Mark iii. 14, 16. After noticing the evidence which supported the corrupt sentence in Matt. xxvii. 49, we are little disposed to accept what is in substance the same for such feeble glosses as are afforded us in these two verses; namely, οὓς καὶ ἀποστόλους ὠνόμασεν after δώδεκα in ver. 14 (derived from Luke vi. 13), and καὶ ἐποίησε τοὺς δώδεκα at the beginning of ver. 16. Westcott and Hort receive both clauses, Tischendorf only the latter, with אBC*Δ and an Ethiopic manuscript: yet the former, if less likely to be genuine, is the better supported. It is found in אBC*Δ (with some variation), in 13, 28, 69, 124, 238, 346, the Bohairic, the margin of the Harkleian Syriac, the Ethiopic, the Arabic of the Polyglott: a goodly array from divers sources to uphold so bad a reading.
Mark vi. 2. οἱ πολλοί is read by Westcott and Hort (so Tischendorf) instead of πολλοί with BL, 13, 28, 69, 346. Three out of the four cursives belong to Professor Ferrar's group.
Ver. 22. In the room of τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς τῆς Ἡρωδιάδος a serious variation of אBDLΔ, 238, 473, 558 is admitted into the text by Westcott and Hort, τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ (+ τῆς 238, 558) Ἡρῳδιάδος, thus bringing St. Mark into direct contradiction with Josephus, who expressly states that the wretched girl was named Salome, and was the daughter of Herod Philip by Herodias, who did not leave her husband till after Salome's birth (Josephus, Antiq., lib. xviii. ch. v. § 4). Add to this the extreme improbability that even Herod the Tetrarch should have allowed his own child to degrade herself in such wise as Salome did here, or that she could not have carried her point with her father without resorting to licentious allurements. We must therefore regard αὐτοῦ as certainly false, while αὐτῆς strongly expresses the writer's feeling that even Herodias could stoop so low, and being used emphatically has so much offended a few that they omit it altogether. Such are 1, 118, 209, and some versions (b c f, the Bohairic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Gothic) which did not understand it. Tischendorf was hardly right in adding the Peshitto to the list[312].
Mark ix. 1. ὧδε τῶν for τῶν ὧδε (ἑστηκότων) is the almost impossible reading of BD*, c k* (a d q n are uncertain), adopted the more readily by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, because all have the proper order τῶν ὧδε in Matt. xvi. 28.
Mark xiii. 33. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort reject (Tregelles more fitly sets within brackets) καὶ προσεύχεσθε with BD, 122, and the Latin a c k and tol.* of the Vulgate only. It is in the favour of the two words that they cannot have come from the parallel place in [pg 304] St. Matthew (ch. xxiv. 42), nor is the preceding verb the same in ch. xiv. 38. Here even אLΔ side against B with AC and all other authorities, including the Egyptian and most Latin, as well as the Syriac versions.
Luke iv. 44. The wonderful variation Ἰουδαίας is brought into the text of Hort and Westcott, the true reading Γαλιλαίας being banished to their margin. Their change is upheld by a strong phalanx indeed: אNBCLQR, 1, 21, 71, Evst. 222, 259 and some twenty other cursives (Evan. 503 and two Lectionaries read αὐτῶν instead of either), the Bohairic and the text of the Harkleian: authorities enough to prove anything not in itself impossible, as Ἰουδαίας is in this place. Not only is Galilee the scene of the events recorded immediately before and after the present verse, but the passage is manifestly parallel to Mark i. 39. The three Synoptic Gospels are broadly distinguished from that of St. John by their silence respecting the Lord's ministry in Judaea before He went up to the last passover. Yet Alford in loco, while admitting that “our narrative is thus brought into the more startling discrepancy with that of St. Mark, in which unquestionably the same portion of the sacred history is related,” most strangely adds, “Still these are considerations which must not weigh in the least degree with the critic. It is his province simply to track out what is the sacred text, not what, in his own feeble and partial judgement, it ought to have been.”
Luke vi. 48. It is surprising how a gloss so frigid as διὰ τὸ καλῶς οἰκοδομῆσθαι αὐτήν could have been accepted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, in the room of τεθελεμίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν, chiefly, it may be presumed, because the latter is the expression of St. Matthew (ch. vii. 25). Yet such is the reading of אBLΞ, of the two best cursives 33, 157, of the Bohairic (with some variation in its copies), of the margin of the Harkleian, and of Cyril of Alexandria. The Ethiopic preserves both forms. As the present οἰκοδόμοῦντι early in the verse involves a plain contradiction when compared with the perfect οἰκοδομῆσθαι at the end, Tregelles changes the latter into οἰκοδομεῖσθαι on the feeble authority of the third hand of B, of 33, and possibly of 157.
Luke viii. 40. For αὐτόν after προσδοκῶντες we find τὸν θεόν in א only. Of course the variation is quite wrong, but it is hard to see the pertinency of Dr. Vance Smith's hint (Theological Review, July, 1875) “that it cannot have got in by accident.”
Luke x. 1. This case is interesting, as being one wherein B (not א) is at variance with the very express evidence of the earliest ecclesiastical writers, while it makes the number of these disciples, not seventy, but seventy-two[313]. With B are DM, also R (“ita enim certè omnino videtur,” [pg 305] Tisch., Monum. sacra inedita, vol. ii. Proleg. p. xviii), in the prefixed table of τίτλοι (Vol. I. p. 57, n), its text being lost, Codd. 1, 42, a c e g1.2? l, the Vulgate, Curetonian Syriac, and Armenian. Lachmann with Westcott and Hort insert δύο, but within brackets, for the evidence against it is overwhelming both in number and in weight: namely, Codd. אACEGHKLSUVXΓΔΛΞΠ, all other cursives, b f g of the Old Latin, the Bohairic, the three other Syriac, the Gothic, and Ethiopic versions.
Luke xiv. 5. Here again we have a strong conviction that א, though now in the minority, is more correct than B, supported as the latter is by a dense array of witnesses of every age and country. In the clause τίνος ὑμῶν ὄνος ἢ βοῦς of the Received text all the critical editors substitute υἱὸς for ὄνος, which introduces a bathos so tasteless as to be almost ludicrous[314]. Yet υἱὸς is found with or without ὁ before it in AB (hiant CF)EGHMSUVΓΔΛ, in no less than 125 cursive copies already cited by name[315] (also υἱὸς ὑμῶν Evst. 259), in e f g, the Sahidic, Peshitto and Harkleian[316] Syriac versions: Cod. 508 and the Curetonian combine both forms υἱὸς ἢ βοῦς ἢ ὄνος, and Cod. 215 has υἱὸς ἢ ὄνος without βοῦς. Add to these Cyril of Alexandria (whose words are cited in catenas, as in the scholia to X, 253, 259), Titus of Bostra the commentator, Euthymius, and Theophylact. For ὄνος are אKLXΠ, 1, 33, 66 secundâ manu, 69 (ὄρος), 71, 207 sec. man., 211, 213, 407, 413, 492, 509, 512, 549, 550, 555, 556, 569, 570, 599, 602, and doubtless others not cited: also the text of X, 253, 259 in spite of the annexed commentary; of the versions a b c i l of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Bohairic, Jerusalem Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic (bos eius aut asinus), though the Slavonic codices and Persic of the Polyglott make for υἱός. Cod. 52 (sic) and the Arabic of the Polyglott omit ὄνος ἤ, while D has πρόβατον (ovis d) for ὄνος (comp. Matt. xii. 11), and 557 exhibits βοῦς ἢ ὄνος. ΥΣ or ΟΙΣ mistaken as the contraction for ΥΙΟΣ is a mere guess, and we are safest here in clinging to common sense against a preponderance of outward evidence.