412 Clarence Russell Williams, 



Codex <P. 

 Codex M' [045] =- 172 or B 52 in Laura Catalogue (Sd Sti) 

 Summary. 

 In Codex ^J' the double ending is found, but while the Longer Ending 

 is preceded by the customary note, this MS is peculiar in that 

 the Shorter Ending follows V. 8 without note or break. 

 Text .... Pre-Syrian, basis Alexandrian, with a number of earlv 



Western readings. 

 Date .... VIII or IX C. 

 Place .... Egypt. 



Inferences As in- the case of L and 1^^ ; but here the testimony for 

 a form of text appending the Shorter Conclusion directl}- 

 to V. 8 is stronger. 



Discussion. 



In Codex ^' the scpoj^oUvro /ap is followed on the same line by an 

 abbreviated ts}.o? which is evidently liturgical. On the next line 

 follows the Shorter Ending without note or break, in which partic- 

 ular this MS differs from the other uncials of its class but agreed 

 with 579. It is concluded by the Amen. The archetype from which 

 this MS was descended probably had the shorter ending only. 



The Longer Ending is preceded by the customary noteEIITIN KAl 

 TAYTA OEPOMENA META.TO Ea)OBOrNTO TAP as in Landli^ 

 here written in shorter lines. It is followed by the usual subscription. 



As to special readings, this MS is peculiar in having [J.£/pi for a/pi, 

 agrees with 1^^ in omitting 6 before '\'{\<jo'oc, and with k in omitting 

 auToT? before scpav/]. 



From the absence of the note which in the companion uncials 

 accompanies the Shorter Conclusion, Gregory infers that this MS 

 shows an earlier form of the text, unless a revision is implied by such 

 forms as scpavrj, [Ji/pt, and aij.T^v. 



This manuscript was found by Prof. Gregory on x\ugust 26, 1896 

 among fragments discovered in the monaster}' at Athos, Laura of 

 St. Athanasius. By von Soden it is numbered B6 and thus follows 

 B N C A D. He declares " Dieser Codex ist sehr korrekt geschrieben." 

 (p. 943.) Gregory described it technically (Prolegomena, p. 445) but 

 in July 1899 it was photographed by K. Lake whose notes (Journal 

 of Theological Studies, Vol. I, 1900, pp. 290-292) furnish us with 

 the best discussion of the character of the text. He concludes that 

 the text of Mark is far more valuable than that of Luke and John 

 (Mt. and Mk. 1 : 1—9 : 4 is wanting). His notes therefore refer only 

 to the Markan text, and from them we gain the following facts. 



