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.
St. John iv. 35-6 ([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 ver. 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 ver. 35, were not unwilling to part with the copula at
the beginning of ver. 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 ver. 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 ver. 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 perish _here_ with 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 ver. 16, for [Greek: gemisai tên koilian autou apo], [Symbol:
Aleph]BDLR present us with [Greek: chortasthênai ek]: and in ver. 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 St. John v. 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 xxvii. 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 impossible _Latin_
name? The ship was 'a ship of Alexandria' (ver. 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]: the
_secunda mantis_ has corrected this into [Greek: EURYKLUDÔN],--which is
also the reading of Euthalius[80]. The essential circumstance is, that
_not_ [Greek: ULÔN] but [Greek: UDÔN] has all along been the last half
of the word in Codex B[81].
In St. John iv. 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,
St. Mark x. 16 [Greek: eulogei] has become [Greek: kateulogei]
([Symbol: Aleph]BC).
" xii. 17 [Greek: thaumasan] " [Greek: ezethaumasan]
([Symbol: Aleph]B).
" xiv. 40 [Greek: bebarêmenoi] " [Greek: katabebarêmenoi]
(A[Symbol: Aleph]B).
It is impossible to doubt that [Greek: kai] (in modern critical editions
of St. Luke xvii. 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 St. Matt. xxiv. 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 St. Matt. xxii. 23 as
follows:--'On that day there came to Him Sadducees _saying_ 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] (St. Mark xii. 18) and
[Greek: hoi antilegontes anastasin mê einai] (St. Luke xx. 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 St. John v. 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 St. Luke
vii. 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] (St. Luke xxiii.
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 (St. Luke xxiii. 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 St. Matt. iv.
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 (ix. 35) which in all the MSS. begins [Greek: kai
periêgen ho _is_]. 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
St. Mark vi. 6,--the parallel place in the second Gospel,--where [Greek:
ho _is_] 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 i. 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 '_holy_
men of God spake,' require us to read 'men spake _from_ God,' 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 Heb.
vii. 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 St. Matt. xxvii. 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 ver. 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 ver. 35, by those Fathers who do not shew how they
would have began ver. 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 St. Mark iv. 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 Act. xxvii.
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 St. Matt. xxvii. 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 St.
Matt. xxvii. 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).