Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadMcClintock Biblical Encyclopedia: Various Readings of the New Testament
Subjects in this Topic:
By various readings (commonly abbreviated v.r. for the singular, and for the plural vv. rr.) are meant the differences observed in different manuscript copies of the Holy Scriptures. Those found in the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Test. will be considered below.
The writings of the New Test. were copied by hand, from the age of the apostles to the date of the first printing of the New Test., a period of about thirteen centuries. During that time copies were greatly multiplied. With the utmost care, there would of necessity be occasional mistakes in copying. The errors of one manuscript might be repeated in the copy made from it, and others added, and thus the number be continually increasing.
The liability to mistake was greatly increased by the mode of writing in the oldest manuscripts. What is called “current hand,” in which a long word may be written without taking the pen from the paper, was not used. Each letter, of the size and general shape of our capitals, was made separately by itself, many with more than one separate stroke of the pen. There was no division of words. All were written continuously in an unbroken line, as may be seen in the specimens given in vol. 1, p. 155, and vol. 2, p. 389 of this Cyclopaedia. As the eye could not readily distinguish words and clauses so run together, the scribe would naturally copy each letter by itself from its place in the line, often confounding letters similar in form. In these characters, termed uncial, all extant manuscripts dating prior to about the 10th century were written, and hence they are called uncial manuscripts. SEE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT; also SEE UNCIALS.
Far more numerous are the cursive manuscripts, so called, written in current hand from about the 10th century and onward (see vol. v; p. 727, and specimens 2, 3, and 4 on p. 728). Their value depends on the evidence that they are trustworthy copies of ancient manuscripts now lost, and contain readings of the true text of which these are now the only manuscript witnesses. On such evidence some of them are held in high estimation by all the leading authorities in textual criticism. That these are of great value in deciding where ancient manuscripts disagree, and also where their united testimony may for just reasons be discredited, is held by a highly influential class of critics, of whom Frederick H. Scrivener is the leading representative (see his Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Test. [2nd ed. 1874]).
For the history of the text, and its variations in manuscripts prior to the oldest now extant, SEE NEW TESTAMENT; for the theoretic classification of various readings in extant MSS., SEE RECENSIONS. It is proper to add here that the earliest of those variations, however minute, are preserved in the primary documents that still remain, showing that the sacred text has suffered no important change that cannot now be detected (Westcott).
I. Origin and Nature. — Various readings have arisen from many different causes. These have been ascertained by careful comparison of manuscripts. They are mostly such as might be inferred from the nature of the case; and observation has shown that all variations in manuscripts may be referred to one or other of these causes, the knowledge of which often aids' in determining what is the true reading. (The materials for the following summary are derived in part from Westcott's articles “New Testament,” § 30-40, and “Language of the New Testament,” p. 2141, § 1-4, in Smith, Dict. of the Bible [Amer. ed.]; Scrivener, Introd. to Text. Crit. of New Test.; Tregelles, Introd. toi Text. Crit. of New Test. in vol. 4 of Horne's- Introduction.)
1. Accidental 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” (Mat_7:14) may have arisen, as Scrivener suggests, from the omission of the large initial O, reserved for subsequent revision.
(2.) Errors of sound, arising from different ways of representing the same sound. Such are the changes in the oldest MSS. between é and åé , áé and å ; and in the later between çé and åé , ïé and õ , ï and ù , ç and å . The interchange of áé and å (pronounced alike) is continual; åóôáé and åóôå , å÷åôáé and å÷åôå , and the like, being used indiscriminately. The vowels ï and ù are thus interchanged Rom_5:1, å÷ïìåí , “we have,” and å÷ùìåí , “let us have.” The latter has the weight of MS. authority, and, with some constraint, yields a pertinent sense. (see Tischendorf, Nov. Test. [8th ed.]), though the former seems required by the connection. More doubtful is Rom_6:15, where ἁìáñôçóïìåí ,” shall we sin?” is feebly supported; and áìáñôçóùìåí , “may we sin?” has abundant support. At and a are interchanged in Mat_11:16, where ἑôáéñïéò is but slightly, and ἑôåñïéò (omitting áõôùí ) strongly, supported by ancient authorities. So constant is this interchange that the difference in spelling has no weight in determining the true form of the word. The pronouns ὑìåéò , ἡìåéò , and their cases are perpetually interchanged: 1Jn_1:4, ἡìùí for ὑìùí . Even the readings ἡìåôåñïí , Luk_16:12, and ἡìáò , Act_17:28, are found in the Codex Vaticanus.
(3.) Errors of Sight. — Of such errata a prolific source is furnished by the ancient mode of writing in an unbroken 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 omission 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. 5, p. 724, 3 of this Cyclopaedia), 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: Mar_15:6, ὁí ðáñçôïõíôï (A, B, à ) ὁíðåñ çôïõíôï (B3, à , C, N, X); Rom_13:9, ὡó óåáõôïí (A, B, à , D, E), ὡó ἑáõôïí (F, G, L, P); Mat_21:18, åðáíáãáãùí ,(B, à , L), åðáíáãùí (B2, à , C, E, F, G, H etc.); Mar_8:17, óõíéåôå (B, à C, D, L, N), ïõíéåôå åôé (A, X); Luk_7:21, å÷áñéóáôï ôï âëåðåéí ( à a, F, L, U); without (GREEK) repeated, A, B, à , D, E, G, H, etc.). From such accidental repetition arose the false reading in Rev_6:1; Rev_6:3; Rev_6:5; Rev_6:7. The true reading is simply, “Come!” ( åñ÷ïõ ), summoning forth each rider to the service assigned him. The uncial text would stand thus: ÊÁÉÉÄÅÊÁÉÉÄÏÕ . B of the Apoc. reads it in Rev_6:1; Rev_6:5; Rev_6:7, åñ÷ïõ êáé éäå êáé éäïõ ( ἱððïò ). There can be no doubt that êáé éäå arose from accidental repetition; for in Rev_6:3, where êáé éäïõ does not follow, åñ÷ïõ is not followed by êáé éäå . In the same way arose the êáé éäå of à , which even its partial discoverer makes no account of here.
(4.) Homeoteleuton 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 similarly, the eye of the copyist may be misled by the similarity, and omit or repeat one of them: Luk_6:1, äåõ ôåñïðñùôù (A, C, D, E, H, K, M, R, S, U, V, X); omitted in B, à , L, probably from having the same termination as the preceding word. In 1Jn_2:23, two successive sentences both end with ðáôåñá å÷åé . The copyist, 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 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 authenticity, in the English New Test. The recovery of the old MSS. (A, B, à , C, etc.) has fully vindicated its title to its place there.
2. Incidental variations, peculiar to the age and country or mental habits of the copyist. These are due to several causes, chiefly the intermingling of dialects in the êïéíὴ äéÜëåêôïò , 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 original writer: Act_10:30, åíáôçí (A, B, à , C, D), åííáôçí (later form in the cursives); Act_7:28, å÷èåò (B, à , C, D), ÷èåò (A, E, H, P); Mar_1:10, åõèõò (B à , L, A), åõèåùò (A, P, à , Ð ); Acts 11:51, á÷ñé (A, B, à ), á÷ñéò B3, E, H,', P); Rom_15:15, ôïëìçñïôåñïí ( à , C, D, E, F, G, L, P), ôïëìçñïôåñùò (A, B); Jam_2:1, ðñïó ùðïëçìøéáéò (A, B à , C), ðñïóùðïëçøéáéò (K, L, P); Mar_1:27, óõíæçôåéí (A, B, à , C, , G, XL, Ä ), óõæçôåéí (E, F,H,: K, M, S, U, V); 2Co_3:2, åíãåãñáììåíç (A, B, à , DF, G), åããåãñáììåíç (K, L, P); Joh_10:22, åíêáéíéá (B, à , D, L), åãêáéíéá (A, B3,'X); Act_24:4, åíêïðôù (A, à , B, E, H), åãêïðôù (B3, H, P); Heb_9:18, åíêåêáéíéóôáé (A, à , D, E), åãêåêáéíéóôáé (C, K, L, P). These examples betray the tendency to euphonic change in the usage of the later MSS. ‘The doubling of p, usually neglected in the older MSS., is a grammatical correction in the later ones; as in Mat_9:36, åñéììåíïé (B, à , C, D, L), åññéììåíïé (E F, G, K, L, U, X).
(2.) Tense-forms of Verbs. — (a.) Of the same verb: Luk_1:31, óõëëçìøç (A,B, à , C, D); Jam_3:1, ëçì øïìåèá (A, B. à , C), ëçøïìåèá (K, L, P); Joh_9:10, çíåù÷èçóáí (B, à , C, D, E, F, G, H, L, M, X), áíåù ÷èçóáí : (A, K, U, II); Act_12:10, çíïéãç (A, B, à , D), çíïé÷èç (E, H, L, P); Mat_5:21, åññçèç (B, D, E, K), åññåèç ( à , L, M, S, U, Ä , Ð ); Rev_14:13, áíáðáçóïí ôáé (A, à , C, B), áíáðáõóùíôáé (P); Act_10:45, óõíçë èáí (B à ), óõíçëèïí (A, D, E, H, L, P).;: Act_10:39, áíåé ëïí (A, B, à , C, D, E), áíåéëïí (H, L, P); 1Jn_2:19, åîçëèáí (A, B, C), åîçëèïí (K, L, P).; Luk_3:22, çõ äïêçóá (A, E, G, H, L, S, U, X, à , Ä ), åõäïêçóá (B à , F, K, M, U, Ë , Ð ). (b.) Interchange of tenses or modes where either might seem. apposite: Joh_6:37, åêñáîåí (B, L, T, X), åêñáæåí ( à , I)); Luk_20:19, åæçôçóáí (A, B, à , L, R), åæçôïõí (C, D); Joh_7:29, áðåóôåéëåí (B, L, T), áðåóôáëêåí ( à , D); Joh_7:19, äåäùêåí ( à , L, T T à , Ë , Ð ), åäùêåí (B),D, H, n H); Mat_9:19, çêï ëïõèåé ( à , C, D), çêïëïõèçóåí (B, F, G, K, L, S, U, X Ä , Ð ); Joh_4:17, åéðåò (B, à ), åéðáò (A, C, D, L); Joh_8:39, åéðáí (B, à C, D), åéðïí (L, T, X, à , Ä , Ë ); 2:28, ó÷ùìåí (A, B, à C, C, P), å÷ùìåí ( à , K, L); Joh_8:39, åóôå (B, à , D, L, T), çôå (C, X à , Ä , Ë , Ð ); (c.) Interchange of the same tense from different verbs of like signification: Act_9:26, åðåéñáæåí (A,B, à , C), åðåé ñáôï (E, H, L, P); Mar_1:26 (part.), öùíçóáí (B, à , L), êñáîáí (A, C, D. à , Ä , Ð ).
(3.) Of case-forms there are some variations; as Mat_26:52, ìá÷áéñç (A, B, à , C), ìá÷áéñá (B, D, à , Ä , Ð , N); Luk_24:1; Luk_24:1, âáèåùò (A,. B, à , C, D, G, H, L), âáèåïò (E, P, S, U,V).
(4.) Exchange of terms so nearly equivalent as to be used indifferently in certain connections: Mat_12:48; Mat_15:12; Mat_17:20; Mat_19:21, ëåãåéí (earlier), åéðåéí (later); Mat_22:37, öáíáé (earlier), åéðåéí (later); Mar_14:31, ëáëåéí (earlier), ëåãåéí (later); Joh_14:10, ëåãåéí (earlier), ëáëåéí (later). So interchanged are åãåñèåéò and äéåãåñèåéò , Mat_1:24; åãåñèç and áíáóôç , Mat_17:9; áíáóôçíáé and åãåñèçíáé , Luk_9:22;,: çëèåí (v attached) and áðçëèå , Mat_14:25; çëèïí and áðçëèïí , Luk_23:33; áðåëèåéí and åîåèåéí , Act_16:39; ëåãïõóé and. åéðïí , Mat_13:28. These words, so nearly equivalent in the connection, might readily be confounded in copying.
(5.) The same is true of forms nearly equivalent in sense; as ïõäå and ïõôå , ùò and êáèùò , Act_10:47; ùóåé and ùò , Joh_19:14; Luk_1:56; ùò and ùóðåñ , 2Co_1:7; ìå÷ñé and åùò , Luk_16:16; åùò ὁõ and åùò ὁôïõ , 12:50, the former only in the later uncials, the latter in the older and some of the later. It is true, also, of other equivalents in sense; as Joh_14:31, åõå ôåéëáôï (A, à , D), and åíôïëçí åäùêåí (B, L): having the same meaning, they might easily be confounded in copying.
(6.) Familiar contractions (crasis) abounding in oral speech, and often passing into written language; common in the earlier MSS., and often resolved in the later: Joh_8:55, êἀí (B, à , D), êáé åáí (A, C, L); 1Co_2:3, êáãù (A, B, à , C, P), êáé åãù (D, E, F, G, L); Joh_14:16, êáãù (B, à , D, Q), êáé åãù (A, L, X); Joh_14:21, êáãù (B, à , D, G, L), êáé åãù (A, E, H,.K).
(7.) Interchange of the minor connectives: Act_4:14, ôïí ôå (A, B, à , Di), ôïí äå (P); Act_10:48, ðñïóåôáîåí äå (B, à , E), ðñïóåôáîåí ôå (A, H, L, P); Mar_1:28, êáé åîçëèåí (B, à , C, D), åîçëèå äå (A, Ã , Ð ). (8.) Pronominal forms inserted without affecting the sense: Mat_20:23, ìïõ (after åõùíõìùí ); Mat_19:28,. õìåéò (after êáèéóåóèå ); Rev_14:13, ìïé (after ëåãïõ óçò ). Specially frequent is the insertion of áõôïò in an oblique case: Act_11:13, áõôù (after åéðïíôá ), and Act_12:9 (after çêïëïõèåé ); Mat_25:4, áõôùí (after áã ãåéïéò ), and 5, 6 (after áðáíôçóéí ) Mat_26:17, áõôù (after ëåãïíôåò ), and Mat_27:22 (after ëåãïõóéí ). An instructive case of presumed addition, but more probably of unauthorized omission, occurs in the last clause but one of Luk_12:53. The omission of the pronoun in the four preceding clauses, where the nearer relation of the parties makes it unnecessary, may have occasioned its omission here, where it is required by the more remote relation. Its accidental or misjudged omission being more probable than its unauthorized insertion, the testimony of A, B, à , D in its favor should outweigh that of à , Ä which yet determined Tischendorf to omit it. Tregelles properly retains it here, and as properly omits it in the next clause (with B, D, L against A, T, ‘X), the relation being already expressed. It is noteworthy that the whole passage, as thus read, is strikingly marked by Luke's characteristic conciseness and precision of expression.
(9.) Change in the order of words; a numerous class, as may be seen on almost any page of Scrivener's Novum Testamentum (in the Cambridge classics). Many of these variations differ from each other no more than ‘the English phrases “AEneas by name” and “by name AEneas” (Act_9:33); “went up straightway” and “straightway went up” (Mat_3:16). Most of them, however, are not easily accounted for. Such cases as ãåíïìåíïò åí åáõôù and åí åáõôù ãåíïìåíïò (Act_12:11), and similar colloquial phrases, may have been due to local habit and usage. In the greater number, perhaps, the copyist himself, after reading a clause, may not have recalled, in writing it, the exact order of the words; or he may have been unconsciously misled by one occurring to him more correct or pointed in expression, or more pleasing to the .ear. In many there is ground for such preference; as in Act_9:13, ïóá êáêá åðïéçóå ôïéò áãéïéò óïõ and ïóá êáêá ôïéò áãéïéò óïõ åðïéçóå .
(10.) The article, in the use of which the MSS. are very fluctuating, is sometimes neglected or inserted without apparent ground. Significant is the reading of some MSS. (among them D) in Luk_12:54, “When ye see the cloud (“the rain-betokening cloud,” 1Ki_18:44) rising from the west.” But the omission of the article here is strongly attested by A, B,
à
, L, X,
Ä
.
(11.) In the use and disuse of the elision the MSS. fluctuate: 1Jn_2:16,
áëëá åê
(A,
à
, K, L),
áëëá åê
(B, C); 1Co_7:4,
áëëá ὁ
(A, B,
à
, C),
áëë ὁ
(D, Ej G, K, L, P). It is probable that the shorter eli.ded form was that of oral speech, and passed into, the earlier written language. More doubtful is the neglected aspiration of mutes before the rough breathing: Luk_12:53,
åðé õἱù
(B,
à
T, 10 ,
Ã
,
Ä
,
Ë
);
åö õἱù
(A, D, K, L, II).(12.) Error from the similar construction of two successive clauses: Jam_2:18, the first åê (K, L) for ÷ùñéò (A, B, à , C, P), the copyist confounding the åê ôùí åñãùí of the two clauses. His blunder is perpetuated in our current Greek text through the misjudgment of Mill, whose long and. involved exposition of the meaning is its own refutation. The: H'KAINH ÄÉÁÈÇÊÇ of Colinaeus (1534) has the true reading. The English version here follows the true reading. In 1Pe_3:20,” once-- waited.” it follows a false reading ( áðáî åîåäå÷åôï ) without MS. authority, ‘and received on conjecture by Erasmus. The true reading is áðåîå äå÷åôï (A, B, à , C, D, P).
(13.) Synonyms, and also words that in certain connections may serve as such,. are readily interchanged: Mat_20:34, o ììáôùí (B, D,'L, G), ïöèáëìùí ( à , C, N). In Mat_25:16 the reading “made” [five talents] is equivalent in meaning to “gained” [five talents]. For the former ( åðïéçóå ) are A, à , X, Ã , Ä , è ; for the latter ( åêåñäçóå ) are A2, à e, B, C, D, L. So likewise, Mat_9:29, ïììáôùí (D), ïöèáëìùí (all others); Mat_6:1, äéêáéïóõ íçí (B, à , D), åëåçìïóõíçí (E, K, L, M, S, U, Z). But it may well be doubted whether by the former the Savior meant almsgiving, as implied in the alternative reading. He first states the general principle that good deeds are not to be done to be seen of men, and then illustrates it by the case of ostentatious almsgiving. The phrase was already a familiar one: Psa_106:3, “he that doeth righteousness;” Isa_58:2, “a nation that did righteousness;” 1Jn_2:29, “every one that doeth righteousness;” 3, 7, 10. So likewise Mat_27:4, áèùïí (A, B, à , ‘C, X), äéêáéïí (B marg. L).
(14.) Of proper names the variations in spelling are very frequent: 1Co_16:19, Ðñéóêá (B, à , M, P.), Ðñéóêéëëá (A, C, D, E,F, G); Joh_7:19, Ìùõóåò (B, à , D, , L, S, T, X, Ä , Ð ), Ìùóçò ( Ã , Ë )., Most significant is the variation in Act_11:20, Åëëçíáò (A, à , D), Åëëçíéóôáò (B, D2, E,' H L, P) (comp. Act_6:1). Of places: Mat_4:13, Êáöáñíáïõì (B, à , D,G), Êáðåñíáïõì (C, E, K;IL, M, P, S, U, V); Mat_15:39, Ìá ãáäáí (B, à ,D), Ìáãäáëá (E, F, G, H, K, L, S, U, V); Luk_10:30, Éåñåé÷ù (B, L, X), Éåñé÷ù (A, B, à , C, D, X).
3. Intentional Variations. — Of these the greater number affect only the form of the text.
(1.) Grammatical Changes. —
(a.) In the oblique case after a preposition, to express what was understood to be the required relation: Act_2:30,
êáèéóáé åðé ôïí èñïíïí
(A, B,
à
, 1 C, D),
êáèéóáé åðé ôïõ èñïíïõ
(E, P): Rev_4:2,
åðé ôïí èñïíïí êáèçìåíïò
(A, B,
à
),
åðé ôïõ èñïíïõ êáèçìåíïò
(P); Rev_4:9,
êáèçìåíù åðé ôù èñïíù
(A,
à
),
êáèçìåíù åðé ôïõ èñïíïõ
(B, P); Rev_19:5,
áðï ôïõ èñïíïõ åîçëèå
(A, B. C),
åê ôïõ èñïíïõ åîçëèå
(
à
, P); Mar_7:30,
âåâëçìåíçí åðé ôçò êëé íçò
(A, N , X,
Ã
,
Ð
),
âåâëçìåíçí åðé ôçí êëéíçí
(B,
à
, D, L,
Ä
).
(b.) Rectifying a supposed solecism: Matthew 5, 28,
åðéèõìçóáé áõôçí
(B, D, E,'K, L, S, U,.V),
åðí èõìçóáé áõôçò
(
à
3,3 M); S', 32,
çìåñáé ôñåéò
(B, C, D, F, G, H, K, L, M, P, S, U, V),
çìåñáò ôñåéò
(
à
, E ); Rev_4:1,
ëåãùí
(A, B,
à
),
ëåãïõóá
(
à
c, P); Rev_4:8,
ëå ãïíôåò
(A,'B,
à
, P),
ëåãïíôá
(in the cursives); Rev_11:4,
åóôùôåò
(A, B,
à
, C),
åóôùóáé
(
à
, P).(2.). Changes Affecting the Substance of the Text. — A careful examination and comparison of such changes will probably lead to the conclusion that the greater part of them at least have passed from the margin into the body of the text through the want of proper discrimination in the copyist. In the old MSS. frequent omissions in the text are found supplied in the margin, to be incorporated in the text of the next copy made from it. This being a standing rule, whatever was written in the margin might be thus incorporated by an incompetent or not sufficient attentive copyist. If a sentence seemed incomplete or irregular in construction, or otherwise obscure, inelegant, or apparently inaccurate, a remedy was suggested in the margin. A conspicuous example occurs in Joh_7:39. The whole verse in the true text reads thus; “And this he said concerning the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” The brevity and partial obscurity of the form “was not yet” doubtless occasioned the marginal gloss “given,” found in one uncial, B ( äå äïìåíïí ), and the cursive 254 ( äïèåí ). This marginal gloss becoming incorporated with the text, we have “the Spirit Was not yet given.” The English version properly italicizes given as not authentic Scripture. It is not in the Êáéíç Äéáèçêç of Colinaeus (1534).
A similar case occurs in Joh_7:8, where ïõðù (B, L,.T, X, à , Ä , Ë , not in à , D, K, M, Ð ) probably passed from the margin into the text. This reading, on which the testimony of MSS. is pretty evenly balanced, is proved by historical evidence to be a corruption of the text (see Tischendorf [8th ed.]; Scrivener, Introd. to Text. Crit. [2d ed.], p. 529). It should be observed, moreover, that there was no occasion for this qualification, for Jesus did not go up to the feast at all. Joh_7:10 should read; according to the MSS., “But when his brethren were gone up to the feast, then went he up also, not openly, a etc. He went to Jerusalem privately, taking no part there in the public festival (for he could not be found, Joh_7:11), and when it was half over, first made his appearance in the Temple as a teacher (Joh_7:14). In Mar_1:2, åí Çóáéá ôù ðñïöçôù (B, à , D, L, Ä , åí ôïéò ðñïöçôáéò (A, E, F, G, H, K, M, P, S, U, V), the writer specially names Isaiah, because his language identifies the promised messenger in the person of John, “the voice of one crying in the wilderness.” The whole prophecy was fulfilled in him, and the failure to see this, its central point, may have occasioned the marginal comment that passed into the text. In Gal_3:1 the explanatory gloss “that ye should not obey the truth” is found in C, DC, E, K, L, P, but not in the older uncials A, B, à , D, F, G. In Rom_8:1, “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit,” is a gloss taken from Rom_8:4 as characterizing those who are “in Christ Jesus.” In Act_15:34, “but it pleased Silas to abide there still” (not in A, B, à , E, H, L, P), is a marginal gloss accounting for his presence there, referred to in Act_15:40. The doubtful passage in Joh_5:3-4 is supposed by many to have been a marginal comment (see a full statement of the case, with the reasons for and against its genuineness, in Schaff's edition of Lange's Commentary). To a misunderstanding of the apostle's language in 2Co_8:4, we owe the perversion of his meaning in the current Greek text and in the English version. The words inserted from the margin, äåîáóèáé çìáò , are not in the uncial text (B. à , C, D, E, F, G, K, L, P, etc.), and are found only in the cursives. In Mar_7:2 the construction (interrupted by Mar_7:3-4, and resumed at Mar_7:5) seemed incomplete, and hence the marginal supplement, “they found fault.” Only late uncials (F, K, M, N, S, U, Ð ) have åìåìøáíôï , not found in A, B, à , E, GH, L, V. In Mat_25:6 the original form, “Behold, the bridegroom! go ye out to meet him,” has the air of an excited, midnight cry. The supplemental åñ÷åôáé first appears in the later uncials C, X, r, II, and is not found in B, à , C, D, L, Z.
Marked diversities in Hebraistic and Greek phraseology are noted: Mat_21:23, åëèïíôé áõôù , ðñïóçëèïí áõôù äéäáóêïíôé , and åëèïíôïò áõôïõ , etc. Here the Hebraism is found in later uncials (E, F, G, H, K, M: S, U, V), and the other in B, à , C, D, L. More marked is the Hebraistic Vav convers. represented by êáé (Mat_15:5; Mar_7:12) in the same later uncials, and not in the earlier. The omission of êáé makes the construction easy where its presence has caused much perplexity (see Meyer; also Lange [Amer. ed.]; p. 275).
Assimilation, so called, of the gospels occurs, especially of the synoptic gospels. This arose from the habit of noting in the margin of one gospel the words' of another for comparison, illustration, or a more full and satisfactory statement. In Mat_25:13, at the close of the parable of the ten virgins, the Savior adds, “Watch therefore, for ye know not the day nor the hour.” A copyist added, most probably from the margin, the words of Luk_12:40, “wherein the Son of man cometh.” The words added are not in A, B, à , C, D, L, X, Ä , and are found only in C3, r, I3. In Mat_9:13 the Savior's assertion is, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” To this the copyist added the marginal gloss from Luk_5:32, åéò ìåôáíïéáí , found in later uncials, but not in B, à , D, etc. In Luk_20:23, ôé ìå ðåéñáæåôå (A, C, D, P), omitted B, à , L, was probably added from Mat_22:18; Mar_12:15. In Mar_13:14, “spoken of by Daniel the prophet,” is transferred from Mat_24:15. Luk_17:36, omitted in all the uncials except D, U, was inserted from Mat_24:40. In Mat_20:22, “and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with,” in later uncials, but not in B, à , D, L, Z, is taken from Mar_10:38. In Mat_5:44, “bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,” and the words “them that despitefully use you,&rdq