|
XIV.
§ 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.§ 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. The classification of the uncials from the above data is thus: 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.
§ 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..
{clxvi}If we study this table we
find that the several MSS enter into the above combinations as follows:--
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
Scanned and edited by Brad Johnson |
