01.04. CHAPTER IV. ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.
CHAPTER IV. ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.
III. From Writing in Uncials.
§ 1.
Corrupt readings have occasionally resulted from the ancient practice of writing Scripture in the uncial character, without accents, punctuation, or indeed any division of the text. Especially are they found in places where there is something unusual in the structure of the sentence.
John 4:35-36 ([Greek: leukai eisi pros therismon êdê]) has suffered in this way,—owing to the unusual position of [Greek: êdê]. Certain of the scribes who imagined that [Greek: êdê] might belong to John 4:36, rejected the [Greek: kai] as superfluous; though no Father is known to have been guilty of such a solecism. Others, aware that [Greek: êdê] can only belong to John 4:35, were not unwilling to part with the copula at the beginning of John 4:36. A few, considering both words of doubtful authority, retained neither[61]. In this way it has come to pass that there are four ways of exhibiting this place:—(a) [Greek: pros therismon êdê. Kai ho therizôn]:—(b) [Greek: pros therismon. Êdê ho th.]:—(c) [Greek: pros therismon êdê. Ho therizôn]:—(d) [Greek: pros therismon. Ho therizôn, k.t.l.] The only point of importance however is the position of [Greek: êdê]: which is claimed for John 4:35 by the great mass of the copies: as well as by Origen[62], Eusebius[63], Chrysostom[64], Cyril[65], the Vulgate, Jerome of course, and the Syriac. The Italic copies are hopelessly divided here[66]: and Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BM[Symbol: Pi] do not help us. But [Greek: êdê] is claimed for ver. 36 by CDEL, 33, and by the Curetonian and Lewis (= [Greek: kai êdê ho therizôn]): while Codex A is singular in beginning John 4:36, [Greek: êdê kai],—which shews that some early copyist, with the correct text before him, adopted a vicious punctuation. For there can be no manner of doubt that the commonly received text and the usual punctuation is the true one: as, on a careful review of the evidence, every unprejudiced reader will allow. But recent critics are for leaving out [Greek: kai] (with [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL): while Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Tregelles (marg.), are for putting the full stop after [Greek: pros therismon] and (with ACDL) making [Greek: êdê] begin the next sentence,—which (as Alford finds out) is clearly inadmissible.
§ 2.
Sometimes this affects the translation. Thus, the Revisers propose in the parable of the prodigal son,—’And I perishherewith hunger!’ But why ’here?’ Because I answer, whereas in the earliest copies of St. Luke the words stood thus,—[Greek: EGÔDELIMÔAPOLLYMAI], some careless scribe after writing [Greek: EGÔDE], reduplicated the three last letters ([Greek: ÔDE]): he mistook them for an independent word. Accordingly in the Codex Bezae, in R and U and about ten cursives, we encounter [Greek: egô de ôde]. The inventive faculty having thus done its work it remained to superadd ’transposition,’ as was done by [Symbol: Aleph]BL. From [Greek: egô de ôde limô], the sentence has now developed into [Greek: egô de limô ôde]: which approves itself to Griesbach and Schultz, to Lachmann and Tischendorf and Tregelles, to Alfoid and Westcott and Hort, and to the Revisers. A very ancient blunder, certainly, [Greek: egô de ôde] is: for it is found in the Latin[67] and the Syriac translations. It must therefore date from the second century. But it is a blunder notwithstanding: a blunder against which 16 uncials and the whole body of the cursives bear emphatic witness[68]. Having detected its origin, we have next to trace its progress. The inventors of [Greek: ôde] or other scribes quickly saw that this word requires a correlative in the earlier part of the sentence. Accordingly, the same primitive authorities which advocate ’here,’ are observed also to advocate, above, ’in my Father’s house.’ No extant Greek copy is known to contain the bracketed words in the sentence [Greek: [en tô oikô] tou patros mou]: but such copies must have existed in the second century. The Peshitto, the Cureton and Lewis recognize the three words in question; as well as copies of the Latin with which Jerome[69], Augustine[70] and Cassian[71] were acquainted. The phrase ’in domo patris mei’ has accordingly established itself in the Vulgate. But surely we of the Church of England who have been hitherto spared this second blunder, may reasonably (at the end of 1700 years) refuse to take the first downward step. Our Lord intended no contrast whatever between two localities—but between two parties. The comfortable estate of the hired servants He set against the abject misery of the Son: not the house wherein the servants dwelt, and the spot where the poor prodigal was standing when he came to a better mind.—These are many words; but I know not how to be briefer. And,—what is worthy of discussion, if not the utterances of ’the Word made flesh?’
If hesitation to accept the foregoing verdict lingers in any quarter, it ought to be dispelled by a glance at the context in [Symbol: Aleph]BL. What else but the instinct of a trained understanding is it to survey the neighbourhood of a place like the present? Accordingly, we discover that in John 4:16, for [Greek: gemisai tên koilian autou apo], [Symbol: Aleph]BDLR present us with [Greek: chortasthênai ek]: and in John 4:22, the prodigal, on very nearly the same authority ([Symbol: Aleph]BDUX), is made to say to his father,—[Greek: Poiêson me hôs hena tôn misthiôn sou]: Which certainly he did not say[72]. Moreover, [Symbol: Aleph]BLX and the Old Latin are for thrusting in [Greek: tachy] (D [Greek: tacheôs]) after [Greek: exenenkate]. Are not these one and all confessedly fabricated readings? the infelicitous attempts of some well-meaning critic to improve upon the inspired original? From the fact that three words in John 5:44 were in the oldest MSS. written thus,—[Greek: MONOUTHUOU] (i.e. [Greek: monou Theou ou]), the middle word ([Greek: theou]) got omitted from some very early copies; whereby the sentence is made to run thus in English,—’And seek not the honour which cometh from the only One.’ It is so that Origen[73], Eusebius[74], Didymus[75], besides the two best copies of the Old Latin, exhibit the place. As to Greek MSS., the error survives only in B at the present day, the preserver of an Alexandrian error.
§ 3.
St. Luke explains (Acts 27:14) that it was the ’typhonic wind called Euroclydon’ which caused the ship in which St. Paul and he sailed past Crete to incur the ’harm and loss’ so graphically described in the last chapter but one of the Acts. That wind is mentioned nowhere but in this one place. Its name however is sufficiently intelligible; being compounded of [Greek: Euros], the ’south-east wind,’ and [Greek: klydôn], ’a tempest:’ a compound which happily survives intact in the Peshitto version. The Syriac translator, not knowing what the word meant, copied what he saw,—’the blast’ (he says) ’of the tempest[76], which [blast] is called Tophonikos Eurokl[=i]don.’ Not so the licentious scribes of the West. They insisted on extracting out of the actual ’Euroclydon,’ the imaginary name ’Euro-aquilo,’ which accordingly stands to this day in the Vulgate. (Not that Jerome himself so read the name of the wind, or he would hardly have explained ’ Eurielion’ or ’Euriclion’ to mean ’commiscens, sive deorsum ducens[77].’) Of this feat of theirs, Codexes [Symbol: Aleph] and A (in which [Greek: EUROKLUDÔN] has been perverted into [Greek: EURAKULÔN]) are at this day the sole surviving Greek witnesses. Well may the evidence for ’Euro-aquilo’ be scanty! The fabricated word collapses the instant it is examined. Nautical men point out that it is ’inconsistent in its construction with the principles on which the names of the intermediate or compound winds are framed:’—
’Euronotus is so called as intervening immediately between Eurus and Notus, and as partaking, as was thought, of the qualities of both. The same holds true of Libonotus, as being interposed between Libs and Notus. Both these compound winds lie in the same quarter or quadrant of the circle with the winds of which they are composed, and no other wind intervenes. But Eurus and Aquilo are at 90° distance from one another; or according to some writers, at 105°; the former lying in the south-east quarter, and the latter in the north-east: and two winds, one of which is the East cardinal point, intervene, as Caecias and Subsolanus[78].’
Further, why should the wind be designated by an impossibleLatinname? The ship was ’a ship of Alexandria’ (John 4:6). The sailors were Greeks. What business has ’Aquilo’ here? Next, if the wind did bear the name of ’Euro-aquilo,’ why is it introduced in this marked way ([Greek: anemos typhônikos, ho kaloumenos]) as if it were a kind of curiosity? Such a name would utterly miss the point, which is the violence of the wind as expressed in the term Euroclydon. But above all, if St. Luke wrote [Greek: EURAK]-, how has it come to pass that every copyist but three has written [Greek: EUROK]-? The testimony of B is memorable. The original scribe wrote [Greek: EURAKUDÔN][79]: thesecunda mantishas corrected this into [Greek: EURYKLUDÔN],—which is also the reading of Euthalius[80]. The essential circumstance is, thatnot[Greek: ULÔN] but [Greek: UDÔN] has all along been the last half of the word in Codex B[81]. In John 4:15, on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]B, Tischendorf adopts [Greek: dierchesthai] (in place of the uncompounded verb), assigning as his reason, that ’If St. John had written [Greek: erchesthai], no one would ever have substituted [Greek: dierchesthai] for it.’ But to construct the text of Scripture on such considerations, is to build a lighthouse on a quicksand. I could have referred the learned Critic to plenty of places where the thing he speaks of as incredible has been done. The proof that St. John used the uncompounded verb is the fact that it is found in all the copies except our two untrustworthy friends. The explanation of [Greek: DIerchômai] is sufficiently accounted for by the final syllable ([Greek: DE]) of [Greek: mêde] which immediately precedes. Similarly but without the same excuse,
Mark 10:16 [Greek: eulogei] has become [Greek: kateulogei]
([Symbol: Aleph]BC).
“ Mark 12:17 [Greek: thaumasan] ” [Greek: ezethaumasan]
([Symbol: Aleph]B).
“ Mark 14:40 [Greek: bebarêmenoi] ” [Greek: katabebarêmenoi]
(A[Symbol: Aleph]B).
It is impossible to doubt that [Greek: kai] (in modern critical editions of Luke 17:37) is indebted for its existence to the same cause. In the phrase [Greek: ekei synachthêsontai hoi aetoi] it might have been predicted that the last syllable of [Greek: ekei] would some day be mistaken for the conjunction. And so it has actually come to pass. [Greek: KAI oi aetoi] is met with in many ancient authorities. But [Symbol: Aleph]LB also transposed the clauses, and substituted [Greek: episynachthêsontai] for [Greek: synachthêsontai]. The self-same casualty, viz. [Greek: kai] elicited out of the insertion of [Greek: ekei] and the transposition of the clauses, is discoverable among the Cursives at Matthew 14:28,—the parallel place: where by the way the old uncials distinguish themselves by yet graver eccentricities[82]. How can we as judicious critics ever think of disturbing the text of Scripture on evidence so precarious as this?
It is proposed that we should henceforth read Matthew 22:23 as follows:—’On that day there came to Him Sadduceessaying that there is no Resurrection.’ A new incident would be in this way introduced into the Gospel narrative: resulting from a novel reading of the passage. Instead of [Greek: hoi legontes], we are invited to read [Greek: legontes], on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]BDMSZP and several of the Cursives, besides Origen, Methodius, Epiphanius. This is a respectable array. There is nevertheless a vast preponderance of numbers in favour of the usual reading, which is also found in the Old Latin copies and in the Vulgate. But surely the discovery that in the parallel Gospels it is—
[Greek: hoitines legousin anastasin mê einai] (Mark 12:18) and [Greek: hoi antilegontes anastasin mê einai] (Luke 20:27) may be considered as decisive in a case like the present. Sure I am that it will be so regarded by any one who has paid close attention to the method of the Evangelists. Add that the origin of the mistake is seen, the instant the words are inspected as they must have stood in an uncial copy:
[Greek: SADDOUKAIOIOILEGONTES] and really nothing more requires to be said. The second [Greek: OI] was safe to be dropped in a collocation of letters like that. It might also have been anticipated, that there would be found copyists to be confused by the antecedent [Greek: KAI]. Accordingly the Peshitto, Lewis, and Curetonian render the place ’et dicentes;’ shewing that they mistook [Greek: KAI OI LEGONTES] for a separate phrase.
§ 4. The termination [Greek: TO] (in certain tenses of the verb), when followed by the neuter article, naturally leads to confusion; sometimes to uncertainty. In John 5:4 for instance, where we read in our copies [Greek: kai etarasse to hydôr], but so many MSS. read [Greek: etarasseto], that it becomes a perplexing question which reading to follow. The sense in either case is excellent: the only difference being whether the Evangelist actually says that the Angel ’troubled’ the water, or leaves it to be inferred from the circumstance that after the Angel had descended, straightway the water ’was troubled.’ The question becomes less difficult of decision when (as in Luke 7:21) we have to decide between two expressions [Greek: echarisato blepein] (which is the reading of [Symbol: Aleph]*ABDEG and 11 other uncials) and [Greek: echarisato to blepein] which is only supported by [Symbol: Aleph]^{b}ELVA. The bulk of the Cursives faithfully maintain the former reading, and merge the article in the verb.
Akin to the foregoing are all those instances,—and they are literally without number—, where the proximity of a like ending has been the fruitful cause of error. Let me explain: for this is a matter which cannot be too thoroughly apprehended.
Such a collection of words as the following two instances exhibit will shew my meaning. In the expression [Greek: esthêta lampran anepempsen] (Luke 23:11), we are not surprised to find the first syllable of the verb ([Greek: an]) absorbed by the last syllable of the immediately preceding [Greek: lampran]. Accordingly, [Symbol: Aleph]LR supported by one copy of the Old Latin and a single cursive MS. concur in displaying [Greek: epempsen] in this place. The letters [Greek: NAIKÔNAIKAI] in the expression (Luke 23:27) [Greek: gynaikôn hai kai] were safe to produce confusion. The first of these three words could of course take care of itself. (Though D, with some of the Versions, make it into [Greek: gynaikes].) Not so however what follows. ABCDLX and the Old Latin (except c) drop the [Greek: kai]: [Symbol: Aleph] and C drop the [Greek: ai]. The truth rests with the fourteen remaining uncials and with the cursives.
Thus also the reading [Greek: en olê tê Galilaia] (B) in Matthew 4:23, (adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort and the Revisers,) is due simply to the reduplication on the part of some inattentive scribe of the last two letters of the immediately preceding word,—[Greek: periêgen]. The received reading of the place is the correct one,—[Greek: kai periêgen holên tên Galilaian ho Iêsous], because the first five words are so exhibited in all the Copies except B[Symbol: Aleph]C; and those three MSS. are observed to differ as usual from one another,—which ought to be deemed fatal to their evidence. Thus,
B reads [Greek: kai periêgen en holêi têi Galilaiai]. [Symbol: Aleph] ” [Greek: kai periêgen ho is en têi Galilaiai]. C ” [Greek: kai periêgen ho is en holê têi Galilaiai].
But—(I shall be asked)—what about the position of the Sacred Name? How comes it to pass that [Greek: ho Iêsous], which comes after [Greek: Galilaian] in almost every other known copy, should come after [Greek: periêgen] in three of these venerable authorities (in D as well as in [Symbol: Aleph] and C), and in the Latin, Peshitto, Lewis, and Harkleian? Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott and Hort and the Revisers at all events (who simply follow B in leaving out [Greek: ho Iêsous] altogether) will not ask me this question: but a thoughtful inquirer is sure to ask it. The phrase (I reply) is derived by [Symbol: Aleph]CD from the twin place in St. Matthew (Matthew 9:35) which in all the MSS. begins [Greek: kai periêgen hois]. So familiar had this order of the words become, that the scribe of [Symbol: Aleph], (a circumstance by the way of which Tischendorf takes no notice,) has even introduced the expression into Mark 6:6,—the parallel place in the second Gospel,—where [Greek: hois] clearly has no business. I enter into these minute details because only in this way is the subject before us to be thoroughly understood. This is another instance where ’the Old Uncials’ shew their text to be corrupt; so for assurance in respect of accuracy of detail we must resort to the Cursive Copies.
§ 5. The introduction of [Greek: apo] in the place of [Greek: hagioi] made by the ’Revisers’ into the Greek Text of 2 Peter 1:21,—derives its origin from the same prolific source. (1) some very ancient scribe mistook the first four letters of [Greek: agioi] for [Greek: apo]. It was but the mistaking of [Greek: AGIO] for [Greek: APO]. At the end of 1700 years, the only Copies which witness to this deformity are BP with four cursives,—in opposition to [Symbol: Aleph]AKL and the whole body of the cursives, the Vulgate[83] and the Harkleian. Euthalius knew nothing of it[84]. Obvious it was, next, for some one in perplexity,—(2) to introduce both readings ([Greek: apo] and [Greek: hagioi]) into the text. Accordingly [Greek: apo Theou hagioi] is found in C, two cursives, and Didymus[85]. Then, (3), another variant crops up, (viz. [Greek: hypo] for [Greek: apo]—but only because [Greek: hypo] went immediately before); of which fresh blunder ([Greek: hypo Theou hagioi]) Theophylact is the sole patron[86]. The consequence of all this might have been foreseen: (4) it came to pass that from a few Codexes, both [Greek: apo] and [Greek: agioi] were left out,—which accounts for the reading of certain copies of the Old Latin[87]. Unaware how the blunder began, Tischendorf and his followers claim ’(2)’, ’(3)’, and ’(4)’, as proofs that ’(1)’ is the right reading: and, by consequence, instead of ’holymen of God spake,’ require us to read ’men spakefromGod,’ which is wooden and vapid. Is it not clear that a reading attested by only BP and four cursive copies must stand self-condemned?
Another excellent specimen of this class of error is furnished by Hebrews 7:1. Instead of [Greek: Ho synantêsas Abraam]—said of Melchizedek,—[Symbol: Aleph]ABD exhibit [Greek: OS]. The whole body of the copies, headed by CLP, are against them[88],—besides Chrysostom[89], Theodoret[90], Damascene[91]. It is needless to do more than state how this reading arose. The initial letter of [Greek: synantêsas] has been reduplicated through careless transcription: [Greek: OSSYN]—instead of [Greek: OSYN]—. That is all. But the instructive feature of the case is that it is in the four oldest of the uncials that this palpable blunder is found.
§ 6.
I have reserved for the last a specimen which is second to none in suggestiveness. ’Whom will ye that I release unto you?’ asked Pilate on a memorable occasion[92]: and we all remember how his enquiry proceeds. But the discovery is made that, in an early age there existed copies of the Gospel which proceeded thus,—’Jesus [who is called[93]] Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?’ Origen so quotes the place, but ’In many copies,’ he proceeds, ’mention is not made that Barabbas was also called Jesus: and those copies may perhaps be right,—else would the name of Jesus belong to one of the wicked,—of which no instance occurs in any part of the Bible: nor is it fitting that the name of Jesus should like Judas have been borne by saint and sinner alike. I think,’ Origen adds, ’something of this sort must have been an interpolation of the heretics[94].’ From this we are clearly intended to infer that ’Jesus Barabbas’ was the prevailing reading of Matthew 27:17 in the time of Origen, a circumstance which—besides that a multitude of copies existed as well as those of Origen—for the best of reasons, we take leave to pronounce incredible[95]. The sum of the matter is probably this:—Some inattentive second century copyist [probably a Western Translator into Syriac who was an indifferent Greek scholar] mistook the final syllable of ’unto you’ ([Greek: UMIN]) for the word ’Jesus’ ([Greek: IN]): in other words, carelessly reduplicated the last two letters of [Greek: UMIN],—from which, strange to say, results the form of inquiry noticed at the outset. Origen caught sight of the extravagance, and condemned it though he fancied it to be prevalent, and the thing slept for 1500 years. Then about just fifty years ago Drs. Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles began to construct that ’fabric of Textual Criticism’ which has been the cause of the present treatise [though indeed Tischendorf does not adopt the suggestion of those few aberrant cursives which is supported by no surviving uncial, and in fact advocates the very origin of the mischief which has been just described]. But, as every one must see, ’such things as these are not ’readings’ at all, nor even the work of ’the heretics;’ but simply transcriptional mistakes. How Dr. Hort, admitting the blunder, yet pleads that ’this remarkable reading is attractive by the new and interesting fact which it seems to attest, and by the antithetic force which it seems to add to the question in Matthew 27:17,’ [is more than we can understand. To us the expression seems most repulsive. No ’antithetic force’ can outweigh our dislike to the idea that Barabbas was our Saviour’s namesake! We prefer Origen’s account, though he mistook the cause, to that of the modern critic.]
FOOTNOTES:
[61] It is clearly unsafe to draw any inference from the mere omission of [Greek: êdê] in Matthew 27:35, by those Fathers who do not shew how they would have began Matthew 27:36—as Eusebius (see below, note 2), Theodoret (i. 1398: ii. 233), and Hilary (78. 443. 941. 1041).
[62] i. 219: iii. 158: iv. 248, 250 bis, 251 bis, 252, 253, 255 bis, 256, 257. Also iv. 440 note, which = cat^{ox} iv. 21.
[63] dem. 440. But not in cs. 426: theoph. 262, 275.
[64] vii. 488, 662: ix. 32.
[65] i. 397. 98. (Palladius) 611: iii. 57. So also in iv. 199, [Greek: etoimos êdê pros to pisteuein].
[66] Ambrose, ii. 279, has ’Et qui metit.’ Iren.^{int} substitutes ’nam’ for ’et,’ and omits ’jam.’ Jerome 9 times introduces ’jam’ before ’albae sunt.’ So Aug. (iii.^2 417): but elsewhere (iv. 639: v. 531) he omits the word altogether.
[67] ’Hic’ is not recognized in Ambrose. Append. ii. 367.
[68] The Fathers render us very little help here. Ps.-Chrys. twice (viii. 34: x. 838) has [Greek: egô de ôde]: once (viii. 153) not. John Damascene (ii. 579) is without the [Greek: ôde].
[69] i. 76: vi. 16 (not vi. 484).
[70] iii.^{2} 259 (not v. 511).
[71] p. 405.
[72] [The prodigal was prepared to say this; but his father’s kindness stopped him:—a feature in the account which the Codexes in question ignore.] [73] iii. 687. But in i. 228 and 259 he recognizes [Greek: theou].
[74] Ap. Mai vii. 135.
[75] Praep. xiii. 6,—[Greek: monou tou henos] (vol. ii. 294).
[76] Same word occurs in Mark 4:37.
[77] iii. 101.
[78] Falconer’s Dissertation on St. Paul’s Voyage, pp. 16 and 12.
[79] Let the learned Vercellone be heard on behalf of Codex B: ’Antequam manum de tabulâ amoveamus, e re fore videtur, si, ipso codice Vaticano inspecto, duos injectos scrupulos eximamus. Cl. Tischendorfius in nuperrimâ suâ editione scribit (Proleg. p. cclxxv), Maium ad Acts 27:14, codici Vaticano tribuisse a primâ manu [Greek: euraklydôn]; nos vero [Greek: eurakydôn]; atque subjungit, “utrumque, ut videtur, male.” At, quidquid “videri” possit, certum nobis exploratumque est Vaticanum codicem primo habuisse [Greek: eurakydôn], prout expressum fuit tum in tabella quâ Maius Birchianas lectiones notavit, tum in alterâ quâ nos errata corrigenda recensuimus.’—Præfatio to Mai’s 2nd ed. of the Cod. Vaticanus, 1859 (8vo), p. v. § vi. [Any one may now see this in the photographed copy.] [80]Ap.Galland. x. 225.
[81] Remark that some vicious sections evidently owed their origin to the copyist knowing more of Latin than of Greek.
True, that the compounds euronotus euroauster exist in Latin. That is the reason why the Latin translator (not understanding the word) rendered it Euroaquilo: instead of writing Euraquilo.
I have no doubt that it was some Latin copyist who began the mischief. Like the man who wrote [Greek: ep’ autô tô phorô] for [Greek: ep’ autophôrô].
Readings of Euroclydon [Greek: EURAKYDÔN] B (sic)
[Greek: EURAKYLÔN] [Symbol: Aleph]A
[Greek: EURAKÊLÔN]
[Greek: EUTRAKÊLÔN]
[Greek: EURAKLÊDÔN] Peshitto.
[Greek: EURAKYKLÔN] Euroaquilo Vulg. [Greek: EUROKLYDÔN] HLP
[Greek: EURAKLYDÔN] Syr. Harkl.
[Greek: EURYKLYDÔN] B^{2 man.}
[82] [Greek: Opou] ([Greek: ou] [Symbol: Aleph]) [Greek: gar] (—[Greek: gar] [Symbol: Aleph]BDL) [Greek: ean] ([Greek: an] D) [Greek: to ptôma] ([Greek: sôma] [Symbol: Aleph]).
[83] Sancti Dei homines.
[84] Ap. Galland. x. 236 a.
[85] Trin. 234.
[86] iii. 389.
[87] ’Locuti sunt homines D.’
[88] Their only supporters seem to be K [i.e. Paul 117 (Matthaei’s §)], 17, 59 [published in full by Cramer, vii. 202], 137 [Reiche, p. 60]. Why does Tischendorf quote besides E of Paul, which is nothing else but a copy of D of Paul?
[89] Chrys. xii. 120 b, 121 a.
[90] Theodoret, iii. 584.
[91] J. Damascene, ii. 240 c.
[92] St. Matt. xxvii. 17.
[93] Cf. [Greek: ho legomenos Barabbas]. St. Mark xv. 7.
[94] Int. iii. 918 c d.
[95] On the two other occasions when Origen quotes Matthew 27:17 (i. 316 a and ii. 245 a) nothing is said about ’Jesus Barabbas.’— Alluding to the place, he elsewhere (iii. 853 d) merely says that ’ Secundum quosdam Barabbas dicebatur et Jesus.’—The author of a well-known scholion, ascribed to Anastasius, Bp. of Antioch, but query, for see Migne, vol. lxxxix. p. 1352 b c (= Galland. xii. 253 c), and 1604 a, declares that he had found the same statement ’in very early copies.’ The scholion in question is first cited by Birch (Varr. Lectt. p. 110) from the following MSS.:—S, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 146, 181, 186, 195, 197, 199 or 200, 209, 210, 221, 222: to which Scholz adds 41, 237, 238, 253, 259, 299: Tischendorf adds 1, 118. In Gallandius (Bibl. P. P. xiv. 81 d e, Append.), the scholion may be seen more fully given than by Birch,—from whom Tregelles and Tischendorf copy it. Theophylact (p. 156 a) must have seen the place as quoted by Gallandius. The only evidence, so far as I can find, for reading ’ Jesus Barabbas’ (in Matthew 27:16-17) are five disreputable Evangelia 1, 118, 209, 241, 299,—the Armenian Version, the Jerusalem Syriac, [and the Sinai Syriac]; (see Adler, pp. 172-3).