Luke 9:26

Luke 9:26 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]231-232
Ὃς γὰρ ἂν ἐπαισχυνθῇ με καὶ τοὺς ἐμοὺς λόγους, τοῦτον ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπαισχυνθήσεται, ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων.

MSS: G, K, 13 (f58rc2)

Luke 9:26 [Codex Sinaiticus (א or 01) (4th century)]q78f4vc1
Ος γαρ αν επεσχυνθη με και τους εμους λογους τουτον ο υς του ανθρωπου επαισχυνθησεται οταν ελθη εν τη δοξη αυτου και του πατρος και των αγιων αγγελων :

Luke 9:26 [Codex Alexandrinus (A02) (5th century)]28rc2
Ος γαρ αν επαισχυνθη με· και τους εμους λογους· τουτον ο ϋϊος του ανου επαισχυνθησεται· οταν ελθη εν τη δοξη αυτου και του πρς· και των αγιων αγγελων.

Luke 9:26 [Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1209 (B03) (4th century)]46bc1
Ος γαρ αν επαισχυνθη με και τους εμους λογους τουτον ο υιος του ανθρωπου επαισχυνθησεται οταν ελθη εν τη δοξη αυτου και του πατρος και των αγιων αγγελων

Luke 9:26 [Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D05) (5th century)]222v|425
: Ος γαρ αν αιεπεσχυνθη εμε και τους εμους τουτον ο ϋιος του ανθρωπου επαισχυνθησεται οταν ελθη εν τη δοξη αυτου και του πρς αυτου και των αγιων αγγελων :

Critical Apparatus :

(1) αν : א, A, B, D, E, G, K, W, 13
(2) εαν : L, M, ℓ339

(3) επαισχυνθη : A, B, G, K, L, M, 13, ℓ339
(4) επεσχυνθη : א, E, W
(5) αιεπεσχυνθη : D

(6) με : א, A, B, E, G, K, L, M, W, 13, ℓ339
(7) εμε : D

(8) λογους : א, A, B, E, G, K, L, M, W, 13, ℓ339
(9) OMIT λογους : D

(10) επαισχυνθησεται : א, A, B, D, E, G, K, L, M, 13, ℓ339
(11) επεσχυνθησεται : W



ϞΖ / Β :

א (q78f4vc1), D (f222v|425), E (f190r), G (f141vc2), L (f147rc1), M (f162rc1), 13 (f58rc2)



A Textual Commentary On Luke 9:26

(a) On τοὺς ἐμοὺς λόγους, Luke ix. 26, Tischendorf, who in his seventh edition gave τοὺς ἐμούς (=my followers) as the correct reading, observed that this reading, without λόγους, was supported by D a e l Or., i. 298. But he added—and this is a proof of the carefulness with which the quotation from Origen is employed here — sed præcedit ουτε επαισχυντεον αυτον η τους λογους αυτου. But if we turn up this passage in the new edition, we find that it now reads (i. 34, 9 ff.): ουτ´ επαισχυντεον αυτον η τους οικειους αυτου η τους λογους αυτου, and then the three parallel passages are quoted in the order frequently found in Origen—viz., Matthew x.33 = Luke ix.26 = Mark viii. 38. Previous editions entirely omitted this last quotation, as well as the words in the context, η τους οικειους αυτου. But now everything is in order. The words ουτ´ επαισχυνετον αυτον refer to οστις δ´ αν απαρνησηται με in Matt. x. 33 ; η τους οικειους αυτου to ος γαρ αν επαισχυνθη με και τους εμους in Luke ix. 26 ; and η τους λογους αυτου to ος γαρ αν επαισχυνθη με και τους εμους λογους, in Mark viii. 38. So that whereas, on the ground of previous editions, Tischendorf was obliged to point out a discrepancy between Origen’s context and his peculiar quotation from Luke, the context of the new edition serves to confirm this peculiar quotation, and shows at the same time that we can accept it on the authority of this very passage, as against a former passage (p. 296 = 31, 7), where the verse in Luke is found in the newly-employed manuscript also with the words τους εμους λογους. That the editor should have put λογους in the first passage within brackets, or at least have pointed out the discrepancy between it and the quotation further down, would have been too much to expect, seeing that his manuscripts of Origen gave no manner of ground for doing so ; it is the duty of those who investigate the Scriptural quotations in Origen to pay attention to such things. But there are also passages where the editor has actually gone in the face of his manuscripts, and wrongly altered the text of his Scriptural quotations, having evidently allowed himself to be influenced by the printed text of the N. T., and paying too little respect to the manuscripts.
An attentive reader will have observed that the reading in Luke ix. 26, τους εμους = my followers, which is now established for Origen, is at present supported by D alone of the Greek manuscripts and by three Old Latin witnesses. (It is also found in the Curetonian Syriac, but unfortunately the corresponding words in the Sinai-Syriac could not be made out with certainty by Mrs. Lewis ; see Some Pages, p. 72=p. 168 in the first edition). Now, look at the passage in Origen’s work, i. 25, 26 ff. (p. 293 in De la Rue’s edition) : ο μεν γαρ Ματθαιος ανεγραφε λεγοντα τον κυριον …. ο δε Λουκας …. ο δε Μαρκος· αββα ο πατηρ, δυνατα σοι παντα· παρενεγκε κ.τ.λ. The passage is printed thus by Koetschau, agreeing exactly with the earlier printed editions and our texts of the N. T. in Mark xiv. 36. But in this he is far wrong. Because, as his own apparatus shows us, the Venetian manuscript, which he rightly follows elsewhere, reads the words in the order Swai-a TrdVra aoi, which is exactly the order of the words (Mark xiv. 36) in D, but again in no other Greek manuscript with the solitary exception of the cursive 473. 1   But there are even passages where Koetschau follows the printed text of the N. T. in the scriptural quotations in despite of both his manuscripts. In i. 29, 13 (i. 295 De la Rue), where Matt. x. 17-23 is quoted, he inserts after πως η τι λαλησητε the clause δοθησεται γαρ υμιν εν εκεινη τη ωρα τι λαλησητε from Matt. x. 19, on the supposition that these words may have dropped out of the archetype of M P on account of the homoioteleuton. But they are also omitted in Cod. D of the N. T. And this, moreover, is not the only point of agreement between this manuscript and the text given in this quotation. There is, e.g., the omission of δε in v. 17, the reading παραδωσουσιν in v. 19, which Koetschau has altered to the more grammatical παραδωσιν, again without sufficient reason and in defiance of both his manuscripts, and the omission of υμων in v. 20, of which there is no mention in Tischendorf (see the Collation of D in my Supplementum). Origen also agrees with D, though not verbally, in reading καν εκ ταυτης διωκωσιν φευγετε εις την αλλην further down (v. 23), where again Koetschau seems to me to have unnecessarily inserted την, which is omitted in his principal manuscript and also in D. Compare, also, i. 22, 12, where Origen agrees with D in reading φερωσιν (Luke xii. n) instead of εισφερωσιν, read by our critical editions on the authority of א B L X, or προσφερωσιν by the textus receptus with A Q R, etc. Both concur, also, in the omission of the first η τι in the same verse.

1 Called 2pe by Tischendorf, and numbered 81 in Westcott and Hort, and 565 in Ti Gr. Mark of this manuscript was edited by Belsheim in 1885,with a collation of the other three Gospels. It is a valuable cursive, as appears from what is said of it in W-H: “The most valuable cursive for the preservation of Western readings in the Gospels is 81, a St. Petersburg manuscript called 2pe by Tischendorf. as standing second in a list of documents collated by Muralt. It has a large ancient element, in great measure Western, and in St. Mark its ancient readings are numerous enough to be of real importance.” See above, under Codex N, p. 68.

(Eberhard Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, pp. 150-151)




This entry was posted in 03. Κατὰ Λουκᾶν. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.