But if א was, then B must have been;—at least, if the supposition certified by Tischendorf and Scrivener be true, that the six conjugate leaves of א were written by the scribe of B. So there is a chain of reference, fortified by the implied probability which has been furnished for us from the actual facts of the case.
Yet Dr. Hort is “inclined to surmise that B and א were both written in the West, probably at Rome; that the ancestors of B were wholly Western (in the geographical, not the textual sense) up to a very early time indeed; and that the ancestors of א were in great part Alexandrian, again in the geographical, not the textual sense[222].” For this opinion, in which Dr. Hort stands alone amongst authorities, there is nothing but “surmise” founded upon very dark hints. In contrast with the evidence just brought forward there is an absence of direct testimony: besides that the connexion between the Western and Syrian Texts or Readings, which has been recently confirmed in a very material degree, must weaken the force of some of his arguments.
§ 2[223].
The points to which I am anxious rather to direct attention are (1) the extent to which the works of Origen were studied by the ancients: and (2) the curious [pg 166] discovery that Codexes אB, and to some extent D, either belong to the same class as those with which Origen was chiefly familiar; or else have been anciently manipulated into conformity with Origen's teaching. The former seems to me the more natural supposition; but either inference equally satisfies my contention: viz. that Origen, and mainly BאD, are not to be regarded as wholly independent authorities, but constitute a class.
The proof of this position is to be found in various passages where the influence of Origen may be traced, such as in the omission of Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ—“The Son of God”—in Mark i. 1[224]; and of ἐν Ἐφέσῳ—“at Ephesus”—in Eph. i. 1[225]; in the substitution of Bethabara (St. John i. 28) for Bethany[226]; in the omission of the second part of the last petition the Lord's Prayer in St. Luke[227], of ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν in John i. 27[228].
He is also the cause why the important qualification εἰκῆ (“without a cause”) is omitted by Bא from St. Matt. v. 22; and hence, in opposition to the whole host of Copies, Versions[229], Fathers, has been banished from the sacred Text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, W. Hort and the Revisers[230]. To the same influence, I am persuaded, is to be attributed the omission from a little handful of copies (viz. A, B-א, D*, F-G, and 17*) of the clause τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι [pg 167] (“that you should not obey the truth”) Gal. iii. 1. Jerome duly acknowledges those words while commenting on St. Matthew's Gospel[231]; but when he comes to the place in Galatians[232], he is observed, first to admit that the clause “is found in some copies,” and straightway to add that “inasmuch as it is not found in the copies of Adamantius[233], he omits it.” The clue to his omission is supplied by his own statement that in writing on the Galatians he had made Origen his guide[234]. And yet the words stand in the Vulgate.
For:—
C Dc E K L P, 46 Cursives.
Vulg. Goth. Harkl. Arm. Ethiop.
Orig. ii. 373.