Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, (KJV)
#
Greek
MAC & POS
Definition
5119
τότε
ADV
then, at that time
1492
οἶδα
V-2AAP-NSM
be aware, behold, consider, perceive
2455
Ἰούδας, α, ὁ
N-NSM
Judah, Judas, the name of several Israelites, also one of the twelve tribes of Isr., also the Southern kingdom
3588
ὁ, ἡ, τό
T-DPM
the
3860
παραδίδωμι
V-PAP-NSM
to hand over, to give or deliver over, to betray
846
αὐτός, αὐτή, αὐτό
P-ASM
(1) self (emphatic) (2) he, she, it (used for the third person pronoun) (3) the same
(a) It is now time to enumerate the instances in which Codex Bezae has been employed by scholars for critical purposes. ( 1 ) We hesitate not to assign the first place on the list to Robert Stephens and his third edition of the Greek New Testament, 1550. The identity of Codex Bezae with β’ in Stephens’ margin ought never to have been doubted by any one who had availed himself of the means at our disposal for testing that editor’s accuracy. His principal authority a ‘was the Complutensian Polyglott, a printed book in high repute and readily accessible . After deducting mere errata, itacisms, and such like, out of the 2300 places wherein it differs from his own printed text, Stephens cites α’ correctly only 554 times, and falsely 56 times, so that more than one case in ten involves a mistake, while three variations out of four are utterly neglected. It is not likely thattion of a document he had not seen, and only heard of from the report of another, would be more exact than that of a well-known published volume : yet after comparing both his α’ and β’ with their respective prototypes, we are enabled to declare that the readings o Cod. D, as being very striking and peculiar, are much the more faithfully rendered of the two. Except that Stephens cites β’ in Matth. xxvii. 3 παραδους (where nearly the whole leaf has perished), in manifest error for his n or Codex L (Paris, 62) ; again in John xix. 6, where, though Cod. D is defective in the original hand , the later scribe who supplied the hiatus actually has the reading imputed to β’ (σταυρωσον σταυρωσον αυτον) ; and again in Acts ix. 31, also wanting in Cod. D, where the whole reading belongs to his δ’ (Cod. Act. 5, Paris, 106) which is correctly alleged for η μεν ουν εκκλησια, although the sequel ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη… πορευομενη… επληθυνετο is wrongly referred to β’¹ : — with these slight exceptions Stephens never employs his authority β’ in those many passages wherein the leaves of Cod. D have been lost, though he perpetually quotes it up to the very place where the hiatus begins, and recurs to it immediately after the text by the first hand is resumed . After a careful analysis of all the variations imputed to β’, we are enabled to state that (excluding itacisms and the like, which early collators always neglected) they amount to 389 in all the parts written by the original scribe of Codex Bezae’ : whereof 309 are alleged by Stephens quite correctly ; 47 a little loosely , after the manner of the times, especially where β’ is joined with others in support of a reading ; 8 in which corrected readings are imputed in error to the first hand (Matth. v. 48 ; xiv. 34 nearly ; Mark vi. 21 ; 31 ; John v. 32 ; vii . 39 ; Acts vi . 10 ; xx . 18) ; while β’ quite differs from Cod. D in 25 places , or less than one in fifteen , whereas we have seen that Stephens’ α’ varied from its printed original once in ten times. Most of these 25 passages have been previously examined by Wetstein (N. T. Proleg . I. pp . 36–38), and, regard being paid to Stephens’ notorious inexactness, seem very fairly accounted for. Two involve but slight inaccuracies, Μatth. xi. 21 (χοροζαϊμ) ; 23 (μη εως του ουρανου υψωθηση ; έως αδου κ.τ.λ.) ; two others, ibid. x. 4 (καναναιος β. η) ; Luke xxiii. 20 (προσεφωνησεν αυτοις β. η), are just as trifling, and strictly true for η’ (Cod. L). In fact where several copies vouch for a reading, absolute resemblance to any of them seems to have satisfied the collator : see Matth. x. 8, where νεκρ. εγειρ. is simply misplaced in Cod. D, but omitted in η’ (Cod . L) and others. In the following cases β’ has crept through inadvertence into a list of several copies where it has no place : Matth. x. 10 ; xii . 32 ; xix . 29 ; xxvii . 46 ; Mark i. 19 ; 35 ; iv. 31 ; vi. 52 ; Luke ii . 21 ; Acts iii . 1 ; xii . 6. Twice a reference has been misplaced , Matth. v. 3 εσται, instead of v. 10 ; Mark iii. 3 ξηραν, for v. 1. In Matth. x. 25 ( βεελζεβουβ) β’ is a manifest misprint for α’ : also β’ for η’ Matth. v. 25 (βληθης¹ – η’ (Cod. L) bas precisely βληθεις. Kipling thinks that ει was subsequently added by the first scribe to βληθης in Cod. D, in which case Stephens would give the primitive reading : but the final ει is not more faint than the letters at the end of 12 b. l. 32, and I believe it was there from the first.) ; ix. 20 (εχουσα εν τη ασθεηεια added to ετη) ; John xiii . 2 (γινομενου) . Three other passages still remain , Luke iii. 19 εποιει, for which there is no authority except Erasmus ‘ editions (which Stephens may have here meant by β’, the Complutensian being α’) and a few which followed him ; Acts xiii. 1 μαναηλ, with the Peshito Syriac only ; and the nore notable addition in Luke viii . 18 και περισσευθησεται added to δοθησεται αυτω, a gloss from Matth. xiii. 12, very much in the manner of Cod. D, but for which no other evidence has yet been cited than Hensler’s Lectionary 44 (Havniens. 3), and Cureton’s Syriac in part². It is probable that a search among Stephens ‘ manuscripts in the Imperial Library at Paris would shew for what other letter β’ has been substituted in this and a few other instances.
(F. H. Scrivener, Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis, pp. ix-x)
