27. -Tt eiTTiv Toi/To D 7 ifK To these add W and three 
 
 lectionaries, syr sin and acth [hiat sah], 
 30. >KaTeKeiTo Be rj irevOepa aiiJuavo<t D it vg (praeter /). To 
 
 this group add W [Sod only indicates W by 'J. 
 34. avTa \a\ew D Sod?'" it vg (praeter f) aeth for Ta Sat.p,ovia 
 \a\eiv B copt and XoKeiv to Sai/iovia all the rest and W. 
 
 44. >het^at creavTov (pro treavrov Sei^ai) D it vg. To this add W 
 
 Sei^ai eavTov. 
 
 45. —TToWa Da.nd it vg. To this group now add W. 
 
 We gain a preliminary point here, that the text of T> goes behind W at 
 a time when NB came into being, and before our other uncials were penned. 
 
 We gain further information, for W, as if handling a document in 
 another tongue, not infrequently uses a synonym in translation. Thus 
 alone i. 27 eBavpa^ov (mirabantur d) for e0aij.ffi]0ritrav, not only copying the 
 tense of d, against mirati sunt of others, but giving a close interpretation. 
 
 Here e alone conflates : Et extimuerunt omnes et admirabantnr. . . 
 
 In the same verse the exceptional inpotentabilis of e is rendered by W 
 alone efovaTKUTTiKt]. Thus : Tt? 17 SiSaxv icevr) avrq jj e^oucmaariKT] avrov. 
 
 Again, W at i. 31 with Paris" follows d'a Latin " ministrabat ei " 
 with SiriKovt avTo), while D" has avroi^. This is really very remarkable. 
 No other Greeks do this, and the only other Latin is e. No coptic or 
 syr nor aeth pers. 
 
 In connection with this we have to ask the following questions. 
 
 Why does D at i. 40 write epanmv opposite depraecans when all other 
 Greeks including W have trapaKoXtuv, and we are face to face with the 
 answer that TrapaKaXmv = depraecans rather than that depraecans 
 = epioTiDV. But as D" alone has eptarcuv it may be that T)" was translating 
 depraecans IN HIS OWN WA Y into Greek ! X 
 
 Much more difficult to explain is D's opn/iirOeK for aTrXary^vicrBeK in 
 i. 41 [without the countenance of W], but even here d with iratus bears 
 it out, and both a r' and ff so write, while b § and (71 omit. See, 
 however, Rendel Harris' brilliant double explanation (' Cod. Bezae,' p. 18C) 
 from (1) confusion in Syriac or (2) from an original Latin motus instead 
 
 t It will not do now to say that this is ex Luc, if the whole group be basic. 
 
 X D" has several forms peculiar to him, as at i. 32 trfifpotTav for ti^tpov ; vi. 14 
 
 f\(yo<Tav\ i. 27 «dnfifiijfrav for t0afi^q$q<rav, with Origen ', IK. 9 itSofrni/ ; ix. 3S T]\6ofrnv; 
 
 xii. 36 6<ii<Tat ; xiii. 34 dvpovpat ; xv. 43 frijiraro. 
 
 § In this connection while seeking the ultimate base we must consider other of b'& 
 omissions (h in very short lines is most important in St. Mark). See i. 37 Diccntrs (pro 
 
 Kat (vpov avTov Kal Xfyovtrtv of XBL e aeth, or kqi tvpovrfs nvTov \ty. A line'' boh, or icnt 
 
 tnt eupof (iiToc \ty. D latt pi snJi) by b c and W. Here we have three varying intro- 
 ductions all cut short by Wfc c. So at i. 10 (and at several other places) D il omit ev$vt, 
 here with a b ff r. Note ii. 12 —Xtynvras BW fc as against the rest and the \criation rni 
 \eytw of D. Here W strengthening B added to b does look like the lost base. 
 
]74 
 
 COUEX U AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 of mincrtus of most and iratiis of d. Harris forgets to say that 6 leaves 
 out the word as g^ or vg". This shows some difficulty which bothered 
 tbcin. Nor does he refer to vi. 34 where for e<Tir'\ayx>'i(r0ri d and q [not 
 h] r [not rt] have condohiit, using quite a different word from the usual 
 mincrtus est (fu<77rX. V). Observe further »ho^i(.s- turning up in the MS n 
 at xvi. 4 where n uses amotum for re-volutum of the rest of the itala. 
 This is the place where NBL W-H Sod substitute ai'aKeKvXiarai for 
 aTTOKiK. In dealing with the problem we must be careful not to let NBL 
 mislead us as to the basic text. For instance at i. 39 NBL Sod"''"' 
 (only) substitute with copt and acth rfKdiv for r)v [followed by Hort and 
 Soden]. But this is a pure correction. All the Latins in the rough : "et erat 
 praedicans" support Kai tj v Krjpvaawv of D and all the other Greeks and W. 
 
 Another very hard place is iv. C init. where the authorities differ so 
 much as to construction, with D and W on opposite sides. 6 and c show 
 that we have somehow lost the original base (sijr sin is mutilated). 
 Perhaps Harris can make another brilliant suggestion for restoration ? 
 
 Another equivocal place is at iv. 14 o airetpwv tok \oyov tnretpet. The 
 Greeks and D d are agreed as to o tnreiptov, but a c b q r substitute qui 
 loquitur. This is probably an " improvement." It is curious, however, to 
 find b-q together confirming it, and c (c wanting), but W with D opposes, 
 
 This is complicated further by the reading in the following verse, 
 Mark iv. 15. 
 Instead of ottou c-n-eipcTai o Xoyot which even W holds, a b c q again 
 make a substitution, this time strengthened by/ [iioti goth] r. They say 
 qui ncgligcnter verbum suscipiiint, or (c) qui negligunt verhum sxiseipientcs. 
 1) has not this but writes ot? for ottou as d ff quibus seminatur verbum. 
 We have accounted for abed (hiant e k Cijpr) f ff q r. Now i varies 
 thus "hi autem sunt qui circa viam "'•' seminatur verbum," eliding quibu.i 
 but writing ubi above as vgg : ubi seminatur verbum. The Greeks (and W) 
 with copt acth goth have this ubi, so we are wide apart as to Latin and 
 the rest. The question is as to what was the original difficulty in the 
 Latin or Greek base which caused the difference. I suppose the original 
 for ubi must have been quo, but how get " ncgligcnter verbum suscipiiint " 
 out of " seminatur verbum." The semi-parallel in Matt, does not help 
 {xai firj avvtevTO';), nor does St. Luke viii. 12 where we read only oi Se -rrapa 
 Tr)v oSov euTiv oi aKov<ravTe<;. There is nothing there about negligenter. 
 Turning to the Greek for a key, alpea> or dvaipero could replace airdpw, 
 but would hardly do. tnralpo) or aairaipa, while of similar sound to airclpo), 
 involve plucking off violently as opposed to the neglegenter of the Latins. 
 (jTTcp/j.o'Koyea = pick up seed, is possible but improbable. The verb a\oyeat 
 conveys neglect but I do not see how it would fit. In the Greek, to agree 
 with the Latin, 6 X0709 must be turned into an accusative, so that seems 
 out of the question as a base from which the Latins drew. 
 
 On the other hand the Latin verbum serving for a nominative or 
 
 LATIN BASE IN ST. MARK. 
 
 175 
 
 accusative distinctly answers the requirements of subject or of object, so 
 that it is more likely that a Latin base is responsible for the change. 
 How could it occur ? Instead of seminatur, originally scritur (cf. a) may 
 have been used. Could scritur have become confused with scgniter (a 
 synonym for negligenter) ? But then we do not account for suscipiunt 
 instead of seminatur or seritur. Sero, sevi could hardly have been confused 
 vrith sero, serui (" join in, engage in, put together "). I would like someone 
 to exercise his ingenuity here. I have never seen an explanation offered. 
 
 The strange thing is to find a opposing both d and D", for elsewhere 
 a = D", so that D d here are probably not basic. Even b-q are together 
 for the whole sentence, which absolutely proves that we have the correct 
 6 base. The omission by syr sin is significant. He probably saw the utter 
 conflict between Latin and Greek, and therefore dropped the words. The 
 omission cannot he basic. Observe the persian {syr hier wanting). I 
 recapitulate. Gc""" {acth sah boh go arm"'' vgg) :— 
 
 = cmou crnfipirat o Xoyot (D dff, g, syr peth o.t (7ir«pcrai o Xoyoi) 
 b-q Hi autem sunt qui juxtft viam seminantur qui neglcgenler verbum euBCipiunt 
 
 a Hi antem sunt qui secua viam seminati sunt „ ., n 
 
 / r Hi autem sunt qui circa viam seminati Bunt „ ,. .. .■ 
 
 c Hi autem qui seminantur circa viam ipsi sunt qui negligunt verbum suscipientes 
 »yr tin Hi autem qui sunt jmtta viam illi sunt qui audiunt verbum (lantum) 
 peri Id quod juxta viam cecidit homines qui audiunt et memorid tenent. 
 
 Mark vi. 31. 
 
 Another obscure but very interesting place occurs at vi. 31 which may 
 well occupy our ingenuity. Here then we are offered these alternatives : 
 8ew6 vp.(t<! (-avTOi) Kar i&MV w €pr„wv tottov W.So*"" 1 28 2"= aV' 
 lexne u/iet? avTOi icaTihiav w (pruxov tottoi/ NB plur sah boh 
 
 Setrre vwayafiev en eprifiov tottov D c d ff^ i r 
 
 Seine viraymiiev xaTtBtav et<; eprifiov tottov a 
 
 Sevre inrayiap-ev eis epijpov towov vfteii Kariiiav syr pesh sin acth diat 
 The Latins then only vary between 
 venite vos ipsi seorsum S 
 
 venite seorsum. . . fvg plur (venite vos seorsum vg^) 
 
 venite vos secreto b q 
 
 venite eamus ... c dffii r 
 
 venite eamus seorsum a 
 but there is a wide difference in Greek between vfieit or vfj.et<; avrot and 
 the viraya>iiev of D" sol. 
 
 (A few vulgates BOTO'' conflate : venite seorsum eamus.) 
 Whence then eamus (which must have provoked virayMfuv of D"', 
 and is as old as syr sin and aeth) hycdff^ir? Why do 6 3 not join? 
 Observe that something has happened between 6 a.ni f vgg, for secreto and 
 seorsum change places. Observe also that a restores this KanStav by 
 seorsum although holding eamus, while the syriacs and aeth convey it to 
 
17(1 
 
 CODEX n AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 the end of the sentence, but Coptic follows the usual Greek. The difference 
 must be very old [the parallels afford no clue whatever]. 
 
 What we have to find is an INI in a word to correspond with the 
 interchange of vos and rnimi.i. The most likely seems an original roxmrt 
 (v/ie'ti ai-ToX most Gks), this being misread in the close uncials for eamva. 
 The equivalent of KOTthiav may have been absent or occupied a place after 
 ipr)iiov TOTTov as in syr. If we are correct, then b holds the original 
 sense, and c ff., i r, with a, followed 6, while the Greeks know nothing 
 of it, but the syriacs and aeth do. 
 
 The diatess arah is following Mark here and corresponds with syr sin 
 and .<;;/)• jjfs/i, while ri?'' the Latin diatessaron, is ex Matt xiv. 13 " Quod 
 cum audisset Jesus secessit inde in nauicula in locum desertum seorsum." 
 
 In this very verse (vi. 31) occurs a remarkable change by W (alone) 
 of \onrov for oXiyov. If this was not suggested from the Xomov of 
 Mark xiv. 41 (where avaTriwea-Qe also occurs) it might be a change due to 
 translation, but then pusillum of our Latins must have been represented 
 by paiilatim or nenaim or some other word. 
 
 Moili- xiv. 72. 
 
 There is a passage which ought to be a key, but it can be read as 
 indicating Greek reaction on Latin as well as Latin on Greek. 
 
 I refer to that very difficult phrase in Mark xiv. 72 as to St. Peter 
 " Kai cTTt^nXow €K\ai€v." This 67ri/3o\a)i/ has generally been referred to 
 the iiiiinl, as in our translation " And when he thought thereon he wept " 
 which the Kevised Version left unchanged, merely putting " And he 
 began to weep " [as D Sod"'" '2<", all the Latins and gotli : " et coepit flerc "] 
 in the margin. But in the N.T. out of seventeen other occasions where 
 cTTilSaWew is used, in no less than eleven passages it is used with ra? 
 Xe(p'« [Marli xiv. 46 (in this same chapter). Matt. xxvi. 50, Luke ix. 02, 
 XX. 19, xxi. 12, John vii. 30, and 44, Acts iv. 3, v. 18, xii. 1, xxi. 27]. 
 Now the Co])tics so understood it at Mark xiv. 72. 
 
 Sah has Kai €/3a\€v t?|v x^^P*^ tivrov KXaietp. 
 
 Bdh has Kai eiri^aXoiv tt|v x«'pa avTov exXavaef. That is, he threw 
 up his hand, he covered his face with his hand, as he choked down the 
 sobs. Is this an interpretation or is the old Latin base responsible? 
 
 For Et coepit flere, the original may have been etincepitflere, 
 
 and this is not unlike etinjecitflere. 
 Whetlier iiijecit could be used without manum colloquially I do not know. 
 
 There are some passages in Plautus which suggest elision of different 
 kinds, but none as direct as required to support such a supposition here.t 
 
 t Cai'Teivei ii. 2. 16/18 we read : 
 
 Ti/nd. Nunc sencv ei5t in tonsti-ina ; nunc jam cultros attinet. 
 
 Ne is quidem involucre injicere voluit, vesteni ut ne inquinet. 
 Scd utrniu strictiinne ftttonsuruin Jicain esse an per pectineni. 
 
 LATIN BASE IN ST. MAItK. 
 
 177 
 
 As to this becoming xai, e-m^aXcov exXavaev (or exXatev) there are hosts 
 of instances where the Greek exchanges the Litin perfect and infinitive 
 for the participle and perfect, so that this need not cause any difficulty. 
 But injicio is freely used in Latin with manum or manus : "inicere 
 manum aliqui," and to summon before a judge injcxit viaiiu7n (Plautus). 
 So also oi jacco "to be cast down": "Gnaeus noster ut totus jacet" 
 (Cicero), " vultusque attolle jacentes " (Ovid), " Jacentes vix oculos 
 tollens " (Ovid). But _/ace/is will not correspond to eTriffaXXcov, eo that 
 we are thrown back on inicio the usual Latin equivalent in N.T. of 
 eiri^aXXd). 
 
 A and 247 Sod"" have km emXa^mv for Kai ei!i0tiXa>v, while one notable 
 Greek cursive (c'*') has km eTriXa0ofievo<;, for the use of which we can 
 refer to Luke ix. 47, where emXafioiievo'; TratSwv {Ttjv x^'P" '"'" being 
 understood) is used by most authorities. Gf. also Lite xiv. 4, xxiii. 2G. 
 
 Blomfield's note ad loc. (Mark xiv. 72) in his Greek N.T. is clear and 
 apposite and may be consulted for a good and condensed statement of the 
 situation. He says "... In fact there should seem rather to be an ellipsis 
 — though to determine with certainty what was originally the plena 
 lociitio is perhaps impossible..." To him was unknown the Coptic 
 testimony, and he closes by citing Chrysostom, Theophylact., Salmasius, 
 Suicer, Eisner, Fischer etc for eiriPaXiov to be the equivalent of ewiKaXu- 
 ylrafievot, " having covered his head (with his vest)," although he admits 
 that here too while eTriffaXXeiv l/MiTtov is a frequent expression, not one 
 example has been adduced of the elliptical use. t 
 
 As to Mark ii. 7 fn. 
 
 Although €ic could drop out before oec in ii. 7 fin. it is noteworthy 
 that while d (with all Latins except a) has solus ds, T>" omits Eic which 
 the others all have. Thus D"' in translating might purposely elide solitjs. 
 Observe here that a against all other Latins has unus for solus, clearly 
 retranslating ets. This explains several most difficult things about a. It 
 appears thus that a was retranslating from D's Greek J as explained 
 previously, p. 127 seq. Thus at i. C a renders D"'s iepp-qv by pellem, 
 although d and the rest have^(7o.s. 
 
 Here the expression is " to throw a napkin " (" about his neck " understood). 
 Capteivei iv. 2. 17 ... turn genu ad quemque jecero (the bolt from a catapult under- 
 stood) ad terram dabo. 
 AsiN. iii. 2. 36. : Nimis aegre risum continni (without hand) followed by 
 40 : Opprime os (without hand). Is est. Subauscultemus. 
 Sometimes manum accompanies cedo (i3^trfic««iv, 1. 32), sometimes not. Sometimes 
 dextram is used without manum {Curciilio ii. 3. 27, 3. 60). Sometimes ostcnde is used 
 alone {Atdul. iv. 4. 5/25). 
 
 t So Plautus, Anin. iii. 2. 41 : " lacrumantem lacinia tenet lacrunians." 
 
 X See elsewhere as to tfirtpouStv ivavTiov or fvunrtov in Mark ii. 12, where coram is 
 
 coustant by all. In ix. 2 coram obtains again in all except a which has in conspectit (as 
 
 favoured by a in St. Luke) and k which has ante. Observe v. 17 where all and W have 
 
 i;,i|uro irapaKaXtiv with the Latins, B, with Sod"'^ 2^' C04 SotV'"^', has irapfKuKtiw and so fi. 
 
 N 
 
17« 
 
 CODEX D AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 \\'c must bear this cn,iefully in mind. It was a very old copy of D, 
 for at i. 7 rip;ht after this IJ (f (c) agree in kiu eXeyev avTom for xai fKrjpvcrvfv 
 \e-y(ot/ of all the rest. But D d arc agreed here, so that a really has the 
 foundation text of D, if not always of rf.f Observe other places as iv. 4 
 eyeiiero is omitted by ])F S(mP"'' d si/r vg and all Latins but a. So that in 
 St. Mark a is a very curious and interesting witness. D d with h for 
 control as to the base seem to represent a foundation text remarkable for 
 shortness (still further shortened by h) which is agreed to in the main by 
 the other Latins. NB are uncertain witnesses in St. Mark (X has evidence 
 of nravh. rctianslation from Latin) and but for the light thrown on the 
 Graeco-Latin problem by S'" and G04 we should not know " where we 
 wore at." To the additional light provided by 2'"' and 004 now add the 
 perfectly wonderful and extraordinary Graeco-Latin text found in W. 
 Often graecising the exact Latin wording of e (as N does in Matt and 
 Ltikc^), it deflects often to D d, and yet again alone to h,X where probably 
 W h hold the true original D base, lost today in D rf themselves. Not 
 only is the text of c, as well as of c, transported bodily to the fourth 
 century, but all the variations between NB and D and \V and h and o 
 and c and 1; are found to be anterior to 350 a.d. and have nothing to do 
 with the period intervening between 350 and 700. The variations being 
 so ancient makes it difficult to disentangle them, but W throws much 
 now light on the question. 
 
 To return to a, observe ii. 1 cognitum est for anovaOr) (auditum est it 
 vg). This seems to show clearly that a was translated (freely) back 
 from the Greek, while the Latins all hold the literal sense. So at ii. 4 
 Sia is rendered by a " propter " but i7''' = prae and DW aTro. At iv. 4 all 
 Latt omit 67ei'6To except a. So at iv. 14 for sfHiiH(rY we find w)(7 in a. 
 At vi. 55 a alone renders suPEit grahhaios for eiri (toi?) xpafffiaTOt^ of 
 Greeks including D, while d and Latt generally have in grabatis. At 
 vii. 27 Y>" StKi"" and a = \67e1, but d dixit as latt pi and Gr pUtr sali, 
 while NBLA write eXeyev with boh. At ix. 4 a-we\a\ovv of D Sod'''° 1 2"' 
 only is followed by a n (against participial construction all other Greeks 
 and Latins). At ix. 42 a follows (C ?) D alone with yfdewi habentibu.i 
 ( — 61? e/ie) for TQiv •KUTTi.v e^ovTmv while the other Greeks have rmp 
 .TTiT-evotnoiv and d fidem habentium. 
 
 t A'ery rarely D a d oppose the rest, but a case ocours at vi. 28 Ktit T^wfyicei' njv 
 K!i\>n\rtv ( — iwTov) by D (? a only. This is the more curious because vi. 29 intY. right 
 (ifterwarils a says kiu aKovfravTrv (et cum audissent) with the Greeks against aKovircivra St 
 of 1.) anJ auilientcs autem d, while the rest and vg say quo audito, minus the copula. 
 
 i A. most striking instance occurs, almost conclusive for translation from 6*8 Latin 
 into Ws Greek, at ii. 1. Among the variations of furtXOutv (c"^^ t\$(ov) na\tv by KBL D'' 
 28 rfc, against f lo-yXtffi/ 7rn\iv of A etc, and jraXiv ei<Trj\8tv of d and the Latins " iterum 
 infravif," b 1 stand out for " iterum vcnif " {" venit iterum e) and W alone says mt\tv 
 ffixeTiii retaining the Latin order oi b dff" g^..^ q vff, hub giying \}3 the jtrescjit tense, 
 for which vcjjii will stand as well as for );X^fi'. Yet D's GrecTi and W keep sometimes 
 very close. See ii. 21 trn it vv ftanTii D alone for tniparrTii the rest, while W has alone 
 f jTi (r 1' !■ iiTrn I [Sod neglects W.] The Latins do not vary, not conveying a-vv except by 
 ^'7snit. 
 
 LATIN BASE IN ST. MARK. 
 
 179 
 
 In the hint I threw out in my ' Genesis of the Versions ' (p. 28) my 
 first example was Mark ii. 12 efnrpo<reev NBLW 187 mg G04 892 Paris" 
 only, while evonrtov by H'<1> Sod"'" 28 33 C" Laura*"" Sod"'* Evst 29, and 
 €vavTwv by the mass and D (t/iTrp. evavTiov So(i'"'). Here we have three 
 variations for "coram" which remains constant in the Latin mss. 
 As it is constant it may be primitive, that is it may precede all these 
 Greeks. For elsewhere, the case is quite different. Take St. Luke— 
 
 v. 19. Gr. cfiTTpoaOev 
 xii. 8. ep-irpoadev 
 
 = ante latt^' et vg, sed coram 8, 
 
 in conspectu a d 
 = coram latt"' et vg, sed in con- 
 spectu d 
 
 9. efnrpoa0ev D nl. rcl evm-mov = coram /««''' ct vg, acd in con- 
 spectu d 
 xiv. 2. ep.-Kpoa6ev avTuv = ante ilium latt"' et vg, sed apud 
 
 ipsum e, presente illo S, in conspectu ejus d 
 xix. 4. u<; TO ep.Trpoad£v Variant plur latt 
 
 27. €p.irpoa-0€i' fiov = ante me latt'" et vg, sed coram 
 
 me e, in conspectu meo a d 
 xxi. 3R. efiirpoKrdev tov viov tov nvov = ante fil. hom. latt"' ct vg, in 
 
 conspectu fili hom. df 
 
 X. 4. e/nrpo(T6ev avrmv TopevcTat = ante eas vadit latt" et vg, 
 
 coram eas vadit 8, praecedit eas r 
 xii. 87. efiTrpoaOev nvTwv = coram eis latt"' et vg, in con- 
 
 spectu eorum df (r) 
 
 = ante latt"' et rg, ante faciem r, 
 
 in conspectu df Hicr 
 = coram latt"' ct vg, in conspectu 
 c d c Aug 
 
 — in conspectu latt"' et rg, ante 
 
 gig, coram d 
 = coram latt"' et vg, ante Ircii 1/2 
 Tert, in conspectu Ircv 1/2 
 
 = coram latt"' ct vg, in conspectu 
 
 a d Iren 
 = ante latt"' et vg, in conspectu 
 
 a d Iren Ambr, coram Tert 
 = ante latt"' ct vg, in conspectu 
 a df; am ff. 
 I need not make a more ample list. The matter seems quite clear 
 that when translating Greek into Latin there result three Latin variations. 
 When translating Latin into Greek (as possibly in St. Mark) three Greek 
 varieties are the result. This list has already appeared under Sijitotiyms 
 in St. Mark. I reprint here for convenience of reference. 
 
 N 2 
 
 i. G. evavTiov (vel evcoinov) 
 
 xxiv. 19. evavTiov {evwrnov D) 
 
 .cts 
 
 vii. 10. evavTiov (vcl evnvrt) 
 
 viii. 32. evavTiov 
 
 ,uke 
 
 i. 15. eiiaymov 
 
 17. ei'wTi lov 
 
 19. ei'Qiiriov 
 
180 
 
 CODEX ]) AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 A feature also, which is quite important, is the treatment of the 
 Giook articles in D. For instance at ii. 3 D omits tov before \oyov (alone) ; 
 at ii. 1^! —0 (before o;^\os-) alone with 3 ; at iii. 17 D ■writes xai tov laxat^ov 
 for Km lUKM^oi' TOV, and xai tov ito. tov for xai latavvijv toi' ; at ii. 7 D adds 
 Tos- before aficipTias (alone). This seems to show that D was translating 
 independently from d. The others by not conforming to this perhaps 
 indicate the second translation into Greek from Latin, which thus would 
 be one other separate recension. 
 
 As to this matter of the article, notice : 
 
 M.nik 
 
 iii. 20. +T0 (nilic reXoi;) T> 
 
 iv. .'"). +Triv (ante y-qv) 1) 
 
 20. - tov (ante a-n-opov) DW Sod"''" only (see Sod J" •■" "" ■" ') 
 
 28. +0 (ante ireiTos) DW only (confu.sk Sod). 
 
 88. - TO (ante ■jrpo<nce<f>.) DW Sod"''' f am 1 28 235 2" 004 (see Sod) 
 
 vi. 2i). +T(o (ante p.vrjfi(iai) D<I> jitid'"'' 
 
 So. — o (ante TOTTot) Dp"" 
 
 41. —Tovi (ante TrevTf) D 
 
 5.5. -tok; (ante ypa^.) DW Sod)''-" fam 1 2'" SoS"" 
 
 vii. 0. —Twv D 
 
 21. -01 (ante kokoi) DW Sod'" (cf. A 28 sijr sin) 
 
 29. -tov D 
 
 30. — TOV (ante oiKov) D 
 
 31. TTjs- Se/(raTro\€a)9 (^))0 Se/caTToXttu?) DW' Sofi'""" sa/l «9 T-qv 
 
 SexaTToXiv W 
 (Observe vii. 33 —tov; ante Sa/cruXou? W'°') 
 \iii. 11. +T0 (ante a-vfietov) D (Obs. Sod'" 2'" +tO 
 
 33. -Tasec. D" 225 [male Paris" Soden contra 
 
 Schmidtke^ 
 (Observe viii. 37 +o ante avdpunro's B cum copt) 
 i.\. 14. +Toy? (ante ypafip.aT€i<;) DI Sod"" 273 2'" Sod"" 
 
 15. -0 (a»*c o:;(;\o?) D Soti"" So(J"» 
 
 (Observe ix. 20 + toi/? «»<« iroWoi;? NABLA^ 33 Paris" Laura* '"*) 
 31. — o (ante wo?) D 
 
 30. +T0 (ante iraiStov) D Sod^"^"" 
 
 43. - Ta? (a»/e x^'P"') ^^^ (Laura* '"* So(i, male?, nonLake) v"' 
 X. 21. +T01? (ante ttt^xok) NCD* ASod"" min'"" 
 
 41. +T01I ((IH^e MKeo/Sou) D 
 
 xi, 11. -T.,9 ((i«<e o,pa<:) D 2"' 245 Sof?'"'^ 
 
 22. +TOV (ante 6eov) DW 
 
 xii. 23. +v (ante yvvr,) AD' 13 [non W] Paris" Sod"" 
 
 20. -o (riH^e Seo? sec.) DW i^iJst 18 0>i!7 2/3 
 
 iiiid. -0 ( „ ,, tert et quart) BDW 0» V" 
 
 37. - o (an^c ttoXw) NDW 28 115 213 2"= 004 Sod"'" '»" '" .s-Vi> " 
 
 40. -TO? DW 
 
 -TO.!/ DW 
 
 LATIN BASE IN ST. MARK. 
 
 181 
 
 "xiii. 3. +0 (a»/e7reTpo?) DH Sod™ al''' 
 
 10. -Ta (ante eOvv) D 2'"' ? (Soff ?I0)! Oonw) Sorf"' 
 
 xiv. 47. - T^,- (ante fiaxaipav) DW 1 124 435 2'"' iJus^""" Sod"' [non ™] 
 
 GO. +T0 (ante p.€cov) DINI*^ Syf^^" jK/n"" 
 
 62. — T?;? (ante Suva/xta)?) D 
 XV. 1. +Ta,.- (a«?e ypa/j^/MaTewv) NDW Sod"'» 2'" Sod'"' cop< 
 
 0. +Triv (ante eopTrjv) D 
 
 11. —TOV (ante ^apa^^av) D 
 
 12. /3ao-i\€i (male Sod to> fiaa.) D"* (pro toi- fiaaCKm) regem d 
 21. +TOV (aH<e a-ificova) D 
 
 +TOV (rtH^e Kvpiivaiov) D 2'" 
 
 40. -t; (a»/e fiay&aXrivri) D (e^'a.»i D™' ?» rer 47) 
 
 43. -o(anteaTro) D(W)T^2W?(c. 
 
 40. +Ta) ((i?i<e /ti^/ifio)) D 207 ^«Hc. 
 
 ibid. +T7;? ((i»<c iTfTpa?) D(W) S'orf™ ^jnifc. 
 
 xvi. 0. +TOV (ante itjo-ow) D 
 
 9. — Tij (nii^e iJ.ayBa\T]vri) D 
 
 Combination of the itala with D oJifZ DW. 
 But let us continue to see what the lists proceed to tell us : 
 "'"' ii. 1. TraXii/ aartxeev 372 d ct it vg (contra T>" et NBL e<c) TraXtv 
 
 cpx^Tai W = iterum venit tit b q 
 4. -rrpoaeyyKTtti D plur et it (praeter f I = vg offerre lit NBL 
 So(f " 372 copt irpoa-eveyKai) et W irpoaeXfiew 
 This is very important in view of W's independent translation. 
 ibid. -avTw ■ I)K*2 it pi 
 
 ibid. - 6f opufoi/T6? DW it^' (non f I vg) 
 (jfin. 4-X67oi/Te? DW 2"' if' (non f I q vg) 
 
 14. ia>ca,flov (pro Xeveiv vel Xeve,) D Sod"'" fam 13 2-° it (praeter 
 
 15. TToXXoi 01 D it vg (noti Gr om ot) t 
 17. -avToi? DW/nm 1 28 if' 
 
 21. Consult DW Intt. 
 
 t If this be basic, as seems probable (and cf Orig ad loc), we can easily account for 
 the detection of / and q, for /has been seen already to depart constanUy from the regular 
 ranks, and q has merely been revised here [h is quite enough against g] as all the Greeks 
 except fam 13 and 2". Even W reads X.ut.v and 604 Taria" do not join 2^ here, g^ and r, 
 have here been " vulgatiscd " also. Syr >in is wanting and only begins again at ii. 21. 
 
 t This is an important matter. All Latins hold qui, but the Greeks includmg 
 W omit. Some Latins omit the icm following. If rroXXoi o. be original the o. was lost 
 early in a copy which lay at the foundation of all the Greeks, for none preserve it. Yet 
 all Latins have qui. (mpro «<■■ 2-; vinlc Sod de Sod'", hahel iroXXoi tanlutn.) 
 
 The whole verse is very interesting. At the beginning .yfwro is changed to ywra. 
 by NBLW 3.3 2" 604 892* [but not Palis'"]. Om. Sod'". The Latin is /ncfum «(. NBL 
 follow with «nraitfi(rfti. avrny, but not W which has aniKiifuf'ix' avTav correspondmg to D 
 ,nTa«.,x...«» avr,^v and a h c dff r with the Latin all. absolute (q discumbente lUo and 
 e reverses the order). If W is retranslating nxnic. would be quite easy. 
 
182 
 
 Mirk 
 
 CODEX ]i AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 ii. 23. Observe vopeveaOai 'SY/am 13 Sod'"' only (ambulare if', transiro 
 c e ff) against Simropevea-Oai, BCD and irapairopeveaOai roll, 
 ibid. - oSnvTToieiv DW Evst 26 it ct B [contra A"] {jyraeler 
 
 a I r q) 
 
 24 init. oi Se {pro km ot) DW Sod"'^' it vg contra veil Gr omn 
 ibid. + 01 fiaOrjrai crov D [noil W] Sod™ min 1 13 28 etc it (praeter e) 
 
 25 fin. +oi'T65 D et ii vg +erant ut A +ri<iav 
 20. -eiri a^iaeap DW [non Sotf'"] 271 »<■" syr sin 
 
 iii. 2. -mnovsec. DW Sod> "' it vg 
 
 4. etTrei' (j))0 Xeyei) D ii'" 
 
 i6i(?. Trpo? amovi; (pro auroi?) D i<''' 
 
 7. o 86 ii)<Tov<; DW Sorf"" i< vg"' boll [contra salt et Gr] 
 
 ibid. -i)Ko\oveT)<Tav D (W. C/. ver. 8) 28 124 j<'" 
 
 ibid. — airo (ante Tf)'; iovZaM<;) DW 28 004 a^ ^aac. ii"" Djy 
 
 [Observe iii. 8. a/couocTf? NBWA fam 1. 13 2'" 6 c <? e //j. 
 g^i I q r h vg, aKova-amev T)"' rell gr et (a)] 
 15. Kai eSwKev avToii (pro xai ep^etr) DW 372 it vg (praeter ae q) 
 
 19. (TKaptwe D it<" 
 
 20. -avTov; I) ctlatt (avTov Sod!'^'. C/. e jf posset) 
 
 21. Kai 0T6 TfKovaav irepi avTov oi ypap,. xai oi \onroi DW (sed W 
 
 /cat aicou(ravTe<;) ii""' """■" "■i"i»»" 
 ibid fill. f^eaTarai uvTovf D (Sod'''" fam 13 2"* -auroi;?) it"'. C/ W 
 e^r}pTr)VTia avTov (Rell efeo-TT; ; e^etniv A3 c"') 
 20. aaravav CKJSaXXei ^efiepi<T0iu e<j> eavrov (pro aveoTTi e<f> (avrov 
 e/iepicrOt] vel km efieptcrOri vol Kai /it€/iepj<rTai) D (Sod^'^) if'' 
 (W Stjr sin f<f) eairrov efi€pur6r] — avdnrj) 
 
 27. oiKuiv ( - avTov) DW if et cf. ord contra NBCLA (cf. W i c e) 
 
 28. A wonderful commentary is offered here. For W (replacing D d) 
 ■with abceffiqr vg° Cypr''" Ambrst aeth omit oaa ov 
 ^a(T<pr]/n](7a>aiv which D d and / I vg have with the rest of 
 Greeks and copt (sijr). This lost line o<rn av fi\aiT<f>ri/i'ricra)<iw 
 occurs above ocr 8' av ^\aa<j>rjiiria7i (or as in D, it runs ocr 
 av Se T19 ff\aa-tf>T]ij,7]<rri) and was lost from homoioteleuton 
 probably. W and the mass of Latins remain together. D and 
 the mass of Greeks. So that W and itala certainly trace to 
 one copy of same lines as d. 
 
 29. -etiTovaim'a BVf Sod'"'" min aliq if" Ath Cypr"" 
 ibid. afiapTta<; C?DW fam 13 Ath. Cf it. (Kpi/utTo^ Sod*, 
 
 KoXaaeta^ Sod') 
 
 30. ex^^" "■"^o" (P''o ^X^i) W d if' (D exeiv — ainov) 
 
 31. epx^Tai NDGW Sod'" fam 1 179 21" 892 Sod'" if'. 
 Thereagainst in this chapter at iii. 10 D d with / both seem to go 
 
 wrong and leave the common Latin base, for they agree with most 
 Greeks in eOepairfvcrev, while KIl e'" w'" have eOepawevev confirmed by o 6 
 cefOi i I q vg boh syr. So far we have thought that these Latins and KIl 
 
 LATIN BASE IN ST. MARK. 
 
 183 
 
 were aberrant, but behold W Sod''"' witness to eeepaTrtvev, so that it is 
 either basic or they got it from the Latin. The latter seems pretty sure for 
 in the next verse W gives (alone, abstrmi Sod. de D) liov for (0ea>povii 
 and holds Myome'; of NDK only (dicentes latt) for Xeyoina of the rest to 
 agree with irvevnara to aKadupra. And ver. 15 fin has an addition only 
 known to a c e. 
 
 ""'iv. 1. KM vp^aTO iraXiv DVf (WO) ^'^ Sod""' if' sah acth 
 ibid, irpoa- (pro irapa) DW [non min vid] et latt " ad " 
 ibid. W controls D's Greek here beautifully for D" says o Xaog 
 opposite turba of d and all latt. W does not agree with 
 D^', showing turba and not popidus to be basic. Orig""' uses 
 populus however, probably retranslating D's o Xaoi;, so that D 
 and d at one time were separate as I supposed, for Orig""- here 
 is against all Latins. 
 ibid. Observe AV in the rest of the verse. 
 
 4. -eyevero 'D¥(Vf) Sod""^ it (praeter a) vg 
 
 5. Observe aliud d et latt et Gr pi aXXo contra aXXa D^ 33 2'" al. 
 
 pane, and caecidit d rell against eireaav T>" Sod"'" 
 ibid. €77. ra irerpoiSv NDW 1 33 179 372 2"' Sod"" "" "" latt'" 
 
 ibid. Kai oTi (pro oirov) DW »<"' (Kai o-kov B af soli) 
 
 10. ot fuidriTai auTov (pro ot Trepi avrov aw tow StoBeKa) DW 
 Sod!"" fam 13 28 2"' it omn (praeter f) syr sin diatess [non pesh]. 
 
 ibid. TW V irapafioXr, avrr, DW Sod"" fam 13 28 2"' it"^" " ' vg"" (ra? 
 Trapa^oXai NBCLA, t>;i/ 7rapafioXr,v A unc'" S* etc.) De parabola 
 ilia vel de parabohs gat aur vg^ syr et boh (eefie) [™>' irapa- 
 fiaXaiv — eefi.e sah] 
 
 11. Xe^ei (pro cXeyev) DW [male Sod. de 28] if' 
 
 ibid. X.76Ta« (pro yiverai) D [na,i W]S,Soci"«'- 2864 1-24 2''' ii'"'™'" 
 
 10. - ofioiw DW Sod"" fam 1 fam 13 [non 124-346] 28 
 
 435 2<" 004 Paris" it (praeter f g-i) (syr) 
 
 This is noteworthy because all the important sympathising cursives 
 
 go with DW here, deserting NB which here take different sides : ofiotax; 
 
 eiatv NCLA 207 Sod'"", eiaiv onoiux; B rell. 
 
 iv. 17. KM S.a)7/io.; (pro r, Siwyfiov) DW it"""' *"'"'^' ° ■" vg 
 
 19. -M irepi Ta Xoiira ^idv/iiM DW 1 28 (cf Sod"" 2"' 604) if' 
 ibid. aKapiToi yivovTM DW Sod"" 124 if boh'"''' 
 
 1cdefffir(prob.; mut a) 
 sah boh (accendit et 
 afferet ad/i)[€px«TfliGr 
 omn rell et ininn syr] 
 
 t This is a beantitui place to consider. Notice 6 is absent from the Latins and has 
 adfertur. oTn-tra. has a double meaning. Here probiibly D" holds an original base and 
 d "accenditur " is not basic, jet it must have so gone through the Latins to W who has 
 KauTM with fam 13, and not nnrtrm. Aeth conflates. Sail, boh follow the Latin, but 
 not >yr peih (Mat ein). 
 
184 
 
 Mark 
 
 ordo tanhmdrm 
 
 CODEX R AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 iv. 29. Note here that W FioiV-'-" h c seem to hold the base otov init. 
 taiitmn, although D with d a c f ff g^ i I q vg aeth write xai 
 oTav, and NB rrll gr orav Se with syr and copf. 
 30. Similarlj' W b e join XBCLA for Trm? here, against rtvt of 
 DA 7();c'° S* Sod'-'" the other Lathis and copt sijr arm aeth goth 
 Orig. It is possible here however that W 6 e changed with 
 XBCLA to avoid redundancy from ev tivi following, for D etc. 
 reverse below and substitute ev iroia for ev tivi. Origen has 
 Tivi...ev Tivt which is probably the original Egyptian Greek, 
 [rf. hoh). 
 
 33. Similarly TroXXai? is omitted by W 6 c p and C"'''LASJ some 
 min and syr aeth boh arm, while found in NB etc, and in D 
 rell latt but in differing positions. 
 
 34. There is a sharp division here, for while DW c ffi i q r (eis, 
 mut a) and Origen read cireXvev avra';, XB rell gr, verss and 
 other Latins including 6 c read erreKve wavra (one sah MS 114 
 omits both wavTa and avTa<;). 
 
 3f>. Kai a^iovaiv rov oyXop Kai (jj)o Ktii a^evre? tov o-)(\ov) DW 
 S()rf"-'V"i 19 28 2'" 604 6 c (i e/i 3 r (mut a) contra rell. 
 ibid. Observe W : xat afia iroWoi Tjaav fier iivrov 
 e ()•*) et .'fijmil multi erant cum eo 
 et multae naves simul erant cum ilio b 
 
 et aliae naves simnl erant cum illo c 
 
 et aliae naves multae simvl erant cum illo fi\ 
 ct multae sinuil naves erant cum illo i q, r (pvi naves r', 
 
 hi at a) 
 f^od"^" 2'"" Kat TO aWa to ovTa irXoia /iCT avTov \ 
 D Kai aWai he TrXoini TroWru rjtTav fier avTov [ ( —,'iimvl) 
 d et aliae autem naves multae erant cum illo J 
 
 37. ij.eya\r, avefiov BDLA Sod"'" fam 1 /am 13 2'" 604 bed ff., 
 
 g-, i h I q r h rg magna venti 
 All Latins are accounted for except a (missing) / and c ; 
 f goes with goth and A ave/iov /xeyaXi], but e is found as usual 
 in company with W. e magni venti and W fieydKov ave/tov. 
 
 50 in the next clause among all the Greek variations W alone 
 with eta-€^aXKev practically follows e inmittebantur, but in 
 the last part of the verse while N* c omit oxtre i)8»; 
 j€/j.i^€<T6ai TO ttXoiov W does not do so, but has loa-Te avro 
 TjSr] yeixi^eaOdi. 
 
 ibid. -rjhr,Sod™ii'""'' (praetrra) ctd contra !>-' etScontra A"rgaeth. 
 (Om claid! N* e, non W) 
 
 38. SiejeipavTe^ (pro Sieyeipova-iv. .Kai vel eyetpovatv. .xai) DW 
 
 Sod''^" 28 2"'- 604 (ey(tpavT€<: fam 13) )7"' 
 
 39. Observe eyepeei'; (pro SteyepOeK) DW [non Sod°''°]fam 13 21 28 
 
 51 217 004 Paris" aP Sod''- ' e surgens (pro exsurgens rell) 
 
 LATIN BASE IN ST. MAEK. 
 
 18.5 
 
 t ibid. Kai tj; OaKaaar) Kai eiTrev (pro Kai enrev ri) 6a\a<Tar]) DW 
 
 Jam 1 2'" 604 ii"' 
 ibid. Observe ^iho>0i]ti tantiim ^Ybceff against trioma Km (jyi/itodriTi 
 D sah boh vg''"-'^ and aiaira -rrejiiiuoao KB rell d f Iq etc. W 
 holds ^iiJ.w0r,Ti of D but goes with bceff'm suppressing one 
 of the expressions, 
 iv. 40. X676J W et N° soli gr ?<"' vg [non D daeb] 
 ibid. Observe in the clause ti ieCKoi eare outw? ttm? ovk ex^re iriiTTiv, 
 where NBDLA it copt aeth omit outoi?, and substitute ovjrt» 
 for TTw? OVK, W retains out<u? eliminating anything further : 
 n iikoi earai outo)? 6;^eTa4 iriaTiv, while c { omit both and have 
 only quid timidi estis habeie (habetote q) fideni. 
 41. V Ba-KaTia Kai oi ave/ioi W SocP" b effq 1 ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ g^^ 
 
 Kai 7) BaXacra-a Kai oi avep-oi D d ) 
 
 V. 1. y.paanv<^v NBD it vg rePrVCTHNWN w 
 
 2. > av0po>7ro<! €« rwv tiwt^eia,v DW Sod"'" 273 2"^ 604 Sod"" 
 
 b c d c/i q r arm goth sah (om ex rav imv. syr sin) 
 
 3. > 09 efxf TV KaToiKTfaiv D"W 2"' 604 abc e 
 
 [At this point W drifts away from D.] 
 5. vvKToi Se Kai fitiepa<: (-Kai SiavavTot init) D it^' (scd W 
 
 postea SiavavTo's add.) 
 9. Tt aoi ovofia +€aTiv D (Sod"") latt [wn W] 
 
 ibid, eariv p-oi ovofia Xey. D 372 (B latt) non W 
 
 15. -rove<rxvi">Ta7ov\ey. T) IT 27 latt syr sin[nonW,sed'W 
 
 om antea et Kaffrjiievov (nt A c"' e 8) et iiiaritTji^vov (ut z"' j/j)] 
 
 16. avTa TM haifi. (pro to) Sai/i.) D latt [non W] cf ad ver. 15 
 
 avTov Tov Baf^. D [non W] 
 [At this point W drifts away from e.] 
 
 17. tva aveXet) (2>ro a7reX0(iv) D 372 latt et e [non W] 
 tl8. vP^aro irapaKoKuv (pro -wapiKaXii) D !-<'" [non W 6 f] 
 
 19. -k-oTi (ante eXerfaev ae) D [non W, om clans e] b c d ff^ gi (/) 
 
 syr pesh [non copf] 
 
 21. -fi- TO) ttXoiu) D Sod"'" /am 1 28 47 2'" 604 So(i'»" [non W] 
 
 sfrf if"" f < e (praeter f 8) 
 i6((f. Trpo? ai/To.- (p?-o fTT au7op) DNS Sod"" /am 13 28 2"" 604 
 
 Paris" Sorf'°" [«o» W] latt " ad " 
 
 22. TK (^)-o £j?) DW 348 c"' e" it vg quidam [iioii 6] quis a ? 
 
 (,5 <j>) : epxeTAiEic 
 
 6PX6TAITIC 
 EPXeTAIIC 
 ex errore perantiquiss. 
 
 t Tisch is not nearly accurate enough as to 2'". I bope Gregory will make tliis 
 right in the next edition. 
 
 X Above, at ver. 17, where all and AV have Tjpfaro irapa/taXf iv, D 225 372 V 604 SoU* ' d 
 and a have -rnpfKaKrivv. 
 
18C 
 
 >rnrl< 
 
 ibid 
 [ihid 
 
 V. 23. 
 iliid. 
 (25. 
 
 20 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 -ovo/iaTi lafipo? D a d e ff^ i, sed W Sod"^" 2'" 604 syr sin 
 m ovo/j,a laeipoi pro ovo/iari lafjpo?. 
 . Most curiously D d and e omit i&a>v avrov ; not bo W which 
 here deserts c exceptionally, but W just before this begins to 
 abandon c, and this is emphasised as we proceed.] 
 - TToWa D s"' Sorf'!"""""'!"™ »o) hcdffilq [non W a ef g, vg\ 
 e\6e {pro iva eX^coi') D [non W] if""" practer a 8 syr (<■/. 1-57) 
 yvvrj absque Tt? NABCLAW lati"' {contra Bdaf rell gr 
 
 sijr arm goth et Sod^^'' 11 +T(if ) 
 init. T) TToXKa iraOovaa D [non AV] 6 c d/ffi i r quae. . . 
 {Om. 1) tJci Kai NS g) 
 — 7r«p' 
 
 27. 
 28. 
 
 ibid. 
 30. 
 
 3G. 
 
 37. 
 
 Kat rj-^p-aTo 
 
 38. 
 
 40. 
 
 ibid. 
 
 ibid, 
 ibid, 
 ibid. 
 
 41. 
 
 ibid. 
 
 42. 
 
 43. 
 
 vi. 3. 
 
 7. 
 
 BW Sod"" faml 11 28 68 220 2"' 604 Sod'''""'>'"latt 
 4> (tu VKapypvra out?;?) 
 28 267 (TravTO xa fnuTT/?) 
 D Z(l« 
 - o-Ti 28 33 372 2"° heetit [non DW t?/ J rell gr] 
 
 I mention this because DW are so tinged with ooptic that 
 they might have added this X6 from Coptic, while 28 33 2"" 
 follow all the other Latins, headed by 6, and e contradicts W 
 here. But vv 27/33 are very involved and impossible to solve. 
 Tou ifiaTiov (pro Twv t/mTLwv) ND 33 it vg fto/i*"". 
 T«9 rjijraTO Tcov t/iaTloov jmov (pro rt? fiov rjyjr. twv t/i.) D it vg 
 
 [non W e rell gr] 
 oKoucra? [non irapaicov<Ta<;'\ AD Sod"^' plur minn omn latt 
 
 omn (praeter e) vg copt syr. 
 This against NBLA" and W e only, an " improvement." 
 
 D^' it" sequi se (axoX. avrm 33 Sod'^") 
 (W)fa.m 1 28 124 2'"' 604 dff, g^ gat al. 
 sic tanttim W 
 
 El"' Paris", et avra axoX. AKIT al.pauc. 
 NBCLA e goth (syr) 
 hoh 
 
 D unc' latt [non W Sod"'"] 
 D 604 it (praeter f) 
 NBCDLA Sod''" 33 Paris'" Evst 48 it 
 (praeter e) vg [o Se W e rell gr et ySoti'^'] 
 TOU? o;^;Xou9 efm D it (Bell iravra'; et W, vel airavras) 
 
 TOW /ler avTou +ovTa? D itvg (tov; eavTov tantiimVf 124, — /ler) 
 uaeiTopfvtTo D 2"" it (pro eKriropeverai. "W rell ; 
 
 eia-TTopeuovTm M 33 273 Paris" Sod"" t vg") 
 Tr)V x^'-P"' D I'^ll 
 
 Oa^ira D (latt) 
 
 Tjv Se (pro rjv yap) D 179 2"" it vg [non W] 
 
 -TToXXa T>i e'" if' [non Vf] 
 
 ov^i Kai (sec loco piro xat ovk) D(3) if' 
 
 ■7rpo<7Ka\e<rap.evo<; D fam 1 2'" c'" iV' 
 
 •wapaKoKovOrftrai avToD 
 avTu) TrapaKo\ov6ri<Tai 
 7rapaKo\ov9rj(T€ 
 avTfo <TvvaKokov6r)aav 
 fj.€T auTov avvaKoK, 
 fier avTov ukoX. ama> 
 — Kai (post Bopvfiov) 
 init. 01 Se 
 avTOi; Se 
 
 LATIN BASE IN ST. MARK. 
 
 187 
 
 ibid. 
 
 ibid. 
 
 vi. 11. 
 
 12. 
 
 13. 
 ibid. 
 
 14. 
 
 1.5. 
 17. 
 
 18. 
 19, 
 
 21. 
 
 ibid, 
 
 25. 
 
 26. 
 
 27, 
 
 ibid. 
 31. 
 32. 
 
 34, 
 
 36. 
 37, 
 38. 
 
 OTreoretXei' auTou? ( — TjpfaTo) D 2''° if' 
 
 Sous D 2'" (latt) [e is missing after this] 
 
 -Tov imoKajo) D 33 2'"' 604 Sod'*" it (praeter c) n-no tantwn 
 
 Paris" 
 exripvaaov d S it""" vg et W una" et S* Sod"^' minn et Paris", 
 contra cic,,pv^av NBCL et D" A" copt et Sod'^' ! Vide v. 25, 40. 
 oXen/raiTe? D if' 
 sanaverunt d b ffi q r contra eBepairevov D^' NB W rell gr 
 
 (N.B. — The tenses are so mixed up in verses 12 and 13 
 between the Latins and Greeks that the " true " text cannot 
 be distinguished. eOepoTrevacv 16 hoc loco, vide rell) 
 /3airT«j-T»)9 DSWn Sod"'' 5 fam 13 28 33 56? 57 58? 65 
 70 122 237 604 Evst 54 55 it vg sah (pro o ^aTni^wv) 
 
 — Trpo^T/Tij? a)'; T) b c dff i (a) 
 
 + Kai (fiaXev D [iwn W] Sod'''" fam 13 28 2^miabdff^ir 
 
 - oTt D [«o)i W] 28 131179 245 262 273 892 aV Sod'"" c dfff^il vg 
 quaerebat abcdiqretC* efijTei (pro rjdeKev t<BD'"' 
 
 W rell gr omnfffi I vg copt) 
 Observe D" xai 'yevop.€vri<; Se (d Et cum dies) sed Sod""" 255 
 
 2'* 604 a b c ff yevo/ievrii Se 
 -oT€ D a b d f q vg (But cf some lat and vg 
 
 which begin the verse Et cum dies opportunus for the Greek 
 genitive abs., thus already, as it were, having supplied this ore. 
 But 6 has : facta autem opp. die and a : die autem opportune. 
 -€uSeo>5 DLJ 1-209 p"'' 892 if' boh (the latter has 
 
 /lera o-ttouSt/? following, which D a b c i q r omit) 
 This whole verse is most curiously treated by the different 
 authorities, showing great basic difficulty. W while having 
 ev6v^ /tero o-ttouSt;? plunges into direct oration, omitting t/ttjo-uto 
 Xe7ou<ra or eiTrev altogether (compare also Sod''""). Evan 28 
 omits ewi irtvaKi with 213 c vg^' only (but D d omit in 
 Matt. xiv. 8!). 
 
 Koc Sia Tovi avaK. D Sod'" it (praeter c) vg 
 
 aXK^(pro Kai init.) D 2"' 604 it"'"'' (praeter 6 q [hiant e lc\) 
 syr pesh diatess [Sode^i places aWa in his upper notes or 
 margin. The persian omits copula.] 
 
 -0 paaCKevt DW Sod""" fam 1 28 251 2''- a''' 604 syr sin it vg 
 evKaipo)^ ei^pv D if' 
 
 Kav avafiavTe'; eit to irXoioi' atrriXdov ei? epr^fiov tottov KariSiav 
 (pro Kai aTrrjK. ei? eprfp,. tott. t(» TrXotw KariS.) D it^' et a [non b = 
 et abierunt in desert, loc. secreto (-in navi)] ct sah (boh NBLA) 
 677- auToi/9 (pro e-n- auToJs) NBDFJ [non 28] 245 253 Sod""' '"' 
 
 if' vg 
 eyyiara D 604 it vg proximas (W et rell gr kvcXio) 
 
 Kai a-troKp. D if' vg 
 Kai Xeyei Vi if' vg (om b) 
 
188 
 
 tinrk 
 
 CODEX ]! AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 VI. 39. xaTUTrjit avvrroauw {pro av/nro<ria av/iiroaia) D it^' vg (om. asyr 
 sin [inaccurate q Sod]) {trvvTroa-ia semel LW al.pavc et Paris") 
 41. KarevavTi avTcov {pro auToi?) D it {piraetcr c) vg 
 4.'). +e^eyepeet<; Bit'' 
 
 iJyid. irpoayeiv {-rrpoaayew T)" Vam^') + avTov D Sod°'° aliq it I'g 
 
 ver.1.1 et Orig. 
 (vi. 47. +7ra\ai, D fam 1 28 251 Sod"'' ahdi g.,) 
 vi. 47. €v /j-ea-rj rrj OaXaa-cri] {pro cv fi((Ta ti}<; 0a\iia-(n)(;) D 2'" it vg 
 (in medio mari [d mare], nan maris) {om claus c) 
 48. Kac e\nuKoi/To? {})ro ev ra eXavveiv) D 2"" 604 if' (Sod°"€\. — Kat) 
 ibid, -vpot avTovt DW Sod°'° 2'" a b c d ffi i r (contra rell et 
 
 verss al.) 
 
 50. -yap avTovitSov D Sod"'" 2'" GQiit vg 
 
 ibid. 7rpo9 avTovt {pro fier avTwv) D 33 G04 Paris" (outoi? 2"") 
 
 (ic(if//2 i 5 r (illis 6) Om. Sod*' 
 
 51. Observe how in the foUovsring verse, where Xiav is omitted by 
 DW Sod™ 1 28 C04 [non 2"=], 6 has only abundantius for Xiav 
 (K irepia-a-ov. The O.L. have pte magis or magis plus (c), but 
 this can very well equal €k wepia-a-ov (or ■rreptaaa^ as D 2*", 
 TTfpiaaoi; G04, €KTrepicra-(o'; 1) without \tav. b appears very basic 
 here and W agrees, which MS has not been with D regularly 
 for some time. 
 
 53, Simrepaa-ai'TC'i -{-€Kei0€U D if' 
 
 54/55. €7r€yj'(otTav . . . TrepiSpa/iorre? Se (vet Kai TrepiSp.) [^);"0 eiriyvovje^ 
 . . .-jrepi^hpapov] D 2'"" 004 it vg (<l>) 
 
 55. <\,epeiv (pro ■Trepij>epeiv) DM Sod"''" 1 2'"' c'" G04 Sod'' "■" j^"' 
 
 -hTrepKpepov yap avTov^ ottov av rjKovaav T) C^^ it^' 
 5G. TrXaTEiai? (pro ayopai^) D 2"" 604 latt 
 
 (vii. 2 /m. KareyvoxTav D, a?. (fie/j,yjravTo, it (praeter b) vituparaverunt. 
 
 Observe 6 omits with NB etc etc.) 
 vii. 4. +orav e\6a>(Tiv DW c"" latt 
 
 (ibid. +avToi<; (ante xparew) D [non W] ii"" i^g [non b <•]) 
 
 0. Kai enrev (pro <o<; yeypavrai) D (i I (G04 c^j dicens) f ( (u? ftTrev 
 
 1 2'" r9 enrev Sod"''" vid cum a b qui dixit (conflate sijr sin) 
 
 ibid. aneaTi {pro airexei).lj Sod'^" 2"' C/cwi'""" •=' *'" latt et A (male 
 
 Sod Z) aireaTTi {D^' a^etTTrjxev, a corruption of atreaTrj for 
 
 a-rrea-Ti, and a comparative!}' late one, for even a has est, as 
 
 d opposite D". For airexei W has e^^t.) 
 
 «,). <rT7;<r7;Tnt D"W Sod"'-" fam 1 28 2^" (Cronin) it sijr sin (pro 
 
 T7jpij<rrjTe) 
 ]3. +TI) /ifupn (post tt; TrapaSo(Tei Vficoi') D ?< 
 
 17. rriVTrapa^oXriv {2>rOTrepiT7i';7rapafio\ri<;) NBDLA 33 Paris" iitj" 
 19. et9 T7;w KapStav avTov (^))0 oi/Toi/ €19 T17W xapSmv) DA 2G5 ?a<< 
 [auTou €19 TTjj, Siaiwai' W ; -avTov 238 245 aZ'"'"'-] 
 ibid. 6(9 Tov o-^ejov (pro €19 toi' a<j>eSp(ova) D ()< I'l/ communiter in 
 
 secessum) (y. ."jyr .<!m. 
 
 LATIN BASE IN ST. MAHK. 
 
 189 
 
 t vii. 20. quae, .exeunt (pro to. .eKTropevo/icvov) 
 it rg et d [non D"] 
 t ibid. cKctva (pro exeivo) D it vg 
 
 As exeiva follows in 
 D" it shows that d 
 is more consistent 
 than D. 
 22. TrXeove^ta DW 28 latt sijrr 
 
 24. -Koio-tSwi/09 jyU^^ Sod"'-" i^V" it"' Orig"" syr sin 
 
 25. TO Ovyarptov (-avrr,^) KDWA So(i"'» 1 13 28 179 273 2" s"' 
 
 604 al" et Sod'" Latt non expr. 
 
 29. > imaye Sta rovTov (tov om. D) Xoyov D fam 1 2*"^ 604 
 
 Sod'""''-''"Ht"' syrpesh 
 
 30. €49 TOV (om. D) otxov ( — aiiT779) DW 1 28 Sod''" b ffii it q 
 
 31. ■riXeev Sta <7iSa»'09 (pro Kat aihwvoi ij^Bev) NBDLA Soi^'SS 2'" 
 604 ?a« 60/1 et Sod"^'^\ (vide \ii. 17 contra hos). (Om aiScovo^ 
 Paris") 
 
 32. irapeKaXovv (pro TrapaxaXovaiv) W' 33 d et latt (contra D" 
 
 rell gr) syr (et irapeicaXeaav copt aeth) 
 viii. 1. ev exewaK +8e DW Sod''" vid 28 G04 if' goth syr sah 
 
 ibid, nee habereut latt, but d et non habentibus eis and DW Sod!'^' 
 
 2'" 604 Kai fir] eyovn-aiv avTwv. 
 2. e-n-t TOV oxXow +toutou D (latt) (cf. L Sod'"'*""" Laura* '") 
 
 [3. KOI aiToXvaat, 01/T01/9 it7o-t€J9 €19 oixoi' (om €i9 oiKov Sod"^" "'• ' 2" 
 604 6) ov 6e\ia firj (/irjTTOTe 2'") exXvOaxTiv ev tij oSco [^ro xai €au 
 (om eav E 157) aTroXv(ro> avrovf inftTTeK ( + €0)9 W) €19 oikov avTwv 
 fKXvdrjaovrai ev Tt) oBa>] D 2" 604 a b ffii q r, sed cf. Mati^ 
 
 11. <rvv^ifTeiv trvv atnio D it vg " conq. Cij;)i eo " (d omits as do 
 A 8 but only because of the quaerentcs ab illo immediately 
 succeeding). Coptic expresses this aw but not W. 
 
 14. A very interesting place. Ordinary text : kiu ei i^r) eva aprov 
 ovK ev)(pv p,e6 eavTwv ev Tin TrXmoa. This double Greek negative 
 is generally understood to mean that they had in the boat a 
 loaf, but only one. Syr sin alone read it: " for not one loaf 
 was there with them in the boat." W understood it quite 
 the other way, reading, exceptionally with 28 2"" 604 (fam 1 
 1.3), eva fiovov e-f^ovTet apTov /led €iut. ev tio ttX. (Cf. Sot?"'" '"'). 
 D and the Latins follow suit, omitting ovk, but not having the 
 participial €xoi'T€9 of W. I call attention to the matter at this 
 place because the Latins are not only agreed, but some : b c d 
 ff.2 i q r supply quem as if reading apton on, which D does 
 not, so that this may be basic and the ON have dropped out of 
 Greek after apTov. If so these Latins all precede the Greek. 
 The other explanation would be that ON crept into the 
 Greek, but no codex seems to exhibit it. 
 
 16. -Xeyoirre<; NBDW fam 1 28 2"= 604 [non Sod""""''] if" sah 
 
 t This is a very curious place, for all Greehs nyT and copt seem agreed as to the 
 singular. 
 
190 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 viii. 17. ea-Ttv or eiac for €;^€Te sec. D Sod"'" 2'" latt (except / g^ I vg), 
 
 syr copt [non ex^'''^ expr poss] 
 10. -7rX>;pe(? fam 13 2;!7 2.59 h^' Taris"^''' abed {contra T)") 
 
 ffiiJcqr 
 
 20. ■!T0<Ta<; <r<l>vpiSa<; KXaafinTwv D (SoiV'" 2"= 604) latP^ 
 
 21. fij? Sei'Spd TrepiTTaTovvTa'! ( — et oTict opaj) DC"M^ W Sod"'"" f am 1 
 „;ii!++ jatr«" contra NBC*ALM'NXrAnS<I> imc' minn'" goth. 
 Yet the minority have the shorter text with all the versions 
 but goth. Of course Coptic introduces with xe but this comes 
 before /SXeTroj, and opta is absent as in arm aeth and syr as well. 
 Does this place really mean that DW latt derive from one 
 stem, while XB and all the rest from another ? Or is it a 
 chance place where opto appeared redundant to all Latins 
 Copts Arinenians Syrians and Aethiopians but only to DWC'M" 
 of Greeks? That would be very curious. Examine the 
 cursives. 
 
 2.5. This is followed immediately by a most unusual little place. 
 
 U begins the verse ko i -rrakiv and d with h c^ fftik qr aeth syr 
 
 sin : Et itcrum. The other Greeks have ena iraXw and a has 
 
 deincepis ( — iterum) , the other few Latins and vg = deinde itertim. 
 
 In a bilingual like our Latin h the place would appear thus: 
 
 eiTAHAAiNen erixeRVM im 
 
 eeHKeNTACxeip*" posvitmanvs 
 
 €niTOYCO*eAAMOYC SVPEROCVLOS 
 
 From this it would thus appear that eiTA and €T might be confounded. 
 Thus we are getting closer to the cardinal point. Did Greek get eira 
 from contusion of eye as to the Latin 6T before ITERVM or did Latin get 
 €T from confusion of eye as to Greek eira ? At first sight it looks more 
 like a Greek overflow on to the Latin, but our previous training in the 
 history of these matters urges us to walk warily. And first notice that 
 D obtains his Kai (alone of Greeks) from his Latin d. Which is earlier, 
 Latin or Greek? True, Coptic goes with the Greek, bohairic reading 
 \Tl^ ort, and sahidic nA.Xltt on but in sah observe xai and ena are 
 omitted as in syr pcsh >ao2. But how does syr sin stand ? Syr sin adds 
 the Kai thus -=aj.a = et iterum, but -=aJ> in syriac also stands for Deinceps 
 as well as Iterum. 
 
 Secondly, observe that our training as to the witness a proves to be 
 sound, a is quite independent of the other Latins. In this case, insteud 
 of Deinde iternm of vg f I, a writes Deinceps alone, agreeing practically 
 with syr pesh arm and sah. 
 
 The explanation of a syriac base where Deinceps and Iterum may be 
 considered interchangeable I think is perhaps beside the mark here, for in 
 St. Mark our choice of base seems to lie between the Latin and the 
 Greek. But as to the age of the readings srjr sin comes in as a witness 
 to show that the kiu initio was present when he copied his MS. The 
 
 t All these have cl itcrum except c exceptionally el riirsus. 
 
 LATIN BASE IN ST. MAliK. 
 
 191 
 
 diatess arab also has the xai : " And he placed his hand again on his 
 eyes," placing iterum later as in aeth. 
 
 I must leave my readers to judge this place in the light of all the other 
 collateral evidence in other passages, observing only that while bdk remain 
 together here, which is always significant, { + cff, i q r), W" goes with the 
 other Greeks for eira, but W after chapter v. presents quite a mixed text. 
 
 Observe at the end of the same verse that D it : axxre avapKe-^ni, are 
 a unit against all the rest. 
 
 .M»rk 
 
 viii. 25. tixTTe avap\e^ai D it vg {Bell aliter scd variant plurimwn 
 
 inter se) 
 
 26. Cf Latin treatment here (except c k) and the rest. 
 
 27. >€ivaL 01 avdpurn-oi D a f I q vg Tert Ainbr. (c me esse 
 
 dicunt horn.) 
 34. - avToi<! DAXW if'. 1 place this here although Orig and 
 0;?V/"" (with / / q vg) oppose, because A supports D, and W 
 now comes in to support X, a thoroughly graeco-latin tribe 
 DAXW. Mr. Sanders does not group it in his list of select 
 readings of W (see his p. 74), but it has some importance. 
 {Sod"''" "' enrev o ^.) 
 38. 0? S' av D {pro oa yap av) bcdff^ikqr {oa av Sod^") 
 ix. 2. avayet DW' 2<",A\lcitdffi Ic"? il q et S super A^' ava^epei, 
 duxit ab cfg vg, diu...r [ava<f>epei HB rell et \V2<I> 
 
 rell gr ; insefuit /<•] 
 7. ri\0ev {pro eyevero sec.) D al. W^" vg (praeter S) 
 
 10. orav ex vexprnv avaiTTq (pro to ex vexp. avcunrivai) DW fam 1 
 
 {fam 1.3) ie' vg 
 
 11. ^TTpcoTou eKdeiu D if' aeth 
 
 14. {pr. loco) TTpot avTov<! {pro Trepi avrov;) D if' ad eos (/.• aput 
 
 eos, q cum illis) {syr). [Soli f I g vg circa eos]. 
 16. avTov; {pro tou? ypa/j.) XBDLWA 1. 28 21'" if""" {exc. a) 
 
 syr sin. 
 ibid, evvfitv {pro ■!rpo<; avTow) Bit'". (Variant rell.) 
 19 init. xai (pro o St) DW Sod°" min aliq if' boh aeth 
 
 20. — TTpo? avTov D if' vg 
 
 ibid, puerum (pro avrov quart.) it'" et Sod!'''' fam 13 \non 124] 28 2"" 
 (et sah npUJJULe = Tov avOponrov) [non D df I vg ; om W] 
 
 22. -KM sec. DIW Sod"''" min aliq if' et copt syr 
 
 [contra vwrem grace, xai ei<s irvp. . .kiu eit vSara] 
 ibid. avTov post iroWaKKt AC^'DNXm unc' et WS4> it vg 
 
 [contra NBC'LA'T' a] 
 ibid. 0aXKu (vet (ffaXev) po.H vSara D if' vg 
 
 23. Habent iTKTTevtrai. Gr 2>l et if' vg 
 
 24. > Tr/ uTTtaTia tiov D latf' 
 
 25. Kai ore ciSev D latt 
 
 20. +aTr avTov D(A) If" [non 2'" Cron. male vid Sod] 
 
 Sod^'^'^'itrgsyi-"" 
 
19'2 
 
 Mark 
 
 JX. 33. 
 30. 
 
 37. 
 
 39. 
 
 ^ihid. 
 
 42. 
 ibid. 
 
 45. 
 X. 1. 
 
 ibid. 
 
 5. 
 
 10. 
 
 21. 
 
 22. 
 
 ibid. 
 
 23/25. 
 
 29. 
 
 30 
 
 37. 
 39. 
 
 41. 
 
 43. 
 ibid. 
 [49. 
 
 xi. 1. 
 
 ibid. 
 
 2. 
 
 6. 
 
 8. 
 11, 
 24. 
 27. 
 31. 
 
 ibid. 
 
 ibid. 
 32. 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Ka^apvaov)j, NBDAW^ it vg copt syr (Ka-irep^apvaovfi Sod'"'') 
 \eyet fam 1, ait »<'' vg ct d contra D^, S contra A" [Sod negl. lat^ 
 (V TM ov. {pro em) DW 09 73 247 Sod^'"' Evst 44 latt in nomine 
 ait {pro ettrev) ?<''' et d contra T>" et 8 contra A" [iionfi k] 
 
 -Taxv F'Wfam 1 Sod'" 28 2'" if' et d [contra D"] 
 
 syr sin arm 
 
 DW cf. latt 
 
 D latt 
 
 D it" 
 
 Trepiexeno {pro -rrepiKenai) 
 > et? Tr)v 6a\. f/9X»;S7) 
 -\-aiwviov 
 Trepan tantiim 
 
 (jvvepycTai TToKiv o oj^Xo? 
 
 — VjilV 
 
 67t0et . . 
 
 DGA et W Sod""" min'" it vg 
 
 {variant inter se al.) 
 B Sod'" (219 -in it'". Cf.^\29al. 
 BVffam 13 28 349 al' b c d g., k r arm 
 D(W) ir"" syr 
 
 NBCDASC Sod''-' '»" 2i"' it" vg 
 
 D ie""^ syr 
 
 D Sod'^'fam 13 2'" jF' .-Ji/r 
 
 Kat 
 Om apa'i tov <navpov 
 etrrvyvaaev . . xai 
 rovTOi TO) XoycD 
 Cford. T> abdffj 
 
 - r, yvvaiKa NBDAW So(P^' it'" Clem Orig"" [Habet ^ cum rell] 
 init. qui {pro eav) Latt (propter k et non) et Y>" 
 
 o? av, 09 ov Sod'" 28 [non W] 2'"' 004 goth aetli. 
 
 - aov sec. BDAW^J SoO"' 1 2'" Sod"" it" 
 -avTo, DW Sod'" vid 1 28 2"' 004 aP Sod"'''* 
 
 et [txt] if' boh pcrs 
 o( { + \onroi.) Sfxa D Sod'" abcdff^ iq boh" syr'"" 
 
 -Se DW Sod"" 2'" Sod"" it" syr sin diatess sah 
 
 (pr loco) eariv (pro earai) NBC'DLAW^' Sod'" it" vg copt 
 01 Se \e7ou(rtv to) Ti)<^Xa) (jtro Kai ifxovovaw tov Tv<f>kov XeyovTei; 
 
 avrm) D (2'") abdfftiq] 
 ■r]yyi^ev (pro Tjyyi^ovaiv) D it (praeter a) (riyyiaev 13 Sod"") 
 
 - ei? firfOi^am D 004 it" Orig 1/2 sed contra 1/2'"' 
 D it"""' sah'""' acth 
 D Sod'" it" 
 DW Sod»'» fam 1 [jio» 118] al. a b c (d) ffti k 
 
 — eti avTTjv 
 
 — avToK 
 
 euTpwvvvov 
 13. (CfDlatt) 
 \7}fjL'ylre(rde 
 ep^erai 
 
 D Sod'" 1 2"° 004 Sod™ latt Cypr 
 DX 2'" Sod'" it" 
 + Tt eiwoifiev (ante eav enroifiev) D4> Sod'" fam 13 28 [;!o;i W 
 
 = oTt eav eiTTco/tej'] 2'" 004 a 6 c d ff^ i (k) r et Sod [txt'\ 
 + ^p.w (post epei [\eyei T>^' b I]) DM W Sod"" 1 13 2"' 004 Sod"" 
 
 it" syr 
 -ovv AC'LMSXA al. et W^I' it" et d [contra D"] 
 
 4,ol3ovfi.eea D (<j>o^ov/iev D') NW2(^ ?) SodT" al. it" vg 
 
 t I'isch and Horner neglect to mention 2'". As W joins 28 for this Latin omisBioD 
 + tyr sin it shows that it is very oW. 
 
 LATIN BASE IN ST. MARK. 
 
 193 
 
 ibid. 
 
 xii. 2. 
 
 7. 
 
 14. 
 
 (ibid. 
 
 18. 
 
 TjSeirTav (pro ei)(ov) 
 BwiTovatv (pro Xa/9i)) 
 — eicewoi 
 
 ■\-enre ovv rjfiiv ei 
 — Sai/iev 1) fir] Swfiev 
 venerunt 
 
 19. e)(ri (pro KaraXnrri) 
 
 DW Sod'" >"■ 21" (otiaci 004) it arm 
 
 D it 
 
 Bit" 
 
 CDMNWl*: al. it" 
 
 D it") 
 b it" [sed d k veniunt cum 1)^' rell gr] 
 DW 28 (004) it" syr sin (cf. Luc xx. 27) 
 
 ibid. — xai (ante npo^aaei) 
 
 42. e\0ov<Ta Se 
 ibid, — TTimxri 
 t 43. — Ttov ffaWovTwv 
 
 20. a7re0avev xai (pro mro0vJitrKwv) DW 1 28 (2'") 004 al. it vg 
 
 syr copt 
 28. -iravTwv vel -naauiv DW Sod?" 2'" al. pane, it" syr sin 
 3tJ. vTTo TToSiov N pliir Sod" et latt (contra BD«'T"W* 28 
 
 Sod"" VTrotcariu) 
 37. >7)Sem? avrov rjK. B b d ffi i I r vg 
 
 40. oj KaieadiovtTiv (pro oi xareaBi ovTet) Bfam 1 it vg (cf syr copt) 
 ibid. +Kai opipavaiv DW /a»i 13 28 2'* a 6 c d ff^ Qi i q r syr 
 
 hier [non e k] Male Sod de latt. 
 D it (praeter e) vg 
 B Sod'" 1^ 004 it vg boh" sah Orig 
 B Sod'" '"' 2'" it" 
 
 W/awt 113 [non fam] 28 248 Sod'"' '"- 
 it" [non a d k] syr sin 
 (xiii. l/«. +TOV lepov Bit") 
 
 (2. avToK (pro <iVTo>) B Sod"" it" sah""" et /SXeTrere D it". 
 
 CfMatt) 
 2 fin. +«ai Ski Tptav ruiepoiv oXXo? avaoTTjaerai avev \eipu>v B et W 
 [non 2"*] it omn et e k Cypr (praeter I q vg) 
 
 8. - ecovrat see. DW Sod'" 213 2'" 004 Sod"'' »" '*" it vg syr sin 
 
 19. ffKifeii oiai ovK eyevovTO roiavrai D(*) 115 2'"299 Sod'"'"'"'" 
 
 latt. 
 ibid. -1)% (vel ijv) exnaev o 0eo9 D Sod'" 27 205 2'" Sod'"" '"' it" 
 xiv. 3. TOV tr/o-ov pro avrov prim. [lect. negl. Sod] B if' 
 
 9. a/iriv (-Se) ACFHMUWX Sod"" al. it (praeter a) 
 
 20. Xevet (pro enrev) D'4' Sod'" 2'" 004 Paris" latt 
 29. Xeyei (pro e-frn) B^ Sod" it" vg 
 
 (a-rroKp. \eyei W 1 13 2i" 004 Sod"") 
 31. eXaXet NBDL^T^ 892 Paris" it" loquebatur (Rell 
 
 e\eje) 
 35. TTpoeXdwv NB al. Sod" et it et d contra B'^' plur Trpo<re\da>v 
 36 fn. +0e\ei<; B Sod'" 2<" it" vg^^ 
 47. Kat ei9 W 6 c dff2 k q r syr sin (B'' xac ti<;) 
 
 50. >-iTavTet e^vyov B\^ Sod" plur latt sah[contra hohi<BCIjii^] 
 53. - avrw NDLAW Sod" fam 13 [non 124] 2'" 004 Sod"" 
 
 it vg Cfpers 
 
 t Tiaeh omiti to record 28. 
 of Latins follow D. 
 
 ■\Ve see that W supports 28 here agaiDBt D. Only a k 
 
V.H 
 
 CODEX li AND ITS ALLIKS. 
 
 xiv. 54. Ka6rifj.evo<; (;))o avvxaO.) U it (prader A) vg 
 
 08. Hnhent Km aXexratp e<j>a>ii7;trev D gr jihtr et latt omn (praeier c) 
 72. KOi Tip^aro KXaieiv D Sod"'' 2'"' it vg et 8 [contra A"' 
 
 Kai eiriXafioav exXaiev] 
 XV. 1 . a-n->)yayov {})>o airriveyKaf) CDGJ^W at. et latt {qms vide) 
 
 11. eTreio-ai/ (j)io (ireo-etcraiO D 2'" if""" (praeter I) sed liiant 
 
 b e/i q {enotria-av SodP'^') 
 
 12. -ov \e7eTe DAW So(f '" a/17 2>"' C04 et Sod''" latt 
 19. eTvTTTov avTov KoX. eif ttjv Keif). D 2'" latt sah 
 
 23. Kat ovx eXa/3ei' D/(im 1 latt°"'" 
 
 2!). 01 •7r»pa7oi'T69 {jiro 01 Trapmropevoiievoi) D latt {irpoayovie<t 2'"') 
 
 38. et? Suo /i6p?) D ii""'" 
 
 40. Ifnioi^ t^v Gr phir et it"'"" [contra NBTL minn''"'" et vg 1/2 
 
 W-H Sod] 
 44. ?;?7) (p?o TraXai 1)1 sfc /ofo) BDW c"' Sod'''" '*" latt jam. . .jam 
 4C init. Be io><Trj(\> {pro Kat) DS Sod"''" pane gr. latt°"'" 
 xvi. 1. -€\eov(7at, D it" (sed W ftaeXeovaai) 
 
 3. >TI9 rj/iiv airoKvK. D 2'" it 
 
 4. aTTOKeKvXiafievov D Sod°" 2'" it (revolutnm et n amotum) 
 NoTE.—Sudcn is very oliscure in Mark as to W and °'°. He merely 
 
 uses a small f as a rule to indicate tbese "followers" of D. When the 
 above li&t was compiled I was not in possession of the new edition of 
 Sod"". I have since received it and done what I could to add this witness 
 properly, and remedy my previous unsatisfactory study of von Soden. 
 
 r.S.— As to the historic presents in St. Mark referred to on pp. 101 
 scq. of (liis essay, refer to Sir John Hawkins' Horae Syji. p. 213/214, and 
 observe what he says of the exceptional use of the historic present 
 151 times by the special translator of 1 Kings in the Septuagint. On 
 p. 214 he sums up thus : 
 
 " In proportion to the comparative length of their works, no one of 
 the many translators or writers of the LXX equals Mark in the frequency 
 of this usage, though the translator of 1 Kingdoms is not very far distant 
 from him. On the whole then it remains a notable characteristic of 
 Mark, though not so exclusively as was claimed in the first edition of 
 this book." 
 
 On p. 144 seq. may be seen Sir John's lists of historic presents in 
 Mark where \eyet (ait) occurs very frequently. Have we sufficiently 
 considered the frequent use of epxerat in Mark for r/Xdev of the synoptists, 
 perhaps growing out of the worJi of a translator from the indeterminate 
 Latin renit? 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Concerning the Greek of D and the Testimony of the 
 Fathers in St. Mark. 
 
 " But it this be true for 0, single one of the errors exaraiaed, we are obliged to admit 
 that a Latin translation of tlie Gospels already existed in Tatian's time, and, that being 
 so, we conclude further that the text which Tatian employed was either an early Latin 
 text or the Greek of an early bilingual text. The two hypotheses are not so very far 
 apart ; and either can be supported from the phenomena exhibited by the variants of 
 Tatian's text ; upon the whole, I incline to think that a Latin text was employed." — ■ 
 Ilendel Harris, ' Codex Bezae,' p. 176/7. 
 
 " But scholars are only yet on the threshold of these enquiries, and immediate 
 results are not to be anticipated. Over-hasty hypotheses and premature generalizations 
 will not help in the end : it is to the accumnlation of new matetial, like our Latin 
 Clement, and io the patient questioning and cross-questioning of the whole body of 
 witnesses, singly and together, that we must look for real advance." (C. H. Turner: 
 St. Clement's Kpistle [in re the Latin version] and the Early Boman Church, p. 219 in 
 ' Studies in Early Church History' : Oxford, 1912.) 
 
 (1) As to the Greek of D. 
 
 Another thing which we may observe in the Greek of D (which is 
 certainly later than the Latin of d) is that among the harmonies which we 
 notice in D with the Greek of Matthew or Luke the points are frequently 
 confined to their words, and the process is not so much of the nature of 
 borrowing phrases as of consulting the synoptic Greek for assistance 
 when translating the Latin of Mark into Greek. Thus observe in the 
 following instances words substituted, not phrases, as at : 
 
 JIark 
 
 vii. 19. iKTepx^erai et e^epx^eria {pro eia-iropeveTai et c/crrop.) D" sol {cf 
 
 Matt) 
 
 X. 46. nraiTODv {jtro TrpocranoDv vcl Trpoaanri';) D" 2''' Sod"'" Orig 
 
 {cf Luc) 
 
 xiii. 34. a-Kohrjfiwv (pro ottoSv^o!) DX Sod"''" pauc (ut Matt xxv 14) 
 
 xiv. 44. eScoKiv V' sol = Matt xxvi. 48, while d and latf' = dederat 
 
 in Mark as SehtoKci the other Greeks, but a c k retranslating 
 
 the Greek of D = dedit [Sod"^" BeSmKev]. 
 
 ibid. a7)fiewv D"3 Sod"" pauc (pro avaarifiov) {ut Matt) 
 
 04. &0Ka (pro ^awerat) D^ Sod"'", and NS [hiat *] 28 [but 
 
 not W] 2"' [but not 604] Sod"" = Matt xxvi. 00 
 
 XV. 10. TjSei (pro eyivaxTKCv) D«'W Sod"" 1 13 2'" Sod"" = 
 
 Matt xxvii. 18 
 
 Observe in this same verse the reference of D is direct, for 
 
 he takes Matthew's TrapeSioKav, against his d = tradidisscnt 
 
 o 2 
 
1'^*' CODEX B AND ITS ALLIKS. 
 
 JInrk 
 
 {vapahehuiKeKTav Gr. pliir) which said TapiSwKav a lerenders 
 tradiclenint. 
 xy. 11. iTTeitrav (pro avitruaav) D {Sod"'-") 2'* ut Matt, xxvii. 20 
 17. iTTniB^aaiv (pro Treputffeaaw) D et latt (practer k superpo- 
 
 nunt) r/ Matt Jo cneBjiKav. 
 8(5. ■7r\^<Ta<; (pro yeiJ.iaa<:) i:) Sod"'" 2'" 604 Sod'" cf Matt XK\ii. 47 
 t47. (deacravTo (pro edewpovv) D Sod"''" 2'" r/ 7, itc xxiii. .5.5 
 
 (•2) .(.s <o independence of U. 
 
 The above are interesting samples, because D has other perfect 
 independence in translation as at : 
 
 ii. 21. emavvpaTTTu D" sol (eiritivvavTU W) pro e-Tripa-irru (adsuit) 
 iv. 1.5. a^ipu D^' sol (apna^ei NCA ut Matt) pro atpei [et 
 
 Luc] (aufert vel tollit) 
 (N.B.— Here it is NCA which borrow from Matthew). 
 21. a-mcTai (pro ipyejai vel KauTai) D" Sol 
 V 19. Stayyei\ov DW 1 13 28 604 (pro ott- vel av-ayyeiKov rell) 
 
 26. (iri TO x^ipov (pro et? to xeipov) D" Sod"'" 2'* 604 
 
 vi. yO. eyjKTTa (pro kvkXod rell omn gr) D" so2 cum 604 (ut proxi- 
 
 mas lattr"") 
 vii. 4. TTjpetp (pro Kparuv) D"' soi 
 
 ix. 20. e-rapa^ev (pro einrapa^ev vel crvveairapa^ev) D" sol 
 \. i4. vaiBapia (pro iraihia) D" sol ((? pueros) 
 
 :i}. S2. a\ri0a><; (pro ovrw;) D" sol [Male Sod de H] (Lattveie) 
 
 xii. 14. einKe<t>a\atov (pro Kr)vaov) T)^' Sod"'-" 124 2"' h (et Soden"'") 
 
 24. yewaxTxovTe'; (pro ttBoTet) 
 
 41. KaOe^ofievo'; (pro Ka0UTa<;) 
 
 7. 0opv0ei<r6€ (pro ffpofiaOe) 
 
 xiv. 61. erreiya (pro eciwira) 
 
 KtiXovaiv (pro <TvvKa\ovc iv) 
 iiyoucrw (pro <f)epovaip) 
 
 et c duxerunt) 
 
 XV. 16. 
 
 Df' Orig 
 
 D^' sol 
 
 1)" pane, [but 0poei<r0e also 
 
 Matt xxiv. 6] 
 ^y sol 
 D"' sol [contra d co/ivocaverunt] 
 ])" 13 2" (latt perdux. addux. 
 In Matt e\0ovT€<; (Aliter Luc Jo) 
 
 20. 06 TrapayovTei; (pro oi ■Kapawopevofiivoi) D (2'" •rrpaayoinev 
 
 nee mutat Cronin, sed irap ??) 
 84. e^wvrjarev (pro (fforjaev vcl ave^.) D Sol 
 40. -jrapa (pro airo) L)"'\V Sod"" 1 124 2'" Sod"" 
 
 (8) Concerning W ««(Z c ; concerning the Fathers. 
 
 Suppose that we did not own e. Then the first five chapters in 
 St. Mark as represented by W would be absolutely unintelligible to us. 
 We would simply think we had got hold of a new Greek recension of 
 
 t Tisch docs not mention 2''" (notavcrnnt c dff. q). C/also Mark xvi. 11 iBtaSi). 
 
 D AND THE FATHERS IN ST. MARK. 
 
 197 
 
 Egypt which had somehow influenced b and c in Europe. Instead of 
 this, by the help of e we see another state of things altogether, and find 
 that bee were the influences on W. St. Mark's Gospel is the dark and 
 difficult spot in textual criticism. The early quotations from it are 
 exceedingly few, and instead of St. Mark standing out as the paramount 
 and fundamental text used by the ancients before Origen, we find St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke occupy this position in the sub-apostolic 
 quotations. Did St. Mark's Gospel then remain only the European 
 standard for one hundred years? Was it in Latin until it reached 
 Alexandria via Carthage, or did it reach Alexandria directly in Latin or 
 Graeco-Latin ? These are the questions which may well exercise us. 
 The early Greek quotations are very meagre. I subjoin a few for 
 comparison. t The long one from Coh.5?'"", combining Luke xii. 35 
 
 t Mark i. 15. 
 
 ii. 20. 
 
 (r,uke V. 8.')). 
 
 A.p. 278 
 Mark iii. 27. 
 
 A.D. 254 
 Mark i.\. i!0. 
 
 „ xiii. 35. 
 Tjuke xii. 85. 
 
 (Matt, xxviii. 1 
 
 John XX. 1 
 
 Luke xxiv. 1 
 
 Mark xvi. 2) 
 
 Matt, xxviii. 1/6 
 
 Jo. XX. 1 
 
 Luke xxiii. 56 
 
 Mark xvi. 1,2,6. 
 
 xii. 21. 
 
 tUTtiVfuiTf fyytKf yap i] (iii(rt\rta riav nvpavtav. — Co«8/'''^' 
 
 \tyft yfift rrnv o Kvfmtt ntpi tnvTov tjiacTKotv orav mrnpSj) nrr avruv o 
 
 vvfjitptnt vi]iTTtv<TOviTtv tv tKitvms TGig rffitpms. — Const^- ^ 
 
 Quid enim ait sermo divinus ? Quia enim^ pot est int roire in domum 
 (ortis et diripere vasa ejus nisi illo Bit fortior? 
 
 — ' S. Archel Cascliar in Mesop. Episc' Gallaiul'-'^ 
 ]>cnique cum conversarentur in Galilaea, dixit eis Jesus Inci pit filius 
 liotninia tradi in manus hoininum et interJicient eum et post triduuin 
 resurj^et. — * Anon. Lib. de Bebapt.* GaUand""^ 
 
 iravTO Tn TrpofrrtTnyptva vpiv vtto tov Kvptov tf)v\a^nTt yprjynprtTt nrrtp 
 Ttjs C'^'^f vp(.)v, Ktrrutrav ai na(ftvit vpav Trrptf^tiKrfitvat Km ot \vxvot 
 Kftioptvnt Kat vpeis o^otnt avOpurTnte Trpoa!it\opfvoit tov Kvpiov tavraiv irirre 
 rj^n irriTipitt tj npal n\tKTnpn<l>avtat rj ptaovvKTtnv ' 17 ynp upn nv 
 jrprt{r8nitwfriv fXfvfffrai o Kvpint Km rtiv avTia avnt^atri paKaptni en fioiiXot 
 WK'tvin iiTt H'pt0rj{Tt!V yptiynpnviTts OTi lTipt({iitrtTnt Km nvaK\ti'H nvravt 
 Km T:npf\0titv ^inKiv^ati ni-rnir • vrjlpirt oiv Kat irpo<rti'\i{r0€ prj vnfuirai 
 fis BavttTof... — CoHst^^*-"^ 
 
 Altliongli a merger ot Mark and Luke, the double underlined 
 words = ilistinctly Mark. 
 
 ...Kai o^f iTti^3aT<av 05 o MarBatos rirrt ' Km irpcatnt en iritoTinc oi(ri;f 
 tai o luaift/r ypatpti ' Km opffpov ffafftoe ae o AnvKas ' Km Xioi/ irpai 
 nvaTttKmtTr>s Tttv rjXtns Kat o MapKoi. — £)ion*'" '™*- ^'" '■'"^ 
 
 TO fjTfi TOV MarOamv \f\$tv ovrut tj(€t. , .cpoiut o iaafvjjs . . .0 6t AovKOi 
 'fifJlTi. . . TnvTuf KaTaKitXtwSei Kat o MapKOs Xcyuf * rjyopatrav apatpara tva 
 tXvovaai aXtiyffuiTtv aVTov Knt \iav jrput ri;r ptac (rnfiOarittlf tpvovTat fjri 
 TO piT^pftnv avaTtt\»vTOi Tov rjKtov ' Xiav ptv yap nptitt Kat ovrot fnrev ontp 
 TavTov ftrTi Tw jiaofot op6pov Kat tirr^yaytv ni'orfcXaiToc tov rjKtitv. . . 
 r]ytp0r] iivK tartv wSf. — Dion ibid. 
 
 Ota ToiTo TrXdc.nrpf ^17 (tooTtt Ta a\i)dtj Ttitv ypaffitav tov ftvCKtv ayvottTt 
 TtjV ^vuaptu TOV fifov (Mark xii. 24). Pergens ti 8t ra aXTfffrj rtav ypatfttov 
 nyi'fjfii' rrirfu'9 t7rf;3nX(j' SrjXov wf ovTav ^tvStav ' tiX\a Kat (v to tptjvai 
 
198 
 
 CODEX ]! AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 and Mnrk xiii. 35, is interesting as introducing eaTr€pa<; for oi^e in Mark. 
 The Latins c and Jc both liave rcyhia (for xciv of the rest). Did this 
 Latin influence Coiiftt, or did the Greek of Const (appeiring nowhere else) 
 influence c and k? Even W has o>jre, so has D, and d = sero. So that 
 e k Const stand apart here froin both the DW tradition and the NB rell 
 recension. 
 
 Again Dion"'" fMves us the usual text of JIark : 
 
 Minlc 
 
 xvi, 1. ijjopcKTav iipai/iiiTa wa eXBovcat aXeiijraxTiv avTov, but T) C d ff 
 I n (hiat a) q {hiat h) omit eXOovcrai, — (W has euie\6ov<Tat) , — 
 so that the two recensions Alexandrine and European remain 
 quite different to the last. 
 
 A matter of considerable moment occurs at Mark x. 22 which may 
 help us. Of course Clement is a free quoter, but here the quotation is 
 quite certainly from St. Mark (ravTa /lev ev rm Kara MapKov cvayyeXiM 
 yeypaTTTai) for Clem begins o Se KTrvyvaaat ewi to Xoym airri\0e XviroV/ievoj. 
 
 ytvKrBf TfjaTTf^iTni 8oKinoi, (as ^OKifiiitv jcnt Kt$8r)\iiiV Xtryatv ovTa)V Ktit TO. 
 ttrrttv ' diiiTi tw vottrt to tvXnyov rav yp(i<i)tt)v, . . — Clem JEfom'" 
 ]\rark xii. 29. cjf <u y^i'p.u Xtyovytv tfirj nKou€ Ij-^iiX K'if)tot o dros \in<av Kvpiot fit 
 irrriv (Jfnrk xii. 29). — Chm How'" . This occurs on the next page to 
 the foregoing, anJ probably botli are from Mark. 
 Jo. iii. 5 \tytt ynp o Ktipior (av jkj) rir jSnTTTio-^t; f^ t-^.-iTor Kni irvfvtiaros ov p.if 
 
 Mark xvi. 16 (HTt\6n as t^v fia<Tt\ttav rtav tit^infcof Kni iTdXii' a TTitrTfvatt\ Kai ^mrTinBits 
 iTU'SjjfTtTnt o fif «irio-Trjfr«r icfiTnicpi^»jff»rni. — Co7isi'''^ 
 
 xvi. 17/18. Tnip dtnv Knt aiaTrjpo! rjptiJv Jv X/iii . . .ifii^tdr nvTot nov <f»](rtv. . .(J}tj(tw 
 TTiitTi'f itfta . . . (rTjti€ui Of Toir jrtfTTfi'frafrti' Tavrn nnfiaKo\ov6i](Xft ' <v rto 
 ovttpoTijifw batfjiovtn iK^iiXovvi " ^Xwctctoic Kntvnts XaXijo-oiKrti' * otptis npovai 
 Knv^ fiiivnfTtpnv T£ T7i<ii{Ttv ov pT] oi'ToiT ^Xo^fl ' <1TI appatTTovt \ftpai 
 
 fTTiOi)(TovfTi K<u KaXus t^nvirt. — Hi/i^"''''' (?e; c/iarism. c< CoH«i*'''-' 
 
 Jfark viii. 31 or . . .t^tm ynp npo tov (TTavftta6i)vai ' ^tt row viov tou ni'ou woXXa :rn^fiif 
 Luke xii. 22 Km mroSoKi finadrjvnt VTTO t<dv ypappnrtiijv Knt (paptirintay Kni trravpiiyfirjvai 
 Km TT] rpiTrf r]utpa nvn{TTT]vttt. — /HS^nl*"*^'"'' '" 
 
 De novo kui tv roic Xoyoir aVTOv irf)r) OTI TTtpi tov vaaj(ttv avTOl^ 
 /irXXftv &tt\fytTO oTt 8ft TOV vtov tov nt'ov ffoXXn iraSfiv Km aT:oioKipaa- 
 crjvm vno Titlv (fjapnTtrntatv Kai ypappirrttiiv Km {rTnvpbiffrjvni Knt tt] TptTrj 
 r}ptpn avnUTT)vnt. — Jltstin^^^'^ "•*> {Cf Ireil) 
 
 In both Mark and Litkc omtKTnvSrjvm is used for tTTavpu^i}vat of 
 Justin. 
 
 Jfark xiii. 22 fin-f yo,). . .(follows Matt. vii. 15, 1 Cor. xi. 18, Matt. vii. 15)...ir(i< 
 Matt. xxiv. 11 nvniTTT)tT0VTm TToXXot i/rfuflo^p(rrroi khi i)^fi'8onjrofrToXoc Kat iroXXour ratv 
 
 TTKTTUJV TT\nVT}ITOWtV . , 
 
 Neither in Jlark nor Matt, is >/rfi'5o.in-fjtrToXoi used. 
 
 D AND THE FATHERS IN ST. MARK. 
 
 199 
 
 Already we have had indications in Clem of a lost Greek base or of a Latin 
 original in v. 34 a-ireXOe eiv eiptjvtiv for vTraye {■jroptvov some) fi? eiprjvtjv. 
 Now we come to a much more important point. St. Mark is careful to 
 distinguish between xTq/iara iroXXa (that which the young man possessed) 
 in X. 22, and oi' ra yprj/jiara e'^ovTe? (generally speaking of others) in x. 23. 
 The Greeks are agreed here, except D ToWa 'xpr}iiaTa and 116 j(pj]fiaTa 
 TToXKa in ver. 22, but I shall give reasons for thinking that D d do not 
 preserve here the original text, but rather that b k have it. Further 
 observe that 2'" and 604 do not coincide with D here as they so often do, 
 and D is left alone with one cursive 116 about which we hear nothing 
 much elsewhere, so that the change from KTrj/iaTa to ;n;p7;/taT<i was 
 probably arbitrary. Now in verse 22 for KTij/mTa ttoXXo 6 says mitltas 
 2)ecunias et agros and k has multae divitias et agros and Clement = 
 XpvH-"'"' TToXXa Kai aypovt. This, as Barnard points out, is without other 
 Greek support. The point to notice first is that Clement has yprjiuna for 
 KTTiiiira, but he adds xai aypov; coinciding with 6 k of the Latins. 
 
 (^2 [Buchanan] has a kind of conflation of KTrjfiara and ^pruiaja 
 writing viultas possetsionis et pecunias.) 
 
 This passage would not mean so much to us if we had not previously 
 had the illuminating exhibition of the first quire of Mark in the MS W, 
 which provides us with a completely graecised text of the Latin conjunc- 
 tion 6 e in Mark i.-v. From vi. 9-xii. 37 e is missing, but is replaced by 
 k from viii. 8 onwards, so that the combination 6 k takes the place of 
 that of 6 e in the earlier chapters. Now these combinations b e and 6 k 
 point to the old European-African common base of the original Latin in 
 St. Mark. And I have stated elsewhere that 6 is probably an older form 
 of the d text. We know how largely in other Gospels Clement is 
 indebted to the D or " western " text whether alone or in combination, 
 so that here when he agrees with 6 it is no accident, and when Jc confirms 
 6, it links up Italy, Carthage and Alexandria. 
 
 We are now at last squarely up against this proposition. Did 6 and 
 k get this reading from translating KTrj/iara iroWa so as to give the sense 
 as opposed to ■xprtftaTa, or did Clement derive his Greek yPVH-'''''^ iroWa 
 Kai aypov; from the Latin oi b k? Or are both due to a more ancient 
 foundation, Greek, or graeco-latin going behind Clement? To ascertain 
 this, or to try to ascertain it, we must enquire what the other Greeks and 
 Latins do. 
 
 NBW then and all Greeks (but D) are agreed as to /cTTj/tara TroXXa 
 which can be a Greek rendering of mnltas pecunias et agios, just as well 
 as the latter can be a proper translation of KTij/iara -jroWa. But the fact 
 that Clement says xPVM'"''''' '"'oXKa xai aypov: lends force to something 
 earlier than the Greek of NBW etc. t 
 
 t This docs not prevent Clem when quoting freely in verse 29 from employing lem 
 
 XprjftaTa to COVer ij nypovs. 
 
200 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIIiS. 
 
 As to the other Latins, f q hy divitias multas may be ti'anslatiti<» 
 KTr]fiaTa iroWa or ■)(prifiaTa TroWn, but probably the former. 
 
 c S al. and vi) " jtonxessioncs mnltas " or " multas jwsaessiones " clearly 
 point to KTrjfuiTa TToWa. a = magnam pecvniavi, and is rather beside the 
 mark. Horner's note in nah is inadequate, and Tischendorf, as Barnard 
 points out, docs not properly represent Clement at all. [Soden also 
 neglects Clem.'\ 
 
 ]iut it may be regarded as certain that xTrffiara troWa is the settled 
 Greek text from 3:J0 a.d. onwards. Why then should we pay so much 
 attention to Clement b and I? For the reason that W in the earlier 
 cliaptors ot St. Mark shows us an entirely different Greek recension from 
 any other, apparently based upon b e [Clementine quotations here are 
 absent | and so, when we meet later the conjunction b k supported by 
 Clement's Greek — and that after W has drifted away to a more conven- 
 tional Greek text after chapter v. — we are forced to consider it much 
 more particularly than we should otherwise have done. 
 
 To return to I). Here we find iroWa ■^^prj/iara without koi tow? aypow. 
 The order doubtless due to that of d : " multas pecunias." Now observe 
 that the wording of h is the same : " multas pecunias " (differing from the 
 wording of all others [Tisch is wrong as to ffi\l- He (6) merely adds 
 " ft agros." Is this a conflation ? No. There is nothing to conflate. 
 Is it a gratuitous addition? No. For the sense calls for it. It seems 
 therefore as it d were the culprit who siippreased "et agros" thinking it 
 an unnecessary amplification. If he did not do this, how then did all 
 the rest get KTrniara instead of j^pij/iara? And how is it that Cleni while 
 having -xjp-qfiaTa of I) b d yet supplies koi aypovs with 6 l? 
 
 We are forced to the conclusion that Clem b k with the longest 
 text here represent an original form, lost to NBW for the same reason that 
 Mark v.-xvi. in this early text-form is lost to W, who uses one text 
 (= b c e) in his first quire, and quite another thereafter. This later text 
 shows traces of bilingual influence, but is ot another character and cast 
 to that used for the early chapters. Something happened then, of which 
 we arc unaware, and we can only surmise the reasons for this state of 
 things from internal and circumstantial evidence. 
 
 One thing stands out paramount. Clement must have been in 
 iwssession of a Maican text in chapter x. closely allied to that shoicn by 
 W /) e in the earlier chapters, and so when Mr. Sanders says " Someone 
 had to send to North Africa for the beginning ot Mark " (in order to 
 explain the situation as to his W in ch. i.-v.) I think this illustration tends 
 to show a different state ot things. It shows that this Latin text otb-i-e, 
 b + k, was in existence already in Greek Egypt in Clement's day, and 
 whether in Latin form or as a Graeco-latin, it perished in Greek Egypt 
 (owing to the persecutions or otherwise), so that only a fragment remained 
 accessible to W, and nothing of it in Greek remained when NB took up 
 their task ot copying. 
 
 D AND THE FATHEU3 IN ST. MAUK. 
 
 •201 
 
 As to these Egyptian traditions note that 28 sometimes opposes W, 
 and goes behind W. For example, at Mark x. 21 we are to read with 
 Clem and 28 .SW°"'™ only: o 8e iijo-ou? en^fa^; {-avTo,) of the self- 
 righteous young man rendered famous in Matt xix., Mark x., Luke xvni. 
 Mr. Barnard has supplied us with a most interesting apparatus on 
 what follows in Clem as to Mark x. 23 seq. It is all so frightfully involved 
 that it would be too long to discuss at length here. 
 
 His TTopa ^e-B hvvaTov in x. 27 is closely paralleled by d and k plu.s/^ a, 
 while D in Greek with nrapa he t<b Bea) hwrnov is close, but 157 closest 
 with irapa &e 0e<o Zvva-rov without the article. The Se seems to belong to 
 the basic text, although Clem omits, but the absence ot the article before 
 Bern makes for a thoroughly Latin text in Clem. 
 
 In X. 30 the very difficult Clementine ei? -kov (for €i/ to) aiwvi) which 
 worries Barnard, for it is repeated later (Q.D.S. § 4, § 25) many pages apart, 
 seems to represent eaff oirov and must be some kind ot a colloquial 
 equivalent of in aeiio of the Latin b d, which short Greek form would fit 
 the lines of a Graeco-Latin bilingual in Clement's hands to correspond 
 with the six letters in " inaeuo." 
 
 Another small matter attracts close attention. 
 
 x. 25. For the Greek (VKOTrtoTepov, Clem uses evKoXax;, paov, and ffarrov. 
 
 Mr. Barnard says : 
 "evKuXai (in 938) must be a mistake, perhaps tor evKOTrmTepov, the 
 true reading in all three Gospels, paov (in 930) appears to be unsupported, 
 but is an easy sense variant (cp. Latin facilius). With Outtov (950, 440) 
 compare raxeiov in D." As to D, there is a "window" in the parchment 
 here which only leaves t etov, but we may assume ax- This then makes 
 /our Greek variants as between D and Clem for facilius (which word is 
 constant in Mark, Matt, and Luke among the Latins for euKOTrarepov), 
 namely rax^'ov, cukoXw?, Oairov, and paov. 
 
 Now it requires a stupendous teat of imagination to suppose that, 
 when quoting Mark's Greek, Clement should indulge in three alternative 
 Greek renderings for facilius, and yet neglect both the common text ot 
 the other Gospels evKowmTepov and also that ot D's Greek Taxfiov, it he were 
 not himself more familiar with Mark in a language other than Greek. 
 
 It seems quite clear from this passage that D was translating d into 
 Greek, lilany other places confirm this (vide supra). Was not Clement 
 doing the same ? 
 
 There are other things against this, however. For while d has 
 in this very verse iransire, D has iteXevaerai opposite, which Clem 
 (StcKSvaeTai Q.D.S. §2) supports as to construction with fio-tXeucrrrat, 
 Q.D.S. §4 and §20, but 8(e\fU(7c<rflaj (S^o»i.).t 
 
 t But consider x. 30 " i.t/ ■• St ri. t» icn.pa. ro«r<o " CInn with il " nunc in hoc tempore " 
 ia Mark'8 pleonastic manner while D" omits ruv, having only " tr ra Kmpa, mi™." 
 
 01 coarse Clem shows some ot the same traces in the other Gospels and from 
 Luke vi. 29, where KDW G04 892 alone among Greeks with C/cm'"'"' Orig'"'^ use e.t 
 
'J02 
 
 CODKX B AND ITS ALLIUS. 
 
 Further (7,'w reads rp^/iaro? once (with N in Mark, NB Matt NBD 
 Ijuke) against Tpv/iaXiSo:; of D in Mark. 
 
 1 cannot clear away the labyrinth of complicationa-it is never 
 possib e to do so m a passage common to three Evangdists like thist-but 
 I thmk consKlcrat.on will show here that the Greek text of Mark was not 
 
 • ■ >"f VT'? ^^ '" A'^-^"'"''''"- """^ the natural inference is, in 
 
 tl e hght of all else and of Ws first quire of Mark (= e). that a Latul of 
 ht. Mark s Gospel existed in Alexandria in the second century 
 
 Consider now St. Jerome's very deliberate statement (obtained from 
 
 radit.on or written documents and no doubt from Papias partly or from 
 his source) in his ■ Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiastorum ' ■ 
 
 Maecus discipulus et interpres Petri juxta quod Petrum referentein 
 audierat rogatus Romac a fratribus breve saijmt Evangelium. Quod 
 quum letrus audisset probavit et Ecclesiis (a/. Ecclesiae) legendum sua 
 aucoritate edidit (al. ieiit) . . .Assumio Hague Evangelio guod ipse 
 confcccnit pcnexit Acggptmn, et primus Alexandriae Christum annuncians 
 constituit ecclesiani. . .Mortuusest autem octavo Neronis anno et sepultus 
 Alexandriae succedente sibi Aniano." 
 
 If tills statement be studied in the present connection it seems to me 
 
 o be somewhat illuminating. St. Mark is here said to have reached 
 i-gypt with his Evangel in his pocket. What was that Evangel ? If it 
 
 7,. ,r<„v„«, for ,;r. T,. „,„y„„„ with all Latioa in viaxillam, it is quite easy to presuppose 
 a Gracco-Lahn in Alexancbia in the second century. The Coptic expression here ie 
 
 exH or ^en. 
 
 the L^tin w™s ? ■ ^^ '''"' ''"*'''" *"'"" ''^ """ "'""^ '""^ ''"'' ''"'''""• '^^hat is this but 
 
 C/ also Luke ix. 29 ,XA„.,.«, D d (mutata est) c (commutata alia) copt .yr arm aeth 
 and Urigcn, Anwb. 
 
 ,vif),^°'° '.""^V^'f -'"l'""" '■'"'^''^ ^'^ ""■ '^'' ^''"^ °"Sen (rou i, Xo„,„) is alone 
 «.thDand Thcoaol. form. ..„„„„ „v„„ .p^„^,,„, ,„ ,, J„|, .„,„„ jn^t^^ „, ^^„^_ 
 
 TUV UfVV. 
 
 r, ^r^rT ^'r,?.' '"u"'"' "Western" or foreign readings in the Gospels outside 
 cf St. Mark and although they sometinnes indicate apparent translation they do not 
 Ecem to hold quite the same position as those referred to in St. Mark. For instance 
 John 1. 3 x^p-! 18 used six times and „«v only once; i. 11 ny„9„t five times, .aXot 
 once, xiii. 33 ,i„,,„„ twice, oX.yox once. Note however Matt. v. 19 ufymTov and 
 luaxunus Cy^r, vi. 21 .o„r {rf Justin and eoj,/), xiii. 11 r„ ;,„^,p.„., xv. is -„ r,r 
 -«vS.nr 'i'PX'™, which occupies one line in D d, xviii. 20 ^apo.t, xxvi. 27 Xn&r, 
 ^..T, with ft h njr and Cyr Epiph and Roman liturgy; Luke vii. 25 «.ayo,a„, xii. 11 
 ftiimuLv vpat fit, xiv. 8 avamim, xxiv. 43 (/laycoi. as 6/, j. 
 
 At Jo. X. 16 uni fit TToi/iiji/ CTcm writes with /a«i but not d I 
 
 Latin appears everywhere. It can be detected in Marcion's Greek of Luke; and 
 observe C7iro,i alone at Luke ii. 7 using ,„,«,„„ for a„,Xi«i, where vett plur have 
 po.viU for rcclinaiit of vg. 
 
 ■\Vc may also pause to consider the agreement of Clement of Alexandria'. Greek 
 quotations from the Epistle of his namesake Clement of Home with the Latin version of 
 this Ej.istle discovered by Dom Morin (see Turner : Studiet in Early Church History 
 p. 25.0) in connection with a possible GraecoLatin version of Cf<?ni'""'in Alexandria. 
 
 t See above, pp. 4'>IAfy. 
 
 D AND THE FATHERS IN ST. MARK. 
 
 203 
 
 was in Latin or even in graeco-latin form, Clement's heritage (within a 
 hundred years or so) is explained as partaking largely of the Latin base 
 of Mark's document " quod ipse confecerat " at Home under the direction 
 of Peter. The Semitic doublets (referred to elsewhere) as gathered from 
 Peter's preaching or instruction (and in preaching what more likely than 
 these emphatic pleonasms), dressed in the Latin language of somewhat 
 flowery rhetoric of the time, appear in Mark's narrative. Here, in 
 Mark x. 25, we are only considering "facilitis," but it seems a good place 
 to quote St. Jerome's account of the transfer of the Marcan Evangel from 
 Home to Alexandria, whether in accord with the strict facts governing 
 the case, or not. Athanasius continues to repeat this tradition, and 
 Eusebius (3 § 39, 6 § 25) carefully chronicles the matter. The latter, 
 quoting from the ' Hypotyposes ' of Clement, gives his version as follows : 
 " He says that those which contain the genealogies were written first ; 
 but that the Gospel of Mark was occasioned in the following manner : 
 ' When Peter had proclaimed the word publicly at Home and declared 
 the Gospel, under the influence of the Spirit : as there was a great number 
 present they requested Mark, who had followed him from afar, and 
 remembered well what he had said, to reduce these things to writing, 
 and that after composing the Gospel he gave it to those who requested it 
 of him. Which when Peter understood he neither hindered nor 
 encouraged it.' " 
 
 Were there any other Greek authority for raxeiov, darrov or paov, it 
 would surely have been reflected in some of our Greek or Latin documents. 
 As facilius is constant in the Latins, what more natural than the assump- 
 tion that Clement was building on Latin foundations ? 
 
 Bemains to consider euKoXeo?. Mr. Barnard says this must be a 
 mistake,! but this assumption is extremely doubtful. It may be intended 
 to convey the comparative degree of facilius and in fact conveys also the 
 " nimbleness " involved in Bimov or Tax^'ov, while being a better verbal 
 antithesis to Sua/coXoi' (Suo-.oXftj? in the parallels) than evKo-rrwTcpov. 
 
 Consider further Clement's unique aTroXrjyjreriii for Xa^rj in x. 30, 
 using the future. Comp. a d q "accipiet" against "accipiat" of the 
 others [k "relinquet "]. And observe that D (a 6 d ff., I + accipiet) add 
 Xij/i-ferai at the end of verse 30 after feuiji' aiaviov (c -l-accipit there and 
 h +conseqnetur, cf sijr sin). 
 
 t Page 83 note, and page 35 note, " the meaningless c I'KiIXwt." But compare 
 ^lark ix. 43 and 47 kuXoi' eo-ri at xuXXoi'. . .7 and kuXov tariv at . . .fj just as in Matt. v. 29 
 and 30 uvft<ptpft yap. . .(tni prj where the comparative degree is absent in the introductory 
 clauses. The Latins follow suit. C/ Mark ix. 43 47 fconniK etl. ..qtiam. In fc indeed 
 bonum. . .quani in ver 43, 7iicliu8. . .quani in ver 47. C/nlso Matt, xviii. 8 9, Luke xv. 7 
 xvii. 2, 1 Cor. xiv. 19, and r/Blass pp. 142/3, "for which there are classical parallels." 
 And above : " The positive may be used with the meaning of the comparative (or 
 superlative) : this occasionally takes place in the classical language, but it is mainly due 
 to the example of the Semitic language which has no degrees of comparison at all." 
 
204 
 
 CODEX 11 AND ITS ALLIIIS. 
 
 Once move (Mutt xxii. Ml, Mark xii. 'iO, Luke x. 27) we find Clement 
 following a shortened form. He has but two clauses : ef oXi;? rr;? yfruxv 
 o-ou Kai ef o\7)9 tt;? Suva/ieo)? o-of. C/ 157 /r J'., (only among Greeks and 
 Latins) and Jimtiii. McelF-'" also thus " xara Mapxov" . . . ef oXi;? 
 T?;i ^VX'I'! i''od I <■» K"/aSin?) o-ou /cm cf oXi;? tt;? layypo'i aov. 
 
 Finally Mark xii. 41/4 = Luke xxi. 1/4 we find in a rather free 
 quotation the expression (ver 42) Tqv Se x^P"" X"^"''"'' 8uo...See 
 Barnard's note where he says Clem follows Mark rather than Luke, and 
 observe with him the Greek equivalent of the copper shown by 
 
 aera niinuta duo b ff-^, aera duo c di q\a Mark. 
 Now Item duo of d stands right opposite XeTrra hvo in D" at Mark xii. 42. 
 There is nothing in D about x"'^*""?- In Luke xxi. 2 d has duo miinix 
 quod eat codrautes opposite Svo Xe-jna o einip xoip ivTr/it. There n has 
 dunx qiiadrantea and s quadrantes duo. The 2-g has there aera miiiuta 
 duo as c f Jfi i I q r, or duo aera mimita as e. 
 
 It is the Latins therefore who supply " brass " or " copper " whether 
 in Ijuke or Mark, so that the source of Clement's ;;^a\Kou? Svo is very 
 clear. There is no Greek authority for jijaX/roi-?, not even D nor W. The 
 only authority is the x"^""" in Mark xii. 41, but this is quite different 
 from Clement's ;^;a\Kou? &vo of verse 42, which corresponds exactly to the 
 aero duo of d r i q (A- follows the Greek with minufa duo). 
 
 In such a connection observe the occasional and definite agreement 
 between D and Egypt, as at 
 
 Murk 
 
 XV. 47. Tov ToTTov oTToi) (^Do TTov) T) c d ff^ q ami sah 
 This is the regular Coptic method which Sod.ii overlooks by not 
 reporting ,iali in his notes. 
 
 TertuUiau. 
 
 Tertullian's first important and genuine Marcan quotation for our 
 purposes occurs at ix. 6 concerning the transfiguration, which runs 
 " nescit quid diceret Petrus." This distinctly shows the two old streams, 
 for NBC*L.i" 1 28 33 2"" 604 892 Paris" A- boh and Orig''" have uTroKptdr, 
 (aireKpiOr) N Orig) while D and the rest and aeth syr have \a\j]crr) or 
 \a\TjrTei, and W graphically \oX« with sail, while Sod"'' = eXaXei. The 
 Latin of d is loquebatiir, but a c ff^n q = loqneretur, while b (with f i I r 
 I'l 8t ?o' f""' vg) has the diceret of TerttiUian (Tiscli neglects Tert). Thus 
 in Tertullian's time the diceret of b had not been changed to the respoiideret 
 of A', and sah shows that the first Egyptian flow of the text was diceret or 
 XaXei and not airoKpiSij. Hence a-mKpi6r) of Origen and his friends (observe 
 
 t 5 indeed has diceret right over A"^' ajrnKpidq. Coirect TiscJi A to A". He hardly 
 ever distinguishes, which is most annoying, as A in St. Jiarlt so constantly goes with the 
 Egyptian group that we must I<now when 8 opposes. 
 
 D AND TH15 I'ATHERS IN ST. MA]!K. 
 
 205 
 
 that 33 Paris" are involved in the change) is younger than Tertullian or 
 forms a different recension. Sod quotes Orig for \a\ei, but see Ti^ch. 
 
 (The Persian here, it correctly translated, has a very curious way of 
 putting it: " Et adhuc prae metii concepto ac terrore in sermone erat," 
 thus obviating the difficulty of using either XaXijtrei or airoKpiOv, but 
 holding the graphic XoXet by innuendo.) 
 
 Mark 
 
 xiv. 13. Tertullian's next important quotation is " Cum ultimum 
 pascha dominus asset acturus missis discipulis ad praeparan- 
 dum Invenictis t inquit hominem aquam baiulantem. Now no 
 (Jreeks Latins nor syr copt appear to have anything concern- 
 ing this man but that " a man (avOpanro^) will meet you (in 
 Luke as in Mark, all wravrqaei or airavrriau and all occurret 
 cobis, or obviabit d in Luke), not that " yc will find a man." 
 The only authority for invenietis is the aethiopic, another link 
 between Carthage and Greek Egypt ! Talk of Latin texts 
 in Egypt. Here is as startling an instance as any I have 
 brought forward elsewhere. It is not noticed in Tischendorf 
 nor by Horner, nor by von Soden in his, the latest, critical 
 edition. 
 Unfortunately there seems nothing else to be gleaned from Tertullian's 
 scanty references to the Marcan Gospel, but if it had been held in that 
 esteem which modem scholars accord to it it is impossible to conceive 
 such neglect of it by the early Church Fathers, for one and all they 
 prefer to cite from St. Matthew and St. Luke. 
 
 Justin. 
 
 viii. 31. As to Justin's use of <rTavpa>67)vai for airoKTavOr^vai all seem to 
 
 be against it except Iren and Clem, and D has lai airoinav6rivai 
 
 on one line, but d omits altogether, thus throwing out of gear 
 
 the relation of Latin to Greek for no less than eleven lines. 
 
 They only come together again in ver. 34 where 
 
 d has deneqet se ipsum I • . , , ,• 
 
 . , „ , } m two short hues 
 
 et tollat criicem siiam | 
 
 and D, just before turning the page, puts this into one line : 
 
 apvTjaaaOat eavTou ' Kat apaTO) tov arpv avTov.\ 
 
 Thus d probably was aware of a textual difference. To show how 
 
 one matter can illustrate another, a reference to Evan 157 will show 
 
 another (unique) omission in that xis in this verse of ttoX-Xo -n-aOeiv kol J 
 
 t So two Mss, and the two others cnnveniciis. 
 
 \ We have to infer h-om this that the Greek of D or of the parent of iD, although 
 occupying the left-band page of honour, was copied after the latin side <1. 
 § b exceptionally has " omnia pati et." 
 
20() 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIKS. 
 
 wliich soenis to show that there was some trouble in an old parent as to 
 the line arrangement of both <1 and 157. In the long lines of D" xai 
 begins six consecutive lir.es in vv. 31/32 so that there was room for 
 trouble. 
 
 Add to this that in the versions the word tor iraOeiv and imti has 
 been somewhat expanded to include torture, as 
 
 Iters'"'- multum cruciatum paterotur, 
 
 aeth'"^ multum injuriae inferrent, 
 and it begins to look as it a complicated interraction among early docu- 
 ments had confused j)«?(', cnicifigi, and occidi. 
 
 207 
 
 Possible Courses oi' Tuansmission of St. M.*.nK's Latin, 
 Greek, Graeco-Latin Gospel. 
 
 OR 
 
Luke 
 
 viii. 
 
 CIIAPTER VIII. 
 
 B IN St. Luke's Gospel. 
 
 Example of editing hij B. 
 
 — Kai vTroKovovaiv avTO) B 604 and aeth (Cf Marc iv. 41). 
 I'ossibly a harmonistic attempt. If the omission be really 
 neutral, why do W-H not follow it? {Soden's only new 
 witness is 050* ? Now 0-50 throughout Luke is close to B, 
 in Mark to D as well as B, while in Matthew it favours N as 
 umch as B.] 
 
 The " longer " text in B. 
 
 xii. 14. We have to choose between 
 
 KptTTjv simply D 28 33 c d sijr cu sin Terf""" 
 
 Kpnijv t) liepiiTTrjv SBL niin aliq 
 
 '^^ hixaaTrjv 17 /ifptcrTi)!' AQEWXPAII MIlc'" al. pi {fiep. j; BlK. C*" 
 aeth) apxovra -n Kpn. r) fup. Sod"^' while 1.57 treats us to 
 ap)(Oina xal SiKa<TTr]v {cx Act vii. 27) 
 
 TertuUian is very definite for xpirrtv alone. The sah is 
 iiii.\ed, and Horner's text follows the MS which chooses /iepio-riji/ 
 as a substitute for xp. 1/ /tcp. ! 
 
 I think there can be no doubt here who has the correct text, 
 and that is the small group D 28 33 c rf sijr cu sin Tert. Cf. 
 Merx vol. ii. p. 302 " Das jiidische liecht kennt keine hesondern 
 Erhtciler, es war Aiifgabe hochstens eines |"T = Richters." 
 
 1.57 emphasises the matter of an amplification by its impro- 
 visation from Acts vii. 27 (= Exod. ii. 14). 
 
 Then again close by at Luke xiii. 27 —irodev tart D 56 58 
 ()1 291 d (e) Clem""" Orig Hier, clearly the " shorter " text, not 
 adopted by B nor by W-H nor by Soden. 
 
 Hough Lint of Approximate Solecisms. 
 (For further particulars see Part II. under " Differences between N and B.") 
 
 ii. 22. —Tov (ante KaBapia/iov) B'°' 
 
 47. -01 aKovovT€<; avrov BW {Orig"") ^V?? [Sod non Lake'] 
 
 48. ^n-rov/j-ev {pro e^JiTovfiev) N* B 69 (e*"?) followed by W-H, 
 but this is Coptic again ! Sah has plainly the present ErfUjlrtE- 
 The imperfect would have the prefix rfA.lt (and the perfect 
 eXAn). Boh two MSS express this imperfect itA.rcKOU'J" 
 against eitKUU'^"! by all the rest. But boh''' actually write 
 gHnne ic neKiuuT nexi AnoK itAnoi fiejuKAg itgHX 
 ne EitKCU't" RctOK : " Behold thy Father and I we were 
 grieving in heart, we seeking thee." 
 
 iii. 4. /3i/8Xt«) B'°' 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 209 
 
 iii. 8. afiou? KapTTOvt (pro KapTrovt a^iovt) 
 33 
 
 IV. 23. 
 
 17. 
 
 19. 
 
 vi. 26. 
 
 31. 
 
 34. 
 
 37. 
 
 ibid. 
 
 vii. 35. 
 
 39. 
 
 47. 
 
 viii. 13. 
 23. 
 25. 
 27. 
 35. 
 
 43. 
 
 B Orig soli (contra rell 
 et Orig'"' bi.i) 
 
 — AfuvaSafi B*"' (owing to confusion as to whether to read 
 Adam or Aminadab; see Coptic versions which vary here). 
 Actually omitted by W-H on the sole authority of B. 
 yevo/icva ei<t tijv xaifiapvaovfit (pro yev. ev ti; Ka<f>.) NBW 
 (DL fam 13 604 892) followed by W-H txt without marginal 
 
 alternative. 
 
 See also 
 
 Kai r/v KrjpvcriToov eii Ta? <TVvaya>ya<; (pro K. rju Kr/p. ev rat's 
 
 a-vvayayyaii) NBDQW^ mill pane. 
 
 eic TOV ttXoiou cBiSaaxeu (pro eS. ex tov Tr\oiov) B'"' followed 
 
 by W-H. This change of order is adopted by SD d e but e v 
 
 TO) 7r\ot<a eStS. is their version. 
 
 + 01 (ante vouoiSiSa<7KiiKoL)\ ,,.,., ., , , 
 
 , , , , t B"" B goes wild here about the 
 
 -t-TTj? (ante Kmiir)s) ] " 
 
 article. Having 01 ^apuraioi with BS a few boh [not sah, 
 
 see D TOV? <}>ap.] but following it xai 01 vo/ioSiSatrKoXoi (without 
 
 boh sah) 01 r)aav e\r]\v0OTf'! ex Trac?;? t 17 9 k(i>/j.i]i; tij? FaX. The 
 
 latter quite alone and unnecessary. 
 
 TravJo)v (pro tov Irjtrov) B'"' Cf Marc ii. 12 harmonistic 
 
 omission 
 
 B 604 syr sin sah soli 
 
 B 604 Paris" o/,i W-H 
 
 B 604 e aeth [W-H] 
 
 B Paris" 
 
 B"' 
 
 BH et V-" soli et W-H 
 
 B 892 Paris'.' soli cum Evst antiq 
 gi--copt (2}ost fragm T', vide Amelineau, p. 52) 
 avToi (pro ovToi) B'°' (Sod''"" cf. a c r) 
 
 > €1? TTju \iiivr)v av€fu>v B Paris" a soli 
 
 B 604 aeth (Sod"") 
 
 B"" 
 
 — Ton (ante Ijj<7oi/) Instead of accusing B everywhere (I have 
 not referred to the frequent loss of o before Iijo-ou?) of slurring 
 the article in connection with our Lord, we may perhaps 
 connect this also with Latin influence [see just above viii. 29 
 airo used for agency instead of vno by BH alone = re of Latin]. 
 W-H actually place tou here in viii. 35 in square brackets as it 
 B had done some clever thing. In viii. 41 they are pleased to 
 omit on the strength of N'BPS c"" (N corrector thought differ- 
 ently !). Soden reports no other witness for -tou at viii. 35. 
 
 — 61? laTpovt TrpoaavaXmcratTa 6\ov tov fiiov B arm, cf. D sah 
 
 etc. Omitted by W-H. Noted in ' Genesis,' p. 401. 
 
 p 
 
 — 01 TTOTepe? avrtav 
 
 — Kat v/iei^ 
 
 — eariv 
 Si«afeT£ 
 iiKa(r0r)T€ 
 
 iiKataidr) (pro cSiKaiwSii) 
 
 o irpo<jyriTi)f 
 
 + Kai (ante oXiyov ayana) 
 
 — Kat vnaKovovo'i.v avTw 
 Tt? amip 
 
210 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 viii. 45. —Kni, 01 fier avTov BII C04 mill' sah (syr) In Mark there is 
 not countenance for the omission, the phrase being eXeyov 
 avTio 01 fiad-qTai avTov. How did the omission arise here 
 then? (followed by W-H, no word in margin). "Well there are 
 two variations of reading, xai oi ^er avrov EGH etc and 
 Kill oi crvv avToo NACDW etc and H so often with B. Such 
 " doublettes " either indicate an original basic omission, or 
 hesitation due to doubt as to which reading to adopt, finally 
 resulting in rejection of both. Here, especially as H deserts 
 B, it is possible that the omission is a mistake. 
 IX. 18. avvrfVTrfaav B"°' cuni 157 245/. 
 
 62. — 7rpo?auToi' B™' 604 and sah 1/3 or possibly 2/3. Due 
 probably to inversion of order here. 
 X. 1. -avTovt B 604 Paris" et Eus"'" (Contra Tere"'" lib 
 
 "Hi. . .in civitates mittebantur"). This does not seem 
 to be a legitimate "shorter" text, although witnessed to 
 by Eus. 
 Cf. ii. 3 cauTov pro iSiav supported by Eus. 
 Cf. Canon Cook's remarks as to Eus. 
 
 " Nov? when we once more apply these observations to a text which 
 on other grounds we maintain to be substantially or completely identical 
 with that which was published under the influence of Eusebius, we are 
 driven to the conclusion that such characteristics are to be looked for ; 
 and that, so far as they can be shown to exist, they impair, if they do not 
 overthrow, the authority of that text in matters so weighty as those to 
 which we have called attention in this discussion. 
 
 " That Eusebius was an enthusiastic admirer, a devoted adherent of 
 Origen no one need be reminded who knows aught of the history of that 
 age, or who has read, however hastily, his history of the early church ; 
 that in all questions he would defer absolutely to the authority of Origen, 
 especially in questions of criticism, is almost equally undeniable ; nor do 
 I hesitate to state my immoveable conviction that in that influence is to be 
 found the true solution of the principal phenomena which perplex or 
 distress us in considerinxj the readings of KB." 
 
 But if this be so, why do not W-H omit avTovt here, for Eus 
 replaces Orig? 
 
 For an example of Origen 's looseness consult Luke x. 19 iBov SeSaixa 
 (vel SiSaifit) v/iw Trfv e^ovcriav rrareiv ( — Ton) eiravm o0. «ai axopir. 
 
 This Tov with the infinitive is omitted by Origen four times, although 
 he has it twice elsewhere with Eus and Bas. It is also omitted by 
 Cyr"^'"- "'"'" (against Cyr^"'), by Thdt 2/3, by Epiph, by Caes'", by 
 Macarius, by Antioch'"'"' , by A than'"""", by Just'^''^ (Ka-raTraTew), but against 
 all Mss except W fam 1 (where 118 does not agree to omit it). 
 
 This is a beautiful place to stop at and think this over, because in 
 the very same verse B gives us a reading rrjv Swa/iiv tjji/ tov eyOpov only 
 supported by Origen, but he thus only once out of six times I 
 
 B IN ST. Luke's gospel. 
 
 211 
 
 Note Luke xii. 42 tov SiSovai (or tov StaSovvai H (e)) of most 
 and Orig 1/2 is opposed by this selfsame Origen 1/2 with SiSovat and 
 DLQ("W)X + two EvsP only (and d " dare " against ut del of the rest). 
 
 Luke 
 
 X. 24. " Kai aKovaai {+fiov) daxoveTe" B alone, not followed by 
 W-H, TET sah SUPPORTS ! Could anything tie sah and B 
 closer together? Add Am^lineau's T'?, another MS from 
 Egypt but Amel. prints tov. (see below x. 38). 
 27. tov Oeov {pro tov 0eov <rov) (H only supports B*) 
 
 — Kai prim B "' 
 
 31. -ff Only B 1 [non fam] Paris", cf. latt f i I q (sah et boh 
 
 variant inter se) aetK'"' " per " 
 35. eK^aXtav eSoaxev &V0 Srivapia B alone has this order with sa^. 
 38. — (11 TOV oiKov avTii<! B. Not followed by W-H, yet 
 
 sah omits ! (see above x. 24.) 
 42. oXiycov Be ^eta eoTiv r) evo<! B"°' (cf. NC^L 1 33 Paris") 
 xi. 9. KArw YMIN A€ru) YMINA€ AiTEire B (pure error not recorded 
 
 by Tisch.) 
 
 11. rat avTi (pro /iTj ami) B Epiph (and 234 apparently; 
 
 also r /If) Kai ovTi) Not adopted by W-H. 
 ibid. — apTov /it) \i6ov eiriSoMTei avTa> ij xai B only of Greeks with 
 ffilri sah syr sin arm Orig Epiph W-H. 
 
 12. -/It} B (and L 892 sah). So W-H without a word in the 
 
 margin ; see x. 24 38. 
 This is a clear case of " improvement," yet I may really rank it here, 
 as L does not strengthen B at all. How W-H can look upon L as an 
 independent document justifying their course passes my comprehension. 
 W-H follow NBL alone Mark i. 39, xvi. 4, BL Luke xvii. 12 33, xxiii. 39 
 42, not NBL xi. 27. Verses 11 and 12 offer here an example of extreme 
 condensation by B. It is a " shorter " text, but very wild. 
 
 xi. 15. /8€c?€/3ou\ NB only (as in Matt. x. 25) with Paris" ^e^e^ovX vid. 
 Followed by W-H against /SeeX. or fieX. of others and versions. 
 XI. 36. fVTt] a(TTpaTTr) B sah boh 
 
 42. —TOV 0€ov B* (as Tisch says suppV et vid jam'') 
 
 There is an excuse for this omission, although harmonistic, for tov 
 Oeov does not occur in the parallel. 
 
 In Luke it ls...Ka( vapep^eaOe ti;w Kpi<Tiv Kai Tt)v ay37n}v tov Oeov. 
 ravra eSei noirja'ai KOKeiva /ir) rrapeivai. 
 
 While in Matt, xxiii. 23... /cat a^xaTe to fiapvTepa tov vo/jlov tijv 
 Kpitriv Kai TO eXeoi (or tov eXeov) Kai tijv tticttiv " TavTa etei noiTjaai xaxeiva 
 firi aijytevat (or a(f)eivai). 
 
 There is a very pretty exchange as between St. Matt, and St. Luke 
 of -rrapepxeirOe and aifrqKaTe, and at the end of Trapeivai and at^eivai, but 
 the matter you see does not turn on this at all. 
 
 Jtfarcion^P'p" is definite about tou Oeov and so is Tert""", and if B 
 omits because tou Oeov is not in Matthew so much the worse for B. 
 
 p 2 
 
212 
 
 CODEX D AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 That there was consultation of the parallel can now be proved, for 
 ]5* (again corrected by B- °' ') with N= if you please (not N*) L 13-34C-5r)0 
 [)i(j)i 09-124] C04 calmly substitute St. Matthew's -irapetvai for St. Luke's 
 a^. N* 57 y''' have aifieivat, and A compounds and conflates with 
 irapa^tevai. The rest with B"' aij)ievai. So NBLA all looked up 
 St. Matthew. The division among the 13 family is here quite instructive. 
 [Sodcn's text tumbles into this trap, having Trapewai]. 
 
 Luke 
 
 xii. 22. —avTov B c r 
 28. a/i<^taf6t B 
 
 58. - aTT B 892 Sod' "■'. That is to say 6o? epyaaiav a-n-rjWaySai 
 
 avTov instead of air avroO, a kind of partitive genitive. So 
 also Clem"^'""'^"* Basil (and Orig thus: eirav ^ij evpe6f] ti? 
 ZeBwKco^ epyaaiav aTTT/Wa^^at tov avTiStKov)* 
 
 The Egyptian versions are rather circumlocutory here, sah'' 
 omitting av avrov. W-H place ott in square brackets in the 
 text on the authority of B for omission. 
 
 Clem's quotations are, first : toOto to trapKiov amihUov 6 
 <jwrr)p ehrev. . .Ka\ dirtiWd^Oai avTOV irapaivtt koto rrtv oiov 
 .... (from Theodotus), 
 
 and, secondly {Strom) 'HSij Se koI 6 amTrip avro;. . .to /j-ktciv 
 Kal TO XoiSopelv KeKa)\vKev Kal, Mcra tov avriSUov ^aSl^aiv 0i\o? 
 avTov ireipiiOriTi inraXKa'/fivai, ^rfalv (exactly aS sah"). 
 
 Barnard remarks : " The peculiar form of the quotation in 
 (527) also supports the omission." Clearly it has weight 
 in that direction, but it does not mean that B is right. It 
 is more likely a preferential attitude shared by B and Clem 
 and Basil against the rest. 
 
 Cf ii. 37. a<j)i<TTaTO tov lepov ( — air). N supplies ex. 
 xxiii. 14. KaTqyopetTe avTov ( — kot') NALA against B, 
 xiii. 7. Toj' Toirov (2V0 tijv yqv) B* and 80 only, not followed by W-H. 
 17. yevo/j-evoK {pro yivo/ievoii) B""' with 440 (N°AD yuvo/ievoi';, 
 
 N* Xeyo/tevow) 
 27. icai, epei X67c»v v/iiv (pi'o tat epei \eym v/iiv) BT 892 ONLY. 
 Westcott-Hort actually follow this against the omission of 
 \e7a) by N 225 it vg sah boh srjr pesh diatess {arm) Lucifer. 
 Not a sound is to be heard from their margin ! Yet all other 
 authorities except those mentioned above have Xeyw, and acth 
 syr cu sin hier specifically. Not only is W-H the standard 
 N.T. in universities and theological colleges, but it has been 
 introduced broadcast into our schools. Imagine the schoolboy 
 when he comes to nai epet \e7(»i' v/iiv ovk otSa rrroOev co-tc. He 
 will require an explanation. And the tutor will say " Well, 
 my boy, it is New Testament Greek" — (for which tutors have 
 a profound contempt) — ' ' yon must remember it is not classical . ' ' 
 And so the boy, not knowing that BT are alone responsible for 
 
 ]! I.N ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 213 
 
 Xeywv (and that the syriac says definitely " Then He will say 
 to you Amen I say (to you) "), goes away with the idea that 
 St. Luke was a very poor writer.f [Sod adds none for X^wi/.] 
 
 32. I cannot help following the above with this illuminating 
 example. At the end of the verse B (with 56 34ti a a^h c e 
 / 1 m q r ri aur vg copt syr etc sin schpesh arm aeth Orig'"^ bis) 
 writes xai tij rpirri rj/iepa reXeiov/iat, supplying rj/i^pa against 
 the rest of the Greeks. Westcott and Hort refuse to follow 
 (although adopting the di£Bcult Xeyiov above). Their text and 
 margin are both silent, and the text is simply xai tij Tpnr) 
 TeXciov/iai. I do not say that W-H are wrong to exclude 
 rip-epa, but I do say that as an exponent of the shorter text 
 B fails lamentably here to come up to the standard. 
 . 1. Again, immediately following B falls into an error (only made 
 by X NK 892 besides) dropping the second t(bk after ap^ovrwv 
 (duly recalled by W-H by placing it in square brackets) and 
 writing xai eyevcTO €u to) fXOew ovrov ei? oikov tivoi twv 
 apxovrwv ^apiiraimv instead of twv ap^ovriov twi/ 
 <f>apt(raLOJV. 
 
 This is simply an error from APXONTaJN<t>APlCAia)N. 
 
 32. €1? fiprivriv ( — Ttt) B p"" soli 
 
 4. ex.'^v . . . airoXearj B 
 
 10. — Ttov {ante ayyeXwv) B"' 
 
 24. e^riaev {pro ave^ijaev) B Paris" sail boh {syr) 
 1. oiKovoiiovt (pro oiKovofiov) B* sol. Same verse B' drops 
 
 ap-)(ovra avTov after to vtt'. 
 
 15. fvoiTTiov Kvpiov (pro evoymov tov deov) B only, opposing every- 
 thing else, while tou 6eov is confirmed by the mass, by the 
 versions and by Ignatius and Const irapa 0ew, = 243 Paris" 
 wapa TO) 0ew. Observe here how Paris" opposes its friend B 
 but sides with Ignatius. 
 
 12. -01/To) BIj [male von Soden de 157] W-H ct Sod txt 
 
 19. —r] ttiotk; aov trtcoiKe ae B alone with sah C/9 [contra 
 
 rell et Tert"'" '""] 
 
 28. oiKoSo/iovv B"' 
 
 34. &V0 etri kXivtii; (-/iia?) B [JK-if] alone with c gat vg" 
 
 [against .sah boh which have it expressly] 
 
 t One cannot atTord to overlook matters even of a Eingle letter. Thus, in Eustathius' 
 criticism of Origen " De Engastrlmutho dissert.," Allatius' translation of Trtpl 8c roC 
 Anfiipou T/xii^ci) reads: "Ad Lazamm acoedo," as if Eustathius were speaking, whereas 
 some Mss read ypaiptav which entirely changes the sense and makes the following passage 
 that of Origen, so that " accedo " would be quite wrong, although graphic enough as a 
 free translation of ypn(Pa. 
 
 t TUch omits K in ed. viii. 
 
214 
 
 I.uke 
 
 CODEX 15 AND ITS ALLIKS. 
 
 W-H take the trouble to enclose ^105 in square brackets, 
 but it stood in the text always as boh and sah witness, for on . 
 the slightest provocation they would omit such a thing in 
 accordance with their method of expression. 
 Even Paris" has it. 
 xviii. 12. aTToSeKaTevm N'B only (not even Paris") seems purely 
 preferential over aTroSexmrn (= aTroSf/tarow) of all others as well 
 as Orig Ban Cyr. Is it conceivable that no trace of aTroSeKarei/a) 
 remains in our other documents and that to X'B alone belongs 
 the honour (against Orig Basil Cyril) of preserving the apostolic 
 form of the verb ? It is simply inconceivable. IF- if follow N'B 
 without marginal alternative. [Soden adds no new witness.] 
 15. -avTmv B'™' (not adopted by W-H) 
 
 10. -avrajnim B"'' (possibly a question of "pairs," avm 
 
 following later) W-H place it in square brackets. 
 20. ^tvBofiapTvprii BN (not adopted by W-H) 
 xix. 25. -Kvpie B""'( „ „ „ „ ) 
 
 20. —fXniav B'"' Not noticed by Rsc/i in efi viii. 
 
 38. ep^o/j,ei'0<; o /SatriXfu? B™' 
 
 48. e^expe/xfTo NB soli (jjco e^eKpefitno) Contra rell et 
 
 contra Orig. (Tisch : forma Kpe/j-o/iai pro xpe/iafiai a vulgari 
 iisti hand alicna vidctnr fuisse) NB are sedulously followed 
 by W-H. 
 XX. 13. - Ti. TroivTo) B* [nun W-H \ Why do not IF-H follow? 
 It is a very important omission. It is either right or wrong. 
 Judging from the weight given to B in other places why 
 should he be wrong here ? He deliberately excides this. (Cf 
 Matt xxi. 37, Marc xii. G). The passage is : " cnrev Se o Kvpio^ 
 rov afi7re\covo^ ' [xf irotrjaco ;] jrefM-^oy rov viov fiov tov ayairrjiou ' 
 t(T0K TovTov (tSoKTe?) ivTpa-in)<TovTai." [Omit also Soi/'"""']. 
 
 [N.B. — There is a serious mistake in the notes on this verse 
 in Tisch viii. He records B (sol) for ^vxov pro io-m?. This 
 should be D who reads thus. J 
 '51. a-neOavav B* sol vid {pro a-rredavov) Not followed by 
 
 W-H (although they use emav in xx. 2 and elsewhere). 
 
 At Luke V. 2 NC'LQX have ewXvvav followed by W-H, but 
 BDW have eirXvvov, ix. 32 eiSav NLR, but B rell eiSov. 
 xxiv. 21 rjKT-t^apiev B*"" not followed by W-H. 
 (xxiii. 2 evpafiev of B*LTX/rt;« 1 Epijyh 1/3 is followed by 
 IF-/f against N rell Ens Cyr Thdt). 
 xxi. 24. fjLa-)(ntpT]<; B*A 124 only followed by IF-if and Tisch (for 
 
 fiaxa'p(i<; all else including N and Paris'' ; D pofi<j>atai) Cf 
 ficxn'PI xxii. 49 NB*DLT. 
 xxii. 19. —619 B"' Cfcopt ("ad "5) Aliter aeth qasxiio . . ." 
 
 30. Order : rai? SwSexa ^vKaf xpivovre^ BT and i only (non copt). 
 
 D IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 215 
 
 This is curious, and although not Coptic, must be closely 
 allied to a graeco-copt, for T (graeco-sah) agrees. (Soden's 
 text follows BT). 
 
 It is also against the order in Matt. xix. 28. 
 
 This is quite interesting because immediately following 
 (xxii. 31 BLT with sah boh, Bas 1/2, syr sin [noncu] only omit 
 the introduction enre he xvpiot, and they alone). 
 xxii. 40. Trpo<Tev\eiT0e nr/ em veipairfiov { — etaeKOctv) B* sol. There 
 may have been hesitation here as to whether to use ectreXOeiv, 
 e\6etv (D), efiTreaeiv (fam 13), go into {sah) which finally led to 
 exclusion in error. 
 
 [In Homer's notes to sah, he quotes hoh^' for this omissioo. 
 I find nothing in the notes in the boh volume to this effect. 
 Is it perhaps a mistake for Greek B ?] 
 xxiii. C. -o {ante vv0pa>tro<;) B* C04 aV° (stippl W) [in squaie 
 
 brackets IF-JI]. 
 
 7. -j-Tov {ante Upmiiiv) BT [noti boh sail] not followed by W-H. 
 
 8. viro auTov {pro v-rr avrov) B'"' cum 892 [\V*' does not 
 
 countenance this nor does IF-/f adopt this strange hiatus]. 
 
 19. /9\7)ef(? {pro 0e^riij.em^) BLT 892 Paris" only against all the 
 rest. N* omits. N'' has /3e/3\7j/iej/o9 with W and all the others. 
 If /SXt/^ci? be original, as IF-ffand B.V. and Soden intimate, 
 why should all the rest, including DW, have the other? How 
 comes it that KMIT, who agree as to textual principles in ver 
 15, and AKIl in ver 17 abandon a, form of BLT here? For it 
 is a form and a preference of BLT I am convinced, and not 
 the true text. 
 
 [In Mark xv. 7 /3e;8\»;^6i'o? €i? tijv ^vKoki^v (or pKr)6ei,i ev tt) 
 <f)v\aKrj) is replaced by /lera tiod a-Ta<nacrTa)v ' ScSe^fvo?.'] 
 23. a-TavpoiiTai B""' (^))o aTavpa>6i)vaC) This looks 
 
 like a distinct attempt at improvement, but curiously enough 
 B remains alone. Hort (not unhappily) puts B's reading in 
 his margin. (T ceases to be available at xxiii. 20). 
 
 [In Matt, it is (rravpwdrjTw, in Mark aTavpaxrov]. 
 
 20. airrjyov {2>ro amiyayov) B c" i"' (Less happily IF-Jff put 
 
 this in the margin). 
 31. ev { — -rto) vypo) ^vXw BCT' only [not Paris"] Very natural 
 
 but opposed to all and sah boh, which are very definite 
 " in the tree which is green." 
 39. —Xe^oDv BL 597 / and W-H apparently alone 
 
 47. eKaTovTapxv! (j))0 exarovTapxa^) N'BT'n*/o»i 1 
 50. ayaOo^ hKato<; { — Kai) Ti^' et sah [iSodeu neglects this], 
 xxiv. 15. avTovi; {pro xai avTo^) B"' but this aurou? comes immediately 
 below the previous avrov^. Cf sah and c e. 
 28. TfyyiKav (pro rnyuiav) B "' 
 37. 0poi]devT€<; (pro Trroi/^ei'Te?) B"' Sod' "' (dignified by a place in 
 
210 
 
 CODEX n AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Hort's margin ; butwherei8i^o/3jjSfi'Te?of NandW?) All others 
 (hut BH which are opposed to each other) have vroriOevTev. 
 
 Notice the rlio in the Coptic {nah itxepo-tfcyxopxp, hoh ex^-lf- 
 aj ©op-rep)- 
 
 6poea>, I beg to observe, is not a Lucan word. It does not occur in 
 the third Gospel nor in Acts. 
 
 It is found only in Matt. xxiv. 6 (OpoeiaOe), Mark xiii. 7 (Bpoeiade). 
 •2 Thess. ii. 2 {6po(i<r6ai). "Whereas irTofm has already occurred in 
 Luke xxi. 9 /i?; TrTorj^Tjret (7rToi)<rn is found in 1 Pet. iii. 6) and does not 
 occur elsewhere. Hort's margin here finally reduces the whole science 
 of his textual criticism to absurdity. 
 
 dporjdevTci should be labelled " B prob. ex copt " or not allowed in his 
 margin at all. Only found by Sodcii in the Sinai Ms 260 (his '"'). Obs. 
 Soden's new witness is a resident of Sinai. 
 
 Luke 
 
 xxiv. 38. Ti {j)ro Stan) BA' Tert (quid... quid contra rell quid... 
 quare). All others inch Cijr seem perfectly distinct for hari 
 in the second place. Sah differentiates but hardly hoh 
 = xe eofi.eoif ■ • ■ oif o£, eefi.eoif.. Paris" with all the 
 rest and NW have distinctly : 
 
 Tt Terapay/ievoi. €<TTe xai Siari, ZiaXor/Kriioi. 
 There is not the slightest doubt that the dropping of hia in hian is a 
 mistake from the propinquity of Zia in SiaXoyta/iot. Tert here is contra- 
 dicted by the Latins and is either quoting loosely or his Greek copy also had 
 Sm by mistake, but it has not passed over into the Latins ; the Old Syriac 
 differentiates slightly, but hardly mjr"" '"■"'. DL 382 1 Dial'" substitute 
 Kai ivari for xai Ziari. To my astonishment Hort does not follow B here I 
 This action makes dporjOevref in marg. just above look all the more ridiculous. 
 There is an excuse for using the double rt here if he had wished to, for 
 who knows but that as originally spoken or set down the same word was 
 ni)t used ? It would not be abhorrent to a Semitic fonn of speech. And 
 when finally the written Gospel was polished and edited (as certain 
 people are never tired of telling us was the case so very long after the 
 spoken words) this little roughness was removed, 
 xxiv. 39. Kai (rapxa xai oarea B""' 
 
 52. —fieya\T]'i B* sol. Notice here the bohairic ((i?j<er 
 
 nail) o^rItIaJ•^' npioji the two aj making it possible for 
 someone to be misled in a closely written MS and overlooking 
 one word. 
 
 t ]), which baulked here and substitutes /ji; <i>nfii8iTt, does not vary in xxiv. 37 giving 
 avTiit Hf TTToriBfvTis and d ipsi autein pauerunt, d even retaining the alliterative p, while 
 tlic otlicr Old Latin are content with turhali and conturhati and a with exUrriti. 
 
 X Hut ?82 with Ha has Xnyiir/ioi for 5tiiXoytfT/*ot I 
 
 Hence the KAIAIATIAIAAOriCMOl became 
 KAIAIATIAOnCMOl with HA 
 KAIINATIAOnCMOl with 382 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL. 
 
 217 
 
 vis to Latin sympathy coiisult_fir.it : 
 
 Luke 
 
 vii. 35. "in iliKaiioOr) i) ao^ta avo navTwv Twv tckvwv auTij?. 
 
 BW fam 69 (om iravrwv 18) 157 892 Paris" syr sin pcsh Latt 
 
 xai eSi/e. t; <ro<l>ia atro -navrmv rmv epytov avTr)<; H 
 
 xai eSiKauodri 17 iTO(f>ia airo twv t€kvo>v avrr)^ iravrmv 
 
 A rell omn sah boh 
 
 { - iravrmv N'DF^LMX^ Sod!'"' 1 13 28 604 al" arm syr cu) 
 
 W-H places the reading of (X)B in text with the other order in margin 
 
 (nothing is said of the omission of navTotv), but Tisch text had refused to 
 
 follow this, observing : " fravTtav ante rwv cum NB 69 124 157 346 it vg 
 
 (AT HOC EST I'-EKE EX USU LATINOBUM) syr""." 
 
 The question is whether the omission of -namav outright by 
 N'OF^LMX^ 1 13 28 604 aV^ syr cu and arm may not be the " neutral " 
 
 text. 
 
 Aii both sah and 60/1 have iravTav at the end with the regular Greek 
 order they certainly did not get their reading from KB. Either NB slipped 
 it in from a marginal comment, or are here following Latin order from 
 a Graeco-Latin, where the Latin and Syriac influence had already 
 predominated in the Greek column. (Soden follows BW and HoH.) 
 
 And what of viii. 26 -yepaarivau BD and Latt? and iv. 43 Set fu 
 BDW 892 latt ? But consider the rest in proper order. 
 
 ''"'° i. 25. -TO {ante omM NB'DLW 1 [)w»/am] 604 Paris" 
 
 [tion al] The presence of D is suggestive. 
 26. aTTo {pro vTTo) NBLW^W^I' 1-131 [non 118-209] 
 
 fam 13 2'"' 604 892 Paris" Why not D here ? 
 63. ovopa avTov {pro to ovopa avrov) B* 2'"= Orig'"", sed ovo^a 
 avraj L 604 Paris" 0)i<7"''°' ut Tisch aiehat " atque ex 
 his L Orig*-^ avT(i> pro avrov." 
 09. -Tov (ante 7ra,8o<;) NBDLW 2"' 892 Paris" Cyr contra 
 
 rell ct Eus 
 NBDLAV/rtHi l/aml3 33 892 Orig 
 [non 604, vide infra Paris"] 
 [twd e^Opaiv rell et todv ex^Opiav R] 
 [■navTitiV Twv ex^pmv K et iravrmv rmv fiKTOvvTOiV Paris"] 
 The above, as more or less Latinisms (plus other omissions of the 
 article) seem confirmed by : 
 
 75. -naaaK Tail ■qp.epat'; (omnibus diebus all Latt except a d) 
 BLW 2'" Paris" only. Origen wavers, but d Ircn omnes 
 dies and Orig"" as the other Greeks irao-a? Ta? »;/i6po?. 
 Followed by : 
 ii. 2. -v{antea'noypa4>v) NBD SofJ"" 131 [»o»/aw 1] 2'"-p"" 604 
 [non Paris"] = Latin or error from AYTHHAnorPA<t>H 
 ibid. Kvpeivov {pro Kvpr/vtov) B {Kvpivov W) 
 
 74. — To)v {ante e^Opiov) 
 
218 
 
 Luke 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 ii. 12. <rr,^eiou (-to) BH 130 (= God. gr-lat) sah contra 
 
 rell omn et boh et N rell 604 Paris" Eus. 
 W-H txt otii TO. Habet marg. (Om sah Tisch) 
 22. -Tov {ante xaeapiafiov) B*" [nan Paris" non al.] 
 
 44. >avTopetvat ev ttj avi'oBia NBDLW So^''° fam 1 [noli 131] 
 
 33 124 (892) latt [non Paris"] 
 This seems to be Graeco-Latin, for at once afterwards at : 
 
 45. Kai M eupovTf? (-aviov) of iiBCBhW /ami '63124 [jwn fam] 
 892 [?wn 004 Paris" rell] is borne out by aeth ? and the latt 
 c d eff (7,2 / against the rest and against copt syr goth and a b 
 f q remaining Latins. 
 
 Note also in the same verse : 
 ava fT/TouvTe? {pro fijTouvTe?) N'BCDLW So(f " Paris" and 
 latf'^ jcquirentes {a b e quaerentes). Notice N* had fjjToyi/Tf?, 
 but N' referred to other authorities. 
 
 IV. 2.5. on exXeiaOri o ovpavo<; ( — ein) err) rpia xai /ir/vat ef BD mill' 
 
 [iioji 1 nan 604 non Paris"] lat syr arm aeth 
 85. air {pro cf) NBDLVWH min" latt Orig. This is 
 
 followed by : 
 (.')8. airo {2n-o ex) NBCDLNQWH/am l/ayn 13 22 33 604 
 
 Paris" [non al.] Orig and d (" a " instead of " de " rell)) 
 43. >Set /xc {pro /j.e Set) BDW 892 latt et Tert"'" [non Paris" rell] 
 
 V. 3. trt/M)io<; NBDLW 157 Paris" for rov <nnwvot rell f 
 5. o\7)? vvKTo<; NABLW 33 131 for oXi?' tj;? vvKro<i rell 
 
 (On the other hand B carelessly adds alone t?;? before k&>/ii;7 
 V. 17.) 
 vi. 31. -Kai viicK B G04 Paris" affllrcn'"' W-H 
 
 viii. 6. efTi-rreTpav{pro£TriTqvTTeTpav) B alone with 6o/i (indef. article) 
 29. rjXavveTo air o rov Sai/iovwv eit to? epijfiov; {pro i;X. vn o tov 
 haifiovwv e. r. ep.) BH only against N rell. 
 
 Consult Matt viii. 24 where B' changes vtto twi/ xv/iarmv to 
 
 a IT T(OV KVfUlTtaV. 
 
 ix. 12. 7;8;7 {pro 17 Se) B. So jam eflr. (Note B is alone here 
 
 if we except Evan 00 7;8>; Se) But that wonderful cursive 
 
 t It is porliaps unwise to say anything about tbe omission of tlie article before tbe 
 nonjiiiative (" In some few instances the use or omission of the article is also a mark of 
 the distinctive style of the writer." Winer 'Gram.' Eng. edition, p. 146) for in such a 
 place as Luke ix. 20 Trer/jot Se mroKiiiSeis, which looks like Latin, is supported by saJi boh 
 as well as NBCLS/nwi 1. 
 
 A curious instance of playing with tbo articles is to be found at Luke x. 15, where 
 1! withholils TOV from o\ipnmv and adds it before rfjou. Shortly afterwards B WTites in 
 Luke X. 19 Kat fTTi rrn(Tap ti)v hvvufiw rrjv tov tj^&pov. In this be has support from 
 Orig 1/6, which is worthy of careful notice. I^lsewhere ^tif tmxct Orig omits this second 
 TT)ii. Clearly there is a point involved, as B is alone thus but for Orig 1/6. W-H refuse 
 to accept this "nicety" (see Canon Cook) of Origen, although they followed above: ^7 
 fwr avpavov vyj/iadtttrr}, tias rov o8ov KaTii^qm]. 
 
 D IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 219 
 
 Paris", the survivor of a similar MS to B, is also found to have 
 
 t)Sri plainly without Se [voji Soden forgets Paris" in his notes]. 
 
 Had W-H known of Paris" I am quite sure they would 
 
 have admitted rj&ri, for they only need any additional Greek 
 
 support when B is alone. But this seems to originate from a 
 
 Gr-Lat. 
 
 ix. 49. ev TO) ovo/MiTi for cTTt fm ovofiaTi So NBLXAH'^ 33 604 min" 
 
 (not D nor the rest) and Coptic. (In Mark ix. 38 only U reads 
 
 em, the rest ev, or simply tcu ovofiari, so that there would have 
 
 been small excuse for " Antioch " to have substituted em, in 
 
 Luke.) 
 
 52. a><s {pro (o(TTe) B with K only and a b e I q followed by W-H. 
 
 X. 42. avTrit {pro air auTj;.) XBD"L Paris" Partitive genitive 
 
 Cf. a b c ffil q [iron d]. 
 xi. 11. —apTov, /iri \i6ov einBaxTei avrai ; ei xai Ti ff i I, but also syr 
 
 sin [twn cu] sah arm Orig Epiph. 
 I rank this here for lack of other Greek support. 
 Presumably Orig Epiph nyr sin and even sah represent a 
 Graeco-Latin at this place. t Observe that all this testimony 
 is contradicted by the Dial and by all other Greek documents, 
 yet W-H must needs subserve B and Orig. 
 27. Tt9 <l>(ovriv yvi/ri {pro tk yvin/ ^ajvtjv) This by NBL, a matter of 
 order {aliter copt) is largely supported by latin extoUens vocem 
 quaedam mulier b / ff {i) I q; levata voce quaedam imdier a ; 
 but in c not so, and D i e go with Coptic otherwise. 
 34. \vxvo'; TOV (Tm/iaro'; ea-Tiv o o(j>OaXfioi; -i-aov N'ABCDMW 
 60/1 -lyr pesh latt et txt W-H et Sod. 
 I class this here because N'^EGHKLSUVXPAAn sah syr 
 cu sin arm would surely seem to be correct, against this 
 handful of Greeks and all latin which have it, in omitting 
 (70V (as Tisch says " deest in Matt, nee add nisi pauci ") for 
 aov is out of place. 0<J>eAAMOCOTAN may have given rise to 
 it originally. It is an early error, but an error all the same. 
 
 The division of authorities should have safeguarded W-H 
 and Soden here. For when syr pesh joins NB, and syr cu sin 
 and sah remain with EGH there is something to be adjusted 
 in our hard and fast critical " rules " I 
 48. iiapTvpes eaTe NBL 604 892 {aeth) Orig {pro fiapTvpene). 
 So a b f q r r^ p. {hiatff) testimonium perhibetis [against testi- 
 ficatis of d and the testificamini of rg]. So Soden and W-H. 
 ibid. I cite the above, because in this same verse avrcov to /ivrifieia 
 
 t And Tertnllian seems to pass this over. But his quotation is quite unsatis- 
 factory ail /of. 
 
220 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIBf?. 
 
 omitted by NBL is also omitted by D and the latins abdeil 
 atid syr sin although not by all boh nor the rest of the Latins 
 nor by W. 
 XI. 51. -Tov (ante aifmro';) pr. That is otto at^aToi A0e\. This 
 sounds very rough in Greek, although witnessed to by 
 NBCL 1 33 892 Paris". To these add DX, and I think the 
 secret is of a graeco-lat. Soden follows Hort again here. 
 - TOV (ante aifiaTo^) sec. The same. 
 In both cases Coptic has the article, 
 xu. 1. KaTanareiv B does not vary from the mass, but there is 
 a suspicious look about the place as if the second tau might 
 have been a gamma originally. We are led to enquire 
 whether something like the avmrviyew of D may not have 
 stood there. 
 42. -TO (ante a-iTon€Tp,ov) Only BD fam IS] [non 124] latt a.nA 
 one boh Ms J. (The other boh and sah have more definitely 
 still "their food"). W-H enclose to in square brackets 
 against all other authorities. 
 r>'l. -Tr,v (ante ve4,e\r,v) NABLNXA^ 33 157 604 al' arm lati 
 and also sah boh. Clearly here the combination of uncials 
 (including A) shows latin and Coptic hanging together, 
 and doubtless ve<jii\r,v was the Greek reading antedating 
 Coptic, but also probably from a Gxaeco-Latin of that age. 
 Observe however D is not in the combination, for it reads 
 Tr)v veif>. against nitbcm opposite. 
 59. e<o<; (pro 6(0? of) Only XBL 1 892 Orig. Add not even 
 I'aris". This is hardly an improvement, and may perhaps 
 come under this head : " donee." In boh it is one word 
 cijA.TeK't- and in two sah mss, but in the three other sah 
 Mss it is expressed differently [Soden's text has em? only]. 
 In all such cases D d takes its own line " coi? ov, usque quo," alone 
 apparently among Latins, and W Paris" confirm to? ov. W-H must 
 needs revert to a careless quotation of Origen. This is no careless 
 remark of mine. See Orig and B again at Matt, xviii. 34. B alone 
 (Matt. i. 25) suppresses ov after em? before ereKei/ vwv, but lets it (otov) 
 stand in John ix. 18 before e<f,a>vriaav, and in Luke xiii. 8, Act xxv. 21 
 before iTKayjrm and araTre/ti/rm. AH omit before e\dmi> in Matt. ii. 9 
 correctly enough. B seems to be eclectic, for in the parallel at 
 Matt. v. 26, where em? av is used, B does not omit, although 33 does, 
 while L substitutes em? ov. 
 
 t In any revision by Gregory of Tisch. viii. I hope he will bo more definite about 
 fam 13. Again and again (as here naming 69 alone) Tiach implies that one member 
 reads thus, whereas only 124 opposes. 
 
 li IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 221 
 
 Concerning the N.T. vse of eo>^. 
 
 As the Grammarians are unsatisfactory as to the use of em? with 
 and without av or ov or otou, and as it seems to make very little difference 
 whether the indicative or subjunctive follows, I have drawn up the 
 following list, which I hope may be of some use for reference. The 
 suppression of ov and av where it is properly required, and in which B 
 stands out as rather the chief culprit (and D in different places), may 
 have been caused by the very frequent use of em? otherwise alone, 
 especially with the genitive. Apart from over fifty cases of this use : em? 
 TOV aifiaro^, em? n;? (TVVTeXeia'i, em? ca^aTov ti;? 71;?, em? tov 0epiafiov,'f 
 em? T7)9 rifupat, t em? auovoi (aJiq ; al. e(? tov auava), em? ( + tov FG Only) 
 TpiTov ovpavov etc, there are besides many cases with indeclinable nouns, 
 with particles, with participial substantives etc, as em? AaveiS, em? rmv 
 eTTTa, em? ^TiBXeefi, em? tij; ariiiepov, § em? eTTTOKj?, em? ^a/iov-qX (tov) 
 Ttpo^ytfTov. 
 
 Even em? rjiuav LA (Mark vi. 23) where others have em? ij/t/o-ou? (or 
 rifittrov or even i;/iio-em? [/cat to ij/iio-y D 6 c ff]), and such uses as em? 
 BavaTov (Matt. xxvi. 38, Mark xiv. 34), em? avTov (Luke iv. 42), em? tovtov 
 (Luke xxii. 51), ovk eaTiv em? cvo? Rom. iii. 12 all and Orig'"* Ambrst 
 (except B 67** (syr) —ovk e<TTw), em? fieyaXov \e70iTe? (Act viii. 10), 
 SieXOew em? rj/juov (Act ix. 38), em? KBiivimi (Act xvii. 15), em? fieyaXov (avToiv) 
 (Heb. viii. 11) besides em? eo-m (o7n tam D a?.), et? Trpi avXt]v (Mark 
 xiv. 54), em? rou wv (Matt. xxiv. 21, Mark xiii. 19), em? wpo? ffr/daviav 
 (NBC*(D)L 1 33 a [e quasi], em? ei? al., em? 237 latt), em? efm tt;? 
 iroXem? (Act xxi. 5) [ — em? only N 68 d], em? eirt tijv BdXaaaav (Act xvii. 
 14) NABE min lat copt syr (m? HLP al. arm Ghr), em? irore (Matt. xvii. 17, 
 Mark ix. 19, Luke ix. 41, Jo. x. 24, Rev. vi. 10), em? apTi (Matt. xi. 12, 
 Jo. ii. 10 [all except T em? tou wv], em? mSe (Luke xxiii. 5), em? KaTto 
 (Matt, xxvii. 51, Mark xv. 38), em? avm (Jo. ii. 7). 
 
 Once with infinitive : em? tov eXdeiv (Act viii. 40), once with aorist : em? 
 r)X0ev (Matt. xxiv. 39), once with present participle : em? eX0iov (Matt. ii. 9) 
 [see below Matt. xxvi. 36], or with participial noun eon tt;? ■n-apovaiai 
 Jas. V. 7 (em? av ABKL Oec) ; separated from the verb : 2 Thess. ii. 7, 
 em? €K fi€<rov yevj)Tai (em? av FG only) ; em? to c^m? e^ere (Jo. xii. 36), 
 others m? to ^m? e;^eTe, and Cyr hier 1/2 em? ov. 
 
 In a great variety of ways em? is used in the N.T., and this may 
 have led to carelessness. 
 
 t ea>t TOU Sfpiaiiov (Matt. xiii. 80) BD Eulog ; but fiixi" ]>>>"', and n^pi N*L, while 
 Chrya MSS give all three, axpi, fifxpi, «wr 1 
 
 X torn TT]s tjiitpot fKdvjji oral/ iivto Triiiiu (Matt. xxvi. 29), but fifxpts av nta tivTo Clnn ; 
 airo TOV vvv (ur avTO irtu Orig \ ov ptjv ma avTov roic nv mtit F.U8. 
 
 § Or even rats tf;v (rijlltpov G Wlin" (Matt, xxvii. 8) ; fuc ri^t trijfif/mr ijptptii 
 
 Rom. xi. 8 (without variation) ; and fwe (ry}prpt>v (2 Cor. iii. 15). 
 
222 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 There are nearly half a dozen cases of e<»? ov or eias av with the 
 indicative (the rest are all subjunctive). Observe the situation :— 
 
 1. 25. e<B? ov (T€KeV 
 y. 2-5. em? oTov ft /i6T e^ou 
 
 all (except D* om toj?) 
 
 vi. 45. €M? aKT09 airoXvei (all, except D^ Soff"" 2'" 6 = ai»To« Se; em 
 t&eiv avTov A ; airoKvau E*Kr, aTroXv<rri al., but aTToKvei NBL) 
 
 xiii. 8. €<<)9 OTOV <TKa-<jra> all 
 
 xvii. 8. em; ^ayo Kai itim (indic. or subj.) eioi alone text rec. and 
 NBDFAA unc' ; em? av AKLMXH ; eax; ov niinpauc. 
 FA A unc' ; e<a? ov wim pattc {epj(foitai S) ; 
 but cv ft) epx- NABDBXiKn Orig 
 
 xix. 13. eo)? ep^o/iai 
 
 ix. 4. eo)9 jjfiepa ecrnv 
 
 18. 6a)? OTOu e^iovijaav 
 xii. 35. 6(<)9 TO <^a)9 €;(;€Te 
 
 36. eo)? TO ff>03<; e^eTe 
 
 all (except C*L 33 Orig ? b d = m) 
 
 all (except DX emit ov) 
 
 NFAA unc'' verss ; (u? to <f>ax! exere 
 
 ABDKLXn 1 83 42 108 ^•" Gyr 
 XFAAII' unc' verss; «»? to ^(B9 ex^Te 
 NABDLn* 33 42 108 o"' w"' aeth Did Ath"" 
 xxi. 22. c<B9 epxpfai all {epxta/iai F min') 
 
 23. em? epxpfiai all 
 
 Act 
 
 XXV. 21. em? ov ava-nefi'^w all 
 
 1 Tim. 
 
 iv. 13. em? epxo/iai all 
 
 i). 13. 
 
 v. 18. 
 
 ibid. 
 
 26. 
 
 X. 11. 
 
 23. 
 
 xii. 20. 
 
 xiii. 33. 
 
 xiv. 22. 
 
 xvi. 28. 
 
 xvii. 9. 
 
 xviii. 30. 
 
 34. 
 
 xxii. 44. 
 
 e«ii5 av eiTTO} all 
 
 60)9 av TrapeXOr) prim loco 
 eo)9 av wavTa yevrirai see loco 
 60)9 av aTToSio<; 
 
 all 
 
 Om av B*" 
 
 all except L min" ewt ov, and —av 33 
 
 [non BJ 
 6<»9 av e^eXdrjTe all 
 
 em? av eXO-q Om av NBX (6m9 ov N') 
 
 ea>9 av eK^aXr) Om av LX 
 
 em9 ov e^v/KoBr) all (as in Luke) 
 em9 ov aiToXvarf all (but aitoXvaei KF) 
 6m9 av iSwaiv all (as in Luke ix 27) 
 
 6m9 ov vtot TOD avdpoDTTov eK vexpaiv rp/epOri all 
 em? ou aiTohm Om ov NBCL 
 
 em? ov a-nohu) Om ov B Orig 
 
 em? av ^m Om av F*"' (see below Mark ix. 1 as to F, 
 
 and xii. 36 as to D) 
 
 B IN ST. LUKB'S gospel. 
 
 223 
 
 Matt. 
 
 xxiii. 39. 
 xxiv. 34. 
 xxvi. 36. 
 
 Mark 
 
 ix. 1. 
 xii. 36. 
 xiv. 32. 
 
 em? av eiwi/Te all 
 
 em? av vavra ravra yevnrai -av N, €m9 ov 157 (see Luke xxi. 32). 
 em9 ov aireXeav exei Trpoaev^m/iai B etplur ; em? ai»DKLMTA ; 
 6m9 on av A ; em9 NCM* min ? (ecw; irpoaev^. in Marco) 
 
 em? av itwaiv 
 
 em? av 6<o 
 
 em? Trpoaev^mfuu 
 
 Om av F"' (see above Matt. xxii. 44) 
 Om av jy°\ sed D* Bumto), D' Oijaa 
 4-av U, +ot; min aliq ; (npoaev^o/uii, 
 
 DHXF) 
 
 Luke 
 
 ix. 27. 
 xii. 50. 
 
 59. 
 
 xiii. 21. 
 
 (35. 
 
 XV. 4. 
 
 8. 
 
 XX. 43. 
 
 xxi. 32. 
 
 xxii. 16. 
 
 34. 
 
 18. 
 xxiv. 49. 
 
 John 
 
 xiii. 38. 
 
 Acta 
 
 ii. 35. 
 
 xxi. 26. 
 
 xxiii. 12. 
 
 14. 
 
 21. 
 
 ICor. 
 
 iv. 5. 
 
 em? av tSmatv all (as in Matt. xvi. 28). 
 
 em? ou TeXea^Tj EG^-HSVXFAA Orig 1/4; em? otou 
 
 KABDKLMBTUn Orig 3/4 Dion''"^ 
 em? ov xat to e<Tx- Xeirrov awoSm? em? ov (A.) DXFAAII unc' ; 
 
 em? ov T ; em? NBL 1 Orig 
 (In the parallel (Matt) 33 omits but not «BL) 
 , em? ov e^v/uodri all (as in Matt) 
 
 , I omit as being too complicated.) 
 
 em? ov NAMUAA al. ; em9 otou 254 
 Plur ; em9 ov NB (em9 aov LX) ; om 
 
 OTOV D 69. 
 -av, etTttfmD"' 
 -av ND 33 (see Matt xxiv. 34) 
 all (except /am 1 em9 ov) 
 NBLT fam 13 157 (6m9 ov KMXn ; 
 em9 OTOU D ; irpiv v "=;AFA" A unc') 
 em9 OTOU J) /Soff. Tou 0eov eXffri (em? ou. . . NBC^FL) 
 em? ov evSv<n]<r0e (em? otou D 1 157 ; em? av Chr Thdt 
 
 Cyr^'" 1/2 [em? ov 1/2] 
 
 em? evpri 
 em? otou evprj 
 
 6m9 av Ota 
 
 eon av ttovto 7evj;Ta( 
 em? OTOU itXr)pa)6fi 
 ea)i Tpit a-napvTtari 
 
 em? ov apvri&rf 
 
 em? ov 6a> 
 em? ov TrpoarivexOiJ 
 em? ov atroKTeivaffiv 
 em? ou airoKTeivmfiev 
 6m9 ou avet\m(rtv 
 
 em9 av eX6r) 
 
 (em9 ov Orij/ ; -ovX) 
 
 {om av D*) vide infra Heb i. 13 
 
 (07rm9D^; -ov 100) 
 
 all 
 
 (em? ov 105 ; — ou 13) 
 
 all 
 
 all 
 
 ii. 7. em? 6K /teffou yevrfrat (em? ov FG) 
 
 i. 13. em? ov 0a> 
 X. 13. em? TeOoxriv 
 
 {am av D*E*) vide supra Act ii. 35 
 all 
 
 i. 19. em? ov rifupa hiavyaai) all 
 
2'24 
 
 Apoc. 
 
 CODEX D AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 vi. 11. 6w? Tr\ripo>(Ta><7iv {-daxriv CA) i(kB[apvd al. = Q]CV 
 
 (eojT ov mill aliq) 
 XX. f). 6M? TeXecrdri (a^pt AB fl/.) 
 
 Add perhaps for further illustration : 
 
 Mark 
 
 xiii. 30. ii-e-xfiK ov ravTa TravTa yevrirai Plur (sed tie)(pK otov B ; 
 
 fiexpi N ; etui ov D, etu? av 1 13 28, em W Sotf'" 2"") 
 
 Luke 
 
 xxi. 24. axpi ov TrXripmOaxriv NBL al. 
 axpK ov „ CDE ah 
 
 axpi( — ov) ,, AXVMl imc' al. pi 
 
 Alts 
 
 vii. IB. a)(pi, ov aveari) B*CD 
 
 a-xpi<; ov ave<ni) NAB'EHP al. omn vid 
 
 Rom. 
 
 xi. 25. axpK ov to -rrXriptaiia twv eOvmv eiaeXOi) Omn (ct B* axpi ov...) 
 
 xi. 2G. a.-)(jpi ov eXBr) 
 axpK ov e\6rj 
 
 N*B* 
 
 S»AB^CD*FG Bas Cyr Chr 1/2 Euthal 
 
 Dam 
 axp"! ov av (XBr, N'D=EKLP Chr 1/2 TMt Phot 
 
 XV. 2.'). axpi ov 07, N*AB'P 
 
 axpK ov Ot] B''D*FG al. Orig {led fltict ut infra) 
 
 Hipp Ens Epiph Dajii 
 axpi<! ov av Or, N^D'^KL (Cijr) Did Marc"''' Chr Thdt 
 
 a^pK av Bit Orig partim Ath 
 
 iii. 19. axp'? ov eXOri Plur et N Orig 
 
 aypii ov av e\0i] B 17 71 Clem Etis 
 
 iv. 19. axpK ov /iop<l>m0v ^''ACDEFGKLP Clem Meth 1/2 Ens 
 
 fiexpit ov iiopt^Ori N*B 37 116 (Meth 1/2) 
 
 iii. 13. a-)(pi<; ov to a-rjiiepov xaXeirat Onm (praeter M a^pt ov) 
 
 >c. 
 
 ii. 25. axpt ov av t/Joj NC min pane 
 
 axpii; ov av Jjfm P 
 
 etus av 7)f<B A 47 
 
 axpK ov nio 38 59 69 121 
 
 axpii ov avoi^o) B (= Q) min mnlt 
 
 axpt^ ov €\0a) 56 
 
 axpK ov av eX0a> 81 
 
 vii. 3. axpi. a^<l>payiao)fiev ACP 1 12 al. pauc Orig'''' 
 
 axptl <i(f>payi(T(i)iiev N 67 
 
 axpil ov cr(j>pay. B (= Q) al. 
 
 axpK av c<f)pay. 18 21 28 79 al. pauc 
 
 XV. 8. axpi TiXetrOmatv Omn praeter C 
 
 axp"! ov T€Xe<T0a>(Tiv C 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL. 
 
 225 
 
 Apoc. 
 
 xvii. 17. axpi TfXfaO-qaovrai NAP etc. Hipp 
 axpi' TcXfaOaaw B ( = Q) etc. 
 
 axpi T€Xea07] Text recept sol. 
 
 XX. 3. axpi T(X. Omn 
 
 From the above the first thing vtrhich attracts notice is the lack of 
 sympathy between N and B ; the second is the eclecticism and looseness 
 of Origen. In the last part of the table I have added the Patristic 
 testimony which Tischendorf gives, and here again, especially in 
 1 Cor. xi. 26, xv. 25, can be seen wide difference of opinion. 
 
 The net result, as regards B, seems rather definitely to go far 
 to prove a personal element predominating in his choice of expressions 
 in the different places involved. 
 
 Latin sympathy (continued). 
 
 xiv. 5. (V rjfiepa tov aafifiaTov instead of cv tt) 7]fiepa tow ffayS/Sarou 
 only N'B (min pauc Tisch but not specified, = 131 157 al ?). 
 This following neaeirai (ceciderit or cadet) so closely in the 
 verse against eftireaetTat looks like Latin influence "die 
 sabbati." 
 
 31. ffovXev<T€Tai (pro ^ovXeverai) Only NB W-H Sod and latt 
 (except c d). Not even Paris" comes to join KB here. Sod 
 adds "'" ' "' "". 
 
 Similarly : 
 
 32. 07ro<rT«\a9 epana eii ci,prjvfiv B (Trpoi etpT)VTiv XT) 
 sympathises vrith the Old Latin pacem, dropping to, which 
 the later Latin vulgates have with / as ea quae pads sunt, 
 d has quae ad pacem without sunt and D to it/jo? eipTjvrjv with 
 the mass. 
 
 W-H for some reason prefer 7rpo9 etprjvqv in their text to the 
 £(? etprivriv of B. 
 XV. 4. anoXeari B* and D Method and Latin only and (syr). No 
 other Greeks and not W nor Paris". But observe B has 
 tjjmi'. . .anoXevri, while D has oa efei. . .aTroXeffTj. 
 This BD conjunction here is emphasised in the same verse by the 
 order ef avrtav iv (for iv ef avrtov) by KB and D*' parts of fam 1 and 
 /am 13 157, to which add W and Paris", and e only (against d and the 
 Latins). Cf xxii. 50 «f avTwir tov apxi^epeai tov hovXov (pro cf avTtov 
 TOV SovXov TOV apx) NBLT fam 13 [nan 124] non \V non 157 non I'aris" 
 hoc loco. 
 
 XV. 10. yivcTai x^-P"^ evonriov ayyeXwv ( — Tiav) B'°' (cf. lat) 
 
 22. +Taxy tiBhX(D) 692 PaTie" goth copt arm aeth'"' smi Latt. 
 This seems to be an accretion. The other Greeks witness to 
 
 Q 
 
22C 
 
 l.iikc 
 
 XV. 23. 
 
 xvi. 20. 
 
 ihkl. 
 xvii. ;^3. 
 
 XIX. B 
 
 17 
 
 XX. 10 
 
 11. 
 12. 
 3G. 
 42. 
 xxi. 3. 
 34. 
 
 37, 
 
 xxii. 17, 
 xxiii. 42 
 
 CODKX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 the shoilei- text. W also opposes D here. (+TaxEu? T> 
 
 13 ir.7). 
 
 4,ep€T€ (i>rn eveyKarre'i) NBLRX Paris" latt syrr copt aeth (I) 
 
 Dam eveyicaTe) This looks like a strong combination. But it 
 
 is doubtful. W^ and the rest oppose including 892. 
 
 ev (pro eiri) «BL and all latins (but a e m) boh [not sah] 
 
 This runs against the mass and Dial Ghr Ephr. As to sah 
 
 and nyr Aphraat they express it differently. 
 
 -01 sec. N'BD and latt which does not express it. Sod 
 
 adds nothing. 
 
 TreptTrotTjoaaSai (pro amaaC) BL Paris" only W-H Sod [not 
 N = <T<uaoi with fifteen uncials and all min. gat effS] 
 Of liberare 6 c i g, and salvum facere aflrvg; d with D 
 goes on a separate course with hivicare and ^moyovriaai. 
 -TOW (ante irTco^^oi?) B 71 248 and lat [W-H] 
 
 . €U7€ (pro €u) BD 56 58 61 892 Orig latt 
 
 KM Kaipa, (-61/) «BL linn perpauc and D latt [non ef 
 
 g, I copt]. See Tischendorf's illuminating remark about the 
 presence of 6N in .syr cu sin where it seems to be confounded 
 with h. At any rate it was present in their Greek. [N = km 
 er TW ■xpovu).] 
 
 . cTepov ire/iipai SovXov | NABLU'^P' 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 227 
 
 TpiTov ■Kefi'^at 
 
 — rov (ante Beov) 
 
 — (ante Kvpw;) 
 
 aVTJ] r) TTTCO^TJ 
 
 ai KapSiai v/iwv 
 
 NBL'^ minpc 
 
 cflat (contra copt). 
 
 Order : hiiaaxaiv ev toj tepco 
 (against N and the rest) 
 et? eauTovt (pro eauTot?) 
 ■ TO) (ante irjaov) 
 
 ibid. 
 
 54, 
 xxiv. 19, 
 
 NABDL (157 latt quos vide) 
 
 BD only 
 
 HBDIjQ latt pi. 
 
 ABXW only and latt syr 
 
 (against the Coptic method) 
 BK only and latt (except o) syr 
 Paris" does not support B here. 
 N'BCLM latt syr 
 - ,^ ,„,... .,..., N'BC'L (latt). The coptic is 
 
 very mixed here some sah and boh saying xe IC - Jesu . 
 others itic xe TO. iv<rov. . Already On? and Orig"" 2/3 have 
 made it Domine Jesu memento in this place. 
 €K TV" 0aa-i\eiav (2^0 ev tt) ^aaiKeia) Bli C e f ff I r vg 
 Orig""- pluries W-H [non Paris". Soden adds no^ cursives. | 
 ■np.efa vv iTapaaK€vr)t (pro vf- V irapaa-Kevv) NBC'L /af 
 val;ap,,,'ov (pro va^copawv) NBILT' Orig ? latt, opposed by the 
 others, by Paris" and distinctly by sah 
 I say " Latin : a c e P vg " because it is a Latin form. Salt 
 was evidently made from the Greek (nitA.?U5pA.lOc) and the 
 Latins b d ffl* similariy from a Greek. (The boh turns it 
 nipe*xni^^.peo). '• has nazoreno which is composite, but 
 at soiif time clearly XBIL felt the latin influence. 
 
 Tisch adds here : " Luc iv. 84 iv va^api^ve non fluct," but 
 D* reads here val^op. D' Evst 47 va^mp. e I* q nazorene. 
 Follows a quotation from Tert (q.v.). Tisch continues " xviii. 37 
 ta o va^copaio^ habetur quae forma etiam septies in Actis legitur. 
 Praeterea Joh ter va^eopaio^, Mc ter va^pijvo's." 
 
 Anyhow, whether Latin or merely preferential, MBIL carve 
 the usual special line here. 
 
 Coptic, 
 i 
 ii. 9. e<f)offi)8ria-av iT<j)oSpa B'°' Gf W and boh only, as to this. 
 iii. 20. irpo(T€6r)Kev Kai tovto ein iraaw ( — Kai) KaTexXcurev tov \a>, ev 
 (t))) <l>v\aKTi. The absence of the second xai is Coptic 
 confirmed only by N*BDH b d e Eus, against rest and syr. 
 
 How is it that on so many of these occasions KB desert syr 
 for copt if copt did not inflnence them ? N corrector supplies 
 Kai. L seems to be on the side of ti' here. As regards L note 
 that in Matthew i. 4 it writes Nao-o-toi' tor vaaa-aav with sah 
 1/3 boh<". 
 
 26. 'S.efieeiv (2)ro Se/tet) 
 
 28. E\/taSa/i (2)ro EXfuaSa/i) 
 
 30. Imva/i (pro \a>vav) 
 
 31. MevKa (pro Moirav) 
 t(J6irf. MtTTo^o B'°' is not 
 
 NBL (892) b e copt 
 NBL (a b c e) boh (sah) 
 NBP 604 al" c e copt 
 NBLX 33 157 892 c copt 
 copt, both versions having Mott. 
 but it could occui from graeco-copt where Me\€a, Mcwo, 
 MoTT. are set one below the other.) 
 ibid. TS!a0aft N'B Sod'" sol. c e sah [non boh] W-H 
 
 32. ^a\a (2)ro ^aXfimv) X*B sah boh^^"^ syr sin (et syr cu sin 
 in Matt[notico2>t]) (To Tisch only aeth was known. Add sah 
 and boh'°°.) 
 
 33. ASfieiv (pro AfuvaSa^) Sah and some, boh"' A.2,ju.IIt. But 
 sah boh do not omit aiiwaSafi outright as B does alone ; sah 
 substitutes ij^iju. as N* which please note. Aeth Adam 
 Aminadab. Boh has Aminadab. W-H follow sah. 
 
 36. Kaivau NBL* Sod'''" sah boh aeth W-H 
 
 37. laper NB* a I q aur sah [non boh] W-H 
 
 iv. 4. — a\\ em iravTi. prifiari 6eov NBLW sah boh aliq [noti ojnn 
 
 habent multi] only. 
 16. Nafapo KB'S 33 [non Paris"] e Orig sah [non boh] (A." 
 
 va^afar) 
 43. OTi eiri TOVTO aTrearaX. (pro oti ct? touto anearaX.) NBLW 
 fam 13 67 (604) Paris" only (a latt [non d e f q]) hnt compare 
 
 t Of Matt. i. 12 o-tXaftijX B i (syr). 
 
 Q 2 
 
228 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Liiko 
 
 the form of sah xe nxi.TrxRrtoo'ffx VA.p eneigjUjfii 
 
 ami the manner of hoh : xeOTfHI eXA."JXA.OTrol eefi.ecti.l- 
 
 iv. 44. T»;9 louSaia? {pro ti;? TaXiXaia?) NBCLQR 157 892 Paris" 
 
 sail boh syr sin icov lovSauov W 
 V. 1. Ka( aKoueiv (pro tov axovuv) NABLWX fam 1 213 892 
 
 Paris" c cop< ae</^ arwi 
 2. Order : vXoia Svo BW 22 892 Paris" a e sah boh syr 
 
 contra reU. Om Svo N* W-H follow B in text. 
 .5. -auTO) NB 604 .So(i'™ c io/i [non sah] W-H 
 17. /cat Sui^o/ii? Kvpiov rjv eif to taaffai avTov; Most, but NBLH 
 and W Paris" Cyr''^' change the last word to avrov altering the 
 sense and construction. This is not found in boh, but is in 
 sah : " that the power of the Lord was being (there) for 
 him to cure." No others change (except Sod'"). 
 
 I may say here that if sah or boh had been following NB 
 we would find a different state of things in these versions at 
 V. 5, V. 17. But it NB consulted both versions (as seems 
 abundantly illustrated in these notes) then we have the only 
 good reason for the wavering agreement of NB together now 
 with boh now with sah, and of the agreement of N or B now 
 with one version and then with another against each other. 
 
 Again, in v. 20 we have another — oiit<b (following cittcv), 
 [as at V. 5 (also following enrev)'], omitted by NBL5 33 130 604 
 ffg^i? vg sah, but boh which omitted at v. 5 does not do so 
 here. In fact boh adds " to the paralysed." Had boh been 
 following NB text it would have omitted here as well as in 
 v. 5, and had sah been following NB text it would have 
 omitted in v. 5 as well as here in v. 20. See below at vi. 18. 
 vi. 17. +7roXw {post ox^o:;) NBLW fam 1 892 Paris" syr sch pesh 
 
 sah [turn boh] 
 18. evo)(Xovfi€voi {pro ox^-ov/ievoi) NABL 1 [tioii 118-209] 157 273 
 Paris". See boh. In connection with what I wrote just above, 
 this is quite interesting, for first of all A (Alexandrian) joins the 
 group. Then upon turning up boh we find enA.'r'rg,ex«.Ko 
 is the word used ! (sah different iteXJULOKg) ffi.oX = also 
 Acts V. 16 Balestri edition). 
 
 Note that at Acts v. 16 ox^ovfLevov<; is read by all Greek MSS. 
 Turning up boh there, we find quite a different expression 
 neju. HH exg,Ha) n-rett ninn*. RiKi-KipTott- 
 
 Can we now doubt that e v o)(\oviievoi came from 
 ertA.-ifXg,eiU.Ko and not vice- versa ?t 
 
 t A Btill more Bubtle borrowing from tah is done by N alone in Luc xviii. 5 where K 
 substitutes irapti/oxXf i" for irupfx"" of B and all the rest. Consult Horner'3 note in tah 
 OS to COt^PjPjiCe meaning " addeth trouble." 
 
 B IN ST. LUKK S GOSPEL. 
 
 229 
 
 Forms of ox^ea> are nowhere else used. It is thoroughly 
 Lucan, and a oTrof \€y. of his in the Gospel once, and in 
 Acts once. 
 
 Both ox\€io and evox>^eco are used in the classics, and the 
 dictionary gives away another secret, for under ox^co we find 
 " More usual in its compounds." 
 
 Hence a change from o;^\. to evox>^. is far more likely than 
 the accusation tacitly levelled against poor long-suffering 
 " Antioch " of changing €i/o;(;\. " of the best mss " to o^X. St. 
 Luke gives this the lie direct in Acts. 
 
 The Latin in Luke is vexabantur, and in Acts vexatos, with 
 vexabanttir by d p gig Lucifer. 
 The Coptic of Acts exP^HOj = criiciatus, vexatus (Peyron p. 373) 
 
 Xg,eJU.KO afflictio, cruciatus, poena (Peyron p. 259). 
 Note that xat before tOepairevovro omitted by XABDLQ is 
 also the Coptic manner here (boh and sah). 
 luo vii. 15. exaffiaev (pro avex ) B Sorf"" so?t = e /ren'"' (sedit). Cf. sah boh 
 viii. 5. a /iev (2>ro o iiev) BW sah [non boh] 
 
 avra (pro avTo) B 16 21 273 sah [non 6o/i] 
 
 C. €Trt TTCTpav { — -rriv) B Paris" boh (indef. article) 
 
 19. Trapeyevero (pro TtapeyevovTo) BDX d 50 71 273 Paris" boh 
 
 (definitely 3rd per3/e7» sing) (sah) 
 43. —larpoK TT poaavaXaxraira tov fiiov BD sah syr sin [«o^^ cu] 
 
 hier^ 
 X. 24. axovaai /iou I'l BT' (? Habet tov) sah soli 
 
 35. > ex^oKaiv eSmxev Svo Sr)vapia B sah soli 
 38. — eii; TOV oiKov ^ sah soli 
 
 Be-sides many illuminating passages (such as Luc ii. 48/vi. 26, 
 viii. 45, ix. 62, xi. 11 12, xvii. 19, xxiii. 50, some under another 
 head, " Solecisms ") note 
 xi. 36. +ev (ante T17 aarpaTTrj). . . B Paris" .sa/i boh 
 
 37. -T19 NBLT' fam 1 fam 13 157 604 
 
 Paris" against all the rest syrr latt and arm. This is one of 
 those square divisions where D d abandon all sympathy with 
 the Alexandrine group. This omission is no more " neutral " 
 or " pre-syrian " than I am a centaur. The Greek group 
 above is one and stands out in all its loneliness. What has 
 become of the Coptic then? Well, it seems to me that the 
 lack of T(? is simply due to the coptic which generally says 
 a pharisee to express such a thing. Sah here is 2s.e 
 A^ffApiCA-ICC and boh nxeoTfcJ ipiceoc [Horner has no 
 remarks on — ti? in the above Greek mss] and this caught the 
 eye of the parent of NBL I'aris" etc, and led to its being 
 dropped in copying. There is no sense in conjecturing an 
 addition here, ev Se tm \a\rjtTai cpcoTa avTov <f>apttraio<s being 
 
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 I.iike 
 
 quite sufficient. ti? is therefore part of the text, and it is NBL 
 who drop it iw inciiriam, and there is no "pre-syrian" texf 
 about it at all. Soden follows Egypt with omission. 
 
 It looks very pretty and "neutral" I admit: verse 37 
 <l>apiaaw<; followed by ver 38 6 Se ^apmato^, that is indefinite 
 followed by definite, but copt has an indefinite and Grefek has 
 not. And tj? therefore is not out of place in verse 37. 
 xi. r,S. Here occurs a very serious difference. For the ordinary Xevovro? 
 Se avrov ravra Trpo? avTov, NBCL 33 Paris" substitute 
 Kaxeiffev €^e\0ovTO<; avrov. This is against all Syriacs 
 and all Latins and all the rest of the Greeks. It is apparently 
 shared with or derived from the Coptic only. 
 
 There is no exact parallel, but after the close of some of the 
 parallels in Matt, xxiii., chapter xxiv. opens « a i e^iXOmv o 
 \rfaov<: (TTopeveTo awo Tov lepov xai ■itpo<Tij\eov oi futO. avrov 
 e-mSet^ai avrm rat oiicdSo/iat tov lepov (= Mark xiii. 1 nai 
 €KTropevofievov avrov ex rov lepov. . .). 
 
 Is it possible that NBCL 33 Paris" copt are right and all 
 the rest wrong ? The six authorities cited are rightly but one. 
 What about the other sympathising cursives fam 1 fam 13 
 28 1,57 604 892? Have they all been corrupted by this 
 abominable Antiochian or Coiistantinopolitan recension, while 
 shaking themselves free from it on so many occasions ? Is it 
 humanly possible to conceive this? Or do not NBCL 33 
 Paris" merely represent some untoward effort of Hesychius or 
 another to bemuddle Dr. Hort ?t {Soden follows Hort.) 
 
 For observe the same process in verse -54 : 
 54. -Kai f,,row709 NBL/aw 1 239 Paris" copt acth 
 
 - iva KaTnyopriamaw avrov NBL 892 Paris" copt aeth sijr sin. 
 
 It is quite of one recension. But really, are we to believe 
 that all other copies have parted with sanity and conspired to 
 down the truth ? 
 xii. 25. TTTjxvv (-era) N'BD i d ff., I sah holt (o-»JU.iP,e 
 
 nwre copt) but opposed by all else including W^ Paris" 892 
 604 and all minn latt veil sijr omn arm aeth Eus^"". 
 47. I cannot rank this even under attempted " improvement," so 
 I place it here. 
 B (with NT^'J' 33 348 892 Paris" only) wishes to read «e,^09 Se o 
 
 t A study of the Diateasaron arab ia worth while in this connection. Section xii 
 opens with JIatt. xxiii. 34/39, interposes John xii. 42/50, then proceeds with Lulje 
 XI J3/X11. 3. The language here of Luke xi. 53 is X,y. S, avrov ravra wpo, avrovi and not 
 KantiSti^ fJ(\tfoi/To[ nvrnu. But after continuing with Jo. xii. 86/41, it proceeds with 
 Matt xxiv. 1 "And when Jeshs went out of the Temple." A diatessaron in Greek 
 so constructed might account for a scribal error here, the wrong place being taken up in 
 copying. It seems the only clue. 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 231 
 
 8ouXo? •yvov(; to 0eXr]ua rov xvpiov avrov xat /iij eroifiaaa^ fj rtoiriaai; ro 
 BeXrfua avrov. 
 
 This fi for p-rjlt finds its counterpart in sah : 
 
 ng,Ju.g,A.X 2^e enxA.qcix(i.e enoTa-uj JDLneqxoeic ijlncj- 
 coB.xeH iincJEipc- . ■ Boh opposes with oTio£, (one MS oTJa^e) before 
 " prepared not " and orog, for /ijjSe. 
 
 I believe NBT^ 33 348 892 Paris" sah to be utterly wrong, and if we 
 want the " shorter " text we have to go to LW 13 8"" latt syr C//pr which 
 give us Kat fit] eT0t/ia<Ta<; , omitting fiijSe or t] Troirioa<; ; or to i/j which omits 
 the whole ! Consulting W for control we find that that new MS goes 
 with Lfor the "shorter" text and again opposes B, while Paris" again 
 supports B. 
 
 But xai fir) eroifuiaai; r) rroir^aas strikes me as opposed to the usual 
 N.T. sequences, and xai fir) erotfuicrai; /irjSe Troitjaai; of the mass should 
 be right. 
 
 xiii. 9. et<r ro /xeWov ei Se fir/ye. Matter of order by NBLT 33 (69 
 non fam) 892 Paris" with sah hoh, against the rest of Greeks, 
 and against Latins and Syriacs and arm. 
 14. +OTJ (ante tf) after the Coptic manner (sah boh) with only 
 NBL Paris" 892 and two Latin vg against the rest. 
 
 This is mentioned here as it follows xiii. 9 so closely. 
 Doubtless the Coptic reacted here on NBL and not NBL on 
 the Coptic. 
 XV. 12. 6 Se Bi€t\ev avroK! rov fiiov (pro leai SieiXev avroK rov 0wv) 
 N'ABL Paris" 892 boh sah. This is a place which bears out 
 my contention that Coptic influenced NBAL and not that sah 
 or boh felt the influence of NB. For observe N° feels the 
 influence, not X*, and is joined by A, as well as BL. All 
 others are against this except Paris" which here follows, but 
 W opposes with the other versions and all latt. Here is a 
 clear example of W-H (no syllable in their margin !) following 
 an Egyptian recension, and nothing to do with " pre-syrian " 
 at all. 
 (xv. 21. BL = copt order. See under " Order.") 
 The point which I make above (at xv. 12) happens to be illustrated 
 further and immediately after at : — 
 
 xvi. 1. where B* alone writes oiKovofiovc for oncovofiov. Did not his 
 eye wander to the Coptic where the accusative ov does not 
 show ? The termination is oc, the word being transliterated 
 from the Greek and appearing RoTfOIKOltOJULOC both in sah 
 and hoh. 
 
 I can offer further immediate corroboration of the 
 assumption : — 
 3. aKavniv ovk t<T)^v(o K.VI errairetv aia\vvofiai. This icai IS 
 
232 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 unknown to the Greeks except to B [not followed by W-H ! 
 who divined something wrong here] but is definitely read by 
 hoh and sah and aeth, but not by the Latins. The Syriac 
 here +diate!ifi opposes the Latins however joining B (again 
 a square division between sijr and lat). Syriac influence 
 might here be attributed to B, but I think the previous 
 context will bear nie out in attributing it to Coptic. I have 
 never seen this pointed out before, and submit that it goes 
 a long way to show Coptic influence on B, which it the proofs 
 offered are considered sufficient, destroys B as a " neutral '.' 
 type, especially when the apparent Latinisms are taken into 
 consideration at the same time (see ante). 
 Another commentary offers in this chapter : 
 xvi. 15. B writes alone on to ev av6 panrm v^jrriXov (for on to ev 
 av6 pa>TToi<; v\frri\ov). The point we have not yet got is 
 whether sah or boh is influencing B. Well here all sah 
 (known to Horner) have avdpamoK, but Horner's boh text, 
 following the boh ACi'FHS, has "in the man" ex.^EIt 
 nipuJJU.Ii "ot ttipiMJLK-I- That is the only support for B". 
 The syr has plural, and the old syr "sons of men " or " sons of 
 man." IF- iif do not follow B. Sorffii adds no other witness. 
 A further commentary is offered immediately after at : — 
 17. xepaiav fiiav a change of order by B only sah (o"ff ajtuX^] 
 nonrtux) ^yi', while boh omits piav (= oiTKEpEA. most, 
 o'ffcytoXg, some). The omission in boh led to the change 
 of order perhaps, while B consulted sah. 
 2G. Again a commentary offers here. In the important sentence 
 Kai eiri Tram toutoi? fera^v ri/ia>v xai vfiotii ■^(aapa /Jcya 
 e<TTr]piK^ai NBL Paris" substitute ev (tor etti) with boh 
 and !att''\ while sah expresses differently : " But after all 
 these there is a great gulf fixed," and syr " And with all these 
 same things a great gulf is set." 
 xvii. 1. Order: ra cTxavSaXa iir] e\6ei.v So NBLX Paris" 892 e (.^o/i) 
 only, and I claim that this is more likely due to sah on NBLX 
 than the converse, for all others oppose with p-rj eXOeiv ra 
 cricavBaKa including it and Origen Chr Dam, so that here 
 with W-H following NBLX e we have not even restored the 
 text of Origen. 
 Same verse ttXt/i/ ovai tor ovat Sc by t<BDL it (except/? rg) = also 
 Coptic (hoh and sah). 
 
 xvii. 19. —t] TTio-Ti? <rov a-eaaxe ae B'"' cum sah 6/9. 
 
 These and these alone. Comment is unneuessarj'. 
 23. order : iSov exei. r) iZov <uSe B'' Paris" boh 
 
 iBov €K€i Kai tBov wSc K .fyr cu sin 
 iSov exei tSov loSe L 
 
 D IN ST. Luke's gospel. 
 
 233 
 
 This place is in a grand muddle, but the others place a>&e first, and 
 as to B', Tischendorf says, it originally read aiSe...a>St (in the photo- 
 graphs one can see nothing). The tact remains that B' is nearest to hoh, 
 while the .sa/i Mss all vary, and may have influenced B*. 
 Thus 85 reads qJu.n6iJU.A. H n<Li 
 
 114 „ g^ixntJULA. H £,Ju. nil 
 70 „ g^iineiJULi h £,«. nA.i 
 04 „ qiXneiJULi h ^Jul nil 
 91 „ qg^JULnciJULi. M qcjutnii 
 89 „ qJuLneiJUL^^ h g,I«. nn 
 25 ,, qAj(.nA.i 
 while in the same verse — ottijX^jjte fiTjSe of B fam 13 [157] 
 seems to correspond closely to sah. 
 
 xvii. 33. OCT 8' av {pro xat ot tav) 
 
 23. 
 
 NBL'*- 09 245 892 Paris" al. 
 perpauc boh^"' ""*' 
 35. +./ (ante p,,a) So N'BDR Sod''"' 1 09 Paris" and fto/t^E"™ 
 37. Kai 01 aejoi NBL Paris" min pane h d [contra D^'] boh" 
 ibid. eiTi(TvvaxOr)''ovTai (pro (Tuna^.) NBLQ Evst 19 cf. sah 
 
 fin " will be gathering to it." 
 xviii. 29. Order : v yvvaixa rj aSe\<f>ov^ ij yoveii. NBL 892 Paris" sah 
 
 boh against all others. 
 xix. 8. Order : pov twi/ vwapxavTrnv NBLQ /am 1 Paris" bringing 
 the possessive first with Coptic. (157 does not do so here, but 
 on several other occasions ; see below.) 
 
 Order: pev to apyvp^ov only NABL^ 33 157 f''' 892 Paris" 
 Evst 48 and the Coptics against Latin. These points should 
 be noted. I will be told about other Coptic sympathy that of 
 course it was NB which influenced the Coptic and not vice 
 versa. I do not think so. In some places community ot 
 origin is clearly indicated. In many others, as here, it is to 
 be observed that it is more than likely that a reflex action ot 
 the Coptic manner on NB is in question. 
 
 Notice here W poii to apr/vpiov pov. W* first wrote pov 
 TO afrf. and then cancelled pov init and added at end. N also 
 has this reduplication. 
 
 Almost immediately below we come across further close Coptic 
 sympathy. NBL fam 1 892 Paris" a omit yap with hoh and 
 sah. Yet the rest and syr cu sin have the copula, and other 
 Latins and Lucifer -1-autem. 
 
 -avToi's NBL \iion nihil copt Orig W-H Sod txt 
 
 XX. 9. XP<""«^« (-iKavovi) B* (non W-H) with hoh mss BDA/E 
 
 FJLO 20 (see Horner notes in sah vol., not clear in hoh) 
 Note. This is immediately followed in B" at xx. 10 by xai xaipto 
 (-€!') with Latin, whereas hoh have distinctly xat ev xatpo). Hence, it 
 
 20. 
 
 40. 
 
234 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 hoh' had been following B" in vcr 9, they might have adopted a different 
 expression. I say this to guard against the retort that the boh mss' 
 reported above were perhaps following B". [Alitef expr. aeth : et niorani 
 fecit venire.] 
 
 Luke 
 
 XX. 10. yap {pro Se) NBL^ 33 36 57 108 213 Paris" boh sah. 
 
 (The rest vary and a nee amplius). 
 42. auTo? yap [pro xai auTo?) NBLB(Q) min pau<: et 157 892 
 Paris" I boh sah Cijr against all others, 
 xxi. 3C. KaTi(ixvar)Te (pro xara^mdriTe) NBL(W)X'* /am 1 33 36 
 57 157 213 892 Paris" sah boh aeth syr hier, against all others 
 and against syr lat and Tert"'. 
 
 As Orig is not extant here, I prefer to attribute this to 
 Coptic influence, and should certainly follow Tert who is 
 extant here, not to speak of the body of Latins and e repre- 
 senting Cyprian, and not to speak of syr cu sin pesh which 
 oppose syr hier. 
 
 It will be noticed that the former group known to Tisch and 
 Hort has been added to by W (KOTterxno-oTe) ■*■ and Paris", 
 but they are rather birds of a feather. Yet I would give the 
 additional testimony all the weight desired, and still say 
 that the strength of the position remains with the Latt 
 and Syrr who are completely agreed except for syr hier 
 whose defection rather emphasises this as an unnecessary 
 "improvement." In any case a change from KaTa^im0TiTe to 
 KaTt<7xv(rrjT€ is far more probable than an attempted emenda- 
 tion of KaTKrxyaiiTe to KaTa^iwdrjTe (the Latins express in 
 two words), 
 xxii. 1. evt] eZu OvecrOat to Traa^a Most, but BCL and D 892 [but 
 not N rell] omit ev. Not so latt, so the omission is ruled out 
 from Latin sympathy. The ev is desirable here. Upon 
 reference to the Coptic we find ev present but transferred quite 
 to the end of the verse (it so appears in Homer's translation 
 of sah but does not do so in his translation of boh although 
 the expressions employed are identical in both versions). The 
 Coptic says " this which "—as if reading jj— " is numbered to 
 slaughter the passover in." 
 
 19. -ef; {anteTTiv efirjv) B'°' Cf sah boh. 
 
 20. Order : xai to TtoT-qpiov mtravTox; NBL Paris" boh sah syr 
 
 hier {iion al.) W-H Sod txt 
 22. 0T( {pro Kai) NBD"LT 157 7."'sem Paris" boh sah (against 
 
 all others incl. W and syr hier). a d Orig cm. 
 31 init. -enre Se o Kvpto<; BLT Sod"" sah boh Bas 1/2 syr sin 
 
 {contra syr cu et rell omn et contra W'*' 892 Paris"] 
 36. Ze {pro ovv) NBLTD Sod"''" Paris" Laura* "" e d sah boh 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 235 
 
 xxii. 37. TO (pro ra) KBDLQTW Sod"^" (B d- G) 1157 bd sah boh (syr) 
 
 39. - Kat (ante 01 fiaevrat) B'V Paris" Soci'"'" sa/i oe</i (6o7^'^ 
 
 57. Order : ovk oiBa avrov yvvai (pro yvvai ovk oiBa avrov) 
 NBLTX^ 213 Sod^" [nan al. minn] sah boh arm only, 
 against the rest of Greeks, all Latins, and syrr. ( — yvvai 
 D et T). 
 
 68. -fioiT) awoXuatjTe NBLT Sod"'' boh Cyr (fam 1 157 
 
 Paris" sah habent p.oi) 
 xxii). 6. —ya\i\atav(post aKovaaii) Only NBLTT' io7i (against .so/i sj/r 
 lat and the rest) Sah is very definite ^e TTA-XiXaiA.. and 
 892 Paris" do not omit nor W^. If NBLT managed to 
 influence boh, how was it they did not influence any others ? 
 Not even Paris" which has been running very close to them 
 for many verses past. Surely it was boh which influenced 
 XBLT. If NBLT influenced boh how was it they (or their 
 common ancestor, for they have indeed a common ancestor) 
 did not influence sah ? W-H follow this small combination 
 for omission. I would not dare go against the beautifully 
 emphatic character of the phrase in sah and syr cu sin. Soden 
 adduces only one new witness, B 371, yet excludes. 
 
 15. aveTrefiyfrev yap avrov itpoi ■qfUK; NBKLMTIl minn pauc f 
 
 130'*' 892, Paris" (-yap), sah boh 
 aveTre/^yfra yap v/ia^ 7rpo<; avTov Hell et it aeth; syrr arm 
 (avTov irpot avrov) 
 This is rather an interesting commentary on the previous 
 reference. The change of sense is so complete here, but 
 witnessed to most carefully by both Coptics. In fact sah says 
 " But Herod also found nothing against him ; for he sent him 
 to us. . ." while boh follows the Greek method : " But neither 
 Herod also; for he sent him to us..." Observe that aeth 
 opposes sah boh. 
 
 17. Om tiers ABKLTT'H (A here replaces N) 892 Sod'"^ a vg^ 
 sah boh [non omn] T> d syr cu sin aeth place the verse after 
 verse 19. 
 
 Six boh MSS and the correctors of four others have it. 
 
 29. -I- at (ante KoiXiai) NBCNT'X 892 mtV [non Paris"] and 
 
 so sah boh [non W] 
 
 32. KaKovpyoi Bvo NB W-H only as it would appear. The 
 
 sentence runs a little more smoothly thus : tiyovro Be xai erepoi 
 KaKovpyoi Bvo, instead of : rfyovro Be xai erepoi Bvo xaKOvpyot, 
 but sah boh support NB. [Sodcn adds nothing new]. 
 
 36. wpocrepxp/ievot ofo? TrpotT^povTa avrio NABC'L Paris" only. 
 This involves the omission of xai before o^o^ and is supported 
 by a r and boh (sah also avTa> fier' o^ov, minus ■npoa^povTe<; 
 avTw). The absence of Kai between the two participles 
 
236 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 seems a little rough and contrary to N.T. usage. The 
 inference is Coptic influence. Observe A joins the group. 
 This is immediately followed by : 
 xxiii. 38. — yeypa/ifievT] NBLT' Sod'"^ sah boh {contra mtindiim) 
 
 ibid, —ypafi/iaaiv EX,X. xat Pm/i. icai E/3fj. N" [Habet N] BC'L 
 Paris" nah boh [non ovdi] to -which add a syr cu siti, but against 
 all else and Cyr. 
 40. eTTiTi/icov avTO> e<l>ri (pro eireriiia ainoD \£70»') NBC'LX 
 213 Paris'" 892 fto/i"' [non sah] (syr xai 6(^) 
 
 43. —0 irjcrov! NBLT' jBi'sf 26 e* so/i 6o/^ contra rell et contra 
 Chr: ("oi fiavi)(aioi — eTriXa/So/ievoi rov ycopiov tovtov (f)a(Ttv " — 
 enrev 6 ^o- ' afirjv a/irju. . .) 
 
 44. xai T]V TjSr] uiaei mpa ckti] (jiro rfv Se (oaei mpa eKTrj) BC'LT' 
 597t 892 boh [non sah]. On the other hand XD some latins 
 and OHjr'"' have xai but not +7/8?;. This plus tjSj; is found 
 however in boh oifog, ne (^n^^'e g,H^H RixnF ne, 
 (while sah is nG nrtA."* ^E RxSco ne [sah has 2iC> correct 
 Tisch]) and nowhere else. All the others oppose. Here is 
 the "longer" text then once more in BL [not N]. It is not 
 from the parallels in Matt, and Mark, and must be an old error 
 from KAlHNAewcei, the Se having remained after xai was 
 introduced, and being copied as xai -qv tiht). It this be dis- 
 allowed, there is no alternative but a bohairic influence on BL, 
 because boh could not get it very well from the Greek as he 
 must have looked well at the place, for g^H^H is introduced in 
 a different order, viz. between a>pa and 6«t7j, the (oaet being 
 apparently dropped (as in sah^"'' aeth and 157 y'" I'g''), but there 
 is room for a great muddle here, because the word for caaei 
 (=rtA. or rt<5.Tf) is very like the word for <opa.t BL boh here 
 are a unit against the rest. How it occurred must be thought 
 of in connection with the other Coptic sj'mpathy, which 
 fluctuates between boh and sah. As N does not share the 
 addition here the place will bear more study (Cf +»;Si> at 
 xsiv. 29). 
 
 45. The passage rov r/Xiov exXiirovTov of NBL would follow 
 naturally here, but so much has already been written about it 
 that I forbear. Nor have I touched at all on Lukei. 28, ii. 14, 
 33, vi. 1 48, xxii. 43/44, xxiii. 34, xxiv. 42, as these passages 
 have been discussed before, and ii. 9 I merely record above. 
 
 49. Kai a I yvvaiKei B Paris" sah [Soden adds nothing] 
 
 50. ayado's SiKato<! B et sah soli [Soden forgets this] 
 
 f This 597 (Venice Marc i. 59) in Gregory's Emendnnda is not to be confused witli 
 r<19 (Paris'^. 
 
 t Ilcncc 4>n^'iri nrtilfi O'C moment or the hour. 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 237 
 
 1 tike 
 
 xxiv. 32. 0.? eXo\« vt" f" Ti; o&(o (-xai) m hr,voiyev r,tuv to? ypa4>a<t. 
 This is often the Coptic method. The omission of the copula 
 is observed in NBDL 33 syr hier and boh sah only (copi omits 
 the second w as well). The passage is not without interest 
 for B maintains the two clauses (although without copula, 
 = copt) while Origen eleven times, with abcel Amb Aug 
 syr cu sin, omits the first ok e\a\ct. 
 44. ev TM vofua fuovaeoK xai t o i ? TTpo<f>rirat<; icai faX/iOK. So B 
 and Paris". ev rot? irpo<^Ta« says N, icai ev rot? 
 Trpoc^rai? L, and these three groups agree in one, but, proving 
 certainly that it was not sincere copying, they disagree in 
 detail, while the supporting authority, namely sah-boh, has it 
 yet differently thus : ev (rm) vofuo iimvoeax; xai (lit. p£-ra) Toil 
 ■npc^TaK Kai (lit. ftera) toi^ ifroK/ioi';. 
 Only the Coptic adds toi? before foK/wK. 
 W-H manage out of this slight difference to slip in the 
 reading of B alone ! They say nothing in the margin, and 
 they have just rejected B's single readings (airavra in this 
 verse, +Kai in verse 39, -ri for Stan verse 38, rm^icav verse 28, 
 avTov<! for Kai outo? verse 15), and behold it is not B at all as 
 a whole which we are getting in W-H here, but pure W-H 
 intuition which is the " neutral " text I 
 47. Kai Krjpvx^V^ai eiri To) ovofiari avTov fteravoiav eK (pro Kai) 
 a<t>e<rtv apapriav eii iravra to effin, NB sah boh, to which add 
 sy,^^ P«h [agaimt the Old Syriac]. So that W-H^ text is 
 satisfied to follow NB copt alone with "syr vg" [cu not 
 extant, sin not known to W-H]. Soden has no new 
 witness. 
 This is in a different class from others placed under " Improvement," 
 for here NB have two cases of eit following each other, and to them on 
 this occasion it is not apparently abhorrent nor to W-H nor to Tisch who 
 follow. It is possible that all the other authorities, including syr vet, 
 revised here to avoid this repetition ; but it is also possible that the coptic 
 is responsible, for Paris" does not follow NB here, nor does our new 
 witness W agree with them, nor ^. 
 
 Tisch justly remarks that in St. Luke can be found both expressions 
 ^aiTTKr/ia peravow ei? a^^Tiv (iii. 3) and lovvai peravoiav to, t„p. Kai 
 a^teaw (Act v. 31), the former supported by Mark i. 4. 
 
 The only thing to be said here about Coptic is that NB are agreed 
 with C'LNX 33 213 and the Coptic, against the rest, in following this in 
 the same verse with ap^apevoi for ap^ap^vov, again against Paris" and W, 
 
 t W-H text ..t, marg. ,«.. Souter reverses this: «.. text, .« aJUmative readmg 
 ai toot. Soden retains «a. in his text. Yet if NB mh toh are wrong here, why does 
 Soilcn think them right at xxiii. 6, 38, 43, xxiv. 82 ? 
 
•238 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 and in the next verse (48) he is omitted by sah boh with NBC'L, while 
 eerre omitted only by BD Sorf'"'" d Aug (aeth boh) is more striking. 
 
 Latin {and Coptic). 
 
 There are a good many of these combinations with the small 
 group containing B, but they need not be dealt with specially. Some 
 places appear however clearly to have influenced B. For instance : 
 
 I.iike 
 
 xvii. 24. —61' tt; Tj/Mpa avTov BD 220 soli inter gr cum a b d e i r^ 
 
 et sah {aeth) W-H. Cf. Merx vol. n. p. 348. 
 xviii. 4. fiera ravTa Se BLQT' 892 Paris". This against all other 
 Greeks including X and D /lera Se touto, but the Latin is post 
 haec autem a f i q vg, postea autem e (while b c d ff^l omit 
 autem) and both Coptics say ju.enEltc«. ni.1 J^e- As Tisch 
 points out, in Luke x. 1 /lera Se touto there is no change 
 among the Greeks. We have to go to Matt. xxvi. 73 for /lera 
 fiiKpov Se. Westcott and Hort religiously follow BLQ. 
 
 This I believe however to be very ancient Latin influence 
 from a Graeco-Latin, because in the same verse the tendency is 
 strongly Latin against Coptic, for NBLX Hipp 157 Paris"' 892 
 with a b c e f ff i I /I vg say ovSe avOpavov instead of leai 
 avdpanrov ovk of the rest of the Greeks Bas Chr Dam. And 
 the Coptics both turn the phrase without expressing an ovSe 
 [a few boh do 7/24]. 
 
 I may further point out why I think the Latin is old 
 enough to have influenced the BLQ text here. Three 
 verses beyond, at : 
 7. BLQ, this time joined by NS?' 892 Paris" and (e), write tmi' 
 eK\eKTo>v avTov imv ^ornvrmv avTw Tifiepat Kai wkto<;, whereas 
 abffilqr simply omit avTw (or the " trpoa avrov " of the other 
 Greeks Mac Bas Chr Antioch Dam cd f Irm'" Tert^"). As 
 a matter of fact, if we want to choose between •npoi avrov and 
 auTO) I should strongly incline to follow Tert and Iren^^ who 
 are strengthened by Basil Chrys Damasus etc and the other 
 fifteen Greek uncials and all the cursives [D" = Pomvrtov 
 axrraiv, d qui clamant ad eum. Tisch omits to notice d for 
 ad enm]. But the omission may be the more basic (syr does 
 not omit, and sah has exuuaj eg,pA.l epoq)- 
 9. e^oveevovjnt<; (pro e^oveevovvTa'i) B 115 259** d"' g'^'ai". No 
 other Gk uncials. In connection with what I wrote above, 
 note that, against the imperfect of most Latins (but e 
 contemnunt, d spernent) a has spernentes. Possibly therefore 
 B got this from such a Gk-Latin. W-H do not follow. 
 It is foimd in Tregelles' margin. 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE'S gospel. 
 
 239 
 
 I.nko 
 
 xviii 10 But it seems very difficult to separate Latin and Coptic sym- 
 
 ' pathy. For here B with (D)BX 71 213 says ek ( - o) 4,apt<rato, 
 
 KM erepo^ reXo.^?, which corresponds exactly to sah 
 
 0-Ji. o-ir4.A.piciioc tiG nKEOTT*. o-»xeXu3itHC ne. 
 
 whereas boh nioTfi-i iteoTrcti-picEoc ne niKEOTfii 
 
 neO-BXeXoOItHC he- ToHnn nf 
 
 Unus..u7ius, unus.. alius, unus.. alter of the Latms of 
 course does not help us without articles, but the conflict 
 between boh and sah, where N and the mass follow 6o/,, and 
 B with only DBX agree with sah in suppressing the farst 
 article, is really noteworthy in view of what has gone before. 
 These httle places it will readily be seen are qmte interestmg 
 and worth attention. W-H have eh in text, and o m margin. 
 11. Another conflict between K and B follows^ . »- ,„ j aa o^o, 
 
 B with L only and N"* fam 1 213 892 Paris'' (Sod adds ) 
 e vg arm Orig Cypr reads of the Pharisee: cTa0ei, touto 
 ■npo, eav.ov ■npo.^vx-^ in^'^ad of A(D) etc : cTaOet, irpo, 
 eavTov ravTa Trpoavvx- and thus also a goth syrr Bas 
 
 Antioch. _, . 
 
 K* with bcfffilqrB.nA sah aeth omit upo? eavTOV. itns 
 omission might be taken for the "neutral" text if you will, 
 but, would you believe it, W-H follow B Orig and Cypr m 
 their text (with Trpo, eavrov ravia in their margin) and not a 
 word about omission I Now the conjunction of e and Cyprjnih 
 B sah and Orig is clearly Egyptian, Africa and Gf ^k-Egypt 
 combined, while Basil with the mass oppose, and the bulk 
 of the Latins omit. Dd = KaOeavrov and seorsum. Therefore 
 TK-H produce an Egyptian text again once more and not a 
 " neutral " one. And there is nothing " pre-synan about it, 
 since the old syriac goes with the mass against B. 
 
 ..,«.»/ ♦\ MTiPT.M/ v'"t!pm Paris" (X ev n) latt sail boh, 
 
 xxn. 10. €1? »> (pro ou) NBCIjV z smiarib v- " , . „ . 
 
 but against ov of fifteen uncials including D and d ubi , 
 (157 distinctly o-nov), ov eav five remaining uncials (perhaps 
 from Mark otrov eav). 
 48. .,<rou. 8. (pro Se .,..0.,) «BLTX 157 892 Cfjatt Jesus 
 autem, and boh iSc 2.e HEX-Lq (sa''"' neXE ic ; sah 
 nexe 2^E ic)- (Paris" omits copula with sah and syrr.) 
 That the conjunction with Coptic and Latin is not fortuitous, 
 
 consult: — ■ t> • 97 
 
 49 [Kupiel -avTu, NBLTX [non E, male Sodcn] again Pans 
 ■ ^ 1^ ' 71 213 892 sah boh I q 
 
 (t<b Kvpta, D et domino d ; Bad Jesu aeth) 
 04. -Lttto. ovto. to r.po,ra,.ov Kai SBKLMTH copt and 
 
 t W shows Egyptian preference for .ux.ra. and Paris" ,,,>x"o (for ^po<,<,vx'ro). 
 
240 
 
 CODEX 1) AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 some Latins. I enter it, as ervmov was apparently known 
 to Marcion here as well as to the rest of the opposition, t 
 Add iv. G. - S(a/9oXo9 e(5 opo<; vfriXov NBL lat mult sail (boh) Cyr 
 
 contra rell ct sijr 
 
 Traces of Syriac. 
 
 I.iikc 
 
 ii. 19. -n-avTa avverripet ra prmara ( — Taura) B 77 129 225 a"' (c/ 
 syr sin) Soden does not bother to add the cursives. 
 CI. iravra ra pijfiara {-ravTo) X'BDMW a e (cf syr sin sch 
 
 pesh arm) 
 iii. 33. Eapmv B y'"? [male Sod i"'] 6 (d) vg syr W-H 
 
 V. 18. +avTov{post Oetvai.) BliB 157 syrr sah boh aeth [W-H] 
 29. /nfT avTov (pro ficT avrav) B fam 1 22 Paris" diatess (hiant 
 syr cii sin), Kar ajTov 69 [non/am] 
 vi. 26. - 01 7raT€p€<f avrmv B 604 syr sin sah [non boh nee rell verss] 
 ix. 2. -Tovi aaOeveK B syr cu syr sin Dial W-H 
 
 X. 42. ^^apta|J. B 1 Paris" I syr W-H 
 
 xi. 46. Kai avToi +vfiei'! B alone among Greeks with Paris" Sorf"'. 
 Latt all apparently et ipsi, although a Latin may exist 
 with et vos ipsi. But this vfieU practically replaces airol in 
 the syriac (.oAj]o). W-H do not add. 
 Cf boh (aliter expr sah). 
 xvi. 3. (jKaiTTdv ovK ia-)(ya> KAI eiratretv ata)(yvo/uii. All syrr and 
 diatess (no latins) and B alone of Greeks. But B is supported 
 by both Coptics and aeth (see under Coptic influence) and I 
 am inclined to attribute this Kai to Coptic influence on B, 
 the Coptics having previously imbibed it from a Otaeco-syriac. 
 Notice both coptic and syr say orav /ieTaaraffto EK tj;? 
 oiKovo/jtiat in the very next verse (xvi. 4) with NBD min 
 aliq (a-no LX 892), while the majority of Greeks are content 
 with the partitive genitive. W-H have e«, but ignore +Kat 
 otB. 
 
 t These things must be weighed carefully. Take for instance soon after, nt xxiii. 2 
 it is a difficult question whether ij/xwv belongs after (Bvot (" tvpofiev tiiairrpttpovTa to ($vos 
 [ijfuoi']"). It is added by NBDHKLMETn* min" it vg sah boh tyrr arm aeth, but 
 withheld by AEGSUVWXrAA min plur JlfarctonEplph bli Etis Cyr Thdt. Here Marcion 
 adds Km KaTaXvovrn Tov vofiov Kat rovi 7rpo(pr]Tas. Observe however not tov vopov TjuiDv 
 even here. {This addition is followed by a good many Latins, most of whom say 
 '* legem nostram,*^ but in Marcion ijpLuv is absent in both places). 
 
 Notice that W does not have npf^v> so that the omission now goes back in our Greek 
 documents to iv centnry. Notice that 157 Cyr (I q) have tou Xnoi> ruimv tor to tBvos ij/imr', 
 liossibly from xxiii. 14, which is an interesting control reference because hfuav is ahseni 
 tliere. Vv 13/14 run : TrftXaToc ht trvvKa\etra^Ltvos Tovt apx'fpfts Km Tovt apxoifrnt Km tov 
 \anv finfv iTi>os avrovi TrpotrrjutyKart poi tov avffpinTrov tovtov wr ano(TTpf(f>ovTa tov Xani' em 
 iSov f yftJ . . . 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 241 
 
 xxiii. 5. St&a(rKa>v xad oXijq ti;t lovSamf Kai a/jfa/Jffo? . . . NBLTT' 
 Paris" only with syrr, vg codd omn [praeter W] add xai, 
 against the rest of Greeks, all Old Latin [jnaeter aiir] and 
 sah boh. 
 
 This is a very peculiar place. 
 
 Eight on the heels of it comes xxiii. 6 (see under Coptic) 
 where NBLTT' and boh only omit yaXiXatav after aKovaa<!. 
 Sah xe 1TA.?\I?\A.IA. does not, nor syrr, nor latin, nor 
 the rest. 
 
 xxiv. 13. Order : ev avrij Tq ijiiepa rjaav iropevo/ievoi NB syr Ens W-H. 
 
 HB Syr Latin against Coptic. 
 
 iii. 14. Tt TToirjamiuv xai rffiei^ {pro xat rnj-eti ti ttoi.) NBC*LWH 
 1 [nonfam]fam 13 892 Paris" 6 c efffg, I q syr sah {pm D d 
 Evst 7) contra boh et rell 
 Add perhaps 
 
 iv. 40. effepa-TTevev pro eOepavevaev BDW^ [Sod non Lake] 21 
 v^'" Sod"" latt syr IF-fl"^' Sod""' Orig? 
 xxiii. 2. -i-KaiipostSiSovai) NBLT 106 892 Paris" So(i«=" '""' only, 
 plus it [except a c] syrr arm W-H and Sod txt against rell 
 with sah boh. 
 
 Syr Latin and Coiitic. 
 
 xxiii. 39. ovxi <rv ei (pro et av et) NC'BL (BL omit X^ytev, NC* do 
 not), a b ff r (nonne), sah boh (xE XX.H rteoK i.n lie n^O-') 
 syr cu sin hicr [non sch p<?s/i] arm aeth W-H et Sod txt 
 contra rell omn Sod"'"" et Paris" et Orig'"'. 
 Om et av et usque ad fin vers I) d e. 
 xxiv. 24. - /ta< tert. BD [non min] latt syrr'"'" sah 1/2 boh"" W-H[nil mg] 
 38. ev T); Kapita (pro ev Tai9 xaphtai';) BD a b c d c ff I gat vg''^ 
 [hiat )-oJ sah aeth W-H (Dial eii tt/v xapSiav) (Tcrf"" in corda) 
 I group this here, although the syrr are all pointed for the plural 
 to- day, because it could so easily be basic in an ancient unpointed 
 copy. 
 
 A single letter also in boh of similar shape it for n makes the plural 
 (all boh Mss) against the singular of sah. The Latin evidence is so large, 
 it is strange to see all syrr (g c s j h as Homer has it) marked for plural. 
 The Latin evidence for the singular must go back very far. 
 
 The hi.story of the text is thus deeply involved at a tremendously 
 early date. See full exhibition of evidence in Part II. and note syr sin 
 (Lewis ed. 1910). 
 
 R 
 
242 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Syr Gor)tic against Latiu. 
 
 Luko 
 
 vi. 20. -01 ■n-aTepe<; avTcov B (iOl sah stjr sin {-ot iraT. So(P'"') 
 Habent N roll et latt boh syr pesh arm aeth. 
 xvi. 3. aKaiTTiLv ovk laxvm KAI iiraneiv at(7xyvofiat So B alone of 
 Greek.s with sah boh aeth and syr (sch pcsh cii sin [non exstat 
 hier]) W-H refuse this reading. 
 17. Kepaiav /xtav B sah syrr (om /jitav boh) W-H°" [Negl Sod 
 
 sah sj/r] 
 fiiav Kepaiav N rell et latt. 
 
 Examples of Synonyms. 
 
 i. G. evavTiov NBC'X^ 73 239 892 Paris" [non Sorf""""''' ; om. 
 Sod^'"] Cyr W-H d- Sod txt against rell and Orig. 
 76. eva)inov (pro vpo ■jrpoawjrov) NBW Sod^* Orig 1/2 [non minn] 
 
 W-H [non Sod]. 
 ii. 3. eavTov (pro iStav) N'BDLWH^ 2'" Paris" Eiis W-H Sod txt. 
 Cf Matt xiii. 24 ev rm aypco avTOv Pltir (eavrov B) but fv ia> 
 
 lita aypco D Eus''". 
 .57 €v Tt, tSia naTpiSt HZ 892 minn"'- "'"'""' et 
 Sod''" [non W-H''"'] (pro ev rr) iraTpiSt avrov rell). 
 
 Homoioteleiiton. 
 Consult .xiv. 1 -TO))/ (post apxovrmv) KBK 892 [non al.][W-H]. 
 
 Form. 
 
 I.iike 
 
 xii. 28. ap-ijiia^et B'°' ct W-H txt [nil in mg] 
 
 See xviii. 12. oTroSexoTeuai NB et W-H [nil mg sed non minn.], and other 
 passages referred to elsewhere but not separated in this Gospel. 
 
 Grammatical Changes. 
 
 Change of Voice. 
 
 XV. 17. "eh eavTov Se e\0a>v e<f>T} (vcl enren) woaoi fuadioi tov waTpo's 
 fiov ir e pia a ev ov a IV aproov." 
 ■neptaa-evovTat BAPf /am 1 [non 131] 94 Paris" Evst 2. 
 
 Sod"" "". Tisch adds " cat"^ "^ schoP" " »"»'." 
 ireptaaevovaiv N and all the rest including W. 
 
 This is clearly an " improvement " confirmed by the " fidus 
 Achates " Paris", but disclaimed by the other " good " cursives 
 and rejected by 131 of the 1 family. (Evst 2 occasionally has 
 
 t r and also A are found in this neighbourhood largely with B in Bomc questionable 
 places. 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 243 
 
 curious and untrustworthy readings.) Such an occasion could 
 not be missed of emphasising a knowledge of the proper voice 
 to employ here. 
 
 The Latins add nothing, but the syr emphasises by " qtiibus 
 copiosus est panis." 
 
 I cannot conceive it possible that an " Antiochian " revision 
 has been so complete as to displace an original Trepiaaevovrai 
 from all our Greek mss except the handful named above, for 
 there would be no reason for the change ; whereas the change 
 from irepiaaevovaiv to irepiaaevovrai is a " nicety " which is 
 quite in line with the sense. From what I have observed 
 from continuous study of the characteristics of what are 
 known as our important cursives, others besides those named 
 above would surely have preserved trepiaaevoirrai. Neither N 
 nor W nor 604 nor 892 agree to change nepicaevova-tv. W-H 
 follow BAP, but not Soden here. 
 
 Change of Mood. 
 
 ike 
 
 vii. 7. ladriTm (pro laOrjaeTai) BL Sod"'" and these alone of all 
 
 our authorities, but followed not only by Hort, but also by 
 
 Tisch ; and not only by Tisch and Hort but now also by 
 
 von Soden in his text ! Thus does the Egyptian reading (for it 
 
 is Egyptian) commend itself with this slight support to the 
 
 moderns, and for the self-same reasons. Soden only adds 
 
 " bo ? " and neglects sah. Boh''"" go with BL and so do all 
 
 yie sah codices. See Horner in Sah, p. 120. 
 
 Imperative. 
 
 viii. .50. TTLcrTevaov (pro triaTeve) BLH [non minn Ki'rf] W-H. As to 
 this being a real preference, consult viii. 20 29 in this chapter 
 where BE are alone together, once for a change of order, 
 again for a change of preposition. 
 
 Infinitive. 
 
 As to uxne and et? to. 
 
 iv. 29. oitTTe KaTaxprj/ivtaai avTov KBDLW Paris"/"'" 1 13-69-556 
 [non 124] 22 33 604 892 237'"'"°' 259""°' Sod"^ ■" '"" copt Orig 
 W-H Sod 
 6(9 TO KaTaKprjpvitrai avTov Bell et "V (om. 346) 
 
 (Soden's "" omits mctte, and his critical /a/n*" has irpoi to.) 
 
 Note that the infinitive follows, which, while not unusual 
 
 after (BOTe,t looks as if Orig were improving eit to rather than 
 
 t Cf all MSB at Matt xiii. 32 wct-tc t\3(iv ra ntTtiva. 
 
 R 2 
 
244 
 
 iii. 
 
 19. 
 
 xiii. 
 
 42. 
 
 Hnni. 
 
 i 
 
 11. 
 
 
 20, 
 
 iv. 
 
 11. 
 
 
 18 
 
 vi. 
 
 12. 
 
 yii 
 
 .5 
 
 xi. 
 
 11. 
 
 xii 
 
 2 
 
 XV. 
 
 8. 
 
 I C..r. 
 
 viii. 
 
 l:l 
 10. 
 
 xi. 
 
 22. 
 
 
 ;i3. 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Antioch cliaiigiiig an original waT€ to «? to. More suspicious 
 l)ecause in Coptic the Greek word (dotc is transliterated. It 
 looks as if e/? to bad been translated p,tJUCTE in Coptic and 
 had then reacted on NBL, but as D joins, the matter can be left 
 undecided. Note however that Winer (Eng. edition p. 400) 
 says " In the Byzantine writers the use of ware with the 
 infinitive instead of the simple infinitive is peculiarly common." 
 ^^'iner then refers (pp. 400 and 743) to the use of ax; cTotfiaaai 
 in Luke ix. 52 by NB (alone with a b e I q) for toare eToi^iaaai 
 of practically all (sah omits ware and ax; : simply ECofi.XE sah, 
 while boll 7 Mss has g^uucXE. 12 mss g,uuc2i.E, 2 mss g,ujc 
 with NB). Tischendorf does not admit ay; into his text 
 but leaves wme, remarking "at cu? nimiH cmcndationcm 
 prodit." 
 
 For €J? TO in the Gospels generally, observe the remaining 
 cases Matt. xx. 19 et? to e/iTro(fai, Matt. xxvi. 2 ei? to a-ravpo)- 
 dtjt'ai, xxvii. 31 £(9 TO (TTavpaxrai, Mark xiv. 55 eis to Oavaraxrai, 
 Luke V. 17 €(9 TO laaOai, Luke xx. 20 £t? to ■wapaZovvai, in no 
 case changed l)y any except in Mark xiv. 55 where D (and 2'"') 
 sulistitute iva OavaimaovcTLv as the latin, and in Luke xx. 20 
 fi? TO TrapaSovvai is changed to mare irapaS. by NBCDL y'" 
 I not I)y the other miii which acted so in iv. 29]. 
 
 I'^i? to is not found in St. John's Gospct, but is to be 
 observed in Clement's 1st Epistle. 
 
 I submit that too-Te is a correction by Alexandria for 6(? to, 
 and not that aian is original in Luke iv. 29, xx. 20. 
 
 As regards e(? to outside the Gospels, note : 
 
 £19 TO e^a\ei<f>drivai Changed by XB only, to Trpo? to ffaX. 
 £(? TO fiera^v oa/S/SaTOv \a\riffrivai 
 
 £i? TO (TT7}pty9l]Vai 
 
 iii. 2G, iv. 11, iv. 10, viii. 29, xv. 10, Eph. i. 12, James i. 18. 
 £1? TO ewai ; cf. £(? to /x?j eivai 1 Cor. x. 6 infra. 
 €f9 TO Xoyia-Otji'at 
 . £19 TO •yevtcrOai also vii. 4 ; also Phil. iii. 21, but some omit. 
 
 €(9 TO UTTUKOVetV 
 
 . 6t9 TO KapTTo<j)opy](Tai 
 
 £t9 TO Trapa^j]\a>aai 
 . Phil i. 10 £(9 TO SoKifia^etv 
 
 £(9 TO fie/Saiaiaai 
 , £(9 TO -nepiaaeveiv all and Orig except B 57 Sod"" which omit. 
 
 £19 TO ecrfficiv 
 
 £19 TO €<T0l€lV Kai TTlV€tV 
 
 £19 TO (fiayeiv 
 
 B IN ST. Luke's gospel. 
 
 245 
 
 i. 4. £19 TO Sviaadai rjuai; changed to wa to by FG only (cf. lat) 
 vii. 3. £19 TO-arvvaTToOavau 
 viii. C. at; 70 irapaKoXeaai i^iia'; ,, ,, mo-TfbyS 35 115 d'"ai.pa«i;. 
 
 Elih. 
 Phil. 
 
 iii. 17. £19 TO KarapyT](Tat 
 i. 18. £19 TO eiSevai 
 i. 23. £19 TO avaXvaat 
 
 1 TheBS. 
 
 ii. IG. £19 TO ava-n\ifipa>aai 
 iii. 2, 13. £19 TO aTtjpi^ai 
 5. £19 TO ypo)vai 
 10. £19 TO tSeiv 
 
 changed to wa otSare by FG only (cf. lat) 
 
 Most and Clem (-en; DEFG ; -tt? 
 TO Antioch) 
 
 (£19 TO eiSevai, 17 only) 
 
 i. 5. £19 TO KaTa^iai07)vat 
 ii. 0. £19 TO aTtoKaXv^8r)vai 
 
 10. £19 TO <Ta>0r)vai 
 
 11. £19 TO 7riaT£U<Tat 
 
 ''■ 
 
 ii. 17. £19 TO tKacTKeaOat 
 
 vii. 25. £19 TO evTvyxavew 
 
 viii. 3. £19 TO Trpo<T<f>€peiv 
 
 ix. 14. £19 TO XaTpevetv 
 
 28. £19 TO TToWttfi' avtveyiceiv a/iapriai; 
 
 xii. 10. £19 TO ficTaXa^etv 
 
 xiii. 21. £19 TO TroiJjaai 
 
 B. 
 
 (i. 19. £19 TO axovaai. . .£19 to XaXi/aoi) 
 
 And with negatives : 
 u 
 vii. 19. £19 TO iiri ifnoyoveiaOai 
 
 ix. 18. £19 TO p.y) Kara^rjaaaOai 
 X. G. £19 TO fit) eivai 
 
 4. £19 TO ^f] avyaaai 
 
 2. £19 TO fiij Ta;^£6)9 <Ta\evffr]vai 
 
 3. £19 TO p-i] £1 <j>atvoiievo)V to ^firo/ievov yeyovevai 
 
 7. £19 TO /it; ei'KometrOat 
 
 iv. 2. £19 TO nr)K€Ti av0pa>T!a>v eTriffvfiiai'; 
 
 Here are over fifty cases of ££? to with almost no variation among 
 MSB. I think it is a significant fact that NB change £i9 to to aiare once 
 only and that is at Acts iii. 19 the first occurrence after the 
 Gospels end. After that they seem to accept the fact that £19 to is 
 Lucan as well as Pauline and Petrine, for at Acts vii. 19 they do not 
 change, nor afterwards on over fifty occasions. We should ponder 
 this. It seems to me to be a most illuminating study and I think the 
 observation is new : as are also the inferences conveyed in the following 
 
 •2 Cor. 
 
 iv. 
 
 2 Thcps. 
 
 ii. 
 
 Hell. 
 
 xi. 
 
 1 Pel. 
 
 iii. 
 
240 
 
 CODUX V AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 sections.t The scribes of NB in their N.T. copying seem also to have 
 been influenced by some O.T. phraseology which lingered in their minds. 
 Observe ra ffeXrif^ara once by N (Matt. vii. 21), once by B (Mark iii. 35). 
 
 Change of Case. 
 Genitive absolute. 
 
 As to St. Luke we have no cases to report throughout the whole 
 Gospel of a single change from dative to genitive absolute, and this for 
 the simple reason that St. Luke does not use the dative absolute [if we 
 except two passages, ii. 5 ouo-i) eyKvm, and viii. 27 e^eXOovri he avra, 
 'which are not, properly speaking, absolutes]. This is quite illuminating 
 as to the action of the NB group in St. Matt, and St. Mark. Had 
 " Antioch " been guilty of changing their genitives there to datives, surely 
 we would see the same thing in St. Luke. I have not found one single 
 instance ! And it is not for lack of material. For although St. Luke is 
 not partial to the genitive absolute, it is used on at least forty-five occasions 
 in his Gospel. 
 
 Luire is rather partial to nominative absolutes (viii. 3,S, xiv. 21, xvi. 
 14 etc. etc.), occasionally an accusative absolute (xiii. IC), and avoids 
 genitives by using riv StSaa-Kcov as at v. 17, where D substitutes (with dee) 
 avrov BiSacTKoino';, or as at V. 29, where for ot rjaav /ler avTwv kut aiceiiievoi, 
 D {d e) have ot fjaav fier avrojv KaTaKeifievotv. Agam, at vi. 17 for 
 lepovaaKTjfi etc. D substitutes xai aWmv TToXemv eXrjKvdorayv. Very 
 frequently the Lucan expression is xai eyevero. . .as at : 
 
 Liike 
 
 xiv. 
 xvi. 
 xvii. 
 
 1. Kai eyevero ev tm eXffeiv avrov 
 22. eyevero Se a-rroOaveiv tov ■jrTa>)(ov xai aTreve^OTjvai avrdv 
 II. xai eyevero ev Ta> rtopeveaOai 
 
 14. Kai eyevero ev rm vrrayeiv avrov^ 
 35. eyevero Se ev tco eyy i^eiv avrov 
 
 Cf Matt XX. 29 Kai exTropevo/jevcov avrmv 
 
 Marc X. 40 xai ep)(ovrai eit lepi\a) Kai eKrropevofievov avrov 
 arro lep. 
 
 15. xai eyevero ev rta erraveXdeiv avrov 
 
 29. "at eyevero ox; rjyyiuev ei? Pr)6(j>ayi) nai firjOaviav 
 Cf Matt xxi. 10 Kai eKTeXdovrot avrov eii lepo(T. 
 Marc xi. 1 xai ore eyyt^ovcriv et? \epocr. 
 (Wi, xai fo! eyevero r)fiepa 
 
 t Hans von Soilen, in a, recent unHatteiing review ot my ' Concerning the Gencsit 
 of tin: Versions,' pretends that I am bringing coals to Newcastle or iron to Essen, and 
 that all I have brought forward is already well known to the savants. If so they keep 
 very silent about it I 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 247 
 
 xxiv. 15. Kai eyevero ev rai o/iiXeiv avTov<; 
 
 30. Kai eyevero ev tod KaraiiXtOrivai. avrov 
 51. xai eyevero ev tm evXoyeiv avrov avrovi, 
 holding this to the very end. 
 Note xvi. 9 iva orav eKXeiirri; also vi. 20 xai avros eirapa<t rovt 
 o^tdaX/iov; avrov. . .eXeyev, where the Latins say clevatis oculis; also 
 viii. 50 o 8e I»)o-oi/« oKovaav. Most it = audito hoc verba. 
 Yet of genitive absolute we can observe the following: 
 
 Luke 
 
 ii. 2. Tiyefuivevovrov tj/? Supia? Kvprjviov 
 
 42. avafiaivovrmv avrwv (all except T) d e avefi-qaav oi yovei<! avrov 
 e;^oi'T6it avrov. ave^rjaav ,9od"'') 
 iii. 1. jryefiovevovToi; ttovtiov mXarov rr)<t iovSata<! (D Eus errirporrevov- 
 T09....) followed by rerpaapxovvTo<;. . .iptXnrTTov 8c... 
 Avaavtov. 
 15. rrpoKrhoKODvrov Se tov Xaov Kai SiaXoyi^oiievwv iravrcov 
 21. Kai Ii/o-ou ffarrTitrOevro'; Kai irpoaevxo/ievov 
 iv. 2. avvreXe(T0ei(ru>v avrtov 
 40. Svvovroi; Se tov tjXwv 
 
 42. yevoiievris Ze rjp.epa'i (Cf Marc i. 35 tat irpmt evvvx"- ^-'a") 
 
 vi. 48. rrXr]iiiwpri<; he yevouevi]'; 
 
 vii. 0. riSt] Se avrov ov /laxpav a'7r€;)^o>TO? ttj? oiKiai 
 24. arreXOovrcov Se rmv ayyeXwv 
 42. firj eyovriov avrotv aTTOOovvai 
 viii. 4. avviovroi; Se oyXov rroXXov 
 23. rrXeovToiv Se avrtav 
 45. apvovfievcov Se Travrwv 
 49. en avrov XaXovvro<; 
 ix. 34. Tavra Se avrov Xeyovrm 
 
 37. KareXdovTwv avrov (all except D KareXffovra avrov and d 
 descendente eo; 07H. avroiv Paris" Sod""; KareXdovTi to> iv 
 c"' k'" Sod"") 
 
 42. en Se rrpoaepxopevov avrov 
 
 43. rravTotv Se Bavpatjovratv 
 57. Kai Tropevop-eviov avTiav 
 
 xi. 14. TOV Satfwviov e^eXOovTov (add D ravra Se enrovro'; avrov. . .) 
 29. Ttov Se oxXwv arradpoi^opevmv 
 53. X^ovTO<; Se avrov by most 
 
 KaKei0ev e^eXOovro'; avrov NBCL 33 Paris" W-H'^' Sod tit 
 (xii. 30. tva eX6ovTO<; Kai Kpovaavrot { + avTov A 251 Sod"' ' ' ) 
 
 Only Meth = iva eXOovn Kai Kpovaavn avrw) 
 xiii. 17. ravra Xeyovroi avrov (D d e omit) 
 xiv. 29. 0evro'; avrov, and icrx"ovTO'i + avrov some 
 
 32. en avrov rroppioavro^ 
 XV. 14. SiarravrjcravTO'! Se avrov 
 
 20. en Se avrov fiaKpav a7rexovTO<; 
 
248 
 
 CODEX 13 AND ITS ALLI13S. 
 
 XVII. 12. Kai eiaep)(o/iei'ou avTov 
 
 XIX. 11. aKovovTtov Be auToiii 
 
 rJ-J. Xvomtov Be avrcov 
 
 30. nopevo/ievov Be avTov 
 
 37. eyyi^ovToi Be avTov (D d .iijr CH sin eyyi^ovrtov Be avrmi) 
 
 XX. 1. BiSa<TKOfTo<; avjov. ..Kai evayyeXi^o/uvov { + avTov T c) 
 
 4'). axovoi'TO'! Be iravro? tov \aov 
 
 xxii. 10. eiaeXdovTO)!! vfxtav 
 
 47. €Ti auTov \a\ovvTo<; 
 
 53. OI'TO? /iOU 
 
 ri-j. (TrepOafai/Tft)!/ ge ( + avTa)v some) . . . xat avvKa0iaa>na>v 
 
 ( + ouTMi' some) 
 
 ()U. €Ti A.aXoui/TO? aVTOV 
 xxiii. 45. (tou 7;\joi; e/cXtTroi'TO?) 
 XXIV. a. e^,f,offo)V Beyevo/J^vrnv avTWv... (D evipoffot Be yevofievai . . .) 
 
 31. (Xaffomaiii Be avTwv tov aprov a-rr avrov J) c d e Orig See 
 
 . , . ordinary text) 
 
 41. ETi be airiarowTKov avTtav 
 
 In all these cases, except where marked, there is no variation among 
 
 Mss and no substitution of dative for genitive.t May we not fairly claim 
 
 then to have caught our hare ? It an Antioch revision bad changed 
 
 genitive absolutes in Matt, and Mark to dative absolutes as inferentially 
 
 claimed by the Hort school, they would surely have done the same in 
 
 St. Luke. V,\\\, there is no trace of it here. As for Egypt, there was 
 
 no room for change to genitive absolute in St. Luke for he does not use 
 
 the dative absolute. [See later again as to St. John in this connection.] 
 
 Simple fur Comjioiiiid Veihs. 
 
 Here we have a check as to NB from the language of St. Luke. 
 (C/. Hobart, ' Medical Language of St. Luke,' passim. See also Blass, 
 ' Philology of the Gospels,' London, 1898, p. 117.) 
 V. 2. Of the washing o^ of the nets. 
 
 For aveirXvvav of most, e-rrKwav is used by NC'LQX 239 
 299 372 Paris" W-H"'^ and enXvvov by BDW 91 892 W-W^\ 
 but this seems to be an "improvement" or reflection of 
 lavahant of the Latins, for St. Luke's diction calls for 
 aTreifKvvav (So Sod"'). Cf. aTrofiiairew x. 11, eK/iaaaew 
 vii. 38 44, awoXoveiv Acts xxii. 16. imetrXwav is peculiar to 
 Luke, and NBD and the few offend by removing the mro. 
 Observe that 91-299 revise. They are part of the 1 family ; 
 but 1 and the rest hold afreTrXvvdv. mro/Maaa-eiv is also peculiar 
 to St. Luke, 
 xii. 20. anovaiv (pro mraiToveriv) BLQT 83 Paris" d W-H, against 
 the rest with X, D" and W and 892, the latter doubtless holding 
 
 t Jlethodiiis is the only one to do bo at xii. .36. 
 
 1) l.N ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 249 
 
 the true base, since mraneto is Lucan, being used only by 
 Luke here, and in vi. 30 in a different connection : km ivrro 
 TOV aipovTO'i Ta an firi airanei (St. Matthew's language, v. 42, 
 is different). Cf. further aneXTrifyvTei in Luke vi. 35 peculiar 
 to St. Luke and medical (Galcn'"^^"). Soden wavers printing 
 [aTT^aiTovaw. 
 xxiv. 33. JiOpoia/uvov; {pro avvriBpoiaiievovi;) NBD 33 W-H Sod [nan 
 W rell, nan 892 Paris"] but the compound word is peculiar to 
 Luke (Acts xii. 12, xix. 25). Soden goes over to the minority. 
 (Cf. also avvaXif^eadai Acts i. 4.) 
 N.B. This matter of uncjmpounded verbs cannot be satisfactorily 
 checked in the other Gospels, but here in St. Luke's Gospel we have for 
 control the Act^ as well. Observe Soden's utter lack of consistency. 
 
 Change of Number. 
 
 e 
 
 xii. 6. traiXovvTai (pro iraiXenai) concerning the -rrevTe oTpovOla. 
 
 Only NB*^ Sorf"" "• "■" fam 13 [non 124] 892 (iraiXovTai) 
 W-H Sod against the rest (Epiph"""^'" has both, TrtoXovinai^" 
 ■jroiXeiTat^^' ; Tert""" omits to comment on this verse). I 
 cannot sufficiently emphasise that such grammatical changes 
 do not show signs of a continuous "neutral" text, but of 
 grammatical eclecticism, because, while fam 13 here supports, 
 fam 13 is not with the changes at Luke xii. 1, xi. 53/54 else- 
 where referred to in these notes. 
 
 (N.B. TTonXeiTai is used by all [exccpit D] in Matt x. 29. 
 Why did not NB fam 13 change there ? No doubt because 
 Matt and LuJce represent as regards NB fam 13 recensions 
 " reviewed " at different times and in divers manners. So 
 /3oc? in Matt by NB, as the Coptic, in Matthew, made much of 
 by Burlitt, is not found by NB in LiiJic.) 
 30. eTTi^rjTovatv (pro e-m^vret) NBLT^'X fam 13 33 213 Paris'" 
 Sod'"^ (latt copt) [)wn ^] W-H Sod. All the rest ent^vTet, 
 emphasised by D and Clem with JflTtf. The Greek verb 
 follows TravTa xa eOvrj, while the latin plural follows gentes, 
 well indicated by d with quaernnt, against D opposite ?j7T6j 
 after eOvrj [so that we apply this example here and exclude 
 it from Latin influence]. Paris'" supports em^riTovatv, but 
 W eiTi^riTet. I cannot bring forward enough the admirable 
 support of W in many such passages as a balancing factor 
 of the iv'" century in Egypt. Besides Clem and D seem 
 decisive for an original singular. 
 53. Bia/iepiaOricrovTai (pro BiauepiadrjoeTai) followed by " iraT-qp e<^ 
 (or eiTi) via> Kai vio'; eiTi iraTpi ' firirvp ^''" dvyaTpi (or OvyaTepa) 
 Kai ffvyaTfjp etri HT)Tpi (or fiijTepa or Ttiv p.r)Tepd)." 
 
 The plural is read by NBLTU [non -V] 59 157 892 Paris" 
 
230 
 
 CODEX It AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 LauraA""^,,,^^....,,. jy.H Sod latt (against r.,r-divideturli) 
 but opposed by the rest of the witnesses. I consider this 
 emphasises the character of other changes of number by the 
 13 tribe when we find Tebtullian is definitely opposing his 
 own latin mss and accuses Hort and Soden of following 
 Alexandrine grammatical commutations instead of having 
 discovered the true text. 
 
 While raris»' joins B and the few Egyptian Greeks (the 
 five Evst" show their graeco-/nYi;i provenance by the plural) 
 It 18 noteworthy that W maintains Scauepi<rd7,aeTm with 
 mh and boh""°. Sah is noteworthy and perfectly definite, 
 witnessing with Tert at the same period of time, for, instead 
 of beginning the verse with &tafi€piadr,<roPTAi irar-np... it 
 says rraTrip Siafi€pi<T0r,(TeTai fura tov viov avTov, wo? pera tou 
 
 TTaTpo? aVTOV, . , . 
 
 xxi. 2.5. eaovrac cr,^eia NBD Sod'''' latt copt W-H {pro earai rell) 
 The presence of D in the combination here is insignificant 
 as the latins all use enint. Possibly B was influenced by the 
 e<7o,'Tat added in verse 24 (see under "Order"), but it looks 
 as if this were a grammatical preference by NB and the 
 Coptic here clearly agrees with them. {Soden refuses eaovrai 
 here). 
 
 NB are sometimes divided as to this (showing that our con- 
 tention for " improvement " is justified). See : 
 IV. 41. e^ijpxovTo S€ Kai Saipovia NCX Sod<""> "■'^"' 1 33 267 Orig 
 
 et Sod'^' 
 but e^ripxero here ABDW and the rest. Notice on which side 
 Oiigeii is found. W-H are in a difliculty and place f^px^ro 
 in the text, but e^ijp^ovTo in the margin. 
 Note for other examples that in Coptic after oxXa and such plural 
 nouns in the singular the verb is in the plural number {Tisch. p. 127 on 
 Matt. XX. 29 ex Schw. " in lingua Copt, numerus sing, vocis multitiido, 
 turba, construitur cum num. plur. verbi).". 
 
 That the singular verb after neuter plurals is the regular New 
 Testament usage, and not any classical revision at Antioch, may perhaps 
 be illustrated from Luke xviii. 27 : to ahwara irapa avffpanroif Svvara 
 ■n-apa rw flea etTTJc, where all Greeks agree- against the Versions— and 
 where the second century witness, rheo2>!iilus of Antioch, is extant and 
 confinus ecrriv. 
 
 Change of Gender. 
 
 I.iike 
 
 XV. 14. Xz/Ko? lax^pa XABDL 1 33 131 213 892 Paris" W-H 
 
 et Sod"-\ 
 Xipo'; laxvpot Rell omn et /am 13 {vide infra) 
 Both genders being found in classical writers. 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 251 
 
 Note. At Luke iv. 25 \4//o? peya<; stands in all [as to W see below] 
 (except /rt?/i 13 and that is divided, 13-C9-650 giving peydKi) and 124-346 
 retaining peyw;) so that if any argument can be based at all it clearly 
 accuses NABDL of changing in xv. 14, for there fam 13 remain constant 
 against them for nrxvpot. (In Schmidtke's edition of Paris" he gives 
 /icyo? in square brackets, which generally indicates an omission. So e I.) 
 
 In the third place at Act xi. 28 Xip-ov fieyaXrjv is found by NABD' 
 some minn (see Sod""^') against Xtpov peyav of D'EHLP al. Chr Chron, 
 so that NAB are between two stools, leaving peya'; in Luke iv. 25, having 
 peyaXrjv in Act xi. 28, and itrxvpa in xv. 14. In other words they change 
 twice out of three while the other authorities give the masculine 
 thrice. 
 
 If we use W for control here we discover something, viz., that while 
 that MS leaves t<rxvpo<; alone at Luke xv. 14, it actually remembers to give 
 fieya\7) for peya^ at iv. 25, where NB do not change, so that circa 375 a.d. 
 in Egypt the feminine was preferred. 
 
 xix. 37. irept iraawv lov ftiov Svvapemv All Greeks but B and 
 Paris" Mefh ? who have TravTonv [D has TravTwv but substitutes 
 yewopevwv for hvvapctav^ 
 
 If B is correct, we are to infer that Luke considered Svvap.K to be 
 masculine, and all the others corrected the gender for him, except B and 
 Paris", who reproduce the " neutral " " pre-syrian " original, before it 
 had been revised in Antioch ! But W-H refuse to follow B here. They 
 admit therefore that B does not speak for the inspired writer at this 
 place. And if not here, how much less so in many another place. 
 
 Note. The shorter text (which perhaps B was aiming at) is found 
 in syr cu sin which eliminate the yivopevtuv of D (conflated by Sod''^" 
 /am 13 to yivop^vcov Svvapecav, allowing ■Kaawv to stand) and have 
 nothing but -navrtov, " everything," discarding masculine and feminine 
 and employing a real neutral expression. 
 
 Note also, next verse 38, B seated alone in solitary grandeur with a 
 unique o epxoperm o /SaaiXev! in the very centre of a beautiful conflation 
 [tor Paris" goes with D], the halves of which are given to us by NH e I 
 and Origen (o ySaaiXeu?), and by DWA* some latins ten Greek minuscules 
 including Paris", aeth Method Tit Eulog (o epxapevm). 
 
 Exchange o/ Prcpositionf. 
 B= W-H'' 
 
 (Soden adds nothing). 
 Only NBL 04 ,S'o(i"»"" 
 
 viii. 29. aiTo pro v-rro 
 
 43. atr pro vtt BABH W-H \ 
 
 xii. 54. eiri hvapmv (for aito hvapwv) 
 
 Tisch adds "al. ? neglexer. conlatores," but this does not 
 appear to be so, and even Paris" and 892 have ano {ex Sod'"'). 
 So has \V. Add for eTrt sah with £p,pA.I g^t, and aeth 
 
2r)2 
 
 CODKX I) AND ITS ALLIKS. 
 
 " towards." So that em is clearly Egyptian and not "neutral." 
 Yet Sod follows Hort here. 
 
 See also i. 20 avo {pro wo) under "Latin," iv. 35 av' 
 
 ipio 6f), iv. 38 awo (pro ex). 
 
 11. 39. eireaTpefav {pro vireiTTpefav) («•) BH only with W Paris" 
 
 ]V-H {lion Sod) [In ii. 45 vjreaTpeyjrav remains constant by allj 
 
 VI. 28. nepi {pro v-jrep) of praying/o>- those who persecute us by 
 
 NBLWH 604 Paris" only [not 892 nor any other cursives]. 
 
 Not by Coptic (both versions exett) and opposed by Jtcstin"-' 
 
 Dial Clem''" Orig^ Bus"", yet calmly adopted by Hort and 
 
 Soden in their texts, without marginal alternative. It is 
 
 scarcely credible, but it is so. J 
 
 Clement's two quotations are clearly Lucan, and so are Eus"^' 
 
 (besides one ex Matt), virep is Matthaean says Tisch (" v-trep in Mt nan 
 
 fluot") and he adds •' Apud Lc irepi et Act viii. 15. Paulus utrumque 
 
 saepins scd Col i. 3 -nepi a permu in virep mutalum, non item i. 9 v-rrep 
 
 ill Trept." 
 
 Let lis examine a little closer. 
 
 The syriac is circumlocutory as usual, and will not help us. The 
 same preposition is used in Matthew and in Luke, and in these two 
 places only does Trpo<Tevx<i> occur in the Gospels as to praying /or persons. 
 (In St. John npoa-evxo;jat does not occur at all ; and evxoaat does not 
 occur ill the Gospels.) 
 
 In Acts we find only one instance :— 
 viii. 15. otTivei; KaTa^avr€<; wpocrtjv^aTo irept avTwv (all XfSS) 
 
 The other places are only concerned with "praying." 
 X. 9. -npocTev^aaOai irepi mpav eKTijv of course does not enter into 
 
 consideration. 
 Turning to the Epistles, we find (the list is exhaustive) : 
 
 O.I. 
 
 i. 3. TTavTore -rrepivprnv irpoaevxottevoi NACD'E'KLP 
 
 ,. "Tep „ „ BD'E'FG 
 
 9. ov Travoueda vnep Vfuav iTpoaev\o/iei>oi xat airovfievot all 
 IV. 3. TTpocyevxpuevoi afui xai irepi rifiaiv all 
 
 1 Tliesfl. 
 
 V. 25. AS£\(j>oi TrpoaevxecrOe nept tj/xwi" (FGP vwep) 
 
 2 Thess. 
 
 1. 11. Eiif o Kai Trpoa-evxot^eda iravTOje wept vuoiv (all; Trep' FG) 
 iii. 1. To XoiTTOv ■npoaevx'^'^Se a&e\(j>oi Trepi r]fiwv all 
 
 xiii. ]8. TTpocrevx^cde trepi jjfiwv 
 
 all 
 
 t Orig Bcenis to prefer vntp. Consult Mntfc. xxvi. 28 tovto ynp tartv to atfia fiov njr 
 Kfif'jjr ^tadrjKrjs rn vtt ( p ToWuiv . . . D Oi'ig and Cyr against the rest for jrrpt. 
 
 X ^'oii Soilni also falls into this trap, and he absolute!; ignores the Patristic 
 testimony for un-f/> in his notes. 
 
 11 IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 253 
 
 V. 14. Kat Trpoaev^aaOmaiv en' avTov 
 16. Kai cvx«J^ffe virep a\\ri\a)i> 
 
 {ew' all ; some ett' outou?) 
 all 
 
 2. A7a7n)Te Trcpi vavroiv evxofiai all 
 
 {Eph vi. 18 hardly applies : Sia Trao-jj? irpoaevxi^ xai Sei/o-eai? irpotrev- 
 XoP'tvoi €v iraini Kaipm ev Trvev/iaTt xai eii avTO aypvnvovvTet 
 ev iraar) irpoaKaprepriaa Kai Seijaei irepi naPTCov rmv ayicov. 
 Here irepi is the reading of most, but wep is read by 
 D'E'FG.) 
 
 We find then that in the Epistles of St. Paul he used as Tisch says 
 virep and -rrepi, and the Mss are not able to confuse the issue. But we 
 may note two things, first that wepi is the more frequent Pauhne 
 expression, and second that in Col. i. 8 t< and B disagree. From the 
 solitary example afforded in St. John's third Epistle we may take it that 
 nepi is Johannine.t On the other hand vnep and en' are clearlj' St. James's 
 preference, and the mss agree. 
 
 Thus we establish vnep of St. Matthew and St. James by preference, 
 nepi of St. John, and St. Paul on both sides (with nept predominating), 
 while St. Luke on the one occasion in Acts has nepi (all mss). 
 
 We now return to St. Luke vi. 28 and the reason for nepi of NBLWH 
 Paris'" t appears more clear, for nepi to them was — numerically speaking 
 as to the passages involved — more familiar to the ear and perhaps 
 appealed to their desire for grammatical uniformity more than vnep. 
 (The Latins do not vary from pro.) I believe in a preference here by 
 these MSS, for we see NB not only in conflict at Col i. 3 over this 
 matter, but there we actually find D*E* corrected by D-E^ from vnep 
 to nepi. It is to be noted that NB abandoned the coptio exEIt and 
 that both Coptic versions support vnep in St. Luke. The alternative 
 which caused Hort to favour nepi is that vnep is " Matthaean " and 
 therefore a revision by the mass in St. Luke. This is a doubtful con- 
 clusion. I would , prefer to allow the same latitude to St. Luke which 
 has been kindly allowed to St. Paul of using either expression when he 
 saw fit. 
 
 We shall never agree on a passage like this where we have only 
 one quotation in Luke and one in Acts by which to steer, until we 
 establish definitely the character of our witnesses. I therefore arraign 
 NBLB here tor wilful change on account of their other bad record in 
 such matters. 
 
 And I proceed to fortify my case by asking why, in a delicate 
 
 t Yet at -John xi. 50, xviii. 14 we note nv6p. airoGavt] v7:ep tov \attv. 
 
 X I take this occasion to observe that on such occasions the presence of Paris" 
 does not strengthen the case for KDLS at all. It is a bis clearly descended along the 
 same lines, and its presence only em^Jiaaiaes immensely the ahscnee of other important 
 minuscules. 
 
254 
 
 CODEX D AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 passage like tliis,t where our scales call for additional weights on one side 
 or the other, we are to neglect Jiistm,t Dial, Clement of Alexandria,^ 
 Orirjrn, and Euschius. Origen and Eusebius and NB are very sympa- 
 thetic on most occasions, )'€t here they go apart. And Clement is 
 exceedingly definite as to the quotation being Lucan, for he uses (both 
 in Strom and Paed) virep to>u eTTrjpea^ovrmv and not Skokovtiov as 
 Matthew. Yet we calmly disregard these Fathers beciuse NBLWH 604 
 I'aris'' wish it otherwise. This is absolutely unscientific. It presupposes 
 that Clement was not as wise as Hort ; I mean it presupposes that 
 Clement did not stop to consider, like Hort, that vrrep waj " Matthaean " 
 and therefore he must not use it in Luke ! It presupposes that Clement 
 forgot St. Luke used ■rrepi in Acts viii. 15, and that Trept was therefore 
 Lucan. Clement breaks free from these trammels and he tells us as 
 clearly as can be that v-rrep is correct in St. Luke. When Clement is 
 backed by Ens and Origen, I think we may safely say that we can really 
 venture to disagree with Dr. Hort and Tisohendorf in this place and 
 request that v-rrep be restored, and irepi kindly consigned to the margin, 
 for the Hortian margin has nothing today opposite the place. 
 
 The arraignment is not quite ended. I am going to show that NB, like 
 Ur. Hort, turned up St. Matt v. 44 for instruction and " control " as to 
 vTrep being " Matthaean " and therefore wrong in Luke. 
 
 They must have turned to St. Matthew, because in Luke vi. 33 
 (parallel Matthew v. 46) they give us a reading which can only have 
 come from Matthew. 
 
 In Luke vi. 33 !»(i., instead of /cat eav ayaOoTroirjTe tous ayado- 
 TToiovvra'; vpa<;...itB — (corrected in, or refused by Paris")— alone say 
 xai yap eai'. . . Thrij have no support. Neither Coptic version does it. 
 Not one single huh or sah MS has this. The Syriacs do not do it. 
 Tlie Latins do not do it. The Gothic does not do it. It comes simply 
 and plainly from Matt v. 40 eav yap aya-nrjartTe too? ayaTra)VTa<; 
 
 NB retain the Lucan icai and add the Matthean yap. 
 
 t 7rf(ji and vwp were early interchanged, for Poll/carp''^ P'lH vl- cites liomana xiv. 12 
 as: itm fKnirroK U7rt(i emrrav \oyov Hovvnt instead of irtpi of our MSS. At John xvii. 20 
 W and Paris" are to be observed substituting wrf/i for irtpi aecitml in the phrase: oi ttii>i 
 
 tiU'twv fif f/iuTW fitivov, :i\\a (cm virep Tb>v m(TTevovToiV 8ta Tnv \oynv avTtov lis t^t. 
 
 i (y(i> 5e vptv Xfyw (i';^f(T^f vrrip Toiv t^fipoiv Vfiiiiv Kat ayimart rnve pttr. vfias kiu 
 (fXiiytiTf rom unrapantvovi vp-w Kai ivxfSt vntp twv firijptnfuiTi.)!' v/jnt. Jiud'n"'"''. 
 
 § Hort himself (' Notes on Select Itdgs.' p. 181 col. 2) is not above considering 
 Cleiueut's text to be the best. Let us hear what he says. He is commenting on 
 
 Hrb. \i. i " pnpTvpiivvTts im Ttiis fiupoit liVTOV Tov Stov] papr. int TOlt 8. aurnv ra 
 " 6c(xi N*ADj* 17 ? uclh Eulhal coil* pafn. ivri rois 8. avTU rou Stov Clem. . . . 
 
 "The reading ot the best mss is apparently a primitive error, due to mechanical 
 " permutation, Ihe true rca,ling being thai which Clem alone has preierval. The common 
 " text, an easy corruption of either ot the other readings, gives substantially the true 
 " sense." 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 255 
 
 Obser\-e further that L does not do it, nor W nor ^ nor D nor 
 fam 1 fam 13 28 33 157 and the rest,t and I think the case is complete. 
 If the reader is not convinced then we have idolatry gone mad over NB. 
 N* corrects, but not so Hort, who prints xat \jyap'\ eav. . . 
 
 The case goes to the jury. Will the next O.xford editions persist in 
 irept and yap ? t 
 
 [As to Xo/Seiv {pro anoXa^eiv) in the next verse (Luke vi. 34) the case 
 is quite different. Here L2, missing in vi. 33, join NB reinforced by W 
 (157) 237 Paris" So(i"" and Justin. (Soden quotes Just for avoX.) 
 Thus must we differentiate between the textually probable as here, and 
 the impossible as at vi. 33]. 
 
 Change of Order. 
 
 :e 
 
 i. 21. ev TOJ ypovil^eiv ev tm vao) avrov {pro ev Tta ^. avTov ev to> vaw) 
 BLHW^ 21"= Paris" W-H [non Sod !] {contra rcll et N) 
 {-evTo, vao, 108 142 C04 aP) 
 iii. 16. airex. \eymv "naaiv o \wavrf<; {pro airex. o iaiavvj)<; airaai X.eymi') 
 (N)B(L) 892 e Orig W-H et Sod {contra rcll qui variant, et 
 D eTTiyvovt Ta voi]fiaTa avrwv cnrev, ct syr vet cnrev avToi<;, 
 Eus aireKpivaro o tto. tantum) 
 iv. 29. oDKoSo/iriro avra>v {pro avrmv cokoS.) XBDLW/a?« 13 33 892 
 Paris" [non Sorf"°J a c d e W-H et Sod txt contra rcll et Orig. 
 V. 2. ait avTiov aTrofiavre's {pro airoff. air avrcav) (N)BCDLW 33 
 892 Paris" Sod^''^' a W-H Sod against the mass and Coptic syriac. 
 But R Sod^'" b ff gi I q r vg omit an avrwv, and e omits 
 aTTo/SavTt? air avraiv. 
 
 Query. Is not —air avrav the "neutral" text here as 
 — ev TO) vaw in i. 21 above? 
 vi. 42. exfiaXeiv transferred to the end of the verse by BW fam 13 604 
 892 Paris", just this group alone with W-H Sod, against N and 
 all the versions, 
 viii. 23. eit ttjv \tfj.vrtv avefwv B Paris" a W-H'"^. {Om. eK t. Xi/i. if'). 
 ix. 13. J^ apToi irevre N'B Paris" alone with TK-if "" for ^ irevTe aprot. 
 In Mark (vi. 38) it is xai yvovrev Xeyovtriv ' irevre xai hvo 
 ixdvat (without apioi). In Matt. (xiv. 17) it is ovk e^ofiev a>Se 
 ei fiTj Trevre aprov; . . . 
 
 But here we are helped as to the idiosyncrasy of NB in 
 Luke, for again in Matthew K* makes a change, writing 
 
 t Von Soden does not accept ynp in his text, but gives the evidence in his notes as 
 " H"-2* I«133 " = BN* 604. But he has misreported my 604 {Greg. 700) for 604 does 
 NOT add yap nor did I say so. I reported —yap, that is —yap before apaprwXot. 
 
 t See also Postscript on page 488. 
 
25<) CODEX IS AND ITS ALLIKS. 
 
 Ijilm 
 
 oprou? ei /ii) -trevre. Clearly then it was a nicety of 
 (inhr that NB weie after in Luke ix. 13 (duly recorded by 
 11 -H in their text ^aproi Trdmc^ and margin ireWe dprot) but 
 unsupported by Greek or Latin mss or by Coptic or Syriac. 
 The secret is very simple and abundantly justifies Canon 
 Cook's remarks about the danger of following Origen in 
 niceties, as here NB. The reason for this change of order, 
 where they outdo the Coptic, is that the «ni Svo txOvei is 
 changed liy Coptic to Kat ixOve<; Svo, as also most uncials (not 
 DLKH) and a of Latin. It is a matter here of tasteful 
 hanitoiii.iiiiij of the two orders, 
 
 1) a pT oL 77 evr e k a i i-^Ovei; &v o 
 instead of >; -n-ci'Te aproi xai i^Ove'; &vo which I belicYe to be the true 
 text, if not >; Trevre aproi xai Svo ixSvet. 
 xi. 11. atTi/trei Tor Trarepa B iM] W-H"" cfsah. 
 xil. 1. Trpoirexere eavroi'; a-no t?j? fu/i?;? tjtj? eariv VTroKptai<t 
 T a>v (jiap Lcr aiMV (instead of TTjif fu^T/i? TODV <f>api(j aiiav 
 77T(? ecTTiv v-noKpiai'i) by BL Sod"'"^ e sah against all 
 otliers including Paris" 892 holt Eiiiph TerV""" and Lvcifer. 
 Apart from the unlikelihood of this order, which reads most 
 peculiarly, T I/? fi/yui;?. . .t/Tro/cpto-ts without article before tnro- 
 Kpia-f;, it has not enough MS support to justify W-H and Sodcn 
 in placing it squarely in their texts. Not a word about an 
 alternative reading in their margin. Imagine such extra- 
 ordinary critical methods ! Nothing in ' Selected Readings ' 
 in Hort. 
 
 It is true that sah supports this, but sah sees the weakness 
 of the Greek in this order and says " the leaven, n-hich is this, 
 the hypocrisy of the Pharisees," supplying the article to 
 hypocrisy of which we feel the need in Greek here. 
 
 Clearly then BL Sod^""^^ (Sinai 2C0) t e rei^resent this 
 Egijptian recension, and this order has nothing to do with 
 " the true text " or a " neutral " text. The other Greeks, 
 Latins, and the Syriacs are dead against it, and hoh 
 emphasises " which is their hj-pocrisy." 
 2.'5. Tit Se ef Vfifo" /lepifivoiv Svvarai eiri rrjv r)\iKiav avTov 
 vpocrdeivat pro t. S. e. v/i. /m. S. Trpoirffeivai ctti ttjv 
 r)\iKiau avrov. Only B and Paris""^ against the order of 
 Blatthew (vi. 27 all mss) as well as against Luke. Here 
 again I'aris"" is the only new authority supporting [contra- 
 dicted by W]. ]\'-H get the order of B into their text, but 
 
 t Von Soilni forgets MaiOiaci'a 254, but adduces one new witness 6 371 (Sinai 260). 
 X Here is anotber case where the addition of this codex weakens the case of BL. 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 257 
 
 have the grace to place the alternative order in their margin. 
 Solder's edition goes back to the old order as does Sodcn. 
 XV. 7. ouTw? X"?" ^'' ''^'^ ovpava) earai (for ofTW? X^P"' f^^at ev rto 
 ovpavw) Apparently only a preferential order by NBL^ 33 
 157 892 Sod"''^ (Paris'") W-H Sod as opposed to all others and 
 versions including copt. Add for the change ^' and Paris'", 
 but not W. (Om. ev T<a ovpava Laura*""). 
 
 XV. 21. enrev Be o i/io? avTO) {avrov 209 Paris"') BL fam 1 157 Paris" 
 Sod"" only of Greeks with (5 d) sah and boh W-H Sod ; against 
 ei-rrev Se avTO) o vtc; N and all other Greeks with latt and 
 syrr. (Cf. D d). 
 
 xvi. 9. eavTOK Troctjaare (pro ■noirjaare eavTom) If N'BLR W-H Sod 
 (alone) are right, how comes it that not only the other 
 uncials and cursives oppose but also Clem Bas Thdt ; and 
 Clem Chr'^'"'" it vg arm aeth copt syrr Iren'"' Orig'"' ''" Tert 
 with the alternative -noirjaare vfitv? Yet Sodcn religiously 
 follows Hort against them all. 
 
 xvii. 2. raiv fitKpmv TOVToov eva {(oi eva Toju /UK. TovTwv) N"BL^. No 
 other authority except 892 Paris" and Westcott and Hort 
 and Soden. 
 
 There is no excuse for following NBL here; it is simply 
 idolatry. It presupposes that every other document and all 
 the versions have changed the order. No reason can be given 
 for the change. o"ff for one (a) and oif in itAIKOTrjCI might 
 mislead an eye in closely written Coptic script (sah is ffOirA, 
 ftrtEIKOlfl ; Ml ito-irA.1 ftnAIKOrxi) but it is most probably 
 hiatus which offended NBL, viz. the collision of vowels in 
 tTKauBaXtcrt] eva. Perhaps Sod"'^° ( — tcov /Jixpiov), a Sinai codex, 
 has the secret and was derived from the parents of KB. 
 See XV. 4, xxii. 50 under " Genitive before the noun." 
 
 xix. 11. £7yu9 eivai lepovaaXruj, avTOV (for £77119 avrov etvai lepovaaXrjft) 
 Only NBL W-H Sod and against Coptic. This would seem to 
 be an effort at improvement. Observe MQ 157 /am 1 and D 
 which fluctuate here. 
 18. \cyo>v ri /iva aov Kvpte (for \f7<Bi' Kvpie r) fiva aov) Apparently 
 an improvement by XBL 892 Paris'' W-H Sod only against all 
 others (except Sorf*"'"' ff aim which omit xvpie). Possibly 
 Kvpte stood in margin of an ancient exemplar and NBL put 
 it in the wrong place. Mrs. Lewis has correctly observed that 
 many corrections in the old papyri (things which no doubt 
 the Biop0a>Tij<; corrected) were misinterpreted by the ancients 
 (hence what Mcrx calls " Wandericorte"). Observe xix.' 25 
 — Kvpie B* sol. Often in St. John N omits xvpie. 
 
 XX. 2. Kai etirav X€yovTe<; Trpo? avrov (for xat enrav rrpo<; avrov 
 Xeyovre:;) NBL fam 1 Paris"' Sod'" c ff i I vg W-H Sod 
 
258 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 against most, but CD C3 C4 d e f q salt holt arm syr aeth 
 OMIT and /am 1 omits xai cnrav. Hence the " shorter " text 
 is with them, not with NBL, which W-H follow. I would 
 like to know by what name the critics would call this reading 
 of NBL. {VoH So(h)i adduces a new witness 8 371 [Sinai 200] 
 with 6X6701' avToj). 
 x.x. 10. 01 S( yeaipyoi e^aireareiXai' avTOv SeipavTei xevov So only NBL, 
 against all others and versions : 01 Se yempyot SfipavTct avTov 
 e^aiT. xevov. I can see nothing favourable to this reading of 
 NBL, which W-H and Sod adopt ; indeed there is a collision 
 between Seipavre^ and icevov which seems intolerable. Being 
 thus by far the " harder " reading it might be thought that 
 there was revision in others, but none of the versions indulge 
 in this. Some of them repeat avTov twice, but always " beat " 
 before they " send away." Indeed we cannot follow NBL in 
 such things. If they reaJly represented a basic, neutral, original 
 text, we might even follow here. But I think enough has 
 been said already to quiet this ghost and put it aside for ever. 
 Nothing could be clearer than the parallel in Mark xii. 3 
 Kai XaffovTe'i avTov eBeipav Kai aTreffTCtXav kcvov. Hort and 
 Soden fly in the face of this. Souter is fortunately more 
 intelligent here, but what of the other places where NBL 
 combine ? Are they to be followed there too ? [ Von Soden 
 adduces nothing new beyond Paris".] 
 19. The previous passage is followed here by a conflict between 
 N and B. 
 
 N and most with latt syr sah having 01 apxifpfi': "ai 01 
 ypa|l.pa^el<; while B with A(C)KL]SINUWn e goth arm 
 and boh acth has 01 ypa/j./iarei'; xai 01 apxiepet<;. (Notice latt 
 sah with N, and boh e with B.) If we want a primaeval 
 "neutral" text we should perhaps follow sah'" and Marcion 
 who omit altogether ! W-H Sod however follow B and boh 
 here. 
 
 32 fin. KM r] yvvrj airedavev NBDL min pane [non verss'\ W-H 
 
 Sod. Does not agree with Matt., but agrees with NBCDLA 
 min pauc and a b {c) ffi sah 1/6 in Mark. 
 
 33 init. tj yvvq ovv ev tj; avatrraaei Only BL 892 Paris'" W-H 
 
 and Sod, thus svppUjing 1) yvvrj. This comes simply from 
 the change of order at the end of the previous verse " xat ?) 
 71/V7; amOavev rj yvv-q ovv," the necessary correction not 
 having been made by BL. The other cursives avoid this, 
 xxi. 1. ^aWovra'; eit to ya^o(fiv\aKiov ra Swpa avTwv NBDLX^P 
 /am 1 /am 13 33 157 213 248 Paris»' Sod"" d e .lyr'" '""'' '"" 
 Orig W-H Sod against all the rest, against syr cu sin, against 
 both Coptics arm and aeth and against Basil, and against all 
 
 B IN ST. Luke's gospel. 
 
 259 
 
 other Latins. Origen is here very precise, and we undoubtedly 
 have his order. But is it right ? 
 
 I only mention this here as it is so strongly against coptio 
 because we flop over to them (without D t? «) at : 
 xxi. 4. — Tou 6€ov NBLX /am 1 213 Paris" syr cu sin hier sah boh 
 [non aeth = rov Kvptov] W-H against all the rest, and against 
 Lati7i syr'"' '*'" and Orig Cypr Basil. Here Sodm holds 
 Tov 0eou. 
 
 Now both places in NB can hardly be right. In the one 
 W-H follow Origen, in the next they oppose him, strengthened 
 as he is by Cypr. Basil both times goes with the mass and 
 Latin. In the first they oppose the Coptic, in the second 
 they go with it. In the first they oppose syr cu sin in favour 
 of .syr"'' '""''. In the second they favour syr cu sin and oppose 
 syr''^'' '"'■''. This does not seem to be scientific. 
 11. KM Kara tottou? {pro Kara tottou? km) NBL 33 Paris" 
 Laura* «» [ - «at 892 Sod'"' ' "']. This change of order rather 
 changes the sense. NBL would read : 
 
 aeiapoi re /ieyaXot Kai Kara tottou? X. xai \. instead of 
 aeiafioi T£ peyaXoi kutu tottoi;?, xai \. Kat \. of the 
 
 mass. 
 The latter is supported by all other Greeks, Latins, and 
 Syriacs.f Tisch cites " cop " in support of NBL. It is true of 
 boh, butso/t opposes with " Great earthquakes with famines in 
 places and pestilences." W-H Sod follow NBL boh, and no 
 doubt wrongfully, for in the same verse, showing they were 
 editing : 
 ibid. ^o/3iiffpa re xai air ovpavov <Tri/jeia fiey. writes B alonej with 
 
 1 \_non/a7n] and W-H teat. 
 it>o0r)Tpa Tf Kai arjiieia /ieyoKa air ovpavov write NL/a?7l 13 892 
 Paris" Laura* ■<" Sod" =" '-'" "" vid (sah) (boh) 
 W-H 7narg Sod txt. 
 (j>ol37idpa T£ an ovpavov Kai arjpeia /ley. write D d it syr cu 
 
 Orig. (syr.) 
 ifto^riTpa (^opr)6pa W) te Kai ar}peia air ovpavov /ley. write tht 
 
 mass of Greeks. 
 The order is extremely contradictory, so miich so that poor 
 aeth leaves out a-rr ovpavov, and B and NL are not agreed, 
 while Origen goes with the " Western " text ! 
 
 W-H calmly follow B in their text, with the reading of NL 
 copt in their margin, and ignore Origen. In ' Notes on Select 
 
 t Syr sin conflates (against syr cu) " and there will be great earthquakes in variout 
 places and pestilences tn various phces." 
 
 t See Luke xv. 4, xxii. 50, under " Genitive before the noun." 
 
 s 2 
 
200 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Headings ' they cite this verse, but only for a disquisition on 
 the addition at the end of [? xai ;^6i/ia»'c;] which does not 
 exist in the Greek, but is found in some latt and syr cu 
 [against nin] and Orlg'"\ 
 XXI. 24. Kdi at^fia.\o)Tiadr)<TOVTat eit ra eOvrj rravTa (for Kai ai)^. «? 
 ■navTa m eOvT]). Only NBLll^ 124 [non /am] 892 Paris" 
 Laura'^ '"' sah boh and so both W-H and Soden. 
 
 Is it conceivable that in all such places sah boh followed 
 NBLR^' (LR^ not then in being) or is it not far more likely 
 that the definite Coptic order, with XHpo"r last, influenced 
 these Mss ? They are all thoroughly " Egyptian " as shown 
 elsewhere, especially R. Now observe what happens at the 
 end of the same verse. It is an addition and does not properly 
 belong here, hut we will place it here for illustration : 
 24 fin. Instead of ■7i\r]pa>6a>aw xaipoi eOvmv (as practically all and 
 Ens bis) B alone says ■jrXr)pa)9a><Tiv xai etrov r a i xaipoi 
 edviov ; closely followed by L 892 Sod' "' irKripaffasaiv xat pot 
 Ka I eaovT a I xaipoi €0va>v. There is no other support but 
 boh [noil sa]i] which agrees with the form of L. 
 
 W-H place the B reading in their text in square brackets. 
 Sod adopts that of L in square brackets. [D d omit xaipoi 
 e6va3v.~\ 
 
 Why should all other authorities but boh drop /cat eaovrai ?? 
 
 I submit that it comes from boh (seeing the influence of 
 Coptic order earlier in the verse) and that it definitely fixes the 
 date of bohairic behind B. 
 
 (In this connection note xxi. 25 init eaovrai of NBD 
 Sod'^" W-H [for earai rell ct Sod txt] for boh uses the same 
 form Eirettjuuni just used previously in 24 for the addition 
 common to BL and boh in verse 24. From ver 25 this eaovrai 
 probably crept back, but curiously enough L uses earai in 
 verse 25 contra NB. ) 
 
 Xxii. 42. TOVTO TO TTOTrjpiOV (prO TO TTOrripiOV TOVTO) H (N* TOVTO TO 
 
 ■KOTTiptov TOVTO) BDLQT Sorf"" 157 892 Sod"" '"" (both at Sinai) 
 Evst 48 49 z'" S"' fff d aeth sah (boh) against all others and 
 Paris'" and against Orig Tert Dion Bas Dam, yet followed by 
 W-H and Sod. (Tisch forgets to put sah boh with NB etc.) 
 Paris"' forsakes B here. Sod misquotes '*" (w"')- 
 45. evpev Koifua/ievov; avTov; (pro evpev avTovi Koifi.) NBDLT^ 
 mill pcrpauc \non nov. Soden, non W Paris"] W-H Sod and d 
 " dormientes eos " against all the rest. 
 
 This is a kind of accusative absolute (not referred to by 
 Winer or Blass). Hence, I take it, this change of order as in 
 the genitive absolute efeX^ovTo? amov. The change here 
 seems interesting and merits attention. 
 
 B IN ST. L0KE S GOSPEL. 
 
 261 
 
 In Matt. xxvi. 40 the expression is evpev avTovi KaOevZovTat, 
 xxvi. 43 iraXiv evpev out. Kad., Mark xiv. 37 evptaxei aUToi/? 
 KaffevSovrat, xiv. 40 evpev avTovi iroKiv KaOevhovTa^. Observe 
 that in Matt. xxvi. 40 L (only) changes the order to xaOev- 
 SovTw; avTovt. This seems very significant, 
 xxii. 71. T( eTi exoficv /lapTvpta^ \peiav (pro t« eti \peMv exo/iev 
 liapTvpia<s) BLT (252 Paris") W-H and Sod txt against N 
 and all others, 
 xxiii. Q. e^ iKavwv xpovwv OeKav (pro OeKtov e^ iKavov) NBTT'X/awl3 
 (157 Laura* "'*) Paris" 892 Sod'^" c W-H (e? ikovov rov xpovov 
 597 ' Emendanda ' Greg) (ef ixavov xpo""" W). The order here 
 in some others is rather confused, but we oppose sah boh and 
 most. It seems again a preference like the genitive before 
 the noun [see beyond], (ef ixavov OeXwv '4' teste Lake, and 
 Sod^^'' without knowing it ; see note as to S G.) 
 38. /8ao-i\fu9 Ttov lovSaicov outot NBLT' Paris" a W-H Sod 
 
 (D 124 d e ff -\-eaTtv) contra rell et contra Orig. 
 43. a/t^f 0-01 \eym (pro aiir/v Xe7<» <7ot) BC'LT' [noti minn] pers 
 am W-H Sod txt (contra X, contra rellomn, et Patres permultos) 
 
 Cf B alone at John x. 1, x. 7, and xiii. 21 vpnv Xeya. Cf 
 W 174 (So(i'"*) alone at Matt, xviii. 19 vfiiv Tieyai, and note 
 v/itv Xeyco at Matt. xxi. 27 by MWAIIJ /am 13 71 al. paw. 
 Evst 48 6 c e .^i.j h q vg'^^ and Origen bis, and note Origen''''. 
 This appears to be the Persian method. Soden does not 
 follow in Matthew but does in Luke, 
 xxiv. 1. eiTt TO ftvqfia tiXOov (pro ijXB. eiri to fivrj/ia) Only NBLT' 124 
 Dion Eus 2/3 W-H and Sod txt against all others and Tert 
 allud. and latin and syrr and Coptics, and Paris". 
 
 I may say here that in such cases (see also particularly 
 xxiv. 7), it sah or boh had been founded on NBL [instead of 
 sah boh influencing NBL] some trace of such orders would 
 probably be found. Not only is this not the case, but at the 
 end of this verse there is an addition in sah of eXoyi^ovTo Se ev 
 eavTaK tk apa avoKvXiaei tov XiOov found only in DT' d and c 
 (see Mark xvi. 3). 
 
 Further than this, the omission of xat Tive^ aw avTai^ of 
 SBC'L 33 124* lat boh Dion Eus does not occur in sah which 
 has the clause with Paris" and the rest. 
 7. TOV viov TOV avOpwiTov OTt Bet (pro OTt Set tov viov tov avdpioTrov) 
 N'BC'LT' a only with W-H Sod, against N=C' and all the 
 rest and Marcion (apparently quite certainly) and Tertullian 
 and Coptics (both ; Horner's English order in boh is misleading) 
 and syr. 
 13. ev avTt] Tij rjiiepa ijaav Tropevo/ievoi NB syr acth Eus 
 
 W-H [von Sod] against all others. 
 
2G2 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 XXIV. 49 fin. 6f v^\rov! hvva^iv {pro &vvaiiiv ef ui^ou?) Only NBC L 33 
 
 rnu- , , l''»'"'«" -2^'" Cy,'"" 1/2 JK-H and Sorf <x<. 
 
 Ihis looks l>ke a " nicety " of Ens opposed by all others, all 
 l^atiM, sah boh aeth, all syriacs arm Cyr'"'' 1/3 Chr Thdt 
 etc. See ante about such changes of order. 
 
 I would like to notice that Paris" while agreeing here 
 absolutely disagrees with the changes of B in verses 47 
 anil 48. 
 
 f ^f °''!' c^ ''"'' P'*'^"'="'''' attention to the omissions of Soden's codices 
 at Mount Sinai, where NB vary the order. These younger codices 
 probably represent the old exemplar with additions in the margin 
 incorporated by NB m the wrong places. 
 
 im, -^"^i"^'/'"'' (io-^i"g the place of aorists or historic presents). 
 
 IV. 40. eOepaTTevev {pro edepa-rrevaev) BDW^? {Sod) 21 v*"** Sod"" 
 
 latt syr {Orig prob) W-H and Soden'^' who refuses the two 
 following examples. 
 
 V. 28. The imperfect r,Ko\ove€i (following KaTaXnrav) of BDLW= 
 
 09 {contra fam) C04 892 [non Paris"] a W-H perhaps comes 
 under this head. There is at any rate a noticeable preference 
 at tnnes m Alexandria for the imperfect over the aorist. The 
 other authorities including N write r,Ko\over,aev, and I regard 
 B's imperfect as an attempted improvement. I do not believe 
 the others would have changed v>co\ov0eo if it had stood here 
 originally. Sod'" has vcoXovfirjaev with the majority. 
 IX. 34. CTreaKia^ev {pro eneaKta(Tev) also comes under this head. It 
 is read by NBL 157 Paris" [non 892] Evst 47 x'" Sod'"' 
 W-H, and again a comes to join us of the Latins (see else- 
 where as to a and B'")- 
 
 (As to choice of expressions hereabouts of. ix. 35 teXe- 
 Xey/ievoi; for 070777x0?.) 
 49. €K<o\vo/iev {pro e/cwXvaafiev) NBLH 157 Paris" a b e I 
 
 W-H Sod {etiam NBD"LA Mc ix. 38). 
 XIV. 10. ewoiet {pro eTroi,,aev) Only NBE/ow 1 [non 118* • 131] f 
 
 W-H Sod against the rest and Clem Orig Eus*" Bos Tert and 
 Latins. Surely W-H might have spared us this graphic 
 touch ! (They have no marginal note at all.) The phrase is 
 av0pa>no<i Tit enoiet Senrvov M^ya{v), and evom would hardly 
 have been removed if original. Eemember the preference given 
 by Alexandria so often to the imperfect, {enoieiaev Sod''^"). 
 
 t Von Soden adduces no new witnesBes for .no,,,, jet he places it in his text for 
 the imperfect appeals to him (see elsewhere) and he is merely falling a victim to the 
 Alexandrian " use " as others have before him. Yet he only <iH<-f(. 5 out of 8 of the above 
 
 B IN ST. lire's gospel. 
 
 203 
 
 (Matt. xxii. 2 eTrottjaev is the reading of all, but the others 
 were not accommodating to Matthew at all for it is clearly 
 seen elsewhere that in St. Luke NB and the Egyptian group 
 are under the influence of a special recension.) 
 XX. 27. (Tri]pa>T(ov {pro eirripwrriaav) B (/(i»i 13) 157 Paris" Laura* '"* 
 only with a again and W-H"'". 
 xxiii. 18. avixpayov {pro avexpa^av) NBLT et T' 4 124 [non /am] 157 
 
 892 Paris" Sod"^^ (no others) a Cyr W-H Sod txt against all 
 the rest. 
 47. cho^a^i {pro eho^aai) NBDLR'?' [non Soc?"] 892 Paris" 
 
 Sod"" c d q {eff I) Cyr W-H Sod txt [Sodcn wrongly excepts 
 Paris" and cites Q (e 4)]. 
 
 [Once xxiii. 36 NBLT' Sod' '" W-H (alone) change eve-irat^ov 
 to eveirai^av and this is discovered to have the support of sah . 
 Soden baulks at this.] 
 As to 
 
 X. 19. EfStoxa {pro &i&a)p.i) NBC*LX min pane if^ Orig etc. SiSafit 
 is supported by Justin Iren'"'' Eus c d and syrr who confirm 
 the Greeks headed by D, and I suspect NB of " improvement " 
 in a contrary direction here with their SeSwKo. 
 
 Observe Tert™"" lib : " Quis nunc dabit potestatem calcandi 
 super colubros et scorpios." 
 [In St. Luke there is a noticeable absence of the use of the Historic 
 Present (see Sir John Hawkins, Horae Syn. p. 24: "only in vii. 40, 
 viii. 49, xi. 37, 4.'}, xxiv. 12? 36? in contrast with Matthew 78, 
 Mark 151 ") so that we are prepared for but moderate revision by the 
 Alexandrine school ; and here we see that the critics contented themselves 
 with the substitution of some imperfects for the aorists.] 
 
 Genitive before the Noun. 
 
 In two cases to be noticed in St. Luke KB come in twice (T is 
 wanting in the first place) and L only the second time. 
 
 Luke 
 
 XV. 4. Tit avOpanot ef v/uou^ fX""" caTOv vpoffaTa xai airoXeaat 
 ef avTmv ev {pro ev e^ avTwv) KBD"W {/am \ fam 13) 
 157 Paris" « W-H Sod only [opposed by L all others Sod"'" 
 and Method Bas""] 
 xxii. 50. Kai eTTOTafev ei'9 Tit ef avTtov tov ap^iepetot tov hovKov (pro TOf 
 hovKov TOV apxtepeat) NBLT fam 13 [non 124] 892 W-H 
 et Sod {non W non 157 non Paris" hoc loco, non latt) 
 Now this is quite an unusual position for the genitive in the 
 
 t 892 actually has tip Ǥ I'/iwv av^fwrrot, while retaining {e, sil Harris) tv *| avriav. 
 This is a further commentary on such preferences. 
 
20 i 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 NT.t Consult Wiuer, Eng. ed. p. 193 and 239. On p. 240 he says : 
 Ihat this position of the genitive may belong to the peculiarities 
 of a writer s style (Gersdorf p. 296 sqq) is not in itself impossible (since 
 particular writers use even emphatic combinations with a weakened 
 force) but at all events cannot be made probable." This is said at the 
 end of a paragraph on the proper emphatic use of the genitive preceding 
 the noun. But Winer neglects our two examples and they do not belong 
 to the emphatic class (such as 1 Cor. iii. 9 0€ov yap €<7^£„ avvepyot, Oeov 
 yecopyiov, 0eov otxoSn^^ eare). But these are generally followed by a 
 nominative (Malt, xxvii. 33 Kpavcov totto?, Eph. ii. 10 avrov yap eapev 
 voi7,/j.a, Ja. i. 20 rovTov /loraio? r, ffp,,a>ceta, Rom. xi. 13 €0vav ottoittoXo?, 
 Acta in. 7 avTou ai fiacei^ xai ra a4>vpa text rec, where NABC Bas Set) 
 Lnci/ oppose the order ; see also Rom. ix. 5) and therefore are to be 
 considered as a classical usage. Cf Herod vi. 2 t,,.; Uvu>v ttji; rnEiJLovr,v 
 Tov vrpo? Aapeiov ttoM/mov, Thucyd iii. 12 rr,v eicewav f,€\\r,aiv rmv efs 
 vpa<; heivaiv, Plato Lcgg 3.090 h ttjv tov vo/iov exovToiv apxvv. 
 
 But the genitive before the noun is thoroughly Aristotelian through- 
 out. See, for the nearest parallel to Luke xxii. 20, rdv trarpioiv rhv 
 apxovTa (Pol 3.20). Also T&v irXovaiav Tovt aypov<! (Pol 2.8) etc etc. 
 
 Blass (Thackeray p. 99) is not very full. He refers also to 
 Phil. ii. 30 and adds one other, Matt. xiii. 33 ei<t aXevpov aa-ra Tpia, but 
 there is no article there, and he says " in the same way that a word in 
 any case without an article usually, though not always, precedes the 
 genitive which it governs." 
 
 Blass does not refer to our examples either as far as I can see, and 
 I can only regard them as exemplifying still further the independent 
 position taken by the mss in question and as partaking of a kind 
 of unnecessary revision. I certainly do not believe that all the other MSS 
 changed the order. And it is to be observed that, whereas the 13 family 
 are involved in both cases, D^'W 157 Paris" and L act in an eclectic 
 manner and disagree on the second example. We should have to assume 
 if e'f avTav kv were original that L changed it to ei; cf avTwv while 
 retaining tou apxiepew; tov SovXov, and that if rov apxiepeax; tov SovXov 
 were original, W 157 Paris" changed it while being content with e'f 
 avTMv ev. No, I consider both to be changes made on the original text 
 to conform to some idea of classical usage. t 
 
 The truth about this seems to be that the most proper occasions 
 on which to employ this order are when the noun or its equivalent is 
 
 t Matt. Mo. Toi/ 6. Tou ai>)(. ; Jo. tok tov apx- SiwXon a kind of halfway but classical 
 llOUSe as 1 Pet. iii. 20 t; tou 6tov ^KpofyfLin, Heb. xii. 2 toi' Ti;t iriirrfMt ap^rtynv. Cf riiil. 
 ii. 30 TO vfiav viTTfpriiia rqt \(iTnvpytas. Plata Bcp. Tdt Twi/ oinfiui/ 7rpon^i)Xniciir(it tou yi;pur. 
 
 X The situation in Luke xxii. 50 is a little coinplioatcd. First XRLT invite us to 
 read €naTa^fv tU Tit «| avTbjv tov ttp\itpfbii tov dovXov, bringing two genitives together ; 
 secondly they reverse this in the next clause, and would read nm a^ii\tv to our nvTou 
 TO 8(^inv, instead of Km atp. nurov to ovs to ^t^tov as the rest. 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 205 
 
 followed by a relative, as Thucyd i. 51 at elxoai vrjet at ano twv 'A^i/kww 
 auTai, &v ripxe TXavKwv re 6 htdpr/ov Ka\'h.vhoKtii)<;o ^eayopov. 
 
 See also in a heading to Dionysius"'" letter to Germanus, SrjKoxTovtrtv 
 at avTov ijttavat, a? irpo? Teppavov.... where avTov following ai is 
 apparently not abhorrent, so that a? may follow iJMivaL 
 
 Observe also in this writer at the close of the letter to Germanus 
 a long list of genitives before the noun, followed by a resume of ola to 
 introduce the next sentence : 
 
 oaa^ uptBfirjtrai SvvaTai Trepl i)p,o)v aTrotjxicreK, Sr)fjev(Tei<!, irpoypa^a'i, 
 virapxoVToiv apiTaya.<!,^ a^tapctTtov aiTo6iaet'i, B6^t]'s KOirpiKrjt oXiyaplai;, 
 iiraivcov rjyep^vtKiov xal ffovXevTiK&v KaTatfipovijiTetf xal tS>v ivavTtaiv 
 airetX&v, Kal KaTa0ot](Tea>v xal KtvSvvtov % "ttl httaypLwv % xai irXavri^ ical 
 (TTtvoxopia'; Kal •notKiXrf'; dXt-^ea^ inrop^vtjv, ola to cVi Aexiov Kal Xa^ivov 
 avpPivTa pot, ola P^xpi vvv 'AtpiXtavov ; 
 
 Observe the position of viropovi'jv. 
 
 I think we may say then that in the writings of Dionysius the Great 
 (fl. 200-270) we have a very good example of Alexandrian style about 
 A.D. 235 [he was raised to the headship of the Catechetical School in 231] 
 and that the precedence given to the genitive is considerable. Note 
 further in the letter to Fabian " twi/ npea^vTeptov pot Tiva KoXeaov." 
 Again : " iv voaui Se yevopevo's Tpiav e^rji rjpepwv a^mvo^ Ka\ avai<T0TiTO<s 
 SieTiXeoe." 
 
 " pTjKCTi ^aaavfav iretpav Xa^ovaai " to? yap virep Ttaaoiv fj ■wpopaxo'^." 
 " irplv Ttva's avTMv aXXovt Xa^eaffai." 
 
 Further, in " Xaipijpaiv 5" vTrepyripat Trjt NeiX-ou KaXovpivrft 
 iirtcTKOirov TroXews " some MSS have TroXeiu? iirlaKoiTo^, showing a distinct 
 conflict as to the best method. 
 
 Widely separated by the genitives sometimes are the component 
 parts of his sentences, e.g. — 
 
 " Kal T^9 laxvpdi iv iavToti; TTiffTem? a^iav Kal ovdXoyov SCvapiv Kal 
 KapTeptav Xa^6vT€<;, BavparrTOi yeyovaaiv avToO tjj^ ^acriXeiat; paprvpev." 
 
 or 
 
 " Se 7; T^? j8a(7«\e/o? c'/cei'i');? T^? evpev€(TTepat Tjpiv p.eTaj3oXr] SiJ^- 
 yeXTat, Kal iroXii'; 6 t^? i<f)' Tjpa^ aTretXi;? 0o/3of aveTiiveTO." 
 
 or 
 
 " oi vvv TOV xpt<rTOv ndpeSpot xal Tiji fiacriXelat ainov KOtvmvoi, Kal 
 piTOxot Trj'; Kptaew^ avTov," § Continuing " xal trvvSiKa^ovTe^ ainm tS>v 
 TrapaneTrTCOKOTtav aSeXtpcov Tivat innvOvvovtt toi? twv OvaiSiv eyKXrpjaai 
 yevopkvovi irpoaeXd^ovTO.^' 
 
 t Heb. X. 34. 
 
 t Copying St. raul's style 2 Cor. xi. 26, 2 Cor. xii. 10. The reading of St. Paul's 
 letters is assigned as the cause of Dionysius' conversion to Christianity. 
 
 § This is perhaps a fair commentary on the method pursued by ^^BLT in 
 Luke xxii. 50, where they prefer in a sentence of '* pairs " the genitive before the noun 
 firit, and in second place the genitive following the noun. 
 
2()G 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 ** Kara tov tou ^tuyy^ioO Kaipov tivaxivuiv Xoyov" 
 
 Filially (p. 33 Felloe's edition) note the sentence : 
 
 '^ vaTepov &€ 7iv€<; ovk oXiyoi to)V i0v5>v to, eihoyka fcajd\i'n6vT€<; 
 iirerTTpey^av e7r) rov Oeov/^ 
 
 Til ei8io\a does not refer directly to iffvow, but the words are made to 
 follow this genitive, whereas KaTa\fir6vTe<; to, ei&coXa would be clearer to 
 an English mind. 
 
 It seems worth while to consider this at some length, because we 
 must get into the atmosphere of Alexandria in the first part of the 
 III"' century if we are to judge of possible idiosyncraciea of the fore- 
 runners of NB and T in " papyrus book form." f 
 
 [Observe the use in N alone of to Xe)(^0eviii Luke ii. 21 for to KXr/div, 
 and note that it follows immediately after xai ixX^ffri to ovofia avroO 
 
 'Il^croO?. 
 
 So in Dionysius may be observed the use of Xtx^*'''''<'"'iimD6diately 
 following KaXovfiiinjv. The sentence is : iirl tovtok exiXtvirev 17^0? 
 aneXOelv €i? Ka>fi.r)v irXrfaiov t^9 ip^fiov KaXovfiivrjv Ke<fipa>. ainiov Be 
 eTraKovcrare twk inr' afi<f>OTlpii>v \€;^^^i't<»i' ax; inrefunjfuiTt(T0t]. 
 
 (But Justin Martyr supplies us with the closest parallel : Sfia rm 
 ava,Srivai avTov iWo tov ■nora/iov tov lopSdvov tij? <f>a)v!]<; aino) Xe)(0et<rri<; . 
 0:09 fiov el av, eyto crjuepov •yeyevvrjica. Just^'" '"'.)] 
 
 But perhaps a good counterpart of this use of the genitive may be 
 observed in Thucyd i. 56 tS>v yap KopivOiiov -npaaaovTav ottws TifuaprftrovTai 
 avTOV!;, inTOTOTrqaavTe'; Tr]v e^Opav aiiToiv 01 'Afftjuaioi lloTtSaidTa<;, 
 01 oIkovow (Ti Tw la6p.la> t^v WaXXrivv!, K.opiv0 iaiv air oIkov<;, 
 eavT tav he ^v fifid^ov^ <l>6 pov vtt ot eXel^, exeXevov to €? IlaX- 
 Xijvrjv Tclxov KaOeXelv koX o/iiipou? hovvai, Tovt Te €TnBr]uiovpyov^ eKirefinetv 
 Koi TO XotTTOv firi hexeoffai 0D9 KaTo, eto? exaoTOV K.oplv0tot eyre/iwov, heitravTet 
 firj d-TroaToxTtv viro tc YlepSixKOv ireiOo/ievoi xal ^opw0lu>v, tov; tc aWoy? 
 TOU? eirl Opi'iKt)'; ^vvatrooTriawcn ^nfidypv^. 
 
 Note, close afterwards, Luke xxii. 53, the preference for outij eo-Td* 
 V fiav 7? w p a over r) u>pa vp-atv.X 
 
 t Id t'lis connection observe a place in Mark xiv. 8 : to trufxa /lou say KBDLM^S'I' W-H 
 with Latin order, and I consider, as explained elsevphere, from Latin sympathies, against 
 1,0V TO troiui of the rest headed by A and closed by AW k 8 with Coptic and Sorftxt. Tischen- 
 dorf remarks here " Mc adamat genitivos ejusmodi iiibitantivo pracponere." This is an 
 interesting observation, for it brings up the possible ilouble Greek recension in Mark of 
 which I have spoken, and does not necessarily apply to the Greek of St. Mark himself. 
 
 X This is adopted by a good many: N'BDGKLMRTXn* o (but N* omits v/iav) 
 against AESUVTAA, etc, but does not seem for the best, as it brings 7 upa and i; tfoviria 
 TOV iTKOTovs togcthcr, spoillog the pair of nominatives which are distinct. Thus 
 nXX avTT] (tTTiv vfitov rj <opa Kai rj f^ovtTia tov aKorovt, instead of 
 nXX avTT) fvTiv y) titpa Vfiaiv koi if t^ovttia tqv okitovs. 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 207 
 
 For this preference on the part of B in the N.T. see ante at xxi. 11 
 where B 1 [non fain] alone have xat an ovpavov trrjfLeia. 
 
 Also note under " Order " xvii. 2 twv /iixpcov tovtoiv eva X*BL^' 
 892 Paris" only (for eva tiov ixixpaiv tovtidv). 
 
 See also xxiii. 8 ff txavav XP"'"^" ^eXav bringing the participle into 
 this position NBTT'X. Observe both Egyptian documents T and T', 
 which are extant together here, join NBX. 
 
 Also observe that the change in Luke xxii. 50 follows very closely 
 the change in order at xxii. 45 where KBDLT4' prefer Kot/iB)fievov<! avrovv 
 (a kind of partial accusative absolute) for auTou? Kot/uofievov^, showing 
 deep grammatical consideration. The change is not made in the parallels 
 except by L at Matt. xxvi. 40. 
 
 For preference of genitive before the noun observe inter alia Matt, 
 xii. 13 e«T«(i'oi' (7 1/ Ti/v x^'P<'^ ^y '^BL Sod'^° 1 33 157, against ekt. tj/v 
 X^pO' "■Of by the vast majority. 
 
 This method however with the possessive is Coptic. 
 
 Cf Mark xii. 37 avTov eoTiv vtot BhT' Sod"" 2"" Sod""' only out of 
 six varying orders. 
 
 Harmonistic. 
 
 Lake 
 
 v. 19. TravTiov {pro tov Ii]<tov) Cf Marc ii. 12 
 
 vi. 33 init. xai yap eav (ex Matt. v. 46) 
 
 viii. 16. — iva 01 eKTTTopevofievoi pXeirwin to if>a><t {Cf Marc iv. 21) 
 xi. 24. +TOT£ (ante Xeyei) N'BLXS Sod''" 33 157 892 Paris" 
 
 Laura* '" Sod"" Evst 48 y"" 6 1 sah boh Orig Sod txt. 
 Notwithstanding what, by the canons of W-H, they should 
 consider very strong evidence,t they place tot6 in square 
 brackets only. It is clearly a theft from Matt. xii. 44 (where 
 there is no variation) and they must have had a suspicion of this. 
 Orig, as usual, (ex Luc vid) is responsible for re-introducing a 
 false text into our schools and colleges and seminaries. Not 
 the " true text," as the self-constituted arbiters of the printed 
 Greek Text for the last thirty years have assured us that 
 they have placed in our hands. 
 
 The character of the eclectic witnesses as grouped (vrithout 
 syr or D rf) should have been decisive. 
 
 Immediately following we have the same thing : 
 25. +axoXal;ovTa (post evpiaxei) N^BCLBPH^ min" et Sod"^"* 
 f I copt aeth Orig [W-H]. Soden omits, although accepting 
 tot£ in xi. 24 ! 
 
 t Compare Matt. xxi. 12, ' Select Readings ' p. 15, where they speak of MBL 13 3.3 
 b tyr hier mem Iheb arm aeth Orig Chr, as "overwhelming evidence." 
 
2G8 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Again Oiig brings this in from Matt xii. 44 where we read 
 " Kat eXdov evpicrxei a^oXa^ovTa xai (TetTapia/ievov xai KeKoerfiTj- 
 fievov." 
 
 W-H again have it in Luke, but in square brackets, having 
 
 discovered something seriously amiss with the worshipful 
 
 " neutral " text when it adds like this from a close parallel in 
 
 two consecutive verses ! 
 
 xii. 22. TO) aafutri +vfiav BT min aliq-"* a vg^^ cor vat* sah boh 
 
 syr pesh [non cu sj»] aeth Clem 1/2 
 
 All others are against this addition (= Matt. vi. 25). 
 
 But W-H have it although in square brackets and Souter's 
 edition follows without brackets. Soden rejects it. 
 
 A glance at B in the neighbourhood will show the MS 
 against T in the same verse (only support c e) and in verse 20 
 BLQT 33 Paris" W-H had asked us to accept atTovaw for 
 airanovaiv against all others and a huge array of Fathers 
 very definitely, so that they convince the Kevisers and Souter 
 and they restore airanovaw to the text without comment, 
 xxii. 9 fin. -\-aoi ij>ayeiv to iraa^a (post eToi/uKToi/ieii) So B alone, 
 and hoh""^, a deliberate theft from Matt. xxvi. 17. The others 
 were more modest, for a few add something, ff adds tibi 
 pascha, vg"^ +pascha, DP'? c d e gat sah aeth +<toi, but 
 Origen again (" e Luoa ?" says Tisch. " Certe quae sequuntur 
 non a Mt pendent ") wov OeXeit eToifiatro/iev aoi to vaa'xa. 
 CI. ptifiaTO^ {pro Xoyov) NBLTX 4 124 [contra/am] 213 Paris" 
 892 Sod'"- "" W-H B-V [non Sod]. Cf Matt. xxvi. 75, 
 Mark xiv. 72. 
 
 Cf also Luc. xviii. 30 XajSij for airoKa^r] Only BDM min 
 pane [not 892 Paris"] JF-H"" \non R-Vnec Sod] against N and 
 all the uncials. Xafir) is the word in Mark x. 30. 
 
 Neutral and Western tied together. 
 
 Again and again D goes with B in Luke. Is this the "neutral" or 
 what is it ? 
 
 vi.l 4. -m? init. BD E^ip/t only against all the rest. In W-H it 
 is in the text in square brackets. But either Ei)i2)h is quite 
 wrong or he and BD are right. There can be no two ways 
 about it. Then why put it in in square brackets ? I have 
 said that Hort did not know his children when he saw them. 
 Here is a case in point. You can't call it " western " and 
 "neutral" and you can't call it either "western" or 
 " neutral." Then what is it ? 
 a* clearly read lot, for N" corrects to wm?. Sah introduces 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 269 
 
 HA.a) Itge by XE = syr pesh on (omittmg a>^). Boh has 
 nuuc. W has «?. It seems clear that there was something 
 in the margin " ad emendandum " which misled B. 
 In this connection note : 
 
 ix. 3. -ava NBC'FLS 254 Paris'" £»«< 48 si/rcojjnF-ffSo(f. The 
 omission (also supported hy lat which does not express it) looks 
 like an " improvement," for when we turn to the independent 
 witness D*' we find that he has it with wtc^' and even d'" 
 opposite has ana (against other Latins). W has it and Sod'"'. 
 XV. 30. Tov anevTov fio(Txov {pro tov fxoaxov tov anevTov) is not 
 elegant, yet it is read by NBLQR Paris'" Sod"''' W-H and 
 Sod txt and d e but only these [notW]. The other latt oppose 
 and with copt read very plainly vitulum saginatum, " the calf 
 which is nourished " (Horner), 
 xvii. 24. [ovTo)'! e<naiovto<;Tovav6pwiTov] — ev rri rifiepa avTOV BD 220 
 a b d ei sah, boh'"' [non W] {ovTa>^; einai i) ruitpa rov viov tov 
 avdpanrov syr cu sin). TF-Jf "' omits. Soden does not. 
 xviii. 21. (K vfOTijTo? {-/lov) BD d I {syr en s«i) Dial et Terf""°. 
 This may well be basic, [non W.] W-H omits. Soden 
 has it. 
 xix. 17. evye BD 56 58 01 (all three absolutely influenced by latin 
 throughout) 892 [non al. minn] Orig and lat euge IF-K'", 
 and Soden who had just refused —/ton above ! 
 xxiii. 35. After the grave omission in xxiii. 34 we find BD alone 
 have u(09 for outo? here in ver. 35 (add T' fam 13 126 131 
 Paris" Laura* •" c"' Sod"'' sah boh arm Eus { r with the 
 addition of uw? later in the verse). 
 
 Westcott and Hort do not follow B here. Then why omit 
 with B ver 34 ? Is B not basic in verse 35 ? 
 xxiv. 24. oi/Tti)9 Kaffu)'! ai yvvaiKei; { — xat tcrt) BD [non al. vid.] latt 
 syr arm aeth sah 1/2 boh"" W-H [nil in 7ng.] 
 32. ovxi- V icapBia Tjfiwv xato/ievr] rjv { — ev tiiuv) BD dee vg^ * syr 
 cu sin [non al. syr] Orig et Orig"^ TF-if "" [non copt]. This 
 almost looks like a "nicety " of Origen however, shared by the 
 others. 
 48. iiapTvpit (-e<TT£) BD Sod'" "*° d Aug W-H only {boh aeth 
 possibly). B also omits the Se preceding (not so D d). 
 It is possible that the omission is an error from YMClcecTe 
 in B, but D writes kaiymeicag as if ecT6 had been lost in 
 €ICA6. C Paris" ffi r vg^^ invert the order : fmpTvpet eare. 
 We might go as far as to suggest that B* in : 
 ii. 21 fin may have had mpc, that is €v tij xoiXia fiJiTpot, as D ci alone, 
 for there is a space there in B. {Tisch does not refer to it.) 
 
 I mention this as there are other points as to B neglected 
 in Tisch. Thus at :— 
 
•270 
 
 l.uko 
 
 COPEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 ii. 40 ho mentions D alone as having w^aveTO for vv^avev. This 
 is ahnost certainly the reading of B* (see photographic edition) 
 though not reported for B. 
 Note conjunction of BDW at : 
 
 iv. -10. effepa-rrevep {}>ro e0epanev<Tev) BDW 21 v""" latt SJjr and Orig 
 
 iprob) 
 IM. Se< fie {pro )j.e 8ei) BDW 130 892 [non Paris"] latt 
 
 Tcrt (against N and all the Greeks). 
 Even 
 V. -2. For aireirXwav, ^vhere NC'LQX 372 Paris" have eirXwav, 
 
 BDW 892 are not to be separated, having eifKwov. 
 (N.B. — This is immediately followed inverse 3 by —tov anteatfuavo's, 
 NBDLW l.'')7 Paris".) 
 
 " Neutral " " pre-Syrian " " pre-Alexandrian " misnomers for B. 
 
 X. 21. +Tr<) ayiMjiost Trvev/xaTi although supported by NBCDKLXnS 
 
 mill'' Sod'""" ct Paris" a b c d effil copt syr arm aeth looks 
 
 suspiciously like an "addition" when Clem Bas oppose 
 
 with / q goth AEGHMSUVW^PAA viin permtdt [+892]. 
 
 Here is a case where the despised " Antioch " and Clevi prove 
 
 to have the shorter text and 892t deliberately contradicts NB. 
 
 The place is important. 
 
 " In that hour (Jesus) rejoiced in (the) spirit (ei/ t<b Ttvev/jaTi) and said " 
 
 ... It is here that B and company wish to add tod ayta which seems 
 
 unnecessary and rather fulsome. 
 
 There is no help from Matthew (xi. 25) where the prayer is introduced 
 thus : €v cKeivw rio Kaipa aTroxpiOei'; 6 Irjcrovt enrev. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria is very definite here: ayaWtaaa/ievo^ (showing 
 as Barnard points out that the quotation is from Luke and not from 
 Matthew) yow ev t<u TTvevfiari Irjaov^ e^o/ioXoyov/uii aoi irarep, ifnfiTiv, o 
 ^e09 TOv ovpavov xai T779 77;? OTt aireKpvylrai Tavra ano ffo^xav /cat avverotv 
 Kai aTreKa\v\jra<; avra vrjTnof; ' vai Ttarrfp on outw? evSoieia eyevcTO 
 eixirpoaOev aov. 
 
 If we may not follow Clem here, when may we follow him? 
 Barnard's note says " Clement omits tw 07101 after ■nvevfiari with the 
 Syrian Text (including A / q)." This old bosh about a " Syrian " text I 
 It is probably the basic text which even in Alexandria after Clement's time 
 suffered this gloss. 
 
 t This urns/ bo consiilereJ in such places. Observe how constantly 892 upholds 
 I! elsewhere; even to +Kai in vii. 47 quite alone with Paris" of all authorities with B. 
 B 892 then clearly have one base, and 892 here in x. 21 is the true exponent of it, not B. 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 271 
 
 xxiii. 4(5. In the passage xai <f>u>vt]cra'; <j>tiivT) /leyaXj] o 1i;<toi/? enrev ' irmep 
 fi<r ^eipat crov irapaTiffe/iai to Trvevfia fiov. . . .e^envevcrev there 
 is a good deal of conflict as to whether we should read tovto 
 Se eiirayv NBC*D"'W (for xat TavTa eiTTwv of many) or xai 
 TOVTO einav or tovto enrtov or simply Kai with Adamant a syr 
 cu sin. If we want the shorter text (in view of this great 
 divergence looking like an addition) we shall choose this " xai 
 e^€iTveviTev," or it we want the shortest, we shall eliminate 
 the whole final clause " touto. . .f^eiruevcrev " with X and four 
 cursives adding Sod"' (= 213). At any rate NBD do not 
 supply us with the shortest and by inference the most "neutral " 
 or colourless text, 
 xxiv. 17 fn. Kai e<TTc oKvOpwiroi By most, that is eighteen uncials and 
 A^^W (€<7Tai UK.) latt [except d e) syrr against Kai caTadrjaav 
 (TKvOpioiroi of NA**''' (L eaTTjaav) Paris" e salt boh (Orig?) 
 aeth aliq. Tischendort's note is very full here. 
 
 But D d Cyr'"" have only irKvOptovoi the "shorter" text, 
 eliminating both eo-rc and eaTaOrjtrav- If we want the 
 "shorter" text, we have to assume both eo-re and ecrrrjcrav 
 (L) expanded perhaps to e(TTa6t)aav, to be additions. 
 
 (Syr hier^ omits xai eaTadrjaav and uKvOpwrroi). 
 
 W-H admit xai eaTaOrjirav aKvBpioiroi into their text without 
 marginal comment. Yet in their ' Notes on Select Readings ' 
 towards the end of Luke they have a lot to say about the 
 Western "non-interpolations." Here is one they might well 
 have followed. Sod quotes Orig for omission [see Tisch] but 
 Soi"'' does not omit. 
 21. -a-n/iepov NBL 1 {non 118-131-209] Paris" boh (syr) 
 vg^ [Mat r,] W-Hwai Sod tit against the rest and W. This 
 is an interesting place. The usual text runs : 
 
 aXXa ye <Jvv iraai tovtoii Tpnifv toutj/v i]/i€pav crrjfAepov 
 ayei a^ ov touto eyevcTo. It is here that NBL drop crrj/Mepov 
 as being pleonastic following Tpnrjv TavTtjv rjfiepav. What 
 do the great majority do ? They retain both. But observe 
 that D HJiVt d and all Latins Aug bis drop TavT-qv and 
 retain atjfiepov. Who is right? When this kind of thing 
 occurs, and when the 1 family (as above) is engaged in 
 internecine warfare, I prefer to follow the " Western " omission 
 of TavTijv rather than the "Egyptian" [not "neutral"] 
 omission of oTinepov. For the Latins are quite agreed here. 
 
 Again I say that Hort [silent in his ' Select Readings '] would 
 have done well to consider this. The syriac shows that the 
 
 t Of these I identify 22 ? (" Colb " Wctst) 42 71 Evsl 150. Add Soin^-'i ' n"- 
 
272 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 biisic text is involved, for they agree among themselves. It 
 is true that <n]/iepov does not appear, but they have their own 
 way of doing things in such an expression, and it is note- 
 worthy that they agree among themselves as do the Latins. 
 
 General Improvement. 
 
 ii. 24. +rw{,antcvoixu,) ^^T»\jW 2" miW-H Sod}"'" ettxt. Observe 
 D does it too against the influence of d. It vrould be insig- 
 nificant for B except that all through ch. i. and ch. ii. to this 
 point he has been throvping away articles with the Latin ; see 
 even ii. 22 just above — tou ante Kadaptaiiov. 
 { — iv vofia Kvpiov Paris" with T f") 
 iv. 9. avTov €1? l\7)|i Kai c(nT)afv { — avrov) eiri to Tnepvyiov tov lepov. 
 The omission of avTov sec. by NBLH C04 892? Paris" e 
 Orig''"' is opposed by the Coptics as well as by the other Greek 
 uncials, by the Latins and Syriacs, and every other Greek 
 minuscule known. t 
 iv. 33/34. -Xe76)v NBLV'WH Paris" 604 Sod''''" [non al. miii] sah boh 
 aijr sin Orig W-H Sod txt against everything else. There is 
 no reason for others to add here. The narrative is graphic 
 and it has been removed to lend greater force to the dramatic 
 character of the immediate cry of the demoniac. 
 
 Consult hoh " And he cried out with a great shout. . . " where 
 n^poJOTT replaces HcJUtH of sah. 
 
 In sah and hoh the exclamatory question of the demoniac 
 
 is, as usual, introduced by xE thus practically replacing Xrywi/. 
 
 V. 0. ix^voiv tov crvveKa^ov {pro ix^vav 77 avvcKafiov) BDX 213 d 
 
 TF-H"" against rell (ixO- V <Tvve\. Sod"'" Paris"). 
 
 18. +avTov {post dEivai) BLH 157 Sod'"^ VV-H] {sijr copt 
 
 aeth) against the rest and N, not the "shorter" text. 
 
 3G. -f-aTTo {ante L^arwv) NBDLWXH 1 13 22 33 (157*?) 213 
 
 004 892 Sod"' if' sijr copt W-H Sod txt. 
 
 vi. 3. -ovTe<;fin. Here is the " shorter " text with NBDLXW 1 22 
 
 33 C9 157 213 004 892 Paris" al^ copt {syr) W-Ht but from Matt 
 
 xii. 3 and Mark ii. 25. Why should any add ovxe? if not here 
 
 originally, seeing it is absent from the synoptics ? " Kai 01 
 
 fier avTov " is quite sufficient. There is no need for ovret 
 
 unless it belongs properly to the original writing of St. Luke. 
 
 In St. Matthew none add, and in St. Mark only D(A) and lat. 
 
 t I'dii 6'o<7fn'» additional testimony is insignificant (So(;i='i» >'<3). Yet this "pair" 
 offends him, and he casts out the second avroy from his text, as did the Alexandrians 
 and Hort and Tischendorf before him. 
 
 X Not SoiUn, who followed the same group just above. Sod"" also omits optis. 
 
 n IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 273 
 
 vi. 9. « pro T( NBDLW 157 Paris" it pi (copt). 
 
 W-H simply accept this as the true text. But is it ? « is 
 rather the harder reading. It is necessary to write it out : 
 Here are the alternatives involving an alternative punctuation : 
 
 fTTeptoTqao) (vel (TrepcoToi) vpat ei e^eariv Tft) (ra^jSaTO) wyaBo- 
 TTOiTjcrai 1} KaKOT7oir)aai, ; 
 
 eirepaTTjao) {vel eirepaTa) vpai Tt e^eariv tco ero/9/3aT(» ; ayaffo- 
 ■KoiTjaai 7) KaKOTToirjaai ; 
 
 Note that in Mark (iii. 4) it runs xat \eyei avroit • e^ecrriv (si 
 licet latt aliq) Toit aa^^aaw k.t.X. without ei or «, but the 
 few Greeks who add, add ti and not ei. 
 
 In Matt. xii. 10 it is ei e^ecmv without fluctuation. Much 
 more natural then is ei a correction in Luke than the " true " 
 text. And n is to be preferred as being harder. Soden 
 accepts this. Sod"''" reads tj against NBDLW. 
 25. -hwv {})ost ep-TreTrXtjcr/ievot) Observe a/aoiher addition. This 
 by a rather large group NBLQETI^XWA'AH Sod"'" min pmic 
 ct Soa"""""' f goth arm aeth copt W-H Sod txt. 
 
 The rest and Latins with sijr pesh diatess, Iren'"' very 
 distinctly, and Bas omit, and probably Tert. Syr sin omits 
 25° oval Vfiiv 01 epTTeTr\r)(Tfievoi (vvv) on ireivaaere. 
 
 The vvv appears superfluous, yet if present it does not 
 follow that it would be omitted. And if superfluous why 
 should NBL etc. add it, except by way of improvement? 
 20. Next comes the " shorter text," an omission by B alone of 
 01 varepei; avraiv at the end of the verse (briefly noticed in 
 'Gen. of Versions, 'p. 400). Do IF-i? follow? No. "Butsyrsin 
 sah and 004 since discovered, also omit. Does this strengthen 
 the case? Not very much, but it shows that something 
 bothered B, and in fact at this place there are signs of an 
 erasure. [Only Sorf"" (= our 273) appears to omit 01 woTcpe?.] 
 t 28. ■npoaevx^oOe irepi to>v eTrepea^ovraiv vpat NBLWH Paris" 
 004 only W-H Sod (no new mss.), against all and copt and 
 Clem Orig Ens. 
 vii. 6. If the above at vi. 20 be wrong (and W-H by not following 
 allow this), then why may not the omission of Trpo? avrov here 
 by only N'B 892 Paris" sah [not boh] followed by W-H and 
 Soden's text be equally wrong ? How could all others including 
 L etc. have found it in their copies ? The corrector of N, 
 observe, put it back. 
 
 The foolishness of it all is seen at : 
 11. -iKavoc NBDFLH 130" '" 1.57 a e f ff g,.2 I vg cop syr 
 
 t Sec (ibove under " Exchange of Frepositioiis.' 
 
274 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 (ir))i. Yet Tischcndorf and Sodeii retain ixavoi against this 
 
 strong-looking group. \V-H, more consistent, omit. W and 
 
 r.iris" with Sod'-" "" also omit. Sod""" retains. 
 
 vii. 47. +Kai {ante oXiyov sec.) B 892 Paris" alone with Evut^"'^"""", 
 
 but deliberate. Syr cu a in + om alone seems possibly 
 
 responsible for this. 
 
 viii. (i. Kaje-neaev (pro cjrecrev) BLEH 604 soli and \V-H without 
 
 marginal alternative ! Soden does not add a single new 
 
 witness, yet adopts it in his text. 
 
 ix. 14. +a>n-ei {ante ava) Although supported by an apparently 
 
 formidable array XBCDLRs 33 1-57 213 892 Paris" Sod"" "" 
 
 (( c sail Orig, and admitted into W-H's and Soden's text, is 
 
 excluded by Tischendorf who refers to Mark vi. 40 (" at vdtr 
 
 propter Marci Kara exaTov xai xara TrevTriKovra invectiim"). 
 
 Here, then, is an acknowledgment of an Origenian " subtlety " 
 
 (see Canon Cook's remarks supra in Introduction). It is 
 
 clearly far more likely for an addition of aiaei to be editorial than 
 
 a subtraction of it. There would be no reason for subtraction. 
 
 47. e7n\afioiJ.(vo<i -naiiiov BCD I"" Paris" mW et Sofi''"""''"' 
 
 W-H Sod'''"- {pro eTn\a0. iratSw v rell gr ct \V) 
 
 It may be thought that the partitive genitive iratSwv is the 
 
 improvement here. But comparing Mark's account xat Xa^av 
 
 ■nathiov, it would seem that BC followed D and latt for 
 
 eTTiXajS. TratSio v in Luke [In Matt, it is TrpoaxaXecra/tevo^ 
 
 ■naiSiov] and eschewed the genitive on purpose. 
 
 Evan. 28 sides with BCD, but W is opposed and goes with 
 N and the great majority for the genitive. I mention the 
 place as most N. T. grammarians seem to be silent here. 
 eTTiXafi^avw can take either accusative or genitive, but if we 
 read -n-aiBiov then ttjk x^'P'^ '^ doubtless understood. It has a 
 bearing on that very difficult place at Mark xiv. 72, where 
 e-jTi^aXiov exXaiev has to be interpreted and where the Coptic 
 adds T);v %6(/3a. There indeed A uses fTriXa^oyv for ciriPaXtov. 
 If iraihiov in Luke be original it would seem that we have 
 some authority for eliding ti/v x^'P" ".vtov in Mark xiv. 72. 
 xi. 10 fin. avoiyerai {pro avoixdr)<T(Tai) BD" syr to accord with 
 Xafi0avei. {Matt vii. 7-8 avoiyijaeTai, but in Matt. vii. 8 B 
 (D wanting) does it also to accord with cvpicrKei, but not 
 ver. 7 leaving avoiyriacTai following Soffrjcrerai. See note ad 
 Inc. in Bfatthew.) Soden has no new witness to add to BD in 
 Luke or to B in Matthew. 
 
 (See Luke xi. 12 under " Solecisms.") 
 14. —KaiavToriv " if.k'M'h aV cop arm aeth." So 2' isch. Add 
 892 Sorf"* [not Paris"] W-H Sod txt. Boh omits, but sah has 
 it in a way (eju6qajA.xe rendered by Horner " which is not 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 275 
 
 wont to speak " although in his notes he classes this as if it were 
 plain Kai^ov and not xai avro ijv k(0(J>ov). The omission seems 
 clearly an improvement. If xai rjv cK^aXXav Saiftoviov ica><f>ov 
 had stood originally, why on earth should any one add leat 
 avTo Tju? Syr cu sin modify otherwise. They say "And 
 it came to pass when he was casting out a devil from a 
 deaf-mute." T) d e f are also prolix and uncertain witnesses 
 here (see their testimony) so that there was simply some 
 note in a common original which was perplexing. As 
 some latin, with the syriac, as well as Coptic are involved, it 
 distinctly strengthens my contention for a second century 
 polyglot which is at the root of the trouble, 
 xi. 33. ^a? {pro </)677o?) NBCDT'X Sod"" al. et 892 W-H [non Sod]. 
 Doubtless from viii. 16 where all agree on (^wt. Why should 
 AL unc" make a change from <^a><; to <f>eyyo<; ? The parallels in 
 Matt. V. and Mark iv. supply nothing to this effect. We have 
 to go to Matt. xxiv. 29 and Mark xiii. 24, in quite a different 
 connection, to find <t>€yyo';. Hence ijieyyot is much more likely 
 here than <^<»? which must be an " improvement." 
 xii. 20. anovaiv airo <tov {pro air anovaiv a-rro aov) BLQT"°' 33 d 
 {contra D" et rell latt). Apparently to remove redvmdancy. 
 aTT anovaiv is read by Clem twice t Origen everywhere and 
 Orig'"', Basil Antioch^""" ' '' " and the Latins repetunt, 
 reposcnnt (also Tert: reposcent, Iren'"*: expostulabunt) c (and 
 Cypr'") eipostulatur, as well as e Orig'"' auferetnr. 
 
 Would it be believed possible that in face of this evidence 
 W-H use aiTovaw in their text tvithout marginal alternative ? 
 This is criticism gone mad, and against all rules of majority. 
 ■^f does not support nor does new W, nor 892, and the only 
 help is from the new Paris" = anovcrw tt/k ^fruxv "■"" "''"' 
 irov, but of course Paris" belongs largely to special family 
 traditions. Soden prints [air]anov<Ttv. 
 
 28. afi^ia^ei {pro an^ievvvai) B™' (Doric. Cf. D Act xix. 3-5 
 vaoKopov pro veaxopov) t, a/i(^i6?ei DLT"'"' only. This is con- 
 tradicted by all others including W and Paris" (also Matt, 
 vi. 30 all) and EpipW""" and Cltm in Luke. 
 
 W-H follow B alone [Soden adds no new support] with 
 apipta^et (no marginal alternative) and Soden's text has 
 afi(f>ie^ei, although he gives no fresh uss for this. 
 
 31. avTov {pro tov 6eov) XBD"'* (against d opposite and D*' 
 
 f Once Tfji/ yf/v\Tfif iroii oTrni Tot/trt 1/ ttiro aov, once liherc anaiTovai <tov {~aiTn) ttjv 
 y^fv^Tjv ; again rai^rr; Tq vvKTt rr)v \^v\i^v trov Trnpa\nfii3avovatv. Observe Coiiat Mdc Bas 
 Antioch Epiph Clem and Justin in verse 48. 
 
 X Cf. the 80-caIIe(l '* Doric " gauJer of Xj/ior which B makes feminine at Luke xv. 14. 
 
 T 2 
 
270 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 siqira avTov) Jj^V Paris" « c salt boh aefh Atli [oin. tov Oeov 
 S<,)2]. 
 
 At fust this support looks serious, but it is far outweighed by all the 
 other GrccJix, Latins, Syriacs, besides Clement and il/a?-cio»'''"'*"''^P''''''"' 
 (Clem uses in his long quotation 27/31 tov deov, and C/eHt'""' toiv ovpaviov 
 [= Matt. vi. 33 perhaps with Justin]). 
 
 The point is this. In verse 30 we read : v/iau Se o vaTtip otSev on 
 Xpi^ere TOVTcav. (31) ttXijv fTjTetre tjjk fiacriXeiav tov deov. . . 
 
 Apparently some considered this a kind of anaooluthon, following 
 TraTTjp, and thought avTov read better in verse 31 than an abrupt 
 transition to tov 6eov. But the weight of evidence is conclusive, and if 
 Marcion may not be accepted here as arbiter, who may ? 
 
 Sedulously W-H incorporate avTov into their text without any 
 marginal alternative, as if they could thus turn the tables on Marcion 
 for all time. Soden also has avTov in his text, but adduces no additional 
 evidence for it. In fact he leaves out sah boh aeth and Ath. 
 
 TcrtuUian is very definite (Marc. iv. 28 310) : " Quaerite enim 
 inquit regnum del et haec vobis adicientur"; (Marc. iii. 24 180): "Et 
 ICvangeliuin vestrum quoque habet Quaerite primum regnum dei et 
 haec adicientur vobis." Further (Orat vi. 8) he shows no signs of 
 avTov when he writes : " Quaerite prius regnum [the Kingdom] : et tunc 
 vobis etiam haec adicientur." 
 
 Now turn to Matthew for control. The last from Tert may be 
 partly INIatthew (vi. 33) or not. There tjji' jBaaiKuav tov Oeov is followed 
 by Kai TTjv ZiKaioavvqv avTov. In the case of NB gy k m Etts Ps-Ath tov 
 Oeov is here omitted, and B shows that some consideration was being 
 exercised about the passage for he inverts the order (alone) writing ttjk 
 SiKaioavvrjv Kai Ti)v ^aaiKeiav avTov ( — tov 6eov). [Origen is very free, 
 and 230 440 co^jt supply avTov for tov deov as the others indicated in 
 Luke. Here again in Matthew the phrase in dispute, verse 33, has to 
 follow verse 32 with its o iraTtip v/imv.] 
 
 k is very definite in Matt, (wanting of course in Luke) for he writes 
 " quaerite primo regnum et justitiam dl." 
 
 I.uko 
 
 xii. Wi fin. ovK otSaTe hoKijxa^ew (ino ov SoKifM^eTe) . This is an en- 
 largement of the narrative. Instead of : 
 
 VTTOKptTat TO irpo(ro37rov tt;? ytj^ Kat tov ovpavov (vel tov ovp. 
 Kai Tij<; 7^?) oi&aTe Sofctp-a^etv • tov he Kaipov tovtov 7r&>9 ov 
 hoKip-a^eTe NBLT Sod""" 33 213 892 Sod''^'- [non Paris"] 
 wish to exchange the last two words for ovk oiSaTe Soxtfia^eiv. 
 That is to say they make a harmonious although tautological 
 antithesis to the first clause. This change is countenanced by 
 sah boh aeth and supported by (ff) I. This forms a very pretty 
 group therefore, for ^ /, as I have shown elsewhere, certainly 
 partake of Egyptian characteristics. The group therefore 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 277 
 
 NBLT 33 [to which do not add Paris" this time] sah boh aeth 
 ff I are involved in an amplification, which Hort religiously 
 follows without marginal comment. I claim that this is 
 revision, and that the rest of the documents have preserved the 
 true text. Nor is this all, for the amplification suggests a 
 knowledge on the part of this Egyptian group of the disputed 
 parallel passage in Matt. xvi. 2", 3, for there the expression 
 is " TO fiev Trpoawnov Tav ovpavmv yivoiiTKeTe Siaxpivetv ra oe 
 cnjiieia Tav Kaipav ov hvvaaBe" (al. +Boiipa^eiv, al. +yvavai, 
 L ov SoKifia^ere, S al. ov avvieTe, al. aeth ov yivaxTKere) , while 
 NBVXr 13* 124* 157 al. sijr cu sin sah boh 14/22 arm Orig 
 omit the whole thing. Notice that aeth has it in Matthew, 
 and eight codices of boh and TJ'. Now the amplification at the 
 end of Luke xii. .50 by NBLT 33 finds an echo in Matt xvi. 3. 
 Hence, while excluding from Matthew on critical grounds, 
 NBLT 33 no doubt knew the form attributed to Matthew. 
 In fact, as far as ff (I) are concerned with non potestis probate 
 in Luke, they clearly reproduce the ov &vvaa-Oe Bok. or yviovat 
 of St. Matthew. 
 xiv. 5. ei? ij>peap TreaeiTai NABLWH min pauc Paris" et 892 (lat 
 cadet or ceciderit) \Y-H Sod for et? (^/>eop ep-ireaeiTai of the mass. 
 This seems to be simply removing redundancy, for why should 
 any add ep.- here, if not original? It seems most unlikely. 
 D has epiTe<TeiTai and incidet. Sod"" and 213 have ep-Treaei. 
 
 10. TOTe eaTai rroi So^a evaiTiov iravTtov Tav avvavaxeifievav aoi. 
 This addition of TravTav by KABLNX Sod"^" min pauc Paris" 
 and 892, although supported by aeth copt syr [here syr and 
 latin divide squarely], is opposed by the mass of Greeks and 
 the Latins (all except r), and may be due to the original mis- 
 reading of €NU)niONTU)N read by mistake for itavTrnv. 
 Certainly it is not the "shorter" text. Or it may be mere 
 " improvement." W-H and Sod adopt iravTwv. 
 
 Note that syr sin opposes syr cu pesh diatess and omits 
 with the Latins and the Greeks headed by D. 
 
 1.5. paxapwi; oaTf; ^ayeTai apTov ev ti; fiaa: tov Oeov. Here 
 N'BLPBX fam 1 al. pauc W-H Sod txt emphasise oo-ti? for 
 09 of D and the mass, who are supported by the Latin qui and 
 by Clement Bas Epiph (Ens is on both sides). It would seem 
 (as against Clement) that the minority are improving. 
 Note that N' is against B. 
 
 18. e^eXffiov iBew (tor e^eXdetv Kai iSeiv) by NBDL^ W-H Sod only, 
 I believe to be an improvement. GK cop syr arm aeth read 
 e^eXdeiv tBetv. The other fifteen uncials all min goth and Basil 
 with latt (omn except d) read e^eX0eiv xai iSeiv. NBL are 
 alone, and only strengthened by D. The last (as d agrees) has 
 
278 
 
 Liiho 
 
 CODIiX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 some weight however. Sod"'' and rails'" come to the assistance 
 of this minority group with aireXfftov tSetv, but W joins the 
 mass with e^eXffeiv xai iheiv. This is the more noteworthy in 
 such a place, as DW are often conjoined. 
 XV. 2. 01 T€ <f>aptnaioi xai oi ypau. re is added by NBL 892 [nmi 
 Paris"] only, + D (against d and all others, and against 
 Basil). This is again an nc?rf(<ioH. Why should it ever have 
 been dropped if original ? W does not have it, nor even that 
 faithful adherent Paris". Soden follows Hort with +Te, but 
 only adduces the same family Mss as in other like cases, two at 
 Jerusalem and one at Sinai. Below at xvii. 11 Soden opposes 
 the same group. 
 21/?;. -\-iroir)a-ov fie m? eva T(dv fiitrBioiv aov Only NBDUX 33 
 604 7ni)(" add with only vg^^'^ gat, not Old Latin (except d) 
 nor syriac nor Coptic. This of course comes from verse 19 
 where the prodigal son formulated beforehand what he would 
 say. When he comes to the father's arms however and sees 
 the look in his eyes, the second expression dies on his lips. 
 Augustine points this out " nee addit quod in ilia meditatione 
 dixerat ' fao me sicut unum de mercennariis tuis ' " . . . (See 
 quotation at length in Tiscli.) Even Hort, hardened slave to 
 his combination NB, especially strengthened by D d, felt this, 
 for he encloses the sentence in square brackets. Of course it 
 should be banished from his text altogether. But the baleful 
 influence extends to li.V. inarg which says "some ancient 
 authorities add. . ." 
 
 Paris" does not add, nor W, nor Sod"''°, nor 892, and the above 
 miii^^ are a mixed lot without special weight, and Terf"^'" 
 seems to ignore it. Soden omits although having re above 
 with the smaller group. 
 xvi. 29. -avTio HBTj Fans" 892 d (contraD") syr sin Jo/i''"» «>" a'^i' 
 arm Ephr {contra Aphraat) W-H [Sod]. 
 
 All others have it. 
 
 This is evidently intentional and regarded as an improve- 
 ment. Again, two boJi codd go with KBL against sail Y>" and 
 the rest, 
 xvii. 11. ev TO) -nopeveadai { — avTov) KBL (Paris") W-H only. Cf. d 
 " cum iter faceret " (against D*' -f-auTov) the other latins drim 
 irct and dttm vadit, and the other versions. Soden opposes 
 NBL here. 
 12. v-wr^vTqaav ( — outm) Llonly ones to drop avrm with one boh"'" 
 mryjuTrjirav ( — avTco) B( [Paris" 892 have yTriji'Tj/o-av outm] 
 
 Oiii. vTT rjvTrjaav avTo) syr cu sin ; siibleg. iSov. 
 
 Substitute oirov rjaav D d e. Substitute et ecce a b c ffi I q s. 
 
 Whatever the true basic text (and W-H merely adopt B, and 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 279 
 
 Soden follows L) the shortest text is in syr cu sin ; D d and the 
 latins is the simplest, and if airrjVTriaav or vTtrjvTqaav find a 
 place, ouTo) clearly belongs there as well, as witnessed to by all, 
 including Paris"'. W has airrjVTria-av avra. Soden confuses us 
 as to D by quoting D with BL for -avrw, for, as he says 
 above, D has oirov riaav for vnrivTri<Tav, and therefore avrai 
 falls away of itself. He quotes 157 (his ''") wrongly. 157 
 has avTto. 
 xvii. 31. —TO) (ante aypay) " And he who is in a field " NBL fam 13 
 [non 124] 157 Paris" W-H Sod txt only, but cf. boh. I would 
 like to enquire of voji Soden if S 371 (Sinai 260) does not also 
 do this. It is important for us to know whether S 371 follows 
 B in such places, as it is with it alone elsewhere in Luke, 
 and its geographical location at Sinai is important, 
 xix. 4. -{■ eii TO (ante e/inpoaeev) Only NBL (157 €i? to) f" 892 [jio« 
 T", non Paris"] (e ff) (syr sin) W-H Sod txt not only against the 
 rest, but against both Coptics. Sah is very simply eoh, boh 
 6T"A.q<Joxi ETgH A.qc[|E ff*.q. 
 
 The syr is equally simple. 
 
 Not even Paris" adds et? to here. Soden however adds 
 the new witness"". I think it is rather significant of 
 attempted " improvement " that both here and in Luke xiii. 7 
 Evan 157 should vary slightly, here adding ei? to instead 
 of ei<t TO, and there adding a<l> i;; instead of a<^ ov. 
 
 157 also throws some light on the omission in the next 
 verse : — 
 5. - etSev avTov Kai by NBLT' Sod"'" fam 1 Paris" Laura* '" Sod'*" 
 copt arm W-H Sod txt. There is absolutely no reason to 
 suppose that the great majority should have added this phrase. 
 But to NBL it seems to have savoured of pleonasm, ava- 
 /3X,€-v^a9 iTjo-ou? eiSev avTov xai enrev irpot avrov. 
 
 The old exemplar from which 157 is derived seems to have 
 had some note on this passage, for 157 changes thus : xat 
 eyeveTO ev to) ?>iep-}^ea6at tov njaovv eiSev avrov " ava^Xe'^jra's 
 he (Tjtrou? enre irpois avrov. These things should all be taken 
 into consideration in weighing evidence. 
 27. rai KaraaAa^are +avrov<! NBFLNR Sod'"'' 7 33 53 157 213 
 892 Paris" Sod"" Evst 18 19 49 H."" y" z"' copt syr diatess 
 aeth W-H Sod txt. Apparently an imposing array, but 
 opposed by all the rest, by all Latins and by Eus (otherwise 
 so sympathetic to NB). 
 
 Chrys twice also adds avrov; but suppresses en-rrpoadev fiov 
 afterwards so that his testimony is " free " and useless for 
 comparison. 
 
 Here is another square division between syrr and latt, and 
 
280 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 if tJiere be ii " neutral " text it is D with majority Greeks 
 and hifin which preserves it. 
 xix. 30. +/cai {ante \v<TavTe<;) BDL 157 892 d acth boh 6/20 [contra 
 N rcU, latgvth stjrr sail boh 14/'20 Oiig Eitlog]. Here is another 
 ii'hltfmi to fill out the sense. Sodeii has no new witness. 
 
 Of minuscules only 3 and 74** support 157 [not Paris"] 
 while I) is contradicted by W and Sod"''". Observe that the 
 Latins syr and copt say " loose him and bring him," supplying 
 the Kai. later, also to fill out Xvcravre'; avTov ayayere. 
 
 W-H follow BDL without marginal comment and bo does 
 Suden. Why should xai have dropped out of all the others ? 
 Oiig and Eulog are with the majority against BDL. There- 
 fore IV-H are entirely unscientific here. There is nothing 
 scientific about it because at : 
 38. ]V-H and Sodcn follow the conjunction NBL Paris" Orig 
 against all else for the order €k ovpava eiprjvri (against eipr]vr) 
 ev ovpavo)). Both Coptics are against the change: therefore if 
 derived from a common original with NBL they distinctly 
 part company here, sah saying " The peace in the Heaven," 
 and boh " a peace in (the) Heaven." 
 
 The arrangement here of NBL Orig = ev ovpava etpr^vq 
 Kai So^a ev ui/ricTTot? is perhaps intended as the antithesis of 
 Luke ii. 14 So^a ev v\lri<TToi<; 6ea> xai evi 7779 eipriv-q. . . The 
 order of NBL Orig we may be sure would not have been 
 changed by all others. Here again is one of Canon Cook's 
 " niceties " of Origen. Another " nicety " occurs at : — 
 40. Kpa^ovaiv {pro Kexpa^ovrai) by the same group NBL Sod^^'^ 
 and Orig*- '»' "> (against*- "' '">' *• '" '■ '") [non Paris"] 
 
 Tisch says ncc Kpa^ovcriv ncc xexpa^ovTai alibi in N.T. sed 
 
 in LXX ut frequentissinmm est xeKpa^ovrai, ita nusquam 
 
 Kpa^ovai legitur. ( Soden follows Hort, although his ' "' 
 
 (descendant of B) at Mount Sinai is the only new witness. 
 
 His °" seemingly abstains and does not even read Kpa^ovrai 
 
 with D". ) 
 
 42. ei eyvax; { — Kai av Kai ye) ev ri] ritiepa { — <rov) ravTi] xai av 
 
 -NBL aeth {Orig) {Cyr). So much authority exists for xai av 
 
 earlier (including Iren Orig'"'' 1/3), while Eus writes xai yeav, 
 
 and Orig himself '■'" ei, eyvaKa'; av, and Eus in another place 
 
 ei eyvcoi xai av, that NBL appear merely to be editing here 
 
 once more followed by W-H Sod txt. Sod"" 892 have xai av 
 
 { — Kai ye) . 
 
 XX. 14. Trpo? aWrjXov; {pro ■rrpo'i eavTou<!) NBDLE min"'-''' Paris" 892 
 
 Laura*'" sah boh. As eavTov; is used in Matt, and in Mark, 
 
 it might be thought that the other Greeks had here substituted 
 
 eavTov; for aWrjXovi. But I think not. In the first place all 
 
 D IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 281 
 
 the Latins oppose [and these things must be taken into 
 consideration, seeing the friendliness of the Latin elsewhere 
 to B] ; in the second place the expression in sah boh in 
 Matthew is not the same as in Luke. (In Mark it is in sah.) 
 But the probability in Luke is Coptic reflex influence here on 
 NBDLR. Further, if we want the " shorter " " neutral" text, 
 we must eliminate both wpo? eavrov; and irpo? aWrfX-ov;, for syr 
 cu sin aeth omit altogether ! W-H and Sod follow NBDLE. 
 XX, 22. e^eartv r]fia^ xaiaapi {pro e^eariv r/fiiv Kaiaapi) NABL/aw 
 18 [non 124] 33 157 213 254 Sorf'"""' against all others 
 including W and Paris" {om. rjiuv N 892 io/i'"). This is a very 
 important place for our contention of "improvement." Observe 
 first that Tjnat opposes all the Latins "Licet nobis." Secondly, 
 observe that it agrees more with sah and boh ftA-ff (most boh 
 omit) and therefore might be classed as "Egyptian," especially 
 as A joins the small group for rj/ia^ (for I think A was written 
 by a copt). But of course we must go deeper than this and 
 enquire into the grammatical usage following e^eart. In the 
 note to "Winer (p. 402 note 4, English edition) Buttmann is 
 quoted thus : "A. Buttmann remarks that npeTrei (■npeirov eaTi) 
 has four constructions in the N.T. (1) with dative and 
 infinitive Mt. iii. 15.t (2) with dative followed by accusative 
 and infinitive Heb. ii. 10. (3) with accusative and infinitive 
 1 Cor. xi. 13. (4) it is also used personally Heb. vii. 20. "Efeore, 
 which usually has the first 0/ these constructions [i.e. dative] 
 is occasionally followed by the accusative and infinitive, viz. 
 Luke vi. 4, xx. 22,t Mark ii. 26 " [the first and second passages 
 are correct, but 019 by D in Luke vi. 4 ; the second is the one 
 we are dealing with here]. " With Set we find the accusative 
 and infinitive or the infinitive alone ; XP^ occurs once only 
 (Jas. iii. 10) w'ith accusative and infinitive." See also 
 Thackeray's ' Blass ' p. 241. 
 Confining ourselves to the question of e^eari v,-e find : 
 
 xii. 2. . . TTOiovaiv ovk e^eaTiv troieiv ev aafi^ara 
 XV. 26. OVK e^eariv Xa^eiv tov aprov toji' TCKvav 
 xix. 3. €1 e^eariv airoKvaai rrjv yvvaiKa avrov 
 xxii. 17. e^eariv iovvai Krjvaov Kaiaapi t] ov 
 xxvii. 6. ovk e^eariv fiaXeiv avra eti tov Kop^avav 
 
 Mark 
 
 ii. 26. . . 0U9 OVK e^eariv ^ayeiv ei ^ij tou? tepeit 
 xii. 14. e^eoTiv Kr]vaov Kataapt Sovvai rj ov 
 
 without a par- 
 ticular relation 
 
 also Luke vi. 4 (019 D) 
 
 t But see K alone there rjiia^. 
 
 X ABsamed from the text of NABL. 
 
282 
 
 (Acts 
 
 viii. 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 37. ei TTiareueKt ef o\v<; Tr/9 KapSta<; e^earw. Tailtum) 
 
 ■ 10. et e^eariv tok; aaffffainv Oepairevaai 
 12. acTTe e^ea-Tiv tok; aa^ffaaw xaXtov iroieiv 
 
 dative, but foreign to 
 the particular case 
 under discussion 
 
 11. 
 
 ill. 
 
 24. lie Ti TToiova-iv to(9 aa00acrw o ovk e^eativ 
 
 4. e^ea-Tiv toi? aa^^aaiv ayadov -noniuai. . . 
 
 2. TI TTOiene o ovk e^euri -rroieiv roii aal30a<n. 
 
 9. €t e^earcv -rat aa^^a-ro) ayaOoTron^aai r/ KaKoiroufaai 
 
 3. e^€<7Tiv Tto o-a/3/3aT(B ffcparrevaat t) ov 
 
 xii. 4. OVK e^e<7Tw (C rell e^ov) j)v avra ^ayeiv all MSS 
 xiv. 4. OVK e^e(TTiv <toi exeiv avrrfv all MSS 
 XX. 1.5. ?; OVK e^ea-Ttv fioi o ffeXco Trotrja-ai ev rot? euoi^ all MSS 
 
 Jlnrk 
 
 vi. 18. OTi OVK e^eariv aot exetv Tr]v yvvaiKa tov aBeXfov aov all and 
 
 Orig, except D" « and a 
 X. 'i. eie^enTiv avhpi yvvaiKaairoXvaai all MSS (the two accusatives 
 j^ 1^^^ following one another would be abhorrent) 
 
 V. 10. Kai OVK e^C(TTiv aot apai tov Kpafiarrov all MSS 
 xvin. 31. rjtiiv OVK efeo-Tiw anoKTetvai ovSeva all MSS 
 
 Acts 
 
 xvi. 21. (I OVK e^ea-Tiv yfiiv ■napaSex€<r0ai (only D 7?/ta! against rf nobis) 
 XXI. 37. et e^ecTTiv not etireiv ti npo^ ere all MSS 
 xxu. 2-5. et avOpwTTov Vaftaiov xai axaraKpnov e^cdrtv vfitv /uKrrt^etv 
 
 , ,. all MSS 
 
 1 (.(jr. 
 
 vi. 12. wavTa not e^einiv all MSS (and Clem libere v/itv or ij^cv) 
 X. 23. navTa fioi efyiniv aXK ov iravra av/i<l>epet • iravra fiot e^ariv 
 aXK ov Ttavra oiKoSofiei. Some MSS omit fiot first or both, 
 
 but none seem to have ue. 
 
 2 Cur. '^ 
 
 xii. 4. a OVK e^ov avdpanrta XaXriaat all MSS and Clem Ath Naas 
 Basilid Orig pluries but Orig semel e^ov avOpuynov. 
 Now the above is clear and unambiguous. Eliminating the fifteen 
 cases mentioned first, which do not bear on the point, there follow thirteen 
 or (counting 1 Cor. x. 23 twice) fourteen instances of the dative case and not 
 the accusative. In Acts xvi. 21 only does D give an accusative, which B 
 and the rest contradict. It is a very pretty exhibition, and we do not need 
 the Grammarians' assistance after all. It is established beyond per- 
 adventure that the N.T. usage of all MSS and all recensions is for the 
 dative and infinitive with ffeo-ni/, and when NABL invite us to read »;/jo? 
 in Luke xx. 22 we refuse. When Hort tells us it is the " true text " 
 (without marginal alternative) we say that he has once more mistaken an 
 idiosyncrasy of a tniall group for the truth. The same applies to Soden, 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 283 
 
 who follows Hcrt with rffiat. A verj' lovely key is offered us in 2 Cor. xii. 4 
 as to the secret. Behold once more Origeii at the bottom of it with his 
 " niceties " ! Here is the verse : 
 
 OTt rjpvayr) e(? tov irapaSettrov xai ■qKOvaev appr/Ta pr/naTa a ovk e^ov 
 avBpmvo) XaXtjirai. 
 
 In Tischendorf's note (on verse 3) he says: " e^ov {e^wv LP 17) 
 au0pu,-rro, et Naass'""" "= Basilid""'" »' Clem'" Orig' "» '" «" ac'""' Ath"* 
 
 etc Orig' '" e^ov avOptoirov. Item L 47 b"' W-'^ e^. avffpwjraiv. 
 
 Cf. Naass"- : eiwwi' ■qpiraaOai. vno ayye\ov Kai yeyovevai em? SevTepov Kai 
 TpiTOv ovpavov 6(9 TOV TTapa&eKTOv avTOV km eiopaKevat a ecopaxe Kai aKijKoevat 
 pri/iaTa apprjTa a ovk e^ov apdpwirw etweiv. Item Basilid^" : ■qKOvaa apprjT. 
 pri/i. a OVK e^ov avdpairo) etTreiv." 
 
 Origen then, observe, alone makes use of the dative pluries and 
 once of the accusative. Hinc illae laerymae. It was Origen's text or 
 preference in Luke xx. 22 which influenced NABL (perhaps with Coptic, 
 see note on next verse), although it is not the true text. And here are 
 Basilides (a.d. 117-138) and Naasse7ii (also before a.d. 200) contra- 
 dicting Origen's show of grammatical niceties, and proving that St. Paul 
 used the dative in 2 Cor. xii. 4 as did St. Matthew and St. Mark and 
 St. Luke and St. John. Need more be said ? Soden follows Hort and 
 NABL for i7/«i9 and perpetuates the error. 
 
 Cf. Matt. xxii. 17 e^etjTtv Bovvai Krjvirov xataapi 7} ov with Adalbert 
 Merx's remarks (vol I, p. 300 seq) as to the versions, and compare 2}ers. 
 
 XX. 23. -Tt pe ireipa^eTe NBLJ/aTO 1 116 157 892 Paris" these only 
 and e salt boh against all the rest and aeth, all the syriacs, 
 and all the Latins (except e) and Basil. [Tisch quotes ar7n 
 on both sides.] 
 The clause is present in the parallels Matt. xxii. 18 (all), Mark xii. 1.5 
 (all), and we are invited to follow NBL co2}t in Luke for omission because 
 it must have been incorporated into the Lucan text from Matt, or Mark. 
 Hort is certain of it, for he has nothing in his margin. Souter is satisfied 
 about it because his text omits and he has not inserted any footnote. 
 Soden follows suit, but adds only S30(= 3) as a new witness. In other 
 words, NBL and Coptic are to outweigh everj'thing else and carry down with 
 them the testimony of syr cu sin (both extant and both for the clause in 
 question). Now the argument for this omission is clearly very good, and 
 nothing we could say would move these " self-constituted arbiters of the 
 true text " if we could not show the fallibility elsewhere of their favourite 
 witnesses. But we have shown this in these pages again and again, and, 
 with D seventeen uncials and Basil, with a b c dfff g h I q r r^ dim p. vgg 
 codd omn (against e) with aeth (against salt boh) and with syr cu sin sch 
 pesh we claim these words as Lucan, and say that they should be restored 
 in the next revision. NBL have just been shown in the previous verse 
 and verses to be so " untrue to type " in many places that we lose all 
 
284 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 confidence in them when only supported by the Coptic, and we cannot 
 admit them as final arbiters here. It would be absurd. If they are not 
 the purveyors of a " neutral " and " pre-syrian " text elsewhere, why here 
 against such heavy battalions of evidence ? 
 
 [Note.— In sah and boh the clause " why tempt ye me " in Matt, and 
 Mark is introduced by xE- The beginning of Luke xx. 24 " Show me 
 a denarins" is also introduced by xc The Coptic may have skipped 
 the question owing to the double occurrence of xE- I claim elsewhere 
 Coptic action on NBL. It may be so here.] 
 
 Soden's eclectic position throughout the above passages is note- 
 worthy. 
 
 Luke XX. 25. Once more Coptic {boh} comes in alone with NBL /am 13 
 [noji 124] t 892 Paris" Sod'"^ (arm) W-H Sod for the order 
 ^otvvv oTToSoTe, instead of airoSore Totvvv^ of all the rest 
 supported by Basil'" "' "" J with OTrogore ovv as T mill'. 
 
 Sah (some mss) are against it, and two Mss omit towvv with 
 IJ Sod"'" a d effil q /i sijr cii sin and aeth diatess. 
 
 Hence here once more we have bohairic influence on NBL, 
 because sah 2/7 omit outright with D and a strong Latin 
 combination backed by syr cu sin, and for basic probability (in 
 view of the change of order, which always points to something 
 of the kind, especially when boh opposes, as here, sah 5/7.) 
 I would be inclined to accept the omission of toivvv. 
 
 {roivvv is nowhere else used in Luke and does not occur 
 
 in the other Gospels. It occurs only thrice elsewhere, 
 
 1 Cor. ix. 26, Heb. xiii. 13, Jas. ii. 24. In the last-named 
 
 place NABCP al. lat syr cop arm aeth omit.] 
 
 2(5. The next is hardly " improvement," but probably an error. I 
 
 let it follow here as it shows NBL still conjoined (with only 433 
 
 892 W-H Sod). They read ; xai ovk Kr^vaav eTriXa^eaOai, tow 
 
 prjfiaTO'i instead of Kai ovk «rj^. eirtXafieadat avrov fyijiiarot. Of 
 
 course ay may have fallen out in eniAAB€C0AiAYTOYPHMATOC. 
 
 Paris" shows signs of correcting this by writing tov prj/iaro'; 
 
 avTov with Sod'^". The Latins are plain for ejus, as also syr 
 
 v(t. Coptic expresses avjov^ and then " with a word " {sah), 
 
 " in a word " {boh), syr pesh " ex eo verbum." 
 
 27. X67oi/T«9 (pro avTiXeyovTei) NBCDLN min aliq Paris" et 892 
 
 Laura'^ '»' Sod"''' "» W-H [non 604] d e goth copt syr (cf. ^ infra). 
 
 This is both to remove a double negative and conform to Matt. 
 
 (Xe^ovTe?), and Mark (oitiv€<; \eyovtTiv) as actually ^ Sod^^^ in Luke. 
 
 t In Ferrar's edition there is an error in the iext. 
 
 X In the previous verse xx. 24 Basil'" and Basil'"' took each one side of the qnestion 
 about the omission of aTToyptdffTfs, which reading I do not discuss. 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 285 
 
 The clause is oi avn Xtyoi/TE? avatnamv /n; tivat which APFAAII unc' 
 al.plur a arm let stand, a is perhaps the most important witness of all for 
 the " received " text, giving " qui contraAicxmi resurrectionem non esse " 
 (most Latins have " qui negant esse resurr. ; d e qui dicunt res. non esse). 
 The extraordinary thing is how to account for av-n Xey. having crept iti to 
 fourteen or fifteen uncials (W has this reading also, so it is just as " old " 
 as the other) and into the graeco-latin a, which the reviser of that m3 
 (and it has distinctly had a censor on it) allowed to stand. I fear the 
 onus is on the minority to prove that \eyovTe<t is not an endeavour at 
 correction. 
 
 See Winer (English edition, p. 75.5) citing " 1 Jo. ii. 22 
 
 apvovij.evo's oti Ir/a-ovi ovk e(niv o ■xpi(no^" [where our authorities 
 make no change as here] " Luke xx. 27 avTl,'Keyov^e^ avaaraa-iv li-q eivai 
 (Xen. Cyr 2 2 20, An 2 5 29, Isocr. Trapez 300, Demosth. Phorm 585, 
 Thtcc 1 77) " [from which it appears that there is plenty of authority for 
 this] " Hebr. xii. 19 oi aKova-avrei TraprjTrja-avTo /xt) irpoajeOrivai avroi^ 
 \oyov (Thuc. 5 03), Gal. v. 7 tw u/utf evCKoyfrev tt; aXrjOeia /ir) Treidea0at 
 (Eurip. Hec 860)."- " Compare further Luke iv. 42, Acts xx. 27, 1 Pet. iii. 10 
 (Thuc. 5 25 7 53, Plato Phaed 117 c, Demosth. Phaenipp 654 b) and see 
 Vig., p. 459, 811, Matt. 534, Kem. 5' (Jelf 749, Don, p. 591). We have 
 similar examples in German, in colloquial language, and in Greek also 
 the usage may be explained as arising out of the circumstantiality which 
 belongs to the language of conversation. The negation which the verbs 
 contain became less sensible, and hence it was expressly revived in the 
 dependent sentence (compare Madvig 211). Modem grammarians, indeed, 
 are disposed to allow that this construction is an example of pleonasm 
 (note, quoting Hermann "non otiosam esse negationem . . . ") ; logically 
 however one of the negations is undeniably superfluous." So Winer. 
 Blass is not quite so full, but (p. 255, English edition) he says : " We may 
 particularly note the use of ^t; according to classical precedent (Kuhner 
 761 f.) in certain instances after verbs containing a negative idea (a 
 pleonastic use according to our way of thinking). Luke xx. 27 
 
 01 avTiKcyovTet (AP al. ; NBCDL read Xeyovrt? as in Matt, and Mark) 
 avaa-raatv firj eivai (avTiKeyew here only takes an inf.), xx. 34 etot Tpi? 
 aTrapvrtar) fir) eiSevai fie (fie air. eiB. NBLT ; airapv. not elsewhere with an 
 inf.). Cp. 1 Jo. ii. 22 o apvovpxvot on It/o-ok? ovk earw o Xpurro^ (as 
 Demosth. 9 54 apv. at ovk et<ri Towvroi) Hebr. xii. 19 iraprjTrjaavTo /le 
 (om. N'P) irpoa-TeOrivai, Gal. v. 7 ti<; v/iat eveKoyfrev aXrjdeta fiij iretBeaOai ; 
 (eyKOTTTeaOai takes tov eXGeiv in R. xv. 22, cp. Kiihner 768 c). But in Hebr. 
 xi. 24 we have ijpvrianTO ("scorned") \eyea-0ai; and KiaXveiv ib tegalaxly 
 used without a subsequent firj, a construction which is also admissible in 
 classical Greek, Kuhner 707 f. ; see however §71, 2 and 3." 
 
 We cannot complain that the grammarians are not full enough this 
 time ! Blass proceeds (p. 250, § 0) : " The classical combination of 
 negatives oi (jirj). . .oiSei^ (/tT/Sei?) and the like, to intensify the negation. 
 
280 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 is not excessively frequent; the instances are Mark xv. 4 ouk a-rtoKpivrj 
 ov^Bv, 5 ovKcji ovSev aireKptOy, Luke X. 19 ou&ev. . .ov fiij (not in D), xxiii. 
 53 ovK tjv ovBeTTw ovSeti;, Acts viii. 39 ovk. . .ovcti, Mark xi. 14 )n}Keri. . . 
 nrjSeK etc. {ovSeiTOTe fioi ovSeK Herm. Mand iii. 3) ; on the other hand we 
 find (contrary to the classical rule, Kiihner 758, but cp. 760, 4) ovx apwaaet 
 T t ? Jo. X. 28, ov . . . VTTO T 1 1» o 9 1 Cor. vi. 12, ov&e top naTepa t 1 9 eiriyww- 
 crK€i Matt. xi. 27, xii. 19, out€ . . . tj? Acts xxviii. 21, ov hvvrftrif en oikovo- 
 /xeiv Luke xvi. 2, ou . . . nore 2 Pet. i. 21." 
 
 I have cited Winer and Blass thus fully that there may be no mis- 
 understanding on the subject. A revision by the fifteen uncials involved 
 in writinR avTiXeyovTe';, with the Latin MS a, presupposes an endeavour to 
 carry out a classical improvement, while the \eyovTei of NBCDL d e copt 
 syr and goth would be an endeavour to remove a classical improvement or 
 rather that they have the unclassical but "pure milk of the word." 
 
 Far more likely would it be (from what we have already seen of their 
 methods) for NB to endeavour to improve here. And the decadence of 
 the language is showing itself already, or to put it in another way, 
 the Egyptian school in Alexandria already by 200 or 300 A.d. considered 
 the usual classical redundancy as a pleonasm to be removed, especially 
 when a parallel could be consulted where it was not found.f 
 
 In other words, since avTt\eyovTe<! is absent from Matt, and Mark, 
 and it is universally acknowledged that St. Luke had the higher education, 
 is it likely, I ask, that " Antioch " introduced avrtXcyovrei, or not rather 
 that it is original, and that NBCDL d e are the ones guilty of removing 
 avTi ? I plead for its restoration. 
 
 To my surprise Sodcn prints oi't4\€7oi/t69 against NBCDLN Sod"'". 
 Upon what principles is his text then constructed ? For just above he 
 has willingly followed the weaker combination NBL (xx. 22, 23, 25, 26). 
 
 I have referred elsewhere to considerable sympathy between B" and 
 a latin. Here at any rate I believe that a preserves the older text. [In 
 the very next verse B a come together again. See under " Historic 
 present."] 
 
 Note in this connection Luke xxii. 34 where NBLQTX (a regular 
 congery of sympathisers) refuse the strong Greek negative IleTpE ov /iv 
 ^mvrjcru crifiepov aXexrcop . . . and write merely ov <l>tovr)a-ei. Thus also Sod^''^. 
 
 I.iike 
 
 xxi. 12. 4-Ta? {ante crvvayaya<;) only NBD 157 d'" W-H sah and one 
 boh US. Cf. Matt x. 17. In Mark xiii. 9 to? is absent. It is 
 very unlikely that xa? should have been dropped here by all 
 the others. Even Paris" does not have it. Soden adds no 
 new witnesses and excludes from his text. 
 
 t Since writing the above I have noticed in Lvikei. 19 that N, with D Orig 1/2 alone 
 removes ou/ai; from the sentence uni ouStK ijjuit ov fir) aSticritrei {vel hSikijiti;). This offers a 
 further commentary on the gradual disuse of the pleonastic negative. 
 
 B IN ST. LTJKE's gospel. 
 
 287 
 
 ibid, avayo/ifvov^ {pro ayo/ievovi) XBLD*'^ Sod"'" fain 1 157 
 Paris" e only seem to have preserved the " true " (and 
 " longer ") text here, for W-K and Sod (without new evidence) 
 print a-nayoiiivov;, although the Latins and even boh sah show 
 plainly they read ayofievovi in their Greek I 
 
 I may be considered to be wasting time and space taking up 
 such a small point. But the whole thing hangs together. 
 
 Even the preference at : 
 xxi. 14. Oere {pro deade) by NAB'DLMEWXnSP 33 p'" Sod''"" W-H 
 Sod txt, against Orig Gyr and the mass, is quite deliberate. 
 
 (In xxi. 15 Orig and Cyr are opposed as to the order avriarrivat 
 rj avrenretv or avrenreiu i) avrun-qvai, while D"' Sofi"" a c ff i I 
 q r syr Gypr^' are content with avTi<nijvai (resistere) and d : 
 contradicere ; e coresistere aut contradicere). 
 xxii. 14. —SmSexa This is an important place. The omission is 
 supported by N*BD 157 [but not by Paris" nor W nor the 
 rest] plus a b c d e ff il r syr cu sin sah 5/6 and of course 
 adopted by W-H, without marginal alternative, nor a word in 
 ' Select Headings.' Soden also omits but adds no new witnesses. 
 The above looks like a strong combination, but it is not, 
 because " there is a reason " for it lurking beneath the surface. 
 It is opposed by Marcion, eighteen uncials, and N'"" al. min 
 f q S fi dim gat vg sijt^" '"" boh arm aeth, while N'^LX 
 Evst 6 Sod""'' sah 1/6 suppress airocnoXoi in favour of SmSeKa 
 (as Mark xiv. 17). 
 
 The conjunction of so many Latins shows how early the 
 change was made, but it occurred between Marcion's time 
 and that of B. 
 
 In St. Luke's account of the last supper there is no mention 
 made of Judas (except for the inference in verse 21) ! "We 
 pass from verse 14, where it is simply recorded that the twelve 
 apostles sat down with our Lord, to verse 15 " with desire 
 have I desired to eat this passover with you," to the celebra- 
 tion itself 17/20. Verse 24 begins a new section about who 
 should be the greatest, which seems a very rapid transition 
 from verse 23. Verse 31 contains an apostrophe to Peter, 
 followed by his confession of trust in himself. 35/37 are 
 occupied with the closing scene of the supper, and suddenly at 
 verse 38 they produce two swords, and verse 39 records the exit 
 towards the Mount of Olives, after which Judas meets them. 
 
 The censors of the text then must have overlooked the brief 
 reference in Luke xxii. 21 " wXrjv tSov ij xeip -rov TrapaSiSovrof 
 lie tier e/iov em tij? TpaTre^rj<;," and have missed the fuller 
 accounts of St. Matthew xxvi. 21/25, Jo. xiii. 21/26 where 
 Judas is mentioned, and Jo. xiii. 27/30 where Judas' exit is 
 
288 
 
 Luko 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 mentioned, and have supposed Judas' absence in St. Luke's 
 account ? 
 
 In IMatthow ncra rav StoSexa naOrjTiov is the text of N etc., 
 while I5D and some merely omit naOnrav. Only in Luke is 
 iahexa omitted by the Mss mentioned above, 
 xxii. 18. +a7ro tou vvv NBKLM(W)n 892 Paris" Laura* '»* min 
 aliq (airapri 22.5 nt Matt) e sail boh syr hier acth (DG 1 al. 
 mjr cu sill arm) W-H Sod txt. 
 
 But it is omitted by ACXTAA unc' Sod"''' latt syrpcsli. Tisch 
 remarks that " otto tou vvv Lucae non proprium est, cf. 1. 48, 5. 
 10, 12 52, 22 69, Act 18 6. Praeterea non legitur nisi 2 Cor. 5 10. 
 Cf. et Matt. 2C, 29 ubi est anapTt, et Marc 14, 25 ubi est ou/eeri." 
 At any rate, here we have the "longer" text once more 
 witnessed to by XB etc. 
 55. Trept a^j/avTcov Se Trup (pro ayfravTcov Be nvp) Only XBLTT' 
 Paris" Eus d (incendentibus) (r 8). This seems rather forced 
 (Phalar. Ep. v.) and occurs nowhere else in N.T. It suggests 
 even an acquaintance with the Latin cijcMwisedentibus for 
 crvvKaOia^avraiv following oi b c d efffi I q p, vg [coHsed. only 
 a (/■)] TrepiKa0t(ravTO)v only DG /am 1, while nepi to light the 
 fire " all round " is suggested by wvp ev pea-a ti)v av\ri<;. 
 
 In St. John (xviii. 18) it merely says : xat oi vwnpeTai 
 avOpaKiav TeTrojTj/coTe?, but being ev petra t))9 ai/\i>? it would 
 imply the thought of 7repui-\jravT€<; it they were to make a good 
 fire. I suggest that nepi is an " improvement," but Soden 
 follows ]V-H without adducing new witnesses. 
 
 In Mark xiv. 54 the fire is already made. 
 55 Jin. Similarly, same verse, peaot avrav lor €v p^am avrav by 
 BLTT' fam 1 892 W-H, Sod (without new witnesses), only 
 savours of a deliberate change. Why does N not have it ? 
 Nor Paris" ? And why does fam 1 have it ? [non 131]. We 
 have just seen that they ran to rrepi KaffiaavTtov above, 
 exceptionally and with DG only. 
 
 /u.ecro5 is against boh (^ert TOITAJlH't") while sah is 
 fi'TE'irjlJlH'TE- D^' substitutes /ter avTfov Oeppatvopevo^, as d 
 caleficiens se (cf. Jo. xviii. 18, Mark xiv. 54). 
 xxiii. 11. -avTov (2mst -nepifiaXov) NBLTT' 52 291 \f" 892 Sod"" it 
 txt Paris" Evst 150 a and (pg) W-H. 
 These would read : 
 
 Trepi^aXatv e<T0T)Ta Xapvpav avewep^ev avTov tm iretXara) as 
 if the first aurov were unnecessary and pleonastic. Once 
 more a comes to join B" here, but all the rest oppose. And 
 there seems much more reason for a purist to remove the 
 avTov than for all our other authorities to have inserted it ! 
 W has it with the rest. 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE 3 GOSPEL. 
 
 289 
 
 xxiii. 20. If we were dealing with a true "neutral" and "shorter" 
 text, we should not oscillate as we do between omission and 
 addition. Here is an addition. I have not put the places 
 in juxtaposition purposely. They happen to fall in a regular 
 sequence here as I pass through the chapter. 
 ibid. -^-avTOKt (post TTpotre^wvriirev) NBLTT' 13-124-346 Laura* "* 
 157 892 ,Sofi!"" et So(P''-'' a sah boh syr W-H; irpoi avrovi 69, 
 auTou? D Paris" (d advocauit eos ; Paris" e(l>a)vrii7ev avTOvi) it. 
 What ? — I shall be told — do you question such a strong combination 
 as this: NBLT co^ytic syriac latin in conjunction? Well, considering 
 that APXPAiVn «)!c' strengthened by W^ Sod""" = nineteen uncials, all 
 minuscules but four, and arm pers omit (pers : Sed de Jesii iterum 
 Pilatiis sermonem fecit, —avTon), I think it is a pretty good place to 
 pause and consider our critical principles. If the same evidence of 
 NBLT etc. called for omission I should not perhaps hesitate, but as it is 
 an addition to fill out the sense, I may well hesitate, in view of the bad 
 record of NBLT in combination as so often shown in these pages. 
 Here is the sentence : 
 
 " TToKiv ovv (vel he) o TrtXaro? 7rpo(Te<f)(itVTjfTe Se\av airoXvaai rov ^rjaovv.** 
 
 The antithesis to frpoaeipavtjiTe (showing Paris" up in a very poor 
 
 attempt at improvement with efcovijae ouroy?) is at once given in verse 21 : 
 
 " 01 Be e-rrei^wvovv (well rendered by a : proclamaba7it against sub- 
 
 clajTtabant of others) Xeyovre'; uTavpov atavpov (or aravptixjov inavpayaov) 
 
 Thus Pilate shouted at them, not to them, and they shouted back at 
 Pila,te. For observe that there is no aura) or Trpo? avTov either before or 
 after Xeyovrei; in any Greek, Latin or Syriac authority [in fact D d 
 emphasise the proceeding, using expa^av but leaving out XeyonTe? 
 altogether with syr st;i], and sah only [not boJi] adds cpoci after 
 A."ffXIU)KA.K efioXi translated by Horner " cried out at him," supplying 
 at, and entirely bearing out what I am saying. Thus the proceedings did 
 not call for auxot? in verse 20 after Trpo<Te^o)vij<Te at all, and I rather think 
 that all the authorities cited who add have been over-zealous, and that 
 our "junior" seventeen imcials + W + hundreds and hundreds of 
 cursives are the real purveyors of the "shorter" and "true" text. Let 
 the critics answer this. I shall be glad of more light on the question. 
 
 In conclusion, so as to cover the subject thoroughly, examine the 
 three other passages in St. Luke where the word occurs : 
 
 LQke 
 
 vi. 13. xai oie eyevero rjpepa Trpocre^uivtjaev tou? paffrjTa^ avrov " And 
 
 at daybreak he roused his disciples (by calling)." 
 
 vii. 32 ( = Matt. xi. 16). opoiot eiaiv TraiStOK Toit ev ayopa xaffrjpevoK; /cat 
 
 Trpo<r(j>a)vovaiv aWi/Xoi?, \eyovTe'; " calling out at one another " 
 
 (e et adclamant ad invicem dicentes ; a qui clamant ad 
 
 alteratrum dicentes). 
 
 V 
 
'2W CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Lnl:o 
 
 XIU. 12. ioo)v oe avTTfv o \7}a-ou<; Trpoaetfxavrjaev xai eifrev avrrj ' yvpai, « . 
 not Trpo^retfymvija-ev avT7]v xai but vpoaeifxavriaev xai enrev avrij all 
 authorities. 
 Tlien in Acts : 
 
 xxi. 40. Ett i(npei{ravTO's Se avrov o UavXoi co-tm? etn rtov avaffaff/iav 
 Kareaeiffs ttj X^ipi ro) \ata. ttoWt;? he aiyrj^ yevopevrj^ it poae^u)' 
 vrjiTe TJ) E^pa'iSi Sla\eK^o> Xeytov ' AvSpet a5e\<j>oi. , . 
 
 Could anything be more Lucan or more instructive? Paul 
 calls out in the Hebrew dialect to the crowd generally. In all 
 the N.T. there is only one more occasion where the word is 
 used. This follows clo.se here at Act xxii. 2 : 
 A/coucrai'T6? ^€ ot( tt; Ei^paiSt StaXexTto TrpoiTe<f>(i>vet avTOtt . . . 
 
 D here omits outoi? but the others have it. 
 
 The avTOK here however stands in a different position to that 
 in Luke xxiii. 20, for it is the answer and recognition that the 
 shouted tones of the " apology " of St. Paul to the crowd had 
 been addressed to or at them, and at no others but the Jews 
 forming the crowd in Jerusalem. 
 
 1 iiku 
 
 .\xiii. 2y. xat KaTicr)(vov ai <f>o>vai avja>v ( — xai rav apxiepewv) NBLT' 
 IBO if' [lion c / d 8] sah boh followed by W-H and Sodeii, 
 altliougli the latter has no new witnesses, and ignores Merx 
 ad he. (p. 400) " Die Stieichung diirfte alexandrinische 
 Kedakfcion sein." 
 
 This should perhaps be classed under the head of " Latin and 
 Coptic," but it really seems to be an attempt at improvement. 
 In verse 13 the record says: TriXaToj Se avvKoXeaafievot Tovt 
 np^tfpent xai rov; apxovra^ xai tov \aov, and the scene is carried on 
 uninterruptedly over the intervening verses to verse 23 without specifying 
 any particular part of the crowd which was doing the talking and 
 shouting. Hence perhaps NBL etc. thought it was invidious to single 
 out the chief priests as those who raised their voices above the crowd at 
 tlie last. At any rate 892 and Paris" refuse to give us the text of NBL. 
 Those cursive mss with c f d & and the rest of the Greeks, with the 
 sjriaos, support the ordinary text. (Consult Tischendorf's note ad loc.) 
 Observe that T ceases at xxiii. 20. That is why T is absent here 
 (replaced by T'). 
 
 r.iiko 
 xxiii 
 
 49. TravTe? oi yvaxnoi avTia (pro it. oi yv. avTov) Only ABLPT' 
 33 64 Paris" Sod"''^'^ W-H. The group does not look trustworthy, 
 for it is unusual. All others oppose, including N\V and latins, 
 and/n»! 1 fam 13 do not sympathise with this change although 
 waking many similar efforts. Nor does Soden adopt avra in 
 his text although he produces a little new support for it in 
 his notes. 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 291 
 
 (The Coptics turn the phrase and the syriacs substitute 
 Jesus.) It would appear as if the dative were more in con- 
 formity with classical usage, and as if this handful of witnesses 
 were " improving " the record. For on the other hand there 
 would be no good reason for changing avra to avrcv. The 
 Latins preserve no trace of auTm. 
 
 But cf. John xviii. 15 exetvo^ i/w yvacTov tw apxiepci followed 
 by 16 aWo? o yvaxnm ra) ap-)^iepei. In the latter case BC*L(X) 
 substitute tov apxtfpfc^i- But Luke and John evidently do 
 not hang on the same recension in B. When we reach Acts 
 we find the dative : 
 Cf. Acts i. 19. o xai yvtixnov eyevero iracri T015 xaroiKovaw iKrip, 
 ii. 14. rovTO v/iiv yvoxnov e(TTOD 
 iv. 10. yvwoTov caTO) irairiv vfiiu 
 
 (Peter is speaking on all three occasions). 
 xiii. 38. yvoxTTou ow anti) v/iiv 
 xxviii. 22. irepi /lev yap tij? aipeffeo)? touti;? yvuxnov rip.iv e<7Ttu 
 28. yvoxnov ow eajw vpiv 
 (Paul speaking). 
 xix. 17. TOVTO 5e eyevero yvoytnov iraaiv Iou8fieo(? t6 xat EWj;a'(i' 
 (Writer of Acts recording). 
 To these can only be added : 
 
 Acu 
 
 ix. 42. yvoxTTov Se eyevero xad' 0X179 rr)^ Iottttj;? 
 
 XV. 18. yvtoiTTa air' aitavo^, or yvaxTTOv air aicovoi rm xvpio) . . . 
 
 AD Iren"" etc. 
 The fact remains that if avro) be correct in Luke xxiii. 49, 
 we must accuse every other document but six of unnecessarily 
 changing the dative to the genitive against Lucan usage in 
 Acts. 
 
 Luke 
 
 xxiii. 49 
 
 Immediately following the word avrco the mss NBDL Paris" 
 add aiTo before /utxpoOev against the great mass. D is perhaps 
 influenced by d and lat. But W does not do it, nor A (which 
 has avTto), nor ^, nor C, nor K, nor X, nor thirteen other uncials, 
 nor Sod°''°. It looks like accommodation to other passages and 
 is the "longer" text. When we really analyse these things 
 it becomes evident that the "junior" documents are not so 
 much given to addition as some people suppose. Cf. parallels 
 Matt, xxvii. 55, Mark xv. 40, where otto p-axpodev is used. 
 This should perhaps come under " purely harmonistic," but 
 we want to tie three things together here as to B. First avrio 
 {pro avTov in this verse ; second +avo ; and third : 
 ibid. +ai {ante yvvaiKe<t) B only and sah [non boh] and Paris". 
 B is here deserted by the others and by L. Only Paris" 
 sustains it, which is more than hopeless for it? case. Even 
 
 V 2 
 
«9'2 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 W-7I, wlio place avTio and +aTro in their text, relegate this ai to 
 the margin. iSo(?n( adopts Ho»e of the three changes of B. What 
 becomes of U's autliority elsewhere then in his estimation ? 
 
 We have thus convicted B of three changes in this verse. 
 One with ALP, one with NDL, one alone. They cannot all 
 he right. So B must either be right alone in all three places 
 taken jointly, or accused of dealing unfaithfully with the 
 record. I leave B to be judged here in the side light of the 
 other testimony collected in these pages, 
 xxiv. 4. 61/ Tw aTTopuadai {pro ev tm Btanopeiadai) NBCDL 4, preferring 
 a hiatus.t Is it right against all others including W Sod''" 
 892 and Paris" ? Yet Sodeii adopts it in his text. St. Luke 
 elsewhere (ix. 7, Acts ii. 12, v. 24, x. 17) always uses 
 Sia-rrop^a). [Only in Luke xxi. 25 aitopia the noun is used 
 and there a u-na^ Xcy. No other N.T. writer employs this or 
 &iaTTopea>.J 
 
 In Luke ix. 7 D only changes Kat hi-qiropei to r/iropeiTo. 
 
 In Acts ii. 12 the hirtiropovv of most is made hmtropovvTo by 
 NAB. 
 11. ravTa {pro avrav secund.) This is a distinct case of abandon- 
 ing the "harder" reading. Hence many authorities do it. 
 The sentence runs — very unenphoniously — kui etfiavnirav 
 evwTTiov avToyv o>aei Xripm ra prjpaTa avraiv xai rjincrTOVV 
 avTOK. (So most and/ o /•/».) 
 
 This second avrav is changed to TavTa by NBDL latt 
 [yton /] sah boh sijr. But syr and boh turn the sentence 
 round, implying an original difficulty. 
 
 In Paris" Tavra is in square brackets implying I understand 
 from Schmidtke's preface (but he is not very clear as to this) 
 that the word is omitted. 
 
 W is very clear and holds the second avrmv, as does 692, yet 
 Sod prints ravra in his text and has no new authorities to 
 adduce for it. Cf. pers. 
 18. ovo/xaTt {pro m ovo/m) NBLNX Paris" 69 [contra fani] 213 
 Sod^ '■' et txt, b against all others and against coptic clearly. 
 Tisch says " saepe Luc <J ovofia, y ovojxa ut i. 26, 27, ii. 2.5, 
 viii. 41, xxiv. 13, Act xiii. 6 ; saepius vera certe in Actis ovopari 
 ut i. 5, X. 38, xvi. 20, Act v. 1, 34, viii. 9, ix. 10, 11, 12, 33, 
 X. 1, 11, 28, xii. 13, xvi. 1, 14, xvii. 34 etc. At nusquavi pro 
 ovofia-ri testes Graeci aut Latini a> ovo/m substituerunt ; 
 contra pro a> ovofia .lubstitiitum ovo/iari xxiv. 13, Act xiii. 6." 
 
 t Til is ia not distasteful to them. See xxiv. 6 aWa t)yip6ri {pro aW iytp6ri) KBLX 83 
 I'aris" as copt {sah aXXA. AqXtUOTirt, boh aXXA. AqTOUItq), W aX\a 
 ai/fOTi;. 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 293 
 
 There is the matter in a nutshell, ovo/uni is substituted 
 for a) ovofia, but not oi ovo/ia for ovo/iaTi. The places he 
 refers to last are Luke xxiv. 13 in this same chapter, where 
 ri oi'ofia refers to xa/irjv E/i/iaot»?. Here D and latins substitute 
 nomiue. 
 
 Acts xiii. 6 m ovo/ia referring to the Jewish magician Barjesus. 
 D again alone substitutes ovo/Jari xaXovfievov {d nomine qui 
 vocatur) and some cursives ovo/iaTi. C av ovo/ia (cui nomen 
 era,t Lvcifvg cui nomen e). 
 
 But in the place under immediate discussion Luke xxiv. 18 
 b is alone among the Latins to agree with NBLNX ; note 
 well the absence of a here, otherwise quite friendly to B. 
 And D d refuse to make any change here. I believe the com- 
 bination NBLX here to represent the same as so often before 
 a wilful emendation, and N like b to have changed fortuitously. 
 When 69 opposes the family it also has this significance. 
 xxiv. 21. aWa ye ( + Kat) aw -rraaw tovtok... XBDL Paris" 1 33 d 
 [non copt] W-H iC Sod txt. The only others which insert 
 Kai, sah^" {syr cii sin pesh Kat iSov) suppress a\\a ye. 
 I am sure that this is mere " improvement " by NBDL. Why 
 should all others drop this xai ? It is not by any means pleonastically 
 objectionable {cf. Winer, p. 5.54, but see p. 700 " The particles aWa ye, 
 yet at all events, are in earlier writers always separated by some word (be 
 it only a particle) : see Klotz, p. 15 seq. This rule is not observed in 
 Luke xxiv. 21 aXXa ye avv -rracrt TovToif Tpnrjv Tavrrjv rjp.epav ayei : see 
 Bornemann in loo." Winer says nothing about the endeavour of NBDL 
 to supply this particle. They add the conjunction xai instead. Blass 
 indeed (Thackeray, p. 261/8) calmly accepts aXXa ye Kai as the " true " 
 text, for he twice cites it thus without intimating that Kai is only found 
 in NBDL. " The ' best ' mss read so and so " is inflicted on us so often 
 that it will be seen that the phrase has already caused Blass in a N.T. 
 standard grammar to abandon all the other overwhflming evidence 
 (4- versions) for the omission of Kai. He founds an argument on it, 
 because p. 268 bottom he says " Besides its use in this passage aXXa. ye 
 Kai is found in Luke xxiv. 21 introducing an accessory idea in an emphatic 
 way " [yes, but by NBLD only !] " cp. aXXa Kai ibid. 22, xii. 7, xvi. 21 ' not 
 only this but also ' as in Ph. i. 18 xaipm aXXa Kai xapvao/uit "... 
 
 But we contend the contrary, that the idea was not expressed to 
 the satisfaction of NB, and so they introduced the Kat, for the very 
 passage Blass was referring to previously does not have it, viz. 1 Cor. ix. 2 
 aXXa ye v/iiv eivai and this is the only other place where aXXa ye occurs 
 " ei oX\oi9 ovK eip-t a-KoajoXo^ aXXa ye vfiiv etfu." As Blass says 260/261 
 " Still ye keeps its proper meaning in aXXa ye vp.iv ei/u 1 Cor. ix. 2 ' yet at 
 least I am so to you,' which classical Greek would express by separating 
 the particles aXX v/uv ye." 
 
294 
 
 rODEX ]) AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Observe fxevowye, xanoiye, or Kat ye (Acts ii. 18, 1 Cor. iv, 8) are 
 not used here in Luke xxiv. 21, and therefore xai is by implication absent. 
 Bta ye (Luke xi. 8) is used by the same author without any Kat, and o? ye 
 (Rom. viii. 32) by St. Paul. Both these examples are important. 
 Consult them, and observe in the second that aWa follows. 
 
 It is too bad that Blass should complicate these things for theological 
 students by neglecting to state that xai in Luke xxiv. 21 is not read by all 
 but only by the few. 
 
 Liikc 
 xxiv. 33. ridpoianevovi {pro avvi)6 poi(r fKvov<;) KBD 33 Eus boh [nan 
 sah] W-H (C Sod txt contra veil et Cyr (fuse et plene) et e 
 {(liserte " coUectos in unum "). 
 If NBD W-H and Sod be correct then it is a d-n-af \ey. for aOpoi^to 
 occurs nowhere else and Sodtn adduces no new evidence ! Whereas 
 avvaOpoi^w is Ltican and occurs twice in Acts xii. 12 awiBtov re rj\.Oev 
 eiri TTjii oiKiav (ti;?) Mapta? t>;? firjrpoi Imavvov xat eirtKaXovfievov Mapxov 
 ov T^aav ifcavoi avvqBpoiaiievoi xai wpoaevxo/ievot, Acts xix. 25 ov<t avv- 
 affpoiaa<; xai Tovf Trepi ra roiavra epyara^ ctirei' ■ avSpes ... where NB 
 leave the compound word undisturbed. But in Luke xxiv. 33 there is a 
 second little (rvv which seems to have disturbed these critics, a ' nicety ' 
 of Et(scbius probably, for the sentence runs : xai avaaravTev avrr/ ti) 
 lopa vireaTpeyjrav €(? iXrjfi ■ xai evpov trvvrjffpotcr/uvov^ Tou? evSeica Kat 
 TOW STN avTott. 
 xxiv. 39. Kat trapxa KaiocTTea B™'. Evidently a very ancient " improve- 
 ment." Tischendorf's note is so arranged as to B that it is 
 not at all clear and separates B from the supporting evidence. 
 For 7>c)i'"' has " Jieqtie ossa ncque carnes habet," and D and 
 Dial turn the phrase, bringing the one Kat before aapxa^. 
 Thus D oarea ovk exei Kat aapxai;, Dial oarea xai aapKat ovk 
 eX^'' "'^^o TTvev/xa yap aapxa xai oarea ovk exei. 
 But all the rest omit the double Kat. 
 I dislike to make the following suggestion, as so many scholars think 
 such things arc far-fetched, but if B or its parent were using a graeco- 
 copt {vide 6po>]devTe<; just above) it is possible that Teq just before CA.p? 
 in the bohairic column would have caught his eye, and his mental process 
 involving the thought of Greek re. . .Kat, have caused the first Kat to flow 
 from his pen. In loh it is thus : 
 
 nrtA. EOTfonTEq cApx gi ka.c kata. c{)pH+ 
 W-H do not follow B here, which is an admission that they con- 
 sidered B to have been guilty of trying to " improve." 
 
 Omission changing the Sense. 
 
 I.iike _^ 
 
 V. 33. -Start X»"'" BLWH Sod'* 33 157 2<'' {Sod) 892*? [non 
 Paris"] copt W-H d- Sod txt against all and X*. 
 
 H IN ST. Luke's gospel. 
 
 295 
 
 This makes a statement out of it, instead of a question, which our 
 Lord answers in verse 34, although in verse 34 it merely says o he triaov<i 
 eivev Ttpot avrovf. Possibly the absence of airoKptQei'; here led to excision 
 of htart above. I do not see why all other authorities should add Start 
 however. W-H do not even place Start in margin and have no note on 
 this in ' Select Eeadings.' Why should N* have it? There must have 
 been some marginal note in the Egyptian copies leading to excision in 
 B, followed by the corrector of N. For excision it must be and not 
 "neutral" or "pre-syrian." Some boh codd have it. W omits, but '^ . 
 Paris" have it. Possibly ma©htaiiwannoy MAeHTAiAiATiiWANNOY 
 was misleading. Tregelles correctly refers to Mark ii. 18 where the 
 account is as follows : — 
 
 Kat Tjaav at fiaOifrat \toavvov Kat ot (fiapiaatot {vel raiv ^aptaaiav) 
 vrjffrevovre^, xat epxovrai Kat Xeyovtrtv avroj 'Start ot fiaOjjrat \(i)avvov Kat 
 ot (fuidrfrai) rmv <j>aptaatiov vrjarevovatv, oi Se oat {fiadrjrat) ov vqarevovatv ; 
 
 Here the statement (implied by the loss of Start in Luke) is first 
 made, as in these ampler accounts by Mark, and then Start follows. 
 Possibly in an endeavour to harmonise with Mark, the Start in Luke 
 was marked in the margin of some copies. Modern commentators 
 generally seem silent as to this important change. Tert does not help. 
 
 Addition for the Worse. 
 
 xiv. 34. -t-oyv {post Ka\ov) " KaXov ovv ro aXa " at the introduction of 
 a new subject, quite divorced from xiv. 33 fin. which closes 
 the previous subject, -^ovv is read by NBLX fam 13 only 
 with boh pi [not all, and not sah]. It is a simple error in 
 boh for the word in both sa}\, and boh for salt ends in o"ir and 
 the otn crept in and not out, as sah shows when it disagrees 
 thus with its friends NBL. The ending on in Greek may 
 have led to the addition. But it is quite uncalled for and 
 is not an example of the "shorter" text. W-H and Sod 
 diligently follow NBLX boh and have no marginal alterna- 
 tive. And I claim that they are absolutely and utterly 
 wrong here. W knows nothing of this, nor D, nor syr, . 
 nor lat, but Paris" and 892 with Sod"'""" preserve this 
 old error. {Cf. Merx ad loc. p. 321). 
 An illustration ofl'ers in the previous column of B as to how easy in 
 uncial writing was such a mistake. At Luke xiv. 27 in the phrase oartt 
 ov ^aaraljet rov aravpov eavrov Kat epxerat oirtaot fiov ov Svvarai etvat fiov 
 futSriT7]<i B* writes OYN for OY prim., contradicting the sense, in fact 
 making nonsense. 
 
 (But in an addition for the better at xxiv. 39 "k at aapKa Kat oarea " 
 by B we find Westcott and Hort as well as Soden refuse to follow). 
 
29G 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIEP. 
 
 Subtraction for the Worse 
 
 In this connection add Luke xv. 9 rat <i,t\a<; leai yeiTovat (-to?) 
 NBL 157 247 SocP^" '«" io/,"* W-H .(■ Sod txt only (D ra, yarova, KaL 
 
 All others have ra? before yenova'i including W and Paris", which 
 latter has tou? with M and five other min. 
 
 Indeterminate. 
 
 iii. 17. BiaxaOapat (;)?o koi StaKadapiei) N'B a e salt boh Iroi'"* 
 Tert''""'" Heracl followed by W-H <t Soden without a shred 
 of new evidence (contra rell et N" rell it Iren" Orig^" et 
 contra DW 892 Paris" etc.). 
 
 Exami)lcs of nome pasaages rrhich tcill always remain too difficult to 
 adjudicate, omitted tinder Matthew. 
 Matthew 
 
 ix. ('). eiSijre NBIiMUVAIT al. sah boh aijr lat 
 
 '8';t€ CD"EFLX al. et k videatis 
 
 8. e<t>ol3rid,!,Tav NBD fam 1 22 33 59 372 Sof/*" latt (lyraeter 
 
 f vide infra) copt syr aeth 
 €0avna(Tav C rell omn Sod"'" {vide B if G) arm 
 
 Om. X Iren'"' 
 f and gofh conflate : admirantes timnerunt et 
 The parallel is Liike v. 20 xat eKcrraaK eXa^ev airavra';. It is wholly 
 questionable whether NBD represent the true text here (although 
 supported by latt syr copt). The two readings are very old; observe the 
 conflation of / goth (these two alone) which corresponds to Luke's 
 eKarauK. 
 
 Indeterminate and difficult. 
 
 ke 
 
 xiii, 7. +n<f ov (post€Tri) NBDLT/ajrt 13 892 Paris" 157 1 ( + o(^ 
 V<:) Sod"'^" '" "■■'- it et h [contra A"'] vg et vg^ "!»'"» boh syr cu 
 sin arm aeth 
 Contra om. rell Or omn ,?(/;■"''''"■'' diatcs."! [Orig) Bas bis 
 
 Iren''"' 
 This is an exceedingly hard place to judge. Soden and W-H follow 
 
 t Cf. note on xix. 4, p. 279. 
 
 B IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 297 
 
 NBDLT with the addition without marginal note, nor have W-H any 
 remarks in ' Select Readings ' (although xiii. 8 ia noticed as to Koitpia). 
 Observe this is a question of a longer text and not a shorter one. Had 
 the positions been reversed I can understand a summary dismissal of the 
 evidence of the other side as an accretion to fill out the sense. But here 
 is an accretion on the part of the beloved authorities who are supposed 
 to give U3 a " pre-syrian " pure and short text. I claim that we are 
 justified in objecting to a theory which overlooks or refuses discussion of 
 such a place in the notes. 
 
 The situation is full of interest. Here is the despised boh supporting 
 NBLT. While sah opposes. Here is D joining KBLT, but that is 
 explainable because all the Latins here go with d and NBDLT against 
 
 the diatess arab ; even S against A^'. Here is vg' 
 
 opposing 
 
 diatess arab. Here is Iren'"' opposing all the Latins. Here is Basil 
 joined to the Greek uncials (all but the five mentioned) and all the 
 cursives (but/a»t 13 157 892 Paris" Sod''"") against the addition. But syr 
 cu sin with arm aeth (against sah) support. Here is Origen opposing the 
 addition thus : " /ii/Trore e\0a>v o Se<nroTri<; enri) " tjStj rpta erri epxofMi eiri 
 rrjv avKijv ravTrjii Kai Kapvov ovK Tjveyxev..." We cannot refer to a 
 parallel, because there is none. On referring to the new authorities, 
 what do we find ? We find W does not add. We find 'V does not add. 
 (Neither apparently e sil. Sod does Laura* '"*.) But Sod"^" Paris" do add. 
 We thus have two new authorities for the addition, and two against it. I 
 should not go into this detail, but that I have not noticed elsewhere 
 several changes in xiii. 1/G. Observe then xiii." 2 Tavra for roiavra, 
 xiii. 3 ofwifov for tatravrttx;, xiii. 5 maavrto^ for op-oKot, xiii. 4 avTol for ovroi, 
 xiii. 4 +Tot'? {ante avBpayrrov;), xiii. 4 — ev {ante tXtip), xiii. G > iTeijyvTev- 
 fievTjv ev TO) a/nre\a>vi avTov, all changes adopted by approximately the 
 same small group of Greek uncials, which shows at all events that iti 
 the neighbow'hood of the passage under discussion there was community 
 of origin. I consider that this passage in xiii. 7 requires the most 
 delicate weighing in the light of all the claims of tho.se friendly to B for 
 the "shorter" text, hi this same verse please to notice B* alone with 
 80 substitutes tov tottov for tjjv yrjv. 
 
 Conflict between B and Otigen. 
 
 I have indicated many places in the foregoing as to this. As to 
 Origen why is he wrong at : 
 
 vii. 39. t] a-mopevri {jyro tjti? aTrxeTot) 
 
 viii. 15. CK Tijv KoKrjv yr)v 
 
 xii. 12. Omit ei> avrr) rr] apa 
 
 19. — TToXKa prim 
 
 Orig confirmed by D"' 
 Orig confirmed by D 157 it 
 Origen with 33 
 Orig'" with Scrapion 
 
2i)8 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 xii. 19. aTTOKei/ieva (pro xeifieva) 
 
 avairavov 
 
 N 23.5 348 Sod}'" &" Clem'" 
 Bos Oiig'"'' bis reposita 
 
 om. Clem ( /f ) I ^^ 1 J • r 
 
 .„„ iKdueva. . .om.V a bcdet Leo 
 
 avaaia ovv om. 43o I 
 
 xiii. 24. +iia ti;? arevrj^ {post eiaeXdetv sec.) Origen solus cum {syr sin) 
 
 xviii. 31. Te\ei<.)dri<'€Tai Orig GO 207 Taris" y"" z"*' ai'" 
 
 et Sofi'"" against Te\ea0ricreTai rell. 
 
 Consult also such definite cases as : 
 
 xxii. 3. KaXov/ifvov NBDLX Paris" al' d W-H Sod txt 
 
 Xeyoficvov gorf'™* ''"»'■ i""""- 
 
 €TTiKa\oviJ.evov Rell et Orig Eus (it coi/nominatur) 
 
 I do not understand the science of following the elder Greek uncials 
 
 against Marcion and Origen especially when combined in Luke. e.g. 
 
 xxii. 4. avToit Trapahoa avTov NBCGKLll Sod W-H txt without 
 
 marginal alternative 
 
 avTov -napahw avTOK APWXFAA unc^ l> c f q Jlf(i»-cto;i^''i''' '''" 
 
 Origen Ens*'"^^' 
 
 (while T) a d e ff i I omit auToi?). 
 
 xxiv. 31. Xa/BovTiov Se avTiov rov aprov air av7ov\ 
 
 r)vvyr]aav oi 0^0- avTtov J) d c e I avrav Se hir]Votx9r)aav 
 
 Xa/Soi/Twi/ hi avTiov top aprov hitjvoix- I oi o(j>daK./ioi B rell 
 
 ffrjaav avToiv ot o^ffaX/iot Orig j 
 
 Obs. sijr sah diatcss +evOea)<;. There must be a connection 
 
 between this and T) d c e Orig. 
 
 32. While B retains the two clauses w?. . .&)? (only dropping the 
 
 connecting xai in the Coptic manner with sah boh) Origen, no 
 
 less than eleven times, omits the first w? ekaXei tjjiv with 
 
 a b c e ff^l r sijr cu sin Ambr Atig. 
 
 ii. 52. Trpo€KoTrTev (+ t))) aoi^ia /tot rjXiKia xat ■)(apni BW Paris" 
 
 etc. and W-H (ev tj/ ao<f>ia NL copt Orig^'"* ; —Tq Cijr Epiph 
 
 bis and all the rest as Sod'-"'') but Orig^-^-' omits the article. 
 
 As regards the conjunction including D, while in some places of 
 
 considerable weight, in others it must be also attributed to Origen, 
 
 although sometimes we cannot quote him specifically. In this respect 
 
 hear Hort (' Select Beadings,' p. 70, col 2) : " So that he (Origen) seems, 
 
 in his Commentary on Matthew, to have written under the influence of 
 
 the Western MS or mss which have so largely affected the text of this 
 
 work elsewhere." (Cf. Matt x. 28, x. 37). 
 
 Conjiict between B and Hort. 
 
 .like 
 
 xxiv. 12. Verse omitted by Tisch and Hort (following D a b d c I r) is 
 found in B. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 B IN St. John's Gospel. 
 
 Examples of editing by B. 
 
 """' ix.6. en.dr,'c.v(proe^expc<Te.) B(G* 7) Sod"" ct W-H txt (ex i^. 15). 
 
 36 init. -a-FeKptdv €«"'o? ««' "Tev B, over an erasure, with W 
 alone and T' [ncgl. Sod]. This looks like a mistake but BW 
 add e<f>i after eaTiv and T' before rt? etrTiv. Sah elides air«pA 
 e^iKo? Kai hut has einev (nEXAq tantttm). Boh (with aeth) 
 elides eKeivo<; (^qepOTUU neX-J^q). but .■s^/rsHt emphasises this 
 thus " He that was healed saith to Him." a has respondit, 
 eliding Keii-o? icai et-nev as (A"). For ille q substitutes illi. 
 
 The new MSS T'W with B elide aireKpiOn €icuvo<: and BW 
 
 have «t>v after eanv instead of cnrev before t(9 £<7t« and T' 
 
 writes xai cfv tk €<TTtv « ; (observe N in verse 37 has e<t>r,, while 
 
 all have e<Pv in verse 38). The trouble has arisen over the 
 
 repeated expressions in verses 36, 37, 38, 39, and if anything 
 
 were lacking to show how B operated this makes matters 
 
 clearer. Being in doubt in verse 36 and casting forward like 
 
 a hound he observes the varieties of wording; he writes 
 
 something in and then cancels it again, substituting e<^i; later, 
 
 which, notwithstanding the support of T'W, is very unlikely 
 
 here, and belongs later in verse 38, and not in verse 36 with 
 
 BW, nor in verse 37 with X. 
 
 Hort (Vol. I. ' Text,' p. 557) says : " Even when B stands quite alone, 
 
 its readings must never'be lightly rejected, though here full account has 
 
 to be taken of the chances of clerical error and of such proclivities as can 
 
 be detected in the scribe of B, chiefly a tendency to slight and inartificial 
 
 assimilation between neighbouring passages." But the trouble is that 
 
 while saying this Hort did not recognise the places where B is guilty of 
 
 this but printed them— in this case in his margin. 
 
 Solecisms ofB, and many that may be considered almost as such. 
 
 i. 4 fi7i. — Twx av6pu>TTa)v 
 
 13. — ouSc €« OiXfiim-Tos avSpot 
 
 B* 17' Clem'"'' ''' Eus lib ? 
 Ath'"^'""""'"" (Tichoji"") 
 W-H do not omit, but why not? True Iren and Tert 
 witness to it, but W-H might have omitted this with Clem 
 A than as well as many other things. 
 
300 
 
 JollQ 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 B* 
 
 19 
 
 23. 
 10. 
 
 14. — Kai (ante a\rf6eia<;) 
 
 {Boh has the usual rteju JUeejUlHt, hut sah g| juE- 
 Keither use OfOg here.) 
 
 1-5. o enrmi {pro op uttov) B'C and N* {Olig?) and W-H 
 
 tjt(nonli.V. Sod). Both Coptics have "and crieth out snj/iHi;"' 
 (eqxuj juumoc). Taking verses 14 and 15 together there is 
 some significance attaching to these things. Tisch does not 
 quote copt for fiitav. At anj' rate the community of origin of B 
 and copt is estahlished (as against others) by verse 16 init where 
 on init (for xai of many) is also the reading of the Coptics. 
 
 21. <Tu ovv Ti rfKeia'; ei B'°' vid {variant al.) 
 
 17. >e<TTtv yeypau/ievov {pro yeyp. €<7tiv) B"' cum Sod'^'^ et Chr 
 Cyr {Epiph rjv yeyp.), but against all the rest, and Oxyr"' 
 yeypafifievo!; {nic) ecrriv. 
 
 rpta-iv 7,fi. (-EI/) B'»' et [W-H] Orig-"""' Tert 1/2 Ambrst 
 {rf. sah), but against all others and Clem Orig^* Eus Chr Cyr 
 7)cu'°' {Evst 47 with Ign Sia rpiwv rjftepmv). . 
 
 [Thereagainst in verse 20 B has ev with the mass and ^ a c 
 omit with Clem.] 
 
 €v TM Traa-^a Tq eopTTj { — ev xec.) B""' 
 
 Tov viov ( - avTov) NEW soli {ct W-H, non It. V. Sod ) Not 
 even L or T'' nor ^ nor 892 nor Paris" nor even 33 omits in 
 this important place ; nor d which begins again just here. In 
 fact syr sin insists thus : " His Son His only," and sah " His 
 Son His only Son," and TertuUian is clear. 
 
 Having once stated this in verse 10, there is not so much 
 hanu in omitting avTov in verse 17 as do NBLT''\V fam 1 22 
 202 2''- {Sod) Sod'"'CyrAth. 
 — TO TTvevfia B' et h'"*? syr sin ? soli vid 
 
 + ra> (ante \war)j>) NB soli vid [W-H] 
 
 -r) yvvri B and .lyr sin only (see under Syriac). 
 
 W-H txt omit then alone with B. R.V. and Sod restore it. 
 N* substitutes exeivr] for j; yvvrj. 
 
 40. iTvvjjXOop ovv {p)ro 0)9 ovv avvijKOov) B»»»i /.f g inter latt. 
 
 42. hia TT)v XaXiav aov B°°' cvm Orig''^', contra ti' rell pi Sta tt/v 
 a-rjv XaXmw ct Orig ex Heracl. {Sta Tijf (Trjv /lapTvpiav N*D b dl r) 
 TjXdev ovv TTaXiv e v xava {pro rfK. ovv ■naX. el's t r/v xava) 
 B'°' {nee mutav. correct.) cum N Sod^"*^ "". See under " Change 
 without Improvement." 
 
 T>)v ropav eKeivrjv { — Trap avrtov) B "' cum hoh^. NACDKUU 
 and W have tjjv aipav Trap avrcov, 
 
 and LFA.V iinc'' have wap avToiv rriv apav with Chr Cyr. {Sud' " 
 ■n]v apav, —trap avTo>v but without excunjv which B has.) 
 hid Jin. avrvv {pro avToi'), of the boy, ))y B.\, simply an error. I 
 might point out that even here B has the countenance of 
 
 .')4. 
 
 5. 
 
 11. 
 
 40. 
 
 .'•>2. 
 
 li IN ST. JOHN S GOSrEL. 
 
 301 
 
 another .MS, yet it is an error common to both {avro 892). 
 Instead of grasping therefore at any support for B readings, 
 and where support is found, of adopting them, let us be a 
 little more circumspect. 
 
 The prophecy which I adventured on page 12 has come 
 true. Observe that von Sodcn's witness & 371 (a Ms at SiJiai 
 No. 200) now supports B's hitherto unique dpotjffevTe^ in 
 Luke xxiv. 37, and that Sod^'" (a MS at /l?/io.s, Pantel. 28) 
 supports B's theft in John ix. 6 of e-rreOrjKev (for eirexptcrev) from 
 verse 1.5. See also John viii. 59 — Se B now supported by W. 
 t V. 7. Trpo? efiov {pro irpo e/J-ov) BL only and St. 1550 txt. This 
 seems to destroy the sense and give the opposite sense. See 
 Winer (Moulton edition, p. 407). 
 
 W-H reject all the last seven readings which I have cited 
 forB. 
 -o (n/i^e I»)o-ou?) Bet [W-H] 
 
 - Irjffou? NEW 314 892 .S'ofZ'^n („Mle de '"' ? 
 = Laura'^"") soli vid et[W-H]. (The aeth inserts Dom. Jesus 
 after et respondit et dixit iis, q has et respondit illis Jesus.) 
 Otherwise all mss and versions have it in an early position. 
 
 - irjaovs B c"" Evst 47 Tert. This time 
 without the agreement of LW or 892. In square brackets in 
 W-H. No versions omit here either. 
 
 But then if Tert is to be of weight here, why not at verse 25 where 
 he omits (both in Prax and Ees) xat vvv emiv with X and a b, but as B 
 does not do it, TVestcott and Hort fail to exhibit this " shorter " text even 
 in their margin. Had B joined here for omission they would of course 
 have left it out. Can anything be clearer that it is E and nothing else 
 but B which they consider " neutral." 
 
 Observe again verse 27 > xai Kpiaiv eScoxev avTca e^ovaiav ttoiciv by N 
 alone (for xai e^ovaiav e&axev avTio xpiaiv iroieiv) is exactly the method of 
 Tert"" " et judicium dedit illi facere in potestate." This may be wrong, 
 if you will, but in the next verse but one, verse 29, W-H avail of a 
 " nicety " of B alone of Greeks, as it is supported by Tert and sah a eff 
 Aug (against Iren'"') to omit &e in the second of the pair of clauses, 
 printing ot ra tfiavXa instead of ot Se ra <f>av\a of all other authorities. 
 The new MS W has xai oi for ot Se (with m boh"' syr arm 7rc«'°'). We 
 come back to the same old thing of some marginal remark in the parent 
 of these Egyptian copies which led to change. 
 
 14. 
 17. 
 
 19. 
 
 V. 45. +7rpo? TOV Ttarepa {post o xaTrjyopav v/iav) B*"' inter omn. 
 On the other hand observe syr cu (alone of the versions) omits 
 
 t This must be a "sunspot" according to Souter (' Text and Canon,' 1913, p. 22). 
 ' Little things," however, " show how the wind blows." 
 
302 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 7rpo9 Tov irarepa occurring previously, and deletes it altogether 
 from theverse, as only Atnbr"^. 
 vi. 17. See under "Order." 
 22. Sec under " Form."' 
 
 40, -ToviavtcOcov) B'25iiC!/r[]V-H]{c/.co2>t). Here the article 
 seems to be needed. X Sod^^" and Syii'"' substitute too Trarpot 
 in reduplication of the beginning ovx on tov iraTepa eap., and 
 where some Chr codd substitute on the other hand tov 0eov 
 while ND a b d e substitute tov Oeov for tov iraTcpa at the end 
 of the verse. {Evan 248 Sod"'* substitute trap avTov for 
 napa tov Beov). 
 50. awodviaKi] (pro atroOavri rell omn et Orig Thdf) B Etis W-H 
 mg (Tc^vijfeTaj Clem'""'^''^ a-iroXijTai ^) 
 t 5;-i. -0 (anie \voov;) B et [W-H] 
 
 5K. ef oupavov (pro ex tov ovpavov) BCT 892 Sod'"''^ (et W-H) but 
 against all others aod Orig Bus Cyr. 
 t vii. 1. l7)troii9 ( — o) 
 
 3. See under " Coptic." 
 
 G. "KapetjTiv (pro eaTtv) 
 
 22. ovK (pro ovx) 
 
 '2'i. +0 (ante avOpairo^) 
 
 34. 
 37. 
 
 See under " Coptic." 
 17/309 efie (pro ■npot fie) 
 
 Bet [W-H] 
 
 B**' See under " Improvement." 
 B* 
 
 BN Sod"''' 33 p"' 597 Sod"^^ [nan 
 al.vid.][W-H] 
 
 B 
 
 t viii. 12. 
 t25. 
 134 
 t39 
 
 (Ovi. irpo? fieHV bd e Cypr Vict Aug 2/3 Tisch) 
 42 iiiit. OVK (pro ovx vel ovxi) B*N soli 
 
 (ovx LT Orig W-H; rell ouxO 
 
 B 
 
 Of. et vii. 16 lr,o-ov<! (-6) NB 33 
 Cyr soli et (W-H) 
 
 IlJffOU? ( — o) 
 l-qaov; (~o) 
 Iricrov! ( — o) 
 Irjaov; ( — 6) 
 
 ') 
 
 ibid. TroieiTC 
 
 B (h" 
 
 B314 
 
 B 
 
 B 604 ffvg (seq. tare) et W-H txt Cf. Orig 
 qui lectt i)i commune habet. 
 t42. lv<rov<;(-6) B Sod"' 
 ibid. +6 (ante TraTr)p) B'"' 
 
 58. lv<^ov<; (-i) BC o""' Paris" et W-H 
 
 59. -8e B\\ soli cum vg^>'^[>w)i W-H] 
 ix. 7. See under " Homoioteleuton." 
 
 27. +ovviio.st Ti B~' cum aeth et georg et boh""" (et W-H marg) 
 
 See under " Coptic." 
 35. Uaov; (-i) KB et W-H 
 t 41. It/ctou? ( — o) B 
 
 t In alJ tliese cases WII insist upon enclosing 6 in square brackets in their text. 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL. 
 
 303 
 
 X. 1. >vpiv\e'f(o B"" cum pers coutra mss omn et verss rell et 
 
 contra Clem Chr Cyr Orig'"' et Lucif. 
 7. Ii;<Tou? (-0) B 118 [nonfam] et [W-H] 
 
 >vpiv Xefio B"' pers ut solet again, showing that in verse 1 
 it is absolutely premeditate. I cannot fathom the reason for it. 
 In a dozen instances previously in this Gospel B has made no 
 change ; nor does he change on the next occasions at xii. 24, xiii. IG, 20, 
 but at xiii. 21 he writes again vfuv Xeyco (against Orig'" and Afh al.) and 
 none of Soden's sympathetic mss join B either at x. 1, 7, or at xiii. 21 ; at 
 xiv. 12, however, he leaves Xeya vpiv alone as at xvi. 20, 23 ; nor does he 
 seem ever to vary Xeyw uoi on the half dozen occasions where this occurs 
 except at Luke xxiii. 43, where BC*L arm pers have a/iyv aoi X£7(». 
 Observe Origen with MWAII latt for vimiv Xeyto at Matt xxi. 27, and W 
 alone at Matt xviii. 19 for vp-tv Xeyiu. The noteworthy thing about B in 
 Matthew is that he uses the order avTa ciirev with pers in xv. 15, and 
 soon after at xvi. 4 has aiTei for ^v'''" alone of Greeks with pers'"' arab'"'. 
 Cf. X j}ers soli Matt xviii. 19 avToit yevj]aeTat. All in the same Semitic 
 Gospel and W and N in the same chapter and verse in different 
 phrases. (Cf. Luc xii. 22 where vfuv Xeya is probably original). 
 
 x. 18. TavTtjv evToXyv (pro TavT-qv T-qv evToXriv) B"" ctim Sod"''. 
 
 (Error ex homoiotel. vel ex lat.) 
 
 23. Ii;<T0U?(-0) B I ^, rrirrrl 
 
 25. vo..(-o) Br't"-^^ 
 
 32. > iroWa epya eSei^a v/mv KoXa B"' vid cum Sod'" (Patmos 92) 
 This order is otherwise unique among the Greeks. NAKAII^ A th etc. 
 Sod'''' have iroWa epya xaXa eSei^a vpiv, DLXFA and most have iroWa 
 xaXa epya eSei^a vfuv, while W 220 Evst 54 6 gat syr sin Tert Thdt omit 
 KaXa, and 127 and 245 Epiph omit epya. The omission of xaXa by W 220 
 Evst 54 b gat syr sin and Tert may be basic. The copies were evidently 
 marked in the margin, and B shpws this by slipping in the word later 
 than the place in which it belongs. His order and his reading can 
 certainly not be called " neutral," although Hort actually follows B here 
 in his text, which he invariably does when a variety of readings confront 
 him, and he clings to B to help him out of the difficulty of choice. But 
 the result is only to get further into the mire of idol worship. Souter's 
 edition of the E. V. condemns Hort by going back to the textus receptus 
 and printing ttoWo xaXa epya e&et^a vfuv with D and the majority. As 
 a matter of fact the versions point on the other hand to the order of the 
 X group, and W joins b and Tert for suppressing KaXa altogether. 
 (Tischendorf and von Soden forget to mention Tertullian). 
 
 I notice this matter at some length, because basic principles are 
 involved. And these are that in a question of varieties of order, with 
 omission of a word by some, the probabilities are, first, that the omission 
 is neutral, and the word has been supplied from marginal indications. 
 
304 
 
 C0DI3X B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 or, second, that the omission is an error from carelessness and the matter 
 mended from marginal observations. 
 
 In both cases the margin supplies the missing word.f Mrs. Lewis 
 has vnry clearly stated this truism (Old Syriac Gospels, 1010, p. vii.) 
 which I have quoted on p. 380 of my Genesis of the Versions. 
 
 But I am sick and tired of being told that Hort's methods are sound, 
 bis principles good, and his text the best yet published, when again and 
 again he falls into a common trap like this, and follows a singular variety 
 of order read by B alone, while the facts show that the order in B has 
 been caused by the addition of a word out of the regular order, doubtless 
 from marginal indications. 
 
 How entirely unscientific are the principles involved can be seen 
 from the passages we have adduced within one chapter (x.) and within 
 eight verses (18/25). Here is the record : 
 
 John X. 18. Tipev {pro aipei) KB quite alone and W-H. Cast out by the 
 
 Eevised Version text.J 
 
 t Observe beyond at xviii. 40 under this head, and under "Order" at iv. 9, vii. 12, 
 83, xviii. 2 and xviii. 5. 
 
 A small matter will illustrate this. St. John x. 42, being a very short verse at the 
 end of the chapter, we read the tiny verse with thirteen variations : 
 
 TToXXot OVV fTTltTT^VITaV (li avTOV tKft W BOl 
 
 mil iroXXoi tTTi^Ttvaav (it avrov txii NEDLX* 1 33 157 218 248 249 z'" 
 
 Paris'" aV'^ d ujD eah boh arm aelh W-H. 
 
 KtU TToXXoi (TTtUTtVaitV flf aVTOV ( — f K<l) 
 
 Kot (TTtfTTtvanv tts auTdv noWoi ( — fKti) 
 
 Kai fTTlin(V(TtlV TToXXot flS aVTOV (K(t 
 
 118-209 ^tfra boh"'" syr pe»h sin it omn 
 
 (praeter d 8) vgg omn, 
 Sod.'<" vid 
 AK ?MUn fam 13 254 c"' p'" w"' goth 
 
 Sod. 
 280 vid 
 
 X" (= Sod-^\ Munich 208) vid 
 K ? 16 (sol inter gr) 
 EGHSrAA minn miUt txt rec 8 
 28 235 a'" 
 
 Kat fTTitTTtvcrnv its avTov jroXXoi (itfi 
 lent tTTi(TTtv(Tav flE nvTOv tK<l jToWot 
 tni tiriiTTevaav -iroWoi rts iiuroi; ( — fjcci) 
 
 Km (JTltTTlVffaV TTIlXXol fKft Clff flVTOV 
 
 Kat tiTttrTfviTav cicfi jroXXoi ets nvTov 
 
 Knt tts avTov fnttrrtvtmv TroXXot t^ aurwi' ( — CK€t) arab {sffd hab. tKtt codd'^''') 
 
 TrnXXoi TOlvvv (jriiTTevtrttv ets tivrnv Chr'""^ qd«tinor 
 
 TToXXoi (Ktt (TTtrTTfVfTaV ttS OVTOV Chr'°''" '"" 
 
 K? (Scholz) Evan 16 118-209 (Lake) Sod"" with all the Latins [except d 8] and stjr 
 2>eah with syr sin andpers and C7ir omit tKft altogether. If tKti belongs in 40 ^n. (syr sin 
 and pers transfer it to the beginning of verse 41) tKtt may well be redundant at the end 
 of verse 42. At any rate we have latt and syr this time combined [without D d] against 
 all the Greeks [but Evan 16 118-209 Sod""] for omission where the others vary Ihe order 
 [f^ee further in xviii. 2]. The inference is that tKtt came in from the margin, bnt very 
 long ago (the MS 249 adds ficft in the following passage in xi. 1). 
 
 " Eeaders often made notes in the margin of a MS. Now it was a pious exclamation ; 
 now a parallel passage from another book ; now an antiquarian note, or the expression 
 of a ilifl&cult phrase. Such notes often found their way into the text, and sore is the 
 resulting confusion." — {Canon Glazebrooh : • The next Revised Version,' Contemporary 
 Review, May 1913.) 
 
 At John X. 38 just above, a most difficult place to judge, John Damascene conflates 
 three readings : tva yvtart, Kat jrnTTeuuijTf, Kai tntytvoytTKTjTt. 
 
 X See under " Change of Tense." 
 
 D IN ST. JOHN S OOSPKL. 
 
 305 
 
 X. 25. ovK ewtaTCviraTe {pro ov vtareveTe) B 4 (33) 71 157 and several 
 
 Other cursives Sod"" f C/o-™'" 2/7 and oni A.V., not followed 
 
 by W-H\ 
 
 32. KaXa post vfiiv B alone with SocP" and W-H. Cast out 
 
 hyB.V.t 
 
 The examples of change in x. 18, 32 are not allowed in the B.V. 
 
 text representing Hort's own closest followers. The third case (x. 25), 
 
 occurring between the two others, where he does not follow B, is a case 
 
 where he certainly sliovld have followed B. Not only has B quite 
 
 respectable support for the reading, but grammatically it must have 
 
 appealed to Hort : " aircKpt07i airroK (o) 'IijiroO? ' tlirov v/ilv xal ovk 
 
 inttrTevaare." So writes B. " I told you and ye believed not," exactly 
 
 as our version of 1611. It would really seem as if Hort had some spite 
 
 against King James' translators, for when he can follow them (B teste) 
 
 he refuses to do so. § He prefers to reject B and its supporters for a rapid 
 
 transition of tense: "e'TroK v/ilv xai ov iriarevere," "I told you and ye 
 
 believe not." 
 
 Need I say more concerning such a non-principled and unscientific 
 base for Hort's structure ? Brick by brick it is crumbling, but it is not 
 creditable that it has taken so long for the " powers that be "—scholars 
 in fact as well as in name— to see the weak points. 
 
 Solecisms (continued). 
 
 n 
 
 x. 34. Ij)<7ou9 {-i) B\V soli et [W-H] 
 
 xi. (See under other headings) 
 
 xii. 3. Ii/<7ou (-Tou) B"''f<[TF-H] T/. xix. 38 
 
 ibid. e-nXriaOr) (pro eirXripaffri) B™'. See under " Synonyms." 
 10. effovXevaavTo Be xat oi apxtepei'; ^"'' cmn vg"^ et goth (than 
 auk). Observe one sa/t MS which adds "the Jews." "Took 
 counsel therefore [for sah with Greek MU and a few substitute 
 ovv for Sf] the Jews with the chief priests." 
 
 12. o oxXo<; TToXi/T (pro oxXm iroXv;) BL soli vid cnm boh (see 
 under " Coptic ") et W-H txt (nil in marg). Their phrase is 
 o o)(ko'! TToXv^ eK0a>v for (y)(X<K iroXvi o eXffaiv. Clearly an 
 attempted " improvement." N*A 2"* go at it another way, 
 and subdue o before eX$o>v, thus : oxXo<! ttoXu? eXOav. Sorf°" '''' 
 o^Xo'; o ■iroXvt o tX0(av. 
 
 13. expavyaaav B* "' vid (and see under " Change of Tense ") 
 
 t See under " Change of Tense." 
 X See here supra. 
 
 § I do not mean that B is right, but that Hort's avowed principles, acted on con- 
 stantly elsewhere, should have been followed by him here. 
 
 X 
 
300 
 
 John 
 
 xii. 18. 
 
 28. 
 
 29. 
 40. 
 
 10. 
 
 18. 
 
 19. 
 21. 
 
 2.3. 
 
 2G. 
 ibid. 
 
 27. 
 (30. 
 
 C0D15X B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Matter of order B"'" .'!a/i See under " Order." C/.a,]soboh. 
 fiov TO ovofia (pro aov to ovofui) B and Evan 5 only. See 
 
 under " Hopelessness of considering B neutral." 
 -ovv B-"' and sa7i"""° io/i"""^ and a (mi [W-H]) 
 
 Be jpro ovv W r. 
 — ■nai; Ti^ soli See under " Syriac." 
 
 > weT po'i atfiwv B"" dim W (Note that in D So(f"» ""«*'" 
 Evst 32 aifiwv is omitted, and in c'*' syr sin impoi; is omitted ; 
 no doubt the change of order in B is the result of an addition. 
 Just as in the previous verse, the order fqaovi avTto (for auT&> 
 irjaov;) by BACL Orig is probably due to original omission 
 of avTio as witness DC^^ [teste Sod non Lake] 7 213 Sod^"'^ b 
 de I m boh arm) 
 
 B Orig soli vid, et W-H 
 B^' [See under " Change vfithout Improve- 
 ment " as to the rest of the verse] 
 BC Orig 1/2 See under " Change of Tense." 
 B™' cum pers against all others and Orig"' A th . 
 See above at x. 1 and x. 7. 
 
 tr)aov<; ( — o) 
 
 £/xe (j))0 67r 6//6) 
 TTKTTCinjTe 
 
 >v/iiv Xe^o) 
 
 This is the third occasion of this 
 Hort neglects all of them. 
 l77aou9(-o) B"' 
 
 BMW 314 
 — TO {ante -ylroyfiiov SCO.) 
 \-rj<Tou^ { — o) 
 Note also here It^o-ow ( — o) 
 
 xiv. 10. 
 
 ibid. 
 10. 
 
 et[W-H] 
 
 BL et ]V-H 
 
 BAC*L Sod"'" 22 v«' Sod'"' 
 1246 mn figjiinst the mass. ) 
 37. axokovOeiv (pro aKoKovOt^aai) BC* soli et W-H. See under 
 " Change of Tense." Note that B has axoXovOetv apri but 
 C vvv aKoXovOiiv. (In 47 157 435 d'" v"' and the " Latin " 
 codices 50 58 01 ap^l, which is the source of the change, is 
 omitted.) 
 7rtCTTeu<r6(? B™' (See under " Coptic " and also " Change of 
 
 Tense.") 
 ra p-qijuna a e-fo) ( — \eya>) vfiLV aw cfiavTov ov XdXo) B'"'. 
 r; (pro pevrj) fin vers post aitova B b soli vid et W-H marg. 
 From the variety of positions which ri occupies in B, N, LQX 
 Cyr Did, whilst the /levri has to be accounted for as well, it is 
 clear that »; came from the margin, whether as a correction of 
 fievf] or not. 
 + t7a) BL 314 soli (rf. X 33 127 Sod>^-Uyo) enrov "iij fin.) 
 
 20/27. 
 
 t This is a family ol five Mss (vol. i. p. 249) containing Cyril of Alexandria's com- 
 mentary on St. John's Gospel. It is a nice link between B and Alexandria. Cyril 
 seems to have placed <ya before ttirov, instead of after it as B does, in order to be sure 
 that it came in 26 Jin. and not in 27 inil. See below again at xvi. 13 B with Sorf"'. 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 307 
 
 XV. 5. 
 
 13. 
 
 7. 
 
 10. 
 
 14. 
 
 xvi. 2. 
 
 {(13. 
 
 18. 
 
 19. 
 
 31. 
 
 xvii. 1. 
 
 til. 
 
 12. 
 
 15. 
 
 17. 
 
 ibid. 
 
 21. 
 
 24. 
 
 25. 
 
 xviii. 1. 
 
 2. 
 3. 
 
 See under both " Syriac " and " Coptic." W-H insert at end 
 
 of verse 20. 
 
 oii8e ep (pro ovhev) B"' vid. Cf. copt (om. D d). See under 
 
 " Form." 
 ovie iK (pro ovheK) B"" vid. Cf. copt. See under " Form." 
 av ffeXrire {pro o eav 6e\rfTe) B*"' vid. See under " Form." 
 —/lovtert. B""' (inter gr). See under " Latin." 
 (pro a) B*"' (^inter gr cum Paris") et W-H txt. See under 
 
 "Latin." 
 -vna<;sec. B'"'et[W-H] 
 
 «« T7IU aKrjOeiav vaaav BAY Sorf"' soli cum Orig Did Cyr)) 
 -TtXaXei B 213 S^laeth soli et [W-H] (FJ(iein/ra xviii. 39, 
 
 XX. 13.) 
 Ivaov; (-6) BLW soli et W-H 
 lr,<rov<! (-0) BCW Sod"'" "" t et W-H 
 Ivaov; (-0) KB [non W] Sod""t et W-H 
 varrip ayte sic (pro Trajep ayie) BN soli. [Sod neglects N.] 
 
 Cf. xvii. 21, 24, 25. (See under " Change of Case.") 
 Tjfiev (pro vfV) B'"' hand dubie per incuriam, quia seq. fier 
 
 avTav. 
 — 6« Tou KoiTfiov aW iva rrjp^ari<; avTovt B'. [Burgon quotes 
 Athanasius for this (' Last twelve verses of St. Mark ') but I 
 cannot feel sure that this is beyond challenge. If so it is 
 another link of B with Alexandrian copies where a saltus was 
 made from avrovi; to auTou?.] 
 
 -T»? (ante a\r,deia) B"" vid cum Cyr*'"'' et Sod^^^yrK. ^labet 
 dis Cyr^"). See under " Latin and Coptic." 
 
 BW Paris" soli cum sah boh (syr). See 
 
 under " Coptic." 
 BDNW soli vid et W-H [DW non in 
 
 ver 11 ut B] 
 BAN soli vid et W-H [non DW, non 
 
 Clem] 
 BAT^(-rrarr]p Stxatai) soli vid et W-H 
 
 [non DW, non Clem] 
 NBL* soli vid et W-H [twn W rell] (Cf. 
 xviii. 23 et alibi) 
 See under " Order." 
 
 -€K sec. B 314""" e< [ IF-HJ See under " Coptic." -cktwv 
 
 NN" etc. 
 
 + fj (ante aKri6eta) 
 ■narrjp (pro rrarep) 
 ■wari]p ( ,, „ ) 
 TraTTjp BiKaie sic 
 Iri<TOV^ ( — 6) 
 
 t This is a codex at St. Petersburg. The other Sinai, Jerusalem, and Athos codices 
 sympathetic to B elsewhere do not elide these articles in St. John if they have been 
 properly collated for Sodcn. 
 
 X Cf. BN at iv. 46 ry Kam. 
 
 X2 
 
308 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 xviii. 5. >eyco eifu irtdov; B a. See under " Older." 
 
 t 15. >yra<TTO'! vv BW 4 Paris" Sod'"' W-H marg (with a 
 
 <^fffl '' (""■ !/«< syr boh) See under " Order." 
 31. 7r6(\oTo<r (-0) BC* Sod""- soli et W-H 
 
 Since I have noted in this Gospel where B omits the article 
 (alone or in a small minority group) before Ij/o-ou?, I note this 
 also. It may be a concurrent version influence (which is the 
 more probable and an error oculi) or carelessness, or a prefer- 
 ence. The reader is capable of judging. But while at xix. 5 
 B omits o before Itjitou? and o before av6pQ>iro<! in the same 
 verse, in both of these particular cases absolutely alooe, Hort 
 places [o] before I?)(tou? in square brackets but leaves 6 
 before avOptoTtot. What kind of editing is this ? 
 30. -av B°°' cum. 3"' Sod^''^ (as the versions; and cf.ahe aiir 
 
 There is a treble variety of order here : 
 o( uTTjjpeToj av oi efioi riycovi^ovTo AD""' N and most Gr. with 
 
 q 8 Orig 1/4 Hier'"' '"' 
 ot vwrjperai oi efioi av rjytovi^ovTo c f ff Q r »(/'^+ aelh Aug, and 
 01 vir-qperai oi efioi r]ywvi^0VT0 av NLXB""''W^ 1-299 [nmi 
 
 209] fam 13 33 91 213 249 Paris" .Soc?'"" '"" "• c^" arm 
 
 Orig 3/4 Chr Cyr et W-H Sod txt, 
 the latter order probably being of an " improving " tendency. 
 It is the order followed by Hort, who neglects the omission 
 of av by B. 
 39. -ev (unterw -naaxa) B"" cnm Sod'^"" et [W-H] (Cf. aeth"''. 
 
 Cf. syr. Cf. q " per pascha." Of. a om. ev tm iraaxa. 
 
 Bell omn et sah boh +ev plane) 
 (40. -Travret UBIjXW [non 28 male Scho Tisch] 71 213 249 MH 
 43.5 i"" al. minn^' So(i"'» '=""""""'•<-" On> ?, but absolutely 
 no versions except pers, which Tisch and Homer neglect to 
 mention, but which probably represents sjjr sin here. That 
 document is wanting from xviii. 31-xix. 40. I merely record 
 this matter here as W-H of course omit, and Soden omits. 
 The omission of Travref has no other version support, and I do 
 not think we can neglect all the Coptic and Latin codices 
 in such a place. No reader of Hort's or Souter's edition of 
 li.V. text would ever suspect that ttovtm occurred in avy 
 document ! Probably the omission of Troi/Te? took place from 
 misunderstanding a mark of deletion set against the woi:d 
 naXiv next to it, which word is omitted by GKUfl many laf, 
 
 t I enter such a thing here, as hitherto B has been recorded alone for it. The entry 
 will serve to call attention to the additional support, and its possible source. 
 
 B IN .ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 3C9 
 
 sah boh acth arm syr pers arah. This is why the versions 
 have ■navT€<; and not -rraXiv, and I think are most likely right 
 against NBLXW which dropped the wrong word. In order 
 to show that NBLXW form but one recension here, consult 
 xix. 3 only three verses further on, and observe the form used 
 of ehihoaav by these MS8 and Cyril followed by W-H and 
 Soden against the rest for eStSouv. The family appears to be 
 complete, Soden quoting K« as a whole for his five mss with 
 Cyril's commentary (p. 249, vol. i.) besides C" (our 138). ) A 
 somewhat similar matter as to iraXiv and Trawre? occurs at 
 Mark vii. 14 to which Burgon calls attention in his " Causes 
 of Corruption." 
 I do not think I am forcing an argument here by suggesting that a 
 mark set between TraXiv and Travre? may have been mistaken for in- 
 structions to delete TravTe? instead of ■jraXiv. There are many clear 
 illustrations of such practice, and many other places where we can infer 
 such a state of things. For instance, given the well-known and wonderful 
 sympathy existing between ti" and e'^t, it is interesting to observe that 
 where e alone with A* Sod (= X"" Munich 208) syr sin pers (aeth) omits 
 irparo's in John xx. 4 N aloife is found to place it after ttt to /Mvrjfuiov 
 instead of before it. This change of order in N doubtless grew out of 
 the addition from the margin of N and e's common (Graeco-Latin ?) 
 archetype of the missing word. 
 
 (See under " Order " at iv. 9, vii. 12 33, xviii. 2, 5, as to similar 
 matters concerning B, and previously under this head of " Solecisms " 
 at x. 32.) 
 
 John 
 
 xix. 5. Iijffoy? (-o) B"" vid et [W-H] 
 
 ibid. avOpaTTot ( — o) B™' vid [non W-H] 
 
 12. av (pro eav) B'"' vid [mn W-H] 
 
 28. Iv^ovt (-o) B Sod""" [non W-H txt] 
 
 30. lv<Tov<;{-i) BWct[W-H] 
 
 S8. Iv^ov (-Tovpr.loco) Bet [W-H] C/. xii. 3. 
 XX. 13. +Kat (ante \eyei avroK) B aeth arab soli vid [tion W-H] (q 
 quae dixit, Etcs t) he enrev. georg Tunc dicit. Rell omn 
 \eyei avTom) 
 Cf. B and aeth above at xvi. 18 and xviii. 39. 
 (1.5. l7;<7ou5(-o) HBhW min"" W-H ; xx. 16 lijaou? (-o) BDLG 
 Sofi"" W-H; XX. 17 I.;<tov?(-o) BDLM*^ W-H; xx. 
 24 iTjffou? (-o) NBD W-H against Cyr; xxi. 13 14 
 Iijffou? (-o) BC?D W-H against Cyr) 
 17. >iiJi a-mov fiov {pro /ir/ fiov a-mov) B Tert verss aliq W-H^' 
 
 (see under " Order.") 
 
 t Compare shortly afterwards at John xx. 12 He alone together omit ivo. 
 
310 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 XX. 20. +Kai {ante rai xeipai) BA only and W-H (See under 
 
 " Improvement.") 
 23. THw bin (})ro tivwv) B et W-H"' See under " Latin," 
 
 " Syriac," and " Change of Number." 
 
 29. \v<Tov<!(-6) Bet [W-H] 
 
 xxi. 1. lv(Tovt (-6) BC et W-H 
 
 10. \r,aov<:{-6) Bet [W-H] 
 
 12. lr,,Tov';{-6) Bet[w-H] 
 
 (10. TO trpoParia BC 19 22 Sod}'" Theophan b et W-H txt ; 
 xxi. 17 TO TTpofiaTia ABC Ambr et W-H txt) 
 
 17. -avrwtert. B^ 249/ Soti" """«'"'"""" [»io« IF-i?!] 
 
 18. Kai aWo? t^uiaei ac B "' vid (cf. Old versa) 
 
 ^4. Kat /iapTvpo)!/ {pro o fiaprvptov) BW et Cyr {soli vid) et 
 " ftp" teste Soden {Cf. gatfoss vg^ vg'*' aeth 4-ille) 
 The additional testimony of W here is completely neutralised 
 by a consideration of the few late Latin witnesses which 
 simply add tile for emphasis, as do BW Cyr when they add xat. 
 The silence of the rest speaks for itself and we close as we 
 began with the perfect assurance that B is to blame for an 
 infinite variety of small as well as large mistakes made in an 
 effort to improve the record. Hort places this last variation 
 in his margin. 
 
 Latin Sympathy. 
 
 iii. 30. ovK oyjreTai ^ariv (-tt/v) NABCDT" W Paris" at. (" non 
 videbit vitam " latt) W-H et Sod txt contra ti/v ^tariv rell ct 
 Ign Const jBas"""'" Chr Cyr TJidt et copt. 
 V. 30. SeSaxev {pro eS««ev) NBLNF e< W 1 38 157 al. pane. 892 
 
 [non Paris"] Ath Cyr latt W-H Sod. 
 vi. 17. €j? irXotov (-to) NBLA [non D nee W] 33 113 131 213 
 
 239 254 004 892 Paris" Sod""' •<"» soli with Cyr W-H Sod txt 
 against all others and against both Coptics. 
 49. See under "Order." 
 vii. 4. avTo {pro auTo?) BDW d. Tisch and Soden quote sah 
 
 boh for this reading, but it is doubtful if one can read this into 
 them. The Syriac is also doubtful. The " neutral " reading 
 (6 e dim {r) aeth ? and {boh)) appears to omit both avTov and 
 avTo. [E* 253 read avTov, but the readings to choose from 
 are clearly outo?, or avro, or plain omission, and avToi is 
 undoubtedly right.] Hort consigns avro to his margin quite 
 correctly, and Souter's B. V. edition follows suit, outo appears 
 to be an " improvement." 
 0. napeariv {pro etrrtv in sec. loco) B*' and a few vulgates. 
 
 See under " Improvement." 
 
 B IN ST. John's gospel. 
 
 311 
 
 JoIlD 
 
 vii. 22. <7a/9/3aT<» (-Ev) Bber soli 
 
 44. efiaXev {pro eveffaXeu) BLT [non minn] W-H [non Sod] Cf. 
 
 misit it" vg. 
 viii. 55. o/iojo? vp-w i^ei/aTtj? {pro ofioiot v/iav i('£yo-T);9) BABW fam 
 1 52 138 (= Sod'^") 157 254 2"" et latt: similis vobis mendax. 
 The dative is as legitimate as the genitive in Greek, but there 
 must be some reason for the preference of the small group 
 here. It is opposed by N and the rest including ^ 892 and 
 Paris" and Tert. See note under " Change of Case." Soden 
 does not follow BADW. 
 ix. 14. nv he aaPParovevn rtjiepa {pro rjv Se o-a/3^. ore) NBLXW 
 33 213 (-^/«pa) ir-H'" Sod^' and c ff in qua die, a 6 r qua 
 die, and e (in quo = 213"), si/r/ner and Cj/r, while »<7*' conflates 
 Vfith in illo die quando. This is opposed by D and the rest 
 and 892 Paris" and none of the other cursives know anything 
 about it. 
 
 Observe here that the Coptics and other versions are also all 
 against it,t and that the vulgate knows nothing of this matter 
 of NB. Therefore the codex similar in other respects to NB 
 (see Wordsworth and White's Preface) did not have this 
 reading, which proves that 892 and Paris" here provide us 
 probably with the real underlying text of KB, rather than NB 
 themselves. Is it a Johannine improvement of NB ? See John ' 
 V. 9. V" ^ aaPPaTOV ev exeivr) rij rjpepa. 
 xix. 31. rfv yap p.eya\r) v Tj^e/ja €K€tvri{veleKeivov) tov aaPffarov 
 
 ix. 19. >/3\£Tr£( apri {pro apri 0)^net) NBDLUW 33 892 [non 
 
 Paris"] W-H Sod txt bed fflsyr sin hier pers [non syr pesh] 
 
 Cyr Chr 1/2 {0\eirei vw Chr 1/2) against the rest and against 
 
 sah boh and the other versions. 
 
 35. et-rev ( - avra) N'BDW d e boh"""' W-W SodT', against all 
 
 the rest and syr sin and all the versions. 
 
 40. >0t H€T aVTOV OVT£? {pTO 01 OVTCt /i€T aVTOv) NBDLXW^ 
 
 fam 1 33 157 213 248 2"" 892 Paris" Sod"" et Soi'' (°-"'"> {Sod 
 txt et W-H) Cyr only of Greeks, but with all latt. The other 
 versions vary. 
 X. 12 init. o piaeoyTot {-co2)ula) BGLW 1 [non fam] a aur vgg" 
 boh"""' Lucif, against o fuaff. Se by most and Eus Chr copt and 
 versions, and o S« iitaO. NDXA Sod"" Const Cyr. 
 16. >&ei pf (pro pe Sei) NBDLWAD^ 1 [non fam] fam 13 33 
 348 v/"' Sod"-'^ "" '"* '"' [non Paris" nee al. vid] it vg syr (sah) 
 
 t Syr tin however has : " And that same day was the Sabbath," cancelling the 
 whole ol the rest of the verse. While the Georgian version alone reverses the order of 
 verses 13 and 14, placing verse 14 first. 
 
31-2 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Orif/"" ]V-HSod, but against all the rest of the Greeks and Etis 
 Bas Clir Cijr and Thdt. 
 X. 17. >fif oTrarrip ayawa {jywo-raTnp/ieaya-na) NBDEiX'l' [;ion W] 
 33 213 248 249 Paris" So(f """■"" " '^' it vg Chr Cyr against the 
 rest (M fie o iraTtip /« ayaira ; Chr aiir fie ayaira o itari^p ; gat 
 dim. c.f. boh) and syr dihgit lue pater. Me diligit pater meus 
 A net de prom. 
 IH. Tjpev {pro aip€i) NB only and W-H. Not one siogle 
 
 minuscule. See under " Change of Tense." Cf. gat tullit. 
 2!). & {pro 09) NBLW^I' Evst 15 it vg boh [nan 
 
 !>ah] Trrt {ml variant eodd) Hil W-H ct Sod txt. Contra 
 
 rcll et Cyr. 
 ■■^Ifin. >€fi€ XtOa^ere NBL^ Sod"'" 33 157 Paris" Sod'" 
 
 "'° "" et txt it'" vg Ath against Xi0. fie of DW most and c / 
 d I S goth boh sah syr Epiph Thdt Hil. (Tiseh omits to 
 chronicle sah boh here against NBL). 
 40. efievev {pro efiewev) B 21 soli, et a b c e ff I [non df r S 
 
 vgg Aug (hiat 5)] (efieiv W, rell epeivev) Om. xai efieivev €«« 
 syr sin, or perhaps om. efieivev and use xac exei (as does pers) 
 to begin the next verse, 
 xiii. 2. ivavapah avTovlovhat'lifiavo'ilaKap. NBLMXX''( = Scwi* *) W 
 Laura*"" (Sod teste) bffg I gat vg arm Orig^^"'^' W-H Sod txt, 
 against lovSa ^ifiMvot iaxap. iva avTov Trapah. J) rell omn, rell 
 latt syr aeth and Origen many times. 
 10. >ovK exei X/"""" NABCW^ ae q Orig''"'^" Tert Aug W-H 
 Sod txt against ov XP^^"-" ^X^' o' D ^^^ *H the rest Chr Cyr 
 but only d latin. The other Latins express non indiget (?• is 
 not available), while Coptic is ffCIPjoplA. A.rf. 
 19. See under " Order." 
 
 3(3. > aKoXovdrfaet^ Be (fioi) varepov NBC'LX 1 Sod}" [non /am] 
 33 138 {Sod'^") 213 Paris" Sod^'^ Orig Cyr and Latin order 
 W-H Sod txt, against DW the rest of the Greeks (and only 
 d of the Latins) syr boh sah etc. This place deserves 
 some consideration. The alignment of authorities is 
 peculiar, 
 xiv. 31. evToK'qv eSwKsv fioi (pro everetXaTO /loi) BL | 
 
 and „ SeSioxei' fiot ( „ „ „) X 33 ( ['««/"•"«'"•(? 8] 
 
 and ,, fiot SeSmxev Cyr et b c q gat. 
 
 and ihuiKev fioi evToXriv 2'" (negl. Tiseh) 19'"" (eSooxe fiot o Trarr/p 
 
 evToXrfv 1 [«o»/o7/i]). 
 This is an interesting place, where all the Latins, except d S, favour 
 BLX 33, while N and all other Greeks with D have evtreiXaTo and d B 
 only of Latins nuxndavit, against mandatum dcdit or praeceptum dedit of 
 the rest (Wordsw neglects to mention S definitely here). All the versions 
 (including copt syr) are with the body of Greeks for €i/€T6j\aTo. Only 
 
 n IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 313 
 
 aeth favours BLX and the Latin. Add 213 (Sod'") Sod"' "" and compare 
 his note. He avoids the reading in his text. 
 
 It is rather a crucial passage in connection with the " version 
 tradition " which here narrows down to the Latin. As in verses 26/27 
 (see under " Syriac ") we have just had another apparent version influence 
 it will not do to put aside too contemptuously my views on this subject. 
 Souter (J.T.S., Oct. 1911, p. 120) says of me : " The general theory which 
 underlies his views is that a trilingual or quadrilingual copy of the 
 Gospels existed in early times, the four languages represented being 
 Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. He finds that this hypothesis, com- 
 plicated as it is, explains certain individual readings in some Greek Mss. 
 He rejects without reason, as far as I can find, the simpler hypothesis 
 that Greek copies behind the Latin, Syriac and Coptic versions were 
 dififerent to some extent from all surviving Greek copies." 
 
 Now my dear Dr. Souter, it my theory be complicated (and it is far 
 less complicated than some others) it covers admirably cases like the 
 present, where it is not a question of " Greek copies behind the Latin, 
 Syriac or Coptic versions being different to some extent from all 
 surviving Greek copies," t for here we have three Greek uncials BLX 
 and two cursives (33 2^*, of very critical repute [opposed here by Paris" 
 and the other thousand] plus 1 and 19 marg) which give the reading of the 
 Latins, which the Eevised Version disapproves, condemning it as a 
 version tradition, and condemning Hort for adopting it, because that 
 TEXT GOES BACK TO €i/€T€jXaTo. No doubt the latter is right. No doubt 
 N and the mass of Greeks with D (and d S plus the versions) are right. 
 Don't condemn me in this cavalier fashion then, if you please, but look into 
 these matters a little more carefully. There is no note in your edition on 
 this reversal of Hort in the Greek Testament, published in 1910. 
 
 Whenever Hort's decisions are reversed in such a publication a note 
 is absolutely due and called for, in order that students may see what is 
 the present eminent opinion on textual matters to date. 
 
 The evidence is withheld in several such passages, which is not a 
 proper method, and I am surprised that the Delegates of the Oxford 
 Press consented to issue the work without an apparatus covering the 
 evidence in all the places where Hort's judgment and his readings are 
 tacitly condemned, and where simultaneously B is condemned for 
 falsifying the record. 
 
 Bear with me a moment longer. Look forward only two verses 
 beyond. At: 
 
 t DifTcrent is the situation at xv. 21 where instead of vfitv or vfiac BD*LN^ 1 83 
 Paris" Laura* >"* (iette Sod) W-H and Sod txl with Pi/r"" write eit ujwc, while b e ff I 
 write circa vos showing no Latin reaction on Greek from circa. However d has in 
 vot as tyr, and one boh MS tpuUTErt, instead of irOUTCIt, for the pinralit; of bok 
 and all lah with the other Latins are opposed to an; preposition. 
 
314 
 
 ■TullD 
 
 CODEX n AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 XV. 2 fill. Ilort reads iva >Kapirov irXeiova < ipepr) with BLMX'"? 33 
 
 157 213 ;!97 Sod'^^'' Paris" and W-H Sod txt Ens Gyr Novat 
 
 Hi! Orig^'" ayr jiesh and all the Latins in this order (N and 
 
 Chm Kapirov TrXetto ; fructiim multuiu e, fructum plus vgg and 
 
 g aiir gat; fructum majorem q, fructum ampliorem a d r, 
 
 fructum phirimum b c f ff I foss) but not t '' S, for d reads : 
 
 ampliorem frum a,nA S plus fnietum in the usual Greek order. 
 
 The Eovision admits that Hort again followed the same version 
 
 influence here, for the correct reading is adjudged to KDA the Greek 
 
 mass and d S, against BLMX^ 33 157 Paris" and the Fathers, for in the 
 
 Testament of 1910 iva irXetova Kapirov tfiepr) is printed, but there is no 
 
 note on it, although you pause to tell us that earlier in the verse D Cyr 
 
 (and Clem) read xap-no^opov for Kaprrov ipepov. [Since this was written it 
 
 has become clear that Soden has no real critical principles either. His 
 
 text is a curious exhibition of eclecticism (see below at x. 28, xiii. 26). 
 
 Here he follows Hort.] 
 
 Oblige me once more by considering your theories — " on the founda- 
 tion (which) they have laid the future will do well to build " (' Text and 
 Canon,' p. 103) — in connection with this Oxford text. It reverses (with 
 perfect correctness) the decision of BLMX^ 33 157 Paris" Etis Cyr 
 Novat Hil Orig'"^ and IVestcott and Hort, although you still pretend 
 that their foundations are secure. But if wrong at xiv. 31 and at xv. 2, 
 twice within three verses, may I ask why we should follow B and Hort 
 in countless other places where they have far less support than here? 
 We have simply come back to individual preferences. We are still 
 floundering. We have no fixed principles of criticism. All the nonsense 
 about " neutral" "pre-syrian" "Antiochian" fades away, and we must 
 begin all over again. We need critical principles, and I claim to have 
 established that we have none. 
 
 .ToIlQ 
 
 XV. 9. > u/iot via-TTn^a BDL^ 1 {non fani] 33 ? 213 SocJ"' \non 
 Paris" nonal. gr'\ a b d e ffq [tion syr copt^ W-H Sod txt. 
 Again abandoned by B. V. 
 
 10. Tov TTOT/so? { — ftov) B*"' ciivi a b c ff q aur W-H Sod txt. 
 
 Abandoned by B. V. Sod adduces no new witness. 
 [In all these places W is wanting. The MS lacks xiv. 25- 
 xvi. 7.] 
 
 11. We must now add to this imposing list of Latin influence on 
 B the present place where jj is substituted for /j^Ivji by BAD^ 
 only of Greek uncials and by a few cursives. All the Latins 
 (except/) have sit. Against them are N and the rest and 
 
 t Tischcndorf obscures the situation by not speciBcally meDtioning d fi aa accom- 
 panying the ma39 of Greeks. He simply says il vg as a whole to accompany BLMX. 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 315 
 
 Chr Cyr. The versions may be " anceps " as Tisch. remarks 
 as to Coptic, and fieivii may have come back from the repeated 
 forms of peva in the previous seven verses. We need not 
 quarrel about it, but the place should be viewed in connection 
 with the Latin influence at xiv. 31, xv. 2, xv. 9, xv. 10 just 
 discussed, before we accept Hort Soden and B. V. here. (Om. 
 157.) Besides, consider the next place involved : 
 XV. 14. tav irotrp-e o eyio evTeWo/iai v/iiv B and Paris" alone of 
 Greeks (against a and oaa of the rest and Cyr) with a e q syr 
 sin goth (Cypr) Lucif2l3. Some, as Thdt and syr pesh aetli, 
 emphasise " all which." If B be correct all the rest have 
 edited here, which is quite possible. Hort says they have, 
 for his text has o following B "', but the Oxford text of 1910 
 denies it, returning to a as does Soden. Tales duces caeci. 
 xvi. 12. >ex'» vp,iv \eyeiv NBLY^ 33 118-209 [von 1] 213 Sod^' b 
 c (e) f ff g I m q r gat vg Theogn Ath W-H Sod txt (Tert Cyr 
 Hil Orig'"' are on both sides), but all the rest oppose with 
 DA a d S and Coptic etc. for e^"" ^^7"" "/'■"' with Eus Did 
 Orig Chr Thdt, and Paris'" specifically with Xeyetv e^w v/iiv. 
 
 18. liixpov (-to) BLY^N' 121 124 [nonfam] 213 397 Sod"'° 
 14S1 f.m*9 ^^gt GO Orig W-H {lat: pusillum t)ei modicum) but 
 as fuKpov is employed by all Greeks in verse 19 without to, it 
 is probable that Orig and BLY'F are merely harmonising 
 and improving here. Soden does not follow them here, 
 although adding new witnesses, among them D which is 
 wrong, 
 xvii. 1. —(701/ sec. That is to say : iva o vio<; ho^aar] ere (instead of tva 
 o i»(09 <Tou So^aarj ae) NBCW 47 C4 Sod" ^' [noil "9 non 
 Paris"' 710)! min al. vid] Orig 1/2 Victoriii Hil 1/2. I do not 
 know whether I should place this here or not. Perhaps it is a 
 doctrinal alteration, but the only support among the versions 
 is from a small Latin band, viz. d (against D") e and ff'. The 
 other Latins and all the Versions with D and the rest of the 
 Greeks supply aov, while Origen is divided and Orig'"' witnesses 
 twice against the omission. Soden' s text places crov in square 
 brackets. 
 
 11. airroi {pro oinot) NB 229" 254 Sod'"" "" "»= ' "i *'^^» soli 
 vid cum d f W-H''' non Sod {om. vg'^). Cyril reads o^toi 
 with the mass, 
 xviii. C. -oTi NABDLNXn et Vf^/am 1 22 33 42 100 
 
 127 138 157 265 Laura*'"* Sod"' 2i" w^' [non Paris"] and 
 it vg W-H Sod, but against the rest of Greeks, the other 
 versions, including the friendly syr and cojit and against 
 Orig and Cyr. 
 
 10. arapiov NBC'LXW (pro ariov) Soden only adds 
 
316 
 
 JdIiu 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 one cursive Sod""" {a. us at Sinai) but follows in his text. 
 Of. it vg : auriculaui. [Non rell gr nee "V Paris".l 
 xviii. ]5. Sec under " Order." 
 
 17 
 
 'fi 
 
 '29. iiva Karriyoptav (pepeje {-KaTa) rov avOptotrov tovtov K'B 
 Paris" estac q (Cf. acth gcorg). This is against all others 
 and Chr Cyr and b/ffg gat vg (adversus) and copt syr. 
 
 The common base breaks down here, for CLX so friendly a 
 few verses before, and even W^ with <^ij<rti< in this verse, 
 abandon NB to their fate. Only Paris" stands by them and 
 IV-II without a word in their margin. Soden abandons them 
 and has no new witness for omission, but he forgets to 
 note a c. 
 31). -av B'J ,Sod^" See under " Solecisms of B." Cf.ahe 
 aiir vgg 1/2. This is quickly followed (against N) by a real 
 Latin order : 
 38. ovSe/Miav evpiuKo) ev outm atriav BLX 213 249 Paris" Sod'"' 
 UH K.CS (a)hceffg vg Cyr W-H Sod txt. 
 Cyr vouches for it as the continuation of an Alexandrian 
 order. It opposes : 
 ovBe/j.iav aniav ivpicKa ev avToD of NNW^ al. plur q goth {sail 
 
 boh) syr arm Chr. 
 xix. 7. Kara tov vop.ov {-rifiav) NBD""''LNA et Vf^ Paris" 
 
 it [omn practer g] vgg Orig ct Orig""- Hil Aug Quaest, but 
 against all the rest, all the minuscules, Cyr, and all the other 
 versions. Soden places it in square brackets without adducing 
 any new witnesses. 
 
 28. > Ii7(7ou9 6<S<tf? BM* Sod"" K' W-H"'^ h e fffnr aw Hil 
 (against ej8w9 o \i)aov<i N and many W-if'" Sod'-"-, and 
 against \ha>v o Ii/ffou? E and a good many, and against the 
 order of syr copt etc.) 
 
 29. <rK£i;o9 sine copula BALXW^ 61* Paris" a b e r foss 
 
 W-H [Sod]. 
 38. Xwaif^ o aiTo Api/iaffatai; most and W, but: }a)<Tri<j) airo ( — o) 
 
 A.pip.. BAD"°'"(L)X?1' 90 Paris" Sod""* and latin, against 
 
 both Coptics diserte. W-H elide o, Sodeti places it in square 
 
 brackets. 
 41. »)v Te0etp.evo<; {pro €Te0ri) NBW Paris" Cyr Sod'""^' 
 
 W-H ct Sod txt. {Sod"" is Laura*"* which Lake did not 
 
 collate hereabouts). Cf. lat positus erat. Cf. Luc xxiii. 53. 
 
 See under " Harmonistic." 
 XX. 19. -Twi/ {ante aaffffaTav) NBAIL 33 Sod"" W-H Sod 
 
 txt. {/iiai aaPfiarav W) The rest and Cyril^" have the 
 
 article. 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 317 
 
 XX. 23. Tjvo? bis {pro twiov bis) B"' aefsyrCypr Orig^"- Eus Aug 
 
 Pncian Atict'""^ W-H""' [nmi Sod], but against all else. 
 xxi. 6. la^vov {pro taxvaav) See under " Change of Tense." 
 
 22. > av /Ml aKo\ov6et NABC'DW 1 [non 209] 83 [non viinn Scr. 
 Matthaei Soden. The latter adds Sod^' (= Cyr)] latt Orig 
 Cyr. (Om. 23.5 Chr). 
 
 23. >oi/To« o Xoyoi NBCDW 1 33 2"' it {syr copt) W-H Sod 
 txt. The rest oppose with Chr 1/2 Cyr 1/2 ; and a few cursives 
 with Chr 1/2 Cyr 1/2 and Origeii omit outo?. 
 
 24. +0 {ante fpa^a<;) = Kai o ypa^a^ BD {Sod"'' a xat yp.) 
 33 ? 6 d g r vg^' {a) (e) (/) W-H txt. (N vrates o Kai ypa-fai 
 with 265 348 Sod^' Sod txt Cyr and c). 
 
 Coptic Sympathy or Influence. 
 
 i. 14, 15. See under " Solecisms." 
 18. fiovoy£V7i(t 0eo^ NBCL 33 boh [sah ita : " God did not 
 
 any see ever ; God the only son "] syr pesh aeth etc. [jion 
 Sod txt]. 
 43 init {Steph Tisch, ver 42 W-H Sod), riydyev sine copula 
 NBL 314 sah W-H Sod txt [contra rell et syr lat]. Boh 
 with Gfam 1 arin Epiph have outo? r/y. (ijy. ovv Evst 15 6, 
 rjyayev Se Paris") 
 ii. 17 init. Absque copula NBLT'X sah boh {more copt) Eus Cyr 
 1/2 against all the rest and Epiph Nonn Orig. 
 iii. 8. aWa ovk B"' (pro aW' ovk) [non W-H] Cf. sah boh, 
 
 ambo aXKa 
 16. aXKa exv BW soli W-H Cf. sah boh 
 iv. 23. aWa epx^-rat NBADW sah boh W-H [contra aW' epx- rell 
 
 o)mt] 
 v. 42. a\\a eyvaxa BDLW [non 28 male Sod] 33 185 Sod>'" W-H 
 
 = sah boh 
 
 m.l3fln.-oavevT<oovpava NBLT"!' e^ W 33 Sod™ [non 892 7ion 
 
 Paris"] sah, boh 1/2, basm (frag Crum-Ken gr et copt) Cyr 1/2 
 
 {Orig'"* 1/3) W-H Sod txt, but against all others and it vg syrr 
 
 (all except one codex of pesh) arm Hipp Dion] Eustath] 
 
 Amphil Did Epiph Chr Thdt Cyr 1/2 Orig'" "" '""" Novat Hil 
 
 Lucif Jac"". 
 
 iv. 10. ffou Toi/ avSpa B 69 [?K»^ fatn] 71 74 248 254 430 
 
 {Sod^ ") Sod'" Evst 32 60 sah boh Orig 3/6 W-H txt 
 
 without marginal remark, {aou tov avSpa aov 6"*) 
 
 t TUch and Homer omit these witnesseB. 
 
318 
 
 John 
 
 CODEX 13 AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 against tov avhpa aou of N and all else including WD 
 892 Paris" Orig 3/6 and Cyr. 
 
 iv. 51. -/cat r,yy€i\av BLN 18-5 213 Sod'^' ' "» ""' c hoh aeth W-H 
 and Sud txt. That is to say : Xeyovje^ pro xai riyyeiXav, or 
 2^ro Kat TjyyctXav \€yovT€<; which latter the sah MSS have in full. 
 Now how about boh being so youthful, if BL be basic here 
 as Hort indicates in his text without marginal alternative, 
 followed by Soden ? In Dr. Souters latest book (' Text 
 and Canon ' p. 06) he does me the honour to keep silence 
 completely (is this fair criticism ?) as to my recent volume on 
 the date of the Bohairic, while reproducing faithfully Guidi's 
 Burkitt's and Leipoldt's obiter dicta. He says: "In the 
 northern part, where was Alexandria, the necessity did not 
 arise till late " [purely gratuitous assumption], " and Guidi, 
 followed by Bnrkitt and Leipoldt, thinks that the Bohairic 
 version ... was made in the sixth or seventh (or eighth) 
 century." 
 52. TTqv mpav exuvrjv { — Trap avrtov) only B with the boh'" *•, 
 another commentary on our remarks as to boh. Sod adds 
 iSorf'"'* for omission of Trap avrav, but this codex apparently 
 does not have exeivriv, while Soden quotes his family ^' ( = Cyril's 
 Commentary mss) for +eKetvf)v with B, while having Trap 
 avTtov. This triple conjimction of B Sinai and Alexandria is 
 instructive. There is a change of order here as to the position 
 of Trap avToiv which throws a further light upon B's course. 
 54. +he (post Tovro init.) BC*GT"W ww aliq boh""""" Orig'" 
 
 [W-H] sed Sod txtplene. 
 (-\-Kai init. = vel Kai vel Be aeth) 
 Observe bohairic again, not sahidic, supporting B and Origen, 
 with N absent which goes with the great mass without copula, 
 ( + OVV Paris" e). 
 
 V. 29. See under " Solecisms." Sah supports B for omission of 5e. 
 44. — 6eov (post /lovov) B\V soli inter gr cum ah p. (sol. inter 
 latt) et sah et boh [W-H]. Of. etiam Orig Did Eus. All this 
 seems to come from one error in a MS where MONOY0YOYZHT€lTe 
 may have misled, rather than that from M0N0Y0YZHT€IT€ 
 eY crept in, for all other Versions as well as Greek documents 
 have ffeov. (N has vapa tov povoyevov; ffeov.) Soden neglects 
 to record sah boh for omission. 
 
 vi. 10. enrev sine copula NBL 397 afoss = sah et syr cu pesh 
 
 arm Orig W-H [non Sod], against all the rest which add &e, 
 Kai, or ovv, including the sympathetic minuscules. It is not a 
 question of the "shorter" text which need occupy us here, 
 because in the same verse it is NBD etc. which add ovv after 
 av€Treaov, while it is EFGHMSVPA which omit. 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 319 
 
 vi. 14. a iTToirfacv ar/peia (pro a 67r. aripeiov) BQ^X'' (= Sod^*) a arm 
 syr hier and boh, against sah and the rest. Westcott-Hort 
 adopt in their text this very questionable change.f Simply I 
 suppose because B had the support of another (Egyptian) 
 fragmentary uncial of the sixth century. 
 
 42. TTo.? vvv BCTW Sod"" ^' boh gothX syr hier 
 
 Ath"^" W-H Sod txt. 
 Kai TtiD<! syr pesh 
 
 Traxs ovv ND rell latt" sah 4/7 Ath'^ Chr Cyr, 
 
 but sah 3/7 syr cu sin and Paris" v*" a e omit vvv or ovv 
 while aetli doubles xai ttu? ovv or Kai ttw? ovv vvv (as artn 
 boh""""'"), 
 ibid. -ovTOisec. See under " Improvement." 
 
 43. aTrcKpiffTi (sine ovv) BCKLTR min" et SodT'" " [sed 
 habet ovv Paris"] a e r sah boh syr arm Cyr W-H 
 Sod txt. 
 
 46. See under " Solecisms." 
 
 52. +avTov in connection with aapxa BTJ 892 Sod^"""' (V) 
 
 [but not other cursives] if' vg sah boh aeth and arm syr with 
 
 Chr Amm Orig'"' [W-H], but opposed by K and the rest 
 
 including ■W.^</o<A Orig and Cyr. 
 
 58. m Trarepet {-vp.a>v) NBCLTW 262 3'"' BOH Orig W-H 
 
 [Sod] against sah and the rest and all the versions. 
 
 vii. 3.>aovTatpya B'"'"" C/. copt. " [aov] ja epya" W-H txt. 
 
 10. aWa 0)9 ev BT et copt {rell omn aXV ev vel aW <•><; ev) 
 
 49. aXKa o-)(ko<; BDLTW 33 892 (Sod teste) et copt W-H 
 
 (rell omn aXV o o;^;\o9) 
 34 fin. ov ivvaaOe eXdeiv +e«{ B""' inter gr-lat syr, but with 
 both sah and boh (all codices) which add cpoq ("to it"). 
 This is a very pretty and decisive place, but Tischendorf 
 misses it completely. Homer exhibits it. Soden neglects it. 
 An addition like this is very deliberate. Either it is right or 
 wrong. Hort condemns it as wrong, for he found no other 
 support. I exhibit it as undoubtedly due to Coptic influence 
 on B, thus for ever destroying B as a reliable "neutral" 
 witness elsewhere unlesB largely supported. 
 40. +011 (ante outo?) BDX (teste Sod'^' cmitra Tisch""'") d only 
 
 and sah boh syr cu (sin). 
 viii. 14. See under " Order." 
 
 t FroceBB reversed by the Oxford edition of 1910, to its credit. The plural is 
 relegated to the margin, 
 
 X Ooth = nu, which then as now in the languages originating from it does not 
 strictly mean now, but embraces the meanings of both ovv and wv. 
 
320 
 
 CODEX li AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 viii. 28. 4-oTt (ante oTav) B""' et sah xe gOTAfti boh xE Ecguun- 
 Tischeiidoif fails to add Coptic here, I suppose because it is 
 the Coptic manner (although he soinotimes calls attention to 
 this elsewhere) but he thus misses the further link between 
 B and coptic. Horner, copying from Tischendorf's apparatus, 
 refuses here to mention the +oTt of B, doubtless for the same 
 reason, but I can consider it no accident nor any coincidence, 
 but absolutely deliberate from a bilingual graeco-copt under 
 the hand of B's ancestor. Of. not only vii. 40 above, but 
 vii. 34 4-««e'- It has no connection with syr here, nor with 
 Latin, nor does it appear in any other Greek (see below again 
 at ix. 11) to date, including W^ 892 Paris" and Laura*"". 
 Suden mentions it without other Greek support. W-H txt 
 refuses the addition. 
 
 51. Tov efiov \oyov NBCD"LT'XW^ 33 213 258 Paris" Sod"" 
 {e/xov Xoyov 892) Orig (Cyr) (Chr) sah boh, against the rest, and 
 the Latins (including d) and syr. 
 
 55. aXKa oiSa BDN(eo»<;a morcm) XW W-H txt (Bell a\\ oiSa). 
 i.\. 11. +OTI {ante viraye) NBLT' Laura*"" sah boh W-H [Sod 
 t.ct\. Here Horner again fails to introduce this matter into 
 his notes, although Tisohendorf has observed it, for it rings 
 peculiar in the Greek. W eschews it. It does not appear 
 in U. There is no trace in Latin. The minuscules do not 
 have it, nor ^ nor 892 Paris". What is it but a reflection of 
 xe Souk sah and xe JllA-Oje boh? Soden on the strength of 
 the additional T' (but this fragment is purely Egyptian) and 
 Laura* "" introduces ort into his text in square brackets. But 
 this place is on all fours with viii. 28 above. If B was wrong 
 there, he is not right here simply because NLT' support. 
 
 17, 18. See under " Order." 
 
 27. B adds ovv after rt alone of Greeks and Latins in the phrase 
 Tt ovv iraXiv 0e\eT£ aKovetv. Most sah and boh have 0"ir OH 
 = Tt TToXiv, but B could easily misread oir Otn = Tt ovv 
 which one boh MS actually has. Aeth and georg are the only 
 other authorities to go with B. {W-H"' have it.) 
 
 28 iiiif. icai eXoiSopriirav N*BT'W sa/i"' aeth syr hier Cyr, but ot 
 Se e\otS. DLN''^' Paris", eXoiS. ovv a few, and the mass 
 and 892 eKotZopri<rav without copula. 
 
 30. See under " Improvement." 
 t 31. Once more aWa eav {pro a\\ eav) BT'W more copt [not I) 
 here] refused by W-H who followed B'"' at iii. 10. 
 
 t Observe Origen alone at x. 18 nXXn tyio (A.XXA AffOK tah holi). 
 
 B IN ST. John's gospel. 
 
 321 
 
 i.x. 36. €<^)7 {pro an£Kpi0i] exeivo'; /cat enrev) BT'W Cf. sah init. 
 
 nexAq tantum, and see under " Solecisms of B." 
 40 init. riKovaav {sine copula) NBLXX^W Sod"'" 33 157 213 
 249 Paris" sah boh arm Cyr Sod'" '"» ^.cn g< ^^.^ (^„, ^^^^^^ 
 892 t Kai irtKovaav plur, r)K. Se D d ff, i)k. ovv 1 2"° a). 
 X. 4. OTav {sine copula) NBLB^W Sod"" l[non /am] 33 157 2"= 
 Sod'" K'^-^ sah boh'"" W-H Sod txt against the rest and the 
 other versions and latt and Jo/t"' and sah'"""". 
 13 init. -0 Se fuaffioToi ^evyei NBDL 1 22* 33 397 Sorf^'""' 
 d e syr hicr sin arm et sah boh aeth Lucif Orient Symm W-H 
 Sod txt. There is some difficulty here as to the construction 
 without this clause unless we treat the end of verse 12 after 
 tjievyei as bracketed. Indeed W goes further and (13) elides 
 o Se tii<T0o3To^ <j>evyet and the following words ore fucrdwroi; 
 eoTiv, while /os.sni writes " mercennarius autem et fugit quia 
 mercennarius est," omitting the rest et non pertinet ad cum 
 dc ovibus. Paris" begins o Se fu(rffa>To<!, but, eliding ifievyet 
 oTi /tiCT^wTo?, continues with eoTw. Perhaps NBDL are 
 right. 
 22. eyevero rare {pro eyevero Se) BLW^ 33 Paris" Laura* "" 
 .sah boh"' arm {slaa sax goth) W-H Sod against all the rest 
 {gat aeth and some boh conflate with Sod'"°), and some cursives 
 with a b omit any copula. If we analyse this situation we 
 see in the addition in slav and sax {goth is than which may be 
 Se) the reason why BLW^ added. J 
 ibid, x^'t^'ov {sine copula) KBDGLXnW 1 [non fam] 33 42 
 138 213 2<" Paris" Sod"" ff only and sah boh aeth against 
 all the rest, and against the other versions {b omits the clause). 
 2(5. aWa vfKK {pro aW vfief;) XABLWA 157 c"' 2''« Sorf''"'"'"' 
 
 {sah boh) W-H. 
 {Cf. Orig x. 18 aWa eym) 
 28. > Kayu) SiSwfii avToit ^wrjv atiovtov {pro xaya l^wqv atcoviov SiS. 
 avTOK!) NBLMXW 33 157 249 397 [non Paris"] Sod"" '" K'^ 
 {sah boh) syr arm aetU Cyr W-H, but against all the rest 
 and D and latt and Orig Eus Bas Chr Thdt. For some 
 extraordinary reason Soden (so eclectic is his text) opposes 
 NBLMXW etc. here, 
 xi. 12. Out of six varying methods, viz., avra oi ^a^j^xat, avTio ot 
 nadr)Tat avrov, avTo> tantum, oi /utffriTai tantum, oi fiaOijrai 
 
 t Again the historic imperfect, this time by 892 alone, but all i erpetnatin" the 
 Kijyplian preference. See under Matt., Mark and Luke, " Historic [resent." 
 
 X But sec Dr. Kcriiener's Plain Inlroiluclion, 3rd edition, p. 548, where he 
 condemns rorc for three reasons without reserve. Tischendorf avoids it. 
 
322 CODEX It AND ITS ATjUBS. 
 
 .lolill 
 
 avTou of most and textus receptuf, BC*X W-H Sod <a-< choose 
 the sixth expression : 
 
 ot fiaO-qjat avro) with boh, against sah and NDKWIT b. 
 
 xi. 27. TTKTTevio {pro Tre-jnaTevKa) B* '"' with c"' t'" sah and boh 
 
 (i:ijr acth and per/:). Tisch omits to chronicle any versions. 
 
 Our own A.V. of 1011 (as .tax) actually uses the present 
 
 tense, but Hort refuses to chronicle B even in his margin ! 
 
 fit is not certain that B* corrected the reading himself.] 
 
 See the other example of this at x. 25 under " Change ot 
 
 Tense." 
 
 28. Following this promptly we find touto (for toi/to) by 
 
 NBCLWX r.9? 213 397 Sod^*" et M., aeth boh^' (against sah). 
 
 44. >\eyet n)aov<; auToj? B (sol inter gr) cum sah boh Orig 1/2, 
 
 ct LW Orig 1/2 (Xeyei o iritr. avTOK) W-H. 
 
 I call attention to this here, because it is absolutely the 
 
 Coptic method, not only here where BLW join Origen to 
 
 perpetuate it (alone of Greeks) nEXE ic nAlf. but at xi. 40 
 
 just above nEXE IC ftAC \eyet n)aov^ avrr) where they do vot 
 
 do it. The adhesion ot W has no kind of weight to compel us 
 
 to iidopt the order, for it is simply an Egyptian habit which 
 
 NLW (all thoroughly Egyptian) suffer from in common with 
 
 Origen. Hort receives it as he receives everything Egyptian, 
 
 while calling it by another name. (Ojh. auroi? 604 a r atir 
 
 vg'^ syr sin.) In this same verse BCL in common with Coptic 
 
 does something else which goes to show more than a common 
 
 original I think. I refer to the final clause. (See under 
 
 " Improvement.") 
 
 .52. aWa iva B*"' {2"0 aX\ iva) lit copt 
 
 xii. 4. Xejei Be (pro Xeyei ouv) NBW Paris" boh only and [IF- if]. 
 
 Tisch quotes goth, but goth " than " stands for Se or ow, and 
 
 often for ow as here where the sense demands a halt-way 
 
 house. Goth often shows this and explains — as do other 
 
 versions in other places — why certain mss make changes in 
 
 copulas and otherwise. 
 
 Here L sah and a few omit the copula ; a few Latins have 
 
 Kat with syr, but the great majority of authorities ow. 
 
 \± +6 {ante oxXo?) BL Sod"'" '" '»" "" and boh [against 
 
 ■tah] W-H. I placed this under "Solecisms" first as Tisch 
 
 omits to record the bohairic. Cf. syr sin. 
 
 \.\. expavyaaav B* sah goth. See under "Change of 
 
 Tense." 
 //)/(/. See under " Improvement." 
 111. avToi) at iia0r,Tai NB Sorf"''° Paris" soli et W-Hc7im copt. 
 
 See remarks under " Coptic and Latin " on this. 
 lU +0W NBLXW mill* et 213 Sod'"' "" "" et 
 
 li IN ST. .rOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 323 
 
 f.Tf. We need not emphasise this because only one sahidic MR 
 joins, but (same verse) : 
 ibid. \€y€i<; av {pro av \pyej?) BLXX''n and W Paris" W-H .(: 
 Sod txt is bohairic order (and syr) against the rest and K av 
 \67«? with the Latins and sah. 
 
 xiii. C. \eyei {sine copula) BDL d I m r sah boh syr hier Orig W-H 
 
 20. /3a-f M TO ^(o^i.iov Km ha,ao> avra BC(L) 213 Sod^" ""' '""' 
 boh {sah) arm aeth {Orig) W-H instead ot Pa-^at ro -^tafiiov 
 eiriSaira of XD plur. (W has Saxrco evfiai^aii to ■<jro>fuov.) 
 Again I have to accuse von Soden's text of conflating and 
 inventing Scripture. He has pa-^ia to ^wfuov Kai eirtSaao) 
 avTti). As tar as I can see none ot the mss which have fia-^w 
 (tor Pa-^a^) have e-nthaau). Yet Soden appropriates ^a-ijrm 
 but follows it with eTrtStaato instead of SuxroD. 
 28. TOUTO ovSei: {sine copula) BW*^ 157 248 435 Paris" 
 
 SotP'"""'" soli cum sah""" boh""" pers [W-H] {contra Origen 
 et rell omn et 892 vid). 
 
 xiv. 4. See under " Homoioteleuton," and note that sah opposes boh 
 which concedes the shorter form with NBC'LQXW 33 157 213 
 
 10. iriCTTeuo-fi? {2>ro TnaTeveit) B* alone with boh (all 
 codices). See under " Change of Tense." Tischendorf quite 
 neglected the bohairic support and so does Soden, but Homer 
 calls attention to it. This is followed by a sahidic reading 
 (and both versions must have been familiar to B). 
 
 11. Sta TO epya avTov {pro Sta to epya avra) B 229* sah {aeth) 
 IK-if ' ( — outo 24' 157 244 q r syrr arm boh diatess verss 
 Tert; ravra Paris"). 
 
 15. TvpvreTe BL^[Soi non Lake] 54 73 ,Sorf"° ^="»»"»» i"' 
 ( = Laura*"") "" only, with sah boh and arm alone of versions 
 and W-H, against TTiprjaaTe of DW and the rest ot Greeks 
 and versions. See " Change of Mood." 
 17. vpff! (-8e) NBQW^[Sod non Lake] 340 [non fam] a" 
 Paris" Sod''" a b Lucif Aucf""' and .sah<-' boh'"'> after the 
 Coptic manner, so W-H Sod txt, and against all else and 
 versions, the rest of the Latins, and Did Cyr^'" and Cyr*'". 
 23. Troir^aofuOa {pro irotriaoiiev) See under " Improvement," and 
 note the sahidic rtAfl " for us " especially. 
 20/27. -reyio BL 314 soli et W-H {eya enrov v/itv X 33 127 Sorf"') 
 either belonging to verse 20 Jin or verse 27 init. See under 
 " Syriac," but possibly attributable to the first word of 
 verse 27 in sahidic = 'f'KtO for atfitrifu. 
 XVI. 23. > Soyaei vfitv ev tw ovoftart- fiov {pro ev tw ovop.. pov Satret vp,tv) 
 NBC*LXYA 397 Sod"'" "• S sah [contra boh] Orig'"' Cyr 1/2 
 W-H Sod txt. Opposed by the mass and by DW^ Paris" and 
 
 Y 2 
 
;V24 
 
 CdDliX H AN"B ITS ALLIKii. 
 
 the other versions with all the Latins (except S following A*') 
 and Syriacs. The sense of the varying order is quite different : 
 NB etc. and xah wish to read " And whatsoever ye shall ask 
 the Fathor, he will give it to you »'» wij/ name," whereas the 
 mass and all the versions (except sah) read : " And whatso- 
 ever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it to 
 you. " Of course Hnit (followed by the Oxford edition of 1910) 
 has no option but to follow NB, supported as they are by 
 CLXYA, but is he right and is Sodm right? Can we put 
 enough confidence in these Mss to follow them against all 
 the rest and against DW with the syriac and latin hosts in 
 comhinatiun ? Apply Burkitt's rule here, then consider all the 
 flimsy alterations NB ask us to adopt in St. John, and our 
 decision will probably come closer to the truth than that of 
 Hort or of the Oxford edition or of Soden. 
 xvi. 29. +ev {ante Ttappijaia) NBCDW Sod^"" d and only these Greeks 
 against the other fifteen uncials and all minuscules and Cijr 
 Chr. The only support is from sah, git O-tfriAppHCIA. and 
 boh ^Eft omnA-ppHCIA. which Tisch neglects to mention. 
 I'robably the ev crept in from the NYN preceding and 
 influenced the common base of NBCDW. The only alter- 
 native is that they got it from the Coptic. All the Latins but 
 d are against them with j^alam for the in palam of d. W-H 
 and Sod have fv. 
 xvii. 12. [ev tw ovofiart aov] w iehaxat fioi BC'LN'W 7 33 G4 I'aris" 
 Cyr'" cum sah boh arm syr hier W-H [non Sod] (pro ovt Se^. 
 fwi DW rell omn it vg syr pcsh aeth Orig'"'). Syr sin and N* 
 omit oj or ov; SeSaixa'; /uyi. 
 The idea is to conform to the language of verse 11 where m S€Bo>Ka<; 
 fioi of the great majority is doubtless right. We get a variation in 
 verse 12, but these harmonising critical authorities will have none of it, 
 and repeat (•>. (N writes : ev tw ov. aov > xai ovt ehaxat /loi e<j>v\a^a.). 
 xvii. 17. See under " Coptic and Latin," and note +fi {ante iWt'idcia) 
 BW Paris" soH cum sah et boh. Tischendorf omits to add 
 cojHic for this, chronicling B alone for the addition of the 
 article. To B we now add W and Paris", and the Egyptian 
 picture is complete, unless we tabulate the Syriac as emphatic 
 and add it to the small list. Soden also neglects sah boh. 
 Hort does not follow B here as he did not know of the 
 support of copt or of W Paris", 
 xviii. 3. KatTtov <\>ap. (-e/«r) B"' cum 314 \_W-H] Gf. sah boh syr 
 
 (not mentioned by Tischendorf). 
 34. See under " Order." 
 XX. 16. pafi^ovvei {pro pa^^ovvi) BN soli cum sah 
 18. See under " Change of Number." 
 
 H IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 325 
 
 xxi. 8. a\\a w? NABC So(/''"' W-H txt (pro a\\ w?) [jiod D hoc 
 
 loco]. Cf. copt. 
 
 11. See under " Improvement." 
 
 12. ovhcK (sine copula) BC sa/if boh"""' [^aio'''''"''"''" ""•"''"] 
 18. See under " Order." 
 
 As to the corrector of B. 
 
 As to the corrector of B (B' or B') observe : 
 xii. 15 where B' has dvyarrip (pro Ovyarep) B"' has inserted H = ,) 
 0vyaTqp = sah and boh, but no Greeks. Von Soden misses 
 this connection with the Coptic, as did Tischendorf before 
 him, but Horner has observed it. It should be noted. 
 
 Coptic and Latin sympathy. 
 
 i. 42. (Steph. Tisch, ver 41 W-H Sod). TrpoTov {2)ro tt/joito?) 
 BAMT'XX"!! Sod"° min aliq copt latt syr W-H Sod txt. 
 [Non rell, non LW, non 33 vid, non 892, 7ion Paris"] 
 43. (Steph. Tisch, rer 42 W-H Sod), tcoavvov (pro imva) NB'LW 
 33 a b f ff I r i-^bwe (Johanna vgg^'') sah boh (aeth) Nonn 
 Evang Hebr (teste Evan 566 marg) W-H Sod txt, but against 
 all else and syrr Epipih Chr Cyr Scrap, (uoawa Sod"'") 
 (Om dim). 
 
 ii. 1. Tij T/ojTj/ riiupa (pro tt) r]/iepa jr/ rpn-q) BU Sod"^' fam 13 
 127 min^ Epiph"' W-H""' = b e q r and sah, against boh and 
 the great mass of Greeks. 
 
 iii. 18. o fir] Trimtvaiv sec loco ( — Se) NBW ff I boh"" Clem Orig 
 Tert Cypr''" W-H [non Sod] but against the mass. This is 
 Coptic manner, but most boh and all sah have Be. The three 
 boh MSS involved are FKN. In Tisch'a notes neither boh nor 
 Clem appear for the omission nor in von Soden. 
 
 iv. 50. einaTevaev sine copula NBDW [non minn exc. Sod'-'"""] 
 c d I gat vg sah boh''"" Cyr W-H Sod txt (against xat etriar. 
 the rest and syrr boh^' aeth and Paris", and ewto-T. Be by LT'' 
 213 314 8"" 892). 
 
 V. 12. ripwTfjaav (sine copula) NBD p"^' Sod''' a d e ff I r foss sah 
 boh'"'' and syr cu arm W-H [Sod]. (Om vers WPA b syr sin.) 
 
 t Add this to TischendorC's apparatus. It is Coptic (aod Coptic style) against all 
 others, but as the others vary auiong themselves as to what copula to use we need not 
 accuse B ot dropping anything. 
 
326 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 VU. 
 
 viii. 
 
 20. 01 Ta <f>avXa (pro m Se Ta ^av\a or xai oi ra <}>av\a) by B 
 alone of Greeks with sah [ncgl. Sod] and a e ff Tert Aug 
 W-Il ixt. (See under " Improvement.") T' extant here and 
 otherwise sympathetic has oi 8e ra ^av\a. 
 . .'-). -TO.' {ante .jyiXnr-rrov) NBDNLA 33 892 Paris" So(i"' K'C 
 Evst 00 Cyr W-H Sod txt (contra rcll omii ct W) = lat copt. 
 7. -Tt BB hd effl q r aur rg'- W-H [non Sod] (cf. copt). 
 
 What necessity was there for a " revision " to add « here ? 
 
 ' [ See under " Change of Number." 
 
 35. (i-nev (sine copula) BLTW 113 Paris" Laura* '"< Sod"''" 
 
 ah er foss sah boh, arm syr W-H [non Sod]. 
 45. wa? (nine copula) NBCDLNSTW min perpauc it" vg sah 
 hoh arm aeth syr sin Orig W-H Sod, against the rest and 
 syr cu Cyr. 
 See under " Coptic." 
 
 .>■>, iMfnvpia iiov aXv^V! e<^t(i/ BWD 157 235 314 Sod"'' 
 Evst 60 only of Greeks, with 6 vg" only of Latins, and sah 
 (against hoh) Epiph Did W-H'"' (non txt) [non Sod'"]. As to 
 Origrn he is divided and so is Chr, while D'' has a special 
 form and order peculiar to him. See under " Order." 
 
 - &i€K0(ov Sia fjxaov avrcov xai wapvyev outox; NBD latt sah 
 
 .?)/)• sin W-H and Sod txt. Even T' (extant here) has it. 
 
 Sodcn's note to this is a caricature. No one could guess from 
 
 it that no minuscules omit, not even Paris". 
 
 ix. 4. r,ij.at...fie BDT' [non minn] d sah (acth) syr hier W-H 
 
 Sod txt, against 
 
 e^ lie by most, all Latins but d syr and most versions, 
 
 but »;/ia9...7;/ia? NLW fco/i rtraft Ci/c and 2'tsc/i"". 
 It will be noticed that W now lends its support to «L. See 
 Tischendorf's note on the subject and full evidence in the second part 
 of this book under " Differences between N and B." The testimony of 
 Origen is not satisfactory enough to draw a conclusion as between NLW 
 boh and BDT' sah. 
 
 ix. 11. 6 avdpa>iro<; 6 'K£yofi£vo<; (pro av6po>vo<! Xe7.) NBT' 1 33 
 
 Laura'^ "" sah boh W-H Sod txt (avepanro<; o Xeyoiuvo'; Sod"'" 
 
 Paris" al.) et cf. latt. 
 
 24. €K BevT^pov post Tov avOpoD-nov NBDtLT'W 33 Laura'*'" 
 
 ,Sorf"' '"" "" [«o;t Paris"] h c d^ effl q sah boh syr pesh W-H 
 
 40. 
 14. 
 
 5'.). 
 
 t D d Bubstitute ovto„ and eum for roy a^Spainoy, as do only lyr »tn and arm, while 
 pcra merges ro./ a^«,j<oiror ot ,» ru(()Xo» by eipressing " the blind," " caecum," or " roi- 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 327 
 
 Sod txt whereas the rest place the expression after e^aivnaev 
 ovv (Om. gat). 
 ix. 26. - iraXiv NBD[hou T']W 2>" Paris" abcdeffg I r gat aur 
 vg sah hoh syr hier (nmt syr sin) Nonn W-H [Sod], against all 
 the rest all other versions and Cyr. 
 35. «9 Tov viov Tov av6 paiTov (pro ck t. viov tov deov) NBDW 
 Paris" d sah and syr sin Tisch^'-^ TF-H'"' [non Sod}-'"-] against 
 all the rest including LT' (with them above) and Cyr Tert. I 
 do not enlarge on this miserable change. I have commented 
 upon it in my ' Genesis of the Versions,' pp. 399/400. Soden 
 violates what principles he has by opposing NBDW here. 
 X. 14 fin. Kai yivosuKovai p£ to e/ia NB(D)LW it vg sail hoh aeth 
 syr hier goth Ens Cyr^^*- Nonn W-H [non Sod] (cf. Epiph et 
 diatcss infra) but xai yivaaKopai v-no rav efuov A rell gr 
 omn syr pesh arm Chr Cyr"™ '''" Thdt. Syr sin conflates both 
 these readings (not indicated by Soden). 
 
 (Epiph invertcns xai yap Ta efui irpoPara yivioaxei pte xat 
 ywaaKw ra f/ia ir/jo/Sara. Cf. diatess arab.) 
 
 This is quite a remarkable place. Not a single recorded 
 minuscule [not even Paris"] agrees with the five uncials 
 NBDLW for the active construction, yet all the Latins go 
 with sah boh for it. And as syr sin amplifies and conflates the 
 two, both must be equally old. 
 
 The diatess (not inverting) seems to preserve the singular 
 exhibited by Epiph: "And I know what is mine, and what 
 is mine hwweth me," continuing as the Greek in a harmonious 
 sentence Ka0a><t ytvaaxei pt o irar-fp. 
 
 Again Sodcn's text opposes NBDLW. How can he reconcile 
 this action with his attitude elsewhere when he follows NB 
 or BD alone ? 
 
 init. <Txt<jp.a. (sine copula) NBLXW 33 157 213 249 Paris" 
 Sod'^^^ it [non d] vg [non vg^'^] sah arm W-H Sod txt, contra 
 rcll ct Chr Cyr, et syr sin +" And while he was speaking these 
 things." 
 
 - KaOm ei-novvpiv NBKLM'II* et W Sod'^" min 
 
 aliq [non Paris"] eg vg (et sax) gat sah hoh arm, W-H Sod txt, 
 against the rest most Old Latins and syr sin. 
 
 29. See Burgon ' Causes of Corruption,' Burgon /Miller, p. 24/26. 
 42. xai TToWoi e-maTfvaav NBDLX 1 33 157 213 248 249 
 
 Paris" Sofi"""" fa™ t-N n ^g g^h boh (et syr arm aeth) W-H 
 [non Sod] against Kai eiriaTevaav ttoWoi of A and most with 
 goth (arab). (ttoWoi ovv eiriinevaav W.) 
 xi. 18. ^r,eana (- v) Only NB Soti"" with Lat and Copt W-H txt. 
 
 Not even W agrees. 
 
 30. See under " Improvement." 
 
 19 
 
 26. 
 
328 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 t xi. 32. > ovK av IJ.OV o aSeX<j)o<; airedavev 1)" {xah boll). C/. ovk an nov 
 a-reOavev o aSe\<t>o<! NBC'LMV SoiP" '"* "" 33 254 B W-H 
 Sod t.rf against ovk av a-neOavev fiov o aSe\<f)o<; AX gr jihir and 
 ovK av aireffave o aSe\<f>o^ fiov G9 [von fam] 397 Sod''^'" " if vq 
 arm .tyr. Yet another variation is : o aSeX^o'i /lov ovk av 
 anedavev by i"'. Paris" omits fiov {"ovk av aireOavev o aheK^ot " 
 simply). It may represent the base, and fiov have crept in to 
 the valuing positions. There is so little serious textual 
 variation in this much challenged chapter that every little 
 thing is interesting, 
 xii. 16. ravTa (sine copula) NBLQWJ Sod™ sah h e ff g I gat rg 
 
 syr sin W-H Sod tit. 
 This I am sure is real Coptic (sahidic) influence here 
 because NB alone -write in this verse avTov oi iiaOrjTat placing 
 the possessive first as is the Coptic manner, and in sah it is 
 veiy striking, both as to this and as to the absence of copula, 
 for sah heads the verse rteCjJuiA.©HTHC : "His disciples" 
 proceeding: " knew not these" bringing ravra later, but com- 
 pletely abandoning the copula (except one sah ms'") and 
 giving great prominence to ovtou ot fiadrirai which NB follow 
 against all others. W omits the copula but does not follow 
 the Coptic method here. Do the critics really mean to tell me 
 that I am wrong again and that a common underlying Greek 
 text is responsible for avTov ot fiaOryrai in NB and in sah f 
 Why then does W not do it? Observe W with NB elsewhere 
 all around this passage. 
 
 If anything be wanting to show B's real sympathy of eye 
 with the sahidic version — (I have shown it previouslj') — let the 
 critics observe the order maintained by B alone two verses 
 beyond at xii. 18. 
 18. See under " Order." 
 
 35. TO <^<»? €1- v^Liv €<ni NBDKLMXII and W^ minn^'" it vg 
 boh Cyr 1/2 Nonn W-H Sod txt, but 
 TO ^w? ii€6 vnwv ecTTi A the rest and sah syr arm aeth Chr 
 
 Cyr 1/2. 
 
 xiii. 11. +0T1 {ante ov^i TravTet KaOapoi eark) BCLW 33 213 3'J7 
 
 gg^lif?. ISO S4. 1110 K,N 31 „ b c f ff I q r sah boh .lyr Cyr W-H 
 
 [Sod], but against N and the rest, e and Orig. (Paris" 
 
 repeats aW in this place from the previous verse ; but syr 
 
 t In Tiachendorf's apparatus change D to D" (<f reads f rater meui) and add 8 after 
 254, for 8 actually reads meua over /lou thus : 
 
 n etfeT mf morruut fraT 
 
 OUK AN MOY • AHEeANEN • O • AAEL*OC 
 
 I) IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 329 
 
 sin otherwise, for Sta tovto etc: "Because ot him said he 
 this word.") 
 xiii. 30/31. oTc ovv €^7)\0cv NBCDLXW minn non pane, latt coi^t Orig, 
 W-H Sod txt, but ovv is against syr and the rest of the 
 Greeks. 
 
 xiv. 5. Kvpie OVK otSafuv ttov virayeK, tto)'! ( — xai)... BCLW sah 
 boh'"^ aeth and arab with abr and syr sin W-H [non Sod]. I do 
 not definitely accuse this of not being basic (although Tertullian 
 is against it), yet the changes by the various authorities in 
 the form of the sentence following, where N and B are divided 
 once more, shows ancient editing at this place, and the 
 absence of copula may be due only to Egyptian influence. 
 Yet abr and syr siji are of weight, although d and the rest 
 oppose. Arab continues the Egyptian traditions for omission. 
 Observe in xiv. 7 soon following, another suppression of koi 
 before the airapri clause by a B group, this time followed 
 by Soden as well as by W-H, against N and the majority, 
 and furthermore at : — 
 9. A second suppression of xai before ■n-Mt by NBQW 58 Paris", 
 this time with a b c e ffgfoss vg Iren^'* Hil and fio/i™" [not 
 sah this time nor .<tyr sin] W-H [tion Sod] while aeth here 
 with pers and Cyr have ttoj? ovv. Observe D and d are still 
 absent, as at xiv. 5, and it is fair criticism that instead of 
 " Antioch " revising by adding koj in both places, D et al. 
 preserve the " true text " with it, since the authorities which 
 omit in the one and in the other places are not agreed among 
 themselves, or rather disagree completely and it is in the 
 Egyptian manner to omit. 
 14. TouTo TTotijo-o) (})ro eyta ironitroi)) Only BALA^^ Sod" 33 124 
 [non fam] 249 262 397 Laura-^ >»' Sod™ '"' "" '»■" " Evsf 16 
 c g q r gat vg Aug boh sah a-eth ( + viiiv) Cyr TF-H'^' [non 
 Sod]. Add sah to Tischendorf 's and Soden's apparatus for this. 
 (M* reads eyw tovto). It is opposed by the great mass of 
 good authorities and looks very non-neutral. In fact the 
 14th verse is entirely omitted by some authorities including 
 syr sin and syr hier and most codd of arm, and Chr, and 
 b and vg^ . 
 XV. 26. orav sine copula NBA 2"" Paris" e I m S r*?'* sa/i'"' boh''' syr 
 hier pers arab sax Did Chr Epiph Novat Hil W-H [non Sod], 
 but against all others and Cyr. 
 
 xvi. 16. — oTt eyto viraya tt/jo? tov varepa NBDLW 314 Laura* '"' 
 Sod"" abd effrsah boh"' aeth Orig W-H and Sod txt (against 
 all the rest and syr including sin, and N^ and Paris"). 
 19. eyvo) sine copula SBDLW 1 [non /am] 33 348 2i« Sod'" "" 
 a b d e r aur boh"' sah arm pers georg (Orig) W-H Sod txt. 
 
330 
 
 CODEX I) AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 xvi. 23. -oTi BCD'LNY 42 Sud'"""^-^ [nun W* Taris"] b d c / 
 ff <1 O^i t'O [contra a c r S] Orig Ath Cyr^" Quacst, and 
 loll (wliich version Tisch and Sodcn neglectt) W-H Sod txt, 
 against N and the rest. 
 2.''). epx(Tai(-a\\a.) NBC'CLXYH^ and W 1 [nan Jam] 33 09 
 \non faui\ 213 Paris"' Sod^'^ '"" ah d c g gat vg (hinc sax) sah 
 arm aijr hier OnV/"" Aug W-H Sod txt, but against the rest 
 and Orig Ath Cyr. 
 xvii. 4. TeXeimtra? (pro cTeXeioxra) NABCLNII c< W 1 [iwnfam] 33 
 42 122 24C Paris'" w'" b ff Hil 1/2 sah boh aeth Cyr 1/2 
 W-H Sod txt, against the rest, whose testimony is strong, 
 inchiding that of Ign. [rcTeXeitoKa Sod"" ut lat.] 
 7. eicriv {2»'o eariv) See under " Change ot Number." 
 17. This is a peculiar and interesting place. 
 
 " ayiaaov avTov<! ev rr) aXriOeia " without aov is read by 
 N(B)AC'DL11' and W 1 Paris*' Sod"' (Cyr^'"-) and the Latins 
 and sah boh W-H [mn Sod], but all the other versions have 
 tjov. The interesting point is that B alone [not sah boh] 
 drops tt; before aXijdeia, reading like the Latins " in veritate." 
 We narrow the matter of the versions here down to Latin 
 and Coptic, and since in the same verse B adds i; before 
 a\i']0eia subsequently with W Paris"' only of Greeks but 
 both sah hoh% we are clearly on Latin and Coptic ground 
 and in connection with both. Observe Soden's critical prin- 
 ciples or eclecticism here. He holds <tov in verse 17 while 
 rejecting ereXciwiTa above in verse 4 both witnessed to by the 
 same group. 
 21. iva xai avToi ev rifuv {-ev) toaiv BC*DW ab c de r vg^' sah 
 arm W-H [non Sod] against the mass. The few Fathers who 
 quote without ev are also found to have it elsewhere, and Clem 
 lias it, which should be decisive as against D. Syr sin is illegible 
 just at this place. Perhaps the vulgate MS E gives us the key. 
 It writes nt ipsi in nobis in (unum...) reduplicating the ev. 
 Possibly ENHMINENWCIN in the uncial writing caused the 
 withdrawal of en {ev) after vi^iv. Both ^ and Paris'" retain 
 ev with N and the mass. 
 24. This place does not really belong under the present heading. 
 I do not know exactly where to put it. It refers to a very 
 difficult matter. I will cite the verse in full : 
 
 Traxf/) (ttottj/j BAN ; om. etsubleg. xaisyr sin) otm BeSaxai; /jloi 
 6e\to iva oTTOv et/u 670) xaKetvot toaiv fier efiov iva Oeatpmaiv ttiv 
 
 t But ill view of Coptic methods should be noticed here. 
 } And perhaps the emphatic Sjriac. 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 331 
 
 So^av Tt)v efiriv, r)v BeSayxa'; {al. eSwxa?) /loi on ■i)yaTrri<ja^ fu 
 vpo «aTa/3o\i7? Koafiov. 
 
 Clem, quoting 24/2G, does not vary (except as to the tense 
 of " gavest ") and employs 0D9. So do the other Fathers : 
 Eus Chr Cyr Cypr Thdt etc., but NBDW Paris" boh 
 [non sah] goth and d (agreeing with D'') and syr sin W-H 
 and Sod txt substitute o for oCs. The only key to an 
 error in writing would occur if iraTrip were absent between 
 the two verses, as is the case in syr sin alone, and where 
 ■qyairriaai; would be followed by ovs : HrAriHCACOYC, but this 
 cause of corruption is very unlikely. Clearly here NBDW d 
 boh goth syr sin hold the more difficult (most difficult) reading. 
 Hort adopts it, but has nothing in his ' Notes on Select 
 Beadings ' about it. The Oxford edition of 1910 places ow 
 in the margin and Souter gives the evidence in a footnote. 
 Soden boldly adopts (although Sod'"' reads ov [showing an 
 original difficulty, but not o]) notwithstanding the fact that 
 the omission which he neglected in verse 21 just above was 
 sustained by a rather stronger family group. 
 
 To what o refers is difficult to conjecture, and I would only 
 remark as to the relative age of boh and sah that it is boh 
 which goes with the accepted minority here for the hard reading 
 and not sah. Surely if boh belonged to the vi" or vii"" 
 century this o would have been smoothed to 0&9 by then. 
 My excuse for inserting this matter here, on the authority 
 only of d and boh of the Latt and Coptt, is that it calls 
 attention to this matter of date. 
 Zviii. 15. TlKoXovBei Se tco i'rjtrov ^i/uov lleTpo^ xai ( — 0) aXXo? fiadr)TT]<;. 
 Thus : aXXo^i without the article N'ABD^'i'W^ 106 c'*' 2"' S"' 
 Sod™"" [non Paris''] with sah boh (KEJUA-OKTHC) it vg 
 (alius) and Nonntts specifically " xai v€o<; 0XX09 eraipo';," but 
 the article is found in CN"'' fourteen other uncials Chr and 
 Cyr, and rather specifically in syr " et unus ex discipulis aliis." 
 W-H and Sod suppress the article. 
 ibid. > yvwaro^ v" (i"o V yvoiaTo<;) BW 4 Paris" Sod'*'^ i<''' boh 
 
 (sah) and syr W-H^K 
 
 81. iretXaro? (-0) BC» Sod' ^" soli vid et W-H. Cf. latt boh. 
 ibid, —ovv sec. BC 22.5 260 saW boh e q vg^'^ syr pesh sin arm 
 
 W-H. 
 xix. 12. o w£<XaTo? ante €?j)t« NBLMXW^' fam 13 33 249 Paris" 
 Laura*'" So(i=" "'" ""»i°""' """•<■ c" it'" sah boh Cyr W-H Sod 
 txt, against two other varieties of order, while b omits Pilate 
 outright. 
 
 16. irapeXafiov ovv tov \r)aovv tantum sine addit. B(L)X (19) 33 
 (42) (61*) 249 a 6 c e/?i r aur boh Cyr W-H Sod txt. 
 
832 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 There are a host of varieties here, chiefly of amplification. Of the 
 versions, outside of the Old Latins named, all add something except boh. 
 Even sah has " But they when they had taken Jesus, they brought him 
 out." In such cases, when the critics follow B and so few witnesses, I 
 wish to call particular attention to the fact that boh agrees and not 
 sah. In such passages then boh has not been smoothed and added to 
 as they would have us believe. 
 
 .Icilm 
 
 xix. 20. > e^paiart pw/iaiaTt eWitviaTi BLNX^ et N* (hiaf N" ex 
 
 horn.) 33 74 89 90 234 248 q"' r'" Paris" Sod'""'"'"''"" 
 
 "' "" t ff .lah et boh arm aeth georg syr hier Cijr W-H Sod txt 
 
 [contra rell ]}l. : €0p. eW. pmp..] 
 
 24. -7)\eyov(Ta NB 249 a b c e ff r georg sah''^ [von owiw] 
 
 Ps-Ath W-H. 
 No others omit, not even W^ or Paris", but cf. pers probably 
 representing syr sin still missing. Pers says " and the Scripture was 
 fulfilled," whereas syr pesh says " and the Scripture was fulfilled which 
 said " (for the usual tva ■>) ip<'-<i>v ir\T)pa>Or] rj Xeyovaa). The omission by 
 N]3 sah"' is against Cyril although made their own by W-H, and Soden 
 encloses the words in square brackets. Why then oppose as he does 
 the larger group at xviii. 21 above? 
 
 .Inhn 
 
 XX. 6. See under " Improvement." 
 
 xxi. 20. e-!n<TTpa<l>ei<; (-cojnila) BACn*W 33 265 w^' Sod""' bcegr 
 gat rgg" sah arm pers georg. (Simon turned round and saw 
 syr sin). The rest have ie or xai, and Chr ow. W-H and 
 Sod txt omit the copula. 
 21. TouTOK +OVV. See under " Improvement." 
 
 Traces of Syriac Sympathy. 
 
 .TohD 
 
 iii. 25. B alone adds rcav after fiadijTav, reading ex rav iiadrirav rav 
 ](i>avov. This may be reduplication, but cf syr siji and syr 
 pesh : " of one of the disciples of John." 
 28. It is a little curious that so soon after this B alone with syr 
 hier adds eyio after fiirov so [IF- J?], while T'' and syr cti sin 
 prefix eyco, but the other Greeks all eschew this. 
 Again : 
 34. —TO TTvev/ja B* "' (h'" * ?) might be omitted also in syr sin. 
 iv. 11. —ri yvv-q B™' cum syr sin et W-H txt (eKuvij pro r) yvvr) t<). 
 Westcott and Hort here followed B alone. This is now found 
 supported by syr sin, while N substitutes exeivn. Cf. the cursive 28 
 (sister MS to W) and dimma at John xx. 15, eKeivo<; pro o It/o-ous alto with 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 333 
 
 syr sin alone. Von Soden does not mention this at all in his notes, 
 although I called attention to it specifically in the Appendix, vol. ii., of 
 my ' Genesis of the Versions,' pp. 100 and 171, and Scholz had duly 
 reported 28 for eKewa. 
 
 The scientific course would be to follow syr sin in both places. Of 
 course Hort did not dream of following Evan. 28 at xx. 15. But this 
 situation reveals the insecurity of a text founded on preconceived ideas. 
 If syr sin be right in iv. 11 why not at xx. 15 ? The answer is because 
 B is the key. Anything which supports B is greedily availed of, as will 
 be a few readiogs of the new MS W. But let syr sin or W oppose B, 
 however much other support they may have, and the Hortites tumble 
 over themselves to get away from such readings. 
 
 exelvo^ is a word however of peculiar importance in St. John, and 
 these passages are well worthy of thought. See John ii. 21, iv. 25 for 
 its general use, and xvi. 13/14 de spiritit veritatis. 
 
 Dr. Abbott does not go into this matter very fully in his Johannine 
 Grammar (but see § 2381, 2, 2731, 2), and as the Concordances do not 
 subdivide the subjects, I append a list of the diverse applications of 
 eKetvo<;, exeivoi, and exewri in St. John's Gospel. The word is used 
 specifically : 
 
 Of God at vi. 29 
 
 Of the Father i. 83, v. 19 38, vii. 29, viii. 42 
 
 Of the Son i. 18, ii. 21 
 
 Declaration of the Soti of God ix. 37 enre Se avra o Iijo-ou? xai 
 
 eapaxai! avrov xai o 'KaXav fieja aov eKewoi eartv. 
 Of the announced Christ iii. 28 30 (testimony of the Baptist), 
 
 iv. 25 (testimony of the Samaritan woman). 
 Of the Light of Heaven i. 8 {cf. v. 35) 
 Of the Holy Spirit xiv. 26, xvi. 8 13 14 
 
 Of the Word xii. 48 
 
 Of the Scriptures v. 39 
 
 Of the believer xiv. 12 21, xvii. 24. Also vi. 57 (of 
 
 the communicant) 
 Of the angels at the tomb xx. 13 
 Of the Healer (in the mouth of the paralytic) v. 11 b Trotijaa? 
 
 lie vyiJ] exeivo'S /jmi enrev. . . 
 As well as of Jesus in the month of the Jews. vii. 11 oj ow 
 \oviaioi efijToui' avrov ev ttj eoprri Kai f\eyov ttov eariu 
 €K€ivoi; again ix. 12 irov eartv (xeivo^; again ix. 28 
 (TV ct fiadijTTjt; exeivov; and again xix. 21 eXeyov ow tw 
 ■niXaTO) oi apx'fp^K rtov iovBaiav p.r) ypa<\>e o fia(Ti\ev<; rmv 
 loviatav aW on eKeivo<s enre fia<rt\ev(! eifu t(dv lovSatwv. 
 Of the year of Christ's death (jov eviamov exeivov) xi. 49, 
 
 xviii. 13 
 Also of John Baptist v. 35 (cf. i. 8) 
 
.'ili-l 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Of John the writer xix. 35 
 
 Of the beloved apostle xiii. 25, xxi. 7 21) 
 
 Of Moses V. 4G 47 
 
 Of the discijjle known to the High priest xviii. 15 
 
 Of refer the denier xviii. 17 25 (at xiii. G NB & 
 
 Oriff Cyr omit eKeivot) 
 
 Of the disciples xi. 13 
 
 Of Mary, sister of Martha xi. 29 
 
 Of Mary Magdalene xx. 15 10 
 
 Of the seribes and pharisees vii. 45 
 
 Of the blind man ix. 9 11 25 30 
 
 Of the sheep x. 10 
 
 Of the false shepherd x. 1 
 
 Of another teacher coming in his own name v. 43 
 
 Of Judas xiii. 26 27 30 
 
 Of Satan viii. 44 
 
 Of the Jeirs x. G 35 (add xix. 15 by BLXN" 
 
 Laura* =»' Sod'™ "''^ b e q Cyr W-H Sod txt]) 
 It is even found in the pericope de adult, at viii. 10 avaKvyjra<; 
 ?e o Irjaov; xai tirjSeva deaaafievo^ TrXtjv rrj^ yvvatKO's eiirev avTr] 
 " H 'yvvrj TTou eitjw €K€ivot 01 KaTTjyopoi aou, ovBefi ae KareKptpev,'* 
 
 Add XX. 15 of him whom Mary supposed to be the gardener 
 (testimony of 28 and syr sin), and iv. 11 of the woman of Samaria 
 (testimony of N). 
 
 vi. 71. 
 
 vii. 
 viii. 
 
 34. 
 39. 
 
 2. 
 
 ,19. 
 
 Traces of Syriac {continued). 
 
 619 r<ov SwSc/ca (-wv) BC'DL 230 Sod™ "' "' d aeth [against 
 sail boll] and syrr only W-H [non Sod txt] {ov pro a>v G04). 
 +/1E See under " Improvement." 
 
 eare. . .Trotene B ff vg (Orig) pro rjTe. . .eiToienf. W-H tit 
 
 \^Sod e<7T£ . . eTToiene av\ | (Cf. syr sin), 
 /jtapta/j. B 33 syr W-H {Copt latin and the rest fiapia) 
 
 papiafi again BCDLA syr W-H, here, in another case " Trpo? 
 Mapffav Kai Mapiap," instead of Mapiav as N and most. 
 
 t SmJe7i shoulJ not include 33 [or this. 
 
 X SoiJeii's notes are so constructed here as to be very obscure. The reading of B iroicirt 
 being relegated to the third series of notes with 183 (my 604) which latter however has 
 nv which is missing in B, and has rjrr against corf. The connection between these 
 matters is lost in Soden's apparatus as often elsewhere. 
 
 § Si.'ilen quotes " lat " for this accusative but neglects to speak of lyr here, or 
 abo\'c, or below. 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 335 
 
 ( xi. 20. But here only 33 138 Paris" Sod'" and 2'" ? are recorded for 
 
 Mapiati. ) 
 The above should be noted as to a kind of indirect Syriac 
 influence on B, for at : — 
 21. B (possibly C) and syr sin alone omit xvpte of all known MSS 
 and versions except Evst 54, not quoted by Tisch or Horner or 
 Soden; and the omission in Sod edition, relegated to his 
 bottom notes as if of no importance ! Has Soden not read 
 Merr on this (p. 273 of the Schlassband) ? 
 ( 28. B holds fiapiap. here but with D and ACKLAO Sod'''° 33 138 
 157 Paris", while N maintains fiaptav ; the same applies to 
 xi. 31. ) 
 32. fiapiafi, nominative, BC*E*L 33 157 Paris" syr {jiapta N rell) 
 xii. H. fiapiap. ,, B 1 [non fain] 3S Tans" Sod" '^ syr {papia 
 
 N rell) 
 See below at xx. 10. 
 4G. — Tra? B3 alone with SI/ rsJH. Perhaps an error or deliberate 
 harmonising with verse 44. Relegated to Soden's bottom 
 notes, where he omits syr sin {cf. Men, p. 335). 
 ( xiii. 22. e^U-rtov sine copula BC 10 245 Sod"" c arm pers {Orig) .sah"""' 
 
 et N"^ W-H. 
 I venture to place this here, although the syriacs have a 
 copula, since pers and arm are agreed to support BC, and 
 possibly the old syriac underlying pers and arm was without 
 it, and BC may represent the base here. The more so as in 
 verse 25 ow or Se omitted by BC 138 e Orig only, is also 
 wanting in .syr sin. Soden quotes ^ for omission, but Lah-e 
 does not record it. ) 
 xiv. 5. See under " Coptic and Latin." 
 20/27. This is a place of some importance, although involving the 
 addition merely of the little personal pronoun eya. Tischen- 
 dorf says : " vp-iv. . .Praeterea BL 127 add eya) {sive ad vfiiv 
 sive ad seqq traltititr," by which he means that we can read 
 either at the end of verse 2G -navta a enrov v/iw eyio, or navra 
 a eiTTov vfiiv, and place the eya at the head of verse 27 : " eym 
 eiprjVTiv a^irifu vpiv." 
 
 As a matter of fact Evan 127, correctly reported by Birch, 
 is misreported by Scholz and Tischendorf, for 127 reads in 
 verse 20 iravra a eyio emov v/iiv as X 33 Sod'^' and not Travra 
 a eiTTov vfitv eya) as BL 314 (= Sod'^^'), so that while 127 
 definitely places eyw in verse 20, BL are indeterminate as to 
 adding it at end of verse 2G or at beginning of verse 27. 
 No other Greeks or Latins add in either place ! Hort however 
 crams it in after vp.iv verse 20 fin [R.V. does not, again 
 opposing Hort]. Neither of the Coptic versions has eyto in 
 
;)3<) 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 either verse, but the first word in sahidic of verse 27 is 
 '^"KUJ (= a<\)irjfii) which might mislead the eye. In aeth 
 however ejio is present in the same position as in BL. The 
 situation in S3'riac is as follows: 
 
 Si/)''"'' says 20/27 Travra a (nrov eyto vjuv ' eiprjvqv aifnTjiu 
 eyio vfiiv. Si/»'''" (lesson 1-50) has e7(» in verse 27 but not in 
 verse '2(>. Sijr'^" has eyco verse 2G fin without vfuv (as Gijr only 
 but ah c c ff I m r atir omit vfiiv), and syr"" apparently has 
 vfMv without eyto (separately) but 67a) separately verse 27 after 
 a<j>nini (Lewis ed. p. 254 note " DissimiHa " line 4, and 
 photograph opp. 1st col. line 4). At any rate the eyw of BL 
 seems clearly due to the influence of a version. Tischendorf 
 says nothing of the Syriac. 
 
 [W is wanting from xiv. 2-5 to xvi. 7 and 892 ceases on 
 parchment at xiv. 23.] 
 xix. 10. Matter of order and quite important. As to Pilate's speech 
 to our Lord. Instead of ovk oiSo? on e^ovaiav ep^o) aravpwaai 
 (76 Kai ef. ex"^ a-noXvaai ae, the order is reversed to : 
 aiToXvcrai a£. . .aravpaaai ae by NBAE*N SodP^' e and syr 
 pesh \liiat shi] only, but with pers (doubtless representing 
 the missing .9//r ain [Tiscli forgets pcrs\) and arah W-Ii 
 [against both Coptics]. 
 
 W^P all minn. including Paris" give us the usual order 
 which Sodcn follows. 
 11. In this connection observe the order SeSo/jfvov aoi here of 
 NBD'°''LY and W Sod"-^ i^' with syr and t<'" Cypr Iren""' 
 Orig'"^ 1/2 W-H Sod tit, against aoi SeSo/j^vov of most and 
 Cyr. The order in the previous clause /car e/wv ov&e/uav of 
 NBD^niLXW^ 1 33 124 [non fam] 138 157 2"" Paris" 
 Laura*'"* W-H Sod txt is also Latin order. Observe also 
 the irapaSov, in this verse of NBEAA Sod"'' "" miH""' et 
 W-H [non Sod txt] (for o TrapaSiSov;) = it vg syr : qui tradidit. 
 t XX. 16. p-apiap. {pro fiapia) B with KLNOn and W 1 33 71°"" 
 w"' Sorf""'"' sail boh syr Greg Nyss Sev {Nonn) TisM""- 
 TF-H"" [non Sod]. 
 
 (See above at xi. 2, 19, 28, 32, xii. 3). 
 This is quite noteworthy. It occurs in our Lord's single- 
 worded address to the woman— (and is the correct lingual 
 antithesis as it were to the answer " pa^0ovvi\" introduced 
 in KB and the majority by e^patari but not by all) ; — whereas 
 
 t raris'" breaks off at xx. 15, the last leaves having apparently perished, as have 
 the last leaves of the Apoc. in some Mss, and as those or that of St. Mark where that 
 Gospel came last. 
 
 1» IN ST. JOHN S aOSI'EL. 
 
 337 
 
 sail boll do not use fjuipiap: but napia earlier in the chapter, 
 as do the rest. K however has /xapia/i throughout. 
 XX. 18. /iap(a/i again BNL 1 33 2''' [Sod teste] salt [non holi] syr 
 
 Nonn 
 23. Tivo^ bis pro rtveav bis B (so/ inter gr) a e f r syr Cypr 
 
 Orig"" Ens. 
 
 •Form. 
 
 et W-H 
 
 i. 12. eXa/Sai/ B [non W-H] 
 
 '. 39. epavvare NBN Sod""' {pro epevvare) 
 
 i. 52. epavvriaov NB*T [non N | {l)7V epevvqaov) 
 
 The word occurs nowhere else in the Gospels. But at 
 1 Pet. i. 10 e^ripavvriaav by NAB* while in the very next 
 verse 11 epawtovrei follows by NB' but not by A. 
 
 At 1 Cor. ii. 10 epawa by NAB* and C, but at Bom. viii. 27 
 only N has epavvwv against B and the rest epewwv. Finally 
 at Apoc. ii. 23 epavvav is found in AC {hiat Ii) but epevvav 
 here by N and the rest. 
 \\. 22. ■rrepa{ pro irepav) B""' ('/ Liddell and Scott [non W-H] 
 
 Soden does not care to record this in his foot-notes, so B 
 remains alone. But it is an indubitable " improvement." 
 
 42. oux' ovTot {pro ovx ovtoi) BT et W-H 
 
 43. /lera o\\»;\<»i' {pi'o p^f o\X.) B 157 .soli [tion W-H\ 
 
 Soden did not recollate St. John in 157 so does not record 
 it; but he adds Sod'^" Sod^'" (presumably 6 371 = Evan 4 at 
 Paris) and '^ although not reported by Lake, 
 viii. 12. /iot {pro ep.01) BT Orig (Until BT were carefully collated 
 Orig was always cited alone for this. No others seeiu to joiii, 
 nor 892 nor Paris" more recently collated). W-H place /ioi 
 in text and do not consider epoi at all. Sodcn retains ep^i and 
 has no new evidence for /loi. 
 t 55. Kov {2>ro Kai eav) NBDW Sod'" soli ct W-H {cf. viii. 14 vlii 
 Kav liabent MSS""'" et sah boh, sed Orig c"" xai, cf. viii. 10 
 Kav a sohis) 
 57. eopaxc; B* et W Sod"''" (pro cwpaxa';) [non W-H] 
 
 X. 24. cKvKXevaav B 
 
 xi. 24. ev rri avaaririaei B {pro ev ti; avaaraaci) [ncgl. Sod | 
 28. enia<Ta(pro enrovaa secund.) B C 
 
 t By using kuv for <cni tav at viii. 16 M (alone) shows that this is a " preference." 
 The others do not have it there. Are they rijht at viii. 55 ? Observe that Ctcm''*' uses 
 Kav elsewhere. 
 
s.-ts 
 
 cod: X n and rrs allies. 
 
 AcUially in W-H text because C supports. No marginal alternative. 
 Tlic Oxford text of 1910 restores airovaa. I presume eiiraaa is a " fonn " 
 and not a change of tense, but unless B intended a subtle variation 
 between the first and second et-novaa in (he verse, it is difficult to see 
 ■why he writes thus. Compare the versions. Latin and sah make the 
 fr^t enrovaa = a past participle, and the second a present participle. 
 {enro)v -tec. loco by the critical codex 213 (= ffod"') so often in the B 
 proup elsewhere.) ]3oh, according to Horner, conveys a past participle 
 in the srcoud place. 
 
 In order to avoid burdening the apparatus in Part II. with a lot 
 of minor differences in form or 8pelling,t I have not chronicled a 
 host of places where N or B write eiirav for eitrov.t I wish I had 
 done so however, as this case arises which might seem at first sight 
 to require delicate treatment. But it will be seen, as neither N nor B 
 are constant in the use of enrav, that it is merely a matter of 
 occasional preference with either of them (indeed D ivrites eXeyov and 
 eXeyav in the same verse, John ix. 10) and that eiTraaa secund. in 
 xi. 28 is not to be regarded seriously. Some cursive mss place a stop 
 after outt;?' and before \a0pa eiTrovaa, but I do not think B was 
 finessing here. Hort (' Notes on Orthography,' vol. ii., p. 164, col. ii. 
 top) sa3'S : ' ' The participles eiTrat, et-naaa are rare : the forms in -avro<;, 
 -ni'Tf?, -av-ra have no sufficient autlioritij anywhere." It is regrettable 
 that he did not refer to this place at John xi. 28 where ei-rrovaa is first 
 used and then ^'i-naaa, by himself and BC only. He admits that enravToi 
 and cases other than the nominative are not recognisable in the N. T. 
 Then why admit enraaa in xi. 28? Why not have used enra<! at ix. 6 
 where the discourse had preceded the act of healing ? Cf. some MSS in 
 note below at xi. 38. 
 
 xi. 37. ai/ufa? . B'D [non W-H\ 
 
 § 38. ev^pei/J-cofj^vov B'D (Cf. xv. 18 /iefietariicei/ BIX) 
 
 xii. 15. letaiv {pro ^lav) B*A [non W-H] 
 
 32. av (pro eav) B 13 [non fam] W-H. Here 1-57 
 
 Sod^ ^" Orig Ath Bas Chr Caes have mav. 
 ( xiv. 13. aiTrjTe pro atT7]ai]Te BQ only and W-H'"'. It may be 
 
 ellipsis or " Change of Tense." See thereunder and also as 
 to the same form at xv. 16 by BL^. There Sod does not 
 even record ajTijre although he did at xiv. 13. Sod""' alone 
 improvises amqarjaOe at xiv. 13. ) 
 
 f Thus sometimes B spells Traptjfria with one p, Bometimes it is K who does this. 
 
 J Thus tiiking for example John ix. we find ix. 22 26 ttnaf by N alone, ix. 28 40 
 ,in-iir ND, ix. 20 fiirai- KBL [not D], ix. 12 23 24 34 imav NBD. 
 
 § f^fiinfinv^tfos K.\U at. ahq; fiiPpifiunrmt P'Ur; ted rv^pifiiav W; ifi^ptiiTj- 
 <rii)iM-ot C*X 213 Sod"'"''^' An<lr'"' ; (./i/Spi^iuo-afw^ot f", •^Pjiifioj.i/ifi'ot K). 
 
 It I.N ST. .IOHn's GOSI'KL. 
 
 33 
 
 ( xiv. 19. fi;tr€Te pro ^i^aeaOe BLX 213 only, but adopted by Tisch on 
 the ground that at v. 2.5, vi. 51 57 68 ^rjaei and ^rjaovaw are 
 found and not ^rfaerai and ^ijaovTai, but, as he points out, 
 tTjaerai is found, without variation, at xi. 25. I place the 
 matter here as it hardly seems right to put it under 
 ^changes in verbal voices ; yet a delicate shade of meaning 
 seems to underlie one or other of these forms in the 
 particular connection involved, and which one the writer of 
 the Gospel used we shall never know. W-H follow BLX 
 with fi7o-fT€. Soden adds 213 (Sod'") but does not follow it, 
 yet 213 is a regular adherent to and confirmer of the B 
 transmission. ) 
 XV. 4. ( /levv prD neivr, NBL 33'[.So(ij 213 Paris" W-H Sod txt. 
 " Form " or change of tense. But Origen e/i/ieivri and Em 
 Cyr ii€ivri ut vid. ) 
 ibid. ( /uvvre pro fieipr,Te NABL Sod"^" Paris" W-H Sod txt. 
 The same applies here. Above a writes tnaneat but manseritii 
 here, while d above has manserit (with most) but maneatis 
 here. ) 
 5. ovSe ev (pro ov&ev) B. Cf. CW Sod'" ad xxi. 3 [non B] 
 13. ovSe eK (pro ouSei?) B 
 ( 0. ^^vr| (pro iitivrfi N'ABD Paris" Sorf"" W-H Sod txt. Yet 
 another Greek combination for this, d here has tnaneat but 
 not a nor the rest. ) 
 7. av ffeXme B 209 | „ „ 
 
 ca ea. ^.X,r. N | ^'" " ^^ ^^^"^ '' ^^'^ '^ ^o^^ 
 
 ( 8. yevTfaOe pro yevriaeaOe BDLMXA min pane Amphil Chr 
 W-H [non Sod]. Ellipsis or intentional change? yiveaffe 
 Paris". ) 
 22. eixoaav (pro eixov) NBN'LIl^ l[non fam] 19 mg 33 j'" 
 
 (negl Tisch Sod) Sod'" [non "ir Paris"] Orig"^'' "°" "'''■'"' Cyr'-" 
 W-H Sod txt (eixavD'). 
 24. eixoaav (pro etxov) NBL* (hiat N)W l[non fam] 19 7ng 
 
 33 Sod"^"' 1^ W-H Sod txt against the rest and against Cyr 
 here (eixav D'). 
 xvi. 32. Kafu (pro xai efie) NBCLNf l[non fam exc. Sod'"] 
 
 138 Sod*^' Cyr W-H Sod txt against the rest and Const Did. 
 xvii. 6. Ka/wi (pro xai e/ioi) BY Sod'' l[non fam] 33 138 W-H 
 
 [non Sod] against N the rest and Orig Etis Did Chr Cyr. 
 ibid fin. reTnfnjKav (pro TtTvpriKaatv) BDLW Sod" soli vid et 
 
 W-H [non Sod]. 
 
 We have had imperfects (eXeyav) and aorists (eiirav) 
 
 frequently. This is the first instance to be noticed of the 
 
 perfect in this form. NN 33 substitute eT-nprjaav. To 
 
 the testimony of BDLW however we should add e ff 
 
 z 2 
 
^10 COIlKX II AND ITS AFJ-IKS. 
 
 J I ill n 
 
 wliicli read TeTtjpriKa (e servabi, ff servavi). This various 
 leMdiiif,' may have come from a copy in which the final v 
 bl jeriipriKa had become lost before the vvv following — 
 T6THPHKANYN— but observe eyvtoKa in the next verse, by a 
 few cursives, is shared by most latt vctt although no N 
 follows there in the next word, 
 xvii. 7. eSaxei; {pro SeScoKa';) B'°' See under " Change ot Tense." 
 
 8. eBa,Ke<, ( „ „ ) B"" „ „ 
 
 xviii. (■). a-7T,,\flav NBDW W-H {ft eireaav NBCDELXW3 1 33 213 
 
 Sod'''" W-H et Sod). 
 W. <i»iaiv (pro emev) NBC'LXW^' 1 [22 Sorfen. Teste Sanders 
 cr more] 33 213 2"' Paris" ,Sorf=" """'•« Cijr Chr"'' W-H 
 Sod fxt. 
 xix. 3. €hihoaav {pro ehthovv) NBLNXW* 1 22 138 2'" 604 {cum LX 
 ehihaaav) Parib" Sod"^ "' Cyr W-H Sod txt. 
 
 11. TrapaSov^ {jyro o 7rapa&i&ov<!) Either ellipsis or a variation 
 witnessed to by NBEAA W-W' [«o» Sod] Sod"'" '<"' ■"" 
 mill""'', but not the ones we expect, nor by W^ Paris", 
 but = if rf) /<yr qui tradidit. 
 
 12. eKpavyaaav BD "" ^ 33 157 249 w'" aP Soi""i W-H[non 
 Su(}'^'\ n, but this is a change of tense as well. See under 
 " C'hango without Improvement." 
 
 XX. t. raxetov {pro Tax"'") B al aliq et W-H [nan N] 
 
 ([ have nefjlected the oft recurring differences between N 
 and B as to TreiXaro? and irtXaTO';, ciott^ksi and iaTi)Kei) 
 1(1. pa^^ovvei BN sah iJi.,,<An,«ii.,e».i r. "3 ]y.H {paff^mvei D) 
 23. a4>eiovTai B {a4>tovTat W-H'"' ; aijxavTai W-H"" Sorf''' cum 
 
 N'ADOX Sod"" al. Cyr, et a(f,ievTai phir et Orig. 
 25. x^'/""' BW and A c'", but (see under " Genitive before 
 
 the Noun ") BW iu>v rr/v xeipav, whereas A c"' Tqv x^P"-" 
 fiov. (to? x^tpa?, — p,ov D d.) 
 xxi. 4. yeivoufvrj'! BA [non D Jioc loco, sed DA rer 5 
 
 ■irpoaipayeiov, non B] 
 15. TrXeop {pro -nXeiov) NBCDLSXAH 4 33 122 314 Sod"' Chr 
 
 Cyr W-H Sod txt [against the rest and Basil] nXiov N al ? 
 (1 22 2'" Sod''' a b c effr avr syr sin omit ttX,. toutwi/.) 
 
 Synonyms. 
 
 i. 40 {St. Tisch, ver 39 Il'-ff Sod). o^eaOe {pro there) BC'LT"W 
 
 X" {Sod"*) "Vfam 1 22 33 Paris" {Orig) W-H Sod txt. 
 
 This appears rather more euphonious as : epxeoOe xai o-ilrcaOe 
 
 than epxeoOe xai iBere. The latter is supported by the mass 
 
 and N and by Epiph Cyr Chr. As CLT" and W* join B for 
 
 1) IN ST. .lOHN S GOSriJL. 
 
 341 
 
 oijreade with 1 22 33 Paris" it may well be fundamental as 
 regards Egypt, but not necessarily as regards fundamental 
 neutrality. [See Abbott for particulars as to Johannine 
 diction in this respect.] 
 iv. 51. vTrT)VTr]aav {pro a-ntivrrjaav) See in St. Matthew's Gospel as 
 
 to this pp. 24/26. 
 vi. 2. eOeapovv BDLNX"*(A) 69 185 397 Paris" Sorf"" "" •" Cyr 
 W-H Sod txt for empeov {6eapovvTe<s pro o-ri ttopav W, effeiapei 
 Laura*™, eapaxev Sod""') involves a discussion of the 
 synonyms for seeing and beholding etc. in this Gospel (see 
 Abbott, ' Johannine Synonyms,' § 1598) and would not be 
 profitable enough to discuss at length here, so that it need 
 not detain us. I will only remark that in this same chapter 
 at verse 19 Oeapovirw occurs, at verse 40 o Bewpiov, and at verse 
 02 Oetoprire (or Oeapetre), without variation among MSS, so that 
 a change has been wilfully made here in verse 2 by one party 
 or the other. Which is the most likely to have altered the 
 word? (At vi. 36 etopaxaTe occurs, and at vi. 46 ewpaxev, in 
 both places unchanged except for Ecaii. 28 in the latter place, 
 which MS merely adds eirtywaxTKei r) before copaKev {sic) pr. 
 loco. ) 
 
 [vii. 49. e-naparoi {pro emKaTaparot) NBTW Sod"'^' l[non Jam] 33 2'" 
 Sod''' [non al. vid] Orig Cyr W-H Sod txt. This may be 
 ellipsis, or it may indicate a preference, or it may be basic, 
 for e-TTiKarapaTot. is the expression throughout the LXX from 
 Genesis to Jeremiah and therefore may have replaced 
 eiraparoi.] 
 
 viii. 16. aXrjdivr] {pro aXr]dri<;) See Under " Improvement." 
 X. 3. <j>a>i>€i {pro KaXei) NABDLX W^P /awi 1 33 157 213 249 397 
 21" Paris" Sod'" "" "" "■ »" Cyr W-H Sod txt. It does not 
 follow that the rest are wrong with KoKet. The change may 
 have been made by " scholars " for alliterative purposes 
 following <l)a)vrj<; atnov axovei in the verse. 
 
 xii. 3. €Tr\fia0r) {pro eirX-qpaffr/) in the phrase " ij Se otxia tirXj;. ex 
 rtji otTfirit Tov fivpov." This reading is found in B only, and is 
 put aside by Hort and B. V. as not worthy of notice. The 
 viciousness of their " note " system is shown here, for neither 
 Hort nor Souter give the reading in their notes, and the 
 ordinary minor student, who is compelled to use these tomes, 
 thinks of course that B agrees with the text e-nXripwOri as 
 printed. But B deliberately used a word which is practically 
 non Johannine {Soden does not add one single new witness 
 for €w\i]tr0t]), for the TrXriaavTc; of many at John xix. 29 
 [the only place in which a form of ttXtj^m or vifiTrXrifu is found 
 in the fourth Gospel] does not find any room in NBLX who 
 
342 
 
 Jitlui 
 
 CODKX n AND ns ALLIES. 
 
 iva o X070? rov larjou TrX-yjptoOi] 
 iva T) ypa<j>i} TrXijptoOri 
 
 use a ditfereDt sentence {a-rroyfov ovv fiearov o^ovt pro 01 he 
 7r\7;(raj'T€9 atroyyov o^ov^ xai) whereas ■ Tr\7)po(o is fully 
 Joliaiiiiine, occurring at : 
 iii. '29. avTrj ovv rj x^pa -q e/jnj ireirX-qptoTai 
 
 VII. 8. oTi o e/io<; xaipoi; {I'd xatp. epo<;) ovwo) iTfirXrjpioTai. 
 xn. 88. iva \oyo<; Uaaiov rov TTpo(j>. ■nXripaOii 
 xiii. 18. aXX iva ij ypa<j>ri TrX-qpoidi} 
 XV. 2.5. aXX iva irXijproffri o Xoyoj 
 XVI. (t. aXX OTi ravTa X€XaX7)Ka vp.iv, tj Xvirrj 7r€7rXrjpo>K€V v/xtov rrfv 
 KapBiav 
 24. tva Tj xo-po- vuav y TTeirXripapevrj (Cf. I Jo. i. 4, II Jo. 12) 
 xvii. 12. iva 77 ypa^T) -irXrjpaOr) 
 
 13. iva e^wtrii/ Trjv x^P'^" Tiy e/xrjv TreTrXTjpro/ievTjv ev cauTOif 
 xviii. 9. tva irXrjpadt] \0709 ov enrev 
 32. 
 xix. 24. 
 8C. 
 
 besides TrXrjpoipa in John i. IG (a word not used by St. Luke, 
 who on the other hand uses forms of ttXtj^w freely). 
 Further, irXripoa is found in St. John's epistles : 
 I John i. 4. iva tj X"P'^ vp,a>v ^ ireiTXrjpiop.evr] (Cf- Jo. xvi. 24) 
 II Johnver.l2. iva r\ ;^;a/ja vpMV ■7reirXi]piop,evr) 17 {ii)Bvg.(ItellrjireTrXr)p.) 
 in the same phrase as in the Gospel at xvi. 24. 
 Yet, if the critics could rake up from the Libraries a fevir Greek 
 cursives with evXrjadri in John xii. 3, upon their own foundations and 
 rules they would be bound to insert the reading of B there. Such 
 unscientific reasoning cannot affect Scripture harmfully here, since we 
 are merely dealing with a synonym at this place. But the example is, 
 or should be, a warning and a danger signal as to B's methods elsewhere. 
 If B is " neutral " when he writes Itjo-ou? for o Jtjctou?, even when alone, 
 as Hart insists by repeatedly placing the article in square brackets on 
 those occasions, why in the name of common logic is B not right when 
 he gives us such a fine " neutral " form as eirXijaOrj, equally not found in 
 other documents ? 
 
 I insist, and I think the public will say with reason, instead of 
 repeating to us ad nauseam what a fine man Hort was, and how much 
 study underlay his text, that his followers should offer us some explana- 
 tion of why they abandon B occasionallj' when that MS is affected by a 
 bad "sunstioke," and not that they should cover up B's solecisms by a 
 conspiracy and a mantle of silence (which I charge to be unfair). This 
 remark applies with even greater force to the next place of this kind to 
 be considered, viz. John xii. 28, where B and Evan 5 alone are guilty of 
 something very serious. See under " Hopelessness of considering B 
 neutral." Both Hort and Souler's Oxford edition abandon B, but cover 
 up the matter by another conspiracy of silence. 
 
 h IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 343 
 
 xiv. 7. In view of the foregoing, the next case may be referred with 
 some confidence to an internal species of harmonistic effort 
 (throwing some light on the other question of epetvev or 
 Sierpiffev at xi. 54. See under "Indeterminate.") I refer to 
 the Bubslitution of : 
 
 av r)&eiTe by BCQ1' l[nonfam] 33 Ps-Ath Das Cyr W-H'" 
 [nil in mg] Sod"" [non txt], or av eiSijre L 2'", or eiSrjre av X, 
 or riSene av 22 213 314 Soi"', for eyvwKene av, which as 
 Tischendorf carefully explains may be a reflection of John 
 viii. 19. NDW Paris" substitute yvaaecrffe which Tischendorf 
 receives into his text, av rjBeiTe seems very likely an im- 
 portation from viii. 19. 
 
 Homoiotehuton . 
 
 iii. 25. tK Tmv paOrjTcov tiov iaavov B'"' (but see under Syriac) 
 ix. 7. aiTrjKOev fiXeTTtov { — ovv xat eviyjraTO leai rfKdev inter a-rrtfKdev el 
 
 ^7ra,v) B™' 
 Syr sin however differs : " and when he washed his face his 
 eyes were opened," leaving out any question of -rjXdev 
 which caused trouble in B. 
 
 The arm is rather graphic here : " He went, washed, came 
 and saw." 
 X. 18. TavTtjv evToXrjv (pro ravrriv ti]v evtoXtjv) W'. This must be 
 an error and cannot certainly be referred to any Latin 
 influence yet Sod°^°, a thoroughly bilingual codex, alone 
 now comes to join B at this place ! Note the only Greek 
 witness in xix. 2G for avrov post rrjv /iriTcpa to join the 
 Latins « c n is Sod"'''' with IJ. 
 See beyond under the caption " Historic Present." It is in 
 the same verse that SB alone substitute ripev for aipei. I have 
 directed attention to the tidlit of gat at that place. Is it 
 possible that Latin (tulit and hoc mandatum) is responsible for 
 both r)pev and ravTrjv evToXrjv ( — Trjv) ? 
 
 Humoiotcleiiton with Indeterminate Eesults. 
 
 xii. 35. TTcpiirareiTerot to <^a>? ex^Tc. Depending on how carefully the 
 original was made and copied must depend the correctness of 
 the double variety Trepnrareire w? or irepfiraTene ewt. B favours 
 the former. In verse 30 a)5 stands plainly by NABDLWIl^ 
 DidAth. 
 
 xiv. 22. KEKAiTireroNeN. /tat has been inserted or dropped here owing 
 to the proximity of kI. N and most have it. BADELX 33 
 
3U 
 
 (.ODKX 1) AND ITS ALLIKS. 
 
 397 Laura '^"'^ Sod'" '^"«3-ik.n Cy,- latt copt syr arm a^thgoth 
 drop it as do W-H \iiH in mg'\ but not Sodcii (I wonder why). 
 
 IhnnoiiitcleutDii and Homoioarcton. 
 
 r"lm 
 
 xiv. i. We can hardly attribute to homoioteleuton the shortened 
 clause here. It would be charitable to do so, but it is evidently 
 to remove an apparent (and not a real) pleonasm that 
 NBC'LQXW m 1.57 213 (,So(i"«) hoh pers aeth'""' and only a r 
 of the Jjatins give us xai ottov {eyio) vnayo) oiSare ttjk 
 oSov with W-H and Sod, instead of xai ottov (eYw) v-rtaym 
 oiSaT€, Kat TVjv o&ov otBuTe of D and all the other fourteen 
 uncials, all the cursives, syriacs (including sin), sah, latt, 
 the other versions, and Cyril. Neither ^ nor 892 follows 
 the NB group here, and Paris" has xai ottov eya vTTayta 
 ovK oiBare Tqv ohov. (Observe that it is hoh which 
 supports NB «/r., and notsa/i. Further remove " al.paiic " and 
 " al " in Tisch Horner and Scholz after 33 157. It is doubtful 
 wlicther any other cursives so far collated have the short form. 
 (Jnly the famous Sod'-' {= 213) appears as a new witness. 
 Correct Wetstfin also who cites goth for it. ) c", not cited by 
 Tt.icli, has icat OTTOV vTTayo) eyw oiSare ( — xai rr/v oSov oiSare). 
 xviii. .'). Where Dh e r {hiat d) and Origen omit tiiaov<; in the sentence : 
 \eyei avroK (itjaov;) f7(i> ei/ii ' etaTijKei Se xai loi/Sa?, B alone 
 with a changes the order thus : \eyei avToii eyco eifii iC ICTHK€| 
 placing lj;crou? after eyto etfu and changing the form of the 
 address. This Tc crept in from the margin into the wrong 
 place, or is an error of homoioarcton from ICTHK6I following. 
 Hort cut the difficulty by omitting Irjaovi from his text 
 (with D 43-5 miwv' [ct Sod"" '""] b er Orig) but indicates it in 
 his margin as an alternative reading to place it where B does. 
 IBut r (closely related to a) by omitting shows that in a 
 " Jesus " came in, as in B, from the margin. Why should we 
 follow B a then and insert it in the wrong place? a shows up 
 the whole thing by writing " Jesus autem stabat et Judas. . ." 
 
 Compound for Simple Verb. 
 
 JiJin 
 
 iv. 15. For fnjSf epxo/iai (or epxwfiat) evffaSe avrXew of all others and 
 
 Orig 1/.5, N*B and Orig 4/5 (and these alone) write liTjSe Biepx- 
 
 , . . (Stepxofiai B, hiepxanat N Orig) cvdaBe avrXetv. 
 
 As to this, Tischendorf at last makes a remark which we eagerly 
 
 avail ourselves of. He says : " (: : epx- si scriptum fuisset, quis tatidem 
 
 Siepx- maliiisset?)." 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 345 
 
 After going through St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and the first 
 three and a half chapters of St. John, that is the best way he can put it. 
 " If epxo/iai or epxtopai be original who would have thought of changing 
 to Stepx- " ! But, on the contrary, in the previous hundreds of pages in 
 this volume we have seen NB and Orig constantly improving or trying 
 to improve. The answer to Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort (for of 
 course Biepx- is found in the latter's text, " iiepxtop^at " with N, rather 
 than B's Siepxo/iai, and no marginal comment) is that B often substitntes 
 a simple for a compound verb, so that in these other cases an " Antioch " 
 revision presupposes a change from simple to compound which " Antioch " 
 would favor. Why then not here retain the compound if original? 
 Further, the context shows that 6PX following A€ in MHAe (MHAe€PXOMAi) 
 could easily give rise to Stepxop-ai. 
 
 The middle-Egyptian fragment (published by Crum-Kenyon in J.T.S. 
 vol. I does not have Btepx- (p- 428). 
 
 Dr. Souter in his latest pronunciamento on B ('Text and Canon,' 
 1913, p. 22) after referring to conflations in B at Luke xii. 47, xix. 37, 
 says: " But such features are like spots in the sun."t So carried away 
 with B — (without real fundamental acquaintance with its pervading lack 
 of neutrality, and indebtedness tlirougliout to the " Version tradition ") — 
 was Hort, but Souter is absolutely inexcusable to write in this vein. For 
 justification of our remark the reader need only read the previous and 
 the subsequent pages in this volume. But on p. 103 Souter fairly eclipses 
 anything so far said as to the wonderful labours of Westcott and Hort. 
 
 Now Dr. Souter is a capable and very well read man. Whence this 
 fascination for an edition without fixed principles, or rather with an 
 invented standard, and whose sponsors withheld (if they knew them) % 
 the rules which should govern in identifying readings ? It is a strange 
 situation. For fear that any student might be independent enough to 
 think for himself once in a while. Dr. Souter delivers himself of this 
 (p. 117) : " In deciding as to which of one or more readings is the correct 
 one, the final judgment lies with the trained common sense of the 
 scholar. If it be replied that scholars differ, then the answer must be 
 that for the untrained man the opinion held by most scholars, or by those 
 whose judgment is most highly esteemed by the body of scholars themselves, 
 is that which will be most safely followed." 
 
 This is immediately succeeded by the following : 
 
 " There can be little question that of all texts now in existence that 
 
 t How about John iv. 46, Dr. Souter ? Here B writes r^6tv ovv iroXii/ t v Kava ioT 
 17X. ovv TraK. tit ttjv Kava. Is this a suDspot or a BUDBtroke? [B is followed by NX* 
 (= So(!*< tremendously Lalin) Sod""'"']. 
 
 X Hort's ' Introduction ' has no adequate foundation for his text in the matter of 
 examples. It is throughout " assuniptioD " banked by wordy and pleonastic iteration, 
 not by examples. 
 
4 
 
 04(5 
 
 C'C)I)KX II AND ITS ALLIIiS. 
 
 which commands the highest degree ot assent among thoae best qualifird 
 to judge, is that of Westcott and Hort." 
 
 Now the first pait sounds logical enough, but it certainly is illogical 
 to follow it up with the subsequent renewal of idolatrous admira- 
 tion for Westcott and Hort, because Dr. Souter himself consented to 
 allow his name to appear on the title-page ot the Oxford edition, from 
 wliichmany of Hort's readings are ejected, whether Souter approved or 
 not. 
 
 We return to John iv. 15 where the O.ttord edition is satisfied to 
 leave hiepx'Ofiai of XB 7'i.st/i and Il'-Jf in the text. The Revision thus 
 shares Tischendorl's and Hort's ideas that it would be folly to suppose 
 that anyone finding epxto)j.ai should have revised to Siepxtofiat. 
 
 Very well. That presupposes that every other Greek MS (includiog 
 mind you, DLW^I' Sod"'" 1 13 22 28 33 127 157 213 604 892 Paris" all 
 extant here, besides hosts of other important witnesses including Soden's 
 sympathetic codices frt.ini Sinai and Jerusalem) have been revised from a 
 COMMON oniRiNAL, which we happen to know is not the case, because 
 most of these mss have a partial base conforming to N and B. [Soden 
 cannot produce a single new witness agreeing with K or B.] 
 
 It presupposes that every latin base has been revised (for none read 
 the equivalent of Siepxr-'/^ai) although in countless places in the neighbour- 
 hood some and often many Latins are found with N or B. 
 
 It presupposes that I) has also been tampered with, and W. 
 Why this elaborate and terrific difficulty, instead of recognizing that 
 our good old friend, the precursor of NB and contemporary of Origen, 
 calmly made use of his little " improvements " or suffered one of his 
 " lapses " from homoioteleuton. 
 
 The sah and slav versions have " and I should not come out," while 
 aeth expresses " et non veniam hue iterum." vg^ adds ampUus. Other- 
 wise nothing lends its countenarice to ^lepx- which is opposed by Origen'''-" 
 himself, and by Cijr two hundred years later, which is a poor conamen- 
 tary on the " watchfulness of Alexandrian scholars " (Hort) if StepX" 
 had been correct. 
 
 As a matter of fact, but for Ziepx^aOai in this same chapter (Jo. iv. 4), 
 Stepxop.ni is foreign to St John's diction, while being exceedingly common 
 to that of St. Lnke.t A glance at the concordance will show the situation. 
 I think therefore that it is not a question ot Tischendorl's " quia 
 tandem Siepx- maluisset," but that Siepx- is an error from the MHae 
 preceding. 
 
 Dr. Hort (vol. ii. p. 226) explains his decision thus : 
 " Atepxop-at is here used in its idiomatic sense 'come all the way,' 
 which expresses the woman's sense of her often repeated toil." 
 E.xactly. Thus SB " improved " the record. 
 
 t Twenty times ia Acts, ten times in St. Luke's Gospel. 
 
 h IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 847 
 
 Hort continues : " Being commonly used in other senses, the word 
 was easily misunderstood ■ and assumed to be inappropriate ; and the 
 change would be helped by the facility with which one of two similar 
 consecutive syllables drops out." 
 
 We are face to face here with Dr. Hort's whole mental attitude in these 
 matters and with our own. His studies led him to presuppose innocent 
 copying on the part ot B (p. 237), and a very pure archetype from which B 
 was copying. Our investigations reveal a surprising degree of the contrary 
 elements pervading B, of which we are giving examples at full length. 
 Having established that the B text is full ot " improvements," we can 
 only rank Btepxo/juii as another in the same class. Dr. Hort sees here 
 the foundation text, abandoned by all copies, scribes, and versions, 
 because the true sense (which he alone appreciates.) was " easily mis- 
 understood." But the copyists and translators of antiquity did not act 
 thus, and there is no trace of this left elsewhere, except in the aethiopic 
 version (as recorded above) which once more reduces Hort's mental 
 attitude, and that of X and B and their progenitors, to Egyptian soil. 
 Hort says iiepx- means " ' come all the way,' which expresses the woman's 
 sense ot her often repeated toil." Exactly thus iktekprets aeth alone, 
 retaining epxiipat but adding iterum ! And so inteepkets Ephr (against 
 syr and diates.i) ! 
 
 Jobn 
 
 iv. 16. Immediately following this, we find aov tov avhpa by B 
 and seven cursives which is the Coptic method (for tov 
 avhpa aov) and where Orig 3/6 3/6 is on both sides. 
 What happened to N here? And W? What science is there in 
 establishing iiepx- as " neutral " and basic in iv. 15 if in the very 
 next verse we cannot tell what is and what is not neutral ? Of course 
 Hort knew, for he had support for B from a mixed lot of cursives : 0!) 
 [contra fam] 71 74 248 2-54 Evst 32 and 60 [contra Evaii 157 its sister], 
 (Soden only adds "* "") so he placed the B reading in his text. But he is 
 only following a " version tradition," one " version tradition," and that ot 
 Egypt, in so doing. Naturally, when you establish an arbitrary " neutral " 
 text and make it a standard you can be tree to act as you wish. This utterly 
 unscientific stand {Siepxoipat in verse 15) is now found to be adopted by 
 the B.V. as exhibited in the Oxford edition of 1910 after thirty years' and 
 more experience since Hort's text was published. I can only say that 
 the " majority of scholars " cited by Souter may be right, but I prefer to 
 remain with the late Dr. Salmon, Canon Cook, Adalbert Merx and others 
 in the minority. " Facts are stubborn things," as Adalbert Merx quotes 
 on the first page of his first volume. I will not accept all B's strange 
 readings and aberrations because I am told to do so. Souter's apostle 
 Burkitt (see the unstinted praise on p. 129 of Souter's ' Text and 
 Canon') himself is on my side with Turner and others against this 
 idolatry and even von Soden abandons NB and Oi'ig 3/4 here. 
 
■UH 
 
 CODKX B ANU ITS AI.LIKS. 
 
 Vjju) Form Cha.ngks. 
 
 Change of Voice 
 
 V. 'i-j. axovaovaiv 
 
 but 
 ibid. 
 
 but 
 
 nHovawoiv 
 
 (iiudiunt 
 aKovoovTat 
 
 15 '2-3 138 357 ? (257 I'isc/i) SocP" Chr"" Cijr''" 
 
 Hipp {Soclen) et W-H txt. 
 NLT' \\non fani] 33 e9[«o»i fam] 157 185 213 
 314 2'-' ct W^ I'aris" Sor?""'"" ■" c< ,'5;of2 txl. 
 cfva«) 
 
 DATAAn K»c' minn pi et Hipp''" (Lagaide) 
 NBUL e< T'W l[non /am] 22 33 357 2i« z'" 
 t Laura * '°^ [So(?e)i iiod LaAeJ Paris" [)ioii 346 teste Fec/ac] 
 
 Sod'"' W-H Sod txt. 
 tnaovTai AFAAII Mic' aV" Hipp"" Chi''" Cyr. 
 
 As to the more recently recovered witnesses, W and Paris" join NB 
 in both places, but '"I' has aKovatoaw and leaves fijaovrot alone, thus 
 af,'reeing with Chr and Cyr, and 892 makes no change from the textus 
 icceptus ; the new witness T', of course wholly ' Egyptian,' agrees as 
 would be expected with W. 
 
 The suspicious thing here is the position observed in Cyr and Chr, 
 which is reversed in 1), while the 1 and 13 families are divided. Would 
 it not be better to follow Hippolytus rather than strain at the more or 
 less imaginary " neutral " text here ? Hipp is absent in the following 
 but Chr and Cyr are on both sides. 
 
 J.rlin 
 
 V. 28. dicovaoviJiv nT{negl. Sod] 157 .S'o(P> Chr 1/2 Cyr"' 
 
 W-H txt. 
 aKovaamv NLNA (Sod"^") 33 213 397 Paris" et W 
 
 Laura* "' Sod"'' ^' Sod txt [non 2'«] 
 but aKovaov-rai DAPAn uiic rell minn Chr 1/2 Cyr"™ Bas 
 Here W again agrees, and T' with B, but not ^, and 892 is again 
 noticeable by absence from agreement with N or B. Observe that 1 
 and 09 do not repeat their change here and Sod"''" has aKovaovaovrai 
 ■lie. Paris" (with Orig) adds xat oi aKova-avrei; ^ijcrovatv repeating and 
 confirming ^ijaovaiv of verse 25, and thus is more consistent than ^ which 
 abstains from change here. 
 
 J.rllll 
 
 X. 14. See under " Coptic and Latin." 
 
 t Soden does not give Laura*!"* (it -verBe 28 below (his "''). Has he copied 
 wronfily from Lake ? 
 
 II IN ST. JOHN S GOSI'EL. 
 
 349 
 
 lOIIII 
 
 ( xiv. 19. ^rjaere pro ^qaeaffe 
 xiv. 23. -rroiriao/ieda {pro 7Tofr)iTOfi.cv) 
 
 See under " Form." ) 
 See under " Improvement " and 
 note very specially. 
 
 Change of Mood. 
 
 xiii. 2. napa&oi {2>ro irapa^o)) HBD [non TW rell ] 
 (Cf. xiii. 29 iva ti hoi D) 
 As to whether oi really represents a change of mood or not in KBD 
 here and elsewhere, it is worth noting that the new MS W has eyvoi for eyvta 
 in xvi. 19, so that oi for a may merely be itacisiuic in NBD. 
 
 But see Matt, xviii. 30 atrohri N (vvW°'' airohoirfi pro ano&co | not 
 cited by Tisch or Sod], noticed by us in Postoript to Part II. 
 
 I have neglected all changes of mood following wa. They seem of 
 bo value in the premises. 
 
 Joliu 
 
 xiv. 15. Tripriaere {pro rtjptiaaTe) BL^ [Sod non Lake] 54 73 Laura* '"* 
 
 S„rf,.. .M U.» •!•<, l:,.!. K. ^y,fj |-„„„ gg^ fj.f^ o^Jy g^„3 ^„;, J^,, „,.,,, 
 
 future against imperative of the rest and the other versions 
 (X 33 Paris" Sod" and a few Tij/jijo-jjre). 
 
 Change of Tcn.ie. 
 iv. 21. TTKTTeuf {2>ro -maTevaov) NBC'DLW 1 22* 138/a?« 13 [non 
 124J 2'« Laura* •" Sorf"" '"» ■'■ [male vid ,?o*'"» = i""J soh Orig 
 Afh Cyr W-H'-' Sod"-' [non""] 
 vi. 12. We may include under this head to Trepiaaevoura by B only 
 and 40 03 04 71 aP Sod'"" """^ [not indulged in by the real 
 sympathising cursives] for ra irepiaaevaavTa of all the rest 
 and Cyr {Trepiaaev/iaTa 3 aliq.). Neither W-H nor Soden 
 follow B here. 
 
 (A change of number occurs in the very next verse.) 
 vii. 19. eSioKev liDHfl- 210 244 359 hi soli inter omn et W-H'-' 
 
 {pro SeSaKev N rell) 
 In these connections we must consider St. John's manner. 
 He employs the perfect almost habitually. 
 89. o» TriuTevaauTei {pro ot Trto-TeuovTC?) BLT {TrtaTevtrovTet) W 
 Evst 18 syr sin {cf. sah) Chnjs"^ * and W-H txt [nil in vtg], 
 but apparently no others. Sodeii gives no new witnesses, 
 viii. 23. eXtyev (pro tiirev) NBDLNTXW fatn 18 [non 124] 
 
 Laura* '»* [negl Sod] Sod''" "" '■"" <' if' rg Orig Cyr W-H Sod 
 txt. 
 
 This looks like a strong combination, but it is opposed by 
 all the sympathising cursives and 1 33 892 Paris" and ■>!'. 
 Why? Because etirev is right. The small band above 
 changed merely in order to conform to eXeyov above in verse 
 22. Again a question of "pairs." Ver 22 eXeyov ovv oi 
 
350 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Jnllll 
 
 loi/Saioi. . ., then why not, said they, xai iXeyev avTot<t in 
 vcr '2'i. There would be no reason to charge to einev if eXeyev 
 were basic, 
 viii. 39. Bee under " Improvement." 
 
 The number of cases of change of tense in the Gospels can 
 be doubled if we consider the readings of N as well as those of 
 B or NB together. 
 X. 18. vp^v {})io aipei) NB soli cum W-H. See p. 354. 
 
 21. avoi^ai NBLXX"VV Sod"' /am 1 fam 13 22" 33 157 213 
 249* 2V' Paris" ,Sod"« "■"""•■"' <^-^ Orig Chr W-H Sod txt, 
 against avoiyew by the great mass including D. This avot^ai 
 must be an "improvement" to fit the remark to chapter ix. 
 where the record is so complete of a cure of the blind. I 
 cannot conceive of a " revision " under all the circumstances 
 changing avoi^ai to avoiyeiv. 
 25. ovK e7rt<TT6u<raT6 (pro ov TTiaTeuere) B 4 52 63 71 157 248 259 
 Sud""' C/t)™''' -I' ( + iMt) (33 •? 251 OVK e-maTevcTe) f [71011 Paris" 
 rell]. 
 
 Only the above-mentioned change, against all the rest and 
 against the Versions. It is quite clear that it is an " improve- 
 ment " (following eiTTov vfuv) and not basic, and even Hort 
 abandons B and does not record anything in his margin 1 The 
 amusing thing is that King James' translators (although the 
 previous editions and Tynedale had the present) have "and ye 
 believeD not," and Hort and the Kevision actually set them 
 straight here as against B and company, and of course the 
 margin of the Eevision is silent, whereas they could have 
 mentioned B and ten other " ancient authorities " for the past 
 tense. 
 
 The point to observe is that the transition from " I told 
 
 you. . .to. . .and ye believe not" offended B.and Hort by not 
 
 accepting B's " I told you. . .and ye believed not " reproves 
 
 B for an unnecessary nicety. Is not our case abundantly 
 
 proved by this ? If B is wrong here, he must be vsrong in 
 
 many of the other places which we have discussed. Fancy 
 
 accepting Tipev of NB in x. 18 (aide paidlo post) and rejecting 
 
 this hannless reading of B tnin' in x. 25 ! 
 
 xi. 27. TTiaTcvfo {pro TrentaTevKo) B' c'" { = Sod"'^) V" [tiegl. Sod] sah 
 
 hohianAsyraethetc). Also A.V."" again. Not adopted by Hort. 
 
 See under " Coptic." 
 
 29. exeivr] o)5 rjKovaev, eyeiperai Taxv xat epx^Tai vpoi avTOV. 
 
 So Tischendorf (against his own group) t with the textus 
 
 t " TiBchendorf's text ig, in my own opinion, right in many places where the text of 
 Hort is wrong." C. H. Turner (.1. T. S. vol. xi. p. 183). 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 351 
 
 receptus and most, but against Hort's and Soden's : exeivt] &e 
 o)<; rjKovaev riyepdr/ Tayv xai tjpxno ■npo'; avTov with 
 NBC(D)LXW 33 213 249 397 Paris" Sod"" "» '•"■ ^ [d has 
 surrexit and venit, D" tiyepOri xai epx^tat, clearly a Latin 
 influence on his Greek]. 
 
 I suggest that this small but important group is perpetrating 
 another " improvement," objecting to the transition from the 
 past tense rjxovaev to the graphic historic presents eyetperai 
 and epx^rai. So at least thought Tischendorf, no mean judge 
 of such matters, and he condemns his beloved N by absolutely 
 neglecting its testimony, down to the suppression of the 
 connecting Se at the head of the verse, t 
 
 xii. 13. tKpavyaaav (pro fiepavya^ov NB^DLQW ct c/cpa^ov unc rell) 
 
 B'"'* inter gr cum sail et gotli. 
 49. An exception to the rule of " pairs " is made here, and instead 
 of fXaXTjcra . . . cSw/ecf, we are treated to eXaXqaa . . . BeStoicev by 
 NBAMX and W^' al. pauc. Did Cyr W-H Sod txt, while 
 the rest favour eiaxev. Now SeSmxeii may have been intro- 
 duced by NB etc. to confonn to St. John's more usual use of 
 the perfect, or the other side may have revised to eSwKev (but 
 observe that DA, the graeco-latins, have the aorist) for the 
 sake of the " pair." We will not insist. For at xiii. 3 
 NBKLT'W 138 Paris" Sorf"' have eSaxev. 
 
 xiii. 19. iri<TT€i»i;T£ (pro irKnevaijTt) BC Orig 1/2 et W-H txt \iiil in 
 
 rng] 
 37. aKo\ov6eiv (pro aKoXovOrjaai) B and C only. This is a 
 most glaring change, yet Hort follows in his text without 
 marginal alternative. And this amounts to following B alone, 
 because he prints axoXovBew apri, whereas C (the only other 
 authority for the present infinitive) has wv aKoKovOew. More- 
 over the fact of wilful change is shown by C, who alone with 
 Evan 9G and Cyr also changes wv axoXovO^aat in verse 30 to 
 vvv aKoXovffeiv. The Oxford edition of 1910 representing the 
 Kevisers acknowledges that BG and Hort are wrong, for it 
 restores aKoXovOifaat without marginal comment. Upon what 
 principle then do Souter and the critics so earnestly commend 
 Hort's " foundations " ? Once more they are shown to be 
 imbedded in sand, and to represent the perishing piles of B. 
 For the present infinitive is clearly introduced because of the 
 propinquity of vvv and apm both in verses 36 and 37. (Some 
 few MSS, viz. 157 with 47 435 and the Latinisers 56 58 61, 
 remove apTi altogether in this verse 37. NXW vary the order 
 
 t See ray remarks as to this in Part II. under " Versions. ' 
 
352 
 
 CODEX D AND ITS ALMES. 
 
 17. 
 
 , 4. 
 0. 
 
 IG. 
 
 his ill versii See under " Form " 
 
 of the following clause to virep aov rr)v ■^vx")" fov Oriato, and 
 some would couple apri with this sentence.) 
 xiv. 10. ov TTtCTTeuo-civ (j))o ou TTto-Teuet?) B*"'. This is a very pretty 
 place, and will appeal to Coptic scholars, if not to my less 
 well-informed critics. I know of no other authority for this 
 except the hohairic version (all codices) which very definitely 
 has the second person singular of the future tense : ^^ff A.g'l" 
 Aff against the transliterated itmiCTeTfE Alt of sah. 
 Could anything be more definite as to the situation as 
 between B and the hohairic? 
 13. atTijre {pro oiti;<ti)tc) B(atT»)Ta«) Q only, is presumably the 
 present conjunctive, unless merely a matter of " form," but 
 both Coptics have definitely the future. [In verse 14 B reads 
 aiTTjo-ijTc with the rest]. See below at xv. 10. 
 See under " Improvement." 
 
 In verse 7 utivifre and fieivr) 
 are retained by those who 
 change in verses 4 and 6. 
 a(TJjT€ (pro aiTria-qTe) BL^ [non Paris" non al. vid^. B is 
 the only one to have this both here and at xiv. 13 (see above). 
 It may be a version influence, but it occurs here in B at the 
 end of a line. It can also be referred here to a continuation 
 of the tense in the verse of iva v/iens wayTjTe, . .^eprire. . . 
 fievt). . .aiTyre. This would bear out the general preference 
 for " pairs " as explained elsewhere. On the other hand, 
 in the actual sentence airrfre would not square with ha> 
 following (of B etc.). We would have the pres. suhj. followed 
 by the aorist suhj. in this last clause iva on av airvTe tov 
 •npa €v TO) ovo/Jari fiov Ba vfiiv, whereas we might expect SiSo>. 
 N, some cursives and Gyr force the future Saaei t on us to 
 square with anriariTe. Any way we look at it there has been 
 forced tinkering with the passage, for others read Sari. As 
 none read SiBa we may look with suspicion on ajTijrc of BLI', 
 which Hort merely places in his margin. 
 22. apei {pro aipei) BD*r {cpei N) sah boh arm aeth TF-H'^' 
 Sod'"^. Cf. Hil et toilet c d 8 gat aur Aug vg", auferet aff 
 r Cypr (a^epei W), autert e f q; toUit b vg". See under 
 " Improvement." 
 
 7. eBa>ice<! B, eSwKa? A 1[«0H fam] 118" a'" Paris" So(i" 
 
 W-W^' (pro BeBaKai reU) 
 
 8. eB<oKe<; B, eBaiKat ACDIl'W minn pane TF-H'" {pro SeSoixa; 
 
 longe plur et Cyr). 
 
 ■niaTevrj {pro Tnarevar)) N*BO*W Clem Evs W-H [non Sod], 
 
 21. 
 
 t Aad/rtm 13 have tovto irotr^o-u etc. 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL. 
 
 353 
 
 but against the rest and Orig Ath Cyr. Probably to conform 
 in a measure to in<nevovrav in verse 20, for wiaTevovTwu 
 is the correct reading there. 
 
 xix. 12. eKpavya<Tav BD^""^ wiMi'"" a W-H txt [nil mg]. See under 
 "Change without Improvement." {eXeyov pro e/cp. Xeyovre^ 
 N ; cf. NW in xix. 15.) 
 15. tnoTevrrre {pro TnaTevtrTp-e) N'B*' (verse number wrong in 
 Lake) Orig W-H [nil mg] (Latins credatis) against all the 
 rest {Sodai adds no new witnesses although printing in his 
 text marevlajTiTe) including W Paris" and Cyr [e and vg^ omit 
 the verse, but not the Diaif"" nor any other authorities {syr 
 sin still missing until xix. 41, butters has it)]. 
 
 XX. 31. marevriTe {pro tnaTevarfTe) N*B Sod"'-' W-H txt [nil mg] 
 
 (Latins credatis) against all the rest including W tbe new 
 fragment T° (Amelineau p. 47) and the Evst. in same publica- 
 tion (p. 03) and Cyr again [Origen is absent]. Will Soden 
 please explain why at xix. 35 he prints TnaTev[iT]riTe and gives 
 ^ji-2* m Qp jjj jjjg ^,pper margin, while here at xx. 31 he 
 prints TtiarevctrtTC (against Hort) and places -minevijTe H"-^' I"'" 
 in his second column of notes, although he adds J"" ? 
 Xxi. 0. taxvov {pro laxuaav) NBCDLNAH*- [non W] 1 
 
 [non fam] 4 15 27? 29? 33 124 [non fam] 202 270 aopw"' 
 Laura* '" Sod''' '"»» '"» Cyr W-H Sod txt et valebant c g S gat 
 foss aur dim vgg'"" "'', poterant ab dfr [hiatff, non e g]. 
 t25. x">P1<r"v {pro x<'PV<rat) BC* et N" et Sod'"' ■"' Orig 
 
 1/4 (1/4 X'^t^^"' bis x'->PV'rat). The fluctuation of Origen 
 probably indicates revision and preference by B, for BC'N' are 
 not even joined by W or ^ nor by a single minuscule except 
 Sod"^' = Sinai"^ (only c'" x'^P'^^"^" sic). But Hort's and 
 Souter's editions both adopt xf^pn^^tv. Sodcn does not. 
 
 {Historic Present.) 
 
 As against the frequent change by NB in the other Gospels in favour 
 of present or imperfect t over the past tense, there is but little to note in 
 St. John's Gospel. In fact at : 
 
 t Oni. verse K*. 
 
 t Oba. 892 but not N or B at ix. 40 ^kokoi. for r,Kov(Tm and obs. N nione at xi. 43 
 (itpauynff.- (of the Lord's command to Lazarus) for tKpnvyaatw. Only two vulgatcs "t 
 have claniabit sic, simply an error for clamauit. 
 
 Note also at xi. 3 «(),X«t for tjiAus by L Evst 29 Sod"" arm. Observe K at xvii. 12 
 iipuXainrov for «i/ii.X(i|n. There iB a gross error here in Soden's notes. He adds d r to H 
 for f^vXaffirc. They do not read thus. Both cuslodivi. He has confused their reading 
 of ciutodiebam for servabam as on interpretation of tr^ipom earlier in the verse. Perhaps 
 the eye of N was similarly misled I 
 
 2 A 
 
3r)4 
 
 .ImIiii 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 J8. HP, and they alone ciu-iously enough sahstitute vpev for aipet 
 m tlm clause ovBef; aipei avrr/v air €/j.ov (of ti)!* "^vxn" verse 17) 
 «X\ eyw Ttdijfii avTTjv air cfiavrov, where XB must be wrong. 
 They are opposed by N' and the rest Orii/eni""" et Orig'"' 
 ;.:».5L.i,„,uios £,,-,;pi,„ie, ff „i^ j^„,, it jg scarcely credible, but 
 Wc^tcutt-Hort, acting on their rule that NB in combination 
 cannot bo wrong, actually insert iqpev into their text, which 
 has overflowed ("some ancient authorities read") into the 
 margin of the English Kevision of 1881. The Greek R.V. 
 naturally restores aipei to the text, but could not resist putting 
 ripsv in the margin. The versions and every other Greek 
 document are clear for the present tense aipu. 
 
 Instead of tolUt of most Latins I find gat has Mlit. Is it 
 possible that this -qpev crept into NB from a graeco-latin with 
 tiiUit ov tidit?^ 
 
 f^odcn cannot find a single new witness for this absurd 
 reading. Observe that it is in this same verse that B (alone 
 with Sod"'') has TauTi/v evTo\r)v, " hoc mandatwn" or "hoc 
 piacccptum " for TavTrjv ttjv evroKr^v of all the rest. 
 10. epfvev (pro efiuvev) is found in B [apparently alone of Greeks 
 with 21 (.S'yrf-'"')] with a b c e ff I oi Latins [iion dfr 8]. Syr 
 sin apparently alone with 2)ers and Chr""^'' •'''° omits xai e/icwev 
 exei, or rather may agree with jiers alone, and suppressing 
 f/ieiii€v transfer xai exet to the head of the following verse. 
 (Si/r 2'esh has w or fitit for e/ieivev.) W-H'^^ prints ep^vev 
 alone with B, and now 21. 
 xii. 2'!. Here occurs a real Historic present : a-iroKptverat (pro aire- 
 Kpivaro of nearly all and aireKpiBi] of the few) by NBLXW 33 
 Sod"''° and Paris" W-H [non Sod] and by them alone. All 
 clearly representing one influence and one stem. And absolutely 
 deliberate and eclectic as will be shown immediately, because 
 two verses below at : 
 
 we find a-n-oWuei substituted for atroXeaei, but only by NBLW 
 33 Sod''" ff. Here X and Paris" abandon the group. They 
 have been " revised " if you will, it matters not whether they 
 have been revised or hold the true base exhibited by all others. 
 The reason NBLW 33 adopt avoKKvet is apparently because it 
 follows so close to <j>€pei at the end of the previous verse : eav 
 Se aiToOavr) woXvv Kap-nov ijiepet . o <l>t\a>v rr)v -yfrv^V o-VTOv 
 aTToXXuet avTijv. Thus it not only bears on the previous <^6pet 
 but has reference to the harmonising of <t>t\<t>v with airoWvei, 
 
 2r,. 
 
 t For rjptv at John v. 9 e q have tulit, and not atistulit ; at John xi. 41 for tjpav all 
 Lntins (cxcct)t p r) have litlernni, and not suatttlcrunf. 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 355 
 
 and thus constitutes another affair of " pairs." There can be 
 no question about it. They do not however change ^vXa^ei 
 in the next clause, which only shows how imperfect, or rather 
 personal, was this Alexandrian revision. I speak with some 
 confidence — as I draw towards the close of this essay — for if 
 " Antioch " had been the censor here, besides changing 
 oTToXXuet to a-no\€<Tei, why did they leave (pepei alone and not 
 change that to a future otirei ? 
 
 As a matter of fact Origen and Nonnus exhibit to us the 
 attitude of the ancient minds at this place for they do write 
 4>v\a<7(Tei for <^uXaf«, and ^ with its Egyptian affinity writes 
 perdit. . .odit. . .cusfodit (b c f I custodit). 
 
 Will Soden explain why he rejects aTroKpiverai of NBLXW 
 33 Paris" in verse 23 and adopts a-rroWvei. of NBLW 33 
 Sod'" ff in verse 25? 
 xiii. 38. Again here, as at xii. 23, we find airoxpiverai substituted 
 for aTrexptOri by a somewhat larger group involving NABCLX W 
 Sod™ f am If am 13 22 33 138 157 213 2.54 T' Paris" .9o(i"° ^" 
 W-II Sod txt. Tisch says of the viinn " al'°," but observe 
 that only/«7« If am 13 22 138 157 213 and 254 of the same 
 family tendencies swell the chorus of 33 Paris" sung in the 
 former place. Syr is Xeyei, but all latt respondit as at xii. 23. 
 aiToKptveTai seems clearly an " improvement " by the few. 
 Observe their record in the other Gospels as to Historic 
 presents. So far in St. John they had successfully resisted 
 the temptation to change. If really basic how is it that f am 1 
 fam 13 22 138 157 213 and 254 did not follow in xii. 23 as well 
 as in xiii. 38 ? 
 
 Change of Number. 
 
 vi. 13. fircpiaaevaav (controlled by 5) BDG^W G7 Sod"" Evst 60 
 (P'") copt lat ]V-H [noil Sod] against the singular enepiaaevaev 
 by the rest and Amelineau's new Egyptian Evst, see his page 
 64, and (airep eireptaaevcrev Cyr). The plural is more or less 
 Egyptian (Coptic) and the Latins use it. When W joins in 
 these places with D it is a pretty clear intimation of " version " 
 tradition and influence. In the next verse we get an intima- 
 tion of which version, for, while the Latins hold the singular 
 aripeiov with N and majority Greeks and versions, BB^X'' only, 
 with a arm syr hier and boh only, have the plural o-i;/«(a.t 
 
 t There is great danger of J (Sod' S" being quoted here instead of es), for Soden't 
 symbols read in verse 13 flJi 01430 and in verse 14 H'lSO. By 30 t 30 is meant (Qf) 
 whereas 8 30 is J. 
 
 2 A 2 
 
35G 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 vi. 22. eihov BA miiui 2^cr}muc a dfl q (following turbae) sah hoh 
 acth s/y;- W-H Sud txt (ihov LNW) [pro lioiv TA^'A unc', et 
 eiBev NDi-'X" b cffg Svg (following turba) <TKOTrta^ev Nonn]. 
 This is agfiin rather Egyptian. («8ovt« 67 213, etSw? Sod"'" 
 Lanra'^ ™.) 
 bill X. 12. ecrnv ja 7rpo/3aTa NABLXW Sod"'"' mill""'' Const Ens Cyr 
 
 U -H Sod txt (for eiaiv ra npo/SaTa) but this is exceptional. 
 ICi. yevTjaovTat {j^ro yevr]aeTai) BDLXW*' l[non fam] 33 213 
 21"' Sod"' dfvg^ goth sah boh arm Clem 
 [Variant Chr codd inter eaerai et etrovTai. Cf. verss). 
 27. aicovovcnv {pro axovei) following ra irpo^ara NBLXW 
 Sod"'-" fam 13 33 l.'J7 213 249 397 SofZ'""'"'"" d et latt HonP"" ? 
 Orig 4/6 Bas 1/4 Ci/r W-H Sod txt {aKovacaaiv Paris") but 
 against all the rest and D^' and Clem Orig 2/6 Ens Bas 3/4 
 Thdt. 
 
 As showing that this must have been changed originally 
 from aKovu we note that N alone follows with a-iroKtnai for 
 aiToKaiVTai, 
 xi. 4-5. o (pro a) See under "Improvement." 
 xvii. 7. tiaw pro ecTiv (following travTa oaa) KBCLNXY et W'*' 
 3:! 157 213 314 Sod'"" Paris" W-H Sod txt latt copt et d S 
 [contra D'-' A'^']. Cyril has eaTw against the Egyptian group. 
 XX. 23. Tivof bis (pro twiov bis) B (sol inter gr) a efsyr Cypr Eus 
 Orig'"' Aug Pacian Anct'""'" W-H"". 
 
 Change of Case. 
 
 viii. -5.5. This is quite an important place, eaofuii oiioiot vftiv i^ci/ctttj? 
 by BADW fam 1 52 138 157 254 2""' only of Greeks' and latt : ero 
 similis vobis mendax (against Tertullian's genitive ero similis 
 VESTBI mendax), instead of eaofuu ofioiof v/j,tDV ifrevuTri's. Sodeii 
 only adds 138 (B tf G add"") to the Greek witnesses hitherto 
 known and does not follow in his text, abandoning Hort's v/iw. 
 The dative after ofioiot is as legitimate in Greek as the 
 genitive, and throughout the N.T. is generally used. There- 
 fore in opposing N and the mass here (including ^ 892 and 
 Paris'") B must be seeking for something. What was he 
 doing ? Who is right ? Which is the harder reading ? Was 
 B influenced by the Latin, or did the Latins have vfuv 
 and not vijlwv before them? Well vfiuiv being the harder 
 reading is I think distinctly to be preferred, and vfiiv to be 
 relegated to the large scrap-heap of attempted "improve- 
 ments." St. John himself near by (ix. 9) says o/xoio'; avro) and 
 in 1 John iii. 2 we find ofioioi avrco. But if St. John uses the geni- 
 tive vfiav in the fourth Gospel at viii. 55 why not let it stand ? 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 357 
 
 Our Lord was sajing to the Jewish crowd : "And ye have not 
 known Him, but I know Him, and if I should say that I do 
 not know Him, I should be lUe a liar among you," or, like a 
 liar of your sort, rather than " like to j'ou a liar." In other 
 words the genitive seems to convey that sarcasm t which not 
 
 t Dr. BurkiU (' The Gospel History ') has this to say about tho fourth Gospel : 
 *' There is nn argumentativeness, a tendency to mystification, about the utterances of the 
 Johannine Christ which, talcen as the report of actual words spolcen, ia jwsifivety 
 rcjjcUent " (p. 227). And again : " For we have not done with the Fourth Gospel when 
 we have made up our minds that neither the narrative nor the discourses are to be 
 regarded as history, as matters of the past fact " (p. 229). And again : " Especially am 
 I sure that we shall never do justice to this Gospel, so long as we treat it as a narrative 
 of evcjits that were seen and heard of men. It is not a competitor of tlie Synoptic 
 Gospels. But, you will say, what becomes of the truth of the Gospel?" (p. 235/6). 
 And once more : " Then again, as I have already observed, the actual words which the 
 Evangelist ascribes to our Lord when the Jews ' persecute ' Him for healing on the 
 Sabbath were calculated rather to exasperate than cither to appease or instruct them " 
 (p. 238). And lastly : " Now, if we look at the form and manner of these words, it it, I 
 am co7ivinccd,utipo:tBibIc for one jnojncnt to imagine that they ean represent an accurate 
 account of any man's defence of himself after outraging the religious susceptibilities of 
 powerful adversaries. It is not in the least the kind of thing which a phonograph would 
 have reported " (p. 238/9). 
 
 But surely the other Gospellists have something of the same kind to say of Christ's 
 manner on certain occasions I And as to deep sarcasm how about Lnke xvi. 9 " And I 
 say unto you Make to yourselves friends (out) of the mammon of unrighteousness, that 
 when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations " ? No satisfactory 
 interpretation of these words has ever been made, save that they convey a biting satire. 
 
 In the above quotations from Dr. Burkitt's book (chapter on the Fourth Gospel) I 
 do not wish to do him any injustice by quotations perforce divorced from their context. 
 He has said, rather unnecessarily, of me that I do not know the difference between a 
 dilettante and a scholar. However that may be, I think I can detect the difference 
 between an unbeliever and a believer I For in all Dr. Burkitt's writings he distinctly 
 disavows his belief in our Lord's saying, recorded in the Fourth Gospel (xvi. 26) : *' But 
 the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach 
 you all things and bring to your remembrance (tit. remind you of) all the things which 
 (navra n) I said unto you." In the face of this Burkitt writes again and again such 
 things as this : " It was necessary that the disciples should reverence and love their 
 blaster; far more necessary that they should remember His phrases. But the conditions 
 were not specialty favourable for accurate reminiscence*^ (op. cit. p. 145). "I imagine 
 it to be one of the most delicate of the problems which confront the investigator of the 
 Gospel History to determine how far the sayings of Jesus reported only in the Gospel 
 according to Matthew are, in the narrower sense, historical ; how far, that is, they are 
 a literal translation into Greek of words which Jesus once spoke... It is not only a 
 question whether this or that sentence or illustration comes really from a later time " 
 (p. 191/2). " If the picture presented in S. Mark's Gospel be in all essentials true, it 
 will give an essentially reasonable account of the ministry. I do not mean it will contain 
 no stories of what are called ' miracles ' or tliat we should at onco be able without mis- 
 giving to accept every incident as having actually occurred in the way related " (p. 66). 
 " I have said that our Evangelists altered freely the earlier sources which they used. 
 They changed, added, omitted. This sounds, no doubt, very terrible and dangerous. 
 Let us put the statement then in another form, a form quite as legitimate, but less 
 shocking. Let us say that the Evangelists were historians and not chroniclers. This 
 does not assert that they were trustworthy or even truthful " (p. 21). 
 
358 CODEX 13 AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 minftcn underlies our Lord's addresses to those who were 
 buiting Iiiin and lying in wait to "catch him in a word." 
 Tlio original Aramaic of John viii. 5.5 we can only surmise, 
 but the Syriac is plain, not " like you a liar," hut " a liar like 
 you" " mcndax sicnt vos."- Malan says: "I am for myself 
 a liar like you," and adds in a note: " the construction is 
 
 But for colli, calculated apostasy, note the following : 
 
 " That the Gospel according to JIark contained the story of the BeBurrection of 
 Jesus Christ is surely no reason for questioning its right to rank as an historical docu- 
 ment. . . There is no doubt that the Church of the Apostles believed in the resurrection 
 of their Lord. Thry viay have been mUtahen, but ' there is satisfactory evidence that 
 many professing to be original witnesses ' — I will not say, with Paley, ' of the Christian 
 miracles ' : that claims too much, but certainly that Jesus had been raised from the 
 dead — ' passed their lives in labours . . . ' " " Let us add, what Paley omitted, the abiding 
 personal iDfluence of Jesus in the memories of the first disciples, and let us concede that 
 like all other men they may have been mistaken : with these amendments, Paley's 
 famous allegation still stands. Yet no considerations of this kind explain the vitality of 
 the Christian religion : tve do not Titioii) why it lived aiul lives, any more than tve know 
 why we ourselves arc alive " (p. 74/75). 
 
 Into this last sentence, in my opinion, is compressed a whole world of base denial 
 of the great foundation of the Christian religion, and of its founder, whom the writer 
 calls " our Lord." The Christian religion lives because, apart from cold historicity, the 
 Spirit of God still moves upon the waters of men's hearts and convinces (the original 
 reads the future tKiy^ti) them " of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment," as the 
 Founder promised when He said it was necessary for Him to go away from them, but 
 that He would send the Paraclete to replace Him (John xvi. 7/14). 
 
 Dr. Durkitt, with many others, does not believe in the xi"' chapter of St. John 
 although it is attested by all documents, and in no uncertain manner, for textual 
 difTerences there (quite unlike those of the pericopo de adult.), are exceedingly small in 
 number and very moderate in scope. " For all its dramatic setting it is, I am 
 persuaded, impossible to regard the story of the raising of Lazarus as a narrative 
 of historical events" (p. 223). This, because "there is no room" for it (p. 222) 
 in St. Mark's narrative. But upon the same grounds of criticism, both " lower " 
 and " higher," we must excise the long and most detailed ix"" chapter concerning 
 the definite healing of the man born blind about whom there was such a stir. 
 And these excisions must logically be followed by the suppression of the xi"" chapter to 
 the Hebrews concerning Faith. The result will be " shipwreck, " as St. Poul graphically 
 foretold in the first chapter {ver 19) of the 1st Epistle to Timothy, following it up in the 
 2nd Epistle (eh. iii. 1/5) by his warning as to the character of the " heady " leaders of 
 the last times (TrpoireTfir, " headlong, rash "), " wrapped in smoke and mist of conceit and 
 folly" (TtTv(pa>ii.evm), "having a form of godliness, but having denied (so Il.V.; Gr. 
 fipvrjtififot) the power thereof." 
 
 I said to such an one recently in Germany : " But, ray dear sir, the trouble with 
 these people is that if the good God himself came down and told them that the xi"" 
 chapter of St. John were absolutely true, they would not believe Him." His answer 
 was " Neither would I"! 
 
 Docs not this justify St. Paul's prophetic " ir/io:r«T<rr, nru^oijiiW . . . , t^fovrfs 
 fi6p4'<aa-tv ci'a-f)3ftnr, tt]v 6e buvafitv altrriv fjpvijpivoi " \ 
 
 As regards the lower criticism I would like to add that in the xi"" chapter of St. 
 John there are few textual alterations, far fewer than in the succeeding chapters, and if 
 on lower grounds the xi"" chapter should have to be ejected, then the whole Gospel 
 would have to go. 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 359 
 
 remarkable." The German version is very explicit : bo 
 wiirde ich ein Liigner gleichwie Ihr seid." TcrtulUan seems 
 here to he a star-witness against the Latinism of B. 
 
 B and the few are therefore accused here with Hort 
 of following Latin, or of making a false grammatical 
 improvement to the basic text. The Oxford edition of 1910 
 (without footnote) changes Hort's vfuv back to vnwv, avoiding 
 B's "sunstroke." I call it a "sunstroke," for observe that 
 besides the opposition of N and the rest, the new Egyptian 
 MS T' (so friendly otherwise) also has vfitov against B. 
 xvii. 11. varrip ayie sic {pro -rraTep ayte) BN soli vid 
 
 21. cv iraTTjp (pro av irarep) BDNW against the rest and 
 
 against Clem, {-naiep av Sod"^°-, - irarfp diatess, illeg. syr sin.) 
 
 24. irarvp (pro irorfp) BAN only here I ^ -^^^ ^j^^^ 
 
 25. ■n-oTijp Stxate sic BAN (Stxaiai) only here | 
 xviii. 16. We now come to rather a peculiar case : 
 
 €^T]\6ev ovv o fia6r)Trj<; o a\Xo9 o vvwffTO? tou apxi^P^i''! 
 BC*L 213 (and no others except X Paris" 09 -qv yvwaro^ tov 
 apxiepew^) instead of . . .oi tjv yvoaro^ xm apx'fp^t of all others 
 and NW. [N exceptionally e^rjXdev ovv /lad. eKwo<; • 0? n" 
 yviopip.o'i Tu> apx<«pE'-] The genitive does not seem to 
 be a version influence, and yet, if correct, implies a change 
 by all other authorities ! (Boh can be read either way.) 
 
 Besides occurring here (and in verse 15 just before : v" 
 7i/ti)<TT09 Ta> apx'^p^'> where the dative is constant in all Mss) 
 yvtoaTcs does not occur elsewhere in St. John nor in the other 
 Gospels, except at Luke ii. 44 (xai tok yvaaroi'!) , xxiii. 49 
 (TraKTf? 01 yviocFTot) both times in the plural, but it occurs ten 
 times in Acts and everywhere with the dative, except at iv. 16 
 where it is used purely as an adjective (yvaiaTov mi/ieiov yeyove 
 Si avTwv) and at ix. 42 where no case follows (yvcocrTov Se 
 ey€V6T0 xaO oXt;? rrii Jottttt;?), so that St. Luke does not use the 
 genitive. AVe have to turn to the single other remaining 
 occurrence of the word in the N.T. to find the genitive. 
 I refer to St. Paul's use of the word at liotii. i. 19: 
 
 SioTi TO yvuxTTOV TOV $£00 ^avepov eOTlV €V at/T0J9. Cf. 
 
 Moulton's "Winer, p. 295. 
 
 In the case we are discussing in St. John BCL seem to 
 stand absolutely alone with Westcott and Hort (no alternative 
 in the margin) and Soden (adding 213 = his'") although Cyril 
 definitely opposes them with the mass. Why should Cijril 
 tell ift what to read, or rather what to omit at Luke xxiii. 34, 
 and be denied a hearing here ? In the very next verse W-H 
 accept Cyril's testimony when backing the same MSS BCLX 
 for the unusual order \eyci ovv to) Herpo) tj irai&taKri tj 6vpa)po<;. 
 
360 
 
 .Totm 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 The science in such matters is evidently incomplete, for the 
 Eevisers disagree with Hort in both places ! They agree with 
 Cyril for the dative after yvmaTo<; and disallow the above order, 
 txix. 31. ?iv yap fieyaXr, ,} ,jfiepa exeiuv rov aafi^arov (pro . . eiceivov 
 Tov aa^lSarov) B»H 33 09 1 [non fam scd diserte -rov 
 <jal3PaTov £«£»->;] 138 157 247 317 01" p'" i'" z" al. aliq Sorf""'" 
 ct .B/r'-'i c f g gat vgg (instantcr > ilia dies vg") pers arab Cyr. 
 The versions and »;'" favour exuvov, but pers and arab go 
 witli B* for iKuv,, and Kijr pcsh (niii still missing) has a force- 
 ful repetition "Dies eiiivi emt magmis dies Sabbatlii illius" 
 as rendered by Schaaf and Gwilliam, but T^Ialan prefers to 
 render "For it was a great day that day of Sabbath" 
 (..01 comes last in the sentence). Hort only places eKetv,, 
 m his margin, but Cyril proves that B' was the correct 
 Alexandrian reading. While i«rs (in the absence of syr sin) 
 reads more simply than syr pesh, for pers = " for that day 
 was great " (Malan""), " et ille dies magnus esset " (Walt'"'), 
 and I think may represent syr sin. 
 
 Change of Person. 
 
 XX. 18. OTt eaypuKa (pro on €o,pax£v) NBNXW LauraA'"' a g gat 
 am- vg sah boh acfh syr sin {eaypa/eafiev S 33 [cf. Luc xxiv. 11], 
 but all others and sy,r rell Cyr on ewpaxev). 
 
 efopaKa with on is strange and of course the more difficult 
 reading. Hort spaces: iia0r,Tati on 'EiipaKa rhv xvpiov. 
 Ka\ ravra, but does not intimate a various reading in his 
 margin. There is no particular objection to the receiving 
 of this rather strange lection. I would only remark that 
 whereas in Coptic XE A.\n6ct is legitimate, the on in 
 Greek and Latin is rather illegitimate [b c d e /§ have qnod 
 vidit, f q r: quia vidisset, only a g vg: quia vidi] and in 
 view of our other Coptic sympathies [see under that heading] 
 NBXM' very likely imbibed the Coptic and do not represent 
 a " neutral " base at all ! Even syr sin is not free from the 
 reflex action of the Coptic versions. Soden brings forward 
 Laura-^™ as the only new witness, but does not adopt 
 eapaxa in his text. I notice that Am^lineau's Evst (p. 02) 
 has empaxa^Me (with S 33). 
 
 t In Tischcndoif's nppnratus B is not iiropcrly quoted. Gregory rectifies tlie matter 
 ni liis EmcnilaviJa. B* reads funi.!;. D= or 13' tutimv. 
 
 t Ttiv iTaff,SaTnv iKdmv D'"' LN* 73 f' Taris''^ Soi!^'-'. 
 § .!?".i3 niisrein-eseuted by Tiarli and Horner tor vidi. 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 301 
 
 Change of Possessive Pronoun. 
 
 a ^ , 
 
 xii. 28. /iou (2>ro aov) See under " Hopelessness of considenng B 
 neutral." 
 
 Genitive Absolute. 
 
 As in St. Luke's Gospel so in St. John's there is a marked absence 
 of any dative absolute. In fact there is no trace of it if we except xx. 19 
 where tjj rip^pa exeivr) rr) fita (tcov) aaP^arwv (interposed between two 
 genitive absolutes) might be considered as one, with ovai] understood. 
 
 The genitive absolute itself is quite rare, other expressions replacing 
 it on countless occasions. Thus, whereas at xx. 19 we find ouctj;? ovv 
 oyjrta^, Tt] rjfi^pa eKeivr] tt; fita (rcov) cra^l3aT0iv, Kai rcov Ovptav KeKKeiafuvcov 
 . . ., if we turn to vi. 16 we read w? Se oyjna eycvcTo, and at vii. 10 at Se 
 ave^rjtrav oi aSeX^oi avTov. Or ii. 23 w; Se ijv ev (toi?) iepocroXv/ioi'; ev no 
 Traa'xa, or iv. 28 a<f>T]xev ovv ttju vhpiav oi/tij? rj yvvrj, xai airriXffcv . . . , where 
 we might expect to find genitive absolutes. The same applies to ix. 11, 
 xi. 43, xii. 3 14, xiii. 4, xvii. 1, xviii. 1 18 38, xix. 1 and other places. 
 Real genitive absolutes are observed and appear to be limited to the 
 following places : 
 
 JollD 
 
 iv. 9. ovarjt yvvaiKot ^a/iapeiTtBo<; (or >yvv. Sa/i, ou<r>;?) 
 
 51. »;Si/ Se avrov Kara^aivovToi 
 vi. 23. evx^apitrrriaavTot tov Kvpiov 
 vii. 14. 7;8>; Se Tqs eopTq^ fieaovarjt 
 viii. 30. ravTa avrov XaXovvTot^ 
 
 xii. 37. Toaavra Se avTov <njfieta TreiroLTjKorot efiirpotrOev avTcov 
 xiii. 2. xai Senrvov yevopevov 
 
 ibid. TOV Sta0o\ov ijSrj ^e^XtjKorot . . . 
 
 but not in xiii. 4 as might be expected. 
 Then none until : 
 xviii. 22. TavTa Se avrov eiTiovrot 
 TiTL. 1. aKOTiat en ovarjt 
 19. oucTi)? ovv oylria<; 
 ibid. Kai riov Ovpav KexXeia pevoiv 
 again : 
 XX. 20. roiv Ovpav KexKeicrpevav 
 xxi. 4. TTpaiat Se tjSij yevopjevr^'; 
 11. Kai roaovrav ovravX 
 
 t Instead of as at xi. 43, etc.. Km rnvra cttwi'. 
 
 J Add vi. 23. For «XXa rfKBav rrXotnpia, X reads fTrtXBoiTtiiv ovv Ttav T\oiatv and D 
 (c/. 6 r syr cu) aWav TrXompftwi' fX^oiTwi' [but d aliae naviculae venerunt]. 
 
3()2 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Now the same remarks apply here as those which I made under this 
 head in St. Luke. The supposed "Antioch" revision has made no 
 changes in St. Jolni or in St. Luke from genitive to dative absolute. 
 Then why should Lucian (or another) be accused of doing so in the 
 (Tospcls of St. Matthew and St. Mark ? Instead, does not the plain fact 
 of the case stare us in the face that it was "Alexandria" which dis- 
 approved of certain dative absolutes in Matthew and in Mark and replaced 
 them in their revising process by genitive absolutes ? The case, it seems 
 to nie, is proven. 
 
 Genitive hcfurc the Noun. 
 
 Beterring to iv. 16 (see remarks under " Compound verb for simple ") 
 we find a number of cases in this Gospel, as at : 
 
 Jolm 
 
 ii. 1.5. Kai Ttov KoWv^iarav cfex^e to KepfUi (to xepiuna BLTWX) 
 
 xvi. 0. 1) \wr] TreiT\r]po>icev vfimv Tqv KapSiav 
 
 xvii. C. crov TO ovofia 
 
 win. 37. /iou t?;? (jxovr]'; 
 
 where nil Jiss are practically agreed. And as below where the 
 
 Mss are not in exact agreement : 
 
 xiv. 30. Tou Koafiov (tovtov) apxov Most, but : 
 
 o apx'ov Tov Koa/iov (tovtov) 1 /am 13 138 2'" Paris" e vg 
 
 Hipp Orig Bas Ath Cijr. 
 
 XV. 10. Kadtix; 676) Ta? evToXa'i tov ■naTpot fiov TeTnprtxa Most and 
 
 Cijr, but : 
 
 Kadwi; Kayo) tov TraTpoi (jiov) rat evToKa^ TETijpijKa NB ah ff 
 
 g vg Chr Novat. 
 
 xviii. 10. TOV TOV apxtfpeoy'S ^ovXov the usual Greek construction as 
 
 exhibited by most (pontificis servum g q S vg), but: 
 
 TOV BovXov TOV apxtep^oi NDJ 242 Sod""'"'' a beef 
 
 .fr 
 
 xix. 20. 0T( e77u? rjv totto? tt;? TroXem? Most, but: 
 
 oTi 677D? r)v Tri<; ttoXco)? T07ro5 txt rcccpt and W 1 13 138 
 
 Paris" al. i7''' vg copt sijr arm. 
 
 24. fjiov TO ifiaTia N*"' cum copt { — /j-ov 127) 
 
 34. avTov Tvv TtXevpav Nearly all Greeks with copt, but Orig'^^' 
 
 with 09-340 [non 13-124] 317 348 397 Paris" and the Latins 
 
 and Syriacs have tj;i/ nXevpav avTov. [Ens doubtless read the 
 
 former order, for he writes tou a/ivov tov 0€ov Xoyxn tjjv 
 
 ■nXevpav efufc] 
 
 3.5. avTOV eoTiv 1] papTvpia tiBW pilnr Orig"" 
 
 euTtv avTov rj papTvpta EGKNSUA min^°*, but: 
 
 eoTiv rt paprvpia avTOv HYJ min"'' latf' Chr Cyr 
 
 I) IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 303 
 
 XX. 25. > p.ov TOV haxTvXov 
 
 NDLW 33 £rs^*"'*"°">'i'"=cq/;< {om. 
 P-ov d) 
 
 coj>t 
 
 aganist Ttjv X'«/oa 
 pov rcll ct Cyr 
 ( — pov 1 a) 
 
 ibid. >pov Tr)v xcipa NL 33 Evst^"'^'] 
 >pov Trjv x^^P"-" BW ) 
 
 >p.ov Ta? ;^€(pa? D {om. p.ov d) 
 
 N.B. — Soden adopts pov Tifv x«P« with NL 33 Evst^"'^^^"^" 
 (BW) copt, but rejects /tou tov SaxTvXovot NDLW33 JEwsi*"""'"™" 
 copt ! (Paris" ceases at xx. 15 and is not available here.) 
 xxi. 24. >avTov 1) paprvpia eoTW BCW 
 
 >eaTiv avTov t) papTvpia D Evst 48 d aur Cyr 
 
 > avTov eoTiv rj papTvpia 33 ? 
 
 but N and the rest>£o-Tti' rj papTvpta avTov as latt [praeter 
 
 d atir]. 
 
 Matters of Order. 
 
 ii. 17. See under " Solecisms." 
 
 iv. 9. aiTfi? >yvvaiKo<; "S.apapiTi&oi 01/(7779 NABCLNT"" et W* 
 
 frag gr-copt Crum-Ken et 33 Cyr. 
 against a(T6(9 ovarji; yvvaiKot Sap. the rest and cursives and Paris". 
 (D d arm omit 01/0-179.) 
 This is either an Egyptian improvement, for there would 
 be no good reason to set 01/0-179 back in any " Antiochian " 
 revision, or the basic text like that of D (i arm lacked this 
 01/0)79, which found its way into the text in differing positions. 
 The versions — copt syr lat — express it in the position opposed 
 to the Greek of NAB etc. 
 21. >TtiaT. pot yvvai NBC*L ct W^P 71 213 253 259 892 [jwn 
 Paris"] 6P« T^ 8i« 11'= vid Sod'" '»" b I q sah aeth syr hier Orig 
 Ath Cyr W-H et Sod txt. (-yvvai F 124"^' Sot?'-"*.) 
 against yvvai viot. pot D the rest, d and other Latins, boh, syr rcll 
 
 et cic sin, arm Thdt. 
 Here, the Coptics being divided, we do not place it under the 
 heading of " Coptic." 
 vi. 17. >-n-po9 avTovt iXrjXvdet o £17001/9 BNSC 435 Paris" soli vid., 
 
 against eXrjXvOei ( + D) iriaov; irpot avTov; ND SO a d aeth syr hier, 
 and eXr)Xvdei Trpot avTovi irjaov^ most and boh syr {sah 477001/9 
 
 rfKdev Tip. avTOVi). 
 Sodcn gives one new witness agreeing with BN^ 435 
 Paris", viz., Sod"\ a Ms at Patmos, but adopts the ordinary 
 reading in his text. Curiously enough W-H refuse the BN'*' 
 reading in both text and margin, their text agreeing with the 
 majority of witnesses, and their margin agreeing with ND. 
 49. xfayov ev tt; epripo) to pavva BC(D)TW h c d e ff gat 
 
 vgg" 
 
 ' Eus Chr Aug W-H Sod txt {Orig and aur* ev tt) 
 
3G4 
 
 CODEX D AND ITS ALLIES, 
 hn 
 
 epi]/i(o e(f)ayov to /lavva) against X the rest Coptics and Cyr 
 1 hdt for €<j>ayov to /lavva ev tt) iprjuo). 
 [vi. 40/50. Tov ovpaviov aprov <j>ayovTe<; aweOavov C/c)«'""'°'''''J 
 vii. 12. N iciids: xai yo-yyvap.o^ ttoXvi -qv T7ept avTov, while BLTXW 
 a few cursives and ]\'-H read: vac 70771/17/^0? Trepi avTov i)v 
 TToXw, bringing ttoXu? last. As far as I can see both 
 Tiachemhrf and Sodcn make a composition of these readings 
 and print : Kai yoyyva/ioi; i)v nepi avrov ttoXu? which I do not 
 think has any MS authority whatever except that of 33 and 
 Cliry.tnittnm {cndd. p.. e. 7. 4. \. 0. of Matthaei), the majority 
 reading : kul yoyyva/ioi; ■noXvs Trept avTov tjv, and 127 
 exceptional!}' : xai yoyyva-pov t/v ttoXv; irepi avTOV, while i and 
 giith omit ire/ji auTov, and the "neutral" text probably lurks 
 in ]) a c d e ffl axir arm ? which omit ttoXu? altogether I The 
 fact is that ttoXu? is probably an addition, injected into the 
 text in differing positions. Syr and pers place it early with 
 the majority, acjainst the small Egyptian coterie of Greek 
 Mss i + h q) followed by Hort. 
 33. >xpovov pLKpov NBLTWX Sod"''" fam 13 e ff q aur W-H 
 Sod fj-t (for piKpov xpovov D and the rest and sah hoh Cyr) is 
 possibly due to basic omission of XP'"''"' 'which occurs in syr 
 
 sill. 
 
 42. >o7rou jp AavetS epx^Tai XpicrToi; BLTW^P 33 Laura* "" 
 [iinii 8',)-2 noil Paris"'] c rg syr Cyr W-H Sod t.vf. This instead 
 of oTToi' rjv AaveiB, o Xpio'To? cpx^Tai, evidently to avoid the two 
 nominatives coming together. In sah the verse is practically 
 inverted, bringing oXptaro? epx^Tai (but maintaining this order) 
 very early in the sentence. Compare carefully all authorities 
 here and a lesson may be learned. Itala is against BLTW'*!'. 
 
 hi. >oTi €K T179 yaXtKaia's Trpo<j>ijTT}'; BLNTX^O 892 aL pane. 
 
 Orig Chr Cyr W-Ii Sod txt, but against XDW and the great 
 
 mass. 
 
 viii. 14. > J? papTvpta pov aXndt)^ eaTiv BW- 157 235 314 Sod^''^ '""'*'' 
 
 Evst 60 h sah arm Orig 1/3 Epiph Did W-H"" 
 
 while D*'' has aXrjOeivi] pov SKntv ■>] /lapTvpeia (d verum est 
 
 testimonium meum) 
 and the rest of the Greeks with Orig 2/8 Cyr followed by Sod 
 and TI'-J/'^' : aX>;Si;9 euTiv rj papTvpia pov as d and the Latins. 
 We should refer B's reading probably to sa/n'cf/c influence 
 Yhoh is opposed). The fact that W joins is somewhat 
 significant of this and not necessarily of any "neutral" 
 form, while as 157 is joined by the sister Jis Erst CO it is 
 cvidenth" real and basic with them. 314 is <5('(7e»'" " a com- 
 mentary MS. 
 
 \^ fiti. Kai TOV waTepa pov >av rjBene {pro . . . >r]SeiTe av) 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 305 
 
 BLNTXW^' 1 33 213 249 397 893 [iioii Paris"] Laura* ■"« 
 Sod'" "" •=''" Ecst 49 c r aur Orig''"^'''"'", Cyr^" [scd alibi 
 contra] W-H Sod txt, but against N and all the rest (D r'" 
 d b e ff om. av). This appears to be a distinct effort to 
 avoid ending the verse with av. Why should all the rest 
 force the hiatus in tiiene av ? (D omits av.) 
 viii. 23. u/i€i? eK TOV Kocrpov TovTOV eoTe, eyco ovk eipi e« rov 
 Koapov TOVTOV So N and nearly all, but BT (fam 13 Soi"") 
 lait Orig 1/3 Cyr^^^ wish to vary the "pair" of expressions, 
 so they write: vpeii ck tovtov tov koo pov, eyw ovk eipi tx 
 TOV Koapov tovtov. 
 
 The only other authority to make a changet is the notable 
 lis W with its well known Coptic affinity (it has rested for 
 1-500 years in Egypt), which places the demonstrative before 
 Koapov in BOTH places as does sahidic (and boh nlKOCJUOct- • • 
 riA-IKOCjuiOc). The lat and vg object also to such an abject 
 " pair " and so reverse the process thus : " de mundo hoc. . . 
 de hoc mimdo." 
 ix. 17. >TJ (TV (pro av Tt) NBLX^P [teste Sod, non Lake] soli et boh 
 [lion sah] Cyr followed by W-H and Sodeii, against all the rest 
 including T'W. (Syr: av Tt7i^y.av,Ti\eyet'; ov Sod"'). Om. av 
 Sod'^'ff. 
 18. >OTi r]v Tu<fXo? Kai ave0\e-\jr£v (pro OTi tik^Xo? r)v Kai ore/SXeT/rev) 
 NBLNT'W Sod"'" 157 Paris'" Laura*^"* Sorf'"° "" """ W-H 
 and Sod txt (b) r boh (xE rtA.C|OI j[i6.eXXe ne, whereas 
 sah xe ffE-tffi.XXe ne). This is more important than it 
 seems, for D d I omit the clause altogether, showing some- 
 thing out of the common, which 28 emphasises by substituting 
 eyevvr)9T) for r)v and eliding xai avf^\fi]r€v with b and syr sin 
 alone, thus : " oti tui^Xo? eyevvijOri." b has " qui jiierat 
 caccus" without ct vidcbat ; and r has " quoniam fuerat 
 caccus ct vidcbat." e varies the missing Kai ave^\e\jrev by 
 writing " et recepit lumen." § No Latins apparently use 
 eyevvrjffri, but aeth always prompt to show us that these 
 readings of 28 or others are old, conflates with : " quia caecics 
 NATUS /(/!ssc< ct vidisset." 
 
 Amid these variations possibly D d I are correct with total 
 omission. 
 
 The eyevvijffi] of 28 aeth may of course have crept in from 
 verses 1, 2, 19, 32, 34. 
 
 t 69 has f*c TnvTiiv TOV KiKT^nu Bccutulo loco {teste Scriv) as 33 and latt. 
 X —TOVTOV prim as Evat 50 and a few. 
 § Cf. the Georgian and Slavonic versions. 
 
300 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 {Iiilcirfifiiig Passage as rerjanls Diatcss and Latins.) 
 
 John 
 
 ix. 21. Concerning what the parents of the blind man actually said. 
 
 Ordinary Greek : avjot rfkixiav e;^e: ' avTOv €pioTj]traT€ ' ai/To? irept avTov 
 
 {vcl eavTov) \a\T]aet AN PA A nnc' I q S goth slav 
 
 2)cis S)/?*" 1*'" diatcss Ps-Ath 
 
 avTov eparqaaTe ' ijXurtav ex^t ' aoTof (+ ra '4' 157 min""'') Trepi 
 
 avTov (vcl eavTov) XoK-rjaei N'BD(e7rep<»T77aaTe 
 
 cum Sod"") LX^ 1 22 33 157 213 397 Sod"' "'» 
 
 Paris'" IT [excc}jt. b (vide infra) I q B] vg boh aeth 
 
 arm gcorg syr'"" Gyr et F>»t<"»t"> W-H et Sod txt. 
 
 but N'WT' Sod'"^'' '"» 6 sah (syr sin) Chr'''' omit avTov 
 
 tpcoTrjaare, and sah further omits rjXiKiav exet. 
 Syr sin really merges avrov epa>,Tr)iraT£ ' auT09 nepi avTov 
 XaX-qaei by saying: " from him ye can know." In reality 
 the omission should be considered to be of the final clause 
 auTOT wept avTov \a\ri<rei (with I), which gives us the 
 variation : iSov ijXiKiau exei • air avTov Svvare /laffeiv syr 
 sin (I). 
 We have the iiala opposing the diatess. Here it may well be that 
 diatcss is conformed to syr pcsh, for syr sin (Mat syr cu) opposes both 
 with a different turn of phrase. But thus it precedes diatess for N* and 
 b, that interesting conjunction, omits one of the two clauses whose order 
 is sub judice. N'T'W and b omit " ask him." 
 
 " He is of age " therefore stands in all except sah (12 MSS !) which 
 practically omits both ifKixiav ex^' ^.nd avrov epan-qaare, saying "...He 
 also, he was fit for to speak about himself," retaining the auTo? which 
 NBDLX 1 38 it aeth omit, and perhaps covering in intent rjKiKiav exet. 
 
 " Ask him," therefore, is the point around which it all tmns. The 
 inversion of order shows that something was wrong in an old common 
 parent. This may account for omission in N*T'\V6 syr sin sah Chr^", or 
 it may be basic. The fact however that all other Latins have it militates 
 against it. On the whole it looks like the old question of an exemplar 
 which had been (properly) corrected in the margin, and led to confusion 
 in the minds of the copyists. 
 
 There is no trace of trouble left in F'"' '"''''"' which agrees with the it 
 and N'BDLX^P in the order avrov ep. rj\iKiav ex^i etc., but thus opposes 
 diatcss arab. 
 
 ix. 24. See under " Coptic " and " Latin." 
 
 31. oiBafiev oTi >o0eo<; afuipT(o\av< ovk axovei BDT'A^ [negl. 
 ^V Sod] a d e goth Cy2>r CoiicC"". a d e W-H txt (nil mg) 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 3C7 
 
 X. 10, 
 28. 
 32. 
 
 42. 
 xi. 47. 
 
 [sah boh 0eo<; ovk axovci a/uipToyXtav (afiaprioXov sa/if); 
 syr })csh deot (jiavriv a/iapT(o\o)v ovk aKovei (mut syr sin); cf. 
 aeth]. This instead of oiBapev oti > apapToaXtav o deo<i< ovk 
 aKovci which NW with the rest as well as 892 Paris'" and most 
 Latins give us, as also Cyr Orig'"^ and Hil and <Soc?'". (Chr is 
 on both sides.) The change of order seems to be a clear " im- 
 provement " by BDA^P. The harder order (supported as it is 
 by the mass of Latins) is undoubtedly right. The combination 
 BDT' is of no weight in such places, given their record other- 
 wise, when XW and the mass oppose. (N aeth gat = oihafiev 
 Se oTt > apapTaXaiv ovk aKovei o 0eo5.) 
 17. See under " Latin." 
 
 ,, ,, " Coptic." 
 
 ,, ,, " Solecisms " in the first place, and " Latin " in 
 
 the second place. 
 
 ,, „ " Latin and Coptic." 
 >0T( ouTO? o avOpanTot iroWa iroiei aq/icia XABLMWX^? 
 
 Sod"" •»*» Paris" sah Orig Ath W-H et Sod txt. 
 OTJ o av6pwno<! outo? iroWa iroiei arj/uia 33 et ^ \^Sod, non Lake] 
 
 A Sod'" ""'* ""* "" 
 Uncial. id etc. Chr 
 Cyr (Sod"'") 
 Dbcdeff 
 boh 
 
 OTi o avdpoyiro^ ovTO? voXXa aijfieia Troiei 
 OTt ouTO? o avOpcoTroi voXXa ar)iitta voiei 
 OTi avdpaTTO<! 0UT09 atifieia -rroXXa iroKi 
 ovToi avffpairoi roiavTa arjfieia -noiei 
 voXXa ra afifieia a ovrot o avdp. Trotei 
 OTt 0UT05 avffpcoiro'i voiet iroXXa a-qiieia sah 
 xii. 18. Bta Toi/TO «at virijvTiiaev avTca o oxXo's on. . . So write most 
 authorities. (Some omit wat.) But B writes alone 
 >Sia TovTO VjrjjvTJjaev avTco xai o oxXo';, oti. . • Now observe 
 
 sah: ET&E nA.1 Off A. njuiHHcge El efioX gHTq. XE. 
 
 Sah does not therefore omit xai as Tischendorf says, but 
 places it (" off ") before o oxXoi, as does B, merely displacing 
 vTrr]VTi}<Tev and giving it after d oxXo^;. Surely a sight of sah 
 here influenced B so to write, unless he added xai in the 
 wrong place, from his margin. But see boh omitting the 
 prior Kat. Hort does not record B here in his margin. Why 
 not? 
 xiii. 9. See under " Solecisms." 
 
 10. „ „ "Latin." 
 
 19. >iva viaTevar)Te (tTiarev-qre BC Orig 3/5 W-H txt [nil mg]) 
 orav (eav Paris") yevrtrai oTt eya etfu NBIL 213 Paris" some 
 latins sah Orig 3/5 W-H Sod txt. 
 
 This instead of iva orav yev-qrai ttiot. oti £70) Et^t of the rest 
 and Orig 2/5. It is a very difficult matter to judge who is 
 
 t Some cursives and EUXr have n/in(jT<»Xo>', as Cr/j)r peccatorem. 
 
368 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 right, and Origcn insists upon being upon both sides as so 
 often. I only mention it for this reason and to show how 
 impossible it is to reconstruct an "Origcn" text seeing that he 
 not only gives both orders, but writes £-nav [observe Paris" tai/] 
 for ojav once.t and 7r(crTeui)Te thrice against irtarevcrriTe twice, 
 xiii. 21. >vfiiv Xeya> B'"' cum pers {ut solet). See the same order 
 at X. 1 and 7, noticed imder " Solecisms," but not thus 
 elsewhere. 
 36. See under " Latin." 
 xiv. 16. iva fieO vfiiov si? tov atava y B^'and h latin only and TF-Jf"'. 
 This among three varieties of order, and the exchange of v for 
 fievjj. Old Latin is tor fj, but the Vulgates all for /levi], and as 
 they drew from a text similar to NB such as Paris"' it is 
 probable that 3 is an amendment, for Paris" has fievr]. The 
 differing order between B, N, D, and LQX is suspicious. 
 20. > vfieif yvaaeaOe BLM'QX 33 213 Sod''^' »" ^"/vgCyrlja 
 W-H [jion Sod] against yvmaeaOe v/uk NDW rell minn omn 
 vid et Paris". I would point out that as A Sod"' 249 Sod^" 
 Evst 150"'" 6 dim em gat vg'' syrpers aeth Chr Cyr 5/6 Victorin 
 omit u/iet? altogether, the differing order between the large 
 ND group, and the small B group may well have its source 
 in an addition to the basic text from the margin, u/ici? 
 appears superfluous here. 
 XV. 2. >Kapirov irXeiova See under " Latin " and note specially in 
 connection with xiv. 31. 
 9. >viJ.a<; riyaTrriaa See under " Latin." 
 
 10. >Toii TraTpo? TO? evToXa? (-//ou) B a b cffq aur Novat 
 
 Chr"' IF-H'". 
 xvi. 12. >viJ.iv \eyew See under " Latin " 
 
 23. >S(oiTei vfiLv ev tw ovo/i. fiov See under " Coptic." 
 
 xviii. 2. >OTt TToWaxK avvrixOr) i-qaovv /xera riov iiaOrjTav exet WK 
 This is rather interesting, because B clearly accuses himself 
 • of being non-neutral here in placing exei right at the end, as 
 an afterthought (incorporated from the margin ? Sod"', with 
 syr pesV""°, omits), and this is admitted by Hort, who places 
 the B reading in his margin, and has in his text : 
 
 OTt TToWa/ct? avvr)x6v I';o'ou5 eKei fiera rav ixaOri-rwv avTov as 
 N and most, but D d it'"""' and some versions place exei before 
 (0) 1170-01/?. The Latins vary a good deal, and Hort nearly 
 always adopts B when there are several varieties of readings 
 or of order. Here he recognises B as absolutely Hon-neutral 
 in its unique order. 
 
 t Just as at xiii. 27 for rort Orig uses eira four times, and omits (with KDL) thrice 
 elsewhere. 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 369 
 
 Soden now adduces Sod"' for omission of e/eet, and supports 
 B for cKei at the end with Sod'^''. [e«et is placed after o-uvj/x"'? 
 by D Paris" a r (vg) and syr.] 
 
 Note that in the following verse, where N alone omits exei, 
 syr sin follows B's example in verse 2, and in verse 3 alone 
 places eKti right at the end of the verse I 
 xviii. 5. Another matter of order (unique, by B) promptly supervenes, 
 and again 7!0H-neutral, and once more relegated to Hort's 
 margin. It stands exactly on the same plane as the matter 
 just noticed under xviii. 2 and is due to addition from the 
 margin of B's parent. Here the tcxtus receptus after " nva 
 fijTEjTe " says : aweKpiOrjaav avrco, Irjaovv tov Na^oypatov. Aeyei 
 avTott Ii^ffoi/? eyto etfii. N retains this, merely suppressing 
 the article before Ijjaou?, but ACLX and the rest of the 
 Greeks confirm the text, recept. Sah and boh say >Ii;(rot;? 
 auTof? but neither N nor B are following them. D 435 and 
 five minuscules plus Sod"^ "" with b e r [Mat d] gat syr sin 
 and Orig [Sod omits Orig] omit Itjo-ou? altogether. When B 
 comes to the place he acts thus : 
 
 >\eyei outoj? cyco et/ii Iijffoi/? incorporating Jesus last, and 
 changing the method of the address. No trace of this 
 lingers in others except in the Vercelli Codex a, which 
 has : Dixit illis : Ego sum. lesus autem stabat ct Judas . . ., 
 thus preserving the order of B and incorporating Jesus in the 
 next sentence. Consult the original page of B. We find 
 €ru) €IMI ICtlCTHKCl, ic coming before jCTTJ^/eej. The combina- 
 tion D [habet d'"''] mimi' b e r syr sin Orig is strong for the 
 simple omission of Jesus, which is in fact what Hort adopts. 
 Some of his principles here go to the winds in favour of others 
 involving the " shorter text," but the fact remains that B is 
 discredited as a " neutral " by adding in the wrong place. The 
 combination D b e r (hiat d) syr sin is the true Latin base. 
 The Oxford edition of 1910 goes back to the textus receptus ! 
 This is rather amusing, seeing that syr sin, discovered since 
 Hort's day, lends its voice to the omission of the Latins 
 which Hort followed here, and which justifies him. Poor 
 B is left alone, all alone out in the cold. This is a sad 
 "sunspot." 
 
 15. >yvQ><TTO^ -qv (pro T)v yvosaro'i) BW 4 Paris" Sod^*"^ a c } 
 ff q r gat aur W-H'"^. Cf. syr et boh. 
 
 17. >\€7« ovv Tca nerpw 7; -rraiSiaKr) t/ dvpapot BC'LX 33 213 
 397 [non al. gr] b c f g r gat vg Cyr W-H d- Sod txt 
 [Iliant d e]. 
 
 See as to BCLX just previously under " Change of Case " 
 where they oppose Cyril. 
 
 2 B 
 
370 
 
 CODEX B AKD ITS ALLIES. 
 
 xviii. 18. BCLX remain together here for another change of order with 
 {Cyr) but have the additional support of NW and a few 
 cursives with a. 
 2'3. >E('? TTapecrTijKo)^ tiov vrripeTODV (pro eh raiv vnr]p. ■napeaTr\K(o<! 
 A plur) N*BW Sod?" affg gat vg Cijr W-H cC Sod txt, 
 while N'C*LXY^ 33 213 004 Laura'^'"* Sod"'" b cf r vary in 
 a third manner with eiV twu irapcaTrjKOTiov {vel TrapeuTtoTrnv) 
 vTTTjpeTwv and Paris"' ei? twu irapearriKOTfov twv vntiperav. 
 34. >7, aXXoi eiTTov <joi BC*D""'LW [non Sod?''"] sah boh syr Cyr 
 
 vg'"" W-H [non Sod]. 
 This against the usual tj aWoi aot eiirov of N and most as 
 iS'o(i"", or T) aWo? (Toi eiirev of (M)NSn and a few, and j) aWot 
 aoi TTepi efwv eiirov i Sod^"*. 
 38. See under " Latin." 
 xix. 4. >ov&efuav aiTtav evptaKto ev avrm B 1 33 73 Sod"" »" « <69 
 aeth vg° Cyr et W-H tf Sod txt (cf. largely differing orders 
 in others. t Sah and boh grouped by Tisch here do not agree 
 exactly). 
 
 11. Large variety of order here. 
 
 10, 11. Important. See under "Sj/nac." 
 
 12. Great variety. See under " Coptic and Latin." 
 
 20. See under " Coptic and Latin." 
 
 21. >^aa-i\€v^ To>v lovBaimv etfu BLX^ 33 314 Sod"" (aeth) 
 [non W lion Paris'" non al. vid.] W-H [non Sod]. 
 
 €t/ii is omitted by syr and vg^. Possibly it was missing from 
 the B'" exemplar and carried in from the margin. 
 
 28. See under " Latin." 
 
 33. >riSr] avTOV TeOvrjKOTa (pro avTov r)Sri redv.) BLW Orig 
 W-H [non Sod]. (Tisch " : : qui ordo corrigendus videbatur.") 
 The mass with Cyr have avrov tjSi; Te^cij/eora, but cffq r 
 vg'^ arm aeth georg (sax) Attct'""" do not express i;Si/. This 
 may possibly be basic, owing to the differing order as between 
 BLW Orig alone and all the rest (including all Soden's new 
 witnesses) with Cyril. In St. John r of the Latins is quite 
 important with a very old text. It is notable that the 
 " Egyptian " Latins c and jf also omit, while vg'^ is as old as 
 any of them in base. Is it the Latins who once again 
 preserve the base ? 
 XX. 17. >/i»7 awTov fiov (pro /irj fiov ainov) B"' with Tert^"^ (" ne, 
 inquit, contigeris me") and some versions asj syr arm aeth 
 copt, but against every other Greek including the new Egyptian 
 
 t For further particulars see the ' Morgan Gospels,' pp. 832/833. 
 } But some exchange " touch me not" for "draw not near me." 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S OOSPEL. 
 
 371 
 
 Lectionary, Am61ineau p. C3 [Evst 47 only omits /ioi/f] 
 against the Latins expressly iioU me tangere, and against the 
 host of Fathers Iren""' Besp""-^'^ Orig'"'"' Orig'"' Eus'^"" 
 Eustath Epiph^" Chr Cyr Thdt Sever al. 
 
 B does not even substitute fiot (Pindar) for fiov. Hort 
 
 carries /nj a-mov fiov rehgiously into his margin, but no one else 
 
 considers it seriously and the Oxford edition of 1910 rejects it. 
 
 Another " sunspot " I suppose. There are many recorded in 
 
 these pages. 
 
 xxi. 17. >TTavra av (pro av vavTo) NBC'DNW Sod'^" 33 [?iO)i al. 
 
 miiin Sod] a d effm aur vg* syr W-H Sod txt. 
 
 1 18. >?a)(7. o-e (pro ire ^toa.) NBC Cyr [non al. Sod], cf. copt 
 
 (syr) [non lat] W-H Sod txt. 
 22, 23. See under " Latin." 
 24. See " Genitive before the Noun." 
 
 Hopelessness of considering B neutral, when he can never understand 
 Christ's character. 
 
 xii. 28. We have here to indict B on a frightful count. We indict 
 him for mutilating scripture without the shadow of excuse, 
 and this in a most important place. His changes of tense, or 
 suppression of the article, or niceties of expressions by 
 " pairs " are nothing to this. In the short expletive prayer 
 of our Lord, introduced in verse 27 by the words fvv r/ yjrvxv 
 /lov TCTapaKTai xai ii enro) ; our Lord continues : irarep aaaov 
 fie CK T17? (Mpa? TavTrji; ' aWa Sia tovto rjKBov ei<s ti)V lapxv 
 TavTijv. Harep So^a<Tov tov to ovofia. 
 
 The reply is reported swiftly in the words following : r/XOev 
 ovv (jioivri €x Tov ovpavov ' Kai eSo^acra xai TraXtv Bo^acrto 
 without mentioning any " object." Therefore B was free to 
 alter the record in the prayer itself, and he does so. 
 
 t d"" is wrongly quoted by TUch for omission. It omits the second, not the first 
 fiov. Sodcn commits a bad blunder here, citing K iind D, W and 848, " af " and Orig for 
 the omission of this first fiov. They all omit the second only (post narfpa jtriin.) with 
 the possible exception of 348 (Sod^") whose actual readings Soden is the first to report 
 fully. Soden does not mention i"" here (his"*) and so does not repeat Tischendorf's 
 error, but places it with the others for —fiov poat nartpn prim. He neglects however the 
 only MS which does omit outright, viz. Evaf 47, as he mokes a practice of avoiding the 
 testimony of Lectionarics nearly everywhere. (Evat 47 is a most important document in 
 every way and will bear the closest watching. Its absence from von Soden'a apparatus 
 is most regrettable. It is often alone with very ancient and important witnesses, e.g. at 
 John ii. 19 with Ignatius alone.) Matthaei refers to Origen*-'^^ where he would seem 
 to exclude fiov with Evst 47. 
 
 X But B has Km aWos (taatt ar alone, as aah boh, while KC^ have xai aWot (aaovtrif 
 at, and at/rr add to gird : ' thy loins.' Therefore B remains alone with certain versions 
 (against the Latin). 
 
 2 B 2 
 
372 
 
 Jolin 
 
 CODISX n AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 B writes : Ilarep So^aaov /lov to ovo/jm. He has the support 
 of one minuscule (of which we rarel)' hear), viz. Evan 5 
 [neglected by Soden]. Hort and the B.V. do not exhibit 
 a trace of this in their texts. In Hart's margin is found 
 " Ap." In the Appendix is found " xii. 28 to 6voixa\ tov 
 v'lov," nothing more. So we turn to vol. ii. ' Notes on Select 
 Headings, ' p. 89, col. 1. Here we find the variation tov viov 
 for TO oi'o/ia descriljed as Alexandrian, but — would it be 
 believed ? — not having the grace or the face to refer to the B 
 reading at all I Now whether we read with Jjlitegl. Sod.^XX." 
 and Afltanasitis iroTcp ho^atrov crov tov viov, or with B iraTep 
 8o^a(Tov jxov TO ovo/ia [instead of waTep So^aoov aov to ovofia] 
 the result is the same, and we find this most Alexandrian 
 reading in B (which we were told was absolutely tree from 
 such things). Hort's silence is not dignified. It is worse. 
 For he has said that he could find no trace of any Alexandrian 
 reading in B in any book of the New Testament. Therefore 
 it is specious here to hide behind the view that fiov for aov is 
 a mere error. Cyril has said utc ho^aaov aov tov viov ixei ij 
 ypaifiTj, eiTe So^aaov aov to ovofia, tovtov cotiv tt; t(»>' ffcap-q- 
 fiaTMv aKpil3eca (xii. 28, xvii. 1), so that he brings together both 
 readings. After the correct reading here : So^aaov aov to ovofia 
 D adds €V ttj So^t] rj et^ov irapa aoi irpo tov tov Koafiov yeveaOai 
 which is a phrase erroneouslj' brought back from John xvii. 5. 
 D would therefore really like to read with B or Alexandria, 
 for in xvii. 5 the previous clause reads xat vvv So^aaov fie av, 
 irarep, (continuing) wapa aeavTm tt; So^rj t) eixov trpo tov tov 
 Koa/Mov eivat wapa aot. [At xvii. 5 D has yeveaOai tov Koapov 
 for TOV Koapov civai.^ 
 
 We have here then a clear case of Alexandrian editing by B. 
 Foolish editing too. Because, when our Lord quickly adds 
 " But for this came I to the selfsame hour," he debars any 
 thought of " Glorify me " or " Glorify my name " or " Glorify 
 Thy Son," and the editors have properly accepted the wording 
 of the prayer to be " Glorify TJaj name," in Him if you will 
 (as Tert once : glorifica nomen tuum in quo erat filius). 
 
 pov is not a mistake or a slip made by B. It is most 
 deliberate. If it is wrong why did not Hort own up and say 
 so? And as his silence says it is wrong how can such a text 
 be " neutral " ? 
 
 Ilarmmiistic, 
 
 xiii. 26. +\ap/3avet nai {ante lilaaiv) BCLMX ei N" 33 213 892 
 ,9orf'" "• '"" aeth Orig^"" W-B d- Sod M against NDW'? 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 373 
 
 Paris" and the rest and the versions and Cyr. The opposition 
 is so strong that this may have come from the Xaffav in all 
 three of the synoptics (Matt. xxvi. 20, Mark xiv. 22, Luke 
 xxii. 19). In 1 Cor. xi. 23 it is eXa^ev. 
 xix. 41. ))v Tcdeipevo'; {pro CTeOv) NBW Paris" Laura*"" Cyr but 
 these only, miserable band of Alexandria contradicted by 
 Origcn. Cf. positus erat latt here, and cf. Luc xxiii. 53 ijk 
 ouSei? ouSciro) K£ipevo<;. In fact Tischendorf says " ex Luc 23, 
 ■53 " and refuses to displace ere^j; from his text. Bolder (and 
 stupider) is Hort, who places rjv TeOeipLevo's in his text ivithout 
 marginal alternative. The B.V. more wisely follows in 
 Tischendorf's footsteps and retains eTedrj (but the Oxford 
 edition of 1910 has no note on the evidence). Soden's text 
 follows Hort and NBW Paris". He adds Laura* "»< to the 
 small group. 
 
 Example of Conflation exhibited only in this " Neutral " text of B. 
 
 vii. 39. ovTra yap rjv rrvevpa without addition by NKTII'?' Sod"'" 42 
 91 280 w'" {boh sah) arm Orig''"'^" Dion"" Cyr''"''^" Hesych 
 Orig'"^ 1/3 Bebapt Tisch d- W-H txt. 
 LNXW KHc' S r;/'" Did Ath Chr Thdt Orig""' 1/3 Txt. rec. d Sod 
 txt add ayiov. 
 
 Ens and a b cffg I r aiir gal vg^' syr pesh eu sin add SeSopevov. 
 D dfgoth {acth) add aytov en (in df) avTOK. 
 
 But it is left for B et J syr hicr Orig""'l/3 to conflate by 
 adding aytov SeSop.evov. B has no Greek support t but 254 = 
 aytov Soffev, which is distinctly a critical codex, its corrections 
 being only used by the critics when they favour X or B 
 
 Now the situation is quite clear here, and Hort recognised 
 it by following N and the Fathers against B. What becomes 
 of his " neutral " text in B then ? This is worse than a 
 " sunspot " or " sunstroke " as regards B [see Souter], for it 
 is deliberate tampering with the deposit. Nor does Hort 
 himself conduct bis enquiry into this matter better than B. 
 In the margin of his text opposite irvevpa {tantum) is found 
 " Ap." and we therefore turn to the Appendix (p. 574). But 
 there we find no word about the misconduct of B. Instead we 
 find this, and only this : 
 
 " vii. 39] TTvevpa^ + SeSop,ivov ; also + aytov : also + ayiov 
 eV auToi? : also + aytov SeSopivov." 
 
 t ^Vbafc (Iocs von Soden mean by citing e (before "it"'= q f ") for omission of aytov? 
 True, Hans vo7i .Sodcn'a "African ** text lacks it, but e reads : *' nonJiini autem ups erat 
 tanclna dalua." 
 
 t Soden aiis.V (= X''). 
 
374 
 
 ■Tohn 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIEP. 
 
 That is absolutely all. Not a word as to the culprit B who 
 perpetrated the addition referred to lastly. In vol. i. p. 82 
 (' Notes on Select Headings ') he goes into the matter a little 
 more fully, but as usual cannot recognise what the readings 
 mean. Under +07(01^ he has " Pre-Syrian (? Alexandrian) 
 and Syrian," under +ayiov BeSo^vov he has no remarks. 
 Well, of what family is it? I have said before that Dr. Hort 
 could not recognise his own children when he saw them. I 
 repeat the accusation here. And if he could not, how can 
 his followers ? 
 
 This is his illuminating remark on the subject : 
 " The singular distribution of documents is probably due in 
 " part to the facility with which either 07401' or BeSo/iivov or 
 " both might be introduced indifferent quarters independently. 
 " Text " [i.e. ' Trvevfia '] " explains all the other readings, and 
 " could not have been derived from any one of them." Thus 
 he utterly condemns B here. 
 
 Well then B's usefulness is destroyed? Not a bit of it. 
 Hort seizes the first opportunity to follow B again in the next 
 verse +[oTt] where B with only D (against the rest and Orig 
 Ci/r) inserts this in the Coptic method. 
 
 General Improvement. 
 
 i. 13. (omission). B and one cursive (17) omit the second clause 
 ovhe €K 0e\T]fiaTo'i avSpot. This is either because of homoio- 
 teleuton,t or more likely because there seems something 
 of tautology in " ovSe ex 0e\r)/uiToi aapKot ovSe ex deXrjfiaTo^ 
 avSpos." But for B's bad record previously we would not 
 select this against him. The omission is opposed by all else, 
 by W 892 and Paris", by all versions.^ and by TertuUian and 
 other Fathers, except Athanasius and Eusehixis, who omit with 
 B, a,\\A Ath appears deliberate. This is another Alexandrian 
 reading as witnessed to by Ath, which is shared by B, and the 
 existence of which Hort denied, 
 ii. 15. Ta Kfpfiara {pro to Kcpfia) BLT^XW Oiyr^" 33 213 314 
 Paris" b q copt arm Orig""^^'' Eus W-H txt [iiil in mg'\ Sod°" 
 against all others and Nonnus. This seems to be an effort 
 at (mistaken) improvement, and has support of Oiyr'" W 
 
 t E* anil a very few omit the first clause ov5e tK df\, irapicoc. 
 
 X Sail lins it, but alone clianges the beginning, writing " These were not out of tjia 
 wish of blood antlflcsh, nor out of the wish of man," for ot ovk e^ aifiaratv ovdf rx 
 6f\tjfiaTos a- a f) Ko s ouSe tK dtXrjfiaTos auSpns. If sah considered the matter we may 
 be sure that B did, although B adopts a different plan. 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 375 
 
 and copt as well as Origen fully. Hence it is certainly 
 Egyptian. As to the neighbouring places in the same verse, 
 observe following, where N 157 and Epip)!), almost alone, 
 have KaTearpeilrev, and most Greeks with Origen (over 1/2) 
 avearpefev, BWXH' 61 108 234 247 251 252 435 q"' r"' (Sod 
 only quotes 251) Sod^^''^ " " " go with Gyr and Oxy)-"" W-H 
 txt for avcTpe-feu. The Old Syriao only begins again at ii. 16, 
 so we do not know if it employed singular or plural for to 
 xep/ia or for e« axotviwv, but we may note that 33 and 71 
 Sod"" ""_2f "nd q use e* axoivtov alone here. 
 iii. 34. -0 ffeoi sec. KBC*LT''W 1 33 213 2"' Paris" b e f I Cyr 
 (syr cii) W-H d Sod txt, against all the rest and syr copt 
 aeth Orig et Orig^"' Chr Did Cyr^^<" Ang^"^. This seems to be 
 an endeavour to remove redundancy, 
 iv. 51. (Indirect for dramatic direct oration). Xeyovja oti wan; 
 avrov fi; by NABC and W 185 Sod^*^ c d/ffg I r gat aur vg 
 arm W-H il- Sod txt and the inevitable textual muddler 
 Origen in the proportion of 1/3. 
 This is opposed by D'' LFAAII wk^ minn omn rell (et N on mo? 
 <7ov ^rf) a b e q syr en sin pcsli hier sail boh aeth Chr Cyr with direct 
 oration, employing aov for avrov. It is confirmed by Orig*''" (on the 
 next page following the quotation aurou*'"') plus Origen {ex Heracl.'-"^). 
 Tisch misquotes 13 for crov. In Ferrar's edition 13 reads : vuk aov 
 o vioi avrov (but the rest of the family aov with all other minuscules). 
 
 In a question of this kind when the Semitic versions are so strong 
 for direct oration, the minuscules should be decisive. What is their 
 verdict ? None uphold avTov.\ Not even 892 nor Paris" nor 33 (the old 
 " queen of cursives " before discovery of 892 and Paris") nor 28 which 
 here opposes and neutralises the testimony of W. 
 
 May I ask, if it is a question of revision, who would revise bach to 
 direct oration ? The thing is unimaginable. If avrov were original, the 
 whole series of " Antioch " revisers (and they are represented by other 
 Egyptian mss) could never have put back aov so successfully. 
 
 John 
 
 iv. 52. eirrov ovv BCLNW^ 1 33 50 213 291 2''' Sod' '«» Paris" 
 W-H Sod tit but no versions except a7'm. The others and 
 Cyril have xat etrrov with N, but T" Sod"-' e foss with sah boh 
 and the middle-Egyptian version, and the syrr omit the 
 copula. The "neutral" text is therefore with copt syr, and 
 the ovv of BCL is a sheer improvement. 
 53. Similarly exeivj} r-q apa ev jj by NBCT" 1 minn aliq^^ 
 
 t Soden now adduces two critical codices for it, his '"at Patmos, and his "° = 185 
 at Florence. 
 
37(') 
 
 CDDIiX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 II 
 
 W-TI ((■ Sod t.vt for ev e/ceivr] ti) wpa ev r] should be compared 
 to Latin, but it avoids a double ev. 
 V. 2'.). A little " nicety " of B alone: 
 
 01 ra ayaOa iroi^aavTe^ «? avamaaiv ^tot]^ oi ( — 5f) tu ifiavXa 
 TTpa^avre^ e£? avaaraaiv Kpi<je(0<;. 
 
 This is another of those " pairs " which B always gives his 
 (Alexandrian ?) attention to. No other Greeks support the 
 omission of Se. Sodcii does not add one single witness to B. 
 Not even the faithful 218 {Sod'-'). Nor do 1' 892 or Paris'" 
 add their voice for omission. Vf indeed writes xat oi alone of 
 Greeks with m boh''' syr arm Ircn"". The support for B's 
 reading (which W-H adopt) f is Latin, viz. Tcrt Avg a e ff 
 and saliidic.X I add this therefore also under the heading 
 "Latin-Coptic." 
 vi. 9. -ev{2WstT7aiSapiov) NBD[coH<m So(r"]LNlinV1' 1 157 aP 
 Sod'""° ah del syr cu aeth Orig Clir Cyr ct W-H & Sod txt. 
 Apparently to remove a superfluous word. Why should any 
 add ? (Coptic emphasises with the indefinite article oifUjHpe 
 •■>((/(, 0"ifA.XOTr holi, eliminating the h following). 
 42. Yet another case of "pairs." The second outo? is removed 
 from the verse by BCDLTW Sod"''" min. pauc. W-H <i Sod txt 
 a d If q sah hoh syr cu sin arm aeth Chr Cyr, but against 
 all others. Why shoidd it have been added? It is pleonastic 
 in Greek, but not so scmitically speaking, 
 vii. 4. See under " Latin." 
 
 (3. Another question of "pairs." For: "o Katpot o efiot ovttw 
 7rap€<7Ttv o 5e Katpo^ o vfieTepo^; TravTOTC etntv erotfio^ '^ 
 B substitutes in sccundo loco irapea-nv for fariv to make 
 the antithesis euphonious or perfect. It appears to be in 
 very questionable taste, and presupposes that every other 
 MS changed the second napeaTiv to earw for opposite reasons. 
 Not a single other Greek does this, nor 892 nor Paris" nor 
 any of Sodc}i's otherwise sympathetic cursives. Some vulgates 
 (f^FlvOT'QVX'^Z-), but no i>ett, have adest for est here, but all 
 rctt carefully distinguish, having venit or advenit or adcst (c) 
 in the fust place, and est uniformly in the second place. Sah 
 and hoh both differentiate and so do syrr. W-H keep a 
 discreet silence, printing eajiv. 
 
 t Really in all these mitfccra Hort surpusscs hinisclt. The evident reincarnation 
 of an AlcXiindrian critic of the third or fourth century, he has managed to mislead 
 modern '* scholars " into thinking that nil these little " niceties'* were basic, and that a 
 " revision " forsooth excluded them all I 
 
 t Boll strongly opposes, some lioh having pleonasticnlly OTOg ff H ^E- 
 
 3 IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 377 
 
 Juho 
 
 vii. 8. Although B has large support here for ovira ava^aivw, the 
 consensus of opinion of antiquity (Porph Epiph Chr Cyr Ephr 
 Aug Aiict quacst) is with NDICMH t »<"' vg boh (disertc) arm 
 aeth syr cu sin georg slav pers for ovk ava/3atvto, which Hort 
 only places in his margin, retaining ovirw avap. in his text. 
 Can anyone suppose that if B had been on the other side it 
 would not have turned the scale? Yet here, although 
 supported by sah and W, it is manifestly an ancient 
 "improvement" which D and the good Latins, syr boh and 
 the bulk of the versions, will have none of. I regret that 
 the Oxford edition of 1910 follows Hort with ov-nw in text 
 and OVK in margin, instead of reversing it.t In this connection 
 I would like to remind Dr. Souter of his own words quite 
 recently expressed (' Text and Canon," p. 129) : " The readers 
 of the present work would do well to ponder every word he 
 writes on the subject of New Testament textual criticism, 
 for no authority of our time surpasses him in learning and 
 judgment." This sentence refers to Professor F. C. Burkitt, 
 and this is what he has to say of situations exactly such as 
 the evidence indicates in St. John vii. 8 : " The question at 
 issue is what right we have to reject the oldest Syriac and 
 the oldest Latin tvhcn they agree" (F. C.B. 'Introduction' to 
 Barnard's Clem"'"), because, as he says elsewhere {op. cit.) : 
 " With Clement's evidence before us we must recognise that the 
 EAULIEST texts of the Gospels arc fundamentally ' Western ' in 
 every country of which wc have knoiclcdge, even in Egypt." 
 I have already used these remarks of Dr. Burkitt elsewhere, 
 as headings to my study of the books of Dimma and Moling, 
 and Dr. Souter will please to recognise that I "ponder 
 every word " of Dr. Burkitt on the subject. Perhaps more 
 than he (Dr. Souter) does, for if Dr. Souter {op. cit., p. 138) 
 approves the addition of the words xai ri)? yu/ii^T)? atMatt.xxv. 1 
 which " has now received the support of the Old Syriac 
 version and is therefore proved to be ' Western ' in the 
 widest, and not merely in the geographical sense," he must 
 apply the same canon of criticism to other places, irrespective 
 of B and X. As a matter of fact this addition of xal t^? 
 vvfKJyt]'! stands upon another footing, and I am not at all clear 
 that we should receive it. The valuable cursive 892 reads 
 alone twv vvfi^imv for toO vv/iiplov xal t))9 vvfi<j>i]<;, revealing 
 a situation which calls for very detailed examination. § This 
 
 t Add 17** 389 p"' v,^"' P"-r Laura* lOi Sod"0 looi mc s 371 ! ira. 
 
 } Soden does reverse it against Sod^''\ having ovk nrnSnu-w in text and oittw in margin. 
 
 § T(i) vvfKpttii C 157 soli, nt latt sponso. 
 
378 
 
 John 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 reading of 892 I have not seen referred to anywhere, and 
 Dr. Souter himself has not used Dr. llendel Harris' very 
 interesting collation of this valuable British Museum codex. 
 But the proposition holds good, viz. if we are to believe DXSn"''' 
 lattsyranitOrig'"^ Tichon Arnob 02>""'' Hil for +KatTi)si'i//n(fi?« 
 in Matt. xxv. 1 against Aug and the rest, how much more are 
 we to believe D latt syr strengthened by NKMII arm aeth 
 gcorg slav pers boh Porph Epiph Chr Cyr Epltr Aug Quaesi 
 at John vii. 8. 
 
 In such connections we can profitably study matters of 
 order, such as vii. 12 33 (see under " Order "), where perhaps 
 the basic text omitted the word subsequently added in 
 different positions, 
 vii. 34. Another question of " pairs." To : " fjjTJ/o-STe /le xai ovx 
 evpr,a€je " BNTX [iwn fam 1 teste Lake] 213 2-58 2'" w"" 
 So(.V" 190 ggji^ jjgji^ ,2^,. ggfji^ W-H Inon Sod] would add /ue to 
 complete the " pair." It is difficult to suppose that all others 
 including DW Sod"^^ 892 Paris" removed the second /w. Bather 
 is it a " version " influence on BTX. 
 ibid. Observe in the same verse /h. that B alone (c/. georg arm) adds 
 eKei, which can be traced to the unique addition by the sahidic 
 and bohairic here of epoci (" to it "). 
 
 3C. B[no)i N]TX sah boh syr aeth, with G l[nonfam], 892 2"'= W-H 
 this time, again add a second fie in the same phrase as in 
 vii. 31. 
 
 In the latter case G 1 892 join, and N 213? 258 w''' Sod"" ? 
 abandon BTX and the four versions which remain constant 
 in the error with Westcott and Hort. 
 
 39. a (i>ro oi) B and EKMSUVA3 min"' and 604 [non 892 
 {Harris ed.) non Paris"] but against NDGHLNT^VX^A^ al. 
 pi and Ct/)"'"^ Chr Thdor'^"""^ Cyr (Nonn) Thdt ; in other words, 
 B has no Patristic support. It is rather a difficult construc- 
 tion, and B with LTW Evst 18 proceeds to change the tense 
 of ■ma-TCvovTC'; following, to TnaTevaavTa, and then conflates 
 with ayiov &eSo/j£vov as against omission of both words by 
 NKTn Orig Cyr, while some add 07^01' and some add BeSo/jevov. 
 It will be observed that B's supporters LT and W are in 
 varying positions in this verse in the three changes under 
 review. [See ante as to addition by B.] 
 
 41. In the " pair " of expressions aXKoi. . .aWoi it is to be noticed 
 that some and 1 33 248 al, a cfffvg sah boh arm (aeth) Orig 
 Cyr add Se after the second aWot, which is found also in 
 textus receptus and in sah against its usual method ; 
 (BLNTXW Sod"'' substitute ol Se). 
 Now St. John's method seems to be against this, for at 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 379 
 
 ix. 9 aWoi eXeyov. . .aWoi eXeyov remains without copula and 
 only N and a few add Se, while B and" the great majority 
 abstain. I mention it because there are other places involved, 
 all in the same class, as, in the same chapter vii. above at verse 
 12 : 01 fiev eK^yov. . .aWoi eXeyov, where BTXWSoi"" sah boh 
 Cyr and a number of Old Latins (with textus receptus again) 
 add he. I had not intended to mention this place, supported 
 as it is by cfffg I vg (although observe that b d e q^ r Bfoss 
 oppose), t but when comparing vii. 41 and ix. 9 it became 
 evident that the +Se on behalf of all those who add is 
 probably anti-neutral and in the nature of revision. 
 vii. 46. Following a variety of changes of order in the phrase ovSeirore 
 eXaXrtaev ovTioi av8pmvo<! (order of BLNTX Orig Cyr), it is to 
 be observed that BLTW 225 229* boh and Cyr Orig drop the 
 clause following (against N and the rest) of " <u? ovtoi {XaXei) 
 audpa-rrot." The Semitic doublet was objected to. Tischen- 
 dorf remarks "offendebat scripturae proUxitas, hino addita- 
 mentum vel in brevius contraxerunt vel totum omiserunt." 
 viii. 16. r, xpiiTit V CM aXvOivv eariv BDLTXW 33 213 892 Sod" 
 Orig 1/2 W-H d- Sod txt, against the use of aXvdvs by the 
 others, d and the latins use vernm. Only gat vg^ vary with 
 jnstum as Biicaia 0"' Sod""" "' '"» Evst 60 [Evan 157 does not 
 join Evst 60] Cyr Chr 2/3. It does appear as if aXrjdivri 
 were more in the nature of an "improvement" than other- 
 wise. Why should the rest abandon it? It would have 
 been a welcome variation from the use of aXrjdr]^ above, if 
 correct, and certainly not tampered with by all the rest 
 including ^ and Paris"'. (D has aXr/Oeivv alone at viii. 14.) 
 
 19. See under " Order." 
 
 38. Kai v/ieK ovv a rjKovaaTe wapa tov -narpo^. This (instead of 
 . . .eapaKaTe. . .of the rest), by BCKLX and N'W 1 (131) {non 
 118-209] 4 5 fam 13 \_non 124] 15 33 42 68 91 116 122" 145 
 213 229'" 249 299 dpiw^'and 892 Sod"'""^- "fgoth boh aeth-'"" 
 arm Orig^^"''" '"'"'° Cyr[nonH rell, jio» ^, »io;i Paris", not even 
 Laura* '"]. This is of course to avoid the difficulty, hence 
 against the canon of the " harder " reading to be preferred. 
 Hort swallows j;kou(tot£ and his margin is silent. Sodcn acts 
 similariy. Clcm'^" is silent, but NDTSl' Paris" and eleven 
 other uncials are not, nor the Latins nor sah nor syr sin nor 
 Tcrt, who all witness to ewpaKare and vidistis\ as Tischendorf 
 
 t Titch misquotes 3 on the other side. 
 
 X a = ct alii; for which Sodcn also quotes r, but r in Ahhotft edition has plainly 
 .it (for eit) alii dicclant. Soden't collator seems to have misread et for ...si. 
 § / only of Latins with go(h join B in improving. 
 
380 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 JohD 
 
 diligently explained by quoting Apollin"'^ -"' in full " eapaicevai 
 Kai TTapa no -rraTpiXeyav ovk o^daX/iav Tiva opatrtv eBrfkoiaev 
 aWa yvoiaiv (pvc iktiv, enei xat e/cfivo? <f)acrKa>v eapaxevai 
 irapa to) Trarpt avTcov ovk o^ei Zijirovdev ctopaxevai Xeyei aXKa 
 Ti; evoiKovarj wovi^pta. . ." Yet we persist in receiving Origen's 
 tliird century " improvement " against this fourth century 
 witness discrte and TertulUan earlier. The Oxford edition of 
 1910 follows Hort here to its discredit. Will the critics not 
 kindly apply Burkitt's canon at this place also, and see in the 
 consentient voice of syr sin and syr pcsh pers arah (cu is 
 wanting) with the diatcssaron (quoting Jno viii. 12/60 in full 
 sequence) and all the Latins [but/] with sail georg slav and 
 ApoUin and Tot a full rebuttal of the "improving " voice of 
 Orig and his minions, even with syr hier added to them ? 
 
 Here is Hort's weak note, in ' Notes on Select Beadings,' 
 p. 88: 
 
 " viii. 38. a iyo). . .Trarpo?] -iiyai a ewpaxa irapa to! ■naipi pov 
 [TavTo] \aKa>' xal u/icZ? oi/u a iaipaKare vapa tw Trorpl vp.i)v\- 
 Western and, with o twice substituted for o, and ravra 
 omitted, Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. Aeth.) : but aeth omits pov and 
 vpcov." For later and better information \von Soden to the 
 contrary notwithstanding] cf. Mcrx pp. 208/212 in the Johannes 
 volume, and note (on p. 209) his expression : " und es ist 
 WiUkiir zu sagen, B hat iihcrall hicr das Richtige." 
 viii. 39. Another very important question of "pairs" or more than 
 " pairs." €J T€Kva tov Afipaap €0-t£ ra epya too A^paap, 
 TToiecTc. So B* and the vg alone followed by W-H tit. 
 Origen is on both sides, quoting very often. Now most 
 authorities, with Ens Epiph Cyr^'" Bid Bas Cyr'''" have vre 
 and €7roie(TC, while those who join B for eine, viz. NDLT 
 Evst GO, still follow with evotene, and some have evoiene av. 
 The cursives are practically all for 7;tc and e-noiene or enoiene 
 av. True 001: has wotene, but retains av. Paris"' bas t/tc and 
 eTToiene av. The Coptics and the Versions oppose B ; syr sin 
 appears to support. I hardly think B has preserved the 
 "neutral " text. If so, why do sah and boh not follow? It 
 looks rather as if B and Origen here were playing a part, for 
 Orifjen knows and gives both readings. The Old Latins, with 
 the exception of /, are against B, while 6 and OfiV"' add 
 utiquc. 
 
 The matter has no importance in one sense, and 5'et in 
 another it has a very great importance. The record of B as 
 exhibited in these pages is not sufficiently good to trust him 
 without better support. D and the supporters having £<rT€ 
 follow with eiToiene. The transition from e(ne to enotene 
 
 B IS ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 381 
 
 offends apparently, yet they retain. While eare may therefore 
 be basic, irotetre seems to be the reverse ; tjte may indeed be a 
 revision, but e-noiene rather than Troieire appears basic. 
 Note. — In case it should be thought that I had gone crazy over 
 questions of "pairs," I would like to exhibit another place in St. John 
 quite in the heart of these changes by B, where N indulges in this, in 
 order to show that the changes were either premeditate on the part of 
 both Mss or were influenced by a version. Observe then that at 
 John vii. 22 in the clause: ovx on ex tov pavcecov e<niv aW e« Ttov 
 ■n-arepeov, an additional oTt is supplied by N after oW. This is shared 
 by syr cu sin, but not by sah boh, as might have been expected, nor by 
 the other versions, and is found in no other Greek or Latin witness. 
 My point therefore appears to be well taken that the changes were made 
 to " improve." It is extremely unlikely that such complementary 
 expressions should have been removed by any revisor. Why, for 
 instance, should ^l' or 892 or Paris"' or Laura*'"*, all derived from a 
 similar Ms to the parent of N and B, cut out this second on? Why 
 also should they all have ev aa^^atw while B with her quite alone 
 omit €v in this same verse? Bo they not preserve the true text as 
 against B and N respectively in doth places .' 
 
 viii. 51/52. We now come to one of the grossest disfigurements of the 
 text in the whole of the narrative perpetrated by B. The 
 facts are so clear that Westcott and Hort abandon his 
 testimony completely and do not even give the reading a place 
 in their margin, although B has the support of Evst 32 and e, 
 to which now add Paris". It is not discussed in Hort's 
 ' Notes on Select Readings,' for it would have been exceed- 
 ingly distressing to him to discuss it. But was it honest to 
 pass it by in silence ? Let the facts speak for themselves. t 
 Burgon omitted to comment on this because Hort and the 
 Revision mercifully left the record alone. But in an arraign- 
 ment of codex B it is my duty to record the shameful 
 mutilation of scripture here, justifying all I have previously 
 said of B as to " pairs " of expressions. 
 
 In John viii. verse 51 the Saviour saj's : " \p.rjv ap,r]v \eyio 
 vp.lv eav Ti? TOV e/iov Xoyov (or tov Xoyov tov epov or tov Xoyov 
 pov) Tijptjcrr], davaTov ov p,r) Beosprfar) eit tov aiwva." 
 
 In verse 52 the Jews reply : " vw eyvayxapev oti Saip.oviov 
 fX^^''' Afipaap aTreffavev Kai oi TTpo<f>r}Tai, Kai trv XeyeK' eav tk 
 TOV Xoyov pov (or pov tii tov Xoyov, or tk pov tov Xoyov, or 
 [33 Orig] t/? tov epov Xoyov) TT)pr)ar), ov pi) yevorjTai 
 BavaTov (ei5 tov atava om. D b c d ff I syr sin)." 
 
 t Soulcr also ignores it in his notes to the Oxford edition of the N.T. 1910. 
 
382 
 
 C-ODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 In verse 52, however, B calmly substitutes Bavajov ov /iv 
 Oeapj]<Tii for ov /irj yev<7tjTai Oavarov, repeating the form of 
 verse 51 in order to make no difference in the wording of the 
 Jews' reply to the actual words spoken by our Lord. Evst 32 
 does the same, so does c latin, and so does Paris" unknown 
 to Hort, and a new witness 213 ("') adduced by Sodcn. 
 liut this last support only justifies all I have said as to 
 such paiticnlar cursive testimony not helping B but re- 
 accusing his text of an ancient error. No other authority 
 ehaiigea, lor the simple reason (as Hort and the Revisionists 
 admit) that the record is perfectly plain that the Jews in 
 their excitement repeated the phrase of verse 51 in slightly 
 different language. Origen is a witness to this effect, which 
 Hort here dared not put aside. Neither Tisch nor Tregelles nor 
 Ilort nor the Eevision nor Soiiter nor Soden then follow B, 
 although it had both Greek and Latin support. If we look 
 into the matter still more closely we shall find that syr sin, 
 some Mss of pesh (but not diatess) and aeth, while holding 
 " shall not taste of death " in verse 52, put taste back into 
 verse 51, replacing ffewprjar} there by yevarjTat, exactly for the 
 same purpose of harmonising the records in verses 51 and 52. 
 What a clear picture of these critical authorities dealing with 
 scripture.! 
 
 Now such absolutely unpardonable handling of the record 
 by B here, raises afresh the whole question of the readings 
 of this MS elsewhere, which Hort asks us to accept in so 
 many other places, as does Dr. Souter. The latter in his 
 ' Text and Canon ' (p. 103 seq) has this to say of Westcott and 
 Hort : " Their work is held in the highest esteem in all 
 civilised countries, and on the foundation they have laid the 
 future will do well to build." But if the foundations are 
 insecure, as I claim to have shown in this volume, is it not 
 an unfortunate myopia from which Dr. Souter and others are 
 suffering ? Do they really know B ? I cannot believe it 
 possible, or Dr. Souter would not write on p. 22 (op. cit.) after 
 citing two of the "secondary traces here and there in its 
 text": "But such features are like spots in the sun." 
 The features to which I have drawn attention, of this con- 
 stant striving for " consistency," for running the narrative 
 in " iiairs," for general linguistic or grammatical " niceties " 
 or "improvements," with occasional "conflations" or bold 
 
 t The omission of us rev aimm at tlie end of verse 52hy D db c ff I and sijr tin is 
 not jicrhaps on the same footing. 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN'S GOSrEL. 
 
 383 
 
 JuIlD 
 
 " harmonies," t culminating in this passage in John vni. 51/o2, 
 proves something quite different, and it ,s evident that 
 textual theories and a text built upon B are liable to be swept 
 away owing to the foundations being quite insecure. As to 
 " spots in the sun " they may not perceptibly dim the bright- 
 ness of the luminary to eyes some millions of miles away, but 
 studied a little .mre closely they are indications of grave 
 danger. These spots on the sun of B have had as 
 disastrous an effect on our N.T. studies as have had real 
 sunspots on our agricultural situation on many occasions . 
 
 Souter's simile is unfortunate. Perhaps it is prophetic ! 
 Thl matter of harmonising by B in viii 51/52 is foUowed so 
 closely by another peculiar matter (viii. 55), see under Change 
 of Case," that it should be consulted by the student at once 
 There Hort and the B.V. will be found in diBagreement, Hort 
 following BADW Sod'^' minn^ con<m—. while the -B.F. 
 restoresfhe usual genitive and tacitly accuses H-ts foundation 
 of being wrong. [A somewhat similar case to that of John 
 viii. 51/52 may be seen at xvi. 16/17, concemmg which note 
 Burgon's remarks in ' Causes of Corruption, pp. 105/lOb.J 
 
 ix 14. See under " Latin." i ^ »„,. 
 
 ' Ifi Another "pair." The verse begins €\€7'"' o-^"- • • l^aterlor 
 
 tx^^lyl, SBDT'W fa,n 1 fa,n 13 22 2.'= Sod^^' c dr.sah loh 
 
 syr [noupers] {aeth KaC), haveaXXo. Se eKeyov. against the preat 
 
 majority without copula. /(Buchanan) is against it not for 
 
 it, as Tischendorf says from an uncertain phrase o Sabat^ier. 
 
 Tisch. also errs as to the vulgates by saying vg ct 
 
 but only vg^'" recorded by Wordsworth have a copula. 
 
 Tischendorf claims ten cursives, but none of Matthaeis or 
 
 Scrivener's cursives have it, and it seems to be limited to 
 
 (am 1 fam 13 2i'= and " Colb " (22, confirmed to me by 
 
 Sanders). Others seem to lack it completely and it does not 
 
 appear in 892 nor in Paris" and only in Soden s of all his 
 
 cursives, but he accepts it openly, although Hort only took it 
 
 into his text in brackets. „ •, n r. . i k „ 
 
 20 init. a^eKp^enaav + ovv NB 2"« [teste Sod.-] Evst 15 g q 
 
 vq^ dim Tisch'--^' W-H [nil mg] only against no copula 
 
 DGLT'UWXn 1 33 al.latt^'sah boh arm Cyr, and +Se the 
 
 rest and Sod txt. , , , u- 
 
 I would not call attention to this, but that the whole graphic 
 narrative, abounding in repetitions, must be examined most 
 closely (much more closely than I can do in these few notes 
 on ch ix.) and that in ix. 10, ix. 17, N or B or NB add an ovv 
 
 t See cinie and j)os( under all these heads. 
 
^84 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES, 
 
 .lulm 
 
 whicli pi-obably does not belong to the text. See also ix. 2G. 
 The matter is settled as far as I am concerned bj' observing 
 that in-ix. 27 B alone with aeth and gcorg adds an ovv after rt 
 (appearing in Hort's margin). Observe the variations as to 
 ovv, Se, Kat (NB sail), and the absence of the copula here by 
 Uie mass. 
 ix. 30. +T0 {ante eavixamov) NBLNT'3 1 [nonfam, although Sodm 
 qnotes 118, which LaAc specifically denies] 22? 33 397 
 Laura'^i'« So(i'" ""' sah Clir Cyr W-H ,C- Sod txt against 
 omission by all others. Why should the others omit if to 
 were basic ? But this should doubtless be referred to Coptic 
 (snh xe TAI pou TE TECgnHpC, hoh XE ©Al pco 
 TE ■i"aj(l>Hpl) reproduced by arah alone of later versions. 
 Syr has " to wonder " or " mirandum" as a r, for " mirabile," 
 and Paris" substitutes eOavfia^ov for to davjiacTov eimv, while 
 all the others with WD and ^ hold davimcnov " a wonderful 
 thing." 
 
 31. See under " Order." In this the following verse, B again 
 follows Coptic (against N) apparently disliking the position of 
 a/j,apTO)\(ov after otj, which word would hardly have been found 
 there if this order were not basic. 
 X. 25. Another "pair." See under " Change of Tense." 
 xi. 29. See under " Change of Tense." 
 
 30. " ovircD 0€ €\rj\v0ei o irjcrov^ C£? t7JV Koyfirjv aW tjv €V tw tott&j 
 OTTou vTn-jvTffcrev avrio t; MapOa." In this quiet and dignified 
 sentence, witnessed to by ADLFAAII una aV min permult 
 and nyriac, XBCXX" 1 33 213 242 249 Sod"^^"^ some Latins 
 and hoh introduce €« after ■nv, while F a e and sah add it before 
 r]v. The addition in different positions is suspicious in itself, 
 but this has never influenced Hort apparently nor the school 
 of Hort, for he and the Oxford edition and Soden diligently 
 add it. Yet why should the other school have dropped it ? It 
 savours distinctly of officious "improvement." Observe that 
 sah has A-XXa. eti rtEqgJOE njuiA. and 
 hoh has aXXa. itAqxH oirrt nE i>^n nULtA.- 
 
 44. Another question of " pairs " in the final clause : 
 
 "\vaaT£ avTov icat aipere avTov VTrayew." 
 BGL Sod"" 33 107 Paris" alone of Greeks, copt Orig'". 
 Where are the Latins and the Syriacs ? All the Latins (except 
 ff with its Coptic affiliations) and the Syriacs (except hier and 
 diatess) are with N and the mass without the second auTOK 
 against Messrs. Hort and [Soden]. 
 
 It is possible that this is a common error of base, however, 
 between B and copt, for it is opposed by W as well as N al. 
 It might have occurred from misreading vn in virayetv after 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 385 
 
 a(fi€Tat (for a<f)CT€). Thus in W you find A*£TAiYnAr€fN. It 
 is important as placing W behind the diatessaron. 
 xi. 4.5. Kat 0€aaafuvoi a eiroirjaev ti and the great majority, with 
 Origen six times (and 6cra 314 d"") W-H'^^ Sod"^, but S BC'DA^ 
 (also C-'- o ev. ari/ieiov) 1 244 249 SofZ™ '»■"«-" e goth sah aeth 
 IV'-H"" Sod'''^. This seems to be an absolute "improvement " 
 referring to the miracle of the raising of Lazarus. It 
 occurs immediately after verse 44 which recounts the actual 
 resurrection, and o is so absolutely natural after Oeatrdfuvoi 
 that no one would have changed S here to o, while there is 
 every reason to change S. to o as do B and a few. W does not 
 do it. Here observe Origen absolutely opposed to B's " easy " 
 reading. Origen, X, and Tisch prefer the " harder " reading. 
 
 In verse 46 following etirov avTOK CD 249 397 with M 
 Sorf"" '"" ^ be goth aeth repeat o, but XB and most, this time 
 keeping with Origen, have a. I have no doubt a is right 
 in both places. The bohairic shows that criticism of these 
 verses was in vogue, for it reverses the whole process, having 
 in verse 45 Beaaaixevoi a and in verse 46 eiirov avTot<; o. 
 
 57. €VTo\a<! {pro evroXvv) UBIUW fam 1 138 254 i'" Paris" 2'" 
 [teste Sod] Sod"" Orig"". A clear "improvement" adopted 
 by Tisch W-H and Soden.f See sub voce " Indeterminate," 
 after remarks on xi. 54. 
 sii. 12. See under " Solecisms of B." 
 
 13. Apparently another question of "pairs": evKoyttnevot o 
 epXo/ievov ev ovoftari Kvptov Kat o fiaaiKevf tov ItrpaijX. 
 Only NBLQ boh aeth and Orig and the editors Tisch W-H 
 and Soden^ indulge in this second xai o or at any rate they 
 alone add the xai to make the two parts. Some and sah have 
 6 before /SaaiXeu?. 
 xiii. 18. Tiva's {pro ou?) Undoubted correction, thinking to improve. 
 It occurs in the phrase eya {yap) otSa ovi e^eX^^afiTjv, and tiku? 
 is only found in NBCLM 33 157 213 397 Sod"" '»" '"» "" ""> 
 Orig'i'"^" Cyr adopted by the editors Tisch W-H and Sodcn.^ 
 Indeed Orig seems to have a patent on this : " rtva^ efeXe- 
 ^afirjv, oiT(p aTrXovtTTepov /lev toioutok can ' ti? ecrrtv exaaToi; tov 
 
 t I mention the three critical ediiioDe Bpecifically at these four places to cinphnsiee 
 wliat Biirtjon said long ago. The critical editors considered and iSorffn still considers that 
 these minority Mss are of paramount importance irrespective of the fEict that the grouped 
 MS3 represent hardly more than one tradition. To combat this view I am presenting these 
 p.iges. Because Hort supports Tischcndorf, and Soden supports Horl, it docs not follow 
 tliat they are right. The English Revisers oppose in xiii. 18 and Sotiter does not give 
 the evidence for rirnt in his notes I If Souter believed Hort was right it was his duty to 
 his readers to give the evidence. Docs Souter believe NBCLM 33 157 Orig Cyr and 
 Hort to be wrong here ? 
 
 2 c 
 
;t8() CODEX B AND ITS ALLIE'^. 
 
 €^€\e^afir]v oi&a." At first sight th'O! being the "harder 
 reading might appear justifiable, but it is almost certainly 
 editorial. It is contradicted by all others including W'4' and 
 BO-2 Paris" so much in accord with the group elsewhere. It 
 is also contradicted by all the versions. A trace would surely 
 remain elsewhere it rivat; were correct. As I plodded over 
 document after document I was amazed to find no other trace 
 of Tiva^ until Sodcn produced two Sinai codices, two at 
 Jerusalem, one at Atlios. 
 xiii. i(K I3afa<; ovv (pro >cai E^/Safav) NBCLX 33 213 892 Sod"""""*' 
 a Orig 2/4 and Cyr with the editors Tisch W-H and Soden 
 against the rest.t 
 1(7. axoXovOeiv apri (pro axoKovBriaai apTi) B(C*). A sheer 
 " improvement." See under " Change of Tense." Hort 
 follows B alone here, 
 xiv. 7. This is another question of " pairs," but different from most. 
 Here, for (xai) airapTi r^ivaaxeTe avrov xai eapaKare avrov 
 by the great mass supported by all the versions and TertuUian, 
 BC* and they alone with JF-H'^' [and they are often guilty 
 of other tricks together; see many instances in St. John 
 elsewhere in these pages and just previously] would suppress 
 the second avToi', reading airapri yivaxTKere avrov xai 
 tapaxaTe. It is a perfectly fair criticism that this is editing, 
 oven if here it be a question of the suppression of one 
 of the "pair," because the place troubled some scribes and 
 translators. Thus 33 08 2.50 d''' Evsf 47"'"' CO and some arnr" 
 suppress xat empo/care avrov altogether,t while the slav version 
 with X" (= Sod A.*) suppresses the first avrov, writing 
 " Ye knew and ye saw him," as does the book of Divima : 
 "cognoscetis et vidistis eum." While r (not reported for 
 Tischendorf) and vg^ are to be added to the Greeks BC for 
 the elision of the final avrov. These authorities should be 
 added in Tischendorf's apparatus. Horner does not give r, 
 citing only BC, because unfortunately he does not quote r, 
 a very important witness, especially in St. Luke and St. John 
 but Soden gives r here. (See beyond again on xiv. 17.) 
 10. Yet another matter of a " pair." Instead of o Se rrarvp o ev 
 €/ioi fievaiv of nearly all Greeks (and a c d f q r foss qui in 
 me manet) BL^ [negl. Sod. ^] Sod'""" Orig Aeth Did 
 (jyyMeicom glide the second o, reading o Se irarnp ev e/ioi jievcov 
 (= no doubt vg with b e ff g in me manens). That this was 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSrEL. 
 
 387 
 
 t See footnote on jtfigc 385. 
 
 t Attributed b.v ffiii SoiUn to homoiotelcuton I 
 
 the Alexandrian way, the unusual consensus of Orig Ath Cyr 
 with BL^ most freely attests. No cursives appear to join 
 (except the two new ones of iwi Soden mentioned above 
 which are quite " of the family "), not even Paris", and W 
 goes with D and the rest against it; But whereas B prefers 
 " pairs," here he seems to dislike the double 6 on account of 
 the Se — present in most copies, only absent from a few 
 cursives. Had the Se been absent : " o trarrip 6 ev e/ioi /levaiv " 
 would not have offended, but in 6 Se rrarrjp 6 it seems to 
 have appeared redundant. The other versions seem clearly 
 to have read a second 6. It is not trifling to mention this 
 matter, for B shows us four variations in this one verse : 
 (a) TTto-Ttuo-eji? for triarevei's with the lohairic alone [^boli 
 neglected by Sorfeu], {b)—\eyQ) alone, (c) — o ante ev enoi with 
 L'^' and Alexandria as above, and finally (d) -noiei ra epya 
 avrov with ND as against rroiei ra epya ai/To? LiX and ^A 33 
 213 Sod'"' Paris" Ci/)-"" and avro'; rroiei ra epya A and the 
 rest with Orig Ath Ps-Ath Chr Cyr'^''', while e and Tcrf omit 
 auTo? or avrov altogether, and are perhaps basic. 
 
 Now B cannot be right in all four places. Hort neglects 
 the first two (a and b) as error's, but accepts the other two 
 (c and d), thus in the last case (d) opposing Alexandria, as 
 represented by Orig Ath Cyr, while going with them in the 
 third case (c). This is properly in accord with his principle 
 that it is B which is " neutral," however rough the fourth 
 case may seem. But what about the first case (a) ? Why 
 should we lose the rrKTrevaett 6f B ? It is supported by all 
 the bohairic. Is it not neutral ? But I can assure you that 
 there is nothing " neutral " in B. Having written avrov 
 ( = eavrov no doubt) in this verse, he proposes to amend the 
 next verse in accordance therewith. Therefore we find B and 
 229* (aeth) only writing in verse 11 Sia ra epya avrov 
 ■7rt<TTeii€T£ fioi against Ath and Cyr, who with most have Sia 
 ra epya avra marevere 11.01, whereas Tert 157 and some 
 cursives omit avra and avrov and have only Sia ra epya 
 mar. which is very possibly basic and both the additions 
 of later date, since q r and syr arm pers diatess and boh also 
 omit avra and avrov. Hort has avra in his text and accepts the 
 avrov of B in his margin ; but neither I think are " neutral " 
 or basic. True the sahidic says " Believe because of his 
 works," but this does not agree with B, because sah destroys 
 the fioi at the end of the sentence (as NDL 33 etc.) which B 
 holds. B is left absolutely alone with 229* and aeth : ex 
 opcre ejus credite mihi. 
 
 I Scrivener's z (semel) with Paris" has ravra for avra, while 
 
 2 c 2 
 
38S 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 the new MS W goes with NDL Sia ra epya avra iriaT. absque 
 
 fJ.Ot fill.] 
 
 xiv. 17. The same thing as at xiv. 7 occurs here as to "pairs." For : 
 oTi ov dempet avro ovSe ytvuxTKet avTo, NBW Paris" and 
 a dim Liicif IF-H'"' [nil mg] alone suppress the second avro 
 against all others, all versions and Did''^'"'", and as showing 
 how the matter affected others, Evan 287 vg^ ylucf'""' elide 
 the jirst avTo {Soden does not notice this) writing quia non 
 vidct ncc cogno.icit cum, exactly as the slav version with X'' 
 and the hook of Dimina acted in verse 7 1 
 ihiil. This is followed hy the elision of the copula Se between vfUK 
 and jtvoiaK€Te avro by NBQW 846 a'" Paris" Sod"^"^ a h sah 
 hoh^'"' Lucif Aitcf"""' W-H (6 Sod ixt only, after the Coptic 
 manner {Sod neglects the Coptic witness and adds '^ (against 
 Jjnhe)], again not only against the mass and the versions, but 
 against Di'rf'" Cijr^^" and Cyr^^'^. 
 ihid. And again in this verse another " pair " of expressions is 
 involved. Most Mss have fuvn and eoTat {on -nap vp.iv p,ivet 
 Kai ev vpiv etTTai). Some read p^vet = g vg arm Nonn 
 ifieveet) and sah \iion Jo/t]. It is clear that B understood 
 pivii [it is so accented in B to-day] for he follows it with 
 eoT IV for earai alone of the uncials with D* (corrected by 
 l)-) W and a few cursives (1 Sod"^ [nonfani] 22 69 [nonfani] 
 2.51 2.54 291 1^" Sod™ "") and ii!P' sijr goth Lucif W-W'' 
 Sod'"", but in view of B's record which I think I have 
 fairly exhibited in the previous pages, it is not absolutely 
 certain that we can accept eartv as original, etrrai is di£Scult 
 enough in all conscience following u/«i? yivaaKere avTo, but 
 if p^vel was intended, earai would be in order. Sah actually 
 reads " Ye, ye know him because he will remain with you and 
 he will be in you." Paris" here reads emai and does not go 
 with B, but W does so. 
 2:^. Now comes a fitting and most lovely specimen of the manipu- 
 lation of voices to obtain a perfect " pair," which is not only 
 an illustration of what we have contended for, but operates as 
 a climax to all that has gone before. 
 In the verse aTreKpiOij (o) njaov; xai enrev avTia ' €av Tti ayaira pe, rov 
 \oyov pov Tript](7€L /cat o iraTr)p pov ayaiTTjaet avrov, fcai irpo^ avrov 
 e\ev a o pe6 a Kai uovrjv irap avTco it oirj a o pev, nothing virtually is 
 changed [except by D, vide in/ia^ until we reach the last word. Here 
 instead of TTotiaopev (or Trotrjaapev) we are offered ir oir}<r ofied a by 
 Nl'.IjXWn= 1 Sod'" [mn/am] faml3[non 124] 33 213 249 254 2I* Paris" 
 Sod'-''" '"" '^. This group is practically one, as our presentation of evidence 
 elsewhere will show. They offer us then in the final clause the very allite- 
 rative sentence: " xai ■n-po'S avjov eXcv a o peO a xai povrjv Trap avTio 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 889 
 
 ■n oiria opeOa." May I ask on what grounds any "revision" would 
 have desired to displace the middle (given the sense) by the active voice 
 here and so to destroy the alliterative assonance ? If irotTiaopeOa had 
 been basic, who would have wished to change it to woiwopev ? t On the 
 other hand, our repeated exhibition of the views entertained as to " pairs " 
 by this very group, headed by B, is most illuminating as to the practical 
 certainty that the B group base changed nroir^aopicv to iroiijaopeOa. And 
 the proof is not far to seek. 
 
 How do the Fathers stand ? For they surely represent other codices 
 long since perished which have not reached us but which are coeval with 
 or anterior to the date of B. It is observed that Origen is on both sides, 
 but with a large preponderance for ironjaopeda. A thanasius is on both sides, 
 Didymus is on both sides, Epiphanius is on both sides, while Eusehius 
 il/aj-c"'*'' and Cyril, the latter only quoting once, remain on the side of B. 
 Hence itotriaopeda in the fifth century was standardized in Alexandria on 
 the evidence of Cyril, but in the third and fourth centuries the Patrist'c 
 evidence wavers. What was the reason ? The reason appears self- 
 evident on its face. Consult Tischendorf's exhibit at this place, and one 
 cannot help realizing that while codices used by Origen, Athauasius and 
 Didymus surely exhibited iroirjiropev, in quoting either from memory or 
 from other (manipulated) codices, these Fathers fell very naturally into 
 the course of following eXevaopeffa by itoiriaopeBa. Not that iToiriaop.e9a 
 was basic, but that it was tuneful, assonant, and admirably fitted the 
 sense " and we ourielves will make abode with him," and hence followed 
 by all three critical editors, Tischendorf Hort and von Soden. I cannot 
 conceive it possible that ' revision ' changed ■noirfaopeOa to -noirjaopcv. 
 What does the jury say ? And what is the secret then of the middle 
 voice employed here ? 
 
 In summing up for them I must not omit to draw their attention to 
 the sahidio version: ictuJ nA.6l0UT n<5i.JUiepiTq ' ATrou TftrtHf 
 ojA-poq ffTriTAjuiio ft Ait nottxA. itcaoune gA.gTKq. 
 
 Whether the sahidic itAft — " us " — be the source or the reflsction % 
 of the B group base, it is most noteworthy. Horner translates : 
 
 And my Father will love him, and we come unto him, and maJiC for 
 US an abiding place with him. Therefore, although the future tense is 
 not emphasised, the middle voice is emphasised, and we are to read as 
 
 t Soden adds only 218 Soil"^'^' bat also his commentary families KiC and N, and 
 excepts from his H family 'PA and 8 '"'. This is interesting as bringing against each 
 other 213 (his '^) and his * 371^ as above concerning favi 1 and /am 13, and in emphasising 
 the commentary support. Soden adopts irotrjffo^tffn in his text, just as his critical pre- 
 decessors had done, but that does not give us tlie *' true text." Sod''' has noitjfrnfity. 
 
 X As to B and sah consider most carefully in tliis connection the pas?ages under 
 Coptic previously tabulated at iv. 16, vii. 8, xii. 16, all of the same cliaracter ; also vii. 40 , 
 viii. 28, ii. 11 27, and especially vii. 34, x. 22, xi. 27. 
 
390 
 
 CODEX ]3 AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 from an originnl ttoioviuv rmat or ij/Jir, saU supplying ndM or ecjuiiting 
 TT oiov fied a. {Of. John v. 18 laov eiivTov irotiov tw Oeo). Sah renders 
 equjcuty iijuoq juft nrto-ffTE, holt eqipi JuiJUioq ftgicoc 
 neju 'ti"). 
 
 In Egypt then John xiv. 23 was i-ead with emphasis on iroir)crofi€6u. 
 or -noioufieda, which does not imply that the real " neutral " base was this, 
 but that in translation it assumed this force and possibly reacted on the 
 Greek. It did not react siifBciently to change the Greek tense, and on 
 the other hand the Greek did not act on sah sufficiently to force the 
 retention of the future tense. 
 
 My good friend Macaiius of Egypt comes once more to help us out 
 here. He quotes four times. In /ioju"'" he has iroiriaofi.ev. In 
 hoiii^^"^" he mixes '21/23 : Ka6u)<; \eyei oti efi^avKTia atna efiavjov 
 Kai fjLovy]v Trap avTW it onij a to (just as D -iroirtaofiai with e sijr etc 
 pcr-i), but 3/(7fa»''' "'""'' is very clear, separating 21/23, and quoting 23: 
 eyto Kai o -rraTtjp eXevaofitOa xat iiovi}v trap avTO) woitjir o fiev. Again 
 Jl/rtCrt)''"'''^"""''""""" is just as positive although slightly varying the 
 beginning. He writes thus there. . .Kai o Kvpio<;: eXeveroiieffa eyo> re xai o 
 iraTrjp fiou Kai fiovr)v Trap auTio it o itj cr o fi€V. 
 
 This is brilliant side-testimony contemporary with the oldest codices 
 wliich oppose with ir oii]a o fi€0 a. And if Macatiun was not influenced 
 by the nA.rt of the Coptic, I think we may rest fully assured that 
 ■iToi}j(Top.€v (and not iroirjeo/j^Oa) is the basic text, and was changed to 
 TTot r]<7 /ie6a by the family of codices under indictment. 
 
 My friends of the Opposition will find it hard to debate this question 
 against Macariii>i. The jury will not lightly put aside bis triple sworn 
 testimony. If then the jury is satisfied with my new witness (whom 
 Tischcndorf did not bring into Court) I see no outlet but for a favourable 
 decision at their hands on this and on the similar and cognate counts 
 which are sub jiidicibus. 
 
 Ts'otwithstanding Macaiius' testimony and that of the mass, and not- 
 withstanding all I have said above, I have no doubt that critical editors 
 will retain iron^a ofnOa till the end of time because it is such a 
 "good" rca-ling\ And that tells the usual tale of preferences versus 
 scientific princip'es. 
 
 The usual intimate relations of the latin iK c to the Coptic are 
 however maintained here ; for c alone writes " apud eum manemu-s " (cf. 
 Slav goth and sa.r), for " aput eum maiiebimus " of a, which mss do not, 
 like the vulgate and it"", use the literal " mansionemapud eumfacicmus." 
 
 [Note. D" substitutes eXevaotiai and noiTtao/iai with only d e 
 ve:iiam. . .faciam, supported by syr cu and pers, but not syr sin nor any 
 other. The adhesion of pcrs is interesting as making this change on the 
 part of V securely attributable to syriac influences, but otherwise 
 apparently not seriously basic, and influenced from half the clause at verse 
 21 previously]. 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN 3 GOSPEL. 
 
 391 
 
 xvi. 7. Another very distinct " pair." 
 
 InsleaAoi cav yap pi] aiTe\6a),o irapaK\ryro<! ovK eXevaerai 
 ■npot vfxai;, BL^ (33?) Lanra*"" C/ir, but these alone, sub- 
 stitute ov /IT) cXOt) for OVK cXevcerai, reading : 
 
 (av yap fitj aTteXOto, o Tra/jaeXijTO? ov fiT] eXdr] irpot Vfa<;. 
 Comment is unnecessary, but Hort swallows it whole (without 
 marginal alternative, Sodcn only has it in his margin), while 
 the Oxford edition of 1910 disallows it and returns to ovk 
 eXcvaetai (with Soden'-^^) but without a word in the margin or 
 in Souter's notes. [The mass and Paris" are with the 
 Revisers against Hort. Both Cyrils and Did Thdt are observed 
 to improvise with ov p-rj epxerai, as some versions.] 
 
 (Obs. the MS 33 in verse 10 substituting Tropevop.ai for v-nayay 
 alone with i'" v'" Soti!''' C/ict because of Tropevdw in verse 7 
 above, and the secret of " accommodation " is laid very bare.) 
 lG/17. See in ' Causes of Corruption,' by Burgon, pp. 10.5/10(). 
 
 22. apei (pro atpa) BDT IF-H'"' Sod"'^ [non minn vid] tpei N. 
 See under "Change of Tense" for Latin evidence, but the idea 
 of B (with copt) is apparently again a question of harmonising 
 pairs or triplets and by a change of a letter (not writing aipjjtrei'y 
 he makes a harmony of •n-aX/v Se 0-^op.ai vp.a<;, Kai xo-pV^^at 
 vpa>v rj KapSid, Kai rr^v y(apiv v/uov ovSeii apei a(j)' vfiav. 
 xvii. 11. /ca^w? Kat tj^i? (pro xaffav 77/ifn) B'MSUYn^ Sod"^' min""> 
 / g gal vg syr hicr 1/2 arm Ath [against Cyril]. The group is 
 feeble and savours very much of improvement : " iva aaiv kv 
 Kadto'; ( + Kai) ■qfjxi';." NDW[So(?c;i misquotes W on the other 
 side]^ and all the rest and the versions oppose B and this 
 small company. (Syr sin with a h c e ff r omits the whole of 
 the last clause in verse 11 from ro Be&oKa'; poi to the end). I 
 should like to know however upon what principles Hort and 
 Sodcn refuse to take up this addition of koi by B supported by 
 five other imcials and Ath. 
 
 ^ 33 aP et Sod'^-'' add after ev Kadax; ripeit 4-fi' eap-ev. ( + ev 
 X Sod'" 213). 
 12. See under " Coptic." In order to support m for ov<;, approxi- 
 mately the same authorities add kui before €if>vXa(a. This is 
 a much less difficult place to adjudicate than many, and seems 
 to me to be very clear manipulation. In verse 11 we have: 
 •najep ayte rrjprjtjov avrov^ €V tgj ovop^ari aov w Sc^wwa? fioi. 
 But in verse 12 : ore VH-V" /**''' civrav -(cv to) Koapio) eyto CTqpovv 
 avrov<; €V tw ovop-ari aov otit hihwKat poi ((^vXa\a, Kai 
 ovSeit; ef avTav airioXeTO. . . 
 
 t Tiichcndor/ neglects Scrivcner't codices and Clirysoslom (but sec Mallhaci 
 ad fee). 
 
8!)2 
 
 CODF.X D AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 The latter is manipulated to... 67a) errjpovv avrovv ev tq> 
 ovofiUTi o) SeSaxa'; /lot xat e<j)v\a(a. . .by BCLW 7 (0) 33 04 
 Palis'" .tail aim sijr hitr Ctjr M'-H [ml mg'] non Soden. As to 
 ball while giving <u it does not have xai before e<j)v\a^a, while 
 (/ Hil, who hold o&?, add xat before e<j>v\a^a. The presence 
 of Ci/r in the combination shows that it remained an Ahx- 
 ainJiidii tradition until his time. N hesitatinglj- writes : ore 
 rjfirjv fier avToJv E70) €Ti]povv avrovt ev to) ovo/iari k aov xai 
 ei^vKaaaov xai ovBt^ ef avraiv aircoXcTO. . . NT omits (o 8eSw/co? 
 fioi with mjr sin ; N'' inserts, with o for a (as Eran 7 and sah 
 hoh), and modifies Kai e^vXaaaov {Male Sod dc d r aim N*] 
 to Kai €<l>v\a^a retaining xat. 
 
 The Syriacs and Latins grouped are against this interpreta- 
 tion in verso 12. In verse 11 sijr sin and the majority of it 
 omit the last clause involving a SeSowo? /not tva oxriv ev Kaffw'; 
 
 xvii. 21. inarevr} (pio -maTevaTJ) ^*BC*'W Sod^'[non al.] Clem Etis 
 Tiscli ]V-H, against the rest and against Orig Ath Cyr and 
 Sod''''. See under " Change of Tense." This is probably 
 "improvement" to agree with the form of iriaTivovTav in 
 verse 20. If so, it is another rather forced pair, iriarevar) 
 is undoubtedly right. 
 22. iva (oaiv ev xaOo)^ Jj/iei? ev So (X)BC*DLW 1 [non favi] 33 
 397 (Paris'") d e sijr hier sin aeth Clem Hipp Eus 2/4 Cyr 2/3 
 W-H if Sod txt suppressing ea/iev. This may possibly be 
 basic, but X and Paris" are observed to manipulate a little 
 further, which is suspicious. N and Paris" write : tva aaiv 
 ev KaOav -qiieK Suppressing the final ev as well as ecr/iev, while 
 Chr suppresses the whole clause. 
 
 a" adds icai before ij/iet? and P" omits ijnei';. c inverts : sicut 
 siimiis nos nnum. {Soden neglects this testimony]. The 
 Coptics retain the verb. All this points to a rather equivocal 
 position for the minority, although eir/iev may be an addition. 
 Observe that the testimony of Ens and Cyr is on both sides, 
 xviii. .'iO. I fear that we must once more accuse B of an "improving" 
 tendency here. Among the following varieties B has only the 
 countenance of his friend L and of W, 3-et Hort and Soden 
 follow suit. 
 
 ei fir) 7)1' 0UT09 KaKov ■noiTjaat N* cf. sijr sail pf)'.?lff mali aliquid 
 
 BLN'WIf'-JfrfSorfj faciens 
 
 C*^ 33 Evst 63 a (1) male faciens 
 
 AN Gr'" Sod"''" f< Paris" Latt pi 
 
 (malefactor) vcrss Eus Chr Cyr. 
 
 It does not look favourable for B when Cyr is against him 
 
 in such a place, and when even X changes the tense (rather 
 
 KaKOV WOICOV 
 
 KaKO TTOICOV 
 
 KaKOTTOlO^ 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSriiL. 
 
 393 
 
 happily here although Tisch abandons N* and goes with 
 N'BLW and W-H Sod), and when ^</j improvises {xaKovpyot), 
 and Nonnus paraphrases unnecessarily with ei /irj erjv rfXeiro? 
 aipaTov KaKOV. It shows a little too much consideration of the 
 passage. None of Matthaei's or Scrivener's or Soden's cursives 
 know anything of any variation nor does Paris" so close to NB 
 hereabouts, 
 xviii. 34. OTTO aeavTOv av tovto XeyeK BC'LN^ Paris" Cyr 
 
 W-H tl Sod txt (Chr a-rro a-avTov. . .) 
 airo ffeavTov tovto eiirat N 
 
 All the rest including W and all reported cursives (but 
 Paris") have a<j> eavTov. . . followed by Tischeiidorf. 
 
 Surely, surely, if a(j> eavTov were the revision, a trace of a-rro 
 aeavTov would remain in some cursives. X has an excuse for 
 revising because his text (with D""'' and some cursives) lacks 
 av, but with BCLN^ and Cyr it seems to be a case of pure 
 revision, 
 xix. 20. We have been quite a while without an example of a " pair." 
 But the opportunity offers and B avails itself of it. We read 
 \r)(jov^ ovv (or Se) iStov rrjv firjTepa Kai tov iJ-aBrjTrjv -irapeiXTioTa 
 ov tiyaira \eyei Tr) fiijTpi avTov. . . . 
 
 Here NBLXW^ 1 22 138 2''' Paris" Sorf'"""^; j ^ „,.„i Cyr 
 W-H it Sod suppress avrov against all others and against 
 Origen. The reason seems to be because in the first part of 
 the verse iSav tijv /i-qTepa is without avTov, therefore avTov 
 should be absent on the second occasion. For a similar 
 reason the latins a c n and most versions (but absolutely no 
 Greeks but n and Sod"''" now first adduced by von Soden) 
 supply avTov after tt/k /ii}Tepa in the first place. Mj' critics 
 will please observe the advent of fl and Sod"''" and the 
 company which they keep. 
 29. -\-Tov (ante ofou? seciind.) BLW'? Sod''"' 1 33 138 2'"- and 
 X"" with the Georgian version, but these onlj' followed by U'-H 
 and Soden. It seems to be a sheer "improvement" em- 
 phasising the matter upon the second mention of the vinegar : 
 " aKevot exeiTO o^ov; fieoTOV ' airoyyov ovv fiemov tov ol^ov<^. . . 
 It is in reality another question of the consideration given to 
 "pairs." [Soden says " Kat 1 tov H"°," but Schmidtkc's 
 edition says nothing of the kind, printing ixeoTov o^ov^ without 
 Tov and without any Kai). 
 XX. 6 init. epxerai ovv xai ^t/ia>v Herpo? tBLX et X'T"W 33 50- 
 58-61 397 Sod'" rr/^" W-H <f Sod frt. 
 
 t WorAnoorih omits B*', and does not record tliat r (which ho mention's) rcails 
 exactly with the Coptics autein ct and not ergo et as vg^^^. 
 
804 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 {(i) and arm substitute «ot for ovv, but none add exactly as 
 the above (except ki/®*') besides the sah and boh versions 
 which have epxerai Se xat as r alone of the Latins, so that 
 I cannot place it exactly under "Coptic" or "Coptic and 
 Latin." It seems to be undoubtedly an " innproving " 
 accretion in common with sah boh and could not have been 
 dropped by all the others if basic. Syr pesh and sin (now 
 available again) have Se without xat as the latin fragment v. t 
 The Coptics preserve this Xe but add gujq {boh), goouuq 
 Oft (."ah). This gcjuq, and not oit simply, implies improve- 
 ment to the narrative and equates etiam ipse as to Peter. 
 Hence it is an accretion in sah boh which overflowed to 
 BLXW. The others ignore it, including '^ and Paris" and 
 Cyril (Pers and Georg have no copula at all). 
 XX. 13. I cannot let this little matter pass without remark. The text 
 runs with great simplicity : — 
 
 " Kat \eyov<Tiv avrri exeivot ' yvvai, ri xXatei'! ; \676t avTOK ' OTt 
 ^ipav Tov Kvpiov ixov Kai ovk oiSa irov tdrfxav avTov." 
 Two slight changes of the same nature are here made respectively 
 by N and B. 
 
 N elides the initial xat, alone of Greeks (with 397 [Sod^'"]) and against 
 the weight of evidence, but in the Coptic manner with sah syr sin pers 
 and some Old Latins. Not so B. 
 
 B, on the other hand, alone of Greeks, adds Kat as an introduction 
 before the woman's reply, reading xai Xeyei avroK . on ijpav. . . . 
 
 This seems a small matter, but it is really of the utmost importance. 
 At such a place an examination of the versions is immensely profitable. 
 First then how do the Latins stand ? None add any copula in the second 
 place, but the reviser of q shows what he thought about it by improvising 
 " quae dixit " alone of Latins for dicit eis, actually suppressing outoj? as 
 £»s"'" when reporting the matter " jj Se etirev " supplying an aiitem. Has 
 B then no support from sah boh syr? No, none at all. They do not 
 provide a copula, and pers beautifully says tnrev without avToii. When 
 our investigation reaches aeth and arab they follow B's intuition and add 
 with him a xai. Turn now to georg and the later sax and they also 
 find it necessary to add something. But they add Tunc. 
 
 When Dean Burgon characterised N and B as " two false witnesses " 
 was he so very far wrong ? Is the evidence at this place not absolutely 
 conclusive of the non-neutral character of their thinking process? 
 
 [In this conversation much more may be learned. Observe N in 
 verses 15 and 16 again.] 
 
 t Correct von Soilen as to r and v. r reads aittem et but v only autem. Therefore 
 ulistitutc V for r in Sodcn's apparatus under " om. uni'." 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 395 
 
 XX. 19. OTTov rjaav 01 puOrfrai { — (rvvrjyfievoi) N'ABDIWA* 44' 95 
 122* 240' k*" 0*"* Sod""^'" [ambo in Sinai] a? d q p. dim 
 gat anr vgg 1/2 Vigil Taps syr pesh sin ct W-H. 
 
 This aggregation may look strong, but we miss the usual 
 supporting cui-sives for such an omission, if basic. We miss 
 LX^ among the Greek uncials, while syr hier sah boh aeth 
 arm georg slav (Mat goth) all have avvrjypevot with Ens Cyr^" 
 and 6 c efffg r 8 of the Latins. 
 
 The followers of Hort are requested to place awrtyitevoi in 
 the margin. Soden retains it in his text ! 
 
 It is not as if B were not given to " improvement." In the 
 very next verse we have another " pair " : 
 
 20. Kai -Tat X"P"? " « « ti/c wXevpav by BA apparently quite 
 alone, where the first xai has been inserted to " rhyme " with 
 Kat trjv irXevpav. No others do it, not W nor L nor ^ nor a 
 single minuscule, nor can Soden produce one new witness 
 among all his sympathetic codices. No Latins do it, no other 
 version reflects it, yet Hort calmly includes it in his text with- 
 out a syllabic in the margin to indicate that only two Jiss out 
 of thousands read thus. The Oxford edition of 1910 rejects it 
 without comment. But if ever anything were deliberate and 
 not " unconscious " (as Hort says) on the part of B, this small 
 matter is an example of deliberation. And observe that Hort 
 rejected the reading of B above at xx. 13. He takes the xai 
 here because A (alone) supports. Can foolishness go further ? 
 
 xxi. 11. ave^v B etc., or eve^n NLW^', +ovv NBCLNXH-WSl' Sorf"" 
 1 [«o»i/n»i] 22 33 91 138 239 2^ Laura* '" Sod''' "" "" r vg'"' 
 boh sah syr hier Cyr (and c vg" slao tunc adscendit, syr pesh 
 sin aeth et adscendit). 
 
 This is against D and the other twelve uncials plus 11*, all 
 the other minn, all the Latins except c, arm georg and pers, 
 and looks very much like an addition to improve the sense. 
 Notwithstanding the imposing array for +ovv I challenge it, 
 and when the supporting testimony is analysed it proves to be 
 weak, and not homogeneous. 
 
 21. rovTov + ovv NBCD [non Sod'"'] 33 it vg boh sah Orig Anast 
 
 Cyr W-H <C [Sod]. 
 [ However in various endeavours elsewhere, in between these 
 places, to be graphic in this chapter, the matter of copulas is 
 manipulated by many of our documents, and it would not be 
 wise to be didactic as to any of the numerous changes which 
 follow.] 
 23. OVK etirev &e (pro Kat ovk emev) NBCW 33 Sod^ «" c boh 10/20 
 sail 2/3 syr pesh hier sin verss al. aliq. Orig Cyr Chr"^'' '"'• 
 n'-H [non Sod] (Om. copul.sah 1/3 boh 10/20 [hos ncgl. Sod.]). 
 
3^'i CODEX B AND ITS ALLIKS. 
 
 This is distinctlj- what one would expect. " This word then 
 went abroad among the brethren that that disciple would not 
 die ; but Jesus did not sa)'. . . " 
 
 whereas the majority of Greeks, with the Latins, arm, and 
 iictli [but the latter is negligible] say xat ovk eivev, which 
 seems far less natural. But that is just the point. If Se 
 were basic, who would ever have thought of changing to 
 xai ? Clearly, we end as we began, with a charge against 
 the B group — whatever its subsidiary company may be — of 
 manipulation of the record. The translator of pers saw so 
 clearly how the sentence should run, to convej' its full sense, 
 tliat, going beyond the syriac, he says : " baud (tamen) quod 
 non moriturus esset, dixit (Jesus), sed si velim. . ." bringing 
 the sed in very late. As Malan translates : " though he did 
 not say that he may not die, but if I wish. . ." 
 
 I do not fear to be accused of straining a point (and observe 
 that Tischendorf and Soden reject the NBCW group here in 
 verse 23), because in the very next verse B doctors the 
 xxi. 24. record by adding xai (see under " Solecisms ") and generally 
 shows a desire in this chapter to emphasise matters. Because 
 Cijril joins B and the new MS W (the complete group for 6 
 Kat /lapTvptov is now BW Cyr [Soden adds Up]) it does not 
 mend matters. The very same point appealed to a small 
 minority of late Latins, who add ille and write " Hie est 
 discipulus ille qui testimonium. . . ." 
 
 Change without Impvovoiient. 
 
 iv. 46. ev icava {jiro tt? tj;!/ xavav) BN so/i.f Is this neutral? Is 
 it ? I insist upon an answer, for it is either deliberate or the 
 grossest kind of carelessness. It is not " neutral " apparently 
 for Hort and the Oxford edition and Soden cast it out of their 
 texts, nor could they do otherwise. Well, then it fulfils the 
 other alternative of rank carelessness ; but what kind of care- 
 lessness? Evidently from a concurrent J.'fjs/oH. It is in the 
 original Greek an instance of the accusative of motion after 
 TJkdev. The verse opens : rfkdev ovv traXiv €t? ttjv xava. 
 Kava being treated as indeclinable the Latins say in Cana, but 
 the Coptics CTKArtA. (to the Cana). N however declines 
 it and avoids any chance of difficulty by writing et? ttjv xavav 
 (cf. some r/jg). B, unless he was somnolent while looking 
 
 t Sadcn reports 348 (his '^') for etc Kava { — ttjv), and further adds in support of B for 
 fu Kuva X'' (his A') and Sod"" "" tlie former at Sinai, the latter now at Alhot, but both 
 large!}' sliaring version influence elsewhere, as does 348 most distinctly and a real 
 ■•villierciit of the H faniilj-. 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 397 
 
 at the Coptic, must have written it in from the Latin, as 
 probably N. At any rate it is not only at the opposite pole 
 to a " neutral " reading, but it shows carelessness due to a 
 sight of a version. Many things have previously tended in 
 this direction. Must I go further than this to prove my point ? 
 The critics certainly cannot fall back here on a joint common 
 (?reek base being responsible for readings visible in B and 
 Coptic, or B and Latin, as they are never tired of dinning into 
 my ears, and trying to make me appear over-ingenious or 
 foolish. If the said imaginary lost Greek base influenced B 
 why do the editors not adopt the reading ? 
 
 One word more. In verse 47 (following) B, with NCLT" 
 and DW with frag gr-copt (graecd) Crum-Kcn, 33 69 [non 
 fnm] 213 314 892 Sod}^" {non Paris"] only of Greeks and a rf e 
 I q foss Orig, writes xai i)pana sine avTov with W-H Sod txt 
 (against all the rest of the Greeks, the Syriacs, the Coptics 
 and Aethiopic, which have avrov). Hence it was a Graeco- 
 Latin which doubtless misled B in verse 46. 
 
 In verse -50 again B with only NDW Sod'"'"" sah c d I 
 eg Cyr W-H d- Soden writes eTriinevcrev without a copula, 
 against all the rest xai e-iriaT. and LT" 213 314 892 s'" einaT. 
 he. Although this style is Coptic, none but two hoh codices 
 suppress the copula here. It is again Latin or Sahidic 
 influence, 
 vi. 23. BNW only of uncials and 71 127 with ten other cursives and 
 a dozen more of Soden add tt)? before TiffeptaSo<;. It does not 
 seem to be called for nor do Tischendorf or Hort or Soden 
 insert the article. Why not? Is B's "underlying Greek 
 text " not basic here, supported as it is by N W and a score of 
 cursives ? 
 xiii. 18. The whole spirit of the Gospels is lost on B and on his 
 frequent consorts CL. Here is a case. For : " aXA, iva 17 
 ypaKpT] ■nXrfpadri • o Tpmymv p,eT e/iov rov aprov eirripev (or 
 evTipKev) ETT efie tijv irrepvav avrov " of practically all authorities, 
 BCL and four cursives (127* 249 b'^' 892) t vg'^' [against all 
 Latins and Tert] aeth sah [iwn boh] Eus^'" [but not Ens"""] 
 Cyy^nm [^^,„t not Cyc'^'] Oi-Jj/era^''"" [but against himself close 
 by elsewhere] read p-ov rov apzov, apparently straining after 
 the language of Psa. xl. 10 xai yap o avOptoirm ri}<t ejpijz/i/? /lov 
 e<j> ov €\-maa, o eaOiav aprov; p-ov epeyaXvvev eir e/ie 
 ■mtpviaiiov. But our Lord did not say "as it is written" 
 but " in order that the scripture might be fulfilled," and if he 
 
 t plus 213 (So(V^ Sod>™ "" "" '■" * " (and Soden txt »/ioii w ithont (iir", e^ idenllj- nn 
 error for ixov [see his note " iifT tfinv 1 ftnv etc. "J). 
 
•^^^ CODEX B AND ITS ALLIKS. 
 
 chose to utter prophetic words, or John wrote down a wording 
 agreeing with the fulfihnent of the prophecy, would not BCL 
 Olio have done well to hold to it and not to turn up the 
 I'salm for " control." As a matter of fact B bungles another 
 matter, for he (and he alone) writes tyue for eir e/ie in the second 
 clause, affaiiist the language of the Psalm. I fear Origen is 
 implicated in the first misquotation, for he (once) is against 
 himself (thrice) for /ttr efiov with ND V)w" and W^ all 
 minuscules (but those named), and Paris" it rg Ens""" 
 C/)?'''» C(/r''' rhdt"'" and all versions but aeth sah. In the 
 Latin, mecum jmnem might easily have become vmim panem 
 with some, but it has not. Only vg'^ (possibly I'l/") have this, 
 while q has mecum panem menm as E" and four boh mss. 
 I cannot enter this under Coptic, for boh so positively opposes 
 sah which goes with BCL. It must remain a lamentable 
 exhibition of a »io)(-neutral text, which Hort has foisted on 
 to us, printing the sentence in capital letters as a quotation, 
 which it is not (for it does not even say " that the scripture 
 may be fulfilled which saith," but merely "that the scripture 
 may be fulfilled"), and failing to see the beauty of the 
 application of the words to its fulfihnent. Hort has no 
 marginal alternative and no note in ' Select Beadings,' but 
 Souter does not feel perfectly happy about his master's 
 wonderful methods here. While his Oxford edition of the 
 J?. ['. keeps fiou in the text it gives us not only fier efiov in 
 the margin, but Souter jots down the evidence besides in his 
 note. Will he please observe now that while 892 goes with 
 B, which he forgot to note (covering the three mss bj' " al. 
 pane") that W and Paris" oppose, as well as Tertvllian. And 
 will Soden please to note that his text " efiou " is without MS 
 support. 
 
 (The only authority to strive after verbal conformity to the 
 LXX is e, which has adampliauit = efieyaXwev for the ewr)pev 
 or evjipKev of the rest. This Tischendorf does not mention 
 nor Soden.) 
 
 In a case of this kind the supporting cursives should be 
 carefully examined. He should not say "min pane" but 
 specify them. Sometimes a mixed band of cursives t join 
 N or B for a reading in which some common change is judged 
 desirable, or is the result of a common error, but this lot, 
 127 249 892 b'", is not a common lot. In fact the only 
 
 t This is anotlier point which Soden does not app-reciafce, for he omits cursives 
 reporteil by MiU, Wctstcin anil the older collators even when B has no other support but 
 that o( these. 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 399 
 
 13. 
 
 semi-outsider is b"'. The other three have definite affiliations 
 with the B stem and the B traditions.f They have weight 
 merely as confirming that B or the prototype of B read thus. 
 They do not represent a separate line. 127 is a very critical 
 codex (sometimes alone with Origen), 249 excessively so, and 
 892 is about as close a late document as we can get to B. 
 Soden's added mss will also bear investigation. 
 
 Observe next that when Hort prints this as a quotation in 
 capitals, following the form of BCL, it does not yet agree 
 with the LXX, the printed text of which (exactly as in B's 
 own Old Testament volume) has aprou? /lov and not fiov tov 
 apTov, so that it should not be dignified with capitals. 
 
 Another point remains to be noted. The LXX quotation 
 closes ' €7r e/J-e ■mepviap.ov ' as against ' etr e/ie rrjv Trrepvav 
 avTov.' Where was 33 above? Absent from the B ranks. 
 But here, with G9 [non fam] 71 248 253 259 7''^ Sod'"'' and 
 Origen 1/4 Eus^'^ it suppresses t?;i' before vrepvav to get as 
 near theO.T. quotation as it can. The testimony therefore of 
 33 here is important against B in the previous matter. Finally 
 the Chr codices vary much among themselves, some following 
 the LXX for trTeppiaiiov, showing how all turned up the 
 passage for control. Yet none but BCL, those cursives named, 
 aeth sah, one latin codex, Hort, Soden and the Oxford edition 
 propose to mutilate the N.T. record. 
 
 Similarly B is implicated with all other Greeks (axovaei or 
 aKovarfi in apparently changing the axovet of NL \ircgL Sod 
 L] 33 A th 1/2 Cyr 1/2 b e I foss Ambr 1/2 slav goth sax ; as 
 Tisch Bays " offendebat axovei et propter \a\r)a€i mutandum 
 videbatur." One boh MS and aeth georg have the past tense 
 rjKovcre, which here properly ranks with the present as against 
 the future. Of course it is possible to argue from a doctrinal 
 point of view that the more authoritative present tense in 
 speaking of the Third Person of the Trinity has been put in by 
 NL 33, but no one of these mss is given to this kind of thing, 
 and it may well be basic, particularly as b supports. I have 
 great confidence in 6 in cases of this kind, i Compare the 
 
 t Observe 127 at xiv. 26/27 +fYia with BL alone, and note 249 in countless places. 
 
 X Observe in xvi. 18 the " shorter text " in KDW fam 1 fam 13 al, jiauc. and raris"' 
 oil —6 \fyfi with bad effsyr Jiier arm sah georg, whereas B with the lonely company 
 of 213 397 aelh omits ri XuXti at the end of the verse, which Hort proceeds to place in 
 square brackets, leaving the previous o Xtyei to stand. What kind of " neutral " is this 
 with only these in support? The Oxford edition removes the square bracket and scouts 
 the idea of B's " neutrality." Another sunstroke of B, no doubt. Soden produces the 
 two cursive witnesses named, viz. 213 and 397. Observe them elsewhere with B. But 
 Soden does not remove n XaXri on their added authority, recognising that they are of 
 one plumage. 
 
J 00 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 amplification in verse 15 &ia tovto eiitov ori e/c rov e/iov 
 Xa/i/Jd'vei (corresponding to uKovci) xai avayyeXei vfuv 
 liy B and the mass. 
 
 (X lacks all verse 15 from an error of homoioteleuton ; N° 
 has XrifiijreTat and avayyeWei). 
 .\ix. ]'2. (xpavyacrav Xeyovre'; {pro expavya^ov \ey. vel expa^ov \€y.) 
 BD'""4' 33 131 157 249 435 604 al. aliq. et Sod""'^ et a. 
 
 Westcott and Hort adopt this change of tense although 
 Xf-yoi/Tf? follows, and they do it against the vast majority and 
 ii<;ainst Cyr {expa^ov) and against Origen {cKpavya^ov). Wiser 
 far are the Kevisers who recall expatpv Xeyovre^, and Soden 
 with expavya^ov Xeyovje';. 
 
 a has eXeyov for exp. XeyovrK and Paris" expavya^ov without 
 XeyovTC';, and 71 expa^ov without Xeyovrc';, none apparently 
 (xpavyaaav without \e70i'T€9. 
 ^.V^. eXtyixa [pro p.iyim) N 'BW soM (« malagmam). N° corrects 
 this. It cannot be right, although Hort has to adopt it in his 
 text. B then substitutes a roH for a mixture. (With N and W 
 the case is not quite the same; see below). And e adopts a 
 kind of half-way house with malagmam for mixturam. As to 
 liiyfia it is itself an dwa^ \ey. in the N.T. : eXty/ta does not 
 occur at all, and forms of eXiaaa only twice (Heb. i. 12 eXi^eK, 
 llev. vi. 14 eXtaaofuvov). A few MSS read <r/uyiia, but Sodcn 
 ciinnot find any additional testimony for eXtypM. 
 
 Now, while B alone has ipeptov eXiypa, N and W have 
 ex<'>v eXiypM. This eX""" '^ pure bohairic [against sah 
 A.qElftE = rfveyxe as syr pesh and other versions]. How €x<ov 
 of boh (which has oifJUllVJUl*., as sah no-eUilTiXA.) came to 
 be tacked on to eXiypa and replace <l>eptov p,iypM of all other 
 (.Treeks and all other versions would be a mystery if I had not 
 already shown the extraordinary and hitherto unappreciated 
 dose inter-relationship of the versions with the Greek mss of 
 ICyypt. Incidentally this very ix^v of NW boh (soli inter 
 omn.) is ample proof that boh is as old as XW. They must 
 linve got it from boh. Boh could not have got it from them 
 not being in close enough sympathy in the neighbourhood to 
 warrant any accusation that boh had used X or W in trans- 
 lating. And observe the ex«>v (lit. cui est) is used by fco/i™" t 
 and is basic. As to eXiyfia substituted for piypa by XW, 
 taken in connection with ex<a'J substituted for <^epa)v, it is clear 
 that both X and W were using some critical helps. Possibly 
 noiue early Egyptian commentary explained that p,iyp.a. 
 
 t Only 
 
 (),e ;,„7,LntcMS has " nnJ he brought " OTOg Aqiftl as «a7i"n"> AqcmE- 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 401 
 
 involved a package of some kind and used the word cXiypu. 
 But eXiy/ia must be wrong or it would have overflowed into 
 the Coptic. The Coptic words corresponding to fuypa (here 
 transliterated plainly from the Greek) are quite different. 
 Note. It has often been said that W-H have been unfairly accused 
 
 of printing the readings of B alone. Yet here is a case in point. They 
 
 print <f)epiov eXtypa, which is only read by B. 
 
 Indeterminate. 
 
 ii. G. >Xiewai v&ptat (pro vSpiai XiOivai) XBLX^P 33 185 314 
 Paris" Sod^*^ only of Greeks, plus armf only of Version?, 
 plus c only of Latins and vgg aw W-H and Soden texts. 
 
 This order of the ten Greeks is opposed by all other 
 Greeks and 892, by both Coptics, by the Syriac \lnant syr cii 
 sin], and by all Old Latins but c. 
 
 It is very clearly a question here of a real "neutral" text 
 for XB (since they are agreed and supported by the subsequent 
 copyists LX^) or of a deliberate change, for a reason which I 
 do not understand. t Malan makes his artn codex read with 
 them, and it is the way the saxon expresses it, but this is 
 merely following vulgate order, which St. Jerome obtained 
 from a codex similar to XB. The suspicious part is the 
 solitarv' adherence ol c[D d are still missing] with which even 
 the Aethiopic does not agree (= hydriae sex lapidiae), for c 
 has been tinged with much Egyptian revision. How is it that 
 all the rest are opposed to these ten Greeks and c ? 
 
 Note that X with a e arm subsequently omits xet/ievai. 
 This shows that the foundation of the arm text here is similar, 
 as well as old. 
 vi. 45. The textus receptus reads o axovaa^ and paOav (was o axovaa(i 
 ■jrapa tov Trarpo? xai /laffiov ep^^rat irpot pe) in which it is 
 supported by XABCKLTH Sod"" al. c f ffX vg Orif/" Cyr'^', 
 but opposed by o axovwv of the rest and a b d e g q foss gat 
 Hil etc. Who is right? Tert seems to show that he read 
 axovaat, for alluding (Prax) he says Omnem qui a iiatre 
 AUDissET et DIDICISSET venire ad se. Here it is true he reads 
 didicisset into paOwv, whereas paffmv seems to imply a con- 
 tinuance of action. 
 
 It is a pretty place to try and settle. 
 
 t Observe thut 71 348 omit Xi^ivnc and 6" omits Xitfii'm rj [neither mentioned by 
 Tischl. Docs this cursive (so important often elsewhere), not mentioned here by Smien, 
 perchance hold the original base ? 
 
 t r is mutilated here, although Soden quotes it with e fff. 
 
 2 D 
 
•102 C()Di;X B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 .lollll 
 
 xi. -^4. I confess to the feeling of being on very tender ground here. 
 In the final clause xaxet Bierpi^ev iiera twv /xo^tjtmi' of most 
 and ]), \Yith ltitt,HBh\V only with 249 397 Paris" Soti'"'"",- Oriff 
 snbstitute e/ieivev for Sierpi/Sev. This is also clearly shared by 
 anh hoh (acth '?), using Aqcytonc here (as against a different ex- 
 pression in iii. 22), although Tischendorf does not mention it. He 
 remarks " Bterpt^ev veto praetcr hunc locum in N.T. non Icgitur 
 itisi Jiih iii. 22 ct passiin in actis." We have had Sterpt^ev 
 before then in St. John at iii. 22 in exactly the same kind of 
 jihrase : " xai exei Sierpiffev fieT aviwv xai el3avTi^ev," but 
 WG have also had e/j-etvev several times (iv. 40 xat efietvev exet 
 Svo 7]fiepa<;, ii. 12 Kai exei e/iewav ov ttoXXo? ijfiepa';, X. 40 xai 
 efieivev exei, and in this chapter at xi. 6 rote /jlcv e/ieivev cv a 
 i)v TOTTei) hvo rtfi€pa<;). 
 
 The double argument can therefore be drawn, first that 
 the mass of authorities borrowed hierpifiev from John iii. 22 
 by way of improvement [but why should they want to im- 
 prove here?], or secondly that NBLW recollected, preferred, 
 or borrowed efietvev from the other passages cited. Sterpt^ev 
 does not occur again in St. John, whereas fiiva occurs many 
 times (notably at xiv. 2.5 raura XeXaXrixa vfitv trap vfuv fievav) 
 and is a word whose parts occur over thirty times in St. 
 John's Gospel with a variety of subjects (of the Spirit at 
 the Baptism, of the body of Jesus remaining on the cross, 
 ot the beloved disciple remaining till he came etc.) besides 
 being of frequent occurrence in St. John's epistles. Therefore 
 speaking in a Johannine way efietvev would be much more 
 familiar to the ear than Sterpt^ev. As 249 joins the little 
 band for efietvev, and was with them in other questionable 
 changes in ch. xi., I incline to think that efietvev is revision 
 ot the basic text, for what purpose it is difficult to say. 
 Certainly Sterpt^ev is the proper antithesis to TtepieitaTet at 
 the beginning of the verse rather than the colourless efietvev. 
 A solid consensus of syr and latin here for Sterpt^ev opposes 
 the few Greeks with copt for efietvev, and Burkitt'a canon here 
 can be applied in favour of syr and lat, the more so in view 
 of the rest of the bad record of those favouring efietvev. 
 I have a feeling that efietvev is due to Origen's restless activity. 
 He quotes thrice, each time with NBLW efietvev, just as, a 
 little further on, at xi. 57, Origen''" with only NBIMW and 
 eight cursives (so W-H cO Soden texts) countenances the 
 substitution of evToXai: for evToXrfv of all other MSS and all 
 versions. NB Origcn here mean to imply the giving of com- 
 mands right and left to take our Lord, and were not satisfied 
 with evToX-fv. Lest I should be misunderstood in saying 
 
 D IN ST. John's gospel. 
 
 403 
 
 nil 
 
 that I have a feeling about Origen deliberately making the 
 other change, I would add that Chrysostom"" gives away the 
 mental attitude involved, by confirming my views as to the 
 second case, as he writes «at eScoxav ■napayye\ia<; [non cit. 
 Sod], varying the word but expressing the plural. 
 
 Westcott and Hort say nothing in ' Notes on Select 
 Headings ' about SteTpt^ev/efietvev—vrhich surely is a key-note 
 to revision on one side or the other— although in these notes 
 on the veiy verse they discuss the locality of the place 
 mentioned. Observe my remarks on xiv. 7 under " Synonyms," 
 which throw a strong sidelight on the matter. 
 
 [Another substitution occurs at xiv. 16, of the Paraclete, 
 
 where N and B and LQX, but in difi'ering positions, substitute 
 
 V for fiivrj of most, but fi^v?) here may have crept in from the 
 
 fievet used in verse 17 following]. 
 
 xvi. 28. €« Tot/ Trarpo? BC'LX^?[Sorf contra Lale]^ 33 249 
 
 Sod'"* n.o ,am K.CN ^^ipj^ jy_jj^ ^f. g^^ ^^, 
 
 ■rrapa tov irarpo? N rell et ^ minn Cyr (Chr ano) (Cf. verss) 
 {-e^tfXeov Ttapa tov ttot/jo? DW b d {e ff) ) Qp. verse 27 and 
 the end e^riXOov, reduplicated at the beginning of verse 28. 
 
 B and Origen in Conflict. 
 
 vi. 9. 
 
 50. 
 
 52. 
 
 vii. 39. 
 
 BAD'GUAW*- «w)i" W'H <(; Soden, but Orig Cyr 6 
 with N So(i"° and the rest. 
 arroevrtaicT, B Eus soli et W-H"". Orig aTtoOavr, as all 
 
 others (but ^' awoXr/Tat, and redvrj^eTat Cletn'"""''''^) . 
 TTjv aapKa av-rov BTJ 892 r but opposed by Orig and 
 
 Sod'"*''<'o^'-'-^y salt boh aeth ] Cj/r who read with the large 
 arm syr if' Orig'"*' [ W-H txt] i majority ttji; aap«a. 
 + aytov SeSofievov BX" (254) e q syr hier Orig""' 1/3, but 
 distinctly against Orig''""-" and Orig''" elsewhere, who with 
 NKTn^ Sod'" Cyr Hesych add nothing. (See under " Con- 
 flation " for further remarks.) 
 vni. 52. Oavarov ov firf eecoprftrrj (pro ov fir] yevatfrat ffavarov) B 
 213 Paris" Evst 32 e (sax) contra mundum ct contra Orig'"'. 
 See remarks under " Improvement." 
 x. 8. aXX ovK B omn. (aXXa ovk DX) but Orig thrice rat ovk with 
 pers only and vg^'. Soden does not deign to notice this thrice 
 repeated reading of Origen. Why not ? Pers [not mentioned 
 
 t I have grave doubts as to Sodm'a correctness in such places as to *. Notice here 
 in his upper notes that he adds D (Ja«6) for « rou narpm whereas in the lower ones he 
 admits that D with W omits the clause altogether I 
 
 2 D 2 
 
XI 1 
 
 xiii 
 
 404 COnEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 .h,hn 
 
 by Tinciiciiclorf (never quoted by Soclen)] is a most important 
 
 witness, perhaps going back of syy sin here. 
 
 N. 18. vpev NB soli et W-H txt, but OrJgrP'"''" with all the rest aipei. 
 
 41. > ewotrjaev rir}fieiov ovSe ev Orig with KLMXII and W^ 157 
 
 and a tew against arjiisiov eTroirjcrev ouSev of B and most. 
 
 xi. 4.'). Kai Oeaa-afievot o eiroinaev BC*D IF-H'" tf Sod>''^, but a 
 
 Qy.igv\«T\n ^itjj tijQ majority. 
 
 .')0. oTi (jvii^epei iva eh av0pii)-iro<; airoOavri v-rrep tov \aov So KX"" 
 sah"^' 2-5'2 Thdt Clir, as in xviii. 14, without vfuv or ij/uv ; but 
 BDLMXr add v/iiv after avfiipepet with On'j'"', whereas 
 Q,.,jj,wiiiiM ^yitii Eiistath and Ci/»' is for the addition of vf^^v, 
 as are AEGHIKSUAAHW^ So(Z"=° wiwm>" c / j- r e<c. sa/i 
 .■ji/)- arm aeth and all other versions except the itala. As to 
 W that MS joins the latter company and Origen. 
 ■'iS. For avve^ovXevaavTo Origen witnesses twice with the mass, 
 and but once for e^ovXevaavro of NBDW Sod"'" "'■ ''"» Ath 
 (Paris" reads avvefiovKevaavTo) . 
 ffvyuTep N mult et Orig''", duyariip B mult. 
 Origen is on both sides many times, but, as edited, has irapaSai 
 against TrapaSoi of N'BD* soli cum W-H txt [nil mg]. 
 Origen C>jl confirms N and c vg Hier Tert for viijraaffai with- 
 out any addition. 
 + OTI before ovx' Travret BCLW 33 213 Sod"" Cyr W-H d- 
 
 [Sod], but not Orig. 
 > vfiiv \e7(u B*"' pers (pro Xeyia vfiiu rell et Ath Orig*-"). At 
 X. 7 where B does the same thing Orig is not available; at 
 X. 1 Clem Cijr Clir Lucif and Orig'"^ oppose B. 
 -TOT€ NDL 21'= Paris" Soi^'^' i/"' syr sin boh 1/3 sah Cyr 
 and Origen 3/7. When he does add he says ena. 
 -{8. EM? av 2-")l and Origen [Sod does not mention Origen^, but 
 6M? ov KB and all except X = ew? (— ou). 
 {Origen's looseness is seen at xiii. 19 where he has eirav for 
 OTav once, and xiii. 27 eira for rore). 
 XV. 4. petvT] most and Ens Cyr, and efifiewji Orig, but Aiev?; NBL 
 
 213 Paris" W-H cf Soci. 
 
 xvi. 25. epxerai (-aWa) NBC'D*LXYn'' and W i[non /am] 33 
 
 69 [iwn fam] 213 Paris" Sod"^ ""' sa/i etc. (see under " Coptic 
 
 and Latin") but against Orig Ath and Cyr, who have 
 
 aWa. 
 
 xvii. 21. TTiarevr] X*BC*W Clem Eiis W-H, but irio-Teuo-ij all others 
 
 and Orig Ath Cyr and Sod txt. 
 6. -OTt NBADLNXnW^ Sorf"" but against Ong' and Cyr. 
 12. expavyaaav Xeyovrei BD""!"^ mm"'"' a IF-fl", but Orig 
 expavya^ov \ey. with W and many, and expa^ov Xey. Cyr and 
 many. 
 
 . 2 
 10 
 11, 
 21. 
 
 27. 
 
 XVIU. 
 
 xix 
 
 B IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 40.') 
 
 xix. 26. -avTov alter irjpriTpi NBLXW^' 1 22 138 Paris" SofZ""""' 
 6 e Cyr W-H it Sod txt but none of the others nor N nor 
 Origen. 
 34. > Tvv wXevpav avrov Orig^''' and 69-346 2.58 317 348 397 Eost 
 &i bis Paris" t only of Greeks with lat syr, against avjov ti;i/ 
 irXevpav all other Greeks, Coptic and {Eus). 
 41. cTeOi] nearly all and Origen, but NBW Paris" Laura* "^ and 
 
 Cyr ijv reOeiiuvot. 
 XX. 17. > pr) a-mov p.ov B*"' Tcrt et verss aliq but Origen'^''"' with 
 all others and a host of supporting Patristic testimony pij 
 pov airrov, 
 23. Tiwo? bis B (sol inter gr) a c f syr Cypr Orig'"'' Ens Aug 
 Pacian Anct'"'"', but against the other Latins, against all the 
 Greeks [but B] and against Origen'''^t Bas Cyr'"" Novat etc. 
 xxi. 23. -oi-To? 3 2-50 c"? y" al. ? and Origen with Chr 1/2 Cyr 1/2, 
 while NBCDW 1 33 2'" latt syr copt place odtot before o X0709, 
 and the rest after it. Origen therefore is the most " neutral " 
 of the three groups. 
 
 t Titch omits 258 and Eval 03. PoriB" is new testimony. 
 
 t Unless TUclt hae greatly erred. Soden quotes Qp as if OrigcrCe Greek on the side 
 o( B where Orig^"^ only seems to belong. 
 
10(1 
 
 CHAPTEE X. 
 
 \. 
 
 " Tho real text o( the Sacrod Writers (I003 not now, since the originals have been 
 10 long lost, lie in any Hs or edition, but is dispersed in them all." — Benlley. 
 
 " No authority has an unvarying value, no authority is ever homogeneous." — 
 Wotcotl (' SI. John's Oospd,' p. xc). 
 
 EPILOGUE. 
 
 The foregoing pages leave much unsaid. Many grave passages 
 have not passed under review, because they have often been dealt with 
 elsewhere. But the composite picture left seems absolutely opposed to 
 d superior claim first for the shorter text ; secondly for the neutral and 
 unprejudiced text ; thirdly for a text free from local preferences of 
 grammar and syntactical structure. On the contrary, Hort's description 
 of the MS B is contradicted again and again, and I have found him follow- 
 ing B with additions more often than with subtractions. But enough 
 has perhaps been said about all these matters. 
 
 What I wish to emphasise in this Epilogue is that the assumption 
 (upon which the text of W-Ii is absolutely and indubitably founded), 
 viz. that a conjunction of NBL must be right, carries with it the corollary 
 that everything else — twenty uncials and the versions combined — is wrong 
 if opposing. It seems like an unnecessary truism to state this at all. 
 But the point involved is a grave one. It lies at the root of the whole 
 question of textual criticism, of textual principles, and of the next 
 revision of the Greek and English texts. To suppose that these twenty 
 uncials and versions are wrong, when opposed to NBL, presupposes 
 a most extraordinary thing. It predicates no less a theory than that 
 they all proceed from one erroneous revision of the basic text of NBL, 
 which is manifestly and absolutely impossible when one consults the 
 documents themselves. The reverse is what I claim. The reverse is 
 what I am here contending for. And the reverse is so much easier to 
 understand. The aberration of NBL from the mass involves but one 
 recension, and the character of that recension I have tried to indicate 
 in the foregoing pages. Where NBL try to " improve," it must be 
 shown that the other side, that the great mass of our other witnesses 
 
 EPILOGUE. 
 
 407- 
 
 have been dehberately revised by some one to give us a poorer Greek 
 text. On the contrary, the simple testimony of these shows that the 
 recension they represent ■was not striving after classical Greek expressions. 
 Again, the other theory presupposes an introduction of pleonasms, which 
 NBL try to remove. This carries veritable foolishness on the face of it. 
 When NBL make an addition to improve the sense, it involves the 
 other theory, the assumption that the mass deliberately (one and all) cut 
 out these additions. 
 
 The foregoing pages have been wrung from me by the persistent 
 refusal of the critics to see that an Antioch " revision " such as they 
 suppose would have been a crjzy one indeed to remove all the "good " 
 things in N and/or B ; and by their failure to appreciate that Greek- 
 Egypt was the hot-bed of revision in the third century, continuing 
 throughout the fourth, while poor " Antioch " pursued the even tenour of 
 its way. 
 
 I have therefore tried to sketch, in a military way, the strength and 
 the weakness of certain strategic positions, in the hope that light may 
 break in on the' whole position of modern criticism, so resolutely 
 defended for 100 years by repeated obiter dicta but by very little else. 
 
 I had not intended at first to extend the enquiry so as to cover 
 the history of N separately. But this will be found completely done 
 (if not quite exhaustively down to every minute detail) in Part II. 
 This study has involved over a hundred thousand checking references 
 and the work had to be done very rapidly so as not to lose the threads 
 and cross-threads. Personally, I have been more than repaid for the 
 six months of hard work expended upon it, and everything I have ever 
 contended for has found ample confirmation in the pictures painted. t 
 
 But all these minute mattefs, handled in both Part I. as to B ar.d 
 Part II. as to N et rell, only lead up to the larger questions still sxih 
 judice as to the omissions at Luke xxii. 43/44 and Luke xxiii. 34 which 
 I have not discussed at all. 
 
 The minute examination however of the idiosyncracies of N and B, 
 and the sides which they take in combination otherwise, form the 
 necessary foundations for any deductions which are to be drawn in certain 
 other weighty matters. 
 
 Luke xxii. 43/44. 
 
 The omission of the account of the bloody sweat from Luke xxii. 43/44 
 can safely be attributed to the transfer maiks in early Lectionaries (01 
 I should say Gospel books marked as Lectionaries) which misled some 
 
 t I have amalgamated some of Tischendorf's notes, thus, I hope, making matter 
 much clearer in many places. Sodcn carries the separation of readings to such a poin 
 that it is almost impossible to regroup the passages. 
 
•108 
 
 CODKX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 scribes whose copies were nlreatly covered with textual notes t if not 
 attributiib'c to the indiiencc of the docetists of Alexandria. 
 
 To this diiy Hurldtt speaks of St. Luke xxii. 48/4'l (the bloody sweat) 
 as among " the Greater Interpolations " [' The Old Latin and the Itala,' 
 p. 17 J. The facts are all against this being considered as an Interpolation 
 at nil. Hut recently the Bishop of Ely (J.T.S. Jan. 1912, pp. 278/285) 
 has provided a fresh argument for the reception of these verses as being 
 entirely genuine, part of the record, and in the handwriting of St. Luke.t 
 The Bishop has argued at length for Trprjvrit yevoiuvoj (Acts i. 18), as to 
 Judas, being a mciliml term employed by St. Luke, meaning that " he 
 became swollen np " as opposed to the general translation hitherto in 
 vogue, and his view appears largely justified by the tacts which he 
 alluccs. li this be the case then xal yev6/i,evo^ iv aywvia stands 
 iu the saui3 position as a medical term in Luke xxii. 44. 
 
 This expression medically for " becoming " is prevalent in St. Luke, 
 just as we say "He is becoming better (or worse)," " he is becoming 
 weaker," "he is becoming feverish," "he is becoming deaf," "he is 
 becoming mad," "he is becoming unlike himself," "he is becoming 
 nervous," "he is becoming crotchety," "he is becoming saner," " he is 
 becoming tired," " he is becoming anxious," " he is becoming stupid," 
 "he is becoming hungry " fr/. Act x. 10 eyiuero Be trpoaTreivo'i koX i]de\e 
 yevaaadai of retorj, " he is becoming more free from pain," " he is 
 beconn'ng cruel," etc. etc. 
 
 Examine St. Luke's diction for a parallel to yevofievot ev nyavta 
 besides the well known one in Acts xii. 23 /cat y^vofievov o-«(i)\7;*o/9/jcoto9, 
 and we are stnick at once in : 
 
 Acts xii. 11, of St. Peter, by the expression : xal 6 IleTpo? yevofievoi; 
 ev iavTw "coming to himself," and in: 
 
 Acts xvi. 29, of the Jailer: xal evTpo/io'; yevo/ievois, all three 
 expressions involving a mental attitude. Note Acts xxii. 17 yeveaOai 
 /le ev e /ccTTuaet. 
 
 This is also singularly illustrated in Acts xv. 25 yevoficvoii 
 ouodv/j-aSov, of the Apostles and elders of the Church being mentally 
 " in accord." 
 
 The peculiarity of St. Luke's use of iyivero is well illustrated at 
 Luke xvi. 22 of the death of the beggar in the parable of Dives and 
 Lazarus: iyevero Be airodavelv tov tttioxov, asit v/eie "finally came 
 to the point of death " from exhaustion, whereas the rich man's death 
 (xvi. 22) is dismissed with inredave Be xal o Tr\ov<TW<!. 
 
 t For tlicsc obi'Ii, indicative of vfirioiis matters, were very liable to confusioii. See 
 p. .-104 note. 
 
 t I iiiu indebted to Professor Hendel Harris for pointing this out to nie. 
 Dr. Harris in his pleasant and modest manner accepts the Bishop's interpretation of 
 7r/)i)i'^r ytmiKvo! against his own previous view and applies it to yiniiicvos iv ayosna as 
 anotlier Lucan medical expression. Since this was written Dr. Harris has published a 
 sliort arliilo on Hie subject in tlic ' ,\mericon Journal of Theology ' for Oct. 1918. 
 
 EriLOGUE. LUKE xxii. 43/44. 
 
 409 
 
 Again, in Acts xxviii. 8 we read: iyivejo Be tov irarepa tov TIottXiov 
 TTvpeToU Kai BvaevTepia avvexoi'-evov KaraKeurdat. Here again this 
 " becoming " distinctly employed in connection with the medical tenns 
 " fever " and " dysentery." Observe that in Luke xxii. 44 xal yevip-evot 
 iv ayiDvia is followed bye'7€i'eT0 Be o IBpw avrov dxrel BpopPoi a'tpaToi 
 KaTa^alvovTet €7rt 7r)v yrjv.^ 
 
 St. Luke uses this of our Lord's age (ii. 42) kuI ore eyevero i-rwv 
 BuyBexa, " and when he reached the age of twelve." 
 
 Even of Judas the traitor, St. Luke says (vi. 16) o? Kal eyevero 
 irpoBoTvi " who became a traitor," whereas Mark (iii. 19) = 09 xal 
 TTapeStoKev axnov, and Matthew (x. 4) = koX irapaBoi"; ainov. 
 
 Another apt Lucan illustration (Luke vi. 36) is the graphic ylveaOe 
 oiKTipfiove^. . .KaOax; Kal 6 irarttp vp,i>v oiKTtpiiav eaii. "Become ye 
 merciful., even as your Father is merciful." This involves the whole 
 Lucan vocabulary as to this medical term of becoming, whereas in 
 St. Matthew (v. 48) (no exact parallel to this passage in the synoptics) 
 the less careful expression dominant is eaeaOe ouv vpek TeXetoi <o? o 
 Trarqp vp.S)v 6 ovpavioi reKeio^ eariv, missing St. Luke's beautiful 
 antithesis. Similarly St. Luke at xii. 40 says koX vfteU (ovv) yiveaOe 
 hoip-oi, which is also the expression in St. Matthew. 
 
 Another mental process is involved at Luke xv. 10 ovrw Xeyw vp.lv 
 ylverai X"-?"' ^°^ X"P° I'verai) ivamov t&v dyyeXcov rov ffeov. . . And 
 cf. Act viii. 8 xal eyevero X^P" fieyaXr) ev rfj troXei exeivri. 
 
 The opposite t is indicated at Luke xviii. 23, of the rich ruler: 
 Be uKovaas rama trepiXvno^ eyevero,^ while St. Mark's account 
 runs: Be aTvyvdaa<; iirl tw Xoya aTrrjXOev Xvirovfievoi, and St. 
 Matthew's: axovaa^ Be o veavioKoi aTrfjXdev Xvjrovp.evo';. 
 
 Again, where another parallel is involved in the matter of the 
 talents, St. Luke says (xix. 17) ev ayaOe BovXe • on ev eXaxiora) ttktto? 
 iyevov, . . . whereas St. Matthew xxv. in both verses 21 and 23 says : 
 ev BovXe. • .eirl oXiya 7; 9 wiffTo?. 
 
 Therefore at Luke xx. 14, where C fam 1 substitute earai rf 
 KXrjpovop,ia for yevvrai v KXripovoptta they show an ignorance ot 
 St. Luke's (Jreek and have merely followed sijr. 
 
 t Cf. Hippocr^"'^'' : iip^s irouXit anpirras ytvifXtvot vytaivoVTl tioaaii o-r)fiaiVti. 
 Hippocr^'^''' : oySoaia iJpwi iyiptro ita\ irdXii/ intBipiitim i irdXu' 18/)"t. Arislot""'^"-"''''" : 
 iif8, 8e rciTii. iSpwaai '<TV„i^q ni>irci8»i ittpiTrapari 8ia mix'?''"'i ^"^ f""" "^1^^"' pviSos itnl 
 ,iami yivaiiivov, roj 8( ar^orot i^vypavBivrot 8i' liirtf .'af, d8i)i'aroi;(ri7r r^t iv roll i/)Xf3i'o.t 
 e,pp,WrtTn, iricTUv, 8.' i\<.yirr,ra. And again: {aXparoi) ilvypaivofiivov &i \!av^ fC(7oCo-.i' 
 ylvtral yap ixapofMs Kal Sioppovrai oSrmt Hitrrf ^87 rms "iSiaav ni(inTcl8i) iSpCra. 
 
 t Observe below the contrast between </)o/3ot tyev. and (^iXoi/tiicia lytv. in Luke 
 
 and Acts. n • » n j 
 
 § XBL and Paris" only say tytKi'/fli), probably an " improvement. It is followed 
 
 by Sodcn however (witliout new witness) as well as by W-H. 
 
 In this connection note St. John's (xvi. 20) dXX' ^ XiJur, ipSiv ei'r xapav yfv!i<rtTat. 
 
410 
 
 CODr.X n AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 And at Luke xx. S'i where we read iv t"; ovv iwamaaei jlvot avrSiu 
 'yivejai yvvi'i, XDGLJ mill''' show tlieinselves in error by reading earai 
 there, as St. Matthew xxii. '28 and St. Mark xii. 23. 
 
 Yet another parallel emphasises the matter : Luke xxii. 2G we read 
 u/iei? Of oux ot/TM? • dXV o /iei^tov iv vniv yevetrOo) a)?o vfcoTepot, whereas 
 St. Matt. (xx. 20/27) and St. Mark (x. 43/44) writing more amply apply 
 ']/(iiiaffai to neyaf, but elvat both to Sic'iKovo^ and Sov\o<;. 
 
 Once more, we can point to a very exceptional passage in Luke 
 xxni. 24 as to Pilate: 6 Se IIjXhto? ivexptve yeviaOat to aiTtjfia ainiov, 
 again involving a mental process and not very easy to translate. A.V. 
 has : " And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required," 
 E.V. : " And Pilate gave sentence that what they asked for should be 
 done." The Lucan phraseology covering the transaction is utterly 
 different from that in Matt, xxvii. 24 2G, or in Mark xv. 15, or in John 
 xix. 1 4 C 8 12 14 15, and in the finale at 16. 
 
 Another peculiar expression is at Luke xxiv. 22 aWa koX yvvatKi<i 
 Ttv€<; i^ yfiMV e^e(rTJj(7av -tjfiaf; yevofievai opdpivaX eiri to fivijp^lov. Quite 
 different at Mark xvi. 1 xai. . .epxovTai iwl to pvij/ui, or Matt, xxviii. 1 
 ifKOev. . .deaprjcrai tov Tci(f>ov, or John XX. 1 ep)(eTat. . .tl^ to pvr))ieXov. 
 (The exact Lucan parallel to these other passages is Luke xxiv. 1 fj\.0ov 
 iirl TO fivrip,a.) 
 
 Por the rest observe carefully the following : 
 
 I.iike 
 
 xxiv. 15. KoX €y£V6T0 iv To> 6/j,i\eiii aiiTov^ of the disciples going to 
 Emmaus. 
 
 51. Kal eyevsTo iv to> cvXoyelv avTov of the ascension: 
 Act 
 
 xxvii. 36. evffvp-oi Se yevofievoi 
 
 XV. 89. iyivejo Se Trapofutr^d? 
 
 xix. 28. yevbpevoi 7r\)J/)6i? 0vpov 
 
 ( xiv. 5. o><; Se iyevero op^i; tmv iOvS>v. . . 
 
 vi. 1. iyivETO yoyyviTfio<; TWf KWtjvkttwv . . . 
 
 xix. 23. iyiveTo he KaTa tov Kaipbv ixelvov Tapayp'i oik oXiyo^ irepi t»}'? 
 
 ohov ) 
 I.ukc 
 xxiv. 5. ip,if>iPa>v hi yevofiivcov avTOiv 
 37. Koi efi<j>offoi yevo/ievoi 
 
 Alt 
 
 X. 4. efi<j>offo^ yevofiivo^ 
 i. 19, ix. 42, xix. 17 yvoiaTov iyiveTo 
 xxvii. 42. jSonXi; iyeveTO 
 
 XV. 7. iroWr/s 8e o-ufijTvo-eo)? yevofievti^ 
 xxi. 40. TToWr;? he iny>]% yerop-evrj-; 
 xxiii. 7. iyevero (rracrf? tS>v ipaptir. 
 9, iyevero he xpavyri fxeyukr] 
 10. TToW'")? Se yevofievrj^ cTTu'trea)? 
 
 EriLOGUE. LUKE xxii. 43/44. 
 
 411 
 
 Then contrast Luke i. G5 xal iyevero irrl mivrai; <^o^o? 1 
 and Act ii. 43 iyevero hk rrdai] ■<lrvx'i <f>60o'} \ 
 V. 5 11 iyevero (^6/3o; fieyai J 
 
 with Luke xxii. 24 iyevero he xal <f>i\oveiKta iv avrok to rl^ 
 avToiv hoKel elvai p-eit^av 
 All this has reference to mental processes. Add : 
 
 I.tike 
 xxiii. 19. oant 7]V hia ardaiv riva yevopivrjv iv tt) iroXei 
 
 (the other accounts di£fer) 
 
 Act 
 
 xi. 19. aiTO TJ)? 6\i-^eti)<; tQ? yevop.ivij'! 
 Luke 
 
 vi. 48. TTXTj/J.pvpa'S he yevop-evi)^ 
 
 iv. 25. iyevero \ipo<; /liya^ 
 XV. 14. iyevero \i/xos laxvpot (or lax^P") 
 
 Note Act xxvi. 19 fiacrCKev 'Aypivrra ovk eyev6p,r)v arreiffiji; again of 
 the mental process ; and, of time involved : 
 
 Act , . ^ . 1 
 
 XX. 10. expive yap o HavXov (cf. Luc xxiii. 24) TraparrXevaai rrjv'V^'^eaov, 
 
 OTTftj? /Aj; yevrjrai aurt^ ^ovoT/)t^/}o"a« iv r^ Aata. 
 
 As to the proportionate use of ylvofiai and its parts in the Four 
 
 Gospels and Acts, note that it is used approximately 125 times in St. 
 
 Luke, and about 110 times in Acts, as against about 70 in St. Matthew, 
 
 not quite 50 in St. Mark, and about 45 in St. John. 
 
 As regards the use by the others covering a mental process the 
 occasions seem to be limited to the following : 
 
 St. Slattliew ^^ \ / n ' 
 
 X. 16. yCveade ovv ^povipot. . . \Cf. Rom. xii. 16 at} yiveaoe <j>povipj>i 
 
 xxiv. 44. yiveaOe eroifioi | irap' eauroK 
 
 viii. 13. oi? in i<TTevcra<; yevrjdqTo) trot 
 
 ix. 29. Kara rljv rriariv v/iav yevriffijro) iifuv 
 
 XV. 28. /ieyaXri crov 7 Irian's ' yevr)9r\T(i> aoi ft>5 diXei^ 
 
 xxi. 21. iav exvre iriariv. . .yevijaerai 
 
 Mark , , , . 
 
 vi. 26. Kai TreptXvTTO'S yevopevoi ^aaiXeii 
 
 John 
 
 XX. 27. p.!) ylvov awKTTOt 
 t And as a semi-medical term : 
 
 Malt , , \ < ,/, • I \ 
 
 4. KOI iyevovro oxrei vexpoi (or «ai eyevrjOri^av o>'; vexpoi) j 
 
 xxvni. 
 
 JIark 
 
 ix, 
 
 John 
 
 V 
 
 26. Kai iyevero oiaei veicpoi 
 
 6. OeXeK iiyir)^ yeveaOai ; 
 9. eiidea's iyevero vyiri's 
 14. iSe vyit^'i yiyova^ 
 ix. 39. Kai 01 fiXe-rrovre^ tv<I>XoI yevavrai. 
 
 t Cf, Horn, vit. 13 rb uvv ayaBov iftoi ytyovt (or tyevfro) Savaros ; 
 
4V1 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 As to the 3'ipistles, notice 
 Rotu. XI. 34. Ti? ynp e^vo) vovv Kvplov; ij ti? av/i0ov\oi! avrov iyevero ; 
 1 Cor. Mv. 'io. tA Kpvma ti)? xapSia^ avrov i^avcpa yivcTai 
 and perhaps as a semi-medical term : 
 ]^liil. ii. 7. ev ifioiwfiari avOpdtrav yevofievov 
 1 Cor. n. .3. koI eyto iv daOev€ia koI iv (po^ra /cat ev TpOfitp 7roWo5 
 iy(v6ij,r)v TTpo% vfidi; 
 'J Tim. iii. 11. ...toi? Biuiyiiol'; rot? Tradi'i/iaatv old fioi eyevero iv 
 ' \vTio\eia, iv 'Ikovi'm iv AvaTpOK. 
 I liavc been at the pains to exhibit thus fully St. Luke's partiality to 
 the use of iyivc-o and yevofievo'; in connection with xat yevo/itvo^ iv aycovla 
 for tills phrase in xxii. 44 is a link of undesigned coincidence with his 
 language elsewhere. 
 
 Other medical writers seem to prefer dyavtwv or dyaviaat. Thus, 
 Aristotle: St.a ti' oi dytoviiavTe'; .tSpovai Toir? ttoSo?, to Se •npoaaiirov ov 
 . . .1} QTt i) dywvt'a . . . Bio Kal w^ptS)(7i ra TrpoacoTra oi dy(i>via)vT€'i* . . 
 ■TTOiovai yap tovto oi uywviwvTe'; . . . 
 
 And Thcophrantiis'' ""'"f"™ grt oi liyotvi&vT^v tous itoSo? ISpSxri to 
 Be upoawTTov ov . . xal dyiaviiovTe'; Be ov Bia (j>6^ov tovto ■nda'xpvaiv, 
 aXKa Bta to pLaWov itiBep^aivetrOai, . . 
 
 And f;(7?(/t''™-" i'"^"'' KwritTK! 7]TtiT0VV KOI TTiiOoi ifrvXlKov opyiadevTMV 
 i) (fyolBrjOevTOJV ?; dyojuiaavraiv,,,. 
 
 So that a forger would have written at the opening of verse 44 
 probably /cat dymviCw or hoX uymviutra'; instead of xal yevo/uvo^ iv dyavia. 
 
 Further, note that St. Luke's iviaxveiv in verse 43 in the transitive 
 souse {M(f)6ri Be avTo, dyyeXot (Itt' ovpavov iviaxvfv avTov) is confined to 
 himself and Hippocrates (o Be XP^""'' Tavra iviaxvaei -rravTo). 
 
 Also note that Aristotle, in speaking of bloody sweats, uses ylverai; 
 and that St. Luke's expression in verse 44 of KaToySaiVovre? of the 
 drops of blood agrees absolutely with Hippocrates' language repeated 
 often on such subjects (see Hobart, 'Med. Language of St. Luke' 
 pp. 80/84). 
 
 Luke xxiii. 34. 
 
 The second passage, as to the omission of the first Word from the 
 Cross, is in a different class. And I protest most earnestly against 
 the obiter dictum of C. H. Turner : t 
 
 " Lk. xxiii. 34 the first Saying from the Cross is 
 not part of the genuine text of St. Luke." 
 It is cruelly misleading the younger generation to state the matter 
 in this offhand, not to say light-hearted way. 
 
 t .T.T.S. January 1913, p. 167, note 1. 
 
 EPILOGUE. LUKE xxiii. 34. 
 
 413 
 
 t Because BDT'WN" 38 435 597 and Paris" a d b*' salt boh 1/2 si/r 
 sin Cyr omit our Lord's prayer for his murderers, Turner makes this 
 deliberate statement, which merely revives the decision of an Alex- 
 andrian school which flourished some time between 200 and 450 A.n. 
 After Cyril of Alexandria the Church decided that the Alexandrian 
 school was wrong, and it had rectified the matter before the time of 
 Oecumenius.J Because Hort, basing himself on a wrong foundation, 
 printed a text loithout this " Father forgive them for they know not 
 what they do," Turner would assure his world through the ' Journal of 
 Theological Studies ' that the " genuine text " is without it. 
 
 It is quite unfair to render a decision or to claim a decision in this 
 matter when the witnesses upon whom the judges rely are still under 
 indictment for false witness in a multitude of other matters. I have 
 put B in the dock now and accused him definitely and legally of 
 false testimony on hundreds of counts. Let those who accept Hort's 
 teaching get an intelligent jury to acquit B on all these counts before 
 we can pay any attention to a claim for that MS to be heard as an 
 authoritative witness when in a very decided minority. I wished to 
 put my latest researches in this matter of Luke xxiii. 34 before the 
 readers of a Theological Journal, but I was informed that if I thought 
 that I could teach its readers anything which Hort, Swete and Turner 
 had not taught them I was very much mistaken. Thus the Editors con- 
 fessed that the matter was prejudged and that new evidence (which was 
 what I offered upon this and upon another point) did not interest the 
 critics. This surely is nothing short of a riot of pride and self-confidence. 
 
 As to the support which B now occasionally finds in the new ms W, 
 it is to be remembered that W also supports N alone in equally important 
 
 t AddSoiJfisoand Sod'3'1. I (hiiik this is the full evidence to date for omission. Soilcn 
 still cites 6 as it 6* omitted, whereas he should know and probably does know that 
 Buchanan discovered in 6* the prayer itself, and that it was 6*' who had suppressed it. 
 Further h* seems to give a very early and beautiful form of that Divine appeal, tor 6 
 alone omits yap, saying : 
 
 "Pater dimitte illis I Nesciunt quid faciant," instead of : 
 
 *' nrfrfp «(^e9 avToit, ov yap oibatrtv ri jrotouCTtf." 
 
 Soden"" has : 
 
 " Ilnrcp «(^fc aiToii Ti jrotoilaii' *' { — ov yap oiflao-tv), but otherwise the documents are 
 agreed as to the regular form. Only A and syr hier^ omit ndrtp. 
 
 Const, has o vaiovtriv tor rt noiovaiv. Some Fathers (with i^crs) aiftrs hl'to'is Tt)v 
 AftapTtiiii TavTr)v or ras Afiaprlat nvrStv, but retain yap before o'Saatv. 
 
 t/'acofc'^'"' is reported by Elia'^ HckmIpp ^g . n-npnKiiXw irifpif ffet vartp n<pts niVoir * oi' ynp 
 otdniri TI TTOtovaiv, 
 
 I Oecnmenius' date is now fixed definitely circa 600 A.D. from his full commentary 
 on the Apocalypse in the Messina ms No. 99. Von Gebhardt planned an edition of this 
 but his death frustrated it. I have been instrumental in supplying Dr. F. Dickamp 
 with photographs of the hs, and he will shortly publish an edition of it. In this 
 OecumcniuB, while using a text of the Apocalypse thoroughly Alexandrian, explains in 
 his commentary that although Cyril disallowed Luke xxiii. 84 yet in his day the verse 
 was authoritatively transmitted as genuine. See my article in the ' American Journal of 
 Philology ' tor Oct. 191.3. 
 
414 
 
 COIir.X HAND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 matters, e.g. at John ix. 38/39 WN and 6 (/), only, omit o Se e<^i; 
 TTiaTevu) Kvpie xai irpoacKvvrjaev avTro xat eiirev o iriaov;. The support 
 of h is very important here. Our Lord's speech in NW 6 is thus 
 uninterrupted : (37) ei-nev avTco o lr](rov<! xai eiopaKat avTov xai o \a\iov 
 fUTa cTov exeivo'i errriv (.39) €(? Kptfia eya «19 tov Koa/iov rovTov t)\6ov . . . 
 T)iereforo, as Hort said, N and B go apart a long way back, and neither 
 of them is neutral. 
 
 Enough has been said, I think, to justify my contention that B is 
 not " neutral." 
 
 I do not pursue the matter beyond the Gospels in all its detail, 
 although many of the same features are visible in the Epistles, chiefly 
 bocaiise, pending Mr. Homer's and Mr. White's labours on the Coptic and 
 the Latin respectively, my materials are not complete, nor have we a com- 
 plete " Old Syriac," but we can illustrate the same points, as is done beyond. 
 One word more here as to W. This new witness is going to take a high 
 place among our Gospel codices and rank with D to control N and B. 
 I would warn the public against a feature connected with this. 
 When the critics who will sit in judgment on me find a place 
 where W agrees with B, as at Luke xxiii. 84, they will exult and say : 
 " There ! You see, Hort is vindicated. W agrees vrith his omission 
 which was based on N'BD salt (boh)." And they, being more con- 
 vinced than ever themselves, will seek to convince you. But, be not 
 deceived ! This is merely an Egyptian excision involving W here 
 (for observe that the only new witness lately to hand is yet another 
 J'^fJl/ptiaii codex T'). W is a weapon just as sharp to cut their theories 
 and their readings as to support them. 
 
 When, for instance, the critics will say to you that i(f> u/tS? by NB 892 
 Sod""'" TF-H"' for " irpo<; vfiai " in Matt. x. 13 is supported by W, and 
 therefore poor Hoskier is wasting his time talking of " pairs " in this 
 connection and seeking to convince you that NBW were " improving," 
 you, benevolent reader, being an independent observer, should look 
 further, and you will then see that W does not support N immediately 
 thereafter at x. 1-5 for +y7] before yofioppav, nor does it support B at 
 X. J<j for eh fieaov instead of ev fieaw. 
 
 In fact W generally goes against N and B much more than with 
 them, and when it is for them the same reasons generally apply of 
 revision of W in Egypt which caused these readings, but which did 
 not extend to the other more radical ones. 
 
 Hcsychius and Origen. 
 
 Whether Dr. von Soden and Professor Sanders are justified in 
 adopting " Hesychian " as the true name for the Egyptian recension, or 
 whether Origen is the more responsible for it, cannot be determined with 
 
 KriLOGUE. AS TO DEAN HVUGO.V. 
 
 41.5 
 
 accuracy. In some respects however " Hesychian " is a misnomer as 
 we have no data to go by, whereas Origen s writings give us data, and 
 the cursive mss 33 and 127 confinn the fact that Origen altered texts, 
 for these two MSS sometimes agree alone with Origen against NB and the 
 rest of the Egj'ptian group. 
 
 At to Dean Btirgon. 
 
 In closing let me say that Bnrgon's position remains absolutely 
 unshaken. t He did not contend for accsptance of the " Textus 
 Receptus," as has so often been scurrilously stated. He maintained 
 that NB had been tampered with and revised and proved it in his 
 ' Causes of Corruption.' He sought the truth wherever it might be 
 recovered and did not stop at Origen's time. The material discovered 
 since his day has not shaken his position at all. We seek the truth 
 among all our witnesses, with unnecessary subservience to no one 
 document or congeries of documents, deriving patently from a single 
 recension. Nearly all revision appears to centre in Egypt, and to 
 suppose all the other documents wrong when opposed to these Egyptian 
 documents is unsound and unscientific, for we must presuppose not only 
 " Syrian " revision but a most foolish revision which did away with 
 these " improvements " of the Egyptians and Alexandrians, or which 
 destroyed the " neutral " text without rhyme or reason. Have I made 
 myself clear ? 
 
 What Dean Burgon was chiefly concerned about was the lack of 
 a scientific basis for our textual criticism. It is absolutely necessary to 
 grasp this fact for a proper understanding'of the whole matter. 
 
 A scientific basis can only be obtained after we have made ourselves 
 masters of a scientific knowledge of the real history of transmission, and 
 of the interaction of the versions upon each other and of the versions 
 upon the Greek texts. 
 
 It is impossible to " revise " or compile a text from documents about 
 which we have known so little. Every new document published helps to 
 shed light on the ones already known. Few as have been the new 
 editions of Greek documents, we have already been able to learn a good 
 deal from them. Much more can be learned if we will extend our 
 examination. It is useless to cry for more light from history, or to 
 deplore the lack of more data than we have got from the historical 
 writings. It is also useless to sit down and say, like some critics, that 
 
 t Upon two matters we must revise his position. His critics refuse to be 
 influenced by any array of Patristic testimony against B, so that we must convict B, 
 as I have done, in another way. Secondly, Burgon did not correctly estimate Codex T>. 
 Notwithstanding all the curious harmonies in this MS its base is profoundly ancient and 
 important. The Latin MS h must in future be considered much more carefully than 
 heretofore. 
 
410 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 as history is silent on certain points we can never know more concerning 
 these matters unless further historical documents are brought to light. 
 Existing Sacred Manuscripts teem with information it we will onlj- dig 
 below the surface. 
 
 It is now 25 years since Dean Burgon passed away, and I ask m}'selt 
 what progress his opponents have made. 
 
 The answer is that after 25 years they have discoveired some flaws 
 in the Ilort textual theory and have partially dethroned B from the 
 paramount position it occupied in the Hort text. 
 
 There are further steps to be taken in this process, if I mistake not, 
 and I hope that what I have written will tend further to clear the 
 ground for a njore intelligent view of the situation. The weight assigned 
 by Burgon to Patristic testimony has been disallowed, but his indictment 
 of B as a false witness is abundantly proved. 
 
 Codex B outside the Gospels. 
 
 When we pass from the Gospels to the region of the Acts and the 
 Fjpistles we subside at once into smoother waters, yet the self-same 
 features as to B are to be observed there also. It would perhaps be 
 tedious, although quite profitable, to follow B over all this ground. For 
 the sake of brevity I will confine the examination to the Epistles of St. 
 James and of 1 Peter, the latter so largely attested by sub-apostolic 
 Fathers. We find, as I say, the same features. 
 
 As to "forms " and " synonyms " we find at : 
 
 t i. 2G, 
 
 IV. 
 
 V. 
 
 n. 
 iii. 
 
 ibid. 
 
 ycCKivav (pro xa^ivayayiov) B only, and have to assume, if B 
 be " neutral," that all others, even the closest supporters of B, 
 use a longer synonym. The word recurs at Jas. iii. 2, x^'^'va- 
 ywynaai, but nowhere else in the N.T. Observe however that 
 Polycarp (Phil. 5) uses p(;o\ti'a7(»70i'i'T«?. 
 
 9. /icTaTpaTTTj™ (pro /leraaTpatjJvro)) BP ac"" Thpyl IF-H'"'. 
 
 4. atpvuTeprnievof (pro aireareprj/jevos:) NB* Soli et W-H [nil 
 
 in mg !] 
 
 7. XP"""" '"'^ anoWviicvov B only, for xpvaiov tov 
 a-rroW., against all the rest and against Clem Orig. This 
 tendency towards " finessing" remains with B to the last. 
 
 8. aniaTOvvTe'; (iJro airei6ovvTe^) B only. (Gf. lat). 
 ec (iiro eav) B 3 101 [?io» W-H], against the rest and 
 
 against Clem Dam. (Soden only mentions B). 
 yevoiaOe (pro yevrjaOe) B only 
 
 i;:i 
 
 t In this very verse we find the Alexandrian preference for tnvrcv over nurou 
 <reterrcd to elsewhere) exhibited by BP c'" sind a few of Soden'a codices. 
 
 EPILOGUE. CODEX B OUTSIDE THE GOSPELS. 
 
 417 
 
 1 Peter 
 
 iv. 5. Kpivovri (pro exovTi Kpwai) BC? 69 137 a" and more of 
 
 Sodcn. This is adopted by W-H without marginal alternative. 
 The Revisers refuse to follow. 
 1-5. aWoTpieirtaKoiro'! NB i'" and more of Soden and 
 
 W-H Sod txt (for aWorpto- or aWorpioa einaKOTro<;) 
 17. OTTO riiKov (pro aif rifiav) B^ and one cursive only 
 
 [non W-H]. 
 
 When we look further for Coptic sympathy, we find it at : 
 
 iter 
 
 i. 16. SioTi yeypa-mai (+ori) ayioi eaeaffe B 31 70 syr coptlW-H] 
 
 (' ex ingenio linguae ' as Tisch says) 
 
 Consult also : 
 
 V. 2. aWa cKovaito<; pro o\\' ex. HB'V 68 Sod''"" W-H. 
 
 e« 
 
 iii. 4.oTrov(-av) HB sah W-H [nil mg]. 
 
 If we seek Latin sympathy, we find much of it : 
 
 Jnniei 
 
 iv. 14. —Ti (ante ^ai)) B only 
 
 ibid, -f) (ante ■npo's) BP tninn' W-H. 
 
 1 Pel«r 
 
 i. 21. TnaTov; BA vg Aiw^"' W-H against wKnevovrav 
 
 relV\ TruTTCvaavTa'! aliq, et iricrevcravTei; Polyc. 
 22. - Kadapat BA Sod"'''^ vg Gild W-H [nil mg]. 
 
 iii. 7. - 01 (ante avZpe'i) B only [non W-H] 
 
 22. -70V (ante Beov) N*B^ and W-H 
 
 v. 12. (TiXffavov (pro ciKovavov) B only 
 
 For inrthei polyglot sympathy, consult : 
 
 iter^ 
 iii. 7. /irj evKo-!rTC(70ai Tail Trpoaevxcut (pro fit) cvkottt. to? wpocrevxa';) 
 
 B only (W-H marg) with syr lat copt. 
 iv. 1. apapTiaK (pro a/iapTta<;) BN' W-H txt with aeth vg syr. 
 
 1 Peter 
 
 If we seek change of tense, it jumps to meet us at : 
 
 ii. 12. eiToirTevovTei; (2)ro eironTevaavTet:) NBC aliq (vg Gypr) W-H 
 [nil mg] against the rest and against Clem,. [Observe at iii. 2 
 €Tto-mevovT€<; by N* only (Soden now adds some cursives.)] 
 
 Or as to change of mood, note : 
 
 ii. 10. TTiprjaT]. . .TTraiar) 
 
 N(A)BC Soti'"" W-H against the minn. 
 2 E 
 
418 
 
 I I'llir 
 
 COIIEX 1) AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Consult also, as to voice : 
 
 H. ayaWiare {pro aya\\ia<j0e) BC* Sof?' "' Oriij W-H, against 
 rell omn Pohjc Clem Cyr Thpyl in the phrase : " ov ovk jSovre? 
 ayaTrare ei9 6v apTi fir) opavret TnaTevovTei Se ayaWiaaffe X«P" 
 aveK\a\r]Tw xat heSo^acr/ievr}," where ayaWiare has apparently 
 been substituted as present indicative or present imperative 
 active to harmonise with ayaTrare and opoivre'; and ■in(n£vovre<!, 
 as against ayaXKiatrBe as present indicative or subjunctive or 
 imperative of the middle voice. Origen is implicated here 
 against the other strong Patristic testimony. 
 
 For another case of Origenistic influence, observe : 
 
 "v. 8. -Tira B^ Sod" only v?ith On;?'"' and IF-JT «a;«, against the 
 
 rest, Orig himself and many Fathers. 
 
 Choice exercised hij W-H as to the B readings. 
 The choices of Hort when B is alone are quite curious. He 
 follows above, and at : 
 
 19 Ta9 t^X"' (-<"'^'"') B only and W-H txt [Soden adds 
 nothing!, but refuses to follow lots of other pecuharities 
 of B, as : 
 
 4. —ov 
 
 B* Sod""* / (an " improvement " ? 
 against mss and versions) 
 4 4-Ta {ante rv^iicavTa) B only (" Improvement ") 
 14 -TovKvpwv B only, which might possibly be 
 
 " neutral " [yet more probably to be considered an amendment. 
 Of. Acts V. 41 "to suffer for the name"] which W-H only 
 include in square brackets. 
 
 B* only with Sod'* 
 B only with Sod'* 
 B only 
 
 B Sorf'''"" {W-H mg) against the rest 
 and Polyc. 
 
 B only and q. 
 B only 
 
 1. —KatPidvvia<; 
 
 1. ipovov! {2>ro (jiOovov;) 
 
 C>. — CTT aVTO) 
 
 •24. vfiov {pro r)p.u>v) 
 
 25. — r)T€ yap 
 IS, -TW dew 
 
 + Observe here against all the rest ra. ^..x« «•"•"" «^ Ki-''"-. »' ^".t"'^"' '""""' 
 a« IT^Z, or r... .a.™, ^v,., io the Coptic manner with 6 31 and Atkana.^u.. 
 
 EPILOGUE. CODEX B OUTSIDE THE GOSPELS. 
 
 419 
 
 Not even in a doctrinal matter do W-H follow B at : 
 
 1 Peter _ 
 
 i. 11. irvev/ia { — ■)(j}iaTov) B only with Athanasius according to 
 Soden (but Xpiarov is not omitted in the Benedictine edition 
 of 1C98) (against all and Ignat). 
 
 But if B is right at 1 Peter iv. 19, v. 8, why not in these 
 other places ? 
 
 Further, we can show you here even (cramped as we are by our 
 self-imposed limitations) harmony and accommodation to 
 the LXX on the part of B. For, observe : 
 
 I Peter 
 
 ii. 6. aKpoytovtatov post ckXcktov BC 31 Sod^"'^ copt arm Bam Cyr 
 
 W-H — order of LXX against our other New Testament 
 
 witnesses which place it before exXeKTov. 
 ibid. —eiT avrio B (which IF- i? refuse to follow) is against the 
 
 rest, and against Bam eir avTov, and Eus Cyr eit avrov. 
 
 Again possibly from his text of the LXX. 
 iv. 18. S« o«/3^9 B' 137 Sod"'" [IF-if]. C/. LXX. 
 
 1 Peter 
 
 iii 
 
 A matter of order further concerns the Latin : 
 
 > Tjavxtov xai npaeco'! (pro irpa. xai i?<Ti>x.) ^ only with m q vg 
 
 Aug Avibr and W-H txt. 
 But in adopting this did not Hort see that he was using 
 version support and that it was not the " neutral" text? 
 These few words must suffice here to indicate that the general 
 character of the B recension remains the same outside the Gospels as 
 inside. The same desire for individuality at the expense of truth, the 
 same ideas of finessing, the same ideas of harmony, occasional bold 
 excisions, and distinct version sympathy which is clearly non-neutral, 
 against Barnabas, Polycarp and Clement of Alexandria. 
 
 Ignatius, Clement of Home, Hennas, Polycarp, Justin, opposed to B : 
 
 Even as to the bold excision at 1 Peter i. 11 as to the spirit of Christ 
 dwelling in the prophets of old, observe that B doubtless opposes the 
 copy of the scriptures in Ignatius' library [this name is not mentioned 
 with Did Ath Cyr''^ ' and Cyr^'" by Tischendorf nor indeed in Jacobsen's 
 edition of Ignatius] for /(/«'"' says {ad Magnesianos § viii.) ot yap detoTarot 
 irpo^rjfTai Kara "Kpttnov 'irjaovv e^rjaav. Ata tovto Kal iSiwyOrja'av, 
 evweo/jievoi uiro ri)? ^''P''''''^ airov, eh to TrXrjpo^oprjOijvat tou? 
 
 2 E 2 
 
420 
 
 CODEX 13 AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 I'nretOovi'Ta'i . . . Here von Sodcii now adds Atliananius to B for omiBsion 
 of XptcTov. It this bo so as to Ath"''^ it is a wonderful commentary upon 
 the junction of B and Alextnuhia. (In the Benedictine edition of 1G98 
 iif -1^//. Xpiarou is found.) 
 
 Ai,'n,in when we consult Clcnunt of Home (i. 34) we find that he 
 quot(« ihe passage in 1 Cor. ii. 9 as " \i-^u ytip ' 6ipda\/ioi ouk e'Sei/, xai 
 01"; ovK i'lKovereVf Kal eiri KapSiav avOpconou ovk ave^rj, oaa i)Totfia(T€v rot? 
 VTTOflil^OVtJLV avTov.'^ 
 
 While ABC agree as to the oaa of CJein^"' for a of the rest, they have, 
 like the other mss, ayairwaw and not inrop-hovatv. Had B exhibited 
 v-nopevovaiv we might have thought indeed that the conjunction of B and 
 ('Icm^'^" indicated a " neutral " text. 
 
 In the reference to this passage in Poli/curp^""'- the matter is as 
 follows ; 
 
 IIpo 6(j)0a\p<ov yap elxov tjivyetv to altovtov xal pr}hkTTore affevvv/Mvov 
 TTvp, Kal ToU T<)? KapBia^ 6(f>da\tJoU uvi^Xi-nov to Trfpovpeva roil 
 iiTTOiJieivaaiv ay aO a, a ovTe o5? fJKovaev, oure o(f)0a\fio^ iSev, ovre iirl 
 KapSiav uvOpanrov ave^rj (leaving out the last clause here, as in Glem^° 
 II. 11) ixeivoK Sf vTreSeUvvTO vtto tov Kvpiov, omep fii]K€Ti avOpairot aW' 
 i)6i; dyyeXoi ijcrav. The passage continues : 'Op.oia'i Se xal €« ra 6rfpia 
 xptOevTC': vTT epeivav Seiva'; Ka\d(T€i';, Ki]pvKa<! /iev VTTOtnpmvvipevoi koX 
 aXKai'; Troiicl\at<; fiaadvoi'; . . . where it will be observed that the expression 
 virepetvav finds a place. 
 
 Similarly at 1 Cor. iv. 4 where the phrase aW ovk iv rovrtp 
 SeStxatapat is quoted by Clem"'' as liXK' oh -n a pa t ovto SeStKaicopai we 
 do not find that B agrees. 
 
 Or at Hebr. i. 4 for too-outm Kpemav Clem"" (i. 36) has too-outw 
 pet^ijDV. Not so B, although B elides rmv before ayyeXtov with Clem^. 
 
 Or at Hebr. iii. 5 if B added ffepawmv as does Clem^° after ttjo-to? as 
 to Moses we might presuppose a common " neutral " original. 
 
 (Of course we have to make allowances for Clement's fusion of 
 different parts as in i. 30 Heb. viii. 1-3 is merged with Heb. iv. 15 
 quite libcre.) 
 
 At INIatt. X. 10 B finesses with en peaov XvKtov for ev peam Xvkidv of 
 the rest, undoubtedly because the words follow the verb of action 
 I'lTTocTTeWw vpii'j. He does not do it in the parallel at Luke x. 3, but 
 there D is found with pecrov for eu petra. A reference to Clem^° (Epist. 
 II. V.) would seem to show that his copy of the Scriptures agreed with 
 our general aiithorities against both B and D. Hence B and D are 
 opposing the "neutral " text instead oi preserving it. 
 
 Again, for dhiKoi in 1 Cor. vi. 9 we find oi olxotjidopoi in Ignatius 
 (Bpli. 10). There is no trace of this in B. 
 
 At Ephes V. 2.5 where we read ol avSpei uyaTrdre rd<; yvvaiKai; Kado>i 
 Kal u XpiiTTo? riyi'nrrj<T€v rr/v eKKXrjaiav, we find the counterpart in Ignatius 
 ((id Pohjc 5) but Ignatius substitutes to? avpffiovt for ra? yvvaiKai;. No 
 
 EARLIEST PATRISTIC TESTIMONr AT VARIANCE WITH II. 
 
 421 
 
 trace in B. Further, if B, as Polycarp, read aBov for Savarov in Act ii. 24, 
 we might infer a " neutral " text for B. But it is D and latin which 
 agree with Polycarp as also Iren""- Epipli Pseud- Ath Thdt and Fac. 
 
 Again, Act xxi. 14 Polyc"""^ has to ffeXripa rov 0eov yeveaffo), which is 
 the reading of D"' [neglected by von Soden] and Tert 1/2, while most 
 read with Tert 1/2 the same order to deXr)pa tov xvpiov yeveadui, but NABCB 
 are furthest away with the order tou xvptov to 0eXi)pa y iv eaOo). 
 
 Again, B opposes Polycarp at 1 Jo. iv. 3 omitting ev aapxi eXrfXvOoTa, 
 whereas Polycarp distinctly says: ttS? yap 05 dv p>] opoXoyfi 'Irjaovv 
 Kpiarov iv aapxl eXrjXvffevat, avTiy^pitnoi; iaTt. Notwithstanding thip, 
 W-H omit [without a word in the margin] and Soden brackets it in his 
 text and does not say a word about Polycarp in his notes. 
 
 As showing that Polycarp was really quoting 1 Jo. iv. 3 as it stood 
 in his copy of the Epistle, he follows it by quoting part of 1 Jo. iv. 9 in 
 the very next section (viii.) of his letter to the Fhilippians. 
 
 Hernias, close to James iv. 7 " avTitTTirre (Se) tw Sta^oXa xal tftev^erai 
 dif)' iipjov," says : idv ovv dpTiaTyt aiiTov viKTjdcl's (pev^erai. dirb aov 
 KaTria-)(vppkvo<; . 
 
 Had we found KaTrjaxv^'f-evoi; in B we might certainly think we had a 
 separate relic of an ancient text, but such evidences are not forthcoming. 
 
 Justin""""', referring to Matt. vii. 15, says : elne yap iroXXol 
 eXevaovrai iirl rm dvopari pov, e^iodev iuSeSvpivoi hippara Trpofidrcov, 
 €(TQ}0€V 6e elat Xvkoi dpnaye^. 
 
 If we found e^mffev in B we might consider it " neutral " or basic, 
 but we do not find it. For Justin repeats the full verse (after interposing 
 1 Cor.'xi. 18): trpoaix^Te diro tS>v yjrevSo'TTpoipriTwv onive'S iXevaoVTai irpof 
 iipd^ e^mffeu evSeSvpivoi Seppara trpo^drmv (awOev Se elai Xvkoi dpirayet 
 again using efw^ev. In both cases Justin uses evSeSvpivoi Seppara 
 TrpoffuTwv for the usual iv ivhvpaatv irpofiuTwv. 
 
 Notice that Justin seems to be quoting from his copy of the 
 Scriptures and not entirely from memory, for when he deals with 
 Mark viii. 31, which he does twice at considerable intervals, he substitutes 
 in both places koI aravpadiivai for xal d-noKTavOfivai. The same remark 
 applies to Justin's twofold quotation of Mark viii. 11/12. 
 
 Also at Luke xi. 52 notice ^X'^te of Justin. It we found this 
 (instead of -npare, or eKpv^are D 157 a c d syr cu sin diatess) we might 
 then recognise it as a " neutral," for Marcion and TertuUian appear to 
 agree with Justin, and it is repeated by Avibrst Aug and Aucf"""-, 
 although not exhibited by Tischendorf or Soden. 
 
 " Higher " and " Lower " Criticism. 
 
 Finally, observe that up to the time of Westcott and Hort the 
 "lower criticism" had kept itself quite apart from so-called "higher 
 criticism." Since the publication of Hort's text, however, and of that 
 
422 
 
 CODEX n AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 of the lleviscrs, imicli of the heresy of our time has fallen back upon the 
 Bupposod results acquired by the "lower criticism" to bolster up their 
 views. By a policy of indecision in the matter of the fundamental truths 
 of the Christian religion— truths specifically set forth by its Founder,— 
 and by a decided policy, on the other hand, of decision in the matter 
 of heresy in the field of lower criticism, the beliefs of many have been 
 shaken not only to their foundations, but they have been offered free 
 scope to play the Marcion and excise whatever appeared extra-ordinary 
 or unintelligible to them. Many, who should have raised their voices 
 against the mischief wrought, have sat by in apathy or have wilfully 
 fostered these heresies. Or, if not wilfully, they have assumed a faltering 
 attitude which caused their own students to misinterpret their masters' 
 lessons. Thus we have the spectacle of Thompson and Lake saying to 
 Sanday : " We learned that from you," and Sanday retorting : " I never 
 meant to teach you that." 
 
 A man like the Dean of Durham, not content with preaching Christ- 
 mas sermons at Westminster attacking the Virgin-birth, and vapouring 
 in the United States about the close atmosphere of theological seminaries 
 which he would like to burn to the ground, has nowf decided to introduce 
 the " llevised Version " officially into the lectern of the ancient cathedral 
 of Durham. I am therefore correct in coupling these matters. 
 
 Reiteration of Hort's dicta by his followers is not proof. Let some- 
 one take the dozen " Alexandrian " readings of B which I have adduced — 
 the existence of which in B was denied by Hort — and prove that they 
 are in no wise Alexandrian. Then we can discuss the matter further. 
 Mr. Horner asked me why I had neglected Athanasius' testimony in 
 my volume upon the date of the Bohairic version. I told him, first 
 because the editions of Athanasius were unsatisfactory, and secondly 
 because the matter of Athanasius and Alexandria belonged as much or 
 more to B as to X. 
 
 Let somebody explain how B comes to oppose the |sub-apostolic 
 Fathers, deliberately in places, if we are to accept Hort's assurance about 
 B being "neutral." Until that is done, let us away with "dicta" and 
 go by proof. 
 
 Further Test of a Neutral Text. 
 Aristides. 
 
 The previous exhibit has carried us up to a certain point, but the 
 study would not be complete without a few words more as to what 
 would really constitute a " neutral " text in B or N. 
 
 t " Dean Hensley Henson, just promoted to Durham, has announced that the Revised 
 Version of the Bible will in future be used In the Cathedral." — Public Opinion, 
 April 4, 1913. 
 
 EriLOGl'E. AS TO ARISTIDES, THEODOTU.S ETC. 
 
 423 
 
 And first, let us assume that B or N exhibited a foundation text 
 approximating the quotations from or wording of such a document as the 
 second-century Apology of Aristides, for the Greek of which see the 
 Dean of Wells' edition in 'Texts and Studies,' vol. i., No. 1. Were 
 that the case, we should be compelled to look upon the matter very 
 differently. If, for instance, at 2 Cor. ix. 7, we found aueTn^dova)<;^ for 
 ifirj) e'f umiyKri^ we might well say that we had found a " neutral " text 
 quite different from later ones, but such a thing is not found in N or B. 
 
 Similarly if in Titus ii. 12 we should read in B oo-ita5 xai hiKaibXi 
 feiJiTe? as Aristides (§ xv. 18) % instead of au>i^p6va>^ «ot ht/calio^ koI evae^w 
 ^tj(T(o/iei> we should certainly see a foundation text of the time of Aristides, 
 but we do not find this. I 
 
 The only result of such a comparison is the wonderment which it 
 engenders in us that Christianity had already so filled men's minds that, 
 having read the Christian writings, as he says he had (mentioned in 
 close connection with these passages), such language, close to but not 
 exactly scriptural, should issue from his mouth.H The picture from 
 Aristides' pen (or that of his chronicler) is one of the most beautiful in 
 the world as a comment on the early Christian order and the execution 
 by its votaries of the Master's maxims and of the words of his apostles, 
 and it goes far to explain the mental attitude of the apostolic and 
 sub-apostolic Fathers and their circumlocutory quotations of New 
 Testament Scripture. They were so steeped in the maxims and prac- 
 tices of the cult that words flowed from their lips and their pens 
 close to but not verbally exact as to Scriptural diction. They were 
 permeated with the spirit of Christianity and "the letter" was flexible in 
 their hands. 
 
 Theodotus {circa 190). 
 
 To take a more positive example, after the above negative exhibition, 
 let us consider other early witnesses, and first as to Luke ix. 27, always a 
 diflSeult text, and a " rock of offence " to many. We will ask what 
 Theodotus read there. Tischendorf does not give his testimony under 
 Luke. I extract it from Thcodoti Eclogae (Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. v. p. 136) 
 where we read : 
 
 t Aristides (§ xv. 12) is speaking of : " and he who has gives to him who has not 
 without grudging." He is referring to what he saw as the outcome of the Pauline 
 maxim in 2 Cor. ix. 9 (Ps. cxii. 9). 
 
 X The preaching of Peter {Clem Strom vi. 39) has otritus Kai SiKaius fiovduvnvrts 
 which is not as close to Titus as Aristidea. 
 
 [I So(7en quotes Aristides' ort?cr : " /«<D(r. . .5«. 7'^'" Ku'." 
 
 ^ Had the apology been forged it is impossible to conceive that the late forger 
 would not have incorporated actual phrases frrm the N.T. instead of the smoother 
 picture conveyed by the Athenian philosopher. 
 
424 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 cbaxnTov vtov tov .IvSp^-irov Iv S6^p. 
 
 NB do not re^d thus, b„t D and Ong'en (rov &e Xou^a :-) read rov 
 "'ovrov ardpo,^ov .pxo^evov ,v rr, 5of, avTov. 
 
 «s t. V '. ' ?^°'' f '■'^"' ''''^" '^"^ ^- ^"g«° ««««>« to ^^ definite 
 as o h s reading be„,g from Luke. True, we read o,5e for avrov [the 
 regular text is 6,^,. tlv,, r&vairov eaTV>c6ra,v o? ov ,.i, ye6ao,„rac dava-rov 
 7LT '.^7'V''"/,7'^-'«'' -ov 0eov in Luke] and a.he is read in 
 Matt XV.. 28 (but Ep,phan there a^roi; and Mark ix. 1), but e^Ta,ra,p or 
 effTwTe? is the regular reading in Matthew. 
 
 In Matthew Origen reads ^px- €v rr, ^aaiXua avrov (,) ev rr, Soh 
 avrov bis. i f, i 
 
 The regular text is {rov viov rov avepu>rrov) ipxo^^rov ev t, pamXna 
 avTov. 
 
 N= 38 113 245 435 y-' a copt Basil and Epiph'-' read epy. ev rr, Boh 
 avrov. I ■> I 
 
 The Theodutus or Valentinian quotation therefore remains the 
 shortest, being without epxo^^evov and without avrov fin, and convevina a 
 very different sense.f ° 
 
 Now elsewhere Origen has said that "he knows of no others who 
 have altered the Gospel save the followers of Marcion and those of 
 Valentinus," but here he goes with the very text as upheld by the latter 
 
 Have we got the true text in N»B ? We have certainly not re- 
 established the Origenian reading. 
 
 HeracleonJ (circa 170). 
 
 Or consult John iv. 18 as to the woman of Samaria, where Heracleon 
 would have it that she had had six husbands instead of five. If B showed 
 this we might say it was certainly a second-century text. 
 
 Athenagoeas (circa 175). 
 
 Or, consult 2 Cor v. 10 in connection with Athenagoras'" """'■ 
 Upon opening Tischendorf a wide difference of opinion is visible, not only 
 among the Fathers, but between N and B, for N prefers ayaOov eire 
 tfiavXov with Orig'"'"" while B writes 070^01' eire kukov with Orig"\ but 
 A thenagoras saj's neither ; he writes : 
 
 exaaro^ Kop.iar,rai & i k a iw; a B ta rov aii/iaroi; errpa^ev, erre dyaOa 
 etTf K a K d. 
 
 tjin all three synoptics the account of the Transfiguration immediately follows. 
 So that Theodotus follows his quotation by saying : iiSov ovr kuX tKai,i;ieri<rav 5, rt nirpo! 
 Kiu uiKui,3os Km \utivvf]i, without the slightest discussion of a various reading, except what 
 might possibly be inferred from " Kn\ to evrtwOa dtpOh ovx Zirrtpov rov uva k.t.\." 
 
 t See beyond under the heading of " llarcion " for further examples. 
 
 EPILOGUE. AS TO ATHENAGORAS, THEOPHILUS ETC. 
 
 425 
 
 This seems rather an interesting place, for Tischendorf does not refer 
 to the addition here of SiKa{co<; hy A thenag. It should be considered in 
 connection with the variety of reading of ra Sia rov aaiiarot of the 
 ordinary text and Clem Orig''^'"'' " '"' at. on the one hand, and ra iSia 
 ra ITU) p,ara on the other hand ol d e f g vg gotli arm Orig"" " '"' al. 
 and Zeno "corporis sui merita." 
 
 (A thenag has a curious addition also in 1 Cor xv. 53 for which I 
 know of no other authority : " on Set (xara rov dwoaroXov) rb iftdaprbi 
 rovro Kal Sia<T k eSacrbv evhvaaaBai d^dpaalav... ") 
 
 In that very difficult text Matt v. 28, in which to know what was 
 first written seems impossible, N and B divide. 
 
 TO im6vp,r,<iai N* 236 Clem Orig'"' Quaest"^ Isid Tert'^ 
 
 rb €Tn8vp.ijaat avrr,v B 7nult Thpl Orig""^ Ens Const Ps-Ath 
 rb iin0vp.r,aai avrrj's N''M al. Just Athenag Orig"" 
 and we find N"" with Jtistin and Athenagoras (latt) but Ejihr goes with N* 
 and Clem. (Ejj/uquicumque aspicit et concupiscit tantum). (Athenagoras 
 alone seems to use the perfect here p^fioix^vKcv for ep-oix^vaev.) 
 
 In this verse for the varieties fiXetrav, e,iff\eTro>v, ffXe-<fra<;, e/i^\«^a?, 
 oo-Tj? efi^Xeirei, 0? av e/t/8X6i/r»;, it is Theophilus, another second-century 
 witness, who exhibits the simple liav. 
 
 In Matt V. 44/45 on the other hand we find Athenagoras solely with 
 latin [not d k] syriac Naass Clem'"" Iren'"'' and Tert, against NB and the 
 Greeks, giving us a serious variation in verse 45 of ottoi? yevi,a6e viol rov 
 narpb^ vpJav rov iv ovpavol'i, b y rbv rfXiov avrov avareXK^i K.r.X. 
 
 This o? of Athenag replaces the on of the Greeks and d k, and 
 vsith NcMss (both second-century witnesses) quite neutralises the witness 
 of the rest. 
 
 (/wsim*'^' has •..Kal rbv fjXiov avrov avare'XXei . . . (libere), but 
 .7«s<"""°. . .rbv T^Xiov avrov avareXXovra.) 
 
 Here the new editor ron Soden springs a surprise on us ; he makes 
 a warranted and rather welcome, it bold and unusual departure from 
 recent critical rules, by taking 0? into his text (to the exclusion of on) 
 without Greek ms support for 09. He says in his upper notes: "on 
 1 01 I-H-K gg Mp low Ta h0r,v It ifrKX Tert fip Hil Luc Haaaa Man sy 
 pa? lat"'', o(Tn<s 7r8398 37MM43 £1,0.^" supplying Greek MS witnesses for 
 oant but not o?. Tertullian should be consulted in full however for he 
 quotes in different ways, and once (contra Marcion 1/2) "pluentem. . ." 
 exactly as Justin'''^'^^"' avareXXovra. 
 
 Theophilus of Aktioch (circa 180). 
 
 T/ieo^/iJ/ifs'"' *"'">'■ "'■"'*, after a quotation from Isaiah, adds from 
 Matt V. 44/4G : rb Se evayykXiov: ayavdre, ^r,<j\, rovv ex0pov<; vfiSiv, xal 
 rrpoaevx^'rBc inrtp ribv tVi/peafoi/Ttuv u/ia? ' iav yap ayairdre tou9 dyairavra^ 
 
•J'iCi 
 
 (-■ODEX JS AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 u/i5? TTolov fj-iaOov e'xfTf; So far, observe, with the general run of 
 aiithorities, except for ayaTrare (instead of ayavTiaijTe) with J some 
 cnisivcs Jimthi Athcnag (as Luke), and -irolov (for rwa, so Athcnag) with 
 no others apparently, but compare Luke vi. 33 irola as Evst 50 here in 
 Matthew. 
 
 But now he continues: toDto «al oi Xriaral koi. ol TeXavai iroiovai. 
 Tlie exact wording does not matter so much as that instead of the 
 question of most : ovxi xaX ol TcXHvai oCtm; ttoiovoi, with Theophilus it 
 assumes the form of a statement. 
 
 Docs B af^ree ? No, B does not. But N doe.t, and so does boh 
 (that despised late boh !) and so does syr sin and practically syr cu, 
 confirmed by Apluaates, and by the i)ersian version as well. 
 
 This form obtains in Luke vi. 33 rat oi afjuipTtoXoi to avro -noiovaiv, 
 but N does not draw from Luke sioce he uses the rest of the Matthaean 
 terminology. Cf. Mei-x aA he. pp. 107/119 and note what he says on 
 p. 119. Merx neglects Theophilus but mentions Justin's xai yapoi iropvot 
 TovTo TToiovm, also deliberately in the form of a statement, quite neglecting 
 the ovxi. Observe verse 47 in this connection whence ovxt probably 
 ascended to the verse above. 
 
 Naasseni {circa 200). 
 
 Or take another early series of witnesses. In John x. 9 Naass^'^'^ are 
 reported for " Zia tovto <l>tjai Xeyei o iTjaov; • eym eiii,i t] irvXt) r) aXijffivr)." 
 Had this attribute of TrvXr/ been found in B we might think we had 
 recovered something ancient. 
 
 HiproLTTUs {circa 220). 
 
 All this may be said to be very fragmentary evidence and open to 
 the objection of memorial quotations. 
 
 Very well. Let us take another most interesting witness, viz. 
 Hippohjtus, who, like Lucifer, frequently quotes at sach length from 
 both Old and New Testaments that it is absolutely beyond question that 
 he was copyiny from his exemplar of the Scriptures. 
 
 HipjMlyius cites 1 Thcss. iv. 13-17, 2 Thess. ii. 1-12, in full.t 
 
 t It is a remarkable thing that Hij>2>olytu3 has tranEmittcd to us his text of 
 2 Tht'ss. ii. 1-12, for these verses contain a detailed prophetic utterance by St. Taul 
 concerning the history of tlie last times and of Christ's coming again to displace the 
 lawless one (o tivo^os), and every word therefore is precious, down lo the important 
 niitiTfi or irf^ij/fi of verse 11. Hijip, maintains nt^^n, against NB, and has the support 
 in another language of Corneliut (Pope a.d. 252) and of Victorin (a.d. 294), both writing 
 at length on the subject, with mitiet. Similarly Viclorin confirms njt a/iapriac of Hipp. 
 with pcccaii in verse 3 where Cornelius does not quote. 
 
 EPILOGUE. HIITOLYTUS ALSO OPPOSED TO B. 
 
 427 
 
 In the face of these quotations it is seen how loosely Turner argues 
 when 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, threiv over the 
 LATER in favour of the earlier Greek mss, and that issue will never have 
 to be tried again." 
 
 But permit me to ask what Mr. Turner means by this light-hearted 
 sentence. What does he mean by earlier and later Manuscripts? He 
 cannot mean that Hippolytus' manuscript was later than that of B ? 
 Yet, allow me to state that in these long passages, comprising twelve 
 consecutive verses from one epistle and four from the other, Hippolytus' 
 early third-century Mst is found generally on the side of what Turner 
 would call the " later " MSS. Has he ever consulted these important 
 passages before writing down so positively statements which seem to 
 me to be extremely misleading ? 
 
 The matter, in detail, reduces itself to this : 
 
 1 Thess. 
 
 iv. 13. It is the cursives 31 and 73 with dcmid which omit a&eX<j>oc 
 as does Hipp, 
 ibid.' Hipp has KeKoifirjfievav with DEFGKL phir and other 
 
 Fathers, against the Koifia/ieviov of NAB etc. 
 ibid. Hipp{!>) has a>? with X''D*FG 47 Orig Bas, against /ca^w? of 
 N'B rell. 
 14: Hipp has icai o ffeot with the mass, against o ^eo? Kat of B, 
 
 now supported by other of Sodeti's codices. 
 n. Hipp has nepiXetnofievoi with the mass, against B's Trepi- 
 Xei/ievoi. 
 ibid. Hipp has aw Kvpico with the mass and Orig Eus, against B's 
 improvisation of cv Kvpiai. 
 
 2 Then. 
 
 ii. 1. Hijjp has tov Kvpiov r}p.a>v with the mass and Orig Tcrt, while 
 B omits ijfuijv, 
 3. Hi'pj) has rij? a/iaprta^ with ADEFGKLP ?«('««''' verss''' 
 Orig 4/5 Orig'"' Eus Chr Thdt Dam Iren"^ Aug, against rrjf 
 avop.ia'; of NB minn' Sod"''' sah boh Orig 1/5 2'ert {Ambr 
 Ainbrst). 
 The non-agreement of Origen's quotations, with preponderance 
 against NB, the adhesion of the Coptic versions, and the way in which 
 Epiph turns it (o viot tj;? apofita': o avOpairo'; ri;? aSiKia^) taken in 
 connection with avo/iiai; and avop.o'; in verses 7 and 8, all point to 
 revision by NB, in which Hipp does not share. It is the usual 
 "Egyptian" revision, for Latins and Syriac Goth and Aeth go with 
 Hipp and the mass. 
 
 t Or very likely a second-century text. 
 
428 
 
 CODF.X B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Note in verso 12 NB with Origoi write aWa evBoKriaavTe<!, instead of 
 "t^'J"^""" ''""f°""'"g '° the usual Coptic or Egyptian method. 
 
 ii. 4. ir/^y, with FG Orig 5/7 iVocoj) 1/2 has /ca. 67ratpo/.e.>o9, 
 against xac vTrepatpo/ievo<; N'B OWj 2/7 and most (N* omits). 
 H. Hipp has Kvpw Ijjo-ou? with NAD*E*FGL"P etc. and most 
 Fathers, against o xypiof of BD°E"KL* etc. 
 
 10. H/;;;) has t-;? aS«m? with N-^DEKLP «?. pj, against aS^m? 
 of N'ABFG n/. j;«»c O);;? e/c. 
 
 //'/r/. Hipp has ev T0(? aTToWi/^i/oi? with N'^D'EKL al. pi, against 
 roi<i ai7o\\. of X'ABDFG (OiwVjr ig on hoth sides here, as 
 so often). 
 
 11. Hipp has iT(p.-fei with N''D'=EKLP al. })l and other Fathers, 
 against TTefnret of N'ABD"F" (Orig again divided). 
 
 Thus, there is no such thing as "earlier" and "later" mss in 
 this connection. Hippolytus' MS was "early" enough to be of service 
 here and to indicate that what Turner (and others) would designate the 
 readings and leanings of "the later mss" are not "later" at all, but 
 go to the second century or at latest to the first quarter of the third 
 century. The question is not at all of " earlier " or " later " mss, but 
 as to whicli of two readings current in the second century was the correct 
 one. And as to this B evidently has no more to say than F. 
 
 If we seek a " neutral " base in B, why does B not convey the 
 " shorter " text with Hiini, as at 
 
 1 Thess. iv. 10 where he omits apxa'yyeXov, or 
 
 2 Thess. ii. 10 ,, ,, ,, eit to awOrjvai avrovif 
 
 Maucion. 
 
 Let us enquire for a moment further in a region where Marcioii'.i 
 testimony is available what the situation is there. We will take the first 
 half of St. Luke's Gospel so as not to be too wordy, ch. i.-xii. Let us 
 see how far any proof offers of B being really "neutral." Hereabouts 
 also Clcm'^^" and others offer valuable testimony. 
 
 And first : 
 
 If with XL at Luke ii. 44 B omitted xat toc? ji/oxitok, we might call 
 it "neutral," because Ev Thorn also omits. 
 
 Or at iii. IG if B omitted auTo? as do N* and Heracl (ex Clem""'). 
 For observe that NB a e agree with Heracl {Clem) in the next verse, iii. 17, 
 for ZiaKadapm instead of Kai SiaKadapiei. 
 
 Or at iv. 19 where the quotation from Isaiah is cut short by Evst 34 
 Origcn and Atliaii (tliese not noticed by Sodeii) who omit airocrTeiXat to 
 SexToi', but not B. Had B cut this short, we could presuppose a 
 shortened basic " neutral " form reproduced by B and added to by 
 others, but it is not so. 
 
 EPILOGUE. AS TO MARCION AND B. 
 
 429 
 
 Or at V. Ufa. where Epiph and Tert disagree as to Mareioii's text. 
 Had B given us vfiiv before eit fiaprvpiov avToit of most as Epiph"^ (or 
 ipa 6(9 p.apTvpiov 77 vn^iv tovto as D" and other Latins and Tert""") we 
 might consider this neutral. 
 
 Or at v. 3C where Dial twice gives (eiri) ifunno TroKatu) confirmed by 
 Epiph'"-" to which agree MP 122 (elsewhere 122 goes with B) 301 
 400 I" a b TerC""",] but not B who has etrt ifiariov waXaiou with most. 
 As to evt with the dative consult Winer, Eng. edition, pp. 488 seq. 
 
 Or at vi. 9 where Terf""' has " Licetne sabbatis benefacere annon " 
 for ei e^eaTiv to) cto/S/Sotw ayadoirofqaai 7; xaKoiT oit] a ai, but B 
 shows no sign of this ij ov. 
 
 Or at vi. 22 where Clein''^" has a shortened and graphic form, 
 " paxaptoi eare orav 01 avOpmiroi fuarjaioaiv Vfia'i, orav a<j>opiamacv, orav 
 €K^a\o>(Jt TO ovo/ia vfiaiv at irov-qpov evcica viov avOpanrov," but not so B. 
 There must be some basis for the omission of xai oveihiawaiv, for the 
 order varies in others, Terf""' confirming oi/e(5. Kai ex^aX. while D laiirns 
 and Cypr have ex^aX. xat oveiS. 
 
 In other words the shortened form of text in B proves upon examina- 
 tion to rest upon an insecure foundation, for the " make-up " of it includes 
 a number of passages [see under " Solecisms of B "] where B not only 
 stands alone, but which W-H do not consider to represent the " neutral " 
 text, whereas in the examples given above (for argument's sake) the 
 adhesion of B might have lent colour to the Hortian theory. 
 
 Or if, for instance, B omitted in LtiJce vi. 48 TeOefjteXttoTO yap eiri tijv 
 ■n€Tpav as 004 syr sin, for observe that in this same chapter : 
 
 vi. 20. —ot ■Trarepe? avTojv is omitted by B 604 only with sah syr sin. 
 
 So that what is possibly basic here may well be also exhibited by 004 
 syr sin only at vi. 48. 
 
 The whole of chapter vi. deserves fresh study. 
 
 Observe vi. 31. -xat u/^19 B 004 Paris" affl cg^' Jrcn'"' 
 34. ~((7Ti B G04 eaeth 
 
 In ix. 20 observe -fie XeycTC eivai 004 Dial (acth) but not B. 
 
 Similarly at i. 21 — ev rea vaa by 604 with the important cursives 
 108 142 aV SofV^* might with propriety be observed in B for the " shorter 
 text " if really an exceptionally " neutral " text. Here syr sin is wanting. 
 For at this place we note the usual change of order, a barometric pressure, 
 indicative of addition to a basic shorter text : 
 
 €V TO) xpovt^ew ev tw vaio avTov BLWS^ 2'" Paris" .loli 
 „ „ ,, avTov ev Tw vaa> H rell (praeter min^ 07n. cv to> vara) 
 and a b d Ao not express avTov. 
 
 t TertuUian's Latin (agaiust Iren*"*), " novum aAdiiamenlttm inicit veteri vesti- 
 UENTO " agrees with EjdjyJianiua' Greek, which neither Tischendorf nor Soden have 
 noticed. 
 
430 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Similarly, as regards other cursives. Observe 
 
 l.llki; 
 
 i. 44. —ev ayaWiaaei by 33 but not B 
 xii. 12. —€v avTTj tt; wpa by 33 and Origen but not B 
 xviii. 34. TO piifia (-rovro) T) /am 1 25 157 291 j<p' coupled with sijr cu 
 and sin, sah 1/7 and boh^'' and arm, but not B. 
 
 J(j!m 
 
 viii. 52. T19 Tov efiov \oyov 33 Origen soli, but not B. 
 It B omitted ti;? Supm? at Lule ii. 2 as does sijr hier we might think 
 it basic. Or if B omitted T179 louSaia? in LjtAre i. 5 as do Evan 255 
 [neglected by Soden] and diatess we might talk of neutrality for B. Or 
 at Ltikc iii. 1 where N omits ttj'; (ouSaia? after vovriov TttXarov as does 
 Dial. 
 
 Luke 
 
 vi. 27, 28, 29, 30 (c/. also verse 31). Had B shown ns either Justin's 
 or Clement's forms of these verses we might think B were 
 neutral, but B does not offer us their text. 
 45. Dial [negl. Sod] omits ■whhff[negl. Tisch} tiji /topSta? after ex 
 TOV ayaOov Orjaavpov. Not so B. [At ix. 2 where Dial omits 
 T01/9 aaOevet^ with B Hort follows.] 
 40. T( fie Xejere D 28 Clem'^'""'' et d Iren^"' his Orig^'"' dicitis, 
 while B and most have rt Se fie Ka\uTe. (K 259 z'" \a\eire.) 
 
 Very noticeable hereabouts in chapter vi. and chapter vii. 
 are omissions of N not shared by B. Among these note : 
 vii. 20. —oiavSpc; H, whereas B and most have wpoi avrov 01 
 avSpa, while D 33 a d r sah {aeth syr hier) have 01 avZpei tt/jo? 
 avTov, the varying order suggesting that N's base may be 
 original. Cf, syr sin syr iiesh. 
 25. SiayovTe<; {pro vnapxovTe<;) of Clem DKII al. finds no echo in B. 
 27/h. -efx-npoaeev aov D 122* \}ugl. Sod^ a d I r Tert"'" 
 {noil liqiiet Epijih'""") but B and the jest have it. 
 
 38. e/Spefe (pro ifp^ajo ^pex^iv) Epij>h'^""''bis [negl. Sod] and D 
 
 [male Sod"^ de 604] it""' syr en sin but not B. 
 
 39. Had Hort found rj ainofievrf for i/t(? aTnerai here he would 
 surely have thought it "neutral," for so writes Origen, 
 confirmed by D^'. 
 
 viii. 3. Had B and any cursives read eraipat for erepai here, as does 
 the codex Alexandrinus repeated by Sod'^", we might even 
 have had this forced into the new printed text as "neutral." 
 rrf BaXaaaif pro toi K\vh<i>vi tov vhaTot Epipli""" bis, while D 
 omits TOV vSaTm. Not so B. (Sorf'-™ "" add /rat tt; OaXaaarf 
 before tw xXvitovi.) 
 
 Dad y'" W" vg'^ {copf) diatess omit t«? [Sod neglects all 
 but D and a], but while most write avrip tk, B has tk avr^p, 
 as if T(? had been supplied from the margin of the archetype 
 and placed in a doubtful position {cf. copt). 
 
 24 
 
 27 
 
 EPILOGUE. AS TO MABCION AND I!. 
 
 431 
 
 30. 
 
 31. 
 
 41. 
 
 5. 
 
 ix. 19. Xeyovaiv 01 fiaBrjTai (pro 01 Se aTroKpiBevTc; uirov) Dial 
 simpUcitcr et cf. syr sah contra B rell. 
 
 22. Had B used oTavpaBifvai (for airoxTavdrfvai) here as do Jnstin 
 Theodot and Dial we might have thought this " neutral." 
 -otTtft! v<^av Epiph"""' his {non liquet accurate Terl) and 
 syr cu sin, not B, while Dad Anioh have tjv & as most 
 Latins, showing something fundamentally different in the 
 original base. 
 
 -oio<t>eevTe<! Epiph""' bis. 
 
 -Kai heaTpafifievv Epiplr"' bis Tert""'" and a [ncgl. Sod] e, 
 but not B. 
 
 [Here Epiph and Tert agree, while below Tert has qtiousque 
 era apud vos (-xat ave^ofiai vfuov), while JSpyj/t his has eat 
 iTore ave^ofiai vfuov ( - ea)9 Trore etrofiai Trpot vfiai).] Syr cu sin 
 reverse the order from oTrto-ro? /cat Steinpafi. to hiecnpafi. Kai 
 a-KKnoi, as another barometric indication, while diatess-arab 
 quoting from Matthew xvii. 17 holds the Matthaean and 
 Lucan order ainaTo<; Kai SteaTpa/i. Syr cu in Matt reverses 
 the usual order there to SieaTpafi. xai airio-To? as syr cu sin 
 in Luke. 
 
 - TrptoTov Terl'^'"'' Orig^'" et Const cum Paris" d r et D" ^ (cf. 
 D*" TrpwTov ante oiKiav). Non B. 
 
 16. Cf. Ignat Hipp Cypr against B and the rest. 
 
 19. Is there anything neutral about SeSaxa by t<BC*LX al. pauc 
 i<i'' Orig etc., against the express StSafii of Justin Iren^"'- Eus 
 confirmed hy D c d syr cu sin [against Aphraat Ephr] syr 
 pesh diatess and the rest of the Greeks ? Soden actually sup- 
 presses the witness of Justin. 
 
 24. - icat fiaaiKei<; Terf"'"" confirmed hy D d and aeffil Method. 
 NotB. 
 xi. 13. WTET Dial and Einph""""' Cyr^"" Ath with NDKMXH and 
 several notable cursives including 157 and 213 (= Sod™), 
 against B etc. vvapxovTe:;. 
 
 38. Cf. Tert""" [which Soden neglects] and D 130 251 latt syr 
 cu sin against B and the rest, 
 xii. 2. 01; <l>avepo>0Ti<'^Tai (pro ov avoKaXv^drfcreTat B rell) D (et d a 
 non revelabitur) Tert""" non patefiet. 
 5. fiaXeiv (pro ep-fiaXew) DW Epiph"^" "" Clem"^^"^ contra B 
 rell efifiaXeiv. (Is not Soden wrong in quoting J^lstin for 
 fiaXeiv?) 
 8. -TavayyeXo>v i<'' 25d Epiph'"'" Tert""". 
 
 11. tf>epm<Tiv Clem Origen Cyr^'^' confirmed by D ii g against 
 et<r<pep,a)<nv NBLX al. pauc. and irpoa^epaaiv A rell. May 
 I ask why ei<T<f>epa><Tw should be "neutral" rather than 
 (j>€p(oatv ? 
 
4^2 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 This is followed in DNE (latt) and Clem by ei? rot 
 avvaytoya'! for eirt rai away. Cf. Tisch ad loc. 
 ibid, —tjTiprim. Clem Orig Ci/»''''" confirmed by D 157 latt si/ r 
 adh {cf. copt). 
 xii. 14. KpiTTjv tantiun —rj fi^ptoTrfv Tert""" confirmed by D rf c 28 
 .S3 syr cu ain, while the others vary as to their amplification of 
 Kpirrfv, 1.57 going so far as to substitute apyovia xat hiKaarriv 
 for StKacnrjv rj fuptaTrjv or Kpnrjv j; fieptarriv. And sah 1/6 has 
 fi€picnvv without KpiTTjv or hiKaoTqv, while aeth reverses the 
 order (always a suspicious sign) giving " divider and judge." 
 Surely Marcion and D look more " neutral" than B. 
 
 19. —avairavov 36 [negl Sod'] and Clem^''' cat ox (ff, sed aliter ff) 
 against the rest. 
 
 20. Tivo? {pro Twi) Tert'""" confirmed by d and latt (cujas) 
 /ren'"' Cijpr, and in Greek by D Clem 1/3 Antioch, but as 
 the Latin lends itself to this, although cui is possible, and 
 Clem has tivo% once and tivi twice this passage cannot be 
 emphasised. 
 
 21. D ah d omit the verse and Clem does not quote. 
 
 27. 7ra)9 oure vnOei ovre vi^awei Clem confirmed by D a d syr cu 
 sin Tisch'"'"' Sod!''" against ttw? av^avei " ov Ko-rria ovSe vr)6u of 
 NB and most and W-Ji txt. 
 
 30. fijTci Terf""" Clem, confirmed by D {d Tert quaerunt), 
 against evt^rjTet of A unc^' Bas Ath, and eTrt^rjrovinv of 
 NBLTX fam 13 33 Paris" ff I r and f Terf'-'K If we seek 
 a neutral, fi/ret appears the more probable. 
 
 32. o -rrarrtp {-vfuov) Ejnph""" bis. 
 N has vfiODv o iraTrfp as sah boh. 
 B rell waTTjp vp.wv. 
 
 38. Kat (av e\6ri Tq eaireprivt] <f>v\aKri D {/am 1) b c e d ff i I 
 confirmed by Epiph'"^"'° and Ireii"", as against xai eav e\6ri €v 
 rq hevrepa (pvX. xai ev T17 Tpnr] <f>v\. of most, or Kav ev rrj 
 Bevrepa km eu tt? rpirv <l>vX. of NBLTX 33 131 Cyr^"' sah etc. 
 Had B exhibited Maicion's and D's version Hort should 
 surely have acclaimed it " neutral," whereas there are two 
 separate recensions apparently outside of Marcion and D latt. 
 Clem does not quote. 
 
 46. Order : km to fiepot avTou Bricrei /lera tiov ancaTiov Dial Caes 
 supported by D rf r, gat vg^ sah boh syr, against kcu to fiepo<; 
 nvTou fura twv aTnajwv Orjaet of B and most. This is not an 
 uninteresting place, for while the Latins go with B" here in 
 Luke, it is to be observed that in Mattheiv xxiv. 51 although 
 6riaei follows vTTOKpnmv there in Greek, D and most Latins 
 place ponet before /«Ta as Dial in Luke. That Dial and Caes 
 are from Luke is proved by their holding aTnaraiv against 
 
 EPILOGUE. AS TO EUSTATHIUS. 
 
 433 
 
 viroKpnav of Matthew which only X fam 1 and a few cursives 
 substitute in Luke, while the diatess conflates, 
 xii. 48. a-rranriaovaw Justin Epijyh Clem Const Mac JJas''"'"''''"' 
 Antioch \^Sodcn only mentions Basil] confirmed by DU aF", 
 against anrjaovaiv of the rest. See under " Improvement " 
 at xii. 20 further as to anovoiv and nirairovaiv. 
 Besides if we wish to enquire what text was actually in use in 
 Antioch in the middle of the fourth century, it would not, as regards the 
 Acts at any rate, seem to have been that of KB or of what has been 
 called the Antiochian or Constantinopolitan recension, but that of D ! 
 For Eustathivs quoting Acts xvi. 16/l9 has in verse 19 a text approxi- 
 mating D in quite an exceptional manner [Sod neglects Eustath^ : 
 
 Eustath : deaaa/ievoi ovv 01 Kvpioi ti;? 6epaTraiviho<; tu? fKVoSwv <o\eTO 
 T1J? €pyaina'! avriov r) eXTri?. 
 D: w? Se €iZav (= syr) 01 xvpioi tjj? TreBtaKr/'; on aireaTeprjadai 
 Ti;? epyaoiat avrtov rit eixav Si ai/rij?. 
 ordinary text : iSovTe? Se t 01 xvpioi outt;? ore e^TJ\6ev r) eXttj? tij? epyaaiai; 
 avToiv. 
 The full quotation is subjoined. 
 
 Act 
 
 xvi. 16/19. (iyivcTO Bi iraiSiaKriv) a-navrr)aai rivd {ifiTi<nv) e^ovaav 
 Trv€v/ia •nvBwv o<t rjirep epyaatav 7ro\\r;v irape^eiTot'; Kvploif airnyi 
 fiavTevo/i^vt). u roiyapovv avrt} KaraKoKovOiaaiia tut WavKa 
 Kai i}p.iv expa^e Xeyovaa outw? Ovtoi 01 avOpanoi BovXoi rod 
 Oeov Tov injriarov eial o'lTive'! KarayyeWoviriv i)plv oBov 
 aaTTjpia';. is /cai tovto iirl TroXXa? e'TTparrev ijfiepaii... 
 TrapayyeWai aoi {Xeyav) iv ovo/uni irjaov XpiaToii e^eXdelv air' 
 ai/T>7? (eiTa to Trpay/ui Btiiyovii£vo<; 6 avyypa<j>ev'! iirKpepei) xal 
 e^XOep avrj} rtj oipa. 19 Oeaadfievoi ovv 01 Kvpioi t?;? 
 BepairaivtBo^ w? e/CTroSwp «i^€to rg? epyaataf; ainoiv i) cXtti? tVi- 
 Xa/Sofievoi top IlaOXov Kal top 2.iXav etXKvaav €t? rqv dyopav 
 iiri Toii? dpxovTa^. . . i 
 
 t Km idufric B. i5ovT€t {~copulft) A d, 
 t 16. nvSams C'D=EHLPS Cyr Did Lucif e gig wvffapa gABC'D* 
 
 33 61 vg Orig. 
 airavTrirrat ADHLPS vnavTijaai KBCE mtn" Orig. 
 
 rjirffj {pro ijTir) new 
 nnpfj^tt Galland {a1. irnp€a\fv) Eustath. C naptixfrn, rcll omn 
 
 17 inif. +Tutyapm'tt new, prob. addition of Eustath as he nan-ates freelj-, 
 
 KaTaKo\ovBf{Ta(Ta, ACEHLP KnTnKo\ov0rj{Ttt(Ta ', KfiTnKoXnvSnvira hCBD 
 
 180 ; TTnpriKoX. aliq. 
 + nvTOit {post Xf you(7(i) new ? No okliers apparently. Only cn-pt -f- 3£C 
 r;/iii' {pro v/jii) AC'HLP a?, c sah ? copt aelh Orig Lucif! Chr ; vftiv 
 
 KBDE"''-i vg syr arm aeth 
 
4:i4 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 liEGAIlDING OUIt " JUNIOn " DOCUMENTS. 
 
 I would like to make an observation here. 
 
 It is of no use thinking we can hope to prosper in these studies by 
 changing and re-changing the numbers and symbols attaching to our 
 critical authorities. It only discourages the student, and leads to endless 
 confusion and inaccuracy. Symbols do not change the value of mss or of 
 groups. The time spent upon re-cataloguing and in deciphering and 
 reducing to order the new catalogues were better spent upon such studies 
 as llcndel Harris' monographs on D d and A 8, or Adalbert Merx' three- 
 volume digest of syr sin. 
 
 Hefore many more years have passed I expect to see much greater 
 attention paid to certain features of the testimony of our important 
 cursive documents. These have been put aside because junior in years to 
 certain iiss written in uncial characters. I do not mein that attention 
 will be given to the testimony of certain cursives as entities, but to 
 certain features of their testimony which have probably preserved the 
 truth against the mass. No one has ever listed these places. I submit 
 tentatively a list of a few of these places involving omission or substitution 
 or turn of phrase which seem to me to be of very great interest. The 
 list can be added to by other students and so made to grow from a 
 mustard seed into a tree the shadow of whose critical branches may 
 spread beyond our dreams to-day and help elucidate many matters in 
 connection with the early text. The point is that when one of these 
 cursives joins B, it only alone, it has been considered as strengthening B, 
 but when alone with the oldest versions such a cursive has been utterly 
 disregarded. 
 
 (Conf from l.iKt page). 
 
 18. Kai Tni'To (j>ro TovTo 5f) Oriy syr not Gr Latt cojtt. om. 5f aah and 
 
 (TrpajTev {pro tjroiet) nctv 
 
 + Xf-y(i)f replaces ti-ntv belonging before in the clause. 
 
 19. Bfauttfifvot ovv {pro t&ovTts &t) new. No authority. 
 As to clause following compare only D d with Eustaih : 
 
 /D ci'9 Se fibnv (= aijr) ot Kvpini ttjs nfSnTKTji on airffTTfpqaBai Tr]t tpyaatnt 
 
 avT<ttv tjt fl^or 8l avTrjs 
 
 d cum vidissent domini ejus puelles quoniam ispes ct reditus eorum quern 
 
 habcbant per ipsnm 
 Eustaih ^taattfifvoi ovv o( Kvptot Tijs ^ipmraivtSos tat t<nob(ov b)\tTO Ttjs tpyaa^as 
 
 avrav jj t^nts 
 Gitjaa is blissfully ignorant of this recension but with Lucifer uses 
 rcdiius for tiiiacstus of all others, except e operationis. 
 
 EPILOGUE. IMPORTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONY. 
 
 435 
 
 Possible " neutral " base to be observed in some enrsives 
 as against N or B. 
 
 [In the following passages I have used the Textus receptns in giving 
 the context, which seemed simpler than any other way to exhibit a base 
 with which the variations can be compared. 
 
 The examples are nearly all of necessity omissions from the narrative 
 as we have it. This does not commit me to the " shorter " text theory in 
 its fullest sense.] 
 
 Matt. vi. IG. Of fasting: 
 
 aij)avt^ovcri yap ra Trpocronra avTiov OTra)? ijiavbxri tois avdpwTTOK 
 vqarevovTes . 
 N* 244 with g^ k syr pesh and pers have the singular to irpoatoTrov. 
 
 Matt. xvii. 20. 
 
 Concerning the wording of the command of faith for the removal 
 of the mountain : 
 O he \rjaov<i emev avToi^ ' Aia -rriv airiaTiav vfimv ' afiijv yap \ey<a 
 v/itv £av eX'y^ iritTTW m? kokkov aivaireo)^ epene Ta> opei tovto) ' MeTaffrjdi 
 evrevOev exei, xai /jeTa^rjaerai ' xai ov&ev aSwarrjirei vfuv. 
 
 em is'^itted by 33 892 Sorfoi'" '•">*« »'2 g^ I vgg'""""" Hier^" and 
 syrr aeth. 
 
 Syr sin and pers omit both eujevdev and exet. 
 
 Matt. xvii. 26. Of tribute: 
 
 Kai ore ei&i]\Oeu €i<; ttjv oiKiav irpoe^Oaacv avTov o \T}Gov<i Xeycav ' ri 
 aoi hoK€i ^ifiayv ; ot y3aai\ei? t?;? 7i;9 aTro rivuiv \ap.^avov(ji 7e\ij rj x-qvaov ; 
 aTTo Tft)y VLWV avjKov 7] ano T(ou aWorptoyv ; 
 
 Here G04 with A 28 [ncgl. Sodcn] and Evst47 [negl. Sod. passim] omit 
 avTwv. 
 
 Tischendorf only records A. Soden only records A (304. 
 Evst 47 here is an exceedingly important witness. Neither Tisch. 
 nor Sod. quote Origen, but Matthaei has occasion to quote him, for his 
 MS 238 (not mentioned by Soden) reads otto rwv tSiav avrav and Origen 
 remarks : atto rtov tSiotv vitov tj airo tcov aWorpifov avroyv ; and again on 
 verse 26 he repeats : ovk awo rtov iSiav viiov aW oiro t<bi' aWoTpiaiv avrav. 
 This emphasis on his part lends colour to the absence of avTwv in the 
 real base since he has to repeat and emphasise ihiwv. 
 
 Matt, xviii. 2.5. Of the debtor : 
 
 Mi; ej^ovTo? he avTov awoBovvai €K€\evi7€v avTov o Kvpio>; avTOV 
 •npa6r)vai, Kai tijv yvvaiKa , . , 
 
 2 F 2 
 
im 
 
 CODEX li AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Here 004 omits o xupiot avTov outright with /aw 1 the Latin (/i and 
 sijr en siv, both being extant here, and most of Cbrj-sostom's codices, 
 while NBDL and some Latins retaining o Kvpio<; omit the avrov. Tischen- 
 dorf says " Or"""'' o /3acnXev<;," 1)ut is this correct? Does it not perhaps 
 signify that in Origen's copies o Kvpw; avrou was absent and o 0aaiK€v<; 
 supplied hy him, as o Kvpio^ or o Kvpio^ avrov by others ? 
 
 Matt. .Kx. 12. Of the labourers : 
 
 XeYOi/Tt? (oT«) ouTOi 01 ea')(a.TOi /iiav wpav eTTOirjaav, icai taov! rjfuv 
 avTov; €TTotT]aa'!, to(? ^aoTaaaai to ^apot tt;? rjficpa<t xai tov Kavawva. 
 
 Here 004 (with 220, an important MS, and 242*) omits ttj? ij/ie/jo?. 
 No others apparently, yet there are subtle variations which point to 
 something amiss, syr en saying " the weight of the ichole day and the 
 heat," syr sin: "the weight of the day in the heat," Thos: "that have 
 borne the weight of the whole day at noon." 
 
 Why supply o\»;9 ? If tij? vt^pa-; was absent in the base it would 
 account for some supplying tt;? ■qptepat and some o\ri<t Tq<i rifupa';. 
 
 Besides, 251 (another important cursive) writes to fiapot xat tov 
 Kavawva Trit r]H^pa<! as does aeth, suspiciously adding tt/? ■ii/iepa<i ih another 
 order, as does Orirjcn once ; while pers with syr pesh has : to /3apo? tij? 
 ijfi€pa^ Kai TOV Kavcrojva avTrj^. 
 
 Matt. xxi. 27. Of Christ's answer to the chief priests : 
 
 Kai anoKpiSevTe'S tm Irjaov eiitov ovk otSa/icv ■ Eipr; avTOK Kai avTOf 
 ovSe e'yw Xe^oy vfxiv ev iroia e^ovtrta TavTa iroto). 
 
 Here 604, with another important cursive 243 and the latin MS /, 
 omits Kai OUT09, while c ffi substitute Kai iijaovt, and H e ffi h syr cu pesh- 
 and ^Jf).'! tria-ov;. Atigtistine substitutes Dominus, and in another place et 
 Dominxis. 
 
 Matt. xxv. 11. Of the virgins : 
 
 T(7T€pov ?6 epxovrai Kai ai \onrai vapOevoi Xeyovaai . . . Here 004 
 alone leaves out irapBevoi. 
 
 You may ransack syr aeth coi>t and the rest of the Greeks with the 
 Latins and not find the omission agreed to. Yet the persian version 
 ouiits ! 
 
 This is really very striking and bears upon my contention that the 
 base oipers although Gtwco-Syriac antedates syr cu and syr sin. 
 
 A reference to D d will show an extra long line here, Xeyovaai and 
 diccntes being squeezed in. Possibly irapffevot absent very early was 
 already just supplied before the D d parent was executed. 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 33. 
 
 Concerning Peter's confession of attachment to our Lord : 
 KitoKpideK Se IIcTpo? fiirev avroi • " Ei Kai TrawTf? axavhaXia- 
 OnaovTai £v aoi, e'yta ovBeiroTC (jKavSaXiadrjaouai." 
 
 EPILOGUE. IMPORTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONY. 
 
 437 
 
 Tischendorf does not admit us into the inner sanctum of textual 
 criticism here, for the important little word avTm is omitted by («) b cffi 
 p. [liiant e A] (.(/i/^''' ""^ ' * '*'" Chryostom and Hilary, and the omission is 
 confirmed by sah™ syr sin with its faithful ally pers and 004 with f*' (in 
 Advers. Crit. = .503 Scrivener or 517 Gregory). 
 
 Tischendorf had no Greek witnesses at the time, for although 503 
 had been collated by Scrivener in 1803 it was not published until after 
 Scrivener's death. Soden adds his large /owi*" in which is included 503 
 [see this family again in the combination at Matthew xvii. 20 above]. 
 
 Horner only quotes sa/t'" and syr sin for omission, neglecting Greek 
 Latin and Persian witness. 
 
 The point is whether Peter announced this to those assembled round 
 our Lord or to our Lord directly, and there is a vast difference between a 
 quiet asseveration and a noisy and popularity-bidding public address to 
 the crowd generally. There was sufficient authority without the Greeks 
 for Tischendorf to mention the omission. Men cannot have noticed the 
 large support for syr sin for he does not dwell upon the point at all. 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 49/50. Of Judas' betrayal : 
 
 Kai evSeiix; irpoaiXOwv tco Irjtrov enre Xaipe paffffi Kat xaTCi^iXriacv 
 avTov. O Se iT/aoi/? ciirev avTo) KTaipe e(j> a) -rrapei ; 
 Here 004, with the rather important cursive e""^ and Soden'"" (a MS 
 at Sinai), omits auTto as does syr hier. 
 
 D says Etircw Se avTo> o lija e<^ o Trapei eTcpai and 
 d dixit autem illi ihs ad quod venisti ame (another mixture of ellipsis 
 and suspension for amice, noticed elsewhere as to D's greek, for which 
 that document is famous). N and z"" omit I»;<tou9 [this is quite neglected 
 by Soden] writing " o Se u-nev avTio." 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 71. Of the damsel's identification of Peter : 
 
 E^eXdovTa Be avTov €i<; tov iruXtova eiBev avTov aXXrj, Kai Xcyct to*? 
 ffwt Ka( OUT09 r)v p.€Ta lijaov tou Naftopaiou. 
 157 writes xai Xeyei avToii; exeivri. 
 
 Now syr sin a.ni ]]ers omit ckci here and thus agree with 157. 
 The rest have avToit or toi? but with e/tet. 
 
 Here is a pretty puzzle. How did 157 get CKeivq if c«i did not stand 
 in its exemplar (otherwise close to syr and pers) ? But if eKeivrj were basic 
 and auTOj? became mutilated and read as tok, toi<; eKeivri would become 
 intolerable and therefore be changed to tok; exei. 
 Cf. syr sin .^__em\ Kisirca ( — e/cei) as against: 
 
 syr pesh {eK€i) ^li lOOl^ I'Aolo. 
 Herman von Soden refers to syr sin'a omission of e/c« in his upper 
 notes but does not refer to 157 (he never cites pers) and Tischendorf cites 
 
4HB 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 neither pm nor 157 although Sclioh (p. 99 N.T.) had recorded 157 
 correctly and reported iw.t. {Of. Tart II. note on -exet at John xviii. 2). 
 
 Then consider the +Kai ffeXa of 157 at Mark v. 23 with pers alone 
 + fie\a> or +peto, and this reading will strike us as not very young after all. 
 
 Then, after this addition, consider the important omission by 157 
 alone at Mark xiv. 57 of xar avrov \eyovTet which may well be what Merx 
 calls Wiinderworte. and the kut avrov supplied by an over-zealous person 
 in oditio It of the sacred narrative. Pers omits kot avrov, writing 
 " qnidam alii suhurnarunt testes falsos et dicehant " msteai oi " xal Twe<i 
 avaaTdUTei; eyp-evSofiap-rvpovv Kar avrov Xeyovret." Now k also omits xar 
 avrov writing " ct alii surgentes commentiehantur et dicehant . . ." 
 Whether Xeyovre^ is a " Wanderwort" or not remains an open question, 
 but Kar avrov would seem to be waitder-words . Upon reference to the 
 passage it will be seen that xar avrov is not necessary ; would hardly have 
 been excised it present, but readily supplied in an " improved " edition. 
 Kemains syr sin, which says " Now some rose vp against hivi and say," 
 eliminating e-^jrevSofiaprvpovv. This text looks to me younger here than 
 2>ers and 157. There has been a change made in early times, and the 
 methods employed should be able to teach us something. D d off insert 
 Kar avrov after eXeyov as an afterthought as it were (from the margin?). 
 That good old witness aeth also omits Kar avrov (against sah boh), but 
 something bothered him for lie duplicates the Xeyovre'i or conflates Xeyovret 
 of most with the eKeyov of D {syr sin), for he writes "et surrexerunt testes 
 falsi et loqunti sunt et dixeriint." 
 
 For —Kar avrov we have now 157 h pers aeth. 
 
 Can you find that combination in Tischendorf ? Tiseh is silent. 
 Or in Soden ? Sodcn is blind to it, for he simply says " Om xar 
 jf!.in (0111 .ar ™,av) " J prcsuiue we should now add that very important 
 document S 371 (= B elsewhere) for —Kar avrov. 
 
 Pers comes in again with 157 at Luke ix. 13 for the omission of eii 
 ■navra (before rov \aov) and Paris" witnesses to iravra being an addition 
 or " Wandtrirort" by omitting it and writing ei? rov \aov. (Three boh 
 codices confirm 157^)e;-s). 
 
 Norn. — Neither Tischendorf s nor von Soden's apparatus cover many 
 curious things exhibited by individual Greek Mss, although they have 
 Version support. A critical edition, however, which neglects these things 
 in our day is faulty and not up to date. It forces the student to hunt 
 over the older authorities from Mill to Scrivener, which should not be 
 necessary. The text-history can be rewritten in a measure from detailed 
 observations of the kind indicated above. 
 
 Observe further, as regards the " shorter " text, that au omission 
 such as that of h in Mark xv. 8 of both ava^a<; and ava/Soi/o-a? points in a 
 dilleront direction to that of other omissions, for here Ic avoids a very 
 difUouIt choice between the two words, and his omission does not indicate 
 that the omission is basic. 
 
 EPILOGUE. IMPORTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONY. 
 
 43!) 
 
 Mark i. 35. Of Christ's withdrawal into a desert place for prayer: 
 
 Kat rrpwi €vvv\ov \iav avaarat e^rjXde Kai awrjXOev ei? eprjfiov rowov 
 Katei TT poar)VX€ro . 
 
 The primitive text here is in doubt, but 226 with Sod^*" a (exiit et 
 abiit) c (exiens iude abiit) and syr sin omit avaara^ while D does the same 
 but opposite e^iXOev Kat a-rTrjXdev has " exsiirgens abiit." Syr sin has 
 " came forth went " without copula, but syr pesh " antevertit et surrexit 
 ac abiit," while pers is " surrexit et in locum desertum abiit." 
 
 B" and a few important cursives such as 28 213 2''" Sorf"' '"" have 
 avaarat e^rjXOev without xai anriXBev [but 604 Paris" and most agree 
 with text recc2}f^, while W has avaarai; a-irriXBev without el^rjXOcv Kai. 
 
 b e q surgens abiit d (as above) ff rg'^ exsurgens abiit 
 
 S surgens egressus et abiit 
 
 / vgg surgens egressus abiit I surgens egressus est ct abiit 
 
 Goth holds the three expressions: usstandands usiddja jah gilaith ana. 
 Sah is wanting. Boh''^ express " Kat ava<TTa'; npcoi evvvxov Xiav e^rfxOev," 
 but some varj'. 
 
 Mark ii. 26/». 
 
 Of Christ's reference to David's action in the House of God: 
 . . . Kai chtoKe xai roit aw avrm ovai. 
 
 604 and 2'* omit the final ovuiv. To these now add W Sod"'" and 
 Sod}"* with aeth. 
 
 301 Evst 31 44 150 omit the whole clause, as does pers. 
 
 Observe that W Sod"^' 2'" and 604 invert : Kat eSoixe Kai T019 fier avrov 
 ( — oviTi) 0U9 ovK e^eariv ijiayetv ei fir] roi<; lepevtriv {pro ov<; ovk efeo-rt , . . 
 T0(? aw avra) ovai) SO that the ou? here might have caused the loss of 
 ovai, but not so aeth, which maintains the other order, yet loses ovai at 
 the end. 
 
 Mark iv. 1. Of the crowd at the lake-side-teaching : 
 
 Kat rraXiv rjp^aro SiBaaxew rrapa rrjv BaXaaaav ' Kai awr/^dri rrpo^ 
 avrov oxKot ttoXu? ware avrov e/jijSavra «? to rrXoiov Ka6i]adai ev rr) 
 BaXaaarf ' Kai rrat o oxXoi irpoi rrjv OaXaaaav em rr)^ yji rjv. 
 
 Here 604 alone leaves out rrpoi rrjv OaXaaaav altogether, but is 
 supported by aeth. 
 
 D reads T-epav tt?? OaXaaarji; as a d q and the Syriac, omitting em 
 Ti;? 71;?, and W ev ras aiyiaXto as the Latins b c efffg r, while the versions 
 vary, j)f)s sah and most boh expressing ev ra> aiyiaXa tj;? OaXaaarft. The 
 other boh codices vary, and arm expands to "on the shore they were 
 keeping to the dry land." 
 
 fam 1 read rvapa rrjv OaX. eiri tjj? 7179 t)v and 
 
 A reads £/? ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, -qaav (S in vel circa mare super 
 
 terra erat sic) 
 apparently eiri ,, ,, Trpo? ,, ,, tjk (or rjaav) 
 
440 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Laura'' '"' changes the order of the end to v e-m tv9 7»??, and 
 NBCLA f? (erant sic) 892 with Evst 49 and y'" and a few substitute rjaav 
 for r)v, while some Latins as sijr have stahat or sta\et (e) or scdehat (c). 
 Some have etti tijk 'y-qv rjv. 
 
 la the midst of all this confusion (with d going against D with A, 
 and 8 going against A with D) G04 stands out with a simple omission and 
 has support of acth. 
 
 Mark iv. 20. Of the parable of the sower : 
 
 Kai ovTOi €iaiv ot eiri irfv yriv rr/v KoXrjv aTrapevrfi . . . 
 
 28 21" and peia [mut. mji- cit sin] omit ovrot. 
 
 Add to these Sod"" and deduct 157 which I find does not omit 
 [confirmed to me again by Monsignor Mercati] although Scholz reports it 
 lor omission with 28. 
 
 Observe that NBCLA suhstitute exetvot. 
 
 l\Iark V. 23. Of Jairus' speech to our Lord : 
 
 Kat 7rap€KaX€t avrov TroWa \eywv oti to Ovyarptov fJLov etrvaTo)? 
 *X^' ' A iva e\6(ov eTTiBr)'; avTt] T09 X^'P"-^ ottojs atoffji Kai ^riaerai. 
 
 157 inserts xai 6e\tu before iva eXdmv = pen [Obs. the extraordinary 
 base of jieis in the later examples]. 
 
 Mark v. 48. Of Christ's injunction for silence following the healing : 
 
 Kai cteaTeiXaTO avroi*; iroWa iva fiJjSef; yvw rovro ' Kai eirre SoOrjvai 
 auTTj <J3ay€iv. 
 
 Here C04 alone [now joined by Sod"^", a very important witness], with 
 d (which Sodcii neglects and he does not mention cff) and cffq with aeth 
 and pcrs (replacing syr en and sin which are wanting), omits rovro 
 altogether. The diatessaron quotes ex Luc viii. 56, which brings in to 
 yeyovo'; (o ?€ TrapriyyeiXev avrof; /i-riSevi ciireiv to yeyovo^), and therefore 
 Sod'"'" 004 aeth pet s c dffa.nA q are quite unaffected by a harmony here 
 in Mark. 
 
 Gregory will please note this and bring it into his new apparatus, for 
 Tischendorf neglects the omission altogether, not even recording d which 
 has : lit i ncmini dicerent although D has iva /itjSck yvoi tovto, the touto 
 occupying a place on the line below, opposite which d has nothing. 
 
 — rovTo may well be basic, and have been supplied to round out the 
 sentence. 
 
 As a matter of fact the Latins vary the expression, I S and vgtf having 
 id, e having iUum, a f having hoc, and 6 having istut, while c dff q omit. 
 
 Mark vi. 39. Of the feeding of the multitudes : 
 
 Kai €7r€Ta^ev auTOi? avaxXtvai Trai/Ta? avfnrotria av/Miroo'ta . . . 
 ()04 with arm and pers (this conjunction here apparently antedating 
 the syriac of sijr sin) omit Travra^, while Origen with 2'" and Soden°" 
 
 EPILOGt'E. IMPOHTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONY. 
 
 441 
 
 changes the order (barometric sign) to irainat avaxXwai, and the important 
 minuscule 33, with all boh Mss but one, elides iroi'Ta? and substitutes 
 auTou?. 
 
 33 604 therefore with boh arm and pers form no mean combination 
 here for omission. 
 
 [In my collation of Evan. 604 p. Ixvi delete 473 (= 2'") and place the 
 reading of 604 on p. xxxii. under " Unique."] 
 
 Mark vii. 6. Ot the quotation from Isaiah : 
 
 Be aiTOKpiBei's tmev avTon (oti) KaXam vpoe^rjTivucv Haaia<; Ttept 
 vfjLiov r(i)v vnoKpnuiv w? yeypanTai : . . . 
 
 For m? yeypa-mai 604 substitutes Xeytov with c ff dicens, !> d i icai 
 eiirev, fam 1 2'" arm eo? eiirev. Sod"''" 05 enrev as rt 6 : qui dixit, while syr 
 sin conflates : " as it is written that he had said." 
 
 Clearly the reading of 604 cjf is the simplest of all, and syr sin knew 
 both readings at the time that document was prepared. 
 
 M irk vii. 8. Of the ceremonials of the Pharisees : 
 
 A^i/TE? yap TTjv evToXrjv tov ^eov, xparene ti]v irapahoaiv lav 
 avOpwTTOJV ^a7ni(Tp.ov<; ^eariov icai TTOTqpKov Kai aXXa irapoiwta roiavra. 
 ■itoXXa troieiTC. 
 
 28 and 21" (to which now add Sod"'") omit TroXXa. 
 Observe great variety among others : roiavra voXXa irapo/wia, TroXXa 
 ■napofiota Toiavja, vapo/ioia ■rroXXa TOiavra, irapo/wia TOiavra iroiene 
 TToXXa, vapofioia Troiene joiavra voXKa, always shifting iroWa about, 
 while a few drop Toiavra in the process. 
 
 Om. vers, syr sin. Cf. diatess. Explic. NBLWA ad verb. avOpwirav. 
 (Soden neglects 28 for omission of TroXXa.) 
 
 Mark vii. 23. Of the wickednesses of the human heart : 
 
 iravja lavra Ta iTovripa eaioOev eKiropcverai Kat Koivoi top avOptoirov. 
 
 This follows the long list of evil things in verse 22, and to irovijpa is 
 therefore not necessary in verse 23. For this reason it may have been 
 removed as an " improvement " by 1 2'" and 604, who omit, but it is 
 rather a strong combination among the cursives, and might he basic. I 
 say " might " at a venture, but upon turning up the persian version, there 
 agaia in that marvellous document, so pregnant of " base," ra irovijpa 
 does not find a place. It is quite striking. 
 
 (Some omit iravra, some touto and some Ta ante Trovtjpa.) 
 
 Mark viii. 25/». 
 
 Concerning the wording of the final clause as to the blind man's 
 
 restored sight : 
 . . . Kai eve^Xe-^ev TT/Xau-yoj? airavra';. 
 Some read a-jravTa (and DW -n-avra), and some SrjXavyio';, and some 
 
442 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 a..^^e..., and some vary the order in which ana.ra, or a^a.ra finds 
 a place and acfh copt .yr have ,ra. or omne, but it is left for 33 alone 
 ot Uieeks with c Ic aloue of Latins to omit ana.ra or omuia outright i 
 
 .nZ'inn'' 'T'T^^ ^^ ^'"'"' ^^ ^"PP°^^ ^y independent collation), 
 mentions 6i, hut Tischendorf has not mentioned 33 in his viilth edition 
 confimns hnuse f to the enumeration of c k. In such a place as thi 
 omma might well be an addition, and its omission be basic. 
 
 l^rark X. 8. Of the clos3 union of husband and wife : 
 
 oiare ovxeji eiai Svo aWa fua aap^. 
 
 28 (neglected by Sodev) 71 Evst 222. now joined by W and Sorf^"» 
 syM.dlco„tra D"iffk syrr (pers) sal, aeth {boh"n have ovk for ovKert. 
 
 JNot withstanding this large testimony, Tischendorf does not even 
 inention this variation. In his day only 28 71 and Evst 222 witnessed to 
 It. But now add W (confirming 28) and Sod'" with dff k and versions. 
 
 IMark X. 21 . of the righteous young man : 
 
 O Se I-naov; e/i^Xti^ras avT^yyawvaev avTOv xai ettrev avTO, . . . 
 «^T<«, after €f.^\^^]ra,, is omitted by 28 and Clem. Tischendorf did 
 not know of 28 wlien citing Ckm. Sod""' "" also omit. 
 
 Mark X. 47. . Of blind Bartimaeus : 
 
 Kat aKovaa<; OTi \r,aov<; o ^a^a,pa,of iativ vp^aro Kpa^dv Kai 
 \eyciv . . . 
 
 28 omits Kai Xeyew with sah"" (Horner overlooks the agreement of 
 Greek 28 with his sail ms). 
 
 Upon turning once more to the 2'ersian (oh wonderful and neglected 
 monument of antiquity for control of such readings) it is found that pers 
 also omits the raj Xeyew or Xeytov of the rest. Pers as interpreted reads : 
 et clamorc svhlato vocifcrntus est without any mere "saying" about it. 
 
 Mark x. 51. 
 
 Kai aTroKpt0ei<! \ey€t avrm o lijaovi ti 0£\et? -iroiriao) aoc; O &e 
 TvtpXo'i eiwev avrto^pajSPovi iva avapKe^to. 
 
 28 with 892 (omitted by Soden) omits this second outm. They are 
 supported by c aeth and once more by that wonderful jKrs (against the 
 syriacs which we know) : " Caecus respondit." 
 
 Mark xii. 4. Of the parable of the lord of the vineyard : 
 Kat -naXiv airemeiXe Trpo? avTov; aXXov hovXov. 
 
 This Kat init. is omitted by 28 and c e sah 4/6 arm, and turning to 
 pcrs the omission is once more confirmed by that version [sijr sin omits 
 tlie whole versej. 
 
 On the other hand irdXtv is omitted by W (sister of 28) with X and 
 one sah lis'', not all as would be gathered not only from Tisch but from 
 
 EPILOGUE. IMPORTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONY. 
 
 443 
 
 Soden, for the rest substitute " Afterwards " except sah'-° which has both 
 JiiftitCUJC and ort. 
 
 Observe that arm pers quite replace the old syriac here, which omits 
 the verse. 
 
 (Note. — The viciousness of the elder Soden's practice of quoting " af " 
 instead of <> or ^ or e A' is illustrated excellently here. He says " om xai' 
 I' "' af c." He means " om. 28 e c " for A" has it " Et iterum.") 
 
 Since W reads Kat and 28 IlaXji' for Kat vaXiv thus opposing the text 
 of the majority, but each in a different way, it is clear that a mark of 
 deletion stood in the margin of the Common parent and was applied by 
 one of them to the wrong word. 
 
 Mark xii. 2C. Of the resurrection, referring to Exod. iii. C : 
 
 Tlepi Se Twv vexpav on eyetpovrai ovk aveyvane cv ttj ffi^Xw Maxrew? 
 ent Tii<! /3oT0t/ 0)5 eiirev avrai o ©eo? X£7c»i' eya o ©fof AjSpaap. . . . 
 
 Xeyav is omitted by 28 b aur vg^ diatess-arah sah 1/4 and syrr with 
 pers and arm. 
 
 Mark xii. 30. Of the first and second Commandments : 
 avTTi TTpunri evToXi; ' Kat Sevrepa ofiota avTq ... 
 There is very great variation here, but 28 2^", joined by W Sorf"° A- 
 Exis^'^ t simply omit evroXri while having own/ Trpwri; which is omitted 
 together with evroXij by NBELA^' copt. The S3'riac8 retain avrri -npaTrj 
 iVToXr). 
 
 Mark xii. 34. Of the silence imposed by Christ's answer: 
 Kat ovhet'; ovKeTt eroXfia avTOV ^ eirepoyTtjaat. 
 Here 28 with jjers once more adds rt after avTov and before eirepoiTTjaat. 
 So do b q at the end : Et nemo iam audebat eum interrogare quicquam. 
 This wording (without quicquam) is exactly that of d which retains ya?K, 
 while the Greek of D opposite lacks ovxert as do ^' 124 Sud'^'^ and sah 
 boh. b-q especially in conjunction are very important in Mark. How did 
 Tj get in or out of the text ? The secret seems to lie in the ovx/eTt, for 
 instance 61 c'" reading ovk without en but not supplying n later, x" 
 places ovKCTi last, writing : koi ovSciv CToX/ia avrov eireparrjaai ovKen, A 
 few and a merely reverse ovKen eroX/ui to eroX/jta ovKen, X Paris" Sorf"'"' c 
 merely reverse avTov e-nepoiTijaat to eireptoTiiaai avrov. It remains for W 
 to supply a key, for W writes : Kat ovSett croXfia avrov ovKert errepanav, 
 bringing ovKen before eTrepmrav, which in a close uncial supplies the 
 missing n exhibited by b and q and 28^f7-s. The closest relationship 
 between W 28 and some common parent is thus shown again here, for 28 
 also writes eireponav instead of e-jrepwrriijai. (Evan 433 boh supply en after 
 e-nepunriaai, omitting ovxert previously.) 
 
 t Diserte " Kttra Mn/tKoc * 
 6tvTtpa oftota TtivTfj (sic). 
 
 . . . tofum locu7n cxscri^sit et in fine ita : av-ni npaTjj ■ not 
 
J 44 
 
 CODEX n AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Mark xiii. 2. Of the great buildings of the Temple 
 
 Ka, o I, ,00^ aiTOKpiOw etirev aura, /9\67r€<? ravTa, Ta<; ueya\a<; 
 otKooofia'; ; r- / > 
 
 nn,i I t'l-'l""' ^°^"^ '° ^"' 604 a 6 i,.? and rjX^. Add also W 
 and Sod which are observed also to omit. 
 
 There exists quite son.e variety as to the form of the sentence, and 
 there is hardly any reason to remove o \r,aov,, while there is every reason 
 to insert it, because the Greeks do not mention Jesus by name in verse 1 
 
 Horner neglects 2"" and G04 while giving a h i. 
 
 Mark xiv. :35. Of the agony in the garden : 
 
 Kai Trpoe\0a>v fiiKpov tneaev em ry; yif,<; Kai ir po<fqvxero . . . So 
 most, but DGS Sorf-« fam 1 fam 13 2"= 604 al^" latt arm syr sin add 
 ewi Ttpoawwov or ein irpoawrrov avTov, retaining e-ni tt;? 7,)?. 
 
 28 alone suhstitutes eiri Trpoaaitov avTov for eiri ■Tr,<s 7,9 with c : in 
 faciem (-ejus), for h syr sin and others have infaciem super terram. 
 Pers opposes 28 here and has merely in terram as most Greeks. 
 The conflation is old. 28 must have chosen the wrong half of it, 
 unless by some chance 28 and c alone retain the right half. 
 
 Mark xiv. 40. Of the capture of Christ : 
 
 Of Se eve^aXov ewavrov rat x^ipat avTcov Kai txparriaav avrov. 
 892 (and now add W SocP"' also) d ff aetli pers omit eir avrov. This 
 amid a great variety of readings by the others. 
 
 Mark xiv. .')7. Of the trial of Christ : 
 
 Kat Tire? avaaravTe^ e-<jr€vSofiapTVpovv Kar avrov Xeyoi/re? on. . . 
 
 157 (and now Sod"^ a very important witness) with k pers and aeth 
 omit KaT avTov. 
 
 Observe the manner of treating this in some others. See p. 438. 
 
 Mark xv. 36. 
 
 In connection with him who tendered the sponge of vinegar : 
 Apafuov Be el's Kai yep.iaa^ <7TT(r/yov o^ovs irepiOeK; re KaXapa eiroji^ev 
 auTov Xe76n< Ai^ere iSwfiev ft ep^erai H\(a9 KaOtKav avToii. 
 
 This is a difficult place. As W is lacking here {Mat xv. 13-38) and 
 28 exhibits a rare reading I will cite it. 
 
 28 alone substitutes for Xeyiov " 01 Se Xonroi eXeyov " which may come 
 from a reference to Matt xxvii. 49 "01 Se Xonrot eXeyov " [B and a few 
 there emov]. In St. John xix. 29 ireptffevTet; (and 7r\77(Tai/Te? previously 
 of some Mss) makes the action that of more than one man. 
 
 The fact remains, although the diatess follows Mattheio's wording 
 " But the rest said," yet using all the Gospel accounts (§ lii.) that syr sin 
 and jtcsh turn X€7a)v into the plural supplying a copula, while ^ers merely 
 has a stop after eTrori^ev avrov. and continues " dicebant." They therefore 
 
 EPILOGUE. IMPORTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONY. 
 
 44.') 
 
 read the plural without supplying Xonroi of Matthew. D" cuts the knot 
 by omitting Xeywv altogether. Fam 13 substitute Xeyovrc's for Xeytav, but 
 do it in an ampler way, turning all into the plural. Is Xeyav of most 
 really basic in Mark or an error, and did the original read Xeyovai ? Or 
 was the original Latin dicunt or dicebant and not dicens ? 
 
 Luke i. 21. Of Zacharias' delay in the Temple : 
 
 Kai rjv o Xao(! irpoaZoKtuv rov Za^apiav " Kai eOav/ia^ov ev ra )(povi^ew 
 avTOv ev tw vao). 
 ev TO) vaa is omitted by 604 and Soden^"", as well as by 34 39 108 
 142* and k'" (these Soden neglects). 
 Syr cu and sin are both missing. 
 BLW^H and 2'" Paris" change the order. 
 
 Luke i. 29. Concerning Mary's wonder at the salutation of the angel : 
 
 H 8s iSovcra Siejapax^V *"■' tm Xoyco avrov, Kai SieXoyi^erp ttototto? etij 
 o aaiTaaiio<! ovrof. 
 
 Here the famous cursive c" omits eiij with 7'* Sof?'"" """ '»"' ' ="• " '«» '. 
 Syr cu sin are wanting. 
 
 L and a few substitute ei. D Sod!'^' Sod™ emphasise av eir), but —eii) 
 might well be basic. 
 
 (Observe e " recogitaus quia sic benedixit eam.") 
 
 Luke i. 66. 
 
 Of the wonder engendered at the baptism of John Baptist : 
 Koj eOevro rravre<; 01 aKovaavret ev tij KapSta avrcov, Xtyovrei. . . 
 
 Here 604 omits 01 axovaavrei with e syr pesh^', while syr sin omits 
 irovTev and 01 axovaavret. Soden now adds 348 (his "', quite an 
 important ms) for omission of 01 aKovaavrei;, while neglecting to 
 record 604. 
 
 For 01 aKovaavrei CD" 118-209 130' 234 892 al. et SodP' "'* (cf. 
 ff goth arm) substitute 01 aKovovret, while pers (as rendered) = Et qui- 
 cunque audivit, and aeth (as rendered) = Et custodierunt in cordibus 
 suis omnia quae audiverant, showing an apparent basic difference to be 
 compromised. (See p. 454 Mark vi. 2). 
 
 Luke ii. 3. Of the enrolment or registration : 
 
 Kai eitopevovro -navret airoypa<f>e(T0ai, eKa arm eit rtjv iSiav rroXiv. 
 
 Here c"" omits eKaaro';. Tiscliendorf fails to report this and Soden 
 refuses to give the omission a place in his apparatus, but it is important. 
 Observe ,that Burkitt for syr sin has to supply " each one " in italics [he 
 uses very few italics thus] : " Now every one (-xjk- Aoa) [was going] to 
 be [enrolled] even from [his] city was each one going to his place that 
 there he might be enrolled." 
 
 Notice also that N omits iravre's with Sod^" "". N* writes xai 
 
440 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 eiropevovjo (retaining the iilurai verb) eKaaTot airoypaijxade «? tj/k €avTav 
 TToKiv, shortening, as pcrs and diatesa : " Et unmquisqite ivit ul in iirbe 
 lua dfficrihcretur," and syc'"'"'' " Et ibat quisque ut dcsciibcretiir in urbem 
 xitam.'' 
 
 There is something to ponder over here. 
 
 Luke ii. 11. Of the angel's speech to the shepherds : 
 
 OTi nex^'l "Z^'" "Vt'^^po" (r<OTtip, ot earl XptffTO? Kupio?. 
 
 a^lfiepov is omitted by 004 with 18 50 55 62 116 201 n"' Evst .52. 
 Sodcn adds ' ™^ but neglects G04 and all the rest. (What is the use of 
 such notes '?) 
 
 The important witness Sod^ '" of the NB family changes the order to 
 aanrfp (rrjfiepov (as boh^) and may have imported arjfispov from his margin. 
 
 Luke vi. 10. Concerning the man with the withered hand : 
 
 Kat TTEpi/SXeTjra/tei'Oi; Trainai; avTOVV, eiire tcb avOpwnu) " Vjktuvov Ttjv 
 X^^P"' "O" ' ^f iTotrjcrev ovTto ' xai airoKarearaOrf tj p^ejp auTOW Vfirf's eo? 
 
 This passa£;e is practically in the same class as the one noticed 
 toward the end of this chapter at vi. Hfin. 
 
 Instead of o Se cnoirjaev, NDX al. it vg copt syr pesh arm aeth 
 substitute o ^e e^ereivev (compare Matt. xii. 13, Mark iii. 5), and a 
 minority have o Se eiron^aev outw?. The detail will be found in Tischen- 
 dorf, but he neglects to state that c'" omits the phrase altogether \ Sodcn 
 having found another MS (Sod^'") which omits, does mention this in his 
 notes. 
 
 Syr sill is missing here, and therefore we have no check on the 
 critical codices c" Sod"". Yet the situation is suspicious and reminds us 
 of vi. 48. There, we have two alternatives: Sia to koXw? oiKoSo/iTitrGai 
 having no reference to the parallel, and TeOefuXicoTo yap eiri ritv -rmpav as 
 in Matt. vii. 25, while syr sin and gr. 604 show us a blank. Here we 
 have Se e-noiriaev {ovrai) having no reference to the parallel, and o Se 
 e^cTfivev a plain verbal importation from the double parallels in Matt, 
 and Mark, while c'" and Sod"" exhibit a blank in Luke. 
 
 The matter should be carefully noted, for the supplementary matter 
 interjected in alternative phrases is not at all necessary at this place. 
 
 Luke vi. 48/«. 
 
 Of the parable of the house whose foundations are secure : 
 " Tedep-eXuoTO yap e-rri ttjv ■nerpav " of most, 
 or " ha TO /raXa)? oiKohop.rfa6ai avTrjv " of the few [negl. 
 
 avTrjv rr'"'], 
 
 but entirely omitted by 004 and syr sin [Pcrs has the upper clause with 
 
 most]. 
 
 Acth already conflates both readings. • 
 
 EPILOGUE. IMPORTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONY. 
 
 447 
 
 Luke vii. 9. Of Christ's appreciation of the centurion's faith : 
 
 Axovaat Seravra o \riaov<; idavpaaev avrov ' xai arpaiJKii; to) axoXov- 
 0OVVTI avTo> oxXti) erne . . . 
 
 604 alone of Greeks, to which now add SofP" "", omits TouTa. 
 With this syr sin and syr hier agree, as also aeth and one boh Ms", 
 while one sah Ms*'' says Exfic ffA.1 "concerning these things." Horner 
 omits to chronicle syr hier (all three codices) which agree with syK sin. 
 
 Observe that while syr pesh has rauTa it changes the order, and C^^ 
 has Axouira? Se o Iijirou? ravra. 
 
 Luke ix. 9. 
 Concerning Herod's speech about John Baptist (see Matt. xiv. 2 and 
 Mark vi. 14) : 
 enrev Se lip(oSr]i; " liaavprjv eyco aireKe^aXiaa ' ri'; Se eariv ovto<; -nepi 
 ov aKovw ToiavTa ; Kai e^i]Tet iSew avrov. 
 
 For T(? Se earw oi/To? Evan 248 substitutes tj? eo-tij' oi;to? alone, 
 dropping Se, but with c e: " quis est hie," and : " hie quis est " by bff, Iqr 
 (cf. 243 >TK Se ovToi cctti). With the Latins without copula go syr cu 
 sin pcrs and diatess (and sah 1/5 Jo/i''"''). 
 
 The diatess interlards Lulce ix. 9 between Matt xiv. 12'' and xiv. 13', 
 but is clearly from Luke, avoiding Matt xiv. 2 here. See diatess § xviii. 
 20 and its beginning. 
 
 Alone, with aeth, Evan 157 substitutes ovv for Se in Luke ix. 9. 
 
 Luke ix. 13. Of the loaves and fishes and the multitudes : 
 
 EtTre Se vpoi avrov; ' Aore ot/TOt? vpei<; <j>ayetv. Ot Se enrov ' Ovk 
 eiaiv Tifuv rrXeiov rj vevre aproi icai Svo tx^ve';, ei fi.r]ri rropevSevrei; Jipeit 
 ayopatraifiev eKS rravra rov \aov rovrov Ppw/iara. 
 
 157 (with Paris'" «? tok Xaov tantiim) and pers with boh"""" omit ei? 
 
 Luke ix. 20. Of Christ's enquiry for the testimony of the apostles : 
 E(7r€ Se avroK ' v/ieti Se rwa pe Xeyere ewai ; 
 
 604 omits pie \e7«T6 eivai altogether, alone with Dial. As to syr sin 
 it is mutilated, but Burkitt says " there is not space for all the words." 
 
 Fers, observe, slightly alters, saying " Vos de me quid dicitis." 
 
 Some aeth mss I believe omit px eivai. 
 
 Luke x. 5. Of the salutation due on entering a house : 
 
 Ei9 rfv S' av oiKiav etaepxv^^ rrparov \€7€T£ ' EiCpqvq tw ockio towto). 
 Paris" and D" with d* r Orig and Terf^'" omit rrparov. {Tert""' : 
 " quam introissent domum pacem ei dicere.") 
 
 Luke xii. 34. Concerning the proverb of the heart and its treasure : 
 OTTOU yap earw o Orfaavpo'; vpmv, exei xat i) xapSia vpav ear at . 
 c"' omits e-jrai outright with Sod'''^". 
 
44B 
 
 CODEX II AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Of the Greeks LA substitute eanv. 
 
 D and some place it between exet and Kat. 
 
 The word may not originally have completed the sentence at all, 
 which is complete without the second verb. Tischendorf, as so often, 
 does not report c"" here. 
 
 The reason for which I emphasise the witness of c"' even when alone 
 is that elsewhere this MS lends its voice to very powerful minority 
 groups, as at xix. 23 - Kai init. Of course c"^ is quite a critical codex as 
 may l)e seen in its graphic e^eXOeiv for eK0ecv at Luke xiv. 10 fin. or at 
 Luke xxiv. 82 /i». 
 
 {Of. c " at Luke xiii. 30 oi eaxct-toi pro eiaiv eaxarot. Paris" supplies 
 oi but has eiaiv which c'" lacks.) 
 
 Luke xiii. l-"). 
 Of our Lord's personal application in his answer to the apxt<rvvaya>yw 
 as to healing on the sabbath : 
 AireKpiffij ovv avTW o Kvpiof, xai eiTreu, TtroKpiTa, e/cao-TO? v/iav tw 
 aa/3l3aTa> ov Xvei rov ^ovv avTOV rf rov ovov a-iro t»)? (^otvt;? xai anayayav 
 TTOTjfet ; ravTTiv Se, Ovyarepa A^paa/i ovaav . . . 
 
 The authorities cannot agree whether our Lord said vTroxpna ! or 
 vTTOKpnai\ and are very much divided. As the record says aviKpWi) ovv 
 avTM 6 Kupio? Kal elwev (and not awexp. ovv 6 Kvpio^ xal elirev aural) it 
 may well be that the less personal viroKpnai and not inroKpna was the 
 apostrophe. 
 
 But c " alone shows us a blank here, and has neither. 
 Tisch again fails to exhibit here the omission of c'". Sabatier calls 
 attention to Tertnllian'''"' which (although non liquet) has no introduction 
 and begins " Uiiusquisque vestrum sahbatis non solvit "... quoting in full 
 to -rroTi^ei. Certainly c'" and Tert should be coupled and mentioned 
 together. 
 
 Luke xiv. 8/9. Of the place at the wedding feast : 
 
 JfT/TTOTe evTifiorepof aov i? k£/cX.7)/«i;o? utt' outou Kai e\da>v o ae xai 
 avTOV KoXeaa'i, epei aoi ' Ao? toutw ^ roirov • . . . 
 
 Here 1-57, with copt and syr, supplies tov before tottov. This may 
 have been lost immensely early. Observe aeth : " Cede hnic personae " 
 (" the place " understood). 
 
 Luke xvi. 12. 
 What Christ said in his comment on the parable of the nnjust steward : 
 
 Kai et £V T6) aWoTpiw iriaTOt ovx eyeveaOe, to vfiercpov tj? v/iw 
 
 So>a€i ; 
 
 157 and e i I with Tert'""' are definite as to the substitution of e/iov 
 
 for vfitTepov. 
 
 {ilneTepov by BL Sot?"' and Evst 21 Orig.) 
 
 EPILOGUE. IMPOHTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONY. 
 
 449 
 
 Luke xvii. 23. What action to take when the Son of Man is announced : 
 Kai epovcnv vfuv ' ISov a>Be r) iSov exet, /jtrj a-jrcXOriTe /ir/Be Sia^rire. 
 157 with ayr and^)e>-s omits fnjSe SiMfijre. {Cf. B and sah.) 
 
 Luke xviii. 2. 
 
 Of a judge in a certain city and the importunate widow : 
 Xeyav " K/)jtj)? t(? ijv ev rwi iro\et . . . 
 c'" and o"' with pers"''' omit t« ; but then syr sin thereagainst omits 
 rivt, perhaps for the same purpose of destroying the pleonastic "pair": 
 " A certain judge there was in a certain city." But note that the 
 important MS Paris" also omits t(? with c"'. 
 
 (Some have rij for rtvi, and 33 has ev rtvi rrf iroXei.) 
 Sah very simply " A judge in a city " with two indefinite articles : 
 OirffplTHC git 0"*no?vIC, and boh also, which does not however trans- 
 literate the Greek words. 
 
 Luke xviii. 9. 
 
 Of the introductory clause as to the parable of the publican and the 
 pharisee in prayer : 
 
 EtTre Se xat irpo^ tiva^ tou? •neiroiOoTa'i €^ eavroi^ on eiai ZiKaioi xai 
 €^ov0evovvTa<; tou? Xolttov^ ' Ttjv irapa^oXijv TavTrfv ' Av0pojT7ot Sua 
 ave^tjaav €I9 to tepov Trpoaev^aaOaL . . . 
 c"' leaves out ti/v napaffoXrjv ravTrjv. So does D" and d. No others 
 apparently. But observe that the syriacs sah and pers bring it in quite 
 early in a peculiar place and order before vpo^ nvav, " And he was saying 
 this similitude (or parable) against (certain) folk that trust in them- 
 selves . . . ," while the Latins, even those which have sitnilitudinem for 
 paraholam, keep the Greek order. 
 
 Tischendorf should certainly have mentioned c'". He only says : 
 " D om." 
 
 Luke xxii. 15. 
 
 Concerning the last supper and the mention of the Passover : 
 
 Kat enrev irpov avT0V<; ' eiriOvfiia e-mOvp-rjaa tovto to 7rao";^a <J3ayetv 
 fled vfiMV irpo TOV fie iradeiv. 
 
 In this very important passage (uncomplicated by the accounts in 
 Matthew and Mark) the noteworthy cursive 71 with vg''' and syr cii sin 
 ici/i*' with Tert^^"" very definitely: Concupiscentia concnpivi Pascha edere 
 vobiscinn antequam patiar, completely suppress touto or hoc, against the 
 other Greeks and Latins, against syr pesh and the diatess (quoting Luke 
 xxii. 14/10 continuously). The only Latins besides vij^ to throw light on 
 the matter are c and Hilary. In c " hoc " is present but " Pascha " 
 absent; thus also in jfU'of *'■<"■_ dcsiderio cupivi noc manducare, but 
 HiV" >"'"• "» neglects hoc and introduces Pascha without hoc : " dcsiderio 
 
 2 o 
 
450 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 dcxidcravit cum discipnUs PascJia manducare." Possibly in c's copy a 
 mark was present for the deletion of hoc which that MS applied to Pasclia. 
 Tiacheiidorf am\ Sodcn completely ignore the omission of rovro, and again 
 refuse to let us enter with them the arcanum of textual criticism. 
 
 Luke xxiii. l.?. 
 
 Concerning Pilate's speech to the assembled multitude about our 
 Lord's apparent guiltlessness : 
 
 . . . av€Tre/j,yjra yap vfuit Trpof avTov [ai. aveTre/i^ev yap av-rov Trpo? 
 T^/za?] Kai iZov ovBev a^iov Oavarov ctni TT^irpayfievov avTto. 
 
 Here iSov is omitted by e" |I wonder if this should not be c'"] and 
 })'' d with vgrf^"- [hiat Cj] syr cti sinpers and diatess. 
 
 TiscJi and Soden report this because D d also omit. I introduce it 
 to show the omission upheld by one cursive. The diatess quotes con- 
 tinuously Luke xxiii. 4/lB. There is an iSov in the previous verse 
 xxiii. 14 not modified by sj/r cu sinpers,hvLt for xai iSov eyio there D 
 writes : xayay &€, and d : et ego autem, and diatess also without ecce 
 there. 
 
 Luke xxiv. 39. 
 
 Of Christ's request for identification after the resurrection : 
 
 \SeTe Ta? y^eipat fiov xai tovi TroSat fiov on avTO's eyw eifu ' ifrrj\aif>i]- 
 aajc jxe Kai ihere ' on nvev/ia crapxa Kai o<rTea ovk e^et Kadai<; €/j.e Oeoipene 
 exovra. 
 
 The Greek cursive 300 omits outo? with a r ? I. Syrr copt omit 
 auTO? altogether, while the rest vary the order and form of auTos eyco et/u. 
 considerably. (Pers omits altogether). avro^ probably came in for 
 emphasis from the margin. Soden adds ^", presumably ' '" = 4 (Paris 
 nat. 84) for plain omission of avTo<;, and indeed an addition to the basic 
 text would be quite likely here. 
 
 {Soden, as usual, neglects the witness previously reported for omission, 
 viz. Evan. 300.) 
 
 John i. 1-5. 
 
 Concerning the wording of John Baptist's witness to Jesus : 
 
 IcDawi)? /lapTvpei irept avTov, xai tcexpaye \€yo)U ' Outo? i]v ov etirov ' 
 O oTTtao) fiov epxpfievof, e/J-TTpoadeu /lov yeyovev. 
 
 314 (= Sod'^^^) reads ecrn for rjv. The Latins vary between est (ah c 
 c f q r fi aur vgg') as (syr), and ciat (h S [hiat d] vgg''^ lien Aug), but 
 1-Jvst 54 omits outright. 
 
 This is interesting because N alone of Greeks omits ov €nrov following, 
 with arah, as if between rjv and ov ei-ttov a mark had perhaps been set 
 indicating omission, and N had omitted ov eivov and not ■qv. 
 
 The holiairic really seems to omit iqv (xe ct*-' "I'M eTAIXOC] 
 
 EPILOGUE. IMPORTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONV. 
 
 451 
 
 John ii. 19. Of the rebuilding of the temple (of His body) : 
 
 AneKpiOr) Irjoovi Kai eiirev avTOK Avaare tov vaov rovTov xai 
 ev rpiaiv Tj/up ati; eyepas avTOv. 
 
 Evst 47 reads with Ignatius Sta Tpiwv rjfiepav. 
 
 John V. 27. Of the Father's great gifts to the Son : 
 
 . . . Kat e^ovaiav eSaxev avTto Kai xpiaw Troieiv . . . 
 Now elmKev is omitted outright only by Evst 47 and diatess, making 
 ehaiKtv of verse 26 serve here also. Observe that the syriac and pers 
 substitute fecit for dedit in verse 27. Neither Tisch nor Soden notice 
 these readings. 
 
 John vi. 22. Concerning the departure of the disciples : 
 
 Tt) ewavptov o ox^of o eaTtjKO)'; irepavTrj'; da'Kaaar}'! iSmv on irXoiapwv 
 aXKo OVK r)v €Kei ei fit) ev exeivo em o eve^r/trav oi fiadijTai avTov, xai on ov 
 avveiariKde loit nadjjTaf} avTov o Itjo-ou? ef; to -nXoiapiov, aWa fiovoi oi 
 /jiadriTai avTOV aTtTfkdov. 
 
 Neglecting other variations, observe that the syriacs t with pers omit 
 the last clause, as do the diatessaron and Evan 220 and Evst 222 (z"0. 
 Tischcndorf mentions 220 but neglects z^', while Soden calmly ignores 
 both Greek manuscripts. 
 
 There is no break in diatess between verses 22 and 23 (proceeding 
 with 23/60 continuously). Observe that the Latins (so intimately 
 connected with the syr and diatess) apparently do not recognise this 
 omission. 
 
 (N 56-58- CI ffi I omit airrfKOov in this clause.) 
 
 John vi. 23. 
 
 Of the ships from Tiberias, whether they came, had come, or were there : 
 AWa Se i)K0e irXoiapia ex TifiepiaSo^ £771;? rov towov ottov e^ayov 
 rov aprov (vxipifTTiiravToi tov Kvptov. 
 
 892 and Sod'"' with the diatess have vv for TfXOe. 
 
 Some have t]\£ov for r/Xde placing it in various differing positions. 
 
 N has eneXdovToiv ovv twv TrXoiav for aXXa &e T/X^e (or riX6ov) nXotapia 
 a.niovari<! instead of tov tottov. D has aX\o)v TtXoiapiav eX$ovTcav {d aliae 
 naviculae venerunt). Cf.hr: et cum supervenissent aliae naves, cf. syr cu. 
 
 The vg has : aliae vera supervenerunt naves. (Siy)<?rvenerunt is 
 favoured by the Latins, but not hy a d e f.) 
 
 Among all this variation, 892 Sod'"* diatess substitute r^v. It seems 
 to me that, including this j/w, it all savours of retranslation. 
 
 t Syr tin is said to be illegible here, but syr cu agrees with mjr pcsh mi pers to 
 omit. (Pen doubtless replaces syr >in.) 
 
 2 G 2 
 
452 
 
 CODEX D AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 John vi. 42. 
 Of the murmuring Jews' speech concerning the parentage ot our Lord 
 and of his strange speech about his descent from Heaven : 
 Kai eXeyov ovx outot earw Ijjtrou? o viot i(aar]<j>, ov ijfieK oi&a/iev tou 
 Trarepa xai jtfv fitjTepa ; 7r(U5 ovv \eyci outo? oti ck tov ovpavov Kara- 
 ffeffrjKa ; 
 
 There is found to be a difference of opinion as to whether ovv or vw 
 should follow TTO)?. 
 
 BCTW Sod"''" boh arm syr hier Ath""''' supply vvv. 
 
 a and D on the other hand, with the other Greeks, most Latins and 
 aah 4/7, prefer ovv. 
 
 The pealiitta does neither, but prefixes Kai. 
 
 The editors are strangely enough agreed here ; TiscU and Hort on the 
 strength of BCT, and Soden on the strength of BCT and the additional 
 W Sod"™, print ttw? vvv. But are they right ? Does not perhaps little 
 y"' here hold the key, which cursive MS writes ttm? tantum 1 
 
 The point is that syr ai sin and pers with arab and the latins a e 
 and .lah 3/7 are agreed to omit in the same way as v'", merely saving irm?. 
 Still the editors might be right ; but when we find Paris" backing up 
 V", the ift/riacn, a e,, the persian, the arabic, and sah 'Sj7 for omission we 
 must pause to ask the reason why. 
 
 Since therefore once more N and B are not agreed (and aeth Jo/i''"""'"" 
 vg'"^ conflate) does not Paris" hold (with v"") the true base behind HB, 
 and are not sijr i>ers with sah 3/7 and Paris" v"' the purveyors of the 
 " true text " ? 
 
 John vi. G4. Of Christ's speech to the disciples on a certain occasion : 
 Aw eiaiv tf vfuov Tivf? oi ov irKnevovaiv. 
 Here rive's is omitted by 157 alone, and indeed may well be an 
 addition. Tischendorf, recognising this, chronicles the omission, but 
 Soden does not think it worth while, although a reference to syr sin and 
 aeth appears to confirm it. Observe here that the order of most : ff v/itov 
 Twei (so also syr cu) is varied by STX''J and some very important cursives 
 (plus syr 2>esJi hicr) to rive-! ef vfioiv. 
 
 John vi. 70. The apostrophe as to a traitor being among the twelve : 
 
 Pi.i7eKpi9ri avroif o lijcovf " Ovk ey<o v/xat tout SaSexa tfeXcfa^iji/ 
 Kai e^ vfiav eiV Sia^oXo'S eariv. 
 
 Evan 28 omits tou? ScoSexa. Cj. syr cu sin. 
 
 Note that 185 (Sod"° and a very critical codex) omits e^eXe^a/irjv, 
 having evidently mistaken the word to be deleted. Thus again 185 
 alone omits ef before vficov, intending probably to omit ek with N' ; and 
 t?ius 2'"" omits Kai ef v/iwv, retaining ei'?. 
 
 John xiii. 14/15- 
 
 Of Christ's example in the washing of the feet : 
 Ml ovv eyoi eviijra vpcov tou? iroSa's, o Kvpiof Kai o BiSaiTKaXo^, Kai 
 
 iil'lLOGUE. LMPORTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONI. 
 
 453 
 
 u/xfi? oipciXere aXXTJXiov vfnreiv tou? iroSo?. TiroSeiyfia yap eBioxa Vfuv, 
 
 iva Kadui^ eyu) eiroir^aa v/iiv, Kai v/Jti'; iroirjie. 
 
 Now this yap is omitted by 604 and the very important cursive c"'. 
 The saying is more stately thus. Not " For I have given you an 
 example," but very simply and majestically : " I (your Lord and Master) 
 have given you an example." 
 
 Does syr sin omit ? No, it has he. Do any others ? Apparently 
 none except the diatess, for Soden say8"om yapTa /»i33/i3s«." Now 
 the diatess is a good witness here, for it quotes continuously John xiii. 1/20. 
 There are no other witnesses then for this stately phrase ? Yes there are, 
 and important ones too. Soden's notes in such cases are too maddening 
 for words, for when he supplements Tischendorf (as here, Tisch neglecting 
 the omission of c'") he cannot even get the matter right. 
 
 Observe then that syr hier^'^ also omit. Is that all ? No, for pers 
 (wonderful witness!) also omits [against sijr pesh and sin]. Is that all? 
 No, not yet, for d, that other extraordinary witness, also omits, against 
 D" opposite. Such opposition between d and D*' invariably means a 
 great deal. I discover these omissions of von Soden by chance, but 
 Sabaticr had already called attention to the reading of d. Students 
 cannot possibly see these things in Tischendorf or Soden. Aeth*^^ 
 renders " Quia exemplum dedi vobis " without yap which the Coptic 
 versions hold. Is this quite all? No, because Aphraates opposes syr 
 sin and also omits yap altogether. For omission then, instead of 
 Tatian 604 and c"' as Soden tells us, we have: 604 c'" d pers syr 
 hicr^ diatess Aphraates and (aeth). 
 
 John xix. 40. Of the custom of the Jews at burial : 
 
 EXa0ov ovv TO aeofia tov Iijaou xai eh-qaav avTO o0ovioi<; /lera tojw 
 aptofiaToiv Ka6(o<; e0o<; eari toi? JovSaion evra^ia^eiv. 
 
 Paris", with sah boh (aeth), omits eari. Sod"'" (ed. B cf G) Sod'"' 
 omit 6^09. 
 
 Observe NW Greg^'" substitute tjv for ean. Oemw eOoi X'' 185 a c 
 ffng) cf. e. 
 
 John XX. 15. Of the risen one's speech to Mary m the garden : 
 
 Aeyet outt; o lijoov^ ' Tvvai, ti KXaief; ; riva fi/Tct? ; Ekejvt; SoKovaa 
 OTi KriTTovpov earl Xeyei outoi Kvpte. . . 
 
 28, with syr sin and dimma, omits o Irjaov!. 
 
 So, among the Latins, observe : 
 John xxi. 13. 
 
 Of Christ's post-resurrection action at the lake-side : 
 Kp^eTaf (ovv o) hjoovi Kai Xafi^avei tov aprov Kai BiBwoiv avToi^. 
 c with syr sin omits this epxerai. 
 c reads merely : Ttiiu: Jesus accepit . . . 
 syr sin merely: Et accepit Jesus . . . 
 
454 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Luko vi. 45. 
 
 o ayaOo^ avSpioTTO'^ €k tov ayaOov drjaavpov ttj? xapSiai; avrov 
 TTpoif>ep6i TO ayaOou ' xat o Trovripo^ avBptowo^ ex tov Trovr/pov Orjaavpov tt;? 
 Kapota^ avTov irpot^cpei to Trovrfpov. 
 
 WctcJ)'., alone elides the first t»)? Kaphas, writing: Bonus homo de 
 hono d'eniainv stw proferct bonum . . . thus alone agreeing with Dial'-K 
 
 Mark vi. 2. 
 
 xai yei'ofievov craff^mov rjp^aTo ev tt) avvaycoyt) SiBaaxew ' xai woWoi 
 axovovTe^ e^eirXTitraovTo, XeyovTet : iroOev tovto) Tavra ;... . 
 
 As against axovovTet; of textus receptus supported by NABCW unc' 
 «?'•' and dfff gi« ilqrS vgg with audientes, D^PHLA^nj Sod'^' some 
 minn, including some interesting manuscripts (and a with cum audissenf), 
 prefer aKoucravTe?, but bee have neither but exhibit a blank. It is 
 eminently a place, as will be seen upon close inspection, where a word 
 could naturally be added, and the fact that the authorities vary as to its 
 form or tense shows that it inay be an early addition. The Greek MS 
 W would probably have omitted with bee had it continued this 
 recension beyond Chapter V. I mention the example particularly 
 because W ceases to convey this type of text before the end of oh. V. 
 [Ilimit SI/)"' "", sed hahent sijr^"" '""• pers et diatess]. Cf. Ltie i. 60, p. 445. 
 
 Lastly, consider Matt. iv. 1 — viro tov ■rrvevfmTo'! 892 P"' soli, where 
 the order is changed by NK 157 si/r acth, suggesting something amiss; 
 and Mark ii. 11 -<roi Xeya eyetpe by Paris" alone, while W 40 4G 61 252 
 y"' Sod"" bee omit aot \67(», and rj sah 1/2 omit eyeipe, and N [not 
 reported by Tisch or Sod] varies the order >eyeipe <toi \67(» [Hiant syr^" *'"]. 
 
 Von Soden's New Testament, issued July 1913. 
 
 The crowning volume of von Soden's labours, viz. the New Testament 
 volume itself, reached me after nearly all of Part I. of this essay was set 
 up. I have used it for Part II. although this necessitated resetting a 
 considerable amount of type, but for Part I. I was afraid I would not be 
 able to use his work except occasionally in St. Luke and St. John, 
 but I have managed to work in most of the evidence throughout. 
 
 I shall attempt no thorough review of his system or of hid work 
 at this place. Occasional notes will be found where it is desirable to 
 correct his apparatus or to supplement my own. 
 
 I said at the beginning of this essay that the readings of Westcott 
 and llort, that is those of the MS B, had been generally accepted in 
 England and nearly as much so in Germany. I am told that in Germany 
 this is not the case. Let us look at a passage in von Soden's new 
 odit'on for information. 
 
 Upon the strength of B, Westcott-Hort have printed at Matthew xiii. 4 
 Kai e\6ovTa ra -jreTeiva xaTetpayev avTa, instead of xat rfkOev (or rj\6ov) ra 
 ncTciva Kai KaTei^ayev avTa. B had support only from f^initbaci jjfcr 
 
 epilogde. von soden s new testament. 
 
 455 
 
 y " (not mentioned by Tisch) and /aw 13 but they add tov ovpavov after 
 TTCTeiva. 
 
 I was surprised to find von Soden follow suit for this reading of 
 tXOovTa Ta v€Tava {-xai). His note on the evidence is not absolutely 
 clear, but one is to infer that besides B, these other MSB have been found 
 to have the reading, viz. 050 (MS at Tiflis related to the D text, which 
 latter here has the ordinary text) 8 30 (= J, otherwise more related to H, 
 which does not have it) e 1444 (Athos, Pantel. 101)" £ 1413 (Athos, 
 Pantocr. 34) e 1333 (Athos, Pantocr. 60) e 1216 (Berlin 55, Greg 659) ; I 
 suppose a little iota must stand for family 13, but he does not mention 
 the MSS by name nor do we know definitely whether the whole group 
 of twelve MSS : 
 
 13-G9-124-174-230-346-543-788-826-837-983-Serres 
 Scr. "556 
 has the B reading. 
 
 Schoh and Tisch after /a?» 13 had said "alii," but von Soden's list 
 does not bear this out, his witnesses being mss unknown to Scholz and 
 Tischendorf. Tischendorf neglected to mention the other witnesses 
 represented by " al." They seem to be confined to the Lectionary class 
 and are f of Matthaei (Evst 49) H'" {Evst 150) y"' {Evst 259). It would 
 have been better for von Soden to mention these additional witnesses, as 
 his choice of reading needs defence. It presupposes, like Hort's, that rfkOov 
 Ta TTCTewa grew out of a basic e\0ovTa ireTetva, but then B has e\0ovTa 
 Ta TreTCiva, and how account for the suppression of xai seq.? If B and 
 the others read ekdovTa TrcTetva there would be some force in thinking 
 that the other readings had sprung from this, but does not eXOovTa Ta 
 ireTewa merely indicate misreading or revision. 
 
 Where are NL and D and W and Z ? Opposed to B. Where does 
 Origen stand ? Opposed to B. [This von Soden's notes do not indicate, 
 as he merely reports K {Koivrfj for the regular reading.] Where are 33 
 and 892 ? Opposed to B. And so are all the rest of the mss, and the 
 versions. I mention this to show that B is still regarded too highly in 
 Germany as a basic or neutral text, and von Soden's text probablj' per- 
 petuates an error of B and of his small following. 
 
 There is no trace of this in any of the Latins, and e k, both extant 
 here, support the usual Greek text against B. 
 
 — Kat is however found in sah and boh 1/2 after the Coptic manner. 
 "Came the birds (of Heaven), they ate them." 
 
 Is this the secret? The other versions do not omit Kat. Must we 
 trace this matter also to Coptic influence on B ? Very possibly ; and B's 
 forerunner, not liking rj\0ov . . . xaTe^ayov without copula in Greek, 
 although the Coptic admits of it, changed the first Greek aorist to the 
 participle. 
 
 I claim that the versions have been unduly magnified sometimes to 
 support a Greek reading, but a'so, as in the present case, unduly relegated 
 
4r)C) 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 to the background when their joint testimony is of considerable value, 
 n von Sodon had properly grouped his evidence, and instead of saying : 
 
 A' gegcii 7/'' etc. 
 he had said 
 
 K, i'»co''0, rdl ct latt syr vcrss ct Patrcs gegen IP' etc. 
 we would have seen the real evidence. 
 
 Had ho intimated that sah and part of boh omitted the copula xai, 
 while lioldmg vXdou, we should also have got a glimmer of the probable 
 reason for the B reading, but he is silent on this point. 
 
 This is not intended to be unfriendly criticism of von Soden, but 
 only meant to indicate the lines along which we must work for a true 
 grasp of the problems involved before printing new texts. After going 
 through von Soden's apparatus to supplement my own, I have however 
 come to very serious and disparaging conclusions as to his work in 
 general. His notes are exceedingly inaccurate, his text is not founded 
 upon any consistent method of using evidence, and I regret to say that 
 he has repeatedly invented Scripture in his text without manuscript or 
 Patristic authority. The proof to this effect shall be submitted separately, 
 but some of it will be found noticed in scattered places in these volumes. 
 
 As to the Kowtj. 
 
 There remains one argument to be dealt with, and that concerns 
 the possibility of someone saying that, after all, the variations in B are 
 few in number and probably less than in most mss. That is hardly so. 
 If the reader wants a tenth-century example of a Ms true to the Church 
 type let him examine Matthaei's k, a most beautiful and neat Ms, one 
 of our very early cursives, and in this Ms will be found a true exponent 
 of the Koivi]. Had Erasmus used this, no fault could have been found, 
 and yet but little difference is to be found between k and the textus 
 receptus, while B and his group differ infinitely more among themselves 
 at a period much more remote. 
 
 The Koii/jJ probably preserves " the true text " at Luke xxiii. 8 : 
 ■qv <yap ffeXiov ef txav ov ( — ^povov) i&ew avTov ... or, as reported by 
 
 G3^' 
 
 H« 
 
 Tjv yap ef ixavov 
 
 ^ [teste Lake] 241 Evst 48 49 54 
 { — ypovov) deXcov iBeiv avTov. . . 
 This is a peculiar construction, but, being the more difficult or 
 idiomatic without xpo''otJ, is probably to be preferred. 
 
 Soden here abandons the chief uncials, which have ef ncavaiv xpovav, 
 and prints ef txavov 6eKmv without giving any authority for the K (Koivrj) 
 which he quotes, for the K has >5eX<»f cf txavov. 
 
 It BO happens however that not only ^ [teste Lake contra Soden] 
 agrees with Soden's text of cf txavov 0€\a>v, with six lectionaries, but 
 
 EPILOGUE. THE KoW)j. LUKE XXIII. 8/9. 
 
 4.57 
 
 that 241 (Matthaei's k), the very MS under consideration above, does 
 this also. I wonder if Soden has stumbled on the " true text " here as 
 confirmed by 241. For notice that the genius of all the versions 
 requires the expression of XP""""- Hence the versions very likely 
 reflected on our earliest Greek mss as seen already so often elsewhere, 
 and led to the addition of xpoxoi/, or substitution of ixavav xpovmv, while 
 the maligned textus receptus may hold the base here, and Soden and 
 241 preserve the true order ! It is more than carious, for Soden appears 
 to do so quite innocently, and ignorantly of the true evidence as to the 
 Koivt). 
 
 Winer has a brief reference to the passage on p. 459 (English edition, 
 1882), but Moulton in his translator's note 3, while saying " In Lukq xxiii. 8 
 quoted above in the text, ef ixavav xpoviov is no doubt the true reading " 
 goes quite beyond his province, and is merely bowing to the authority 
 of the company of NBD(L)T etc., whereas there is no such certainty 
 about " the true text " here, and the indications seem to me to point the 
 other way, and XP"""" more likely to have crept in than to have slipped 
 out or to have been suppressed in an " Antioch " revision. 
 
 As this brings up again Turner's ex parte obiter dictum of the oldest 
 MSS against the later ones (" which issue will never have to be tried 
 again ") I make free to go into the case as to tKavoi a little more fully 
 than Winer or Moulton (Blass is silent), for it is a very pretty test 
 passage indeed. 
 
 Now that we have seen that the " oldest " mss were affected already 
 by the versions or by the Greek text underlying the versions (whichever 
 way the critics prefer to have it put), we can the more readily see the 
 bearing of the present case as to the untrustworthiness of the "oldest" 
 Greek mss in just such a case, and realize perhaps that, although 
 mutually supporting each other, NBD(L)T 157 c d sah +T Sod"" 892 
 Paris" Laura*"" are wrong, and that the Kotvij and 241 are right at 
 Luke xxiii. 8. 
 
 The justification for this view is to be found in the classical example 
 at Acts XX. 11 whore the writer (doubtless St. Luke) in telling of St. Paul's 
 long preaching at Troas, after the revival of Eutychus, says : 
 
 " ava^w; Se xai xKaira'; tov aprov xai yev(Tap€vo';, e<j) ixavov re ofiiXriaa'! 
 axpi avyrji ovTa'; e^j]\0€v." 
 
 Here " until break of day " qualifies ei^ ixavov sufficiently to give it 
 its true Lucan meaning. 
 
 This €(f iKavov then at Acts xx. 11 (not noted by Winer) is the 
 complement of ef txavov in Luke xxiii. 8. 
 
 Besides, if we look further, we find that ixavc; is used by the writer 
 of the third Gospel and of the Acts no less than 25 times, whereas it is 
 found elsewhere only six times in St. Paul's Epistles and three times in 
 St. Matthew and St. Mark. 
 
4.-)S 
 
 CODEX Ji AND ITS ALLIES, 
 
 That St. Luke used ixavov without xp°''°^ '" xxiii. 8 is probable, 
 liecauso he so thoroughly understood the technical value of the word in 
 Greek. Tims; at Acts x.Kii. C besides using tjxot ixavov of the " great " 
 light (,'in ' enfolding ' light, see Acts ix. 3) at St. Paul's conversion, at 
 Acts XX. 37 iKavoi; Be eyevero K\avdfiov iravraiv " But they all set up a 
 great weeping," at Luke xxiii. 9 (in close proximity to the passage under 
 review) CTrrjpwTa Be avTov ev Xoyoit ixavoi^ " But he questioned him in 
 many words" (a suQiciency of words), we find in Acts xvii. 9 of the 
 taking of bond or security from Jason : 
 
 " Kat XaffovTei to iKavov," simply, 
 which is the correct technical term (not referred to by Winer or BJass). 
 Therefore when we read at : 
 
 Acts xii. 12 ov Tjaav ixavoi avvr^dpoiaixevoL Kat Trpoaevxajx^voi 
 or ,, xix. 19 iicavoi 8e . . . to? fft^yovt KaTexatov evcomov iravTwv 
 we understand that many were gathered together, and that many burned 
 their magical books, and not only that certain did so. 
 
 So again at Luke xxii. 38, of the two swords before the betrayal, 
 our Lords comment is reported thus by St. Luke : " o Be eiirev avToit 
 IKavov eiTTiv." That is to say not only "they are sufficient" but "it 
 is plenty." (C/. 2 Cor. ii. G iKavov jio toiovtod rj eirnifiia avTrj). Re- 
 turning to Luke xxiii. 8/9 observe that we meet with the use of iKavot 
 alone in both verses to signify " much " or " many " : 
 
 xxiii. 8. O Be llptuS?;? iBav tov \rjirovv e^c^prj \iav " r]v yap OeXwv e^ IKavov 
 
 tBetv avTov. . . . 
 xxiii. 9. eTnjptiiTa Be avTov ev Xoyoi? iKavoi'; ' avT0<! Be ovSev aveKpivaro 
 avTO}. 
 
 The genius of the versions then permits of the translation of iKavoit 
 in verse 9 by "many," but requires in verse 8 the addition of "time" 
 to IKavov. The versions then can only be used to trace the matter in a 
 subsidiary sense. 
 
 To ef IKavov HMXJ IT viinn"''^ and W add xpovov as most La^i!!'!, 
 the Syriacs, Aetlt and Boh. 
 
 While €? iKavav xpovav is substituted by NBDTT' Sod"" 157 892 
 I'aris'" Laura""^ and c <? of the Latins: "a (or de) multis temjioribiis." 
 Thus also the armcnian apparently, and the sahidic gixn geitftOJT' 
 ffO-ffOEIty (against huh jcxen OTJUHcy ltXPO"OC)- And AEFAA 
 tnic rcll" most Greek cursives have with the textus recc2>tus ffeXov ef 
 IKavov, while Sudcn's text prints ef ckovov 6eXav. He recognised then that 
 Xpovov or xpc"^" bad probably come in from the outside, but in adopting 
 this order I hardly think that he recognised that it is supported by ^I' 
 [teste LaU contra Soden] and by 241 Evst 48 49 54 63"'' and z«' H". 
 
 I have not mentioned L. That MS, while having €f iKuvtov xpovtov, 
 drops the OeXcov, which is necessary here, and affords a slight clue that 
 
 X X iias the order : c^ ik.ivov x/'Oi 
 
 ) 6t\tii 
 
 EriLOGUE. THE Koivij. LUKE XXIII. 8/9. 
 
 459 
 
 there may have been a mark set in text or margin for redeletion of xpoi'tov 
 which mark was misunderstood. Some difliculty also confronted the Latin 
 MS a, for it omits altogether, having only : erat enim cvpiens videre ilium. 
 That the four great cursives 157 892 Paris" Laura*"* go with 
 NBD(L)TT' Sorf"°, and that T' supports T, and Sod"'" supports D, with 
 the adhesion of the nahidic, shows that this is a fixed reading early. Yet 
 it is absolutely circumscribed as to cursives by the consent only of the 
 four named as far as I know. 
 
 The rest of the documents evidently lacked XP°^°'' or XP"'"^"' ^oi' of 
 the uncials which add xp<"">v, viz. HMXIIW, most have strong Latin 
 affiliations, certainly X and W, and the forty or fifty cursives which add 
 are a mixed lot and some add only in the margin. 
 
 It is therefore an equally fixed tradition outside of these — that is to 
 say with the remaining eleven uncials headed by A and with the great 
 majority of cursives— that xpo^o^ was not in the original text. 
 
 It is just here that ^ [teste Lake] and that remarkable exponent of 
 the Kotvij, viz. 241 (Matthaei's beautiful tenth-century cursive k), with 
 six lectionaries as named above, give Soden's order of cf iKavov ffeXtav 
 (without pfpovov). 
 
 The textus receptus then positively denies xp°''°v a place. This, 
 according to Tischendorf, Uort and Moultoti etc., simply shows that the 
 textus receptus was "revised." But was it? 
 
 Have we not clearly indicated by the undesigned coincidences cited 
 from elsewhere in Luke and Acts that iKavov without XP°^°^ would be 
 eminently Lucan, that the revisers of Antioch (if there were any) would 
 not be any more " classical " than Luke himself, but that more probably 
 Alexandria (to prevent any ambiguity) not merely added xP°^°"> ^^^ 
 changed ef iKavov to ef iKavmv xpova>v, and that this was done at so 
 early a date as to mislead Moulton and other followers of Tischendorf 
 and Hort into thinking that it is " the true text." It would certainly 
 have been passing strange for "Antioch" to change the plural e^ iKavav 
 Xpovav to the singular ef iKavov without xP°vov. 
 
 At the end of our journey we can now afford to call attention to 
 such a passage. No matter whether a consensus of NB(L)TT'D Sod"'" 
 157 892 Paris" Laura* '"^ (SocP"") read one way, their reading is 
 improbable as an original one. Merx is silent on this passage, but 
 Soden, notwithstanding additional testimony of T' Sod"'" 892 Paris" 
 Laura*™ {Sod"'^^, all unknown to Tischendorf and Hort, is content to 
 oppose NB(L)DT 157 and these added authorities, and not only content 
 to oppose them, hut, unconsciously apparently, gives us the reading and 
 order of 241 : — 
 
 rjv yap cf ixavov deXcov iheiv avTov. . . 
 
 and vindicates the Koivij as reported by its best representative (as I claim 
 it to be) the MS 241. This MS it will be observed gives the order of NET 
 without the addition. 
 
400 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 The reading of 241 and the Kowij needs no defence, whereas the 
 ■' Egyptian " reading has to he explained. I stand once more on the 
 " harder " or " simpler " reading which I believe to be Lucan. 
 
 [In my review of Sodci in J.T.S. April 1914 I have criticised Soden, 
 not for adopting the reading of 241, but for failing to see that he had 
 done so.] 
 
 Mkhx, Ramsay, and Soden. 
 
 Adalbert il/ox, daring but thoroughly competent scholar.fhas arrived 
 at the same conclusions that I have through an entirely independent 
 channel of thought. His 'Die vier kanoiiiscJien Evangelien' (3 vols.) 
 should be read by everybody who professes to understand these studies. 
 This is a thorough digest of the Sinaitio Syriac with its bearing on a 
 foundation text. His conclusions, expressed in no uncertain terms, are 
 that N and B are thoroughly unreliable witnesses as exponents of a 
 neutral and pre-syrian text. 
 
 There are flaws in syr sin, and in many passages we are still seeking 
 for more light, but Merx has placed the study upon a higher and a 
 simpler plane, and I could wish that von Soden had shown a willingness 
 to sit at Max' feet rather than air his own exceedingly questionable 
 eclecticism. Soden opposes Mcrx at Luke xii. 14, Mark xvi. 4, where he 
 certainly should have bowed to his countryman's greater skill. 
 
 For assistance in controlling syr sin we turn to the Latin witnesses 
 and more particularly to the Codex Bezae. I have considered its text, 
 in something like its present form, to be older than a.d. 200. Sir William 
 liamsay, attacking the problem from yet quite another standpoint, has 
 arrived at the conclusion, from his studies in Asia Minor, that as regards 
 the Acts we cannot date the corrector olT) d later than approximately 
 A.D. l.'50-160, and that the foundation text is much older. 
 
 I recognise one or two very early correctors in the Codex Bezae, 
 acquainted with Syriac, which of course complicates the problem of the 
 ultimate base, but Bezae, being free from extraneous text influences, has 
 a large value when used in connection with the Syriac documents. 
 Occasionall3- we find the persian, with or without the armenian, suggesting 
 the lost syriac base, not present even in syr sin or syr cii. This has still 
 to receive scientific treatment. 
 
 When we reach von Soden, instead of finding an advance on Merx 
 and Ramsay's studies, we find a different state of things altogether. We 
 find that Sodcii is in another class as an investigator and a student, and 
 
 t His miiid worked with great rapidity. Thus he hardly ever italicises or places 
 within inverted commas the frequent Latin or English or French quotations which occur 
 to him as he writes. He quotes, for instance, " Facts are stubborn things," or " Be bold, 
 he not too bold," in the middle of a German sentence without any indication that these 
 arc quotations and in another language. 
 
 EPILOGUE. MERX, BAMSAY, AND SODEN. 
 
 4U1 
 
 that his vision is circumscribed and Alexandrian. His text is a real 
 mixture and quite unscientific. He is incapable of arguing on the lines 
 of Merx, and apparently too much of a schoolman to see with Ramsay's 
 sharp and clear vision. The truth is that some half-informed people of 
 an Alexandrian turn of mind, who have never made a study of the 
 idiosyncrasies of documents (except at second-hand), have stampeded the 
 Professors into a belief that the ultimum verbum in textual criticism has 
 been said,t and that the tiltima ratio has been reached. Sodeii suggests an 
 Alexandrian redivivus such as Hort was. Soden's text is so thoroughly 
 Alexandrian that it falls into line with Hort, irrespective of MS evidence. 
 Among other things, it favours the imperfect over the aorist, just as the 
 Alexandrians did, and favours the historic present on countless occasions, 
 see Matt. xv. 12 etc. etc. As to the imperfect, observe Matt. ix. 0, 
 VKoXovffei {pro vKo\ov0v(^ev) Sodeji""' following W "»« J' ' '»' v*" '^'^"'" - 
 Yet two verses below, at ix. 11, Sot?''' refuses eXeyov (j;?-o enrov) against 
 a larger combination, viz. "all ir"=,6(i) j.eoo» ^+..6, rb™«sb.o43 isau.e 
 1413 641 ^f ^g" including this time not only the Latins, but the very MSS 
 followed above, which I have underlined, and the second combination 
 includes BCL Cyril actually missing from the first, where only N of the 
 H family is present. (In the second combination Soden should have 
 said " exc. d k" after " it vg.") 
 
 Could anything be less scientific ? 
 
 So, also, as to the partitive genitive. Observe several places, and 
 note Luke ii. 37, ovk ajntrrmo rov lepov, Soden with Hort, and the small 
 group BF"LHW 131 604 Paris", to which add of Soden's codices only 
 Sod"", against everything else for otto tov tepov (except D" too vaov). 
 Even N has e« rov icpov. If N found the preposition absent from his 
 copy, as is probable from his adopting e* and not airo, he undoubtedly 
 referred to Latin or Coptic or Syriac, and added the e/c from those 
 sources. It he had consulted other Greek copies he would have added 
 airo. This is a pretty place as to my contention as to X and polyglot 
 influences. Hort at any rate had the merit of simplifying matters 
 by elevating Codex B to the dignity of an all-powerful arbitrator in 
 any complicated passages. Von Soden's text, while evidently enjoying 
 certain solecisms of B or XB, is so eclectic that its methods are not easy 
 to follow and in certain cases scriptural terms have been invented by 
 conflation or mixture of various attested readings. The text is of no 
 use to the real student. 
 
 As between Hort and von Soden X there is no doubt that Hort chooses 
 
 t Thus Dr. MofTatt in his English translation of the N.T. adopts Soden's text as a base. 
 
 X As these last pages came to me for revision, I received the news of Hermann 
 von Soden's sudden and untoward end. I regret that there has been so much to 
 criticise as to his work. 1 wish I could have seen any way to modify it. 
 
4G2 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 the short-cut to " get there " by electing to adopt B readings in cases of 
 doubt. It is not the royal road ; in fact it is the disloyal road, when we 
 consider how many other witnesses he has to put aside. But it has a 
 singular fascination for scholars. It is ingenious and ingenuous, but it 
 will never solve our problems. 
 
 Thus, in a variety of three or more readings or orders, Hort almost 
 invariably tell back upon B, even when quite alone, so that we know 
 what to expect. It is otherwise with von Soden's text. One does not 
 know what to expect, and it ends frequently by getting muddled and not 
 following any document. 
 
 Soilai's notes, by whomsoever put together, without any exaggeration, 
 are full of every misdemeanour known to textual criticism. Even Evst 28 
 is confused with Evati 28 (John ix. 27). I knew this must happen when 
 people rushed in apparently armed cap-J,-pie for the fray, but forgot the 
 stringent rules of preparation which govern such bouts in whatever 
 connection undertaken. 
 
 I do not laud Merx because he agrees with me or I with him. But 
 Max reminds one of a mettlesome and blooded horse well and appro- 
 priately girded for the tourney, whereas Soden's charger is ill accoutred, 
 with his harness indifferently patched, and in danger of its breaking and 
 coming apart, before his rider has crossed a lance. 
 
 Merx, Vogels, and Bubkitt. 
 
 Vogcls has done, and is doing, good work, but seems to harp too 
 much on a consanguinity (not necessarily of origin) between D", some 
 latins, and syr cu (sw). 
 
 In the Syriac-Greek text, thus brought into clear light again by him, 
 we have to differentiate between three things : — - 
 
 1. Glosses, or additions to the narrative. 
 
 2. Harmonistic matters, which he traces entirely to Tatian. 
 
 3. The real base. 
 
 Vogcls drives this second horse very hard, and may kill him. 
 
 I would liken this matter to a unicorn team of horses, which, as I 
 know by personal experience, is the most difficult of all combinations to 
 drive ; and we can, for convenience, label the horses or their postilions 
 Burkitt, Vogels, and Merx. Thus : 
 
 Burliit seems to have confused glosses of the " Western " text with 
 the so-called Western text as a whole. This lead-horse has a Very tender 
 
 EPILOGUE. MBHX, VOGELS, AND BDRKITT. THE VERSION THADITION. 403 
 
 and sensitive mouth, is difficult to drive, and rushes his corners. As in 
 every spike-team, one or both of the wheelers (owing to the close coupling 
 of the lead-bar to the crab of the pole, in the case of a single leader) 
 will frequently follow the leader too quickly when the lead-reins are even 
 slightly touched or looped to make a turn. The near- wheeler with his 
 postilion Vogcls is apt to do this. 
 
 Fortunately Merx, the postilion of the off-wheeler, is steady-going 
 and experienced, and on him we depend to arrive safely at our destination. 
 He refuses to be stampeded on the one hand by the baulking, or on the 
 other hand by over-anxiety on the part of the leader, and tries to quiet 
 the anxious demeanour of his wheel-mate, who wants to pull the whole 
 coach himself. 
 
 In other words, apologizing for my mixed metaphor, there has been 
 great confusion between glosses, harmonies, and base in the Graeco-Syriac- 
 Latin unicorn coach. But the three things are absolutely distinct, for : 
 
 (3) The Graeco-Syriac text is often the shortest, irrespective of 
 synoptic accounts — hence very likely basic. Merx has done good work in 
 his running commentary on syr sin, and must not be denied the proper 
 hearing as to this and other cognate matters. 
 
 (2) The hanuonies visible which Vogels insists upon are certainly 
 present in the Graeco-Syriac text, or in that part of it represented by D d 
 and syr cu diatess, but we must not look at this alone. Behind these 
 diatessaric harmonies rests a most ancient base. 
 
 (1) The glosses of one or another or of a group of these " Western " 
 documents represent frills and clothing assumed much later than either 
 (3) or (2), and are to be kept absolutely distinct and not confused with 
 harmonies or base. 
 
 The Version Tradition. 
 
 Eeduced to its simplest terms the question of the " Version tradition " 
 seems to resolve itself into these propositions. 
 
 A heavy Syriac influence is visible acting on the Latins (even 
 extending in places to Tertullian t), but much more lightly on the 
 Greek mss. It can also be seen extending to the Coptic versions. 
 
 A heavy Coptic influence is observed acting on some of our Latin 
 MSS (effV) with nearly as strong a hand. 
 
 A Latin reaction of the earliest is visible on all the Greek mss, and 
 can also be traced to some extent in the Coptic and Aethiopic versions. 
 
 t e.g. Headings : Luke xx. 5 Et quare, inquit Christus, non credidistis ei. 
 Terl""'". Thia +Et is Syriac. Luke xii. 53 dividetiir Tert"""' witli r anil si/r against 
 the Latins divideniur and Gk XBDTLU itafifpurBTjtTovTai. 
 
 Renderings : John v. 39 " Soripturas in quibus salutem sferatis Tert^'""'-' 
 = Burkitt's translation of syr cU {hiat sin), although of course the Syriac ^iJ&tt is 
 *anceps' or hydra-headed, but Terl's speratis is against the Greek doKctrc and against 
 all the Latins imtaiis (a = existimatis as GwiUiani's translation of syr^'*** which he 
 changed from Schaaft "pulalis "). 
 

 4(>4 
 
 CODEX 1! AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 1'ogrh and others would attribute the Syriac element in the Latins 
 solely to the influence of Tatian's diatessaron. Historically speaking 
 there is this much foundation for the opinion in that Victor of Capua 
 seems to have found a Latin version of the diatessaron, and so far no 
 traces remain of a Greek Ms of the diatessaron. But there are objections 
 to this view, for the diatessaron does not seem by any means the only 
 responsible factor in the matter of Syriac influence on Latin, and it 
 seems more probable that Tatian's foundation text, upon which he 
 formed his Syriac diatessaron (if it was originally in Syriac), was a 
 bilingual or polyglot embracing Gr-Syi-- ct Lat, which was current in 
 Rome A.D. 150. t 
 
 It is rather to the credit of the Latin versions that they bear traces 
 of Syriac influence, for it shows that the second-century scholars referred 
 to a Syriac version for elucidation of Aramaic points when in doubt as 
 to correct Greek or Latin rendering of the phraseology of and of the 
 points connected with a story whose background was essentially and 
 inseparably Semitic. The story having been given to the world in a 
 Greek form and dress, the Greeks themselves were no doubt content to 
 hold to the Greek text, as do more modem scholars, but the Latin and 
 Gracco-Latin msr exhibit a different attitude. Hence the 'Western' 
 text links up with the ' Eastern ' or Syriac, and the Greek text goes over 
 to Alexandria and Greek Egypt to be remodelled. 
 
 In the earliest times the written Gospel was not planned. St. Peter, 
 when he heard of INIark's work (we are told), " neither approved nor 
 disapproved of it." In St. Peter's lifetime then he had not foreseen the 
 need for it. The preaching of his eye-witness seemed sufficient for the 
 times ; but that was in the early stages of the ministry, and the people 
 were soon clamouring for the records in written form, and we may be 
 sure (although history vouchsafes nothing on the point) that in that 
 misty period of the apostolic-sub-apostolic age, between A.D. 60 and 120, 
 men were comparing the records,! people of different languages were 
 
 t This is not the place where I can discuss the " earliest stratum of the Latin text." 
 i\ kej- passage like John viii. 55 uni envtma on ovk oi6n avroir, t iro/iai ojioiot viia v VrtinTTyc 
 viclds liowever this amount of information, tliat Terinllian''^'" has it thus: " Jil «i 
 ilicam nnn iwvi, ero simiUa vestei mendax," whereas all other Latins have vobia with 
 ,.^,1, of ABDW and a few minuscules (limited to 1 52 138 157 254 2") to which add 
 Sod"" (lest. Becrmann cl Gregory). This may or may not signify that all the oilier 
 I,atins post-date Terlnlliim, but it reveals TerluUian't Latin version (for I cannot 
 consider that he made the translation himself) in accord with the majority of Greek 
 evidence. ..."Since, moreover, you are close to Italy you have Rome, from ivhicli 
 there conies even into our own hands the very authority " (of these " authentic writings," 
 see above) TcrO''^""- ^^■ 
 
 t Cf. all of TerluUian'n forty-four chapters in his " Preecriplion agninsl Ilcrclics" 
 and note (iv) " adulteri cvangelizatores," (vii) " whence spring those ' fables and endless 
 "onealogies ' and ' unprofitable questions ' and ' words which spread like a cancer "... 
 Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and 
 dialectic composition ..." See also ch. viii. and all the following. 
 
 El'ILOGUE. THE VERSION THADITION. THE VEEDICT. 
 
 41)5 
 
 insisting upon being fed by the Word in their own speech, capable 
 translators were at work, and scholars were immediately engaged in 
 comparing these versions. 
 
 We are apt to think, in our pride of twentieth-century scholarship 
 and achievements, that things are different now to what they were then. 
 My mind, however, conceives of just the same criticism in vogue then 
 as now (large traces of which have come down to us in the sketches and 
 remnants of the diverse heresies of the second and third centuries, into 
 which Tertiillian enters fully) and doubtless the criticism of the written 
 Word was keen and the comparison of the versions extensive. Hence 
 also, from the marginal annotations of the disputing factors of the early 
 second century, have descended to us many various readings which had 
 their origin in that early age and not in any other. 
 
 The Verdict asked. 
 
 We have now completed the arraignment of Codex B in the Gospels, 
 referring to a similar condition of the B text elsewhere, and have 
 presented the facts upon which the jury should base their verdict. My 
 arguments have been cumulative rather than exhaustively elaborate. I 
 could have elaborated and gone into much greater detail as to many 
 matters simply mentioned or only sketched. I have preferred to write 
 for those who can appreciate a cumulative argument, which I hope I 
 have at least outlioed to their satisfaction. The verdict asked is whether 
 B represents a " neutral " text or not. The claims put forward by us 
 are that B does not exhibit a " neutral " text, but is found to be tinged, 
 as are most other documents, with Coptic, Latin and Syriac colours, 
 and its testimony therefore is not of the paramount importance pre- 
 supposed and claimed by Hort and by his followers. That B is guilty of 
 laches, of a tendency to " improve," and of " sunstroke " amounting 
 to doctrinal bias. That the maligned textiis reccptiis served in large 
 measure as the base which B tampered with and changed, and that the 
 Church at large recognised all this until the year 1881 — when Hortism (in 
 other words Alexandrianism) was allowed free play — and has not since 
 retraced the path to sound traditions. 
 
 In addressing the jury for the last time, I would remind them of 
 the salient features in this investigation, and ask them to bring to bear 
 upon the situation their good common sense. 
 
 Von Soden has divided the Greek mss into certain families : 
 
 H family (headed by B, but including NCLWZ, A-^, and the 
 minuscules 33 892 Paris" and Sod"''^). 
 
 I' family (headed by D and including W (in Mark) So(i°" 28 372 2"' 
 004 and Sod'"' "='). 
 
 the/am 1 {Sod /', subdivisions " *•), 
 ihefam 13 (Sod I', subdivisions " "'). 
 
 2 H 
 
u 
 
 46G 
 
 CODEX I) AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 A large family I*, subdivisions """ (headed by i and including M, the 
 important cursive 71 and over twenty others). 
 
 Family I^ " ''°"' '' headed by the important minuscule 348. 
 
 ,, /" headed by U and 213 and including Laura*^"" and Soden's 
 
 critical codices "" "". 
 ,, J" covering the four purple uncials NS4> and H. 
 ,, 1' headed by 157 and including four others. 
 
 jKaiJc ijeaded by the Codex Alexandrinus with KII and a 
 dozen cursives including the important 270 {Sod'") and 
 280 (Sod-"}. 
 ,, I' covering .V and four cursives. 
 
 J' covering F^, a very critical family, including c" Sod"'^ 
 Sod'''^ Sod''" and eighteen others. 
 The commentary families A (= XX''5), K" (of several Mss), C (of at 
 least five members), N (of at least five members). 
 
 Also/rt»i A'' headed by fi with V and five cursives. 
 Also/n?/i 7i' composed of the uncials EFGH. 
 
 I am sorry to bother the jury to carry so much in their heads, but 
 cards can be obtained by them with this information printed in detail, 
 which they can hold in their hands and consult while considering the 
 following very simple questions : 
 
 When Sia(7a<j)ri<Tou {2>ro <l>pacrov) Matt. xiii. 36 
 and &iepxofiai (pro epxofiai) Jno. iv. 15 
 
 were found in NB, the readings commended themselves to Tischeudorf, 
 Hurt, and von Sudcn | as being excellent, neutral and basic. 
 
 Tliese expressions convey an ampler and fuller sense as to explaining 
 the jiaralile of the tares in the wheat, and as to the woman's repeated 
 toil II in coming to the well. Origcn used both these expressions. 
 
 According to the critics, when Lucian engaged in an " Antioch " 
 revision of the text, he came across these words and thought they were 
 too explanatory, so he substituted <j>pa<Tov and ep xop^t . In other words 
 he abandoned the better for the worse (or simpler) expressions. 
 
 Now turn to the card and observe that Lucian and the poor tcxtus 
 rccrptuit are not alone involved in this absurdity, but all the rest. 
 
 Of the H family all other members oppose. 
 
 Of the / families all oppose except Sod"^" ""'' *° which have Siaaaipriaov 
 in Mntthcw, but these also have ep^opai in John and not hepxafiai. 
 
 We have therefore to assume, if hiaaa(^r)aov and Siepxa/mi are basic, 
 that all the stupid scribes who copied the rest of the /am H MSS, all the 
 originators or scribes of the recensions I', I'', I', (I*), /', 1°, I', I', I', I', 
 I\ fam'', favf, fam^, K\ K\ when they came to these places made 
 
 t Tliis really belongs with SofZ'"" in family I". 
 X Soden adopts the first but not the second. 
 
 II So the twenty scholars who made the ' Twentieth Century New Testament ' from 
 ITort's text translate " nor have to come all the way here to draw water." 
 
 EPILOGUE. THE VERDICT ASKED. 
 
 467 
 
 identically the same ridiculous alterations and reduced the good, expressive, 
 and ample " crplain " and " come repeatedly " back to the simple " tell " 
 and "come." No trace remains, it may be remarked incidentally, of any 
 half-way-house interpretations. 
 
 It seems unnecessary to call your attention again to other cognate 
 matters. The plain fact will appeal to you and enable you to render 
 a proper judgment on the other issues when you have reconsidered 
 these two simple matters, and recovered critical judgment, which Origcn 
 abused, for he doubtless was responsible for Staaatprjirov and Stepxa/J-ai 
 which impressed Hort as being ingenuous, forcible, and basic, instead of 
 being disingenuous, and merely of an ' improving ' tendency. 
 
 You will therefore absolve Lucian of the crime of bad revision of 
 the neutral text in these and in other places, and render a vei'dict that 
 " Antioch " holds the true base in many places, where a few ill-advised 
 but well-meaning Alexandrian " scholars " tried their hands, all too 
 successfully, at this same task of revision, which has appealed to modem 
 Alexandrian redivivis with such strange persistencj'. 
 
 For you must render a verdict on my appeal to a Court superior to 
 that of the Revisers of 1881, as they are found both to enjoy and to 
 have perpetuated in the Revised Text Staaaiptiirov and Siepxo^^at. 
 
 In rendering your verdict it would be interesting to have your views 
 upon the character of Hort's foundations, theories, and critical principles. 
 They are deeply involved in a consideration of these two substitutions. 
 For instance, Sodcn refuses &tepxofiai, but falls into line for Staaaij>i](Tov 
 and other kindred alterations upon identically the same authority. The 
 Revisers and Soden refuse 'jpev (for atpei) in Jno. x. 18, which Hort had 
 adopted upon the joint testimony of N and B. Where is then the solid 
 foundation of Hort's system? What becomes of the theory that 
 B pre-eminently holds the " neutral " base as against others? 
 
 Again, if N and B went apart " close to the autographs," how much 
 closer to the autographs must some of our cursives have gone apart, for 
 they retain in places an apostolic and sub-apostolic base when they 
 agree with Clement of Home, Ignatius, Justin, or the Old Syriac against 
 NBD and the rest of the H or J" families. 
 
 Lastly, as regards what influenced XB to engage in certain revision, 
 we must consider Version influence upon them. If this is seen and 
 recognised, the " neutral " foundation falls away, the props are withdrawn, 
 and the theories as to this foundation melt into air. 
 
 Leaving aside the possible version influence upon them of what they 
 saw opposite (jipaaov to influence them to substitute Staaa<f>rj(Tov as an 
 amendment, you have only to turn the pages of my brief to be convinced 
 that concurrent version influence is visible all along the line upon N and B. 
 
 What of Kavavaiof (pro Kavavnrj<;) Matt. X. 4 by BCDL (cf. lat) ; of 
 va^aprjvov (pro va^iapatov) Luke xxiv. 19 (cf. lat) ; of Kvye (2>ro Ev) 
 Luke xix. 17 (cf. lat) ; what of atret (pro fi;TC() Matt. xvi. 4 by B ? 
 
 2 H 2 
 
■108 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 B quite alone with Coptic. 
 
 What of the sijriac fiaptafi (for fiapia) found in B ? 
 
 What of Luke xvi. 3 a-Ka-metv ovk taxvm icat eiraneiv aiaxvvo/Jai 
 found in B only of Greeks but with syrr sah boh and aeth ? 
 
 "What of the Coptic sympathy at : 
 
 Mink xiv, 18 tiov eaOtovTtov 
 ,, xiii, 32 ayycXo'i 
 
 Lille xi. 30 +C1/ {ante tt/ aaTpa-nrj) 
 ,, xxiii. .50 ayaOot StKaiot ( — Kat) 
 
 Consult also in places pure syriac, Coptic, or latin order adopted 
 cclectically as the mood seized B or its parent. 
 
 As to N you will find in the appendix to my brief (Part II.) ample 
 matter for reflection. The instances are too numerous to be mentioned 
 here. 
 
 The Version influence affects X and B in different places. 
 
 Perhaps you have not given sufficient attention yet to this feature. 
 
 Observe then the same character ot influence on the text of C or W, 
 L or •<', 1 or 13, 4 or 7, 21 or 22, 28 or 157, 33 or 213, 348 or 604, 892 or 
 Paris", c'" or >Sod'"', Sod^°" or Sod"", all in differing places, and you 
 will open your eyes, and by your verdict the eyes of the Professors 
 and of the Public, to a state of things unrecognised hitherto, and 
 which must be considered in dealing with the basic text. I leave the 
 matter confidently in your hands, relying on your sound common sense. 
 
 Hortiaii "heresi/." 
 
 "Nisi quod hiiraanae tcmoritatiB, non divinae auctoritatis ncgotium est haeresis, 
 fjnne sic semper cinendat Evangelia, dmn %'itiat. — T'^ri^'"*-'- '^■- *■ 
 
 Upon the first page of this book I spoke of the " Hortian heresy." 
 Upon this last page I would fain explain what it is that I accuse of being 
 a heresy. 
 
 The text printed by Westcott and Hort has been accepted as " the 
 true text," and grammars, works on the synoptic problem, works on 
 higher criticism, and others, have been grounded on this text. If the 
 Hort text makes the evangelists appear inconsistent, then such and such 
 an evangelist errs. Those who accept the W-H text are basing their 
 accusations of untruth as to the Gospellists upon an Egyptian revision 
 current 200 to 4.50 a.d. and abandoned between 500 to 1881, merely 
 revived in oXir day and stamped as genuine. 
 
 It is not as it we do not know what to expect from these Egyptian 
 documents. We do know. I have open around me, as I write, the 
 different authorities. When I am dealing with St. Mark's Gospel I 
 know perfectly well what to expect when I consult A. I know that A is 
 going to fall into line with NB right through the Gospel, and I am 
 
 El'ILOGUE. HORTIAN " HERESY. EGYPTIAN TEXTS. 
 
 409 
 
 hardly ever disappointed. It is practically the same document. When 
 I look at S<I> I know that in the main they are against NB here. L goes 
 with KB generally as elsewhere. C, I know, will sometimes go with 
 them and sometimes not. When I turn to '^ I am hardly ever mistaken. 
 It runs almost invariably with SB. But when I look at W I never 
 know what to expect. I know a will bear away from the other Latins 
 and show positive Greek reaction. Ot sijr sin I am never sure, while 6 
 nearly always helps me to good basic traditions. As to sah and boh they 
 are not certain as allies ot NB, so that in some cases one knows what to 
 expect and in others one does not. 
 
 The plain fact is that NBCLA^ really represent but one document, 
 and that one at variance with all others ; but, as explained elsewhere, it 
 is anything but a " neutral " document. 
 
 I can almost hear the opposition saying " AVhy here he admits the 
 steady flow of a ' neutral ' text." But it is not " neutral " ; it is purely 
 Egyptian. Every new document recovered from Egypt points the same 
 way. The new fragments published by AmMineau grouped under the 
 letter T are proof positive. Let those who do not agree with me take 
 the fragment T' and compare it with NB and Co. It falls into line as a 
 regular adherent, yet in some of their sub-singular readings it refuses to 
 follow, showing exactly where the sub-editing took place in N or B. 
 
 The "Hortian heresy " opened the way to endless other pseudo- 
 scientific heresies. Thus Robinson Smith, dating from Iffley near Oxford, 
 has written a paper for the October 1913 number of the 'American 
 Journal ot Theology' concerning St. Luke's dependence on Josephus. 
 The case as to this is most unconvincingly stated, but on the last page 
 he goes out of his way to fall foul ot St. Luke in these gracious and 
 conservative and helpful terms : 
 
 " That is not Luke's method of paraphrasing. On the contrary, he 
 usually, or at least frequently, lowers, not heightens, effects ; his sole 
 aim apparently was to tell the story in his own words, and his sole 
 method was to change his originals, resjiU as it might ... I think it 
 can also be shown that the resemblances between passages of Luke and 
 John are not, as has been held, corrections ot Luke by John, but dilutions 
 of John by Lvke : that the order ot the Gospels is therefore Mark, 
 Matthew, John, Luke ; and the dates I place, tentatively, at GO, 80, 95, 
 and 100 A.D. But the present task of the higher critic is not to fix 
 exactly the dates of the Gospels, but by the elimination of Luke to see 
 exactly what they tell us . . . Lnke has indeed much to answer for; 
 indeed, it is an axiom ot scholarship that when a historian is found 
 wanting in reasonable accuracy he is not to be trusted at all. But it is 
 an axiom ot common sense that ' we should not try to get more out of an 
 experience than there is in it,' and we should err grievously if we threw 
 all of Luke's writings overboard simply because, where we can watch him, 
 he so of ten fees from the truth." 
 
470 
 
 CODEX I? AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 rreviously Smith had said :— 
 
 " First, and in general, this : that precisely as Luke has been 
 eliminated (fs liistoricalli/ trorthlcss and unirustworiliy in all of his 
 lialjiiililc derivations from Mark, so must he he eliminated in all that he, 
 and he alone, has in common with ^latthew, such as the distorted and 
 widely scattered sayings found in Luke of the Sermon on the Mount. 
 Ahimt threc-foiiiihn or tJi rcc-Jifths of Lidc in thus set aside as negligible if 
 not actualhj harmful, and our knowledge of Christ becomes at once more 
 definite, it also to some extent more circumscribed." 
 
 The author of this tirade [another Marcioii come to judgment] has 
 the effrontery to close his article, after accepting in toto the parables of 
 the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan, with these words : 
 
 "And in thinking of his writings as a whole, we do well to remind 
 ourselves that if we possessed only the Gospel according to St. Luke, 
 every Christian knee would still bow." 
 
 And this is offset oniy ten lines above by the statement previously 
 quoted : " that when a historian is found wanting in reasonable accuracy 
 lie is not to he trusted at all." 
 
 The accusations as to the detail of St. Luke's misdemeanours [outside 
 of the ridiculous rehashed nonsense about Josephus] are to be found on 
 the first page of the article, and resolve themselves chiefly into these 
 trivial, not to say pitiful, selections. I quote the learned author: 
 
 " Proceeding, then, with the other lines of evidence that point to 
 Matthew's priority over Luke, we shall consider first such Markan 
 phrases as wore changed by Matthew, before they were again changed by 
 Luke. (1 ) Mark : 'i: 'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary ? ' 
 becomes Matthew 13 : 55 : 'Is not this the carpenter's sou 'i" is not his 
 mother called Mary ? ' which in turn becomes Luke 4 : 22 : 'Is not this 
 Joseph's son ? ' f (2) Mark 0:4: 'A prophet is not without honour, but 
 in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house'; 
 which is shortened to Matthew. 13 : 57 : 'A prophet is not without 
 honour, save in his own country, and in his own house ' ; which in turn is 
 s'lortencd to Luke 4 : 24 : 'No prophet is accepted in his own country. . . ' 
 
 What such shortening by Luke has to do with hie accuracy as a 
 liistorian I do not see. Besides which the longer phrase in Mark vi. 4 is 
 not certain, textually speaking. 
 
 As to St. Luke's general reliability, we have a better witness than 
 llobinson Smith, for St. Paul, the fellow-traveller of the beloved physician, 
 not only seems to quote St. Luke's words rather than St. Matthew's i as 
 
 t See Kno.x in ' Some loose Stones ' (p. 45) for a cogcrt and delightful bit of 
 nifjniTient here na to the untenable character of the modern scholars' whole hypothesis, 
 wliicli is phown to contain complete self-contradiction. 
 
 1 1 Tim. V. 18 \fy(i ytip f] ypaff^f} • ;3oCi' nXoJpcTd oi* <l)tfitl)(Ttis (— Deut. .xxv. 4) 
 Kaf i*|tof o tfiynTrjs Tov fitfrOoi' iivTov 
 ~ Lul<c X. 7 n^tof ya\i 6 f/>'yn'T»jc TOV fxitrOoxj aiiTov 
 whereas ^Mattliew x. 10 = /iltof yitp o (pyi'iTtjz t^s rpot/jijc alroi: 
 
 EPILOGUE. EOBINSON SMITH ON ST. LUKE. 
 
 471 
 
 Scripture, and has thus set his seal upon Luke (before 05 a.d.), but in his 
 second epistle to the Corinthians (viii. 18) has these commendatory 
 
 remarks : , , . , ■ v „ j„ 
 
 " awi-r,ilJ.faiJL,v hi tw a8e\<^oz- fUT avrovov o e-naivot eu 
 
 rm evayyeXlcfi &ia -naaCtv tS>v lKK\'r)<si.!i)v;' 
 which have generally been taken to apply to St^ Luke 
 
 And Tertullian^'"'"""''' says: Nam et Lucae digestum Paulo flrt- 
 scribere solent. . .Lucae autem quod est secundum nos. 
 
 It is easy enough to turn the tables on the hypercritics by pointing 
 out that it may be St. Mark who " flees from the truth " by amplification 
 rather than St. Luke who " distorts " Scripture by a shortening process. 
 St Luke writes in iv. 40 AwofTo? Se tov ijXi'ou ^ ^ 
 
 St. ISIark „ „ i- 32 'Ofm? 8e yevofLivv! ot€ eBv o >',\<o9 
 St Luke V. 15 BUpx^o Be t^aXKov 6 \6yo, Trepl aCroO 
 
 St'. Mark i. 45 'O 8€ i^€\di>v i)p^a70 Kr,pv<Taeiv -rroXKa Kai fcm<^w?^"' 
 
 TOI/ Xo'^ov . ■ . 
 St Luke vi 3 otto'tc ineivaaev avTo<! xal oi fier avTov ^ _ ^ 
 
 St'. Mark ii. 25 Sre XP-'"" ^"X^" ™' '"'^^'""'^^ '"^"' *"' "' '^^ """" 
 
 St. Luke xi. 18 el Se Kal i ^araudj ef iavjov Bte^epiaev ttw, craOn- 
 
 (T€Tai J) paatXeia ainoO ; ^ 
 
 St. Mark iii. 26 «al d o aarava, -Wtt, i.j>- kavrhv i^epiaOr^ Kav ov 
 
 BvvaTai cn!)vat aXKa reXo? e^et 
 ^t Luke viii. 6 ical erepou icaTeneTev iv\ rijv -nhpav 
 It'. Mark iv. 5 Ka\ ^xL i.re.eu i.l rh vrevrp^Se, B.ov ov. ..X- r," 
 
 TTOW'IV 
 
 St Luke viii. 8 Kal <i>viv i^olr,<rev Kapirhv Uarovra^Xaalova 
 St. Mark iv. 8 .a\ iUiov Kapirhv ,\vaPalvov.a .a. av^avop.evov 
 
 c!t T,uk« viii 24 «al iiravaavTO koX iyhero yaX'ivv 
 
 St Mark iv. 39 kuI i^i^raaeu i avep^o, .a\ iy^vero 7aX>,.T ^^7"^" 
 
 St Luke viii. 39 iniaTpe<l>€ di rhv oIkov cov 
 
 St'. Mark V. 19 i-rraye ek tov oIkov cov -rrpo? tow covi 
 
 qt Tmke ihid. Kal Binyoi oca aoi. i-rrolv^ev 6 Oei-; 
 
 St'. Mark ihid. .al a.ayye.Xov a^ToU oaa o .vp.o, co. .e.o.,... .»■ 
 eKh]cev ae 
 
 ^^ Luke viii. 41 irapeKdXev aMv dceXOdv ek tou oIhov aiTov ^ 
 
 ?'Mark v23 J .apa.aX.t (vel Trape.aXel) ain^. TroXXaXey.. ot. 
 
 St. Mark ^^ evydTp.6v pov cVx«t», e'x« (««! OeX.) .m 
 
 St Luke viii. 47 liovaa Bi f, yvvi, St, oiK iXaSeu Tpepovca ^XSev 
 It'. Mark V. 33 .', 8^ yv.n -^oPnOdaa .al Tpipovaa el&v.a o yeyo.a, 
 
 avTV 
 
472 
 
 St. Luke 
 St. Uack 
 
 St. Luke 
 St. Mark 
 St. Matt. 
 
 St. Luke 
 St. Mark 
 
 St. Luke 
 St. Mark 
 
 St. Luke 
 St. Blark 
 
 St. Luke 
 St. Mark 
 
 St. Luke 
 at. Mark 
 
 St. Luke 
 St. IMark 
 
 St. Luke 
 St. Mark 
 
 St. Luke 
 St. Blark 
 
 viii. 52 
 V. Sd 
 
 i.x. 28 
 
 ix. 1 
 
 xvii, 1 
 
 xviii. 23 
 X. 22 
 
 xviii. 30 
 X. 30 
 
 xxi. 4 
 xii. 44 
 
 xxi. 30 
 
 xiii. 28 
 
 Hid. 
 xiii. 29 
 
 xxii. 12 
 xiv. 15 
 
 xxiii. 20 
 XV. 21 
 
 xxiii. 35 
 XV. 32 
 
 St. Matt, xxvii. 42 
 
 St. Luke 
 St. Mark 
 
 xxiv. 1 
 xvi. 1, 2 
 
 CODEX I) AND ITS ALLIES, 
 o Se direv fii) KkaUre 
 
 ■ ■ ■ eh rh opof Trpoaev^aaOai 
 
 ■ ■ .e!<! Spo, vfriXi^ ^ar' IZlav //orou? 
 • • . 6<? opo<; ifr,\ov kut' !Siav 
 
 6 &€ rlKovaa<; raura TrepiXv-rro', iyivero 
 Se arvyudaa, eVi roi Uyp i^,-,\0e. XvTrov^evo, 
 TToXXaitXaaiova iv to> xaipa toiItw 
 e/caTovTawXaaiova vvi> iv rm Ka{p,f rovTm 
 airavTa rhv fiiov Zv elxev e/SaXev 
 ■nivra oVa ^x^ 'e^aXev SXov rov ^iov avT,~„ 
 orav Trpo^dXmaiv fjhr) 
 
 Sravair^^, f,^ 6 ^XdSo, drraXo, yeuvTat «aJ ^Mr, ri 
 <pvXXa 
 
 yivciaKere Sri ^S,/ iyyi^ to ffipoi la-rlv 
 ywioaKere on iyy^^ eVxji/ eVi 06pai<t 
 
 ■ Bei^ei avdyaiov fieya eaTpcofievov 
 
 ■ Sei^et avdyaiov fieya iarpaifievov Irot/iov 
 
 ■ ^111. Ttva Kvpriv. epxifKvov dw' liypoO 
 
 ■ Trapdyovrd rwa Ic/x. Kvpr,v.ipx6f^vov ,W dypoO 
 . aXXovi eatoaev, atoadTa eavrov . . 
 
 J aXXov; €<Tmcr€v, iavTov ov &6vaTai aSmai . . wa 
 ibwfiev Kal TncrTev<raip.ev 
 dXXov, law^ev. iavrhv ov hvvarai a&aai . . Kal 
 TTiiTTevaco/iev eV avrov 
 
 Tp Sc /J.M tCv ffa/3/3a'T<Bi- opffpov /Sa^eai? . 
 Kal Siayevofievov rov (Ta00dTov . . Kal Xiav Trpal ttj 
 fitS. tS>v <ro/9/3aT(UV . . . 
 
 We have been taught that the " shorter" text is not only the more 
 desirable but must repreisent basic conditions of \oyia or of " Q " 
 
 Why should St. Luke then "flee the truth" here because he gives 
 us the shorter accounts? Why should not St. Mark have amplified 
 the accounts ? Why are we to be forced into acquiescence in the theory 
 that Mark formed the basis for Matthew and Luke in these synoptic 
 passages, if it was not the imaginary " Q " ? 
 
 As to St. Luke " fleeing the truth," as against unnecessary Semitic 
 redundancy m Mark, the matter is ridiculous. Supposing St. Luke did 
 use St. Mark, was it necessary for him to coj^y word for word. I suppose 
 St. Luke could have employed someone to copy Mark had he wished to 
 do that. He simply supplements Mark, giving us those wonderful 
 
 EPILOGUE. UNFORTUNATE STATUS OF GOSPEL CKITICISM. 
 
 473 
 
 parables that all the critics accept. Why cannot they leave the beloved 
 physician alone, if, writing for Greeks, he prefers his own language as a 
 historian '> 
 
 As to the Josephus business it is not creditable to seek to make 
 Luke dependent on Josephus, when on similar occasions we are assured 
 that sub-apostolic Fathers are not dependent on the N.T. writings but 
 on a " lost source common to both." We cannot argue both ways. If 
 this be true of sub-apostolic Fathers we must allow St. Luke and 
 Josephus also to be dependent on a common lost source. 
 
 As to the Gospel of John,t Burkitt treats it as of no account whatever. 
 But the grounds of this disbelief apply equally to the Gospel of Mark, 
 for quotations from Mark are practically nil in the earliest times. The 
 critics first sought to destroy St. John's Gospel as a historical document. 
 Next they decided that St. Matthew's Gospel t was not prior to that of 
 St. Mark, although the earliest Patristic testimony is all in favour of St. 
 Matthew. Now Smith tells us that St. Luke is an absolute liar. We 
 are left with Mark, the shortest in matter, the most ample in substance. 
 Yet it has not as great claims to historic priority, as evidenced by early 
 quotations, as the other Gospels. Are we eventually to be left with 
 nothing? Is all this fine criticism simply bent upon pulling the house 
 down upon its ears ? 
 
 I take the liberty of speaking out thus without mincing matters 
 because no one else seems to care to do so, and to handle the matter 
 with gloves and soft phrases seems to me would be unfaithful. 
 
 Shall we not do well to attend to the textual side of the problem 
 before indulging in the vain imaginings and superficial flights of the 
 " higher " criticism ? Are we really better and more capable critics than 
 Tertullian ? TertuUian does not consider that St. Luke " distorted " 
 the sermon on the mount. 
 
 t Yet TcrluJUim'a order is (1) Jobn, (2) Matthew, (3) Luke, (4) Mark (c/. Scrivener's 
 and Gregory's Introductions) and TertuUian' 8 worda (against Marcion iv. 2) are ; 
 " Deoique nobis fidem ex apostolus Johannes et Matheus insinuant, ex apostoliris Lucas 
 et Marcus instnurant." 
 
 X But see the refutation of tliis in ' S. Mark's indebtedness to S. Matthew,' by 
 F. P. Badham (T. Fisher Unwin, London, 1897), and note the lists in chapter iii. 
 Then read the words of introduction there and run on to ch. iv. p. 38 for the continuation 
 of the author's summary, as follows : — 
 
 " Of course in many of these cases, considered separately, the obligation miglit be 
 in either direction — S. Matthew might have pruned, toned down, &c. — but considering 
 them all together one can see that there is a unity on the positive side and not on the 
 negative. To suppose that S. Matthew had predilections exactly antithetical to those 
 of 8. Mark is to suppose a literary miracle ... What an extraordinary conception of 
 S. Matthew we are driven to by the liypothesis that the precise vivid details of S. Mark 
 are original I For these details are absent from S. Matthew one and all, and if the 
 Matthaean narratives are to be derived from those in St. Mark, the conclusion is 
 inevitable that the author of the former was unprecise, unpicturesque deliberately! " 
 
474 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Dean Inge on St. Paul. 
 
 '* How fJo yc sny wc nrr u-inc ami the law of the Lord is with tia t Lo the false pai 
 of tht! SL'i-ihrs liiith luroitijhl falschj " (Sept: "In vain hath wrourjht the false j}rn of the 
 sfi-ihis ").t— Jcrcin. viii. 8. 
 
 Before concluding I wish to pass in review a still more recent article 
 (Jan. 1914) in the English Quarterly Beview on "St. Paul" by the 
 Dean of St. Paul's. 
 
 In the list of authorities under review heading his article I miss the 
 
 German writer Drews' scurrilous and unscholarly volume entitled The 
 
 CiiniST Myth, in which he wrote (3'''' ed., p. 207, on " the Pauline Jesiis ") : 
 
 " At the present day it will be acknowledged by all sensible people 
 
 that, as Ed. von Hartmann declared more than thirty years ago, without 
 
 Paul the Christian movement woitld have disappeared in the sand just as 
 
 the many other Jewish religions have done ; " 
 
 yet Dean Inge takes precisely the same line as Drews, and, while 
 
 perhaps he may not be pleased to be coupled with Drews, it is clear that 
 
 the same school of thought animates the infidel and the Churchman. 
 
 Dean Inge sums up thus (p. 08) : 
 
 "It is impossible to guess what would have become of Christianity 
 
 if he (Paul) had never lived ; zee cannot even be sure that the name of 
 
 Jesus would still be honoured amongst men." 
 
 Thus the same view is held by the atheist and antichrist Drews as 
 
 that put forth soberly and solemnly at the close of his article by a high 
 
 dignitary of the Episcopal Church. 
 
 Is it true then that without Paul Christianity would be dead? 
 To accept this view is to deny the Paraclete's presence, to deny the 
 Saviour's Godhead, and to belittle God the Father to a degree ! 
 
 If uistead of following Drews, it had been said by Dean Inge that 
 Paul happened to be the ISIaster's " chosen vessel " to convey the 
 message to the Gentiles, that his letters had been inspired by His grace, 
 and preserved to us by His agencies, it would have been sufficient. As 
 it stands the Dean's expression seems to point to the survival of 
 Christianity depending fortuitously upon Paul's personality— surely a 
 very travesty of the Christian verities ! 
 
 Unfortmiately modern " scholars " delight in the crudest and most 
 irreligious utterances, if they can only thereby show that they are free 
 and untrammelled thinkers. 
 
 There were many others besides Paul. In the Didache for instance 
 (that ante-Barnabas document) occurs a sentence even more noble than 
 any appearing in 1 Cor, xv., viz. (Did''- *) : 
 
 61 yap iv TM aOavarw koivojvol eerje, Troaoy /mWov iv rot? 6vr}T0K. 
 The trouble is that the ' scholarship ' of the last few years is 
 
 t ^-7 is apparently " conflate." 
 
 EPILOGUE. DEAN INGE ON ST. PAUL. 
 
 475 
 
 painfully arrogant and seems to think that it has made great discoveries. 
 All this appears in the Dean's article again and again. He says : 
 
 (p 4C) " It is only in our own day that the personal characteristics 
 of St. Paul have been intelligently studied... It has been 
 left for the scholars of the present century to give us a 
 picture of St. Paul as he really was..." (Then he goes 
 on to describe the picture: '-n man much nearer to 
 George Fox or John Wesley than to Origen or Calvin. 'j 
 This is almost laughable. Have 'modern scholars' 
 discovered this indeed? The only suggestion I would 
 offer is that the comparison is a little inverted. George 
 Fox and John Wesley were men much nearer to St. Paul 
 than to Origen or Calvin. Why should St. Paul take the 
 low place in the form of the comparison ?) 
 (p. 47) " The ' Pastoral Epistles ' are probably not genuine, though 
 the defence of them is not quite a desperate undertaking." t 
 (p 52) "A curious indication which has not been noticed is that as 
 he tells us himself he five times received the maximum 
 number of lashes from Jewish tribunals." 
 (p 63) " The Evangelist whom we call St. John is the best com- 
 mentator on Paulinism. This is om of the most important 
 discoveries of recent New Testament criticism." Indeed ! 
 (p. 06) "..though it is only recently that this character of the 
 Pauline churches has been recognised." 
 (The Dean has been fondling the word 'mystery-religion' and apply- 
 ing it to St. Paul's Christianity and Churches ; one sentence nms : 
 "Second, the promise of spiritual communion with .some Deity 
 Observe the calculated subtlety of the comparison here between the 
 inystery-cults of the Greeks and the mystery-religion of the Christians). 
 
 As to the quotation from p. 47-" The Pastoral Epistles are probably 
 not genuine "-who says so? Only some critics ; t and these gentlemen 
 are never agreed among themselves on other matters, let the Dean 
 reads from these same pastoral Scriptures in public, and accepted them 
 (1 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon) when ordained, which ordination 
 embodied a continuous declaration, not to be put aside at will by anyone 
 while still within the Church. The question is "Do you unfeignedly 
 believe all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament? 
 Ansiver • " I do believe them." I am aware that a movement is on foot 
 to modify this declaration (which would indeed open the way to a grand 
 muddle), but the adage of a great churchman— 
 
 " Philosophia quotidie progressu, Theokgiajiisi 'ye-ssw noncrescit - 
 
 ^Tl^^jT^he Ch^h i;i"ftr R^Empire,' pp. 248 and 365 note, accepts them 
 as Jnnine How then can Inge .rite as he does when a modern seholar such as Ba,n.aj^ 
 o furpassing eminence, endorses them? Bean Inge himself speakmg at the Lyceum 
 lT(eTrc« May 10. 1914), is reported to have referred to "the adv.ce ,oh,eh St. Paul 
 gave to Timothy," and then to have quoted 2 Tim. n. 3! 
 
476 
 
 CODEX H AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 may be recommended to these progressive churchmen. It we abandon 
 tlie Epistles to Timothy today, the critics of tomorrow may restore 
 them.t If we aljandon Ephesianst today, its Pauline authority may 
 be fully established tomorrow. 
 
 In order to accept the views which ' modem scholarship ' presses 
 upon us in so cavalier a fashion, we must believe that Tcrhdlian and 
 Irenacua before a.d. 200 were worse judges of the Canon than critics of 
 today. TcrtuUian does not hesitate to use Ephesians|| as a Pauline 
 epistle and sets his seal on both epistles to Timothy as Scripture in 
 many places. 
 
 In TcrtiiUian's treatise cle pndkitia ho quotes from 1 Tim. i. in 
 chapter xiii. several times. Then follows this up in chapter xiv. by 
 using the apostle's own description of himself in 1 Tim. i. 1 and 
 
 2 Tim. i. 1. He writes Pudlcily. near the end . 
 
 " ne scilicet rauhim apostolum Christi, doctorem nationum in fide 
 et veritate, vas electionis. . ." 
 He also quotes from Titus and has confirmed Philemon in '•""•'^ii'" "• «' ; 
 " To this epistle alone did its brevity avail to protect it against the 
 falsifying hands of Marcion. I wonder however when he received [into 
 hisApostolicon] this letter which was written to but one man,f that he 
 rejected the two epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus, which together 
 treat of ecclesiastical discipline." 
 Is TcrtuUian then not a better witness than Marcionf Must we 
 class Dean Inge also with the Marcionites ? What better proofs do wo 
 require than TertuUian's express testimony ? Can the ' modem scholars ' 
 give us anything as ancient against the Pauline authorship? For 
 Marcion is clearly out of court and always has been. 
 
 Or is it that ' modern scholars ' are impatient of ' ecclesiastical 
 discipline,' referred to by Tcrttdlian as contained in the letters? 
 To whom but St. Paul himself can 1 Tim. i. 13 refer ? — 
 
 ". .formerly being a blasphemer and a persecutor and 
 anoverbearingungovernable man. But I obtained mercy 
 because I did it ignorantly in unbelief " ; or again : 
 2 Tim. i. 10, 17 " The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus, 
 for he oft refreshed me and was not ashamed of my 
 chain, hut when he was in Home he sought me out 
 very diligently and found me " ; or again : 
 ,, i. 9 "Wherein I suffer evil unto hands as a malefactor, but 
 
 the word of God is not bound " ; or again : 
 ,, iii. 11 "Persecutions, afflictions, what things befell me in 
 
 t Tlie nrgnnicnts ngaiiist them are absolutely inconclusive. 
 
 X I'. 47 : " Of the rest the weight of evidence is slightly against the Pauline authorship 
 of F.plicsians." 
 
 II "Whether this epistle was addressed to those at Ephesus or elsewhere matters not. 
 II See Bishop "Wordsworth's very beautiful remarks about the letter to Philemon. 
 
 EI'ILOGUE. DE.4N INGE ON ST. PAUL. 
 
 477 
 
 Antioch, in Iconium, in Lystra, what persecutions I 
 ' endured. But out of them all the Lord delivered 
 
 me " ; or again : 
 2 Tim. iv. 11 " Only Luke is with me " ; 
 
 ,, iv. 14 " Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil." 
 Again and again in the pastoral epistles there are exhortations to 
 avoid foolish questions, babblings, endless genealogies, profane and old 
 wives' fables, " for (2 Tim. iv. 3) the time will come when they will not 
 endure sound doctrine." 
 Is that time upon us ? 
 
 In order that readers may not think that I am unaware of any 
 " new " arguments against the genuineness of the pastoral Epistles 
 and that such exist, I will frankly confess that I know of no ' new ' 
 arguments against them, and I venture to say that neither does the 
 Dean of St. Paul's. Threadbare arguments there have been, briefly 
 referred to by that excellent critic Bishop C. Wordsworth in his N.T., 
 p. 434, as to the peculiar phraseology of the Epistles— arguments which 
 he dismisses in a few well-chosen words ; but of new arguments against 
 them by ' modem scholars ' where are they, Mr. Dean ? I think they 
 are in Marcion's locker. Certainly the suggestion that the heresies 
 referred to in the Epistles are of later date than St. Paul's times is 
 absolutely inconclusive and not even probable.f 
 
 We cannot afford to be divorced from the ' Pastoral Epistles ' in this 
 summary fashion. We regard them as some of St. Paul's most inspired 
 utterances against the wicked unbelief and misbelief of 'the last times.' 
 Thus the closing admonition of the 1st Epistle to Timothy covers the 
 ground magnificently in one sentence : 
 
 " Timothy, the (sacred) deposit guard (carefully), turning away 
 from the empty babblings and oppositions of science falsely so 
 CALLED, which some professing, have failed (' missed the mark ' 
 7i-Fmarg) \ concerning the faith." 
 
 ('fl Ttfioffee T^v irapaOriK-qv (or TtapaKaTaOriKrfv, the meaning is the same) 
 
 ^iXa^ov, exTpeTTOfifvo'; Tat; ySc/Si/Xoi;? Ktvo^avlat /col avTiBiaei'i rij? i/reuSw- 
 
 vviiov yvdacwi;, !]v rivei; eirayyeWo/ievoi irepl rrjv iriaTW i^aToxqaav). || 
 
 Has the Anglo-Saxon race outgrown its Bible and the four-fold 
 
 Gospel narrative? To hear the Dean one would think so. He writes 
 
 (p. 45) : " We know very little in reality of Peter and James and John, of 
 
 Apollos and Barnabas. And of Paul's divine Master no biography can 
 
 ever be written." 
 
 t See Dr. Lindsay's explanation of the weakness of Hamack's position (p. 140 note, 
 ' The Church and the Ministry in the early centuries,* London, 1902). 
 
 X rjiTTnxritTav A-V 'erred,' but the meaning is stronger: 'faiJed.' Thrice is this 
 word used in Timothy. Elsewhere at 1 i. 6 and at 2 ii. 18. 
 
 II The Terse has been challenged as a later addition, but on flimsy grounds. 
 
478 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Ohservo the absence of the word adequate. The Dean does not 
 say " and of Paul's divine Master no adequate biography can ever be 
 written," but simply "no biography can ever be written." We seem 
 to feel that he means " no biography has ever been written." 
 
 What is he trying to teach ? That the Gospel-narrative is untrue, 
 or only so imperfect that it is useless to ' modem scholars ' ? Why 
 always harp on the insufficiency of our documents to portray all that 
 went on in those days in Galilee? This spirit of unrest is not scholar- 
 ship ; it is simply " denying the power." Oh, for wingfed words to combat 
 these stupid heretical suggestions ! 
 
 For suggestions they are. Suggestions full of guile, emanating from 
 the false teachers,t false apostles, t false brethren, |1 false prophets.l in 
 our classrooms ; suggestions that Peter's memory failed him, that Mark 
 suppressed things, and John introduced questionable stories ; that Luke 
 changed and embroidered, and that none of the Gospellists told the truth I 
 
 ' Modern scholars ' love to touch on the forbidden ground of the 
 speculative philosophies which St. Paul so often condemns in his 
 pastoral epistles. They touch upon it and withdraw, but the harm for 
 the reader is done. Thus on p. CO, of course the Dean does not mean 
 that he approves of any idolatry, yet here is the wording of ; the sentence : 
 " In addressing the Gentiles, we may assume that he followed the 
 customary Jewish line of apologetic, denouncing the folly of idolatry — 
 an aid to worship which in quite innocent and natural in some peoples, 
 Imt which the Jews never jinderstood." 
 
 Reduced to plain English what does this mean ? 
 
 Does it mean that although the Jews did not understand it (is 
 " never " quite accurate, by the way ?), idolatry is nevertheless helpful ? 
 
 Again, pp. GC/67 : "It is useless to deny that St. Paul regarded 
 Christianity as, at least on one side, a mystery-religion . . . It was as a 
 mystery-religion that Europe accepted Christianity . . . And students of 
 the New Testament have not yet realised the importance of the fact 
 that St. Paul, who was ready to fight to the death against the Judaising 
 of Christianity, was wiUing to take the first step, and a long one, towards 
 the Paganising of it. It does not appear that his personal religion was 
 of this type. He speaks with contempt of some doctrines and practices 
 of Pagan mysteries, and will allow no 'rapprochement' with what he 
 regards as devil-worship. In this he remains a pure Hebrew. But he 
 docs not appear to see any danger in allowing his Hellenistic churches to 
 assimilate the worship of Christ to the honours paid to the gods of the 
 mysteries, and to set their ivhole religion in this framework, provided 
 only that they have no part nor lot with those who sit at ' the table of 
 demons ' — the sacramental love-feasts of the heathen mysteries." 
 
 t 2 Peter ii. 1. t 2 Cor. k\. 1.3. 
 
 1 Matt. vii. 15, xxiv. 11, Mark xiii. 22, 1 John iv. 1. 
 
 Gal. ii. 4. 
 
 EPILOGUE. DEAN INGE ON ST. PAUL. 
 
 470 
 
 Now what in the name of common sense does all this mean ? Of 
 course ' modern scholars ' understand the tone, the wording, the lesson 
 (is there one?) pervading this kind of high-sounding talk. But from a 
 churchman to churchpeople it is un-Pauline and un-ecclesiastical. It 
 is walking unconcernedly on dangerous ground. It is hinting alwa3'S at 
 an undercurrent of unbelief latent in the 'modem scholar's' inmost soul. 
 Either we have God's tme religion and our mystery-cult is absolutely 
 un-pagan and unlike any other in the world, or for Dens let us substitute 
 Dii and be done with it, and wipe out all Paul's striving to inculcate the 
 lesson of " the one true God." 
 
 But this is not nearly all. For close after this comes another 
 astonishing sentence : 
 
 " There is something transitiotial about all St. Paul's teaching." 
 This curious Xoyiov is left unexplained and followed by a perfectly 
 harmless ten lines (bottom of p. 67), but the sting of the word remains. 
 There is nothing j)ermanent then about the foundations of Christianity as 
 preached by Paul? What does the excellent Dean mean? That things 
 which might offend the modern feminine suffragist are to be found in 
 Paul's teaching? But he has just disallowed the Epistles in which the 
 major part of this teaching occurs ! We have to give it up. 
 
 But the Dean is not a consistent writer anyway, for on p. 60 he says 
 first of Paul's language : " His Greek, though vigorous and effective, is 
 neither correct nor elegant " — and then a few lines below : " Regarded 
 merely as a piece of poetical prose 1 Cor. xiii. is finer than anything that 
 has been written in the Greek language since the great Attic prose writers." 
 And is this also a modern discovery? 
 
 I have said that Dean Inge is not consistent. We find another 
 instance on p. 50. Under verbiage and somewhat elaborate language he 
 seeks to impress us with the scholar's profonditj', yet his study of 
 Ramsay (cited among his authorities on the first page) is not profound 
 enough for him to avoid direct and unnecessary antagonism to Ramsay's 
 views as to St. Paul's family.f Dean Inge writes (without in the 
 slightest degree indicating that this is opposed to Ramsay, whom he is 
 reviewing inter alios) : 
 
 " St. Paul did not belong to the upper class. He was a working 
 artisan, a ' tent-maker,' who followed one of the regular trades of the 
 place." 
 Ramsay accounts quite otherwise for St. Paul's poverty, and I 
 cannot but think that Ramsay has the better and more solid foundation 
 for his views. In as fine a passage as one can find in his works, and 
 with an almost unerring instinct for happy solutions and inspiring views, 
 quite above the clap-trap of the schools, Ramsay describes the scene at 
 home after St. Paul's conversion, the bitter words which must have passed 
 
 t Succinctly stated on pp. 31/37 of ' St. Paul the Traveller.' 
 
480 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 from fatlior to son, incidentally exhibiting, by an 'e silentio' method, the 
 reality of St. Paul's conversion, the certainty of his heavenly vision, and 
 the permanence of his new views as to religion. He pictures the final 
 break with home ties, and our apostle become a wanderer upon the face 
 of the earth ; then, and only then, driven to take up a trade for his 
 living. Not that he learned the trade then, for in accordance with 
 custom he had doubtless learned it at home, but that after leaving a 
 comparatively affluent family ' milieu ' he had to face the world alone 
 for the first time. 
 
 Again, a cruel and subtle endeavour is made by referring the ' thorn 
 in the flesh ' of St. Paul to a predisposition to epilepsy — here again our 
 good Dean is following Drews — to account for his 'visions' and the 
 matter of his conversion. 
 
 It is as subtle as it is cruel, and as cruel as it is subtle, for it is 
 introduced some distance away from the main theme of the conversion, 
 which is discussed as follows : 
 
 " What caused the sudden change which so astonished the survivors 
 among his victims ? To suppose that nothing prepared for the vision 
 near Damascus, that the apparition in the sky was a mere ' bolt from the 
 blue,' is an impossible theory. The best explanation is furnished by a 
 study of the apostle's character " (observe the subtlety of the allusion) 
 " which we really know very well. . . . 
 
 " The vision came in the desert, ichcre men see visions and hear voices 
 to this day. They were very common in the desert of Gobi when Marco 
 Polo traversed it. The ' spirit of Jesus,' as he came to call it, spoke to 
 his heart, and the form of Jesus flashed before his eyes, f Stephen had 
 been right ; the crucified was indeed the Lord from Heaven. So Saul 
 became a Christian; and it was to the Christianity of Stephen, not to that 
 ot James the Lord's brother, that he was converted." 
 
 Here the Dean comes out more into the open. Keduced to plain 
 Enghsh it is this. Paul was an epileptic. The vision he saw took place 
 during such an attack. He imagined that Jesus had appealed to him, 
 but the vision was no more real than any other which other men from 
 that day to this have experienced in the same neighbourhood. He was 
 really converted by pondering over Stephen's attitude and steadfastness. 
 
 Turning back to p. 51 you will find how the Dean falls into line 
 about this epilepsy theory. He guards the matter slightly. " He was 
 liable to mystical trances in which some have found confirmation of the 
 supposition that he was an epileptic." That sounds mild, but close by 
 he goes on to add that the belief of ' some ' is also his belief ; for he says : 
 " He suffered from some obscure physical trouble, the nature of which we 
 can only guess. It was probably epilepsy." He then proceeds to say : 
 " But these abnormal states were rare with him ; in writing to the 
 
 t The De^n mean3 as an epileptic. 
 
 EPILOGUE. DEAN INOE ON ST. PAUL. 
 
 481 
 
 Galatians he has to go back fourteen years to the date when he was 
 'caught up to the third Heaven.'" This serves a double purpose, 
 implying the epileptic fits were rare but none the less real although 
 connected with heavenly visions. But does not Dean Inge see that the 
 ground is untenable ? No man, subject to epilepsy, would have dared to 
 imperil the efficacy of his message by falling down in a fit at a critical 
 moment. That surely ' va de soi ' as to Paul's character. Secondly, the 
 long interval between visions stamps them as quite exceptional and as 
 having nothing to do with epilepsy, for an epileptic subject could never 
 have gone through the long series of trials and privations and hardships 
 which fell to the lot of Paul without a frequent recurrence of the malady. 
 Nothing loth, however. Dean Inge continues (p. 52) : 
 "At that time anyone who underwent a psychical experience, for 
 which he could not account, believed that he was possessed by a spirit 
 good or bad." 
 This is the modern method of argument. If the epilepsy suggestion 
 does not work, fall back on a statement such as this, to destroy man's 
 belief in anything superterrestrial. In plain English : " If Paul's visions 
 were not due to epilepsy, at any rate he was mistaken in thinking he 
 had been near the third Heaven or had any intercourse with the unseen 
 world." Or in other words : " We plain matter-of-fact twentieth-century 
 theologians reduce all these things to terrestrial terms. We have nothing 
 to do with the extra-terrestrial. We profess to believe in God and Jesus 
 Christ whom He has sent from Heaven, but really we do nothing of the 
 kind. We would like to, but the full evidence, you know, is wanting, and 
 pending further light we must just behave like common-sense mortals."! 
 Not content with the denial of the reality of Paul's communion with 
 Christ, Dean Inge also falls foul of St. Luke's predilection for the super- 
 natural. He has entirely failed to see that if a physician can believe in the 
 supernatural a churchman can also do so, but, as I say, that is beyond the 
 churchman of today. He sees the miracle of the awakening Spring and 
 " passes by on the other side," seeking and praying for " more light." 
 
 This is what the Dean has to say of St. Luke (p. 48) : "... a man of very 
 attractive character ; full of kindness, loyalty and Christian charity. He 
 is the most feminine (not effeminate) writer in the New Testament, and 
 shows a marked partiality for the tender aspects of Christianity. He is 
 attracted by miracles and by all that makes history picturesque and 
 romantic." This sounds delightful, but wait only a few lines (p. 49) : 
 "The narrative is coloured in places by the historian's love for the 
 miraculous." Our critic, observe, does not in his certificate of good 
 character say that St. Luke is either ' sober' or ' truthful.' 
 
 t One of tliese days, however, a man who does not believe in ' miracles," or anything 
 eitra-terrestrial, will be considered crnde, ignorant, uneducated and incapable of appre- 
 hending inter-cosmic phenomena (sec article by Sir Wm. Barrett, f.b.s., in Contemporary 
 Bevieio for June 1914). 
 
 2 I 
 
4S2 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 According to the Dean he is neither. The Dean, hke Robinson 
 Smith, makes no apology for calling St. Luke a liar. And I make no 
 apology for putting this plain interpretation into the Dean's mouth, for 
 here is what he says (only seven lines further down) : 
 
 " The Greek historian invented speeches for his principal characters; 
 this was a conventional way of elucidating the situation for the benefit 
 of his readers. Everyone knows how Thucydides, the most conscientious 
 historian in antiquity, habitually uses this device, and how candidly he 
 explains his method. We can haudly doubt that the author of 
 AcTst HAS USED A SIMILAR FREEDOM, though the report of the address 
 to the elders of Ephesus reads like a summary of an actual speech." 
 
 Could disguised venom, wrapped up in the soft qualifying and slightly 
 guarded phrases of the modern school, go further? 
 
 This kind of thing ecclesiastics do not seem to consider either 
 dangerous or heretical. I write as a layman and I solemnly assure them 
 that they will reap a whirlwind from this wicked sowing. For wicked 
 seeds they are, pat forth for our comfort and edification ( God save 
 the mark I ). 
 
 Can it be possible that ecclesiastics not only forget the Master's 
 admonitions " Let your communication be yea yea, nay nay, for whatso- 
 ever IS more than these {-nepiuahv Tointav) is from evil (« tov -novripov 
 iariv)," but that they scurrilously suggest that our Lord's own sub-followers 
 wore addicted to falsehood and to the literary affectations of the times in 
 delivering their solemn message? Messieurs les Eccldsiastiques, allow 
 me as a layman to say that such a suggestion is not only unworthy but 
 scandalous. And you have no proofs of it to offer. 
 
 What you do offer us is an extrinsic and emasculated Christianity as 
 far removed from the real thing as is your own doctrine from that which 
 you impute to Paul with his pure mysticism (p. 53), " The mystical 
 doctrine of the Spirit of Christ immanent in the soul of the believer, a 
 conception which was the core of St. Paul's personal religion," only yon 
 spoil it by using the expression " a conception," as if Paul had 'conceived ' 
 it and it was not after all real ! 
 
 Away with your half-truths and your innuendoes or you will soon 
 preach to empty benches. 
 
 The early Church which lived according to the precepts of the 
 Didache had many notable Evangelists besides St. Paul. Like some of 
 I'aul's letters their names have perished or are only briefly recorded in 
 the lists of Paul's co-workers, but who can stand in the silent chambers 
 of the private burial places of great Eoman-Christian citizens of the first 
 cpiitiiry and not realize that Peter's message, as well as Paul's, that the 
 
 t JuBfc above, the Bean practically admits the Lucan authorship of Acts. (This 
 comparison with Thucydides evidently conies direct from the classroom of some 
 University lecturer.) 
 
 EPILOGUE. DEAN INGE ON ST. PAUL. 
 
 483 
 
 messages of Luke and Mark and John and Justus, and Apollos, as well as 
 those of Timothy, of Silvanus, of Philemon and Sosthenes, of Titus and 
 Onesiphorus, Urbanus and Stachys and Apelles, of Crescens and Clement, 
 of Tychicus and Artemas, of Erastus and Trophimus, of Ampliatus, of 
 Persis, of Zenas and Apollos, of Archippus, of Epaphroditus, Epaphras 
 and Aristarchus, of Philologus, of Asyncritus and Patrobas, of Epaenetus, 
 Eufus, Hermes, Hermas, Phlegon, of Eubulus, Pudens and Linus, of 
 Tertius Paul's scribe, of Apphia, Prisca and Aquila, of Claudia, of Phebe, 
 of Tryphaena and Trypbosa and Julia, contributed to the continuity of 
 the Christian Church apart from Paul himself. 
 
 These all standing shoulder to shoulder f fought the heretics of that 
 day : Hymenaetus and Philetus, Phygellns and Hermogenes, Demas and 
 the rest. They fought them to a standstill for a time. But we, — we, — 
 we dally with heresies and toy with fire. I do not lay myself open to 
 the rebuke that the above-named represent St. Paul's own converts, for 
 they do not, all of them. Besides St. Paul confesses himself to have 
 been refreshed by others (1 Cor. xvi. 17) : " But I rejoice at the presence 
 of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Archaicus, for that which was lacking 
 on your part these have fulfilled. For they have refreshed (ui/eVayo-ai/) % 
 my own spirit as well as yours («al to vfian/). Recognise therefore such 
 as these (good) men." 
 
 Their preaching must then have been, like that of Paul himself, - 
 productive of far-reaching results. 
 
 Again (Rom. xvi. 7) : " Salute Andronicus and Junias my kinsmen, 
 and my fellow prisoners who are of note among the apostles, who also 
 have been in Christ before me." 
 
 Two things stand out here, first that some of Paul's kinsfolk were 
 of the Faith, and secondly a humble recognition that he, Paul, was still 
 the " least of the Apostles," and that the other workers were doing as 
 great a work as he himself. 
 
 Has the Dean forgotten St. Paul's growth in grace? As his 
 ministry flourished, so he himself becomes more humble. As Christ 
 from the ' good shepherd ' (John x. 11) becomes the ' great shepherd ' 
 (Heb. xiii. 20) and then the ' chief shepherd ' (1 Pet. v. 4), so St. Paul 
 decreases : a.d. 57 " I am the least of the apostles " ( 1 Cor. xv. 9 ) 
 A.D. 61/3 " less than the least of all saints " ( Eph. iii. 8 ) 
 A.D. 65 ? " . . .sinners, of whom I am chief " ( 1 Tim. i. 15 ) 
 In the light of this what does Dean Inge's sentence mean on p. 54 ? — 
 " It does not seem hkely that a man of so lofty and heroic character 
 was ever seriously troubled with ignominious temptations." 
 
 t Didache'"''^ jrvKfu^. " TrvKvCis Bt <rvvn^0fj(Tt<r6t fijToCiTer rh cfijKOVTa ratr J^yyaij 
 vfiiiyv," 
 
 t The same word as at Matt. xi. 28 " Come unto me all ye that labour and aro 
 heavy laden and I will give you rest." 
 
 2 I 2 
 
484 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Yet he starts his article thus (p. 45) : 
 
 " With St. Paul it is quite different. He is a saint without a 
 hiiuinous halo. His personal characteristics are too distinct and too 
 human to mal^e idealisation easy. For this reason he has never heen 
 the subject of popular devotion. Shadowy figures like St. Joseph and 
 St. Anne have been divinised and surrounded with picturesque legends ; 
 but St. Paul has been spared the honour or the ignominy of being coaxed 
 and wheedled by the piety of paganised Christianity." 
 
 It is Inge therefore who in the sentence on p. .54 elevates St. Paul 
 further above other mortals than the Church has ever elevated St. Joseph 
 or St. Anne ! 
 
 'Tis a curious bit of writing on p. 54, and implies a strange sub- 
 conscious strain in the mind of the Dean. 
 
 But if St. Paul " turned the world upside-down " it was only to assist 
 in founding through others the glorious heritage which is ours to-day, 
 not by human agency, not by any St. Paul— as Drews and Inge suggest — 
 but by Divine agency permitting certain instruments to stand out above 
 others, but only " by permission."- 
 
 This article by the Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral ia cold-blooded, and 
 not really scholarly. The whole message is tinged with phrases which 
 sound ill in a Dean's mouth. 
 
 Thus his disquisition on the God of the Old Testament (p. 54/55) is 
 a lurid example of what not to write. " The distinctive feature of the 
 Jewish religion is not, as is often supposed, its monotheism... And 
 when Jahveh became more strictly ' the only God,' the cult of inter- 
 mediate beings came in and restored a quasi-polytheism ..." "What is 
 the Dean talking about ? Of Israel's pure religion or of its lapses ? 
 
 This is dealing with the matter from a purely literary standpoint, a 
 point of view which ruined Westcott and Hort's work on the New 
 Testament text, and a standpoint which is as foreign to the spirit of 
 the glorious Gospel as anything that can well be imagined. To become 
 entangled in folk-lore and to dissociate Paul's personal religion from 
 his teaching (pp. 53, 63, 66) is undignified, to say the least. 
 
 Progress is barred, gentlemen, unless we return to the " old paths," 
 for there can he nothing new in the religion of Jesus Christ. Either 
 there was one authoritative revelation, and one sacrifice once for all, or 
 there was not. No via media exists. All this beating about the bush leads 
 but to confusion and apostasy, "and if the righteous scarcely be saved, 
 where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear ? " (1 Peter iv. 18). There 
 is one royal road and only one, and that was clearly indicated by others 
 besides St. Paul. If Paul had never lived the message would have lived on. 
 
 Therefore when Dean Inge, following Drews, says : 
 " It is impossible to guess what would have become of Christianity if he 
 {Paul) had never lived; we cannot even be sure that the name of Jesus 
 icoiild still be honoured among men," 
 
 EPILOGUE. DEAN INGE ON ST. PiVL. 
 
 485 
 
 we lift our hands in horror and exclaim : Is this a Dean writing ? Is this 
 his message of consolation to the afflicted, the sin-sick and the sorrowful? 
 Has he understood his hero at all if he writes thus of him ? Would not 
 St. Paul himself be the most shocked of all of us to read this utter reversal 
 of the divine order of events ? 
 
 The Dean means (I will presume this in all charity) that St. Paul 
 was the instrument chosen of God to be the chief missionary to the 
 nations. If he means only this it is nothing new, and no new discovery 
 of these latter days I 
 
 But if he means that Paul by a series of fortuitous visions during 
 epileptic attacks had false views, had imaginary communion with Jesus 
 Christ, preached a pure but vain Gospel on shadowy grounds, was not 
 " a chosen vessel " but a self-appointed advocate of a religious mystery- 
 cult, and but for this delusion would never have preached and written, 
 and that it was owing to St. Paul's delusions that the western world 
 embraced Christianity, then I say it is time to call a halt and ask these 
 clerics to put their articles into plain and unphilosophical English that 
 we may understand, we laymen, what is before us, and decide whether 
 or not to leave " the Church." 
 
 In the words of Jeremiah (xxiii. 32) : 
 
 Behold, lam against them that prophesy false dreams, sciith the Lord, 
 and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies and by their 
 lightness ; yet I sent them not nor commanded them ; therefore they shall 
 not profit this people at all, saith the Lord. 
 
 Let us turn on the other hand to a more helpful view of such 
 matters. 
 
 When a Frenchman applies himself seriously to a deep study I find 
 his reasoning more cogent, his conclusions more exhaustive, his explana- 
 tions more luminous, his summaries more definite, and his entire critical 
 attitude more scientific and profound than the similar series of mental or 
 psychic efforts on the part of a German, an Englishman, or an American. 
 
 I would therefore commend a very blight comprehensive and 
 thorough-going synopsis of New Testament criticism by Andri Arnal, 
 Professor of Theology at Montauban, which reached me recently from 
 a friend, and which appeared in the mid-February number for the 
 current year of a periodical called Foi et Vie, published in Paris. The 
 article is entitled " Le Nonveau Testament devanf la critique," and will 
 help many to a clearer view of the great issues which are so often confused 
 and befogged in the mass of semi-philosophical and pseudo-scientific 
 critical literature which rushes at us from every corner of so-called 
 Christendom. 
 
 I will quote one pregnant sentence towards the close of this twenty- 
 two column article, and urge my readers to obtain and read the whole 
 article for themselves. It will do them good, from Dr. Sanday and 
 
486 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 Dr. Haniack down through the rank and file of our critics. They will 
 probably agree with every word which Dr. Arnal has printed, and yet 
 their doctrine is not set forth at all in the same way. We miss the 
 dignified constructive character in their works. 
 
 Here is Dr. Arnal's summary : 
 
 "II faut qu'au savoir parfois un peu amer que donne la critique 
 s'ajoute le savoir, infiniment plus pr^cieux, que donne I'exp^rience 
 religieuse personnelle ; a I'etude qui veut comprendre doit s'unir la priere 
 qui ne veut qu'adorer. Les deux ne sont pas necessairement li^es : c'est 
 pourquoi il y a des savants qui manqucnt de foi, et des croyants qui 
 manqucnt dc coiinaissance. Ni l'un ni l'autre condition ne sont 
 
 ENVIABLES POUR QUI VEUT ETEE UN TjijIOIN DU CHRIST. . ." 
 
 " Neither the one {attitude) nor the other condition is desirable for 
 anyone who wishes to be a witness for Christ." This is a true saying. 
 The " savants qui manquent de foi " are summed up in 2 Tim. iii. 7 : 
 " Ever learning and never able to come to the knoioledge of the truth." 
 In the same chapter the " croyants qui manquent de connaissance " are 
 assured that the real man of God, to be "complete and thoroughly 
 furnished unto all good works," must be thoroughly versed in the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 So, insensibly. Dr. Arnal almost uses the language of this Pastoral 
 pjpistle to illustrate his point, and yet we are asked by such as Dean 
 Inge to doubt that St. Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles. Well, if he did 
 not, a greater than Paul then was faithful enough to warn us of the last 
 times ! — to warn us of those " having a form of godliness but denying 
 the power thereof," and so we find that if Paul had never lived, the name 
 of Jesus would not have been forgotten among men, for the writer of the 
 Pastoral Epistles has kept alive the deepest truths and teachings of the 
 Christian religion. 
 
 Sublime epistles ! whether of Paul or of Apollos or of another mighty 
 servant of God ! 
 
 Did a second-century forger then invent the introductions to both 
 epistles ? — 
 
 (1 Tim.) Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God 
 our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ which is our hope, unto 
 Timothy my own son in the faith. . . . 
 (2 Tim.) Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to 
 the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, to Timothy my 
 dearly beloved son. . . 
 Perish the thought that these sublime prologues of " life " and 
 " hope " in Christ Jesus should not be from the pen of Paul. But, — if 
 they and the epistles themselves are not of Paul, then Dean Inge's 
 contention falls to the ground of its own false-weight, for the name of 
 Christ icould have lived on among men by means of these short and 
 superb epistles, even if Paul's other universally acknowledged writings 
 had perished, or if he himself had never lived. 
 
 EPILOGUE. CONCLUSION. 
 
 487 
 
 Coticlusion. 
 
 Our daily actions are based as much on the experience of the past 
 and upon the probabilities of the future as upon our own knowledge 
 of what a day may bring forth. We live, in other Words, by Faith. 
 But Faith seems to have abandoned the circles where the cult of 
 both the higher and the lower criticism flourishes. Those in these 
 circles desire facts and tangible proof, like Thomas, demonstra- 
 tive evidence, TeKfirjpi'ov as St. Luke calls it (Acts i. 3), and do not 
 seem to seek this evidence in the proper direction. To revive the 
 Egyptian textual standard of a.d. 200-400 is not scientific, and it is 
 certainly not final. The truth is scattered over all our documents and 
 is not inherent entirely in any one document, nor in any two. Hort 
 persuaded himself that where NB were together (as for tjpev instead of 
 a'pei at John x. 18) they must he right. This kind of fetichism must be 
 done away with. Other documents having the same base must be con- 
 sulted for the necessary " control " in these passages of K and B, such as 
 the cursives 892 and Paris". Nor can we lightly disregard W when in 
 opposition to NB. 
 
 A reference to the quotation from Hippocrates on our title-page may 
 not be out of place here. The aphorism was well rendered into French 
 by A. de Mercy in 1811 : 
 
 La vie est courte, I'art est long, I'occasion passe vite, Texpirience est 
 trompeuse, lejugement difficile. 
 
 Le midecin doit non-seiilement faire ce qui convient, IL doit encore 
 FAIRE CONCOURIR LE MALADE et ccux qui Ventourcnt et les choses externes. 
 
 Oh for the Faith of him healed by Peter and John in the name of 
 " Jesus Christ the Nazarene," the result of which is described by St. Luke 
 in the medical term d\o«\7;p(a " perfect soundness" (Act iii. 16). May 
 " perfect soundness " in matters of doctrine and of criticism be restored to 
 us, so that like another blind man healed by the Nazarene Himself in a 
 twofold operation, we may " look up and see all things clearly " (Mark 
 viii. 25). 
 
 End OF Part I. 
 
 Thank God, all the sbiktino to and fbo of texts, all recensions and 
 revisions, and all various readings, cannot touch or alter the whole bodt of 
 Truth as we have it revealed to ds in Holy Scripture ; but the slumbering 
 
 DEPTHS OF OoD'S ETERNAL COUNSELS SHALL 'REMAIN EVER SAFE FROM THE RIPPLES HADR 
 BY THE BREATH OF MAN ON THE SURFACE OF HiS WoRD. — S. C. Malan. From thc 
 
 Preface to * St. John's Gospel translated from the eleven oldest versions,* London, 1862. 
 
488 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 POSTSCEIPT. 
 
 lieferring to pp. 252/255 in re ^,p, or vrrep, it is to be noted that 
 m the fragment of an "uncanonical Gospel" just published (Vol. X 
 March 1914, Oryr-) by Grenfell and Hunt, we meet with the expression 
 on folio 2 recto col. 1 : 
 
 KaL Trpoaevx^ade wep tcov exdpav v/itov 
 and the general language of the fragmentary context of this early 
 fourth-century document is more akin to St. Luke's diction than to 
 St. ISIatthew's. 
 
 ( 489 ) 
 
 GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 .N Preface f. li ct passim Kuic Part II. 
 K, methodsof 45 46 47 50 64note 58 89 94 113 129not8 147 (viii. 7) 228 note 239 257 309andnoto 
 
 328 332 337 note 353 note J 356 892 394 400 407 426, and see Part II. 
 M and B, differences between Introduction p. viii, 76 note, and Part II. 
 Abbott, Edwin A. 833 341 
 Accn&ative absolute, see '* Change of case." 
 Addition for the better 278 295 
 
 (11 Addition for the worse 295 
 
 Additions and omissions, oscillation between 239 
 Aetbiopic 28 79 347 435 sfj ^jossim, e< c/. Part II. 
 Alexandria and Carthage 199 205 
 Alexandrian text and readings 9 llseq 27 and note 75 note 80 81 91 110 202 250 266 290 316 855 
 
 362 372 373 374 387 416 note 422 K9 el alibi 
 Alexandrian miters and critics 41 66 149 note 265 346 376 note 461 et alibi 
 Amilineau 353 355 360 371 469 
 Amphilocbius 19 ei alibi 
 Anacoluthon 276 
 ** Anceps " 315 et alibi 
 Anne, St. 484 
 Antioch revision Preface p. iii, 85 39 42 47 55 79 110 230 243 246 218 250 251 270 286 314 324 
 
 329 350 355 802 363 375 407 433 457 459 et passim 
 aira{ \tyo}iivav 294 
 
 Aphraates 453 
 
 Aristides 422/3 
 
 Aristotle 412 
 
 Armenian 343 el passim 
 
 Arnal, Dr. Aaiii 495 sej 
 
 Article (definite Greek), adding or withholding 74 180/1 218 note 220 272 279 298 302 308 
 
 Article (indefinite Coptic) 218 279 37C ;( alibi 
 
 Athanasius 11 12 cic. 27 note 29 203 299 307 374 393 420 422 452 et saepe 
 
 Athenagoras 424/5 
 
 Angustine 85 108 278 430 
 
 " Authorised " version 305 322 350 
 
 a and B'' 54 note 286 344 369 et alibi 
 
 a and D" 127 and note 128 140 161 note 178 
 
 O7a0ot and KaKtn 202 note 
 
 oAXa and (1 fiv 150 
 
 aWa yt (nai) 293 
 
 arcu and x'^/"^ ^02 note 
 
 axoi^ow and virai'Tau Hsct^ 
 awevamt and Kartyai'Tt 31/2 
 axpt, see under cbri 
 
 B passim ; cf. 2C8 
 
 B, the corrector of 325 
 
400 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 491 
 
 BA 
 
 UN 
 
 BNL 
 
 IJC 
 
 BL 
 
 BT 
 
 BH 
 
 BL= 
 
 BLX 
 
 B, photographic edition 48 2C9 270 
 B and 6o/i G et alibi 
 B and a 54 note 280 344 3C9 et alibi 
 B Sinni and Alexandria 318 
 
 B and On,™ in conflict 09 ,eq (Matt), liUcq (Mark), 237 297 Bcq (Luke), 403 (John) 
 li aionc followed by )r-7r[not counting evidence new since Hort'a death] 2 3 5 6 19 23 32 74 80 81 
 83 85 {marg) 209 {pluries) 211 212 213 (216) (226) 227 228 237 242 
 255 259 200 275 278 299 300 302 303 305 300 307 308 309 310 315 
 317 818 319 332 334 351 400 
 
 395 
 
 • „ 2 19 20 29 61 08 78 83 92 120 211 214 217 219 225 227 228 235 237 
 240 201 290 300 302 307 312 322 325 327 354 370 373 388 400 
 
 110 174 211 233 257 258 261 278 280 290 307 317 318 406 
 
 2 299 308 310 325 331 338 351 et aliU 
 
 2 22 30 211 213 215 226 bis 256 258 306 307 322 323 392 
 
 „ ., 2 212 263 337 etc. 
 „ „ 209 251 
 
 , 242 
 
 .. „ .. 337 
 B outside tho Gospels 410 seq 
 Badham, F. P. 473 note 
 Barnabas 419 477 
 
 Barnard, P. M. Introduction p. ii, x, 75 200/3 and 203 note 212 270 377 
 Basic text 272 et passim 
 Bebb, L. J. M. Introduction p. ix note 
 Bclshcim 123 note 144 note 
 Birch 101 107 
 
 Blass 1 72 120 139 note 147 note 247 264 281 285 286 293 294 457 458 
 Bloomfield 177 
 Bohairie, date of 23 79 85 80 87 89 100 103 105 228 230 284 297 318 323 331 S82 400 422 426 
 
 ,, influence of 79 144 ct a/iiii 
 Boruemann 55 293 
 Bracketed clauses 321 
 
 Buchanan, E. S. 153 and note 105 172 301 383 
 
 Burgon, Dean J«(ro(iKciioHp. x, 35 08 307 327 381 383 335 note 391 394 415 
 Burkitt, F. C. Preface p. t, vi. Introduction p. ix, x, 13 28 63 121 note 318 324 347 357 note 377 
 
 380 402 408 445 447 402 473 
 Buttmann 147 note 281 
 
 tin Mark 107 129 sej 173 note 183 note 443 454 etc. 
 b and d in ^lark 131 
 b at Luko xxiii. 34 ; 413 note 
 
 C (the zoauuscript) 139 et alibi 
 c*" 445 scg ct alibi 
 Case, change of, see below 
 Catacombs 107 130/1 
 Celsus iii 70 
 
 Change of case 32 35 scg (Matt) 33 67, 95 seq (Jlark), 240 (Luke) 281 283 290 291 292, 311 356 sej 
 (John) 301 390 
 ,, gender 84 98 260 
 
 „ mood 29 33 (Matt), 92 (Mark), 243 (Luke) 296 323 349 (John) 417 
 „ number 38 (Matt) 39 51, 9GSC2 (Mark), 241 249 (Luke), 349 355 (John) 374 385 435 
 „ order 89 (Matt) 57 58 61, 98sc2 (Mark), 255 (Luke) 280 284 301 303 305 309 312 314 326 
 328 332 330 363 (John) 378 379 
 ., ,. order, involving change of sense 40 323/4 
 ., ,, person 300 
 
 ,, „ possessive pronoun 301 371 seq 
 „ sense 40 235 294 
 ,, tenso 33505 (Matt) 57, 93scj (Mark) 113, 243 (Luke) 202 203 304 305 300 323 338 339 
 
 349 st2 (John) 400 417 
 „ tense (historic presents) 41sc3 (Matt), 101 scj (Mark) 122 191, 321 note 343 S53seq (John) 
 
 Chanae of toxc 32/33 (Matt), 91«c3 (Mark), 242 (Luke), 323 827 339 348 (John) 418 
 
 Change without improvement 119 300 840 353 354 396 
 
 Chase, tee " Ely, Bishop of." 
 
 Chrysostom 364 403 436 ct alibi [see Part II. in St. John] 
 
 Church Fathers, Language of 159 195 scg 205 389 
 
 Church of Rome xii/ziii 6 
 
 Clement of Alexandria Introduction p. ix, 29 132 168 198/204 201 note 212 262 254 and note 270 
 
 298 299 331 419 ct passim 
 Clement of Rome 188 194 202 note 243 419 seq 467 
 Coincidences 26 
 
 Comparative or positive 201 203 note 
 Compound Verbs, see under " Verbs " 
 
 Conflation 74 112 147 168 183 note 185 251 259 note 296 323(Soifcil) 327 365 373 378 et alibi 
 Confusion of eye in writing, or of ear from dictation 77 83 167 185 190 216 219 
 Confusion from diglots 85 86 95 226 231 
 "Const." 197 note 413 note 
 Construction 321 et alibi 
 Cook, Canon 9 10 210 256 274 347 
 Coptic (overlying and underlying) 82 note 
 Coptic sympathy with B 20 scg (Matt), 79 scj (Mark), 208 227 seq (Luke) 294, 317 seg (John) 320 
 
 322 362 364 367 378 384 417 455 468 
 Coptic and Latin with B 87 238 290 324 325/32 cfc. 
 Coptic, real situation as to B and Coptic 22 40note 79 84 85 227 223 231 232 248 256 259 260 268 
 
 283 284 325 and note 326 323 330 352 
 Copulas 322 383/4 388 394 395 1!( alibi Tide Part II. p. 197/8 
 Coram 89/90 179 
 
 Cronin, H. S. 123 note 144 note 188 
 Cross-questioning of witnesses 195 (quotation) 
 Crum and Kenyon Preface p. v, 917 
 Cursive testimony, see under " Importance of " 
 Cyprian 14 55 et saepe 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria 306 note 309 316 318 359 392 396 400 iliet alibi 
 c in Mark 132 
 
 D, idiosyncrasies of 129 note 173 note 326 note iWet alibi 
 
 X) and the Greek article 180 181 
 
 D and Egypt 204 et alibi 
 
 D and Origen 159 
 
 Vd in Mark 107 127 seq 173 195 seq 
 
 A in Mark 72 106 110 113 note 119 123 204 note 
 
 Dative absolute, sec " Change of Case " 
 
 Dative for genitive 356 
 
 Decretum Gelasii Preface p. iii 
 
 Diatessaron Jurroiiiidioit p. xiii, 45 77 230 327 366 434 scg i6i el alibi 
 
 Diction of Mark, see under Mark 
 
 „ „ Luke, ,, „ Luke 
 
 „ „ John, „ ,, John 
 
 „ „ Paul, „ „ Paul 
 Didacbe 482 463 
 
 Dionysius of Alexandria 197 note 198 265/6 
 Doctrinal 315 399 419/20 
 " Doric " 275 and note 
 Dorotheus Preface p. iii 
 Double Greek negative 189 
 Double meanings 30 80 142 169 183 and note 
 Double readings 174/6 
 Drews 474 seq 
 Siarpi&w and fxifu 402 
 
 " Easier " readings 120 292 331 et alibi 
 
 Editing by B 14 (Matt), 74 (Mark), 208 (Luke), 299 (John) 372 
 
492 
 
 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 493 
 
 Egyptiaa revision Preface p. iii, iv, v, 35 39 44 47 81 83 96 229 231 239 266 271 286 864 870 400 
 
 iXbet passim 
 Ellipsis 338 339 340 (■(niiti 
 Ely, Bishop ol 408 
 Epbcsians 476 
 Ephrem 347i!(oIi6i 
 Epilepsy 480 481 
 Epiplianius 20 42 208 327 tie 
 Erasmus 450 
 
 Error oculi 80 91 181 note 216 231 236 267 269 277 284 294 318 320 823 336 343 3S4/5e( alibi 
 Euphony 338 et alibi 
 
 Eusebius 203 210 262 294 362 443 note et alibi 
 Eustathius 26 and note 213 note 433 
 Evang, Ebion. 15 71 
 Evang. Hebr. 325 
 Evan. 22: 56 
 
 „ 23: 7ii(7odi(ciion p. viii, 93note 97 137/8c(rasstm 
 ,, 33 and Oji{7cn : Introduction ^. yWXy i etc. 
 „ 167: Prf/oM p. T, 101 206 208 e( passim 
 „ 604 : 137 138 256 note et alibi 
 
 „ 892; Indorfucfion p. viii, 263noto 270 272 efpossim 
 „ 579 (Paris"") ; In(roduc(ion p. viii, 111 c( passim 
 „ 597: 236 note 
 „ 2": 138ciari!)i 
 e and H 309 et saepe 
 e and HB 28 r/ sa^pe 
 e and W 72 seq 173 190/7 
 e and Cypr 239 
 (yyima and kukKu 135 144 187 
 fiirarra and eiir wtra 333 
 
 .1! TO 243/4 
 
 fKttvtis 332/4 
 
 (\i7^a and ^ltyf^a 400 
 
 ffnrpo(Tdei', fvaiTioy, efuniov 89/90 179/80 
 
 t^airtva and t^8t(^s 149 
 
 e^fartf and proper case following 231/3 
 
 (vKtiiraiTtpot; fnKoAcui, To^ior, paov and Suttov 201 203 
 
 eui, (US oJ, or im o^ 6 7 220 221/4 
 
 Facifitis 201 
 
 Fcrrar 375 
 
 Form 23 note 30 58 69 89 214 212 309 337 338 scj 41G 
 
 Galon 46 412 
 
 Genitive absolute 137 246 361 cic. ; see " Change of case " 
 
 Genitive before the noun 114 233 263 scj 264 340 347 362 «( alibi 
 
 Genitive for dative 359 
 
 Georgian version 311 note 365 note 393 S9iet alibi 
 
 Gcrsdorf 204 
 
 Glazebroolt, Canon 304 note 
 
 Gospel order 473 note 
 
 Gospels copied separately Introduction p. ix 
 
 Gothic version 319 note 322 439f(a/i6t 
 
 Grammatical changes 32 seq (Matt), 67 91 sea (Mark), 242 seq (Lulie), 335 seq 346 seq (John) 
 
 Greek recensions in JIark differing 140 seq 
 
 Gregory, C. E. 27 48 144 185 note 220 note 360 note 437 440 
 
 Grenfell and Hunt Jn/roffucfion p. viii seq 488 
 
 Griesbach 50 
 
 Gwilliam, G. H. 52 800 
 
 yiyvofiat and ti/it 409 
 
 yirirat/eytrfra 137 181 note 407 seq 
 
 " Harder" readings 97 106 120 258 271 292 356 379 336 400 
 
 Harmonistic 44 seq (Matt), 83 87 104 seq (Mark) 121 208 211 253 254 267 (Luke) 291 324 313 
 
 372 (John) 382 419 
 Harris, J. Kendel Introduction p. viii, 30note 73 75 81 126 129 note 140 174 195 378 409 note 434 
 Hartmann, Ed. von (quoted by Drews) 474 
 
 Hawkins, Sir John 16 note 41 67 92 101 115 116 127 130 133 134 161 note 194 263 
 Henson, Hensley 422 and note 
 Heracleon 424 
 Hermas 421 
 
 Hesychius Preface p. iii, vi. Introduction p. xil, 230 414 
 Hiatus 123 215 292 (c/. ciiam aWapro aAV oliii) 
 Higher Criticism 421/2 473 
 Hippocrates Titlepage, 46 409 note 412 487 
 HippolytUB 348 426sef; e£ afi&i 
 Historic present, see under " Change of tense " 
 Hobart, W. K. 41 note 46 248 
 Homoioarcton 344 
 
 Homoioteleuton 30 89 91 105 181 note 189 213 242 323 324 330 343 314 330 note 
 Hopelessness of considering 6 neutral 361 371 et alibi 
 Homer, G. Preface p. ii, 16note 20 23 29 55 note 60 63 73 80 81 87 101 107 103 121 note 144 note 
 
 229 233 234 261 274 289 303 319 320 323 325 338 344 360 note 386 389 414 422 437 442 444 
 
 447, and in Part II. 
 Horfs (Dr.) " Critical Principles " Introduction p. viii sej, p. 1 seq et pissim ; et vide sub B : " B abna 
 
 followed by W-H " etc. 
 
 Idolatry 478 
 
 Ignatius 33 52 213 419 sci; 431 407 
 
 Imperatives, see under " Change of tense " 
 
 Imperfect tense 41 42 93 102 104 262 and note 321 note cf ali6t 
 
 Importance of cursive testimony viii 110 278 399 434seg 459 
 
 Improvement 30 35 40 48 sc^ (Matt) 79 107 ««2 (Mark) 121 211 272 (Lake) 337 350 351 355 359 
 
 374 (John) 
 Inconsistency of W-H 269 292 et passim 
 Indefinite (Coptic) article, see under " Article." 
 Indeterminate passages 296 343 401/3 
 Indirect oration 375 
 Infinitives, see under " Change of tense " 
 Infinitive for the iav construction 92 94 
 
 „ with and without roi 78 210 
 
 „ OS to uffTf or fis TO 243 
 Inge, Deau 474 seq 
 •• Ionic " 108 
 Irenaeus 476 et alibi 
 Irish texts in St. Mark 132 
 Itacisms 349 
 Itata and DW 181/94 
 'iKafis i56scq 
 
 Jebb, Professor 77 167 
 
 Jerome, St. Preface p. iii, 96 119 133 165 202 401 
 
 John's (St.) diction 341 346 356 378 402 etc. 
 
 Joseph, St. 484 
 
 Josephus 469 
 
 Justin, martyr 14 69 70 198 note 205/6 254 255 266 419 sej 423 i61 et saepe 
 
 Jury, the Preface p. 11 255 467 
 
 Juvencus 11 B8et alibi 
 
 Kenyon, F. G. Preface p. v 
 Knox, R. A. 470 note 
 Koif^ 456 seq 
 
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 4<.)4 
 
 Kypko M9 note 
 
 /i and B U el alibi 
 
 k in St. Mark 131 note et alibi 
 
 KaKowoios etc. 392 
 
 KaKo! and ayaeo! 202 noto 
 
 KTijftara and xPV/itra 1-5 19'J 
 
 kvkKw and fyytrrra 135 144 187 
 
 Lake, K. 323 348 noto 450 
 
 Language of St. Hark, see under Mark 
 
 Latin agroement of authorities 185 157 note 172 sej 
 
 Latin basic 89/90 118 126 Sfj 112 seq 445 446 
 
 Latin sympathy with B 17 sej (Matt), 76se3(Matk), 217 sfj (Lake), 810 scj (John) 343 854 359, 417 
 
 Latin and Syciao opposed Introduction p. xili, 279«fc. 
 
 Laura*"" 156 note 165 note c( passim 
 
 Leipoldt 318 
 
 Lewis, Mrs. 28 121 noto 257 804 336 
 
 Liddell and Scott 15 149 noto 337 e( a!i6i 
 
 Lindsay, Dr. 477 
 
 " Lists " of passages : 
 
 aiTavrt}trif/viravrrjffiv 25/G 
 
 avfvavTi/KaTevaVTi 31 32 90 Ka-rfvawtof 82 
 
 ya^os/t'Vfupciiy 65 
 
 (veKtt/eveKtv 49 ' 
 
 ffttnTiov/ffiirpoaOn'/tvai'Tiov 89 179 (coram, ante, in conspectu) ' 
 
 €TT(t/eiretdr) 65 
 
 npui/wptuta^ 64 I 
 
 " Longer " text 200 203 236 286 288 291 297 and see Part II. I 
 
 " Lower " criticism 421/2 I 
 
 Lucian Preface p. iii, iv, Tntroductio7i p. xii, 362 460 
 
 Lucifer 426 cf alibi 
 
 Luke's diction 4lnot6 46 210 229 2i5seq 290 408sf3 456scj iSl seq 469se2 481/3 <■( n/iii 
 
 ^lacarius 390 
 
 Slalan 358 360 300 401 487 
 
 Jlarcion 202 note 211 240 and note 261 276 287 298 423 seq 476 477 
 
 Slargin, the, and its uses 301 304 and note 307/9 344 et alibi 
 
 Mark's diction 114 seg 133 5^2 194 
 
 Mark's Gospel, geographically considered 207 
 
 Mark's Greek recension 118 122 124 126 140/71 
 
 Clark's Latin recension 126 seq 133 seq 
 
 Clark's indebtedness to Klatthew 473 
 
 ]\Iarsh'3 INIichaclis 149 note 
 
 JIarsh, Bishop 10 
 
 Matthaoi, C. F. 167 317 304 383 3E3 435 455 456 457, Part II. p. 350 
 
 jMedical language of St. Luko 41 noto 46 407 sej 
 
 ^lercati, Monsignor 440 
 
 Mercy, A. de 487 
 
 Methodius 225 247 and note 250 ct alibi 
 
 Jlerx, Adalbert Preface p. vi, 1 7 72 113 121 note 122 123 133 145 208 238 257 283 290 295 335 
 
 347 426 434 437 438 459 400/463 
 Mill 393 note 438 
 Miracles 481 and note 
 '* Modern" suggestions 478 481 
 Jlood, see " Change of " 
 
 Moulton, W. F. 92 116 note 301 450 457 459 
 Muralt 123 note 
 Mystery religion 475 478 seq 
 fiexp^ (^^s under las) 
 
 fityna and (\tyfia 400 
 fitKoyv and o\iyoy 202 note 
 
 GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 495 
 
 Naasscnl 423 420 
 
 Negatives 284/6 
 
 Nestle, Dr. 1 133 note 
 
 " Neutral " text 229 255 208 270 230 231 289 310 314 342 347 368 375 830 337 390 401 420 422 
 
 429 iS2 el passim 
 " Neutral " and " Western " 268 
 
 "Niceties" SB 59 65 242 262 230 238 294 301 370 420c(afilii 
 NonnuB 381 355 374 393 
 Number, see " Change of " and " Transition of" 
 
 OecumeniuB 41 413 and note, and see Part II. p. 183 note 
 OmlEsion for the worse 296 et alibi 
 Optative 92 etc. (and see under " Change of mood ") 
 Order, change of 20 21 89 etc. (see under " Change of ") 
 
 Origen Prefaa p. ii, 2ses 8 37 00 122 139 155 note 159 210 213 note 252 note 268 272 283/9 298 
 820 note 323 326 837 344 346 853 355 308 375 380 382 400 402 403/5 414 418 424 435 430 et 
 passim (see also under B against Grigcn) 
 Irigen's " niceties " 10 37 53 65 218 272 283 286 noto 353 
 "Overwhelming evidence" 52 
 xyrynchus papyri Introduction p. viii seq 438 
 
 OK\rtpta 487 
 
 and TiriH i 385/6 
 fta and ovic 377 
 *e and «(j TO 243 seq 
 
 )hymius Preface p. iii 
 
 Birs" 10 11 note 21 57 58 59 60 noto 02 63 64 108 113 113 121 123 214 272 noto 301 349 351 
 
 . 855 305 376 378 830 331 383 384 385 386 887 388/90 391 393 395 414 
 
 ll'pias 202 
 
 ^pyri Jnlrorfuction p. viiiseg, 41 167 266 
 
 iris*^ 111 336 note et;)a5sim 
 
 Articiplos 330 (see under " Change of tense ") 
 
 artitive genitive 33 212 274 461 
 Pastoral epistles 475 seq 
 Paul, St. (See St. Paul) 
 
 Perfect tense 839/40 349 et alibi (eco under " Change of tense ") 
 Pericope de adult. 834 
 Persian version 15 30 261 803 300 303 332 308 894 396 404 435 430 437 433 439 440 441 442 443 
 
 449 450 et alibi 
 Peter of Alexandria 10 27 313 note 
 * Peter, preaching of ' 423 noto 
 Peyron 229 
 Phileas Preface p. iii 
 Philemon, genuineness of 475 
 PlantuB 133 note 170/7 notes 
 
 Pleonasm, see " Redundancy, " and for list of Marcan pleonasms 115 
 Polycarp 253 419se5 
 Polyglot text 7 18 275 313 417 
 
 Possessive before the noun 20 21 22 23 24 101 114 233 207 847 et alibi 
 Pre-Alexandrian 270 etc. 
 Pre-Syrian 270 374 etc. 
 Prepositions 52 53 
 
 (exchange of) 19 45 47 52 53 58 63 103 219 232 251/3 
 Principles of criticism Isei; 314 et ati&i 
 
 " Provincial" handling 163 note et alibi; see also Part II. p. 1 
 Punctuation 100 273 
 
 »«;)i and mr.p 252/5 483 , ,.: 
 
 ir\ii9a-, mf±ir\ilfn and wKilpou 341/2 
 irpofftvxo}tiu 239 and note 252 
 rpctrfarta 289/90 
 
49(5 
 
 "Q" 41 and nolo 472 
 
 CODEX D AND ITS ALLIES. 
 
 lUmRiy, Sir W. 140 459 4C0 479 
 
 llcaROn for writing ibis CRsay 110 etc. 
 
 nedundnncy 51 54 104 113 115 UG 118 123 190 201 note 203 209 273 277 279 293 
 
 IlctrrinBlfttion 128 130 140/71 172 note 178 
 
 Ueviicd Version CO 107 120 2G8 278 303 305 310 313 314 315 319note 324 331 341 342 340 351 
 
 354 359 300 309 371 373 377 380 383 384 395 399 note e< nliti 
 Robinson, Armytage (Dean of Wells) 423 
 
 Sabatier 383 453 
 
 Salmon, Dr. facing p. xvl, 1 8/9 347 
 
 Sanders, H. A. 124 157 note 200 414 
 
 Schaaf 52 SCO 
 
 Bchmidtko, A. 251 393 
 
 Schmicdcl, Dr. P. 23 
 
 ScholJ 60 138 107 335 344 438 440 455 
 
 Scrivener, Dr. 109 107 315 321 note 333 393 437 438 
 
 Semltio versions 315 ct passim 
 
 Scptuagint 10 note 41 49 53 55/59 G3 90 94 113 149 note 194 280 841 393/9 419 
 
 "Shorter" text 51 51 70 114 210 211 240 2.51 258 259 269 270 271 272 273 277 279 281 283 239 
 
 301 318 3C9 i29 seq 435 iSSct alibi; and see " Longer " text. 
 Smith, Robinson 409 seq 
 Sodcn, Hans von 27 240 note 373 note 
 
 „ Hermann von 141 414 425 454 461 405c(jiaisim (see also Part IL jinssim) 
 „ ,, ,, Review of 400 
 
 Solecisms of B, see " Unique readings " 
 Souter, A. Preface p. i and note, il, v, 3 24 27 43 73 note 83 lOS/7 119 144 237 note 257 259 233 
 
 283 301 note 308 310 313 314 318 331 941 342 345/7 377 378 381 note 392 383 335 note 301 
 Spelling 338 and note el alibi ; cf. "Form " 
 St. Paul's conversion 480 
 
 diction 65/0 253 205 note 
 „ family 479 483 
 „ ,, growth in grace 483 
 ,, ,, language 479 
 ,. malady 480 
 
 teaching 479 
 „ visions 480 481 
 Swete, Dr. Preface p. iii (and ace Part II. p. 188 note) 
 Symbols of MSB 434 
 Synonyms 81scj(Matt) 40 49 55 65 07 73 note 80 89 «3 (Mark) 113 140 s.-j 201, 243 (Lake) 
 
 311/13 340 seg (John) 403 416 
 Synoptic accommodation 24 104 105 100 107 253 254 267 268 273 274 277 280 297 283 
 Synoptic diction 15 20 27 31 32 83 38 41 note 43 46 48 01 04 67 08 83 84 97 123 135 211 212 
 
 237 275 270 283 292 293 295 296 314 409 410 411 424 note 
 Synoptic source 41 (and see under " Harmonistic ") 
 Syriac interaction Irt(rO(?i(c/ion p. liii 
 Syriac and Latin opposed Introduction, p. liii, 277 etc. 
 Syriac and Latin with B against Coptic 241 
 Syriac and Coptic with B against Latin 242 
 Syriac Latin and Coptic with B 241 2S9 
 Syriac sympathy with B 28s<fq (Matt), 88 (Mark), 231 (Luke) 240 274, 300 332 (John) 3(3 
 
 Tatian Introduction p. lii, liii, 44 195 230 
 
 Tense, see "Change of " 
 
 Tertullian 14 65 132 140 note 204/5 208 219 249 260 276 300 301 303 329 356 359 370/1 398 
 
 401 425 429 note 449 463 464 471 473 476 1( sacpe 
 Toxtus reccptus 435 seg 450t( olibi 
 Thackeray, F. St. J. 110 note 204 281 293 
 Theodore Preface p. iii 
 Theodotus 423/4 
 
 OENEBAL INDEX. 
 
 497 
 
 Tboophilus of Antloch 250 425/6 
 
 Tboophrastus 412 
 
 Thucydidcs 482 
 
 Tischendorf Preface p. v, 20 note 23 29 87 41 43 45 47 55 and note 00 80 83 86 87 93 94 100 note 
 101100 108 113 117 123 note 144 note 147 157 note 102 note 107 note 185 note 192 note 193 noto 
 190 note 200 204 noto 205 213 noto 214 220 327 237 238 244 259 268 269 273 275 273 280 283 
 290 292 294 300 303 308 314 noto 318 319 320 821 noto 322 323 324 825andnoto 826 328 note 
 329 330 330 339 344 345 300 351 300 noto 304 307 371 noto 373 875 379 and noto 383 385 noto 
 380 339 391 noto 393 390 397 399 404 405 noto 407 note 429 noto 433 435 430 437 438 440 442 
 445 440 449 450 452 453 455 469 
 
 Transition of number 55 seq 
 
 Tregollcs 99 233 295 382 442 
 
 Tumor, C. II. Preface p. v. Introduction p. vii seq, 23 195 317 350 note il2 acq 427 428 457 
 
 rmfirfptov 487 
 
 Tii-at and oiit i and 385/0 
 
 Toivvy 284 
 
 Undorljiug Orcck text 313 328 <•( niidi 
 
 Uni<)ue'rcading3inl) 14sd5(Matl), 745«3(Mark), 208 Jfj (Luke) 200, 299 scg (John) 
 
 vfiatf and vftiv 350 seq 
 
 inr</> and »pi' 253/5 488 
 
 Valentinians 70 424 
 
 Verbs, simple aud compound Inlroiiuctum p. x, 51 09 109 228 229 248 255 276 284/5 288 292 294 
 
 344/7 (Jo. iv. 15) 
 Verdict, the 405 
 
 Versions, influence of 0.5/00 357/8 375 378 iG2 el passim 
 >' Version tradition " 313 340 403 seq el alibi 
 Vogels, H. J. 402 
 Voico, BOO " Change of '* 
 
 W 72 77 81 83 noto 99 103 noto li ) 130 143 160 151 173 183 239 noto 240 noto 249 251 414 et alibi 
 
 saepe 
 W 6 178 noto 
 W d 182 
 
 We 72 130 173 190/7 c( saepe 
 \W be 78 199 200 cic. 
 " WandorwGrto " 438 
 WoBtcott 139 400 
 Western non-interpolations 271 
 "Western" text 8 259 208 271 377c( jmssiiii 
 Wetstcin 109 118 107 344 398 noto 
 Wiclif 50 noto 
 
 Winer, 'Orammar' of 57 noto 92 91 218 noto 204 281 285 280 293 301 450 457 458 
 Wordsworth and While 54 nol« 119 311 393 note 414 
 Wordsworth, Bp. C. 470 note 477 
 
 XpVf^ra and KTTifiara 15 199 
 xwfiii and avtv 202 uote 
 
 Fob thk list o» ScBUioRAt, Qootatiohs occonnisa ih both P*bt I. and Pabt U. conbdi-t 
 
 THE iKnEX AT THE ENU OF VOLUME II. 
 
 2 K 
 
HECKMAN I 
 
 BINDERY JNC. I 
 
 ^ JUNE 99