It is a great drawback that our critical editions do not permit of an e.asy glance over the differences of these principal MSS ; there isHanseir8edition(.V7*<7/-iece ; Antifpttssimorum codicum Uxtus in nrdinein parallelmn di.'-'pog. ; notas crit. et coUationem CmI. Sinaidei adjecit Ed. If. Uanselt, Oxonii, 3 vols., 1864, fi2J sh.), and now that of Schjott (NT grtsct ad fidem Ustium vettt£tii<simoruni recognovit nfcnon variantes tectum*^ ex edilionibus Kluviriana et Tixchendorjiana subjunxitt HauDlae, 1897).
t This con\-iction as regards B arose from the fact, first pointed out in its importance by Burgon, that the scribe of B, after ending the Gospel wiUi v. 8 in the second column of a page, has, contrary to his custom, left the third or remaining column blank, evidently because one or other of the two stibsequent endings, and apparently the longer of the Textus lieceptus, waa known to him personally, while he did not find it in th« exemplar which he was copying. That the same scribe, by retaining on the margin the sectional fi.Lrures in the Epistles of Paul, has pre8er\'ed for us the knowledge that the Epistle to the Hebrews had formerly a different position from what it has now in B, may t)e mentioned here with due thanks to him, and as proof how the smallest particulars may be of imp<)rtajice in textual criticism. That in the OT part one of the scribes was io
the habit of using for the name \rp«tfiX the abbreviation I»jA,
the other TrX, enabled E. Abbott to recognize their different hands without even seeing the codex, while the Roman editor! were not able to discern it from the handwriting wliich \tj before them.
TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 739
even *he best of these documents appeared to WH
snch an extraordinary phenomenon tnat they were
led to the thought — worked out later by Blass
— that ' the Western and the non- Western texts
started respectively from ajirst anda second edition
of the Gospels, both conceivably apostolic.' WH
decided tinally to Il'uvb them in the text, but to
mark them by double brackets Z 1- Apart from
the singular addition to Mt 27^ (see above, p.
737'' n. ), these Western non-interpolations are all
found in the last three chapters of Lnke (22'"' 24». 0- 1-. 36. 41). fti. n\
Of other places where D alone (or nearly alone) seems to have preserved the original reading, H. Weiss mentions (Die vier Evnngelien, pp. 4S, 180) Mk 13*^ tlie omission of \f/ev56xpi-<rTot nai, and the reading voi-fiaovffiv for Silxrovaiv ; Lk 12'" irus oSrt vi]8et o<St( iiipaU'ei, Mk 3" etc.
In his Phih-logica sacra (1896) the present writer pointed out other i>ass:iges of this kind, e.y. Mt 6^ Trplv vfjLas dvoi|aL to (rrdfia instead of alrjjjat oi>t4v ; 26" 6/iomfei for SrjXdv ae woiel ; Lk 18'"* l-irTa- irXturlova, etc. Bhiss has received a great deal into his edition of St. Matthew (1901). And the great question of the day is the weiglit to be allowed to D. But it seems that new niatijrials must come to light before a decision can bf. reached. In the meantime the ta.sk will be (1) to collate as many MSS, Versions, and Fathers as possible; (2) to collect all statements of the Fathers about what may be called editions or recensions of the NT ; (3) to comjiare these statements with the results of our collations.
That Marcion edited a NT (Gospel of Luke and Epistles of Paul) is well known. Are traces of his work to be found in any existing MS or MSS ? and, if so, in which ? Of Tatian we know nut only that he composed his Dintes.saron, Imt also that he tampered with tlie text of Paul : toO H 'AirouToXov, tpcurlf ToXfiTJaal Ttvat avrdv ^CTa4>pao'ai ^{i)va9 ws ciri- Siop8ovp.evov airrCjv ry)v rijs (ppdaaos ffvvTa^tv (Ens. HE iv. 29). Has the Diatessaron left its traces in D or anywlure else! and what is the relation of the so-called Western text of the P;iuline Ejpistles to Tatian ? When the Epistle to the Philipiiiaiis begins in D^ etc. ; 'E^u |iev fi^xaptorw ry Kvpiu) tj^jluv (v.') instead of Evxapiari^ rf Be(2 fiou ; when l''t; will not allow a TropBeTv but only a iroXe/ieii' of the Church through Saul (Gal 1'^-^), not a fiMow but a ioKouv as the result of the leaven (1 Co 5", Gal 5°), on which side is the ' metaphrasis,' and from whom did it [iroceed ? Who were the dpOooo^ot who took away (d^elXovro) a jj.'issage from tlie Gospel of Luke, so tliat it is found only iv tois iSiopOiirots dvTtypditioi!, in the 'uncensured co])ies' according to Epiphanius {Ancor. 31)? See on Lk 19'".
Wliat about the ' Codices quos a Luciano et Ifesi/chio nuncupatos pauconiiii honiinum adserit pervers,a sententia, quibus utique nee in veteri te.stamento . . . nee in novo profuit eniendasse, cum niultarum gentium Unguis scriptura ante trans- lata doceat falsa esse quje addita (cod. E edita) sunt,' according to Jerome's preface to his Latin Gospels; What about the 'Evangolia qute fal- Bavit Hesyehius apocrypha ' in the so-called Deere- turn Gclasii '! to which some MSS add a similar statement about l.uciun.
What about the 50 copies of the Bible which Eu.sebius procured by order of Constantino for the Churches (not of his ' empire,' correct Introd. p. 54, but) of his cajiital, which Eusebius sent otlVi' ttoXu- TfXois ijfTK'qfj.^i'oLi T(irx«^t rptaaa Kal Terpacxad ? Docs this mean that they were written in three or four Cdluiiins or bound in three or four volumes? and Klill more, did they leave no traces at all ? or is tlie Sinaiticus really one of them? What about the recension of the Pauline Epistles which was under- taken according to the subscription in cod. H, —