{clx}


XIV.
ORIGINAL AUTHORITIES FOR THE TEXT -- GREEK MSS AND VERSIONS, AND AN ATTEMPT TO ESTIMATE THEIR RELATIVE VALUES


A complete study of the critical problems of the text is quite impossible in the space at our disposal. It is possible, however, to arrive at trustworthy results regarding the relative values of the uncial and some of the chief cursive MSS. The question of the versions is a much more difficult one; but even in respect to these, conclusions approximately true can be arrived at.

§ 1. The relative values of AaC 025. 046. 051 according to their respective attestation of certain Greek and Hebraistic constructions in our author, which are in some cases unique in Greek literature and in others rare or comparatively rare save in our author. --

(a) The most notable of these constructions which is practically unique is one which occurs seven times, once in the title of each letter to the Seven Churches. Thus in 21 John unquestionably wrote tw/| avgge,lw| tw/| evn VEfe,sw evkklhsi,aj and not t) avgg) th/j evn VE) evkklhsi,aj, as we find in most texts of Jap. Lachmann in Germany recognized this as the original text, and Hort (and to a minor degree Souter) in England. These scholars were influenced purely by the weighty testimony of A in three of the seven passages, and C in one. In addition to this evidence, Hort invoked that of Primasius (in all seven passages),(1) and the Vulgate (in one passage). To these I am able to add the support of two cursives, 2019. 2050, and of four versions, i.e. arm for all seven passages, s1 for four, s2 for two, and gig (21) sa {clxi} each for one. The evidence is given in a collected form in vol. ii. p. 244, save that Pr should perhaps be added, as Hort urges, to the evidence given under 28.12 314 and vg under 31. I have already remarked that Lachmann on the basis of AC, and Hort on the basis of these reinforced by Pr vg, accepted the above readings on purely documentary authority. This authority, when further reinforced as it is in my Appar. Crit., is quite sufficient to establish the form tw/| avgge,lw| tw| evn ) ) ) evkklhsi,aj as original in all seven passages.(2) But my study of grammar of Jap has thrown further light on the subject, and made it clear that John could not, consistently with his usage throughout the rest of Jap, have written otherwise. The grounds for this statement are given in my Gramm. § 15. (i.) (b), vol. i. Introd. p. clvi sq.
     In this extraordinary piece of Greek we have a first class means of distinguishing between the trustworthiness of our various authorities. When we apply this test, the result is very significant. Of the uncials, a 025. 046. 051 have corrected tw/| avgge,lw| tw/| in every passage into the normal construction tw/| avgge,lw| th/j) On the other hand, A has retained the original construction in 21.8.18 and C in 21 (preserving a hint of it also in 218). Of the 223 cursives, 2050 directly supports it in 212, 2019 indirectly in 21, and 2040 indirectly in 28.
     When we apply this test to the versions, Pr (though in some respects of very mixed value) comes to the front in four passages and arm in all seven: s1 in 21.12.18 31: s2 in 218 31: sa in 212: like arm, if Hort's contention is right (see note, p. clx), Pr in the remaining three passages, fl in 21, and vg in 31. But Tyc gig a 025. 046 and the cursives (with three exceptions) show no knowledge of the original text. eth would represent either order in the same way.

(b) The next construction which is of a unique character in Jap is that which follows, o` $to.n% kaqh,menoj $-on% evpi. to.n qro,non( tou/ kaqhme,nou evpi. tou/ qro,nou( tw/| kaqhme,nw| evpi. tw/| qro,nw|) For these constructions see vol. i. p. cxxxii. These constructions occur 28 times. Two of these are found in a wrong form in the interpolation 1415-17, and two in 2011 215 where the wrong construction save in 215 is to be traced to the editor.
     In the remaining 24 cases A is right in 20 and wrong in 4 {clxii} (i.e. 64 715 917 1918): C (defective) is right in 9 and wrong in 2 (64 917): a is right in 17 and wrong in 7 (i.e. 513 64.16 715 917 146 1918): 025 right in 16 and wrong in 8 (i.e. 42.9 513 64 715 917 146 194): 046 right in 17 and wrong in 7 (49 64.16 710.15 917 146). C 025 correct the text rightly in 1416 and 025. 046 in 2011. From the above statistics we conclude that a 025. 046 are practically of equal value. A stands much above them.

(c) In the case of certain Hebraisms we find a 025. 046 correcting the text, but not AC. There is a Hebrew construction in which the participle is resolved into a finite verb in the succeeding clause, which our author has used at times. See vol. i. 14 sq. In 15-6 our author wrote tw/| avgapw/nti ) ) ) kai. evpoi,hsen) Here the finite verb must be translated as if it were poih,santi) 046 minp have actually so corrected the text. Again, 152-3 a minp correct the Hebraism e;contaj ) ) ) 3 kai. a;|dousin into e;contaj ) ) ) 3 kai. a;|dontaj) Another Hebraism, i.e. in 220, th.n gunai/ka ) ) ) h` le,gousa ) ) ) kai. dida,skei( is corrected by ac 025 minp into th.n k) VIer) th/j katabainou,shj( and by 046 into h] katabai,nei) Again in 127 o` Micah.l kai. oi` a;ggeloi auvtou/ tou/ polemh/sai( a 046 minm omit the tou/) In 1310, where the same Hebraism occurs twice, ever uncial save A and all cursives remove the Hebraism by drastic corrections. In 196a 025. 046 minpl Tyc Pr gig vf s2 arm3a insert h`mw/n between o` qeo,j and o` pantokra,twr( against A min3 Cyp s1 arm2.4 bo sa eth. This insertion is not only against our author's usage, but also against the regular translation of the divine name. See Gram. § 10. (i.) (f), p. cxlvii. Such examples show the vast superiority of A (C) to a 025. 046 as witnesses to the primitive type of text.
 

§ 2. The absence of conflate readings from A (C) and their (rare) occurrence in a025. 046 support the distinction already established between these MSS. -- In 174 a (s2) reads auvth/j kai. th/j gh/j( where auvth/j is the reading of A alm Tyc vg s1 arm2 eth, and th/j gh/j that of 046 alpm gig arm3. Cyp Pr read th/j gh/j o[lhj( and bo (= auvth/j meta. th/j gh/j) conflates this reading with that of A.

In 47 a alone reads w`j o[moion avnqrw,pw|) This may be a conflation of w`j avnqrw,pou (A, etc.), and o[moion only preserved in 2018.

In 61.5.7 a 046 minm read e;rcou kai. i;de( and in 63 a min12 alone attest this reading. But since the phrase kai. i;de is not used by our author, but kai. i;dou, this phrase is clearly an early intrusion. But 046 minm Pr gig vgf.g, which insert kai. i;de (or kai. ivdou,( Pr gig vgf.g), omit kai. ei=don in the words that follow. Since this form of the text is as old as the 4th century, the text of a is probably conflate.

In 215 025 minp read o`moi,wj o] misw/ -- a conflation -- though o] misw/ {clxiii} is found as yet only in a few cursives and arma. Again in 27, where AaC 046 have evn t) paradei,sw|( and 1. 35m evn me,sw| tou/ paradei,sou( 025 reads evn me,sw| tw/| paradei,sw|( which may be either a conflation of the above two or else a correction of the latter.

In 046 1912 we have the conflate reading ovno,mata gegramme,na kai. o;noma gegramme,non)

§ 3. The readings(3)of the uncials taken singly and also in groups of two. The evidence of this section confirms the provisional values assigned to these MSS in §§ 1-2.

Even a cursory study of the statistics on p. clxiv is illuminating. It shows that A stands almost alone in the first class, though in some respects C belongs to this class. But it is better to put C in the second class by itself, seeing that it is so weak when it stands alone. But in combination with A it is different.

In comparing C and the combinations into which it enters with other MSS, we have to bear in mind that more than a third of it is missing. Hence, we read in Table I that AC are right in combination 36 times, we have to raise this number to 54 (or less). Thus AC in combination are nearly twice as often right as Aa ir A 025, and more than twice as many as A 046. The combinations of C and a with either 025 or 046 are very weak. Another point to be borne in mind is that 025 is also defective. Another one-fourteenth of it is missing. Hence, whereas A 025 are right 36 times in combination (reckoning columns one and two together), in Table I we should raise this number to 38 (more or less). Thus it follows that 025 is, when standing alone, right oftener than C, a, or 046, and w hen combined with A it is right oftener than Aa or A 046 in combination. In the third class, therefore, to which we must relegate a 025 and 046, 025 stands first according to this reckoning. As regards a and 046, the former takes precedence of the latter, and is in certain respects much superior to it.

 
{clxiv}TABLE I.
Right readings
Probably right --
adopted in text w/
alternatives in margin
Possibly wrong --
placed in margin
Wrong
Peculiar to the MS or pair of MSS named among the uncials. Orthographic variants in brackets.
A(4)
55 (+ // 1 //)
7
12
154
229 (+27)
C
1
. . .
1
67
69 (+10)
a
4 (218.24 1812 2211)
2 (122 1920)
. . .
414
425 (+47)
ac
. . .
. . .
. . .
12
12 (+1)
acc
. . .
. . .
. . .
7
7
025
4 (53 1413 1811 1914)
2 (44 513)
5
103
114 (+21)
046
3
. . .
. . .
. . .
350?
AC
36
. . .
. . .
2
38 (+13)
Aa
30 (// 1 //)
2
1
3
37 (+16)
A 025
30
6
3 (+1)
2
43 (+4)
A 046
24
7
. . .
2
33 (+21)
C 025
2
. . .
. . .
12
14
C 046
1 (?)
. . .
. . .
6
7
Ca
2
. . .
. . .
12
16
a 025
2
. . .
5
21
28 (+12)
ac 025
. . .
. . .
1
4
6
a 046
7
2
5
44
59 (+5)
025. 046
4 (44 68 1918 2112)
2
1
28
49
The classification of the uncials from the above data is thus:
 
TABLE II.
Class i.
A
Class ii.
C
Class iii.
025 a(5)046
If, further, to the number of times in which each MS stands alone in preserving the original text we add the number of times in which each of the five MSS, AC 025 a 046, enters respectively into combination with one or other of the remaining four (in such groups as AC, A 025, Aa, A 046, C 025, etc., i.e. groups of two), we arrive at the following results, allowance having been made for the lost sections of C and 025.
 
{clxv}TABLE III.
A
C
025
a
046
Standing alone
62
1
6
6
3
In combination
155
59
49
46
47
217
60
55
52
50
This table confirms the results of Table II save that a is nearer to 046. If we combine the results of these two tables, 025 still shows itself to be a better MS than a1

§ 4. The Uncials in groups of three or more and their evidence. -- Hitherto we have given the evidence of the uncials individually or in groups of two. We shall now study them in groups of three or four, where they attest the original text. I have only space to apply this test in chaps. 1-4. Divergences in orthography are not reckoned as variants..
 

TABLE IV.
AaC(6)
14.5.6 227 = 4
AaC 025
14.9.12.16.18
22.5.7.10.13.14 (bis).24
32 (bis).3.7.9.12 = 19
AaC 046
15 23.7.15 37 = 5
Aa 025
37 45.8.11 = 4
Aa 046
42.3.11 = 3
AC 025
113 22.9.24 32.7 = 6
AC 046
210.16.17 = 3
AC 025. 046
17.16.20 27.18.19.20 33.9.14 = 10
AC 046
210.17 = 2
A 025. 046
18.13 314 41.4.9.10 = 7
aC 025
19 220 = 2
aC 025. 046
15.7.20 22.18.22 = 6
aC 046
112 216.17 = 3
C 025. 046
37 = 1

{clxvi}If we study this table we find that the several MSS enter into the above combinations as follows:--
 

A
63 times
C
61 times
025
55 times
a
46 times
046
40 times

There are two points that call for explanation here. (a) First the numbers of C 025 a 046 seem unduly large as compared with those of A, seeing that A belongs to the first class, C to the second, and 025 a 046 to the third, according to our classifications at the close of § 3. But there is really no difficult here. If C 025 a 046 are to be right at all, they can only be right as members of gruops of MSS, seeing that they are hardly ever right when they stand alone. C and in a less degree 025 represent a good secondary uncial text, while a 046 uphold this text in a considerably weakened form, a replacing it to a considerable extent by readings often of an early date, and 046 by readings of a later growth.

(b) Since only 1-319 of C is preserved in the four chapters we are considering, it follows that the number 61 of C must be raised proportionately, say to 70, or thereabouts (for the variants in chap. 4 are fewer than in 1-3), so that it would stand above A. This appears to conflict absolutely with the classification arrived at in § 3, ad fin. But in (a) this difficulty is in the main surmounted, and when to the explanation there offered, we add the fact that C is comparatively free from the obvious slips of the scribe of A,(7) it is surmounted wholly. As critics have generally recognized, the scribe of C (or of the MS on which C is based) either found a more accurately written text than that of A, or else he eliminated most such slips, and with them many of the original readings which have survived A. C is far freer from obvious slips and obvious corruptions than A.
Thus this fourth table in the main confirms the first. AC stand apart, and but for its almost absolute lack of correct singular readings C might be put side by side with A. The results arrived at in regard to 025 a 046 agre exactly with those of Table II.

The conclusions arrived at with regard to the absolute preeminence of A is confirmed by the study of the papyrus Fragments of the Apocalypse: see vol. ii. 447-451.

NOTES
1. When I combined the evidence of the MSS and versions for the seven passages in vol. ii. p. 244 (Appar. Crit.), I had either not seen or had forgotten Hort's note on this question in his Commentary (p. 38 sqq.), where he claims that Primasius supported the true text in all seven passages. In my table I only claim Primasius as attesting the true text in four, where his evidence is incontrovertible. The ground on which Hort claims the support of Pr in 28.12 314 is the fact that ecclesiae precedes the name of the Church in the cases of Smyrna, Pergamum, and Laodicea. This order is also found in vg for Sardis (31). Now Hort argues that this "transposition . . . is interpretative of tw/|" (as in Epiph. 455 B, tw/| avgge,lw| th/j evkklhsi,aj tw/| evn Quatei,roij). Thus, according to Hort, ecclesiae Pergami (Pr) supports the original text, whereas Pergami ecclesiae (vg s2 bo) supports the later corrected text. If this argument is right the evidence for the original text is considerably greater than might otherwise be supposed. s1 support it in 28.7 37.14; arma in 212 314, armb)g in 218, arm1. in 28, fl in 21. In the readings of s2 I have followed Gwynn; for my three texts of s2 have been normalized and agree in giving the late reading in all seven passages.
2. Weiss (Textkritische Untersuchungen, 64 sq. note) has wholly failed to recognize the next text here. Similarly Bousset and nearly every editor save Lachmann, Hort, and Souter.
3. I am beholden to Mr. Marsh for the materials on which Tables I.-III are based. They are to be regarded as approximately, not literally, exact. I have not taken account of 051 since I possess no complete collation of it, and it is very late. It is defective, eleven chapters being missing. Its value is not as great as one of the best cursives, as its readings in chaps. 12.16 will show. In chap. 12 it agrees with cursives against all the other uncials in reading ti,ktein( 124, evkei/2, 126, in omitting metV auvtou/( 129. In 125 it omits evn (a mere correction) with 025 and cursives, and in 126 it omits evkei/1 with C and cursives. In 123 it is right with A 025 (me,gaj purro,j), and in 1212 with A and cursives in reading oi` ouvranoi,) In 164.10.12 (+ a;ggeloj) it agrees with cursives against uncials, also in 1614 (daimo,nwn and eivj po,lemon) 1615 (ble,pousin). In 168.10.14 it agrees with a and cursives against all aother uncials: in 163 (zw/sa) with a 025. 046 and cursives against A, in 1618 (oi` a;nqrwpoi) with a 046 and cursives, in 1612 (avnatolw/n) with A. The readings of 051 given in this edition are derived from Swete's Commentary.
4. Weiss (Die Johannes-Apokalypse: Textkritische Untersuchungen, p. 147) is of opinion that A preserves wholly unsupported upwards of 60 right readings, C 4 and a 8. Though I have followed quite different lines of investigation, my results do not differ much. They are slightly more in favour of A as against a. Gwynn's estimate of the readings peculiar to each MS differs alike from those given above and by Weiss. See Apoc. in Syriac, p. xliii sq.
5. The inferior character of the text of a for Jap has been amply proved both by Weiss and Gwynn, Apocalypse of St. John in Syriac, p. xl sqq.
6. According to Weiss (op. cit.), AaC have preserved the original text only 20 times over against 025 and 046. This would in all probability nearly agree with the results above arrived at. For since this combination is right only 4 times according to the above table, the number of times it is right for the entire book would apparently lie in the neighborhood of 20, as Weiss states. It is therefore a wrong basis on which Gwynn (op. cit. p. xlviii) proceeds when he assumes that "the consent of aAC represents the consent of the uncials" and uses it as a "standard by which to compare P and Q." AaC 025 represents "the consent of the uncials." 
7. Compare 11 tou/ dou,lou (A) for tw/| dou,lw|: in 15 A > h`mw/n: in 19 evn Cristw/| (A) for evn VIhsou/: in 112 lalei/ for evla,lei: in 116 > e;cwn: 120 evn t) dexia/| for evpi. th/j dexia/j) On the other hand, A "alone is characterized by singular readings which are to be accepted, not as divergences from a standard text, but as survivals of the primitive and authentic text" (Gwynn, p. liv.)
 
 
 

Back To CONTENTS

Scanned and edited by Brad Johnson