γαρ η αστραπη η αστρα-
-πτουσα εκ της υπ' ουρα-
νον εις την υπ' ουρανον
λαμπει ουτως εσται και
ο υιος του ανθρωπου
εν τη ημερα αυτου
πρωτον δε δει αυτον
πολλα παθειν ...
" - For as lightning that flashes
from one part under heaven to
another part under heaven, so also
will be the Son of Adam in His day.
-But first He must suffer many
INCLUDE LINE: א A, K, L, W, X, Δ Θ Π ψ, 063 f1, f13, 28 565 700 892 1009 1010 1071 1079 1095 1216 1230 1241 1242 1253 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz, Maj (Majority of all continuous MSS), Lect,
itaur/f/q/r1, vg, Sy-(c/s)/p/h, Copt-bo, goth arm geo.
P75, B, D, it-a/b/d/e/i, Cop-SA
One too many "ou"s and a half-line is lost. Another classic case of homoioteleuton (similar ending).
The Editors of Aleph were more on the ball than those of B this time. B (Codex Vaticanus 1209) stands alone with D of all possible co-dependants. Perhaps this peculiarity reveals more frequent collusion or perpetuation of early mistakes than previously suspected. But nothing here suggests an original reading, or even a reading that predates circa 250 A.D.
What caused Westcott/Hort to follow B here, even without the support of Aleph? Probably his obsessive belief in the superiority of B no matter how far-fetched the reading. Not even Nestle or UBS-2 follows Hort here, and most 'modern' versions retain the traditional text, but not through any insight: they are simply following Nestle/UBS, and have no knowledge of yet another blunder by B or his exemplar.
P75 was unknown in Hort's day. Far from adding weight to the reading, the agreement of P75 only reveals its true character as a sloppy Egyptian copy prone to perpetuating accidental omissions. Neither the scribe nor the correctors' reputation is enhanced by such discoveries.