Chapter III: Theory and Praxis of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.129 (8)

i. 2. Zahn agrees with Lachmann and Spitta in holding that ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν is the correct text here—that is to say, he omits τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ. Tischendorf’s Apparatus is very diffuse on this verse, and Baljon’s note, which is extracted from it, is accordingly not quite satisfactory.[289] Like all the other editors, he gives ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν in the text, but the only variants he mentions are the insertion of Χριστοῦ after Ἰησοῦ, and the omission of ἡμῶν. There is no notice of the omission of the words τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ by any of the witnesses. They are not found in P, the best manuscripts of the Vulgate (am fu dem harl), Philoxenian and Harklean Syriac, nor in minuscules 69, 137, 163. These last, however, the Syriac and the minuscules with m, insert Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ after ἡμῶν. Kühl believes that the shorter form is probably due to the fact that in the epistle Christ is everywhere regarded as the object of ἐπίγνωσις. But this is really very improbable. For the scribe could not have been aware of this when he began to write the epistle, so that he must have turned back and deleted the words καὶ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ afterwards. At the same time it is a fundamental principle of textual criticism that the _lectio brevior_ is to be preferred. Reference may be made to the _Epilogus_ of Wordsworth and White, ch. vi., _De regulis a nobis in textu constituendo adhibitis_, where the very title of section 4 implies this principle: “Cum brevior lectio probabilior sit, codices A F H* M Y plerumque praeferendi sunt,” and where the most conspicuous examples of this rule are said to be “Additamenta nominum propriorum, et praecipue sanctorum—_e.g._ Jesus, Christus, Dominus, Deus.” It is true that in the passage before us we have not simply a case of the insertion of a word or words understood; at the same time, here if anywhere the text is more likely to have been extended than abbreviated. It remains to be seen whether P exhibits a good text in other passages of the Catholic Epistles as well as this, but so far as the minuscules 69 and 137 are concerned, they justly bear a good reputation. Hort calls 69 one of the better cursives, and 137 has a text so closely resembling that of Codices D E as to be of material assistance when these are defective. The minuscules are too often regarded as mere ciphers; as if a cipher more or less behind a number did not make a vast difference. In the very next verse we find 137 supporting א A in reading τὰ πάντα, which is accepted by Tischendorf and Weiss, and preferred also by Kühl. In this instance it contradicts P, which omits τὰ with B C K L.

i. 12. Here μελλήσω is given by א A B C P, οὐ μελλήσω by 8 f tol (_non differam_), and οὐκ ἀμελήσω by K L etc. (“the Antiochean recension and the Syriac versions,” Zahn). “Μελλήσω, with the present infinitive, can hardly be simply a periphrastic future. The idea is rather that the writer will be prepared in the future, as well as in the past and in the present, to remind them of the truths they know, whenever the necessity arises. As they had no evidence of the fulfilment of this promise, the copyists and translators found a difficulty with this expression, and hence the variants.” Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 53 f.

i. 15. The reading σπουδάζω, found in א 31, and the Armenian, is also attested by the Philoxenian Syriac, a fact which Zahn regards as important. “On transcriptional grounds the reading σπουδάσω, preferred by our editors, would appear to be confirmed by the reading σπουδάσατε, exhibited by the Harklean Syriac and a few minuscules. But in reality both these latter readings merely serve to show that a difficulty was felt again in admitting a promise on the part of Peter which he seemed never to have fulfilled.” _Einleitung_, ii. 54. Compare on μελλήσω above.

i. 21. It is probable that Theophilus of Antioch (_Ad Autolycum_, ii. 9) read (οἱ) ἅγιοι (τοῦ) θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι, the form exhibited by א and A (“the chief representatives of the Antiochean family”), and also by several Latin witnesses. See Zahn, _GK._ i. 313; Chase on 2 Peter in Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. iii. p. 801.

ii. 13. On this passage Zahn remarks (_Einleitung_, ii. 53): “The similarity of 2 Peter to the Epistle of Jude was doubtless a source of textual corruption. But it may also aid us in correcting the text. Because, whichever of the two we regard as the original, in any case the one is our earliest witness to the text of the other. If we accept the reading ἀγάπαις in Jude 12, it follows either (1) that Jude read ἀγάπαις in 2 Peter, and that this is the original reading there, or (2) that Peter, supposing he wrote second, altered Jude’s ἀγάπαις to ἀπάταις, which it is hard to conceive, the former being so unmistakable, and the latter much less suitable to the context. In either case, therefore, ἀγάπαις would seem to be the correct reading in 2 Peter ii. 13.” No doubt the alteration of ἀγάπαις to ἀπάταις is “hard to conceive,” but it is not inconceivable. As illustrating how a piece of writing may be misread, it is sufficient to point to Justin’s mistake with regard to “Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio.”[290] As regards the particular words before us, I may be allowed to cite my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 47, where I have referred to the frequent confusion of ἀγαπάω and ἀπατάω, ἀγάπη and ἀπάτη in manuscripts of the Old Testament. In Ps. lxxviii. 36, for example, out of more than one hundred manuscripts that have been collated, not one has preserved the correct reading ἠπάτησαν; all have ἠγάπησαν. In 2 Chron. xviii. 2 again only one has the correct text ἠπάτα. From a psychological point of view, therefore, it would seem more natural to suppose that ἀπάταις is the original reading in the passage under consideration, and ἀγάπαις the transcriptional error. The authorities for each are distributed as follows:—

ἀγάπαις. ἀπάταις.

2 Peter ii. 13, A^c B m vg, Syr^{phil}, א A* C K L P ...

Syr^{hark. mg}, Sahid. Syr^{hark}, Copt., Arm.

Jude 12, א B K L vg, Sahid., A C 44, 56.
Copt.,

Syr^{phil}, Syr^{hark},
Arm.

In the first edition of this work I said it was strange, considering the frequent confusion of ἀγάπη and ἀπάτη, that Tischendorf goes by the majority of his witnesses in the case of 2 Peter ii. 13 (Westcott and Hort in their text, Weiss, Weymouth, and Baljon all do the same), “whereas the same word should be read in both cases, and that ἀγάπαις. Otherwise it would be necessary to suppose that the text was already corrupt when the one writer used the epistle of the other, no matter whether Peter or Jude: quod variat, verum esse non potest.” I cannot understand an argument like that of Kühl (Meyer^6, on 2 Peter ii. 13, p. 428): “ἀπάταις is presumably original in one of the passages, most likely in 2 Peter, as ἀγάπαις goes better with ὑμῶν in Jude 12 than with αὐτῶν here. B has ἀγάπαις in both places, and C in the same way ἀπάταις, which is explainable on the supposition that originally the one word stood in the one passage and the other in the other. Nearly all recent expositors favour the reading ἀπάταις in 2 Peter.” I am glad now to have the powerful support of Zahn in my dissent from that view. Reference may be made to the excellent article on Jude by F. H. Chase in Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 799-805. His first paragraph is on the “Transmission of the Text,” and the article is a model of what such things should be.[291] On the Philoxenian Syriac see the work of Merx mentioned above, p. 106 (5). On the rest of the verse, see Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 71. He points out that Tischendorf’s apparatus is misleading here, as it fails to notice the omission of ὑμῖν by the Philoxenian Syriac, the Sahidic version, the Speculum of Pseudo-Augustine (m), and by Pseudo-Cyprian. In his opinion it is an interpolation due to the συν— of συνευωχούμενοι. These pronouns are very liable to be interpolated, as is pointed out by Wordsworth and White in their _Epilogus_, p. 729, where these “additamenta” come next after “Proper Names”; see above, p. 238.

ii. 15. On Βοσόρ, see p. 243 f.

ii. 22_b_. In Hippolytus, _Refutatio_, ix. 7, we find: μετ’ οὐ πολὺ δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν βόρβορον ἀνεκυλίοντο. On the connection of this with 2 Peter ii. 22, see Zahn, _GK._ i. 316. Wendland tried to make out that it is a saying of Heraclitus. Compare also Clement, Λόγος Προτρεπτικός, x. 96; ὕες γάρ, φασίν, ἥδονται βορβόρῳ μᾶλλον ἢ καθαρῷ ὕδατι, καὶ ἐπὶ φορυτῷ μαργαίνουσιν κατὰ Δημόκριτον.

iii. 6. The conjectural reading δι’ ὃν for δι’ ὧν Schmiedel thinks well worthy of consideration. See his _Winer_, § 19.

iii. 10. None of the variants here appears to be the correct reading (κατακαήσεται in various forms: ἀφανισθήσονται: εὑρεθήσεται). What is required is a passive form of ῥέω, or one of its compounds (? διαρρυήσεται).

iii. 16. The article is inserted before ἐπιστολαῖς by א and K L P (“the Antiochean recension”), but omitted by A B C. Zahn, who would omit it, points out that ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς would imply a complete collection of Paul’s Epistles, and would include all the constituents without exception, whereas without the article the phrase contrasts one epistle known to the readers with those of all kinds that he had written. See _Einleitung_, ii. 108. Tischendorf admitted the reading now favoured by critics in his seventh edition, but rejected it in the eighth. This same thing occurs not infrequently. See the article on 2 Peter by Chase in Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. iii. p. 810.

1 John.

iv. 3. Von der Goltz has shown conclusively what was long a matter of conjecture, that Origen not only knew the reading ὁ λύει τὸν Ἰησοῦν, but seemingly preferred it; and that Clement also cites the text in this form in his work on the Passover, which is all but entirely lost. He has also established anew the reliable nature of the Latin version of Irenæus in the matter of Biblical quotations. See Zahn in the _ThLbl._, 1899, col. 180; _Einleitung_, ii. 574.

v. 7. The “comma Johanneum” needs no further discussion in an Introduction to the _Greek_ Testament, but its history on Latin soil is all the more interesting. The fact that it is still defended even from the Protestant side is interesting only from a pathological point of view. On the decision of the Holy Office, confirmed by the Pope on the 15th January 1897, see Hetzenauer’s edition of the New Testament, and the notice of it by Dobschütz in the _ThLz._, 1899, No. 10. On the literature, compare also Kölling (Breslau, 1893); W. Orme’s _Memoir of the Controversy respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 7_ (London, 1830), New Edition, with Notes and Appendix by Ezra Abbot (New York, 1866); C. Forster, _A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses_ (Cambridge, 1867); H. T. Armfield, _The Three Witnesses: The disputed Text in St. John_ (London, 1893).

James.

An Arabic scholion, attributed to Hippolytus, cites this epistle under the name of Jude. See Zahn, _GK._ i. 320, 2; 323, 3. In two minuscules cited by Tischendorf, Ἰακώβου is followed by τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ θεοῦ or ἀδελφοθεοῦ, and in one of the subscriptions by τοῦ ἀδελφοθεοῦ. The subscription in ff reads “explicit epistola Jacobi filii Zaebedei (_sic_).” See Zahn’s _Einleitung_, i. 75.

ii. 2. συναγωγὴν appears without the article in א* B C and one of Scrivener’s minuscules. This reading is accepted by Zahn, who sees in it an indication that those to whom the epistle is addressed were in possession of several synagogues, that is supposing the word to mean _meeting-place_, and not simply assembly, as he himself is inclined to believe. See _Einleitung_, i. 60, 66.

Jude.

5. This verse exhibits an uncommonly large number of variants. Thus εἰδότας occurs with or without ὑμᾶς after it; for πάντα we find both πάντας and τοῦτο; while the position of ἅπαξ varies, the word being found before πάντα, ὅτι, and λαὸν. But even that is not all. Most recent editors read ὅτι Κύριος, but we find also ὅτι Ἰησοῦς: ὅτι ὁ θεὸς: and ὅτι ὁ Κύριος (_textus receptus_). Tischendorf’s apparatus might lead one to suppose that the witnesses for Ἰησοῦς and ὁ θεὸς omit ὅτι altogether, but that is not so. The ambiguity is due to the loose way in which the note is given. Westcott and Hort think it probable that the original text was ΟΤΙΟ, and that this was read as ΟΤΙΙ̅Ϲ̅, and perhaps as ΟΤΙΚ̅Ϲ̅. Kühl thinks that the easiest explanation of the variants is to suppose that κύριος was the original reading, and that Ἰησοῦς and θεὸς were derived from it. But it seems to me that Zahn has better reason on his side when he argues for ὅτι Ἰησοῦς as the original reading. He first of all eliminates ὁ θεὸς as having no great attestation, and as being found alongside of κύριος in Clement (_dominus deus_). The choice, therefore, lies between κύριος and Ἰησοῦς. The latter has by far the stronger external attestation, it is the _lectio ardua_, and is, on internal grounds, also to be preferred. See _Einleitung_, ii. 88.

22, 23. Zahn has a strong impression that this passage lies at the foundation of _Didache_, ii. 7: οὐ μισήσεις πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγξεις, περὶ δὲ ὧν προσεύξῃ, οὓς δὲ ἀγαπήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου. If this is really so, we have here a piece of very early testimony, not certainly to the actual words, but to the thought conveyed. See _Einleitung_, ii. 86.

Subscription: At the end of the Armenian Bible of 1698 we find a note to the effect that “this epistle was written in the year 64 by Judas Jacobi, who is also called Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus, and who preached the Gospel to the Armenians and the Persians.”

APOCALYPSE.

Apart from particular passages, the last book of the Bible cannot be unreservedly recommended to the devout laity for special study, but it is peculiarly well adapted as an introduction to the method of textual criticism, and that for two reasons. First of all, because the number of available witnesses to the text is comparatively small, and, secondly, because these are more easily grouped here than in the other divisions of the New Testament. Reference may be made in this connection to the first part of Bousset’s critical studies on the text of the Apocalypse, where the distinction drawn by Bengel between the Andreas and Arethas groups of manuscripts is correctly emphasized. At the same time Bousset himself comes to the rather unsatisfactory conclusion that an eclectic mode of procedure is all that is possible at present. An attempt has been made above (p. 157) with the conclusion of the Apocalypse. We shall now try a few further examples.

In order to ascertain the relationship of the manuscripts we must select passages that exhibit a considerable divergence of meaning with a small variation of form. Such a passage occurs in the last chapter. In Apoc. xxii. 14, after the words “blessed are they,” we read, in the one class of witnesses, “that wash their robes,” in the other, “that do his commandments.” That is to say, we have in the one case ΟΙΠΛΥΝΟΝΤΕϹΤΑϹϹΤΟΛΑϹΑΥΤΩΝ and in the other ΟΙΠΟΙΟΥΝΤΕϹΤΑϹΕ̅ΤΟΛΑϹΑΥΤΟΥ. The difference is exceedingly small, especially when we consider that in early times ΟΙ was frequently written Υ, and ΕΝ at the end of a line Ε̅. I have no doubt that “wash their robes” is the original reading here and that “do his commandments” is the later alteration, though, of course, others will hold the opposite view. For the former we have the authority of א A, for the latter that of Q (_i.e._, B^{apoc}; see above, p. 80) with its associates. The question now becomes: Are there any passages where א and A part company, and which are decisive in favour of א? It is impossible to say offhand whether א or A has preserved the correct text. א contains corrections that A does not, and _vice versa_. Take another example.

The author of the Apocalypse follows the Hebrew idiom, according to which the word or phrase in apposition to an oblique case is put in the nominative.[292] Thus we have:

ii. 20. τὴν γυναῖκα Ἰεζαβὲλ ἡ λέγουσα. Q makes this ἣ λέγει, and the corrector of א τὴν λέγουσαν. Similarly, iii. 12, τῆς καινῆς Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἡ καταβαίνουσα, where again Q has ἣ καταβαίνει, and א^c τῆς καταβαινούσης. But it is not only the later corrector of א that does this: the first scribe of that manuscript does it himself. For example:

xiv. 12. א has τῶν τηρούντων instead of οἱ τηροῦντες; in verse 14 ἔχοντα instead of ἔχων; in xx. 2, τὸν ὄφιν instead of ὁ ὄφις, etc. In other places A, in this last A _alone_, it appears, has preserved the correct text.

There are other places, again, where the correct reading is preserved, perhaps, only in a later manuscript, or in none at all. We may compare with the idiom in the Apocalypse what we find at the beginning of the book in the passage about the seven spirits before the throne of God.

i. 4. ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων ... ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ. In the space indicated by the dots Erasmus has ἅ ἐστιν, Codex 36 has ἅ εἰσιν, Q and C have ἃ, which is adopted by Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort, א and A have τῶν, which is adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles, and by Westcott and Hort in their margin, while Codex 80 has nothing at all. All these variants are explainable on the supposition that the original reading was τὰ. Exception being taken to this construction, one copyist made it τῶν, the other ἃ, the third supplied the copula, and the fourth dropped the offending word altogether. Similarly, in chap. v. 13, א alone has preserved the correct reading τὸ, for which the others have ὃ or ὅ ἐστιν. Another case is ii. 13, where the writer wished to say, “in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was slain.” According to the idiom mentioned above, while Ἀντίπα was in the genitive, ὁ μάρτυς would be in the nominative of apposition. But owing to the influence of this nominative, Ἀντίπα was made nominative so as to agree with it, and the sentence then ran, ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἀντίπας ὁ μάρτυς μου ... ὃς ... which could not be construed. The consequence was corrections of all sorts. The boldest expedient was simply to drop the ὃς, but other means were adopted to relieve the construction. After ἡμέραις some inserted αἷς or ἐν αἷς, Erasmus read ἐμαῖς, א has ἐν ταῖς, and some Latin witnesses _illis_. But read Ἀντίπα in the genitive and all is in order.[293]

The Apocalypse presents quite a number of passages enabling us to distinguish the manuscripts. There is very little difference in form between λύσαντι and λούσαντι (i. 5), ἀετοῦ and ἀγγέλου (viii. 13), λίθον and λίνον (xv. 6), but it makes a great difference whether we read “who redeemed us” or “who washed us,” an “eagle flying” or “an angel flying,” “wearing pure linen” or “wearing pure stone.” These variations are the result of _accidental_ errors in transcription. But we meet an instance of _intentional_ alteration in xiii. 18, where the number of the beast is variously given as 666 and 616.

Grouping the witnesses for the former variants we have—

i. 5. λύσαντι, א A C, Syriac,[294] Armenian.

λούσαντι, Q P, Vulgate, Coptic,
Ethiopic.

viii. 13. ἀετοῦ, א A Q, Vulgate, Syriac,
Coptic, Ethiopic.

ἀγγέλου, P, Armenian.

The two readings are combined not only by certain commentators, but in some manuscripts, ἀγγέλου ὡς ἀετοῦ.

xv. 6. λίθον καθαρόν, A C, am fu demid
tol.

λίνον καθαρόν, P, Syriac, Armenian,
Clementine-Vulgate.

λινοῦν καθαρόν is read by Q, and
καθαροὺς λίνους by
א.

Tregelles and Westcott alone accept the reading λίθον; all the other editors regard it as an early transcriptional error. Holtzmann refers to the parallel passages i. 13, iv. 4, vii. 9, 13, xvii. 4, xviii. 16, xix. 8, 14, in support of λίνον, but they point rather the other way. For “fine linen” Apocalypse has βύσσινος five times, but never once λίνος, which means only the material, and not the garment made of it. Moreover, we find a parallel in the Old Testament, though in another connection, in Ezekiel xxviii. 13, where we read πάντα λίθον χρηστὸν ἐνδέδεσαι, so that λίθον here must not be so confidently rejected. Λίθον was more liable to be changed to λίνον than _vice versa_, as the Vulgate shows, in which the authorised printed edition has _linteo_ where the manuscripts read _lapidem_. At the same time one cannot but admit that primitive transcriptional errors do occur. The reading ἀγγέλου in viii. 13, to which certain manuscripts prefix ἑνὸς, seems to me to be corroborated by _ἄλλον_ ἄγγελον πετόμενον in xiv. 6. Or are we to read ἀετόν there in the face of all the witnesses?

v. 1. The correct text here is that adopted by Zahn: γεγραμμένον ἔσωθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν κατεσφραγισμένον. Grotius, though mistaken as to the true text, was the first to give the right interpretation of the words by taking ἔσω (ἔσωθεν) with γεγραμμένον, and ἔξωθεν (ὄπισθεν) with κατεσφραγισμένον. “Locus sic distinguendus γεγραμμένον ἔσω, καὶ ἔξωθεν κατεσφραγισμένον.” This combination of the words (“haec nova distinctio”) was combated for the reason among others that it deprived them of all their force and rendered them superfluous, for who ever saw a roll that was written on the outside and sealed on the inside. See Pole’s _Synopsis_, where it is said of Grotius, “tam infelix interpres Apocalypseos est magnus ille Hugo in rebus minusculis.” Zahn (_Einleitung_, ii. 596) improves the text of Grotius, but retains his connection of the words. He holds that ἔσωθεν and ὄπισθεν are not correlative terms, and that the idea of a papyrus roll written on both sides (ὀπισθόγραφον) must be abandoned; compare above, p. 43, n. 2. The book was, in fact, not a roll but a codex. Two things point to this. There is, first, the fact that is said to be ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιὰν. Had it been a roll it would have been ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ. Moreover, the word used for opening the book is ἀνοῖξαι, and not, as in the case of rolls, ἀνελίσσειν, ἀνειλεῖν, or ἀναπτύσσειν. That it was not written on the outside is also shown by the fact that it was sealed with seven seals, the purpose of which was to make the reading of the book impossible. Not till the seventh seal is broken is the book open and its contents displayed. This βιβλίον is quite different from the βιβλαρίδιον mentioned in chapter x. 2, 9. See also E. Huschke, _Das Buch mit 7 Siegeln_ (1860), to which Zahn refers (_lib. cit._ 597).

ix. 17. For ὑακινθίνους Primasius has _spineas_ (= ἀκανθίνους), a reading which neither Bousset nor Baljon, strange to say, think worth recording. Bousset rightly observes that in the following verse πῦρ corresponds to πύρινος, and θεῖον to θειώδης, so that καπνός lets us see what the writer understood as the colour of hyacinth—viz. the colour of smoke. But the ideas of “thorns” (_spineae_) and “smoke” are even more closely related.

xiii. 18. Irenæus found 616 given as the number of the beast in some manuscripts, which he could only explain as a transcriptional error: “hoc autem arbitror scriptorum peccatum fuisse ut solet fieri quoniam et per literas numeri ponuntur, facile literam Graecam quae sexaginta enuntiat numerum in _iota_ Graecorum literam expansam.” In reality, however, the change from ξ to ι would be a contraction rather than an expansion, and the alteration would seem to be intentional, seeing that 666 in Hebrew characters gives the Greek form Neron Kesar, and 616 the Latin Nero Kesar. Irenæus himself, however, appeals to the fact that the number 666 was found ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς σπουδαίοις καὶ ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις, μαρτυρούντων αὐτῶν ἐκείνων τῶν κατ’ ὄψιν τὸν Ἰωάννην ἑωρακότων (v. 30, 1-3). The opening words in the Latin translation run, “in omnibus antiquis et probatissimis et veteribus scripturis.” The subscription which he himself appended to his own principal work (see above, p. 149) shows how scrupulously exact he was with respect to ἀντίγραφα, so that we may give him credit for having consulted old and reliable manuscripts of the Apocalypse. The erroneous reading (616) is now found only in C and two minuscules (5 and 11).

xxii. 11. The only authorities cited by Tischendorf in support of the reading δικαιωθήτω (in place of δικαιοσύνην ποιησάτω) are the two minuscules 38 and 79 and the Clementine Vulgate. But we find the passage alluded to in the epistle which the Church of Lyons wrote giving an account of the Martyrdom of the year 177: ἵνα πληρωθῇ ἡ γραφή· ὁ ἄνομος ἀνομησάτω ἔτι, καὶ ὁ δίκαιος δικαιωθήτω ἔτι (apud Euseb., _Eccles. Hist._, v. 1, 58). This lends such support to the reading δικαιωθήτω in Apoc. xxii. 11, that Zahn not unnaturally speaks of it as “certainly the original text” (_GK._ i. 201). E. A. Abbott places the date of the Epistle of the Church of Lyons as early as 155 (see _Expositor_, 1896, i. 111-126). Another aspect would be given to the question if the Greek form of the Epistle were derived from a Latin, or if, as Resch supposed, the words were a quotation of a saying of Jesus (_Agrapha_, § 133, p. 263 ff.).

I take the opportunity of appending to Resch’s work the fine saying which Zahn cites from Augustine’s _Contra Adversarium Legis et Prophetarum_ (ed. Bassan. x. 659 ff.) as an otherwise unknown Apocryphum. The disciples asked Jesus “de Judaeorum prophetis, quid sentire deberet, qui de adventu eius aliquid cecinisse in praeteritum putantur.” And He, “commotus talia eos etiam nunc sentire, respondit: Dimisistis vivum qui ante vos est et de mortuis fabulamini.” A similar saying from the _Acta Petri Vercell._ 10 is cited by Harnack in connection with the third of the Oxyrhynchus Logia: “Qui mecum sunt, non me intellexerunt.”

Footnote 265:

See Mrs. Lewis, in the _Expository Times_, November 1900, p. 56 ff.,
_What have we gained in the Sinaitic Palimpsest? I. St. Matthew’s
Gospel_, where a number of important variants are cited from that
manuscript.

Footnote 266:

Corderius (_Caten. Psal._, ii. 631) substitutes “ancient” for
“accurate.”

Footnote 267:

Or “exemplo graeco,” according as the plural points are inserted or
not. The passage is printed in Syriac by Cureton, p. xxxvi, who says
that it is also found in the margin of the London manuscript of the
Peshitto, 14456. He also gives the verses in which Juvencus
paraphrases this text.

Footnote 268:

The other variations of the Latin witnesses are extremely
instructive—viz.:

locis eminentioribus superioribus g_{2} emm. honorificis m

clarior dignior d m g_{2} honoratior e
emm.

deorsum inferius g_{2} emm. infra m

inferior humilior minor

superius sursum in superiori
loco.

utilius utile gloriam.

This variety is an indication of the early age at which the text was
translated into Latin.

Footnote 269:

The _Thesaurus Syriacus_ does not contain the word either in col. 1405
under חשמיתא, or in col. 2205 under מרא.

It may also be observed in passing, that the passage is one of those
whose sense is entirely changed by the insertion or omission of the
negative in this or that witness (see below on Gal. ii. 5). Instead of
καὶ ἐκ μείζονος, Syr^{cu} reads καὶ μὴ ἐκ μείζονος. Moreover, it takes
ζητεῖτε as imperative, a fact that Tischendorf has failed to notice.

Footnote 270:

I see that Chase, who discusses the passage in pp. 9-14 of his
_Syro-Latin Text_, has the same impression: “the compound Greek word
in D, ὁ δειπνοκλήτωρ, seems intended to represent the Syriac
expression ‘the lord of the supper.’”

Footnote 271:

The case is quite different in 1 Macc. v. 2, where the first hand of א
wrote ὠργίσθησαν for ἐβουλεύσαντο. Here ὠργίσθη occurs immediately
before it.

Footnote 272:

So given in Merx’s edition, but not in Lewis.—_Tr._

Footnote 273:

See also von Dobschütz, _Das Kerygma Petri_, p. 82, where he cites the
passage of Origen relating to the _Doctrina Petri_, which is also
quoted by Tischendorf on Luke xxiv. 39, and insists rightly that in
the LXX δαιμόνιον is never employed to represent דוּחַ. Conybeare’s
articles on “The Demonology of the New Testament” in the _Jewish
Quarterly Review_ (1896) I have unfortunately been unable to consult.
Joh. Weiss never mentions φάντασμα in his article on _Dämonen und
Dämonische_ in the PRE^3, iv.

Footnote 274:

This description is elsewhere understood as applying to Theodore of
Mopsuestia.

Footnote 275:

The same variation occurs in Luke vi. 7, where א* B S X read
κατηγορεῖν (κατηγορῆσαι D), while א^c A E F have κατηγορίαν.

Footnote 276:

When examining Codex B I took occasion to look at certain other
passages, and discovered some strange mistakes in Tischendorf’s
statements with regard to that manuscript, as I did previously in the
case of Codex D. In 3 John 13 B has ἀλλὰ for ἀλλ’, on which
Tischendorf has no note. Westcott and Hort mention the passage in
their _Notes on Orthography_, ii. p. 153, but say nothing about B. On
Jude 5 we find Tischendorf saying in his Apparatus: ειδοτας sine υμας
cum A B C^2 ... ϛ (Gb^{oo}) add. υμας cum א K L. But υμας stands quite
plain in B. Had they known this, Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort
would certainly have printed their text differently. How far back this
false testimony with regard to B extends I am unable to certify. It is
found in Tischendorf’s seventh edition of 1859, and in Huther’s
Commentary of the same date. I repeat my Ceterum censeo, that two or
three sharp eyes should really revise the statements current about B.
This one is repeated from Tischendorf by Baljon, Weiss, and all our
Commentators. At the same time, Weiss has quite properly inserted υμας
in his text, on the ground that while there was no occasion for its
interpolation, its omission is quite conceivable. He will, no doubt,
be gratified to see his reasoning confirmed by this weighty testimony
afforded by Codex B.

Footnote 277:

Further instances of changes requiring investigation are:—ερωταν and
παρακαλειν; οραν and θεασθαι; αγειν and φερειν; ερχεσθαι and υπαγειν;
υπαρχειν and ειμι; συν and μετα; εις and εν; εως, μεχρι and αχρι;
ενωπιον and εμπροσθεν; ετερος and αλλος; οικος and οικια; παις and
παιδιον; πολις and κωμη; λαος and οχλος; ναος and ιερον; φεγγος and
φως; active and middle voice, αρχεσθαι, etc.

Footnote 278:

See, however, Romans i. 14, and compare Zahn, _Einl._, i. 263.—_Tr._

Footnote 279:

I have already (p. 37) referred to the frequency with which mistakes,
often quite incredible mistakes, in translation occur. A few
additional instances may be cited here.

There is, for example, that of Ephraem in John ii. 2, mentioned above,
p. 287.

According to Aphraates 41, 16, Jesus promised to the mourners דלהין
נתבשפון, _i.e._ that they should be _entreated_. The writer of the
text, therefore, that Aphraates used, must have taken παρακαλεῖν here
in the sense of “to entreat.” See Zahn, _Forschungen_, i. 78.

The same writer (383, 16) renders the words in Luke xvi. 25 νῦν δὲ ὅδε
παρακαλεῖται in the form יומנא דין בעית מנה, _i.e._ “but to-day thou
_entreatest_ of him”, where παρακαλεῖν is again taken in the sense of
“to entreat”, though a different word is used for it. See Zahn,
_ibid._

Again, Aphraates (390, 4) renders παράκλησιν (αὐτῶν) in Luke vi. 24
בעותהין, “their _prayer_, their _request_.” Zahn, _ibid._

The last clause of John v. 14 is rendered “that thou mayest have need
of nothing else,” where χρεία must have been read instead of χεῖρον.
Zahn, _Forschungen_, i. 161 f. Compare also the Syriac text of Apoc.
ii. 13; viii. 13, etc.

Footnote 280:

On the custom of dictating letters, see Norden, _Die antike
Kunstprosa_ (1898), p. 954 ff. On the autograph additions to the
letters of the Emperor Julian, see Bidez and Cumont, _Recherches
etc._, p. 19 (see above, p. 174).

Footnote 281:

What an amount of perplexity would have been avoided had Paul been in
the way of dating his letters exactly, or had the copyists preserved
the dates, supposing they were there originally! One, but only one, of
the epistles of Ignatius bears a date—viz. that to the Romans: ἔγραψα
ὑμῖν ταῦτα τῇ πρὸ ἐννέα καλανδῶν Σεπτεμβρίων (x. 3).

Footnote 282:

On these two verbs compare Exod. xxxi. 17, where the LXX has ἐπαύσατο
and Aquila ἀνέψυξε; Isa. xxxiv. 14, LXX ἀναπαύσονται, Aquila ἀνέψυξε;
Isa. xxviii. 12, Aquila ἀνάψυξις; compare also ἀνάπαυσις, Matt. xi.
29; καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως, Acts iii. 20. Weiss, in his Commentary, ignores
the reading of B in Rom. xv. 32; in his discussion of the text he
supposes that the text was mutilated by a translator, and that D E F G
“sought to restore it in their own way.”

Footnote 283:

See 1 Cor. v. 8, where the Syriac has קדישותא—_i.e._ ἁγιότητος—for
ἀληθείας.

Footnote 284:

To these examples, gathered quite incidentally, one might add as many
from the Old Testament and other books if one paid any attention to
them in reading. Take, for example, Herodotus i. 24. Was the votive
offering that Arion set up at Taenarum μέγα or οὐ μέγα? In the
_Germania_ xv. 1 did Tacitus say of the Germans “_non multum_
venationibus, plus per otium transigunt,” or “_multum_ venationibus,
etc.”? In the new edition of Origen (i. 87, 16) Koetschau reads
ἀχρήσιμα where the manuscript and the earlier editions have χρήσιμα,
and he lets an οὐκ stand which others omit, etc.

Footnote 285:

In his _Lucian_ Lagarde gives examples of his being deceived by
certain letters shining through from the opposite side—_e.g._ Esther
v. 22 and 27. This latter is a most interesting case. The following
verse begins with μη, and Lagarde thought that the first scribe had
added another μη by mistake and afterwards erased it, whereas it
turned out that what he took to be ΜΗ was nothing else than ΗΝ shining
through from the other side.

Footnote 286:

_Cf._ Westcott, _Canon_, Part II. ch. ii. § 1, p. 354 ff.; _Bible in
the Church_, p. 125 f.

Footnote 287:

_Cf._ Westcott, _Bible in the Church_, p. 153 ff.

Footnote 288:

See Article on _The Catholic Epistles_, by Salmond, in Hastings’
_Dictionary of the Bible_, i. p. 359 f.

Footnote 289:

It is certainly difficult to construct an Apparatus which shall be
concise and yet clear. In Jude 22 Baljon adopts ἐλεᾶτε in the text,
and yet he leaves the apparatus arranged in such a way as to suggest
that he intended to read ἐλέγχετε with Tischendorf.

Footnote 290:

The inscription on a column at Rome dedicated to a Sabine god which
Justin read as “Simoni Sancto Deo,” and understood as referring to
Simon Magus. See Kurtz, _Church History_ (Macpherson), i. p. 97;
Neander, _Church History_ (Bohn), ii. p. 123, note.

Footnote 291:

Compare also the articles on 1 and 2 Peter by the same writer in vol.
iii.

Footnote 292:

See Blass, _Grammar of N. T. Greek_, § 31, 6, Eng. Tr., p. 80 f.
Compare the similar German idiom used in the titles of books, “von X.
Y. ordentlicher Professor.” How naturally this comes to a Hebrew is
shown by the fact that Sal. Bär, in his translation of the Massoretic
note at the end of the books of Samuel (Leipzig, Tauchnitz, 1892, p.
158), among other lovely things has “ad mortem Davidis _rex_
Israelis.”

Footnote 293:

In this (independent) suggestion I am glad to find myself in agreement
with Lachmann (_Studien und Kritiken_, 1830, p. 839), and Westcott and
Hort (ii., App., 137). I see that Baljon and Zahn too follow it. But
Bousset still writes ἡμέραις αἷς.

Footnote 294:

Including Gwynn’s Syriac manuscript; see above, p. 102.