Page:The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882).pdf/139

Rh

Χ 13-69-346 28 al$4$ b c ff i vg syr.hl.mg arm

(δ)&emsp;&emsp;ANEFGHKMSUVΓΠ cu.omn.exc.20 syr.hl.txt go

(81 has and al$1$  in the first clause and al$2$   in the third: 33 is defective.)

Part of the confusion of readings is due to obvious causes, which throw little light on genealogy. From Luke ix 49 come and ; while in both Gospels a general proneness to alter imperfects and the influence of the preceding aorist have together produced. But in, besides assimilation to St Luke, there is a bold transposition of the last clause bringing it into proximity to its subject, with a necessary change of to  (cf. Matt. ν 45 in similar documents); while in two modifications of  the aorist  reappears, and one of them, $2$, the most widely spread, has also  in conformity with. The transposed clause is preserved in both places by with exact similarity of ending. Here again is supported by Ν as well as A, but not by any early version.

142. Mark ix 49

(α)&emsp;&emsp;BLΔ 1-118-209 61 81 435 al$9$ me.codd the arm.codd

(β)&emsp;&emsp;D cu$2$ (a) b c ff i (k) tol holm gig (a c tol holm gig omit : omits : k has words apparently implying the Greek original  (or ),  being read for , and  for .)

(δ)&emsp;&emsp;ACNXEFGHKMSUVΓΠ cu.omn.exc.15 f q vg syr.vg-hl me.codd aeth arm.codd go Vict(cu$10$ vg.codd.opt omit ; X adds it after .)

A reminiscence of Lev. vii 13 has created  out of,  being read as  with a natural reduplication, lost again in some Latin copies. The change would be aided by the words that follow here,. In the two incongruous alternatives are simply added together,  being replaced by. Besides ACNX, has at least