Codex B & Its Allies Vol 1 & 2

In by Chris ThomasLeave a Comment

I re-affirm my belief that a polyglot text influenced א throughout.  And I charge B with being the child of a Graeco-Latin recension, and by its scribe or by its parent of being tremendously influenced by a Coptic recension or by a Graeco-sahidic and/or a Graeco-bohairic ms.

I cannot allow that אB influenced the Sahidic or Bohairic versions (except perhaps a few separate mss of each or either of them); for the sympathy visible between א or B or both and the Coptic versions is a sympathetic bond which antedates the mss א and B, and which contributes to place these versions (where they oppose אB) on an independent footing implying a Greek text of older date than that of אB, and when supported by other good witnesses to be followed.

And I charge Westcott and Hort with having utterly failed to produce any semblance of a " neutral" text. I charge them with the offence of repeated additions to the narrative on most insufficient evidence.

Reviews:Frederick on Goodreads wrote:

This is a very important work for students of the transmission of Bible manuscripts. One quote, on page 468, can sum up all of the complicated study of Greek, Latin, Syriac, and other language manuscripts and the modern Bible versions which are based on them which, of course, are not mentioned but are by extension referenced. "The text printed by Westcott and Hort has been accepted as 'the true text,' and grammars, works on the synoptic problem, works on higher criticism, and others, have been grounded on this text. If the Hort text makes the evangelists appear inconsistent, then such and such an evangelist errs. Those who accept the W-H text are basing their accusations of untruth as to the Gospellists upon an Egyptian revision current 250 to 450AD and abandoned between 500 to 1881, merely revived in our day and stamped as genuine."

Leave a Comment