Appendix V. The Sceptical Character Of B And

[288]

The sceptical character of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. affords a strong proof of the alliance between them and the Origenistic school. Instances found in these Codexes may be classed thus:—

Note 1. The following instances are professedly taken from the Gospels. Only a few are added from elsewhere.

Note 2. Other Uncials are also added, to indicate by specimens how far these two MSS. receive countenance or not from other sources, and also in part how far the same influence enter them.

I. Passages detracting from the Scriptural acknowledgement of the Divinity of our Lord:—

•1øÊ ƒøÊ òµøÊ omitted—St. Mark i. 1 ( *). I ߣ ƒx¬ A •1x¬ ... ƒøÊ ˆ ƒø¬ omitted—St. John vi. 69 ( *DL). ö{£ µ omitted—St. Mark ix. 24 ( *DL). §øÊ ö £wø 8 øÊ omitted—St. Luke xxiv. 3 (D). òµøÊ changed into ö £wø —Acts xx. 28 (AC*DES). Omission of faith in CHRIST. µ0¬ ºs—St. John vi. 47 ( ì). Slur on efficacy of prayer through CHRIST:

Insert ºs—St. John xiv. 14 ( ìî).

Transfer ƒ˜ @ yº±ƒw ºø —St. John xxi. 23 ( *LXVî). Omission of µP s…¬ in the cure—St. Mark vii. 35 ( dî) Cf. St. Mark ii. 12.

Appendix V. The Sceptical Character Of B And . 313

Judgement-seat of GOD instead of CHRIST—Rom. xiv. 10 ( *ABC*D &c.). I b ƒ˜ øP£± ˜ omitted—St. John iii. 13 ( ìb). Omission of ö{£ µ in penitent thief's prayer—St. Luke xxiii. 42 ( *DLM*). " " the Ascension in St. Luke, µ s£µƒø µ0¬ ƒx øP£± y —St. Luke xxiv. 51 ( *D). Insertion of øP¥r A •1y¬ from St. Mark xiii. 32 in St. Matt. xxiv. 36. Cf. Basil to Amphilochius, iii. 360-2 (Revision Revised, p. 210, note). Omission of òµy¬ in reference to the creation of man—St. Mark x. 6 ( î). Cf. St. Matt. xii. 30 (BD). " " ¿q … ¿q ƒ… ƒw —St. John iii. 31 ( *D). " " A •1y¬ ºs µ µ0¬ ƒx ±0ˆ ±—St. John viii. 35 ( ì). " " ¥ µª | ¥ p ºs ø ±Pƒˆ , ±v ¿±£ µ øUƒ…¬—St. John viii. 59 ( ). ƒx •1x ƒøÊ £}¿ø for ƒ. •. ƒ. òµøÊ—St. John ix. 35 ( ). ö £wø for òµøÊ—2 Pet. i. 1 ( ). Omission of Eƒ | Q¿q … ¿£x¬ ƒx †±ƒs£±—St. John xvi. 6 ( ). " " ö{£ ø¬—1 Cor. xv. 47 ( *BCD*EFG). M¬ for ò ¬—1 Tim. iii. 16 ( , Revision Revised, pp. 431-43). M for M¬—Col. ii. 10, making the Fulness of the GODHEAD the head of all principality and power (BDEFG).

II. Generally sceptical tendency:— N.B.—Omission is in itself sceptical.

† µÊº± òµøÊ instead of ƒx † µÊº± ƒøÊ òµøÊ—Matt. iii. 16 ( ). Cf. Acts xvi. 7, ƒx † µÊº± ô øÊ for ƒx † µÊº±—

2DE2 627 .

627 E2 of the Acts and Cath. Epp. (Laudianus) in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, of the sixth century.

[289] 314 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

ìs µ ¬ for s ¬, slurring the Divine Birth—Matt. i. 18 ( î). Omission of the title of “good” applied to our LORD—Matt. xix. 16, 17 ( ). " " the necessity of our LORD to suffer. ±v øUƒ…¬ ¥µ —St. Luke xxiv. 46 ( *DL). " " last Twelve Verses of St. Mark ( ). Omission of passages relating to Everlasting Punishment (closely Origenistic): ±0… wø º±£ƒuº±ƒø¬ for ±0… . £w µ…¬—St. Mark iii. 29 ( î). º±£ƒw±¬ (D)—ibid. E¿ø A }ª æ ±Pƒˆ øP ƒµªµ ƒ , ±v ƒx ¿Ê£ øP s ƒ± —St. Mark ix. 44, 46 ( î). " " the danger of rejecting our Lord—St. Matt. xxi. 44 (D). " " ±v ¿ ± w± ªv ª u µƒ± —St. Mark ix. 49 ( î). " " the condemnation of Pharisaic treatment of widows—St. Matt. xxiii. 14 ( ). " " ±v ƒx q¿ƒ º± B | ±¿ƒw øº± ±¿ƒ ± —St. Matt. xx. 22, 23 ( ). " " ±Pƒ ¬ ƒx ¿£…ƒyƒø ø —St. Matt. i. 25 ( ). " " the verse about prayer and fasting—St. Matt. xvii. 21 ( *B). " " the words giving authority to the Apostles to heal diseases—St. Mark iii. 15 ( *). " " the forgiveness of sins to those who turn—St. Mark iv. 12 ( ). " " condemnation of cities and mention of the Day of Judgement—St. Mark vi. 11 ( î). " " fasting—St. Mark ix. 29 ( *B). " " taking up the Cross—St. Mark x. 21 ( î). " " the danger of riches—St. Mark x. 24 ( î). " " the danger of not forgiving others—St. Mark xi. 26 ( î). " " µPªø ºs z ± æw —St. Luke i. 28 ( ).

Appendix V. The Sceptical Character Of B And . 315

" " ªª ¿v ¿± ƒv Âuº±ƒ òµøÊ—St. Luke iv. 4 ( ). " " A ¥ q øªø¬ µ0¬ D¿ø¬ Q» ªy —St. Luke iv. 5 ( ). " " U¿± µ @¿w … ºø , £±ƒ± —St. Luke iv. 8 ( û). " " reference to Elijah's punishment, and the manner of spirit—St. Luke ix. 55, 56. " " the saving effect of faith—St. Luke xvii. 19 (B). " " the day of the Son of Man—St. Luke xvii. 24 (BD). " " the descent of the Angel into Bethesda—St. John v. 3, 4 ( *D). " " " | ¥} …—St. John vi. 51 ( î).

III. Evincing a “philosophical” obtuseness to tender passages:— Omissions in the records of the Institution of the Holy Sacrament: thus— ¶q µƒµ ... ƒx ... ± ¬—St. Mark xiv. 22-24 ( ). ± ¬—St. Matt. xxvi. 27 ( ). ªq µƒµ, q µƒµ ... ª}ºµ ø —1 Cor. xi. 2-4 ( *). Omission of Agony in the Garden and strengthening Angel—St. Luke xxii. 43, 44 (ABRT, first corrector). " " First Word from the Cross—St. Luke xxiii. 34 ( aBD*). Mutilation of the LORD'S Prayer—St. Luke xi. 2-4: i.e. Omission of !ºˆ A ƒø÷¬ øP£± ø÷¬ ( ). " " µ uƒ… ƒx sª ºq ø , a¬ øP£± ˜, ±v ¿v ƒ ¬ ¬ (BL). " " ªªp ÂÊ ± !º ¬ ¿x ƒøÊ ¿ø £øÊ ( *BL). Omission of µ0 —Matt. v. 22 ( ). " " the verse telling of our LORD'S coming to save what was lost—St. Matt. xviii. 11 ( *). " " µPªø µ÷ƒµ ƒøz¬ ±ƒ±£…ºs ø ¬ Qº ¬ ±ªˆ¬ ¿ø µ÷ƒµ ƒøz¬ º øÊ ƒ±¬ Qº ¬—St. Matt. v. 44 ( ). " " the prophecy of being numbered with the transgressors—St. Mark xv. 28 ( et 3DX). " " ƒ˜ ± µ£˜—St. Matt. vi. 6 ( ).

[290]

[291]

[292] 316 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

" " reference to the last cry—St. Mark xv. 39 ( ). " " striking on the face—St. Luke xxii. 64 ( ¶). " " triple superscription ( £qºº. ªª . . Ï…º. . £± .)—St. Luke xxiii. 38 (BCL). So * in St. John xix. 20-21. " " ±v ¿x ƒøÊ ºµª wø £wø —St. Luke xxiv. 42 ( ¶). " " ±v uƒø ±Pƒx ¿ø ƒµ÷ ± —St. John v. 15 ( ). ª{ ± ƒ for ªø{ ± ƒ —Rev. i. 5 ( ). ¥ ± ø { for ªµ ºø { —Matt. vi. 1 ( *et bBD).

IV. Shewing attempts to classicize New Testament Greek.

These attempts have left their traces, conspicuous especially for omissions, all over B and in a multiplicity of passages too numerous to quote. Their general character may be gathered in a perusal of Dr. Hort's Introduction, pp. 223-227, from which passage we may understand how these MSS. may have commended themselves at periods of general advancement in learning to eminent scholars like Origen and Dr. Hort. But unfortunately a Thucydidean compactness, condensed and wellpruned according to the fastidious taste of the study, is exactly that which does not in the long run take with people who are versed in the habits of ordinary life, or with scholars who have been exercised in many fields, as was shewn by the falling into disuse of Origen's critical manuscripts. The echoes of the fourth century have surely been heard in the nineteenth.