chapter xvi

. as being useless and unedifying for the Church of his day.

xv. 23, 24. Zahn holds that the later Antiochean reading ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς (א^c Euthal., etc.) is undoubtedly spurious, and the γὰρ as certainly genuine (_Einleitung_, i. 267).

xvi. 27. Zahn (_Einleitung_, i. 286) is inclined to regard ᾧ as the correct reading here for two reasons: (1) because the incompleteness of the sentence made it liable to correction, and (2) because the correction is effected in very different ways. In some manuscripts ᾧ is changed into αὐτῷ (P, Copt., 31, 54), in others it is omitted altogether (B F-lat. Syr.), while in others again εἴη takes the place of ᾧ ἡ (55, 43-scholion).

Subscription: πρὸς Ῥωμαίους simply, א A B C D; others, ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Κορίνθου διὰ Φοίβης τῆς διακόνου, to which some add τῆς ἐν Κεγχρεαῖς ἐκκλησίας; others, ἐγράφη διὰ Τερτίου ἐπέμφθη δὲ διὰ Φοίβης ἀπὸ Κορινθίων.

1 Corinthians.

All the manuscripts in which the number of the epistle is indicated by a word and not by a numeral (α’) call it πρώτη, never προτέρα. Origen, however, says ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ πρὸς Κορινθίους ὁ Παῦλος (ii. 347).

i. 2. The words ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ are read immediately after θεοῦ by B D* G. This arrangement is adopted by Weiss, and supported by Zahn as undoubtedly genuine (_Einleitung_, i. 210). Heinrici is inclined to regard it as a transcriptional error which was very apt to occur in copying stichometric manuscripts. But were there stichometric manuscripts antecedent to the time of Codex B?

iii. 22. Marcion seems to have dropped the name of Apollos here. Indeed, there is no trace in Marcion of any of the passages where Paul mentions his name. “What was Apollos to the Church of the second century?” (Zahn, _GK._ i. 649.)

v. 2. For ἐπενθήσατε Naber suggests ἐπενοήσατε. This is not noticed by Baljon, who is elsewhere careful to mention the conjectural emendations proposed by his countrymen.

vi. 20. It was doubtless owing to a transcriptional error that Marcion read ἄρατε between δοξάσατε and τὸν θεόν. But how it originated, whether from ἄρα δὲ = ἄρα δὴ or by dittography, it is hard to say.

x. 9. In place of τὸν κύριον we find τὸν Χριστὸν read by D G K L, Marcion, Irenæus (iv. 27, 3), Clement (_Ecl. Proph._, 49), and the early versions. See above, p. 152, and compare Zahn on the reading Ἰησοῦς for κύριος in Jude 5 (_Einleitung_, ii. 88 f.).

xiv. 19. For νοΐ μου Marcion read “per legem” διὰ τὸν νόμον, which was arrived at partly by a transcriptional error and partly by conscious alteration. This could not have occurred, however, unless the original reading was διὰ τοῦ νοός μου, which is still found in a good many manuscripts, and not τῷ νοΐ μου, the reading preferred by most of our editors. The latter is perhaps the result of an assimilation to the construction of γλώσσῃ.

xiv. 31-34. These verses are variously punctuated by recent editors, the main difference being with regard to the arrangement of the clause ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων. This clause is referred to verse 31 by Westcott and Hort, who place a comma after παρακαλῶνται and bracket the intervening words (32, 33_a_) as a parenthesis. Tischendorf and Weiss place a period after εἰρήνης, and link the ὡς clause to what follows. This arrangement Westcott and Hort indicate in their margin. For details and reasoning, see the Commentaries.

xiv. 34, 35. These two verses follow verse 40 in D E F G 93, Ambrosiaster, and Sedulius. In Codex Fuldensis, verses 36-40 are found in the margin after verse 33, where they were inserted by Victor of Capua (see p. 122), who did not, however, remove them from their place further down. He must therefore have had before him a manuscript exhibiting this arrangement. We must suppose either that all these manuscripts are ultimately derived from one and the same exemplar, in which this arrangement of the verses occurred, or, as Heinrici suggests, that the original document itself gave occasion to this variety by having these verses written in its margin. Our modern editors are unanimous in following the usual order.

xv. 38. Zahn has shown that in all likelihood the substitution of πνεῦμα for the first σῶμα was due to certain followers of Marcion. See his _GK._ i. 615; also _Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte_, ix. 198 ff.

xv. 47. On Marcion’s reading, ὁ δεύτερος κύριος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, see Zahn, _GK._ i. 638, who suggests that this may have been an early gloss that Marcion made use of, seeing that it is in the highest degree improbable that the heretic and some of his most violent opponents should alter the original text in exactly the same way.

xv. 55. Tertullian found νεῖκος in Marcion, and he therefore leaves it an open question whether the word signifies _victoria tua_ or _contentio tua_ (v. 10, p. 306). See Zahn, _GK._ i. 51.

xvi. 22. On “Maranatha,” see Zahn (_Einleitung_, i. 215 ff.), who, while admitting that no objection on the ground of language or grammar can be made to reading the word as מרן אתא = ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἦλθεν (not ἔρχεται or ἐλεύσεται), prefers with Halévy, Bickell, and Nöldeke, to take it as מרנא תא = κύριε ἔρχου, which corresponds to the Peshitto rendering of Apoc. xxii. 20, תא מריא ישוע (ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ). See note by Schmiedel in the _Hand-Commentar_ on 1 Cor. xvi. 22, and the article by Thayer in Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, _sub voce_. Luther has “Maharam Motha,” but whence he derived this I do not know.

Subscription: ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Φιλίππων (τῆς Μακεδονίας) διὰ Στεφανᾶ καὶ Φορτουνάτου καὶ Ἀχαϊκοῦ (Κουάρτου) καὶ Τιμοθέου; _al._ ὑπὸ Παύλου καὶ Σωσθένους; _al._ ἀπὸ Ἐφέσου τῆς Ἀσίας.

2 Corinthians.

i. 12. Recent editors adopt the reading ἁγιότητι on the authority of א* A B C K M P etc. Zahn, however (_Einleitung_, i. 243), prefers ἁπλότητι as given by א^c D E G etc. Meyer thinks that ἁπλότητι was substituted for ἁγιότητι as being the more usual expression. Tischendorf is wrong in saying: de suo add. syr^{sch} _et cum puritate_. The Syriac has בפשיטותא ובדכיותא ובטיבותא דאלהא—_i.e._ ἐν ἁπλότητι καὶ ἐν εἰλικρινείᾳ[283] καὶ ἐν χάριτι [τοῦ] θεοῦ ἀνεστράφημεν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ καὶ οὐκ ἐν.... vii. 2. Zahn (_GK._ i. 650; ii. 515) thinks perhaps the whole section vii. 2-xi. 1 was omitted by Marcion: “Let us cleanse ourselves from defilement of the flesh and blood ... for I espoused you as a pure virgin to one husband, (even) Christ.”

Subscription: ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Φιλίππων (+ τῆς Μακεδονίας) + διὰ Τίτου (+ Βαρνάβα) καὶ Λουκᾶ.

Galatians.

i. 8. As illustrating how far the sharpest critic may be led astray by his fondness for conjectural emendation, it may be mentioned here that Hitzig (_Das Buch Hiob_, 1874, p. 199), suggested that Η Α̅Χ̅Σ̅ formerly occupied the place of ἡμεῖς in this verse, and that this means ἢ ἀρχιερεὺς!

i. 18. For Κηφᾶν, as given in our critical editions, Zahn (_Einleitung_, ii. 14) would read Πέτρον. He accounts for the remarkable transition from the name Πέτρος in ii. 7, 8 to Κηφᾶς in ii. 9, 11, 14 very well by saying that Paul in the latter verses is echoing the language used by the Judaizers from Palestine, just as he does in speaking of the Three as στῦλοι. Seeing that Paul persistently employs the name Κηφᾶς in 1 Corinthians, a scribe might have introduced this name, with which he had become familiar, into Galatians i. 18 also, just as Ἰσκαριώτης was carried over from the Synoptics into most manuscripts of John’s Gospel, displacing the title ἀπὸ Καρυώτου. The following table will show the distribution of the Greek manuscripts in support of the readings Κηφᾶς and Πέτρος in Galatians:—

Κηφᾶς. Πέτρος.

i. 18, א* A B 17, 67**, 71. א^c D E F G K L P.

ii. 7, —— omnes.

ii. 8, —— omnes.

ii. 9, א B C K L P etc. D E F G (A omits).

ii. 11, א A B C H P. D E F G K L.

ii. 14, א A B C 10, 17, D E F G K L P. 67**, 137.

It will be observed that in ii. 9 K L P take the side of א (A) B, while in verse 11 P alone does so, and that D E F G are the only witnesses that are consistent.

ii. 5. οἷς οὐδὲ is omitted by D*, by Tertullian, who ascribes the negative to Marcion (_Adv. Marcionem_, v. 3), by certain manuscripts known to Victorinus Afer, who says “in plurimis codicibus et latinis et graecis ista sententia est _Ad horam cessimus subjectioni_,” and by the Latin translator of Irenæus (_Adv. Haereses_, iii. 13, 3). Ambrosiaster calls attention to the discrepancy between the Greek and Latin manuscripts: “Graeci e contra dicunt _Nec ad horam cessimus_,” and similarly Sedulius. Bengel remarked on the proneness of scribes to insert or omit a negative: “Omnino apud Latinos lubrica sub calamo est _non_ particula.... Saepe etiam in graecis aliisque οὐκ omissum.” See Haussleiter, _Forschungen_, iv. 31 ff., who says that the subject is one deserving of special treatment. Bengel refers to the exhaustive discussion “de negationibus quae Pandectis Florentinis recte male additae vel detractae sunt,” but there might be a good deal said on these theological _Sic et Non_ also.

A single letter or little word more or less, and the sense of a passage is completely changed. Did Paul say that in his contention with the Apostles he gave place “for an hour,” or “_not_ for an hour,” οἷς πρὸς ὥραν, or οἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν, or πρὸς ὥραν simply? In Gal. v. 8 is it ἡ πεισμονὴ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς, or οὐκ ἐκ? In 1 Cor. v. 6 is it “your glorying is good” or “_not_ good,” καλὸν or οὐ καλὸν? In Rom. iv. 19, κατενόησεν or οὐ κατενόησεν. In 2 Peter iii. 10, εὑρεθήσεται or οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται, or are both these wrong? Compare, for example, the reading μακράν in Matt. viii. 30, where almost all the Latin witnesses, and Jerome too, read “_non_ longe”; and John vi. 64, where we have οἱ μὴ πιστεύοντες, and also οἱ πιστεύοντες (א G). In this latter passage the reading “credentes” was adopted in the Sixtine edition of the Vulgate, but “_non_ credentes” in the Clementine; Wordsworth and White decide for the latter against the Sixtine text. In John vii. 8, א D R etc., read οὐκ, for which B and the majority of the witnesses have οὔπω, but this is manifestly a correction. In John ix. 27 we have οὐκ ἠκούσατε, where a solitary Greek manuscript (22), which, however, has the support of the Vulgate and half the Old Latin witnesses, reads ἠκούσατε: audistis. In Romans v. 14 we find both τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτάνοντας and τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας. In 1 Cor. iii. 7 A reads ὥστε ὁ φυτεύων ἐστίν τι, omitting the negative; in ix. 8 we have both ταῦτα λέγει and ταῦτα οὐ λέγει; while in xiii. 5 B and Clement of Alexandria actually assert that “love seeketh what is _not_ her own, τὸ μὴ ἑαυτῆς”! Again, in 1 Cor. xv. 51 the position of the negative fluctuates between the first and second member of the sentence, so that we have πάντες μὲν οὐ and οὐ πάντες. Similarly, in Col. ii. 18 we find ἃ ἑόρακεν and ἃ μὴ ἑόρακεν; and in Apoc. iv. 11 ἦσαν καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν and οὐκ ἦσαν καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν—_i.e._ “they were called out of nothingness into existence.”

In Codex D seven cases of this variation occur in Acts alone—viz. iv. 20, v. 26, 28, vii. 25, xix. 40, xx. 20, 27. Compare, further, Matt. xii. 32, where in place of ἀφεθήσεται B* reads οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται. In Matt. xvii. 25 one Latin manuscript makes Peter say “utique non” in answer to the question, “Doth not your master pay tribute?” We have in Matt. xxi. 16, ἀκούεις and οὐκ ἀκούεις; xxi. 32, μετεμελήθητε and οὐ μετεμελήθητε; xxiv. 2, οὐ βλέπετε and βλέπετε. In Mark viii. 14, οὐκ εἶχον and εἶχον; xiii. 19, καὶ οὐ μὴ, οὐδὲ μὴ and οὐδ’ οὐ. Luke xi. 48, συνευδοκεῖτε: μὴ συνευδοκεῖτε; xxi. 21, ἐκχωρείτωσαν: μὴ ἐκχωρείτωσαν. John ii. 12, οὐ πολλὰς: πολλὰς; xv. 19, οὐκ ἐστὲ: ἦτε; xx. 8, ἐπίστευσεν: οὐκ ἐπίστευσεν. Acts xxv. 6, πλείους: οὐ πλείους. Rom. iv. 5, μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ: ἐργαζομένῳ (_Studia Sinaitica_, vi. p. lxvi); x. 3, οὐχ ὑπετάγησαν: ὑπετάγησαν (_ibid._). 1 Cor i. 19, συνετῶν: ἀσυνέτων; iv. 6, ἵνα μὴ: ἵνα; iv. 19, οὐ τὸν λόγον: τὸν λόγον; vi. 5, οὐδεὶς σοφὸς: σοφὸς; vi. 9, οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν: κληρονομήσουσιν (B* 93) and _vice versa_ in verse 10. 2 Cor. v. 1, ἀχειροποίητος: οὐκ ἀχειροποίητος (_non manufactam_). Gal. iv. 14, οὐκ ἐξουθενήσατε: ἐξουθενήσατε (א*). Heb. x. 2, οὐκ ἂν: ἂν: κἂν. 2 Pet. i. 12, μελλήσω: οὐκ ἀμελήσω: οὐ μελλήσω. 1 John v. 17, οὐ πρὸς θάνατον: πρὸς θάνατον. Apoc. iii. 8, μικρὰν: οὐ μικρὰν.[284]

ii. 20. Tischendorf fails to mention that Marcion read ἀγοράσαντος (redemit) in place of ἀγαπήσαντος. The variant is of sufficient importance to justify a reference to Zahn, _GK._ ii. 499. I cannot at this moment recall any instance of a confusion between ἀγοράσας and ἀγαπήσας, though it is not an unlikely mistake to make. In Leviticus xxvii. 19, the first hand of B by mistake wrote ἀγοράσας for ἁγιάσας.

v. 9. Epiphanius accused Marcion of having altered ζυμοῖ to δολοῖ. See Zahn, _GK._ i. 639; ii. 503. _Cf._ above, p. 76.

Ephesians.

Tertullian says (_Adv. Marcionem_, v. 17): Ecclesiae quidem veritate epistulam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos, sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator. Nihil autem de titulis interest, cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit, dum ad quosdam.

iv. 19. For ἀπηλγηκότες D here reads ἀπηλπικότες. A glance at ΑΠΗΛΓΗΚΟΤΕϹ and ΑΠΗΛΠΙΚΟΤΕϹ will show how easy it was to make such a mistake in the days of uncial script.

v. 14. The reading ἐπιψαύσεις τοῦ Χριστοῦ is attested by D*, some Latin manuscripts, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. See above, p. 254.

Subscription: ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Ῥώμης: + διὰ Τυχίκου.

Philippians.

i. 3. εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου is read by א A B D^c E^2 K L P; and ἐγὼ μὲν εὐχαριστῶ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν by D* E* F G. Zahn defends the latter in the _Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft_, 1885, p. 184, and in his _Einleitung_, i. 376 calls it the “genuine text.” Haupt says (Meyer^7, 1897, p. 3): The reading ἐγὼ μὲν εὐχαριστῶ, which is commonly ignored, is, it appears to me, rightly recommended by Zahn and Wohlenberg. But Haupt himself ignores the second half of the reading τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν (for τῷ θεῷ μου), which is far more important from a theological point of view, and is content merely to explain at length why Paul should thank _his_ God. Weiss, in his _Text-kritik der paulinischen Briefe_ (pp. 6, 7), mentions ἐγὼ, but says nothing about μὲν, or the change from κυρίῳ ἡμῶν to θεῷ μου. But you cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. If you accept ἐγὼ μὲν εὐχαριστῶ you cannot reject τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν. Haupt, moreover, thinks it is far-fetched to suppose with Zahn that ἐγὼ μὲν contains an allusion to something the Philippians had said. But that is by no means the case, as we may learn from what Deissmann and Harris tell us of the epistolary style of those days (see _A Study in Letter Writing_, Expositor, September 1898, p. 161 ff.). But if the Western group preserves the correct text at the very outset of the epistle, what about it further down?

i. 7. For χάριτος Ambrosiaster has “gaudii,” so that he must have read χαρᾶς. J. Weiss proposes to read χρείας (_ThLz._, 1899, col. 263). χάρις and χαρά are frequently interchanged—_e.g._ in Tobit vii. 18; Sirach xxx. 16. Χόρον is found for χαράν in Ps. xxix. (xxx.) 11. The scribes felt a difficulty with χρεία in Rom. xii. 13, and still more so in Ephes. iv. 29. Ephraem found χρεία in place of χεῖρον in John v. 14 (see above, p. 293, note 2).

i. 14. Zahn and Haupt omit τοῦ θεοῦ with D K etc. So does J. Weiss, who takes occasion to make certain important observations on the attempts hitherto made to restore the text. See _ThLz._, 1899, col. 263.

iii. 14. Till lately Tertullian was our only authority for the reading “palmam incriminationis” in place of τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως (_De resurrectione carnis_, 23). It was accordingly supposed that he had read ἀνεγκλήσεως instead of ἄνω κλήσεως. We learn now from the Athos manuscript, discovered by von der Goltz, that Origen also cited the reading ἀνεγκλησίας in his commentary as being ἀνεγνωσμένον ἔν τισιν ἀντιγράφοις. Even supposing that τινὰ ἀντίγραφα turned out to be no more than a single copy, or even Tertullian’s quotation which Origen had become acquainted with in some way, his mention of this reading is in the highest degree interesting.

Subscription: ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Ῥώμης: + δι’ Ἐπαφροδίτου: + διὰ Τιμοθέου καὶ Ἐπαφροδίτου.

Colossians.

ii. 16. On the reading κιρνάτω suggested by the rendering of the Peshitto, and the Latin version of Ephraem’s Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, see above, p. 168 f. It was advocated by Lagarde in his _Prophetae Chaldaice_, p. li. Zahn rejects it on the ground that it would require περὶ βρώσεως in place of ἐν βρώσει, and also that κρίνειν agrees better with καταβραβεύειν in verse 18.

ii. 18. On this difficult passage see above, p. 168. Zahn thinks it quite certain that μὴ is a later insertion even in the Syriac, seeing that Ephraem knows nothing of it. Of the various conjectural emendations, he regards that of C. Taylor as the most probable—viz. ἀέρα κενεμβατεύων. This is also the view of Westcott and Hort. See their _Introduction_, “Notes on Select Readings,” _in loco_; Zahn, _Einleitung_, i. 339.

iv. 14. The words ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς were omitted by Marcion. See Zahn, _GK._ i. 647; ii. 528. Two minuscules omit the words ὁ ἀγαπητὸς.

Subscription: ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Ῥώμης διὰ Τυχίκου (+ καὶ Τιμοθέου) καὶ Ὀνησίμου.

1 Thessalonians.

ii. 7. One can easily see how doubt should arise as to the correct reading here when we observe the form of the words in the uncial script, ΕΓΕΝΗΘΗΜΕΝΝΗΠΙΟΙ. Moreover, we must remember that Ν at the end of a line was very frequently indicated merely by a stroke above the preceding letter, thus: ΕΓΕΝΗΘΗΜΕ. The same alternative readings are presented in Hebrews v. 13, and in Clement of Alexandria, i. 140, 7, where Codex F exhibits ἤπιοι, and M, which is the most important manuscript, has νήπιοι in the text and ἤπιοι in the margin.

ii. 15. Zahn (_GK._ ii. 521; _cf._ also i. 644) restores Marcion’s text here in the form τῶν καὶ τὸν κύριον [Ἰησοῦν] ἀποκτεινάντων καὶ τοὺς προφήτας αὐτῶν. Marcion founds throughout upon a Western text, and the fact of his agreement in this instance with the Antiochean Recension (D_{2} E_{2} K_{2} L_{2}) is declared by Zahn to be a mere coincidence, more especially as the latter here reads τοὺς ἰδίους προφήτας. “Had Marcion,” he says, “really written ἰδίους, Tertullian would have translated the passage differently, and would scarcely have applied the term _adjectio_ to a qualifying expression inserted _before_ προφήτας.” What Tertullian says is, “dicendo _et prophetas suos_ licet _suos_ adjectio sit haeretici.” The term ἴδιος is employed so frequently to represent the pronoun when no particular emphasis is intended to be conveyed, that there seems to me no necessity for Tertullian translating τοὺς ἰδίους προφήτας _suos prophetas_, or rendering the words in any other way than _prophetas suos_. Compare above, p. 211.

iii. 3. Lachmann here reads μηδὲν ἀσαίνεσθαι with Reiske and Venema. Beza and Bentley suggested σαλεύεσθαι, Holwerda ἀναίνεσθαι, Peerlkamp σινιάζεσθαι. Zahn has no hesitation in adopting μηδένα σαίνεσθαι, which he understands in the original (metaphorical) sense of to flatter, to talk over or cajole. See _Einleitung_, i. 158.

1 Timothy.

i. 4. Οἰκοδομίαν, or οἰκοδομὴν, which is attested by Irenæus and a good many Latin witnesses, and received into his text by Erasmus, is nothing but an early transcriptional error for οἰκονομίαν.

iii. 1. “The reading ἀνθρώπινος ὁ λόγος is attested in Greek only by D*, but it was the prevailing reading in the West till the time of Jerome. When I consider the improbability of its being invented, and its liability to alteration in conformity with 1 Tim. i. 15, iv. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 11; Tit. iii. 8, I am compelled, in spite of the one-sided nature of the testimony, to conclude that it is original. It is a proverbial expression of general application and profane origin” (Zahn, _Einleitung_, i. 482). This reading is usually ignored by our editors and commentators, and yet the passage is one that plays an important

## part in the ordination of the clergy, and therefore one on the correct

interpretation of which a good deal might depend. Westcott and Hort merely mention it in their _Notes on Select Readings_ and insert it in their _Appendix_. It is not cited by von Gebhardt in his edition. For my own part I am not quite convinced of its originality. At the same time it is hard to understand how ΠΙΣΤΟΣ by any clerical error could be transformed into Α̅Ν̅Ι̅ΝΟΣ, and so become ΑΝΘΡΩΠΙΝΟΣ.

iii. 16. In his _Forschungen_, vol. iii., Beilage iv. p. 277, “Zum Text von 1 Tim. iii. 16,” Zahn published two or three lines from some parchment fragments in the Egyptian Museum of the Louvre, which, he thinks, belong to the IV-VI century. The last three lines run—ευσεβειας μυστηρ ... | ω εφανερωθη ε ... | και εδ.... He says, “The ω in the second last line is undoubtedly meant for ὃ. This adds another to the Greek witnesses supporting this reading, which has till now been attested only by the Latin manuscripts, by other ambiguous or doubtful witnesses, and probably by the first Greek hand of Codex Claromontanus. The και in the last line is, so far as I am aware, supported by no other evidence.” The reading θεος, which was formerly so much discussed, seems to be simply an early transcriptional error, ΟϹ being read as Θ̅Ϲ̅—_i.e._ θεος with the usual mark of abbreviation. The old dispute over the reading of the earliest manuscripts (most of them exhibit a correction at the place), whether the middle stroke of the Θ in the oldest codices A C is by the first or second hand, or whether in the case of A it may not be simply the tongue of an E shining through from the other side of the parchment, cannot seemingly be decided now in the present state of the manuscripts.[285] Codex A was examined by Scrivener both with and without the aid of a magnifying glass perhaps twenty times in as many years. Dean Burgon devotes seventy-seven pages of his _Revision Revised_ to a discussion of the reading. The facility with which a variant of this sort may arise is shown by the perfectly analogous passage, Joshua ii. 11. Here B and F read κυριος ο θεος υμων ΟϹ εν ουρανω ανω, while on the other hand A in place of ΟϹ has Θ̅Ϲ̅, which in this instance is correct. In 1 Tim. iii. 16 the other witnesses—viz. the versions and the Fathers—throw their weight into the opposite scale.

iv. 3. Isidore asks whether κωλυόντων ... ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων may not be a σφάλμα of the scribes for ἀντέχεσθαι, to which Oecumenius replies that it is no σφάλμα καλλιγραφικόν but good Attic Greek for κωλύειν ἀπὸ τῆς βρώσεως. The explanation of Theophylact, however, is nearer the mark, that συμβουλεύειν is to be supplied from κωλύειν. Bentley, Toup, Bakhuyzen, and Bois would supply κελευόντων before ἀπέχεσθαι, while Hort suggests the substitution of ἢ ἅπτεσθαι or καὶ γεύεσθαι in place of ἀπέχεσθαι. There seems to be no need of such expedients.

Subscription: ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Λαοδικείας + ἥτις ἐστὶν μητρόπολις Φρυγίας τῆς Καπατιάνης (Πακατιάνης): _al._ ἀπὸ Νικοπόλεως: _al._ ἀπὸ Ἀθηνῶν: _al._ ἀπὸ Ῥώμης + διὰ Τίτου.

2 Timothy.

iv. 19. After Ἀκύλαν two minuscules (46 and 109) insert Λέκτραν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ Σιμαίαν (Σημαιαν 109) καὶ Ζήνωνα τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ. The interpolation is derived from the _Acta Pauli_, and is to be connected not with Aquila, but with the “house of Onesiphorus.” See Zahn, _Einleitung_, i. 411.

Subscription: ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Λαοδικείας: _al._ ἀπὸ Ῥώμης + ὅτε ἐκ δευτέρου παρέστη Παῦλος τῷ καίσαρι Νέρωνι.

Titus.

i. 9, 11. Considerable additions are made to the text after both these verses by Codex 109. This manuscript is numbered 11 in the Library of St. Mark at Venice, and described by Gregory as “haud malae notae.” It contains both a Latin and an Arabic version, and dates from the thirteenth or fourteenth, or, as some suppose, the eleventh, century. After verse 9 we read: μὴ χειροτονεῖν διγάμους μηδὲ διακόνους αὐτοὺς ποιεῖν, μηδὲ γυναῖκας ἔχειν ἐκ διγαμίας· μηδὲ προσερχέσθωσαν ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ λειτουργεῖν τὸ θεῖον· τοὺς ἄρχοντας τοὺς ἀδικοκριτὰς καὶ ἅρπαγας καὶ ψεύστας καὶ ἀνελεήμονας ἔλεγχε ὡς θεοῦ διάκονος. After verse 11 we find τὰ τέκνα τοὺς ἰδίους γονεῖς ὑβρίζοντας ἢ τύπτοντας ἐπιστόμιζε καὶ ἔλεγχε καὶ νουθέτει ὡς πατὴρ τέκνα.

Subscription: πρὸς Τίτον (+ τῆς Κρητῶν ἐκκλησίας πρῶτον ἐπίσκοπον χειροτονηθέντα) ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Νικοπόλεως τῆς Μακεδονίας (missa per Arteman: _al._ per Zenam et Apollo).

Hebrews.

i. 3. Instead of φέρων, the first hand of B wrote φανερῶν, which a second hand altered to φέρων, while a third restored φανερῶν, and wrote in the margin ἀμαθέστατε καὶ κακέ, ἄφες τὸν [? τὸ] παλαιόν, μὴ μεταποίει. A great deal of material might be collected from the margin of old manuscripts, not only for the history of Prayer, as von Dobschütz recently observed, but for other interesting departments of the history of civilisation.

ii. 9. The reading χωρὶς θεοῦ instead of χάριτι θεοῦ is now found only in M and in the second hand of 67. Origen, however, was aware of the various reading: χωρὶς θεοῦ ἢ ὅπερ ἔν τισι ἀντιγράφοις χάριτι θεοῦ. It seems to be a primitive transcriptional error.

x. 34. We have here to choose between δεσμοῖς and δεσμίοις. The latter is manifestly the correct reading. It is attested by A D* and certain minuscules, among which are 37**, 67**. This last is a Vienna manuscript (Vindob. gr. theol. 302), whose marginal readings exhibit a text closely resembling that of the uncials B M, which are defective in Hebrews x. Δεσμοῖς μου is supported by א D^c H K L P, Clem. Alex., Origen (i. 41, where, however, μου is omitted by M* P, according to Koetschau’s new edition), and by d e (_vinculis eorum_). Zahn (_Einleitung_, ii. 122) thinks that the connection of the reading δεσμοῖς μου with the tradition of the Pauline authorship of the epistle is suspicious. We find the reading adopted in those regions where the tradition was accepted. It may, however, have been the means of confirming and spreading the tradition, seeing that Clement of Alexandria is actually aware of it. Pseudo-Euthalius, _e.g._, employs the reading in support of the Pauline authorship (Zacagni 670).

In this same verse א A H have preserved the proper reading ἑαυτοὺς. Ἑαυτοῖς, as given by D E K L, is a would-be correction.

xi. 23. In certain manuscripts (D and three Vulgate codices) an entire verse is inserted after verse 23: Πίστει μέγας γενόμενος Μωϋσῆς ἀνεῖλεν τὸν Αἰγύπτιον κατανοῶν τὴν ταπείνωσιν τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ. Its position shows it to be an interpolation.

xiii. 9. The present tense περιπατοῦντες is exhibited only by א* A D*, all the other witnesses having περιπατήσαντες. The minority are in the right here. A correction is not always an improvement.

xiii. 18. Zahn accepts the καὶ before περὶ ἡμῶν. It is found only in D d and Chrysostom. This combination of witnesses is very rare.

Subscription: ἐγράφη (+ ἑβραϊστὶ 31) ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας διὰ Τιμοθέου: _al._ ἀπὸ Ἀθηνῶν: _al._ ἀπὸ Ῥώμης.

CATHOLIC EPISTLES.

The variety in the order of the Catholic Epistles is even more significant than that of the Pauline. When the Syrian Church of Edessa obtained the New Testament, it consisted only of the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, and the Acts. It contained neither the Apocalypse nor the Catholic Epistles. This is proved among other things by the fact that not a single quotation from these writings is found in the Homilies of Aphraates, the date of which falls between 336 and 345. At a later date the Syrian Church accepted the Epistle of James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, but the four so-called Antilegomena—viz. 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude—are to this day excluded from their Canon of the New Testament. Even in the West, James was not reckoned among the books of the New Testament previous to the fourth century. There is no mention made of it in Africa about the year 300, although it was cited at Rome and Carthage at an earlier date. At Alexandria, however, all the seven Catholic Epistles were counted in the New Testament as early as the time of Clement,[286] and their place in the Canon becomes more and more firmly assured from the time of Eusebius onwards.[287] At the same time, the order of their arrangement varies very considerably. Indeed, every possible variety occurs, except that Jude seems never to have been placed first, nor 2 Peter last. Thus we find James, 2 Peter, 3 John, Jude; James, Jude, 2 Peter, 3 John; 2 Peter, James, Jude, 3 John; 2 Peter, 3 John, James, Jude; 2 Peter, 3 John, Jude, James, etc.[288] It follows that in the case of this group of New Testament writings, as well as in that of the preceding, it is necessary and possible to distinguish the three longer from the four shorter epistles in tracing the history of the text. And we see at the same time what justification Luther had in drawing a line between these epistles and the principal books of the New Testament as having been held in quite a different estimation in early times.

1 Peter.

iii. 22. After θεοῦ the Vulgate inserts _deglutiens mortem ut vitae aeternae haeredes efficeremur_, “apparently from a Greek original which had the aorist participle καταπιών; _cf._ 1 Cor. xv. 54” (W-H, _Notes_, _in loco_). See Vetter, _Der dritte Korintherbrief_.

2 Peter.

i. 1. Zahn considers ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ the original reading, and εἰς δικαιοσύνην a later correction due to taking πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ together as “faith in righteousness.” The last two words are to be taken with λαχοῦσιν. _Einleitung_, ii. 59.

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