Chapter III: Theory and Praxis of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.129 (5)

A good example is seen in Ezek. xvi. 3. In the Sixtine edition of 1586
a new page (692) occurs in the middle of the sentence διαμαρτυρον τη
Ιερουσαλημ τας ανομιας αυτης ταδε λεγει κυριος τη Ιερουσαλημ, with the
result that the eight words from the first Ιερουσαλημ to the second
are printed twice by a recessive homoioteleuton, while in Codex 62
they have dropped out altogether owing to a forward error of the same
sort. The former mistake is tacitly corrected in all reprints, but the
latter could not be detected from the context alone without other
testimony. Compare also Mark ix. 10 in codex T of the Vulgate and ff
of the Old Latin. In the former the passage from _resurrexit_ to
_resurrexit_ is repeated, in the latter it is omitted.

Footnote 251:

I had a teacher once who invariably tried to get over any difficulty
in the Greek classics by saying that the text was corrupted by
homoioteleuton. We did not always agree with him; he was perhaps a
little too ready with this way out of a difficulty, but any one with
experience knows how very apt this mistake is to occur.

Footnote 252:

This applies to printed editions as well as to manuscripts. Van Ess’s
reprint of the Sixtine Septuagint (1824) is very carefully done, yet
five words have dropped out in Joel iii. 9. These are omitted in all
the later editions of 1835, 1855 (novis curis correcta), 1868, and
1879, and were only supplied by myself in 1887 on the occasion of the
third centenary of the Sixtine edition. They are omitted in
Tischendorf’s first edition of 1850, and also in the second of 1856.

Footnote 253:

In ancient times people always read aloud, even when reading by
themselves.

Footnote 254:

Scrivener would explain the “remarkable confusion” of the two
prepositions προ and προσ, when compounded with verbs, which we meet
_e.g._ in Matt. xxvi. 39; Mark xiv. 35; Acts xii. 6; xvii. 5, 26; xx.
5, 13; xxii. 25, by saying that the symbol [Symbol: an abbreviation
made of a rho character written on top of a block with three lines.]
is used indifferently for προ and προσ in the Herculanean rolls, and
here and there in Codex Sinaiticus. Seeing that it has become a bad
habit in Hebrew Grammars to speak of Aleph _prostheticum_ instead of
_protheticum_, and that the practice is still defended
(Gesenius-Kautzsch^{26}, p. 64, n. 3, “rightly so”) after my notice of
it (_Marginalien_, p. 67), I have given some little attention to this
confusion, and could cite dozens of examples. Others, of course, have
noticed it as well as myself. In his _N.T._, i. 20, B. Weiss says:
“The compounds with προ and προσ are interchanged quite heedlessly,”
and he cites in proof of this eight passages from the Acts. He writes
similarly in ii. 34. I shall instance only one or two cases in
connection with this same word πρόθεσις. Pitra on _Apost. Const._, 5,
17 (p. 325): πρόθεσιν restituimus cum Vatican. 2, 3, 4, 5, vulgo
πρόσθεσιν; Excerpta Περὶ Παθῶν, ed. R. Schneider (_Programme of
Duisburg_, 1895), where the manuscripts deviate in five passages, pp.
5, 14. 20; 6, 5; 13, 7. 13, and we read in § 10, ἀντίκειται δὲ
πρόσθεσις μὲν ἀφαιρέσει, etc., and in § 11, πρόσθεσις μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ
προσθήκη στοιχείου κατ’ ἀρχήν, οἷον σταφίς, ἀσταφίς καὶ ὀσταφίς. Both
times, of course, it should be πρόθεσις, as the better manuscripts
have it. Wherever mention is made of the “shewbread,” D invariably
turns it into “extra bread,” by reading προσθέσεως instead of
προθέσεως. Tischendorf first called attention to this in Luke vi. 4,
but it occurs also in Matt. xii. 4. I have no doubt myself that in the
case of verbal forms, the σ was inserted in order to avoid the hiatus
before the augment. Compare προσέθηκεν for προέθηκεν, Ex. xxiv. 23;
προσέθηκας, Ps. lxxxix. 8, Symmachus; προανεθέμην or προσανεθέμην,
Gal. i. 16. In Wisdom, vii. 27, the first hand of Sinaiticus even
writes προσφήτας for prophets. It is disputed whether the title of one
of Philo’s books is προπαιδεύματα or πρὸς [τὰ] παιδεύματα. Etc. etc.
_Sapienti sat._

Footnote 255:

We find all the possible permutations of the words αὐτοῖς ἐλάλησεν ὁ
Ἰησοῦς in John viii. 12. See my note on Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus
(N) in Hilgenfeld’s _Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie_, 42
(1899), p. 623.

Footnote 256:

See Harnack, _Das Magnificat der Elisabeth_ (Lukas i. 46-55) in the
_Berliner Sitzungsberichte_ of the 17th May 1900, p. 538 ff. A good
example of how glosses may creep into the text is afforded by Philo
“Quod det.” 11 (Cohn, 1, 266).

Footnote 257:

On the influence of a system of pericopæ on the text of Codex D, see
Scrivener’s Introduction to his edition of the manuscript, p. li, and
Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 355.

Footnote 258:

See Semler’s edition of _J. J. Wetsteinii libelli ad crisin atque
interpretationem N.T._, Halae, 1766.

Footnote 259:

(1) Lectio quae in veteribus latinis non apparet probabilior est. (2)
Codices qui cum graecis א B L concordant plerumque textum
Hieronymianum ostendunt.

Footnote 260:

In view of the frequency with which the witnesses fluctuate between
ἡμῶν and ὑμῶν, ἡμῖν and ὑμῖν, etc., it is impossible to adjust their
claims on any mere arithmetical principle. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 61)
calls attention to an important consideration in support of the
reading ὑμῖν in 2 Peter i. 4, which applies to other passages as
well—viz., “that when the New Testament epistles were read at divine
service, ἡμεῖς would very readily and very frequently be substituted
for ὑμεῖς, which excluded the reader or preacher.” Compare Acts iv.
12: ἐν ᾧ δεῖ σωθῆναι—, ἡμᾶς or ὑμᾶς?

It might be laid down as a second rule in this connection, that
particular importance attaches to those versions in which the
distinction of the persons does not depend simply on a single letter
but on a separate word (_nobis_: _vobis_, etc.). In versions of this
sort the original reading is preserved from the first; in the case of
the others, the change could be made at any point of the transmission,
especially when it was helped by the nature of the writing, which must
also, of course, be taken into account.

A glance over the verse enumeration in the margin of one of the modern
editions of the text will reveal, perhaps, most clearly how strong is
the tendency to interpolation. Of the verses into which Stephen
divided the Greek N.T. (1551), the Stuttgart edition omits entirely
the following from the Synoptic Gospels—viz., Matt. xviii. 11 (xxi.
44, Tischen.), xxiii. 14; Mark vii. 16; ix. 44, 46; xi. 26; xv. 28;
Luke xvii. 36 (xxi. 18, W-H margin); xxiii. 17 (xxiv. 12, 40, Tisch.).
Compare also Matt. xx. 28; xxvii. 35, 38, 49; Mark vi. 11; xiii. 2;
Luke vi. 5; ix. 55; xii. 21; xix. 45; xxi. 38; xxii. 19 f., 43 f., 47;
xxiii. 2, 5, 34, 48, 53; xxiv. 5, 36, 51, 52. In the case of several
verses this or that part had to be omitted. Luke xx. 30, _e.g._, is
reduced to the three words, καὶ ὁ δεύτερος, with the result that it
becomes the shortest verse in the N.T.

Footnote 261:

The best discussion of the form Ἀπελλῆς will again be found in Zahn,
_Einl._, i. 193.

Footnote 262:

See my note in the _Expository Times_ for July 1900, p. 478, where I
have brought forward a new witness for the reading Jonatha—viz.,
Jerome’s _Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum_. He explains the
word as “_columba dans_ vel _columba veniens_.”

Footnote 263:

Volck has an article of four and a half pages on Balaam in the PRE^3,
iii. 227 ff., but he says not a syllable about the form βοσόρ, which
is too bad. In Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_ it is at least
mentioned though not explained.

Footnote 264:

בער is explained as the Hebrew form of the Aramaic בעור by C. B.
Michaelis (_De Paronomasia_, § 30); Hiller, _Onomasticum_, 1706, p.
536; and Bernardus (in Marck, _In praecipuas quasdam partes
Pentateuchi Commentarius_, Leyden, 1713, 366). Marck himself makes it
the equivalent of פתור. M. M. Kalish, _Bible Studies_, i. _The
prophecies of Bileam_, London, 1877, contributes nothing to the
solution of the question.

CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

THE GOSPEL.

Matthew.

With regard to the title, Westcott and Hort say (_Introduction_, § 423, p. 321): “In prefixing the name ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ in the singular to the quaternion of ‘the Gospels,’ we have wished to supply the antecedent which alone gives an adequate sense to the preposition ΚΑΤΑ in the several titles. The idea, if not the name, of a collective ‘Gospel’ is implied throughout the well-known passage in the third book of Irenæus, who doubtless received it from earlier generations. It evidently preceded and produced the commoner usage by which the term Gospel denotes a single written representation of the one fundamental Gospel.” Compare Zahn, _GK._, i. 106 ff.; _Einleitung_, ii. 172 ff., 178 f.: “Of recent editors, Westcott and Hort have most faithfully interpreted the original idea by setting Εὐαγγέλιον on the fly-leaf, and κατὰ Μαθθαῖον, etc., over the separate books.” I have followed the same principle in the Table of Contents prefixed to the Stuttgart edition of the New Testament. Compare above, pp. 164, 165. On the spelling Μαθθαῖος, instead of Ματθαῖος, compare on the one hand the LXX. manuscripts, which exhibit the forms Μαθανιά, Μαθθανιά, Ματθανιά; Ματταθίας, Ματθαθίας, Μαθθαθίας (see Supplement I. to Hatch and Redpath’s _Concordance to the Septuagint_), and on the other, Blass’s _Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch_, § 3, 11 (English Trans. by Thackeray, 1898, p. 11).

i. 16. There are three forms of the text here—

(1) Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός: all our Greek uncials and almost all the minuscules.

(2) Ἰωσήφ, ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα παρθένος Μαρία ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν (τὸν λεγόμενον) Χριστόν: most of the Old Latin (a d g_{1} k q, with b c similarly), Curetonian Syriac, Armenian, and four minuscules—viz., 346, 556, 624, 626, with slight divergencies.

(3) Ἰωσήφ· Ἰωσὴφ δὲ, ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα (or μεμνηστευμένη?) ἦν παρθένος Μαρία, ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν: the form underlying the newly-discovered Sinai-Syriac.[265]

These readings are discussed in the “Additional Note” to _Notes on Select Readings_, Westcott and Hort, _Introduction_ (1896), p. 140 ff. Reading (2) is dismissed on external grounds as displaying the characteristic features of the “Western” type of text. Reading (3) is regarded as independent of (2), neither confirming it nor confirmed by it. Taken therefore on its own merits, it must yield to the received text (1), as it is easier to suppose that (3) is derived from (1) than _vice versa_.

Zahn goes fully into these various forms (_Einleitung_, ii. 291-293). He begins by saying that it is impossible, except on a very loose view of the facts, to conclude that the Sinai-Syriac here preserves the original text, which was gradually displaced for dogmatic reasons by the modified form presented in (2), and ultimately by that given in (1). On the contrary, the Curetonian-Syriac preserves an early form of text, and one that had a pretty wide circulation, so that it cannot be due to an orthodox alteration of the Sinai-Syriac. “If it be the case that the latter, like the former, is derived from a Greek original, and that these two earliest versions of the ‘Distinct’ Gospel are not independent of each other but are two recensions of a single version, then it follows that the recension which agrees exactly with a demonstrably old Greek text (in this case the Curetonian Syriac) preserves the original form of the Syriac version; while, on the other hand, the one which deviates from all the Greek, Latin, and other forms of the transmitted text (in this case the Sinai-Syriac) is derived from the other by a process of intentional alteration.” There would be nothing to object to this reasoning were it not that, as it seems to me, there is a flaw in the second of the premises stated above, which of course vitiates the conclusion. In the main, it is true that the Sinai-Syriac and the Curetonian are not independent, but two recensions of a single version, but their common original was, as Zahn himself was the first to suggest, Tatian’s Diatessaron, which did not contain the first chapter of Matthew’s Gospel. So that the Sinai-Syriac may also go back to a Greek text (such as has been discovered in the _Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila_, see above, p. 99), and be earlier than the Curetonian.

Zahn concludes his examination of this passage by saying: “We may give up all hope of finding in early manuscripts and versions any indication that Joseph was regarded as the natural father of Jesus by the writers of lost Gospels which may have been employed in the composition of the canonical Matthew and Luke. A writer like Matthew, whose purpose was to silence the calumnies raised against the miraculous birth of the Messiah, and who knew how to utilise the smallest details of an intractable genealogy to this end, cannot at the same time have accepted in his narrative statements directly contradicting his view of that occurrence. Any text of Matthew’s Gospel containing such features would be pre-condemned as one that had been tampered with in a manner contrary to the conception of the author.”

i. 18. The reading γένεσις is now supported by the newly-discovered Oxyrhynchus Papyrus. It was adopted in the text by Vignon (Geneva, 1574). Origen knew no other reading than γέννησις, which is also attested by L (Codex D is defective here). Westcott and Hort have accordingly given it a place in their Appendix. Weiss explains it as an alteration made in conformity with the verbal forms ἐγέννησε, ἐγεννήθη, occurring in the previous part of the chapter. Zahn (_Einleitung_, ii. 270, 289) thinks it is probably original. The two oldest and the latest Syriac have a different word here from that in i. 1. These agree with Irenæus in the omission of Ἰησοῦ. Zahn thinks this is probably correct.

i. 25. On πρωτότοκον, see above, p. 166, and the _Oxford Debate_, p. 4 ff.

v. 25. On ἀντίδικος = בעלדינא, see Lagarde, _De Novo_, 20 (_Ges. Abhdl._, 188); quem Matthaei locum quum imitaretur et rideret Lucianus in Navigio 35, ἀντίδικος non ferebat: ἕως ἔτι καθ’ ὁδόν εἰσιν οἱ πολέμιοι, ἐπιχειρῶμεν αὐτοῖς.

vi. 1. δικαιοσύνην, א* B D Syr^{sin}: ἐλεημοσύνην, most authorities: δόσιν א^a: “your gifts,” Syr^{cu}. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 311) asks whether these variants may not go back to a time when the Aramaic Gospel was interpreted orally in these different ways? The agreement exhibited between א^a and Syr^{cu} is particularly strange.

vi. 13. There is a considerable amount of unanimity now with regard to the doxology which used to be so much discussed. Among the witnesses supporting its insertion are Syr^{cu}, which, however, omits καὶ ἡ δύναμις, and the Sahidic, which omits καὶ ἡ δόξα. Syr^{sin} is unfortunately lost here. In addition to the testimony previously known for the insertion of the Doxology, there is now that of the _Teaching of the Apostles_, one of the earliest Church writings. But the very fact that the _Teaching_ is a Church work reveals the source of the Doxology—viz. liturgical use. The Conclusion was early added in Church worship from Old Testament analogies; in the First Gospel it is out of place. The Greek manuscripts from which Jerome made his version knew nothing of it, and accordingly the Catholic Church omits it to this day. Luther also passed it over in his Catechism, in which the exposition of the Conclusion is limited to the word “Amen,” and says, “it is added that I may have the assurance that my prayer will be heard.” In the Greek Church the Amen was explained as equivalent to γένοιτο, “so may it be.”

viii. 7. Fritzsche (1826) took this verse as a question of surprise. This view has been renewed by Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 307).

viii. 24. The words “erat enim ventus contrarius eis,” which are found in one manuscript of the Vulgate in W-W after “mari,” and in four after “fluctibus,” are an interpolation from Mark vi. 48. Tischendorf cites two Greek minuscules in support of it. Lagarde’s Vienna Arabic manuscript (see p. 143) mentions it as an addition of the “Roman” version.

xi. 19. Schlottman and Lagarde explain the variation between ἔργα and τέκνα as a confusion of the Aramaic עַבְדָּא (_servant_: παῖς) and עְַבָדָא (_work_). See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 311 f., and compare also Salmon, _Some Thoughts etc._, p. 121 f. It is still to be shown, however, that τέκνα is ever used as the equivalent of עַבְדָּא. Hilgenfeld (_ZfwTh._, 42. 4, p. 629) refers to 4 Esdras vii. 64 (134), where the Latin and the first Arabic version read “quasi suis _operibus_,” the Ethiopic “quasi _filiis_ suis,” and the Syriac “quia _servi_ eius sumus.”

xii. 36. See on xviii. 7.

xiii. 35. διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου is now attested only by א*, two members of the Ferrar group, and some other minuscules, but Eusebius and Jerome found it in several manuscripts, and it was used still earlier by Porphyrius as a proof of Matthew’s ignorance. It is certainly, therefore, genuine, although it is omitted by Syr^{sin}, Syr^{cu}, by the “accurate” manuscripts according to Eusebius,[266] and by the “vulgata editio” according to Jerome. The conjecture of the latter, that Ἀσάφ was the original reading, which was changed to Ἠσαΐου by some unintelligent copyist and then dropped as incorrect, only serves to show what sort of ideas he had with regard to textual criticism. The assertion of the _Breviarium in Psalmos_, p. 59 f., that all the old manuscripts read “in Asaph propheta” is pure fiction. Compare Ἰερεμίου in Matt. xxvii. 9, where one would expect Ζαχαρίου, and where we find that Ἰερεμίου is omitted by some witnesses and replaced in others by Ζαχαρίου or “Esaiam.” “Esaiam” has also crept into the Vulgate manuscript rus (W-W’s R). On the insertion, omission, and interchange of such names, see W-H’s discussion of this passage, and the “Supplementary Note” by Burkitt on Syr^{sin} in the edition of 1896, p. 143. For an interesting exchange of names (Jonah and Nahum), see Tobit, xiv. 8. Asaph is called ὁ προφήτης in 2 Chron. xxix. 30. Compare Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 313 f. Weiss^9 would omit the word on the ground of insufficient testimony as being simply introduced from iii. 3, iv. 14, viii. 17, and xii. 17.

xiv. 3. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 309) thinks it extremely improbable that D and certain important Latin witnesses should have removed the (wrong) name, Philip, from this passage on the ground of their better knowledge, while allowing it to stand without exception in Mark vi. 17. He believes rather that they have preserved the original text, and that Φιλίππου is here an interpolation from the passage in Mark. Weiss^9, on the other hand, sees no reason why it should be either bracketed or omitted. The possibility of its being inserted is shown by the fact that it also crept into six or seven manuscripts of Jerome, collated by W-W. This is one of the passages where Tischendorf in his seventh edition frankly preferred Codex D to all the other Greek witnesses.

xv. 4_b_. For θανάτῳ τελευτάτω, Syr^{cu} has נתקטל, evidently in accordance with Exod. xxi. 17. In the Arabic Diatessaron (§ 20, 23) the second half of this verse seems to be replaced by Mark vii. 10_b_. After “morte moriatur” in this passage, Ephraem adds “et qui blasphemat Deum _crucifigatur_,” which Zahn (_Forsch._, i. 157) thinks he must have found in his original. This apocryphal addition, which has no other testimony than that of Ephraem, does not seem to Zahn like a passage that had been afterwards removed from the text of the New Testament with complete success (_Forsch._, i. 241). The correct explanation of the words is given by Harris: they are the Peshitto rendering of Deut. xxi. 23. Compare Driver’s _Deuteronomy_ on the passage, and the reference there made to Lightfoot’s _Galatians_ (Extended Note on iii. 13, ninth edition, p. 152 f.). Symmachus also renders the words: “propter blasphemiam Dei suspensus est,” while Onkelos says על דחב קרם יי אצטליב, and Siphre מביגי שקלל את השם. This should be noted in connection with Matt. xxvi. 65, and still more so with John xix. 7. The only passage usually cited there is Levit. xxiv. 16, according to which Jesus should have been _stoned_. Our commentators pass too hastily over the question why the Jews insisted on crucifixion instead of stoning.

xvi. 18_b_, 19. So far as the criticism of the text is concerned, there is no occasion for entering on the discussion whether this passage, like the one resembling it in xviii. 15-18, is original or not. There may, however, be cases in which one cannot overlook the fact that where the “lower” criticism ends the “higher” begins. Compare, on the one side, Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 244 ff., and on the other, Resch, _Logia_, p. 55; _Paralleltexte_, ii. 187-196, 441.

xvi. 22. The peculiar reading, “compatiens,” which is found in the Arabic Tatian (J. H. Hill, p. 137, § 23. 42: Zahn, _GK._, ii. 546), and which Sellin has also traced in Ephraem, is now explained by the Syr^{sin} of Mark viii. 32: see my note in Lewis, _Some Pages_, p. xiii. The very same play upon the words חוס, “to pity,” and חס, “to be far from,” is found as late as in the _Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha, de trois autres patriarches_, ed. Bedjan, 1895, p. 407, line 14; p. 408, line 4. For a moment I thought of ὀργισθεὶς and σπλαγχνισθείς in Mark i. 41.

xviii. 7. The Dictum Agraphum τὰ ἀγαθὰ ἐλθεῖν δεῖ, μακάριος δὲ δι’ οὗ ἔρχεται, which, according to the _Clementine Homilies_ (xii. 29), ὁ τῆς ἀληθείας προφήτης ἔφη, was known also to Ephraem (_cf._ Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 241 f. on § 50. 4). An exact parallel to this “harmless expansion of the canonical text” is seen in the form which Matt. xii. 36 assumed in Codex C of the Palestinian Syriac Evangeliarium: that “for every _good_ word that men do _not_ speak they shall give account” (see Lewis, _In the Shadow of Sinai_ (1898), pp. 256-261; and thereon, _ThLz._, 1899, col. 177).

xviii. 20. On the form in which this saying is found in the Oxyrhynchus Logia, compare Ephraem (Moesinger 165), “ubi unus est ibi et ego sum.” Zahn believes that Ephraem found this in his text, but that Aphraates, who also has it, arrived at it by way of a “spiritual interpretation” of the canonical words. After quoting the comments of Aphraates on these words, Zahn says: “It appears certain, therefore, that Aphraates did not find in his text the apocryphal sentence given in Ephraem, but by way of interpretation reached the same thought that Ephraem found in his text as a word of comfort spoken by Jesus to the lonely. (Ephraem introduces the saying with the words: ‘He comforted them in His saying.’) The interpretation, which may not have been original in Aphraates, became first a gloss and then part of the text of Tatian’s Harmony.” This should be noticed in connection with the Oxyrhynchus Logion. See Burkitt in the Introduction to Barnard’s _Biblical Text of Clement_ (_Texts and Studies_, v. 5, p. xiv).

xx. 13. The peculiar form of the householder’s reply given in Syr^{cu}, μὴ ἀδίκει με (Baethgen, μή μοι κόπους πάρεχε) is ignored by Tischendorf. Our commentators also err in not taking note of the variant συνεφώνησά σοι for συνεφώνησάς μοι. Compare the similar variation in John viii. 57; also Luke xviii. 20, τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδα, read by the Marcionites instead of οἶδας; and Ephes. v. 14, ἐπιψαύσεις τοῦ Χριστοῦ, derived through a presupposed reading, ἐπιψαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός. Συνεφώνησά σοι in Matt. xx. 13 is also attested by Syr^{sin}, which agrees with the common text in the first member of the verse. It is also found in the newly-discovered purple manuscript in Paris. The Arabic Tatian agrees with the usual text in both members. On the strange mixture of this verse and Luke xvi. 25 in Petrus Siculus (ἑταῖρε, οὐκ ἀδικῶ σε· ἀπέλαβες τὰ σὰ ἐν τῇ ζωῇ σου· νῦν ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε) see Zahn, _GK._, ii. 445.

xx. 16. The concluding member of this verse is now rightly omitted with א B L Z and the Egyptian versions. All the Syriac versions have it, including the newly-discovered Syr^{sin}. It is worth observing that the verse with this addition forms the close of a lection in Syr^{hier}.

xx. 28. Westcott and Hort devote one of their “Notes on Select Readings” to the addition to this verse, and in the edition of 1896 Burkitt adds that it cannot have stood in Syr^{sin}, because there was not room for it on the leaf that is missing between Matt. xx. 24 and xxi. 20. According to W-H the passage is Western, being attested by D Φ among the Greek manuscripts and by the Latin and Syriac versions. “The first part only, ὑμεῖς—εἶναι, is preserved in m, ger, and apparently Leo, who quotes no more; the second part only, εἰσερχόμενοι—χρήσιμον, in ger_{2} and apparently Hilary. The first part must come from an independent source, written or oral; the second probably comes from the same, but it is in substance identical with Luke xiv. 8-10.” Tischendorf states that of the Old Latin, four (f g_{2} l q) omit the section, which, however, is found in c d e ff_{1, 2} g_{1} h (m) n, two manuscripts of the Vulgate (and. emm.), the Old German, and the Saxon. To these W-W add also the Old Latin r, two manuscripts of the Vulgate not usually employed by them, and, of those forming the basis of their edition, H^{mg} Θ O—_i.e._ the Theodulfian Recension. A hand of the tenth century has written on the margin of O, “mirum unde istud additum: cum Lucas parabolam de invitatis ad nuptias et primos accubitus eligentibus decimo canone, ubi M(atthaeu)s sua non communia dicit referat.” This resembles the marginal note attached to the passage by Thomas of Heraclea (not given by Jos. White, but by Adler, from _Cod. Assem._, 1): Haec quidem in exemplis antiquis in Luca tantum leguntur capite 53: inveniuntur autem in exemplis graecis[267] hoc loco: quapropter hic etiam a nobis adiecta sunt.

The word δειπνοκλήτωρ, which Resch took from this passage into the text of his _Logia Jesu_, for ὁ σὲ καὶ αὐτὸν καλέσας, found in Luke xiv. 9, should itself have provoked investigation. The only Latin witnesses which render it in a substantive form are d, which has _coenae invitator_ both times, and m, which has _invitator_ the first time. The others give it as a relative clause (_qui vocavit, invitavit_), so that they may have read it in the form in which it stands in our present text of Luke.[268] It is impossible not to believe that some connection exists between these substantive expressions and the Syriac מרא אהשמיתא, “master of the feast,” which is found in Syr^{cu} and Syr^{sin}, and is also given by Aphraates, for τῷ κεκληκότι αὐτόν in Luke xiv. 12 (Aphr. 388, 12-19; Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 85, note). Syr^{cu} has it both times in this passage of Matthew.[269]

Bengel, like our modern expositors, says nothing of the interpolation in his _Gnomon_, and his view with respect to it has, therefore, to be gathered from his apparatus. “Interjicit cod. Lat. vetustissimus Vos autem, etc. ... Vid. Rich. Simon, _Obs. Nouv._, p. 31. Et sic fere Cant. (_i.e._, D) cuius lectio passim exstat. Idem vero Codex Graeca sua ad Latina haec, quae modo exscripsimus, confecit: Latina autem sua, sub manu, vehementius interpolavit, magno argumento licentiae suae. Eandem periocham legit Juvencus, Hilarius: habentque praeterea codd. Lat. aliquot, et inde Sax. Ex. Luc. xiv. 8 f., interveniente forsan Evangelio Nazaraeorum ... Priorem duntaxat partem, ‘Vos autem ... minui’ habet alius cod. Lat. antiquiss. ut si Librarius, cum describere coepisset, non scribendum agnosceret: eandemque Leo M. sic exhibet. Et tamen ... porro ab hoc loco ad Luc. xxii. 28, verbum _crescendi_ protulit Cant. _coenaeque invitator_ ei dicitur δειπνοκλήτωρ.”

The truth is, of course, the very opposite of this, as is shown by the indicative _quaeritis_ and the imperative of the Syriac, which are both derived from the ambiguous ζητεῖτε. There cannot be the slightest doubt of this, seeing that the discovery of Codex Beratinus (Φ) has added a second Greek witness in support of the interpolation. It reads ἐλάττων (_cf._ _minor_, c), omits the καὶ before ἐπέλθῃ just as m does with _et_, has ἄγε in place of σύναγε (_accede_: d, _collige_), and the comparative χρησιμώτερον (_utilius_) for the positive read by D d. The word δειπνοκλήτωρ also occurs in Φ.[270] It is not found in Bekker’s _Pollux_ or in Schmid’s _Hesychius_, and the only instance that ancient lexicons are able to cite for its usage is that of Athenæus, who observes (4. 171 B) that Artemidorus calls the ἐλέατρος by that name. The note appended in Hase-Dindorf’s _Stephanus_ was not correct at the time of its publication: Quidam codices Matt. xx. 27, Hesych., Wakef. Eust. _Od._, p. 1413, 3; nor the quotation from Ducange: Δ. in Lex. MS. Cyrilli exp. ἑστιάτωρ. In the same work δειπνοκλητόριον is cited from Eust., _Il._, 766, 58, and as an explanation of ἑστιατόριον from the Lex. MS. Cyrilli. The word therefore belongs to the later popular language. The question is whether it may not also belong to the vocabulary of Tatian. Moreover, it reminds us of the equally rare word κτήτωρ in Acts iv. 34.

On the occurrence of the passage in Tatian, see Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 85, 179. On the questions connected with its interpolation see Chase and p. 216 above.

xxii. 23. We have in this verse an illustration of the difference caused by the insertion or omission of the article. If we read οἱ λέγοντες with א^c E F G etc., then the words introduce the creed of the Sadducees (“who say,” Weizsäcker: “members of that sect who deny the resurrection,” Stage); if we omit οἱ with א* B D and Syr^{sin}, we have then what they actually said to Jesus. But as this would be the only place where Matthew gave an explanation of this sort regarding Jewish affairs, the article should be omitted. See note _in loco_, _Expositor’s Greek Testament_, and compare the margin of the Revised English Version.

xxiii. 35. א^1 omits υἱοῦ βαραχίου, which is replaced in the Gospels of the Hebrews by “filium Joiadae.” Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 308) refers to the view of Hug, adopted by Eichhorn and many others, that the author, or redactor, or translator of Matthew made this Zechariah, who is rightly called the son of Jehoiada in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the son of Barachiah in order to identify him with the Zechariah, son of Baruch, who was murdered by the Zealots (Josephus, _Bell._, iv. 5. 4). He points out that this would involve a prediction on the part of Jesus, and that, moreover, the scene of the murder is different in the two cases: that the locality in Matt. points to 2 Chron. xxiv. 21, and that Matthew’s mistake in calling him the son of Barachiah is due to a confusion with the Zechariah mentioned in Isa. viii. 2, or that in Zech. i. 1. It should be observed, however, that Lucian alone calls the murdered person in Chronicles by the name of Zechariah; the LXX calls him Azariah.

xxv. 41. See on Luke xx. 35.

xxvi. 73. Ὁμοιάζει was formerly attested by D alone, but has now the further support of Syr^{sin}. The clause καὶ ἡ λαλιά σου ὁμοιάζει has crept into a great number of manuscripts, including even A, in Mark xiv. 70. There Tischendorf remarks, “Omnino e Mt. fluxit,” in which he is quite right. But he is wrong when he says “ipsum ὁμοιάζει glossatoris est.” Because the glossator must then have been earlier than Tatian (Ciasca, p. 87), and the parent of all those manuscripts. The converse is the truth—viz., that D alone preserves the original reading, and that δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ is the voice of the διορθωτής.

xxvii. 9. The name of the prophet, which was omitted in some manuscripts, according to Augustine, is now omitted only by a b and the two minuscules 33 and 157. Augustine also observes that Matthew himself would have noticed his mistake or had his attention called to it by others. On this compare my notes on ἐβαρύνατε in Acts iii. 14, which I have explained by supposing that the author read כברתם or כבדתם instead of כפרתם (_Philologica Sacra_, p. 40; above, p. 170). Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome evidently still found Ἰερεμίου in all the manuscripts. Ζαχαρίου is supplied only by 22 and _Esaiam_ by 1. See on Matt. xiii. 35, and compare _Expository Times_, November 1900, p. 62.

xxvii. 16. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 294) points out that Origen also found _Jesus_ given as the prenomen of Barabbas “in very ancient manuscripts,” but that in all probability Tatian did not have it, seeing that Bar-Bahlul cites it expressly as the reading of the “Distinct” (_i.e._, not harmonised) Gospel. Jerome says that in the Gospel of the Hebrews he was called by a name meaning “filius magistri eorum,” so that he must have been thinking not of _Bar-’abbam_ but of _Bar-rabbam_.

xxvii. 49. See above, p. 227, and compare Burkitt, _Texts and Studies_, v. 5, p. xix.

xxviii. 18. Compare Dan. vii. 14_b_ (LXX), καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία, and also Dan. vii. 13 (= Matt. xxvi. 64), vii. 14 f. (= Matt. xxviii. 18). See the _English Revised Version with marginal References_ (Oxford, 1899).

According to the subscriptions found in various minuscules, the Hebrew Matthew was translated into Greek “by John,” or “by James,” to which some add “the Brother of the Lord,” or “by Bartholomew, the celebrated Apostle (πανευφήμου), but as others say by John the Theologian, οἳ καὶ ἀληθῶς εἰρήκασιν.” See Tischendorf, and Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 267.

Mark.

As if to enforce the desire to which I have given expression above (p. 246), there has come into my hands Blass’s _Textkritische Bemerkungen zu Markus_. If the statements contained in the introductory remarks are correct, and scarcely any other view is possible in the circumstances described, then the textual criticism of the first and second Gospels is a hopeless matter. “An evangelist or teacher who obtained possession of the originally anonymous Commentarius could not feel bound to respect the external form, but considered himself justified in correcting it if it seemed to him to be defective, and even felt called to correct or complete its subject matter.” Blass reminds us that we have whole classes of documents, legends of saints _e.g._, which were treated with the utmost possible freedom by the copyists, who in fact were in this case editors and revisers. But he says that no one has treated Mark quite so drastically as all this. His summing up of the matter is, that the critic can often do no more than recognise and admit the early multiplicity, and that in such a case it were best to print the text in parallel columns. At the same time he is able to distinguish some of the variants as later falsifications or corruptions. Universally trustworthy authorities there are none; here one group is right, there another, and we no sooner give them credence than they mislead us with some fresh error.

We are far removed, truly, from the confidence displayed by Tischendorf in the treatise he published shortly before his death in 1873 in answer to the question, “Have we the genuine text of the Evangelical and Apostolical writings?” All the more urgently, therefore, do we need fresh studies in textual criticism, and their appearance in Germany is the more gratifying on that account. The _Markus-Studien_ of Dr. H. P. Chajes (Berlin, 1899), however, are quite beside the point. They are purely imaginary, having neither substance nor method.

i. 1. On the title, see above; Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 220 ff., 235; Swete, _in loco_; and on this last, S. D. F. Salmond, in the _Critical Review_, April 1899, 206 f.: “We do not see, however, why Professor Swete should regard the opening verses as probably not a part of the original work. One might say the same of the whole paragraph with which the Gospel opens, or, for that matter, the whole chapter. The documentary evidence is substantially the same in each case, and the internal considerations are much too indeterminate.” It may be pointed out, as remotely analogous to this, that before Matt. i. 18 the margin of harl (Z in W-W) contains a note in a hand of the ninth or tenth century to the effect, “genealogia hucusque: incipit evangelium secundum Matthaeum,” while Y has the words “incipit evangelium secundum Matthaeum” in the text, and eight manuscripts begin verse 18 with capital or red letters. Compare Scrivener, I. c. iii., on the divisions of the text in B and other manuscripts.

For the way in which the opening sentences are to be construed, reference must be made to the commentaries. It may be said here, however, that parallels may be cited from the New Testament for each of the three possible constructions. These are (1) Ἀρχὴ ..., καθὼς ... αὐτοῦ, ἐγένετο; (2) Ἀρχὴ ... Καθὼς ... αὐτοῦ. Ἐγένετο; (3) Ἀρχὴ ... Καθὼς ... αὐτοῦ, ἐγένετο. For (1) and (2) compare Luke iii. 1 ff., and for (3) 1 Tim. i. 1 ff. Origen favours the first construction (_Contra Celsum_, ii. 4; vol. i. p. 131). As regards the text it need only be said that καὶ is read before ἐγένετο (v. 4) by א^1, and that δὲ is found after it, not only in the Coptic, but also in Syr^{hier}.

i. 2. Origen here read ἐγὼ and ἔμπροσθέν σου (i. 131). But the former should be omitted with B D etc., and the latter with all the good authorities. It follows that Matt. xi. 10 is not taken from Mark i. 2 (Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 316, 332). One can see how important the so-called “lower” criticism may be for the “higher.”

i. 11; ix. 7. See on “Punctuation” above, p. 52.

i. 29. “B here has ἐξελθὼν ἦλθεν, and D b c e q Pesh. have substantially the same. This is not an improvement, because it excludes Peter and Andrew. The reading of Syr^{sin} is peculiar, ‘and He went out of the synagogue and came into the house of Simon Cephas (Andrew and James and John were with him), and the mother-in-law etc.’” See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 252, and below on ix. 14.

i. 41. The remarkable “Western reading” ὀργισθείς is dismissed by Swete with a reference to W-H, who call it “a singular reading, perhaps suggested by v. 43 (ἐμβριμησάμενος), perhaps derived from an extraneous source.” In my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 26, I have expressed the opinion that it is impossible to suppose a copyist altered σπλαγχνισθείς to ὀργισθείς, even though ἐμβριμησάμενος does follow two verses further down.[271] Either ὀργή, ὀργίζεσθαι has another meaning in Biblical Greek, which is quite possible, or we have here an instance of a difference in translation. The confusion of the gutturals, _e.g._, is very common. Compare Ps. xii. 6, יפיח, Gr. יפיע; Ps. xiv. 6, עני = liii. 6, חנך; וישמח in Isa. xxxix. 2 for וישמע in 2 Kings xx. 13; Ps. xxii. 25, ענות, where Gr. has δέησις = תחנות; Ps. xcvii. 11, זרע, Gr. ἀνέτειλεν = זרח; and especially Mark ix. 19 in the recently-published Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum of Lewis-Gibson, where Cod. B has מרחית for מרעת found in A B. Compare also חד, Matt. vii. 11 (p. 68), and עד (p. 135). A glance at the _Thesaurus Syriacus_ 3953 shows that רעם is used, not only for βροντᾶν, but also for σπλαγχνίζεσθαι, στέργειν, and συμπαθεῖν, while אתרעם stands for χαλεπαίνειν, ἀγανακτεῖν, and γογγύζειν. Payne-Smith gives no instance of ὀργίζεσθαι. The usual Syriac word for it even in Syr^{sin} and Syr^{hier} is רנז or אתחמת; both verbs are found together in 1 Macc. vi. 59 for the simple ὠργίσθησαν (אתחמתו ורגזו). It is worth noting that in Col. iii. 13, ὀργήν is read by F G, where D* has μέμψιν, and the other authorities μομφήν.

On the reading in Mark i. 41, see Harris, _Fragments etc._ (1895), p. 6. He shows that Ephraem had ὀργισθείς in his text alongside of σπλαγχνισθείς. The Arabic Diatessaron, in which the pericope does not come till § 22, follows the usual text, and so, too, does Syr^{sin}.

ii. 14. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 263) holds that “Levi son of Alphaeus” is the original reading here and not “James,” and that it was taken from Mark into the Gospel of Peter. The reading “Jacobum” was also taken into the first hand of the Vulgate manuscript G from D 13, 69, 124, a b c d e ff_{2} r. In Koetschau’s new edition of Origen, the name is no longer spelt Λεβής but Λευής (i. 113, 19; Cod. P: Λευίς).

iii. 17. Our expositors might tell us where Luther got his “Bnehargem,” which is retained in the German Revised Version. On Daniel ii. 7 Jerome has “Benereem.” I have looked in vain in Lyra, Pole’s _Synopsis_, Calov, and Wolf.

iii. 31. We have here to choose between καλοῦντες (א B C L etc.), φωνοῦντες (D etc.), and ζητοῦντες (A): Δ leaves a space. I am inclined to think that φωνοῦντες is the original reading, which was improved by the substitution of the more usual word καλοῦντες, just as οὐ φωνεῦντος ἀκούω was altered to λαλέοντος in the Delphic Oracle in Herodotus i. 47. Compare a similar variation in Heb. xi. 13, where the original reading κομισάμενοι (א* P) was thought to be improved by the substitution of λαβόντες (א^c D E K) or προσδεξάμενοι (A). Here, too, A stands alone. Was it never copied?

vi. 16. There is a discrepancy in the Eusebian Canons in this verse which has not been explained. Both Tischendorf and Wordsworth and White number this verse 58/2. But according to the table in _TiGr._, p. 152, W-W, p. 10, pericope 58 belongs to the _tenth_ Canon as being one that is peculiar to Mark. As a matter of fact it is not so, unless Eusebius meant ἀκούσας δέ at the beginning of the verse. It is remarkable that Eusebius did not make the whole of verses 14-20 one pericope of the second canon, but numbered 14, 15 as 57/2 and 17-20 as 59/2. He must therefore have found something peculiar in verse 16 to make it 58.

vi. 20. This passage is very instructive from a textual point of view. Most authorities read that “Herod had put John in prison, heard him and did much,” or “heard much of what he did,” ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ (ἃ) ἐποίει. But in place of this last word א B L and the Bohairic version alone read ἠπόρει, “was much perplexed when he heard him.” The great majority of expositors decide at once in favour of the latter reading, setting aside ἐποίει as the _scriptio proclivior_. But in that case should it not have been ἠπορεῖτο? In classical Greek it should undoubtedly, but in Biblical Greek we find ἠπόρει in _Wisd._ xi. 5, 17, for example, and what is specially worth noting, διηπόρει in the parallel passage Luke ix. 7, for which D, it is true, has ἠπορεῖτο. The passage may therefore be taken as showing that the correct reading has been preserved in a very few witnesses. Strict logic, moreover, would lead us to infer that not one of our 1300 manuscripts is derived from any one of these three, but that א B L continued childless. Is that likely? Field, it may be added, decides in favour of ἐποίει (_Otium Norvicense_; see _Expository Times_, August 1899, p. 483), and so, too, does Burkitt (_Texts and Studies_, v. 5, p. xix). In Philo, i. 264, line 8 (ed. Cohn), the manuscripts vary between μετεωροπολειν, —πορειν, —ποιειν, and —λογειν.

vii. 33. Codex W^d, published by Harris in facsimile (1896), here exhibits a very peculiar reading which Harnack (_ThLz._, 1891, p. 356) thinks has affinity with Tatian. It reads: ἔπτυσεν εἰς τοὺς δακτύλους αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔβαλεν εἰς τὰ ὦτα τοῦ κωφοῦ καὶ ἥψατο τῆς γλώσσης τοῦ μογιλάλου. This gives us quite another view of the occurrence than most of the authorities do. It seems much more natural certainly to moisten the fingers before putting them in the ears than before touching the tongue. It reads somewhat similarly in Syr^{sin}, which says that “he put his fingers and spat in his ears, and touched his tongue.”[272] This manuscript exhibits other noteworthy readings, which will be found most conveniently in Swete.

ix. 14. The singular, ἐλθὼν ... εἶδεν, has the support of D, while Syr^{sin} takes the side of the plural, ἐλθόντες ... εἶδον. Zahn decides for the latter. He explains the plural by saying that the original narrator was evidently one of the three disciples who were with Jesus on the Mount, in all probability Peter, as tradition has it. Peter, of course, in telling the story, used the first person and the plural number, “When we came down from the mountain we saw, etc.” Mark, reporting the words of Peter, turned the first person into the third, retaining the plural number. Zahn explains in the same way the somewhat peculiar expressions in Mark i. 29. Here Peter said, “_we_ (_i.e._ Jesus, Andrew, and himself) came into _our_ house with James and John.” In reporting Peter’s words Mark paraphrases “we” and “our,” and says, “they came into the house of Simon and Andrew with James and John.” See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 245 f.

x. 30. Neither Tischendorf nor Swete observes that in addition to the readings διωγμῶν and διωγμόν the singular διωγμοῦ is exhibited by D. Has the mysterious reading εἰς που in Clem. Alex. (_Quis Dives_) anything to do with this? It is worth remarking that the Vienna Arabic manuscript (Lagarde: Storr) has a note after “post persecutionem” to the effect that this is the “Roman” reading.

xiv. 51. καὶ νεανίσκος τις, א B C L; νεανίσκος δέ τις, D; καὶ εἷς τις νεανίσκος, A E etc. This last is rejected by Zahn on the ground that the text has evidently been accommodated to verse 47, under the false impression that another of the disciples is referred to. It is adopted, however, by Tischendorf^8, and supported by Brandt, _Die Evangelische Geschichte_ etc., Leipzig, 1893, p. 23 ff.

xiv. 65. ἔλαβον, א A B and most authorities: ἐλάμβανον, D G, 1, 13, 69, 2^{pe}, al^{10}: ἔβαλλον, H....: ἔβαλον, E M U etc. The simplest explanation of this variety of readings is that ἐλάμβανον was first, and that it was changed into the more common aorist ἔλαβον, which then became ἔβαλον or ἔβαλλον. The converse is not so likely, viz. that ἔβαλλον or ἔβαλον became first ἔλαβον and then ἐλάμβανον, or that ἔλαβον gave rise directly both to ἐλάμβανον and ἔβαλον or ἔβαλλον. On these and also on internal grounds the reading of D G is to be preferred: “they began to spit upon him, and continued to buffet him.”

xv. 28. Syr^{sin} is now to be added to the authorities that omit the interpolation. On the interesting names, Zoatham and Chammatha, Dysmas and Gestas, Titus and Dumachus (_i.e._ Θεομάχος), see Berger in the notice of Wordsworth, and White’s _Epilogus_ mentioned above, and also J. R. Harris in the _Expositor_, March 1900, p. 162 ff., April, p. 304.

xv. 34. It is extraordinary that no reference is made in Swete’s edition to the very singular reading of Codex D, ὠνίδισας instead of ἐγκατέλιπες. In addition to the testimony of the Old Latin manuscripts c (exprobrasti me), i (me in opprobrium dedisti), k* (maledixisti: see Burkitt in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. p. 278), this reading is attested in Greek by Macarius Magnes. No explanation of it has yet been given that is in all respects satisfactory. See _Expository Times_, August 1898, and February, March, and April 1900.

xvi. 9-20. The English Revisers had not the courage to omit the conclusion. They print it quite like the rest of the text, only they separate it from the foregoing by a somewhat wider space than usual, and give a note in the margin to the following effect—viz. “The two oldest Greek manuscripts and some other authorities omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.” The German Revised Version has no remark to offer, which is easily accounted for on the principles on which that version is made. The most careful discussion of the passage is now that of Swete, pp. xcvi-cv. See also Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 227-235, 237, 240, and compare the Appendix in Chase’s _Old Syriac Element_, pp. 150-157, “Note on Mark xvi. 9-20,” and Arthur Wright, _The Gospel according to St. Luke_, p. xv.

The subscription of several minuscules bears that Mark’s Gospel was written at Rome ten years after the Ascension, and delivered to the brethren there by Peter, the πρωτοκορυφαῖος of the Apostles. Others give Egypt as the place of origin. It is of more importance to observe that Λ 20, 262, 300 contain the note: ἀντεβλήθη ὁμοίως ἐκ τῶν ἐσπουδασμένων. This refers to the subscription to Matthew found in these manuscripts: ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ τῶν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις παλαιῶν ἀντιγράφων τῶν ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ ὄρει ἀποκειμένων. A similar subscription occurs in 2^{pe}, a minuscule of considerable importance for Mark (473 in Scrivener; see above, p. 151, n.).

Luke.

Apart altogether from the question how the numerous and decided peculiarities of Codex D are to be explained, we find a great many problems connected with the text of Luke’s Gospel.

On the supposed title see Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 383.

i. 26. In place of the definite indication of time, Blass follows certain Latin authorities, especially the Latin Irenæus, in giving: in ipso (or, eodem) autem tempore, ἐν αὐτῷ δὲ τῷ καιρῷ. Zahn points out (_Einl._, ii. 354) that this is the customary formula for the beginning of a pericope in the Lectionaries, and that while no doubt in the later Greek system the pericope of the Annunciation began with verse 24, 26 is the more appropriate beginning. He adds that in any case the origin of this formula is evident, and that Cod. D, which here parts company with the Latin witnesses, gives other indications besides this of the influence of a pericope-system. See the Introduction to Scrivener’s edition of the Codex, p. li.

i. 46. On the reading _Elisabeth_, see above, p. 238.

i. 63. The β text inserted the words ἐλύθη ἡ γλῶσσα αὐτοῦ before καὶ ἐθαύμασαν πάντες, by way of explaining the astonishment of the people. Zahn thinks this an absurd misplacement, seeing that the mention of Zechariah’s speaking does not come till the following verse, and the people could not know that his tongue was loosed till they heard him speak. Syr^{sin} accordingly corrects this by putting the mention of the astonishment after that of the speaking, in which it is followed by Blass.

ii. 4, 5. In the β text Blass adopts the reading αὐτοὺς, and transposes the clause διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δαυείδ to the end of verse 5. This arrangement is also exhibited by D. Syr^{sin} reads “both.” One Old Latin manuscript has _essent_, but as it exhibits the clause in the usual place, Zahn thinks that _essent_ is manifestly a clerical error for _esset_. The Syriac, he points out, is derived from Tatian. See _Einl._, ii. 355; _Forsch._, i. 118; _GK._, ii. 561; Vetter, _Der dritte Korintherbrief_ (1894), 25.

ii. 7. One Latin manuscript (e) has _obvolverunt_ and _collocaverunt_, which may be compared with _essent_ in verse 4. Zahn thinks that the plural here is due to the reflection that the mother does not usually herself attend to a new-born infant.

ii. 14. How does the Christmas song of the angels run exactly? Is it ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας, or ἐν ἀνθ. εὐδοκία? The question belongs more to exegesis than textual criticism. The whole matter turns upon a single letter, but it divides Western Christendom in two parts. The Latin Church reads it as in _hominibus bonae voluntatis_, “among men of goodwill,” or, as modern critics understand it, “among men of God’s good pleasure.” The second reading makes it “goodwill to men.” Which should it be? The former reading, the genitive, is supported by א* A B* D, the Latin, and the Gothic, whereas nearly all the other witnesses, including the Bohairic, the three Syriac, and A itself in the Hymns at the end of the Old Testament Psalter, have the nominative. One thing seems to me decisive in favour of the nominative. Scarcely any part of the New Testament is so steeped in the Hebrew spirit as the first two chapters of Luke’s Gospel. As Field points out in the third part of his _Otium Norvicense_, the Greek ἄνθρωποι corresponds to the Hebrew expression “son of Adam,” which cannot take another genitive after it—“sons of Adam of goodwill.” On the other hand, the word _goodwill_ in Hebrew is always followed by the preposition corresponding to the Greek ἐν. So that, till we have further testimony, I would retain the nominative and the tripartite division, notwithstanding the authority of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Weizsäcker, Stage, and Blass, who, by the way, mentions no variants in the β text.

ii. 40. D here reads ἐν αὐτῷ in place of ἐπ’ αὐτό. The difference is slight, but not unimportant from a theological point of view. It is not accidental, as is shown by the corresponding change of ἐπ’ into εἰς in ch. iii. 22.