Luke 16:12 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]264
Καὶ εἰ ἐν τῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ πιστοὶ οὐκ ἐγένεσθε, τὸ ὑμέτερον τίς ὑμῖν δώσει;
MSS: ℓ1086 (f123vc1)
Luke 16:12 [Codex Sinaiticus (א or 01) (4th century)]q79f1vc2-3
Και ει εν τω αλλοτριω πιστοι ουκ εγενεσθαι το ϋμετερον τις δωσει ϋμιν
Luke 16:12 [Codex Alexandrinus (A02) (5th century)]34vc1
Και ει εν τω αλλοτριω πιστοι ουκ εγενεσθαι το ϋμετερον τις ϋμι- δωσει.
Luke 16:12 [Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1209 (B03) (4th century)]53ac1
Και ει εν τω αλλοτριω πιστοι ουκ εγενεσθαει το ημετερον τις ϋμιν δωσει
Luke 16:12 [Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D05) (5th century)]251v|483
Και ει εν τω αλλοτριω πιστοι ουκ εγενεσθε το ϋμετερον τις δωσει ϋμειν
Critical Apparatus :
(1) εγενεσθε : B1, D, ℓ1086
(2) εγενεσθαι : א, A, B*
(3) εγενησθε : ℓ339
(4) υμετερον : א, A, D, ℓ339, ℓ1086
(5) ημετερον : B
(6) υμιν δωσει : A, B, ℓ339, ℓ1086
(7) δωσει υμιν : א
(8) δωσει υμειν : D
A Textual Commentary On Luke 16:12
(a) Our digression fairly ended, we come at length to consider the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts, each of them productions of the fourth century of the Christian era, in reference as well to the resemblances as to the contrasts exhibited by their text. In both respects they are very peculiar, and will call for and (as I hope) be found to repay our best attention. Codex א, as was manifest on our first acquaintance with it, is very roughly written, being full of gross transcriptural blun ders of the pen, of the eye, and of the mind : the habit I mentioned just now, that of leaving out whole lines of the original whence it was derived, is but one specimen of an over numerous class. It was long supposed that Codex B was singularly free from slips of this kind, and inferences were freely drawn from its presumed accuracy which will no longer be pressed. It is certainly less faulty than its compeer, but the labours of Tischendorf and Vercellone have brought to light much of this sort, that was hitherto unsuspected. It is especially prone to the kind of error we recently termed an itacism, that of confounding similar vowel sounds to the ruin of the sense, especially in the instance of the Greek pronouns, personal or possessive, of the first and second persons plural, in which case its evidence is worth almost nothing. We will take just one example by way of specimen, the rather as certain critics of great eminence have perceived a certain subtil excellence in a variation which to us appears utterly void of meaning : it is our Lord’s question in Luke xvi. 12, “If ye have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who will give unto you that which is your own?” Codex B, supported by one other uncial manuscript and by scarcely any other authority, changing a single letter in the Greek, as in the English, would have us read “who will give unto you that which is our own?” Here, of course, the itacism is patent to every one who is not ready to admit the principle that when the Vatican has spoken, the world has only to believe in silence ; or who has not come to regard the very defects of that document as beauties, just like the lover in Horace did those of his mistress. No less improbable is an addition found a few chapters later, which is countenanced by Codex B and the self-same uncial (Cod. L of the eighth or ninth century) and by hardly any other evidence.
(F. H. Scrivener, Six Lectures on the Text of fhe New Testament and the Ancient Manuscripts Which Contains It, pp. 41-42)