VARIOUS READINGS
V21
VARIOUS READINGS
1. A ccidental variations, or errata, from various causes. (1.) Merely clerical errors, or slips of the pen; words omitted or repeated, misspelled or partially written. This is a numerous class, rarely of any importance, to which copyists of long documents are always liable. The peculiar reading " how strait" (Matt, vii, 14) maj' have arisen, as Scrivener suggests, from the omission of the large initial O, reserved for subsequent revision.
(2.) Errors of sound, arising from tliiferent ways of representing the same sound. Such are the changes in the oldest M8S. between i and fi, ai and t ; and in the later between t]i and ti, oi and v, o and w, ?/ and e. The interchange of ai and s (pronounced alike) is con- tinual; effTcti and eoTS, ex^rai and tx^re, and the like, being used indiscriminately. The vowels o and w are thus interchanged Rom. v, 1, ex"h^>'> ''we have," and EXMfiii', "let us have." The latter has the weight of ]MS. authority, and, with some constraint, yields a per- tinent sense (see Tischendorf, A'oy. Test, [8th ed.] ), though the former seems required b}' the connection. iNIore doubtful is Rom. vi, 15, where aixapTi]<jOfiiv, " shall we sin?" is feebly supported; and ajuapr/^crw/xEj', "may we sin?" has abundant support. At and £ are inter- changed in Matt, xi, 16, whet:e iraipoiQ is but slightly, and trepoig (omitting avriiii') strongly, supported by ancient authorities. So constant is this interchange that the difference in spelling has no weight in deter- mining the true form of the word. The pronouns vfiet^, //ju£(c, and their cases are perpetually interchanged: 1 John i, 4, 1'lfiiov for hfiix)v. Even the readings I'lixtrtpov, Luke xvi, 12, and jj/irtfj Acts xvii, 28, are found in the Codex Vuiicanus.
(3.) Errors of Sight. — Of such errata a prolific source is furnished by the ancient mode of writing in an un- broken line, without division of words. In the confused sequence of letters thus strung together, the eye would not readily distinguish single words, or letters similar in form. Hence arose false division of words; similar letters interchanged, repeated, or omitted ; repetition or- omis- sion of the same combination of letters ; omission of the second repetition of the same letter or word, etc. In some of the following examples the MSS. are cited, by the usual notation (vol. v, p. 724,^[ 3 of this Cyclopcedi(i), showing to some extent how they stand related to each other. The rough breathing is added in some cases to make the form more readily understood : Mark xv, 6, oi' TrapijTovvTO (A, B, X), ovTTEp TjTovvTO (B\ S<^, C, N, X); Rom. xiii, 9, w(T aiavTov (A, B, N, D, E), wa iavrov (F, G, L, P); Matt, xxi, 18, nzai'ayayti)v (B, N, L), iiravaywv {W, X% C, E, F, G, H, etc.) ; Mark viii, 17, avvnTi (B, X, C, D, L, N), avvuTf. tri (A, X) ; Luke vii, 21, £;^rtp((Ta7o TO /BXtTTfiv (X^, F, L, U) ; without to repeated, A, B, X, U. E, G, H, etc.). From such accidental repetition arose the false reading in Rev. vi, 1, 3, 5, 7. The true reading is simply," Come !" (ep^ov), summoning forth each rider to the service assigned him. The uncial text would stand thus: KAIIdEKAimOY. B of the Apoc. reads it in ver. 1, 5, 7, ip^ov /cat iSe kui iSov ( 'nnrog ). There can be no doubt that km iSe arose from accidental repetition ; for in ver. 3, where Kai t^ov does not follow, tpxov is not followed by kui tSe. In the same way arose the Kai tCi of X, which even its partial discoverer makes no account of here.
(4.) Hommotekuion is so common a cause of error in the uncial text as to procure for it a specific name. When two successive clauses or sentences begin or end simi- larly, the eye of the copyist may be misled by the sim- ilarity, and omit or repeat one of them : Luke vi, 1, otv- TtpoTrpujTio (A, C, D, E, H, K, M, R, S, U, V, X) ; omit- ted in B, X, L, probably from having the same termina- tion as the preceding word. In 1 John ii, 23, two succes- sive sentences both end with iraTipa tx^i. The copy- ist, after transcribing the first, and seeing at the end of the second what he had just written, proceeded with the next following words. Hence the loss of that genuine X.— Zz
utterance of the apostle, in all the copies known when our current Greek text was formed; and hence its insertion in bracketed italics, as of doubtful authen- ticity, in the English New Test. The recovery of the old MSS. (A, B, X, C, etc.) has fully vindicated its title to its place there.
2. Incidentid variations, peculiar to the age and coun- try or mental habits of the copyist. These are due to several causes, chiefly the intermingling of dialects in the Koii'f} SidXiKTOQ, the influence of the Alexandrian version of the Sept., and the pedantry of the Atticists.
(1.) Differences in orthography and forms of words; dialectic usages of the copyist, or possibly of the orig- inal writer : Acts x, 30, EvaTt]i> (A, B, X, C, D), tvvaTi]y (later form in the cursives); Acts vii, 28, (x^tQ (B, X, C, D), x^«e (A, E, H, P) ; Mark i, 10, ev^vq (B, X, L, A), fu3-fw£ (A, P, r, H); Acts xi, 51, axpi (A, B, X), axpiQ W, E, H, L, P) ; Rom. xv, 1ft, ToX^iriponpov (X, C, D, E, F, G, L, P), To\fit]poTtp{i)q (A, B) ; James ii, 1, npoa- ojTroXi] /xxpiaii; (A, B, X, C), npoaioTToXij^l^iatg (K, L, P) ; Mark i, 27, (jvv'Ct]thv (A, B, X. C, D, G, L,A), avL,r]THV (E, F, II, K, M, S, U, V) ; 2 Cor. iii, 2, evytypannanj (A, B, X, D,F, G), lyytypanfiEVt] (K, L, P) ; John x, 22, tvKaivia (B, X. D, L), syKaivia (A, B^, X); Acts xxiv, 4, tvKOTTTuj (A, X, B, E, H), eyKOTTTuj (B=, H, P) ; Heb. ix, 18, EVKiKaivtuTai (A, X, D, E), tyKtKaiviaTai (C, K, L, P). These examples betray the tendency to euphon- ic change in the usage of the later MSS. The doub- ling of p, usually neglected in the older MSS., is a gram- matical correction in the later ones ; as in Matt, ix, 36, ipiUjxtvoi (B, X, C, D, L), tppiixjxtvoi (E, F, G, K, L, U, X).