■--3
•3S.
mcAurfifp
THE PRIMITIVE TEXT
OF THE
GOSPELS AND ACTS
BY
ALBERT C. CLARK
CORPUS PROFESSOR OF LATIN
* ' y
3 ,',^»> J jJ,J3) 33 ) 3 33333]>, 33 3
» 3^3'''^ 3 ,'., 3 33 , J3 ''3;33j, ,j
3 3 » ) ' ' ■> ■■ , ) ' • ' > 1 3 3 3*3 ' 3 '',■'.,,, ,
3 3 3 3 3
3 ,3
• > » • ' ' 3 • ' 3 •»,,*•,' 3 3 3',' ' ' 3' 3 ' > 3 3
3.333 3.33 =',>',' O ' ' ^ > 3 3 3 ', 3 ' , 3 ' 3
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1914
S .*^ V-." t/ *w
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON EDINHURGM GLASGOW NEW YORK
TORONTO MELBOURNE EO.MIJAY
HUMPHREY MILFORD M.A.
rUBMSMER TO THE UNIVERSITY
. c c c « «
ERRATA
Page 8, line ll from foot, for Leiden read Leiden 86
Page 76, 1. 15, for 963 (vv. 9-22) read (^64 (Mark xvi. 9-20)
Page 98, 1. 5, for first to the fifth read fifth to the tenth
Page no note, for i. 752 read xxii, p. 928
1655. Clark, Primitive Text March 1914
face p. ii
» .'
1 S SB
CL5
PREFACE
The method which I have here endeavoured to apply
to the criticism of the Gospels and Acts is one which took
shape in the course of a previous investigation conducted
upon the text of Cicero.
The subject with which it is concerned is that of omis-
sions in MSS. Whenever the readings of two MSS. which
belong to different families are compared, it is found that
one of them does not contain passages which occur in the
other. In all such cases there are two possible explana-
tions, viz. that the words are spurious, and have been
inserted by an interpolator in one MS., or that they are
genuine, and have been accidentally omitted by the other.
The hypothesis of accident is highly probable, when there
is a reason which will account for the omission.
One such reason is universally recognized, viz. Jioinoeo-
teleuton. When a similar ending, or a similar word, occurs
twice in the same sentence, a copyist easily passed from
the first passage to the second, omitting the intermediate
words. This saiit dn mime an meme ^ is the most prolific
cause of omissions.
There is another reason which is not infrequently sug-
gested by editors, viz. that the scribe has accidentally
omitted a line, or several lines, of his model. When we
have two MSS., one of which is known to be a transcript
of the other, and we can compare the copy with the model,
we find actual instances of such omission. In the vast
majority of cases, however, we have only the copy, not the
model also. Since all scribes are subject to the same
infirmities, it is reasonable to suppose that omissions in
a particular MS. may represent a line, or lines, in an
^ I borrow this expressive term from L. Havet.
IV
PREFACE
ancestor, even though we have not the proof given by
comparison with the ancestor itself. The problem, there-
fore, is to find an objective criterion which will help us to
detect line-omissions.
The test which I propose is arithmetical. It is based
upon an empirical observation which I made while working
upon the text of Cicero, namely that short passages, the
genuineness of which has been doubted on the ground of
omission by a particular MS. or family of MSS., frequently
contain the same, or nearly the same, number of letters.
I thus found myself in presence of a unit. When I examined
longer passages in the same way, I found multiples of this
unit. The natural inference is that the unit corresponds to
a line in an ancestor.
The fact which accounts for this phenomenon is one
which may be easily verified by any one who will take the
trouble to consult facsimiles of ancient MSS., written in
capitals or uncials. Very few abbreviations are employed,
and there is no space between the words. The number of
letters in a normal line, allowing for occasional variations,
is, therefore, of necessity a more or less constant quantity.
If we count the letters in some twenty lines, an average
will appear, which is maintained with great regularity.
So far I have only referred to line-omissions. It was
also easy for a copyist to omit other divisions of his model,
viz. a column, or page, or folio. Here again the same
principle holds good. Since it is usual for MSS. to have
throughout the same number of lines to a page, it follows
that the contents of the columns, pages, and folios are very
similar. In this connexion I would quote a remark of
L. Havetj made upon a germane subject, that of trans-
positions.^
La critique de ces transpositions est essentiellement arith-
metique. Elle repose sur I'hypothese que les divers
feuillets d'un meme ms. sont de contenance 6gale et que
par consequent les tron^ons de texte intervertis sont des
multiples d'une meme unite d'etendue.
^ Manuel de critique verbale appliquee aux texles latins, p. 196.
PREFACE V
- The arithmetical test is of great value when we are
dealing with the longer passages omitted by some MSS.
If we find that one long passage is a multiple of another,
or that several are multiples of one unit, the probability is
that the unit corresponds to some division, i. e. to a column
or page or folio, in the archetype. I have found in my
work upon Cicero that the longest passages yield the most
convincing results. In them we find written in large
characters, which all can read, the legend which baffled
our vision when written in tiny letters.
The chief result of my investigation has been to show
the falsity of the principle brevior lectio potior. This was
laid down by Griesbach as a canon of criticism in the
words :
Brevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium
auctoritate penitus destituatur, praeferenda est verbosiori.
Librarii enim multo proniores ad addendum fuerunt quam
ad omittendum.
Unless my method is based upon a delusion, this state-
ment has no foundation in facts. I may also observe that
it is not so easy to invent as it is to omit.
It will be understood that my work has been almost
exclusively confined to the text of Cicero. It was only
recently, after I had gained confidence in the use of my
method, that, in a spirit of curiosity, I happened to apply
it to the text of the Gospels. The results were so sur-
prising that I gave up, for the present, my work upon
Cicero, w^hich can only interest a small circle, and devoted
myself to this more important inquiry.
I must here state that when I began my investigation,
I had not made any study of New Testament criticism.
I had been brought up to look on the Revised Text as
final, to smile at persons who maintained the authenticity
of St. Mark xvi. 9-20, or St. John vii. 53-viii. 11, and to
suppose that the ' vagaries ' of the ' Western ' text were
due to wholesale interpolation. The object which I had
in view was merely to study the mutual relations of the
oldest Greek Uncials, notably, the Vaticanus {B), the
vi PREFACE
Sinaiticus (i^), and the Alexandrinus (A). I was, however,
soon dislodged from this arrogant attitude, and irresistibly
driven to very different conclusions.
These I can only briefly indicate here, and must refer the
reader to my subsequent discussion for the evidence. No-
where is the falsity of the maxim brevior lectio potior more
evident than in the New Testament. The process has
been one of contraction, not of expansion. The primitive
text is the longest, not the shortest. It is to be found
not in B^, or in the majority of Greek MSS., but in
the ' Western ' family, i. e. in the ancient versions and the
Codex Bezae {D). If my analysis is sound, we are brought
back to an archetype of the four Gospels in book-form,
which cannot be later than the middle of the second cen-
tury. This archetype appears to have contained the
passages which have been most seriously suspected by
recent critics, e.g. the end of St. Mark and St. John
vii. 53-viii. II.
This statement concerning St. Mark xvi. 9-ao will
appear so startling that I must insert a caveat. I do not
pretend to go one step further than I am led by the method
which I have followed. The ultimate problems of New
Testament autographs do not concern me. I only deal
with one set of phenomena, and my starting-point is the
text current in the second century. I have made no
attempt to acquaint myself with the Synoptic problem, and
do not venture to encroach upon the domain of the Higher
Criticism. Also, I do not regard my method as a panacea.
I am sensible that much must be due to accident and to
mere coincidence. It is for the reader to determine, whether
the cumulative evidence which I adduce is so great as, in
certain cases, to transcend the limits of coincidence.
The results at which I have arrived in the case of the
Acts are even more striking. It is here that the problem
of the ' Western ' recension has been felt most strongly.
Thus a recent writer says ^ : ' It is the correct method to
study the Western readings in Acts first of all, and to form
^ Lake, The Text of the Nezv Testament, p. 91.
PREFACE vii
some kind of judgement on them, and after this to turn to
the Gospels and apply to them the conclusions derived from
the study of the Acts.' This was not the process which
I followed, but the conclusions arrived at in the case of
the Acts greatly confirm the results furnished b}- the study
of the Gospels.
It is briefly this, that all our MSS., including D, are
descended from an ancestor written not in lines of equal
length, as in the case of the Gospels, but in cola and
ccinmata, i.e. sense-lines of varying length, such as those
found in D. The ordinary text has been developed from
this by the frequent omission of lines, followed by modifica-
tions in the text. For proof of this statement I must refer
the reader to the chapter upon the Acts.
I have not extended my inquiry to other parts of the
New Testament, since I found that the Gospels and Acts
provided more material than I could deal with in the time
at my disposal. It appeared to me from some preliminary
observations that the Pauline Epistles must be studied
together. It is unnecessary to point out that the Apocalypse
is a unique document which must be considered separately.
SIGLA
N = Sinaiticus, saecl. iv
A = Alexandrinus, saecl. v
B = Vaticaiius, saecl. iv
C = Codex Ephraemi, saecl, v
D = Codex Bezae, saecl. vi {d = versio Latina)
E = Codex Laudianus, saecl. vi
IL = Latina vetus (5L^ = Vercellensis, saecl. iv ; %^ = Veronensis,
saecl. v/vi ; IL^ = Palatinus, saecl. v ; ^^ = Bobiensis,
saecl. v ; 5L^ = Floriacensis, saecl. v/vi. For other mem-
bers of IL, to which occasional reference is made, cf.
Souter's list)
& = Syriaca vetus (S° = Curetonensis, saecl. v ; S^ = Sinaiticus,
saecl. iv/v)
,Shl. = Syriaca Heracleensis, saecl. vii (S hl.™g = lectio marginalis)
C = Aegyptiaca (CFs = Sahidica ; ®^ = Bohaerica)
Arm. = Armeniaca
Eth. = Aethiopica
The text used is that of Souter, Oxford, 1910.
CHAPTER I
In the Preface I referred to homoeoteleuto7i as a frequent cause
of omission. The word strictly means similarity of termination, but
it is often used for any similarity, e. g. at the beginning of words,
which would more appropriately be called homoeoarcton, or for the
repetition of the same word {repetitio or gevmiatio). In all such
cases the copyist was liable to pass from one similar word to the
other, omitting the intervening words. The most frequent cause
of omission is the repetition of the same word. This I will
illustrate by a single example.
Cic. ad Fam. iv. 12. 2 :
rogaret uti medicos ei mitterem, itaque medicos coegi.
So the inferior family of MSS. : the best MS. {Af) gives
rogaret uti medicos coegi.
Here it is obvious that the scribe who wrote an ancestor of M
passed from the first medicos to the second.
I should prefer to denote all such similarities by the more com-
prehensive term o^oiott;?, for which I employ the symbol hoin.
While ofxoL6Tr]<; of any kind is sufficient cause for omission, it
becomes still more potent if it coincides with line-division, i. e. if
one of the similar words is immediately above the other. This
I would illustrate by two examples out of several which occur
in a Paris MS. of Asconius (a), which is known to be derived
from a Pistoia MS. of the same author {S). The references are
to Stangl's edition of the Pseudo-Asconius in Cicer07iis Oratt.
Scholiast ae ( 1 9 1 2 ) .
p. 200. 24 : quartum
quem sit habiturus duos dixit quo quo quartum.
So S, while o- has the single word quartnin, the scribe having
passed from quartum in the line above to the same word below,
p. 221. 10 :
patrocinium meruerit aut assentatione aliqua
defendendi meruerit.
So 6": o- \\2iS, patrocifiium meruerit, without the intervening words
{ineruerit . . . defendendi ].
1655 B
2 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
I now wish to point out that a scribe was liable to omit lines
of his model, even when there is no o/xoiott^s. Since in the course
of this discussion great use will be made of this fact, it will be
well to give examples showing that it is a vera causa. I will take
these from two fifteenth-century MSS., viz. Paris. 14749 (2) and
Wolfenbuttel. 205 {W), which contain among other speeches of
Cicero those for Sex. Roscius and for Murena, which were first
discovered by Poggio. Here 2 is the parent of W.
I have remarked elsewhere.^
' That IV is derived from 2 is beyond all possible doubt. This
is shown by the surest of all tests, viz. that passages omitted by
ff^ repeatedly occupy exactly one line in 2. Four cases occur in
i\i& pro Afurena, viz. :
§ 5 mihi . . , defendendis non ot)i. JV. § 6 dignitas . . . turn
om. IV. § 30 bonus . . . iacet om. JV. § 79 magni ... at om. IV.
So also in the pro Balbo :
§ 29 coniuncta . . . civitatis OPi. IV. § 53 — ma virtute . . .
damnato.
Also, there are eleven cases in the pro Sex. Roscio and pro
Murena where an omission of W is due to the fact that the eye
of the copyist dropped from a word which he was writing to the
word immediately beneath it in the line below, e. g. :
Rose. 39 : inter
fuisse nihil autem umquam debuit cupiditates porro quae possunt
esse in eo.
So 2: \V ov(\\\js, fuisse . . . posstint.
The other examples dcct Rose. 55^, 92, 100, 102, 120, 127 : Mur.
29, 61, 69, 86.'
I also pointed out that corruptions found in /Fare due to the
same cause, e. g. :
Rose. 45 :
haec tu non intelligis sed usque eo quid arguas non habes ut non
modo tibi contra nos dicendum putes.
So 2 : W has quid putes arguas, the explanation being that the
writer strayed from quid in the first line to putes, which is just
below it in the second line.
These instances taken from a single MS., and chiefly from two
speeches which it contains, are sufficient to show the prevalence
of line-omission. It is obvious that such omissions might take
place every time that a MS. was copied. When, therefore, there
' The Veins Cluniacensis of Poggio, p. xii.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 3
are many stages in the transmission the total number of omissions
is Hkely to have been considerable. It is true that omitted
passages were frequently inserted in the margin by a corrector.
These marginalia are of great importance. I have generally found
that they exhibit a unit or multiples of a unit. They thus reveal
the formation of the model. Sometimes this is combined with
another unit and its multiples, which testify to similar omissions
made by a previous ancestor.
In the course of this discussion I shall frequently speak of
a passage as ' telescoped '. I use this word to designate lacerated
passages where the mutilation is undisguised. Thus in Balb. 53
S has sum
ma virtute et dignitate nepotes T. et C. coponios nostis damnato
C. masone.
Here W gives sum C. masone {om. med.), the word sumtna
being cut in two.
These telescoped passages can only represent a line, or lines, of
an ancestor. Here, again, I would quote M. Havet, who says :
Quand un ms. omet de suite plusieurs mots sans qu'ils forment
ensemble une unit^ de sens et sans qu'il y ait saut du meme au
meme, il est a presumer que la suite de mots en question formait
une ligne du modele.'
The loss is sometimes facilitated by ho7n., e. g. :
Vat. 28 commodiore inimico suo contionem reiectionis.
The first hand in the best MS. {P) gives
commodiore iectionis {pm. med.).
The archetype must have had
commodio
re inimico suo contionem
reiectionis
Most frequently, however, there is no such explanation, e. g. :
Verr. i. 87 usque ab Dianio quod in Hispania est ad Sinopam.
Here one MS. {p) gives usque ab Dianopam {om. )?ied.). There
is other evidence which shows that the archetype had 10-12 letters
to the line. It, therefore, had
usque ab dia
nio quod in his (12)
pania est ad si (12)
nopam
The writer omitted two lines.
1 Manuel, p. 200.
4 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
The best MS. of Cicero's Philippics ( F) has three telescoped
passages in which 27-30 letters are omitted, viz. :
i. 7 transmitterem nee ita multum provectus reiectus Austro.
Here F omits nee ita multum provectus reiect — (27).
The archetype must have had
transmitterem
nee ita multum prouectus reiect
us austro
vii. 14 exitium nisi paruerit huic ordini. Quid refert.
F omits nisi paruerit . . quid re — (28).
This points to
exitium
nisi paruerit huic ordini quid re
fert
xii. 16 admiscear in quo ne si dissensero quidem a ceteris.
F omits — cear in . . . quidem a (30).
The archetype must have had
admis
cear in quo ne si dissensero quidem a
ceteris
The other MSS. all belong to one family known as D. They
also have similar omissions, viz. :
iv. 15 similem esse Catilinae gloriari licet scelere par.
D omit esse Catilinae . . . scele — (31).
This points to
similem
esse Catilinae gloriari licet scele
re par
v. 20 tantum quisque habebat possessor quantum reliquerat.
D omit habebat . . . relique — (30).
This again indicates
tantum quisque
habebat possessor quantum relique
rat
as the reading of the common ancestor.
There is no doubt that Fand D come from the same archetype.
These telescoped passages show us that the contents of a line in
this varied from 27-31 letters.
We now have an arithmetical test which we can apply to the
various omissions of Fand D. The result is that most of them
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 5
appear to be multiples of 28. This, therefore, I take to have
been the average length of a line in the archetype.
Both Fand D exhibit other units, which refer not to the arche-
type, but to intermediate ancestors. Thus :
Phil. ix. 2 in nuUo iustior quam in Ser. Sulpicio reperietur.
F omits quam in Ser. Sulpicio re — (19).
An intermediate MS. appears to have had
in nuUo iustior
quam in ser. sulpicio re
perietur
The shorter unit is due to the fact that the immediate ancestors
of Fwere written^ like F itself, in three columns, not in long lines.
So too we can trace a unit which concerns the immediate ancestor
of the D family, also other units which belong to particular members
of the group.
Before I go further it will be well to produce evidence in
support of my statement that the contents of columns, pages, and
folios are often very similar.
Chatelain in his collection of facsimiles gives a page from the
Vatican palimpsest of the Verrmes (cent. iv). In this col. r
contains 378 letters and col. 2 371 letters. The Turin paHmpsest
of Cicero, />ro Scauro, &c., copied by Peyron, has on p. 23 of his
reproduction 398 letters in col. i and 400 in col. 2 : so too the
Ambrosian palimpsest, also copied by him, has on p. 22 280 letters
in col. I and 282 in col. 2. The Vatican palimpsest of Cicero,
De Re Publica (cent, iv), reproduced by van Buren, which 1 have
studied more fully, yields striking results. Fuller details will be
found later on in this work. Here I would only mention the
following figures :
p. 80, col. I = 152, col. 2=151 letters.
p. 92, col. I = 164, col. 2 = 163 letters,
p. 93, col. r = 153, col. 2 = 157 letters.
Such arguments are chiefly found in MSS. written in capitals or
uncials. I have, however, noticed some singular agreements even
in ]\ISS. of later date. Thus F, the MS. of the Philippics to
which I have already referred, which was written in the ninth
century, has on fol. 8 recto 1746 letters and on the verso 1743.
The second columns on fol. 4^' and fol. 5^^ both have 477 letters.
It is to be observed that very old MSS. have few abbreviations.
In Latin MSS. of the fourth or fifth century these are generally
identical with those found in inscriptions. Most of these are
6 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
official, e.g. P.R, = populus Romanus, R.P. (or RES P.) = res
publica, COS = consul, PR = praetor, TR. PL. = tribunus plebis.
Also, from time to time, Q. is written for que, B. for bus, and
a horizontal stroke is employed for m or n, especially at the end
of a line. Since, however, these are sporadic, I have been content
to assume the official abbreviations only when working with a
printed text, since these especially in such cases as P.R. seem
to have been invariable.
I have now shown that the contents of lines, columns, pages
(and consequently folios) can be calculated with some approach to
accuracy. I now proceed to other sources of information which
throw light upon the development of a text.
(l) DiTTOGRAPHIES.
Most MSS. contain evidence which reveals the formation of
the immediate ancestor. The most valuable is that afforded by
passages which the first hand wrote twice. The error was then
rectified by the deletion of the repeated words. This was
frequently done by the first writer. I will confine myself to two
examples.
In Paris. 7794 (/*), cent, ix, the best MS. for a number of
speeches, in the oration ad Quirites, § 21, the first hand writes
twice the words :
invidos virtuti et gloriae serviendo (32).
So Sest. § 55 dicam immo vero etiam approbantibus (31).
The natural inference is that 31-2 represents a line of an
ancestor.
Such evidence has to be combined with that furnished by
omissions. I quote from the same MS. :
Quir. 6 aut Metellarum liberi pro Q. Metelli (30) om. P^.
Sest. 107 sententiam eius auctoritate neque (30) om. P^.
Cael. 72 et cum vestra severitate coniunctum (31) om. P^.
In order to avoid misunderstanding, I add that these represent
lines of an immediate ancestor, not of the archetype, which can
be shown by overwhelming evidence to have been written in
shorter lines.
These dittographies are found in MSS. of every age. They are
especially frequent in the Palimpsest of Cicero, De Re Publica
(cent. iv). I quote one instance out of a large number.
i. 64 mansisset-eadem voluntas in eorum posteris, si regum
similitudo permansisset.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 7
This is given thus in the palimpsest :
man
sisset eadem
n
uolumtas in
s
eorum pote
ris si regum si
similitudo per
mansisset ea
dem uolum
tas in eorum
poteris si regu
similitudo
permansisset.
The model appears to have had :
mansisset
eadem uolum
tas in eorum
posteris si re
gum similitudo
permansisset.
The scribe went back from permansisset to mansisset, and he
repeated the intervening lines.
I may remark that I know of no work so valuable to the student
of corruptions in very early MSS. as van Buren's transcript of this
palimpsest.
(2) Transpositions.
When a passage which is out of place in one MS. or family of
MSS. is shown by the arithmetical test to be a multiple of the unit
furnished by omissions, it is fairly obvious that it was first omitted
by accident and then inserted in the wrong place : e. g. :
Phil. ii. 27 An C. Trebonio ego persuasi? cui ne suadere quidem
ausus essem. Quo etiam maioremeires p.gratiam debet (83).
These words are inserted in V before the previous sentence
(C«. Domitiinn .... excitavii). The combined evidence shows
that the average number of letters in a line of the archetype was
28. The passage, therefore, formed three lines in it (28 x 3 = 84).
Transpositions can best be studied in the text of the Pseud-
Asconius. Here there are a very large number which can be set
right with certainty from the text of the Verrines upon which the
8 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
scholiast is commenting. I quote some simple cases with reference
to Stangl's edition :
p. 195, 14-17 rationem vitae . . . esset (189).
18-19 "t est hominum . . . dictura (66).^
20-1 deportare litteras . . . mutet locum (62).
22-3 deinde accusatorem .... velit (63).
In the MSS. the order is 11. 22-3, 18-19, i4-i7> 20-r. It
is to be noticed that 189 is 63 x 3, while 62, 63, 66 are almost
identical in extent.
A minor form of transposition, on which light is thrown, con-
cerns the constant and perplexing varieties in the collocation of
words which are found in different families of MSS.
Thus, Phil. ix. 4, we have the following variants :
statuae steterunt usque ad meam memoriam in rostris V.
statuae in rostris steterunt usque ad meam memoriam D.
We may infer that the archetype had :
statuae
steterunt usque ad meam memoriam (28)
in rostris
The scribe who wrote the common ancestor of D skipped
a line and wrote in rostris, then seeing his error went back to
what he had omitted.
These ' transposition-variants ' register the lineation of the MSS.
through which the text has been transmitted.
(3) Dislocations.
I use this term where folios of an ancestor have been displaced.
Sometimes there is a series of such dislocations in a MS., e. g. in
Leiden. (j5), which contains a number of Cicero's philosophical
works. Here again the arithmetical test is of signal service. If
we find that these yield multiples of a common unit, we can arrive
with certainty at the contents of a folio in the ancestor. More
frequently the material is less. Thus in Cael. there is a dis-
location in P and most other MSS. In the Philippics there are
two dislocated passages in V, viz.:
xii. 12-23 — sumus iudicare . . . nee corpo — .
xiii. r-io a principio . . . rem acerbam.
In the first of these passages the -^oxdi possumus at the beginning
and corpore at the end have been cut in two.
^ \l dicta (so ed(i.) is supposed to have been in the archetype, this number
is reduced to 64.
J
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 9
I have taken the trouble to count the letters in these two dis-
located passages. If my reckoning is correct, the first contains
5922 and the second 591 1 letters. This is a remarkable confirma-
tion of the principle which I have laid down, viz. that the contents
of folios are very fairly uniform. Here, of course, several folios of
an ancestor have been displaced.
(4) Roving Variants.
There is abundant evidence to show that old Latin MSS. con-
tained a number of duplices lectiones. Heraeus has collected a
number of examples from the oldest MSS. of Livy. In the case
of Cicero we have only to glance at the variants of V in the
Philippics quoted in Halm's Apparatus. We find everywhere such
a d
conflations as Phil. i. 17 jnHltais{= miiltis), ii. 43 ^2^^(5?!y (= quos\
bit
iii. I postulabituit {= posUilauii). A considerable number of
variants will be found above the line, or in the margin of Greek
papyri.
These variants were a constant menace to the integrity of the
text. The copyists often mistook them for passages which had
been omitted by accident and inserted them where they could.
In my work upon Cicero I have found that insertion of these
' doublets ' generally takes place at regular intervals corresponding
to the line-division of the archetype.
Frequently the interval represents one line of the archetype, but
often two or three lines, or more. I will give one example :
Phil. xiv. 21 idem P. Ventidium, cum alii tr. pi., ego semper
hostem. Has in sententias meas si consules discessionem
facere voluissent.
Here, after alii tr. pi, the MSS. (i.e. Z>, deficit V) insert
volusenum or voluisse fiiwi, or a similar corruption. This appears
to be a variant for voluissent, which after a sojourn in the margin
has got into the text two lines higher up.
The archetype seems to have had :
idem P. uentidium alii tr. pi.
ego semper hostem has in sententias (30)
meas si coss. discessionem facere (28)
' • uolusenum uoluissent
The most interesting cases are those where the variant effects
a lodgement in the text at some distance from its doublet. In
1655 Q
CO PRIMITIVE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS
these we have to consider the possibiHty that it has been entered
on the wrong foho, i.e. that the scribe, intending to enter it at
a particular place on one folio, accidentally put it in exactly the
same place on another folio.^ If we find elsewhere a similar
doublet at the same distance from its counterpart, the possibility
becomes very probable. Instances will be found in my subsequent
treatise upon Ciceronian archetypes. These wandering variants
are chiefly found in a corrupt text, and appear but rarely in New
Testament criticism.
I now proceed to gather up these remarks and to outline the
method which should be followed by any one who embarks upon
a similar inquiry. The first task is to ascertain the content of a
line in the archetype. For this purpose ' telescoped ' lines are of
primary importance. In all probability the common unit will be
at once revealed. The next step is to tabulate the omissions of
the rival families, arranging them in order of magnitude. It will
then appear when multiples of the unit figure among the omissions.
Thus, if the unit is e.g. 28, we shall expect to find such numbers
as 56, 84, 112, 140, and so on. The separate families should then
be treated in the same manner.
The information thus acquired must be combined with that
furnished by transpositions, dislocations^- migratory variants, and
corruptions of all kinds. The most minute flaws are often the
most important for the purposes of such an investigation. Above
all the inquirer must not shrink from the labour of counting the
letters.'^ No shorter method, such as that of numbering the lines
of a printed text, can have the cogency which is possessed by the
actual figures. I have seldom carried out a long numeration
without being richly rewarded. I imagine the reason to be that
in the long passages occasional irregularities correct each other,
and the average becomes more clearly visible. Also, it is only in
them that we can hope to find indications of the longer divisions,
viz. columns, pages, and folios in the archetype.
1 Cf. Havet, Manuel, p. 375 ' Un correcteur, se trompant de page, execute
sur telle page, au bout (I'une ligne, ce qu'il doit executer a la mcme place,
egalement en bout de ligne, sur la page voisine'.
2 It is necessary when doing this to take account of the usual abbreviations.
These in ancient MSS. art- strictly limited in number. Cf. pp. 6, 1 3.
CHAPTER II
The method which I have outlined is one which took shape
gradually, and it was not for some time that, after much in-
credulity, I began to realize its possibilities. I confined myself
at first to Cicero's Philippics, for which we have unusually good
evidence in V, the MS. which I have already mentioned. The
value of Fis due to the fact that, though very corrupt, its text is
not sophisticated, and its past history can be ascertained with
some approach to certainty. 1 afterwards went on to most of those
speeches for which the MS. evidence is sufficiently good, and also
made some study of theZ>£? Natiira Deorum. I further examined
Asconius, the commentator on Cicero, with whose work I was
familiar, and extended the inquiry to the Pseudo-Asconius, the
Scholiast on the Verrines. I found the Pseudo-Asconius of especial
interest on account of the long series of transpositions in the text.
I hope to publish shortly the results at which I have arrived in the
case of Cicero and Asconius. I would even ask critics to suspend
judgement, to some extent, upon my methods, until I have been
able to submit the conclusions at which I have arrived, when
dealing with works with which I am better acquainted.
I abstained from the temptation to experiment upon other Latin
authors, although there are some which seem peculiarly suitable
for such an inquiry. I could not, however, abstain from sinking
a shaft in the New Testament.
As this was my first experiment upon a Greek text, and my
palaeographical work has been confined to Latin authors, I thought
it well to prepare myself by making some examination of the
Oxyrhynchus papyri.
The first point upon which I had to satisfy myself was whether
the lines exhibit regularity in content similar to that which I found
in old Latin MSS. I found that this was so. The papyri are of
all shapes and sizes, sometimes written in long lines, but more
commonly in columns of various breadth. Sometimes they con-
tain some 40 letters or more to the line, sometimes about 35,
12 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
more frequently about 28, 24, or 22, very frequently 16-19, while
a fair number, including some theological fragments, are written in
very narrow columns, averaging 10-12 letters, or even less. In
all, however, although abnormally long or short lines occur, the
general average soon asserts itself.
As this is a point which affects my argument, I give some
examples :
Ox. 227. Xenophon, Oeconomicus (cent. i).
This is an example of a work in narrow columns, with an
average of 13 letters to the line.
The figures for the first ten lines of col. i are :
i3> 13. 12, 13, 14, 14, 13, 13, II, 14 = 130.
Those for the first ten lines of col. 2 are :
13, 14, 15, 12, 13, 14, 12, 13, 14, 13 = 133.
With this I would compare as an example of a long line :
Ox. 697. Xenophon, Cyropaedia i. (cent. iii). Here the
average is 42^. The figures for the first ten lines are :
42, 42, 44, 41, 43, 42, 44, 45, 38, 44.
It will be noticed that one line is abnormally short, but this
does not affect the average.
Sometimes the average varies in different columns, while it is
constant in a particular column, e.g.
Ox. 843. Plato, Symposmm (cent, iii) :
Col. ix, 11. 410-19. Here the figures are:
28, 25, 27, 28, 29, 27, 26, 26, 27, 25 = 268; average
27 nearly.
Col. xiii, 11. 570-8. Here the lines are a little longer, viz. :
31, 27, 28, 30, 28, 31, 27, 30, 28, 29 = 289 ; average 29.
In my work upon Latin MSS. I have found that where there
are two or more columns ya^ii codex, the tendency is for one column
to be squeezed. If there are three columns, it is generally the one
in the middle which suffers ; if there are two, the column on the
left is often a little broader than the one on the right.
I add two other examples of regular writing, one of which is
interesting on account of its contents, and the other on account
of its great antiquity.
Ox. 847. St. John's Gospel (cent. iv).
The contents of 11. 26-35 ^^^ ^^ follows :
24, 24, 24, 24, 24, 22, 25, 25, 21, 23 = 236; average 23^.
Hibeh 26. Anaximenes, 'PrjTopiKr] Trpos 'AXeiavSpov {circa 285-
250 B. c).
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 13
Here I give the figures for twenty lines, viz. :
Col. X, 11. 158-77:
26, 26, 26, 27, 28, 29, 26, 24, 28, 24, 27, 25, 25, 26, 26,
26, 25, 28, 27, 23 = 522 ; average 26.
The theological papyri throw much light upon points of ortho-
graphy and the use of abbreviations.
The iota adscript is rarely found in the theological fragments.
This is also true of the early Uncials. I have, therefore, omitted
it in all my calculations.
The papyri are particularly free from abbreviations apart from
a particular class, viz. fiomina sacra. Those in Greek theological
MSS. correspond to the official abbreviations used in Latin Capital
and Uncial MSS. Those generally found in MSS. are ts or I^s=
'It;o-ovs, Xs = Xp60-T0S, /cs = Kt'ptos, 6<; = ^€09, Trvd = rrvevfxa, owos =
oupavd?, crrpos = (Txavpos, ¥p = Trar-qp, Jxp = Mrrjp, Us = vio9, uvos
= av^pwTTOS, AaS = Aaut'S, IrjX = 'IcrpuT^A, I>/A/a = 'lepovaaXijfx.
These, or most of them, are found in the papyri. Thus
Os. 405, a fragment of Irenaeus, which is one of the oldest
Christian fragments yet published, has Os, x?> "??> ^Iso e^Tpvoi for
la-Tavpwixivo-;. The editors remark that the use of these abbrevia-
tions ' goes back far into the second century '.
In the Logia (cent, ii/iii) we find ts, Ov, Trpay avwv, in Ox. 2,
St. Matthew (cent, iii) ts, x^, vs, ¥va, ks. There is a certain
amount of irregularity. Thus, in Ox. 654, New Sayings of Jesus
(cent, iii), the only contraction used is I^s for 'Irja-ovs, and in
Ox. 656, Genesis (cent, iii), even ^eos and Kv'ptos occur. Also
some of the Uncials, especially B and D, are chary in the use
of abbreviations beyond ts, ^s, /<?, 6<;, Trva, owo?, Trp, vs, vivos.
On the whole, however, the bulk of the evidence is in favour of
their general employment, and; as I do not wish to avail myself
of any license, I have treated this as normal.
There is some uncertainty as to the use of letters to express
numerals. Thus Ox. 2 has 18 for 14. The Uncials vary greatly
in this respect. On the whole it seems safest to suppose that the
numerals were written in full, but the other possibility has to be
taken into account.
On examining the papyri I found many phenomena similar to
those which I had observed in Latin MSS.
On one occasion Grenfell and Hunt make the suggestion that
a line has dropped out, viz. :
Greek Papyri, vol. ii, no. ix. Demosthenes, Fals. Leg., § 10 :
14 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
Tors (Tvvd$ovTa<; Seupo tovs f3ovX€V(roixevovs Trepl tov irpos
(fiiXiTTTrOV TToXcfJiOV COdd.
Tot'S (Tt'm^ovTas Sevpo tov Trpos ^iAittttov iroXi.p.ov pap.
The editors remark that the omission is clearly due to the fact
that in the model a line beginning -po tovs was followed by one
beginning pi tov : i. e. the previous MS. had
8ev
po TOVS fSovXev(Top€VOVs 7re
pi TOV
The omissions are often very suggestive, e. g. :
Greek Papyri, vol. i, no. v, a fragment of Ezekiel.
On the verso 1. 15 the writer omits Kat -npo^^-qTcvuov eV awTo, koX
ipels TO. oprj Ir^X (36) ho/ii. On the recto 11. 12-13 the papyrus has
a passage of 36 letters omitted by A B, viz. kol cts weiSos tois
Wv(.(TLv Tols kvkXm aov {/lom.), and on the verso 11. 4-6 48 letters
omitted by A B, viz. a aTroo-TeXw avTo. SiCKJiOeipai v/xas kol Xeifxov
(sic) (Tvvd$oi €^' v/xus (Jioin.). It will be noticed that 36 and 48
are both multiples of 12,
Ox. 16. Thucydides iv. 36-41 (cent, i) :
Col. iii. 3 iTroXiopKrj6r]<Tav o-tto Trj<; i'av/xa;(ias [^^XP'- '''*}'» ^^ """??
vTyo-o) (45) om. pap. {horn.).
The average content of a line in the pa]jyrus is 21 letters. It
therefore looks as if it had dropped two lines of an ancestor
very similar to itself. The omitted words are added in two lines
at the top of the column with the reference mark mm.
Ox. 1080. Apocalypse iii-iv (cent, iv) :
iv. 2 £7ri TOV Opovov Ka0y]pa'o<;' koI 6 Ka6't]jX€vo<; o/xotos opaaet.
Here i-n-l tov Opovov (12) has been repeated above the line by
a corrector (? m. i) before o/xotos. The model appears to have
had cTi TOV Opovov (12)
KaOr]pL€vos /cat (12)
o KaOrjfjLevo? (l°)
o/xoios opao-ct (12)
with the result that 1. i was repeated after 1. 3.
This explains an omission in iii. 19-20. The papyrus has
0) ^riXwaov ovv Kat fieTa
vor](rov. iSov (.(TTrjKa €7n
TTjV OvpaV Kttl
omitting the words Kpovu) idv Tts aKovo-r] Trjs (fnovrj? pov KOL dvoiiy
Ty]v Ovpav Kai (48) ho»i., which are added at the foot of the column
with a reference mark of omission in the text.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 15
It is here to be noticed that the preceding clause w ^7/Awo-ov
ovv Kol jxeTavoTjaov. iSov, {.crTrjKa iirl ttjv 6vpav Kai also contains
48 letters.
We can, therefore, arrange the distribution of lines in the
model thus :
w t,ri\ui(Tov ovv (11)
Kai /JLeravorjcrov (13)
lSov earqKa e ( 1 1 )
TTi TTJV Ovpav Kai (13)
5 Kpovo) eav rts ( 1 1 )
aKOvcrr] tt^s <^cu ( 1 1 )
VT]^ fxov /cat avoL (13)
^ Ti]v Ovpav Kat (^13)
It was easy for the writer to pass from -n/v dvpav /cat in 1. 4 to
the same words in 1. 8.
It would be easy to add a number of examples, but I will con-
fine myself to one more case, viz. :
Ox. 843. Plato, Syyjiposium (cent, iii), the largest literary
papyrus found at Oxyrhynchus, written in 47 lines to the column,
with an average of 28 letters to the line.
I have already pointed out the importance of passages written
twice in a MS., as indicating line-division in the immediate
ancestor. I have noticed four cases of this in no. 843, and four
only. Three of them are almost identical in length, viz. :
Z\2 e ecrrc^arw/xeVov avTov klttov T€ Tivt (30) /lOf/L
212 a aX\' aXrjOrj are tov dXrjOov'i ee^aTrTO/xeVw ^31) /lOm.
202 C ov Tors rdya^a /cat to. KaAa KiKTrj/xcvovs (32).
The fourth gives information as to the length of the lines in the
model. It is
213 iT KaT€/ceto"o ^cnrep etw^ets i^aL<f>vr}<; dvacfiaLvecrOaL {4^)-
As this is ten letters longer than the average of the other three,
(31), we may conclude that the model had lo-ii letters in a line.
This evidence is reinforced by two telescoped passages, viz. :
206 a 7) TOV ayaOov. rj crot SoKOvaiv ', Ma At ovk cyu-otye, yv
iyw. Ap' ovv, rj 8' 7/, ot'Tws dirXovv 1(TTl Ae'yetv on ol
avupuiiroL rdyaOov epwcrt ;
Here the first hand gives t/ tov dyaOov ipwa-i orn. med. (80).
The omission is made more easy by the repetition of dya^ov.
The missing words are supplied by a second hand at the top of
the page.
1 6 PRIMITIVE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS
203 c 810 8^ Ktti T^s ^ K<^poZiry]<i a.KoK.ovBo'i Kat Oipdiroiv ye'yovtv o
"Epws, y€VV>^^€lS €1' TOtS €K€tV7^? y€Ve6XiOLS, KOI tt/Att ^V(TeL
ipa(TTr]<; wv Trept to KaAoi' Kai t^s A(f)poSLTr]<; KaX^<; ova~r]^.
The writer first of all wrote 810 St/ Kat t^s 'A^poStTT^? kuAiJs ovo-t^s
(9w. ;/zf^. (109). He then rectified his error. Here again the
omission was assisted by the repetition of the word, 'A(f>poSiTT]<s.
It is to be noticed that 80 is nearly twice 41 (213^), and the
decimal arrangement is also visible in 109.
The unit is to be found in two omissions of the first hand, viz. :
205 a €v8aLfj.oves (lo)> and 223^ avao-Tavra (9).
Sometimes a slightly longer line is revealed, e. g. :
205 ^ cfyrjcrii' etvai tov cpwra.
Here the first hand repeats ehat after epwra. This indicates
the following arrangement in the model
<f)r](riv
ctvat TOV epojTa (13)
The scribe began to write the line over again and then saw
his error.
So in 221 d the model appears to have had
Kat Tous aXXov; (13)
KaTa TavT av Tts (13)
The copyist at first wrote KaTa ravr-'av tis Kat Tot'S aXXov<;
inverting the order. He then struck out Kat toi's aXXov; and
inserted the words in the margin to come in the proper place.
Further evidence is given by an interesting repetition in
2\2 b TOV "EpwTtt TtyLtav, Kat avTos Tt/xai to, ipuiTiKo. kol Sia-
(fxpovTws dcrKw, KOi Tots aAXots TrapaKcXevofxai, Kat vvv T€
Kat del lyKiiifxidt^oi Tr]v SvvajjiLV.
Here the papyrus repeats Toi/*E/)WTa before rrjv Svvap.Lv. The
intervening words TLp.dv koI . . . cyKw/Ata^w consist of 93 letters.
This, it will be noticed, is three times the average length of the
dittographies in 212 g, 212 a, 202(:(3i).
CHAPTER III
I SHOULD much prefer to say nothing about the present state of
New Testament criticism, and to refer those readers who have not
studied the problems at issue to such works as Professor Lake's
admirably compressed Manual, or Sir Frederick Kenyon's Hand-
book. Since, however, such silence might cause some inconvenience,
I venture to sum up the chief points with all possible brevity.
The earliest classification of our authorities was made by
T. S. Semler in 1764. He forms three groups :
(a) Alexandrian, derived from Origen ;
{b) Eastern, in vogue at Antioch and Constantinople ;
{c) Western, found in the Latin versions and early Fathers.
The latest writer, von Soden, also forms three groups, which he
terms H I K, the first of which corresponds to (a), the second to
((t), and the third {K = Koivrj) to {b).
Dr. Hort, whose views have had great influence, not only in
this country but elsewhere, constituted four groups, viz. :
(i) Neutral ;
(2) Alexandrian;
(3) Syrian;
(4) Western.
The Alexandrian group is somewhat nebulous, since Hort is
unable to point to any extant MS. as purely Alexandrian, and only
denotes certain variants by this name. The Neutral group
consists in the first place of two MSS., viz. the Vaticanus {B)
and the Sinaiticus (h5), the two oldest Greek Uncials (cent. iv).
These are reinforced by occasional support from other MSS. and
some of the versions. Hort considers that the Alexandrinus {A)
and the codex Ephraemi (C), which must nearly approach B'^ in
antiquity, contain a number of Western and Alexandrian readings.
The term Syrian includes the great majority of Greek MSS., and
corresponds to von Soden's Koivrj.
Hort deals with these by a method of elimination. He
dismisses the * Syrian ' family as due to conflation, the ' Alexan-
drian ' readings as the result of elegant correction, and the
1665 D
1 8 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
* Western ' family as licentiously interpolated. This process left
him nothing but B and ^^, and, where they differ, he generally
follows B. The text of the New Testament is thus made to rest
on a very narrow basis,
Hort's view is held just as strongly by various foreign scholars.
Thus B. Weiss asserts the supremacy of B in uncompromising
terms. The Teubner text of the New Testament bears on its
title-page the statement that it has been revised ad fidem potissi-
mum codicis Vaticani B. Kenyon, who sums up the evidence in
a judicial manner, declares that Hort's theory 'holds the field
among the scholars of to-day, and is presupposed as the starting-
point of nearly all the work that is being done- in this department
of New Testament criticism '. He also goes on to compare the
supremacy claimed for B with that attributed to the ' best MS.' of
various classical authors, e.g. the Laurentian MS. of Sophocles.^
On the other hand. Dr. Salmon has criticized Hort's views in
a very damaging manner. He points out that the term ' Neutral '
is question-begging, since it assumes that B"^ have no special
habitat, while the other groups are local. He hints that Hort's
Alexandrian group is a figment, invented to obscure the relation
which really exists between B i^ and Alexandria. Further, there
is no documentary evidence of any recension in Syria, such as
Hort's system postulates. It may be added that the name Syrian
is unfortunate, since it creates confusion with the Syriac versions,
which belong to the Western family.
Salmon makes merry over the supremacy claimed for B. He
says,'- ' Hort, if consulted what authority should be followed,
might answer, " Follow B'^ : accept their readings as true, unless
there is strong internal evidence to the contrary, and never
think it safe to reject them absolutely." But suppose B has
not the support of t«5 ? " Still follow B, if it has the support of
any other MS. " But suppose B stands alone ? " Unless it is
clearly a clerical error, it is not safe to reject B.' But supposing
B is defective? "Then follow i^." What about adopting the
Western reading ? " What about killing a man ? " '
^ When one MS. is the source of all other MSS., then clearly it is the only
fount of information, e. g. the Laurentian MS. of Apnleius (Ixviii. 2) and those
of Tacitus (Ixviii. i and 2). If, however, there is no proof of such descent, it
is dangerous to speak of supremacy.
- Some Criticism of the Text of the N. T,, p. 90. Similar objections have been
made by various writers.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 19
There is, I think, obvious ground for the objection to ' question-
begging ' terms. Also Hort's Alexandrian group may be dismissed
without loss, since it plays a very small part in his system.
I propose, therefore, to retain for the purpose of this inquiry
Hort's other three groups, to which I shall give non-committal
names, viz. :
X = the majority of Greek MSS.
Z = The ' Western ' family.
I now turn to Z, the ' Western ' family. The chief representa-
tive of this in Greek is the Graeco-Latin MS. D, the famous codex
Bezae, generally assigned to the sixth century, though Professor
Burkitt argues in favour of the fifth. This is reinforced by the
old Latin (3L) and old Syriac versions (S), which represent a
recension current in the second century a.d. Both 1L and .S are
composite terms. We are told by St. Jerome and St. Augustine
that there were a number of Latin translations. St. Augustine
says :
Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex
Graecus et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere
videbatur, ausus est interpretari.
The chief Latin MSS. which contain versions of the Gospels are :
a = Vercellensis, cent, iv (late).
b = Veronensis, cent. v/vi.
e = Vindobonensis, cent. v.
k = Bobiensis, cent. v.
It will be seen that some of these rival the oldest Greek Uncials
in point of antiquity.
These translations have been arranged in three groups, viz.
African, European, and Italic. The accuracy of this classification
does not concern me. A special interest attaches to k, which seems
to represent the text used by Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in the
third century.
The Syriac versions are represented by
^8, Sinaiticus, cent. iv/v.
&^, Curetonensis, cent. v.
There are also later versions, e. g. the Peshitto, a recension
similar to Jerome's Vulgate, said to have been made early in the
fifth century, and the Harkleian, made in 616, which is of con-
siderable importance in the Acts.
20 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
There are a number of other versions, e. g. the Egyptian
(Bohaeric and Sahidic), the Armenian, Ethiopic, Gothic, &c. These,
with the exception of the Bohaeric, which inclines to Y, support Z.
The most striking fact is that the earhest Fathers all agree with
Z. Thus Lake, after referring to the quotations of Irenaeus
(cent, ii), TertuUian (cent, ii/iii), and Cyprian (cent, iii), says, ' It
is precisely these Fathers, especially Cyprian, who appear to have
habitually used a Western text of the most pronounced character
and to have used no other.' The quotations of Justin point to the
same conclusion, and the Diatessaron of Tatian, a harmony of the
Gospels formed in the second century, is a member of Z. Lake
also finds support for Z readings in sub-apostolic literature,
e. g. the Didache, which may belong to the first century.
Various interpretations have been put upon these facts. The
usual theory, held by Burgon no less strongly than by Hort, is that
the text of the Gospels became excessively corrupt at a very early
period, but that a few MSS. remained unpolluted. The rival
hypothesis, held only by a few, is that Z represents the primitive
text as opposed to recensions formed in the third or fourth
century.
The differences between Z and XY are most marked in the
Acts. Here the Z readings are often so striking that many critics
have found difficulty in believing them due to interpolation.
F, Bornemann went so far as to maintain that in the Acts D
preserves the original text from which the other Greek MSS. are
derived. Lake says of him that ' his views have never obtained
many followers and he may be safely disregarded '.
In recent years Blass has advanced an ingenious theory, viz.
that in the Acts we have two recensions.' The first of these he
supposed to have been written at Rome for the Romans, and the
second to have been sent by him with a dedication to Theo-
philus, a Roman official living near Caesarea. He also believed
that St. Luke issued two editions of his Gospel. He identified
the first edition of the Acts with the text of Z?, and the second
with that of the Greek Uncials. A serious objection to this
theory is that it does not explain the origin of the Z family in the
other Gospels.
^ Bornemann says that he once thought that the original comvienfarii of
St. Luke had been preserved by the Church, and additions in D had been taken
from this source. This is very like Elass' theory.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 21
Professor Ramsay has called attention to minute topographical
details in Z, to personal touches such as the use of the first person
plural, and to the clearness of the narrative where the story is
perplexed in the accepted text. He concludes that such
differences are due to an interpolator who had a particularly good
knowledge of Oriental geography and customs. Lake questions
' whether such good work is really that of a glossator '.
I trust that this short sketch will suffice to group the points at
issue. I must now refer to two circumstances which much com-
plicate the inquiry which I have endeavoured to conduct. The
first is the enormous wealth of evidence. When we are dealing
with a classical author, we look on a single ninth-century MS. as
a precious possession, and, if this is reinforced by a few scraps
from a palimpsest, are more than content. There are, however,
168 Uncial MSS. or fragments of Uncials, which contain portions
of the New Testament, and some 57 of these contain substantial
parts of it.' Also, apart from Greek MSS., we have the versions
and patristic quotations.
The second point is one which became obvious to me at once,
viz. that the text of the Gospels has been transmitted through
a series of MSS. written in extremely narrow columns.^ This
is shown by the large number of short omissions in various MSS.
One unit which appears throughout is one of lo-ii letters. Some
MSS. also contain evidence of a slightly longer unit. Nowhere,
however, do we find larger units such as 22, 28, or 35. I have
not infrequently had to study the working of a small unit,
when engaged upon the text of Cicero, but there the problem is
not so complicated, since it is not necessary to assume the
existence of many intermediate ancestors. There can, however,
be little doubt that the Gospels were frequently reproduced. If
so, there must be a long series of intervening copies between our
oldest Uncials and what I will provisionally call the Archetype.
* Kenyon, p. 57.
* This fact is pointed out by Scrivener and Burgon. Scrivener, however,
has loose ideas as to the content of a line. Thus he notes that a line has been
lost in the case of Luke xix. 47 Upw oi 54 (8), John xii. 25 (pvXd^fi avT-qv (12),
Luke xxi. 8 <5 Kaipo^ ijyyifce fxr) ovv (18), and two lines in that of Luke xii. 52
taovTai yap and rov vvv irfVTe iv kvi oikw Siaixefxepifffii — (45)- Hort (p. 234)
says of the scribe who wrote B ' As the longer portions of text so omitted consist
usually either of 12-14 letters or of multiples of the same, his exemplar was
doubtless written in lines of this length '.
22 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
I do not wish to disguise in any way the difficulties caused by
this succession of MSS, in narrow columns. I can only say that,
while we must hesitate to refer short omissions to one particular
ancestor, this doubt becomes steadily less as the figures grow
larger. We must always seek light in the first place from the
longest omissions, and then proceed to the shorter ones. If we
can trace in them the regular operation of the same unit, we can
draw conclusions with some degree of probability.
The order in which I shall attempt to set forth the results
which I obtained will not be the same as that of their discovery.
In this I followed a very simple process, viz. the numeration of
the letters contained by the longer passages omitted by many
MSS. and tabulation of the figures. When I had treated in this
way the end of St. Mark, xvi. 9-20, the secret was laid bare.
I fear, however, that, if I proceeded at once to produce this
evidence, many readers would suspect me of some jugglery.
I, therefore, propose to take a longer road, in the hope that the
argument may appear more cogent, if the same method is first
tested upon individual MSS. If it appears to hold good in their
case, then we may expect it to be equally valid when applied to
the various famihes of MSS.
The MSS. which I shall treat are :
t^ = Sinaiticus.
B = Vaticanus.
S^ = Sinaiticus (Syriac).
HiX = Bobiensis.
£> = Codex Bezae.
In my study of t^ I have derived great help from Scrivener's
collation. There is no similar work dealing with B, and I had to
put some facts together, as best I could, from Tischendorf's
edition of the MS. and other sources. Mrs. Lewis's list of omis-
sions in SiS was of great use to me, For B, I used Scrivener's
Introduction and reproduction of the MS. For k, I found
Canon Sanday's paper upon the Greek text presupposed by it of
great value. I also went through the text myself, and made some
additions and corrections. I have consulted the photographic
facsimiles of i^ B Z)}
I should have liked to examine in the same way the Alexandrinus
{A) and the Codex Ephraemi (C), but found that the inquiry
' i- has recently been reproduced in collotype (Turin, 1913).
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 23
would be laborious, since the materials have not been collected
in a suitable shape. What is required is a full collation of separate
MSS., including the minute errors. The most trivial points
are often the most important for the purpose which I had in
view.
The first witness which I shall summon will be i^. It will be
found to tell its story with great candour.
CHAPTER IV
SINAITICUS (t^)
This is written in four columns with 48 lines to the page and
an average of 13-14 letters to the line. There are corrections by
a number of hands. These do not concern me, since they are
chiefly variants collected from other MSS. There are indications
that the model of ^5 contained some duplices lectiones, e.g.
John XV. 20 5^ has vfiaa-Lv, a conflation of v/aSs and ifxiu.
The internal evidence shows that t>5 is derived from an ancestor
with an average of 10-12 letters to the line.
e. g. Luke Xl. I SiSa^ov rj/Mo.^ Trpoaev^^eaOaL, Ka0w<i koI 'Iwai'vr/s
ioiba^c Tous fxaOr]Ta<; avrov,
om. KoX 'Iwdvvrjs (10) t^. The words are necessary to the sense,
since John has not been mentioned previously.
John XIX. 23 Kal €Troir]<Tav recraapa fJ-iprj, e/cacrraj CTTpaTiwrr] jxepos,
Kttt Tov XLTwva- rjv 8e 6 )(tT(Dv appacfiO';.
om. KOX TOV yiTiiivo. (12) b?.
Sometimes we have multiples of the same unit in immediate
proximity, e. g. :
Mark xni. 8 koX jSamX^ia livX /SaatXeLav eaovrai aeKTfxol Kara
TOTTOus* ccrovTai Xl/jloL
om. ySao-tXeta kiri ( II ) t^.
om. Kara tottovs ecrovrai Xi/xol (22) t^.
The ancestor must have had
Kat
jSaaLXcia €7rt
/3a(7tXeiav €
crovrai cr€L<jfJioi
5 Kara tottovs e
(TOVTai Xi/JLOi
The scribe dropped 1. 2 and 11. 5, 6 (Aom.).
John xii. 25 koI 6 jxiawv t^v ^v^W ("■^tov iv tw Kocrfxta todtw cts
^WT^V alwVLOV cjivXd^€L aVTTjV.
om. cfivXdiiL avTrjv (12) ^5, destroying the sense.
k
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 25
Shortly afterwards (v. 31) we have
VVV KpL(Tl<; icTTt TOV KOCTfJiOV TOVTOV VVV 6 ap)((DU TOV KOCTfXOV TOVTOV.
Oni. VVV 6 ap)((x)V TOV KOfTjXOV TOVTOV (24) ^5 {/lOf/l.).
John iii. 20-1 fxia-ei to (/)ai9, Kal ovk ep)(€Tat Trpos to (f)w<;, iva [xrj
kXiy)(dri TO. epya avTov' 6 8k ttoimv ttjv aXr)9uav ep^^erai irpos
TO cf)(>)s, Lva cjiavep(i)6fj avTov to. epya.
Oni, Koi OVK €p)(€TaL TTpOS TO cj>U)S (22) t^ (^hojtl.).
om. 6 8e TTOiwv Tr}v dXrjdetav . . . auToC to. epya (S?) ^ {Aom.).
Here n X 2 = 22, 11 x 5 = 55.
The omissions are due to the coincidence of /io//i. with line
division. We may assign to this ancestor such short omissions as
(10) Matt, xxiii, 35 vv Bapaxiou/ Luke vii. 11 KaXovfjbivrjv, 30
€is iavTovs, XX. 19 eyvwaav ya.p.
(11) Matt, xxviii. 5 Tai<i yi^vat^i, Markviii. 10 ets to ttXoIov, xi. 10
Iv ovo/xaTt Kv, Luke ii. 12 koI Keifxevov, iii. I T^s 'lovSaias,
John V. 25 KOI VVV iaTiv, vii. 35 Trpos iavTOvs, xvii. 12 w
SeSiDKas fjioi.
(12) Matt. ix. 10 eyeVcTO avTov, xxi. 1 7 e'^w t^s tto'Acojs, Mark xii. 25
ovT€ ya/xouo-tv {ho/n.), Luke xx. r6 tous yewpyovs, John i. 20
KoX (jipLoXoyrjdf., iii. I KoX threv auTui, V. 17 is aireKpLveTO.
Possibly also
(13) Luke xii. 18 koI to. ayaOd fxov {}lOfil.\ xiii. 25 e^w IcTTavat
Kai.
We may also compare some transpositions, e. g. :
Matt. xiv. I Iv CKeivio T<3 Katpw rjKova-iv HpwSrys-
i>5 has TjKovcrev r]p<j}8r]<;
ev CKivo) Tw Kat
pw
The ancestor appears to have had
€V CKIVO) TW KaLpO}
y]K0V(Tev r)pu)07]S
The scribe wrote the second line first.
Matt, xxiii. 37 dTroKTeivovaa tovs 7rpo<^7^Tas.
Here t^ has tovs Trpoc^T/Tas (12) before dTroKTetvovcra (12). Also,
some repetitions, e. g. :
Matt. X. I^ yfj '^oSo/xwv Kal Top-oppuiv.
i^ repeats y-^ after yfj 2o8o/aojv kul (12).
We may expect to find a multiple of this unit in omissions of
1 This well-known variant is clearly due to accident. The omission would
be very easy^after Zaxapiov.
1655 E
26 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
20-4 letters. There is, however, the possibility that there is
a larger unit representing an intermediate ancestor. We must,
therefore, take into consideration omissions of 14-19 letters. The
cases which I have noticed are :
(14) Matt, xxvii. 45 i-rrl Tvacrav rrjv yrjv.
xxviii. 3 rjv 8k -fj I8ia avrov {hom.\
Mark xiv. 71 tovtov ov Aeycrc.
Luke iii. 13 etTre vrpos avTov<;.
(15) Matt. xvi. 9 ovBe fxvrjixovcv€Te {/lom.).
Luke vi, 14 koL BapOoXofialov {kom.).
(16) Matt. xxvi. 37 Koi OL -Trpeo-ftvTepoi.
Mark xi. 2 t^v KarevavTi vfxiov.
John i. 25 KOL rjpoiTrjcrav avrov.
viii. 20 8tSa(TKwv iv Tw lepw (//W//.).
(17) Mark iii. 8 koI oltto t^s 'iSv/xatas (Jiom.).
Luke xvii. 12 d\ ea-TrjO-av TroppiaOf.v.
xxiv. 31 Kttt e7reyi'(oo-av avrov.
John ii. I 2 KoX ot fJiaOrjTal avrov.
xvii. 176 A.oyos 6 o-os aXi^OeLa {/lom.).
(18) Matt. xiv. 23 aTToXwas Tous ox^ovs {hom.\
Xxi. 30 6 8c aTTOKpi^ClS CITTCV.
xxvii. 56 Mapta 17 May8aXr;v^ *cai {hom.).
IMark x. 33 koI toIs ypaix/JLarevai {/lOffl.).
Luke xiil, 14 ev als Set ipyd^eaOai.
(19) Matt. vii. 27 Kal £7rv€UO-av 01 ave/xoL {hoJH.).
John viil. 35 o vs /Aevci tis tov alwva.
The cases of 19 (and even of 18) letters may be explained as
representing two short lines of the unit previously indicated.
Several may be explained by Aom., without assistance from line
division. Also, something must always be left to accident. At
the same time there is, I think, ground for suspecting that a longer
unit than 10-12 is also at work.
I now give a list of the omissions of 20 letters and upwards.
I do not include in this important variants shared by £, since
these concern a previous stage in the development of the V
recension.
(20) Mark xii. 30 Kal ii oXr]<; t^? ^vxV"^ ^^^ (Jiom^.
Luke viii. 47 8t' r]v aXriav r]\f/aro avrov.
(21) Matt. xix. iS ov ynoixet'crcts, ov KAei/'ets {^om.).
xxiii. 8 vfieU Se pet] KXrjOrjre pa/3/St {hofJl.).
XXIV. 10 Kal fxicrrja^ovaLv aW-^Xov;.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 27
(22) Matt, xxvii. 52 kuI to. /xvrjfJieLa dj/cw'x^r^o-av [Aom.).
Mark xiii. 8 Kara tottovs taovrai Xifxoi.
Luke xvi. 16 koI ttus tis avrrjv ySia^erat {/w/n.).
John iii. 20 koI ovk €p;;^€Tat Trpos to ^019 {/iOm.).
(23) Luke V. 14 Set^ov (TeavTov tw Upel Kai.
John vii. 50 6 eX^wv Trpos airov Trporepov.
XX. 3 Kai i7/3;(oi'TO ets to fxvqjXiiov.
(24) Matt. XXV. 43 yu/xvos Ktti ov Trcpie/SaAere yu.€ {hom.).
Mark vi. 4 toIs oT^yyeveo-tv avrov, Kat ev {hofn.).
John xii. 31 vvv 6 apxyiv tov Koa-fxov tovtov {/lom.).
(27) Luke xii. 37 KaiVapcX^wv SiaKOvqa-eL ai'Tot? {Jiom)).
(28) John vi. 55 aXrj$w<; lari /Jpwcris Kai to atp,a p,ou [/lOm.).
(29) John iv. 45 eSe^avTO avTov oi VaXiXatoL, -rravTa.
John xvi. 17 fiLKpov Kttt ov Oeuypilre /xe, Kat ttciAiv {/lOm.}.
(30) Matt. v. 45 Kai l^pex^i CTTt StKatou? Kai aStVoi-'S {JlOtn.).
John iv. 4 epx'^rai ovv cts ttoAiv t^s 2a/xapetas (Jiom.).
(32) Matt. xiii. 39 OcpLO-fJiOS crvvTeXeta atwvos eo'Ttv 01 Se {/lO/U.).
John V. 26 OVTWS K'at TO) VW IScUKC ^W7)v €X^'*' ^'' "'•"''f
(/ww.).
(33) John vi. 39 tovto 8e eo-Tt TO 6iX7]p.a rov Trefiij/avTos p-i
{hom.).
(35) Matt. X. 39 6 (.vpoiv TT/v \l/v)(rjV avTOv dTroAccrei avrijv Kat
(36) Luke viii. 47 tSovo-a 8k -t] yw-r] otl ovk eXaOe, Tpep.ov(Ta yjXue.
(38) Luke X. 23 Kat arpacfiils Trpos tov? p.aOr]Ta<; kut iSlav
CtTTC.
(42) Luke xvii. 9 ovtw Kat v/ACts oVav 7roir/o-7;T€ iravra to. ota-
raxOevra {hom.).
(43) Matt. ix. 15 cAeuo-ovTat 8e r]p.ipcn orav a-rrapOfj dir ai'Twv
6 vviM<f)Lo<i {hotn.).
John XV. 10 eav Tots cvToAd? p.ov TrjprjcrrjTe /xevetTC iv rrj
ayairrj p.ov {hom.).
(44) Matt. XV. 18-19 ^^^'pX^''""'' x^x^^^o- Koivo'i TOV avov. CK yap T^s
KapStas {horn.).
With this we may compare an addition to an earlier verse in i^ :
V. I I OV TO €l(T€p)(0p.€V0V CtS TO (TTOp-U KOIVOL TOV aVOV dAAtt TO
iKiropev6p.€vov Ik tov aTOfxaTOS, tovto Kotvot tov avov.
Here t<^ inserts toCto after t6 ordp-a. This is taken from what
follows, o-TopiTos to9to Koivbt. The intervening words Kotvot
TOV avov to TOV o-To/taTos = 45 letters. The ancestor seems to
have had
28 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
KOivoL Tov avw (13)
uAXa TO c/cTTO (10)
pevofxevov ck ( 1 1 )
Ton (TTO/AaTOS ( I I )
5 TOVTO KOLVOL (u)
TOV avov
The scribe looked forward and inserted tovto from 1. 5.
(45) Luke xii. 52 eo-ovTat yap avo tov vvv ttcvte iv ivl oikw 8ta-
fxc/xepLCTfJie — {/iom.).
The telescoped passage is of special interest. The ancestor
must have had
SiafxcpiafJiov ( 1 1 )
ecrovTai yap (10)
aTTO Tou VL'v 77 ev (12)
TC €V €Vt Ol/CW (11)
5 8Lap,€ixepi(rfx.e (12)
vol Tp€LS ETTl ( I I )
The scribe looked forward from 1. i to 1. 5 and wrote Sia-
fxepia-fxai' vol Tptts tTrt Svat {ojn. llied.).
John ix. 38 6 8e £</»;) Trio-Tevw, /<€• Kal 7rpoareKVV7]cr€V avTw. /cat
CtTTCJ/ 6 ts.
(47) Mark vi. 8 i^ovcriav twv ttvwv twj/ aKaOdpTtav koX irapiqy-
yeiAev avTOis {hoiH^.
With this I would compare a corruption in Luke ii. 36. Here
t^ has
X^P ^fjO'ao-a
fxcTa avSpos CTr^
^' aTTO Tr)<; TrapOevi
as avTT/s Kat avTiq
XqpCL
Here xi7P is an anticipation o( xvp(^> which occurs 47 letters below.
This indicates in an ancestor :
^rja-aaa fx.(.Ta av (12)
^po'i eTTf) t,' aTTO ( 1 1 )
Tq<i TTap^evtas (12)
aDTT^S Kttt avTT; (12)
5 xnp(^
The scribe looked on five lines and then corrected his error.
(50) Matt. xxiv. 35 6 owos koI 17 yrj Trap^XivcrorTaL, 01 8e Aoyoi
uoi; ov fj-T] 7rapeX0u)(Ti.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 29
(54) Luke X. 32 oyuotws 8k koI Aevm;? Kara tov tottov iXO(x)v kul
iSwv avTnraprjXOev {hom^.
Luke xiv. 1 5 /xaKaptos oo-rts (f}dy€Tai aprov iv rfj /3a<n\iia toS
Ov. 6 8k eiTrev atTw (/lOfn.).
(57) John iii. 21 6 Se ttolCjv rrjv uAr/^etav epx^raL Trpos to <^ws iVa
(ftavepwOfi avTOi) to, cpya (Aom.).
(60) Matt. V. 19 OS 8' av TTOLTQcnj Koi StSa^, ovros /u.€ya? KXy]Or](T€raL
iv Tjj ^ao-tXci'a twv ouvcov (kom.).
(61) Mark vi. 28 Kal dTreA^wv d7r€K€<^aAio-£i/ avTov iv Trj <f)v\aK-^,
KoX ^v€yK€ TT/v K€<fiaXr]v atTou {/lom.).
(62) Mark x. 30 otKias Kat d8eA</)0V9 Kat dSeAc^as Kttt /i,pas Ktti T€Kva
/cat dypovs, /i-ero. Stwyju-wv.
(64) Luke xvii. 35 eo-ovrat 8r'o dX->/^oi;o-at eVt to avTO- 17 /xt'a
■7rapaXr](l>6i]a€Tai, r] 8k irepa d</)e^r^(reTai y/wm.).
(71) Matt, xxvi, 62-3 ot'Sev a-rroKpivQ ; tl ovtol aov KaTafxapTvpovcriv ;
6 Se ts i(THi)7ra. Koi 6 apxt^^p^i"S eiTrei/ avTw {Iiom.').
John xvi. 15 TTOLVTa ocra c^^*- o ^ ^Z^*^ ecrTf Sia tovto eiTroi', oTi €k
TOV ip.ov XafjL/3dv€i, koI dvayytXei vp.lv {/lom.).
With these I would compare a dittography in Luke xvii. 16
Kot Ittco-cv CTTt TTpocTixiTrov TTapo. Toi)S TToSttS auTOu €vxapLcrT<i>v atToI- Kai
avTos ^v ^ap.ap€LTr]<; {T2).
The passage is written twice.
(84) Mark X. 35-7 o eav aiTrja-wp.iv (re, 7rot^o-7js t^/xii'. 6 Sc ciTrev
avTOts, Tt diXiTE TTOLTJcraL p.€ vp-lv ; OL 8k eiTTov avTio, Aos yjp-tv,
tva {horn.).
With this we may compare a corruption in
John iv. 16-17 Xe'yei avT-fi 6 Is, "YTrayc, (fxxtvrja-ov tov dv8pa crov,
Koi iXOk Iv6d8e.. dTr^KpiOiq rj yvvr] kol eiTrev avTw, Ovk £;;^w dv8pa.
Ac'yei avT^ 6 Is, KaXws eiTras.
Here i^ has kaX before vTraye. This is an anticipation of KaXaJs
which comes after the second Xcyci a^T^ 6 Is. The intervening
words iVayc . . . auT^ 6 Is consist of 84 letters.
(92) Mark i. 32-4 koI tovs 8aip.ovt^op.ivov<;- Koi r; ttoXis oXr] eVt-
avvrjyp-evT] rjv Trpos Tr]v Ovpav. koI iOepdir^vcre ttoXXovs /caKws
l;(0VTas {/lom.).
t^ also omits TrotKtXats voVois (15), but this seems a separate
omission. Tischendorf says ^ tratisiluit a KaKu)<; expvTas fr. (i.e.
before koI tovs 8at/i.oviC.) ad Ka/cws exovTas sec.'. The whole passage
is supplied by a corrector at the foot of the page.
(10 1) John XX. 5 ov p.evT0L elcrrjXOev. epxtTai ovv kol "^ip-UiV HcTpos
d/<oXoi;6tui/ auTo), Kol elarjXOev cts to p.vr]p.€LOV Koi Oeuipel to.
666via K£t/xeva (^/lOf/l.).
30 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
(192) John Xix. 20 TOVTOV OVV TOV TLtXoV TToWol aVeyV(D(TaV TUiV
'lovSat'wv, oTi cyyvs rjv 6 tottos Trj<; 7roAea>5, oirov icTTavpwdr] 6
Is- Ktti ■^v yeypafj-fxevov EySpatcrrt', 'FoifMaioTi, 'FikXrjvLcrTL.
ekeyov ovv t<2 UtXario 01 dp^^^tepeis twv 'lovSatwv, M^ ypa^e,
'O ySao-tXcvs Twv louSatW (^/lOfn.).
The first point which strikes one in this list is the extraordinary
number of omissions from /lom. There appear to be no less than
48 examples, without including corruptions due to the same
cause. Scrivener (p. xv) says that there are 115 examples of
such omission in the New Testament. It is obvious that the
scribe either of b5, or of an intermediate ancestor, was peculiarly
prone to these omissions.
In the second place there are some curious coincidences, such
as two omissions of 71 letters, together with the repetition of
72 letters. The omissions of 42 to 47 letters are interesting, on
account of the telescoped passage Luke xii. 52 (45), and the
corruption in Luke ii. 36, where XVP 's inserted 47 letters too
soon. Also, there is an omission of 84 letters, together with a
similar anticipation of /caA from KaAws, which occurs 84 letters
further on (John iv. 16-17).
The larger numbers are instructive, viz. :
60-4 (4 examples).
71 (2 examples).
84 (cf. John iv. 16-17).
92.
lOI.
Here the gradual increase suggests that one additional line has
been lost in each case.
It is also interesting to notice that the largest number, 192, is
exactly three times 64 (Luke xvii. 35) and a little more than twice
92 (Mark i. 32).
I now proceed to notice some interesting corruptions :
John vii. 27 6 Se Xpio-ros orav €p)(r]Tai.
Here t^ has
o ^ OTav (.Xdrj fir] TrXtova crrjfJiLa iroirjcreL rj orav ep)(rjTai
This comes from v. 3 1 ox? orav eXBy, fir] TrXctova a-rffxCia Trot^a-ei
S)v ovTO<; iTroLr]<T€v ;
The intervening words 5 8e x? oraj/ tpx^rai (v. 2 7) to eis avrov.
KOL tXeyov (v. 31) contain 337 letters. With this we may compare
84 in Mark x. 35, John iv. 16 (84x4 = 336).
John ix. 10 e'Acyov ovv avrS), TIois ovv dv€iD)^Or]crdv crov ol ocfiOaXfiOL ',
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 31
After iXiyov ovv t^ inserts 01 lovSaio. This appears to come
from V. 18 iTTia-Teva-av ovv ol 'louSatot. The intervening words
auTw TTws . . . cVtWevo-av ovv (v. 1 8) contain 683 letters. It is
interesting to notice that this is a little more than twice 337
(337 X 2 = 674).
It is tempting to suppose that 337-41 represents a column in
a previous MS.
I have noticed two other cases of repetition, which are interesting
in view of the shorter omissions, viz. :
Luke i. 41 ia-KipT-qa-e to (3p44>o<; iv rfj kolXlo. avTrj<;.
Here i^ adds iv dyaXAiao-et after ia-KipT-qae. The words come
from V. 44 ia-KLpTrjaev iv ayaXXida-u to (3p€(f>o^ iv ttJ kolXm fiov.
The intervening words t6 ^p€(f)o<; (v. 41) , . . ia-KipTqarev (v. 44)
contain 238 letters. With this we may compare the three omissions
of 60-2 letters (60 x 4 = 240).
Luke xii. 29 /x^ (-qTeiTe Ti (f>dyr]Te, koi tC TTirjTe.
After TTtVe ^^ adds /xr/Se tw crwfxaTi. The words come from v. 22
p.y) jxepi/xvaTe T17 ^vxy, ti (fidyrjTe- /xr/Sc tw crw/xart vjxwv , ti ivSvcrrja-Oe.
The intermediate passage fxrjSe tw o-w/xart (v. 22) . . . ti cfidyr]Te
(v. 29) consists of 556 letters. With this we may compare the
omissions of 71 letters in Matt. xxvi. 62, and the dittography of
71 letters in Luke xvii. 16 (70 x 8 = 560).
There are some significant passages in which ^5 appears to
emend after an omission, viz. :
Matt. xiv. 26 Koi i8dvTCS airov ol p.aOr]TaL
Here t^ has iSovres St aiuro'v without ol fxaO-qTai Apparently hi
was inserted after the omission.
Mark xiv. 58 ■i^ix.ii'i rjKovaafjiev avTOv Xeyoiros.
For this ^5 substitutes cTttci/. This appears to be an insertion to
give a construction.
John XX. 4 Koi 6 aXXos fJLadrjTijs TrpocreSpa/xc] TrpoaeSpajxe. hi ^.
We find in i^ certain additions which do not occur in B. The
most striking case is :
Matt. viii. 13 koI eTrrev 6 'Irjcrovs tw eKaTOVTdpx^, "YTraye, ws
eTTto-Tfuo-as y€vr]6TqT(x) aoi. koX IdOrj 6 Trais iv Trj wpa iKetvr].
Here ^5 adds koi vTro(TTpeif/a<; 6 eKaTOVTapxo^ ets tov oIkov avTOv iv
avTrj Trj wpa €vp€v tov iralha vyiaivovTa (sO also C).
The words add nothing to the sense, and seem a clear case of
interpolation from
Luke vii. 10 koI viroa-Tpi'^ avT€% eh tov oIkov ol TrefJL(jiOivT€<; evpov
TOV hovXov vyiatvovTa.
32 PRIMITIVE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS
Minor cases, shared with a few other MSS., are :
Matt. ix. 24 ov yap airWave. to Kopdcriov aXXa Ka^cvSet] add.
etSdres OTt airidav^v ^.
ib. 35 Kai iracrav fxaXaKiav^ add. koI rjKoXovOrjaav at'Tw t^.
Mark ii. 16 cAeyov tois ixaOrjTOLS avrov oTiJ add. 6 StSacTKaXos
VfXMV i^.
lb. X. 28 r]KoXovOrJKafji.ev crotj fl:^d?. Tt apa tarai rjfuv t^.
The following list of omissions, not shared by B, may be useful
as a supplement to those already mentioned. Most of them are
important variants shared by many authorities :
(10) Mark xiv. 72 ck Sevripov om. J>^ 31^.
John xiii. 10 ^ tovs TroSas om. J^ Tert. Orig.
(11) John xiii. 26 Xafiftdvei Kai om. HZ,
(13) Matt. XV. 31 KvXXov<i vyi€L<; om. t^3L,S.
(14) Matt, xxiii. 4 koH Svaftda-TaKTa otn. ^5 2LS, alii.
(16) Luke xii. 39 lyprjyoprja-ev av Kai om. ^ Z, alii.
(18) Matt. vi. 15 TO. irapaTTTwp.aTa ai'Twv om. i>5 IL, alii.
(23) Luke xxiv. 51 /cat dv€cj)epeTO eh tov ovvov om. ^ Z.
(31) Matt. xix. 9 Kai 6 aTToX^Xvjxivqv ya[xrj(Ta<; /jLOixoLTai om. \^ Z, alll.
(34) Johniv.9 ov yap (rvy)(pwvTat'JovSatoi^aiJ.apeLTai<;om.i^£)'^^^^.
Note. — While this work was being read for press, my attention
was drawn by Professor Burkitt to the Rev. H. S. Cronin's paper
in the Journal of Theological Studies xiii, pp. 563-71 (1911/12).
Mr. Cronin has anticipated me in pointing out that i^ is derived
from a MS. which contained on an average eleven letters to the
line. The only difference between us is that he considers each
Gospel;, as found in ^5, to have been taken from a separate
papyrus, and confines his conclusions to St. John. He has dealt
with most of the passages from St. John which figure in my list
and adds a few which I had not noticed. The fact that two
inquirers working independently have arrived at similar results is,
I think, good evidence for the soundness of the method which we
have employed.
CHAPTER V
VATICANUS {B)
B is written in three columns, with 42 lines to the page
and an average of 16-17 letters to the line. As compared
with t^j ^ is a reticent witness. It is, however, clear that it is
derived from an ancestor containing 10-12 letters to the line.
(a) We have two telescoped passages, where a line has fallen
out, viz. :
Matt. X. 14 Kat OS la.v fXT] Be^rai vfJLu<;.
Here B^ gives kul os av /xas om. med. The model must have
had Kat 05 av
^ki] Se^Tyrat v (lo)
Luke xvi. I SLaa-Kop-n-i^wv TO. vrrdpxovTa a^Tou Kai.
B^ has Siaa-KopTTL^uiv Ttt VTT KUL ofi . Med. The model must have
had 8ia
CTKOpTTt^COV Ttt VTT
ap^ovTa avTov
KUL
Tischendorf here says ' ad virapxav B'^ suppl. to. avrov '. It
will be seen, however, from the facsimile that what B"^ adds is
apypv avTov.
The following omissions of B, or B^, against t^, may represent
lines of the model.
Matt. xii. 38 Koi $a/3to-atW (12) om. B.
xiii. 17 Koi SiKaiot (10) o»i. B^,
XXV. 40 dScA^wv /xou Twv (13) om. B^.
XXVi. 4 KU7rOKT€tl'0JO-lV ( I 3) OIH. B^ .
Mark i. 35 koX aTrrjXOev (10) om. B {horn.).
40 Ktti yovvTTCTtov ^ (12) OtH. B.
vi, 17 TYjV yvvaiKa (lo) om. B^.
XV. 10 01 dpxtepets (11) ovi. B ihom.).
^ So N, Koi yovvirfTwv avTov alii.
1655 F
34 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
Luke vi. 26 01 Trpes avrdv (11) 07n. B.
viii. 45 KoX o\ (jvv auTO) (12) om. B.
ix. 2 TOiis do-^cvcis ^ (12) ^w. B.
X. 38 CIS Tiyv otKtav '^ (12) ^/«. -5.
xvii. 23 /xt) a7reX6r]Te (lo) (?7;/. ^.
xxiii, 38 yey pafxixivr] (10) <?;//. ^.
There are also some which B shares with other authorities, e. g. :
Matt, xxvii. 24 rov SiKaiov (10) om. B D ^^ Arm.
Markx. 19 fxrj aTroa-reprja-rj'i (13) OJ?l. j5' S:^ Diat. Arm. Clem.
Possibly, we should add :
Mark xiii. 33 koI Trpoo-evx^a-Oe (14) OM. ^Z>lL«ck
Luke xvii. 24 iv rrj rjixepa avTov (14) om. B D%^.
{d) Two lines.
The most noticeable case is :
John ix. 7 aTrrjXOev ovv kol ivLxf/aro kol 7]X6€ /JAeVtov.
Here B gives a.Trrj\6ev /SXiiruyv om. med. (20), a reading which is
without sense.
Other examples are :
Mark x. 46 koX Ip^ovrai ets 'Icpixw (20) om. B^.
John i. 13 ovll Ik BiXy]p.Q.To<i dvSpos (21) ovi. B^ Clem. Eus.
ix. 36 a.Tr€Kpi6r) ckcivos Kai ciTre (22) om. B. The omission
is disguised by the insertion of t<}iri after kol tis eo-rtv.
(r) Three lines.
John xvii. 15 ovk ipu)T(o Iva api]'; avTOv<; Ik tov Kocrfiov, dXX iva
Tr]prj(jr]<; avTOV<i Ik tov Trovrjpov.
B has OVK eponui iva ap
r]<i avTOV<; ek tov tto
VTjpOV
om. Vied. (30).
The model must have had
iva a.pt]'i
aVTOVi €K TOU
KO(T[xov aAXa
iva Ty]py](Tr]<;
5 aVTODS tK TOV
TTOVrjpOV
The writer glanced from ck tov in 1. 2 to ck tov in 1. 5, and he
left out the three intervening lines.
^ So N, Toiis daOfvowras alii.
2 So N, 6ty TOP oIkov ainfjs alii.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 35
Luke viii. 16 tva ol elcnropcvoixevoL jSKiirwa-i to (jiws (31).
Cf. Acts xxiii, 28 (SovXojxevo'i re eTTtyvcovai r^v alriav 81' ^v evc-
KaXovv auTw Karr/yayov avTov eh to (TvviSptov avTuiV.
B omits KaT-qyayov . . . avTwv {;^^) hom,
{d) Four lines.
Matt. X. 37 ovK €<TTi jxov agios' KoX 6 ^iXliiV vv T] OvyuTepa iirip
ifxk OVK eo"Tt fxov aftos.
B^ omits KOI 6 (faXwv . . . a^tos {42) /lom.
Here the Oxyrhynchus papyrus 1 170, cent, v, also omits the next
clause KOi OS ov Xa/x/Sdvet Tov CTTpy avTOV kul aKoXovOil ottiVo) /xov,
OVK ecTTt fiov a^ios (62), which makes a total omission of 104.
I have noticed two cases of dittography which admit of similar
explanation, viz. :
Matt. xxi. 4 irX-qpioOrj TO prjOkv 8ia tov (20) h's scr.
John xvii. 9 /cdyw dTreo-TetAa avTovs cts tov Koa-fJiov (31) bis scr.
On the other hand we have
Luke i. 37 oTi OVK ahvvaTrj(Tf.L (16) bis scr.
This may be due to accident or may indicate an immediate
ancestor with a slightly longer line. The example from John xvii. 9
(31) might also = 2x16.
Some transpositions of B admit of an easy explanation, e. g. :
John xix. 2 1 ct/At Tail' 'lovSat'wv] Twv 'louSatwi/ et/x.6' B.
Here, tt/xt, after omission, has been inserted after twv 'louSatwi/
(II).
So also of "^B, e.g. :
John xviii. 22 cts twv virrjpeTwv Tra/ieo-TT/Kws] cts TrapecrTyjKws twv
virrjpiTwv ^B. Here irapea-TrjKws (lo) has similarly been inserted
in the wrong place.
I append a list of important omissions which B shares with
other authorities, not t«5.
(28) Luke xi. II apTov fXT] XiOov eTTtSwcret aurai; rj Kac om.
B S>, alii.
(31) Luke viii. 43 laTpoh TrpocravaXwcracra oXov tov fHov om.
B%^ ^Arm.
(36) Luke xi. 2 ycvrjOrjTOi to OeXrjfjid (tov ws ip oww /cat iirl (so
i^AZ), eVi T17S ceii.) yrj<; om. B Si Arm., a Hi.
(42) Luke XXlil. 34 6 Sk Is eXeye, 7rp at^es avTOis' ov yap otSao-t
Ti TTOLOvaL om. ^ Z> 3La'' S 8 e.
(43) ib. 38 ypd/xfjiaa-iv 'EXXrjvtKo't'i Koi 'PwixaiKoh koI 'E^paiKOts
om. B^^&^.
Omissions common io'^B will be treated later on.
CHAPTER VI
This is a MS. of very great interest. It belongs to Z, but has
some F readings, e. g. it omits St. Mark xvi. 9-20. The other
MS. which contains the old Syriac version, the Curetonensis (S^),
is purely ' Western '. I have selected S^ for examination, since
Mrs. Lewis's list of its omissions from the text of W-H. renders
the task easy. The Greek text on which it is founded can be
inferred with some certainty, since, like all the versions, it is
a word for word translation.
S^s is very valuable for the purpose of this inquiry, since no
special sanctity has been attached to its text. I have, therefore,
no preconceived opinions to encounter. Also, it omits with the
greatest freedom.
I must first exclude from the discussion well-known passages
omitted by a number of authorities, since these go back to an
earlier stage in the development, e. g.. Matt. xvi. 2, xxi. 44,
xxvii. 49; Mark iii. 14, 15 ; Lukexxii. 32, xxiii. 34 : also, passages
omitted by Z or members of Z, e. g. Matt. ix. 34 ; Luke xix. 25 ;
John xii, 8. Also all passages where Aramaic words are trans-
lated into Greek, e.g. Matt, xxvii. ■^2>'i Mark vii. 34, xv. 34;
John i. 38, 41, ix. 7, xi. 16, xx, 16, 24, xxi. 2, since these are con-
sistently omitted. I can only suppose that the readers for whom
the version was made did not require a translation.
Mrs. Lewis has drawn attention to an example where S^ appears
to omit a line of an ancestor, viz.:
Matt, xviii. 19 TraAti' Xeyw ti/Atv, on ko.v Bvo v[iu)V cru/A^wj/jycrojcriv
€7ri T^s y^S Trepi TravTos Trpayyuaro?.
The Syriac for this is said to be :
' Again verily I say unto you they shall agree upon earth about
everything'.
There is here no equivalent for on lav hvo vfiwv (13). The
omission is assisted by /lom.^
* W-H. here read waKiv Xtyoj vfuv on iav bvo av^ufxovqauaiv i^ vfiuv, and
Mrs. Lewis treats the omission as one of on (clv Suo. The omission, however,
is simplified if we adopt the usual reading {viJi.lv) on iav 5vo vf^uiv.
PRIMITIVE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 37
The number and character of the shorter omissions may be
seen from John xi, viz. : ^
I £K rrjs Kwfx-qs (lo)
T1J9 aSeXcfirjs avTrjs (15)
7 CTTftTa fX€Ta. TOVTO (15)
I I Koi fJi€Ta TOVTO ( I 2 )
1 2 ovv 01 fxaOrjTai (12)
13 TTjs KOifJi-^o-eo)<; (12)
19 TTcpt Tou ttSeX^ou (14)
24 dvao-T»;(T€Tat ( 1 1 )
28 T^v dSeXe^^v avTrj<; (15)
31 ow 'loLiSatot 01 oi'Tes /xct' auT^? eV ttj oikio, (35)
32 iSoucra avTov (11)
39 17 d8e\(jir] Tov TtTcAeuTT^KOTOS (24)
42 Toi/ TreptecrTWTa (13)
45 Kat diaa-dfjievoi o iiroLrjaev (22)
5 I TOV ivLaVTOV €K€tVoU ( I 8)
55 Twv 'Iot)8at'a)v (n)
Trpo ToC Trdaxa (l l)
56 eCTTT/KOTCS, T6 (n)
Here we have one omission of lo and 5 of it, with which we
may compare two of 22 ; 3 of 12, with which we may compare
one of 24, and one of 35. The natural inference is that at the
back of ^^ there is an ancestor with an average of 1 1 letters to
the line. It does not follow that this was the immediate ancestor,
and the longer omissions (14-18) may possibly represent lines in
the model before the writer.
^8 has an interesting series of dislocations in John xviii. 13-24,
which are written thus :
13 /cat ^yayov . . . iviavTOv Ikuvov (77)
24 (XTreo-TeiXev ovv . . . tov d/a^^tcpca (55)
14-15 Tjv 8c Kaicic^as . . . tov d/);^i€pews (192)
19-23 6 ow apxt-^p^ix; . . . tl fic Sc'pcts ; (427)
16-18 6 Se IleT/aos . . . dEpixaLv6ixa'o<i (317)
Here 11x5 = 55, 11x7 = 77, 11x17 = 187, 11X29=319,
II X39= 429-
I have noticed 485 cases — exclusive of those especially excepted
^ I have omitted three cases given by Mrs. Lewris, viz. : 3 avrov Xtyovaai,
5 KOI TTiv d5(\(pi)v avTTJs Kai, 31 Taxiccs avfdTT], since these are variants rather
than omissions.
)*i
T2852
38
THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
— (cf. supra), where 5^ omits lo letters and over. The smaller
omissions present a welter of confusion, viz. :
letters
examples
letters
examples
letters
examples
lO
74
20
n
30
2
1 1
61
21
II
31
6
12
61
22
10
32
2
13
46
23
8
33
2
14
29
24
7
34
I
15
30
25
5
35
I
16
19
26
6
36
2
17
18
27
5
37
4
18
18
28
4
38
3
19
12
29
2
39
I
I would merely point out the great number of omissions of
10-12 letters (196), the corresponding omissions of 20-2 letters
(32) and the six omissions of 31 letters. For further light we
must go to the longer omissions. These are :
(41) Mark XV. 42 koL y]8r] Sif/ias yevofxefTjs, cttci yu 7rapa(TK€v^, o
ecTTt Trpo(Ta.(i[iaTov.
' And it was the Sabbath ' &^.
This telescoped passage is very instructive. It points to the
following distribution in an ancestor :
Kat
■qhr] oi/'tas yc (lo)
vofi€vr)<; cTrei ( 1 1 )
r]v TrapaaKev (lo)
r] o €(TTLV irpo (10)
cral3l3aTov
The copyist has omitted four lines of his model.
(41) Other omissions of this length are : '
Mark ix. 3 ota yva<fi€vs inl rrjs yrj<; ov hvvaraL ovto)^ XcvKavai.
Luke vi. 40 KaTrjpTLa-ixevos Sk ttSs eo-rat ws o 8t8ao-/caA.os avrov
(Jiom.).
(43) John X. 35 et Ikuvov^ cTttcv 6v<i -n-pos ovs o Aoyos tov 6v
cyevero.
(44) Mark XVI. 8 aTro tov ixvrjjiuov, etx^v ya^o awas rpo/AOS koX
CKcrracrt?.
Luke vi. 32 koX yap ol d/xapTcoXot Tovs dyaTrwvTas avTov<; aya-rrSxrii'.
John xvi. 3 Koi Tavra TroirjcrovcrLv on ovk iyvwcrav toi' irpa ovSk ifxe-
» The text used is that of W-H.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 39
(46) Luke XX. 19 tyvwo-av yap on vrpos avrovs cTttcv ttjv irapa-
fSoXijv TaVTTjV.
(47) John i. 40 8vo Twv a.KOV(rdvT(i)V Trapa Twavov kol aKoXovdrj-
cravrwv avrSt,
(48) Matt. iv. 24 8aiixovLt,ofX€vov^ KOL o-fAr/vitt^o/xeVovs kol irapa-
XvTLKOV<;.
(49) Mark vii. 8 dcj>ii'T€<; Tr]^ eVToXryv tou 6v KparetTe T-i]v irapd-
Soaiv Twv avoiv (/ww/.).^
John XX. 7 o ^i' £7rt Trjs KC^aX^? a^Tov, ou yi^ieTu, twv o^ovtcof
Ketjxevov dAAa.
(50) Luke xxiii. 51 outos ovk 7]v o-vv/caTaTe^ciyiicVo? rfj /^ovXrj kui
TTj Trpd^ei avTwv.
(51) John V. 12 r]pu)Tr]crav avTOV, Tts eo-rti' 6 avos 6 eiTrwv croi,
*Apov Ktti TrepiTraret ; {/lOfH.).
(54) Matt. xxii. 4 to apicrrov /xov rjTOifxaKa, ol ravpoi fxov kul to.
(TLTLCTTo. TcOvfJ-iva, /Cat'.
(65) Luke xii. 9 6 8e dpvrj(rdp.iv6<i fxc ivwTTLOV tcuv avwv dTrapvrjOi]-
crcTttt evwTTiov twv dyyeAwv tov ^u (^hofH.j.
(70) Luke xiv. 27 oo-ns ov y8a(rTa^€t tov orpv tavToO KUt ep^erai
OTTurw /Aov, ou Swarai c'vai yu,ov /x.aOr)Ti]^ {/lOPl.),
(83) Matt. V. 47 Kai iav aa-n-dcrrjcrOf. tous d8eA<^ovs v/awv p.6vov, tl
irepLacrov ttoicitc ; oi'^^i kol ol iOviKol to aiiTo iroLovaLv ;
(128) Matt. V. 30 Koi el Tj 8e^id (tov ^ctp o-Kav8aAt'^6i ere, Ikkox^ov
avT-qv Koi f^dXe diro crov, (Tvp.(fi€p€L ydp crot tVa diroXrjTaL tv twv
fjieXCjv (TOV Kol p.rj oAov to (Tu)p.d crov cis ye'evvav direXOr] {/lom.).
(132) John xiv. 10- 1 1 TO. pTjixaTa u cyw Ae'yw vixtv dir ifiavTOv ov
AaAui" o 8c Trp £V £/aoi /xcVwv Trotet tu e^ya avToCi. TnaTeveTe
fxoL OTi eyw ev tw vrpi Kai o Wp iv ip.oi- ei 8e /;i>^, oca to, epya
atTa 7riO-T€U€T£.
(167) Matt. vi. 5 xoj- OTav Trpocrev^^rjaOe, ovk tactrOe ws 01 vTTOKpi-
raC' OTi (fnXovoTLV iv Tais crwaywyais kol iv Tats ywviats tQv
7rXaT€twv icTTwre's Trpocrev^^icrdai, ottojs (^avcDcrtv Tots avois*
d/AT/v Aeyo) vfjuv, dTre)(Ovari tov p-iadov avrwv.
(262) Luke xxiii. 10-12 to-TT^Kcto-av 8e ot dp-^Lepiis Koi ol ypap--
pLureis €VTovws KaTr^yopoCvTcs auToC. i$ovO€vrjcra<s Se aiiTov 6
'UpwSr]^ (Tvv TOts (TTpaTivpiaaiv auToC Kat ip.iraL$a<; irepi^aXwv
iarOrJTa Xap-irpdv dveTrep.if/tv avTov t<S liuXdrw, iyivovTO o\ (f)iXoL
6 re 'UpdiSrj^ Kat 6 IletAaTOS iv avrfj rrj rjp-epa jxiT dXXrjXwv
TrpovTTTJp^^ov yap iv tX^P? ovtcs tt/dos avToi's.
^ ^' also omits the following words Kai eXeytv airois (15), but this seems to
be a separate omission.
40 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
The first point to notice here is that 262 is intermediate
between 128x2 (= 256) and 132x2 (= 264) so 167 is very
nearly twice 83. If we divide 132 by 2 we have 66, for which we
may compare 65 (Luke xii. 9). So if we divide 83 by 2, we have
41-2, for which there are four examples^ the most notable being
the telescoped passage Mark xv. 42.
If again we divide 66, the result is ;^^. For this we have two
examples, viz. :
Matt. xxiv. 30 Koi Tore Koif/ovrai Tratrai ai (ftvXal t^s y^5 {/lOPl.^.
Mark xi. 8 dXXot 8e crTi/3d8as Koi/zavrcs €K Twv ayp<Ji)v {hom!).
These are reinforced by two of 32, viz. :
Luke vii. 7 8to ouSe ifxavrov i^^iwcra Trpo? (re e\6e2v {/iom.).
John xvi. 25 ovKiTi €V Tra/soi/At'ais XaXr^croj vfilv aXKa yiom.j.
Also by seven of 31, viz. :
Matt. viii. 5 elcreXOovros Se avrov cis T^a(f)apvaovfjL.
xni. 15 Koi CTrttrTpe'i/'wcrti/ koi IdaofiaL avrovs-
xxii. 24 Koi avacrT7]creL (nripfxa t<o aZ(X<^^ avrov {Jiom.),
Mark xiv. 65 koX irepiKaXvimiv avTov to TrpocrwTrov \ho?)l.).
Luke XX. 1 1 Koi aTiixd(rai'T€<i e^aTreWetXaj/ Kevov.
John iv. 24 Toi's irpoa-KWOvvTas avrov' Trva 6 6^, Kai (Jiom.).
V. 10 Tw reOepaTrev p.evw, ^d/^jSarov iarLV, Kai.
From 31-3 we go back to 20-2 (32 examples), and finally to
10-12 (196 examples). There thus appears to be a common
unit, which runs through most of these omissions. It must not
be inferred for a moment that I wish to explain all the shorter
omissions in this way. Much must have been due to accident.
As, however, the omissions become longer, the hypothesis of
mere accident, apart from line-division, becomes less likely. Also,
I must repeat what I have previously indicated, that in all
probability most of the omissions were made in a previous copy.
The omissions of 14-16 letters (78) seem too numerous for
explanation by accident, and I think it more likely that the
immediate model was written in this formation. If so, some of
the larger numbers may be multiples of 14-16, not of 10-12.
This is a point which it is impossible to settle, where we are
concerned with such small units. The internal evidence is in
favour of attributing most of them to the operation of the smaller
unit. The point upon which I lay stress is the extraordinary way
in which the omissions hang together and the connexion becomes
most evident in the case of the longest, where accident is least
likely to have been the cause.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 41
There is an interesting omission coupled with transposition in
Mark vi. 22-3 :
oLTrjcTov fie o iav ^eX?/?, kol Swcro) ctol, kol oj/xoctci' ai'Tjj otl 'O idv
fjL€ alryja-ys, owtrw crot, ews ry/xtcoi'S ttJs ^acrtXet'as [Jiov.
For this S^ has
'Ask of me and I will give thee even unto the half of my
Kingdom, and he sware with an oath '. This seems to indicate
the following arrangement (after iav $^Xy<;) in an ancestor :
Kttt buiCrO) (TOL
Kai <i)fio(r€v avTT]
OTt o €av fie ai
5 e(05 rjflKTOV^ T7/S
/Sao-tXfias /MOV
The scribe passed from the first Swo-w crot to the second, and
Kttt w/xocrei' avrfj was subsequently inserted after 1. 6.
There is a famous variant in Matt, xxvii. 1 7
TtVa ^e'Aere dTroXvaw vjxiv ; HapafSfSav ; r] Iv Toi' Xcyo/xevoi' Xv;
which now admits of easy explanation.
Here S^ has (so also in v. 16) 'hja-ovv Bapa/Sfidv, so also Arm.,
Origen, and some minuscules. Tregelles has already suggested
that IV is a dittography of the last two letters in vfjui'. If the
passage were written,
V
fjiiv l3apa(3(Sav ( 1 1 )
it is obvious that the mistake might easily arise.
less
CHAPTER VII
This MS. comes from Bobbio, and is connected by tradition
with St. Columban.' Its importance lies in the fact that its text
agrees with the quotations of Cyprian. It, therefore, represents the
' African ' branch of the Latin family.
IL^ is written in long lines with an average of about 26 letters to
the line, and has 14 lines to the page. It contains Matt. i. i —
iii. 10, iv. 2 — xiv. 17, xv. 20-36; Mark viii. 8-11, 14-16, viii.
19 — xvi. 9.
There is clear evidence that it was immediately copied from
a Latin ancestor* with an average of 14-15 letters to the line.
This is shown by some passages which the first writer has omitted,
and a corrector has added. They are marked by symbols for
omission, viz. ha (? hie adde) in the text^and hs (= hie supple) or
hv (? hie vide) in the margin or at the foot of the page. I have
noticed the following :
(14) Matt. ii. 2 eius in orientem.
15 ut adimpleretur.
Mark xvi. 8 praedicationis.
(27) Matt. ii. 2 et uenimus adorare eum cum audis — .
This is interesting, since the passage has been ' telescoped '.
(31) Matt. xii. 27 neque patrem agnoscit nisi filius et.
(45) „ xiii. 7 in spinas et ascenderunt spineae et suffoca-
uerunt ea.
(63) Matt. X. 4 et in ciuitatem samaritanorum ne introieritis.
Ite magis per oues perditas.
The only supplements which I have not included in this list
* R. Beer has recently given reasons for thinking that k, together with other
old MSS., came to Bobbio from the collection of Cassiodorus {Akad. Wisseti'
schaft, Wien, 191 1, pp. 78-104).
* The presence of a Latin ancestor is also shown by duplices kctiones,
e. g. /. 18 7-ecto, I. 14 cogitaj-untbant. A previous MS. must have had
bant
cogitarunt.
PRIMITIVE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 43
are, Matt. vi. 3, quid faciat dextra tua (19), which may possibly
represent an unusually long line, and xiii. 32, the single word
hokribus. The others manifestly go together. Thus 27 is nearly
twice 14 (3 examples) : 63 is nearly twice 31 (15x2 = 30) : so
45 = 15x3-
Beyond the immediate ancestor there is a Greek original.
Canon Sanday in an admirable Appendix ' deals with the Greek
text presupposed by k. The list of omissions which he gives is
particularly useful. It is obvious that k omits very freely.
Sanday notices a number of cases which he thinks due to an
attempt to abridge the text.
I exclude from the discussion omissions of k which are shared
by Fand other MSS., since these concern an earlier stage in the
history of the text, e. g. :
Matt. V. 44 ei'Aoycire . • . \i.i(TOVvra% vfias, ib. i-Trrjpea^ovTwv v/nas
Kai, XV. 31 KvkXol's vyuls, Mark ix. 29 kol vv/o-rem, ib. 44
and 46 oTTov 6 a-KwXrj^ . . . aftevvvTai, xi. 26 ei 8k v/tcts . . .
VjXWV.
The omissions show that the Greek original had an average of
10-12 letters to the line. I quote the following examples :
(10) Matt. vii. II TTocru) /AaAAoK.
xii. I KOL rjp^avTO.
Mark xi. 8 cis t^v 6861'.
31 iav €i7r(0fj.€V.
xiii. 37 yprjyopeLTi.
I have not included in this list Matt. iv. 17 fi^TavoeiTc, since the
omission is shared by 5, Clem. Orig. Eus.
(11) Mark ix. 10 av^r]TovvT€s.
XI. 6 Kal <fi€pov(riv.
xii. 4 Koi TjTLfxaa-av.
(12) Matt. v. 33 Tovs apxo-^ov<;.
Mark xii. 2 tov d/ATrtXwvo?.
Possibly we should include omissions of 9 letters, \\z. :
Matt. xi. I SiaTcto-o-wv, xii. 2 iv o-a^/Surw, 30 aKopTTit,€i, Mark xii.
9 Tt rroir]a-u, 1 9 StSao-KaXe, xiii. 9 8apr](T€(rO(, xiv. 5 1 iirl
yvfivov.
Also, of 13 letters, viz. :
Matt. vi. 20 KOI KXiiTTovQ-iv, Mark ix. 5 koI a.TroKpiOu'i, x. 17
TrpoaSpafJiwv Kai.
1 Old Latin Biblical Texts, ii, pp. 1 19-21.
44 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
I now add the multiples :
Two Lines.
(20) Matt. iv. 24 Koi iOepd-rrevcrev avrovs.
Mark x. 37 Ka6icroy/xcv iv rfj B6$r) crou.
46 6 vs Tifiaiov ^apTL{xaio<i,
xvi. 2 ctvarciAavTos rov rjXiov.
(21) Mark xv. 34 o co-rt fxeOepfjirjvevofxevov.
The instance given from Mark x. 37 is very instructive, since
the reading of k does not give any sense. The Greek original,
which I will term J^, appears to have had
tva CIS €K 8e^t (12)
(X)V (70V Kttt CIS (11)
€$ iVWVV/XWV (10)
KaOKTWfjLiv ev (11)
5 TY] 8o$r] a-ov (9)
o 8c is ctTTcv (10)
For this k gives
da nobis ut unus a dextram
et unus a sinistra. ITi^ autem
respondens dixit
The writer omitted 11. 4-5.
Three Lines.
Mark xi. 10. Here j^ seems to have had
cvXoyT^/xci'os o
ep)(Oixivos cv
OVOfiaTL KV
evXoyrj/xivrj
/3a(nXcia tov
Trps r//xwv AdS
We find in k
bene
dictus qui uenit in regnum pa
tri nostri dauid
Lines 3-5 have been omitted.
(31) Matt. viii. 5 cictcA^ovtos 8c avrov cis KaTrepvaovpi..
Four Lines.
(39) Matt. x. 19 SoOyjcrerai yap vplv Iv (.Kiivrj rfj wpa n \aXi^o-CTC
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 45
Mark x. 34 koL ifXTTTva-ova-LV avT<o koI jxacrTLyuicrova-LV avrov
{hom.\
(42) Matt. iv. 4 dXX €7rt TravTL prjfiaTi eKTropevo/xivia 8ta (tto-
/xaros 6v.
(43) Mark ix. 37 i-rri tw ovofxart fjiov, c/ac 8e)^eTaL' koL os iav ifj-k
Se'x^rai (Aom.).
Mark Xl. 28 rj rt's ctol t^v i^ovcriav ravrqv cSojkcv iva TaCra
■7roLrj<; ; {kom.)
Mark xii. 30 koI i^ oAr;s t^s ^vxrjs crov, Koi i^ oAr/s ti}?
Siavotas (ror {/lO?H.).
Five Lines.
(50) Mark xiv. 35. Here -A' seems to have had
TrpO(Tr]V\€TO
ira ci 8uvaT0v
ecrri irapeXdr]
aTT aVTOV 7] (J
5 pa Kai eXeycv
a/3/3a Trp irav
ra Swara crot
TrapeveyKe
TO iroT-qpiov
10 aTT €//,0V TOUTO
Here /^ has
adorabat dicens, si fieri potest
ut transeat calix iste
The writer appears to have omitted 11. 4-8. The omission was
assisted by hofU. (viz. -n-apeXOr], irapeveyKe).
Another example of five-line omission will be found later on
(Matt. xiii. 14-15).
Six Lines.
(60) Matt. ix. 34 ol Sc ^apLcraloi eXcyov, Ev roi ap^ovTi twv
haifJLOviwv iK(3dXX€i ra Sat/x.oi'ia.
Seven Lines.
(70) Mark ix. 35 koI Xe'yet a^TOt?, Et rts OeX^t Trp(x)TO<; ctvat,
£0"Tai 7ravT(i>v £(Tp(aT09, kol iravroiv Std/covos-
Eight Lines.
(83) Matt. V. 47 Koi lav a(nrd(Trj(T9e. tovs dScX^ous vynoiv fiovov,
TL TTipKraov TTOteiTe ; ov)^t Ka\ 61 iOviKol to avTO ttolovo'lv ;
46 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
Nine Lines.
(gi) Mark xii. 32-3. Here ^ seems to have had
ctTras OTL CIS
CfTTl Kttl OVK
ccTTir aXXo9
ttAt/v avTov
5 Kat TO ayaTTttj/
avTov €$ oXr)<;
TT^S Kap8ia<;
Kai e^ oXrj?
rrf<i o-ui/£crea)9
10 Kat cf oAr;s
Tjys ia")(yo<i
Kai TO ayaTrav
TOV Tr\r]<TLOV
(OS cavTov
We find in k (corruptly)
dixitsti quia nnus est dom et no
est praescriptum tamquam te
Here the writer seems to have passed from Kat to dyaTrai/ in
1. 5 to the same words in 1. 12.
Twelve Lines.
(125) Mark xi. 4-6 kol evpov ttwXov SeSe/xcVov tt/jos ti]v Ovpav e^w
CTTJ. TOV dflffioSoV, Kol XvOVCTLV aVTOV. Kat TlVeS T<1)V CKCt liTTrjKOTUiV
eXeyov avTOLS, Tt TroteiTe Xvovtc? tov ttojXov ;
I have reserved some special cases, viz. :
Mark X. 46 Kai ep)(OVTaL els 'lepi^^u)- kol iKiropevofXiVov avrov arro
Iepi)(io, Kat Twv /xa6r]TU)V avrov, Kai 6)(Xov tKavov, 6 vtos Tt/Aatou
BapTtyu.ato?, TvcjiXbs TrpocraiTrjs, iKaOrfTO irapa. Tr]v 686v,
For this k has
et ueniunt
ierocho cum turba magna cae
cus mendicus sedebat ad uiam
Here we have two omissions, viz. that of Kat lKiropevop.ivov . . .
fxaOr]Twv avTov (48, or 49, if 'lepctxw is written) and that of 6 vs
. . . BapTLfxaios (20), mentioned above.
Mark XU. 4 Kat ttolXlv ciTreo-TeiAe Trpbs avTovs aXXov BovXov KaKeivov
iK€(fiaXLOicrav, Kai rjTLfiacrav. koI aXXov aTricTTeiXe' KctKCtvov
aTTCKTCtvav Kat ttoAAous aAAot's, Toi'S /a€V Sepovres, tovs Se
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 47
aTTOKTetVovTC?. ert eva eiX^i', vv ayairrjTov aTrtcTTCiXev avTov
For this k gives
misit ad illos alium ser
uum et ilium decollauerunt et
alium misit et occiderunt et ali
um et alius multos nouissimum
misit filium
Here, as previously noticed, koI rjTLfjiaarav {i i) is omitted. Also,
there is no equivalent for tois /xev Scpovres . . . Iva cTxev (45).
I suspect, however, that w dyairrjTov (10) was also omitted, and
avTov changed to filiu^n in consequence. If so, the omission
consists of 55 letters. The interesting point is that the text was
modified in consequence of the omission.
Matt. xiii. 14-15 koX aimrXrjpovTat avrots rj Trpo(f>r]T€La Hcraiov rj
Xeyovara, 'Ako-^ aKovaeTe, kol ov /xr] crvvT]T€- koL /JAcVovTes
^Aei/'ere koI ov /xt] tS-qrv iiraxyvOr] yap r] KapBia tou Xaov
TOiTOV, Kol TOis coo-t ySttptw? ^Kovcrav, kol tovs 6(}>6a\fj.ov<;
avTu)V iKa/xfjivaav p.i]7roT€ iScocrt rots 6(f)6aXixols, Kai rots dxriv
(XKOVo-coo-i, Kai ry KapSia crvvojcri, Koi €7riC7Tpei/'W(rt, /cat laa-ofxai
avTOi'?. vfjiwv 8e fxaKapioi.
For this k gives (corruptly)
et tunc implebitur super
eos profetatio eseiae dicens
incrassa corpori huius et au
ricula peius obtura et oculis
eorum grauia ne forte conuer
tantur. uestri autem felices
Here there is no equivalent for uKorj aKovjo-ere . . . ov p-i] iSrjre
(56), and i8wa-i toi? . . . o-wwo-i KUL (57). This seems to show that
k has on two occasions dropped five lines of A". The intervening
passage, cVaxtV^^; . . • fj.-r]-n-oT€ contains 90 letters, i. e. 9 lines of A'.
We have parallels for 56 in Mark xii. 4 (55) and for 90 in Mark
xii. 32-3, There is a further omission in ^ of Kal lacroixai avrovs
(16), which does not admit of a similar explanation.
The reader may now inquire what other omissions of k there
are which I have not considered. There is one omission of 23
letters, viz. Mark viii. 33 /cat tSwv tov<; p.a6r]Ta<; avrov, and one of
24, Matt. x. 24 ovSe 8o£v\os i-n-ep tov kv avTov. These may represent
two Unes of A'. Some doubt attaches to Mark viii. 26 /xrjSk eh ■n]v
Kilipi-qv €la-i\6}]^ (23), since there are important variants. There is
48 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
also one omission of 19 letters, Mark xvi. 18 koI oiSivl ovStv
ecTTui', which, doubtless, represents two lines of the original.
There is also one omission of 35 letters, viz.:
Mark x. 36 6 8c elirev avrols, Ti deXtre TroLrjcraL fic vfxiv ; {hom.^
The previous sentence ends with ttoii^ot^s rjiuv, and the repe-
tition is quite enough to account for the omission. I might,
however, claim it as another example of three lines omitted.
The only other omissions which I have noted are :
(14) Mark X. 39 o eyw ^SaTrrt^o/Aat.
(15) Mark xi. 17 ttSo-i tois eOviaiv.
XU. 2 2 OVK a<jirjKav cnrepfia,
xni, 22 i}/€vh6)(pi(TT0i /cat'.
(17) Mark xii. 42 fx-q KaraXcTrwy cnrep/xa.
Two Other cases which occur in Sanday's list (Mark xv. 34, 42)
will be mentioned presently.
In view of the agreements which exist between the Old Latin
versions and the Old Syriac, and suggestions which have been
made in consequence, it is necessary to point out some singular
evidence furnished by omissions in k and &^.
Some have other support besides S^ %\ viz. :
(10) Matt. iv. 17 fxeTavo€iT€ oin. Clem.^Orig. Eus.
(21) Mark x. 2 Trpoo-eA^ovre? ^apto-aiot oni. Z> 2L*^.
(23) Matt. xi. 5 Kttt TTTwp^ot emyyeAt^ovTai om. Diat. Clem.
Ambst.
(60) Matt. ix. 34 01 Se . . . Sat/xovia otn. D 3L Diat., alii.
(70) Mark ix. 35 koX Ae'yei . . . StaKovos om. D.
The presence of 10 as the common unit seems clear.
The following seem peculiar to .S^ H'' :
(9) Matt. xii. 2 Iv o-a/?/3aTw, Mark ix. 8 ^x-S taiTwv, 27 koX
avea-TT], X. 25 daeXdelv, xiv. 51 inl yv/xvov.
(11) Matt. ix. 27 Koi Aeyovres, Mark xi. 15 Karia-Tpeij/ev, xii. 4
Kol yjTLjxaaav.
(12) Matt. v. 33 Tois dpxaiots, xiii. i dTro T^s otVtas.
(13) Mark xiv. 3 -rqv aXd/^ao-rpov, XV. 26 CTrtycypa/A/AeVi;.
(14) Mark xii. 2 Trapa twv yewpywv.
(22) Matt. i. 25 OVK iyiv(x)(TK€v avrrjv ecus ov.
(24) Matt. X. 24 ov8l SovXos VTfep Toy kv avTOV.
(31) Matt. viii. 5 ela-eXOovTos Sk avrov eis KaTrepvaovp..
(83) Matt. V. 47 KOL iav da-Trda-yja-de . . . ttoiovctiv ;
This long omission is of considerable interest, if compared with
that of 167, peculiar to &», in Matt. vi. 5 kuI orav . . . fxiaOov
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 49
al'Twv. We may also compare the omission by >^ of 125 letters, in
Mark xi. 4-6 {kol erpov . . . Tov TTwAov) with that of 128 letters
omitted by S^, in Matt. v. 30 (^at el rj . . . yeewav aTr^XOy).
There are also passages where there seems to be some relation
between S^ and k, though the omissions are different, e.g.:
Matt. xiii. 12 So^T/o-erat avTw, koI Trepia-(r€v6rj(TeTai] Koi irepLcr-
a-ev6'^(T€TaL (18) om. S^ : So^T/o-crat (9) om. k.
xiii. 15 KoX iirLa-Tpiij/wa-LV koI ld(TOfxaL avTOVS (3^) ^^^^' ^^ '•
KOL lacrofxai avTOV<i (16) OfH. k.
Mark xi. 28 •?/ T15 o-oi t^v l^ovaiav Tavrrjv (.Sii)K€V Tva Tatra Trotrjs;
(43) <?;//. ^ : iva Tavra Trotrjs (13) ^^W. <S^
Mark XV. 34 o ian [xeOepfxrjvevofievov, 6 9<i p-ov, 6 6<; p.ov, eis tl p.€
e-yKarcAtTrcs ; (51) Offl. S".
Here k has
di me
us dl meus, ad quid me maledixisti
omitting 6 eo-rt /Ji€0epp.r]vtv6p.€vov (21).
This is interesting since ^^ generally omits these explanations.
In the same chapter, however, k has (v. 22)
ferunt illam in
culgotham locum qui est inter
praetatus galuariae locus
I have previously mentioned (p. 38) the curious passage :
Mark XV. 42 koI ^Stj oi/^ms yevo/x€rr;s, €7ret -^v TrapaaKevi], o iariv
7rpoo-a^/3aTov, which S^ translates koI o-a/3/3aTov om.tned. (41).
Here k has
serum autem cum factum esset
cene pure sabbati
Cena pura = Trapaa-Kev-tj. Sanday says that k has omitted
o ia-TLv irpoadppaTov. I am not sure that the scribe was not render-
ing eVel rjv irapaa-KiVT) cra/S/Sdrov (for -ov) omitting o eWiv npo- (9).
If so, the agreement with the truncated reading of S^ becomes
very remarkable.
1655 H
CHAPTER VIII
D (Cod. Bezae)
D is the great enigma of New Testament criticism. It is a
Graeco-Latin MS. written in the sixth (or fifth ^) century. The
prevalent opinion is that it was written in the Rhone Valley, but
Dr. Loew has recently impugned this view. He points out cases
where the scribe began to write Greek instead of Latin, and draws
the inference that Greek was his mother-tongue. He also shows
that the symbols used for omissions and transpositions are Greek,
and that all the early annotations are in Greek. The provenance
of the MS. must, therefore, be regarded as doubtful.
D, unlike the other MSS. with which I have dealt, is written in
irregular o-Tt'xot or sense-lines. Blass says that in this method of
writing the line is broken off at every, even the smallest, section in
the train of ideas, which requires a pause in reading. The subject
of ancient stichometry bristles with difficulties which I do not
intend to discuss here. This particular.- method of using sense-
lines is employed in the poetical parts of the Old Testament.
I would only point out here that it is especially adapted for a
bilingual MS., in which a word for word translation is desired.
The o-Tixot in D vary in character. The order of the Gospels
is Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. In Matthew the sense divisions
are generally maintained, though there are occasional irregularities,
e. g. xix. I :
Kai cycvero ore cXaA7;o-cj/ o i-qo-
Tors Xoyous todtous ixeTr]pev arro Tr]<;
yaXetXaias
In John and Luke the stichometric arrangement, as Scrivener
points out, appears to be breaking up. We find for instance such
lines as :
Luke vii. 38 KXaiova-a TOis SaKpvcri e/Bpeii tovs
TToSas avTov Kai rats OpL^i tt^s
Ke(fiaXr]^
Not only are prepositions separated from their cases but some-
times words are divided, e.g. :
^ So Prof. Burkitt and Dr. Loew.
PRIMITIVE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 51
Luke i. I eveiSfj-n-ep troXXoi tTre\€ipr](Tav ai'a
Luke xxiil. 18 avrov aTroXvaM av£Kpa^av Se Trar
trXrjOu AeyovTcs aipi. tovtov aipai Tovrov
Sometimes the Latin reproduces the irregularity, e.g. Luke v. 19 :
avcySr/crav €7rt to Soj/au Kat airocr asceiiderunt super tectum et de
Tcyao-avTcs tov^ Kepa/xov^ ottov t]v tegentes imbrices ubi erat
Scrivener goes so far as to say that in Luke the dissolution of
the sense divisions ' becomes the rule rather than the exception ',
and draws the conclusion, which seems inevitable, that several
stages must have intervened between D and its first ancestor
arranged in o-tlxol. This is a fact of some importance, since a
considerable amount of time must be postulated to account for
the process of disintegration. He notices that ' as the work pro-
ceeds from the middle of St. Luke onwards the arrangement of the
o-Ti'xot becomes less broken and careless '. This statement is not
strong enough. In St. Mark and still more so in the Acts the
irregularities are few, and the appearance of the o-Tt'xot is far more
primitive.
D contains a good deal of evidence concerning its immediate
ancestor or ancestors. There are several cases in which omitted
words are added by the first hand both in the Greek and the Latin,
e. g. Matt. XV. 23, the words
fir} TTOTc eKXvOuio-Lv ev rrj o8w ne dissolbantur in itinere
are added above the line.
Other examples are to be found in v. 37 of the same chapter
and in Luke xix. 30, Mark viii. 35.
The Latin and Greek correspond with great exactitude, thus in
Mark xiv. 16 both have a dittography, viz.:
Kai iirjXeov OL iJ.aOr)Tai avTov ct abierunt discipuli eius
Kat e^T/X^ov ot /xa%at avTov et uenerunt discipuli eius
Not infrequently the Latin {d) omits one or more lines of the
Greek and resorts to a device for correction, e. g. :
Luke vi. 37-8 :
^7, Kpctvcre Lva /jlt] KpiOrjTc (a) nolite iudicare ut non iudice-
firj KaraStKa^ere tva {xr} KaraSi- mini
Kao-O-qre (8) date et dabitur uobis
a7roXv€T£ Kat aTroXvOrjaeaeat mensuram uonam conquassatam
52 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
SiSoTi /cat SoOtja-iTaL v/xlv impletam supereffundentem
fierpov KaAov creaaXivfxevov dabunt in sinus uestros
ireTTuaixevov v7r€peKxvvvofx€i'ov in qua enim mensura nietieritis
Swo-ovcriv CIS Tov KoXfxwv vfxwv (/3) nolite condemnare ut non
o) yap fxirpw iJ.€TpeiT€ avTi condemnemini
lx€Tpr)6T](T€Tai. vixiLv (y) dimitte et dimittemini re-
mitietur nobis
Other examples are :
Luke viii. 44, 47, xi. 26, 27, xix. 47, 48.
We may compare Matt. xvii. 25 :
Kai iicreXOovTi ei? ti/v oiKtav
7rpo€<f>$acrev avrov o t^ Xcycov
et ingresso in domum praeuenit eum ihs dicens
Here two lines are compressed into one in d. This is rectified
in V. 27, where two lines are rendered by three.
Occasionally d preserves something lost in the Greek. The
most striking case is
Luke xvi. 7 :
fTTcira Tw cTcpo) ttTTfv cKarov deinde alio dixit tu autem quan-
Kopov; tum^
(T£LTov o Se Xcyct avTw Sc^c ctov ra debes ad ille dixit centum men-
suras
ypafjifxaTa Kai ypaij/ov oySorjKovra tritici ad ille dixit illi accipe tuas
litteras et scribe octoginta
Here the immediate ancestor must have had
CTTftTa Tw erepu) ciTrev av 8e ttoctov
oe^etAcis o Se cittcv fKaroi^ Kopov;
The writer of Z> passed from the first to the second cTttcj',
omitting two half-lines.
We may compare Mark x. 19 :
fir] fioL)((v(Tr]'i /XT/ TTopvcvo-T/s p.r) ne adulteres ne occidas ne
KAei/fr/s fureris
Here /tr/ (f>ovev(rrj^ has been replaced in the Greek by a variant for
pLT) p.oLX'^va-r]^, but is preserved in the Latin.
There are indications which show that in the Gospels D is
derived from an ultimate ancestor with an average of 10-12 letters
in the line.
The most significant case is :
Luke xvii. 36 8vo ea-ovrai iv tw aypw* 6 cts TrapaXy]<^6rjcr€Tau
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 53
D has t>vo eypu) eis TrapaXr)<fi6rj(TeTai. This points to an original
reading :
Svo €
aovTaL ev tw a ( i I )
ypu) €ts
A line was omitted and 8vo cypw was written.
A similar inference may be drawn from John xx. 13. Here D
after rt KXatcts; adds rtVa ^rjrel^ ; (lo). The addition comes from
V. 1 5 Tt K-Xaicts ; TtVa ^t/tcis ;
The intervening words, Ae'yct aurois . . . rt K/Xatcts ; consist of
145 letters, i.e. 14 lines of the original. The same repetition is
found in S^.
The omissions of D must be treated with caution when they
occur at the end of a o-Tt'xo?, since here a line may have been lost
both in the Greek and the Latin, though the double omission is
not very likely. I quote first some omissions which occur in the
middle of a crnxos :
(10) Mark vii. 24 koI SiSwvos {/lom.).
(11) Luke X. 42 fX€pifj.ya<; Kai.
xxi. 24 Kaipoi iOvm'.
(21) Mark x. 2 Trpoo-cA^ovrcs ^apLcraloi.
(23) Luke xii. 26 ovv ovSc cAaxio"TOv SvvaaOe.
Xxiv. 5 I KOL aV€cfiip€TO €19 TOV OVVUy.
(26) Luke xix. 25 kuI cTttcv uvtio, kI, €)(cl 8€Ka jLtms (if t /U.VU9 = 23).
(30) Luke ix. 23 kol apdroi Tov arpov avTOv kuO' rjfxlpav [/lom.).
(33) Luke xii. 19 KCLjxeva et? It// ttoXXul- avaTrat'of, <^aye, ttu.
(39) Matt. X. 19 SoOij(T€TaL yap vfxiv iv €K€iV;y ttj w/sa rt AaAr;<r€r€
(/i^W.).
A number of passages omitted at the end of a aTixos may be
explained in the same way, e. g. :
(10) Matt. V. 1 1 \j/ev86fjicvoL.
(11) John viii. 34 t^s d/xapna?.
(20) Matt. xi. 5 Koi xwAot TrepnraTovaiv.
Luke xxiv. 6 ovk ecmv wSe, dAA' TjyepOrj,
(21) Matt. xii. 20 KaXap-ov (rvvT€Tpip.p.evov.
(22) Mark ii. 26 iirl 'AfiidOap tov dpx'tpf'ws-
(31) Matt. xix. 9 Kttt 6 d-rroXeXvfxevTjv yap^-qaas p-oixdrai.
(42) Matt. X. 37 Kttt 6 (f>LX(Jjv vv ■>] Svyarepa virlp ip.k ovkIutl p.ov
dfios {horn.).
(51) Mark ii. 27 to (rdj3/3aTov 8ia tov oFov eyeVcTOKat o^x 6 avos
8iu TO (rd/SfSaTov.
54 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
(54) John xii. 8 tovs Trrw^ois yap ttuvtotc ^X^^^ H-^^' tavrwv, ifxl
8e ov iravTore t^'^T€.
(55) Matt. X. 41 Kol 6 Sexo/xei/o? ^LKaiov ets ovojxa Slkulov fj-iaOov
SiKaLov Xyij/eraL (^/iom.).
(60) Matt. ix. 34 ol 8c ^apitTOLOL tk^yov, 'Ei/ tw ap^ovrt Tu)V 8at-
fiovLOiv £K/3aXAet to. Baifxovia.
(70) Mark ix. 35 koL Ae'yct avroTs, El T19 ^e'Act tt^wtos cTvai, ccrrai
TravTwv eo-xaros, Kat ttuvtcov StaKovos.
One of the most interesting passages is :
Luke xii. 39 el -^Sn . . . ttoiu wpa o K/VeVrT/s ep)(€Tai, iypr)y6pr](T£v
av, KOL oi'K a<f)r]Ke Siopvyijvai toi' oTkov avrov. kol v/xft? yiveaue.
CTOl/jiOl.
Here Z> gives ««^ .f^;?^^
•TToia wpa o kActtti^s epx^rai ovk av qua hora fur uenit utique non
Kai v/i,€ts Sc yuvea-Qai eroLfxoL et uos ergo estote parati
omitting iyprjyoprjarev . . . olkov avTou (47)-
This passage does not fit in easily with those just given, being
rather long for four and short for five lines of the archetype. It
is, however, to be taken in connexion with another omission of
47 letters, viz. :
Luke xxiv. 40 Kal tovto eiTrwv eSet^ev avrois ras xe'ipa<; kol tov<;
TToSa?.
In the present passage it is to be noticed that the words
iyprjyoprjaei' av Kai (16) are also omitted by t>5; 5, iLe, €^, Arm.,
Marcion.' This suggests the following arrangement in a pre-
decessor :
eyprjyopr](rev av Kai (16)
OVK a<j>r]K€ Siopvyr] (15)
T'ttt TOV OLKOV aVTOV (l6)
This is one of many indications which show traces of an
intermediate ancestor written in slightly longer lines.
There are some interesting transpositions in D, e.g. :
Matt. V. 4-5 jxaKapioL 01 TrpactS' ort avToi K\r)povoiJ.rjaovcn ttjv
yrjv (44) anfe pLaKaptoi ol Trev 6 ovvT€<i' on avrol irapa-
KXrjOrjo-ovTaL (43) /lad. D IL S^.
Here either order is equally good. The words seem to repre-
sent four lines of 1 1 letters.
Mark ii. 26 koX tov% aprov^ t^s Trpo^ecrews tcfiayev, ovs ovk e^eari
^ It is clear that this omission existed in the ancestor of D ; for ovk dv is the
beginning of ovk av d(prJKe Siopvy^vai, and implies the absence of (ypTjyopyjafv
&v Kai.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 55
(ftayeiv el fj-r} Tois Upevai, kol eSwKc kol (om. Z?) rots (tvv
avrQ ovcri.
Here D puts kol ISwacc tois o-vv avrw overt (23) before ovs . . .
lepeva-L (33), a coUocation which is clearly wrong. Apparently two
and three lines of 11 letters have changed places.
Matt. XVU. 12—13 ovTO) Kal 6 vl Tov avov fXikXn Traor^^eiv vir avrwv.
TOTC (rwTJKav 01 /JiaOrjTai, otl Trepl 'IwaVj/oi; tov /SaTTTicrTov uircv
aVTOL?.
D puts TOT€ (jwyiKav . . . ctTTev avTois (57) before ovrta koL . . .
avTwv {^'j), destroying the sense. Here a line of 11-12 letters
seems to be the unit.
There is an interesting transposition in Mark x. 25, but, as
there are several variants, I will not use the passage here. As
given by Z) a verse of 74 letters comes before one of 154.
It will be apparent from these examples that B omits just as
freely as any other MS.
Before I quit D, I think it worth while to put together some
remarks of Hort on the subject of this MS. He says (p. 148),
that * though the MS. was written in cent, vi, the text gives no
clear signs of having undergone recent degeneracy : it is, to the
best of our belief, substantially a Western text of cent, ii, with
occasional readings probably due to cent, iv '. He also allows
that 'in spite of the prodigious amount of error which Z> contains
... yet its text presents a truer image of the form in which the
Gospels and Acts were most widely read in the third and probably
a great part of the second century than any other extant Greek
MS.' (p. 149).
This sounds generous praise, but the result is small. Hort is
willing to allow (p. 1 1 3) that the text of all the earliest Fathers
not connected with Alexandria is substantially Western, and that
' even in Clement of Alexandria and in Origen, especially in some
of his writings, Western quotations hold a prominent place '. In
practice, however, he is remorseless, holding that ' whatever may
be the merits of individual ^^'estern readings, the Western texts
generally are due to a corruption of the Apostolic texts ' (p. 127).
This is an intelligible position, and I should not pause to
mention it here but for a singular exception which he makes in
favour of the Z family. This is that, though their evidence on
behalf of an addition is dismissed as a ' Western ' interpolation,
their testimony is treated with great respect when they omit
a passage (p. 175). For such cases he coins the curious phrase
56 PRIMITIVE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS
* Western non-interpolations ' and on such occasions deserts his
favourite MSS. with great levity.'' I will give one instance only :
Matt, xxvii. 49 aAXos 8e XafSwv Xoy;;(7/v evv^ev avrov rrjv vXcvpav,
Koi ii^XOev vS(j)p Kai atfxa (60).
So B \^, om. D, with A & and other authorities. Hort considers
the words to be a very early interpolation. It is not my duty to
defend B ^ on this charge, but I would merely point out that the
passage may well represent six lines of the archetype. We may
refer to Matt. ix. 34 for an omission of 60 letters by D.
At the end of St. Luke Hort uses his theory of local Western
non-interpolations as a double-axe with which to lop the text.
I cannot refrain from here quoting Dr. Salmon, who says
(p. 25), ' Nay, it would seem as if in the judgement of the new
editors, any evidence was good enough to justify an omission.
There is no authority which, when it stands alone, finds less
favour in the eyes of these editors than that of D and of Western
MSS. generally. Indeed, with them to describe a reading as
Western is a note of contumely. Yet when D omits what is
attested by a consensus of other authorities, including those which
W-H. count the highest, they are persuaded that this time D is in
the right, and pronounce the reading J;o be a case of Western
non-interpolation.'
' Omissions in D occur throughout the Gospels, Hort restricts his ' Western
non-interpolations' to a particular locality, viz., the end of St. Luke. This is
quite arbitrary.
CHAPTER IX
After this survey of the chief documents, I proceed to put
together some results.
It is clear, in the first place, that all the MSS. are descended
from ancestors written in narrow columns. Indeed, they all
appear to exhibit the working of what I venture to call a ' decimal
system '. I do not suggest that all the omissions in any of the
important MSS. are due to the negligence of a single scribe.
It is more probable that they represent the sum-total of omis-
sions made by a series of ancestors written in columns of similar
breadth.
Secondly, we have found everywhere the same readiness to
omit. This is most evident in t^ and S^ The writer of ^^ was
a helpless victim to o/xoLoTr]'?, while S' omits continually, with
freedom for which I know few parallels. Salmon has already
remarked about S-''. ' I do not know whether Hort's rule of always
preferring omissions would have led him to prefer to the Greek
text of the Gospels Mrs. Lewis's Syriac, which is shorter than
any other known text.' B has been said by various critics to give
an 'abbreviated text' of the Gospels. I am inclined to think,
however, that the omissions, if such they are, were made by the
writer not of ^, but of its model. We find the same licence of
omission in k. I would draw special attention to Matt. xiii. 14-15
where there appear to be two separate omissions of five lines in
the Greek original. Lastly, I claim no exemption for D, which
omits just as freely as any other MS. In view of these facts the
maxim brevior lectio potior seems to be a very dangerous guide.
Thirdly, the omissions appear to hang together. They ex-
hibit a well-marked gradation, rising from multiple to multiple
of the unit. This is most evident in the case of the MS. which
omits most freely, viz. %^. Here the largest omissions are the
most significant. Thus, we have one of 262 (Luke xxiii, 10-13),
one of 132 (John xiv. lo-ii), and one of 128 (Matt. v. 30), also
one of 65 (Luke xii. 9); so again one of 167 (Matt. vi. 5), and
one of 83 (Matt. v. 47). I cannot insist too strongly upon these
figures. To say that they are due to accident would be to strain
the limits of coincidence. I, therefore, look upon them as the
justification of my method.
1655 I
58 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
I must further call attention to the tendency of various MSS. to
modify the construction after an omission, e.g. Matt. xiv. 26;
Mark xiv. 58 ; John xx. 4 (^^) ; John ix. 36 {B) ; Mark xii. 4 {k).
This fact will be found to be of importance when we come to
the Acts.
I should like to supplement this examination of the principal
MSS. by a list of omissions made by the early Fathers, but the
materials are not collected and it is impossible for me to attempt
the task.
The following cases may be found interesting :
(10) Luke viii. 51 koL 'Iwdvvrjv om. Irenaeus.
(11) Matt. v. 18 aTTo Tov vofLov om. Irenaeus.
(12) Matt. xvi. 13 Tov vv Tov avov om. Origen.
(13) Luke vi. 22 koI oveiSia-wat 0///. Clement.
(39) Matt. xili. 50 ^x^^ ecTTaL 6 KXavO/xos kol 6 f3pvy[Ji6<i Twi/ oBovtwv
om. Origen.
(80) Matt. XX. 31 6 Se o;^Xos lireTL[xrj(Tiv ai'Tois iVa (n<i>Trrj(TUi(Tiv
OL 8c fXfLt.ov eKpa^ov Xeyoi'Tes, ice, iXerjcrov rj/Jias, vs AaS
om. Origen {horn.).
The correspondence between 39 and 80 in the two longer
omissions of Origen should be noted. ^
I have noticed significant omissions in patristic quotations
elsewhere, but pass them over, as I am not now dealing with
other parts of the New Testament. I must, however, make one
exception, viz. :
Hebrews vi. 5 hwa-ixu^ re ixi\\ovTo<i. For this TertuUian reads
hvvovTo<;.
Souter remarks ' (/ui codicem epistulac Tertullianeum exaravit
version toticm angustum, qualis in chartaceis voluminibus esse
solebat, praetermiserat \
This means that the model had
Iv
vajxeis Tc fxeX (l l)
\0VT0<i
The scribe, after writing v, omitted a line.*
I now come to the most delicate and critical point in this
^ It is tempting to arrange thus :
afifis re /^eW
OVTOS
but this is not the'usual'method of division.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 59
inquiry^ viz. the consideration of the chief variants in the way of
omission or insertion which distinguish the three families XY Z.
I might at once proceed to the longest passages and produce
some interesting figures. I do not, however, think that short cuts
are desirable in demonstrations. I might again select passages
which favour the conclusion at which I have arrived and marshal
the evidence most germane to the discussion. I feel, however,
that the reader has a right to have all the evidence before him
even if the result is, at first sight, chaos. I, therefore, propose
to give a list of the chief passages omitted by A' or Y or Z, or
by two of them as against the third.
I must point out very carefully that these readings are a farrago
taken from all sources, that some of them may be due to inter-
polation, that coincidences undoubtedly do occur, also that many
omissions may be due to mere chance. On the other hand, when
we get to the large numbers, the hypothesis of coincidence
becomes less and less likely in the case of startling agreements.
I must further premise that most of the readings, the genuineness
of which is disputed, come from Z. The usual theory is that
these are a congeries of interpolations taken from diverse sources.
If they appear to fit together, and to support each other, this
theory must receive a deadly blow.
In order to encourage the reader to persevere through the
wilderness of variants, I will put into his hands one or two clues.
Luke XXI. 24—5 a;^t TrX-qpoiOCjcTL Kaipol l$vQ)V, Kal tcrovrai crrjfxela.
Here -B inverts Kaipol iOvwv and koI ta-ovrai : D omits Katpol Wv(mv
and $8 omits /cat larovTat. The archetype must have had
KUipOL tOvOJV (11)
/cat ea-ovraL (10)
The variants are due to kul after kul — .
Finger-posts are furnished by such numbers as 20-2, 30-3,
40-4 &c., which suggest the omission of 2, 3, and 4 lines.
I would draw special attention to
Luke XXUl. 34 6 Se is eAcyc, tt^, a<^es avTOis" ov yap otSacrt ti'
TTOLOVCTL (42).
ib. 38 ypdp./j.aaLV 'EXkrjvLKOLS Kal 'Pw^atKois Kal 'F^/SpatKots (43).
The words of forgiveness from the Cross, one of the most
moving passages in all literature, are bracketed by Hort, while he
does not consider v. 38 worthy of mention in his note. I look on
both passages as representing four Hnes of the archetype.
6o THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
In connexion with these two verses I would also mention
Luke xxiii. 17 avdyK-rjv 8e eT;(£i/ airoXveLV airots Kara ioprrjv eva (41).
It will be seen that some MSS, omit these words, while others
transpose them after aveKpaiav 8e Tra/XTrXrjOd Ae'yovre?, ATpe tovtov,
vLTToXvcrov 8e r][juv tov Jiapa^/3av oorts ■^v 8ta (TTOLO-tv riva ycvoyitevT/v
iv rrj TToXci kol (f)6vov (3\r]9il<; iv rrj cftvXaKrj (126).
The relation between 41 and 126 must be observed.
There are various similar correspondences between the smaller
figures, e. g. :
Matt. V. 44. Here Fand others omit cuAoycirc tov<; Kara/aaj/xcVous
vfjuv, KaXa)9 TToteiTe Tois fxicrovaLv v/xas (57) : also, in the same
verse, i-n-rjpea^ovTOiv v/j.a<; kui ( 1 9).
Here 57 is a multiple of 19.
I would finally point out that, as the numbers grow larger, the
' decimal system ' becomes more clearly visible. Thus we have :
(60) Matt. ix. 34, xxvii. 49.
(70) Mark ix. 35.
(80) Luke ix. 55.
(102) Luke xxiv. 12. Cf. John vi. 56 (105).
(130) Matt, xxiii. 14, Luke vi. 4.
{139) Luke xxii. 43-4.
(152) Luke xxii. 19-20.
I leave the largest numbers to speak for themselves.
I append a table of the chief passages in the Gospels, the
authenticity of which is disputed. Where they are treated by
W-H., I add the particular label which has been affixed to them :
viz. ' Western ' if found in Z only, * Western and Syrian' if in Z and
X, ' Syrian ' if omitted by Z as well as by V, except for a few
passages styled ' pre-Syrian or Alexandrian '. Nearly all of the
passages in question are omitted by V, while some which are
found in Y, or in X V, but omitted by Z, are styled Western non-
interpolations.
The list does not include those peculiar to sub-groups, many of
which have already been discussed.
(9) Mark vii. 4 kol kXlvwv ' Western and Syrian '.
(10) Matt, xxvii. 24 tov StKaiov om. B D'h^'^^^'^ Orig.
Mark vii. 24 koX StSwvos om. D1L%^.
ix. 29 Ktti v7/o-T€ta ' Western and Syrian '.
xii. 40 Kox 6p(f>av(ov ' Western ',
xiii. 8 Koi rapaxat ' Pre-Syrian (? Alexandrian) and
Syrian '.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 6i
Luke vi. lo <I)s /cat yj aXX-q D, w9 y] aXXi] A, alii, om. Y.
(i I ) Matt. vi. 25 ^ Kal Tt 7rtr]T€ om. t^ !L ^c ©1..
Mark vii. 4 orav eXOwcnv Z, om. X V.
ix. 24 fjLCTa SaKpvwv ' Western and Syrian '.
Luke xxi. II Kal x^i^i^^i^ves 'Western (not D), probably
from extraneous source '.
John iii. 13 6 wv ev tu> owui ' Western and Syrian '.
V. 2 TrapaXvTiKwv ' \\'estern '.
(12) Matt. XV. 6 r) T>yv jIpU. avTod X, om. Y Z.
XXV. I /cat T^s vv\i.<^ri<i ' ^Vestern '.
Mark i. 2 ifjiTrpocrO^v crov X, om. Y Z (ho)n.).
Luke vi. i SevTepoirpwrio ' Western and Syrian '.
xxiv. 46 Kol ovTU)<; eSct ' Syrian '.
(13) Matt. XV. 31 KvXXovs vyuLs om. ^%&€.
Mark xi. 8 koL iaTpwwvov om. Y€ Orig.
xu. 23 orav dvacrrwcrtv X, om. YZ.
Luke ii. 48 koI Xvirovp-evoi Z, om. X Y.
xxn. 4 Koi (TTpaTrjyoLS om. Z.
John iii. 15 p,^ dTroXrjTai dX/V om. FS^, aiii.
(14) Matt, xxiii. 4 Kat Sva-ftda-raKTa, 07)1. t^ 3L 5 ©'' Iren.^f^
Luke xvii. 24 eV t^ 17/ticpa aiTov om. B D%<!S.
xxiv. 9 ttTTo rov p.vqp.€Lov om, Z ' a Western non-in-
terpolation '.
(15) Mark iii. 32 Kal at dSeA^ai' crov ' Western and Syrian '.
(16) Luke xii. 39 iyprjyoprjaa' uv kul om. i^ D & ^^ Arm.
Marcion.
John iii. 31 ivdyw TrdvTtov iaTiv om. t^ Z Arm., a/ii.
(17) Matt. XV. 8 Tw aTu/xaTt airCiv kul X, om. Y Z.
xxvii. 32 as dTrdvTT^o-ij/ at'Toi) 'Western'.
Mark iv. 9 icai 6 o-wt'wi/ o-vj/teVw ' \\'estern '.
Luke xi. 2 r]pMv 6 Iv tol^ owots -^Z, <?w. FOrig. Tert.
Cyr.
( 1 8) Matt. vi. 1 5 Ta irapaTVTwp.aTa avTwv om. ^^ Z> IL <B^\
Mark ix. 380? ovk aKoXovOel rjpuv ' Western '.
xiv. 39 Tov avTov Xoyov cittcov om. DIL.
68 Kai dXeKTOip i(f>(i)vr](r€V om. Y&^^.
Luke ix. 540)? /cat 'HXtas cVot'r/o-ci/ <?;«. FS © Arm.
(19) Matt. V. 44 iTry]p€at,6vTwv vp,as /cat om. YSdB.
Luke xxiv. 52 Trpoo-Kwr^o-avres aiVor ^w. Z ' ^^'estern non-
interpolation '.
62 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
John xiii. 31 el 6 6^ iSo^dcrOr) eVauTw ' Pre-Syrian (? Alex-
andrian) and Syrian '.
(20) Mark vi. 33 koI awrjXOov Trpos avrov ' Western'.
Luke XX. 34 yevvwo-iv Koi yevvwvTai ' Western '.
xxiv. 6 ovK i.crriv S)Se, dW rjyepOr] om. Z ' a Western
non-interpolation '.
(21) Mark viii. 26 /x?;8€ eiTrr/s nvi Iv TTj KMfxrf 'Western'.
X. 2 7rpocreX$6vT€S ^apiaoLOt Om. Z.
Luke V. 39 Koi d/x^oT£pot T7]povvTai oni. Y.
xi. 54 iva KaTrjyopi^aoja-Lv avrov ' Western '.
xxiv. 42 Kol d-TTo fxeXia-a-tov Krjpiov ' A singular inter-
polation, evidently from an extraneous
source, whether written or oral '.
(22) Mark ii. 26 ctti 'A/StdOap tov dpxi^p^ws om. Z.
Luke i. 28 €vXoyr]fX€vr] av iv yvvaL$Lv 'Western and
Syrian '.
(23) Luke xxiv. 53 kol dvi<^iptro ei9 tov ovvov 'Western non-in-
terpolation '.
(24) Mark iii. 14 ovs koX dTroo-roAous oivojuao-cv Y, om. X Z.
Luke xxiv. 36 koX Xiyu avroU, elprjvr] vplv om. Z ' a Western
non-interpolation-'.
(25) Mark x. 24 tovs TreTrot^oras eVt (-l-rot? iTj )(p-^fxa<TLV
' Western and Syrian '.
(26) Mark vii. 16 €t tis ^x^i S)Ta dKovcLv, ukouctw om. Y.
ix. 49 KuX TTuaa Ovcria dXl dXtdOria- erai ' Western .
Luke XI. 4 dXXd pva-at yjfj.d'i drro tov Trovqpov Offl. Y&^ (JH
Arm. Orig. Cyr. Tert. Aug.
xix. 25 KOL €LTrov avT(v, K€, e)(ei ScKa /xvas OM. Z. (If t
= 23-)
(27) Luke XV. 21 iroLrjcrov juc w9 cVa twv fxiaOicov a-ov J Z),
om. cett.
(28) Luke xi. 11 dpTOV, p.r] XiOov eTriSwcei avTu) ; 7) Kat om.
B1LS>^<B^ Arm. Orig.
(29) Mark ii. 22 dXXd oTvov veov ets daKov<s Katvovs om. DIL.
Luke xi. 43 xat Tr/jwTOKAtcrtas Iv rots SetTrvots C D"^,
am cett.
(30) Luke ix. 23 K-ai d/aarw tov arpov avTOV kuO' rjfjiipav OVl. D %.
XXIV. 43 '^^'- -^a/Jwv TO. iiriXoLTra eSwKcv avTols ' Pre-
Syrian (? late Western) '.
John XVli. 1 1 <i) SeSojKa? pLOi, Lva waiv ev, Kadios rj/xei^ OM.
3L 53 Chrys., alii.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 6^
(31) Matt. xix. 9 Kttt 6 oLTToXeXvfjievrjv ya/XT/cras fxoix'j-Tai Om.
t^ Z) IL S © Orig. Chrys.
Luke viii. 43 tarpots TrpocravaXwo-ao-a oXov tov ^lov om.
JB B &^<S. Arm.
(32) Matt, xviii. 11 y]\0€ yap 6 vs tov avov crwo-at to ciTroXwXos
' Western and Syrian '.
(33) Luke xii. 19 Keifxiva ^h tr-q iroXXd' ava-rravov, c/)ay€, ttic
'om. D E.
(34) John Iv. 9 ou yap CTDyxpwvTai 'louSaiot 'Xafiap€iTai<; OtH.
(35) Matt. XX. 16 TToXXot yap €tVt KX-r]Toi, oXiyoi 8c IkX(.ktol
' Western and Syrian '.
John xvii. 1 1 ovKeri. el/jl iv tm koo-jjuo, Kai eV tw Koa-fJM cip-t
' Western '.
(36) Luke xxiii. 37 Treptri^eVrts auTw Kat dKav^ti^ov are^fiarov Z,
om. cett.
(37) Luke iv. 18 Ida-aarOai tovs a-vvT€rpLp.ix.ivov<i tyjv Kaphiav X,
om. YZ Orig.
X. 16 6 §€ 6/xou d/fovwv ciKovct TOV (XTrocrTctAavros p.e
Z, 61///. cett.
(38) Mark X. 7 koI TrpoaKoXXyjOi^creTai irpos Trjv ywaiKa avTOv
om. Y ^9.
Luke xii. 21 ovrws o Orjo-avpllwv eavTw, Kat p,r/ €is ^v ttXov-
Twv (?;«. Z) iL.
(39) Matt. XX. 22 Kat 7) TO (SaTTTLcrfxao eyw ySaTTTt^o/tai /JaTTTi-
a-OrjvaL ; X, Otn. Y Z.
Luke xi. 2 yevr/^T^Tw to OeXrjixd (rov ws ev owo) Kat €7rt t^s
y^9 <?;;/. j5 5' Arm. Orig. Tert., a/it.
(40) Matt. vii. 21 ot'T05 cto-eAei'creTat cts T'^r ^acriXciav twv odvcov
' Western '.
XX. 23 Kat TO PaTTTio-fxa o eyoj (^airTL^OfxaL (iaTTTi-
a-Orja-eaOe ; X, om. Y Z.
John xiv. 14 lav Tt alrya-rjTi fxe iv tw ovofiari fxov, tovto
TTOL-rjaw om. A^ %^^ «H3 Arm.
(41) Luke xxiii. 17 dvdyKrjv 8k et^ev aTroXveiv avTOts koto, ioprrjv
€va om. A B%^€, post v. 19 hab. D Si.
(42) Matt. X. 23 Kttv iv rr^ kjipa. ScwKwcnv vp,a?, (f>€vy€T€ els Tr]V
dXXrjv 'Western'.
Luke xxiii. 34 6 Se ts eXeye, Trp dc^es auTOts' ov yap otSacrt
Tt TTotouo-i ' From an extraneous source '.
64 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
(43) Mark xiii. 2 kol 8ia rpiCjv rjfj.epwv aAAos dva(TTT](T€TaL avev
xetpwv * Western '.
Luke xxill. 38 ypd/xixaa-LV HiXXrjVLKOLS kol 'Pca/AaiKOts kol
'EfSpaiKols om. B 0%^% <B.
(44) Matt. Vll. 22 ov Tw ovop^ari (tov icf)a.yop.ev koi tw 6v6p.aTL
aov lirLop-ev &'^ Justin Orig., alii, om. cett. ' Perhaps from
an extraneous source '.
(46) Mark xv. 28 Km. iirXripwOr] 7] ypacftr) r; Aeyouo-a, Kat p^To.
dv6p.o)v iXoyia-Or] X 3L Arm., a/ii, om. YD A %^ Si^ <B.
John VUl. 59 '^^'- ouXOoiV hia p,i(Tov avrCyv cTropevero, Koi iraprjyev
ovTO) X, om, YZ.
(47) Luke XXIV. 40 Kat TovTO (lirwv cSct^ei/ aurois ras X'fipa.'i koX
Tovs TTo'Sas ' A Western non-interpolation '.
(49) Mark IX. 44 and 46 ottov 6 a-KwXr]^ avrwv ov TeXevTo. koI to
TTvp auTwv {om. A D) ov cr/SevvvTai om. Y&^ %^ Arm.
(52) Matt. xvii. 21 tovto 8e to yeVos ovk iKTrop^veraL el pr] iv
Trpoa-evxrj kol vqaTeia ' Western and Syrian '.
(54) John xii. 8 tovs 7rTa);(oi's yap TravTore e)(f.Tf. p.e6' cavroij/, e/A€
8e ov TravTore ^x^'''^ ^''^' -^ ^^ Arm.
(56) Matt. vi. 14 on croS lo-riv -q (SacnXeia kol 17 Svvap.is kol rj So^a
ets Tot's aiwvas. dp.T]v ' Syrian '.
Luke xvil. 36 8vo ea-ovrai iv tw dyp^- 6 cfs irapaX-qfjiOrjcrerai,
Kat 6 trepos d(f)€Orjcr€TaL Z, om. X Y [Aom.).
Luke xxiii. 53 Kal ^evros avTOv iTreOrjKev tw /xvTy/xeiw XiOov ov
p.6yL<i etKocrt €.kvXlov D 3L^ CH^, om. cett. (If k for eiKotri := 51.)
(60) Matt. ix. 34 ot Se ^apicroLOL eAcyov, 'Ev tw dp-^ovTi tujv 8ai-
, p.ovL(ov iK/SaXXei to. 8aLp.6via om. Z Diat.
Matt, xxvil. 49 dXXos Sc XafSwv Aoy^^/v Ivv^ev avrov t^v
TrXcupav, Kat €^A^ev v8wp Kat atyLta ' A very early interpola-
tion absent in the first place from the Western text only'.
(64) Matt. xxi. 44 Kat 6 Trecrojv eTrt tov Xidov tovtov o'vvOXao'Oriae.Tai'
i(f> ov S" av Trecrr], XiKpyaeL avTOv om. Z Orig.
(65) Mark xi. 26 el Se vp.e2<; OVK d(f)UT€, oi'Se 6 wp vp.wv {om. D)
6 iv Tots {om. D) ovvoLS a(f)rja-€L ( + vplv Z?) to. TrapaTrTw/AaTa
vp.u}v om. Y"^"^ &^<B Arm.
(68) Matt. xii. 47 ctTre hi ns avTw, ^iSov rj pip o-ov koI ol a.SeX(f)OL
o-ov £^0) i(TTrjKacn ^r]TovvTe'S <roi AaX^crai om. KIL*^ S &.
(70) Mark ix. 35 Kat Ae'yet avTols, Et Tts ^c'Aet TrpwTOS €tvat, lorai
iravTOiv e(rx«TOS, Kat irdvTwv SLaKovos om. D IL'^.
(78) Matt. 1. 8 TOV 'Oxo^tav, 'O^o^t'tts Se iyewrjtrev tov 'Iwas, 'Iwas
8e iyivvrjaev tov 'A/xao^tav, 'A/x.ao"tas Se eyeVv7^(r€V S° Diat.,
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 65
alii. So also D in Luke iii. 30^ where it gives the pedigree
according to Matthew.
(80) Luke ix. 55 koX eiTrev, OvK oiSare oiov Trvd<i tare v/xcts* 6 yap
xJs Tov avov oi'K riXde i/'f^as avuiv aTToAecrai, dAAa crwcrat
Z)ILSc, alii, om.V^^e.
(94) Matt, xxvii. 35 tva TrXrjpioOfj TO p-qOev viro tov TrpocfajTov,
At€/u,ept(TavTO to. IfxaTLo. jj.ov eavrot?, koI Ittl tov IfiaTLa-fxov fxov
e/?aAov KXrjpov 3L Arm., alii, om. X YD S^ {hofn.). The
evidence here is weak, but, as the previous sentence ends
with fSdX\ovTe<: kXtjpov, omission would be easy.
Luke xi. 2 firj /JaTroAoyetre ws 01 Xolttol. Sokoixtlv yap Tive? OTt
iv Trj TToXvXoyLa avTwv fldaKovadricrovTaL, dXAo, 7rpocrev)(0[X€voi
D, om. cett.
(102) Luke xxiv. 12 o Se ITeTpo? dvaoras eSpajxev etti to fxvrjfjLetov,
Koi irapaKvxpa'i /JAeTret to, o^ovta p.6va- koI aTrrjXOe Trpos iavTov
Oavfjid((ov TO yeyoi'os ' A Western non-interpolation '.
(105) John vi. 56 /ca^ws iv ifJLol 6 Wp Kayix) iv Tw Wpi. 'Afxrjv
dp.y^v Ae'yw vp2v iav /at; Xd/3r]T€ to cru)fia tov vv tov avov ws
TOV apTOV T7J<; ^wrj^, ovk €)(^£T€ ^(DTjv iv arTW {kom.) ' Western '.
(130) IMatt. xxiii. 14 oval vplv, ypayLt/xaTets Kal ^apicratoi, viroKpt-
Tai, oTi KaTco-OuTe Tas oiKias twv ^r^pwv, Kai 7rpo<^acrci fxaKpa
■n-poo-evxop-ivor Std tovto Ar^i/^ccr^e TrcpLaaoTepov Kpifxa {hom.)
' Western ' (not D).
Luke vi. 4 tt^ avr?} V/J-^P'/- ^€ao-d/xevds Tiva ipya^o/xivov t(o
o-afS/SaTu) tiTrev auTw, ore, d /xkv oTSas Tt ttoici?, fiaKtipio^ €f €t
Se ytA^ ol8a<;, eTriKaTcipaTos ^at Trapa/SaTj;? et tov vo/aov Z?, ^W.
cett. 'Possibly from the same source as John vii. 53-
viii. 1 1.'
(139) Luke xxii. 43-4 ui<ji$T] 8e avTW ayyeAo? ciTr' ovvov evto-^^wv
at'ToV. Kal y€v6fjL€vos iv dyoiVLo. €KTeveo-T£pov 7rpo(rr]v)^eTO-
iyevcTO Se 6 tSpws avTov wo-et dpofifSoL at/naTO? KaTa/Satvov-
Tes cTTi T-^i/ y^v ^w. F^s Arm. The patristic evidence in
favour of the passage includes that of Justin and Irenaeus.
* A fragment from traditions, local or oral.' This is a very
ambiguous remark.
(152) Luke xxii. 19-20 to virep v/xdv StSo/xevov tovto iroieiTe eh Tr]v
ifjJrjv dvdpvrjcriv. koI to iroT-qpiov wcravTws /acto, to SiLrrvrjaaL
Xiyoiv, Tovto to TroTT^ptov rj Kaivrj hiaOrjKrj iv tw atp,aTt p,ov, to
virkp vjxwv iK^vvopevov om. D'iL'^^. W-H. have 'no moral
doubt that the words in question were absent from the
1655 K
66 PRIMITIVE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS
original text of Luke, notwithstanding the purely Western
ancestry of the documents which omit them.'
(156) Matt. xvi. 2—3 oi/'tas yivofxivT]'; Xiyere, EuSia" Trvppa^tt yap
6 ovvos' Koi Trpwi, ^rjfxcpov \i.LiJiUiV TTVppa^ei yap crTvyvd^wv
6 ovvos. TO p.ev Trpoa-iiiTTOV TOV ovvov yivtoo-K£TC SiaKpivciv, TO. Sc
a-rjixeia twv Katpwv ov SvVacr^e om. Y& dS- Arm. Orig. ' Western
and Syrian '.
(166) Luke V. 14 6 Se i^eXO^v ripiaro K-qpxxrauv koX Sia^T^/xi^etv tov
Xoyov wo"TC fj.r]K€TL 8vva(T6aL avTov ^avepws eh ttoXlv ticreX^civ
dXAa e^w rjv iv €pT^fJiOL<i tottols' kol crvvrjp)^ovTO 7rpo<s avTOV Kol
■^X6ev TrdXiv els Ka^a/sj/aou/x Z?, om. cett.
(167) John V. 4 e/cSe;(o/xeVwv tt;i/ tov vSaTOS KLVTjaiv ayyeXos yap kv
KaTo. Kaipov KareySatvcv iv Trj KoXvfxjS-^Opa, kol crapao-cre to
v8(jDp' 6 ovv TrpaJTOS ip./Sa.'i fxcTo. ttjv Tapa)(rjv Toi) vBaTO<s vytrjs
iyLveTO, w S-^ttotc Karet^^CTO vocrrjp-aTL om, K,S, ahl. A has
ayycXos . • . voo-r/p-art (137), but the previous clause ckScx^
. . . KLvrjcriv (30) is written in ras. by A'^. D has ckSc;^. . . .
KivrjCTLV, but omits ayyeXos . . . v6crr]fj.aTL.
(320) Matt. XX. 28 vfMus 8e t,7]Te'LTe ck puKpov av^rjcrai kcu Ik fX€Lt,ovo<i
eXaTTOV ctvaf elaep^ofxivoi 8e kol TrapaKXyjOevTes BeLirvrjcraL firj
avaKXiveaOe eh tov<s i$e)(0VTa<; tqjtovs, p-rj iroTe ivSo^oTepos
(TOV eiriXOy koi TrpocreA^ajv 6 SeiTrvoKAT^Twp elTrri (tol, ^Ert Karco
^wpeif Kat KaTaicr)(yv6y(Tr]. eav 8e dvaTrecrrj<; eh tov ^TTOva
TOTTOV Kttt eTTeXOy (xov rjTTWv, Kai ipet crot 6 SciTrvoKAiyrtop,
]§uvay€ CTt dvo), kol earaL crot tovto xprja-i/xov Z, oni. X Y.
(829 ) John vii. 53— viii. 11 Kat eTropevOrjorav . . . pi^KcVt apaprave
Z> ILb Eth., ^w. y 3L'"^ S © Arm. We have not the testimony
of A and C, but they do not seem to have had room for
the passage. On the other hand, it appears in most
minuscules, either here, or at the end of the Gospel, or
after Luke xxi, Augustine says that ' some of little faith
. . . removed from their MSS. the Lord's act of indulgence
to the adulteress '. W-H. call the passage ' Western and
later Constantinopolitan '.
(964) Mark xvi. 9-20 dvaoras 8e . . . dp.rjv om. Y S>^ and codd.
Eusebii. B leaves blank 12 lines of col. 2, and the whole
of col. 3. In i<5 the Gospel ends in the middle of 1. 4,
col. 2, and the rest of the column is unoccupied. For the
shorter ending given in IL^ cf. pp. 74, 82-4.
Here, as elsewhere, I follow Souter's text. As written in D it consists of
801 letters, but D omits in viii. 2 koi KoOiaas eSidaamv avrovs (25), and there
are minor variations.
CHAPTER X
There are 14 passages in the preceding list which contain
over 90 letters. There are some singular features in these which
demand attention.
Two passages consist of 94 letters, two of 130, while 166 and
167 are practically identical. Also 102 is very close to 105 and
152 to 156.
The three largest numbers are 320, 829, 963,
Here it will be noticed that 320X3 = 960. This is very
astonishing.
Further, if we divide 829 by 5, we obtain as the result 166
(i66 X 5 = 830), for which we have 166 and 167.
It is further to be noticed that if we divide 320 by 2, we have
as result 160. This number is very near to 166 and 167.
I cannot doubt that these numbers 160-7 correspond to some
division in the archetype of the Gospels. There is also further
evidence.
The first point is one on which I do not wish to lay too much
stress, viz. that the longest omissions of S^ present some curious
points of resemblance. Thus Matt. vi. 5 kol orav . . . fxiaObv
avTiov contains 167 letters. So also S^ has an omission of
132 letters (John xiv. lo-ii) and 128 (Matt. v. 30), which was
very like the two omissions of 130, We cannot tell how far back
these omissions go.
The second point is one which has caused me considerable
perplexity. It is concerned with what is generally called the
Shorter Conclusion of St. Mark. This is found in two Uncials
Z *, also in k, S> hl.^s, <B, Eth., and in some minuscules. In Z
it appears in the following form :
Travra 8c ra TraprjyyeXfxcva rot? Trepi tov Tlerpov arvvTOfJL(i!)<i c^T^yyiXav.
fiera Se Tavra Kat avTos o is aTro avaToXrjs Kai a^i Svcrcws
e^aTTCCTTiXe 81 avroiv to lepov Kai acfyOaprov Kripvy/xa Tr]<;
aiMVLOv a-wT-qpia? (l6l).
The singular feature here is that 161 is roughly half of 320,
which is ^ of 963. There thus appears to be a numerical relation
between the Shorter and the Longer Conclusions,
68 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
In order not to obscure the argument, I will postpone further
discussion of this point.
In the third place, there is some very singular evidence yet to
be considered.
Luke XV. 1 6 koI iTrcOvfj.ei ^opTaaOrjvai Ik twv Keparttov mv y](j6ioy
oi )(OLpor Kai ouoets i8i8ov avraj.
ib. XVI. 21 iiriOvfxwv ^opTaa-Qyjvat ciTro Twv ttltttovtwv (xtto t-^s
Tpa7ret,r]'; tov TrXovcriov.
Here the Diatessaron supported by some Latin evidence {Im)
and S> hl.'^s, after tov -n-Xova-Lov, adds koI ovSds iSlSov avrw. As the
Diatessaron was composed in the second century, the variant
must be an ancient one.
My experience, gained by work upon Cicero, suggested to me
the hypothesis, that the repetition was due to the occurrence of
KOI ovScts iSiSov avT(o in the same place (as well as in a similar
context) on a previous folio. ^ If so, the intervening passage, viz.
XV. 17 CIS eauToi' 8e . . . xvi. 21 tow rrXovaiov might be expected
to yield some multiple of the figures which I have previously
collected.
On counting the letters, I found the total number to be 3,212.
This is a multiple of 320 (Matt. xx. 28). We now have the
astonishing sequence
161, 320, 964, 3,212.
I now proceed to consider what appears to be an early disloca-
tion in the text of St. John. My attention was called to this by
my colleague, the Rev. B. H. Streeter, who showed me a work
by Mr. F. Warburton Lewis on Disarrangements in the Fourth
Gospel, in which there are references to Spitta's discussion of the
subject. A proposal to transpose chapters v and vi was made
as long ago as the fourteenth century. The difficulties are as
follows :
In IV. 54 we have tovto irdXiv ^evrepov (Ty}p.a.ov liroi'qa'e.v 6 Irjcrovs,
iXOiJ}v €K T^s louSatas ets rryv FaAtAatav.
The next verse (v. i) is
/x-tTo. Tavra rjv ioprr] tQ)v lovSalojv, koL dve/Srj 6 'Irjcrov's eis 'Icpoco-
Xv/xa.
Chapter v deals with events in Jerusalem.
Chapter vi begins with
/jLera ravra aTrrjXOev 6 'Irjcrovs Tripav t^s 6aXdo'0'r]<s Trj<s VaXiXatas.
Nothing whatever has been said of a return to Galilee.
^ Cf. pp. 10, 103.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 69
Chapter vii begins with
KOI fxcTo. TavTa TrcpiCTrarei 6 'Ir/crovs iv rrj TaXtXaLa' ov yap rjOeXev
iv TT) 'louSat'tt TrepnraT€iv, on i^ijTovv atrov ol 'lovSaioi oltto-
KT€LVaL.
The proper sequence of events requires that ch. vi should come
before ch. v. In that case Jesus works miracles in Galilee (iv. 54),
crosses the sea of Galilee (vi. 1), goes to Jerusalem (v. i), returns
to Galilee for fear of the Jews (vii. i).
Let us then suppose that ch. vi is out of place. The usual
explanation of a dislocation is that leaves have been misplaced.
If so, the contents of ch. vi should correspond to a certain number
of folios in the archetype.
On counting the letters in ch. vi, I found the total to be 5,540.
There is some uncertainty, since it contains the feeding of the
5,000, in which there are a quantity of numerals. If in all cases
letters were substituted, the total would be 5,472. I have, how-
ever, elsewhere found it best not to make deductions of this kind.
This number 5,540 is almost exactly a multiple of 168
(168x33 = 5,544)-
It thus appears probable that ch. vi should come before ch. v.'
Spitta has pointed out a further dislocation in ch. vii.
In V. 14 we are told that Jesus, who had previously hidden
himself, went to the temple and taught. In v. 25 we have
tXeyov ovv Tives €K twv 'lepocroXvfJLLTOJV, Ovx ovtos ecrriv bv t,r]TovcrLV
aTTOKTeivai ;
This would follow naturally after v. 14.
The connexion, however, is broken by vv. 15-24, in which the
Jews wonder at the learning of Jesus, and he discourses on the
Law of Moses. These verses would come in admirably at the end
of ch. V where Jesus appeals to Moses ;
lo-rtv 6 KaTTjyopwv vp.wv, Mwcr^s, €is ov vp.H'i rjXTTLKare.
Spitta, therefore, adds vii. 15-24 to ch. v. The order, then, is
ch. iv
ch. vi
ch. v + vii. 15-24
ch. vii. 1-14, 25-52.
With ch. vi I have already dealt. I now take ch. v + vii. 15-24.
Chapter v is especially interesting, since it contains the passage
* It is to be noticed that chapters v and vi both begin with the same words,
Utra Tavra. This fact will help to explain the transposition.
70 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
iKSexofxivwv Tyv tov vSaros . . . voo-tj/xaTi (167). If the method
which I have followed is sound, here, if anywhere, the unit 167 or
168 should appear.
According to Spitta, v. and vii. 15-24 go together, and vii. 1-14
is out of place. The first point to notice is the length of vii. 1-14
Kol fieTa Tavra . . . iSiSaaKe. This, according to my reckoning,
contains 997 letters. This is almost exactly a multiple of 166
(166x6 = 996). It is, therefore, easy to account for this dis-
location.
The contents of v and vii. 15-24 are as follows :
vii. 15-24 = 7^4
V =3>638) ^'^^
The total, 4,372, appears to be a multiple of 168(168x26 =
4,368).
I The theory that there have been considerable dislocations in
the text of St. John derives much support from these figures, but
I do not profess to have sounded the question to its depths. It
is especially interesting since the MSS. which contain \h& pericope
de adultera do not agree as to its place. Some put it after
St. Luke xxi. 38, while others place it at the end of St. John.
If the figures which I have produced mean anything, they
appear to show that the Gospels were united in one volume at an
early date. This must have been at some period previous to the
making of the Old Latin and Old Syriac translations and the com-
position of the Diatessaron. The middle of the second century
seems to be a terminus ad qiiem.
This volume cannot have been a papyrus roll. Kenyon, after
saying that ' no complete copy of the New Testament in a single
volume could exist during the papyrus period ', goes on to state
that ' it would not even be possible to include all the Gospels in
a single roll '. It must, therefore, have been a paged book, written
either on papyrus or more probably on vellum. We have, there-
fore, to consider what evidence there is for the use of vellum
codices in the second century a. d.
The victory of the codex over the roll was gradual, and in the
case of classical authors was not completed until the fourth cen-
tury, although we hear of vellum codices at a much earlier date.
Thus Martial (i. 2) recommends the traveller, who wishes to carry
his poems about with him, to get an edition on vellum.
hos 67)16 quos artat brevibus viembrana tabellis :
scrinia da magnis, me manus una capit.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 71
He also refers to vellum MSS. of Homer, Virgil, Cicero, Livy,
and Ovid in his Aj) op ho r eta (xiv. 184, 186, 188, 190, 192). There
is, therefore, no doubt that the vellum codex was used in Rome
for popular books in the reign of Domitian (a. d. 81-96). We
can even go further back than this, since a passage in Cicero's
Letters shows that the material was occasionally employed under
the Republic.^
It is to be noticed that most of the theological fragments found
at Oxyrhynchus are in book-form, whether written on vellum or
on papyrus. Also, several of them go back to the third century,
e.g. 2 (St. Matthew), 208 (St. John), 1171 (Ep. St. James), 656
(Genesis), 1007 (Genesis), 1074 (Exodus). There are, however, no
earlier examples. On the other hand, Sir E. Maunde Thompson
says ' A few stray leaves of vellum codices of the first centuries
of our era have been found in Egypt. A leaf from a MS. of
Demosthenes, De falsa legatione, written in a rough hand of the
second century, is in the British Museum, Add. MS. 34473 '■ He
also refers to a Berlin leaf from a MS. of the * Cretans ', a play of
Euripides, which was once assigned to the first century, but is
now placed in the second. There may be some question as to
these dates, but the testimony of Martial proves beyond doubt
that vellum codices were known at Rome.
Now if the codex was employed at this time for any work, it is
a priori probable that it would be used for a collection of the
Gospels. We have, also, the explicit mention of vellum by
St. Paul in the well-known passage :
2 Tim. iv. 13 rhv (^aiKovrjv ov airiXnTov Iv TpwaSi iraph. KapTrw
ip^6fj.€vo<s <^€'pt, Koi TO. /3tySAta, jxaXiCTTa ras fj.€fi(3pa.va<;.
In any case there is no doubt that the codex was employed for
the Gospels at an early date. Maunde Thompson remarks,
' Moreover, the Bible, the book which before all others became
the great work of reference in the hands of the early Christians,
could only be consulted with convenience and dispatch in the
new form '. He points out that the form adopted for the Bible
would become the model for all theological books, and says,
' Thus the vellum codex was destined to be the recipient of
^ Quui tibi ego de Varrone rescribam ? Quaituor Si<p6(pai suni in tua
pot est ate, Att. xiii. 24.
* Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, p. 65, suggests that faivoXrjs, which in the
Etymologicum Magnum is glossed by (iKijTapioy nffi^pdi'vov, here means ' book-
cover ', not * cloak ', as it is usually rendered.
72 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
Christian literature, as the papyrus roll had been that of the
pagan world '.
In view of these facts, I venture to think that the Gospels may
have been put together in book-form by the middle of the second
century, although we have no extant specimen of theological
writings in this form earlier than the third century.
If, then, we assume that 160-8 represents a column or page in
the archetype of the Gospels, when they were first united in the
shape of a book, we have to inquire whether any extant MSS.
exhibit such a formation.
Among existing INISS. of the Gospels the most exact parallel
is afforded by N, cent, vi, fragments of which are preserved at
St. Petersburg, London, and elsewhere. A reproduction of two
pages in Facsimiles of Biblical MSS. in the British Museum, no. 4,
shows that A^is written in t6 lines to the page, with an average
of lo-ii letters to the line. Each of the pages in the facsimile
contains 168 letters. This, therefore, would seem to reproduce
with exactitude the formation revealed by the internal evidence.
There is, however, a difficulty, since this is an editioti de luxe, and
we should not expect to find the Gospels written in this style at
so early a date. Also, there is the possibility that the archetype in
question was written in columns. I therefore mention another
extant MS. which realizes the conditions. This is the celebrated
palimpsest of Cicero, De Re Publica (cent, iv), written in two
columns with 1 5 lines to the page and an average of lo-i i letters to
the line. As I happen to have counted the letters in several pages
of this, I give the results. The references are to the reproduction
of this printed by van Buren. In order to compare this fairly with
the Greek archetype of the Gospels, which presumably possessed
abbreviations, I give two sets of figures, first the number of letters
as written in the MS., and in brackets those which would be found
in a printed text :
p. 50 159 (164; : 153 (156).
51 167 (169) : 169 (173).
78 170(175) : 156(157).
79 151 (150) : 165 (164).
80 152 (152 : 151 (157).
81 147 (149) : 156 (161).
92 164(172) : 163 (167).
93 153 (154): 157 (157)-
142 153 (153) : 147 (149).
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 73
p. 143 150(156) : 146(147)-
152 167 (170) : 174(178).
153 154 (157) : 160(163).
204 167 (170) : 175 (176).
205 156 (159) : 164 (168).
It will be seen that the numbers vary from 147 (149) to 174
(178), but that the same number is frequently repeated. It is
obvious that on the analogy of this MS. I might recognize Matt. xvi.
2-3 (156) and Luke xxii. 19-20 (152) as further examples of the
unit which I have indicated.
I would further point out that a line of about 10 letters (some-
times less) is found in several of the old Latin versions, e. g. the
Vercellensis {a), the Veronensis (/>), and the Palatinus (e). All of
these are in two columns : a has 24 lines to the page, <^ 18, and
e 20. On the other hand k, which is not in columns, is written
in long lines (14 to the page) with an average of about 23 letters
to the line.
I now revert to the end of St. Mark.
The hypothesis of a lost folio has already been suggested by
various writers, and Hort admits that it affords 'a tenable mode
of explaining omission '. There is, however, at first sight no
obvious reason why St. Mark's Gospel should have been mutilated
rather than any other. I would suggest a simple explanation.
The order of the Gospels in D and several allied MSS. is Matthew,
John, Luke, Mark. If this was the primitive order, it is easy to
see how the last leaves of the archetype became damaged.^ Thus
Mr. Buchanan says of the Veronensis (^) : ' The text of the first
three Gospels is, generally speaking, well-preserved, that of
St. John, being in the centre of the MS., best of all, but in
St. Mark the last extant leaves, especially those of great tenuity,
have suffered greatly from exposure to damp.' ^
The Palatinus (e), in which this same order is found, actually
ends at Mark xiii. 36, the other leaves having perished.
It is, therefore, possible that the loss took place at some early
date, but after a copy, or copies, had been taken. In view of the fact
that Irenaeus (cent, ii) quotes verse 9, while A, which is said to
^ It is, I admit, remnrkable that the last words of the Gospel should come
exactly at the end of a page or folio. It is possible that some further words
may have been lost, and that dynTji/ is a later addition.
" Old Latin Biblical Texts, p. x.
1655 L
74 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
represent the text used by Cyprian (cent, iii), has the Shorter
Ending, the loss may have occurred during this interval.
Mr. Conybeare has drawn attention to an Armenian MS. in
which verses 9-20 are attributed to Ariston Eritzou (= Presbyter),
and thinks that Aristion, who is mentioned by Papias as one of
the disciples from whom he obtained information, was the author
of them.
I do not presume to discuss the identity of Ariston or Aristion,
but would point out that there is another possible explanation,
viz. that a person of that name possessed a copy of vv. 9-20,
which were therefore associated with his name.
To illustrate from an author with whom I am more familiar,
a passage of Cicero,/;-^ F/acco, 75-83 :
primuni lit in oppidum . . . esse cetera
is not found in any extant MS.
It came to light in a mysterious way, having been communicated
to a well-known scholar, Conrad Peutinger (i 465-1 547), by a
person called Rorarius. Peutinger says :
Cum superioribus diebus Hieronymus Rorarius Foroiuliensis,
non vulgaris eruditionis, apud nos in prandio fuisset et nomismata
sua vetusta nobis ostendisset, dedit etiam versus octo vel paulo
plus supra quinquaginta, quibus oratio haec Ciceroniana pro Flacco
hactenus formis excusa deficiebat.
Nothing is known as to the source from which Rorarius obtained
the lost passage, but its genuineness has never been questioned,
and is quite indubitable.
I now approach the thorny question of the Shorter Ending.
I have already given the form in which this is found in L. In k
this is slightly different, viz. :
omnia autem quaecumque prae
cepta erant et qui cum puero erant
breuiter exposuerunt posthaec
et ipse hi^ adparuit et ab oriente
5 usque usque in orientem misit
per illos sanctam et incorruptam ''"
salutis aeternae. amen.
praedicationis
Here there are various errors.
In 1. 2 puero = Petro : in 1. 5 ?/S(/ue is written twice, and
orientem is a slip for occidentem, in 1. 6 ha is an omission mark,
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 75
indicating that praedicatiojiis (for which we must read praedka-
tioneni) has been omitted.
This seems to indicate a Greek original :
TravTa 8e ro. iTapif]yy{k\x.iva rots Trcpi tov llerpoi/ crvvTO/xcos ctr/yyetXav*
/ACTo, Se Tarra xai auTOS 6 Is iffxivr) Kal (xtto dvaToA^S a;(pt
Svcrcws e^aTreoreiXe 8t' avTcov to lepov Kut a(f)6apTov Krjpvyfxa
Tqs aloiviov a-wrrjpLas. dfjirjv (172).
As given by Z there are two orthographical slips, viz. e'^T^yyiAav
and i^airea-TiXev. If we attribute these also to the Greek original,
the total would be reduced to 170.
The noticeable points are, that Z has no equivalent for l^av-q,
which seems necessary, and that Kat before axp'- seems out of
place. Probably the ancestor of Z had :
ucTO, 8c ravra koI avTO<i 6 is icfidvrj /cat aTro dvaroXiys a.)(pt 8u(rews
i^aTricTTeiXe ktX.
L also has not got d/xrjv. This, it is obvious, may well be
a later addition. If d/xT/i/ were added to Z, the total would be
165.
It is generally assumed that the ' Shorter ' and the ' Longer
Conclusion ' are incompatible. If this is so, then the numerical
relation which I have noted between the two, can only be
a curious coincidence. I am not, however, satisfied that they are
incompatible.
It is with very great diffidence that I venture to state my own
opinion. The points which appeal to me are as follows. While
I do not rate highly the evidence of those MSS. which omit
vv. 9-2O; I cannot conceal from myself that the connexion between
vv. 1-8 and 9-20 is odd. In vv. 1-8 we have the appearance of
the Angel to Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and
Salome, and the flight of the women from the tomb, then in v. 9
Mary Magdalene is mentioned as if for the first time. Then follows
a recital of the other appearances, the charge to go and preach the
Gospel, and the Ascension. There seems to be a lacuna between
V. 8 and v. 9.
It seems to me that vv. 9-20 contain an a??iplificatio of the
•Shorter Conclusion'. First comes a summary and then the
events are narrated in detail, viz. :
' They told shortly all the tidings to those that were with
Peter. Afterwards Jesus himself appeared and sent through
them from the East unto the ^Vest the holy and incor-
ruptible message of eternal salvation.'
76 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
The mention of Jesus removes the harshness caused by the
want of a subject to dmo-ras in v. 9. We should expect dvaaras
8c 6 Ir](Toi";.
Then, after this preliminary precis, the appearances are de-
scribed in vv. 9-14, and the message in vv. 15-18.
This view seems to account for the fresh introduction of Mary
Magdalene and the details given about her.^
It may be noted that in v. 10 we are informed that ' She went
and told them that had been with him '. If we admit the ' Shorter
Conclusion ', then the words in v. 8 kol ovSevl ovSkv cTttov obviously
refer to persons whom they met on the way : without it, they are
very ambiguous.
Lastly, I must again call attention to the singular relation which
appears to exist between the content of the passage, 161, or
a number very near to this, and 320 (Matt. xx. 28), and 963
(vv. 9-22). This may be due to a fortuitous coincidence, but to
me it seems more likely that in the second-century archetype,
which I believe to be at the back of our MSS., the * Shorter
Conclusion' preceded vv. 9-22. Further questions I leave to
more competent critics.
I must now refer to the verses which m the recently-discovered
Freer MS., cent, v, follow v. 14. They are written thus :
KaK€LVOi aTreXoyovvT€ XeyovTa otl o
aiwv OVTOS TT]^ avo/xtas Kat ttjs airia-TLas
VTTO Tov oraravav eortv o fxr] etov ra vtto
Tcoi' TTvaTiov aKaOapra tyjv akyjOeiay
5 TOV Ov KaTa\a/3€a$aL SvvafXLV Sta
TOVTO aTTOKaXvif/OV (TOV TYjV SlKaiOCTV
vr]v rjOTj eKeti'oi eXeyov tw ^^ Kat o
^ €K€ivots TrpocreXcycv on TreTrXrjpoi
Tai o opos Twr erwv ti]<; e^ovcna^ tov
10 (Tarava aAXa eyyt^ei aXXa Siva Kat v
irep MV cyoj afJLapTrjcravTwv TrapeSoOij
€ts OavaTov tva VTrocTTpuj/wcriv cts r-^
aXrjOeLav Kat fir]K€TL ajxapTrja-waiv
tva Tr]v fv TW ovpavoi ttvlktjv Kat a
1 5 <f)6apT0i' Trjs 8LKaLO(rvvr]S So^av
KXrjpovofirja-(ji(Ttv
The passage as written consists of 45 1 letters.
* V. 9 Map'.q TTJ MayM\i]vrj, nap' ^s iK^i^KrjKH eiTTa SaifMouta,
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 77
Part of it, viz. KaKctvoL a-n-eXoyovvTO . . . aov Ti]y SLKatocrvvrjv was
already known, being quoted by Jerome as occurring in some MSS.
I do not presume to discuss the theme or the language employed,
but restrict myself to such considerations as are within the scope of
this inquiry. The number 451 may = 150 x 3, and we have two
passages 152 (Luke xxii, 19-20) and 156 (Matt. xvi. 2-3) which
serve to mediate between these numbers and 161, 166, 167.
The analogy of the De Re Piiblica palimpsest shows that the con-
tents of a column, or page, of the same MS. might vary between
these limits. There is, however, a serious objection. If we insert
the Freer ending after v. 14, we get the following figures :
9-14 = 411
Freer ending = 45 1
15-22 = 552
There is no relation between these numbers.
On the other hand it must be acknowledged that the omission
of the Freer ending might be easily explained on the ground of
o/xotoTj;?, since ko-kCwol (XKOt'crai'Tes (v. Il), KctKeu'ot aTreX^diTes (v. 1 3),
IkCivoi St i^e\06vT€S (v. 20) are very like Kd/ceivot a-n-eXoyovvTO.
I now come to a passage of the greatest interest :
Luke xxii. 17-22 koL 8e|a/x,ei'os TTOTrjpLOV €vxapi.o-Trjcra<; eiTre,
Adhere tovto, Kal 8ta/A€picraTC eh eavTOvs' Ac'yw yap vfuv, on
OV [XT] TTICO ttTTO TOV VVV aiTO TOV yCVV^/AttTOS T'^S afXTTiXoV £0)5
oTov 7] Pacnkda tov 6v eXOij. koI Aa/3o>v aprov evxapi<Tr^(Ta<i
tKXacre, kol cSoukcv at'Tots Xe'ywr, Tovto icm to (Twfxd fxov to
virep t'/xwv SiSofxa'ov' tovto Troteire tts r^v ifx-qv a.vdfxvy](TLv. Kai
TO TTOTi'ipiov (LcraiVws /u-CTo. TO SetTTV^crat Aeywv, Tovto to TroTrj-
piov T] KaivT] hiaSyjKrj Iv tw aL/j.aTi ftov, to virep vfilLv ck^^vvo/acvov.
Here there is great diversity in D and the versions, viz. :
Kttt Siidfjievos. . .ToC ©eov eXOy (152) om. S^s (the Peshitta) with
some support from &.
Koi AaySojj/ apTOv . . . to (Twfxd fiov (69) COmes before Kal Be$dix€VO<;
in E^\
The same passage + t6 iirep . . . StSo'/xcvov (69 + 50 = 11 9) comes
before 8e|ap,evos in S and Diat.
D and IL''^ omit to VTrep ifxCiv . . . CKXi'Voyu.evov (152).
The clue appears to be furnished by the fact that S^e and Z> 3L'i
have separate omissions, each of which consists of 152 letters.
This agreement is so extraordinary that it can hardly be due to
accident. The natural explanation is that 152 letters represent
' So Souter : the best MSS. have yevrnxaTos.
78
THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
a column in the MS. from which Z>3LS were copied.^ Here,
however, there is a difficulty, viz. that the words Kal Xa/S^v aprov
. . TO awfjid fjLov (69) intervene between the two blocks of 152.
This difficulty indicates the solution, viz. that the passage Kal
Xa/8wi/ . . • o-w/Act fjLov was accidentally omitted. To illustrate the
point, I write out the passage, as I conceive it to have stood in
the ancestor of D^^. The most natural arrangement is that of
two columns with 1 5 lines :
Col. I Kttt Se^a/xe
Col. 2 TO VTrep vfxwv
VOS TTOTrjpiOV
hiho[x^vov
ev^apia-Tr}
TOVTO TTOtCtTC
eras ciTTC A.a^e
tts T-qv e}X7}v
5 T€ TOVTO KUt
Sta/xepKraTe
5 avapLvrjo-iv
Kai TO TTOT-qpL
cts eawTous
OV tOOraVTODS
Acyo) yap vfxtv
fX€Ta TO SetTT
OTL OV /MT] irHii
vr](jai XeyMV
10 aTTO TOV vvv
10 TOVTO TO TrOTf]
ttTTO TOV y(.v
piov r} Kaivrj
vrjixaTOS Tfjs
8iaOr]Kr] ev
afiireXov ecus
'T(D atjXaTL fJiOV
TOV rj ySacriXei
TO vwep v/xwv
15 a TOV Bv eX9r]
The missing words, viz. :
15 €K^VVOfJi€VOV
Ktti XafSwv ap
TOV ev)(apia-
Tr]aa<s eKXaa-f.
Kai eSwKev
auTois Acywj/
TOVTO eCTTt
TO awfjia fJLOV
appear to have been inserted at the top of the column in the
usual way. The result was that E^ inserts them before Koi Se^a/Acvos.
The writer of & saw that the first five lines of col. 2 ought to
follow TO o-w/xa fjiov and transposed them also. The writer of Z>
omitted col. 2 as meaningless without the missing words, while
5^8, whether by accident or not, omitted the whole of col. i.
It is thus possible to explain these perplexing variants without
' This supposition would postulate an intermediate MS. subsequent to the
common archetype.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 79
recourse to the theory of wilful interpolation. As there is no
passage in the Gospels in which interpolation would seem more
likely, this conclusion is reassuring.
It is to be noticed that the varieties in this passage are peculiar
to Z. There is another passage in which D seems to exhibit
a similar unit :
Luke vi. 5 /cat eXcyev a.vTo1<i on ks icTTiv o v? ToD avov (/cai D) tov
o-a/3/SaTOD = 46 (49).
These words are out of place in Z>, viz. after v. 10. The inter-
vening words iyevero Se ev . . . rj xe^p clvtov, if we include the
passage about the man working on the Sabbath, found in £>
only, = 608 letters, which =152X4. It must be remarked that
£> adds cos koL rj akXy after 17 x^'P o-vtov. If we accept these
words, the total is 618 (= 154^ X 4).
Here also D is concerned.
I now return to the Freer ending of St. Mark (451). It is
possible that there were two stages in the process of omission, that
of the Freer fragment, going back to an ancestor with 15 lines to
the page, and subsequent omissions of 162 and 960 letters, repre-
senting pages (or columns) of an ancestor with 16 lines to a page.
There is one obvious difficulty, viz. that the ancestor in 15 lines,
which seems to emerge in Luke xxii. 16-22 and vi. 5-10, has only
left traces on the Z family, while the ancestor in 16 lines is
discernible in all the MSS. It, therefore, would seem to be
posterior to the common ancestor.
On the whole, I am disposed to look on this ending with con-
siderable scepticism.
CHAPTER XI
In the Acts we have no Old Syriac version, similar to that found
in S^ and S<'. There are, however, later versions, of which Shi is
especially interesting on account of marginal readings which agree
closely with D. This recension^, which was made by Thomas of
Harkel, afterwards Bishop of Hierapolis, in 6i6, is a revision of
the Philoxenian version made in 508. He claims to have taken
various readings from three Greek MSS. found in a monastery
near Alexandria. The chief representative of the Latin family is
the Fleury palimpsest, known as h (saecl. v), which contains iii, 2-
iv. 18; V. 23-vii. 2 ; vii. 42-viii. 2 ; ix. 4-23 ; xiv. 5-23; xvii.
34-xviii. 19; xxiii. 8-24; xxvi. 20-xxvii. 13. This MS. is written
in long lines, with above 40 letters to the line. It will be con-
venient to postpone for the moment discussion of its relation
toZ>.
There are considerable differences between the tradition of the
Acts and the Gospels. In the first place the divergences between
D (and its allies, chiefly Si hi.™- and 31^), and the majority of the
Greek MSS. are more constant and striking than in the Gospels.
Also, while in the Gospels the readings of D have not met with
favour, in the Acts they have been viewed with great and increas-
ing respect. I have already referred to the theories of Bornemann,
Blass and Ramsay. Lake advises any one who ' proposes to study
the Western problems ' to begin with the Acts, ' since here there
are questions of archaeological and geographical detail which can
be readily tested '. He goes on ' It is therefore the correct
method to study the Western readings in Acts first of all, and to
form some kind of judgement on them, and after this to turn to
the Gospels and apply to them the conclusions derived from the
study of the Acts '.
A second point of difference is that in the Acts there is little
trace of that transmission through narrow lines which is every-
where apparent in the Gospels. Apart from the striking variants
furnished by Z> IL^ ^ hl."'g there is little to note. Most of the dis-
puted passages are of considerable length, rarely less than 20-5
TRIMITIVE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 8i
letters. If we take t^ itself, which is peculiarly prone to omission,
we find very few which fall below this number. I have noted the
following :
11. 9 Kttt EAayutrat (ii)
IV. 27 iv rf] TToAei Tavrrj ( 1 4)
V. 25 ecrTWTCS /cat' (10)
VI. 12 eTTtcTTavTe? (lo)
Vll. 60 cfiwvfj fieydXrj (10)
XXI. 13 KXatWres Kat'(l2)
1 5 dvefSaivofiev ( 1 1)
The contrast between this short list and the enormous number
of small omissions made by t^ and S^ in the Gospels is striking.
The first solution which occurred to me was that the Acts were
derived from an archetype with longer lines than the Gospels,
averaging 22-4 letters to the line. Subsequently, when I was
turning over Scrivener's reproduction of D, I noticed a very
curious fact, viz. that passages found in D, but omitted by most
or all other Greek MSS., occupy a crTixo9, or several arixoi in £>.
At first I thought that this was due to accident, and the fact that
the o-Tt^ot generally coincide with the sense. When, however, my
attention had once been called to the point, I observed that the
phenomenon was very frequent, that some of the passages did not
correspond to any marked division of sense, that they were of very
different length, that in some cases the passage occupied half of one
o-Ttxos and half of the following, also, and this was the most
striking point, that in many instances the other MSS. appeared
to have modified the construction by some device such as the
insertion of 8e' or os after an omission. I passed through every
stage of incredulity, but finally could not resist the conclusion
that a large number of important variants are at once explicable
on the hypothesis that the Greek MSS. in general were drawn
from a single ancestor written in o-rixot, such as those found in
D, and had in a number of cases omitted lines of their original.
I must here recall the reader's attention to the statement which
I made previously, when discussing the formation of D, viz. that
in the Acts the o-Tt'xot were generally free from the irregularities
noticeable in St. John and St. Luke, and presented a more
primitive appearance. Without more ado, I now present the
evidence. The quotations are written in o-Tt'xoi, as in D. I have
thought it best to retain orthographical peculiarities.
1665 M
82 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
1. 5 '<cit o /xeAAcrai Xafx/SaveLv
So itcodd (patres aliquot).
lb. ewS T7/S TreVTTyKOCTTTyS
So (!!E9 Aug. Rendel Harris * remarks that these ' two
famous Western glosses ' are supported by Ephrem, who (on
Eph. iv. lo) gives
quam recipitis vos non post multos dies sed usque ad
Pentecosten.
IV. 31 TraVTl TU) OiXoVTL TTLCTTeveLV
So E^odd iren. Aug. The support of Irenaeus is
especially important.
32 Kttt ovK rjv SiaKpicrts ev auTOts ovSeynia
So Cyprian and others.
V. 18 Kttt €Tropev6rj eKa(rTo<s €ts ra iSia
This is only quoted from D. The two previous cttlxol
begin with kuL
2 2 Kai avv^avTes rrjv (fivXaKrjv
So ILP S> hi.
38 yu,7^ fxiavavre's ras x^'poi?
So IL^. Rendel Harris (p. 79) calls this a ' curious
gloss '.
39 ovT€ vfx€i^ ovre ySao-tXets ovre Tvpavvoi
aTre)(€aOaL ovv airo Ton' avOpwirwy tovtwv
So 3Lh 5 hi.
VI. 8 Ota Tov ovofJiaTO<s kv ajv ^v
So Hht ^ hi. Aug.
10 06a TO eX€y)(eo-OaL avTOV<; ctt ai;Tou
fiera Traays Trappyjaias
fiTj SwafxevoL ovv avTo<f>6aX/x€iv rrj aXrjOeia
SoEtShl.mg.
15 €(rTU)To<; ev fxea-oj avTwv
So IL^t. Here d renders s^ans iti medio eorum. This is
clearly an error iox stantis. Such errors are frequent, e.g. se?nini
for se(/ut?nmi {L,vi\iQ xxii. i o). Rendel Harris (p. 73), who supposes d
to be prior to D, thinks that the ' gloss ' is out of place and should
come after apxi^pevs : i.e. ' the high priest stood in the midst '.
VII. 4 Kai 01 Trarepe? r]p.wv ol wpo Ty/Awv
So & hi. Augustine has koI ol Trarepes ifjiwv {horn.).
VlU. I ot e/Actvav (.v Lepovo-aXrjpL
So3L(!E9 Aug.
^ J^our lectures on the PVestern Text, p. 24.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 83
24 OS TToXAa /cAatwv 01; SieXvfXTravev
So 5 hl."'g.
X. 32 OS Trapayevofxevo's XaXrjcreL (rot
om. A B^. The words are supported by most Greek
MSS., 3L S (£8 Arm. Chrys.
XI. 17 Tov fxr) Sovvai avTOL<s ttpol ayiov
7rL(rT€v(ra(nv ctt aiToj
This is an interesting case. The second o-Tt^os is omitted
by ILP and Augustine, both o-tlxol are omitted by all authorities
except !Lw and 5 hi.
XU. 3 r] €7n)(^£Lpr]<r€L'i avTov ctti tovs TrioTOfS
So !LP S hl.mg.
XUl. 8 eTnSr) ■>/8to"Ta rjKovev avTwv
So S hi.
29 rjTovvTO TOV TreiXarov tovtov /xev (TTavpoicrat
Kai €7riTi»;^oi'T€S TraXtv
So S hl."ig. Bornemann here suggests with great
probability that tov Be BapafSfSav dTroXro-ai has dropped out after
(TTavpwa-ai.
43 eyevero Se Ka6 oXr)<; tt;s ttoXcws
SuXOeiv TOV Xoyov tov Ov
So IL" 5 hl.nis.
xiv. 2 o 8e KS e8(0K€v Ta;^i; €Lpr]vr]v
So iL S hl.rag.
7 Kat (.KCivi)9r] oXov to 'irXy]6o<; ctti tt] SiSaxr]
o Se TravXos Kat (3apva(3a<;
8uTpi/3ov ev Xucrrpois
So !Lb Ramsay says of the ordinary reading, ' I must
confess that the language here is vague, and I do not comprehend
it clearly.' He considers the reading of Z> due to a reviser who
felt that something was wanting to make the narrative more clear.'
9 UTrapx^v ev cjiof3u>
So il^ (et habens timorem).
10 croi Xeyw ev tw ovojxaTL tov kv rrjv XP^
So ILh 5 hl.uig ©a Arm. Iren.i"*.
26 evayyeXi^oixevoL avTOv^
So S hi.
XV. 20 Kat oo-a fjif) 6eXov(TLV eauTOts yeivecraat
ETcpots p,TJ TTOtetTe
So ©8 Eth. Iren. Porph. Eus.
1 77/^ Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 53, 68.
84 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
XV. 26 CIS TravTa iriLpacrfJiOv
So 5 hl.mg. Rendel Harris (p. 85) thinks that this ' gloss '
is due to Sirach ii. i and should come a line further ud, after avTO)v.
29 Kai odo. fj-r} OeXere eai^TOis yuvecrdaL
€T€pU} /XT] TTOieiV
So the same authorities as above, reinforced by Si hi,
and Cyprian.
lb. €v Trpafarc ^cpo/xcvoi
€v TO) ayiw TTvi eppwcOc
So Irenaeus and TertuUian : cv Trpa^'ere eppuiaBe cett.
This is a very instructive case. The scribe has passed after
7rpd$€Te to (.ppoicrOi. in the next o-ti^os, omitting what came
between.^ Rendel Harris has a long discussion of this passage,
PP- 75-9-
34 c8o^6 Se Toj creiA.ea CTrt/xeivat avTov<i
fjLOvos 8e tovSas eTropevOrj
The second o-r/xos is supported by E^ sig and some
MSS. of the Vulgate, the first is supported by lL<Shl. €^ Arm.
Eth. and some Greek MSS. This is a very instructive case, since
it affects all the versions.
XVI. 30 Tovs AotTTOVS ucr^aA,tcra//,evo9 -^
So & hi.
35 ODS £^^^5 7rapeXa/3es
So S hl.™g.
XVli. 12 TU'es 8e rjinaTrjarav
Only two minuscules support this reading.
XVlil. 2 01 Kat KaruiKrjcrav eis tijv a^aiav
So 3Lh ^ hl.™g.
4 Kat cvTi^ets TO ovofxa tov kv irjv
So 3L ^ hl.mg.
6 TToAAov 8e Xoyov ynvofjievov
Kat ypafjiwv SupixrjvevofxevMV
So 3Lh ^ hl.'"f?.
8 Ota TOV ovofxaTO<; tov kv rjfioiv vrjv ^pv
So IL^, oni. cett.
XX. 18 (OS Tpt€Ttav •>; Kat TrXetoj/
Z) appears to be alone in this reading.
' This is probably the explanation of xviii. 28 :
S7]fxo(Jia diaXeyofifvos
Hai fiTi5(iKvvi 5ia rup ypaipojy rov np (ii'at XP^
So two minuscules : brjuoalq, kmhaKvvs ktX.ccH.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 85
xxii. 9 KUL ei'0oySot eyei'Oi'TO
So 2L S hi. e^ Elh. and most Greek MSS., om. ABi^€^
Arm.
26 oTt poifjiaiov €avTov Aeyet
So ILg'S.
To these should probably be added xix. 5. Here B has
€is TO ovofia Kv tyv )(pv
€is a(f)€(rLV afxapTHiiV
So ,S hi. : the other authorities appear to omit xp^^j as
well as the (ttlxo<; which follows.
This makes a total of 41 cases in which one or more cttixoi of
D do not appear in ^ i«^ and most, or all, of the Greek MSS.^ How
is this to be explained ? The answer will be given that it is due
to the fact that the o-tlxol coincide with the sense, so that an
interpolation would naturally form a o-Tt'xos or several. To this
I would answer that some of the examples, e. g. xiv, 9 virdfixf^v iv
(fiofSu), XV. 26 ek Tcavra -rreipaa-fjiov are not self-contained clauses
and might just as well have been joined to the context. Also,
this explanation will not suit xv. 29 cS -Trpa^ere . . . eppoiaOe.
There is, moreover, a simple way of testing this suggestion, viz.
by comparison with the Gospels, and especially with St. Matthew
and St. Mark, where also the o-Ti'xot have a primitive appearance.
It is hardly fair to include in the list the long passage Matt. xx.
28 lu/xets 8e . . . TovTo xpW'-I^^^j which occupies 12 o-tlxol in Z>,
since this could hardly be written otherwise, and to this might be
added a passage of 4 o-tlxol in Mark xi. 26 et Se {-/xets . . . vfxwv and
of 5 o-TLXot in John vi. 56 KaOw<; iv ifxol . . . eV auroi. Apart from
these the only examples which I have noted in these two
Gospels are :
Matt. V. 44 cv/\oy€tTe Tovs KaTapo^pucvovi vp.uv
KttXcos TTOtctre tois /xiia-ovaLV VfJi.a<s
xii. 47 Et7r€v 8e Tts avTOi' lSov rj p.-qT'qp o-ov
KaL ot aSeXffiOL aov eLO-TrjKeLO-av e^co
I'TjTOvvTe'; XaXrjo-aL croi
1 1 have not included in this list a passage where the ordinary reading seems
due to omission ex homoeotelciito without assistance from line-division, viz.
V. 15 iva. epxofxivov irerpov Kav t] OKia tniaKiaat]
Tivi avTwv an-qWaaaovTO yap
ano vaarjs aaOivias
ws ti)(^iv (KaaTos avTuv
So IL^'''' P Lucif. : dnrjWdaaovTo . . . avrwv ovi. cell. The omission is due
to the repetition oiaviuiv.
86 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
XVU. 2 I TOVTO 8c TO yCV05 OVK eKTTopcucTai
ei fir] ev Trpocreu^r; Kat vrjcrreia
XXV. I Kat TT^s vvfx(fir]'i
Mark vii. l6 ctrts £;(€t wra aKouciv aKOuexfa)
Xlil. 2 Kat Sta TpLwv rj/xepoiv
aAXo5 avao-T^o-erai avev xeipoyv
Of these only Matt. xxv. i is at all striking.
The figures for St. Luke, where the o-tlxol are much dis-
turbed, are :
Luke 1. 28 €vXoyr]fxevr] crv ev yuvai^tv
IV. 4 aXX ev TvavTi prjfxaTL Cv
XI. 4 aXXa pvcraL rjfia'i airo rov Trovrjpov
1 1 apTov p-q XiOov avTw eTrtSwcrei r] Kai
43 '^cit TrpwTOKXicrtas cv T019 Scittvois
Of these only xi. 1 1 is striking.
There is no example in St. John except vi. 56 (quoted above).
The portion of the Acts preserved in D consists of 88 pages : the
Gospels cover 324 pages. In the Acts we have noticed 41 cases
where a passage found only in Z> occupies a (ttlxo<; or o-Tt'xot. We
might, therefore, expect to find about 150 cases in the Gospels.
If, however, we reckon all the passage's mentioned above, in-
cluding the long ones, the total is 14. It is, therefore, apparent
that the phenomena cannot be thus explained.
It is, indeed, noticeable how frequently in the Gospels doubtful
passages found in Z> do not coincide with the cttlxoi, e.g.
Matt. xvi. 2 oi/^tas . . . hvvaa-Oe, XX. 1 6 iroXXol . . . IkX^ktoi, Mark
ix. 44 oTTOv . . . a-pewvTai, Luke xxii. 43 uxftOyj Se . . . Tyjv yrjv,
xxni. 1 7 avajK-qv 8e . . . eva.
More important evidence is furnished by a number of passages,
in which other MSS. appear to have modified the construction,
after omitting a passage contained in a o-nxos or o-tlxol of Z>.
In order to make clear the significance of this fact, I would refer
back to a reading of 5^ previously quoted.
John XX. 4 Koi o aXA.05 p.aOr]Tr]<; 7rpoe8pa/xe] 7rpoeSpa/xE Se ^5. Here,
obviously. Si has been inserted to give a construction after
the omission of koI 6 aAXos p.a6rjTrj<i.
In the Acts we find the following examples :
il. 30 Kara crapKa avacTTrjO'ai tov xpv
KUL KaOLaaL ctti tov Opovov avTOV
So S hi. and many Greek MSS. with Origen and others.
KaOLcraL ctti tov Opovov avTov A £\^.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 87
Kai was omitted to give a construction after the loss of
the previous Hne.
37 TOTC TravTcs OL avveX6ovTe<i
Kai aKovaavT€<; KaT€Vvyr]crav rr] KapSta
So S hl.'^S : aKOvcravTC? 8e Karevvyrjaav Tr]v Kaphiav cett.
iii. I €v '^f. Tttis rjfjLepats ravraLS
TTcrpos /cat iwavT^s avc/Saivov €ts to upov
So ILP : Tlerpos Se Kat 'Iwavv7;s avifSaivov eh to tepoi' ^^//.
3 ovTos aTCVtcras TOis ocj>6a\fJiOLS avrov
KaL iSojv 7r€Tpov Kat Lwavrjv
So IL^ : OS ISwv Uerpov kol 'loidvvrjv cett,
iv. 18 (jvvKaTo.TiQi.[ii.viiiV Se avTwv tt] yvwfir]
<f)0)vrja-avT€S avrovi iraprjyyi^iXavTO
So 5L^ S'S S hl.'^S Lucif. : Kat KaXia-avres avTOVs Traprjy-
yeiXav to ce^^.
viii. 6 COS 8c rjKovov Trav ot o;(Xot
Trpocret^ov Tots Xeyo/Acvots vtto (fnXLinrov
7rpoaeL)(6v T€ ot o;^Aot Tots Aeyo/z-cVots vtto toS ^tXtTTTrou ^^//.
Apparently Te and ot ox^ot were inserted after the loss of the
previous line.
xiii. 44 (TxeSov oXt] 1] TToXis (rvvr))(i9r] aKouaat TrauXov
TToXw T€ Xoyov TroLrjaafxevov irepL rov kv
Here Z> appears to be alone : o-xeSov Trao-a 7] ttoXis
(tvvt]xOt] oLKovcraL tov Xdyov rov kv (Ov) cett. Here the writer appears
to have glanced from IlavXov to tou kv, omitting a line : t6v Xdyov
was inserted to give sense.
xiv. 19 8taTpt/?ovTOJV avTojv Kat StSacxKOVTcuv
CTTT/X^OV TtV€S tOl'StttOt
aTTO tKOVtou Kat avTtoxtcts
So 3Lb 5 hi.""?, some Greek MSS., Arm. &c. : Itt^XOov
8e aTTO 'AvTtoxftas Kat 'Ikoviod 'louSatot cett.
XV. 5 ot Se 7ra/Dayy£tXavT€S avTOts
avaj3aiV£LV vrpos tous Trpecr/Jt'Tepoi'S
el^aveo^TT^o-av XtyovTes Tti/€S
So D, apparently sohis : i^avia-Trja-av B4 Ttves . . . Xe'yovTes
ceU.
12 oT^vKttTaTe^e/Aevwv 8e twv Trpea-jSvTepu)
TOtS t'TTO TOV TrerpOV €tpT//X£VOtS
icriLyrjcrei' Trav to irXrjuos
So S hi, : i(TLyi](Te Se ttuv to ttX^Oos cett.
88 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
XV. 41-xvi. I CTTicrTrjpL^oiv ras eKKXrjaias
TTapaSiSovs ras evroAas twv Trpecr/^vTepow
oteA^wv 8e Ta eOvrj ravra
KaTr]VTr]a-€V ets SepjS-qv Kai XvcTTpav
So aLS^S S> hl,™S : iTno-Trjpi^wv ras iKKXrjatas. KaT'qvTfjcre
8e /cat €1? A€p/3r)v /cat cts AvcTTpav cett.
XVI. 35 rjfjLepa'S Se yevofievrjs crvvqXOov ots orTpaTrjyoL
eiTL TO avTO ets ttjv ayopav
Kai avafxvr]cr6€VT€<;
Tov cr€L(T/Jiov Tov jeyovoTa €^o[ii]9rjcrav
5 /cat airecTTetXav TOtis paPhov^ov; Aeyovras
aTToXvcrov tous avdpwivovs c/cetvous
ovs £;(^€s 7rap€\aj3e<;
So .S hl.^S : r]fjLepa<; 8e yevoiJievrjs aTrecTTetXav ot (TTpaTrjyol
Tovs pa(38ovxov<; Xeyovres, 'AttoXvo-ov tous ctv^/acoTroi^s CKetVovs ^^//.
The omission of 1. 7 has already been mentioned. The com-
pressed reading seems due to the accidental omission of 11. 2-4,
the result being that ot o-TpaTrjyol /cat dTrecrretXav was emended
to aTrefTTetXav ot (TTparrjyoL.
XVU. 15 ot Se KaTa(TTavovT€<; tov TravXov
rjyayov tcos a$r]vu)V "
TraprjXOev Se Ttjv decraaXiav
€K(j)Xv6r} yap cts avTOVs
5 Kfjpv^ai TOV Xoyov
Xa/3ovT€<; 8e evToXrjv irapa TravXov
irpos TOV aeiXav Kat TifxoOeov
Here Ephrem has ' But the Holy Spirit prevented him from
preaching lest they should slay him. And those who conducted
Paul led him as far as Athens and having received from Paul
a command to Silas and Timothy '.
The other MSS. have ot 8e KaOLO-TOiVTe^ tov IlaSXov ^yayov eojs
^AOrjvwv' /cat XaySovTcs ivToXr]v Trpos tov StXav Kat TifioOeov. This
reading seems based on the omission of 11. 3-5, and the subse-
quent alteration of XafSovTes Si to Kat Xa^di'res.
Ephrem continues (after Timothy) 'that they should at once
come to him in Athens. And they went to him when they
received the command '. .D has
OTTtJJS ev TaX^i iXOuXTLV
irpo'S avTov e^rjcrav
Rendel Harris (p. 47) points out that the rendering of Ephrem is
due to the arrangement by o-Tt'xot in D. He says ' the last line has
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 89
been detached from the previous ones by the reader or translator
and made into a separate sentence ', and finds in this ' an instance
of the early currency of the Bezan line division '.
This remark is very interesting, since he has detected in the
case of Ephrem, on very scanty evidence^ what appears to me to
have been true in that of the common ancestor of all our MSS.,
viz. that an arrangement in o-tlxoi, such as is found in Z>, must be
presupposed.
xviii. 4 uaTTopevofxevos Se cts ttjv a-vvaymy-qv
Kara ttuv (ra/?/?aTOV SteXeyero
Kat evTt^ets to ovojxa tov kv Vfyv
Kttt (.TTidiv 8e ov jxovov touSatows
5 aXAa Kat ^XXyjvas
So IL S hl.™S ; SteAeyero Se €V ttj o-waywyTj Kara irav (Tn(3-
/Sarov, eTTitOe re 'lovSaiovs Koi EAXiyvas ceU.
Here omission of 1. 3 and probably of 1. i has resulted in
somewhat free handling of the text.
1 2 KaT€Tr€crT7]crav o/xoOvfjiaBov
01 LovSatot crvvXaX-qaavTcs
fjieO eawTwv ctti tov TravXov
Kat €7rt^evT€S Tas X^'P'*-?
5 i^yayov avTOV ctti to Brjixa
So 3L^ Ss hi. & : KaTiTrea-Trjcrav o/xoOvfJiahov ol 'louSaiot tw
IlavXa), Kat ^yayov avTov iirl to jSrjfxa ceit.
Here the omission appears to be twofold. In the first place the
writer passed from 'Iov8atot to eVt tov IlauAov in the line below,
and secondly he omitted 1. 4.
XX. 12 ao-Tra^o/ACvoJi/ Se avTwv
■t]ya.y(.v tov veavLCTKOv ^uivtcl
So Z?, apparently so/us : ^yayov 8e tov TratSa ^wvTa ceU,
15 TT] Be CTepa irapiXa/Sofxev ets crafLOv
Kai fJLUvavTes €v TpwyvXta
Trj epxo/J-evr] rjXBofxev €ts fjLeiXi-jTOV
So 3Lo'g S hi. €*, most Greek MSS., and Chrys. : tt} Se
€T€pa, Trapi^aXo/j-ev els 2a)U.ov, ttJ Se ixoi^ivrj ■^Xdojxtv ets MtAr;TOV
This is one of the passages upon which Ramsay founds his
theory that the ' glossator ' of B possessed exceptional knowledge
of geography. He says ' highly probable, for the promontory of
Trogy Ilium projects far out between Samos and Miletus and the
little coasting vessel would naturally touch there' (p. 155).
1655 N
90 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
.15-16 ave(3aivofX€V cis lepovaaXrjfJi
airo Kccrapaia? crvv y]fxeiv
ovTOL Se rjyayov ■)7/xas
Trap w ^cvtcr^oj/xev
Ktti 7rapay€vo/x€VOL ets Ttva Ktxiixrjv
eyevofxeda irapa vacru)VL tlvl Kvirpiw
So <S hl.'^S. dv€(3aLvofX€v €19 'lepovcraXijix. (TvvrjXOov Sc /<ai
Ttiiv fxaOrjrCiv ciTro Kato'a/aetas (rvv 17/Arv, ayovres Trap' w ^evto'^<jj/x£V Mva-
o'wvt Tii't KvTrpioj r^//.
The first remark which I would make is, that the text of £) is
clearly defective here. The words aw^XOov Se koI twv fiadrjrwv are
necessary, and must have formed a o-rt'xos which has dropped out
after lepovcraXijix.
The ordinary text makes St. Paul go from Caesarea to Jerusalem,
a distance of 68 miles, in one day, that ofZ> makes him stay for
a night in a village. Ramsay, who pointed this out, thinks that
the ' interpolator ' was well acquainted with the route. It is difficult
to think that St. Luke could make such a blunder.
22 Tt ovv ecTTiv TravTws
Sei 7rXrj6o<; (TVViXOeLV
aKovaovTai yap otl cXr}Xv$a<s
So t^ and most MSS. : B C'dB Eth. Orig. have tl ovv
ecTTi ; TravTcos aKovcxovTaL otl iXt]Xv6a<;.
25 vept 8c Twv TrcTTicrTCVKOTcov eOvfav
ouScv e^ovai Aeyciv Trpos ae
Tjixiis yap aTre(rTeiXafji€v KpctvovTcs
fxrjSev TOLovTov rrjpeiv avrov;
5 ct jxr] (fivXaacreaOaL aurovs to €i8u)Xo6vtov
Here 1. 2 is also given by %sis ©s. The other MSS. omit it
and yap in the next line, but otherwise agree with Z>, except
A Bi^dr, which omit firjSev . , . el p.-^. Apparently 1, 4 was lost,
and the tl p.rj was struck out to make sense.
The cumulative evidence yielded by these two classes of
omissions seems to me decisive, and the only conclusion to which
I can come is that behind all our MSS. we have an archetype
arranged in o-Tt'xot similar to those which are found in D. This,
it will be remembered, is what Rendel Harris has divined in the
case of Ephrem's MS., although on very scanty evidence.
This conclusion entirely upsets all previous theories, and at first
sight appears bewildering. There is, however, a simple explana-
tion. The Acts come to an abrupt end, and leave St. Paul in
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 91
Rome teaching with freedom in his hired house. As we are told
nothing about the trial, and its result, the most natural supposi-
tion is that the Acts were written before this by the faithful
eyewitness who shared his travels. Now, if the Acts were written
in Rome, it would be only natural that a Latin translation should
be issued for the use of those converts whose knowledge of Greek
was defective. If so, the arrangement of the Greek in o-Tt'xot,
with a line for line translation in Latin, would provide the best
means of providing for their needs. I do not suggest that the
Acts were originally published in this form. An original in Greek
only would obviously come first.
CHAPTER XII
I NOW proceed to deal with some more complicated differences
between D and the received text. In the light of the passages
previously considered the situation is changed, and now I venture
to treat the ordinary readings as abbreviations of the primitive
text.
ni. r I €K7r0p€V0fJi€V0V Sc TOV TTCTpOV Kttl KOaVOV
(rVV€^€TrOp(V€TO KpaTMV aVTOVi
Ev TY] (TToa 7] Ka\ovfji.€vr] (To\ofiwvo<; €K6afl/3oL
2.^ has exeun
tibus autem petro et iohanne simul et ipse prodiebat
tenens eos et concurrit omnis populus ad eos in porti
cu quae uocatur solomonis stupentes
The other MSS. give
KpaTOvvTOS oe avrov rov Tiirpov koI 'Iwawr^v avveSpafxe Trpos avroxx;
TTttS o Xaos €7rt TTj o-Toa rfj KaXovfil^nrj ^oXofj.wvTO^ eKOap^oi.
Here the omission of 1. i seems to have" resulted in recasting of
the text.
X. 25 TTpoareyyL^ovTO^ Se tov Trerpov
CIS Tr}v Kaiaapiav
Trpoopap-oiv ti? twv SonXwv
oiecra(^r;crev Trapayeyovevai avrov
5 o 8c KOpvrjXios €K7ry]Sr](ra<;
/cat (TVvavTr](Ta<i avrw
So It&ig 5 hlmg.
ws 0€ cyeVcTO tov elacXOelv tov Hirpov, (rvvavr^(ra<; avrw 6 Kopj-^Xto?
Here 11. 2-4 are omitted, probably also 1. r dropped out, and
a substitute inserted from the context.
Rendel Harris (p. 63) remarks that ' the account is as life-like
as anything we could wish, and agrees with the statement that
Cornelius had sent fwo slaves '. The ordinary reading seems very
bald.
XI. 2 o /x€v ovv 7r€Tpo<; 8ia iKavov )(povov
r]6eXr]craL TropevOrjvaL eis tepoa-oXv/ia
KaL TrpO(T(jn)ivrj(Ta<; T0115 aScXt^ovs
/cat (TTKTTrjpL^a^ avrov? ttoXvv Aoyoi'
PRIMITIVE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 93
5 7roioi)/i,€i'os Sta tow ^ojpwi'
St8a(TK(j)v auTODS os Kat Karrji'Tqanv avTOts
Kai airriyyiXev arrots rrjv X^-P'-^ "^^^ ^^
01 Se c/c 7repiT0/xr]<; aSeX^ot Su/cptvovro
7rp05 avTOj/ XeyovTcs
SoEP^Shl.
The ordinary reading is :
OTC Se avifiy] XTeVpos ct? 'Iepoo-oXv/>ia, ZuKpivovTO 7rpo<; avTov oi eK
TrepiTOfJLrj'i, XeyovTe?.
Here there seems to have been a double omission. In the first
place the writer has passed from 1. i HeVpos to ek, which is just
underneath, and subsequently to have omitted 11. 3-7.
25 a/covcas Se otl cravXos «ttlv €is Oapcrov
€^\6iV avat,'r]T(iiV avrov
KaL ws (rvvTV)(wv TrapeKaXecrcv
eXOcLV ct? avTLO)(eLav
So iLgigP S hl.ms.
The ordinary reading is :
iirjXOe Se eis Tapcroi/ dva^ijT^crat 2av\ov, kol evpujv ^yayev £i?
'AvTLoxd-av.
This looks like a deliberate attempt at compression.
27 KaT)]XOov aTTo LepocroXvfKtiv
■7rpo(fii]TaL €6S ai'Tto;^€iav
T/v Sc TToXXr] ayaXAtacrts
(Tvve(TTpajXjX£VMV oe 'qjjLOiv
5 €</)?; CIS €^ auTwv ovofJ.aTL aya^os
So 3Lp'«^ August.
The ordinary reading is :
KaTTJXOov OLTTO 'UpocroXvfj.o)V 7rpo<f)TiTaL ets 'AvTio'xetai'. dmoTTas 8e
CIS €^ avTix)V, ovojxaTL "Aya^os.
Here the omission of 11. 3-4 seems to have led to the insertion
of dvacrras 8e m 1. 5-
xiv. 2 01 8e ap^to-waywyot rwv lovoaiwv
KUL ot ap;>(ovT€S T7?s (Tuvaywyijs
CTrr/yayov avrots Siwy/xov Kara twv OtKaiwv
Kat CKaKwo-av ras i/aj^as Tcov c^vwv
Kara Ttov aScXc^cov
So S hl.mg.
The ordinary reading is :
ot 8e (l7r£te7;o-avTcs 'loDSaTot eTryyeipav (+ Stwy/xov ^Egig^) Kat
eKaKwcrav ras i/'uxas twv e^i/wv Kara twv ddeXc^oJi/.
94 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
Here there is nothing to correspond to 1. 2, probably 1. i was also
omitted and replaced by 01 8e airuOrjaavT^s 'loi'Satot (cf. xvii. 5).
XV. 2 y€VOix€vq<i 8c eKTacrews
Kai ^r]Tr)cre<ji)<; ovk oXiyT^s
Tco TravXw Kat fSapvafta (Tw avTOis
cXeya' yap o TrauAos fieveiv ovtcos
5 /ca^w? eTTLo-Tevcrav 8u(r)(vpi.^ofxevo<;
ot Se €\7]XvOoTe<; airo tepovcraXyjp.
TraprjyyeiXav avTOLS tw TravXw Kai f3apva/3a
Kai Tio-u' aAAots ava^aiviLV
So 3L hl.^S. The words cAeyev yap . . . iiriaTevcrav also have the
support of ILsis w
The ordinary reading is :
y€VOfxivrj<; 8e o-Tao-ecos Kai ^7}Trj(r€(i}<; ovk oAtyT/s tw Ilav'Aa) Kai tw
BapvaySa Trpos avToi^s Ira^av dva^Satvetv IlavAov Kai Bapi'a/3av
/cat Ttvas aAAoi;?.
Here the source of the omission is clear, viz. that the copyist
passed from tw IlavAw Kai Bapvdfta in 1. 3 to the same words in
1. 7, omitting the intervening words. In order to give a sense
€Taiav was introduced. This is a very instructive case.
5 01 8e TrapayyeiAavTcs avTOis -'
avaySaiveiv Trpos tovs Trpecr/SvTepov^
c^avecTTrjaav AeyovTcs Tives
ttTTO TJ^S €p£0-£WS TOJJ' 0apl(jatWV
TreTTio-TcvKOTes OTt Set TreptTe/ii'eir auTons
Here Z> seems to be unsupported.
The ordinary reading is :
iiavicTTrjcrav 84 tivc? airo ttJs atpe'crew? twv $apicraiwv TrcTriCTTCVKOTe?,
AtyOJ/TCS OTl Aci TTCpiTe/AVCtV aVTOt'?.
The reading of Z> presents some difificulty, since Xiyovres goes
better before 6tl Aet. Also, something seems lost, e. g. Kai aAAoi
before Ttves The arrangement of the o-tlxol is not perfect, since
TreTTto-TeuKOTcs should go with the preceding line. The first two
crrcxot. have been omitted in the other copies.
XVI. 10 bieyep^cts ovv SirjyrjcraTO to opa/xa rj/xcv
Kai evorja-afiev oti TrpoaKeKXrjrat T^p-as o k?
evayycAicracr^at tovs ev tt] /^aKcSovia
TY] 8e CTravpiov ap(^€VTes aTro TpwaSos
Here Steycp^ets . . . evov/o-ap-ev is supported by fiH^, and t^ Sc iiravpLov
dvaxO€VT€<; by S hl.mg.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 95
The ordinary reading is :
0)5 Se TO opafxa etSei', evOeo)^ lt,i]Trj(Tafj.(.v i^eXOelv els Ti]v MaKiSoviav,
avfj.ftil3d^0VT€<; OTL Trpo(7K€KXr]Tat -tjfxas 6 0€os euayyeAt'o-acr^at
avTOv<s. dva^^^cVres ovv oltto t^s TpwaSos.
This is a very puzzling case.
38-40 awrj-yyetXav Se auTOts ot aTpaTr]yot<;
OL papZov)(OL Ttt p-qp-ara ravTa
Ttt pr]$evTa Trpos tov? (TTpaTqyov<;
OL Se ttKODcravTCS on pcofiatoi etcrtv
5 i<jio/Sr]6y]crav Kai 7rapayei'o//.evot
yuera <^l\wv ttoWmv ets tt/v (^vXaKiqv
Trap€KaXe(rav ai'xovs c^eXOuv etTrovres
r]yvor](rap.€v ra naO u/Aas
oTt ecrrat avSpes Stxaioi
10 Kai e^ayayovTCS
TrapcKaXecrav avTous XeyovTcs
CK T7;S TToXewS TaVTTjS i^iXOaTe.
p-rjTTOTe iraXiv avva-TpacfxDcriv ■)]p.iv
eTTiKpa^ovra Kad vpnov
15 eieXOovres 8e ck Tr;s (f>vXaKr]<;
yjXOov Trpos TTyv XuStav
Kai iSovres tov5 aSeXcjiOV^
^LrjyijcravTo ocra eTrotT^crev ks aurois
Tra/aaKaAccravTCS auTOUs xai e^XOav
Rendel Harris (p. 27) quotes from Ephrem :
'So then that this favour might be unto them, they came and
besought of them, saying, we knew not that ye were just men,
even as the earthquake indeed presaged of you. So then we ask
of you this favour, depart from this city, lest the same men gather
together after the earthquake against you who before the earth-
quake were gathered together.'
Lines 8-14 are supported by S hi. There is also some Latin
authority for them and for 11. 17-19 rovs d8€X</)ous . . . avroi's.
The ordinary reading is :
aTTT/yyciXav Se rots crTpaTT^yois ol pafiSovxot to. pyj/xara ravra'
i(f)oj3-q6'q<Tav 8e dKovcravTcs oTi 'Pw/xaiot dai- kol eXOovre^
TrapcKaXecrav avTOV's, /cat e^ayayovTCS rjpwrwv direXOilv dno -nj^
TToXcws. i$eX06vT€<i 8e e*c t^9 (fivXaKrj<; €l(Tr]XOov Trpos Trjv
AuStav" KOL tSovres TrapcKaXeo-ai/ tov<s 0L8eX(f)ov<i kol l^XOov.
Here we have to notice a series of omissions. Lines 3 and 6
have disappeared. The writer then appears to have passed from
96 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
TrapcKaXecrav avTov<; in 1. 7 to the Same words in 1. 1 1, but to have
partially rectified his error by inserting 1. 10. Lines 13 and 14 are
omitted : also 1. 18, the last omission causing some slight alteration
in the wording. There seems to be a combination of accidental
omission and condensation.
XVili. 27 €V 8e TT] £<^€Crw tTTtST^/XOWTCS
Tiv€s KopivBioL /cat a/<ov(ravTes avTOV
irapi.KaX.ovv SaXOetv cvv avTOLS
€ts Tr]v TrarpiSa avrcov
5 (TVVKaTavevcravTOS Se avTOV *
OL £</)€criot eypaif/av rots ev KopLvOu) fxaOrjrais
OTTWS aTTo8e^(j)VTai tov avSpa
OS €7rLSr]fxr](Ta<; eis ttjv a;!(aiav
voXvv arvve/SaWeTO ev rats CKKAT/crtats
So ^ hl."is, with some Latin support.
The ordinary reading is :
fSovXofxevov 8e avTOv SteA^eiv ets t^v 'A^^aiav TrpoTpf.^dp.ivoi 01 dScA-
^ot typa\pav rots //.a^y^rats diroSe^aaOaL avTov' os irapayivo-
fj.evo's (Tvvi/SdXiTO TToXv Tots TreTTicTTei^Kocrt 8ia t^s ^ctpiros.
This is a difficult case. It looks as if 11. 1-4 had been omitted
and replaced by a summary drawn from the context. On the
other hand I should be disposed to look on rots TreTrto-reuKoo-i 8ia
T^s x^P'Tos as a o-Tt^os which has been omitted by Z>.
xix. I OeXovTos 8c TOV TrauAou
Kara rrjv t8tav ^ovXrjv
TTopiVicrdaL €is LepocroXvfxa
ciTTCv auTw TO TTi'tt VTTOCTTpe^etv €ts Tr/i' ao"tai/
5 8t€X^o)v 8e Ttt avo)T€pLKa jJf-^pi]
ep)^€TaL €ts ecfiecrov
So S hl.ois, with some Latin support.
The ordinary reading is :
iyevero 8e iv tw tov 'AttoAAw etvat iv KopiV^o) IlaCXoi/ 8i€A.^ovTa Tot
avwrepiKo. fJi€pr] iXOeiv cts E^eo"ov.
Probably 11. 1-4 were omitted and replaced by a supplement
drawn from the context.
Rendel Harris (p. 48) quotes from Ephrem ' Paul wished of his
own will to go to Jerusalem, but the Spirit sent him back to Asia
... he went round the upper region and came down to Ephesus '.
14 cv ots Kttt VLOL (TKiva TLvos ic/aews
rjdeXtjcrav to avTO TroLrjcrai
e6o^ eL)(aV TOUS TOtOVTOt'S €$OpKL^€LV
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 97
Kttt €L<TeXOovT€<; irpo'; tov Saifjiovi^o/xevov
5 T]piavTO eTTiKaXeio-^at to ovofxa AeyovTcs
TrapayyeXXo/xev aoL ev Uijv
ov TravAos e^eXOeiv Krjpva-crei
The words i^eXOelv Krjpvcra-iL in 1. 7 are in the wrong order. The
Latin is ^uem paulus praedicat exire. The error is rectified by
a corrector.
B is here supported by S hl.mg.
The ordinary reading is :
rja-av oe Ttvos S^eva 'louSaiou dp^^icpcws eTrro. utot tovto ttoiovvtc?.
Ramsay says 'Z> here gives a text which is intelligent, con-
sistent, and possible : the accepted text is badly expressed, and
even self-contradictory ' (p. 153). He refers to the fact that in v. 16
the sons of Sceva are said to be two in number (KaraKv/Dievo-as
d/A<^oTe/30)v), not seven. Also, it is difficult to see the meaning of
apxiepew? here. The context rather implies that Sceva was a
heathen who copied the Jewish exorcists mentioned in v. 13.
Apparently 11. 3-7 have been omitted, and 11. 1-2 remodelled.
The corruption iirTo. vloi is very odd. I can only suggest that
^ (= iTrrd) is due to misunderstanding of ^= ^>?Tei), a well-known
critical mark,'
The whole passage is a striking example of Z>'s superiority to
the other MSS.
I have hitherto abstained from mentioning two famous readings
of Z>, viz. xii. 10 KaL e$eX6ovT€^ Kare/Brjcrav tov; .^. (SaOixov:
Kai TTpoayjXOav pvfjLrjv fXLav
Kat. ev^ews aireaTrj a ayyeXos air avTOV
KaL O TTiTpO'i €V CaVTOi yCVO/A€VOS CtTTCV
Here 3Lp has the equivalent for KaTe/Srja-av tov? )8a^/Aovs Kat : other
MSS. omit the passage. It is impossible to suppose that an
interpolator invented such a striking detail as the descent of the
seven steps. One can imagine St. Peter counting them as he
walked.
The omission here is not quite similar to those which I have
previously considered, since it is not an entire line which has been
dropped, as would have been the case if irpoa^XOov had also been
omitted. Probably the writer was puzzled by the occurrence of
Acat at the beginning of four o-tlxol.
This IS found in the forms C^ and C,r} in the papyrus of Sophocles, Ichneutae,
Ox. 1 1 74 (cent, ii), and ^rj is used for Cv^Vr^ov five times in Tebtiinis, ii. 343
(cent. ii). I owe these references to Dr. Hunt.
1655
•98 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
xix. 9 TO Ka6r]fxepav StaAeyo/zevos ev tt] (t^oXt;
Tvpavviov Ttvos ttTTO ojpas .c. €C09 ScKarr;?
The words rtvos . . . Sekcitt/s are supported by iLs^s S hl.n^s, and
some minuscules : the other MSS. omit them. The statement that
St. Paul taught from the first to the fifth hour is so vivid and minute
that in Ramsay's opinion ' it can only be deliberate impertinence
(which is improbable) or founded upon actual tradition' (p. 152).
I have no explanation to offer for the omission.
To these I may add xix. 28 :
TavTa o€ aKovaavTe<i
KUL yevofjievoi 7rXr]p€i<; Ovfjiov
8pafxovTe<; ets to a/x<^o8ov CKpa^ov XeyovTCS
/xeyaXr) apr^fjn^ ecfyea-Lwv
So S hl.m^ : o?n. Spa/xo'vT€9 ei? to a.p.(^oZov cett. Ramsay remarks :
' The addition increases the individuality and the local colour, and
possibly an actual tradition surviving in Ephesus fixed the house
or the public sioa where the preliminary meeting was held, and the
street along which the artisans ran invoking the goddess '(p. 153).
Ramsay, who has done so much to point out the value of D in
the Acts, holds that these striking readings came from a very well
informed glossator. Rendel Harris (P.-65) remarks that ' if the
glossator be a separate person from the author, he must have had
the soul of a harmonist, but he must also have been gifted with some
of the trained instincts of a modern critic '. Lake very properly
expresses doubt ' whether such good work is really that of a
glossator '. The supposed glossator appears to me no other than
St. Luke himself, whose words have been preserved by D.
I have not included in this discussion some important passages
for which we have not now the evidence of D. These are :
viu. 37 etTre Se 6 ^iXittttos, Ei Trto-Tcvets e^ 0X775 ttjs KapSi'as,
cfeoTtv. aTTOK'pi^eis 8e eiTre, IIto-Teua> tov vv tov 6v ctvai tov Iv
x^ (94).
So EShl. Arm, Iren. and some Greek MSS. including E.
ix. 5 (tkXtjpov croi Trpos Kevrpa XaKTi^eiv. Tpefxwy re kol Oa/J-I^wv
ciTrev, Ke, tl p,e ^eXcts 7rot^o"at; kol 6 ks Trpos avTov (85).
SoILShl.mgLucif. Amb.
The words a-KXrjpov . . . XaKTL^etv are inserted after ti p,e Siwkci? ,•
instead of after ov crv StwKeis, by £.
xxiii. 24 e(f>o^rj6rjyap fxr]7roTeapTrd(ravT€<; avTov ol lovBaioi aTTOKTevu)-
rriv Koi avTOS p-eraiv eyKXrj/Jia e)(rj ws apyvptov ctXiy^ws (93)'
So 3L S hi.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 99
xxiv. 6 KOL Kara tov rjixirepov vofjLOV rjOeXijcrafxev Kpivai. TrapeX6oiV
Se Af crt'as 6 ^iXiap^os //tera 7roAA^9 /St'as ck twv \eipu)v rjixwv
ainqyaye, /ceAcvcras Toi>s KaTrjyopov; avTov tp^^ecrOai iirt crc (141).
So ILPg S hi. Eth. and £.
xxviii. 166 €KaTOVTap;^os TrapeSwKC Tors Se(r/Atoi;s tw a-TparoTTiSdpxu)
(49).
So 3L S hi. Eth.
29 Kal ravTa avTov cittovtos (xtt^A^ov ot 'lovSaiot, iroAAr^v e;!(Ovr€s ev
eavTots (Tv^yrrjaiv (69).
So ES hi. and most Greek MSS. : om. "i^B A, alii.
It is highly probable that D here agreed with its allies.
The last of these passages differs from the others, since it has
the support of most Greek authorities. The omission may be
characteristic of a particular group.^
I have numbered the letters, in order to bring out the fact that
viii. 37 and xxiii. 24 are of equal length. This may be due to
chance, or may show that the omission represents lines of an
intermediate MS., not written in o-Ttxot. The coincidence is
certainly striking.
I now proceed to consider the relation of D to the archetype.
If we assume, as seems to me probable, that this was written
about A. D. 62, it follows that some 440 years, or more, must have
elapsed before D was written. There is room for a number of
intermediate MSS. during this period. It is, therefore, likely that
a certain amount of change has taken place in the arrangement of
the (TTixoi, and that several more omissions in the ordinary text
would be explicable, if we had these in their primitive form.
Thus xviii. 19 D gives :
KaravTiycras 8e eis e^etrov
Kai TO) CTTiovTt (Ta^fSaToi €K€ivov<; KareXiTrev eKei
avTos Se eia-eXOwv cts t->;v crvvayu)y7]v
SteXcyeTo rots tonSatots-
The words rw cTriovrt cra/3j8aTu) (without Kal) are supported by
3Lti & hi. ©8 : om. cett.
There is no reason for saying that St. Paul left Aquila and
Priscilla on the Sabbath, but every reason for saying that he went
into the synagogue on that day. I suspect, therefore, that the
words {sine kul) should come after o-waywyTjv.
' Cf. XV. 2^\iyovTfs TTfpirinvecrOai Kal rrjpuv rov vofiov (38). These words,
omitted by D as well as by HB A, are found ia C £ and most Greek MSS.
Possibly this passage should be added to the list.
loo THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
On one occasion D has an obvious transposition, viz. :
V. 29 Tr^idap^i.iv Sc Bm fiaXXov rj av6pu)Troi<s
o 0£ Trerpos eiTrev Trpos avTovi
This is not shared by IL^.
On some occasions the reading of d shows that something has
been lost by D, e. g. :
XI. 26 iyevero 8e atTots Kal iviavTov oXov (rvva^OrjvaL iv rfj
€KKX.ri<TLa, Kol BiSd^ai 6)(\ov iKavov.
Here D d read as follows :
OITIV69 7rapayevofji€voL evLavTov oXov contigit uero eis annum totum
(rvv€xvOrj(Tav ox^ov LKavov commiscere ecclesiam
Here D has omitted iv rrj iKKXya-Lo. Kal SiSa^ai (the words are
supplied by a later hand), while d omits Kal SiSd^ai oxXov iKavov.
It is to be noticed that d appears to render eyeVcro Se avrols, the
ordinary reading.
XXI. 39 ev Tapcro) 8e rrj's KcAiKias ycyevvTy/Aevos
n
tarsesis ex ciliciae non ignotae ciuitatis
Here D has omitted ovk dcnfip-ov ttoXccos ttoAiVt^s after KtXtKias,
while d has no equivalent for yeycvv7;/A£vos. Neither renders
TToXiTiqs.
xvii. 5. Here the ordinary reading is
^T/AwcravTes h\ ol lovSaiot, Kat wpoa-Xa/So/JLivoL twv dyopai(DV rivas
avSpas Trovr]pov<i.
D d give
Ol 8e aTTci^ovvTes lovZaioi adsuptis uero iudaeis
(rvvaTpeij/avT€^ rtras avS/aas conuertentes quosdam uiros
Twv ayopaioiv Trovrjpovs forenses subdoles
Here d has no equivalent for aTreiOovvTa, while adsumptis looks
like a mistranslation of ■Kpoa-Xa^op.^voi.
There are some minor discrepancies. Thus d has no equivalent
for TTOi-^crai y] (iv. 14),' Tri'Xwvos (xii. 13), or hii(TxypiCpp.(.vo<i (xv. 2).
Also d sometimes mistranslates, e. g. :
xvui. 5 TTapcyevovTO 8e airo Tr]<s /lAaKcSona?
ut uero aduenerunt in macedonia
Both Z> and d have numerous slips, e. g. iv. 29 ayias (= (XTrciAas)
Z), minacias d, i. 15 non omnium d : ovo/xarcov Z>, iv. 33 testim d:
/xaprvpLov D, vi. 1 5 stans d: co-twtos -£> (stantis ^).
It is obvious that D (and ^) sometimes omit. I arrange these
^ So D : om. plerique.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS loi
omissions in order of magnitude, and asterisk those where 11^
supports the usual reading.
(lo) iv. 13 Koi ISiwrai om. D.
(14) i. 9 jSXcTTovTwv avTwv of/i. D August.
(21) xvii. 34 *Kat yvvT] ovo/xaTL ^dfiapi^ om. D.
At the beginning of the next o-rtxos D has (.vayriii-wv. As this
epithet is especially used of women, it seems to be a relic of the
missing Damaris. Ramsay (p. 161) thinks that there was an
intentional excision due to the 'Asiatic distaste for prominence
of women '.
IV. I *Kat 6 (rrparrfyo'S tov lepov om. D.
(22) ii. 31 TrpotSwv iXdXyjcrev -rrepl Trj<s om. D. The words are
inserted by a later hand.
XI. 26 Iv rrj iKKXrja-ia kol StSafat om. D, cf. supra.
xxi. 6 KoX dve/3iyyu,cv ets to ttAoiov om. D.
39 OVK dcrrifji.ov ttoXcws TroXtVr/s 0?n. D.
(23) xxi. 16 (TvvTjkQov 8e KOX Twv fj.a9rjTC)v om. D.
(24) xviii. 3 *^o-aj' yap CTKrjvoiroLol rfj T€^vr) om. Z^IL^'S.
This personal detail must be genuine.
{25) ii. 19 al/xa Kal irvp koX drfXiSa Kairvov QUI. Z> IL^i?^ P Priscill.
(35) ^^'ii- 18 oTt TOV u7 KoX rrjv dvaa-Taa-iv evrjyyeXLt,ero om. D ILS'S.
To these I should be inclined to add :
xvui. 27 Tots TreTTto-TevKoo-t Sia ry]<i •)(o.piro% om. D (29).
It will be observed that out of these 13 cases 9 are omissions
of 21-5 letters. This is a singular coincidence. It may be
accounted for by the fact that this is a very frequent length for
a o-Tt'xo? in D.
I proceed to say a few words concerning IL^. This is stated to
have been written in the fifth century. If so, it may be older than
D. It is written in long lines of about 38-40 letters to the line.
There are, I think, indications that it is derived from an ancestor
written in o-Ttxot similar to those of D. I quote the following
passages as given in D :
ni. 13 Kara Trpoo-WTrov TreiXarov
Tou KpetvavTos ckclvov
airoXveiv avTov ^eAovTOS
Here A has
ante faciem pilati illo uolente eum dimittere, om. tov /cptVavTo?
CK€tVoV.
IV. 10— II £v TovTw oin^os Trap€crTr]K€v
cvwTTtov vp.<jiv vyirj^
I02 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
ovTOS tCTTiv o X^^os o e$ovO€vr]6€L<; v(f> rjfj.o)v
TOOV OLKoSofXWV
5 o y6vo/x.cvo9 €i9 Kecf)a\r}v ywvias
Kat ou/c ecTTiv ev aAAw ovSevi
Z) here appears to have omitted rj o-oiT-qpia after ovSevt. The
reading of y^ is :
in illo iste conspectu uestro sanus ad
Stat in alio autem nullo. hie est lapis qui contem
tus est a uobis quia aedificatis qui factus est in caput
anguli
transposing kclL ovk ta-Tiv iv aAAw ovScvi from ywi/tas (at the end of
1. 5) to vytT^s (at the end of 1. 2). The transposition is shared by
£ & hl.ms and Cyprian
ib. 13-14 (.TreydvoiCTKOv Sc arrous on crvv Tin irjv rjaav
Tov avOpiDTTOV ySAeTTOvres
crvv avTO}v ecrrtoTa tov reOepaTrevfJievov
ovSev €i^ov TTOLTjcraL 7] avTLireiv
Here A omits 1. i suo loco and after cotitradicere ( = avTurcCiv) has
quidam autem ex ipsis agnosce
bant eis quoniam cum ihu conuersabantur
I have already noted important agreements of h with Z>, viz. :
V. 38 et non maculetis manus uestras
39 neque uos neque
principes ac tyranni abstinete itaquae uos ab is-
-tis hominibus
vi. 8 in nomine ihu xpi (so xviii. 8)
10 et quod reuincentur
ab eo cum omni fiducia tunc itaque non ualen
tes resistere aduersus ueritatem
15 stantis inter illos
viii. I qui remanserant hierosylymis
xiv. 7 ut motum est omne genus in doctrina eorum
paulus autem et barnabas commorabantur in lystris
9 et habens timorem
10 tibi dico in nomine ihu nostri diii fili di
xviii. 2 qui uenerunt in achaiam
4 interponens nomen domini
6 cum multis fieret uerbum et scripturae interpretarentur
So also
iii. 3 hie contemplatus oculis su
is cum uidisset petrum et iohannem
iv. 18 consentientibus autem ad sententiam denuntiauerunt
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 103
xiv. 19 et cum ibi commorarentur et doce
rent superuenerunt quidam iudaei ab iconia et antio
chia
xviii. 1 2 exurreserunt con
sentientes iubaei et conlocuti secum de paulo inie
cerunt ei manus
On the other hand, h has passages omitted by Z>, viz. :
iv. 2 et praetor tempH
13 et idiotae
xvii. 34 et mulier nomine damalis
xviii. 3 erant enim arteiicio lectari
On one occasion, where D is deficient, h has a reading which
seems to be genuine, viz. :
ix. 20 cum omni fiducia, so Irenaeus : om. cett.
More doubtful cases are
xiv. 18 oXkh. TTopevecrOai eKacTTov eh to. iSia, C and some mmus-
cules, S hl.rag Arm.
Here h has et dimiserunt eos ab (i. e. ad) se.
ib. 19 Koi TTCtcravTes tous o;(Aov9.
We find in /^ a fuller version, viz. :
qui palam disputabant uerbum S"i persuadebant
illis hominibus ne crederent eis docentibus dicentes
quia nihil ueri dicunt sed in omnibus mentiuntur
et concitaberunt turbam
20 KVK\wcrdvTo)v Se avTov Twv fjLaOrjTwv] tunc circumdederunt
eum dicentes (= discentes) et | cum discessisset populus
vespere.
In xiv. 6 after Karicfivyov el<s ra? 7roAet9 Trj<; AuKaovtas ^ adds SlCUt
ihs dixerat eis LX [XH ?]. The reference is to the directions given
to the 72 in Luke x. 1 1. This appears to be a gloss which would be
more appropriate, if it came at xiii. 5 1 iKTLva^dixevot tov Kovioprov
TWV TToSwv eV avrov<;. It may have been entered on the wrong
folio of an ancestor.^
I have noticed the following omissions, where Z> is extant :
Vi. 5 Kttl T7J SlttKOVta (13)
xviii. 5 o-i»vct)(€TO Tw Xoyw IlavXos, Sta/xaprupovjaevos TOis lovoaiois
cTvai TOV ^ Kp Zv (64)
Also, where we have not the evidence of D :
xxvi. 26 ov TretOofJiaL (lo)
xxvii. 7 Kara '^a\[J.(i)vr]v {l 2)
^ Cf. pp. 10, 68.
104 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
xxvi. 26 KOL Trappr](TLa^6fJia/o^ (^^)
2 2 d)(pL T7J<; r]fxepa<; TavTr]<i (19)
26 ov yap icTTLV iv ymvia. ir^irpayfxivov rovro (33)
xxvii. I ws 8e iKpi6r] Tov aTroTrAetv T7/xas ci9 tt/v IraAtav (38)
2 /AcAAovTi TrXctv ct? Toi)s Kara t^v 'Ao-tW tottovs (38)
ix. 12 Ktti etSev avSpa 'Avavtav ovo/xart ctcreA^ovra, Kat iiriOevTa
auTw TttS ;(erpas, OTrws ava/SXeif/rj (73)
The only point which I would notice is that the number 38
occurs twice, and that 19 (18) also occurs.
There is a curious passage where the text of A has been ab-
breviated, whether by accident or otherwise, viz. :
XXVU. II — 13 6 8e e/carovra/DT^os tw Kv^epvryrrj koX tw vavKXrjpw
fiaWov eTretOeTO rj tois vtto tov HavXov Aeyo/xevot?. av€V$€TOV
Se ToO At/xeVos v7rdp)(0VT0? Trpo? '7rapa)(€ifjiacrLav ol TrAetovs
W^VTO (SovXrjv ava)(^OrjvaL iKeWev, eiTro)? Svvatvro KaravTrycravTcs
eis $oivi/ca Trapa^(.i^a(Tai, Xi/xeva t^s Kpiyrr^s /SXeirovra Kara
Xt{3a KOI Kara ^wpov. VTroirvevcravTos Se votov, Sd^avTCS T^S
Trpo^eVcws K€KpaTr]Kivai, a/aavres aucrov iraptXiyovTO.
For this >^ gives
gubernator autem
et magister navis cogitabant nauigare si forte possent
uenire phoenicem in portum qui est cretae consen
tiebant illis magis centurio quam pauli uerbis et
dum flat auster tulimus celerius et sublegebamus
The equivalent in Greek would be :
o 8e Kvf3€pvr]Trj<: kol 6 vavKXr]po<s eOevTO /SovXrjv d.va)(6r]vai eKeldev ei-
TTWS SvvaivTO IXOetv tts ^oiviKa, Xifxiva Trj<; Kpi^ri^?. 6 Se. eKarov-
Tapp(OS fxaXXov CTret^cro auTOis rj rots VTrb tov IlavAov Xf.yop.i-
vois. viroTTVf.va'avTO'i 8c votov apavres acrtrov TrapiXcyofjuOa.
Here there is no equivalent for avevOeTov Sk . . . ol TrAeious (57),
/JAcVovTa . . . •)(p)pov (28), 8o^avT€S ttj'? . . . K^KpaTrjKdvai (32).
There is also a dislocation of the words p.aXXov lireideTo . . .
Acyo/AcVois (41) with some consequential changes. The process is
curiously like that which has already been observed in the develop-
ment of the ordinary Greek recension.
As I have mentioned that some omissions of h coincide with
(TTixoi in D, I add the following examples of a similar phenomenon
in the case of i>^ :
li. 21 Kttt ccrrat Tras os olv CTrtKaAecrT^Tat to ovop.a tov kv
a-(iiOr](T€TaL
om. i^.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 105
xiv. 20 Kai TTjv CTravpLov e^rjXOev
crvv To> jSapvaf^a cis 8ep(3r]v
fvayyeXiloixevoi 8e tous ev tt] ttoXci
om. i^.
I add the following corruption.
xix. 22 ciTTwv oTt /AETtt TO ycvctT^at /Lie cKet
Oei /Atti Kttt po)fjLr]v ctSeiv
Kttt ttTTOO-TciXas €1? iT^v /xaKcSoi/tav
SuO TWV SiaKOVOWTWV aUTO)
TifJioOeov KUL epacTTOV
i^ has ciTT TifxoOeov. The writer appears to have looked back
four arTi)(OL.
I66S
CHAPTER XIII
In the preceding discussion I have confined myself strictly to
the special investigation which I have had in view. Thus I have
said nothing about the Vulgate. It must not, therefore, be thought
that I undervalue the great work of Jerome. On the contrary,
one of the chief results of my inquiry has been to show me the
immense importance of the Latin evidence. Since, however, the
Vulgate represents the recension of a critic, founded upon the Old
Latin versions, but corrected from Greek MSS., it does not help
us to unravel the tangled skein. For this purpose the primitive
and illiterate versions of the earlier translators are more valuable.
I have made no attempt to acquaint myself with the Higher
Criticism of the Gospels. Such studies belong to other inquiries,
and are, in a sense, posterior to the facts which I have endeavoured
to collect,
I have said little about interpolation, since this is not the subject
with which I am concerned. I do not doubt that there are some
interpolations where doctrinal points are concerned. Such variants
as those in Matt. i. i6 :
w [xvijCTTivOeLcra irapOivo'; Ma/ata/i, iyevvrjcrev 'Ir)(Tovv tov Aeyo/tcvov
XpLOTTov IL <S Arm.
TOV avSpa Maptas, €$ ^s iyew^Or) 'lr]crov<; 6 Xeyo/Acvo? Xptoro? ceff.
must be due to set purpose. So also the different versions of the
genealogy in Luke iii admit of no other explanation.
In the great majority of cases, however, there is no possible
reason for interpolation, and the hypothesis of omission is very
much more simple. If this is so, the shorter reading can no
longer claim preference on account of its brevity. I would illustrate
by a very few examples :
John vii. 46 ovSeVoTC owrws a.vOpoiiro'i IkaXrja-iv, u)S ovto? AaAct 6
avpptuTros.
Here B has the abbreviated reading ovhi-n-on iXdXija-ev outw?
avOpoyiro's, SO recent editors.^ To my ears the fuller reading seems
much more emphatic. The omission is easily explained by the
repetition.
^ If i5's ancestor had inverted the first words, giving ovSiirore (Kakrjixeif ovrais
avOpwTTos, the rest would be easily omitted (^hom.).
PRIMITIVE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 107
John lii. 1 5 Tva ttSs 6 Triarevwy iv avrt^ fjcrj a.7r6\r]Tai, aXX e)(r] t,wrjy
alwvLOv,
Here b? B omit /xr] aTroXrjraL dAA.' (13), which may well have formed
a line in an ancestor, ^^'ithout the antithesis the sense is very tame.
Mark ix. 38 elSofxev rwa iv tw dvofxarc crov iK/SaXXovra 8at/i,dvta, bs ovk
aKoXovOel rjfJiLV, kol iKoiXvofXiv avTov, on ovk aKoXovuei rjfjLiv.
Here B ^ omit os ovk aKoXovOei rjfjuv after Sai/^ovta, Nothing could
be simpler than the hypothesis of omission from homoeoteleuton,
and to me the fuller form seems thoroughly in keeping with the
style of the New Testament.
It has already been pointed out by others ' how much more
preferable on literary grounds the two synonyms atvowrc? Koi
€vXoyovvT€<; are to the simple ivXoyovvre^ (^^) iri Luke xxiv. 43.
It is a mistake to make the Evangelist, to quote the French
phrase, fres avare de ses paroles.
For such reason I am very sceptical as to many of Hort's
' conflate readings '. I venture upon one suggestion which may
be considered bold.
Luke vi. 48 koX ovk iar)(yo-€ aaXevo-ai avnrjv.
Here most MSS., including A CD, add :
TeOefxeXLioTO yap iirl t^v Trcrpav (26)
For this B i^, and some others, give :
81a, TO KaXws OLKoSofxrjaOaL avrryv (27)
The second reading is so weak, as compared with the first, that
it is unfair to St. Luke to suppose that it can have been the
original, if it stands by itself. If, however, it is combined with
the variant, as apparently in the Ethiopian, the sense is admirable,
viz. :
' because it was well built. For it was founded upon a rock '.
In support of this it may be noticed that one variant contains
26 letters and the other 27. Neither appears in S^, a fact which
may show that there was some confusion.
I am aware that I am laying myself open to the imputation of
foisting all manner of interpolations upon Holy Writ. I would
reply by saying that those critics who are most sceptical in the
case of additions not found in ^S are most credulous when
dealing with additions of ^ 5^. I quote the following example :
Mark iii. 14 kol iTrotrja-e SwSc/ca, iva wctl fier avrov, koI tva airoa-TcXXy
avT0v<i Krjpvacreiv, Koi ex^^*' ^^ov(riav eK/3aAAetv to, Satuovta.
^ Salmon, p. 68.
io8 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
Here after Sai/xoi/ta B l^ add koX i-n-oLrjcre tov<s 8w8e/ca, so recent
editors. This appears to me a dittography of the most puerile
description. If I were dealing with a classical author, I should
say that it was a variant for kol cTroir/o-e SdiSeKa (without the article),
which had got into the text some lines further down.
There are some uncertainties here, viz. whether 8w8eKa or i^ was
written, also whether the words oSs koI dTroo-rdAovs civd/xao-ev, added
by ^ b5 after the first SwScKa, are genuine or not, so I do not attempt
to write the lines as they appeared in the ancestor of B t^.
In another case a similar variant appears to have infected most
MSS., including D.
John XIV. 13 KOL o Tt av alTyj(rr)T€ iv tw SvofxaTL fxov, tovto ttoit^ctw
iva oo$acr6rj 6 Trarrjp iv Tui vlw. idv Ti avnqcrrp'e fxe iv Tto ovofxaTi
fXOV, TOVTO TTOlTJarU).
Here A 3L^ &^ Arm. omit idv tl alTrja-rjTe fie . . . Trot-^cru). It seems
to be a duplex lectio for koX 6 n av aiTiyoTjrc . . . ttoii^o-w.
To this should probably be added :
John Ul. 31 6 dviiiOev ip)^6fji€vos iiravw TrdvTUJV i<TTLV 6 wv eK ttJs
•y^s eK r^s yrj<; icrTi, kol ck t^s y^s XoAct* o £/c tov ovpavov
ip)(oiJL€Vos b iiopaKC kul r]Kovo-€, tovto fxaprvpu.
After the second ep;)(d/xevos A B and other authorities add cVavw
iravTwv co-TtV, while Z> b^ IL S Arm. omit these words. Their insertion
is easily explained by the repetition of cpxd/Acvos.
I abstain from giving further instances, since textual criticism
in the usual sense lies outside the limits of this inquiry, and
merely give one example where B ^^ with some other MSS.
appear to be free from a singular corruption. This is in Luke
vi. I :
iyivero h\ iv aa^fidTW 8iaTrop€vea0aL avTov Sia twv (nropifjunv.
Here A C D and most MSS. add SevTepoTrpwTw. No one has
succeeded in explaining what is meant by the ' second sabbath
after the first '. I would here refer to a passage in the Acts xiii. 33
iv Tw ipaXfii^ Tw SeuTtpo) yiypaiTTai.
Here D E^ig, with a large number of the Fathers, give -n-puiTw for
^evTepo).
It appears to me that SevrepoTrpwTw is due to conflation of
similar variants.
It now remains to consider the genesis of B t^.
With regard to t^ we have one certain fact to go upon. This
is a note at the end of Esther, written by a later hand, saying that
the MS. had been collated with a very early copy corrected by the
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 109
hand of Pamphilus. Kenyon says, ' Pamphilus was the disciple of
Origen, co-editor with Eusebius of a text of the Septuagint em-
bodying the results of Origen's labours, and founder of a library
at Caesarea which was the centre of textual study of the Scriptures,
initiated and inspired by Origen, Copies of Origen's works were
the special objects of Pamphilus's zeal as a librarian (cf. Jerome,
Ep. cxli)'. This proves nothing as to the place where t^ was
written, and both Lake and Kenyon think that it originally came
from Egypt. Origen was connected both with Egypt and with
Caesarea, the former having been the scene of his earlier labours
and the latter the place where he passed his later life.
The evidence about B is less conclusive. Rendel Harris thinks
that it was written at Caesarea, and finds internal evidence of this
in the fact that the scribe on one occasion substitutes 'AvTiTrarpt?,
a town near Caesarea, for irarpk} A connexion with Caesarea at
a later date is inferred from the fact that a slightly later hand has
inserted in B (so also in t^) a chapter division of the Acts made by
Euthalius in the fourth century. ' There is evidence,' Kenyon says,
referring to a colophon in another MS., ' that a very early copy (if
not the archetype) of the Euthalian Acts was at Caesarea, whence its
system of chapter-division may have been inserted into B and t-^ '.
Also the text of B in the Old Testament is said to be in the main
identical with that of Origen's Hexapla, which was completed at
Caesarea and issued by Eusebius and Pamphilus. On the other
hand there are features in B, e. g. the use of letters Coptic in
character in the titles of some books, which suggest connexion
with Egypt. Kenyon sums up the facts by saying, ' There is fair
evidence of a connexion with the textual school of Caesarea, which
does not exclude an actual origin in Egypt from which the school
of Caesarea took its rise.'
It is here important to remember that Origen of Alexandria and
Eusebius of Caesarea are the first Fathers whose quotations support
the B ^ text. Lake suggests that ' the use of the Neutral text in
Alexandria began at some time between Clement and Origen '.
It will be seen that there is very fair evidence for ascribing the
same provenance, whether this be Caesarea or Egypt, to both the
MSS.* Also, both of them were written after a date when textual
1 Matt. xiii. 54.
» Tischendorf thought that the scribe of B also wrote some seven leaves 01
the N. T. in N, besides portions of the O. T. Lake, however, after a minute
examination of the writing emphatically denies this.
no THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF
criticism was applied to the New Testament. In view of their
general similarity it is quite likely that they represent a recension,
possibly that of Origen or one of his friends.
The methods of Origen in his edition of the Old Testament
were sharply criticized by Jerome, who accuses him of corrupting
the text by his asterisks and obeli. ^ The former sign was affixed
by him to passages which were in the Hebrew but omitted by the
Septuagint, and the latter to passages in the Septuagint which
were not found in the Hebrew. This use of asterisks and obeli
was invented at Alexandria by Homeric critics, who had to deal
with the authenticity of suspected passages. The early papyri
(iii/ii cent. b. c.) contain a number of these which have not found
a place in later MSS. Origen, therefore, borrowed his diacritical
marks from the old grammarians. They are to be found in a papyrus
of Ezekiel, to which I have already referred {Greek Papyri, vol. i,
no. 5), as also in later MSS.
We find asterisks and obeli used in MSS. on several occasions
where the reading is doubtful, e. g. Luke xxii. 43-4, John v. 4,
vii. 53-viii. II. The reason why early critics felt doubtful was the
very natural one, that the words were omitted by some of their
MSS. This is stated on various occasions. The references to
the end of St. Mark have been collected by Burgon.
Eusebius remarks on v. 8 i<fio(3ovvTo yap
iv TOVTU) yap (r)^€S6v iv airaoL tois avTiypd(f>ot^ tot) Kara MopKOV
evayyeXiov TrepiyeypaTTTai to TeA.o9* to. 8 i^rjs cnravt.o><; €v tktiv
aW ovK iv Tracri (f>€p6fx€va.
Victor says :
vapa TrAetWots dvTiypdff)OLS ov KeivTai, ws voOa yap kvofxia-av avra
Tivcs eivaf aX)C yjfxil^ i^ aKpifioiv dvTiypacfuav u)S cv TrAeicrTois
evpovre^ avrd . . . avvTeOuna^^v.
In cod. I we find :
Iv TtxTL fiev ovv TU)V avTiypd(f)(ov Iojs wSc TrX.r]povTat 6 evayyeXtOTrj?
CO)? ov Ew(r€y8ios o na/A^tAov eKavovLcrev' iv ttoXXois oc kui
Tavra cj^iperai, 'Avacrras . . . a"qp.€LOiv.
So also on John vii. 53 :
TO 7re/3t T^s /xoip^aXtSos Ke<fidXaiov iv tw Kara Iwdwrjv evayycXto)
ws iv TrXet'ocrtv dvTLypd(f>oi<; jx-q Keifxevov p-r^Sk Trapa t<x>v aenDV
Traripoiv twv ipp.r]V€VcrdvTO>v fxvrj/jLOvevOiv, (fi-qpX 8r] loydwov
^ Migne, i. 752 ' Et miror quomodo septuaginta interpretum libros legas
non puros, ut ab eis editi sunt, sed ab Origene emendates, sive corruptos per
obelos et asteriscos '.
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS in
Tov i^ Ktti KvpiWov AAc^avSpeas oiSk firjv vtto 0eo8w/Dou
Mwi/'ouecTTtas koI twv AoiTrwv, TrapcActi/^a Kara tov tottov Kctrai
8e ouTOJS /ACT oAi'ya t^9 ap^T^s tov tt^" KefftaXaiov i$rj<: tov
Epevvrjaov KaL the otl Trpo(jirjTrj<i ck Trj'S FaAtAaias ovk
cyctjOCTat.
The Fathers of the third century were obsessed by the fear of
interpolation. They knew Httle about omission from bjxoioTq^, and
still less about the omission of lines, columns, or folios. Any
passage omitted by a number of MSS. necessarily fell under
suspicion. It would not occur to them that the witnesses might
be connected by a family tie, and that the omission might be
originally due to accident. We have only to put ourselves in the
position of a fourth century critic, convinced like Griesbach and
Hort that the shorter reading is preferable to the more verbose,
and we can easily realize that to him the aKpL^ea-TaTov dvTiypacjiov
would appear to be one which omitted suspected passages. If so,
the ancestor of the ' Neutral ' text would appear to be the work of
a third (or fourth) century Hort.
The gravest objection to Hort's view proceeds from the
testimony of the Fathers. He admits with all candour the
absence of early patristic evidence for the 'Primary Greek MSS.'.
The hypothesis that gross licence began to reign in sub-Apostolic
times, but that the ' Neutral ' text was preserved in some unknown
place, is most violent and in itself very unlikely.
If we adopt the opposite hypothesis, all these improbabilities
vanish. The oldest text is that quoted by the earliest Fathers
and rendered in the most ancient versions. Hort has pointed out
the chronological objection to his ' Syrian ' family, that it has no
patristic evidence beyond Chrysostom, but does not feel the
similar objection to his ' Neutral ' group, that it can claim no
earlier testimony on its behalf than the partial support of Origen.
On the other hand, the Z family presents the text which was used
by the predecessors of Origen, and can boast of a series of
witnesses going back to the generation which succeeded the
Apostles.
In Z, therefore, I recognize the primitive text, and conclude by
quoting two utterances of recent critics, who have expressed this
view in striking words. The first is P. Corssen, who speaks of
the ' distilled text which recent scholars have extracted from a few
Greek Uncials as merely the reflection of a recension capriciously
formed in the fourth century, which like every modern version
112 PRIMITIVE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS
must have been subjective in character.'^ In like manner
Professor Burkitt, in a preface to Mr. Barnard's paper on the quota
tions of Clement, after pointing out that the earliest texts of the
Gospels are fundamentally Western in every country of which we
have knowledge, even Egypt, says, ' Let us come out of the land of
Egypt, and let us see whether the agreement of East and West, of
Edessa and Carthage, will not give us a surer basis on which to
establish our text of the Gospels.'
^ Der cyprianische Text der Acta Apostolorum (1892), p. 24.
Oxford : Horace Hart M.A. Printer to the University
4
.aji^
-o
L 005 115 555 4
LZ.^ ^^
UC SOUTHERf^ REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
AA 000 619 080 5