■--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, /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]^^€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] 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 = 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)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 Tai5 has TjKovcrev r]p which occurs 47 letters below. This indicates in an ancestor : ^rja-aaa fx.(.Ta av (12) ^po'i eTTf) t,' aTTO ( 1 1 ) Tq/^oi;o-at eVt to avTO- 17 /xt'a ■7rapaXr](l>6i]a€Tai, r] 8k irepa dv 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/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]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 KvXXov5 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) 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, 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'oii'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^, 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$ovO€vrjcrav £(Tp(aT09, kol iravroiv Std/covos- Eight Lines. (83) Matt. V. 47 Koi lav a(nrd(Trj(T9e. tovs dScX^ous vynoiv fiovov, TL TTipKraov TTOteiTe ; ov)^t Ka\ 61 iOviKol to avTO ttolovo'lv ; 46 THE PRIMITIVE TEXT OF Nine Lines. (gi) Mark xii. 32-3. Here ^ seems to have had ctTras OTL CIS CfTTl Kttl OVK ccTTir aXXo9 ttAt/v avTov 5 Kat TO ayaTTttj/ avTov €$ oXr)<; TT^S Kap8ia<; Kai e^ oXrj? rrfr]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 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$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)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 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 ar]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€ 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[Ji6Trrj(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\\ovToav(ov ' Western ', xiii. 8 Koi rapaxat ' Pre-Syrian (? Alexandrian) and Syrian '. THE GOSPELS AND ACTS 6i Luke vi. lo 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 IL (i)vr](r€V om. Y&^^. Luke ix. 540)? /cat 'HXtas cVot'r/o-ci/ ^€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%^% 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"^"^ &^ 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, 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]