Home
  By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. II.
Author: Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. II." ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



        A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament

                     For the Use of Biblical Students

                               By The Late

                    Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener

                           M.A., D.C.L., LL.D.

                  Prebendary of Exeter, Vicar of Hendon

                        Fourth Edition, Edited by

                       The Rev. Edward Miller, M.A.

             Formerly Fellow and Tutor of New College, Oxford

                                 Vol. II.

              George Bell & Sons, York Street, Covent Garden

                     London, New York, and Cambridge

                                   1894



CONTENTS


Chapter I. Ancient Versions.
Chapter II. Syriac Versions.
Chapter III. The Latin Versions.
Chapter IV. Egyptian Or Coptic Versions.
Chapter V. The Other Versions Of The New Testament.
Chapter VI. On The Citations From The Greek New Testament Or Its Versions
Made By Early Ecclesiastical Writers, Especially By The Christian Fathers.
Chapter VII. Printed Editions and Critical Editions.
Chapter VIII. Internal Evidence.
Chapter IX. History Of The Text.
Chapter X. Recent Views Of Comparative Criticism.
   Appendix To Chapter X.
Chapter XI. Considerations Derived From The Peculiar Character And
Grammatical Form Of The Dialect Of The Greek Testament.
Chapter XII. Application Of The Foregoing Materials And Principles To The
Criticism Of Select Passages Of The New Testament.
Appendix A. On Syriac Lectionaries.
Appendix B. Additional Bohairic Manuscripts In Egypt (1893).
Index I. Texts Of The New Testament Illustrated In This Treatise.
Index II. Of Subjects.
Footnotes



ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.


Page 167, l. 16. I am convinced that it is only just measure to a book,
which from a strong prejudice is not known nearly as much amongst
Textualists as its great merit deserves, to draw more attention to “The
Revision Revised” by the late Dean Burgon. Those who have really studied
it, to whichever school they belong, know how it teems with suggestion all
through its striking pages. The present book owes a vast debt to him.

P. 248, ll. 8, 9 from bottom, _for_ Sir Edmund Beckett _read_ Lord
Grimthorpe.

Some remains upon sacred Greek MSS. by Dr. Scrivener have been just
published under the name of “Adversaria Critica Sacra,” Cambridge:
University Press. Reference has been made in this edition to some of the
proof-sheets which were sent to the Editor. Vol. I. Appendix A.



CHAPTER I. ANCIENT VERSIONS.


[Transcriber’s Note: This book contains much Greek text, which will not be
well-rendered in plain text versions of this E-book. Also, there is much
use of Greek characters with a vertical bar across the tops of the letters
to indicate abbreviations; because the coding system used in this e-book
does not have such an “overline”, they are rendered here with underlines.
It also contains much text in Syriac, which is written right-to-left; for
the sake of different transcription methods, it is transcribed here in
both right-to-left and left-to-rights, so that regardless of the medium of
this E-book, one or the other should be readable.]

1. The facts stated in the preceding volume have led us to believe that no
extant manuscript of the Greek Testament yet discovered is older than the
fourth century, and that those written as early as the sixth century are
both few in number, and (with one notable exception) contain but
incomplete portions, for the most part very small portions, of the sacred
volume. When to these considerations we add the well-known circumstance
that the most ancient codices vary widely and perpetually from the
commonly received text and from each other, it becomes desirable for us to
obtain, if possible, some evidence as to the character of those copies of
the New Testament which were used by the primitive Christians in times
anterior to the date of the most venerable now preserved.

Such sources of information, though of a more indirect and precarious kind
than manuscripts of the original can supply, are open to us in the
Versions of Holy Scripture, made at the remotest period in the history of
the Church, for the use of believers whose native tongue was not Greek.
After the composition of the writings of the New Testament, it is evident
that the Church was in possession of Sacred Books which were of the utmost
value, both to those who were already members, and in the conversion of
such as had not yet come to the real knowledge of the Faith. The nearness
of Syria to Judea, and the growth of the Church at Antioch and Damascus in
the earliest days, must have produced a demand for a rendering into the
Syriac languages; and the bilingual condition of most of the Roman Empire
must have entailed a constant desire amongst vast multitudes to read in
their own tongue a verification of the truths taught them. Accordingly
translations, certainly of the New and probably also of the Old Testament,
were executed not later than the second century in the Syriac and Latin
languages, and, so far as their present state enables us to judge of the
documents from which they were rendered, they represent to us a
modification of the inspired text which existed within a century of the
death of the Apostles. Later on, the influence of Alexandria opened the
districts to the south and gave birth to the Coptic versions. And about
the time of the acceptance of the Christian Religion by the Empire a
further impetus was given, and the Vulgate and the Gothic and Ethiopic
versions were soon made, followed by others according as the demand arose.

Indeed, the fact that versions as a class go much further back than MSS.,
constitutes one of the chiefest points of their importance in Textual
Criticism; since the range of the ancient versions may be roughly
estimated as reaching from the second to the tenth century, whereas the
period of extant MSS. did not commence till the fourth century was well
advanced, and were continued into the sixteenth. Their respective ages,
too, are actually known, and do not rest upon probabilities, as in the
first kind of evidence. They are also generally authorized translations,
made either by a body of men, or by one eminent authority whose work was
adopted amongst the people for whose use the Holy Scriptures had been
translated. And they probably represented, either many MSS., or a small
body of accepted MSS.

On the other hand, versions as evidence are not without their special
drawbacks. It may be found as difficult to arrive at the primitive text of
a version, as of the Greek original itself; whether from variations in the
different copies, or from suspicions of subsequent correction. Besides
this, some are secondary versions, being derived not from the Greek, but
from some version of the Greek. Again, some are “sense-translations(1),”
rather than word-renderings, and it is in many cases difficult to infer
their real verdict. Of course, none but an expert, such as Dr. S. C.
Malan, or the several revisers of the succeeding chapters of this edition,
can pronounce upon the character of the verdict of a version in question.

It will be seen then that versions by themselves cannot be taken to
establish any reading, because manuscripts are necessarily first
authorities, and there is no lack of abundance in such testimony. Yet they
confirm, or help to decide, the conclusions or the leanings of
manuscriptal evidence: and taken in connexion with other witnesses, they
have much independent force, varying of course according to the character
of the version or versions, and the nature and extent of their agreement.
In this respect they possess great importance.

The experience of recent years has shown that it is misleading to
construct classes of versions in regard to their relative importance.
Fuller knowledge casts aside, and often with contumely, such adventitious
helps. Readers are therefore referred for information upon each version to
the chapter or section which is devoted to it, and are recommended to
gather their apprehensions of the several values of those versions from
the facts recorded therein, and from use of them in the various passages
of Holy Scripture where they are cited. But the following is a list of the
chief versions of the New Testament which were made before the
introduction of printing, and a few handposts are inserted here and there
for elementary guidance in the study of them:—

I. Peshitto Syriac (cent. ii), called “the Queen of Versions” (Hort, cent.
iii).

II. Latin version or versions(2) (ii, or ii-iv). Remarkable for age.

III. Bohairic (or Memphitic) (iii? Stern, iv or v), best of the Egyptian
versions.

IV. Sahidic (or Thebaic) (iii?), second Egyptian version.

V. Middle-Egyptian (iii?).

VI. Fayoumic (ii or iii?).

VII. Curetonian (iv), corrupt,—(Hort, ii).

VIII. Vulgate (iv), made by Jerome from the various Latin texts in vogue
at the time.

IX. Gothic (iv).

X. Armenian (iv).

XI. Jerusalem (v?).

XII. Ethiopic (v-vi). A large number of MSS. exist.

XIII. Georgian (v, vi?).

XIV. Philoxenian (A.D. 508), corrected by Thomas of Harkel, Harkleian
(A.D. 616); very literal.

XV. Arabic versions (ix-xvii), made from Greek, Syriac, Egyptian, &c.

XVI. Anglo-Saxon (x) of the Gospels, made from the Vulgate.

XVII. Frankish (ix).

XVIII. Two Persic, from the Peshitto (xiii), and from the Greek (xiv).

The last four, being secondary, are worth but little as critical helps.

It may be added, that from the literary activity of the last ten years in
the closer examination of ancient records, and through discoveries in
Egypt and elsewhere, a great deal has been added to the knowledge
previously existing upon this part of the subject of this book. Therefore
in the succeeding chapters much alteration has been found necessary both
in the way of correction, because some theories have been exploded under
the increased light of wider information, and by the insertion of
additions from the results of investigation and of study. The editor has
been readily and generously assisted by several accomplished scholars who
are experts in their respective departments; and the names of the various
writers who have contributed to the four succeeding chapters will form a
sufficient guarantee for the soundness and completeness of the information
therein supplied.



CHAPTER II. SYRIAC VERSIONS.


In the following account of the earlier Syriac versions, the Editor has
received the most valuable help from the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D., Fellow
of Hertford College, who is editing the Peshitto Gospels for the
University of Oxford. And upon the Harkleian version, he is indebted for
important assistance to the Rev. H. Deane, late Fellow of St. John’s
College, whose labours have been unfortunately stopped by failure in
eyesight.



1. The Peshitto.


The Aramaean or Syriac (preserved to this day as their sacred tongue by
several Eastern Churches) is an important branch of the great Semitic
family of languages, and as early as Jacob’s age existed distinct from the
Hebrew (Gen. xxxi. 47). As we now find it in books, it was spoken in the
north of Syria and in Upper Mesopotamia about Edessa, and survives to this
day in the vernacular of the plateau to the north of Mardin and
Nisibis(3). It is a more copious, flexible, and elegant language than the
old Hebrew (which ceased to be vernacular at the Babylonish captivity) had
ever the means of becoming, and is so intimately akin to the Chaldee as
spoken at Babylon, and throughout Syria, that the latter was popularly
known by its name (2 Kings xviii. 26; Isa. xxxvi. 11; Dan. ii. 4)(4). As
the Gospel took firm root at Antioch within a few years after the Lord’s
Ascension (Acts xi. 19-27; xiii. 1, &c.), we might deem it probable that
its tidings soon spread from the Greek capital into the native interior,
even though we utterly rejected the venerable tradition of Thaddaeus’
mission to Abgarus, toparch of Edessa, as well as the fable of that
monarch’s intercourse with Christ while yet on earth (Eusebius, Eccl.
Hist., i. 13; ii. 1). At all events we are sure that Christianity
flourished in these regions at a very early period; it is even possible
that the Syriac Scriptures were seen by Hegesippus in the second century
(Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv. 22); they were familiarly used and claimed as
his national version by the eminent Ephraem of Edessa in the fourth. Thus
the universal belief of later ages, and the very nature of the case, seem
to render it unquestionable that the Syrian Church was possessed of a
translation, both of the Old and New Testament, which it used habitually,
and for public worship exclusively, from the second century of our era
downwards: as early as A.D. 170 ὁ Σύρος is cited by Melito on Gen. xxii.
13 (Mill, Proleg. § 1239)(5). And the sad history of that distracted
Church can leave no room to doubt what that version was. In the middle of
the fifth century, the third and fourth general Councils at Ephesus and
Chalcedon proved the immediate occasions of dividing the Syrian Christians
into three, and eventually into yet more, hostile communions. These
grievous divisions have now subsisted for fourteen hundred years, and
though the bitterness of controversy has abated, the estrangement of the
rival Churches is as complete and hopeless as ever(6). Yet the same
translation of Holy Scripture is read alike in the public assemblies of
the Nestorians among the fastnesses of Koordistan, of the Monophysites who
are scattered over the plains of Syria, of the Christians of St. Thomas
along the coast of Malabar, and of the Maronites on the mountain-terraces
of Lebanon. Even though these last acknowledged the supremacy of Rome in
the twelfth century, and certain Nestorians of Chaldaea in the eighteenth,
both societies claimed at the time, and enjoy to this day, the free use of
their Syriac translation of Holy Scripture. Manuscripts too, obtained from
each of these rival communions, have flowed from time to time into the
libraries of the West, yet they all exhibit a text in every important
respect the same; all are without the Apocalypse and four of the Catholic
Epistles, which latter we know to have been wanting in the Syriac in the
sixth century (Cosmas Indicopleustes apud Montfaucon, “Collectio Nova
Patrum et Script. Graec.,” Tom. ii. p. 292), a defect, we may observe in
passing, which alone is no slight proof of the high antiquity of the
version that omits them; all correspond with whatever we know from other
sources of that translation which, in contrast with one more recent, was
termed “old” (ܩܕܡܑ or ܑܡܕܩ) by Thomas of Harkel A.D. 616, and “Peshitto”
(ܦܫܝܬܬܐ or ܐܬܬܝܫܦ) the “Simple,” by the great Monophysite doctor, Gregory
Bar-Hebraeus [1226-86]. Literary history can hardly afford a more powerful
case than has been established for the identity of the version of the
Syriac now called the _Peshitto_ with that used by the Eastern Church,
long before the great schism had its beginning in the native land of the
blessed Gospel.

The first printed edition of this most venerable monument of the Christian
faith was published in quarto at Vienna in the year 1555 (some copies are
re-dated 1562), at the expense of the Emperor Ferdinand I, on the
recommendation and with the active aid of his Chancellor, Albert
Widmanstadt, an accomplished person, whose travelling name in Italy was
John Lucretius. It was undertaken at the instance of Moses of Mardin,
legate from the Monophysite Patriarch Ignatius to Pope Julius III
(1550-55), who seems to have brought with him a manuscript, the text
whereof was of the Jacobite family, although written at Mosul, for
publication in the West. Widmanstadt contributed a second manuscript of
his own, though it does not appear whether either or both contained the
whole New Testament. This beautiful book, the different portions of which
have separate dedications, was edited by Widmanstadt, by Moses, and by W.
Postell jointly, in an elegant type of the modern Syriac character, the
vowel and diacritic points, especially the _linea occultans_, being
frequently dropped, with subscriptions and titles indicating the Jacobite
Church Lessons in the older, or Estrangelo, letter. It omits, as was
natural and right, those books which the Peshitto does not contain: viz.
the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, that of Jude
and the Apocalypse, together with the disputed passage John vii. 53-viii.
11, and the doubtful, or more than doubtful, clauses in Matt. xxvii. 35;
Acts viii. 37; xv. 34; xxviii. 29; 1 John v. 7, 8. It omits Luke xxii. 17,
18, _see_ Chap. XII on the passage. This _editio princeps_ of the Peshitto
New Testament, though now become very scarce (one half of its thousand
copies having been sent into Syria), is held in high and deserved repute,
as its text is apparently based on manuscript authority alone.

Immanuel Tremellius [1510-80], a converted Jew (the proselyte, first of
Cardinal Pole, then of Peter Martyr), and Professor of Divinity at
Heidelberg, published the second edition in folio in 1569, containing the
New Testament in Hebrew type, with a literal Latin version, accompanied by
the Greek text and Beza’s translation of it, having a Chaldee and Syriac
grammar annexed. Tremellius used several manuscripts, especially one at
Heidelberg, and made from them and his own conjecture many changes, that
were not always improvements, in the text; besides admitting some
grammatical forms which are Chaldee rather than Syriac. His Latin version
has been used as their basis by later editors, down to the time of Schaaf.
Tremellius’ and Beza’s Latin versions were reprinted together in London,
without their respective originals, in 1592. Subsequent editions of the
Peshitto New Testament were those of the folio Antwerp or Royal Spanish
Polyglott of Plantin (1571-73), in Hebrew and Syriac type, revised from a
copy written about A.D. 1200, which Postell had brought from the East: two
other editions of Plantin in Hebrew type without points (1574, 8vo; 1575,
18mo), the second containing various readings extracted by Francis
Rapheleng from a Cologne manuscript for his own reprints of 1575 and
subsequently of 1583: the smaller Paris edition, also in unpointed Hebrew
letters, 1584, 4to, by Guy Le Fevre de la Boderie, who prepared the Syriac
portion of the Antwerp Polyglott in 1571: that of Elias Hutter, in two
folio volumes (Nuremberg, 1599-1600), in Hebrew characters; this editor
venturing to supply in Syriac of his own making the single passages
wanting in the _editio princeps_ of Widmanstadt, and the spurious Epistle
to the Laodiceans. Martin Trost’s edition (Anhalt-Cöthen, 1621, 4to), in
Syriac characters, with vowel-points, a list of various readings, and a
Latin translation, is superior to Hutter’s.

The magnificent Paris Polyglott (fol. 1645) is the first which gives us
the Old Testament portion of the Peshitto, though in an incomplete state.
The Maronite Gabriel Sionita, who superintended this part of the
Polyglott, made several changes in the system of vowel punctuation,
possibly from analogy rather than from manuscript authority, but certainly
for the better. He inserted as integral portions of the Peshitto the
version of the four missing Catholic Epistles, which had been published in
1630 by our illustrious oriental scholar, Edward Pococke, from a
manuscript in the Bodleian (Orient. 119)(7): and another of the
Apocalypse, edited at Leyden in 1627 by Louis De Dieu, from a manuscript,
since examined by Tregelles, in the University Library there (Scaliger MS.
18), and from one sent him by Archbishop Ussher, which is now in the
Library of Trinity College, Dublin (B. 5. 16). Of the two, the version of
the Catholic Epistles seems decidedly the older, and both bear much
resemblance to the later Syriac or Harkleian translation, but neither have
claim to be regarded as portions of the original Peshitto, to which,
however, they have been appended ever since.

Bp. Walton’s, or the London Polyglott (fol. 1654-7), affords us little
more than a reprint of Sionita’s Syriac text, with Trost’s various
readings appended, but interpolates the text yet further by inserting John
vii. 53-viii. 11. This passage, which is the “Pericope de adultera,” is
found in Archbishop Ussher’s copy, dated A.D. 1627, and made from a
Maronite MS. of much esteem at Kenobin under Mt. Lebanon; also in Brit.
Mus. 14,470, in Cod. Barsalibaei at New College, Oxford, and in the Paris
Nat. Library xxii, of which the two last copies are Harkleian, and the one
in the British Museum is Peshitto(8). We are left to conjecture as to the
real date and origin of these translations, except that as far as the
Harkleian is concerned, Dr. Gwynn has shown that according to the Paris
and Brit. Mus. MSS. they are claimed for Paul, a contemporary of Thomas of
Harkel.

Giles Gutbier published at Hamburg (8vo, 1664) an edition containing all
the interpolated matter, and 1 John v. 7, 8 in addition, from Tremellius’
own version, which he inserted in _his_ margin. Gutbier used two
manuscripts, by one of which, belonging to Constantine L’Empereur, he
corrected Sionita’s system of punctuation. A glossary, notes, and various
readings are annexed. The Sulzbach edition 12mo, 1684, seems a mere
reprint of Plantin’s; nor does that published in Rome in 1713 for the use
of the Maronites, though grounded upon manuscript authority, appear to
have much critical value.

A collation of the various readings in all the preceding editions,
excepting those of 1684 and 1713, is affixed to the Syriac N. T. of J.
Leusden and Ch. Schaaf (4to, Leyden, 1708-9: with a new title-page 1717).
It extends over one hundred pages, and, though most of the changes noted
are very insignificant, is tolerably accurate and of considerable value.
This edition contains the Latin version of Tremellius not too thoroughly
revised, and is usually accompanied with an admirable “Lexicon Syriacum
Concordantiale” of the Peshitto New Testament. Its worth, however, is
considerably lessened by a fancy of Leusden for pointing the vowels
according to the rules of Chaldee rather than of Syriac grammar: after his
death, indeed, and from Luke xviii. 27 onwards, this grave mistake was
corrected by Schaaf(9). Of modern editions the most convenient, or
certainly the most accessible to English students, are the N. T. which
Professor Lee prepared in 1816 for the British and Foreign Bible Society
with the Eastern Church Lessons noted in Syriac, and that of Wm.
Greenfield [d. 1831], both in Bagster’s Polyglott of 1828, and in a small
and separate form; the latter editor aims at representing Widmanstadt’s
text distinct from the subsequent additions derived from other sources.
Lee’s edition was grounded on a collation of three fresh manuscripts,
besides the application of other matter previously available for the
revision of the text; but the materials on which he founded his
conclusions have never been printed, although their learned collector once
intended to do so, and many years afterwards consented to lend them to
Scrivener for that purpose; a promise which his death in 1848 ultimately
hindered him from redeeming. An edition of the Gospels printed in 1829 by
the British and Foreign Bible Society for the Nestorian Christians was
based on a single manuscript brought from Mosul by Dr. Wolff. Besides
these, two editions have been published by the American Bible Society, at
Oroomia, Persia, in 1846, and at New York (a reprint of the former) in
1878(10).

From the foregoing statement it will plainly appear that no edition of the
Peshitto Syriac has yet been published with that critical care on the part
of editors which its antiquity and importance so urgently demand. It is
therefore a matter of deep satisfaction that the work commenced by the
late Philip Pusey has been brought near conclusion by the Rev. G. H.
Gwilliam, for the University of Oxford. Mr. Gwilliam has informed the
editor that the Peshitto “Tetraevangelium” will be the first part
published, and will exhibit in its _apparatus criticus_ readings taken
from forty manuscripts, some of which have been collated throughout,
others in parts. From the account given in the third volume of “Studia
Biblica et Ecclesiastica,” we learn that the authorities on which he bases
his text in this elaborate edition are as follows:—


    1. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,479 [A.D. 534], the fourteen Epistles of St.
    Paul, Hebrews being always included by the Syrians.

    2. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,459 [A.D. 530, last letter illegible], SS.
    Luke and John. Possibly older than the last.

    3. Rome, Vatican [A.D. 548]. A Tetraevangelium, written at Edessa.

    4. Florence, Laurentian Library [A.D. 586].

    5. Brit. Mus. 14,460 [A.D. 600]. A Nestorian Estrangelo, written
    in the district of Naarda, near Bagdad.

    6. Brit. Mus. 14,471 [A.D. 615]. Another Nestorian MS. of the
    Gospels, written at Nisibis.

    7. Cod. Guelpherbytanus [A.D. 634]. Written in the convent of Beth
    Chela, near Damascus.

    8. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,448 [A.D. 699-700]. A Nestorian MS. Whole of
    New Testament as received in the Syrian Church.

    9. Brit. Mus. Add. 7157 [A.D. 768]. Written at Beth Kuka.

    10. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,459 [about A.D. 450], SS. Matthew and Mark.

    11. Brit. Mus. Add. 17,117 [about A.D. 450].

    12. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,470 [v-vi]. Whole of Peshitto New
    Testament. The Pericope de Adultera has been added as stated
    above, p. 10.

    13. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,453 [v-vi]. A Tetraevangelium.

    14. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,476 [v-vi]. Paul.

    15. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,480 [v-vi]. Paul.

    16. Cod. Crawfordianus I [vi]. A very handsome Tetraevangelium,
    and in excellent preservation.

    17. Codd. Dawkinsiani III, XXVII, in the Bodleian Library.

    18. Partial collations of many other MSS. in the British Museum.

    19. The editions published by the American Bible Society, which
    were, at least to some extent, revised on the authority of ancient
    Nestorian copies.

    20. The evidence of the Syriac Massorah of both the Nestorian and
    the Jacobite (Karkaphensian) recensions.


It is necessary to mention briefly this remarkable wealth of evidence,
probably to be largely increased by future investigations, in which the
Peshitto presents no inconsiderable parallel to the vast amount of
authorities on which the Greek Text of the New Testament depends, because
people are apt to underrate the grand position of the Peshitto version,
when comparing it with the Curetonian Syriac, of which the sole evidence
consists only of two codices, if the newly-discovered one turns out to be
what was anticipated.

It is not easy to determine why the name of _Peshitto_, “Simple,”
“Common,” should have been given to the oldest Syriac version of
Scripture, to distinguish it from others that were subsequently made(11).
In comparison with the Harkleian it is the very reverse of a close
rendering of the original. Perhaps the title refers to its common and
popular use(12). We shall presently submit to the reader a few extracts
from it, contrasted with the same passages in other Syriac versions; for
the present we can but assent to the ripe judgement of Michaelis, who,
after thirty years’ study of its contents, declared that he could consult
no translation with so much confidence in cases of difficulty and
doubt(13).



2. The Curetonian Syriac.


The volume which contained the greater part of the Curetonian portions of
the Gospels was brought by Archdeacon Tattam in 1842 from the Monastery of
St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian Desert (p. 140). Eighty leaves and a half
were picked out by Dr. Cureton, then one of the officers in the Manuscript
department of the British Museum, from a mass of other matter which had
been bound up with them by unlearned possessors, and comprise the
Additional MS. 14,451 of the Library they adorn, and two more reached
England in 1847. They are in quarto, with two columns on a page, in a bold
hand and the Estrangelo or old Syriac character, on vellum originally very
white, the single points for stops, some titles, &c. being in red ink;
there are no marks of Church Lessons by the first hand, which Cureton (a
most competent judge) assigned to the middle of the fifth century. The
fragments contain Matt. i. 1-viii. 22; x. 32-xxiii. 25; Mark xvi. 17-20;
John i. 1-42; iii. 5-vii. 37; (but many words in iii. 6-iv. 6 are
illegible); xiv. 10-12; 15-19; 21-23; 26-29; Luke ii. 48-iii. 16; vii.
33-xv. 21; xvii. 23-xxiv. 44, or 1786 verses, so arranged that St. Mark’s
Gospel is here immediately followed by St. John’s. Three more leaves of
this version (part, perhaps, of the same MS.) were found among the Syriac
MSS. procured by Dr. Sachau, and now at Berlin (Royal Libr. Orient. quart.
528). They contain Luke xv. 22-xvi. 12; xvii. 1-23; John vii. 37-52; viii.
12-19. They were published by Roediger (Monatsbericht, Berlin Royal
Academy of Sciences, July, 1872), and were privately printed by the late
Professor Wright to range with Cureton’s volume. Within the last year the
discovery has been announced of another Curetonian MS., which was found in
the Library of the Convent on Mount Sinai by Mrs. Lewis. An edition of it
is now in progress, but will not be published soon enough for notice in
this work. The Syriac text of the London MS. was printed in fine
Estrangelo type in 1848, and freely imparted to such scholars as might
need its help; but it was not till 1858 that the work was published(14),
with a very literal translation into rather bald English, a beautiful and
exact facsimile (Luke xv. 11-13; 16-19) by Mrs. Cureton, and a Preface
(pp. xcv), full of interesting and indeed startling matter. Dr. Cureton
went so far as to persuade himself that he had discovered in these Syriac
fragments a text of St. Matthew’s Gospel that “to a great extent, has
retained the identical terms and expressions which the Apostle himself
employed; and that we have here, in our Lord’s discourses, _to a great
extent_ the very same words as the Divine Author of our holy religion
Himself uttered in proclaiming the glad tidings of salvation in the Hebrew
dialect ...” (p. xciii): that here in fact we have to a great extent the
original of that Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew of which the canonical Greek
Gospel is but a translation. It is beside our present purpose to examine
in detail the arguments of Dr. Cureton on this head(15), and it would be
the less necessary in any case, since they seem to have convinced no one
save himself: but the place his version occupies with reference to the
Peshitto is a question upon which there has been and still prevails a
controversy which largely concerns the issue between contending schools of
textual critics(16).

Any one who shall compare the verses we have cited from them in parallel
columns (pp. 38-40) will readily admit that the translations have a common
origin, whatever that may be; many other passages, though not perhaps of
equal length, might be named where the resemblance is closer still; where
for twenty words together the Peshitto and the Curetonian shall be
positively identical, although the Syriac idiom would admit other words
and another order just as naturally as that actually employed. Nor will
this conclusion be shaken by the not less manifest fact that throughout
many passages the diversity is so great that no one, with those places
alone before him, would be led to suspect any connexion between the two
versions; for resemblances in such a case furnish a positive proof, not to
be weakened by the mere negative presumption supplied by divergencies. Add
to this the consideration that the Greek manuscripts from which either
version was made or corrected (as the case may prove) were materially
different in their character; the Peshitto for the most part favouring
Cod. A(17), the Curetonian taking part with Cod. D, or with the Old Latin,
or often standing quite alone, unsupported by any critical authority
whatever; and the reader is then in possession of the whole case, from
whose perplexities we have to unravel our decision, which of these two
recensions best exhibits the text of the Holy Gospels as received from the
second century downwards by the Syrian Church.

We must not dissemble the fact that Cureton’s view of the superior
antiquity of the Curetonian to the Peshitto has been adopted by many
eminent scholars. So for example Dr. Hort, who was obliged to account for
the relation of the two by a baseless supposition of an imaginary
recension at Edessa or Nisibis when the Peshitto was drawn up as a Syrian
“Vulgate” (The New Testament in Greek, pp. 135-7). So with more strength
of argument Dr. Nestle in “Real Encyclopedie für protestanche Theologie en
Kirche(18).”

1. Now it is obvious to remark, in the first place, that the Peshitto has
the advantage of _possession_, and that too of fourteen centuries
standing. The mere fact that the Syriac manuscripts of the rival sects,
whether modern or as old as the seventh century, agree with each other in
the most important points, and at least to a large extent with the
citations from Ephraem and Aphraates, as will be shown, seems to bring the
Peshitto text, substantially in the same state as we have it at present,
up to the fourth century of our era. Of this version, again, there are
many codices, of different ages and widely diffused; of the Curetonian
there is indeed one, of the fifth century, so far as the verdict of a most
accomplished judge can determine so delicate a question: yet surely this
is not to be much preferred, in respect to antiquity, to those ancient
copies of the Peshitto which we have enumerated on pp. 10, 11, and which
include a MS. of the fifth century, several others nearly as ancient, and
two which are dated in the sixth century, the Florentine of A.D. 586, and
the Vatican of A.D. 548. Another “Curetonian” MS., lately discovered, is
still under examination, and we have, as yet, no adequate account of it.
From the Peshitto, as the authorized version of the Oriental Church, there
are many quotations in Syriac books from the fourth century downwards; Dr.
Cureton, perhaps the profoundest Syriac scholar of his day in England,
failed to allege any _second_ citation from the Gospels by a native writer
which might serve to keep in countenance the statement of Dionysius
Barsalibi, late in the twelfth century, that “there is found occasionally
a Syriac copy made out of the Hebrew, which inserts the three kings in the
genealogy” (Matt. i. 8)(19). With every wish to give to this respectable
old writer, and to others who bear testimony to the same reading, the
consideration that is fairly their due, we can hardly fail to see that the
weight of evidence enormously preponderates in the opposite scale.

2. It will probably be admitted that in external proof Cureton’s theory is
not strong, while yet the internal character of the version may be deemed
by many powerfully to favour his view. Negligent or licentious renderings
(and the Curetonian Syriac is pretty full of them) cannot but lessen a
version’s usefulness as an instrument of criticism, by increasing our
difficulty of reproducing the precise words of the original which the
translator had before him; but in another point of view these very faults
may still form the main strength of Dr. Cureton’s case. It is, no doubt, a
grave suggestion, that the more polished, accurate, faithful, and
grammatical of the two versions—and the Peshitto richly deserves all this
praise—is more likely to have been produced by a careful and gradual
revision of one much its inferior in these respects, than the worse to
have originated in the mere corruption of the better (Cureton, Pref. p.
lxxxi). _A priori_, we readily confess that probability inclines this way;
but it is a probability which needs the confirmation of facts, and by
adverse facts may be utterly set aside. Cureton’s remark that “upon the
comparison of several of the oldest copies now in the British Museum of
that very text of the Gospels which has been generally received as the
Peshitto, the more ancient the manuscripts be, the more nearly do they
correspond with the text of these Syriac fragments” (Pref. p. lxxiii), is
confirmed by other, and subsequent, labourers in the same field. The
received text of the Peshitto was printed from MSS. of a late type. It was
the opinion of P. E. Pusey (whose name has already been mentioned in these
pages) that a revision of the Peshitto text was made in the eighth
century. The oldest Syriac Massoretic MS. which we possess is dated A. GR.
1210 = A.D. 899(20), but a copy of the Gospels (Add. 14,448), the date of
which appears to be A. H. 80 = A.D. 699-700, contains a text which
approximates to the type of the printed Peshitto, but exhibits marginal
notes in a later hand, referring, however, chiefly to pronunciation and
accentuation. There is no evidence that any formal revision took place;
but it would appear certain that as questions of orthography, of grammar,
and of pronunciation were fixed by the decisions of the Massoretes and
grammarians, the faults (as they were deemed) of the older readings were
emended by scribes. Hence it is, that if we open a codex of the Peshitto
Gospels of about the date of the Codex Curetonianus, we find many
resemblances of the kind indicated by Cureton, between the fifth century
Peshitto text and the Curetonian text, because both belong to an early,
and perhaps less accurate era of transcription(21). But the resemblances
only extend to matters of grammar and spelling. In more important
readings, the fifth century form of the Peshitto does not approximate to
the Curetonian text. This was clearly seen by Pusey, as a result of the
collation of a large number of Peshitto MSS. He found that the text of the
oldest of them was substantially the same as that which is printed in the
Polyglotts. The grammar may have been improved, but the translation was
not revised. This argument has been elaborated in two volumes of the
Oxford “Studia Biblica,” in part by the use of Philip Pusey’s materials,
in part by independent researches. In vol. i, paper viii, “A Syriac
Biblical MS. of the fifth century,” the readings which appear to be
peculiar to that MS. (about seventy in number, for it only contains SS.
Matthew and Mark) are set out(22). Of these twenty-two can be compared
with the Curetonian; and it is found that only _three_ approximate more
nearly than the printed Peshitto to the text which, it is contended, is
older than the Peshitto. Further on(23) a stronger argument is adduced;
for it is shown that in eleven passages, where the fifth century codex has
a different reading from the printed Peshitto, the Curetonian, instead of
agreeing with the ancient text (as _ex hypothesi_ it ought) approximates
to the printed Peshitto, and sometimes agrees with it. In vol. ii, paper
iii, “The materials for the criticism of the Peshitto New Testament,”
other evidence is adduced in support of the same conclusions. St. Matt. v.
31-48 is given, with _varr. lectt._ derived from twenty distinct
authorities, so as to place before the reader the Peshitto in its best and
most ancient form. The same passage is set out in the Curetonian form. The
various readings in the Peshitto in the eighteen verses amount to at least
thirty-one; but the majority are the merest minutiae of spelling and
pronunciation. Only one deserves serious attention; and even that, more
for accuracy than in relation to the sense of the context; so little has
the Syriac New Testament been altered, or corrupted, in the course of ages
of transcription. Again, when comparison is made with the Curetonian,
while twenty-eight variations from the best form of the Peshitto occur in
the above passage, only four find any support in an old Peshitto MS., and
but one of the four is of any interest. In addition to these there is one
place where the Curetonian agrees with the oldest Peshitto MSS., against
the printed Peshitto text. It is plain then that, as far as the enquiry
has yet been pursued, the peculiar readings of the Curetonian cannot be
traced backwards through the form of text in the oldest Peshitto MSS. If
such a revision of the Peshitto, as Dr. Hort’s theory postulates, ever
took place, it must have been made at a very remote period in the history
of Syriac Christian literature; and the new text must have been
substituted for the old by measures so drastic that the old (as far as we
know) survives only in one Nitrian and (as we are told) in one Sinaitic
MS. But this is not only improbable in itself, but is contrary to the
analogy supplied by the Latin versions.

Those who contend for the superior antiquity of the Curetonian rely in
great part on the character of the quotations in the two great Syriac
writers, Aphraates and Mar-Ephraem, who flourished in the century
preceding the era in which our oldest Peshitto MSS. were transcribed(24).
Both writers abound in quotations from the New Testament, but many of them
are very free, or mere adaptations. A large number in St. Ephraem are
certainly from the Peshitto. Wright, in his edition of Aphraates, was
inclined to attribute that writer’s quotations to the same source. This
has been traversed by others, who contend that the quotations in Aphraates
more nearly resemble the Curetonian, or the text of Tatian’s Diatessaron,
as far as we know it. The question of the source of St. Ephraem’s
quotations has been fully discussed in “Studia Biblica,” iii, paper iv, by
Rev. F. H. Woods, who has also taken some notice of those in Aphraates.
Mr. Woods holds, as do others (though, as we think, on insufficient
evidence) that the text of the Peshitto was not fully settled in the days
of Aphraates and Ephraem. His conclusion is that it is quite clear, that
Ephraem, in the main, used the Peshitto text (op. cit., p. 107), but as
regards Aphraates, he holds that the quotations approximate more closely
to the Curetonian. Yet Dr. Zahn, and many others, think that Aphraates
used the Diatessaron. The statement of these differences of opinion is
enough in itself to show that the source of quotations in these ancient
Syriac books is not always easy to determine. Hence it follows that
arguments based on the writings of Aphraates and Ephraem are precarious.
Moreover, a variation from the Peshitto does not necessarily indicate the
employment of another version. The variation might be derived from a Greek
text; for there was constant intercourse between Greek and Syrian
Christians, and many of the latter were well acquainted with Greek.

While we seek in vain amongst the readings of MSS., and the writings of
Syriac authors, for any satisfactory explanation of the origin of the
Curetonian, the work itself may perhaps reveal something of its nature, if
not of its history. We have already seen(25) that in the opinion of
certain textual critics the history of the Latin Vulgate must have its
counterpart in the history of the Bible of Edessa. The origin of Jerome’s
translation is well known. It is supposed that the Peshitto grew in like
manner out of an earlier translation. It is contended that the
_Ur-Peshitto_ is represented to us by the text of the Curetonian; and the
two texts have been compared in order to establish this relation. In so
doing, no sufficient account has been taken of the phenomena presented by
the differences between the Peshitto and the Curetonian. When it is argued
that in some of those differences the Peshitto text bears marks of
emendation, of the improving touch of a later hand, we answer(26), that in
others there are as evident marks in the Curetonian of alteration and
corruption. Indeed, to so large an extent do these prevail, that there are
good grounds for the suspicion which has been entertained that the
Curetonian (at least as exhibited by the editor from his MS.) is itself
the later version. In order to give effect to this argument, it would be
necessary to show the entire extant Curetonian text, side by side with the
corresponding portions of the Peshitto; otherwise it is scarcely possible
to realize (i) how manifestly the Curetonian is an attempt to improve upon
the Peshitto text; and (ii) how frequently (as a later composition) it
demands an acquaintance with the Gospels on the part of the reader; and
(iii) how it is pervaded by views of Gospel history, which belong to the
Church rather than to the sacred text. But even the short passages, which
we have printed as specimens, afford illustrations of the argument.

1. In St. Matthew xii. 1-4, where the Peshitto exhibits the Textus
Receptus, saying that the disciples were hungry, and began to pluck ears
of corn and to eat, the Curetonian improves upon the Peshitto thus:—“and
the disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears of corn, _and break them
in their hands_, and eat”—introducing words borrowed from St. Luke(27).

2. (α) But in the next verse of the passage, where the words “on the
sabbath” are absolutely required in order to make the Pharisees’ question
intelligible to the first readers of St. Matthew, the Curetonian must
needs draw on the common knowledge of educated readers by exhibiting the
question thus:—“Why are thy disciples doing what is not lawful to do?” Of
course the Peshitto is here an “improvement” on the Curetonian, in reading
the words “on the Sabbath”; but that does not affect our argument. Would a
primitive version, intended for first converts, have left the reader
ignorant what the action objected to might be? whether to pluck ears in
another man’s field, or to rub out grain on the Sabbath? But a later
editor, who revised the text for some purpose (it matters not, at present,
for what purpose), might consider the explanatory words superfluous.

(β) In like manner in ver. 4, “the bread of the table of the Lord,” a
simple phrase, which every one could understand, has become in the
Curetonian “face-bread,” an expression which demands knowledge of the
earlier Scriptures on the part of the reader, and displays the erudition
of the editor, as do his emendations in the list of names in the first
chapter of St. Matthew(28).

3. The other passage which we print (St. Mark xvi. 17-29) will illustrate
our third criticism. The Curetonian is, “Our Lord Jesus then, after He had
_commanded_ His disciples, _was exalted_ to heaven, and sat on the right
hand of God.” The simpler Peshitto phrase runs thus, “Jesus our Lord then,
after He had _spoken with them, ascended_ to heaven, and sat on the right
hand of God.” The two slight touches of improvement in the Curetonian are
evident, and belong to that aspect of the record which finds expression in
the Creeds, and in the obedience of the Church. A similar touch appears in
the Curetonian addition to ver. 17—them that believe _on me_.

Again in Matt. v. 32 we read (with all authorities), “Whosoever shall put
away his wife, except for the cause of fornication,” &c.; so the Peshitto;
but the Curetonian substitutes _adultery_, and thereby sanctions, not the
precept delivered by our Lord, but the interpretation almost universally
placed upon it. Now either the Curetonian has alone preserved the true
text, or the Curetonian is an emended version. The first supposition is
unreasonable; the latter is alone suitable to this and to many other
passages.

Not less curious is the addition in ver. 41, “Whosoever shall compel thee
to go a mile, go with him _two others_.” The Curetonian (with D and some
Latin copies) make our Lord say, “Go _three_ miles.” If we cannot admit
that this is the true text, then it is an emendation; for it is no
accidental change.

But there is a distinct group of emendations which vividly illustrates our
contention, that the Curetonian form of Syriac text is pervaded by views
of Gospel history which belong rather to the Church than to the sacred
records. While fully accepting the Catholic dogma of the perpetual
virginity of the Blessed Virgin, we must grant that it is in the nature of
a pious opinion, which Christian sentiment recognized as true, but which
is not explicitly stated in the New Testament. Hence we view with grave
suspicion a class of emendations which are obviously framed to confute the
heresy of the Helvidians. Such a class is found in St. Matt. i. In ver.
16, Pesh., “Joseph _the husband of Mary_;” Cur., “Joseph _to whom was
espoused Mary the Virgin_.” Ver. 19, Pesh., “Joseph _her husband_, being a
just man;” Cur., “Joseph, because he was a righteous man.” Ver. 20, Pesh.,
“Fear not to take unto thee Mary _thy wife_;” Cur., “Mary _thy espoused_.”
Ver. 24, Pesh., “Joseph ... took unto him _his wife_;” Cur., “took
_Mary_.” The Curetonian translator, for dogmatic purposes, makes four
distinct and separate omissions, in three of which he stands
unsupported—of the word _husband_ in two places, of the word _wife_ in two
others. These are emendations of a deliberate and peculiar kind. We cannot
account for all these vagaries by remarking that the Curetonian has often
the support of the so-called _Western_ family of text(29). We must face
the question whether the MS. of an ancient version, which exhibits such
singular phenomena on its first page, is worthy to be set above that
version, which is the common heritage of the whole Syriac Church, and
which appears to be the basis of the Curetonian itself. To determine the
place of a document in our Apparatus Criticus, we must know something of
its history. Of the history of the Curetonian version we know nothing. Its
internal character inspires grave doubts of its trustworthiness. We note
its peculiarities with interest; but we do not yet see our way to yield
much deference to its authority. The Peshitto bears witness to that form
of text, which was received in very ancient times in the Syriac Church.
The Curetonian, like the Palestinian, is interesting as showing what
readings were accepted locally, or by individual editors(30).



3. The Harkleian or Philoxenian Syriac.


Of the history of the Harkleian Syriac version, which embraces the whole
New Testament except the Apocalypse, we possess more exact information,
though some points of difficulty may still remain unsolved. Moses of Aghel
in Mesopotamia, who translated into Syriac certain works of the
Alexandrian Cyril about A.D. 550, describes a version of the “New
Testament and Psalter made in Syriac by Polycarp, Rural-Bishop(31) (rest
his soul!), for Xenaias of Mabug,” &c. This Xenaias or Philoxenus, from
whom the original translation takes its name, was Monophysite Bishop of
Mabug (Hierapolis) in Eastern Syria (488-518), and doubtless wished to
provide for his countrymen a more literal translation from the Greek than
the Peshitto aims at being. His scheme may perhaps have been injudicious,
but it is a poor token of the presence of that quality which “thinketh no
evil,” to assert, without the slightest grounds for the suspicion, “More
probable it is that his object was of a less commendable character; and
that he meant the version in some way to subserve the advancement of his
party(32).” Dr. Davidson will have learnt by this time, that one may lie
under the imputation of heresy, without being of necessity a bigot or a
dunce.

Our next account of the work is even more definite. At the end of the
manuscripts of the Gospels from which the printed text is derived, we read
a subscription by the first hand, importing that “this book of the four
holy Gospels was translated out of the Greek into Syriac with great
diligence and labour ... first in the city of Mabug, in the year of
Alexander of Macedon 819 (A.D. 508), in the days of the pious Mar
Philoxenus, confessor, Bishop of that city. Afterwards it was collated
with much diligence by me, the poor Thomas, by the help of two [_or_
three] approved and accurate Greek Manuscripts in Antonia, of the great
city of Alexandria, in the holy monastery of the Antonians. It was again
written out and collated in the aforesaid place in the year of the same
Alexander 927 (A.D. 616), Indiction iv. How much toil I spent upon it and
its companions the Lord alone knoweth ... &c.” It is plain that by “its
companions” the other parts of the N. T. are meant, for a similar
subscription (specifying but one manuscript) is annexed to the Catholic
Epistles.

That the labour of Thomas (surnamed from Harkel, his native place, and
like Philoxenus, subsequently Monophysite Bishop of Mabug) was confined to
the collation of the manuscripts he names, and whose various readings,
usually in Greek characters, with occasional exegetical notes, stand in
the margin of all copies but one at Florence, is not a probable opinion.
It is likely that he added the asterisks and obeli which abound in the
version(33) and G. H. Bernstein (De Charklensi N. T. transl. Syriac.
Commentatio, Breslau, 1837) believes that he so modified the text itself,
that it remains in the state in which Polycarp left it only in one codex
now at Rome, which he collated for a few chapters of St. John.

We have been reminded by Tregelles, who was always ready to give every one
his due, that our own Pococke in 1630, in the Preface to his edition of
the Catholic Epistles not included in the Peshitto, both quotes an extract
from Dionysius Barsalibi, Bishop of Amida (Diarbekr), who flourished in
the twelfth century, which mentions this version, and even shows some
acquaintance with its peculiar character. Although again brought to notice
in the comprehensive “Bibliotheca Orientalis” (1719-28) of the elder J. S.
Assemani [1687-1768], the Harkleian attracted no attention until 1730, in
which year Samuel Palmer sent from Diarbekr to Dr. Gloucester Ridley four
Syriac manuscripts, two of which proved to belong to this translation,
both containing the Gospels, one of them being the only extant copy of the
Acts and all the Epistles. Fortunately Ridley [1702-1774] was a man of
some learning and acuteness, or these precious codices might have lain
disregarded as other copies of the same version had long done in Italy; so
that though he did not choose to incur the risk of publishing them in
full, he communicated his discovery to Wetstein, who came to England once
more, in 1746, for the purpose of collating them for his edition of the N.
T., then soon to appear: he could spare, however, but fourteen days for
the task, which was far too short a time, the rather as the Estrangelo
character, in which the manuscripts were written, was new to him. In 1761
Ridley produced his very careful and valuable tract, De Syriacarum N. F.
Versionum Indole atque Usu Dissertatio, and on his death his manuscripts
went to New College, of which society he had been a Fellow. The care of
publishing them was then undertaken by the Delegates of the Oxford Press,
who selected for their editor Joseph White [1746-1814], then Fellow of
Wadham College and Professor of Arabic, afterwards Canon of Christ Church;
who, though now, I fear, chiefly remembered for the most foolish action of
his life, was an industrious, able, and genuine scholar. Under his care
the Gospels appeared in two vols. 4to, 1778(34) with a Latin version and
satisfactory Prolegomena; the Acts and Catholic Epp. in 1799, the Pauline
in 1803. Meanwhile Storr (Observat. super N. T. vers. Syr., 1772) and
Adler (N. T. Version. Syr., 1789) had examined and described seven or
eight continental codices of the Gospels in this version, some of which
are thought superior to White’s(35).

The characteristic feature of the Harkleian is its excessive closeness to
the original: it is probably the most servile version of Scripture ever
made. Specimens of it will appear on pp. 38-40, by the side of those from
other translations, which will abundantly justify this statement. The
Peshitto is beyond doubt taken as its basis, and is violently changed in
order to force it into rigorous conformity with the very letter of the
Greek. In the twenty verses of Matt. xxviii we note seventy-six such
alterations: three of them seem to concern various readings (vers. 2-18;
and 5 _marg._); six are inversions in the order; about five are
substitutions of words for others that may have grown obsolete: the rest
are of the most frivolous description, the definite state of nouns being
placed for the absolute, or vice versa; the Greek article represented by
the Syriac pronoun; the inseparable pronominal affixes (that delicate
peculiarity of the Aramaean dialects) retrenched or discarded; the most
unmeaning changes made in the tenses of verbs, and the lesser particles.
Its very defects, however, as being servilely accurate, give it weight as
a textual authority: there can be no hesitation about the readings of the
copies from which such a book was made. While those employed for the
version itself in the sixth century resembled more nearly our modern
printed editions, the three or more codices used by Thomas at Alexandria
must have been nearly akin to Cod. D (especially in the Acts), and, next
to D, support BL, 1, 33, 69. “Taken altogether,” is Dr. Hort’s comment,
“this is one of the most confused texts preserved: but it may be rendered
more intelligible by fresh collations and better editing, even if they
should fail to distinguish the work of Thomas of Harkel from that of his
predecessor Polycarpus” (Introd., p. 156).

The number of MSS. of this Harkleian version is far greater than it was
supposed to have been. The important discovery of the Mohl MS., now in the
possession of the Cambridge University Library, brings down the Epistle to
the Hebrews to the conclusion, so that we now possess the Pauline Epistles
complete in this revision.

The following account of the MSS. of the Harkleian, consists in his own
words of what Mr. Deane has seen himself, many of which he has collated.
The letters are those by which he intended to have designated these MSS.
had his sight enabled him to complete his revision.


    A. Cod. Mus. Brit. Add. 14,469. Saec. x (Wright’s Catalogue cxx).
    Very important.

    B. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7163. Saec. ix. x (Forshall’s Catalogue
    xix). Very important.

    C. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. “Cod. Or. 130.” Saec. xii.

    D. Cod. Bibl. Coll. Nov. Oxon. 333. Perhaps not so important as R.

    F. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Dawk. 50.

    G. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7164. Saec. xii (Forshall’s Catalogue xx).

    H. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7165. Saec. xiii (Forshall’s Catalogue
    xxi). In this MS. the two first lines of each page are for the
    most part obliterated by damp.

    K. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7166. Saec. xv. xvi (Forshall’s Catalogue
    xxii).

    L. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7167. Saec. xv. xvi.

    Q. Cod. Mus. Brit. Add. 17,124. Saec. xiii (No. 65 Wright’s
    Catalogue).

    R. Cod. Bibl. Coll. Nov. Oxon. 334.

    S. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Orient. 361. Saec. xiv.

    T. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Poc. 316.

    U. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7167. Saec. xv. xvi. Fragments on St.
    Matthew only.

    V. Cod. Mohl. Cambridge University Library. Saec. xii.


The last of these would probably be the text from which any new edition
would be printed. It is a most remarkable MS., executed with great care,
and by a good Syrian scholar. Students should observe especially the
curious diacritic point by which he designates the Nom. pendens. “I have
not seen,” Mr. Deane adds, “that elsewhere, though doubtless it
exists(36).”



4. The Palestinian or Jerusalem Syriac.


There are extant several scattered fragments of the Old and New
Testaments, in a form of Syriac entirely distinct from the versions
already described. These fragments are all in one dialect, and are
apparently parts of a single version. The most considerable portion is an
Evangelistarium which was discovered virtually by Adler, who collated,
described, and copied a portion of it (Matt. xxvii. 3-32) for that great
work in a small compass, his “N. T. Versiones Syriacae” (1789): S. E.
Assemani the nephew had merely inserted it in his Vatican Catalogue
(1756). It is a partial Lectionary of the Gospels in the Vatican (MS. Syr.
19), on 196 quarto thick vellum leaves, written in two columns in a rude
hand, the rubric notes of Church Lessons in _Carshunic_, i.e. Arabic in
Syriac letters, with many mistakes. From a subscription, we learn that the
scribe was Elias, a presbyter of Abydos, who wrote it in the Monastery of
the Abbat Moses at Antioch, in the year of Alexander 1341, or A.D. 1030.
Adler gives a poor facsimile (Matt. xxvii. 12-22): the character is
peculiar, and all diacritic points (even that distinguishing _dolath_ from
_rish_), as well as many other changes, are thought to be by a later hand.
Tregelles confirms Assemani’s statement, which Adler had disputed, that
the first six leaves, showing traces of Greek writing buried beneath the
Syriac, proceeded from another scribe. The remarkable point, however,
about this version (which seems to be made from the Greek, and is quite
independent of the Peshitto) is the peculiar dialect it exhibits, and
which has suggested its name. Its grammatical forms are far less Syriac
than Chaldee, which latter it resembles even in that characteristic
particular, the prefixing of _yud_, not _nun_, to the third person
masculine of the future of verbs(37); and many of the words it employs can
be illustrated only from the Chaldee portions of the Old Testament, or
from the Jerusalem, or Palestinian, Targum and Talmud(38). Adler’s account
of the translation and its copyist is not very flattering, “satis constat
dialectum esse incultam et inconcinnam ... orthographiam autem vagam,
inconstantem, arbitrariam, et ab imperito librario rescribendo et
corrigendo denuo impeditam” (Vers. Syr., p. 149). As it is mentioned by no
Syriac writer, it was probably used but in a few remote churches of
Lebanon or Galilee: but though (to employ the words of Porter) “in
elegance far surpassed by the Peshitto; in closeness of adherence to the
original by the Philoxenian” (Principles of Textual Criticism, Belfast,
1848, p. 356); it has its value, and that not inconsiderable, as a witness
to the state of the text at the time it was turned into Syriac; whether,
with Adler, we regard it as derived from a complete version of the Gospels
made not later than the sixth century, or with Tischendorf refer it to the
fifth(39). Tregelles (who examined the codex at Rome) wrongly judged it a
mere translation of some Greek Evangelistarium of a more recent date. Of
all the Syriac books, this copy and Barsalibi’s recension of the Harkleian
alone contain John vii. 53-viii. 11; the Lectionary giving it as the
Proper Lesson for Oct. 8, St. Pelagia’s day. In general its readings much
resemble those of Codd. BD, siding with B eighty-five times, with D
seventy-nine, in the portions published by Adler; but with D _alone_
eleven times, with B alone but three.

The information afforded by Adler respecting this remarkable document gave
rise to a natural wish that the whole manuscript should be carefully
edited by some respectable scholar. This has now been done by Count
Francis Miniscalchi Erizzo, who in 1861-4 published at Verona in two
quarto volumes “Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum ex Codice Vaticano
Palaestino deprompsit, edidit, Latinè vertit, Prolegomenis ac Glossario
adornavit Comes F. M. E.” This elaborate work, for such it is, although
its execution fails on the whole to satisfy critics of the calibre of Land
and the Abbé Martin, ends with a list of those chapters and verses of the
Gospels (according to the notation of the Latin Vulgate), which the
manuscript contains in full. Tischendorf, in the eighth edition of his
Greek Testament, enriched his notes with the various readings these Church
Lessons exhibit; their critical character being much the same as Adler’s
slight specimen had given us reason to expect(40). The Lectionary closely
resembles that of the Greek Church, the slight differences in the
beginnings and endings of the Lessons scarcely exceeding those subsisting
between different Greek copies, as noticed in our Synaxarion. It contains
the Sunday and week-day Gospels for the first eight weeks beginning at
Easter (with a few verses lost in two places of Week VIII); the Saturday
and Sunday Gospels only for the rest of the year; the Lessons for the Holy
Week, complete as detailed in Vol. I. 85, with two or three slight
exceptions; and the eleven Gospels of the Resurrection. In the Menology or
Calendar of Immoveable Feasts, there is a greater amount of variation in
regard to the Saints’ Days kept, as indeed we might have looked for
beforehand. We subjoin a list of those whose Gospels are given at length
in the manuscript, together with the portions of Scripture appointed for
each day, in order that this curious Syriac service-book may be compared
with that of the Greeks.


    September 1. Simaan Alepinus Stylites. 3. Commemoratio patris
    nostri Anthioma, John x. 7-16. 4. Babul et puerorum et sanctorum
    qui cum eo, Luke x. 1-12. 5. Zacharias, father of the Baptist,
    Matt, xxiii. 29-39. 6. Eudoxio, Mark xii. 28-37. 8. Birthday of
    the Virgin, _Matins_, Luke i. 39-56. _Ad Missam_, as p. 87. Sunday
    before Elevation of the Cross, as p. 87. 14. Elevation of the
    Cross, John xi. 53; xix. 6-35. 15. Nikita, Matt. x. 16-22. 16.
    Eufemia, p. 87, note 2. 20. Eustathios et sociorum ejus, Luke xxi.
    12-19. 21. Jonah the Prophet, Luke xi. 29-33. 30. Gregory the
    Armenian(41), Matt. xxiv. 42-51.

    October 3. Dionosios the Bishop, Matt. xiii. 45-54. Blagia (p. 87,
    note 3), John viii. 1-11. 18. Luke, as p. 87. 21. Patris nostri
    Ilarion, Luke vi. 17-23. 25. SS. Scriptorum Marciano et Martorio,
    Luke xii. 2-12. 26. Demetrius et commemoratio terrae motus, Matt.
    viii. 23-27.

    November 1. SS. Thaumaturgorum Kezma et Damian, Matt. x. 1-8.

    December 4. Barbara, Mark v. 24-34. 20. Ignathios, as p. 88. 22.
    Anastasia, Mark xii. 28-44. “Dominica ante Nativitatem, et patrum
    (compare p. 88). In nocte Nativitatis, as p. 88. 25. Christmas
    Day, sanctorum,” Matt. i. 1-17. 24. Ad mat. Nativitatis, Matt. i.
    18-25 as p. 88. 26. Commemoratio dominae Mart. Mariam, as p. 88.
    28. Jacob, frater Domini(42), Mark vi. 1-5 (p. 88).

    January 1. Circumcision, as p. 88. 3. Matt. iii. 1, 5-11. Saturday
    and Sunday “ante missam aquae,” as p. 88. 5. Nocte missae aquae,
    p. 88. 6. Missa aquae (both Lessons), as p. 88. 7. Commemoration
    of John the Baptist, as p. 88. Saturday and Sunday post missam
    aquae, as p. 88. 8. Luke iii. 19-22. 10. John x. 39-42. 11. Luke
    xx. 1-8. Theodosis, Luke vi. 17-23. 15. Juhanna Tentorii, Matt.
    iv. 25; v. 1-12. 28. Patris nostri Efrem, Matt. v. 14-19.

    February 2. Ingressus Domini Jesu Christi in templum, as p. 88.
    24. Finding of the Head of John the Baptist, _ad Mat._ as p. 88:
    _ad Missam_, Matt. xi. 2-15.

    March 9. Martyrii xl martyrum Sebastis, Matt. xx. 1-16. 25.
    Annuntiationis Deiparae, _ad Missam_, as p. 88.

    April 1. Mariam Aegyptiacae, Luke vii. 36-50 (compare p. 88, note
    2).

    May 8. Evan. Juhanna fil. Zebdiai(43), as p. 88.

    June 14. Proph. Elisha, Luke iv. 22-30(44). 24. Birth of John the
    Baptist, as p. 88. 29. Peter, as p. 88. 30. The Twelve Apostles,
    Matt. ix. 36-x. 8.

    July 22. Mariam Magdalanis, Luke viii. 1-3.

    August 1. Amkabian Ascemonith, et filiorum suorum, Matt. x. 16-22.
    6. Apparitio Domini nostri Jesu Christi in Monte Thabur, Luke ix.
    28-36; Matt. xvii. 1-9; 10-22. 29. Beheading of John the Baptist,
    as p. 88.

    _Appendix._ Sanctae Christianae, Matt. xxv. 1-13 (_see_ Sept. 24,
    p. 88). Justorum, Matt. xi. 27-30. Dominica xi, Matt. xv. 21-28.

    This last (_of the Canaanites_, p. 88) had been omitted in its
    usual place, and two lessons inserted about the same place, which
    are not in the Greek, viz. “Jejunio sancto Banscira fer. 4, vesp.
    Mark xi. 22-25,” and “fer. 6, vesp. John xv. 1-12.”


A new edition of Adler’s Evangelistarium was projected by the late Dr. P.
A. de Lagarde, who made a fresh collation of the MS. shortly before his
death. The results have been published in a posthumous work entitled
“Bibliothecae Syriacae a Paulo de Lagarde collectae,” 1892. The latter
part contains the Evangelistarium, with the text set out in the order of
the Gospels, instead of that of the Church Lessons, and notes are added on
the readings of the MS. and its correctors, and on the edition of
Miniscalchi Erizzo.


    Another edition has been announced by Mrs. Lewis(45), the text to
    be taken from two Lectionaries, which she has recently discovered
    in the Library of the Convent on Mount Sinai, with a collation of
    the readings of the Vatican MS.

    Some fragments of other MSS. of the same Evangelistarium are
    preserved in the British Museum (Add. 14,450, fol. 14, and 14,664,
    foll. 17, 20, 21), and in the Imperial Library, St. Petersburg.
    They have been published by Professor Land in “Anecdota Syriaca,”
    tom, iv, 1875, with a fragment of Acts (xiv. 6-13), in the St.
    Petersburg Library.


Mr. J. Rendel Harris has published in “Biblical Fragments from Mount
Sinai” a leaf containing Gal. ii. 3-5, 12-14; iii. 17, 18, 24-28.


    The same library is said to contain other remains of Palestinian
    literature, patristic translations as well as biblical fragments.


In the Bodleian Library are four fragments, Col. iv. 12-18; 1 Thess. i.
1-3; iv. 3-15; 2 Tim. i. 10-ii. 7; Titus i. 11-ii. 5, an edition of which
has been accomplished by the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam(46).



5. The Karkaphensian or Syriac Massorah.


Assemani (Biblioth. Orient., tom. ii. p. 283), on the authority of Gregory
Bar-Hebraeus, mentions what has been supposed to have been a Syriac
“version” of the N. T., other than the Peshitto and Harkleian, which was
named “Karkaphensian” (ܩܪܩܦܢܬܐ or ܐܬܢܦܩܪܩ), whether, as he thought,
because it was used by Syrians of the _mountains_, or from _Carcuf_, a
city of Mesopotamia. Adler (Vers. Syr., p. 33) was inclined to believe
that Bar-Hebraeus meant rather a revised manuscript than a separate
translation. Cardinal Wiseman, in the course of those youthful studies
which gave such seemly, precocious, deceitful promise (Horae Syriacae,
Rom. 1828), discovered in the Vatican (MS. Syr. 152) a Syriac manuscript
of readings from both Testaments, with the several portions of the New
standing in the following order; Acts, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, the
fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, and then the Gospels, these being the only
books contained in the true Peshitto. In the margin also are placed by the
first hand many readings indicated by the abbreviation ܛܘ (or ܘܛ) [with a
line over the last letter], the title of some scribe or teacher(47). The
codex is on thick yellow vellum, in large folio, with the two columns so
usual in Syriac writing; the ink, especially the points in vermilion, has
often grown pale, and it has been carefully retouched by a later hand; the
original document being all the work of one scribe: some of the marginal
notes refer to various readings. There are several long and tedious
subscriptions in the volume, whereof one states that the copy was written
“in the year of the Greeks 1291 (A.D. 980) in the [Monophysite] monastery
of Aaron on [mount] Sigara, in the jurisdiction of Calisura, in the days
of the Patriarchs John and Menna, by David a deacon of Urin in the
jurisdiction of Gera” [Γέρρα, near Beroea or Aleppo]. It may be remarked
that Assemani has inserted a letter in the “Bibliotheca Orientalis” from
John the Monophysite Patriarch [of Antioch] to his brother Patriarch,
Menna of Alexandria. This manuscript, of which Wiseman gives a rather rude
facsimile, is deemed by him of great importance in tracing the history of
the Syriac vowel-points. Other Karkaphensian manuscripts have been
examined since Wiseman’s time; and all, whether containing more, or less,
of the actual text, agree in the parts which are common, with, however,
some independent readings. We subjoin Matt. i. 19 in four texts, wherein
the close connexion of the Karkaphensian and the Nestorian recension with
the Peshitto is very manifest.

CURETONIAN.

ܝܩܣܦܝ ܕܝܢ ܡܬܠ ܕܔܪܐ ܚܘܐ
ܛܛ ܐ ܨܛ ܗܘܐ ܕܢܦܪܣܚܘ ܥܡܪܝܡ
ܘܐܬܪܠܗ ܗܘܐ ܕܟܝܘܫܐܐܝܬ ܢܪܠܠܚܘ܀

NESTORIAN MASSORAH. Cod. Add. Brit. Mus. 12,138.

ܝܘܣܦ ܕ ܝܢ ܟܠܠܗ ܒܐܢܐ ܗܘܐ
ܘܐܐ ܨܒܐ ܕ ܢܦܪܣܝܗ ܘܐܬܕܠܝܘ (sic)
ܗܘܐ ܕ ܡܠܛܫܝܪܬ ܢܫܪܝܗ ܀

HARKLEIAN—from _White_.

ܝܘܣܦ ܕ ܝܢ ܗܘ ܓܟܪܐ ܕ ܚܠܗ ܕ ܒܐܢܐ
ܐܬܘܗܝܗܘܐ܃ ܘܐܐ ܨܒܐܗܘܐ ܕ ܢܦܪ ܣܞܡ܃
ܐܬܝܫܒ ܕ ܟܛܘܫܝܐ ܢܫܪܝܗ ܀

* Marg. παραδειγματίσαι.

JACOBITE MASSORAH (“KARKAPHENSIAN”). Cod. Add. Brit. Mus. 12,178.

ܝܘܣܦ ܕ ܝܢ ܟܙܠܗ ܒܐܢܐ ܗܘܐ
ܘܐܐ ܨܟܐ ܕ ܢܦܪܣܝܗ ܘܐܬܪܠܝ ܗܘܐ
ܕ ܡܠܛܫܝܪܬ ܢܫܪܗ ܀

PESHITTO TEXT—from the MSS.

ܝܘܣܦ ܝܢ ܟܙܠܗ ܒܐܢܐ ܗܘܐ ܝܘܣܦ ܕ ܫܢ ܒܠܠܗ ܒܐܢܐ ܗܘܐ ܘܠ ܀

The reader must not be misled by this specimen to infer that the
Karkaphensian always coincides with the Peshitto. It is not a continuous
text, but only those verses or passages are quoted where some word or
words occur concerning which some annotation is required in reference to
orthography or pronunciation. Whole verses or parts of verses are often
omitted(48).

Very recently, since the last illness of Dr. Scrivener had commenced, the
results of a wider examination of Syriac MSS. in different Libraries have
been made more generally known by Mr. Gwilliam’s Essay in the third volume
of “Studia Biblica(49).” According to the investigations of the leading
Syriac scholars, it appears that the Karkaphensian is not a distinct
version, but a kind of Massorah—the attempt to preserve the best
traditions of the orthography and pronunciation of the more important or
difficult words of the Syriac Vernacular Bible. This Massoretic teaching
differs from the Hebrew Massorah, in that whilst the latter supplies us
with all that we know of the form of the Jewish Scriptures(50), the Syriac
Massorah is younger than our oldest copies of the Syriac Bible. The
following are Syriac Massoretic MSS.:—


    1. Cod. Add. B. M. 12,138, a Nestorian work, written A.D. 899 at
    Harran.

    2. Cod. Vaticanus 152, A.D. 980 (Wiseman, as above).

    3. Cod. Add. B. M. 12,178, a Jacobite work of the ninth or tenth
    century.

    4. Cod. Barberinus, described by Bianchini in “Evangeliarium
    Quadruplex,” 1748, and afterwards by Wiseman, A.D. 1089 or 1093.

    5. Cod. Add. B. M. 7183, also a Jacobite Massoretic work of the
    early part of the twelfth century.

    6. In the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris, a Massoretic MS.

    7. M. l’Abbé Martin mentions another, A.D. 1015, in the Cathedral
    of Mosul.


Thus the Massorah is extant in two forms, corresponding to the two
branches of the Syrian Church. But only one MS. is Nestorian (Cod. Add.
12,138), whilst all except that one are Jacobite.

The name Karkaphensian is connected with the Jacobite Massorah, and
signifies the kind of text which was favoured in the Scriptorium of the
Skull Convent(51). Allusions to the Skull Convent are found; the adjective
itself occurs in St. Matt. xxvii. 33, and the parallel passages, as a
translation of κρανίου. It is known that grammatical and philological
studies were pursued by Jacob of Edessa (d. A.D. 710), probably by Joseph
Huzita, rector of the school at Nisibis (vi); and a tract attached to Add.
12,178 suggests a connexion between these criticisms and the labours of
one “Thomas the Deacon(52).”

We have now traced the history of the several Syriac versions, so far at
least as to afford the reader some general idea of their relative
importance as materials for the correction of the sacred text. We will
next give parallel renderings of Matt. xii. 1-4; Mark xvi. 17-20 from the
Peshitto, the Curetonian, and the Harkleian, the only versions known in
full; for Matt. xxvii. 3-8, in the room of the Curetonian, which is here
lost, we have substituted the Jerusalem Syriac, and have retained
throughout Thomas’ marginal notes to the Harkleian, its asterisks and
obeli. We have been compelled to employ the common Syriac type, though
every manuscript of respectable antiquity is written in the Estrangelo
character. Even from these slight specimens the servile strictness of the
Harkleian, and some leading characteristics of the other versions, will
readily be apprehended by an attentive student (e.g. of the Curetonian in
Matt. xii. 1; 4; Mark xvi. 18; 20).

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

We hoped to include in this account some description of the MS. lately
discovered by Mrs. Lewis in the Monastery of St. Catherine, at Mount
Sinai, and brought in copy last spring to Cambridge. It is now undergoing
the careful and skilful examination which the character of the
accomplished assistants of Mrs. Lewis ensures, and it is impossible at
present to anticipate the verdict upon it which those scholars may
recommend, and which may be finally adopted by the learned world at large.
The photographic illustration of a page, which has been made public(53),
does not suggest that the MS. possesses any very remarkable antiquity. But
it is due to our argument upon the mutual relations of the Peshitto and
the Curetonian to remark, that the Curetonian will even then rest upon
only two MSS., one of them being a palimpsest, in face of the numerous
supports of the Peshitto, and that even if the Curetonian be proved, as
seems improbable, to date from somewhat further back than we have
supposed, the claim of the Peshitto to production in the early part of the
second century, and to a superior antiquity, will not thereby be removed.

Syriac Versions. Matthew XII. 1-4.

PESHITTO

(1) ܟܗܘ ܙܟܢܐ : ܡܗܠܟ ܗܘܐ ܝܫܘܙ
ܟܫܟܬܐ ܒܬ ܙܪܥܐ ܘܬܠܡܕܪܘܗܝ
ܩܦܢܘ : ܘܫܪܝܘ ܡܠܓܢ ܫܟܠ ܘܐܩܠܝܢ
(2) ܦܪܝܫܐ ܕܝܢ ܩܫ ܝܥܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܐܡܪܝܢ
ܠܗ . ܗܐ ܬܠܡܝܫܟ ܥܟܫܝܢ ܡܝܡ
ܕܠ ܫܠܝܛ ܠܡܥܟܝ ܟܫܟܬܐ . (3) ܗܘ
ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪ ܠܗܘܢ . ܠ ܩܪܝܬܘܢ ܡܢܐ
ܥܟܕ ܕܘܝܕ ܩܕ ܩܦܢ ܘܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܥܡܗ :
(4) ܐܝܩܢܐ ܥܠ ܠܒܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ :
: ܘܠܚܡܐ ܕܦܬܘܪܗ ܕܡܪܝܐ ܐܩܠ
ܗܘ ܕܐ ܫܠܝܛ ܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܠܡܐܩܠ .
ܘܠ ܠܝܠܝܢ ܕܥܡܗ . ܐܠܐ ܐܢ ܠܩܗܢܐ
ܟܠܚܘܕ ⁘

CURETONIAN.

(1) ܘܟܗܘ ܙ ܟܢܐ : ܡܗܠܟ ܗܘܐ ܝܫܘܥ
ܟܫܟܬܐ ܒܝܬ ܙܪܥܐ . ܘܬܠܡܝܪܘܗܝ
ܩܦܢܘ . ܘܫܪܝܘ ܡܠܓܢ ܫܟܠ ܘܦܪܩܢ
ܟܐܝܕܝܗܘܢ ܘܐܩܠܝܢ . (2) ܩܕ ܝܥܘ
ܐܢܘܢ ܦܪܝܫܐ ܐܡܪܝܢ ܠܗ . ܡܢܐ
ܥܟܝܢ ܬܠܡܝܪܝܟ ܡܪܡ ܕܠܐ ܫܠܝܛ
ܠܡܥܟܕ . (3) ܐܡܪ ܠܗܘܢܠ
ܩܪܝܬܘܢ ܡܢܐ ܥܟܕ ܕܘܝܪ ܩܪܩܦܢ
ܘܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܥܡܗ . (4) ܐܝܩܢܐ ܥܠ
ܠܒܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ . ܘܐܟܠ ܡܢ ܠܚܡ
ܐܦܐ . ܕܠ ܠܗ ܫܠܝܛ ܗܘܐ ܠܡܐܩܠ
ܐܦܠ ܠܝܠܝܢ ܕܥܡܗ . ܐܠ ܐܢ ܠܩܗܢܐ
⁘ ܟܠܚܘܕ

HARKLEIAN.

(1) ܟܗܘ ܙܟܢܐ : ܡܗܠܟ ܗܘܐ
ܝܫܘܥ ܟܫܟܬܐ ܒܕ ܕܬ ܙܪܥܐ.
ܬܠܡܝܕܘܗܝ ܕܝܢ ܩܦܢܘ : ܘܫܪܝܘ
ܡܠܓܢ ܫܟܠ ܘܐܩܠܝܢ . (2) ܦܪܝܫܐ
ܕܝܢ ܩܕ ܝܥܐ ܐܡܪܘ ܠܗ . ܗܐ
ܐܠܡܝܕܝܟ ܥܟܕܝܢ ܗܘ ܡܐ ܕܠ ܫܠܝܛ
ܠܡܥܟܕ ܟܫܟܬܐ . (3) ܗܘ ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪ
ܠܗܘܢ . ܠ ܩܪܝܬܘܢ ܡܢܐ ܥܟܪ ܕܘܝܕ .
ܩܕ ܩܦܢ ܘܗܠܝܢ ܕܥܡܗ : (4) ܐܝܩܢܐ
ܥܠ ܠܒܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ : ܘܠܚܡܐ
ܗܘܘ ܩܕܡ ܐܠܗܐ . ܗܢܘ ܕܝܢ ܕܣܝܡܝܢ
ܕܣܝܡܘܬ ܩܕܡܐ ܐܩܠ : ܗܠܝܢ ܕܠ
ܫܠܝܛ ܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܠܡܐܩܠ ܘܠ
ܠܗܢܘܢ ܕܠܡܗ : ܐܠ ܐܢ ܠܩܗܢܐ
ܟܠܚܘܕܝܗܘܢ ⁘

Parallel Renderings. Matthew XXVII. 3-8

PESHITTO.

(3) ܗܝܕܝܢ ܝܗܘܕܐ ܡܫܠܡܢܐ : ܩܕ
ܚܐ ܕܐܬܚܝܒ ܝܫܘܥ ܐܬܬܘܝ . ܘܐܙܠ
ܐܗܦܟ ܗܠܝܢ ܬܠܬܝܢ ܕܩܣܦܐ ܠܪܟܝ
ܟܗܨܐ ܘܠܘܫܫܐ . (4) ܘܐܡܪ . ܚܛܬ
ܕܐܫܠܡܬ ܕܡܐ ܙܩܝܐ . ܗܢܘܢ ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪܘ
ܠܗ . ܠܢ ܡܐ ܠܢ . ܐܢܬ ܝܪܥ ܐܢܬ
(5) ܘܫܪܝܗܝ ܟܣܦܐ ܟܗܝܩܠ ܘܫܢܝ .
ܘܐܙܠ ܚܢܩ ܢܦܫܗ . (6) ܪܒܝ ܩܡܢܐ
ܕܝܢܫܘܠܘܗܝ ܠܩܣܦܐ ܘܐܡܪܘ . ܠ
ܫܠܝܛ ܕܢܪܡܝܘܗܝ ܒܬ ܩܘܪܟܢܐ .
ܡܛܠ ܕܛܡܝ ܕܡܐܗܘ . (7) ܘܢܣܟܘ
ܡܠܩܐ : ܘܙܟܢܘ ܒܗ ܐܓܘܪܣܗ ܕܦܚܪܐ
ܠܒܬ ܩܟܘܪܐ ܕܐܟܣܢܝܐ . (8) ܡܛܠ
ܗܢܐ ܐܬܩܪܝ ܐܓܘܪܣܐ ܗܘ : ܩܝܪܝܬܐ
ܕܕܡܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܝܘܡܢܐ ⁘

JERUSALEM SYRIAC.

ܘܒܬܗ ܩܝܪܘܣܐ ܟܩܢ ܩܕ ܝܡܐ
ܝܗܘܕܣ ܕܡܣܪ ܝܬܗ ܕܐܬܚܝܒ ܬܗܐ ⁘
ܘܐܬܪܒ ܬܠܬܝܢ ܕܩܣܦܐ ܠܪܝܫܐ ܟܗܢܝܐ
(ܕܟܡܢܝܐ s.m.) ܘܩܫܝܫܐ . (4) ܘܐܡܪ
ܐܣܩܠܬ ܕܡ ܣܪܬ ܐܕܡ ? ܕܝܩ ⁘ ܐܕܡ
(? ܕܝܩ s.m.) ܗܢܘܢ ܕܝ ܐܡܪܘ ܡܐ
ܥܠܝܢܗ ܐܬ ܬܝܡܐ (5) ܘܫܕܐ ܩܣܦܐ
ܟܢܘܣܐ ܘܐܙܠ ܝܢܩܓܪܡܗ ⁘ (6) ܪܝܫܐ
ܩܗܢܝܐ ܕܝ ܢܣܟܘ ܩܣܦܐ ܘܐܡܪܘܠ
ܫܠܝܛ ܕܢܪܡܐ ܝܬܗ ܟܩܘܪܟܢܐ ⁘
ܠܓܠ ܕܗܘ ܕܡܝܢ ܕܐܕܡ (7) ܢܣܟܘ
ܕܝ ܡܝܠܟ (ܡܝܠܟܐ _sic s.m._) ܘܙܟܢܘ
ܒܗܘܢ ܛܘܪܗ ܕܦܚܪܐ ܠܡܘܟܘܪܐ
ܠܩܣܢܚ ⁘ (8) ܠܩܝ ܢ ܐܬܘܪܝ ܛܘܪܐ ܗܐܘ
ܝܘܠ ܐܕܡܐ ܥ ܪ ܡܛܐ ܠܝܘܡܕܝܢ ⁘

HARKLEIAN.

(3) ܗܝܪܝܢ ܩܪ ܚܢܐ ܝܗܘܕܐ ܗܘ
ܕܐܫܠܡܗ ܕܐܬܪܝܒ : ܩܪ ܐܬܬܘܝ :
ܐܗܦܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܬܠܬܢ ܩܣܦܐ ܠܪܝܫܝ
ܩܗܢܐ ܘܠܘܫܝܫܐ (4) ܩܕ ܐܗܪ :
ܝܛܬ ܕܐܫܠܡܬ ܕܡܐ ܙܒܝܐ . ܗܢܘܢ
ܕܢ ܐܡܪܘ . ܡܢܐ ܠܘܬܢ . ܐܢܬ ܬܚܢܐ .
(5) ܘܩܕ ܫܕܝ ܐܢܘܢ ܠܩܣܦܐ ܟܗܝܩܠ :
ܫܢܝ ܘܐܙܠ ܚܢܩ  ܗܘܠܗ .
ܪܝܫܝ ܩܗܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܩܕ ܫܘܠܘ ܐܢܘܢ
ܠܩܣܦܐ ܐܡܪܘ : ܠ ܫܠܝܛ ܠܡܪܡܝܘ
ܒܬ ܩܘܪܟ ܐܢܐܢ : ܡܛܠ ܕܛܝܡܐ ܕܕܡܐ
ܐܢܬܝܗܘܢ . (7) ܩܕ ܕܝܢ ܡܠܩܐ ܢܣܟܘ :
ܙܟܥܘ ܡܥܗܘܢ ܐܓܘܪܣܐ (5) ܕܦܚܪܝܐ
ܠܒܬ ܩܟܘܪܐ ܝܕܐܩܣܢܝܐ . (8) ܡܛܠ
ܗܕܐ ܐܬܩܪܝ ܗܘ ܐܓܘܪܣܐ ܗܘ :
ܐܓܘܪܣܐ ܕܕܡܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܝܘܡܢܐ ⁘

Syriac Versions. Mark XVI. 17-20

PESHITTO.

(17) ܐܬܘܬܐ ܕܝܢ ܠܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ
ܗܠܝܢ ܢܘܦܢ . ܟܫܡܝ ܫܐܕܐ
ܢܦܩܘܢ ܘܟܠܫܢܐ ܚܪܬܐ ܢܡܠܠܘܢ .
(18) ܘܚܘܘܬܐ ܢܫܘܠܘܢ . ܘܐܢ ܣܡܐ
ܕܡܘܬܐ ܢܫܬܘܢ ܠ ܢܗܪ ܐܢܘܢ . ܘܐܝܕܝܗܘܢ
ܢܣܝܡܘ ܢܥܠ ܩܪܝܗܐ ܘܢܬܚܠܡܘܢ .
(19) ܝܫܘܥ ܕܝܢ ܡܪܢ : ܡܢ ܟܬܪ
ܕܡܠܠ ܥܡܗܘܢ ܠܫܡܝܐ ܣܠܩ
ܘܝܬܒ ܡܢ ܝܡܝܢܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ . (20) ܗܢܘܢ
ܕܝܢ ܢܦܩܘ ܘܐܩܪܙܘ ܟܩܠ ܕܘܩܐ . ܘܡܪܢ
ܡܥܕܪ ܗܘܐ ܠܗܘܢ : ܘܡܫܪ ܡܠܝܗܘܢ
ܒܐܬܘܬܐ ܕܥܟܕܝܢ ܗܘܘ⁘

CURETONIAN.

(17) ܕܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܟܝ . ܗܠܝ ܢ
ܒܫܡܝ ܕܝܘܐ ܢܦܘܘܢ . ܟܠܫܢܐ ܚܕܬܐ
ܢܡܠܠܘܢ  . (18) ܚܘܘܬܐ ܢܫܘܠܘܢ
ܒܐܪܕܝܗܘܢ ܘܐܢ ܡܪܡ ܣܡܐ ܕܡܘܬܐ
ܢܫܬܘܢ ܠ ܢܩܐ ܐܢܘܢ . ܐܠ ܩܪܗܐ
ܢܣܝܡܘܢ ܐܝܕܝܗܘܢ ܘܢܬܚܠܡܘܢ
(19) ܡܪܢ ܕܝܢ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܢ ܟܬܪ ܕܦܘܝ
ܠܬܠܡܝܪܘܗܝ ܐܬܥܠܝ ܠܫܡܝܠ .
ܘܝܬܒ ܡܢ ܝܡܝܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ . (20) ܗܢܘܢ
ܕܝܢ ܢܦܘܘ ܘܐܩܪܙܘ ܟܩܘܠ ܕܘܒܐ . ܟܕ
ܡܪܝܐ ܥܡܗܘܢ ܟܩܠ . ܘܡܠܬܗܘܢ
ܡܫܪ ܗܘܐ ܒܐܬܘܬܐ ܕܥܟܪܝܢ ܗܘܘ ⁘

HARKLEIAN.

(17) ܐܬܘ ܬܐܕܝܢ ܠܗܢܘܢ ܕܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ
ܗܠܝܢ ܢܘܦܢ . ܟܫܡܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܕܝܘܐ
ܢܦܩܘܢ . ܒܠܫܢܐ ܚܪܬܐ ܢܡܠܠܘܢ .
(18) ܘܒܐܝܪܝܐ ܚܘܘܬܐ ܢܫܘܠܘܢ .
ܘܐܢ ܣܡܐ ܡܡܝܬܢܐ ܡܪܡ ܢܫܬܘܢ
ܠ ܢܩܐ ܐܢܘܢ . ܥܠ ܩܪܝܗܐ ܐܝܕܝܐ
ܢܣܝܡܘܢ : ܘܛܒܐܝܬ ܢܗܘܘܢ ⁘ (19) ܗܘ
ܡܢ ܗܩܝܠ ܡܪܝܐ ܝܫܘܥ : ܟܬܪ
ܕܡܠܠ ܠܗܘܢ ܐܣܬܠܩ ܠܫܡܝܐ ܘܝܬܒ
ܡܢ ܝܡܝܢܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ⁘ (20) ܗܢܘܢ
ܕܝܢ ܩܪ ܢܦܘܘ ܐܩܪܙܘ ܟܩܠ ܕܘܩܬܐ
ܩܪ ܡܪܝܐ ܡܥܪܕ ܗܘܐ ܘܠܡܠܬܐ ܡܫܕܪ
ܗܘܐ : ܟܝܕ ܐܬܘܬܐ ܗܢܝܢ ܕܢܦܘܢ ܗܘܝ ⁘



CHAPTER III. THE LATIN VERSIONS.


Since the publication of the third edition of this book, exhaustive work
on the Old Latin Versions and the Vulgate, commenced before for the
University of Oxford, as is well known amongst biblical scholars, by the
Right Rev. John Wordsworth, D.D., Bishop of Salisbury, with the assistance
of the Rev. H. J. White, has been prosecuted further, resulting in the
publication of three volumes of Old Latin Biblical Texts, and of the
edition of the Vulgate New Testament as far as the end of St. Luke’s
Gospel. It was therefore with the liveliest gratitude that the Editor
received from the Bishop, in reply to consultation upon a special point,
an offer to superintend the entire revision of this chapter, if Mr. White
would give him his important help, notwithstanding other laborious
occupations. Mr. White has carried out the work under the Bishop’s
direction, rewriting most of the chapter entirely, but incorporating,
where possible, Dr. Scrivener’s language.



(1) The Old Latin, previous to Jerome’s Revision.


There are passages in the works of the two great Western Fathers of the
fourth century, Jerome [345?-420] and Augustine [354-430], whose obvious
and literal meaning might lead us to conclude that there existed in their
time _many_ Latin translations, quite independent in their origin, and
used almost indifferently by the faithful. When Jerome, in that Preface to
the Gospels which he addressed to Pope Damasus (in 384), anticipates but
too surely the unpopularity of his revision of them among the people of
his own generation, he consoles himself by the reflection that the
variations of previous versions prove the unfaithfulness of them all:
“verum non esse quod variat etiam maledicorum testimonio comprobatur.”
Then follows his celebrated assertion: “Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides
est adhibenda, respondeant quibus: tot enim sunt exemplaria pene quot
codices(54).” The testimony of Augustine seems even more explicit, and at
first sight conclusive. In his treatise, De Doctrina Christiana (lib. ii.
cc. 11-15), when speaking of “Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas,”
and “interpretum numerositas,” as not without their benefit to an
attentive reader, he uses these strong expressions: “Qui enim Scripturas
ex hebraea lingua in Graecam verterunt, numerari possunt, Latini autem
interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus
venit codex Graecus, et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae
habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari” (c. 11); and he soon after
specifies a particular version as preferable to the rest: “In ipsis autem
interpretationibus Itala(55) ceteris praeferatur. Nam est verborum
tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiae” (cc. 14-15).

When, however, the surviving codices of the version or versions previous
to Jerome’s revision came to be studied and published by Sabatier(56) and
Bianchini(57), it was obvious that though there were many points of
difference, there were still traces of a source common to many, if not to
all of them; and on a question of this kind, occasional divergency,
however extensive, cannot weaken the impression produced by resemblance,
if it be too close and constant to be attributable to chance, as we have
just seen. The result of a careful and thorough examination and comparison
of the existing Old Latin texts, is a conviction that they are all but
off-shoots from one, or at most two, parent stocks. Now when, this fact
fairly established, we look back at the language employed by Jerome and
Augustine, we can easily see that, with some allowance for his habit of
rhetorical exaggeration, the former may mean no more by the term
“exemplaria” than that the scattered copies of the Latin translation in
his own day varied widely from each other; and though the assertions of
Augustine are too positive to be thus disposed of, yet he is here
speaking, not from his own personal knowledge so much as from vague
conjecture; and of what had been done, not in his own time, but “in the
first ages of the faith.”

On one point, however, Augustine must be received as a competent and most
sufficient witness. We cannot hesitate to believe that one of the several
recensions current towards the end of the fourth century was distinguished
from the rest by the name of _Itala_(58), and in his judgement deserved
praise for its clearness and fidelity. It was long regarded as certain
that here we should find the Old Latin version in its purest form, and
that in Italy it had been thus used from the very beginning of the Church,
“cum Ecclesia Latina sine versione Latina esse non potuerit” (Walton,
Proleg. x. 1). Mill indeed reminds us that the early Church at Rome was
composed to so great an extent of Jewish and other foreigners, whose
vernacular tongue was Greek, that the need of a Latin translation of
Scripture would not at first be felt; yet even he would not place its date
later than Pius I (142-157), the first Bishop of Rome after Clement who
bears a Latin name (Mill, Proleg. § 377). It was not until attention had
been specially drawn to the style of the Old Latin version, that scholars
began to suggest AFRICA as the place, and the second half of the second
century as the time, of its origin. This opinion, which had obtained
favour with Eichhorn and some others before him, may be considered as
demonstrated by Cardinal Wiseman, in his “Two letters on some parts of the
controversy concerning 1 John v. 7(59).” So far as his argument rests on
the Greek character of the _Roman_ Church, it may not bring conviction to
the reflecting reader. Even though the early Bishops of Rome were of
foreign origin, though Clement towards the end of the first, Gaius the
presbyter late in the second century, who are proved by their names to be
Latins, yet chose to write in Greek; it does not follow that the Church
would not contain many humbler members, both Romans and Italians, ignorant
of any language except Latin, and for whose instruction a Latin version
would be required. On the ground of _internal_ evidence, however, Wiseman
made out a case which all who have followed him, Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Davidson, Tregelles, accept as irresistible; indeed it is not easy to draw
any other conclusion from his elaborate comparison of the words, the
phrases, and grammatical constructions of the Latin version of Holy
Scripture, with the parallel instances by which they can be illustrated
from African writers, and from them only (Essays, vol. i. pp. 46-66)(60).
It is impossible to exhibit any adequate abridgement of an investigation
which owes all its cogency to the number and variety of minute
particulars, each one weak enough by itself, the whole comprising a mass
of evidence which cannot be gainsaid. In the works of Apuleius and of the
African Fathers, Tertullian [150?-220?], Cyprian [† 258], and in the
following century, Arnobius, Lactantius, Augustine, we obtain a glimpse
into the genius and character of the dialect in which the earliest form of
the Old Latin version is composed. We see a multitude of words which occur
in no Italian author so late as Cicero; constructions (e.g. _dominantur
eorum_, Luke xxii. 25; _faciam vos fieri_, Matt. iv. 19) or forms of verbs
(_sive consolamur ... sive exhortamur_, 2 Cor. i. 6) abound(61), which at
Rome had long been obsolete; while the lack of classic polish is not
ill-atoned for by a certain vigour which characterizes this whole class of
writers, but never degenerates into barbarism.

The _European_ and _Italian_ forms of the Old Latin version will be
discussed afterwards.

The following manuscripts of the version are extant. They are usually
cited by the small italic letters of the alphabet, according to the custom
set by Lachmann (1842-1850), which has been considerably extended, and
partially altered, since his time. His _a b c d_ of the Gospels, _d e_ of
the Acts, and _g_ of St. Paul, remain the same, but his _f_ and _ff_ of
St. Paul = our _d_ and _e_, and his _h_ = Primasius.


    _Old Latin Manuscripts of the Gospels._

    _a._ CODEX VERCELLENSIS [iv?], at Vercelli; according to a
    tradition found in a document of the eighth century, this MS. was
    written by Eusebius, Bishop of Vercellae († 370); M. Samuel
    Berger, however, and other scholars would place it later. It is
    written in silver on purple vellum. Bianchini, when Canon of
    Verona, collated this treasure in 1727; see E. Mangenot, Joseph
    Bianchini et les anciennes versions latines (Amiens, 1892), who
    gives an interesting and sympathetic account of his work. _Mut._
    in many letters and words throughout, and entirely wanting in
    Matt. xxiv. 49-xxv. 16; Mark i. 22-34; iv. 17-25; xv. 15-xvi. 7
    (xvi. 7-20 is in a later hand, taken from Jerome’s Vulgate); Luke
    i. 1-12; xi. 12-26; xii. 38-59. Published by J. A. Irici
    (Sacrosanctus Evangeliorum Codex S. Eusebii Magni), Milan, 1748,
    and by Bianchini on the left-hand page of his great “Evangeliarium
    Quadruplex,” Rome, 1749; the latter edition has been reprinted in
    Migne, Patr. Lat. tom. xii. Facsimile given in Zangemeister and
    Wattenbach, Exempla codicum Latinorum, pl. 20 (Heidelberg, 1876);
    compare Bethmann in Pertz, Archiv, xii. p. 606, and E. Ranke,
    Fragmenta Curiensia, p. 8. Bianchini’s work seems to have been
    extremely accurate, though he does not keep to the actual division
    of the lines in the original manuscripts either here or in his
    edition of _b_. The Gospels are in the usual Western order,
    Matthew, John, Luke, Mark; so also _a_2 _b d e f ff_2 _i n q r_.

    _b._ COD. VERONENSIS [iv or v], also in Bianchini’s “Evangeliarum
    Quadruplex” on the right-hand page. _Mut._ Matt. i. 1-11, xv.
    12-23, xxiii. 18-27; Mark xiii. 8-19; 24-xvi. 20; Luke xix.
    26-xxi. 29; also John vii. 44-viii. 12 is _erased_.

    _c._ COD. COLBERTINUS [xii], at Paris (Lat. 254); New Testament,
    very important, though so late; edited in full by Sabatier (_see_
    p. 42, n. 3), and in a smaller and cheaper form by J. Belsheim,
    Christiania, 1888; Belsheim’s work however is, as usual,
    inaccurate. For the date of the MS. see E. Ranke, Fragmenta
    Curiensia, p. 9. Beyond the Gospels, the version is Jerome’s, and
    in a later hand. _See_ below under Vulgate MSS., no. 53.

    _d._ COD. BEZAE [vi], its Latin version; _see_ Vol. I. pp.
    124-130, and for its defects p. 124, n. 2; also Prof. J. Rendel
    Harris, A Study of Codex Bezae, Cambridge, 1891; and F. H. Chase,
    The Syriac element in Codex Bezae, London, 1893.

    _e._ COD. PALATINUS [iv or v], now at Vienna (Pal. 1185), where it
    was acquired from Trent between 1800 and 1829; on purple vellum,
    14 x 9-3/4, written with gold and silver letters, as are Codd. _a_
    _b_ _f_ _i_ _j_, edited by Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1847. Only the
    following portions are extant: Matt. xii. 49-xiii. 13; 24-xiv. 11
    (_with breaks, twelve lines being lost_); 22-xxiv. 49; xxviii.
    2-John xviii. 12; 25-Luke viii. 30; 48-xi. 4; 24-xxiv. 53; Mark i.
    20-iv. 8; 19-vi. 9; xii. 37-40; xiii. 2, 3; 24-27; 33-36; i.e.
    2627 verses, including all St. John but 13 verses, all St. Luke
    but 38. Another leaf, bought for Trinity College, Dublin, by Dr.
    Todd before 1847, containing Matt. xiii. 13-23, was published by
    Dr. T.K. Abbott in his edition of Cod. Z. It was recognized in
    1880 to be a fragment of _e_ by Mr. French, the sub-librarian;
    _see_ also H. Linke, Neue Bruchst. des Evang. Pal. (S. B. of the
    Munich Acad. 1893, Heft ii).

    _f._ COD. BRIXIANUS [vi], at Brescia, edited by Bianchini beneath
    Cod. _b. Mut._ Matt. viii. 16-26; Mark xii. 5-xiii. 32; xiv.
    53-62; 70-xvi. 20. There are some bad slips in Migne’s reprint of
    this MS.

    _ff_1. COD. CORBEIENSIS I [viii or ix], containing the Gospel of
    St. Matthew, now at St. Petersburg (Ov. 3, D. 326). It formerly
    belonged to the great monastic Library of Corbey, or Corbie, on
    the Somme, near Amiens; and with the most important part of that
    Library was transferred to St. Germain des Prés at Paris, in or
    about the year 1638, and was there numbered 21. The St. Germain
    Library, however, suffered severely from theft and pillage during
    the French Revolution, and Peter Dubrowsky, Secretary to the
    Russian Embassy at Paris, seems to have used his opportunities
    during that troublous time to acquire MSS. stolen from public
    libraries; _ff_1 with other MSS. fell into his hands and was
    transferred to the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg about
    1800-1805. In 1695 Dom Jean Martianay, well known as the principal
    editor of the Benedictine St. Jerome, published _ff_1 with a
    marginal collation of the St. Germain Bible (_g_1), and the Corbey
    St. James (_see_ p. 52) in a small volume entitled “Vulgata
    antiqua Latina et Itala versio secundum Matthaeum e vetustissimis
    eruta monumentis illustrata Prolegomenis ac notis nuncque primum
    edita studio et labore D.J.M. etc. Parisiis, apud Antonium
    Lambin.” Bianchini reprinted it underneath Cod. _a_, giving in its
    place a collation of _ff_2 in SS. Mark, Luke, and John; Sabatier,
    however, cites _ff_1 in Mark i. 1-v. 11, but it is difficult to
    know to what MS. he refers. Finally it has been re-edited by
    Belsheim (Christiania, 1882). For the history of this MS., _see_
    Wordsworth, Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. xxii, and Studia Biblica,
    i. p. 124; and for the history of the Library at Corbey, Delisle,
    Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes, 1860, p. 438; R. S. Bensly,
    The missing fragment of the Latin Translation of the Fourth Book
    of Ezra, p. 7 (Cambridge, 1875).

    _ff_2. COD. CORBEIENSIS II [vi], now at Paris (Lat. 17,225),
    formerly at Corbey, where it was numbered 195; it contains 190
    leaves and is written in a beautiful round uncial hand. Quoted by
    Sabatier, and a collation given by Bianchini in Mark, Luke, and
    John; published in full by Belsheim (Christiania, 1887).
    Belsheim’s work, however, has been since revised by M. Berger and
    his revision communicated to the present writer (H. J. White).
    _Mut._ Matt. i. 1-xi. 6; John xvii. 15-xviii. 9; xx. 22-xxi. 8;
    Luke ix. 48-x. 21; xi. 45-xii. 6; and a few verses missing in
    Matt. xi, Mark ix and xvi; Facsimile in Palaeogr. Soc. i. pl. 87.

    _g_1. COD. SANGERMANENSIS I [ix], now at Paris (Lat. 11,553);
    formerly in the Library of St. Germain des Prés, where it was
    first numbered 15 and afterwards 86; it is the second volume of a
    complete Bible, the first volume of which has been lost. This MS.
    was known to R. Stephens, who in his Latin Bible, published
    1538-40 and again 1546, quotes it as _Germ. Lat._, in consequence
    of its breadth; it was also examined by R. Simon, who, writing in
    1680, speaks of it at some length; Martianay published a collation
    of its readings in his edition of the Corbey St. Matthew (_see_
    under _ff_1); and Martianay’s collation, which indeed was faulty
    enough, was reprinted by Bianchini. John Walker, Bentley’s
    coadjutor in his great but unfinished work for the New Testament,
    collated it carefully in 1720; and finally Bp. Wordsworth
    published St. Matthew’s Gospel with full Introductions in 1883
    (Old Latin Biblical Texts, No. 1, Oxford), and has collated the
    other Gospels for his edition of the Vulgate. J. Walker cited the
    MS. as μ; Bp. Wordsworth cites it as _g_1 in St. Matthew, G in the
    other books of the New Testament. The text can only be called
    strictly _Old Latin_ in St. Matthew, where it seems to be partly
    of the European, partly of the Italian type; in the other Gospels
    it is Vulgate, though largely mixed with Old Latin readings. _See_
    below under Vulgate, MSS., no. 21.

    _g_2. COD. SANGERMANENSIS II [x], 116 leaves, Irish hand, with a
    mixed Old Latin and Vulgate text. Now at Paris (Lat. 13,169), but
    was originally at Angers, and then apparently at Mans in the
    province of Tours; possibly brought there by Ulgrinus, Bishop of
    Mans 1057-65. See Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les
    premiers Siècles du M.A., p. 48.

    _h._ COD. CLAROMONTANUS [iv or v], now in the Vatican Library
    (Lat. 7223), for which it was bought by Pius VI (1775-99),
    contains, like _g_1, St. Matthew only in the Old Latin, the other
    Gospels being Vulgate. _Mut._ Matt. i. 1-iii. 15; xiv. 33-xviii.
    12. Sabatier gave extracts, and Mai published St. Matthew in full
    in his “Script. Vet. nova collectio Vaticana,” iii. p. 257 (Rom.
    1828); it has been republished by Belsheim (Evangelium secundum
    Matthaeum ... e codice olim Claromontano nunc Vaticano),
    Christiania, 1892.

    _i._ COD. VINDOBONENSIS [vii], at Vienna (Lat. 1235), formerly
    belonging to an Augustinian Monastery at Naples, whence it was
    brought with ninety-four other MSS. to Vienna in 1717; consists of
    142 leaves, and contains Luke x. 6-xxiii. 10; Mark ii. 17-iii. 29;
    iv. 4-x. 1; 33-xiv. 36; xv. 33-40. The MS. was described and
    edited by F. C. Alter, the Mark fragments in G. E. H. Paulus’ “N.
    Repert. d. bibl. u. morgenl. Literatur,” iii. pp. 115-170 (1791),
    the Luke fragments in Paulus, Memorabilia, vii. pp. 58-95 (1795).
    Bianchini had, however, previously obtained a collation for his
    “Evangeliarium Quadruplex” from the Count of Thun and Hohenstein
    (afterwards Bishop of Gurk in Carinthia), who had spent some time
    at the Court of Vienna; and N. Forlosia, the principal Librarian
    at Vienna, had given him a careful description of the MS.; _see_
    “Epistola Blanchinii ad Episcopum Gurcensem” in Bianchini’s
    prolegomena. Finally Belsheim edited the MS. completely in 1885
    (Leipzig, Weigel), and Dr. Rudolf Beer revised his edition for
    Bishop Wordsworth’s edition of the Vulgate in 1888.

    _j._ COD. SARZANNENSIS or SARETIANUS [v] was discovered in 1872 in
    the Church of Sarezzano near Tortona. It consists of eight quires
    written on purple vellum in silver letters, and contains (much
    mutilated) 292 verses of St. John, viz. i. 38-iii. 23; iii. 33-v.
    20; vi. 29-49; 49-67; 68-vii. 32; viii. 6-ix. 21, written two
    columns on a page. The text is peculiar, and much with _a_ _b_ _d_
    _e_. Guerrino Amelli, sub-librarian of the Ambrosian Library (and
    now at the Benedictine Monastery of Monte Cassino), published at
    Milan the same year a “Dissertazione critico-storica,” 18 pp. (2nd
    edition, 1885), with a lithographed facsimile, whose characters
    much resemble the round and flowing shape of those in _a_ _b_ _f_.
    The MS. is now at Rome undergoing careful restoration, but no part
    of it has yet been published.

    _k._ COD. BOBIENSIS [v or vi], now in the National Library at
    Turin (G. vii. 15), whither it was brought with a vast number of
    other books from Bobbio; traditionally asserted to have belonged
    to St. Columban, who died in the monastery he had founded there,
    in 615. This MS. is perhaps the most important, in regard to text,
    of all the Old Latin copies, being undoubtedly the oldest existing
    representative of the African type. It contains Mark viii. 8-11;
    14-16; 19-xvi. 9; Matthew i. 1-iii. 10; iv. 2-xiv. 17; xv. 20-36;
    the order then was probably John, Luke, Mark, Matthew. It was
    edited by F. F. Fleck in 1837, and by Tischendorf in 1847-49; but
    so inaccurately by the former and so inconveniently by the latter
    as to be little known and used by students. It was finally edited
    by Bishop Wordsworth (1886) as No. 2 of the “Old-Latin Bible
    Texts,” with full introduction, and with a dissertation on the
    text by Professor Sanday.

    _l._ COD. RHEDIGERANUS [vii], in the Rhedigeran Library at
    Breslau; from a note at the end of St. Luke’s Gospel, it appears
    to have been bought by Thomas von Rhediger at Verona in the year
    1569. J. E. Scheibel in 1763 published SS. Matthew and Mark, far
    from correctly. D. Schulz wrote a dissertation on it in 1814, and
    inserted his collation of it in his edition of Griesbach’s N. T.,
    vol. i. 1827. It was edited in full by H. F. Haase, Breslau (in
    the “Index, lect. univ. Vratisl.”), 1865-66. _Mut._ Matt. i. 1-ii.
    15; John i. 1-16; vi. 32-61; xi. 56-xii. 10; xiii. 34-xiv. 23; xv.
    3-15; xvi. 13 _ad fin._

    _m._ This letter indicates the readings extracted by Mai from the
    “Liber de divinis scripturis sive speculum,” ascribed to St.
    Augustine, and containing extracts from the whole N. T. except
    Philemon, Hebrews, and 3 John; it also has a citation from the
    Epistle to the Laodiceans. It resembles the “Testimonia” of
    Cyprian (and indeed one MS. has the subscription _explicit
    testimoniorum_) in that it consists of extracts from both
    Testaments, arranged in chapters under various heads. This
    treatise was published by Mai, first in the “Spicilegium Romanum,”
    1843, vol. ix. part ii. 1-88, and again in the “Nova Patrum
    Bibliotheca,” Rome, 1852, vol. i. part ii. 1-117; and Wiseman had
    drawn attention to it in his celebrated “Two Letters” (_see_ p.
    43), because it contains 1 John v. 7 in two different places. Mai
    had published it from the Sessorian MS. (no. 58) of the eighth or
    ninth century, so called from the library of Sta. Croce in
    Gerusalemme (Bibliotheca Sessoriana) at Rome, in which it is
    preserved (see Reifferscheid, Bibl. Patr. Italica, ii. p. 129); he
    furnished a facsimile. Recently the treatise has been excellently
    edited by Dr. F. Weihrich in the Vienna “Corpus script. eccl.
    lat.,” vol. xii (Vienna, 1887), from six MSS.; one of these is the
    Codex Floriacensis (Libri MS. 16, now in the Bibl. Nat. at Paris,
    Nouv. acq. lat. 1596), the readings of which are occasionally
    cited by Sabatier under the name of _floriac_. (_see_ Weihrich, p.
    xl, and L. Delisle, Cat. des MSS. des fonds Libri et Barrois,
    1888, p. 25 and pl. iv. 1; also Palaeographical Soc., series ii.
    pl. 34).

    _n._ FRAGMENTA SANGALLENSIA [v or vi], in the Stiftsbibliothek at
    St. Gall, to which Library they have probably belonged from its
    foundation. The fragments are bound up in a large book numbered
    1394, and entitled “Veterum fragmentorum manuscriptis codicibus
    detractorum Collectio;” they contain Matt. xvii. 1-xviii. 20; xix.
    20-xxi. 3; xxvi. 56-60; 69-74; xxvii. 62-xxviii. 3; 8-20; Mark
    vii. 13-31; viii. 32-ix. 10; xiii: 2-20; xv. 22-xvi. 13; to this
    must be added a whole leaf containing John xix. 28-42, and a slip
    containing portions of John xix. 13-27, which are in the
    Stadtbibliothek of the same city, bound up in a MS. numbered 70
    and entitled “Casus monasterii Sancti Galli;” and the conjecture
    of the Abbé Batiffol and Dr. P. Corssen is undoubtedly right that
    the fragment from St. Luke known as _a_2 (see below) is also a
    part of this MS.

    Tischendorf transcribed these fragments, intending to edit them
    himself, but died before he had done so; the transcripts were
    purchased from his widow by the Clarendon Press in 1883, and
    published in the second volume of “Old Lat. Bibl. Texts” (Oxford,
    1886) by the Rev. H. J. White, who revised them on the spot from
    the originals; meanwhile they had been published in France by the
    Abbé Batiffol (Note sur un Evangéliare de Saint-Gall, Paris,
    Champion, 1884, and “Fragmenta Sangallensia” in the _Revue
    archéologique_, pp. 305-321, for 1885). A facsimile was appended
    to the Oxford edition, and is also given by the Palaeographical
    Soc., series ii. plate 50.

    _o._ [vii], another fragment at St. Gall, bound up in the same
    volume with _n_, contains Mark xvi. 14-20; it may very possibly
    have been written to complete the above-named MS. when it had lost
    its last leaf, as it has the same number of lines to a page and
    begins exactly at the point where _n_ leaves off. Edited by
    Batiffol with _n_, and also in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. ii.

    _p._ [vii or viii], also at St. Gall, bound up in the second
    volume of the “Veterum fragmentorum Collectio” (pp. 430-433). This
    fragment consists of two leaves written in an Irish hand, and
    apparently belonging to a “Missa pro defunctis,” of which it was
    the Gospel; it contains John xi. 16-44, introduced with the lines
    from Ps. lxv, “te decet dñe,” &c. The opening verses of the Gospel
    are adapted as an introduction of the lection; the rest of the
    text is of the European type, but (with _r_) contains many
    peculiar Irish characteristics. _p_ has been published three
    times: by Forbes, in the “Preface to the Arbuthnott Missal,” p.
    xlviii (Burntisland, 1864); by Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, vol.
    i. Appendix G, p. 197 (Oxford, 1869); and in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts,
    vol. ii.

    _q._ COD. MONACENSIS [vii], now in the Royal Library at Munich
    (Lat. 6224); it was transferred hither in 1802 with other MSS.
    from the Chapter Library of Freising, in which it was numbered 24;
    written by a scribe named Valerianus. Contains the four Gospels,
    but _mut._ Matt. iii. 15-iv. 23; v. 25-vi. 4; 28-vii. 8; John x.
    11-xii. 38; xxi. 8-20; Luke xxiii. 23-35; xxiv. 11-39; Mark i.
    7-21; xv. 5-36. Published in full by the Rev. H. J. White in Old
    Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. iii (Oxford, 1888); facsimiles given in the
    Oxford edition and also by Silvestre (Paléog. univ.; quatrième
    partie, no. 158).

    _r_ or _r_1. CODEX USSERIANUS I [vii], in the Library of Trinity
    College, Dublin (A. iv. 15); it is kept among the books which once
    belonged to Archbishop Ussher, but nothing is known of its early
    history. The MS. consists of 180 leaves or fragments, written in
    an Irish hand, but much injured by damp; it contains the four
    Gospels in the usual Old Latin order, but _mut._ Matt. i. 1-xv.
    16; 31-xvi. 13; xxi. 4-21; xxviii. 16-20; John i. 1-15; Mark xiv.
    58-xv. 8; 29-xvi. 20. Published in full by Professor T. K. Abbott,
    Evangeliorum versio antehieronymiana (Dublin, 1884); facsimiles
    are given in his edition, in the Palaeographical Society, series
    ii. plate 33, and in the “Facsimiles of National MSS. of Ireland,”
    part i (1874), pl. ii. It contains the _pericope de adultera_ in
    St. John, but in the Vulgate, not the Old Latin, text.

    _r_2. CODEX USSERIANUS II [ix or x], also in the Library of
    Trinity College, Dublin (A. iv. 6). Contains the four Gospels, St.
    Matt. in the Old Latin and in a text allied to _r_1; St. Mark, the
    early part of St. Luke, and the small portion (only five leaves)
    extant of St. John, present a text very near the Vulgate. Dr.
    Abbott inserted a collation of this MS. in the second volume of
    his book, and also a facsimile. _Mut._ Matt. i. 1-18, ii. 6-iv.
    24; v. 29-xiii. 7; xiv. 1-xvi. 13; xviii. 31-xix. 26; xxvii.
    58-xxviii. 20; Mark iii. 23-iv. 19; v. 31-vi. 13; Luke i. 1-13;
    ii. 15-iii. 8; vi. 39-vii. 11; xi. 53-xii. 45; xiv. 18-xv. 25;
    xvi. 15-xvii. 7; xxii. 35-59; xxiii. 14-xxiv. 53; John i. 1-v. 12;
    vi. 24-viii. 7; x. 3-xxi. 25.

    _s._ FRAGMENTA AMBROSIANA [vi], now in the Ambrosian Library at
    Milan, where they are bound up in a volume (C. 73 inf.) containing
    various treatises; they belonged originally to the Monastery of
    St. Columban at Bobbio. Four leaves only remain, containing Luke
    xvii. 3-29; xviii. 39-xix. 47; xx. 46-xxi. 22. They have been
    edited by Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana, tom. i. fasc. i
    (Milan, 1861), and again in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. ii; a
    facsimile is given by the Palaeographical Society, series i. plate
    54.

    _t._ FRAGMENTA BERNENSIA [v], palimpsest fragments, now at Berne,
    where they are bound up in a volume numbered 611; exceedingly
    difficult to decipher, as the later writing is parallel to the
    original text. Contain Mark i. 2-23; ii. 22-27; iii. 11-18. They
    were first published by Professor H. Hagen under the title “Ein
    Italafragment aus einem Berner Palimpsest des VI. Jahrhunderts” in
    Hilgenfeld’s “Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie,” vol.
    xxvii. p. 470 ff. (Leipzig, 1884); reprinted in Old Latin Bibl.
    Texts, vol. ii, with rather important alterations in the
    conjectural restitution of the missing half-columns.

    _v._ FRAGMENTUM VINDOBONENSE [vii], at Vienna, where it is bound
    up at the beginning of a volume numbered Lat. 502 and entitled
    “Pactus legis Ripuariae;” it contains John xix. 27-xx. 11, but the
    writing is much faded. Transcribed by the Bishop of Salisbury and
    the Rev. H. J. White in 1887, and published in Old Latin Bibl.
    Texts, vol. iii.

    _aur._ CODEX AUREUS or HOLMIENSIS, in the Royal Library at
    Stockholm; Gospels [vii or viii], 195 leaves, complete with the
    exception of one leaf, which contained Luke xxi. 8-30. According
    to an inscription in Old English on the title-page, the book was
    purchased by Alfred the Alderman from the pagans [Danes?] when
    Alfred was king and Ethelred archbishop (A.D. 871-89), for the use
    of Christ Church, Canterbury. It afterwards found its way to
    Madrid, where Sparvenfeldt bought it in 1690 from the Library of
    the Marquis de Liche. Edited, with facsimiles, by Belsheim
    (Christiania, 1878), who classes it as Old Latin; but it is really
    a Vulgate text, though with a certain admixture of Old Latin
    readings. Hort’s _holm_. (Introd., Notes, p. 5).

    _a_2. FRAGMENTA CURIENSIA [v or vi], formerly preserved amongst
    the Episcopal archives at Chur or Coire, now placed in the
    Reatisches Museum of the same city. M. Batiffol was the first to
    suggest that these fragments belonged to the same MS. as _n_; and
    though this view was combated at first by Mr. White, it was
    reasserted strongly by Dr. Corssen (Göttingsche gel. Anzeigen,
    1889, p. 316), and further examination has shown that it is
    correct. The fragments contain Luke xi. 11-29; xiii. 16-34; they
    were first discovered by Professor Hidber, of Berne, then
    described by Professor E. Ranke in the “Theol. Studien u.
    Kritiken,” 1872, pp. 505-520, and afterwards edited by him in
    full, Curiensia Ev. Lucani Fragmenta Latiua (Vienna, 1874).

    δ. CODEX SANGALLENSIS, the interlinear Latin of Cod. Δ, stands
    remarkable especially for its alternative renderings of the Greek,
    such as ’uxorem uel coniugem’ for τὴν γυναῖκα Matt. i. 20, and in
    almost every verse. How far the Latin text of these MSS. is
    independent, and how far it is a mere reproduction of the Greek,
    or whether the Greek has in turn been influenced by the Latin, is
    one of those elaborate and obscure problems which are still very
    far from solution. The reader is referred to Prof. J. Rendel
    Harris’ work, The Codex Sangallensis (Cambridge, 1891), for an
    interesting discussion of these alternative readings.

    _In the Acts_ we have Codd. _d m_ as in the Gospels; _e_ the Latin
    version of Cod. E (Laudianus) of the Acts, and also:—

    _g._ COD. GIGAS HOLMIENSIS [xiii], a Bohemian MS. of the whole N.
    T., now at Stockholm, so called from its great size. Contains the
    Acts and Apocalypse in the Old Latin version, the rest of the N.
    T. in the Vulgate. Mr. Belsheim published the Acts and Apocalypse
    in full and a collation of the other books (Christiania, 1878).
    His edition was carefully revised for the Bishop of Salisbury by
    Dr. H. Karlsson in 1891.

    _g_2. FRAGMENTUM MEDIOLANENSE [x or xi], from a lectionary;
    discovered by Ceriani in the Ambrosian Library at Milan and
    published by him in “Monumenta Sacra et Profana,” tom. i. fasc.
    ii. p. 127 (see also preface, pp. vi and vii). Contains Acts vi.
    8-vii. 2; 51-viii. 4; i.e. lection for St. Stephen’s day.

    _h._ PALIMPSESTUS FLORIACENSIS [vi or vii], now in the Bibl. Nat.
    at Paris, where it forms foll. 113 to 130 of a volume containing
    various treatises and numbered Lat. 6400 G; it was formerly
    numbered 5367, and was as such quoted by Sabatier, tom. iii. p.
    507 ff., who had collated the first three pages. An inscription on
    fol. 130 shows it to have belonged in the eleventh century to the
    famous Benedictine Abbey of Fleury on the Loire. Mr. A. Vansittart
    deciphered and published some more in the “Journal of Philology”
    (vol. ii, 1869, p. 240, and vol. iv, 1872, p. 219), and M. H.
    Omont published four pages of the Apocalypse in the “Bibl. de
    l’École des chartes” (vol. xliv. 1883, p. 445). Belsheim published
    an edition of the fragments in 1887 (“Appendix Epist. Paulin. ex
    cod. Sangerm.,” Christiania); and finally M. Berger published a
    most careful and complete edition in 1889 (Le Palimpseste de
    Fleury, Paris, Fischbacher). The MS. contains fragments of the
    Apocalypse, the Acts, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1 John; in the order
    above mentioned. Of the Acts in M. Berger’s edition we obtain the
    following:—iii. 2-iv. 18; v. 23-vii. 2; 42-viii. 2; ix. 4-23; xiv.
    5-23; xvii. 34-xviii. 19; xxiii. 8-24; xxvi. 20-xxvii. 13.
    Facsimile given by Berger.

    _s._ COD. BOBIENSIS [v or vi], at Vienna, consisting of a number
    of palimpsest leaves preserved loose and numbered Lat. 16 (_see_
    “Tabulae Codd. MSS. praeter graecos et orientales in bibl.
    Palatina Vindob. asservatorum,” 1863-1875). They were brought with
    other MSS. to Vienna from Naples in 1717, and formerly belonged to
    the famous Monastery at Bobbio. Described by Denis (Codd. MSS.
    theolog. bibl. Palat. Vindob., tom. ii. p. 1, col. 628) and later
    by von Eichenfeld (Wiener Jahrb. der Literatur, 1824, Bd. xxvi. p.
    20); then by Tischendorf in the same periodical (1847, Bd. cxx. p.
    36). Finally published in full by Belsheim (Fragmenta
    Vindobonensia, Christiania, 1886), who printed all the fragments
    of this very hard palimpsest which Tischendorf had been able to
    decipher, and the leaves which he himself had been able to make
    out in addition. We thus obtain Acts xxiii. 18-23; xxv. 23-27;
    xxvi. 22-xxvii. 7; 10-24; 28-31; xxviii. 16-28. The same MS. also
    contains fragments of St. James and 1 Peter; _see_ below.

    _In the Catholic Epistles_ we have:—

    _ff._ CODEX CORBEIENSIS [x], of the Epistle of St. James, now in
    the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg, where it was numbered Qv.
    i. 39. Formerly belonging to the Corbey Library, where it was
    numbered 635, it was about 1638 transferred to St. Germain des
    Prés and was numbered 717 in Dom Poirier’s catalogue (made about
    1791); and finally was taken to St. Petersburg by Peter Dubrowsky
    about 1805 (see above on _ff_1, p. 46). The Epistle was published
    in 1695 by Martianay in the same volume which included _ff_1;
    later by Mr. Belsheim (Der Brief des Jacobus, Christiania, 1883);
    and again, after revision by Professor V. Jernstedt, by Bishop
    Wordsworth in “Studia Biblica,” vol. i.

    There are also _h_, containing 1 Pet. iv. 17-2 Pet. ii. 6; 1 John
    i. 8-iii. 20; _m_ as in Gospels; _s_ as in Acts, containing James
    i. 1-25; ii. 14-iii. 5; 13-iv. 2; v. 19, 20; 1 Pet. i. 1-12; ii.
    4-10.

    _q._ One of the sets of fragments at Munich [vii], published by
    Ziegler (_see_ below): they consist of two leaves, giving us 1
    John iii. 8-v. 21, and containing the three Heavenly Witnesses (1
    John v. 7), placed, however, _after_ v. 8, as in the Vulgate
    _Codex Cavensis_ (_see_ Ziegler, p. 5 f.); these leaves are in the
    collection of fragments marked Clm. 6436 (Fris. 236). Later in the
    same year Ziegler published more fragments from the same MS.,
    which had been used in covering some other books; these give us 1
    Pet. i. 8-19; ii. 20-iii. 7; iv. 10-v. 14; 2 Pet. i. 1-4. See
    Sitzungsberichte der k. b. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München,
    1876, Heft v. pp. 607-660.

    _In the Pauline Epistles_ we have _m_ as in the Gospels. Codd. _d_
    _e_ _f_ _g_ are the Latin versions of Codd. DEFG of St. Paul,
    described above, Cod. D (Clarom.); Cod. E (Sangerm.); Cod. F
    (Aug.); Cod. G (Boern.). To these must be added

    _gue._ COD. GUELFERBYTANUS [vi], fragments of Rom. xi. 33-xii. 5;
    17-xiii. 5; xiv. 9-20; xv. 3-13, found in the great Gothic
    palimpsest at Wolfenbüttel (Evann. PQ), published with the other
    matter by Knittel in 1762, and more fully by Tischendorf, Anecdota
    sacra et profana, pp. 155-158. In the eighth edition of his N. T.
    he adds readings from Rom. xiii. 3, 4, 6; 1 Tim. iv. 15.

    _r._ COD. FRISINGENSIS [v or vi], consisting of twenty-one leaves
    at Munich, numbered Clm. 6436 (Fris. 236), and containing Rom.
    xiv. 10-xv. 13; 1 Cor. i. 1-iii. 5; vi. 1-vii. 7; xv. 14-43; xvi.
    12-2 Cor. ii. 10; iii. 17-v. 1; vii. 10-viii. 12; ix. 10-xi. 21;
    xii. 14-xiii. 10; Gal. ii. 5-iii. 5; Eph. i. 16-ii. 16; Phil. i.
    1-20; 1 Tim. i. 12-ii. 15; v. 18-vi. 13; Hebr. vi. 6-vii. 5;
    8-viii. 1; ix. 27-xi. 7. Eight of these leaves were examined by
    Tischendorf in 1856, who drew attention to their importance in the
    “Deutsche Zeitschr. f. christliche Wissenschaft u. chr. Leben,”
    1856, n. 8; he incorporated many of their variant readings into
    his N. T., and intended to publish the fragments. They were
    published by L. Ziegler with _q_ and _r_2 (Italafragm. d.
    paulinischen Briefe, Marburg, 1876); see E. Wölfflin, Freisinger
    Itala (S. B. of Munich Acad. 1893, Heft ii).

    _r_2. A single leaf from Munich [vii], containing Phil. iv. 11-23;
    1 Thess. i. 1-10; published by Ziegler, _see_ above; also numbered
    Clm. 6436 (Fris. 236).

    _r_3. COD. GOTTVICENSIS [vi or vii], fragments of Romans and
    Galatians, from the Benedictine Abbey of Göttweig on the Danube,
    and consisting of two leaves taken from the cover of another book.
    They are numbered 1. (9) foll. 23, 24 in the Library Catalogue,
    and contain Rom. v. 16-vi. 4; 6-19; Gal. iv. 6-19; 22-v. 2.
    Published by H. Roensch in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift, vol. xxii
    (1879), pp. 224-238.

    _In the Apocalypse_ we have _m_ of the Gospels and _g_ of the
    Acts; also _h_ of the Acts (_see_ above), containing i. 1-ii. 1;
    viii. 7-ix. 11; xi. 16-xii. 14; xiv. 15-xvi. 5 (Lachmann cites
    Primasius’ version as _h_).


To these thirty-eight codices must be added extracts from the Latin
Fathers, of which the Latin interpreter of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian,
Augustine, Priscillian, and Primasius are the most important for the
history of the version. For Tertullian, considerable labour will be saved
to the student by the work of H. Roensch (Das neue Testament Tertullians,
Leipzig, 1871), who has arranged in order his quotations, direct and
indirect; for Cyprian, Hartel’s excellent edition (vol. iii in the Vienna
Corpus) is marred by his having edited the Testimonia, which consist of
direct quotations from the Bible, arranged under various heads, from a
late and inferior MS. (_see_ O. L. Bibl. Texts, ii. p. xliii). The works
of Priscillian, who suffered death as a heretic in 385, have been quite
lately discovered and edited by Dr. G. Schepss (vol. xviii in the Vienna
Corpus); the quotations in them bear a strong resemblance to those of the
so-called “Speculum” of St. Augustine (_m_), and are mainly from the
Epistles. Primasius, bishop of Hadrumetum (d. 558?), was the author _inter
alia_ of a commentary on the Apocalypse; in this he incorporated nearly
the entire text of that book, and as this text agrees almost word for word
with the citations found in Cyprian’s Testimonia, we thus obtain a
complete African text of a book in which so many MSS. are defective. In
addition to this he quoted largely from another Latin translation of the
Apocalypse—that of the Donatist Ticonius—whose version seems to be a good
specimen of a later text approximating more closely to the Vulgate; these
have also been published quite recently by Professor Haussleiter (Zahn’s
Forschungen, iv. Teil, Leipzig, 1891).

When we come to arrange these authorities for the Latin version before
Jerome, we find a complicated and difficult task before us; for few of our
MSS. present a consistent type of text. We will confine ourselves
therefore to grouping them in the three great families described by Dr.
Hort (Introd. p. 78), whose division has been accepted by most textual
critics, and to pointing out how here and there even that division must be
accepted with some modification.

The _African_ family is comparatively easy to fix, from the rich store of
biblical quotations found in the African Fathers. Tertullian indeed does
not give us so much help as we should have expected, as he seems to have
largely used a Greek Bible and translated it into Latin himself. Cyprian’s
quotations, however, are valuable, as he apparently confined himself
strictly to the Latin Bible current in his time; he may be taken as the
standard of the early African version; to him we must add, for the
Gospels, the Bobbio MS. (_k_) and the Codex Palatinus (_e_), which,
however, represents a stage somewhat later than _k_; for the Acts, the
Fleury palimpsest (_h_); for the Apocalypse, Primasius and _h_; and a
later and revised stage in the so-called “Speculum” (_m_), and in the
quotations from Ticonius preserved in Primasius.

Existing simultaneously with the African family we find another type of
text current in Western Europe, though whether it is a revision of the
African text or is of independent origin, it is hard to say. This type Dr.
Hort calls the _European_. It is represented in the Gospels by _b_, which
may be taken as the typical European MS.; by _a_ in St. Matthew, _i_ (Luke
and Mark), _n_ and _a_2 (giving us fragments of all the Gospels from the
same MS.); _t_ in St. Mark; in a slightly revised form by _h_ of St.
Matthew; in a form marked by special local characteristics, in the Irish
MSS. _r_1 and _p_ (St. John); to a certain extent also by _q_ (i.e. in its
renderings, and turns of expression, as distinct from the type of Greek
text underlying it); of the early Fathers, the Latin version of Irenaeus
may probably be referred to this family.

For the European text in the Acts, Dr. Hort cites the Gigas Holmiensis
(_g_), and the Milan Lectionary _g_2, and the Bobbio fragments at Vienna
(_s_); for the Epistles, the Corbey MS. of St. James (_ff_), though this
has possibly a tinge of Africanism in it (_see_ Bp. Wordsworth and Dr.
Sanday in “Studia Biblica,” i. pp. 113, 233); and _g_ again for the
Apocalypse.

The _Italian_ family presents us with a type of text mainly European, but
doubly revised; first in its renderings, “to give the Latinity a smoother
and more customary aspect,” and secondly in its underlying text, which has
been largely corrected from the Greek; in both these points the Italian
MSS. are a sort of stepping-stone between the European MSS. and Jerome’s
Vulgate; and as many of the Biblical quotations in Augustine’s works agree
closely with them, it is distinctly probable that it was this revision
which he praised as the Itala. To this group we would assign _f_ in the
Gospels, and less notably _q_; in the Epistles the Freisingen fragments
_q_ of St. John and St. Peter, and _r_ _r_2 of St. Paul’s Epistles, and
the Göttweig fragments _r_3 of Romans and Galatians.

But it will be seen that this arrangement leaves a large number of MSS.
unaccounted for; many of the Old Latin MSS. present texts which it is
impossible to class either as African, European, or Italian. Some of them
possess all three characteristics; some have been half corrected from the
Vulgate; and local variation, independent translation from the Greek, and
in the case of the Graeco-Latin MSS., assimilation _to_ the Greek, have
still further complicated matters. Among these mixed texts must be placed
_a_ in SS. Mark, Luke, and John (with occasional Africanisms, and a large
element quite peculiar to itself); _c_, which gives us a text very near
the Vulgate in St. John; _d_, that apparently insoluble problem; _ff_1 and
_f_2_g_1_s_δ; _l_, a text which to a large extent is almost pure Vulgate,
but which at the same time preserves a number of readings, mostly
interpolations, that are quite peculiar.

We must bear in mind too that even the MSS. which seem to represent most
consistently one type of text, show here and there strange vacillations;
_e_, African throughout as it seems at first sight, must have been copied
from an ordinary European MS. in the last few chapters of St. Luke; the
parent MS. of _r_ obviously did not contain the _pericope de adultera_,
for that passage has been supplied in a Vulgate text; and other instances
might be added.



(2) Jerome’s revised Latin Version, commonly called the Vulgate.


The extensive variations then existing between different copies of the Old
Latin version, and the obvious corruptions which had crept into some of
them, prompted Damasus, Bishop of Rome, in A.D. 382, to commit the
important task of a formal revision of the New, and probably of the Old
Testament, to Jerome, a presbyter born at Stridon on the confines of
Dalmatia and Pannonia, probably a little earlier than A.D. 345. He had
just returned to Rome, where he had been educated, from his hermitage in
Bethlehem, and in the early ripeness of his scholarship undertook a work
for which he was specially qualified, and whose delicate nature he well
understood(62). Whatever prudence and moderation could do in this case to
remove objections or relieve the scruples of the simple, were not
neglected by Jerome, who not only made as few changes as possible in the
Old Latin when correcting its text by the help of “ancient” Greek
manuscripts(63), but left untouched many words and forms of expression,
and not a few grammatical irregularities, which in a new translation (as
his own subsequent version of the Hebrew Scriptures makes clear) he would
most certainly have avoided. The four Gospels, as they stand in the
traditional Greek order without Western variation, revised but not
re-translated on this wise principle, appeared in A.D. 384, accompanied
with his celebrated Preface to Damasus (“summus sacerdos”), who died that
same year. Notwithstanding his other literary engagements, it is probable
enough that his recension of the whole New Testament for public use was
completed A.D. 385, though the proof alleged by Mill (N. T., Proleg., §
862), and by others after his example, hardly meets the case. In the next
year (A.D. 386), in his Commentary on Galat., Ephes., Titus, and Philem.,
he indulges in more freedom of alteration as a translator than he had
previously deemed advisable; while his new version of the Old Testament
from the Hebrew (completed about A.D. 405) is not founded at all on the
Old Latin, which was made from the Greek Septuagint; the Psalter excepted,
which he executed at Rome at the same date, and in the same spirit, as the
Gospels. The boldness of his attempt in regard to the Old Testament is
that portion of his labours which _alone_ Augustine disapproved(64)
(August, ad Hieron. Ep. x. tom. ii. p. 18, Lugd. 1586, A.D. 403), and
indeed it was never received entire by the Western Church, which long
preferred his slight revision of the Old Latin, made at some earlier
period of his life. Gradually, however, Jerome’s recension of the whole
Bible gained ground, as well through the growing influence of the Church
of Rome as from its own intrinsic merits: so that when in course of time
it came to take the place of the older version, it also took its name of
the _Vulgate_, or common translation(65). Cassiodorus indeed, in the
middle of the sixth century, is said to have compared the new and old
Latin (of the New, perhaps of both Testaments) in parallel columns, which
thus became partially mixed in not a few codices: but Gregory the Great
(590-604), while confessing that his Church used both “quia sedes
Apostolica, cui auctore Deo praesideo, utrâque utitur,” (Epist. Dedic. ad
Leandrum, c. 5), awarded so decided a preference to Jerome’s translation
from the Hebrew, that this form of his Old Testament version, not without
some mixture with his translation from the Septuagint (Walton, Polyglott,
Prol. x. pp. 242-244, Wrangham), and his Psalter and New Testament as
revised from the Old Latin, came at length to comprise the Vulgate Bible,
the only shape in which Holy Scripture was accessible in Western Europe
(except to a few scattered scholars) during the long night of the Middle
Ages.

But it was not a pure Vulgate text that was thus used; the old versions
went on side by side with it for centuries, and even when they were thus
nominally superseded, fragments of them found their way into probably all
existing MSS. We have already remarked (in _c_ _g_ &c.) how the same MS.
will present us with an Old Latin text in some books of the New Testament,
and with a Vulgate text in others; we shall note the same phenomenon in
other MSS., especially the British and Irish (see the MSS. numbered 51,
67, 78, 85, 87 below), which preserve on the whole a pure Hieronymian
text, but are coloured here and there from the earlier versions. Variation
was still further increased by the apparently numerous local or provincial
recensions which were made, sometimes anonymously, sometimes under the
editorship of famous men. Many of the Irish MSS., for instance, seem to
have been corrected immediately from the Greek; but the two most notable
recensions of the text came, not, as we might have expected, directly from
Rome, but from Gaul; they are those of Alcuin and Theodulf in the ninth
century. That of Alcuin was undertaken at the desire of Charles the
Great(66), who bade him (A.D. 797) review and correct certain copies by
the best Latin MSS. without reference to the original Greek. Charles’
motive was not so much critical as a wish to obtain a standard Bible for
church use, and consequently of simple and intelligible Latin. Alcuin
obtained bibles for this purpose from his native Northumbria, the scene at
the beginning of the eighth century of an earlier recension of the text;
for it was to their monasteries at Wearmouth and Jarrow (_see_ below, p.
71) that Benedict Biscop and Ceolfrid had brought the bibles and other
books collected in Rome and elsewhere during their journeys; and it was in
Northumbria that the magnificent Anglian texts (such as those numbered 29,
64, 82, 91, &c.) were written, perpetuating the pure Vulgate text
contained at that time in the Roman MSS.(67)

At Christmas in 801, Alcuin presented Charles with a copy of the revised
Bible(68); specimens of this revision are to be found in the MSS. numbered
below, 5, 9, 25, 37, 117, and others.

About the same time, Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans (787-821), undertook a
similar revision, and not of a less scientific character, but followed a
different method. Theodulf, himself a Visigoth and born near Narbonne,
seems to have done little more than introduce into France the Spanish type
of MSS., which was mixed, confused, full of interpolations, and of very
slight critical value(69); this however he corrected carefully and
enriched with a large number of marginal readings. This revision is
preserved for us in the Theodulfian Bible at Paris (no. 18 below), less
correctly in its sister volume at Puy (no. 24), the Paris MS. (no. 22
below), and partly also in the correction of the Bible of St. Hubert (no.
6).

Two centuries later the text had again degenerated, and our Primate
Lanfranc (1069-89) attempted a similar task, perhaps rather with a view to
theology than textual criticism (“secundum orthodoxam fidem studuit
corrigere”)(70). In 1109 Stephen Harding, third abbot of Citeaux, made a
further revision, partly from good Latin MSS., partly from the Greek,
partly, in the Old Testament, from the Hebrew, as he obtained help from
some learned Jewish scholars(71). In 1150 his example was followed by
Cardinal Nicolaus Maniacoria(72). As these individual efforts seemed to
have but slight success, the task was taken up in the thirteenth century
more fully and systematically by bodies of scholars, in the so-called
“Correctoria Bibliorum;” here the variant readings with their authorities,
Greek, Latin, ancient, modern, and citations from the Fathers, were
carefully registered. The most noticeable examples of these correctoria
are (1) the “Correctorium Parisiense” prepared by the Paris theologians.
Roger Bacon had a poor opinion of the work done by these students; for
some time the MSS. of the Bible that were copied and bought and sold in
Paris, he says, were corrupt; they were bad to begin with, and copied
carelessly by the booksellers and their scribes, while the theologians
were not learned enough to discover and amend the mistakes(73). This
correctorium is also frequently, but according to Denifle (p. 284)
wrongly, called _Senonense_, as if it was undertaken at the instance of
the Bishop of Sens; there is, however, no _correctorium Senonense_, only
the _correctiones Senonenses_, i.e. corrections made in the Paris
Correctorium by the Dominicans residing at Sens; (2) the “Correctorium” of
the Dominicans, prepared under the auspices of Hugo de S. Caro, about
1240, the final corrected form of which is now preserved at Paris, B.N.
Lat. 16719-16722 (_see_ below, p. 70, no. 23)(74); this, however, was
again an attempt, not so much to get at Jerome’s actual text as, to bring
the Latin text into accordance with the Greek or Hebrew(75); (3) a better
and more critical revision, the “Correctorium Vaticanum,” a good MS. of
which is in the Vatican Library (Lat. 3466); the author of this has done
his best to restore Jerome’s reading throughout, although well learned in
Greek and Hebrew; and he has with some probability been identified by
Vercellone with a scholar much praised by Roger Bacon as a “sapientissimus
homo,” who had spent nearly forty years in the correction of the text(76)
(Denifle suggests Wilh. de Mara).

These remedies, partial and temporary as they were, seemed all that was
possible before the invention of printing; and, indeed, by an unfortunate
chance, the worst of the three correctoria, the “Parisiense,” was made use
of by Robert Stephen.

Among the earliest productions of the press, Latin Bibles took a prominent
position; and during the first half-century of printing at least 124
editions were published(77). Of these perhaps the finest is the earliest,
the famous “forty-two line” Bible, issued at Mentz between 1452 and 1456,
in two volumes, and usually ascribed to Gutenberg(78). This is usually
called the “Mazarin Bible,” from the copy which first attracted the notice
of bibliographers having been discovered in the Library of Cardinal
Mazarin; in the New Testament, the order of books is Evv., Paul., Act.,
Cath., Apoc. Mr. Copinger enumerates twenty-five copies on vellum and
paper as still known to exist; there are two in the British Museum. The
first Bible published at Rome is dated 1471, and was printed by Conrad
Sweynheym and Arnold Pannartz, two vols., folio; the first octavo edition,
or “poor man’s Bible,” was printed at Basle in 1491 by Froben. The early
editions, however, reproduced the current mediaeval type of text, or
copied from each other, the only exceptions being those printed by Froben,
whose copies, says Mr. Copinger, were sought after, for their accuracy, by
the best scholars in Europe, and whose edition of 1502 with the “glossa
ordinaria” sometimes stands quite alone in possessing the true reading.
The first, edition with a collection of various readings appears to be one
published at Paris in 1504(79), followed by others at Venice and Lyons in
1511, 1513; and a definite revision of the text was attempted by Cardinal
Ximenes, in the famous Complutensian Polyglott (1514, &c.; see Chap.
V)(80), in which he made use of the Bible of Alcalá (_see_ below, no. 42);
but though an advance was made on previous editions, the text was still
far from pure. Erasmus, in his famous edition of the Greek Testament,
appended a Latin translation; this he made himself directly from the
Greek, but in his notes he discusses the current Vulgate text and gives
readings from MSS. which he had examined; of these he mentions those at
the Royal Library at Mechlin, St. Paul’s Cathedral, London, Corsendonk
Austin Priory, Constance Cathedral, St. Donatian (Abbaye des Dunes) of
Bruges; of these the first and third only can be now identified, _see_
below, pp. 84, 81, nos.(81) 134, 109. The first edition of a really
critical nature was that of Robert Stephen, in 1528; for this he used
three good MSS., the _Exemplar S. Germani parvum_ (Par. lat. 11937), the
Corbey Bible (Par. lat. 11532-3), and the Bible of St. Denis (Par. lat.
2); _see_ below, nos. 22, 20, 10; and he published a more important
edition in 1538-40 (reprinted 1546), in which he made use of seventeen
MSS., of which the following(82), numbered 19, 21, 22, 100 below, have
been identified. _This edition is practically the foundation of the Modern
Vulgate_, and is cited by Wordsworth as ϛ. Later, John Hentenius, in his
folio edition of the Bible, (Louvain, 1547, and often reprinted); cited by
Wordsworth as [Gothic: H] seems to have used about thirty-one MSS. and two
printed copies; but as no various readings are cited from individual MSS.,
they cannot well be identified; _see_ his preface. Lucas Brugensis (_see_
his catalogue at the end of the Hentenian Bible of 1583, p. 6) also gives
a long list of MSS., which seem impossible to be identified(83), and we
must also bear in mind the corrected editions published by Th. Vivian
(Paris), and Junta (Venice), 1534 (both are small copies of the New
Testament, corrected occasionally from the Greek), Isidore Clarius
(Venice, 1542), J. Benedictus (Paris, 1558), Paul Eber (1565), and Luke
Osiander (1578).

When the Council of Trent met, the duty of providing for the members of
the Church of Rome the most correct recension of the Latin Bible that
skill and diligence could produce was obviously incumbent on it; and in
one of its earliest sittings (April 8, 1546) the famous decree was passed,
ordaining that of the many published editions of the Holy Scripture “haec
ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa
ecclesia probata est” should be chosen, and “in publicis lectionibus,
disputationibus, praedicationibus, et expositionibus pro _authentica_
habeatur” (Sess. iv. Decr. 2); and directing that “posthac sacra
Scriptura, potissimum vero haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio quam
emendatissime imprimatur.” No immediate action, however, was taken in the
matter, and for forty years the editions were still printed and published
by private scholars; the Hentenian, for the time being, becoming almost
the standard text of the Roman Catholic Church.

Pope Pius IV had indeed begun the task of correcting the Vulgate Bible,
but without immediate result, and under his successors the matter still
rested, till the accession of Sixtus V (1585-90)(84), a Pope as energetic
in his labours on the Holy Scripture as in other spheres of activity. He
appointed a commission on the subject, under the presidency of Cardinal
Carafa; and after they had presented the Pope with the result of their
work, in the beginning of 1589, he devoted himself personally to the
study, reading through the whole Bible more than once, and using his best
endeavours to bring it to the highest pitch of accuracy. The result of
this appeared in a folio edition of the Bible in three volumes, in
1590(85), accompanied by a Bull, in which, after relating the extreme care
that had been taken in preparing the volume, Sixtus V declared that it was
to be considered as the _authentic_ edition recommended by the Council of
Trent, that it should be taken as the standard of all future reprints, and
that all copies should be corrected by it. The edition itself (cited by
Wordsworth as [Gothic: S]) was not without faults, and indeed received a
good number of corrections by hand after the proofs were printed off; it
presents a text more nearly resembling that of Robt. Stephen than that of
John Hentenius. In a few months, however, Sixtus was dead; a number of
short-lived Popes succeeded him, and in Jan. 1592, Clement VIII ascended
the throne. Almost immediately he gave orders for the copies of the
Sixtine Vulgate to be called in; it has been hitherto supposed _simply_ on
account of its inaccuracy, but Professor Nestle (pp. 17 ff.) argues
reasonably enough that this ground is insufficient, and suggests that the
revocation was really due to the influence of the Jesuits, whom Sixtus had
offended by placing one of Bellarmine’s books on the _Index Librorum
prohibitorum_. Be that as it may, in the same year the Clementine edition
of the Vulgate (Wordsworth’s [Gothic: C]) was published, differing from
the Sixtine in many places, and presenting a type of text more nearly
allied to Hentenius’ Bible. To avoid the appearance of a conflict between
the two Popes, the Clementine Bible was boldly published under the name of
Sixtus, with a preface by Bellarmine asserting that Sixtus had intended to
bring out a new edition in consequence of errors that had occurred in the
printing of the first, but had been prevented by death; now, in accordance
with his desire, the work was completed by his successor. The opportunity,
however, was too good a one for Protestants to miss, and Thomas James in
his “Bellum Papale sive Concordia discors” (London, 1600), upbraids the
two Popes on their high pretensions and the palpable failure of at least
one, possibly both of them(86).

From this time forward the Clementine Vulgate (sometimes under the name of
Clement, sometimes under that of Sixtus, sometimes under both names)(87)
has been the standard edition for the Roman Church; by the Bull of 1592,
every edition must be assimilated to this one, no word of the text may be
altered, nor even variant readings printed in the margin(88).

Thus the modern attempts at a scientific and critical revision of this
version have come from students mainly outside the communion of the Roman
Church.

The design of Bentley for a critical Greek Testament is described below
(Chap. V); it was obvious that for its prosecution the MSS. of the Vulgate
would have to be collated as carefully as those of the Greek text itself;
and accordingly the variant readings of a good number were collected by
Bentley himself, nos. 3, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71,
72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 83, 85, 155, 160; other MSS. were collated by his
friend and colleague John Walker, who worked much at Paris in 1719 and the
following years; to him we owe collations of nos. 10, 11, 15, 16, 19, 20,
21, 52, 96, 97, 102, 151, 164, while he obtained collations of the Tours
MSS. (nos. 106, 107, 108, 166) from L. Chevalier, through their common
friend Sabatier; and of the Oxford MSS. (nos. 86, 87, 89, 90, 148, 161),
from David Casley. Walker died, however, in November, 1741, six months
before the great Bentley, and the projected edition came to naught(89).
Their collations have not been published, but are contained in the
following volumes, in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge: B. 17. 5
containing collations by Walker, Chevalier, Casley, and Bentley; and B.
17. 15 containing collations by Bentley; and they have been made use of by
Bishop Wordsworth in his edition of the Vulgate(90).

Two attempts are being made now to restore the text of St. Jerome: that of
Dr. Peter Corssen, of Berlin, and the Oxford edition under the hands of
the Bishop of Salisbury. Dr. Corssen’s published results at present
consist only of the Epistle to the Galatians (“Epistula ad Galatas,”
Berlin, Weidmann, 1885), but he has been spending several years in the
accumulation of material, and other books of the New Testament will
probably be published before very long. The Bishop of Salisbury after
nearly eleven years’ preparation, in conjunction with the Rev. H. J. White
and other friends, published the first volume of his edition, containing
St. Matthew’s Gospel, in 1889; St. Mark following in 1891, and St. Luke in
1892; and it is hoped that the rest of the New Testament may be published
in due course. More than thirty MSS., those numbered 5, 6, 18, 21, 28, 29,
37, 41, 51, 56, 64, 67, 68, 72, 77, 78, 82, 85, 86, 87, 91, 97, 98, 106,
115, 128, 129, 130, 132, 147, 148, 153, 154, 159, 175 below, have been
carefully collated throughout for this edition, and a large number of
others are cited in all the important passages, besides _correctoria_, and
the more noticeable of the earlier printed Bibles.

To enumerate all the known MSS. of the Old Latin version was an easy task;
to enumerate those of the Vulgate is almost impossible. It is computed
that there are at least 8,000 scattered throughout the various Libraries
of Europe, and M. Samuel Berger, the greatest living authority on the
subject, has examined more than 800 in Paris alone. Nor would an
exhaustive enumeration be of much critical value, as a large number of
comparatively late MSS. probably contain the same corrupt type of text.

In the following list it is hoped that most of the really important MSS.
are included; the writer has had the unwearied and invaluable aid of M.
Samuel Berger(91), besides that of many other kind friends, in its
compilation. It has been thought best to arrange the MSS. on a double
system; _first_ according to their contents:—A. Bibles, whole or
incomplete; B. New Testament; C. Gospels; D. Acts and onwards; E. Epistles
and Apocalypse; and _secondly_ under each of these heads, A-E, according
to countries (alphabetically):—Austria, British Isles, France, Germany,
Holland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United States.

For other lists the student is referred to Le Long, Bibliotheca Sacra, ed.
1723, vol. i. p. 235; Vercellone, Variae Lectiones, Romae, 1860, vol. i.
p. lxxxiii f., ii. p. xvii f.; Berger, p. 374 f.; and for a fuller
treatment of the history and text of the Vulgate, to Bishop Westcott’s
article “Vulgate” in Smith’s Bible Dictionary; Kaulen, Geschichte d.
Vulgata, Mainz, 1865; Fritzsche, “Lateinische Bibelübersetzungen” in
Herzog, Realencyclopädie, second ed., vol. viii; P. Corssen in Die Trierer
Adahandschr., Leipzig, 1889; and the important work of S. Berger, Histoire
de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du moyen âge, Paris, 1893; to
economize space, this will be quoted below simply as “Berger.”

After the list of MSS. are added indices of the various notations by which
respectively Bentley, Tischendorf, Wordsworth, &c., have cited them.


    A. BIBLES.

    a. _Austria: Vienna._

    1. Imperial Library, Lat. 1190. Bible [early ix], probably copied
    in the Abbey of St. Vedast at Arras, during the time of the Abbot
    Rado (795-815); Alcuinian poems. _See_ M. Denis’ Catalogue, i. p.
    167, and Berger, p. 108 f.

    b. _British Isles: British Museum._

    2. Reg. I. B. xii. Bible [xiii], written in 1254 by William of
    Hales for Thomas de la Wile, “Magister Scolarum Sarum.” Cited by
    Bishop Wordsworth as W, and incorporated by him into his
    _apparatus criticus_ as furnishing a fair specimen of the current
    mediaeval text.

    3. Reg. I. E. vii, viii. Bible [x], in two large folio volumes,
    the first few pages of each volume, and the last pages of the
    second, being supplied in a twelfth-century hand; contains
    stichometry to several of the books, both in the Old and in the
    New Testaments; order of New Test., Ev., Act., Cath., Paul. (Laod.
    after Hebr.), Apoc.; Bentley’s R.

    4. Harl. 4772, 4773. Bible [xiii], in 2 vols., formerly belonging
    to the Capucin Monastery of Montpellier; the second volume appears
    to be somewhat later than the first. The MS. both in handwriting
    and text seems to come from the south of France. _See_ Berger, p.
    76.

    5 5. Addit. 10,546. The noble Alcuinian Bible [ix], known usually
    as “Charlemagne’s’ Bible,” or the Bible of Grandval (near Basle);
    became the property of the British Museum in 1836. Probably
    written about the time of Charles the Bald; a good specimen of the
    Alcuinian revision; _see_ the Museum Catalogue, i pl. 42, 43, and
    Westwood, Pal. Sacra Pict., p. 25. Wordsworth’s K; collated by the
    Revs. G. M. Youngman and H. J. White.

    6. Addit. 24,142. Bible [ix], formerly belonging to the Monastery
    of St. Hubert in the Ardennes; written in small minuscule hand,
    strongly resembling that of the Theodulfian Bible (_see_ below,
    no. 18), three columns to a page; contains Old Test., and in New
    Test. Ev., Paul., Cath., as far as 1 Pet. iv. 3. Facsimile in
    “Catalogue of Anc. MSS. in the B. M.” p. 5, pl. 45. Wordsworth’s
    H.

    7. Addit. 28,107. The second volume of a Bible in large folio
    [dated 1097], 240 leaves, from St. Remacle’s at Stavelot, near
    Liège; with peculiar capitula, and a stichometry. _See_ Lightfoot,
    Journal of Philology, vol. iii. no. 6, p. 197 f.; Facsimile in
    Palaeogr. Soc. ii. pl. 92, 93.

    c. _France: Dijon._

    8. Public Library, 9 bis. Bible, 4 vols, [xii], corrected
    throughout by Stephen Harding, third abbot of Citeaux; _see_
    above, p. 60.

    _Paris._

    9. B. N. Lat. 1, formerly 35,612. Bible [middle ix], 423 leaves,
    fol., 50 x 38 cent., minuscule. This splendid MS., with pictures
    and initials, was presented to Charles the Bald by Vivian, abbot
    of St. Martin of Tours, and was for a long time in the Cathedral
    treasury at Metz; it was given by the Chapter of Metz to Colbert
    in 1675. _See_ Delisle, Cab. des MSS., iii. p. 234 ff.; Berger, p.
    215 f.; Le Long, i. p. 237. Alcuinian text.

    10. B. N. Lat. 2, formerly 3561 (not, as Le Long and Walker say,
    3562). The Bible of St. Denis or of Charles the Bald [ix], 444
    leaves, fol., minuscule, with fine initial letters, contains
    verses in praise of Charles the Bald; in the N. T. the Apoc. is
    wanting. _See_ O.L. Bibl. T., i. p. 55; Delisle, Cab. des MSS., i.
    p. 200, and pl. xxviii. 1, 4, 5; Les Bibles de Théodulfe, p. 7; De
    Bastard, c-civ; Jorand, Grammatogr. du ixe siècle, Paris, 1837;
    Silvestre, Pal. Univ., clxxi; Berger, p. 287 f. Walker’s ε; used
    previously by R. Stephen in his Bible of 1528.

    11. Lat. 3, formerly Reg. 3562. Bible [middle ix], fol., thick
    minuscule; parts of the Apoc. have been supplied by a later hand.
    Belonged first to the Monastery of Glanfeuil, then to the Abbey of
    St. Maur des Fossés near Charenton, the library of which was
    acquired by the St. Germain Abbey in 1716; a good specimen of the
    Alcuinian revision. _See_ Delisle, Cab. des MSS., pl. xxv. 1, 2,
    xxix. 4; Berger, p. 213 f. Walker’s η.

    12. Lat. 4, formerly Colbert 157, 158, then Reg. 357112.13; 2
    vols., fol., 53.5 x 33 cent, [ix or x]; 42 contains 193 leaves,
    with Psalms, Ev., Act., Cath., Apoc., Paul. This MS. was given to
    Colbert by the Canons of Puy, and called “Codex Aniciensis.” The
    first hand presents an Alcuinian text, but a second hand has added
    a large number of remarkable variant readings, especially in the
    Acts and Cath. Epp. It appears to belong to Languedoc. _See_
    Berger, p. 73.

    13. Lat. 6. Bible in 4 vols. [x], fol., 48 x 33.5 cent., from the
    Abbey of Rosas in Catalonia. The fourth volume (64) contains the
    New Test. (113 f.) in following order, Ev., Act., Cath., Paul.
    (Laod. between Col. and Thess.), Apoc. Valuable text, the first
    hand contains a large number of interesting and Old Latin
    readings; and in the Acts, the second hand has added a number of
    Old Latin variants in the margin. From the Noailles Library; _see_
    Berger, p. 24.

    14. Lat. 7, formerly Reg. 3567, one of Card. Mazarin’s MSS. Bible,
    fol., 51 x 34.5 cent. [xi probably], with fine illuminations;
    order of books in New Test., Ev., Act., Cath., Paul., Apoc.
    Interesting text in the Acts, and strongly resembling the second
    hand of Lat. 42, this MS. was also probably written in Languedoc.
    Facsimile in De Bastard. _See_ Berger, p. 73.

    15. Lat. 45 and 93, formerly Reg. 3563-4. Bible [late ix], fol.,
    thick minuscule; no. 93 has 261 leaves, the New Test. (Ev., Act.,
    Cath., Paul., Apoc.), commencing on fol. 156. This MS. belonged
    originally to the Monastery of St. Riquier on the Somme;
    interesting text, especially in the Acts and Cath. Epp. Walker’s
    θ. Berger, p. 96 f.

    16. Lat. 47, formerly Reg. 3564a (Faurianus 32, i.e. in the
    library of Antoine Faure). Part of a Bible [xi], fol., 176 leaves
    minuscule; closely resembling no. 11 (Lat. 3) in text and perhaps
    even more valuable; much _mut._ in N. T. Walker’s κ.

    17. Lat. 140. Bible [xv], written in Germany, and bearing the name
    and arms of a Tyrolese, Joachim Schiller ab Herdern. Order of
    books in the New Test., Ev., Paul., Apoc., Cath., Act. Interesting
    text, especially in the Acts, where it is more or less mixed;
    examined by S. Berger.

    18. Lat. 9380. Bible [ix], in beautiful and minute minuscule. The
    famous Theodulfian Bible, formerly belonging to the Cathedral of
    Orleans, and bearing such a strong resemblance to the other
    Theodulfian Codex at Puy (_see_ below, no. 24), that M. Delisle
    declares many pages look almost like proofs struck from the same
    type. It bears a strong resemblance also to the St. Hubert Bible
    (Brit. Mus. Add. 24,142, _see_ no. 6), though it is written in a
    smaller hand; the Hubert text has been throughout assimilated to
    this. _See_ Berger, p. 149 f.; Delisle, Cab. des MSS., pl. xxi. 3,
    and Les Bibles de Théodulfe, Paris, 1879. Wordsworth’s Θ; collated
    by Revs. C. Wordsworth and H. J. White.

    19. Lat. 11,504-5, formerly St. Germain 3, 4, afterwards 16, 17.
    Bible [ix], fol., 199 and 215 leaves, minuscule; dated 822. New
    Test. contains Ev., Act., Rom., 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil.,
    Col., 1 and 2 Thess., 1 Tim.; then a lacuna; Apoc., Cath. _See_
    O.L.B.T., i. p. 57; Del., Cab. des MSS., pl. xxiv; Berger, p. 93.
    Walker’s ο2; he collated Act., Cath., Paul., Apoc.

    20. Lat. 11,532, 11,533, formerly at Corbey, afterwards St.
    Germain 1, 2, then 14, 15; 2 vols. Bible [ix], fol., minuscules;
    probably written after 855 A.D., the year of the accession of
    Lothair II, who is mentioned in an inscription at the end of the
    book. Order of books in the New Test., Ev., Act., Cath., Paul.,
    Apoc. Walker’s ν; he collated Act., Cath., Paul., Apoc., not Ev.;
    see Wordsworth, O.L.B.T., i. p. 57; Berger, p. 104 f.

    21. Lat. 11,553, described above (p. 47) as _g_1. Old Latin text
    in St. Matthew; in the rest of the New Test, a Vulgate text, but
    with strong admixture of Old Latin elements. Order of books in New
    Test., Ev., Act., Cath., Apoc, Paul. Wordsworth’s G, Walker’s μ;
    _see_ also Berger, p. 65 ff.

    22. Lat. 11,937, formerly St. Germain 9, then 645. First volume of
    Bible [ix], 4to, 179 leaves, containing the Old Test., but
    incomplete. This MS. was the “Germ, parv.” of R. Stephen, who
    cites it also in Matt, v-viii; the volume, however, containing the
    New Testament has since disappeared. _See_ Delisle, Les Bibles de
    Théodulfe, p. 28.

    23. Lat. 16,719-16,722. Bible [xiii], in 4 vols., corrected
    throughout by the Dominicans under the auspices of Hugo de St.
    Caro, _see_ above, p. 60, often called the Bible of St. Hugo de
    St. Caro.

    _Puy._

    24. Cathedral Library. The famous Bible [viii or ix], written
    under the direction of Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans, and closely
    resembling the Paris Codex B. N. Lat. 9380, though not of equal
    critical value (_see_ above, p. 69, no. 18). Described by Delisle,
    Les Bibles de Théodulfe; _see_ also Le Long, i. p. 235; Berger, p.
    171 f.

    d. _Germany: Bamberg._

    25. Royal Library, A. I. 5. Bible [ix], large folio, 423 leaves.
    One of the finest examples of the Alcuinian recension, and a
    typical specimen of the second period of Caroline writing and
    ornamentation. Written in the monastery of St. Martin at Tours.
    Apocalypse wanting. _See_ Leitschuh, Führer durch d. kgl. Bibl. zu
    Bamberg, 1889, p. 82. Wordsworth’s B2 in Acts &c.; collated by the
    Rev. H. J. White.

    _Metz._

    26. Public Library, no. 7. Second half of Bible [early ix],
    minuscule. Mixed text, with Languedocian and Irish
    characteristics. _See_ Berger, p. 100.

    _Würzburg_(92).

    27. Mp. th. fol. max. 1. Bible [xi], 403 leaves, large folio,
    formerly belonging to the Cathedral Library. Contains the whole
    Bible except Pauline Epp. and Book of Baruch, which, together with
    the Epistle to the Laodiceans, have been abstracted.

    e. _Italy: La Cava._

    28. Corpo di Cava (near Salerno); Benedictine Abbey. The
    well-known “Codex Cavensis” of the whole Bible [prob. ix], written
    in Spain, probably in Castile or Leon, in small, round Visigothic
    minuscules, by a scribe Danila; a copy was made by the Abbate de
    Rossi early in this century, and is now in the Vatican (Lat.
    8484). A good representative of the Spanish type of text, and
    closely resembling the Codex Toletanus (no. 41). _See_ Dom
    Bernardo Gaetani de Aragona, Cod. diplomat. Cavensis, vol. i,
    Naples, 1873; Silvestre, Pal. univ., iii; L. Ziegler, Sitzungsber.
    der k. bayr. Akad. der Wissenschaften phil. phil. Klasse, Munich,
    1876, p. 655 f.; Pertz, Archiv, v. p. 542. Collated by Bishop
    Wordsworth. Tischendorf’s _cav._, Wordsworth’s C.

    _Florence._

    29. Laurentian Library. The far-famed Codex Amiatinus of the whole
    Bible [end of vii or beginning of viii], 1029 leaves, large folio.
    Till lately it was supposed to have been written by a sixth
    century scribe in Italy; but now, principally through the
    acuteness of G. B. de Rossi and the late Professor Hort, it has
    been proved that it was written by the order of the abbot Ceolfrid
    either at Wearmouth or Jarrow, and sent by him as a present to the
    Pope at Rome in 715 A.D. Afterwards placed in the Monastic Library
    at Monte Amiata, whence it was again sent to Rome for collation at
    the time of the Sixtine revision (_see_ p. 64). The New Testament
    was badly edited by F. F. Fleck, 1840; carefully, though not
    without a few slips, by Tischendorf in 1850 (second ed. with some
    emendations 1854); and by Tregelles in his Greek New Test. 1857.
    Facsimiles in Zangemeister and Wattenb., Exempla codd. lat., pl.
    35, and Palaeogr. Soc. ii. pl. 65, 66. Of the recent literature on
    this MS., and especially on the first quaternion, with its lists
    of the books of the Bible closely resembling those of Cassiodorus,
    _see_ G. B. de Rossi, La Biblia offerta da Ceolfr. Abb. al
    Sepolcro di S. Pietro, Rome, 1887; H. J. White, The Codex
    Amiatinus and its Birthplace, in “Studia Biblica,” ii. p. 273
    (Oxford, 1890); P. Corssen, Die Bibeln des Cassiodorus und der
    Cod. Amiatinus, in the “Jahrb. f. prot. Theologie,” 1883 and 1891;
    Th. Zahn, Gesch. d. ntl. Kanons, ii. p. 267 f. Tischendorf’s
    _am._, Wordsworth’s A.

    _Milan._

    30. Ambrosian Library, E. 26 _inf._ Part of a Bible [ix or x],
    commencing with Chron. and finishing with Pauline Epp. Probably
    written at Bobbio. Mixed text, especially interesting in St.
    Paul’s Epp.; does not contain the last three verses of Romans;
    _see_ Berger, p. 138.

    31. E. 53 _inf._ Bible [ix or x], much mutilated; 169 leaves,
    containing the sacred books in the following order: Octateuch,
    Jerem., Acts, Cath., Apoc., Kings, Solomon, Job, Tobit, Judith,
    Esther, Esdras, Maccabees, Ezek., Dan., minor prophets, Isa.,
    Pauline Epp.; i.e. the order in which they are read in
    ecclesiastical lessons during the year. Formerly at Biasca, a
    village in the valley of Tessin on the St. Gothard. Vulgate text,
    but mixed with Old Latin elements; interesting as containing not
    only the Ep. to the Laodiceans but also the apocryphal
    correspondence between St. Paul and the Corinthians (cp. the Laon
    MS., no. 161). _See_ Carrière and Berger, La correspondance apocr.
    de St. Paul et des Corinthiens, Paris, 1891.

    _Monte Cassino._

    32. Monastery of Monte Cassino: codd. 552 and 557 are mentioned by
    Corssen (Ep. ad Galatas, Berlin, 1885, p. 15) as worthy of note:
    552 Bible [xi], 557 Bible [xii-xiii], but both containing an
    ancient text. Order of books in both is Ev., Act., Cath., Apoc.,
    Paul. (Ev. lacking in 552). _See_ also “Bibliotheca Casinensis,”
    ii. pp. 313-352.

    _Monza._

    33. Collegiate Archives, G. 1. Bible [ix], written at Tours by the
    scribe Amalricus, who was Archbishop of Tours: specimen of the
    Alcuinian recension and resembling in text and in outward
    appearance and writing the Parisian Bible, B. N. Lat. 3 (no. 11
    above). _See_ Corssen, Epist. ad Galatas, p. 10; Berger, p. 221.

    _Rome._

    34. Vat. Lat. 5729, Codex Farfensis. Bible [xi], in one enormous
    volume; in good preservation, written in three columns. _See_
    Vercellone, Var. Lect., ii. p. xvii, and Le Long, i. p. 235; the
    latter wrongly cites it as 6729.

    35. Bible of S. Maria ad Martyres (La Rotonda, Pantheon). Bible
    [x], large folio. The books in the New Test. are in the following
    order: Ev., Act., Cath., Apoc., Paul.; used by Vercellone.

    36. The splendid Bible [ix] preserved in the Library of “S. Paul
    without the walls;” belonged to Charles the Bald, and preserves an
    Alcuinian text, strongly resembling V. _See_ Vercellone, Var.
    Lect., i. p. lxxxv; Le Long, i. p. 237; Berger, p. 292.

    37. Vallicellian Library, B. vi. Bible [ix], 347 leaves, large
    4to, Caroline minuscules. The Church of Sta. Maria in Vallicella
    belongs to the Oratorian Fathers, and Bianchini himself was an
    Oratorian; he refers to this MS. in the “Evang. Quadr.,” ii. pl.
    viii. p. 600, and it is probably the best extant specimen of the
    Alcuinian revision. Bp. Wordsworth collated it, and cites it as V;
    _see_ also Berger, p. 197.

    f. _Spain: Leon._

    38. Cathedral Library, 15. Fragments of Bible [vii], palimpsest;
    40 leaves, semi-uncial, under some writing in a Visigothic hand of
    the tenth century. Contains in New Test. portions of Acts, 2 Cor.,
    Col., and 1 John. Vulgate base but with Old Latin elements,
    especially in 1 John. Discovered by Dr. Rudolf Beer, who is
    proposing to publish the fragments. _See_ Berger, p. 8.

    39. Cathedral Library, 6. Second volume of a Bible [x], formerly
    belonging to the Convent of SS. Cosmas and Damian in the Valle de
    Torio, and thought to date from the time of Ordogno II (913-923);
    written by two scribes, Vimara, a presbyter, and John, a deacon;
    minuscule, like Cavensis, only larger. Order of books in the New
    Test. is Ev. (followed by a commentary), Act., Paul. (including
    Laod.), Cath., Apoc.; examined by Bp. Wordsworth in 1882. _See_
    Berger, p. 17.

    40. Church of San Isidro; Codex Gothicus Legionensis. Bible [x],
    folio, dated 998 of the Spanish era, i.e. 960 A.D.; minuscule of
    the same type as Cavensis, only larger. Order of books in the New
    Test.: Ev., Paul., Cath., Act., Apoc. Written “a notario Sanctioni
    presbitero,” and was collated on behalf of the Sixtine revision of
    the Vulgate for Card. Carafa, and by him called the Codex
    Gothicus; this collation is preserved in the Vatican, Lat. 4859.
    Examined by Bp. Wordsworth in 1882. _See_ Berger, p. 18.

    _Madrid._

    41. National Library. Bible [x? Berger would date it viii], in
    three columns, the famous “Codex Toletanus.” According to a notice
    in the MS. itself, its “auctor possessorque” (auctor = legal
    owner?), Servandus of Seville, gave it to his friend John, Bishop
    of Cordova, who in turn offered it in the year 988 to the see of
    Seville; thence it passed in time to Toledo and ultimately to
    Madrid. It is written in Visigothic characters, and presents the
    Spanish type of text, strongly resembling the Cod. Cavensis (no.
    28). Collated for the Sixtine revision by Chr. Palomares, whose
    work, written in a Hentenian Bible of 1569, is now preserved in
    the Vatican (Lat. 9508); it was not, however, used in that
    revision, as it reached Cardinal Carafa too late. Bianchini
    published the collation in his “Vindiciae Can. Script.,” Rome,
    1740, pp. xlvii-ccxvi (= Migne, Patr. Lat., tom. xxix). Bp.
    Wordsworth collated the New Testament in 1882. _See_ Berger, p.
    12; Merino, Escuela Paleogr., pl. v. pp. 53-9, Madrid, 1780; Muñoz
    y Rivero, Paleografia Visigoda, pl. viii, ix, Madrid, 1881; Ewald
    and Loewe, Exempla Scr. Visig., pp. 7, 8, pl. ix. Tischendorf’s
    _tol._; Wordsworth’s T.

    42. University Library, no. 31: Codex Complutensis, i.e. of Alcalá
    (= Complutum). Bible [ix or x]; in the New Test. Laod. follow
    Hebrews. Plainly a Spanish text, but with peculiar readings in the
    Epistles, and especially in the Acts. Purchased at Toledo by
    Cardinal Ximenes; described by Berger, p. 22, and Westcott,
    Vulgate, p. 1705.

    43. University Library, no. 32. Second volume of a Bible [ix-x],
    folio, containing from the Proverbs to the Apocalypse, in a
    Visigothic hand; the ornaments somewhat resembling those of the
    Codex Cavensis. It formerly belonged to Cardinal Ximenes: _see_
    Berger, p. 15.

    44. Royal Academy of History (Calle del Leon 21), No. F. 186. The
    second volume of a Bible [x], small folio, written by the monk
    Quisius. It formerly belonged to the Abbey of St. Emilianus (S.
    Millan de la Cogolla), between Burgos and Logroño. Order of books
    in New Test.: Ev., Act., Paul., Cath., Apoc. (fragmentary). The
    handwriting resembles Cavensis, though it is slightly larger, and
    the text also belongs to the Spanish group. Examined by Bp.
    Wordsworth in 1882; _see_ Berger, p. 16.

    g. _Switzerland: Berne._

    45. University Library, A. 9. Bible [xi], originally belonging to
    Vienne in Dauphiné. Contains an interesting text in Cath. Epp. and
    Acts, where it seems to be much under Theodulfian influence or
    that of the texts belonging to the South of France; the
    corrections too are interesting. _See_ Berger, p. 62 f.

    _Einsiedeln._

    46. Einsiedeln Library, no. 1. Bible [early x], possibly copied at
    Einsiedeln; corrected in accordance with a text like that of St.
    Gall 75. _See_ Berger, p. 132.

    47. Einsiedeln Library, nos. 5-7. Bible [x], also corrected and
    bearing strong resemblance to the one above; same order of books
    as in 31.

    _St. Gall._

    48. Stiftsbibliothek, no. 11 [viii]. A collection of extracts
    composed for the use of the monks; written by the monk Winithar.
    Vulgate text but with a mixture of Old Latin readings. _See_
    Berger, p. 121 f.

    49. Stiftsbibliothek, no. 75. [ix], large folio; contains complete
    Bible; corrected by the abbot Hartmotus. _See_ Berger, p. 129.

    _Present position unknown._

    50. Bible [xiii, but copied from an early exemplar], edited by
    Matthaei (N. T.) in the Act., Epp., Apoc.; _see_ his preface to
    Cath. Epp., p. xxx f.; belonged to Paul Demidov. Formerly at
    Lyons; Tischendorf’s _demid._

    B. NEW TESTAMENTS.

    a. _British Isles: Dublin._

    51. Trin. Coll. The Book of Armagh. New Test. [ix], written by
    Ferdomnach in a beautiful and small Irish hand. Order of books:
    Evv., Paul. (Laod. after Col.), Cath., Apoc., Acts. The New Test.
    was transcribed for Bp. Wordsworth by the Rev. G. M. Youngman; the
    late Dr. Reeves, Bp. of Down, intended to edit it, and his work is
    now (1893) being prepared for the press by Professors Gwynn and
    Bernard, of Dublin. _See_ also “National MSS. of Ireland,” i. pp.
    xiv-xvii, plates xxv-xxix; Berger, p. 31 f. Wordsworth’s D.

    b. _France: Paris._

    52. B. N. Lat. 250, formerly Reg. 3572; from Saint-Denis. New
    Test. [ix], folio, minuscule: Evv., Act., Cath., Paul. (Laod.
    after Col., which in turn is after Thess.), Apoc. Walker’s λ; he
    collated Cath. and Apoc. Alcuinian text, _see_ Berger, p. 243.

    53. Lat. 254. New Test. [xii]; has been described above as _c_ (p.
    45). Text is Old Latin in the Gospels, Vulgate in the rest of the
    New Test. _See_ Berger, p. 74.

    54. Lat. 321, formerly belonging to Baluze. New Testament [early
    xiii], written in the South of France, probably between
    Carcassonne and Narbonne. Very interesting text; in the Epistles
    and Acts there are a large number of Old Latin readings; the text
    of the Acts is especially mixed; orthography incorrect. Berger, p.
    77.

    55. Lat. 342, formerly Colbert 6155. New Testament [early xiii],
    written in the South of France; contains large mixture of Old
    Latin readings throughout; examined by Berger.

    c. _Germany: Fulda._

    56. Abbey of Fulda in Prussia. The well-known Codex Fuldensis [vi]
    of the New Testament, written for Bishop Victor of Capua, and
    corrected by him A.D. 541-546. The Gospels are arranged in one
    narrative, based on the order of Tatian’s Diatessaron, but with a
    Vulgate text; the Ep. to the Laodiceans follows that to the
    Colossians. Described by Schannat in 1723 (Vindemiae Literariae
    Collectio, pp. 218-21), collated by Lachmann and Ph. Buttmann in
    1839, and edited in full by E. Ranke (Marburg, 1868); _see_ also
    Th. Zahn, Tatian’s Diatessaron, Erlangen, 1881, pp. 298-313; S.
    Hemphill, The Diatessaron of Tatian, Dublin, 1888, pp. x, xi,
    xxiv-v. Facsimiles in Ranke, and Zangem. and Wattenb., Exempla, p.
    34. Tischendorf’s _fuld._; Wordsworth’s F.

    d. _Sweden: Stockholm._

    57. Royal Library: Codex Gigas Holmiensis [xiii]; Old Latin text
    in Acts and Apoc., Vulgate in the New Testament; described above,
    p. 51.

    C. GOSPELS.

    a. _Austria: Vienna._

    58. _theo_ or _theotisc_ refers to the Latin version of the
    “Fragmenta Theotisca versionis ant. Evang. S. Matthaei ...
    ediderunt Steph. Endlicher et Hoffmann Fallerslebensis;
    Vindobonae, 1834” (2nd edit. cura T. F. Massmann; Viennae, 1841);
    15 leaves [viii], containing St. Matt. viii. 33 to the end of the
    Gospel, but much mutilated; the _recto_ side of each leaf contains
    the Theotisc or Old German version, mixed with Gothic, the _verso_
    contains the Latin; quoted by Tischendorf in Matt. xx. 28, where
    it has the common Latin addition. _See_ also J. A. Schmeller,
    Ammonii Alexandrini Harmonia Evangeliorum, Vienna, 1841.

    b. _British Isles: British Museum._

    59. Reg. I. A. xviii. Gospels [x], 199 leaves, written in Caroline
    minuscules, originally belonging to King Athelstan, who gave it to
    St. Augustine’s monastery at Canterbury; _mut._ after John xviii.
    21; _see_ British Museum Catalogue, p. 37. Bentley’s O.

    60. Reg. I. B. vii. Gospels [viii], 155 leaves, written in
    England. The Rev. G. M. Youngman, who has examined this MS.
    carefully, says the text is very interesting, though rather mixed;
    has been corrected throughout. Bentley’s H in Trin. Coll. Cam. B.
    17. 14. _See_ Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 19, pl. 16, and Morin,
    Liber Comicus, p. 426, 1893.

    61. Reg. I. D. ix. Gospels [x], a handsome 4to volume of 150
    leaves, the capitals throughout written in gold, and the initial
    page to each Gospel finely illuminated; contains prefatory matter
    and Capitulare, but is _mut._ after John xxi. 18. Formerly
    belonged to King Canute, as an Anglo-Saxon inscription on fol. 43
    _b_ testifies. _See_ Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS., p. 141; Pal.
    Sacra Pict., pl. 23. Bentley’s A.

    62. Reg. I. E. vi. Gospels [end of viii], imperfect; 77 leaves,
    half uncial characters, written in England; formerly belonging to
    St. Augustine’s, Canterbury, and in all probability the second
    volume of the famous “Biblia Gregoriana” mentioned by Elmham.
    _See_ Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS., pl. 14, 15; British Museum
    Catalogue, p. 20, pl. 17, 18; Palaeogr. Soc, i. pl. 7; Berger, p.
    35. Bentley’s P.

    63. Cotton Tib. A. ii [early x], written in Germany; Gospels, 216
    leaves, written in Caroline minuscules, once the property of King
    Athelstan; _see_ British Museum Catalogue, p. 35. Bentley’s E.

    64. Cotton Nero D. iv. The magnificent Lindisfarne Gospels [vii or
    viii], rivalling even the Book of Kells (no. 78) in the beauty of
    their writing and the richness of their ornamentation. Written by
    Eadfrith, Bishop of Lindisfarne, 698-721 A.D., and other scribes;
    preserve a very pure text, agreeing closely with the Codex
    Amiatinus (no. 29), sometimes against all other known Vulgate MSS.
    The Latin is accompanied by an interlinear version in the
    Northumbrian dialect. Edited, rather carelessly, for the Surtees
    Soc., by Stevenson and Waring, 1854-65; and W. W. Skeat, The
    Gospel of St. Matthew; Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions,
    Cambr., 1887; _see_ also Westwood, Anglo-Saxon and Ir. MSS., pp.
    33-9, pl. 12, 13; Palaeogr. Sacra Pict., p. 45; Palaeogr. Soc., i.
    pl. 3-6, 22; Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 15, pl. 8-11; Berger, p. 39;
    Morin, Liber Comicus, p. 426. The Surtees text revised by the Rev.
    G. M. Youngman. Wordsworth’s and Bentley’s Y.

    65. Cotton Otho B. ix. Gospels [x?], nearly destroyed by fire;
    there are twelve small fragments containing portions of prefatory
    matter, and of SS. Matt., Mark, and John, in small Caroline
    minuscules, but with a large capital at the beginning of St. Mark
    and interlaced ornamentation. Bentley’s D.

    66. Cotton Otho C. v. St. Matt. and St. Mark [probably viii],
    written in Saxon hand, and _possibly_ part of the same MS. as
    Bentley’s C (_see_ no. 76). This Manuscript is now simply a
    collection of the shrivelled fragments of sixty-four leaves which
    survived the fire of 1731; the last leaf contains Mark xvi. 6-20.
    _See_ Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 20; the editors, however, doubt
    whether it is part of the same MS. as no. 76. Bentley cites these
    fragments as φ.

    67. Egerton 609. Gospels [viii or ix], formerly belonging to the
    Monastery of Marmoutier (Majus Monasterium) near Tours, where it
    was numbered 102. It is written, however, in an Irish hand and
    presents an Irish type of text; it is much _mut._, especially in
    St. Mark. _See_ Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 30. Cited by Calmet,
    Tischendorf, &c., as _mm_; collated again by the Rev. G. M.
    Youngman, and cited by Wordsworth as E.

    68. Harl. 1775. Gospels [vi or vii], in small but very beautiful
    uncial hand, and with an extremely valuable text. Formerly
    numbered 4582 in the Bibliothèque Royale at Paris; stolen from
    thence by Jean Aymon, it passed into the possession of Harley,
    Earl of Oxford, and then to the British Museum. Collated in part
    by Griesbach, Symbolae Criticae, i. pp. 305-26, Halae, 1785; by
    Bentley or Walker; later by the Rev. G. Williams; and for Bp.
    Wordsworth’s Vulgate by the Rev. H. J. White; for facsimiles _see_
    Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 14, pl. 3; Palaeogr. Soc., i. p. 16.
    Wordsworth’s and Bentley’s Z; Tischendorf’s _harl_.

    69. Harl. 1802. Gospels [xii], 156 leaves, a small Irish MS., with
    copious marginal notes, written by the scribe Maelbrigte; stolen
    from Paris by Jean Aymon. Bentley’s W.

    70. Harl. 2788. Gospels [end of viii or beginning of ix], 208
    leaves folio, an extremely fine MS., written throughout in golden
    uncials, except the prefatory matter, which is in minuscules; the
    vellum and also the colours used in the illumination are all
    wonderfully bright and fresh. _See_ Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 22,
    pl. 39-41; Corssen, Ada-H. S. p. 86; Bentley’s M in Trin. Coll.
    Cam. B. 17. 5.

    71. Harl. 2826. Gospels [ix or x], 150 leaves, Caroline
    minuscules; formerly belonging to the monastery of Eller, near
    Cochem, on the Mosel; _see_ Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 32. Bentley’s
    H in Trin. Coll. Cam. B. 17. 5.

    72. Addit. 5463. Gospels [viii or ix], from the nunnery of St.
    Peter at Beneventum, formerly belonging to Dr. Richard Mead;
    written in a fine revived uncial hand. The MS. has usually been
    supposed to have been written at Beneventum, but Berger doubts
    this (p. 92). Cited by Bentley as F, by Wordsworth as [Symbol: BF
    ligature]. Facsimiles in Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 18, pl. 7, and
    Palaeogr. Soc., i. p. 236.

    _Cambridge._

    73. University Library, I. i. 6. 32. The Book of Deer; Gospels
    [viii or ix], small but rather wide 8vo, 86 leaves, but _mut._;
    contains Matt. i. 1-vii. 23; Mark i. 1-v. 36; Luke i. 1-iv. 12;
    John, complete. Belonged originally to the Columbian monastery of
    Deer in Aberdeenshire: in 1697 belonged to Bp. J. Moore (of
    Norwich and Ely), and with the rest of his library was bought for
    the University of Cambridge in 1715. Contains many old and
    peculiar readings (Westcott, p. 1694). Described by Westwood,
    A.-S. and Ir. MSS., pp. 89-90; edited in full with facsimiles by
    J. Stuart (for the Spalding Club), Edinburgh, 1869.

    74. Univ. Libr. Kk. 1. 24. St. Luke and St. John [prob. viii],
    written in Irish hand; collated by Bentley, who cites it as X, and
    noticed by Westcott, Vulgate, pp. 1695 and 1712; it contains a
    valuable text.

    75. Trin. Coll. B. 10. 4. Gospels [ix], large 4to, written
    apparently by the same scribe as Brit. Mus. Reg. I. D. ix (no.
    61). This is Bentley’s T; according to Westcott (p. 1713) it is
    good Vulgate, with some old readings.

    76. Corpus Chr. Coll. CXCVII. Fragments of St. Luke [viii],
    possibly from the same MS. as Bentley’s φ; _see_ above, no. 66,
    and also Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS., p. 49; this MS. has been
    described, and the fragments of St. John published, by J. Goodwin,
    Publications of the Cambr. Antiq. Soc., no. xiii, 1847. Bentley’s
    C.

    77. Corpus Chr. Coll. CCLXXXVI Evan. Gospels [vii], formerly
    belonging to the monastery of St. Augustine at Canterbury, and
    alleged to have been sent by Pope Gregory to Augustine. They
    contain an interesting text, the first hand being corrected
    throughout in accordance with a MS. of the type of the Codex
    Amiatinus. _See_ Westwood, Anglo-Sax. and Ir. MSS., pp. 49, 50;
    Pal. Sacra Pict., pl. 11. 1-4; Palaeogr. Soc., i. pl. 33, 34, 44.
    Collated by the Rev. A. W. Streane. Bentley’s B; Wordsworth’s X.

    _Dublin._

    78. Trinity College A. 1. 6. Gospels [vii or viii], commonly known
    as the Book of Kells; given to Trinity College, Dublin, by
    Archbishop Ussher. This MS. is principally known as being perhaps
    the most perfect specimen of Irish writing and illumination in
    existence, but it also contains a valuable text, though marked
    with the characteristics of the Irish family. A collation is given
    by Dr. Abbott in his edition of the Codex Usserianus, or _r_1
    (_see_ p. 50). Facsimiles in Palaeogr. Soc., i. pl. 55-8, 88, 89;
    Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS. pp. 25-33, pl. 8-11, and Pal. Sacra
    Pict., pl. 16, 17; also National MSS. of Ireland, i. pp. x-xii,
    pl. vii-xvii. Wordsworth’s Q.

    79. Trinity Coll. A. 4. 5. The Book of Durrow. Gospels [end of
    vi], 8vo, semi-uncial, the text is allied to Amiatinus; cited by
    Bp. Wordsworth as _durmach_. According to an inscription on what
    was the last page, the MS. was written by St. Columba himself in
    the space of twelve days; the inscription however, like the rest
    of the book, is probably copied from an earlier exemplar. A
    collation of this MS. is given by Professor Abbott in his edition
    of _r_1 (_see_ p. 50); _see_ also his article “On the colophon of
    the Book of Durrow” (Dublin Hermathena, 1891, p. 199).

    80. Trin. Coll. The Book of Moling. Gospels [viii or ix], small
    4to, much the same size, writing, and ornamentation as the Gospels
    of Macdurnan (_see_ 84); but so defaced by damp as to be quite
    illegible in parts.

    81. Royal Irish Academy. The Stowe St. John, formerly in the
    Ashburnham Library; originally belonging to a Church in Munster.
    Irish handwriting and text. _See_ Berger, p. 42.

    _Durham._

    82. Cathedral Library, A. ii. 16. Gospels [vii or viii], 134
    leaves; said to have been written by Bede, and may very possibly
    have come from the monastery at Jarrow; _mut._ in parts; text
    allied to the Cod. Amiatinus. Cited by Bentley as K, by Wordsworth
    (who makes use of it only in St. John) as Δ.

    83. Cathedral Library, A. ii. 17. St. John, St. Mark, and St. Luke
    [prob. viii], with another fragment of St. Luke xxi. 33-xxiii. 34.
    _See_ Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS., p. 47; Bentley’s [xi], but to
    be distinguished from his [xi] in Trin. Coll. Camb. B. 17. 5,
    which is St. Chad’s book at Lichfield (_see_ no. 85).

    _Lambeth._

    84. Lambeth Palace Library. The Gospels of Macdurnan [x], 216
    leaves, Irish writing and ornamentation; an inscription (fol. 3
    _b_), in square Saxon capitals, states that it was written by a
    scribe named Maeielbrith Mac-Durnain. _See_ Westwood, Pal. Sacra
    Pict., pl. 13, 14, 15.

    _Lichfield._

    85. Chapter Library. Gospels [vii or viii], traditionally ascribed
    to St. Chad, who was Bishop of Lichfield; formerly the MS. was at
    Llandaff on the altar of St. Telian; 110 leaves, Irish,
    half-uncial; the writing and ornamentation are very beautiful and
    resemble the Books of Kells, Lindisfarne, &c.; the text belongs to
    the Irish group of MSS. Contains Matt., Mark, and Luke i. 1-iii.
    9. A careful collation, with full introduction, and three
    facsimiles, was published by Dr. Scrivener (Cambridge, 1887);
    _see_ also Palaeogr. Soc., i. pl. 20, 21, 35; Westwood, Anglo-Sax.
    and Ir. MSS., pp. 56-58, pl. 23, and Pal. Sacra Pict., pl. 12.
    Bentley’s [xi] in Trin. Coll. B. 17. 5; Wordsworth’s L.

    _Oxford._

    86. Bodl. 857, and Auct. D. 2. 14. Gospels [vii], formerly
    belonging to St. Augustine’s Library at Canterbury, and generally
    known as “St. Augustine’s Gospels;” British text. _See_ Westwood,
    Palaeogr. Sacra Pict., pl. 11, no. 5. Casley’s ψ; Tischendorf’s
    _bodl._; Wordsworth’s O, collated for him by F. Madan and Rev. G.
    M. Youngman.

    87. Bodl. Auct. D. 2. 19. Gospels [ix], commonly called the
    “Rushworth Gospels” or “Gospels of Mac Regol,” written by an Irish
    scribe, who died A.D. 820; has an interlinear Anglo-Saxon version;
    the Latin text belongs to the Irish type. _Mut._ Luke iv. 29-viii.
    38; x. 19-39; xv. 16-xvi. 26. Collation given in the edition of
    the Surtees Soc., The Lindisfarne and Rushworth Gospels, by
    Stevenson and Waring, 1854-65; and by W. W. Skeat, The Gospel of
    St. Matthew; Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions, Cambridge,
    1887. Casley’s χ; Wordsworth’s R.

    88. Bodl. Laud. Lat. 102. Gospels [x], 210 leaves, fol., Saxon
    minuscule; formerly at Würzburg, where it was bought at the
    instance of Archbishop Laud. Mixed text, but with traces of Irish
    influence. _See_ Berger, p. 54.

    89. Corp. Christi Coll. 122. Gospels [prob. xi], an Irish MS.;
    _mut._ John i. 1-33; vii. 33-xviii. 20. Bentley’s C in Trin. Coll.
    Cam. B. 17. 5; collated for him by Casley; British type of text.

    90. St. John’s Coll. 194. Gospels [xi], in very small hand:
    collated by Casley and cited by Bentley as γ.

    _Stonyhurst._

    91. Stonyhurst, Jesuit College. The Gospel of St. John [vii];
    originally the property, according to a legend which goes back to
    the thirteenth century, of St. Cuthbert, in whose coffin it was
    found; it was preserved in Durham Cathedral till the time of Henry
    VIII. A minute but exquisitely written uncial MS., with a text
    closely resembling A; facsimiles in Palaeogr. Soc., i. pl. 17;
    Westwood, Palaeogr. Sacra Pict., pl. 11, no. 6. Wordsworth’s S.

    c. _France: Angers._

    92. Angers Public Library, no. 20. Gospels [ix-x], written in a
    French hand, but showing signs of Irish influence both in its
    ornamentation and text. _See_ Berger, p. 48.

    _Autun._

    93. Autun, Grand Séminaire, no. 3. Gospels [dated 755], written
    for Vosavius by Gundohínus; uncial hand. Vulgate text but with a
    good many variations. _See_ Berger, p. 90.

    _Avignon._

    94. Gospels in the monastery of St. Andrew near Avignon: extracts
    in Martianay (Vulgata ant. Latina), 1695, and Calmet (Commentaire
    litt., vii), 1726: cited by Tischendorf as _and_. The MS. has
    disappeared. _See_ Berger, p. 80.

    _Paris._

    95. B. N. Lat. 256. Gospels [vii], in uncial hand; Vulgate text
    but with a good many Old Latin readings. _See_ Berger, p. 91.

    96. Lat. 262, formerly Reg. 3706, from Puy. Gospels [ix], with
    prefatory matter, fol., 247 leaves, thick minuscule; _mut._ in
    parts. Walker’s ο1.

    97. Lat. 281 and 298. Gospels [viii], known as “Codex Bigotianus,”
    in fine uncial hand, formerly at Fécamp; probably written in
    France, but both the text and the calligraphy show traces of Irish
    influence. It is _mut._ in parts; collated by Walker, who cites it
    as π, and again by Wordsworth, who cites it as B. _See_ Delisle,
    Cab. des MSS., atlas, pl. x. 1, 2; Berger, p. 50.

    98. Lat. 9389. Gospels [viii?], 223 leaves, 4to, formerly
    belonging to the Benedictine Abbey of St. Willibrord at
    Echternach; written in an Irish hand, with the interesting
    subscription on the last page, “Proemendaui ut potui secundum
    codicem de bibliotheca eugipi praespiteri quem ferunt fuisse sci
    hieronimi indictione vi p(ost) con(sulatum) bassilii ū c. anno
    septimo deximo = A.D. 558.” This, however, must have been in the
    exemplar from which it was copied, as the MS. itself is at least
    two centuries later. It presents the Irish type of text, but has
    been carefully corrected throughout, and the marginal readings
    represent another type. _See_ Delisle, Cab. des MSS., pl. xix. 8;
    Pal. universelle, pl. ccxxvi; Westwood, Anglo-Sax. and Ir. MSS.,
    p. 58, pl. xxi; Berger, p. 52 f. Cited by Wordsworth as [Symbol:
    EP ligature] collated by the Rev. H. J. White.

    99. Lat. 10,439. St. John’s Gospel [viii], formerly belonging to
    the Cathedral of Chartres, where it was found in the reliquary
    containing the sacred vest. A small manuscript, in uncial writing;
    mixed text, the earlier chapters Old Latin, the rest Vulgate.
    _See_ Berger, p. 89.

    100. Lat. 11,955, formerly St. Germain 777, then 663 or 664. 2.
    St. Matt. and St. Mark [viii?], 54 leaves, 4to, golden uncials on
    purple vellum; _mut._ Matt. i. 1-vi. 2; xxvi. 42-xxvii. 49; Mark
    i. 1-ix. 47; xi. 13-xii. 23. Walker’s α; Tischendorf’s _reg._;
    _see_ O. L. Bibl. Texts, i. p. 55; Delisle, Cab. des MSS., atlas,
    pl. i. 2.

    101. Lat. 11,959. Gospels [ix], from St. Maur des Fossés. Found by
    Sabatier in the St. Germain Library and collated by him; cited by
    Tischendorf as _foss_.

    102. Lat. 13,171, formerly St. Germain numbered successively 18,
    666, and 223. Gospels [ix], 4to, 223 leaves, small round
    minuscule. Walker’s φ.

    103. Lat. 17,226. Gospels [vii], in uncials. Vulgate text, but
    with a certain number of old readings in it. _See_ Berger, p. 90.

    104. Nouvelles acquisitions lat. 1587 (Libri 14). Gospels
    [vii-ix], from St. Gatien’s, Tours, then in the Ashburnham
    Library, now at Paris. Quoted by Calmet (Nouv. Dissertations, pp.
    448-488), 1720, and by Bianchini, Ev. Quadr.; contains a number of
    Old Latin readings, and on the whole rather resembles Br. Mus.
    Egerton 609 (no. 67) in text. Usually cited as _gat. See_ Berger,
    p. 46.

    105. Nouv. acq. lat. 2196. Evangeliarium [xi], from Luxeuil,
    written about 105 A.D. by Gerard, abbot of the Benedictine
    monastery there: sold at Didot’s sale in 1879 to the National
    Library at Paris; cited by Mabillon, Sabatier, and Tischendorf as
    _lux. See_ Delisle, Mélanges de Paléographie, p. 154 (1880).

    _Tours._

    106. Public Library 22; formerly at Saint Martin. Gospels [viii or
    ix], in gold letters, interesting text. Quoted by Sabatier in
    Mark, Luke, and John. Walker’s ρ, Tischendorf’s mt., Wordsworth’s
    [Symbol: MT ligature]; collated for his edition of the Vulgate by
    the Rev. G. M. Youngman. _See_ also Berger, p. 47.

    107. Public Libr. 23, formerly St. Martin 174. Gospels [ix], 192
    leaves, minuscule. Collated by L. Chevalier, and cited by Walker
    as σ. _See_ Dorange, Cat. des MSS. de Tours, 1875, p. 9.

    108. Public Libr. 25, formerly Marmoutier 231 according to
    Delisle. Gospels [xii], but mut. in many parts and wanting after
    John vii. 5; Collated by Chevalier. Walker’s τ.

    d. _Germany: Berlin._

    109. Royal Library, MS. Theol. lat. 4to, no. 4. Gospels [ix or x],
    with prefatory matter; 164 leaves, 25 x 20 cent., minuscule. This
    MS. formerly belonged to the Augustinian College of Corsendonk
    near Turnhout in Brabant, and is the “Corsendonkense Exemplar” of
    Erasmus, used by him in his second edition, with notes in his own
    hand. _See_ O. L. Bibl. Texts, i. p. 53.

    _Erlangen._

    110. Gospels at Erlangen, used by Sanftl, Dissertatio etc.,
    Ratisbon, 1789, p. 76, and cited by Tischendorf as _erl_.

    _Karlsruhe._

    111. Grand Ducal Library, Cod. Augiensis 211. Gospels [ix],
    formerly at Reichenau; text strongly marked by Irish readings.
    _See_ Berger, p. 56.

    _Mayhingen._

    112. Library of Prince Œttingen-Wallerstein. Gospels [viii], from
    the Abbey of St. Arnoul at Metz; has a note at the end “Laurentius
    vivat senio”; the Laurentius referred to being probably the scribe
    of the celebrated Echternach martyrology. _See_ Berger, p. 52.

    _Munich._

    113. Royal Libr. Lat. 13,601 = Cim. 54. Gospels [xi], 119 leaves,
    folio, from Niedermünster; magnificent pictures and illuminations;
    _see_ Kugler, Museum, 1834, p. 164; Woltmann, Gesch. d. Malerei,
    i. 258; Berth. Richl, Zur Bayr. Kunstgesch., i. 16.

    114. Lat. 14,000, Cim. 55. Gospels [ix, dated 870], folio, from
    St. Emmeram’s, Ratisbon. This magnificent book is written in
    golden uncials on fine white vellum, a good deal of purple being
    employed in the earlier pages; there are splendid illuminations
    before each Gospel. Collated by C. Sanftl, Dissertatio etc.,
    Ratisbon, 1789. Tischendorf’s _em_.

    115. Royal Library. Gospels [vii], from Ingolstadt; _mut._ in many
    places, especially in St. Matthew, where it only preserves xxii.
    39-xxiv. 19; xxv. 14 _ad fin._ Collated by Tischendorf, who cited
    it as _ing_. His collation is in the possession of Bp. Wordsworth,
    who cites the MS. as I.

    _Nuremberg._

    116. Dr. Dombart in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr., 1881, p. 455 f., has
    drawn attention to some fragments [probably vi cent.] of St. Luke
    and St. John now in the Germanisches Museum at Nuremberg; they
    consist of twenty-eight leaves detached from the covers of books
    and contain, though _mut._, Luke v. 19-xxiv. 31, John i. 19-33,
    written in a most beautiful uncial hand, perhaps not surpassed by
    any other MS. The text seems to be allied to Amiatinus, but with a
    considerable mixture of Old Latin readings. More fragments from
    the same MS. are to be found in the Libri collection; _see_
    “Catalogue de la partie réservée de la collection Libri” (1862),
    p. 45, no. 226, pl. lviii.

    _Trier._

    117. Stadtbibliothek, no. xxii. Gospels [end of viii], 172 leaves,
    folio, written partly in uncials but mostly in Caroline
    minuscules; this is the famous “Codex Aureus,” or
    “Adahandschrift,” and is a truly magnificent copy. A full
    description, both of the palaeography and of the critical value of
    the text, is given in the fine monograph published at Leipzig in
    1889, and entitled “Die Trierer Adahandschrift;” by several
    authors. The dissertation on the text is by Dr. P. Corssen.

    _Wolfenbüttel._

    118. A Wolfenbüttel palimpsest [v], quoted occasionally in the
    Gospels by Tischendorf as _gue. lect._ _See_ “Anecdota sacra et
    profana,” p. 164 f.

    _Würzburg._

    119. University Library, Mp. Th. q. 1 _a_. Gospels [early vii],
    152 leaves, 4to, formerly belonging to the Cathedral Treasury;
    fine uncial writing, and beautiful ivory carving on the covers.
    According to tradition this MS. belonged to St. Kilian and was
    found in his tomb; _see_ however Berger, p. 54. _Mut_. Matt. i.
    1-vi. 8; John xx. 23-xxi. 25. Facsimile in Zangemeister and
    Wattenb., Supplem. ad Exempla codd. lat., pl. lviii-lviii _a_.(93)

    120. Mp. th. q. 1. Gospels [x], 194 leaves, 4to, formerly
    belonging to the Benedictine monastery of St. Stephen. A splendid
    MS.

    121. Mp. th. q. 4. Gospels [xi], 168 leaves, 4to, probably once
    the property of the monastery at Neumünster. A fine MS. and
    strongly resembling Mp. th. f. 66 (no. 124).

    122. Mp. th. f. 61. St. Matthew [viii], 34 leaves, folio,
    Anglo-Saxon writing with interlinear glosses; the text is largely
    intermixed with Old Latin readings. _See_ the monograph of K.
    Köberlin, Eine Würzb. Evang. Hdschr.; Progr. d. Studienanstalt bei
    S. Anna in Augsburg, 1891.

    123. Mp. th. f. 65. Gospels [viii or ix], 182 leaves, folio,
    formerly belonging to the Cathedral Treasury. Fine minuscule.

    124. Mp. th. f. 66. Gospels [viii or ix], 207 leaves, folio,
    formerly belonging to the Cathedral Treasury. Fine minuscule; was
    a special treasure of Bishop Heinrich.

    125. Mp. th. f. 67. Gospels [vii or viii], 192 leaves, folio,
    probably from the Cathedral Treasury; semi-uncial, and ivory
    carving on the cover; there are occasional corrections in an early
    hand, and the first hand has a large intermixture of Old Latin
    readings; _mut_. after John xviii. 35, and does not contain John
    v. 4.

    126. Mp. th. f. 68. Gospels [vi or vii], 170 leaves, folio,
    formerly belonging to the Cathedral Treasury; fine and large
    uncial, and ivory carving on the cover; corrected frequently in a
    later minuscule hand, but the reading of the first hand is always
    visible, and agrees largely with Amiatinus, though in St. John’s
    Gospel there is a good proportion of Old Latin readings.

    127. Mp. th. f. 88. Gospels [xii or xiii], 194 leaves, folio;
    according to an inscription on fol. 194 the MS. was brought from
    Rome by a Cardinal to the Council of Basle, and used by him there;
    and then was bought for the Cathedral at Würzburg and handsomely
    bound.

    e. _Holland: Utrecht._

    128. Utrecht. At the end of the famous “Utrecht Psalter” are bound
    up some fragments [vii or viii] of St. Matthew (i. 1-iii. 4) and
    St. John (i. 1-21), written in an Anglian hand, strongly
    resembling that of the Codex Amiatinus. Facsimiles are given in
    the well-known edition of the Psalter, which was photographed by
    the autotype process and published in London in 1873. Wordsworth’s
    U.

    f. _Italy: Cividale._

    129. Cividale, Friuli. Gospels [vi or vii]. St. Matthew, St. Luke,
    and St. John are at Cividale in Friuli, from which the MS. is
    named “Codex Forojuliensis”; St. Mark partly at Venice in a
    wretched and illegible plight, partly at Prague. This last portion
    (xii. 21-xvi. 20) was edited by J. Dobrowsky (Prague, 1778), and
    is cited by Tischendorf as _prag._; the other Gospels are edited
    by Bianchini in the “Evang. Quadruplex,” ii. app., p. 473 f., and
    are cited by Tischendorf as _for._; the MS. is cited throughout by
    Wordsworth as J. St. John is _mut._ xix. 29-40; xx. 19-xxi. 25.
    Facsimile in Zangem. and Wattenb., pl. 36.

    _Milan._

    130. Ambrosian Library, C. 39 inf. Gospels [vi], 288 leaves,
    uncial; with the numbers of the Sections and Canons in small Greek
    uncials, and some early and interesting lectionary notes in the
    margins; the text is also very interesting and valuable. _Mut._
    Matt. i. 1-6; 25-iii. 12; xxiii. 25-xxv. 41; Mark vi. 10-viii. 12.
    In a later hand [ix] are Mark xiv. 35-48; John xix. 12-23; also a
    repeated Passion lesson, John xiii-xviii. Wordsworth’s M;
    transcribed for his edition of the Vulgate by Padre Fortunato
    Villa, one of the “Scrittori” of the Library.

    131. Ambrosian Library, I. 61 sup. Gospels [viii], Irish hand;
    interesting text; it has been corrected throughout, and the
    corrections are as interesting as the original text, giving us
    good specimens of “Western” readings; _see_ Berger, p. 58.

    _Perugia._

    132. Chapter Library; part of St. Luke’s Gospel [vi], in a purple
    MS.; contains Luke i. 1-xii. 7, but much _mut._ Edited by
    Bianchini, Evang. Quadr., ii. app., p. 562; Tischendorf’s _pe._;
    Wordsworth’s P.

    _Turin._

    133. Gospels [vii?], at Turin, used by Tischendorf and cited by
    him as _taur._; _see_ “Anecdota Sacra et Profana,” p. 160.

    g. _Spain: Escurial._

    134. Gospels [xi], 170 leaves, double columns, written apparently
    at Spires on the Rhine, in gold letters; now in the Escurial, not
    numbered, but exhibited under glass; the “Aureum exemplar” of
    Erasmus; _see_ Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. 51.

    h. _Switzerland: Berne._

    135. University Library, no. 671. Gospels [ix or x], written in a
    small and graceful Irish hand; mixed text. _See_ Berger, p. 56.

    _Geneva._

    136. No. 6. Gospels [viii or ix], Anglo-Saxon text. Berger, p. 57.

    _St. Gall._

    137. Stiftsbibliothek. No. 17 [ix-x], part of a 4to volume of 342
    pages, two MSS. bound up together; pp. 3-117 contain the Gospel of
    St. Matthew; pp. 118-132, St. Mark i. 1-iii. 27 with preface.

    138. No. 49 [ix], 4to, 314 pages. Gospels, with prefatory matter.

    139. No. 50 [ix-x], 4to, 534 pages. Gospels, with prefatory matter
    and capitulare.

    140. No. 51 [viii], folio, 268 pages, Irish semi-uncial. Gospels;
    illuminated title-pages and initials, strongly resembling the
    style of the Books of Kells and Lindisfarne (nos. 78, 64). Vulgate
    text, but with Old Latin readings, especially in the earlier
    chapters of St. Matthew. _See_ Berger, p. 56.

    141. No. 52 [ix], folio, 286 pages. Gospels, with prefatory
    matter.

    142. No. 53 [ix-x], folio, 305 pages. Gospels, with title-pages
    and initials finely illuminated; written by Sintram, a Deacon at
    St. Gall, and known as the “Evangelium longum”; remarkable also
    for its handsome binding with ivory carvings.

    143. No. 60 [viii], folio, 70 pages, Irish writing. St. John’s
    Gospel, with illuminated title-page and picture of St. John; this
    is one of the thirty “libri scottice scripti,” mentioned in the
    ninth century catalogue of the Library; Tischendorf transcribed
    part of this MS.

    144. No. 1394; the book of fragments that contains the Old Latin
    fragments, _n o p_ (_see_ p. 49). Pages 101-104 are two leaves
    small folio [ix] in Irish minuscules, and contain St. Luke i-iii;
    transcribed by Tischendorf.

    145. No. 1395 [vi], being pp. 7-327 of a 4to MS., containing 90
    leaves and a number of fragments of a MS. of the Gospels in Roman
    minuscules; only Matt. vi. 21-John xvii. 18 remain. The scribe
    says that he had two Latin MSS. before him, and a Greek MS. to
    which he occasionally referred. _See_ below, no. 180.
    Tischendorf’s _san_.

    i. _United States: Oswego N. Y._

    146. Library of Th. Irwin, Esq. Gospels [viii], gold letters on
    purple vellum, formerly in the Hamilton Collection (No. 151);
    falsely ascribed to Abp. Wilfrid of York († 709); _see_ Berger, p.
    259.

    D. ACTS, EPISTLES, APOCALYPSE.

    a. _British Isles: British Museum._

    147. Add. 11,852. Pauline Epp. (including Laod.), Act., Cath.,
    Apoc. [ix], 215 leaves, small 4to, Caroline minuscule. Written for
    Hartmotus, Abbot of St. Gall (872-884): it afterwards belonged to
    the Library of Raymund Kraft at Ulm, and was described by J. G.
    Schelhorn in 1725 and Häberlin in 1739; bought at Frankfort by Bp.
    Butler: _see_ Dobbin, Cod. Montfort., Introd., p. 44; and the
    careful examination by E. Nestle, Bengel als Gelehrter, pp. 58-60,
    Tübingen, 1892. Wordsworth’s U2; collated by the Rev. H. J. White.

    _Oxford._

    148. Bodl. 3418. The Selden Acts, Seld. 30 [vii or viii], mut.
    xiv. 26-xv. 32. A most valuable uncial MS., collated by Casley,
    who cited it as χ, and by Bp. Wordsworth, who cites it as O2.
    _See_ Westcott, Vulgate, p. 1696.

    b. _France: Paris._

    149. B. N. Lat. 305; Acts, Cath., Paul. (Laod. between Col. and
    Thess.), Apoc. [xi], texts resembling B. N. 93 (_see_ above, no.
    15); probably written at Saint Denis. Berger, p. 100.

    150. Lat. 309; Acts, Epp., Apoc. [xi], in following order: Pauline
    Epp. (with Laod. _after_ Thess.), Acts, Cath., Apoc. The text,
    especially in the Acts, resembles that of B. N. 93 (_see_ above,
    no. 15). Berger, p. 99.

    151. Lat. 13,174. Formerly St. Germain 23, then 669; Acts, Cath.,
    Apoc. [ix], 139 leaves, 4to, thick minuscule. Valuable text, and
    contains an interesting note on the passage 1 John v. 7; Berger,
    p. 103. Walker’s γ.

    152. Lat. 17,250. Acts and Apocalypse [early xii]; 126 leaves, 32
    x 23 cent.; a corrector, apparently of the thirteenth century, has
    added in the Acts a number of interesting additions from an
    extremely old version. Formerly at Navarre, and bought in 1445 by
    Nic. de la Mare from Jean de Mouson. Examined by S. Berger.

    c. _Germany: Munich._

    153. Royal Lib. Lat. 6230. Formerly Freisingen 30. Acts, Cath.,
    and Apoc. [early ix?], 126 leaves, large rough Caroline
    minuscules. Described in the Munich Catalogue as tenth century,
    but it seems nearer the beginning of the ninth; has a good text,
    but rather mixed, especially in the Acts, where there are strange
    conjunctions of good and bad readings. Wordsworth’s M2. Collated
    by the Rev. H. J. White.

    d. _Switzerland: St. Gall._

    154. Stiftsbibliothek. No. 2 [viii], part of a thick 4to volume of
    586 pages (not leaves), containing various matter; pp. 301-489
    contain Acts and Apoc. in a large minuscule hand, written by the
    monk and priest Winithar; text interesting, but mixed.
    Wordsworth’s S2 in Acts and Apoc. Collated by the Rev. H. J.
    White.

    155. No. 63 [ix], 4to, 320 pages. Acts, Epistles, and Apoc.
    divided as follows: foll. 2-163 Pauline Epp.; 163-244 Acts;
    245-283 Catholic Epp. (but not 2 and 3 John), the “three heavenly
    witnesses” in 1 John v. 7 being added by a contemporary corrector;
    283-320 Apocalypse.

    156. No. 72 [ix], folio, 336 pages, containing St. Paul’s Epp.,
    Acts, Cath. Epp., and Apoc.

    157. No. 83 [ix], large folio, 418 pages; a fine MS., written by
    the order of Grimaldus and presented by him to the Library.
    Contains St. Paul’s Epp., Acts, Cath. Epp., and Apoc., with
    prefatory matter.

    158. No. 1398a [xi], folio. A collection of fragments, of which
    ff. 230-255 contain fragments of Acts i. 1-v. 36.

    E. EPISTLES (CATH., PAUL.) AND APOC.

    a. _British Isles: British Museum._

    159. Harl. 1772. Epistles and Apoc. [viii], Col. after Thess., and
    lacking Jude and Laod.; the Apoc. is _mut._ xiv. 16-fin. Formerly
    at Paris, from whence it was stolen by Jean Aymon. Written in a
    French hand, but showing traces of Irish influence in its initials
    and ornamentation; the text is much mixed with Old Latin readings;
    it has been corrected throughout, and the first hand so carefully
    erased in places as to be quite illegible. Collated in part by
    Griesbach, Symb. Crit., i. pp. 326-82, and by the Rev. H. J.
    White; _see_ also Berger, p. 50. Bentley’s M in Trin. Coll. Cam.
    B. 17. 14; Wordsworth’s Z2.

    _Cambridge._

    160. Trin. Coll. B. x. 5 [ix], the Neville MS., 4to, Saxon hand:
    St. Paul’s Epp., beginning 1 Cor. vii. 32. Bentley’s S.

    _Oxford._

    161. Bodl. Laud. Lat. 108 [ix], 4to, 117 leaves, Irish hand.
    Contains St. Paul’s Epp. with prefatory matter (ending at Heb. xi.
    34), in following order: Rom., 1, 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., 1, 2
    Thess., Col., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Philem., Heb. A valuable text,
    corrected apparently by three hands; the original text Old Latin,
    but has been much erased; in many cases agrees with _d_
    (Claromontanus) against most, or all, other MSS. _See_ Westcott,
    Vulgate, p. 1696. Casley’s χ; Wordsworth’s O3.

    b. _France: Laon_

    162. Public Library, no. 45. Epistles and Apoc. [xiii], from the
    monastery of St. Vincent near Laon. 141 leaves, 4 to, containing
    latter part of the Old Testament, and the Epp. Apoc. in following
    order: Rom., 1, 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., 1, 2 Thess., 1, 2
    Tim., Tit., Philem., Heb., Apoc., James, 1, 2 Pet., 1, 2, 3 John,
    Jude; and then the apocryphal Petitio Corinthiorum a Paulo
    apostolo, and 3rd Ep. to the Corinthians. _See_ Bratke in Theol.
    Lt. Zeitung, 1892, p. 585 ff.

    _Orleans._

    163. Public Library, no. 16. Consists of a number of fragments of
    five Biblical MSS.; the two last contain portions of 1 Cor., 1
    Thess., Eph., and Phil. [viii?]. Berger, p. 84.

    _Paris._

    164. B. N. 107. The Latin version of Cod. Claromontanus. Walker
    collated Rom. and 1 Cor. as far as x. 4; he cites it as δ.

    165. Lat. 335. Pauline Epp. [viii], in Lombard characters. A
    valuable MS. Wordsworth’s L2.

    166. Lat. 2328. Codex Lemovicensis. Catholic Epp. [ix], mixed
    text; contains 1 John v. 7, with the “Three Heavenly Witnesses,”
    but in a mutilated form. Wordsworth’s L3.

    167. Lat. 9553. Formerly Tours 116. St. Paul’s Epp., with other
    matter [xi], 114 leaves, long minuscule; _see_ Delisle, Notice sur
    les MSS. disparus de la Bibl. de Tours, no. iv. p. 17 (1883).
    Collated by Chevalier; Walker’s υ.

    c. _Germany: Bamberg._

    168. Royal Library, A. ii. 42. Apocalypse and Evangelistarium [x],
    written in the monastery of Reichenau; a gift from the Empress
    Kunigunde to the Collegiate foundation of St. Stephan. Noticeable
    especially for the large number of pictures (fifty-seven) with
    which the MS. is ornamented; it is perhaps one of the most
    interesting specimens we have of the pictorial art of this period.
    _See_ Leitschuh, Führer durch d. kgl. Bibl. zu Bamberg, 1889, p.
    89 ff.

    _Munich._

    169. Royal Library, Lat. 4577. St. Paul’s Epp. [viii?], with
    prefatory matter; Col. after Thess., and followed by Laod.; Heb.
    at end.

    170. Lat. 6229, formerly Freisingen 29. St. Paul’s Epp. [viii or
    ix], with prefatory matter. Order as above. The text of this MS.
    appears to be like 169, and is excellent in the Romans, mixed in
    the other Epp.; there is an interesting stichometry; examined by
    Berger.

    171. Lat. 14179. St. Paul’s Epp. [ix or x]; interesting text.

    _Würzburg._

    172. University Library, Mp. Th. f. 12. Epistles of St. Paul [ix],
    with Irish glosses. A well-known MS. The glosses have been
    published by Professor Zimmer (Glossae Hibernicae, Berlin, 1881),
    and by Mr. Whitley Stokes, with a translation (The Old Irish
    Glosses of Würzburg and Carlsruhe, Austin, Hertford, 1887);
    selections published and translated by the Rev. T. Olden (The Holy
    Scriptures in Ireland a thousand years ago, Dublin, 1888).

    173. Mp. Th. f. 69. Pauline Epp. [viii], with Irish initials; Col.
    after Thess.

    d. _Italy: Monza._

    174. Collegiate Archives, no. 1-2/9. Fragments of a Bible [x],
    Lombard writing; all that is left in the New Test. is part of the
    Epistles of St. Paul. Probably copied from an ancient MS.; Col.
    follows Eph.; text strongly resembles that of Milan E. 26 inf.
    (no. 30 above). Berger, p. 139.

    _Rome._

    175. Vat. Reg. Lat. 9. Pauline Epp. [vii], 114 leaves, 30.3 x 20.3
    cent., uncial. Collated for Bp. Wordsworth’s Vulgate by Dr.
    Meyncke, and cited as R2; _see_ also Bianchini, Vindiciae, p.
    cclxxxiii. Colossians are placed after Thessalonians; _see_
    Berger, p. 85.

    _Verona._

    176. Chapter Library, no. 74. St. Paul’s Epistles [x], a text
    strongly agreeing with the first corrector of Cod. Fuldensis
    (_see_ above, p. 75, no. 56); Corssen, Ep. ad Galatas, Berlin,
    1885, p. 19.

    e. _Switzerland: St. Gall._

    177. Stiftsbibliothek, no. 64. [ix], a 4to MS. of 414 pages, of
    which ff. 1-267 contain St. Paul’s Epp.

    178. No. 70. [viii], folio, 258 pages, written by the monk
    Winithar, of which ff. 1-250 contain St. Paul’s Epp. (Hebrews
    being placed after 2 Timothy). _See_ Berger, p. 117.

    179. No. 907. [viii], 4to, 320 pages, large hand, written by the
    monk Winithar; pp. 237-297 and 303-318 contain the Epistles of
    James, Peter, and John, and Apoc. i. 1-vii. 2.

    180. No. 908. 219 pages 4to [vi], of which pp. 77-219 form a very
    valuable palimpsest MS.; the original writing, a Martyrology in
    Roman semi-uncial hand; over this, St. Paul’s Epp. in uncials,
    beginning Eph. vi. 2 and finishing 1 Tim. ii. 5. Transcribed by
    Tischendorf and quoted by him as _san_.

    181. No. 1395 _See_ above, no. 145. Pages 440-441 in the same
    collection contain fragments of Col. iii. 5-24 in a large Irish
    hand.


We now subjoin the various notations of these MSS., Bentley’s, Walker’s,
Casley’s, Tischendorf’s, Wordsworth’s:—

Bentley’s notation.

A = 61.
B = 77.
C = 76.
C in Trin. Coll. Camb. B. 17.5 = 89.
D = 65.
E = 63.
F = 72.
H = 60.
H in Trin. Coll. Camb. B. 17.5 = 71.
K = 82.
M = 159.
M in Trin. Coll. Camb. B. 17.5 = 70.
O = 59.
P = 62.
R = 3.
S = 160.
T = 75.
W = 69.
X = 74.
Y = 64.
Z = 68.
φ = 66.
ξ = 83.
ξ in Trin. Coll. Camb. B. 17.5 = 85.

Walker’s and Casley’s notation.

α = 100.
γ (Walker) = 151.
γ (Casley) = 90.
δ = 164.
ε = 10.
η = 11.
θ = 15.
κ = 16.
λ = 52.
μ = 21.
ν = 20.
ο1 = 96.
ο2 = 19.
π = 97.
ρ = 106.
σ = 107.
τ = 108.
υ = 167.
φ = 102.
χ (Evv.) = 87.
χ (Act.) = 148.
χ (Epp.) = 161.
ψ = 86.

Tischendorf’s notation.

_am_. = 29.
_and_. = 94.
_bodl._ = 86.
_cav._ = 28.
_demid._ = 50.
_em._ = 114.
_erl._ = 110.
_for._ = 129.
_foss._ = 101.
_fuld._ = 56.
_gat._ = 104.
_gue. lect._ = 118.
_harl._ = 68.
_ing._ = 115.
_lux._ = 105.
_mm._ = 67.
_mt._ = 106.
_pe._ = 132.
_prag._ ( = _for._) = 129.
_reg._ = 100.
_san._ (_Ev._) = 145.
_san._ (_Ep._) = 180.
_taur._ = 133.
_theotisc._ = 58.
_tol._ = 41.

Wordsworth’s notation.

A = 29.
B = 97.
B2 = 25.
[Symbol: BF ligature] = 72.
C = 28.
D = 51.
Δ = 82.
E = 67.
[Symbol: EP ligature] = 98.
F = 56.
G = 21.
H = 6.
Θ = 18.
I = 115.
J = 129.
K = 5.
L = 85.
L2 = 165.
L3 = 166.
M = 130.
M2 = 153
[Symbol: MT ligature] = 106
O = 86.
O2 = 148.
O3 = 161.
P = 132.
Q = 78.
R = 87.
R2 = 175.
S = 91.
S2 = 154.
T = 41.
U = 128.
U2 = 147.
V = 37.
W = 2.
X = 77.
Y = 64.
Z = 68.
Z2 = 159.



CHAPTER IV. EGYPTIAN OR COPTIC VERSIONS.


The critical worth of the Egyptian versions has only recently been
appreciated as it deserves, and the reader is indebted for the following
account of them to the liberal kindness of one of the few English scholars
acquainted with the languages in which they are written, the Rev. J. B.
Lightfoot, D.D., then Canon of St. Paul’s, and Hulsean Professor of
Divinity at Cambridge; who, in the midst of varied and pressing
occupations, found time to comply with my urgent, though somewhat
unreasonable, request for his invaluable aid in this particular for the
benefit of the second edition of the present work. His yet more arduous
labours, as Bishop of Durham (_cui quando ullum inveniemus parem?_) did
not hinder him from revising his contribution for the enriching of the
third edition of this work. In this, the fourth edition, the Editor has
the pleasure of acknowledging the most valuable help of the Rev. G.
Horner, who has in particular revised the description of the MSS. of the
Bohairic version, and of the Rev. A. C. Headlam, Fellow of All Souls
College, Oxford, who has added the result of more recent research. Mr.
Headlam’s additions, are, wherever it is possible, distinguished by being
enclosed in square brackets.



(1) The Egyptian or Coptic Versions.


Most ancient authors, from Herodotus downwards, referring to the heathen
period of Egyptian history, mention two distinct modes of writing; the
sacred and the common. In place of the former, however, Clement of
Alexandria (Strom. v. 4, p. 657), who has left the most precise account of
Egyptian writing, substitutes two modes, which he designates
_hieroglyphic_ and _hieratic_ (or priestly) respectively; but since the
hieratic is only a cursive adaptation of the hieroglyphic, the two are
treated as one by other writers under the common designation of “sacred”
(ἱερά). Both these forms of the sacred writing are abundantly represented
in extant monuments, the one chiefly in sculptured stone, the other on
papyrus rolls, as we might have anticipated.

The common writing is designated by various names. It is sometimes the
“demotic” or “vulgar” (δημοτικά Herod. ii. 36, δημώδη Diod. iii. 3);
sometimes the “native” or “enchorial” (ἐγχωρία in the trilingual
inscriptions of Rosetta and Philae); sometimes “epistolographic” or
letter-writer’s character (Clem. Alex. _l. c._); and in a bilingual
inscription recently (1866) discovered at Tanis (Reinisch u. Roesler, Die
zweisprachige Inschrift von Tanis, Wien, 1866, p. 55), it is called
“Egyptian” simply (ἱεροῖς γράμμασιν καὶ Αἰγυπτίοις καὶ Ἑλληνικοῖς). This
last designation, as Lepsius remarks (Zeitschr. f. Aegyptische Sprache,
iv. p. 30, 1866), shows how completely the common writing had outstripped
the two forms of sacred character at the time of this inscription, the
ninth year of Ptolemy Euergetes I. This demotic character also is
represented in a large number of extant papyri of various ages.

These two modes of writing, however—the sacred and the vulgar—besides the
difference in external character exhibit also two different languages, or
rather (to speak more correctly) two different forms of the same language.
Of ancient writers indeed the Egyptian Manetho alone mentions the
existence of two such forms (Joseph. c. Ap. i. 14), saying that in the
word _Hyksos_ the first syllable is taken from “the sacred tongue” (τὴν
ἱερὰν γλῶσσαν), the second from the “common dialect” (τὴν κοινὴν
διάλεκτον): but this solitary and incidental notice is fully borne out by
the extant monuments. The sacred character, whether hieroglyphic or
hieratic, presents a much more archaic type of the Egyptian language than
the demotic, differing from it very considerably, though the two are used
concurrently. The connexion of the two may be illustrated by the relation
of the Latin and the Italian, as the ecclesiastical and vulgar tongues
respectively of mediaeval Italy. The sacred language had originally been
the ordinary speech of Egypt; but having become antiquated in common
conversation it survived for sacred uses alone. Unlike the Latin however,
it retained its archaic written character along with its archaic
grammatical forms. (_See_ Brugsch, De Natura et Indole Linguae Popularis
Aegyptiorum, Berlin, 1850, p. 1 sq.)

The earliest example of this demotic or enchorial or vulgar writing
belongs to the age of Psammetichus (the latter part of the seventh century
B.C.); while the latest example of which I have found a notice must be
referred to some time between the years A.D. 165-169, as the titles
(Armeniacus, Parthicus, &c.) given to the joint sovereigns M. Aurelius and
L. Verus show(94). During the whole of this period, comprising more than
eight centuries, the sacred dialect and character are used concurrently
with the demotic.

The term _Coptic_ is applied to the Egyptian language as spoken and
written by Christian people and in Christian times. It is derived from the
earliest Arabic conquerors of Egypt, who speak of their native Christian
subjects as Copts. No instance of this appellation is found in native
Coptic writers, with one very late and doubtful exception (Zoega, Catal.,
p. 648). Whence they obtained this designation, has been a subject of much
discussion. Several theories which have been broached to explain the word
will be found in J. S. Assemani, Della Nazione dei Copti, &c., p. 172
(printed in Mai, Script. Vet. Coll., V. P. 2), and in Quatremère,
Recherches Critiques et Historiques sur la Langue et la Littérature de
l’Égypte, Paris, 1808, p. 30 sq. A very obvious and commonly adopted
derivation is that which connects it with the town Coptos in Upper Egypt;
but as this place was not at that time prominent or representative, and
did not lie directly across the path of the Arab invaders, no sufficient
reason appears why it should have been singled out as a designation of the
whole country. In earlier ages, however, it seems to have been a much more
important place, both strategically and commercially (_see_ Brugsch, Die
Geographie des alten Ägyptens, i. p. 200; Egypt under the Pharaohs, i. p.
212 sq., Eng. trans.). Even as late as the Roman epoch Strabo (xvii. p.
815) describes it as “a city with a mixed population of Egyptians and
Arabians” (πόλιν κοινὲν Αἰγυπτίων τε καὶ Ἀράβων), and elsewhere (xvi. p.
781) he mentions it as a station of Egyptian traffic with Arabia and
India. Possibly therefore this Arabic name for the Egyptians is a survival
of those early times. On the whole, however, it seems more probable that
the Arabic word is a modification of the Greek Αἰγύπτιος (Schwartze, Das
alte Aegypten, i. p. 956). [And this derivation seems now to be generally
accepted, the Greek word αἰγύπτιος being represented in Coptic by ⲄⲨⲠⲦⲒⲞⲤ,
or ⲔⲨⲠⲦⲀⲒⲞⲤ, whence came _Qibt_ (the common form) and our _Coptic_.
(Stern, Koptische Grammatik, p. 1.)]

From this account it will appear that the Coptic, as a language, cannot
differ materially from the demotic. As a matter of fact the two are found
on examination to represent two successive stages of the same language—a
result which history would lead us to anticipate. But while the language
is essentially the same, the character of the writing is wholly different.
The demotic character was derived ultimately from the hieroglyphic. Hence
it represents the same medley of signs. Only a small number are truly
alphabetic, i.e. denote each a single sound. Others represent syllables.
Others again, and these a very large number, are not phonetic at all, but
pictorial. Of these pictorial or ideographic signs again there are several
kinds; some represent the thing itself directly; others recall it by a
symbol; others again are determinative, i.e. exhibit the class or type, to
which the object or action belongs. It is strange that this very confused,
cumbrous, and uncertain mode of writing should have held its ground for so
many centuries, while all the nations around employed strictly phonetic
alphabets; but Egypt was proverbially a land of the past, and some sudden
shock was necessary to break up a time-honoured usage like this and to
effect a literary revolution. This moral earthquake came at length in
Christianity. Coincidently with the evangelization of Egypt and the
introduction of a Christian literature, we meet with a new and strictly
phonetic alphabet. This new Egyptian or Coptic alphabet comprises thirty
letters, of which twenty-four are adopted from the Greek alphabet, while
the remaining six, of which five represent sounds peculiar to the Egyptian
language and the sixth is an aspirate, are signs borrowed from the
existing Egyptian writing. If there is no direct historical evidence that
this alphabet was directly due to Christianity, yet the coincidence of
time and historic probability generally point to this. The Christians
indeed had a very powerful reason for changing the character, besides
literary convenience. The demotic writing was interspersed with figures of
the Egyptian deities, used as symbolic or alphabetical signs. It must have
been a suggestion of propriety, if not a dictate of conscience, in
translating and transcribing the Scriptures to exclude these profane and
incongruous elements from the sacred text.

The date at which this important change was introduced into Egyptian
writing has been a matter of much dispute. If it is correctly attributed
to Christian influences, the new alphabet must have been coeval with the
birth of a native Christian literature in Egypt. The earliest extant
remains of such a literature, to which we can fix a date with any
certainty, are the Epistles of St. Antony (who was born about the middle
of the third century) to Athanasius and Theodore; but, as we shall see
presently, one or both of the two principal Egyptian versions must have
been already in common use at this time. Indeed, if the date assigned to a
recently discovered writing be correct, the introduction of the new
character was much earlier than this. On the back of a papyrus in the
British Museum, containing the Funeral Oration of Hyperides, is a
horoscope in Greek and Egyptian, the latter written in Greek characters,
with the additional six letters almost, though not quite, identical with
the forms in the ordinary Coptic alphabet. Mr. C. W. Goodwin, who
describes this important document in Chabas, “Mélanges Égyptologiques,”
2me série, p. 294 sq., and in the “Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache,”
vi. p. 18 sq., February, 1868, calculates (though he does not speak
confidently) that it is the horoscope of a person born A.D. 154(95).

Any account of the Coptic dialects must start from the well-known passage
in the Copto-Arabic grammar of Athanasius, bishop of Kos in the Thebaid,
who flourished in the eleventh century. “The Coptic language,” he writes,
“is divided into three dialects; that is to say, the Coptic dialect of
Misr, which is the same as the _Sahidic_; the _Bohairic_(96), which gets
its name from the province of Bohairah; and the _Bashmuric_ in use in the
region of Bashmur. At the present time only the Bohairic and Sahidic
continue to be used. These different dialects are derived from one and the
same language” (quoted in Quatremère, Sur la Langue &c., p. 20 sq.). For
the present I will dismiss the Bashmuric, as it will require further
investigation hereafter. The remaining two, the Bohairic and Sahidic, were
the principal dialects of the language, being spoken in Lower and Upper
Egypt respectively; and are largely represented in extant remains of
biblical and ecclesiastical literature(97).

The Sahidic and Bohairic dialects are well defined and separate from each
other. Among other distinctive features the Sahidic delights in the
multiplication of vowels as compared with the Bohairic; thus it has
ⲉⲗⲉⲟⲟⲗⲉ for ⲁⲗⲟⲗⲓ, ⲙⲏⲏⲱⲉ for ⲙⲏⲱ, ϩⲁⲗⲁⲁⲧⲉ for ϩⲁⲗⲁⲧⲓ, ϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ for ϣⲉⲗⲉⲧ,
&c. Again the Sahidic has smooth-breathings where the Bohairic has
aspirates, e.g. ⲡⲏⲩⲉ for ⲫⲏⲩⲓ “heavens,” ⲧⲏⲩ for ⲑⲏⲟⲩ “wind”; and it
substitutes the simple aspirate for the stronger guttural, e.g. ⲱⲛϩ for
ⲱⲛⲭ “life,” ⲡⲁϩ for ⲫⲁϧ “rend.” Besides these more general distinctions,
the two dialects have special peculiarities, not only in their grammatical
forms, but even in their ordinary vocabulary; thus Sah. ⲃⲱⲕ for Boh. ⲓ “to
go,” Sah. ϩⲉ for Boh. ⲣⲏϯ “manner,” Sah. ϩⲁϩ for Boh. ⲙⲏϣ “a multitude,”
“many,” and so forth. Indeed the relations of the Sahidic and Bohairic
dialects to each other may be fairly illustrated, as will have appeared
from these facts, by the relation of the Ionic and Attic, though the
differences in the Egyptian dialects are greater than in the Greek. Like
the Attic, the Bohairic is the more literary and cultivated dialect of the
two.

The demotic writing does not give the slightest indication that there were
different dialects of the spoken language (_see_ Brugsch, Grammaire
Démotique, p. 10). In the Coptic, i.e. Christian, literature we learn this
fact for the first time; and yet in the earliest age of this literature
the dialects are found to be fully developed. Brugsch, however, has shown
(De Natura &c., p. 10) that transcriptions of several Egyptian words into
Greek in the age of the Ptolemies occur in two different forms, which
correspond fairly to the two dialects; and indeed it would seem probable
that the separation of the Bohairic and Sahidic should be ascribed to the
more remote time, when these regions formed separate kingdoms. The older
Egyptian writing, whether sacred or demotic, would obscure the distinction
of dialects, partly from a conservative fondness for time-honoured modes
of representation, but chiefly owing to the nature of the character
itself. Thus this character makes no provision for the nicer distinction
of the vowel-sounds, while the dialectic differences depend very largely
on the divergent vocalization. Thus again it sometimes represents allied
consonants, such as _l_ and _r_, by the same sign; while one of the most
striking peculiarities of dialect is the common substitution of _l_ in the
dialect of the Fayoum for _r_ in the Sahidic and Bohairic, as e.g. ⲏⲗⲡ for
ⲏⲣⲡ “wine,” ⲗⲁⲙⲡⲓ for ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ “year,” ⲗⲓⲙⲓ for ⲣⲓⲙⲓ “weeping,” and the like.

Of the time when the Scriptures were translated into the two principal
dialects of Egypt no direct record is preserved. Judging, however, from
the analogy of the Latin and Syriac and other early versions, and indeed
from the exigencies of the case, we may safely infer that as soon as the
Gospel began to spread among the native Egyptians who were unacquainted
with Greek, the New Testament, or at all events some parts of it, would be
translated without delay. Thus we should probably not be exaggerating, if
we placed one or both of the principal Egyptian versions, the Bohairic and
the Sahidic, or at least parts of them, before the close of the second
century(98). There are, so far as I am aware, no phenomena whether of text
or of interpretation in either, which are inconsistent with this early
date. Somewhat later than this we meet with notices which certainly
presuppose the common use of a native version or versions of the
Scriptures. Quatremère (Sur la Langue &c., p. 9 sq.) and Schwartze (Das
alte Aegypten, p. 956 sq.) have collected a number of such notices, from
which we may gather that it was the exception and not the rule, when a
native Egyptian bishop or monk in the early centuries could speak the
Greek language besides his own. Thus for instance St. Antony, who was born
about the year 250, could only speak his native tongue, and in conversing
with Greeks was obliged to use an interpreter (Athan., Vit. Ant. 74;
Hieron., Vit. Hilar. 30; Pallad., Hist. Laus. 26). His own letters, of
which fragments are extant, were written in Egyptian. Yet he was a son of
Christian parents, and as a boy listened constantly to the reading of the
Scriptures (Athan., _l. c._, § 1). When only eighteen or twenty years old,
we are told, he was powerfully influenced by hearing the Gospel read in
church (§§ 2, 3); and throughout his life he was a diligent reader and
expositor of the Scriptures. Indeed it is quite plain from repeated
notices, that the Scriptures in the Egyptian tongue were widely circulated
and easily accessible at this time (_see_ esp. § 16 ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς [i.e.
τοῖς μοναχοῖς] τῇ Αἰγυπτιακῇ φωνῇ ταῦτα; τὰς μὲν γραφὰς ἱκανὰς εἶναι πρὸς
διδασκαλίαν κ.τ.λ.). Again his contemporary Theodore, a famous abbot to
whom one of his letters is addressed, was equally ignorant of any language
but his own, and had to use an interpreter in speaking with strangers and
Alexandrians (Sahid. MS. clxxvii in Zoega, Catal., p. 371). The notices of
Theodore’s master Pachomius, the founder of Egyptian monasteries, point in
the same direction. This famous person, who was converted as a young man
in the early years of the fourth century, was till late in life
unacquainted with any language but his own. Receiving a visit from an
Alexandrian, another Theodore, he assigned to him as his companion and
interpreter a monk who could speak Greek. After some time he himself
applied himself to the study of this language that he might be able to
converse with his new friend (Zoega, p. 77 sq., and references in
Quatremère, Sur la Langue &c, p. 12). Pachomius drew up rules for the
guidance of his monastery in the Egyptian language. These rules, which are
extant in Greek and Latin translations (Migne, Patrol. Graec., xl. p. 947;
Hieron., Op., ii. p. 53 sq.), demand a very diligent study of the
Scriptures from the brethren, even from novices before admission into the
order. Again and again directions are given relating to the use of
manuscripts. These notices indeed refer chiefly to the Thebaid, which was
the great seat of the Egyptian monasteries; but the first part of St.
Antony’s life was spent in the monasteries of Alexandria, and it was only
later that he retired to the Thebaid (Athan., Vit. Ant. 49). Though
probably more common in Lower than in Upper Egypt, the knowledge of Greek
was even there an accomplishment denied to a large number of native
Christians. Thus for instance, when Palladius visited John of Lycopolis,
an abbot of the Nitrian desert, he found his knowledge of Greek so slight
that he could only converse through an interpreter (Hist. Laus. 43).
These, it will be remembered, are the most prominent names among the
Egyptian Christians; and from such examples it must be plain that the
ordinary monk would be wholly dependent on a native version for his
knowledge of the Scriptures. Yet the monks swarmed both in Upper and Lower
Egypt at this time. Palladius reckons as many as 7,000 brethren under
Pachomius in the Tabennitic monastery (Hist. Laus. 38; comp. Hieron.,
Praef. in Reg. Pach. 2, ii. p. 54), while Jerome states that close upon
50,000 would assemble together at the chief monastery of the order to
celebrate the anniversary of the Lord’s Passion (ib. § 7). After all
allowance made for exaggeration, the numbers must have been very great.
Even at a much later date the heads of the Egyptian Church were often
wholly dependent on their native tongue. At the Robber Synod of Ephesus
(A.D. 449) Calosirius, bishop of Arsinoe, spoke and signed through his
deacon, who acted as interpreter (Labb., Conc. iv. p. 1119, 1179, 1188,
ed. Colet.). And again two years later, when Dioscorus of Alexandria
started for the Council of Chalcedon, he was accompanied by one Macarius,
bishop of Tkou, a man of some note in his day, who could not be made to
understand a word of Greek (Memph. MS. liv, in Zoega, Catal., p. 99).

[The above was the most complete account of the dialects of the Coptic
language and of the early history of the Coptic versions at the time when
it was written; but in the last ten years immense additions have been made
to our knowledge—additions which have rather complicated than solved the
problem. These have been mainly due to the process of new discovery and to
the labour of many scholars. A large number of previously unedited Coptic
MSS. have been published; many new MSS. have been discovered, and the
grammar of the language has been studied with great minuteness. The credit
of the discovery and editing of new MSS. must be largely given to the
energy and industry of the French school at Cairo, and especially to a
former member of it, M. Amélineau, who has published a very large number
of texts; the advances in our knowledge of the grammar are due to the
labours of the German school of Egyptologists, notably Stern, Erman, and
Steindorff. More important in some ways has been the discovery of an
immense number of documents of a completely new class, written on papyrus,
partly in and near the Fayoum, but also throughout the whole of Upper
Egypt. These documents present us with the language in an earlier stage
than we had previously known, and in a class of writings such as letters,
contracts, and other legal documents, which conform to the spoken language
of different parts of Egypt(99).

It is on the subject of the Egyptian dialects that our views have been
most modified. We have seen that three dialects in all are mentioned by
Athanasius of Cos: the Bohairic, the Sahidic, and a third, the Bashmuric.
When therefore fragments of a third version of the Scriptures were
discovered, the name Bashmuric was at once assigned to them. The early
history of the discussions on this dialect were admirably summed up by
Bishop Lightfoot. (3rd edition, pp. 401-403.)]

The first fragment, 1 Cor. ix. 9-16, was published at Rome in 1789 by
Giorgi, from a MS. in the Borgian Museum, in the work which has been
already mentioned. He designated it Bashmuric, and, as the dialect
presents affinities to both the Bohairic and Sahidic, he assigned to it a
corresponding locality. Herodotus (ii. 42) mentions the inhabitants of the
Ammonian Oasis as speaking a language intermediate between the Egyptian
and Ethiopian; and on the strength of this passage, combined with the
phenomena just mentioned, Giorgi placed Bashmur in this region, deriving
the word from the Coptic ⲥⲡⲁⲙⲏⲣ “the region beyond,” i.e. west of the
Nile, and gave the dialect a second name _Ammonian_ (p. lxviii sq.). In
the same year Münter in his work on the Sahidic dialect (_see_ above, p.
393), published this same fragment independently at Copenhagen. He had not
seen Giorgi’s work, but adopted provisionally his name Ammonian, of which
he had heard, while at the same time he stated his own opinion that the
variations of form are too slight to constitute a separate dialect (p.
76). In 1808 appeared Quatremère’s work, to which I have more than once
alluded. In it he included another fragment of this dialect (Baruch iv.
22-v. 22, and Epist. Jerem.), from a MS. in the Imperial Library of Paris.
At the same time he pointed out that the passage in Herodotus will not
bear the interpretation put upon it by Giorgi, and that, as a matter of
fact, the Ammonians speak not a Coptic, but a Berber dialect. He also
refuted Giorgi’s opinion about the position of Bashmur, and showed
conclusively (p. 147 sq.) from several notices in Arabic writers that this
region must be placed in the Delta. In a later work (Mémoires
Géographiques et Historiques sur l’Égypte, i. p. 233, 1811) he identified
it more definitely with Elearchia, the country of the Bucoli, that fierce
and turbulent race of herdsmen, who, living in the marshy pasture land and
protected by the branches of the Nile, gave so much trouble to their
Persian, Greek, and Roman rulers successively (_see_ Engelbreth, p. x).
The defiant attitude, which in earlier times these Bucoli assumed towards
their successive masters, was maintained to the end by the Bashmurites
towards their Arab conquerors. While the other Copts succumbed and made
terms, they alone stubbornly resisted. At length the Arab invaders were
victorious, and the Bashmuric race was extirpated. It would seem,
therefore, that Bashmur is the Arabic modification of the Coptic ⲡⲥⲁⲙⲟⲩⲣ,
“regio cincta,” the country girdled by the Nile.

But this being so, Quatremère, looking at the linguistic character of
these fragments, denies that they belong to the Bashmuric dialect at all;
and suggests for them a locality which will explain their affinities to
both the Bohairic and Sahidic, assigning them to the Great and Little
Oasis, and accordingly designating them _Oasitic_. In 1810 Zoega’s
“Catalogus,” a posthumous work, appeared, in which he published all the
fragments of this third Egyptian dialect found in the Borgian collection,
comprising (besides a portion of Isaiah) John iv. 28-53; 1 Cor. vi. 19-ix.
16; xiv. 33-xv. 35; Eph. vi. 18-24; Phil. i. 1-ii. 2; 1 Thess. i. 1-iii.
6; Heb. v. 5-9; v. 13-vi. 8-11; 15-vii. 5, 8-13; 16-x. 22, nearly all of
these passages being more or less mutilated. And in the following years
these same passages were edited by Engelbreth (Fragmenta Basmurico-Coptica
Veteris et Novi Testamenti, Havniae, 1811), who had not seen Zoega’s
edition. Both Zoega and Engelbreth, though agreeing with Quatremère in the
position of Bashmur (the former without having seen Quatremère’s book),
yet claimed these fragments as Bashmuric.

In this opinion there is good reason for acquiescing. It seems highly
improbable that Athanasius of Kos, a Christian bishop, can have been
ignorant of a dialect so important that the Christian Scriptures were
translated into it (for the various fragments oblige us to suppose a
complete version of the Old and New Testaments), a dialect moreover which,
on Quatremère’s hypothesis, was spoken not so very far from his own
neighbourhood. And on the other hand it is not very probable that all
traces of a dialect which was known to him should have perished, as would
be the case if these fragments are not Bashmuric(100). To counterbalance
this twofold difficulty involved in Quatremère’s hypothesis, the
linguistic objections ought to be serious indeed. But until we are better
acquainted with the early history of Egypt than we are ever likely to be,
it will be impossible to say why the Bashmuric dialect should not be
separated geographically from the Sahidic by a dialect like the Bohairic
with which it has fewer, though still some special affinities. The
interposition of an Ionic between two Dorian races in Greece will show the
insecurity of this mode of argument.

[We must now continue the history. Although Bishop Lightfoot summed up in
favour of the theory which would assign these fragments to the Bashmuric,
his acuteness had noticed the difficulties which would be involved in the
separation of that dialect from the Sahidic, with which it had close
affinities by what was then called the Memphitic. The greater knowledge of
Egyptian history, which he desired but did not hope for, has become
possible. And the objection is supported.

In 1878 Stern examined the history and character of the third Egyptian
dialect (Z. A. S. 16, 1878, p. 23), and showed that it was almost
impossible on either linguistic or historical grounds to assign it to the
district of Bashmur. He pointed out that all the fragments we possessed of
it had come from Upper Egypt, that we had positive evidence that there was
no version of the Scriptures in the Bashmuric dialect, and that in
dialectic affinities it was clearly akin to Sahidic. He also found
evidence in Tuki of the existence of another dialect there called
Memphiticus Alter, and that this was supported by papyrus documents which
came from the site of Memphis (_see_ below), which have some, although not
a complete, resemblance to the Bashmuric fragments. Hence he concluded
that the third dialect was Middle Egyptian, and, guided by two or three
words on a fragment of papyrus brought from the Fayoum, he decided that
that district must have presented the characters of isolation and
independence, which would make the development of a third dialect
possible. The proof of his theory was not long to seek. Already in the
year 1877 attention had been called to the fragments now known as the
Fayoum papyri, and very soon they began to appear in European libraries;
it was not long before Berlin and Vienna acquired very large collections.
An examination of the Coptic papyri in these collections has proved
conclusively the truth of Stern’s conclusions. The vast majority of these
present the same dialectic affinities as the third Bible translation, and
show also (as these had hinted) that the orthography of the dialect was
not fixed, in fact that hardly two documents present exactly the same
linguistic character, although all are definitely distinguished from the
other two dialects. It may therefore be confidently asserted that all the
literature hitherto published as Bashmuric is in the dialect of the
Fayoum.

But the discoveries do not stop here. As early as 1876 M. E. Revillont had
published (Papyrus Coptes, 1876, p. 103) a collection of documents in the
Louvre which came from the Monastery of Abba Jeremias, close to the
Serapeum, near the site of the ancient Memphis. These were examined by
Stern (Z. A. S. 23, 1885, p. 145 sq.), who shows that here we have again a
different dialectic form. It has affinities to the Sahidic, affinities to
the Bohairic, and affinities to the Fayoum dialect. It represents in fact
the language of ancient Memphis, and an attempt has been made to call it
Memphitic, but this would create endless confusion. Stern suggests Lower
Sahidic (Unter Sahidisch), but the name Middle Egyptian is the one which
has been generally adopted. It is this discovery that shows the necessity
of avoiding the term Memphitic for the principal Egyptian version, and
substituting the Arabic name ’Bohairic.’ That was the language of the
province on the sea-coast in the neighbourhood of Alexandria. And it was
not until the eleventh century, and the removal of the Patriarchate to
Cairo, that it became the language of the district of Memphis, that is,
long after the decline of Memphis had begun.

But our knowledge of the dialects of Egypt was still further to be
extended. About ten years ago excavations were undertaken by the Egyptian
Department of Antiquities in the Coptic Cemetery of Akhmîm, the ancient
Chemnis or Panopolis in Upper Egypt. Amongst the results of this discovery
were the Apocryphal fragments, which have created a considerable sensation
lately. These seem to have been considered by their discoverers to possess
so little interest, that they were only accidentally given to the world
seven years afterwards. The Coptic fragments were more fortunate, and in
1884 M. Bouriant, head of the French School at Cairo, published
considerable fragments of the Old Testament, including a hitherto unknown
Apocryphal work, the Testament of Sophonias (Zephaniah), in a fifth
dialect, to which, for some reason, he at the time gave the name of
Bashmuric (Mémoires, i. 1884, p. 243). This dialect was examined by Stern
(Z. A. S. 24, 1886, p. 129), who showed that, while its affinities were
with the Middle Egyptian or Lower Sahidic, it represented a more primitive
stage in the language, and that these documents are our oldest literary
remains of the Coptic language.

In the place then of the two or three dialects known until recent years,
we have now at least five: the Bohairic, Sahidic, Fayoumic, Middle
Egyptian, and Akhmimic, not to speak of the Bashmuric, in which no
literary remains exist. The exact relations of these dialects to one
another have not yet been satisfactorily worked out, and the problem is
complicated by the fact that most of them had no fixed or standard form,
and that papyri (especially those containing documents in the popular
speech) vary in every locality and every age. To write the history then of
these dialects and of the New Testament in them is not at present
possible; but the following may suggest some more or less tentative
conclusions.

In the earlier stages of the Egyptian language as we have it now in a
written form, there are apparently no certain signs of dialectic
variations, although there is certainly evidence that such did exist in
the spoken language; and the changes introduced by Christianity are of
great interest. The old language was fixed and definite in its
orthography, and it represented the traditions of a caste of scribes, and
not of the popular speech. Christianity on the other hand was in Egypt a
great popular movement; a new and simple alphabet became necessary; the
Scriptures were translated, not into the literary language, but into that
of the people; and the copies of these translations in each locality
reflected the local peculiarities of speech which had existed for
centuries, but which up to that time had left behind no literary memorial.
Gradually, however, the Christian Church created for itself literary
traditions, and a tendency towards unification set in round three centres,
the monasteries of the Natron Lakes, the great home of monastic life in
Lower Egypt, the monasteries of the Fayoum, and the great White Monastery
Deir Amba Shenoudah near Sohag in Upper Egypt. Hence came the three
dialects which have a more or less literary character. Then began the
decay of the Coptic language. First the dialect of the Fayoum died out,
then the Sahidic, until finally Bohairic became, as it is now, the church
language of the whole country.

The relation of these changes to the history of the versions has not yet
been satisfactorily worked out. It has been sufficiently proved that
translations into Coptic existed in the third century, very probably in
the second; but in what dialect they were made, and what relation they
bore to the existing translations, has not yet been discovered, and the
problem remains unsolved.]



(2) The Bohairic Version(101).


The Bohairic version was not included in the Polyglotts, though others
much later in date and inferior in quality found a place there. The first
use of it is found in Bp. Fell’s Oxford N. T. (1675), to which many
readings were contributed by the Oxford Oriental scholar, T. Marshall,
Rector of Lincoln College, who died in 1675, before the Coptic New
Testament was published. It was afterwards employed by Mill, who
recognized its importance, and gave various readings from it in the notes
and appendix to his edition of the Greek Testament (1707). These readings
he obtained partly from the papers of Marshall, who had contemplated an
edition of the Coptic Gospels, but was prevented by death from
accomplishing his design, and partly from the communications of a foreign
scholar, Lud. Piques. The MSS. which supplied the former belonged at one
time to Marshall himself, and are now in the Bodleian; the latter were
taken from MSS. in the Royal Library at Paris (see Mill’s “Prol.,” pp.
clii, clx, clxvii).

The _editio princeps_ of the Bohairic version appeared a few years later
with the title “Novum Testamentum Aegyptium vulgo Copticum ex MSS.
Bodleianis descripsit, cum Vaticanis et Parisiensibus contulit, et in
Latinum sermonem convertit David Wilkins Ecclesiae Anglicanae Presbyter,
Oxon. 1716.” The editor Wilkins was a Prussian by birth, but an Oxonian by
adoption. In his preface he gives an account of the MSS. which he used,
and which will be described below. The materials at his disposal were
ample, if he had only known how to use them; but unfortunately his
knowledge of the language was not thoroughly accurate, nor had he the
critical capacity required for such a task. His work was very severely
criticized at the time by two eminent Egyptian scholars, Jablonsky and La
Croze, whose verdict has been echoed by most subsequent writers; and no
doubt it is disfigured by many inaccuracies. But he may fairly claim the
indulgence granted to pioneers in untrodden fields of learning, and he has
laid Biblical scholars under a debt of gratitude which even greater errors
of detail could not efface. With some meagre exceptions this was the first
work which had appeared in the Egyptian tongue; and under these
circumstances much may be forgiven in an editor. The defects which render
caution necessary in using it for critical purposes are twofold. _First._
The text itself is not constructed on any consistent or trustworthy
principles. It is taken capriciously from one or other of the sources at
his disposal; no information is given respecting the authority for the
printed text in any particular passage; and, as a rule, no various
readings are added. In the prolegomena indeed (p. xi sq.) notices of two
or three variations are given, but even here we have no specification of
the MSS. from which they are taken. _Secondly._ The translation cannot be
trusted. The extent of this inaccuracy may be seen from the examples in
Woide, Append. Cod. Alex., p. 16 sq., and Schwartze, Evang. Memph. Praef.,
p. xxii. One instance will suffice. In 1 Cor. xiii. 3 Wilkins gives the
rendering “ut comburar,” corresponding to the common reading ἵνα
καυθήσωμαι; though the Memphitic has ⲏⲧⲁ ϣⲟⲩϣⲟⲩ ⲙⲙⲟⲓ = ἵνα καυχήσωμαι. Yet
Wilkins’ error has been so contagious that Tattam in his Lexicon gives
καίειν “incendere” as a sense of ϣⲟⲩϣⲟⲩ, referring to this passage as an
example, though its universal meaning is “to praise,” “to glorify.”

In 1829 the British and Foreign Bible Society published an edition of the
Four Gospels in Coptic (Bohairic) and Arabic. It is a handsomely printed
4to, intended for the use of the native Christians of Egypt. In the Coptic
portion, which was edited by Tattam, the text of Wilkins was followed for
the most part, but it was corrected here and there from a recent MS. which
will be described below, Evang. 14. This edition has no critical value.

Between the edition of Wilkins and those of Schwartze and Boetticher more
than a century and a quarter elapsed; but no important step was taken
during this period towards a more critical use of the Bohairic version.
Wetstein appears to have been satisfied with the information obtainable
from Mill and Wilkins. Bengel was furnished with a few various readings
from the Berlin MSS. by La Croze; and Woide again in his preface, p. 13,
gave a collation of Mark i. from the Berlin MS. of this Gospel. Griesbach
seems not to have gone beyond published sources of information; and this
has been the case with later editors of the Greek Testament.

The title of Schwartze’s edition is “Quatuor Evangelia in dialecto linguae
Copticae Memphitica perscripta ad Codd. MS. Copticorum in Regia
Bibliotheca Berolinensi adservatorum nec non libri a Wilkinsio emissi
fidem edidit, emendavit, adnotationibus criticis et grammaticis,
variantibus lectionibus expositis atque textu Coptico cum Graeco comparato
instruxit M. G. Schwartze.” St. Matthew and St. Mark appeared in 1846, St.
Luke and St. John in the following year. The title of the work fully
explains its aim. The editor was an exact Egyptian scholar, and so far it
is thoroughly trustworthy. The defects of this edition, however, for
purposes of textual criticism are not inconsiderable. (1) Schwartze’s
materials were wholly inadequate. Though the libraries of England, Paris,
and Rome contain a large number of MSS. of different ages and qualities,
not one of these was consulted; but the editor confined himself to one
good MS. and one indifferent transcript, both in the Berlin library. These
will be described below. The text of the Bohairic Gospels therefore still
remains in a very unsatisfactory state. (2) His collation with the Greek
text is at once superfluous and defective. This arises from his capricious
choice of standards of comparison, the Codex Ephraem and the printed texts
of Lachmann and Tischendorf (1843). If he had given an accurate Latin
translation of the whole, and had supplemented this with a distinct
statement of the reading of the Bohairic version, where variations are
known to exist in other authorities, and where at the same time a Latin
version could not be made sufficiently explicit, the result would have
been at once more simple, more complete, and more available. As it is, he
has contented himself with translating particular sentences (more
especially those which are mistranslated in Wilkins), while his method of
comparison necessarily overlooks many variations. With all its defects,
however, this edition has a far higher value than its predecessor for
critical purposes. Not the least useful part of Schwartze’s notes is the
collation of the published portions of the Sahidic Version, where also he
has corrected errors in the edition of Woide and Ford (_see_ below, p. 129
sq.).

Schwartze only lived to complete the four Gospels. He had, however, made
some collations for the Acts and Epistles during his last visit to
England; and after his death they were placed in the hands of P.
Boetticher, who continued the work. The titles of Boetticher’s editions
are “Acta Apostolorum Coptice,” and “Epistulae Novi Testamenti Coptice,”
both dated Halae, 1852. His plan, however, differs wholly from
Schwartze’s. He substitutes an 8vo size for the 4to of his predecessor;
and he gives no translation or collation with the Greek, but contents
himself with noting the variations of his MSS. in Coptic at the foot of
the page. Thus his book is absolutely useless to any one who is
unacquainted with the language. Moreover his materials, though less scanty
than Schwartze’s, are far from adequate. For the Acts and for the Catholic
Epistles he employed Schwartze’s collations of two English MSS., which he
calls _tattamianus_ and _curetonianus_, and himself collated or obtained
collations of two others in the Paris Library (_p_), (_m_); while for the
Pauline Epistles he again used Schwartze’s collations of the same two
English MSS., together with _another_ Paris MS. (_p_), and the Berlin
MSS., which will be described below. The account, which he gives in his
preface, of the MSS. employed by him is so meagre, that in some cases they
are with difficulty identified. Nor again are the collations used for this
edition nearly complete. I have pointed out below the defects in
Schwartze’s collation of one of the English MSS., which I have partially
examined; and Brugsch in an article in the “Zeitschr. der Deutschen
Morgenl. Gesellsch.,” vii. p. 115 sq. (1853), has given a full collation
of the Berlin MS. of the Epistle to the Romans, showing how many
variations in this MS. are not recorded in Boetticher’s edition. The
Apocalypse has never appeared.

About the same time a magnificent edition of the whole of the New
Testament in Coptic (Bohairic) and Arabic was published under the auspices
of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. The first part, which is
entitled ⲡⲓ ⲭⲱⲙ ⲛⲛⲓ ⲇ ⲛⲛⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲃ, “The Book of the Four Holy
Gospels,” bears the date 1847, Tattam’s Coptic Lexicon having appeared in
1836(102); the second, comprising the remaining books, including the
Apocalypse, is called ⲡⲓ ⲭⲱⲙ ⲙⲁⲋⲃ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲇⲓⲁⲑⲏⲕⲏ ⲙⲃⲉⲣⲓ, “The Second Book of
the New Testament,” and appeared in 1852. We are informed in a Coptic
colophon at the end, that the Book was edited by “Henry Tattam the
presbyter of the Anglican Church for the Holy Patriarch and the Church of
Christ in Egypt.” The type is large and bold, and the volumes are very
handsome in all respects, being designed especially for Church use. The
editor’s eminent services to Coptic literature are well known, but the
titles and colophon do not suggest any high expectations of the value of
this edition to the scholar. The basis of the text in this edition was a
copy belonging to the Coptic Patriarch; but the editor collated it with
MSS. in his own possession and with others belonging to the Hon. R.
Curzon, adopting from these such variations as seemed to him to agree with
the best readings of the Greek MSS. As no various readings are recorded,
this edition is quite useless for critical purposes: nor indeed was the
aim which the editor set before him consistent with the reproduction of
the Bohairic New Testament in its authentic form. The interpolated
passages for instance are printed without any indication that their
authority is at all doubtful.

The following account of the Bohairic MSS. existing in European libraries,
though probably very imperfect, will yet be found much fuller than any
which has hitherto been given. Indeed the list in Le Long (Bibl. Sacr., i.
p. 140 sq.) is the only one which aims at completeness; and the date of
this work (1723) would alone disqualify it, as a guide on such a subject
at the present time. Those manuscripts which I describe from personal
inspection are marked with an asterisk. In other cases my authorities are
given.


    A. _The Gospels._

    In the Bodleian Library at Oxford are:

    *1. Hunt. 17, fol., paper, Copt. Arab., a very fine and highly
    important MS. Among other illuminations are seated figures of the
    four Evangelists prefixed to the several Gospels. The date is
    given at the close of St. John as the year 890 (of the martyrs),
    i.e. A.D. 1174(103). Wilkins (p. vi), though giving the Coptic
    numerals correctly ⲱⲙ, interprets them 790, i.e. A.D. 1074. This
    will serve as an example of his inaccuracy; and in future I shall
    not consider it necessary to point out his errors, which are very
    numerous, unless there is some special reason for doing so. The
    scribe’s name, John a monk, appears in a colophon at the end of
    St. Mark.

    The importance of this MS. consists in a great measure in its
    marginal additions, which are very frequent. The text seems to
    give the original Bohairic version in a very pure form; while the
    margin supplies all or nearly all the passages which in fewer or
    greater numbers have crept into the text of other Bohairic MSS.,
    and which (so far as regards the Bohairic version itself) must be
    regarded as interpolations(104), whatever sanction they may have
    in Greek MSS. or other ancient authorities. Among these marginal
    additions I have noted Matt. vi. 13 (the doxology); Mark vi. 11
    ἀμὴν λέγω κ.τ.λ., vii. 16 εἴ τις ἔχει ὦτα κ.τ.λ., xiii. 14 τὸ
    ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου, xv. 28 καὶ ἐπληρώθη κ.τ.λ.; Luke i.
    28 εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν (in this case, however, not in the
    margin, but in the text in a smaller hand); xxii. 43, 44 (the
    agony); xxiii. 17 ἀνάγκην δὲ εἶχεν κ.τ.λ.; xxiii. 34; John vii.
    53-viii. 11. On the other hand the descent of the angel, John v.
    3, 4, which is wanting in many Bohairic MSS. and can hardly have
    been part of the original Bohairic version, stands in the text
    here. At the end of St. Mark the margin gives in an ancient hand
    (whether coeval with the MS. or not, I am unable to say) the
    alternative ending of this Gospel substantially as it is found in
    L and other authorities. This marginal note runs as follows: ⲟⲩⲟϩ
    ⲛⲏ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲁϥϩⲟⲛϩⲉⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ [ⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ?] ⲛⲛⲏⲉⲧ ⲁⲩⲓ ⲙⲉⲛⲉⲛⲥⲁ ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ ⲟⲩⲟϩ
    ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲁⲩⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲙⲉⲛⲉⲛⲥⲁ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲛ ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉⲣⲱⲟⲩ
    ⲛϫⲉ ⲓ_ⲏ_ⲥ ⲓⲥϫⲉⲛ ⲛⲓⲙⲁⲛϣⲁⲓ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲫⲣⲏ ϣⲁ ⲛⲉϥⲙⲁⲛϩⲱⲧⲡ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱⲣⲡⲟⲩ ⲉ ϩⲓ
    ϣⲉⲛⲛⲟⲩϥ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲛⲁⲧⲙⲟⲩⲛⲕ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲱⲛϧ ⲛⲉⲛⲉⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲟⲛ ⲛⲑⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲏⲡⲓ
    ⲛⲧⲟⲧⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲙⲉⲛⲉⲛⲥⲁ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲉϥⲉⲧⲁϩⲱⲟⲩ [ⲉⲩⲧⲁϩⲱⲟⲩ?] ⲛ[ⲛϫⲉ?] ϩⲁⲛϣⲑⲟⲣⲧⲉⲣ
    ⲛⲉⲙ ϩⲁⲛϩⲟϫϩⲉϫ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲙⲡⲟⲩϫⲉ ϩⲗⲓ ⲛϩⲗⲓ ⲛⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲛⲁⲩⲉⲣⲟϯ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲡⲉ. “And all
    those things he commanded to those that went after Peter, and they
    told them openly, and after these things again also (δέ) Jesus
    appeared to them from the rising of the sun unto the setting
    thereof, and sent them to preach the holy and imperishable gospel
    of eternal life. Amen. These again are reckoned (added) to them;
    And after these things troubles and afflictions possess them, and
    they said not a word to any man, for they were afraid.” I have
    translated the emendations suggested in brackets, for without them
    it is hardly possible to make sense. But, even when thus
    corrected, the passage is not free from confusion. The alternative
    ending, as here given, most closely resembles the form in the
    Aethiopic MSS.

    *2. Hunt. 20, fol., paper. The titles, initials, &c., are
    illuminated. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked,
    besides Greek and Coptic chapters. This MS. omits the additions in
    Matt. xviii. 11, Luke xxii. 43, 44; John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii.
    11, but contains those of Matt. xxiii. 13 (after ver. 14); Luke
    xxiii. 17, 34. The catalogue ascribes this MS., which is undated,
    to the thirteenth century; but this is probably too early.

    *3. Marshall 5, fol., paper. The titles, initials, &c.,
    illuminated. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked.
    This MS. is very like the last in general appearance. In the
    catalogue the date of a donation is given as A. Mart. 1214 = 1498
    A.D. It contains the additions Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34;
    John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11; but omits Matt. xviii. 11.
    Petraeus, who transcribed this MS. in the seventeenth century,
    calls it very ancient and in ruinous condition.

    *4. Marshall 6, fol., paper. The last few pages are supplied by a
    later hand. A colophon gives the year of the original MS. as A.
    Mart. 1036 = A.D. 1320, and that of the restoration = 1641 A.D.,
    as A. Mart. 1357. This MS. omits the additions of Luke xxii. 43,
    44; xxiii. 17; John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11.

    *5. Marshall 99, small 8vo, paper, containing the Gospel of St.
    John only. A comparatively recent but interesting MS. It has no
    date recorded. It omits John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11.

    In the British Museum:

    *6. Oriental 425, 4to, paper, Copt. Arab: Ff. 2 a-6b contain the
    Eusebian tables, after which originally followed the four Gospels
    in the common order, ending fol. 116b. The whole of St. Luke
    however, and the whole of St. John except xix. 6-xx. 13 and xxi.
    13-25, are wanting, owing to the mutilation of the MS. The
    original paging shows that they once formed part of the volume.
    The subsequent matter is not Biblical. The Ammonian Sections and
    Eusebian Canons are given throughout. A colophon at the end of St.
    John gives the name of the scribe John, who must have copied it
    from the codex in the possession of the Catholic Institute of
    Paris in the year 1024 of the Martyrs, i.e. A.D. 1308. This MS.
    was purchased at Archdeacon Tattam’s sale. The addition in Matt.
    xviii. 11 is wanting.

    *7. Oriental 426, 4to, paper, Copt. Arab. The Gospel of St. John,
    of which the beginning as far as i. 13 is wanting. After this
    Gospel follow some extracts from the New Testament, Eph. iv. 1-13;
    Matt. xvi. 13-19; Luke xix. 1-10, with other matter. Like the last
    MS., this was bought at Tattam’s sale. It has not the additions
    John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11.

    *8. Oriental 1001, large 8vo, paper, with illuminations, Copt.
    Arab., “bought of N. Nassif, 21 May, 1869.” The four Gospels
    complete. Each Gospel is preceded by introductory matter, table of
    contents, &c. The first few leaves of the book are supplied by a
    later hand. A note (fol. 77b), written by Athanasius, Bishop of
    Apotheke or Abutij, A.M. 1508 = 1792 A.D., states that the
    original date of the MS. was A. Mart. 908 (= A.D. 1192). This date
    is also repeated fol. 264b. It may possibly be correct, though the
    MS. does not appear so old. On fol. 125b this same Athanasius
    records that he presented the book to the convent of St. Antony,
    A. Mart. 1508 (= A.D. 1792). It contains Luke xxiii. 34, and the
    pericope John vii. 53-viii. 11; but omits the additions Luke xxii.
    43, 44; John v. 3, 4.

    *9. Additional 5995, fol., paper, Copt. Arab, “brought from Egypt
    by Major-General Turner, August, 1801.” The four Gospels complete.
    The few first leaves of St. Matthew and the last leaf of St. John,
    besides some others in the middle of the volume, are added in a
    later hand. In an Arabic colophon (fol. 233b) it is stated that
    the book was repaired A. Mart. 1492 (i.e. A.D. 1776) by one
    Ibrahim, son of Simeon, but that its original date was more than
    four hundred years earlier. This is perhaps an exaggeration. The
    same colophon says that it was written for the convent of Baramus
    in the desert of Scete. Coptic chapters are written in uncials
    while the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are in cursive
    letters. It has not Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17; nor the pericope
    John vii. 53-viii. 11; but contains Luke xxiii. 34, and the
    interpolation in John v. 3, 4.

    *10. Additional 14,740 A. A folio volume in which various Bohairic
    and a few Armenian fragments are bound up together, of various
    sizes and ages, some on vellum, some on paper. The following
    fragments of the Bohairic New Testament on vellum are important on
    account of their antiquity.

    (i) Luke viii. 2-7, 8-10, 13-18.
    (ii) 2 Cor. iv. 2-v. 4.
    (iii) Eph. ii. 10-19; ii. 21-iii. 11.
    (iv) 1 Thess. iii. 3-6; iii. 11-iv. 1.

    The fragment from the Ephesians, the most ancient of them all,
    appears from the handwriting to rival in antiquity the oldest
    Sahidic fragments. They are all more or less mutilated. This
    volume also contains several paper fragments of the Bohairic New
    Testament, belonging chiefly (it would appear) to lectionaries,
    but these are not worth enumerating.

    *11. Oriental 1315. The four Gospels, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The
    letter to Carpianus, Eusebian tables, &c., are prefixed. This MS.,
    dated A.M. 924 = 1208 A.D., and bearing a statement of donations
    in A.M. 973 = 1257 A.D., is very similar in writing to Cod. Vat.
    ix, and the name of the scribe George occurs in both, but the
    readings do not agree. This and the two following MSS. are from
    Sir C. A. Murray’s collection.

    *12. Oriental 1316. The four Gospels, 8vo, paper, Copt. Arab.,
    illuminated, and dated A.D. 1663.

    *13. Oriental 1317. The four Gospels, 8vo, paper, Copt. Arab.,
    elaborately illuminated, and dated 1814.

    In the British and Foreign Bible Society’s Library:

    *14. The four Gospels, sm. 8vo size (five leaves in a quire),
    paper, Copt. Arab. The volume begins with the letter to Carpianus
    and the tables. Introductions are prefixed to the Gospels. The
    Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked. This volume is a
    copy made from one in the possession of the Patriarch of Cairo for
    the Bible Society, and bears the date A.D. 1817 (in a colophon at
    the end of St. Luke). It was partially used for the Society’s
    edition of the Coptic Gospels (_see_ above, p. 107). It contains
    Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34; John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11,
    and seems to represent the common Coptic text of the present day.

    In private Libraries in England(105):

    15. The Library of the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres. Fol.,
    paper. The four Gospels. It was written (see colophon at the end
    of St. Luke) by a scribe, Simon of Tampet, but the date A.M. 1230
    = A.D. 1508 is of the donation to a monastery. Several leaves in
    different parts of the volume were added much later, A. Mart. 1540
    (i.e. A.D. 1824), by one George, a monk. It has a rough picture
    and the Ammonian Sections and Canons throughout. There is a
    tendency to Sahidic forms. For these particulars my thanks are due
    to Mr. Rodwell who kindly allowed me to see his catalogue of Lord
    Crawford’s collection. Through inadvertence I omitted to inspect
    the MS. itself.

    *16. Parham 121, 122, 123 (nos. 9, 10, 11 in the printed
    Catalogue, p. 29), in Lord Zouche’s Library at Parham in Sussex.
    Fol., paper, Copt. Arab. There is a date of donation A.M. 1211 =
    1495 A.D. in 123. These three MSS., which contain respectively the
    Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, must originally
    have formed part of the same volume, which St. Mark is wanted to
    complete. The last leaf of St. Luke is numbered ⲧⲕ, the first of
    St. John ⲧⲕⲃ. Several pages at the beginning and end of St.
    Matthew are supplied by a later hand. The Ammonian Sections and
    Eusebian Canons are marked. These volumes are written in a large
    hand, and have illuminations. They contain the additions Luke
    xxiii. 34; John vii. 53-viii. 11; but not Luke xxii. 43, 44;
    xxiii. 17; nor John v. 3, 4.

    *17. Parham 126 (no. 14, p. 29, in the printed Catalogue), 12mo,
    paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels in a small neat hand, smaller
    than I remember to have seen in any Coptic MS. There are two
    dates, A.M. 1392 = A.D. 1676, and A.M. 1446 = 1730 A.D., and it is
    probable that the book was nearly finished at the earlier time.
    Introductions and tables of contents are prefixed to each Gospel.
    This MS. has the additions Luke xxiii. 34; John vii. 53-viii. 11;
    but not Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17; nor John v. 3, 4; just as
    was the case with the MS. last described, no. 16(106).

    In the Paris National Library:

    *18. Cod. Copt. 13, fol., vellum. The four Gospels. A very fine
    manuscript, elaborately illuminated, with pictures of the
    principal scenes in the Gospel history. It has the Ammonian
    Sections and Eusebian Canons in the margin, with the tables at the
    end of the Gospels. The writer, Michael, bishop of Damietta, gives
    his name in a colophon at the end of St. Mark. The date at the end
    of St. Matthew is 894 (or A.D. 1178); of the other Gospels 896 (or
    A.D. 1180). This MS. is erroneously dated 1173 in the Catalogue,
    and 1164 in Le Long. The additions Luke xxiii. 17, 34; and John
    vii. 53-viii. 11, are part of the original text. Also Luke xxii.
    43, 44, is written _prima manu_ and in the text, but in smaller
    characters so as to make a distinction. On the other hand the
    interpolation John v. 3, 4, is wanting.

    *19. Cod. Copt. 14, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels. It
    has the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons, and two other
    capitulations besides. It contains Luke xxiii. 34, but has not the
    additions Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17; John v. 3, 4; vii.
    53-viii. 11. It is referred in the Catalogue to the thirteenth
    century, which is probably about its date.

    *20. Cod. Copt. 15 (Colbert 2913, Reg. 330. 3), 4to. The scribe
    Victor gives his name in a colophon at the end. It belongs to the
    more ancient Coptic MSS., though no date is given. The Ammonian
    Sections and Eusebian Canons are given. The passages Luke xxii.
    43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34; Joh. v. 3, 4, are added in the margin, but
    form no part of the original text. On the other hand John vii.
    53-viii. 11 now forms part of the text, but the leaf containing it
    and several which follow have been supplied by a much later hand.
    This is the case also with the beginning of St. Matthew and the
    end of St. John.

    *21. Cod. Copt. 16 (De La Mare 579, Reg. 330. 2), 4to, Copt.
    Arab., paper. Owing to the Calendar at the end beginning 1204 A.D.
    = A.M. 920, it is assigned to the thirteenth century. It has the
    Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons and (like Cod. Copt. 14) the
    Greek and Coptic chapters. It contains Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii.
    17, 34; but not John v. 3, 4; nor John vii. 53-viii. 11.

    *22. Cod. Copt. 59 (St. German. 25), “Ex Bibl. Coisl. olim
    Seguer.” Fol., paper. The four Gospels. It has the Ammonian
    Sections and Eusebian Canons, and two other capitulations besides.
    The date at the end is given as 946 A.M. i.e. 1230 A.D. It does
    not contain the additions, Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34. The
    earlier part of St. John containing the test passages is wanting.

    *23. Cod. Copt. 60, fol., paper, a late MS. The four Gospels. On a
    fly-leaf is written, “Quatuor evangelia Coptice Venetiis emta per
    me Fr. Bernardum de Montfaucon anno 1698, die 11 Augusti.” It has
    the Ammonian Sections and Canons. The additions, Luke xxii. 43,
    44; xxiii. 17; John v. 3, 4, are wanting; but Luke xxiii. 34; John
    vii. 53-viii. 11 stand as part of the text.

    *24. Cod. Copt. 61, 8vo, paper. St. John’s Gospel. A late MS. The
    leaves are bound up in the wrong order, and some are wanting. It
    contains John vii. 53-viii. 11.

    *25. Cod. Copt. 62, 4to, paper. St. John’s Gospel. Arabic words
    are written interlinearly in the earlier part, but not throughout.
    It has not v. 3, 4 nor vii. 53-viii. 11. It appears to be of fair
    antiquity.

    In the Berlin Royal Library:

    26. MS. Orient. Diez. A. Fol. 40, described by Schwartze (Praef.
    p. xiii sq.), who collated it for his edition. He says (p. xx),
    “decimum saeculum non superat, dummodo aequet.” The great body of
    this MS. is written by two different scribes, both of whom perhaps
    wrote in the thirteenth century; the two first and two last leaves
    are supplied by a third and more recent hand. Of the two earlier
    scribes the second was not contemporary with the first, as the
    similarity of the paper and ink might suggest, but the MS. was
    already mutilated when it came into his hands, and he supplied the
    missing leaves. The date of A.M. 1125 = 1409 A.D. occurs in an
    Arabic statement but with no mention of writing. There is a
    tendency to Sahidic forms, more especially in the parts supplied
    by the second scribe. This MS. is generally free from the
    interpolated additions, e.g. Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34;
    John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11; and seems to be of high value.

    27. MS. Orient. Quart. 165, 166, 167, 168, four transcripts by
    Petraeus, also collated by Schwartze (_see_ Praef., p. ix). The
    first (165) has the lessons for Sundays and Festivals from the
    four Gospels; the other three (166, 167, 168) contain the Gospels
    of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke respectively, with the
    exception of the parts included in the ecclesiastical lessons.
    These transcripts were made in the year 1662, from a MS. which
    Petraeus describes as “vetustum” and “vetustissimum,” and which is
    now in the Bodleian Library (Maresc. 5).

    In the Göttingen University Library:

    28. Orientalis 125, described incorrectly by Lagarde, Orientalia,
    Heft i. p. 4. The four Gospels, written A. Mart. 1073 (A.D. 1357).
    Some portions are written in another hand and on different paper
    from the rest when the book was restored in A.D. 1774, but the
    greater part is of 1357.

    In the Vatican Library at Rome:

    29. Copt. 8, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels. Some
    leaves at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end have been
    supplied more recently. The scribe of these later leaves was one
    Arcadius, son of John, who gives the date 1303 (i.e. A.D. 1587).
    The body of the MS. is ascribed by Assemani to the fourteenth
    century. For further particulars see Mai, Coll. Vet. Script., v.
    2, p. 120 sq. From the collection of I. B. Raymund (no. i), left
    by will to the Vatican Library.

    30. Copt. 9 (Raymund iv), fol., paper, Copt. Arab., with fine
    illuminations. The four Gospels, preceded by the letter of
    Eusebius to Carpianus and the Eusebian tables. It was given to the
    Monastery of St. Antony in the Arabian desert, A. Mart. 986 (=
    A.D. 1270), by one Michael Abu-Khalîḳah, as recorded in a colophon
    written by Gabriel, who was patriarch of Alexandria at the time.
    Assemani states that this Michael was also the writer of the MS.,
    but more probably the writer was named George and wrote the book
    in A.D. 1205 = A.M. 921. After the plunder of the monastery by the
    Arabs, the MS. came into the possession of two other patriarchs of
    the Copts, John (A.D. 1506) and Gabriel (A.D. 1526), and was
    afterwards placed (A.D. 1537) in the Church of SS. Sergius and
    Bacchus at Alexandria. These facts are stated in other colophons.
    _See_ Mai, _l. c._, p. 122 sq.

    31. Copt. 10 (Raymund vi), 4to, paper, Copt. Arab. The four
    Gospels; ascribed to the fourteenth century by Assemani. _See_
    Mai, _l. c._, p. 125. There are dates of births and marriages, the
    earliest being A.D. 1488 = A.M. 1204.

    32. Copt. 11 (Petri de Valle vi), fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The
    Gospel of St. John. It bears the date 1062 (i.e. A.D. 1346). _See_
    Mai, _l. c._, p. 125.

    33. British Museum; Orient. 3381, fol., paper. The four Gospels.
    Is not dated, though the writer gives his name as Victor. It is
    probably of the thirteenth century, and somewhat resembles the
    writing of Paris 59. The book was restored in A.D. 1793 under the
    patronage of Athanasius, Bishop of Abu Tij. There is also record
    of a collation by a priest in A.D. 1801, while a note in English
    says that the MS. came from Esneh and was bought of the Bishop of
    Luxor by Mr. Lieder, who sold it in 1864 to Mr. Geden, from whom
    it passed to the Museum.

    34. Paris; Copt. 14 A, Copt. Arab., fol., paper. The four Gospels.
    Is dated A.M. 1309 = A.D. 1593. This date is mentioned in Paris 14
    as being the time of a work which was performed on that book, and
    there can be little doubt that this work was the copying of 14 A
    from 14.

    35. Paris; Copt. 60, fol., paper. The four Gospels. This MS. is
    not dated, but is not ancient, and appears to be a copy of MS.
    Diez in its present double form as far as the end of St. Luke. St.
    John is by another hand, and may be of earlier date. The former
    copier was a deacon, Abu al Monnâ.

    36. Paris, L’Institut Catholique de, Copt. Arab., 4to, paper. The
    four Gospels. It is dated A.M. 966 = A.D. 1250. The writer Gabriel
    calls himself monk and priest, and afterwards became Patriarch. A
    donation of the book to Church of St. Mercurius is recorded in
    1750 A.D. The book was brought from Egypt by M. Amélineau and sold
    to the Institute a few years ago. There are very interesting
    miniatures, which have been partly published in the Album of M.
    l’Abbé Hyvernat.

    B. _The Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts._

    In the Bodleian Library at Oxford are:

    1. Hunt. 43, fol., paper, Copt. Arab., containing Paul. Ep., Cath.
    Ep., Acts, and Apocalypse. The paging ceases at the end of the
    Acts, and between the Acts and Apocalypse are some blank pages. I
    did not, however, notice any difference in the handwriting of the
    two parts. The date given at the end of the Acts is 1398 (i.e.
    A.D. 1682).

    *2. Hunt. 203, 4to, paper. The Pauline Epistles. The beginning,
    Rom. i. 1-ii. 26, and the end, 2 Tim. iv. 4-Tit. ii. 6, are in a
    later hand. This later transcriber ends abruptly in the middle of
    a page with ⲉⲑⲣⲟⲩ, Tit. ii. 6. Thus the end of Titus and the whole
    of Philemon are wanting. There are several lacunae in the body of
    the work owing to lost leaves. The description in Wilkins is most
    inaccurate.

    *3. Hunt. 122, 4to, paper, illuminated. The Pauline Epistles. The
    beginning and end are wanting. The MS. begins with Rom. viii. 29,
    and ends with 2 Tim. i. 2. The date is given at the end of 2
    Corinthians as 1002 of the Diocletian era, i.e. A.D. 1286. The
    scribe gives his name as “ⲡⲟⲗϥⲁϫ the son of the bishop.”

    In the British Museum:

    *4. Orient. 424, 4to, paper, Copt. Arab., containing Paul. Ep.,
    Cath. Ep., Acts. At the end of the Pauline Epistles, and at the
    end of the Acts, are two important Arabic colophons, in which the
    pedigree of the MS. is given. From these we learn that both
    portions of this MS. were written A. Mart. 1024 (= A.D. 1308) by
    one Abu Said. They were copied, however, from a previous MS. in
    the handwriting of the patriarch Abba Gabriel and bearing the date
    A. Mart. 966 (= A.D. 1250). This Abba Gabriel stated that “he took
    great pains to copy it accurately and correct it, both as to the
    Coptic and Arabic texts, to the best of human ability.” This MS.
    of Abba Gabriel again was copied from two earlier MSS., that of
    the Pauline Epistles in the handwriting of Abba Yuhanna, bishop of
    Sammanud, that of the Catholic Epistles and Acts in the
    handwriting of “Jurja ibn Saksik(?) the famous scribe.” This MS.
    belonged to Archdeacon Tattam, and was purchased for the British
    Museum at the sale of his books. It is the MS. designated
    ’tattamianus’ in the edition of Boetticher, who made use of a
    collation obtained by Schwartze. The corrections in this MS.
    (designated t* in Boetticher) are written in red ink.

    5. Oriental 1318, ff. 294, fol., 4to, Copt. Arab., dated A. Mart.
    1132 = A.D. 1416.

    In private collections in England:

    *6. Parham 124 (no. 12, p. 29, in the printed Catalogue), fol.,
    paper, Copt. Arab. Paul. Ep., Cath. Ep., Acts. There are several
    blank leaves at the end of the Pauline Epistles, and the numbering
    of the leaves begins afresh with the Catholic Epistles, so that
    this MS. is two volumes bound together. They are, however,
    companion volumes and in the same handwriting. This is doubtless
    the MS. of which Schwartze’s collation was used by Boetticher
    (_see_ above, p. 109), and which he calls “curetonianus.” I am
    informed that it is designated simply _cur._ by Schwartze himself.
    It certainly never belonged to Cureton, but was brought with the
    other Parham MSS. by the Hon. R. Curzon (afterwards Lord Zouche)
    from the East, and ever afterwards belonged to his library.
    Boetticher’s designation therefore is probably to be explained by
    a confusion of names. I gather moreover from private
    correspondence which I have seen, that some of Mr. Curzon’s Coptic
    MSS. were in the keeping of Cureton at the British Museum about
    the time when Schwartze’s collation was made, and this may have
    been one. If so, the mistake is doubly explained. I infer the
    identity of this MS. with the _curetonianus_ of Boetticher for the
    following reasons: (1) Having made all enquiries, I cannot find
    that Dr. Cureton ever possessed a Coptic MS. of the whole or part
    of the New Testament; (2) The MS. in question must have been in
    England, and no other English MS. satisfies the conditions. My
    first impression was that the MS. next described, Parham 121,
    would prove to be the _curetonianus_, for I found between the
    leaves an envelope addressed to Mr. Cureton at the British Museum,
    and bearing the post mark, January, 1849; this fact indicating
    that it had been in Mr. Cureton’s hands about the time when
    Schwartze’s collation was made. But a comparison of the readings
    soon showed that this identification must be abandoned. (3) The
    cipher which Boetticher gives for the date is also found in this
    MS. in two places, after the Pauline Epistles and again after the
    Acts. This coincidence is the more remarkable as the cipher is not
    very intelligible. (4) The readings of our MS., Parham 124, where
    I compared them, agree with those of Boetticher’s _curetonianus_,
    with an occasional exception which may be accounted for by the
    inaccuracy of the collation. This is the case with crucial
    readings, as for instance the marginal alternative in Acts vii.
    39. At the same time Schwartze’s collation, if Boetticher has
    given its readings fully, must have been very imperfect. In a
    short passage which I collated I found more variations omitted
    than there were verses.

    *7. Parham 125 (no. 13, p. 29, printed Catalogue), small 4to,
    paper, in a very neat hand, with illuminations, Copt. Arab. It
    contains the Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts.

    In the National Library at Paris:

    *8. Copt. 17, fol., paper, Copt. Arab., described in the Catalogue
    as “antiquus et elegantissime scriptus.” It contains the fourteen
    Pauline Epistles. Is this the MS. collated by Boetticher for these
    Epistles and designated _p_ by him?

    *9. Copt. 63, small fol., paper. “Emta per me Bernardum de
    Montfaucon Venetiis anno 1698, 11 Augusti.” It contains the
    fourteen Pauline Epistles, and is dated at the end ⲁⲧⲟⲥ, i.e. 1376
    = A.D. 1660.

    *10. Copt. 64, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. “Manuscrit de la
    Bibliothèque de Saumaise acquis par l’abbé Sallier pour le B. R.
    en 1752.” It contains the fourteen Pauline Epistles.

    *11. Copt. 66, 4to, paper, with occasional Arabic notes in the
    margin. It belonged to the Coislin library, and previously to the
    Seguerian. It contains the Catholic Epistles and Acts. The date of
    its completion is given at the end as 1325, i.e. A.D. 1609. A
    collation of this MS. was used by Boetticher for his edition, and
    is designated _p_ by him.

    *12. Copt. 65, fol., paper. “Emta Venetiis per me Fr. I. Bernardum
    de Montfaucon anno 1698, 2 Augusti.” This volume contains the
    Apocalypse, Catholic Epistles, and Acts. It consists of two parts,
    ff. 1-32 containing the Apocalypse, and ff. 33-102 containing the
    Catholic Epistles and Acts. The two parts are written on different
    paper, and apparently in different hands. At the end of the
    Apocalypse the date is given 1376 = A.D. 1660. At the end of the
    Acts also the same date 1376 is given, and the scribe there
    mentions his name ⲓⲱⲁⲡⲓⲡⲣⲉⲥⲃⲩⲧⲉⲣⲟⲥ. Boetticher collated this MS.
    for his edition and designates it _m_.

    In the Royal Library at Berlin:

    13. Orient. 615, fol., Copt. Arab., containing the Epistles to the
    Colossians, Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews, Timothy, Titus.

    14. Orient. 116, fol., Copt. Arab., containing the Epistles to the
    Romans and Corinthians.

    15. Orient. 169, 4to. A transcript of the Epistles to the
    Ephesians and Philippians in Coptic, made by Petraeus at Leyden in
    1660.

    These three were collated by Boetticher, from whom I have
    extracted this meagre account, which is all that he gives. He
    designates them _b_.

    In the Vatican:

    16. Copt. 12 (I. B. Raymund ii), fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The
    Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts; ascribed by
    Assemani to the fourteenth century. In this MS. the Epistle to the
    Hebrews stands after the Epistle to Philemon, thus departing from
    the usual Bohairic order, as above, no. 6. _See_ Mai, Coll. Vet.
    Script., v. 2, p. 125 sq.

    17. Copt. 13 (I. B. Raymund iii), fol., paper, Copt. Arab.,
    ascribed by Assemani to the thirteenth century. The fourteen
    Pauline Epistles. _See_ Mai, _l. c._, p. 127 sq.

    18. Copt. 14 (I. B. Raymund v), 4to, paper, Copt. Arab.,
    containing the Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts. It
    was written by Michael the monk of the city of Bembge in the year
    1074 (i.e. A.D. 1358), except the last leaf, which was supplied in
    1220 (i.e. A.D. 1504). _See_ Mai, _l. c._, p. 128 sq.

    C. _The Apocalypse._

    In England:

    *1. Bodleian, Hunt. 43, already described under Epistles 1.

    *2. Library of Lord Crawford and Balcarres. A very small folio,
    paper, with illuminations, Copt. Arab. ϯⲁⲡⲟⲕⲁⲗⲓⲙⲯⲓⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ.
    The Apocalypse itself is followed by “The Benediction which is
    read before the Holy Apocalypse.” The date 1091 (i.e. A.D. 1375)
    is given at the end of the Apocalypse, where also the scribe
    mentions his name Peter. On a later page he describes himself as a
    monk and presbyter. There are corrections in the margin of the
    Apocalypse, some in red, others in black ink. Some of these
    contain various readings, e.g. x. 11 ⲡⲉϫⲱⲟⲩ λέγουσι for ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ
    λέγει. This MS. once belonged to Tattam.

    *3. Parham 123 (no. 15, p. 29 in the printed Catalogue). Small
    fol., paper, rudely written in a recent hand. Copt. Arab. It
    contains the Apocalypse, followed by the “Book of the Holy
    Benediction, &c.” The scribe, who has evidently a very indifferent
    knowledge of Coptic, gives his name as Matthew the son of Abraham,
    and states that the work was finished
    ϧⲉⲛϯⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓⲛϣⲟⲣⲉⲛⲛⲓⲙⲁⲣⲧⲩⲣⲟⲥⲉⲑⲩ. This ought to be the year 1105 of
    the Martyrs (= A.D. 1389); but the MS. must be later than this
    date. The colophon itself is perhaps copied from an earlier MS.

    *4. Parham 124 (no. 16, p. 29 in the printed Catalogue). A large
    12mo, paper, Copt. Arab. It contains about fifteen lines in a
    page, and about eleven letters in a line. Two or three pages
    towards the beginning are in a later hand. The date is given at
    the end, A. Mart. 1037 = A.D. 1321. This Apocalypse is not
    Sahidic, as described in the printed Catalogue, but Bohairic.

    At Paris:

    *5. Copt. 65, already described under Epistles 11.

    *6. Copt. 91, 8vo, paper, Copt. Arab., containing the Apocalypse
    alone, ϯⲁⲡⲟⲕⲁⲗⲩⲙⲯⲓⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ ⲡⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲥⲧⲏⲥ. It is dated at the
    end 1117 (? = A.D. 1401).

    In the printed Catalogue *Copt. 34 (Delamare 581, Reg. 342. 3) is
    also stated to contain ’Apocalypsis e Graeca lingua in Copticam
    conversa,’ but there seems to be some mistake about this.

    At Rome:

    *7. Anglican Library, C. i. 9. The Apocalypse in Copt. Arab.
    ϯⲁⲡⲟⲕⲁⲗⲩⲯⲓⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲓⲱⲁ ⲡⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲥⲧⲏⲥ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ, &c., said to
    belong to the fifteenth century.

    8. Library of the Propaganda, large 8vo, paper, in a modern hand.
    Copt. Arab. The Apocalypse somewhat mutilated. It contains i.
    12-ii. 26, and iii. 9-xxii. 12. It is briefly described among the
    Borgian MSS. by Zoega, p. 3.

    9. Vatican, Copt. 15, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The Apocalypse
    followed by “Ordo dominicae palmarum” (fol. 59). Referred by
    Assemani to the fourteenth century. _See_ Mai, Coll. Vet. Script.,
    v. 2, p. 130.

    10. Vatican, Copt. 16 (I. B. Raymund, no. xi), 4to, paper, Copt.
    Arab. The Apocalypse, followed by a Benedictio. It was written by
    one John son of Abul-Menna in 1061 (i.e. A.D. 1345). The scribe
    prays “omnes amicos suos sinceros ... ut castigent atque corrigant
    errata illius pro sua prudentia, quoniam ausus sum fungi munere
    mihi ignoto.” _See_ Mai, _l. c._, p. 130 sq.(107)

    Besides these MSS. of different parts of the New Testament there
    is also a considerable number of Bohairic Lectionaries in the
    different libraries of Europe.


From this account of the MSS. it appears that, with the single exception
of the Apocalypse, the Bohairic New Testament, as far back as we can trace
its history, contained all the books of our present Canon. Nor have I
noticed any phenomena in the language of the several books, which point to
any want of uniformity or separation of date; though it is possible that a
more thorough investigation and a more complete mastery of the language
might reveal such. It seems clear, however, that the Apocalypse had not a
place among the Canonical books. In the majority of cases it is contained
in a separate MS. In the exceptions which I have investigated, where it is
bound up with other books (the MSS. numbered 1, 12, of the Epistles and
Acts), it is distinguished from them in some marked way; and probably this
will be found to be the case with any which have not yet been examined. In
short, there is not a single authenticated case of a MS. in which it is
treated as of equal authority with the other Canonical books. Moreover in
Copto-Arabic vocabularies it is omitted from its proper place at the end
of the New Testament, all the other books being taken in order. This
depreciation of the Apocalypse may perhaps be taken as indicating the date
of the completion or codification of the Bohairic version. The earlier
Alexandrian writers, Clement and Origen, in the first decades of the third
century, quote the Apocalypse without hesitation as the work of St. John.
The later Alexandrian Church also from the close of the third century
onward seems to have had no doubt about its Apostolic authority (_see_
Westcott, Canon, p. 321). But about the middle of the third century doubts
were entertained respecting its authorship, to which expression was given
by Dionysius of Alexandria (flor. A.D. 233-265), though even Dionysius did
not deny its canonicity. The difficulty, however, may have been powerful
enough to cause its exclusion from the Egyptian Canon.

The order of the several parts of the New Testament in the MSS. is (1)
Gospels, (2) Pauline Epistles, (3) Catholic Epistles, (4) Acts. The
Gospels occur in their common order. It is remarkable, however, that in
the vocabularies St. John frequently stands first, so that we get the
order, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, which (with the doubtful exception of
the Sahidic) is unique. Of this, however, there is no trace in the MSS.;
and, as some of these must carry the tradition further back than the
vocabularies, the arrangement is perhaps to be explained in some other
way. The Pauline Epistles include the Hebrews, which is placed after 1, 2
Thessalonians and before 1, 2 Timothy(108), as in the Greek MSS. אABC, &c.
(see p. 71). This accords with the general opinion of the Alexandrian
school, which regarded this Epistle as the work of St. Paul (_see_
Westcott, Canon, p. 323 sq.). In other respects the familiar order is
observed in the Pauline Epistles, as is also the case with the Catholic
Epistles(109).

The Bohairic version is for the most part a faithful rendering of the
original, and the Egyptian language which by this time had borrowed
largely from the Greek vocabulary is fairly adequate for the purpose. This
version therefore may generally be consulted even for minute variations in
the text. The connecting particles are commonly observed; and as the
language has both definite and indefinite articles, it may be employed,
though with some caution, by the textual critic where other versions fail
him. In one point, however, it is quite useless. When the question lies
between a participle and a finite verb in the construction of a sentence,
the looseness of the Egyptian syntax will seldom afford any clue to the
reading which the translator had before him. Perhaps the weakest point in
the language is the absence of a passive voice, for which the third person
plural active, used impersonally, acts as a substitute. This produces
strange awkwardnesses of expression. Thus John i. 6 ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ
is rendered “whom they sent from God,” ⲉ ⲁⲩⲟⲩⲟⲣⲡϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ⲫϯ, and i. 17
ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωυσέως ἐδόθη “The law they gave it by Moses,” ⲡⲓ ⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲧⲏⲓϥ
ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ⲙⲱⲩⲥⲏⲥ. Another grave defect is the want of a word corresponding
to the simple meaning of ἔχειν, which has to be rendered by various
expedients according to the context.

To the adoption of Greek words there seems to be hardly any limit but the
caprice of the translator. Already in the demotic writing we find a few of
these foreign intruders naturalized; but in the Coptic, as used for
ecclesiastical purposes, they occur in the greatest profusion. Very
frequently their adoption cannot be explained by any exigencies of
translation. Thus for instance the translator will sometimes render one
Greek word by another, e.g. John xiii. 5, νιπτήρ by λακάνη or λεκάνη; Acts
xix. 40, ἐγκαλεῖν by κατηγορεῖν; xxviii. 17, ἔθος by συνήθεια. Thus again
he will diversify the rendering in the same passage, using indifferently
the Greek and the Egyptian word for the same original, e.g. ϥⲱⲛⲧ and
ⲡⲓⲣⲁⲍⲓⲛ (πειράζειν), Matt. iv. 1, 3; ϫⲣⲟϫ and ⲥⲡⲉⲣⲙⲁ, John viii. 33, 37;
ⲡⲟⲩⲣⲟ and ⲕⲉⲥⲁⲣ (Καῖσαρ), John xix. 12, 15; ⲓϧ and ⲇⲉⲙⲱⲛ (δαιμόνιον),
Matt. viii. 16, 28, 33. And again and again Greek words are used, where
common Egyptian equivalents were ready to hand. The conjunctions ἀλλά, δέ,
γάρ, οὖν, were doubtless needed to supply a want in the Egyptian language,
which, like the Hebrew and Aramaic, was singularly deficient in
connecting-particles; but we should hardly have looked for such
combinations as ὅμως μέντοι, πόσῳ μᾶλλον, μήτι, οὐ γάρ, οὐχ ὅτι, ὅτι μὲν
γάρ, καί γε, καίτοι, οὐ μόνον δέ, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον, πῶς οὖν, ἵνα κἄν, ἵνα μήπως,
μενοῦνγε, and the like. Nor should we expect to find Greek terms
introduced with such reckless prodigality as in the following sentences:
John xviii. 3, ⲛⲉⲙ ϩⲁⲛⲫⲁⲛⲟⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ ϧⲁⲛ ⲗⲁⲙⲡⲁⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ ϩⲱⲛ ϩⲟⲡⲗⲟⲛ; Acts xxiii. 8,
ⲙⲙⲟⲛ ⲁⲛⲁⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ ⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ; Acts xxvii. 12, ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲛⲧⲁⲛ ⲉ ⲫⲟⲓⲛⲓⲝ
ⲉ ⲉⲣ ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲭⲓⲙⲁⲍⲓⲛ ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩ ⲗⲩⲙⲏⲛ; Rom. vi. 13, ⲛⲉⲧⲉⲛ ⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲛ ϩⲟⲗⲡⲟⲛ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯ
ⲁⲇⲓⲕⲓⲁ.

[No definite discussion on the history or critical value of the Bohairic
version is possible until the edition which is being prepared by the Rev.
G. Horner is published; based as it is on a collation of all known MSS.

An opinion which at present seems to prevail largely among scholars is
that of Stern (Z. A. S. 20, 1882, p. 202), who dates it to the fourth or
fifth century, and ascribes it to the literary activity of the monks of
the Natron Lakes. He has further suggested that it and the Sahidic may
both be derived from, or at any rate connected with, the Akhmîm version
(Z. A. S. 24, 1886, p. 134).

The last statement may be definitely dismissed; it is based upon a single
sentence quoted from an apocryphal book of the Old Testament, and is
definitely disproved in the case of the New Testament by a comparison of
the two versions. They are not only different translations, but are based
on a different Greek text. The first statement is apparently based upon
language, and has undoubtedly an element of truth in it. The language of
the version as we have it was probably revised and corrected, and reduced
to a fixed orthography and a more definite form, but even here it is not
possible to speak quite positively, and we know that there are
considerable variations in orthography preserved in some of the MSS. which
may represent the tradition of different monasteries. But, granting this,
it does not by any means follow that there was not a Bohairic dialect and
a Bohairic version at an earlier date, which is closely represented by
this, as the Akhmim version was represented by the Sahidic, as regards the
Greek text implied. In favour of an early version in the dialect of Lower
Egypt is first the _a priori_ argument of the probability of Christianity
spreading earliest in the Delta. We know that by the middle of the third
century it had spread among the native population of Alexandria (Dion. Al.
ap. Eus. “H. E.” vi. 41), and probably had done so in the second century.
If Greek had spread so little in the Delta in the fourth or fifth century
as to make a Bohairic version necessary, it is not likely to have been
more widely prevalent in the third. On these grounds then we should
naturally expect Christianity to spread earliest among the native
populations of the districts round Alexandria, and also that the New
Testament or a portion of it would be translated very early into their
language. Nor again does there seem any evidence for deriving the Bohairic
dialect from the Akhmimish. It is true that the latter represents the
language of Egypt in an earlier form, but it is not an earlier form of
Bohairic.

To these _a priori_ and negative considerations must be added the positive
argument of Krall (Mitt. i. p. 111). He appears to have discovered earlier
forms of the Bohairic dialect, and in addition points out that some of the
commonest abbreviations in Coptic MSS. could only have been derived from
the Bohairic, which seems to show that it was for Bohairic that the
alphabet was first used. And this in the New Testament at any rate is
supported by the text of the version. A study of this has shown that in
the form in which we possess it in most printed editions and late MSS.,
although as a whole its agreement with the oldest Greek MSS. is undoubted,
it contains a considerable number of later additions which agree with the
traditional text. But, as Bishop Lightfoot showed, these clearly formed no
part of the original Bohairic version, and subsequent investigation has
made it clear that the evidence in favour of this statement is even
stronger than he represented it (_see_ Sanday, Appendices ad Novum
Testamentum, App. III. p. 182 sq.). The original Bohairic text then
represents a very pure tradition, untouched by the so-called Western
additions which are found in the Sahidic version, and it is difficult to
believe that a version so singularly free from these should be later than
the Sahidic. Christianity spread in the Thebaid certainly as early as the
beginning of the third century (Eus. “H. E.” vi. 1), and that century is
the period to which internal evidence would assign the origin of the
Sahidic version. An even earlier date is probably demanded both for the
extension of Christianity in the Delta and for the text of the Bohairic
version.]



(3) The Sahidic (or Thebaic) Version.


The Sahidic version did not attract attention till a comparatively late
date. When Wilkins published what was then called the Coptic New
Testament, he mentioned having found among the Oxford MSS. two which he
described as “lingua plane a reliquis MSS. Copticis, quae unquam vidi,
diversa” (Praef. p. vii). These are written in the Thebaic or Sahidic
dialect, of which as we may infer from his language, he did not even know
the existence. After no long time, however, we find La Croze and
Jablonski, with other Egyptian scholars, turning their attention to the
dialect of Upper Egypt: and at length in 1778, C. G. Woide issued a
prospectus in which he announced his intention of publishing from Oxford
MSS. the fragments of the New Testament “juxta interpretationem dialecti
Superioris Aegypti, quae Thebaidica seu Sahidica appellatur.” In the same
year he gave to the world some various readings of this version in J. A.
Cramer’s “Beyträge zur Beförderung theologischer und andrer wichtigen
Kenntnisse,” Pt. iii, Kiel u. Hamburg, 1778. But before Woide’s work
appeared he was partially anticipated by other labourers in the same
field.

In the same year 1778 appeared a grammar of the two Egyptian dialects by
Raphael Tuki, Roman Bishop of Arsinoe, with the title “Rudimenta Linguae
Coptae sive Aegyptiacae ad usum Collegii Urbani de Propaganda Fide,
Romae.” It contains profuse quotations from the Sahidic version of the Old
and New Testaments. This work, which preserves a large number of passages
not to be found elsewhere, has been strangely neglected by textual
critics(110). Caution, however, must be observed in the use of it, as the
passages are apparently obtained, at least in many instances, not directly
from MSS. of the version itself, but through the medium of Arabo-Egyptian
grammars and vocabularies; nor is Tuki’s work generally at all accurate or
critical(111).

In 1785, J. A. Mingarelli published two fasciculi of an account of the
Egyptian MSS. in the Nanian Library under the title “Aegyptiorum codicum
reliquiae Venetiis in Bibliotheca Naniana asservatae, Bononiae.” In these
he printed at length two portions of the Sahidic New Testament, Matt.
xviii. 27-xxi. 15, and John ix. 17-xiii. 1.

In 1789, A. A. Giorgi (Georgius), an Augustinian eremite, brought out a
work entitled “Fragmentum Evangelii S. Joannis Graeco-Copto-Thebaicum
Saeculi iv. &c., Romae.” This volume contains John vi. 21-58, and vi.
68-viii. 23, introduced by an elaborate preface and followed by other
matter. The MS. from which they are taken belonged to the Borgian
collection at Velletri, and has been described already among the Greek
MSS., p. 141 sq. It is ascribed to the fourth or fifth century. In the
same year, 1789, additional fragments of this version from other Borgian
MSS. were published by F. C. C. H. Münter in a volume bearing the title,
“Commentatio de Indole Versionis Novi Testamenti Sahidicae. Accedunt
Fragmenta Epistolarum Pauli ad Timotheum ex membranis Sahidicis Musei
Borgiani Velitris. Hafniae.” The fragments referred to are 1 Tim. i.
14-iii. 16; vi. 4-21; 2 Tim. i. 1-16. Münter gives also some various
readings of this version in different parts of the four Gospels, taken
likewise from the Borgian MSS.

Lastly; in 1790 Mingarelli published a third fasciculus of his work on the
Egyptian MSS. in the Nanian Library, and in it he printed another
important fragment of this version, Mark xi. 29-xv. 32. This third part is
very rarely met with, and I have not seen a copy.

Meanwhile Woide was busily engaged on his edition, and had already
advanced far when his labours were interrupted by death in May, 1790. His
papers were placed in the hands of H. Ford, Professor of Arabic at Oxford,
who after several years completed the work. It was published with the
title, “Appendix ad Editionem Novi Testamenti Graeci e Codice MS.
Alexandrino a C. G. Woide descripti, in qua continentur Fragmenta Novi
Testamenti juxta interpretationem Dialecti Superioris Aegypti quae
Thebaidica vel Sahidica appellator, &c. Oxoniae, 1799.” Woide’s materials
were:

1. Several MSS. of the Huntington collection in the Bodleian. These
consist of (_a_) Two folio lectionaries on paper (Hunt. 3, Hunt. 5); (_b_)
A folio likewise on paper, containing fragments of St. John’s Gospel
(Hunt. 4); (_c_) An 8vo, containing fragments of the Acts and Catholic
Epistles (Hunt. 394). Woide gives as the date A. Mart. 1041, and A.D.
1315, “si recte conjicio,” but the two are not reconcileable; (_d_) A 4to
on paper (Hunt. 393), written A. Mart. 1109 (i.e. A.D. 1393) and
containing “De Mysterio literarum Graecarum Discursus Gnostici,” the work
of one Seba an anchorite (_see_ Ford’s “Praef.,” p. vi. sq., and p. 21,
note _a_).

2. A very ancient papyrus belonging to the famous traveller Bruce, who had
brought it from Upper Egypt. It contains two Gnostic works, in which are
quoted passages from the Old and New Testaments. It is now in the
Bodleian(112).

3. An ancient vellum MS. containing the Gnostic treatise “Pistis Sophia,”
then belonging to Askew and now in the British Museum. It quotes some
passages of the Old and New Testaments. The “Pistis Sophia” has been since
transcribed by Schwartze, and published from his papers by Petermann after
his death (1853).

4. Several fragments belonging to Woide himself, having been transmitted
to him from Upper Egypt while he was employed on the work. Some are
Sahidic; others Graeco-Sahidic. These formed a highly important accession
to his materials. They now belong to the Clarendon Press at Oxford, and
are deposited in the Bodleian.

One of these, a Graeco-Sahidic MS., said to belong to the fourth or fifth
century, has been already described (Evan. T). But I am unable to assent
to the opinion which is maintained by Tregelles and Tischendorf, and in
which Dr. Scrivener there acquiesces, that these Woidian fragments (Ts or
Twoi) were originally part of the same MS. with the Borgian Graeco-Sahidic
fragments (T) published by Giorgi. And this for two reasons. (1) The
paging of the two sets of fragments is quite inconsistent. The Woidian
fragments, Luke xii. 5 (Sahid. Gr. 15)-xiii. 23 (Sahid. Gr. 32) and John
viii. 22-32, are paged ⲩⲛⲑ-ⲩⲡⲇ (459-484) and ⲭⲛⲍ, ⲭⲛⲏ (657, 658)
respectively (_see_ Ford’s “Praef.,” p. 24). On the other hand the pages
of the Borgian fragments, Luke xxii. 12-xxiii. 11; John vi. 21-58; vi.
68-viii. 23, are numbered ⲥⲗⲑ-ⲥⲛⲇ (239-254), ⲧⲗⲇ-ⲧⲙⲅ, ⲧⲙⲝ-ⲧⲝⲁ (334-343,
346-361) respectively (_see_ Zoega, p. 184; Georgius, p. 11 sq.). (2)
Though the last Woidian fragment begins _somewhere about_ where the last
Borgian fragment ends, it does not begin at exactly the same place. The
Borgian fragment ends ⲁⲛⲅ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲛ ⲧⲡⲉ ⲛⲧⲱⲧⲛ ⲛⲧⲉ (ἐγὼ ἐκ τῶν ἄνω
εἰμί; ὑμεῖς), viii. 23; the Woidian fragment begins ⲉ ϯⲛⲁⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲣⲟϥ (ὅπου
ἐγὼ ὑπάγω), viii. 22. Thus the two have several lines in common. For these
reasons the later judgement of Tregelles, who pronounces them to be
“certainly parts of the _same_ MS.” (Introductory notice to his G. T.),
must be abandoned; and we must revert to his earlier and more cautious
opinion in which he describes the Woidian fragment as “a portion of a MS.
almost a counterpart of T” (Horne’s “Introduction,” p. 180).

5. A Sahidic vocabulary in the Royal Library at Paris (Copt. 44),
containing several passages from the Sahidic Bible.

6. A few fragments communicated by Adler from the collection of Card.
Borgia at Velletri. Besides these Woide incorporated the fragments
published by Mingarelli in his first two fasciculi. The works of Giorgi
and Münter, however, and the third fasciculus of Mingarelli, were
overlooked by him or by his successor Ford.

Besides elaborate prefaces by Ford and Woide this work gives a Latin
translation in parallel columns with the Sahidic. It would not be
difficult to point out numerous errors in the execution of this volume;
but all allowance must be made for a posthumous work completed by a second
editor who had to educate himself for the task, and the heavy obligation
under which Woide and Ford have laid Biblical scholars may well silence
ill-natured criticism(113).

Some years later appeared a highly important contribution to Sahidic
literature in G. Zoega’s “Catalogus Codicum Copticorum manuscriptorum qui
in Museo Borgiano Velitris adservantur, Romae, 1810,” a posthumous work.
The compiler of this catalogue prints at length Eph. v. 21-33; Apoc. xix.
7-18; xx. 7-xxi. 3, and gives besides (p. 200) a full list of the
fragments of the Sahidic version, which are found in this rich collection
of Egyptian MSS. These would go far towards filling up the gaps in Woide’s
edition. Thus, for instance, they contain about three-quarters of St.
Mark’s Gospel, the whole of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and the whole of
the Epistle to the Philippians with the exception of five or six verses at
the beginning.

In the following year (1811) appeared Engelbreth’s work on the Bashmuric
version, which has been mentioned above (p. 102). In it he printed, for
the sake of comparison with the Bashmuric, the following passages of the
Sahidic version: 1 Cor. i. 1-16; xv. 5-33; Phil. i. 7-23; 1 Thess. i.
4-iii. 5; Heb. vii. 11-13; 16-21; ix. 2-10; 24-28; x. 5-10. These were
derived wholly from the Borgian MSS., with the exception of a few verses
taken from Woide’s book. Beyond this meagre contribution of Engelbreth’s,
nothing has been done during more than sixty years which have elapsed
since the appearance of Zoega’s work towards the publication of these
valuable remains, important alike for the knowledge of the Egyptian
language and for purposes of Biblical criticism. A complete collection of
all the fragments of the Sahidic New Testament is now the most pressing
want in the province of textual criticism.

The materials for such an edition are the following:

1. The MSS. used by Woide and Ford, which however will require collating
afresh.

2. The Nanian fragments published by Mingarelli. The MSS. which he used
are said to have disappeared.

3. The MSS. of the Borgian collection, as indicated in the catalogue of
Zoega. After the dispersion of the museum at Velletri the Biblical MSS.
found their way to the Library of the Propaganda at Rome, where they now
are.

4. The quotations in Tuki, though for reasons already stated these must be
used with caution. They should be traced, if possible, to their sources.

To these known materials the following, which (so far as I am aware), have
never been publicly noticed, must be added:

1. *British Museum, Papyrus xiii, four leaves or eight pages numbered
ⲋⲙⲁ-ⲋⲙⲏ, containing John xx. 1-29 mutilated. It does not differ in any
important respects from the text printed by Woide, but I noticed the
following variations: ver. 3, Σίμων Πέτρος; ver. 8, add οὖν after τότε;
ver. 10, om. οἰ μαθηταί; ver. 12, ins. καὶ before θεωρεῖ; ver. 17, om. δὲ
after πορεύου; ver. 18, om. δέ after ἔρχεται; ver. 21, εἶπεν οὖν for εἶπεν
δέ; ib. add [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς after αὐτοῖς; ver. 28, add αὐτῷ after ἀπεκρίθη.

2. *Paris, Copt. 102. Thebaic fragments of various ages, some very old.
Those from the New Testament are (_a_) Luke iii. 21-iv. 9; (_b_) John
xvii. 17-26, Theb. Arab., paper; (_c_) Acts vii. 51-viii. 3, vellum; (_d_)
Apoc. i. 13-ii. 2, vellum. The pages of this last fragment are marked ⲉ-ⲏ.

3. Crawford and Balcarres collection. Several very important Sahidic
fragments which formerly belonged to Archdeacon Tattam. These are:

*i. Mark ix. 18-xiv. 26, vellum, six leaves, the pages numbered ⲓⲑ-ⲗ, two
columns in a page, and thirty-nine or forty lines in a column. I observed
the following readings: ix. 24, om. μετὰ δακρύων; 44, 46, om. ὅπου ὁ
σκώληξ κ.τ.λ.; 50, om. καὶ πᾶσα θυσία ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται; xi. 26, omitted;
xiii. 14, om. τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου; xiv. 22, om. φάγετε; 24
has καινῆς.

*ii. Luke iii. 8-vi. 37, vellum, two columns in a page, thirty-five lines
in a column. A very beautiful MS. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian
Canons are given, and also the τίτλοι. There is occasionally a rough
concordance in the margin; e.g. on Luke v. 18, ⲓⲅ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲡⲉⲧⲥⲏⲋ. ⲓⲱ ⲍ. ⲙⲑ ⲓⲅ.
ⲙⲣ. ⲉ, where St. John stands first. I noted down the following readings:
iii. 19, om. Φιλίππου; 27, Ἰωανάν; 30, Ἰωανάμ; 32, Ἰωβήδ; 32, ⲥⲁⲗⲁ for
Σαλμών, just as in ver. 35; iv. 26, Σιδωνίας; 41, om. ὁ Χριστός; ver. 38,
om. καὶ ἀμφότεροι συντηροῦνται. In vi. 16 Ἰούδαν Ἰακώβου is translated
“Judas the son of James.”

*iii. Luke xvii. 18-xix. 30, vellum, two columns in a page, twenty-seven
lines in a column, five leaves, paged ⲣⲁ to ⲣⲓ (sic). No sections are
marked. It has these readings: xvii. 24, om. ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ αὐτοῦ; xviii. 28,
τὰ ἴδια; xix. 5, om. εἶδεν αὐτὸν καί.

*iv. Gal. i. 14-vi. 16, fol., vellum, eight leaves, two columns in a page,
twenty-nine lines in a column, the pages marked ρπθ onward. It has these
readings: i. 15, ὁ θεός; ii. 5, οἷς οὐδέ; ii. 20, τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ; iii.
1, om. τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι; iii. 17, om. εἰς χριστόν; iv. 7,
κληρονόμος διὰ [τοῦ] χριστοῦ; iv. 14, τὸν πειρασμόν μου τὸν ἐν κ.τ.λ.; 15,
ποῦ; v. 1, στήκετε οὖν.

Of these four fragments ii and iv are the most ancient; while i and iii
are much later, but still old. Beyond this I do not venture to hazard an
opinion as to their date, remembering that Zoega with all his knowledge
and experience declines to pronounce on the age of undated Egyptian
MSS.(114)

4*. A fragment (a single leaf) of a Graeco-Sahidic lectionary in double
columns, belonging to the Rev. G. Horner, who brought it from Upper Egypt
in 1873 [ix], 12-1/4 × 11. The Greek and Sahidic are not in opposite
columns, but the Greek is followed by the Sahidic. The Greek is Matt. iv.
2-11 τεσσεράκοντα καὶ τεσσεράκοντα νύκτας ... διηκόνουν αὐτῷ; the Sahidic
is iv. 1-6 Τότε ... ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσί σε. The Coptic character resembles
classes v and vi in Zoega. The Greek text has been already numbered as
Evst. 299. This has now been presented to the Bodleian by Mr. Horner, MS.
Gr. Lit. c. 1.

[Since the above was written, very considerable additions have been made
to our knowledge of the Sahidic version.

1. The Biblical MSS. of the Borgian collection preserved in the Library of
the Propaganda have been published by M. Amélineau. The Old Testament in
the Recueil des Travaux, the New Testament in the “Zeitschrift für
Aegyptische Sprache,” 24 (1886), pp. 41, 103; 25 (1887), pp. 47, 100, 125;
26 (1888), p. 96. This publication was made under considerable
disadvantages. M. Amélineau had not the opportunity of seeing the MSS.
himself, and merely published a transcript supplied him by the Coptic
Archbishop Bschai, then resident in Rome. Moreover he gives no critical
notes on various readings in cases where there is more than one copy
extant of any passage. Nor again does he edit the fragments completely,
but only such portions of the New Testament as were not previously known.
His edition therefore is not without inaccuracies, which have been noticed
by Ciasca, vol. ii. pp. lix-lxxvii. These defects are, however, being
remedied by an edition of all these fragments by Father Ciasca (known as
the editor of the Arabic Diatessaron), which is very complete. The first
two volumes, containing the Old Testament with many facsimiles, have
appeared: the New Testament portion is to follow. (Sacrorum Bibliorum
Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica Musei Borgiani iussu et sumptibus S.
Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Studio P. Augustini Ciasca. Romae. Typis
eiusdem S. Congregationis. Vol. i. 1885; Vol. ii. 1889.)

2. The Crawford and Balcarres fragments mentioned above have also been
edited by M. Amélineau in the Recueil des Travaux, v. (1883), p. 105.

3. To O. von Lemm we owe a considerable number of fragments. Bruchstücke
der Sahidischen Bibelübersetzung nach Handschriften der kaiserlichen
öffentlichen Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg. Leipzig, 1885. And Sieben
Sahidische Bibel-Fragmente. Z. A. S. 23 (1885), p. 19.

4. Fragments, mostly smaller in extent, have been edited by the following:

Bouriant Mémoires, i. 259.
   Recueil, iv. 1.

Maspero   Recueil, vi. 35; vii. 47.
  Études Égyptologiques, i. 3. Paris, 1883.

Ceugney   Recueil, ii. 94.

Krall     Mittheilungen, ii. 68.

5. But most important of all are the newly acquired fragments of the
Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. In 1883 that Library had the good fortune
to obtain (largely through the influence of M. Amélineau) from the famous
White Monastery or Deir Amba Shenoudah of Upper Egypt a large collection
of Sahidic fragments. The publication of these has been begun.
Considerable sections of the Old Testament have been published by Maspero
(Mémoires, vol. vi), and of documents relating to Early Church History by
Bouriant (ib. vol. viii). The New Testament fragments have not yet been
published, but M. Amélineau, who is entrusted with them, has kindly put at
my disposal the following list of contents. I have omitted smaller
Fragments:

MATTHEW (167 leaves): i. 1-20; i. 17-ii. 4; i. 1-22; ii. 4, 5, 8, 11, 14,
15; iii. 1-11; 1-15; iii. 10-iv. 13; iii. 22-iv. 11; iv. 3-19; 21-v. 15;
iv. 15-v. 17; v. 17-32; 9-28; v. 25-vi. 3; vii. 6-viii. 4; vii. 8-27; x.
9-28; viii. 1-17; 2-20; ix. 13-33; ix. 25-x. 15; ix. 33-x. 15; ix. 33-x.
19; ix. 26-x. 19; x. 39-xxviii. 54 (36 leaves); x. 20-xii. 3; xi. 3-10;
xi. 15-xii. 16; xi. 16-xii. 4; xii. 6-xiv. 31; xii. 19-40; xiii. 19-xiv.
6; xiii. 22-25; xiii. 35-50; xiii. 41-xiv. 2; xiv. 8-xv. 4; xiv. 8-xv. 4;
xiv. 17-35; xiv. 18-xv. 19; xiv. 20-35; xiv. 21-xv. 19; xiv. 24-xv. 11;
xiv. 27-xv. 1; xiv. 31-54; xiv. 31-xv. 20; xv. 17-xvi. 19; xviii. 11-35;
15-21; xviii. 26-xix. 1; xix. 7-22; xix. 13-xx. 16; xix. 24-xx. 16; xx.
9-32; xxi. 8-12; 19-21; 12-37; 9-25; 22-33; xxi. 31-xxii. 5; xxi. 32-41;
xxi. 38-xxii. 12; xxii. 22-xxiii. 12; xxiv. 7-xxvi. 64; xxiv. 2-42; xxiv.
35-xxv. 36; xxiv. 47-xxvi. 47; xxvi. 41-60; xxvi. 69-xxvii. 5; xxvi.
75-xxviii. 23; xxvii. 26-56; xxvii. 49-xxviii. 4; xxvii. 54-xxviii. 8.
Also a fragment containing the last few verses and the beginning of St.
Mark.

MARK (43 leaves): i. 1-17; 4-5; i. 30-ii. 1; iv. 1-8; iv. 32-v. 11; v.
30-vii. 36; v. 13-38; vi. 4-viii. 12; vii. 36-viii. 1; viii. 12-31; 23-38;
x. 42-xi. 15; xi. 3-27; xi. 11-xiii. 14; xii. 12-35; xii. 31-xiii. 19;
xiv. 6-xv. 2; xiv. 12-xv. 21; xiv. 20-40.

LUKE (163 leaves): i. 1-26; 1-5; 26-61; 19-35; ii. 10-33; iii. 4-v. 8;
iii. 29-iv. 20; iii. 36-iv. 47; iv. 22-viii. 14; iv. 43-v. 29; v. 10-viii.
7; vi. 35-ix. 16; vii. 1-ix. 5; vii. 7-15; vii. 37, 38; 41-45; viii. 2-12;
6-15; 4-37; 7-26; viii. 14-ix. 8; viii. 32-44; ix. 3-22; 9-21; ix. 51-x.
18; x. 39-xii. 37; xi. 23-34; 24-56, xii. 1-8, 36-48; xi. 28-44; xii.
3-12; 37-51; xii. 48-xiii. 10; xii. 53-xiii. 9; xiii. 1-16; xiii. 11-31;
xiii. 15-xiv. 15; xiv. 2-20; xiv. 3-xv. 2; xiv. 21-32; xv. 17-xvii. 19;
xvi. 18-xvii. 16; xvii. 10-24; xviii. 4-xix. 42; xviii. 21-xix. 22; xix.
3-28; xix. 28-xxi. 22; xix. 49-xx. 6; xxi. 22-xxii. 1; xxii. 11-27; xxii.
8-xxiv. 10; xxiii. 1-39; xxiv. 27-53.

Also the following bilingual (Greek and Sahidic) texts:

iii. 15, 16; x. 11-21; xi. 16-32; xvii. 29-xviii. 1; xviii. 32-42; xxi.
25-31; xxii. 66-xxiii. 17; and two leaves in Greek.

JOHN (207 leaves). One MS. of 48 leaves, Luke iv. 38-v. 1; viii. 10-29;
ix. 9-62; John i. 23-vii. 40; ix. 6-27; xix. 13-33; xx. 31-xxi. 17. i.
25-45; 25-36, ii. 7-18; i. 42-iii. 4; i. 43-ii. 11; i. 45-iv. 19; i.
67-ii. 24; ii. 11-iii. 25; ii. 24-iv. 22; iii. 4-10; 13-16; iii. 24-iv. 8;
iv. 27-51; iv. 50-vii. 20; v. 24-vi. 5; vi. 12-35; 26-45; 30-41; vi.
62-vii. 17; vi. 65-vii. 10; vii. 20-39; vii. 31-x. 12; vii. 41-viii. 23;
vii. 44-viii. 20; viii. 25-44; viii. 22-ix. 28; viii. 36-49; ix. 7-xi. 22;
ix. 20-40; 27-39; xii. 4-18; x. 13-19; xi. 27-47; 34-48; 34-45; xi.
44-xii. 2; xii. 25-34; xiii. 7-27; 18-31; xiii. 19-xiv. 1; xiv. 21-xviii.
15; xv. 3-xvi. 15; xv. 6-26; xv. 22-xvi. 16; xvi. 1-23; xvi. 6-26; xvi.
22-xxii. 8; xvii. 14-23; xviii. 3-26; xviii. 5-xix. 40; xviii. 23-xix. 2;
xviii. 33-xix. 19; xix. 18-26; xx. 8-18; 19-27; xxi. 2-14.

Also the following bilingual:

i. 19-23; ii. 2-9; iv. 5-13; 15-52; v. 12-21; xii. 36-46.

ACTS: ii. 2-17; 18-40; ii. 34-iv. 6; viii. 32-ix. 15; viii. 35-ix. 22; ix.
27-40; x. 3-4; xii. 7-xiii. 5; xii. 23-xiii. 8; xiii. 10-xvi. 4; xiv.
4-22; xviii. 21-xix. 6; xxvii. 38-xxviii. 4; xxviii. 9-23.

ROMANS: i. 26-ii. 25; ii. 28-iii. 13; iii. 20-iv. 4; viii. 35-ix. 22; ix.
12-xi. 11; ix. 15-x. 1; ix. 24-xi. 30; xi. 30-xii. 15; xiv. 4-21; xv.
10-30.

1 COR.: i. 19-ii. 10; ii. 9-iv. 1; ii. 21-vi. 4; vii. 36-ix. 5; ix. 2-x.
7; ix. 12-25; x. 13-xi. 15; xvii. 41-45; xvii. 16-21.

2 COR.: xi. 1-20; xii. 21-xiii. 13 (with Heb. i. 14); xi. 33-xii. 14.

HEB.: ii. 14-20; iv. 7-14; v. 12-vi. 10; ix. 2-14; 20-23; x. 9-10; xii.
16-xiii. 9; xiii. 7-21; xiii. 10-25.

GAL.: i. 1-vi. 18 (with Eph. i. 1-10; vi. 12-24; and Phil. i. 1-7); i.
10-24; iii. 2-16; ii. 9-iii. 10.

EPH.: iv. 17-v. 13 (with Phil. iii. 1-iv. 6).

PHIL.: i. 23-ii. 6; i. 28-ii. 20.

COL.: i. 1-29; 9-11, 15 (with 1 Thess. ii. 15-iv. 4); i. 29-iii. 1.

1 TIM.: iii. 2-v. 2.

1 PET.: i. 18-vi. 14 (with 2 Pet. i. 1-iii. 1); ii. 23-iii. 13; iii.
12-iv. 9; iii. 15-iv. 10.

6. The British Museum has recently acquired a considerable number of
fragments on vellum, containing—

MATT.: xv. 11-xvi. 12; xxi. 6-22.

JOHN: ix. 7-26; x. 30-42; xi. 1-10; 37-57.

ACTS: xxii. 12-30; xxiii. 1-15.

And also a large number of papyrus fragments in the Graf collection.

7. Mr. Petrie also has in his possession a valuable papyrus MS. containing
considerable portions of St. John. This will probably shortly be published
by Mr. Crum.

From the above account it becomes clear that we have now already
published, or preserved in European libraries, enough material to produce
a complete or almost a complete edition of the Sahidic New Testament. But
not only this. We have also a considerable number of fragments written on
papyrus, which are much older than any of the MSS. previously known, and
will enable us to write a history of the version from an early date. May
we express a hope that M. Amélineau, who has made large collections for
the purpose, would first of all give us an edition of the Paris fragments
as accurate as that of Ciasca, and then of the Sahidic New Testament as a
whole? Much more than when Bishop Lightfoot wrote is the publication of it
the pressing need of Biblical criticism.]

The order of the books in the Sahidic New Testament, so far as regards the
great groups, appears to have been the same as in the Bohairic, i.e. (1)
The Four Gospels, (2) The Pauline Epistles, (3) The Catholic Epistles and
Acts (_see_ above, p. 124). This may be inferred from the order of
quotations in the Sahidic vocabulary described by Woide, Praef., p. 18;
for the Sahidic MSS. are so fragmentary that no inference on this point
can be drawn from them. Like the Bohairic, the original Sahidic Canon
seems to have excluded the Apocalypse. In the vocabulary just mentioned it
does not appear as part of the New Testament, but liturgical and other
matter interposes before it is taken. Moreover in most cases it is evident
from the paging of the fragments which remain that the MSS. containing
this book formed separate volumes. In the Paris fragment described above
this is plainly the case, and it is equally obvious in the Borgian MSS.
lxxxviii, lxxxix (Zoega, p. 187). Thus in lxxxviii, pp. 39-44 contain
Apoc. xii. 14-xiv. 13; and in lxxxix. pp. 59, 60, 63, 64 contain Apoc.
xix. 7-18, xx. 7-xxi. 3. On the other hand in lxxxvii. where Apoc. iii. 20
begins on p. 279, this fragment must have formed part of a much larger
volume, which contained (as we may suppose) a considerable portion of the
New Testament.

The order of the four Gospels presents a difficulty. In the Sahidic
vocabulary already referred to, the sequence is John, Matthew, Mark, Luke;
and this order is also observed in the marginal concordance to the
Crawford and Balcarres MS. described above. Thus there is reason for
supposing that at one time St. John stood first. But the paging of the
oldest MSS. does not favour this conclusion. In the Woidian and Borgian
fragments of the Graeco-Sahidic Gospels, which belong to the fourth or
fifth century, the numbering of the pages (see p. 130) shows that St. Luke
stood before St. John. It is possible indeed that in the MSS. the
transcriber was guided by the usual Greek arrangement. But in other MSS.
also the synoptic evangelists precede St. John, e.g. Borg. xlvi, l, lxiv;
while in other fragments again (Borg. lxx, lxxiv) the high numbers of the
pages of St. John show that the Evangelist cannot have stood first in the
volume, and this seems further supported by the Paris fragments, in which
we find St. John following St. Luke in the same MS.

In this version, as in the Bohairic, the Epistle to the Hebrews was
treated as the work of St. Paul; but instead of being placed, as there,
after 2 Thessalonians and before 1 Timothy, it stood between 2 Corinthians
and Galatians(115). It clearly occupies this position in the Borgian MS.
lxxx (Zoega, p. 186): and by calculating the pages I have ascertained that
this must also have been its place in all the other MSS. of the Pauline
Epistles of which fragments after 2 Corinthians are preserved. These are
the Borgian fragments lxxxii, lxxxv, lxxxvi, (Zoega, p. 186 sq.), and the
Crawford and Balcarres fragment (iv) described above (p. 132); all of
which happily are paged.

The Oxford MS. Hunt. 394 is a proof that the Acts followed the Catholic
Epistles in the Sahidic New Testament, as is the case also in the
Memphitic. Woide indeed (Praef., p. 22), when describing this MS., says,
“_exorditur_ ab Actis Apostolicis”; but, even if this be so, his own
account of the paging shows that the leaves have been displaced in
binding, and that the Catholic Epistles originally stood first. The
vocabulary also places them before the Acts.

The Sahidic version appears to be in one respect less faithful to the
original than the Bohairic. So far as I am able to judge, it pays more
respect to the Egyptian idiom, frequently omitting the conjunction and
leaving the sentences disconnected. As regards the vocabulary, it adopts
Greek words with as great facility as the Bohairic, or even greater. This
we should hardly anticipate in Upper Egypt, which must have been
comparatively free from Greek influence. Altogether it is a rougher and
less polished version than the Bohairic.

The real textual value of the Sahidic cannot under present circumstances
be assigned with any certainty. What would be received by one school of
critics would not be admitted by another. But the Editor readily records
the verdict of Bishop Lightfoot that the text of it, though very ancient,
is inferior to the Bohairic, and less pure; that it exhibits a certain
infusion of readings which were widely spread in the second century, and
may very probably have had, to a considerable extent, a Western origin;
that it differs very largely from the Traditional text; and that both in
text and in interpretation it is entirely independent of the Bohairic. The
coincidences are not greater than must have been exhibited by two separate
translations in allied dialects from independent texts of the same
original. Of any mutual influence of the versions of Upper and Lower Egypt
on each other no traces are discernible.

The following passage from Acts xvii. 12-16 will serve to illustrate the
independence of these two versions.

BOHAIRIC.                        SAHIDIC.
12 ⲟⲩⲙⲏϣ ⲙⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ            12 ϩⲁϩ ⲑⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲛϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ
ⲛϧⲏⲧⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲛⲁϩϯ ⲛⲉⲙ                ⲁⲩⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲉⲛⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ
ϩⲁⲛⲕⲉⲟⲩⲉⲓⲛⲓⲛ ⲛϩⲓⲟⲙⲓ              _ⲛ_ϩⲉⲗⲗⲏⲛ _ⲛ_ⲣ_ⲙ_ⲙⲁⲟ
ⲛⲉⲩⲥⲭⲏⲙⲱⲛ ⲛⲉⲙ ϩⲁⲛⲕⲉⲣⲱⲓ           ⲙ_ⲛ_ ϩⲉⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲛⲁϣⲱⲟⲩ⁘
ⲏ ϩⲁⲛⲕⲟⲩϫⲓ ⲁⲛ⁘                   13 _ⲛ_ⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩⲉⲓⲙⲉ
13 ⲉⲧⲁⲩⲉⲙⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲛϫⲉ ⲛⲓⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ       ⲑⲉ _ⲛ_ⲑⲓ _ⲛ_ⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ ⲛⲏ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩ_ⲛ_
ⲛⲧⲉ ⲑⲉⲥⲥⲁⲗⲟⲡⲓⲕⲏ ϫⲉ               ⲑⲉⲥⲁⲗⲗⲟⲛⲓⲕⲏ ϫⲉ
ⲁ ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ϩⲓⲱⲓϣ ϧⲉⲛ               ⲁⲩⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ ϩ_ⲛ_ ⲃⲉⲣⲟⲓⲁ
ⲧⲕⲉⲃⲉⲣⲟⲓⲁ ⲙⲡⲓⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲛⲧⲉ            _ⲙ_ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ _ⲙ_ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧ_ⲙ_
ⲫⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲁⲩⲓ ⲉ ⲡⲓⲕⲉⲙⲁ               ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲉⲓ
ⲉⲧⲉⲙⲙⲁⲩ ⲉⲩⲕⲓⲙ ⲉ                  ⲟⲛ ⲉⲙⲁⲩ ⲉⲩϣⲧⲟⲣⲧ_ⲣ_
ⲛⲓⲙⲏϣ ⲉⲩϣⲑⲟⲣⲧⲉⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ⁘             ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲕⲓⲙ ⲉ ⲡⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ⁘
14 ⲧⲟⲧⲉ ⲥⲁⲧⲟⲧⲟⲩ                  14 _ⲛ_ⲧⲉⲩⲛⲟⲩ ⲇⲉ ⲁ ⲛⲉⲥⲛⲏⲩ
ⲁⲩⲧⲫⲉ ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛϫⲉ            ϫⲟⲟⲩ _ⲙ_ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲉ ⲧⲣⲉϥⲃⲱⲕ
ⲛⲓⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ ⲉ ⲑⲣⲉϥϣⲉ ⲉϫⲉⲛ            ϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϫ_ⲛ_ ⲑⲁⲗⲁⲥⲥⲁ
ⲫⲓⲟⲙ ⲁⲩⲥⲱϫⲡ ⲇⲉ ⲙⲙⲁⲩ              ⲁ ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲋⲱ _ⲙ_ⲙⲟⲟⲩ
ⲛϫⲉ ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ⁘          ⲙ_ⲛ_ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ⁘
15 ⲛⲏ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲧⲁⲩⲧⲫⲉ                 15 ⲛⲉⲧⲕⲁⲑⲓⲥⲧⲁ
ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲉⲛϥ ⲉϩⲣⲏⲓ ⲉ             ⲇⲉ ⲙⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ
ⲁⲑⲏⲛⲁⲥ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲉⲧⲁⲩⲋⲓ               ⲁⲩ_ⲛ_ⲧ_ϥ_ ϣⲁ ⲁⲑⲉⲛⲛⲁⲓⲁⲥ
ⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ ⲉ ⲋⲓ ⲡϣⲓⲛⲓ ⲛⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ         ⲁⲩⲱ _ⲛ_ⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩϫⲓ _ⲛ_ⲟⲩⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ
ⲛⲉⲙ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ                     _ⲛ_ⲧⲟⲟⲧ_ϥ_ ϣⲁ ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ
ϩⲓⲛⲁ ⲛⲥⲉⲓ ϩⲁⲣⲟϥ ⲛⲭⲱⲗⲉⲙ           ⲙ_ⲛ_ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲉⲩⲉⲉⲓ
ⲁⲩⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲁⲩϣⲉⲛⲱⲟⲩ⁘               ϣⲁⲣⲟϥ ϩ_ⲛ_ ⲟⲩⲋⲉⲡⲏ ⲁⲩⲉⲓ
16 ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲛⲁϥ                 ⲉⲃⲟⲗ⁘
ϩⲉⲛ ⲁⲑⲏⲛⲁⲥ ⲉϥⲥⲟⲙⲥ                16 ⲉⲣⲉ ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲇⲉ
ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲁϫⲱⲟⲩ ⲁϥϫⲱⲛⲧ               ⲋⲱϣⲧ ϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ ϩ_ⲛ_ ⲁⲑⲏⲛⲛⲁⲓⲁⲥ
ⲇⲉ ⲛϫⲉ ⲡⲉϥⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ                 ⲁ ⲡⲉϥⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ
ⲛϩⲣⲏⲓ ⲛϩⲏⲧϥ ⲉϥⲛⲁⲩ ⲉ              ϩⲟϫϩⲉϫ _ⲛ_ϩⲏⲧ_ϥ_ ⲉϥⲛⲁⲩ
ϯⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ⲉⲥⲟϣ ⲙⲙⲉⲧϣⲁⲙϣⲉ            ⲉⲧⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ⲉⲙⲙⲉϩ _ⲙ_ⲙⲁ_ⲛ_ⲉⲓⲇⲱⲗⲟⲛ⁘
ⲓⲇⲱⲗⲟⲛ⁘



[(4) The Fayoum Version.]


[The history of the discovery of the third Egyptian version, and the
reasons that have caused it to be assigned to the district of the Fayoum,
have been given above.

The Fayoum (ⲫⲓⲟⲙ: ⲡⲓⲟⲙ: ⲡⲓⲁⲙ) is a district of Egypt situated to the west
of the Nile valley, from which it is separated by a narrow strip of
desert, and lying about eighty miles to the south of the apex of the
Delta. It is a large depression in the desert, which has been reclaimed
and fertilized by an offshoot of the Nile, now called the Bahr-il-Yousouf,
and is distinguished at the present day for its extreme fertility. It
appears to have been particularly prosperous and thickly populated in
Ptolemaic and Roman times; and in the desert surrounding the cultivated
land are the remains of several Greek cities, and of large Coptic
monasteries; and it is from here that the chief part of the collection of
papyrus fragments now in Berlin and Vienna have been obtained.

The dialect of this district, both in the fragments of the Scriptures
preserved in it, and in the other documents more recently discovered (Z.
A. S. 23, 1885, p. 26), presents very marked peculiarities. As regards
vowels it shows the following amongst other variations as compared with
Sahidic. It substitutes ⲁ for ⲉ: ⲛⲉⲕ for ⲛⲁⲕ; ⲗⲉⲛ for ⲣⲁⲛ; ⲕⲉⲉⲃ for ⲭⲁϥ :
ⲕⲁⲁϥ; ⲏ for ⲉ: ⲥⲏⲛⲧⲓ for ⲥⲉⲛϯ : ⲥⲛⲧⲉ; ⲏⲙⲓ for ⲉⲙⲓ : ⲉⲓⲙⲉ; ⲁ for ⲟ: ⲃⲁⲗ for
ⲉⲃⲟⲗ; ⲗⲁⲃ for ⲉⲣⲟϥ; ⲟ for ⲱ: ϩⲟⲃ for ϩⲱⲃ; ⲗⲟⲙⲓ for ⲗⲱⲙⲓ (= ⲡⲱⲙⲓ : ⲣⲱⲙⲉ).
In consonants it has two very marked features, the substitution of ⲗ for
ⲣ, as ⲉⲗ, ⲉⲗⲉ, ⲗⲉⲡ; ϣⲏⲗⲓ for ⲉⲣ, ⲉⲣⲉ, &c., and of ⲃ for final ϥ, as ⲛⲧⲁⲃ
for ⲛⲧⲟϥ.

A considerable amount of this version still probably remains unpublished,
but specimens may be discovered in the following:


    1. Giorgi. Fragmentum Evangelii S. Joannis &c. (_see_ p. 128)
    contains 1 Cor. ix. 9-16.

    2. Zoega. Catalogus &c. (_See_ p. 102.)

    3. Engelbreth. Fragmenta Basmurico-Coptica Veteris et Novi
    Testamenti. Havniae, 1811.

    4. Maspero. Recueil, 11 (1889), p. 116.

    5. Mittheilungen, i. p. 69. Matt. xi. 27.

    6. Mittelaegyptische Bibelfragmente, in Études Archéologiques
    Linguistiques et Historiques dédiées à M. le Dr. C. Leemans.
    Leide, 1885. (But perhaps this and 4 may be more correctly classed
    as Middle Egyptian or Lower Sahidic.)


On this version Bishop Lightfoot wrote: “As the Bashmuric is a secondary
version, it has no independent value, and is only useful in passages where
the Sahidic is wanting.” This opinion would hardly represent the present
position. That the Sahidic and Fayoum versions are not independent is
quite true, but the relation of them to one another is much more that they
are different forms of the same version, of which on the whole perhaps the
Fayoum represents the older and more primitive text.]



[(5) The Middle Egyptian(116) or Lower Sahidic Version.]


[It has already been explained that documents found on the site of Memphis
exhibit a dialect different in some respects from any of those that we
have yet considered. In this also fragments have been found of a
translation of the New Testament.

The dialect shows a combination of Sahidic and Bohairic forms. It has ⲓⲱⲧ
for Sah. ⲉⲓⲱⲧ; ⲙⲉⲧⲓⲱⲧ for ⲙⲛⲧⲉⲓⲱⲧ; ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲏⲥ for ⲓⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ; ⲛⲧⲟⲧⲕ for ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲧⲕ;
ϣⲧⲱⲣⲓ for ϣⲧⲱⲣⲉ. It agrees again with the Fayoum dialect (which is
generally considered a variety of it) in its affection for ⲁ, as ⲛⲧⲁⲕ for
ⲛⲧⲟⲕ, and apparently in using ⲗ for ⲣ, but only occasionally.

The following specimen from Rom. xi. 31-36 will exhibit the character of
the dialect and the version: the Sahidic is taken from the Borgian
fragment published by Amélineau, Z. A. S. 25, 1887, p. 49; the Middle
Egyptian from “Mittheilungen,” ii. p. 69.

MIDDLE EGYPTIAN.                      SAHIDIC.
xi. 31. ⲧⲉⲓ ⲧⲉ                        ⲧⲁⲓ ⲧⲉ
ⲑⲏ ⲛⲛⲉⲓ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ · ⲉⲁⲩ              ⲑⲏ ⲛⲛⲁⲓ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ · ⲉⲁⲩ
ⲉⲗⲁⲧⲛⲉϩϯ ⲉⲡⲉⲧ_ⲛ_ⲛⲁ ·                  ⲣ ⲁⲧ ⲛⲁϩ ⲧⲉ ⲉⲡⲉⲧⲛⲛⲁ ·
ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲉⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲛⲏⲩ                ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲉⲛⲁ ⲛⲁⲩ
32. _ⲙⲛ_ⲛⲥⲟⲥ · ⲁ ⲡⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲅⲁⲣ            ⲙⲛⲛⲥⲱⲥ ⲁ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ
ⲁⲡⲧ ⲟⲩⲁⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲩ                 ⲉⲧⲡ ⲟⲩⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲟⲩ
ⲙⲉⲧⲁⲧⲛⲉϩϯ · ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ                    ⲙⲛⲧⲁⲧⲛⲁϩⲧⲉ · ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ
ⲉϥⲉⲛⲁ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ :                     ⲉϥⲉⲛⲁ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ :
33. ⲱ ⲡϣⲱⲕ ⲛⲧⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙ                   ⲱ ⲡϣⲓⲕⲉ ⲛⲧⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙ
ⲙⲁⲟ · _ⲙⲛ_ ⲧⲥⲟⲫⲓⲁ · _ⲙⲛ_              ⲙⲁⲟ ⲙⲛ ⲧⲥⲟⲫⲓⲁ ⲁⲩⲱ
ⲡⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲡ_ⲫϯ_ · ⲛⲑⲏ                   ⲡⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛⲑⲏ
ⲉⲧⲉⲙⲉⲩϣⲙⲁϣⲧ ⲛⲉϩⲉⲡ                     ⲉⲧⲉⲛⲛⲉⲩⲉϣⲙⲉϣⲧ ⲛⲉϥϩⲁⲡ
ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩϯ · ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲉⲛ                      ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲉϣⲉⲛ
ⲁⲧⲧⲉⲛⲗⲉⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲉ ⲛⲉϥϩⲓⲁⲩⲓ ·              ⲣⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲛⲉϥϩⲓⲟⲟⲩⲉ
34. ⲛⲓⲙ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲡⲉⲧⲉ ⲁϥⲓⲙⲓ ⲉⲡ             ⲛⲓⲙ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲉⲓⲙⲉ ⲉⲡ
ϩⲏⲧ ⲙⲡ_ⲟⲥ_ · ⲡⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲛⲁ                 ϩⲏⲧ ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ · ⲡⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲛⲁ
35. ⲥⲉ ⲃⲓⲏ_ⲧϥ_ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ · ⲓⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉ       ⲥⲉⲃⲉ ⲉⲓⲁⲧϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲏ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉ
ⲧⲉ ⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲓ ⲛⲏϥ ⲛⲗⲉϥ                    ⲛⲧⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛⲁϥ ⲛⲣⲉϥ
ϫⲓϣⲁϫⲛⲓ · ⲓⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉ                   ϫⲓ ϣⲟϫⲛⲉ · ⲏ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉ
ⲧⲉ ⲁϥⲓⲗⲓ ⲛⲏϥ ⲛϣⲁⲣⲉⲡ ·                 ⲛⲧⲁϥⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲛⲁϥ ⲛϣⲟⲣⲡ
36. ⲛⲧⲁⲗⲉϥⲧⲟⲩⲓⲁ ⲛⲏϥ · ϫⲉ              ⲧⲁⲣⲉϥ ⲧⲟⲩⲉⲓⲟ ⲛʁϥ · ϫⲉ
ⲡⲩⲏ_ⲣϥ_ _ϩⲛ_ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲙⲁϥ                ⲡⲩⲏⲣϥ ϩⲉⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲙⲟϥ
ⲛⲉ · ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲁ                     ⲛⲉ · ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲟ
ⲁ_ⲧϥ_ · ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲛⲁⲕⲁⲧⲟⲩ                 ⲁⲧϥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲛⲁⲕⲟⲧⲟⲩ
ⲉⲗⲁϥ · ⲡⲱϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ                   ⲉⲣⲟϥ · ⲡⲱϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ
ⲛϣⲁ ⲛⲓⲉⲛ_ϩ_ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ.                    ϣⲁ ⲛⲓⲉⲛⲉϩ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ.

Specimens of this version may be found in—


    1. Mémoires de l’Institut égyptien, II. ii, edited by Bouriant.

    2. Mittheilungen, ii. p. 69.

    3. Coptic MSS. brought from the Fayoum by W. M. Flinders Petrie,
    Esq., D.C.L., edited by W. E. Crum, p. 1.

    4. It is also said to be contained in some Graeco-Coptic fragments
    recently acquired by the British Museum.


The lines between this dialect and version and that of the Fayoum are not,
however, clearly defined, and further research may make it necessary to
rearrange the different specimens mentioned in this and the preceding
sections.

Textually the version is of equal value with that of the Fayoum, that is,
it represents another tradition of the version of Upper Egypt, of which
Sahidic was the most important representative.]



[(6) The Akhmîm Dialect.]


[It would have probably been more scientific to have begun our discussion
of the versions of Upper Egypt with a description of the Akhmîm dialect.
It certainly represents the language in an older form than any other
dialect we have examined; unfortunately such a very small fragment of the
New Testament version exists that its importance at present can hardly be
estimated.

The Akhmîm dialect is known to us by a series of Apocryphal and Biblical
fragments published by M. Bouriant (Mémoires, i. p. 243), and has the
following characteristics. In its vowels its affinities are nearest to the
Middle Egyptian; it has ⲁ for ⲟ, ⲁⲩ for ⲟⲟⲩ, and ⲉ for ⲁ. It does not use
ⲗ for ⲣ. Like the Sahidic it has double vowel-endings, and the weak final
ⲉ, but not ⲫ, ⲑ, ⲭ for ⲡϩ, ⲧϩ, ⲕϩ. It also has some Bohairic forms, such
as ⲛⲟⲩ, ⲁⲣⲉ, ⲁϥ. In the vowels it has the following peculiarities: ⲁ for ⲉ
(Sah.), ⲁϩⲟⲩⲛ, ⲁϩⲣⲏⲓ, ⲁⲣⲁⲕ, ⲁⲃⲁⲗ; ⲓ or ⲉⲓ for ⲏ, ⲡⲓ (sun), ⲥⲙⲉⲓ, ⲧϩⲉⲓ; ⲟⲩ
for ⲱ, ⲕⲟⲩ, ϫⲟⲩ, ⲥⲃⲟⲩ; ⲟ for ⲁⲩ, ⲛⲟ, ⲥⲛⲟ.

But its most distinguishing feature is an entirely new letter, [Symbol:
Coptic “hori” glyph with additional stroke to lower left]: this may
represent ϣ of other dialects; [Symbol: the new glyph] for ⲉϣ (to know),
ⲉϩ [with the new glyph] for ⲁϣ; or ϫ as ⲧϩⲡⲟ [with the new glyph] for ϫⲡⲟ;
or ϧ : ϩ, as ⲱⲛϩ [with the new glyph] for ⲱⲛϧ; ⲥϩⲉⲓ [with the new glyph]
for ⲥϧⲁⲓ.

The textual affinities can hardly be worked out with the small amount of
material we possess, but there seems to be little doubt that it represents
in a very early form the same version that we are acquainted with in
Sahidic. Further discoveries in this dialect may do much to make us
acquainted with the early history of the version of Upper Egypt.

Only two short fragments of this version are known, which have been edited
by Mr. W. E. Crum in his edition of the Coptic MSS. brought from the
Fayoum by W. M. Flinders Petrie (p. 2). They are contained in a parchment
MS. of very great antiquity (Mr. Crum suggests the fourth century, but
this is certainly too early), and contain St. James iv. 12-13, St. Jude
17-20. The following comparison of it with the Sahidic will show both the
similarity of the versions and the differences of the dialect.

AKHMIMIC.                             SAHIDIC.
Jude 17. _ⲛⲛ_ϣⲉϫⲉ ⲙⲡ_ⲛ_ϫⲁⲉⲓⲥ _ⲓⲥ_     17. ⲛⲛϣⲁϫⲉ ⲙⲡⲉϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ _ⲓⲥ_
ⲡ_ⲭⲥ_ ⲛⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲁ ⲛⲉϥⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ            ⲡⲉ_ⲭⲥ_ ⲛⲁⲓ _ⲛ_ⲧⲁ ⲛⲉϥⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ
ϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϫⲛ _ⲛ_ϩⲁⲣⲡ’ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ·              ϫⲟⲟⲩ ϫⲓⲛ ⲛϣⲟⲣⲡ · ⲉⲃⲟⲗ
18. ϫⲉ ⲁⲩⲇⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ϩⲛ ⲧϩⲁⲉⲓ             18. ϫⲉ ⲁⲩⲇⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉ _ϩⲛ_ ⲑⲁⲏ
_ⲛⲛ_ⲟⲩⲁⲉⲓϣ ⲟⲩ_ⲛ_ ϩⲉⲛⲣⲉϥϫⲣϫⲣⲉ          _ⲛⲛ_ⲉⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲟⲩⲛ ϩⲉⲛⲣⲉϥϫⲣϫⲣⲉ
ⲛⲏⲩ ⲉⲩⲙⲁⲁϩⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲛⲉⲡⲓ                 ⲛⲏⲩ ⲉⲩⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲛⲉⲡⲓ
ⲑⲩⲙⲓⲁ ⲛⲛⲟⲩ_ⲙⲡ_ⲧ’ ϩⲉ_ϥⲧ_ ·             ⲑⲩⲙⲓⲁ ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲙⲡⲧϣⲁϥⲧⲉ ·
19. ⲛⲉⲓ ⲛⲉⲧⲡⲱⲣϫ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ⲉϩⲉⲛ             19. ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲉⲧⲡⲱⲣϫ ⲁⲃⲟⲗ ⲉϩⲉⲛ
ⲯⲩⲭⲓⲕⲟⲥ ⲛⲉ ⲉ_ⲙⲛ_ⲧⲉⲩ ⲡ_ⲡⲛ_ⲁ            ⲯⲩⲭⲓⲕⲟⲛ ⲛⲉ ⲉ_ⲙⲛ_ⲧⲟⲩ ⲡ_ⲛ_ⲁ
_ⲙ_ⲙ_ⲟ_ · 20. _ⲛ_ⲧⲱⲧⲛⲉⲇⲉⲛⲁ_ⲙⲣ_ⲣⲉ ·    _ⲙ_ⲙⲁⲩ · 20. _ⲛ_ⲧⲱ_ⲧⲛ_ⲇⲉⲛⲁⲙⲉⲣⲁ ·
ⲧⲉ ϩⲱⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲉ_ⲧⲛ_ ⲕⲱⲧ _ⲙ_ⲙⲱⲧ            ⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲉ_ⲧⲛ_ ⲕⲱⲧ _ⲙ_ⲡⲱⲧⲉⲛ ...
ⲛⲉ _ϩⲛ_ ⲧⲉ_ⲧⲛ_ⲡⲓⲥⲧⲓⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃⲉ
_ⲙ_ⲡϣ_ⲁ_ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛϣⲗⲏⲗ _ϩⲙ_
ⲡ_ⲡⲛ_ⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃⲉ

It has only been possible in the above account to give a rough outline of
more recent discovery. Further investigation is necessary, and the lines
which divide the different dialects, especially those between Fayoumic and
Middle Egyptian, require to be more accurately defined. Much may be hoped
also from the results of future discovery. The rubbish heaps of the
monasteries, the concealed libraries, the graves, have yielded up some of
their treasures, but all has not yet been brought to light. Enough has
been written to suggest that discoveries of great interest for the life
and character of early Egyptian Christianity have been made, and that much
still remains to be found, which may indirectly throw a flood of light on
the early history of Christianity as a whole(117).]



CHAPTER V. THE OTHER VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


The remaining Versions are of less importance in the ascertainment of the
sacred text. But some of them have recently received more attention in the
general widening of research, and in becoming better known have
strengthened their claims to recognition and value. Three of them, at all
events, date from the period of the oldest manuscripts of the New
Testament now known to be in existence. And the presence amongst us of
eminent scholars acquainted with them renders reference to them more easy
than it was a few years ago.

Nevertheless, some are of slight service to the critic, being secondary
versions, and as such becoming handmaids, not of the Greek, but of some
other version translated from the Greek.

In the account of these versions, the Editor of this edition is indebted
for most valuable assistance to Mr. F. C. Conybeare, late Fellow of
University College, Oxford, who has re-written the sections on the
Armenian and Georgian versions; to Professor Margoliouth, who has also
re-written those on the Ethiopic and Arabic; to the Rev. Llewellyn J. M.
Bebb, Fellow of Brasenose College, who has re-written the account of the
Slavonic; and to Dr. James W. Bright, Assistant-Professor of English
Philology in the John Hopkins University, who has contributed what is
known on the Anglo-Saxon Version.



(1) The Gothic Version (Goth.).


The history of the Goths, who from the wilds of Scandinavia overran the
fairest regions of Europe, has been traced by the master-hand of Gibbon
(Decline and Fall, Chapters x, xxvi, xxxi, &c.), and needs not here be
repeated. While the nation was yet seated in Moesia, Ulphilas or Wulfilas
[318-388], a Cappadocian, who succeeded their first Bishop Theophilus in
A.D. 348, though himself an Arian and a teacher of that subtil heresy to
his adopted countrymen, became their benefactor, by translating both the
Old(118) and New Testament into the Gothic, a dialect of the great
Teutonic stock of languages, having previously invented or adapted an
alphabet expressly for their use. There can be no question, from internal
evidence, that the Old Testament was rendered from the Septuagint, the New
from the Greek original(119): but the existing manuscripts testify to some
corruption from Latin sources, very naturally arising during the
occupation of Italy by the Goths in the fifth century. These venerable
documents are principally three, or rather may be treated under two MSS.
and one group.


    1. CODEX ARGENTEUS, the most precious treasure of the University
    of Upsal, in the mother-country of the Gothic tribes. It appears
    to be the same copy as Ant. Morillon saw at Werden in Westphalia
    towards the end of the sixteenth century, and was taken by the
    Swedes at the siege of Prague in 1648. Queen Christina gave it to
    her librarian, Isaac Vossius, and from him it was very rightly
    purchased about 1662 by the Swedish nation and deposited at Upsal.
    This superb codex contains fragments of the Gospels (in the
    Western order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark) on 187 leaves, 4to (out
    of 330), of purple vellum; the bold, uncial, Gothic letters being
    in silver, sometimes in gold, of course much faded, and so regular
    that some have imagined, though erroneously, that they were
    impressed with a stamp. The date assigned to it is the fifth or
    early in the sixth century, although the several words are
    divided, and some various readings stand in the margin _primâ
    manu_.

    2. Codex Carolinus, described above for Codd. PQ, and for the Old
    Latin _gue_, contains in Gothic about forty verses of the Epistle
    to the Romans, first published by Knittel, 1762.

    3. Codices Ambrosiani, or palimpsest fragments of five
    manuscripts, apparently like Cod. Carolinus, from Bobbio, and of
    about the same date, discovered by Mai in 1817 in the Ambrosian
    Library at Milan, and published by him and Count C. O. Castiglione
    (Ulphilæ Partium Ineditarum ... Specimen, in five parts, Milan,
    1819, 1820, 1834, 1835, 1839). The last-named manuscripts are
    minutely described and illustrated by a rude facsimile in Horne’s
    “Introduction,” and after him in Tregelles’ “Horne,” vol. iv. pp.
    304-7. They consist of (1) a portion of St. Paul’s Epistles, under
    Homilies of Gregory the Great (viii); (2) portions of St. Paul,
    under Jerome on Isaiah (viii or ix); (3) parts of the Old
    Testament, under Plautus and part of Seneca; (4) under four pages
    of St. John in Latin part of St. Matt. xxvi, xxvii. The fifth
    fragment consists of Acts of the Council of Chalcedon with no
    extracts from the Bible. Mai refers some of the Gothic writing to
    the sixth century and some as far back as the fourth or beginning
    of the fifth. Unlike the Codex Argenteus (at least if we trust Dr.
    E. D. Clarke’s facsimile of the latter), the words in Mai’s
    palimpsests are continuous: they contain parts of Esther, Nehemiah
    (apparently no portion of the books of Kings), a few passages of
    the Gospels, and much of St. Paul(120). H. F. Massmann (Ulfilas,
    Stuttgart, 1855-57) also added from an exposition a few verses of
    St. John, and there are fragments at Vienna and Rome(121).


These fragments (for such they still must be called)(122), in spite of the
influence of the Latin, approach nearer to the received text, in respect
of their readings, than the Egyptian or one or two other versions of about
the same age; and from their similarity in language to the Teutonic have
been much studied in Germany. The fullest and best edition of the whole
collected, with a grammar and lexicon, is by H. C. von der Gabelentz and
J. Loebe (Ulfilas Vet. et N. Testamenti versionis Gothicae fragmenta quae
supersunt, Leipsic, 1836-46, viz. vol. i. Text, 1836; Pars ii. Glossarium,
1843; Pars ii. Grammatik, 1846), and of the Codex Argenteus singly that of
And. Uppstrom (with a good facsimile), Upsal, 1854. This scholar published
separately in 1857 ten leaves of the manuscript which had been stolen
between 1821 and 1834, and were restored through him by the penitent thief
on his death-bed. The Gothic Gospels, however, had been cited as early as
1675 in Fell’s N. T., and more fully in Mill’s, through Francis Junius’
edition (with Marshall’s critical notes), which was printed at Dort in
1665, from Derrer’s accurate transcript of the Upsal manuscript, made in
or about 1655, when it was in Isaac Vossius’ possession. Other editions of
the Codex Argenteus were published by G. Stiernhielm in 1671 for the
College of Antiquaries at Stockholm; by E. Lye at the Clarendon Press in
1750 from the revision of Eric Benzel, Archbishop of Upsal; and (with the
addition of the fragments in the Codex Carolinus) by Jo. Ihre in 1763, and
by J. C. Zahn in 1805. And also the Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in
parallel columns with the Versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale, London, 1865,
and Ulfila, oder die Gotische Bibel (N. T.), E. Bernhardt, Halle, 1875,
and St. Mark with a grammatical commentary, R. Müller and H. Hoeppe, 1881,
and Skeat, Gospel of St. Mark in Gothic, Clarendon Press, 1882.



(2) The Armenian Version.


The existing Armenian version is a recension made shortly after the
Council of Ephesus of a still earlier version, which was based in part
upon a Syriac, in part upon a Greek original. This latest recension was
made according to “accurate and reliable copies” of the Greek Bible,
which, along with the Canons of the Council of Ephesus, were brought from
Constantinople about the year 433. One would naturally wish for more
details than the above brief statement contains; yet it is all that one
can definitely infer from the history of the version as related by three
nearly contemporary writers, whose accounts we now subjoin, namely,
Koriun, Lazar of Pharpi, and Moses Khorenatzi.

Koriun(123) in his life of St. Mesrop (written between 441 and 452 A.D.)
relates as follows:—

In the fifth year of the reign of Vramshapho [i.e. about 397 A.D.], St.
Mesrop was first in Edessa, then in Amid, lastly in Samosata, busy all the
time about his discovery of the Armenian characters(124). In Samosata,
where he was received with great respect by the clergy and bishop, Mesrop
met with a Greek scribe, Hrofanos (? Rufinus), in conjunction with whom,
and with the help of two pupils named John and Joseph, he undertook a
translation of the Bible. They began—and this is noteworthy—with the book
of the Proverbs of Solomon; Hrofanos or Rufinus writing down the
translation with his own hand. Mesrop next visited the Bishop of the
Syrians, who congratulated him on his work. He then returned to Nor
Chalach, or new city, as Valarshapat was called by the Romans, in the
sixth year of Vramshapho’s reign, A.D. 398. At a later time, Koriun, the
writer, was himself sent with Eznik to Constantinople, apparently in quest
of books to translate; for they returned with a _sure_ copy of the
Scriptures, with works of the Fathers, and with the canons of the Councils
of Nice and Ephesus. “Now St. Sahak had long before translated the
collection of Church books from Greek into Armenian, as well as much true
wisdom of the holy Patriarchs. But he now resumed, and taking with the
help of Eznik the former translations made hurriedly and offhand, he
confirmed them by the help of the true copies now brought, and they
translated much commentary on the books.” The above is the gist of what
Koriun has to tell us, though he mentions that scholars were sent to
Edessa to translate and bring back the works of the Fathers. Why Mesrop
began with the Book of Proverbs, whether he translated more than that, and
from which language, we do not learn from Koriun. Lazar of Pharpi(125),
who wrote in the last half of the sixth century, is our next authority. He
states that up to the last decade of the fourth century, the offices of
religion were still read in Greater Armenia in Syriac, a language which
the people did not understand. The edicts of the kings of Armenia were
also written out in Syriac or Greek characters. But as soon as the
Armenian alphabet was discovered, St. Sahak—who was patriarch 390-428 A.D.
and an expert in Greek—set himself, in response to the patriotic
exhortations of St. Mesrop, of Vramshapho the king, and of the clergy and
nobles, to translate the Holy Scriptures. He states that St. Sahak’s
version comprised the whole of the Old and New Testaments, and was made
from Greek.

Moses of Chorene, bk. iii. ch. 36 ff., copies, confuses, and adds to
Koriun’s account. A little before 370 A.D. the Persians overran Armenia,
and Meroujah, their leader, burned all the books he could find in the
country, proscribed the study of the Greek language, and enacted penalties
against any who should speak it or translate from it. At that time, adds
Moses, the offices of the church were performed in Greek, because the
Armenian alphabet did not yet exist. On the death of Theodosius (Jan. 395
A.D.) there was a partition of Armenia between his successor Arcadius and
the king of Persia, by which the latter took undisputed possession of the
eastern provinces, including the basin of Ararat, in which lay the new
religious centre Valarshapat or Edschmiadzin, the νέα πόλις of the Romans.
The new Mesropic alphabet was at first used only in Persian Armenia; for,
says Moses, in the parts dependent on the Greeks, all writing had to be in
Greek characters, Syriac being forbidden. As soon as Mesrop had elaborated
his alphabet with the aid of Hrophanos, he betook himself to the work of
translation; and with the aid of his pupils John and Joseph, translated
the entire twenty-two authentic books along with the New Testament, taking
care to begin with the Book of Proverbs. About the year 406 he returned to
Armenia, and found St. Sahak engaged in translating the Syriac Bible. He
hints that Sahak would have preferred a Greek original, if Meroujah had
not burned all the Greek books nearly thirty years before. This perhaps
implies that the version, on which Mesrop had been engaged in Samosata,
was made from Greek. Nor is that unlikely; for Rufinus, who helped him,
was a Greek, and we learn from Koriun that there were Armenians in Edessa
studying both Greek and Syriac. We read in bk. iii. ch. 60 of the History
of Moses, about missions sent to Edessa and Byzantium in order to the
translation of the works of the Fathers, but we hear nothing more
expressly touching the Version of the Bible, save this, that after the
Council of Ephesus, Sahak and Mesrop, then in Ashtishat in Taron, received
from Byzantium, as aforesaid, the canons of the council recently held,
along with accurate copies of the Greek Bible. On receipt of these, Sahak
and Mesrop translated afresh what had already been translated, and were
zealous in recasting the text. But they were not, it seems, after all,
satisfied with their work, and sent Moses to Alexandria to learn the
“beautiful tongue” (i.e. Greek), with a view to a more accurate
articulation and division (of the Armenian scriptures).

The above summary exhausts the evidence of Moses of Khorene(126). It would
appear therefrom that the Bible was translated twice into Armenian before
the end of the fourth century; by Mesrop from Greek, and by Sahak from
Syriac. The circumstance that Mesrop in Samosata began with the Proverbs
of Solomon raises a suspicion that the earlier books had already been
rendered, when and by whom is unknown. Certainly the reasons given by
Koriun and by Moses for Mesrop beginning with Proverbs are insufficient.
Moses again in stating that Sahak rendered the entire Bible from Syriac
contradicts both Koriun and Lazar. Are we to infer that Sahak and Mesrop
after 430 A.D. retranslated according to the Constantinople Bibles what
they had already translated from Syriac, and also it would seem from a
presumably less perfect Greek text? Anyhow it is unlikely that they would
wholly sacrifice their own work, and we should therefore expect to find in
the Armenian version a mixture of texts, namely of some old Syriac text,
which must have been in vogue as late as 380, of some older Greek text
supplied in Edessa or Samosata, and of the Constantinopolitan texts; which
last may well have been among the fifty splendid copies which had been
prepared under the order of Constantine by Eusebius a century before. If,
and how far, these different elements enter into the Version can only be
determined by a careful analysis of its readings. It may be that in some
MSS. there lurks more of the unrevised text than in others(127). The
entire history is an apt illustration of that political see-saw between
the Roman and the Persian powers which went on in Armenia during the
fourth and fifth centuries, and out of which the patriotic vigour and
devotion of St. Mesrop and St. Sahak carved at last a truly national
Armenian Church, with an independent life and literature of its own.

The Armenian Version was collated for Robert Holmes’ edition of the
Septuagint, though not with desirable accuracy nor from the oldest MSS.
For example, the Codex Arm. 3 of the Pentateuch, which Holmes declares,
_teste Adlero_, to be of the year 1063, is but an eighteenth century
codex. The collation of the New Testament in the eighth edition of
Tischendorf’s N. T. is accurate so far as it goes, but is far from being
exhaustive or based on a consensus of the oldest MSS. Old codices of the
Armenian Gospels are very common, and the present writer knows of as many
as eight, none of them later than the year A.D. 1000; of four of these he
has complete collations. The rest of the N. T. is only found in codices of
the whole Bible, which are rare and always written in minuscules, never in
uncials as are the Gospels. He knows of no copies of the whole Bible older
than the twelfth century.

Two further questions call for brief answer:—1. Have we the Armenian
version as it left the hands of the fifth century translators 2. Did the
fifth century version comprise the whole of the Old and New Testament?

In regard to the first question, it must be admitted as probable that
changes were subsequently made, at least in the New Testament, in the way
both of omission and addition; e.g. in St. Luke xxii. 44, out of four very
early uncial codices collated by the writer, the words: ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ ἱδρῶς
αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπι τὴν γῆν, are found only in
one, and that one the earliest, being dated 902 A.D. The words which
precede ὤφθη δ—ὲπροσηύχετο are omitted in all four of them. We may infer
that ver. 44 was in the original version, and was omitted from the three
codices for doctrinal reasons. The additions made to the text after the
fifth century are easier to detect; because they only come in some MSS.
and not in others, and also because there is so much discrepancy of
readings between those codices which add them, that they are at once seen
to be lacunas supplied by different hands. This is the case, for example,
with the end of St. Mark’s Gospel, which only comes in one of the four
codices mentioned, namely in the oldest Edschmiadzin Codex, under the
heading “of the Elder Ariston,” which may refer to Aristion, teacher of
Papias, or to Ariston of Pella. The case is the same with the episode of
the woman taken in adultery. For the settlement of such points there is
wanted a careful collation of the oldest codices.

In answer to the other question we may state, without entering into the
proof of it, that the fifth century version included all the books of the
Old and New Testament save the third book of Ezra, Esther, Tobit, Judith,
Wisdom of Solomon, and perhaps the Maccabees. For as we read in Elisaeus
that Vartan Mamikonean in the middle of the fifth century inspired his
troops to deeds of valour against the Persians by reading to them the Book
of Maccabees, we may fairly infer that that also was already then
rendered. It may be added that the Psalms were rendered for church use
prior to the rest of the Bible, and were translated afresh by Mesrop and
his disciples; also that the Book of Revelations was translated twice. The
double translation of both these books is a fact which can be traced in
various MSS.

One other point must be noticed. From the history of Moses of Chorene, it
is not clear what were the imperfections of the Armenian version, to
remedy which Moses was sent to Alexandria. We cannot suppose that Mesrop
and Sahak and Eznik, and the other doctors who had already translated the
Greek codices brought from Byzantium, were incompetent Greek scholars. The
object therefore of Moses’ voyage to Alexandria was probably that he might
add to the Armenian text the Sections of Ammonius, and also the asterisks
and obeli of Origen’s Hexaplaric copy(128). The Ammonian Sections are
found in all Armenian New Testaments, and in some copies of the Bible the
Origenian marks as well; for instance, in Codex 3270 of the Bibliotheca
Vindobonensis. There is no evidence that the Armenians ever used a version
of Tatian’s Diatessaron.

The following is a list—not exhaustive—of the oldest known codices of the
Armenian Gospels, or “Avetaran”:—


    1. In the Library of the Lazareffski Institute in Moscow, written
    in large uncials on parchment, dated in the year 336 of the
    Armenian era = A.D. 887. Size, 37.75 × 28 cent.; 229 folios.

    2. In the Library of the Mechitarists in the island of San Lazaro,
    in Venice, an uncial codex, on parchment, written in the year 351
    of the Armenian era = A.D. 902.

    3. In the same Library, on parchment, in large uncials, dated
    1006.

    4. In the same Library, in large uncials, on parchment, undated,
    but evidently older than No. 2.

    5. In the Patriarchal Library of Edschmiadzin in Russian Armenia,
    No. 222 of the printed catalogue of Jacob Kareneantz (Tiflis,
    1863). This book is bound in ivory covers, carved, as it would
    seem, in the Ravennese style in the fifth or sixth century. In
    large uncials, on parchment, written A.D. 989.

    6. In the same Library is No. 223, an uncially written parchment
    codex. The earliest of the colophons dates from A.D. 1260 and is
    in majuscule, but the codex itself seems to be at least two
    centuries and a half earlier.

    7. In the same Library, No. 229, written in miniscule, on
    parchment, A.D. 1035.

    8, 9. In the same Library, Nos. 224, 225, in large uncials, on
    parchment, presumably as old as the eleventh century, but undated.

    10. In Tiflis, in an Armenian church. In large uncials, on
    parchment. Undated, but certainly prior to A.D. 1000.

    11. In the Library of the British Museum, in large uncials, on
    parchment, undated. Probably of the ninth century, but not after
    the tenth, according to Dr. Baronean, author of the British Museum
    Catalogue.

    12. In Karin or Erzeroum, in large uncials, on parchment. Dated
    A.D. 986.

    13. In the Library of the Fathers of St. Anthony, in
    Constantinople. Dated A.D. 960.

    14. In the island monastery of Sevan, on the lake of that name in
    Russian Armenia. In large uncials, on parchment. Written during
    primacy of Vahan, _circa_ A.D. 966.

    15. In uncials, on parchment; written in Macedonia, under the
    Emperor Basil, A.D. 1011. (Carékin, Catalogue des Traductions,
    omits to specify in what library.)

    16. Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. Codex Armenus VII contains
    the Four Gospels. Codex Bombyc, litteris uncialibus scriptus.

    17. In the same Library, Cod. Arm. VIII. Membranaceus, litteris
    uncialibus scriptus.



(3) The Ethiopic Version (Eth.).


The Ethiopic translation of the Bible is assigned by Guidi to the end of
the fifth, or beginning of the sixth century, the time at which
Christianity became the dominant religion in Abyssinia. That religion
after a period of decadence began to flourish again in the twelfth
century, but in dependence on the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The two
principal classes of Ethiopic Biblical MSS. are connected with these
periods respectively; the first class being derived from the Greek text
before, and the latter after the Alexandrian recension. The corrections,
however, vary in different copies, and appear to be the result of
desultory rather than of systematic alteration. The MSS. of the Ethiopic
N. T. are rarely complete; ordinarily the Gospels, the Epistles of St.
Paul, and the Catholic Epistles with the Acts and the Apocalypse
constitute separate volumes. The oldest copy of the Gospels would seem to
be no. 32 of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, written in the reign of
Yekūnō Amlāk; whereas MS. 33 of the same collection represents the later
text. Examples of the different recensions are given by Guidi, Atti della
R. Academia dei Lincei: Classe di scienze morali &c., iv. 1888, from whom
most of the above statements are taken.

Copies of the N. T., especially of the Gospels, are to be found in most
collections of Ethiopic MSS.; _see_ especially Wright, Ethiopic MSS. of
the British Museum, pp. 23-39, and Zotenberg, Catalogue des MSS.
Éthiopiens de la Bibliothèque Nationale (nos. 32-48; in the preface to
this latter work a list of other collections are given); also Dillmann,
Abessinische Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin (no. 20,
the four Gospels; 21, the Gospel of St. John); D’Abbadie, Catalogue
Raisonné de MSS. Éthiopiens (Paris, 1859; nos. 2, 47, 82, 95, 112, 173,
the four Gospels; no. 119, St. Paul’s Epistles; no. 164, Catholic Epp.,
Apoc., and Acts); Dillmann, Catalogus MSS. Aethiop. in Bibliotheca
Bodleiana, nos. 10-15; Fr. Müller, Aethiop. Handschriften der K. K.
Hofbibliothek in Wien (Z. D. M. G., xvi. p. 554, no. v, the Gospels; no.
vi, St. John’s Gospel); “Bulletin Scientifique de S. Pétersbourg,” ii. 302
(account of a MS. of the Gospels in the Asiatic Institute at St.
Petersburg), iii. 148 (account of a MS. of the four Gospels, bearing the
date 78 = 1426 A.D., in the Public Library at St. Petersburg, and another
of St. John’s Gospel).

The Ethiopic N. T. was first printed in Rome, 1548, cum epistola Pauli ad
Hebraeos tantum, cum concordantiis Evangelistarum Eusebii et numeratione
omnium verborum eorundem. Quae omnia curavit Fr. Petrus Ethyops auxilio
priorum sedente Paulo iii. Pont. Max. et Claudio illius regni imperatore
(edition of Tasfā Sion). The remaining thirteen Epistles of St. Paul were
printed in 1549. This edition was reproduced in the London Polyglott.
Another was issued by T. P. Platt (for the Bible Society) in 1830,
reprinted 1844 and 1874. These editions are based on MSS. containing mixed
recensions, and are therefore of no critical value.



(4) The Georgian Version (Georg.).


The Church of the Iberians was founded during the reign of Constantine
according to tradition; though, if we consider how intimate and frequent
had been from a much earlier period their intercourse with the Greeks, we
may safely infer that the seeds of Christianity had been long before sown
among them. There is no certain evidence of the date at which they
translated the Scriptures; but it is probable that their version of the
New Testament was made in the fifth and sixth centuries; and that it was
made from a Greek text the most perfunctory examination suffices to prove.
According to Armenian historians of the fifth century, St. Mesrop, at the
same time that he invented the Armenian characters and made the Armenian
version for his own countrymen, fulfilled the same service for the
Georgians also. In this tradition, however, the Georgians do not concur;
and, no doubt, rightly, seeing that their ancient alphabet and their
version are alike independent of the Armenian. It is said by some native
Georgian scholars that before the tenth century a revision was made of
their version, in order to make it more complete.

The present writer knows of no manuscript of the entire Bible in Europe
except at Mount Athos, where there is one reputed to be of the tenth
century. Others are preserved in the Convents of the Holy Cross at
Jerusalem, and of Mount Sinai. In the Vatican Library there is a codex of
the New Testament, neatly written on parchment in majuscule, parts of
which the present writer has collated with the printed text. This codex is
at least as old as the thirteenth century, and in the collations below is
referred to as _a_. Beside this codex the writer has examined in the
Georgian Library at Tiflis three very ancient codices of the Gospels,
written in uncials on parchment. These books were smaller in size than
are, as a rule, the copies of the Gospels used in Eastern Churches.

Of the accompanying collations, nos. i-iv are made from them, and the
passages collated were photographed by the present writer. These
photographs, which represent the originals on a reduced scale, have been
deposited by him in the Bodleian Library for the inspection of the
curious. The text referred to as _b_ is probably of the tenth century or
earlier; the one referred to as _c_ cannot be much later than the
eleventh, while that indicated by _d_ must belong to the twelfth, and is
the most beautifully written of them.

The Bible was not printed in Georgian until the year 1743 at Moscow in
large folio. It is a rare volume, and has never been reprinted. The
character is that called ecclesiastical or priestly majuscule, which
differs wholly from the civil characters and can, as a rule, be read by
the priests only. The New Testament and Psalms have been reprinted at
various times from this original edition, both in priestly and civil
characters, and of the latter kind very good and cheap copies can be
obtained at the British and Foreign Bible Society, printed, however, at
Tiflis. It is said that the edition of 1743 was conformed to the Slavonic
version of the Bible; and if this were true, it would, of course, impair
its value for critical purposes. Of this statement, however, the writer’s
collations, so far as they go, afford no proof. Such variations as there
are between the printed edition and the manuscript texts are notified in
these collations. The point, however, could easily be settled by a
thorough comparison of the printed text with the Slavonic.

The MSS. of Tiflis include the last verses of Mark, and the Vatican MS.
contains the narrative of the woman taken in adultery, but places it after
ver. 44, instead of after ver. 52 of the seventh chapter of John. The
printed edition places it after ver. 52, and this uncertainty as to where
to insert the narrative, in itself indicates that it is a later
interpolation. The printed text also contains the text about the three
witnesses; but it is pieced into the context in an awkward and
ungrammatical way; and whether it is in any MS. the writer cannot say. The
following all too brief collations prove that the printed text fairly
represents the MSS.; from which, indeed, it differs very little except in
its more modern orthography. It is certain, however, that the most ancient
MSS. of this version must be collated and a critical text of it prepared,
before it can be quite reliably used as an early witness to the Greek text
in regard to any particular points. Where the earliest Greek authorities
waver as to the particles by which the parts of the narrative shall be
connected—some, e.g. giving καί, others δέ, others οὖν—the Georgian
constantly passes abruptly to the new matter without any connecting
particle at all—and this, although as a language Georgian is richer in
such connecting particles than is Greek. This peculiarity of the version,
which is also shared by the old Armenian version, seems to prove that it
was made from a primitive text, in which editors had not yet begun to
smooth away the sudden transitions.



(5) The Slavonic Version (Slav.(129)).


This version of the Bible is ascribed to Cyril and Methodius, who lived at
the end of the ninth century. It is uncertain, however, how much of the
New Testament was translated at that date, and how much was the work of a
later time. The manuscripts of the version exist in two characters called
Glagolitic and Cyrillic: of these it is now generally agreed that the
former is the earlier. In considering the version from the point of view
of the textual criticism of the New Testament, we need not deal with its
later history except in so far as that throws light on its original form.
The chief points to which reference will be made will be (i) the different
Manuscripts in which the version exists, with their distinctive
characteristics, and the evidence they afford as to the earliest form—the
_Urtext_—of the version, and (ii) the Greek text presupposed by the
version in the form in which we have it.

It will be convenient to divide the New Testament into three component
parts, (i) the Gospels, (ii) the Acts and Epistles, or the _Apostol_ as it
is called in Slavonic, (iii) the Apocalypse. There can be little doubt
that the Gospels were the earliest part to be translated or that this
translation was made for liturgical purposes. This last point explains the
great preponderance of MSS. of the version in which the Gospels are
arranged in the form of a lectionary(130).

Amongst the earliest manuscripts of the Gospels are the Codex
Zographensis, Codex Marianus, and the Codex Assemanicus. The two first
Jagić ascribes to the tenth or eleventh century. All these are written for
the most part in the Glagolitic character. Besides these, mention must be
made of the Ostromir Codex, written in Cyrillic characters, by Gregory, a
deacon at Novgorod, and dating from the year 1056-7. In considering the
distinctive characteristics of these manuscripts of the version, the first
point to notice is that they each preserve certain dialectical forms and
expressions by which their place of origin and to some extent their date
can be determined. Thus Miklosich regards the Codex Zographensis and Codex
Assemanicus as preserving Bulgarico-Slovenish forms, the Ostromir Codex as
representative of Russo-Slovenish, and so on. It is mainly in these
particulars that the manuscripts differ, though there are also other
differences by means of which it has been determined that some Codices,
especially those in the Glagolitic character, preserve the version in a
more original form than others, as for example the Ostromir Codex. These
differences consist(131), (i) in orthography, (ii) in the fact that the
later forms of the version translate Greek words left untranslated in the
older forms, (iii) in the substitution of later and easier words for
archaisms. It may also be noted that alterations are more numerous, as
might be expected, in copies of the Gospels made for liturgical purposes
than in other copies.

The same remarks would be true of the second part of the Bible, the
_Apostol_. This is pointed out by Voskresenski in the book to which
reference has been made, but which is known to the writer of these lines
only from a review. A very careful examination of the text of the
“Apostol,” based on the manuscripts of the Synodal Library, is made by
Gorski and Nevostruiev in the work referred to above, pp. 292 ff.

Oblak has examined the Slavonic version of the Apocalypse, of which the
manuscripts are fewer and later. The earliest manuscript is ascribed to
the thirteenth century, but the textual corruption which it exhibits in
comparison with other manuscripts requires that the version which it
embodies should be referred at least to the twelfth century. We do indeed
find a quotation of the Apocalypse (ix. 14) as early as the Isbornik of
Sviatoslav of the year 1073, but in a form so different from the MSS. of
the version now extant, that we must regard it as a quotation from memory.
The MSS. have many small variations, sometimes merely dialectical,
sometimes based on a different Greek text. They also show marks in places
of having been corrected with the help of the Latin. But in spite of all
their variations Oblak believes that all the manuscripts are to be
referred to one common translation made from a Greek text of the
Constantinopolitan type, which has been here and there corrupted by
Western influence.

It may be noted in conclusion that the earliest dated complete manuscript
of the Gospels is dated 1144, the earliest manuscript of the whole Bible,
A.D. 1499, and that the earliest printed edition is the famous Ostrog
Bible of 1581.

It remains to say something of the Greek text underlying the Slavonic
version, for this is the special point of view from which the versions are
being here considered. The instances will all be taken from the Gospels,
though others might have been added from those collected by Gorski. In the
first place it is necessary to draw attention to the fact that for
critical purposes a modern edition of the version will be found
insufficient. The following are cases(132) where the edition published by
the British and Foreign Bible Society, probably based on the Textus
Receptus, is misleading as to the real original reading of the version. In
St. Matt. xi. 2 Codd. Assem., Zograph., Ostrom., all imply the reading
διά, the modern edition δύο: in St. John i. 28 the MSS. have Bethany, the
edition Bethabara; in St. John vii. 39 the MSS. insert, the edition omits,
δεδομένον; in St. Matt. xxv. 2 the MSS. put μωραί before φρόνιμοι, the
edition inverts the order. The Ostromir Codex presents a later form of the
version, and so we find instances where the other two MSS., just referred
to, preserve what is probably a better reading. Thus in St. Luke ii. 3
they have οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, the Ostromir Ἰωσὴφ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ; in St.
John ix. 8 they have προσαίτης, it has τυφλός; in St. John xix. 14 they
have τρίτη, it reads ἕκτη; in St. John xxi. 15 they have ἀρνία, it has
πρόβατα. Again there are cases where one MS. of the version stands alone.
Thus Codex Zogr. stands alone, as against Assem. and Ostrom., in omitting
St. Luke xiv. 24, and inserting δευτεροπρώτῳ in St. Luke vi. 1. Again in
the choice of Slavonic words for the same Greek original, Cod. Zogr. will
agree with Codex Assem. against Codex Ostrom., though where the Codex
Assemanicus is freer in its rendering, the Ostromir Codex and Codex
Zographensis agree. Sometimes again the Codex Zographensis is alone in
curious readings which seem to be conflations of the texts found in the
other two manuscripts, or based on a conflate Greek text.

This version and the various manuscripts which contain it have received
most attention from Slavonic philologists engaged in examining the
earliest monuments of their language; but the readings which have been
given will be enough to show that it does not deserve to be dismissed, as
summarily as has been sometimes the case, from the number of those
versions which have a value for purposes of the Textual Criticism of the
New Testament.



(6) The Arabic Version (Arab.).


Arabic versions (Arab.) are many, though of the slightest possible
critical importance; their literary history, therefore, need not be traced
with much minuteness. A notice is quoted from Bar-hebraeus (Assemani,
Bibl. Or., ii. 335) to the effect that John, Patriarch of the Monophysites
from 631-640, translated the “Gospel” from Syriac into Arabic; and some
scholars have believed in the existence of a pre-Mohammedan version of
parts at least of the New Testament on other grounds; from such a version
(written in the “Hebrew” character) in the opinion of Sprenger (Das Leben
und die Lehre Muhammads, i. 131) come the verses of St. John’s Gospel (xv.
23-27, xvi. 1), cited by Ibn Ishaq (ob. 768) in his “Life of Mohammed”
(ed. Wüstenfeld, i. 150)(133). These verses are evidently translated from
the (Jerusalem?) Syriac; but the translation of the Gospel, from the
Syriac into Arabic, existing in a Leipzig MS. brought by Tischendorf from
the East and described at length by Gildemeister (De evangeliis in
Arabicum e simplici Syriaco translatis, Bonn, 1865) is shown by internal
evidence to be posterior to Islam (pp. 30 sq.). The Arabic versions of the
Gospel existing in MS. are divided by Guidi (Atti della R. Academia dei
Lincei, classe di scienze morali &c., 1888, 1-30) into five sorts: (1)
those made directly from the Greek; (2) made directly or corrected from
the Peshitto; (3) made directly or corrected from the Coptic; (4) MSS. of
two distinct eclectic recensions made in the Alexandrian Patriarchate in
the thirteenth century; (5) MSS. (chiefly derived from the Syriac) which
are distinguished by their style; being in rhymed prose or elegant Arabic.
MSS. of the first sort can all, he says, be traced to the convent of St.
Saba near Jerusalem, and are preceded by the lives of its founders, St.
Eutimius and St. Saba; the version they contain is to be ascribed to the
time of the Caliph Mamun (ninth century). Of the MSS. of class 4, one set
represents a recension made by Ibn El-Assāl, circ. 1250; while another
represents a less elaborate recension made shortly afterwards, in which
the passages omitted in the other were restored, while marginal notes
recorded their omission in other versions. Versions of the fifth class
were made in the tenth, fourteenth, and seventeenth centuries. A list of
MSS. containing the different recensions of all these classes is given by
Guidi, _l. c._, pp. 30-33.

The printed texts all represent varieties of the second eclectic recension
of class 4, of which five editions are enumerated by Gildemeister(_l. c._,
pp. 42, 3, and iv). 1. Roman edition of the Gospels from the Medicean
Press, 1591 (ar.r), edited by J. Baptista Raymundi, some copies having a
Latin translation by Antonius Sionita. The MS. on which this edition was
based is unknown. 2. Edition of Thomas Erpenius (1584-1624), Leyden, 1616,
containing the whole New Testament (ar.e). This edition was based on the
Leyden MS., Scaliger 217, written in Egypt in the year of the Martyrs 1059
(A.D. 1342-3); two other manuscripts also employed by Erpenius for the
Gospels are now in the Cambridge University Library (G. 5. 33, and G. 5.
27, written A.D. 1285). A third MS. employed for this edition was in the
Carshunic character. The Acts and Pauline Epistles, the Epistles of St.
James, St. Peter 1 and St. John 1 in this edition are translated from the
Peshitto; the remaining Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse are from some
other source; the latter shows some remarkable agreement with the
Memphitic (Hug, Einleitung in das N. T., pp. 433-5). 3. Edition of the
whole N. T. in the Paris Polyglott (ar.p), 1645, reprinted with little
alteration in the London Polyglott (1657). Gildemeister, _l. c._, proves
against Lagarde (_l. c._, xi) that this recension in the Gospels is not an
interpolated reprint of the Roman edition, but is based on a MS. similar
to Paris Anc. f. 27 (of A.D. 1619) and Coisl. 239 (new Suppl. Ar. 27)
described by Scholz, “Bibl. Krit. Reise,” pp. 56, 58. The Acts, Epistles,
and Apocalypse follow the Greek, but are by another translator. 4. Edition
of the whole N. T. in the Carshunic character (Rome, 1703), edited by
Faustus Naironus, for the use of the Maronites, from a MS. brought from
Cyprus, reprinted Paris, 1827; the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse
represent the same version as that of Erpenius, but in a different
recension. 5. Edition of the four Gospels from a Vienna MS. (previously
described by S. C. Storr, Dissertatio inauguralis critica de evangeliis
Arabicis, Tübingen, 1875, p. 17 sq.), by P. de Lagarde (Die vier
Evangelien Arabisch, Leipzig, 1864). The MS. contains various readings
from the Coptic, Syriac, and Latin (according to Lagarde, Gildemeister
more naturally renders rūmī by Greek). The editor has prefixed a table of
variants between his text and that of Erpenius, but regards the relation
of the former to the original as involving questions too complicated for
immediate discussion (p. xxxi).

Extracts from MSS. of Arabic versions in French and Italian libraries are
given by J. M. A. Scholz, Biblisch-Kritische Reise, Leipzig and Sorau,
1823; a description of several others, some of great antiquity, is to be
found in Tischendorf’s “Anecdota Sacra et Profana,” pp. 70-73 (2nd ed.);
and Professor Rendel Harris, in “Biblical Fragments from Sinai”
(Cambridge, 1890) has published a facsimile of a fragment of an Arabic
version from a bilingual MS. of the ninth century; the version whence it
is derived agrees with none of those that have been published, and was
probably older than any of them.

The repeated revision and correction which these translations have
undergone (Gildemeister, _l. c._, 1-3), while they give evidence of the
industry and zeal of the Arabic-speaking Christians, have made scholars
despair of employing them for critical purposes; “they rather serve,” says
Gildemeister, “to illustrate the history of biblical and Christian
studies.”



(7) The Anglo-Saxon Version (Sax.).


There is but one known version of the four Gospels (the only portion of
the N. T. that was translated into A.-S.); this version was made, probably
in the South-West of England at or near Bath, in the last quarter of the
tenth century. It is preserved in four MSS.: (Corp.) Corpus Christi Coll.
Camb. MS. 140; (B) Bodleian Lib. MS. 441; (C) Cotton MS. Otho C. I
(seriously injured by fire), and (A) Camb. Univ. Lib. MS. Ii. 2. 11. Of
these the first three may be dated, in round number, about the year 1000;
the fourth (A) belongs to the following half-century. The Bodl. Lib. has
also recently acquired a fragment of four leaves of St. John’s Gospel,
which agrees closely with A. [Published by Napier in “Archiv f. n.
Sprachen,” vol. lxxxvii. p. 255 f.]

It may also be mentioned that there are in the Brit. Mus. two additional
copies of this version (Bibl. Reg. MS. I. A. xiv, and Hatton MS. 38).
These belong to a period after the Conquest and have no critical value,
for the first is copied from B, and the second is copied from the first.

This version is based upon a type of the Vulgate MSS. that has not yet
been definitely determined. Old Latin readings make it certain that the
original MS. was of the mixed type.

Next in importance to this version are the two following Latin MSS. of the
four Gospels, with an interlinear Anglo-Saxon gloss. (1) MS. Nero D. 4
(the Lindisfarne MS., also known as the Durham Book). The Latin was
written by Eadfrith, bishop of Lindisfarne 698-721; the interlinear gloss
being about two and a half centuries later, made near Durham about the
year 950. (2) The Rushworth MS. (Bodl. Lib. Auct. D. ii. 19). The Latin
was written by the scribe Macregol, probably in the eighth century. The
gloss, by the scribes Farman and Owun, is referred to the latter half of
the tenth century. These two Latin texts differ but slightly; they are
also of the Vulgate types.

All the MSS. that have now been mentioned are published in one volume (of
four parts) by Professor W. W. Skeat: “The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon,
Northumbrian, and Old Mercian Versions, synoptically arranged, with
collations exhibiting all the readings of all the MSS.; together with the
Early Latin Version as contained in the Lindisfarne MS.; collated with the
Latin Version in the Rushworth MS. Cambridge: University Press,
1871-1887.” Dr. James W. Bright has published an edition of St. Luke’s
Gospel of the A.-S. Version, Oxford, 1892, and has in preparation a
critical edition of the entire Version [which has been published
recently]. The earlier editions of the Anglo-Saxon Gospels are by
Archbishop Parker, 1571; Dr. Marshall (rector of Lincoln College), 1665;
Benjamin Thorpe, 1842; Dr. Joseph Bosworth, 1865.



(8) The Frankish Version (Fr.).


A Frankish version of St. Matthew, from a manuscript of the ninth century
at St. Gall, in the Frankish dialect of the Teutonic, was published by J.
A. Schmeller in 1827. Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. 225) thinks it
worthy of examination, but does not state whether it was translated from
the Greek or Latin: the latter supposition is the more probable.



(9) Persic Versions (Pers.).


Persic versions of the Gospels only, in print, are two: (1) one in
Walton’s Polyglott (pers.p) with a Latin version by Samuel Clarke (which
C. A. Bode thought it worth his while to reconstruct, Helmstedt, 1750-51,
with a learned Preface), obviously made from the Peshitto Syriac, which
the Persians had long used (“yet often so paraphrastic as to claim a
character of its own,” Malan, _ubi supra_, p. xi), “interprete Symone F.
Joseph Taurinensi,” and taken from a single manuscript belonging to E.
Pocock(134), _probably_ dated A.D. 1341. This version may prove of some
use in restoring the text of the Peshitto. (2) The second, though
apparently modern [xiv?] was made from the Greek (pers.w). Its publication
was commenced in 1652 by Abraham Wheelocke, Professor of Arabic and
Anglo-Saxon and University Librarian at Cambridge, at the expense of Sir
Th. Adams, the generous and loyal alderman of London. The basis (as
appears from the volume itself) was an Oxford codex (probably Laud. A. 96
of the old notation), which Wheelocke, in his elaborate notes at the end
of each chapter, compared with Pocock’s and with a third manuscript at
Cambridge (Gg. v. 26), dated 1014 of the Hegira (A.D. 1607). On
Wheelocke’s death in 1653 only 108 pages (to Matt, xviii. 6) were printed,
but his whole text and Latin version being found ready for the press, the
book was published with a second title-page, dated London, 1657, and a
short Preface by an anonymous editor (said to be one Pierson), who in lieu
of Wheelocke’s notes, which break off after Matt. xvii., appended a simple
collation of the Pocock manuscript from that place. The Persians have
older versions, parts of both Testaments, still unpublished. There is
another copy of the Persian Gospels at Cambridge, which once belonged to
Archbishop Bancroft, and was brought from Lambeth in 1646, but was not
restored in 1662 with the other books belonging to the Lambeth Library.



CHAPTER VI. ON THE CITATIONS FROM THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT OR ITS VERSIONS
MADE BY EARLY ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS, ESPECIALLY BY THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS.


1. We might at first sight be inclined to suppose that the numerous
quotations from the New Testament contained in the remains of the Fathers
of the Church and other Christian writers from the first century of our
era downwards, would be more useful even than the early versions, for
enabling us to determine the character of the text of Scripture current in
those primitive times, from which no manuscripts of the original have come
down to us(135). Unquestionably the testimony afforded by these venerable
writings will be free from some of the objections that so much diminish
the value of translations for critical purposes which have been stated at
the commencement of this volume: and the use made of it by Dean Burgon in
his remarkable volume entitled the “Revision Revised(136),” has shown
scholars how vast a body of valuable illustrations has received inadequate
attention. But not to insist on the fact that many important passages of
the New Testament have not been cited at all in any very ancient work now
extant, this species of evidence labours under difficulties peculiarly its
own. Not only is this kind of testimony fragmentary and not (like that of
versions) continuous, so that it often fails us where we should most wish
for information: but the Fathers were better theologians than critics;
they sometimes quoted loosely, or from memory, often no more of a passage
than their immediate purpose required; and what they actually wrote has
been found liable to change on the part of copyists and unskilful editors.
But when all is considered, the Fathers must be at least held under due
limitations to be witnesses to the readings found in the codices which
they used. If theirs is secondary evidence, it is nevertheless in many
cases virtually older than any that can be had from MSS. of the entire
text. The fewness of early MSS. adds importance to other early testimony.
And the strength of this kind of evidence is found at the highest, when
the issue is of a somewhat broader character than usual, and when a large
number of quotations are found to corroborate testimony from MSS. and the
testimony of Versions. In fact the strength of their evidence is to be
seen especially in three aspects: First, they supply us with numerous
codices, though at second hand, at a very early date; secondly, there is
no doubt whatever that the date of the codices used by them is not later
than when they wrote, and their own date is usually a matter of no
question; and thirdly, they help us to assign the locality to remarkable
readings(137). In other words, the unknown MS. derives life and character
from the Father who uses it(138). On the other hand, the same author
perpetually cites the selfsame text under two or more various forms; in
the Gospels it is often impossible to determine to which of the three
earlier ones reference is made; and, on the whole, where Scriptural
quotations from ecclesiastical writers are single and unsupported, they
may safely be disregarded altogether. An _express_ citation, however, by a
really careful Father of the first four or five centuries (as Origen, for
example), if supported by manuscript authority, and countenanced by the
best versions, claims our respectful attention, and powerfully vindicates
the reading which it favours(139). In fact, like Versions, Patristic
citations cannot be taken primarily to establish any reading. But they are
often invaluable in supplying support to manuscriptal authority, whether
by proving a primitive antiquity, or in demonstrating by an overwhelming
body of testimony that the passage or reading was accepted in all ages and
in many provinces of the earlier church. Frequently also, they are of
unquestionable use, when they bear witness in a less striking manner, or
in smaller number.

2. The practice of illustrating the various readings of Scripture from the
reliques of Christian antiquity is so obvious and reasonable, that all who
have written critical annotations on the sacred text have resorted to it,
from Erasmus downwards: the Greek or Latin commentators are appealed to in
four out of the five marginal notes found in the Complutensian N. T. When
Bishop Fell, however, came to prepare the first edition of the Greek
Testament attended with any considerable apparatus for improving the text,
he expressly rejected “S. Textus loca ab antiquis Patribus aliter quam pro
recepto more laudata,” from which the toil of such a task did not so much
deter him, “quam cogitatio quod minus utile esset futurum iisdem
insistere.” (N. T. 1675, Praef.). “Venerandi enim illi scriptores,” he
adds, “de verborum apicibus non multum soliciti, ex memoriâ quae ad
institutum suum factura videbantur passim allegabant; unde factum ut de
priscâ lectione ex illorum scriptis nil ferè certi potuerit hauriri.” It
is certainly to the credit of Mill’s sagacity that he did not follow his
patron’s example by setting aside Patristic testimony in so curt and
compendious a manner(140). Nevertheless, no one can study Mill’s
“Prolegomena” without being conscious of the fact, that the portion of
them relating to the history of the text, as gathered from ecclesiastical
writers, and the accumulation of that mass of quotations from the Fathers
which stands below his Scripture text, must have been, what he asserts,
the result of some years’ labour (N. T. Proleg. § 1513): yet these are
just the parts of his celebrated work that have given the least
satisfaction. The field indeed is too vast to be occupied by one man. A
whole library of authors has to be thoroughly searched; each cited passage
must be patiently examined; the help of _indices_ should be employed
critically and warily; the best editions must be used, and even then the
text of the very writers is to be corrected, so far as may be, by the
collation of other manuscripts(141).

3. To Griesbach must be assigned the merit of being the earliest editor of
the Greek Testament who saw, or at least who acted upon the principle,
that it is far more profitable as well as more scholarlike to do one thing
well, than to attempt more than can be performed completely and with
accuracy. He was led by certain textual theories he had adopted, and which
we shall best describe hereafter, to a close examination of the works of
Origen, the most celebrated Biblical critic of antiquity. The result,
published in the second volume of his Symbolae Criticae, is a lasting
monument both of his industry and acuteness; and, if not quite faultless
in point of correctness, deserves to be taken as a model by his
successors. Tregelles, of whose Greek Testament we shall presently speak,
has evidently bestowed much pains on his Patristic citations; to Eusebius
of Caesarea, especially to those portions of his works which have been
recently edited or brought to light, he has paid great attention: but
besides many others, Chrysostom has been grievously neglected, although
the subjects of a large portion of his writings, the early date of some of
his codices(142), the extensive collations of Matthaei, and the excellent
modern editions of most of his Homilies, might have sufficed to commend
him to our particular regard. The custom, commenced by Lachmann, and
adopted by Tregelles (though not uniformly by Tischendorf), of recording
the exact edition, volume, and page of the writer quoted, and in important
cases of copying his very words, cannot be too much praised: we would
suggest, however, the expediency of further indicating, by an asterisk or
some such mark, those passages about which there can be no ambiguity as to
the reading adopted by the author, in order to distinguish them from
others which are of infinitely less weight and importance.

4. But the greatest step of all towards an extended use of Patristic
testimony has been taken by Dean Burgon, and since his much lamented death
the results of his labours have been made public. In the early stages of
his studies in Sacred Textual Criticism, Burgon saw the extreme
value—afterwards recognized by Dr. Scrivener—of an exhaustive use of
citations from the Fathers and other ecclesiastical authors; and after a
conversation with the Earl of Cranbrook, then Mr. Gathorne Hardy, he set
himself upon the vast task of collecting indices of New Testament
quotations occurring in the books of those writers. “This involved his
looking through all the Greek and Latin folios of the Fathers, and marking
the texts in the margin. Then the folios passed into the hands of his
assistants, who arranged the references in the order of the Books of the
New Testament, and copied them out; so that it might be only the work of a
minute to ascertain how Cyril, or Eusebius, or Gregory of Nyssa quoted
such a text(143),” and how many times it was quoted by the Father in
question. They were revised and enlarged some years after their first
collection. The striking use to which Burgon put his own indices has been
already noticed. After his death the sixteen stout volumes containing them
were acquired by the authorities of the British Museum, where they have
been found to be of much use in cataloguing. Steps have been already taken
for the publication of the part relating to the Gospels with Dean Burgon’s
other works on this great subject.

5. It may be convenient to subjoin an alphabetical list of the
ecclesiastical writers, both in Greek and Latin and in other languages
(with the usual abridgements for their names), which are the most often
cited in critical editions of the New Testament. The Latin authors are
printed in italics, and unless they happen to appeal unequivocally to the
evidence of Greek codices, are available only for the correction of their
vernacular translation. The dates annexed generally indicate the death of
the persons they refer to, except when “fl.” ( = _floruit_) is prefixed.

_Alcimus_ (Avitus), fl. 360.

_Ambrose_, Bp. of Milan, A.D. 397 (Ambr.).

_Ambrosiaster_, the false Ambrose, perhaps _Hilary_ the Deacon, of the
fourth century (Ambrst.).

Ammonius of Alexandria, circa 438 (Ammon.) _in Catenis_.

Amphilochius, fl. 380.

Anastasius, Abbot, fl. 650.

Anastasius Sinaita, fl. 570.

Andreas, Bishop of Caesarea, sixth century? (And.)

Andreas of Crete, seventh century.

Antiochus, monk, fl. 614.

Antipater, Bp. of Bostra, fl. 450.

Aphraates, the Syrian, fourth century.

Archelaus and Manes, fl. 278.

Arethas, Bp. of Caesarea Capp., tenth century? (Areth.)

Aristides, fl. 139.

Arius, fl. 325.

_Arnobius_ of Africa, 306 (Arnob.).

Asterius, fourth century.

Athanasius, Bp. of Alexandria, 373 (Ath.).

Athenagoras of Athens, 177 (Athen.).

_Augustine_, Bp. of Hippo, 430 (Aug.).

Barnabas, first or second century? (Barn.)

Basil, Bp. of Caesarea, 379 (Bas.).

Basil of Cilicia, fl. 497.

Basil of Seleucia, fl. 440 (Bas. Sel.).

_Bede_, the Venerable, 735 (Bede).

Caesarius of Arles, fl. 520.

Caesarius (Pseudo-) of Constantinople, 340 (Caes.).

Candidus Isaurus, fl. 500.

Capreolus, fl. 430.

Carpathius, John, fl. 490.

Cassianus, fl. 415.

_Cassiodorus_, 468-560 (?) (Cassiod.)

_Chromatius_, Bp. of Aquileia, fl. 390 (Chrom.).

Chrysostom, Bp. of Constantinople, 407 (Chrys.).

Chrysostom (Pseudo-), fl. eighth century.

Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194 (Clem.).

Clement, Bp. of Rome, fl. 90 (Clem. Rom.).

Clementines, the, second century.

Corderius,

Cosmas, Bp. of Maiuma, fl. 743.

Cosmas Indicopleustes, 535 (Cosm.).

_Cyprian_, Bp. of Carthage, 258 (Cypr.).

Cyril, Bp. of Alexandria, 444 (Cyr.).

Cyril, Bp. of Jerusalem, 386 (Cyr. Jer.).

Dalmatius, fl. 450.

Damascenus, John, 730 (Dam.)(144).

Damasus, Pope, fl. 366.

Didache, 80-120.

Didymus of Alexandria, 370 (Did.).

Diodorus of Tarsus, fl. 380.

Dionysius, Bp. of Alexandria, 265 (Dion.).

Dionysius of Alexandria (Pseudo-), third century.

Dionysius (Pseudo-) Areopagita, fifth century (Dion. Areop.).

Dionysius Maximus, fl. 259 (?).

Ephraem the Syrian, 378 (Ephr.).

Ephraem the Syrian (Pseudo-), fourth century.

Ephraim, Bp. of Cherson.

Epiphanius, Bp. of Cyprus, 403 (Epiph.).

Epiphanius, Deacon of Catana, fl. 787.

Erechthius, fl. 440.

Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II, fl. 430.

Eulogius, sixth century.

Eusebius of Alexandria,

Eusebius, Bp. of Caesarea, 340 (Eus.).

Eustathius, Bp. of Antioch, fl. 350.

Eustathius, monk,

Euthalius, Bp. of Sulci, 458 (Euthal.).

Eutherius, fl. 431.

Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116 (Euthym.).

Eutychius, fl. 553.

Evagrius of Pontus, 380 (Evagr.).

Evagrius Scholasticus, the historian, fl. 492.

_Facundus_, fl. 547.

_Faustus_, fl. 400.

Ferrandus, fl. 356.

_Fulgentius_ of Ruspe, fl. 508 (Fulg.).

_Gaudentius_, fl. 405 (Gaud.).

Gelasius of Cyzicus, fl. 476.

Gennadius, fl. 459.

Germanus of Constantinople, fl. 715.

Gregentius, fl. 540.

Gregory of Nazianzus, the Divine, Bp. of Constantinople, 389 (Naz.).

Gregory Naz. (Pseudo-).

Gregory, Bp. of Nyssa, 396 (Nyss.).

Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bp. of Neocaesarea, 243 (Thauma.).

_Gregory_ the Great, Bp. of Rome, 605 (Greg.).

_Haymo_, Bp. of Halberstadt, ninth century (Haym.).

Hegesippus, fl. 180.

Hermas, second century.

_Hieronymus_ (Jerome), 420 (Hier.) or (Jer.).

_Hilary_, Bp. of Arles, 429.

_Hilary_, Bp. of Poictiers, fl. 354 (Hil.).

_Hilary_, the deacon, fourth century.

Hippolytus, Bp. of Portus (?), fl. 220 (Hip.).

Ignatius, Bp. of Antioch, 107 (Ign.).

Ignatius (Pseudo-), fourth century.

Irenaeus, Bp. of Lyons, fl. 178; chiefly extant in an old Latin version
(Iren.).

Isidore of Pelusium, 412 (Isid.).

Jacobus Nisibenus, fl. 335.

Jobius, sixth century.

Julian, heretic, fl. 425.

Julius Africanus, fl. 220.

Justin Martyr, 164 (Just.).

Justin Martyr (Pseudo-), fourth century.

Justinian, Emperor, fl. 527-565.

_Juvencus_, fl. 320 (Juv.).

_Lactantius_, 306 (Lact.).

_Leo_ the Great, fl. 440.

Leontius of Byzantium, fl. 348.

Liberatus of Carthage, fl. 533.

_Lucifer_, Bp. of Cagliari, 367 (Luc.).

Macarius Magnes, third or fourth century.

Macarius Magnus, fourth century.

Manes, fl. 278. See Archelaus.

Marcion the heretic, 139 (Mcion.), cited by Epiphanius (Mcion-e) and by
_Tertullian_ (Mcion-t).

Maxentius, sixth century.

Maximus the Confessor, 662 (Max. Conf).

_Maximus_ Taurinensis, 466 (Max. Taur.).

Mercator, Marius, fl. 218.

Methodius, 311 (Meth.).

Modestus, patriarch of Jerus. seventh century.

Nestorius of C. P., fifth century.

Nicephorus, fl. 787.

_Nicetas_ of Aquileia, fifth century.

Nicetas of Byzantium, 1120.

Nilus, monk, fl. 430.

Nonnus, fl. 400 (Nonn.).

_Novatianus_, fl. 251 (Novat.).

Oecumenius, Bp. of Tricca, tenth century? (Oecu.)

_Optatus_, fl. 371.

Origen, b. 186, d. 253 (Or.).

Pacianus, Bp. of Barcelona, fl. 370.

Pamphilus the Martyr, 308 (Pamph.).

Papias, fl. 160.

_Paschasius_, the deacon?

Paulus, Bp. of Emesa, fl. 431.

Paulus, patriarch of Constantinople, fl. 648.

Peter, Bp. of Alexandria, 311 (Petr.).

_Petrus_ Chrysologus, Archbp. of Ravenna, fl. 440.

_Petrus_, Deacon, fl. sixth century.

Petrus Siculus, fl. 790.

Philo of Carpasus, fourth century.

_Phoebadius_, Bp. of Agen, fl. 358.

Photius, Bp. of Constantinople, 891 (Phot.).

Polycarp, Bp. of Smyrna, 166 (Polyc).

Porphyrius, fl. 290.

_Primasius_, Bp. of Adrumetum, fl. 550 (Prim.).

_Prosper_ of Aquitania, fl. 431.

_Prudentius_, 406 (Prud.).

_Rufinus_ of Aquileia, 397 (Ruf.).

Severianus, a Syrian Bp., 409 (Sevrn.).

Severus of Antioch, fl. 510.

Socrates, Church Historian, fl. 440 (Soc.).

Sozomen, Church Historian, 450 (Soz.).

Suidas the lexicographer, 980? (Suid.).

Symeon, fl. 1000.

_Symmachus_, fourth century.

Tatian of Antioch, 172 (Tat.).

Tatian (Pseudo-), third century.

_Tertullian_ of Africa, fl. 200 (Tert.)(145).

Theodore, Bp. of Mopsuestia, 428 (Thdor. Mops.).

Theodoret, Bp. of Cyrus or of Cyrrhus in Commagene, 458 (Thdrt.).

Theodorus of Heracleia, fl. 336.

Theodorus, Lector, fl. 525.

Theodorus Studita, fl. 794.

Theodotus of Ancyra, fl. 431.

Theophilus of Alexandria, fl. 388.

Theophilus, Bp. of Antioch, 182 (Thph. Ant.).

Theophylact, Archbp. of Bulgaria, fl. 1077 (Theophyl.).

_Tichonius_ the Donatist, fl. 390 (Tich.).

Timotheus of Antioch, fifth century.

Timotheus of Jerusalem, sixth century.

Titus, Bp. of Bostra, fl. 370 (Tit. Bost.).

Victor of Antioch, 430 (Vict. Ant.)(146).

_Victor_, Bp. of Tunis, 565 (Vict. Tun.).

_Victorinus_, Bp. of Pettau, 360 (Victorin.).

_Victorinus_ of Rome, fl. 361.

_Vigilius_ of Thapsus, 484 (Vigil.).

Vincentius Lirinensis, fl. 434.

Zacharias, patriarch of Jerusalem, fl. 614.

Zacharias, Scholasticus, fl. 536.

Zeno, Bp. of Verona, fl. 463.

Besides the writers, the following anonymous works contain quotations from
the New Testament:—

_Auctor libri de xlii. mansionibus_ (auct. mans.), fourth century.

_Auctor libri de Promissionibus dimid. temporis_ (Prom.), third century.

_Auctor libri de Rebaptismate_ (Rebapt.), fourth century.

_Auctor libri de singularitate clericorum_ (auct. sing. cler.), fourth
century.

_Auctor libri de Vocatione gentium_ (Vocat.), fourth century.

Acta Apostolica (Syriac), fourth century.

Acta Philippi, fourth century.

Acta Pilati, third or fourth century.

Anaphora Pilati, fifth century.

Apocalypse of Peter, 170 (?)

Apocryphal Gospels, second century, &c.

Apostolic Canons, third to fifth century.

Apostolic Constitutions, third and fourth centuries.

Chronicon Paschale, 628.

Concilia, Labbè or Mansi.

Cramer’s Catena.

Dialogus, fourth or fifth century.

Eastern bishops at Ephesus, 431.

Gospel of Peter, about 165.

_Opus Imperfectum_, fifth century.

_Quaestiones ex utroque Testamento_, fourth century(147).



CHAPTER VII. PRINTED EDITIONS AND CRITICAL EDITIONS.


It would be quite foreign to our present design, to attempt to notice all
the editions of the New Testament in Greek which have appeared in the
course of the last three centuries and a half, nor would a large volume
suffice for such a labour. We will limit our attention, therefore, to
those early editions which have contributed to form our commonly received
text, and to such others of more recent date as not only exhibit a revised
text, but contain an accession of fresh critical materials for its more
complete emendation(148).

Since the Latin or “Mazarin” Bible, printed between 1452 and 1456, was the
first production of the new-born printing-press (_see_ above, p. 61), and
the Jews had published the Hebrew Bible in 1488, we must impute it to the
general ignorance of Greek among divines in Western Europe, that although
the two songs, _Magnificat_ and _Benedictus_ (Luke i), were annexed to a
Greek Psalter which appeared first at Milan in 1481, without a printer’s
name; next at Venice in 1486, being edited by a Greek; again at Venice
from the press of Aldus in 1496 or 1497: and although the first six
chapters of St. John’s Gospel were published at Venice by Aldus Manutius
in 1504, and John vi. 1-14 at Tübingen in 1514, yet the first _printed_
edition of the whole in N. T. the original is that contained in—

1. THE COMPLUTENSIAN POLYGLOTT(149) (6 vols., folio), the munificent
design of Francis Ximenes de Cisneros [1437-1517], Cardinal Archbishop of
Toledo, and Regent of Castile (1506-1517). This truly eminent person, six
years of whose humble youth were spent in a dungeon through the caprice of
one of his predecessors in the Primacy of Spain, experienced what we have
seen so conspicuously illustrated in other instances, that long
imprisonment ripens the intellect which it fails to extinguish. Entering
the Franciscan order in 1482, he carried the ascetic habit of his
profession to the throne of Toledo and the palace of his sovereign.
Becoming in 1492 Confessor to Queen Isabella the Catholic, and Primate
three years later, he devoted to pure charity or to public purposes the
enormous revenues of his see; founding the University at Alcalá de Henares
in New Castile, where he had gone to school, and defraying the cost of an
expedition which as Regent he led to Oran against the Moors. In 1502 he
conceived the plan of the first Polyglott Bible, to celebrate the birth of
him who afterwards became the Emperor Charles V, and gathered in his
University of Alcalá (_Complutum_) as many manuscripts as he could
procure, with men he deemed equal to the task, of whom James Lopez de
Stunica (subsequently known for his controversy with Erasmus) was the
principal: others being Æ. Antonio of Lebrixa, Demetrius Ducas of Crete,
and Ferdinand of Valladolid (_Pintianus_). The whole outlay of Cardinal
Ximenes on the Polyglott is stated to have exceeded 50,000 ducats or about
£23,000, a vast sum in those days:—but his yearly income as Primate was
four times as great. The first volume printed, Tom. v, contains the New
Testament in two parallel columns, Greek and Latin, the latter being that
modification of the Vulgate then current: the colophon on the last page of
the Apocalypse states that it was completed January 10, 1514, the printer
being Arnald William de Brocario. Tom. vi, comprising a Lexicon, indices,
&c., bears date March 17, 1515; Tom. i-iv of the Old Testament and
Apocrypha, 1517 (Tom. iv dated July 10), on November 8 of which year the
Cardinal died, full of honours and good deeds. This event must have
retarded the publication of the whole, since Pope Leo’s licence was not
granted until March 22, 1520, and Erasmus did not see the book before
1522. As not more than six hundred copies were printed, this Polyglott
must from the first have been scarce and dear, and is not always met with
in Public Libraries.

The Apocryphal books, like the N. T., are of course given only in two
languages; in the Old Testament the Latin Vulgate holds the chief place in
the middle, between the Hebrew and the Septuagint Greek(150). The Greek
type in the other volumes is of the common character, with the usual
breathings and accents; in the fifth, or New Testament volume, it is quite
different, being modelled after the fashion of manuscripts of about the
thirteenth century, very bold and elegant (_see_ Plate x, No. 26), without
breathings, and accentuated according to a system defended and explained
in a bilingual preface πρὸς τοὺς ἐντευξομένους, but never heard of before
or since: monosyllables have no accent, while in other words the _tone_
syllable receives the acute, the grave and circumflex being discarded. The
Latin is in a noble church-character, references are made from the one
text to the other by means of small letters, and where in either column
there is a void space, in consequence of words omitted or otherwise, it is
filled up by such curves as are seen in the bottom line of our specimen.
The foreign matter in this volume consists of the short Preface in Latin
and Greek, Eusebius Carpiano (but without the canons), Jerome’s letter to
Damasus, with the ordinary Latin Prologues and Arguments before each book.
St. Paul’s Epistles precede the Acts, as in Codd. א, 61, 69, 90, &c. and
before them stand the ἀποδημία παύλου, Euthalii περὶ χρόνων, the ordinary
ὑποθέσεις to all the twenty-one Epistles (grouped together), with
Theodoret’s _prologues_ subjoined to thirteen of the ὑποθέσεις. By the
side of the Latin text are numerous parallel passages, and there are also
five marginal notes (on Matt. vi. 13; 1 Cor. xiii. 3; xv. 31; 51; 1 John
v. 7, 8). The only divisions are the common Latin chapters, subdivided by
the letters A, B, C, D, &c. Copies of laudatory verses(151), an
interpretation of Proper Names, and a Greek Lexicon of the N. T., close
the volume.

It has long been debated among critics, what manuscripts were used by the
Complutensian editors, especially in the N. T. Ximenes is reported to have
spent 4,000 ducats in the purchase of such manuscripts; in the Preface to
the N. T. we are assured that “non quevis exemplaria impressioni huic
archetypa fuisse: sed antiquissima emendatissimaque: ac tante preterea
vetustatis, ut fidem eis abrogare nefas videatur: Que sanctissimus in
Christo pater et dominus noster Leo decimus pontifex maximus, huic
instituto favere cupiens ex apostolica bibliotheca educta misit....” Yet
these last expressions can hardly refer to the N. T., inasmuch as Leo X
was not elected Pope till March 11, 1513, and the N. T. was _completed_
Jan. 10 of the very next year(152). Add to this that Vercellone, whose
services to sacred literature have been spoken of above, brought to light
the fact that only two manuscripts are recorded as having been sent to the
Cardinal from the Vatican in the first year of Leo, and neither of them
(Vat. 330, 346) contained any part of the N. T.(153) The only one of the
Complutensian codices specified by Stunica, the Cod. Rhodiensis (Act. 52),
has entirely disappeared, and from a Catalogue of the thirty volumes of
Biblical manuscripts once in the library at Alcalà, but now at Madrid,
communicated in 1846 by Don José Gutierrez, the Librarian, we find that
they consist exclusively of Latin and Hebrew books, with the exception of
two which contain portions of the Septuagint in Greek(154). Thus we seem
cut off from all hope of obtaining direct information as to the age,
character, and present locality of the materials employed for the Greek
text of this edition.

It is obvious, however, that in the course of twelve years (1502-14),
Ximenes may have obtained _transcripts_ of codices he did not himself
possess, and since some of the more remarkable readings of the
Complutensian are found in but one or two manuscripts (e.g. Luke i. 64 in
Codd. 140, 251; ii. 22 in Cod. 76), such copies should of course be
narrowly watched. We have pointed out above the resemblance that Siedel’s
codex (Act. 42, Paul. 48, Apoc. 13) bears to this edition: so too Cod. 4
of the Gospels. Mill first noticed its affinity to Laud. 2 or Evan. 51,
Act. 32, Paul. 38 (Evan. 51), and though this is somewhat remote in the
Gospels, throughout the Acts and Epistles it is close and
indubitable(155). We see, therefore, no cause for believing that either
Cod. B, or any manuscript much resembling it in character, or any other
document of high antiquity or first-rate importance, was employed by the
editors of this Polyglott. The text it exhibits does not widely differ
from that of most codices written from the tenth century downwards.

That it was corrupted from the parallel Latin version was contended by
Wetstein and others on very insufficient grounds. Even the Latinism
βεελζεβούβ Matt. x. 25, seems a mere inadvertence, and is corrected
immediately afterwards (xii. 24, 27), as well as in the four other places
wherein the word is used. We need not deny that 1 John v. 7, 8 was
interpolated, and probably translated from the Vulgate; and a few other
cases have a suspicious look (Rom. xvi. 5; 2 Cor. v. 10; vi. 15; and
especially Gal. iii. 19); the articles too are employed as if they were
unfamiliar to the editor (e.g. Acts xxi. 4; 8): yet we must emphatically
deny that on the whole the Latin Vulgate had an appreciable effect upon
the Greek. This last point had been demonstrated to the satisfaction of
Michaelis and of Marsh by Goeze(156), in whose short tract many readings
of Cod. Laud. 2 are also examined. In the more exact collation of the N.
T., which we have made with the common text (Elzevir 1624), and which
appeared in the first edition of the present work, out of 2,780 places in
all, wherein the Complutensian edition differs from that of Elzevir (viz.
1,046 in the Gospels, 578 in the Pauline Epistles, 542 in the Acts and
Catholic Epistles, 614 in the Apocalypse), in no less than 849 the Latin
is at variance with the Greek; in the majority of the rest the difference
cannot be expressed in another language. Since the Complutensian N. T.
could only have been published from manuscripts, it deserves more minute
examination than it has received from Mill or Wetstein; and it were much
to be desired that minute collations could be made of several other early
editions, especially the whole five of Erasmus.


    Since this Polyglott has been said to be very inaccurately
    printed, it is necessary to state that we have noted just fifty
    pure errors of the press; in one place, moreover (Heb. vii. 3),
    part of the ninth Euthalian κεφάλαιον (εν ω ότι και του αβραάμ
    προετιμήθη) has crept into the text. All the usual peculiarities
    observable in later manuscripts are here, e.g. 224 itacisms
    (chiefly ω for ο, η for ει, ει for ι, υ for η, οι for ει, and vice
    versâ); thirty-two instances of ν ἐφελκυστικόν, or the
    superabundant ν, before a consonant; fifteen cases of the hiatus
    for the lack of ν before a vowel; ουτως is sometimes found before
    a consonant, but ουτω sixty-eight times; ουκ and ουχ are
    interchanged twelve times. The following peculiarities, found in
    many manuscripts, and here retained, may show that the grammatical
    forms of the Greek were not yet settled among scholars; παρήνγελεν
    Mark vi. 8; διάγγελε Luke ix. 60; καταγγέλειν Acts iv. 2;
    διαγγέλων Acts xxi. 26; καταγγέλων 1 Cor. ii. 1; παραγγέλω 1 Cor.
    vii. 10; αναγγέλλων 2 Cor. vii. 7; παραγγέλομεν 2 Thess. iii. 4;
    παράγγελε 1 Tim. iv. 11; v. 7; vi. 17. The augment is omitted nine
    times (Matt. xi. 17; Acts vii. 42; xxvi. 32; Rom. i. 2; Gal. ii.
    13; 1 Tim. vi. 10; 2 Tim. i. 16; Apoc. iv. 8; xii. 17); the
    reduplication twice (John xi. 52; 1 Cor. xi. 5); μέλλω and μέλει
    are confounded, Mark iv. 38; Acts xviii. 17; Apoc. iii. 2; xii. 4.
    Other anomalous forms (some of them would be called Alexandrian)
    are παμπόλου Mark viii. 1; νηρέαν Rom. xvi. 15; εξαιρείτε 1 Cor.
    v. 13; αποκτένει 2 Cor. iii. 6, _passim_; στιχούμεν Gal. v. 25;
    είπα Heb. iii. 10; ευράμενος _ibid._ ix. 12; απεσχέσθαι 1 Pet. ii.
    11; καταλειπόντες 2 Pet. ii. 15; περιβαλλείται Apoc. iii. 5;
    δειγνύντος _ibid._ xxii. 8. The stops are placed carelessly in the
    Greek, being (.), (,), rarely (·), never (;). In the Latin the
    stops are pretty regular, but the abbreviations very numerous,
    even such purely arbitrary forms as _xps_ for _Christus_. In the
    Greek σ often stands at the end of a word for ς, ï and often ü or
    _υ_ are set at the beginning of syllables: there are no instances
    of ι _ascript_ or _subscript_, and no capital letters except at
    the beginning of a chapter, when they are often flourished. The
    following forms are also derived from the general practice of
    manuscripts, and occur perpetually: απάρτι, απάρχης, δαν (for δ᾽
    ἂν), ειμή, εξαυτής, επιτοαυτό, εφόσον, εωσότου, καίτοιγε,
    καθημέραν, κατιδίαν, κατόναρ, μεθήμων, μέντοι, ουμή, τουτέστι; and
    for the most part διαπαντός, διατί, διατούτο, είτις, ουκέτι.
    Sometimes the preposition and its case make but a single word, as
    παραφύσιν, and once we find ευποιήσαι, Vulg. _benefacere_ (Mark
    xiv. 7).


The Complutensian text has been followed in the main by only a few later
editions, chiefly by Chr. Plantin’s Antwerp Polyglott (1569-72)(157).

2. ERASMUS’ NEW TESTAMENT was by six years the earlier published, though
it was printed two years later than the Complutensian. Its editor, both in
character and fortunes, presents a striking contrast with Ximenes; yet
what he lacked of the Castilian’s firmness he more than atoned for by his
true love of learning, and the cheerfulness of spirit that struggled
patiently, if not boldly, with adversity. Desiderius Erasmus (ἐράσμιος,
i.e. Gerald) was born at Rotterdam in 1465, or, perhaps, a year or two
later, the illegitimate son of reputable and (but for that sin) of
virtuous parents. Soon left an orphan, he was forced to take reluctantly
the minor orders, and entered the priesthood in 1492. Thenceforward his
was the hard life of a solitary and wandering man of letters, earning a
precarious subsistence from booksellers or pupils(158), now learning Greek
at Oxford (but αὐτοδίδακτος)(159), now teaching it at Cambridge (1510);
losing by his reckless wit the friends his vast erudition had won;
restless and unfrugal, perhaps, yet always labouring faithfully and with
diligence. He was in England when John Froben, a celebrated publisher at
Basle, moved by the report of the forthcoming Spanish Bible and eager to
forestall it, made application to Erasmus, through a common friend, to
undertake immediately an edition of the N. T.: “se daturum pollicetur,
quantum alius quisquam,” is the argument employed. This proposal was sent
on April 17, 1515, years before which time Erasmus had prepared numerous
annotations to illustrate a revised Latin version he had long projected.
On September 11 it was yet unsettled whether this, improved version should
stand by the Greek in a parallel column (the plan actually adopted), or be
printed separately: yet the colophon at the end of Erasmus’ first edition,
a large folio of 1,027 pages in all, is dated February, 1516; the end of
the Annotations, March 1, 1516; Erasmus’ dedication to Leo X, Feb. 1,
1516; and Froben’s Preface, full of joyful hope and honest pride in the
friendship of the first of living authors, Feb. 24, 1516. Well might
Erasmus, who had besides other literary engagements to occupy his time,
declare subsequently that the volume “praecipitatum fuit verius quam
editum;” yet both on the title-page, and in his dedication to the Pope, he
allows himself to employ widely different language(160). When we read the
assurance he addressed to Leo, “Novum ut vocant testamentum universum ad
Graecae originis fidem recognovimus, idque non temere neque levi opera,
sed adhibitis in consilium compluribus utriusque linguae codicibus, nec
iis sane quibuslibet, sed vetustissimis simul et emendatissimis,” it is
almost painful to be obliged to remember that a portion of ten months at
the utmost could have been devoted to his task by Erasmus; while the only
manuscripts he can be imagined to have constantly used are Codd. Evan. 2,
Act. Paul. 2 and Paul. 7, with occasional reference to Evan. Act. Paul. 1
and Act. Paul. 4 (all still at Basle) for the remainder of the New
Testament, to which add Apoc. 1, now happily recovered, alone for the
Apocalypse. All these, excepting Evan. Act. Paul. 1, were neither ancient
nor particularly valuable, and of Cod. 1 he professed to make but small
account(161). As Apoc. 1 was mutilated in the last six verses, Erasmus
turned these into Greek from the Latin; and some portions of his self-made
version, which are found (however some editors may speak vaguely) _in no
one known Greek manuscript whatever_, still cleave to our received
text(162). Besides this scanty roll, however, he not rarely refers in his
Annotations to other manuscripts he had seen in the course of his travels
(e.g. on Heb. i. 3; Apoc. i. 4; viii. 13), yet too indistinctly for his
allusions to be of much use to critics. Some such readings, as alleged by
him, have not been found elsewhere (e.g. Acts xxiv. 23; Rom. xii. 20), and
may have been cited loosely from distant recollection (comp. Col. iii. 3;
Heb. iv. 12; 2 Pet. iii. 1; Apoc. ii. 18).

When Ximenes, in the last year of his life, was shown Erasmus’ edition
which had thus got the start of his own, and his editor, Stunica, sought
to depreciate it, the noble old man replied, “would God that all the
Lord’s people were prophets! produce better, if thou canst; condemn not
the industry of another(163).” His generous confidence in his own work was
not misplaced. He had many advantages over the poor scholar and the
enterprising printer of Basle, and had not let them pass unimproved. The
typographical errors of the Complutensian Greek have been stated; Erasmus’
first edition is in that respect the most faulty book I know.
Oecolampadius, or John Hausschein of Basle [1482-1531], afterwards of some
note as a disputer with Luther on the Sacramentarian controversy, had
undertaken this department for him; and was glad enough to serve under
such a chief; but Froben’s hot haste gave him little leisure to do his
part. No less than 501 _itacisms_ are imported from the manuscripts into
his printed text, and the ν ἐφελκυστικόν is perpetually used with verbs,
before a consonant beginning the next word. We must, however, impute it to
design that ι _subscript_, which is elsewhere placed pretty correctly, is
here set under η in the plural of the subjunctive mood active, but not in
the singular (e.g. James ii. ἐπιβλέψῃτε, εἴπῃτε _bis_, but ver. 2 εἰσέλθη
_bis_). With regard to the text, the difference between the two editions
is very wide in the Apocalypse, the text of the Complutensian being
decidedly preferable; elsewhere they resemble each other more closely, and
while we fully admit the error of Stunica and his colleagues in
translating from the Latin version into Greek, 1 John v. 7, 8, it would
appear that Erasmus has elsewhere acted in the same manner, not merely in
cases which for the moment admitted no choice, but in places where no such
necessity existed: thus in Acts ix. 5, 6, the words from σκληρόν to πρὸς
αὐτόν are interpolated from the Vulgate, partly by the help of Acts
xxvi(164).

Erasmus died at Basle in 1536, having lived to publish four editions
besides that of 1516. The second has enlarged annotations, and very truly
bears on its title the statement “multo quam antehac diligentius ab Er.
Rot. recognitum;” for a large portion of the misprints, and not a few
readings of the first edition, are herein corrected, the latter chiefly on
the authority of a fresh codex, Evan. Act. Paul. 3; The colophon to the
Apocalypse is dated 1518, Froben’s Epistle to the reader, Feb. 5, 1519. In
this edition ι _subscript_ is for the most part set right; _Carp._, _Eus.
t._, κεφ. _t._, τίτλοι, _Am._, _Eus._ are added in the Gospels; Dorotheus’
“Lives of the Four Evangelists” (_see_ Act. 89) stood before St. Matthew
in 1516; but now the longer “Lives” by Sophronius, with Theophylact’s
“Prologues,” are set before each Gospel. Κεφάλαια (not the Euthalian) are
given in both editions in Rom. 1, 2 Corinth. only, but the Latin chapters
are represented in the margin throughout, with the subdivisions A, B, C,
D. Of these two editions put together 3,300 copies were printed. The third
edition (1522) is chiefly remarkable for its insertion of 1 John v. 7, 8
in the Greek text(165), under the circumstances described above, Vol. I.
p. 200, in consequence of Erasmus’ controversy with Stunica and H.
Standish, Bp. of St. Asaph (d. 1534), and with a much weaker antagonist,
Edward Lee, afterwards Archbishop of York, who objected to his omission of
a passage which no Greek codex was then known to contain. This edition
again was said to be “tertio jam ac diligentius ... recognitum,” and
contains also “Capita argumentorum contra morosos quosdam ac indoctos,”
which he subsequently found reason to enlarge. The fourth edition (dated
March, 1527) contains the text in three parallel columns, the Greek, the
Latin Vulgate, and Erasmus’ recension of it. He had seen the Complutensian
Polyglott in 1522, shortly after the publication of his third edition, and
had now the good sense to avail himself of its aid in the improvement of
the text, especially in the Apocalypse, wherein he amended from it at
least ninety readings. His last edition of 1535 once more discarded the
Latin Vulgate, and differs very little from the fourth as regards the
text(166).

A minute collation of all Erasmus’ editions is a desideratum we may one
day come to see supplied. The present writer hopes soon to publish a full
comparison of his first and second editions with the Complutensian
text(167), as also with that of Stephen 1550, of Beza 1565, and of Elzevir
1624. All who have followed Mill over any portion of the vast field he
endeavoured to occupy, will feel certain that his statements respecting
their divergences are much below the truth: such as they are, we repeat
them for want of more accurate information. He estimates that Erasmus’
second edition contains 330 changes from the first for the better, seventy
for the worse (N. T., Proleg. § 1134); that the third differs from the
second in 118 places (_ibid._ § 1138)(168); the fourth from the third in
106 or 113 places, ninety being those from the Apocalypse just spoken of
(_ibid._ § 1141)(169). The fifth he alleges to differ from the fourth only
four times, so far as he noticed (_ibid._ § 1150): but we meet with as
many variations in St. James’ Epistle alone(170).

3. In 1518 appeared the Graeca Biblia at Venice, from the celebrated press
of Aldus: the work professes to be grounded on a collation of many most
ancient copies(171). However true this must be with regard to the Old
Testament, which was now published in Greek for the first time, Aldus
follows the first edition of Erasmus so closely in the New as to reproduce
his very errors of the press (Mill, N. T., Proleg. § 1122), even those
which Oecolampadius had corrected in the list of errata; though Aldus is
stated to differ from Erasmus in about 200 places, for the better or
worse(172). If this edition was really revised by means of manuscripts
(Cod. 131) rather than by mere conjecture, we know not what they were, or
how far intelligently employed.

Another edition out of the many which now began to swarm, wherein the
testimony of manuscripts is believed to have been followed, is that of
Simon Colinaeus, Paris, 1534, in which the text is an eclectic mixture of
the Complutensian and Erasmian(173). Mill states (Proleg. § 1144) that in
about 150 places Colinaeus deserts them both, and that his variations are
usually supported by the evidence of known codices (Evan. 119, 120 at
Paris, and Steph. ια᾽, i.e. Act. 8, Paul. 10, have been suggested), though
a few still remain which may perhaps be deemed conjectural. Wetstein (N.
T., Proleg. vol. i. p. 142) thinks that for Bogard’s Paris edition of 1543
with various readings Evan. 120 or Steph. ιδ᾽ might have been used, but
his own references hardly favour that notion.

4. The editions of Robert Stephen (Estienne), mainly by reason of their
exquisite beauty, have exercised a far wider influence than these, and
Stephen’s third or folio edition of 1550 is by many regarded as the
received or standard text. This eminent and resolute man [1503-59], “whose
Biblical work taken altogether had perhaps more influence than that of any
other single man in the sixteenth century(174),” early commenced his
useful career as a printer at Paris, and, having incurred the enmity of
the Doctors of the Sorbonne for his editions of the Latin Vulgate, was yet
protected and patronised by Francis I [d. 1547] and his son Henry II. It
was from the Royal Press that his three principal editions of the Greek N.
T. were issued, the fourth and last being published in 1551 at Geneva, to
which town he finally withdrew the next year, and made public profession
of the Protestant opinions which had long been gathering strength in his
mind. The editions of 1546, 1549 are small 12mo in size, most elegantly
printed with type cast at the expense of Francis: the opening words of the
Preface common to both, “_O mirificam_ Regis nostri optimi et
praestantissimi principis liberalitatem...” have given them the name by
which they are known among connoisseurs. Erasmus and his services to
sacred learning Stephen does not so much as name, nor indeed did he as yet
adopt him for a model: he speaks of “codices ipsa vetustatis specie pene
adorandos” which he had met with in the King’s Library, by which, he
boldly adds, “ita hunc nostrum recensuimus, ut nullam omnino literam secus
esse pateremur quam plures, iique meliores libri, tanquam testes,
comprobarent.” The Complutensian, as he admits, assisted him greatly, and
he notes its close connexion with the readings of his manuscripts(175).
Mill assures us (Proleg. § 1220) that Stephen’s first and second editions
differ but in sixty-seven places. My own collation of the two books gives
139 cases of divergence in the text, twenty-eight in punctuation. They
differ jointly from the third edition 334 times in the text, twenty-seven
in punctuation. In the Apocalypse the first and second editions are close
to the text of Erasmus, differing from each other but in eleven places,
while the third edition follows the Complutensian or other authorities
against the first in sixty-one places. In the folio or third edition of
1550 the various readings of the codices, obscurely referred to in the
Preface to that of 1546, are entered in the margin. This fine volume
(bearing on its title-page, in honour of Henry II, the inscription Βασιλεῖ
τ᾽ ἀγαθῷ, κρατερῷ τ᾽ αἰχμητῇ) derives much importance from its being the
earliest ever published with critical apparatus. In the Preface or Epistle
to the Reader, written after the example of the Complutensian editors both
in Greek and Latin, his authorities are declared to be sixteen; viz. α’,
the Spanish Polyglott; β’, which we have already discussed (_above_, p.
124, _note_ 3), γ᾽, δ᾽, ε᾽ ϛ᾽, ζ᾽, η᾽, ι᾽, ιε᾽ taken from King Henry II’s
Library; the rest (i.e. θ᾽, ια᾽, ιβ᾽, ιγ᾽, ιδ᾽, ιϛ᾽) are those ἂ αὐτοὶ
πανταχόθεν συνηθροίσαμεν, or, as the Latin runs, “quae undique corrogare
licuit:” these, of course, were not necessarily his own, one at least
(ιγ᾽, Act. 9, Paul. 11) we are sure was not. Although Robert Stephen
professed to have collated the whole sixteen for his two previous
editions, and that too ὡς οἷόν τε ἦν ἐπιμελέστατα, this part of his work
is now known to be due to his son Henry [1528-98], who in 1546 was only
eighteen years old (Wetstein, N. T., Proleg., vol. i. pp. 143-4). The
degree of accuracy attained in this collation may be estimated from the
single instance of the Complutensian, a book printed in very clear type,
widely circulated, and highly valued by Stephen himself. Deducting mere
_errata_, itacisms, and such like, it differs from his third edition in
more than 2,300 places, of which (including cases where π. or πάντες
stands for _all_ his copies) it is cited correctly 554 times (viz. 164 in
the Gospels, ninety-four in St. Paul, seventy-six in the Acts and Catholic
Epistles, 220 in the Apocalypse), and falsely no less than fifty-six
times, again including errors from a too general use of πάντες(176). I
would not say with some that these authorities stand in the margin more
for parade than use, yet the text is perpetually at variance with the
majority of them, and in 119 places with them all(177). If we trust
ourselves once more to the guidance of Mill (Proleg. § 1228), the folio of
1550 departs from its smaller predecessors of 1546, 1549, in 284
readings(178), chiefly to adopt the text of Erasmus’ fifth edition, though
even now the Complutensian is occasionally preferred (e.g. εὐλογήσας Matt.
xxvi. 26), most often in the Apocalypse, and that with very good reason.
Of his other fifteen authorities, ια᾽ (= Act. 8) and ιϛ᾽ (= Apoc. 3) have
never been identified, but were among the six in private hands: β᾽
certainly is Cod. D or Bezae; the learned have tried, and on the whole
successfully, to recognize the remainder, especially those in the Royal
(or Imperial, or National) Library at Paris. In that great collection Le
Long has satisfied us that γ᾽ is probably Evan. 4; δ᾽ is certainly Evan.
5; ε᾽ Evan. 6; ϛ᾽ Evan. 7; η᾽ Evan. L; ζ᾽ he rightly believed to be Evan.
8 (above, p. 191, note); ι᾽ appears to be Act. 7. Of those in the
possession of individuals in Stephen’s time, Bp. Marsh (who in his
“Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis,” 1795, was led to examine this subject
very carefully) has proved that ιγ᾽ is Act. 9; Wetstein thought θ᾽ was
Evan. 38 (which however see); Scholz seems to approve of Wetstein’s
conjecture which Griesbach doubted (N. T., Proleg., Sect. 1. p. xxxviii),
that ιβ᾽ is Evan. 9: Griesbach rightly considers ιδ᾽ to be Evan. 120; ιε᾽
was seen by Le Long to be Act. 10: these last four are now in the Royal
Library. It has proved the more difficult to settle them, as Robert
Stephen did not even print all the materials that Henry had gathered; many
of whose various readings were published subsequently by Beza(179) from
the collator’s own manuscript, which itself must have been very defective.
With all its faults, however, the edition of 1550 was a foundation on
which others might hereafter build, and was unquestionably of great use in
directing the attention of students to the authorities on which alone the
true text of Scripture is based. This standard edition contains the
following supplementary matter besides the Epistle to the reader:
Chrysostom’s Hom. I in S. Matthaeum (then first published): _Carp._, _Eus.
t._: Πίναξ μαρτυριῶν of O. T. passages cited in the N. T. being (1)
literal, (2) virtual: seventy-two Hexameter lines, headed Ερρικος ο
Ρωβερτου Στεφανου, φιλοθεω παντι: _prol._ by Theophylact following “Lives”
by Sophronius and Dorotheus of Tyre, with κεφ. _t._ before each Gospel:
τίτλ., κεφ., _Am._, _Eus._ Before the Acts stand Ἀποδημία Παύλου and
Euthalius περὶ τῶν χρόνων, κεφ. _t._ Before the Epistles is a new
title-page. Chrysostom’s _prol._ on the Pauline Epistles begins the new
volume. Each separate Epistle has prefixed _prol._ (chiefly by Theodoret)
and κεφ. _t._ The Acts and Epistles have κεφ., but the Apocalypse no prol.
or κεφ., except the ordinary Latin chapters, which are given throughout
the N. T., subdivided by letters.

R. Stephen’s smaller edition (16mo), published in 1551 at Geneva, though
that name is not on the title-page, is said to contain the Greek Text of
1550 almost unchanged(180), set between the Vulgate and Erasmus’ Latin
versions. In this volume we first find our present division of the N. T.
into verses: “triste lumen,” as Reuss calls it (p. 58), “nec posthac
extinguendum.”

5. Theodore de Bèze [1519-1605], a native of Vezelai in the Nivernois,
after a licentious youth, resigned his ecclesiastical preferments at the
age of twenty-nine to retire with the wife of his early choice to Geneva,
that little city to which the genius of one man has given so prominent a
place in the history of the sixteenth century. His noble birth and
knowledge of the world, aided by the impression produced at the Conference
at Poissy (1561) by his eloquence and learning, easily gained for Beza the
chief place among the French Reformed on the death of their teacher Calvin
in 1564. Of his services in connexion with the two Codd. D we have already
spoken: he himself put forth at intervals, besides his own elegant Latin
version published in 1556, ten editions of the N. T. (viz. four in folio
in the years 1565, 1582, 1588, 1598, and six in octavo in 1565, 1567,
1580, 1591, 1604, and 1611), the Latin Vulgate, and Annotations(181). A
better commentator perhaps than a critic, but most conspicuous as the
earnest leader of a religious party, Beza neither sought very anxiously
after fresh materials for correcting the text, nor made any great use of
what were ready at hand, namely, his own two great codices, the papers of
Henry Stephen, and Tremellius’ Latin version of the Peshitto. All his
editions vary somewhat from Stephen and from each other, yet there is no
material difference between any of them(182). He exhibits a tendency, not
the less blameworthy because his extreme theological views would tempt him
thereto, towards choosing that reading out of several which might best
suit his own preconceived opinions. Thus in Luke ii. 22 he adopts (and our
Authorized English version condescends to follow his judgement) τοῦ
καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῆς from the Complutensian, for which he could have known of
no manuscript authority whatever: _ejus_ of the Vulgate would most
naturally be rendered by αὐτοῦ (_see_ Campbell in loc.). Wetstein
calculates that Beza’s text differs from Stephen’s in some fifty places
(an estimate we shall find below the mark), and that either in his
translation or his Annotations he departs from Stephen’s Greek text in 150
passages (Wetst. N. T., Proleg., Tom. ii. p. 7).

6. The brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir set up a printing-press at
Leyden, which maintained its reputation for elegance and correctness
throughout the greater part of the seventeenth century. One of their
minute editions, so much prized by bibliomanists, was a Greek Testament,
24mo, 1624, alleging on the title-page (there is no Preface whatever) to
be ex _Regiis aliisque optimis editionibus cum curâ expressum_: by
_Regiis_, we presume, Stephen’s editions are meant, and especially that of
1550. The supposed accuracy (for which its good name is not quite
deserved) and the great neatness of this little book procured for it much
popularity. When the edition was exhausted, a second appeared in 1633,
having the verses broken up into separate sentences, instead of their
numbers being indicated in the margin, as in 1624. In the Preface it seems
to allude to Beza’s N. T., without directly naming him: “Ex regiis ac
_ceteris editionibus_, quae maxime ac prae ceteris nunc omnibus
probantur.” To this edition is prefixed, as in 1624, a table of quotations
(πίναξ μαρτυριῶν) from the Old Testament, to which are now added tables of
the κεφάλαια of the Gospels, ἔκθεσις κεφαλαίων of the Acts and all the
Epistles. Of the person entrusted with its superintendence we know
nothing; nearly all his readings are found either in Stephen’s or Beza’s
N. T. (he leans to the latter in preference(183)); but he speaks of the
edition of 1624 as that “omnibus acceptam;” and boldly states, with a
confidence which no doubt helped on its own accomplishment, “textum ergo
habes nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum
damus.” His other profession, that of superior correctness, is also a
little premature: “ut si quae vel minutissimae in nostro, aut in iis, quos
secuti sumus libris, superessent mendae, cum judicio ac cura tollerentur.”
Although some of the worst misprints of the edition of 1624 are amended in
that of 1633 (Matt. vi. 34; Acts xxvii. 13; 1 Cor. x. 10; Col. ii. 13; 1
Thess. ii. 17; Heb. viii. 9; 2 Pet. i. 7), others just as gross are
retained (Acts ix. 3; Rom. vii. 2; xiii. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 23; xiii. 3; 2
Cor. iv. 4; v. 19; viii. 8; Heb. xii. 9; Apoc. iii. 12; vii. 7; xviii.
16), to which much be added a few peculiar to itself (e.g. Mark iii. 10;
Rom. xv. 3; 1 Cor. ix. 2; 2 Cor. i. 11; vi. 16; Col. i. 7; iv. 7; Apoc.
xxii. 3): ἐθύθη in 1 Cor. v. 7 should not be reckoned as an erratum, since
it was adopted designedly by Beza, and after him by both the Elzevir
editions. Of real various readings between the two Elzevirs we mark but
seven or eight instances (in six of which that of 1633 follows the
Complutensian); viz. Mark iv. 18; viii. 24; Luke xi. 33; xii. 20; John
iii. 6 _bis_; 2 Tim. i. 12; iv. 51(184); Apoc. xvi. 5: and in 2 Pet. i. 1
(as also in ed. 1641) ἡμῶν is omitted after σωτῆρος(185).

Since Stephen’s edition of 1550 and that of the Elzevirs have been taken
as the standard or _Received_ text(186), the former chiefly in England,
the latter on the Continent, and inasmuch as nearly all collated
manuscripts have been compared with one or the other of these, it becomes
absolutely necessary to know the precise points in which they differ from
each other, even to the minutest errors of the press. Mill (N. T.,
Proleg., 1307) observed but twelve such variations; Tischendorf gives a
catalogue of 150 (N. T., Proleg., p. lxxxv, seventh edition). For the
first edition of the present work a list of 287 was drawn up, which, it is
hoped, will soon be reprinted, in a more convenient shape, in a volume now
in preparation(187).

The Science of Sacred Textual Criticism was built up in successive
Critical Editions of the Greek Testament, and to a brief description of
those this chapter will be devoted. It will not include therefore any
notice of editions like that of Valpy, or of Bloomfield, or Alford, or
Wordsworth, in which the textual treatment did not assume prominence or
involve advancement in this province. Still less is there space for such a
list of general editions of the New Testament as the very valuable one
compiled by Dr. Isaac H. Hall, and found in Schaffs “Companion to the New
Testament,” to which notice has been already directed. The progress of
Textual Science has involved two chief stages; the first, in which all
evidence was accepted and registered, and the second, when a selection was
made and the rest either partially or totally disregarded. Lachmann was
the leader in the second stage, of which to some extent Griesbach was the
pioneer. It is evident that in the future a return must be made, as has
been already advocated by many, to the principles of the first stage(188).

1. R. Stephen was the first to bring together any considerable body of
manuscript evidence, however negligently or capriciously he may have
applied it to the emendation of the sacred text. A succession of English
scholars was now ready to follow him in the same path, the only direct and
sure one in criticism; and for about eighty years our countrymen
maintained the foremost place in this important branch of Biblical
learning. Their van was led by Brian Walton [1600-61], afterwards Bishop
of Chester, who published in 1657 the London Polyglott, which he had
planned twelve years before, as at once the solace and meet employment of
himself and a worthy band of colleagues during that sad season when
Christ’s Church in England was for a while trodden in the dust, and its
ministers languished in silence and deep poverty. The fifth of his huge
folios was devoted to the New Testament in six languages, viz. Stephen’s
Greek text of 1550(189), the Peshitto-Syriac, the Latin Vulgate, the
Ethiopic, Arabic, and (in the Gospels only) the Persic. The exclusively
critical apparatus, with which alone we are concerned, consists of the
readings of Cod. A set at the foot of the Greek text, and, in the sixth or
supplementary volume, of Lucas Brugensis’ notes on various readings of the
Gospels in Greek and Latin; of those given by the Louvain divines in their
edition of the Vulgate (Walton, Polygl., Tom. vi. No. xvii); and
especially of a collation of sixteen authorities, whereof all but three,
viz. Nos. 1, 15, 16(190), had never been used before (Walton, Tom. vi. No.
xvi). These various readings had been gathered by the care and diligence
of Archbishop Ussher [1580-1656], then living in studious and devout
retirement near London(191). They are as follows:—(1) _Steph._ the sixteen
copies extracted from Stephen’s margin: (2) _Cant._ or Evan. D: (3)
_Clar._ or Paul. D: (4) _Gon._ or Evan. 59: (5) _Em._ or Evan. 64, and
also Act. 53: (6) _Goog._ or Evan. 62: (7) _Mont._ or Evan. 61: (8) _Lin._
or Evan. 56, and also Act. 33: (9) _Magd._ 1 or Evan. 57: (10) _Magd._ 2
or Paul. 42: (11) _Nov._ 1 or Evan. 58: (12) _Nov._ 2 or Act. 36: (13)
_Bodl._ 1 or Evan. 47: (14) _Trit._ or _Bodl._ 2, Evan. 96: (15) _March.
Veles._, the Velesian readings, described above, Vol. i. p. 209: (16)
_Bib. Wech._, the Wechelian readings, which deserve no more regard than
the Velesian. They were derived from the margin of a Bible printed at
Frankfort, 1597, by the heirs of And. Wechel. It is indifferent whether
they be referred to Francis Junius or F. Sylburg as editors, since all the
readings in the New Testament are found in Stephen’s margin, or in the
early editions.

Walton was thus enabled to publish very extensive additions to the
existing stock of materials. That he did not try by their means to form
thus early a corrected text, is not at all to be regretted; the time for
that attempt was not yet arrived. He cannot, however, be absolved from the
charge to which R. Stephen had been before amenable, of suppressing a
large portion of the collations which had been sent him. The Rev. C. B.
Scott, Head Master of Westminster School, found in the Library of Emmanuel
College, Cambridge, the readings of Codd. D. 59, 61, 62, prepared for
Walton (Dobbin, Cod. Montfort., Introd. p. 21), which Mill had access to,
and in his N. T. made good use of, as well as of Ussher’s other papers
(Mill, Proleg. § 1505).

2. Steph. Curcellaeus or Courcelles published his N. T. at Amsterdam in
1658, before he had seen Walton’s Polyglott. The peculiar merit of his
book arises from his marginal collection of parallel texts, which are more
copious than those of his predecessors, yet not too many for convenient
use: later editors have been thankful to take them as a basis for their
own(192). There are many various readings(193) (some from two or three
fresh manuscripts) at the foot of each page, or thrown into an appendix,
mingled with certain rash conjectures which betray a Socinian bias: but
since the authorities are not cited for each separate reading, these
critical labours were as good as wasted(194).

3. A more important step in advance was taken in the Greek Testament in
8vo, issued from the Oxford University Press in 1675. This elegant volume
(whose Greek text is mainly that of Elzevir 1633(195)) was superintended
by John Fell [1625-86], Dean of Christ Church, soon afterwards Bishop of
Oxford, the biographer of saint-like Hammond, himself one of the most
learned and munificent, if not quite the most popular Prelate, of that
golden age of the English Church, in whose behalf Anthony à Wood
designates him “the most zealous man of his time.” His brief yet
interesting Preface not only discusses the causes of various
readings(196), and describes the materials used for his edition, but
touches on that weak and ignorant prejudice which had been already raised
against the collection of such variations in the text of Scripture; and
that too sometimes by persons like John Owen(197) the Puritan, intrusive
Dean of Christ Church under Cromwell, who, but that we are loth to doubt
his integrity, would hardly be deemed a victim of the panic he sought to
spread. In reply to all objectors the Bishop pleads the comparative
insignificance of the change produced by various readings in the general
sense of Holy Writ, and especially urges that God hath dealt so
bountifully with His people “ut necessaria quaeque et ad salutis summam
facientia in S. literis saepius repeterentur; ita ut si forte quidpiam
minus commode alicubi expressum, id damnum aliunde reparari possit”
(Praef. p. 1). On this assurance we may well rest in peace. This edition
is more valuable for the impulse it gave to subsequent investigators than
for the richness of its own stores of fresh materials, although it is
stated on the title-page to be derived “_ex plus_ 100 _MSS. Codicibus_.”
Patristic testimony, as we have seen, Bishop Fell rather undervalued: the
use of versions he clearly perceived, yet of those at that time available,
he only attends to the Gothic and Coptic as revised by Marshall: his list
of manuscripts hitherto untouched is very scanty. To those used by Walton
we can add only _R_, the Barberini readings, then just published (_see_ p.
210); _B_, twelve Bodleian codices “quorum plerique intacti prius,” in
no-wise described, and cited only by the number of them which may
countenance each variation; _U_, the two Ussher manuscripts Evan. 63, 64
as collated by H. Dodwell; _P_, three copies from the Library of Petavius
(Act. 38, 39, 40); _Ge._, another from St. Germains (Paul. E): the
readings of the last four were furnished by Joh. Gachon. Yet this slight
volume (for so we must needs regard it) was the legitimate parent of one
of the noblest works in the whole range of Biblical literature, of which
we shall speak next.

4. NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECUM of Dr. John Mill, Oxford, 1707, in folio.
This able and laborious critic, born in 1645, quitted his native village
in Westmoreland at sixteen for Queen’s College, Oxford, of which society
he became a Fellow, and was conspicuous there both as a scholar and as a
ready extemporary preacher. In 1685 his College appointed him Principal of
its affiliated Hall, St. Edmund, so honourably distinguished for the
Biblical studies of its members; but Mill had by that time made good
progress in his Greek Testament, on which he gladly spent the last thirty
years of his life, dying suddenly in 1707, a fortnight after its
publication. His attention was first called to the subject by his friend,
Dr. Edward Bernard, the Savilian Professor at Oxford, whom he vividly
represents as setting before him an outline of the work, and encouraging
him to attempt its accomplishment. “Vides, Amice mi, opus ... omnium, mihi
crede, longè dignissimum, cui in hoc aetatis tuae flore, robur animi tui,
vigilias ac studia, liberaliter impendas” (Proleg. § 1417). Ignorant as
yet both of the magnitude and difficulty of his task, Mill boldly
undertook it about 1677, and his efforts soon obtained the countenance of
Bishop Fell, who promised to defray the expense of printing, and, mindful
of the frailty of life, urged him to go to press before his papers were
quite ready to meet the public eye. When about twenty-four chapters of St.
Matthew had been completed, Bishop Fell died prematurely in 1686, and the
book seems to have languished for many following years from lack of means,
though the editor was busy all the while in gathering and arranging his
materials, especially for the Prolegomena, which well deserve to be called
“marmore perenniora.” As late as 1704 John Sharp [1644-1714], Archbishop
of York, whose remonstrances to Queen Anne some years subsequently
hindered the ribald wit that wrote “A Tale of a Tub” from polluting the
episcopal throne of an English see, obtained from her for Mill a stall at
Canterbury, and the royal command to prosecute his New Testament
forthwith. The preferment came just in time. Three years afterwards the
volume was given to the Christian world, and its author’s course was
already finished: his life’s work well ended, he had entered upon his
rest. He was spared the pain of reading the unfair attack alike on his
book and its subject by our eminent Commentator, Daniel Whitby (“Examen
Variantium Lectionum,” 1710), and of witnessing the unscrupulous use of
Whitby’s arguments made by the sceptic Anthony Collins in his “Discourse
of Free Thinking,” 1713.

Dr. Mill’s services to Biblical criticism surpass in extent and value
those rendered by any other, except perhaps one or two men of our own
time. A large proportion of his care and pains, as we have seen already,
was bestowed on the Fathers and ancient writers of every description who
have used or cited Scripture. The versions are usually considered his
weakest point, although he first accorded to the Vulgate and to its
prototype the Old Latin the importance they deserve. His knowledge of
Syriac was rather slight, and for the other Eastern tongues, if he was not
more ignorant than his successors, he had not discovered how little Latin
translations of the Ethiopic, &c., can be trusted. As a collator of
manuscripts the list subjoined will bear full testimony to his industry:
without seeking to repeat details we have entered into before under the
Cursive MSS., it is right to state that he either himself re-examined, or
otherwise represented more fully and exactly, the codices that had been
previously used for the London Polyglott and the Oxford N. T. of 1675.
Still it would be wrong to dissemble the fact that Mill’s style of
collation is not such as the strictness of modern scholarship demands. He
seldom notices at all such various readings as arise from the
transposition of words, the insertion or omission of the Greek article,
from homoeoteleuta, or itacisms, or from manifest errors of the pen; while
in respect to general accuracy he is as much inferior to those who have
trod in his steps, as he rises above Stephen and Ussher, or the persons
employed by Walton and Fell. It has been my fortune to collate not a few
manuscripts after this great critic, and I have elsewhere been obliged to
notice these plain facts, I would fain trust in no disparaging temper.
During the many years that Mill’s N. T. has been my daily companion, my
reverence for that diligent and earnest man has been constantly growing:
the principles of internal evidence which guided his choice between
conflicting authorities were simple (as indeed they ought to be), but
applied with rare judgement, sagacity, and moderation: his zeal was
unflagging, his treatment of his sacred subject deeply reverential. Of the
criticism of the New Testament in the hands of Dr. John Mill it may be
said, that he found the edifice of wood, and left it marble.

The following Catalogue of the manuscripts known to Mill exhibits the
abridged form in which he cites them, together with the more usual
notation, whereby they are described in this work, and will tend, it is
believed, to facilitate the use of Mill’s N. T.

_Alex._     Cod. A

_Barb._     Evan.  112 (Wetstein)

_Baroc._    Act. 23

_B._ 1      Evan. E

_B._ 2      Act. 2

_B._ 3      Act. 4

_Bodl._ 1   Evan. 45

_Bodl._ 2   Evan. 46

_Bodl._ 3   Evst. 5

_Bodl._ 4   Evst. 18

_Bodl._ 5   Evst. 19

_Bodl._ 6   Evan. 47

_Bodl._ 7   Evan. 48

_Bu._       Evan. 70

_Cant._     Evan. Act. D

_Cant._ 2   Act. 24

_Cant._ 3   Act. 53

_Clar._     Paul. D

_Colb._ 1   Evan. 27

_Colb._ 2   Evan. 28

_Colb._ 3   Evan. 29

_Colb._ 4   Evan. 30, 31

_Colb._ 5   Evan. 32

_Colb._ 6   Act. 13

_Colb._ 7   Paul. 17

_Colb._ 8   Evan. 33

_Colb._ 9 = Colb. 1

_Colb._ 10 = Colb. 2

_Colb._ 11 = Colb. 1

_Cov._ 1    Evan. 65

_Cov._ 2    Act. 25

_Cov._ 3    Act. 26

_Cov._ 4    Act. 27

_Cov._ 5 _Sin._  Act. 28

_Cypr._     Evan. K

_Em._       _see_ Evan. 64

_Eph._      Evan. 71

_Gal._      Evan. 66

_Ger._      Paul. E

_Genev._    Act. 29

_Go._       Evan. 62

_Gon._      Evan. 59

_Hunt._ 1   Act. 30

_Hunt._ 2   Evan. 67

_L._        Evan. 69

_Laud._ 1   Evan. 50

_Laud._ 2   Evan. 51

_Laud_. 3      Act. E

_Laud_. 4      Evst. 20

_Laud_. 5      Evan. 52

_Lin_.         Evan. 56

_Lin_. 2       Act. 33

_Lu_.          Act. 21

_M_. 1         Evan. 60

_M_. 2         Evst. 4

_Magd_. 1      Evan. 57

_Magd_. 2      Paul. 42

_Med_.         Evan. 42

_Mont_.        Evan. 61

_N_. 1         Evan. 58

_N_. 1         Act. 36

_N_. 2         Act. 37

_Per_.         Evan. 91

_Pet_. 1       Act. 38

_Pet_. 2       Act. 39

_Pet_. 3       Act. 40

_Roe_. 1       Evan. 49

_Roe_. 2       Paul. 47

_Seld_. 1      Evan. 53

_Seld_. 2      Evan. 54

_Seld_. 3      Evan. 55

_Seld_. 4      Evst. 21

_Seld_. 5      Evst. 22

_Steph. codices_ XVI. _videas_  pp. 190-191

_Trin_.        Apost. 3

_Trit_.        Evan. 96

_Vat_.         Cod. B

_Vel_.         Evan. 111 (Wetstein)

_Vien_.        Evan. 76

_Usser_. 1     Evan. 63

_Usser_. 2     Evan. 64

_Wheel_. 1     Evan. 68

_Wheel_. 2     Evan. 95

_Wheel_. 3     Evst. 3

_Wech. videas_ p. 191

Mill merely drew from other sources _Barb._, _Steph._, _Vel._, _Wech._;
the copies deposited abroad (B 1-3, _Clar._, _Colb._ 1-11, _Cypr._,
_Genev._, _Med._, _Per._, _Pet._ 1-3, _Vat. Vien._), and _Trin._ or Apost.
3 he only knew from readings sent to him; all the rest, not being included
in Walton’s list, and several of them also, he collated for himself.

The Prolegomena of Mill, divided into three parts—(1) on the Canon of the
New Testament; (2) on the History of the Text, including the quotations of
the Fathers and the early editions; and (3) on the plan and contents of
his own work,—though by this time too far behind the present state of
knowledge to bear reprinting, comprise a monument of learning such as the
world has seldom seen, and contain much information the student will not
even now easily find elsewhere. Although Mill perpetually pronounces his
judgement on the character of disputed readings(198), especially in his
Prolegomena, which were printed long after some portions of the body of
the work, yet he only aims at reproducing Stephen’s text of 1550, though
in a few places he departs from it, whether by accident or design(199).

In 1710 Ludolph Kuster, a Westphalian, republished Mill’s Greek Testament,
in folio, at Amsterdam and Rotterdam (or with a new title page, Leipsic,
1723, Amsterdam, 1746), arranging in its proper place the matter cast by
Mill into his Appendix, as having reached him too late to stand in his
critical notes, and adding to those notes the readings of twelve fresh
manuscripts, one collated by Kuster himself, which he describes in a
Preface well worth reading. Nine of these codices collated by, or under,
the Abbé de Louvois are in the Royal Library at Paris (viz. _Paris._ 1,
which is Evan. 285; _Paris._ 2 = Evan. M; _Paris._ 3 = Evan. 9; _Paris._ 4
= Evan. 11; _Paris._ 5 = Evan. 119; _Paris._ 6 = Evan. 13; _Paris._ 7 =
Evan. 14; _Paris._ 8 = Evan. 15; _Paris._ 9 = the great Cod. C): but
_Lips._ = Evan. 78 was collated by Boerner; _Seidel._ = Act. 42 by
Westermann; Boerner. = Paul. G by Kuster himself. He keeps his own notes
separate from Mill’s by prefixing and affixing the marks [symbol],
[symbol], and his collations both of his own codices and of early editions
will be found more complete than his predecessor’s.

5. In the next year after Kuster’s Mill (1711), appeared at Amsterdam,
from the press of the Wetsteins, a small N. T., 8vo, containing all the
critical matter of the Oxford edition of 1675, a collation of one Vienna
manuscript (_Caes._ = Evan. 76), 43 canons “secundum quos variantes
lectiones N. T. examinandae,” and discussions upon them, with other
matter, especially parallel texts, forming a convenient manual, the whole
by G. D. T. M. D., which being interpreted means Gerhard de Trajecto Mosae
Doctor, this Gerhard von Mästricht being a Syndic of Bremen. The text is
Fell’s, except in Apoc. iii. 12, where the portentous erratum λαῷ for ναῷ
of Stephen is corrected. A second and somewhat improved edition was
published in 1735, but ere that date the book must have become quite
superseded.

6. We have to return to England once more, where the criticism of the New
Testament had engrossed the attention of RICHARD BENTLEY [1662-1742],
whose elevation to the enviable post of Master of Trinity College,
Cambridge, in 1699, was a just recognition of his supremacy in the English
world of letters. As early as 1691 he had felt a keen interest in sacred
criticism, and in his “Epistola ad Johannem Millium” had urged that
editor, in language fraught with eloquence and native vigour, to hasten on
the work (whose accomplishment was eventually left to others) of
publishing side by side on the opened leaf Codd. A, D (_Bezae_), D
(_Clarom._), E (_Laud._). For many years afterwards Bentley’s laurels were
won on other fields, and it was not till his friend was dead, and his
admirable labours were exposed to the obloquy of opponents (some honest
though unwise, others hating Mill because they hated the Scriptures which
he sought to illustrate), that our Aristarchus exerted his giant strength
to crush the infidel and to put the ignorant to silence. In his “Remarks
upon a late Discourse of Free Thinking in a letter to F[rancis] H[are]
D.D. by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis,” 1713, Bentley displayed that intimate
familiarity with the whole subject of various readings, their causes,
extent, and consequences, which has rendered this occasional treatise more
truly valued (as it was far more important) than the world-renowned
“Dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris” itself. As his years were now
hastening on and the evening of life was beginning to draw nigh, it was
seemly that the first scholar of his age should seek for his rare
abilities an employment more entirely suited to his sacred office than
even the most successful cultivation of classical learning; and so, about
this time, he came to project what he henceforth regarded as his greatest
effort, an edition of the Greek New Testament. In 1716 we find him in
conference with J. J. Wetstein, then very young, and seeking his aid in
procuring collations. In the same year he addressed his memorable “Letter”
to Wm. Wake [1657-1737], Archbishop of Canterbury, whose own mind was full
of the subject, wherein he explains, with characteristic energy and
precision, the principles on which he proposed to execute his great
scheme. As these principles must be reviewed afterwards, we will but touch
upon them now. His theory was built upon the notion that the oldest
manuscripts of the Greek original and of Jerome’s Latin version resemble
each other so marvellously, even in the very order of the words, that by
this agreement he could restore the text as it stood in the fourth
century, “so that there shall not be twenty words, or even particles,
difference.” “By taking two thousand errors out of the Pope’s [i.e. the
Clementine] Vulgate, and as many out of the Protestant Pope Stephen’s
[1550], I can set out an edition of each in columns, without using any
book under nine hundred years old, that shall so exactly agree word for
word, and, what at first amazed me, order for order, that no two tallies,
nor two indentures, can agree better(200).” In 1720, some progress having
been made in the task of collation, chiefly at Paris, by John Walker,
Fellow of Trinity, who was designated by Bentley “overseer and corrector
of the press,” but proved in fact a great deal more; Bentley published his
Proposals for Printing(201), a work which “he consecrates, as a κειμήλιων,
a κτῆμα ἐσαεί, a _charter_, a _magna charta_, to the whole Christian
Church; to last when all the ancient MSS. here quoted may be lost and
extinguished.” Alas for the emptiness of human anticipations! Of this
noble design, projected by one of the most diligent, by one of the most
highly gifted men our dear mother Cambridge ever nourished, nothing now
remains but a few scattered notices in treatises on Textual Criticism, and
large undigested stores of various readings and random observations,
accumulated in his College Library; papers which no real student ever
glanced through, but with a heart saddened—almost sickened—at the sight of
so much labour lost(202). The specimen chapter (Apocalypse xxii) which
accompanied his Proposals shows clearly how little had yet been done
towards arranging the materials that had been collected; codices are cited
there, and in many of his loose notes, not separately and by name, as in
Mill’s volume, but mostly as “Anglicus unus, tres codd. veterrimi, Gall.
quatuor, Germ. unus,” &c., in the rough fashion of the Oxford N. T. of
1675(203).

It has been often alleged that Bentley seems to have worked but little on
the Greek Testament after 1729: that his attention was diverted by his
editions of Paradise Lost (1732) and of Manilius (1739), by his Homeric
studies and College litigation, until he was overtaken by a paralytic
stroke in 1739, and died in his eighty-first year in 1742. Walker’s
collations of cursive manuscripts at Christ Church (Evan. 506), however,
obviously made for Bentley’s use, bear the date of 1732(204), and a closer
examination of his papers, bequeathed in 1786 by his nephew Richard
Bentley to Trinity College, shows that much more progress had been made by
him than has been usually supposed. Besides full collations of the uncial
Codd. AD (Gospels and Acts), of Cod. F (his θ) and G of St. Paul, of
Arundel 547 (Evst. 257) executed by Bentley himself, of Codd. B and C by
others at his cost, three volumes are found there full of critical
materials, which have been described by Mr. Ellis, and digested by Dr.
Westcott. One of these (B. xvii. 5) I was allowed by the Master and
Seniors to study at leisure at home. It is a folio edition of the N. T.,
Greek and Latin (Paris, ap. Claud. Sonnium, 1628, the Greek text being
that of Elzevir 1624), whose margin and spaces between the lines are
filled with various readings in Bentley’s hand, but not all of them
necessarily the results of his own labour, collected out of ten Greek and
thirty Latin manuscripts. The Greek are all cursives save Evst. 5, and his
connexion with them has been referred to above under the Cursive MSS. They
are

Evan. 51 (γ),
Evan.  54 (κ),
Evan.  60 (ε),
Evan. 113 (θ?),
Evan. 440 (ο),
Evan. 507 (τ),
Evan.  508 (δ),
Act.  23 (χ),
Apoc. 28 (κ),
Evst.  5 (α).

The Latin copies, which alone are described by Bentley in the fly-leaves
of the volume, may not be as easily identified, but some of them are of
great value, and are described above in Chap. III. These are

_chad._ (ξ),
_dunelm._ (Κ),
_harl._3 (Μ),
_lind._ (η),
_mac-regol_ (χ),
_oxon._ (Σ),
_oxon._ (Paul. χ),
_seld._ (Act. χ),
_vall._,
Westcott adds _harl._4 (Η).

A second mass of materials, all Latin, about twenty in number, and
deposited in England, is contained in the first volume of the Benedictine
edition of St. Jerome’s works (Paris, 1693). In this book (B. xvii. 14)
Dr. Westcott has pasted a valuable note, wherein he identifies the
manuscripts used by Bentley by the means of his own actual collation.
Those described above in Chap. III are the following:

B. M. Harl. 1802 (W),
B. M. _harl._2 (M. of Epistles, &c.),
B. M. Addit. 5463 (F),
B. M. King’s Lib. I. A. 18 (O),
B. M. King’s Lib. I. B. VII. (H),
B. M. King’s Lib. I. E. VI. (P),
B. M. C. C. C. Camb. 286 (B),
B. M. Trin. Coll. Camb. B. X. 5 (S),
B. M. Trin. Coll. Camb. B. X. 4 (T, _ibid._),
B. M. _lind._ (Y: as in B. XVII. 5),
B. M. Camb. Univ. Lib. Kk. I. 24 (χ).

Westcott further appropriates B. M. Cotton, Otho B. ix, as Bentley’s D;
Cotton Tib. A. ii (“the Coronation book”) as his ε; Cotton Otho C. v as
his φ; C. C. C. Camb. 197 as his C; King’s Library 1 D. ix as his A. His ξ
in B. xvii. 14 seems unrecognized.

These, of course, are no more than the rough materials of criticism.
Another copy of the N. T. has been carefully and curiously made available
for my use by the goodness of my friend Edwin Palmer, D.D., Archdeacon of
Oxford. It is numbered B. xvii. 6, and is a duplicate copy (without its
title-page) of the same printed book as B. xvii. 5. It is interleaved
throughout, and was prepared very early in the course of this undertaking,
inasmuch as Bentley describes it in an undated letter to Wetstein, which
the latter answered Nov. 3, 1716. In the printed text itself, both Greek
and Latin, as they stand in parallel columns, Bentley makes the
corrections which he at that period was willing to adopt. There is no
critical apparatus to justify his changes in the Latin version, but on the
blank leaves of the book he sets down his Greek authorities, always cited
by name, as _Alex._, _Cant._, _Rom._ (Cod. B.), _Ox._ in the Acts (Cod.
E), θ in St. Paul for Cod. Augiensis (F), though this last did not reach
him before 1718. Cod. C is sometimes called _Eph._, sometimes it is mixed
up with Wetstein’s other copies (1 Wetstein, 2 Wetstein, &c.). This most
interesting volume, therefore, contains the first draft of Bentley’s great
design, and must have been nearly in its present state when the
’Proposals’ were published in 1720, since the specimen chapter (Apoc.
xxii) which accompanied them is taken _verbatim_ from B. xvii. 6, save
that authorities are added to vindicate the alterations of the Latin text,
which is destitute of them in the printed book. Mr. Ellis too has printed
the Epistle to the Galatians from the same source, and this specimen also
produces much the same impression of meagreness and imperfection. It was
doubtless in some degree to remedy an apparent crudeness that cursive
copies were afterwards called in, as in B. xvii. 5 and in Walker’s Oxford
collections. The fact is that Bentley’s main principle, as set forth by
him from 1716 to 1720, that of substantial identity between the oldest
Greek and Latin copies, is more favoured by Cod. A, which he knew soonest
and best, than by any other really ancient documents, least of all by Cod.
B, with which he obtained fuller acquaintance in or about 1720. Our
Aristarchus then betook himself at intervals to cursive codices in the
vain hope of getting aid from them, and so lost his way at last in that
wide and pathless wilderness. We cannot but believe that nothing less than
the manifest impossibility of maintaining the principles which his
“Letter” of 1716 enunciated, and his ’Proposals’ of 1720 scarcely
modified, in the face of the evidence which his growing mass of collations
bore against them(205), could have had power enough to break off in the
midst that labour of love from which he had looked for undying fame(206).

7. The anonymous text and version of William Mace, said to have been a
Presbyterian minister (“The New Testament in Greek and English,” 2 vols.
8vo, 1729), are alike unworthy of serious notice, and have long since been
forgotten(207). And now original research in the science of Biblical
criticism, so far as the New Testament is concerned, seems to have left
the shores of England, to return no more for upwards of a century(208);
and we must look to Germany if we wish to trace the further progress of
investigations which our countrymen had so auspiciously begun. The first
considerable effort made on the Continent was:—

8. The New Testament of John Albert Bengel, 4to, Tübingen, 1734(209): his
“Prodromus N. T. Gr. rectè cautèque adornandi” had appeared as early as
1725. This devout and truly able man [1687-1752], who held the office
(whatever might be its functions) of Abbot of Alpirspach in the Lutheran
communion of Württemberg, though more generally known as an interpreter of
Scripture from his invaluable “Gnomon Novi Testamenti,” yet left the stamp
of his mind deeply imprinted on the criticism of the sacred volume. As a
collator his merits were not high; nearly all his sixteen codices have
required and obtained fresh examination from those who came after
him(210). His text, which he arranged in convenient paragraphs, as has
been said, is the earliest important specimen of intentional departure
from the received type; hence he imposes on himself the strange
restriction of admitting into it no reading (excepting in the Apocalypse)
which had not appeared in one or more of the editions that preceded his
own. He pronounces his opinion on other _select_ variations by placing
them in his lower margin with Greek numerals attached to them, according
as he judged them decidedly better (α), or somewhat more likely (β), than
those which stand in his text: or equal to them (γ); or a little (δ), or
considerably (ε), inferior. This notation has advantages which might well
have commended it to the attention of succeeding editors. In his
“Apparatus Criticus” also, at the end of his volume, he set the example,
now generally followed, of recording definitely the testimony in favour of
a received reading, as well as that against it.

But the peculiar importance of Bengel’s N. T. is due to the critical
principles developed therein. Not only was his native acuteness of great
service to him, when weighing the conflicting probabilities of internal
evidence, but in his fertile mind sprang up the germ of that theory of
_families_ or _recensions_, which was afterwards expanded by J. S. Semler
[1725-91], and grew to such formidable dimensions in the skilful hands of
Griesbach. An attentive student of the discrepant readings of the N. T.,
even in the limited extent they had hitherto been collected, could hardly
fail to discern that certain manuscripts, versions, and ecclesiastical
writers have a manifest affinity with each other; so that one of them
shall seldom be cited in support of a variation (not being a manifest and
gross error of the copyist), unless accompanied by several of its kindred.
The inference is direct and clear, that documents which thus withdraw
themselves from the general mass of authorities, must have sprung from
some common source, distinct from those which in characteristic readings
they but slightly resemble. It occurred, therefore, to Bengel as a hopeful
mode of making good progress in the criticism of the N. T., to reduce all
extant testimony into “companies, families, tribes, and nations,” and thus
to simplify the process of settling the sacred text by setting class over
against class, and trying to estimate the genius of each, and the relative
importance they may severally lay claim to. He wished to divide all extant
documents into two nations: the _Asiatic_, chiefly written in
Constantinople and its neighbourhood, which he was inclined to disparage;
and the _African_, comprising the few of a better type (“Apparatus
Criticus,” p. 669, 2nd edition, 1763). Various circumstances hindered
Bengel from working out his principle, among which he condescends to set
his dread of exposing his task to senseless ridicule(211); yet no one can
doubt that it comprehends the elements of what is both reasonable and
true; however difficult it has subsequently proved to adjust the details
of any consistent scheme. For the rest, Bengel’s critical verdicts, always
considered in relation to his age and opportunities, deserve strong
commendation. He saw the paramount worth of Cod. A, the only great uncial
then much known (N. T., Apparat. Crit., pp. 390-401). The high character
of the Latin version, and the necessity for revising its text by means of
manuscripts (_ibid._, p. 391), he readily conceded, after Bentley’s
example. His mean estimate of the Greek-Latin codices (Evan. Act. D; Act.
E; Paul. DFG) may not find equal favour in the eyes of all his admirers;
he pronounces them “re verâ bilingues;” which, for their perpetual and
wilful interpolations, “non pro codicibus sed pro rhapsodiis, haberi
debeant” (_ibid._, p. 386)(212).

9. The next step in advance was made by John James Wetstein [1693-1754], a
native of Basle, whose edition of the Greek New Testament (“cum
lectionibus variantibus Codicum MSS., Editionum aliarum, Versionum et
Patrum, necnon Commentario pleniore ex scriptoribus veteribus, Hebraeis,
Graecis, et Latinis, historiam et vim verborum illustrante”) appeared in
two volumes, folio, Amsterdam, 1751-2. The genius, the character, and (it
must in justice be added) the worldly fortunes of Wetstein were widely
different from those of the good Abbot of Alpirspach. His taste for
Biblical studies showed itself early. When ordained pastor at the age of
twenty he delivered a disputation, “De variis N. T. lectionibus,” and zeal
for this fascinating pursuit became at length with him a passion—the
master-passion which consoled and dignified a roving, troubled,
unprosperous life. In 1714 his eager search for manuscripts led him to
Paris, in 1715-16 and again in 1720 he visited England, and was employed
by Bentley in collecting materials for his projected edition, but he seems
to have imbibed few of that great man’s principles: the interval between
them, both in age and station, almost forbade much sympathy. On his return
home he gradually became suspected of Socinian tendencies, and it must be
feared with too much justice; so that in the end he was deposed from the
pastorate (1730), driven into exile, and after having been compelled to
serve in a position the least favourable to the cultivation of learning,
that of a military chaplain, he obtained at length (1733) a Professorship
among the Remonstrants at Amsterdam (in succession to the celebrated
Leclerc), and there continued till his death in 1754, having made his
third visit to England in 1746. His “Prolegomena,” first published in
1730, and afterwards, in an altered form, prefixed to his N. T.(213),
present a painful image both of the man and of his circumstances. His
restless energy, his undaunted industry, his violent temper, his love of
paradox, his assertion for himself of perfect freedom of thought, his
silly prejudice against Jesuits and bigots, his enmities, his wrongs, his
ill-requited labours, at once excite our respect and our pity: while they
all help to make his writings a sort of unconscious autobiography, rather
interesting than agreeable. _Non sic itur ad astra_, whether morally or
intellectually; yet Wetstein’s services to sacred literature were of no
common order. His philological annotations, wherein the matter and
phraseology of the inspired writers are illustrated by copious—too
copious—quotations from all kinds of authors, classical, Patristic, and
Rabbinical, have proved an inexhaustible storehouse from which later
writers have drawn liberally and sometimes without due acknowledgement;
but many of the passages are of such a tenor as (to use Tregelles’ very
gentle language respecting them) “only to excite surprise at their being
found on the same page as the text of the New Testament” (Account of
Printed Text, p. 76). The critical portion of his work, however, is far
more valuable, and in this department Wetstein must be placed in the very
first rank, inferior (if to any) to but one or two of the highest names.
He first cited the manuscripts under the notation by which they are
commonly known, his list already embracing A-O, 1-112 of the Gospels; A-G,
1-58 of the Acts; A-H, 1-60 of St. Paul; A-C, 1-28 of the Apocalypse; 1-24
Evangelistaria; 1-4 of the Apostolos. Of these Wetstein himself collated
about one hundred and two(214); if not as fully or accurately as is now
expected, yet with far greater care than had hitherto been usual: about
eleven were examined for him by other hands. On the versions and early
editions he has likewise bestowed great pains; and he improved upon
quotations from the Fathers. His text is that of Elzevir (1633), not very
exactly printed(215), and immediately below it he placed such readings of
his manuscripts as he judged preferable to those received. The readings
thus approved by Wetstein (which do not amount to five hundred, and those
chiefly in the Apocalypse) were inserted in the text of a Greek Testament
published in London, 1763, 2 vols., by W. Bowyer, the learned printer,
with a collection of critical conjectures annexed, which were afterwards
published separately.

Wetstein’s Prolegomena have also been reproduced by J. S. Semler (Halle,
1764), with good notes and facsimiles of certain manuscripts, and more
recently, in a compressed and modernized form, by J. A. Lotze (Rotterdam,
1831), a book which neither for design nor execution can be much praised.
The truth is that both the style and the subject-matter of much that
Wetstein wrote are things of the past. In his earlier edition of his
Prolegomena (1730) he had spoken of the oldest Greek uncial copies as they
deserve; he was even disposed to take Cod. A as the basis of his text. By
the time his N. T. was ready, twenty years later, he had come to include
it, with all the older codices of the original, under a general charge of
being conformed to the Latin version. That such a tendency may be detected
in some of the codices accompanied by a Latin translation, is both
possible in itself, and not inconsistent with their general spirit; but he
has scattered abroad his imputations capriciously and almost at random, so
as greatly to diminish the weight of his own decisions. Cod. A, in
particular, has been fully cleared of the charge of Latinizing by Woide,
in his excellent Prolegomena (§ 6). His thorough contempt for that critic
prevented Wetstein from giving adequate attention to Bengel’s theory of
families; indeed he can hardly be said to have rejected a scheme which he
scorned to investigate with patience. On the other hand no portion of his
labours is more valuable than the “Animadversiones et Cautiones ad examen
variarum lectionum N. T. necessariae” (N. T., Tom. ii. pp. 851-74). In
this tract his natural good sense and extensive knowledge of authorities
of every class have gone far to correct that impetuous temperament which
was ever too ready to substitute plausible conjecture in the room of
ascertained facts.

During the twenty years immediately ensuing on the publication of
Wetstein’s volumes, little was attempted in the way of enlarging or
improving the domain he had secured for Biblical science. In England the
attention of students was directed, and on the whole successfully, to the
criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures; in Germany, the younger (J. D.)
Michaelis [1717-91] reigned supreme, and he seems to have deemed it the
highest effort of scholarship to sit in judgement on the labours of
others. In process of time, however, the researches of John James
Griesbach [1745-1812], a native of Hesse Darmstadt and a pupil of Semler,
and J. A. Ernesti [1707-81] (whose manual, “Institutio Interpretis N. T.,”
1761, has not long been superseded), began to attract general notice. Like
Wetstein, he made a literary tour in England early in life (1769), and
with far more profit; returning to Halle as a Professor, he published
before he was thirty (1774-5) his first edition of the N. T., which
contained the well-defined embryo of his future and more elaborate
speculations. It will be convenient to reserve the examination of his
views until we have described the investigations of several collators who
unknowingly (and in one instance, no doubt unwillingly) were busy in
gathering stores which he was to turn to his own use.

10. Christian Frederick Matthaei, a Thuringian [1744-1811], was appointed,
on the recommendation of his tutor Ernesti, to the Professorship of
Classical Literature at Moscow: so far as philology is concerned, he
probably merited Bp. Middleton’s praise, as “the most accurate scholar who
ever edited the N. T.” (Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 244, 3rd
edition.) At Moscow he found a large number of Greek manuscripts, both
Biblical and Patristic, originally brought from Athos, quite uncollated,
and almost entirely unknown in the west of Europe. With laudable
resolution he set himself to examine them, and gradually formed the scheme
of publishing an edition of the New Testament by the aid of materials so
precious and abundant. All authors that deserve that honourable name may
be presumed to learn not a little, even on the subject they know best,
while preparing an important work for the public eye; but Matthaei was as
yet ignorant of the first principles of the critical art; and beginning
thus late, there was much, and that of a very elementary character, which
he never understood at all. When he commenced writing he had not seen the
volumes of Mill or Wetstein; and to this significant fact we must impute
that inability which clave to him to the last, of discriminating the
relative age and value of his own or others’ codices. The palaeographical
portion of the science, indeed, he gradually acquired from the study of
his documents, and through the many facsimiles of them he represents in
his edition; but what can be thought of his judgement, when he persisted
in asserting the intrinsic superiority of Cod. 69 of the Acts to the great
uncials AC (N. T., Tom. xii. p. 222)(216)? Hence it results that
Matthaei’s text, which of course he moulded on his own views, must be held
in slight esteem: his services as a collator comprehend his whole claim
(and that no trifling one) to our thankful regard. To him solely we are
indebted for Evan. V; 237-259; Act. 98-107; Paul. 113-124; Apoc. 47-502
(i.e. r); Evst. 47-57; Apost. 13-20; nearly all at Moscow: the whole
seventy(217), together with the citations of Scripture in thirty-four
manuscripts of Chrysostom(218), being so fully and accurately collated,
that the reader need not be at a loss whether any particular copy supports
or opposes the reading in the common text. Matthaei’s further services in
connexion with Cod. G Paul, and a few others (Act. 69, &c.) have been
noticed in their proper places. To his Greek text was annexed the Latin
Vulgate (the only version, in its present state, he professes to regard,
Tom. xi. p. xii) from the Cod. Demidovianus. The first volume of this
edition appeared in 1782, after it had been already eight years in
preparation: this comprised the Catholic Epistles. The rest of the work
was published at intervals during the next six years, in eleven more thin
parts 8vo, the whole series being closed by SS. Matthew and Mark in 1788.
Each volume has a Preface, much descriptive matter, and facsimiles of
manuscripts (twenty-nine in all), the whole being in complete and almost
hopeless disorder, and the general title-page absurdly long. Hence his
critical principles (if such they may be termed) must be picked up
piecemeal; and it is not very pleasant to observe the sort of influence
which hostile controversy exercised over his mind and temper. While yet
fresh at his task (1782), anticipating the fair fame his most profitable
researches had so well earned, Matthaei is frank, calm, and rational: even
at a later period J. D. Michaelis is, in his estimation, the keenest of
living judges of codices, and he says so the rather “quod ille vir
doctissimus multis modis me, _quâ de causâ ipse ignoro_, partim jocosè,
partim seriò, vexavit” (Tom. ii, 1788, p. xxxi). Bengel, whose sentiments
were very dissimilar from those of the Moscow Professor, “pro acumine,
diligentiâ et religione suâ,” would have arrived at other conclusions, had
his Augsburg codices been better (_ibid._, p. xxx). But for Griesbach and
his recension-theory no terms of insult are strong enough; “risum vel adeo
pueris debet ille Halensis criticus,” who never saw, “_ut credibile est_,”
a manuscript even of the tenth century (_ibid._, p. xxiii), yet presumes
to dictate to those who have collated seventy. The unhappy consequence
was, that one who had taken up this employment in an earnest and candid
spirit, possessed with the simple desire to promote the study of sacred
literature, could devise no fitter commencement for his latest Preface
than this: “Laborem igitur molestum invidiosum et infamem, inter convicia
ranarum et latratus canum, aut ferreâ patientiâ aut invictâ pertinaciâ his
quindecim annis vel sustinui, vel utcunque potui perfeci, vel denique et
fastidio et taedio, ut fortasse non nulli opinantur, deposui et abjeci”
(Tom. i, Praef. p. 1): he could find no purer cause for thankfulness, than
(what we might have imagined but a very slight mercy) that he had never
been commended by those “of whom to be dispraised is no small praise;” or
(to use his own more vigorous language) “quod nemo scurra ... nemo denique
de grego novorum theologorum, hanc qualemcunque operam meam ausus est ore
impuro suo, laudeque contumeliosâ comprobare.” Matthaei’s second edition
in three volumes (destitute of the Latin version and most of the critical
notes) bears date 1803-7(219). For some cause, now not easy to understand,
he hardly gave to this second edition the advantages of his studies during
the fifteen years which had elapsed since he completed his first. We saw
his labours bestowed on the Zittau N. T. in 1801-2 (Evan. 605). On the
last leaf of the third volume of his second edition, writing from Moscow
in May, 1805, he speaks of a book containing collations of no less than
twenty-four manuscripts, partly fresh, partly corrected, which, when he
returned into Russia, he delivered to Augustus Schumann, a bookseller at
Ronneburg (in Saxe Altenburg), to be published in close connexion with his
second edition against the Easter Fair at Leipzig in 1805. Another book
contained extracts from St. Chrysostom with a commentary and index, to be
published at the same time, and both at Schumann’s risk. “Utrum isti libri
jam prodierint necne,” our author adds pathetically, “nondum factus sum
certior. Certe id vehementer opto.” But in 1805 evil times were hastening
upon Germany, and so unfortunately for the poor man and for textual
students these collections have disappeared and left no trace behind.

10.a The next, and a far less considerable contribution to our knowledge
of manuscripts of the N. T., was made by Francis Karl Alter [1749-1804], a
Jesuit, born in Silesia, and Professor of Greek at Vienna. His plan was
novel, and, to those who are compelled to use his edition (N. T. Graecum,
ad Codicem Vindobonensem Graecè expressum, 8vo, Vienna, 2 tom., 1786-7),
inconvenient to the last degree. Adopting for his standard a valuable, but
not very ancient or remarkable, manuscript in the Imperial Library (Evan.
218, Act. 65, Paul. 57, Apoc. 83), he prints this copy at full length,
retaining even the ν ἐφελκυστικόν when it is found in his model, but not
(as it would seem) all the itacisms or errors of the scribe, conforming in
such cases to Stephen’s edition of 1546. With this text he collates in
separate Appendices twenty-one other manuscripts of the same great
Library, comprising twelve copies of the Gospels (Codd. N, a fragment, 3,
76, 77, 108, 123, 124, 125, 219, 220, 224, 225); six of the Acts, &c. (3,
43, 63, 64, 66, 67); seven of St. Paul (3, 49, 67-71); three of the
Apocalypse (34, 35, 36), and two Evangelistaria (45, 46). He also gives
readings from Wilkins’ Coptic version, four Slavonic codices and one Old
Latin (_i_). In employing this ill-digested mass, it is necessary to turn
to a different place for every manuscript to be consulted, and Alter’s
silence in any passages must be understood to indicate resemblance to his
standard, Evan. 218, and not to the common text. As this silence is very
often clearly due to the collator’s mere oversight, Griesbach set the
example of citing these manuscripts in such cases within marks of
parenthesis: thus “218 (108, 220)” indicates that the reading in question
is certainly found in Cod. 218, and (so far as we may infer _ex Alteri
silentio_) not improbably in the other two. Most of these Vienna codices
were about the same time examined rather slightly by Andrew Birch.

11. This eminent person, who afterwards bore successively the titles of
Bishop of Lolland, Falster, and Aarhuus, in the Lutheran communion
established in Denmark, was one of a company of learned men sent by the
liberal care of Christian VII to examine Biblical manuscripts in various
countries. Adler pursued his Oriental studies at Rome and elsewhere; D. G.
Moldenhawer and O. G. Tychsen (the famous Orientalist of Rostock) were
sent into Spain in 1783-4; Birch travelled on the same good errand in
1781-3 through Italy and Germany. The combined results of their
investigations were arranged and published by Birch, whose folio edition
of the Four Gospels (also in 4to) with Stephen’s text of 1550(220), and
the various readings contributed by himself and his associates, full
descriptive Prolegomena and facsimiles of seven manuscripts (Codd. S, 157
Evan.; and five in Syriac), appeared at Copenhagen in 1788. Seven years
afterwards (1795) a fire destroyed the Royal Printing-house, the type,
paper, and unsold stock of the first volume, the collations of the rest of
the N. T. having very nearly shared the same fate. These poor fragments
were collected by Birch into two small 8vo volumes, those relating to the
Acts and Epistles in 1798, to the Apocalypse (with facsimiles of Codd. 37,
42) in 1800. In 1801 he revised and re-edited the various readings of the
Gospels, in a form to correspond with those of the rest of the N. T.
Nothing can be better calculated to win respect and confidence than the
whole tone of Birch’s several Prolegomena: he displays at once a proper
sense of the difficulties of his task, and a consciousness that he had
done his utmost to conquer them(221). It is indeed much to be regretted
that, for some cause he does not wish to explain, he accomplished but
little for Cod. B; many of the manuscripts on his long list were beyond
question examined but very superficially; yet he was almost the first to
open to us the literary treasures of the Vatican, of Florence, and of
Venice. He more or less inspected the uncials Cod. B, Codd. ST of the
Gospels, Cod. L of the Acts and Epistles. His catalogue of cursives
comprises Codd. 127-225 of the Gospels; Codd. 63-7, 70-96 of the Acts;
Codd. 67-71, 77-112 of St. Paul; Codd. 33-4, 37-46 of the Apocalypse;
Evangelistaria 35-39; Apostolos 7, 8: in all 191 copies, a few of which
were thoroughly collated (e.g. Evan. S, 127, 131, 157, Evst. 36). Of
Adler’s labours we have spoken already; they too are incorporated in
Birch’s work, and prefaced with a short notice (Birch, Proleg. p. lxxxv)
by their author, a real and modest scholar. Moldenhawer’s portion of the
common task was discharged in another spirit. Received at the Escurial
with courtesy and good-will, his colleague Tyschen and he spent four whole
months in turning over a collection of 760 Greek manuscripts, of which
only twenty related to the Greek Testament. They lacked neither leisure,
nor opportunity, nor competent knowledge; but they were full of dislike
for Spain and its religion, of overweening conceit, and of implicit trust
in Griesbach and his recensions. The whole paper contributed by
Moldenhawer to Birch’s Prolegomena (pp. lxi-lxxxiv) is in substance very
disappointing, while its arrogance is almost intolerable. What he effected
for other portions of the N. T. I have not been able to trace (226, 228
Evan., which also contain the Acts and Epistles, are but nominally on
Scholz’s list for those books); the fire at Copenhagen may probably have
destroyed his notes. Of the Gospels he collated eight codices (226-233),
and four Evangelistaria (40-43), most of them being dismissed, after a
cursory review, with some expression of hearty contempt. To Evann. 226,
229, 230 alone was he disposed to pay any attention; of the rest, whether
“he soon restored them to their primitive obscurity” (p. lxxi), or “bade
them sweet and holy rest among the reliques of Saints and Martyrs” (p.
lxvii), he may be understood to say, once for all, “Omnino nemo, qui horum
librorum rationem ac indolem ... perspectam habet, ex iis lectionis
varietatem operose eruere aggredietur, nec, si quam inde conquisiverit,
operae pretium fecisse a peritis arbitris existimabitur” (p. lxxiv). It
was not thus that Matthaei dealt with the manuscripts at Moscow.

12. Such were the materials ready for Griesbach’s use when he projected
his second and principal edition of the Greek Testament (vol. i. 1796,
vol. ii. 1806). Not that he was backward in adding to the store of various
readings by means of his own diligence. His “Symbolae Criticae(222)” (vol.
i. 1785, vol. ii. 1793) contained, together with the readings extracted
from Origen, collations, in whole or part, of many copies of various
portions of the N. T., Latin as well as Greek. Besides inspecting Codd. AD
(Evann.), and carefully examining Cod. C(223), he consulted no less than
twenty-six codices (including GL) of the Gospels, ten (including E) of the
Acts, &c., fifteen (including DEH) of St. Paul, one of the Apocalypse
(Cod. 29) twelve Lectionaries of the Gospels, and two of the Apostolos,
far the greater part of them being deposited in England. It was not,
however, his purpose to exhibit in his N. T. (designed, as it was, for
general use) all the readings he had himself recorded elsewhere, much less
the whole mass accumulated by the pains of Mill or Wetstein, Matthaei or
Birch. The distinctive end at which he aims is to form such a selection
from the matter their works contain, as to enable the theological student
to decide for himself on the genuineness or corruption of any given
reading, by the aid of principles which he devotes his best efforts to
establish. Between the text (in which departures from the Elzevir edition
of 1624 are generally indicated by being printed in smaller type(224)) and
the critical notes at the foot of each page, intervenes a narrow space or
inner margin, to receive those portions of the common text which Griesbach
has rejected, and such variations of his authorities as he judges to be of
equal weight with the received readings which he retains, or but little
inferior to them. These decisions he intimates by several symbols, not
quite so simple as those employed by Bengel, but conceived in a similar
spirit; and he has carried his system somewhat further in his small or
manual edition, published at Leipzig in 1805, which may be conceived to
represent his last thoughts with regard to the recension of the Greek text
of the N. T. But though we may trace some slight discrepancies of opinion
between his earliest(225) and his latest works(226), as might well be
looked for in a literary career of forty years, yet the theory of his
youth was maintained, and defended, and temperately applied by Griesbach
even to the last. From Bengel and Semler he had taken up the belief that
manuscripts, versions, and ecclesiastical writers divide themselves, with
respect to the character of their testimony, into races or families. This
principle he strove to reduce to practice by marshalling all his
authorities under their respective heads, and then regarding the evidence,
not of individuals, but of the classes to which they belong. The advantage
of some such arrangement is sufficiently manifest, if only it could be
made to rest on grounds in themselves certain, or, at all events, fairly
probable. We should then possess some better guide in our choice between
conflicting readings, than the very rough and unsatisfactory process of
counting the _number_ of witnesses produced on either side. It is not that
such a mode of conducting critical enquiries would not be very convenient,
that Griesbach’s theory is universally abandoned by modern scholars, but
because there is no valid reason for believing it to be true.

At the onset of his labours, indeed, this acute and candid enquirer was
disposed to divide all extant materials into five or six different
families; he afterwards limited them to three, the Alexandrian, the
Western, and the Byzantine recensions. The standard of the Alexandrian
text he conceived to be Origen; who, although his works were written in
Palestine, was assumed to have brought with him into exile copies of
Scripture, similar to those used in his native city. To this family would
belong a few manuscripts of the earliest date, and confessedly of the
highest character, Codd. ABC, Cod. L of the Gospels, the Egyptian and some
lesser versions. The Western recension would survive in Cod. D of the
Gospels and Acts, in the other ancient copies which contain a Latin
translation, in the Old Latin and Vulgate versions, and in the Latin
Fathers. The vast majority of manuscripts (comprising perhaps
nineteen-twentieths of the whole), together with the larger proportion of
versions and Patristic writings, were grouped into the Byzantine class, as
having prevailed generally in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. To this
last class Griesbach hardly professed to accord as much weight as to
either of the others, nor, if he had done so, would the result have been
materially different. The joint testimony of two classes was, _ceteris
paribus_, always to prevail; and since the very few documents which
comprise the Alexandrian and Western recensions seldom agree with the
Byzantine even when at variance with each other, the numerous codices
which make up the third family would thus have about as much share in
fixing the text of Scripture, as the poor citizens whose host was included
in one of Servius Tullius’ lower classes possessed towards
counterbalancing the votes of the wealthy few that composed his first or
second(227).

Inasmuch as the manuscripts on which our received text was based must,
beyond question, be referred to his Byzantine family, wide as were the
variations of Griesbach’s revised text from that of Elzevir(228), had his
theory been pushed to its legitimate consequences, the changes it required
would have been greater still. The very plan of his work, however, seemed
to reserve a slight preference for the received text _as such_, in cases
of doubt and difficulty; and this editor, with a calmness and sagacity
which may well be called judicial, was usually disposed to relax his stern
mechanical law when persuaded by reasons founded on internal
probabilities, which (as we cheerfully admit) few men have been found able
to estimate with so much patience and discrimination. The plain fact is,
that while disciples like Moldenhawer and persons who knew even less than
he were regarding Griesbach’s system as self-evidently true, their wiser
master must have had many a misgiving as to the safety of that imposing
structure his rare ingenuity had built upon the sand. The very essence of
his theory consisted in there being not two distinct families, but
_three_; the majority deciding in all cases of dispute. Yet he hardly
attempted, certainly neither he nor any one after him succeeded in the
attempt, to separate the Alexandrian from the Western family, without
resorting to arguments which would prove that there are as many classes as
there are manuscripts of early date. The supposed accordance of the
readings of Origen, so elaborately scrutinized for this purpose by
Griesbach, with Cod. A, on which our editor lays the greatest stress, has
been shown by Archbishop Laurence (Remarks on Griesbach’s Systematic
Classification, 1814) to be in a high degree imaginary(229). It must have
been in anticipation of some such researches, and in a partial knowledge
of their sure results, that Griesbach was driven to that violent and most
unlikely hypothesis, that Cod. A follows the Byzantine class of
authorities in the Gospels, the Western in the Acts and Catholic Epistles,
and the Alexandrian in St. Paul.

It seems needless to dwell longer on speculations which, however
attractive and once widely received, will scarcely again find an advocate.
Griesbach’s text can no longer be regarded as satisfactory, though it is
far less objectionable than such a system as his would have made it in
rash or unskilful hands. His industry, his moderation, his fairness to
opponents, who (like Matthaei) had shown him little forbearance, we may
all imitate to our profit. His logical acuteness and keen intellectual
perception fall to the lot of few; and though they may have helped to lead
him into error, and have even kept him from retracing his steps, yet on
the whole they were worthily exercised in the good cause of promoting a
knowledge of God’s truth, and of keeping alive, in an evil and unbelieving
age, an enlightened interest in Holy Scripture, and the studies which it
serves to consecrate.

13. Of a widely different order of mind was John Martin Augustine Scholz
[d. 1852], Roman Catholic Dean of Theology in the mixed University of
Bonn. It would have been well for the progress of sacred learning and for
his own reputation had the accuracy and ability of this editor borne some
proportion to his zeal and obvious anxiety to be useful. His first essay
was his “Curae Criticae in historiam textûs Evangeliorum,” in two
dissertations, Heidelberg, 4to, 1820, containing notices of forty-eight
Paris manuscripts (nine of them hitherto unknown) of which he had fully
collated seventeen: the second Dissertation is devoted to Cod. K of the
Gospels. In 1823 appeared his “Biblisch-Kritische Reise,” Leipsic, 8vo,
Biblio-Critical Travels in France, Switzerland, Italy, Palestine and the
Archipelago, which Schulz laid under contribution for his improved edition
of Griesbach’s first volume(230). Scholz’s “N. T. Graece,” 4to, was
published at Leipsic, vol. i, 1830 (Gospels); vol. ii, 1836.

The accession of fresh materials made known in these works is almost
marvellous: Scholz was the first to indicate Codd. 260-469 of the Gospels;
110-192 of the Acts, &c.; 125-246 of St. Paul; 51-89 of the Apocalypse;
51-181 Evangelistaria; 21-58 Lectionaries of the Apostolos; in all 616
cursive codices. His additions to the list of the uncials comprise only
the three fragments of the Gospels Wa Y and the Vatican leaves of N. Of
those examined previously by others he paid most attention to Evan. KX (M
also for its synaxaria), and G (now L) Act., Paul.; he moreover inspected
slightly eighty-two cursive codices of the Gospels after Wetstein, Birch,
and the rest; collated entire five (Codd. 4, 19, 25, 28, 33), and twelve
in the greater part, adding much to our knowledge of the important Cod.
22. In the Acts, &c., he inspected twenty-seven of those known before,
partially collated two; in St. Paul he collated partially two, slightly
twenty-nine; in the Apocalypse sixteen, cursorily enough it would seem
(_see_ Codd. 21-3): of the Lectionaries he touched more or less thirteen
of the Gospels, four of the Apostolos. On turning to the 616 codices
Scholz placed on the list for the first time, we find that he collated
entire but thirteen (viz. five of the Gospels, three of the Acts, &c.,
three of St. Paul, one each of the Apocalypse and Evangelistaria): a few
of the rest he examined throughout the greater part; many in only a few
chapters; while some were set down from printed Catalogues, whose
plenteous errors we have used our best endeavours to correct in the
present volume, so far as the means were within our reach.

Yet, after making a large deduction from our first impressions of the
_amount_ of labour performed by Scholz, enough and more than enough would
remain to entitle him to our lasting gratitude, if it were possible to
place any tolerable reliance on the correctness of his results. Those who
are, however superficially, acquainted with the nature of such pursuits,
will readily believe that faultless accuracy in representing myriads of
minute details is not to be looked for from the most diligent and careful
critic. Oversights will mar the perfection of the most highly finished of
human efforts; but if adequate care and pains shall have been bestowed on
detecting them, such blemishes as still linger unremoved are no real
subject of reproach, and do not greatly lessen the value of the work which
contains them. But in the case of Scholz’s Greek Testament the fair
indulgence we must all hope for is abused beyond the bounds of reason or
moderation. The student who has had much experience of his volumes,
especially if he has ever compared the collations there given with the
original manuscripts, will never dream of resorting to them for
information he can expect to gain elsewhere, or rest with confidence on a
statement of fact merely because Scholz asserts it. J. Scott Porter
(Principles of Textual Criticism, Belfast, 1848, pp. 263-66) and
Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg. c-cii, 7th edition) have dwelt upon his
strange blunders, his blind inconsistencies, and his habitual practice of
copying from his predecessors without investigation and without
acknowledgement; so that it is needless for us to repeat or dwell on that
ungracious task(231); but it is our duty to put the student once for all
on his guard against what could not fail to mislead him, and to express
our sorrow that twelve years and more of hard and persevering toil should,
through mere heedlessness, have been nearly thrown away.

As was natural in a pupil of J. L. Hug of Freyburg (_see_ vol. i. p. 111),
who had himself tried to build a theory of recensions on very slender
grounds, Dr. Scholz attempted to settle the text of the N. T. upon
principles which must be regarded as a modification of those of Griesbach.
In his earliest work, like that great critic, he had been disposed to
divide all extant authorities into five separate classes; but he soon
reduced them to two, the Alexandrian and the Constantinopolitan. In the
Alexandrian family he included the whole of Griesbach’s Western recension,
from which indeed it seems vain to distinguish it by any broad line of
demarcation: to the other family he referred the great mass of more recent
documents which compose Griesbach’s third or Byzantine class; and to this
family he was inclined to give the preference over the other, as well from
the internal excellency of its readings, as because it represents the
uniform text which had become traditional throughout the Greek Church.
That such a standard, public, and authorized text existed he seems to have
taken for granted without much enquiry. “Codices qui hoc nomen
[Constantinopolitanum] habent,” he writes, “parum inter se dissentiunt.
Conferas, quaeso, longè plerosque quos huic classi adhaerere dixi, atque
lectiones diversas viginti trigintave in totidem capitibus vix reperies,
unde conjicias eos esse accuratissimè descriptos, eorumque antigrapha
parum inter se discrepasse” (N. T., Proleg., vol. i. § 55). It might have
occurred to one who had spent so many years in studying Greek manuscripts,
that this marvellous concord between the different Byzantine witnesses
(which is striking enough, no doubt, as we turn over the pages of his
Greek Testament) is after all due to nothing so much as to the haste and
carelessness of collators. The more closely the cursive copies of
Scripture are examined, the more does the individual character of each of
them become developed. With certain points of general resemblance, whereby
they are distinguished from the older documents of the Alexandrian class,
they abound with mutual variations so numerous and perpetual as to vouch
for the independent origin of nearly all of them, and their exact study
has “swept away at once and for ever” (Tregelles’ “Account of Printed
Text,” p. 180) the fancy of a standard Constantinopolitan text, and every
inference that had been grounded upon its presumed existence. If (as we
firmly believe) the less ancient codices ought to have their proper weight
and appreciable influence in fixing the true text of Scripture, our
favourable estimate of them must rest on other arguments than Scholz has
urged in their behalf.

Since this editor’s system of recensions differed thus widely from
Griesbach’s, in suppressing altogether one of his three classes, and in
yielding to the third, which the other slighted, a decided preference over
its surviving rival, it might have been imagined that the consequences of
such discrepancy in theory would have been strongly marked in their
effects on his text. That such is not the case, at least to any
considerable extent (especially in his second volume), must be imputed in
part to Griesbach’s prudent reserve in carrying out his principles to
extremity, but yet more to Scholz’s vacillation and evident weakness of
judgement. In fact, on his last visit to England in 1845, he distributed
among Biblical students here a “Commentatio de virtutibus et vitiis
utriusque codicum N. T. familiae,” that he had just delivered on the
occasion of some Encaenia at Bonn, in which (after various statements that
display either ignorance or inattention respecting the ordinary phenomena
of manuscripts which in a veteran collator is really unaccountable(232))
he declares his purpose, chiefly it would seem from considerations of
internal evidence, that if ever it should be his lot to prepare another
edition of the New Testament, “se plerasque codicum Alexandrinorum
lectiones illas quas in margine interiore textui editionis suae
Alexandrinas dixit, in textum recepturum” (p. 14). The text which its
constructor distrusted, can have but small claim on the faith of others.

14. “Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, Carolus Lachmannus recensuit,
Philippus Buttmannus Ph. F. Graecae lectionis auctoritates apposuit” is
the simple title-page of a work, by one of the most eminent philologists
of his time, the first volume of which (containing the Gospels) appeared
at Berlin (8vo), 1842, the second and concluding one in 1850, whose
boldness and originality have procured it, as well for good as for ill, a
prominent place in the history of the sacred text. Lachmann had published
as early as 1831 a small edition containing only the text of the New
Testament, with a list of the readings wherein he differs from that of
Elzevir, preceded by a notice of his plan not exceeding a few lines in
length, itself so obscurely worded that even to those who happened to
understand his meaning it must have read like a riddle whose solution they
had been told beforehand; and referring us for fuller information to what
he strangely considered “a more convenient place,” a German periodical of
the preceding year’s date(233). Authors who take so little pains to
explain their fundamental principles of criticism, especially if (as in
the present case) these are novel and unexpected, can hardly wonder when
their drift and purpose are imperfectly apprehended; so that a little
volume, which we now learn had cost Lachmann five years of thought and
labour, was confounded, even by the learned, with the mass of common,
hasty, and superficial reprints. Nor was the difficulty much removed on
the publication of the first volume of his larger book. It was then seen,
indeed, how clean a sweep he had made of the great majority of Greek
manuscripts usually cited in critical editions:—in fact he rejects all in
a heap excepting Codd. ABC, the fragments PQTZ (and for some purposes D)
of the Gospels; DE of the Acts only; DGH of St. Paul. Yet even now he
treats the scheme of his work as if it were already familiarly known, and
spends his time in discursive controversy with his opponents and
reviewers, whom he chastises with a heartiness which in this country we
imputed to downright malice, till Tregelles was so good as to instruct us
that in Lachmann it was but “a tone of pleasantry,” the horseplay of
coarse German wit (Account of Printed Text, p. 112). The supplementary
Prolegomena which preface his second volume of 1850 are certainly more
explicit: both from what they teach and from the practical examples they
contain, they have probably helped others, as well as myself, in gaining a
nearer insight into his whole design.

It seems, then, to have been Lachmann’s purpose, discarding the slightest
regard for the _textus receptus_ as such, to endeavour to bring the sacred
text back to the condition in which it existed during the fourth century,
and this in the first instance by documentary aid alone, without regarding
for the moment whether the sense produced were probable or improbable,
good or bad; but looking solely to his authorities, and following them
implicitly wheresoever the numerical majority might carry him. For
accomplishing this purpose he possessed but one Greek copy written as
early as the fourth century, Cod. B; and of that he not only knew less
than has since come to light (and even this is not quite sufficient), but
he did not avail himself of Bartolocci’s papers on Cod. B, to which Scholz
had already drawn attention. His other codices were not of the fourth
century at all, but varying in date from the fifth (ACT) to the ninth (G);
and of these few (of C more especially) his assistant or colleague
Buttmann’s representation was loose, careless, and unsatisfactory. Of the
Greek Fathers, the scanty Greek remains of Irenaeus and the works of
Origen are all that are employed; but considerable weight is given to the
readings of the Latin version. The Vulgate is printed at length as
revised, after a fashion, by Lachmann himself, from the Codices Fuldensis
and Amiatinus: the Old Latin manuscripts _abc_, together with the Latin
versions accompanying the Greek copies which he receives(234), are treated
as primary authorities: of the Western Fathers he quotes Cyprian, Hilary
of Poictiers, Lucifer of Cagliari, and in the Apocalypse Primasius also.
The Syriac and Egyptian translations he considers himself excused from
attending to, by reason of his ignorance of their respective languages.

The consequence of this voluntary poverty where our manuscript treasures
are so abundant, of this deliberate rejection of the testimony of many
hundreds of documents, of various countries, dates, and characters, may be
told in a few words. Lachmann’s text seldom rests on more than four Greek
codices, very often on three, not unfrequently on two; in Matt. vi.
20-viii. 5, and in 165 out of the 405 verses of the Apocalypse, on but
_one_. It would have been a grievous thing indeed if we really had no
better means of ascertaining the true readings of the New Testament than
are contained in this editor’s scanty roll; and he who, for the sake of
some private theory, shall presume to shut out from his mind the great
mass of information God’s Providence has preserved for our use, will
hardly be thought to have chosen the most hopeful method for bringing
himself or others to the knowledge of the truth.

But supposing, for the sake of argument, that Lachmann had availed himself
to the utmost of the materials he has selected, and that they were
adequate for the purpose of leading him up to the state of the text as it
existed in the fourth century, would he have made any real advance in the
criticism of the sacred volume? Is it not quite evident, even from the
authorities contained in his notes, that copies in that age varied as
widely—nay even more widely—than they did in later times? that the main
corruptions and interpolations which perplex the student in Cod. Bezae and
its Latin allies, crept in at a period anterior to the age of Constantine?
From the Preface to his second volume (1850) it plainly appears (what
might, perhaps, have been gathered by an esoteric pupil from the Preface
to his first, pp. v, xxxiii), that he regarded this fourth century text,
founded as it is on documentary evidence alone, as purely provisional; as
mere subject-matter on which individual _conjecture_ might advantageously
operate (Praef. 1850, p. v). Of the many examples wherewith he illustrates
his principle we must be content with producing one, as an ample specimen
both of Lachmann’s plan and of his judgement in reducing it to practice.
In Matt. xxvii. 28 for ἐκδύσαντες, which gives a perfectly good sense, and
seems absolutely required by τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ in ver. 31, _BDabc_ read
ἐνδύσαντες, a variation either borrowed from Mark xv. 17, or more probably
a mere error of the pen. Had the whole range of manuscripts, versions, and
Fathers been searched, no other testimony in favour of ἐνδύσαντες could
have been found save Cod. 157, _ff_2 and _q_ of the Old Latin, the Latin
version of Origen, and a few codices of Chrysostom(235). Against these we
might set a vast company of witnesses, exceeding those on the opposite
side by full a hundred to one; yet because Cod. A and the Latin Vulgate
alone are on Lachmann’s list, he is compelled by his system to place
ἐνδύσαντες in the text as the reading of his authorities, reserving to
himself the privilege of removing it on the ground of its palpable
impropriety: and all this because he wishes to keep the “recensio” of the
text distinct from the “emendatio” of the sense (Praef. 1850, p. vi).
Surely it were a far more reasonable, as well as a more convenient
process, to have reviewed from the first the entire case on both sides,
and if the documentary evidence were not unevenly balanced, or internal
evidence strongly preponderated in one scale, to place in the text once
for all the reading which upon the whole should appear best suited to the
passage, and most sufficiently established by authority.

But while we cannot accord to Lachmann the praise of wisdom in his design,
or of over-much industry and care in the execution of it (_see_
Tischendorf, N. T., Proleg. pp. cvii-cxii), yet we would not dissemble or
extenuate the power his edition has exerted over candid and enquiring
minds. Earnest, single-hearted, a true scholar both in spirit and
accomplishments, he has had the merit of restoring the Latin versions to
their proper rank in the criticism of the New Testament, which since the
failure of Bentley’s schemes they seem to have partially lost. No one will
hereafter claim for the received text any further weight than it is
entitled to as the representative of the manuscripts on which it was
constructed: and the principle of recurring exclusively to a few ancient
documents in preference to the many (so engaging from its very
simplicity), which may be said to have virtually originated with him, has
not been without influence with some who condemn the most strongly his
hasty and one-sided, though consistent, application of it. Lachmann died
in 1851.

15. “Novum Testamentum Graece. Ad antiquos testes denuo recensuit,
apparatum criticum omni studio perfectum apposuit, commentationem
isagogicam praetexuit Aenoth. Frid. Const. Tischendorf, editio octava:”
Lipsiae, 1865-1872. This is beyond question the most full and
comprehensive edition of the Greek Testament existing; it contains the
results of the latest collations and discoveries, and as copious a body of
various readings as is compatible with the design of adapting it for
general use: though Tischendorf’s notes are not sufficiently minute (as
regards the cursive manuscripts) to supersede the need of perpetually
consulting the labours of preceding critics. His earliest enterprise(236)
in connexion with Biblical studies was a small edition of the New
Testament (12mo, 1841), completed at Leipzig in 1840, which, although
greatly inferior to his subsequent works, merited the encouragement which
it procured for him, and the praises of D. Schulz, which he very
gratefully acknowledged. Soon afterwards he set out on his first literary
journey: “quod quidem tam pauper suscepi,” he ingenuously declares, “ut
pro paenula quam portabam solvere non possem;” and, while busily engaged
on Cod. C, prepared three other editions of the New Testament, which
appeared in 1843 at Paris, all of them being booksellers’ speculations on
which, perhaps, he set no high value; one inscribed to Guizot, the
Protestant statesman, a second (having the Greek text placed in a parallel
column with the Latin Vulgate, and somewhat altered to suit it) dedicated
to Denys Affre, the Archbishop of Paris who fell so nobly at the
barricades in June, 1848. His third edition of that year contained the
Greek text of the second edition, without the Latin Vulgate. It is
needless to enlarge upon the history of his travels, sufficiently
described by Tischendorf in the Preface to his seventh edition (1859); it
will be enough to state that he was in Italy in 1843 and 1866; four times
he visited England (1842, 1849, 1855, 1865); and thrice went into the
East, where his chief discovery—that of the Cod. Sinaiticus—was ultimately
made. In 1849 came forth his second Leipzig or fifth edition of the New
Testament, showing a very considerable advance upon that of 1841, though,
in its earlier pages more especially, still very defective, and even as a
manual scarce worthy of his rapidly growing fame. The sixth edition was
one stereotyped for Tauchnitz in 1850 (he put forth another stereotyped
edition in 1862), representing the text of 1849 slightly revised: the
seventh, and up to that date by far the most important, was issued in
thirteen parts at Leipsic during the four years 1856-9. It is indeed a
monument of persevering industry which the world has not often seen
surpassed: yet it was soon to be thrown into the shade by his eighth and
latest edition, issued in eleven parts, between 1864 and 1872, the text of
which is complete, but the Prolegomena, to our great loss, were never
written, by reason of his illness and death (Dec. 7, 1874)(237).

Yet it may truly be asserted that the reputation of Tischendorf as a
Biblical scholar rests less on his critical editions of the N. T., than on
the texts of the chief uncial authorities which in rapid succession he has
given to the world. In 1843 was published the New Testament, in 1845 the
Old Testament portion of “Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (Cod. C)”, 2
vols. 4to, in uncial type, with elaborate Prolegomena, notes, and
facsimiles. In 1846 appeared “Monumenta sacra inedita,” 4to, containing
transcripts of Codd. FaLNWaYΘa of the Gospels, and B of the Apocalypse;
the plan and apparatus of this volume and of nearly all that follow are
the same as in the Codex Ephraemi. In 1846 he also published the Codex
Friderico-Augustanus in lithographed facsimile throughout, containing the
results of his first discovery at Mount Sinai: in 1847 the Evangelium
Palatinum ineditum of the Old Latin: in 1850 and again in 1854 less
splendid but good and useful editions of the Codex Amiatinus of the Latin
Vulgate. His edition of Codex Claromontanus (D of St. Paul), 1852, was of
precisely the same nature as his editions of Cod. Ephraemi, &c, but his
book entitled “Anecdota sacra et profana,” 1855 (second and enlarged
edition in 1861), exhibits a more miscellaneous character, comprising
(together with other matter) transcripts of Oa of the Gospels, M of St.
Paul; a collation of Cod. 61 of the Acts _being the only cursive copy he
seems to have examined_; notices and facsimiles of Codd. ΙΓΛ tisch.(238)
or Evan. 478 of the Gospels, and of the lectionaries tisch.ev (Evst. 190)
and tisch.6. f. (Apost. 71). Next was commenced a new series of “Monumenta
sacra inedita” (projected to consist of nine volumes), on the same plan as
the book of 1846. Much of this series is devoted to codices of the
Septuagint version, to which Tischendorf paid great attention, and whereof
he published four editions (the latest in 1869) hardly worthy of him; but
vol. i (1855) contains transcripts of Codd. I, venev. (Evst. 175); vol. ii
(1857) of Codd. NbRΘa; vol. iii (1860) of Codd. QWc, all of the Gospels;
vol. iv (1869) was given up to the Septuagint, as vol. vii would have been
to the Wolfenbüttel manuscript of Chrysostom, of the sixth century; but
Cod. P of the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse comprises a portion of vols.
v (1865) and of vi (1869); while vol. viii was to have been devoted to
palimpsest fragments of both Testaments, such as we have described amongst
the Uncials: the Appendix or vol. ix (1870) contains Cod. E of the Acts,
&c. An improved edition of his system of Gospel Harmony (Synopsis
Evangelica, 1851) appeared in 1864, with some fresh critical matter, a
better one in 1871, and the fifth in 1884. His achievements in regard to
Codd. א and Β we have spoken of in their proper places. He published his
“Notitia Cod. Sinaitici” in 1860, his great edition of that manuscript in
1862, with full notes and Prolegomena; smaller editions of the New
Testament only in 1863 and 1865; “an Appendix Codd. celeberrimorum
Sinaitici, Vaticani, Alexandrini with facsimiles” in 1867. His marvellous
yet unsatisfactory edition of Cod. Vaticanus, prepared under the
disadvantages we have described, appeared in 1867; its “Appendix”
(including Cod. B of the Apocalypse) in 1869; his unhappy “Responsa ad
calumnias Romanas” in 1870. To this long and varied catalogue must yet be
added exact collations of Codd. EGHKMUX Gospels, EGHL Acts, FHL of St.
Paul, and more, all made for his editions of the N. T. A poor issue of the
Authorized English Version of the N. T. was put forth in his name in 1869,
being the thousandth volume of Tauchnitz’s series.

The consideration of the text of Tischendorf’s several editions will be
touched upon in Chapter X. To the _general_ accuracy of his collations
every one who has followed him over a portion of his vast field can bear
and is bound to bear cheerful testimony. For practical purposes his
correctness is quite sufficient, even though one or two who have
accomplished very much less may have excelled in this respect some at
least of his later works. For the unflinching exertions and persevering
toil of full thirty years Tischendorf was called upon in 1873 to pay the
natural penalty in a stroke of paralysis, which prostrated his strong
frame, and put a sudden end to his most fruitful studies. He was born at
Lengenfeld in the kingdom of Saxony in 1815 and died in 1874, having
nearly completed his sixtieth year(239).

16. “The Greek New Testament, edited from ancient authorities; with the
various readings of all the ancient MSS., the ancient versions, and other
ecclesiastical writers (to Eusebius inclusive); together with the Latin
version of Jerome, from the Codex Amiatinus of the sixth century. By
Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, LL.D.” 4to, 1857-1872, pp. 1017. [Appendix by
Dr. Hort, 1879, pp. i-xxxii; 1018-1069.]

The esteemed editor of the work of which the above is the full title,
first became generally known as the author of “The Book of Revelation in
Greek, edited from ancient authorities; with a new English Version,” 1844:
and, in spite of some obvious blemishes and defects, his attempt was
received in the English Church with the gratitude and respect to which his
thorough earnestness and independent views justly entitled him. He had
arranged in his own mind as early as 1838 the plan of a Greek Testament,
which he announced on the publication of the Apocalypse, and now set
himself vigorously to accomplish. His fruitless endeavour to collate Cod.
B has already been mentioned, but when he was on the continent in 1845-6,
and again in 1849-50, also in 1862, he thoroughly examined all the
manuscripts he could meet with, that fell within the compass of his
design. In 1854 he published a volume full of valuable information, and
intended as a formal exposition of his critical principles, intitled “An
Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament.” In 1856 he
re-wrote, rather than re-edited, that portion of the Rev. T. Hartwell
Horne’s well-known “Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of
the Holy Scriptures” which relates to the New Testament, under the title
of “An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,”
&c.(240) In 1857 appeared, for the use of subscribers only, the Gospels of
SS. Matthew and Mark, as the first part of his “Greek New Testament” (pp.
1-216); early in 1861 the second part, containing SS. Luke and John (pp.
217-488), with but a few pages of “Introductory Notice” in each. In that
year, paralysis, _mercurialium pestis virorum_, for a while suspended our
editor’s too assiduous labours: but he recovered health sufficient to
publish the Acts and Catholic Epistles in 1865, the Epistles of St. Paul
down to 2 Thess. in 1869. Early in 1870, while in the act of revising the
concluding chapters of the Apocalypse, he was visited by a second and very
severe stroke of his fell disease. The remaining portion of the Pauline
Epistles was sent out in 1870 as he had himself prepared it; the
Revelation (alas! without the long-desired Prolegomena) in 1872, as well
as the state of Tregelles’ papers would enable his friends S. J. B.
Bloxsidge and B. W. Newton to perform their office. The revered author
could contribute nothing save a message to his subscribers, full of devout
thankfulness and calm reliance on the Divine wisdom. The text of the
Apocalypse differs from that which he arranged in 1844 in about 229
places.

Except Codd. ΟΞ, which were published in 1861 (_see_ under those MSS.),
this critic has not edited in full the text of any document, but his
renewed collations of manuscripts are very extensive: viz. Codd.
EGHKMNbRUXZΓΛ 1, 33, 69 of the Gospels; HL 13, 31, 61 of the Acts; DFL 1,
17, 37 of St. Paul, 1, 14 of the Apocalypse, _Am._ of the Vulgate. Having
followed Tregelles through the whole of Cod. 69 (Act. 31, Paul. 37, Apoc.
14), I am able to speak positively of his scrupulous exactness, and in
regard to other manuscripts now in England it will be found that, where
Tischendorf and Tregelles differ, the latter is seldom in the wrong. To
the versions and Fathers (especially to Origen and Eusebius) he has
devoted great attention. His volume is a beautiful specimen of
typography(241), and its arrangement is very convenient, particularly his
happy expedient for showing at every open leaf the precise authorities
that are extant at that place.

The peculiarity of Tregelles’ system is intimated, rather than stated, in
the title-page of his Greek N. T. It consists in resorting to “ancient
authorities” alone in the construction of his revised text, and in
refusing not only to the received text, but to the great mass of
manuscripts also, all voice in determining the true readings. This scheme,
although from the history he gives of his work (An Account of Printed
Text, pp. 153, &c.), it was apparently devised independently of Lachmann,
is in fact essentially that great scholar’s plan, after those parts of it
are withdrawn which are manifestly indefensible. Tregelles’ “ancient
authorities” are thus reduced to those manuscripts which, not being
Lectionaries, happen to be written in uncial characters, with the
remarkable exceptions of Codd. 1, 33, 69 of the Gospels, 61 of the Acts,
which he admits because they “preserve an ancient text.” We shall
hereafter enquire (Chap. X) whether the text of the N. T. can safely be
grounded on a basis so narrow as that of Tregelles.

This truly eminent person, born at Falmouth of a Quaker family January 30,
1813, received what education he ever got at Falmouth Classical School (of
which I was Master twenty years later), from 1825 to 1828. At an early age
he left the communion in which he was bred, to join a body called the
Plymouth Brethren, among whom he met with much disquietude and some mild
persecution: his last years were more happily spent as a humble lay member
of the Church of England, a fact he very earnestly begged me to keep in
mind(242). The critical studies he took up as early as 1838, when he was
only twenty-five years old, were the main occupation of his life. The
inconvenient and costly form in which he published his Greek Testament,
brought upon him pecuniary loss, and even trenched upon the moderate
fortune of his true and loving wife. After several years of deep
retirement he died at Plymouth, April 24, 1875: and whereas his widow, who
has since followed him to the other world, was anxious that his great work
should be as far as possible completed, Dr. Hort has manifested his
veneration for an honoured memory by publishing in 1879 an “Appendix” to
the Greek New Testament, embracing what materials for Prolegomena
Tregelles’ published writings supplied, and supplementary corrections to
every page of the main work, compiled by the Rev. A. W. Streane, Fellow of
C. C. C, Cambridge, which comprise a wonderful monument of minute
diligence and devotion.

Of Tischendorf and Tregelles, that duumvirate of Biblical critics, I may
be allowed to repeat a few words, extracted from the Preface to the Greek
Testament of 1876, in the series of “Cambridge Texts:” “Eheu quos viros!
natu ferè aequales, indole et famâ satis dispares, ambo semper in adversum
nitentes, ambo piis laboribus infractos, intra paucos menses mors abripuit
immatura.”

17. “The New Testament in the original Greek. The text revised by Brooke
Foss Westcott, D.D. [Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of
Cambridge], and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. [Hulsean Professor of
Divinity there]. Vol. I. Cambridge and London, 1881.” “Introduction and
Appendix,” in a separate volume, by Dr. Hort only, 1881. This important
and comprehensive work, the joint labour of two of the best scholars of
this age, toiling, now separately, now in counsel, for five and twenty
years, was published, the text a few days earlier than the Revised English
Version (May 17, 1881), the Introduction about four months later. The
text, or one almost identical with it, had been submitted to the Revisers
of the N. T., and to a few other Biblical students, several years before,
so that the general tenor and spirit of our authors’ judgement was known
to many: the second edition of my present work was enriched by the free
permission granted by them to announce their conclusions regarding
passages which come up for discussion in Chapter XII, and elsewhere. Drs.
Westcott and Hort depart more widely from the _textus receptus_ than any
previous editor had thought necessary; nor can they be blamed for carrying
out their deliberate convictions, if the reasons they allege shall prove
sufficient to justify them. Those reasons are given at length by Dr. Hort
in his “Introduction,” a treatise whose merits may be frankly acknowledged
by persons the least disposed to accept his arguments: never was a cause,
good or bad in itself, set off with higher ability and persuasive power.
On the validity of his theory we shall have much to say in Chapters X and
XII, to which we here refer once for all. The elegant volume which
exhibits the Greek text contains in its margin many alternative readings,
chiefly recorded in passages wherein a difference of opinion existed
between the two illustrious editors. Words or passages supposed to be of
doubtful authority are included in brackets ([ ]), those judged to be
probably or certainly spurious—and their number is ominously large—in
double brackets ([[ ]]). Mark xvi. 9-20; John vii. 53-viii. 11 are
banished to the end of their respective Gospels, as if they did not belong
to them. Finally, quotations from and even slight allusions to the Old
Testament, in great but judicious plenty, are printed in a kind of uncial
letter, to the great benefit of the student.

This notice cannot be left without an expression of deep regret upon the
loss of Dr. Hort at a comparatively early age. Much as the author of this
work and the editor of this edition has differed from the views of that
distinguished man, the services which he has rendered in many ways to the
cause of sacred textual criticism cannot here be forgotten or
unrecognized. His assiduity and thoroughness are a pattern to all who come
after him.

18. The text constructed by the English Revisers in preparation for their
Revised Translation was published in two forms at Oxford and Cambridge
respectively in 1881. The Oxford edition, under the care of Archdeacon
Palmer, incorporated in the text the readings adopted by the Revisers with
the variations at the foot of the Authorized edition of 1611, of
Stephanus’ third edition published in 1550, and of the margin of the
Revised Version. The Cambridge edition, under the care of Dr. Scrivener,
gave the Authorized text with the variations of the Revisers mentioned at
the foot. Both editions are admirably edited. The number of variations
adopted by the Revisers, which are generally based upon the principles
advocated by Westcott and Hort, has been estimated by Dr. Scrivener at
5,337 (Burgon’s “Revision Revised,” p. 405). The titles in full of these
two editions are:—

1. The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed
in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in the
Revised Version. Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press,
by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., L.L.D., Prebendary of Exeter and
Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.

2. Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the
Revisers of the Authorized Version. Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1881.
[Preface by the Editor, Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.]



CHAPTER VIII. INTERNAL EVIDENCE.


We have now described, in some detail, the several species of external
testimony available for the textual criticism of the New Testament,
whether comprising manuscripts of the original Greek, or ancient
translations from it, or citations from Scripture made by ecclesiastical
writers. We have, moreover, indicated the chief editions wherein all these
materials are recorded for our use, and the principles that have guided
their several editors in applying them to the revision of the text. One
source of information, formerly deemed quite legitimate, has been
designedly passed by. It is now agreed among competent judges that
_Conjectural Emendation_ must never be resorted to, even in passages of
acknowledged difficulty(243); the absence of proof that a reading proposed
to be substituted for the common one is actually supported by some
trustworthy document being of itself a fatal objection to our receiving
it(244). Those that have been hazarded aforetime by celebrated scholars,
when but few codices were known or actually collated, have seldom, very
seldom, been confirmed by subsequent researches: and the time has now
fully come when, in the possession of abundant stores of variations
collected from memorials of almost every age and country, we are fully
authorized in believing that the reading to which no manuscript, or old
version, or primitive Father has borne witness, however plausible and (for
some purposes) convenient, cannot safely be accepted as genuine or even as
probable; even though there may still remain a few passages respecting
which we cannot help framing a shrewd suspicion that the original reading
differed from any form in which they are now presented to us(245).

In no wise less dangerous than bare conjecture destitute of external
evidence, is the device of Lachmann for unsettling by means of emendation
(_emendando_), without reference to the balance of conflicting testimony,
the very text he had previously fixed by revision (_recensendo_) through
the means of critical authorities: in fact the earlier process is but so
much trouble misemployed, if its results are liable to be put aside by
abstract judgement or individual prejudices. Not that the most sober and
cautious critic would disparage the fair use of internal evidence, or
withhold their proper influence from those reasonable considerations which
in practice cannot, and in speculation should not, be shut out from every
subject on which the mind seeks to form an intelligent opinion. Whether we
will or not, we unconsciously and almost instinctively adopt that one of
two opposite statements, _in themselves pretty equally attested to_, which
we judge the better suited to recognized phenomena, and to the common
course of things. I know of no person who has affected to construct a text
of the N. T. on diplomatic grounds exclusively, without paying some regard
to the character of the sense produced; nor, were the experiment tried,
would any one find it easy to dispense with discretion and the dictates of
good sense: nature would prove too strong for the dogmas of a wayward
theory. “It is difficult not to indulge in _subjectiveness_, at least in
some measure,” writes Dr. Tregelles (Account of Printed Text, p. 109):
and, thus qualified, we may add that it is one of those difficulties a
sane man would not wish to overcome.

The foregoing remarks may tend to explain the broad distinction between
mere conjectural emendation, which must be utterly discarded, and that
just use of internal testimony which he is the best critic who most
judiciously employs. They so far resemble each other, as they are both
products of the reasoning faculty exercising itself on the sacred words of
Scripture: they differ in this essential feature, that the one proceeds in
ignorance or disregard of evidence from without, while the office of the
other has no place unless where external evidence is evenly, or at any
rate not very unevenly, balanced. What degree of preponderance in favour
of one out of several readings, all of them affording some tolerable
sense, shall entitle it to reception as a matter of right; to what extent
canons of subjective criticism may be allowed to eke out the scantiness of
documentary authority; are points that cannot well be defined with strict
accuracy. Men’s decisions respecting them will always vary according to
their temperament and intellectual habits; the judgement of the same
person (the rather if he be by constitution a little unstable) will
fluctuate from time to time as to the same evidence brought to bear on the
self-same passage. Though the _canons_ or rules of internal testimony be
themselves grounded either on principles of common sense, or on certain
peculiarities which all may mark in the documents from which our direct
proofs are derived; yet has it been found by experience (what indeed we
might have looked for beforehand), that in spite, perhaps in consequence,
of their extreme simplicity, the application of these canons has proved a
searching test of the tact, the sagacity, and the judicial acumen of all
that handle them. For the other functions of an editor accuracy and
learning, diligence and zeal are sufficient: but the delicate adjustment
of conflicting probabilities calls for no mean exercise of a critical
genius. This innate faculty we lack in Wetstein, and notably in Scholz; it
was highly developed in Mill and Bengel, and still more in Griesbach. His
well-known power in this respect is the main cause of our deep regret for
the failure of Bentley’s projected work, with all its faults whether of
plan or execution.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Nearly all the following rules of internal evidence, being founded in the
nature of things, are alike applicable to all subjects of literary
investigation, though their general principles may need some modification
in the particular instance of the Greek Testament.

I. PROCLIVI SCRIPTIONI PRAESTAT ARDUA: the more difficult the reading the
more likely it is to be genuine. It would seem more probable that the
copyist tried to explain an obscure passage, or to relieve a hard
construction, than to make that perplexed which before was easy: thus in
John vii. 39, Lachmann’s addition of δεδομένον to οὔπω ἦν πνεῦμα ἅγιον is
very improbable, though countenanced by Cod. B and (of course) by several
of the chief versions. We have here Bengel’s prime canon, and although
Wetstein questioned it (N. T., vol. i. Proleg. p. 157), he was himself
ultimately obliged to lay down something nearly to the same effect(246).
Yet this excellent rule may easily be applied on a wrong occasion, and is
only true _ceteris paribus_, where manuscripts or versions lend strong
support to the harder form. “To force readings into the text merely
because they are difficult, is to adulterate the divine text with human
alloy; it is to obtrude upon the reader of Scripture the solecisms of
faltering copyists, in the place of the word of God” (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth,
N. T., vol. i. Preface, p. xii)(247). See Chap. XII on Matt. xxi. 28-31.
Compare also above, Vol. I. i. § 11.

II. That reading out of several is preferable, from which all the rest may
have been derived, although it could not be derived from any of them.
Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg. p. xlii. 7th edition) might well say that this
would be “omnium regularum principium,” if its application were less
precarious. Of his own two examples the former is too weakly vouched for
to be listened to, save by way of illustration. In Matt. xxiv. 38 he(248)
and Alford would simply read ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ on the very
feeble evidence of Cod. L, one uncial Evst. (13), _a_ _e_ _ff_, the
Sahidic version, and Origen (in two places); because the copyists, knowing
that the eating and drinking and marrying took place not in the days of
the flood, but before them (καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ἕως ἦλθεν ὁ κατακλυσμός ver.
39), would strive to evade the difficulty, such as it was, by adopting one
of the several forms found in our copies: ἡμέραις πρὸ τοῦ κατακλ., or
ἡμέραις ταῖς πρὸ τοῦ κατακλ., or ἡμέραις ἐκείναις πρὸ τοῦ κατακλ., or
ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ταῖς πρὸ τοῦ κατακλ., or even ἡμέραις τοῦ νῶε. In his
second example Tischendorf is more fortunate, unless indeed we choose to
refer it rather to Bengel’s canon. James iii. 12 certainly ought to run μὴ
δύναται, ἀδελφοί μου, συκῆ ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι, ἢ ἄμπελος σῦκα; οὔτε (_vel_
οὐδὲ) ἁλυκὸν γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ, as in Codd. אABC, in not less than six
good cursives, the Vulgate and other versions. To soften the ruggedness of
this construction, some copies prefixed οὅτως to οὔτε or οὔδε, while
others inserted the whole clause οὕτως οὐδεμία πηγὴ ἁλυκὸν καί before
γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ. Other fair instances may be seen in Chap. XII, notes
on Luke x. 41, 42; Col. ii. 2(249). In the Septuagint also the reading of
א συνεισελθόντας 1 Macc. xii. 48 appears to be the origin both of
συνελθόντας with A, the uncial 23, and four cursives at least, and of
εἰσελθόντας of the Roman edition and the mass of cursives.

III. “Brevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium auctoritate
penitus destituatur, praeferenda est verbosiori. Librarii enim multò
proniores ad addendum fuerunt, quam ad omittendum” (Griesbach, N. T.,
Proleg. p. lxiv. vol. i). This canon bears an influential part in the
system of Griesbach and his successors, and by the aid of Cod. B and a few
others, has brought great changes into the text as approved by some
critics. Dr. Green too (Course of Developed Criticism on Text of N. T.)
sometimes carries it to excess in his desire to remove what he considers
_accretions_. It is so far true, that scribes were no doubt prone to
receive marginal notes into the text which they were originally designed
only to explain or enforce (e.g. 1 John v. 7, 8)(250); or sought to
amplify a brief account from a fuller narrative of the same event found
elsewhere, whether in the same book (e.g. Act. ix. 5 compared with ch.
xxvi. 14), or in the parallel passage of one of the other synoptical
Gospels. In quotations, also, from the Old Testament the shorter form is
always the more probably correct (_ibid._). Circumstances too will be
supplied which were deemed essential for the preservation of historical
truth (e.g. Act. viii. 37), or names of persons and places may be inserted
from the Lectionaries: and to this head we must refer the graver and more
deliberate interpolations so frequently met with in Cod. D and a few other
documents. Yet it is just as true that words and clauses are sometimes
wilfully omitted for the sake of removing apparent difficulties (e.g. υἱοῦ
βαραχίου, Matt, xxiii. 35 in Cod. א and a few others), and that the
negligent loss of whole passages through ὁμοιοτέλευτον is common to
manuscripts of every age and character. On the whole, therefore, the
indiscriminate rejection of portions of the text regarded as
supplementary, on the evidence of but a few authorities, must be viewed
with considerable distrust and suspicion.

IV. That reading of a passage is preferable which best suits the peculiar
style, manner, and habits of thought of an author; it being the tendency
of copyists to overlook the idiosyncrasies of the writer. For example, the
abrupt energy of St. James’ _asyndeta_ (e.g. ch. i. 27), of which we have
just seen a marked instance, is much concealed by the particles inserted
by the common text (e.g. ch. ii. 4, 13; iii. 17; iv. 2; v. 6): St. Luke in
the Acts is fond of omitting “said” or “saith” after the word indicating
the speaker, though they are duly supplied by recent scribes (e.g. ch. ii.
38; ix. 5; xix. 2; xxv. 22; xxv. 28, 29). Thus again, in editing
Herodotus, an Ionic form is more eligible than an Attic one equally well
attested, while in the Greek Testament an Alexandrian termination should
be chosen under similar circumstances. Yet even this canon has a double
edge: habit or the love of critical correction will sometimes lead the
scribe to change the text to his author’s more usual style, as well as to
depart from it through inadvertence (_see_ Acts iv. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 24): so
that we may securely apply the rule only where the external evidence is
not unequally balanced.

V. Attention must be paid to the genius and usage of each several
authority, in assigning the weight due to it in a particular instance.
Thus the testimony of Cod. B is of the less influence in omissions, that
of Cod. D (Bezae) in additions, inasmuch as the tendency of the former is
to abridge, that of the latter to amplify the sacred text. The value of
versions and ecclesiastical writers also much depends on the degree of
care and critical skill which they display.

Every one of the foregoing rules might be applied _mutatis mutandis_ to
the emendation of the text of any author whose works have suffered
alteration since they left his hands: the next (so far as it is true) is
peculiar to the case of Holy Scripture.

VI. “Inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspectâ merito habetur,
quae orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifestè prae ceteris favet” (Griesbach, N.
T., Proleg., p. lxvi. vol. i). I cite this canon from Griesbach for the
sake of annexing Archbishop Magee’s very pertinent corollary: “from which,
at least, it is reasonable to infer, that whatever readings, in favour of
the Orthodox opinion, may have had _his_ sanction, have not been preferred
by him from any bias in behalf of Orthodoxy” (Discourses on Atonement and
Sacrifice, vol. iii. p. 212). Alford says that the rule, “sound in the
main,” does not hold good, when, “_whichever reading is adopted, the
orthodox meaning is legitimate_, but _the adoption of the stronger
orthodox reading is absolutely incompatible with the heretical
meaning_,—then it is probable that _such stronger orthodox reading was the
original_” (N. T., Proleg., vol. i. p. 83, note 6, 4th edition):
instancing Act. xx. 28, where the weaker reading τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου
would quite satisfy the orthodox, while the alternative reading τοῦ θεοῦ
“would have been certain to be altered by the heretics.” But in truth
there seems no good ground for believing that the rule is “sound in the
main,” though two or three such instances as 1 Tim. iii. 16(251) and the
insertion of θεόν in Jude, ver. 4, might seem to countenance it. We
dissent altogether from Griesbach’s statement, “Scimus enim, lectiones
quascunque, etiam manifestò falsas, dummodo orthodoxorum placitis
patrocinarentur, inde a tertii seculi initiis mordicus defensas seduloque
propagatas, ceteras autem ejusdem loci lectiones, quae dogmati
ecclesiastico nil praesidii afferrent, haereticorum perfidiae attributas
temere fuisse” (Griesb. _ubi supra_), if he means that the orthodox forged
those great texts, which, _believing them to be authentic_, it was surely
innocent and even incumbent on them to employ(252). The Church of Christ
“inde a tertii seculi initiis” has had her faults, many and grievous, but
she never did nor shall fail in her duty as a faithful “witness and keeper
of Holy Writ.” But while vindicating the copyists of Scripture from all
wilful tampering with the text, we need not deny that they, like others of
their craft, preferred that one out of several extant readings that seemed
to give the fullest and most emphatic sense: hence Davidson would fain
account for the addition ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ
(which, however, is not unlikely to be genuine(253)) in Eph. v. 30. Since
the mediaeval scribes belonged almost universally to the monastic orders,
we will not dispute the truth of Griesbach’s rule, “Lectio prae aliis
sensum pietati (praesertim monasticae) alendae aptum fundens, suspecta
est,” though its scope is doubtless very limited(254). Their habit of
composing and transcribing Homilies has also been supposed to have led
them to give a hortatory form to positive commands or dogmatic statements
(_see_ Vol. I. p. 17), but there is much weight in Wordsworth’s remark,
that “such suppositions as these have a tendency to destroy the credit of
the ancient MSS.; and if such surmises were true, those MSS. would hardly
be worth the pains of collating them” (_note on_ 1 Cor. xv. 49).

VII. “Apparent probabilities of erroneous transcription, permutation of
letters, itacism and so forth,” have been designated by Bp. Ellicott
“_paradiplomatic_ evidence” (Preface to the Galatians; p. xvii, first
edition), as distinguished from the “_diplomatic_” testimony of codices,
versions, &c. This species of evidence, which can hardly be deemed
internal, must have considerable influence in numerous cases, and will be
used the most skilfully by such as have considerable practical
acquaintance with the rough materials of criticism. We have anticipated
what can be laid before inexperienced readers on this topic in the first
chapter of our first volume, when discussing the sources of various
readings(255): in fact, so far as canons of internal or of paradiplomatic
evidence are at all trustworthy, they instruct us in the reverse process
to that aimed at in Vol. I. Chap. I; the latter showing by what means the
pure text of the inspired writings was brought into its present state of
_partial_ corruption, the former promising us some guidance while we seek
to retrace its once downward course back to the fountain-head of primeval
truth(256). To what has been previously stated in regard to paradiplomatic
testimony it may possibly be worth while to add Griesbach’s caution
“lectiones RHYTHMI fallaciâ facillimè explicandae nullius sunt pretii” (N.
T., Proleg. p. lxvi), a fact whereof 2 Cor. iii. 3 affords a memorable
example. Here what once seemed the wholly unnatural reading ἐν πλαξὶ
_καρδίαις_ σαρκίναις, being disparaged by dint of the rhyming termination,
is received by Lachmann in the place of καρδίας, on the authority of Codd.
AB (_sic_) CDEGLP, perhaps a majority of cursive copies (seven out of
Scrivener’s twelve, and Wake 12 or Paul. 277); to which add Cod. א unknown
to Lachmann, and that abject slave of manuscripts, the Harkleian Syriac.
Codd. FK have καρδίας, with all the other versions. If we attempt to
interpret καρδίαις, we must either render with Alford, in spite of the
order of the Greek, “on fleshy tables, [your] hearts:” or with the
Revisers of 1881 “in tables _that are_ hearts of flesh;” yet surely
σαρκίναις as well as λιθίναις must agree with πλαξί. Dr. Hort in mere
despair would almost reject the second πλαξί (Introd., Notes, p. 119).

It has been said that “when the cause of a various reading is known, the
variation usually disappears(257).” This language may seem extravagant,
yet it hardly exaggerates what may be effected by internal evidence, when
it is clear, simple, and unambiguous. It is, therefore, much to be
lamented that this is seldom the case in practice. Readings that we should
uphold in virtue of one canon, are very frequently (perhaps in a majority
of really doubtful passages) brought into suspicion by means of another;
yet they shall each of them be perfectly sound and reasonable in their
proper sphere. An instance in point is Matt. v. 22, where the external
evidence is divided. Codd. אΒ (in Δ _secundâ manu_), 48, 198, 583, 587,
Origen _twice_, the Ethiopic and Vulgate, omit εἰκῆ after πᾶς ὁ
ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ ἀυτοῦ, Jerome fairly stating that it is “in
quibusdam codicibus,” not “in veris,” which may be supposed to be Origen’s
MSS., and therefore removing it from his revised Latin version. It is
found, however, in all other extant copies (including ΣDEKLMSUVΔ (_primâ
manu_) Π, most cursives, all the Syriac (the Peshitto inserting, not a
Syriac equivalent, but the Greek word εἰκῆ) and Old Latin copies, the
Bohairic, Armenian, and Gothic versions), in Eusebius, in many Greek
Fathers, in the Latin Fathers from Irenaeus downwards(258), and even in
the Old Latin Version of Origen himself; the later authorities uniting
with Codd. ΣD and their associates against the two oldest manuscripts
extant. Under such circumstances the suggestions of internal evidence
would be precious indeed, were not that just as equivocal as diplomatic
proof. “Griesbach and Meyer,” says Dean Alford, “hold it to have been
expunged from motives of moral rigorism:—De Wette to have been inserted to
soften the apparent rigour of the precept(259).” Our sixth Canon is here
opposed to our first(260). The important yet precarious and strictly
auxiliary nature of rules of internal evidence will not now escape the
attentive student; he may find them exemplified very slightly and
imperfectly in the twelfth Chapter of this volume, but more fully by
recent critical editors of the Greek Testament; except perhaps by
Tregelles, who usually passes them by in silence, though to some extent
they influence his decisions; by Lachmann, in the formation of whose
provisional text they have had no share; and by Dean Burgon, who held that
“we must resolutely maintain, that External Evidence must after all be our
best, our only safe guide” (The Revision Revised, p. 19)(261). We will
close this investigation by citing a few of those crisp little periods
(conceived in the same spirit as our own remarks) wherewith Davidson is
wont to inform and sometimes perhaps to amuse his admirers:


    “Readings must be judged on internal grounds. One can hardly avoid
    doing so. It is natural and almost unavoidable. It must be
    admitted indeed that the choice of readings on internal evidence
    is liable to abuse. Arbitrary caprice may characterize it. It may
    degenerate into simple _subjectivity_. But though the temptation
    to misapply it be great, it must not be laid aside.... While
    allowing superior weight to the external sources of evidence, we
    feel the pressing necessity of the subjective. Here, as in other
    instances, the objective and subjective should accompany and
    modify one another. They cannot be rightly separated.” (Biblical
    Criticism, vol. ii. p. 374, 1852.)



CHAPTER IX. HISTORY OF THE TEXT.


An adequate discussion of the subject of the present chapter would need a
treatise by itself, and has been the single theme of several elaborate
works. We shall here limit ourselves to the examination of those more
prominent topics, a clear understanding of which is essential for the
establishment of trustworthy principles in the application of _external_
evidence to the correction of the text of the New Testament.

1. It was stated at the commencement of this volume that the autographs of
the sacred writers “perished utterly in the very infancy of Christian
history:” nor can any other conclusion be safely drawn from the general
silence of the earliest Fathers, and from their constant habit of
appealing to “ancient and approved copies(262),” when a reference to the
originals, if extant, would have put an end to all controversy on the
subject of various readings. Dismissing one passage in the genuine
Epistles of Ignatius (d. 107), which has no real connexion with the
matter(263), the only allusion to the autographs of Scripture met with in
the primitive ages is the well-known declaration of Tertullian (fl. 200):
“Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae
Apostolorum suis locis praesident, apud quas ipsae Authenticae Literae
eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem, et repraesentantes faciem uniuscujusque.
Proximè est tibi Achaia, habes Corinthum. Si non longè es a Macedoniâ,
habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes in Asiam tendere, habes
Ephesum. Si autem Italiae adjaces, habes Romam ...” (De Praescriptione
Haereticorum, c. 36.) Attempts have been made, indeed, and that by eminent
writers, to reduce the term “Authenticae Literae” so as to mean nothing
more than “genuine, unadulterated Epistles,” or even the authentic Greek
as opposed to the Latin translation(264). It seems enough to reply with
Ernesti, that any such non-natural sense is absolutely excluded by the
word “ipsae,” which would be utterly absurd, if “genuine” only were
intended (Institutes, Pt. iii. Ch. ii. 3)(265): yet the African Tertullian
was too little likely to be well informed on this subject, to entitle his
rhetorical statement to any real attention(266). We need not try to
explain away his obvious meaning, but we may fairly demur to the evidence
of this honest, but impetuous and wrong-headed man. We have no faith in
the continued existence of autographs which are vouched for on no better
authority than the real or apparent exigency of _his_ argument(267).

2. Besides the undesigned and, to a great extent, unavoidable differences
subsisting between manuscripts of the New Testament within a century of
its being written, the wilful corruptions introduced by heretics soon
became a cause of loud complaint in the primitive ages of the Church(268).
Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, addressing the Church of Rome and Soter its
Bishop (A.D. 168-176), complains that even his own letters had been
tampered with: καὶ ταύτας οἱ τοῦ διαβόλου ἀπόστολοι ζιζανίων γεγέμικαν, ἃ
μὲν ἐξαιροῦντες, ἃ δὲ προστιθέντες; οἷς τὸ οὐαὶ κεῖται: adding, however,
the far graver offence, οὐ θαυμαστὸν ἄρα εἰ καὶ τῶν κυριακῶν ῥαδιουργῆσαί
τινες ἐπιβέβληνται γραφῶν (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv. 23), where αἱ κυριακαὶ
γραφαί can be none other than the Holy Scriptures. Nor was the evil new in
the age of Dionysius. Not to mention Asclepiades, or Theodotus, or
Hermophylus, or Apollonides, who all under the excuse of correcting the
sacred text corrupted it(269), or the Gnostics Basilides (A.D. 130?) and
Valentinus (A.D. 150?) who published additions to the sacred text which
were avowedly of their own composition, Marcion of Pontus, the
arch-heretic of that period, coming to Rome on the death of its Bishop
Hyginus (A.D. 142)(270), brought with him that mutilated and falsified
copy of the New Testament, against which the Fathers of the second century
and later exerted all their powers, and whose general contents are known
to us chiefly through the writings of Tertullian and subsequently of
Epiphanius. It can hardly be said that Marcion deserves very particular
mention in relating the history of the sacred text(271). Some of the
variations from the common readings which his opponents detected were
doubtless taken from manuscripts in circulation at the time, and, being
adopted through no private preferences of his own, are justly available
for critical purposes. Thus in 1 Thess. ii. 15, Tertullian, who saw only
τοὺς προφήτας in his own copies, objects to Marcion’s reading τοὺς ἰδίους
προφήτας (“licet _suos_ adjectio sit haeretici”), although ἰδίους stands
in the received text, in Evann. KL (DE in later hands) and all cursives
except eight, in the Gothic and both (?) Syriac versions, in Chrysostom,
Theodoret, and John Damascenus. Here the heretic’s testimony is useful in
showing the high antiquity of ἰδίους, even though אABDEFGP, eight
cursives, Origen thrice, the Vulgate, Armenian, Ethiopic, and all three
Egyptian versions, join with Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott
and Hort in rejecting it, some of them perhaps in compliance with
Tertullian’s decision. In similar instances the evidence of Marcion, as to
matters of fact to which he could attach no kind of importance, is well
worth recording(272): but where on the contrary the dogmas of his own
miserable system are touched, or no codices or other witnesses countenance
his changes (as is perpetually the case in his edition of St. Luke, the
only Gospel—and that maimed or interpolated from the others—he seems to
have acknowledged at all), his blasphemous extravagance may very well be
forgotten. In such cases he does not so much as profess to follow anything
more respectable than the capricious devices of his misguided fancy.

3. Nothing throws so strong a light on the real state of the text in the
latter half of the second century as the single notice of Irenaeus (fl.
178) on Apoc. xiii. 18. This eminent person, the glory of the Western
Church in his own age, whose five books against Heresies (though chiefly
extant but in a bald old Latin version) are among the most precious
reliques of Christian antiquity, had been privileged in his youth to enjoy
the friendly intercourse of his master Polycarp, who himself had conversed
familiarly with St. John and others that had seen the Lord (Euseb., Eccl.
Hist., v. 20). Yet even Irenaeus, though removed but by one stage from the
very Apostles, possessed (if we except a bare tradition) no other means of
settling discordant readings than are now open to ourselves; namely, to
search out the best copies and exercise the judgement on their contents.
His _locus classicus_ must needs be cited in full, the Latin throughout,
the Greek in such portions as survive. The question is whether St. John
wrote χξιϛ᾽ (666), or χιϛ᾽ (616).


    “Hic autem sic se habentibus, et in omnibus antiquis et
    probatissimis et veteribus scripturis numero hoc posito, et
    testimonium perhibentibus his qui facie ad faciem Johannem
    viderunt (τούτων δὲ οὕτως ἐχόντων, καὶ ἐν πᾶσι δὲ τοῖς σπουδαίοις
    καὶ ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τούτου κειμένου, καὶ
    μαρτυρούντων ἀυτῶν ἐκείνων τῶν κατ᾽ ὄψιν τὸν Ἰωάννην ἑωρακότων,
    καὶ τοῦ λόγου διδάσκοντος ἡμᾶς ὅτι ὁ ἀριθμὸς τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ
    θηρίου κατὰ τὴν τῶν Ἑλλήνων ψῆφον διὰ τῶν ἐν ἀυτῷ γραμμάτων
    [ἐμφαίνεται]), et ratione docente nos quoniam numerus nominis
    bestiae, secundum Graecorum computationem, per literas quae in eo
    sunt sexcentos habebit et sexaginta et sex: ignoro quomodo
    erraverunt quidam sequentes idiotismum et medium frustrantes
    numerum nominis, quinquaginta numeros deducentes, pro sex decadis
    unam decadem volentes esse (οὐκ οἶδα πῶς ἐσφάλησάν τινες
    ἐπακολουθήσαντες ἰδιωτισμῷ καὶ τὸν μέσον ἠθέτησαν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ
    ὀνόματος, ν᾽ ψήφισμα ὑφελόντες καὶ ἀντὶ τῶν ἓξ δεκάδων μίαν δεκάδα
    βουλόμενοι εἶναι). Hoc autem arbitror scriptorum peccatum fuisse,
    ut solet fieri, quoniam et per literas numeri ponuntur, facilè
    literam Graecam quae sexaginta enuntiat numerum, in iota Graecorum
    literam expansam.... Sed his quidem qui simpliciter et sine
    malitia hoc fecerunt, arbitramur veniam dari a Deo.” (Contra
    Haeres. v. 30. 1: Harvey, vol. ii. pp. 406-7.)


Here we obtain at once the authority of Irenaeus for receiving the
Apocalypse as the work of St. John; we discern the living interest its
contents had for the Christians of the second century, even up to the
_traditional_ preservation of its minutest readings; we recognize the fact
that numbers were then represented by letters(273); and the far more
important one that the original autograph of the Apocalypse was already so
completely lost, that a thought of it never entered the mind of the
writer, though the book had not been composed one hundred years, perhaps
not more than seventy(274).

4. Clement of Alexandria is the next writer who claims our attention (fl.
194). Though his works abound with citations from Scripture, on the whole
not too carefully made (“in adducendis N. T. locis creber est et
_castus_,” is rather too high praise, Mill, Proleg. § 627), the most has
not yet been made of the information he supplies. He too complains of
those who tamper with (or metaphrase) the Gospels for their own sinister
ends, and affords us one specimen of their evil diligence(275). His pupil
Origen’s [185-253] is the highest name among the critics and expositors of
the early Church; he is perpetually engaged in the discussion of various
readings of the New Testament, and employs language in describing the then
existing state of the text, which would be deemed strong if applied even
to its present condition, after the changes which sixteen more centuries
must needs have produced. His statements are familiar enough to Biblical
enquirers, but, though often repeated, cannot be rightly omitted here.
Seldom have such warmth of fancy and so bold a grasp of mind been united
with the life-long patient industry which procured for this famous man the
honourable appellation of _Adamantius_. Respecting the sacred autographs,
their fate or their continued existence, he seems to have had no
information, and to have entertained no curiosity: they had simply passed
by and were out of reach. Had it not been for the diversities of copies in
all the Gospels on other points (he writes)—καὶ εἰ μὲν μὴ καὶ περὶ ἄλλων
πολλῶν διαφωνία ἦν πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν ἀντιγράφων—he should not have ventured
to object to the authenticity of a certain passage (Matt. xix. 19) on
internal grounds: νυνὶ δὲ δηλονότι πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορά,
εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥαθυμίας τινῶν γραφέων, εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν μοχθηρᾶς τῆς
διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων, εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ
διορθώσει προστιθέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων (Comment. on Matt., Tom. iii. p. 671,
_De la Rue_). “But now,” saith he, “great in truth has become the
diversity of copies, be it from the negligence of certain scribes, or from
the evil daring of some who correct what is written, or from those who in
correcting add or take away what they think fit(276):” just like Irenaeus
had previously described revisers of the text as persons “qui peritiores
apostolis volunt esse” (Contra Haeres. iv. 6. 1).

5. Nor can it easily be denied that the various readings of the New
Testament current from the middle of the second to the middle of the third
century, were neither fewer nor less considerable than such language would
lead us to anticipate. Though no surviving manuscript of the Old Latin
version, or versions, dates before the fourth century, and most of them
belong to a still later age, yet the general correspondence of their text
with that used by the first Latin Fathers is a sufficient voucher for its
high antiquity. The connexion subsisting between this Latin version, the
Curetonian Syriac, and Codex Bezae, proves that the text of these
documents is considerably older than the vellum on which they are written;
the Peshitto Syriac also, most probably the very earliest of all
translations, though approaching far nearer to the received text than
they, sufficiently resembles these authorities in many peculiar readings
to exhibit the general tone and character of one class of manuscripts
extant in the second century, two hundred years anterior to Codd. אB. Now
it may be said without extravagance that no set of Scriptural records
affords a text less probable in itself or less sustained by any rational
principles of external evidence, than that of Cod. D, of the Latin
codices, and (so far as it accords with them) of Cureton’s Syriac.
Interpolations, as insipid in themselves as unsupported by other evidence,
abound in them all(277): additions so little in accordance with the
genuine spirit of Holy Writ that some critics (though I, for one, profess
no skill in such alchemy) have declared them to be as easily separable
from the text which they encumber, as the foot-notes appended to a modern
book are from the main body of the work (Tregelles, An Account of the
Printed Text, p. 138, note). It is no less true to fact than paradoxical
in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever
been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed;
that Irenaeus and the African Fathers and the whole Western, with a
portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those
employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephen thirteen centuries later, when
moulding the Textus Receptus. What passage in the Holy Gospels would be
more jealously guarded than the record of the heavenly voice at the Lord’s
Baptism? Yet Augustine (De Consensu Evangelist, ii. 14) marked a variation
which he thought might be found “in aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus,”
though not “in antiquioribus codicibus Graecis,” where, in the place of ἐν
σοὶ ἠυδόκησα (Luke iii. 22), the words ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε are
substituted from Psalm ii. 7: so also reads the Manichaean Faustus apud
Augustin.; Enchiridion ad Laurentium, c. 49. The only Greek copy which
maintains this important reading is D: it is met with moreover in _abc_
(in _d_ of course), in _ff_1 _primâ manu_, and in _l_, whose united
evidence leaves not a doubt of its existence in the primitive Old Latin;
whence it is cited by Hilary three times, by Lactantius and Juvencus, to
which list Abbot adds Hilary the deacon (Quaestiones V. et N. T.). Among
the Greeks it is known but to Methodius, and to those very early writers,
Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, who seem to have derived the
corruption (for such it must doubtless be regarded) from the Ebionite
Gospel (Epiphan., Haeres., xxi. 13)(278). So again of a doubtful passage
which we shall examine in Chapter XII, Irenaeus cites Acts viii. 37
without the least misgiving, though the spuriousness of the verse can
hardly be doubted; and expressly testifies to a reading in Matt. i. 18
which has not till lately found many advocates. It is hard to believe that
1 John v. 7, 8 was not cited by Cyprian, and even the interpolation in
Matt. xx. 28 was widely known and received. Many other examples might be
produced from the most venerable Christian writers, in which they
countenance variations (and those not arbitrary, but resting on some sort
of authority) which no modern critic has ever attempted to vindicate.

6. When we come down to the fourth century, our information grows at once
more definite and more trustworthy. Copies of Scripture had been
extensively destroyed during the long and terrible period of affliction
that preceded the conversion of Constantine. In the very edict which
marked the beginning of Diocletian’s persecution, it is ordered that the
holy writings should be burnt (τὰς γραφὰς ἀφανεῖς πυρὶ γενέσθαι, Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist., viii. 2); and the cruel decree was so rigidly enforced that a
special name of reproach (_traditores_), together with the heaviest
censures of the Church, was laid upon those Christians who betrayed the
sacred trust (Bingham, Antiquities, book xvi. ch. vi. 25). At such a
period critical revision or even the ordinary care of devout transcribers
must have disappeared before the pressure of the times. Fresh copies of
the New Testament would have to be made in haste to supply the room of
those seized by the enemies of our Faith; and, when made, they had to
circulate by stealth among persons whose lives were in jeopardy every
hour. Hence arose the need, when the tempest was overpast, of transcribing
many new manuscripts of the Holy Bible, the rather as the Church was now
receiving vast accessions of converts within her pale. Eusebius of
Caesarea, the ecclesiastical historian, seems to have taken the lead in
this happy labour; his extensive learning, which by the aid of certain
other less commendable qualities had placed him high in Constantine’s
favour, rendered it natural that the emperor should employ his services
for furnishing with fifty copies of Scripture the churches of his new
capital, Constantinople. Eusebius’ deep interest in Biblical studies is
exhibited in several of his surviving works, as well as in his Canons for
harmonizing the Gospels: and he would naturally betake himself for the
text of his fifty codices to the Library founded at his Episcopal city of
Caesarea by the martyr Pamphilus, the dear friend and teacher from whom he
derived his own familiar appellation _Eusebius Pamphili_. Into this
Library Pamphilus had gathered manuscripts of Origen as well as of other
theologians, and of these Eusebius made an index (τοὺς πίνακας παρεθέμην:
Eccles. Hist., vi. 32). From this collection Cod. H of St. Paul and others
are stated to have been derived, nay even Cod. א in its Old Testament
portion (_see_ vol. I. p. 55 and note), which is expressly declared to
have been corrected to the Hexapla of Origen. Indeed we know from Jerome
(Comment. in Epist. ad Tit.) that the very autograph (“ipsa authentica”)
of Origen’s Hexapla was used by himself at Caesarea, and Montfaucon
(Praeliminaria in Hexapl., chap. i. 5) cites from one manuscript the
following subscription to Ezekiel, Ὁ Εὐσέβιος ἐγὼ σχόλια παρέθηκα.
Πάμφιλος καὶ Εὐσέβιος ἐδιωρθώσαντο.

7. We are thus warranted, as well from direct evidence as from the analogy
of the Old Testament, to believe that Eusebius mainly resorted for his
Constantinopolitan Church-books to the codices of Pamphilus, which might
once have belonged to Origen. What critical corrections (if any) he
ventured to make in the text on his own judgement is not so clear. Not
that there is the least cause to believe, with Dr. Nolan (Inquiry into the
Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p. 27), that Eusebius had either the power
or the will to suppress or tamper with the great doctrinal texts 1 John v.
7, 8; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Acts xx. 28; yet we cannot deny that his
prepossessions may have tempted him to arbitrary alterations in other
passages, which had no direct bearing on the controversies of his
age(279). Codd. אB are quite old enough to have been copied under his
inspection(280), and it is certainly very remarkable that these two early
manuscripts omit one whole paragraph (Mark xvi. 9-20) with his sanction,
if not after his example (_see_ below, Chap. XII). Thus also in Matt,
xxiii. 35 Cod. א, with the countenance only of Evan. 59, Evst. 6, 13, 222
(see under Evst. 222), discards υἱοῦ βαραχίον, for which change Eusebius
(_silentio_) is literally the only authority among the Fathers, Irenaeus
and even Origen retaining the words, in spite of their obvious difficulty.
The relation in which Cod. א stands to the other four chief manuscripts of
the Gospels, may be roughly estimated from analyzing the transcript of
four pages first published by Tischendorf(281), as well as in any other
way. Of the 312 variations from the common text therein noted, א stands
alone in forty-five, in eight agrees with ABCD united (much of C, however,
is lost in these passages), with ABC together thirty-one times, with ABD
fourteen, with AB thirteen, with D alone ten, with B alone but once (Mark
i. 27), with C alone once: with several authorities against AB thirty-nine
times, with A against B fifty-two, with B against A ninety-eight. Hence,
while the discovery of this precious document has unquestionably done much
to uphold Cod. B (which is the more correctly written, and doubtless the
more valuable of the two) in many of its more characteristic and singular
readings, it has made the mutual divergencies of the very oldest critical
authorities more patent and perplexing than ever(282).

8. Codd. אB were apparently anterior to the age of Jerome, the latest
ecclesiastical writer whose testimony need be dwelt upon, since from his
time downwards the stream of extant and direct manuscript evidence,
beginning with Codd. AC, flows on without interruption. Jerome’s attention
was directed to the criticism of the Greek Testament by his early Biblical
studies, and the knowledge he thus obtained had full scope for its
exercise when he was engaged on revising the Old Latin version. In his
so-often cited “Praefatio ad Damasum,” prefixed to his recension of the
Gospels, he complains of certain “codices, quos a Luciano et Hesychio
nuncupatos, paucorum hominum asserit perversa contentio,” and those not of
the Old Testament alone, but also of the New. This obscure and passing
notice of corrupt and (apparently) interpolated copies has been made the
foundation of more than one theory as fanciful as ingenious. Jerome
further informs us that he had adopted in his translation the canons which
Eusebius “Alexandrium secutus Ammonium” (_but __ see_ Vol. I. pp. 59, &c.)
had invented or first brought into vogue; stating, and, in his usual
fashion, somewhat exaggerating(283), an evil these canons helped to
remedy, the mixing up of the matter peculiar to one Evangelist with the
narrative of another. Hence we might naturally expect that the Greek
manuscripts he would view with special favour, were the same as Eusebius
had approved before him. In the scattered notices throughout his works,
Jerome sometimes speaks but vaguely of “quaedam exemplaria tam Graeca quam
Latina” (Luke xxii. 43-4, almost in the words of Hilary, his senior); or
appeals to readings “in quibusdam exemplaribus et maximè in Graecis
codicibus” (Mark xvi. 14). Occasionally we hear of “multi et Graeci et
Latini codices” (John vii. 53), or “vera exemplaria” (Matt. v. 22; xxi.
31), or “antiqua exemplaria” (Luke ix. 23), without specifying in which
language: Mark xvi. 9-20 “in raris fertur Evangeliis,” since “omnes
Graeciae libri paene” do not contain it(284). In two places, however, he
gives a more definite account of the copies he most regarded. In Galat.
iii. 1 τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι is omitted by Jerome, because it is not
contained “in exemplaribus Adamantii,” although (as he elsewhere informs
us) “et Graeca exemplaria hoc errore confusa sint.” In the other of the
two passages Jerome remarks that in some Latin copies of Matt. xxiv. 36
_neque filius_ is added, “quum in Graecis, et maxime Adamantii et Pierii
exemplaribus, hoc non habeatur adscriptum.” Pierius the presbyter of
Alexandria, elsewhere called by Jerome “the younger Origen” (Cat. Scriptt.
Eccl., i. p. 128), has been deprived by fortune of the honour due to his
merit and learning. A contemporary, perhaps the teacher of Pamphilus
(Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vii. 32) at Caesarea, his copies of Scripture would
naturally be preserved with those of Origen in the great Library of that
city. Here they were doubtless seen by Jerome when, to his deep joy, he
found Origen’s writings copied in Pamphilus’ hand (Cat. Scriptt. Eccl.,
_ubi supra_), which volumes Acacius and Euzoius, elder contemporaries of
Jerome himself, had taken pious care to repair and renew (_ibid._ i. p.
131; ad Marcell. Ep. cxli). It is not therefore wonderful if, employing as
they did and setting a high value on precisely the same manuscripts of the
N. T., the readings approved by Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome should
closely agree.

9. Epiphanius [d. 403], who wrote at about the same period as Jerome,
distinguishes in his note on Luke xix. 41 or xxii. 44 (Tom. ii. p. 36)
between the uncorrected copies (ἀδιορθώτοις), and those used by the
Orthodox(285). Of the function of the “corrector” (διορθωτής) of an
ancient manuscript we have spoken several times before: but a system was
devised by Professor J. L. Hug of Freyburg (Einleitung, 1808), and
maintained, though with some modifications, by J. G. Eichhorn, which
assigned to these occasional, and (as they would seem to be) unsystematic
labours of the reviser, a foremost place in the criticism of the N. T. Hug
conceived that the process of corruption had been going on so rapidly and
uniformly from the Apostolic age downwards, that by the middle of the
third century the state of the text in the general mass of codices had
degenerated into the form exhibited in Codd. D, 1, 13, 69, 124 of the
Gospels, the Old Latin and Sahidic (he would now have added the Curetonian
Syriac) versions, and to some extent in the Peshitto and in the citations
of Clement of Alexandria and of Origen in his early works. To this
uncorrected text he gave the name of κοινὴ ἔκδοσις, and that it existed,
substantially in the interpolated shape now seen in Cod. D, the Old Latin,
and Cureton’s Syriac, as early as the second century, need not be doubted.
There is some foundation for this position, but it was marred by Hug’s
lack of sobriety of judgement. What we may fairly dispute is that this
text ever had extensive circulation or good repute in the Churches whose
vernacular language was Greek. This “common edition” Hug supposes to have
received three separate emendations in the middle of the third century;
one made by Origen in Palestine, which he thinks Jerome adopted and
approved; two others by Hesychius and Lucian (a presbyter of Antioch and
Martyr), in Egypt and Syria respectively, both which Jerome condemned, and
Pope Gelasius (A.D. 492-6) declared to be apocryphal(286). To Origen’s
recension he referred such copies as AKM, 42, 106, 114, 116, 253 of the
Gospels, the Harkleian Syriac, the quotations of Chrysostom and Theodoret;
to Hesychius the Alexandrian codices BCL; to Lucian the Byzantine
documents EFGHSV and the mass of later books. The practical effect of this
elaborate theory would be to accord to Cod. A a higher place among our
authorities than some recent editors have granted it, even than it quite
deserves, yet its correspondence with Origen in many characteristic
readings would thus be admitted and accounted for (_but see_ p. 226). But
in truth Hug’s whole scheme is utterly baseless as regards historical
fact, and most insufficiently sustained by internal proof. Jerome’s slight
and solitary mention of the copies of Lucian and Hesychius abundantly
evinces their narrow circulation and the low esteem in which they were
held; and even Eichhorn perceived that there was no evidence whatever to
show that Origen had attempted a formal revision of the text. The passages
cited above, both from Eusebius and Jerome—and no others are known to bear
on the subject—will carry us no further than this:—that these Fathers had
access to codices of the N. T. once possessed by Adamantius, and here and
there, perhaps, retouched by his hand. The manuscripts copied by Pamphilus
were those of Origen’s own works; and while we have full and detailed
accounts of what he accomplished for the Greek versions of the Old
Testament, no hint has been thrown out by any ancient writer that he
carried his pious labour into the criticism of the New. On the contrary,
he seems to disclaim the task in a sentence now extant chiefly in the old
Latin version of his works, wherein, to a notice of his attempt to remove
diversity of reading from codices of the Septuagint by the help of “the
other editions” (κριτηρίῳ χρησάμενοι ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκδόσεσιν, i.e. the
versions of Aquila and the rest), he is represented as adding, “In
exemplaribus autem Novi Testamenti, hoc ipsum me posse facere sine
periculo non putavi” (Origen, Tom. iii. p. 671).

10. Hug’s system of recensions was devised as a corrective to those of
Bengel and of Griesbach, which have been adequately discussed in Chapter
VII. The veteran Griesbach spent his last effort as a writer in bringing
to notice the weak points of Hug’s case, and in claiming him, where he
rightly could, as a welcome ally(287). But neither did Hug’s scheme, nor
that propounded by Scholz some years later, obtain the general credit and
acceptance which had once been conceded to Griesbach’s. It was by this
time plainly seen that not only were such theories unsupported by
historical testimony (to which indeed the Professor of Halle had been too
wise to lay claim), but that they failed to account for more than a part,
and that usually a small part, of the phenomena disclosed by minute study
of our critical materials. All that can be inferred from searching into
the history of the sacred text amounts to no more than this: that
extensive variations, arising no doubt from the wide circulation of the
New Testament in different regions and among nations of diverse languages,
subsisted from the earliest period to which our records extend. Beyond
this point our investigations cannot be carried, without indulging in
pleasant speculations which may amuse the fancy, but cannot inform the
sober judgement. Such is the conclusion to which we are reluctantly
brought after examining the principles laid down, as well by the critics
we have named above, as by Lachmann, by his disciple Tregelles, and even
by the _par nobile_ of Cambridge Doctors, Professor Hort and Bishop
(formerly Canon) Westcott, of whose labours we shall speak presently.



CHAPTER X. RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.


Yet is it true that we are thus cast upon the wide ocean without a compass
or a guide? Can no clue be found that may conduct us through the tangled
maze? Is there no other method of settling the text of the New Testament
than by collecting and marshalling and scrutinizing the testimony of
thousands of separate documents, now agreeing, now at issue with each
other:—manuscripts, versions, ecclesiastical writers, whose mutual
connexion and interdependence, as far as they exist (and to some extent
they do and _must_ exist), defy all our skill and industry to detect and
estimate aright? This would surely be a discouraging view of critical
science as applied to the sacred volume, and it is by no means warranted
by proved and admitted facts. Elaborate systems have failed, as might have
been looked for from the first. It was premature to frame them in the
present stage of things, while the knowledge we possess of the actual
contents of our extant authorities is imperfect, vague, and fragmentary;
while our conclusions are liable to be disturbed from time to time by the
rapid accession of fresh materials, of whose character we are still quite
ignorant. But if we be incompetent to devise theories on a grand or
imposing scale, a more modest and a safer course is open. Men of the
present generation may be disqualified for taking a general survey of the
whole domain of this branch of divine learning, who may yet be employed,
serviceably and with honour, in cultivating each one for himself some
limited and humble field of special research, to which his taste, his
abilities, or opportunities have attached him: those persons may usefully
improve a farm, who cannot hope to conquer a kingdom. Out of the long
array of uncollated manuscripts which swell our catalogues, let the
student choose from the mass a few within his reach which he may deem
worthy of complete examination; or exhaust the information some
ecclesiastical writer of the first six centuries can afford; or contribute
what he can to an exact acquaintance with some good ancient version,
ascertaining the genius of its language and (where this is attainable) the
literary history of its text. If, in the course of such quiet toil, he
shall mark (as a patient observer will find cause to mark) resemblances
and affinities more than accidental, between documents of widely different
ages and countries; he will not only be contributing to the common stock
what cannot fail to be available hereafter as raw material, but he will be
helping to solve that great problem which has hitherto in part eluded the
most earnest inquiries, the investigation of the true laws and principles
of COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

The last-mentioned term has been happily applied by Tregelles to that
delicate and important process, whereby we seek to determine the
_comparative_ value, and trace the mutual relation, of authorities of
every kind upon which the original text of the N. T. is based. Thus
explained (and in this enlarged sense scholars have willingly accepted
it), its researches may be pursued with diligence and interest, without
reference to the maintenance or refutation of any particular system or
scheme of recensions. The mode of procedure is experimental and tentative,
rather than dogmatical; the facts it gradually develops will eventually
(as we trust) put us on the right road, although for the present we meet
with much that is uncertain, perplexing, ambiguous. It has already enabled
critics in some degree to classify the documents with which they have to
deal; it may possibly lead them, at some future period, to the
establishment of principles more general, and therefore more simple, than
we can now conceive likely or even possible to be attained to.

1. In the course of investigations thus difficult and precarious, designed
to throw light on a matter of such vast consequence as the genuine
condition of the text of Scripture, one thing would appear at first sight
almost too clear for argument, too self-evident to be disputed,—that it is
both our wisdom and our duty _to weigh the momentous subject at issue in
all its parts_, shutting out from the mind no source of information which
can reasonably be supposed capable of influencing our decision. Nor can
such a course become less right or expedient because it must perforce
involve us in laborious, extensive, and prolonged examination of a vast
store of varied and voluminous testimony. It is essential that divines
should strive to come to definite conclusions respecting disputed points
of sacred criticism; it is not necessary that these conclusions should be
drawn within a certain limited period, either this year, or even in the
lifetime of our generation. Hence such a plan as that advocated by
Lachmann, for abridging the trouble of investigation by the arbitrary
rejection of the great mass of existing evidence, must needs be condemned
for its rashness by those who think their utmost pains well bestowed in
such a cause; nor can we consistently praise the determination of others,
who, shunning the more obvious errors into which Lachmann fell, yet follow
his example in constructing the text of the N. T. on a foundation somewhat
less narrow, but scarcely more firm than his. As the true science of
Biblical criticism is in real danger of suffering harm from the efforts of
disciples of this school, it cannot be out of place if we examine the
pleas which have been urged in vindication of their scheme, and assign (as
briefly as we may) our reasons for believing that its apologists are but
labouring in vain.

2. _Brevis vita, ars longa._ For this lawful cause, if for no other, the
most ardent student of Biblical criticism would fain embrace some such
system as is advocated by Lachmann and his followers, if only it could be
done in tolerable safety. The process of investigation might thus be
diminished twentyfold, and the whole subject brought within a compass not
too vast for one man’s diligence or the space of an ordinary lifetime. The
simplicity and comparative facility of this process of resorting to the
few for instruction hitherto supposed to be diffused among the many, has
created in its favour a strong and not unnatural prejudice, which has
yielded, so far as it has yet yielded at all, to nothing but the stubborn
opposition of indisputable facts. It will also readily be admitted, that
certain principles, not indeed peculiar to this theory, but brought by it
into greater prominence, are themselves most reasonable and true. No one
will question, for example, that “if the reading of the ancient
authorities in general is unanimous, there can be but little doubt that it
should be followed, whatever may be the later testimonies; for it is most
improbable that the independent testimony of early MSS., versions, and
Fathers should accord with regard to something entirely groundless”
(Tregelles, N. T., Introductory Notice, p. 2). No living man, possessed of
a tincture of scholarship, would dream of setting up testimony exclusively
modern against the unanimous voice of antiquity. The point on which we
insist is briefly this:—that the evidence of ancient authorities is
anything but unanimous; that they are perpetually at variance with each
other, even if we limit the term ancient within the narrowest bounds.
Shall it include, among the manuscripts of the Gospels, none but the five
oldest copies Codd. אABCD(288)? The reader has but to open the first
recent critical work he shall meet with, to see them scarcely ever in
unison; perpetually divided two against three, or perhaps four against
one. All the readings these venerable monuments contain must of course be
_ancient_, or they would not be found where they are; but they cannot all
be true. So again, if our search be extended to the versions and primitive
Fathers, the same phenomenon unfolds itself, to our grievous perplexity
and disappointment. How much is contained in Cureton’s Syriac and the Old
Latin for which no Greek original can now be alleged? Do not the earliest
ecclesiastical writers describe readings as existing and current in their
copies, of which few traces can be met with at present(289)? If the
question be fairly proposed, “What right have we to set virtually aside
the agreement in the main of our oldest uncials, at the distance of one or
two centuries—of which, owing probably to the results of persecution, we
have no MS. remains—with the citations of the primitive Fathers, and with
the earliest versions?”: the answer must be rendered, without hesitation,
_no right whatever_. Where the oldest of these authorities really agree,
we accept their united testimony as practically conclusive. It is not at
all our design to seek our readings from the later uncials, supported as
they usually are by the mass of cursive manuscripts; but to employ their
confessedly secondary evidence in those numberless instances wherein their
elder brethren are hopelessly at variance(290). We do not claim for the
recent documents the high consideration and deference fitly reserved for a
few of the oldest; just as little do we think it right to pass them by in
silence, and allow to them no more weight or importance than if they had
never been written. “There are passages,” to employ the words of a very
competent judge, “where the evidence of the better cursives may be of
substantial use in confirming a good reading, or in deciding us between
two of nearly equal merit to place one in the text and assign the other to
the margin(291).”

3. It may readily be supposed that the very few manuscripts which, being
ancient themselves, are regarded by the school of Lachmann as alone
preserving an ancient and genuine form, have not been selected as
virtually the sole authorities for the settling of the sacred text, except
for reasons which those who thus adopt them regard as weighty, and which
merit at any rate our best consideration before we put them aside as
insufficient. The great uncials, we are told, are treated with so much
deference, not only or chiefly because they are old, but because they have
been rigorously tested and have proved on trial to deserve the confidence
which has been reposed in them. The process of investigation shall now be
stated, as fairly and even favourably as possible. It is not worth while,
as it certainly is not our desire, to snatch a transient advantage by
misrepresenting the views we are controverting. We would rather comprise
in our own system all that is sound and exact in them, while we withstand
the attempt to carry them beyond the limits which they may legitimately
occupy, and refuse to generalize on the strength of facts which are only
partially true.

We have already laid down the axiom admitted by all, that manuscripts of
the original hold the first rank among our critical materials; versions,
and, yet more, the citations of ecclesiastical authors being subordinate
to them. Yet whatever other disadvantages the Patristic writings may
labour under, we are at any rate certain respecting the age in which they
were composed, the works themselves being assumed to be authentic. If
Irenaeus, or Tertullian, or Origen, expressly assure us that particular
words which they name were read in their copies of Scripture, we cannot
withstand their testimony that such words were really found in manuscripts
of the New Testament in the second and third centuries, one or two hundred
years before Codd. אB were in existence. If, therefore, we take a various
reading of the text for which any one of these venerable men has vouched,
and observe that it is supported perhaps by a few manuscripts of various
ages, then by a version or two, especially if they be natives of different
countries, and flow together into the same stream from sources remote from
each other;—the rather too if the reading be plausible and even probable
in itself:—and if, after having formed an opinion that on the whole it
deserves to be respectfully considered, we then turn to א or B, or to
both, and discover the same reading in them also:—not only has the
variation itself made out an urgent case for our acceptance, but the
character of א and B as faithful witnesses is largely enhanced. It is
moreover evident, that if the same method of investigation be pursued many
times over with the same, or something approaching to the same success,
the value of א and B as truthful codices will be proportionally increased.

A single good example of this process will make it yet more intelligible
to the careful student. It shall be one that has been chosen for the
purpose by more than one of the advocates of the system we are on the
whole opposing. Of the two forms in which the Lord’s Prayer is delivered
to us, Matt. vi. 13 has the clause ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ in
every known authority: in Luke xi. 4 the case is far otherwise. That
Tertullian, when citing the words before and after it, should take no
notice of it, would of itself prove little. Origen, however, once passes
it by in like manner, once more expressly declares that it was not in St.
Luke (παρὰ τῷ Λουκᾷ σεσιώπηται), a third time explains in his most happy
manner why it was omitted by the one Evangelist, inserted by the other.
The question thus raised sets us upon the inquiry what other evidence we
have for rejecting the clause in St. Luke. It appears to be wanting in
several Greek manuscripts, such as L, 1, 22, 57, 130 both Greek and Latin,
131, 226*, 237, 242, 426, 582, 604, and in the catenas annexed to 36, 237,
239, 253, 259, 426; several of these codices (as 57, 226, 242) not being
much found in such company. It is absent from the Vulgate version, and
apparently from some forms of the Old Latin, the rather as Augustine says
that St. Luke gives five petitions in the Lord’s Prayer, St. Matthew
seven, and attributes the omission of our clause to some such reason as
Origen had assigned. It is omitted also in the Armenian version, which,
except for the later translation by Sahak from Syriac, might be supposed
to differ _toto caelo_ from the Latin in country and genius. The list is
closed by the younger Cyril, a pure witness from another region, very
different lines of evidence thus converging into one. Then comes the
probability that if one of the Gospels contained the Lord’s Prayer in a
shorter form than the other, nothing was so likely as that a scribe in
perfect innocence would supply what he considered an undoubted defect,
without staying to reflect with Origen and Augustine that the two were
delivered on different occasions, to different classes of persons, with
different ends in view. Turning therefore now, with a strong case already
made out for the omission of the clause, to א and B, which have been
hitherto kept out of sight, we find that B has not the disputed words at
all, nor had א by the first hand, but in one three centuries later. The
clear result, so far as it goes, is at once to vindicate the claim of אB
to high consideration, and to make out a formidable case against the
genuineness of the six words involved. We say advisedly a formidable, not
necessarily a fatal case, for the counter evidence is still very strong,
and comes as much as that alleged above from different quarters, being
also as early as widely diffused. It consists of Codd.
ACDEFGHKMR(292)SUVΓΔΛΠ, of all cursives not named above, of the Old Latin
_b_ _c_ _f_ _ff_ _i_ _l_ _q_, whereof _f_ mostly goes with the Vulgate
(_hiant a e_), the Bohairic, Peshitto, Curetonian, Harkleian Syriac (the
Jerusalem not containing this week-day Lesson), and the Ethiopic versions.
So far as this side as stated is weak at all, it lacks Patristic evidence
(which cannot now be investigated for our purpose), and the balance of
internal evidence is decidedly adverse to it.

4. The student may try the same experiments on two other passages often
urged in this debate, Matt. v. 22, for which he will find the materials
above, p. 255, and Matt. xix. 17, which will be discussed in Chap. XII. We
freely admit that these are but a few out of many cases where the
statements of ancient writers about whose date there can be no question
are borne out by the readings of the more ancient codices, especially of א
or B, or of the two united. Undoubtedly this circumstance lends a weight
and authority to these manuscripts, and to the few which side with them,
which their mere age would not procure for them: it does not entitle them
to be regarded as virtually the only documents worthy of being consulted
in the recension of the sacred text; as qualifying to be sole arbiters in
critical questions relating to the New Testament, against whose decision
there can be no appeal. Yet nothing less than this is claimed in behalf of
one or two of them by their devoted admirers. In a court of justice, we
are told, when once the evidence of a witness has been thoroughly probed
and tested, it is received thenceforth as true, even on those points where
it stands alone, and in the face of strong antecedent improbabilities. Now
reasoning in metaphor has its advantages, as well for the sake of clearly
expressing our meaning, as of making an impression on those we address;
but it is attended with this grave inconvenience, that, since the analogy
between no two things that can be compared is quite complete, we are
sorely tempted to apply to the one of them properties which appertain
exclusively to the other. In the present instance, besides the properties
wherein documentary can be assimilated to oral testimony, such as general
accuracy and means of information, an important element is present in the
latter, to which the former has nothing parallel, namely, moral character,
that full persuasion of a witness’s good faith and disinterested integrity
to which a jury will often surrender, and rightly surrender, all earlier
impressions and predilections. Of this we can have nothing in the case of
the manuscripts of Scripture which we now possess. In the second century
we have seen too many instances of attempts to tamper with the text of
Scripture, some merely injudicious, others positively dishonest; but all
this was over long before the scribes of the fourth and fifth centuries
began their happy task, as simple and honest copyists of the older records
placed before them. Let their testimony be received with attention at all
times; let it be accepted as conclusive whensoever there are no grave
reasons to the contrary, but let not their paramount authority shut out
all other considerations, external and internal, which might guide us to
the true reading of a passage; nor let us be so illogical as to conclude,
because א and B are sometimes right, that therefore they never are in the
wrong(293).

The results of this excessive and irrational deference to one of our chief
codices, that which he was so fortunate as to bring to the light
twenty-five years ago, appears plainly in Tischendorf’s eighth edition of
the New Testament. That great critic had never been conspicuous for
stability of judgement. His third edition was constructed almost without
any reference to the cursive manuscripts, which, unless they be, what no
one asserts or imagines, merely corrupt copies, or copies of copies, of
existing uncials, must needs be the representatives of yet older codices
which have long since perished: “respectable ancestors” (as one has
quaintly put the matter) “who live only in their descendants” (Long,
Ciceronis Verrin. Orat., Praef. p. vi)(294). In Tischendorf’s seventh
edition, completed in 1859, that error was rectified, and the sum of
textual variations between the third and seventh edition in consequence
amounted to 1296, in no less than 595 of which (430 of the remainder being
mere matters of spelling) he returned to the readings of the Received
text, which he had before deserted, but to which fresh materials and
larger experience had brought him back(295). In the eighth edition another
disturbing element is introduced, and that edition differs from his
seventh in as many as 3369 places, to the scandal of the science of
Comparative Criticism, as well as to his own grave discredit for
discernment and consistency. The evidence of Cod. א, supported or even
unsupported by one or two authorities of any description, proved with him
sufficient to outweigh all other witnesses, whether manuscripts, versions,
or ecclesiastical writers.

The foregoing examination will probably have satisfied the student that we
have no right to regard Cod. B as a second Infallible Voice proceeding
from the Vatican, which, when it has once spoken, must put an end to all
strife. Yet nothing less than this is claimed for it by writers, who yet
have bestowed much thought and labour on this controversy. “Seeing that
the Vatican manuscript does not contain one single passage that can be
demonstrated to be spurious, or that by the evidence of other manuscripts
and of the context, admits of just doubt as to its authenticity, a
position that no other manuscript enjoys, man is bound to accept the
testimony of that manuscript alone, as his present text of the sacred
record, wherever he possesses its teaching(296).” I am not sure whether,
if we conceded this writer’s premisses, we should be bound to accept his
conclusion; but the easiest way of disposing of his argument, as well as
of that of persons, who, in heart agreeing with him, would hardly like to
enunciate their principle so broadly, is presently to lay before the
student a few readings of Cod. B, either standing alone, or supported by א
and others, respecting whose authenticity, or rather genuineness, some of
us must be forgiven if we cherish considerable doubts. It is right,
however, to declare that this discussion is forced upon us through no wish
to dissemble the great value of the Codex Vaticanus, which in common with
our opponents we regard as the most weighty single authority that we
possess, but entirely by way of unavoidable protest against a claim for
supremacy set up in its behalf, which can belong of right to no existing
document whatsoever.

5. But indeed the theories of preceding critics, as well as the practical
application of those theories to the sacred text, have been thrown into
the shade by the more recent and elaborate publications of Drs. Hort and
Westcott, briefly noticed in a preceding chapter, and claiming in this
place our serious attention(297).

The system on which their text has been constructed has been vindicated,
so far as vindication was possible, in Dr. Hort’s “Introduction,” a very
model of earnest reasoning, calling for and richly rewarding the close and
repeated study of all who would learn the utmost that can be done for
settling the text of the New Testament on dogmatic principles. The germ of
this theory can be traced in the speculations of Bentley and Griesbach;
its authors would confess themselves on many points disciples of Lachmann,
although their process of investigation is far more artificial than his.
But there is little hope for the stability of their imposing structure, if
its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground of ingenious
conjecture: and since barely the smallest vestige of historical evidence
has ever been alleged in support of the views of these accomplished
editors, their teaching must either be received as intuitively true, or
dismissed from our consideration as precarious, and even visionary. This
much said by way of preface, we will endeavour to state the principles
they advocate, as fairly and concisely as we can.

(α) The books of the New Testament, even the Holy Gospels themselves,
could not well have been collected into one volume till some time after
the death of St. John. During this early period, each portion of the
inspired record would be circulated separately, until at length the four
Gospels would be brought together in one book or Quaternion, and, since
each component member had to receive a distinctive appellation, the
simplest and the earliest headings would ascribe them to their respective
authors, κατὰ Ματθαῖον, κατὰ Μάρκον, κ.τ.λ., the general title of the four
being Εὐαγγέλιον. “It is quite uncertain to what extent the whole N. T.
was ever included in a single volume in Ante-Nicene times” (Hort,
Introduction, pp. 223, 268), only that the Gospels had certainly been
collected together when Justin Martyr wrote his first Apology between A.D.
139 and 150, inasmuch as he appeals thrice over to the Memoirs of the
Apostles, which he once identifies with the Gospels (οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς
γενομένοις ὑπ᾽ ἀυτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια). Justin’s
disciple Tatian, again, composed a Harmony of the Four (Διὰ τεσσάρων),
respecting the precise nature of which we have recently gained very
seasonable information. “The idea, if not the name, of a collective
‘Gospel’ is implied throughout the well-known passage in the third book of
Irenaeus, who doubtless received it from earlier generations” (Hort, p.
321). Hence it is not unreasonable to suspect that our great codices
(אABC), which originally contained the whole N. T., may have been
transcribed in their several parts from copies differing from each other
in genius and in date. With such a possibility before us we ought not to
be perplexed if the character of the text whether of Cod. A or of Cod. B
differs in the Gospels from that which it bears in the Acts and the
Epistles; or if Cod. C in the Apocalypse, and Cod. Δ in St. Mark, as has
been already explained under those MSS., appear to belong to a family or
group apart from that of the rest of their respective codices.

(β) At this remote period, during the first half of the second century,
must have originated the wide variations from the prevailing text on the
part of our primary authorities, both manuscripts and versions, which
survive in Cod. Bezae of the Greek, and in the Old Latin codices or at
least in some of them. The text they exhibit is distinguished as Western,
and they have been joined by a powerful ally, the Curetonian Syriac.
Critics of every school agree in admitting the primitive existence of this
Western recension, and in their estimate of its general spirit. “The
earliest readings which can be fixed chronologically belong to it... But
any prepossessions in its favour that might be created by this imposing
early ascendency are for the most part soon dissipated by continuous study
of its internal character” (Hort, p. 120). “The chief and most constant
characteristic of the Western readings is a love of paraphrase. Words,
clauses, and even whole sentences were changed, omitted, and inserted with
astonishing freedom, wherever it seemed that the meaning could be brought
out with greater force and definiteness” (_ibid._ p. 122). “Another
equally important characteristic is a disposition to enrich the text at
the cost of its purity by alterations or additions taken from traditional
and perhaps from apocryphal and other non-biblical sources” (_ibid._ p.
123). Especially may we note among other interpolations the long passage
after Matt. xx. 28 which we cited above, Vol. I. p. 8.

(γ) We now come to the feature which distinguishes Dr. Hort’s system from
any hitherto propounded; by the acceptance or non-acceptance of which his
whole edifice must stand or fall. He seems to exaggerate the force of
extant evidence when he judges that the corrupt Western “was the more
widely-spread text of Ante-Nicene times” (_ibid._ p. 120); but he tacitly
assumes that many codices, versions, and ecclesiastical writers remained
free from its malignant influence. The evidence of this latter class was
preserved comparatively pure until the middle of the third century, when
it was taken in hand, at some time between A.D. 250 and 350, “at what date
it is impossible to say with confidence, and even for conjecture the
materials are scanty” (_ibid._ p. 137), by the Syrian bishops and Fathers
of the Patriarchate of Antioch, who undertook (1) “an authoritative
revision at Antioch” of the Greek text, which (2) was then taken as a
standard for a similar authoritative revision of the Syriac text, and (3)
was itself at a later time subjected to a second authoritative revision,
carrying out more completely the purposes of the first (_ibid._ p. 137).
Of this twofold authoritative revision of the Greek text, of this formal
transmutation of the Curetonian Syriac into the Peshitto (for this is what
Dr. Hort means, though his language is a little obscure), although they
must have been of necessity public acts of great Churches in ages
abounding in Councils General or Provincial, not one trace remains in the
history of Christian antiquity; no one writer seems conscious that any
modification either of the Greek Scriptures or of the vernacular
translation was made in or before his time. It is as if the Bishops’ Bible
had been thrust out of the English Church service and out of the studies
of her divines, and the Bible of 1611 had silently taken its place, no one
knew how, or when, or why, or indeed that any change whatever had been
made. Yet regarding his speculative conjecture as undubitably true, Dr.
Hort proceeds to name the text as it stood before his imaginary era of
transfusion a _Pre-Syrian_ text, and that into which it was changed,
sometimes _Antiochian_, more often _Syrian_(298); while of the latter
recension, though made deliberately, as our author believes, by the
authoritative voice of the Eastern Church, he does not shrink from
declaring that “all distinctively Syrian readings must be at once
rejected” (_ibid._ p. 119), thus making a clean sweep of all critical
materials, Fathers, versions, manuscripts uncial or cursive, comprising
about nineteen-twentieths of the whole mass, which do not correspond with
his preconceived opinion of what a correct text ought to be (_ibid._ p.
163).

(δ) But one or two steps yet remain in this thorough elimination of
useless elements. A few authorities still survive which are honoured as
_Pre-Syrian_, and continued unaffected by the phantom revisions, which,
for critical purposes, have reduced their colleagues to ignominious
silence. Besides the Western, Dr. Hort has in reserve two other groups,
the Alexandrian and the Neutral. The former retains a text essentially
pure from Syrian (though not from Western) mixture, but its component
members are portentously few in number, being tolerably void of corruption
as regards the substance, with “no incorporation of matter extraneous to
the canonical text of the Bible, and no habitual or extreme license of
paraphrase ... the changes made having usually more to do with language
than with matter, and being marked by an effort after correctness of
phrase” (_ibid._ p. 131). There are no unmixed vouchers for this
Non-Western, Pre-Syrian, Alexandrian class, though Cyril of Alexandria
seems to come the nearest to purity (_ibid._ p. 141), then Origen,
occasionally other Alexandrian Fathers, also the Sahidic, and especially
the Bohairic version (_ibid._ p. 131). No extant MS. has preserved so many
Alexandrian readings as Cod. L (_ibid._ p. 153). Cod. C has some, T and Ξ
more: in the Gospels they are chiefly marked by the combination אCLXZ, 33
(_ibid._ p. 166). In Cod. A, for the Acts and Epistles, the Alexandrian
outnumber both the Syrian and Western readings (Hort, p. 152), but they
all are mere degenerations so far as they depart from Dr. Hort’s standard

(ε) The _Neutral_ type of text: so called because it is free from the
glaring corruption of the Western, from the smooth assimilations of the
Syrian, and from the grammatical purism of the Alexandrian. Only two
documents come under this last head, Codd. B and א, and of these two, when
they differ, B is preferable to א, which has a not inconsiderable Western
element, besides that the scribe’s bold and rough manner has rendered “all
the ordinary lapses due to rapid and careless transcription more numerous”
than in B (_ibid._ p. 246). Yet, with certain slight exceptions which he
carefully specifies, it is our learned author’s belief “(1) that the
readings of אB should be accepted as the true readings until strong
internal evidence is found to the contrary, and (2) that no readings of אB
can safely be rejected absolutely, though it is sometimes right to place
them only on an alternative footing, especially where they receive no
support from Versions and Fathers” (_ibid._ p. 225): and this their
pre-eminence, in our critic’s judgement, “is due to the extreme, and, as
it were, primordial antiquity of the common original from which the
ancestries of the two MSS. have diverged, the date of which cannot be
later than the earlier part of the second century, and may well be yet
earlier” (_ibid._ p. 223).

That אB should thus lift up their heads against all the world is much,
especially having regard to the fact that several versions and not a few
Fathers are older than they: for, while we grant that a simple patristic
citation, standing by itself, is of little value, yet when the context or
current of exposition renders it clear what reading these writers had
before them, they must surely for that passage be equivalent as
authorities to a manuscript of their own age. Nor will Dr. Hort allow us
to make any deduction from the weight of the united testimony of אB by
reason of the curious fact, demonstrated as well to his satisfaction
(Hort, p. 213) as to our own, that the scribe of B was the actual writer
of parts of three distinct quires, forming three pairs of conjugate leaves
of א (_see_ above, p. 96, note 1); but on this head we think he will find
few readers to agree with him. His devotion to Cod. B when it stands alone
is of necessity far more intelligent than that of the unnamed writer
mentioned already, yet we believe that his implied confidence is scarcely
the less misplaced. He is very glad when he can to find friends for his
favourite, and discusses with great care the several binary combinations,
such as BL, BC, BT, Bι, BD (which last, indeed, is unsafe enough), AB, BZ,
B 33 or BΔ (for St. Mark) in the Gospels; AB, BC, &c., in the rest of the
N. T. (Hort, p. 227). He does not disparage the _subsingular_ readings of
B, meaning by this convenient, perhaps novel, term, the agreement of B
with “inferior Greek MSS., Versions, or Fathers, or combinations of
documentary evidence of these kinds” (_ibid._ p. 230). But, when the worst
comes to the worst, and Cod. B is left absolutely alone, its advocates
need not despair, inasmuch as no readings of that manuscript, not
involving clerical error (and “the scribe reached by no means a high
standard of accuracy,” _ibid._ p. 233), must be lightly or hastily
rejected, so powerfully do they commend themselves on their own merits
(_ibid._ p. 238). This transcendent excellency, however, belongs to it
chiefly in the Gospels. In the Acts and Catholic Epistles, if the value of
A increases as has been said, that of B is somewhat diminished; while in
the Pauline Epistles a “local Western element of B” (Hort, p. 240) brings
it into the less reputable company of DFG or even of D alone. Hence in the
formation of Westcott and Hort’s Pauline text we sometimes meet with what
appears the paradoxical result that the evidence of B alone is accepted,
while that of B attended by other codices is laid aside as insufficient.

It is very instructive to compare the foregoing sketch of Dr. Hort’s
system, brief and inadequate, yet not we trust unfair, as it is, with the
theory of Griesbach, for whose labours and genius we share much of his
successor’s veneration. As regards the modification of text called Western
their views are nearly identical, only that Griesbach was necessarily
ignorant of such important constituents of it as the Curetonian Syriac and
the Old Latin codices which have come to light since his day, and thus was
exempted from the temptation to which Dr. Hort has unhappily yielded, of
believing that Codd. אB, with all their comparative purity, represent a
primitive text already corrupted by certain accretions from which the
Western copies were free (_see_ below, p. 299 and note 1): a violent
supposition which seriously impairs the homogeneousness and
self-consistency of his whole argument (Hort, pp. 175-6). Griesbach’s
Alexandrian class includes not only that which Dr. Hort understands by the
name, but the later critic’s _Neutral_ class also, which indeed we fail to
distinguish from the other by any marked peculiar characteristics. The
more mixed text which Griesbach called Constantinopolitan, and which is
represented by Cod. A in the Gospels, in part by Cod. C, the Latin
Vulgate, and later authorities, differs from Dr. Hort’s Syrian in much
more than name. Wider and deeper researches have made it evident that
Griesbach’s notion of a gradual modernizing of the text used from the
fourth century downwards in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, would not
adequately account for the phenomena wherewith we have to deal. The
general, almost universal, prevalence of such a departure from the
readings of אB, met with in ecclesiastical writers at least as early in
date as the parchment of those manuscripts themselves, can be explained by
nothing less than a comprehensive, deliberate, authoritative recension of
the sacred books, undertaken by the chief rulers of the Antiochene Church,
accepted throughout that great Patriarchate, yet, in spite of all this,
never noticed even in the way of passing reference by writers of any
description from that period onwards, until its consequences, not its
process, became known to eminent critics in the latter half of the
nineteenth century. Nothing less than the exigency of his case could have
driven our author to encumber himself with a scheme fraught with
difficulties too great even for his skill to overcome.

Dr. Hort’s system, therefore, is entirely destitute of historical
foundation(299). He does not so much as make a show of pretending to it:
but then he would persuade us, as he has persuaded himself, that its
substantial truth is proved by results; and for results of themselves to
establish so very much, they must needs be unequivocal, and admit of no
logical escape from the conclusions they lead up to. But is this really
the case? “Two Members of the New Testament Company” of Revisers, in a
temperate and very able pamphlet, have answered in the affirmative, and
have assigned, after Dr. Hort, but with greater precision than he, _three_
reasons “for the belief that the Syrian text is posterior in origin to
those which he calls Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral” (The Revisers and
the Greek text of the N. T., p. 25). Granting for our present purpose the
reality of this Syrian text, of whose independent existence we have no
direct proof whatever, let us see what the three reasons will amount to.

(α) “The first reason appears to us almost sufficient to settle the
question by itself. It is founded on the observation ... that the Syrian
text presents numerous instances of readings which, according to all
textual probability, must be considered to be combinations of early
readings still extant.”... “The reader will find in Dr. Hort’s own pages
abundant illustration of the fact in eight examples rigorously analyzed,
which seem to supply a proof, as positive as the subject admits, that
Syrian readings are posterior both to Western readings, and to other
readings which may be properly described as Neutral” (_ibid._ pp. 25-6).
But the misfortune is that the subject does not admit of positive proof;
that what appears to one scholar “textual probability,” appears to another
a mere begging of the whole question. These eight examples have been
re-analyzed by Canon Cook (Revised Version, pp. 205-18), and just before
him by the _Quarterly Reviewer_ (Revision Revised, pp. 258-65), writers
not destitute either of learning or of natural acuteness, who would fain
lead us to draw directly opposite inferences from Dr. Hort’s. We will take
but one specimen, the eighth and last, to make our meaning as clear as
possible. “This simple instance,” says Dr. Hort complacently, “needs no
explanation” (Hort, p. 104).

Luke xxiv. 53. καὶ ἦσαν διαπαντὸς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες
τὸν Θεόν. Thus it stands in the Received text with AC**FHKMSUVXΓΔΛΠ, all
cursives, even those most esteemed by Westcott and Hort, with _c_ _f_ _g_,
the Vulgate, Peshitto and Harkleian Syriac, the Armenian, and Ethiopic
virtually (εὐλογοῦντες καὶ αἰνοῦντες τὸν Θεόν). This is called the Syrian
reading.

The two so-termed Pre-Syrian forms are,


    om. αἰνοῦντες καὶ אBCL*, Bohairic (Hort), Jerusalem Syriac. This
    is the Neutral and Alexandrian text.

    om. καὶ εὐλογοῦντες D, _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_ _l_, _gat._ _bodl._,
    Bohairic (Tischendorf). This is the Western text.


The assumption of course is that the Syrian reading is a _conflation_ of
those of the other two classes, so forming a full but not overburdened
clause. But if this _praejudicium_ be met with the plea that D and the
Latins perpetually, B and its allies very often, seek to abridge the
sacred original, it would be hard to demonstrate that the latter
explanation is more improbable than the former. Beyond this point of
subjective feeling the matter cannot well be carried, whether on one side
or the other.

Dr. Hort’s other examples of conflation have the same double edge as Luke
xxiv. 53, and there is no doubt that Dr. Sanday is right in asserting that
like instances may be found wheresoever they are looked for; but they
prove nothing to any one who has not made up his mind beforehand as to
what the reading ought to be. We have already confessed that there is a
tendency on the part of copyists to assimilate the narratives of the
several Gospels to each other; and that such Harmonies as that of Tatian
would facilitate the process; that synonymous words are liable to be
exchanged and harsh constructions supplied. Part of the value of the older
codices arises from their comparative freedom from such corrections: but
then this modernizing process is on the part of copyists unsystematic,
almost unconscious; it is wholly different from the deliberate formal
emendations implied throughout Dr. Hort’s volume.

(β) The second reason adduced by the _Two Revisers_ “is almost equally
cogent” in their estimation. It is that while the Ante-Nicene Fathers
“place before us from separate and in some cases widely distant countries
examples of Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral readings, it appears to be
certain that before the middle of the third century we have no historical
traces of readings which can properly be entitled distinctively Syrian”
(The Revisers, &c., p. 26). Now the middle of the third century is the
earliest period assigned by Dr. Hort for the inception of his phantom
scheme of Syrian revision, and we feel sure that the epoch of Patristic
evidence was not put thus early, in order to exclude Origen, whose support
of his Alexandrian readings Griesbach found so partial and precarious
(_see_ above, p. 226). In fact Dr. Hort expressly states that “The only
period for which we have anything like a sufficiency of representative
knowledge consists roughly of three-quarters of a century from about 175
to 250: but the remains of four eminent Greek Fathers, which range through
this period, cast a strong light on textual history backward and forward.
They are Irenaeus, of Asia Minor, Rome, and Lyons; his disciple
Hippolytus, of Rome; Clement, of Athens and Alexandria; and his disciple,
Origen, of Alexandria and Palestine” (Hort, p. 112). Even if the extant
writings of these Fathers had been as rigorously examined and as
thoroughly known as they certainly are not, “their scantiness and the
comparative vagueness of the textual materials contained in them”
(_ibid._) would hinder our drawing at present any positive conclusions
regarding the sacred text as known to them. Even the slender specimens of
controverted readings collected in our Chap. XII would suffice to prove
that their evidence is by no means exclusively favourable to Dr. Hort’s
opinions, a fact for which we will allege but one instance out of many,
the support given to the Received text by Hippolytus in that grand
passage, John iii. 13(300).

There are three considerable works relating to the criticism of the N. T.
still open to the enterprise of scholars, and they can hardly be taken up
at all except by the fresh hopefulness of scholars yet young. We need a
fuller and more comprehensive collation of the cursive manuscripts (Hort,
pp. 76-7): “a complete collection of all the fragments of the Thebaic New
Testament is now the most pressing want in the province of textual
criticism,” writes Bp. Lightfoot, and he might have added a better edition
of the Bohairic also: but for the demands of the present controversy we
must set in the first rank the necessity for a complete survey of the
Patristic literature of the first five centuries at the least. While we
concede to Dr. Hort that as a rule “negative patristic evidence”—that
derived from the mere silence of the writer, “is of no force at all”
(Hort, p. 201), and attach very slight importance to citations which are
not express, it is from this source that we must look for any stable
decision regarding the comparative purity in reference to the sacred
autographs of the several classes of documents which have passed under our
review.

(γ) Hence the second reason for supporting the text of Westcott and Hort
urged by the _Two Revisers_ relates to an investigation of facts hitherto
but partially ascertained: the third, like the first, involves only
matters of opinion, in which individual judgements and prepossessions bear
the chief part. “Yet a third reason is supplied by Internal Evidence, or,
in other words, by considerations ... of intrinsic or of Transcriptional
Probability” (The Revisers &c., p. 26): and “here,” they very justly add,
“it is obvious that we enter at once into a very delicate and difficult
domain of textual criticism, and can only draw our conclusions with the
utmost circumspection and reserve” (_ibid._). On the subject of Internal
Evidence enough for our present purpose has been said, and Dr. Hort’s
Transcriptional head appears to be Bp. Ellicott’s _paradiplomatic_ under a
more convenient name. Our author’s discussion of what he calls the
“rudimental criticism” of Internal evidence (Hort, Part ii. pp. 19-72), if
necessarily somewhat abstruse, is one of the most elaborate and
interesting in his admirable volume. It is sometimes said that all
reasoning is analytical, not synthetical; the reducing a foregone
conclusion to the first principles on which it rests, rather than the
building upon those first principles the materials wherewith to construct
the conclusion. Of this portion of Dr. Hort’s labours the _dictum_ is
emphatically true. Cod. B and its characteristic peculiarities are never
out of the author’s mind, and those lines of thought are closely followed
which most readily lead up to the theory of that manuscript’s practical
impeccability. We allege this statement in no disparaging spirit, and it
may be that Dr. Hort will not wholly disagree with us. Not only is he duly
sensible of the precariousness of Intrinsic evidence, inasmuch as “the
uncertainty of the decision in ordinary cases is shown by the great
diversity of judgement which is actually found to exist” (Hort, p. 21),
but he boldly, and no less boldly than truly, intimates that in such cases
the ultimate decision must rest with the individual critic: “in almost all
texts variations occur where personal judgement inevitably takes a large
part in the final decision.... Different minds will be impressed by
different parts of the evidence as clearer than the rest, and so virtually
ruling the rest: here therefore personal discernment would seem the surest
ground for confidence” (_ibid._ p. 65). For the critic’s confidence
perhaps, not for that of his reader.

The process of grouping authorities, whether by considerations of their
geographical distribution or (more uncertainly) according to their
genealogy as inferred from internal considerations (_ibid._ pp. 49-65),
occupies a large measure of Dr. Hort’s attention. The idea has not indeed
originated with him, and its occasional value will be frankly acknowledged
in the ensuing pages, so that on this head we need not further enlarge. In
conclusion we will say, that the more our Cambridge Professor’s
“Introduction” is studied the more it grows upon our esteem for fulness of
learning, for patience of research, for keenness of intellectual power,
and especially for a certain marvellous readiness in accounting after some
fashion for every new phenomenon which occurs, however apparently adverse
to the acceptance of his own theory. With all our reverence for his
genius, and gratitude for much that we have learnt from him in the course
of our studies, we are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our
strong conviction that the hypothesis to whose proof he has devoted so
many laborious years, is destitute not only of historical foundation, but
of all probability resulting from the internal goodness of the text which
its adoption would force upon us(301).

This last assertion we will try to verify by subjoining a select number of
those many passages in the N. T. wherein the two great codices א and B,
one or both of them, are witnesses for readings, nearly all of which, to
the best of our judgement, are corruptions of the sacred originals(302).

6. Those who devote themselves to the criticism of the text of the New
Testament have only of late come to understand the full importance of
attending closely to the mutual connexion subsisting between their several
materials of every description, whether manuscripts, versions, or Fathers.
The study of _grouping_ has been recently and not untruly said to be the
foundation of all enduring criticism(303). Now that theories about the
formal recensions of whole classes of these documents have generally been
given up as purely visionary, and the very word _families_ has come into
disrepute by reason of the exploded fancies it recalls, we can discern not
the less clearly that certain groups of them have in common not only a
general resemblance in regard to the readings they exhibit, but
characteristic peculiarities attaching themselves to each group.
Systematic or wilful corruption of the sacred text, at least on a scale
worth taking into account, there would seem to have been almost none; yet
the tendency to licentious paraphrase and unwarranted additions
distinguished one set of our witnesses from the second century downwards;
a bias towards grammatical and critical purism and needless omissions
appertained to another; while a third was only too apt to soften what
might seem harsh, to smooth over difficulties, and to bring passages,
especially of the Synoptic Gospels, into unnatural harmony with each
other. All these changes appear to have been going on without notice
during the whole of the third and fourth centuries, and except that the
great name of Origen is associated (not always happily) with one class of
them, were rather the work of transcribers than of scholars. Eusebius and
Jerome, in their judgements about Scripture texts, are more the echoes of
Origen than independent investigators.

Now, as a first approximation to the actual state of the case, the several
classes of changes which we have enumerated admit of a certain rude
geographical distribution, one of them appertaining to Western Christendom
and the earliest Fathers of the African and Gallic Churches (including
North Italy under the latter appellation); a second to Egypt and its
neighbourhood; the third originally to Syria and Christian Antioch, in
later times to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. We have here, no doubt,
much to remind us of Griesbach and his scheme of triple recensions, but
with this broad distinction between his conclusions and those of modern
critics, that whereas he regarded the existence of his families as a
patent fact, and grounded upon it precise and mechanical rules for the
arrangement of the text, we are now content to perceive no more than
unconscious tendencies, liable to be modified or diverted by a thousand
occult influences, of which in each single case it is impossible to form
an estimate beforehand. Even that marked bias in the direction of adding
to the record, which is the reproach of Codex Bezae and some of its
compeers, and renders the text of the Acts as exhibited by DE, by the
cursive 137, and the margin of the Harkleian Syriac, as unlike that
commonly read as can well be imagined(304), is mixed up with a proneness
to omissions which we should look for rather from another class of
documents (e.g. the rejection of ψευδόμενοι Matt. v. 11), and which in the
latter part of St. Luke’s Gospel almost suggests the idea of representing
an earlier edition than that now in ordinary use, yet proceeding from the
Evangelist’s own hand (_see_ p. 18)(305). Again, the process whereby the
rough places are made plain and abrupt constructions rounded, is
abundantly exemplified in the readings of the great uncial A, supported as
it is by the mass of later manuscripts (e.g. Mark i. 27; Acts xv. 17, 18;
xx. 24); yet in innumerable instances (_see_ Appendix to this chapter)
these self-same codices retain the genuine text of the sacred writers
which their more illustrious compeers have lost or impaired.

Hence it follows that in judging of the character of a various reading
proposed for our acceptance, we must carefully mark whether it comes to us
from many directions or from one. And herein the native country of the
several documents, even when we can make sure of it, is only a precarious
guide. If the Ethiopic or the Armenian versions have really been corrected
by the Latin Vulgate, the geographical remoteness of their origin must go
for nothing where they agree with the latter version. The relation in
which Cod. L and the Bohairic version stand to Cod. B is too close to
allow them their full value as independent witnesses unless when they are
at variance with that great uncial, wheresoever it may have been written:
the same might be said of the beautiful Latin fragment _k_ from Bobbio. To
whatever nations they belong, their resemblances are too strong and
perpetual not to compel us to withhold from them a part of the
consideration their concord would otherwise lay claim to. The same is
incontestably the case with the Curetonian and margin of the Harkleian
Syriac in connexion with Cod. D. Wide as is the region which separates
Syria from Gaul, there must have been in very early times some remote
communication by which the stream of Eastern testimony or tradition, like
another Alpheus, rose up again with fresh strength to irrigate the regions
of the distant West. The Peshitto Syriac leans at times in the same
direction, although both in nation and character it most assimilates to
the same class as Cod. A.

With these, and it may be with some further reservations which experience
and study shall hereafter suggest, the principle of grouping must be
acknowledged to be a sound one, and those lines of evidence to be least
likely to lead us astray which converge from the most varied quarters to
the same point. It is strange, but not more strange than needful, that we
are compelled in the cause of truth to make one stipulation more: namely,
that this rule be henceforth applied impartially in all cases, as well
when it will tell in favour of the Received text, as when it shall help to
set it aside. To assign a high value to cursive manuscripts of the best
description (such as 1, 33, 69, 157, Evst. 259, or 61 of the Acts), and to
such uncials as LRΔ, or even as א or C, whensoever they happen to agree
with Cod. B, and to treat their refined silver as though it had been
suddenly transmuted into dross when they come to contradict it, is a
practice too plainly unreasonable to admit of serious defence, and can
only lead to results which those who uphold it would be the first to
deplore(306).

7. It is hoped that the general issue of the foregoing discussion may now
be embodied in these four practical rules(307):—

(1) That the true readings of the Greek New Testament cannot safely be
derived from any one set of authorities, whether manuscripts, versions, or
Fathers, but ought to be the result of a patient comparison and careful
estimate of the evidence supplied by them all.

(2) That where there is a real agreement between all documents containing
the Gospels up to the sixth century, and in other parts of the New
Testament up to the ninth, the testimony of later manuscripts and
versions, though not to be rejected unheard, must be regarded with great
suspicion, and, UNLESS UPHELD BY STRONG INTERNAL EVIDENCE, can hardly be
adopted(308).

(3) That where the more ancient documents are at variance with each other,
the later uncial and cursive copies, especially those of approved merit,
are of real importance, as being the surviving representatives of other
codices, very probably as early, perhaps even earlier, than any now
extant.

(4) That in weighing conflicting evidence we must assign the highest value
not to those readings which are attested by the greatest number of
witnesses, but to those which come to us from several remote and
independent sources, and which bear the least likeness to each other in
respect to genius and general character.



Appendix To Chapter X.


Matt. vi. 8. The transparent gloss ὁ θεός is inserted before ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν
by Codd. א*B and the Sahidic version(309).

Ver. 22. Ὁ λύχνος τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου B, _a_ _b_ _c_ _ff_1
_n_1.2 _h_ _l_, the printed Vulgate, some Latin writers, and the Ethiopic.
The addition of σου is more strongly attested in Luke xi. 34 by א*ABCDM,
but is intolerable in either place.

Matt. xvi. 21. Ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ἰησοῦς χριστός: so the first hands of א and
B, with the Bohairic version only, their very frequent companion.

Matt. xxvii. 28. On the impossible reading of אcBD, _a_ _b_ _c_ _ff_2 _q_,
and a few others, enough has been said in Chap. VII. p. 234.

Ver. 49. We are here brought face to face with the gravest interpolation
yet laid to the charge of B, whose tendency is usually in the opposite
direction. Westcott and Hort alone among the editors feel constrained to
insert in the text, though enclosed in their double brackets and regarded
as “most probably an interpolation,” a sentence which neither they nor any
other competent scholar can easily believe that the Evangelist ever
wrote(310). After σώσων αὐτόν are set the following words borrowed from
John xix. 34, with a slight verbal change, and representing that the
Saviour was pierced before his death: ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ
τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ ἁῖμα. Thus we read in אBCLU (which has
εὐθέως before ἐξῆλθεν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ) Γ, 5, 48, 67, 115, 127*, five good
manuscripts of the Vulgate, _Kells_, _gat._, _mm._, _chad._, _mac-regol._,
and _Oxon._, _C. C._ (_not_ in _Bodl._), _Harl._ 1023 and 1802*, and the
margin of 1 E. VI, the Jerusalem Syriac once when the Lesson occurs, and
the Ethiopic. Chrysostom thus read in his copy, but used the clause with
so little reflection that he regarded the Lord as dead already. Severus of
Antioch [d. 539], who himself protested against this gross corruption,
tells us that Cyril of Alexandria as well as Chrysostom received it. A
scholion found in Cod. 72 refers this addition εἰς τὸ καθ᾽ ἱστορίαν
εὐαγγέλιον Διοδώρου καὶ Τατιάνου καὶ ἄλλων διαφόρων ἁγίων πατέρων, on the
authority of Chrysostom; and from the unintentional blunders of Harmonists
like Tatian such an insertion might very well have crept in. The marvel is
that it found favour so widely as it did(311).

Matt. xxviii. 19. βαπτίσαντες occurs only in BD (whose Latin has
_baptizantes_), as though Baptism were to precede instruction in the
faith. Tregelles alone dares to place this reading in the text: Westcott
and Hort have it in their margin.

Mark iii. 14, 16. After noticing the evidence which supported the corrupt
sentence in Matt. xxvii. 49, we are little disposed to accept what is in
substance the same for such feeble glosses as are afforded us in these two
verses; namely, οὓς καὶ ἀποστόλους ὠνόμασεν after δώδεκα in ver. 14
(derived from Luke vi. 13), and καὶ ἐποίησε τοὺς δώδεκα at the beginning
of ver. 16. Westcott and Hort receive both clauses, Tischendorf only the
latter, with אBC*Δ and an Ethiopic manuscript: yet the former, if less
likely to be genuine, is the better supported. It is found in אBC*Δ (with
some variation), in 13, 28, 69, 124, 238, 346, the Bohairic, the margin of
the Harkleian Syriac, the Ethiopic, the Arabic of the Polyglott: a goodly
array from divers sources to uphold so bad a reading.

Mark vi. 2. οἱ πολλοί is read by Westcott and Hort (so Tischendorf)
instead of πολλοί with BL, 13, 28, 69, 346. Three out of the four cursives
belong to Professor Ferrar’s group.

Ver. 22. In the room of τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς τῆς Ἡρωδιάδος a serious
variation of אBDLΔ, 238, 473, 558 is admitted into the text by Westcott
and Hort, τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ (+ τῆς 238, 558) Ἡρῳδιάδος, thus bringing St.
Mark into direct contradiction with Josephus, who expressly states that
the wretched girl was named Salome, and was the daughter of Herod Philip
by Herodias, who did not leave her husband till after Salome’s birth
(Josephus, Antiq., lib. xviii. ch. v. § 4). Add to this the extreme
improbability that even Herod the Tetrarch should have allowed his own
child to degrade herself in such wise as Salome did here, or that she
could not have carried her point with her father without resorting to
licentious allurements. We must therefore regard αὐτοῦ as certainly false,
while αὐτῆς strongly expresses the writer’s feeling that even Herodias
could stoop so low, and being used emphatically has so much offended a few
that they omit it altogether. Such are 1, 118, 209, and some versions (_b_
_c_ _f_, the Bohairic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Gothic) which did not
understand it. Tischendorf was hardly right in adding the Peshitto to the
list(312).

Mark ix. 1. ὧδε τῶν for τῶν ὧδε (ἑστηκότων) is the almost impossible
reading of BD*, _c_ _k_* (_a_ _d_ _q_ _n_ are uncertain), adopted the more
readily by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, because all have the
proper order τῶν ὧδε in Matt. xvi. 28.

Mark xiii. 33. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort reject (Tregelles
more fitly sets within brackets) καὶ προσεύχεσθε with BD, 122, and the
Latin _a_ _c_ _k_ and _tol._* of the Vulgate only. It is in the favour of
the two words that they cannot have come from the parallel place in St.
Matthew (ch. xxiv. 42), nor is the preceding verb the same in ch. xiv. 38.
Here even אLΔ side against B with AC and all other authorities, including
the Egyptian and most Latin, as well as the Syriac versions.

Luke iv. 44. The wonderful variation Ἰουδαίας is brought into the text of
Hort and Westcott, the true reading Γαλιλαίας being banished to their
margin. Their change is upheld by a strong phalanx indeed: אNBCLQR, 1, 21,
71, Evst. 222, 259 and some twenty other cursives (Evan. 503 and two
Lectionaries read αὐτῶν instead of either), the Bohairic and the text of
the Harkleian: authorities enough to prove anything not in itself
impossible, as Ἰουδαίας is in this place. Not only is Galilee the scene of
the events recorded immediately before and after the present verse, but
the passage is manifestly parallel to Mark i. 39. The three Synoptic
Gospels are broadly distinguished from that of St. John by their silence
respecting the Lord’s ministry in Judaea before He went up to the last
passover. Yet Alford _in loco_, while admitting that “our narrative is
thus brought into the more startling discrepancy with that of St. Mark, in
which unquestionably the same portion of the sacred history is related,”
most strangely adds, “Still these are considerations which must not weigh
in the least degree with the critic. It is his province simply to track
out what is the sacred text, not what, in his own feeble and partial
judgement, _it ought to have been_.”

Luke vi. 48. It is surprising how a gloss so frigid as διὰ τὸ καλῶς
οἰκοδομῆσθαι αὐτήν could have been accepted by Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Westcott and Hort, in the room of τεθελεμίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν, chiefly,
it may be presumed, because the latter is the expression of St. Matthew
(ch. vii. 25). Yet such is the reading of אBLΞ, of the two best cursives
33, 157, of the Bohairic (with some variation in its copies), of the
margin of the Harkleian, and of Cyril of Alexandria. The Ethiopic
preserves both forms. As the present οἰκοδόμοῦντι early in the verse
involves a plain contradiction when compared with the perfect οἰκοδομῆσθαι
at the end, Tregelles changes the latter into οἰκοδομεῖσθαι on the feeble
authority of the third hand of B, of 33, and possibly of 157.

Luke viii. 40. For αὐτόν after προσδοκῶντες we find τὸν θεόν in א only. Of
course the variation is quite wrong, but it is hard to see the pertinency
of Dr. Vance Smith’s hint (_Theological Review_, July, 1875) “that it
cannot have got in by accident.”

Luke x. 1. This case is interesting, as being one wherein B (not א) is at
variance with the very express evidence of the earliest ecclesiastical
writers, while it makes the number of these disciples, not seventy, but
seventy-two(313). With B are DM, also R (“ita enim certè omnino videtur,”
Tisch., Monum. sacra inedita, vol. ii. Proleg. p. xviii), in the prefixed
table of τίτλοι (Vol. I. p. 57, _n_), its text being lost, Codd. 1, 42, _a
c e g_1.2? _l_, the Vulgate, Curetonian Syriac, and Armenian. Lachmann
with Westcott and Hort insert δύο, but within brackets, for the evidence
against it is overwhelming both in number and in weight: namely, Codd.
אACEGHKLSUVXΓΔΛΞΠ, all other cursives, _b f g_ of the Old Latin, the
Bohairic, the three other Syriac, the Gothic, and Ethiopic versions.

Luke xiv. 5. Here again we have a strong conviction that א, though now in
the minority, is more correct than B, supported as the latter is by a
dense array of witnesses of every age and country. In the clause τίνος
ὑμῶν ὄνος ἢ βοῦς of the Received text all the critical editors substitute
υἱὸς for ὄνος, which introduces a bathos so tasteless as to be almost
ludicrous(314). Yet υἱὸς is found with or without ὁ before it in AB
(_hiant_ CF)EGHMSUVΓΔΛ, in no less than 125 cursive copies already cited
by name(315) (also υἱὸς ὑμῶν Evst. 259), in _e f g_, the Sahidic, Peshitto
and Harkleian(316) Syriac versions: Cod. 508 and the Curetonian combine
both forms υἱὸς ἢ βοῦς ἢ ὄνος, and Cod. 215 has υἱὸς ἢ ὄνος without βοῦς.
Add to these Cyril of Alexandria (whose words are cited in catenas, as in
the scholia to X, 253, 259), Titus of Bostra the commentator, Euthymius,
and Theophylact. For ὄνος are אKLXΠ, 1, 33, 66 _secundâ manu_, 69 (ὄρος),
71, 207 _sec. man._, 211, 213, 407, 413, 492, 509, 512, 549, 550, 555,
556, 569, 570, 599, 602, and doubtless others not cited: also the text of
X, 253, 259 in spite of the annexed commentary; of the versions _a b c i
l_ of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Bohairic, Jerusalem Syriac, Armenian,
and Ethiopic (_bos eius aut asinus_), though the Slavonic codices and
Persic of the Polyglott make for υἱός. Cod. 52 (_sic_) and the Arabic of
the Polyglott omit ὄνος ἤ, while D has πρόβατον (_ovis d_) for ὄνος (comp.
Matt. xii. 11), and 557 exhibits βοῦς ἢ ὄνος. ΥΣ or ΟΙΣ mistaken as the
contraction for ΥΙΟΣ is a mere guess, and we are safest here in clinging
to common sense against a preponderance of outward evidence.

Luke xv. 21. Here by adding from ver. 19 ποίησόν με ὡς ἕνα τῶν μισθίων σου
(placed in the text by Westcott and Hort within brackets) the great
codices אBD, with UX, 33, 512, 543, 558, 571, a catena, and four
manuscripts of the Vulgate (_bodl. gat. mm. tol._), manage to keep out of
sight that delicate touch of true nature which Augustine points out, that
the son never carried out his purpose of offering himself for a hireling,
“quod post osculum patris generosissime jam dedignatur.”

Luke xvi. 12. It is hard to tell how far thorough scholars and able
critics are prepared to push a favourite theory, when Westcott and Hort
place τὸ ἡμέτερον τίς δώσει ὑμῖν in the text, reserving ὑμέτερον for the
margin. Not to mention that the interchange of η and υ in these pronouns
is the most obstinate of all known itacisms, and one to which B is
especially prone (e.g. Acts xvii. 28; 1 Pet. ii. 24; 1 John ii. 25; iii.
1, Vol. I. p. 11), ἡμέτερον is found only in BL, Evst. 21, and Origen
once: in 157, _e i l_, and in Tertullian twice it is softened down to
ἐμόν.

Luke XXI. 24: ἄχρι οὗ πληρωθῶσιν [καὶ ἔσονται] kairoὶ ἐthnῶn. The words
within brackets appear thus in Westcott and Hort’s text alone; what
possible meaning can be assigned to them in the position they there occupy
it is hard to see. They are obviously derived by an error of the scribe’s
eye from καὶ ἔσονται (the reading of אBD, &c.) at the beginning of ver.
25. This unintelligible insertion is due to B; but L, the Bohairic, and a
codex cited in the Harkleian margin also have it with another καιροί
prefixed to καὶ ἔσονται. D runs on thus: ἄχρις οὗ πληρωθῶσιν καὶ ἔσονται
σημεῖα (om. καιροὶ ἐθνῶν). Those who discover some recondite beauty in the
reading of B compare with this the genuine addition καὶ ἐσμέν after
κληθῶμεν in 1 John iii. 1. _Nempè amatorem turpia decipiunt caecum vitia,
aut etiam ipsa haec delectant._

Luke xxiii. 32. For ἕτεροι δύο κακοῦργοι, which is unobjectionable in the
Greek, though a little hard in a close English translation, אB and the two
Egyptian versions, followed by Westcott and Hort, have the wholly
impossible ἕτεροι κακοῦργοι δύο.

John ii. 3. The loose paraphrase of Cod. א in place of ὑστερήσαντος οἴνου
commends itself to no one but Tischendorf, who in his turn admires the
worst deformities of his favourite: it runs καὶ οἶνον οὐκ εἶχον ὅτι
συνετελέσθη ὁ οἶνος τοῦ γάμου, in which few readers will be able to
discern with him the manner and style of St. John. The Old Latin _a b ff_2
and Gaudentius [iv]; also _e l_, the Ethiopic, and the margin of the
Harkleian in part, exhibit the same vapid circumlocution. Cod. א in this
Gospel, and sometimes elsewhere, has a good deal in common with the
Western codices and Latin Fathers, and some of its glosses are simply
deplorable: e.g. καλοκαγαθίας for κακοπαθείας, James v. 10; συνομιλοῦντες
for συνοικοῦντες, 1 Pet. iii. 7; ἀποθανόντος for παθόντος, 1 Pet. iv. 1
after ch. ii. 21, where it does not stand alone, as here. Of a better
character is its bold supplement of ἐκκλησία before συνεκλεκτή in 1 Pet.
v. 13, apparently borrowed from primitive tradition, and supported by the
Peshitto, Vulgate (in its best manuscripts and editions), and Armenian
versions.

John iv. 1. After βαπτίζει we find ἤ omitted in AB* (though it is added in
what Tischendorf considers an ancient hand, his B2) GLΓ, 262, Origen and
Epiphanius, but appears in אCD and all the rest. Tregelles rejects ἤ in
his margin, Hort and Westcott put it within brackets. Well may Dr. Hort
say (Notes, p. 76), “It remains no easy matter to explain how the verse as
it stands can be reasonably understood without ἤ, or how such a mere slip
as the loss of Η after ΕΙ should have so much excellent Greek authority,
more especially as the absence of ἤ increases the obvious no less than the
real difficulty of the verse.”

John vii. 39. One of the worst faults a manuscript (the same is not true
of a version) can have is a habit of supplying, either from the margin or
from the scribe’s misplaced ingenuity, some word that may clear up a
difficulty, or limit the writer’s meaning. Certainly this is not a common
fault with Cod. B, but we have here a conspicuous example of it. It stands
almost alone in receiving δεδομένον after πνεῦμα: one cursive (254) has
δοθέν, and so read _a b c e ff_2 _g l q_, the Vulgate, the Peshitto, and
the Georgian (Malan, St. John), the Jerusalem Syriac, the Polyglott
Persic, a catena, Eusebius and Origen in a Latin version: the margin of
the Harkleian Syriac makes a yet further addition. The Sahidic, Ethiopic,
and Erpenius’ Arabic also supply some word. But the versions and
commentators, like our own English translations, probably meant no more
than a bold exposition. The whole blame of this evident corruption rests
with the two manuscripts. No editor follows B here.

John ix. 4. Most readers will think with Dean Burgon that the reading ἡμᾶς
δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πέμψαντος (whether followed by με or ἡμᾶς)
“carries with it its own sufficient condemnation” (Last Twelve Verses,
&c., p. 81). The single or double ἡμᾶς, turning the whole clause into a
general statement, applicable to every one, is found in א*BDL, the two
Egyptian, Jerusalem Syriac, Erpenius’ Arabic, and Roman Ethiopic versions,
in the younger Cyril and the versifier Nonnus. Origen and Jerome cite the
passage as if the reading were ἐργάζεσθε, which, by a familiar _itacism_
(_see_ p. 11), is the reading of the first hand of B. The first ἡμᾶς is
adopted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort: the second by
Tischendorf alone after א*L, the Bohairic, Roman Ethiopic, Erpenius’
Arabic, and Cyril. Certainly με of BD, the Sahidic, and Jerusalem Syriac,
is very harsh.

John x. 22. For δέ after ἐγένετο Westcott and Hort read τότε with BL, 33,
the Sahidic, Gothic, Slavonic, and Armenian versions. No such use of τότε
in this order, and without another particle, will be found in the New
Testament, or easily elsewhere. The Bohairic and _gat._ of the Vulgate
have δὲ τότε, which is a different thing. Moreover, the sense will not
admit so sharp a definition of sameness in time as τότε implies. Three
months intervened between the feast of Tabernacles, in and after which all
the events named from ch. vii downwards took place, and this winter feast
of Dedication.

John xviii. 5. For λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ ἰησοῦς ἐγώ ἐιμι, B and a have the
miserable variation λέγει αὐτοῖς ἐγώ ἐιμι ἰησοῦς, which Westcott and Hort
advance to a place in their margin. The first ΙΣ (omitting ὁ) was absorbed
in the last syllable of ΑΥΤΟΙΣ, the second being a mere repetition of the
first syllable of ΙΣΤΗΚΕΙ (_sic_ B _primâ manu_). Compare Vol. I. p. 10.
With so little care was this capital document written(317).

Acts iv. 25. We have here, upheld by nearly all the authorities to which
students usually defer, that which cannot possibly be right, though
critical editors, in mere helplessness, feel obliged to put it in their
text: ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου στόματος δαυεὶδ παιδός σου
εἰπών. Thus read אABE, 13, 15, 27, 29, 36, 38. Apost. 12, a catena and
Athanasius. The Vulgate and Latin Fathers, the Harkleian Syriac and
Armenian versions conspire, but with such wide variations as only serve to
display their perplexity. We have here two several readings, either of
which might be true, combined into one that cannot. We might either adopt
with D ὃς διὰ _μνς_ ἁγίου διὰ τοῦ στόματος λαλήσας δαυεὶδ παιδός σου (but
_david puero tuo_ d), or better with Didymus ὁ διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου
στόματος δὲ δαυεὶδ παιδός σου εἰπών (which will fairly suit the Peshitto
and Bohairic); or we might prefer the easier form of the Received text ὁ
διὰ στόματος δαβὶδ τοῦ παιδός σου εἰπών, which has no support except from
P(318) and the cursives 1, 31, 40, 220, 221, &c. (the valuable copy 224
reads ὁ διὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ἐν _δαδ_), and from Theophylact, Chrysostom
being doubtful. Tischendorf justly pleads for the form he edits that it
has second, third, and fourth century authority, adding “singula verba
praeter morem sed non sine caussâ collocata sunt.” _Praeter morem_ they
certainly are, and _non sine caussâ_ too, if this and like examples shall
lead us to a higher style of criticism than will be attained by setting up
one or more of the oldest copies as objects of unreasonable idolatry.

Acts vii. 46. ᾐτήσατο εὑρεῖν σκήνωμα τῷ θεῷ Ἰακώβ. The portentous variant
οἴκῳ for θεῷ is adopted by Lachmann, and by Tischendorf, who observes of
it “minimè sensu caret:” even Tregelles sets it in the margin, but
Westcott and Hort simply obelize θεῷ as if they would read τῷ Ἰακώβ
(compare Psalm xxiv. 6, cxxxii. 5 with Gen. xlix. 24). Yet οἴκῳ appears in
א*BDH against אcACEP, all cursives (including 13, 31, 61, 220, 221), all
versions. Observe also in ch. viii. 5 καισαρίας in א* for σαμαρείας on
account of ver. 40 and ch. xxi. 8.

Acts x. 19. Ἰδοὺ ἄνδρες δύο is the reading of Westcott and Hort’s text
([τρεῖς] margin) after B only, the true number being three (ver. 7): in
ch. xi. 11 Epiphanius only has δύο. There might be some grounds for
omitting τρεῖς here, as Tischendorf does, and Tregelles more doubtfully in
his margin (with DHLP, 24, 31, 111, 182, 183, 184, 185, 188, 189, 220,
221, 224, _m_, the later Syriac, the Apostolical Constitutions, the elder
Cyril, Chrysostom and Theophylact, Augustine and Ambrose), no reason
surely for representing the Spirit as speaking only of the δύο οἰκέται.

Acts xii. 25. An important passage for our present purpose. That the two
Apostles returned from, not to, Jerusalem is too plain for argument (ch.
xi. 29, 30), yet εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ (which in its present order surely cannot
be joined with πληρώσαντες) is the reading of Westcott and Hort’s text (ἐξ
and the fatal obelus [Glyph: dagger] being in their margin) after אBHLP,
61, four of Matthaei’s copies, Codd. 2, 4, 14, 24, 26, 34, 64, 78, 80, 95,
224, and perhaps twenty other cursives, but besides these only the margin
of the Harkleian, the Roman Ethiopic, the Polyglott Arabic, some copies of
the Slavonic and of Chrysostom, with Theophylact and Erasmus’ first two
editions, who says in his notes “ita legunt Graeci,” i.e. his Codd. 2, 4.
A few which substitute “Antioch” for “Jerusalem” (28, 38, 66 _marg._,
67**, 97 _marg._, Apost. 5) are witnesses for εἰς, but not so those which,
reading ἐξ or ἀπό, add with the Complutensian εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν (E, 7, 14**,
27, 29, 32, 42, 57, 69, 98 _marg._, 100, 105, 106, 111, 126**, 182, 183,
186, 220, 221, the Sahidic, Peshitto, and Erpenius’ Arabic): Cod. 76 has
εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλήμ. C is defective here, and the only three
remaining uncials are divided between ἐξ (A, 13, 27, 29, 69, 214, Apost.
54, Chrysostom sometimes) and ἀπό (DE, 15, 18, 36, 40, 68, 73, 76, 81, 93,
98, 100, 105, 106, 111, 113, 180, 183, 184, a copy of Chrysostom, and the
Vulgate _ab_). The two Egyptian, the Peshitto, the Philoxenian text, the
Armenian and Pell Platt’s Ethiopic have “from,” the only possible sense,
in spite of אB. Tischendorf in his N. T. Vaticanum 1867 alleges that in
that codex “litterae εισ ιερου primâ ut videtur manu rescriptae. Videtur
primum απο pro εισ scriptum fuisse.” But since he did not repeat the
statement three years later in his eighth edition, he may have come to
feel doubtful about it. Dr. Hort conjectures that the original order was
τὴν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ πληρώσαντες διακονίαν.

Acts xvii. 28. Here Westcott and Hort place ὑμᾶς in their text, ἡμᾶς in
the margin. For ἡμᾶς we find only B, 33, 68, 95, 96, 105, 137, and rather
wonder than otherwise that the itacism is not met with in more cursives
than six. The Bohairic has been cited in error on the same side. It needs
not a word to explain that the stress of St. Paul’s argument rests on
ὑμᾶς. To the Athenians he quotes not the Hebrew Scriptures, but the poets
of whom they were proud. Compare Luke xvi. 12, above.

An itacism not quite so gross in ch. xx. 10 μὴ θορυβεῖσθαι (B*, 185, 224*)
is likewise honoured with a place in Westcott and Hort’s margin. In Matt.
xi. 16 they follow Tischendorf and Tregelles in adopting ἑτέροις for
ἑταίροις with BCDZ, and indeed the mass of copies. This last itacism (for
it can be nothing better) was admitted so early as to affect many of the
chief versions.

Acts xx. 30. Cod. B omits αὐτῶν after ὑμῶν, where it is much wanted,
apparently with no countenance except from Cod. 186, for this is just a
point in which versions (the Sahidic and both Ethiopic) can be little
trusted. The present is one of the countless examples of Cod. B’s
inclination to abridge, which in the Old Testament is carried so far as to
eject from the text of the Septuagint words that are, and always must have
been, in the original Hebrew. Westcott and Hort include αὐτῶν within
brackets.

Acts xxv. 13. Agrippa and Bernice went to Caesarea to greet the new
governor (ἀσπασόμενοι), not surely after they had sent their greeting
before them (ἀσπασάμενοι), which, if it had been a fact, would not have
been worth mentioning. Yet, though the reading is so manifestly false, the
evidence for the aorist seems overwhelming (אABHLP, the Greek of E, 13,
24*, 31, 68, 105, 180, 220, 224*, a few more copies, and the Coptic and
Ethiopic versions). The future is found possibly in C, certainly in 61,
221, and the mass of cursives, in _e_ and other versions, in Chrysostom,
and in one form of Theophylact’s commentary. Here again Dr. Hort suspects
some kind of prior corruption (Notes, p. 100).

Acts xxviii. 13. For περιελθόντες of all other manuscripts and versions
א*B have περιελόντες, evidently borrowed from ch. xxvii. 40. Even this
vile error of transcription is set in Westcott and Hort’s text, the
alternative not even in their margin. In ver. 15 they once set οἱ within
brackets(319) on the evidence of B, 96 only. Cod. B is very prone to omit
the article, especially, but not exclusively, with proper names.

Rom. vii. 22. The substitution of τοῦ νοός (cf. ver. 23) for τοῦ θεοῦ
seems peculiar to Cod. B.

Rom. xv. 31. Lachmann and Tregelles (in his margin only) accept the
manifest gloss δωροφορία for διακονία with B (_see_ Vol. I. p. 290 for its
“_Western_ element”) D*FG (_d_ _e_ have _remuneratio_) and Ambrosiaster
(_munerum meorum ministratio_). But διακονία is found in אACD2 and 3 and
consequently in E (_see_ Vol. I. p. 176), _f_ (_ministratio_), _g_
(_administratio_), Vulg. (_obsequii mei oblatio_), so _d_***, _fuld._ and
Origen in the Latin (_ministerium_), with both Syriac, the Bohairic,
Armenian and Ethiopic versions, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and John Damascene.

1 Cor. xiii. 5. Never was a noble speech more cruelly pared down to a
trite commonplace than by the reading of B and Clement of Alexandria (very
expressly) οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ μὴ ἑαυτῆς, in the place of οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ (or τὸ)
ἑαυτῆς of the self-same Clement just as expressly elsewhere (_see_ p. 262
and note 3), and of all other authorities of every description. Here
Westcott and Hort place τὸ μή in their margin.

Col. iv. 15. For αὐτοῦ Lachmann, Tregelles’ margin, Hort and Westcott have
αὐτῆς from B, 676**, and the text of the later Syriac, thus implying that
νύμφα is the Doric feminine form, which is very unlikely.

1 Thess. v. 4. Lachmann with Hort and Westcott (but not their margin)
reads κλέπτας for κλέπτης with AB and the Bohairic, but this cannot be
right.

Heb. vii. 1. For ὁ συναντήσας Lachmann, Tregelles, Hort and Westcott’s
text have ὃς συναντήσας with אABC**DEK, 17, a broken sentence: but this is
too much even for Dr. Hort, who says, in the language habitual to him,
that ὁ seems “a right emendation of the Syrian revisers” (Notes, p. 130).

James i. 17. What can be meant by ἀποσκιάσματος of א*B it is hard to say.
The versions are not clear as to the sense, but _ff_ alone seems to
suggest the genitive (_modicum obumbrationis_). That valuable Cod. 184,
now known only by Sanderson’s collation at Lambeth (No. 1255, 10-14)(320),
is said by him to _add_ to the end of the verse οὐδὲ μέχρι ὑπονοίας τινὸς
ὑποβολὴ ἀποσκιάσματος, which seems like a scholion on the preceding
clause, and is found also in Cod. 221.

Nor will any one praise certain readings of Cod. B in James i. 9; 1 Pet.
i. 9; 11; ii. 1; 12; 25; iii. 7; 14; 18 (_om._ τῷ θεῷ); iv. 1; v. 3; 2
Pet. i. 17; 1 John i. 2; ii. 14; 20; 25; 27; iii. 15; 3 John 4; 9; Jude 9,
which passages the student may work out for himself.

Enough of the weary and ungracious task of finding fault. The foregoing
list of errors patent in the most ancient codices might be largely
increased: two or three more will occur incidentally in Chapter XII (1
Cor. xiii. 3; Phil. ii. 1; 1 Pet. i. 23; _see_ also pp. 254, 319). Even if
the reader has not gone with me in every case, more than enough has been
alleged to prove to demonstration that the true and pure text of the
sacred writers is not to be looked for in א or B, in אB, or BD, or BL, or
any like combination of a select few authorities, but demands, in every
fresh case as it arises, the free and impartial use of every available
source of information. Yet after all, Cod. B is a document of such value,
that it grows by experience even upon those who may have been a little
prejudiced against it by reason of the excessive claims of its too zealous
friends(321). Its best associate, in our judgement, is Cod. C, where the
testimony of that precious palimpsest can be had. BC together will often
carry us safe through difficulties of the most complicated character, as
for instance, through that vexatious passage John xiii. 25, 26. Compare
also Acts xxvi. 16. Yet even here it is necessary to commend with reserve:
BC stand almost alone in maintaining the ingenious but improbable
variation ἐκσῶσαι in Acts xxvii. 39 (_see_ Chap. XII), and the frigid
gloss κρίνοντι in 1 Pet. iv. 5: they unite with others in foisting on St.
Matthew’s text its worst corruption, ch. xxvii. 49. In Gal. iii. 1, C
against AB contains the gloss τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι. Again, since no
fact relating to these pursuits is more certain than the absolute
independence of the sources from which A and B are derived, it is manifest
that their occasional agreement is always of the greatest weight, and is
little less than conclusive in those portions of the N. T. where other
evidence is slender in amount or consideration, e.g. 1 Pet. i. 21 and v.
10 (with the Vulgate); v. 11: also supported by those admirable cursives
27, 29, in 1 Pet. v. 14; 1 John iv. 3; 19; 2 John 3; 12. See also 1 John
v. 18, to be discussed in Chap. XII.



CHAPTER XI. CONSIDERATIONS DERIVED FROM THE PECULIAR CHARACTER AND
GRAMMATICAL FORM OF THE DIALECT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT.


1. It will not be expected of us to enter in this place upon the wide
subject of the origin, genius, and peculiarities, whether in respect to
grammar or orthography, of that dialect of the Greek in which the N. T.
was written, except so far as it bears directly upon the criticism of the
sacred volume. Questions, however, are perpetually arising, when we come
to examine the oldest manuscripts of Scripture, which cannot be resolved
unless we bear in mind the leading particulars wherein the diction of the
Evangelists and Apostles differs not only from that of pure classical
models, but also of their own contemporaries who composed in the Greek
language, or used it as their ordinary tongue.

2. The Greek style of the N. T., then, is the result of blending two
independent elements, the debased vernacular speech of the age, and that
strange modification of the Alexandrian dialect which first appeared in
the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, and which, from their
habitual use of that version, had become familiar to the Jews in all
nations under heaven; and was the more readily adopted by those whose
native language was Aramaean, from its profuse employment of Hebrew idioms
and forms of expression. It is to this latter, the Greek of the
Septuagint, of the Apocalypse, and of the foreign Jews, that the name of
_Hellenistic_ (Acts vi. 1) strictly applies. St. Paul, who was born in a
pure Greek city (Juvenal, iii. 114-118); perhaps even St. Luke, whose
original writings(322) savour strongly of Demosthenes and Polybius, cannot
be said to have _affected_ the Hellenic, which they must have heard and
spoken from their cradles. Without denying that the Septuagint translation
and (by reason of their long sojourning in Palestine) even Syriac
phraseology would powerfully influence the style of these inspired penmen,
it is not chiefly from these sources that their writings must be
illustrated, but rather from the kind of Greek current during their
lifetime in Hellenic cities and colonies.

3. Hence may be seen the exceeding practical difficulty of fixing the
orthography, or even the grammatical forms, prevailing in the Greek
Testament, a difficulty arising not only from the fluctuation of
manuscript authorities, but even more from the varying circumstances of
the respective authors. To St. John, for example, Greek must have been an
alien tongue; the very construction of his sentences and the subtil
current of his thoughts amidst all his simplicity of mere diction, render
it evident (even could we forget the style of his Apocalypse) that he
_thought_ in Aramaean: divergences from the common Greek type might be
looked for in him and in those Apostles whose situation resembled his,
which it is very unlikely would be adopted by Paul of Tarsus. Bearing
these facts always in mind (for the style of the New Testament is too apt
to be treated as an uniform whole), we will proceed to discuss briefly,
yet as distinctly as may be, a few out of the many perplexities of this
description to which the study of the original codices at once introduces
us(323).

4. One of the most striking of them regards what is called ν ἐφελκυστικόν,
the “ν attached,” which has been held to be an arbitrary and secondary
adjunct. This letter, however, which is “of more frequent occurrence at
the end of words, is itself of such a weak and fleeting consistency, that
it often becomes inaudible, and is omitted in writing” (Donaldson, Greek
Grammar, p. 53, 2nd edit.). Hence, though, through the difficulty of
pronunciation, it became usual to neglect it before a consonant, it always
comprised _a real portion of the word to which it was annexed_, and the
great Attic poets are full of verses which cannot be scanned in its
absence(324): on the other hand, the cases are just as frequent where its
insertion before a consonant would be fatal to the metre. In these
instances the laws of prosody infallibly point out the true reading, and
lead us up to a general rule, that the weak or moveable ν is more often
dropped before a consonant than otherwise. This conclusion is confirmed by
the evidence of surviving classical manuscripts, although but few of them
are older than the tenth century, and would naturally be conformed, in
such minute points, to the fashion of that period. Codices of the Greek
Testament, and of the Septuagint, however, which date from the fourth
century downwards, present to us this remarkable phenomenon, that they
exhibit the final ν before a consonant full as often as they reject it,
and, speaking generally, the most ancient (e.g. Evan. אABCD)(325) are the
most constant in retaining it, though it is met with frequently in many
cursive copies, and occasionally in almost all(326). Hence arises a
difficulty, on the part of modern editors, in dealing with this
troublesome letter. Lachmann professes to follow the balance of evidence
(such evidence as he received) in each separate case, and, while he
usually inserted, sometimes omitted _nu_ where he had no cause for such
inconsistency except the purely accidental variation of his manuscripts;
Tischendorf admits it almost always (N. T., Proleg. p. liii, 7th edition),
Tregelles (I think), as also Westcott and Hort, invariably. Whether it be
employed or not, the practice should at any rate be uniform, and it is
hard to assign any reason for using it which would not apply to classical
writers, whose manuscripts would no doubt contain it as often as those of
the N. T., were they as remote in date(327). The same facts are true, and
the same remarks equally apply to the representing or withdrawing of the
weak ς in οὕτως before a consonant. Each of the aforenamed editors,
however, for the sake of euphony, prefers οὕτω before σ at the beginning
of the next word, except that Tregelles ventures on οὕτως σε δεῖ in Acts
xxiii. 11. Cod. א has οὕτω about fourteen times in the N. T.

5. In the mode of spelling proper names of places and persons peculiar to
Judaea, the general practice of some older codices is to represent harsher
forms than those met with in later documents. Thus in Mark i. 21
καφαρναούμ is found in אBDΔ, 33, 69, Origen (_twice_), the Latin,
Bohairic, and Gothic (_but not the Syriac_: ܒܦܪܢܝܘܡ or ܡܘܝܢܪܦܒ) versions,
and, from the facility of its becoming softened by copyists, this may be
preferred to καπερναούμ of AC and the great numerical majority: yet we see
LP with C in Matt. iv. 13, where Z sides with BD. In other instances the
practice varies, even in the same manuscript, or in different parts of the
N. T. Tischendorf, for example, decides that we ought always to read
ναζαρέθ in St. Matthew, ναζαρέτ in St. John (N. T., Proleg. p. lv, note):
yet the Peshitto in all twelve places that the name occurs, and the
Curetonian in the four wherein it is extant (Matt. ii. 23; iv. 13; xxi.
11; Luke ii. 51), have the aspirate (ܢܨܕܐ or ܐܕܨܢ), and being written in a
kindred dialect, claim all the more consideration. Everywhere the
manuscripts vary considerably: thus in Mark i. 9 ναζαρέτ is found in
אBLΓΔ, 33, 69, and most cursives (seventeen of Scrivener’s), Origen, the
Harkleian Syriac and Old Latin _a_ _b_ _f_: Ναζαράτ in AP: but ναζαρέθ in
D (not its Latin version, _d_) EFHKMUVΠ, 1, and at least sixteen other
cursives (but not Cod. 69 by the first hand, as Tregelles states), the Old
Latin _c_, the Vulgate, the Bohairic and Gothic as well as the elder
Syriac. In Matt. iv. 13 Cod. B has Ναζαρά by the first hand (but -έτ ch.
ii. 23), Cod. א by a later one, with Z, 33 (so Ξ in Luke iv. 16); CPΔ
Ναζαράθ, which is found in Δ nine times, in A twice: so that regarding the
orthography of this word (which is inconstant also in the Received text),
no reasonable certainty is to be attained. For Μαθθαῖος, again (the
variation from the common form Ματθαῖος adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Tregelles, Westcott and Hort), the authority is but slender, nor is the
internal probability great. Codd. אBΔ read Μαθθαῖος in the title and
headings to the first Gospel, while, in the five places where it occurs in
the text, B (_primâ manu_), the fragment Te, and D have it always, א three
times (but μαθθεος Matt. x. 3, ματθαιον Mark iii. 18 with Σ in the
subscription to the first Gospel), the Sahidic and Gothic each twice: the
Peshitto and title of the Curetonian too (all that is extant) have ܡܬܚ (or
ܚܬܡ). For Ἰωάνης the proof is yet weaker, for here Cod. B alone, and not
quite consistently (e.g. Luke i. 13; 60; 63; Acts iii. 4, &c.), reads
Ιωανης, Cod. א Ιωαννης(328), while Cod. D fluctuates between the two. In
questions of orthography Westcott and Hort, as also the other editors in
some degree, adopt a uniform mode of spelling, without reference to the
state of the evidence in each particular case.

6. Far more important than these are such variations in orthography as
bear upon the dialect of the N. T. Its affinity to the Septuagint is
admitted on all hands, the degree of that affinity must depend on the
influence we grant to certain very old manuscripts of the N. T., which
abound in Alexandrian forms for the most part absent in the great mass of
codices. Such are the verbal terminations -αμεν, -ατε, -αν in the plural
of the second aorist indicative, -οσαν for -ον in the plural imperfect or
second aorist, -ουσαν for -ουν, -αν for -ασι of the perfect, -άτω for
-έτω, -ατο for -ετο, -άμενος for -όμενος. In nouns the principal changes
are -αν for -α in the accusative of the third declension, and (more
rarely) the converse α for -αν in the first(329). We have conceded to
these forms the name of Alexandrian, because it is probable that they
actually derived their origin from that city(330), whose dialectic
peculiarities the Septuagint had propagated among all Jews that spoke
Greek; although some of them, if not the greater part, have been clearly
traced to other regions; as for example -αν for -ασι to Western Asia Minor
also and to Cilicia (Scholz, Commentatio, p. 9, notes w, x), occurring too
in the Pseudo-Homeric “Batrachomyomachia” (ἐπεὶ κακὰ πολλά μ᾽ ἔοργαν, ver.
179). Now when we come to examine our manuscripts closely we find the
forms we have enumerated not quite banished from the most recent, but
appearing far more frequently in such copies as אABC (especially D) LZ
than in those of lower date. It has been usual to ascribe such anomalous
(or, at all events, unclassical) inflexions to the circumstance that the
first-rate codices were written in Egypt; but an assumption which might be
plausible in the case of two or three is improbable as regards them all;
it will not apply at all to those Greek-Latin manuscripts which must have
been made in the West, or to the cursives in which such forms are sparsely
met with, but which were certainly not copied from _surviving_
uncials(331). Thus we are led to the conclusion that the older documents
retained these irregularities, because they were found in _their_
prototypes, the copies first taken from the sacred originals: that some of
them were in all likelihood the production of the skilful scribes of
Alexandria, though their exhibiting these forms does not prove the fact,
or even render it very probable: and that the sacred penmen, some perhaps
more than others, but all to some extent, were influenced by their
recollections and habitual use of the Septuagint version. Our practical
inference from the whole discussion will be, not that Alexandrian
inflexions should be invariably or even usually received into the text, as
some recent editors have been inclined to do, but that they should be
judged separately in every case on their merits and the support adduced in
their behalf; and be held entitled to no other indulgence than that a
lower degree of evidence will suffice for them than when the sense is
affected, inasmuch as idiosyncrasies in spelling are of all others the
most liable to be gradually and progressively modernized even by faithful
and painstaking transcribers.

7. The same remarks will obviously apply to those other dialectic forms,
which, having been once peculiar to some one race of the great Greek
family, had in the Apostles’ time spread themselves throughout the Greek
colonies of Asia and Africa, and become incorporated into the common
speech, if they did not enter into the cultivated literary style, of the
whole nation. Such are the reputed Dorisms ὀδυνᾶσαι Luke xvi. 25, καυχᾶσαι
Rom. ii. 17, 1 Cor. iv. 7 of the Received text, with no real variation in
any known manuscript: all such examples must stand or fall on their own
proper grounds of external evidence, the internal, so far as it ought to
go, being clearly in their favour. Like to them are the Ionisms μαχαίρης
Luke xxi. 24 (B*Δ _only_); Heb. xi. 34 (אAD*); 37 (אD*): μαχαίρῃ Luke
xxii. 49 (אB*DLT _only_); Acts xii. 2 (אAB*D**, 61): συνειδυίης Acts v. 2
(AB3E _only_, συνιδυης א, συνιδυιης B*): σπείρης Acts xxvii. 1 of the
common text, where the only authorities for the more familiar σπείρας seem
to be Chrysostom, the cursives 37, 39, 56, 66, 100, 111, 183, 186, 188,
189. To this class belong such changes of conjugation as κατεγέλουν Mark
v. 40 in K, 228, 447, 511 or cscr; or _vice versâ_, as ἀγανακτῶντες Cod.
69, in Mark xiv. 4. The form ἔστηκεν for ἕστηκεν John viii. 44; Apoc. xii.
4, adopted by Westcott and Hort as the imperfect of στήκω (Mark xi. 25,
&c.), does not seem suitable to the context in either place, although οὐκ
precedes in the former passage in אB*DLXΔΛ*, 1, 69*, 253, 507, 508, Evst.
234.

8. One caution seems called for in this matter, at least if we may judge
from the practice of certain critics of high and merited fame. The sacred
penmen may have adopted orthographical forms from the dialect of the
Septuagint, or from the debased diction of common life, but they did not,
and could not, write what was merely inaccurate or barbarous. Hence
repudiate, in St. Paul especially, expressions like Tischendorf’s ἐφ᾽
ἐλπίδι Rom. viii. 20, as simply incredible on any evidence(332). He may
allege for it Codd. אB*D*FG, of which the last three are bilingual
codices, the scribes of FG showing marvellous ignorance of Greek(333).
That Codd. אB should countenance such a _monstrum_ only enables us to
accumulate one example the more of the fallibility of the very best
documents, and to put in all seriousness the inquiry of Cobet in some like
instance: “Quot annorum Codex te impellet ut hoc credas?... ecquis est,
cui _fides veterum membranarum_ in tali re non admodum ridicula et inepta
videatur?” (N. T. Vatic., Praef. p. xx). In the same way we utterly
disregard the manuscripts when they confound οὐχ with οὐκ (but _see_ p.
318), μέλλει with μέλει, sense with nonsense.

The reader has, we trust, been furnished with the leading principles on
which it is conceived that dialectic peculiarities should be treated in
revising the text of the N. T. It would have been out of place to have
entered into a more detailed account of variations which will readily be
met with (and must be carefully studied) in any good Grammar of the Greek
New Testament. Dr. Moulton’s translation of Winer ought to be in the hands
of every student, and leaves nothing to be regretted, except that accurate
scholarship and unsparing diligence should have been expended on improving
another man’s work, by one who is well able to produce a better of his
own(334).



CHAPTER XII. APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS AND PRINCIPLES TO THE
CRITICISM OF SELECT PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


In applying to the revision of the sacred text the diplomatic materials
and critical principles it has been the purpose of the preceding pages to
describe, we have selected the few passages we have room to examine,
chiefly in consideration of their actual importance, occasionally also
with the design of illustrating by pertinent examples the canons of
internal evidence and the laws of Comparative Criticism. It will be
convenient to discuss these passages in the order they occupy in the
volume of the New Testament: that which stands first affords a conspicuous
instance of undue and misplaced _subjectivity_.



First Series. Gospels.


1. MATT. i. 18. Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ... is altered by Tregelles into Τοῦ
δὲ Χριστοῦ, Ἰησοῦ being omitted: Westcott and Hort place Ἰησοῦ between
brackets, and Τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ of Cod. B in the margin: Tischendorf,
who had rejected Ἰησοῦ in his fifth and seventh editions, restored it in
his eighth. Michaelis had objected to the term τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Acts
viii. 37 (see that verse, to be examined below), on the ground that “In
the time of the Apostles the word Christ was never used as the Proper Name
of a Person, but as an epithet expressive of the ministry of Jesus;” and
although Bp. Middleton has abundantly proved his statement incorrect
(Doctrine of the Greek Article, note on Mark ix. 41), and Ἰησοῦς
Χριστός(335), especially in some one of the oblique cases after
prepositions, is very common, yet the precise form ὁ Ἰησοῦς Χριστός occurs
only in these places and in 1 John iv. 3; Apoc. xii. 17, where again the
reading is more than doubtful. Hence, apparently, the determination to
change the common text in St. Matthew, on evidence however slight. Now
Ἰησοῦ is omitted _in no Greek manuscript whatsoever_(336). The Latin
version of Cod. D (_d_) indeed rejects it, the parallel Greek being lost;
but since _d_ sometimes agrees with other Latin copies against its own
Greek, it cannot be deemed quite certain that the Greek rejected it
also(337). Cod. B reads τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, in support of which Lachmann
cites Origen, iii. 965 _d_ in the Latin, but on very precarious grounds,
as Tregelles (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 189, note †) candidly
admits. Tischendorf quotes Cod. 74 (after Wetstein), the Persic (of the
Polyglott and in manuscript), and Maximus, Dial. de Trinitate, for τοῦ δὲ
ἰησοῦ. The real testimony in favour of τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ consists of the Old
Latin copies _a_ _b_ _c_ _d_ _f_ _ff_1, the Curetonian Syriac (I know not
why Cureton should add “the Peshitto”), the Latin Vulgate, the Frankish
and Anglo-Saxon, Wheelocke’s Persic, and Irenaeus in three places, “who
(after having previously cited the words ‘_Christi autem generatio sic
erat_’) continues ‘Ceterum potuerat dicere Matthaeus, _Jesu vero generatio
sic erat_; sed praevidens Spiritus Sanctus depravatores, et praemuniens
contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthaeum ait: _Christi autem generatio
sic erat_’ (Contra Haeres., lib. iii. 16. 2). This is given in proof that
Jesus and Christ are one and the same Person, and that Jesus cannot be
said to be the receptacle that afterwards received Christ; for _the Christ
was born_” (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 188). To this most meagre
list of authorities Scholz adds, “Pseudo-Theophil. in Evang.,” manuscripts
of Theophylact, Augustine, and one or two of little account: but even in
Irenaeus (Harvey, vol. ii. p. 48) τοῦ δὲ _ιυ_ _χυ_ (_tacitè_), as
preserved by Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople [viii], stands over
against the Latin “Christi.”

We do not deny the importance of Irenaeus’ express testimony(338) (a
little impaired though it be by the fanciful distinction which he had
taken up with), had it been supported by something more trustworthy than
the Old Latin versions and their constant associate, the Curetonian
Syriac. On the other hand, all uncial and cursive codices
(אCΣEKLMPSUVZΓΔΠ: ADFGΦ &c. being defective here), the Syriac of the
Peshitto, Harkleian, and Jerusalem (δέ only being omitted, since the
Church Lesson begins here), the Sahidic, Bohairic, Armenian, and Ethiopic
versions, Tatian, Irenaeus, Origen (in the Greek), Eusebius, Didymus,
Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and the younger Cyril, comprise a body of proof,
not to be shaken by subjective notions, or even by Western evidence from
the second century downwards(339).

2. MATT. vi. 13. ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς
τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν. It is right to say that I can no longer regard this
doxology as _certainly_ an integral part of St. Matthew’s Gospel: but
(notwithstanding its rejection by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Westcott and Hort) I am not yet absolutely convinced of its spuriousness
[i.e. upon much less evidence than is now adduced]. It is wanting in the
oldest uncials extant, אBDZ, and since ACP (whose general character would
lead us to look for support to the Received text in such a case) are
unfortunately deficient here, the burden of the defence is thrown on Φ and
Σ and the later uncials EGKLMSUVWfΔΠ (_hiat_ Γ), whereof L is conspicuous
for usually siding with B. Of the cursives only _five_ are known to omit
the clause, l, 17 (_habet_ ἀμήν), 118, 130, 209, but 566 or hscr (and as
it would seem some others) has it obelized in the margin, while the
scholia in certain other copies indicate that it is doubtful: even 33
contains it, 69 being defective, while 157, 225, 418 add to δόξα, τοῦ
πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, but 422 τοῦ _πρσ_ only.
Versions have much influence on such a question, it is therefore important
to notice that it is found in all the four Syriac (Cureton’s omitting καὶ
ἡ δύναμις, and some editions of the Peshitto ἀμήν, which is in _at least_
one manuscript), the Sahidic (omitting καὶ ἡ δόξα), the Ethiopic,
Armenian, Gothic, Slavonic, Georgian, Erpenius’ Arabic, the Persic of the
Polyglott from Pococke’s manuscript, the margin of some Bohairic codices,
the Old Latin _k_ (quoniam est tibi virtus in saecula saeculorum), _f_
_g_1 (omitting _amen_) _q_. The doxology is not found in most Bohairic
(but is in the margin of Hunt. 17 or Bp. Lightfoot’s Cod. 1) and Arabic
manuscripts or editions, in Wheelocke’s Persic, in the Old Latin _a_ _b_
_c_ _ff_1 _g_1 _h_ _l_, in the Vulgate or its satellites the Anglo-Saxon
and Frankish (the Clementine Vulg. and Sax. add _amen_). Its absence from
the Latin avowedly caused the editors of the Complutensian N. T. to pass
it over, though it was found in their Greek copies: the earliest Latin
Fathers naturally did not cite what the Latin codices for the most part do
not contain. Among the Greeks it is met with in Isidore of Pelusium (412),
and in the Pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions, probably of the fourth century:
soon afterwards Chrysostom (Hom. in Matt. xix. vol. i. p. 283, Field)
comments upon it without showing the least consciousness that its
authenticity was disputed. The silence of some writers, viz. Tertullian,
Cyprian, Origen, Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Maximus, especially
when expounding the Lord’s Prayer, may be partly accounted for by the fact
of the existence of the shorter form of the Lord’s Prayer as given in St.
Luke without the doxology; or upon the supposition that the doxology was
regarded not so much a portion of the Prayer itself, as a hymn of praise
annexed to it; yet this latter fact would be somewhat unfavourable to its
genuineness, and would be fatal unless we knew the precariousness of any
argument derived from such silence. The Fathers are constantly overlooking
the most obvious citations from Scripture, even where we should expect
them most, although, as we learn from other passages in their writings,
they were perfectly familiar with them. Internal evidence is not unevenly
balanced. It is probable that the doxology was interpolated from the
Liturgies, and the variation of reading renders this all the more likely;
it is just as probable that it was cast out of St. Matthew’s Gospel to
bring it into harmony with St. Luke’s (xi. 4): I cannot concede to Scholz
that it is “in interruption of the context,” for then the whole of ver. 13
would have to be cancelled (a remedy which no one proposes), and not
merely this concluding part of it.

It is vain to dissemble the pressure of the adverse case, though it ought
not to be looked upon as conclusive. The Διδαχή (with variation) and the
Syriac and Sahidic versions bring up the existence of the doxology to the
second century; the Apostolic Constitutions in the third; Ambrose,
Caesarius, Chrysostom, the Opus Imperfectum, Isidore, and perhaps
others(340), attest for it in the fourth; then come the Latin codices(341)
_f_ _g_1 _k_ _q_, the Gothic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, and lastly Codd.
Φ and Σ of the fifth or sixth century, and the whole flood-tide of Greek
manuscripts from the eighth century downwards, including even L, 33, with
Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus in the eleventh and twelfth. Perhaps
it is not very wise “_quaerere quae habere non possumus_,” yet those who
are persuaded, from the well-ascertained affinities subsisting between
them, that ACP, or at least two out of the three, would have preserved a
reading sanctioned by the Peshitto, by Codd. _f_ _k_, by Chrysostom, and
by nearly all the later documents, may be excused for regarding the
indictment against the last clause of the Lord’s Prayer as hitherto
_unproven_, in Dr. Scrivener’s judgement passed upon much less than the
evidence in favour adduced above; and for supposing the genuineness of the
clause to be proved when the additional evidence is taken into
consideration.

3. MATT. xi. 19. The change of τέκνων of the Received text into ἔργων, as
made by Tischendorf, Tregelles (who retains τέκνων in his margin), by Hort
and Westcott, is quite destructive to the sense, so far as we can
perceive, for Jerome’s exposition (“Sapientia quippe non quaerit vocis
testimonium, sed operum”) could hardly satisfy any one but himself. The
reading ἔργων is supported by אB* (with τέκνων in the margin by the hand
B2), 124, the Peshitto Syriac (apparently; for all the older editions we
know punctuate ܠܒܕܘ (or ܘܕܒܠ) “doers,” not ܠܒܕܘ (or ܘܕܒܠ) “works”), the
Harkleian text (but not its margin), the Bohairic, some copies known to
Jerome, Armenian manuscripts, the Ethiopic (one MS. contains both forms),
and (after the Peshitto Syriac) the Persic of the Polyglott and its
codices. We can hardly question that the origin of the variation arose
from the difficulty on the part of translators and copyists to understand
the Hellenistic use of τέκνων in this place, and modern editors have been
tempted to accept it from a false suspicion that the present passage has
been assimilated to Luke vii. 35, where indeed Cod. א and St. Ambrose have
ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀυτῆς. As we have alleged that Jerome’s explanation
is unsatisfactory in St. Matthew’s Gospel, we subjoin that of Ambrose,
which is certainly no less obscure, on the parallel place of St. Luke:
“Bene _ab omnibus_ quia circa omnes justitia servatur, ut susceptio fiat
fidelium, rejectio perfidorum. Unde plerique Graeci sic habent:
_justificata est sapientia ab omnibus operibus suis_, quod opus justitiae
sit, circa uniuscujusque meritum servare mensuram.” In the face of the
language of these two great Latin Fathers it is remarkable that all other
Latin authorities agree with the Curetonian Syriac and the mass of Greek
manuscripts in upholding τέκνων, which is undoubtedly the only true
reading.

4. MATT. xvi. 2, 3. The whole passage from Ὀψίας ver. 2 to the end of ver.
3 is set within brackets by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, within
double brackets by Westcott and Hort, who holds (Notes, p. 13) that “both
documentary evidence and the impossibility of accounting for omission
prove these words to be no part of the text of Mt.” Yet it might seem
impossible for any one possessed of the slightest tincture of critical
instinct to read them thoughtfully without feeling assured that they were
actually spoken by the Lord on the occasion related in the Received text,
and were omitted by copyists whose climate the natural phenomena described
did not very well suit, the rather as they do not occur in the parallel
text, ch. xii. 38, 39. Under these circumstances, the internal evidence in
favour of the passage being thus clear and irresistible, the witnesses
against it are more likely to damage their own authority than to impair
our confidence in its genuineness. These witnesses are אBVXΓ, 2, 13, 34,
39, 44, 84, 124 _primâ manu_, 157, 180, 194, 258, 301, 511, 575. Cod. 482
has the words, but only in a later hand at the foot of the page
(Nicholson). Of these cursive codices 157 alone is of the first class for
importance, and the verses are explained in the scholia of X (for ver. 3)
and of 39. E and 606 have them with an asterisk; but they are wanting in
the Curetonian Syriac, the Bohairic according to Mill (but not so other
Coptic manuscripts and editions), and the Armenian, as unaltered from the
Latin. Origen passes them over in his commentary, and Jerome, in his
sweeping way, declares “hoc in plerisque codicibus non habetur.” They are
recognized in the Eusebian canons (Tregelles, An Account of the Printed
Text, p. 205).

The united testimony of אB and the Curetonian version suffices to show
that the omission was current as early as the second century, while the
accordance of CD, of all the Latins and the Peshitto, with the mass of
later codices assures us that the words were extant at the same early
date. If any one shall deem this a case best explained by the existence of
two separate recensions of the same work, one containing the disputed
sentences, the other derived from copies in which they had not yet been
inserted, he may find much encouragement for his conjecture by considering
certain passages in the latter part of St. Luke’s Gospel, where the same
sort of omissions, supported by a class of authorities quite different
from those we have to deal with here, occur too often to be merely
accidental.

5. MATT. xix. 17. For Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἷς, ὁ
Θεός, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and
Hort read Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός. The self-same
words as in the Received text occur in the parallel places Mark x. 18,
Luke xviii. 19 with no variation worth speaking of; a fact which (so far
as it goes) certainly lends some support to the supposition that St.
Matthew’s autograph contained the other reading [?]. Add to this that any
change made from St. Matthew, _supposing the common reading to be true_,
must have been wilfully introduced by one who was offended at the doctrine
of the Divine Son’s inferiority to the Father which it seemed to assert or
imply. Internal evidence, therefore, would be a little in favour of the
alteration approved by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and the rest; and in
discussing external authority, their opponents are much hampered by the
accident that A is defective in this place, while א has recently been
added to the list of its supporters [though more recently Φ and Σ have
come into the opposite balance]. Under these circumstances we might have
been excused from noticing this passage at all, as we are no longer able
to uphold the Received text with the same confidence as before, but that
it seemed dishonest to suppress a case on which Tregelles (An Account of
the Printed Text, pp. 133-8) has laid great stress, and which, when the
drift of the internal evidence is duly allowed for, tells more in his
favour than any other he has alleged, or is likely to be met with
elsewhere(342).

The alternative reading Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ κ.τ.λ. occurs in אBD
(omitting τοῦ and ὁ) L, 1 (omitting ὁ), 22, 604. In 251 both readings are
given, the Received one first, in ver. 17, the other interpolated after
ποίας ver. 18, prefaced by ὁ δὲ ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ. Excepting these seven,
all other extant codices reject it, CEFGHKMSUVΓΔ (Γ omits τί με λέγεις
ἀγαθόν; Δ omits λέγεις, Π is defective here), even Codd. 33, 69. The
versions are more seriously divided. The Peshitto Syriac, the Harkleian
text, the Sahidic (Oxford fragments), the Old Latin _f_ _q_, the Arabic,
&c., make for the common reading; Cureton’s and the Jerusalem Syriac, the
Old Latin _a_ _b_ _c_ _e_ _ff_1.2 _l_, the Vulgate (the Anglo-Saxon and
Frankish, of course), Bohairic and Armenian, for that of Lachmann and his
followers. Several present a mixed form: τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ?
οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς: viz. the margin of the Harkleian, the Ethiopic,
and _g_1 _h_ _m_ of the Old Latin. A few (Cureton’s Syriac, _b_ _c_
_ff_1.2 _g_1 _h_ _l_ _m_, Jerome and the Vulgate) add ὁ θεός, as in the
common text; but this is unimportant.

Tregelles presses us hard with the testimony of Origen in favour of the
reading he adopts: ὁ μὲν οὖν Ματθαῖος, ὡς περὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἔργου ἐρωτηθέντος
τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐν τῷ, Τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω? ἀνέγραψεν. Ὁ δὲ Μάρκος καὶ Λουκᾶς
φασὶ τὸν σωτῆρα εἰρηκέναι, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἷς,
ὁ Θεός (Tom. iii. p. 644 _d_). “The reading which is _opposed_ to the
common text,” Tregelles writes, “has the express testimony of Origen in
its favour” (p. 134); “might I not well ask for some _proof_ that the
other reading existed, in the time of Origen, in copies of St. Matthew’s
Gospel?” (p. 137). I may say in answer, that the testimony of Origen
applies indeed to the former part of the variation which Tregelles
maintains (τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ), but not at all to the latter
(εἷς ἐστιν ὁ αγαθός), and that the Peshitto Syriac version of the second,
as also the Sahidic of the third century, uphold the common text, without
any variation in the manuscripts of the former, that we know of. Or if he
asks for the evidence of Fathers to counterbalance that of a Father, we
have Justin Martyr: προσελθόντος αὐτῷ τινὸς καὶ εἰπόντος (words which
show, as Tischendorf observes, that St. Matthew’s is the only Gospel that
can be referred to) Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων, Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ
μόνος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα, citing loosely, as is usual with him, but
not ambiguously. Or if half the variation will satisfy, as it was made to
do for Origen, Tregelles’ own note refers us to Irenaeus 92 for τί με
λέγεις ἀγαθόν? εἷς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός, and to Eusebius for the other half in the
form above quoted from the Ethiopic, &c. Moreover, since he cites the last
five words of the subjoined extract _as belonging to St. Matthew_,
Tregelles entitles us to employ for our purpose the whole passage, Marcos.
apud Iren. 92, which we might not otherwise have ventured to do; καὶ τῷ
εἰπόντι αὐτῷ Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, τὸν ἀληθῶς ἀγαθὸν θεὸν ὡμολογηκέναι, εἰπόντα
Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν? εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Jerome
and Augustine (for the first clause only, though very expressly: de
Consensu Evan. ii. 63) are with the Latin Vulgate, Hilary with the common
Greek text, as are also Optatus, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and the main body of
later Fathers. Thus the great mass of manuscripts, headed by C [followed
by Φ and Σ], is well supported by versions, and even better by
ecclesiastical writers; yet, in virtue of the weight of internal evidence
[?], we dare not hold out unreservedly against the reading of BDL, &c.,
now that Cod. א is found to agree with them, even though subsequent
investigations have brought to light so close a relation between א and B
as to render it impossible, in our opinion, to regard them as independent
witnesses(343).

6. MATT. xx. 28. The extensive interpolation which follows this verse in
some very ancient documents has been given above (I. 8), in the form
represented in the Curetonian Syriac version. It bears the internal marks
of evident spuriousness, the first sentence consisting of a rhetorical
antithesis as unsuitable as can be imagined to the majestic simplicity of
our Lord’s usual tone, while the sentiment of the rest is manifestly
borrowed from Luke xiv. 8-10, although there is little or no resemblance
in the words. The only extant Greek for the passage is in Codd. Φ and D,
of which D gives the fullest text, as follows: ὑμεις δε ζητειτε; εκ
μεικρου αυξησαι και εκ μειζονος ελαττον ειναι Εισερχομενοι δε και
παρακληθεντες δειπνησαι; μη ανακλεινεσθαι εις τους εξεχοντας τοπους μη
ποτε ενδοξοτερος σου επελθη και προσελθων ο δειπνοκλητωρ ειπη σοι ετι κατω
χωρει; και καταισχυνθηση Εαν δε αναπεσης; εις τον ηττονα τοπον και επελθη
σου ηττων ερει σοι ο δειπνοκλητωρ; συναγε ετι ανω και εσται σοι τουτο
χρησιμον. The codices of the Old Latin version (_a_ _b_ _c_ _e_ _ff_1.2
_h_ _n_ and _and._ _em._ of the Vulgate(344)) mostly support the same
addition, though with many variations: _d_, as usual, agrees with none;
_g_2has not the first clause down to εἶναι, while _g_1 _m_ have nothing
else. Besides the Curetonian Syriac, the margin of the Harkleian contains
it in a shape much like _d_, noting that the paragraph is “found in Greek
copies in this place, but in ancient copies only in St. Luke, κεφ. 53”
[ch. xiv. 8, &c.]: Cureton has also seen it in one manuscript of the
Peshitto (Brit. Mus. 14,456), but there too in the margin. Marshall states
that it is contained in four codices of the Anglo-Saxon version, which
proves its wide reception in the West. Of the Fathers, Hilary recognizes
it, as apparently do Juvencus and Pope Leo the Great (A.D. 440-461). It
must have been rejected by Jerome, being entirely absent from the great
mass of Vulgate codices, nor is it in the Old Latin, _f_ _l_ _q_. No other
Greek codex, or version, or ecclesiastical writer, has any knowledge of
the passage: while the whole language of the Greek of Cod. D, especially
in such words as δειπνοκλήτωρ, ἐξέχοντας, ἥττων, χρήσιμος, is so foreign
to the style of St. Matthew’s Gospel, that it seems rather to have been
rendered from the Latin(345), although in the midst of so much variation
it is hard to say from what copy. Cureton too testifies that the Syriac of
the version named from him must have been made quite independently of that
in the margins of the Harkleian and Peshitto.

No one has hitherto ventured to regard this paragraph as genuine, however
perplexing it may be to decide at what period or even in what language it
originated. The wide divergences between the witnesses must always dismiss
it from serious consideration. Its chief critical use must be to show that
the united testimony of the Old Latin, of the Curetonian Syriac, and of
Cod. D, are quite insufficient in themselves to prove any more than that
the reading they exhibit is ancient: certainly as ancient as the second
century.

7. MATT. xxi. 28-31. This passage, so transparently clear in the common
text, stands thus in the edition of Tregelles: (28) Τί δὲ ὑμῖν δοκεῖ?
ἄνθρωπος εἶχεν τέκνα δύο, καὶ προσελθὼν τῷ πρώτῳ εἶπεν, Τέκνον, ὕπαγε
σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι. (29) ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Οὐ θέλω;
ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν. (30) προσελθὼν δὲ τῷ δευτέρῳ εἶπεν
ὡσαύτως. ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Ἐγώ, κύριε; καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν. (31) τίς ἐκ
τῶν δύο ἐποίησεν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός? λέγουσιν, Ὁ ὕστερος. The above is
indeed a brilliant exemplification of Bengel’s Canon, “Proclivi orationi
praestat ardua.” Lachmann in 1842 had given the same reading, with a few
slight and unimportant exceptions. The question is proposed which of the
two sons did their father’s will; the reply is ὁ ὕστερος, the one that
promised and then failed! Lachmann in 1850 (N. T., vol. ii. Praef. p. 5)
remarks that had he been sure that πρῶτος (ver. 31) was the reading of
Cod. C, he should have honoured it, _the only word that makes sense_, with
a place in his margin: “Nihilo minus,” he naïvely adds, “id quod nunc
solum edidi ... ὁ ὕστερος veri similius est altero, quod facile aliquis
correctori adscribat, illud non item;” and we must fairly confess that no
copyist would have sought to introduce a plain absurdity into so beautiful
and simple a parable. “Quid vero,” he goes on to plead, “si id quod veri
similius esse dixi ne intellegi quidem potest?” (a pertinent question
certainly) “CORRIGETUR, SI MODO NECESSE ERIT:” critical conjecture, as
usual, is his panacea. Conjecture, however, is justly held inadmissible by
Tregelles, whose mode of interpretation is a curiosity in its way. “I
believe,” he says, “that ὁ ὕστερος refers not to the order in which the
two sons have been mentioned, but to the previous expression about the
elder son, ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν, _afterwards_ he repented and
went.” “Which of the two did his father’s will! ὁ ὕστερος. _He who
afterwards_ [repented and went]. This answers the charge that the reading
of Lachmann is void of sense” (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 107). I
entertain sincere veneration for the character and services of Dr.
Tregelles, but it is only right to assert at once that what stands in his
text is impossible Greek. Even granting that instead of the plain answer
“the first,” our Lord’s adversaries resorted to the harsh and equivocal
reply “he who afterwards,” they would not have said ὁ ὕστερος, but ὁ
ὕστερον, or (the better to point out their reference to ὕστερον in ver.
29) ὁ τὸ ὕστερον.

Why then prefer nonsense, for the mere purpose of carrying out Bengel’s
canon to the extremity? The passage, precisely as it stands in Tregelles’
N. T., _is sanctioned by no critical authority whatsoever_. Cod. B indeed
has ὕστερος (which is here followed by Westcott and Hort), Cod. 4
δεύτερος, Codd. 13, 69, 124, 346 (Abbott’s four), and 238, 262, 556, 604,
perhaps others, ἔσχατος, one or other of which is in the Jerusalem Syriac
and Bohairic, the Ethiopic (two manuscripts), the Armenian and two chief
Arabic versions; but all these authorities (with _tol._ of the Vulgate
_secundâ manu_, as also Isidore, the Pseudo-Athanasius, and John
Damascene), transpose the order of the two sons in vv. 29, 30, so that the
result produces just the same sense as in the Received text. The
suggestion that the clauses were transferred in order to reconcile ὕστερος
or ἔσχατος with the context may be met by the counter-statement that
ὕστερος was just as likely to be substituted for πρῶτος to suit the
inversion of the clauses. Against such inversion (which we do not pretend
to recommend, though Westcott and Hort adopt it) Origen is an early
witness, so that Cod. B and its allies are no doubt wrong: yet as that
Father does not notice any difficulty in ver. 31, the necessary inference
ought to be that he read πρῶτος(346). Hippolytus testifies to ἔσχατος in
ver. 31, but his evidence cannot be used, since he gives no indication in
what order he took the clauses in vv. 29, 30. The indefensible part of
Tregelles’ arrangement is that, allowing the answers of the two sons to
stand as in our common Bibles, he receives ὕστερος in the room of πρῶτος
on evidence that really tells against him. The only true supporters of his
general view are Cod. D αισχατος (i.e. ἔσχατος), the Old Latin copies _a_
_b_ _e_ _ff_1.2 _g_1 _h_ _l_, the best codices of the Vulgate (_am._
_fuld._ _for._ _san._ _tol._ _harl._*), the Anglo-Saxon version, and
Augustine, though not the Clementine edition of the Vulgate. Hilary
perplexes himself by trying to explain the same reading; and Jerome,
although he says “Sciendum est in veris exemplaribus non haberi
_novissimum_ sed _primum_,” has an expedient to account for the former
word(347), which, however (if _am._ _fuld._, &c. may be trusted), he did
not venture to reject when revising the Old Latin. On no true principles
can Cod. D and its Latin allies avail against such a mass of opposing
proof, whereof Codd. אCΦΣLX lead the van. Even the Curetonian Syriac,
which so often favours Cod. D and the Old Latin, is with the _textus
receptus_ here.

8. MATT. xxvii. 35. After βάλλοντες κλῆρον the Received text, but not the
Complutensian edition, has ἵνα πληρωθτῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ προφήτου,
Διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον
κλῆρον. Internal evidence may be about equal for the omission of the
clause by homoeoteleuton of κλῆρον, and for its interpolation from John
xix. 24, “with just the phrase τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ (or ἀπὸ) τοῦ προφήτου
assimilated to Matthew’s usual form of citation” (Alford, _ad loc._).
External evidence, however, places the spuriousness of the addition beyond
doubt. It is first heard of in citations of Eusebius, and is read in the
Old Latin codices _a_ _b_ _c_ _g_2 (not _g_1) _h_ _q_, the Clementine (not
the Sixtine) Vulgate and even in _am._ _lux._, Harl. 2826, _lind._, in
King’s Libr. 1. D. ix and the margin of 1. E. vi (but not in _fuld._
_for._ _tol._* _em._ _ing._ _jac._ _san._ nor in _f_ _ff_1.2 _g_1 _l_),
the Armenian (whose resemblance to the Vulgate is so suspicious), the
Frankish and Anglo-Saxon, and as a matter of course in the Roman edition
of the Arabic, and in the Persic of the Polyglott. The clause seems to be
found in no manuscript of the Peshitto Syriac, and is consequently absent
from Widmanstadt’s edition and the Antwerp, Paris, and London Polyglotts.
Tremellius first turned the Greek words into Syriac and placed them in the
margin of his book, whence they were most unwisely admitted into the text
of several later editions (but not into Lee’s), without the slightest
authority. They also appear in the text of the Harkleian, but the marginal
note states that ’this passage from the prophet is not in two [“three”
Codd. Assemani] Greek copies, nor in the ancient Syriac.’ All other
versions and Fathers (except Eusebius and the Pseudo-Athanasius), and all
Greek manuscripts reject the clause, except Δ, 1, 17, 58 (_marg._), 69,
118, 124, 262, 300, 503, 550, Evst. 55: Scholz adds “aliis multis,” which
(judging from my own experience) I must take leave to doubt. Besides other
slight changes (αυτοις Δ, κλήρους 69 _secundâ manu_) Codd. Δ, 61, 69, 503
and Eusebius read διά for ὑπό. The present case is one out of many that
show an intimate connexion subsisting between Codd. 61 and 69.

9. Mark vi. 20. καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ ἐποίει, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουε.
“ ‘Did many things’ Engl. vers. I think it must have occurred to many
readers that this is, to say the least, a very singular expression.” So
writes Mr. Linwood, very truly, for nothing can well be more tame or
unmeaning. His remedy we can say little for. “I think that for πολλὰ
ἐποίει we should read πολλοῦ ἐποίει, i.e. magni faciebat. It is true that
classical usage would require the middle voice, sc. πολλοῦ ἐποιεῖτο. But
this rule is not always observed by the N. T. writers(348)” (Linwood, p.
11). If, instead of resorting to conjecture, he had opened Tischendorf’s
eighth edition, he would have found there a reading, adopted as well by
that editor as by Westcott and Hort, whose felicity, had it been nothing
more than a happy conjecture, he might well have admired. Codd. אBL for
πολλὰ ἐποίει(349) have πολλὰ ἠπόρει “was much perplexed,” which the
Bohairic confirms, only that, in translating, it joins πολλά with ἀκούσας.
This close resemblance between the Bohairic version and Codd. אB
(especially Cod. B) is very apparent throughout the N. T.; a single
example being their united omission of ἰσχυρόν in Matt. xiv. 30 in company
with but one other authority, the great cursive Cod. 33. Hence we do not
hesitate to receive a variation supported by only a few first-rate
authorities, where internal evidence (Canon II, p. 248) pleads so
powerfully in its favour. Although the middle voice is found elsewhere in
the N. T., yet the active in this precise sense may be supported by good
examples, even when used absolutely, as here: e.g. ἄλλος οἱ ἀπορέοντι
ὑπεθήκατο Herod. i. 191: ὁ δ᾽ ἀπορῶν, ὥς φασι, μόλις κατενόησε τὴν
πρόσχωσιν ταύτην τοῦ Ἀχελῴου Thuc. ii. 102.

Another less considerable but interesting variation, occurring just
before, in chap. v. 36, παρακούσας “overhearing” instead of ἀκούσας, may
be deemed probable on the evidence of א*BLΔ and the Latin _e_, which must
have had the reading, though it is mistranslated _neglexit_(350). We
gladly credit the same group (אBCLΔ, 473, Evst. 150, 259) with another
rare compound, κατευλόγει in ch. x. 16, whose intensive force is very
excellent. In ch. xii. 17 a similar compound ἐξεθαύμαζον is too feebly
vouched for by אB alone.

[THIRD EDITION. It is only fair to retain unchanged the note on Mark vi.
20, inasmuch as the “Two Members of the N. T. Company” have exercised
their right of claiming my assent to the change of ἐποίει into ἠπόρει. I
must, however, retract that opinion, for the former reading now appears to
me to afford an excellent sense. Herod gladly heard the Baptist, and _did
many things_ at his exhortation; every thing in fact save the one great
sacrifice which he could not persuade himself to make.]

10. MARK vii. 19. The substitution of καθαρίζων for καθαρίζον, so far from
being the unmeaning itacism it might seem at first sight, is a happy
restoration of the true sense of a passage long obscured by the false
reading. For the long vowel there is the overwhelming evidence of אAB
(_hiat_ C) EFGH LSXΔ, 1, 13, 28, 48, 50, 53, 58, 59 (_me teste_), 61**,
64, 65, 69, 122* 124, 229, 235, 244, 251, 282, 346, 435, 473, 492, 508,
515, 570, 622, Evst. 49, 259, and Erasmus’ first edition: his second reads
ἐκκαθαρίζων, his third καθαρίζον of ΦΣKMUVΓΠ, 547, 558, and perhaps a
majority of the cursives. The reading of D καθαρίζει (καθαρίζειν 61 _primâ
manu_), as also καὶ καθαρίζει of Evst. 222 and the Latin _i_, seem to
favour the termination -ον: _purgans_ of _a_ _b_ _c_ (even _d_) _f_ _ff_2
_g_1.2 _l_? _n_ _q_ and the Vulgate, is of course neutral. The Peshitto
ܕܡܕܒܝܐ (or ܐܝܒܕܡܕ) (qui purgat) refers in gender to the noun immediately
preceding, and would require καθαρίζοντα. Will any one undertake to say
what is meant by the last clause of the verse as it stands in the
Authorized English version, and as it must stand, so long as καθαρίζον is
read? If, on the other hand, we follow Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,
Westcott and Hort, we must take the Lord’s words to end with ἐκπορεύεται,
and regard καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα as the Evangelist’s comment upon
them: “_This he said_, to make all things clean.” Compare Acts x. 15.
This, and none other, seems to have been the meaning assigned to the
passage by the Greek Fathers. It is indeed most simply expressed by
Chrysostom (Hom. II. in Matt. p. 526 A): Ὁ δὲ Μάρκος φησίν, ὅτι καθαρίζων
τὰ βρώματα, ταῦτα ἔλεγεν, where Dr. Field’s elaborate note should be
consulted. He rightly judges that Chrysostom was treading in the steps of
Origen: καὶ μάλιστα ἐπεὶ κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἔλεγε ταῦτα ὁ Σωτήρ, καθαρίζων
πάντα τὰ βρώματα. Hence Gregory Thaumaturgus designates the Lord as ὁ
σωτὴρ ὁ πάντα καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα. I know not how Tischendorf came to
overlook the passage from Chrysostom: Tregelles very seldom uses him. It
is obvious how well the elliptical form of the expression suits this
Evangelist’s style, which is often singularly concise and abrupt, yet
never obscure.

11. MARK xvi. 9-20. In Vol. I. Chap. I, we engaged to defend the
authenticity of this long and important passage, and that without the
slightest misgiving (p. 7). Dean Burgon’s brilliant monograph, “The Last
Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark vindicated against
recent objectors and established” (Oxford and London, 1871), has thrown a
stream of light upon the controversy, nor does the joyous tone of his book
misbecome one who is conscious of having triumphantly maintained a cause
which is very precious to him. We may fairly say that his conclusions have
in no essential point been shaken by the elaborate and very able
counter-plea of Dr. Hort (Notes, pp. 28-51). This whole paragraph is set
apart by itself in the critical editions of Tischendorf and Tregelles.
Besides this, it is placed within double brackets by Westcott and Hort,
and followed by the wretched supplement derived from Cod. L (_vide
infra_), annexed as an alternative reading (αλλως). Out of all the great
manuscripts, the two oldest (אB) stand alone in omitting vers. 9-20
altogether(351). Cod. B, however, betrays consciousness on the scribe’s
part that something is left out, inasmuch as after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ ver. 8, a
whole column is left perfectly blank (_the only blank one in the whole
volume_(352)), as well as the rest of the column containing ver. 8, which
is usual in Cod. B at the end of every other book of Scripture. No such
peculiarity attaches to Cod. א. The testimony of L, that close companion
of B, is very suggestive. Immediately after ver. 8 the copyist breaks off;
then in the same hand (for all corrections in this manuscript seem _primâ
manu_: _see_ p. 138), at the top of the next column we read ... φερετε που
και ταυτα+ ... πάντα δὲ τα παρηνγελμενα τοῖς περι τον πετρον συντομωσ
ἐξηγγιλαν+ μετα δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτος ὁ _ισ_, ἁπο ἁνατολησ καὶ ἁχρι δυσεωσ
ἐξαπεστιλεν δι αὐτων το ϊἑρον καὶ ἁφθαρτον κηρυγμα+τησ αἱῶνιου σωτηριασ+
... εστην δε και ταῦτα φερομενα μετα το ἑφοβουντο γαρ+ ... Αναστὰσ δὲ πρωï
πρωτη σαββατου+κ.τ.λ., ver. 9, _ad fin. capit._ (Burgon’s _facsimile_,
facing his p. 113: our _facsimile_ No. 21): as if vv. 9-20 were just as
little to be regarded as the trifling apocryphal supplement(353) which
precedes them. Besides these, the twelve verses are omitted in none but
some old Armenian codices(354) and two of the Ethiopic, _k_ of the Old
Latin, and an Arabic Lectionary [ix] No. 13, examined by Scholz in the
Vatican. The Old Latin Codex _k_ puts in their room a corrupt and careless
version of the subscription in L ending with σωτηρίας (_k_ adding _amen_):
the same subscription being appended to the end of the Gospel in the two
Ethiopic manuscripts, and (with ἀμήν) in the margin of 274 and the
Harkleian. Not unlike is the marginal note in Hunt. 17 or Cod. 1 of the
Bohairic, translated by Bp. Lightfoot above. Of cursive Greek manuscripts
137, 138, which Birch had hastily reported as marking the passage with an
asterisk, each contains the marginal annotation given below, which claims
the passage as genuine, 138 with no asterisk at all, 137 (like 36 and
others) with an ordinary mark of reference from the text to the note,
where (of course) it is repeated(355). Other manuscripts contain marginal
scholia respecting it, of which the following is the substance. Cod. 199
has τέλος(356) after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ and before Ἀναστὰς δέ, and in the same
hand as τέλος we read, ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖται ταῦτα, ἀλλ᾽
ἐνταῦθα καταπαύει. The kindred Codd. 20, 215, 300 (but after ver. 15, not
ver. 8) mark the omission in some (τισί) copies, adding ἐν δὲ τοῖσ
ἀρχαίοις πάντα ἀπαράλειπτα κεῖται, and these had been corrected from
Jerusalem copies (_see_ pp. 161 and note, 193). Cod. 573 has for a
subscription ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ὁμοίως ἐκ τῶν ἐσπουδασμένων κεφαλαίοις
σλζ: where Burgon, going back to St. Matthew’s Gospel (_see_ p. 161, note)
infers that the old Jerusalem copies must have contained our twelve
verses. Codd. 15, 22 conclude at ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, then add in red ink that
in some copies the Evangelist ends here, ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φέρεται,
affixing vers. 9-20. In Codd. 1, 205 (in its duplicate 206 also), 209 is
the same notice, ἄλλοις standing for πολλοῖς in 206, with the additional
assertion that Eusebius “canonized” no further than ver. 8, a statement
which is confirmed by the absence of the Ammonian and Eusebian numerals
beyond that verse in אALSU and at least eleven cursives, with _am. fuld.
ing._ of the Vulgate. It would be no marvel if Eusebius, the author of
this harmonizing system, had consistently acted upon his own rash opinion
respecting the paragraph, an opinion which we shall have to notice
presently, and such action on his part would have added nothing to the
strength of the adverse case. But it does not seem that he really did so.
These numerals appear in most manuscripts, and in all parts of them, with
a good deal of variation which we can easily account for. In the present
instance they are annexed to ver. 9 and the rest of the passage in Codd.
CEKVΠ, and (with some changes) in GHMΓΔΛ and many others: in Cod. 566 the
concluding sections are there (σλδ ver. 11, σλε ver. 12, σλς ver. 14)
without the canons. In their respective margins the annotated codices 12
(of Scholz), 24, 36, 37, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195,
210, 221, 222, 237, 238, 255, 259, 299, 329, 374 (twenty-four in all),
present in substance(357) the same weighty testimony in favour of the
passage: παρὰ πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται (thus far also Cod. 119,
adding only ταῦτα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνταῦθα καταπαύει) ἐν τῷ παρόντι εὐαγγελίῳ, ὡς
νόθα νομίσαντες αὐτὰ εἶναι; ἀλλὰ ἡμεῖς ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν πλείστοις
εὑρόντες αὐτὰ καὶ κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον Μάρκου, ὡς ἔχει ἡ
ἀλήθεια, συντεθείκαμεν καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπιφερομένην δεσποτικὴν ἀνάστασιν.
Now this is none other than an extract from Victor of Antioch’s [v]
commentary on St. Mark, which they all annex in full to the sacred text,
and which is expressly assigned to that Father in Codd. 12, 37, 41. Yet
these very twenty-four manuscripts have been cited by critical editors as
adverse to the authenticity of a paragraph which their scribes never
dreamt of calling into question, but had simply copied Victor’s decided
judgement in its favour. His appeal to the famous Palestine codices which
had belonged to Origen and Pamphilus (_see_ p. 55 and note), is found in
twenty-one of them, possibly these documents are akin to the Jerusalem
copies mentioned in Codd. Evan. Λ, 20, 164, 262, 300, &c.

_All_ other codices, e.g. ACD (which is defective from ver. 15, _primâ
manu_) EFwGH (begins ver. 14) KMSUVXΓΔΠ, 33, 69, the Peshitto, Jerusalem
and Curetonian Syriac (which last, by a singular happiness, contains vv.
17-20, though no other part of St. Mark), the Harkleian text, the Sahidic
(only ver. 20 is preserved), the Bohairic and Ethiopic (with the
exceptions already named), the Gothic (to ver. 12), the Vulgate, all
extant Old Latins except _k_ (though _a_ _primâ manu_ and _b_ are
defective), the Georgian, the printed Armenian, its later manuscripts, and
all the lesser versions (Arabic, &c.), agree in maintaining the paragraph.
It is cited, possibly by Papias, unquestionably by Irenaeus (both in Greek
and Latin), by Tertullian, and by Justin Martyr(358) as early as the
second century; by Hippolytus (_see_ Tregelles, An Account of the Printed
Text, p. 252), by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage, by the
Acta Pilati, the Apostolic Constitutions, and apparently by Celsus in the
third; by Aphraates (in a Syriac Homily dated A.D. 337), the Syriac Table
of Canons, Eusebius, Macarius Magnes, Didymus, the Syriac Acts of the
Apostles, Leontius, Ps.-Ephraem, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem(359),
Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, in the fourth; by Leo,
Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch, Patricius, Marius
Mercator, in the fifth; by Hesychius, Gregentius, Prosper, John, abp. of
Thessalonica, and Modestus, in the fifth and sixth(360). Add to this, what
has been so forcibly stated by Burgon (_ubi supra_, p. 205), that in the
Calendar of Greek Church lessons, which existed certainly in the fourth
century, very probably much earlier, the disputed verses were honoured by
being read as a special matins service for Ascension Day (_see_ p. 81),
and as the Gospel for St. Mary Magdalene’s Day, July 22 (p. 89); as well
as by forming the third of the eleven εὐαγγέλια ἀναστάσιμα ἑωθινά, the
preceding part of the chapter forming the second (p. 85): so little were
they suspected as of even doubtful authenticity(361).

The earliest objector to vers. 9-20 we know of was Eusebius (Quaest. ad
Marin.), who tells that they were not ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, but after
ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ that τὰ ἑξῆς are found σπανίως ἔν τισιν, yet not in τὰ
ἀκριβῆ: language which Jerome _twice_ echoes and almost exaggerates by
saying “in raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Graeciae libris paene hoc
capitulum fine non habentibus.” A second cause with Eusebius for rejecting
them is μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν
μαρτυρίᾳ(362). The language of Eusebius has been minutely examined by Dean
Burgon, who proves to demonstration that all the subsequent evidence which
has been alleged against the passage, whether of Severus, or Hesychius, or
any other writer down to Euthymius Zigabenus in the twelfth century, is a
mere echo of the doubts and difficulties of Eusebius, if indeed he is not
retailing to us at second-hand one of the fanciful Biblical speculations
of Origen. Jerome’s recklessness in statement has been already noticed
(Vol. II. p. 269); besides that, he is a witness on the other side, both
in his own quotations of the passage and in the Vulgate, for how could he
have inserted the verses there, if he had judged them to be spurious?

With regard to the argument against these twelve verses arising from their
alleged difference in style from the rest of the Gospel, I must say that
the same process might be applied—and has been applied—to prove that St.
Paul was not the writer of the Pastoral Epistles (to say nothing of that
to the Hebrews), St. John of the Apocalypse, Isaiah and Zechariah of
portions of those prophecies that bear their names. Every one used to
literary composition may detect, if he will, such minute variations as
have been made so much of in this case(363), either in his own writings,
or in those of the authors he is most familiar with.

Persons who, like Eusebius, devoted themselves to the pious task of
constructing harmonies of the Gospels, would soon perceive the difficulty
of adjusting the events recorded in vers. 9-20 to the narratives of the
other Evangelists. Alford regards this inconsistency (more apparent than
real, we believe) as “a valuable testimony to the antiquity of the
fragment” (N. T. _ad loc._): we would go further, and claim for the harder
reading the benefit of any critical doubt as to its genuineness (Canon I.
Vol. II. p. 247). The difficulty was both felt and avowed by Eusebius, and
was recited after him by Severus of Antioch or whoever wrote the scholion
attributed to him. Whatever Jerome and the rest may have done, these
assigned the ἀντιλογία, the ἐναντίωσις they thought they perceived, as a
reason (not the first, nor perhaps the chief, but still as a reason) for
supposing that the Gospel ended with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. Yet in the balance of
probabilities, can anything be more unlikely than that St. Mark broke off
so abruptly as this hypothesis would imply, while no ancient writer has
noticed or seemed conscious of any such abruptness(364)? This fact has
driven those who reject the concluding verses to the strangest
fancies;—namely, that, like Thucydides, the Evangelist was cut off before
his work was completed, or even that the last leaf of the original Gospel
was torn away.

We emphatically deny that such wild surmises(365) are called for by the
state of the evidence in this case. All opposition to the authenticity of
the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the
testimony of אB. Let us accord to these the weight which is their due: but
against their verdict we can appeal to a vast body of ecclesiastical
evidence reaching back to the earlier part of the second century(366); to
nearly all the versions; and to all extant manuscripts excepting two, of
which one is doubtful. So powerfully is it vouched for, that many of those
who are reluctant to recognize St. Mark as its author, are content to
regard it notwithstanding as an integral portion of the inspired record
originally delivered to the Church(367).

12. LUKE ii. 14. If there be one case more prominent than another in the
criticism of the New Testament, wherein solid reason and pure taste revolt
against the iron yoke of ancient authorities, it is that of the Angelic
Hymn sung at the Nativity. In the common text all is transparently clear:

δοξα εν υψιστοισ θεῳ,     Glory to God in the highest,
και επι γησ ειρηνη;       And on earth peace:
εν ανθρωποισ ευδοκια.     Good will amongst men.

The blessed words are distributed, after the Hebrew fashion, into a stanza
consisting of three members. In the first and second lines heaven and
earth are contrasted; the third refers to both those preceding, and
alleges the efficient cause which has brought God glory and earth peace.
By the addition of a single letter to the end of the last line, by merely
reading εὐδοκίας for εὐδοκία, the rhythmical arrangement is utterly
marred(368), and the simple shepherds are sent away with a message, the
diction of which no scholar has yet construed to his own mind(369). Yet
such is the conclusion of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and
Hort, although Tregelles and the Cambridge fellow-workers allow εὐδοκία a
place in their margins. Of the five great uncials C is unfortunately
defective, but א*AB*D, and no other Greek manuscript whatever, read
εὐδοκίας: yet A is so inconstant in this matter that in the primitive 14th
or Morning Hymn, a cento of Scripture texts, annexed to the Book of
Psalms, its reading is εὐδοκεία (Baber, Cod. Alex., p. 569), and such was
no doubt the form used in Divine service, as appears from the great Zürich
Psalter Od. The rest of the uncials extant (אcB3EGHKLMPSUVΓΔΛΞ, &c.), and
all the cursives follow the common text, which is upheld by the Bohairic,
by the three extant Syriac (the Peshitto most emphatically, the Jerusalem,
and the Harkleian both in the text and Greek margin), by the Armenian and
Ethiopic versions. The Vulgate, as is well known, renders “in hominibus
bonae voluntatis,” and thus did all the forms of the Old Latin, and after
it the Gothic. Hence it follows, as a matter of course, that the Latin
Fathers, such as Hilary and Augustine, and the Latin interpreters of
Irenaeus (who seems really to have omitted ἐν, as do D and a few cursives)
and of the false Athanasius, adopted the reading of their own Bibles.
Origen also, in a passage not now extant in the Greek, is made in Jerome’s
translation of it manifestly to choose the same form. We can only say that
in so doing he is the only Greek who favours εὐδοκίας, and his own text
has εὐδοκία in three several places, though no special stress is laid by
him upon it. But here comes in the evidence of the Greek Fathers—their
virtually unanimous evidence—with an authority from which there is, or
ought to be, no appeal. Dean Burgon (The Revision Revised, pp. 42-46)
affords us a list of forty-seven, all speaking in a manner too plain for
doubt, most of them several times over, twenty-two of them having
flourished before the end of the fifth century, and who must have used
codices at least as old and pure as א or B. They are Irenaeus, of the
second century; the Apostolical Constitutions and Origen three times in
the third; Eusebius, Aphraates the Persian, Titus of Bostra, Didymus,
Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril of Jerusalem (who has been quoted in error on the
wrong side), Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa four times, Ephraem Syrus, Philo
of Carpasus, a nameless preacher at Antioch, and Chrysostom (nine times
over, interpreting also εὐδοκία by καταλλαγή) in the fourth; Cyril of
Alexandria on fourteen occasions, Theodoret on four, Theodotus of Ancyra,
the Patriarch Proclus, Paulus of Emesa, the Eastern Bishops at Ephesus in
431, and Basil of Seleucia in the fifth; Cosmas Indicopleustes, Anastasius
Sinaita, and Eulogius of Alexandria in the sixth; Andreas of Crete in the
seventh; with Cosmas of Maiuma, John Damascene, and Germanus, Archbishop
of Constantinople, in the eighth(370). Such testimony, supported by all
later manuscripts, together with the Bohairic and Syriac versions, cannot
but overpower the transcriptional blunder of some early scribe, who
cannot, however, have lived later than the second century.

To those with whom the evidence of אBD and of the Latins united appears
too mighty to resist, we would fain prefer one request, that in their
efforts to extract some tolerable sense out of εὐδοκίας, they will not
allow themselves to be driven to renderings which the Greek language will
not endure. To spoil the metrical arrangement by forcing the second and
third members of the stanza into one, is in itself a sore injury to the
poetical symmetry of the passage, but from their point of view it cannot
be helped. When they shall come to translate, it will be their endeavour
to be faithful, if grammatical faithfulness be possible in a case so
desperate. “Peace on earth for those that will have it,” as Dean Alford
truly says, is untenable in Greek, as well as in theology: “among men of
good pleasure” is unintelligible to most minds. Professor Milligan (Words
of the New Testament, p. 194) praises as an interesting form “among men of
his good pleasure,” which, not at all unnecessarily, he expounds to
signify “among men whom He hath loved.” Again, “among men in whom He is
well pleased” (compare chap. iii. 22) can be arrived at only through some
process which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator
might like to put upon it. The construction adopted by Origen as rendered
by Jerome, _pax enim quam non dat Dominus non est pax bonae voluntatis_,
εὐδοκίας being joined with εἰρήνη, is regarded by Dr. Hort “to deserve
serious attention, if no better interpretation were available” and for the
trajection he compares ch. xix. 38; Heb. xii. 11 (Notes, p. 56). Dr.
Westcott holds that since “ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας is undoubtedly a difficult
phrase, and the antithesis of γῆς and ἀνθρώποις agrees with Rom. viii. 22,
εὐδοκία claims a place in the margin” (_ibid._): no very great concession,
when the general state of the evidence is borne in mind(371).

13. LUKE vi. 1. ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ. Here again Codd. אB
coincide in a reading which cannot be approved, omitting δευτεροπρώτῳ by
way of getting rid of a difficulty, as do both of them in Mark xvi. 9-20,
and א in Matt. xxiii. 35. The very obscurity of the expression, which does
not occur in the parallel Gospels or elsewhere, attests strongly to its
genuineness, if there be any truth at all in canons of internal
evidence(372): not to mention that the expression ἐν ἑτέρῳ σαββάτῳ ver. 6
favours the notion that the previous sabbath had been definitely
indicated. Besides אB, δευτεροπρώτῳ is absent from L, 1, 22, 33, 69 (where
it is inserted in the margin by W. Chark, and should not be noticed, _see_
above), 118, 157, 209. A few (RΓ, 13, 117, 124 _primâ manu_, 235) prefer
δευτέρω πρώτω, which, as the student will perceive, differs from the
common reading only by a familiar itacism. As this verse commences a
Church lesson (that for the seventh day or Sabbath of the third week of
the new year, _see_ Calendar), Evangelistaria _leave out_, as usual, _the
notes of time_; in Evst. 150, 222, 234, 257, 259 (and no doubt in other
such books, certainly in the Jerusalem Syriac), the section thus begins,
Ἐπορεύετο ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς σάββασιν: this however is not, properly speaking,
a various reading at all. Nor ought we to wonder if versions pass over
altogether what their translators could not understand(373), so that we
may easily account for the silence of the Peshitto Syriac, Bohairic, and
Ethiopic, of the Old Latin _b_ _c_ _l_ _q_ _f_ (_secundâ manu_) _q_, and
(if they were worth notice) of the Persic and the Polyglott Arabic, though
both the Roman and Erpenius’ Arabic have δεύτερῳ, and so too the Ethiopic
according to Scholz; _e_ “sabbato mane,” _f_ “sabbato a primo:” the
Harkleian Syriac, which renders the word, notes in the margin its absence
from some copies. Against this list of authorities, few in number, and
doubtful as many of them are, we have to place the Old Latin _a_ _f_*
_ff_2 _g_1.2, all copies of the Vulgate, its ally the Armenian, the Gothic
and Harkleian Syriac translations, the uncial codices ACDEHKMRSUVXΓΔΛΠ,
all cursives except the seven cited above, and the Fathers or scholiasts
who have tried, with whatever success, to explain the term: viz.
Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Isidore of Pelusium, Pseudo-Caesarius, Gregory of
Nazianzus, Jerome(374), Ambrose (all very expressly, as may be seen in
Tischendorf’s note, and in Dean Burgon’s “The Revision Revised,” pp.
73-4), Clement of Alexandria probably, and later writers. Lachmann and
Alford place δευτεροπρώτῳ within brackets, Tregelles rejects it, as does
Tischendorf in his earlier editions, but restores it in his seventh and
eighth, in the latter contrary to Cod. א. Westcott and Hort banish it to
the margin, intimating (if I understand their notation aright) that it
seems to contain distinctive and fresh matter, without deserving a place
in the text even as well as Ἰησοῦ in Matt. i. 18. On reviewing the whole
mass of evidence, internal and external, we submit the present as a clear
instance in which the two oldest copies conspire in a false or highly
improbable reading, and of a signal exemplification of the Canon,
_Proclivi orationi praestat ardua_.

14. LUKE x. 41, 42. Ἑνὸς δέ ἐστι χρεία. This solemn speech of our Divine
Master has shaken many a pulpit, and sanctified many a life. We might be
almost content to estimate Cod. B’s claim to paramount consideration as a
primary authority by the treatment this passage receives from the hand of
its scribe, at least if the judgement were to rest with those who are
willing to admit that a small minority, whereof B happens to form one of
the members, is not necessarily in the right. Westcott and Hort in the
margin of their published edition (1881) reduce the whole sentence between
Μάρθα ver. 41 and Μαρία ver. 42 to the single word θορυβάζῃ, the truer
reading in the place of τυρβάζῃ: in their privately circulated issue dated
ten years earlier they had gone further, placing within double brackets
μεριμνᾷς καί and from περὶ πολλά downwards. They could hardly do less on
the principles they have adopted, while yet they feel constrained to
concede that, though not belonging to the original Gospel, the excluded
words do not, on the other hand, read like the invention of a paraphrast.
They do not indeed: and it is when abstract theories such as modern
critics have devised are subjected to so violent a strain, that we can
best discern their intrinsic weakness, of which indeed these editors have
here shown their consciousness by a change of mind not at all usual with
them. For the grave omission indicated above we have but one class of
authorities, that of the D, _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_2 _i_ _l_, and Ambrose, the
Latins omitting θορυβάζῃ too: while ἑνὸς δέ ἐστι χρεία is not found in _c_
also, and does not appear in Clement. The succeeding γάρ or δέ is of
course left out by all these, and by 262, the Vulgate, Curetonian Syriac,
Armenian, and Jerome. This testimony, almost purely Western, is confirmed
or weakened as the case may be, by the systematic omissions of clauses
towards the end of the Gospel in the same books, of which we spoke in
Chap. X (_see_ p. 299, note).

We confess that we had rather see this grand passage expunged altogether
from the pages of the Gospel than diluted after the wretched fashion
adopted by א and B: ὀλίγων δὲ χρεία ἐστιν ἢ ἑνός; the first hand of א
omitting χρεία in its usual blundering way. This travestie of a speech
which seems to have shocked the timorous by its uncompromising
exclusiveness, much as we saw in the case of Matt. v. 22, is further
supported (with some variation in the order) by L, by the very ancient
second hand of C, by 1, 33, the Bohairic, Ethiopic, the margin of the
Harkleian, by Basil, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria in the Syriac translation
of his commentary(375), and by Origen as cited in a catena: ὀλίγων δὲ ἐστι
χρεία is found in 38, the Jerusalem Syriac, and in the Armenian (ὧδε being
inserted before ἐστιν). This latter reading is less incredible than that
of אBL, notwithstanding the ingenuity of Basil’s comment, ὀλίγων μὲν
δηλονότι τῶν πρὸς παρασκευήν, ἑνὸς δὲ τοῦ σκοποῦ. In this instance, as in
some others, the force of internal evidence suffices to convince the
unprejudiced reader (it has almost convinced Drs. Westcott and Hort, who
have no note on the passage), that the Received text should here remain
unchanged, vouched for as it is by AC*EFGHKMPSUVΓΔΛΠ (Χ and Ξ being
defective), by every cursive except three, by the Peshitto and Cureton’s
Syriac (the latter so often met with in the company of D), by the
Harkleian text, by _f_ _g_1 _g_2? _q_ of the Old Latin, and by the
Vulgate. Chrysostom, Augustine (twice), John Damascene and one or two
others complete the list: even Basil so cites the passage once, so that
his comment may not be intended for anything more than a gloss. No nobler
sermon was ever preached on this fertile text than that of Augustine, De
verbis Domini, in Evan. Luc. xxvii. His Old Latin copies, at any rate,
contained the words “Circa multa es occupata: porro unum est necessarium.
Jam hoc sibi Maria legit.” “Transit labor multitudinis, et remanet caritas
unitatis” is his emphatic comment.

15. LUKE xxii. 17-20. This passage has been made the subject of a most
instructive discussion by Dean Blakesley(376) (d. 1885), whose notion
respecting it deserves more consideration than it would seem to have
received, though it must no doubt be ultimately set aside through the
overpowering weight of hostile authority. He is perplexed by two
difficulties lying on the surface, the fact that the Lord twice took a
cup, before and after the breaking of the bread; and the close resemblance
borne by vv. 19 and 20 to the parallel passage of St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 24,
25. The common mode of accounting for the latter phenomenon seems very
reasonable, namely, that the Evangelist, Paul’s almost constant companion
in travel, copied into his Gospel the very language of the Apostle, so far
as it suited his design. In speaking of the two cups St. Luke stands
alone, and much trouble has been taken to illustrate the use of the
Paschal cup from Maimonides [d. 1206] and other Jewish doctors, all too
modern to be implicitly depended on. Dean Alford indeed (N. T. _ad loc._)
hails “this most important addition to our narrative,” which “amounts, I
believe, to a solemn declaration of the fulfilment of the Passover rite,
in both its usual divisions—the eating of the lamb, and drinking the cup
of thanksgiving.” Thus regarded, the old rite would be concluded and
abrogated in vv. 17, 18; the new rite instituted in vv. 19, 20. To Dean
Blakesley all this appears wholly unsatisfactory, and he resorts for help
to our critical authorities. He first gets rid of the words of ver. 19
after σῶμά μου, and of all ver. 20, and so far his course is sanctioned by
Westcott and Hort, who place the whole passage within their double
brackets, and pronounce it a perverse interpolation from 1 Cor. xi. 24,
25. This much accomplished, the cup is now mentioned but once, but with
this awkward peculiarity, that it precedes the bread in the order of
taking and blessing, which is a downright contradiction of St. Matthew
(xxvi. 26-29) and of St. Mark (xiv. 22-25), as well as of St. Paul. Here
Westcott and Hort refuse to be carried further, and thus leave the remedy
worse than the disease(377), if indeed there be any disease to remedy.
Dean Blakesley boldly places Luke xxii. 19 (ending at σῶμά μου) before
ver. 17, and his work is done: the paragraph thus remodelled is
self-consistent, but it is robbed of everything which has hitherto made it
a distinctive narrative, supplementing as well as confirming those of the
other two Evangelists.

Now for the last step in Dean Blakesley’s process of emendation, the
transposition of ver. 19 before ver. 17, there is no other authority save
_b_ _e_ of the Old Latin and Cureton’s Syriac, the last with this grave
objection in his eyes, that it exhibits the whole of ver. 19, including
that τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν which he would regard as
specially belonging of right, and as most suitable for, St. Paul’s
narrative (Praelectio, p. 16), although Justin Martyr cites the expression
with the prelude οἱ γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν
ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἂ καλεῖται, εὐαγγέλια. The later portion of ver. 19 and
the whole of ver. 20, as included in the double brackets of Westcott and
Hort, are absent from Cod. D, and of the Latins from _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_ _i_
_l_, as is ver. 20 from the Curetonian Syriac also: authorities for the
most part the same as we had to deal with in our Chap. X. p. 299, note.
Another, and yet more violent remedy, to provide against the double
mention of the cup, is found in the utter omission of vers. 17, 18 in
Evst. 32 and the _editio princeps_ of the Peshitto Syriac, countenanced by
many manuscripts of the same(378). Thus both the chief Syriac translations
found a difficulty here, though they remedied it in different ways(379).

The scheme of Dean Blakesley is put forth with rare ingenuity(380), and
maintained with a boldness which is best engendered and nourished by
closing the eyes to the strength of the adverse case. We have carefully
enumerated the authorities of every kind which make for him, a slender
roll indeed. When it is stated that the Received text (with only slight
and ordinary variations) is upheld by Codd. אABCEFGHKLM (_hiant_ PR)
SUXVΓΔΛΠ, by all cursives and versions, except those already accounted
for, it will be seen that his view of the passage can never pass beyond
the region of speculation, until the whole system of Biblical Criticism is
revolutionized by means of new discoveries which it seems at present vain
to look for.

16. LUKE xxii. 43, 44. ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ ἐνισχύων αὐτόν.
καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ, ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο; ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ
ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπι τὴν γῆν. It is a positive relief to
know that any lingering doubt which may have hung over the authenticity of
these verses, whose sacred words the devout reader of Scripture could so
ill spare, is completely dissipated by their being contained in Cod.
א(381). The two verses are omitted in ABRT, 124, 561 (in 13 only ὤφθη δὲ
is _primâ manu_), in _f_ of the Old Latin, in at least ten manuscripts of
the Bohairic(382), with some Sahidic and Armenian codices. A, however,
whose inconsistency we had to note when considering ch. ii. 14, affixes to
the latter part of ver. 42 (πλήν), “to which they cannot belong”
(Tregelles), the proper Ammonian and Eusebian numerals for vv. 43-4
(ι)σπγ, and thus shows that its scribe was acquainted with the
passage(383): some Armenian codices leave out only ver. 44, as apparently
does Evan. 559. In Codd. Γ, 123, 344, 512, 569, (440 _secundâ manu_ in
ver. 43) the verses are obelized, and are marked by asterisks in ESVΔΠ,
24, 36, 161, 166, 274, 408: these, however, may very well be, and in some
copies doubtless are, lesson-marks for the guidance of such as read the
divine service (_cf. sequent._). A scholion in Cod. 34 [xi] speaks of its
absence from some copies(384). In all known Evangelistaria and in their
cognate Cod. 69* and its three fellows, the two verses, omitted in this
place, follow Matt. xxvi. 39, as a regular part of the lesson for the
Thursday in Holy Week: in the same place the margin of C (_tertiâ manu_)
contains the passage, C being defective in Luke xxii from ver. 19. In Cod.
547 the two verses stand (in redder ink, with a scholion) not only after
Matt. xxvi. 39, but also in their proper place in St. Luke(385). Thus too
Cod. 346, and the margin of Cod. 13. Codd. LQ place the Ammonian sections
and the number of the Eusebian canons differently from the rest (but this
kind of irregularity very often occurs in manuscripts), and the
Philoxenian margin in one of Adler’s manuscripts (Assem. 2) states that it
is not found “_in Evangeliis apud Alexandrinos_, proptereaque [non?]
posuit eam S. Cyrillus in homilia ...:” the fact being that the verses are
not found in Cyril’s “Homilies on Luke,” published in Syriac at Oxford by
Dean Payne Smith, nor does Athanasius ever allude to them. They are read,
however, in Codd. אDFGHKLMQUXΛ, 1, and all other known cursives, without
any marks of suspicion, in the Peshitto, Curetonian (omitting ἀπ᾽
οὐρανοῦ), Harkleian and Jerusalem Syriac (this last obelized in the
margin), the Ethiopic, in some Sahidic, Bohairic, and Armenian manuscripts
and editions, in the Old Latin _a_ _b_ _c_ _e_ _ff_2 _g_1.2 _i_ _l_ _q_,
and the Vulgate. The effect of this great preponderance is enhanced by the
early and express testimony of Fathers. Justin Martyr (Trypho, 103) cites
ἱδρὼς ὡσεὶ θόμβοι as contained ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν ἅ φημι ὑπὸ τῶν
ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων (_see_ Luke i. 3,
Alford) συντετάχθαι. Irenaeus (iii. 222) declares that the Lord ἵδρωσε
θρόμβους αἵματος in the second century. In the third, Hippolytus twice,
Dionysius of Alexandria, and Pseudo-Tatian; in the fourth, Arius,
Eusebius, Athanasius, Ephraem Syrus, Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzen,
Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita; in the fifth, Julian
the heretic, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria,
Paulus of Emesa, Gennadius, Theodoret, Bishops at Ephesus in 431; and
later writers such as Pseudo-Caesarius, Theodosius of Alexandria, John
Damascene, Maximus, Theodore the heretic, Leontius of Byzantium,
Anastasius Sinaita, Photius, as well as Hilary, Jerome, Augustine,
Cassian, Paulinus, Facundus(386). Hilary, on the other hand, declares that
the passage is not found “in Graecis et in Latinis codicibus compluribus”
(p. 1062 a, Benedictine edition, 1693), a statement which Jerome, who
leans much on others in such matters, repeats to the echo. Epiphanius,
however, in a passage we have before alluded to (p. 270, note), charges
“the orthodox” with removing ἔκλαυσε in ch. xix. 41, though Irenaeus had
used it against the Docetae, φοβήθέντες καὶ μὴ νοήσαντες αὐτοῦ τὸ τέλος
καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρότατον, καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἵδρωσε, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἱδρὼς
αὐτοῦ ὡς θρόμβοι αἵματος, καὶ ὤφθη ἄγγελος ἐνισχύων αὐτόν: Epiphan. Ancor.
xxxi(387). Davidson states that “the Syrians are censured by Photius, the
Armenians by Nicon [x], Isaac the Catholic, and others, for expunging the
passage” (Bibl. Critic. ii. p. 438).

Of all recent editors, before Westcott and Hort set them within their
double brackets, Lachmann alone had doubted the authenticity of the
verses, and enclosed them within brackets: but for the accidental presence
of the fragment Cod. Q his hard rule—“_mathematica recensendi ratio_” as
Tischendorf terms it—would have forced him to expunge them, unless indeed
he judged (which is probably true) that Cod. A makes as much in their
favour as against them. So far as the language of Epiphanius is concerned,
it does not appear that this passage was rejected by the orthodox as
repugnant to their notions of the Lord’s Divine character, and such may
not have been at all the origin of the variation. We have far more just
cause for tracing the removal of the paragraph from its proper place in
St. Luke to the practice of the Lectionaries, whose principal lessons
(such as those of the Holy Week would be) were certainly settled in the
Greek Church as early as the fourth century (_see_ above, Vol. I. pp.
74-7, and notes). I remark with lively thankfulness that my friend
Professor Milligan does not disturb these precious verses in his “Words of
the New Testament:” and Mr. Hammond concludes that “on the whole there is
no reasonable doubt upon the passage.” Thus Canon Cook is surely justified
in his strong asseveration that “supporting the whole passage we have an
array of authorities which, whether we regard their antiquity or their
character for sound judgement, veracity, and accuracy, are scarcely
paralleled on any occasion” (Revised Version, p. 103).

17. LUKE xxiii. 34. We soon light upon another passage wherein the
Procrustean laws of certain eminent editors are irreconcileably at
variance with their own Christian feeling and critical instinct. No holy
passage has been brought into disrepute on much slighter grounds than this
speech of the Lord upon the cross: the words from Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς down to
ποιοῦσιν are set within brackets by Lachmann, within double brackets by
Westcott and Hort. They are omitted by only BD*, 38, 435, among the
manuscripts: by E they are marked with an asterisk (comp. Matt. xvi. 2, 3;
ch. xxii. 43,44); of א Tischendorf speaks more cautiously than in the case
of ch. xxii. 43, 44, “A [a reviser] (ut videtur) uncos apposuit, sed
rursus deleti sunt,” and we saw there how little cause there was for
assigning the previous omission to אa. In D the clause is inserted, with
the proper (Ammonian) section (τκ or 320), in a hand which cannot be
earlier than the ninth century (_see_ Scrivener’s Codex Bezae, facsimile
11, and Introd. p. xxvii). To this scanty list of authorities for the
omission we can only add _a_ _b_ of the Old Latin, the Latin of Cod. D,
the Sahidic version, two copies of the Bohairic(388), and a passage in
Arethas of the sixth century. Eusebius assigned the section to his tenth
table or canon, as it has no parallel in the other three Gospels. The
passage is contained without a vestige of suspicion in אACFGHK (even L) M
(_hiat_ P) QSUVΓΔΛΠ, all other cursives (including 1, 33, 69), _c_ _e_ _f_
_ff_2 _l_, the Vulgate, all four Syriac versions, all Bohairic codices
except the aforenamed two, the Armenian and Ethiopic. The Patristic
authorities for it are (as might be anticipated) express, varied, and
numerous:—such as Irenaeus and Origen in their Latin versions, the dying
words of St. James the Just as cited in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., lib. ii.
cap. 23, after Hegesippus, ἐπὶ τῆς πρώτης τῶν ἀποστόλων γενόμενος διαδοχῆς
(Eus.), Hippolytus, the Apostolic Constitutions twice, the Clementine
Homilies, Ps.-Tatian, Archelaus with Manes, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory
of Nyssa, Theodorus of Heraclea, Basil, Ephraem Syrus, Ps.-Ephraem,
Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita, Acta Pilati, Syriac Acts of the Apostles,
Ps.-Ignatius, Ps.-Justin, Cyril of Alexandria, Eutherius, Anastasius
Sinaita, Hesychius, Antiochus Monachus, Andreas of Crete, Ps.-Chrysostom,
Ps.-Amphilochius, Opus Imperfectum, Chrysostom often (sometimes loosely
enough _more suo_), Hilary, Ambrose eleven times, Jerome twelve times,
Augustine more than sixty times, Theodoret, and John Damascene.
Tischendorf adds—_valeant quantum_—(but only a fraction of this evidence
was known to Tischendorf), the apocryphal Acta Pilati(389). It is almost
incredible that acute and learned men should be able to set aside such a
_silva_ of witness of every kind, chiefly because D is considered
especially weighty in its omissions, and B has to be held up, in practice
if not in profession, as virtually almost impeccable. Vain indeed is the
apology, “Few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to
the truth of what they record than this first of the Words from the Cross;
but it need not therefore have belonged originally to the book in which it
is now included. We cannot doubt that it comes from an extraneous source”
(Hort, Notes, p. 68). Nor can we on our part doubt that the system which
entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned.

18. JOHN i. 18. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός... This
passage exhibits in a few ancient documents of high consideration the
remarkable variation θεός for υἱός, which however, according to the form
of writing universal in the oldest codices (_see_ Vol. I. pp. 15, 50),
would require but the change of a single letter, _ΥΣ_ or _ΘΣ_. In behalf
of _ΘΣ_ stand Codd. אBC _primâ manu_, and L (all wanting the article
before μονογενής, and א omitting the ὁ ὤν that follows), 33 alone among
cursive manuscripts (but prefixing ὁ to μονογενής, as does a later hand of
א), of the versions the Peshitto (not often found in such company), and
the margin of the Harkleian (whose affinity with Cod. L is very decided),
the Ethiopic, and a host of Fathers, some expressly (e.g. Clement of
Alexandria, Didymus “de Trinitate,” Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, &c.),
others by apparent reference (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa). The Egyptian
versions may have read either θεός or θεοῦ, more probably the latter, as
Prebendary Malan translates for the Bohairic(390), the Sahidic being here
lost. Their testimonies are elaborately set forth by Tregelles, who
strenuously maintains θεός as the true reading, and thinks it much that
Arius, though “opposed to the dogma taught,” upholds μονογενὴς θεός. It
may be that the term suits that heretic’s system better than it does the
Catholic doctrine: it certainly does not confute it. For the received
reading υἱός we can allege AC (_tertiâ manu_) EFGHKMSUVXΔΛΠ (D and the
other uncials being defective), every cursive manuscript except 33
(including Tregelles’ allies 1, 69), all the Latin versions, the
Curetonian, Harkleian, and Jerusalem Syriac, the Georgian and Slavonic,
the Armenian and Platt’s Ethiopic, the Anglo-Saxon and Arabic. The array
of Fathers is less imposing, but includes Athanasius (often), Chrysostom,
and the Latin writers down from Tertullian. Origen, Eusebius, and some
others have both readings. Cyril of Jerusalem quotes without υἱός or
θεός,—ὃν ἀνθρώπων μὲν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν; ὁ μονογενὴς δὲ μόνος ἐξηγήσατο. C.
7, l. 27, p. 107, ed. Oxon., Pereira.

Tregelles, who seldom notices internal probabilities in his critical
notes, here pleads that an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον like μονογενὴς θεός(391) might
easily be changed by copyists into the more familiar ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός from
John iii. 16; 18; i John iv. 9, and he would therefore apply Bengel’s
Canon (I. _see_ p. 247). Alford’s remark, however, is very sound: “We
should be introducing great harshness into the sentence, and a new and [to
us moderns] strange term into Scripture, by adopting θεός: a consequence
which ought to have no weight whatever where authority is overpowering,
but may fairly be weighed where this is not so. The ‘praestat procliviori
ardua’ finds in this case a legitimate limit” (N. T., note on John i. 18).
Every one indeed must feel θεός to be untrue, even though for the sake of
consistency he may be forced to uphold it. Westcott and Hort set μονογενὴς
θεός in the text, but concede to ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός a place in their margin.

Those who will resort to “ancient evidence exclusively” for the recension
of the text may well be perplexed in dealing with this passage. The oldest
manuscripts, versions, and writers are hopelessly divided, so that we can
well understand how some critics (not very unreasonably, perhaps, yet
without a shadow of authority worth notice) have come to suspect both θεός
and υἱός to be _accretions_ or spurious additions to μονογενής. If the
principles advocated in Vol. II. Ch. X be true, the present is just such a
case as calls for the interposition of the more recent uncial and cursive
codices; and when we find that they all, with the single exception of Cod.
33, defend the reading ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, we feel safe in concluding that
for once Codd. אBC and the Peshitto do not approach the autograph of St.
John so nearly as Cod. A, the Harkleian Syriac, and Old Latin
versions(392).

19. JOHN iii. 13. Westcott and Hort remove from the text to the margin the
weighty and doubtless difficult, but on that account only the more
certainly genuine, words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. Tischendorf rejected them (as
indeed does Professor Milligan) in his “Synopsis Evangelica,” 1864, but
afterwards repented of his decision. The authorities for omission are אBL
(which read μονογενὴς θεός in ch. i. 18) Tb [vi], 33 alone among
manuscripts. CDF are defective here: but the clause is contained in
AEGHKMSUVΓΔΛΠ, and in all cursives save one, A* and one Evangelistarium
(44) omitting ὤν. No versions can be cited against the clause except one
manuscript of the Bohairic: it appears in every one else, including the
Latin, the four Syriac, the Ethiopic, the Georgian, and the Armenian.
There is really no Patristic evidence to set up against it, for it amounts
to nothing that the words are not found in the Armenian versions of
Ephraem’s Exposition of Tatian’s Harmony (_see_ Vol. I. p. 59, note 2);
that Eusebius might have cited them twice and did not; that Cyril of
Alexandria, who alleges them once, passed over them once; that Origen also
(in the Latin translation) neglected them once, inasmuch as he quotes them
twice, once very expressly. Hippolytus [220] is the prime witness in their
behalf, for he draws the theological inference from the passage
(ἀποσταλεὶς ἵνα δείξῃ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ γῆς ὄντα εἶναι καὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ), wherein he
is followed in two places by Hilary and by Epiphanius. To these add
Dionysius of Alexandria [iii], Novatian [iii], Aphraates the Persian,
Didymus, Lucifer, Athanasius, Basil, besides Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine,
and by John Damascene (thrice), by Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, and
Theodoret each four times,—indeed, as Dean Burgon has shown(393), more
than fifty passages from thirty-eight ecclesiastical writers; and we then
have a _consensus_ of versions and ecclesiastical writers from every part
of the Christian world, joining Cod. A and the later manuscripts in
convicting אBL, &c., or the common sources from which they were derived,
of the deliberate suppression of one of the most mysterious, yet one of
the most glorious, glimpses afforded to us in Scripture of the nature of
the Saviour, on the side of His Proper Divinity.

20. JOHN V. 3, 4. ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν. ἄγγελος γὰρ κατὰ
καιρὸν κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ, καὶ ἐτάρασσε τὸ ὕδωρ; ὁ οὖν πρῶτος
ἐμβὰς μετὰ τὴν ταραχὴν τοῦ ὕδατος, ὑγιὴς ἐγίνετο, ᾧ δήποτε κατείχετο
νοσήματι. This passage is expunged by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford,
Westcott and Hort, obelized (=) by Griesbach, but retained by Scholz and
Lachmann. The evidence against it is certainly very considerable: Codd.
אBC*D, 33, 157, 314, but D, 33 contain ἐκδεχομένων ... κίνησιν, which
_alone_ A*L, 18 omit. It may be observed that in this part of St. John A
and L are much together against N, and against B yet more. The words from
ἄγγελος γάρ to νοσήματι are noted with asterisks or obeli (employed
without much discrimination) in SΛ, 8, 11?, 14 (ἄγγελος ... ὕδωρ being
left out), 21, 24, 32, 36, 145, 161, 166, 230, 262, 269, 299, 348, 408,
507, 512, 575, 606, and Armenian manuscripts. The Harkleian margin marks
from ἄγγελος to ὕδωρ with an asterisk, the remainder of the verse with
obeli. The whole passage is given, although with that extreme variation in
the reading which so often indicates grounds for suspicion(394), in
EFGHIKMUVΓΔΠ (with an asterisk throughout), and all known cursives not
enumerated above(395): of these Cod. I [vi] is of the greatest weight.
Cod. A contains the whole passage, but down to κίνησιν _secundâ manu_;
Cod. C also the whole, _tertiâ manu_. Of the versions, Cureton’s Syriac,
the Sahidic, Schwartze’s Bohairic(396), some Armenian manuscripts, _f_ _l_
_q_ of the Old Latin, _san. harl._* and two others of the Vulgate (_vid._
Griesbach) are for omission; the Roman edition of the Ethiopic leaves out
what the Harkleian margin obelizes, but the Peshitto and Jerusalem Syriac,
all Latin copies not aforenamed, Wilkins’ Bohairic, and Armenian editions
are for retaining the disputed words. Tertullian clearly recognizes them
(“piscinam Bethsaidam angelus interveniens commovebat,” _de Baptismo_, 5),
as do Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Ambrose (twice), Theophylact, and
Euthymius. Nonnus [v] does not touch it in his metrical paraphrase.

The first clause (ἐκδεχ ... κίνησιν) can hardly stand in Dr. Scrivener’s
opinion, in spite of the versions which support it, as DI are the oldest
manuscript witnesses in its favour, and it bears much of the appearance of
a gloss brought in from the margin. The succeeding verse is harder to deal
with(397); but for the countenance of the versions and the testimony of
Tertullian, Cod. A could never resist the joint authority of אBCD,
illustrated as they are by the marks of suspicion set in so many later
copies. Yet if ver. 4 be indeed but an “_insertion to complete that
implied in the narrative with reference to the popular belief_” (Alford,
_ad loc._), it is much more in the manner of Cod. D and the Curetonian
Syriac, than of Cod. A and the Latin versions; and since these last two
are not very often found in unison, and together with the Peshitto,
opposed to the other primary documents, it is not very rash to say that
when such a conjunction does occur, it proves that the reading was early,
widely diffused, and extensively received. Yet, after all, if the passage
as it stands in our common text can be maintained as genuine at all, it
must be, we apprehend, on the principle suggested above, Vol. I. Chap. I.
§ 11, p. 18. The chief difficulty, of course, consists in the fact that so
many copies are still without the addition, if assumed to be made by the
Evangelist himself: nor will this supposition very well account for the
wide variations subsisting between the manuscripts which do contain the
supplement, both here and in chh. vii. 53-viii. 11(398).

21. JOHN vii. 8. This passage has provoked the “bark” of Porphyry the
philosopher, by common consent the most acute and formidable adversary our
faith encountered in ancient times [d. 304]. “Iturum se negavit,” as
Jerome represents Porphyry’s objection, “et fecit quod prius negaverat:
latrat Porphyrius, inconstantiae et mutationis accusat.” Yet in the common
text, which Lachmann, Westcott and Hort, apparently with Professor
Milligan, join in approving, ἐγὼ οὔπω ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην,
there is no vestige of levity of purpose on the Lord’s part, but rather a
gentle intimation that what He would not do then, He would do hereafter.
It is plain therefore that Porphyry the foe, and Jerome the defender of
the faith, both found in their copies οὐκ, not οὔπω, and this is the
reading of Tischendorf and Tregelles: Hort and Westcott set it in their
margin. Thus too Epiphanius and Chrysostom in the fourth century, Cyril in
the fifth, each of them feeling the difficulty of the passage, and meeting
it in his own way. For οὐκ we have the support of א (AC _hiant_) DKMΠ, 17
_secundâ manu_, 389: add 507, 570, being Scrivener’s pw (two excellent
cursives, often found together in vouching for good readings), 558, Evst.
234, the Latin _a_ _b_ _c_ _e_ _ff_2 _l_ _secundâ manu_, Cureton’s Syriac,
the Bohairic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions(399), a minority of the
whole doubtless, yet a goodly band, gathered from east and west alike. In
this case no hesitation would have been felt in adopting a reading, not
only the harder in itself, but the only one that will explain the history
of the passage, had not the palpable and wilful emendation οὔπω been
upheld by B: _ignoscitur isti_, even when it resorts to a subterfuge which
in any other manuscript would be put aside with scorn. The change,
however, from the end of the third century downwards, was very generally
and widely diffused. Besides B and its faithful allies LT, οὔπω is read in
EFGHSUVXΓΔΛ, in all cursives not cited above, in _f_ _g_ _q_, in some
Vulgate codices (but in none of the best), the Sahidic, Gothic, and three
other Syriac versions, the Harkleian also in its Greek margin. Basil is
alleged for the same reading, doubtless not expressly, like the Fathers
named above. It is seldom that we can trace so clearly the date and origin
of an important corruption which could not be accidental, and it is well
to know that no extant authorities, however venerable, are quite exempt
from the influence of dishonest zeal.

22. JOHN vii. 53-viii. 11. On no other grounds than those just intimated
when discussing ch. v. 3, 4 can this celebrated and important paragraph,
the _pericope adulterae_ as it is called, be regarded as a portion of St.
John’s Gospel. It is absent from too many excellent copies not to have
been wanting in some of the very earliest; while the arguments in its
favour, internal even more than external, are so powerful, that we can
scarcely be brought to think it an unauthorized appendage to the writings
of one, who in another of his inspired books deprecated so solemnly the
adding to or taking away from the blessed testimony he was commissioned to
bear (Apoc. xxii. 18, 19). If ch. xx. 30, 31 show signs of having been the
original end of this Gospel, and ch. xxi be a later supplement by the
Apostle’s own hand, which I think with Dean Alford is evidently the case,
why should not St. John have inserted in this second edition both the
amplification in ch. v. 3, 4, and this most edifying and eminently
Christian narrative? The appended chapter (xxi) would thus be added at
once to all copies of the Gospels then in circulation, though a portion of
them might well overlook the minuter change in ch. v. 3, 4, or, from
obvious though mistaken motives, might hesitate to receive for general use
or public reading the history of the woman taken in adultery.

It must be in this way, if at all, that we can assign to the Evangelist
chh. vii. 53-viii. 11; on all intelligent principles of mere criticism the
passage must needs be abandoned: and such is the conclusion arrived at by
all the critical editors. It is entirely omitted (ch. viii. 12 following
continuously to ch. vii. 52) in the uncial Codd. אA(400)BCT (all very old
authorities) LX(401)Δ, but LΔ leave a void space (like B’s in Mark xvi.
9-20) too small to contain the verses (though any space would suffice to
intimate the consciousness of some omission), before which Δ* began to
write ch. viii. 12 after ch. vii. 52.

Add to these, as omitting the paragraph, the cursives 3, 12, 21, 22, 33,
36, 44, 49, 63 (_teste_ Abbott), 72, 87, 95, 96, 97, 106, 108, 123, 131,
134, 139, 143, 149, 157, 168, 169, 181, 186, 194, 195, 210, 213, 228, 249,
250, 253, 255, 261, 269, 314, 331, 388, 392, 401, 416, 453, 473 (with an
explanatory note), 486, 510, 550, 559, 561, 582 (in ver. 12 πάλαι for
πάλιν): it is absent in the first, added by a second hand in 9, 15, 105,
179, 232, 284, 353, 509, 625: while ch. viii. 3-11 is wanting in 77, 242,
324 (sixty-two cursive copies). The passage is noted by an asterisk or
obelus or other mark in Codd. MS, 4, 8, 14, 18, 24, 34 (with an
explanatory note), 35, 83, 109, 125, 141, 148 (_secundâ manu_), 156, 161,
166, 167, 178, 179, 189, 196, 198, 201, 202, 219, 226, 230, 231 (_secundâ
manu_), 241, 246, 271, 274, 277, 284?, 285, 338, 348, 360, 361, 363, 376,
391 (_secundâ manu_), 394, 407, 408, 413 (a row of commas), 422, 436, 518
(_secundâ manu_), 534, 542, 549, 568, 575, 600. There are thus noted vers.
2-11 in E, 606: vers. 3-11 in Π (_hiat_ ver. 6), 128, 137, 147: vers. 4-11
in 212 (with unique rubrical directions) and 355: with explanatory scholia
appended in 164, 215, 262(402) (sixty-one cursives). Speaking generally,
copies which contain a commentary omit the paragraph, but Codd. 59-66,
503, 526, 536 are exceptions to this practice. Scholz, who has taken
unusual pains in the examination of this question, enumerates 290
cursives, others since his time forty-one more, which contain the
paragraph with no trace of suspicion, as do the uncials DF (_partly
defective_) GHKUΓ (with a hiatus after στήσαντες αὐτήν ver. 3): to which
add Cod. 736 (_see addenda_) and the recovered Cod. 64, for which Mill on
ver. 2 cited Cod. 63 in error. Cod. 145 has it only _secundâ manu_, with a
note that from ch. viii. 3 τοῦτο τὸ κεφάλαιον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀντιγράφοις οὐ
κεῖται. The obelized Cod. 422 at the same place has in the margin by a
more recent hand ἐν τήσιν ἀντιγράφης οὕτως. Codd. 1, 19, 20, 129, 135,
207(403), 215, 301, 347, 478, 604, 629, Evst. 86 contain the whole
_pericope_ at the end of the Gospel. Of these, Cod. 1 in a scholium pleads
its absence ὡς ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν ἀντιγράφοις, and from the commentaries of
Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodore of Mopsuestia; while 135,
301 confess they found it ἐν ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις: Codd. 20, 215, 559 are
obelized at the end of the section, and have a scholium which runs in the
text τὰ ὠβελισμένα, κείμενα δὲ εἰς τὸ τέλος, ἐκ τῶνδε ὧδε τὴν ἀκολουθίαν
ἔχει, and on the back of the last leaf of both copies τὸ ὑπέρβατον τὸ
ὄπισθεν ζητούμενον. In Codd. 37, 102, 105, ch. viii. 3-11 alone is put at
the end of the Gospel, which is all that 259 supplies, though its omission
in the text begins at ch. vii. 53. Cod. 237, on the contrary, omits only
from ch. viii. 3, but at the end inserts the whole passage from ch. vii.
53: in Cod. 478, ch. vii. 53-viii. 2 stands _primâ manu_ with an asterisk,
the rest later. Cod. 225 sets chh. vii. 53-viii. 11 after ch. vii. 36; in
Cod. 115, ch. viii. 12 is inserted between ch. vii. 52 and 53, and
repeated again in its proper place. Finally, Codd. 13, 69, 124, 346 (being
Abbott’s group), and 556 give the whole passage at the end of Luke xxi,
the order being apparently suggested from comparing Luke xxi. 37 with John
viii. 1; and ὤρθριζε Luke xxi. 38 with ὄρθρου John viii. 2(404). In the
Lectionaries, as we have had occasion to state before (Vol. I. p. 81,
note), this section was never read as a part of the lesson for Pentecost
(John vii. 37-viii. 12), but was reserved for the festivals of such saints
as Theodora Sept. 18, or Pelagia Oct. 8 (_see_ Vol. I. p. 87, notes 2 and
3), as also in Codd. 547, 604, and in many Service-books, whose Menology
was not very full (e.g. 150, 189, 257, 259), it would thus be omitted
altogether. Accordingly, in that remarkable Lectionary, the Jerusalem
Syriac, the lesson for Pentecost ends at ch. viii. 2, the other verses
(3-11) being assigned to St. Euphemia’s day (Sept. 16).

Of the other versions, the paragraph is entirely omitted in the true
Peshitto (being however inserted in printed books with the circumstances
before stated under that version), in Cureton’s Syriac, and in the
Harkleian; though it appears in the Codex Barsalibaei, from which White
appended it to the end of St. John: a Syriac note in this copy states that
it does not belong to the Philoxenian, but was translated in A.D. 622 by
Maras, Bishop of Amida. Maras, however, lived about A.D. 520, and a
fragment of a very different version of the section, bearing his name, is
cited by Assemani (Biblioth. Orient, ii. 53) from the _writings_ of
Barsalibi himself (Cod. Clem.-Vat. Syr. 16). Ridley’s text bears much
resemblance to that of de Dieu, as does a fourth version of ch. vii.
53-viii. 11 found by Adler (N. T. Version. Syr., p. 57) in a Paris codex,
with the marginal annotation that this “σύνταξις” is not in all the
copies, but was interpreted into Syriac by the Abbot Mar Paulus. Of the
other versions it is not found in the Sahidic, or in some of Wilkins’ and
all Schwartze’s Bohairic copies(405), in the Gothic, Zohrab’s Armenian
from six ancient codices (but five very recent ones and Uscan’s edition
contain it), or in _a_ _f_ _l_ (text) _q_ of the Old Latin. In _b_ the
whole text from ch. vii. 44 to viii. 12 has been wilfully erased, but the
passage is found in _c_ _e_ (we have given them at large, pp. 362-3),
_ff_2 _g_ _j_ _l_ (margin), the Vulgate (even _am. fuld. for. san._),
Ethiopic, Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon, Persic (but in a Vatican codex placed in
ch. x), and Arabic.

Of the Fathers, Euthymius [xii], the first among the Greeks to mention the
paragraph in its proper place, declares that παρὰ τοῖς ἀκριβέσιν
ἀντιγράφοις ἢ οὐχ εὕρηται ἢ ὠβέλισται; διὸ φαίνονται παρέγγραπτα καὶ
προσθήκη. The Apostolic Constitutions [iii or iv] had plainly alluded to
it, and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. _fin._) had described from Papias,
and as contained in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the story of a woman ἐπὶ
πολλαῖς ἁμαρτίαις διαβληθείσης ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου, but did not at all regard
it as Scripture. Codd. KM too are the earliest which raise the number of
τίτλοι or larger κεφάλαια in St. John from 18 to 19, by interpolating κεφ.
ι´ περὶ τῆς μοιχαλίδος, which soon found admittance into the mass of
copies: e.g. Evan. 482.

Among the Latins, as being in their old version, the narrative was more
generally received for St. John’s. Jerome testifies that it was found in
his time “in multis et Graecis et Latinis codicibus;” Ambrose cites it,
and Augustine (de adult. conjugiis, lib. ii. c. 7) complains that
“nonnulli modicae fidei, vel potius inimici verae fidei,” removed it from
their codices, “_credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus
suis_(406).”

When to all these sources of doubt, and to so many hostile authorities, is
added the fact that in no portion of the N. T. do the variations of
manuscripts (of D beyond all the rest) and of other documents bear any
sort of proportion, whether in number or extent, to those in these twelve
verses (of which statement full evidence may be seen in any collection of
various readings)(407), we cannot help admitting that if this section be
indeed the composition of St. John, it has been transmitted to us under
circumstances widely different from those connected with any other genuine
passage of Scripture whatever(408).



Second Series. Acts.


23. Acts viii. 37. Εἶπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος, Εἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας,
ἔξεστιν. Ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε, Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν
Χριστόν(409). We cannot safely question the spuriousness of this verse,
which all the critical editors condemn, and which seems to have been
received from the margin, where the formula Πιστεύω κ.τ.λ. had been
placed, extracted from some Church Ordinal: yet this is just the portion
cited by Irenaeus, both in Greek(410) and Latin; so early had the words
found a place in the sacred text. It is contained in no manuscripts except
E (D, which might perhaps be expected to favour it, being here defective),
4 (_secundâ manu_), 13, 15, 18?, 27, 29, 36, 60, 69, 97, 100, 105, 106,
107, 163, 227, Apost. 5, 13 once; and in the margin, 14, 25 &c., in Cod.
186 alone out of Scrivener’s thirteen: manuscripts of good character, but
quite inadequate to prove the authenticity of the verse, even though they
did not differ considerably in the actual readings they exhibit, which is
always in itself a ground of reasonable suspicion (_see_ pp. 361, 368,
374)(411). Here again, as in Matt. xxvii. 35, Gutbier and Schaaf
interpolated in their Peshitto texts the passage as translated into Syriac
and placed within brackets by Elias Hutter: the Harkleian also exhibits
it, but marked with an asterisk. It is found in the Old Latin _g_ and _m_
although in an abridged form, in the Vulgate (both printed and _demid.
tol._, but not in _am._ _primâ manu_, _fuld._ &c.), and in the satellites
of the Vulgate, the Armenian, Polyglott Arabic, and Slavonic. Bede,
however, who used Cod. E, knew _Latin_ copies in which the verse was
wanting: yet it was known to Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Pacian, &c. among
the Latins, to Œcumenius and Theophylact (twice quoted) among the Greeks.
Erasmus seems to have inserted the verse by a comparison of the later hand
of Cod. 4 with the Vulgate(412); it is not in the Complutensian edition.
This passage affords us a curious instance of an _addition_ well received
in the Western Church from the second century downwards (_see_ p. 164),
and afterwards making some way among the later Greek codices and writers.

24. ACTS xi. 20. We are here in a manner forced by the sense to adopt,
with Griesbach, Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,
the reading Ἕλληνας in the room of Ἑλληνιστάς of the Received text,
retained by Westcott and Hort(413). Immediately after the call of the
Gentiles to the privileges of the Gospel was acknowledged and acquiesced
in at Jerusalem (ver. 18), we read that some of those who had been
scattered abroad years ago went about preaching the word to Jews only
(ver. 19). In this there was nothing new: there had been Ἑλληνισταί
“Greek-speaking Jews” among the brethren long since (ch. vi. 1), and to
say that they were again preached to was not at all strange: the marvel is
contained in ver. 20. “But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and
Cyrene, which, when they came to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also” (καὶ
πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας: καί intimating the additional information), and that
with such success in converting these heathen Greeks, that Gentile
Christians first obtained at Antioch the name, no longer of Nazarenes (ch.
xxiv. 5), but of Christians (ver. 26). The meaning being thus evident, we
look to the authorities which uphold it, and these are few, confessedly
insufficient if the sense left us any choice, but recommended to us, as
the matter stands, by their intrinsic excellence: they are AD* (the latter
without καί, which is, however, otherwise abundantly attested to) Cod.
184, one of the best of the cursives, but not its kindred 221, the
Peshitto Syriac, the Armenian, perhaps the Ethiopic. The Vulgate,
Bohairic, Sahidic, and Harkleian Syriac draw no distinction between
Ἕλληνες and Ἑλληνισταί: the Peshitto unquestionably does, since it renders
“Greek disciples” in ch. vi. 1, “those Jews who knew Greek” (an excellent
definition) in ch. ix. 29, but “Greeks” here. Eusebius clearly reads
Ἕλληνας, as does Chrysostom in his exposition (not in his text), all the
more surely because he is perplexed how to expound it: his words are
echoed by Œcumenius and in both commentaries of Theophylact, only that
they substitute Ἑλληνιστάς for Ἕλληνας in repeating his words διὰ τὸ μὴ
εἰδέναι ἑβραïστί, Ἕλληνας ἐκάλουν: they both have Ἑλληνιστάς in the text.
Thus for once B is associated with E, with a later hand of D (of the
seventh or eighth century), with the later uncials HLP and all cursives
except one, in maintaining a variation demonstrably false. C is defective
here, and the first hand of א, which presents us with the wonderful
εὐαγγελιστάς, makes so far in favour of B; but אc corrects that error into
Ἕλληνας.

25. ACTS xiii. 18. We have here as nice a balance between conflicting
readings (differing only by a single letter) as we find anywhere in the N.
T. The case is stated in the margin to our Authorized version of the
Bible, more minutely than is its wont, though modern printers have
unwarrantably left out the reference to 2 Macc. vii. 27 in copies not
containing the Apocrypha(414). For ἐτροποφόρησεν “suffered he their
manners” of Tregelles, of Westcott and Hort, are cited אB, the very
ancient second hand of C, D (in the Greek), HLP, 61 with almost all other
cursives and the catenas: for the alternative ἐτροφοφόρησεν “fed them like
a nurse” of Lachmann and Tischendorf (Tregelles placing it in his margin)
we find ACE, 13, 24* (not 24** with Tischendorf), 68, 78* (margin), 93,
100, 105, 142, _d_ against its own Greek and the Vulgate jointly. Versions
are in such a case of special weight, but unfortunately they too are
somewhat divided. For π we find the Vulgate and a Greek note set in the
Harkleian margin, for φ the Peshitto and Harkleian Syriac, both Egyptian,
the Armenian, and both Ethiopic, with Erpenius’ Arabic: the Arabic of the
Polyglott gives both renderings. Thus the majority of the versions incline
one way, the oldest and most numerous manuscripts the other. It is useless
to cite Greek writers, except they show from the context which word they
favour. The form with φ was doubtless read in the Apostolic Constitutions,
and twice in Cyril of Alexandria, and that word is supported as well by 2
Macc. vii. 27, as by the other text cited in the margin of the Authorized
English Bible, Deut. i. 31, to which the Apostle’s reference is so
manifest, that we cannot but regard it as nearly decisive which expression
he used. Although in Deuteronomy also Greek copies vary a little between π
and φ, yet both A and B(415) read the latter, indeed the Hebrew נשא, _pace
Hortii_, would admit of nothing else. For π Origen is express, both in his
Greek commentary (not his text) and Latin version, but then he seems to
employ it even in Deut. i. 31, where it cannot be correct. Chrysostom and
Theophylact give no certain sound. Wetstein seasonably illustrates ἐτροπ.
from Rom. ix. 22. Internal evidence certainly points to ἐτροφοφόρησεν,
which on the whole may be deemed preferable. The Apostle is anxious to
please his Jewish hearers by enumerating the mercies their nation had
received from the Divine favour. God had chosen them, exalted them in
Egypt, brought them out with a high hand, fed them in the wilderness, and
given them the land of Promise. It would hardly have suited his purpose to
have interposed, by way of parenthesis, in the midst of his detail of
benefits received, the unwelcome suggestion of their obstinate ingratitude
and of God’s long forbearance.

26. ACTS xiii. 32. Here for τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῶν ἡμῖν Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Tregelles, Westcott and Hort read τοῖς τέκνοις ἡμῶν. As well from the fact
that it is much the harder form (_see_ Canon I), as from the state of the
external evidence, they could not act otherwise. In defence of ἡμῶν we
have אABC*D, but apparently no cursives, the Vulgate version, Hilary,
Ambrose, Bede (with the variant ὑμῶν in _tol._ and elsewhere), and both
Ethiopic. We cannot resist the five great uncials when for once they are
in harmony. The Received text is supported by the third hand of C, by
EHLP, by all the cursives, by the two Syriac and Armenian versions, the
catenae, Chrysostom and Theophylact. The Sahidic omits ἡμῖν, the Bohairic
both pronouns. To take up ἡμῖν without αὐτῶν, the reading of a solitary
cursive of the eleventh century, Cod. 76, would approach the limits of
mere conjecture, yet every one can see how well it would account for all
other variations. “The text, which alone has any adequate authority, and
of which all or nearly all the readings are manifest corrections, gives
only an improbable sense. It can hardly be doubted that ἡμῶν is a
primitive corruption of ἡμῖν, τοὺς πατέρας and τοῖς τέκνοις being alike
absolute. The suggestion is due to Bornemann, who cites x. 41 in
illustration” (Hort, Notes, p. 95). _Optimè._

27. ACTS xiii. 33. The variation πρώτῳ for δευτέρῳ of the Received text
commended itself to Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,
merely from its apparent difficulty; yet there is no manuscript authority
for it except D, _g_, and “quidam codices” known to Bede. Origen and
Hilary indeed mention the variation, but they explain at the same time the
cause, as do Eusebius and others. Tertullian and Cyprian also quote the
words as from the first Psalm, and the arrangement of the two Psalms
sometimes together, sometimes separate, is as old as Justin Martyr’s time.
Under these circumstances Westcott and Hort are surely fully justified in
abiding by the common reading, against which there is no other evidence
than what has been named above.

28. ACTS xv. 34. ἔδοξε δὲ τῷ Σίλᾳ ἐπιμεῖναι αὐτοῦ. This verse is omitted
by אABEGHP, and of the cursives by 31, 61 of the first rank, by 24, 91,
184, 185, 188, 189, 221, and full fifty others. Erasmus inserted it in his
editions from the margin of Cod. 4. It is wanting in the Peshitto (only
that Tremellius and Gutbier between them thrust their own version into the
text), in the Bohairic, Polyglott Arabic, Slavonic, the best manuscripts
of the Latin Vulgate (_am. fuld. demid._, &c.), and by Chrysostom and
Theophylact in at least one copy. In C it runs εδοξεν δε τω σιλα επιμειναι
αυτους, which is followed by many cursives: some of which, however, have
αὐτοῦ, two αὐτοῖς, 42, 57, 69, 182, 186, 187, 219 αὐτόθι, with the
Complutensian Polyglott. The common text is found in the Sahidic,
Tremellius’ Syriac, in the Harkleian with an asterisk, also in Erpenius’
Arabic, Theophylact, and Œcumenius. In D we read εδοξε δε τω σειλεα
επιμειναι [προς _secundâ manu_] αυτους (sustinere eos _d_) μονος δε ιουδας
επορευθη, which Lachmann cites in Latin as extant _in this form_ only in
one Vienna Codex (for which see his N. T., Proleg. vol. i. p. xxix): thus
too _tol._, the Armenian (not that of Venice), and the printed Slavonic.
The common Vulgate, Cassiodorus and Hutter’s Syriac add “Jerusalem,” so
that the Clementine Latin stands thus: “Visum est autem Silae ibi
remanere; Judas autem solus abiit Jerusalem.” The Ethiopic is rendered “Et
perseveravit Paulus manens,” to which Platt’s copies add ’ibi.’

No doubt this verse is an unauthorized addition, self-condemned indeed by
its numerous variations (_see_ p. 361). One can almost trace its growth,
and in the shape presented by the Received text it must have been (as Mill
conjectures) a marginal gloss, designed to explain how (notwithstanding
the terms of ver. 33) Silas was at hand in ver. 40, conveniently for St.
Paul to choose him as a companion in travel.

29. ACTS xvi. 7. After πνεῦμα at the end of this verse Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort most rightly add Ἰησοῦ. The
evidence in its favour is overwhelming, and it is not easy to conjecture
how it ever fell out of the text: compare Rom. viii. 9. It is wanting only
in HLP and the mass of the cursives, even in Codd. 184, 221: Codd. 182,
219 omit the whole clause from καὶ οὐκ εἴασεν, nor does Ἰησοῦ appear in
the Sahidic version, or in three Armenian manuscripts, nor is it
recognized by Chrysostom or Theophylact. Ἰησοῦ is read by אABC**DE, 13,
15, 31, 33, 36, 61 (_primâ manu_), 73, Apost. 40: but Cod. 105 and a few
others have τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. The versions are all but unanimous for the
addition, being all the known Latin except _demid._, the Bohairic, both
Syriac, both Ethiopic, and three manuscripts of the Armenian: two more of
its codices with one edition read χριστου, six (with Epiphanius) τὸ ἅγιον
in its room, while _demid._ has κυρίου with the first hand of C. The
catenae exhibit Ἰησοῦ in spite of Chrysostom, as do Didymus, Cyril of
Alexandria, and the false Athanasius both in Greek and Latin.

30. ACTS xx. 28. τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου
αἵματος. This reading of the Received text, though different from that of
the majority of copies, is pretty sure to be correct: it has been adopted
by Alford (who once rejected θεοῦ for κυρίου), and by Westcott and Hort:
Tregelles places it in his margin, though, with Lachmann and Tischendorf,
he has κυρίου in the text. _ΘΥ_ is upheld by אB (the latter now for
certain), 4, 22, 23, 25, 37, 46, 65, 66*(?), 68, 84, 89, 154, 162, Apost.
12, and _ex silentio_, on which one can lay but little stress, by Codd. 7,
12, 16, 39, 56, 64, together with 184 and 186, codices not now in England.
“Dei” is read by all known manuscripts and editions of the Vulgate except
the Complutensian, which was probably altered to suit the parallel Greek.
From the Vulgate this form was taken by Erasmus, and after him by
Tyndale’s and later English versions. Lee’s edition of the Peshitto has
θεου, from three codices (the Travancore, a Vatican Lectionary of Adler
[xi], and one at the Bodleian), and so has the Harkleian text. Τοῦ κυρίου
(differing but by one letter, _see_ our Plates v. No. 13; x. No. 25) is in
AC*DE (and therefore in _d_, _e_), 13, 15, 18, 36 (_text_), 40, 69, 73,
81, 95*, 130, 156, 163, 180, 182, 219, Apost. 58, some catenae, the
Harkleian _margin_, the Sahidic, Bohairic, Armenian, and possibly also the
Roman Ethiopic, though there the same word is said to represent both _θυ_
and _κυ_. Platt’s Ethiopic, all editions of the Peshitto except Lee’s, and
Erpenius’ Arabic, have τοῦ χριστοῦ, with Origen once, Theodoret twice, and
four copies of Athanasius: the Old Latin _m_ reads ’Jesu Christi.’ Other
variations, too weakly supported to be worth further notice, are τοῦ
κυρίου θεοῦ 3, 95**, the Polyglott Arabic; τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου 47; and the
Georgian τοῦ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ. The great mass of later manuscripts give τοῦ
κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ, viz. C (_tertiâ manu_), HLP, 24, 31, 111, 183, 185, 187,
188, 189, 221, 224, and more than one hundred other cursives, including
probably every one not particularized above. This is the reading of the
Complutensian editors, both in the Greek and Latin, and of some modern
critics who would fain take a safe and middle course; but is countenanced
by the reading of no version except the Slavonic, and by no ecclesiastical
writer before Theophylact. It is plainly but a device for reconciling the
two principal readings; yet from the non-repetition of the article and
from the general turn of the sentence it asserts the Divinity of the
Saviour almost as unequivocally as θεοῦ could do alone. Our choice
evidently lies between κυρίου and θεοῦ, which are pretty equally supported
by manuscripts and versions: Patristic testimony, however, may slightly
incline to the latter. Foremost comes that bold expression of Ignatius
[A.D. 107] ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἵματι θεοῦ (ad Ephes. i), which the old
Latin version renders “Christi Dei,” and the later interpolator softens
into χριστοῦ: so again (ad Roman. vi), τοῦ πάθους τοῦ θεοῦ μου. It may be
true that Ignatius “does not adopt it [the first passage] as a quotation”
(Davidson _ad loc._), yet nothing short of Scriptural authority could have
given such early vogue to a term so startling as αἷμα θεοῦ, which is also
employed by Tertullian (ad uxorem, ii. 3) and Clement of Alexandria (Quis
dives, 34). The elder Basil, Epiphanius (_twice_), Cyril of Alexandria
(_twice_), Ibas (in the Greek only), Ambrose, Caelestine, Fulgentius,
Primasius, Cassiodorus, &c., not to mention writers so recent as Œcumenius
and Theophylact, expressly support the same word. Manuscripts of
Athanasius vary between θεοῦ, κυρίου, and χριστοῦ, but his evidence would
be regarded as hostile to the Received text, inasmuch as he states (as
alleged by Wetstein) that οὐδαμοῦ δὲ αἷμα θεοῦ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς παραδεδώκασιν αἱ
γραφαί; Ἀρειανῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα τολμήματα (contra Apollinar.): only that for
καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς (_which even Tischendorf cites in his seventh edition_), the
correct reading is δίχα σαρκός or διὰ σαρκός, a citation fatal to any such
inference. In Chrysostom too the readings fluctuate, and some (e.g.
Tregelles) have questioned whether the Homilies on the Acts, wherein he
has θεοῦ, are of his composition. In behalf of κυρίου are cited the Latin
version of Irenaeus, Lucifer of Cagliari, Augustine, Jerome, Ammonius,
Eusebius, Didymus, Chrysostom (whence Theophylact), possibly Theodoret,
and the Apostolic Constitutions, while the exact expression _sanguis Dei_
was censured by Origen and others. It has been urged, however, and not
without some show of reason (Nolan, Integrity of Greek Vulgate, p. 517,
note 135), that the course of Irenaeus’ argument proves that θεοῦ was used
in his lost Greek text. After all, internal evidence—subjective feeling if
it must be so called—will decide the critic’s choice where authorities are
so much divided as here. It seems reasonable to say that the whole mass of
witnesses for τοῦ κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ vouches for the existence of θεοῦ in the
earliest codices, the commonplace κυρίου being the rather received from
other quarters, as it tends to point more distinctly to the Divine Person
indicated in the passage. If this view be accepted, the preponderance in
favour of θεοῦ, _undoubtedly the harder form_, is very marked, and when
the consideration suggested above from Dean Alford is added, there will
remain little room for hesitation. It has been pleaded on both sides of
the question, and appears little relevant to the case of either, that St.
Paul employs in ten places the expression ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ, but never
once ἐκκλησία τοῦ κυρίου or τοῦ χριστοῦ.

It is right to mention that, in the place of τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, the more
emphatic form τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου ought to be adopted from אA (_see_
Plate v. No. 13) BCDE, 31, 182, 184 (Sanderson), with some twenty other
cursives, Didymus, &c.; while τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος is only in HLP, the
majority of cursives, Athanasius, Chrysostom, &c. We must, however,
protest strongly against the interpretation put upon τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου
by Mr. Darby in his “New Translation,” “the blood of his own,” “le sang de
son propre [fils],” as being no less unwarrantable, though more
reverential, than that of Wakefield, which Bp. Middleton (Doctrine of the
Greek Article, pp. 293-5) condemns so justly. Nor can we do less than
repudiate unreservedly Dr. Hort’s expedient (Notes, p. 99), who would
render “through the blood that was His own,” i.e. as being His Son’s.
Indeed he has so little faith in it that he is constrained to say “It is
however true that this general sense, if indicated, is not sufficiently
expressed in the text as it stands.”

31. ACTS xxvii. 16. Καῦδα, the form which Erasmus noted as that of Cod. B,
is adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, in preference to
Κλαῦδα of Tischendorf and the Received text. Putting _Kura_ of the
Peshitto, _Keda_ of Pell Platt’s Ethiopic, out of the question, we note
that אc, the Vulgate and Latins (Jerome has _Cauden_, Cassiodorus Gaudem),
followed by the Roman edition of the Ethiopic, alone omit the λ. In the
first century Pomponius Mela wrote _Cauda_, the other Pliny _Gaudos_, and
Suidas speaks of _Caudo_ as an island near Crete: it is now called Gozo,
and is not to be confounded with the island of Gaulus near Malta, now
bearing the same name. The λ is inserted by Ptolemy, the celebrated
geographer of the second century, and by later writers: it is found in
א*AHLP, in all known cursives (with a like variation in the termination as
in the other form), the Bohairic, the later Syriac both in its text and in
Greek letters in its margin, the Armenian, and Erpenius’, or the only
trustworthy form of the Arabic. Chrysostom and Bede have the same reading,
which must surely be retained unless the union of Cod. B with the Latins
is to prevail against all other evidence put together.

32. ACTS xxvii. 37. In the place of διακόσιαι ἑβδομήκοντα ἕξ Westcott and
Hort have received into their text ὡς ἑβδομήκοντα ἕξ, placing the common
reading in the margin. Their form is supported by Cod. B and the Sahidic
version only, and was plainly resorted to by those who were slow to
believe that a corn ship, presumably heavily laden (vers. 6, 18), would
contain so many souls. There is a slight variation in the other
authorities, as is usual where numbers are concerned, from the ancient
practice of representing them by letters, whereof many traces are yet
remaining throughout Codex Sarravianus of the Septuagint, dating from the
end of the fourth century, and in our present copies (Cod. D in Acts xiii.
18; 20; xix. 9) of the New Testament: even in this place Cod. 61 has σοϛ.
Hence A reads πέντε for ἕξ, 31 omits ἕξ entirely, one Bohairic copy has
the incredible number of 876 (ωοϛ), another 176 (ροϛ). The Ethiopic is
reported by Tregelles to read ὡς διακόσιαι ἕξ, but that in the Polyglott
favours the common text; Epiphanius comes nearest to B (ὡς ἑβδομήκοντα),
“libere” adds Tischendorf. For the more specific number assigned by B ὡς
is not so well suited.

In ordinary cases the common reading would be abided by without
hesitation, upheld as it is by אCHLP, by all cursives, virtually by A, 31,
completely by the Latin, both Syriac, the Armenian, and most copies of the
Bohairic. It is obvious also that the writer wishes to impress upon us the
fact that out of so large a party all were saved, and seventy-six would be
a small number indeed. Josephus was wrecked in the Adriatic with 600 on
board (Josephus’ Life, c. 3: see Whiston’s note)(416). It is right,
however, to point out that, on the possible supposition that numeral
letters, not words, were employed in St. Luke’s autograph, the difference
between B and the Received text would consist of the insertion or the
contrary of the letter ω: whether in fact it be assumed that the
Evangelist wrote ωσοϛ or σοϛ, “about 76” or “276.” Surely it is more
likely that ω was inserted than omitted.

In ver. 39 the first hand of B, this time favoured by C, and supported by
the Bohairic, Armenian, and (in Tregelles) the Ethiopic versions, has
another curious variation, also promoted into the text by Westcott and
Hort, ἐκσῶσαι for the common ἐξῶσαι, which they banish into the margin.
This change also is very minute, being simply the resolution of _xi_ into
the two consonants for which it stands, and the reading very ingenious,
unless indeed it be regarded as a mistake made _ex ore dictantis_ (_see_
p. 10), which with Madvig as cited by Mr. Hammond (Outlines of Textual
Criticism, first edition, p. 13, note) we regard as a slovenly plan, such
as one would be loth to impute hastily to the scribes of so noble a copy
as Cod. B. Here, however, as ever, internal evidence being equiponderant,
we must decide by the weight of documentary proof, and adopt ἐξῶσαι with
אAHLP, all cursives (including 61), the Latin and Syriac versions.



Third Series. St. Paul.


33. ROM. v. 1. Δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.
Here, as in 2 Cor. iii. 3, we find the chief uncials supporting a reading
which is manifestly unsuitable to the context, although, since it does not
absolutely destroy the sense, it does not (nor indeed does that other
passage) lack strenuous defenders. Codd. אB for ἔχομεν have _primâ manu_
ἔχωμεν, and though some doubt has been thrown on the primitive reading of
B, yet Mai and Tregelles (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 156) are
eyewitnesses to the fact, which is now settled: Tischendorf in 1866
referred ἔχομεν to the third hand of B, Codd. ACDEKL, not less than thirty
cursives, including 104, 244, 257 and the remarkable copies 17, 37, also
read ἔχωμεν, as do _d_ _e_ _f_ _g_, the Vulgate (“habeamus”), the Peshitto
Syriac (ܢܚܘܐ ܠܢ ܫܠܡܐ or ܐܡܠܫ ܢܠ ܐܘܚܢ), Bohairic, Ethiopic (in both forms),
and Arabic. Chrysostom too supports this view, and so apparently
Tertullian (“monet justificatos ex fide Christi ... pacem ad Deum
habere”). The case for ἔχομεν is much weaker in itself: Codd. אaB3FG (in
spite of the contrary testimony of _f_ _g_, their respective Latin
versions) P, perhaps the majority of the cursive manuscripts (29, 30, 47,
221, 260, 265, &c.), Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril (once), and the Slavonic.
The later Syriac might seem to combine both readings (ܢܗܘܐ ܐܬ ܠܢ ܠܘܐ ܐܠܗܐ
ܫܝܢܐ or ܐܢܝܫ ܐܗܠܐ ܐܘܠ ܢܠ ܬܐ ܐܘܗܢ): White translates “habemus,” but has no
note on the passage(417). Had the scales been equally poised, no one would
hesitate to prefer ἔχομεν, for the closer the context is examined the
clearer it will appear that _inference_ not _exhortation_ is the Apostle’s
purpose: hence those who most regard “ancient evidence” (Tischendorf and
Tregelles, Westcott and Hort; Lachmann could not make up his mind) have
struggled long before they would admit ἔχωμεν into the text. The “Five
Clergymen” who in or about 1858 benefited the English Church by revising
its Authorized version of this Epistle, even though they render “_let us
have peace with God_,” are constrained to say, “An overwhelming weight of
authority has necessitated a change, which at the first sight seems to
impair the logical force of the Apostle’s argument. No consideration,
however, of this kind can be allowed to interfere with the faithful
exhibition of the true text, as far as it can be ascertained; and no doubt
the real Word of God, thus faithfully exhibited, will vindicate its own
meaning, and need no help from man’s shortsighted preference” (Preface, p.
vii). Every one must honour the reverential temper in which these eminent
men approached their delicate task; yet, if their sentiments be true,
where is the place for internal evidence at all? A more “overwhelming
weight” of manuscript authority upholds καρδίαις in 2 Cor. iii. 3: shall
we place it in the text, “leaving the real Word of God to vindicate its
own meaning”? Ought we to assume that the reading found in the few most
ancient codices—not, in the case of Rom. v. 1, in the majority of the
whole collection—must _of necessity_ be the “real Word of God, faithfully
exhibited”? I see no cause to reply in the affirmative, nor do Meyer and
Dr. Field(418).

We conclude, therefore, that this is a case for the application of the
_paradiplomatical_ canon (VII): that the itacism ω for ο, so familiar to
all collators of Greek manuscripts(419), crept into some very early copy,
from which it was propagated among our most venerable codices, even those
from which the earliest versions were made:—that this is one out of a
small number of well-ascertained cases in which the united testimonies of
the best authorities conspire in giving a worse reading than that
preserved by later and, on the whole, quite inferior copies.

34. 1 COR. xi. 24. I am as unwilling as Mr. C. Forster could have been to
strike out from the Received text “a word which (if genuine) THE LORD GOD
HAD SPOKEN!” (A new Plea for the Three Heavenly Witnesses, Preface, p.
xvii), but I cannot censure Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, or Westcott
and Hort, or Dean Blakesley for deciding on the state of the evidence, as
now generally taken, that it is not genuine. Yet it is with great
satisfaction that I find Bp. Chr. Wordsworth able to retain κλώμενον, and
to save the solemn clause τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν from being “bald and impressive
without the participle.” Mr. Forster’s argument in behalf of κλώμενον,
that it refers to ch. x. 16, τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, has a double edge, and
might be employed to indicate the source from which the word crept in
here. It is more to the purpose to urge with Bp. Wordsworth that early
scribes were offended by the apparent inconsistency of the term with John
xix. 36, and because there is nothing like it in the narratives of the
three earlier Evangelists. If we decide to retain κλώμενον, it must be in
opposition to the four chief manuscripts אABC, though אC insert it by the
third hand of each. Cod. D, like its namesake of the Gospels and Acts, is
somewhat inclined to paraphrases, and has θρυπτόμενον(420) by the first
hand, κλώμενον by the second. Only two cursives here side with the great
uncials (17, and the valuable second hand of 67), as do Zohrab’s Armenian,
Cyril of Alexandria and Fulgentius in the fifth century, and Theodoret’s
report of Athanasius. The word κλώμενον is found in EFGKLP, all other
cursives, the Latin versions of DE (_quod frangitur_), with Ambrosiaster:
G and the interlinear Latin of F, which, as has been already shown under
that MS., is taken from G, prefer _quod frangetur_, with both Syriac, the
Gothic, and the Armenian of Uscan. The Latin Vulgate has _tradetur_ (but
_traditur_ in _harl._2, even in the parallel column of F and against its
Greek, and so Cyprian); the Bohairic renders _traditur_; but the Sahidic
and Ethiopic _datur_, after the διδόμενον of Zacagni’s Euthalius, derived
from Luke xxii. 19. Theodoret himself knew of both forms. The main
strength of κλώμενον rests on Patristic evidence. Mr. Forster has added to
our previous store the “conclusive testimony” of Basil (Forster, p. xxvi)
and of Athanasius himself (_ibid._ p. xvii), which is better than
Theodoret’s report at second hand; and thus too Chrysostom in three
places, one manuscript of Euthalius, John Damascene, the Patriarch
Germanus (A.D. 715, _ibid._ p. xix), Œcumenius and Theophylact. Mr.
Forster is perfectly justified also in pressing the evidence of the
Primitive Liturgies, in all of which κλώμενον occurs in the most sacred
words of Institution (_ibid._ pp. xx, xxi). Whatsoever change these
services have received in the course of ages, they have probably been
little altered since the fourth century, and very well established must
the word have then been to have found a place in them all. On the whole,
therefore, we submit this important text as a proof that the united
readings of אABC are sometimes at variance, not only with the more modern
codices united, but with the text of the oldest versions and most
illustrious Fathers. We confess, however, that in ver. 29 ἀναξίως (compare
ver. 27) and τοῦ _κύ_ look too much like glosses to be maintained
confidently against the evidence of א*ABC*, 17, (67**) and some
manuscripts of the Ethiopic.

35. 1 COR. xiii. 3. ἐὰν παραδῶ τὸ σῶμά μου ἵνα καυθήσωμαι, “though I give
my body to be burned.” Here we find the undoubtedly false reading
καυχήσωμαι in the three chief codices אAB and in 17, adopted by Drs.
Westcott and Hort(421), and it is said to have been favoured by Lachmann
in 1831, by Tregelles in 1873 (A. W. Tyler, Bibl. Sacra, 1873, p. 502).
Jerome testifies that in his time “apud Graecos ipsos ipsa exemplaria esse
diversa,” and preferred καυχήσωμαι (though all copies of the Latin have
_ut ardeam_ or _ut ardeat_), which is said to be countenanced by the Roman
Ethiopic: the case of the Bohairic is stated by Bp. Lightfoot (Chap.
IV)(422). Tischendorf cites Ephraem (ii. 112) for καυχήσομαι. This
variation, which involves the change of but one letter, is worth notice,
as showing that the best uncial MSS. are not always to be depended upon,
and sometimes are “blemished with errors” (Wordsworth, N. T., _ad loc._).
As a parallel use, Theodotion’s version of Dan. iii. 8 (παρέδωκαν τὰ
σώματα αὐτῶν εἰς πῦρ) is very pertinent: and for the punishment of burning
alive, as practised in those times, consult (if it be thought needful)
Joseph., Antiq. xvii. 6, 4 (Hort). Καυχήσωμαι may have obtained the more
credit, inasmuch as each of the other principal readings, namely
Tischendorf’s καυθήσομαι (DEFGL, 44, 47, 71, 80, 104, 113**, 253**, 254,
255, 257, 260, 265, with nine of Matthaei’s, and some others: καθήσομαι
244) and καυθήσωμαι (CK, 29, 37, and many others, Chrysostom, Theodoret,
&c.) of Lachmann and Tregelles, are anomalous, the former in respect to
mood, the latter to tense. The important cursive 73 has καυθήσεται with
some Latin copies: Codd. 1, 108*, Basil (perhaps Cyprian) adopt καυθῇ: the
Syriac (ܕܢܐܘܕ or ܕܘܐܢܕ), and I suppose the Arabic, will suit either of
these last. Evidence seems to preponderate on the side of καυθήσομαι, but
in the case of these itacisms manuscripts are very fallacious we know.
Such a subjunctive future as καυθήσωμαι, however, I should have been
disposed to question, had it not passed muster with much better scholars
than I am: but to illustrate it, as Tregelles does (An Account of the
Printed Text, p. 117, note), from ἵνα δώσῃ Apoc. viii. 3, is to accomplish
little, since δώσηι is the reading of אAC, 1 (although Erasmus has δώσῃ
with BP, 6, 7, 91, 98, and the Complutensian), 13, 28, 29, 30, 37, 40, 48,
68, 87, 94, 95, 96 (δωσι 8, 26, 27: δω 14), together with the best copies
of Andreas, and is justly approved by Lachmann and Tischendorf, nay even
by Tregelles himself in his second revision (1872). It seems most likely
that in both places ἵνα, the particle of design, is followed by the
_indicative_ future, as (with Meyer and Bp. Ellicott) I think to be
clearly the case in Eph. vi. 3. In John xvii. 3 even Tregelles adopts ἵνα
γινώσκουσιν(423).

36. 1 COR. xv. 51. We have now come to a passage which has perplexed
Biblical students from St. Jerome’s time, and has exercised the keen
judgement of Bp. Pearson in his Exposition of the seventh article of the
Apostles’ Creed. There is but little doubt that the Received text, as
rendered in our English versions, is the true reading: (a) Πάντες μὲν οὐ
κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα. Some of the leading authorities
omit μέν, a few put δέ or γάρ in its place, but, with this trifling
exception, the clause stands thus in B, the third hand of D, and
consequently in EKLP, 37, 47, 265, and indeed nearly all the cursives, as
in some manuscripts known to Jerome, and has the support of Theodore of
Heraclea and Apollinarius: and so the two Syriac, the Bohairic (the
Sahidic not being extant), the Gothic, and one edition of the Ethiopic
version. For the same form may be cited Ephraem the Syrian, Caesarius,
Gregory of Nyssa, and Chrysostom (often) in the fourth century; Theodoret
and Euthalius in the fifth century; Andreas of Caesarea in the sixth; John
Damascene in the eighth. A modification of this main and true reading (b)
Οὐ πάντες κοιμησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα is supported only by Origen
and some copies known to Jerome: it is only a clearer way of bringing out
the foregoing sense. The next form also hardly enters into competition,
(c) Πάντες [μὲν] ἀναστησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγήσομεθα: it is supported
by the first hand of D, by the Vulgate (whose manuscripts vary between
_resurgimus_ and _resurgemus_, while _m_ omits the negative), by
Tertullian and Hilary. Even the Latin versions of EF maintain it against
their own Greek, while Jerome and Augustine note it as a point wherein the
Latin copies diverge from the Greek. A fourth variation is due to Cod. A
alone, (d) Οἱ πάντες μὲν κοιμησόμεθα, οἱ πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα, the
second οι being altered by the first hand, and ου by the same or a very
early hand super-added after οἱ πάντες δέ: but this is only a correction
of transcriptional error. The real variation consists in the transfer of
the negative from the first clause to the second, (e) Πάντες [μὲν]
κοιμηθησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα of אC(F)G, 17, and apparently of
A also by intention. This last is discussed by Jerome, who alleges in its
favour Didymus and Acacius of Caesarea; it appears also in Origen, Cyril
of Alexandria, and in copies known to Pelagius and Maximus, but their
testimony fluctuates. In its favour are quoted the Armenian and one form
of the Ethiopic, but all the Latin prefer (c) except the interlinear
version of G, and the rendering set above the Vulgate text of F, which is
assimilated to the latter. The Complutensian margin in a special note
chronicles one other change, Πάντες μὲν οὖν κοιμηθησόμεθα, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντες
ἀλλαγησόμεθα, but this is bye-work. “The objection made in ancient times
to the Received reading was, that the _wicked_ would not be changed,
namely, glorified; but St. Paul is here speaking only of the resurrection
of the Just” (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth): compare 1 Thess. iv. 14-17. Thus Cod.
B and the cursives for once unite to convict of falsehood a change which
men were pleased to devise in order to evade a difficulty of their own
making.

37. EPH. v. 14. It is instructive to observe how a reading, pretty widely
diffused in the fourth century, though not obtaining much acceptance even
at that period, has almost entirely disappeared from extant codices. In
the place of ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ χριστός the first hand of D, followed of
course by E (Sangermanensis) and the Latin versions of both, exhibits an
interesting variant ἐπιψαύσεις τοῦ χριστοῦ, _continges Christum_. Jerome
had heard of it in the form ἐπιψαύσει, id est _continget te Christus_, but
refused to vouch for it, as do Chrysostom and Theodoret, though they treat
it with somewhat more consideration. The Latin interpreter of Origen
(against his own Greek twice, and the Latin once), with Victorinus and the
writer cited as Ambrosiaster, adopt it as genuine. Augustine (on Psalm
iii) has _et continget te_ once, but once elsewhere the common reading.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, in the Latin version of his Commentary on St.
Paul’s Epistles, recently edited by Dr. Swete from two manuscripts, one at
Amiens (Cod. 68) brought from Corbey [x], a second from Cuza, now
Harleian. 3063 [ix], after translating _inluminabit tibi Christus_, goes
on to say “alii _continget te Christus_ legerunt; habet autem nullam
sequentiam” (Swete, vol. i. p. 180). The variation of D* is surely too
curious to be lost sight of altogether. “The two imperatives [ἔγειρε and
ἀνάστα] doubtless suggested that the following future would be in the
second person, the required σ stood next after ἐπιφαύσει, easily read as
ἐπιψαύσει, and then the rest would follow accordingly.” Hort, Notes, p.
125. Such are the harmless recreations of a critical genius.

38. PHIL. ii. 1. εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος, εἴ τινα σπλάγχνα. For τινα, to
the critic’s great perplexity, τις is found in אABCD EFGKLP, that is, in
_all_ the uncials extant at this place. As regards the cursives nearly the
same must be said. Of the seventeen collated by Scrivener, eleven read τις
(29, 30, 252, 254, 255, 257, 258, 260, 265, 266, 277), and six τι (31,
104, 221, 244, 253, 256). Mill enumerates sixteen others that give τις,
one (40) that has τι: Griesbach reckons forty-five in favour of τις, eight
(including Cod. 4) for τι, to which Scholz adds a few more (18, 46, 72,
74). Thus _am. fuld. tol._ of the Vulgate render _si quid viscera_, for
the more usual _si qua viscera_. One cursive (109) and a manuscript of
Theodoret have τε. Basil, Chrysostom (in manuscript) and others read τις,
as do the Complutensian, the Aldine (1518), Erasmus’ first four, and R.
Stephen’s first two editions. In fact it may be stated that no manuscript
whatever has been cited for τινα, which is not therefore likely to be
found in many. Theodore of Mopsuestia alone, in his Latin version
published by Dr. Swete (vol. i. p. 214), has _si qua et viscera_ against
the Vulgate. In spite of what was said above with regard to far weaker
cases, it is impossible to blame editors for putting τις into the text
here before σπλάνχνα: to have acted otherwise (as Tischendorf fairly
observes) would have been “_grammatici quam editoris partes agere_.” Yet
we may believe the reading to be as false as it is intolerable, and to
afford us another proof of the early and (as the cursives show) the
well-nigh universal corruption of our copies in some minute particulars.
Of course Clement and later Fathers give τινα, indeed it is surprising
that any cite otherwise; but, _in the absence of definite documentary
proof_, this can hardly be regarded as genuine. Probably St. Paul wrote τι
(the reading of about nineteen cursives), which would readily be corrupted
into τις, by reason of the σ following (ΤΙΣΠΛΑΓΧΝΑ), and the τις which had
just preceded. See also Moulton’s “Winer,” p. 661, and note 3.

39. COL. ii. 2. τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ χριστοῦ, “of the
mystery of God the Father, and of Christ.” The reading of B (approved by
Lachmann, by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, by Tregelles, Westcott and
Hort, Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, and Bp. Ellicott), τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ θεοῦ
χριστοῦ (“ita cod. nihil interponens inter θεοῦ et χριστοῦ,” Mai, 2nd
ed.(424)), has “every appearance of being the original reading, and that
from which the many perplexing variations have arisen” (Canon II). At
present it stands in great need of confirmation, since Hilary (de Trin.
ix) alone supports it (but καὶ χριστοῦ Cyril), though the Scriptural
character of the expression is upheld by the language of ch. i. 27 just
preceding, and by the Received text in 1 Tim. iii. 16. Some, who feel a
difficulty in understanding how χριστοῦ was removed from the text, if it
ever had a place there, conceive that the verse should end with θεοῦ, all
additions, including χριστοῦ the simplest, being _accretions_ to the
genuine passage. These alleged accretions are τοῦ θεοῦ ὅ ἐστι χριστός,
manifestly an expansion of χριστοῦ and derived from ch. i. 27; τοῦ θεοῦ
πατρὸς τοῦ χριστοῦ: τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ χριστοῦ, the final form of
the Received text. Now, of these four readings, τοῦ θεοῦ the shortest,
and, according to Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf in his seventh edition,
Alford, and Dr. Green, the true one, is found only in the late uncial P,
and in a few, though confessedly good, cursives: 37, 71, 80*, 116 (καὶ
θεοῦ 23), and the important second hand of 67; witnesses too few and
feeble, unless we consent to put our third Canon of internal evidence to a
rather violent use. Of the longer readings, ὅ ἐστιν χριστός is favoured by
D (though obelized by the second hand, which thus would read only τοῦ
θεοῦ), _d_ _e_ (whose parallel Greek speaks differently), by Augustine and
Vigilius of Thapsus, but apparently by no cursives. The form best vouched
for appears to be that of א*AC, 4, of the Sahidic according to one of the
readings of Griesbach, and of an Arabic codex of Tischendorf, τοῦ θεοῦ
πατρὸς τοῦ (א* omits τοῦ) χριστοῦ. To these words “_ihu_” is simply added
by _f_ (FG, _g_ are unfortunately lost here) and by other manuscripts of
the Vulgate (_am. fuld._, &c.), though the Clementine edition has “Dei
patris et Christi Jesu,” the Complutensian in the Latin “dei et patris et
C.J.” With the Clementine Vulgate agree the Bohairic, and (omitting ἰησοῦ)
the Peshitto Syriac, Arabic, 47, 73, Chrysostom; while 41, 115, 213, 221,
253* (τοῦ θ. καὶ π. τοῦ χ.), so far strengthen the case of אAC. The
Received text is found in (apparently) the great mass of cursives, in D
(_tertiâ manu_), EKL, the Harkleian Syriac (but the καί after πατρός
marked with one of Harkel’s asterisks), Theodoret, John Damascene and
others. The minor variations, τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν χριστῷ of Clement and
Ambrosiaster, τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἐν χριστῷ of 17, uphold D*, as may the Ethiopic
(“domini quod de Christo”): to the reading of Cod. 17 Zohrab’s or the
Venice Armenian (A.D. 1789) simply adds “Jesu.” We also find “dei Christi
Jesu patris et domini” in _tol._, “dei patris et domini nostri Christi” in
_demid._, “dei patris in Christo Jesu” in Uscan’s Armenian; but these
deserve not attention. Theodore of Mopsuestia (Swete, vol. i. p. 283), has
_mysterii Dei Patris et Christi_, which need not imply the omission of καί
before πατρός.

On reviewing the whole mass of conflicting evidence, we may unhesitatingly
reject the shortest form τοῦ θεοῦ, some of whose maintainers do not
usually found their text on cursive manuscripts almost exclusively. We
would gladly adopt τοῦ θεοῦ χριστοῦ, so powerfully do internal
considerations plead in its favour, were it but a little better supported:
the important doctrine which it declares, Scriptural and Catholic as that
is, will naturally make us only the more cautious in receiving it
unreservedly. Yet the more we think over this reading, the more it grows
upon us, as the source from which all the rest are derived. At present,
perhaps, τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ χριστοῦ may be looked upon as the most
strongly attested, but in the presence of so many opposing probabilities,
a very small weight might suffice to turn the critical scale.

40. 1 THESS. ii. 7. We have here a various reading, consisting of the
prefix of a single letter, which seems to introduce into a simple verse
what is little short of an absurdity. Instead of ἤπιοι of the Received
text, of Tischendorf and Tregelles, we find νήπιοι adopted by Lachmann as
a consequence of his own stringent rules, and by Westcott and Hort of
their own free will, unless indeed it be said that they also are working
in chains of their own forging. How St. Paul can compare himself to a babe
in one clause of the verse and to its nurse in the other would be quite
unintelligible if Origen, who read νήπιοι, had not instructed us that the
nurse is playing at baby for the babe’s amusement (ἐγένετο νήπιος καὶ
παραπλήσιος τροφῷ θαλπούσῃ τὸ ἑαυτῆς παιδίον καὶ λαλούσῃ λόγους ὡς παιδίον
διὰ τὸ παιδίον, iii. 662). It needs but the exercise of common sense to
brush away such a fancy as this, and the state of the evidence will show
us how the best authorities are sometimes hopelessly in the wrong; for
νήπιοι is the form favoured by א*BC*D*FG, 5, 23, 26, 31* 37, 39**, 74, 87,
109**, 114, 115, 137, 219*, 252, and is easily accounted for by the
accidental reduplication of the letter after Ν in ΗΜΕΝΗΠΙΟΙ (_see_ p. 10).
The Vulgate and the Latin versions accompanying DEFG (_e_ testifying
against its own Greek) have _parvuli_, and so the Bohairic, Ethiopic,
Clement of Alexandria (ἤπιος οὖν ὁ νήπιος), Ambrosiaster, Jerome, and
Augustine very expressly. On the other hand ἤπιος is vouched for by
א**AC**D**EKLP, 17, 47, 61, 260, and by all cursives not named above, by
both Syriac versions, by the Sahidic and by its follower the Bashmuric, by
the Armenian, by Clement and Origen elsewhere (but their inconsistency
means nothing but carelessness), Basil, Chrysostom, Theodore of
Mopsuestia(425), Theodoret, Euthalius, Œcumenius, John Damascene and the
catenae. Theophylact knew of and expounds both readings. It is almost
pathetic to mark Dr. Hort’s brave struggle to maintain a cause which in
this instance is simply hopeless. “The second ν might be inserted or
omitted with equal facility; but the change from the bold image to the
tame and facile adjective is characteristic of the difference between St.
Paul and the Syrian revisers (cf. 1 Cor. iii. 1, 2; ix. 20, &c.). It is
not of harshness that St. Paul here declares himself innocent, but of
flattery and the rhetorical arts by which gain or repute is procured, his
adversaries having doubtless put this malicious interpretation upon his
language among the Thessalonians” (Notes, p. 128). For his alleged Syrian
revision, _see_ above, p. 287.

41. 1 TIM. iii. 16. Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί. This text has proved the
_crux criticorum_. The Vatican has now failed us, but all manuscripts (D
_tertiâ manu_, KLP, 300 cursives) read Θεός with the common text, except
א*A*? C*? FG, 17, 73, which have ὅς, D* which (after the Latin versions)
has ὅ: the Leicester codex, 37, gives ὁ _θς_ (_see_ facsimile No. 40, l.
1), as if to combine two of the variations(426). In the abridged form of
writing usual in all manuscripts, even the oldest, the difference between
ΟΣ and _ΘΣ_ consists only in the presence or absence of two horizontal
strokes; hence it is rather to be regretted than wondered at that the true
reading of each of the uncial authorities for the former is more or less
open to question. Respecting Cod. א we have the statement of Tischendorf,
a most consummate judge in such matters: “_corrector aliquis, qui omnium
ultimus textum attigit, saeculi ferè duodecimi_, [_pro_ ος _primae manûs_]
reposuit θεος, _sed hoc tam cautè ut antiquissimam scripturam intactam
relinqueret_” (Notitia Cod. Sinait. p. 20), which is unequivocal enough:
_see_ facsimile No. 13 in Scrivener’s “Collation of Cod. Sin.,” and
Introd., p. xxv: also Plate iv, facsimile No. 11 c of this volume, wherein
the twelfth century θε above the line, the new accent over ΟΣ, and the
triple points to denote insertion, are very conspicuous. Nor is there any
real doubt respecting the kindred codices FG. From the photographed
title-page of the published “Cod. Augiensis” (F) l. 9, and Matthaei’s
facsimile of G (N. T., vol. i. p. 4)(427), it will be seen that while
there is not the least trace of the horizontal line within the circle of
omicron, the line above the circle in _both_ (_ΟΣ_) is not horizontal, but
rises a little towards the right: such a line not unfrequently in F,
oftener in G, is used (as here) to indicate the rough breathing: it
sometimes stands even for the _lenis_ (e.g. ἱδιον 1 Cor. vi. 18; vii. 4;
37; ἱσσα Phil. ii. 6). Those who never saw Cod. C must depend on
Tischendorf’s Excursus (Cod. Ephraemi, pp. 39-42) and his facsimile,
imitated in our Plate x. No. 24. His decision is that the primitive
reading was ΟΣ, but he was _the first to discern a cross line within_ Ο
(facsimile, l. 3, eighth letter); which, however, from the colour
(“_subnigra_”) he judges to belong to the second or third hand, rising
upwards (a tendency rather exaggerated than otherwise in our Plate); while
the coarse line above, and the musical notes (denoting a word of two
syllables) below, are plainly of the third hand. This verdict, especially
delivered by such a man, we know not how to gainsay, and merely point to
the fact that the cross line in Θ, the ninth letter further on, which is
certainly _primâ manu_, also ascends towards the right. Cod. A, however, I
have examined at least twenty times within as many years, and yet am not
quite able to assent to the conclusion of Mr. Cowper when he says “we hope
that no one will think it possible, either with or without a lens, to
ascertain the truth of the matter by any inspection of the Codex” (Cod.
Alex., Introd. p. xviii). On the contrary, seeing (as every one must see
for himself) with my own eyes, I have always felt convinced with Berriman
and the earlier collators that Cod. A read _ΘΣ_, and, so far as I am
shaken in my conviction at all, it is less by the adverse opinion even of
Bp. Ellicott(428), than by the more recently discovered fact that ΟΣ
(which is adopted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson,
Tregelles, Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Hort and Westcott), was read in א
as early as the fourth century.

The secondary witnesses, versions, and certain of the Fathers, also
powerfully incline this way, and they deserve peculiar attention in a case
like the present. The Peshitto (ܕ) and Harkleian (text and ܗܘ in margin)
Syriac have a relative (whether ὅς or ὅ); so have the Armenian, the Roman
Ethiopic, and Erpenius’ Arabic. The Gothic supports ὅς; the Sahidic,
Bohairic, and Platt’s Ethiopic favour ὅς or ὅ: all Latin versions (even
_f_ _g_ whose Greek is _ΟΣ_) read “quod,” while θεός appears only in the
Slavonic (which usually resembles KL and the later copies) and the
Polyglott Arabic. Of ecclesiastical writers the best witness for the
Received text is Ignatius, Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένου (“Ephes.” 19),
both in the Greek and Old Latin, although the Syriac abbreviator seems to
have τοῦ υἱοῦ: the later interpolator expanded the clause thus: θεοῦ ὡς
ἀνθρώπου φαινομένου, καὶ ἀνθρώπου ὡς θεοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος. Hippolytus (Adv.
Not. 17: fl. 220) makes a “free reference” to it in the words Οὗτος
προελθὼν εἰς κόσμον, θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη, and elsewhere with ὁ before
προελθών. The testimony of Dionysius of Alexandria (265) can no longer be
upheld (Tregelles, Horne, iv. p. 339), that of Chrysostom to the same
effect is by some deemed precarious, since his manuscripts fluctuate, and
Cramer’s catena on 1 Tim. p. 31 is adverse(429). The evidence borne for
θεός by Didymus (de Trin.) and Gregory Nyssen(430) is beyond all doubt;
that of later writers, Theodoret, John Damascene, Theophylact, Œcumenius
(as might be looked for) is clear and express. The chief Latins, Hilary,
Jerome, Augustine, &c., exhibit either _qui_ or _quod_: Cyril of
Alexandria (for so we must conclude both from manuscripts and his
context)(431), Epiphanius (_twice_), Theodore of Mopsuestia (in
Latin)(432), and others of less weight, or whose language is less direct,
are cited in critical editions of the N. T. in support of a relative; add
to which that θεός is not quoted by Fathers (e.g. Cyprian, p. 35; Bentleii
Critica Sacra, p. 67) in many places where it might fairly be looked for;
though this argument must not be pushed too far. The idle tale, propagated
by Liberatus the Deacon of Carthage, and from him repeated by Hincmar and
Victor, that Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople (A.D. 506) was
expelled by the Emperor Anastasius for corrupting Ο or ΟΣ into ΘΣ,
although lightly credited by Dr. Tregelles (An Account of the Printed
Text, p. 229) and even by Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 133), is sufficiently
refuted by Bp. Pearson (On the Creed, Art. ii. p. 128, 3rd edition).

On a review of the whole mass of external proof, bearing in mind too that
ΟΣ (from which ὅ of D* is an evident corruption) is grammatically much the
_harder_ reading after μυστήριον (Canon I), and that it might easily pass
into ΘΣ, we must consider it probable (indeed, if we were sure of the
testimony of the first-rate uncials, we might regard it as certain) that
the second of our rules of Comparative Criticism must here be applied, and
θεός of the more recent many yield place to ὅς of the ancient few(433).
Yet even then the force of the Patristic testimony remains untouched. Were
we to concede to Dr. Hort’s unproved hypothesis that Didymus, de
Trinitate, abounds in what he calls Syrian readings, and that they are not
rare with Gregory Nyssen (Notes, p. 133), the clear references of Ignatius
and Hippolytus are not thus to be disposed of. I dare not pronounce θεός a
corruption.

This decision of Dr. Scrivener would probably have been considerably
strengthened in favour of θεός, if the above passage had been written
after, instead of before, the composition and appearance of Dean Burgon’s
elaborate and patient examination of all the evidence, which occupies
seventy-seven pages in his “Revision Revised” (pp. 424-501). Dean Burgon
shows at length that after about 1770 the passage in A became so worn that
it has been since that time increasingly difficult to see it; he casts
much doubt upon the witness of C for ὅς, which Mr. Hoskier (Cod. 604,
Appendix J), after a long examination of the MS., not only confirms, but
actually removes in the opposite direction by claiming C as a witness for
θεός; he maintains with reason that the transverse line in F and G is the
sign of contraction; he exhibits the consentient testimony of the
cursives; he claims upon the testimony of the scholar who was editing the
Harkleian that version, as also the Georgian and Slavonic; and he adds to
the Fathers enumerated above, besides doubtful testimonies, Gregory of
Nazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, Diodorus of Tarsus,
Euthalius, Macedonius, Epiphanius of Catana, Theodorus Studita, Euthymius,
some scholia, the author of Περὶ θείας σαρκώσεως, and an anonymous
author,—making some fifty testimonies in all.

42. 1 TIM. vi. 7. By omitting δῆλον of the Received text, Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, produce a Greek sentence as
inconsequential as the most thorough votaries of the “harder reading” can
wish for: “For we brought nothing into the world, because neither can we
carry anything out.” Dr. Hort sees, of course, that St. Paul could not
reason in this fashion, and says that “The text [i.e. _his_ text, without
δῆλον] is manifestly the parent of all the other readings, which are
futile attempts to smooth away its difficulty. A primitive corruption must
lurk somewhere,”—and then ventures on the awkward suggestion that ΟΤΙ
arose from the transcriptional repetition of the last syllable of κοσμον
(ΟΝ being read as ΟΤΙ), a guess which we observe that Dr. Westcott does
not care to vouch for (Notes, p. 134). But why create a difficulty at all?
Cod. B, which ends in Heb. ix. 14, is now lost to us, and of the rest
δῆλον is omitted in א*AFG and its Latin version _g_ with copies of the
Vulgate referred to by Lachmann, the Bohairic (καί for ὅτι), Sahidic; the
Armenian and both Ethiopic varying with the Bohairic. Instead of δῆλον D*,
_m_, _fuld._, Cyprian and the Gothic have ἀληθές, and the printed Vulgate
with its codices (even _f_) and Ambrosiaster _haud dubium_, which will
suit δῆλον well enough, as will ܘܕܝܥܐ (or ܐܥܝܕܘ) (_et notum est_) of the
Syriac versions. For δῆλον itself stand א**D** (_hiat_ E) KLP, all the
cursives save one, and of the Fathers Basil, Macarius, Chrysostom,
Euthalius, Theodoret, and John Damascene, evidence which we should have
liked to see a little stronger.

43. PHILEM. 12. For ὃν ἀνέπεμψα; σὺ δὲ αὐτόν, τουτέστι τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα,
προσλαβοῦ of the Received text, the critics, Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Tregelles (but not his margin), Bp. Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort read ὃν
ἀνέπεμψά σοι, αὐτόν, τουτέστι τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα, omitting προσλαβοῦ, which
they judge to have been interpolated from ver. 17. Tregelles and Bp.
Lightfoot, moreover, put a full stop after σοι, so that αὐτόν is regarded
as an “accusative suspended; the sentence changes its form and loses
itself in a number of dependent clauses; and the main point is not resumed
till ver. 17 προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐμέ, the grammar having been meanwhile
dislocated.” So Lightfoot, who vindicates the emphatic place he has
assigned to αὐτόν by the not very close parallels John ix. 21, 23; Eph. i.
22. Manuscripts, of course, will not help us much in punctuation, but
Codd. א*A, 17 are very good witnesses for σοι in the room of σὺ δέ and for
the omission of προσλαβοῦ, a simple, although somewhat rude, construction
well worthy of attention. For σοι, with or without σὺ δέ following, we
have the additional support of C*DE, _d_ _e_ and _g_ against its own
Greek, the Clementine Vulgate and such Vulgate codices as _demid.
harl._2**, the Peshitto Syriac, Bohairic, Armenian, Ethiopic, &c. For the
omission of προσλαβοῦ, which is of course the chief variation, besides
א*A, 17 are cited F and G in the Greek but not in their Latin versions, 37
and others setting it before αὐτόν. It is found in all the rest,
D**E**KLP, all other cursives, and (as might have been anticipated) the
versions, as well Latin as Syriac, Bohairic (which reads as Cod. 37),
Gothic, and Ethiopic: _g_, the Armenian and Theodoret put it after αὐτόν.



Fourth Series. Catholic Epistles.


44. JAMES iv. 4. Μοιχοὶ καί should be omitted before μοιχαλίδες on the
testimony of א*AB, 13. The Peshitto, Bohairic, Latin, Armenian, and both
Ethiopic versions have “adulterers” (_fornicatores ff_) only, but since no
Greek copy thus reads, we must suppose that their translators were
startled by the bold imagery so familiar to the Hebrew prophets (Isa. liv.
5; Jer. ii. 2; Ezek. xvi. 32 are cited from a host of similar passages by
Wordsworth) and endeavoured to dilute it in this way. Tischendorf would
join μοιχαλίδες with δαπανήσητε ver. 3, alleging the point or stop placed
after it in Cod. B: but this point is not found in Vercellone’s edition,
although he leaves a small space before οὐκ. The full form Μοιχοὶ καὶ
μοιχαλίδες of אcKLP, the later Syriac, and all other known copies, is
evidently a correction of early scribes.

45. JAMES iv. 5. The variation between κατῴκισεν and κατῴκησεν is plainly
to be attributed to a mere itacism, whichsoever is to be regarded as the
true form. We find ι in אAB, 101, 104 only, nor is it quite accurate to
say with Tischendorf that collators are apt to overlook such points. In
KLP, and apparently in all other manuscripts of every class, η is read,
and so the catenas, with Theophylact and Œcumenius, understand this
difficult passage. That all the versions (Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, &c.)
thus render seems decisive in favour of η. The combination of אAB, however
strong, has repeatedly been seen not to be irresistible; and while it must
be confessed that in our existing Greek copies the interchange of ι and η
(though found in Cod. A) is not an itacism of the very oldest type (p.
10), yet here the testimony of the versions refers it back to the second
century. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, combine in
reading κατῴκισεν.

46. 1 PET. i. 23. Here we have a remarkable example to illustrate what we
saw in the cases of Rom. viii. 20; 2 Cor. iii. 3, Phil. ii. 1, that the
chief uncials sometimes conspire in readings which are unquestionably
false, and can hardly have arisen independently of each other. For σπορᾶς
φθαρτῆς Codd. אAC have φθορᾶσ φθαρτῆς, the scribe’s eye wandering in
writing σπορᾶς to the beginning of the next word: Cod. B is free from this
vile corruption. When Mill records the variation for Cod. A, he adds (as
well he might), “dormitante scribâ:” but that the same gross error should
be found in three out of the four oldest codices, _and in no other_, is
very suggestive, and not a little perplexing to false theorists.

47. 1 PET. iii. 15. Κύριον δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν. For
θεόν we find χριστόν (a change of considerable doctrinal importance)(434)
in אABC, 7, 8 (Stephen’s ια´), 13, 33 (_margin_), 69, 137, 182, 184 (but
not 221: _see_ p. 310, note 2), Apost. 1 (_ιν_ _χν_ ἡμῶν) with its Arabic
translation. Thus too read both Syriac versions, the Sahidic, Bohairic,
Armenian (τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ χριστόν), Erpenius’ Arabic, the Vulgate, Clement
of Alexandria, Fulgentius, and Bede. Jerome has “Jesum Christum:” the
Ethiopic and one other (Auctor de promiss., fourth century) omit both
words. Against this very strong case we can set up for the common text
only the more recent uncials KLP (not more than seven uncials contain this
Epistle), the mass of later cursives (ten out of Scrivener’s twelve, also
Wake 12, or Cod. 193), the Polyglott Arabic, Slavonic, Theophylact, and
Œcumenius, authorities of the ninth century and downwards. It is a real
pleasure to me in this instance to express my cordial agreement with
Tregelles (and so read Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort), when he
says, “Thus the reading χριστόν may be relied on _confidently_” (An
Account of the Printed Text, p. 285). I would further allege this text as
one out of many proofs that the great uncials seldom or never conspire in
exhibiting a really valuable departure from the later codices, unless
supported by some of the best of the cursives themselves. See, however,
Acts xiii. 32.

48. 2 PET. ii. 13. The resemblance between the second epistle of St. Peter
and that of St. Jude is too close to be unobserved by the most careless
reader, and the supposition that the elder Apostle’s letter was in Jude’s
hands when he wrote his own is that which best meets the circumstances of
the case. The σπῖλοι of the present verse, for example, looks like the
origin of σπιλάδες in Jude 12, where the latter word is employed in a
signification almost unprecedented in classical Greek, though the Orphic
poems have been cited for its bearing the sense of “spots,” which all the
ancient versions rightly agree with our Authorized Bible in attributing to
it. Bearing in mind the same verse of St. Jude, it seems plain that
ἀπάταις of the Received text cannot be accepted as true, as well because
it affords so poor a meaning in connexion with ἐντρυφῶντες and
συνευωχούμενοι, as because the later writer must have seen ἀγάπαις in his
model, when he paraphrased it by οἱ ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες
συνευωχούμενοι. For this change of two letters we have the support of Cod.
A (as corrected by the first hand) and B alone of the manuscripts, but of
the versions, the Latin Speculum _m_ which in these later epistles is
strangely loose, yet cannot be misunderstood in the present place, the
Vulgate, the Sahidic version, the Ethiopic, the Syriac printed with the
Peshitto(435), and the margin of the Harkleian version. Add to these
Ephraem and the Latin author of the tract “de singularitate clericorum,”
both of the fourth century. The little group of cursives 27, 29, and the
second hand of 66 read ἀγνοίαις; but ἀπάταις, _nescio quo sensu_(436),
still cleaves to the text of Tischendorf and of Westcott and Hort, and to
the margin of Tregelles, who in the text prefers ἀγάπαις with Lachmann and
Westcott and Hort’s margin. Codd. אA (in its original form) CKLP, all
other cursives, the catenas (Cod. 36, &c.), the Bohairic, Armenian, and
Harkleian versions also have ἀπάταις, and so Theophylact and Œcumenius,
but hardly Jerome as cited by Tischendorf.

49. 1 JOHN ii. 23. The English reader will have observed that the latter
clause of this verse, “_but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father
also_,” is printed in italics in our Authorized version, this being the
only instance in the New Testament wherein variety of reading is thus
denoted by the translators, who derived both the words and this method of
indicating their doubtful authenticity from the “Great Bible” of
1539(437). The corresponding Greek ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει
(which appears to have been lost out of some copies by Homoeoteleuton),
was first inserted in Beza’s Greek Testament in 1582(438), it is approved
by all modern editors (Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Tregelles, Westcott and Hort), and, though still absent from the _textus
receptus_, is unquestionably genuine. This is just such a point as
versions are best capable of attesting. The “Great Bible” had no doubt
taken the clause from the Latin Vulgate, in whose printed editions and
chief manuscripts it is found (e.g. in _am. fuld. demid. tol. harl._), as
also in both Syriac, both Egyptian (the Sahidic not for certain), the
Armenian, Ethiopic, and Erpenius’ (not the Polyglott) Arabic version. Of
manuscripts the great uncials אABC (with P) contain the clause, the later
KL omit it. Of the cursives only two of Scrivener’s (182, 225) have it,
and another (183) _secundâ manu_: from twelve or more of them it is
absent, as also from seven of Matthaei’s: but of the other cursives it is
present in at least thirty, whereof 3, 5, 13, 66** (_marg._), 68, 69, 98
are valuable. It is also acknowledged by Clement, Origen (_thrice_),
Eusebius, both Cyrils, Theophylact, and the Western Fathers. The younger
Cyril, possibly Euthalius, and one or two others have ὁμολογεῖ for the
final ἔχει: the Old Latin _m_, Cyprian, and Hilary repeat τὸν υἱὸν καί
before τὸν πατέρα ἔχει. The critical skill of Beza must not be estimated
very highly, yet in this instance he might well have been imitated by the
Elzevir editors.

50. 1 JOHN v. 7, 8. Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ
Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα; καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. καὶ τρεῖς
εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ], τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα; καὶ
οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

The authenticity of the words within brackets will, perhaps, no longer be
maintained by any one whose judgement ought to have weight; but this
result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which
helped to keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical
studies, and led to investigations into collateral points of the highest
importance, such as the sources of the Received text, the manuscripts
employed by R. Stephen, the origin and value of the Velesian readings, and
other points. A critical _résumé_ of the whole discussion might be
profitably undertaken by some competent scholar; we can at present touch
only upon the chief heads of this great debate(439).

The two verses appear in the early editions, with the following notable
variations from the common text, C standing for the Complutensian, Er. for
one or more of Erasmus’ five editions. Ver. 7.—ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ _usque ad_ τῇ
γῇ ver. 8, Er. 1, 2.—ὁ _prim. et __ secund_. Er. 3. [_non_ C. Er. 4, 5]. +
και (_post_ πατήρ) C.—τό Er. 3. πνεῦμα ἅγιον Er. 3, 4, 5.—οὗτοι C. + εισ
το (_ante_ εν) C. Ver. 8, επί της γης C.—τὸ _ter_ Er. 3, 4, 5 [_habent_ C.
Er. 1, 2].—καὶ οἱ τρεῖς _ad_ _fin. vers._ C. They are found, including the
clause from ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ to ἐν τῇ γῇ in no more than three Greek
manuscripts, and those of very late date, one of them (Cod. Ravianus,
Evan. 110) being a mere worthless copy from printed books; and in the
margin of a fourth, in a hand as late as the sixteenth century. The real
witnesses are the Codex Montfortianus, Evan. 61, Act. 34 (whose history
was described above, p. 187(440)); Cod. Vat.-Ottob. 298 (Act. 162), and,
for the margin, a Naples manuscript (Act. 83 or 173, q. v.). On comparing
these slight and scanty authorities with the Received text we find that
they present the following variations: ver. 7. ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (_pro_ ἐν
τῷ οὐρανῷ) 162.—ὁ _prim. et secund._ 34, 162.—τό 34, 162. _πνα_ ἅγιον 34,
162.—οὗτοι 162. + εἰς τό (_ante_ ἕν) 162. Ver. 8. εἰσί 73 _marg._ ἐπὶ τῆς
γῆς 162.—τό _ter_ 34.—καί (_post_ _πνα_) 34, 162.—καὶ οἱ τρεῖς _ad fin._
_vers_. 34, 162, _fin_. εἰσι 173. No printed edition, therefore, is found
to agree with either 34 or 162 (173, whose margin is so very recent, only
differs from the common text by dropping ν ἐφελκυστικόν), though on the
whole 162 best suits the Complutensian: but the omission of the article in
ver. 7, while it stands in ver. 8 in 162, proves that the disputed clause
was interpolated (probably from its parallel Latin) by one who was very
ill acquainted with Greek.

The controverted words are not met with in any of the extant uncials
(אABKLP) or in any cursives besides those named above(441): the cursives
that omit them were found by the careful calculation of the Rev. A. W.
Grafton, Dean Alford’s secretary (N. T. _ad. loc._), to amount to 188 in
all (to which we may now add Codd. 190, 193, 219-221), besides some sixty
Lectionaries. The aspect of things is not materially altered when we
consult the versions. The disputed clause is not in any manuscript of the
Peshitto, nor in the best editions (e.g. Lee’s): the Harkleian, Sahidic,
Bohairic, Ethiopic, Arabic do not contain it in any shape: scarcely any
Armenian codex exhibits it, and only a few recent Slavonic copies, the
margin of a Moscow edition of 1663 being the first to represent it. The
Latin versions, therefore, alone lend it any support, and even these are
much divided. The chief and oldest authority in its favour is Wiseman’s
Speculum _m_ and _r_ of the earlier translation; it is found in the
printed Latin Vulgate, and in perhaps forty-nine out of every fifty of its
manuscripts, but not in the best, such as _am. fuld. harl._3; nor in
Alcuin’s reputed copies at Rome (_primâ manu_) and London (Brit. Mus. Add.
10,546), nor in the book of Armagh and full fifty others. In one of the
most ancient which contain it, _cav._, ver. 8 precedes ver. 7 (as appears
also in _m. tol. demid._ and a codex at Wolfenbüttel, _Wizanburg._ 99
[viii] cited by Lachmann), while in the margin is written “_audiat hoc
Arius et ceteri_,” as if its authenticity was unquestioned(442). In
general there is very considerable variety of reading (always a suspicious
circumstance, as has been already explained), and often the doubtful words
stand only in the margin: the last clause of ver. 8 (_et hi tres unum
sunt_), especially, is frequently left out when the “Heavenly Witnesses”
are retained. It is to defend _this_ omission by the opinion of Thomas
Aquinas, not to account for the reception of the doubtful words, that the
Complutensian editors wrote a note, the longest and indeed almost the only
one in their New Testament. We conclude, therefore, that the passage from
ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ to ἐν τῇ γῇ had no place in ancient Greek manuscripts, but
came into some of the Latin at least as early as the sixth century.

The Patristic testimony in its favour, though quite insufficient to
establish the genuineness of the clause, is entitled to more
consideration. Of the Greek Fathers it has been said that no one has cited
it, even when it might be supposed to be most required by his argument, or
though he quotes consecutively the verses going immediately before and
after it(443): [but a passage occurs in the Greek Synopsis of Holy
Scripture of uncertain date (fourth or fifth century), which appears to
refer to it, and another from the Disputation with Arius
(Ps.-Athanasius)]. The same must be said of the great Latins, Hilary,
Lucifer, Ambrose, Jerome(444), and Augustine, with others of less note. On
the other hand the _African_ writers, Vigilius of Thapsus, at the end of
the fifth century, and Fulgentius of Ruspe (fl. 508) in two places,
expressly appeal to the “three Heavenly Witnesses” as a genuine portion of
St. John’s Epistle; nor is there much reason to doubt the testimony of
Victor Vitensis, who records that the passage was insisted on in a
confession of faith drawn up by Eugenius Bishop of Carthage and 460
bishops in 484, and presented to the Arian Hunneric, king of the Vandals
[or of Cassiodorus, an Italian, in the sixth century]. From that period
the clause became well known in other regions of the West, and was in time
generally accepted throughout the Latin Church.

But a stand has been made by the maintainers of this passage on the
evidence of two African Fathers of a very different stamp from those
hitherto named, Tertullian and Cyprian. If it could be proved that these
writers cited or alluded to the passage, it would result—_not by any means
that it is authentic_—but that like Acts viii. 37 and a few other like
interpolations, it was known and received in some places, as early as the
second or third century. Now as regards the language of Tertullian (which
will be found in Tischendorf’s and the other critical editions of the N.
T.; advers. Prax. 25; de Pudic. 21), it must be admitted that Bp. Kaye’s
view is the most reasonable, that “far from containing an allusion to 1
John v. 7, it furnishes most decisive proof that he knew nothing of the
verse” (Writings of Tertullian, p. 550, second edition); but I cannot thus
dispose of his junior Cyprian (d. 258). One must say with Tischendorf
(who, however, manages to explain away his testimony) “_gravissimus est_
Cyprianus _de eccles. unitate_ 5.” His words run, “Dicit dominus, _Ego et
pater unum sumus_ (John x. 30), et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu
Sancto scriptum est, _Et tres unum sunt_.” And yet further, in his Epistle
to Jubaianus (73) on heretical baptism: “Si baptizari quis apud haereticos
potuit, utique et remissam peccatorum consequi potuit,—si peccatorum
remissam consecutus est, et sanctificatus est, et templum Dei factus est,
quaero cujus Dei? Si Creatoris, non potuit, qui in eum non credidit; si
Christi, nec hujus fieri potuit templum, qui negat Deum Christum; si
Spiritus Sancti, cum tres unum sunt, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus
esse ei potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus est?” If these two
passages be taken together (the first is manifestly much the
stronger(445)), it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian
read ver. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus
[vi], that the holy Bishop was merely putting on ver. 8 a spiritual
meaning; although we must acknowledge that it was in this way ver. 7
obtained a place, first in the margin, then in the text of the Latin
copies, and though we have clear examples of the like mystical
interpretation in Eucherius (fl. 440) and Augustine (contra Maximin. 22),
who only knew of ver. 8.

Stunica, the chief Complutensian editor, by declaring, in controversy with
Erasmus, with reference to this very passage, “Sciendum est, Graecorum
codices esse corruptos, nostros [i.e. Latinos] verò ipsam veritatem
continere,” virtually admits that ver. 7 was translated in that edition
from the Latin, not derived from Greek sources. The versions (for such we
must call them) in Codd. 34, 162 had no doubt the same origin, but were
somewhat worse rendered: the margin of 173 seems to be taken from a
printed book. Erasmus, after excluding the passage from his first two
editions, inserted it in his third under circumstances we have before
mentioned; and notwithstanding the discrepancy of reading in ver. 8, there
can be little or no doubt of the identity of his “Codex Britannicus” with
Montfort’s(446). We have detailed the steps by which the text was brought
into its present shape, wherein it long remained, unchallenged by all save
a few such bold spirits as Bentley, defended even by Mill, implicitly
trusted in by those who had no knowledge of Biblical criticism. It was
questioned in fair argument by Wetstein, assailed by Gibbon in 1781 with
his usual weapons, sarcasm and insinuation (Decline and Fall, chap.
xxxvii). Archdeacon Travis, who came to the rescue, a person “of some
talent and attainments” (Crito Cantab., p. 335, note), burdened as he was
with a weak cause and undue confidence in its goodness, would have been at
any rate—_impar congressus Achilli_—no match at all for the exact
learning, the acumen, the wit, the overbearing scorn of Porson(447). The
“Letters” of that prince of scholars, and the contemporaneous researches
of Herbert Marsh, have completely decided the contest. Bp. Burgess alone,
while yet among us [d. 1837], and after him Mr. Charles Forster [d. 1871],
clung obstinately to a few scattered outposts after the main field of
battle had been lost beyond recovery(448).

On the whole, therefore, we need not hesitate to declare our conviction
that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were
originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they
had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the
Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the
printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim. We will
close this slight review with the terse and measured judgement of
Griesbach on the subject: “Si tam pauci, dubii, suspecti, recentes testes,
et argumenta tam levia, sufficerent ad demonstrandam lectionis cujusdam
γνησιότητα, licet obstent tam multa tamque gravia, et testimonia et
argumenta: nullum prorsus superesset in re criticâ veri falsique
criterium, et _textus Novi Testamenti universus planè incertus esset atque
dubius_” (N. T., _ad locum_, vol. ii. p. 709).

51. 1 JOHN v. 18. In this verse, according to the Received text, we have
the perfect γεγεννημένος of continued effects and the aorist γεννηθείς of
completed action used for the same person, although elsewhere in the same
Epistle the man begotten of God is invariably γεγεννημένος (ch. ii. 29;
iii. 9 _bis_; iv. 7; v. 1, 4). Hence the special importance of the various
reading αὐτόν for ἑαυτόν after τηρεῖ, since, if this were to be accepted,
ὁ γεννηθείς could be none other than the Only-begotten Son who keepeth the
human sons of God, agreeably to His own declaration in John xvii. 12(449).
In behalf of αὐτόν we can allege only AB, 105 (a cursive collated by
Matthaei), and the Vulgate (_conservat eum_), the testimony of A, always
so powerful when sanctioned by B, being nothing weakened by the fact that
it is corrected into ἑαυτόν by the original [?] scribe(450), who in
copying had faithfully followed his _exemplar_, and on second thoughts
supposed he had gone wrong. _All_ other authorities, including copies,
versions, and Fathers, א and the rest (C being lost here), have ἑαυτόν,
the Peshitto very expressly [and Origen thrice, Didymus four times,
Ephraem Syrus and Severus twice each, besides Theophylact and
Œcumenius(451)]. We venture to commend this variation as one of a class
Dean Vaughan speaks of, which, seeming violently improbable at first
sight, grows upon the student as he becomes familiar with it. It must be
confessed, however, that St. Paul makes but slight distinction between the
two tenses in Gal. iv. 23, 29, and that we have no other example in
Scripture or ecclesiastical writers of ὁ γεννηθείς being used absolutely
for the Divine Son, though the contrast here suggested is somewhat
countenanced by that between ὁ ἁγιάζων and οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι in Heb. ii. 11.
[So that Dr. Scrivener’s view demands considerable sacrifice for its
acceptance.]

52. JUDE 5. Here we have a variation, vouched for by AB united, which it
is hard to think true, however interesting the doctrinal inference would
be. Instead of ὁ κύριος λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας, the article is omitted
by אAB, and perhaps by C*, so that it must at any rate resign its place;
while for _ΚΣ_ of א (apparently of C*) and the mass of copies, with the
Harkleian, we find _ΙΣ_ in AB, 6, 7, 13, 29, 66 (_secundâ manu_), the
Vulgate, Sahidic, Bohairic, and both Ethiopic versions. The Bodleian
Syriac has yet another variation, ὁ Θεός, in support of which we have the
important second hand of C, 5, 8, 68, tol. of the Vulgate, the Armenian
(with _ισ_ in the margin), the Arabic of Erpenius, Clement of Alexandria,
and Lucifer. The Greek of Didymus has _κσ_ _ισ_, but his Latin translation
_ισ_, which Jerome also recognized, although he wrongly supposed that
Joshua was meant. While we acknowledge that the Person who saved Israel
out of Egypt was indeed the Saviour of the world, we should rather expect
that He would be called the Christ (1 Cor. x. 4) than Jesus. There is a
similar variation between _χν_, _κν_, and _θν_ in the parallel passage 1
Cor. x. 9.

Lachmann alone reads Ἰησοῦς here, though Tregelles gives it a place in his
margin. Westcott and Hort would be acting on their general principle if
they received it, but, while setting Κύριος in the text and Ἰησοῦς in the
margin, they brand the passage as corrupt, and would be inclined to
believe that the original words were ὁ ... σώσας, without either of the
nouns. Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 106) points out how slight the change would be
from ΟΤΙΟ to ΟΤΙΣ (one Ι being dropped) in the simple uncials of early
times.



Fifth Series. Apocalypse.


53. APOC. xiii. 10. Εἴ τις αἰχμαλωσίαν συνάγει, εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει.
This reading of the Received text is perfectly clear; indeed, when
compared with what is found in the best manuscripts, it is too simple to
be true (Canon I, Chap. VIII). We read in Codd. אBC: ει (C) τις εις
αιχμαλωσιαν ὑπαγει (ὑπάγῃ B), the reading also of those excellent cursives
28, 38, 79, 95, and of a manuscript of Andreas: εἰς is further omitted in
14 (_sic_), and in 92 its echo, in 32, 47, the Bohairic (?), Arabic
(Polyglott), and a Slavonic manuscript: and so Tregelles in 1872. The
sense of this reading, if admissible at all, is very harsh and elliptical;
that of the only remaining uncial A, though apparently unsupported except
by a Slavonic manuscript and the best copies of the Vulgate (_am. fuld._
and another known to Lachmann), looks more probable: εἴ τις εἰς
αἰχμαλωσίαν, εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει: “if any one _is_ for captivity, into
captivity he goeth” (Tregelles, Kelly: the latter compares Jer. xv. 2,
LXX): the second εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν being omitted by Homoeoteleuton in the
above-mentioned codices. Tregelles (in 1844), Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Kelly, Westcott and Hort follow Cod. A, and it would seem rightly.

All other variations were devised for the purpose of supplying the
ellipsis left in the uncials. For συνάγει of the common text (now that it
is known not to be found in C) no Greek authority is expressly cited
except Reuchlin’s Cod. 1, after Andreas (whence it came into the text of
Erasmus) and the _recent_ margin of 94. The favourite form of the cursives
is that printed in the Complutensian Polyglott: εἴ τις ἔχει αἰχμαλωσίαν,
ὑπάγει, after P, 2, 6, 8, 13, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 37, 40, 41, 42, 48, 49,
50, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94*, 96, 97, 98, perhaps some six others, a Slavonic
manuscript, Andreas in the edition of 1596. The Vulgate, the Latin version
printed with the Peshitto Syriac, and Primasius in substance, read “Qui in
captivitatem duxerit, in captivitatem vadet,” but (as we stated above)
_am. fuld._ (not _demid._) and the best codices omit “duxerit” and have
“vadit” (Syr. ܡܘܒܥ ... ܐܙܥ or ܥܙܐ ... ܥܒܘܡ), _which brings the clause into
accordance with Cod. A._ The Greek corresponding with the _printed_
Vulgate is εἴ τις εἰς (33 omits εἰς) αἰχμαλωσίαν (ὑπάγει 87), εἰς (ἐς 87)
αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει, 33, 35, 87. Other modes of expression (e.g. εἴ τις
αἰχμαλωτίζει εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει, 7; εἴ τις αἰχμαλωτιεῖ,
αἰχμαλωτισθήσεται, 18; εἴ τις αἰχμαλωτησεῖ, εἰς αἰχ. ὑπ. 36, &c.) resemble
those already given, in their attempt to enlarge and soften what was
originally abrupt and perhaps obscure.

We submit the two following as a pair of readings which, originating in
the pure error of transcribers, have been adopted by eminent critics in
their unreasonable and almost unreasoning admiration for Bengel’s canon,
“Proclivi orationi praestat ardua.”

54. APOC. xv. 6. In the transparently clear clause ἐνδεδυμένοι λίνον
καθαρόν Lachmann, Tregelles in his text, Westcott and Hort, present the
variation λίθον for λίνον “arrayed with stone,” i.e. precious stone, for
which καθαρόν “clean” would be no appropriate epithet. Dr. Hort (Notes, p.
139) justifies what he rightly calls “the bold image expressed by this
well-attested reading” by Ezek. xxviii. 13 πάντα λίθον χρηστὸν ἐνδέδεσαι
(or ἐνδέδυσαι), σάρδιον καὶ τοπάζιον κ.τ.λ., but that was said of a king
of Tyre, not of the angelic host. The manifestly false λίθον is only too
“well-attested” for the reputation of its advocate, AC, 38 in the margin,
48, 90, the best manuscripts of the Vulgate (_am. fuld. demid. tol.
lips._4.5.6, &c.), though not the printed editions. Andreas knew of the
variation without adopting it: Haymo and Bede also mention both readings.
Cod. א reads καθαροὺς λίνους with the Bohairic, and so helped to keep
Tischendorf right: Tregelles sets this form in his margin. For λίνον or
λινοῦν or λην- we have all the other manuscripts and other authorities,
including BP, that excellent cursive Cod. 95, Primasius. Between the two
forms with ν we should probably choose λινοῦν of B, [7], 14, 18, 92, 97,
as λίνον seems to belong to the raw material in a rough state. The later
Syriac has ܒܬܢܐ (or ܐܢܬܒ) (χιτῶνα), which admits of no ambiguity.

55. APOC. xviii. 3. For πέπωκε of the Received text, or πέπωκαν of
Lachmann and Tischendorf, Tregelles (whose margin has πεπτώκασιν),
Westcott and Hort in their text (not margin) have πέπτωκαν. Dr. Hort has
no note on this place, but treats it in his index of “Quotations from the
Old Testament” as a reference to Isa. li. 17, 22 (ἡ πιοῦσα τὸ ποτήριον τῆς
πτώσεως) and to Jer. xxv. 27 (πίετε καὶ μεθύσθητε ... καὶ πεσεῖσθε), with
the notion of stumbling through drink. What is required to complete the
parallel is some passage in the Septuagint wherein πέπτωκαν stands alone,
whether τοῦ οἴνου be in the text or not, and, in the absence of such
parallel, πέπτωκαν must be regarded as incredible on any evidence. Yet
πέπτωκαν or the virtually identical πεπτώκασιν is found in אAC, in B, 7,
8, 14, 25, 27, 29, 91, 92, 94, 95 (πέπτωσι _primâ manu_), the Bohairic and
Ethiopic. The alternative reading πέπωκαν or πεπώκασιν (πέπωκε 96) occurs
in P, 1, 18, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 47, 48, 49, 50, 79, 87, 90, 93, 97,
98, the Latin and later Syriac. Thus the very versions are divided in a
case where the omission of a single letter produces so great a change in
the sense.

56. APOC. xxi. 6. Καὶ εἶπε μοι, Γέγονε. ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω. Here the
true reading Γέγοναν “They are done” (adopted, with or without εἰμι after
ἐγώ, by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Kelly, Archdeacon Lee in the
“Speaker’s Commentary,” Westcott and Hort) is preserved by Cod. A, whose
excellency is very conspicuous in the Apocalypse: its compeer C is
defective here. The very valuable Apoc. 38 confirms it (γεγόνασιν), as did
אc, but the whole word was afterwards erased: the interpreter of Irenaeus
renders _facta sunt_, and this is all the support A has. The first hand of
א with BP, 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 35, 47, 48, 79, 87,
89, 91, 92 (_hiat_ 14), 93, 96, 97, 98, the Armenian, Origen (_quod
mireris_), Andreas, Arethas, with the Complutensian, read γέγονα, most of
them omitting either the ἐγώ or the ἐγώ εἰμι which follows. Erasmus was
too good a scholar to adopt from Apoc. 1 a meaning for γίγνομαι which it
cannot possibly bear, and seems to have got his own reading Γέγονε (though
he recognizes that of Apoc. 1 in his Annotations) from the Vulgate _factum
est_, which is confirmed by Primasius: it probably has no Greek authority
whatsoever. The Syriac printed with the Peshitto (commonly assigned to the
sixth century) appears, like the hand which followed אc, to omit γέγονα,
as do the Bohairic and Ethiopic versions, with _lux._ of the Vulgate.
Those which read γέγονα yet retain the following ἐγώ (אBP, 7 and some
others) obviously differ from the true reading γέγοναν by the single
stroke which in uncial manuscripts was set over a letter to represent
_nu_, especially at the end of a line, and so avoid the monstrous
rendering necessarily implied in 1, 8, 93, 96, 97, 98, “I have _become_
alpha and omega, the first and the last.” P accordingly puts the proper
stop after γέγονα.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

God grant that if these studies shall have made any of us better
instructed in the letter of His Holy Word, we may find grace to grow, in
like measure, in that knowledge which tendeth to salvation, through faith
in His mercy by Christ Jesus.



APPENDIX A. ON SYRIAC LECTIONARIES.


A very interesting group of Syriac manuscripts is found in the collections
of Syriac MS. Lectionaries which have descended to us. That the number of
them is large may be inferred from the fact that thirty-five may be found
in the British Museum alone (Catalogue, i. pp. 146-203).

Syriac Lectionaries are of two classes, (i) those according to the Greek
Use, and (ii) those according to the native Syriac Use. The former, or
_Malkite_ Lectionaries, may be dismissed from the present enquiry. They
are only Greek works in a Syriac dress, and their value is historical
rather than critical(452).

The true Syriac Lectionaries, whether Jacobite or Nestorian, follow as to
their main features the Greek Lectionaries which have been described in
our first volume, coming under two main classes, Evangelistaries and
Apostolos(453). But they present one important contrast. In both families
of Syriac descent, the Ecclesiastical year begins with Advent, and not, as
in Greek Lectionaries, with Easter; and in general the arrangement is
similar in both, so that the system must at least be of considerably
greater antiquity than the days of the schism. In some of the Jacobite
copies the text of the Harkleian revision has been substituted for the
ancient Peshitto. Some include Lessons from the Old Testament. Some
contain a Menology. In a few instances the Lessons for special festivals
form a separate volume.

The majority of the Syriac MS. Lectionaries are comparatively late, but
others possess an antiquity which, in the case of some MSS., would be
considered remarkable. The British Museum copies, Add. 14,485 and 14,486,
are each dated A. GR. 1135 = A.D. 824. Others must be referred to the same
century. Add. 14,528, foll. 152-228 (an Index), and the leaf in Add.
17,217, appear to be three centuries older. Another sixth century MS.,
Add. 14,455 (the Four Gospels), contains many Rubrics, a pr. m. in the
text, besides those in the margins by later hands, such as occur in MSS.
of all ages. When to these facts we add the consideration already
mentioned, that the same system was in use in both branches of the Syrian
Church, we see the importance of the testimony of works of this class.
They are very ancient ecclesiastical records from the unchangeable East.
Like Greek Lectionaries, they are difficult to use, because of their
arrangement of Lessons in the succession ordered by the calendar: they are
of course public documents, and in consequence possess an importance above
that of copies which were in many cases the property of private persons,
and may have been carelessly and cheaply prepared. Yet it would not be
right to claim for copies of a version a position quite as important as
that held by the Greek service-books, since the evidence of versions, as
well as of quotations in ancient writers, is only subsidiary.
Nevertheless, in the fact that the number of ancient Greek copies of the
New Testament is relatively small as compared with the early copies of the
Peshitto version, we are warned not to underrate Syriac Lectionaries,
though they are of less value for the Syriac, on account of the large
number of very ancient and well-written copies which have come down to us,
such as those which have been enumerated in our account of the materials
for ascertaining the text of the Peshitto.



APPENDIX B. ADDITIONAL BOHAIRIC MANUSCRIPTS IN EGYPT (1893).


Cairo 1 [1184] attributed and possible date, fol., _chart._, ff. 290, 27 ×
18·6 (23), κεφ., Copt. Gr., _Am._, _Eus._, _pict._ Evann., Copt., restored
under patronage of Athanasius, Bp. of Abutij, 1794, whose statement gives
date 900 of the martyrs. Dedication to monastery of St. Antony in the
eastern desert; now in the library of the Patriarch in Cairo, numbered 12
and 14.

Ancient writing begins St. Matt. v. 25,
continues to St. Luke x. 2.
begins St. Luke x. 27,
continues to St. Luke xxii. 52.
begins St. Luke xxii. 66,
continues to St. Luke xxiv. 53.
begins St. John i. 31,
continues to St. John xix. 24.

Cairo 2 [1291], fol., _chart._, ff. 409, 26·9 × 18 (24, 25), κεφ., Copt.
Gr., _Am._, _Eus._, _pict._ (pictures of SS. Mark, Luke, and John). Evann.
Copt. Arab. Written by Deacon Barsuma, mended by Michael of Akhmîm, monk
of monastery of Siryani (Nitrian), under patronage of Cyril, 112th
Patriarch, 1878. Dedication to monastery of St. Barsuma, called Al
Shahrân, 1329; now in the library of the Patriarch in Cairo, numbered 12
and 14. Quires numbered in Syriac. Same text as Paris 15.

Cairo 3 [xviii], fol., _chart._, ff. 342, 22·8 × 13 (29), _Carp._ and
_Eus. t._ at end of St. Mark, _proll._, κεφ. _t._, κεφ., Copt. Gr., _Am._,
_Eus._, _pict._ Evann. Copt. Arab. Written by Michael Pilatos, who gives
his name in the duplicate book at Alexandria, and who wrote the Epistles
and Acts below in 1714. In the library of the Patriarch in Cairo. Text
same as Curzon 126.

Cairo 4 [1327], fol., _chart._, ff. 395, 27·5 × 17·8 (27), κεφ., Copt.,
_Am._, _Eus._, _pict._ Evann. Copt. Written by Thomas. Dedication to the
Church of St. Mercurius in old Cairo, where it now rests. Text of St.
Matt. is same as Brit. Mus. 3381.

Cairo 5 [1257], fol., _chart._, ff. 382, 26·4 × 19 (25), _prol._ St. Luke,
Capp. Copt. _Am._, _Eus._, _pict._, _mut._ Evann. Copt. Arab. _Mut._ St.
Matt. i-iv. 5, St. Mark i. 1-7, St. John i. 1-21; a few leaves restored.
Written by monk and priest Gabriel, who wrote in the house of Ibn ´Assâl;
now in the Church of Al Moallaqah in old Cairo. Text similar to manuscript
of Göttingen.

Cairo 6 [1272], fol., _chart._, ff. 328, 24·9 × 17 and 25·7 × 18. Epilogue
to St. Matt. Κεφ., Copt., _Am._, _Eus._, _pict._, _mut._ Evann. Copt. St.
Matt. by more recent writer. SS. Mark, Luke, and John written by original
scribe, Simon Ibn Abu Nasr. Text of St. Matt. similar to Bodl. vii. In the
Patriarchal Library in Cairo.

Cairo 7 [xiv], 4to, St. Luke, restored under Bp. Athanasius of Abutij.
Text unimportant.

Besides several which are too late to have any critical importance.

APOCALYPSE.

1. [xix], folio.

ALEXANDRIA 1 [xviii], fol., paper, duplicate of Cairo 3, by same writer.
Evann.

2. [xix], SS. Matt. and Mark.

3. [1861], St. John, Copt.

DAYR AL MOHARRAQ, nr. Manfalût on the Nile (station and telegraph Nasâli
Gânûb).

1. [1345], fol., _chart._, 22·5 × 14·2 (27), _Carp._ at end. _Mut._, but
fairly perfect, _pict._, and richly glossed. Text unimportant. Evann.
Copt. Arab.

ST. PAUL, CATH., ACTS.

1. [xii?], probably of same date as Evann., Cairo 1, fol., _chart._, ff.
432, 25·6 × 18·2 (24), κεφ., Copt. Gr. Thess., Heb., Tim., _pict._, Copt.:
restored Rom. and 1 Cor. i-xvi. 12, copious glosses in Arabic.

2. [xiv], fol., _chart._, 26 × 18·5 (25), κεφ., Copt. Gr., _pict._
Philemon, Hebr., Copt.



INDEX I. TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATED IN THIS TREATISE.


(Where the page is given alone, the reference is to the first volume. _n_
indicates _note_.)

ST. MATTHEW.
    i. 18            II. 321-3
    iv. 18                   12
    v. 11              II. 298
       22      8; II. 255, 281
    vi. 1                    13
       8               II. 302
       13          9; II. 279, 323-5
       22              II. 302
    vii. 2                    13
       14                   16
       28                   13
    viii. 5                    12
       28                   17
    ix. 17                   12
       29                   13
       36                   13
    x. 23                    9
    xi. 16                   11
       19            II. 325-6
    xiii. 15                   11
       40                   13
    xiv. 22                   12
    xv. 5                11, 14
       8                    13
    xvi. 2, 3          II. 326-7
       21              II. 302
    xvii. 20            II. 255 _n_
    xix. 17         17; II. 281, 327-9
    xx. 28            8; II. 330-1
    xxi. 23                   14
       28        31; II. 331-6
    xxii. 37                   13
    xxiii. 14-16                 9
       35                   17
    xxiv. 15                   12
       36            II. 269 _n_
    xxv. 16                   13
    xxvi. 39                   16
    xxvii. 4                   13
       9                   17
       28         II. 234, 302
       35                   12
       49              II. 303
       60                   16
    xxviii. 19              II. 303

ST. MARK.
    i. 2                    17
       21              II. 315
    ii. 17                   12
       27               II. 299
    iii. 3                    11
       14, 16          II. 303
    iv. 19                   11
    v. 14                   10
       40              II. 318
    vi. 2               II. 303
       22              II. 303
    vii. 2                13, 14
       19        11; II. 336-7
    ix. 1               II. 303
    x. 30                   11
    xiii. 14                   12
       32                   17
       33              II. 303
    xiv. 4               II. 318
       35                   16
    xv. 28                   12
    xvi. 9-20        7; II. 269, 337-44

ST. LUKE.
    ii. 14            II. 344-9
       15                   14
       22                   17
    iv. 18                   13
    iv. 44              II. 304
    v. 32                   12
       38                   12
    vi. 1                    17
       4                     8
       48              II. 304
    vii. 31                   12
    viii. 40              II. 304
    ix. 49                   10
    x. 1               II. 304
       22                   12
       30                   14
       41, 42       II. 349-50
    xi. 4            II. 279-81
       36                    9
    xii. 54                   15
    xiv. 5               II. 305
    xv. 21              II. 305
    xvi. 12          11; II. 305
       20                   10
    xvii. 36                    9
    xviii. 39                    9
    xxi. 24         II. 306, 319
    xxii. 37                   12
       43, 44      9; II. 269, 353-6
       49              II. 319
    xxiii. 32              II. 306
       34            II. 356-8
    xxiv. 3, 6, 9, 12, 36, 40, 42, 51      II. 299 _n_

ST. JOHN.
    i. 18       17; II. 358-60
       28                   17
       44                   12
    ii. 3               II. 306
    iii. 13            II. 360-1
    iv. 1               II. 306
    v. 3, 4.   9, 19; II. 361-3.
       35.   10
    vii. 8.   17; II. 363-4
       39.   II. 306
       53-viii. 11.   vii, 19; II. 364-8
    viii. 44.   II. 318
    ix. 4.   II. 307
    x. 22.   II. 307
    xiii. 25, 26.   19
    xviii. 5.   II. 307
    xix. 6-35.   12
       14.   17

ACTS.
    iii. 6.   11
    iv. 25.   II. 307
    v. 2.   II. 318
    vii. 37.   13
       46.   II. 308
    viii. 7.   13
       37.   8; II. 368-70
    ix. 5, 6 (xxvi. 14, 15).   12
       12.   9
    x. 19.   II. 308
    xi. 19-27; xiii. 1.   312
       20.   II. 370-1
    xii. 25.   II. 308
    xiii. 18.   II. 371-2
       32.   II. 372-3
       33.   13
    xiv. 8.   14
       24.   13
    xv. 17, 18.   II. 299
       34.   II. 373-4
    xvi. 3.   14
       7.   17; II. 374
    xvii. 28.   11; II. 309
    xviii. 26; xix. 4, 15, 8, 34.   14
    xx. 4, 15.   19
       10.   II. 309
       24.   II. 299
       28.   17; II. 374-7
       30.   II. 309
    xxiv. 6-8.   19
    xxv. 13.   II. 309
    xxvii. 1.   II. 318
       5.   II. 298 _n_
       16.   II. 377
       37.   II. 378-9
    xxviii. 13.   II. 309
    xxviii. 16.   II. 298 _n_

ROMANS.
    v. 1.    17; II. 379-81
       22.   II. 310
  viii. 20.   II. 319
       24.   II. 311 _n_
    xii. 11.   15
    xv. 31.   II. 310

1 CORINTHIANS.
    vii. 29.   118 _n_
    xi. 24.   II. 381-2
       29.   8
    xii. 20.   14
    xiii. 3.   II. 382-4
       5.   II. 310
    xv. 49.   17
       51.   17; II. 384-6

2 CORINTHIANS.
    iii. 10.   10
    iv. 12.   14
    viii. 4.   13
    xii. 1.   11
    xiii. 2.   13
       3.   11

GALATIANS.
    iii. 1.   9; II. 311
    v. 7.   9

EPHESIANS.
    v. 14.   II. 386-7

PHILIPPIANS.
    i. 30.   11
    ii. 1.   II. 387-9

COLOSSIANS.
    iii. 6.   II. 311 _n_
    iv. 15.   II. 310

1 THESSALONIANS.
    ii. 7.   II. 389-90
       19.   12
    iii. 13.   12
    v. 4.   II. 310

2 THESSALONIANS.
    i. 8, 12.   12

1 TIMOTHY.
    ii. 6.   17
    iii. 16.   15; II. 390-5
    vi. 7.   13; II. 395-6

2 TIMOTHY.
    iv. 5.   12
       15.   13

PHILEMON.
       12 (17).   13; II. 396

HEBREWS.
    ii. 7.   13
    vi. 16.   14
    vii. 1.   II. 310
    xii. 20.   13

JAMES.
    i. 17.   II. 310
    iv. 4.   II. 397
       5.   II. 397

1 PETER.
    i. 3, 12.   11
       23.   II. 397-8
    ii. 3.   11
       21.   11
    iii. 1.   11
       18.   11
       20.   10
       21.   11
    iv. 5.   II. 311
    v. 10.   11
       13.   II. 398-400

1 JOHN.
    ii. 23.   9; II. 400-1
    iii. 21.   II. 311 _n_
    v. 7, 8.   8; II. 401-7
       18.   II. 407-8

JUDE.
       4.   17
       5.   II. 409

APOCALYPSE.
    ii. 20.   14
    iii. 16.   9
    xiii. 10.   II. 409-10
    xv. 6.   II. 410-1
    xvi. 7.   17
       10.   10
    xviii. 3.   II. 411
    xxi. 6.   II. 412



INDEX II. OF SUBJECTS.


(N.B.—For Greek manuscripts of the N. T. consult Vol. I. Index I. For
separate Fathers, see Vol. II. pp. 172-4, and for present owners of MSS.,
Vol. I. Index I. _n_ indicates _note_.)

א, _see_ Sinaitic.

Abbot, Ezra, II. 236 _n_, 343 _n_ 1, 360 _n_.

Abbott, T. K., 154-5, 166; II. 46, 50.

Abbott’s group, _see_ Ferrar.

Abbreviations in manuscripts, &c., 49-51, 92, 144, &c.

Accents employed in manuscripts, &c., 45-8, 100.

Accretions, II. 249, 291, 362, 369, 374.

Acts and Cath. Epist. (Act., Cath.), 63-5, 78.

Acus employed by scribes, 27, 129.

Adamantius, _see_ Origen.

Adler, J. G. C., II. 30, 222, &c. &c.

African form of Old Latin version, _see_ Versions.

Alcuin’s Latin manuscripts, II. 59.

Aldus, N. T., II. 187-8.

Alexander II of Russia, 32, 91.

Alexandrian MS. (A), 97-105; history, 97-98;
  description, 98-101; age, 103;
  written by one hand or more, 101;
  collations and editions, 103-4;
  character, 104-105, and _passim_.

Alexandrianisms, 141; II. 224-6, 312, 316-8.

Alford, B. H., 147.

Alford, H., Dean, 12 _n_, 114 and _n_; II. 252 _n_ 4, 346, 351, and
            frequently.

ἀλλά, when to be edited, 14 _n_.

Alphabet, Gothic, invented, II. 146.

Alphabet, so Armenian, II. 150.

Alter, F. K., N. T. and manuscripts, II. 220, &c.

Amanuensis, influence of, II. 319 _n_ 1.

Amélineau, M., II. 133-4.

Amelli, Guer., II. 48.

Amiatinus, Cod. Lat. (_am_.), II. 71.

Ammonian Oasis and dialect, II. 101.

Ammonian sections, 59-63;
  without Eusebian Canons, 62, 68, 189, and _passim_.

Ἀναγνώσεις, 189, 64.

Ἀναγνώσματα, 189, 68-9, 75 _n_ 1, 139, &c. &c.

Ἀναστασιμὰ εὐαγγέλια, 85, Evst. 30, 240; Mark vi. 9-20 read in them, II.
            341.

Ancient authorities, II. 276-8;
  often divided, _ibid_.;
  _see_ also 240, 359, 300-1.

Andreas, Abp., paragraphs, chapters, and summaries of the Apocalypse, 64,
            67, Evann. 18, &c.

Andreas, priest, Evann. 15, 232, &c.

Angelus Vergecius, 44 _n_ 1.

Anglo-Saxon version, _see_ Versions.

Antiochene, (supposed) revision of text, II. 287-8.

Antony, St., II. 98-9.

Aphraates, II. 20-21, &c.

Apocalypse (Apoc.), 78,
  character of text, 14;
  wanting in Peshitto, 8;
  in Bohairic, II. 123;
  in Sahidic, II. 137.

Apocrypha, II. 177.

Apocryphal insertions, 8; II. 271 _n_. _See_ Western Interpolations.

Ἀποστολοευαγγέλια, 74.

Apostolos or Praxapostolos (Apost.), 74-5.

Apostrophus, 49, 138, 175; II. 270 _n_.

Aquila, II. 272.

Arabic versions, II. 161-4; in other MSS., Evan. 211, 240 _n_, Act. 96,
            Evst. 6, 328; II. 113-23.

Aramaean, II. 2, 28, 312-3, 320 _n_.

Arethas, Abp., on Apocalypse, 67.

Argenteus, Cod. Gothicus, II. 146.

Aristophanes of Byzantium, 46.

Ἀρχή and τέλος, 76.

Armagh, book of (_arm._), II. 74.

Armenian version, _see_ Versions.

Armfield, H. T., II. 401 _n_.

Article, Coptic, II. 124.

Article, Greek, fluctuating use of, 15.

Ascetic temper alleged to be traced in manuscripts, II. 252 _n_ 4, 255,
            349.

Asiatic family of text, II. 212.

Asper, value of, 239 _n_.

Assemani, J. S., II. 27, 34.

Assemani, S. E., II. 30.

Assembly of Divines, 103 _n_ 1.

Asterisks, 133; II. 37, 354, 361, 365.

Athanasius, Bp. of Kos, II. 96, 100, 102.

Athos, Mount, Evann. 905, &c., _passim_.

Augustine, Bp., II. 42-3, 4 n, and _passim_.

Aureus, Cod., II. 51.

Autographs of the N. T., 2; II. 257-9, 262-3.

Available evidence to be used in full, II. 275, &c., 300-1.

Β and Υ confounded, 43 _n_ 2.

Baber, H. H., 104.

Babington, Churchill, papyri, 22.

Balance (nice) of evidence, II. 371-2.

Barbarous readings inadmissible, II. 319 _n_ 1.

Barnabas, St., Epistle of, 96;
  his apocryphal ἀποδημία, Evan. 239.

Barrett, John, 153-4.

Barsalibi, Dion., Bp., II. 18, 27 _n_, 31.

Bashmuric dialect, II. 96, 100;
  really Middle Egyptian or Middle Coptic, 103.
  _See_ Versions.

Batiffol, P., 166; II. 51.

Bebb, Rev. Ll. J. M., II. 3 _n_ 1, 145, 158-61, 168 _n_ 1.

Bede, the Venerable, II. 369.

Belsheim, J., Evann. 613-7; II. 46, 48, 51, 52.

Bengel, II. 210-13;
  his paragraphs (περικοπαί), 211, I. 271;
  families, II. 211-2;
  character, 212;
  Canon, 247, and _passim_.

Bensly, R. S., Prof., II. 46.

Bentley, Richard, II. 204-9;
  his career, 204-5;
  projected edition of N. T., 205-6;
  his papers and MSS., 206-9;
  causes of failure, 209; I. 110, 285; II. 65-6, 89, 245 _n_ 1, and
              _passim_.

Bentley, Thomas, 110, 177; II. 207.

Berger, M. Sam., II. 66 _n_, 46.

Bernard, Edward, II. 200.

Berriman, J., II. 392 _n_.

Bessarion, Jo., Cardinal, 105.

Beza, Theod., his N. T., II. 192-3.

Bezae, Cod. (D), 124-30;
  same as Stephen’s β´, 124 _n_ 3;
  history, 124-5;
  collations and editions, 126-7, 130;
  character, 130.

Bianchini, Jos., _see_ Index of Facsimiles, Vol. I.

Bible, English, margin of Authorized, II. 371-2.

Bible, Great, II. 400.

Bible, Hebrew, first printed, II. 175.

Bible, Latin, first printed, II. 61, 175.

Bilingual MSS., _see_ Cod. Bezae (D), Evan. Δ, Act. E, Paul. D, Paul. F,
            Paul. G.

Binding, manuscripts used for, 91, 151, 159, 171, 183.

Birch, Andr., II. 220-2; 110-111, &c.

Birks, T. R., Canon, II. 282 _n_ 2.

Blakesley, J. W., Dean, II. 351, 352.

Bloomfield, S. T., _see_ Index II, Vol. I.

Bobbio, II. 146.

Bodleian Euclid, 42.

Boetticher, P. (Lagarde), II. 109, 283 _n_.

Böttiger, 180.

Bohairic or Memphitic dialect, _see_ Versions (Coptic).

Bosworth, Dr. J., Anglo-Saxon Gospels, II. 165.

Bowyer, W., II. 245 _n_.

Bradshaw, H., 151, 189 _n_.

Breathings in manuscripts, 45-8, 100, &c.

Breves, _see_ τίτλοι.

Bright, J. W., Dr., 145, 164-5.

Broadus, J. A., II. 342.

Brown, D., II. 329 _n_.

Bruce, Ja., the traveller, II. 129.

Brugsch, 91 _n_; II. 97.

Burgess, Bp., II. 407.

Burgon, J. W., Dean, his enlargement of the study, 78-9;
  his letters to the _Guardian_, 189 _n_; II. 338;
  use of quotations from the Fathers, II. 167-71;
  his great book on “The Revision Revised,” 167;
  also I. 120 _n_ 2, 240-1 (his enlargement of the list in ed. 3), 251,
              252, 255, 256; II. 282 _n_ 1, 301, 327, 341, 343 _n_ 2, 345,
              357 _n_ 2, 363 _n_ 1, 368 _n_ 3, 395, and _passim_.

Buttmann, Phil., II. 231-3.

Byzantine revision of text(?), II. 224, 229.

Caesarea, library of, II. 266-9.

Calendar, Greek, 80-9.

Cambridge Texts, Greek Testament, 19.

Canonici, M. L., library of, 246.

Canons of Comparative Criticism, _see_ Comparative Criticism.

Canons of Internal Evidence, _see_ Internal Evidence.

Capernaum, its orthography, II. 315.

Capitals, 29, 51-2, and _passim_, and _description of plates_.

Caro, Hugo de S., Cardinal, 69.

Carolinus, Cod. Gothicus, II. 146.

Carpianus, Epistle to, &c., 60-3, 189, and _passim_.

Carshunic characters, II. 30.

Casley, II. 65, 89.

Catena, 67, and _passim_.

Ceriani, Ant., I. 120 _n_ 3; II. 50, 52, &c.

Chapters, _see_ Sections.

Chapters, Latin or modern, 69-71, 68.

Charles the Great, Emperor, II. 59.

Christian VII of Denmark, II. 220.

Church, the, the Keeper of Holy Writ, II. 252, 296 _n_ 1.

Church Lessons, _see_ Evangelistaria, Apostolos.

Cilicisms, II. 317.

Citation of O. T., marks of, 64 _n_, &c.

Classes, six, of manuscripts, 77-8.

Clement of Alexandria, II. 262-3.

Clement of Rome, Epistles, 99.

Clement VIII, his Vulgate, II. 64-5.

Cobet, C. G., 113 _n_ 2; II. 253 _n_, 263 _n_ 1.

Codex Britannicus, Evan. 61.

Codex Friderico-Augustanus, 31 &c., 90.

Codices, 28.

Coislin, Bp., his Library, Evan. H.

Coislin, his Octateuch, Evan. Fa.

Colbert, Pentateuch, &c., LXX (Paris), same MS. as Cod. Sarravianus, which
            _see_.

Coleridge, S. T., II. 258 _n_ 3.

Colinaeus, S., his N. T.; II. 188.

Columns in manuscripts, 28, and _passim_.

Comes, Latin Church Lessons, II. 341 _n_ 3.

Commentary (ἑρμήνεια),
  (a) of Andreas or Arethas, 67, 64,
  (b) Chrysostom, 242, &c.,
  (c) Theophylact, 242, &c.

Comparative Criticism, II. 274-301;
  its nature, 274-5;
  completeness of comparison essential, 275-6;
  cannot be confined to a few authorities, 276-8;
  even to the oldest, 278-81;
  B and א not infallible, 281-4;
  Westcott and Hort’s theory unsound, 284-97,
  being on explanation (285-90),
  destitute of historical foundation (290-2),
  of critical groundwork (292-3),
  of Ante-Nicene authority (293-5)
  of internal probability (295-6),
  and of confirmation when applied to passages (302-11);
  true view, 297-301.

Complete copies of N. T., 72.

Complutensian Polyglott, II. 176-181;
  deviser of, 176;
  character, 177-8;
  MSS. used for, 178-180;
  text, 180-181, and _passim_.

Conflate readings (so-called), II. 292-3.

Confusion of certain vowels and diphthongs, 10.

Confusion of uncial letters, 10.

Conjectural emendation inadmissible, II. 244-7.

Constantine, Emperor, 118 _n_ 2.

Contents of MSS., 71-72.

Conybeare, F. C., II. 145, 148-54, 156-8.

Cook, F. C., Canon, II. 283 _n_, 325 _n_, 356.

Coptic (or Egyptian) language, its dialects and versions, II. 91-144.
            _See_ Versions.

Copying, mistakes in, 10; additions in, 13.

Corrector (διορθωτής), 54-5.

Correctoria, II. 60.

Correctorium, Bibl. Lat., Evan. 81.

Corruptions of text in second century, II. 259-65.

Corssen, Dr., 182; II. 51, 66.

Cotton fragment of Genesis, 32-40.

Cotton paper (bombycina), 23.

Courcelles, Stephen, II. 198.

Cowper, B. H., 104; II. 391.

Coxe, H. O., 240, 297 _n_, 324 _n_, &c.

Cozza-Luzi, Joseph, 116-19.

Cramer, J. A., II. 128.

Cranbrook, Earl of, II. 171.

Crawford, Earl of, his Library, II. 114, 121, 132.

Critical editions, 196-243.

Critical revision a source of various readings, 16-17.

Crito Cantabrigiensis (Turton, T., Bp.), II. 401 _n_, 403 _n_.

Crowding of letters, 41, 51, 132, &c.

Crum, W. E., II. 143-4.

Cureton, W., Canon, 8. _See_ Versions.

Curetonian, _see_ Versions.

Cureton’s Homer, 44.

Cursive letters, described, 29, 30;
  earliest cursive biblical MS., 41 _n_ 1;
  earlier MSS. still, 42.

Cursive manuscripts, their critical value, II. 277, 297-301.

Curzon, Hon. R. (Lord de la Zouche), and his Parham MSS., 240, 252; II.
            114-5; 119, 122.

Cyril Lucar, _see_ Lucar.

Damasus, Pope, II. 56-7.

Dated manuscripts, 41-2. _See_ Indiction.

Davidson, S., II. 292.

Deane, Rev. H., II. 6, 29.

De Dieu, L., II. 10.

Delitzsch, F., II. 180 _n_ 1, 184 _n_ 1.

Demotic writing, II. 92, 97.

Designed alterations alleged in text, 17; II. 259, 327, 363.

Dialectic forms, II. 312-20;
  grounded on the Hellenistic dialect, 312-3;
  effect of Hebrew Aramaic, 313;
  ν ἐφελκυστικόν, 314-5;
  harsher forms in older
  MSS., 315-6;
  variations in grammatical forms, 316-8;
  other dialectic forms, 318-20; I. 14.

Dickinson, John, 126.

Dictation, 10; II. 319 _n_.

Dio Cassius, the Vatican MS., 28 _n_ 2.

Diocletian’s persecution, II. 266, 104 _n_ 1.

Dionysius, Bp. of Corinth, II. 259.

Dioscorides, the Vienna MS., 46, 164.

Divisions of N. T., _see_ Sections.

Divisions, Slavonic, II. 158. _See_ Versions.

Dobbin, Orlando, 120, Evann. 58, 61.

Doctrinal corruption, 17; II. 327, 407.

Donaldson, J. W., II. 210 _n_ 3, 314, 315 _n_.

Dorisms in N. T., II. 310, 318.

Duchesne, Prof., 166.

Ecclesiastical writers, _see_ Fathers.

Eclogadion, 77;
  list throughout the year, 77, 80-7. _See_ Synaxarion.

“Edinburgh Review” (Tregelles in), II. 210 _n_ 1.

Egyptian versions of N. T., _see_ Versions.

Ellicott, C. J., Bp., II. 253, 384, 392.

Ellis, A. A. (Bentleii Crit. Sacra), II. 206, 207, 209.

Elzevir editions of N. T., II. 193-5.

Embolismus, II. 325 _n_ 2.

Emendation and recension distinguished, II. 245-6.

Engelbreth, W. F. (Bashmuric), II. 131.

Ephraem Syrus, II. 20-1.

Ephraemi, Cod. (C), 121-24;
  palimpsest, 121;
  history, 121-2;
  described, 122-4.

Epiphanius, Bp., II. 270.

Erasmus, Desid., II. 182-7;
  first editions of Gr. Test., 182-5;
  other editions, 185;
  their character, 185-7, &c. &c.

Erizzo, F. M., Count, II. 31.

Ernesti, J. A., II. 216.

Erpenius, T., Arabic version, II. 162-3.

Estrangelo character, II. 9, 14, 37.

Ethiopic version, _see_ Versions.

Euchology, 75, 80.

Euclid, dated manuscript of, in the Bodleian, 42.

Eumenes, king of Pergamus, 24.

Eusebius, 120 n; II. 266-7, &c.;
  letter to Carpianus, 60-3, 189.

“Eusebian” canons, 59-63; 189, and _passim._

“Eusebian” canons, tables of, omitted in many MSS., 62.

Eustathius of Antioch, 53.

Euthalius, Bp., 63-4, 53, 190, and _passim_. _See_ Sections.

Evangelia (Evan.), 78.

Evangelistaria (Evst.), the term used in modern Greek catalogues; II,
            74-5, 327, &c.

Fabiani, H., Canon, 118.

Facsimiles of MSS., 104.

Families of MSS., Bengel’s theory, II. 211-12;
  Griesbach’s, 224-6;
  Hug’s theory of recensions, II. 270-2;
  Scholz’ theory, 229-30.

Fathers, value of citations from, II. 167-71;
  drawbacks, 168;
  list of, with dates, 171-4.

Fayoumic version, II. 140. _See_ Versions.

Fell, John, Bp., II. 199-200, 106, 169.

Ferrar, W. H., the F. group, _see_ (Evann. 13, 69, 124, 346, 556, 561)
            192, 255, 624

Field, Dr., II. 7 _n_ 1, 347 _n_ 1.

Fleck, F. F., 121.

Folio, _see_ Form.

Forbes, G., 50.

Ford, Henry, II. 131.

Foreign matter in manuscripts, 66-7, _passim_ under MSS.

Form of manuscripts, 28.

Forster, C., 129 _n_; II. 401-7.

Frankish version, II. 165.

Friderico-Augustanus, 90-1, 33-9.

Froben, J., II. 182-5.

Gabelentz, H. C. de, and J. Loebe, II. 147.

Gale, Th., Dean, 48.

Gebhart, Oscar von, 164.

Genevan N. T., 71.

Georgian version, II. 156-8. _See_ Versions.

Gildemeister, II. 162-4.

Giorgi, A. A., II. 128.

Glosses, marginal, &c., II. 249-50.

Gold, used in writing, 27.

Golden Evangelistarium, 88 _n_ 2.

Gospels, divisions of, _see_ Sections.

Gothic version, II. 145-8. _See_ Versions.

Goulburn, Dean, 171.

Grammatical forms, peculiar, II. 312-20, 181.

Greek era in dated manuscripts, 42 _n_ 2.

Green, T. S., II. 249.

Gregory, Dr. Caspar René, 79, 241-2, 272-83, 303-5, 317-9, 325-6, 356-65,
            373-6, 384-9, App. A; II. 320 _n_, and _passim_, especially
            under Cursive MSS.

Griesbach, J. J., II. 222-226; 170, 196, 216, 249, 251;
  his N. T., 223;
  theory of families and recensions, 224-6;
  character, 226; 272 _n_, 285, 290.

Grimthorpe, Lord, II. 248 _n_ 2.

Grouping of authorities, II. 297-300, 279-80.

Guidi, II. 154.

Gutbier, Giles, Peshitto N. T., II. 10.

Gwilliam, Rev. G. H., II. 6, 12, 13, 34, 36.

Gwynn, J., Dean, 94; II. 10.

Haddan and Stubbs, II. 50.

Hagen, H., II. 51.

Hall, Dr. Isaac H., II. 27 _n_, 175 _n_, 193 _n_, 196.

Hammond, C. E., 18 _n_ 1; II. 379.

Hands of MSS. changed, 96, 101 _n_ 1, 337.

Hansell, E. H., 170.

Harkel, Thomas of, II. 25.

Harley, R., Earl of Oxford, 175.

Harmonies of the Gospel History, 67 _n_ 4, 190. _See_ Eusebian Canons.

Harnack, A., 164.

Harris, J. Rendel, 130, 151, 203, 255, Appendix D; II. 34, 51, 163, 172,
            366 _n_ 2, &c.

Hartel, II. 54.

Headlam, Rev. A. C., II. 91-144.

Hearne, Th., 170.

Hebrew Bible first printed, II. 175.

Hebrew (or Jewish) Gospel, 161; II. 15 _n_ 2, 259 _n_ 1.

Hebrews, Ep. of, place in N. T., 74, 57, 99.

Hellenistic dialect, II. 312-20.

Hentenius, John (Louvain Lat. Bible), II. 62-4.

Herculanean papyri, 21, 22, 33, 42, 44, 47, 108.

Hermas, 66, 67.

Hesychius of Egypt, II. 268, 270-1.

Hieratic writing, II. 91-2.

Hieroglyphic writing, II. 91-2.

Hieronymus, _see_ Jerome.

Homer and his manuscripts, 4, 44, 45, 50, 145.

Homoeoteleuton, 9.

Horne, T. H., Introduction and Tregelles’ edition, II. 485, and _passim_.

Hort, F. J. A., II. 242-3; I. 18 _n_ 2; II. 244, 313 _n_ 2, 333 _n_ 1, 337
            _n_ 1, and _passim_.

Hort, Westcott and, II. 284-97;
  their views explained, 285-90;
  compared with those of Griesbach, 290-1;
  destitute of historical foundation, 291;
  examination of the three reasons of the two Revisers, 293-4;
  these views unsound, 296-7; 242-3, 273.

Hoskier, H. C., 191, 251.

Hug, J. L., 107, 111, 120;
  his system of recensions, II. 229, 270-2.

Hutter, Elias, Peshitto N. T., II. 10.

Hyperides, papyrus fragments of, 22, 34-41, 45, &c.

Iberian version, II. 156-8. _See_ Georgian.

Ignatius, St., 257.

Indiction, I. Append. C; 42 _n_ 2, 156.

Ink, 26-7,
  black and coloured, _ibid_.

Insertion of glosses, 13.

Internal evidence, II. 244-56;
  not solely conjectural, 244-7;
  textual canons, 247-56.

Interpolations, various readings arising from, 7-9; II. 249.

Interpolations for liturgical use, 327.

Iota, ascript and subscript, 44-5.

Irenaeus, St., II. 261.

Irish monks at St. Gall, 158, 180.

Isaiah, Dublin MS., 154.

Itacism, 10-11, 17.

Itala, 44, 55-6; II. 42.

Italics of English Bible, 9, 400.

Jablonsky, II. 100, 119.

Jackson, John, 126.

Jebb, R. C., II. 209 _n_.

Jerome, II. 268-70;
  recklessness in statement, 355. _See_ Vulgate, and _passim_.

Jerusalem, Convent of Cross at, 240.

Jerusalem, Palestinian or J, II. 30-4. _See_ Versions.

Jude, St., followed 2 Pet., II. 398-9.

Junius, Fr., II. 147.

Ἰωάννης, orthography of, II. 316.

Καί abridged, 15, 16 and _n_.

Karkaphensian, 35-6. _See_ Versions.

Kaye, Bp., II. 258 _n_ 3.

Kelly, W., 70 _n_ 2, 343 _n_ 1.

Kennedy, B. H., Canon, II. 300 _n_.

Κεφάλαια, _see_ Sections.

Kipling, T., Dean, 126.

Kitchin, G. W., Dean, 152.

Koriun, II. 148 _n_, &c.

Kuenen, A., _see_ Cobet, C. G.

Kuster, L., 122; II. 203-4.

La Croze, II. 100, 119.

Lachmann, C., II. 231-5, 245, 285;
  his system, 231-2;
  unsoundness of it, 232-4, 273, 276, &c.;
  his character, 234-5; 170, 256, and _passim_.

Lagarde, P., _see_ Boetticher.

Lanfranc, Abp., II. 60.

Latinizing, 130, 182; II. 180, 215.

Laud, W., Abp., 170.

Laurence, R., Abp., II. 226.

Leaning uncial letters, 41, 144, 151, 155, &c.

Lectionaries of N. T., 74-7;
  system, age of, 75 and _n_ 2, 190. _See_ Evangelistaria, Apostolos.

Lectionaries, Syriac, II. Append. A.

Lectionaries of Old Testament, 76, 329 _n_, &c.

Lee, Edw., Abp., II. 186.

Lee, Sam., Peshitto, II. 11.

Le Long, J., II. 104, 191.

Lent, Lessons for, 84-5.

Leusden and Schaaf’s Peshitto N. T., II. 11.

Lewis, Mrs., discovery of an old Syriac MS., II. 14, 17, 37.

Liddon, H. P., D.D., II. 252 _n_ 1.

Lightfoot, J. B., Bp., on the Coptic versions, II. 91-139, &c.

Line set over Proper Names, Evan. 530.

Linen Paper (_charta_), 23, 189.

Linwood, W., II. 245 _n_ 2.

Liturgical notes, _see_ ἀναγνώσματα, Lect., ἀρχή and τέλος, 189-90, &c.
            &c., 11-12.

Lloyd, C., Bp. (N. T., Oxon.), 60, 67-8.

Λόγοι, 68.

Louvain Vulgate, _see_ Hentenius.

Lucar, Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, and afterwards of Constantinople,
            97-8.

Mabug, II. 25.

Mace, W., his N. T., II. 210.

Madden, Sir F., 21, 44.

Magee, W., Abp., II. 251.

Mahaffy, J. P., 166.

Mai, Angelo, Cardinal, 111 _n_ 2, 112-15.

Malan, S. C., D.D., 77 _n_ 2; II. 3, 32 _n_ 2,
120 _n_ 1, 146 _n_ 2, &c.

Manuscripts—
  (1) Greek. _See_ Index I, Vol. I: containing the whole Greek Testament,
              72 and _n_ 1;
    containing the four Gospels complete, 136.
  (2) Syriac, II. 12-13, 29.
  (3) Latin.
    (a) Old Latin (_a_, _b_, _c_, _d_, &c.), II. 45-54.
    (b) Vulgate, II. 67-90;
       various notations (Tischendorf, _am._, _and._, _bodl._, _cav._,
                   &c.), 89-90.
  (4) Coptic.
    (a) Bohairic, II. 110-23.
    (b) Sahidic, II. 132-6.
  (5) Gothic (Argenteus, Carolinus, Ambrosiani), II. 146-7.
  (6) Armenian, II. 153-4.

Marcion, heretic, II. 259-60.

Margoliouth, Prof. D. G., II. 145, 154-5, 161-4.

Marsh, Herbert, Bp., 127; II. 191, 401 _n_, 407.

Marshall, Th., II. 106, 147.

Martianay, D. J., II. 46, 47.

Martin, Abbé, 242, 269-72, 303, 317, Append. A; II. 28 _n_ 1.

Μαρτυρίαι, II. 192, 194.

Martyrs, era of, 98, 104 _n_ 1.

Mary Deipara, St., convent of, 145.

Materials for writing, 22-6.

Matthaei, Ch. F., II. 216-20; I. 75, 172;
  his accuracy, II. 216;
  his collations, 217-8;
  mode of controversy, 218-9.

Ματθαῖος, orthography of, II. 316.

Mazarin Bible, II. 61, 175.

McClellan, J. B., 347 _n_ 2.

Memphitic version (_see_ Bohairic).

Menology, 76-7;
  list of, throughout the year, 87-9.

Mesrop, St., II. 148-53, 156.

Michaelis, J. D., II. 13, 180, 216, 321.

Mico, Abbate, 110-11.

Middleton, T. F., Bp., 15; II. 182 _n_ 2, 321, 331 _n_.

Mill, Dr. J., II. 200-3;
  his career, 200-1;
  character of his services, 201-2;
  his MSS., 202-3;
  his Prolegomena, 203.
  _See_ also I. 122; II. 106, 169, and _passim_.

Miller, Edward, II. 3 _n_ 2, 24 _n_ 2, 256 _n_, 325 _n_ 2.

Miller, Emmanuel, 222, 273, I. Index II, &c.

Milligan, Wm., II. 346.

Mingarelli, J. A., II. 128, 129.

Moldenhawer, D. G., II. 221, 222, &c.

Monasteries, Egyptian, II. 99.

Montfaucon, Bernard de, 21, 134, and _passim_.

Morning hymn, Greek, II. 345.

Moses of Chorene, II. 149, &c.

Moulton, W. F., II. 319-20.

Moveable type, supposed cases of, 140; II. 146.

Mozarabic Church Lessons, II. 341 _n_ 3.

Münter, M. F., II. 129.

Muralt, Edw. de, edition of B, 110, 244.

Musical or vocal notes in red, _passim_ under Evst.

N, abridged form of, 50.

ν ἐφελκυστικόν or attached, 139; II. 181, 185, 314-5, &c.

Nablous, copy of Samaritan Pentateuch at, 28 _n_ 2.

Nazarenes, Gospel of, 161.

Nazareth, its orthography, II. 315.

Neubauer, Dr., II. 320 _n_.

Nicholson, E. B., 245, 341; II. 322 _n_ 2, 327.

Nicoll, Prof. of Hebrew, Oxford, 98.

Nitrian desert, manuscripts from, 145.

Nolan, Dr., II. 267.

Northumbria, MSS. written in, II. 59.

Notation of manuscripts of N. T., 77-8.

Obeli, II. 26 _n_ 1, 323, 365-6, &c.

Oblak, II. 159.

Oecumenii ὑποθέσεις to N. T., &c., 67, also under the MSS.

Old Latin Biblical Texts, II. 48, 49, 50.

Old Latin version, _see_ Versions.

Omissions, 7, 15.

Order of books in N. T., 72-4;
  Western order, 73 _n_ 2, Evan. 461.

Order of words, variations in, 9.

Origen, fanciful biblical speculations, II. 262-3, 266, 269-70, 271.

Origen, his Hexapla, II. 266.

Orme’s memoir of 1 John v. 7, II. 401 _n_.

Orthodox readings, not improbable, II. 251-2.

Orthography of manuscripts of N. T., II. 312-20.

Ostromir Gospels, II. 159.

Palaeographical Society, I. App. B.

Palestinian, _see_ Versions.

Palimpsest described, 25; double, 141.

Palmer, E., Archdn., 119 _n_; II. 208, 243.

Pamphilus, Martyr, and his library, II. 266-7.

Paper, cotton and linen, 23.

Papyrus, 23-4; MSS. on, 33;
  of Hyperides, 41, 44, 48.
  _See_ Herculanean Rolls.

Paradiplomatic evidence, II. 253-4.

Paragraph, 128. _See_ Sections.

Parchment, 23-6; dyed purple, 26.

Paronomasia, II. 399 _n_ 2.

Particles omitted or interchanged, 14.

Patriarchates, the five, 67, Evan. 211.

Paul, Acts of, 97.

Pauline Epistles (Paul.), ancient divisions of, 64-6, 78.

Penn, Granville, 15 _n_ 1.

Pens, different instruments used for, 27.

Pericopae of Church Lessons, 11, 75. _See_ Bengel.

Pericope adulterae, 81 _n_, 99 _n_ 2.

Persic versions of N. T., II. 165-6. _See_ Versions.

Peshitto, II. 6-14. _See_ Versions.

Petrie, Dr. Flinders, II. 143.

Philodemus περὶ κακιῶν, 30, 33, 44.

Philoxenian Syriac, II. 25-9. _See_ Versions, Harkleian.

Philoxenus or Xenaias, Bp., II. 25.

Pictures in MSS., 190, and _passim_.

Pierius, II. 269.

Pius IV, II. 63.

Plantin, Greek N. T., II. 181;
  Peshitto N. T., II. 9.

Plato, dated manuscript of, in the Bodleian, 42.

Pocock, Edw., II. 165.

Pocock, Rev. Nicholas, 182.

Pococke, Richard, II. 26.

Polyglott, Antwerp (Plantin), II. 9.

Polyglott, Bagster’s, II. 11.

Polyglott, Complutensian (_see_ Complutensian), II. 176-81.

Polyglott, London (_see_ Walton), II. 163.

Polyglott, Paris, II. 10.

Porson, R., II. 406.

Porter, J. Scott, II. 31, 228.

Praxapostolos, _see_ Apostolos.

Printing, invention of, II. 61, 175.

Προγράμματα, Evan. 597.

Prologues, 67, 68, 190, and _passim_.

“Psalms of Solomon,” 99.

Psalters, Greek, first printed, II. 175.

Psalters, MS. on papyrus, 46.

Punchard, E. G., II. 248 _n_ 2.

Punctuation, 48-9, and _passim_.

Purple and gold or silver manuscripts, 27.

Pusey, Philip E., II. 12, 18, 19.

Quarto, _see_ Form.

Quaternion, _see_ Form.

Quatremère, _see_ Coptic.

Quotations from Fathers, II. 167-74. _See_ Fathers.

Quotations from Old Test. in New, 12-13.

Received Text, II. 264; founded on what editions, II. 195 _n_ 3, 193 _n_
            1.

Recension, false, 16-17; recensions, _see_ Families.

Reed used for writing, 27.

Reiche, J. G., II. 283 _n_.

Ῥήματᾳ or ῥήσεις, 65, 68-9, App. D.

Rettig, H. C. M., 157.

Reuchlin, J., 10 _n_.

Reuss, Ed., II. 175 _n_, 181 _n_, &c.

Revised Text, II. 243.

Revisers, the two, II. 292-6.

Rhythm, cause of various readings, II. 254.

Ridley, Gloucester, II. 27.

Roberts, Alex., 18 _n_ 1; II. 244 _n_ 2, 248 _n_ 1, 320 _n_.

Rolled manuscripts, 28-9.

Rönsch, H., II. 54.

Rosetta stone, 31, &c.

Rulotta, Abbate, 110.

Σ, the weak, II. 315.

Sabatier, P., II. 42. _See_ under Lat. MSS.

Σαββατοκυριακαί, 328, &c.

Sahak, St., 148, &c.

Sahidic or Thebaic dialect and version, II. 119-39. _See_ Versions.

Sakkelion, A. I., 272.

Sanday, Dr., II. 48, 127, 293.

Sarravianus, Cod. LXX, 49 _n_, 51; II. 378. Part of the Colbert
            Pentateuch.

Schaaf, Ch., and Leusden, J., Peshitto N. T., II. 181, 183.

Schmeller, J. A., Frankish version, II. 165.

Scholz, J. M. A., 240; II. 226-30;
  labours, 227; character, 228; theory of families, 229-30, and _passim_.

Schulz, D., II. 48, 228.

Schwartze, M. G., Bohairic N. T., &c., II. 101-3.

Scott, C. B., D.D., II. 198.

Scribes, chiefly clergy or monks, II. 252.

Scrivener, F. H. A., his Collations, _see_ Vol. I. Index II;
  edition of D, 127, &c.;
  of Cod. Augiensis, 177-8;
  of Revised Gr. Text, II. 243;
  of “Adversaria et Critica Sacra,” I. App. I, I. 252.
  _See_ also II. 79, 195 _n_ 3, 243, and _passim_.

Sections,
  (1) in B, 56-7;
  (2) greater, 57-8;
  (3) “Ammonian,” 59-63;
  (4) Euthalian, 63-4;
  (5) other, 64-5.

Semicursive letters, Evan. M, 274.

Semler, J. S., II. 211, 215.

Signatures of sheets, 28, 164.

Silver, used in writing, 27.

Silvestre, M. J. B., Paléographie Universelle, 21, &c., App. C.

Simonides, Constantine, 94-7·

Sinaitic MS. (א), 90-7;
  discovery of, 90-1;
  description, 91-3;
  age, 94-5;
  derived from a papyrus, 95;
  imposture of Simonides, 95-7;
  character of, 97; II. 267-8.

Sionita, Gabriel, Peshitto N. T., &c., II. 10.

Sixtus V, Pope, his Latin Bible, II. 63-5.

Skeat, W. W., II. 148, 164.

Slavonic, II. 158-61. _See_ Versions.

Slips of the pen, a source of various readings, 16.

Smith, R. Payne, Dean, II. 354.

Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, II. 103.

Specimens of four Syriac versions of N. T., II. 38-40.

Specimens of the Coptic, II. 128, 139, 142, 144.

“Spectator,” No. 470, II. 345 _n_.

Spelling, variations in, 14.

Standish, II. 186.

Stephen, Henry, 70.

Stephen, Robert, II. 188-92; I. 70-1, 124-6, 137; II. 61-2, 196.

Stephen, Robert, editions, II. 188-9;
  MSS. used by him, I. 124 _n_ 3, 191, 192, 196, Act. 8, Act. 50, Apoc. 2.

Stichometry, 52-4, 65, 68-70, 137, I. App. D, and _passim_.

Stilus, 27, 137.

Στίχοι, _see_ Stichometry.

Stops, their power varies with their position, 48, 137.

Storr, G. C., II. 163.

Streane, A. W., II. 241.

Stunica, J., Lopez de, II. 184, 186, 405.

Style, change of, no decisive proof of spuriousness, II. 342.

Subjunctive future, II. 384.

Subscriptions, 55, 65-6, 190, and _passim_ under MSS.

Suicer, J. C., 53 _n_ 1, 144.

Sulci or Sulca, 63.

Swete, Dr., II. 286, 393 _n_ 4.

Synaxarion, 77 and _n_ 1;
  list of Lessons throughout the year, 80-7.

Synonyms interchanged, 13.

Syriac Evangelistaries, II. 32, App. A.

Syriac language and dialects, II. 6-8, 312-3.

Syrian Christians, sects of, II. 6-33.

Syro-hexaplar version, II. 13 _n_ 1.

Tatham, Edw., II. 402 _n_ 2.

Tatian’s Diatessaron, 12, 57, 59, &c.

Tattam, H., Archd., II. 110.

Taylor, Isaac, 18 _n_ 2.

Tentative process commended, II. 264-5.

Tertullian, II. 257.

Textual Canons, II. 247-56.

Textual criticism and its results, 4-7; II. 257-301.

Textus receptus, _see_ Received Text.

Thebaic, _see_ Sahidic.

Thecla, St., 101-2.

Theodora, or Theodosia, St., 87 and _n_ 2.

Theodulphus, Bp., II. 59.

Theophylact, _see_ Commentary.

Thompson, E. Maunde, 22, 102, 104, 147 _n_, App. C.

Thorpe, Benj., Anglo-Saxon Gospels, II. 165.

Tischendorf, II. 235-8;
  his great editions, 235-6;
  texts, 236-8; I. 115-7, 122, 155-6, 159-60, 163; II. 89, 163, 248, 282;
  collations, _see_ Vol. I. Index II, and _passim_.

Titles of the books, 65.

Τίτλοι, 57-9, 68, 190, _passim_ under MSS.

Todd, H. J., Archd., Catalogue of Lambeth MSS., 249.

Traditores, II. 266.

Transcription, _see_ Copying.

Transposition of sentences, 12.

Transposition of words, &c., 9-10.

Travis, G., Archd., II. 401 _n_, 406 and _n_ 2.

Tregelles, S. P., 18 _n_ 1, 111; II. 238-41;
  his books, 239;
  texts and collations, 240;
  his system, 240-1;
  life, 241; 170, 231-2, 246, 255, 273, 275, 328, and _passim_.
  _See_ also for Collations, Vol. I. Index II.

Tremellius, Im., Peshitto N. T., II. 9.

Trent, Council of, II. 63.

Τρισάγιον, 103.

Trost, Martin, Peshitto N. T., II. 10.

Tübingen edition of John i-vi, II. 176.

Tuki, R., Bp., II. 128.

Two Revisers, II. 292-6.

Tychsen, O. G., II. 221, 222.

Tyler, A. W., II. 383.

Tyndale, W., II. 186 _n_ 1.

Typicum defined, 144, Evan. 608.

Ulphilas or Ulfilas, Bp., II. 145.

Uncial letters, described, 29-30;
  mistakes in, 10;
  how distinguished as to age, 31-40;
  compressed uncials, 137;
  mixed with cursives, 142 _n_ 1.

Uncial MSS., list of, 90-188, 3; Evst., 328.

Ὕποδιαιρέσεις μερικαί (subdivisions of chapters), 64 _n_ 2.

Ussher, James, Abp., II. 10, 197-8.

Utrecht Psalter, the, 28 _n_ 2.

Valla, Laurentius, 205.

Vansittart, A. A., 152, 278 _n_.

Various readings defined, 3;
  different classes, 7-17.

Vatican MS. (B), 105-121; sections of, 56-7, 68;
  history, 105;
  description, 105-9;
  collations and editions, 109-19;
  age, 105, 118 _n_ 2;
  character, II. 268.

Vaughan, C. J., Dean, II. 297 _n_ 1.

Vellum, manufacture of, 22-5.

Vercellone, C., 56, 112, 113, 116-18.

Vermilion paint (κιννάβαρις), 61.

Verses, Greek or Latin in MSS., 192, _passim_ under MSS.

Verses, modern in N. T., 68, 70-1.

Versions, 1-5; use and defects, II. 2-3; various early, 3-4.

1. Syriac:

(1) Peshitto, II. 6-14;
  dates probably from the second century, II. 7, 264;
  printed edd., II. 8-12;
  new one by P. E. Pusey and G. H. Gwilliam, Peshitto MSS., II. 12-13;
  why so called, II. 13.

(2) Curetonian, II. 14-24;
  first discovery, II. 14;
  second, II. 14;
  publication by Cureton, 11;
  common origin of Peshitto and Curetonian, II. 16;
  Peshitto the older, II. 17-24.

(3) Harkleian or Philoxenian, II. 25-9;
  made first by Xenaias, or Philoxenus, 25;
  next, collated by Thomas of Harkel, edd. of, 26-8;
  character, 28;
  MSS. of, 29;
  Mr. Deane’s work, 29.

(4) Palestinian or Jerusalem, II. 30-4;
  fragments, esp. of an Evst., 30;
  description, 30;
  Erizzi’s edition, 31;
  menology, 32-3;
  Lagarde, Harris, and Gwilliam, 34.

(5) Karkaphensian or Massorah, II. 34-6;
  discovered by Wiseman, 34;
  description, 34-6;
  a Massorah, 36.

2. Latin, II. 41-90:

(1) Old Latin, 41-56; many versions (3 _n_ 2) (Jerome, Augustine), 41-2;
  probably one, 42-3—but cf. 3 _n_ 2;
  “Itala,” arose in Africa, 43-4;
  age, 264;
  Old Latin MSS. of the Gospels, 45-51;
  Act. and Cath., 51-3;
  Paul., 53-4;
  Apoc., 54;
  Latin Fathers, 54;
  African family, 55;
  European, 55;
  Italian, 55-6.

(2) Vulgate, II. 56-90;
  history, 56-65;
  text often incorrect, 58-9;
  revisions, 59;
  correctoria, 60-1;
  printing, 63;
  authorized recension, 63-5;
  editions, 65-6; MSS., 66-89;
  Bibles, 67-74;
  New Testaments, 74-5;
  Gospels, 75-85;
  Acts, Epistles, Apoc., 85-9;
  notations, 89-90.

3. Egyptian or Coptic versions, 91-145;
  history and description, 91-106;
  sacred and demotic writing, 91-3;
  Coptic, 92-6; dialects, 96-106;
  at least five instead of three, 103-6:

(1) Bohairic (Coptic or Memphitic), 106-27;
  editions, 106-10; MSS.,
  Gospels, 110-18,—Paul., Cath., and Act., 118-21, Apoc. 121-3;
  all except Apoc. in the Canon;
  order of books, 124;
  character, 124-5;
  date, 125-7.

(2) Sahidic or Thebaic, 127-39;
  editions, 127-32;
  MSS., 132-6;
  order of books, 137-8;
  character, 138-9.

(3) Fayoumic or Bashmuric, 140-1.

(4) Middle Egyptian or Middle Coptic, or Lower Sahidic, 141-3.

(5) Akhmimic, 143-4.

4. Other old versions, 145-66:

(1) Gothic, history, 145;
  MSS., 146-7;
  editions, 147-8.

(2) Armenian, history, 148-51;
  collation, 151-2;
  character of text, 152-3;
  MSS., 153-4.

(3) Ethiopic, date and MSS., 154-5;
  editions, 155.

(4) Georgian, history and MSS., 156;
  editions, 157;
  character, 157-8.

(5) Slavonic, history and divisions, 158;
  MSS., 159-60;
  character, 160-1.

(6) Arabic, history and MSS., 161-2;
  editions, 162-3;
  character, 163-4.

(7) Anglo-Saxon, history, MSS., and editions, 164-5.

(8) Frankish, 165.

(9) Persic, versions and MSS., 165-6.

Vossius, Isaac, II. 146.

Vulgate version, II. 56-96. _See_ Versions.

Wake, Wm., Abp., his MSS., 204 _n_, 246-8.

Walker, John, II. 206-9; I. 248 _n_; II. 65, 89.

Waller, Rev. Dr., II. 21 _n_ 2.

Walton, Brian, Bp., II. 10, 165 (Persic), 197-8.

Ward, W. H., II. 394 _n_ 2.

Westcott, B. F., D.D., Bp., 59 _n_ 2; II. 242, 258 _n_ 1, &c. _See_ Hort.

Western text, II. 264, 138, 224-6, 229-30, 231 _n_, 264-5, 272 _n_,
            286-73;
  interpolations, 130; II. 264, 330. _See_ Apocryphal insertions.

Wetstein, J. J., II. 213-16; I. 78 _n_, 122, 209, 210, 247, and _passim_.

Wheelocke, Abr., II. 165.

White, E., 151.

White, H. J., Rev., II. 41-90, 66, 69, 71, 80, 85.

White, Joseph, II. 27.

Widmanstadt, Albert, Peshitto N. T., II. 8-9.

Wilkins, D., Coptic N. T., II. 106-7.

Winer, G. B., II. 284 _n_.

Wiseman, N., Card., 112; II. 34, 42, 406 _n_ 2.

Woide, C. G., 103; II. 129-31, 215, &c.

Woods, F. H., Rev., 21.

Wordsworth, C., Rev., 69.

Wordsworth, Chr., Bp., D.D., 17; II. 381-2, &c. &c.

Wordsworth, J., Bp., D.D., 41-90, 66, 90.

Wright, W., Dr., II. 155.

Writing, style of, 15; slips of the pen, 16.

Xenaias or Philoxenus, _see_ Versions.

Ximenes, Fr. de Cisneros, Card., II. 176-81, 184.

Year, Greek ecclesiastical, 80-9.

Young, Patrick, 103, 123.

Zacagni, L. A., 110.

Zacynthius, Cod., II. 365 _n_ 2.

Zahn, Dr., II. 21.

Zahn, J. C., Gothic N. T. II. 147.

Zoega, G., Cat. Codd. Copt., II. 131-2.

Zouche, de la, Lord, _see_ Curzon.

Zurich Psalter, 16 _n_.



FOOTNOTES


    1 See Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, ii. “Evidence of Early Versions
      and Patristic Quotations, &c.,” by the Rev. Ll. J. M. Bebb, M.A., p.
      211. In this chapter, which from press reasons has been curtailed, I
      am glad to refer to Mr. Bebb’s careful and thoughtful essay.

    2 I cannot help expressing my strong opinion that there were a great
      many distinct Latin versions, and that they had a great many sources
      of origin:—briefly speaking,

      (_a_) Because of the testimony of Augustine and Jerome;

      (_b_) Because Latin translations from the first _must_ have been
      wanted everywhere, and must have been constantly supplied. On the
      one hand the bilingualism prevalent in the Roman Empire would ensure
      a large number of translators: and on the other the want of accurate
      Greek scholarship would account for the numerous errors found in and
      propagated by the old Latin manuscripts. Copies of one translation
      could not in those days have been supplied in every place adequately
      to the want;

      (_c_) Because of the multitude of synonyms to be found in Old Latin
      MSS.;

      (_d_) Because on almost all disputed passages Old Latin evidence can
      be quoted on both sides;

      (_e_) Because the various MSS. differ so thoroughly that each MS. is
      quoted as resting upon its own authority, and no one standard has
      been reached or is in view, the utmost that has been done in this
      respect being to group them.

      But see next chapter: this is an undecided question.—ED.

    3 Duval, Grammaire Syriaque, p. xi.

    4 Dr. Neubauer in Studia Biblica, vol. i. (Clarendon Press), “The
      Dialects of Palestine in the time of Christ,” distinguishes between
      (1) Babylonian Aramaic, (2) Galilaean Aramaic, (3) the purer Aramaic
      spoken at Jerusalem, and (4) modernized Hebrew also used at
      Jerusalem.

    5 I cannot agree with Dr. Field (Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt,
      Proleg. lxxvii, 1874) that the Peshitto is not the Syriac version
      here quoted by Melito; but, while he admits a frequent resemblance
      between it and the renderings imputed to “the Syrian,” he certainly
      produces not a few instances of diversity between the two. Besides
      Theodoret, who often opposes ὁ Σύρος to ὁ Εβραῖος (Thren. 1. 15 and
      passim), Field notes the following writers as citing the
      former,—Didymus, Diodorus, Eusebius of Emesa, Polychronius,
      Apollinarius, Chrysostom, Procopius (ibid. p. lxvii).

    6 All modern accounts of the unorthodox sects of the East confirm
      Walton’s gracious language two hundred years ago: “Etsi verò, olim
      in haereses miserè prolapsi, se a reliquis Ecclesiae Catholicae
      membris separarint, unde justo Dei judicio sub Infidelium jugo
      oppressi serviunt, qui ipsis dominantur, ex continuis tamen
      calamitatibus edocti et sapientiores redditi (est enim Schola Crucis
      Schola Lucis) tandem eorum misertus Misericordiarum Pater eos ad
      rectam sanamque mentem, rejectis antiquis erroribus, reduxit”
      (Walton, Prolegomena, Wrangham, Tom. ii. p. 500).

    7 Dean Payne Smith’s Catalogue, pp. 109-112. In the great Cambridge
      manuscript (Oo. I. 1, 2) the Epistles of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and
      Jude follow 1 John, and are continued on the same quire, as Mr.
      Bradshaw reports.

    8 See an admirable paper by Dr. Gwynn in “Transactions of the Royal
      Irish Academy,” xxvii. 8, “On a Syriac MS. belonging to Archbishop
      Ussher.” This MS. was procured for Ussher in 1626 by T. Davies, lent
      to De Dieu, who used it in 1631, and is now in Trinity College
      Library, Dublin.

    9 Yet, besides his error of judgement in bringing into the Peshitto
      text such passages as we have just enumerated, Schaaf follows the
      Paris and London Polyglotts when interpolating τῶν σωζομένων Apoc.
      xxi. 24, although the words had been omitted by De Dieu (1627) and
      Gutbier (1664).

   10 Compare the Printed Editions of the Syriac New Testament, _Church
      Quarterly Review_, vol. xxvi, no. lii, 1888, and a Bibliographical
      Appendix by Prof. Isaac H. Hall to Dr. Murdock’s Translation of the
      Peshitto.

   11 Tregelles in “Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible” thinks that the term
      was originally applied to the Syriac version of the Hebrew Old
      Testament, in order to discriminate between it and the Greek
      Hexapla, or the Syro-hexaplar translation derived from it, with
      their apparatus of obeli and asterisks. To this view Dr. Field adds
      his weighty authority (Origenis Hexapla, Proleg. p. ix, note 1),
      adding that for this reason the pure Septuagint version also is
      called ἁπλοῦν (1 Kings vii. 13; xii. 22), to distinguish its
      rendering from what is given ἐν τῷ ἑξαπλῷ. The epithet which was
      proper to the Old Testament in course of time attached itself to the
      New.

   12 ܦܫܝܬܬܐ or ܐܬܬܝܫܦ, versio vulgata, popularis, Thes. Syr. 3319.

   13 A full list of editions of all the Syriac versions is given in the
      Syriac Grammar of Nestle (tr. Kennedy), Litteratura, pp. 17-30.

   14 “Remains of a very ancient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac,
      hitherto unknown in Europe, discovered, edited, and translated by
      William Cureton, D.D. ... Canon of Westminster,” 4to, London, 1858.
      _See_ also Wright’s description of the MSS. in Catalogue of Syriac
      MSS. in the British Museum, vol. i. pp. 73-5.

   15 Less able writers than Dr. Cureton have made out a strong, though
      not a convincing case, for the Hebrew origin of St. Matthew’s
      Gospel, and thus far his argument is plausible enough. To
      demonstrate that the version he has discovered is based upon that
      Hebrew original, at least so far as to be a modification of it and
      not a translation from the Greek, he has but a single plea that will
      bear examination, viz. that out of the many readings of the Hebrew
      or Nazarene Gospel with which we are acquainted, his manuscript
      agrees with it in the one particular of inserting the _three kings_,
      ch. i. 8, though even here the number of _fourteen_ generations
      retained in ver. 17 shows them to be an interpolation. Such cases as
      _Juda_, ch. ii. 1; _Ramtha_, ver. 18; ܕ for ὅτι or the relative, ch.
      xiii. 16, can prove nothing, as they are common to the Curetonian
      with the Peshitto, from which version they may very well have been
      derived.

   16 The title to St. Matthew is remarkable; for while (in the
      subscription) we read, “Gospel of Markos,” and “Gospel of Juchanan”
      occurs, as in other Syriac MSS., to St. Matthew is prefixed the
      title “Evangeliom dampharsa Mattai.” The meaning of the second word
      is doubtful in this application. The root means _divide_,
      _distinguish_, _separate_—cf. Daniel v. 28. Cureton (Pref. vi) says
      (1) that the great authority Bernstein suggested “Evangelium per
      anni circulum dispositum.” This is inapplicable, because the copy is
      not set out in Church Lessons, although some are noted by a much
      later hand in the margins. (2) Cureton himself, noticing a defect in
      the vellum before ܡܬܝ (or ܝܬܡ), would read ܕܡܬܝ (or ܝܬܡܕ), and
      render “The distinct Gospel of Matthew.” This he understood to
      indicate that the translation of Matthew had a different origin from
      the other books, and was “built upon the original Aramaic text,
      which was the work of the Apostle himself.” But there is nothing to
      justify the insertion of a ܕ, which is required to connect the title
      with the following name. The title belongs to the whole work,
      “Evangeliom dampharsa—Mattai” [Catalogue Brit. Mus. _l. c._]; the
      other names being preceded by “Evangeliom” only. (3) “Dampharsa” has
      been rendered “explained” [see the review in “Journal of Sacred
      Literature,” 1858], viz. from the text of the Peshitto; and this, as
      we shall see presently, agrees with the character of the Curetonian,
      for it abounds in deliberate alterations. But (4) from the
      quotations and references in the “Thesaurus Syriacus” (R. Payne
      Smith), col. 3304, it seems almost certain that the epithet means
      “separated,” as opposed to “united in a Harmony.” Such, of course,
      the Codex Curetonianus is, but further evidence is required to
      justify the inference that the Curetonian was the offspring of
      Tatian’s Harmony, and became the parent of the Peshitto, an opinion
      in large measure contradicted by the character of the translation.

   17 “Si nous devons en croire Scrivener, la version syriaque dite
      _Peshitto_ s’accorde bien plus avec lui [Cod. A] qu’avec (B).” (Les
      Livres Saints, &c., Pau et Vevey, 1872, Préface, p. iii.) The fact
      is notoriously true, and of course rests not on Scrivener’s
      evidence, but on universal consent.

   18 The student may also consult:—Evangelienfragmente, F. Baethgen,
      1885. Disputatio de cod. Evangg. Syr. Curetoniano, Hermansen, 1859.
      Lehir’s Etude, Paris, 1859. Dr. Harman in Journal of the Society of
      Biblical Literature, Boston, 1885. Zeitschrift des Morgenländische
      Gesellschaft, 1859, p. 472. Dr. Wildeboer in De Waarde der Syrische
      Evangeliën (Leiden, 1880) gives three pages of the literature of the
      question.

   19 Cureton, Preface, pp. xi, xciii.

   20 Brit. Mus. Add. 12,138—_see_ p. 36.

   21 So Roediger in Z.M.D.G., b. 16, p. 550, instances ܐܚܢܢ (or ܢܢܚܐ);
      but it proves nothing, for the form occurs also in old Peshitto MSS.

   22 Pages 164-5.

   23 Pages 171-2.

   24 Some of the Homilies of Aphraates were composed between 337 and 345.
      Ephraem died A.D. 373. Bickell, Conspectus, p. 18.

   25 Page 14.

   26 In the following paragraphs we quote from a MS. exhibiting the
      results of investigations made by the Rev. Dr. Waller, Principal of
      St. John’s Hall, Highbury, who has most generously permitted us to
      make use of his labours.

   27 For other like cases see Mat. iv. 11, 21; v. 12, 47, in the
      Curetonian.

   28 The forms in which O. T. quotations appear in the Curetonian demand
      attention, as they seem to suggest similar inferences.

   29 E.g. in the transposition of the Beatitudes in St. Matt. v. 4, 5.

   30 Since the discovery of the Curetonian version in Syriac by
      Archdeacon Tattam in 1842 and Canon Cureton, some Textualists have
      maintained that it was older than the Peshitto on these main
      grounds:—

      1. Internal evidence proves that the Peshitto cannot have been the
      original text.

      2. The Curetonian is just such a text as may have been so, and would
      have demanded revision.

      3. The parallels of the Latin texts which were revised in the
      Vulgate suggests an authoritative revision between A.D. 250 and 350.

      These arguments depend upon a supposed historical parallel, and
      internal evidence.

      The parallel upon examination turns out to be illusory:—

      1. There was a definite recorded revision of the Latin Texts, but
      none of the Syrian. If there had been, it must have left a trace in
      history.

      2. There was an “infinita varietas” (August. De Doctr. Christ., ii.
      11) of discordant Latin texts, but only one Syriac, so far as is
      known.

      3. Badness in Latin texts is just what we should expect amongst
      people who were poor Greek scholars, and lived at a distance. The
      Syrians on the contrary were close to Judea, and Greek had been
      known among them for centuries. It was not likely that within reach
      of the Apostles and almost within their lifetime a version should be
      made so bad as to require to be thrown off afterwards.

      As to internal evidence, the opinion of some experts is balanced by
      the opinion of other experts (see Abbé Martin, Des Versions
      Syriennes, Fasc. 4). The position of the Peshitto as universally
      received by Syrian Christians, and believed to date back to the
      earliest times, is not to be moved by mere conjecture, and a single
      copy of another version [or indeed by two copies]. Textual Guide,
      Miller, 1885, p. 74, note 1.

   31 On the order, functions, and decay of the Χωρεπίσκοποι, _see_
      Bingham’s “Antiquities,” book ii, chap. xiv.

   32 Davidson, Bibl. Crit., vol. ii. p. 186, first edition. The Abbé
      Martin (_see_ p. 323 note), after stating that this version was
      never used by any Syrian sect save the Monophysites or Jacobites,
      goes on to ask “Est-ce à dire que cette version soit entachée de
      monophysisme? Nous ne le pensons pas; pour l’affirmer, il faudra
      l’examiner très minutieusement; car l’hérésie monophysite est, à
      quelques points de vue, une des plus subtiles qui aient jamais paru”
      (Des Versions Syriennes, p. 162).

   33 The asterisks ([symbol] [symbol]) and obeli ([symbol] [symbol]) of
      this version will be observed in our specimens given below. Like the
      similar marks in Origen’s Hexapla (from which they were doubtless
      borrowed), they have been miserably displaced by copyists; so that
      their real purpose is a little uncertain. Wetstein, and after him
      even Storr and Adler, refer them to changes made in the Harkleian
      from the Peshitto: White more plausibly considers the asterisk to
      intimate an addition to the text, the obelus to recommend a removal
      from it.

   34 “Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana, ex Codd. MSS.
      Ridleianis in Bibliotheca Novi Collegii Oxon. repositis; nunc primum
      edita, cum Interpretation Latinâ et Annotationibus Josephi White.
      Oxonii e Typographeo Clarendoniano,” 1778, 2 tom. 4to. And so for
      the two later volumes. Ridley named that one of his manuscripts
      which contains only the Gospels Codex Barsalibaei, as notes of
      revision by that writer are found in it (e.g. John vii. 53-viii.
      11). G. H. Bernstein has also published St. John’s Gospel (Leipzig,
      1853) from manuscripts in the Vatican. In or about 1877 Professor
      Isaac H. Hall, an American missionary, discovered at Beerût a
      manuscript in the Estrangelo character, much mutilated (of which he
      kindly sent me a photographed page containing the end of St. Luke
      and the beginning of St. John), which in the Gospels follows the
      Harkleian version, although the text differs much from White’s, but
      the rest of the N. T. is from the Peshitto. Dr. Hall has drawn up a
      list of over 300 readings differing from White’s.

   35 Martin names as useful for the study of a version as yet too little
      known, the Lectionaries Bodleian 43; Brit. Mus. Addit. 7170, 7171,
      7172, 14,490, 14,689, 18,714; Paris 51 and 52; Rome, Vatic. 36 and
      Barberini vi. 32.

_   36 See_ also Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian version,
      Acts and Epp. of the Peshitto version ... by the Monk John.
      Presented to the Syrian Protestant College, &c., described with
      phototyped facsimiles by Prof. Isaac H. Hall [viii-ix], ff. 219 + a
      fragment at end. _Mut._ at beg. and end, &c. Written in old Jacobite
      characters. Sent courteously to the Editor.

   37 Thus also the termination of the definite state plural of nouns is
      made in ܐ [final form] for ܐ: the third person affix to plural nouns
      in ܘ for ܗܘ. In the compass of the six verses we have cited
      (_below_, p. 39) occur not only the Greek words ܘܝܪܘܣܐ (or ܐܣܘܪܝܘ)
      (καιρός), _v._ 3, and ܢܘܣܐ (or ܐܣܘܢ) (ναός), _v._ 5, which are
      common enough in all Syriac books, but such Palestinian words and
      forms as ܕܝ (or ܝܕ) for ܕܝܢ (or ܢܝܕ), δέ (_vv._ 4, 6, 7); ܒܒܝܢ (or
      ܢܝܒܒ) _v._ 3, “when;” ܐܗܐ _v._ 3, “repented;” ܐܕܡܐ (or ܐܡܕܐ) for ܕܡܐ
      (or ܐܡܕ) (_vv._ 4, 6, 8), “blood;” ܥܥܝܢܗ (or ܗܢܝܥܥ), _v._ 4, “to
      us;” ܓܪܡܐ (or ܐܡܪܓ), _v._ 5, “himself;” ܕܡܝܢ (or ܢܝܡܕ), _v._ 6,
      “price” (Pesh. has ܛܡܝ (or ܝܡܛ), Hark. ܛܝܡܐ (or ܐܡܝܛ) (pl.) τιμή);
      ܥܦܝܢ (or ܢܝܦܥ) _v._ 8, “therefore;” ܗܐܘ (or ܘܐܗ), _v._ 8, “this.”

   38 Hence the name by which this version is distinguished. For the
      recensions of Targum and Talmud, _see_ Etheridge’s “Hebrew
      Literature,” pp. 145-6, 195-7.

   39 Dr. Hort’s not very explicit judgement should now be added: “The
      Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary has an entirely different text [from the
      Harkleian], probably not altogether unaffected by the Syriac Vulgate
      [meaning thereby the Peshitto], but more closely related to the Old
      Syriac [meaning the Curetonian]. Mixture with one or more Greek
      texts containing elements of every great type, but especially the
      more ancient, has however given the whole a strikingly composite
      character” (Introd., p. 157).

   40 On these readings, and those of the MSS. mentioned below (p. 34),
      _see_ “The New Syriac Fragments” (F. H. Woods), in the _Expository
      Times_, Nov., 1893.

_   41 See_ the “Life and Times of Gregory the Illuminator, the Founder
      and Patron Saint of the Armenian Church,” translated by the Rev. S.
      C. Malan, London, 1868.

   42 Kept by the Greeks Oct. 23. Gale O. 4. 22 and other Greek
      Evangelistaria commemorate this holiday.

   43 Dec. 27 in the Western Calendar.

   44 So Gale O. 4. 22, with the same Lesson.

   45 See _Athenaeum_, Oct. 28, 1893.

   46 Anecdota Oxoniensia, “The Palestinian Version of the Holy
      Scripture;” edited by G. H. Gwilliam, B.D.: Oxford, Clarendon Press,
      1893.

   47 The full form (ܛܘܒܢܐ or ܐܢܒܘܛ _blessed_) occurs in the scholion to
      Rom. viii. 15; Wiseman thought it meant the Peshitto; but see
      “Studia Biblica,” iii. 60 and note.

   48 Our specimens show the use in MSS. of _rucaca_ and _kushaia_, here
      printed with fine points. The dots and dashes of the Nestorian
      Massorah ore also shown.

   49 Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, iii. 56.

   50 The Codex Babylonicus, A.D. 916, is the oldest Old Testament MS.
      known at present. Dr. Neubauer, Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., iii. 27.

   51 Karkaphta = skull. See also “Thes. Syr.,” col. 3762.

   52 Mr. Gwilliam suggests that this may have been the well-known Thomas
      Heracleensis. M. l’Abbé Martin (Tradition Karkaphienne, ou la
      Massore chez les Syriens), who carefully studied the subject twenty
      years ago, suggests Thomas of Edessa, teacher of Mar Abbas. _See_
      Mr. Gwilliam’s Essay in “Stud. Bibl. et Eccl.,” iii. pp. 56-65.

   53 “How the Codex was found” (Lewis and Gibson), 1893.

   54 Of no passage is this judgement more true than of this actual
      sentence itself, which is hardly quoted in the same way in any three
      MSS.; see Wordsworth’s Vulgate, Fasc. 1, p. 2.

   55 For _Itala_ Bentley conjectured _et illa_, changing the following
      _nam_ into _quae_; and he wrote to Sabatier almost ridiculing the
      idea of a “Versio Italica;” _see_ Correspondence, ed. Wordsworth,
      1842, p. 569; and “Versio Latina Italica, somnium merum,” in Ellis,
      Bentleii Critica Sacra, pp. 157-159; Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulgata,
      Mainz, 1868, p. 116 f.; Abp. Potter conjectured _usitata_ for
      _Itala_; _see_ Field, Otium Norvicense, pars tertia, p. 57.

   56 Bibliorum Sacr. Latinae Versiones Ant. seu Vetus Italica etc. opera
      et studio D. Petri Sabatier, 3 vols., Rheims, 1743-1749; a revised
      edition of this great work, for the Old Test., is in course of
      preparation under the auspices of the Munich Academy, and the able
      superintendence of Professor E. Wölfflin.

   57 Evangeliarium Quadruplex Latinae Versionis Antiquae, seu Veteris
      Italicae, editum ex codicibus manuscriptis ... a Josepho Blanchino,
      2 vols., Rome, 1749; reprinted by Migne, Patr. Lat. xii, with the
      works of Eusebius Vercellensis.

   58 That is, by scholars who did not live in Italy; Italian Christians
      would use other names, _vetus_, _antiqua_, _usitata_, _communis_,
      _vulgata_; Kaulen, p. 118, Berger, p. 6.

   59 Published in the _Catholic Magazine_ for 1832-3; since reprinted in
      his “Essays on various subjects,” 1853, vol. i.

   60 We have let these sentences stand as Dr. Scrivener penned them in
      1883; since that time the opinion of scholars has become less
      positive as to the African origin of the Latin version. It is true
      that the words, phrases, &c., of that version in its earlier forms
      can be illustrated from contemporary African writers, and from them
      only; but that is because during this period we are dependent almost
      exclusively on Africa for our Latin literature; and consequently are
      able to use only the method of _agreement_ and not the method of
      _difference_ in testing the origin and characteristics of the Latin
      New Testament. These characteristics may be the result only of the
      time and not of the supposed place of writing. Nor can more stress
      be laid on the use of Greek names in the West than on the use of
      Latin names (plenty of which could be cited) in the East.

_   61 See_ Kaulen, p. 130 f., and also his Handb. d. Vulg., Mainz, 1870.

   62 “Novum opus me facere cogis ex veteri: ut post exemplaria
      Scripturarum toto orbe dispersa, quasi quidam arbiter sedeam: et
      quia inter se variant, quae sint ilia quae cum Graeca consentiant
      veritate, decernam. Pius labor, sed periculosa praesumptio, judicare
      de ceteris, ipsum ab omnibus judicandum: senis mutare linguam, et
      canescentem jam mundum ad initia retrahere parvulorum.” Praef. ad
      Damasum.

   63 “[Evangelia] Codicum Graecorum emendata collatione, sed veterum,
      quae ne multum a lectionis Latinae consuetudine discreparent, ita
      calamo temperavimus, ut his tantum quae sensum videbantur mutare
      correctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant.” _Ibid._ For a
      signal instance, see below, ch. ix, note on Matt. xxi. 31.

   64 To his well-known censure of Jerome’s rendering of the Old Testament
      from the Hebrew, Augustine adds, “Proinde non parvas Deo gratias
      agimus de opere tuo, quod Evangelium ex Graeco interpretatus es:
      quia pene in omnibus nulla offensio est, cum Scripturam Graecam
      contulerimus.”

   65 Roger Bacon’s writings, however, in the thirteenth century, are the
      first in which Jerome’s translation is cited as the “Vulgate” in the
      modern sense of the term. _See_ Denifle, Die Handschriften der
      Bibel-correctorien des 13. Jahrhunderts, 1883, p. 278.

_   66 See_ Jaffé, Monumenta Carolina, p. 373, “Jam pridem universos
      Veteris ac Novi instruments libros ... examussim correximus;” S.
      Berger’s essay (to be distinguished from his larger work), De
      l’histoire de la Vulgate en France (1887), p. 3 f.

_   67 See_ the Oxford “Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica,” ii (1890), p.
      278 f.

   68 Fritzsche, “Latein. Bibelübersetzungen” in Herzog, R. E.2 viii. p.
      449; Westcott, “Vulgate,” in Smith’s Bibl. Dict. iii. p. 1703;
      Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulg., p. 229 f.; P. Corssen, in “Die Trierer
      Adahandschr.” (Leipzig, 1889), p. 31.

   69 Berger, as above, p. 7.

_   70 See_ the Life of Lanfranc, by Milo Crispinus, a monk of Bec, ch.
      xv, in Migne, Patr. Lat. 150, col. 55, and his Commentary, _ibid._,
      col. 101 f.; Mill, Proleg., § 1058; Cave’s remark (Hist. Lit. 1743,
      vol. ii. p. 148), “Lanfrancus textum continuo emendat,” seems hardly
      borne out by the facts.

   71 His corrected Bible in four vols. is now preserved at Dijon, public
      library, 9 bis, _see_ below, p. 68, no. 8; also Denifle, Die Hdss.
      d. Bibel-correctorien des 13. Jahrh. 1883, p. 267; Kaulen, p. 245.

   72 His criticisms are preserved in a MS. at Venice (Marciana Lat.
      class. x. cod. 178, fol. 141); _see_ Denifle, p. 270, who prints
      them.

_   73 See_ the quotations in Denifle, p. 277 f., and Hody, p. 419 f.

_   74 See_ S. Berger, De l’histoire de la Vulgate en France, p. 9 f.,
      1887, and Revue de Théol. et de Philos. de Lausanne, t. xvi. p. 41,
      1883.

_   75 See_ Hugo’s remark (Denifle, p. 295), “In multis libris maxime
      historialibus, non utimur translatione Hieronymi.”

_   76 See_ Vercellone, Diss. Acad., Rome, 1864, pp. 44-51; Hody, pp.
      426-430; and Denifle, pp. 295-298. This correctorium is cited in
      Wordsworth’s Vulgate as _cor. vat._; _see_ Berger, Notitia Linguae
      Hebraicae etc., p. 32 (1893).

_   77 See_ W. A. Copinger, Incunabula Biblica, or the first half-century
      of the Latin Bible, p. 3, London, 1892; and L. Delisle, Journ. des
      Savants, Apr. 1893.

   78 Or to Peter Schoeffer, _see_ J. H. Hessels, in the _Academy_, June,
      1887, p. 396; August, p. 104; or to Johann Fust. _See_ the British
      Museum “Catalogue of Printed Books,” Bible, part i. col. 16.

   79 Westcott, Vulgate, p. 1704. This seems to be that of “Thielman
      Kerver, impensis J. Parvi,” with emendations of A. Castellani.

   80 The British Museum possesses a copy (340. d. 1); _see_ the
      “Catalogue,” part i. col. 1.

   81 For details _see_ “Old Lat. Bibl. Texts,” i. p. 51 f.

_   82 Ibid._, p. 48 f.

   83 The critical notes of Lucas Brugensis himself appear to be found in
      three forms:—

      (1) The “Notationes,” published in 1580, and incorporated in the
      Hentenian Bible of 1583.

      (2) The “Variae Lectiones,” printed in Walton’s Polyglott, and taken
      from the Louvain Bible of 1584. These are simply a list of various
      readings to the Vulgate, with MS. authorities; he frequently adds
      the letters Q. N., i.e. “quaere notationes,” where he has treated
      the subject more fully in (1).

      (3) The “Notae ad Varias Lectiones,” also printed (for the Gospels)
      in Walton’s Polyglott; a _delectus_ of them is given in Sabatier at
      the end of each book of the New Testament, under the title “Roman.
      Correctionum auctore Fr. L. Br. delectus.”

_   84 See_ E. Nestle, Ein Jubiläum der lateinischen Bibel, Tübingen, p.
      13 f., 1892.

   85 There is a copy in the British Museum, Q. e. 5. It is practically in
      one volume, as the paging is continuous throughout.

   86 He gives a long list of the variations between the Sixtine and
      Clementine Bibles; Vercellone estimated their number at 3,000. It is
      to be noticed that the _versing_ of the Sixtine ed. differs
      considerably from the Clementine as well as from Stephen.

   87 The regular form of title, “Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti V
      Pont. Max. jussu recognita et Clementis VIII auctoritate edita,”
      does not appear in any edition known to the writer before that of
      Rouille, Lyons, 1604. _See_ Brit. Mus. Catalogue, col. 50. The
      earliest edition with this title known to Masch (Le Long, Bibl.
      Sacra, 1783, ii. p. 251) is dated 1609; and Vercellone (Variae Lect.
      i. p. lxxii) names others considerably later as the earliest.

_   88 See_ Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. xvi.

_   89 Ibid._, p. xxv.

_   90 See_ Fasc. i. p. xv, and Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Cambridge,
      1862.

   91 M. Berger, with exceptional kindness, allowed me to see the
      proof-sheets of his “History of the Vulgate” as they were printed,
      and to add a large number of MSS. to this list from that source.

   92 For the Würzburg MSS., _see_ G. Schepps, Die ältesten
      Evangelienhandschriften der Universitätsbibliothek, Würzburg, 1887,
      from which these descriptions are mainly taken.

   93 For these MSS., _see_ as before, G. Schepss, Die ältesten
      Evangelienhandschriften d. Würzb. Univ. B., 1887.

   94 My authority for these facts is Brugsch, Grammaire Démotique, p. 4,
      but what does he mean by the words which I have italicised? “Au
      nombre des auteurs les plus récents qui nous aient donné des
      témoignages sur l’existence du démotique il faut citer St. Clément,
      prêtre de l’église chrétienne à Alexandrie, et qui vivait vers l’an
      190 de notre ère, ou environ le temps où régnait l’empereur Sévère.
      Mais les monuments nous prouvent que _cette date n’est pas la
      dernière_; il se trouve encore des inscriptions d’une époque plus
      rapprochée; telle est par exemple une inscription démotique que M.
      de Saulcy avait copiée en Égypte et qu’il eut la complaisance de me
      communiquer pendant mon séjour à Paris; elle date du règne en commun
      d’Aurélius et de Vérus, ce qui prouve que _dans la première moitié
      du troisième siècle_ le démotique était encore connu et en usage.”
      L. Verus died A.D. 169.

   95 The date, however, is placed very much earlier by Revillout
      (Mélanges d’Archéologie Égyptienne et Assyrienne, p. 40), who
      supposes the Coptic alphabet to have been a work commenced by pagan
      Gnostics, completed by Christian Gnostics, and adopted when complete
      by their orthodox successors.

   96 [That Bahiric is a wrong transliteration is shown by Stern,
      Zeitschr. für Aeg. Sprache, 16 (1878), p. 23.]

   97 [There has been considerable variation in the names given to the
      different dialects. The terms Thebaic and Memphitic have been
      commonly adopted as a more convenient nomenclature, but, as will be
      shown below, the latter name at any rate is incorrect and
      misleading. Owing to the accident that the Memphitic dialect was the
      form of Coptic best known and earliest studied in Western Europe,
      the term Coptic has been sometimes confined to the Bohairic or
      Memphitic, as distinguished from the Sahidic or Thebaic, and was so
      used by Tischendorf; this usage also is erroneous and misleading;
      and the names Bohairic and Sahidic are almost universally employed
      by scholars at the present day.]

   98 Schwartze, whose opinion will not be suspected of any theological
      bias, infers from the historical notices that “the greatest part of
      the New Testament writings, if not all, and a part of the Old
      Testament, especially the Psalms, had been already translated, in
      the second century, into the Egyptian language, and indeed into that
      of Lower as well as into that of Upper Egypt” (p. 963).

   99 For convenience the following abbreviations will be used: “Z. A. S.”
      for _Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache_; “Recueil” for the
      _Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie
      égyptiennes et assyriennes_; “Mémoires” for the _Mémoires de la
      Mission Archéologique Française au Caire_; and “Mitt.” for the
      _Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer_.

  100 Quatremère can only point to a single word accidentally preserved,
      which according to his hypothesis belongs to the real Bashmuric (Sur
      la Langue &c., p. 213 sq.).

  101 Memphitic (Lightfoot), Coptic (Tischendorf and others).

_  102 See_ also A. J. Butler’s “Coptic Churches,” vol. ii, Oxford.

  103 I have always added 284 to the year of the Martyrs for the year
      A.D.; but this will not give the date accurately in every case, as
      the Diocletian year began in August or September; _see_ Clinton,
      Fast. Rom., ii. p. 210.

  104 I have observed Luke xxiii. 17 in at least three wholly distinct
      forms in different Bohairic MSS.

  105 My sincere thanks are due to the late Earl of Crawford and
      Balcarres, and to Lord Zouche, for their kindness in allowing me
      free access to their valuable collections of Coptic MSS., and in
      facilitating my investigations in many ways.

  106 The volume, *Parham 102, described in the printed Catalogue (no. 1,
      vellum, p. 27) as a MS. of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark,
      is really a selection of passages taken in order from the four
      Gospels, with a patristic catena attached to each. The leaves,
      however, are much displaced in the binding, and many are wanting.
      The title to the first Gospel is ϯ ⲉⲣⲙⲏⲛⲓⲁ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ
      ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲑⲉⲟⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ϩⲁⲛⲙⲏϣ ⲛⲥⲁϧ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲛⲫⲱⲥⲧⲏⲣ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯ ⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ, &c.
      “The interpretation of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew from
      numerous doctors and luminaries of the Church.” Among the Fathers
      quoted I observed Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Clement, the two
      Cyrils (of Jerusalem and of Alexandria), Didymus, Epiphanius,
      Eusebius, Evagrius, the three Gregories (Thaumaturgus, Nazianzen,
      and Nyssen), Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Severianus of Gabala, Severus of
      Antioch (often styled simply the Patriarch), Symeon Stylites,
      Timotheus, and Titus.

      In the account of this MS. in the Catalogue it is stated that “the
      name of the scribe who wrote it is Sapita Leporos, a monk of the
      monastery, or monastic rule, of Laura under the sway of the great
      abbot Macarius,” and the inference is thence drawn that it must have
      been written before 395, when Macarius died. This early date,
      however, is at once set aside by the fact that writers who lived in
      the sixth century are quoted. Professor Wright (Journal of Sacred
      Literature, vii. p. 218), observing the name of Severus in the
      facsimile, points out the error of date, and suggests as an
      explanation that the colophon (which he had not seen) does not speak
      of the great Macarius, but of “_an abbot_ Macarius.” The fact is,
      that though the great Macarius is certainly meant, there is nothing
      which implies that he was then living. The scribe describes himself
      as ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϧⲁ ⲡⲓ ⲧⲁⲗⲉⲡⲱⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲁϥⲥϧⲁⲓ, “I the unhappy one (ταλαιπωρος)
      who wrote it” (which has been wrongly read and interpreted as a
      proper name Sapita Leporos). He then gives his name ⲑⲉⲟⲗ ⲡⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ
      (Theodorus of Busiris?) and adds, ⲡⲓⲁⲧⲙⲡϣⲁ ⲙⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲗⲁⲩⲣⲁ
      ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲛⲓϣϯ ⲁⲃⲃⲁ ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓ, “the unworthy monk of the holy laura
      of the great abbot Macarius.” He was merely an inmate of the
      monastery of St. Macarius; see the expression quoted from the Vat.
      MS. lxi in Tattam’s Lexicon, p. 842. This magnificent MS. is dated
      A.M. 604 = A.D. 888 and has been published by Professor De Lagarde;
      but its value may not be very great for the Bohairic Version, as it
      is perhaps translated from the Greek.

      The *Parham MS. 106 (no. 5, p. 28) is wrongly described as
      containing the Gospel of St. John. The error is doubtless to be
      explained by the fact that the name ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲟⲩ occurs at the bottom of
      one of the pages; but the manuscript is not Biblical. Another MS.
      (no. 13, p. 29) is described as “St. Matthew with an Arabic
      translation, very large folio: a modern MS. copied at Cairo from an
      antient one in the library of the Coptic Patriarch.” I was not able
      to find this, when through the courtesy of Lord Zouche I had access
      to the Parham collection.

  107 The above account has been throughout revised by the Rev. G. Horner,
      who has collated or examined all MSS. of the Bohairic versions in
      European libraries.

  108 The MSS. 7 and 16 are exceptions.

  109 No weight can be given to the abnormal order in no. 12, until we
      know something more of this MS., which is perhaps a late transcript.

  110 It is used in the Apocalypse by Tregelles, and apparently also by
      Tischendorf in his eighth edition; and in the Rev. S. C. Malan’s
      “Gospel according to St. John, translated from the Eleven Oldest
      Versions except the Latin,” London, 1862, all Tuki’s Sahidic
      fragments of this Evangelist are included.

_  111 See_ Münter, De Indole, &c., Praef., p. iv. Schwartze (Quat. Evang.
      p. xx) says, “Praeterquam quod sicut omnes Tukii libri scatent
      vitiis, etiam angustioris sunt fidei _Rudimenta_, Sahidicis locis
      partim e versione Arabica a Tukio concinnatis.” I do not know on
      what grounds Schwartze makes this last statement.

  112 This has now been published. By Amélineau, Notice sur le Papyrus
      Gnostique Bruce. Texte et Traduction, Notices et Extraits de la
      Bibliothèque Nationale et autres Bibliothèques. Tome xxix. lre
      Partie. Paris, 1891; and Gnostische Schriften in Koptischer Sprache
      aus dem Codex Brucianus, von Carl Schmidt, Leipzig, 1892.

  113 In the interval between Woide and Zoega, Griesbach (1806) appears to
      have obtained a few readings of this version from the Borgian MSS.,
      e.g. Acts xxiv. 22, 23; xxv. 6; xxvii. 14; Col. ii. 2. At least I
      have not succeeded in tracing them to any printed source of
      information.

      Of the use which Schwartze has made of the published portions of the
      Sahidic text in his edition of the Bohairic Gospels, I have already
      spoken (p. 108). He has added no unpublished materials.

  114 Catal., p. 169: “Si de aetate codicum quaeris, scio equidem non
      defuisse qui singulos ad saecula sua referre satagerent, qui si
      aliquid profecerunt, ego sane non obstrepo. Sed quoniam meum sit
      quacumque in re ignorantiam fateri potius quam quae mihi non
      satisfaciunt, aliis velut explorata offerre, &c.” But since this was
      written the publication of Hyvernat’s “Album de Paléographie Copte”
      has given much assistance; and more may be looked for from the
      publication of the Paris fragments.

  115 Its position was before Galatians, and not, as in the archetype of
      the Codex Vaticanus, after it.

  116 The term “Middle Egyptian” is often used as a general term to
      include the three varieties of Fayoumic, Lower Sahidic or what is
      properly Memphitic, and Akhmimic.

  117 The writer must express his regret that, owing to the haste with
      which the additions to this article had to be written, much must
      have been passed over.

  118 “But he prudently suppressed the four books of Kings, as they might
      tend to irritate the fierce and sanguinary spirit of the
      barbarians;” Gibbon, ch. xxxvii.

  119 “A faithful, a stern and noble Teutonic rendering of the Greek,” is
      the verdict of Prebendary S. C. Malan (St. John’s Gospel, translated
      from the Eleven Oldest Versions except the Latin, &c., 4to, 1872,
      Preface, p. viii). Bishop Ellicott also praises this version as
      usually faithful and accurate, yet marks an Arian tinge in the
      rendering of Phil. ii. 6-8.

  120 Goth. Version. Paul. Epist. quae supersunt, C. O. Castiglione,
      Milan, 1834.

  121 Skeat, St. Mark, 1882.

  122 Matt. iii. 11; v. 8; 15-vi. 32; vii. 12-x. 1; 23-xi. 25; xxv.
      38-xxvi. 3; 65-xxvii. 19; 42-66; Mark i. 1; vi. 30; 58-xii. 38;
      xiii. 16-29; xiv. 4-16; 41-xvi. 12; Luke i. 1-x. 30; xiv. 9-xvi. 24;
      xvii. 3-xx. 46; John i. 29; iii. 3-5; 23-26; 29-32; v. 21-23; 35-38;
      45-xi. 47; xii. 1-49; xiii. 11-xix. 13; Rom. vi. 23; vii. 1-viii.
      10; 34-xi. 1; 11-xii. 5; 8-xiv. 5; 9-20; xv. 3-13; xvi. 21-24; 1
      Cor. i. 12-25; iv. 2-12; v. 3-vi. 1; vii. 5-28; viii. 9-ix. 9; 19-x.
      4; 15-xi. 6; 21-31; xii. 10-22; xiii. 1-12; xiv. 20-27; xv. 1-35;
      46-Gal. i. 7; 20-iii. 6; 27-Eph. v. 11; 17-29; vi. 8-24; Phil. i.
      14-ii. 8; 22-iv. 17; Col. i. 6-29; ii. 11-iv. 19; 1 Thess. ii. 10-2
      Thess. ii. 4; 15-1 Tim. v. 14; 16-2 Tim. iv. 16; Tit. i. 1-ii. 1;
      Philem. 1-23; but no portion of the Acts, Hebrews, Catholic
      Epistles, or Apocalypse.

_  123 See_ p. 10 of the Armenian edition; Venice, 1833. The French
      translation of this in the “Collection des Historiens de l’Arménie,”
      Paris, 1869, is untrustworthy in all ways, and especially because
      the translator both adds to and omits from the Armenian text at
      random.

  124 The true history of which we cannot now make out, for, as given by
      his contemporaries, it is already obscured by legend and miracle.

  125 The translation of this writer in Langlois’ second volume is
      reliable.

  126 Some critics bring down the date of Moses as late as the seventh or
      eighth century.

  127 Dr. Baronean thinks that the varieties of readings in the oldest
      Armenian MSS. is due to the fact that more than one _sure_ copy was
      brought from Constantinople on which to base the final revision.

  128 This is the conclusion at which P. P. Carékin arrives. See his
      “Catalogue of Ancient Armenian Translations,” Venice, 1889, p. 228.

  129 Among the chief authorities on the Slavonic version are the
      following:—

      (i) Горскій и Невоструевъ, описаніе славянскихъ рукописей Московской
      Синодальной Библіотеки. Москва, 1855.

      (ii) Астафьевъ, Опьітъ исторіи библіи въ Россіи въ связи съ
      просвѣщеніемъ и нравами. С. Петербургъ, 1892.

      (iii) Voskresenski, Характеристческія чертъі гиавнъіхъ редакцій
      славянскаго перевода Евангелія.

      (iv) Voskresenski, Древній славянскій переводъ Апостола и его судьбы
      до xv вѣка.

      (v) Oblak, Die Kirchenslavische Uebersetzung der Apocalypse [in the
      “Archiv für Slavische Philologie,” xiii. pp. 321-361].

      (vi) Prolegomena to the editions of the Codex Marianus and the Codex
      Zographensis, &c., by Jagić.

      (vii) Kaluzniacki, Monumenta Linguae Palaeoslavonicae, vol. i.

  130 In the Synodal Library at Moscow this proportion is as nine to two,
      and in another library as twelve to one. _See_ Описаніе славянскихъ
      рукописей и т. д. (as above), p. 299.

  131 Kaluzniacki, _l. c._, p. xlv, gives instances.

_  132 See_ Jagić, Codex Zographensis, pp. xxvii ff.

  133 The statement that John Bishop of Seville translated the Bible into
      Arabic in A.D. 719 is disproved by Lagarde (Die vier Evangelien
      Arabisch, p. xv).

  134 Edward Pocock, Professor of Hebrew at Oxford (1648-91) and a great
      Oriental scholar, should be distinguished from Richard Pococke, an
      Eastern traveller and Bishop of Meath, who died in 1765.

  135 I have been obliged to alter the first paragraph in this chapter
      because of Dr. Scrivener’s private confession to myself of the great
      value of Dean Burgon’s services in this province of Sacred Textual
      Criticism. I am convinced that he could not have continued to
      maintain an opinion so adverse to the value of early citations as
      that which he formed when people were not sufficiently aware of the
      wealth of illustrative evidence that lay ready to their hands. As
      Editor I owe very much in this chapter, both to the express teaching
      in Dean Burgon’s great book, and to his method of argument in
      respect to patristic citations. The Dean did not leave this province
      at all as he found it.

  136 The Revision Revised, by John William Burgon, B. D., Dean of
      Chichester. John Murray, 1883.

_  137 See_ some very thoughtful and cautious remarks by the Rev. Ll. J.
      M. Bebb in the second volume of the Oxford “Studia Biblica (et
      Ecclesiastica).” Mr. Bebb’s entire Article on “The Evidence of the
      Early Versions and Patristic Quotations on the Text of the Books of
      the New Testament” is well worth careful study.

  138 “Dated codices, in fact they are, to all intents and purposes.”
      Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 292. “Every Father is seen to be a
      dated witness and an independent authority,” p. 297.

  139 I am glad to be able to coincide thus far with the judgement of Mr.
      Hammond, who says: “The value of even the most definite Patristic
      citation is only corroborative. Standing by itself, any such
      citation might mean no more than that the writer found the passage
      in his own copy, or in those examined by him, in the form in which
      he quotes it. The moment, however, it is found to be supported by
      other good evidence, the writer’s authority may become of immense
      importance” (Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 66, 2nd edition). His
      illustration is the statement of Irenaeus in Matt. i. 18, which is
      discussed below, Chap. XI. (Third Edition.)

  140 He speaks (N. T., Proleg., § 1478) of Bp. Fell’s “praepropera
      opinio;” he merely stated as _universally_ true what for the most
      part certainly is so.

  141 Take the case of Irenaeus, in some respects the most important of
      them all. The _editio princeps_ of Erasmus (1526) was printed from
      manuscripts now unknown. The three best manuscripts are in Latin
      only. The oldest of them I saw at Middle-hill, an exquisite specimen
      of the tenth or eleventh century, _olim_ Claromontanus; another, of
      the twelfth, is in the Arundel collection in the British Museum; the
      third once belonged to Vossius.

  142 Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. 256, 7th edition) speaks of one
      Wolfenbüttel manuscript of the sixth century containing the Homilies
      on St. Matthew, which he designed to publish in his “Monumenta Sacra
      Inedita,” vol. vii. He indicates its readings by Chrgue.

  143 Life of Dean Burgon, by Dean Goulburn, p. 82, note. Murray, 1892.

  144 Dampar cod. i.e. “Joh. Damasceni parallela sacra ex cod. Rupefuc.
      saeculi ferè 8.” Tischendorf, N. T., Preface to vol. i of the eighth
      edition, 1869. He promised full information in his “Prolegomena,”
      which never appeared. Here we have a manuscript ascribed to the same
      century as the Father whose work it contains. One MS. is at Paris
      (collated by Mr. Rendel Harris, A.D. 1884); another in Phillipps
      collection at Cheltenham.

  145 This important witness for the Old Latin version must now be used
      with H. Roensch’s “Das Neue Testament Tertullian’s,” Leipzig, 1871,
      wherein all his citations from the N. T. are arranged and critically
      examined.

_  146 See_ Dean Burgon’s Appendix (D) to his “Last Twelve Verses of St.
      Mark,” pp. 269-287, which well deserves the praise accorded to it by
      a not very friendly critic. The Dean discusses at length the genius
      and character of Victor of Antioch’s Commentary on St. Mark, and
      enumerates the manuscripts which contain it.

  147 It should be stated that some of the dates in the two tables just
      given are doubtful, authorities differing.

  148 Since the first edition of this book was issued, Ed. Reuss has
      published “Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci, cuius editiones ab
      initio typographiae ad nostram aetatem impressas quotquot reperiri
      potuerunt collegit digessit illustravit E. R. Argentoratensis”
      (Brunsvigae, 1872), to which the reader is referred for editions
      which our purpose does not lead us to notice. Some of his statements
      regarding the text of early editions we have repeated in the notes
      of the present chapter. His enumeration is not grounded on a
      complete collation of any book, but from the study of a thousand
      passages (p. 24) selected for his purpose. Hence his numerical
      results are perpetually less than our own, or even than Mill’s.
      Professor Isaac H. Hall in Schaff’s “Companion to the Greek
      Testament and the English Version,” D. I. Macmillan, 1883, has
      improved upon Reuss, and given a list of editions which as to
      America is, I believe, exhaustive (_see_ also his “American Greek
      Testaments—a Critical Bibliography of the Greek New Testament as
      published in America”—Philadelphia, Pickwick and Company, 1883), and
      is very full as regards English and other editions. I should like to
      have availed myself of the Professor’s kind permission to copy that
      list, but it would have been going out of the way to do so, since
      these two chapters are simply upon the _Early_ Printed and the
      _Critical_ Editions of the Text.—ED.

  149 “Novum Testamentum Grece et Latine in academia complutensi noviter
      impressum,” Tom. v.

  150 Quite enough has been made of that piece of grim Spanish humour,
      “Mediam autem inter has latinam beati Hieronymi translationem velut
      inter Synagogam et Orientalem Ecclesiam posuimus: tanquam duos hinc
      et inde latrones, medium autem Jesum, hoc est Romanam sive latinam
      Ecclesiam collocantes” (Prol. Tom. i). The editors plainly meant no
      disparagement to the original Scriptures, _as such_; but they had
      persuaded themselves that Hebrew codices had been corrupted by the
      Jew, the Septuagint by the schismatical Greek, and so clung to the
      Latin as the only form (even before the Council of Trent) in which
      the Bible was known or studied in Western Europe.

  151 Of these, two copies are in Greek, three in Latin Elegiacs. I
      subjoin those of the native Greek editor, Demetrius Ducas, as a
      rather favourable specimen of verse composition in that age: the
      fantastic mode of accentuation described above was clearly not _his_
      work.

      Ειπράξεις ὅσιαι ἀρετήτε βροτοὺς ἐς ὅλυμπον,
      ἐσμακάρων χῶρον καὶ βίον οἶδεν ἄγειν,
      ἀρχιερεὺς ξιμένης θεῖος πέλει. ἔργα γὰρ αὐτοῦ
      ἤδε βίβλος. θνητοῖς ἄξια δῶρα τάδε.

  152 Tregelles (Account of the Printed Text, p. 7, note) states that he
      was _elected_ Feb. 28, crowned March 11: Sir Harris Nicolas
      (“Chronology of History,” p. 194) that he was elected March 11,
      without naming the date of his coronation as usual, but mentioning
      that “Leo X, in his letters, dated the commencement of his
      pontificate before his coronation.”

  153 The following is the document (a curiosity in its way) as cited by
      Vercellone: “Anno primo Leonis PP. X. Reverendiss. Dom. Franciscus
      Card. Toletanus de mandato SS. D. N. Papae habuit ex bibliotheca a
      Dom. Phaedro Bibliothecario duo volumina graeca: unum in quo
      continentur libri infrascripti; videlicet Proverbia Salomonis,
      Ecclesiastes, Cant. Cant., Job, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Esdras,
      Tobias, Judith [this is Vat. 346, or 248 of Parsons]. Sunt in eo
      folia quingenta et duodecim ex papyro in nigro. Fuit extractum ex
      blancho primo bibliothecae graecae communis. Mandatum Pontificis
      super concessione dictorum librorum registratum fuit in Camera
      Apostolica per D. Franciscum De Attavantes Notarium, ubi etiam
      annotata est obligatio. Promisit restituere intra annum sub poena
      ducentorum ducatorum.”—“Restituit die 9 Julii, MDXVIII. Ita est. Fr.
      Zenobius Bibliothecarius.”

  154 The Catalogue is copied at length by Tregelles (Account of the
      Printed Text, pp. 15-18). It is scarcely worth while to repeat the
      silly story taken up by Moldenhawer, whose admiration of _las cosas
      de España_ was not extravagantly high, that the Alcalà manuscripts
      had been sold to make sky-rockets about 1749; to which statement Sir
      John Bowring pleasantly adds in 1819, “To celebrate the arrival of
      some worthless grandee.” Gutierrez’s recent list comprehends all the
      codices named in the University Catalogue made in 1745; and