Skip to main content

Full text of "Codex B and its allies - Hoskier - Part 3 of Vol 1 - (Smaller or Higher Res File)"

See other formats


A Study and an Indictment 





"Concerning thk Genesis of the Versions of the N.T."; 
''Concerning thp. Date of the Bohairic Version"; 


THE Greek Ci/rsives 157 and 604 {700). 

— Hippocrates {Aphoi: I.} 


A Study and an Indictment 







i. 14. — xai {ante aXijSeiai;) B*'°' 

{Boh has the TisTial riGM jLteo^AiHl. but sah gi jhe. 

Neither use OifOg here.) 
15. oet-KMv {pro ov nirov) B*C* and X* (OrigT) and TF-J? 

tei (nojiiJ.y. Sod). Both Coptics have " and crieth out saying " 

(eqxuJ juLttOc). Taking verses 14 and 15 together there is 

some signifioanoe attaching to these things. Tisch does not 

quote copt for entav. At any rate the comnitinity of origin of B 

and copt is established (as against others) by verse 16 init where 

0T« init (for xau of many) is also the reading of the Coptics. 
21. av ovv Tt ■ii\eia<; ei B"°' vid {variant al.) 

ii. 17. >e<rnv ye^paiiftsvop {pro yeyp. ea-riv) B"" cum Sod'^^ et Chr 

Cyr {EpipA rp yeyp.), but against all the rest, and Ozyt*" 

yeypa/ifievois {sic) eiTTiv, 
19. Tpi(Tii/ tip..-(-ep} B«" et [W-H] Orig=""' Tert 1/2 Ambrsi 

(cf. sah), but against all others and Clem Ori^* Ens Chr Cyr 

Iren'^* {Evsi 47 with Ign Sia rpitav rjfiefuov). 
[Thereagainst in verse 20 B has ev with the mass and ti a e 

omit with Clem.'] 
23. ev Tiu Traa-)i_a tt) eojnt} { — ev sec) B"' 
iii. 16. Tov viov i-avTov) NBW soli {et W-H, non S.V. Sod) Not 

even L or T" nor f nor 892 nor Paris*' nor even 33 omits in 

this important place ; nor d which begins again just here. In 

fact syr sin insists thus : " His Son His only," and sah " His 

Son Hia only Son," and TertuUian is clear. 

Having once stated this in verse 16, there is not so much 

harm in omitting avrov in verse 17 as do *?BLT''W fam 1 22 

262 2^"= (Sod) Sod"'' Cyr Atk. 
34. — TO vmufia B* et h'"*? syr sin ? soli vid 

iv. 6. +T6> {ante 1a><7ri4,) HB soli vid [W-IT] 

11. — ij yvvTi B and syr sin, only (see under Syriac), 

W-H ixt onait then alone with B. B. V. and Sod restore it. 

K* substitutes e/ceivTj for i? tuwj;. 
40. !xvvtfK6ov ovv {pro wy ovv avviXBov) B*"" cf. e i?tter lait. 
42. hia. rrp> XaXiav aov W"' cum Oriif'''', contra N° rell pi &ca rrpi 

cnjv XaXiav et Orig ex HeracL {Sia Trjv a-t/v ftaprvptav N*D bdlr) 
46, r\SSe» ovv TraXiv ej" nava {pro ifK. ovv iraX. ej? tjjv icava) 

W^ (nee mutav. correct.) cum N Sod^"" "". See Ender " Change 

without Improvement." 
52. rij» apav eKeiVT)v { — Trap airro)!/) W^ cum boh^. t^ACDKUn 

and W have tjjv aipav irap avrav, 

and LFAA unc^ have jrap avrav TrjV apav with Chr Cyr, (Sod^^^ 

■njv tapav, — vap avTtav hut without sxeivrjv which B has.) 
ibid fin, avTvv {pro outou), of the boy, by BA, simply an error. I 

might point out that even here B has the countenance of 



another ms, yet it is au error common to both (auTo 892). 

Instead of grasping therefore at any support for B readings, 
and where support is found, of adopting them, let us be a 
little more circumspect. 

The prophecy which I adventured on page 13 has come 
true. Observe that von Soden's witness S 371 (a MS at Sinai 
No. 200) now supports B's hitherto unique dpoTjdevT^'i in 
Luke xxiv. 37, and that SoiP*" (a its at Athus, Pantel. 28) 
supports B's theft in John ix. 6 of evedijKev (for eirexpiaev) from 
verse 15. See also John viii. 59 - Se B now supported by W. 
t V. 7. ir/aos efiov {pro irpo efiov) BL only and St. 1550 txt. This 
seems to destroy the sense and give the opposite sense. See 
Winer (Moulton edition, p. 4(37). 

W-H reject all the last seven readings which I have cited 
1-1. -o{antelv<rovO BetlW-II] 

17. - I-7<7<,i,9 KBW 314 892 Socl'<^ {triale de '"»? 

= liaura^™) soli vid et[W-H]. (The aeth inserts Dam. Jesus 
after et respontlit et dixit iis, q has et respoiuUt illis Jesus.) 
Otherwise all Mss and versions have it in an early position. 
19. -airjcrovi B c""' Evst A7 Tert. This time 

vsithout the agreement of LW or 89'2. In square brackets in 
W-H. No versions omit here either. 
But then if Teit is to be of weight here, why not at verse 2.5 where 
he omits (both in Praj: and Bes) «at mv EcrTii' with t< and a b, b^it as B 
does not do it, Westeott and Ilort fail to exhibit this " shorter " text even 
in their margin. Had B joined here for omission they would of course 
have left it out. Can anything be clearer that it is B and nothing else 
but B which they consider " neutral." 

Observe again verse 27 > nat xpiaiv eSroieev avrui e^ovaiav ■noiew by K 
alone (for /cat t^ovirtav e&mxev avrai xpiaiv trottiv) is exactly the method of 
TerC^ " et judicium dedit illi facere in potestate." This may be wrong, 
if you will, but in the next verse but one, verse 29, W-H avail of a 
" nicety " of B alone of Greeks, as it is supported by Tert and sah a eff 
Aug (against Ircii'"^) to omit &e in the second of the pair of clauses, 
printing oi tcl iftai/ka instead of oi Be ra ^v\a of all other authorities. 
The new Ms W has xai oi for o( Be (with m boh"^ sijr arm Zreji'"). We 
come back to the same old thing of some marginal remark in the parent 
of these Egyptian copies which led to change. 

V. 43. +-rrp(5? rov iiaTepa (post o xaT<}fop<i>v viuav) B°" inter amn. 
On the other hand observe sijr cu (alone of the versions) omits 

t Thia must be s, " snnspot" according to Sontei (' Teit and Conoii,' 1918, p, 32). 
** Little things," however, " show how the wind blowe." 



TTpo^ TOP TraTepa Occurring previously, and deletes it 
from the verse, as only Ambr^"'. 
vi. 17. See under " Order." 
22. See tmder " Form." 

46. -Tov{anteffeirv) B'i58 Cyr[W-H] (of. copt). Here the article 
seems to be needed. N Sod}"° and Syn'^ substitute tou iraTpo? 
in reduplication of the beginning ovx ori rov varepa eap., and 
where aome.CAr codd substitute on the other hand tav Beov 
while ND a h d e substitute toc Osqv for rati irarepa at the end 
of the verse. {Evan 248 Sod}"* substitute trap avrov for 
Trapa tou 0€ov). 
50. airo6pti<TKJi {pro avoQamj rell omn et Orig Thdt) B Eus W-H 
mg (re^iflj^erai Clem""^'^ a-KoKrjTai "9) 
t 53, -oicmielritrovi) B «t [PT-H] 

58. ef ovpavov {pro sk rov ovpavov) BCT 892 Sod'"^ (et W-H) but 
against aJt others and Orig Eus Cyr. 
■f vii. 1. Voy? (-0) Bet [W-H] 

3. See under " Coptic." 
'6. irapea-Tiv {pro 6<rTiv) B"°' See under " Improvement." 

22. ovK {pro ovx) B* 

23. +0 {ante apdpioirw) BN Sod'^' 33 p"' 597 Sod"»' [rum 

al. vid.] [W-H] 
34. See undfer " Coptic." 

37. 7rpo9 ep£ {pro irpiK /J*) B ' j 

(Om. Trpof /A^ai) bd e Cypr Vict Atig 2/8 Tisch) ,'i 

42 iJitf. OVK {pro ovx *'*^ oux') B*N soii I 

t viii. 12. Iifo-ou? ( — o) B 

Cf. et vii. 16 Vous (-0) SB 33 
Cyr soli et {W-H) 


t25. Ii;ffou9 (-0) B (h' 

t34. iTiaous {-i>) B314 

t39. Inaovs^-i) B 

i&i(2. TTOteire B 604 ^ 

©(? {seq. ea-re) et W-H ixt Cf. Orig '\ 
qui lectt in convrmtne habet. j 
t42. I.)<Tou9(-o) B Sod"^ . • I 

liid. +0 (anteTra-nip) B"*' 

58. Ii7<rou? (-0) BC e""^* Paris" et W-H 

59. - & BW soli mm vg**^ [non W-H] 
ix. 7. See under " Homoioteleuton." 

27. +OTj'j3oai T£ B"' cum aeth et georg et fro/t™ {et W-H ntarg) ^ 
See under " Coptic." J 

25. lijaows {-i) HBetW-H 
j 41. IvTOVi (-o) B 

t In ail thfi^e caaes ^•.O' insiBt lipon enolosing 6 in gqoare brw^k^te in theisc text. 



X. 1. >vfiivXeyiD B'"' cum pers contra MSS omn ef verss reel ec 

contra Clem Chr Cyr Oivf"^ et Lucif. 
7, Iwovi (-o) B 118 [nonfam] et [JF-HJ 

> ufitv X€7a) B'°' per.1 ut sokt again, showing that in verse 1 
it is absolutely premeditate. I cannot fathom the reason forit. 
In a dozen instances previously in this Gospel B has made no 
change; nor does he change on the next occasions at xii. 34, xiii. 16, 20, 
but at s-iii. 21 he writes again vjuv Xeya) (against Orig^" and Ath al.) and 
none of Soden's sympathetic Mss join B either at x. 1, 7, or at xiii. 21 ; at 
xiv. 12. however, he leaves Xs7(» v/iii' alone as at xvi. 20, 23 ; nor does he 
seem ever to vary \eya> aoi on the half dozen, occasions where this oectirs 
except at Luke xxiii. 43, where BC*L arm pers have afir/v troi \eya. 
Observe Origen with MWATT latt for vfuv \e7(» at Matt xxi. 27, and W 
alone at Matt xviii. 19 for vjuv Xeym. The noteworthy thing about B in 
Matthew is that he nses the order avra ^t-rrev with pers in xv. 15, and 
soon after at xvi. 4 haa aiTei for fjjrei alone of Greeks withp«r«'°' arah""'. 
Cf. N pers soli Matt sviii. 19 avroK yevTiaerai.. All in the same Semitic 
Gospel and W and N in the same chapter and verse in different 
phrases. (Of. Luc xii. 22 where ufuv 'h.eja is probably original). 


X, 18. TauTjjv svToXijv {pro Tavi-qv rrfv evToK-r/i/) B"' cum Sod"^". 

[Error ex homoiotel. vel ex lat.) 

25. lwo.9(-6) Br*'-'^-"^ 

32. > 7io\Xo efr/a eSet^a vfuv xaXa B*" vid cum SoeJ'" (Patnws 92) 
This order is otherwise unique among the Greeks. !<AKAn^ /( th etc. 
Sod"' have voXXa epya KaXa e&ei^a vfjuv, DLXl'A and most have ttoXXo 
KaXa epya eSei^a vfuv, while W 220 Evst 54 b gat syr sin Tert Thdt omit 
KaXa, and 127 aad 24.5 Epiph omit epya. The omission of xaXa by W 220 
Evst S4 6 gat syr sin and Tert may be basic. The copies were evidently 
marked in the margin, and B shows this by .slipping in the word later 
than the place in which it belongs. His order and hia reading can 
certainly not be called "neutral," although Hort actually follows B here 
in his text, which he invariably does when a variety of readings confront 
him, and ho clings to B to help hira out of the difficulty of choice. But 
the result is only to get further into the mire of idol worship. Souter'a 
edition of the B.V. condemns Hort by going back to the textus reeeptus 
and printing woXKa KoXa epya eSec^a v^iv with D and the majority. As 
a matter of fact the versions point on the other hand to the order of the 
N group, and W joins b and Tert for suppressing xaXa altogether. 
(Tisehendorf and von Soden forget to mention Tertullian). 

I notice this matter at some length, because basic principles are 
involved. And these are that in a question of varieties of order, with 
omission of a word by some, the probabilities are, first, that the omission 
is neutral, and the word has been supplied from marginal indications. 


or, second, that the omisBJon is an error from carelessness and the matter 
mended from marginal observations. 

In both cases the margin supplies the missing word.f Mrs. Lewis 
has very clearly stated this trnism (Old Syriac Gospels, 1910, p. vii.) 
which I have quoted on p. 880 of my Genesis of the Versions. 

But I am sick and tired of being told that Hort's methods are sound, 
his principles good, and his text the best yet published, when again and 
again he falls into a common trap like this, and follows a singular variety 
of order read by B alone, while the facts show that the order in B has 
been caused by the addition of a word out of the regular order, doubtless 
from marginal indications. 

How entirely unscientific are the principles involved can be seen 
from the passages we have adduced within one chapter (x.) and within 
eight verses (18/25). Here is the record ; 

John s. 18. npev (l>ro aipei) NB quite alone and W-H. Cast out by the 

Bevised Version text.J 

■f Observe bejond a.6 xviii. 40 ondM this head, and under " Order" at iv. 9, Tii. 12, 
33, xviii. 2 and xviii. 5. 

A small matter will illnstrate this. St. John i. 42, being a very short, verse ftt the 
end of the chapter, we read the tiay veioe with thirteen Taiiatiana : 
TToXXoi ovv iTiLuTtvtrojf tis avTov en€t W sol 

-Km ™XXo. m<rTfuo«» «t avrov «« SBDLX* 1 83 1S7 213 248 249 z-' 

Paris" aZ*>* d vg^ idh boh ama aeth W-H. 
roXXo. .:riirT.i.crdy ..E owuj ( - fie.i) 118-209 pers boh*" M(r jieaft sin it omn 


{praeter d 8) vgg amn. 
KOi fnifmvirap fLi avrov nohXai { — fmi) So(V via 

nil tmoTtwos n-oAXo. lis mrov tai AK ?MUn fam, 13 254 c-" p'" w"' gofh 


Kat fjrKTTtVfTav €tS avTOV JToXXoi tKti 280 Vtd | 

Km moTONTot «s am-oi- ««e( iroXXo. X' (= Sod'- ', Manioh 208) vid 

Km twurrevirar (roXXoi fir axrov ( - tut,} K ? 16 {ml inter gr) 
™ €,tn7Tivo-av noXXoi KM tK n."-ov EGHSraA mmn muli txt nc S 

KOi ^TjivriViTW/ tKU noXkot eij avrov 28 235 a'" , 

«.! nr avTo./ tm(rrfuir» mXXo. t{ atr^r ( - «<0 '"'O* (»«^ *^- •«' ^lodd""') J 
ffoXXm Totwif tinirrevtTav *ts a.vTQV ^f" 

TToWot ecei tTTttrrtwav tti avror Chr" ** 

K? (Soholi) Eian 16 11&-209 (Lake) Sod™ with all the Latins lexaept d S] and »7/r 
peA with sifr inn and pera and CAr omit «r. altogether, li f «. belongs in 40 fin. (jn/r fin 
and jiers transfer U to the beginning of verse 41) .«« may well b« redundant at the.end 
of verse 42. At any rate we have IsM and ayr this thne eombined [without D d] agaiast 
rE the Gieoka [but Evcm 16 118-209 Sod'"'] for omission whem the othurs vary the order 
[see further in xviii. 2] . The inference is that «ei came in from the margin, but very 
long ago (the ma 24fl adds «« in the following passage in xi. 1). 

" BeadetB often made notes in the margin of a MS. Now it was a pioaa eiolamation ; 
now ft parallel passage ftoai another book i now an antiquarian note, or the eatpreasion 
of a difficult phrase. Such notes often found their way into the text, and sore is the 
resulting contusion."— (Canon GUsehrooh : ' The next Bevised Version,' Contemporary 
Review, May 1913.) , , „ a . 

At John X. S8 just above, a most difficult place to judge, John Damascene oonflates 
three readings ; iva yfure, jcai wiirTfvtnjrf, Kat eniywa<rKt}r(, 
J See nnder " Change of Tense," 

B IN ST, johk's gospel. 305 


X. 25. QVK BTTiiTTeuo-aTe {pro ov -mineveTe) E 4 (33) 71 157 and several 
other cm-siYBs Sod^'^'' f Chr'^'^ 2/7 and oui A.V., NOT followed 
by W-R-\ 
32. icaXa post vfuv B alone with So£Z°" and W-H. Cast out 


The examples of change in s. IS, 32 are not allowed in the M.V. 
text representing Hort's own closest followers. The third case (x. 25), 
ocourring between the two others, where he does not follow B, is a case 
where he certainly should have followed B. Not only has B quite 
respectable support for the reading, but grammatically it must have 
appealed to Hort ; " wtreKpiOnj airroK (()) 'Irjo-oii^ ' elwov vjiiv ical ovk 
(■wtaTsviraTe." So writes B. " I told you and ye believed not," exactly 
as our version of 1611. It would really seem as if Hort had some spite 
against King James' translators, for when he can follow them (B teste) 
he refuses to do so. § He prefers to reject B and its supporters for a rapid 
ti'anaition of tease: ** ehrov v^lv Aral ot) 7Tif7T€uere/' "1 told you ana ye 
believe not." 

Need I say more concerning such a non-principled and unscientific 
base for Hort's structure ? Brick by briuk it is crumbling, but it is cot 
creditable that it has taken so long for the " powers that be " — scholars 
in fact as well as in name— to see the weak points. 

Solecisms (ctmtiyined). 


X. 34. ^o-ouf (-0) BW suU ct [W-H] 

xi. (See under other headings) 

xii. 3. Vov(-Tou) W"'et[W-H] C/. ifix. 38 - 

ihid. eirXtiaOj; (pro eitX'rfpaSi) B"°'. See under " Synonyms." 
10. efiovXevaavTo Se Kai oi apX'^P^^'' 'B'^^ cum v<if^^ et goth {ihan 
auk). Observe one sali ms which adds " the Jews." " Took 
counsel therefore [for salt with Greek MU and a few substitute 
ouv for he] the Jews with the chief priests." 

12. o oxXo? rroXv; {pro ox^^f f oXu?) BL soli vid cum boh (see 
under " Coptic ") et W-H txt {nil in tiiarg). Their phrase ia 
o^Xot -rtokw; o eXdav for ox^ov ixoXuv o eKdiav. Clearly an 
attempted "improvement." N*A 2?' go at it another way, 
and subdue o before tXSbiv, thus : ox^-os' ttoXv^ eXOav. Sod"'' ""* 
oxXo<; o woXv; o eXffaiv. 

13. expavyaa-av B* "'^ vid (and see under " Change of Tense ") 

t See undei- " Change of Tenae." 
% See hei-e sM^ra. 

§ I do not mean tiat B is vight, but that Hort's avowed prinoiplea, acted on con- 
stantly elsewhere, ahoitlJ have been followed by him here. 



xii. 18. Matter of order B«" sah See under " Order." Cf. also boh. 

28. /iov TO ovofia (pro aov to ovofui) B and Evan 5 only. See 

under " Hopelessness of considering B neutral." 

29. -ow B"* and sa^™" 6ofc°°" and a (and [TF-H]) 

Se pro ovv W r. 
46. — TTor B3 soK See under " Syriao." 

xiii. 9. >7reT/)o? <rj>MJi/ B"°' cum W (Note that in D Sod""""*" 
.BiJii 32 aintov is omitted, and in c"" syr sin Trerpm is omitted ; 
no doubt the change of order in B is the result of an addition. 
Just as in the previous verse, the order i^nous av^<l> (for avrm 
jijffou?) by BACL Orig is probably due to original omission 
of avia as witness DC^ \teste Sod -non Lake] 7 213 SocP^ b 
de I m boh arm) 
10. iTjaov; ( — o) B Orig soli vid, ei W-H 

18. efi£ {pro eiT efie) B*" [See under " Change without Improve- 

ment " as to the rest of the verse] 

19. iriffTCtn/Te BC Orig 1/2 See uiSder "Change of Tense." 
21. >viuv Xeyai B*"' cMOT^«rs against aU others and Onj?'"^*^. 

This is the third occasion of this. See above at x. 1 andx. 7. 
Hort neglects all of them. 
23. Vo^U-i) B»" I ^^r^.jj-, 

26. „ „ BMW 314 [ "m^^l 
ibid. —TO {ante -^wiuov sec.) B"' 

27. Irjaovi (-o) BL et W-H 

(36. Note also here lifov, (-i) BACL Sod"'" 22 v«' SocP-"' 

isiu ut3 against the mass. ) 
37. axoKoudeiv {pro aKoXovB'rjaai) BC* soli et W-H. See under 
" Change of Tense." Note that B has axoXovBetv afni but 
C mv axoXovBeiv. (In 47 157 43S d"" v"" and the " Latin " 
codices 56 38 61 afni, which is the source of the change, is 
liv. 10. iriartvaeK B"' (See under " Coptic " and also " Change of 

ibid, ra pt\ijuna a efm (— Xe7a)) v/up av ejiavrm ov XaXsj B"'. 
16. ij {pro inetrq) fin vers post auava B b soli vid et W-H marg. 
From the variety of positions which ij occupies in B, K, LQX 
Cyr Did, whilst the fteinj has to be accounted for as well, it is 
clear that ■>] came from the margin, whether as a correction of 
fievr/ or not, 
26/27. -{-eyw BL 314 soli {cf. X 33 127 8od'''Uy<o "to^ 26 ^n.) 

t This U a family of five Mss (vol. i. p. 249) containing Cyril of Alexandria's com- 
mentary on Sfe. John's Gospel. It is a nice link between B and Alexandria. Cyril 
seems to have placed tyw before etirof, instead of after it as B does, in order to be sure - 
that it came in 26 jftn. and not in 27 inii. See below again at xvi. 13 B with SoiJKi. 



See nnder both " Syriao " and " Coptic." W-S insert at end 
of Terse 26. 

ixY. 5. ovBe ev {pro ovBev) E"' md. Cf. copt (om. D d). See nnder 
" Form." 
Vd. ovSe cK [pro ov&ei's) B"' vid. Cf.copt. See tinder "Form." 

1. av Sekftr^ (pro a eav $£\7!T£) 3"°' vid. See under " Form." 
10. —fiavtert. B"' {inter gr). See under "Latin." 

14. o (pro a) B"' (inter gr cum Paris") et W-S txt. See under 

xvi. 2. -vfuKssec. B'^' ei[W-H} 

((13. ets Tr)v aXnduav Traaav BAY Sod"*' soli ctim Orig Bid Cyr)) 

18. -TjXa\« B 213 397 ae^A so/i ei [TF-if] (7»(Jem/mxviii. 39, 

XX. 13.) 

19. l^aav^ (-0) BLW soli et W-H 

31. Irjaovi (-i) BCW Sod'^ '"' t et W-S 
xvii. 1. Voi/?(-o) NB[no»W]Sod'"^tc< TT-a" 

Jll. Ttarrip ayie sic (pro TTarep ayie) BN soZi. [S'od neglects N.] 
Cf. xvii. 21, 24, 2.5. (See under " Change of Case.") 
12. fifiev (pro iniv) B*"' haud dubie per ifteuriam, quia seq. fter 

15. —ex Tou Koafunr a\X iva T!i)pr)ar)i; amov; B*. [^Burgon quotes 
AthanasitiS for this ('Last twelve verses of St. Mark') but I 
cannot feel sure that this is beyond challenge. If so it is 
another link of B with Alexandrian copies where a saltus was 
made from atnov<; to auTou?.] 

17. -TV (ante i\r,dda] B"' vid cum Gyr^^ et Sod^^'^^'"^' (habet 
dis Cyr™""). See under " Latin and Coptic." 
ibid. + 1) (ante aXjjOeta) BVf Bans," soli cum sah boh (syr). See 

under " Coptic." 
21, 'Trarrip (pro irarfp) BDNW soli vid et W-H [DW non in 

ver 11 ut BJ 

24. iranip ( „ ■ „ ) BAN soli vid et W-H [iMii DW, non 


25. varrip fixate sic BAN(7raTiyp Sixaiai) soli vid et W-H 

[non DW, non ClemJ 
xviii. 1. Ijjffou? (-0) NBL* soli vid et W-S [non Wretl] (Cf. 

xviii. 23 et alibi] 

2. See under " Order." 

3. -6KSCC. Bdli-'" et [W-H] See under " Coptic." -€kt<bv 

NN"" etc. 

t This is a. codex at St. Petersburg. Tb« other Sinai, JeruBalem, and Athos oodiooB 
aympathetio to B olaowhere do not elide these articles in St. John if they have been 
properly coil&ted for Soden. 

i Cf. BN at iv. « <y icom. 




xviii. 5. >eyii> ei/u tijirov'; B a. See under " Order." 

1 15. >yvo»TT(K riv BW 4 Paris" Sod^*^' W-S marg (with a 

offfq r aiar gat syr boh) See undei " Order." 
31. 7rei\ar<K {-»') BC* Sod'™ soli et W-E 

Since I haye noted in this Gospel where B omits the article 
(alone or in a small minority group) before Iijuou?, I note this 
also. It may be a concurrent version influence (which ia the 
more probable and an error ocnli) or carelessness, or a prefer- 
ence. The reader is capable of judging. But while at six. 6 
B omits before Iijffow* and o before avSpairo^ in the same 
' verse, in both of these particular caaes absolutely alone, Hort 
places [o] before Itjo-otv in square brackets but leaves o 
before avffpteiro<;. "What kind of editing is this ? 
36. ~av B""' cum J'" Sod^" (as the versions; and ef. a h e aur 

There is a treble variety of order here : 
OL v'rr'qpercu av oi €fioi jjyeovi^ovTO AD^' N and most Gr. with 

q 5 Orig 1/4 Hier'^ '^ 

01 vr-rjpf^at oi tjusi av "ri^bivt^ovro c fffg r vg^^* aeth Aug, and 

oi t/rrtiperat oi f/J.oi rrfcon^vro av t<LXB'°"*W^ 1-299 [reon 

209] /<TO 13 33 91 213 249 Paris'" Sod"" '"" *• «" arm 

Orig 3,/4 Chr Cyr et W-B Sod txt, 

the latter order probably being of an " improving " tendency. 

It 13 the order followed by Hort, who neglects the omission 

of av by B. 

59. -ev iantera irairxa) B«" cam Sod'''^ et [Tf-H] (C/. aeth"^. 

Cf. syr. Cf. q " per pascha." C/. a om,. ev tm iiatyya. 

Bell onrn ei sah bok + ev plane) 

<40. -Travret NBLXW [mm 28 male Scho Tisch] 71 213 249 348 

43S i"' al. minn^' fifotP"" """"*""". cn Qrig?, but absolutely 

no versions except pers, which Tisch and Horner neglect to 

mention, but which probably represents syr sin. here. That 

document is wanting from xviii. 31-xix. 40, I merely record 

this matter here as W-H of course omit, and Soden omits. 

The omission of iravreq has no other version support, and I do 

not think we can neglect aH.the Coptic and Latiu codices 

in such a place. No reader of Hort's or Souter's edition of 

E.V. text would ever suspect that iravrei occurred in any 

document I Probably the omission of xain-e? took place from 

misonderBtanding a mark of deletion set against the word 

waKiv next to it, which word is omitted by GKUII many lai. 

t I enter anoh e, thing here, as hitherto B haa been leeorded alone for it. The entry 
will aeeve to call attention to the additional support, and its poafiible source. 

B IN ST. jroas's GospEii. 3C9 

Join I 

mil boh aeth arm mjr pera arah. This is why the versions 
have TfawTf? and not ttoXiv, and I think are most likely rijjht 
against ^{BLXW which dropped the wrong word. In Older 
to show that NBLXW form but one recension here, consult 
xix. 3 only three verses further on, and observe the form used 
of eStSocav by these Mss and Cyril followed by W-H and 
Soden against the rest for eSiBovv. The family appears to be 
complete, Soden quoting Kt as a whole for his five Mss with 
Gi/rU's commentary (p. 249, vol. i.) besides C^* (oar 138). ) A 
somewhat similar matter as to naXtv and -rravTs^ occurs at 
Mark vii. 14 to which Burgon calls attention in his " Causes 
of Corraption." 
I do not think I am forcing an argument here by suggesting that a 
mark set between naXiv and Trai/re? may have been mistaken for in- 
structions to delete irayre^ instead of TrdXci/. There are many clear 
illustrations of such practice, and many other places where we can infer 
such a state of things. For instance, given the well-known and wonderful 
sympathy existing between H^' a,nd «""t, it is interestijig to observe ihat 
where e alone vnth A'' Sod (= X' Munich 208) sijr sin pers (aeth) omits 
■trpunot in John xs. 4 *4 alone is found to place it after ett to /ivrififtov 
instead of before it. This change of order in H doubtless grew out of 
the addition from the margin of X and e's common (Graeco-Latin ?). 
archetype of the missing word. 

(See under " Order " at iv, 9, vii. 12 83, sviii. 2, S, as to similar 
matters concerning B, and previously tmder this head of " Solecisms " 
at X. 32.) 


six. .5. I))o-oi/? (-i) B'^' cid et [W-H] 

ibid. avfipaTTot { - o) B'"" vid [non W-H] 

1-2. av (pro Mu) B™' Bid [mn W-H] 

28. r,<roi/9 (-o) B Sod"'" [non W-Hixij 

30. iv<rov<il~i) JiWet[W-H] 

38. l7,aov (-Tovpr.hai) B et [W-H] Cf . xii. 3. 
XX. 13. -i-xai (ante 'K^yet aurot?) B aeth arab soli vid [non W-H] (q 
quae dixit, iJjM ■>} Se eivev. georg Tunc dicit. Rcll omn 
\eyei avTois) 
Of. B and aefft above at xvi. 18 and xviii. 39. 
(1.5. lnaov<t{~6) i<BhW min"" W-H ; xx.lQlr,^ov<!{-6) BDLO 
So(J"" W-H; XX. 17 lv<Tov<s(-i) BDLM*^P W-H; xx. 
24 Itjaow (-o) NBD W-H against Ci/r ; xxi. 13 14 
Ii7<rou5 (-o) BC?D W-H against Cyr) 
17. >jj,Ti a-n-Tov liov (pro /in fiov aTTTov) B Tert verss aliq W-H^ 

(see under " Order. ") 

t Compare shortly afterwarde at Join xi. 12 S « aloae together omit Sw. 



XX. 20. +Kaj {ante rav x**/"*0 ®^ o^^ly wi'^ TT-jET (See under 

" Improvement.") 
23. TWO? bis (pro Ttvwv) B et W-IP'^ See under " Latin," 

" SyriaCj" and " Change oi Number." 

29. r»;<rou<f (-o) B ei [W-HI 

xii. 1. Irtaaut (-o) EC rt fF-JJ 

10. Iij<roifs(-o) Be*[Tr-£r] 

12. Ii7<rou? (-o) Be* [W K\ 

(16. ra-irpo^aTia BC 19 22 Soci"= Theophan b et W-H txt; 
sxi. 17 TU irpofiaria ABC Ambr et W-H txt) 

17. - op™ ier*. B^ 249 # Soi^" (^»'«" -^ " [«oii Tf-B" !] 

18. leai dK\o<; fcocrei ore B "' vid (cf. ord verss) 

;24. Kat liapruptov {pro o fiaprvpav) BW et Cyr [soli "Bid) et 

" D,p " teste 8oden (Cf. gatfoss vg^ vg"^ aeth +ille) 

The additional testimony of Where is oompletely neutralised 

by a consideration of the few late Latin witnesses which 

simply add iUe for emphasis, as do BW Gyr when they add xai. 

The silence of the rest speaks for itself and we close as we 

' began with the perfect assurance that B is to blame for an 

infinite variety of small as well aa large mistakes made in an 

effort to improve the record. Hort places this last vsiriation 

in his margin. 

Latin Sympathy. 

iii. 36. miic o-ferai ^anv (-ti/x) NABCDT" W Paris" al. (" non 
videbit vitam " latt) W-H et Sod txt contra Tnv t/ariv rell et 
Ign Const Sas"'""- Chr Cyr Thdt et copt. 

r. 36. SeSaicev (pro €Sa>Kev} NBLNF ei W 1 33 157 al. pauc. 892 

[non Paris"] Ath Cyr lait W-H Sod. 

vi. 17. «! TrXowK (-to) NBLA [nm D nee WJ 33 113 131 213 

239 254 604 892 Paris" Sod'''' "" soli with Cyr W-H Sod txt 
agEunst all others and against both Coptics. 
49. See under " Order." 

vii. 4. avTo (pro avTo<i) BDW d. Tisch and Soden quote sah 

bok for this reading, bat it is doubtful if one can read this into 
them. The Syriao is also doubtful. The " neutral " reading 
(6 e dim (r) aeth? and (boh)} appears to omit both atrrov and 
avTo. [E* 253 read-ain-op, but the readings to choose from 
are clearly avrm, or am-o, or plain omission, and outo? is 
undoubtedly right.] Hort consigns avra to his margin quite 
correctly, and Souter's B. V. edition follows suit, avro appears 
to be an "improvement." 
6. irapea-Tiv (pro ecrriv ill sec. loco) B*"' and a few vulgates. 

See under " Improvement." 

B IN ST. JOira's GOSPEL. 311 

vii. 23. aafi^aTa { — ev) B B « r Soli 

44. el3a\eii (pro eireffaXev) BLT [nwj miraw] W-H [non Sod] G/. 

miait W' vg. 
viii. 65. o/ioloi vfuv ■•irevcTTrj^ (pro ojMii09 vfLav -^evaTtf;} BADW/(M» 
1 52 138 (-Sodf'^*-) 157 254 2'" rf ^aW: similig veins laendax. 
The dative is as legitimate aa th.e gemtiifQ in. Greek, but there 
must be some reason for the preference of the small group 
here. It is opposed by N and the rest incluaing "9 892 and 
Paris"" and Tert. See note un-det " Change o£ Case." Soden 
does not follow BADW. 
ix. 14. -rjv Se aa^^arov ev ■>) iiiiiepa (pro rju 8e fa^fi. ore) SBLXW 
33 213 (-»!(*epa) TF-H"" So<t°" affld c # in qua die, a 6 r qua 
die, and e {in quo = 313"), syrhier aad Cyr, -while vef^ conflates 
■with in illo die qimuio. This is opposed by D and the rest 
and 892 Paris'" aad none of the other cursives kno^ anytbing 
abo«t it- 
Observe here that the Coptics and other versions stte aiso all 
agaiust it,t and that the -^ulgate knoTfS nothing of this matter 
of NB. Ttereforo the codex similar in other respects to NB 
(see Wordsworth and White's Preface) did! not have this 
i-eadkig, which -proires that 892 and Paris" here pro^ifle ns 
probably with the real underlying text of NB, rather than KB 
themselves. Is it a Johannine improvement of KB ? See John : 
V. 9. Tjv ^ <!a^^<nov nv eKiivT] 11) iriiiepa. \ 

six. 31. -^v yap i^nyiiXTi T) riftepa eKeivij{vel (Keivov) rov aa^^arov) 

ix. 19. >^?ir££ ct/JTi {prfi a/ni ^nu) NBDLUW 33 893 [non. 
Paris"] W-H Sod txthcd ffl syr tin hier pers [tmi mjr pesh] 
Cyr Chr 1/2 {j3Jv.e7r« vvv Chr 1/2) against the rest and against 
sail !)oft and the other versions. 

3-3. emw (~avrm) X*BD W d e boh"-"" W-H"'' SodT", against all 
the rest and si/r sin and all the versions- 

40, >oi /«T auTou ovre? ('pvo oi ov-rm fier aurov) I^BDIjXW^ 
fam 1 33 157 213 248 2f= 892 Paris" Sod"" et So<F<"^*^ {Sod 
txt et W~B) Cyr only of Greets, bnt with all Mi, The other 
veiaiona vary . 
X. 12 init. o ^ta^wTo? (-coptila) B&LW 1 [nfyii /am] a aur vgg" 
boh'"^' Lueif, again.<>i o fua9. & by most and E'us Chr eopt and 
versions, und o Ec luaB. SDXA So^'*' Cmut Cyr. 

16. >Sei ^€ (pro fte Bet) NBDLWAlia 1 [non /a,m'\ fam 13 93 
348 w»-' -Soir-»= "" '-^ "'» [nm Paris" wetf al. md] if vg syr (sah) 

t Sifp ssn however taa : " And that same day was tte Sftbhatb," oanoelling the 
wKoIa of tte test of tbo verse. Wiiile tie Georgian veisioB. alone reTeraes the order of 
veisea 13 and W, plaeiJig versa 14 first. 



Orig^"* W-H Sod, bat against all the rest of the Greeks and Etis 
Bas Chr Cyr and TMt. 
X. 17. >ii£ TTaTtjp ayaiTa {pro a TTarijp fie ayaira) NBDLX^ [non W] 
33 213 248 249 Paria" Sod'^""^"- " ''' it vg Chr Cyr against the 
rest (M iJ£ Trarrip fie ayaira ; Chr aur fie aya-Tra o iraTijp ; gat 
dim. cf. hoh) and syr diligit me pater. Me diligit pater meus 
AiKt de prom. 

18. tjpev {pro aipei) KB Only and W-H. Not one single 
minuscxile. See vmder " Change of Tense." Cf. gat tullit. 

29. (pro 6*r) NBLW* Evst 15 it vg hoh [non 

sah'\ Tert (sed variant eodd) Hil W-H et Sod txt. Contra 

rell et Cyr. 

32 fn. >s/« Xida^e NBLY Sod'^" 33 157 Paris" Sod'" 

nL« i2ra gf ^j. jjpi ^g j^f]^ against Xid. jie of DW most and c / 
d I & goth hoh sah syr Epiph Thdt Hil. (Tisch omits to 
chronicle sah hoh here against NBL). 

40. eiievfv {pro e/ieivev) B 21 soli, et a b c e ff I \non d/r B 

vgg Aug {Mai q)J {epeiv W, rell ep^eivev) Om. xai e/Leaiev tKei 
syr sin, or perhaps om. e/j£iv6v and nse xai eicei (as does pers) 
to begin the next verse. 
xiii. 2, ivairapaS aurou Iov3at 2i/ta)fos I(r«ap. NBLMXX''( = So<i**) W 
Lanra*-»o* (Sod teste) hffglgatvg arm Ong^^"^" W-3 Sod txt, 
against lovBa Xifuavoi laKap. iva, avTov rrapaS, D rell omn, rell 
lait syr aeth and Origen many times. 

10. >ovK ^x^t xp^utv XABCW*- a,e q Orig'^'^''' Tert Jug W-H 
Sod txt against ov x^iim tx'^i of D and ail the rest Chr Cyr 
but only d latin. The other Latins express noti indiget {r ia 
not available), while Coptic is nm'^ptJi^ Aff- 

19. See under " Order." 

36. xucoKovSTjaeK Se (ftoi) vrTTepov NBC'LX 1 Sod^'^ [nwi fani] 
33 138 {SodP'>*) 213 Paris'' Sod™ Orig Cyr and Latin order 
W-H Sod txt, against DW the rest of the Greeks (and only 
A of the Latins) syr boh sah etc. This place deserves 
some consideration. The alignment of authorities is 
xiv. 31. evtnXiiv ehawv /ioi (pro evereiXaro fioi) BL 1 

and „ BeSaxei' pot { „ „ „) X 83 ) ['««JP"«'e^ '^ 8] 

and „ poi, BeSaxev Cyr et b e q gat. 

and eBaKev pjji evToXriv 2^ (negl. TiscK) 19°* {ehtuKe poi o war-tip 

' ePToXrivl [rum/am]). 

This is an interesting place, where all the Latins, except d S, favour 
BLX 33, while N and all other Greeks with D have evereiKaTo and d S 
only of Latins mandavit, against mamdatum dedit or pra^ceptwm dedit of 
the rest {Wordsw neglects to mention fi definitely here). All the -veraions 
(including oopt syr) are with the body of Greeks for evereiXaTo. Only 

B I^■ ST. .IOH.V"S (JOSPBL. 313 

aeth favours BLX and the Latin. Add -213 {Sod'-") Sod"' ""> and compare 
his noto. He avoids the reading in his text. 

It is rather a crucial passage in connection with the " version 
tradition " which here narrows down to the Latin. As in verses 26/27 
(see under " Syriao ") we have just had another apparent version influence 
it will not do to pnt aside too contemptuously my views on this subject. 
Sonter (J.T.S., Oct. 1911, p. 120) says of me : " The general theory which 
underlies his views is that a trilingual or quadrilingual copy of the 
Gospels f.Kistcd in early times, the four languages represented being 
Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. lie finds that this hypothesis, com- 
plicated as it is, explains certain individual readings in some Greek MSS. 
He rejectij without reason, as far as I can find, the simpler hypothesis 
that Greek copies behind the Latin, Syriac and Coptic versions were 
different to some extent from all surviving Greel': copies." 

Now my dear Dr. Sonter, if my theory he complicated (and it is far 
less complicated than some others) it covers admirably cases like the 
present, where it is not a question of "Greek copies behind the liatin, 
Syriac or Coptic versions being different to some extent from all 
surviving Greek copies," t for hei-e we have three Greek uncials BLX 
and two cursives (33 2^, of very critical repute [opposed here by Paris"' 
and the other thousand] plus 1 and 19 '^iarg) which give the reading of the 
Latins, which the EevisbT) Veesion disappboves, condemning it as a 
version tra<iitiou, and condemning Hort for adopting it, because that 
TEXT GOES BACK TO euereiXaTo. No doubt the latter is right. No doubt 
N and the mass of Greeks with D (and d 8 plus the versions) arc right. 
Don't condemn me in this cavalier fashion then, if you please, but look into 
these matters a little more carefully. There is no note in your edition on 
this reversal of Hort in the Greek Testament, published in 1910. 

Whenever Hort's decisions are reversed in such a publication a note 
is absolutely due and called 'for, in order that students may see what is 
the present eminent opinion on textual matters to date. 

The evidenoe is withheld in several such passages, which is not a 
proper method, and I am surprised that the Delegates of the Oxford 
Press consented to issue the work without an apparatus covering the 
evidence in (ill the places where Hort's judgment and his readings ate 
tacitly condemned, and where simultaneously B is condemned for 
falsifying the record. 

Bear with me a moment longer. Look forward only two verses 
beyond. At : 

t Different is the situation at xv. 21 where instead of v^lv or vfMis ED*JjX'^ 1 S3 
Paris" Laura* '« (teste SoiJj W-II and Sod tx( with Petr"^" write eis nfuis-, while I n ff I 
write circa, vaa showing no Latin reaction on Gteei from circa. However d has in 
vot aa ayr, and one boh MS EpUJTerf , instead of ff OlTert, for the phirality of hoh 
and all scih %vith the other Latins are opposed to any preposition. 


XV. 2_^»i. Hort reads iva >xapTrov Tr'Ketova< iftepi; W]th BLMXY SS 

157 21S 397 SocP^'^^^ Paris" anti W-H Sod txt Bus Gyr Novat 

Hit Orig'-^'- syr pesh and all the Latins in this order (it and 

Clem KOLjyitov ■n'KiUi, ; fructum mnltam e, fructtun pltia vgg and 

g aur gat; fmctum majorem g, ftnotum ampJiorem a d r, 

fructum plurimmn I c f ff I foss) but not t d S, for d reads ■. 

ampliorem frum and B plus fructum in the usual Greek order. 

The KeTision admits that Hort again followed the same Tersion 

influence here, for the correct reading is adjudged to NDA the Greek 

mass and d S, against BLMX* 33 157 Paria"' and the Fathers, for in the 

Testament of 1910 iva. itXeiova xapirov (pep!) m printed, hut there is no 

note on it, although you pause to tell ns that earlier in the verse D Oyr 

(and Clem) read leapTto^opov for aapirov ^epov. [Since this was wnlten it 

has become clear that Soden has no real critical principles either. His 

test is a curious exhibition of eclecticism (see below at x. 28, iiii. 26). 

Here he follows Hort.] 

Oblige me once more by considering your theories — " on the founda- 
tion (which) they have laid the future will do well to build " (' Test and 
Canon,' p. 103) — in connection with this Osford test. It reverses (with 
perfect correctness) the decision of BLMX'*' 33 167 Paris" Eus Cyr 
Novat Hil Orig"" and Westcoft and Hort, although you still pretend 
that their foundations are secure. But if wrong at xiv. 31 and at xv. 2, 
twice within three verses, may I ask why we should follow B and Hort 
in countlesa other places where they have far less support than here? 
We have simply come back to individual preferences. We are still 
floundering. We have no fixed principles of criticism. All the nonsense 
about "nentral" "pre-syrian" " Antiochian" fades away, and we must 
begin all over again. We need critical principies, and I claim to have 
established that we have none. 


iv. 9. > v/iCLi nyairiiiTa BDL^ 1 [non fam] 33 ? 218 Sod^^ [non 
Paris" ^wm al. gr] a b d e ff q [non syr copt] W-H Sod txt. 
Again abandoned by B.V. 

10. rov TTa-rpof (. — /mv) B**' Cum a h e ff q aur W-H Sod txt. 

Abandoned by iJ.F. Sod adduces no new witness. 
[In all these places W is wanting. The MS lacks liv. 25- 
xvi. 7.] 

11. We must now add to this imposing Ust of Latin influence on. 
B the present place where y is substituted for jisivy by BAD'I^ 
only of Greek uncials and by a few cursives. All the Latins 
(except/) have sit. Against them are N and the rest and 

t Tisohaudotf obscures the aitnfttion by aot apeoiBcaHy mentioumg d A as accom- 
panying the maas of Qrcelffl. He aimply saja iivg a&t, whole to accompany "BUSX. 

B m ST. John's gospel. PIS- 

Chr Cyr. Tte yersions may be " anccps " aa Tisch. remarks 
as to Coptic, and /jjeivt] may have come back from the repeated 
forma of fevai in the previous seven verses. "We need not 
quarrel about it, but the place should be viewed in connection 
with the Latin influence at xiv. 31, xv. 2, xv. 9, sv. 10 jnst 
discussed, before we accept Hort Soden and B.V. here. (Om. 
157.) Besides, consider the next place involved ; 
sv. 14. eav irofjTE o e^w evriWofiai v/iiv B and Paris^' alone of 
Greeks (against a and ocra of the rest and Cyr) with a eq syr 
sin goth {Cypr) Lucif 2/3. Some, as Tkdt and syr pesh aeth, 
emphasise " all which." If B be correct all the rest have 
edited here, which is quite possible. Hort says they have, 
for his text has o following B"", but the Oxford text of 1910 
denies it, returning to a as does Soden. Tales deuces caeci. 
xvi. 12. >fi%(* u/sui' Xcytiv NBLY^ 33 118-209 [nm 1] 213 Sod^' b 
c {e) f ff glmq r gat vg Theogn Ath W-II Sod txt {Tert Cyr 
Hil Orig"" are on both sides), but all the rest oppose with 
DA a d B and Coptic etc. for £%*) Xejsiv vpuv with E^ls Did 
Orig Chr Thdt, and Paris" specifically with Xeyeiv 6%ti> vjiiv. 

18. fuKpov (-to) BLY^K" 121 124 [non fam] 213 397 Sod'^'° 
1454 t.m+s jgyj^ 60 Qyig WSilai: pusillum uei modicum) but 
as tiiKfiov is employed by all Greeks in vame 19 without to, it 
is probable that Orig and BLY'f are merely harmonising 
ajttd improving here. Soden does not follow them here, 
although adding new witnesses, among them D which is 
xvii. 1. ~<rov sec. That is to say : iva o vi<k io^acrr) ae (instead of iva 
o vim Tov Saia<77, ce) «BCW 47 64 Sod^^ ^' [lum ^ non 
Paris'' now min al. vid] Orig 1/2 Vietorin Hil 1/2. I do not 
know whether I should place this here or not. Perhaps it is a 
doctrinal alteration, bat the only support among the versions 
is from a small Latin band, viz. d (against D^ e and ff. The 
other Latins and all the Versions with D and the rest of the 
Greeks supply trou, while Origen is divided and Orig"^^ witnesses 
twice against the omission. Sodmi'i test places aov in square 

11. airoi {pro ohroO SB 229" 2.54 S'od'"° >=« ^»'' « ^71 4m ^^^ 
vid cum d f I'F-H'"' non Sod {om. vg'^. Cyril reads oiroi 
with the mass. 
xviii. 15. -oTt NABBLNXn et V^^ fam X 22 33 42 IOC 

127 138 157 265 Laura-""' Sod'"'^ 'i^' w«' \non Paris"] and 
it vff W-H Sod, bat against the rest of Greeks, the other 
versions, including the friendly syr and copt and against 
Orig and Cyr. 

10. wTaptov XBC*LXW {pro iotiov) Soden only adds 



one ciirsive Sod"^* (a MS at SmmO but foUows in Ma text. 
Cf. it vg : auriculam. [Non rell gr nee ■*■ Paris".] 
XTJii. 15, See under " Order." 
17. „ „ 

22. , 

* 29. Tipa KaTirfopcai/ tftepere { — Kara) Tou avffpwitou Tovrov N*B 
Paris" eetac q (Cf. aeth georg). This ia against all others 
and Ghr Cyr and bfffg gat vg (ad versus) and copt syr. 

The comcnon base breaks down here, for CLX so friendJy a 
few verses before, and even W^ with (pvriv in this verse, 
abandon KB to their fate. Only Paris'" stands by them and 
W-B without a word in their margin. Soden abandons them 
and has no new witness for omission, but he forgets to 
note a c. 
36. -av B*J Sod"" See under " Solecisms of B." Cf.ahe 
aur vgg 1/2. This is quickly followed (against X) by a real 
Latin order : 
38. ovSe^iav evpiOKw ev avra aniav BIiX 213 249 Paris" S'tKp"'' 
i«M K.CS (a)bceffgt>g Cyr W-H Sod ixi. 
Cyr vouches for it as the continuation of an Alexandrian 
order. It opposes : 
ov^t^iav aiTiav eupLaxm ev avrw of NNW^ al. plur q goth (sah 

boh) syr arm Chr. 
xix. 7. KOTarw vo^tov (-rificot/) NBD™''LNA rf W^ Paris" 

it [omn praeier 5] vgg Orig ei Orig^ Ilil Aug Quaest, but 
against all the rest, all the minuscules, Cgr, and all the other 
versions. Soden places it in square brackets without adducing 
any new witnesses. 

28. > I^o-ow ei&a,^ BM» Sod"" ^ W-H"' b e fffnr aur EU 
(against eiScai Iijerou? it and many W-3""' Sod^', and 
against ISav It/aovi E and a good many, and against the 
order of syr copt etc.) 

29. trKevo<i sine copula BALXW^ 61* Parib" a b e r foss 

W-H [8od]. 
38. IftKfiji^ o avo Apiiiadaiai most and W, but : lti><FTi<j> atro ( - 0) 

Aptli. BA.D™=>(L)X?'P 90 Paris" Sod^"'"* and latin, against 

both Coptics diserte. WS elide o, Soden places it in square 

41. t)v Teeeiiitva<! (pro etc^ij) HBW Paris" Cyr Sod^"'^' 

W-E et Sod txt. (Sod'-'"' is Laura*™ which Lake did not 

collate hereabouts). €/. lat positus erat. Cf. Luc xxiii. 33. 

See under " Harmonistic." 
XX. 19. -Ttop (ami« (7a/S;8«TM») NBAIL 33 SoiP"" "f7-H Sod 

txt. (iua<i aa^^arwv W) The rest and Cyril^' have the 


B IN ST. John's gospki,. SI? 


xs. 23, TiJ'os- bis {pro nvav his) B*" n e f syr Cypr Ong^*- Eus Aug 

Pacian Auef'^ W-H"^ [«w Sod], but against ail else, 
xxi. 0. ta-xuov {pro ia^a-av) See under " Change oJ Tense." 

22. >iru fioi axoXovSei NABC'DW I [ncn 209] 33 [mm «*«?« Scr. 
Matthaei Sodeu. The latter adds Sod^' {= Cyr)] lati Orig 
Cyr. (Om. 23.5 Ckr). 

23. >ouTo? o Xo7o< NBCDW 1 33 2"' it {-fyr copt) W-E Sod 
tx(. The rest oppose with Chr 1/2 Cyr 1/2 ; and a few cnrsives 
with Chr 1/2 Cyr 1/2 and Origen omit outo?. 

24. +0 {ante ypa-ifrai) = Kai o ypa^lrat; BD {Sod'^'" a km yp.) 
m?hdqr vg"^ {a) [e] (J) W-H ixt. (« -wtitea o Kat -ypafas 
with 265 34b Sod^' Sod txi Cyr and c). 

Coptic Sympafhif or Inflttenee. 

i. 14, 15. See under " Solecisms." 
18. ii.avayevrfi dea<s NBCL 38 bok [sah ita : " God did not 

any see ever ; God the only son "J lyr pesJi aeth etc. [non 
Sod tj:t]. 
43 init [Bieph Tiich, ver 42 W-H Sod). r/yayei' shte copula 
^iBL 314 sak W-H Sod txt [eontra rell et syr lai]. Boh 
with Q/am 1 arm Epiph have ourw ^. (r/y. ovv Evst 1.5 h, 
r)yajev Se Paris"') 
ii. 17 imi. Absque doptda >tBLT''X sah boh {more copi] Eus Cyr 
Ij'i against all the rest and Epiph Nonn Orig. 
ill. 8. a\\a ovK B*' {pi-o aW ovs) [nm W'~JI] Cf. sah boh, 

umbo a\\a 
16. aWa ixn BW soli W-H Cf. sah boh 
iv. 23. a\\a epxerai XBADW sah boh W-H [contra aXV epx- rell 

V. 42. a\\a eyvotiea BDliW [non 28 male Sod] 33 185 Sod*"' W-H 

= sah boh 

iii. ISfiii.-owvEvratovpavoi XBLT^T' rfW 83 Sod"° [3^or^ 892 non 

Paris''] sah, boh 1/2, hasvi {frag Cmm-Ken gr et copi) Cyr 1/2 

{Orif/"^ 1/3) W-H Sod txt, but against all others and it vg syrr 

(all except one codex of pe.'ih) a-iin Hipp Dion^ Eustath\ 

Amphii mdEpiph Chr Thdi Cyr 1/2 Onj?"" "*• ■"""» Novat Hit 

Ltwif Jae'". 

iv, 10. aovTovav&pa B 69 [mn fasi] 11 74 248 254 430 

(Sod» ") Soa!"'' Evsi 32 60 sah boh Orig 3/6 W-H txt 

without marginal remark. Wc Tav ai/Spa <tov fi"") 

f Ti?c/t and Horni^ omit ikeae wittieaaes. 


against top avlpa aov of N and all else inciuding "WD 
"*'■-"'' 892 Paris" Orig 3/6 and Gyr. 

IT. 51. -KOI rrftOMv BLN 185 213 Sod"" ^"^'^''ho'h aeth W-H 
and Sod txt: That is to say ; X*7oj^«? pro kcu irfy^iXav, or 
pro Kat rf/^eiKav Xeyovrei; which latter the BCth mss have in full. 
Now how aboBt boh being so youthful, if BL be basic here 

' as Hort indicates in his text without marginal alternative, 

followed by Soden ? In Dr. Souter's latest book (' Test 

^ and Canon ' p. 66) he does me the honour to keep silence 

completely (is this fair criticism ?) as to my recent volume on 
the date of the Bohairic, while reproducing faithfully Gruidi's 

■• Bnrkitt's and Leipoldt's obiter dicta. He says: "In the 

northern part, where waa Alexandria, the necessity did not 
arise tiU late" [purely gratuitous aesumption], "and Guidi, 
followed by Burkitt and Leipoldt, thinks that the Bohairic 
version . . . was made in the sixth or seventh (or eighth) 
52. Tijf ti>pap exetvufv { — vap avTinv) only B with the fcoA'" ", 
another commentary on our remarks as to hoh. Sod adda 

* Sod"** for omission of trap avrav, but this codex apparently 

does not have eKearrp, while Soden quotes his family '^ ( = Cyril's 

1 Commentary MSS) for +eKeunfif with B, while having -trap 

' avrmv. This triple conjunction of B Sinai and AUxcmdria is 

I- instructive. There is a change of order here as to the position 

of trap avTo>v which throws a further light upon B's course. 
54. +Se ifost TOVTO init) BC*GT°W m,in aliq boh'"^°" Orig"" 

[W-E.'] sed, Sod txt pUns. 

I "»- (-i-Kai, init. = vel Ktu vel Se aeth) 

tf Ohserve io/iffiirw! again, not saAMfw!, supporting B and On(?en, 

with N absent which goes with the great mass without copula, 
( + OVV Paris" e). 
T. 29. See under " Solecisnis." Sah supports B for omission of he. 
44. —deov (post imvov) BW soli inter gr oum a b p, (sol. inter 
latt) et sah et boh [W-H]. Cf. etiam Orig Did Em. All this 
seems to come from one error in a ms where MONOYSfYovzHTejTe 

■ may have misled, rather than that from MONOYOVZHTeiTe 

ev crept in, for all other Versions as well as Greek documents 

t have deov, (N has itapa rou p-ovoyevov^ Seou.) Soden neglects 

to record sah boh for omission. 
Ti. 10. ciwev sine copula XBL 397 afoss = sah et syr cu pesh 

arm Orig W-H [non 8od\ against all the rest which add &e, 
Kai, or ovv, including the sympathetic minuscules. It is not a 
question of the " shorter" text which need occupy us here, 
because in the same verse it is KBD etc. which add ovv after 
aven-eaov, while it is EFGHMSVTA which omit. 

B IN ST, John's gospeit. 319 

vi. 14. a eTTaii)aev CTij/i«a tPJ'O o tv. o-ijfKWK) Be'X" (= Sod'") a arm 
syr hier and loh, against sah and the rest. Westcoit-Hort 
adopt in their text this very questionable change, f Simply I 
suppose because B had the support of another (Egyptian) 
fra,gmentaj;y uncial of the sixth century. 

42. 77-6)9 i-vv BCTW Sod"^' ^' Bon 170^4 gyr hier 

Ath"^-^ W~HSodtxL 
Km TTw? sijr pesh 

Trm ovv NI> rell latt" sah 4/7 Ath"' Chr Cyr, 

hut sah 8/7 s>jr eu sin and Paris" v"' a e omit vvv or avv 
while aeth doubles icai ttok ovv or icai Trai? ovv vvv (as arm 
ibid. — otiT05 sec, See under " Improvement," 

43. avenpiev i^i'ie ovv) BCKLTH min^' et So^"" '" [sed 
habet ovv Paris'"] a e r sah boh syr arm Cyr W-H 
Sod txt. 

46, See under " Solecisms," 

53. +avrov in connection with aapxa BTJ 892 Sofi"""«« (I^) 

[but not other cursives] ii"' vg sah boh aeth and ami syr with 

Chr Amm Orig"" [W^-H^], but opposed by N and the rest 

including W ff yoih Orig and Cyr. 

68. oi-naTepe^i-viuiv) NBCLTW 262 S"' boh Orig W~H 

\_Sod^ against sah swid the rest and all the versions. 

vii. %.>aovTaep^a B™"''"" C/. cqpi, " [uou] Ta ep^o " TT-fltet. 

(10. aXKa o)s tv BT et copt {rell omn aW' ev vel aW i»(; ev) 

49. aXka ax>^oi BDLTW 33 892 {Sod teste) et copt W-H 

{rell omn aXK' o-^\oi) 
34 fin. ov SuvaaSe ek&eiv +e/tet B"' ittter gr-lat syr, but with 
both aah and boh (all codices) which add epoq ("to it"). 
This is a very pretty and decisive place, but Tisohendorf 
misses it completely. Homer exhibits it. Soden neglects it. 
An addition Uke this is very deliberate. Either it ia right or 
wrong. Hort condemns it as wrong, for he found no other 
support. I exhibit it as undoubtedly due to Coptic inflitence 
on B, thus for ever destroying B as a reliable "neutral" 
witness elsewhere unless largely supported. 
40. +011 {ante outo?) BDX {teste Sod^" cmitmThch'^-'^'-) d only 

and sah boh syr cw {sin). 
viii, 14. See under " Order." 

t Prooeas roretaed Ijy the Oyfoid edition of 19X0, to ita credit, Tlie plural is 
lelegated to ihe margin. 

J Goth = nu, which then as now in the languages originating from it does not 
strictly mean rwui, but embraoea the mesminga of both ovy and wy. 



Tin. 28. +OTI (ante orau) B"" et sah x:t gOTAJt, hoh xE egjuuil- 

Tischendorf fails to "add Coptic here, I suppose because it ia 

the Coptic manner (although he sometimes calls attention to 

this elsewhere) but he thus misses the further link between 

B and ooptio. Horner, copying from Tisohendorf s apparatus, 

refuses here to mention the +oti of B, doubtless for the same 

reason, but I can consider it no accident nor any coincidence, 

but absolutely deliberate from a bilingual graeco-copt under 

the hand of B'a ancestor. C/. not only vii. 40 above, but 

' ■ vii. 34 +exet. It has no connection with syr here, nor with 

~ Latin, nor does it appear in any other QreeJc (see below again 

' * at ix, 11) to date, iucludiog W^ 892 Paris'" and Laura*-™. 

Soden mentions it without other Greek support, W-H txt 

refuses the addition. 

51. To« e/wi- X0701' KBCD"LT'XW^ 33 213 238 Paris" Sod''" 

(e/Lov Xoyov 892) Orig {Gyr) (Chr) sah boh, against the rest, and 

the Latins (including d) and syr. 

55. aK\a oi^a BDNicofitra morem) XW W-H ixt {Bell aX\ oiBa). 

ix. 11. +0TI (ante viraye) ttBLT' Laura*^'"* sah boh. W-H [Sod 

txt]. Here Horner again fails to introduce this matter into 

bis notes, although Tischendorf has obeerved it, for it rings 

peculiar in the Greek. W eschews it. It does not appear 

in D. There is no trace in Latin. The minuscules do not 

' have it, nor "*■ nor 892 Paris". What is it but a reflection of 

XG fiuUK s<^h and ace iXA.ajB boh? Soden on the strength of 

the additional T' (but this fragment is purely Egyptian) and 

Laura* '"* introduces on into his text in square brackets. But 

this place is on all fours with viii. 28 above. If B was wrong 

there, he ia not right here simply because NLT' support. 

17, 18. See under " Order." 

27. B adds ouv after rt alone of Greeks and Latins in the phrase 
Tt ovv iraKiv ffeXere axoveiv. Most sah and boh have of orr 
= T( iraXtv, but B could easily misread (yv Orvn = ■" ow 
'■ which one boh us actually has. Aeth and georg are the only 

other authorities to go with B. {W-H"^ have it.) 
28 init. Kai e\M&opr)<rav N*BT''W sah"^ aeth syr hier Gyr, but 01 
Se eXotS. DLK°* Paris", ekoih. aw a few, and the mass 
" • and 892 e\oi.Bofrn<rav without copula. 

30. See under " Improvement." 

tSl. Once more aX\a eav {pro aW tav) BT'W more copt [not D 
here] refused by W-H who followed B"' at iii. 16. 

t Obaerre Ongea aloiw at 1. 18 aXXa «t«» (&.XX*. A.ItOK saft iofc). 


ix. id. «!>■'] (pi'O airexpcSr) exetvos km enrev) BT'W Gf. sah init. 

nexAq tantum, and see under " Solecisms of B." 

40 init. rjKov!Ta.v {sine copula] NBLXX''W So(P^ 33 1S7 213 
249 Paris" aah boh arm Gyr 5o(iS"""K.CN ^^ ^^ („ai rfxovov 
892 t Koe fifcovaav plur, jjk. Se D dff, rjK. ovv 1 2"° a). 
X. 4. o-rav {Sine copula) SBLH^W S'od'^ l[nm fam] 33 157 2"" 
Sod"' ^'^^ sah hoh'"" W-H Sod txi against the rest and the 
other verBJona and latt and loh'' and sa7^'""™. 

13 init. ~o Be luadi^Tm i^evyei KBDL 1 22* 33 397 Sod^'^^' 
d e, syr hier sin arm ei sah boh aeth Liicif Orient Symm W-H 
Sod txi. There is some difficulty here as to the oonstruction 
■without this clanse unless we treat the end of verse 12 after 
(jieiTfu as bracketed. Indeed W goes further and (13) elides 
o &e ixtadunm ipevy^i and the following words on jua&aiTm 
ea-rtp, while /ossrti writes " mercennarius autem et fugit quia 
meroennarius eat," omitting the -rest et non pertinet ad eimi 
de ovibus. Paris" begins o Se fu/rfitoTO^, but, eliding ^yei. 
oTi /uffffarev, continues with eanv. Perhaps NBDL are 

22. eyevero rort {pro eyevero Be) BLW* 33 Paris" Laura*- "«< 
sah boh" arm {slai> sax goth) W-H Sod against all the rest 
(ffat aeth and some boh conflate with Sod"^'), and some cursives 
with a b omit any copula. If we analyse this situation we 
see in the addition in slao and .mx {goth is than which may be 
&) the reason why BLW^P added.J 
■ibid, xii'-f^'^" (*'W^ copula) NBDGLXnW 1 [non fam] 33 42- 
138 213 Of" Paris" Sod^^'^" ff only and sah boh aeth against 
aU the rest, and against the other versions (b omits the clause). 

26. aXKa v^«f [pro aW </^(t) NABLWA 157 c"' iT So<i""'»''"'^ 

{sah boh) W-H. 
(Of. Orig s. 18 ah^a eyro) 

28. > icaye) ScBa/n avroil faitji' auovwv {pro icaya fc»»;ji atremov SiS. 
avTOK) NBLMXW 33 1 57 240 307 [turn Paj-is" J Sod^^ "" K'^ 
{sah boh) sijr arm aeth Cijr W-H, but against all the rest 
and D and lait and Oriij Ens Bas Chr Thdt. For Bome 
extraordinary reason Sodoi (so eclectic is liis text) opposes 
XBLMXW oto. here, 
xi. 13. Oat of six varying methods, viz., a\na> oi jiaSijTai, avno oi 
imdryrai- avrov, auTw tantum, m /mffirrai tantum, oi /jia&tjTai 

t Again the historic imperleot, this time by 892 alone, but all peipetuatiag the 
Ef/ypiian preterenoo. See under Matt., Mart ani Lulte, " Historic preBemt." 

t But see Dr. Bcrivsaer'a Plain hUrodiixiioii, 8rd edition, p. 648, where ho 
cgndemna lor. for three reaaonfl without reserve. Tischeudorf avoids it. 




avTov of most and textuB receptus, BC X W-H Sod txt choose 
tke sixth expression : 
01 fioSijTat avfa> yrith hoh, against sah and KDKWII 6, 
li. 27. irjffTcuiB {pro TTeiria-TevKa) B* "" with c'" l'" sah and 6o/t 
(sjr aeWi and pers). Tisck omita to chronicle any Tersiona. 
Our owa A..V, of 1611 (as sax) actually iises the present 
tense, but Hort refuses to chronicle B even in bis margin ! 
[It is not certain that B* corrected the reading himself.] 
Bee the other example of this at x, 25 under " Change of 

28. Following this promptly we find touto (for rauro) by 
NBCLWX 39? 213 397 StwP*" et txt., aeth ioA"' (against sah). 

44. >Xey6( <t)irov« fliuTOK H (sol inter gr) cum sah boh Orig 112, 
et LW Orig 1/2 (XeTSt o ttja. a\noi<i) W-H. 
I call attention to this here, because it is absolutely the 
Coptic method, not only here where BLW join Origen to 
perpetuate it, (alone of Greeks) riEXE tc met, but at xi. 40 
just above ne3C6 tC rtA.C X€7ej L7iaorj<i av7Tj where they do iwt 
do it. The adhesion of W has no kind of weight to compel ua 
to adopt the order, for it is simply aji Egyptian habit which 
NLW (all thoroughly Egyptian) suffer from in common with 
Origen. Hort receives it as he receiTes eTerything Egyptian, 
while calling it by another name, (Om. avrow 604 a r aur 
vg'' syr sin.) In this same verae BCL in common with Coptic 
does something else which goes to show more than a common 
original I think. I refer to the final clause. (See under 
" Improvement.") 

52. oXXjx wa B"' [pro aXX tva) ut copt 

bL 4. 'Xeyei Se {pro Xeyei ovv) S4BW Paris" boh Only and [W-i?]. 
Tisch quotes goth, but goth " than " stands for £e or ovv, and 
often for ovv as here where the sense demands a half-way 
house. Goth often shows this and explains — as do other 
versions in other places— why certain mss make changes in 
copulas and otherwise. 

Here L »ah and a few omit the copula ; a few Latins have 
Kiu with syr, but the great majority of authorities ow. 

12. +0 {ante o'xXm) BL Soei^ '" "" ">' and loh [against 
sah] W'H. I placed this under "Solecisms" first ^iTisch 
omits to record the bohairic. Cf. syr sm. 

13. expavyaaav B* sah goth. See under " Change of 

ibid. See under "Improvement." 
16. avTov oi fiaff^rai KB Sod™ Paris" soli et W-H cum copt. 

See remarks under " Coptic and Latin " on this. 
U +OVV NBLXW mm'- et 213 Sod"" »« i^^' et 


ixf. We neeci not emphasise this bocttuae only mie sahidic ms 
joins, but (same verse) : 
ibid. Xi'yeii 0-1/ {pro av Xeyeii) BLXX''n and W Paris" W-H if: 
Sod txt is hohairic order (and syr) against the rest and N av 
XeyeK witii the Latins and sah. 

xiii. 6. Xeyei (sine copula) DDL dlmr sah boh syr kier Orig W-H 

afi. /Sai/fM TO fajiiov Kai Sa/rai avrto BC{L) 213 Sorf"" "" '^^ 
boh {sah) arm aeih (Orig) W-H instead of ^a-^a<; to ■faiiiov 
einSaxnii of HI) plur. (W has SanTca ev/Sa-fa"; to y^afiiov.) 
Again I have to accuse von Soden's text of oonilating and 
inventing Scripture. He haa jSot/tm to -^aiuov xai eTriiuxrai 
OUT4). As tar aa I can see none of the mss which have ^w^ia 
(tor ^ayjra<;) have e-mBmaw. Yet Soden appropriates fia-fa 
but follows it with emScftaa) instead of Smitw. 
28. TouTo ovSei: {sine copula) BWfT IST 248 435 Paris'" 

^foi^'i "»' "■" soli cum sah""" boh'''" pers [W-M] [wnira Origmi 
et rell omn et 892 vid). 

xiv. 4. See under " Homoioteleuton," and note that sah opposes hoh 
which concedes the shorter form with NBC'LQXW 33 157 213 
Sod?'' « "" a r. 

10, iriaTevirWi {pro imrreveK) B* alone with bolt (all 
codices). See under " Change of Tense." Tiachendorf quite 
neglected the bohairio support and so does Soden, but Homer 
calls attention to it. This is followed by a sahidic reading 
(and both versions must have been familiar to B). 

11. &ia ra epya avrov {pro Sia ra epya avra) B 229* sah {aeth) 
IF-H'-^' {-ama 24* 157 244 q r syrr arm boh diatess veiss 
Tm-t; TouTtt Paris"). 

13. T,,p,,aere BlS^iSod non Lake] 54 73 Sod™ ="■»'" """"» 
( = Laura* '") "*° only, with sah boh and arm alone of versions 
and W-H, against Tr,pr)aaTe of DW and the rest of Greeks 
and versions. See " Change of Mood." 
17. v/jeK (-Sir) NBQWI' [Sod nmi Lake] 346 [imi fam\ a'" 
Paris" S(«i"" a h Lnaf AtKr'"^ and sa/t"' hoh""" after the 
Coptic manner, so W-H Sod txt, and agsunst ail else and 
versions, the rest of the Latins, and Did Gyi^^ and Ci/)"*'«. 
23. ■jToiriao/ieda {pro irotrj<jofieu) See under "Improvement," and 
note the sahidic jtAit "for ua " especially. 
2(5/27. -i-eyii) BL 314 soli et W-H {ejto «mov vfuv X 33 127 Sod^') 
either belonging to verse 26 fin or verse 27 init. See under 
" Syriac," but possibly attributable to the first word of 
verse 27 in sahidic = •^y.iu for a^mi^- 
xvi. 23. >i<o'jet Vfiiv €V tw ovo/uni /iov {pro ev rm ovo/i.. p.ov Scoaei v/uv) 
NBC'LXYA 397 Sod'-^'" "' S sah [oontra boh] Orig^'' Cyr 1/2 
W-H Sod txt. Opposed by the mass and by DW^ Paris*' and 

T 2 


the other versions with ail the Latins (except S following A^) 
and Syriacs. The senae of the varying order is quite different : 
KB etc. and sahvnsh to read "And whatsoever ye shall ask 
the Father, he will give it to you in my name," whereas the 
mass and all the versions (except sah) read : " And whatso- 
ever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it to 
you." Of course Hort (followed by the Oxford edition of 1910) 
haa no option hut to follow t4B, supported as they are by 
CLXYA, but is he right and is Soden right? Can we put 
enough confidence in these Mss to follow them against alt 
the rest and against DW with the syriac and latin hosts in 
combination ? Apply Burkitt's rule hero, then consider all the 
flimsy alterations XB ask us to adopt in St. John, and our 
decision will probably come closer to the truth than that of 
Hort or of the Oxford edition or of Soden. 
ivi. 29. +CT (ante wappTiiTia) NBCDW Sod"^" d and only these Greeks 
against the other fifteen uncials and all minuscules and Cyr 
Chr. The only support is from sah, girt CtfJIAppHCIA. and 
6oA ji>Erf OirnAppHCIA. which Tiseh neglects to mention. 
Probably the ev crept in from the NYN preceding and 
influenced the common base of NBCDW. The only alter- 
native is that they got it from the Coptic. All the Latins but 
d are against them with palam for the in paLam of d. W-H 
and Sod have ev. 
xrii. 13. [ev tw ovofuni a-ov] m SeSwKai; fuii BC*LN*W 7 33 64 Paris" 
Ci/r'" cum sah boh arm syr hier W-H \non Sod'] (pro ou« Bei. 
fiai DW rell omn it vg syr pesh aeth Orig^') . Syr sin and ^5* 
omit to or ou^ he^tca^i fioi. 
The idea is to conform to the language of verse 11 where ta SeSiuKa? 
■«■ ol the great majority is doubtless right. We get a variation in 
KBM 12, but these harmonising critical authorities will have none of it, 
Md npeat a. (N writes ^ ev tm ov, aau >Kai ovi eBaKa<! fnoi etpvKa^a.) . 
xrii. 17. See under " Coptic and Latin," and note -|-^ (ants aXt}6eui) 
BW Paris'" soli cwm sah et boh. Tischendorf omits to add 
Coptic for this, chronicling B alone lor the addition of the 
article. To B we now add W and Paris", and the Egyptian 
pictore is complete, unless we tabulate the Syriac as emphatic 
and add it to the small list. Soden also neglects sah boh. 
Hort does not follow B here as he did not know of the 
support of copi or of W Paris". 
iTiii. 3. Kairatv (fmp. (-««) B"" cum 314 [W-E] Cf. sah boh syr 

(not mentioned by Tischendorf). 
34, See under " Order." 
XI, 16. pa^^ovP€i (pro pa^fiovvi) BN soli mm sah 
18. See under " Change of Number." 

B [N ST. John's gosi-eIj 


°xxi. 8. a\\a «? NABC Serf""' W-H ixt (pro ahX a><;) {iion D hoe 

toco], Cf. copt. 

11. See under " Improvement." 

12. ovSeL<! (sine copula) BC sa/tt to/i""°' [;<a,(.,.Tii«h a.» wordsw] 
18. See under " Order." 

As io ths corrector of B. 

As to the corrector of B (B' or B') observe : 
xii. 15 where B* lias Svyarrip {pro 0vrfar€p) B™' has inserted H = ,) 
0vyaTvp = sah and boh, but no Greeks. Von Soden mkms 
this connection with the Coptic, as did Tisohendorf before 
him, but Hmiier has observed it. It should be noted. 

Coptic and Latin sympathy. 

i, 42. (Steph. Tisch, ver 41 W-H Sod). -npaTov {pro irponot) 
BAMT'^XX"!! Sod"'" mm aliq copt latt sijr W-H Sod txt. 
\Non rell, 7ion LW, mn 33 vid, non 892, non Paris"] 
4S. {Staph. Tisch, rc-}-4-2 W-H Sod), loiavvov {pro lava) {<B*LW 
'63 a h f ff I r i't?""^^ (iohanna ti(?<?") sah hoh {aeih) Nonn 
Evang Hebr {teste Evan 560 marg) W-H Sod txt, but against 
all else and syrr Epiph Chr Cijr Serojp. {latavva Sod"^") 
{Oiii dim). 

ii. 1. TJj Tpnn r/iiepa {pro r-q rj/iepa ti) TpiTTJ) BU Sod"^" Jam 13 
127 fitiit' Epiph'" TF-H""= *= 6 e 5 r and sah, against boh and 
tho great mass of Greeks. 

iii. 18. o pn -Kiarevoyv sec hco (-Sf) NEW / I boh*"^ Clem Orig 
Tert Cypr"^ W-H Invn Sod'\ but against the mass. This is 
Coptic manner, but most boh and all sah have ie. The three 
hoii Mss involved are I'KN. In Tisch'a notes neither boh not 
Clem appear for the omisaioD nor in vojt Soden. 

iv. 50. eTTttrrevirev sine copula NBDW [«oii miiin exa. So*""''"] 
c d I gat vg sah boh*"" Gijr W-H Sod ixt (against km eiriar. 
the rest and sijrr boh^' aeth and Paris", and eTrto-r. Se by LT" 
213 31i s'*' 892). 
V. 12. ■rtpax'qaav {shie cop^da) NBD p*"' Sod™ ade ff I r foss sah 
io/i,""i and syr cu arm W-Ii [Sod]. {Om vers WPA b syr sin.) 

t Add this to Tiecliendorf's apparatus. It ia ooptic (and ooptio style) »jamat all 
others, but aa the others vary among themflehea M to what cjopula to use wa need not 
BCCBSe B of dropping anythuig. 



T. 29. o( TO ^auXa (jpra o* Se ra tjntvl^ or «»< o« Ta ipauXa) ty B 

alone of Greeks with sah [negl Sod] mi a e ff Tert Aug 

W-H txt. (See under " Improvement.") T' extant here and 

otherwise sympathetic has oi Se ta ipavXa. 

ti. 5. -Toi; imite ^tKtwwov) NBDKLA 88 892 PariB" Sod'" ^ 

Evsi m Cyr W-H Sod txt (fiontra rell ovm et W) = lat copt. 

7. -Ti BUhdefflqraur vg^ W-H [non Sod] [cf. copt). 

What necessity was there for a "revision " to add ti here? 

Z,' I See under " Chajige of Number." 

35. ««■«. (sine copuU) BLTW 113 Paris" Laura^''« Sod"' '" 

ate r/oss sah boh, arm «t(r W-H [non 8od'\. 
45. irai (sine eoptda) KBCDLNSTW min perpauc W' vg sah 
boh arm aeth syr, sin Orig W-H Sod, against the rest and 
syr cu Cyr. 
TO. 40. See under " Coptic." 

TOi. 14. >-n puiprvpia Mo« aXf^Vf «<^"^ BW3 157 235 314 Sod>''' 
East 60 only of Greeks, with b vg^ only o! Latins, and sah 
(against boh) Mpiph Did W-H'°' (non txt) [non Sod^^'-]. As to 
Origm he is divided and so is Chr, while D*' has a special 
form and order peculiar to him. See under " Order." 
69. ~iieX£a>v Sia fieaov avTcov Kai Trapr/f oyT&x; XBD lait sah 
syr sin W-H and Sod txt. Even T' (extant here) has it. 
Soden's note to this is a caricature. Ko one could guess from 
it that no minuscules omit, not even Paris", 
is. 4. ij/io?. . .fie BPT' [«oti minn] d sah (.aeth) syr hier W-H 

Sod txt, against 

cftf /ji£ by most, all Latins but d syr and moat versions, 

but m^i . . .'niM's ViliW boh arab Gyr omA Tisch^. 
It will be noticed that W now lends its support to KL. See 
licbaidorf' s note on the subject and full evidence in the second part 
ot thi« book under " Pifferences between N and B." The testimony of 
OdgcD is not satisfactory enough to draw a conclusion as between NLW 
hok »aA BDT* mh. 

ix. 11. o av0po)Tio<; 5 Xeyo/iemi (pro avBp<ciTO<; "Kerf.) t*BT' 1 33 

Laura* '°* sah boh W-H Sod txt (avOptaTTiK o Xeyo/iei/tx; Sodf" 

Paris" al.) et af. Utt. 

24. ex hemipov post tov avOpattov NBDtLT'W 38 Laura-*"* 

Sod?*^ HID iii« [jMTO Paris"] hcd'^ efflqsah boh syr pesh W-H 

t E d snhatitute avrov aad «Mjre for loy acSparrov, aa io only (Ji* tin and arm, while 
> TOf flpflfHoiroi' as r/r TuiffXor by espresaing " tiie Wind," " caeavim," oi " tw 

B IN ST. juhn's oospel. S9f 

Sod txt whereas the rest place the expression alter tij>a)in)aev 
ovi> {Out. gat). 
ix. 26. -iraXiv NBD[»o» T']W2P' Paris" a 6 crfe/ (?;?■(?«* (Tiif 
wj sail boh syr hier {mnt syr sin) Nonn W-H {Sod'], against all 
the rest all other versions and Cyr. 

35. ei? Tov vtov Tov avBpwn-ov {pro ets r. viov tov %ao\!) NBDW 
Paris" d sah and sijr sin Tisch^'^^ IF-H'*" ['wn So^i"^'] against 
all the rest including LT' (with them above) and Cyr Tcrt. I 
do not enlarge on this miserable change. I have commented 
upon it in nay ' Genesis of the Versions,' pp. 899/400. Soien 
violitea what principles he has by opposing KBDAV here. 
X. 14 fin. itat yivtoaKovai /»6 ra efM NB(D)LW it vg sah boh aeih 
syr hier goth Eus Cyr'-'^'' Nonn W-H [mn Sod] {of. Epipk H 
diatess infra) but Kat yivmaKo/jUii viro tov eftaiv A rell gr 
omn syr pesh arm Chr Giji^" "' Thdt. Syr sin conflates both 
these readings (not indicated by Soden). 

{Bpiph invertetu xai yap ra e/ja ■npo^a^a ywcoaKei fie /cat 

ytvaxTK/a ra efia ■n-po^ara. Cf. diatesg arab.) 
This is quite a remarltable place. Not a single recorded 
minuscule [not even Paris"'] agrees with the five uncials 
NBDLW for the active construction, yet all the Latins go 
with sah boh for it. And as syr dn ampUfies and conflates the 
two, both must be equally old. 

The diaiess (not inverting) seems to preserve the singular 
exhibited by Epiph : " And I know what is mine, and what 
is mine hwweth mo," continning as the Greek in a harmonious 
sentence wa^w? yivauKei jxe o •na-r'qp. 

Again Soden' a text opposes NEDLW. How can he reconcile 
this action with his attitude elsewhere when he follows NB 
or BD alone ? 

19 inU. <xx^aim {dne copula) NBLXW 33 157 213 249 Paris" 
Sod^^^ it [non d] vg [non US'"] sah arm W-H Sod txt, contra 
rell et Chr Oyr, et syr sin + " And while he was speaking these 

26. -Kaew<;entovvfiiv XBKLM'n* et W Sod"'" mill 

aliq [non Paris"] c g vg {et sax) gat sah boh arm, W-H Sod txi, 
against the rest most Old Latins and syr sin. 

29. See Eargon ' Causes of Corruption,' Burgon/Miller, p. 24/'2(j. 
42. Kai iroXXoj enitrjevaav NBDLX 1 33 157 213 248 249 

Paris'" SocP" "^" '™ '-'-"' it vg sah hoh {ct syr arm aeih) W-H 
[)Uin Sod\ against Kai eiriarevtrav itoXXot of A and most with 
goth {arab). (ttoXXoi ovv etrttneuaav W.) 
xi. 18. ^riBavta ( - ^) Only NB Sud"'° with Lat and Copt W-H txt. 

Not even W agrees. 

30. See under " Improvement." 



txi, 32. >ovK av iiov o aSeXcfioi; a-rreOavev T>^ (sail boh). Cf. ovk av /lov 
aTTedavev o aSeX<po<; NBC*LAW Sod!'''' '"* "" 38 254 S W-H 
Sod txt against ovk av aireffavev fu>v o a&eX<f>o<; AX gr pliir and 
OVK av aweOave o aS£\<po<; /mv 69 \iion fam] 397 Sod'"^^ it vg 
arm syr. Yet another variation is : o aSe\<f>o<t fuiv ovk av 
aireBavev by i^. Paris" omits fiov (' ' ovk av aire&avev o a&6\<lxK ' ' 
simply). It may represent the base, and fwv have crept in to 
the varying positions. There is so little serious textual 
variation in this much challenged chapter that every little 
thing is interesting, 
xii. 16. Tavra {sine copula) NBLQW3 Sod'"'" sah h e ff g I gat vg 

syr sin W-H Sod txt. 
This I am sure is real ooptic (sahidic) influence here 
because NB alone write in this verse avrov oi naOrp-ai. placing 
the possessive first as is the Coptic manner, and in sah it is 
very striking, both as to this and as to the absence of copula, 
for sah heads the verse jtequiAdHTTHC : "His disciples" 
proceeding : " knew not these " bringing ravra later, but com- 
pletely abandoning the copula (except one sah ms"*) and 
giving great prominence to avTov oi luiOrirai. which NB follow 
against all others. W omits the copula but does not follow 
the Coptic method here. Do the critics really mean to tell me 
that I am wrong again and that a common underlying Greek 
text is responsible for avrov oj itadrfrai in KB and in sail ? 
Why then does W not do it ? Observe W with XB elsewhere 
all around this passage. 

If anything be wanting to show B's real sympathy of eye 
with the sahidic version — (I have shown it previously) — let the 
critics observe the order maintained by B alone two verses 
beyond at xii. 18. 
18. See under " Order." 

35. TO <l>m ev v/uv eajc NBDKLMXII and "W^ minn"""" it vg 
boh Cyr 1/2 Nonn W-H Sod txt, but 
TO •jxa'i IK0 v/uov emi A. the rest and sah syr arm aeth Chr 

Cyr 1/2. 

xiii. 11. -i- oTt (ante ouxt ''^avTSf Ka&apoi etTTe) BGLW 33 213 397 

Sod''^ "» "1 "'» ^^"^ a b c fff I q r sah boh syr Cyr W-H 

[Sod!\, but against N and the rest, e and Orig. (Paris" 

repeats aXK in this place from the previous verse ; but syr 

t In Tisohendorf 's apparatus change D to D" (d reads frater mms) and add d after 
264, for 8 actually reads me^ls over iiov thus : 

n effer mf morruuf frax 




sin otherwise, for Sia touto etc : " Because of him said he 
this word.") 
xiii. 30/31. ore ovv e^Xffev XBCDLXW minn nmi paiw., lait copt Orig, 
W-H Sod txt, but ovv is against syr and the rest of the 
xiv. 5. Kvpie ovK oiiajiev irov wayfit, irw? ( — xai) . . . BCLW salt 
boh'"" aeth and arab with abr and syr sin W-H [non Sod]. I do 
not definitely accuse this o£ not being basic (although Tertullian 
is against it), yet the changes by the vaxious authorities in 
the form of the sentence following, where N and B are divided 
once more, shows ancient editing at this place, and the 
absence of copula may be due only to Egyptian influence. 
Yet a b r and syr sin are of weight, although d and the rest 
oppose. Arab continues the Egyptian traditions for omission. 
Observe in xiv. 7 soon following, another suppression of xai 
before the airapri clause by a B group, this time followed 
by Soden as well as by W-H, against N and the majority, 
and furthermore at : — 
9. A second suppression of xai before xa)? by NBQW 08 Paris", 
this time with a b c e ff g foss vg Iren""- Hil and ftoA™" [not 
sail this time nor syr sui] W-H [nan Sod] while aeth here 
with pers and Cyr have ttiut ovv. Observe D and d are still 
absent, as at xiv. 3, and it is fair criticism that instead of 
" Antioch " revising by adding Kai in both places, D et al. 
preserve the " true text " with it, since the authorities which 
omit in the one and in the other places are not agreed among 
themselves, or rather disagree completely and it is in the 
Egyptian manner to omit. 
14. TOUTO TToti/fffc) (pro «7M TToiTjcmi) Only BALA'"!' Sod" 33 124 
[noil fam] 249 262 397 Laura'*'"' Sod"'" "» »" '^^ Evst 16 
c g q r gat vg Atig boh sah aeth {-i-v/uv) Cyr W-W"^* [non 
Sod]. Add sah to Tischendorf's and Soden's apparatus for this. 
(M* reads 67a) touto). It is opposed by the great mass of 
good authorities and looks very non-neutral. In fact the 
14th verse is entirely omitted by some authorities including 
syr sin and syr hier and most codd of arm, and Chr, and 
6 and vg^ . 
XV. 26. oTov sine copula XBA 2='^ Paris'" e I m & vg^ saW"^ boh'^^ syr 
hier pers arab sax Did Chr Epiph Novat Hil W-H [>wn Sod], 
but against all others and Cyr. 
xvi. 10. — oTi eya vwayo) nrpot tov iruTepa NBULW 314 Laura* 

Sod^^" abd effrsah ioA'" aeth Orig W-H and Sod txt (against 
all the rest and syr including sin, and ■*■ and Paris^^. 
19. eyvcD sine copula XBDLW 1 [nonfam] 33 348 2i>= Sod''' '»" 
a b d e r aur boh'^ sah arm pers georg (Orig) W-H Sod txt. 




xvi. 23. -on BCD'LNY 42 Sod'^'^^'' \non "W* Paris"] l d e f 
ff g q gat vg [contra a c r S] Orig Ath Cyr'^' Quacst, and 
boh (which version Tisch and Soden negleott) W-H Sod txt, 
against K and the rest. 

25. epxerai ( - aXKa) NBC*D''LXYn2 and W 1 [turn fam] 33 69 
[nonfam] 213 Paris"' Sod"^ '"" a b d e g gat vg (hinc sax) sah 
arm syr hier Orig"' Aug W-S Sod txt, but against the rest 
and Orig Ath Cyr. 
xvii. i. reXeueaa'; (pro ereXeitoaa) ^?ABCLNlI ei W 1 [now/am] 33 
42 122 246 Paris'" V" b ff Hit 1/2 sah boh aeth Cyr 1/2 
W-H Sod txt, against the rest, whose testimony is strong, 
including that o{ Ign. \jiTf)\£ia>Ka jSo<J'^" ut lat.] 
7. ejo-w (pro eartv) See under " Change of Number." 

17. This is a peculiar and interesting place. 

" ayuuTov airrou? ev rrj aXTjdeia " without aov is read by 
t«(B)AC»DIin» and "W 1 Paris'' Sod''" {Cyr'"^ and the Latins 
and sah boh W-H [non Sod], but aU the other versions have 
trov. The interesting point is that B alone [not sah boh] 
drops TV before aXrjffeui, reading like the Latins " in veritate." 
We narrow the matter of the versions here down to Latin 
and Coptic, and since in the same verse B adds r) before 
dXtjdeca subsequently with W Paris"' only of Greeks but 
both sah bohX we are clearly on Latin and Coptic ground 
and in connection with both. Observe Soden's critical prin- 
ciples or eclecticism here. He holds aov in verse 17 while 
rejecting eTeXeiaaa above in verse 4 both witnessed to by the 
same group. 

21. iva Kai avToi iv ijfuv { — ev) atriv BC'DW a b c d e r vg' sah 
arm W-H [non Sod] against the mass. The few Fathers who 
quote without ev are also found to have it elsewhere, and Clem 
hasit, which should be decisive as against D. S^r sin is illegible 
just at this place. Perhaps the vulgate MS E gives us the key. 
It vmtes ut ipsi in nobis in {unum...) reduplicating the ev. 
Possibly ENHMINENOJCIN in the uncial writing caused the 
withdrawal of en («/) after 7;/ui'. Both '?' and Paris"' retain 
ev with N and the mass. 
24. This place does not really belong under the present heading. 
I do not know exactly where to put it. It refers to a very 
difficult matter. I will cite the verse in full : 

irarep (-rrarrip BAN ; om. et subleg. xai syr sin) o 6? B€&<i>Ka<; jioi 
deXo} iva otrov eifu €701 xafceivoi oitriv fier e/iov tva BewpoxTiV Ttjv 

t But ia view ot Coptic methods should be noticed here. 
i And perhaps the emphatic Sjniac. 


irpo KarafioK'q'; Koafiov. 

Clem, qaoting 24/26, does not vao^ (except as to the tense 
of "gavest") and employs ou?. So do the other Fathers; 
£its Ghr Cijr Cijpr Thdt etc., but XBDW Paris" boh 
[imii sah] cjoth and d (agreeing with D") and syr sin W-H 
and Sod txt substitute o for oik. The only key to an 
error in writing would occur if -rraTrfp were absent between 
the two verses, as is the case in syr sin alone, and where 
i/yairijo-a? would be followed by ous : HrAnHCACOYC, but this 
cause of corruption is very unlikely. Clearly here NBDW d 
boh goth syr sin hold the more difficult (most difficult) reading. 
Hort adopts it, but has nothing in his ' Notes on Select 
Headings ' about it. The Oxford edition of 1910 places ow 
in the margin and Souter gives the evidence in a footnote. 
Soden boldly adopts h (although Sod'^" reads ov [showing an 
original difficulty, but not o]) notwithstanding the fact that 
the omission which he neglected in verse 21 just above was 
sustained by a rather stronger family group. 

To what o refers is difficult to conjecture, and I would only 
remark as to the relative age of boh and sah that it is boh 
which goes with the accepted minority here for the hard reading 
and not sah. Surely if boh belonged to the vi" or vii'" 
century this o would have been smoothed to ow by then. 
My excuse for inserting this matter here, on the authority 
only of d and boh of the Latt and Coptt, is that it calls 
attention to this matter of date, 
xviii. 15. r)Ko\ovd€i &6 tio It/cou Xi/imv IlfT^o? Kai ( — o) aXXo^ fiadriTri';. 
Thus : aXKo<! without the article ^'ABD^pW* 106 c"' 2<» 8""= 
Sod"^ 1222 |^^„g„ Paris"] with sah boh (KexiA-OHTHc) it vg 
(alius) and Nonnus specifically " xai vco<; aXXo9 eraiptK," but 
the article is found in CN'" fourteen other uncials Ghr and 
Cyr, and rather specifically in syr " et nnus ex discipulis aliis." 
W-H and Sod suppress the article. 
ibid. > '^vrnmos r)v (pro tiv YKmffTo?) BW 4 Paris" Sod'*''' ii"" boh 

(sah) and sijr W-H''^ 
31. 7r«\aT09 {-!>) BC* Sod* ™^ soli vid et W-H. Cf. latt boh. 
ibid, -ovv sec. BC 22.5 250 sah'^ boh e q vg°^ syr pesh sin arm 

xix. 12. ireCKaTK ante e^rrrn XBLMXW*' fam 13 33 249 Paris" 
Laura*™ Sod'" "'° i»8n™i» j^pi g^h boh Cyr W-H Sod 
txt, against two other varieties of order, while 6 omits Pilate 
16. TrapeXafiov ovv tov Itjaovv tantum sine addit. B(L)X (19) 33 
(42) (61*) •iia ab ceffnr aur boh Cyr W-H Sod txt. 


There are a host of varieties here, chiefly of amplification. Of the 
versions, outside of the Old Latins named, all add something except boh. 
Even sah has " But they vrheu they had taken Jesus, they brought him 
out." In such cases, vchen the critics follow B and so few witnesses, I 
wish to call particular attention to the fact that hoh agrees and not 
sah. In such passages then boh has not been smoothed and added to 
as they would have us believe. 


six. 20. > ePpaiari pa/mum eWrfvtari BLNX^ et N' Qdat S* ex 

}um.) 33 74 89 90 234 248 cf f" Paris" S(,d=" """»»» "" 

*' ''^^ e ff sah et boh arm aeth georg syr hier Cyr W-H Sod txt 

\contra rell pi. : e/3/3. e\X, ptoii.^ 

24. —tiXeyovira NB 249 a b c e _ff r georg sah" [non omri] 

Ps-Ath W-H. 
No others omit, not even W^ or Paris", but cf. pers probably 
representing syr sin still missing. Pers says " and the Scripture was 
fulfilled," whereas syr pesh says " and the Scripture was fulfilled which 
said" (for the usual iva i? ypatjiv ttXjj/w^j; t] Xeyovaa). The omission by 
XB sah''^ is against Cyril although made their own by W-H, and Soden 
encloses the words in square brackets. Why then oppose as he does 
the larger group at xviii. 21 above ? 


XX. 6. See under " Improvement." 

xxi. 20. cTnarpa^Ki ( - copula) BACn»W 33 265 w"' Sod"" bcegr 
gat vgg'^ sah arm pers georg. (Simon turned round and saw 
syr sin). The rest have Se or /cat, and Chr ovu. W-H and 
Sod txt omit the copula. 
21. Tovrov -how. See under "Improvement." 

Traces of Syriac Sympathy. 


iii. 25. B alone adds Totu after p.a$TiTmv, reading €< jtav fia&Tjrav Ttav 
Imavov. This may be reduplication, but cf syr sin and syr 
pesh : " of one of the disciples of John." 
28. It is a little curious that so soon after this B alone with syr 
hier adds eym after enrov so [TK-fl^], while T" and syr cu sin 
prefix €701, but the other Greeks all eschew this. 
Again : 
34. — TO TTvevpa B* "' (h™ * ?) might be omitted also in syr sin. 
iv. 11. — tj yvvT) B"" cum syr sin et W-H txt (exeivri pro rj yvinj N). 
Westcott and Hort here followed B alone. This is now found 
supported by syr sin, while N substitutes exeimi. Cf. the cursive 28 
• (sister us to W) and dimma at John xx. 15, exeivoi pro o 'ii^aovi also with 

B IN ST. John's gospel. 333 

sijr sill alone. Von Soden does not mention this at all in his notes, 
although I called attention to it specifically in the Appendix, vol. ii., of 
my 'Genesis of the Versions,' pp. 100 and 171, and Scholz had duly 
reported 28 for eKeivo<;. 

The scientific course would be to follow si/r sin in both places. Of 
course Hort did not dream of following Evan. 28 at xx. 15. But this 
situation reveals the insecurity of a text founded on preconceived ideas. 
If syr sin be right in iv. 11 why not at xx. 15 ? The answer is because 
B is the key. Anything which supports B is greedily availed of, as will 
be a few reidings of the new MS W. But let syr sin or W oppose B, 
however much other support they may have, and the Hortites tumble 
over themselves to get away from such readings. 

eicelvo-i is a word however of peculiar importance in St. John, and 
these passages are well worthy of thought. See John ii. 21, iv. 25 for 
its general use, and svi. 13/14 de spiritii veritatis. 

Dr. Abbott does not go into this matter very fully in his Johannine 
Grammar (but see § 2381, 2, 2731, 2), and as the Concordances do not 
subdivide the subjects, I append a list of the diverse applications of 
eicetvo<i, exeivoi, and exeLvri in St. John's Gospel. The word is used 
specifically ; 

Of God at vi. 29 

Of the Father i. 33, v. 19 38, vii. 29, viii. 42 

Of the Son i. 18, ii. 21 

Declaration of the Son of God ix. 37 erne he avTCD o l-qaov; icai 

ewpaica^ avrov Kai o \a\(OV fiera gov eKecvo^ etTTiv. 
Of the announced Christ iii. 28 30 (testimony of the Baptist), 

iv. 25 (testimony of the Samaritan woman). 
Of the Light of Heaven i. 8 (cf. v. 35) 
Of the Holu Spirit xiv. 26, xvi. 8 13 14 

Of the Word xii. 48 

Of the Scriptures v. 39 

Of the believer xiv. 12 21, xvii. 24. Also vi. 57 (of 

the communicant) 
Of the angels at the tomb xx. 13 
Of the Healer (in the mouth of the paralytic) v. 11 6 -noniGaif 

fie vjir) eKeivot jwi enrev, . . 
As well as of Jesus in the mouth of the Jews. vii. 11 oi ovv 
\ovBatoi e^Tjrovv avrov ev rt} eoprrj Kai eXeyop irov etniv 
cKeivot; again ix. 12 ttov ea-nv cKetvo';; again ix. 28 
av ei /Mi^ijTJ)? exeivov; and again xix. 21 e\£yov ovp ra 
TTtXaTto 01 apxt€pei<; r(ov lovSaioJV fiTj ypa<j}e o ^aiTiXev<; rav 
\ovhataiv aA.V ori €Keivos etTre ^a^iXev^ eifu Ttov \ovhauov. 
Of the year of Christ's death (tou eviavrov eiceivov) xi. 49, 

xviii. 13 
Also oi John Baptist v. 35 (cf. i. 8) 


Of John the writer xix. 35 

Of the beloved apostle xiii. 25, xxi. 7 23 

Of Moses V. 46 47 

Of the disciple known to the High priest xviii. 15 

Of Peter the denier xviii. 17 25 (at xiii. 6 NB 6 

Orig Gyr omit exeivm) 
Of the disciples xi. 13 

Of Mary, sister of Martha xi. 29 
Of Mary Magdalene xx. 15 16 

Of the scribes and pharisees vii. 45 
Of the blind man ix. 9 11 25 86 

Of the sheep x. 16 

Of the false shepherd x. 1 

Of another teacher coming in his own name v. 43 
Of Judas xiii. 26 27 30 

Of Satan viii. 44 

Ot the Jews x. 6 35 (add xix. 15 by BLXN' 

Laura*"* Sod™ '''"beqCyr W-H Sod txtt) 
It is even found in the pericope de adult, at viii. 10 avaiar^a<; 
oe o \i}(7ov<; Kai fii]8eva deaaajievo^ -jtXijv T179 yvvaiKo<; enrev avnj 
H yvvrj TTov eiaiv cKeivoi 01 KarTjyopot aov, ovBeti ae KareKpivev)" 
Add XX. 15 of him whom Mary supposed to be the gardener 
(testimony of 28 and syr sin), and iv. 11 of the woman of Samaria 
(testimony of X). 

Traces 0/ Syriac {continued). 


vi. 71. «? TMi. SaBexa ( - mi/) BC'DL 230 Sod"' '»' »" d aeth [against 

sah boh] and syrr only W-H \non Sod txt] (Sw pro mv 604). 
vii. 34. +/ie See under " Improvement." 

viii. 39. eo-T6. . .iroiene B ff vg {Orig) pro i^re. . .eTroieire. W-H txt 
[Sod eo-TE . . evoiene av] t {Cf. syr sin). 
xi. 2. liapuifi B 33 syr W-H {Copt latin and the rest napia) 

§ 19. /Mpia/i again BCDLA syr W-H, here, in another case " irpot 
Mapffav Kai Mapiap, " instead of Maptav as N and most. 

t Soden should not include 88 {or this. 

t Soden'8 notes are so constructed here as to be very obsonre. The reading of B irouirt 
being relegated to the third series of notes with 138 (my 604) which latter however has 
all which is niissing in B, and has ip-i against tort. The connection between these 
matters is lost in Soden's apparatus as often elsewhere. 

§ Soden quotes " lat " for this accusative but neglects to speak of ayr here, or 
above, or below. 



( xi, 20. But here only 33 138 Paris" Sod'^' and 2'*? are recorded for 

The above should be noted as to a kind of indirect Syriac 
influence mi B, for at : — 
21. B (possibly C) and syr sin ALONE omit icvpte of all known MSS 
and versions except Evst 54, not quoted by Tisch or Homer or 
Soden; and the omission in Sod edition, relegated to his 
bottom notes as if of no importance ! Has Soden not read 
Merx on this (p. 273 of the Schlussband) ? 
( 28. B holds ^laplafJ, here but with D and ACKLAH Sod"'" 33 138 
157 Paris", while X maintains fiapiav ; the same applies to 
xi. 31. ) 
32. fuiptaii, nominative, BC»E*L 33 157 Paris" sy7- [jiapia X rell) 
xii. Z. liapiap, ,, B 1 [)io;i /an»] 33 Paris" Sod" ^' si/r (/«i/)ja 

N rell) 
See below at xx. IG. 
40, - TTa? B3 alone with syr sin. Perhaps an error or deliberate 
harmonising with verse 44. Belegated to Soden's bottom ■ 
notes, where he omits syr sin (of. Merx, p. 335). 
( xiii. 22. epkeirov sine copula BC 16 245 Sod'''"^ e arm pers (Orig) sah""" 

et N° W-H. 
I venture to place this here, although the syriacs have a 
copula, since pers and arm are agreed to support BC, and 
possibly the old syriac underlying pers and arm was without 
it, and BC may represent the base here. The more so as in 
verse 25 ovv or Se omitted by BC 138 e Orlg only, is also 
wanting in syr sin. Soden quotes ^ for omission, but Lake 
does not record it. ) 
xiv. 5. See under " Coptic and Latin." 
26/27. This is a place of some importance, although involving the 
addition merely of the little personal pronoun eym, Tischen- 
dorf says: " vpuv. . .Praeterea BL 127 add eya (sive ad vp.iD 
give ad seqq trahiiur," by which he means that wc can read 
either at the end of verse 26 iravra a emov vfuv ejw, or Trama 
a etnov vij.iv, and place the eja> at the head of verse 27 : " eyio 
€tpr}VT)v afptTjfjii vptv.'* 

As a matter of fact Evan 127, correctly reported by Birch, 
is misreported by Scholz and Tischendorf, for 127 reads in 
verse 26 iravra a eyw enrov vfjLiv as X 33 Sod^^ and not iravra 
a emov vp.iv iym as BL 314 (= Sod^^^), so that while 127 
definitely places £701 in verse 26, BL are indeterminate as to 
adding it at end of verse 26 or at beginning of verse 27. 
No other Greeks or Latins add in either place ! Hort however 
crams it in after v/jtiv verse 26 fin [B.V. does not, again 
opposing Hort]. Neither of the Coptic versions has eya in 



either verse, but the first word in sahidic of verse 27 is 
*f"KlO (= a^irifu) which might mislead the eye. In aeth 
however eya is present in the same position as in BL. The 
situation in syriac is as follows : 

gy^peiti gayg 26/27 TTavra a etnov eyro vfjj.v ' eiprfvTjv aipiijfu. 
eya> vfuv. Syr'"'' (lesson 150) has eyto in verse 27 but not in 
verse 26. Syr^^ has eym verse 26 fin without v/uv (as Cyr only 
but abcefflmr aur omit viuv), and syi^" apparently has 
v/uv without eya (separately) but eym separately verse 27 after 
a<l>tTifu (Lewis ed. p. 254 note " Dissimiha " line 4, and 
photograph opp. 1st col. line 4). At any rate the eya of BL 
seems clearly due to the influence of a version. Tischendorf 
says nothing of the Syriac. 

["W" is wanting from xiv. 25 to xvi. 7 and 892 ceases on 
parchment at xiv. 23.] 
xix. 10. Matter of order and quite important. As to Pilate's speech 
to our Lord. Instead of ovk otBas on e^ovaiav ex<o araypwaat, 
ae Kai ef. «%<» airoXvaai ae, the order is reversed to : 
a-rtoyMaai ae. . .OTavpaxrai ae by KBAE*N SocF *" e and syr 
pesh [^hiat sin] only, but with pers (doubtless representing 
the missing syr sin ITisch forgets pers~\) and arab W-H 
[against both Coptics]. 

Wl' all minn. including Paris" give us the usual order 
which Soden follows. 
11. In this connection observe the order SeSofievov aoi here of 
NBD-'-'LY and W Sod}"' '^' with syr and it^' Cypr Irea'"' 
Orig"' 1/2 W-H Sod txt, against aoi ieSofievov of most and 
Cyr. The order in the previous clause xaj efu>v ovSe/imp of 
NBD"''KLXW* 1 33 124 [non fani] 138 157 2'" Paris" 
Laura*'"* W-H Sod txt is also Latin order. Observe also 
the o napaBovi in this verse of NBEaA Sod'^' ""' min"'" et 
W-H \non Sod txt] (for o TrapaSiSovs:) = it vg syr : qui tradidit. 
txx. 16. lULpiap. (pro pupia) B with NLNOH and W 1 33 71""« 
w"'' Sod}'''' """ sah boh syr Greg Nyss Sev {Nonn) Tisch"'- 
TF-H*" [non Sod]. 

(See above at xi. 2, 19, 28, 32, xii. 3). 
This is quite noteworthy. It occurs in our Lord's single- 
worded address to the woman — (and is the correct lingual 
antithesis as it were to the answer " pa/3/3oui/t ! " introduced 
in NB and the majority by efipaian but not by all) ; — whereas 

t Paris" breaks off at xx. 15, the last leaves having apparently perished, as have 
the last leaves of the Apoc. in some uss, and as those or that of St. Mark where that 
Gospel came last. 




1 ''• 




et W-H 



sail holt do not use fiapia/j. but i^apia earlier in the chapter, 
as do the rest. N however has fiapiap. throughout. 
XX. 18. /iapiafi again BXL 1 33 2'" [Sod teste] sah [non holi] syr 

23. Tivoi lis pro Twav his B [sol inter gr) a e f r syr Cyj>r 

Orig"'' Ens. 


eKafiav B [non W-H] 

epavpare NBN Sod'"° (pro epsvvaTe) 

€pavvT)aov XB'T [nmi N] (pro epemrjuov) 

The word occurs nowhere else in the Gospels. But at 
1 Pet. i. 10 e^rjpavvr)(7av by NAB* while in the very next 
verse 11 epawtovreii follows by XB* but not by A. 

At 1 Cor. ii. 10 epawa bj' NAB* and C, but at Ivom. viii. 27 

only N has epavvwv against B and the rest epewav. Finally 

at Apoo. ii. 23 epavvav is found in AC (hint B) but epavvav 

here by N and the rest. 

vi. 22. irepa (pro vepav) B*"<" Cf LiOdell mid Scott [non W-H] 

Soden does not care to record this in his foot-notes, eo B 
remains alone. But it is an indubitable " improvement." 

42. ovx^ ovro^ (pro ovx outo?) BT et W-H 

43. nera aXXijXcov (pro iier' aXK.) B 157 soli [iwn W-H\ 

Soden did not recoUate St. John in 157 so does not record 
it ; but he adds Sod'"" Sod'-' (presumably e 371 = Evan 4 at 
Paris) and '^ although not reported b}' Lake, 
iii. 12. fiot (pro ep.oi) BT Orig (Until BT were carefully collated 
Orig was always cited alone for this. No others seem to joiii, 
nor 892 nor Paris" more recently collated). W-H place p-oL 
in text and do not consider epot at all. Soden retains e/tot and 
has no new evidence for pj)t. 
t 55. Kuv (pro Kai £av) XBDW Sod'*'^ soli et W-H (cf. viii. 14 uU 
xav habent MSS°"°" ei sah boh, sed Orig a"' xat, cf. viii. 10 
xav a solus) 
57. eopaKet B* et W Sod"" (pro eapaica,) Inou W-H] 

X. 24. €KvK\ev<7av B 

xi. 24. ev T17 avaarrjaei B (pro ev tt; avauraaei) [negl. Sod] 
28. ei.ira!ia(pro eiTTovaa secund.) B C 

■f By using «ai> for «m em' at viii. 16 S (alone) shows that this is a " preference." 
Tiie others Jo not have it there. Are they rijht at viii. 55 ? Observe that Clem"" uses 
xav elsewhere. 


Actually in W-H text because C supports. No marginal alternative. 
The Oxford text of 1910 restores eivovtra. I presume emaaa is a " form " 
and not a change of tense, but unless B intended a subtle variation 
between the first and second emovaa in the verse, it is difficult to see 
why he vprites thus. Compare the versions. Latin and sah make the 
first eiTTovaa = a past participle, and the second a present participle. 
{eiTTiov see. loco by the critical codex 213 (= Sod^"^*) so often in the B 
group elsewhere.) Boh, according to Homer, conveys a past participle 
in the second place. 

In order to avoid burdening the apparatus in Part II. with a lot 
of minor differences in form or spelling.t I have not chronicled a 
host of places where N or B write eiirav for uirov. % I wish I had 
done so however, as this case arises which might seem at first sight 
to require delicate treatment. But it will be seen, as neither N nor B 
are constant in the use of enrap, that it is merely a matter of 
occasional preference with either of them (indeed D writes eXeyov and 
eXeyav in the same verse, John ix. 16) and that enra<Ta secund. in 
xi. 28 is not to be regarded seriously. Some cursive mss place a stop 
after avrTif and before Xadpa entovaa, but I do not think B was 
finessing here. Hort (' Notes on Orthography,' vol. ii., p. 164, col. ii. 
top) says : " The participles e'ira?, eXnaaa are rare : the forms in -avriK, 
-avTei, -ama have no sufficient authority anywhere." It is regrettable 
that he did not refer to this place at John xi. 28 where elirovaa is first 
used and then eiiraaa, by himself and BO only. He admits that etiravToi 
and cases other than the nominative are not recognisable in the N. T. 
Then why admit enraaa in xi. 28? Why not have used ci-n-a? at ix. 6 
where the discourse had preceded the act of healing? Cf. some Mss in 
note below at xi. 38. 


xi. 37. avvia<s B*D {rum W-H^ 

§ 38. €vffp€ituDfievo<! B*D (C/. xv. 18 nefiaariKev BIX) 

xii. 1.5. temv {pro Ximv) B*A \non W-H^ 

32. av (pro eav) B 13 [wore /am] W-H. Here 157 

Sod'"^ Orig Ath Bos Chr Caes have orav. 
( xiv. 13. aiTTire pro atTriffrire BQ only and W-H™'. It may be 

ellipsis or " Change of Tense." See thereunder and also aa 
to the same form at xv. 16 by BL^. There Sod does not 
even record anrfre although he did at xiv. 13. SoiZ"" alone 
improvises airrjariaffe at xiv. 13. ) 

t Thas sometimes B spells vapijaia witii one p, sometimes it is M who does this. 
X Thus taking lor example John ix. we find ix. 22 26 tarm by K alone, ix. 28 40 
(mav «D, ix. 20 t ot(i» KBL [not D] , ix. 12 23 24 H tinm KBD. 

§ ffx^fnttovfLevni KAU od. aliq; tfi^ptfiatfui'os piur; aed fv^pipimv W;. tfi^ptiitj- 

<rnp.tms C*X 213 Sod'"«S™ Jndr^"'; («/i/3pijiu<ra;»fvot f", tfi^p.^oxi^fi-or K). 

i; IN ST. John's gospel. 33' 

( xiv. 19. ^rjacTe pro ^riaeade BLX 21.3 only, but adopted by Tisch on 
the ground that at v. 2.5, vi. -51 57 58 ^r/a-ei and ^tja-ovaw are 
found and not ^rjacrai and i^rfaov-rai, but, as he points out, 
iriaerai is found, without variation, at xi. 25. I place the 
matter here as it hardly seems right to put it under 
changes in verbal voices ; yet a delicate shade of meaning 
seems to underlie one or other of these forms in the 
particular connection involved, and which one the writer of 
the Gospel used we shall never know. W-H follow BLX 
with ^riaeTC. Soden adds 213 {So(P-'} but does not follow it, 
yet 213 is a regular adherent to and confirmer of the B 
transmission. ) 
XV. 4. {ficvT, pro fieivv NBL 33'[Sorf] 213 Paris" W-H Sod txt. 
" Form " or change of tense. But Origeii efi/jeivrj and Eiu 
Cyr /leiini ut vid. ) 
ibid. ( fuvnre pro fieivvre NABL Sod"*"* Paris" W-H Sod txt. 
The same applies here. Above a writes maiteat bnt manseritii 
here, while d above has i>ianserit (with most) bnt maneatis 
here. ) 
I 5. ovSe ev {pro ovBev) B. Cf. C^Y Sod"" ad xx\. S [tion B] 

I 13. ovBe «9 (pro ovSck) B 

( (i. fuvr, (pro iMeivn) N*ABD Paris" Sorf'"'^ W-H Sod txt. Yet 
another Greek combination for this, d here has maneat but 
not a nor the rest. ) 
7. o av eeXvre B 209 I ^^^^ ^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^g. ^ g^^,. 

oaa eav aeXrjTe N ) 

( 8. ycvTiaSe pro jevrjcreade BDLMXA mill pauc Amphil Chr 
W-H {noil Sod\ Ellipsis or intentional change ? '^iveade 
Paris". ) 
22. eixoi7av (pro eixov) NBN'LII'^ l[)w« fani] 19 mg 33 j'" 

(negl Tisch Sod) Sod'"' [iion ^V Paris"] 0H3''""' °»" ■"""»' C(//-'»' 
W-H Sod txt (etxavT)'). 
24. eixotrav (pro etxov) NBL* (Mat N)n^ l[noii farn] 19 mg 

33 Sod'"'* 2'" W-H Sod txt against the rest and against Cyr 
here (etxav D*). 
xvi. 32. Ka/ie (pro km e/ie) NBC*LN^ l[)iO)j fam exc. Sod^"] 

138 Sod'^' Cyr W-H Sod txt against the rest and Const Did. 
xvii. 6. KUfiot (pro xai cfioi) BY Sod"^ l[noii /am} 83 138 W-H 

[noil Sod] against X the rest and Orig Em Did Chr Cyr. 
ibid fin. Ter7ipr]Kav (pro TCT'jpj^'cafftv) BDLW Sod"'' soli vid et 

W-H [lion Sod]. 

We have had imperfects (cXejav) and aorists (eiwav) 

frequently. This is the first instance to be noticed of the 

perfect in this form. NN 33 substitute eTrjfytja-av. To 

the testimony of BDLW however we should add e ff 

z 2 



which read Ternpr/xa {e servabi, ff servavi). This vanona 
reading may have come from a copy in which the final v 
o£ TCTTipriKa had become lost before the i>vv following — 
TETHPHKANYN — but observe eyvaxa in the next verse, by a 
few cursives, is shared by most latt vett although no N 
follows there in the next word, 
xvii. 7. eS<BK6! (pro heS<aKa<t) B"" See under " Change of Tense." 

8. €8(o«e? ( „ „ ) B-' „ „ 

.xviii. 6. a-7T7,\ffav XBDW W-H {et eireaav NBCDELXW3 1 33 213 

Sod^'-'''' W-H et Sod). 
29. ^r,aiv (pro enrev) NBC'LXWSP 1 [22 Sodm. Teste Sanders 
ex erroi-e] 33 213 2i» Paris" Sod"'"'"'''^ Cyr Ch?'"' W-H 
Sod txt. 
xix. 3. eSiSoaav (pro eStSouj.) NBLNXW* 1 22 138 2'* 604 (cum LX 
e&i&waav) Paris." Sod'" "' Cyr W-H Sod txt. 

11. Trapahov! (pro o irapahtBovi) Either ellipsis or a variation 
witnessed to by NBEAA W-H"' [no« Sod] Sod"" '»«' "''' 
■min""', but not the ones we expect, nor by W? Paris", 
but = it vg syr qui tradidit. 

12. expavyaaav BD'"" ^ 33 157 249 w'" al^' Sod'''^ W-H [non 
Sodf'^''] a, but this is a change of tense as well. See under 
"Change without Improvement." 

XX. 4. Taxeiov (pro raxiov) B al aliq et W-H [non H] 

(I have neglected the oft recurring differences between N 
and B as to ireiXaTo^ and TriXarw, et<TTTjK€t and lar-qKet) 
16. pa0^ovvei BN sah Et,siAm6iine.up. 63 yfr.js (pa^fimvei D) 
23. a^ewvTai B (a^iiovTOi TF-H™ ; a<lieQ>vTai W-W"- Sod^'-'- cum 

N'ADOX Sod»" al. Cyr, et a<t,ievrai plur et Orig. 
25. xtJ/Mj- BW and A o"", but (see under " Genitive before 

the Koun ") BW fwv tijv X'^^f"', whereas A c"" tijk x"/""" 
fiov. (ra? X'^^P^'^i — /W3U D d.) 
xxi. 4. yeivoiievTji BA [non T> hoc loco, sed DA ver 5 

Trpod^ayetav, no)i B] 
15. irXfov (pro ir^ewv) NBCDLSXAfi 4 33 122 314 Sod''' Chr 

Cyr W-H Sod txt [against the rest and Basil] -irXiov N al ? 
(1 22 2'^ Sod}'" a b c effr aur syr sin omit irX. Tovrav.) 


i. 40 (St. Tisch, ver 39 W-H Sod). ty^aOe (pro liere) BC'LT'W 

X" (Sod^'') -irfam 1 22 33 Paris" (Orig) W-H Sod txt. 

This appears rather more euphonious as : epxeaOe xai o^ade 

than epx'^ade Kat tSere. The latter is supported by the mass 

and » and by Epiph Cyr Chr. As CLT" and W* join B for 

B IN ST. John's gospel. 341 


o-^eaBe with 1 22 33 Paris" it may well be fundamental as 

regards Egypt, but not necessarily as regards fundamental 

neutrality. [See Abbott for particulars as to Johannine 

diction in this respect.] 

iv. 51. viriivTrjaav {pro anriPTriaav) See in St. Matthew's Gospel as 

to this pp. 24/26. 

vi. 2. eSetapovv BDLNX''*(A) 69 185 397 Paris" Sod"" """' C^ 

W-H Sod txt for empmv (dewpovvTa pro on eapav W, eOempei 

Laura-^'", etopaxev Sod^'^^) involves a discussion of the 

synonyms for seeing and beholding etc. in this Gospel (see 

Abbott, ' Johannine Synonyms,' § 1598) and would not be 

profitable enough to discuss at length here, so that it need 

not detain us. I will only remark that in this same chapter 

at verse 19 Sempovatv occurs, at verse 40 o ffetopav, and at verse 

62 0£a>pr)T£ (or Oetopetre), without variation among MSS, so that. 

a change has been wilfully made here in verse 2 by one party- 

or the other. Which is the most likely to have altered the-. 

word? (At vi. 36 empaKare occurs, and at vi. 46 empaxev, in 

both places unchanged except for Eoaii. 28 in the latter place, 

which MS merely adds ewt'yivaaKei -q before copuKev (.?Jc) pr. 

loco. ) 

[vii. 49. eirapaToi (pro ewiKaTapaToi) NBTW Sod"" l[nonfam} 33 2"= 
Sod"' [no)i al. vid] Orig Cgr W-H Sod txt. This may be 
ellipsis, or it may indicate a preference, or it may be basic,, 
for eTTLKarapaToi is the expression throughout the LXX from 
Genesis to Jeremiah and therefore may have replaced 

viii. 16. aXrjdtvTf (pro a\7j07f<;) See under " Improvement." ■ 
X. 3. <pa>vei {pro KoKei) NABDLXW^/ani 1 33 157 213 249 397 
2<» Paris" Sod=" "'» "» '^' s" Cyr W-H Sod txt. It does not 
follow that the rest are wrong with xaXet. The change may 
have been made by "scholars" for alliterative purposes 
following (jxupr)!! avTov axovu in the verse, 
xii. 3. eTrXi]a6ri {pro eirXi/jpaOrf) in the phrase " ri Se oixia e-nXtt- €x 
Ti)9 o<7fj.Tj>! Tou jivpov." This reading is found in B only, and is 
put aside by Hort and B.V- as not worthy of notice. The 
viciousness of their " note " system is shown here, for neither 
Hort nor Souter give the reading in their notes, and the 
ordinary minor student, who is compelled to use these tomes, 
thinks of course that B agrees with the text en\Tipo>drj as 
printed. But B deliberately used a word which is practically 
«ore Johannine {Soden does not add one single new witness 
for etrXriadrf) , for the -KXrjaavTet; of many at John xix. 29 
[the only place in which a form of ttXtjOqi or Trtp.TrXii/u is found 
in the fourth Gospel] does not find any room in NBLX who 



use a different sentence ((Tiroyyoi' ow lieajov o^ov; pro oi Be 

irXiiaavrei avoyyov o^ovv «a<) whereas TrX^pom is fully 

Johannine, occurring at ; 

iii. 29. avTrj ow 17 X"/"* 't ^M '"eTfKrjfMnai, 

y\\. 8. OTi e/io! xaipo^ (vel xaip. e/10;) outtu 7r€7rXi7/J<UTa» 

xii. 38. iva o Xoyo? Htrawu rov -Trpotj}. irXrjpotBrj 

xiii. 18. aW tva tj ypa<f>T) irXripaiBTj 

XV. 25. o\X J^'O TT\ripw0Ti \0705 

xvi. 6. a\X OTt TauTa XcXoXt^ko u/tii', i) Xutti; TTevX-qpiDKiV vpwv rr/v 


24. ei/a ») X""/"* I'*"""' V TeirX^prnfievi) {Cf. I Jo. i. 4, 11 Jo. 12) 

"Xvii. 12. iva 7} ypa<jii) TrXrjpwdr] 

13.. tva eywcriv rrjv yapav rijv ep,Tjv ireirXTipaifievqv €v cauTot? 

xviii. 9. tva TrXTfpcodtj X070? ov etTrev 

32. iva oXirjos rov\arjov irXripwdr] 

xix 24 I /I 

') tva ri ypa<i>ri vXrj pad rj 


besides vXr/pap-a in John i. 16 (a word not used by St. Luke, 
who on the other hand uses forms of irXriBo freely). 
Further, trXiipoto is found in St. John's epistles ; 
1 John i. 4. tva ij X"/'" ^H-"" Zl ■teTxX-rtpap.e.vTi (Cf. Jo. xvi. 24) 
II John ver. 12. tva 17 X"/"" •'/'<»'' ■"eTrXriptoiievq n (X)B vg.{BeU y irewXrip.) 
in the same phrase as in the Gospel at xvi. 24. 
Yet, if the critics could rake up from the Libraries a few Greek 
cursives with eTrXrjcrOv in John xii. 3, upon their own foundations and 
rules they would be bound to insert the reading of B there. Such 
unscientific reasoning cannot affect Scripture harmfully here, since we 
are merely dealing with a synonym at this place. But the example is, 
or should be, a warning and a danger signal as to B's methods elsewhere. 
If B ia " neutral " when he writes Iriaovs for 6 Ii)o-ou?, even when alone, 
as Hart insists by repeatedly placing the article in square brackets on 
: those occasions, why in the name of common logic is B not right when 
he gives us such a fine " neutral " form as eirXriadn, equally not found in 
other documents ? 

I insist, and I think the public will say with reason, instead of 
repeating to us ad nauseam what a fine man Hort was, and how much 
.study underlay his text, that his followers should offer us some explana- 
tion of why they abandon B occasionally when that MB is affected by a 
bad "sunstroke," and not that they should cover up B's solecisms by a 
eonspiracy and a mantle of silence (which I charge to be unfair). This 
remark applies with even greater force to the next place of this kind to 
b& considered, viz. John xii. 28, where B and Evan 5 alone are guilty of 
something very serious. See under " Hopelessness of considering B 
neutral." Both Hort and Souter's Oxford edition abandon B, but cover 
up the matter by another conspirSjCy of silence. . 

B IN ST. John's gospel. 343 


xiv. 7. In view of the foregoing, the next case may be referred with 
some confidence to an internal species of harmonistic effort 
(throwing some light on the other question of efieivev or 
SiET/ji/Sei' at xi. 54. See under "Indeterminate.") I refer to 
the substitution of : 

av vBeiTe by BGQ* l[uoiifam] 33 Ps-Ath Bas Cyr TF-H'"' 
[nil in mg] Sod"" [nmi txt], or av eiSrire L 21" , or eiSrjTC av H, 
or vSeire av 22 213 314 Sod^'\ for eyvaxetre av, which as 
Tischendorf carefully explains may be a reflection of John 
viii. 19. XDW Paris" substitute ■^voiaeaBe which Tischendorf 
receives into his text, av ijSetre seems very likely an im- 
portation from viii. 19. 

Homo-iotdeuton . 

iii. 2.5. €K rav fiadriTcov tiov \aavov B"" (but see under Sijriac) 
ix. 7. awriXdcv ^Xeirav ( — ovv Kai eviy^aro icai rfKdev inter aTTrjXdev ct 

^e-nav) B"" 
Syr sin however differs ; " and when he washed his face his 
eyes were opened," leaving out any question of -riXOev 
which caused trouble in B. 

The arm is rather graphic here : " He went, washed, came 
and saw." 
X. 18. Tavrrfv evTo\T}v {pro ravTTjv tijv evroXtjv) B^'. This must be 
an error and cannot certainly be referred to any Latin 
influence yet Sod"^', a thoroughly bilingual codex, alone 
now comes to join B at this place ! Note the only Greek 
witness in xix. 26 for avTov post rrjv /iifrepa to join the 
Latins a c n is Sod"''" with fi. 
See beyond under the caption "Historic Present." It is in 
the same verse that XB alone substitute vp^v for aipei. I have 
directed attention to the ttdlit of gat at that place. Is it 
possible that Latin {tulit and hoc mandatum) is responsible for 
both rjpev and Tavrrjv evroXtiv { — ri^v)? 

Homoioteleuton with Indeterminate Besults. 

xii. 35. vepnraTeiTem<; to ^m? «X«Te. Depending on how oarefully the 
original was made and copied must depend the correctness of 
the double variety TrepiTraretre w? or TepnraTeiTe ews. B favours 
the former. In verse 86 009 stands plainly by NABDLWIl^ 
Did Ath. 

xiv. 22. KlKAlTircrONeN. xat has been inserted or dropped here owing 
to the proximity of kS. X and most have it. B.IDELX 33 


397 Laura* '« Sod^^ "" "'• ^'^ Cyr latt copt syr arm a^th goth 
drop it as do W-H [nil in mg] but not Soden (I wonder why). 

Homoioteleuton and Homoioarcton. 


xiv. 4. We can hardly attribute to homoioteleuton the shortened 
clause here. It would be charitable to do so, but it is evidently 
to remove an apparent (and not a real) pleonasm that 
NBC'LQXW 33 157 213 (Sod"') bohpers aeth"'^ and only a r 
ot the Latins give us xai ottou (eya) vira'ya otSaie tt)v 
ohov with W-H and Sod, instead of xat ottou (er/a) virwyta 
oiSaje, xai rr/v o&ov oiSare of D and all the other fourteen 
uncials, all the cursives, syriacs (including sin), sah, latt, 
the other versions, and Cyril. Neither NP^ nor 892 follows 
the NB group here, and Paris" has xai ottov tyio inrayia 
ovK oiSate TTjv oSov. (Observe that it is boh which 
supports XB etc., and not sah. Further remove " al.pauc " and 
" al " in Tisch Horner and Scholz after 33 157. It is doubtful 
whether any other cursives so far collated have the short form. 
Only the famous Sod'^-^ (= 213) appears as a new vritness. 
"Correct Wetstein also who cites goth for it. ) c"", not cited by 
Tisch, has fcat oirov virayo} eya oiSare { — xai Tr}v oSov oiSaTe). 
xviii. 5. Where Db er (Mat d) and Origen omit iriaom in the sentence : 
X«76i auT0(9 (I»70"ou<?) ey(a €tfii ' eitJTTjxei Be xat lovBa^, B alone 
with a changes the order thus : Xeyei airroK eym ei/u IC ICTHKEl 
placing Ii;o-oi;; after eym €i/u and changing the form of the 
address. This ic crept in from the margin into the wrong 
place, or is an error of homoioarcton from icthkei following. 
Hort cut the difficulty by omitting Itjo-ous from his text 
(with D 435 mimi" [et Sod'" '""] her Orig) but indicates it in 
his margin as an alternative reading to place it where B does. 
But r (closely related to a) by omitting shows that in a 
" Jesus " came in, as in B, from the margin. Why should we 
follow B a then and insert it in the wrong place ? a shows up 
the whole thing by writing " Jesus autem stabat et Judas. . ." 

Compound for Simple Verb. 


iv. 15. For fi-ijSe epxofMi (or ep^afuii) evBaZe ainKeiv of all Others and 

Orig 1/5, X*B and Orig 4/5 (and these alone) write /m;& Siepx. 

.. . . (Siep^ofiai B, Stepx^f^^^ ^ Orig) ev^aSe avr'Keiv. 

As to this, Tischendorf at last makes a remark which we eagerly 

avail ourselves of. He says : " (: : epx- si scriptum fuisset, quis tandem 

Siepx- maluisset?)." 

B IN ST. John's gospel. 345 

After going through St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and the first 
three and a half chapters of St. John, that is the best way he can put it. 
" If epxoiiai. or epx^f^^ be original who would have thought of changing 
to &iepx- " ! But, on the contrary, in the previous hundreds of pages in 
this volume we have seen NB and Orig constantly improving or trying 
to improve. The answer to Tischendorf and Weatcott and Hort (for of 
course &iepx- is found in the latter's text, " Biepxa>pai " with N, rather 
than B'a BiepxopMi, and no marginal comment) is that B often substitutes 
a simple for a compound verb, so that in these other cases an " Antioch " 
revision presupposes a change from simple to compound which " Antioch " 
would favor. Why then not here retain the compound if original? 
Further, the context shows that €PX following Ae in MHA€ (MHA66PXOMAI) 
could easily give rise to Biepxopai. 

The middle-Egyptian fragment (published by Crum-Kenyon in J.T.S. 
vol. I does not have B'^px- (P- 428). 

Dr. Souter in his latest pronunciamento on B ('Text and Canon,' 
1913, p. 22) after referring to conflations in B at Luke xii. 47, xix. 37, 
says: " Bat such features are like spots in the sun."t So carried away 
with B — (without real fundamental acquaintance with its pervading lack 
of neutrality, and indebtedness thro-ughout to the " Version tradition ") — 
was Hort, but Souter is absolutely inexcusable to write in this vein. For 
justification of our remark the reader need only read the previous and 
the subsequent pages in this volume. But on p. 103 Souter fairly eclipses 
anything so far said as to the wonderful labours of Westcott and Hort. 

Now Dr. Souter is a capable and very well read man. Whence this 
fascination for an edition without fixed principles, or rather with an 
invented standard, and whose sponsors withheld (if they knew them) t 
the rules which should govern in identifying readings ? It is a strange 
situation. For fear that any student might be independent enough to 
think for himself once in a while, Dr. Souter delivers himself of this 
(p. 117) : " In deciding as to which of one or more readings is the correct 
one, the final judgment lies with the trained common sense o£ the 
scholar. If it be replied that scholars differ, then the answer must be 
that for the untrained man the opinion held by most scholars, or by those 
whose judgment is most highly esteemed by the body of scholars themselves, 
is that which will be most safely foOowed." 

This is immediately succeeded by the following : 

" There can be little question that of all texts now in existence that 

t How about John iv. 46, Dr. Souter ? Here B writes rjXdev ovv n-aXii* 1 1 kuvu for 
TjX. ovv TTaX. (IS TTjv Kovn, Is this a sunspot or a sunstroke? [B is followed by NX** 
(= So<(A< tremendously Latin) Soi'««'«'] . 

X Hort's * Introduction ' has no adequate foundation for his text in the matter of 
examples. It is throughout "assumption" backed by wordy and pleonastic iteration, 
not by examples. 


which commands the highest degreeof assent among tliose best qualified 
fo judge is that of Westcott and Hort." 

Now the first part sounds logical enough, but it certainly is illogical 
to follow it up with the subsequent renewal of idolatrous admira- 
tion for Westcott and Hort, because Dr. Souter himself consented to 
allow his name to appear on the title-page of the Oxford edition, from 
which many of Hort's readings are ejected, whether Souter approved or 

We return to John iv. 15 where the Oxford edition is satisfied to 
leave 8wpx<»f«" of XB Tisch and W-H in the text. The Revision thus 
shares Tischendorf's and Hort's ideas that it would be folly to suppose 
that anyone finding ipxinfuii. should have revised to S£e/>x<<>M*'- 

Very well. That presupposes that every Other Greek MS (including 
mind you, DLW* Sod"" 1 13 22 2B 33 127 157 213 604 892 Paris" all 
extant here, besides hosts of other important witnesses including Soden's 
sympathetic codices from Sinai and Jerusalem) have been revised fbom a 
(COMMON ORIGINAL, which We happen to know is not the case, because 
most of these mss have a partial base conforming to N and B. [Soden 
cannot produce a single new witness agreeing with K or B] 

It presupposes that every latin base has been revised (for none read 
the equivalent of Stepxtif^ai) although in countless places in the neighbour- 
hood some and often many Latins are found with N or B. 

It presupposes that D has also been tampered with, and W. 
Why this elaborate and terrific difficulty, instead of recognizing that 
our good old friend, the precursor of NB and contemporary of Origen, 
calinly made use of his little " improvements " or suffered one of his 
" lapses " from homoioteleuton. 

The sah £ind slav versions have " and I should not come out," while 
aetli expresses " et non veniam hue iterum." vg^ adds amplius. Other- 
wise nothing lends its countenance to Biepx- which is opposed by Origen*'''"' 
himself, and by Cyr two hundred years later, which is a poor commen- 
tary on the " watchfulness of Alexandrian scholars" (Hort) if iupx' 
had been correct. 

A-S a matter of fact, but for Siepxeadai in this same chapter (Jo.iv. 4), 
Siepxoiiai is foreign to St. John's diction, while being exceedingly common 
to that of St. Luke.f A glance at the concordance will show the situation. 
I think therefore that it is not a question of Tischendorf's " quis 
tandem &tepx- maluisset," but that Siepx- is an error from the MHA6 

Dr. Hort (vol. ii. p. 220) explains his decision thus : 
" iuipxopMi is here used in its idiomatic sense 'come all the way,' 
which expresses the woman's sense of her often repeated toil." 
Exactly. Thus NB " improved" the record. 

t Twenty times in Acts, ten times in St. Lake's Gospel. 

B IN ST. John's gospel. 347 

Hort continues: " Being commonly used in other senses, the word 
was easily misunderstood and assumed to be inappropriate ; and the 
change would be helped by the facility with which one of two similar 
consecutive syllables drops out." 

We are face to face here with Dr. Hort's whole mental attitude in these 
matters and with our own. His studies led him to presuppose innocent 
copying on the part of B (p. 237), and a very pure archetype from which B 
was copying. Our investigations reveal a surprising degree of the contrary 
elements pervading B, of which we are giving examples at full length. 
Having established that the B text is full of " improvements," we can 
only rank Biepxofi-ai as another in the same class. Dr. Hort sees here 
the foundation text, abandoned by all copies, scribes, and versions, 
because the true sense (which he alone appreciates) was " easily mis- 
understood." But the copyists and translators of antiquity did not act 
thus, and there is no trace of this left elsewhere, except in the aethiopic 
version (as recorded above) which once more reduces Hort's mental 
attitude, and that of N and B and their progenitors, to Egyptian soil. 
Hort says htepx- means " ' come all the way,' which expresses the woman's 
sense of her often repeated toil." Exactly thus interprets aeth alone, 
retaining epxra/Mt but adding iterum ! And so intebpbets Ephr (against 
syr and diaiess) ! 


iv. 16. Immediately following this, we find aov tov av&pa by B 
and seven cursives w^hich is the Coptic method (for rov 
avBpa aov) and where Orig '6/6 3/6 is on both sides. 

"What happened to X here? And W? What science is there in 
establishing &iepx- as " neutral " and basic in iv. 15 if in the very 
next verse we cannot tell what is and what is not neutral ? Of course 
Hort knew, for he had support for B from a mixed lot of cursives ; 69 
[contra fam] 71 74 248 254 Evsf 32 and 60 [contra Evan 137 its sister], 
(Soden only adds '"^ "") so he placed the B reading in his text. But he is 
only following a " version tradition," one "version tradition," and that of 
Egypt, in so doing. Naturally, when you establish an arbitrary " neutral " 
text and make it a standard you can be free to act as you wish. This utterly 
unscientific stand {Siepxtopai in verse 13) is now found to be adopted by 
the B.V. as exhibited in the Oxford edition of 1910 after thirty years' and 
more experience since Hort's text was published. I can only say that 
the "majority of scholars " cited by Souter viay be right, but I prefer to 
remain with the late Dr. Salmon, Canon Cook, Adalbert Merx and others 
in the minority. " Facts are stubborn things," as Adalbert Merx quotes 
on the first page of his first volume. I will not accept all B's strange 
readings and aberrations because I am told to do so. Souter's apostle 
Biurkitt (see the unstinted praise on p. 129 of Souter's 'Text and 
Canon') himself is on my side vrith Turner and others against this 
idolatry and even von Soden abandons XB and Orig 3/4 here. 


Vebb Fobm Changes. 

Change of Voice. • 


V. 25. ajcov<rcvaip B 22 138 357 ? (257 Ksc^i) Sod"' C/i/-"' Cf/r'" 

Hipj) (Soifon) ei W-S txt. 
aKovatoaiv NLT' l[«on fam] 33 69[no» /am] 1-57 185 213 

314 2t* et W* Paris" Sod}" '«' "' e« Sod txt. 
(audiunt c / vg^) 

bat axovaovTai DArAAII Mnc* minn pi et Hipp''" (Lagarde) 
ibid. ^vTovaiv NBDL et T'W l[no« fam] 22 33 357 2''« z'" 

t Laura *"" [So«ie-» »o« iaie] Paris" [non 346 toie .F«n-ar] 

Sod""" W-H Sod txt. 
but ?i;ffoiTai APAAH unc' aZ"' ffipp"" CAr""" Cyr. 

As to the more recently recovered witnesses, W and Paris" join KB 
in both places, but '^^ has aKovamriv and leaves fijaoin-aj alone, thus 
agreeing with Chr and Cyr, and 892 makes no change from the textus 
receptos ; the new witness T', of course wholly 'Egyptian,' agrees as 
would be expected with W. 

The suspicious thing here is the position observed in Cyr and Chr, 
which is reversed in D, while the 1 and 13 families are divided. Would 
it not be better to follow Hippolyius rather than strain at the more or 
less imaginary " neutral " text here ? Hipp is absent in the following 
but Chr and Cyr are on both sides. 


V. 28. aKovaovaiv 'RT[negl. Sod] 157 Sod^' Chr 1/2 Ctjt*^^ 

W-H txt 
aKovffaaiv NLNA {Sod<"') 33 213 397 Paris" et W 
Laura* ™ Sod"'" "' Sod txt [non QP'] 
but aKovaoinai DAFAn unc rell minn Chr 1/2 Cyr"^ Bas 
Here W again agrees, and T' with B, but not ^, and 892 is again 
noticeable by absence from agreement with N or B. Observe that 1 
and 69 do not repeat their change here and Sod"'" has axouaovaotnai 
sic. Paris" (with Orig) adds «ai oi aieova-ame'; ^ijcovtriv repeating and 
confirming ^qaovaiv of verse 25, and thus is more consistent than 'V which 
abstains from change here. 


X. 14. See under " Coptic and Latin." 

t Soden does not give LanraAiM at verse 28 below (his '"^. Has he oopied 
wronglj from Lake ? 

B IN ST. John's gospel. 349 

John ,, 

( xiv. 19. ^riaere pro i^qtrecrOe See under " Form. ) 

xiv. 23. T7oir)aoi^8a (pro -rroniaofi^v) See under " Improvement '" and 

note very specially. 

Change of Mood. 

xiii. 2. -napa&oi. (pro vapaBoi) NBD [non T'W rell] 
(Of. xiii. 29 iva ri hot D) 
As to whether ot really represents a change o£ mood or not in NBD 
here and elsewhere, it is worth noting that the new MS W has eypoi loreypai 
in xvi. 19, so that ot for a may merely be itacismic in SBD. 

But see Matt, xviii. 30 airoSri X {vuW"'^ atTohoin) pro mroSra [not 
cited by Tisch or Sod^^, noticed by us in Postcript to Part II. 

I have neglected all changes of mood following iva. They seem of 
no value in the premises. 

xiv. 15. TTiprfae-re (pro Tripi)aa-Te) BL'^I' [Sod )io)i Lafce] 54 73 Laura* "" 
gg^m Ml .18. luo .349 K. yy_ff j-„^„ ggij f^q oij]y anci sah boll arm 

future against imperative of the rest and the other versions 
(N 33 Paris'" Sod" and a few rr)pr)aj]Te). 

Change of Tense. 

iv. 21. ^:la^€ve (pro TTiaTevaov) NBC'CLW 1 22* 138 f am 13 [non 
124] 21* Laura* I" Sod"" '"" ""'[male vid Sod^" = 1"^'] sah Orig 
Ath Cyr W-H'-' Sod"" [how""] 
vi. 12. We may include under this head to TrepiaaevovTa bj' B only 
and 40 63 64 71 aP Sod'"* '"" " [not indulged in by the real 
sympathising cursives] for tu ■neptaaevaavra of all the rest 
and Cyr (Trepiaaevjiaia H aliq.). Neither W-H nor Sode-ii 
follow B here. 

(A change of number occurs in the very next verse.) 
vii. 19. e&o,Kep BDHO^ 240 244 359 hi soli inter man et W-H"-'- 

(pro SeStoKev X rell) 
la these connections we must consider St. John's manner. 
He employs the perfect almost habitually. 
39. 01 TTKnevrrames (pro ot viaTevovTet) BLT (■marevaovTe'i) W 
Evst 18 syr sin (cf. sah) Chrys""^ * and W-H txt [nil in mg], 
but apparently no others. Soden gives no new witnesses, 
viii. 23. €\ei^v (pro eiirev) NBDLNTXW fam 13 [non 124] 

Laura* "« [negl Sod] Sod'" "" '»>»« •/i!'" vg Orig Cyr W-H Sod 

This looks like a strong combination, but it is opposed by 
all the sympathising cursives and 1 33 892 Paris" and ^V. 
Why ■? Because emev is right. The small band above 
changed merely in order to conform to eXeyov above in verse 
22. Again a question of "pairs." Ver 22 eXeyov ow ot 


John , 

Jov&aioi..., then why not, said they, Kai tXeyev avroti in 
ver 23. There would be no reason to change to etvev if eXeyev 
were basic, 
vjii. 39. See under " Improvement," 

The number of cases of change of tense in the Gospels can 
be doubled if we consider the readings of N as well as those of 
B or NB together. 
X. 18. npev (pro aipei) NB soli cum W-H. See p. 354. 

21. avoi^ai NBLXX''W So(V"> /am 1 fam 13 22" 33 157 213 
2i9* 21" Paris" Sod'" "^ "" "^ cn Qrig Chr W-H Sod txt, 
against caioiftiv by the great mass including D. This avoi^ai 
must be an "improvement" to fit the remark to chapter ix. 
where the record is so complete of a cure of the blind. I 
cannot conceive of a " revision " under all the circumstances 
changing avot^ai to avoiyeiv. 

25. ovK emaTevaare {pro ov Truneuere) B 4 62 63 71 157 248 259 
Sod}"'^ Chr^^ ( + iu>i) (33? 251 ovk emaTevere) f [iwn Paris" 

Only the above-mentioned change, against all the rest and 
against the Versions. It is quite clear that it is an " improve- 
ment " (following enrol' vfuv) and not basic, and even Hort 
abandons B and does not record anything in his margin ! The 
amusing thing is that King James' translators (although the 
previous editions and Tynedale had the present) have " and ye 
beUeveD not," and Hort and the Bevision actually set them 
straight here as against B and company, and of course the 
margin of the Kevision is silent, whereas they could have 
mentioned B^nd ten other " ancient authorities " for the past 

The point to observe is that the transition from " I told 
you . . . to . . . and ye believe not " offended B, and Hort by not 
accepting B's " I told you. . .and ye believed not" reproves 
B for an unnecessary nicety. Is not our case abundantly 
proved by this ? If B is wrong here, he must be vyrong in 
many of the other places which we have discussed. Pancy 
accepting T/pev of XB in x. 18 (vide paullo post) and rejecting 
this harmless reading of B min' in x. 25 ! 
xi. 27. uio-Tnio) (pro veirKTTevKa) B' o"' (= Sod^^ if" [negl. Sod] sah 
boh(anisyraethetc.). Also A.V."" again. Not adopted by Hort. 
See under " Coptic." 

29. eKavTj 0)9 ijKouffcv, eyeiperai raxv xai ep^eTai tt/w? aurov. 
So Tischendorf (against his own group) t with the textus 

t " Tischendorf s text is, in my own opinion, right in many places Vfhere the teit o£ 
Hort is wrong," C. H, Turner (J. T. S. vol. xi. p. 183). 



receptus and most, but against Hort's and Soden's" ckcivij & 
6)? TjKovaev Tjyepdt] Ta-yv Kai "qp^ero 'Jrpo^ avrov with 
NBC(D)LXW 33 213 249 397 Paris" Sod"" "» "'" ^ [d has 
surrexit and venit, D^' tiyepdi] xat epx^rai, clearly a Latin 
influence on his Greek]. 

I suggest that this small but important group is perpetrating 
another " improyement," objecting to the transition from the 
past tense ifxavaev to the graphic historic presents eyeiperai. 
and epxeTui. So at least thought Tischendorf, no mean judge 
of such matters, and he condemns his beloved X by absolutely 
neglecting its testimony, down to the suppression of the 
connecting Be at the head of the verse, t 

xii. 13. eKpavyaaav (pro eKpavya^ov NB''DIiQW et expa^ov uiiG veil) 

B'"'* inter gr cum sail et goth. 
49. An exception to the rule of "pairs " is made here, and instead 
of eka\t}(ja. . .cSioxeif, we are treated to ekaX-rjtra. . .SeBtaxev by 
NBAMX and W*- al pane. Did C>jr W-H Sod txt, while 
the rest favour eSmxei'. Kow SeBaxcv may have been intro- 
duced by XB etc. to conform to St. John's more usual use of 
the perfect, or the other side may have revised to eSmxev (but 
observe that DA, the graeco-latins, have the aorist) for the 
sake of the "pair." We will not insist. For at xiii. 3 
^?BKLT'W 138 Paris" Sod''' have eSaxev. 

xiii. 19. wiCTTeurjTe (pro ■mcnev(T-r]7e) BC Ori(j 1/2 et W-H txt [nil in 

37. axoKovdeiv (pro axo\ov6-r]aai.) B and C only. This is a 
most glaring change, yet Hort follows in his text without 
marginal alternative. And this amounts to following B alone, 
because he prints axo\ov6nv apn, whereas C (the only other 
authority for the present infinitive) has vvv axoKovdeiv. More- 
over the fact of wilful change is shown by C, who alone with 
Evan 96 and Cyr also changes mv axoXovdrjaai in verse 36 to 
vvv axoKovduv. The Oxford edition of 1910 representing the 
Eevisers acknowledges that BC and Hort are wrong, for it 
restores axoXovBrjtrai without marginal comment. Upon what 
principle then do Souter and the critics so earnestly commend 
Hart's "foundations"? Once more they are shown to be 
imbedded in sand, and to represent the perishing piles of B. 
For the present infinitive is clearly introduced because of the 
propinquity of vvv and apri both in verses 36 and 37. (Some 
few MSS, viz. 157 with 47 435 and the Latinisers 56 58 61, 
remove apTi altogether in this verse 37. NXW vary the order 

t See my remarks as to this in Part II, under ■' Versions.' 


of the following clause to virep aov ttiv -^vxriv fiov 9r)aa, and 
some would couple aprt with this sentence.) 
xiv. 10. ov TTiiTTevireK {pro ov iriaTeveK) B*"'. This is a very pretty 
place, and will appeal to Coptic scholars, if not to my less 
well-informed critics. I know of no other authority for this 
except the bohairio version (all codices) which very definitely 
has the second person singular of the^future tense : JQflA.g't' 
Ast against the transliterated ftFniCTenfe Ait of salt. 
Could anything be more definite as to the situation as 
between B and the bohairic? 

13. aiTTin (pro aiTnarjTe) B(aiTijTat) Q only, is presumably the 
present conjunctive, unless merely a matter of " form," but 
both Coptics have definitely the future. [In verse 14 B reads 
oirrjaTrre with the rest]. See bel6w at xv. 16. 

17. See under " Improvement." 

!. ... „ 1 „ ,-. ,. 1 In verse 7 fLcimrrc and fieim) 

XV. 4. hs zn versu See under Form ^^^ ^^^^.^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ 
" " " } change in ver$es i and 6. 

16. otTJjre (pro atrrjirrp-e) BL'* [notv Paris" non al. vid}, B is 
the only one to have this both here and at xiv. 13 (see above) . 
It may be a version influence, but it occurs here in B at the 
end of a line. It can also be referred here to a continuation 
of the tense in the verse of iva u/zew vTraytfre. . .ifiefnjTe. . . 
fieiiTj . . . aniire. This would bear out the general preference 
for " pairs " as explained elsewhere. On the other hand, 
in the actual sentence aiTifTc would not square with Ba> 
following (of B etc.). We would have the ^res. subj. followed 
by the aorist subj. in this last clause iva ori av antire rov 
•jrpa ev t&> ovo^utl fwv hat vfuv, whereas we might expect StSw. 
tC, some cursives and Cyr force the future Saxrcj t on us to 
square with antiaTrre. Any way we look at it there has been 
forced tinkering with the passage, for others read Sari. As 
none read 8«S<a we may look with suspicion on otTijTt of BL^, 
which Sort merely places in his margin, 
xvi. 22. apei (pro aiptt) BDT (epei N) sah boh arm aeth PT-H"" 
Sod"*. Cf. nil ef toilet c d B gat aur Aug vg", auferet aff 
r Cypr (ai^pei W), aufert e f q; toUit b vg^°. See under 
" Improvement." 
xvii. 7. eitoKev B, eSw-ta? A l[nmi /am] 118*» a"" Paris" Sod'" 

TT-H"" (pro ieSmKat relT) 
8. s8(»«€? B, c&ti>Ka<! ACDn'W minn pauc W-W" (pro SeSioKav 

longe plur et Cyr). 
21. miTTevr) (pro viaTevarj) X*BC*W Clevi Bus W-B. [nan Sod], 

t And /am 13 have tovto notrjira etc. 


but against the rest and Orig Ath Cyr. Probably to conform 
in a measure to iria-TevovTwv in verse 20, for iriaTivovTav 
is the correct reading there, 
xix. 1'2. exf>avya<7av BD™"* mill'"" a W-H txt [nil m(/]. See mider 
"Change without Improvement." (eKeyov pro exp. 'KeyovTC'; 
K ; cf. NW in xix. 15.) 
15. TnarevriTe (pro inaTevarjTe) N*B^ (verse number wrong in 
Lake) Orirj W-H [nil Tng] (Latins credatis) against all the 
rest {Soden adds no new witnesses although printing in his 
text ■!ri(TTev[a]riTe) including W Paris" and Cyr [e and vg^ omit 
the verse, b\it not the Diaf"-" nor any other authorities [syr 
sin still missing until xix. 41, hut pers has it)]. 

XX. 31. marevTiTe {pro VLdTeva-qre) X*B Sod"'''' W-H txt [nil my] 

(Latins credatis) against all the rest including W the new 
fragment T° (Amelineau p. 47) and the Evst. in same publica- 
tion (p. 63) ajid Cyr again [Origen is absent]. Will Soden 
please explain why at xix. 35 he prints ■!TiaTeu[a'\T]Te and gives 
jjsi-2' S8 fjp ijj j^jg upper margin, while here at xx. 31 he 
prints TriCTTevo-J/TC (against Hort) and places mcnevTiTe H'^--' I°" 
in his second column of notes, although he adds I°" ? 

xxi. 6. laxvov {pro taxvaav) XBCDLNAR^ [lion W] 1 

[uoii /am] 4 15 27? 29? 33 124 [non fam] 262 270 acpw"" 
Laura-^ ■" Sod'''^ "" '"" Cyr W-H Sod txt et valebant c g S gat 
foss aur divi vgg°^' "", poterant abdfr [kiatff, non e <?]. 
t25. x'^PV'^etv {pro x'^PV<'a') BC» et N' et SofJ"^' "' Orig 

1/4 (1/4 x^P^i-"' **^ XMP^'^o-')- The fluctuation of Origen 
probably indicates revision and preference by B, for BC'K" are 
not even joined by W or ■>? nor by a single minuscule except 
Sod"^' = Sinai"' (only o'" xrapaio-ew sic). But Hort's and 
Souter's editions both adopt x'^PI"'^'"- Soden does not. 

{Historic Present.) 

As against the frequent change by NB in the other Gospels in favour 
of present or imperfect t over the past tense, there is but little to note in 
St. John's Gospel. In fact at : 

t Oin. verse X*. 

t Obs. 892 but not S or B at ix. 40 ijkovoi' for rj<ovirou and obs. X alone at xi. 43 
tKpavya^t:/ (of the Lord's command to Lazarus) for tKpavyaaev. Only two vulgates '^ 
have clamabit sic, simply an error for clamauit. 

Note also at xi. 8 cc^iXtis for ipiKtis by L Must 29 Serf""" arm. Observe N at xvii. 12 
((|>uXa(ro-oi/ for <0uXa|(i. There is a gross error here in Soden'a notes. He adds dr to it 
for t^u\a<Tirov. They do not read thus. Both ciistodim. He has confused their reading 
of custodiebam for aervabam as an interpretation of fTi}p:ivv earlier in the verse. Perhaps 
the eye of S was similarly misled 1 

2 A 



X. 18. NB and they alone curiously enough aahstitute -npev for aipei 
m the clause ouSei? aipei avT-qv air e/tou (of Tqv ^xv verse 17) 
a\\ eyai rtdrj/ii avr-qv air e/iavrov, where NB must be wrong. 
They are opposed by X" and the rest Origen'^'^^' et Orig'" 
-Bms"'^'"'""' DiiP'<^^ et al., and it is scarcely credible, but 
Westcott-Hort, acting on their rule that NB in combination 
cannot be wrong, actually insert Tipev into their Uxt, which 
has overflowed (" some ancient authorities read ") into the 
margin of the English Eevision of 1881. The Greek B.V. 
naturally restores aipei to the text, but could not resist putting 
■npev in the margin. The versions and every other Greek 
document are clear for the present tense aipei. 

Instead of tolUt of most Latins I find gat has tullit. Is it 
possible that this rjpev crept into XB from a graeco-latin with 
tullit or tulit?^ 

Soden cannot find a single new witness for this absurd 
reading. Observe that it is in this same verse that B (alone 
with Sod'^") has ravrriv evroXr^v, " hoc mandatum " or " hoc 
praeceptum " for toutiji/ t7?j' evrpK-qv of all the rest. 
40. e/ievev (pro e/ieivev) is found in B [apparently alone of Greeks 
with 21 iSodr-'') ]withabceffloi Latins [non dfrS]. Syr 
sin apparently alone with pers and Chr^'^^ "« omits xai cp^ivev 
exei, or rather may agree with pers alone, and suppressing 
e/ieivev transfer /cat exec to the head of the following verse. 
[Syr pesh has tjv or fuit for efieaiev.) TF-fl"'*' prints ep^ev 
alone with B, and now 21. 
xii. 23. Here occurs a real Historic present : airoxpipeTai (pro rnre- 
Kptvaro of nearly all and aTrexpidt) of the few) by NBLXW 33 
Sod"^" -and Paris" W-H [iion Sod] and by them alone. All 
clearly representing one influence and one stem. And absolutely 
deliberate and eclectic as will be shown immediately, because 
two verses below at : 
25. we find airoWvei substituted for airoXeaa, but only by NBLW 
33 So^'^ ff. Here X and Paris'' abandon the group. They 
have been " revised " if you will, it matters not whether they 
have been revised or hold the true base exhibited by all others. 
The reason KBLW 33 adopt airoWvu is apparently because it 
follows so close to ^epei at the end of the previous verse : eav 
o€ airodavT] iro\vv Kapirov (pepet . o diiXtov ttjp '>lrvY7]v avTov 
uTToWvei avTTjv. Thus it not only bears on the previous (^cpej 
but has reference to the harmonising of tpiXav with airoWvei, 

t For rjp€v at John v. 9 c j have tulit, and not iUitulii ; at Jolin xi. 41 for ripav all 
Ijatins (except ji r) have tulerunt, and not sustulerunt. 

B IN ST. John's gospel. 355 


and thus constitutes another affair of " pairs." There can be 
no question about it. They do not however change (jivXa^i 
in the next clause, which only shows how imperfect, or rather 
personal, was this Alexandrian revision. I speak with some 
confidence — as I draw towards the close of this essay — for if 
" Antioch " had been the censor here, besides changing 
aTToXXvei to anoXeaei, why did they leave ^epei alone and not 
change that to a future otaet ? 

As a matter of fact Origen and Nonnus exhibit to us the 
attitude of the ancient minds at this place for they do write 
^vXaaaei for (jivXa^ei, and .^ with its Egyptian affinity writes 
perdit. . .odit. . .custodit (b c f I custodit). 

Will Soden explain why he rejects airoKpiveraL of NBLXW 
33 Paris" in verse 23 and adopts aTroSXvu of XBLW 33 
Sod""./fin verse 25? 
xiii. 38. Again here, as at xii. 23, we find a-Koxptv^Tai substituted 
for airexpiOji by a somewhat larger group involving NABCLXW 
Sod'" /am If am 13 22 33 138 157 213 254 2"« Paris" Sod"' ^" 
W-H Sod txt. Tisch says of the minn " al'"," but observe 
that only /am If am 13 22 138 1S7 213 and 254 of the same 
family tendencies swell the chorus of 33 Paris" sung in the 
former place. Syr is Xeyet, but all latt respondit as at xii. 23. 
aTToKpiveTm seems clearly an " improvement " by the few. 
Observe their record in the other Gospels as to Historic 
presents. So far in St. John they had successfully resisted 
the temptation to change. If really basic how is it that /aw 1 
fam 13 22 138 157 213 and 254 did not follow in xii. 23 as well 
as in xiii. 88 ? 

Change of Number. 

13. e-rrepiaaevaav (controlled by 3) BDfc^W G7 Sod"' Evst 60 
(F'") copt lat W-H. [non Sod] against the singular eTrepiircrevaev 
by the rest and Amelineau's new Egyptian Evst, see his page 
(54, and {a-rrep e-nepiaaevaev Cyr). The plural is more or less 
Egyptian (Coptic) and the Latins use it. When W joins in 
these places with D it is a pretty clear intimation of " version " 
tradition and influence. In the next verse we get an intima- 
tion of %oUch version, for, while the Latins hold the singular 
(TTfixeiov with N and majority Greeks and versions, B6''X'' only, 
with a arm syr hier and boh only, have the plural ajiiieia.^ 

t There ia great danger of J| (Sod> ^ being quoted tere instead of es), for Soden's 
symbols read in verse 13 ipiouso and in verse 14 H«i30. By 30 € 30 is meant (e«) 
whereas d 30 is j. 

2 A 2 



vi. 22. eiSov BA minn perpaiic a dfl q (following turhae) sah boh 
aeth syr W-H Sod txt (i&ov LNW) [pro iSav TA!"A nnc«, et 
ei&ev ND^'X" 6 cffgSvg (following turba) crxoTna^ai Nonn]. 
This is again rather Egyptian. {iSoine^ 67 213, eiBws Sod^"" 
Laura* ™.) 
but X. 12. eaTiv TU Trpofiara NABLXW Sod""' mm""* Con^t Eus Cyr 

W-H Sod txt (for etaiv ra Trpofiaza) but this is exceptional. 
16. yevncrovTai {pro fyeinjaeTai) BDLXW^ l[ium /am] 83 213 
2"^ Sod"^ d/vg' goth sah boh arm Clem 
(Variant Chr codd inter ecrerai et ecrovrai. Cf. verss). 
27. UKovovaiv (pro ajcovu) following ra TtpofiaTa NBLXW 
Sod'"" f am 13 33 157 213 249 397 Sod™ '«»«' d et latt Horn'"'"' ? 
Orig 4/6 Bas 1/4 Cyr W-H Sod txt (aKovaaatv Paris") but 
against all the rest and T)" and Clem Orig 2/6 Eus Bas 3/4 

As showing that this must have been changed originally 
from axovfi we note that N alone follows with airoXitrai, for 
xi. 45. S (pro a) See under " Improvement." 
xvii. 7. eiaiv pro earw (following -rravra offo) NBCLNXY ei W^ 
33 157 213 314 Sod"" Paris" W-H Sod txt latt copt et d Z 
[contra D" A*']. Cyril has ecrTiv against the Egyptian group. 
XX. 23. Tivo! bis (pro nvav bis) B (sol inter gr) a ef syr Cypr Eus 
Orig"' Aug Pacian Auct""" W-H"". 

Change of Case. 

viii. 55. This is quite an important place, eaojuu ofwim vfitv ijrevaTTjv 
by BAD W fam 1 52 138 157 254 2p» only of GreeksTand latt : ero 
BJmiUs vobis mendax (against Tertullian's genitive ero similis 
VESTBI mendax), instead of eaofuu o/ioww /icav ^evaTi)<s. Soden 
only adds 138 (B dt G add"'") to the Greek witnesses hitherto 
known and does not follow in his text, abandoning Hort's v/uv. 
The dative after ofwio^ is as legitimate in Greek as the 
genitive, and throughout the N.T. is generally used. There- 
fore in opposing N and the mass here (including ^ 892 and 
Paris") B must be seeking for something. What was he 
doing ? Who is right ? Which is the harder reading ? Was 
B influenced by the Latin, or did the Latins have vfuv 
and not v/iav before them? Well vfioiv being the harder 
reading is I think distinctly to be preferred, and vfuv to be 
relegated to the large scrap-heap of attempted " improve- 
ments." St. John himself near by (ix. 9) says ofiouK avrm and 
in 1 John iii. 2 we find o/wtoi avra. But if St. John uses the geni- 
tive v/icav in the fourth Gospel at viii. 55 why not let it stand ? 

B IN ST. John's gospel. 357 

Our Lord was saying to the J"e\nsh crowd ; "And ye have not 
known Him, but I know Him, and if I should say that I do 
not know Him, I should be like a liar among yon,'" or, Uhe a 
Zmr 0/2/ow soj'^, rather than " like to you a liar." In other 
words the genitive seems to convey that sarcasmf which not 

t Dr. Burkitt (' The Gospel History ') has this to say about the fourth Gospel : 
" There is an argrimentativeness, a tendency to mystification, about the utterances of the 
Johanntne Christ which, taken as the report of actual words spoken, is positively 
repellent " fp. 227). And again : " For we have not done with the Fourth Gospel when 
we have made up our minda that neither the narrative nor the discouraes are to be 
regarded as history, as matters of the past fact " (p. 229). And again : " Especially am 
T sure that we shall never do justice to this Gospel, so long as we treat it as a narrative 
of events that tuere seen and heard of men. It is not a competitor of the Synoptic 
Gospels. But, you will say, what becomes of the truth of the Gospel?" (p. 235/6). 
And onee more : " Then again, as I have already observed, the actual words which the 
Evangelist ascribes to our Lord when the Jews ' persecute ' Him for healing on the 
Sabbath were calculated rather to exasperate than either to appease or instruct them " 
(p. 238). And lastly : " Now, if we look at the form and manner of these words, it is, I 
am convinced, impossible for one moment to imagine that they can represent an accurate 
account of any man's defence of himself after outraging the religious susceptibilities of 
powerful adversaries. It is not in the least the kind of thing which a phonograph would 
have reported " (p. 238/9). 

But surely the other Gospellists have something of the same kind to say of Christ's 
manner on certain occasions I And as to deep sarcasm how about Luke rvi. 9 " And I 
say unto you Make to yourselves friends (out) of the mammon of unrighteousness, that 
when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations " ? No satisfactory 
interpretation of these words has ever been made, save that they convey a biting satire. 

In the above quotations from Dr. Eurkitt's book (chapter on the Fourth Gospel) I 
do not wish to do him any injustice by quotations perforce divorced from their context. 
He has said, rather unnecessarily, of me that I do not know the difference between a 
dilettante and a scholar. However that may be, I think I can detect the difference 
between an unbeliever and a believer ! For in all Dr. Eurkitt's writings he distinctly 
disavows his belief in our Loi'd's saying, recorded in the Fourth Gospel (xvi. 26) : " But 
the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach 
you all things and bring to your remembrance {lit. x-emind you of) all the things which 
(navTa a) I said unto you." In the face of this Burkitt writes again and again such 
things as this : " It was necessary that the disciples should reverence and love their 
Master ; far more necessary that they should remenaber His phrases. Bui the conditions 
were not specially favourable for accurate reminiscence" (op, cit. p. 145). "I imagine 
it to be one of the most delicate of the problems which confront the investigator of the 
Gospel History to determine how tar the sayings of Jesus reported only in the Gospel 
according to Matthew are, in the narrower sense, historical ; how tar, that is, they are 
a literal translation into Greek of words which Jesus once spoke. , . It ia not only a 
question whether this or that sentence or illustration comes really from a later time " 
(p. 191/2). " If the picture presented in S. Mark's Gospel be in all essentials true, it 
will give an essentially reasonable account of the ministry. I do not mean it will contain 
no stories of what are called ' miracles ' or that we should at once be able without mis- 
giving to accept every incident as having actually occurred in the way related " (p. 66). 
" I have said that our Evangelists altered freely the earlier sources which they used. 
They changed, added, omitted. This sounds, no doubt, very terrible and dangerous. 
Let us put the statement then in another form, a form quite as legitimate, but less 
shocking. Let us say that the Evangelists were historians and not chroniclers. This 
does not assert thai they were tiustworthij or even truthful " (p. 21), 


unoften underlies our Lord's addresses to those who were 
baiting him and lying in wait to "catch him in a word." 
The original Aramaic of John viii. 55 we can only surmise, 
but the Syriac is plain, not " like you a liar," but " a liar like 
you" *^ mendax sicui vos.*' Malan says: *' I am for myself 
a liar like you," and adds in a note: " the construction is 

But for cold, calculated apostasy, note the following : 

" That the Gospel according to Mark contained the story of the Besorrection of 
Jesus Christ is sxirely no reason for questioning its right to rank as an historical docu- 
ment . . . There is no doubt that the Church of the Apostles believed in the resurrection 
of their Lord. They may have been mistaken, but ' there is sitisfa>ctory evidence that 
many professing to be original witnesses ' — I will not say, with Paley, • of the Christian 
miracles ' : that claims too much, but certainly that Jesus had been raised from the 
dead — ' passed their lives in labours . . . ' " '* Let us add, what Paley omitted, the abiding 
personal influence of Jesus in the memories of the first disciples, and let us concede that 
like all other men they may have been mistaken : with these amendments, Paley's 
famous allegation still stands. Xet no considerations of this kind explain the vitality of 
the Christian religion : we do not know why it lived and lives, any more than we Tmow 
why we ov/raelves are alive " (p. 74/75). 

Into this last sentence, iu my opinion, is compressed a whole world of base denial 
of the great foundation of the Christian religion, and of its founder, whom the writer 
calls " our Lord." The Christian religion lives because, apart from cold historieity, the 
Spirit of God still moves upon the waters of men's hearts and convinces (the original 
reads the future (kty^ei) them " of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment," as the 
Founder promised when He said it was necessary for Him to go away from them, but 
that He would send the Paraclete to replace Him (John xvi. 7/14). 

Dr. Burkitt, with many others, does not believe in the xi"' chapter of. St. John 
although it is attested by all documents, and in no uncertain manner, for textual 
dififerences there (quite unlike those of the pericope de adult.), are exceedingly small in 
number and very moderate in scope. " For all its dramatic setting it is, I am 
persuaded, impossible to regard the story of the raising of Lazarus as a narrative 
of historical events" (p. 223). This, because "there is no room" for it (p. 222) 
in St. Mark's narrative. But upon the same grounds of criticism, both " lower " 
and "higher," we must excise the long and most detailed ix^** chapter concerning 
the definite healing of the man bom blind about whom there was such a stir. 
And these excisions must logically be followed by the suppression of the xi"' chapter to 
the Hebrews concerning Faith. The result will be " shipwreck," as St. Paul graphically 
foretold in the first chapter {ver 19) of the 1st Epistle to Timothy, following it up in the 
2nd Epistle (oh. iii. 1/5) by his warning as to the character of the *' heady " leaders of 
the last times (jrpoTrerfls", " headlong, rash "), " wrapped in smoke and mist of conceit and 
folly" {rtTvt^w^Ltvoi), "having a form of godliness, but having denied (so M.V.', Gr. 
Tjpvrinivoi) the power thereof." 

I said to such an one recently in Germany : " But, my dear sir, the trouble with 
these people is that if the good God himself came down and told them that the xi*^ 
chapter of St. John were absolutely true, they would not believe Him." His answer 
was " Neither would I"t 

I>oes not this justify St. Paul's prophetic ** irponeTtlSf rtTv^taifiemi.. ., ex^yres 
ft6p<fito(riv (ixrt^dai, Trjv Bi dvvaftiv avrijs rjpvTffievoi" I 

As regards the lower criticism I would like to add that in the xi*'' chapter of St. 
John there are tew textual alterations, far fewer than in the succeeding chapters, and if 
on lower grounds the xi*^ chapter should have to be ejected, then the whole Gospel 
would have to go. 

B IN ST. John's gospel. 359 

remarkable." The German version is very explicit : " So 
•wiirde ich ein Liigner gleichwie Ihr seid." TertulUan seems 
here to be a star-witness against the Latinism of B. 

B and the few are therefore accused here with Hort 
of following Latin, or of making a false grammatical 
improvement to the basic text. The Oxford edition of 1910 
(without footnote) changes Hort's vfuv back to vfj-av, avoiding 
B's " sunstroke." I call it a " sunstroke," for observe that 
besides the opposition of X and the rest, the new Egyptian 
MS T' (so friendly otherwise) also has v/xav against B. 
xvii. 11. waTTjp ayie sic {pro iraTcp ayie) BN soli vid 

21. cv Trar-qp (pro crv irarep) BDNW against the rest and 

against Ciem. (Traiep av Sod}^'^'', —Trarep dkitess,illeg.syrsin.) 

24. ■n-aTJ/p (pro ■jra-rep) BAN only here I gjjjgj. ^^^^ 

25. Trarrjp Ziicaie sic BAN (Bixaiai) only here j 
xviii. 1(5. We now come to rather a peculiar case : 

€^\6ev ovv fia&7}TTj't o aWo^ o ^vgxtto? tou apx^^p^o)'; 
BC*L 213 (and no others except X Paris'" o? 'jk yvoxTTCK tou 
apxiepems) instead of . . . o? t/v jvaiajo'; tm apxi^p^i- of all others 
and NW. [N exceptionally e^Xdev ovv o fia0. exivo'i ■ os v 
yvapip.o'; t(b apxiepei.^ The genitive does not seem to 
be a version influence, and yet, if correct, implies a change 
by all other authorities ! (Boh can be read either way.) 

Besides occurring here (and in verse 15 just before : v" 
'yvmmo'i tm ap\tepei, where the dative is constant in all MSS) 
yvaiTTo': does not occur elsewhere in St. John nor in the other 
Gospels, except at Lnke ii. 44 (xai to(9 yvaiTTOi'i) , xxiii. 49 
(7raj'Te9 ot yvaoTot) both times in the plural, but it occurs ten 
times in Acts and everywhere with the dative, except at iv. 16 
where it is used purely as an adjective (yvacrov a-q/ieiov yeyove 
&C avTttiv) and at ix. 42 where no case follows (yvwcnov ie 
eyevero xaO oX);? tt;? Iottttt)?), so that St. Luke does not use the 
genitive. We have to turn to the single other remaining 
occurrence of the word in the N.T. to find the genitive. 
I refer to St. Paul's use of the word at Bom. i. 19 : 
hioTt TO yvoiaTov tov Oeov ^avepov etrrtv cv avroi^. Cf~ 
Mouiton's Winer, p. 295. 

In the case we are discussing in St. John BCL seem to 
stand absolutely alone with Westcott and Hort (no alternative 
in the margin) and Soden (adding 213 = his"') although Cyril 
definitely opposes them with the mass. Why should Cyril 
tell us what to read, or rather what to omit at Luke xxiii. 34, 
and be denied a hearing here ? In the very next verse W-H 
accept Cyril's testimony when backing the same MSS BCLX 
for the unusual order Xeyei ovv tw Jlerpai r] -nai-tiaKi] t) dvpapc;. 



The science in such matters is evidently incomplete, for the 
Bevisers disagree with Hort in both places ! They agree with 
Cyril for the dative after '^vaxnoi and disallow the above order, 
txix. 31. ■rjv yap /iiyaXr/ tj tifitpa exeivri rov aaPfiarov (pro . . SKeivov 
Tov o-o/3/3aTou) B*H 83 69 X [non fam sed diserte rov 
cra^ffarov exeivvl 138 157 247 317 6^ p'" i™ z'" al. aliq Sod''^" 
et Elz'^ e f g gat vgg {instanter >illa dies vg^) pers arab Cijr. 
The versions and if' favour eKeivov, but pers and arah go 
with B* for exeivrj and syr pesh (sin still missing) has a force- 
ful repetition "Dies enim erat magnus dies Sabbathi illius" 
as rendered by Schaaf and Gwilliam, but Malan prefers to 
render "For it was a great day that day of Sabbath" 
(jOI comes last in the sentence). Hort only places exeivq 
in his margin, but Cyril proves that B* was the correct 
Alexandrian reading. While pers (in the absence of syr sin) 
reads more simply than syr pesh, for pers = "for that day 
was great" (Malan'"'), "et ille dies magnus esset" (Walt""), 
and I think may represent syr sin. 

Change of Person. 

XX. 18. on eapaxa (pro on empaxev) XBNXW Laura''^^" a g gat 
aur vg sah boh aeth syr sin (eapaxaiKv S 38 [c/. hue xxiv. 11], 
but all others and syrr rell Cyr on empaKev) . 

eapaxa with on is strange and of course the more difficult 
reading. Hort spaces : fjLaOijrai^ on 'ILmpaxa tov Kvpiov. 
KoX Tama, but does not intimate a various reading in his 
margin. There is no particular objection to the receiving 
of this rather strange lection. I would only remark that 
whereas in Coptic xE *.mA.-ir is legitimate, the on. in 
Greek and Latin is rather illegitimate \b c d e ff\ have giiod 
■vidit, / g r: quia vidisset, only a g vg: quia vidi] and in 
view of our other Coptic sympathies [see under that heading] 
NBXW very likely imbibed the Coptic and do not represent 
a "neutral" base at all! Even syr sin is not free from the 
reflex action of the coptic versions. Soden brings forward 
Laura* '"< as the only new witness, but does not adopt 
eapaxa in his text. I notice that AmeUneau's Evst (p. 62) 
has eapuKafie (with S 83). 

"f In Tischendorf's apparatus B is not properly quoted. Gregory rectifies the matter 
in hia Emendanda. B* reads fjceii^. B^ or B^ tKetvov. 

t TOV tra^^oTov emmv D'" LN* 78 f" Paris" Sod^ =^. 
§ .^lifl misrepreseaied by Tisch and Homer for vidi. 


Change of Possessive Pronoun. 

" °xii. 28. fjiov {pro aov) See under " Hopelessness of considering B 

Genitive Absolute. 

As in St. Luke's Gospel so in St. John's there is a marked absence 
of any dative absolute. In fact there is no trace of it if we except xx. 19 
where r-q i)fiepa e/cewq rq l^to- {tov) cra^fiarav (interposed between two 
genitive absolutes) might be considered as one, with ova-n understood. 

The genitive absolute itself is quite rare, other expressions replacing 
it on countless occasions. Thus, whereas at xx. 19 we find ova-qi ovv 
o-i|r(a?, rri rj/iepa exetvi] T-q fua {rwv) aafifiaTtov, xai -rav dvpiov KeKKeiafKvmv 
. . . , if we turn to vi. 16 we read a? ie o^ia eyevero, and at vii. 10 <a9 Sc 
ave^-qaav oi aBe\ipoi avTov. Or ii. 23 tu? Be j/i/ ev (toi?) lepoadXviMK ev TO) 
iraax"; or iv. 28 a<l>r)Kev ovv tt/v vSpiav avrq<; t) yvvr), Kai aT^rfKdev. . . , where 
we might expect to find genitive absolutes. The same applies to ix. 11, 
xi. 43, xii. 3 14, xiii. 4, xvii. 1, xviii. 1 18 88, xix. 1 and other places. 
Real genitive absolutes are observed and appear to be limited to the 
following places : 


iv. 9. ou(T7;9 yvvaiKo^ Sa/iapetTiSo? (or > yvv. SafJ,. ovcr7j<;) 

51. TjBrj Be avTov KarajBatvovro'^ 
vi. 23. evxapLarqtjavTo^ tou ¥ivptov 
vii. 14. tjBt] Be tt;? eoprTj^ iieaovaT)^ 
viii. 30. Tavra avrou XaXouvTO'^t 

xii. 37. T0{7avTa Be avrov tj-qfieta TreironjKoro^ efj^.Trpotrdev avrav 
xiii. 2. fcac Beiirvov yevofievov 

ibid. Tov Bta^okov rjBr) ;Se/3Xi)KOT09 • - • 

but not in xiii. 4 as might be expected. 
Then none until : 
xviii. 22. ravra Be avrov enrovTo<; 
XX. 1. o-KOTtas 6T( ovarj'; 
19. ovcTTjs ovv o-^ta^ 
ibid. Kai Tftjy Oupoyv KeKKeiu ^evo>v 
again : 
XX. 26. Tav dvpwv xeicXeiap-evav 
xxi. 4. irpmta^ Be -qBr) yevof.ievrjs 
11. Kac TOtrovriov ovtojv^ 

t Instead of as at si. 43, etc., xat ravra f^jratv. 

X Add vi. 23. For uWa rj\6ov irXoiaput, X reads fire\$ovrij)v ovv t<dv TrXotojv and D 
(c/. 6 r syr cu) aXAojc TrXotapeictft- eXdovTuv [but d aliae naviculae venerunt] . 


Now the same remarks apply here as those which I made under this 
head in St. Luke. The supposed " Antioch " rsYision has made no 
changes in St. John or in St. Luke from genitive to dative absolute. 
Then why should Lucian (or another) be accused of doing so in the 
Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark ? Instead, does not the plain fact 
of the case stare us in the face that it was " Alexandria " which dis- 
approved of certain dative absolutes in Matthew and in Mark and replaced 
them in their revising process by genitive absolutes ? The case, it seems 
to me, is proven. 

Genitive he/ore the Noun. 

Eeferring to iv. 16 (see remarks under " Compound verb for simple ") 
we find a number of cases in this Gospel, as at : 


ii. 15. xat Ttnv KoWvfiiarav efe^^e to xep/ia (to xep/una BLTWX) 
xvi. 6. T] \vmj Tr€7r\r}p(DK6v vfioiv tt}v Kaphiav 
xvii. 6. (jov TO ovofia 
xviii. 37. fuiv TT)? (fnovTj'i 

where all Mss are practically agreed. And as below where the 
Mss are not in exact agreement : 
xiv. 30. Tov Koafwv {tovtov) ap^t^v Most, but : 

apxmv TOV tcoa/Mov (tovtov) 1 Jam 13 138 '^ Paris" e vg 

Sipp Orig Bos Ath Cyr. 
XV. 10. Ka$w^ eyw Ta9 emoXat; tov Trarpo^ fiov TeTTjprjKa Most and 

Cyr, but : 
Kadio'i Kayw tov iraTpo'i ijiov) Ta? €^ToXa9 Tenjp-rj/ca NB a h ff 

g vg Chr Novat. 
xviii. 10. TOV Tou apxi^pecoi &ov\ov the usual Greek construction as 
exhibited by most (pontificis servum g q i vg), but : 
TOV hovXov TOV apxiep€0}<; NDJ 242 Sod}'-""''-' abcef 

six. 20. oTi 677^9 'qv TOTTo? T7?? TToXew? Most, but : 

0T£ C771/? 7)v T179 7roXeo>9 o totto^ txt recept and W 1 13 138 
Paris" al. if' vg copt syr arm. 
24. fjuiv Ttt t/MTia N*"' cum copt ( — fwv 127) 

34. avTov TTiv Tt\evpav Nearly all Greeks with copt, but Orig''" 
with 69-346 [non 13-124] 317 348 397 Paris" and the Latins 
and Syriacs have ttjw irXevpav avTov. [Eus doubtless read the 
former order, for he writes tov afivov tov 0eov Xoyxv tiji' 
irXivpav ew^c] 

35. avTov eiTTiv Tj fiapTvpia XBW^?Mr OW^**'^ 
e(TTiv avTov r) p.apTvpia EGKNSUA min^°*, but ; 
eaTui ij fiaprvpia avrov HYi mm'° latt" Chr Cyr 



XX. 25. > fxov rov iaxTvKov 

ibid. > /xov rrjv xeipa HJj 3'd Ev$t'""^^-\ I against tjiv x^'-P"- 

>lj,ov TT/K xtipoK BW ) '^"^ I P'Ov rell et Ci/r 

> /lou TO? x^'P"'^ ^ C""^' /"*" '^ ^ ( — f^ov 1 a) 

N.B.— Soden adopts fwv ttiv x^'P"- with XL 33 Bust*""™"*" 
(BW) copii, but rejects fiov rov &aKTv\ovoi NDLWaSEusi*"""""'" 
copt ! (Paris" ceases at xx. 15 and is not available here.) 
d. 24. >avTov Tj fuiprvpia €(niv BCW 

>e<niv avTov r) fiapTvpta D Evst 48 d aur GUI' 

>avTov earcv r) /uipTvpia 33 ? 

but X and the rest >e<xriif -ij fiaprvpia avrov as lait [^praeter 

d aur'\. 

Matters of Order. 

■ ii. 17. See under " Solecisms." 

iv. 9. a<T6i? >yvvaiKo<; Sa^pjTiSo? ov<7ri'; NABC'LNT" et W^ 

frag gr-copt Crum-Ken et 38 Gyr. 
against atT«? ouo-j)9 ywatKo's 'S.ap.. the rest and cursives and Paris". 
(D d arm omit ovirrit.) 
This is either an Egyptian improvement, for there would 
be no good reason to set ovo-i)? back in any " Antiochian " 
revision, or the basic text like that of D d arm lacked this 
ovarii, which found its way into the text in differing positions. 
The versions — copt sijr lat — express it in the position opposed 
to the Greek of XAB etc. 
21. >Tr,c7T. poL 7wai NBC'L et W'l' 71 213 253 269 892 [iion 
Paris"] &" ?[" 8<« 11"' vid Sod"' "" b I q sah aeth syr hier Orig 
Ath Cyr W-H et Sod txt. (-jwa:, F 124''' Sod'-"".) 
against jwat iria-r. pot D the rest, d and other Latins, boh, syr rell 

et cu sill, ar?n Thdt. 
Here, the Coptics being divided, we do not place it under the 
heading of " Coptic." 
vi. 17. >TTpm auTow e\7)\vOei o tijcrov<; BN^ 435 Paris" soli vid., 

against e\rf\vdei ( + o D) ir/aov; irpm avTov^ XD SO a d aeth syr hier, 
and eXrjXvOei vpa avTovi o ir/aov; most and boh syr {sah irjaov; 

TfKdev irp. avTov^). 
Soden gives one new witness agreeing with BNS^ 435 
Paris", viz., Sod"'^, a MS at Patmos, but adopts the ordinary 
reading in his text. Curiously enough W-H refuse the BN^ 
reading in both text and margin, their text agreeing with the 
majority of witnesses, and their margin agreeing with XD. 
49. >€<j>ayov ev tt? epryito to pavva BC(D)TW b G d e ff gat 

fgg'"' °"'° Eus Chr Aiig W-H Sod txt {Orig and aur* ev ti? 


efnjfiai etjiayov to fiavva) against N the rest Coptics and Cyr 
Thdt for e^ayov to fmvva ev rrj epvi"o. 
[vi. 49/50. Tov ovpavwv aprop ^ayovre^ aireBavov C/em'""°^°'] 
vii. 12. X reads : Kat yoyyvcr/ux; ttoXw v" "■^Z" avTov, while BLTXW 
a few cirrsives and W-H read : xai yoyyvafim vepi amov r]v 
•7ro\u?, bringing iroXv^ last. As far as I can see both 
Tischeiidorf and Soden make a composition of these readings 
and print : xai yoyyva-fw^ tiv Trept avrov ttoXv^ which I do not 
think has any MS authority whatever except that of 33 and 
Chrysostom {codd. p.. e. 7. 4. \. 6. of Matthaei), the majority 
reading ; xai yoyyvap.o'; ttoXv? Trepi avTOv ^v, and 127 
exceptionally : xai yoyyvap^o^ tjv ttoX-vs Trepi avTov, while 3 and 
goth omit irept avrov, and the " neutral " text probably lurks 
in Dacdeffl aur arm ? which omit ttoXu? altogether I The 
fact is that iroXvv is probably an addition, injected into the 
text ill differing positions. Syr and pers place it early with 
the majority, against the small Egyptian coterie of Greek 
Msa i + b q) followed by Hori. 

33. >xpovov p-ixpov NBLTWX Sod"'" /am 13 e / ? aur W-H 
Sod txt (for piKpov xpo"')" D and the rest and sah boh Cyr) is 
possibly due to basic omission of xpovov which occurs in syr 

42. >oTrov r/v AavetS epxerac o Xpta-To^ BLTW^ 33 Lanra*'"* 
[non 892 non Paris"] c vg syr Cyr W-H Sod txt. This instead 
of oTTov Tjv AaveiS, o Xpicrro'! epxerai, evidently to avoid the two 
nominatives coming together. In sah the verse is practically 
inverted, bringing o 'K.piaTo<! epxerai (but maintaining this order) 
very early in the sentence. Compare carefully all authorities 
here and a lesson may be learned. Itala is against BLTW'*. 

52. >0T£ cK T175 yaXiXaia^ ■jrpo<fniTT]'! BLNTX^J 892 al. pauc. 

Orig Chr Cyr W-H Sod txt, but against XDW and the great 


viii. 14. >ij papTvpia pov aXr)6irs €<mv BW2 157 235 314 Sod^^ '"""^ 

Evst 60 6 sah arm Orig 1/3 Epiph Did W-H°^ 

while D^^ has aXtjOetvTj pov ecniv tj paprvpeia (d verum est 

testimonium meum) 
and the rest of the Greeks with Orig 2/3 Cyr followed by Sod 
and W-H^^^ : aXtjOtj^ euTiv -rj fiapTvpta fwv as d and the Latins. 
We should refer B's reading probably to sahidic influence 
[60A is opposed]. The fact that W joins is somewhat 
significant of this and not necessarily of any "neutral" 
form, while as 157 is joined by the sister MS Evst 60 it is 
evidently real and basic with them. 314 is SodenP ^ a com- 
mentary MS. 

\% fin. Kai TOV TTaTepa fiov >av ritene {pro . . . >Tihene av) 



BLNTXW'J' 1 33 213 249 397 892 [i!o» Paiis"] Laura*'"* 

contral W-H Sod txt, but against K and all the rest (D r"' 
d h e ff oin. av). Tliis appears to be a distinct effort to 
avoid ending the verse with av. Why should all the rest 
force the hiatus in jjSeiTC av ? (D omits av.) 
viii. 23. v/jKC^ ex tov xoafiou tovtov £<TTe, tya ovk ei/u ex lov 
Koa/iov TOVTOV So X and nearly all, but BT {/am 13 Sod"°) 
latt Orig 1/3 Ci/r""' wish to vary the " pair" of expressions, 
so they write; u/^ei? ex tovtov tov xocr/iov, eyco ovk et/ii ex 

TOV K0<7fl0V tovtov. 

The only other authority to make a changef is the notable 
MS W with its well known Coptic affinity (it has rested for 
1500 years in Egypt), which places the demonstrative before 
Kocriuiv in BOTH places as does sahidic (and boh niKOCllOct- • ■ 
nAlirocjuioc). The lat and vg object also to such an abject 
" pair " and so reverse the process thus : " de mundo hoc. . . 
de hoc mundo." 
ix. 17. >Tt av (pro av Ti) XBLX'*' [teste Sod, noti Lake'] soli et boh 
[noil salt] Cyr followed by W-H and Soden, against all the rest 
including T'W. {Syr:avTi.\ey.av,Ti\eyeii;avSod^^). Om. av 
18. > OTt ?)y TV<f>\o<; xai aveffXe'^ev (pro OTi TV'f\.o<; tjv xai ave^Xe^lrev) 
NBLNT'W Sod'^" 157 Paris" Laura*"* Sod™ »'* "«" W-H 
and Sod txt [b] r boh (xe WACjOI iiS.6X>\E ne, whereas 
sah 3CE ffE'irS.XXE he). This is more important than it 
seems, ior T) d I omit the clause altogether, showing some- 
thing out of the common, which 28 emphasises by substituting 
€yevvr}$Tj for 7)v and eliding xat ave^\£^ev with h stud syr sin 
alone, thus; "on TvipXo^ eyevvrjdri." b has "qui fuerat 
caeiMS " without et videbat ; and r has " quoniam fuerat 
eaecus et videbat." e varies the missing xai avefiXe-^ev by 
writing " et recepit lumen." § No Latins apparently use 
eyewTidi], but aeth always prompt to show us that these 
readings of 28 or others are old, conflates with ; " quia eaecus 
NATTjs fuisset et vidisset." 

Amid these variations possibly D d I are correct with total 

The eyivvriOr) of 28 aeth may of course have crept in from 
verses 1, 2, 19, 32, 34. 

t 69 has cK TouTov TOV Koa-ficiv sBcuTido loco (tffste Scrip) as 33 and latt. 

t — TOVTOV prim as Evst 50 and a few. 

§ Cf. the Georgian and Slavonic versions. 


(Interesting Passage as regards Diatess and Latins.) 


ix. 21. Concerning wliat the parents of the blind man actually said. 

Ordinary Greek : avTm rflaxiav ex^i ' avrov eprnTrjaare ' avrov nepi avrov 

(pel eavTOv) \a\7;<7« ANFAA line' I q S goth slav 

pers syr^^ '*''' diatess Ps-Ath 

avTOv epmrrjaare ' ijKiKiav ex^t ' amo^ ( + ra Nf 157 mm*'"") Trept 

avTOv (vel eavTov) \a\r)aei ii'3D(eirepaiTria-aTe 

cum Sod'™) LX^ 1 22 33 157 213 397 Sod'*' '"« 

Paris" IT [except, b (vide infra) I q S] vg boh a^th 

arm georg syr^^' Gyr et pi" '"»■'«» W-H et Sod txt. 

but N*WT' Sod"'^ ''"• b sah (syr sin) Chr"^ omit axnov 

epamjaaTe, and sah further omits rfkiKiav e%ei. 
Syr sin really merges avrov epwrqaaTe ' auro? nept avrov 
\a\.v<rei by saying: " from him ye can know." In reality 
the omission should be considered to be of the final clause 
avro<; rrept avrov XaXija-ei (with /)> which gives us the 
variation : iBov rfKiKiav e^^i ' a-rr avrov hvvare fuideiv syr 
sin (I). 
We have the itala opposing the diatess. Here it may well be that 
diatess is conformed to syr pesh, for syr sin (hiat syr cu) opposes both 
with a different turn of phrase. But thus it precedes diatess ioi H* and 
b, that interesting conjunction, omits one of the two clauses whose order 
is sub judice. K*T'W and 6 omit " ask him." 

" He is of age " therefore stands in all except sah (12 Mss !) which 
practically omits both TfKiiciaii 6%6t and avrov epcortjaare, saying "... He 
also, he was fit for to speak about himself," retaining the avro<; which 
44BDLX 1 33 it aeth omit, and perhaps covering in intent r/KiKtav exei. 

" Ask him," therefore, is the point around which it all turns. The 
inversion of order shows that something was wrong in an old common 
parent. This may account for omission in X*T'W b syr sin sah Chr""', or 
it may be basic. The fact however that all other Latins have it militates 
against it. On the whole it looks like the old question of an exemplar 
which had been (properly) corrected in the margin, and led to confusion 
in the minds of the copyists. 

There is no trace of trouble left in F'*' 'J'*'"" which agrees with the it 
and N'BDLX'i' in the order airrov ep. tiKixtav exet etc., but thus opposes 
diatess arab. 


ix. 24. See under " Coptic " and " Latin." 

31. oiBapev ori >o ^€09 a/iopToiXoii' < ovk axovet BDT'AN? [negl. 
■*• Sod] a d e goth Cypr Gonc'^'^ a d e W-H txt (nil mg) 

B IN ST. John's oospbl. 367 


[sah boh 6eo^ ovk aitovei afiapToiXav (a/iapToiKov sah\) ; 
syr pesh Oeo<; {pcovrjv afiapToiXav ovx axovet {mut syr sin) ; cf. 
aethj. This instead of oiBafiev ore > afiaprniXoiv o 9eo'i<ovK 
axovei which XW with the rest as well as 892 Paris^' and most 
Latins give us, as also Cyr OrirJ"''' and Hil and So(Jl^'-\ {Chr is 
on both sides.) The change of order seems to be a clear " im- 
provement " by BDASf . The harder order (supported as it is 
by the mass of Latins) is undoubtedly right. The combination 
BDT' is of no weight in such places, given their record other- 
wise, when NW and the mass oppose. (N aeth gat = otSa/i^v 
5e oTc > anaprwXiov ovk axovei o ^eo9.) 
X. 16, 17. See under " Latin." 

28. „ „ "Coptic." 

32. ,, ,, " Solecisms " in the first place, and " Latin " in 

the second place. 

42. ,, ,, " Latin and Coptic." 

xi. 47. >0T( ovTOt o avdpa-no'; ■KoWa Troiei a-Tj/ieia NABLMWX'P 
Sod"'' loM Paris" sah Orig Ath W-H et Sod ixt. 
OTi o av6po>7ro^ ovto<; TroXKa rroiet mjfjueia 33 et^ [^Sod, non Lake^ 
OTi avSpasTro-; outo? ttoWu arj/ieta voiei A Sod™ '"'* '"' "" 

OTI OUTO? avdpcoTTof TToWa arjiieLa ttoiu TJno" etc. Chr 
OTL avOpwiro^ ovto^ dTifieia TToWa iroiei Cyr {Sod^'^^^) 
ovTO'i apOp(i>7ros rotavra (TTjjxeia iroiei X> b c d e ff 

TToXXa ra GT^fieia a ovro^ o av6p. irotei boh 

OTI OUTO? avdpQ>Tro<; -rroiei iroWa a-qiieia sah 
xii. 18. Sia TouTo Kai vTnjvTtja-eu avrot o o^Xo*; OTt. . . So write most 
authorities. (Some omit /cm.) But B writes alone 
>Sia TOUTO VTrrjvTTfiaiv avToi xai o oxXc;, oTi. . . Now observe 

sah: ET&e n*.! Off A. njuHHoje ei e&^oX gHTcj, xe- 

Sah does not therefore omit xai as Tischendorf says, but 
places it (" oft ") before o ox'Xo';, as does B, merely displacing 
vTrrjVTria-ev and giving it after o oxXoi. Surely a sight of sah 
here influenced B so to write, unless he added km in the 
wrong place, from his margin. But see boh omitting the 
prior Kai. Hort does not record B here in his margin. Why 
xiii. 9. See under " Solecisms." 

10 "Latin." 

> TnaTeva-qre {TTiaTevirre BC Orig 3/5 W-H txt \iiil mg']) 
orav {eav Paris") jevrrrai oti eyai eifii XBIL 213 Paris" some 
latins sah Orig 3/5 W-H Sod txt. 

This instead of iva orav yevifrai. ttjo-t. otj eya eifu of the rest 
and Orig 2/5. It is a very difficult matter to jndge who is 


t Some cursives and EUXr have ajiaproXor, a8 Cy^ peocatorem. 



right, and Origen insists upon being upon both sides as so 
often. I only mention it for this reason aad to show how 
impossible it is to reconstruct an " Origen" text seeing that he 
not only gives both orders, but writes eirav [observe Paris" cav] 
for tnav once,t and Tntrrevip^e thrice against irio-Tevo-ijTe twice, 
xiii. 21. >viuv \£7(B B'"' cum pers (ut solet). See the same order 
at X. 1 and 7, noticed under " Solecisms," but not thus 
36. See under " Latin." 
xiv. 16. iva 1^0 vfuav et? tov aiarna g B"' and 6 latin only and W-H"'. 
This among three varieties of order, and the exchange of »; for 
fievij. Old Latin is for p, but the Vulgates all for /lei^ and as 
they drew from a text similar to NB such as Paris" it is 
probable that ^ is an amendment, for Paris" has fi£VTj. The 
differing order between B, N, D, and LQX is suspicious. 
20. >vnei'! yvmaeaee BLWqX 33 213 Sod'"""^ <^'° f vg Gyrl/Q 
W-H [non Sod] against yviotreirde vfieiis XDW rell minn omn 
vid et Paris". I would point out that as A Sod"'' 249 Sod*'^ 
Evst 150""° b dim em gat vg'' syrpers aetk Chr Cyr 5/6 Victorin 
omit vixeK altogether, the differing order between the large 
XD group, and the small B group may well have its source 
in an addition to the basic text from the margin. vjiCK 
appears superfluous here. 
XV. 2. >Kapvov tr'Keiova See under " Latin " and note specially in 
connection with xiv. 31. 
9. >viui's ityaTrrjaa See under " Latin." 

10. >Tov irarpm rai evTokai ( — ftov) ^ a h c ff q aur Novat 

Chr'' JT-B"'^'. 
xvi. 12. >viuv "Keyeip See under " Latin " 

23. >S(ai7€i vfuv ev tw ovofL. /wv See under " Coptic." 

xviii. 2. >OTi TToWaKi.'; avPT^x^'') '■V^ovi fiera tosv fLadtfrtov exei B"'. 
This is rather interesting, because B clearly accuses himself 
of being non-neutral here in placing €ku right at the end, as 
an afterthought (incorporated from the margin ? Sod}'", with 
syr pesh"^", omits), and this is admitted by Hort, who places 
the B reading in his margin, and has in his text : 

art 7ro\Xa/ci? (Tvptj^Stj Irjaov^ 6Ket fjiera rav futdrjTtov avrov as 
N and most, but D d i<"°" and some versions place exet before 
(o) It^o-ow. The Latins vary a good deal, and Hort nearly 
always adopts B when there are several varieties of readings 
or of order. Here he recognises B as absolutely «on-neutral 
in its unique order. 

t Jast as at xiii. 27 for rart Orig uses ciro fonr times, and omita (with ^<DL) thrice 


Soden now adduces Sod"^ for omission of exec, and supports 
B for exei at the end with Sod"'', [exei is placed after crvvrjX^ri 
by D Paris" a r (og) and sTjr.] 

Note that in the following verse, where X alone omits exei, 
srjr sin follows B's example in verse 2, and in verse 3 alone 
places exa right at the end of the verse ! 
5. Another matter of order (unique, by B) promptly supervenes, 
and again jjcui-neutral, and once more relegated to Hort's 
margin. It stands exactly on the same plane as the matter 
just noticed under xviii. 2 and is due to addition from the 
margin of B's parent. Here the textus receptits after "riva 
^T/reiTe " says: aTreKpidTjaav avrw, X-qtjovv rov Na^topatov. Ac7et 
avTOK o l-r]aov<! ejm et/it. X retains this, merely suppressing 
the article before lijerou?, but ACLX and the rest of the 
Greeks confirm the text, recept. Sah and hoh say >Ij;(rou9 
avTois but neither X nor B are following them. D 435 and 
five minuscules plus Sod'"- "" with b er [Mat d] gat syr sin 
and Orig [Sod omits Orig] omit Itjo-ou? altogether. When B 
comes to the place he acts thus : 

>\eyei avroK eja eifu Ii/trou? incorporating Jesus last, and 
changing the method of the address. No trace of this 
lingers in others except in the Vercelli Codex a, which 
has : Dixit illis : Ego sum. lesus autem stabat et Judas. . ., 
thus preserving the order of B and incorporating Jesus in the 
next sentence. Consult the original page of B. We find 
€rw €IMI TceiCTHKEl, ic coming before ttj-TT/Ket. The combina- 
tion D [liabet d™''] 7K«m' her syr sin Orig is strong for the 
simple omission of Jesus, which is in fact what Hort adopts. 
Some of his principles here go to the winds in favour of others 
involving the " shorter text," but the fact remains that B is 
discredited as a " neutral " by adding in the wrong place. The 
combination D b e r Qiiat d) syr sin is the true Latin base. 
The Oxford edition of 1910 goes back to the textus receptus ! 
This is rather amusing, seeing that syr sin, discovered since 
Hort's day, lends its voice to the omission of the Latins 
which Hort followed here, and which justifies him. Poor 
B is left alone, all alone out in the cold. This is a sad 

15. >ypmaTo<; rjv {pro r)v yvoxTTO';) BW 4 Paris" Sod'^'^^ a c f 
ffqrgat aur W-H"^. Cf. syr et boh. 

17. >Xeyei, ovv rw Xierpw r] irai^itTKi} t} Qvptopo'i BC*LX 33 213 
397 [nmi al. gri h c f g r gat vg Gyr W-H <£■ Sod txt 
[Hiant d e]. 

See as to BGLX just previously under " Change of Case " 
where they oppose Cyril. 

2 B 



xviii. 18. BCLX remain together here for another change of order with 
(Cyr) but have the additional snpport of XW and a few 
cursives vrith a. 
22. >6i? TropeCTTiyKmT twv vrrTjperav (pro ek rmv UTTijp. ■irap€aTr)K<t><s 
A plur) X'BW Soi"' a ff g gat vg Cyr W-H d Sod txt, 
while K^C'LXY*- 33 213 604 Lanra^'* Sod}^^" bcfr vary in 
a third manner with elf Ttov Trapeartjxorav (vel irapeaTtoTrnv) 
vinjp€Ttov and Paris'' ei? riov Trapea-rrjKOTiov rav virTjpercov. 
M. >n aWoi eiTTOv <roi BC*D«"'LW [nmi Sod""] sah boh syr Cyr 

vg^i W-H [non Sod]. 
This againat the usual 77 aXXoi aoi entov of N and most as 
So(J'^', or 7) o\\o9 <roj ejirei' of (M)NSn and a few, and -q aXKoi 
aoi Trepi e/Mv uttov i Sod"^*. 
38. See under " Latin." 
xix. 4. >ovSetuav aiTiav evpiaxa ev avrm B 1 33 73 Sod}'^' uta s m 
aeth vg'^ Cyr et W-H dt Sod txt (cf. largely differing orders 
in others.f Sah and boh grouped by Tiseh here do not agree 

11. Large variety of order here. 

10, 11. Important. See under " Syriac." 

12. Great variety. See under " Coptic and Latin." 

20. See under " Coptic and Latin." 

21. >fia<TiX£v! rav lovSaiav eifu BLX* 33 314 Sod}"" (aeth) 
[rum "W non Paris" non al. vid.l W-H [non Sod}. 

cifu is omitted by syr and vg^. Possibly it was missing from 
the B*' exemplar and carried in from the margin. 

28. See under " Latin." 

33. >i;Sj) avTOti Tedpr/KoTa (pro avrov r/hr) ^e6v.) BLW Orig 
W-H [rum Sod]. (Tisch " : : qui ordo corrigendus videbatur.") 
The mass with Cyr have avrov ■'iSri Tedwxora, but offqr 
vg' arm aeth georg (sax) Auct^'^ do not express v^V- This 
may possibly be basic, owing to the differing order as between 
BLW Orig alone and all the rest (including all Soden's new 
witnesses) vdth Cyril. In St. John r of the Latins is quite 
important with a very old text. It is notable that the 
" Egyptian " Latins c and ff also omit, while vg'^ is as old as 
any of them in base. Is it the Latins who once again 
preserve the base ? 
XX. 17. >/w7 aTTTov liov (pro p,v p-ov avTov) B"' vnth Tert^" (" ne, 
inquit, contigeria me") and some versions as} syr arm aeth 
copt, but against every other Greek including the new Egyptian 

t For further particulars see the ' Morgan Gkispels,' pp. i 

t But some exchange " touch me not " for " draw not near me." 

B IN ST. John's gospel. 371 

Lectionary, Amelinean p. 63 [Evst 47 only omits /louf] 
against the Latins expressly mli me tangere, and against the 
host of Fathers Iren"" Besp""'^''' Orig""" Orig"" Eiis'^"'' 
Eustath Epiph^" Chr Cijr Thdt Sever al. 

B does not even substitute ftoi (Pimlar) for fiov. Hort 

carries /i?; atrrov jwv religiously in to his margin, but no one else 

considers it seriously and the Oxford edition of 1910 rejects it. 

Another " sunspot " I suppose. There are many recorded in 

these pages. 

xxi. 17. >iTavTa av (pro av Travra) XBC*DNW Sod'^" 33 [non al. 

minn Sod'] adeffm aur vg*- syr W-H Sod txt. 

1 18. > fwff. ire (pro ae ^axr.) HBC Gt/r [non al. Sod], cf. copt 

{syr) [non lat] W-H Sod txt. 
22, 23. See under " Latin." 
24. See " Genitive before the Noun." 

Hopelessness of considering B neutral, when he can never understand 
Christ's character. 
xii. 28. We have here to indict B on a frightful count. We indict 
him for mutilating scripture without the shadow of excuse, 
and this in a most important place. His changes of tense, or 
suppression of the article, or niceties of expressions by 
" pairs " are nothing to this. In the short expletive prayer 
of our Lord, introduced in verse 27 by the words uw 17 -^xi 
fwv TerapaKjai, xai ti enra ; our Lord continues : Trarep awaov 
fie €K T7)5 (»po9 toutt;? ■ aWa hia tovto t)\Oov «? ti)!' wpav 
Tainrjv, Xlatep io^aaov tov to ouo/ia. 

The reply is reported swiftly in the words following : nXOev 
ouv (p(t}i^ ex Tov ovpavov " xat eSo^aaa Kai iraXiv Bo^atrta 
without mentioning any "object," Therefore B was free to 
alter the record in the prayer itself, and he does so. 

t d'" ia wrongly quoted by Tisch for omission. It omits the second, not the first 
fiov. Sodeii commits a bad blunder here, citing K and D, W and 848, " af " and Orig for 
the omission of this first ^ov. They all omit the second only {post irarepa prim.) with 
the possible exception of 348 {SoiV) whose actual readings Soden is the first to report 
fully. Soden does not mention d»<!r here (his'"") and so does not repeat Tischendorf's 
error, but places it with the others for —^iovpo8t Trarepaprim. He neglects however the 
only MS which does omit outright, viz. Evst 47, as he makes a practice of avoiding the 
testimony of Lectionaries nearly everywhere. {Evst 47 is a most important document in 
every way and will bear the closest watching. Its absence from von Soden's apparatus 
is most regrettable. It is often alone with very ancient and important witnesses, e.g. at 
John ii. 19 with Ignatius alone.) Matthaei refers to 0)-igen^-^" where he would seem 
to exclude /xou with Evst 47. 

X But B has Kai (lAXos f<oirti ne alone, as sah boh, while SC have «ai aXXoi (cxrova-iv 
uf, and syrr add to gird : ' thy loins.' Therefore B remains alone with certain versions 
(against the Latin). 

2 B 2 



B writes : Ilare^ ho^aaov fj,ov ro ovofui. He has the support 
of one minuscule (of which we rarely hear), viz. Evan 5 
[neglected by Soden}. Hart and the B.V. do not exhibit 
a trace of this in their texts. In Hort's margin is fomid 
" Ap." In the Appendix is fomid " xii. 28 to ovo/jm] tov 
vim," nothing more. So we turn to vol. ii. 'Notes on Select 
Beadings,' p. 89, col. 1. Here we find the variation tov viov 
for TO ovojuL described as Alexmidrian, but — would it be 
believed ? — not having the grace or the face to refer to the B 
reading at all ! Now whether we read with Jjliiegl. Sod.JXX" 
and Athanasius Trarep Bo^aaov aov tov viov, or with B varep 
So^aiTov p^v ro ovop.a [instead of irarep Bo^aaov aov to ovopM.~\ 
the result is the same, and we find this most Alexandrian 
reading in B (which we were told was absolutely free from 
such things). Hort's silence is not dignified. It is worse. 
For he has said that he could find no trace of any Alexandrian 
reading in B in any book of the New Testament. Therefore 
it is specious here to hide behind the view that pov for aov is 
a mere error. Cyril has said ene ho^aaov aov rov viov ix^i tj 
ypai^rj, eire Bo^aaov aov to ovopjx, tovtov eariv t^ tov detoprj- 
parmv axpi^eia (xii. 28, xvii. 1), so that he brings together both 
readings. After the correct reading here : Bo^aaov aov to ovopa 
D adds GV ttj Bo^ rj etxov irapa aot irpo tov tov Koapov yevea^ai 
which is a phrase erroneously brought back from John xvii. 5. 
D would therefore really like to read with B or Alexandria, 
for in xvii. 5 the previous clause reads xai mv Bo^aaov pe av, 
irarep, (continuing) rrapa aeavTot rij Bo^ rj el^ov irpo tov tov 
Koapov civai irapa aoi. [At xvii. 5 D has yeveaffai rov Koapov 
for TOV Koapmi eivaiS\ 

We have here then a clear case of Alexandrian editing by B. 
Foolish editing too. Because, when our Lord quickly adds 
" But for this came I to the selfsame hour," he debars any 
thought of " Glorify me " or " Glorify my name " or " Glorify 
Thy Son," and the editors have properly accepted the wording 
of the prayer to be " Glorify Thy name," in Him if you will 
{as Tert once : glorifica nomen tuum in quo erat filius). 

pov is not a mistake or a slip made by B. It is most 
deliberate. If it is wrong why did not Hort own up and say 
so ? And as his silence says it is wrong how can such a text 
be " neutral " ? 


xiii. 26. +\ap0avei «ai {amte BiSmaiv) BCLMX et X=* 33 213 892 
gg^im 3=1 1110 agfj^ o^g,ter p^.fl- ^ gg^ f^f against KDW*' 

B IN ST. John's gospel. 373 


Paris" and the rest and the versions and Cyr. The opposition 
is so strong that this may have come from the Xo/Smv in all 
three of the synoptics (Matt. xxvi. 26, Mark siv. 22, Luke 
xxii. 19). In 1 Cor. xi. 23 it is eXa^ev. 
xix. 41. r)v jedeiiievo^ {pro eT^Bif) KBW Paris" Laura* ^*' Cyr but 
these only, miserable band of Alexandria contradicted by 
Orujen. Cf. positus erat latt here, and cf. Ltic xxiii. 53 vv 
ovSeK QvieTTot /cei/jcj'o?. In fact Tischendorf says " ex Luc 23, 
53 " and refuses to displace ejedTf from his text. Bolder (and 
stupider) is Hort, who places i)v Teffeiiievoi in his text without 
marginal alternative. The B.V. more wisely follows in 
Tischendorf's footsteps and retains eredri (but the Oxford 
edition of 1010 has no note on the evidence). Soden's text 
follows Hort and XBW Paris". He adds Laura* i" to the 
small group. 

Example of Conflation exhihited only in this " Neutral " text of B. 

vii. 39. ovTToi yap rjv vvevfia without addition by NKTTI'?' Sod'^' 42' 
91 280 w"" {boh sah) arm Orly'^"'*" Dion'''" Cyr'^"'"" Hesych 
Orig"" 1/3 Bebapt Tisch d W-H txt. 
LNXW unc^ S vg"'' Did Ath Chr Thdt Orig'^'' 1/3 Txt. rec. & Sod 
txt add aywv. 

Eus and abcffglr aur gat vg^' syr pesh cu sin add SeBo/ievov. 
D dfgoth (aeth) add ajiov ew (in df) avTOK. 

But it is left for B et 2 syr hier Orig""lj3 to conflate by 
adding ajiov heSofievov. B has no Greek support t hut 254 = 
ayiov Bodev, which is distinctly a critical codex; its corrections 
being only used by the critics when they favour N or B 

Now the situation is quite clear here, and Hort recognised 
it by following X and the Fathers against B. "What becomes 
of his " neutral " text in B then ? This is worse than a 
" sunspot " or " sunstroke " as regards B [see Souter], for it 
is deliberate tampering with the deposit. Nor does Hort 
himself conduct his enquiry into this matter better than B. 
In the margin of his text opposite Trvev/ia (tantuni) is found 
" Ap." and we therefore turn to the Appendix (p. 674). But 
there we find no word about the misconduct of B. Instead we 
find this, and only this : 

" vii. 39] TTvevjia] + BeBo/ievov ; also 4- dywv : also + ciytov 
fV avrol'i : also + ayiov BeBofj^evov ." 

t What does von Soden mean by citiug e (before " it***^ 1^") for omission of ayiov ? 
Trae, Hans mn Sodm'a "African " text lacks it, but e reads : " nondum autem spi erat 
sanctns datits.^^ 

i Soden adds A* ( = X''). 


**" That is absolutely all. Not a word as to the culprit B who 

perpetrated the addition referred to lastly. In vol. i. p. 82 
(' Notes on Select Headings ') he goes into the matter a little 
more fully, but as usual cannot recognise what the readings 
mean. Under +07(01- he has " Pre- Syrian (? Alexandrian) 
and Syrian," under +aytov ieSofuvov he has no remarks. 
WeU, of what family is it ? I have said before that Dr. Hort 
could not recognise his own children when he saw them. I 
repeat the accusation here. And if he could not, how can 
his followers ? 

This is his illuminating remark on the subject : 
" The singular distribution of documents is probably due in 
" part to the facihty with which either ayiov or SeSo/j^vov or 
" both might be introduced in different quarters independently. 
" Text " [i.e. ' irvev/Mt '] " explains all the other readings, and 
" could not have been derived from any one of them." Thus 
he utterly condemns B here. 

Well then B's usefulness is destroyed? Not a bit of it. 
Hort seizes the first opportunity to follow B again in the next 
verse +[oti] where B with only D (against the rest and Orig 
Cyr) inserts this in the Coptic method. 

General Improvement. 

i. 13. (omission). B and one cursive (17) omit the second clause 
ovhe ex 6e\rifM^o<; avhpm. This is either because of homoio- 
teleuton.t or more likely because there seems something 
of tautology in " ouSc eic 6eKTjfut.roi aapxai ouSe ex dek^fuiTK 
avipm." But for B's bad record previously we would not 
select this against him. The omission is opposed by all else, 
by W 892 and Paris", by all versions,} and by TertuUian and 
other Fathers, e^ce^i Athanasius and Eusehius, who omit with 
B, and Ath appears deliberate. This is another Alexandrian 
reading as witnessed to by Ath, which is shared by B, and the 
existence of which Hort denied. 

ii. 15. Ta xeppM.-ra {pro to icepixa) BLT'XW Oxy^" 33 213 314 
Paris" b q copt arm Orig"^^ Bus W-H txt [nil in mg] Sod^ 
against all others and Nonnus. This seems to be an effort 
at (mistaken) improvement, and has support of Oxyr^'' W 

t E* anil a very £ew omit the fijat clause ouS* « Qth.. a-apKot. 

X Sah has it, but alone changes the beginning, writing " These were not out of the 
with of hlood and fleth, -HOT oviol the wish of man," for 01 odk «J ai/iarov oiiS* <« 
OfXtlliaros (rap It as mSe fK 6t\i}paTos aySpos. If «aA considered the matter We may 
be sure that B did, although B adopts a different plan. 

B IN ST. John's gospel. 375 


and co2}t as well as Origen fully. Hence it is certainly 
Egyptian. As to the neighbouring places in the same verse, 
observe following, where N 1.57 and Epipli, almost alone, 
have KaTenTpe-^ev, and most Greeks with Origen (over 1/2) 
avearpefev, B\YXn= 61 108 234 217 251 252 435 q"' r""' (Sod 
only quotes 251) SocP-'-' » " »« go with Cyr and Oxy7-'" W-H 
txt for averpeyfrei'. The Old Syriac only begins again at ii. 16, 
so we do not know if it employed singular or plural for to 
xepfia or for e/c axoivimv, but we may note that 33 and 71 
Sod"*' '"^^and q use ex axoiviov alone here, 
iii. 34. -0 6m sec. XBC'LT^V 1 33 213 2^' Paris" b e f I Cyr 
(syr cii) W-H li Sod txt, against all the rest and syr- copt 
aeth Orig et Orig'"^ Chr Did Cyr^''<" Ang"". This seems to be 
an endeavour to remove redundancy. 
iv. 51. (Indirect for dramatic direct oration). \e-yoine<! oti o ttow 
avTov ^n by NABC and W 185 Sod"" c dfffg I r gat aur vg 
arm W-H <& Sod txt and the inevitable textual muddler 
Origen in the proportion of 1/3. 
This is opposed by D'' LFAAII unc" minn omn rell {et N oti o vw; 
trov ^Ti) ah e q syr cu sin pesh hier sah boh aeth Chr Cyr with direct 
oration, employing aov for avrov. It is confirmed by Orig*--'' (on the 
next page following the quotation avTov^-'"-) plus Origen {ex Heracl.'-''^'). 
Tisch misquotes 13 for irov. In Perrar's edition 13 reads : o Trait aov 
o W05 avTOTj (but the rest of the family aov with all other minuscules). 

In a question of this kind when the Semitic versions are so strong 
for direct oration, the minuscules should be decisive. What is their 
verdict ? None uphold aurou.t Not even 892 nor Paris" nor 33 (the old. 
" queen of cursives " before discovery of 892 and Paris") nor 28 which 
here opposes and neutralises the testimony of W. 

May I ask, if it is a question of revision, who would revise hack to 
direct oration '? The thing is unimaginable. If a.vTov were original, the 
whole series of " Antioch " revisers (and they are represented by other 
Egyptian mss) could never have put back aov so successfully. 


iv. 52. uirov ovv BCLNW* 1 33 50 213 291 2'"' Sod» ™ Paris" 
W-H Sod txt but no versions except aiin. The others and 
Cyril have koi (.mov with X, but T° Sod'"- e foss with sah boh 
and the middle-Egyptian version, and the syrr omit the 
copula. The "neutral" text is therefore with copt syr, and 
the ovv of BCL is a sheer improvement. 
53, Similarly eKivq rn <->pa ev v by XBCT° 1 minn aliq^^ 

t Soden now aJduoas iwo critical codices lor it, his'*' at Patmos, and his "" = 185 
at Florence. 



WS (i Sod txt for ev nceivt) rrj apa ev n should be compared 
to Latin, but it avoids a double ec. 
29, A little " nicety " of B alone : 

Oi Ttt a~fada ■noitiaavTei eii avaaTaaiv ^a>v^ oi (-Sc) to <fsav\a 
vpa^aVTe^ 6t9 avaoTaaiv icpiaeio^. 

This is another of those " pairs " which B always gives his 
(Alexandrian?) attention to. No other Greeks support the 
omission of ie. Soden does not add one single vritness to B. 
Not even the faithful 213 {Sod""). Nor do ^ 892 or Paris" 
add their voice for omission. "W indeed writes km oi alone of 
Greeks with m lok'' syr arm Iren"". The support for B's 
reading (which W-H adopt) f is Latin, viz. Tert Aug a e ff 
and sahidic.t I add this therefore also under the heading 
. "Latin-Coptic." 

9. -ev(postvaiSaptoi>) NBD[coni!m So<?''"]LNn*W9' 1 157 ttZ" 
gQ^d«.m ab del syr cu aeth Orig Chr Cyr et W-H d Sod txt. 
Apparently to remove a superfluous word. Why should any 
add 1 (Coptic emphasises with the indefinite article 0'«a"P6 
sah, OTAXoTf ioh, ehminating the ev following). 
42. Yet another case of "pairs." The second outo? is removed 
from the verse by BCDLTW Soi°»° min. pauc. W-H d Sod txt 
a d ff q sah boh syr cu sin arm aeth Chr Cyr, but against 
all others. Why should it have been added? It is pleonastic 
in Greek, but not so semitically speaking. 

4. See under " Latin." 

6. Another question of " pairs." For -. " o Kaipoi o efw; ov-rrm 
itapeoTiv he xaipm o vfieTepm wavTore eaTiv eTOifiot " 
B substitutes in secundo loco Trapeanv for etniv to make 
the antithesis euphonious or perfect. It appears to be in 
very questionable taste, and presupposes that every other 
MS changed the second ■wapeoTi.v to ta-riv for opposite reasons. 
Not a single other Greek does this, nor 892 nor Paris" nor 
any of Soden's otherwise sympathetic cursives. Some vulgates 
({FKWQYX'Z^, but no vett, have adest for est here, but all 
vett carefully distinguish, having venit or advenit or adest («) 
in the first place, and est uniformly in the second place. Sah 
and boh both differentiate and so do syrr. W-H keep a 
discreet silence, printing e<TTiv. 

f Beally in all these mittera Hort surpasses himself. The evident reincarnation 
of an Alexandrian critic of the third or fourth century, he has managed to mislead 
modem " scholars " into thinking that all these little " niceties" were basic, and that a 
" revision " forsooth exchided them alt ! 

J BoA strongly opposes, some &oA having pleonasticolly CffO^ ffH ^C- 

3 IN ST. John's gospel. 377 

vii. 8. Althoxigh B has large support here for ovira avaffaiva, the 
consensus of opinion of antiquity (Porph Epiph Chr Cyr Ephr 
Aiuj Auct quaest) is with NDKMIl f ii"' vg boh {diserte) arm 
aetlb syr cu sin georg slav pers for ouk avafiaivm, which Hort 
only places in his margin, retaining outtm avafi. in his text. 
Can anyone suppose that if B had been on the other side it 
would not have turned the scale? Yet here, although 
supported by sah and W, it is manifestly an ancient 
" improvement " which D and the good Latins, sgr boh and 
the bulk of the versions, will have none of. I regret that 
the Oxford edition of 1910 follows Hort with ov-ttq) in text 
and ovK in margin, instead of reversing it. J In this connection 
I would like to remind Dr. Souter of his own words quite 
recently expressed (' Text and Canon,' p. 129) : " The readers 
of the present work would do well to ponder every word he 
writes on the subject of New Testament textiaal criticism, 
for no authority of our time surpasses him in learning and 
judgment." This sentence refers to Professor F. C. Burkitt, 
and this is what he has to say of situations exactly such as 
the evidence indicates in St. John vii. 8 : " The question at 
issue is lohat right we have to reject the oldest Syriac and 
the oldest Latin lohen they agree " (F. C. B. ' Introduction' to 
Barnard's CTcto"''^), because, as he says elsewhere {op. cit.) : 
" With Clement's evidence be/are us we must recognise that the 
EABLIEST texts of the Gospels are fundamentally ' Western ' in 
every country of which loe have Jcnoioledge, even in Egypt." 
I have already used these remarks of Dr. Burkitt elsewhere. 
as headings to my study of the books of Dimma and Moling, 
and Dr. Souter will please to recognise that I "ponder 
every word " of Dr. Burkitt on the subject. Perhaps more 
than he (Dr. Souter) does, for if Dr. Souter {op. cit., p. 138) 
approves the addition of the words kuI ri)? vvfi^7i>; at Matt. xxv. 1 
which " has now received the support of the Old Syriac 
version and is therefore proved to be ' Western ' in the 
widest, and not merely in the geographical sense," he must 
apply the same canon of criticism to other places, irrespective 
of B and X. As a matter of fact this addition of xal ■ri}9 
vv/i^T]'; stands upon another footing, and I am not at all clear 
that we should receive it. The valuable cursive 892 reads 
alone tbui/ m/j^imv for tov vvfi<j>iov xal 717? vvfu^rf^, revealing 
a situation which calls for very detailed examination.§ This 

■f Ada 17»* 389 ps" ws«"- ps" LauraA w SoiViO i™i i^M i 371 s iea. 

\ Soden does reverse it against Sod^\ having ovk avadaifoi in text and witm in margin. 

§ TV iivfi(f)i<tt C 157 soli, lit latt sponso. 



reading o£ 892 I have not seen referred to anywhere, and 
Dr. Souter himself has not used Dr. Eendel Harris' very 
interesting collation of this valuable British Museum codex. 
But the proposition holds good, viz. if we are to believe DXSn"'' 
lattsyr arm Orig'°' Tichon Amoh Op""" Hil for +Kai tiiv vv/upr)^ 
in Matt. xxv. 1 against Aug and the rest, how much more are 
we to believe D latt syr strengthened by NKMII arm aeth 
georg slav pers boh Porph Epiph Chr Cyr Ephr Aug Quaest 
at John vii. 8. 

In such connections we can profitably study matters of 
order, such as vii. 12 33 (see under " Order "), where perhaps 
the basic text omitted the word subsequently added in 
different positions. 
vii. 34. Another question of "pairs." To: " fjjTija-tTe ^ xai ovx 
evpv<Tere " BNTX [non fam 1 teste Lake] 213 258 2'^ w*" 
Socl}"' ua gd]^ j(,^ gy^ agth W-H [non Sod] would add /le to 
complete the " pair." It is difficult to suppose that all others 
including DW So(P'" 892 Paris'" removed the second /n. Bather 
is it a " version " influence on BTX. 
ibid. Observe in the same verse fin. that B alone (c/. georg arm) adds 
cKcj, which can be traced to the unique addition by the sahidic 
and bohairic here of epoq (" to it "). 

36. B[?Mm N]TX sah boh syr aeth, with G l[nonfam], 892 2"" WS 
this time, again add a second /« in the same phrase as in 
vii. 34. 

In the latter case Q 1 892 join, and N 213? 258 w^ Sod^" ? 
abandon BTX and the four versions which remain constant 
in the error with Westcott and Hort. 

39. S (pro ov) B and EKMSUVA2 min^' and 604 [non 892 
(Harris ed.) non Paris^Jbut against NDGHLNTWXrAH al. 
pi and Cyj^" Chr Thdor^'"^' Cyr (Nonn) Thdt ; in other words, 
B has no Patristic support. It is rather a dif&cult construc- 
tion, and.B with LTW Emt 18 proceeds to. change the tense 
of ntcrrevovre^ follovring, to irKnevcraine';, and then conflates 
with a7toi' Beio/Kvov as against omission of both words by 
NKTn Orig Cyr, while sotne add aytov and some add SeSo/ievav. 
It will be observed that B's supporters LT and W are in 
varying positions in this verse in the three changes under 
review. [See ante as to addition by B.] 

41. In the " pair " of expressions aWoi. . .aWoi it is to be noticed 
that some and 1 33 248 al. a cfffvg sah boh arm {aeth) Orig 
Cyr add &€ after the second aWot, which is found also in 
textus receptus and in sah against its usual method ; 
(BLNTXW Sod""' substitute ol Be). 
Now St. John's method seems to be against this, for at 



ix. 9 aWoL eXeyov . . . aWoi eXeyov remains without copula and 
only N and a few add Se, while B and the great majority 
abstain. I mention it because there are other places involved, 
all in the same class, as, in the same chapter vii. above at verse 
12 : 01 fiev eJuyof . . .aWoi eXeyov, where BTXW Sod'^' sah boh 
Cijr and a number of Old Latins (with textus receptus again) 
add he. I had not intended to mention this place, supported 
as it is by cfffg I vg (although observe that h d e q\ r B foss 
oppose), { but when comparing vii. 41 and ix. 9 it became 
evident that the +Se on behalf of all those who add is 
probably anti-neutral and in the nature of revision, 
vii. 46. Following a variety of changes of order in the phrase ovSeTrore 
eXaX'qaev outw? av6pa>TTo<; (order of BLNTX Orig Cyr), it is to 
be observed that BLTW 225 229* hoh and Cyr Orig drop the 
clause following (against N and the rest) of "&>? ovtos (XaXei) 
o av9ponro<;." The Semitic doublet was objected to. Tisohen- 
dorf remarks " offendebat scripturae prohxitas, hinc addita- 
mentum vel in brevius contraxerunt vel totum omiserunt." 
viii. 16. T, Kpi(n<; -q e/ir) aX-qdivq eariv BDLTXW 33 213 892 /Sod« 
Orig 1/2 W-H A Sod txt, against the use of oXtj^i?? by the 
others, d and the latins use vermn. Only gat vg'^ vary with 
justum as Siicaia o"" Sod^'" =" "=» Evst 60 [Evan 157 does not 
join Evst 60] Cyr Chr 2/3. It does appear as if aX-ijOiPV 
were more in the nature of an "improvement" than other- 
wise. Why should the rest abandon it? It would have 
been a welcome variation from the use of aXij^j;? above, if 
correct, and certainly not tampered with by all the rest 
including ^ and Paris". (D has aX-rideivv alone at viii. 14.) 

19. See under " Order." 

38. Kot v^i^K ovv a TiKovaare napa tov ■najpo'i. This (instead of 
. . .eatpaxare. . .of the rest), by BCKLX and N'W 1 (131) [no;i 
118-209] 4 5fam 13 [ko» 124] 15 33 42 68 91 116 122»* 145 
213 229** 249 299 dpiw^^'and 892 Sod"""'- ^-fgoth boh aeth^^'"' 
arm Orig^'""'^ ''™"' Cyr [non X rell, non '^, nonVa.ns", not even 
Laura* ""]. This is of coui-se to avoid the difficulty, hence 
against the canon of the "harder" reading to be preferred. 
Hort swallows TjKovaaTe and his margin is silent. Soden acts 
similarly. CZeTO"'" is silent, but XDT^ Paris" and eleven 
other uncials are not, nor the Latins nor sah nor syr sin nor 
Tert, who all witness to eapaxaTe and vidistis^ as Tischendorf 

t Tisch misquotes q on the other side. 

i a = et alii,' tor wiiich Soden also quotes r, but r in Aihotfa edition has plainly 
...St (tor est) alii dicehant. Soden' e collator seems to have misread et £ot 
§ / only of Latins with joth join B in improving. 


diligently explained by quoting Apollm""- 2'° in full " etapaKepai 
teat irapa tw iraTpiXeyav ovk o^da\^o3V rtva opaffiv eSifKojaep 
aWa •^vatTiv (fiva-ixrjv, errei xai £Ketvo<; '^a<TKa>v etopaxevai 
irapa t&> irarpi avrav ovk oyjrei BTjirovOev ecopaxevai Xeyet dXXa 
T5) evoiKovuT) TTovrjpia. . ." Yet we persist in receiving Origen's 
tkird century "improvement" against this fourth century 
Vfitness diserte and Tertullian earlier. The Oxford edition of 
1910 follows Hort here to its discredit. Will the critics not 
kindly apply Burkitt's canon at this place also, and see in the 
consentient voice of syr sin and syr pesh pers arab {cu is 
wanting) with the diatessaron (quoting Jno viii. 12/60 in full 
sequence) and all the Latins [but/] with sah georg slav and 
Apollin and Tert a fuU rebuttal of the " improving " voice of 
Orig and his minions, even with syr hier added to them ? 

Here is Hort's weak note, In 'Notes on Select Headings,' 
p. 88: 

" viii. 38. S £'7<» . . . Trarpo?] -ieyw a eaipaxa itapa tw -naTpl p.ov 
[TaCra] XaXoi" Kol Vfieui ovv a iupaxare -rrapa jtp irarpl u/Awi/H 
Western and, with o twice substituted for a, and ravra 
omitted, Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. Aeth.) : but aeth omits /mov and 
vfMv." For later and better information [von Soden to the 
contrary notwithstanding] cf. Merx pp. 208/212 in the Johannes 
volume, and note (on p. 209) his expression: "und es ist 
Willkiir zu sagen, B hat uberall hier das Bichtige." 
viii. 39. Another very important question of " pairs " or more than 
" pairs." 61 reKva rov A^paap, eare ra epya tou Afipaafi 
TToieiTe. So B* and the vg alone followed by W-S txt. 
Origen is on both sides, quoting very often. Now most 
authorities, with Eus Epiph Cyr^^" Did Bos Cyr^^'^ have ijre 
and evoiene, while those who join B for ecne, viz. NDLT 
Evst 60, still follow with eTioiene, and some have enotene av. 
The cursives are practically all for T/re and e-noiene or eTrotene 
av. True 604 has iroteiTe, but retains av. Paris" has rire and 
eiroieiTe av. The Coptics and the Versions oppose B ; syr sin 
appears to support. I hardly think B has preserved the 
"neutral " text. If so, why do sah and boh not foUow? It 
looks rather as if B and Origen here were playing a part, for 
Origen knows and gives both readings. The Old Latins, with 
the exception of ff, are against B, while 6 and Orig"^ add 

The matter has no importance in one sense, and yet in 
another it has a very great importance. The record of B as 
exhibited in these pages is not sufficiently good to trust him 
without better support. D and the supporters having ecTTe 
foUow with erroKire. The transition from €o-ts to enotene 



offends apparently, yet they retain. AVhile ea-Te may therefore 
be basic, Troiene seems to be the reverse ; jjtc may indeed be a 
revision, but eTroiene rather than Trotene appears basic. 
Note. — In case it should be thought that I had gone crazy over 
questions of "pairs," I would like to exhibit another place in St. John 
quite in the heart of these changes by B, where N indulges in this, in 
order to show that the changes were either premeditate on the part of 
both MSB or were influenced by a version. Observe then that at 
John vii. 2*2 in the clause : ou^ ot£ e/c rov fji<ou(T€a)<; e<niv aW e/c rtav 
Trarepmv, an additional oTt is supplied by N after aW. This is shared 
by syr cu sin, but not by sah holi, as might have been expected, nor by 
the other versions, and is found in no other Greek or Latin witness. 
My point therefore appears to be well taken that the changes were made 
to "improve." It is extremely unlikely that such complementary 
expressions should have been removed by any revisor. Why, tor 
instance, should 'V or 892 or Paris" or Laura'*-™, all derived from a 
similar MS to the parent of X and B, cut out this second oTt? "Why 
also should they all have ev <rafifiaT(o while B with b e r quite alone 
omit ev in this same verse? Do they not preserve the true text as 
against B aiui X respectively in both places ? 


viii. 51/32. We now come to one of the grossest disfigurements of the 
text in the whole of the narrative perpetrated by B. The 
facts are so clear that Westcott and Hort abandon his 
testimony completely and do not even give the reading a place 
in their margin, although B has the support o£ Evst 32 and e, 
to which now add Paiis". It is not discussed in Hort's 
' Notes on Select Readings,' for it would have been exceed- 
ingly distressing to him to discuss it. But was it Iwnest to 
pass it by in silence ? Let the facts speak for themselves. f 
Burgon omitted to comment on this because Hort and the 
Eevision mercifully left the record alone. But in an arraign- 
ment of codex B it is my duty to record the shameful 
mutilation of scripture here, justifying all I have previously 
said of B as to " pairs " of expressions. 

In John viii. verse 51 the Saviour says : " A/xt/v anvv Xeya 
v/iiv eap Tt? TOK e/iof \crfov (or tow \oyov top e/wv or top Xoyov 
uov) TTjpTjffi], davarop ov firj Oeta p^jfrr] ei'i top auova. 

In verse 52 the Jews reply : " pvp cypiaKa/iep on Saifwviop 
€vet9. A/Spaafj, aireOavev xat oi Trpocj^ip-ai, xai trv X€76r?' eav Tt? 
TOP \oyop iwv (or p.ov ti; rov Xoyov, or tj? /wv top Xoyov, or 
[33 Orig] tj? top efiop Xoyov) Ttiprjar/, ov /ii) yevaTfTat 
Oavarov {eii tov aimva om. D b c dff I syr sin)." 

t Souter also ignores it in his notes to the 0}rford edition of the N.T. 1910. . 



In verse 52, however, B calmly substitutee ffavuTov ov fj.^ 
6ea>pT)<n) for ov fir/ <yev<njTai Oavarov, repeating the form of 
verse 51 in order to make no difference in the wording of the 
Jews' reply to the actual words spoken by onr Lord. Evst 32 
does the same, so does e latin, and so does Paris" miknown 
to Hort, and a new witness 213 ('*') adduced by Soden. 
But this last support only justifies all I have said as to 
such particular cursive testimony not helping B but re- 
accusing his text of an ancient error. No other authority 
changes, for the simple reason (as Hort and the Eevisionists 
admit) that the record is perfectly plain that the Jews in 
their excitement repeated the phrase of verse 51 in slightly 
different language. Origen is a witness to this effect, which 
Hort here dared not put aside. Keither Tisch nor Tregelles nor 
Sort nor the Revision nor Souter nor Soden then follow B, 
although it had both Greek and Latin support. If we look 
into the matter still more closely we shall find that syr sin, 
some MSS of pesh (but not diatess) and aeth, while holding 
" shall not taste of death " in verse 52, put taste back into 
verse 51, replacing deapriarj there by yevcrTjrai, exactly for the 
same purpose of harmonising the records in verses 51 and 52. 
What a clear picture of these critical authorities dealing with 

Now such absolutely unpardonable handling of the record 
by B here, raises afresh the whole question of the readings 
of this MS elsewhere, which Hort asks us to accept in so 
many other places, as does Dr. Souter. The latter in his 
' Text and Canon ' (p. 103 seq) has this to say of Westcott and 
Hort : " Their work is held in the highest esteem in all 
civilised countries, and on the foxmdation they have laid the 
future will do well to build." But if the foundations are 
insecure, as I claim to have shown in this volume, is it not 
an unfortunate myopia from which Dr. Souter and others are 
suffering? Do they really know B? I cannot believe it 
possible, or Dr. Souter would not write on p. 22 (op. cit.) after 
citing two of the "secondary traces. here and there in its 
text": "But such features are like spots in the sun." 
The features to which I have drawn attention, of this con- 
stant striving for " consistency," for running the narrative 
in "pairs," for general linguistic or grammatical "niceties" 
or " improvements," with occasional " conflations " or bold 

t The omission of ets tov amva at the end of verse SZhjH dh c ff I and in/r sin is 
not perhaps on the same footing. 

B IN ST. John's gospel. 383 


" harmonies,"t culminating in this passage in John viii. 51/52, 
proves something quite different, and it is evident that 
textual theories and a text built upon B are liable to be swept 
away owing to the foundations being quite insecure. As to 
" spots in the sun " they may not perceptibly dim the bright- 
ness of the luminary to eyes some millions of miles away, but 
studied a little more closely they are indications of grave 
danger. These spots on the sun of B have had as 
disastrous an effect on our N.T. studies as have had real 
sunspots on our agricultural situation on many occasions. 

Souter's simile is unfortunate. Perhaps it is prophetic ! 
This matter of harmonising by B in viii. 51/52 is followed so 
closely by another peculiar matter (viii. 55), see under " Change 
of Case," that it should be consulted by the student at once. 
There Hort and the R.V. will be found in disagreement, Hort 
following BADW Soct^" minn" contra""^'"''', while the B.V. 
restores the usual genitive and tacitly accuses Hort's foundation 
of being wrong. [A somewhat similajr case to that of John 
viii. 51/52 may be seen at xvi. 16/17, concerning which note 
Burgon's remarks in ' Causes of Corruption,' pp. 105/106.] 
ix. 14. See under " Latin." 

16. Another "pair." The verse begins eXeyop ovv... Later for 
aWoi eXeyov, NBDT'W fam 1 fam 13 22 2'" Sod'" c d r^ sah boh 
syr [lion pers} {aeth km), have aXKoi Se eXeyov, against the great 
majority without copula, ff (Buchanan) is against it, not for 
it, as Tischendorf says from an uncertain phrase of Sabatier. 
Tisch. also errs as to the vuIgates by saying " ygcie gt"""" " 
but only vg^'" recorded by Wordsworth have a copula. 
Tischendorf claims ten cursives, but none of Matthaei's or 
Scrivener's cursives have it, and it seems to be limited to 
/am 1 /am 13 2'"' and " Colb " (22, confirmed to me by 
Sanders) . Others seem to lack it completely and it does not 
appear in 892 nor in Paris" and only in Soden's "' of all his 
cursives, but he accepts it openly, although Hort only took it 
into his text in brackets. 
20 init. aTreKpidT]aav -f ow XB 2'" [teste Sod.] Evst 15 g q 
vg^ dim Tisch^'-'' W-H [nil mg] only against no copula 
DGLT'UWXn 1 33 al.latf^' sah boh arm Cyr, and +«e the 
rest and Sod txt. 

I would not call attention to this, but that the whole graphic 
narrative, abounding in repetitions, must be examined most 
closely (much more closely than I can do in these few notes 
on ch. ix.) and that in ix. 10, ix. 17, N or B or NB add an ovv 

t See ante and j^ost under all these heads. 


which probably does not belong to the text. See also ix. 26. 
The matter is settled as far as I am concerned by observing 
that in ix. 27 B alone with aeth and georg adds an ovv after tj 
(appearing in Hort's margin). Observe the variations as to 
ovv, Se, Kat (NB sah), and the absence of the copula here by 
the mass. 

ix. 30. +T0 {ante OavimaTov) NBLNT'3 1 [won /oTO, although SocZera 
quotes 118, which Lake specifically denies] 22 ? 33 397 
Laura-*- 1" Sod}"'"'-^' sah Ohr Cyr W-H d Sod txt against 
omission by all others. Why should the others omit if to 
were basic ? But this should doubtless be referred to Coptic 
{sah xe TA.) poi T£ TeajnHpe, boh 2ce ba.i pto 
•j-g 'f-cu4)Hpi) reproduced by arab alone of later versions. 
Syr has " to wonder " or "mirandum " as a r, for " mirabile," 
and Paris" substitutes eSav/ui^ov for to daviuitrrov etr-riv, while 
all the others with WD and ^ hold ffav/Marop " a wonderful 
31. See under "Order." In this the following verse, B again 
follows Coptic (against H) apparently disliking the position of 
afMpTQiXaiv after on, which word would hardly have been found 
there if this order were not basic. 
X. 25. Another "pair." See under " Change of Tense." 

xi. 29. See under " Change of Tense." 

30. " ouirm Se ek'rfKvdei o irjaov; €K Trpi xa/iitv a\\ ijv ev ^<o TOirca 
oTTov v7rr}VT7j(Tev avroj 17 Map^a." In this quiet and dignified 
sentence, witnessed to by ADLrAAII unc aV rain pemrnlt 
and syriac, NBCXX" 1 33 213 242 249 Sod""' some Latins 
and boh introduce en after tiv, while F a e and sah add it before 
r)v. The addition in different positions is suspicious in itself, 
but this has never influenced Hort apparently nor the school 
of Hort, for he and the Oxford edition and Soden diligently 
add it. Yet why should the other school have dropped it ? It 
savours distinctly of officious " improvement." Observe that 
sah has A.XX*. ETl tteq^ii HAtA. and 
boh has A.XXA MAqxH o-fftt ne .4ett nijutA.. 
44. Another question of "pairs " in the final clause : 

"\u(TOT6 avTOV Kat a<j>ere avTOv vrayeiv." 
BCL Sod"^" 33 157 Paris" alone of Greeks, copt Orig^. 
Where are the Latins and the Syriacs ? All the Latins (except 
ff with its Coptic affiliations) and the Syriacs (except hier and 
diatess) are with N and the mass witlumt the second avrov 
against Messrs. Hort and [Soden]. 

It is possible that this is a common error of base, however, 
between B and copt, for it is opposed by W as well as N al. 
It might have occurred from misreading vn in wayeiv after 

B IN ST. John's gospel. 385 

a<f)eTai (ior a^cTe). Thus in W you find A<t>6TAlYnAreiN. It 
is important as placing W behind the diatessaron. 
xi. 45. Kai deaaafievoi a e-aoirjaev X and the great majority, with 
Origan six times (and iaa 314 d"") I^-H™- SodT-, but o BCDA' 
(also C--=- o 67r. avH^wv) 1 244 249 SofZ'"""™'^-'' c (/o<7t s«/i a«<7^ 
IK-W'" Sod"'\ This seems to be an absolute "improvement" 
referring to the miracle of the raising of Lazarus. It 
occurs immediately after verse 44 which recounts the actual 
resurrection, and o is so absolutely natural after Beaaaiievoi 
that no one would have changed o here to a, while there is 
every reason to change S. to o as do B and a few. W does not 
do it. Here observe Origeii absolutely opposed to B's " easy " 
reading. Origen, H, and Tisch prefer the " harder " reading. 

In verse 46 following emov avroK CD 249 397 with M 
Sod"" '«™ ^ 6 e goth aeth repeat o, but KB and most, this time 
keeping with Origen, have a. I have no doubt a is right 
in both places. The bohuiric shows that criticism of these 
verses was in vogue, for it reverses the whole process, having 
in verse 45 Seaaafienoi a. and in verse 46 enrov avroK o. 
.57. evToXa'i {pro evToXrpj) NBIMW/am 1 138 2.54 i"='' Paris" 2'" 
[teste Sod] Sod"" Orig'"'. A clear " improvement " adopted 
by Tisch W-H and Soden.'\ See sub voce " Indeterminate,"' 
after remarks on xi. 54. 

xii. 12. See under " Solecisms of B." 

13. Apparently another question of "pairs": evXoyjifievo'; o 
ep^ofievo^ ev ovofJ-arc fcvptov xat o /SacriXev? tov ^cparjX, 
Only NBLQ boh aeth and Orig and the editors Tisch W-H 
and Soden^ indulge in this second icai o or at any rate they 
alone add the xai to make the two parts. Some and sah have 
o before /Suo-iXeu?. 

xiii. 18. Tiva? (pro ow) Undoubted correction, thinking to improve. 
It occurs in the phrase £y<u {yap) oiSa ov^ e^€\(^a/j,i)v, and Tiva<i 
is only found in NBCLM 33 157 213 397 Sod""' "'» ""' ■*" "'"» 
0,-igi'Mer Qy,. adopted by the editors Tisch W-H and Soden.^ 
Indeed Orig seems to have a patent on this : " rivai efeXe- 
^a/xrjv, oirep a-rrXovcTepov fiev tocovtov etTTt ' tz? ea-riv ctfacTO? ojt/ 

t I mention the three critical editions specifically at these four places to emphasise 
what Burgon said long ago. The critical editors considered and Sodcn still considers that 
these minority mss are of paramount importance irrespective of the fact that the grouped 
MSS represent hardly more than one tradition. To combat this view I am presenting the^e 
pages. Because Hort supports Tischcndcn-f, and Soden supports Hort, it does not follow 
that they are right. The English Revisers oppose in xiii. 18 and Soutcr does not give 
the evidence for riyas in his notes 1 If Souter believed Hort was right it was his duty to 
his readers to give the evidence. Does Soiiter believe SBCLM 33 157 Orig Cyr and 
Hori to be wrong here ? 

i c 



e^nXe^afiTjv oiSa." At 6r3t sight two? being the "harder" 
reading might appear justifiable, but it is almost certainly 
editorial. It is contradicted by all others including W^ and 
892 Paris" so much in accord with the group elsewhere. It 
is also contradicted by all the versions. A trace would surely 
remain elsewhere if tjco? were correct. As I plodded over 
document after document I was amazed to find no other trace 
of Ttcas until Soden produced two Si)iai codices, two at 
Jerusalem, one at A thos. 

xiii. 26. /3ai(rav ow (pro /«ra< e/i/Sa-fas) NBCLX 33 213 892 So(i"'»'»"« 
a Orig 2/4 and Cyr with the editors Tisch W-H and Soden 
against the rest.f 
37. axoKovdeiv apri {pro aKoKovdr^aai apri) B(C*). A sheer 
"improvement." See under "Change of Tense." Hort 
follows B alone here. 

xiv. 7. This is another question of " pairs," but different from most. 
Here, for (xai) airaprt yivaxTxeje avTov xai eapaxare avTov 
by the great mass supported by all the versions and TertulUan, 
BC* and they alone with IF-H'" [and they are 'often guilty 
of other tricks together; see many instances in St. John 
elsewhere in these pages and just previously] would suppress 
the second avrov^ reading airaprt yivaa/fere avroe tcai 
empaxare. It is a perfectly fair criticism that this is editing, 
even if here it be a question of the suppression of one 
of the " pair," because the place troubled some scribes and 
translators. Thus 33 68 250 d»" Evsi 47'''" 60 and some arm"^" 
suppress xat eapaxare avrov altogether,! while the Slav version 
with X"" (= Sod A') suppresses the first avrov, writing 
" Ye knew and ye saw him," as does the book of Dimma : 
" cognoscetis et vidistis eum." While r (not reported for 
Tischendorf) and I'jr" are to be added to the Greeks BC for 
the eliaion of the final avrov. These authorities should be 
added in Tischendorf's apparatus. Homer does not give r, 
citing only BC, because unfortunately he does not quote r, 
a very important witness, especially in St. Luke and St. John 
but Soden gives r here. (See beyond again on xiv. 17.) 
10. Yet another matter of a " pair." Instead of o Se varrip 6 ev 
efioi pevwv of nearly all Greeks (and a c d f q r foss qui in 
me manet) BL^ [negl. Sod. ^] Sod'""'" Orig Aeth Did 
CyfM et com glide the second o, reading o Sc irar-rip ev e/wi /uvav 
(= no doubt vg with b e ff g in me manens). -That this was 

t See foot^ot6 on page 386. 

t Attributed by von Soden to homoioteleuton I 

B IN ST. johk's gospel. 387 

the Alexandrian way, the unusvial consensus of Orig Ath Ci/r 
with BL'^ most freely attests. ISo carsives appear to join 
(except the two new ones of von Soden mentioned above 
which are quite "of the family"), not even Paris", and W 
goes with D and the rest against it. Bat whereas B prefers 
" pairs," here he seems to dislike the double o on account of 
the & — present in most copies, only absent from a few 
cursives. Had the & been absent : " o Trarijp a €v €/io( fi^vav " 
would not have offended, but in o Se irarrip o it seems to 
have appeared redundant. The other versions seem cleaily 
to have read a second o. It is not trifling to mention this 
matter, for B shows us four variations in this one verse : 
(a) iriaTivaeis for ■Ktarevei'; with the hohairic alone Iboli 
neglected hy Soden^, (V) —\eyia alone, (o) — o ante eu e/iot with 
L'P and Alexandria as above, and finally (d) woiet ra epya 
avTou with ND as against noiei to epya ovto? IjX and W 33 
213 Sod^'"' Paris" Ci/r""' and avros voiet ra 'epya A and the 
rest with Orig Ath Ps-Ath Ghr Cijr^^, while e and Tert omit 
avrof or avjov altogether, and are perhaps basic. 

Now B cannot be i-ight in all four places. Hort neglects 
the first two (a and b) as errors, bat accepts the other two 
(c and d), thus in the last case (d) opposing Alexandria, as 
represented by Orig Ath Cyr, while going with them in the 
third case (c). This is properly in accord with his principle 
that it is B which is " neutral," however rough the fourth 
case may seem.. But what about the first case (a) ? Why 
should we lose the Trta-Teuo-ei? of B ? It is supported b)' all 
the hohairic. Is it not neutral ? But I can assure you that 
there is nothing "neutral" in B. Having written avrov 
( = eavTov no doubt) in this verse, he proposes to amend the 
next verse in accordance therewith. Therefore we find B and 
229* (aet)i) only writing in verse 11 Sia ra cpya avrov 
vKTrevere /Jiot against Ath and Cyr, who with moat have Sia 
Ta epya avra irtarevere fioi, whereas Tert 157 and some 
cursives omit avra and avrov and have only Sta ra epya 
TTiar. which is very possibly basic and both the additions 
of later date, since g r and syr arm pen diatess and boh also 
omit avra and avrov, Hort has aura in his text and accepts the 
avrov of B in his margin ; but neither I think are " neutral " 
or basic. True the sahidic says "Believe because of his 
works," but this does not agree with B, because sah destroys 
the fjLot at the end of the sentence (as XDL 33 etc.) which B 
holds. B is left absolutely alone with 229* and aeth : ex 
opere ejus credite mihi. 

[Scrivener's z {semel) with Paris"' has ravra for avra, while 

2 c 2 


Jolin _ 1 

the new MS W goes with NDL oki to epya avra Triar. absque 
/loi fin.] 
xiv. 17. The same thing as at xiv. 7 occurs here as to " pairs." For : 
OTi ov ffeaipei avTO ov&€ •yivtatTKei at) to, KBW Paris" and 
a dim Lucif W-H""- [nil mg] alone snppress the second axno 
against all others, all versions and Did^""*", and as showing 
how the matter affected others, Evan 287 vg^ ^itci^"*"' ehde 
the first avTO (Soden does not notice this) writing quia rum 
videt nee cognoscit eum, exactly as the slao version with X" 
and the hook of Dimma acted in verse 7 ! 
ibid. This is followed by the ehsion of the copula & between vfieiv 
and 7ii'(o<7«:€Te auTo by NBQW 346 a'" Paris" Sod^^'^ a b sah 
io;i""» Lucif Auct'^'""' W-H d Sod txt only, after the Coptic 
manner [Sod neglects the Coptic witness and adds S? (against 
Lalce)], again not only against the miss and the versions, but 
against Did*" Cyr^" and Cyr^'^'"^. 
ibid. And again in this verse another " pair " of expressions is 
involved. Most USS have fievei and ecrrai (cni irap vp.iv fidvet 
Kai ev vpiv e IT rat). Some read pepel = g vg arm Norm 
(ptveei) and sah [nan boll]. It is clear that B understood 
phei [it is so accented in B to-day] for he follows it with 
ecTTiv for e<7Tai alone of the uncials with D* (corrected by 
D^) W and a few cursives (1 Sod}^^ [nofifam] 22 69 [rum f am] 
251 2-54 291 2p<' Sod"" »«) and it'^ syr goth Lucif IF-H'" 
,SW°', but in view of B's record which I think I have 
fairly exhibited in the previous pages, it is not absolutely 
certain that we can accept eaTiv as original, ea-rai, is difficult 
enough in all conscience following vp£i's r^ivaaxeTe avro, but 
if p.evet was intended, carai would be in order. Sah actually 
reads " Ye, ye Icrww him because he will remain with you and 
he will be in you." Paris" here reads earat and does not go 
with B, but W does so. 
23. Now comes a fitting and most lovely specimen of the manipu- 
lation of voices to obtain a perfect " pair," which is not only 
an illustration of what we have contended for, but operates as 
a climax to all that has gone before. 
In the verse atreKpiffr] (o) 17J(tov<; xat enrev avrto ' eav rt^ ayaira pe, tov 
\oyov pov TTiprjcxeL xat o irarTjp pov ayairijirei atrrov, xai •jrpo<; avTOV 
€\€v cr a ped a Kai iiovrjv Trap auTO) 7rotijao/i6v, nothing virtually is 
changed [except by D, vide infra] until we reach the last word. Here 
instead of •noviaopev (or Ttoirjcrmpev) we are offered tt otrjao^eOa by 
NBLXWff 1 Sod'" [nonfam]fam 13 [nmi 124] 33 213 249 254 2i« Paris" 
Sod'^" '"" ™. This group is practically one, as our presentation of evidence 
elsewhere will show. They offer us then in the final clause the very allite- 
rative sentence: " xai ■upof av-rov c\ev<rope0a xai povrjv Trap avTa> 


IT oi-qaofieOa." May I ask on what grounds any "revision" wouM 
have desired to displace the middle (given the sense) by the active voice 
here and so to destroy the alliterative assonance '? If iroi-qaoii.eda had 
been basic, who would have wished to change it to Trottjo-ofiev ? f On the 
other hand, our repeated exhibition of the views entertained as to " pairs " 
by this very group, headed by B, is most illuminating as to the practical 
certainty that the B group base changed voi-ncTofitp to -jronfaoiieBa. And 
the proof is not far to seek. 

How do the Fathers stand ? For they surely represent other codices 
long since perished which have not reached us but which are cceval with 
or anterior to the date of B. It is observed that Origen is on both sides, 
but with a large preponderance for irotriaoiieOa. A thanasitis is on both sides, 
Didymus is on both sides, Epiphanius is on both sides, while Eiisebins 
Marc^'"'' and Cyril, the latter only quoting once, remain on the side of B. 
Hence -irofqcroi^eda in the fifth centurj' was standardized in Alexandria on 
the evidence of Cyril, but in the third and fourth centuries the Patrist:c 
evidence wavers. What was the reason ? The reason appears self- 
evident on its face. Consult Tischendorf's exhibit at this place, and one 
cannot help realizing that while codices used by Origen, Athamisius and 
Didymus surely exhibited Troiriao/i£v, in quoting either from memory or 
from other (manipulated) codices, these Fathers fell very naturally into 
the course of following eXeuao/jLeOa by TToi-ncroixeBa. Kot that Troinuofieda 
was basic, but that it was tuneful, assonant, and admirably fitted the 
sense " and we ourselves will make abode with him," and hence followed 
by all three critical editors, Tischendorf Hort and von Soden. I cannot 
conceive it possible that ' revision ' changed ■woir^ao^nSa to Trotrjao/iev. 
What does the jury say? And what is the secret then of the middle 
voice employed here ? 

In sununing up for them I must not omit to draw their attention to 
the sahidic version: A.-iraJ n&.6l(X)T nA.ijlEpJTCJ ' A-ifUJ Tffrth"? 
a)A.poq itT-ffXA-AilO ffAjt flO-cxiA. ftcyuune gA.g,TKq- 

Whether the sahidic rfAff — " us " — be the source or the reflection J 
of the B group base, it is most noteworthy. Horner translates : 

And my Father will love him, and we come unto hivi, and male fob 
us an abiding place with him. Therefore, although the future tense is 
not emphasised, the middle voice is emphasised, and we are to read as 

t Soilen adds only 218 Sod"''^ but also his commentary families KiC and N, and 
excepts from his H family *A and 8 =". This is interesting as bringing against each 
other 213 (his '") and his «87i, as above concerning fam 1 and fam 18, and in emphasising 
the commentary support. Soden adopts jroLrjaofic&a in his text, just as his critical pre- 
decessors had done, but that does not give us the " true text." Sod'^ has iioLrjtrofifv. 

X As to B and sa/t consider most carefully in this connection the passages under 
Coptic previously tabulated at iv. 16, vii. 3, xli. 16, all of the same character ; also vii. 40 , 
viii. 28, ix. 11 27, and especially vii. 34, x. 22, xi. £7. 


from an original •nourvfiev •qiuvi ox >;/*«', safe supplying tX^M or ec[aating 
iToiovpeffa, (Cf. John v. 18 jctsv emnov voiav Tto dem. Sah renders 
EC](^(ju(^ jujuoq xtit nnortTB, boh eqipi JOLuoq Rgicoc 
rtcju <{)■+). 

In Egypt then John xiv. 23 was read with , emphasis on itoi-qaoixeBa 
or Troiovij£0a, which does not imply that the real ", neutral " base was this, 
but that in translation it assumed this force and possibly reacted on the 
Greek. It did not react sufficiently to change the Greek , tense, and on 
the other hand the Greek did not act wi.sah sufficiently to force the 
retention of the future tense. 

My good friend Macarius of Egypt comes, once more to help us out 
here. He quotes four times. In Aom""' he has Troiria^o/iev. In 
hom^^^'^^ he mixes 21/23 : xaOot'; Xeyei on efitpavitrco atrrta efiavTOU 
Kai iiovTfv Trap avTw ttoitj a q> (just as D Troiija-ofuu with e si/r cu 
pers), but Macar'"'"^'-' is very clear, separating 21/23, and quoting 23 : 
eym kcu o irarrjp eXevaofieOa Kat p^vtjv irap avroy it oltj c o fiev. Again 
Jlf ac<ir'"> '""""= °"°"» is just as positive although slightly varying the 
beginning. He writes thus there. . .xai o Kvpio'! : eKevaofteOa eya tc xat o 
•n-arrjp fiov xai fiovqv irap avra tt o itja- o fiev. 

This is brilliant side-testimony contemporary with the oldest codices 
which oppose with voirjaoneda. And if Macarius was not influenced 
by the ftAft of the Coptic, I think we may rest fully assured that 
iroiTia o p,ev (and not vmrjuo/ieffa.) is the basic text, and was changed to 
•n-oiyao fiedahy the family o£ codices under indictment. 

My friends of the Opposition will find it hard to debate this question 
against Macaritts. The jury will not lightly put aside his triple sworn 
testimony. If then the jury is satisfied with my new witness (whom 
Tischendorf did not bring into Court) I see no outlet but for a favourable 
decision at their hands on this and on the similar and cognate counts 
which are sub judicibus. 

Notwithstanding Macarius' testimony and that of the mass, and not- 
withstanding all I have said above, I have no doubt that critical editors 
v?ill retain irotT/aofieffa till the end of time because it is such a 
" GOOD " reading ! And that tells the usual tale of preferences versus 
scientific princip'es. 

■ The usual intimate relations cf the latin, ms c to the Coptic are 
however maintained here; for c alone writes " apud eum manemus " {cf. 
slav goth and sax), for " aput eum manebimus " of a, which Mss do not, 
like the vulgate and ti"", use the literal " mansionem apud eumfaciemus." 

[Note. D^' substitutes eXevaofiai and •noi'qaofiai with only d e 
veaiam . . . f aciam, supported by sijr cu and pers, hot not syr sin nor any, 
other. The adhesion of pers is interesting as making this change on the 
part of D securely attributable to sijriac influences, but otherwise 
apparently not seriously basic, and influenced from half the clause at verse 
21 previously]. . 



xvi. 7. Another very distinct " pair." 

Instead of eav yap firj aTreX^o), o 7rapaK\r}70^ ovk eXevaeTai 
Ttpot vfM'!, BL'* (33 ■?) Laura* ™ Chr, but these alone, sub- 
stitute ov fir) eX^Tj for OVK e\evcrejai, reading : 

eav jap firj aireX&aj, o 7rapa/c\T]T0<i ov p.t} e\Ot} Trpos Vfias, 
Comment is unnecessary, but Hort swallows it whole (without 
marginal alternative, Soden only has it in bis margin), while 
the Oxford edition of 1910 disallows it and returns to ovk 
eXevacrai (with So(fe»'^') but without a word in the margin or 
in SoiUer's notes. [The mass and Paris" are with the 
Eevisers against Hort. Both Cyrils and Did Thdt are observed 
to improvise with ov firi epxerai, as some versions.] 

(Obs. the MS 33 in verse 10 substituting Tropevo/iai for v-nayw 
alone with i'" v'" Sad^' Chr] because of -ttopevda in verse 7 
above, and the secret of " accommodation " is laid very bare.) 
1(5/17. See in '' Causes of Corruption,' by Burgon, pp. 10-5/10(3. 

'22. apei (pro aipei) BDT VF-H'^' SoA™^ \iwn minn vid} epei N. 
See under "Change of Tense" for Latin evidence, but the idea 
of B (with copt) is apparently again a question of harmonising 
pairs or triplets and by a change of a letter (not writing aip-qaeCy- 
he makes a harmony of -naXLv Se o^j/ o/±ai v/j.a^, Kai xapr^acTat 
VfKoif rj KapBca, xat Tr)v ^apiv Vfjuav ouSet^ a pec a<f}' vp.(iitf. 
xvii. 11. /eaa^m? Kai i;/iC(5 (pro KaBaxi 7,^i<i) B'MSIJyil^ Sod"'"' min"^"^ 
f g gat Kg sijr hier 1/2 arm Atli [against Cijril]. The group is 
feeble and savours very much of improvement : " iva waiv h 
Ka&ai^ ( + Kai) i;/i«9." t<DW[Sodf« misquotes W on the other 
side]4' and all the rest and the versions oppose B and this 
small company. (Sgr sin with a b c e ff r omits the whole of 
the last clause in verse 11 from w BeBaxa'; /uoi to the end). I 
should like to know however upon what principles Hort and 
Soden refuse to take up this addition of Kai by B supported by 
five other uncials and A th. 

■^ 33 aP et Sod"-^ add after en Ka0<o<; yj/iei<; +ev eafitv. ( + ev 
X Sod"" 213). 
12. See under " Coptic." In order to support a for ovi, approxi- 
mately the same authorities add xai before €(j)v\a^a. This is 
a much less difficult place to adjudicate than many, and seems 
to me to be very clear manipulation. In verse 11 we have : 
irarep ayi€ r-rjpyjffov avrov^ ev tq) ovofian nov ui h£&(xsKa<; fioi. 
But in verse 12 : ore t)P'-t)v p^r avroiv (ev tw xotr/iw) eyw CTt^povv 
avrov^ ev t&) ovofj-ari aov oO? BeBtoKa<i fiot €<pv\a^ay Kai 
ovhet^ e^ avrav aTTwXejo. . . 

t TUcJtendorf neglects Scrivener^s codices and Chryaostom (but see Matihaei 
ad Ice). 


The latter is mstnipTilatea to...C7<» ervpouv avrovt ev ra 
ovofLaTi. ^ SeSfflica? /wi xai e^vXa^a. . .by BCLW 7 (o) 33 64 
Paris" sah arm syr hier Cyr W-H [nil mgl non Soden. As to 
boh while giving p it does not have xai before e^vXa^a, while 
d mi, who hold 069, add xai before e^uXafo. The presence 
oi Cyr in the combination shows that it remained an Alex- 
andrian tradition nntil his time. N hesitatingly writes : ore 
i7/ii7i< yuer atmav eya errjpotiv avrovi ev t<o ovo/iart k aov xat 
,ctt>v\acr<Tov xai ovSi.<! ef avrav aTrmXero ... t<* omits <» lelaxai 
liot with syr sin ; ti' inserts, with o for m (as Evan 7 and sah 
boh), and modifies xai £<pvKaaaov [Male Sod de d r cnm N*] 
to xai e^uXafa retaining xat. 

The Syriacs and Latins grouped are against this interpreta- 
tion in verse 12. In verse 11 syr sin and the majority of it 
omit the last clause involving a SeBwxa.'; poi iva a>aiv ev xaSm's 

xvii. 21. Tnarevr, (pro TnarevoT)) N*BC*W 8od'^'[non al?^ Clem Eus 
Tisch W-H^ against the rest and against Orig Ath Cyr and 
So<?". See mider " Change of Tense." This is probably 
"improvement" to agree with the form of vta-Tevovrmv in 
verse 20. If so, it is another rather forced pair. Tntnevati 
is undoubtedly right. 
22. iva maiv iv xaBm viieti h So (N)BC*DLW 1 [iwn /am] 83 
397 (Paris'") d e syr hier sin aeth Clem Hipp Eus 2/4: Cyr 2/3 
W-H <& Sod txt suppressing iafxu. This may possibly be 
basic, but N and Paris" are observed to manipulate a little 
further, which is suspicious. N and Paris" write: iva mcriv 
iv xaffcDi vf^eii suppressing the final h as well as ecr/«v, while 
Chr suppresses the whole clause. 

a" adds xai before i)^is and P" omits tj^cj?. c inverts : sicut 
siimus 1WS unum. [Soden neglects this testimony]. The 
Coptics retain the verb. All this points to a rather equivocal 
position for the minority, although eafiev may be an addition. 
Observe that the testimony of Eus and Cyr is on both sides, 
xviii. 30. I fear that we must once more accuse B of an " improving " 
tendency here. Among the following varieties B has only the 
countenance of his friend L and of W, yet Hort and Soden 
follow suit. 
ei firi tjv ouTO? xaxov voiijaai; X* cf. syr sah persU mali aliquid 

„ Kaxov voiwv BJJ^WW-HdSod] faciens 

,, J Kaxo noKov C*'*' 33 .Eusi 63 a (r) male faciens 

',„ ,', „ xaxoirow! AN Gr"' Sot?" e< Paris" La «;)« 

(malefactor) verss Eus Chr Cyr. 

It does not look favourable for B when Cyr is against him 
in such a place, and when even X changes the tense (rather 


happily here although Tisch abandons X* and goes with 
N'-'BLW and W-H Sod), and when Ath imprOTises (naxovpyo^) , 
and Notiiuis paraphrases unnecessarily with ei fir) e-qv -reXeuat 
a<paTov KaKov. It shows a little too much consideration of the 
passage. Notie of Matthaei's or Scrivener's or Soden's cursives 
know anything of any variation nor does Paris'" so close to XB 
xviii. 34. a-rro aeavTOv av tovto \eyei'! BC*LN^ Paris" Ci/r 

W-H d- Sod txt {Chi- awo cravTov. . .) 
airo aeavTov tovto enra<i N 

All the rest including W and all reported cursives (but 
Paris") have ai/i eavTov. . ■ followed by Tischendorf. 

Surely, surely, i£ aji eavTov were the revision, a trace of aire 
aeavTov would remain in some cursives. X has an excuse for 
revising because his text (with D"'"' and some cursives) lacks 
(TV, but with BCLN*' and Gijr it seems to be a case of pure 
xix. 20. We have been quite a while without an example of a " pair." 
But the opportunity offers and B avails itself of it. We read 
iT^tTOf? ovv (or Se) iBwv rriv firjrepa xai rop fiadqTijv Trape/nfjuTa 
oif Tjya-jra \eyei ttj fj,TjTpc avTov. , . . 

Here NBLXW* 1 22 138 2i" Paris" Sod'^"'"'b e arm Cijr 
W-H it Sod suppress avTov against all others and against 
Origen. The reason seems to be because in the first part of 
the verse thmv Tr)v iiTjTepa is without avrov, therefore avTov 
should be absent on the second occasion. For a similar 
reason the latins a c ii and most versions (but absolutely no 
Greeks but fl and Sod'^" now first adduced by ran Soden) 
supply avTov after ttji/ iir^repa in the first place. My critics 
will please observe the advent of fi and Sod"'" and the 
company which they keep. 
29. +TOU {ante ofou? seound.) BLW* Sod"'" 1 33 138 2'" and 
X'= with the Georgian version, but these only followed by W-H 
and Soden. It seems to be a sheer " improvement " em- 
phasising the matter upon the second mention of the vinegar : 
*' axevos €Keno o^ov; fieuTov ' tjTTO^yov ovv fieaTop rov o^ov^. . . 
It is in reality another question of the consideration given to 
" pairs." (Soden saj'S " km 1 too H™," but SchmicUke's 
edition says nothing of the kind, printing fiesTov ofou? without 
Tov and without any xai). 
XX. 6 init. cpxerai ovv xai lifiav IleTpo? fBLX et X'T°W 33 56- 
58-01 397 Sod''" i'y»^' W-H a' Sod txt. 

t Wordsworth omits B^', and does not record that r (which he mentions) veads 
exactly with the Coptics autmn et and nob ergo et as v^®^'. 



(a) and arm substitute /cai for ovv, but none add exactly as 
the above (except vg^'^) besides the sah and boh versions 
which have epxerai Se xai as r alone of the Latins, so that 
I cannot place it exactly under " Coptic " or " Coptic and 
Latin." It seems to be undoubtedly an " improving " 
accretion in common with sah boh and could not have been 
dropped by all the others if basic. Syr pesh and sin (now 
available again) have Se without xai as the latin fragment o.t 
The Coptics preserve this ^e but add gujq (boh), otoouq 
Off (sah). This glJUC|, and not off simply, implies improve- 
ment to the narrative and equates etiam ipse as to Peter. 
Hence it is an accretion in sah boh which overflowed to 
BLXW. The others ignore it, including 'V and Paris" and 
Cyril (Pers and Georg have no copula at all). 
XX. 13. I cannot let this little matter pass without remark. The text 
runs with great simplicity : — 

** Ka,i Xeyovaiv avTrj etceivoL ' yvvai, ri K\ai£i<; ; Xe'^ei auTot? ' oil 
Tjpav Tov KvpLov /lov Kac ovK oiSa TTOV edT^Kav avrov.** 
Two slight changes of the same nature are here made respectively 
by N and B. 

N elides the initial «ai, alo?ie of Greeks (with 397 [Sod"'"]) and against 
the weight of evidence, but in the Coptic manner with sah syr sin pers 
and some Old Latins. Not so B. 

B, on the other hand, alotie of Greeks, adds xai as an introduction 
before the woman's reply, reading xai \eyet avroi'; . oti r)pav. . . . 

This seems a small matter, but it is really of the utmost importance. 
At such a place an examination of the versions is immensely profitable. 
First then how do the Latins stand ? None add any copula in the second 
place, but the reviser of q shows what he thought about it by improvising 
" quae dixit" alone of Latins for dicit eis, actually suppressing uvtok as 
Bios'"" when reporting the matter " r/ Se eivev " supplying an autem. Has 
B then no support from sah boh syr? No, none at all. They do not 
provide a copula, and pers beautifully says enrev without avroii. When 
our investigation reaches aeth and arab they follow B's intuition and add 
with him a xai. Turn now to georg and the later sax and they also 
find it necessary to add something. But they add Tunc. 

When Dean Burgon characterised N and B as " two false witnesses " 
was he so very far wrong ? Is the evidence at this place not absolutely 
conclusive of the non-neutral character of their thinking process ? 

[In this conversation much more may be learned. Observe K in 
verses 15 and 16 again.] 

t Correct von Soden as to r and v. r reads autem et but v only auiem. Therefore 
Bnbstitate v for r in SoderCs apparatus under " om. Kat^." 

B IN ST. JOHN'8 oospel. 395 


XX, 19. oTTov riaav oi fiadryrat ( — avvrryiKvoi) N'ABDIWA* 44' 9-5 

122* 246* k"' o'"* SocV" ^'^ [amho in Sinai] a? d q fi dim 
gat aur vgg 1/2 Vigil Taps sijr pesh sin et W-H. 

This aggregation may look strong, but we miss the usual 
supporting cursives for such an omission, if basic. We miss 
LX'*!' among the Greek uncials, while syr hier sah hoh aeth 
arm georg slav {Mat goth) all have avvriyfievoi with Eits Cyr'" 
and b c efffg r & ot the Latins. 

The followers of Hort are requested to place avurjyiifi'oi. in 
the margin. Soden retains it in his text ! 

It is not as if B were not given to " improvement." In the 
very next verse we have another " pair " : 
20. xai Ta? X"P"-'> *"' '^^'' ''''>^^vpav by BA apparently quite 
alone, where the first xai has been inserted to " rhyme " with 
Kai Trjv TrXevpav. No others do it, not W nor L nor * nor a 
single minuscule, nor can Soden produce one new witness 
among all his sympathetic codices. No Latins do it, no other 
version reflects it, yet Hort calmly includes it in his text with- 
out a syllable in the margin to indicate that only two iiss out 
of thousands read thus. The Oxford edition of 1910 rejects it 
without comment. But if ever anything were deliberate and 
not " unconscious " (as Hort says) on the part of B, this small 
matter is an example of deliberation. And observe that Hort 
rejected the reading of B above at sx. 13. He takes the /cai 
here because A (alone) supports. Can foolishness go further ? 
xxi. 11. ap(^v B ete., or eve^v NLW^', +ovv NBCLNXH-W^' Sod""" 
1 [non/am] 22 33 91 138 239 2"« Laura-*'" Sod^" "" "" ;■ oy"" 
boh sah syr hier Cyr (and c vg° slao tunc adscendit, syr pesh 
sin aeth et adscendit). 

This is against D and the other twelve uncials plus 11', all 
the other minn, all the Latins except c, arm georg and pers, 
and looks very mxich like an addition to improve the sense. 
Notwithstanding the imposing array for +ovv I challenge it, 
and when the supporting testimony is analysed it proves to be 
weak, and not homogeneous. 
21. TouTov + ovv NBCD [«o« Socf'"'] 33 it eg boh sah Orig Anast 

Cyr W-H <£• [Sod]. 
[However in various endeavours elsewhere, in between these 
places, to be graphic in this chapter, the matter of copulas is 
manipulated by many of our documents, and it would not be 
wise to be didactic as to any of the numerous changes which 
23. ovK eiTTev Se {pro xai ovic cmev) NBCAV 33 Sod^^c boh 10/20 
sah 2/3 syr pesh hier sin verss al. aliq. Orig Cyr Chr'"'^ '^'i 
W-H [non Sod] {Om. copid. sah 1/3 boh 10/20 [hos negl. Sod.]). 



This is distinctly what one would expect. " This word then 

went abroad among the brethren that that disciple wovdd not 

die ; but Jesus did not say. . . " 

whereas the majority of Greeks, with the Latins, arm, and 
aeth [but the latter is negligible] say xai ovk eivev, which 
seems far less natural. But that is just the point. If Se 
were basic, who would ever have thought of changing to 
«at? Clearly, we end as we began, with a charge against 
the B group — whatever its subsidiary company may be — of 
manipulation of the record. The translator of pers saw so 
clearly how the sentence should run, to convey its full sense, 
that, going beyond the syriac, he says : " baud (tamen) quod 
non moriturus esset, dixit (Jesus), sed si velim. . ." bringing 
the sed in very late. As Malan translates : " though he did 
not say that he may not die, but if I wish. . . " 

I do not fear to be accused of straining a point (and observe 
that Tischendorf and Soden reject the XBCW group here in 
verse 23), because in the very next verse B doctors the 
xxi. 24. record by adding xai (see under " Solecisms ") and generally 
shows a desire in this chapter to emphasise matters. Because 
Cyril joins B and the new MS W (the complete group for b 
Kai iiaprvpav is now BW Cyr [Sodeii adds fip]) it does not 
mend matters. The very same point appealed to a small 
minority of late Latins, who add ille and write " Hie est 
discipulus iUe qui testimonium. . . ." 

Change without Improvement. 

iv. 46. ev Kava {pro ei? t7;j/ xavav) BN soli.\ la this neutral ? Is 
it ? I insist upon an answer, for it is either deliberate or the 
grossest kind of carelessness. It is not " neutral " apparently 
for Hort and the Oxford edition and Soden cast it out of their 
texts, nor could they do otherwise. "Well, then it fulfils the 
other alternative of rank carelessness ; but what kind of care- 
lessness ? Evidently from a concurrent version. It is in the 
original Greek an instance of the accusative of motion after 
»)X5cv. The verse opens: i]K0ev ovv vaKiv eit ttjv Kava. 
Yiava being treated as indeclinable the Latins say in Cana, but 
the Coptics £T»rA.rtA. (to the Cana). N however declines 
it and avoids any chance of difficulty by \STiting ei? tj;;* xavav 
(cf. some vgg). B, unless he was somnolent while looking 

t Soden reports 348 (his '^) for tis unra (-riji-), and further adds in support of B for 
ev Kava X^ (his A*) and S'oiZ^'"*^ "'^ the former at Siruii, the latter now at AtlioB, but both 
largely sharing version influence elsewhere, as does 348 most distinctly and a real 
adherent of the B family. 


at the Coptic, must have written it in from the Latin, as 
probably N. At any rate it is not only at the opposite pole 
to a "neutral" reading, but it shows carelessness due to a 
sight of a version. Many things have previously tended in 
this direction. Must I go further than this to pi'ove my point ? 
The critics certainly cannot fall back here on a joint corumon 
Greek base being responsible for readings visible in B and 
Coptic, or B and Latin, as they are never tired of dinning into 
my ears, and trying to make me appear over-ingenious or 
foolish. If the said imaginary lost Greek base influenced B 
why do the editors not adopt the reading? 

One word more. In verse 47 (following) B, with NCLT" 
and DW with frag gr-copt {graeco) Crum-Ken, 33 69 [«o» 
/■<^«^] 213 314 892 Sod}'" [nm Paris"] only of Greeks and n d e 
I- q foss Orig, writes xat rjpayTa sine avrov with W-H Sod txt 
(against all the rest of the Greeks, the Syriacs, the Coptics 
and Aethiopic, which have axrrov). Hence it was a Graeco- 
Latin which doubtless misled B in verse 46. 

In verse 50 again B with only NDW SofZ'-" « "" sah c d I 
vg Cyr W-H <£ Soden writes e-Tnin^vaev without a copula, 
against all the rest xai e-rnaT. and LT" 213 314 892 s'" e-maT. 
Be. Although this style is Coptic, none but two boh codices 
suppress the copula here. It is again Latin or Sahidic 
vi. 23. BNW only of uncials and 71 127 with ten other cursives and 
a dozen more of Soden add -riy; before Ti/9epia8o?. It does not 
seem to be called for nor do Tischendorf or Sort or Soden 
insert the article. Why not? Is B's "underlying Greek 
text " not basic here, supported as it is by NW and a score of 
cursives ? 
xiii. 18. The whole spirit of the Gospels is lost on B and on his 
frequent consorts CL. Here is a case. For: " aXK iva j? 
ypaKJiTj 7r\i}pa)0T} ' o rptnyuiv /leT efxov jov aprov e'ir7)pei' (or 
ev-qpKfv) £77 e/i6 TT/v inepvav avTov " of practically all authorities, 
BCL and four cursives (127* 249 b'^' 892) j vg'^' [against all 
Latins and Tcrt] aeth sah [non boh] Eus^^ [but not £?«*"■] 
C,j,.<:om |-^,^(; jjo^^ C;/)-""] 0/-i<7e«""'" [but against himself close 
by elsewhere] read /iou tov aprov, apparently straining after 
the language of Psa. x.1. 10 xai yap o avffpa>Tro<; ri)<; eiptjvTi^ /lov 
€(p ov eXiTiaa^ o etjSiwv aprovs f^ov e/jeyaXweu eir e/xe 
TTTepniap.oi'. But our Lord did not say "as it is written " 
but " in order that the scripture might be fulfilled," and if he 

t plus 213 (Sod'^ SoiP"° "" "" '*""' (and Soden Ul t/iou without iut', evidently an 
eiTor for ^oi; [see his note " /i€t tftov 1 ftov etc."j). 


chose to otter prophetic words, or John wrote down a wording 
agreeing with the fulfilment of the prophecy, would not BCL 
Orig have done well to hold to it and not to turn up the 
Psalm for " control." As a matter of fact B bungles another 
matter, for he (and he alone) writes efie for eir e/ie in the second 
clause, against the language of the Psakn. I fear Origen is 
implicated in the first misquotation, for he (once) is against 
himself (thrice) for /ler e/iov with ND une" and W'*' all 
minuscules (but those named), and Paris" it vg Eusf'" 
Chr'-'' Cyr^'' Thdf^ and all Tersions but aeth sah. In the 
Latin, mecum ^anewi might easily have become meum panem 
with some, but it has not. Only vg'^ (possibly vg"") have this, 
while q has mtcwn panem meum as E*' and four boh MSS. 
I cannot enter this under Coptic, for boh so positively opposes 
sah which goes with BCL. It must remain a lamentable 
exhibition of a non-neutral text, which Hort has foisted on 
to us, printing the sentence in capital letters as a quotation, 
which it is not (for it does not even say "that the scripture 
may be fulfilled which saith," but merely " that the scripture 
may be fulfilled"), and failing to see the beauty of the 
application of the words to its fulfilment. Hort has no 
marginal alternative and no note in 'Select Eeadings,' but 
Souter does not feel perfectly happy about his master's 
wonderful methods here. While his Oxford edition of the 
i{. r. keeps iwv in the text it gives us not only ><«t e/iov in 
the margin, but Souter jots down the evidence besides in his 
note. Will he please observe now that while 892 goes with 
B, which he forgot to note (covering the three Mss by " al. 
pottc.") that W and Paris" oppose, as well as TerteHian. And 
will Soden please to note that his text " e/iov " is without MS 

(The only authority to strive after verbal conformity to the 
LXX is e, which has adampliauit = ejieyaXvvev for the ein)pev 
or evfipxev of the rest. This Tischendorf does not mention 
nor Soden.) ■ 

In a case of this kind the supporting cursives should be 
carefully examined. He should not say "mire pauc" but 
specify them. Sometimes a mixed band of cursives! join 
K or B for a reading in which some common change is judged 
desirable, or is the result of a common error, but this lot, 
127 249 892 b'", is not a common lot. In fact the only 

t This is another point which Soden does not appreciate, for he omits carsives 
reported by Mill, Wetstein and the older collators even when B has no other support but 
that of these. 

B IN ST. John's gospel. 399 

semi-outsider is h"'. The other three have definite affiliations 
with the B stem and the B traditions.f They have weight 
merely as confirming that B or the prototype of B read thus. 
They do not represent a separate line. 127 is a very critical 
codex (sometimes alone with Origen), 249 excessively so, and 
892 is about as close a late document as we can get to B. 
Soden's added Mss will also bear investigation. 

Observe next that when Hort prints this as a quotation in 
capitals, following the form of BCL, it does not yet agree 
with the LXX, the printed text o£ which (exactly as in B's 
own Old Testament volume) has aprovi /lov and not fiov top 
aprov, so that it should not be dignified with capitals. 

Another point remains to be noted. The LXX quotation 
closes ' e-rr e/ie -mepviap-ov ' as against ' e-jr c/xe rijy mepvau 
avTov.' Where was 33 above? Absent from the B ranks. 
But here, with 69 [non /am] 71 2i8 253 259 7"' Sod'"'' and 
Origen 1/4 Eus'^ it suppresses tijv before irrepvav to get as 
near the O.T. quotation as it can. The testimony therefore of 
33 here is important against B in the previous matter. Finally 
the Chr codices vary much among themselves, some following 
the LXX for ■wrepvLai^ov, showing how all turned up the 
passage for control. Yet none but BCL, those cursives named, 
aeth sail, one latin codex, Hort, Sodeu and the Oxford edition 
propose to mutilate the N.T. record, 
xvi. 13. Similarly B is implicated with all other Greeks {axovaei or 
axouo-jj) in apparently changing the axovei. of XL \iiegl. Soil 
L] 33 Ath 1/2 Gyr Iji h e I foss Ambr 1/2 dav goth sax ; as 
Tisch says " offendehat a/covei et propter XaXTjaei mutandum 
videbatur." One hoh MS and aeth georg have the past tense 
7)KovtTe, which here properly ranks with the present as against 
the future. Of course it is possible to argue from a doctrinal 
point of view that the more authoritative present tense in 
speaking of the Third Person of the Trinity has been put in by 
XL 33, but no one of these mss is given to this kind of thing, 
and it may well be basic, particularly as b supports. I have 
great confidence in h in cases of this kind. % Compare the 

t Observe 127 at xiv. 26/27 + tym with BL alone, and note 249 in countless places. 

X Observe in xvl. 18 the " shorter text " in hSD W favi 1 fam 13 al. pauc. and I'aris" 
oti -6 Xtyfi with b ad effsyr hier arm Bah georg, whereas E with the lonely company 
of 213 897 aeth omits ri XoA« at the end oS the Terse, which Hort proceeds to place in 
square brackets, leaving the previous o X«y<i to stand. What kind o£ " neutral " is this 
with only these in support ? The Oxford edition removes the square bracket and scouts 
the idea of B's " neutrality." Another sunstroke of B, no doubt. Soden produces the 
two cursive witnesses named, viz. 218 and 897. Observe them elsewhere with B. But 
Soden does not remove n XiAn on their added authority, recognising that they are of 
one plumage. 



amplification in verse 15 oia ■Knno enrov mi ex tov e/iov 
Xanfiavei (corresponding to uKovei) kcu avayyeXei vfuv 
by B and the mass. 

(N lacks all verse 15 from an error of homoiotelenton ; N" 
has Xriijf'frtrai and avayyeWei). 
xix. 12. expavyaaav Xeyoirre? (pro expavya^ov \ey. vel expa^ov \ey.) 
BD""*' 33 131 157 249 435 604 al. aliq. et Sod"" et a. 

Westcott and Hort adopt this change of tense althoitgh 
XeyovTei follows, and they do it against the vast majority and 
against Cyr (expa^ov) and against Origen (expavya^ov). Wiser 
far are the Eeviaers who recall expa^ov \eyovT€<;, and Soden 
with expavya^ov \e70vT65. 

X has eXeyov for exp. Xeyovni and Paris" expauya^av without 
\eyovTe<;, and 71 expa^ov without X^oPTe?, none apparently 
expavyacav without Xeyome^. 
39. eXiypa (pro /uy/ia) X*BW soZi (e malagmam). N* corrects 
this. It caimot be right, although Hort has to adopt it in his 
text. B then substitutes a roll for a mixture. (With N and W 
the case is not quite the same; see below). And e adopts a 
kind of half-way house with malagmam for mixturam. As to 
fuyiui it is itseU an ava^ Xey. in the N.T. : eXiyfui does not 
occur at all, and forms of eXiaato only twice (Heb. i. 12 eXtfei9, 
Bev. vi. 14 eXia<rofievov). A few Mss read (r/uy/ui, but Soden 
cannot find any additional testimony for eXiy/M. 

Now, while B alone has (fiepmv eXiy/M, K and W have 
eX'"" ^Xiyfia. This eXfov is pure bohairic [against sah 
A.qEinE = v^Pixe as syr pesk and other versions]. How ex*"" 
of boh (which has oirjlllVJUA, as sah itO-ffjuUrjuA) came to 
be tacked on to eXiy/ia and replace ^epav p,iyiui of all other 
Greeks and all other versions would be a mystery if I had not 
already shown the extraordinary and hitherto unappreciated 
close inter-relatipnship of the versions with the Greek mss of 
Et^ypt. Incidentally this very ex™" °^ '^^ ^°^ (*"'* inter 
omn.) is ample proof that boh is as old as KW. They must 
have got it from boh. Boh could not have got it from them 
not being in close enough sympathy in the neighbourhood to 
warrant any accusation that boh had used N or W in trans- 
lating. And observe the ^X"" (^*''- "^^ ^^*) *s "^^^ ^y 60^°"° t 
and is basic. As to eXiypa substituted for fuyiui by XW, 
taken in connection with exiov substituted for ^epav, it is clear 
that both X and W were using some critical helps. Possibly 
some early Egyptian commentary explained that /uy/ui 

t Only the dofttsten'X has " and he brought " OlfOg, AqiHl as saA""" A.q6mc. 


involved a package of some kinii and used the word e\i-/fia. 
But eXiy/ia must be vfrong or it would have overflowed into 
the Coptic. The Coptic words corresponding to fuy/j-a (here 
transUterated plainly from the Greek) are quite different. 
Note. It has often been said that W-H have been unfairly accused 

of printing the readings of B alone. Yet here is a case in point. They 

print ^epaiv eXtyfia, which is only read by B. 


ii. 6. >\idivat vipiai {pro vipiai \i9ivai) KBLX^ 33 185 314 
Paris" Sod'" only of Greeks, plus arm? only of Versions, 
plus c only of Latins and vgg aur W-H and Soden texts. 

This order of the ten Greeks is opposed by all other 
Greeks and 892, by both Coptics, by the Syriac \lviant syr cu 
sin], and by all Old Latins but c. 

It is very clearly a question here of a real "neutral" text 
for NB (since they are agreed and supported by the subsequent 
copyists LX'?') or of a deliberate change, for a reason which I 
do not understand-! Malan makes his arm codex read with 
them, and it is the way the saxon expresses it, but this is 
merely following vulgate order, which St. Jerome obtained 
from a codex similar to XB. The suspicious part is the 
solitary adherence of c [D rf are still missing] with which even 
the Aethiopio does not agree (= hydriae sex lapidiae), for c 
has been tinged with much Egyptian revision. How is it that 
all the rest are opposed to these ten Greeks and c ? 

Note that X with a e arm subsequently omits Kei/uvai. 
This shows that i\i& foundation of the arm text here is similar, 
as well as old. 
vi, 45. The textns receptus reads o axovfra^ and /laffwv [vat o axovaa-i 
irapa tov varpo^ icai fiadmv ep^^ai vpo<! /le) in which it is 
supported by NABCKLTH Sod"'" al. c / fft vg Orig'-'' Cyr"", 
but opposed by o axovmv of the rest and a b d e g q foss gat 
mi etc. "Who is right? Tert seems to show that he read 
a/covaa's, for alluding (Prax) he saya Omnevi qui a patre 
AtTDissET et DIDICISSET Venire ad se. Here it is true he reads 
dididssei into naOav, whereas p,ada>v seems to imply a con- 
tinuance of action. 

It is a pretty place to try and settle. 

t Observe that 71 348 omit Xi^ixat and 6^ omits \t6ivai tj [neither mentioned by 
Tiscli], Does this cursire (so important often elsewhere), not mentioned here by Soden, 
perchance hold the original base ? 

t r is mutilated here, although Soden quotes it with o / jf . 

2 I) 



xi. 54. I confess to the feeling of being on very tender ground here. 
In the final clftuse /caicei Sterpifiiv /wra rav luiOriTOsv of most 
and D, with latt, NBLW only with 249 397 Paris" Sod'-^'^r Orig 
substitute e/ieivep for hierpifiev. This is also clearly shared by 
sah boh (aeth?), using A.qcya)n6 here (as against a different ex- 
pression in iii. 22), although Tischendorf does not naention it. He 
remarks " turpt^ev vera praeter hunc locum inN.T. lum legitur 
nisi Joh iii. 22 et passim in aetis." We have had Sierpt^ev 
before then in St. John at iii. 22 in exactly the same kind of 
phrase : " xai exet Bierpi^ev iier avrav xat tficunL^ev," but 
we have also had ep^ivev several times (iv. 40 icai e/ieipev exei 
Suo Tjpepa^, ii. 12 xai exei efitivav ov voWai rifiepai;, x. 40 icai 
efieivev exei, and in this chapter at xi. 6 tots /uv e/neivev ev m 
7)v TOTTto hvo TJfiepa^). 

The double argument can therefore be drawn, first that 
the mass of authorities borrowed Sierpiffev from John iii. 22 
by way of improvement [but why should they want to im- 
prove here?], or secondly that NBLW recollected, preferred, 
or borrowed e/Meivei' from the other passages cited. SisTpifiev 
does not occur again in St. John, whereas /ieva> occurs many 
times (notably at xiv. 25 ravra XeXaXij/co v/uv irap v/uv /ieviov) 
and is a word ■whose parts occur over thirty times in St. 
John's Gospel with a variety of subjects (of the Spirit at 
the Baptism, of the body of Jesus remaining on the cross, 
of the beloved disciple remaining till he came etc.) besides 
being of frequent occurrence in St. John's epistles. Therefore 
speaking in a Johannine way e/j^tveii would be much more 
famihar to the ear than Sterpi/ScD. As 249 joins the little 
band for efieivev, and was with them in other questionable 
changes in ch. xi., I incline to think that e/itivev is revision 
of the basic text, for what purpose it is difficult to say. 
Certainly hierpi^ev is the proper antithesis to nepieaaTei, at 
the beginning of the verse rather than the colourless e/ieivev. 
A solid consensus of syr and latin here for SieTpiffev opposes 
the few Greeks with copt for efieipev, and Burkitt'a canon here 
can be applied in favour of syr and lat, the more so in view 
of the rest of the bad record of those favouring ep^ivev. 
I have a feeling that e/utveu is due to Origen's restless activity. 
He quotes thrice, each time with NBLW e/ieivcv, just as, a 
little further on, at xi. 57, Origen'^ with only NBIMW and 
eight cursives (so W-H & Soden texts) countenances the 
substitution of evroKat for €vro\-qv of all other MSS and all 
versions. NB Origen here mean to imply the giving of com- 
mands right and left to take our Lord, and were not satisfied 
with evToKnv. Lest I should be misunderstood in saying 

B IS ST. John's gospel. *108 


that I have a feeling about Origen deliberately making (he 
other change, I -woiild add that Chrijsostom™ gives away the 
mental attitude involved, by confirming my views as to the 
second case, as he writes icai cScoKai; Trapay/eXia'; [^)ion cit. 
Sod], varying the word but expressing the plnral. 

Westcott and Hort say nothing in ' Notes on Select 
Eeadings ' aboat BieTpiffevIefiewef — which surely is a key-note 
to revision on one side or the other — although in these notes 
on the very verse they discuss the locality of the place 
mentioned. Observe my remarks on xiv. 7 under " Synonyms," 
which throw a strong sidelight on the matter. 

[Another substitution occurs at xiv. 16, of the Paraclete, 
where N and B and LQX, but in differing positions, substitute 
g for iievT] of most, but fiivr) here may have crept in from the 
li€vei used in verse 17 following], 
xvi. 28. €K jov varpot BC*LX^?[ SofZ contra Lake1\ 33 249 

Sod'"'-'' '"" "»" "'CJf Epiph W-H d Sod txt. 
■napa 70V varpoi ti rellet^? minnCi/r (Chravo) (Cf.vers-t) 
( — e^TjXdov Trapa tov irarpos DW b d (fi ff) ) Cp. verse 27 and 
the end e^rj\9ov, reduplicated at the beginning of verse 28. 

B and Origen in Conflict. 

vi. 9. 09 BAD'GUAW* hm'/j" W-H d Soden, but Orig Gijr 6 

with X SocH"''' and the rest. 
50. aTrodvr]aKri B Eus soli et W-S"^. Orig aTroSavij as all 

others (but SP' aT-oXrirai, and Teffvrj^cTai CZem'""'"'''') . 
52. T7)p aapKa avTov BT^ 892 r but opposed by Orig and 
SofZ"" «*»('>■»» sa/j bohaeth ] C;/)- who read with the large 
arm sijr if^ Orig'"'' [ W-H txt] t majority rij" a-apxa. 
vii. 39. •i-a'/wv SeSop^vov BX" (254) e q syr liier Orig'"" 1/3, but 
distinctly against Orig''-"'-*^ and Grig'"'' elsewhere, who with 
NIvTH Sod"'' Cyr Hesych add nothing. (See under " Con- 
flation " for further remarks.) 
viii, 52, davarov ov p.rj Betapriatj {pro ov p^v yev<7i]rai davarov) B 
213 Paris'" Evst 32 e {sax) contra mundum et contra Orig"". 
See remarks under " Improvement." 
X. 8. aW QvK B omn. {aXXa ovk DX) but Orig thrice icai ovk with 
pers only and vg^^. Soden does not deign to notice this thrice 
repeated reading of Origen. Why not ? Fers [not mentioned 

t I have grave doubts aa to Soden's correctness in siich places as to *•. Notice liere 
in his upper notes that he adds D (I**^) for ck tov irarpos whereas in the lower ones he 
admits that D with W omits the clause altogether I 

2 D 2 


by Tisciiendorf (never quoted by SodenYl is a most important 

witness, perhaps going back of syr sin here. 

X. 18. ripev NB soli et W-H txt, but Ong-"""'" with all the rest aipet. 

41. > eTToi-qaev (TTji^iov ovSe ev Orig with KLMXII and W^ 157 

and a few against (rrjfuwv eiroiijcrev ovSev of B and most. 

xi. 45. Km Beaaai^oi S CT-oiTj-rex BC*D TF-H'" <i Sod>", but b. 

Q^j^pinpies ^jth the majority. 

50. OTi avp.i\>epei iva eh avdptaTTm airoBavr) virep Tou \aov So XX 
sah"^^ 252 TAd* CAr, as in xviii. 14, without v/uv or vi^v ; but 
BDLMXr add v/itv after avt^epei with OWj'°', whereas 
0W(?'"'"'™ with Eustath and Cj^r is for the addition of »7/ijy, 
as are AEGHIKSUAAHW^ SocP^ minn^ c f g r etc. sah 
syr arm aeth and all other versions except the itala. As to 
W that MS joins the latter company and Origen. 
53. For ame^ovKevtraino Origen witnesses twice with the mass, 
and but once for e^ovXevaavro oi NBDW So(i°="'- "^ Ath 
(Paris" reads owe/SouXeutravTo) . 
xii. 15. Bv^uTep N mult et Orig^", dvyarvp B mult. 
xiii. 2. Origen is on both aides many times, but, as edited, has wapaSco 
against vapa&oi of N*BD* soli cum W-H txt [nil mg}. 

10. Origen 6/7 confirms N and c vg Hier Tert for vi-^acrdai. with- 

out any addition. 

11. -t-oTt before ovxt vavres BCLW 33 213 Sod"" Cyr W-H d 

[Sod}, but not Orig. 
21, > vptv Xeya B"' pers (pro \eya v/uv rell et Ath Orig'^'). At 
X. 7 where B does the same thing Orig is not available ; at 
X. 1 Clem Cyr Chr Lucif and Orig'""- oppose B. 
27. -TOTE KDL 2"" Paris" Sod^''^ it^^ syr sin boh 1/3 sah, Cyr 

and Origen 3/7. When he does add he says ena. 
38. €(a? av 251 and Origen [Sod does not mention Origen}, but 
eta? ov NB and all except X = ems ( — ou) . 
{Origen's looseness is seen at xiii. 19 where he has eirav for 
orav once, and xiii. 27 ena for totc). 
XV. 4. ^(w? most and Eus Cyr, and e/i/j^tini Orig, but /ictj; XBL 

213 Paris" W-H d Sod. 

xvi. 25. epxerai (-aXKa) NBC*D»LXYn' and W l[n<m /am] 33 

69 [non fam] 213 Paris" Sod^'^ "" sah etc. (see under " Coptic 

and Latin") but against Orig Ath and Cyr, who have 


xvii. 21. maTeuTi N*BC*W Clem Eus W-H, but TTKrreva-v all others 

and On's' Ath Cyr and Sod fa<. 
xviii. 6. -oTt KBADLNXnW^ So<f"" but against Origr and Cj^r. 
xix. 12. expav-jaaav \eyovret BD»"'^ tomi'"i o W-H, but Ori^ 
eKpau^afoi' Xe7. with W and many, and expa^ov \ey. Cyr and 

B IN ST. John's gospei. 405 

'°""xix. 20. -avTov after tv t^^npt NBLXWY 1 22 138 Paris" Sod™ '™ 
b e Cijr W-H ,t Sod txt but none of the others nor N nor 
34. > Tvv TT-Kevpav avTov Orig^'^^ and 69-346 258 317 348 397 Evst 
■53 his Paris'" t only of Greeks with lat sijr, against avrou ttjv 
■uXevpav all other Greeks, Coptic and {Eris). 
41. e-edri nearly all and Origen, but XBW Paris" Lam-a*"* and 

Cyr rjv reOeLfievos. 
XX. 17. > /it? airrov fiov B*"' Tert et verss aliq but Origen^"'^ with 
all others and a host of supporting Patristic testimony uti 

^OV aiTTOV. 

23. TWO'! bis B (sol inter gr) a e f syr Cypr Orig"'' Bus Aug 
Facian Aucf""", but against the other Latins, against all the 
Greeks [but B] and against Origen'"' t Bas Cyr'''" Novat etc. 
sxi. 23. -ouTos 3 2.50 C"? y " al? and Origen with Ghr 1/2 Cyr 1/2, 
. while NBCDW 1 33 2''° latt syr copt place ot/ro? before o X070S, 
and the rest after it. Origen therefore is the most " neutral " 
of the three groups. 

t Tisch omits 258 and Evat 53. Paris" is new testimony. 

t Unless Tuck has greatly erred. Soden quotes Qp as if Origen'a Greek on the side 
of B where Orig'"^ only eeems to belong. 



" The real text ol the Sacred Writers does not now, since the originals have been 
■so long lost, lie in any Ms or edition, but is dispersed in them all." — Bentley. 

" No authority has an unvarying value, no authority is ever homogeneous." — 
^Westcott ('St. John's Ootpel,' p. xc.). 


The foregoing pagea leave much unsaid. Many grave passages 
have not passed under review, because they have often been dealt with 
elsewhere. But the composite picture left seems absolutely opposed to 
a superior claim first for the shorter text ; secondly for the neutral and 
rmprejudiced text ; thirdly for a text free from local preferences of 
grammar and syntactical structure. On the contrary, Hort'a description 
of the MS B is contradicted again and again, and I have found him follow- 
ing B with additions more often than with subtractions. But enough 
has perhaps been said about all these matters. 

What I wish to emphasise in this Epilogue is that the assumption 
(upon which the text of W-H is absolutely and indubitably founded), 
-viz. that a conjunction of KBL must be right, carries with it the corollary 
-that everything else — twenty uncials and the versions combined — is wrong 
if opposing. It seems like an unnecessary truism to state this at all. 
But the point involved is a grave one. It lies at the root of the whole 
question of textual criticism, of textual principles, and of the next 
revision of the Greek and English texts. To suppose that these twenty 
uncials and versions are wrong, when opposed to tSBL, presupposes 
a most extraordinary thing. It predicates no less a theory than that 
they all proceed from one erroneous revision of the basic text of NBL, 
which is manifestly and absolutely impossible when one consults the 
documents themselves. The reverse is what I claim. The reverse is 
what I am here contending for. And the reverse is so much easier to 
understand. The aberration of NBL from the mass involves but one 
recension, and the character of that recension I have tried to indicate 
in the foregoing pages. Where XBL try to " improve," it must be 
shown that the other side, that the great mass of our other witnesses 


have been deliberately revised by some one to give us a poorer Greek 
text. On the confcrarj', the simple testimony o£ these shows that the 
recension they represent was not striving after classical Greek expressions. 
Again, the other theory presupposes an introduction of pleonasms, which 
KBL try to remove. This carries veritable foolishness on the face of it. 
When XBL make an addition to improve the sense, it involves the 
other theory, the assumption that the mass deliberately (one and all) cut 
oat these additions. 

The foregoing pages have been wrung from me by the persistent 
refusal of the ciitics to see that an Antioch " revision " such as they 
suppose would have been a crazy one indeed to remove all the "good " 
things in X and/or B ; and by their faitare to appreciate that Greek- 
Egypt was the hot-bed of revision in the third century, continuing 
throughout the fourth, while poor " Antioch " pursued the even tenour of 
its way. 

I have therefore tried to sketch, in a mihtary way, the strength and 
the weakness of certain strategic positions, in the hope that light may 
break in on the whole position of modern criticism, so resolutely 
defended for 100 years by repe.ited obiter dicta but by very little else. 

I had not intended at first to extend the enquiry so as to cover 
the histoiy of N separately. Bat this will be found completely done 
(if not quite exhaustively down to every minute detail) in Part II. 
This study has involved over a hundred thousand checking references 
and the work had to be done very rapidly so as not to lose the threads 
and cross-threads. Personally, I have been more than repaid for the 
six months of hard work expended upon it, and everything I have ever 
contended for has found ample confirmation in the pictures painted. t 

But all these minute matters, handled iu both Part I. as to B and 
Part II. as to X et rell, only lead up to the larger questions still sub 
judice as to the omissions at Luke xxii. 43/44 and Luke xxiii. 34 which 
I have not discussed at all. 

The minute examination however of the idiosyncracies of N and B, 
and the sides which they take in combination otherwise, form the 
necessary foundations for any deductions which are to be drawn in certain 
other weighty matters. 

Luke xjcii. 43/44. 

The omission of the account of the bloody sweat from Luke xxii. 43/44 
can safely be attributed to the transfer maiks in early Lectionaries (or 
I should say Gospel books marked as Lectionaries) which misled some 

I I have amalgamated some of Tisehendorf's notes, thus, I hope, making matters 
njueh clearer in many places. Sodeu canies the separation of readiDgs to such a point 
that it is almost impossible to regroup the passages. 


scribes whose copies were already covered with textual notes f if not 
attributable to the influence of the docetists of Alexandria. 

To this day Burkitt speaks of St. Luke xxii. 43/44 (the bloody sweat) 
as among "the Greater Interpolations " [' The Old Latin and the Itala,' 
p. 47]. The facts are all against this being considered as an Interpolation 
at all. But recently the Bishop of Ely (J.T.S. Jan. 1912, pp. 278/285) 
has provided a fresh argument for the reception of these verses as being 
entirely genuine, part of the record, and in the handwriting of St. Luke.t 
The Bishop has argued at length for Trprjv)j<i •yeii6/i£vo<; (Acts i. 18), as to 
Judas, being a medical term employed by St. Luke, meaning that " he 
became swollen up " as opposed to the general translation hitherto in 
vogue, and his view appears largely justified by the facts which he 
adduces. If this be the case then xal •^evojievot iv aymvia stands 
in the same position as a medical term in Luke xxii. 44. 

This expression medically for " becoming " is prevalent in St. Luke, 
just as we say "He is becoming better (or worse)," " he is becoming 
weaker," "he is becoming feverish," "he is becoming deaf," "he is 
becoming mad," "he is becoming unlike himself," "he is becoming 
nervous," "he is becoming crotchety," "he is becoming saner," " he is 
becoming tired," "he is becoming anxious," "he is becoming stupid," 
" he is becoming hungry " [c/. Act x. 10 eyevero Se TTpoaitewm xaX ^$£\e 
•^evaaaSai of Peter], " he is becoming more free from pain," " he is 
becoming cruel," etc. etc. 

Examine St. Luke's diction for a parallel to yevo/ievm ev ayavuf 
besides the well known one in Acts xii. 23 xal yevo/Mevo^ crKcoXTixo^pmTO';, 
and we are struck at once in : 

Acts xii. 11, of St. Peter, by the expression i xal o IleTpo? yevonevo'i 
iv eavTw "coming to himself," and in: 

Acts xvi. 29, of the Jailer: xal evTpofio'; yevoiievo^, all three 
expressions involving a mental attitude. Note Acts xxii. 17 yeveadat 
fie ev etcardaeL. 

This is also singularly illustrated in Acts xv. 25 yevofievoiv 
oiiodv/iaSov, of the Apostles and elders of the Church being mentally 
"in accord." 

The peculiarity of St. Luke's use of eyevero is well illustrated at 
Luke xvi. 22 of the death of the beggar in the parable of Dives and 
Lazarus: eykvero Se airodaveXv top tttw^oi', as it were "finally came 
to the point of death " from exhaustion, whereas the rich man's death 
(xvi. 22) is dismissed with aireffave Be xal o ttXouctios. 

t For these obeli, indicative of various matters, were very liable to confusion. See 
p. 304 note. 

X I am indebted to Professor Bendel Harris for pointing this out to me. 
X>r. Harris in his pleasant and modest manner accepts the Bishop's interpretation oC 
npjjt'fjt yfyofjiefos against his own previous view and applies it to ytvoiitvos iv ayutvia as 
another Lucan medical expression. Since this was written Dr. Harris has published a 
short article on the subject in the ' American Journal of Theology ' for Oct. 1913. 

EPILOGUE. LL'KB xxii. 43/44. 409 

Again, in Acts xxviii. 8 we read : iyivero Sk lov iraripa tov Jlo-rrXiov 
TTvperoL^ Kat BviTcvrepia (Tvve-)(pfievov KaTaK^iaQai. Here again this 
"becoming" distinctly employed in connection witli the medical terms 
"fever" and " dysentery." Observe that in Lnke xxii. 44 KaX rj(v6ii.evo<i 
fv dyttfria is followed hy e'fiviTo Se 6 I'^/jw? ainov aael Bpofi^oi aiix-aroi 

St. Luke uses this of our Lord's age (ii. 42) xal ore iyivero hS>v 
SaiBexa, " and when he reached the age of twelve." 

Even of Judas the traitor, St. Luke says (vi. 16) k koX iyivero 
7r/3o6oT7)5 " who became a traitor," whereas Mark (iii. 19) = o? xal 
TTapeSmxev ainov, and Matthew (x. 4) = 6 xal vapdSoix; ainiv. 

Another apt Lucan illustration (Luke vi. 36) is the graphic yiveaBe 
olKTippxiv^^. . .KaBo)<i KoX o TTaTTjp vfiuv otKTipfiwv cVrt. " Becoftie je 
merciful., even as your Father is merciful." This involves the whole 
Lucan vocabulary as to this medical term of hecommg, whereas in 
St. Matthew (v. 48) (no exact parallel to this passage in the synoptics) 
the less careful expression dominant is iaeade ovv vfieTs TeXewc m? o 
•jraTiip viMuiv oupdvto^ TeXeio^ i(Triv, missing St. Luke's beautiful 
antithesis. Similarly St. Luke at xii. 40 says xal v/iet<; {ovv) yivecrffe 
hoip-ot, which is also the expression in St. Matthew. 

Another mental process is involved at Luke xv. 10 outw Xe'70 yA*'" 
yLverai %a/3a (or "X/^po. ylveTac) evanrwv tC>v ayyiXav tov Oeov. . . And 
cf. Act viii. 8 Kal eyevero %apa fieyakT] iv TJ] TToXet exelvrj. 

The opposite! is indicated at Luke xviii. 23, of the rich ruler: 
ie uKovaai; -ravTa irfpi'XuTro? iyevero,^ while St. Mark's account 
runs: 6 8t' ajvyvdaa':; gtt\ tw X0701 dirrjXdev XvTrovfievo^, and St. 
Matthew's: uKovaa'^ 5e o veaviejKO<^ airrjXdev Xvirovfievos. 

Again, where another parallel is involved in the matter of the 
talents, St. Lnke says (xix. 17) ev dyadi hovke ' on, iv eXaxioTp irto-To? 
eyevov, . . . whereas St. Matthew xxv. in both verses '21 and 23 says : 
€u hovXe. . .eTTi oXiya 179 itl<jt6'^. 

Therefore at Lnke xx. 14, where C fam 1 substitute earai n 
xXripovofiia for yevrjTai ■>} xX-qpovop-ia they show an ignorance of 
St. Luke's Greek and have merely followed sijr. 

■t Cf. Jlijpjpocr^^^^^ : Ihfiias ^novKvs aK[>r]rios ytvofitvos vytalwovTt voattv aTjftaivci. 
Hijipocr^"'' : iySaaia thpas iyivero Km iraXil" jVe^t'pfiijw i ird\tp lijlas- ^rtsfoC* I"" """"■' : 
rfStj S<' TLfTiv ISpaiaat vvvi^r] ni/iurti)Sft ncpirTWM«Tt 8ia Kaxe^iav, tov /ici/ (TtitfxnTns iivaoos Km 
fmvov ytvofitvov, Tov 6e n?f«iTOC f^vypuvdivTos 8i' nirt^iriav, dSvpoTovarjs t^s (v Tott rpXf^iois 
BipiiiTTfTOS ^ritrativ, di' iXiyorriTa. And again : (aifioTot) i^vyftaimixivov Bi Xw" varoiiriy 
yivtTcii y(tp ivupOfiSfj Kai dioppovrai OUTWC Si(rT« r}5r] Tives idtrrav ai/inTwSf; idpiiTa. 

t Observe below the contrast between cftojios cytv. and <^iXoveiKia eytv. in Luke 
and Acts. 

§ SBL and Paris" only say iyerli6ri, probably an " improvement." It is followed 
by SoiJen however (without new witness) as well as by W-H. 

In this connection note St. John's (xvi. 20) dXX' t} XCttjj vfiwv tU xf^pov ytfrjatrai. 


And at Luke xx. 33 where we read iv rij ovv uvaaTaa-ei rlvm airSiv 
yiverai fvvrj, NDGLj min'" show themselves in error by reading etrrat 
there, as St. Matthew xxii. 28 and St. Mark xii. 23. 

Yet another parallel emphasises the matter : Luke xxii. 26 we read 
v/ieii; Se oix ovtok ' dW 6 /lei^av ev v/j-iv yeveaSto (i)?o veiinepK, whereas 
St. Matt. (xx. 26/27) and St. Mark (x. 43/44) writing more amply apply 
'•/eveadai to fieyai{, but elvai both to StaxoviK and SovXo<!. 

Once more, we can point to a very exceptional passage in Luke 
xxiii. 24 as to Pilate; d Se IltXttTo? iireKpLve yev4a0at to atrv^o, auT&ti/, 
again involving a mental process and not very easy to translate. A.V. 
has : " And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required," 
E.V. : " And Pilate gave sentence that what they asked for should be 
done." The Lucan phraseology covering the transaction ia utterly 
diiferent from that in Matt, xxvii. 24 26, or in Mark xv. 15, or in John 
xix. 1 4 6 8 12 14 15, and in the finale at 16. 

Another peculiar expression is at Luke xxiv. 22 aXXa xal 'fwauch 
Tiveii i^ Tijicov i^ea-njirav rjfta'i yevofievai, opdpivai eTrl to /ivT)fKlm>. Quite 
different at Mark xvi. 1 xal. . .epxovrai iirl to fiv^fui, or Matt, xxviii. 1 
rfKdev. , .Becoprjaat rbv rai^ov, or John xx. 1 epx^Tat. . .eti to /JVTfjxelov. 
(The exact Lucan parallel to these other passages is Luke xxiv. 1 ^Xffov 
€7rt TO ^vrjfLa.) 

For the rest observe carefully the foUovfing : 


xxiv. 15. KcCi iyiveio eV tw 6fj.t\€tv aurou? of the disciples going to 
51. Kal eykvGTQ iv t^ evXoyeii> avTov of the ascension. 


xxvii. 36. evdv/ioi Be yevc/ievoi 
XV. 39. eyevcTO Se vapo^a-fwi 
xix. 28. yevofievoi. vXrjpei^ ffvfLov 
( xiv. 5. &>? 5^ eyeveTO opfif} roiv iOvoyv, . . 

vi. 1. iyevero yoyyvtrfio^ rSiv EX.Xj/t'tcrTajv . . . 

xix. 23. €y€V€TO &€ /card roi/ xaipou exelvov rapaxo^ oiK 0X1709 TTcpt t^? 
6&0V ) 


xxiv. 5. ifupo^iov Be yevofievav ainSiv 
37. Kal e/MJ>o^oi yevoftevot 


X. 4. efi^o^oi; yevofievm 

i. 19, ix. 42, xix. 17 yvmarm eyevero 

xxvii. 42. ^ovXr] iyevero 

XV. 7. TToXKfp Be avirfTTiaeai yevoftepri^ 

xxi. 40. 7roX.\^ Be aiyqi; yevojxkvTfs 

xxiii. 7. eyevero ardtrL^ twi/ (fiopiir, 

9. eyhiero Be xpavyq fieydXri 

10. TToW^ Be yevofjtevrjf; a-Taa-eo}^ 

EPILOGUE. LUKE xxii. 43/44. 411 

Then contrast Luke i. 65 xal eyhero eivX Truvra'^ (p6^o<i ) 
and Act ii. 43 iyeveTo Be ttcktt} ^vx>} <p6^ofj \ 
V. 5 11 eyevcTO i^o;9o? fieya^ J 

with Luke xxii. 24 iyivero 5e kuI (piXoveiKia eV avroU to t;? 
ainojv BoKCi elvai fiel^tou 
All this has reference to mental processes. Add : 

xxiii. 19. ocTTi? riv Bta ara(nv rtva yevofiivjjv ip Ty iroXei 
(the other accounts differ) 


xi. 19. awo Tj}? ^Xi'i/rew? ti}? yevofievT]'^ 

vi. 48. irXrq^fxvpa'i Be yevo^ept}'? 
iv. 25. eyivero Xt/ic? fieya'i 
XV. 14. eyevero Xifw-i laxvpo'^ (or la-^vpa) 

Note Act xxvi. 19 ^ao-iXeO ^Ayptinra ouk iyev6p,i]u a7r€t0r}>; again of 
the mental process ; and, of time involved : 


XX. 16. eKptve yap 6 IlayXo? {cf. Lwc xxiii. 24) TrapaTrXetxrai Trjv^^tpeaou, 

otriof; /i?) yevr}rac avr^ XpovoTpi^>](Tai iv TJ} W<xca . 

As to the proportionate use of yivofiai and its parts in the Four 

Gospels and Acts, note that it is used approximately 125 times in St. 

Luke, and about 110 times in Acts, as against about 70 in St. Matthew, 

not quite 50 in St. Mark, and about 45 in St. John. 

As regards the use by the others covering a mental process the 
occasions seem to be limited to the following : 

St. J[atthe\v ^ . . , , 

X. 16. ylveaOe ovv (ppovifioi. . . I Cf. Rom. xii. 16 urj yiveaOe (ppoi/ifioL 
xxiv. 44. yiveade eroifioi j Trap' kavTol'i 

viii. 13. ft>9 €7r L(TTeva-a<; yevrjO^rw <jot 
ix. 29. Kara rrjv ttlgtiv v/jlwv yev'qO>]T(o vfuv 
XV. 28. fieydXr) tjov ') TTiVrt? ' yevrj^qro) aoi. oxj &€Xec<i 
xxi. 21. ear e;^J?T6 ttIctiv. . .yev-tjcreTac 


vi. 26. ical TrepiXvTTO'; y€p6p.evo<; 6 ^aaiXei'i 

XX. 27. /i^ yivov diri(7T0'i 
t And as a semi-medical term ; 

Matt __ y , , r , . V , , r ^ ^ 

xxviii. 4. Kal eyivovro oitjel vexpol (or /cat iyevt'jOfjcrav w? vefcpoi) j 

Mart , , r ^ , 1 

ix. 26. tcai iyevero oxrel v€Kp6<; ] 


V. 6. diXet<i vyii]<i yeveaSai ; 
9. evOeo)^ iyiuero vyirj'i 
14. iBe vyir}<f yeyova<; 
ix. 39. tcaX 01 l3X^7rovTe<; TV(f>Xoi yevavrai. 

t Cf. Horn. vii. 13 to oZv ayaBov ifim ytyovf (or eyeVfro) davaros ; 




1 Cor. 



2 Tim. 




As to the Epistles, notice 
Som. xi. 34. ti? 7ap eyva vovv Kvpiov ; ^ ti's iTv/ifiov\o<; ainoO ifevero ; 
1 Cor. xiv. 25. to, xpvirTo. t% xapSia^ avTov <f>avepa 'yiverai 
and perhaps as a semi-medical term : 
ev ofiOcd/iaTi avOparrtav yevo/ievo'! 

Kal e'yft) iv aaOeveta xaX hi <^6^^ KaX cv rpojjLtf iroXXoi 
iyepofiTiv irpb'; i/m? 

...TOt? huoy/wh roh vaOrmaaiv old p/ii eyevcro ev 

'AvTioxeia ev 'Ixovi^ hi Ai/ffrpot?. 

I have been at the pains to exhibit thus fully St. Luke's partiality to 

the use of eyaieTo and yev6p£vo<; in connection with Kat yevofievof; ev ar^avia 

for this phrase in xxii. 44 is a link of undesigned coincidence with his 

language elsewhere. 

Other medical writers seem to prefer aymvmv or aymviirav. Thus, 
Aristotle: Sia ri oi aymKieiivTes ISpovcri rovt TroSa?, to Sk irpoaamov ov 
. . .T} OTt r) aytavia . . . Sto KaX ui^piSxri ra irpoaroira ol ayoivtSyvref;. . . 
TTotovcrc yap tovto oi aytaviuivre^ . . . 

And Theophrastus''' ""'°"'"" on oi ayaiviavre^ toxk ffo^a? lipSiai, to 
oe irpoawKov ov , . icaX ayavLavTe^ he ov hta ^o^ov tovto Trdff'j^ovatv, 
ak\a 8(a to p,aK\ov enOepjiaiveoBat. . . 

And Gaiert^***8n. ex Puia. fct2i7j(xii; rjrtaovv Koi TTiWof; '^jrv^iKov opyiuSevroiv 
rj (fio^T]64vT(iiv rj dytavLffdvTajv , . , , 

So that a forger would have written at the opening of verse 44 
probably Kai aywvitav or «at dyoyvtdaa^ instead of xal yevofievo^ ev aytavta. 

Further, note that St. Luke's h/tcrxvetv in verse 43 in the transitive 
sense {ai^dr) Se ainf ayyeXo^ air ovpavov evitxx^mP ailrov) is confined to 
himself and Hippocrates (o Se xp^poi; Taiha eviaxvirei, Trdvra) . 

Also note that Aristotle, in speaking of bloody sweats, uses ylverai ; 
and that St. Luke's expression in verse 44 of xaTafiaLvovret of the 
drops of blood agrees absolutely with Hippocrates' language repeated 
often on such subjects (see Hobart, ' Med. Language of St. Luke ' 
pp. 80/84). 

Luke xxiii. 34. 

The second passage, as to the omission of the first Word from the 
Cross, is in a different class. And I protest most earnestly against 
the obiter dictum of C. H. Turner : t 

" Lk. xxiii. 34 the first Saying from the Cross is 
not part of the genuine text of St. Luke." 
It is cruelly misleading the younger generation to state the matter 
in this offhand, not to say light-hearted way. 

t J.T.S. January 1913, p. 167, note 1, 

KPILOGUE, LUKE xxiii. 34. 413 

t Because BDT'WX" 38 435 597 and Paris" a d b*" sah boh 1/2 syr 
sin Cijr omit our Lord's prayer for his murderers, Turner makes this 
deliberate statement, which merely revives the decision of an Alex- 
andrian school which flourished some time between 200 and 450 a.d. 
After Cyril of Alexandria the Church decided that the Alexandrian 
school was wrong, and it had rectified the matter before the time of 
Oecumenius.t Because Hort, basing himself on a wrong foundation, 
printed a text without this "Father forgive them for thej' know not 
what they do," Turner would assure his world through the 'Journal of 
Theological Studies ' that the " genuine text " is without it. 

It is quite unfair to render a decision or to claim a decision in this 
matter when the witnesses upon whom the judges rely are still under 
indictment for false witness in a multitude of other matters. I have 
put B in the dock now and accused him definitely and legally of 
false testimony on hundreds of counts. Let those who accept Hort's 
teaching get an intelligent jury to acquit B on all these counts before 
we can pay any attention to a claim for that ms to be heard as an 
authoritative witness when in a very decided minorit}'. I wished to 
put my latest researches in this matter of Luke xxiii. 34 before the 
readers of a Theological Journal, but I was informed that if I thought 
that I could teach its readers anything which Hort, Swete and Turner 
had not taught them I was very much mistaken. Thus the Editors con- 
fessed that the matter was prejudged and that new evidence (which was 
what I offered upon this and upon another point) did not interest the 
critics. This surely is nothing short of a riot of pride and self-confidence. 

As to the support which B now occasionally finds in the new MS W, 
it is to be remembered that W also supports N alone in equally important 

t Add5odOfii>and Sod^sTl. I thiiik this ia the fuU evidence to date foi- omission. Soden 
still cites h as if b* omitted, whereas he shonid know and probably does knon^ that 
Buchanan diacovered in 6* the prayer itself, and that it was h** who had suppressed it. 
Further h* seems to give a very early and beautiful form of that Divine appeal, for b 
alone omits yap, saying : 

" Pater dimitte illis I Nesciunt quid faciaut," instead of : 

*' nnVep n<^ff avrotf, ov yap oiSaaur tI Troiovtric." 

Soden™' has : 

" ndrtp a(^ts avToit ri. noiova-tv" { — ov yap oiSatrif), but Otherwise the documents are 
agreed as to the regular form. Only A and syr hiffr^ omit Udrep. 

Const, has 6 iroiouo-ti' for ri iroiova-iv. Some Fathers (with ^jers) a(^«s uvtoIs riiv 
ttpapriav Tavnjv Or Tar Apxtprias airiiiv, but retain yap before oiSairti'. 

Jaco6^'"' is reported by Eua"^^ Hegwipp ^g ; nnpoKitKa Kvpit Bit rrtirep a<f}ts nlrois ' oi) yap 
ol^atTt Tt irolovrrtv. 

X Oecumenius' date is now fixed definitely circa 600 A.D. from his full commentary 
on the Apocalypse in the Messina MS No. 99. Von Gebhardt planned an edition of this 
but his death frustrated it. I have been instrumental in supplying Dr. F. Biekamp 
with photographs of the MS, and he will shortly publish an edition of it. In this 
Oecumenius, while using a text of the Apocalypse thoroughly Alexandrian, explains in 
his commentary that although Cyril disallowed Luke xxiii. 34 yet in his day the verse 
was authoritatively transmitted as genuine. See my article in the ' American Journal of 
Philology ' for Oct. 1913. 


matters, e.g. at John ix. 38/39 WN and b (I), only, omit o Se e<t>v 
■mmeva Kvpie koj, ir poueKwijaai avrm km enrev o n/ffovi;. The support 
of b is very important here. Onr Lord's speech in NW b is thus 
unmterrupted : (37) enrev avra o It(<7ou9 xai capaKat avrov km o XaXcov 
fiera crov €Keivo<; eariv (39) 6J9 Kpi/ia eym 6(9 tow Koap.ov rovTov rfkSov . . . 
Therefore, as Hort said, N and B go apart a long way back, and neither 
of them is neutral. 

Enough has been said, I think, to justify my contention that B is 
not " neutral." 

I do not pursue the matter beyond the Gospels in all its detail, 
although many of the same features are visible in the Epistles, chiefly 
because, pending Mr. Horner's and Mr. White's labours on the Coptic and 
the Latin respectively, my materials are not complete, nor have we a com- 
plete " Old Syriac," but we can illustrate the same points, as is done beyond. 

One word more here as to W. This new witness is going to take a high 
place among our Gospel codices and rank with D to control N and B. 

I would warn the public against a feature connected with this. 

When the critics who will sit in judgment on me find a place 
where W agrees with B, as at Luke xxiii. 34, they will exult and say : 
" There ! You see, Hort is vindicated. W agrees with his omission 
which was based on N'BD sah (boh)." And they, being more con- 
vinced than ever themselves, will seek to convince you. But, be not 
deceived ! This is merely an Egyptian excision involving W here 
(for observe that the only new witness lately to hand is yet another 
Egyptian codex T'). W is a weapon just as sharp to cut their theories 
and their readings as to support them. 

When, for instance, the critics will say to you that e<^' i>ia9 by KB 892 
So(^"""" W-W"- for " Trpof ipMi " in Matt. x. 13 is supported by W, and 
therefore poor Hoskier is wasting his time talking of " pairs " in this 
connection and seeking to convince you that HBW were " improving," 
you, benevolent reader, being an independent observer, should look 
further, and you will then see that W does not support N immediately 
thereafter at x. 15 for -1-7)7 before yofioppav, nor does it support B at 
X. 16 for ek pxaov instead of hi p^am. 

In fact W generally goes against N and B much more than with 
them, and when it is for them the same reasons generally apply of 
revision of W in Egypt which caused these readings, but which did 
not extend to the other more radical ones. 

Hesychius and Origen. 

Whether Dr. von Soden and Professor Sanders are justified in 
adopting " Hesychian " as the true name for the Egyptian recension, or 
whether Origen is the more responsible for it, cannot be determined with 


accuracy. In some respects however " Hesychian " is a misnomer as 
we have no data to go by, whereas Origen's writings give us data, and 
the cursive MSS 33 and 127 confirm the fact that Origen altered texts, 
for these two iiss sometimes agree alone with Origen against NB and the 
rest of the Egyptian group. 

As to Dean Bmrjon. 

In closing let me say that Burgou's position remains absolutely 
unshaken.! He did not contend for accaptance of the " Ttxtus 
Beceptus," as has so often been scurrilously stated. He maintained 
that NB had been tampered with and revised and proved it in his 
' Causes of Corrtiption.' He sought the truth wherever it might be 
recovered and did not stop at Origen's time. The material discovered 
since his day has not shaken his position at all. We seek the truth 
among all out witnesses, with unnecessary subservience to no one 
document or congeries of documents, deriving patently from a single 
recension. Nearly all revision appears to centre in Egypt, and to 
suppose all the other documents wrong when opposed to these Egyptian 
documents is unsound and unscientific, for we must presuppose not only 
" Syrian " revision but a most foolish revision which did away with 
these " improvements " of the Egj^tians and AlexandriaJis, or which 
destroyed the "neutral " text without rhyme or reason. Have I made 
myself clear ? 

What Dean Bargon was chiefly concerned about was the lack of 
a scientific basis for our textual criticism. It is absolutely necessary to 
grasp this fact for a proper nnderstanding'of the whole matter. 

A scientific basis can only be obtained after we have made ourselves 
masters of a scientific knowledge of the real history of transmission, and 
of the interaction of the versions upon each other and of the versions 
upon the Greek texts. 

It is impossible to " revise " or compile a test from documents about 
which we have known so little. Every new document published helps to 
shed light on the ones already known. Eew as have been the new 
editions of Greek documents, we have already been able to learn a good 
deal from them. Much more can be learned if we will extend our 
examination. It is useless to cry for more light from history, or to 
deplore the lack of more data than we have got from the historical 
writings. It is also useless to sit down and say, like some critics, that 

t Upon two matters we must revise his poaition. His critics refuse to be 
influenced by any array of Patristic testimony against B, so that we must convict B, 
as I have done, in another way. Secondly, Burgon did not correctly estimate Codex J). 
Notwithstanding all the curious harmonies in this MS its base is profoundly ancient and 
important. The Latin .MS h must in future be considered much more carefully than 


as history is silent on certain points we can never know more concerning 
these matters unless further historical documents are brought to light. 
Existing Sacred Manuscripts teem with information if we will only dig 
below the surface. 

It is now 25 years since Dean Bargon passed away, and I ask myself 
what progress his opponents have made. 

The answer is that after 25 years they have discovered some flaws 
in the Hort textual theory and have partially dethroned B from the 
paramount position it occupied in the Hort text. 

There are further steps to be taken in this process, if I mistake not, 
and I hope that what I have written will tend further to clear the 
ground for a more intelligent view of the situation. The weight assigned 
by Burgon to Patristic testimony has been disallowed, but his indictment 
of B as a false witness is abundantly proved. 

Codex B outside the Gospels. 

When we pass from the Gospels to the region of the Acts and the 
Epistles we subside at once into smoother waters, yet the self -same 
features as to B are to be observed there also. It would perhaps be 
tedious, although quite profitable, to follow B over all this ground. For 
the sake of brevity I will confine the examination to the Epistles of St. 
James and of 1 Peter, the latter so largely attested by sub-apostolic 
Fathers. "We find, as I say, the same features. 

As to "Jorms " and " synonyms " we find at : 


t i. 26. x"'^"""' (W x<'^'"''7'"7''"') E only, and have to assume, if B 
be "neutral," that all others, even the closest supporters of B, 
use a longer synonym. The word recurs at Jas. iii. 2, x"^""'- 
ymyvrtu, but nowhere else in the N.T. Observe however that 
Polycarp (Phil. 5) uses p^aX.tvayaiYoi'j'Te?. 

iv. 9. /ierarpaTrrirm (pro usTaaTpa^rrro)) BP ac*" Thpyl IF-if"". 

V. 4. a^vareprinevcr; (pro aweaTeprifievot) SB* soli et W-H [nil 

in m,g !] 

I Peter _ 

i. 7. ;^uffOu Tou atTO>^Ku^vQV B Only, for ^utrtoy rov 

airoXK., against all the rest and against Clem Orig. This 
tendency towards " finessing " remains with B to the last, 
ii. 8. ain<rrmiVT£>s (pro aTrei6owre<s) B only. (Cf. lat). 
iii. 13. et (pro eav) B 3 101 [non W-H], against the rest and 

against Clem Dam: (Soden only mentions B). 
ibid, yevotade (pro yeirqade) B only 

t In this very verse we find the Alexandrian preference for tavrcv over avrov 
(referred to elsewhere) exhibited by BP c*" and a few of Sodfn's codices. 


1 Petftr 

iv. 5. xpivovrt {pro exovrc xpiuai) BC*? 69 137 a'" and more of 

Soden. This is adopted by W-H without marginal alternative. 
Tbe Bevisers refuse to follow. 
1.5. aWorpie-ma-xoTro<; XB d*" and more of Soden and 

W-H Sod t£t {for a^,XoTpio- or aXS-cnpiorr «ir(CT«o7ro9) 
17. OTTO rj/iav {pro a<f -rjpmv) BSP and one cursive only 

[mn W-H], 

When we look farther for Coptic sympathy, we find it at ; 

i. 16. SiOTt 'yeypawTai (+oti) aytoi ea£<T9€ B 31 70 sijr copt[W~H] 
{' ex ingenio linguae ' as Tiseh says) 
ConauU also : 
v. 2. aWa iKavaim pro aW ex. NB* 68 Sod""" W-H. 

iii. 4. oTTov { — av) NB sah W-H Inil mg]. 

If we seek Latin sympathy, we find much of it : 


iv. 14. —1) {ante fwi;) B only 

ibid. -T) (ante irpKK) Ti'P minw' W-H. 

1 Pet<;r 

i. 21. muTov; SA >i(f Attcf''" W-H against 7na-TevovTa<; 

relP', ■!Ttarevcravra<; aliq, et Trtarevrravre'; Pohjc. 

22, - Kaffapai BA SofZ"'* vg Gild W-H [nil mg]. 

iii. 7. - ot {ante avhpa} B only [jjo» W-H] 

22. - Tou {ante 0eov) «*BN^ and W-H 

V-. 12. aik^avov {pro aeXovavov) B only 

For ixaihei polyglot sympathy, consult : 

1 Peter _ 

iii. 7. p.ri ^Ko-aTecr&ai rat? 'iTpoiT€V)^ai^ {pro firj evKo-rr. ras Trpotrevxfi'i) 

B only (W-H marg) vrith syr lat copi. 
iv. 1, ap.apriaii {pro apapriat) BN° W-H txt with aeth vg syr. 

If we seek change of tense, it jumps to meet ns at : 

1 Peter 

ii. 12. evoTTTevoi/rei {pro ewoirTivaavres) NBC alig {vg Oypr) W-H 
[ail mg] against the rest and against Clem. [Observe at iii. 2 
evoTrrevovret by X* only {Soden now adds some cursives.)] 

Or as to change of mood, note : 

ii. 10. r-qpria-q. . .TnaKTv X(A)BC Sod"'^ TF-H against the minn. 

2 E 


Consult also, as to voice : 

1 Peter 

i. 8. ayaWcare {pro ayaXXiaa^de) BC* /Sod*'" Orig W-H, against 
rell omn Polyc Clem Cyr Thpyl in the phrase ; " 6v ovk iSovre^ 
aYairare €t*? ov aprt fit) opwVTes TrttTTeuoVTe? £e ayaXKiatrOe %Cifia 
avexXaXrp-a xai SeSo^a(T/ievrj," where ayaWiuTe has apparently 
been substituted as present indicative or present imperative 
active to harmonise with ayairare and optovre^ and iricrTevovTe';, 
as against ayaXXiatr&e as present indicative or subjunctive or 
imperative of the middle voice. Origen is implicated here 
against the other strong Patristic testimony. 

For another case of Origenistic influence, observe : 

1 Peter 

V. 8. -Ttva B^ SocZ" only with OnV" and TF-H tet, against the 
rest, Orig himseU and many Fathers. 

GJwice exercised by W-H as to the B readings. 

The choices of Hort when B is alone are quite curious. He 
follows above, and at r 

19. Ta9 ■^vxa^ (-avTmv) B only and WS txt [Soden adds 
nothing], but refuses; to follow lota of other peculiarities 
of B, as ; 











-ov B* SocZ""" / (an "improvement"? 

against uss and versions) 
+ Ta ((i7ite TriXiicavTa) B only ("Improvement ") 
— TOW Kvpiov B only, which might possibly be 

" neutral " [yet more probably to be considered an amendment. 
Cf. Acts V. 41 "to suffer for the name"'\ which W-R only 
include in square brackets. 

1 Peter 

i. 1. —Kai^idwiat B» only with Soci" 

ii. 1. <j>ovovi {pro (j>0ovovi) B only with Sod" 

6. —etr avra B only 

24. viuov {pro tifjLoiv) B Sod'^'-"' {W-H mg) against the rest 

and Polyc. 

25. —ijTejap B only and g. 
iii. 18. -T6) deca B only 

t Observe here against all therest rat >lfv^as avruv as Hpbir, or ras ^wj^ay €avra>v 
as some minn, or ra; eavraav ^u;^af in the Coptic maaoer with 5 31 and AthanaHus. 


Not even in a doctrhial matter do W-H follow B at : 

1 Peter 

i. 11. irvevfia { — xptarov) B only with Athanasius according to 
Soden (but Xpjo-Tou is not omitted in the Benedictine edition 
of 1698) (against all and Ignat). 

Bat if B is right at 1 Peter iv. 19, v. 8, why not in these 
other places ? 

Further, we can show you here even (cramped as we are by our 
self-imposed limitations) harinony and Mcommodation to 
the LXX on the part of B. For, observe : 

1 Peter 

ii. 6. axpoyaviaiov post exXexrov BC 31 Sod"'i copt arm Bam Cyr 

Vf-H = order of LXX against our other New Testament 

witnesses which place it hefore exXexTov. 
ibid. —e-TT avTcn B (which TF-fl" refuse to follow) is against the 

rest, and against Bai'Ji eir avTov, and Eus Cyr e*? avrov. 

Again possibly from his text of the LXX. 
iv. 13. he aaefi^i B* 137 Soc?""" [W-H]. Cf. LXX. 

A matter of order further concerns the Latin : 

I Peter 

iii. i. >riavXiov xai vrpaeari {pro vpa. xai rjavxd B only with m q vg 

Aug Amhr and W-H txt. 
But in adopting this did not Hort see that he was using 
version support and that it was not the " neutral" text? 
These few words must suffice here to indicate that the general 
character of the B recension remains the same outside the Gospels as 
inside. The same desire for individuaHty at the expense of truth, the 
same ideas of finessing, the same ideas of harmony, occasional bold 
excisions, and distinct version sympathy which is clearly non-neutrai, 
against Barnabas, Polycarp and demerit of Alexandria. 

Ignatius, Clement of Borne, Hernias, Polycarp, Justin, opposed to B : 

Even aa to the bold excision at 1 Peter i. 11 as to the spirit of Christ 
dwelling in the prophets of old, observe that B doubtless opposes the 
copy of the scriptures in Ignatius' library [this name is not mentioned 
with Did Ath Cyr"'" and Cyr"°^ by Tischendorf nor indeed in Jacobsen's 
edition of Ignatius] for Ign}'^ says (fid Magnesianos \ viii.) ol yap 9ei6raToi 
rrpo^ixrai xara Xpta-rov 'Iritjovv e^Tja'av. Aia Toirro xal eSca}-x&T]<rav, 
evTTveofjievot vtto rr}^ ^upiTOS avrov, els to TT\r)potpop7)0t)vai tovs 

2 B 2 


iliret^oCKTa? . . . Here von Soden now adds AtkayMsius to B for omission 
of XpiiTTov. If this be so as to Ath°°^' it is a wonderful commentary upon 
the junction of B and Alexandria. (In the Benedictine edition of 1698 
of Ath. Xptcrrov is found.) 

Again when we consult Clement of Borne (l. 34) we find that he 
quotes the passage in 1 Cor. ii. 9 as " Xeyei yap ' 6(f>0aX^u)<; ovk elZev, xal 
ow OVK 7JKov<T€i^j Kal CTTt KupBiav ofOpuyTTOV OVK ave^r], offa ryroifiacrev rolfi; 


While ABC agree as to the oaa of Clem^ for a of the rest, they have, 
like the other MSS, d7aTro)o-ii' and not inroiievovcriv. Had B exhibited 
v-rrofievoyaiv we might have thought indeed that the conjunction of B and 
Clern^ indicated a " neutral " text. 

In the reference to this passage in Poly carp'""' the matter is as 
follows : 

IIpo o^OaKpMv yap ei^oi' tj>vyelv to amvtov Kal /A»jSe^OT€ a^evvvfievov 
vOp, Kal TOK T>79 KapBia'! IxjiOaXfxoh aviffKeirov tcI Tripovfieva Tot? 
iiTT op,eivaa IV ay ad a, a oine oix; rjKovaev, ovre cxpffaXfUx; l&ev, oirre iwl 
Kaphiav avQpdmov avefir) (leaving out the last clause here, as in Clem^ 
II. 11) €Keivoc<; Be {nreBetKvvTO vtto tov KvpioVf oiTrep /itjksti avOpanroi dX.V 
tjBti wyyeXoi rfffav. The passage continues : *0/io/ft>? 5e koL eh; to drjpla 
KpiOevre^ vtt efietv av Betva^ xaXatret^f K^pvKa^ pkv inroarptovvv/ievot xal 
aXXaK ■noiKiXai'! fiacrdvoi^ . . . where it will be observed that the expression 
vitepeivav finds a place- 
Similarly at 1 Cor. iv. 4 where the phrase oKX' ovk iv tovtu) 
hehiKalapai is quoted by Clem^" as dW' ov it a pa tovto SeSiKaia/uu we 
do not find that B agrees. 

Or at Hebr. i. 4 for Totrovro) KpeiTrmv Clerri^ (i. 36) has too-outm 
lieil^av. Not so B, although B elides toh/ before a776X<ai' with Clern^. 

Or at Hebr. iii. 5 if B added depa-rrav as does Clem^ after Trjaros as 
to Moses we might presuppose a common " neutral " original. 

(Of course we have to make allowances for Clement's fusion of 
different parts as in I. 36 Heb. viii. 1-3 is merged with Heb. iv. 15 
quite libere.) 

At Matt. X. 16 B finesses with en peaov Xvkbiv for ev peaai XvK<av of 
the rest, undoubtedly because the words follow the verb of action 
avoineXXai iipas. He does not do it in the parallel at Luke x. 3, but 
there D is found with p.eaov for ev /xeaio. A reference to Clem^ (Bpist. 
II. v.) would seem to show that his copy of the Scriptures agreed with 
our general authorities against both B and D. Hence B and D are 
opposing the " neutral " text instead oi preserving it. 

Again, for SSikoc in 1 Cor. vi. 9 we find ol olxoi^dopoi in Ignatius 
(Eph. 16). There is no trace of this in B. 

At Ephes v. 25 where we read oi avSpet oyaTrdre rd? yvvaixa'; Kadax; 
KOI XptffTos f/ydvriaev rrjv eKKXTjaiav, we find the counterpart in Ignatius 
(ad Polyc 5) but Ignatius substitutes xd? avp.fiiov<! for ra^ ywamai. No 


trace in B. Further, if B, as Polycarp, read aiov for davarov in Act ii. "24, 
we might infer a " neutral " text for B. But it is T) and latin which 
agree with Polycarp as also Iren"" Epiph Pseud-A tk Thdt and Fac. 

Again, Act xxi. 14 Polyc'"'" has to 6e\rifia tov deov yeveaOm, which is 
the reading of D" [neglected by von Sodeni and Tert 1/2, while most 
read with Tert 1/2 the same order to deXrifia tov xvpiov yeveada, but NABCE 
are furthest away with the order tou xvpiov to deXvfia yiveaBa. 

Again, B opposes Polycarp at 1 Jo. iv. 3 omitting ev aapxi eXrfXvBoTa, 
whereas Polycarp distinctlj' says : ira? yap 05 av fi>] ofioXoyy 'Itjoovp 
KpiaTov ev aapxl i\Tj\vOepai, avrixp^'TTO'; euTi. Notwithstanding this, 
W-H omit [without a word in the margin] and Soden brackets it in his 
text and does not say a word about Polycarp in his notes. 

As showing that Polycarp was reall}' quoting 1 Jo. iv. 3 as it stood 
in his copy of the Epistle, he follows it by quoting part of 1 Jo. iv. 9 in 
the very next section (viii.) of his letter to the Philippians. 

Hermas, close to James iv. 7 " ai/Tt'o-TJ/Te (Se) tw Siaj36\(j> kuI (fiev^eTai 
tt^' viMfov" says : eav ovv avTtcjTy^ avTov vixrjOeU (j>ev^€Tat utto aov 

Had we found KaTrjaxvfifievo<i in B we might certainly think we had a 
separate relic of an ancient text, but such evidences are not forthcoming. 

Justin""''^, referring to Matt. vii. 15, says : elne yap ■ttoXXoI 
i\€V(TOVTat eVi tw ovofiaTO fJiOu, e^wOev ivSeSvfjiivoi BepfiuTa -jrpo^cLTwv, 
e(j-oj$ev 3e etVt Xuxoi apiraye*;. 

If we found e^mffev in B we might consider it " neutral " or basic, 
but we do not find it. Jor Justin repeats the full verse (after interposing 
1 Cor. XI. 18) : Trpoue'^eTe cltto twv ^cv^ott po^T^Twv o'iTive^ iXevtrovTat Trpo? 
v/j.di e^adev ivieSvp,6V0i SepfiaTa irpolSaTcov eatoffep &c eiai \vxoi dpTTaye<i 
again using e^wOev. In both cases Justin uses evieBvpevoi BippaTa 
TTpofiaTav for the usual ev ivhvpaaiv irpo^arav. 

Notice that Justin seems to be quoting from his copy of the 
Scriptures and not entirelj' from memory, for when he deals with 
Mark viii. 31, which he does twice at considerable intervals, he substitutes 
m both places xaX aTavpw67]vai for xal aTroxTav&Tjvat.. The same remark 
applies to Justin's twofold quotation of Mark viii. 11/12. 

Also at Luke xi. 52 notice exert of Justin. If we found this 
(instead of -qpaTe, or expv^aTe D 157 a c d syr cu sin diatess) we might 
then recognise it as a "neutral," for Marcion and Tertidlian appear to 
agree with Jnstin, and it is repeated by Ambrst Any and Auct^'^"^, 
although not exhibited by Tischendorf or Soden. 

" Higher " and " Lower " Criticism. 

Finally, observe that up to the time of Westcott and Hort the 
"lower criticism" had kept itself quite apart from so-called "higher 
criticism." Since the publication of Hort's text, however, and of that 


of the Revisers, much of the heresy of our time has fallen back upon the 
supposed results acquired by the " lower criticism " to bolster up their 
views. By a policy of indecision m the matter of the fundamental truths 
of the Christian religion — truths specifically set forth by its Founder, — 
and by a decided policy, on the other hand, of decision in the matter 
of heresy in the field of lower criticism, the beliefs of many have been 
shaken not only to their foundations, but they have been offered free 
scope to play the Marcion and excise whatever appeared extra-ordinary 
or unintelligible to them. Many, who should have raised their voices 
against the mischief wrought, have sat by in apathy or have wilfully 
fostered these heresies. Or, if not wilfully, they have assumed a faltering 
attitude which caused their own students to misinterpret their masters' 
lessons. Thus we have the spectacle of Thompson and Lake saying to 
Sanday : " We learned that from you," and Sanday retorting : " I never 
meant to teach you that." 

A man hke the Dean of Durham, not content with preaching Christ- 
mas sermons at Westminster attacking the Virgin-birth, and vapouring 
in the United States about the close atmosphere of theological seminaries 
which he would like to bum to the ground, has nowf decided to introduce 
the " Bevised Version " ofiicially into the lectern of the ancient cathedral 
of Durham. I am therefore correct in coupling these matters. 

Eeiteration of Hort's dicta by his followers is not proof. Let some- 
one take the dozen " Alexandrian " readings of B which I have adduced — 
the existence of which in B was denied by Hort — and prove that they 
are in no wise Alexandrian. Then we can discuss the matter further. 
Mr. Homer asked me why I had neglected Athanasius' testimony in 
my volume upon the date of the Bohairic version. I told him, first 
because the editions of Athanasius were unsatisfactory, and secondly 
because the matter of Athanasius and Alexandria belonged as much or 
more to B as to N. 

Let somebody explain how B comes to oppose the sub-apostolic 
Fathers, deliberately in places, if we are to accept Hort's assurance about 
B being "neutral." Until that is done, let us away with "dicta" and 
go by proof. 

Further Test of a Neutral Text. 


The previous exhibit has carried us up to a certain point, but the 
study would not be complete without a few words more as to what 
would really constitute a " neutral " text in B or X. 

t " Dean Henslej HeDson, just promoted to Durham, has annomiced tba6 the Bevised 
Version of the Bible will in future be used in the Cathedral." — Public Ojnnion, 
April 4, 1913. 


And first, let iis assume that B or N exhibited a foundation text 
approximating the quotations from or wording of such a document as the 
eecond-centnry Apology of Aristides, for the Greek of which see the 
Dean of Wells' edition in 'Texts and Studies,' vol. i., jSIo. 1. Were 
that the case, we should be compelled to look upon the matter very 
differently. If, for instance, at 2 Cor. ix. 7, we found aveTntj>Oova><i^ for 
(jiTj) e^ amiyKri:; we might well say that we had found a " neutral " text 
quite different from later ones, but such a thing is not found in X or B. 

Similarly if in Titus ii. 12 we should read in B oci'm? xai itxaico'; 
^wirres as Aristides (§ xv. 18) t instead of aa>ij>p6va><! kcu Btxaia'; xal evireffoKi 
^t'lamfiei' wo should certainly see a foundation text of the time of Aristides, 
but we do not find this. |i 

The only result of such a comparison is the wonderment which it 
engenders in us that Christianity had already so filled men's minds that, 
having read the Christian writings, as he says he had (mentioned in 
close connection with these passages), such language, close to but not 
exactly scriptural, should issue from his moutfa.lT The picture from 
Aristides' pen (or that of his chronicler) is one of the most beautiful in 
the world as a comment on the early Christian order and the execution 
by its votaries of the Master's maxims and of the words of his apostles, 
and it goes far to explain the mental attitude of the apostolic and 
sub-apostolic Fathers and their circumlocutory quotations of New 
Testament Scripture. They were so steeped in the maxims and prac- 
tices of the cult that words flowed from their lips and their pens 
close to but not verbally exact as to Scriptural diction. They were 
permeated with the spirit of Christianity and "the letter" was flexible in 
their hands. 

Theodotus (circa 190). 

To take a more positive example, after the above negative exhibition, 
let us consider other early witnesses, and first as to LuJie ix. 27, always a 
difficult text, and a " rock of offence " to many. We will ask what 
Theodotiis read there. Tischendorf does not give his testimony under 
Luke. I extract it from Theocloti Eclogae (Fabric. Bibl. Qr. vol. v. p. 136) 
where we read : ■ 

f Aristides (§ XV. 12) is speaking of : "and he who has gives to him who has not 
without grudging." He is referring to what he saw as the outcome of the Pauline 
ma.\im in 2 Cor. ix. 9 (Pa. cxii. 9). 

X The preaching of Pefcer {Clem Strom vi. 39) has oaitas leai Sixaiois iiavdavovrfs 
which is not as close to Titus as Aristides. 

II Soden quotes Aristides' order : " ^ euc. . .&iK. Z'-'^^ j^yi " 

If Had the apology been forged it is impossible to conceive that the late forger 
would not have incorporated actual phrases from the N.T. instead of the smoother 
picture conveyed by the Athenian philosopher. 


£j<rt Tii/e? Toiv ai&e einrfKOTiov o {sic) oil /ir) yevaovrai Oavdrov &)? av 
t^a>CLTov viov Tov dvO pditir ov ev Sq^tj. 

XB do not read thus, but D and Origen (jov he Xovxa : — ) read tov 
viov TOV and pair ov epxo/ievov ev T17 So^ti avTov. 

NB therefore oppose Origen here and D. Origen seems to be definite 
as to his reading being from Lulse. True, we read m&e for avrov [the 
regular text is eiaiv rit/e^ toiv avrov cctt^/cotojv 01 ov firj yevtrtovraL davdrov 
eoj? Ilv 'liaiaiv ttjv ^acriXelav tov Beov in Luke] and mSe is read in 
Matt xvi. 28 (but Epiphan there avTov and Mark ix. 1), but eiXTa>Ta>v or 
e<7T(aTC5 is the regular reading in Matthew. 

In Matthew Origm reads epx- ev n? fiaiTiXeia avrov (17) ev m So^ 
avrov bis. 

The regular text is {tov viov rov avBponrov) epxo/j^vov ev rr) fiaaiXeia 

N" 38 113 245 435 y'" a copt Basil and Epipli"*^ read epx- ev rv Bo^v 

The Theodotus or Valentinian quotation therefore remains the 
-.shortest, being without epr)(p)ievov and without avrov fin, and conveying a 
very different sense.j 

Now elsewhere Origen has said that " he knows of no others who 
have altered the Gospel save the followers of Marcion and those of 
Valentinus," but here he goes with the very text as upheld by the latter. 

Have we got the true text in X*B ? We have certainly not re- 
established the Origenian reading. 

HBBAOLEONt {circa 170). 

Or consult John iv. 18 as to the woman of Samaria, where Meracleon 
would have it that she had had six husbands instead of five. If B showed 
this we might say it was certainly a second-century text. 

Athenagobas {circa 175). 

Or, consult 2 Cor v. 10 in connection with Atlienagoras^' '="■"■ 
Upon opening Tischendorf a wide difference of opinion is visible, not only 
among the Fathers, but between X and B, for N prefers ayadov ene 
<j>avXov with On'j"'"""' while B writes ajadov ene kukov with Orig"", but 
A thenagoras says neither ; he writes : 

€Ka(TTo<; KopJ.u'rjrat. S c K a la 'i a B la rov trai/uiro'; ejrpa^ev, etre dy aO d 
eire k aK d. 

t.In all three synoptics the account of the Transfiguration immediately follows. 
So that Theodotus follows hia quotation by saying : tZ^ov oZv Koi fKoifiijdjjirav o, re irerpot 
Kill Iditw^os Kfii \ci>dvvt]s, without the slightest discussion of a various reading, except what 
might possibly be inferred from " ical to fvravda 6<j>Siv ov\' vartpov rov avta k.t.X." 

t Seei beyond under the heading of " Marcion " for further examples. 


This seems rather an interesting place, for Tischendorf does not re£er 
to the addition here of Bixaia'i by Athenarj. It should be considered in 
connection with the variety of reading of ra Sia tov <TafuiT(K of the 
ordinary text and Clem Orig^'''"" '' '"' al. on the one hand, and t a iBia 
ra (TcofiaTa on the other hand of <Z e / g vg goth arm Orig''" " '"' al. 
and Zeno " corporis sui merita." 

(Athenag has a curious addition also in 1 Cor xv. 53 for which I 
know of no other authority : " on Bet (Kara tov aTToaroKov) to ipdaprai 
TOVTO Kal BiaaKeBacnov ivBvaacrOat a<j}upa{7Lav. . , ') 

In that Tery difficult text Matt v. 28, in which to know what was 
first written seems impossible, X and B divide. 

TO eVi^u^^o-at N* 236 Clem Orig'" Quaesf' Isid Tert^' 

TO e-jTL9vfiriaai, ainrjv B mult Thpl Orig"^ Ens Const Ps-Ath 
TO €iri8vfiriaaL aljiyi N^M al. Just Athenag Orig'"^ 
and we find X" with Justin and Athenagoras (latt) but Ephr goes with X* 
and Clem. (iSp/jr quicnmque aspicit et concupiscit tantum). (Athenagoras 
alone seems to use the perfect here /xe/ioix^vKev for ifwixevaev.) 

In this verse for the varieties ffXeirav, e/nffXevav, ^ei/<-o9, efi.j3\e-^a<i, 
o(TTi<i efip\eire<, m av efifiXe-f-r;, it is Theophilus, another second-century 
witness, who exhibits the simple iBav. 

In Matt V. 44/45 on the other hand we find Athenagoras solely with 
latin [not d W] syriac Naass Clem"""^ Iren"" and Tert, against NB and the 
Greeks, giving us a serious variation in verse 45 of ovrm? "ikvijirBe viol tov 
irarpo^ vjxwv toO eV ovpai'ot<;, o 9 Tof riXiov avrov avaTeWei /c.t,\. 

This OS of Athenag replaces the oti of the Greeks and d k, and 
with Naass (both second-centurj' witnesses) quite neutralises the witness 
of the rest. 

{Justin''''"^ ha3...«ai tow fjXwv avrov tivaTu'Wet . . . (Jibere), but 
Jltst'^^"". . .TW riXiov avToO avareXKovTa.) 

Here the new editor von Soden springs a surprise on us ; he makes 
a warranted and rather welcome, if bold and unusual departure from 
recent critical rules, by taking 6s into his text (to the exclusion of o«) 
without Greek MS support for 6s. He says in his upper notes : " otc 
1 OS I-H-E gg Mp lou Ta A6vi^ Ir -^KX Tert Op Hil Luc Naao-o- Man sy 
pa? lat™', oo-T(s JT 8398 3-01 14)3 jj^o-^" supplying Greek MS witnesses for 
oo-Tts but not OS. Tertullian should be consulted in full however for he 
quotes in different ways, and once {contra Marcion 1/2) " phientem . . ■" 
exactly as JiaitM^"™'" avaTeTO^ovra. 

Theophilus of Astioch {circa 180). 

Theophilus'^ ''°'°'- "'■ "'", after a quotation from Isaiah, adds from 
Matt V. 44/46 : to Be evajjiXiov : ayaTraTe, ^nai, toxk ix^P"^ vitSiii, /col 
irpocTeiryetrde uirep tuv eir-qpea^ovrav vfids ' eav yap ayairare tov; ayair&VTa^ 


vfidi iroiov fiu70ov fx^Tt ; So far, observe, with the general nm of 
authorities, except for ayairare (instead of ayairrja'rjTe) with 3 some 
cursives Jicstin Athenag (as Luke), and irotov (for riva, so Athenag) with 
no others apparently, but compare Luke vi. 33 voia as Evst 50 here in 

But now he continues: tovto xal ol Xija-Tal xai ol reXwi/at -rroiovai. 
The exact wording does not matter so much as that instead of the 
question of most : ov')(j, xaX ol -reXavai ovrm^ iToiovai, with Theophilus it 
assumes the form of a statement. 

Does B agree ? No, B does not. But N does, and so does boh 
(that despised late boh !) and so does syr sin and practically syr cu, 
confirmed by Aphraates, and by the persian version as well. 

This form obtains in Luke vi. 33 xat oi aiiapjuikoi to outo irotovfriv, 
but N does not draw from Luke since he uses the rest of the Matthaean 
terminology. Cf. Merx ad he. pp. 107/119 and note what he says on 
p. 119. Merx neglects Theophilus but mentions Justin's xat japot iropvot 
TOVTO TToiovai, bJso deUbcrately in the form of a statement, quite neglecting 
the ouxi'. Observe verse 47 in this connection whence ovxi probably 
ascended to the verse above. 

Naassbni {circa 200). 

Or take another early series of witnesses. In John x. 9 Naass^^''^^ are 
reported for ** hta tovto ip-yjo'i Xeyei o t-qaovi ■ eyut eifii t) TrvKf) tj aXTjdivrj." 
Had this attribute of nvXij been found in B we might think we had 
recovered something ancient. 

HiPPOLYTUS (circa 220). 

All this may be said to be very fragmentary evidence and open to 
the objection of memorial quotations. 

Very well. Let us take another most interesting witness, viz. 
Hippolytus, who, like Lucifer, frequently quotes at such length from 
both Old and New Testaments that it is absolutely beyond question that 
he was copying from his exemplar of the Scriptures. 

Hippolytus cites 1 Thess. iv. 13-17, 2 Thess. ii. 1-12, in foll.t 

t It is a remarkable thing that Hip;polytu8 has transmitted to us his text of 
2 Theaa. ii. 1-12, for these verses contain a detailed prophetio atteranoe by St. Paul 
concerning the history of the last times and of Christ's coming again to displace the 
lawless one (6 avofxos), and every word therefore is precious, down to the important 
W^uret or n-e^^ci of verse 11. JTtpp. maintains ire/ii|^et, against NB, and has the support 
in another language of Comeliua (Pope a.d. 262) and of Victorin Ca.d. 294), both writing 
at length on the subject, with mittet. Similarly Victorin confirms ttjs a^iaprias of Hi^. 
vithpeecati in verse 8 whei« Comeliua does not quote. 


la the face of these quotations it is seen how loosely Turner argues 
when he says " Hort was the last and perhaps the ablest of a long line of 
editors of the Greek Testament, commencing in the eighteenth century, 
who very tentatively at first, but quite ruthlessly in the end, threw aeer the 
LATER in favour of the eaklieb Greek Mss, and that issue will never have 
to be tried again." 

But permit me to ask what Mr. Turner means by this hght-hearted 
sentence. What does he mean by earlier and later Manuscripts ? He 
cannot mean that Hippolytus' manuscript was later than that of B ? 
Yet, allow me to state that in these long passages, comprising twelve 
consecutive verses from one epistle and four from the other, Hippolytus' 
early third-century Msf is found generally on the side of what Turner 
would call the "later" iiss. Has he ever consulted these important 
passages before writing down so positively statements which seem to 
me to be extremely misleading ? 

The matter, in detail, reduces itself to this : 

1 llieefl. 

iv. 13. It is the cursives 31 and 73 with demicl which omit aSe\(poi 
as does Hipp, 
ibid. Hipp has xeKoifi-qjjtevmv with DEFOKL phir and other 

Fathers, against the Koiiiu>ij.evmv of NAB etc. 
ibid. Hippi?) has oi? with N'D'FG 47 Orig Bas, against /ca^w? of 
N^B rell. 
14. Hipp has xai o 6eoi with the mass, against o 0eoi xac of B, 

now supported by other of Soden's codices. 
17. Hipp> has ■n-epiXenrojj.evoi with the mass, against B's irepi- 


ibid. Hipp has aw Kvpito with the mass and Orig Eus, against B's 
improvisation of ev Kvpiw. 

2 Theas. 

ii. 1. Hipp has tov Kvpcov ■qp.av with the mass and Orig Tert, while 
B omits rjiuov. 
3. Hipp has t»)9 aiiapria's with ADEFGKLP minn^^ verss^' 
Orig 4/5 Orig'"- Eus Ghr Thdt Dam Iren^'^' Aug, against tj;? 
avofuas of XB minii^ SocC''^ sah boh Orig 1/5 Tert (Ainbr 
The non-agreement of Origens quotations, with preponderance 
against NB, the adhesion of the Coptic versions, and the way in which 
Epiph turns it (o vio^ tt/? avofuas o av6pafno<^ ttj*; aScKia'i) taken in 
connection with avofiia'i and avo/Mx; in verses 7 and 8, all point to 
revision by NB, in which Hipp does not share. It ia the usual 
" Egyptian " revision, for Latins and Syriac Goth and Aeth go with 
Hipp and the mass. 

t Or very likely a second-century text. 


Note in verse 12 NB with Origen write aXKa evhoxriaavTei, instead of 
o\X' evSoK., conforming to the usual Coptic or Egyptian method. 

2 TheaH._ 

ii. 4. Hipp with FG Ofig 5/7 Procop 1/2 has kui eTraipofievo^, 
against xai vTrepaipo/ievo^ N'B Orig 2/7 and most (N* omits). 
8. Hipp has o «vp(05 Itjctous with XAD*E*I'GL**P etc. and most 
Pathprs, against o xupjo? of BD°E**KTi* eic. 

10. Hipp has tj;? aSiKta<i with N'DEKLP oZ. jpZ, against aSixta^ 
of N*ABFG aZ. ^aMc. Orig etc. 

ibid. Hipp has ev rot? avoWviievoK; with N°D°BKL aZ. pi, against 
Tot9 aTToW. o£ N'ABDFG (Orig is on both sides here, as 
so often). 

11. Hipp has ■rreix^ei with N'^D'^EKLP and other Fathers, 
against ire/iira o£ N*ABD*'F" (Orig again divided). 

Thus, there is no such thing as "earlier" and "later" MSS in 
this connection. Hippolytua' MS was "early" enough to be of service 
here and to indicate that what Turner (and others) would designate the 
readings and lesmings of "the later mss " are not "later" at all, but 
go to the second century or at latest to the first quarter of the third 
century. The question is not at all of "earlier" or "later" Mss, but 
as to which of two readings current in the second century was the correct 
one. And as to this B evidently has no more to say than F. 

If we seek a "neutral" base in B, why does B not convey the 
" shorter " text with Hipp, as at 

1 Thess. iv. 16 where he omits apxayycXov, or 

2 Thess. ii. 10 „ „ ,, 619 to aaSrjvai avrovs ? 


Let us enquire for a moment further in a region where Marcion's 
testimony is available what the situation is there. "We will take the first 
half of St. Luke's Gospel so as not to be too wordy, ch. i.-xii. Let us 
see how far any proof offers of B being really "neutral." Hereabouts 
also Clem^"'^ and others offer valuable testimony. 

And first : 

If with NL at Luhe ii. 44 B omitted km toi? yvoiaroi';, we might call 
it " neutral," because Ev Thorn also omits. 

Or at iii. 16 if B omitted auTo? as do i<* and Heracl (ex Clem"'^. 
For observe that NB a e agree with Heracl (Clem) in the next verse, iii. 17, 
for hiaxadapaL instead of Kai BtaKadapiet. 

Or at iv. 19 where the quotation from Isaiah is cut short by Bvst 34 
Origen and Athan (these not noticed by Soden) who omit airocneiKai. to 
iexrov, but not B. Had B cut this short, we could presuppose a 
shortened basic " neutral " form reproduced by B and added to by 
others, but it is not so. 


Or at V. 14^)1. where Epijph and Tert disagree as to Marcion's text. 
Had B given us v/xiv before e;? jMiprvpiov avroK of taost as Epiph"" (or 
iva et? fuxpTvpiov 17 vfjieiv rovro as C' and other Latins and TerP"") we 
might consider this neutral. 

Or at V. 36 where Dial twice gives (eiri) i/iaria naXaia confirmed by 
Epiph'^" to which agree Mr 122 (elsewhere 122 goes with B) 301 
406 f" a b Tert"""',^ but not B who has ctti ifumov iraXaiov with most. 
As to €7r( with the dative consult Winer, Eng. edition, pp. 488 seq. 

Or at vi. 9 where Teci"'" has "Licetne sabbatis benefacere annon" 
for et e^e<7Ttv ra tra^^aTta ayadoTrocqtxat i? KaK ott oii) a ai, but B 
shows no sign of this ri ov. 

Or at vi. 22 where Clem''^" has a shortened and graphic form, 
" fxaicapioi eare oral/ ot avOpwrroi fitcr-qtrbxnv u/xa?, orav at^optcwaiv, orav 
GK^aXiaai to ovofia vp^v <u9 Trovrjpov eveKa vtov avdpwTrov," but not SO B. 
There must be some basis for the omission of xai oveiStaatriv, for the 
order varies in others, Terf"° confirming oveih. xai ex0aX. while D latins 
and Cypr have exfioK. xai ovah. 

In other words the shortened form of text in B proves upon examina- 
tion to rest upon an insecure foundation, for the " make-up " of it includes 
a number of passages [see under " Solecisms of B "] where B not only 
stands alone, but which W-H do not consider to represent the " neutral " 
text, whereas in the examples given above (for argument's sake) the 
adhesion of B might have lent colour to the Hortian theory. 

Or if, for instance, B omitted in Luke vi. 48 TedeficXtoyro yap evi rqv 
Tteipav as 604 syr sin, for observe that in this same chapter : 

vi. 26. —01 7raTepe9 avriav is omitted by B 604 only with sail syr sin. 

So that what is possibly basic here may well be also exhibited by 604 
syr sin only at vi. 48. 

The whole of chapter vi. deserves fresh study. 

Observe vi. 31. —xaivp^t^ B QOi Farh" a ff I vg^ Iren"" 
34. — €ffTi B 604 e aeth 

In ix. 20 observe —pe Xeyere eivai 604 Dial {aeth) but not B. 

Similarly at i. 21 -ev toi vaa> by 604 with the important cursives 
108 142 aP Sod}"' might with propriety be observed in B for the " shorter 
text " if really an exceptionally " neutral " text. Here syr sin is wanting. 
For at this place we note the usual change of order, a barometric pressure, 
indicative of addition to a basic shorter text : 

ep TG) ')(povi<^eiv ev toj vodi avrov BLWE^ 2^*^ Paris^^ soli 
,, ,, ,, avTov ev TO) vam H rell (praeter min^ otn. ev Tta vaw) 
and a i rf do not express av-rov. 

t Tertulliiin' s 'La.Mii (agaiust Iren"*), "novum addiiamentum inicit vetesi vesti- 
MEKTo " agrees with Ejn^phanius' Greek, which neither TischeTidorf nor Soden have 


Similarly, as regards other cursives. Observe 


i. 44. —ep ayaWmtrei by 33 but not B 

xii. 12. —eii avrrj rri mpa by 33 and Origen but not B 

xviii. 34. TO fn)iia ( — tovto) D /am 1 25 157 291 iP^ coupled with syr cu 

and sin, sah 1/7 and Jo/t"' and arm, but not B. 


viii. 52. TK Tov e/iov Xoyov 33 Origen soli, but not B. 
If B omitted t?/? Svpws at l/Mfte ii. 2 as does S!/r /tier we might think 
it basic. Or if B omitted ti;? lovBata^ in LuJce i. 5 as do Evan 255 
[neglected by Soden] and diatess we might talk of neutrality for B. Or 
at LuJce iii. 1 where N omits tt;? lovSaiw; after Trovnov iriXarov as does 


vi. 27, 28, 29, 30 {cf. also verse 31). Had B shown us either Justin's 
or Clement's forms of these verses we might think B were 
neutral, but B does not offer us their text. 

45. Dial [fiegl. Sod] omits with ff \negl. TiscK] rrji xapSia^ after ex 
TOV ayadov dijaavpov. Not so B. [A.t ix. 2 where Dial omits 
TOW aa9eveK with B Hort follows.] 

46. Tt ne Xeyere D 28 Clem'^''^'" ef d Irm^"^ bis Orig'"^ dicitis, 
while B and most have n Se /j^ /caXetre. (K 259 z"" XaXeirs.) 

Very noticeable hereabouts in chapter vi. and chapter vii. 
are omissions of K not shared by B. Among these note : 
vii. 20. — 01 avSpe'i H, whereas B and most have Trpo? amov oi 
avtpet, while D 33 a d r sah {aeth syr hier) have oi avSpei irpot 
avTov, the varying order suggesting that N's base may be 
original. Cf. syr sin syr pesh. 
25. Biayoine<: (pro vTrapxavre's) of Clem DKTI al. finds no echo in B. 
9,1 fin. -einrpocBev aov D 122* \negl. Sod] a d I r Terf"" 
(non liquet Epiph'^"^ but B and the rest have it. 

38. e^pe^e (pro ijpfaTo ^pexeiv) Epiph'°"°bis [negl. Sod] and D 

[male Sod^'^ de 604] it^^ syr cu sin but not B. 

39. Had Hort found i? UTTTO/iein) for ip-t? awTerai here he would 
surely have thought it "neutral," for so writes Origen, 
confirmed by D". 

viii. 3. Had B and any cursives read eraipai for erepai here, as does 
the codex Alexandrinus repeated by SodP^, we might even 
have had this forced into the new printed text as " neutral." 

24. Ti) ddKaaari pro toj kXvSiovi tov vSaTO^! Epiph'^" bis, while D 
omits Toy vSotov. Not so B. (Sod}'" ''" add xai rri doKaaari 
before rw icXvZaivi.) 

21. D a d y'" H"" vg"^ (copt) diatess omit tk [Sod neglects all 
but D and a], but while most write avrip tii, B has tk avr)p, 
as if T<s had been supplied from the margin of the archetype 
and placed in a doubtful position (cf. copt). 


ix. 19. \eyov(Ttv ot fia6T)Tai {pro oi he aTroKpidevTet; eiTrov) Dial 
simpliciter et cf. syr sah contra B rell. 
22. Had B used aTavpoiBrjvai {for airoKTavBT^vai) here as do Justin 
Theodot and Dial we might have thought this " neutral." 

30. —onmei ■qaav Epiph'^"" his {non liquet accurate Tert) and 
syr cu sin, not B, while Dad Amoh have r)v Se as most 
Latins, showing something fundamentally dilferent in the 
original base. 

31. - oi o(j>eevre<; Epiph""" bis. 

41. -KM SieaTpap,fievT! Epiph'""' bis Terf""' and a [negl. Sod] e, 
but not B. 

[Here Epiph and Tert agree, while below Tert has qumisque 
era apud vos { — xai ai/efo/iat vfiav), while Epiph his has eai? 
TTOTe ajJe^ ufLfuv (— eft>? irore ecofuii. irpof; t//ia?).] Syr ctt sin 
reverse the order from. aTrtffTo? kul BceaTpap.. to hietnpap,, Kai 
aTTiuTO'i, as another barometric indication, while diatess-arah 
quoting from Matthew xvii. 17 holds the Matthaean and 
Lucan order ainaTO'; Kai hiearpap,. Syr cu in Matt reverses 
the usual order there to Siearpafi. xai aTrio-To? as syr cu sin 
in hnhe. 
X. 5. -vprnTov Tert""'" Orig""- et Const cum Paris*' d r et D" = (cf. 
D^' irpaiTov ante oiKtav). Non B. 

10. Cf. Ignat Hipp Gypr against B and the rest. 

19. Is there anything neutral about SeSm/ca by NBC'LX al. pauc 
if' Orig etc., against the express hihmiu, of Justin Iren'"' Eits 
confirmed hj D c d syr cu sin [against Aphraat Ephr] syr 
pesh diatess and the rest of the Greeks ? Soden actually sup- 
presses the witness of Justin. 

24. - xai ^acnXeti Terf^" confirmed by D d and aeffil Method. 
xi. 13. oi/TE? Dial and Epiph""""" Cyr'"" Ath with KDKMXn and 
several notable cursives including 157 and 213 (=Sod"'), 
against B etc. wapxavres. 

38. Cf. Terf^" [which Sodm neglects] and D 130 251 latt syr 
cu sin against B and the rest, 
xii. 2. ov ^avepojOrjaeraL {pro ov aTrotcoKvi^idriGeTat B Tell) T) {et d a 
non revelabitur) Tert^"' non patefiet. 
5. fiaXnv {pro ep^aXeiv) DW Epiph""' "" Cleni^"^"^ contra B 
rell epfiaXeiv. (Is not Soden wrong in quoting Justin for 
^aXetv ?) 

8. -rmvaryeXiov H* 259 Epiph"^' TerP^"". 

11. (jiepaaw Clem Origen Cyr"'" confirmed by D i 5 against 
eia-ipepma-iv NBLX al. pa\ic. and irpoacfiepaaiv A rell. May 
I ask why etcr4iepaacv should be "neutral" rather than 
(fjepcoaiu ? 



This is foUo'wed in DKE {lait] and Clem by «? rai 
avvayaiyai; for evi ra'; <rvvay. Cf. Tisch ad loc. ■ 
ibid, —n riprim. Clem Orig Cyr"" confirmed by D 157 latt syr 
aeth (cf. copt). 
xii. 14. Kpnufv iantum —rj ftepimriv Terf" confirmed by D rf c 28 
33 syr cu sin, while the others vary as to their amplificatioii of 
Kpnriv, 157 going so far as to substitate apxovra xac hiKairrqv 
for hiKaarriv 77 lieptaTr/v or xprniv rj iiepiarnjii. And sah 1/6 has 
fiepidTw without Kpirtpi or SiKatrrrjv, whUe aeth reverses the 
order (always a suspicious sign) giving " divider and judge." 
Surely Marcion and D look mpre " neutral " than B. 

19. -avairavov 36 [negl Boi] and Clem^ cat ox (ff, sed aliter ff) 
against the rest. 

20. ToiiK (pro Ttvi) Terff^" confirmed by d and lait (cnjas) 
Ir«»'" Cypr, and in Greek by D Clem 1/3 Antioch, but as 
the Latin lends itself to this, although cui is possible, and 
Clem has tivos once and rtvt twice this passage cannot be 

21. D ab d omit the verse and Clem does not quote. 

27. TTO)? ovre vrjOei ovre v(f>aivei Clem confirmed hy X) a d syr cu 
sin Tisch}^ Sod^^* against ttw; av^apei ' ov Konia ov&s vrfiei of 
NB and moat and W-U txt. 

30. imei Terf^° Clem, confirmed by D (d Tert quaerunt), 
against enifyrra of A mjic"' Bas Ath, and em^TYrovaiv of 
NBLTX /am 13 33 Paris" ff I r md f Tertf^\ U we seek 
a neutral, ?»jt« appears the more probable. 

32. TTOTj/p (-u/iiBj') Epiph'^" bis. . .., •- -■ ■■ 

N has v/icDv o •JTaTt}p as saJi boh. 
B rell o •jraTTjp vfitav. 

38. xai eav 6X^1; tt; etrvepTiinj ^vKaxr) D (Jam 1) b c e d.ff i I 
confirmed by Epiph"^ and Iren^"^, as against xai eav eXBij a> 
T7} B€vr€pa <pv\. Kai £v Tfj rptTT) ^v\, of most, or xav gv ttj 
Sevrepa km ev tv rpirT) ijivX. of XBLTX 33 131 Cy>^'° sah etc. 
Had B exhibited Marcion's and D's version Hort should 
surely have acclaimed it " neutral," whereas there are two 
separate recensions apparently outside of Marcion and D latt. 
Clem does not quote. 

46. Order : km to /xcpo? avrov Srjtrei /nera rtov mnaTmv Dial Goes 
supported hyDdr^ gat vg^ sah boh syr, against km to p.epo<s 
avTov fiera Tiov aTtiinav Brjaei of B and most. This is not an 
uninteresting place, for while the Latins go with B" here in 
Luke, it is to be observed that in Matthew sxiv. 61 although 
5i)<Ta follows vTTOKpiTwv thoro in Greek, D and most Latins 
place ponet before /.tera as Dial in Luke. That Dial and Goes 
are from Luke is proved by their holding ainartov against 



vTroKptTQiv of Matthew which only H/am 1 and a few cursives 
substitute in Ltihe, while the diatess conflates, 
xii. 48. airaiTTjaovaiv Jmtin Epipli Clem Coiut Mac Pas''"*"''""' 
Antioch \_Sode7i only mentions Basil] confirmed by DU aP, 
against ainjaovaiv of the rest. See under '* Improvement " 
at xii. 20 further as to airovaiv and aTraiTovaiv. 
Besides if we wish to enquire what text was actually in use in 
Antioch in the middle of the fourth century, it would not, as regards the 
Acts at any rate, seem to have been that of XB or of what has been 
called the Antiochian or Constantinopolitan recension, but that of T> I 
For Eustathius quoting Acta xvi. 16/19 has in verse 19 a text approxi- 
mating D in quite an exceptional manner [Sod neglects Etistath] : 

Eusiath : Oeaa^afievoi ovv oi Kvptoi ti;? OepaTraivtSo'i o)? exirohav coX'^to 
TJ;? epyatriaf; avTtov 17 eXTTi?. 
D : w? 8e eiSav {— syr) 01 Kvpiot tt?? TreBiaKTjf; on aTrearep-qaBai 
rrffi €pyaaias avTwv 7}<i eixau 81 avri]<i, 
ordinary text : iBovret Be t 01 Kvpiot avrr}^ on e^XOev ij eX-Trr? tjjs epya(xia<; 
The full quotation is subjoined. 


xvi. 16/19. (iyevero Se •naihiaK'^v) cnravrrjaat nvu {^-qaiv) exovffav 
TTvevfia ■rrvOwvO'i r^Trcp ipyaaiav iroW-qvirapex^iToh Kvpi'oi^ avT7]<; 
fiavT€vop.iv7}. 17 Totyapovv avrrj xaraKoXovOeffacra to) XlavXtp 
Kal r^pXv e/cpa^e Xeyovaa ovTto'i Ovtol 01 av&pojTroi ^ov\ot tov 
6eov TOV injriarov eitrl o'ifTtv€<i KarayyeKKovaiv tj ^Iv o^ov 
aojT'qpias- is Ka\ rovro cttI TroWa? eir parrev Tjfiepaf;. . . 
•napayy^XK<a croi {Xeywv) iv opofMan 'Irftrov Xpiarov e^eXOetv utt' 
airrrj>^ {elra to irpayfut hnjyovfxevo^ 6 rrvyypa^ev^ e7rt(pep€i) ical 
e^xOev avrf} tJ} aspa. i9 deaa-dfMevot ovv ol Kvpioi tj)? 
depa-KaLvlho^ w? ixTroBtov tuyero Trj<; epyaaia^ avroov r} eXTrh iiri- 
Xa^ofievoi tov YiavXov Koi tov %iXav etkKurrav ei'5 tj/p ayopav 
CTTi Tou? dpxoPTa'i. . . t 

t KOI t8ovT«s B. iSowEf { — copnJa) A d. 
X 16. irvea)vos C^D'EHLPS Cyr Did Lucif e gig nvdoiva ^ABC*D* 

33 61 vg Ong. 
aTTavrrjirai APHLPS viraimjiTai NBCE min^ Ol-ig. 

TjjTfp {pro TjTis) new 

Trap^X^i Galland {al. irapeax'v) Eusiath, C n-npetxcTo, rell omn 

17 init. +TOLyapnZv new, prob. addition of Eusiath as he narrates freely. 
KaraKoKovOeaatra, ACEHLP Ka7aKoKav6i]<Ta(Ta \ KaraKokovBovfra NED 

180 ; TrapaKok. aliq. 
+ wrai {"post \tyova-n) firw'} No others apparently. Only f op ^ •^XG 
Tjpii' (jfTo vfiiv) ACEHLP al. e salt ? cqpi aeth Orig hucifi Chr ; v\u.v 

KBDE^'S vg syr ami avth 
2 F 


Begabdino ouk " Junior " Documents. 

I would like to make an observation here. 

It is of no use thinking we can hope to prosper in these studies by 
changing and re-changing the numbers and symbols attaching to our 
critical authorities. It only discourages the student, and leads to endless 
confusion and inaccuracy. Symbols do not change the value of Mss or of 
groups. The time spent upon re-catalogaiug and in deciphering and 
reducing to order the new catalogues were better spent upon such studies 
as Bendel Harris' monographs oaD d and A S, or Adalbert Merx' three- 
volume digest of syr sin. 

Before many more years have passed I expect to see much greater 
attention paid to certain features of the testimony of our important 
cursive documents. These have been put aside because junior in years to 
certain MSS written in uncial characters. I do not mein that attention 
wiW be given to the testimony of certain cursives as entities, but to 
certain features of their testimony which have probably preserved the 
truth against the mass. No one has ever listed these places. I submit 
tentatively a list of a few of these places involving omission or substitution 
or turn of phrase which seem to me to be of very great interest. The 
list can be added to by other students and so made to grow from a 
mustard seed into a tree the shadow of whose critical branches may 
spread beyond our dreams to-day and help elucidate many matters in 
connection with the early text. The point is that when one of these 
cursives joins B, if only alone, it has been considered as strengthening B, 
but when alone with the oldest versions such a cursive has been utterly 

(Cont" from last page). 

18. Kot rovTo {pro TovTo 50 Orig syr not Ch Latt copt. om. 8e sah and 

H" gig 
iirpoTTtv {jpro fTTOut) new 

+ Xtyap replaces eiirev belonging before in the clauBe. 

19. 6ta(rafixvot ovv {pro idovrts 6*J new. No authority. 

As to clause following compare only D d with Euataih : 
/D a>ff fie etSai* {= syr) oi Kvpiot tt/s nthtvitrjs art ajretrrtpTjirOai njs epyairtas 
I avT{t>y jjt €l\av fit avTrJS 

I d cum vidisscnt domici ejus puellcs quoniam ispes efc reditus eorum quem 

habebant per ipsam 
Eustaih dtcura^vot ovv oi Kvpioi njt Bfpawaivtdos ats tttiroQiav <axtTO Trjs tpyaa-^a? 
, avTQtv rj cXjrtr 

Qigaa is blissfully ignorant of this recension but with Lucifer uses 
reditus tor guaestus oi all others, except e operation^. 


Possible " neutral " base to be observed in some cursives 
as against H or H. 

[In the following passages I have used the Textus receptus in giving 
the context, which seemed simpler than any other way to exhibit a base 
with which the variations can be compared. 

The examples are nearly al! of necessity omissions from the narrative 
as we have it. This does not commit mo to the " shorter" text theory in 
its fullest sense.] 

Matt. vi. 10. Of fasting : 

a^avL^ov<Ti yap ra 'jrpoiTtO'rra avTfov ottw? (pavtoffi TOi? avdpoyjroi^ 

X* l-i-k with (ji Ti sijr pesh and pers have the singular to Trpoaairov. 

Matt. xvii. 20. 

Concerning the wording of the command of faith for the removal 
of the mountain : 
O oe ^rjaov; enrev avroi'; ' Aia rrjv a-manav v^v ' a^Tfv yap \eyaj- 
vfitv eav e^rjTe ttcctiv qj9 kokkov aLvaiTew<; €pene tw opei tovto) ' MeTa^tjdt 
evTevOev cxei, Kai fUTafij)aeTai ' xai ovhev aBmarriaet vaiv, 

«« is omitted by 33 892 Sodeii^^ "■"' *" ™^ g2 I vgg'"" """ Hier^" and 
syrr aelh. 

Syr sin and pers omit both evTevdev and exei. 

Matt. xvii. 25. Of tribute : 

Kai ore eiujjXcev ets rrjv otxtav 7rpoe<f>0aaeu avrov o lrj<Tou^ Xeytav ' ti 
COL Bo/cet SipMV ; ot ^aacXei'; T179 77/? utto Ttvwv \ap.^avovai icXt] t) ktjvctov ; 
ttTTO roiif vtav avroiv tj airo rtav aWorpttov ; 

Here 604 with A 28 [negl. Soden] and Evst 47 [negl. Sod. passim] omit 

Tischendorf only records A. Soden only records A 604. 
Evst 47 here is an exceedingly important witness. Neither Tisch. 
nor Sod. quote Origen, but Matthaei has occasion to quote him, for his 
MS 238 (not mentioned by Soden) reads arro rmv tSimv avrav and Origen 
remarks : aTro twv iBioyif viwv rj airo twv aWorptcov avrajv \ and again on 
verse 26 he repeats : ovk otto tcov iBimv viav aXK airo ra>v aXKoTpiav avrav. 
This emphasis on his part lends colour to the absence of avrav in the 
real base since he has to repeat and emphasise i&iwv. 

Matt . xviii . 25 . Of the debtor ; 

M77 6^0^x09 Be avTov a-TroBovvat eKeXevaev avTOv Kvpio'i avrov 
Trpa&Tjvac, Kat ttjv yvvaiKa . . . 

2 F 2 


Here 604 omits o icvpim avrov outright with fam 1 the Latin gi and 
syr cu sin, both being extant here, and most of Chrysostom's codices, 
while NBDL and some Latins retaining o mpim omit the avrov, Tischen- 
dorf says " Or""*" o fiaaiXevi," but is this correct ? Does it not perhaps 
signify that in Origen's copies o Kvpwt avrov was absent and o ^aiXevi 
supplied by him, as o icvpio^ or o icvpio<; avrov by others ? 

Matt. XX, 12. Of the labourers : 

'keyoPTe^ (ort) ovtoi ol eo^arot fuav topav eTroivoav, Kai taow rj/uv 
auTOw? eiroiifaat, tok fiaaraaaai to l3apo<; rrfi ri/j£pa<; xai tok xavaaiva. 

Here 604 (with 220, an important MS, and 242») omits ti;? ■np£pa<s. 
No others apparently, yet there are subtle variations which point to 
something amiss, syr cu saying " the weight of the wlioU day and the 
heat," sj/r sire: "the weight of the day m the heat," Thos: "that have 
borne the weight of the whole day at noon." 

Why supply o\r}<! ? If tij9 n/^pai was absent in the base it would 
account for some supplying ti;? y/iepaf and some oKin tt;? vt^pa<i. 

Besides, 251 (another important cursive) writes to fiapo^ «o« tok 
xavaiova tvi vp^pa'! as does aeth, suspiciously adding tj;? v^epai in another 
order, as does Origen once ; while pers with syr pesh has : to /3a/)o? tj;s 
Tjfiepa^ Kai top Kavtrwva airrtj^. 

Matt. xxi. 27. Of Christ's answer to the chief priests : 

Kai airoKpidevre; ria Itjaov enrov ovk otSa/iev • Ecjn) avroK xai amot 

ou6e eryo) \ey(a vfuv ev iroia e^ovaia ravra Troia. 

Here 604, with another important cursive 243 and the latin ms I, 

omits Kai avrov, while c ff, substitute xai ir)a-ov<f, and H effih syr cupesh 

and pers iriaow. Augustine substitutes Dominus, and in another place et 


Matt. XXV. 11. Of the virgins : 

Tarepov Se epxovrai xai at \onrai rrapSevoi \eyovaai . . . Here 604 
alone leaves out irapdevoi. 

You may ransack syr aeth copt and the rest of the Greeks with the 
Latins and not find the omission agreed to. Yet the persian version 
omits ! 

This is really very striking and bears upon my contention that the 
base offers although Gtisco-Syriac antedates syr cu and syr sin. 

A reference to D d will show an extra long line here, Xeyovaai and 
dicentes being squeezed in. Possibly rrapBevoi absent very early was 
already just supplied before the D d parent was executed. 

Matt. xxvi. 33. 

Concerning Peter's confession of attachment to our Lord ; 
AvoKptdeK Se o IXerpo? enreu avrco ' " Ej xat vavrei <rKavSa\i<r- 
Bijaovrat ev troi, eyca ovBeirore aKavhaXiaOiffToiiai.** 


Tischeiidorf does not admit us into the inner sanctum of textual 
oritioism here, for the important little word avrS is omitted by (a) b cff2 
IX [hiant e k] jjj/^a'''" Kes i a sviii chryostom and Hilary, and the omission is 
confirmed by srt/i.'" syr sin with its faithful aiXy pers and 604 with f^'' (in 
Advers. Crii. = 503 Scrivener or 517 Gregory). 

Tischeiidorf had no Greek witnesses at the time, for although 503 
had been collated by Scrivener in 1863 it was not published until after 
Scrivener's death. Soden adds his large /a«i.*" in which is included 503 
[see this family again in the combination at Matthew xvii. 20 above]. 

Horner only quotes saJi}'^'^ and syr sin for omission, neglecting Greek 
Latin and Persian witness. 

The point is whether Peter announced this to those assembled round 
our Lord or to our Lord directly, and there is a vast difference between a 
quiet asseveration and a noisy and popularity-bidding public address to 
the crowd generally. There was sufficient authority without the Greeks 
for Tischendorf to mention the omission. Merx cannot have noticed the. 
large support for syr sin for he does not dwell upon the point at all. 

Matt. sxvi. 49/.50. Of Judas' betrayal : 

Kai ev0€Q}^ TrpoaeXdwv t(o \'q(Tov ei-rre \aip€ pa^^t Kat Kare<lit\7]aep 
avrov, O Se iTjaovt; enrev avrai Era^pe e^ a) napet ; 
Here 604, with the rather important cursive e*" and Soden^"^* (a MS 
at Sinai), omits avrai as does syr hier. 

D says Enrev Be avrto o Ly}a £(j> o irapei erepai and 
d dixit autem illi ihs ad quod venisti ame (another mixture of ellipsis 
and suspension for amice, noticed elsewhere as to D's greek, for which 
that document is famous). X and z*" omit l-rjaovi [this is quite neglected 
by i9o(fc«] writing " o he ei-rrev avro)." 

Matt. xxvi. 71. Of the damsel's identification of Peter : 

^^eXBovra de avrov ec; tov 'nvXayva eiSev avrov aWjj, xat \cy€t TOf? 
evet Kai ouro? yv /lera 1tj(70v rov ^a^wpaiov. 
157 writes kui Xeyet avToc<; cKeLvrj. 

Now syr sin and pers omit exei here and thus agree with 157. 
The rest Viave avron or roii but with exei. 

Here is a pretty puzzle. How did 157 get exeivrt if exet did not stand 
in its exemplar (otherwise close to syr and pers) ? But if eKetvr] were basic 
and ouTot? became mutilated and read as toj?, tois exeivrj would become 
intolerable and therefore be changed to toj? exet. 
Cf. syr sin .^.ooii ivinK'a { — €jcei) as against: 

syr pesh (exec) ^Ij lOoA ];io}o. 
Herman von Soden refers to syr sin's omission of exet in his upper 
notes but does not refer to 157 (he never cites pers) and Tischendorf cites 


neither pers nor 157 although Scholz (p. 99 N.T.) had recorded 157 
correctly and reported pers. (Gf. Part II. note on — cxei at John xviii. 2) . 

Then consider the +/cat deXa of 157 at Mark v. 23 with pers alone 
+ ^6>ei) or +peto, and this reading wiU strike us as not very young after all. 

Then, after this addition, consider the important omission by 157 
alone at Mark xiv. 57 of xar avrov Xeyovre'i which may well be what Merx 
calls Waitderworte and the /car avrov supplied by an over-zealous person 
in editio II of the sacred narrative. Pers omits Kar avTov , writing 
" quidam alii suhornarunt testes falsos et dicebant " instead of " xal Tivet 
■dvaaravTe^ eijrevBofiapTvpovv Kar avrov Xeyovre^," Now k also omits xar 
■avrov writing " et alii surgentes commentiebantur et dicebant..." 
Whether T^eyovre^ is a " Wanderwort" or not remains an open question, 
but Kar avrov would seem to be wander-words. Upon reference to the 
passage it will be seen that xar avrov is not necessary ; would hardly have 
been excised if present, but readily supplied in an " improved " edition. 
Eemains syr sin, which says "Now some rose up against him and say," 
eliminating e^vSofiaprvpovv. This text looks to me younger here than 
pers and 157. There has been a change made in early times, and the 
methods employed should be able to teach us something. T) d c ff insert 
Kar avrov after eXeyov as an afterthought as it were (from the margin ?) . 
That good old witness aeth also omits xar avrov (against sah boh), but 
something bothered him for he duplicates the Xeyovrps or conflates Xeyovre'; 
of most with the eXeyov of D {syr sin), for he writes "et surrexerunt testes 
falsi et loquuti sunt et dixerunt." 

For —Kar avrov we have now 167 k pers aeth. 

Can you find that combination in Tischendorf? Tisch is silent. 
■Or in Soden ? Soden is blind to it, for he simply says " Om xar 
jg-e37i(om .aT «JT«„) '• J presume we should now add that very important 
document 8 371 ( = B elsewhere) for — Kar avrov. 

Pers comes in again with 157 at Luke ix. 13 for the omission of e(? 
rravra (before rov \aov) and Paris" witnesses to iravra being an addition 
or " Wanderwort " by omitting it and writing ei? rov \aov. (Three boh 
codices confirm X51 pers). 

Note. — Neither Tischendorf 's nor von Soden's apparatus cover many 
curious things exhibited by individual Greek MSS, although they have 
Version support. A critical edition, however, which neglects these things 
in our day is faulty and not up to date. It forces the student to hunt 
over the older authorities from Mill to Scrivener, which should not be 
necessary. The text-history can be rewritten in a measure from detailed 
observations of the kind indicated above. 

Observe further, as regards the " shorter " text, that an omission 
such as that of k in Mark xv. 8 of both avaffa<; and ava^oTjaa'; points in a 
different direction to that of other omissions, for here k avoids a very 
diflficult choice between the two words, and his omission does not indicate 
that the omission is basic. 


Mark i. 35. Of Christ's withdrawal into a desert place for prayer : 

Kai irpioi emvxov Xiav avaaja<s e^rfkde icai a-rrriXffev ej? ep-qfiov tottoii 
Kanei Ti poarjvxero. 

The primitive text here is in doubt, but 226 with Sod"^^^ a (exiit et 
abiit) c (exiens iude abiit) and syr sin omit avaara'i while D does the same 
but opposite e^rfKdev xai anyXSeu has " exsurgem abiit." Syr sin has 
" came forth went " without copula, but syr pesh " antevertit et surrexit 
ac abiit," while ^e?-s is " surrexit et in locum desertmn abiit." 

B'^' and a few important cursives such as 28 213 2^' Sod"' ""' have 
apaaTa<; e^r}K0ev without rat aTn)\9ev [but 604 Paris" and most agree 
with text recept\, while W has avaaTa<; aTn)\dev without e^XBev km. 

b e q surgens abiit d (as above) ff vg'^ exsurgens abiit 

& surgens egressus et abiit 

/" vgg surgens egressus abiit I surgens egressus est et abiit 

Goth holds the three expressions: usstandands usiddja jah galaith ana. 
Sah is wanting. iJo^'" express " Kai avaarwi Trpaii evvvxo" Xtav e^\6ev," 
but some vary. 

Mark ii. 26 fin. 

Of Christ's reference to David's action in the He use of God ; 
. . , Kat ehwKe Kai TOf? aw avTfo ovfft. 

604 and 2''* omit the final ovaip. To these now add W Sod°^' and 
Sod'"' with aeth. 

301 Evst 31 44 150 omit the whole clause, as does pers. 

Observe that W Sod°''° 2'" and 604 invert : Kai ehwxe xai ■roi'; ikt avrov 
( — oval) ow; ovx e^eariv (t:ayeiv ei fii] tok lepevaiv (pro ov<; ovk e^eari . . . 
roK aw avTO) ovai) SO that the ou? here might have caused the loss of 
ovac, but not so aeth, which maintains the other order, yet loses ovai at 
the end. 

Mark iv. 1. Of the crowd at the lake-side-teaching : 

Kai TraXiv rjp^aro BiSaafceip irapa rijv daXaaaav ' Kai awrjx^T} Trpo'i 
avrov O'x^o^ ttoXv; (aare avrov ep./3avTa et? to ttXoiov Ka0rja0ai ev tt; 
HaXaaat] ' Kai 7ra? o o)(Xo<; irpo^ rrjv OaXaaaav ein ttj? 7779 t]v. 

Here 604 alone leaves out Trpo? ttjv daXaaaav altogether, but is 
supported by aetli. 

T> reads irepav ti;9 OaXaaarj<; as a d q and the Syriac, omitting eiri 
Tj;? 7);?, and W ev rm aiyiaXto as the Latins J c e /_^" </ ?', while the versions 
Vir}',pers saJi and most boh expressing ev tio aiyiaXw tt?? daXaaarj^. The 
other boll codices vary, and arm expands to " on the shore they were 
keeping to the dry land." 

fam 1 read irapa tt}v daX. em tt;? 77;? t}v and 
A reads «? ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, rjaav (8 in vel circa mare super 

terra erat sic) 
apparently eiri ,, ,, irpo? ,, ,, tjv (or -qaav) 


Laura*"" changes the order of the end to rpi eni rn<s 717?, and 
NBCLA d (erant sic) 892 with Evst 49 and y"^ and a few substitute Jjaav 
for tfii, while some Latins as sijr have stabat or staret (c) or sedebat (e). 
Some have eiri tt/k 71)1' ijv. 

la the midst of all this confusion (with d going against D with A, 
and S going against A with D) 604 stands out with a simple omission and 
has support of aeth. 

Mark iv. 20. Of the parable of the sower : ovToi etGtv oi €in rtju yr)v Ttjv koKtjv OTrapevTei . . . 

28 2'" and pers \mut. syr cu sin} omit ovtoi. 

Add to these Sod"" and deduct 157 which I find does not omit 
[confirmed to me again by Monsignor Mercati] although Scholz reports it 
tor omission with 28. 

Observe that NBCLA substitute exetvoi. 

Mark v. 23. Of Jaims' speech to our Lord : 

Hat irapeicaXet avTov iraiWa Xeytuv ori. to Ovyarpunf /wv effJ^ariBV 
6X*' ' ^ ""' eXBav evidrji avrt) ras X^'P"^ owu? <rto6ri xai ^rjaerai. 

157 inserts xai ffeXto before iva e\d<ov = pers [Obs. the extraordinary 
base of pers in the later examples]. 

Mark v. 43. Of Christ's injunction for silence following the healing : 

Kai ot€<TTetXaTo avToa iroXXa Lva fiTjSei^ yva tovto ' jcai eiire hodijvai 
avTT) <l>afyeiv. 

Here 604 alone [now joined by Sod"'''', a very important witness], with 
d (which Soden neglects and he does not mention c ff) and c ff q with aeth 
and pers (replacing syr cu and sin which are wanting), omits tovto 
altogether. The diatessaron quotes ex Luc viii. 56, which brings in to 
'yeyovot (o & TTapr}yyeiKev avTOK fir)Sevi eiireiv to ypyovos:), and therefore 
Sodr""" 604 aeth pers c dff and q are quite unaffected by a harmony here 
in Mark. 

Gregory will please note this and bring it into his new apparatus, for 
Tischendorf neglects the omission altogether, not even recording d which 
has ; ut i nemini dicerent although D has iva firiBcK yvot tovto, the tovto 
occupying a place on the line below, opposite which d has nothing. 

— TOVTO may well be basic, and have been supplied to round oat the 

As a matter of fact the Latins vary the expression, I S and vgg having 
id, e having ilium, a f having hoc, and b having istut, while c dff q omit. 

Mark vi. 39. Of the feeding of the multitudes : eirCTa^ev avTOti ai/aK\tvai TravTa^ (XUfiirocria ovfiTToaia . . . 
604 with arm and pers (this conjunction here apparently antedating 
the syriac of syr sin) omit iravTa?, while Origen with 2" and Soden"" 


changes the order (barometric sign) to ■n-avrai avaxXivai, and the itoportant 
minuscnle 33, with all hoh Mss but one, elides Travraf and substitutes 

33 004 therefore with boh arm and^ers form no mean combination 
here for omission. 

[In my collation of Evan. (504 p. Ixvi delete 473 (= 2'"') and place the 
reading of (i04 on p. xxxii. under " Unique."] 

Mark vii, li. Of the quotation from Isaiah : 

O Be a-TTOKpiBei'; eiireif avrovi {ori) fcaXax; •iTpo€<f}t]Tev(7€v Hcata? trept Toit/ vjTOKptTtav <o<! fyeypainat ; . , . 

For a>^ jeypanrat 604 substitutes Xejav with o ff dicens, J) Hi xai 
emev, fain 1 2'" arm m? uirev, SocP'"" o? emev as a J : qui dixit, while sijr 
sill conflates : " as it is written that he had said." 

Clearly the reading of 604 c^is the simplest of all, and si/r sin knew 
both readings at the time that document was prepared. 

Murk vii. 8. Of the ceremonials of the Pharisees : 

AtfjevTei yap tt^i/ evToXrjif tqv Heoy, KparetTe rrjv irapacouiv twv 
avOpaiiTiov /3aTrTi(7fiov<; ^€(TTWv /cac 'rroT'Tjpttt)V Kai a^CKa irapopOLa TOiavra 
TToWa TToiene. 
28 and 'i'" (to which now add SocV") omit TtoXKa. 
Observe great variety among others : Toiavra iroWa vapo/wia, voXXa 
Trapofiota TOiavra, Trapopuota tioKka rotavra, irapofiota roiavra Trotene 
TToWa, Trapofioia Trotene Toiavra TroXXa, always shifting TroXXa about, 
while a few drop Toiavra in the process. 

Om. vers, syr sin. Cf. diatess. Explic. NBLWA ad oerh. avOponrav. 
{Sodeii neglects 28 for omission of iroWa.) 

Mark vii. 23. Of the wickednesses of the human heart : 

iravra ravra ra TTOvijpa etrajOev exTropeveTat Kai kqivol tov avOp<onov, 

This follows the long list of evil things in verse 22, and tu vovr}pa is 
therefore not necessary in verse 23. For this reason it may have been 
removed as an "improvement" by 1 2'" and 604, who omit, but it is 
rather a strong combination among the cursives, and might be basic. I 
say " might " at a venture, but upon tumingnp ihepersian version, there 
again in that marvellous document, so pregnant of "base," ra irovrjpa 
does not find a place. It is quite striking. 

(Some omit -navra, some javTa and some to ante Tromjpa.) 

Mark viii. 15 fin. 

Concerning the wording of the final clause as to the bhnd man's 

restored sight : 
. . . Kai eve^^'^ev Ti]\avyw^ a-rravra^. 
Some read avavra (and DW navToj, and some BrfXavyw;, and some 


ave^Xe-rrev, and some vary the order in which airaina<s or airavTa finds 
a place, and aeth copt syr have vav or omne, but it is left for 33 alone 
of Greeks with c k alone of Latins to omit airavra or omnia outright ! 
Tregelles, confirmed by Soden (I suppose by independent collation), 
mentions 33, but Tischendorf has not mentioned 33 in his viilth edition, 
confining himself to the enumeration of c It. In such a place as this 
omnia might well be an addition, and its omission be basic. 

Mark x. 8. Of the close union of husband and wife : 

o><JT€ ovK€Ti eL(Ti Bvo oXXa fita (7ap^. 

28 (neglected by Sodm) 71 Evst 222, now joined by W and Sod?" 
with d [contra D«'] / k syrr {pers) sah aeth (hohT^ have ovk for ovicen. 

Notwithstanding this large testimony, Tischendorf does not even 
mention this variation. In his day only 28 71 and Evst 222 witnessed to 
it. But now add W (confirming 28) and Sod'^"' vrith dfk and versions. 

Mark x. 21. Of the righteous young man: 

O oe iT/croy? efi^e^a^ avTM TjyairTjfrev avrov xai etirev avrat . . . 
auTft), after efL^^lra:!, is omitted by 28 and Clem. Tischendorf did 
not know of 28 when citing Clem. Sod"^^ '^' also omit. 

Mark x. 47. Of bHnd Bartimaeus : aKovaa<i ort Irja-ovf o ^a^copaiov eartv Tjp^aro xpa^etv xat 
Xeyeiv . . . 

28 omits xai \eyeiv with so^"° (Homer overlooks the agreement of 
Greek 28 with his sah us). 

Upon turning once more to the persian (oh wonderful and neglected 
monument of antiquity for control of such readings) it is found that pers 
also omits the xai Xeyeiv or \eywv of the rest. Pers as interpreted reads : 
et clamore sublato vociferatus est without any mere " saying " about it. 

Mark x. 51. 

Kat airoicpidei'S Xeyei avTai o Ir/aov^ TJ ffeXci^ ttoh/ctoj <roi ; O Se 
TV(f)\o^ et-Tvev avrm pa/S^ovi tva ava^Xe^oy. 

28 with 892 (omitted by Soden) omits this second axnm. They are 
supported by c aeth and once more by that wonderful pers (against the 
syriacs which we know) : " Caecus respondit." 

Mark xii. 4. Of the parable of the lord of the vineyard : 
Kat TToXiv aTTGSTeCKe TTpo^ avTov^ aWov ^ovXov, 

This KM init. is omitted by 28 and c e sah 4/6 arm, and turning to 
pers the omission is once more confirmed by that version [syr sin omits 
the whole verse]. 

On the other hand iraXiv is omitted by "W (sister of 28) with X and 
one sah ms", not all as would be gathered not only from Tisch but from 


Soden, for the rest substitute " Afterwards " except sah'"' which has both 
jutftitcujc and ore- 

Observe that armpers quite replace the old syriao here, which omits 
the verse. 

(Note. — The viciousness of the elder Soden's practice of quoting " af " 
instead of e or i or e ^ is illustrated excellently here. He says " om icai} 
P "' af c." He means " om. 28 e c " for k has it " Et iterum.") 

Since W reads Kai and 28 llaXiv for Kai ttoXiv thus opposing the text 
of the majority, but each in a different way, it is clear that a mark of 
deletion stood in the margin of the common parent and was applied by 
one of them to the wrong word. 

Mark xii. 2C. Of the resurrection, referring to Exod. iii. C : 

Ilept Se Toiv veKputv on eyetpomai ovk aveypone ev rif 0i^\o} Mwctcw? 
CTTf tt;? l3aTOV w? etTrev avru) o ©€0? Xeywv eyo) o Seo<; Aj3paafj, . . . 

'Keyeof is omitted by 28 b aur v/)^ diatess-arah sah 1/4 and syrr with 
2}ers and arm. 

Mark xii. 30. Of the first and second Commandments : 
avTT] iTp<i>T7i evroX-T] ' /cac ^evrepa Ofioia avTTj . . . 
There is very great variation here, but 28 2i", joined by W Sod!"° Jc 
Etis^"" t simply omit evroXti while having ainr) wpayrr) which is omitted 
together with evToXt; by NBELA'?' copt. The syriacs retain avTV t/smti; 

Mark xii. 34. Of the silence imposed by Christ's answer: 
K-ai ovBet^ ovKeri eroX^a avTov ^ e7r€pcoTT]aat. 
Here 28 with peis once more add s tv after avrov and before eTreptoT-qa-ai . 
So do 6 3 at the end : Et nemo iam audebai eum interrogare qtjicquam. 
This wording (without quicquam) is exactly that of d which retains ya«j, 
while the Greek of D opposite lacks ovxeri as do "^ 124 Sod^*'* and sah 
boh. b-q especially in conjunction are very important in Mark. How did 
■n get in or out of the text ? The secret seems to lie in the ovKJen, for 
instance 61 c"" reading ovk without ctj but not supplying tj later, x'" 
places ovKiTi last, writing : Kai ouSei? eroXfia avrov e-jrepanr]iTai ovkcti. A 
few and a merely reverse ovKeri eToX/ut to eToXfia ovxeTi, N Paris" Sod'-''^ c 
merely reverse amov e-rrepaiTriaai. to eT^eparijcrat avtov. It remains for W 
to supply a key, for W writes : Kai ovSei<; eroXiia avrov ovKeri evepanav, 
bringing ovKeri. before evepmrav, which in a close uncial supplies the 
missing -n exhibited by b and q and 28 pers. The closest relationship 
between W 28 and some common parent is thus shown again here, for 28 
also writes cTrepiuTa:' instead of evepaTTjaat. (Evan 433 boh supply cti after 
e-jrepaiTTiaai, omitting ovKeri previously.) 

t Diserte " jcutu Mnpieov "... totum loaim exscripsit et in fine ita : avrr] TrpuT?) • kui 
StVTtpct ofioia ravTij {sic). 


Mark xiii. 2. Of the great buildings of the Temple 

Kat IritTovj aiTOKpideK etveu avTio fiXeireii; raura? Tas f-eyaXai; 
ot/coSofia'; ; 

iTiaovs is not found in 2'" 604 a b i r? and vg^^'. Add also W 
and Sof?"" which are observed also to omit. 

There exists quite some variety as to the form of the sentence, and 
there is hardly any reason to remove o It^ctou?, while there is every reason 
to insert it, because the Greeks do not mention Jesus by name in verse 1 . 
Homer neglects 2'" and 604 while giving a b i. 

Mark xiv. 35. Of the agony in the garden : 

Xaf TTpoeXdtov fiiKpov eirecrev ejn tvi 7t?9 xat Trpotrriv^ero. . . So 
most, but BGt Sod'^ fam 1 fam 13 2'» 604 al^' latt arm syr sin add 
eiTi. Tipoaamov or eni Trpoaaiirov avTov, retaining eirj tj;? 7779, 

28 alone substitutes eiri •npoata'Trov avTov for em tt;? 77^9 with c : in 
faciem (-ejus), for Ic syr sin and others have infaciem super terram. 
Pers opposes 28 here and has merely in terram as most Greeks. 
The conflation is old. 28 must have chosen the wrong half of it, 
unless by some chance 28 and c alone retain the right half. 

Mark xiv. 46. Of the capture of Christ : 

Oi Se ene^aKov eir avrov ra? yeipa'i avTtav xat €xparrj<Tav avTOv, 
892 (and now add W Sod'"' also) d ff aeth pers omit eir avrov. This 
amid a great variety of readings by the others. 

Mark xiv. 57. Of the trial of Christ : 

Kai riv€<; avatrravre^ e^evBofiaprvpovv /car avrov Xeyovre-i on. . . 

157 (and now Sod'"'- a very important witness) with k pers and aeth 
omit Kar avrov. 

Observe the manner of treating this in some others. See p. 438. 

Mark xv. 36. 

In connection with him who tendered the sponge of vinegar : 
Apa/uov &€ £1? /cat ye/Maai! avoryyov o^ov; Trcpideii re KaXa/uo Q-nori^a> 
avrov \eya>v Acftere cBatfiev ei epx^rai H\ui9 xadtKeiv avrov. 

This is a diflScult place. As W is lacking here (hiat xv. 13-38) and 
28 exhibits a rare reading I will cite it. 

28 alone substitutes for Xe^wv " 01 Se Xoirrot cXeyov " which may come 
from a reference to Matt xxvii. 49 " ot &e Xoirroi eXe^ov " [B and a few 
there emov]. In St. John xix. 29 ■nepidevre^; (and -rtXriaavre^ previously 
of some Mss) makes the action that of more than one man. 

The fact remains, although the diatess follows Matthew's wording 
" But the rest said," yet using all the Gospel accounts (§ lii.) that syr sin 
and pesh turn Xeyav into the plural supplying a copula, while pers merely 
has a stop after error i^ev avrov. and continues " dicebant." They therefore 


read the plural without supplying Xoi-kol o£ Matthew. D*' cuts the knot 
by omitting Xeywv altogether. Fam 13 substitute \eyov^e^i for X67i»i', but 
do it in an ampler way, turning all into the plural. Is Xeyav of most 
really basic in Mark or an error, and did the original read Xeyovm ? Or 
was the original Latin dicunt or dicebant and not dicens ? 

Luke i. 21. Of Zacharias' delay in the Temple : 

Koi Tjv Xoo? ■jrpoa&OKOiv rov Za^apiav ' xai eBavjiai^ov ev to) ypovi^eiv 
avTov ev tw vaaj. 
ev TO) vara is omitted by 604 and Sodtn'"^', as well as by 34 39 108 
142* and V" (these Soden neglects). 
Syr cu and sin are both missing. 
BLW^S and 2'" Paris" change the order. 

Luke i. 29. Concerning Mary's wonder at the salutation of the angel : 

H ce lOQvaa hierapaxdrj eirc t(o Xoym avTOV, /cat SieXoyt^ero iroraTro^ etrj 
o acnra<7/j.o^ ovro';. 

Here the famous cursive c" omits eirj with I" SocZ'"" ^°" 'ami esc. 1 346 1_ 
Syr cu sin are wanting. 

L and a few substitute ei. D Sod"" Sod"" emphasise av eir;, but - eirj 
might well be basic. 

(Observe e "reoogitans quia sic benedixit earn.") 

Luke i. 66. 

Of the wonder engendered at the baptism of John Baptist : 
Kat edevTO 7ravTe<; 01 aKov<TavTe<; ev Trf KapSia avrtov, Xejovre^. . 

Here 604 omits 01 axovaavTct with e syr pesK", while syr sin omits 
vavre'i and 01 amva-avTe-;. Soden now adds 348 (his '-', quite an 
important MS) for omission of 01 aKovaavre';, while neglecting to 
record 604. 

For 01 amvaavre^ CD"' 118-209 130* 234 892 al. et Sod""' "" (c/. 
ff goth arm) substitute 01 aKovovTe<;, while pers (as rendered) = Et qui- 
cmique aiidivit, and aeth (as rendered) = Et custodierunt in cordibus 
suis omnia quae audiverant, showing an apparent basic difference to be 
compromised. (See p. 454 Mark vi. 2). 

Luke ii. 3. Of the enrolment or registration : 

Kat cTTopevovTO navres airoypafJKadai, eKaa-Toi ei? ttjv ihcav ttoXiv. 

Here c""' omits e/caaro^ Tischendorf fails to report this and Soden 
refuses to give the omission a place in his apparatus, but it is important. 
Observe that Burhitt for syr sin has to supply "each one " in itahcs [he 
uses very few italics thus] : " Now every one (4x1 k AcLa) [was going] to 
be [enrolled] even from [his] city was each one going to his place that 
there he might be enrolled." 

Notice also that X omits rravTef with Sod?^'^ '"^ N* writes Kai 


€7rop€vovTO (retaining the plural verb) eKaarof; a-jroypatjxffOe e<9 tijv eavrwu 
■noKiv, shortening, as pers and diatess : " Et unusquisque ivit ut in urbe 
sua describeretur," and syr""'' "^ Etihat quisque ut deseriberetur in urbem 

There is something to ponder over here. 

Luke ii. 11. Of the angel's speech to the shepherds: 

OTi erex^V Vfuv (rrjfiepop aaT-rjp, o? eari X/jtcrro^ Kvpio'i. 

av/iepov is omitted by 604 with 18 50 55 62 116 201 n"' Evst 52. 
Soden adds ' ™ bnt neglects 604 and all the rest. (What is the use of 
such notes ?) 

The important witness Sod' '" of the NB family changes the order to 
aaiTrip iTi]fi£pop (as boh'^) and may have imported ari/upov from his margin. 

Luke vi. 10. Concerning the man with the withered hand : 

Ko« •n€pi^Ke^ap£vo<i iravia^i auroi;?, enre T<a avSptanai ' 'EiXjeivov rrjit 
X^tp^ <roi/ * Se eTTonjaev ovrco ' /cat aTroKareaTaOij t} %et/3 avrov vyiTj'; gj? 
Tj aXXtj. 

This passage is practically in the same class as the one noticed 
toward the end of this chapter at vi. 48 Jm. 

Instead of o Se eitotijtjev, XDX al. it vg copi syr pesh arm aeth 
substitute o Se e^ereivev (compare Matt. xii. 13, Mark iii. 5), and a 
minority have o Se enoirjaev out<o?. The detail wiU be found in Tischen- 
dorf, but he neglects to state that c'" cmiits the phrase altogether ! Soden 
having found another MS (Sod^**') which omits, does mention this in his 

Syr sin is missing here, and therefore we have no check on the 
critical codices c"' Sod^*". Yet the situation is suspicious and reminds us 
of vi. 48. There, we have two alternatives : iia to xaXai'; oimBofiriadai 
having no reference to the parallel, and TeOefuXuoTO yap em ti?!/ irerpav as 
in Matt. vii. 25, while syr sin and gr. 604 show us a blank. Here we 
have o Se eiTontaev (outw) having no reference to the parallel, and o Se 
e^eivev a plain verbal importation from the double parallels in Matt. 
and Mark, while c"' and Sod'"' exhibit a blank in Luke. 

The matter should be carefully noted, for the supplementary matter 
interjected in alternative phrases is not at all necessary at this place. 

Luke vi. 48 ^re. 

Of the parable of the house whose foimdations are secure : 
" TeffefieXuijTo yap eiri ttjv Trerpav " of most, 
or " Sia TO «aX<»9 oixoSoiirtaOai avrtp " of the few Inegl. 
avTvv ri°«'°'], 
but entirely omitted by 604 and syr sin [^Pers has the upper clause with 
Aeth already conflates both readings. 


Luke vii. 9. Of Christ's appreciation of the centurion's faith : 

A/coucra? Se T avra o Iijctoi/? eOav/Jacrev avTOv ' nac arpacfiet'; rm axoXov- 
Sown avTtc o;^X&j enre . . . 

604 alone o£ Greeks, to which now add So(P" "", omits ravTa. 
With this syr sin and syr liier agree, as also aeth and one hoh Ms'', 
while one sah Ms" says eT&e M&.I " concerning these things." Homer 
omits to chronicle syr hier (all three codices) which agree with syr sin. 

Observe that while syr pesli has ravra it changes the order, and C^'' 
has ktcovGa^ Se o l-qaov; ravra. 

Luke ix. 9. 

Concerning Herod's speech about John Baptist (see Matt. xiv. 2 and 
Mark vi. 14) : 
eiTTev Sg H^uSt^^ ■ Xwavvjjv eyo) aTreKe^aXiua ' Ti? te egtiv outo? Trent 
ov atcovo) TOtavTa ; xat e^T?Tet iSgiv avrov. 

For Ti? Se e<niv outo? Evan 248 substitiites ti? cittik ovtik alone, 
dropping ie, but with ce: " quis est hie," and : " hie quis est " by bff^lq r 
(cf. 243 >Ti? & 0UT05 CCTTj). With the Latins without copula go syr cii 
sin pers and diatess (and saA 1/5 boh''""). 

The diatess interlards L«i'e ix. 9 between Matt xiv. 12" and xiv. 13", 
but is clearly from Luke, avoiding Matt xiv. 2 here. See diatess § xviii. 
20 and its beginning. 

Alone, with aeth, Evan 157 substitutes ow for ie in Luke is. 9. 

Luke ix. 13. Of the loaves and fishes and the multitudes : 

EiTre Se irpos auTou? * Aore auTOt? vfieLs <f>aysiv. Oi Se eiirov ' QvK 
eiatv Tjfuv TrXetov tj Trfyre aproi xai Bvo t^dv€<;, €i fi-qTL TropevOevre^ y]fi€L^ 
ajopaacij/iev ei9 navra tqv Xaov rovrov ^pwfiaTa. 

157 (with Paris'' «? tov Xaov tantum) and j9C)'s with Jo/t'"""' omit eii 

Luke ix. 20. Of Christ's enquiry for the testimony of the apostles : 
EiTre Be avTot<; " v/j^i^ Be Tiva fie Xeyere eivai ; 

604 omits fi£ Xeyere eivat altogether, alone with Dial. As to syr sin 
it is mutilated, but Burkitt says "there is not space for all the words." 

Fers, observe, slightly alters, saying " Vos de me quid dicitis." 

Some aeth mss I believe omit fi£ eivai. 

Luke X. 5. Of the salutation due on entering a house : 

Ei? ifv 8' av oiKiav eiaep^rjoQe irpairov Xeyere ' ^ipT]vr) tm oikco Tovrm. 
Paris" and D'^ with d* r Orig and Tert""" omit irpmrov. {Tert"^ : 
" quam introissent domum pacem ei dicere.") 

Luke xii. 34. Concerning the proverb of the heart and its treasure : 
oTTov yap eartv o drjaavpoi; vp-tov, exet Kat ij KapBia vpwv Cfrrai. 
c"' omits eiTui outright with Sod'^". 


Of the Greeks LA snbstitnte eanv. 

D and some place it between exei and Kai. 

The word may not originaUy have completed the sentence at all, 
which is complete without the second verb. Tischendorf, as so often, 
does not report c'^ here. 

The reason for which I emphasise the witness of c'" even when alone 
is that elsewhere this MS lends its voice to very powerful minority 
groups, as at xix. 23 -xai init. Of course c'" is quite a critical codex as 
may be seen in its graphic e^eXOeiv for eXOeiv at Luke xiv. 20 fin. or at 
Luke xxiv. 32 fin. 

(Cf. c" at Luke xiii. 30 oi eaxo-TOt pro eiaiv eaxaTot. Paris" supplies 
ot but has eiaiv which c'" lacks.) 

Luke xiii. 15. 
Of our Lord's personal application in his answer to the apxi('^vvay<!r/(fi 
as to healing on the sabbath : 
AirexptOT] ovv avrto o ^vpLo<^j Kai eiitev, Tiroxpna, €KaaTO<; vfiwv tgj 
<Ta^^aTa> ov A-uc* rov ^ovv avrov rj rov ovov airo t?;? (j>aTV'r]^ xac airayayojp 
TTOTifei ; ravTrp) Se, OvyaTepa Afipaafi ovaav . . . 

The authorities cannot agree whether our Lord said vvoKpird ! or 
v-Koxpnai ! and are very much divided. As the record says aTrexpidrj ovv 
airrm o Kupio? ical elirev (and not wneicp. ovv 6 l^vpio^ xaX elnev aurw) it 
may well be that the less personal {moKpnai and not imoKpiTo. was the 

But c'" alone shows us a blank here, and has neither. 
Tisch again fails to exhibit here the omission of c"'. Sabatier calls 
attention to Tertullian^"" which (although non liquet) has no introduction 
and begins " XJnusquisque vestrum sabbatis non solvit "... quoting in full 
to TTOTifsi. Certainly c"' and Tert should be coupled and mentioned 

Luke xiv. 8/9. Of the place at the wedding feast : 

MT/TTore evrifiOTepo^ <tov tj KeKXTifievo^i utt' avTov Kai e\6a>v o ae Kat 
avTOV KaXecaSy ep€L cot ' Ao? tovtqj ^ tottov ' . . . 
Here 157, with copt and syr, supplies tov before tottov. This may 
have been lost immensely early. Observe aeth : " Cede huic personae " 
(" the place " understood). 

Luke xvi. 12. 
What Christ said in his comment on the parable of the unjust steward : 
Kaf €1 €v Tw aWorpia irttTToi ovk ejevetrde, to vfieTSpov t(? v/itv 
Scaaet ; 
157 and e il with Tert^"' are definite as to the substitution of e/tov 
for vfiCTepov. 

(rjfieTepov by BL S<Ki°" and Evst 21 Orig.) 


Luke xvii. 23. What action to take when the Son of Man is announced : 
Kai epovaiv vfuv ' ISov oiSe 7} iSov exei, /jtri aireXdriTe /^tjSe Siai^Te. 
157 with syr and pers omits firjSe Bia^rjTe. {Cf. B and sah.) 

Luke xviii. '2. 

Of a judge in a certain city and the importunate widow : 
Xeywy ' KpiTT?? Tt? T)v ev tivl TroXei . . . 
c*" and o"" with pers'^' omit ti? ; but then syr sin thereagainst omits 
T(:/[, perhaps for the same purpose of destroying the pleonastic "pair": 
"A certain judge there was in a certain city." But note that the 
important Ms Paris" also omits t« with c"'. 

(Some have tt; for Tti/t, and 33 has ev tivi tj; ttoXci.) 
Sah very simply " A judge in a city " with two indefinite articles : 
OTrKptTKC gtt Otno'h.lC, and holi also, which does not however trans- 
literate the Greek words. 

Luke xviii. 9. 

Of the introductory clause as to the parable of the publican and the 
pharisee in prayer : 
Et-Tre Se Kai trpo-^ nva^i tou? ■Keirotdoja^ etp eauTot? on gkti hiKaioi kul 
e^ovOefovvTWi tov^ Tyonrov^ ' r^jv Trapa^oXi^v ravrtjv ' AvOptairoi Bvo 
auefirjaav ei? to lepov Trpoaev^aaBai. . . . 

c-"" leaves out rriv napajSoXrjv ravrrjv. So does D*' and d. No others 
apparently. But observe that the syriacs sah and pers bring it in quite 
early in a peculiar place and order before Trpo^ Tivai, " And he was saying 
this similitude (or parable) against (certain) folk that trust in them- 
selves . . . ," while the Latins, even those which have similititdiiiem for 
parabolam, keep the Greek order. 

Tisc/iendor/ should certainly have mentioned c'". He only says : 
" U om." 

Luke xxii. 15. 

Concerning the last supper and the mention of the Passover : 
Kat eiTTev irpcK avTOV<; ' €'TTi.Ovfjita eTTlOv/HTjcra tovto to tracxa (^ayetv 
fjLzO upoiv TTpo Tov /^ TTaOeiv. 

In this very important passage (uncomplicated by the accounts in 
Matthew and Mark) the noteworthy cursive 71 with vg'' and syr cu sin 
hoh^'- with Tert^'^'" very definitely : Concupiscentia concupivi Pascha edere 
vobisczim antequam paliar, completely suppress tovto or hoc, against the 
other Greeks and Latins, against sijr pesh and the diatess (quoting Luke 
xxii. 14/10 continuously). The only Latins besides vg'' to throw light on 
the matter are c and Hilary. In c " hoc " is present but " Pascha " 
absent; thus also in /Tip" ''"■ *^ ; desiderio eupivi hoc maiiducare, but 
Hj7'" ^-'•''- "" neglects hoc and introduces Pascha without hoc: "desiderio 

2 a 


desideraoit cum discipuUs FascJia mandticare." Possibly in c's copy a 
mark was present for the deletion of hoc which that MS applied to Pascha. 
Tischendorf and Soden completely ignore the omission of tovto, and again 
refuse to let us enter with them the arcanum of textual criticism. 

Luke xxiii. 15. 

Concerning Pilate's speech to the assembled multitude about our 
Lord's apparent guiltlessness : 
, . , afeirefi-^a yap vfui^ -npo^ auTov [^al. aveire^^ev yap avrov irpo'i 
*;/io?] Kai iSov ovSev a^iov davarov ecni ireirpayfj^vov avTO). 

Here iSov is omitted by e'" [I wonder if this should not be c"'] and 
D" d with vgg^^ \hiai r^^ syr cu sin pers and diatess. 

Tisch and Soden report this because D d also omit. I introduce it 
"to show the omission upheld by one cursive. The diatess quotes con- 
tinuously Lake xxiii. 4/16. There is an liov in the previous verse 
xxiii. 14 not modified hy syr cu sin pers, but for xai iBou eja there D 
writes ! xayto Se, and d : et ego autem, and diatess also without ecce 

Luke xxiv. 39. 

Of Christ's request for identification after the resurrection : 

ISere xa? yetpa^ fiov Kat, tou9 TroSa? ^v ori amo^ eyto €t/u ' -^rfKa^rj- 
(7ar€ yxe fcai there ' ore Trvev/wi (rapxa Kat- otnea ovk e^et KaOta'; ejie Oeotpetre 

The Greek cursive 300 omits outo? with a r? I. Syrr copt omit 
at/TO? altogether, while the rest vary the order and form of avro<i eya et/u 
considerably. (Pers omits altogether). avTo<! probably came in for 
emphasis from the margin. Soden adds "', presumably ■ ^^ = 4 (Paris 
nat. 84) for plain omission of auro?, and indeed an addition to the basic 
text would be quite likely here. 

{Soden, as usual, neglects the witness previously reported for oinission, 
viz. Evan. 300.) 

John i. 15. 

Concerning the wording of John Baptist's witness to Jesus : 

Jcoavv'rj'; fuiprvpet irept avTov, Kat Kexpaye X^av ' Ovros t]v ov etTTov ' 
O OTTtcra jiov epxoftevo^, eftTrpoaffev fiov yeyovev. 

314 (= Sod'^^') reads ea-ri for r^v. The Latins vary between est (a b c 
efqrjj, aur vgg') as (syr), and erat {h S [Mat d] vgg'"^ Iren Aug), but 
Evst 54 omits outright. 

This is interesting because N alone of Greeks omits ov enrov following, 
with arab, as if between -qv and ov etirov a mark had perhaps been set 
indicating omission, and N had omitted ov enrov and not riv. 

The bohairic really seems to omit ijv (x£ 4>A.I ^K ETAIxoq 


John ii. 19. Of the rebuilding of the temple (of His body) : 

ATTGKpiOi] o It/cou? Kai ecTTev avTot^ Avaare tov vaov tovtov xat 
ev rpidiu 7]fj£pai^ eyepoy avrov. 

East 47 reads with Ifjnatius ita Tpiasv ri/iepav. 

John V. 27. Of the Father's great gifts to the Son : 

. , . Kac e^ovfXiav ehaiKev avrto Kai Kpitriv irocecv . . . 
Now ebtoKev is oraitted outright only by Eost 47 and diatess, making 
eSwxev of verse 26 serve here also. Observe that the syriac and pers 
substitute fecit for decHi in verse 27. Neither Tisch nor Soden notice 
these readings. 

John vi. 22. Concerning the departure of the disciples : 

Ttj eiravptov o o^(\(y; o effrtjKas irepav Tij? 6a\a<TaT}% ihav ort TrXotaptov 
aWo ovK Tjv €/e€t et /srj ev exetvo ei^ o eve^rjtrav oi p-aOrfrac avTov, Kai on ov 
(TvvenTijkde T0i9 fiaO'qTaL^ avrov o Itjitov^ ei? to trXotapiov, aWa p.ovoi ot 
p.adi]Tai avrov aTtifkOov. 

Neglecting other variations, observe that the sijriacs f with pers onait 
the last clause, as do the diatessaron and Evan 220 and Evst 222 iz'"). 
Tischendorf mentions 220 but neglects z"', while Soden calmly ignores 
both Greek manuscripts. 

There is no breaii in diatess between verses 22 and 23 (proceeding 
with 23/60 continuously). Observe that the Latins (so intimately 
connected with the syr and diatess) apparently do not recognise this 

(X 56-58-61 ff-i I omit a-n-rfKBov in this clause.) 

John vi. 23. 

Of the ships from Tiberias, whether they came, had come, or were there : 

AWa Se ri\6e TrXoiapia e/c Til^eptaBo^ ejyv^ rov tottou ottov €(j>ayov 
Tov apTOV evxapt-aTTjffavTO'i tov Kvpiov. 

892 and Sod^*** with the diatess have rjv for rjXOe. 

Some have TjXffov for riXOe placing it in various differing positions. 

X has €Tre\Oovro>v ovv Ttav ttXokdv for aXXa 5e ifKde (or rfKdov) irXotapia 
and ovuT)% instead of tov tottou. D has aKKwv irXotapitov eXBovjwv {d aliae 
naviculae venerunt). Cf. br: et cum supervenissent aliae naves, cf. syr cu. 

The vg has : aliae vera siipervenerunt naves. (Sajjervenerunt is 
favoured by the Latins, but not hy a d e f.) 

Among all this variation, 892 Sod"" diatess substitute tjv. It seems 
to me that, including this jiv, it all savours of retranslation. 

t Syr sin ia saul to be illegible bere, but ayr cu agrees witb syr pesh and pen to 
omit. {Pci-3 doubtless replaces syr sin.) 

2 G 2 


John vi. 42. 
Of the mnrmurmg Jews' speech concerning the parentage of onr Lord 
and of his strange speech about his descent from Heaven : 
Kat e\eyov ovy outo? eariv Itjcov^ o vw^ Ift»<ri?^, ou i///€£9 oioafi£v rov 
irarepa xai Tip/ iitfrepa ; ttid? ovv X€7« outo? otj e/c rov ovpavov Kara- 
fie^ijKa ; 

There is found to be a difference of opinion as to whether ow or vw 
should follow iri»9. 

BCTW So^" boh arm syr hier Ath"^ supply wv. 

N and D on the other hand, with the other Greeks, most Latins and 
sah 4/7, prefer ow. 

The peshitia does neither, but prefixes xai. 

The editors are strangely enough agreed here ; Tisch and Hort on the 
strength of BCT, and Soden on the strength of BCT and the additional 
W Sodf"', print itai vw. But are they right ? Does not perhaps little 
\'" here hold the key, which cursive MS writes ttm? tantum ? 

The point is that syr cu sin and pers with arab and the latins a e 
and sah 3/7 are agreed to omii in the same way as v"', merely saying -rrat. 
Still the editors might be right ; but when we find Paris" backing up 
v^, the syriacs, a e, the persian, the arabic, and sah 3/7 for omission we 
•must pause to ask the reason why. 

Since therefore once more N and B are not agreed (and aeth 6oA'""""" 
vg°^ conflate) does not Paris"' hold (with y^') the true base behind NB, 
and are not syr pers with sah 8/7 and Paris" v*' the purveyors of the' 
" true text" ? 

John vi. 64. Of Christ's speech to the disciples on a certain occasion : 
AW etiriv e^ vfjuav Ttve^ oi ov irl(rT€vov<nv. 
Here tipci is omitted by 157 alone, and indeed may well be an 
addition. Tischmdorf, recognising this, chronicles the omission, but 
Soden does not think it worth while, although a reference to syr sin and 
a^th appears to confirm it. Observe here that the order of most : ef v/mhv 
TJi/e? (so also syr cu) is varied by STX'j and some very important cursives 
(plus syr pesh hier) to rwe? ef v/uov. 

John vi. 70. The apostrophe as to a traitor being among the twelve : 

Kireicpidr] outoi? o I»;o-ou9 ' Ovk eyio v/uk; tovi Ba&eKa e^eKe^a/iriv 
Kai e^ u/ian* ei? hia^o'ko's ccttiv. 

Evan 28 omits tou? BmSeKa. Cf. syr cu sin. 

Note that 185 {Sod"° and a very critical codex) omits efeXefo/i?;!', 
having evidently mistaken the word to be deleted. Thus again 185 
alone omits ef before vfiav, intending probably to omit e!<s with N* ; and 
thus 21" omits xai ef vfuav, retaining e(<t. 
John xiii. 14/15. 

Of Christ's example in the washing of the feet : 
Et ovv eyaf evt-^a vfiav rov; TroSa?, o Kvpio^ Kat o BiBatTKaXo^, xat 


u/tfi? 0(f)etXeTe aWifS-mv vnnuv tou? iroha^. TiroBeiyfia yap eBajxa vp,iv, 

iva Kadti)'^ eyui eiroirjtra vfttv, Kai v^c<; iroLTyre. 

Now this yap is omitted by 604 and the very important cursive c'". 
The saying is more stately thus. Not " For I have given you an 
example," but very simply and majestically: "I (your Lord and Master) 
have given you an example." 

Does syr sin omit ? No, it has Se. Do any others ? Apparently 
none except the diatess, for Soden says "om yapTa praAssti ■■ l^iovi 
the diatess is a good witness here, for it quotes continuously John xiii. 1/20. 
There are no other vritnesses then for this stately phrase ? Yes there are, 
and important ones too. Soden's notes in such cases are too maddening 
for words, for when he supplements Tischendorf (as here, Tisch neglecting 
the omission of c'"! he cannot even get the matter right. 

Observe then that syr hier^ also omit. Is that all ? No, for pers 
(wonderful witness !) also omits [against syr pesh and sin}. Is that all? 
No, not yet, for d, that other extraordinary witness, also omits, against 
D^' opposite. Such opposition between d and D*' invariably means a 
great deal. I discover these omissions of von Soden by chance, but 
Sahatier had already called attention to the reading of d. Students 
cannot possibly see these things in Tischendorf or Soden. AetW^* 
renders " Quia exemplum dedi vobis " without yap which the Coptic 
versions hold. Is this quite all ? No, because Aphraates opposes syr 
sin and also omits yap altogether. For omission then, instead of 
Tatian 604 and c*' as Soden tells us, we have: 604 c"' d pers syr 
hier^'^ diatess Aphraates and {aeth). 

John six. 40. Of the custom of the Jews at burial : 

EXa^ov ovv TO a(op.a tou TT^ffou Kat eBrja-ap avTO odovLOL^ ^era t(ov 
apw^Twv icaOiti^ eOo^ e<jTi TOi? loyfiaiot? evTatj>La^eiv , 

Paris", with sail boh (aeth), omits ean. Sod^^' (ed. B d G) Sod^*^ 
omit edos. 

Observe XW Greg^"" substitute vv for ecjTi. Oeanv e^o? X" 18-5 a c 
ffnq) cf. e. 

John XX. 1-5. Of the risen one's speech to Mary in the garden : 

A67E1 avTT] o Irjaov; ■ Twai, -ri xXateii ; riva fjjrejs ; T^Keivrj BoKovtra 
OTL o Kjjirovpo^ etTTt \eyet avrw Kvpte. . . 

28, with syr sin and dimvia, omits o i-rja-ovi. 

So, among the Latins, observe : 
John xxi. 13. 

Of Christ's post-resurrection action at the lake-side ; 
Ep^€Tai (ovif o) It^ctoi/? Kai Xafi^avei tov aprov Kai BtZwtJiv avrof;. 
c with syr sin omits this epxerai. 
c reads merely : Tunc Jesus accepit . . . 
syr sin merely : Et accepit Jesus . . . 


Luke vi. 45. 

ayado^ avdpojTro^ ex rov ayadov Orjuavpov rtj^ icapBta^ avrov 
TrpoiJKpei TO ayadov ' Kai o irovijpo^ avdpcairo^ ex rov Trovfjpov di^uavpov ti?9 
/capSta? auTov irpo^pet ro Trovrjpov. 

Here ^2 alone elides the first ttj? xapSio?, writing : Bonus homo de 
bono (Pensauro suo proferet bonum . . . thus alone agreeing with DiaP^^. 

Mark vi. 2. 

Kcu yevo/.ievov aafificaov rjp^aro ev tij aimajtoyrj BtBaaKeip " xai iroXKot 
■ aKovovrei e^eirXtitiaovro, Xeyovrei : -nodev rovra ravra ; . . . . 

As against axovovret of textus receptus supported by NABCW unc'' 
■al"^ and dfff gi.i i I q r S vgg with audientes, D^'FHLiA^nJ Sod!'"' some 
minn, including some interesting manuscripts (and a with cum audissent), 
prefer axovaavTet:, but bee have neither but exhibit a blank. It is 
• eminently a place, as will be seen upon close inspection, where a word 
could naturally be added, and the fact that the authorities vary as to its 
form or tense shows that it may be an early addition. The Greek MS 
W would probably have omitted with bee had it continued this 
recension beyond Chapter V. I mention the example particularly 
because W ceases to convey this type of text before the end of ch. V. 
[Siant syi^" "°, sed habent syr^^ "'" pen et diaiess]. Cf. Luc i.66,p. 445. 

Lastly, consider Matt. iv. 1 — wo rov wevfiarov 892 P*' soli, where 
the order is changed by NK 157 syr aeth, suggesting something amiss ; 
and Mark ii. 11 -aoi Xeym eyeipe by Paris" alone, while W 40 46 61 252 
y"' Sod'"' bee omit (toi \eya>, and r^ sah 1/2 omit eyeipe, and N [not 
reported by Tisch or Sod] varies the order >ey€i.p€ <rot X«7(» [Hiant syr"' "'"]. 

"Von Soden's New Testament, issued July 1913. 

The crowning volume of von Soden's labours, viz. the New Testament 
volume itself, reached me after nearly all of Part I. of this essay was set 
np. I have used it for Part II. although this necessitated resetting a 
considerable amount of type, but for Part I. I was afraid I would not be 
able to use his work except occasionally in St. Luke and St. John, 
but I have managed to work in most of the evidence throughout. 

I shall attempt no thorough review of his system or of his work 
at this place. Occasional notes will be found where it is desirable to 
correct his apparatus or to supplement my own. 

I said at the beginning of this essay that the readings of Westcott 
and Hort, that is those of the Ms B, had been generally accepted in 
England and nearly as much so in Germany. I am told that in Germany 
this is not the case. Let us look at a passage in von Soden's new 
edition for information. 

Upon the strength of B, Westcott-Hort have printed at Matthew xiii. 4 
Kat €\&ovTa ra Trereiva Karetpayev ama, instead of /cat TjXdev (or tj\$ov) to 
irereiva xai KaTeij>ayev avra. B had support only from f'i"'"»o' JJ"' 


y'" (not mentioned by Tisch) and/a»i 13 but they add tov ovpavov after 

I WIS surprised to find von Soden follow suit for this reading of 
eKOovra ra Trereiva { — xai). His note on the evidence is not absolutely 
clear, but one is to infer that besides B, these other Mss have been found 
to have the reading, viz. 050 (ms at Tiflis related to the J) text, which 
latter here has the ordinary text) S 30 (= j, otherwise more related to N, 
which does not have it) e 1444 (Athos, Pantel. 101) e 1413 (Athos, 
Pantocr. 34) e 1333 (Athos, Pantocr. 60) e 1216 (Berlin 55, Greg 059) ; I 
suppose a little iota must stand for family 13, but he does not mention 
the MSS by name nor do we know definitely whether the whole group 
of twelve MSS : 

13-69-124-1 74-230-346-543-788-826-837-983-Serres 
Scr. 556 
has the B reading. 

Sckolz and Tisch after /am 13 had said "alii," h\it von Sode}i's hsi 
does not bear this out, his witnesses being mss unknown to Scholz and 
Tischendorf. Tischendorf neglected to mention the other witnesses 
represented by " al." They seem to be confined to the Lectionary class 
and are f of Matthaei (Evst 49) H'" {Evst 150) y'" (Evst 259). It would 
have been better for von Soden to mention these additional witnesses, as 
his choice of reading needs defence. It presupposes, like Hort's, that ri\9ov 
ra Trereiva grew out of a basic eXSoura Trereiva, but then B has eXBovra 
ra TTereiva, and how account for the suppression of icai seq.'? If B and 
the others read eXBovra treTetva there would be some force in thinking 
that the other readings had sprung from this, but does not eXffopra ra 
vereiva merely indicate misreading or revision. 

Where are NL and D and W and Z ? Opposed to B. "Where does 
Origen stand ? Opposed to B. [This von Sodeii's notes do not indicate, 
as he merely reports K {Koivrj) for the regular reading.] Where are 33 
and 892 ? Opposed to B. And so are all the rest of the mss, and the 
versions. I mention this to show that B is still regarded too highly in 
Germany as a basic or neutral test, and von Soden's text probably per- 
petuates an error of B and of his small following. 

There is no trace of this in any of the Latins, and e k, both extant 
here, support the usual Greek text against B. 

— xat is however found in salt and boh 1/2 after the Coptic manner. 
" Came the birds (of Heaven), they ate them." 

Is this the secret? The other versions do not omit xai. Must we 
trace this matter also to Coptic influence on B ? Very possibly ; and B's 
forerunner, not liking 7i\.6ov. ■ .Kar€<f>ayoi> without copula in Greek, 
although the Coptic admits of it, changed the first Greek aorist to the 

I claim that the versions have been unduly magnified sometimes to 
support a Greek reading, but a! so, as in the present case, unduly relegated 


to the background when their joint testimony is of considerable value. 
If von Soden had properly grouped his evidence, and instead of saying : 

K gegen W' etc. 
he bad said 

K, J«"<M, reU et latt syr verss et Patres gegen H'' etc. 
we would have seen the real evidence. 

Had he intimated that sah and part of boh omitted the copula km, 
while holding tjkBov, we should also have got a glimmer of the probable 
reason for the B reading, but he is silent on this point. 

This is not intended to be unfriendly criticism of von Soden, but 
only meant to indicate the lines along which we must work for a true 
grasp of the problems involved before printing new texts. After going 
through von Soden's apparatus to supplement my own, I have however 
come to very serious and disparaging conclusions as to his work in 
general. His notes are exceedingly inaccurate, his text is not founded 
upon any consistent method of using evidence, and I regret to say that 
he has repeatedly invented Scripture in his text without manuscript or 
Patristic authority. The proof to this effect shall be submitted separately, 
but some of it will be found noticed in scattered places in these volumes. 

As to the Koiv^. 

There remains one argument to be dealt with, and that concerns 
the possibility of someone saying that, after all, the variations in B are 
few in number and probably less than in most MSS. That is hardly so. 
If the reader wants a tenth-century example of a MS true to the Church 
type let him examine Matthaei's k, a most beautiful and neat Ms, one 
of our very early cursives, and in this Ms wiU be found a true exponent 
of the Koivij. Had Erasmus used this, no fault could have been found, 
and yet but little difference is to be found between k and the textus 
receptus, while B and his group differ infinitely more among themselves 
at a period much more remote. 

The Kojj/ij probably preserves " the true text " at Luke xxiii. 8 : 
V 7"p Bekmv ef iicavov ( — ^ovov) iBeiv avrov ... or, as reported by 
^ [teste Lake] 241 Evst 48 49 54 63'"' z"' H=" : v tap ej ixavov 
( — Xpovov) dekav iSeiv avrov, . . 

This is a peculiar construction, but, being the more difficult or 
idiomatic without xpovov, is probably to be preferred. 

Soden here abandons the chief uncials, which have «f iKavav xpovav, 
and prints cf ixavov 6eKav without giving any authority for the K (KoiKjJ) 
which he quotes, for the K has >^6\<b>' ef cxavov. 

It so happens however that not only '^ [teste Lake contra SodenJ 
agrees with Soden's text of e| txavov de\av, with six lectionaries, but 

EPILOGUE. THE Koivij. LUKE XXIII. 8/9. 457 

that 241 {Matthaei's k), the very MS under consideration above, does 
this also. I wonder if Soden has stumbled on the " true text " here as 
confirmed by 241. For notice that the genius of all the versions 
requires the expression of XP"""^' Hence the versions very likely 
reflected on our earliest Greek Mss as seen already so often elsewhere, 
and led to the addition of 'xpovov, or substitution of ixavinv xpovrov, while 
the maligned textus recej>tus may hold the base here, and Soden and 
241 preserve the true order ! It is more than carious, for Soden appears 
to do so quite innocently, and ignorantly of the true evidence as to the 

Winer has a brief reference to the passage on p. 459 (English edition, 
1882), but i)/o»Zto)iinhis translator's note 3, while saying" In Lukexxiii. S 
quoted above in the text, ff txavav xp'"""" is no doubt the true reading " 
goes quite beyond his province, and is merely bowing to the authority 
of the company of XBD{Ij)T etc., whereas there is no such certainty 
about " the true te.xt " here, and the indications seem to me to point the 
other way, and ^P"""^ more likely to have crept in than to have slipped 
out or to have been suppressed iu an " Antioch " revision. 

As this brings up again Turner's ex parte obiter dictum of the oldest 
MSS against the later ones (" which issue will never have to be tried 
again ") I make free to go into the case as to ncavoi a little more fuUy 
than Winer or Moulton {Blass is silent), for it is a very pretty test 
passage indeed. 

Now that we have seen that the " oldest " mss teere affected already 
by the versions or by the Greek text underlying the versions (whichever 
way the critics prefer to have it put), we can the more readily see the 
bearing of the present case as to the untrustworthiness of the "oldest" 
Greek mss in just such a case, and realize perhaps that, although 
mutually supporting each other, NBD(L)T -157 c d sah +T' 80^'° 892 
Paris" Laura-^™ are wrong, and that the Koii/tj and 241 are right at 
Luke xxiii. 8. 

The justification for this view is to be found in the classical example 
at Acts XX. 11 where the writer (doubtless St. Luke) in telling of St. Paul's 
long preaching at Troas, after the revival of Eutychus, says : 

" ava^a^ 8e KaL K\a<raf; tov aprov Kac y€vc7afievo<;, etfi iicavov re o^iK'qaa^ 
o-XPt- civyi)^ ouTw? e^X^ev." 

Here " imtil break of day " qualifies 6<j> ixavov sufficiently to give it 
its true Lucan meaning. 

This 6<^ iKavov then at Acts xx. 11 (not noted by Winer) is the 
complement of sf ixavov in Luke xxiii. 8. 

Besides, if we look further, we find that ixavo's is used by the writer 
of the third G ospel and of the Acts no less than 25 times, whereas it is 
found elsewhere only six times in St. Paul's Epistles and three times in 
St. Matthew and St. Mark. 


That St. Luke used ixavov without XP"""" i° xxiii. 8 is probable, 
because he so thoroughly understood the technical value of the word in 
Greek. Thus at Acts xxii. 6 besides using ^m? txavov of the " great " 
light (an ' enfolding ' light, see Acts ix. 3) at St. Paul's conversion, at 
Acts XX. 37 iKavoi Se eyevero KXavd/ia vavTcov " But they all set up a 
great weeping," at Luke xxiii. 9 (in close proximity to the passage under 
review) eTrijpaTa Be avTov ev 'KoyoLi ixapon " But he questioned him in 
many words" (a sufficiency of words), we find in Acts xvii. 9- of the 
taking of bond or security from Jason : 

** Kat Xa^ovTe^ to cxavov," siviply, 
which is the correct technical term (not referred to by Winer or Blass) . 
Therefore when we read at : 

Acts xii. 12 ov Tjcrav ixavoi (TvvtjOponxfievot. Kai irpoaevxof^^vot 
or „ xix. 19 iKavoi Se . . . rai ^i^Xov^ Karexatov evairtov TravTav 
we understand that Tnany were gathered together, and that many burned 
their magical books, and not only that certain did so. 

So again at Luke xxii. 38, of the two swords before the betrayal, 
our Lord's comment is reported thus by St. Luke : " o Se enrev avjoi's 
ixavov ei7Tiv." That is to say not only "they are sufficient" but "it 
is plenty." {Cf. 2 Cor. ii. 6 cxavov rta Toiavrta tj eirni^ca avTrfi. Re- 
turning to Luke xxiii. 8/9 observe that we meet with the use of ixavoi; 
alone in both verses to signify " much " or " many " : 

xxiii. 8. O Se HptuS?/? iBcov top Itja-ovv e^aprj \iai> ' rjv yap SeKatv e^ ixavov 

[Betv avTov. . . . 
xxiii. 9. eiTTjpcoTa Se avTov ev \oyoi<; iKavoi^ ' avro^ Se ovhev aTreKpivaro 

The genius of the versions then permits of the translation of inavoi'; 
in verse 9 by "many," but requires in verse 8 the addition of "time" 
to mavov. The versions then can only be used to trace the matter iu a 
subsidiary sense. 

To ef ixavov HMX % H mintt'^^'^ and W add %/3oi'ou as most Latins, 
the Syriacs, Aeth smi Boh. 

While ef iKavav XP°'"-"' is substituted by NBDTT' Socf*" 157 892 
Paris" Laura*™ and c d of the Latins : "a (or de) multis temporibus." 
Thus also the armenian apparently, and the sakidic gtTn gcnitoS^ 
i?0-ir06Jjy (against boh icxerc O-ffAtHty ITXpOnOC). And AEFAA 
unc reW most Greek cursives have with the textus receptus de\<ov ef 
iKavov, while Soden's text prints ef txavov deXmv. He recognised then that 
Xpovov or xpo"'^" iiad probably come in from the outside, but in adopting 
this order I hardly think that he recognised that it is supported by ''I' 
[teste Lake contra Soden] and by 241 Evst 48 49 54 eS"'" and z'" H". 

I have not mentioned L . That MS, while having ef ixavcov xpof<'"', 
drops the 0e\a>v, w hich is necessary here, and affords a slight clue that 

^ X has tlie order : «^ ixaifov xp°f°^ 6f\tav. 

EPILOGFE. THE Koivrj. LUKE XXIII. 8/9. 459 

there may have been a mark set in text or margin tor redeletion of ^poj/mi/ 
which mark was misunderstood. Some difficulty also confronted the Latin 
MS a, for it omits altogether, having only : erai enim atpiens videre ilium. 
That the four great cursives 157 892 Paris" Laura*™ go with 
XBD(L)TT' Sod"'", and that T' supports T, and Sod?"" supports D, with 
the adhesion of the sahidic, shows that this is a fixed reading early. Yet 
it is absolutely circumscribed as to cursives by the consent only of the 
four named as far as I know. 

The rest of the documents evidently lacked 'xpo''ov or xpovmv, for of 
the uncials which add y^povov, viz. HMXIIW, most have strong Latin 
affiliations, certainly X and W, and the forty or fifty cursives which add 
are a mixed lot and some add only in the margin. 

It is therefore an equally fixed tradition oatside of these — that is to 
say with the remaining eleven uncials headed by A and with the great 
majority of cursives — that XP"^"^ 'was not in the original text. 

It is just here that '4' [teste Lake] and that remarkable exponent of 
the Koivi'j, viz. 241 (Matthaei's beautiful tenth-century cursive k), with 
six leetionaries as named above, give Sodeu's order of ef Lxavov BtKtev 
(without xpovov). 

The textus recepttis then positively denies xP'"'"'" ^ place. This, 
according to Tischendorf, Hort and Moulton etc., simply shows that the 
textus receptus was "revised." But was it? 

Have we not clearly indicated by the undesigned coincidences cited 
from elsewhere in Luke and Acts that ikuvov without xP^^o" would be 
eminently Lucan, that the revisers o£ Antioch (if there were any) would 
not be any more " classical " than Luke himself, but that more probably 
Alexandria (to prevent any ambiguity) not merely added xP""""' ^^^ 
changed e^ lkuvov to 6^ iKavwv xpovf^^-'j and that this was done at so 
early a date as to mislead Moulton and other followers of Tischendorf 
and Hort into thinking that it is " the true text." It would certainly 
have been passing strange for "Antioch " to change the plural ef ixavav 
Xpovav to the singular ef iKavov without xP°'">v. 

At the end of our journey we can now afford to call attention to 
such a passage. No matter whether a consensus of NB(L)TT'D Sod!''" 
157 892 Paris" Laura'^*"* (So(?'^''') read one way, their reading is 
improbable as an original one. Merx is silent on this passage, but 
Soden, notwithstanding additional testimony of T' Sod™ 892 Paris" 
Laura-^™ (So(^''""). all unknown to Tischendorf and Hort, is content to 
oppose NB(L)DT 157 and these added authorities, and not only content 
to oppose them, but, unconsciously apparently, gives us the reading and 

order of 241 : — 

7)if yap €^ IKavov OeKtov iBeiv avTov. . . 

and vindicates the Koivrj as reported by its best representative (as I claim 
it to be) the MS 241. This MS it will be observed gives the order of NET 
without the addition. 


The reading of 241 and the Koivij needs no defence, whereas the 
"Egyptian" reading has to be explained. I stand once more on the 
" harder " or " simpler " reading which I believe to be Lncan. 

[In my review of Soden in J.T.S. April 1914 I have criticised Soden, 
not for adopting the reading of 241, but for failing to see that he had 
done so.] 

Mbbx, Eamsat, and Soden. 

Adalbert Merx, daring but thoroughly competent scholar,! bas arrived 
at the same conclusions that I have through an entirely independent 
channel of thought. His 'Die vier kanonischen Evangelien' (3 vols.) 
should be read by everybody who professes to understand these studies. 
This is a thorough digest of the Siuaitic Syriac with its bearing on a 
foundation text. His conclusions, expressed in no uncertain terms, are 
that N and B are thoroughly unreliable witnesses as exponents of a 
neutral and pre-syrian text. 

There are flaws in syr sin, and in many passages we are still seeking 
for more light, but Merx has placed the study upon ,a higher and a 
simpler plane, and I could wish that v<m Soden had shown a willingness 
to sit at Merx' feet rather than air his own exceedingly questionable 
eclecticism. Soden opposes Merx at Luke xii. 14, Mark xvi. 4, where he 
certainly should have bowed to his countryman's greater skill. 

For assistance in controlling syr sin we turn to the Latin witnesses 
and more particularly to the Codex Bezae. I have considered its text, 
in something like its present form, to be older than a.d. 200. Sir William 
Ramsay, attacking the problem from yet quite another standpoint, has 
arrived at the conclusion, from his studies in Asia Minor, that as regards 
the Acts we cannot date the corrector otDd later than approximately 
A.D. 150-160, and that the foundation text is much older. 

I recognise one or two very early correctors in the Codex Bezae, 
acquainted with Syriac, which of course complicates the problem of the 
ultimate base, but Bezae, being free from extraneous text influences, has 
a large value when used in connection with the Syriac documents. 
Occasionally we find the persian, with or without the armenian, suggesting 
the lost syriac base, not present even in syr sin or syr cu. This has still 
to receive scientific treatment. 

When we reach von Soden, instead of finding an advance on Merx 
and Bamsay's studies, we find a different state of things altogether. We 
find that Soden is in another class as an investigator and a student, and 

t His mind worked with great rapidity. Thus he hardly ever italicises or places 
within inverted commas the frequent Latin or English or French qnotations which occur 
to him as he writes. Ho quotes, for instance, " Facts are stnbhom things," or '* Be bold, 
be not too bold," in the middle of a German sentence without any indication that these ' 
are quotations and in another language. 


that hia vision is circumscribed and Alexandrian. His text is a real 
mixtnre and quite unscientific. He is incapable of arguing on the lines 
of Merx, and apparently too much of a schoolman to see with Samsay's 
sharp and clear vision. The truth is that some half-informed people of 
an Alexandrian turn of mind, who have never made a study of the 
idiosyncrasies of documents (except at second-hand), have stampeded the 
Professors into a belief that the ultiiimm verbum in textual criticism has 
been said,t and that the ultima ratio has been reached. Soden suggests an 
Alexandrian redivivus such as Hort was. Soden's text is so thoroughly 
Alexandrian that it falls into line with Hort, irrespective of MS evidence. 
Among other things, it favours the imperfect over the aorist, just as the 
Alexandrians did, and favours the historic present on countless occasions, 
see Matt. xv. 12 etc. etc. As to the imperfect, observe Matt. ix. 9, 
VKoXovdei (pro T)KoXov0wev) Soden^" following H" ""' 7.5 286 ^^c isaeiassLMs 
Yet two verses below, at ix. 11, Sod'^' refuses eXeyov (pro emov) against 
a larger combination, viz. " all H""" '"■ '■^1 7' '^ " 17*° '" " ^ «" '»*= !??? '"" 
lliJ"* it vg," including this time not only the Latins, but the very Mss 
followed above, which I have underlined, and the second combination 
includes BCL Cyril actually missing from the first, where only X of the 
H family is present. (In the second combination Soden should have 
said " exc. d k " after " it vg.") 

Could anything be less scientific ? 

So, also, as to the partitive genitive. Observe several places, and 
note Luke ii. 37, ovk a(fiiaTaTo tov icpov, Soden with Sort, and the small 
group BF"LSW 131 604 Paris", to which add of Soden's codices only 
Sod'"-, against everything else for a-n-o rov lepov (except D" tov vaov). 
Even X has e/c rov tepov. If X found the preposition absent from his 
copy, as is probable from his adopting eic and not aire, he undoubtedly 
referred to Latin or Coptic or Syriac, and added the ex from those 
sources. If he had consulted other Greek copies he would have added 
a-rro. This is a pretty place as to my contention as to N and polyglot 
influences. Hort at any rate had the merit of simplifying matters 
by elevating Codex B to the dignity of an all-powerful arbitrator in 
any complicated passages. Von Soden's text, while evidently enjoying 
certain solecisms of B or XB, is so eclectic that its methods are not easy 
to follow and in certain cases scriptural terms have been invented by 
conflation or mixture of various attested readings. The text is of no 
use to the real student. 

As between Hort and von Soden J there is no doubt that Hort chooses 

t Thus Dr. Moffatt in his English translation of the N.T. adopta Soden's test as a hase. 

X As the'se last pages came to me for revision, I received the news o! Hermann 
von Soden's sudden and untoward end. I regret that there has been so much to 
criticise as to his work. I wish 1 could have seen any way to modify it. 


the short-cut to " get there " by electing to adopt B readings in cases of 
doubt. It is not the royal road ; in fact it is the disloyal road, when we 
consider how many other witnesses he has to put aside. But it has a 
singular fascination for scholars. It is ingenious and ingenuous, but it 
will never solve our problems. 

Thus, in a variety of three or more readings or orders, Hort almost 
invariably fell back upon B, even when quite alone, so that we know 
what to expect. It is otherwise with von Soden's text. One does not 
know what to expect, and it ends frequently by getting muddled and not • 
following any document. 

Soden's notes, by whomsoever put together, without any exaggeration, 
are full of every misdemeanour known to textual criticism. Even Bvst 28 
is confused with Evan 28 (John ix. 27). I knew this must happen when 
people rushed in apparently armed cap-a-pie for the fray, but forgot the 
stringent rules of preparation which govern such bouts in whatever 
connection undertaken. 

I do not laud Merx because he agrees with me or I with him. But 
Merx reminds one of a mettlesome and blooded horse well and appro- 
priately girded for the tourney, whereas Soden's charger is ill accoutred, 
with his harness indifferently patched, and in danger of its breaking and 
coming apart, before his rider has crossed a lance. 

Mbbx, Vogels, and Buhkitt. 

Vogels has done, and is doing, good work, but seems to harp too 
much on a consanguinity (not necessarily of origin) between D*^, gome 
latins, and syr cm (sm). 

In the Syriac-Greek text, thus brought into clear light again by him, 
we have to differentiate between three things : — 

1. Glosses, or additions to the narrative. 

2. Harmonistic matters, which he traces entirely to Tatiau. 

3. The real base. 

Vogels drives this second horse very hard, and may kill him.- 
I would liken this matter to a unicorn team of horses, which, as I 
know by personal experience, is the most difficult of all combinations to 
drive ; and we can, for convenience, label the horses or their postiUons 
Burhitt, Vogels, and Merx. Thus : 

Burkiii seems to have confused glosses of the " Western " text with 
the so-caJled Western text as a whole. This lead-horse has a very tender 


and sensitive mouth, is difficult to drive, and rushes his corners. As in 
every spike-team, one or both of the wheelers (owing to the close coupling 
of the lead-bar to the crab of the pole, in the case of a single leader) 
will frequently follow the leader too quickly when the lead-reins are even 
slightly touched or looped to make a turn. The near-wheeler with his 
postilion Vogels is apt to do this. 

Fortunately Merx, the postilion of the off-wheeler, is steady-going 
and experienced, and on him we depend to arrive safely at our destination. 
He refuses to be stampeded on the one hand by the baulking, or on the 
other hand by over-anxiety on the part of the leader, and tries to quiet 
the anxious demeanour of his wheel-mate, who wants to pull the whole 
coach himself. 

In other words, apologizing for my mixed metaphor, there has been 
great confusion between glosses, harmonies, and base in the Graeco-Syriac- 
Latin unicorn coach. But the three things are absolutely distinct, for : 

(3) The Graeco-Syriac text is often the shortest, irrespectiee of 
synoptic accounts — hence very likely basic. Merx has done good work in 
his running commentary on syr sin, and must not be denied the proper 
hearing as to this and other cognate matters. 

(2) The harmonies visible which Vogels insists upon are certainly 
present in the Graeco-Syriac text, or in that part of it represented byD d 
and syr cu diatess, but we must not look at this alone. Behind these 
diatessaric harmonies rests a most ancient base. 

(1) The glosses of one or another or of a group of these " Western" 
documents represent frills and clothing assumed much later than either 
(3) or (1), and are to be kept absolutely distinct and not confused with 
harmonies or base. 

The Version Tradition. 

Eeduced to its simplest terms the question of the " Version tradition " 
seems to resolve itself into these propositions. 

A heavy Syriac influence is visible acting on the Latins (even 
extending in places to Tertnllian t), but much more lightly on the 
Greek mss. It can also be seen extending to the Coptic versions. 

A heavy Coptic influence is observed acting on some of our Latin 
MSS {e ffl) with nearly as strong a hand. 

A Latin reaction of the earliest is visible on all the Greek Mss, and 
can also be traced to some extent in the Coptic and Aethiopic versions. 

t e.g. Headings ; Luke XX. 5 Et quare, inquit Christua, non credidistis ei. 
Teri'""^^. This +Et is Syriae. Lnke xii. 53 dividehir Terf""''^ with r and S7/^ against 
the liatiiis dividentur and Gk XBDTLU dui^fptiTdrj<TQVTai, 

Benderings : John v. 39 " Scripturas in quibus salutem speratis Tert^""*^' ^ 
— Burkitt's translation of syr cu {hiat sin), althongh of course the Syriac ^iJxn is 
' anceps ' or hydra-headed, but Tert's speratis is against the Greek hoKfirt and against 
all the Latins jjutafis {a = exisiimatis as Qimlliam's translation of syr^"^ which he 
changed from Schaafa ^^putaiis "). 


Vogels and others would attribute the Syriao element in the Latins 
solely to the influence of Tatian's diatessaron. Historically speaking 
there is this much foundation for the opinion in that Victor of Capua 
seems to have found a Latin version of the diatessaron, and so far no 
traces remain of a Greek MS of the diatessaron. But there are objections 
to this view, for the diatessaron does not seem by any means the only 
responsible factor in the matter of Syriac influence on Latin, and it 
seems more probable that Tatian's foundation text, upon which he 
formed his Syriac diatessaron (if it was originally in Syriac), was a 
bilingual or polyglot embracing Gr-Syr- & hat, which, was current in 
Borne A.D. 150.t 

It is rather to the credit of the Latin versions that they bear traces 
of Syriac influence, for it shows that the second-century scholars referred 
to a Syriac version for elucidation of Aramaic points when in doubt as 
to correct Greek or Latin rendering of the phraseology of and of the 
points connected with a story whose background, was essentially and 
inseparably Semitic. The story having been given to the world in a 
Greek form and dress, the Greeks themselves were no doubt content to 
hold to the Greek text, as do more modem scholars, but the Latin and 
Graeco-Latin Mss exhibit a diflferent attitude. Hence the ' Western ' 
text links up with the ' Eastern ' or Syriac, and the Greek text goes over 
to Alexandria and Greek Egypt to be remodelled. 

In the earliest times the written Gospel was not planned. St. Peter, 
when he heard of Mark's work (we are told), "neither approved nor 
disapproved of it." In St. Peter's lifetime then he had not foreseen the 
need for it. The preaching of his eye-vyitness seemed suflBcient for the 
times ; but that was in the early stages of the ministry, and the people 
were soon clamouring for the records in written form, and we may be 
sure (although history vouchsafes nothing on the point) that in that 
misty period of the apostolio-sub-apostohc age, between A.D. 60 and 120, 
men were comparing the records,^ people of different languages were 

t This is not the place wliere I can discuss the " earliest stratum of the Latin text." 
A key passage like John viiL 55 Kat env «Tr» or* ovk oiba avrov, «rofuu OfLOtos vjuov i/rcuCTT^ff 
yields however this amount of fiiformation, that TertuUian^''"^ has it thus: " Et n 
dieam non novi, ero mnilia vestei mendax," whereas all other Latins have vobit with 
vfiiv of ABDW and a few minusciJes (limited to 1 52 188 157 254 2'") to which add 
Sod!^ {test. Beermann et Gregory). This may or may not signify that all the other 
Latins post-date TertuUian, but it reveals TertuUian'a Latin version (for I canDOt 
consider that he made the translation himself) in accord with the majority of Greek 
evidence. ..." Since, moreover, you are close to Italy you have Bome, from which 
there comes even into our own hands the very authority " (of these *' authentic writings," 
see above) rer«i^-«~'- =«• 

X Cf. all of TeriuUian'a forty-four chapters in his '^Prescription ctgainat Heretics," 
and note (iv) '* adulteri evaugelizatores," Cvii) " whence spring those * fables and endless 
genealogies ' and ' unprofitable questions ' and ' words which spread like a cancer ' . . . 
Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and 
dialectic composition. . ." See also ch. viii. and all the following. 


insisting upon being fed by the Word in their own speech, capable 
translators were at work, and scholars were immediately engaged in 
comparing these versions. 

We are apt to think, in our pride of twentieth-century scholarship 
and achievements, that things are different now to what they were then. 
My mind, however, conceives of just the same criticism in vogue then 
as now (large traces of which have come down to us in the sketches and 
remnants of the diverse heresies of the second and third centuries, into 
■which TertulUan enters fully) and doubtless the criticism of the written 
Word was keen and the comparison of the versions extensive. Hence 
also, from the marginal annotations of the disputing factors of the early 
second century, have descended to us many various readings which had 
their origin in that early age and not in any other. 

The Verdict asked. 

We have now completed the arraignment of Codex B in the Gospels, 
referring to a similar condition of the B text elsewhere, and have 
presented the facts upon which the jury should base their verdict. My 
arguments have been cumulative rather than exhaustively elaborate. I 
could have elaborated and gone into much greater detail as to many 
matters simply mentioned or only sketched. I have preferred to write 
for those who can appreciate a cumulative argument, which I hope I 
have at least outUned to their satisfaction. The verdict asked is whether 
B represents a "neutral" text or not. The claims put forward by us 
are that B does not exhibit a "neutral " text, but is found to be tinged, 
as are most other documents, with Coptic, Latin and Syriao colours, 
and its testimony therefore is not of the paramount importance pre- 
supposed and claimed by Hort and by his followers. That B is guilty of 
laches, of a tendency to "improve," and of "sunstroke" amounting 
to doctrinal bias. That the maligned textus receptus served in large 
measure as the base which B tampered with and changed, and that the 
Church at large recognised all this until the year 1881— when Hortism (in 
other words Alexaudrianism) was allowed free play — and has not since 
retraced the path to sound traditions. 

In addressing the jury for the last time, I would remind them of 
the saUent features in this investigation, and ask them to bring to bear 
upon the situation their good common sense. 

Von Sodeii has divided the Greek Mss into certain families : 

H family (headed by B, but including NCLWZ, A^, and the 
minuscules 33 892 Paris" and Sod?^'^). 

r family (headed by D and including W (in Mark) Sod'^" 28 372 %" 

the/«;« 1 {Sod I', subdivisions " '), 
the/am 13 {Sod I\ subdivisions" °'). 

, a Be 

2 H 


A large family I*, subdivisions '■'"' (headed by i and including M, the 
important cursive 71 and over twenty others). 

Family /(>«"»"' headed by the important minuscule 348. 

„ 1° headed by U and 213 and including Laura* 1°* £ind Sodc»'« 

critical codices "' "'°. 
„ I' covering the four purple uncials N2<E> and n. 
„ I' headed by 157 and including four others. 
„ /«»»« headed by the Codex Alexandrinus with KIT and a 
dozen cursives including the important 270 (,So^^) and 
280 {Sod''"). 
„ I' covering A and four cursives. 

„ J' covering F^, a very critical family, including c" Sod^'t 
Sod'^'^ So(?*" and eighteen others. 
The commentary families A (= XX''H), K» (of several Mss), C (of at 
least five members), N (of at least five members). 

Also fam K^ headed by fl with V and five cursives. 
Also /am K' composed of the uncials EFGH. 

I am sorry to bother the jury to carry so much in their heads, but 
-cards can be obtained by them with this information printed in detail, 
which they can hold in their hands and consult while considering the 
following very simple questions : 

When itaaa^aov {pro <j>paa-ov) Matt. xiii. 36 
and Siepxo/iai {pro epxo/iai) Jno. iv. 15 

were found in XB, the readings commended themselves to Tischendorf, 
Hort, and von Soden i as being excellent, neutral and basic. 

These expressions convey an ampler and fuller sense as to explaining 
the parable of the tares in the wheat, and as to the woman's repeated 
toil II in coming to the well. Origen used both these expressions. 

According to the critics, when Lucian engaged in an " Antioch " 
revision of the text, he came across these words and thought they were 
too explanatory, so he substituted i^paaov and epxofiat. In other words 
he abandoned the better for the worse (or simpler) expressions. 

Now turn to the card and observe that Lucian and the poor textus 
receptus are not alone involved in this absurdity, but all the rest. 

Of the B. family all other members oppose. 

Of the I families all oppose except Sod"^" "^ ** which have hiaaai^crov 
in Matthew, but these also have epxofiai in John and not Bitpxo/iai. 

We have therefore to assume, if Siaaaifiijaov smd Biepxpi^ai are basic, 
that all the stupid scribes who copied the rest of the /am H MSS, all the 
oiiginators or scribes of the recensions I", I'', I', (/*), I', 1°, I', I', I', I', 
J', fam'^, fanf, fam^, K^, K\ when they came to these places made 

t This really belongs with SotZ'"" in family J«. 
t Soden adopts t^e iirst but not the second. 

II So the twenty scholars who inade the ' Twentieth Century New Testament * from 
Hort 'a text translate " nor have to come all the way here to draw water,"* 


identically the same ridiculous alterations and reduced the good, expressive, 
and ample "explain" and "come repeatedly" back to the simple "tell" 
and "come." No trace remains, it may be remarked incidentally, of any 
half-way-house interpretations. 

It seems unnecessary to call your attention again to other cognate 
matters. The plain fact will appeal to you and enable you to render 
a proper judgment on the other issues when you have reconsidered 
these two simple matters, and recovered critical judgment, which Origen 
abused, for he doubtless was responsible for tiaaa<\ir)aov and hepxo/uti 
which impressed Hort as being ingenuous, forcible, and basic, instead of 
being disingenuous, and merely of an ' improving ' tendency. 

You will therefore absolve Ltician of the crime of bad revision of 
the neutral text in these and in other places, and render a verdict that 
" Antioch " holds the true base in many places, where a few ill-advised 
but well-meaning Alexandrian " scholars " tried their hands, all too 
successfully, at this same task of revision, which has appealed to modem 
Alexandrian redivivis with such strange persistency. 

For you must render a verdict on my appeal to a Court superior to 
that of the Revisers of 1881, as they are found both to enjoy and to 
have perpetuated in the Eevised Text Siaaacpriaov and Stepxof-ai. 

In rendering your verdict it would be interesting to have your views 
upon the character of Hort's foundations, theories, and critical principles. 
They are deeply involved in a consideration of these two substitutions. 
For instance, Soclen refuses Biepxofjuii, but falls into Une for Siaa-aijyricrov 
and other kindred alterations upon identically the same authority. The 
Eevisers and Soden refuse vpev (for a'ipei) in Jno. x. 18, which Hort had 
adopted upon the joint testimony of X and B. Where is then the solid 
foundation of Hort's system? What becomes of the theory that 
B pre-eminently holds the " neutral " base as against others? 

Again, if N and B went apart " close to the autographs," how much 
closer to the autographs must some of our cursives have gone apart, for 
they retain in places an apostolic and sub-apostolic base when they 
agree with Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin, or the Old Syriac against 
KBD and the rest of the H or /" families. 

Lastly, as regai-ds what influenced XB to engage in certain revision, 
we must consider Version influence upon them. If this is seen and 
recognised, the " neutral " foundation falls away, the props are withdrawn, 
and the theories as to this foundation melt into air. 

Leaving aside the possible version influence upon them of what they 
saw opposite 4>paaov to influence them to substitute hiaaaibrqirov as an 
amendment, you have only to turn the pages of my brief to be convinced 
that concurrent version influence is visible all along the hue upon X and B. 

What of Kai>avaio<; {pro icavaviTr;^) Matt. x. 4 by BCDL (of. lat) ; of 
va^apijvov [pro va^apatov) Luke xxiv. 19 (c/. lat); of Euye (pro Ev) 
Luke xix. 17 {cf. lat) ; what of anei. (pro f>;T«) Matt, xvi, 4 by B? 

2 H 2 


What of the syriac fiaptofi (for /iapta) found in B ? 

What of Luke xvi. 3 iricaTneiv ovk ia-)(jua xai enaireui aia-](yvoyLai 

found in B only of Greeks but with syrr sah boh and aeth 1 

What of the Coptic sympathy at : 

Mark xiv. 18 t<bv ea$ioinav \ 

xiii. 32 ayyeXoi 

r ,7, ; oc , / J. \ } B quite alone with Coptic. 

Luke XI. 00 +61' {ante ti; aaTpa-rrri) ^ '^ 

,, xxiii, 50 ayado-i Btxato^ { — xai) J 

Consult also in places pure syriac, Coptic, or latin order adopted 
eclactically as the mood seized B or its parent. 

As to N you will find in the appendix to my brief (Part II.) ample 
matter for reflection. The instances are too numerous to be mentioned 

The Version influence affects X and B in different places. 

Perhaps you have not given sufficient attention yet to this feature. 

Observe then the same character of influence on the text of C or W, 
L or ^, 1 or 13, 4 or 7, 21 or 22, 28 or 157, 33 or 213, 348 or 604, 892 or 
Paris", c™ or So(Z"", Sod^'" or Sod»", all in differing places, and you 
will open your eyes, and by your verdict the eyes of the Professors 
and of the Public, to a state of things unrecognised hitherto, and 
which must be considered in dealing with the basic text. I leave the 
matter confidently in your hands, relying on your sound common sense. 

Hortian "heresy." 

*' Nisi quod humanae temeritatis, non divinae anctoritatis negotium est haeresis, 
quae sic semper emendat Evangelia, dum vitiat. — rer<M*«=- ''- *• 

Upon the first page of this book I spoke of the "Hortian heresy." 
Upon this last page I would fain explain what it is that I accuse of being 
a heresy. 

The text printed by Westcott and Hort has been accepted as " the 
true text," and grammars, works on the synoptic problem, works on 
higher criticism, and others, have been grounded on this text. If the 
Hort text makes the evangelists appear inconsistent, then such and such 
an evangelist errs. Those who accept the W-H text are basing their 
accusations of untruth as to the Gospellists upon an Egyptian revision 
current 200 to 450 a.d. and abandoned between 500 to 1881, merely 
revived in our day and stamped as genuine. 

It is not as if we do not know what to expect from these Egyptian 
documents. We do know. I have open around me, as I write, the 
different authorities. When I am dealing with St. Mark's Gospel I 
know perfectly well what to expect when I consult A. I know that A is 
going to fall into line with NB right through the Gospel, and I am 


hardly ever disappointed. It is practically the same document. When 
I look at S<E> I know that in the main they are against NB here. L goes 
with NB generally as elsewhere. C, I know, will sometimes go with 
them and sometimes not. When I turn to ^ I am hardly ever mistaken. 
It runs almost invariably with NB. But when I look at W I never 
know what to expect. I know a will bear away from the other Latins 
and show positive Greek reaction. 0£ syj- sin I am never sure, while h 
nearly always helps me to good basic traditions. As to salt and boh they 
are not certain as allies of NB, so that in some cases one knows what to 
expect and in others one does not. 

The plain fact is that XBCLA^P really represent but one document, 
and that one at variance with all others ; but, as explained elsewhere, it 
is anything but a " neutral " document. 

I can almost hear the opposition saying " Why here he admits the 
steady flow of a ' neutral ' text." But it is not " neutral " ; it is purely 
Egyptian. Every new document recovered from Egypt points the same 
way. The new fragments published by Amelineau grouped under the 
letter T are proof positive. Let those who do not agree with me take 
the fragment T' and compare it with NB and Co. It falls into Une as a 
regular adherent, yet in some of their sub-singular readings it refuses to 
follow, showing exactly where the sub-editing took place in X or B. 

The "Hortian heresy " opened the way to endless other pseudo- 
scientific heresies. Thus Robinson Smith, dating from Iffley near Oxford, 
has written a paper for the October 1913 number of the ' American 
Journal of Theology ' concerning St. Luke's dependence on Josephns. 
The case as to this is most unconvincingly stated, but on the last page 
he goes out of his way to fall foul of St. Luke in these gracious and 
conservative and helpful terms : 

" That is not Luke's method of paraphrasing. On the contrary, he 
usually, or at least frequently, lowers, not heightens, effects; his sole 
aim apparently was to tell the story in his own words, and his sole 
method was to change his originals, result as it might ... I think it 
can also be shown that the resemblances between passages of Luke and 
John are not, as has been held, corrections of Luke by John, but dilutions 
of John by Luke : that the order of the Gospels is therefore Mari%, 
Matthew, John, Luke ; and the dates I place, tentatively, at 60, 80, 9.5, 
and 100 a.d. But the present task of the higher critic is not to fix 
exactly the dates of the Gospels, but by the elimination of LuTce to see 
exactly what they tell us . . , Ltike has indeed much to answer for ; 
indeed, it is an axiom of scholarship that when a historian is found 
wanting in reasonable accuracy he is not to be trusted at all. But it is 
an axiom of common sense that ' we should not try to get more out of an 
experience than there is in it,' and we should err grievously if we threw 
all of Luke's writings overboard simply because, where we can watch him, 
he so of ten flees from the truth." 


Previously Smith had said : — 

" First, and in general, this : that precisely as Luke has been 
eliminated as historically worthless and untrustworthy in all of his 
palpable derivations from Mark, so must he be eliminated in all that he, 
and he alone, has in common -with Matthew, such as the distorted and 
widely scattered sayings found in Luke of the Sermon on the Mount. 
About three-fourths or three-fifths of Luke is thus set aside as negligible if 
not actually harmful, and our knovfledge of Christ becomes at once more 
definite, if also to some extent more circumscribed." 

The author of this tirade [another Marcion come to judgment] has 
the effrontery to close his article, after accepting in toto the parables of 
the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan, with these words : 

"And in thinking of his writings as a whole, we do well to remind 
ourselves that if we possessed only the Gospel according to St. Luke, 
every Christian knee would still how." 

And this is offset only ten lines above by the statement previously 
quoted : " that when a historian is found wanting in reasonable accuracy 
he is not to be trusted at all." 

The accusations as to the detail of St. Luke's misdemeanours [outside 
of the ridiculous rehashed nonsense about Josephus] are to be found on 
the first page of the article, and resolve themselves chiefly into these 
trivial, not to say pitiful, selections. I quote the learned author : 

" Proceeding, then, with the other lines of evidence that point to 
Matthew's priority over Luke, we shall consider first such Markan 
phrases as were changed by Matthew, before they were again changed by 
Luke. (1) Mark 6: 3: 'Is not this tte carpenter, the son of Mary?' 
becomes Matthew 13 : 55 : 'Is not this the carpenter's son ? is not his 
mother called Mary ? ' which in turn becomes Luke 4 : 22 : 'Is not this 
Joseph's son ? ' f (2) Mark 6:4: 'A prophet is not without honour, but 
in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house ' ; 
which is shortened to Matthew 13 ; 57 : 'A prophet is not without 
honour, save in his own country, and in his own house ' ; which in turn is 
shortened to Luke 4 : 24 : ' No prophet is accepted in his own country. . . ' 

What such shortening by Luke has to do with his accuracy as a 
historian I do not see. Besides which the longer phrase in Mark vi. 4 is 
not certain, textuaUy speaking. 

As to St. Luke's general reliability, we have a better witness than 
Eobinson Smith, for St. Paul, the fellow-traveller of the beloved physician, 
not only seems to quote St. Luke's words rather than St. Matthew's i as 

t See Knox in ' Some loose Stones ' (p. 45) for a cogent and delightful bit of 
argunient here aa to the untenable character of the modem scholars' whole hypothesis, 
which is shown to contain complete self-contradiction. 

J 1 Tim. V. 18 Xiyti yap ]j ypa(f^ri * jSoCv aXoStPTa oil fpifiunTtts (= Pent. XXV. 4) 
Kai" a^lor 6 ipyaTTjs rov jxirrdov avrov 
= Lulie X. 7 a^trif yap 6 tpyaTTjS rov fiiadoii avrov 
whereas Matthew X. 10 = afioc yap 6 tpyarfis rijs Tpo<p7is avToi: 



Scripture, and has thus set his seal upon Luke (before 65 A.D.), hut in his 
second epistle to the Corinthians (viii. 18) has these commendatory 
remarks : 

" (Tvve7r€fJ.y^afxev he rhv aheX^ov /ier' avrov ov 6 eiraivo'; ev 
Tw evayyeXlw Sia Traa-ojp rwv eKKXrja-iioVj" 
which have generally been taken to apply to St. Luke. 

And Tert'idlia'n?'^'"''^'"''^''-^ says: Nam et Litcae digestum Paulo ad- 
scrihere solent. . .Lucae autem quod est seciuuhun nos. 

It is easy enough to turn the tables on the hypercritics by pointing 
out that it may be St. Mark who *' flees from the truth " by amplification 
rather than St. Luke who " distorts " Scripture by a shortening process. 
St. Luke writes in iv. 40 Awovto? he rov -{jXiov 

1. 32 'O-x^ta? 8e yeuo^ivrji; ore eSv 6 r/Xto? 

15 hiep^ero Be fj.a.Woi/ 6 X070? TTcpi avrov 
i. 45 'O he e^eXBoav ijp^aTo Kijpvca-etv iroWa Kat hia(j>v^^^^n' 
Tov Xoyov . . . 
oTToVe e-TTeCvaaev avro^ kol 01 /a€t' avrov 
ore ■)(^pdav ea-y^ev xai iirelvaa-ev aino'i Kal ol {xer avrov 

el he fcal 6 crarava'; e^' kavrov hiefiepiaOT} ttw? (TiaOi)- 
(Terat tj ^acnXeia avrov ; 
lil. 26 Kot el o (Tarava,'^ ave.dT'q €<^' eavrov e/iepiaOi] Kat ov 
hvi/arat crrrji/ai aXXa reXof ej^et 

Kai erepop xarewecrev eirl ttjv irerpav 
Kal aWo eTTecrev cttI to 7T€irp(ohe<i ottov ovk elx^v yT^v 

Kai (fivev eiTOLTjaev Kapirov eKaTovTairXatT lova 
Kal ehihov xapirbv ava^aivovra Kai av^avofiepov 

Kal e-Travaavro Kal eyevero yaXtjvij 

Kal eKOiraoev 6 dvep.o<i Kal eyevero yaX^]vr) fieydXv 

VTTOG^Tpet^e elt; tov oXkqv uov 

^Ttaye els tov oXkov <jov Trpos rov^ (jovs 

Kal hi-qyov otra txoc eTToiTja-ev 6 &€g<; 

Kal dirdyyeiXop avrols oca Kvpios aoi TreTroiTjKev Ka\ 
eXet)criv ere 

TrapeKdXet avrov elaeXOelv ei? rhv oIkov avrov 

Ka\ TrapaKaXet {vel Trape/caXei) avrov TroXXa Xeywv on 
TO Ovydrptov fiov eer^aTw? e%et [Kal OeXo>) Xva 
eXdiav hnd^^ ras ■)(€lpa'i avrf) "va awBii /cat ^rjar) 

Ihovtra Be rj yvvrj ore ovk eXaBev Tpefiovaa rjX$ev 
Tf Be yvvT) ^o^T]0€l<7a Kal Tpe/touca elBvia yiyovev 

St. Mark 

M >. 

St. Luke 

V. 15 

St. Mark 

i. 43 

St. Luke 

vi. 3 

St. Mark 

ii, 2.5 

St. Luke 

xi. 18 

St. Mark 

iii. 26 

St. Luke 

viii. 6 

St. Mark 

iv. 5 

St, Luke 

viii. 8 

St. Mark 

iv. 8 

St. Luke 

viii, 24 

St. Mark 

iv. 39 

St. Luke 

viii. 39 

St. Mark 

v. 19 

St. Luke 


St. Mark 


St. Luke 

viii. 41 

St. Mark 

V. 23 

St. Luke 
St. Mark 

viii. 47 
V. 33 



St. Luke 
St. Mark 

St. Luke 
St. Mark 
St. Matt. 

St. Luke 
St. Mark 

St. Luke 
St. Mark 

St. Luke 
St. Mark 

St. Luke 
St. Mark 

St. Luke 
St. Mark 

St. Luke 
St. Mark 

viii. 52 
V. 39 

ix. 28 

ix. 1 

xvii. 1 

xviii. 23 
X. 22 

xviii. 30 
X. 30 

xxi. 4: 
xii. 44 

xxi. 30 
xiii. 28 

xiii. 29 

xxii. 12 
xiv. 15 

St. Luke xxiii. 26 

St. Mark xv. 21 

■St. Luke xxiii. 35 

£t. Mark xv. 32 

.St. Matt, xxvii. 42 

St. Luke 
St. Mark 

xxiv. 1 
xvi. 1, 2 

o Se elirev laj xXaieTC 

Kal eureXffani \4yet ainoll ri Bopv^aaOe xal xXaieTe ; 

619 TO op(K TTpocrev^acrffai 

€t<f 0^09 inlrr/\ov Arar' iSiav fwvov; 

€19 apm inlrr)\ov xaT ISiav 

o Se axovaaf; ravra irepiXviro'i ey^vero 

o Se (TTvyvaaaii eVt tw Xoy^ a,iti\KJ9eii Xvnovpievof 

iTofCKairXaaiova ev t&> Katpa Toin(p 
eKmovTairXaaiova vvv ev r^ Katpq> tovt^ 

airavra t^v ^iov hv elx^v e^aXev 

Trdvra o<Ta et^ev e^aXev oXov rov ^lov avrrj^ 

orav irpo^aXatTtv rjStj 

otav ainrfi r^ o >cXaSo9 a7ra\o9 *^kin)Tai KaX eic^vrj Ta 

^LVWfjKere on rj8rf iyyi<; to ^epo9 eVrtV 
yiVMr/cere art 677U9 eaTiv ivi 0vpaK 

. Sei^t avdyawv fieya etTTpta/ievoif 

. helmet, dvdyaujv fieya ea-rptofievov croi^v 

. "Ztfi. Tiva KvpTjv. epxofievov cltt' aypov 

. irapdyovja Tiva ^tp., Kvpijv. ep'yop^vov dir' dypov 

. aXXov; etrojcrev, ijaadTta eavrov . . . 
. dXXov<; e(r<a(T€v, eavrov oii Bvyarai <rw(xai , . iva 
tBatfiev xal TTLffTevatofiev 
dXXov^ ecrratjev, eavrov ou ^t/varai (rwaai . . Kal 
TTKTrevutofiev eV avrov 

T^ Se fud rcov aa^^drav dpdpov ^adeai^ . . . 
Kat hiayevop^vov rov ffa^^drov . . Kal Xiav irpatl rj) 
lua rwv tra^^drcov. . . 

We have been taught that the " shorter" text is not only the more 
desirable but must represent basic oonijitions of Ao7i<i or of " Q." 

Why should St. Luke then " flee the truth " here because he gives 
us the shorter accounts? Why should not St. Mark have amplified 
the accounts ? Why are we to be forced into acquiescence in the theory 
that Mark formed the basis for Matthev? and Luke in these synoptic 
passages, if it was not the imaginary " Q " ? 

As to St. Luke "fleeing the truth," as against unnecessary Semitic 
redundancy in Mark, the matter is ridiculous. Supposing St. Luke did 
use St. Mark, was it necessary for him to copy word for word. I suppose 
St. Luke could have employed someone to copy Mark had he w ished to 
do that. He simply supplements Mark, giving us those wonderful 


parables that all the critics accept. Why cannot they leave the beloved 
physician alone, if, writing for Greeks, he prefers his own language as a 
historian ? 

As to the Josephus business it is not creditable to seek to make 
Luke dependent on Josephus, when on similar occasions we are assured 
that sub-apostolic Fathers are not dependent on the N.T. vpritings but 
on a " lost source common to both." We cannot argue both ways. If 
this be true of sub-apostolic Fathers we must allow St. Luke and 
Josephus also to be dependent on a common lost source. 

As to the Gospel of John,t Burkitt treats it as of no account whatever. 
But the grounds of this disbelief apply equally to the Gospel of Mark, 
for quotations from Mark are practically nil in the earliest times. The 
critics first sought to destroy St. John's Gospel as a historical document. 
Next they decided that St. Matthew's Gospel { was not prior to that of 
St. Mark, although the earliest Patristic testimony is all in favour of St. 
Matthew. Now Smith tells us that St. Luke is an absolute liar. We 
are left with Mark, the shortest in matter, the most ample in substance. 
Yet it has not as great claims to historic priority, as evidenced by early 
quotations, as the other Gospels. Are we eventually to be left with 
nothing ? Is all this fine criticism simply bent upon pulling the house 
down upon its ears ? 

I take the liberty of speaking out thus without mincing matters 
because no one else seems to care to do so, and to handle the matter 
with gloves and soft phrases seems to me would be unfaithful. 

Shall we not do well to attend to the textual side of the problem 
before indulging in the vain imaginings and superficial flights of the 
''higher" criticism'? Are we really better and more capable critics than 
TertulUan ? TertulUan does not consider that St. Luke " distorted " 
the sermon on the mount. 

t Yet Tertullian's order is (1) John, (2) Matthew, (3) Luke, (4) Mark (cf. Scrivener's 
and Gregory's Introductions) and T ertuUian' s words (against Marcion iv. 2) are : 
" Denique nobis fidem ex apostoUa -Johannes et RIatheus insinuant, ex apostolici's Lucas 
et Marcus instaurant." 

X But see the refutation of this in ' S. Mark's indebtedness to S. Matthew,' by 
F. P. Badham (T. Fisher TJuwin, London, 1897), and note the lists in chapter iii. 
Then read the words of introduction there and run on to ch. iv. p. 38 for the continuation 
of the author's summary, as follows :— 

" Of course in many of these cases, considered separately, the obligation might be 
in either direction — S. Matthew might have pruned, toned down, tfcc. — but considering 
them all together one can see that there is a unity on the positive side and not on the 
negative. To suppose that S. Matthew had predilections exactly antithetical to those 
of S. Mark is to suppose a literary miracle ... What an extraordinary conception of 
B. Matthew we are driven to by the hypothesis that the precise vivid details of S. Mark 
are original ! For these details are absent from S. Matthew one and all, and if the 
Matthaean narratives are to be derived from those in St. Mark, the conclusion is 
inevitable that the author of the foi-mer was unprecise, unpicturesque deliberately! " 


Dean Inge on St. Paul. 

" How do ye tay we are wise amd the law of the Lord U with ut > Lo the false pen 
oftluscribea hath torought faltely " (Sept: "In vain hath wrought the false pen of the 
scribes "J.f — Jerem. viii. 8. 

Before concluding I wish to pass in review a still more recent article 
(Jan. 1914) in the English Quarterly BevUw on " St. Paul " by the 
Dean of St. Paul's. 

In the Ust of authorities under review heading his article I miss the 

German writer Drews' scurrilous and unscholarly volume entitled The 

Chbist Myth, in which he wrote (3'^ ed., p. 207, on " the Pauline Jesus ") : 

"At the present day it will be acknowledged by all sensible people 

that, as Ed. von Hartmann declared more than thirty years ago, without 

Paul the Christian movement would have disappeared in the sand just as 

the many other Jewish religions have done ; " 

yet Dean Inge takes precisely the same line as Drews, and, while 

perhaps he may not be pleased to be coupled with Drews, it is clear that 

the same school of thought animates the infidel and the Churchman. 

Dean Inge sums up thus (p. 68) : 

"It is impossible to guess what would have become of Christianity 

if he (Paul) had never lived ; we cannot even he sure that the name of 

Jesus wotdd still be honoured amongst men." 

Thus the same view is held by the atheist and antichrist Drews as 

that put forth soberly and solemnly at the close of his article by a high 

dignitary of the Episcopal Church. 

Is it true then that without Paul Christianity would be dead ? 
To accept this view is to deny the Paraclete's presence, to deny the 
Saviour's Godhead, and to belittle God the Father to a degree ! 

If instead of following Drews, it had been said by Dean Inge that 
Paul happened to be the Master's "chosen vessel" to convey the 
message to the Gentiles, that his letters had been inspired by His grace, 
and preserved to us by His agencies, it would have been sufficient. As 
it stands the Dean's expression seems to point to the survival of 
Christianity depending fortuitously upon Paul's personality — surely a 
very travesty of the Christian verities ! 

Unfortunately modem " scholars " delight in the crudest and most 
irreligious utterances, if they can only thereby show that they are free 
and untrammelled thinkers. 

There were many others besides Paul. In the Didache for instance 
(that ante-Barnabas document) occurs a sentence even more noble than 
any appearing in 1 Cor. xv., viz. (Did''- ^ : 

ei yap ev tw dOavarat Kotvojvol ecTe, iroiSfp fiaXKov iv TOtv 6vr}T0t^. 
The trouble is that the ' scholarship ' of the last few years is 

t .^- 1' is apparently " conflate." 


painfully arrogant and seems to think that it has made great discoveries. 
All this appeai-s in the Dean's article again and again. He says ; 

(p. 46) " It is only in our own day that the peraonal characteristics 
of St. Paul have been intelligently studied ... It has been 
left for the scholars of the present century to give us a 
picture of St. Paul as he really was..-." (Then he goes 
on to describe the picture: ''—a man much nearer to 
George Fox or John Wesley than to Origen or Calvin." 
This is almost laughable. Have ' modern scholars ' 
discovered this indeed? The only suggestion I wo<ild 
offer is that the comparison is a little inverted. George 
Fox and John Wesley Vfere men much nearer to St. Paul 
than to Origen or Calvin. Why should St. Paul take the 
low place in the form of the comparison ?) 
(p. 47) " The ' Pastoral Epistles ' are probably not genuine, though 
the defence of them is not quite a desperate undertaking." t 
(p. .52) "A curious indication which has not been noticed is that as 
he tells us himself he five times received the maximum 
number of lashes from Jewish tribunals." 
(p. 63) "The Evangelist whom we call St. John is the best com- 
mentator on Paulinism. This is one of the most important 
discoveries of recent New Testament criticism." Indeed ! 
(p. 06) "..though it is only recently that this character of the 
Pauhne churches has been recognised." 
(The Dean has been fondling the word ' mystery-religion ' and apply- 
ing it to St. Paul's Christianity and Churches ; one sentence runs : 
" Second, the promise of spiritual communion with some Deity." 
Observe the calculated subtlety of the comparison here between the 
mystery-cults of the Greeks and the mystery-religion of the Christians). 

As to the quotation from p. 47—" The Pastoral Epistles are probably 
not genuine" — who says so? Only so)»e critics ; t and these gentlemen 
are never agreed among themselves on other matters. Yet the Dean 
reads from these same pastoral Scriptures in public, and accepted them 
(1, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon) when ordained, which ordination 
embodied a continuous declaration, not to be put aside at will by anyone 
while still within the Church, The question is "Do you unfeignedly 
believe all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament?" 
Answer : "I do believe them." I am aware that a movement is on foot 
to modify this declaration (which would indeed open the way to a grand 
muddle), but the adage of a great churchman — 

" Philosophia quotidie progressu, Theologia nisi recjressii, non crescit " — 

tj Bamsay : ' The Church in the Eoman Empire,' pp. 248 and 365 note, accepts them 
as genuine. How then can Inffe write as he does when a modem scholar such as Hamsay, 
of surpassing eminence, endorses them ? Dean Inge himself, speaking at the Lyceum 
Club {circa May 10, 1914), is reported to have referred tD " the adviee which 8t. Paul 
gave to Timolhy," and then to have ijuoted 2 Tim. ii. 3 I 


may be recommended to these progressive churchmen. If we abandon 
the Epistles to Timothy today, the critics of tomorrow may restore 
them.t If we abandon Ephesiana { today, its Pauline authority may 
be fully established tomorrow. 

In order to accept the views which ' modem scholarship ' presses 
upon TIB in so cavalier a fashion, we must believe that Tertullian and 
Irenaeus before a.b. 200 were worse judges of the Canon than critics of 
today. Tertullian does not hesitate to use EphesiansU as a Pauline 
epistle and sets his seal on both epistles to Timothy as Scripture in 
many places. 

In Tertullian's treatise de pudicitia he quotes from 1 Tim. i. in 
chapter xiii. several times. Then follows this up in chapter xiv. by 
using the apostle's own description of himself in 1 Tim. i. 1 and 
2 Tim . i , 1 . He writes ^""° ^"^ °«" "" »"<' : 

" ne scilicet Faulum apostolum GhrisH, doctorem nationum in fide 
et veritate, vas electionis. . . " 
He also quotes from Titus and has confirmed Philemon in '•»'«i''° '■ *' : 
"To this epistle alone did its brevity avail to protect it against the 
falsifying hands of Maroion. I wonder however when he received [into 
his Apostolicon] this letter which was written to but one man.T that he 
rejected the two epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus, which together 
treat of ecclesiastical discipline." 
Is Tertullian then not a better witness than Marcion? Must we 
class Dean Inge also with the Marcionites ? What better proofs do we 
require than Tertullian's express testimony ? Can the ' modem scholars ' 
give us anything as ancient against the Pauline authorship? For 
Marcion is clearly out of court and always has been. 

Or is it that ' modem scholars ' are impatient of ' ecclesiastical 
discipline,' referred to by Tertullian as contained in the letters ? 
To whom but St. Paul himself can 1 Tim. i. 13 refer? — 

". .formerly being a blasphemer and a persecutor and 
anoverbearingungovemable man. But T obtainedmercy 
because I did it ignorantly in unbelief " ; or again : 
2 Tim. i. 16, 17 " The Lord give mercy mito the house of Onesiphorus, 
for he oft refreshed me and was not ashamed of my 
chain, hut when he was in Borne he sought me out 
very diligently and found me " ; or again : 
„ i. 9 " Wherein I suffer evil unto bonds as a malefactor, but 

the word of God is not bound " ; or again : 
,, iii. 11 " Persecutions, afflictions, what things befell me in 

t The argmnonts against tiiem are absolutely mconclasive. 

X p. 47 : " Of the rest the weight of evidence is slightly against the Faoline authorship 
of Ephesians." 

II Whether this epistle was addressed to those at Ephesus or elsewhere matters not. 
Tf See Bishop Wordsworth's very beautiful remarks about the letter to Philemon. 


Antioch, in Iconinm, in Lystra, what persecutions I 
endnred. But oat of them all the Lord delivered 
me " ; or again : 
2 Tim. iv. 11 " Only Luke is with me " ; 

,, i'v. 14 " Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil." 
Again and again in the pastoral epistles there are exhortations to 
avoid foolish questions, babblings, endless genealogies, profane and old 
wives' fables, " for ('2 Tim. iv. 3) the time will come when they will not 
endure sound doctrine." 
Is that time upon us ? 

In order that readers may not think that I am unaware of any 
"new" arguments against the genuineness of the pastoral Epistles 
and that such exist, I will frankly confess that I know of no ' new ' 
arguments against them, and I venture to say that neither does the 
Dean of St. Paul's. Threadbare arguments there have been, briefly 
referred to by that excellent critic Bishop C. Wordsworth in his K.T., 
p. 4-34, as to the peculiar phraseology of the Epistles — arguments which 
he dismisses in a few well-chosen words ; but of new arguments against 
them by ' modem scholars ' where are they, Mr. Dean ? I think they 
are in Marcion's locker. Certainly the suggestion that the heresies 
referred to in the Epistles are oj later date than St. Paul's times is 
absolutely inconclusive and not even probable, t 

We cannot afford to be divorced from the ' Pastoral Epistles ' in this 
summary fashion. We regard them as some of St. Paul's most inspired 
utterances against the wicked unbelief and misbelief of 'the last times.' 
Thus the closing admonition of the 1st Epistle to Timothy covers the 
ground magnificently in one sentence : 

" Timothy, the (sacred) deposit guard (carefully), turning away 
from the empty babblings and oppositions op science falsely so 
CALLED, which some professing, have failed (' missed the mark ' 
iJ-Fmarg) J concerning the faith." 
( n Ti/idSee Tr/v -napadrfKrjv (or vapaxajaSrjKrjv, the meaning is the same) 

VV.JOV 7J>w£re6J9, rjv Ttve^ eTrayyeSXofievot trepl ttjv iriaTiv rjtnoxn'^o.v) , |1 
Has the Anglo-Saxon race outgrown its Bible and the four-fold 
Gospel narrative '? To hear the Dean one would think so. He writes 
(p. 45) : " We know very little in reality of Peter and James and John, of 
ApoUos and Barnabas. And of Paul's divine Master no hiographij can 
ever be loritten." 

t Ssc Dr. Lindsay's explanation of tlie weakness of Harnaoli's position (p. 140 note, 
' The Churcli and the Ministry in the early centuries,' London, 1902). 

X htrrixn'"^'' A-V 'erred,' but the meaning is stronger: 'failed.' Thrice is this 
word used in Timothy. Elsewhere at 1 i. 6 and at 2 ii. 18. 

II The verse has been challenged as a later addition, but on flimsy grounds. 


Observe the absence of the word adequate. The Dean does not 
say " and of Paul's divine Master no adequate biography can ever be 
written," but simply " no biography can ever be written." We seem 
to feel that he means " no biography has ever been written." 

What is he trying to teach ? That the Gospel-narrative is untrue, 
or only so imperfect that it is useless to ' modem scholars ' ? Why 
always harp on the insufficiency of our documents to portray all that 
went on in those days in Galilee ? This spirit of unrest is not scholar- 
ship ; it is simply " denying the power." Oh, for wingM words to combat 
these stupid heretical suggestions ! 

For suggestions they are. Suggestions full of guile, emanating from 
the false teachers,! false apostles, % false brethren , || false prophets,! in 
our classrooms ; suggestions that Peter's memory failed him, that Mark 
suppressed things, and John introduced questionable stories ; that Luke 
changed and embroidered, and that none of the Gospellists told the truth ! 

' Modern scholars ' love to touch on the forbidden ground of the 
speculative philosophies which St. Paul so often condenms in his 
pastoral epistles. They touch upon it and withdraw, but the harm for 
the reader is done. Thus on p. 60, of course the Dean does not mean 
that he approves of any idolatry, yet here is the wording of the sentence : 
" In addressing the Gentiles, we may assume that he followed the 
customary Jewish line of apologetic, denouncing the folly of idolatry — 
an aid to worship which is quite innocent and natural in some peoples, 
but which the Jews never understood." 

Beduced to plain EngUsh what does this mean ? 

Does it mean that although the Jews did not understand it (is 
" never " quite accurate, by the way ?), idolatry is nevertheless helpful ? 

Again, pp. 66/67 : " It is useless to deny that St. Paul regarded 
Christianity as, at least on one side, a mystery-religion ... It was as a 
mystery-religion that Europe accepted Christianity . . . And students of 
the New Testament have not yet realised the importance of the fact 
that St. Paul, who was ready to fight to the death against the Judaising 
of Christianity, was willing to take the first step, and a long one, towards 
the Paganising of it. It does not appear that his personal rehgion was 
of this type. He speaks with contempt of some doctrines and practices 
of Pagan mysteries, and will allow no ' rapprochement ' with what he 
regards as devil-worship. In this he remains a pure Hebrew. But he 
does not appear to see any danger in allowing his Hellenistic churches to 
assimilate the worship of Christ to the honours paid to the gods of the 
mysteries, and to set their whole religion in this framework, provided 
only that they have no part nor lot with those who sit at ' the table of 
demons ' — the sacramental love-feasts of the heathen mysteries." 

t 2 Peter u. 1. t 2 Cor. xi. 13. || Gal. u. i. 

^ Matt. vii. 15, xxiv. 11, Mark xili. 22, 1 John iv. 1. 


Now what in the name of commcn sense does all this mean ? Of 
course ' modern scholars ' understand the tone, the wording, the lesson 
{is there one V) pervading this kind of high-sounding talk. But from a 
churchman to churchpeople it is un-PauUne and un-ecclesiastical. It 
is walking unconcernedly on dangerous ground. It is hinting always at 
an undercurrent of unbelief latent in the ' modem scholar's ' inmost soul. 
Either we have God's true religion and our mystery-cult is absolutely 
un-pagan and unlike any other in the world, or for Dms let us substitute 
Dii and be done with it, and wipe out all Paul's striving to inculcate the 
lesson of " the one true God." 

But this is not nearly all. For close after this comes another 
astonishing sentence : 

" There is something transitional about all St. Paul's teaching." 
This curious Xoywv is left unexplained and followed by a perfectly 
harmless ten lines (bottom of p. 67), but the sting of the word remains. 
There is nothing permanent then about the foundations of Christianity as 
preached by Paul ? What does the excellent Dean mean ? That things 
which might offend the modern feminine suffragist are to be found in 
Paul's teaching? Bnt he has just disallowed the Epistles in which the 
major part of this teaching occurs ! We have to give it up. 

But the Dean is not a consistent writer finyway, for on p. 60 he says 
first of Paul's language : " His Greek, though vigorous and effective, is 
neither correct nor elegant"— und then a few hnes below: "Regarded 
merely as a piece of poetical prose 1 Cor. xiii. is finer than anything that 
has been written in the Greek language since the great Attic prose writers." 
And is this also a modem discovery ? 

I have said that Dean Inge is not consistent. We find another 
instance on p. 50. Under verbiage and somewhat elaborate language he 
seeks to impress us with the scholar's profundity, yet his study of 
Bamsay (cited among his authorities on the first page) is not profound 
enough for him to avoid direct and unnecessary antagonism to Eamsay's 
views as to St. Paul's family.! Dean Inge writes (without in the 
slightest degree indicating that this is opposed to Bamsay, whom he is 
reviewing inter alios) : 

" St. Paul did not belong to the upper class. He was a working 

artisan, a ' tent-maker,' who followed one of the regular trades of the 

Bamsay accounts quite otherwise for St. Paul's poverty, and I 
cannot but think that Eamsay has the better and more solid foundation 
for his views. In as fine a passage as one can find in his works, and 
with an almost unerring instinct for happy solutions and inspiring views, 
quite above the clap-trap of the schools, Eamsay describes the scene at 
home after St. Paul's conversion, the bitter words which must have passed 

t Suooinctly stated on pp. 81/87 of ' St. Paul the Traveller.' 


from father to son, incidentally exhibiting, by an ' e ailentio ' method, the 
reality of St. Paul's conversion, the certainty of his heavenly vision, and 
the permanence of his new views as to religion. He pictures the final 
break with home ties, and our apostle become a wanderer upon the face 
of the earth ; then, and only then, driven to take up a trade for his 
living. Not that he learned the trade then, for in accordance with 
custom he had doubtless learned it at home, hut that after leaving a 
comparatively affluent family ' milieu ' he had to face the world alone 
for the first time. 

Again, a cruel and subtle endeavour is made by referring the ' thorn 
in the flesh ' of St. Paul to a predisposition to epilepsy — here again our 
good Dean is following Drews — to account for his ' visions ' and the 
matter of his conversion. 

It is as subtle as it is cruel, and as cruel as it is subtle, for it is 
introduced some distance away from the main theme of the conversion, 
which is discussed as follows : 

" What caused the sudden change which so astonished the survivors 
among his victims ? To suppose that nothing prepared for the vision 
near Damascus, that the apparition in the sky was a mere ' bolt from the 
blue,' is an impossible theory. The best explanation is furnished by a 
study of the apostle's character " (observe the subtlety of the allusion) 
" which we really know very well. ... 

" The vision came in the desert, cohere men see visions and Jtear voices 
to this day. They were very common in the desert of Gobi when Marco 
Polo traversed it. The 'spirit of Jesus,' as he came to call it, spoke to 
his heart, and the form of Jesus flashed before his eyes, t Stephen had 
been right; the crucified was indeed the Lord from Heaven. So Saul 
became a Christian ; and it was to the Christianity of Stephen, not to that 
of James the Lord's brother, that he was converted." 

Here the Dean comes out more into the open. Eeduced to plain 
EngUsh it is this. Paul was an epileptic. The vision he saw took place 
during such an attack. He imagined that Jesus had appealed to him, 
but the vision was no more real than any other which other men from 
that day to this have experienced in the same neighbourhood. He was 
really converted by pondering over Stephen's attitude and steadfastness. 

Turning back to p. 51 you will find how the Dean falls into line 
about this epilepsy theory. He guards the matter slightly. " He was 
liable to mystical trances in which som^ have found confirmation of the 
supposition that he was an epileptic." That sounds mild, but close by 
he goes on to add that the belief of ' some ' is also his belief ; for he says : 
" He suffered from some obscure physical trouble, the nature of which we 
can only guess. It was probably epilepsy." He then proceeds to say : 
"But these abnormal states were raxe with him; in writing to the 

t The Deui means as an epileptic. 


Galatians he has to go back fourteen years to the date when he was 
' caught lip to the third Heaven.' " This serves a double purpose, 
implying the epileptic fits were rare but none the less real although 
connected with heavenly visions. But does not Dean Inge see that the 
ground is untenable ? No man, subject to epilepsy, would have dared to 
imperil the efficacy of his message by falling down in a fit at a critical 
moment. That surely ' va de soi ' as to Paul's character. Secondly, the 
long interval between visions stamps them as quite exceptional and as 
having nothing to do with epilepsy, for an epileptic subject could never 
have gone through the long series of trials and privations and hardships 
which fell to the lot of Paul without a frequent recurrence of the malady. 
Nothing loth, however, Dean Inge continues (p. 52) : 
" At that time anyone who underwent a psychical experience, tor 
which he could not account, believed that he was possessed by a spirit 
good or bad." 
This is the modern method of argument. If the epilepsy suggestion 
does not work, fall back on a statement such as this, to destroy man's 
belief in anything superterreatrial. In plain English ; " If Paul's visions 
were not due to epilepsy, at any rate he was mistaken in thinking he 
had been near the third Heaven or had any intercourse with the unseen 
world." Or in other words : " We plain matter-of-fact twentieth-century 
theologians reduce all these things to terrestrial terms. We have nothing 
to do with the extra-terrestrial. We profess to believe in God and Jesus 
Christ whom He has sent from Heaven, but really we do nothing of the 
kind. We would like to, but the full evidence, you know, is wanting, and 
pending further light we must just behave like common-sense mortals." f 
Not content with the denial of the reality of Paul's communion with 
Christ, Dean Inge also falls foul of St. Luke's predilection for the super- 
natural. He has entirely failed to see that if a physician can believe in the 
supernatural a churchman can also do so, but, as I say, that is beyond the 
churchman of today. He sees the miracle of the awakening Spring and 
" passes by on the other side," seeking and praying for " more light." 

This is what the Dean has to say of St. Luke (p. 48) : "... a man of very 
attractive character ; full of kindness, loyalty and Christian charity. He 
is the most feminine (not effeminate) writer in the New Testament, and 
shows a marked partiality for the tender aspects of Christianity. He is 
attracted bij miracles and by all that makes history picturesque ajid 
romantic." This sounds delightful, but wait only a few lines (p. 49) : 
"The narrative is coloured in places by the historian's love for the 
miraculous." Our critic, observe, does not in his certificate of good 
character say that St. Luke is either ' sober ' or ' truthful.' 

t One of these days, however, a man who does not believe in ' miracles,' or anything 
extra-terrestrial, will be considered cmde, ignorant, uneducated and incapable of appre- 
hending inter-cosnaic phenomena (Bee article by Sir Wm. Barrett, f.r.s., in Contemjtorary 
Beview for June 1914). 

2 I 


According tp the Dean he is neither. The Dean, like Eobinson 
Smith, makes no apology for calling St. Lnke a liar. And I make no 
apology for putting this plain interpretation into the Dean's mouth, for 
here is what he says (only seven lines further down) : 

" The Greek historian invented speeches for his principal characters ; 
this was a conventional way of elucidating the situation for the benefit 
of his readers. Everyone knows how Thucydides, the most oonscientions 
historian in antiquity, habitually uses this device, and how candidly he 
explains his method. We can habdly doubt that the author of 
Acts t has used a similab pebbdom, though the report of the address 
to the elders of Ephesus reads like a summary of an actual speech." 

Could disguised venom, wrapped up in the soft qualifying and slightly 
guarded phrases of the modem school, go further ? 

This kind of thing ecclesiastics do not seem to consider either 
dangerous or heretical. I write as a layman and I solemnly assure them 
that they vrill reap a whirlvrind from this vficked sowing. For wicked 
seeds they are, put forth for our comfort and edification ( G-od save 
the mark !). 

Can it be possible that ecclesiastics not only forget the Master's 
admonitions " Let your communication be yea yea, nay nay, for whatso- 
ever is more than these [vepiaaov rourav) is from evil (« toC rrovrtpov 
iariv)," but that they sourrilously suggest that onr Lord's own sub-followers 
were addicted to falsehood and to the literary affectations of the times in 
delivering their solemn message? Messieurs les Eccl^siaatiqnes, allow 
me as a layman to say that such a suggestion is not only unworthy but 
scandalous. And you have no proofs of it to offer. 

What you do offer us is an extrinsic and emasculated Christianity as 
far removed from the real thing as is your own doctrine from that which 
you impute to Paul with his pure mysticism (p. 53), " The mystical 
doctrine of the Spirit of Christ immanent in the soul of the believer, a 
conception which was the core of St. Paul's personal religion," only you 
spoil it by using the expression " a conception," as if Paul had 'conceived ' 
it and it was not after all real ! 

Away with your half-truths and your innuendoes or you will soon 
preach to empty benches. 

The early Church which lived according to the precepts of the 
Didache had many notable Evangelists besides St. Paul. Like some of 
Paul's letters their names have perished or are only briefly recorded in 
the lists of Paul's co-workers, but who can stand in the silent chambers 
of the pnvate burial places of great Boman-Christian citizens of the first 
century and not realize that Peter's message, as well as Paul's, that the 

t Just above, the Dean practically admits the Luoaii authorship oJ Acts. (This 
comparison with Thucydides evidently comes direct from the classroom of some 
University lecturer.) 


messages of Luke and Mark and John and Justus, and ApoUos, as well as 
those o£ Timothy, of Silvanus, of Philemon and Sosthenes, of Titus and 
Onesiphorus, Urbanus and Stachys and Apelles, of Crescens and Clement, 
of Tychicus and Artemas, of Erastus and Trophimus, of Ampliatus, of 
Persis, of Zenas and ApoUos, of Arohippus, of Epaphroditus, Epaphras 
and Aristarchus, of Philologus, of Asynoritua and Patrobas, of Epaenetus, 
Eufus, Hermes, Hennas, Phlegon, of Eubulus, Pudens and Linus, of 
Tertius Paul's scribe, of Apphia, Prisca and Aquila, of Claudia, of Phebe, 
of Tryphaena and Tryphosa and Julia, contributed to the continuity of 
the Christian Church apart from Paul himself. 

These all standing shoulder to shoulder t fought the heretics of that 
day : Hymenaetus and Philetus, Phygellus and Hermogenes, Demas and 
the rest. They fought them to a standstill for a time. But we, — we, — 
we dally with heresies and toy with fire. I do not lay myself open to 
the rebuke that the above-named represent St. Paul's own converts, for 
they do not, all of them. Besides St. Paul confesses himself to have 
been refreshed by others (1 Cor. xvi. 17) : " But I rejoice at the presence 
of Stephanas and Eortunatus and Archaicus, for that which was lacking 
on your part these have fulfilled. For they have refi'eshed (aviTravaav) X 
my own spirit as well as youi'S {xai to vimwv). Becognise therefore such 
as these (good) men." 

Their preaching must then have been, like that of Paul himself, 
productive of far-reaching results. 

Again (Rom. xvi. 7) : " Salute Andronicus and Junias my kinsmen, 
and my fellow prisoners who are of note among the apostles, who also 
have been in Christ before me." 

Two things stand out here, first that some of Paul's kinsfolk were 
of the Faith, and secondly a humble recognition that he, Paul, was still 
the '■ least of the Apostles," and that the other workers were doing as 
great a work as he himself. 

Has the Dean forgotten St. Paul's growth in grace? As his 
ministry flourished, so he himself becomes more humble. As Christ 
from the ' good shepherd ' (John x. 11) becomes the ' great shepherd ' 
(Heb. xiii. 20) and then the 'chief shepherd' (1 Pet. v. 4), so St. Paul 
decreases : A.D. 57 " I am the least of the apostles " (1 Cor. xv. 9 ) 
A.D. 61/3 " less than the least of all saints " ( Eph. iii. 8 ) 
A.D. 65 ? " . . .sinners, of whom X am chief " ( 1 Tim. i. 15 ) 
In the light of this what does Dean Inge's sentence mean on p. 54 ? — 
" It does not seem likely that a man of so lofty and heroic character 
was ever seriously troubled with ignominious temptations." 


t The same word as at Matt. xi. 28 " Come vmto me all ye that labour and are 
heavy laden and I ivill give you rest.^' 

2 I 2 


Yet he starts his article thus (p. 45) : 

" With St. Paul it is quite different. He is a saint without a 
luminous halo. His personal characteristics are too distinct and too 
human to make idealisation easy. For this reason he has never been 
the subject of popular devotion. Shadowy figures like St. Joseph and 
St. Aime have been divinised and surrounded with picturesque legends; 
but St. Paul has been spared the honour or the ignominy of being coaxed 
and wheedled by the piety of paganised Christianity." 

It is Inge therefore who in the sentence on p. 54 elevates St. Paul 
further above other mortals than the Church has ever elevated St. Joseph 
or St. Anne ! 

'Tis a curious bit of writing on p. 54, and implies a strange sub- 
conscious strain in the mind of the Dean. 

But if St. Paul " turned the world upside-down " it was only to assist 
in founding through others the glorious heritage which is ours to-day, 
not by human agency, not by any St. Paul — as Drews and Inge suggest — 
but by Divine agency permitting certain instruments to stand out above 
others, but only " by permission." 

This article by the Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral is cold-blooded, and 
not really scholarly. The whole message is tinged with phrases which 
sound ill in a Dean's month. 

Thus his disquisition on the God of the Old Testament (p. 54/55) is 
a lurid example of what not to write. " The distinctive feature of the 
Jewish religion is not, as is often supposed, its monotheism... And 
when Jahveh became more strictly ' the only God,' the cult of inter- 
mediate beings came in and restored a quasi-polytheiam . . . " What is 
the Dean talking about ? Of Israel's pure religion or of its lapses ? 

This is dealing with the matter from a purely literary standpoint, a 
point of view which ruined Westcott and Hort's work on the New 
Testament text, and a standpoint which is as foreign to the spirit of 
the glorious Gospel as anything that can weU be imagined. To become 
entangled in folk-lore and to dissociate Paul's personal religion from 
his teaching (pp. 53, 63, 66) is undignified, to say the least. 

Progress is barred, gentlemen, unless we return to the " old paths," 
for there can he nothing new in the religion of Jesus Christ. Either 
there was one authoritative revelation, and one sacrifice once for all, or 
there was not. No via media exists. All this beating about the bush leads 
but to confusion and apostasy, " and if the righteous scarcely be saved, 
where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear ? " (1 Peter iv. 18). There 
is one royal road and only one, and that was clearly indicated by others 
besides St. Paul. If Paul had never hved the message would have lived on. 

Therefore when Dean Inge, following Drews, says : 
" It is impossible to guess what would have become of Christianity if he 
(Paul) had never lived ; we cannot even be sure that the name of Jesus 
would still be honoured among men," 


we lift our hands in horror and exclaim : Is this a Dean writing ? Is this 
his message of consolation to the afflicted, the sin-sick and the sorrowful ? 
Has he understood his hero at all if he writes thus of him '? Would not 
St. Paul himself be the most shocked of all of us to read this utter reversal 
of the divine order of events ? 

The Dean means (I will presume this in all charity) that St. Paul 
was the instrument chosen of God to be the chief missionary to the 
nations. If he means only this it is nothing new, and no new discovery 
of these latter days ! 

But if he means that Paul by a series of fortuitous visions during 
epileptic attacks had false views, had imaginary communion with Jesus 
Christ, preached a pure but vain G-ospel on shadowy grounds, was not 
" a chosen vessel " but a self-appointed advocate of a religious mystery- 
cult, and but for this delusion would never have preached and written, 
and that it was owing to St. Paul's delusions that the western world 
embraced Christianity, then I say it is time to call a halt and ask these 
clerics to put their articles into plain and unphilosophical English that 
we may understand, we laymen, what is before us, and decide whether 
or not to leave " the Church." 

In the words of Jeremiah (xxiii. 32) : 

Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the Lord, 
and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies and by their 
lightness ; yet I sent them not nor commanded them ; therefore they shall 
not profit this people at all, saith the Lord. 

Let us turn on the other hand to a more helpful view of such 

When a Frenchman applies himself seriously to a deep study I find 
his reasoning more cogent, his conclusions more exhaustive, his explana- 
tions more luminous, his summaries more definite, and his entire critical 
attitude more scientific and profound than the similar series of mental or 
psychic efforts on the part of a German, an Englishman, or an American. 

I would therefore commend a very bright comprehensive and 
thorough-going synopsis of New Testament criticism by Andre Anial, 
Professor of Theology at Montauban, which reached me recently from 
a friend, and which appeared in the mid-February number for the 
current year of a periodical called Foi et Vie, published in Paris. The 
article is entitled " Le Nouveau Testament devant la critique," and will 
help many to a clearer view of the great issues which are so often confused 
and befogged iu the mass of semi-philosophical and pseudo-scientific 
critical Uterature which rushes at us from every corner of so-called 

I will quote one pregnant sentence towards the close of this twenty- 
two column article, and urge my readers to obtain and read the whole 
article for themselves. It will do them good, from Dr. Sanday and 


Dr. Hamack down through the rank and file of our critics. They will 
probably agree with every word which Dr. Amal has printed, and yet 
their doctrine is not set forth at all in the same way. We miss the' 
dignified constructive character in their works. 

Here is Dr Amal's stunmary : 

" II faut qu'au savoir parfois un peu amer que donne la critique 
s'ajoute le savoir, infiniment plus pr^cieux, que donne I'exp^rience 
religieuse personnelle ; a I'etude qui veut comprendre doit s'unir la priere 
qui ne veut qu'adorer. Les deux ne sont pas n^cessairement lites : c'est 
pourquoi il y a des savants qui manquent de foi, et des croyants qui 
manquent de connaissance. Nl l'un ni l'atjtrb condition ne sont 


" Neither the one (attitude) nor the other condition is desirable for 
anyone who wishes to be a witness for Christ." This is a true saying. 
The " savants qui manquent de foi " are summed up in 2 Tim. iii. 7 : 
" Ever learning and never able to come to the knoioledge of the truth." 
In the same chapter the " croyants qui manquent de connaissance " are 
assured that the real man of God, to be "complete and thoroughly 
furnished unto aU good works," must be thoroughly versed in the 

So, insensibly. Dr. Amal almost uses the language of this Pastoral 
Epistle to illustrate his point, and yet we are asked by such as Dean 
Inge to doubt that St. Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles. Well, if he did 
not, a greater than Paul then was faithful enough to warn us of the last 
times ! — to warn us of those " having a form of godliness but denying 
the power thereof," and so we find that if Paul had never lived, the name 
of Jesus would not have been forgotten among men, for the writer of the 
Pastoral Epistles has kept alive the deepest truths and teachings of the 
Christian rehgion. 

Sublime epistles ! whether of Paul or of Apollos or of another mighty 
servant of Grod ! 

Did a second-century forger then invent the introductions, to both 
epistles ? — 
(1 Tim.) Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God 

our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ which is our hope, unto 

Timothy my own son in the faith. . . . 
(2 Tim.) Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ by the wiU of God, according to 

the promise of Kfe which is in Christ Jesus, to Timothy my 

dearly beloved son. . . 
Perish the thought that these sublime prologues of " life " and 
" hope " in Christ Jesus should not be from the pen of Paul. But, — if 
they and the epistles themselves are not of Paul, then Dean Inge's 
contention falls to the ground of its own false-weight, for the name of 
Christ would have hved on among men by means of these . short and 
superb epistles, even it Paul's other universally acknowledged writings 
had perished, or if he himself had never lived. 



Our daily actions are based as much on the experience of the past 
and upon the probabilities of the future as upon our own knowledge 
of what a day may bring forth. "VVe live, in other words, by Faith. 
But Faith seems to have abandoned the circles where the cult of 
both the higher and the lower criticism flourishes. Those in these 
circles desire facts and tangible proof, like Thomas, demonstra- 
tive evidence, TeK/j.ripiov as St. Luke calls it (Acts i. 3), and do not 
seem to seek this evidence in the proper direction. To revive the 
Egyptian textual standard of a.d. 200-400 is not scientific, and it is 
certainly not final. The truth is scattered over all our documents and 
is not inherent entirely in any one document, nor in any two. Hort 
persuaded himself that where NB were together (as for vpev instead of 
aipei at John X. 18) they must be right. This kind of fetichism must be 
done away with. Other documents having the same base must be con- 
sulted for the necessary " control " in these passages of X and B, sach as 
the cursives 892 and Paris". Nor can we lightly disregard W when in 
opposition to XB. 

A reference to the qaotation from Hippocrates on our title-page may 
not be out of place here. The aphorism was well rendered into French 
by A. de Mercy in 1811 : 

La vie est courte, I'art est long, I'occasion passe vite, I'experience est 
trompeuse, le jugement difficile. 

Le medecin doit noii-seulement /aire ce qui convient, IL DoiT encore 
F.URE CONCOUHIK LE MALADE et ceux qui I'entourent et les choses externes. 

Oh for the Faith of him healed by Peter and John in the name of 
"Jesus Christ the Nazarene," the result of which is described by St. Luke 
in the medical term oKoxXrjpia "perfect soundness" (Act iii. 16). May 
" perfect soundness " in matters of doctrine and of criticism be restored to 
us, so that like another blind man healed by the Nazarene Himself in a 
twofold operation, we may " look up and see all things clearly " (Mark 
viii. 25). 

End op Pabt I. 

Thank God, all the SBiiXiNG to and fro of texts, all recensions and 
revisions, and all various readings, cannot touch or alter the whole body of 
Truth as we have it revealed to us in Holy Scripture ; but the slumbering 

DEPTHS of God's eternal counsels shall remain ever safe from THE RIPPLES UADE 
BY the breath of MAN ON THE SURFACE OF His "WoRD. — S. C. Malan. Prom the 

Preface to ' St. John's Gospel translated from the eleven oldest versions," London, 1862. 



Eeferring to pp. 252/255 in re irepi or virep, it is to be noted that 
in the fragment of an " uncanonical Gospel " just published (Vol. X., 
March 1914, Oxyr^^^*) by Grenfell and Hunt, we meet with the expression, 
on folio 2 recto col. 1 : 

Kat trpoffevyeaOe vnep twv eydpwv vfuov 
and the general language of the fragmentary context of this early 
fourth-centnry document is more akin to St. Luke's diction than to 
St. Matthew's. 

( 489 ) 


N Preface p. ii et passivi Vide Part II. 

«, methods of 45 46 47 50 54 note 58 39 94 113 129 note 147 (viii. 7) 228 note 239 257 309 and note 

328 332 337 note 353 note J 356 392 394 400 407 426, and see Part II. 
X and B, differences between Introducti(yn p. viii, 75 note, and Part II. 
Abbott, Edwin A. 333 341 
Accusative absolute, see *' Change o! case." 
Addition for the better 278 295 
Addition for the worse 295 

Additions and omissions, oscillation between 289 
Aethiopic 28 79 347 435 sfg passim, el cf. Part II. 

Alesartdria and Carthage 199 205 „..« «^r 

Alexandrian text and readings 9 11 seq 27 and note 75 note SO 81 91 110 202 250 266 290 316 355 

362 372 373 374 337 416 note 422 459 et alibi 
Alexandrian writers and critics 41 66 149 note 265 346 376 note 461 tff alibi 
Amfilineau 353 355 360 371 469 
Amphilochius 19 et alibi 
Anacoluthon 276 
" Anceps" 315 et alibi 
Anne, St. 484 
Antioch revision Preface p. iii, 35 39 42 47 55 79 110 230 243 246 248 250 251 270 286 314 324 

329 350 355 362 363 375 407 433 457 459 ct passivi 
ava^ heyofifvOT 294 
Aphraatcs 453 
Aristides 422/3 
Aristotle 412 
Armenian 343 et passim 
Amal, Dr. Andr6 iH5 seq 

Article (definite Greek), adding or withholding 74 130/1 218 note 220 272 279 298 302 308 
Article (indefinite Coptic) 218 279 376 ct alibi 

Athanasius 11 12 etc. 27 note 29 203 299 307 371 393 420 422 452 et sa^pe 
Athenagoras 424/5 
Augustine 85 108 278 436 
" Authorised " version 305 322 350 
a and E»^ 54 note 236 344 309 et alibi 
aandC 127 and note 128 140 161 note 178 
a-yoflos and ica\os 202 note 
oAAa and ei jUT) 150 
oAAa 76 {Kai) 293 
av€u and xf^P'^ ^2 ^ots 
avarTaoi and mratrraai 2iseq 
airevavri and KarevavTi 31/2 

axp^i ^6^ under tus 

B passim ; cf. 263 

B, the corrector of 325 



B, phoiogtaphic edition 48 269 270 

B and boh 6 et alibi 

B and a 64 note 266 344 369 et alibi 

B Sinai and Alexandria 318 

B and Origm in conflict 69 seq (Matt), 121 sej (Mark), 237 297 seq (Luke), 408 (John) ' 

B alone followed by W-H [not counting evidence new since Hort's death] 2 3 S 6 19 23 32 74 80 81 
83 85 [marg) 209 {pluriei) 211 212 213 (216) (226) 227 228 237 242 
256 259 260 275 278 299 300 302 803 306 806 307 308 309 310 315 
317 818 319 332 334 361 400 

BA 395 


2 6 19 20 29 61 68 78 83 92 120 211 214 217 219 225 227 228 235 237 

240 281 296 300 302 807 312 322 325 327 354 370 373 388 400 
119 174 211 233 257 258 261 278 280 290 307 317 318 406 
2 299 308 810 325 331 838 351 et alibi 
2 22 30 211 213 215 226 iiu 266 268 306 307 322 323 392 
2 212 268 337 etc. 
209 251 

B»L „ „ „ 

BC „ 
BL „ 

BT , 


BLH „ 


B outside the Gospels 416 seq 

Badham, P. P. 473 note 

Barnabas 419 477 ■ ■ . 

Barnard, P. M. IrUroduciion p. ii, i, 75 200/3 and 203 note 213 270 377 

Basic text 272 et passim 

Bebb, L. J. M. Introduction p. ix note 

Belsheim 123 note 144 note 

Biroh 101 167 

Blass 1 72 126 139 note 147 note 247 264 281 285 286 293 294 457 458 

Eloomfield 177 

Bohairio, date of 23 79 85 86 87 89 100 103 105 228 236 284 297 318 328 331 832 400 422 426 

„ influence of 79 144 et alibi 
Bomemann 55 293 
Bracketed clauses 321 

Buchanan, B. S. 153 and note 166 172 301 383 

Burgon, Dean Introdw:tion p. i, 35 68 307 327 381 383 385 note 391 394 415 
Burkitt, P. 0. Preface p. v, yi. Introduction p. ii, x, 13 28 63 121 note 318 324 847 857 note 377 

S80 402 408 445 447 462 478 
Buttmann 147 note 281 

4 in Mark 107 129 scj 178 note 183 note 443 464 «te. 
b and d in Mark 131 
b at Luke xxiii, 34 : 413 note 

C (the manuscript) 139 et alibi 
c*" 445 seq et alibi 
Case, change of, see below 
Catacombs 107 130/1 
Oelsus iii 70 

Change of case 32 35sej (Matt) 38 67, 95 seq (Mark), 246 (Luke) 281 288 290 291 292, 311 856 sej 
(John) 361 396 
„ gender 84 98 250 

„ mood 29 83 (Matt), 92 (Mark), 243 (Luke) 296 323 849 (John) 417 
„ number 38 (Matt) 89 51, 96seq (Mark), 241 249 (Luke), 349 365 (John) 374 885 436 
„ „ order 89 (Matt) 57 58 61, 9B seq (Mark), 255 (Luke) 280 284 301 303 306 309 312 314 326 

328 382 336 363 (John) 378 379 
„ ,, order, involving ohange of sense 40 323/4 
„ „ person 360 

„ „ possessive pronoun 861 371 seq 
„ sense 40 286 294 

„ tense 33 Kg (Matt) 57, 93sej (Mark) 113, 213 (Luke) 262 263 304 306 306 323 388 339 
849 sej (John) 400 417 
„ „ tense (historic presents) ilseq (Matt), 101 seg (Mark) 122 194, 321 note 343 353 sej (John) 


Change of voice 32/33 (5Iatt), 91 seq (Mark), 242 (Lliko), 323 327 339 348 (John) 418 

Change without improvement 119 300 310 363 354 396 

Chase, see " Ely, Bishop of " 

Ohtysostom 364 403 436 d alibi [see Part^II. in St. John] 

Chnrch Fathers, Language of 159 195 seg 205 389 

Church of Rome sii/siii 8 

Clement of Alexandria Introduction p. ix, 29 132 159 198/204 201 note 212 262 254 and note 270 

298 299 331 419 e( passim 
Clement of Rome 188 191 202 note 243 419 sej 467 
Coincidences 28 

Comparative or positive 201 203 note 
Compound Verbs, see under " Verbs " 

Conflation 74 112 147 168 183 note 185 251 259 note 296 323(S«fcn) 827 366 373 378 et aliU 
Confusion of eye in writing, or of ear from dictation 77 83 167 185 190 216 219 
Confusion from diglots 85 86 95 226 231 
"Const." 197 note 413 note 
Construction 321 et alibi 
Cook, Canon 9 10 210 25« 274 347 
Coptic (overlying and underlying) 82 note 
Coptic sympathy with B 20seg (jratt), 79 Kj (Mark), 203 227 scj (Luke) 294, 817 MJ (John) 320 

322 352 364 367 378 384 417 455 468 
Coptic and Latin with B 87 233 290 324 325/32 etc. 
Coptic, real situation as to B and Coptic 22 40 note 79 84 85 327 228 231 232 248 256 259 260 268 

283 284 325 and note 326 328 380 362 
Copulas 822 383/4 388 394 395 et alibi Vide Part II. p. 197/8 
Coram 89/90 179 
Cronin, H. S. 123 note 144 note 188 
Gross-questioning of witnesses 195 (quotation) 
Crum and Kenyon Preface p. v, 317 
Cursive testimony, see under " Importance of " 
Cyprian 14 55 et saepe 

Cyril of Alexandria 306 note 309 316 318 359 892 396 400 413 et alibi 
c in Mark 132 

D, idiosyncrasies of 129 note 173 note 326 note 460 c^ a^iti 

D and the Greek article 180 181 

D and Egypt 204 et alibi 

D and Origen 159 

T>d in Mark 107 127 seq 173 195 seq 

i in Mark 72 105 110 113 note 119 123 204 note 

Dative absolute, see " Change of Case " 

Dative for genitive 356 

Decretum Gelasii Preface p. iii 

Diatessarou Introduction ]p. xiii, 45 77 2-30 327 366 484 s«2 iUet alibi 

Diction of Mark, see under Mark 

„ „ Luke, „ „ Luke 

„ „ John, „ ,, John 
„ Paul, „ „ Paul 
Didache 482 483 

Dionysius of Alexandria 197 note 198 266/6 
Doctrinal 315 399 419/20 
' Doric " 275 and note 
Dorotheus Preface p. iii 
Double Greek negative 189 
Double meanings 30 80 142 169 183 and note 
Double readings 174/6 
Drews 474 seq 
haTpi0u and ftsvoi 402 

' Easier " readings 120 292 331 et alibi 

Editing by B 14 (Matt), 74 (Mark), 208 (Luke), 299 (John) 372 


Egyptian raTiaiou P«/aM p. iii, It, t, 35 39 44 47 81 83 96 229 231 239 2S6 271 286 364 370 400 

il5et passim 
Ellipsis 338 339 340<!<aiiM 
Ely, Bishop of 408 
Ephesians 476 
Ephrem 347 et alibi 
Epilepsy 480 481 
Bpiphanius 26 42 268 327 etc. 
Erasmus 456 

Error ocnli 86 91 181 note 216 231 236 257 269 277 284 294 318 320 323 336 343 384/6 e« alibi 
Eupliony 339 el alibi 

Bosebius 203 210 262 294 362 443 note et alibi 
Enstathiua 26 and note 213 note 4S3 
Brang. Ebion. 15 71 
Evang. Hebr. 325 
Evan. 22: 56 

„ 28 : Introduction p. viii, 9anote 97 187/8 et passim 

„ 33 and Origen : Introduction p. viii, ietc. 

„ 157 : PrefoM p. v, 101 206 208 e( passim 

„ 604: 137 138 255 note et o2iM 

„ 892 : Introduction p. viii, 263 note 270 272 et passim 

„ 679 (Paris"): In(rodi«!«on p. viii. Ill ef possim 

„ 697: 236 note 

„ 2": 138 et alibi 
e and M 309 et saepe 
e and KB 28 et saepe 
e and W 72 Jeg 173 196/7 
e and Cypr 239 
fT^iirra and KvKKo) 136 144 187 
eiT(ura and ctirovtra 338 
en TO 243/4 
tKtiyot 332/4 
cAi7^ and fuyftu 400 

fli-rfioirQey, eyayriov, evwTiOf 89/90 179/80 
t^arwa and fvSews 149 
t^fffTty and proper ease following 281/3 
fvitmraiTtpov, evKoXaSt Taxtov, paou Bai darrov 201 203 
taSf eus o&, or ivs if 6 7 220 221/4 

Fadlius 201 

Ferrar 376 

Form 23 note SO 58 59 89 214 242 309 337 888 seq 416 

Oalen 46 412 

Genitive absolute 137 246 361 etc. ; see '* Change of case " 

Genitive before the noun 114 233 263 >cj 264 340 847 362 ei a/iM '• 

Genitive tor dative 859 ■ ' 

Georgian version 311 note 365 note 393 39iet alibi f - 

Oersdorf 264 

Glazebrook, Canon 304note ..-,.:' 

Gospel order 473aote ■- j' 

Gospels copied separately Introduction p, ix 

Gothic version 319 note 322 439 et alibi 

Grammatical changes 32 seq (Matt), 67 91 seq (Mark), 242 seq (Luke), 335 seq 346 seq (John) 

Greek recensions in Mark differing 140 seg 

Gregory, C. B. 27 48 144 186 note 220 note 360 note 437 440 

Grenfell and Hunt Introduction p. viii seq 483 

Griesbach 60 

Gwilliam, G. H. 52 360 

yiyvo/Mi and ttfil 409 

ytyfTai/fyeytTO 137 181 note 407 seq 


Jarder " readings 97 106 120 258 271 292 356 379 386 i60 

irmonistic 44se2(Matt), 83 87 104 seg (Mark) 121 209 211 253 25i 257 (Luke) 291 324 343 

372 (John) 382 419 
irris, J. Bendel Introduction p. viii, 30 note 73 75 Si 126 129 note 140 174 195 378 403 note 434 
wtmann, Ed. von (quoted by Drews) 474 

iwkins, Sir Jobii 16 note 41 67 92 101 115 116 127 130 133 134 161 note 194 263 
inson, Heosley 422 and note 
^racleon 424 
jrmas 421 

JsycMus Preface p. ui, vi, Introduction p. xii, 230 414 
atua 123 215 292 (c/. etiam oaao pro aW' alibi) 
jgber Criticism 421/2 473 
ippocratea Titlepage, 46 409 note 412 487 
ppolytua 348 i2fi seq et alibi 
istoric present, see under " Change of tense " 
Dbart, \V. K. 41 note 46 248 
3inoioarotou 344 

Dmoiotelenton 30 83 91 105 181 note 189 213 242 323 324 330 343 344 336 note 
opelessness of considering B neutral 361 371 et alibi 
Drner, G. Preface p. ii, 16 note 20 28 2Q 65 note 60 63 73 80 81 87 101 107 103 121 note 144 note 

229 233 234 261 274 239 303 319 320 323 325 338 314 360 note 386 389 414 422 437 442 444 

447, and in Part II. 
art's (Dr.) '* Critical Principles " Introduction p. viii sej, P- 1 3^2 ^* passim ; et vide sub B : " B alona 

foUowedby \VS" etc. 

olatry 478 

uatiua 33 52 213 419 seq 431 467 

aperatives, see under " Change of tense " 

operiect tense 41 42 93 102 104 262 and note 321 note et alibi 

aportance of cursive testimony viii 110 278 399 434 seq 459 

aprovement 30 35 40 48 seq (Matt) 79 107 seq (Mark) 121 211 272 (Luke) 337 350 351 355 359 

374 (John) 
iconsistency of W-H 269 292 et passim 
idefinite (Coptic) article, see under " Article." 
ideterminate passages 295 343 401/3 
idirect oration 375 

ifinitives, see under '* Change of tense" 
ifinitive for the iav construction 92 94 

„ with and without toC 78 210 

„ as to ata-Tf or ets TO 243 
ige. Dean 47^ seq 
tonic " 108 
■enaeus 476 et alibi 
-ish texts in St. Mark 132 
■acisms 349 
;ala and DW 181/94 
Kai'65 456 seq 

abb, Professor 77 167 

arome, St. Pre/ace p. iii, 96 119 133 165 202 401 

ohn's (St.) diction 341 346 356 378 402 etc. 

33eph, St. 484 

os3phus 469 

uatin, martyr 14 69 70 198 note 205/6 254 255 266 419^^2 423 4ffl et saepe 

ary, the Preface p. ii 255 467 

uvencus 17 38 et alibi 

'enyon, F. G. Preface p. v 
Inox, B. A. 470 note 
.3IVTJ 466 seq 


Kypke 149 note 

k and B 14 et aUln 

h in St. Mark 131 note et alibi 

KaKoxoios etc. 392 

KoAo; and aycSos 202 note 

KTrffiora and xf^^/uira 15 199 

kvkKu and tyyttrra 135 H4 187 

Lake, K. 323 348 note 456 

Langoage of St. Mark, see under Mark 

Latin agreement of authorities 1S5 157 note 172 seq 

Latin basic 89/90 118 126 seq 112 seq 445 446 

Latin sympathy with B 173fi2(Matt), 76seg(Mark), 217 s^g (Luke), 310 sag (John) 343 354 359, 4L7 

Latin and Syriac opposed Introduction p. xiti, 2^9 etc. 

Laura^ '*' 156 note 165 note et passim 

Leipoldt 318 

Lewis, Mrs. 28 121 note 257 304 336 

Liddell and Scott 15 149 note 337 et alibi 

Lindsay, Dr. 477 

" Lists " of passages : 

oiroKTijo'ip/urai'njo'O' 25/6 

aireyayri/KwrtPayri 31 32 90 Karewnoy 32 

yafios/yvfi(pav 65 

epf$ra/eyfKty 49 

evatTtov/tfarpo<T$tv/eyayTLo» 89 179 (coram, ante, in conspectu) 

circi/eirciSi) 65 

irpeii/irpuias 64 
" Longer " text 200 203 236 286 288 291 297 and see Part II. 
** Lower" criticism 421/2 

Lnoian Preface p. iii, iv. Introduction p. lii, 362 466 
Lacifer 426 et alibi 
Lake's diction 41note 46 216 229 246»9 290 408m9 iSGseq ^7 seq 4&9aeq 481/2 et alibi 

Macarius 390 

Malan 358 360 396 401 487 

Marcion 202 note 211 240 and note 261 276 287 298 428 seq 476 477 

Margin, the, and its uaofi 301 304 and note 307/9 alibi 

Mark's diction 114 seq 133 seq 194 

Mark's Gospel, geographically considered 207 ■ ' : 

Mark's Greek recension 118 122 124 126 140/71 

Mark's Latin recension 126 seq 133 seq 

Mark's indebtedness to Matthew 473 

Marsh's Michaelis 149 note 

Marsh, Bishop 10 

Matthaei, C. F. 167 317 364 383 893 436 455 456 457, Part II. p. 356 

Medical language of St. Luke 41 note 46 407 aeg 

Meroati, Monsignor 440 

Mercy, A. de 487 

Methodius 225 247 and note 250 et alibi 

Merx, Adalbert Preface p. vi, 1 7 72 113 121 note 122 123 138 145 208 238 257 283 290 296 335 

347 426 434 437 438 459 460/463 
Mill 398 note 438 
Miracles 481 and note 
*' Modem " suggestions 478 481 
Hood, see " Change of " 

Moulton, W. F. 92 116 note 301 456 457 459 
Muralt 123 note 
Mystery religion 475 478 seq 
fitxpi (see under ims) 
fuyfAa and eAiy/ta 400 
fuKpiy and oXiyoi' 202 note 


isseni 1-23 42G 

3»tiTes 284/6 

itle, Dr. 1 133 note 

■eutral " text 229 255 208 270 280 281 289 310 314 342 347 308 375 330 387 396 401 420 422 

429 i32et passim 
reutral " and " Western " 268 

licetiea " 53 59 65 242 262 280 283 294 301 376 420 et alibi 
nnU3 331 355 374 393 
mber, see " Change of " and " Transition of " 

^umenius 41 413 and note, and see Part 11. p. 188 cote 

lission for the worse 296 et alibi 

tative 92 fife, (and see under " Change of mood ") 

ler, change of 20 21 39 etc. (see under " Change of ") 

gen Preface p. ii, 2seq 8 37 60 122 139 155 note 159 210 218 note 252 note 268 272 283/9 298 

320 note 328 826 337 344 340 353 .355 368 375 380 382 400 402 403/5 414 418 424 435 436 ct 

passim (see also under B against Origen) 
igen's "niceties" 10 37 58 65 213 272 283 286 note 353 
)verwhelniing evidence " 52 
yrynchus papyri Intrudnctum p. viii se<i 483 
iKKitpta 487 

and Tirai i 385/6 
ru and oix 377 
re and fh TO 243 seq 

chymius Preface p. iii 

'airs" 10 Unote 21 57 58 59 60 note 02 63 84 108 113 113 121 128 214 272 note 301 349 331 

365 365 376 378 330 331 383 384 335 386 387 338/90 391 398 395 414 
pias 202 

pyri Introduction p. viii seq^ 41 167 266 
ris*' 111 336 note fi/ passim 
rticiples 336 (see under " Change of tense") 
rtitive genitive 38 212 274 461 
storal epistles 475 seq 
ul, St. (See St. Paul) 

rfect tense 339/40 349 et alibi (see under " Change of tense ") 
ricope de adult. 334 
rsian version 15 30 261 303 306 308 332 368 394 396 404 433 430 437 433 439 440 441 442 443 

449 450e(aJJi>i 
ter at Alexandria 16 27 313 note 
eter, preaching of ' 423 note 
yron 229 
ileas Preface p. iii 
lilemon, genuineness of 475 
lutns 133 note 176/7 notes 

sonasm, see " Redundancy," and for list of Marcan pleonasms 115 
lycarp 253 419 3€g 
lyglot text 7 18 275 313 417 

ssessive before the noun 20 21 22 23 24 101 114 233 267 347 et alibi 
3- Alexandrian 270 etc. 
e-Syrian 270 374 c/c. 
epositions 52 53 

(exchange of) 19 45 47 52 63 58 63 108 219 232 251/3 
iDciples of criticism 1 seq ^liet alibi 

Provincial " handling 163 note et alibi ; see also Part II. p. 1 
nctuation 100 273 
.1 and oirep 252/5 488 
qDiii, iri/iirATjjUi and TrXTjpow 341/2 

nTfvxofiat 239 and note 252 •* 

!».)>« «i« 289/90 


"Q" « and note 472 

Bamsay, Sir W. 140 159 460 479 

Beason for writing this essaj llQetc. 

Bedundanoy 51 54 104 112 115 116 118 128 190 201 note 203 269 273 277 279-293 

Betianslation 128 136 140/71 172 note 178 

BeTised Version 66 107 120 268 278 303 305 310 313 314 315 319 note 324 331 341 342 346 361 

354 369 360 389 371 873 377 380 383 3S4 395 399 note «( aUbi 
Boblnson, Armytage (Dean of Wells) 423 

Sabatier 3S3 453 

Salmon, Dr. facing p. jm, 1 8/9 347 

Sanders, H. A. 124 157 note 200 411 

Sohaaf 52 360 

Schmiatko, A- 251 393 

Sobmiedel, Dr. P. 23 

Soholz 60 188 167 335 344 438 440 465 

Seritener, Dr. 109 167 815 821 note 383 393 437 438 

Semitic versions 375 et passim 

Septnagint 16 note 41 43 53 55/59 63 90 94 113 149 note 194 280 341 393/9 419 

" Shorter " text 61 54 76 114 210 211 240 251 268 259 268 270 271 272 273 277 279 281 283 289 

301 318 869 429 seq 435 488 et alibi ; and see " Longer " teit. 
Smith, Bobinson 469 seq 
Soden, tt»tij von 27 216 note 373 note 
„ Hermann von 6 141 414 425 164 461 465 et passim (see also Part n. passim) 
„ „ „ Eeview of 160 

Solecisms of B, see " Unique readings " 
Sonter, A. Pre/ace p. i and note, il, v, 3 24 27 18 73 note 83 103/7 119 114 237 note 257 258 283 

283 301 note 308 310 813 314 818 331 311 342 345/7 377 378 831 note 332 383 385 note 891 
Spelling 338 and note e/ oW6i ; c/. " Form " 
St. Paul's conversion 480 

„ diction 65/6 253 265 note 

„ family 479 483 

„ growth in grace 183 

„ language 479 

„ malady 480 

,, teaching 479 

„ visions 480 481 
Swete, Dr. Pre/ace p. ili (and see Part II. p. 188 note) 
Symbols of bcbb 431 
Synonyms 31 seq (Matt) 16 19 55 65 67 73 note 80 89 seq (Mark) 112 140 seq 201, 242 (Lake) 

311/13 340 sej (John) 403 416 
Synoptic accommodation .24 104 105 106 107 253 254 267 268 273 274 277 280 237 288 
Synoptic diction 16 26 27 31 32 83 38 41 note 43 48 48 61 64 67 68 83 81 97 128 136 211 212 

237 275 276 283 292 293 295 296 314 409 410 411 424 note 
Synoptic source 41 (and see under " Harmonistic ") 
Syriac interaction Introduction p. ziii 
Syriac and Latin opposed Introduction, p. xiii, 277 etc. 
Syriac and Latin with B against Coptic 211 
Syriac and Coptic with B against Latin 212 
Syriac Latin and Coptic with B 241 289 
Syriac sympathy with B 28 seq (Matt), 88 (Mark), 231 (Luke) 240 274, 30O 832 (John) 343 

Tatian Introduction p. zii, xiii, 11 195 280 

Tense, see " Change of " 

Tertullian 11 56 132 110 note 201/5 208 219 219 250 276 300 301 303 329 356 359 370/1 398 

101 426 429 note 449 163 161 471 473 476 et sae^ 
Textus receptus 435 seq 456 et alibi 
Thackeray, F. St. J. 116 note 281 281 293 
Theodore Preface p. iii 
Theodotus 423/1 


TheophilQs of Antioch 250 425/6 

Theophraatus 412 

Thaoydides 482 

Tischendori Preface p. v, 20 note 23 2U 37 41 43 46 47 65 and note 60 80 83 86 87 93 94 100 note 
101106 108 118 117 123 note 144 note 147 157 note 102 iioto 167 note 185 note 192 note 193 note 
196 note 200 204 note 205 213 note 214 220 227 237 238 244 259 203 209 273 275 278 280 283 
290 292 294 300 303 303 314 note 318 319 320 321 note 322 323 324 325andnote 326 328 note 
329 3:30 836 889 344 345 350 Sol 300 note 364 367 371 note 373 376 379 and noto 383 386 note 
386 389 391 note 393 3% 397 390 404 405 note 407 noto 429 note 432 435 436 437 438 440 442 
445 446 449 450 452 453 455 459 

Ti-ftnsition of number 55 aeq 

Trogelles 99 238 295 382 442 

Turner, C. H. Preface p. v, Introilttction p. vii seii, 23 195 847 850 note 412 aeij 427 423 457 

Texfiripiuv 487 

nyas and bus i and 385/0 

Tuivvv 284 

Underlying Greek text 313 328 ct alibi 

Unique readings in K 14 s£7 (Slatt), 74iiC(j (TilacU), 208se'i(Ijulvo) 26(>, 299 5t'(j (JoLu) 

u^w*' and v/Liy 350 seij 

inrtp and Ttp, 252/5 483 

Vaiontiniaus 70 424 

Verbs, simple and compound lulruiliictioii p. X, 51 59 100 228 229 218 -285 275 284/5 288 202 294 

344/7 (Jo. iv. 15) 
Verdict, the 485 

Versions, intluouoe of C5/(i0 367/8 376 378 462 et passim 
" Version tradition " 318 346 iOS seq et alibi 
Vogeis, H. J. 462 
Voice, see " Change of " 

W 72 77 81 82 note 99 102 note 118 136 143 160 131 173 183 239 note 240 note 249 251 Hi et alibi 

W 6 178 noto 
W d 182 

W e 72 130 173 196/7 et saepe 
W be 78 199 200 etc. 
• ' Wandcrwortc " 438 
Wostoott 139 406 
Western non-interpolations 271 
" Wcatorn " text 8 250 268 271 MT et passim 
Wetstein 109 118 107 344 398 note 
Wiclif 66 note 

Winer, 'Grammar' of 57 note 92 94 218 noto 264 281 285 288 293 301 456 457 458 
Wordsworth and White 54 note 119 311 393 noto 414 
Wordsworth, Bp. 0. 476 note 477 

XpTtfiara and KTT|/iaTO 15 199 
X^ip^s and aveti 202 note 

Fob the list of Scriptural Qootattons occorrimg is both Pabt 1. akd Part II. conbdlt 


Ncte- TVis boQkvvBE crignally pasted FREE ctvwwuarchheiatg 

Many other Free Ebooks available there. 

Books for your consideration 

It would be a mistake to suggest that we agree with all of the 
books we will list below. No book or author is perfect, and 
neither is this list. 

However, there is material in these sources, that do relate 

to the topic of the book in which this list is found, and these Ebooks 

are therefore listed for your potential consideration. 

Agree or disagree with them. Freedom of Choice and thinking 
belong to each individual. Make up your own mind. 

Codex B and Allies by Hoskier (rEwiewaf Vaticanus, Sinait and Nl^ V) 
Relevant to all versions and manuscripts, including Tischendorf, 
Wescott & Hort, J White, Burgon, Riplinger, Cumbey, etc 

Battle for the Bible by Professor Harold Lindsell 

All books by John William Burgon, Oxford, including 
Revision Revised 

New Age Bible Versions by Riplinger (often attacked though not 
much substantiated against, her own videos are available online 
and for Free) [Hidden Dangers of Rainbow by C.C. Is an old Standby 
as is New Age Messiah by same]. A Time of Departing by Youngen, 
and Deceived on Purpose by Warren Smith are relevant here. 

Greek Text for comparison should be the 1 550/51 version of 
Stephens{Estienne) [Textus Receptus] also versions 1860 Scrivener 
or Cura P.Wilson. 

Canon of the Old and New Testaments by Alexander (Princeton) 

All Books by George Stanley Faber (watch for other fabers) 

All books by Robert D. Wilson 

All Books by R.A. Anderson 

Sources of the Koran by Sir William Muir is significant in Textual 
Criticism concerning Apocryphal and Islamic literature, though not 
always in other contexts.