(1) χριστον : Marcion
(2) κυριον : B
(3) θεον :(4) και τινες :
(5) OMIT και : B(6) απωλοντο :
(7) απωλλυντο : B
(a) What is here said as to the close affinity of Origen’s Bible with Codex D is corroborated by the testimony of the Athos manuscript discovered by von der Goltz (see above, p. 90). This manuscript confirms what we knew before—viz. that Marcion’s text had χριστον and not κυριον or θεον in 1 Cor. x. 9. But it also tells us what we did not know—viz. that χριστον was the only reading known to Origen, and that κυριον in the Synodical Epistle addressed to Paul of Samosata, published by Turrianus (in Routh’s Reliquiæ Sacræ, iii.² 299), is not the original reading but a later substitute for χριστον. This is made out by Zahn in the ThLbl., 1899, col. 180, who concludes by saying that Clement, Ecl. Proph., 49, should not be omitted in a proper apparatus, and that κυριον ought never again to be printed in the text. Our most recent editors, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Weiss, and Baljon, put κυριον in their text without so much as mentioning χριστον in the margin, or among the Noteworthy Rejected Readings, or in the list of Interchanged Words (Weiss, p. 7). In the Stuttgart edition the text is determined by a consensus of previous editions, and I was obliged to let κυριον stand in the text, but I have put χριστον in the margin, as Tregelles also did. In this instance the textus receptus is actually better than our critical editions. The rejected reading is again the Western, and Zahn, in commenting on the newly-discovered testimony as to the text of 1 John iv. 3 (see below, p. 327), pertinently remarks that “here again it is perfectly evident, as any discerning person might have known, that many important readings which were wont to be contemptuously dismissed as Western, were long prevalent in the East as well, not only among the Syrians but also among the Alexandrians, and were only discarded by the official recensions of the text that were made subsequent to the time of Origen.” These illustrations will serve to show that not only is the editing of the Patristic texts no easy matter, but also that the employment even of the best editions is not unaccompanied with risks. See Koetschau, Bibelcitate bei Origenes, ZfwTh., 1900, pp. 321-378.
(Eberhard Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, p. 152)
