A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. II.
author: Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener
edition published: June 28, 2011
language: en; la; es
availability: This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License online at www.gutenberg.org/license

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

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.

[^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.]

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.

[^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.]

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.

[^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).]

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.

[^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.]

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.

[^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.]

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].

[^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.]

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].

[^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.]

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].

[^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.]

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.

[^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.]

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].”

[^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.]

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.

[^19: Cureton, Preface, pp. xi, xciii.]

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.

[^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.]

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.

[^24: Some of the Homilies of Aphraates were composed between 337 and 345. Ephraem died a.d. 373. Bickell, Conspectus, p. 18.]

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.

[^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.]

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].

[^27: For other like cases see Mat. iv. 11, 21; v. 12, 47, in the Curetonian.]

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].

[^28: The forms in which O. T. quotations appear in the Curetonian demand attention, as they seem to suggest similar inferences.]

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].

[^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.]

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.

[^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).]

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.

[^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.]

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].

[^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.]

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].”

[^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.]

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.

[^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).]

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.

[^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.]

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.”

[^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.]

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.

[^45: See Athenaeum, Oct. 28, 1893.]

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].

[^46: Anecdota Oxoniensia, “The Palestinian Version of the Holy Scripture;” edited by G. H. Gwilliam, B.D.: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1893.]

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.

[^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.]

Curetonian.

ܐܘܚ ܐܪܔܕ ܠܬܡ ܢܝܕ ܝܦܣܩܝ
ܡܝܪܡܥ ܘܚܣܪܦܢܕ ܐܘܗ ܛܨ ܐ ܛܛ
܀ܘܚܠܠܪܢ ܬܝܐܐܫܘܝܟܕ ܐܘܗ ܝܠܪܬܐܘ

Nestorian Massorah. Cod. Add. Brit. Mus. 12,138.

ܐܘܗ ܐܢܐܒ ܗܠܠܟ ܢܝ ܕ ܦܣܘܝ
(sic) ܘܝܠܕܬܐܘ ܗܝܣܪܦܢ ܐܒܨ ܐܐܘ ܕ
܀ ܗܝܪܫܢ ܬܪܝܫܛܠܡ ܕ ܐܘܗ

Harkleian—from White.

ܐܢܐܒ ܕ ܗܠܚ ܕ ܐܪܟܓ ܘܗ ܢܝ ܕ ܦܣܘܝ
܃ܡܞܣ ܪܦܢ ܕ ܐܘܗܐܒܨ ܐܐܘ ܃ܐܘܗܝܗܘܬܐ
܀ ܗܝܪܫܢ ܐܝܫܘܛܟ ܕ ܒܫܝܬܐ

* Marg. παραδειγματίσαι.

Jacobite Massorah (“Karkaphensian”). Cod. Add. Brit. Mus. 12,178.

ܐܘܗ ܐܢܐܒ ܗܠܙܟ ܢܝ ܕ ܦܣܘܝ
ܐܘܗ ܝܠܪܬܐܘ ܗܝܣܪܦܢ ܕ ܐܟܨ ܐܐܘ
܀ ܗܪܫܢ ܬܪܝܫܛܠܡ ܕ

Peshitto Text—from the MSS.

܀ ܠܘ ܐܘܗ ܐܢܐܒ ܗܠܠܒ ܢܫ ܕ ܦܣܘܝ ܐܘܗ ܐܢܐܒ ܗܠܙܟ ܢܝ ܦܣܘܝ

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].

[^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.]

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.:—

[^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.]

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].”

[^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.]

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.

[^53: “How the Codex was found” (Lewis and Gibson), 1893.]

Syriac Versions. Matthew XII. 1-4.

peshitto

ܙܘܫܝ ܐܘܗ ܟܠܗܡ : ܐܢܟܙ ܘܗܟ (1)
ܝܗܘܪܕܡܠܬܘ ܐܥܪܙ ܬܒ ܐܬܟܫܟ
ܢܝܠܩܐܘ ܠܟܫ ܢܓܠܡ ܘܝܪܫܘ : ܘܢܦܩ
ܢܝܪܡܐ ܢܘܢܐ ܘܥܝ ܫܩ ܢܝܕ ܐܫܝܪܦ (2)
ܡܝܡ ܢܝܫ ܟܥ ܟܫܝܡܠܬ ܐܗ . ܗܠ
ܘܗ (3) . ܐܬܟܫܟ ܝܟܥܡܠ ܛܝܠܫ ܠܕ
ܐܢܡ ܢܘܬܝܪܩ ܠ . ܢܘܗܠ ܪܡܐ ܢܝܕ
: ܗܡܥܕ ܢܝܠܝܐܘ ܢܦܩ ܕܩ ܕܝܘܕ ܪܟܥ
: ܐܗܠܐܕ ܐܬܒܠ ܠܥ ܐܢܩܝܐ (4)
: ܠܩܐ ܐܝܪܡܕ ܗܪܘܬܦܕ ܐܡܚܠܘ
. ܠܩܐܡܠ ܗܠ ܐܘܗ ܛܝܠܫ ܐܕ ܘܗ
ܐܢܗܩܠ ܢܐ ܐܠܐ . ܗܡܥܕ ܢܝܠܝ ܠ ܠܘ
⁘ ܕܘܚܠ ܟ

curetonian.

ܥܘܫܝ ܐܘܗ ܟܠܗܡ : ܐܢܟܙ ܘܗܟܘ (1)
ܝܗܘܪܝܡܠܬܘ . ܐܥܪܙ ܬܝܒ ܐܬܟܫܟ
ܢܩܪܦܘ ܠܟܫ ܢܓܠܡ ܘܝܪܫܘ . ܘܢܦܩ
ܘܥܝ ܕܩ (2) . ܢܝܠܩܐܘ ܢܘܗܝܕܝܐܟ
ܐܢܡ . ܗܠ ܢܝܪܡܐ ܐܫܝܪܦ ܢܘܢܐ
ܛܝܠܫ ܐܠܕ ܡܪܡ ܟܝܪܝܡܠܬ ܢܝܟܥ
ܠ ܢܘܗܠ ܪܡܐ (3) . ܕܟܥܡܠ
ܢܦܩ ܪܩ ܪܝܘܕ ܕܟܥ ܐܢܡ ܢܘܬܝܪܩ
ܠܥ ܐܢܩܝܐ (4) . ܗܡܥܕ ܢܝܠܝܐܘ
ܡܚܠ ܢܡ ܠ ܟܐܘ . ܐܗܠܐܕ ܗܬܒܠ
ܠܩܐܡܠ ܐܘܗ ܛܝܠܫ ܗܠ ܠܕ . ܐܦܐ
ܐܢܗܩܠ ܢܐ ܠܐ . ܗܡܥܕ ܢܝܠܝܠ ܠܦܐ
⁘ ܕܘܚܠܟ

harkleian.

ܐܘܗ ܟܠܗܡ : ܐܢܟܙ ܘܗܟ (1)
. ܐܥܪ ܙ ܬܕ ܕܒ ܐܬܟܫܟ ܥܘܫܝ
ܘܝܪܫܘ : ܘܢܦܩ ܢܝܕ ܝܗܘܕܝܡܠܬ
ܐܫܝܪܦ (2) . ܢܝܠܩܐܘ ܠܟܫ ܢܓܠܡ
ܐܗ . ܗܠ ܘܪܡܐ ܐܥܝ ܕܩ ܢܝܕ
ܛܝܠܫ ܠܕ ܐܡ ܘܗ ܢܝܕܟܥ ܟܝܕܝܡܠܐ
ܪܡܐ ܢܝܕ ܘܗ (3) . ܐܬܟܫܟ ܕܟܥܡܠ
. ܕܝܘܕ ܪܟܥ ܐܢܡ ܢܘܬܝܪܩ ܠ . ܢܘܗܠ
ܐܢܩܝܐ (4) : ܗܡܥܕ ܢܝܠܗܘ ܢܦܩ
ܐܡܚܠܘ : ܐܗܠܐܕ ܗܬܒܠ ܠܥ
ܠܕ ܢܝܠܗ : ܠܩܐ ܐܡܕܩ ܬܘܡܝܣܕ
ܠܘ ܠܩܐܡܠ ܗܠ ܐܘܗ ܛܝܠܫ
ܐܢܗܩܠ ܢܐ ܠܐ : ܗܡܠܕ ܢܘܢܗܠ
⁘ ܢܘܗܝܕܘܚܠܟ

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.

ܕܩ : ܐܢܡܠܫܡ ܐܕܘܗܝ ܢܝܕܝܗ (3)
ܠܙܐܘ . ܝܘܬܬܐ ܥܘܫܝ ܒܝܚܬܐܕ ܐ ܚ
ܝܟܪܠ ܐܦܣܩܕ ܢܝܬܠܬ ܢܝܠܗ ܟܦܗܐ
ܬܛܚ . ܪܡܐܘ (4) . ܐܫܫܘܠܘ ܐܨܗܟ
ܘܪܡܐ ܢܝܕ ܢܘܢܗ . ܐܝܩܙ ܐܡܕ ܬܡܠ ܫܐܕ
ܬܢܐ ܥܪܝ ܬܢܐ . ܢܠ ܐܡ ܢܠ . ܗܠ
. ܝܢܫܘ ܠܩܝܗܟ ܐܦܣܟ ܝܗܝܪܫܘ (5)
ܐܢܡܩ ܝܒܪ (6) . ܗܫܦܢ ܩܢܚ ܠܙܐܘ
ܠ . ܘܪܡܐܘ ܐܦܣܩܠ ܝܗܘܠܘܫܢܝܕ
. ܐܢܟܪܘܩ ܬܒ ܝܗܘܝܡܪܢܕ ܛܝܠܫ
ܘܟܣܢܘ (7) . ܘܗܐܡܕ ܝܡܛܕ ܠܛܡ
ܐܪܚܦܕ ܗܣܪܘܓܐ ܗܒ ܘܢܟܙܘ : ܐܩܠܡ
ܠܛܡ (8) . ܐܝܢܣܟܐܕ ܐܪܘܟܩ ܬܒܠ
ܐܬܝܪܝܩ : ܘܗ ܐܣܪܘܓ ܐ ܝܪܩܬܐ ܐܢܗ
⁘ ܐܢܡܘܝܠ ܐܡܕܥ ܐܡܕܕ

jerusalem syriac.

ܐܡܝ ܕܩ ܢܩܟ ܐܣܘܪܝܩ ܗܬܒܘ (3)
⁘ ܐܗܬ ܒܝܚܬܐܕ ܗܬܝ ܪܣܡܕ ܣܕܘܗܝ
ܐܝܢܗܟ ܐܫܝܪܠ ܐܦܣܩܕ ܢܝܬܠܬ ܒܪܬܐܘ
ܪܡܐܘ (4) . ܐܫܝܫܩܘ (s.m. ܐܝܢܡ ܟ ܕ)
ܡܕܐ ⁘ ܩܝܕ? ܡܕܐ ܬܪܣܡܕ ܬܠܩܣܐ
ܐܡ ܘܪܡܐ ܝܕ ܢܘܢܗ (s.m. ܩ ܝ ܕ?)
ܐܦܣܩ ܐܕܫܘ (5) ܐܡܝܬ ܬܐ ܗܢܝܠܥ
ܐܫܝܪ (6) ⁘ ܗܡܪܓ ܩܢܝ ܠܙܐܘ ܐܣܘܢܟ
ܠ ܘܪܡܐܘ ܐܦܣܩ ܘܟܣܢ ܝܕ ܐܝܢܗܩ
ܐܢܟܪܘܩܟ ܗܬܝ ܐܡܪܢܕ ܛܝܠܫ
ܘܟܣܢ (7) ܡܕܐܕ ܢܝܡܕ ܘܗܕ ܠܓܠ
ܘܢܟܙܘ (s.m. sic ܐܟܠܝܡ) ܟܠܝܡ ܝܕ
ܐܪܘܟܘܡܠ ܐܪܚܦܕ ܗܪܘܛ ܢܘܗܒ
ܘܐܗ ܐܪܘܛ ܝܪܘܬܐ ܢܝܩܠ (8) ⁘ ܚܢܣܩܠ
⁘ ܢܝܕܡܘܝܠ ܐܛܡ ܪܥ ܐܡܕܐ ܠܘܝ

harkleian.

ܘܗ ܐܕܘܗܝ ܐܢܚ ܪܩ ܢܝܪܝܗ (3)
; ܝܘܬܬܐ ܪܩ : ܒܝܪܬܐܕ ܗܡܠܫܐܕ
ܝܫܝܪܠ ܐܦܣܩ ܢܬܠܬ ܢܝܠܗ ܢܦܗܐ
: ܪܗܐ ܕܩ (4) ܐܫܝܫܘܠܘ ܐܢܗܩ
ܢܘܢܗ . ܐܝܒܙ ܐܡܕ ܬܡܠܫܐܕ ܬܛܝ
. ܐܢܚܬ ܬܢܐ . ܢܬܘܠ ܐܢܡ . ܘܪܡܐ ܢܕ
: ܠܩܝܗܟ ܐܦܣܩܠ ܢܘܢܐ ܝܕܫ ܕܩܘ (5)
. ܗܠ ܘܗ ܩܢܚ ܠܙܐܘ ܝܢܫ
ܢܘܢܐ ܘܠܘܫ ܕܩ ܢܝܕ ܐܢܗܩ ܝܫܝܪ (6)
ܘܝܡܪܡܠ ܛܝܠܫ ܠ : ܘܪܡܐ ܐܦܣܩܠ
ܐܡܕܕ ܐܡܝܛܕ ܠܛܡ : ܢܐܢܐܟܪܘܩ ܬܒ
: ܘܟܣܢ ܐܩܠܡ ܢܝܕ ܕܩ (7) . ܢܘܗܝܬ ܢܐ
ܐܝܪܚܦܕ (5) ܐܣܪܘܓܐ ܢܘܗܥܡ ܘܥܟܙ
ܠܛܡ (8) . ܐܝܢܣܩܐܕ ܝ ܐܪܘܟܩ ܬܒܠ
: ܘܗ ܐܣܪܘܓܐ ܘܗ ܝܪܩܬܐ ܐܕܗ
⁘ ܐܢܡܘܝܠ ܐܡܕܥ ܐܡܕܕ ܐܣܪܘܓܐ

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.

ܢܝܢܡܝܗܡܕ ܢܝܠܝܠ ܢܝܕ ܐܬܘܬܐ (17)
ܐܕܐܫ ܝܡܫܟ . ܢܦܘܢ ܢܝܠܗ
. ܢܘܠܠܡܢ ܐܬܪܚ ܐܢܫܠܟܘ ܢܘܩܦܢ
ܐܡܣ ܢܐܘ . ܢܘܠܘܫܢ ܐܬܘܘܚܘ (18)
ܢܘܗܝ ܕܝܐܘ . ܢܘܢܐ ܪܗܢ ܠ ܢܘܬܫܢ ܐܬܘܡܕ
. ܢܘܡܠܚܬܢܘ ܐܗܝܪܩ ܠܥ ܢ ܘܡܝܣܢ
ܪܬܟ ܢܡ : ܢܪܡ ܢܝܕ ܥܘܫܝ (19)
. ܩܠܣ ܐܝܡܫܠ ܢܘܗܡܥ ܠ ܠܡܕ
ܢܘܢܗ (20) . ܐܗܠܐܕ ܐܢܝܡܝ ܢܡ ܒܬܝܘ
ܢܪ ܡܘ . ܐܩܘܕ ܠܩܟ ܘܙܪܩܐܘ ܘܩܦܢ ܢܝܕ
ܢܘܗܝܠܡ ܪܫܡܘ : ܢܘܗܠ ܐ ܘܗ ܪܕܥܡ
⁘ ܘܘܗ ܢܝܕܟܥܕ ܐܬ ܘܬܐܒ

curetonian.

ܢܝܠܗ . ܝܟ ܢܝܢܡܝܗܡܕ ... (17)
ܐܬܕܚ ܐܢܫܠܟ . ܢܘܘܦܢ ܐܘܝ ܕܝܡܫܒ
ܢܘܠܘܫܢ ܐܬܘܘܚ (18) . ܢܘܠܠܡܢ
ܐܬܘܡܕ ܐܡܣ ܡܪܡ ܢܐܘ ܢ ܘܗܝܕܪܐܒ
ܐܗܝܪܩ ܠܐ . ܢܘܢܐ ܐܩܢ ܠ ܢܘܬܫܢ
ܢܘܡܠܚܬܢܘ ܢܘܗܝܕܝܐ ܢܘܡܝܣܢ
ܝܘܦܕ ܪܬܟ ܢܡ ܥܘܫܝ ܢܝܕ ܢܪܡ (19)
. ܠܝܡܫܠ ܝܠܥܬܐ ܝܗܘܪܝܡܠܬܠ
ܢܘܢܗ (20) . ܐܗܠܐܕ ܐܝܡܝ ܢܡ ܒܬܝܘ
ܕܟ . ܐܒܘܕ ܠܘܩܟ ܘܙܪܩܐܘ ܘܘܦܢ ܢܝܕ
ܢܘܗܬܠܡܘ . ܠܩܟ ܢܘܗܡܥ ܐܝܪܡ
⁘ ܘܘܗ ܢܝܪܟܥܕ ܐܬܘܬܐܒ ܐܘܗ ܪܫܡ

harkleian.

ܢܝܢܡܝܗܡܕ ܢܘܢܗܠ ܢܝܕ ܐܬܘܬܐ (17)
ܐܘܝܕ ܝܠܝܕ ܐܡܫܟ . ܢ ܦܘܢ ܢܝܠ ܗ
. ܢܘܠܠܡ ܢ ܐܬܪܚ ܐܢܫܠܒ . ܢܘܩܦܢ
. ܢܘܠܘܫܢ ܐܬܘܘܚ ܐܝܪܝܐܒܘ (18)
ܢܘܬ ܫܢ ܡܪܡ ܐܢܬܝܡܡ ܐܡܣ ܢܐܘ
ܐܝܕܝܐ ܐܗܝܪܩ ܠܥ . ܢܘܢܐ ܐܩܢ ܠ
ܘܗ (19) ⁘ ܢܘܘܗܢ ܬܝܐܒ ܛܘ : ܢܘܡܝܣܢ
ܪܬܟ : ܥܘܫܝ ܐܝܪܡ ܠܝܩܗ ܢܡ
ܒܬܝܘ ܐܝܡܫܠ ܩܠܬܣܐ ܢܘܗܠ ܠܠܡܕ
ܢܘܢܗ (20) ⁘ ܐܗܠܐܕ ܐܢܝܡܝ ܢܡ
: ܐܬܩܘܕ ܠܩܟ ܘܙܪܩܐ ܘܘܦܢ ܪܩ ܢܝܕ
ܪܕܫܡ ܐܬܠܡܠܘ ܐܘܗ ܕܪܥܡ ܐܝܪܡ ܪܩ
⁘ ܝܘܗ ܢܘܦܢܕ ܢܝܢܗ ܐܬܘܬܐ ܕܝܟ : ܐܘܗ

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).

[^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.]

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.”

[^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.]

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.

[^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.]

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 a2 b d e f ff2 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.

ff1. 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; ff1 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 ff1 with a marginal collation of the St. Germain Bible (g1), 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 ff2 in SS. Mark, Luke, and John; Sabatier, however, cites ff1 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).

ff2. 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.

g1. 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 ff1); 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 g1 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.

g2. 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 g1, 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 a2 (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 r1. 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.

r2. 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 r1; 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).

a2. 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.

g2. 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 ff1, p. 46). The Epistle was published in 1695 by Martianay in the same volume which included ff1; 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 r2 (Italafragm. d. paulinischen Briefe, Marburg, 1876); see E. Wölfflin, Freisinger Itala (S. B. of Munich Acad. 1893, Heft ii).

r2. 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).

r3. 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 a2 (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. r1 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 g2, 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 r2 of St. Paul's Epistles, and the Göttweig fragments r3 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; ff1 and f2g1sδ; 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.

[^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.]

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]

[^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.]

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.

[^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.]

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).

[^69: Berger, as above, p. 7.]

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).

[^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).]

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).

[^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.”]

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].

[^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.]

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].

[^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.]

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].

[^89: Ibid., p. xxv.]

[^90: See Fasc. i. p. xv, and Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Cambridge, 1862.]

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.

[^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.]

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 g1. 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 r1 (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 r1 (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.

[^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.]

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.

[^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.]

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].

[^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.]

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].

[^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.]]

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).

[^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).]

[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].

[^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.]

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.

[^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.).]

[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 [Memphitic (Lightfoot), Coptic (Tischendorf and others).].

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[^101]; 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.

[^101: See also A. J. Butler's “Coptic Churches,” vol. ii, Oxford.]

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[^102]. 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[^103], 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 ⲓⲏⲥ 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[^104]:

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[^105].

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.[^106]

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.

[^102: 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.]

[^103: I have observed Luke xxiii. 17 in at least three wholly distinct forms in different Bohairic MSS.]

[^104: 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.]

[^105: 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.]

[^106: 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.]

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[^107], 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[^108].

[^107: The MSS. 7 and 16 are exceptions.]

[^108: 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.]

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[^109]. 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[^110].

[^109: 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.]

[^110: 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.]

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[^111].

[^111: 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.]

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[^112].

[^112: 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.]

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.[^113]

[^113: 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.]

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[^114]. 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.

[^114: Its position was before Galatians, and not, as in the archetype of the Codex Vaticanus, after it.]

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	ⲛϩⲉⲗⲗⲏⲛ ⲛⲣⲙⲙⲁⲟ
ⲛⲉⲩⲥⲭⲏⲙⲱⲛ ⲛⲉⲙ ϩⲁⲛⲕⲉⲣⲱⲓ	ⲙⲛ ϩⲉⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲛⲁϣⲱⲟⲩ⁘
ⲏ ϩⲁⲛⲕⲟⲩϫⲓ ⲁⲛ⁘	13 ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩⲉⲓⲙⲉ
13 ⲉⲧⲁⲩⲉⲙⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲛϫⲉ ⲛⲓⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ	ⲑⲉ ⲛⲑⲓ ⲛⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ ⲛⲏ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲛ
ⲛⲧⲉ ⲑⲉⲥⲥⲁⲗⲟⲡⲓⲕⲏ ϫⲉ	ⲑⲉⲥⲁⲗⲗⲟⲛⲓⲕⲏ ϫⲉ
ⲁ ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ϩⲓⲱⲓϣ ϧⲉⲛ	ⲁⲩⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ ϩⲛ ⲃⲉⲣⲟⲓⲁ
ⲧⲕⲉⲃⲉⲣⲟⲓⲁ ⲙⲡⲓⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲛⲧⲉ	ⲙⲡϣⲁϫⲉ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲙ
ⲫⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲁⲩⲓ ⲉ ⲡⲓⲕⲉⲙⲁ	ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲉⲓ
ⲉⲧⲉⲙⲙⲁⲩ ⲉⲩⲕⲓⲙ ⲉ	ⲟⲛ ⲉⲙⲁⲩ ⲉⲩϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲣ
ⲛⲓⲙⲏϣ ⲉⲩϣⲑⲟⲣⲧⲉⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ⁘	ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲕⲓⲙ ⲉ ⲡⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ⁘
14 ⲧⲟⲧⲉ ⲥⲁⲧⲟⲧⲟⲩ	14 ⲛⲧⲉⲩⲛⲟⲩ ⲇⲉ ⲁ ⲛⲉⲥⲛⲏⲩ
ⲁⲩⲧⲫⲉ ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛϫⲉ	ϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲉ ⲧⲣⲉϥⲃⲱⲕ
ⲛⲓⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ ⲉ ⲑⲣⲉϥϣⲉ ⲉϫⲉⲛ	ϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϫⲛ ⲑⲁⲗⲁⲥⲥⲁ
ⲫⲓⲟⲙ ⲁⲩⲥⲱϫⲡ ⲇⲉ ⲙⲙⲁⲩ	ⲁ ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲋⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ
ⲛϫⲉ ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ⁘	ⲙⲛ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ⁘
15 ⲛⲏ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲧⲁⲩⲧⲫⲉ	15 ⲛⲉⲧⲕⲁⲑⲓⲥⲧⲁ
ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲉⲛϥ ⲉϩⲣⲏⲓ ⲉ	ⲇⲉ ⲙⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ
ⲁⲑⲏⲛⲁⲥ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲉⲧⲁⲩⲋⲓ	ⲁⲩⲛⲧϥ ϣⲁ ⲁⲑⲉⲛⲛⲁⲓⲁⲥ
ⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ ⲉ ⲋⲓ ⲡϣⲓⲛⲓ ⲛⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ	ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩϫⲓ ⲛⲟⲩⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ
ⲛⲉⲙ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ	ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ ϣⲁ ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ
ϩⲓⲛⲁ ⲛⲥⲉⲓ ϩⲁⲣⲟϥ ⲛⲭⲱⲗⲉⲙ	ⲙⲛ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲉⲩⲉⲉⲓ
ⲁⲩⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲁⲩϣⲉⲛⲱⲟⲩ⁘	ϣⲁⲣⲟϥ ϩⲛ ⲟⲩⲋⲉⲡⲏ ⲁⲩⲉⲓ
16 ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲛⲁϥ	ⲉⲃⲟⲗ⁘
ϩⲉⲛ ⲁⲑⲏⲛⲁⲥ ⲉϥⲥⲟⲙⲥ	16 ⲉⲣⲉ ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲇⲉ
ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲁϫⲱⲟⲩ ⲁϥϫⲱⲛⲧ	ⲋⲱϣⲧ ϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ ϩⲛ ⲁⲑⲏⲛⲛⲁⲓⲁⲥ
ⲇⲉ ⲛϫⲉ ⲡⲉϥⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ	ⲁ ⲡⲉϥⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ
ⲛϩⲣⲏⲓ ⲛϩⲏⲧϥ ⲉϥⲛⲁⲩ ⲉ	ϩⲟϫϩⲉϫ ⲛϩⲏⲧϥ ⲉϥⲛⲁⲩ
ϯⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ⲉⲥⲟϣ ⲙⲙⲉⲧϣⲁⲙϣⲉ	ⲉⲧⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ⲉⲙⲙⲉϩ ⲙⲙⲁⲛⲉⲓⲇⲱⲗⲟⲛ⁘
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 [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.] 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 ⲉⲡⲉⲧⲛⲛⲁ ·	ⲣ ⲁⲧ ⲛⲁϩ ⲧⲉ ⲉⲡⲉⲧⲛⲛⲁ ·
ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲉⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲛⲏⲩ	ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲉⲛⲁ ⲛⲁⲩ
32. ⲙⲛⲛⲥⲟⲥ · 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 ⲙⲡⲫϯ · 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 ⲙⲡⲟⲥ · ⲡⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲛⲁ	ϩⲏⲧ ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ · ⲡⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲛⲁ
35. ⲥⲉ ⲃⲓⲏⲧϥ 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
ⲡⲩⲏⲣϥ ϩⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲙⲁϥ	ⲡⲩⲏⲣϥ ϩⲉⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲙⲟϥ
ⲛⲉ · ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲁ	ⲛⲉ · ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲟ
ⲁⲧϥ · ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲛⲁⲕⲁⲧⲟⲩ	ⲁⲧϥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲛⲁⲕⲟⲧⲟⲩ
ⲉⲗⲁϥ · ⲡⲱϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ	ⲉⲣⲟϥ · ⲡⲱϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ
ⲛϣⲁ ⲛⲓⲉⲛϩ 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. ⲛⲛϣⲉϫⲉ ⲙⲡⲛϫⲁⲉⲓⲥ ⲓⲥ	17. ⲛⲛϣⲁϫⲉ ⲙⲡⲉϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲓⲥ
ⲡⲭⲥ ⲛⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲁ ⲛⲉϥⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ	ⲡⲉⲭⲥ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲧⲁ ⲛⲉϥⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ
ϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϫⲛ ⲛϩⲁⲣⲡ' ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ·	ϫⲟⲟⲩ ϫⲓⲛ ⲛϣⲟⲣⲡ · ⲉⲃⲟⲗ
18. ϫⲉ ⲁⲩⲇⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ϩⲛ ⲧϩⲁⲉⲓ	18. ϫⲉ ⲁⲩⲇⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ϩⲛ ⲑⲁⲏ
ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲁⲉⲓϣ ⲟⲩⲛ ϩⲉⲛⲣⲉϥϫⲣϫⲣⲉ	ⲛⲛⲉⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲟⲩⲛ ϩⲉⲛⲣⲉϥϫⲣϫⲣⲉ
ⲛⲏⲩ ⲉⲩⲙⲁⲁϩⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲛⲉⲡⲓ	ⲛⲏⲩ ⲉⲩⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲛⲉⲡⲓ
ⲑⲩⲙⲓⲁ ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲙⲡⲧ' ϩⲉϥⲧ ·	ⲑⲩⲙⲓⲁ ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲙⲡⲧϣⲁϥⲧⲉ ·
19. ⲛⲉⲓ ⲛⲉⲧⲡⲱⲣϫ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ⲉϩⲉⲛ	19. ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲉⲧⲡⲱⲣϫ ⲁⲃⲟⲗ ⲉϩⲉⲛ
ⲯⲩⲭⲓⲕⲟⲥ ⲛⲉ ⲉⲙⲛⲧⲉⲩ ⲡⲡⲛⲁ	ⲯⲩⲭⲓⲕⲟⲛ ⲛⲉ ⲉⲙⲛⲧⲟⲩ ⲡⲛⲁ
ⲙⲙⲟ · 20. ⲛⲧⲱⲧⲛⲉⲇⲉⲛⲁⲙⲣⲣⲉ ·	ⲙⲙⲁⲩ · 20. ⲛⲧⲱⲧⲛⲇⲉⲛⲁⲙⲉⲣⲁ ·
ⲧⲉ ϩⲱⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ ⲕⲱⲧ ⲙⲙⲱⲧ	ⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ ⲕⲱⲧ ⲙⲡⲱⲧⲉⲛ ...
ⲛⲉ ϩⲛ ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲡⲓⲥⲧⲓⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃⲉ	
ⲙⲡϣⲁ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛϣⲗⲏⲗ ϩⲙ	
ⲡⲡⲛⲁ 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[^115].]

[^115: 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.]

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[^116] 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[^117]: 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.

[^116: “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.]

[^117: “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.]

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[^118]. 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[^119].

[^118: Goth. Version. Paul. Epist. quae supersunt, C. O. Castiglione, Milan, 1834.]

[^119: Skeat, St. Mark, 1882.]

These fragments (for such they still must be called)[^120], 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.

[^120: 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.]

(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[^121] in his life of St. Mesrop (written between 441 and 452 a.d.) relates as follows:—

[^121: 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.]

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[^122]. 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[^123], 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.

[^122: The true history of which we cannot now make out, for, as given by his contemporaries, it is already obscured by legend and miracle.]

[^123: The translation of this writer in Langlois' second volume is reliable.]

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[^124]. 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[^125]. 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.

[^124: Some critics bring down the date of Moses as late as the seventh or eighth century.]

[^125: 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.]

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[^126]. 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.

[^126: This is the conclusion at which P. P. Carékin arrives. See his “Catalogue of Ancient Armenian Translations,” Venice, 1889, p. 228.]

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. [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.]).

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[^127].

[^127: 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.]

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[^128], (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.

[^128: Kaluzniacki, l. c., p. xlv, gives instances.]

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[^129] 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.

[^129: See Jagić, Codex Zographensis, pp. xxvii ff.]

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)[^130]. 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.

[^130: 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).]

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[^131], 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.

[^131: 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.]

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[^132]. 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[^133],” 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[^134]. In other words, the unknown MS. derives life and character from the Father who uses it[^135]. 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[^136]. 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.

[^132: 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.]

[^133: The Revision Revised, by John William Burgon, B. D., Dean of Chichester. John Murray, 1883.]

[^134: 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.]

[^135: “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.]

[^136: 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.)]

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[^137]. 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[^138].

[^137: 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.]

[^138: 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.]

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[^139], 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.

[^139: 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.]

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[^140],” 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.

[^140: Life of Dean Burgon, by Dean Goulburn, p. 82, note. Murray, 1892.]

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.)[^141].

[^141: 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.]

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.)[^142].

[^142: 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.]

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.)[^143].

[^143: 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.]

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[^144].

[^144: It should be stated that some of the dates in the two tables just given are doubtful, authorities differing.]

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[^145].

[^145: 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.]

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[^146] (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.

[^146: “Novum Testamentum Grece et Latine in academia complutensi noviter impressum,” Tom. v.]

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[^147]. 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[^148], an interpretation of Proper Names, and a Greek Lexicon of the N. T., close the volume.

[^147: 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.]

[^148: 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.]

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[^149]. 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.[^150] 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[^151]. 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.

[^149: 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.”]

[^150: 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.”]

[^151: 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 we may hope that even in Spain all grandees are not necessarily worthless.]

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[^152]. 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.

[^152: Thus in St. Mark the Complutensian varies from Laud. 2 in fifty-one places, and nowhere agrees with it except in company with a mass of other copies. In the Acts on the contrary they agree 139 times, and differ but forty-one, some of their loci singulares being quite decisive: e.g. x. 17; 21; xii. 12; xvii. 31; xx. 38; xxiv. 16; 1 Pet. iii. 12; 14; 2 Pet. i. 11. In most of these places Seidel's Codex, in some of them Act. 69, and in nearly all Cod. Havn. 1 (Evan. 234, Act. 57, Paul. 72) are with Laud. 2. On testing this last at the Bodleian in some forty places, I found Mill's representation fairly accurate. As might have been expected, his Oxford manuscripts were collated much the best.]

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[^153], 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.

[^153: Goeze's “Defence of the Complutensian Bible,” 1766. He published a “Continuation” in 1769. See also Franc. Delitzsch's “Studies on the Complutensian Polyglott” (Bagster, 1872), derived from his Academical Exercise as Dean of the Theological Faculty at Leipzig, 1871-2.]

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)[^154].

[^154: Reuss says boldly that the Complutensian text “purus et authenticus a veteribus nunquam repetitus est” (p. 25), and gives a list of forty-four places in which the Complutensian and Plantin editions are at variance (pp. 16, 17). He subjoins a list of 185 cases in which the two are in unison against Erasmus and Stephen jointly (pp. 18-21), so that the influence of the former over the latter cannot be disputed.]

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[^155], now learning Greek at Oxford (but αὐτοδίδακτος)[^156], 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[^157]. 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[^158]. 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[^159]. 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).

[^155: At forty he obtained the countenance of that good and bountiful rather than great prelate, William Wareham, Archbishop of Canterbury (1502-32), who, prosperous in life, was so singularly “felix opportunitate mortis.” It gladdens and makes sad at once an English heart to read what Erasmus writes about him ten years later: “Cujusmodi Maecenas, si mihi primis illis contigisset annis, fortassis aliquid in bonis literis potuissem. Nunc natus saeculo parum felici, cum passim impunè regnaret barbaries, praesertim apud nostrates, apud quos turn crimen etiam erat quicquam bonarum literarum attigisse, tantum aberat ut honos aleret hominum studia in eâ regione, quae Baccho Cererique dicata sunt verius quam musis” (N. T. 1516, Annot. 1 Thess. ii. p. 554).]

[^156: Bishop Middleton may have lost sight of this pregnant fact when he wrote of Erasmus, “an acquaintance with Greek criticism was certainly not among his best acquirements, as his Greek Testament plainly proves: indeed he seems not to have had a very happy talent for languages” (Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 395, 3rd edition).]

[^157: The title-page is long and rather boastful. “Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et emendatum, non solum ad graecam veritatem, verum etiam ad multorum utriusque linguae codicum, eorumque veterum simul et emendatorum fidem, postremo ad probatissimorum autorum citationem, emendationem, et interpretationem, praecipue, Origenis, Chrysostomi, Cyrilli, Vulgarii, Hieronymi, Cypriani, Ambrosii, Hilarii, Augustini, una cum Annotationibus, quae lectorem doceant, quid qua ratione mutatum sit. Quisquis igitur amas veram theologiam, lege, cognosce, ac deinde judica. Neque statim offendere, si quid mutatum offenderis, sed expende, num in melius mutatum sit. Apud inclytam Germaniae Basilaeam.” The Vulgarius of Erasmus' first edition is no less a person than Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, as appears plainly from his Annotations, p. 319, “nec in ullis graecorum exemplaribus addita reperi [ἐκ σοῦ, Luke i. 35], ne apud Vulgarium quidem, nec in antiquis codicibus Latinis.” He had found out his portentous blunder by 1528, when, in his “Responsio ad Object, xvi. Hispanorum,” he gives that commentator his right name.]

[^158: Yet he could have followed none other than Cod. 1 in Matt. xxii. 28; xxiii. 25; xxvii. 52; xxviii. 3, 4, 19, 20; Mark vii. 18, 19, 26; x. 1; xii. 22; xv. 46; Luke i. 16, 61; ii. 43; ix. 1, 15; xi. 49; John i. 28; x. 8; xiii. 20; in all which passages the Latin Vulgate is neutral or hostile. See also Hoskier, Cod. Ev. 604, App. F. p. 4.]

[^159: Such are ὀρθρινός, Apoc. xxii. ver. 16; ἐλθέ bis, ἐλθέτω, λαμβανέτω τό, ver. 17; συμμαρτυροῦμαι γάρ, ἐπιτιθῇ πρὸς ταῦτα,—τῷ (ante βιβλίῳ) ver. 18; ἀφαιρῇ, βίβλου, ἀφαιρῆσει, βίβλου secund., καί ult-τῷ (ante βιβλίῳ) ver. 19; ἡμῶν, ὑμῶν, ver. 21. Erasmus in his Annotations fairly confesses what he did: “quanquam in calce hujus libri, nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros, quae aberant in Graecis exemplaribus, ea tamen ex latinis adjecimus.” But since the text and commentary in Cod. Reuchlini are so mixed up as to be undistinguishable in parts without the aid of a second manuscript (Tregelles' “Delitzsch's Handschriftliche Funde,” Part ii. pp. 2-7), it is no wonder that in other places Erasmus in his perplexity was sometimes tempted to translate into his own Greek from the Latin Vulgate such words or clauses as he judged to have been wrongly passed over by his sole authority, e.g. ch. ii. 2, 17; iii. 5, 12, 15; vi. 11, 15 (see under Apoc. 1); vii. 17; xiii. 4, 5; xiv. 16; xxi. 16; xxii. 11, where the Greek words only of Erasmus are false; while in ch. ii. 3; v. 14 (bis); vi. 1, 3, 5, 7; xiii. 10; xiv. 5 (as partly in xxii. 14), he was misled by the recent copies of the Vulgate, whereto alone he had access, to make additions which no Greek manuscript is known to support. Bengel's acuteness had long before suspected that ch. v. 14; xxii. 11, and the form ἀκαθάρτητος, ch. xvii. 4 (where Apoc. 1 has τὰ ἀκάθαρτα) had their origin in no Greek copy, but in the Vulgate. Nor does Apoc. 1 lend any countenance to ch. xvii. 8, καίπερ ἔστι, or to ver. 13, διαδιδώσουσιν. For Erasmus' πληρώσονται ch. vi. 11, Apoc. 1 has πληρώσωσιν, the Latin impleantur; for his σφραγίζωμεν, ch. vii. 3, we find σφραγίσωμεν in Apoc. 1, but the latter omits τῆς ἀμπέλου, ch. xiv. 18, and so does Erasmus on its authority.]

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[^160].” 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[^161].

[^160: Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, p. 19.]

[^161: It sometimes happens that a reading cited in the Annotations is at variance with that given in the text; but Erasmus had been engaged in writing the former for about ten years at intervals, and had no leisure to revise them then. Thus John xvii. 2 δώσει (after Cod. 1, but corrected to δώση in the errata); 1 Thess. ii. 8; iii. 1; 1 Tim. v. 21; Apoc. i. 2; ii. 18; xiv. 10, 13; xxi. 6.]

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[^162], 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[^163].

[^162: The first complete printed English N. T. (Tyndale 1526) followed Erasmus' third edition rather than his second: cf. Rom. viii. 20, 21 as well as 1 John v. 7, 8.]

[^163: I never saw the Basle manuscripts, and probably Dean Alford had been more fortunate, otherwise I do not think he has evidence for his statement that 'Erasmus tampered with the readings of the very few MSS. which he collated' (N. T., vol. i. Proleg. p. 74, 4th edition). The truth is, that to save time and trouble, he used them as copy for the press, as was intimated above, where Burgon's evidence is quite to the point. For this purpose corrections would of course be necessary (those made by Erasmus were all too few), and he might fairly say, in the words cited by Wetstein (N. T., Proleg., p. 127), “se codices suos praecastigasse.” Any wanton “tampering” with the text I am loth to admit, unless for better reasons than I yet know of.]

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[^164], 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)[^165]; the fourth from the third in 106 or 113 places, ninety being those from the Apocalypse just spoken of (ibid. § 1141)[^166]. 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[^167].

[^164: Reuss (p. 24) enumerates 347 passages wherein the first edition of Erasmus differs from the Complutensian, forty-two of which were changed in his second edition. In fifteen places the first edition agrees with the Complutensian against the second (p. 30).]

[^165: Besides the weighty insertion of 1 John v. 7, 8, Reuss (p. 32) gives us only seven changes in the third edition from the second: Mill's other cases, he says, must be mere trifles.]

[^166: Here again Reuss declares “paucissimas novas habet” (p. 36), and names only six.]

[^167: “Non deserit quartam nisi duobus in locis: 1 Cor. xii. 2; Acts ix. 28” (Reuss, p. 37). Reuss had evidently not seen the first edition of the present work.]

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[^168]. 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[^169]. 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.

[^168: Multis vetustissimis exemplaribus collatis, adhibita etiam quorundam eruditissimorum hominum cura, Biblia (ut vulgo appellant) graece cuncta eleganter descripsi (Andreas Aesulanus Cardinali Aegidio).]

[^169: This is Mill's calculation, but Wetstein followed him over the ground, adding (especially in the Apocalypse) not a few variations of Aldus which Mill had overlooked, now and then correcting his predecessor's errors (e.g. 2 Cor. xi. 1; Col. ii. 23), not without mistakes of his own (e.g. Luke xi. 34; Eph. vi. 22). Since Wetstein's time no one seems to have gone carefully through the Aldine N. T., except Delitzsch in order to illustrate the Codex Reuchlini (1) in the Apocalypse. Reuss (p. 28) notes eleven places in which it agrees with the Complutensian against Erasmus; seven wherein it rejects both books.]

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[^170]. 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.

[^170: The title-page runs εν λευκετια των παρησιων, παρα σιμωνι τω κολιναιω δεκεμβριου μηνος δευτερα φθινοντος, ετει απο της θεογονιας α φ λ δ. This book has no Preface, and the text does not contain 1 John v. 7, 8. It stands alone in reading ἀγγελία, 1 John i. 5. Reuss (p. 46), who praises Colinaeus highly, states that he deserts Erasmus' third edition 113 times out of his own thousand, fifty-three of them to side with the Complutensian, and subjoins a list of fifty-two passages wherein he stands alone among early editors, for most of which he may have had manuscript authority.]

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[^171],” 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[^172]. 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[^173]. 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[^174]. 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[^175], 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[^176] 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.

[^171: Wordsworth, Old Latin Biblical Texts, I. xv.]

[^172: Reuss (pp. 50, 51, 54) mentions only nine places wherein Stephen's first edition does not agree either with the Complutensian or Erasmus; in the second edition four (or rather three) more; in the third nine, including the great erratum, 1 Pet. iii. 11. He further alleges that in the Apocalypse whatever improvements were introduced by Stephen came from the fourth edition of Erasmus, not from the Complutensian.]

[^173: Mill states that Stephen's citations of the Complutensian are 598, Marsh 578, of which forty-eight, or one in twelve, are false; but we have tried to be as exact as possible. Certainly some of Stephen's inaccuracies are rather slight, viz. Acts ix. 6; xv. 29; xxv. 5; xxviii. 3; Eph. iv. 32; Col. iii. 20; Apoc. i. 12; ii. 1, 20, 24; iii. 2, 4, 7, 12; iv. 8; xv. 2: β' seems to be put for α' Matt. x. 25.]

[^174: Viz. in the Gospels 81, Paul. 20, Act. Cath. 17, Apoc. 1 (ch. vii. 5): but for the Apocalypse the margin had only three authorities, α᾽, ιε᾽, ιϛ᾽ (ιϛ᾽ ending ch. xvii. 8), whose united readings Stephen rejects no less than fifty-four times. See, moreover, above, p. 154, note 3.]

[^175: Here, again, my own collation represents Stephen's first edition as differing from his third in 797 places, of which 372 only are real various readings, the rest relating to accents, or being mere errata. Of these 372 places, the third edition agrees in fifty-six places with π. or πάντες of its own margin, and in fifty-five with some of the authorities cited therein. Stephen no doubt knew of manuscript authority for many of his other changes, though some may be mere errata.]

[^176: Wetstein (N. T., Prol., vol. i. p. 36) instances the readings of Cod. D (indicated as “quidam codex” by Beza in 1565) in Mark ix. 38; x. 50; Luke vii. 35. We may add that Beza in 1565 cites the evidence of one Stephanic manuscript for the omission of ὑμῶν, Matt. xxiii. 9; of two for κατεδίωξεν Mark i. 36; in later editions of two also in Luke xx. 4, and Acts xxii. 25; of three for ἑτέρῳ; Matt. xxi. 30, two of which would be Cod. D and Evan. 9 (Steph. ιβ᾽). In his dedication to Queen Elizabeth in 1565, Beza speaks plainly of an “exemplar ex Stephani nostri bibliotheca cum viginti quinque plus minus manuscriptis codicibus, et omnibus paenè impressis, ab Henrico Stephano ejus filio, et paternae sedulitatis haerede, quam diligentissimè collatum.”]

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[^177], 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.”

[^177: But here again we must qualify previous statements. Reuss (p. 58) cites six instances wherein Stephen's third and fourth editions differ (Matt. xxi. 7; xxiii. 13, 14; xxiv. 15; Luke xvii. 36; Col. i. 20; Apoc. iii. 12): to which list add Mark xiv. 21; xvi. 20; Luke i. 50; viii. 31; xii. 1; Acts xxvii. 13; 2 Cor. x. 6; Heb. vii. 1.]

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[^178]. 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[^179]. 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).

[^178: Professor Isaac H. Hall, who has the advantage of Dr. Scrivener in actually himself possessing all the ten editions of Beza, as he states in MS. in a copy of his “American Greek Testaments” kindly given to me, says, p. 60, note, that in the edition of 1556 the Greek does not occur, and that Beza's first Greek text was published in 1565. Beza must have reckoned his Latin amongst his editions when he spoke of his folio of 1565 as his second edition, and must generally have dated from 1556 as the beginning of his labours. The dates of the ten editions given above are extracted from Professor Hall's list in Schaff's “Companion to the Bible,” pp. 500-502.]

[^179: Reuss says fairly enough (p. 85) that Beza was the true author of what is called the received text, from which the Elzevir of 1624 rarely departs. He used as his basis the fourth edition of Stephen, from which he departed in 1565, so far as Reuss has found, only twenty-five times, nine times to side with the Complutensian, four times with Erasmus, thrice with the two united; the other nine readings are new, whereof two (Acts xvii. 25; James v. 12) had been adopted by Colinaeus. The second edition of 1582 withdraws one of the peculiar readings of its predecessor, but adds fourteen more. The third edition (1588), so far as Reuss knows, departs from the second but five times, and the fourth (1598) from the third only twice, Matt. vi. 1 (δικαιοσύνην); Heb. x. 17 (add. τότε εἴρηκε), neither of which I can verify. These results, on Reuss's system of investigation, can be only approximately true (see p. 154, note), and do not include some changes silently introduced into Beza's Latin version, as suggested in his Annotations.]

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[^180]); 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[^181]; Apoc. xvi. 5: and in 2 Pet. i. 1 (as also in ed. 1641) ἡμῶν is omitted after σωτῆρος[^182].

[^180: Reuss (p. 109) states that out of his thousand select examples Elzevir 1624 differs from Beza's smaller New Testament of 1565 in only eight readings, all of which may be found in some of Beza's other editions (e.g. the small edition of 1580), except one misprint (Rom. vii. 2).]

[^181: Οἱ δοῦλος is disputed by Hoskier (App. C. p. 18, n.), who says that he has seen besides his own copy of 1624 several which read οἱ δοῦλου. He had also inspected mine. “And although he says it reads δοῦλος, I read easily δοῦλοι. The type is rather faulty, that is all.” The point is not worth disputing.]

[^182: “American Additions and Corrections,” p. 50.]

Since Stephen's edition of 1550 and that of the Elzevirs have been taken as the standard or Received text[^183], 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[^184].

[^183: Professor Hall states (Schaff's “Companion,” p. 501) that Beza's editions of 1588 and 1598 were the chief foundations of the Authorized Version of 1611. Archdeacon Palmer (Preface to Greek Testament with Revisers' Readings, p. vii) refers chiefly to Stephen's edition of 1550. Dr. Scrivener (to whom Archdeacon Palmer refers), Cambridge Greek Testament, Praef., p. vi, in taking the Elzevir edition of 1624 as the authority for the “Textus Receptus,” says that it rests upon Stephen's 1550, and Beza's 1565, 1582, 1589 (= 1588), and 1598 (especially the later editions, and particularly 1598, Authorized Edition of the British Bible, p. 60), besides also Erasmus, the Complutensian, and the Vulgate (Authorized Edition, p. 60). Dr. Scrivener adds in the passage just named that out of 252 passages the “Translators abide with Beza against Stephen in 113, with Stephen against Beza in fifty-nine, with the Complutensian, Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in eighty.”]

[^184: “The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives.” By F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., &c., Cambridge, University Press, 1884. Appendix E.]

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[^185].

[^185: See Miller's “Textual Guide,” George Bell & Sons, 1885. Also Dr. Scrivener's “Adversaria et Critica Sacra” (not yet published).—Postscript.]

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[^186], 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[^187], 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[^188]. 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.

[^186: Reuss (p. 56) excepts Matt. ix. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 13; Philem. 6, where Walton prefers the Complutensian reading.]

[^187: Nos. 2 and 3 had been partially used by Beza (American Additions, p. 50).]

[^188: If Ussher lacked severe accuracy in collating his manuscripts, as well as skill in deciphering them, we have not to look far for the cause. In a Life prefixed to Ussher's “Body of Divinity,” 1678, p. 11, we are told that “in the winter evenings he constantly spent two hours in comparing old MSS. of the Bible, Greek and Latin, taking with his own hand the variae lectiones of each:” on which statement Dean Burgon (Letter in the Guardian, June 28, 1882) makes the pregnant comment, “Such work carried on at seventy or more by candlelight, is pretty sure to come to grief, especially when done with a heart-ache.”]

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[^189]. There are many various readings[^190] (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[^191].

[^189: “Sed, cum aliqui ex editoribus N. T. in analogiis discernendis nimis fortasse curiosi loca Parallela ad infinitum fere numerum auxerint, quorum alia parum definitae similitudinis, alia remotioris sunt argumenti quam quae servatis sanae interpretationis legibus possint adhiberi, satius habuimus Curcellaeum sequi, qui nec parcior est, nec nimis minutus in locis allegandis, nec dissimilia unquam aut prorsus ἀπροσδιόνυσα ad marginem locavit.”—Car. Oxon. (Bishop C. Lloyd) Monitum N. T. Oxonii, 1827.]

[^190: 1 John v. 7, 8 is included in brackets. Reuss (p. 130) thinks that the text follows Elzevir 1633 everywhere else but in Luke x. 22. Mill (N. T., Proleg. § 1397) says that it was printed “ad editiones priores Elzevirianas, typis Elzevirianis nitidissimis.”]

[^191: “Stephani Curcellaei annotationes variantium lectionum, pro variantibus lectionibus non habendae, quia ille non notat codices, unde eas habeat, an ex manuscriptis, an vero ex impressis exemplaribus. Possunt etiam pro uno codice haberi.” Canon xiii. pp. 11, 69-70 of the N. T. by G. D. T. M. D. (see below, p. 204).]

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[^192]) 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[^193], 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[^194] 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.

[^192: But it goes with Elz. 1624 in Mark iv. 18; 2 Tim. i. 12; Apoc. xvi. 5, and sometimes prefers the readings of Stephen 1550, e.g. Mark i. 21; vi. 29, and notably Luke ii. 22 (αὐτῶν); Luke x. 22; Rom. vii. 2; Philem. 7. Peculiarities of this edition are Εἰ δὲ for Εἶτα Heb. xii. 9; συγκληρονόμοις 1 Pet. iii. 7. Wetstein's text follows its erratum, Acts xiii. 29 ἐτέλησαν. Mill seems to say (N. T., Proleg. § 1409) that Fell's text was taken from that of Curcellaeus.]

[^193: Fell imputes the origin of various readings to causes generally recognized, adding one which does not seem very probable, that accidental slips once made were retained and propagated through a superstitious feeling of misplaced reverence, citing in illustration Apoc. xxii. 18, 19. He alleges also the well-known subscription of Irenaeus, preserved by Eusebius, which will best be considered hereafter; and remarks, with whatever truth, that contrary to the practice of the Jews and Muhammedans in regard to their sacred books, it was allowed “e vulgo quibusvis, calamo pariter et manu profanis, sacra ista [N. T.] tractare” (Praef. p. 4).]

[^194: “Considerations on the Biblia Polyglotta,” 1659: to which Walton rejoined, sharply enough, in “The Considerator considered,” also in 1659.]

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[^195], 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[^196].

[^195: Dr. Hort says that “his comprehensive examination of individual documents, seldom rising above the wilderness of multitudinous details, [is] yet full of sagacious observations” (Introd. p. 180).]

[^196: As Mill's text is sometimes reprinted in England as if it were quite identical with that commonly received, it is right to note the following passages wherein it does not coincide with Stephen's of 1550, besides that it corrects his typographical errors: Matt. xx. 15; 22; xxiv. 15; Mark ix. 16; xi. 22; xv. 29; Luke vii. 12 bis; x. 6; xvii. 1; John viii. 4; 25; xiii. 30-31; xix. 7; Acts ii. 36; vii. 17; xiv. 8; Rom. xvi. 11; 1 Cor. iii. 15; x. 10; xv. 28; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. iv. 25; Tit. ii. 10; 1 Pet. iii. 11; 21; iv. 8; 2 Pet. ii. 12; Apoc. ii. 5; xx. 4. Reuss (p. 149) tells us that Kuster's edition recalls the Stephanic readings in Matt. xxiv. 15; Apoc. ii. 5.]

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[^197].” 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[^198], 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[^199]. 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[^200].

[^197: Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Introductory Preface, p. xv.]

[^198: Ellis, ubi supra, pp. xvii-xix. These Proposals were also very properly reprinted by Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg. lxxxvii-xcvi, 7th edition), together with the specimen chapter (Apoc. xxii). The full title was to have been: “Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ Graece. Novum Testamentum Versionis Vulgatae, per stum Hieryonymum ad vetusta exemplaria Graeca castigatae et exactae. Utrumque ex antiquissimis Codd. MSS., cum Graecis tum Latinis, edidit Richardus Bentleius.”]

[^199: This is all the more lamentable, inasmuch as Bentley was not accurate enough as a collator to make it unnecessary to follow him over the same ground. Dr. Westcott confirms my own experience in this respect when in a MS. note inserted by him on a blank leaf of Trin. Coll. B. XVII. 14, he states that “Bentley's testimony, when he quotes a reading, may always be taken as true; but it is not so when he notes no variation in particular. On an average he omits one-third of the variations of the MSS., without following, as far as I can discover, any law in the selection of readings.”]

[^200: Bp. John Wordsworth would vindicate both Bentley and Walker from the suspicion of lightly taking up and lightly dropping so important a task. Walker, whom Bentley, as is said, called “Clarissimus Walker,” died on Nov. 9, 1741, at the age of forty-eight.—Wordsworth, Old Biblical Texts, I. xxv. p. 65. And for the Latin and Greek Texts collated by him wholly or partially, see pp. 55-63.]

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[^201], 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

[^201: He continued this work till after 1735. See paper found by Dr. Ince at Christ Church, quoted by Bp. J. Wordsworth, Old Latin Biblical Texts, I. xxv. note 2.]

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[^202], could have had power enough to break off in the midst that labour of love from which he had looked for undying fame[^203].

[^202: Mr. Jebb (Life of Bentley, p. 164) imputes the failure of Bentley's grand scheme partly to the worry of litigation which harassed him from 1729 to 1738; partly to a growing sense of complexity in the problem of the text, especially after he became better acquainted with the Vatican readings, i.e. about 1720 and 1729. Reuss (p. 172) ought never to have conditioned the ultimate success of such a man by the proviso “si consilio par fuerit perseverantia.”]

[^203: “This thought has now so engaged me, and in a manner inslaved me, that vae mihi unless I do it. Nothing but sickness (by the blessing of God) shall hinder me from prosecuting it to the end” (Bentley to Archbp. Wake, 1716: Ellis, ubi supra, p. xvi). A short article in the Edinburgh Review for July, 1860, apparently from the pen of Tregelles, draws attention to “Nicolai Toinardi Harmonia Graeco-Latina,” Paris, 1707, fol. (“liber rarissimus,” Reuss, p. 167), who so far anticipates Bentley's labours, that he forms a new Greek text by the aid of two Roman manuscripts (Cod. B being one of them) and of the Latin version.]

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[^204]. 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[^205]; 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:—

[^204: Dr. Gregory says that though Mace's edition had no accents or soft breathing, he anticipates most of the changes accepted by some critics of the present day.]

[^205: I cannot help borrowing the language of Donaldson, used with reference to an entirely different department of study, in the opening of one of his earliest and by far his most enduring work: “It may be stated as a fact worthy of observation in the literary history of modern Europe, that generally, when one of our countrymen has made the first advance in any branch of knowledge, we have acquiesced in what he has done, and have left the further improvement of the subject to our neighbours on the continent. The man of genius always finds an utterance, for he is urged on by an irresistible impulse—a conviction that it is his duty and vocation to speak: but we too often want those who shall follow in his steps, clear up what he has left obscure, and complete his unfinished labours” (New Cratylus, p. 1). Dr. Gregory quotes against Dr. Scrivener, Mace (1729), Bowyer, a follower of Wetstein (1763), Harwood (1776), besides Whitby, Middleton, and Twells: but Dr. S. looked for greater names, and till Middleton, a more advancing study.]

8. The New Testament of John Albert Bengel, 4to, Tübingen, 1734[^206]: 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[^207]. 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.

[^206: The full title is 'Ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη. Novum Testamentum Graecum ita adornatum ut Textus probatarum editionum medullam, Margo variantium lectionum in suas classes distributarum locorumque parellelorum delectum, Apparatus subjunctus criseos sacrae Millianae praesertim compendium limam supplementum ac fructum exhibeat, inserviente J. A. B.]

[^207: They consist of seven Augsburg codices (Aug. 1 = Evan. 83; Aug. 2 = Evan. 84; Aug. 3 = Evan. 85; Aug. 4 = Evst. 24; Aug. 5 = Paul. 54; Aug. 6 = Act. 46; Aug. 7 = Apoc. 80); Poson. = Evan. 86; extracts sent by Isel from three Basle copies (Bas. α = Evan. E; Bas. β = Evan. 2; Bas. γ = Evan. 1); Hirsaug. = Evan. 97; Mosc. = Evan. V; extracts sent by F. C. Gross. To these add Uffenbach's three, Uffen. 2 or 1 = Paul. M; Uffen. 1 or 2 = Act. 45; Uffen. 3 = Evan. 101.]

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[^208]; 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)[^209].

[^208: It is worth while to quote at length Bengel's terse and vigorous statement of his principle: “Posset variarum lectionum ortus, per singulos codices, per paria codicum, per syzygias minores majoresque, per familias, tribus, nationesque illorum, investigari et repraesentari; et inde propinquitates discessionesque codicum ad schematismos quosdam reduci, et schematismorum aliquae concordantiae fieri; atque ita res tota per tabulam quandam quasi genealogicam oculis subjici, ad quam tabulam quaelibet varietas insignior cum agmine suorum codicum, ad convincendos etiam tardissimos dubitatores exigeretur. Magnam conjectanea nostra sylvam habent: sed manum de tabulâ, ne risuum periculo exponatur veritas. Bene est, quod praetergredi montem hunc, et planiore via pervenire datur ad codices discriminandos. Datur autem per hanc regulam aequissimam: Quo saepius non modo singuli codices, sed etiam syzygiae minores eorum vel majores, in aberrationes manifestas tendunt; eo levius ferunt testimonium in discrepantiis difficilioribus, eoque magis lectio ab eis deserta, tanquam genuina retineri debet” (N. T., Apparat. Crit., p. 387).]

[^209: See a eulogistic yet discriminating discussion upon Bengel in Bengel als Gelehrter, ein Bild für unsere Tage, from the eminent pen of Dr. Nestle, which has been courteously sent to the editor through the Rev. H. J. White.]

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.[^210], 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[^211]; 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[^212], 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.

[^210: The opposition of Frey and his other adversaries delayed that opus magnum for twenty years (N. T., Proleg., vol. i. p. 218).]

[^211: We here reckon separately, as we believe is both usual and convenient, every distinct portion of the N. T. contained in a manuscript. Thus Codd. C and 69 Evan. will each count for four.]

[^212: Errors of Wetstein's text will be found in John xi. 31; Acts i. 26; xiii. 29 ἐτέλησαν, from the Oxford N. T. 1675, though Wetstein himself remarks this. He corrects a few obvious misprints of Elzevir 1633, but his note shows that he does not intend to read τῷ in Mark vi. 29. The following seem to be deliberate variations from the Elzevir text: Matt. xiii. 15; xxi. 41; Mark xiv. 54; Luke ii. 22; xi. 12; xiii. 19; 1 Cor. i. 29; v. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15; Phil. iii. 5; 1 Tim. iii. 2, 11 (yet not Tit. ii. 2); Philem. 7; 1 Pet. i. 3; iii. 7. All these deliberate variations are found in Von Mastricht's edition of 1735, which seems to have been used by Wetstein as the basis of his text; and in all of them (except Matt. xxi. 41; Luke xi. 12, and Phil. iii. 5) Fell's text agrees with Wetstein's. In Matt. xiii. 15; Mark xiv. 54; 1 Cor. i. 29; v. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15; Phil. iii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 7, the Elzevir editions vary. (American Additions and Corrections, p. 51.) He spells ναζαρέτ uniformly, except in John i. 46, 47. Reuss (p. 183) adds nine changes made by Wetstein in the text for critical reasons: Matt. viii. 28; Luke xi. 2; John vii. 53-viii. 11; Acts v. 36; xx. 28; 1 Tim. iii. 16 (δ); Apoc. iii. 2; x. 4; xviii. 17.]

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)[^213]? 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[^214], together with the citations of Scripture in thirty-four manuscripts of Chrysostom[^215], 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[^216]. 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.

[^213: One other specimen of Matthaei's critical skill will suffice: he is speaking of his Cod. H, which is our Evst. 50. “Hic Codex scriptus est literis quadratis, estque eorum omnium, qui adhuc in Europa innotuerunt et vetustissimus et praestantissimus. Insanus quidem fuerit, qui cum hoc aut Cod. V [p. 144] comparare, aut aequiparare voluerit Codd. Alexandr. Clar. Germ. Boern. Cant. [Evan. AD, Paul. ADEG], qui sine ullo dubio pessimè ex scholiis et Versione Latinâ Vulgatâ interpolati sunt” (N. T., Tom. ix. p. 254).]

[^214: In using Matthaei's N. T. the following index of manuscripts first collated by him will be found useful: a = Evan. 259, Act. 98 (a 1), Paul. 113 (a or a 2), Apost. 82 (a 3): B = Evst. 47: b = Apost. 13: c = Act. 99, Paul. 114, Evst. 48: d = Evan. 237, Act. 100, Paul. 115: e = Evan. 238, Apost. 14: f = Act. 101, Paul. 116, Evst. 49: g = Evan. 239, Act. 102, Paul. 117: H = Evst. 50: h = Act. 103, Paul. 118: i = Evan. 240, Paul. 119: k = Evan. 241, Act. 104, Paul. 120, Apoc. 47: l = Evan. 242, Act. 105, Paul. 121, Apoc. 48: m = Evan. 243, Act. 106, Paul. 122: n = Evan. 244, Paul. 123: o = Evan. 245, Apoc. 49: p = Evan. 246, Apoc. 50: q = Evan. 247, Paul. 124: r = Evan. 248, also Apoc. 502, Apoc. 90: s = Evan. 249, Paul. 76: t = Apoc. 32, Evst. 51: tz = Apost. 15: V = V: v = Evan. 250, Apost. 5: x = Evan. 251, Act. 69, Paul. 74, Apoc. 30 (from Knittel); z = Evan. 252: 10 = Evan. 253: 11 = Evan. 254: 12 = Evan. 255: 14 = Evan. 256: 15 = O, 16 = Evst. 56, Apost. 20: 17 = Evan. 258: 18 = Evan. 99: 19 = Evst. 57: 20 = Evan. 89: ξ = Evst. 52, Apost. 16: χ = Evst. 53, Apost. 17: ψ = Evst. 54, Apost. 18: ω = Evst. 55, Apost. 19: Frag. Vet. = part of H: Gpaul. It should be noted, that in several of these cases different MSS. are included under one letter: e.g. c = Evst. 48 is a different MS. from c = Act. 99.]

[^215: The copies of Chrysostom's homilies on the Gospels freshly collated by this editor are noted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ, λ, μ, π, ρ, φ: those on St. Paul's Epistles are noted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, α, β.]

[^216: Reuss (p. 207) calculates that, besides misprints, Matthaei's second and very inferior edition differs in text from his first in but twenty-four places, none of them being in the Gospels.]

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[^217], 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[^218]. 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.

[^217: “Textui ad Millianum expresso” says Reuss (p. 151), which is not quite the same thing: see p. 203, note 2.]

[^218: “Conscius sum mihi, me omnem et diligentiam et intentionem adhibuisse, ut haec editio quam emendatissima in manus eruditorum perveniret, utque in hoc opere, in quo ingenio non fuit locus, curae testimonium promererem; nulla tamen mihi est fiducia, me omnia, quae exigi possint, peregisse. Vix enim potest esse ulla tam perpetua legentis intentio, quae non obtutu continuo fatigetur, praesertim in tali genere, quod tam multis, saepe parvis, observationibus constat.” (Lecturis Editor, p. v. 1788.) Well could I testify to the truth of these last words!]

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[^219]” (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[^220], 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[^221]) 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[^222] and his latest works[^223], 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.

[^219: ‘Symbolae Criticae ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum N. T. lectionum Collectiones. Accedit multorum N. T. Codicum Graecorum descriptio et examen.’]

[^220: Yet Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. xcvii, 7th ed.) states that he only added two readings (Mark vi. 2, 4) to those given by Wetstein for Cod. C. From Cod. D too he seems to have taken only one reading, and that erroneously, επηγειραν, Acts xiv. 2.]

[^221: In the London edition of 1809 ἄλλοι is printed for the first οὗτοί, Mark iv. 18. Griesbach also omits καί in 2 Pet. i. 15: no manuscript except Cod. 182 (ascr) is known to do so.]

[^222: “Dissertatio critica de Codicibus quatuor Evangeliorum Origenianis,” Halae, 1771: “Curae in historiam textus Graeci epistolarum Paulinarum,” Jenae, 1777.]

[^223: “Commentarius Criticus in textum Gr. N. T.,” Part i. 1798; Part ii. 1811.]

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[^224].

[^224: The following specimen of a reading, possessing no internal excellence, preferred or favoured by Griesbach on the slightest evidence, will serve to illustrate the dangerous tendency of his system, had it been consistently acted upon throughout. In Matt. xxvii. 4 for ἀθῶον he indicates the mere gloss δίκαιον as equal or preferable (though in his later manual edition of 1805 he marks it as an inferior reading), on the authority of the later margin of Cod. B, of Cod. L, the Sahidic Armenian, and Latin versions and Fathers, and Origen in four places (ἀθῶον once). He adds the Syriac, but this is an error as regards the Peshitto or Harkleian; the Jerusalem may countenance him; though in such a case the testimony of versions is precarious on either side. Here, however, Griesbach defends δίκαιον against all likelihood, because BL and Origen are Alexandrian, the Latin versions Western.]

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[^225], 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[^226]. 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.

[^225: Reuss (p. 198) calculates that in his second edition out of Reuss' thousand chosen passages Griesbach stands with the Elzevir text in 648, sides with other editions in 293, has fifty-nine peculiar to himself. The second differs from the first edition (1774-5) in about fifty places only.]

[^226: Laurence, in the Appendix to his “Remarks,” shows that while Cod. A agrees with Origen against the received text in 154 places, and disagrees with the two united in 140, it sides with the received text against Origen in no less than 444 passages.]

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[^227]. Scholz's “N. T. Graece,” 4to, was published at Leipsic, vol. i, 1830 (Gospels); vol. ii, 1836.

[^227: David Schulz published at Berlin, 1827, 8vo, a third and much improved edition of his N. T., vol. i (Gospels), containing also collations of certain additional manuscripts, unknown to Griesbach.]

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[^228]; 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.

[^228: One of Porter's examples is almost amusing. It was Scholz's constant habit to copy Griesbach's lists of critical authorities (errors, misprints, and all) without giving the reader any warning that they were not the fruit of his own labours. The note he borrowed from Griesbach on 1 Tim. iii. 16, contains the words “uti docuimus in Symbolis Criticis:” this too Scholz appropriates (Tom. ii. p. 334, col. 2) so as to claim the “Symbolae Criticae” of the Halle Professor as his own! See also p. 217, Evan. 365; p. 253, Act. 86, and Tischendorf's notes on Acts xix. 25; 2 Pet. i. 15 (N. T., eighth edition). His very text must have been set up by Griesbach's. Thus, since the latter, by a mere press error, omitted με in 2 Cor. ii. 13, Scholz not only follows him in the omission, but cites in his note a few cursives in which he had met with με, a word really absent from no known copy. In Heb. ix. 5 again, both editors in error prefix τῆς to δόξης. Scholz's inaccuracy in the description of manuscripts which he must have had before him when he was writing is most wearisome to those who have had to trace his steps, and to verify, or rather to falsify, his statements. He has half filled our catalogues with duplicates and codices which are not Greek or are not Biblical at all. After correcting not a few of his misrepresentations of books in the libraries at Florence, Burgon breaks out at last: “What else but calamitous is it to any branch of study that it should have been prosecuted by such an incorrigible blunderer, a man so abominably careless as this?” (Guardian, Aug. 27, 1873.)]

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[^229]) 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.

[^229: Some of these statements are discussed in Scrivener's “Collation of the Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels,” Introd. pp. lxix-lxxi.]

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[^230]. 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.

[^230: The following is the whole of this notice, which we reprint after Tregelles' example: “De ratione et consilio hujus editionis loco commodiore expositum est (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1830, pp. 817-845). Hic satis erit dixisse, editorem nusquam judicium suum, sed consuetudinem antiquissimarum orientis ecclesiarum secutum esse. Hanc quoties minus constantem fuisse animadvertit, quantum fieri potuit quae Italorum et Afrorum consensu comprobarentur praetulit: ubi pervagatam omnium auctorum discrepantiam deprehendit, partim uncis partim in marginibus indicavit. Quo factum est ut vulgatae et his proximis duobus saeculis receptae lectionis ratio haberi non posset. Haec diversitas hic in fine libri adjecta est, quoniam ea res doctis judicibus necessaria esse videbatur.” Here we have one of Lachmann's leading peculiarities—his absolute disregard of the received readings—hinted at in an incidental manner: the influence he was disposed to accord to the Latin versions when his chief authorities were at variance is pretty clearly indicated: but no one would guess that by the “custom of the oldest Churches of the East” he intends the few very ancient codices comprising Griesbach's Alexandrian class, and not the great mass of authorities, gathered from the Churches of Syria, Asia Minor, and Constantinople, of which that critic's Byzantine family was made up.]

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[^231], 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.

[^231: These are d for Cod. Bezae, e for Cod. Laud. 35, f being Lachmann's notation for Paul. Cod. D, as ff is for Paul. Cod. E (whose Latin translation is cited independently), g for Paul. Cod. G.]

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, ff2 and q of the Old Latin, the Latin version of Origen, and a few codices of Chrysostom[^232]. 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.

[^232: We must now except the seventh century corrector of Cod. א called by Tischendorf Ca, who actually changes the original reading εκδ. into ενδ., to be himself set right by a later hand Cb. This is one out of many proofs of something more than an accidental connexion between Codd. א and B at a remote period. See vol. i. p. 96, and note.]

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[^233] 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)[^234].

[^233: In dedicating the third volume of his “Monumenta sacra inedita” in 1860 to the Theological Faculty at Leyden, Tischendorf states that he took to these studies twenty-three years before, that is, at about twenty-two years of age.]

[^234: Tischendorf left almost no papers behind him. Hence the task of writing Prolegomena to his eighth edition, gallantly undertaken by two American scholars, Dr. Caspar René Gregory of Leipzig, and Dr. Ezra Abbot of Cambridge, U. S., but for their own independent researches, might seem to resemble that of making bricks without straw.]

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.[^235] 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.

[^235: Through his haste to publish Cod. E of the Acts, in which design he feared to be forestalled by a certain Englishman, Tischendorf postponed to it vols. vii and viii, which he did not live to resume. Oscar von Gebhardt, now of Berlin, will complete vol. vii; Caspar René Gregory hopes to do what is possible for vol. viii.]

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[^236].

[^236: For further information respecting this indefatigable scholar and his labours we may refer to a work published at Leipzig in 1862, “Constantin Tischendorf in seiner fünfundzwanzigjährigen schriftstellerischen wirksamkeit. Literar-historische skizze von Dr. Joh. Ernst Volbeding.” I have also seen, by Dr. Ezra Abbot's courtesy, his paper in the Unitarian Review, March, 1875.]

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.[^237] 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.

[^237: A pamphlet of thirty-six pages appeared late in 1860, “Additions to the Fourth Volume of the Introduction to the Holy Scriptures,” &c., by S. P. T. Most of this industrious writer's other publications are not sufficiently connected with the subject of the present volume to be noticed here, but as throwing light upon the literary history of Scripture we may mention his edition of the “Canon Muratorianus,” liberally printed for him in 1867 by the Delegates of the Oxford University Press. Burgon, however, on comparing Tregelles' book with the document itself at Milan, cannot overmuch laud his minute correctness (Guardian, Feb. 5, 1873). Isaac H. Hall made the same comparison at Milan and confirms Burgon's judgement. The custodian of the Ambrosian Library at Milan, the famous Ceriani, had nothing to do with the work or with the lithograph facsimile.]

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[^238], 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.

[^238: As a whole it may be pronounced very accurate as well as beautiful, with the conspicuous drawback that the Greek accents are so ill represented as to show either strange ignorance or utter indifference about them on the part of the person who revised the sheets for the press.]

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[^239]. 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.

[^239: He gave the same assurance to A. Earle, D.D., Bishop of Marlborough, assigning as his reason the results of the study of the Greek N. T.]

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[^240]; 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[^241]. 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[^242].

[^240: Dr. Hort (Introd. p. 277) hardly goes so far as this: “Those,” he says, “who propose remedies which cannot possibly avail are not thereby shown to have been wrong in the supposition that remedies were needed; and a few have been perhaps too quickly forgotten.”]

[^241: I hope that the change made in the wording of the above sentence from what stood in the first edition will satisfy my learned and acute critic, Mr. Linwood (Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as applied to the New Testament, 1873, p. 9, note); although I fear that the difference between us is in substance as wide as ever. At the same time I would hardly rest the main stress of the argument where Dr. Roberts does when he says that “conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field, &c., simply because all sober critics feel that there is no need for it” (Words of the N. T., p. 24). There are texts, no doubt, some of those for example which Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort have branded with a marginal [+] in their edition; e.g. Acts vii. 46; xiii. 32; xix. 40; xxvi. 28; Rom. viii. 2; 1 Cor. xii. 2 (where Eph. ii. 11 might suggest ὅτι ποτέ); 1 Tim. vi. 7, and especially in the kindred Epistles, 2 Pet. iii. 10; 12; Jude 5; 22, 23, wherein, whether from internal difficulties or from the actual state of the external evidence, we should be very glad of more light than our existing authorities will lend us. What I most urge is the plain fact, that the conjectures, even of able and accomplished men, have never been such as to approve themselves to any but their authors, much less to commend themselves to the judgement of scholars as intuitively true.]

[^242: Bentley, the last great critic who paid much regard to conjectural emendations, promised in his Prospectus of 1720 that “If the author has anything to suggest towards a change of the text, not supported by any copies now extant, he will offer it separate in his Prolegomena.” It is really worth while to turn over Wm. Bowyer's “Critical Conjectures and Observations on the N. T.,” or the summary of them contained in Knappe's N. T. of 1797, if only to see the utter fruitlessness of the attempt to illustrate Scripture by ingenious exercise of the imagination. The best (e.g. συναλιζομένοις Acts i. 4; πορκείας for πορνείας ibid. xv. 20, 29), no less than the most tasteless and stupid (e.g. νηνεμίαν for νηστείαν Acts xxvii. 9), in the whole collection, are hopelessly condemned by the deep silence of a host of authorities which have since come to light. Nor are Mr. Linwood's additions to the over-copious list likely to fare much better. Who but himself will think πρώτη in Luke ii. 2 corrupted through the intermediate πρώτει from πρώτω ἔτει (ubi supra p. 5); or that τὰ πολλά in Rom. xv. 22 ought to be ἐτη πολλά (p. 13)? Add to this, that he gives up existing readings much too easily, even where his emendations are more plausible than the foregoing, as when he would adopt ὅς ἄν for ὅταν in John viii. 44 (p. 6); and this is perhaps his best attempt. His worst surely is ΟΣ for ΘΣ (θεός) Rom. ix. 5, which could not be endured unless ἐστιν followed ὅς, as it does in the very passage (Rom. i. 25) which he cites in illustration (p. 13).]

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[^243]. 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)[^244]. See Chap. XII on Matt. xxi. 28-31. Compare also above, Vol. I. i. § 11.

[^243: “vii. Inter duas variantes lectiones, si quae est εὐφωνότερος aut planior aut Graecantior, alteri non protinus praeferenda est, sed contra saepius. VIII. Lectio exhibens locutionem minus usitatam, sed alioqui subjectae materiae convenientem, praeferenda est alteri, quae, cum aeque conveniens sit, tamen phrasim habet minus insolentem, usuque magis tritam.” Wetstein's whole tract, “Animadversiones et Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum N. T. necessariae” (N. T., vol. ii. pp. 851-874) deserves attentive study. See also the 43 Canones Critici and their Confirmatio in N. T. of G. D. T. M. D.]

[^244: So even Dr. Roberts, whose sympathies on the whole would not be the same as the Bishop of Lincoln's: “Of course occasions might occur on which, from carelessness or oversight, a transcriber would render a sentence obscure or ungrammatical which was clear and correct in his exemplar; but it is manifest that, so far as intentional alteration was concerned, the temptation all lay in the opposite direction” (“Words of the New Testament,” p. 7). So again speaks E. G. Punchard on James iii. 3 in Bp. Ellicott's Commentary, “The supporters of such curious corrections argue that the less likely is the more so; and thus every slip of a copyist, either in grammar or spelling, becomes more sacred in their eyes than is the Received text with believers in verbal inspiration.” Sir Edmund Beckett (“Should the Revised New Testament be Authorised?” 1882) writes in so scornful a spirit as to neutralize the effects on a reader's mind of his native acuteness and common sense, but he deals well with the argument “that an improbable reading is more likely right, because nobody would have invented it.” “I suppose,” he rejoins, “an accidental piece of carelessness can produce an improbable and absurd error in copying as well as a probable one.” (p. 7.)]

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[^245] 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[^246]. 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.

[^245: In his seventh edition, not in his eighth.]

[^246: One other example to illustrate this rule, so difficult in its practical use, may be added from Alford on Mark ii. 22, where the reading καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοί (whether the verse end or not in these words) appears to have been the original form, since “it fully explains all the others, either as emendations of construction, or corrections from parallel places.” The reader may apply this canon, if he pleases, to Aristotle, Ethic. iv. 9, in selecting between the three different readings ὀκνηροί or νωθροί or νοεροί to close the sentence οὐ μὴν ἠλίθιοί γε οἱ τοιοῦτοι δοκοῦσιν εἶναι, ἀλλα μᾶλλον ... having careful reference to the context in which it stands: or to the easier case of καίτοιγε and its variations in Acts xvii. 27: or to Rom. viii. 24, where the first hand of B and the margin of Cod. 47 (very expressly), by omitting τί καί, appear to present the original text.]

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)[^247]; 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.

[^247: “Though the theory of explanatory interpolations of marginal glosses into the text of the N. T. has been sometimes carried too far (e.g. by Wassenberg in ‘Valcken.’ Schol. in N. T., Tom. i), yet probably this has been the most fertile source of error in some MSS. of the Sacred Volume.” (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, N. T., on 2 Cor. iii. 3.) Yes, in some MSS.]

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[^248] 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[^249]. 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[^250]) 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[^251]. 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).

[^248: On this passage Canon Liddon justly says, “The question may still perhaps be asked ... whether here, as elsewhere, the presumption that copyists were always anxious to alter the text of the New Testament in theological interests, is not pressed somewhat excessively” (Bampton Lectures, 1866, p. 467, note).]

[^249: Griesbach's “etiam manifestò falsas” can allude only to 1 John v. 7, 8; yet it is a strong point against the authenticity of that passage that it is not cited by Greek writers, who did not find it in their copies, but only by the Latins who did.]

[^250: The clause might have been derived from Gen. ii. 23, yet the evidence against it is strong and varied (אAB, 17, 67, Bohair., &c.).]

[^251: Alford's only definite example (and that derived from Wetstein, N. T., vol. ii. p. 11) is found but in a single cursive (4) in Rom. xiv. 17, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις, ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνη καὶ ἄσκησις καὶ εἰρήνη. Tregelles (An Account of Printed Text, p. 222) adds 1 Cor. vii. 5; Act. x. 30; Rom. xii. 13 (!) More to their purpose, perhaps, if we desired to help them on, would be the suspected addition of καὶ νηστείᾳ in Mark ix. 29, and of the whole verse in the parallel place Matt. xvii. 21; the former being brought into doubt on the very insufficient authority of Codd. א (by the first hand) Β, of the beautiful Latin copy k from Bobbio, and by reason of the silence of Clement of Alexandria: the latter on the evidence of the same Greek manuscripts (k being defective) with Cod. 33, both (?) Egyptian, the Curetonian and Jerusalem Syriac, the Latin e ff1, some forms of the Ethiopic version, and from the absence of the Eusebian canon, which ought to have referred us to the parallel place in St. Mark, whereas that verse is assigned to the tenth canon. In the face of such readings of אΒ it is hard to understand the grounds of Mr. Darby's vague suspicion that they “bear the marks of having been in ecclesiastical hands.” (N. T., Preface, p. 3.)]

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[^252]: 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[^253]. 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).

[^252: See (6), (7), (17), (18). The uncial characters most liable to be confounded by scribes (p. 10) are ΑΔΛ, ΕΣ, ΟΘ, ΝΠ, and less probably ΓΙΤ. An article in a foreign classical periodical, written by Professor Cobet, the co-editor of the Leyden reprint of the N. T. portion of Cod. B, unless regarded as a mere jeu d'esprit, would serve to prove that the race of conjectural emendators is not so completely extinct as (before Mr. Linwood's pamphlet) I had supposed. By a dexterous interchange of letters of nearly the same form (Δ for Α, Ε for Σ, Ι for Τ, Σ for Ε, κ for ΙΣ, Τ for Ι) this modern Bentley—and he well deserves the name—suggests for ΑΣΤΕΙΟΣ τῷ θεῷ Act. vii. 20 [compare Heb. xi. 23] the common-place ΔΕΚΤΟΣ τῷ θεῷ, from Act. x. 35. Each one of the six necessary changes Cobet profusely illustrates by examples, and even the reverse substitution of δεκτός for ἀστεῖος from Alciphron: but in the absence of all manuscript authority for the very smallest of these several permutations in Act. vii. 20, he excites in us no other feeling than a sort of grudging admiration of his misplaced ingenuity. In the same spirit he suggests ΗΔΕΙΟΝΑ for ΠΛΕΙΟΝΑ, Heb. xi. 4; while in 1 Cor. ii. 4 for ἐν πειθοῖς σοφίας λόγοις he simply reads ἐν πειθοῖ σοφίας, the σ which begins σοφίας having become accidentally doubled and λόγοις subsequently added to explain πειθοῖς, which he holds to be no Greek word at all: it seems indeed to be met with nowhere else. Dr. Hort's comment on this learned trifling is instructive: “Though it cannot be said that recent attempts in Holland to revive conjectural criticism for the N. T. have shown much felicity of suggestion, they cannot be justly condemned on the ground of principle” (Introd., p. 277).]

[^253: Thus Canon I of this chapter includes (12), (19): Canon III includes (2), (3), (4), (8), (9), (10); while (13) comes under Canon IV; (20) under Canon VI.]

It has been said that “when the cause of a various reading is known, the variation usually disappears[^254].” 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[^255], 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[^256].” Our sixth Canon is here opposed to our first[^257]. 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)[^258]. 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:

[^254: ‘Canon Criticus’ xxiv, N. T., by G. D. T. M. D., p. 12, 1735.]

[^255: Dean Burgon cites (Revision Revised, pp. 359, 360) “no less than thirty ancient witnesses.”]

[^256: 'The precept, if we omit the phrase, is in striking harmony with the at first sight sharp, extreme, almost paradoxical character of various other precepts of the ‘Sermon on the Mount.’ Milligan, Words of the N. T., p. 111.]

[^257: Very similar in point of moral feeling is the variation between ὀλιγοπιστίαν, the gentler, intrinsically perhaps the more probable, and ἀπιστίαν, the more emphatic term, in Matt. xvii. 20. Both must have been current in the second century, the former having the support of Codd. אB, 13, 22, 33, 124, 346 [hiat 69], the Curetonian Syriac (and that too against Cod. D), both Egyptian, the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, Origen, Chrysostom (very expressly, although his manuscripts vary), John Damascene, but of the Latins Hilary alone. All the rest, including Codd. CD, the Peshitto Syriac, and the Latins among first class witnesses, maintain ἀπιστίαν of the common text.]

[^258: Perhaps I may refer to my “Textual Guide,” p. 120. The utmost caution should be employed in the use of this kind of evidence: perhaps nowhere else do authorities differ so much.—Ed.]

“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[^259],” 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[^260], 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[^261]. 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)[^262]: yet the African Tertullian was too little likely to be well informed on this subject, to entitle his rhetorical statement to any real attention[^263]. 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[^264].

[^259: E.g. Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, v. 30. 1, for which see below, p. 261: the early date renders this testimony most weighty.]

[^260: In deference to Lardner and others, who have supposed that Ignatius refers to the sacred autographs, we subjoin the sentence in dispute. Ἐπεὶ ἤκουσά τινων λεγόντων, ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις εὕρω, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ οὐ πιστεύω; καὶ λέγοντός μου αὐτοῖς, ὅτι γέγραπται, ἀπεκρίθησάν μοι, ὅτι πρόκειται. Ἐμοὶ δὲ ἀρχεῖά ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός κ.τ.λ. (Ad Philadelph. c. 8.) On account of ἀρχεῖα in the succeeding clause, ἀρχείοις has been suggested as a substitute for the manuscript reading ἀρχαίοις, and so the interpolators of the genuine Epistle have actually written. But without denying that a play on the words was designed between ἀρχαίοις and ἀρχεῖα, both copies of the Old Latin version maintain the distinction made in the Medicean Greek (“si non in veteribus invenio” and “Mihi autem principium est Jesus Christus”), and any difficulty as to the sense lies not in ἀρχαίοις but in πρόκειται. Chevallier's translation of the passage is perfectly intelligible, “Because I have heard some say, Unless I find it in the ancient writings, I will not believe in the Gospel. And when I said to them, ‘It is written [in the Gospel],’ they answered me, ‘It is found written before [in the Law].’” Gainsayers set the first covenant in opposition to the second and better one.]

[^261: Thus Dr. Westcott understands the term, citing from Tertullian, De Monogamia, xi: “sciamus planè non sic esse in Graeco authentico.” Dean Burgon refers us to Routh's “Opuscula,” vol. i. pp. 151 and 206.]

[^262: Compare too Jerome's expression “ipsa authentica” (Comment. in Epist. ad Titum), when speaking of the autographs of Origen's Hexapla: below, p. 263.]

[^263: The view I take is Coleridge's (Table Talk, p. 89, 2nd ed.). “I beg Tertullian's pardon; but among his many bravuras, he says something about St. Paul's autograph. Origen expressly declares the reverse;” referring, I suppose, to the passage cited below, p. 263. Bp. Kaye, the very excellence of whose character almost unfitted him for entering into the spirit of Tertullian, observes: “Since the whole passage is evidently nothing more than a declamatory mode of stating the weight which he attached to the authority of the Apostolic Churches; to infer from it that the very chairs in which the Apostles sat, or that the very Epistles which they wrote, then actually existed at Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, &c., would be only to betray a total ignorance of Tertullian's style” (Kaye's “Ecclesiastical History ... illustrated from the writings of Tertullian,” p. 313, 2nd ed.). Just so: the autographs were no more in those cities than the chairs were: but it suited the purpose of the moment to suppose that they were extant; and, knowing nothing to the contrary, he boldly sends the reader in search of them.]

[^264: I do not observe, as some have thought, that Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. v. 10) intimates that the copy of St. Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew letters, left by St. Bartholomew in India, was the Evangelist's autograph; and the fancy that St. Mark wrote with his own hand the Latin fragments now at Venice (for.) is worthy of serious notice. The statement twice made in the “Chronicon Paschale,” of Alexandria, compiled in the seventh century, but full of ancient fragments, that ὡσεὶ τριτὴ was the true reading of John xix. 14 “καθὼς τὰ ἀκριβῆ βιβλία περιέχει, αὐτό τε τὸ ἰδιόχειρον τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ ὅπερ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν πεφύλακται χάριτι Θεοῦ ἐν τῇ ἐφεσίων ἁγιωτάτῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν πιστῶν ἐκεῖσε προσκυνεῖται” (Dindorf, Chron. Pasch., pp. 11 and 411), is simply incredible. Isaac Casaubon, however, a most unimpeachable witness, says that this passage, and another which he cites, were found by himself in a fine fragment of the Paschal treatise of “Peter Bp. of Alexandria and martyr” [d. 311], which he got from Andrew Damarius, a Greek merchant or calligrapher (Pattison, Life of Is. Casaubon, p. 38). Casaubon adds to the assertion of Peter “Hec ille. Ego non ignoro quid adversus hanc sententiam possit disputari: de quo judicium esto eruditorum” (Exercit. in Annal. Eccles. pp. 464, 670, London, 1614).]

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[^265]. 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[^266], 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)[^267], 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[^268]. 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[^269]: 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.

[^265: “I have no doubt,” says Tischendorf, “that in the very earliest ages after our Holy Scriptures were written, and before the authority of the Church protected them, wilful alterations, and especially additions, were made in them,” English N. T., 1869, Introd. p. xv.]

[^266: Caius (175-200) in Routh's “Reliquiae,” ii. 125, quoted in Burgon's “Revision Revised,” p. 323.]

[^267: “Necdum quoque Marcion Ponticus de Ponto emersisset, cujus magister Cerdon sub Hygino tunc episcopo, qui in Urbe nonus fuit, Romam venit: quem Marcion secutus...” Cyprian., Epist. 74. Cf. Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv. 10, 11.]

[^268: Dean Burgon attributes more importance to Marcion's mutilations. See e.g. “The Revision Revised,” pp. 34-35.]

[^269: In 1 Cor. x. 9 Marcion seems to uphold the true reading against the judgement of Epiphanius: ὁ δὲ μαρκίων ἀντὶ τοῦ κν χν ἐποίησεν. Consult also Bp. Lightfoot's note (Epistle to the Colossians, p. 336, n. 1) on Heracleon's variation of πέντε for ἓξ in John ii. 20. “There is no reason to think,” he says, “that Heracleon falsified the text here; he appears to have found this various reading already in his copy.”]

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[^270]; 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[^271].

[^270: See Chap. XI on Acts xxvii. 37.]

[^271: Irenaeus' anxiety that his own works should be kept free from corruption, and the value attached by him to the labours of the corrector, are plainly seen in a remarkable subscription preserved by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. v. 20), which illustrates what has been said above, Ὁρκίζω σε τὸν μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βίβλιον τοῦτο, κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, ἧς ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, ἵνα ἀντιβάλλῃς ὃ μετεγράψω, καὶ κατορθώσῃς αὐτὸ πρὸς τὸ ἀντίγραφον τοῦτο, ὅθεν μετεγράψω ἐπιμελῶς, καὶ τὸν ὅρκον τοῦτον ὁμοίως μεταγράψῃς, καὶ θήσεις ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφῳ. Here the copyist (ὁ μεταγραφόμενος) is assumed to be the same person as the reviser or corrector. Mr. Linwood also (ubi supra, p. 11) illustrates from Martial (Lib. vii. Epigram. x) the reader's natural wish to possess an author's original manuscript rather than a less perfect copy: Qui vis archetypas habere nugas. A still stronger illustration of the passage in Irenaeus (v. 30) is Linwood's citation of a well-known passage in Aulus Gellius, a contemporary of that Father, wherein he discusses with Higinus the corrupt variation amaro for amaror in Virgil, Geor. ii. 247 (Noctes Atticae, Lib. i. cap. 21).]

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[^272]. 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[^273]:” just like Irenaeus had previously described revisers of the text as persons “qui peritiores apostolis volunt esse” (Contra Haeres. iv. 6. 1).

[^272: Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ Θεοῦ κληθήσονται; ἤ, ὥς τινες τῶν μετατιθέντων τὰ Εὐαγγέλια, Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ὑπὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἔσονται τέλειοι; καί, μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκα ἐμοῦ, ὅτι ἔξουσι τόπον ὅπου οὐ διωχθήσονται (Stromata, iv. 6). Tregelles (Horne, p. 39, note 2) pertinently remarks that Clement, in the very act of censuring others, subjoins the close of Matt. v. 9 to v. 10, and elsewhere himself ventures on liberties no less extravagant, as when he thus quotes Matt. xix. 24 (or Luke xviii. 25): πειστέον οὖν πολλῷ μᾶλλον τῇ γραφῇ λεγούσῃ, Θᾶττον κάμηλον διὰ τρυπήματος βελόνης διελεύσεσθαι, ἢ πλούσιον φιλοσοφεῖν (Stromata, ii. 5).]

[^273: In this place (contrary to what might have been inferred from the language of Irenaeus, cited above, p. 262, note 2) the copyist (γραφεύς) is clearly distinct from the corrector (διορθωτής), who either alters the words that stand in the text, or adds to and subtracts from them. In Cobet's masterly Preface to his own and Kuenen's ‘N. T. ad fidem Cod. Vaticani,’ Leyden, 1860, pp. xxvii-xxxiv, will be found most of the passages we have used that bear on the subject, with the following from classical writers, ‘Nota est Strabonis querela xiii. p. 609 de bibliopolis, qui libros edebant γραφεῦσι φαύλοις χρώμενοι, καὶ οὐκ ἀντιβάλλοντες... Sic in Demosthenis Codice Monacensi ad finem Orationis xi annotatum est Διωρθώθη πρὸς δύο Ἀττικιανά, id est, correctus est (hic liber) ex duobus codicibus ab Attico (nobili calligrapho) descriptis.’ Just as at the end of each of Terence's plays the manuscripts read ‘Calliopius recensui.’]

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[^274]: 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 ff1 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)[^275]. 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.

[^274: No doubt certain that are quite or almost peculiar to Cod. D would deserve consideration if they were not destitute of adequate support. Some may be inclined to think the words cited above in vol. I. p. 8 not unworthy of Him to whom they are ascribed. The margin of the Harkleian Syriac alone countenances D in that touching appendage to Acts viii. 24, which every one must wish to be genuine, ος πολλα κλαιων ου διελυ[ι]μπανεν. Several minute facts are also inserted by D in the latter part of the same book, which are more likely to rest on traditional knowledge than to be mere exercises of an idle fancy. Such are απο ωρας ε εως δεκατης annexed to the end of Acts xix. 9: και Μυρα to Acts xxi. 1; the former of which is also found in Cod. 137 and the Harkleian margin; the latter in the Sahidic and one or two Latin copies.]

[^275: Considering that Cod. D and the Latin manuscripts contain the variation in Luke iii. 22, but not in Matt. iii. 17, we ought not to doubt that Justin Martyr (p. 331 B, ed. Paris, 1636) and Clement (p. 113, ed. Potter) refer to the former. Hence Bp. Kaye (Account of the Writings of Clement, p. 410) should not have produced this passage among others to show (what in itself is quite true) that “Clement frequently quotes from memory.”]

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[^276]. Codd. אB are quite old enough to have been copied under his inspection[^277], 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[^278], 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[^279].

[^276: This point is exceedingly well stated by Canon Cook (Revised Version of the first three Gospels, p. 176): “I will not dwell upon indications of Arian tendencies. They are not such as we should be entitled to rely upon.... Eusebius was certainly above the suspicion of consciously introducing false statements or of obliterating true statements. As was the case with many supporters of the high Arian party, which came nearest to the sound orthodox faith, Eusebius was familiar with all scriptural texts which distinctly ascribe to our Lord the divine attributes and the divine name, and was far more likely to adopt an explanation which coincided with his own system, than to incur the risk of exposure and disgrace by obliterating or modifying them in manuscripts which would be always open to public inspection.”]

[^277: “This is possible, though there is no proof of it,” is Professor Abbot's comment (ubi supra, p. 190, but see above, vol. i. p. 118, note 2).]

[^278: In the “Notitia Editionis Cod. Sin.,” 1860. They are Matt. xxvii. 64-xxviii. 20; Mark i. 1-35; Luke xxiv. 24-53; John xxi. 1-25. Other like calculations, with much the same result, are given in Scrivener's “Cod. Sin.,” Introd. pp. xlii, xliii.]

[^279: And that too hardly to the credit of either of them. “Ought it not,” asks Dean Burgon, “sensibly to detract from our opinion of the value of their evidence to discover that it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two MSS. differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree?... On every such occasion only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these perpetual inconsistencies between Codd. B and 8—grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross ones—altogether destroy my confidence in either?” (Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, pp. 77-8.)]

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[^280], 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[^281]. 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.

[^280: Magnus siquidem hic in nostris codicibus error inolevit, dum quod in eadem re alius Evangelista plus dixit, in alio, quia minus putaverint, addiderunt. Vel dum eundem sensum alius aliter expressit, ille qui unum e quatuor primum legerat, ad ejus exemplum ceteros quoque existimaverit emendandos. Unde accidit ut apud nos mixta sint omnia (Praef. ad Damasum).]

[^281: The precise references may be seen in Tischendorf's, and for the most part more exactly in Tregelles' N. T. That on Matt. xxiv. 36 is Tom. vii. p. 199, or vi. p. 54; on Galat. iii. 1 is Tom. vii. pp. 418, 487.]

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[^282]. 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[^283]. 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).

[^282: See our note on Luke xxii. 44 below in Chap. XI. This same writer testifies to a practice already partially employed, of using breathings, accents, and stops in copies of Holy Scripture. Ἐπειδὴ δέ τινες κατὰ προσῳδίαν ἔστιζαν τὰς γραφὰς καὶ περὶ τῶν προσῳδῶν τάδε: ὀξεῖα ᾽, δασεῖα ᾽, βαρεῖα ᾽, ψιλὴ ᾽, περισπωμένη ᾽, ἀπόστροφος ᾽, μακρὰ —, ὑφὲν ᾽, βραχεῖα ᾽, ὑποδιαστολή, Ὡσαύτως καὶ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν σημείων κ.τ.λ. (Epiphan., De Mensur., c. 2, Tom. iii. p. 237 Migne). This passage may tend to confirm the statements made above, Vol. I. pp. 45-8, respecting the presence of such marks in very ancient codices, though on the whole we may not quite vouch for Sir F. Madden's opinion as regards Cod. A.]

[^283: “Evangelia quae falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha.” “Evangelia quae falsavit Esitius [alii Hesychius vel Isicius], apocrypha,” occur separately in the course of a long list of spurious books (such as the Gospels of Thaddaeus, Matthias, Peter, James, that “nomine Thomae quo utuntur Manichaei,” &c.) in Appendix iii to Gelasius' works in Migne's Patrologia, Tom. lix. p. 162 [a.d. 494]. But the authenticity of those decrees is far from certain, and since we hear of these falsified Gospels nowhere else, Gelasius' knowledge of them might have been derived from what he had read in Jerome's “Praef. ad Damasum.”]

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[^284]. 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.

[^284: Griesbach rejoices to have Hug's assent “in eo, in quo disputationis de veteribus N. T. recensionibus cardo vertitur; nempe extitisse, inde a secundo et tertio saeculo, plures sacri textûs recensiones, quarum una, si Evangelia spectes, supersit in Codice D, altera in Codd. BCL, alia in Codd. EFGHS et quae sunt reliqua” (Meletemata, p. lxviii, prefixed to “Commentarius Criticus,” Pars ii, 1811). I suppose that Tregelles must have overlooked this decisive passage (probably the last its author wrote for the public eye) when he states that Griesbach now “virtually gave up his system” as regards the possibility of “drawing an actual line of distinction between his Alexandrian and Western recensions” (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 91). He certainly showed, throughout his “Commentarius Criticus,” that Origen does not lend him the support he had once anticipated; but he still held that the theory of a triple recension was the very hinge on which the whole question turned, and clung to that theory as tenaciously as ever. Third Edition. Dr. Hort (N. T., Introd. p. 186) has since confirmed our opinion that Griesbach was faithful to the last to the essential characteristics of his theory, adding that “the Meletemata of 1811 ... reiterate Griesbach's familiar statements in precise language, while they show a growing perception of mixture which might have led him to further results if he had not died in the following spring.”]

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[^285]? 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[^286]? 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[^287]. 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[^288].”

[^285: It should be also observed that ΦΣ containing SS. Matthew and Mark are probably older than D.]

[^286: E.g. Matt. i. 18; Acts viii. 37 for Irenaeus: Acts xiii. 33 for Origen. It is rare indeed that the express testimony of a Father is so fully confirmed by the oldest copies as in John i. 28, where Βηθανίᾳ, said by Origen to be σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, actually appears in א*ABC*.]

[^287: This view is controverted in Burgon's “Remains.”]

[^288: Mr. A. A. Vansittart, Journal of Philology, vol. ii. No. 3, p. 35. I suppose too that Mr. Hammond means much the same thing when he says, ‘It seems almost superfluous to affirm that every element of evidence must be allowed its full weight; but it is a principle that must not be forgotten.’ (Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 93, 2nd edition.) Truly it is not superfluous to insist on this principle when we so perpetually find the study of the cursive manuscripts disparaged by the use of what we may venture to call the Caliph Omar's argument, that if they agree with the older authorities their evidence is superfluous, if they contradict them, it is necessarily false.]

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[^289]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.

[^289: The evidence of Evan. R, which contains only the decisive letters ΝΗΡΟΥ, is the more valuable, inasmuch as it has been alleged to support the readings of documents of the other class (which no doubt it often does) and thus to afford a confirmation of their authority; it cannot help them much when its vote is against them. On analyzing the 908 readings for which R is cited in Tischendorf's eighth edition, I find that it sides with A, the representative of the one class, 356 times; with its better reputed rival B 157 times, where A and B are at variance. It is with A alone of the great uncials 101 times, with B alone four, with א alone five, with C alone (but C is lost in 473 places out of the 908) six; with D alone twenty-four. Some of its other combinations are instructive. It is with AC forty-two times and with ACL sixteen; with AD fifty-one and with ADL eighteen; with אB eleven and with אBL twenty-nine; with אL nine times; with AL nineteen; with BL fifteen; with CL never; with DL twice. Cod. R stands unsupported by any of the preceding eighty-nine times, seldom without some countenance (but see Luke xi. 24 ἐκ), such as the Memphitic version, or later codices. In the places where its fragments coincide with those of Cod. Ξ (which is much more friendly to B) they agree 127 times, differ 105.]

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[^290].

[^290: Dean Burgon avers that he is thoroughly convinced that “no reading can be of real importance—I mean has a chance of being true—which is witnessed to exclusively by a very few copies, whether uncial or cursive.... Nothing else are such extraordinary readings, wherever they may happen to be found, but fragments of primitive error, repudiated by the Church (‘a witness and keeper of Holy Writ’) in her corporate capacity.” (Letter in the Guardian, July 12, 1882.) I cannot go quite so far as this. [Dean Burgon has left his reply.]]

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)[^291]. 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[^292]. 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.

[^291: Not that we can in any way assent to the notions of Canon T. R. Birks (Essay on the right estimation of manuscript evidence in the text of the N. T., 1878), whose proposition that “Constant increase of error is no certain and inevitable result of repeated transcription” (p. 33) is true enough in itself, though we cannot follow him when he adds that “Errors, after they have found entrance, may be removed as well as increased in later copies. A careful scribe may not only make fewer mistakes of his own, but he may correct manifest faults of the manuscript from which he copies, and avail himself of the testimony of others, so as to revise and improve the text of that on which he chiefly relies.” Only such a scribe would no longer be a witness for the state of the text as extant in his generation, but a critical editor, working on principles of his own, whether good or bad alike unknown to us.]

[^292: Very pertinent to this matter is a striking extract from J. G. Reiche (a critic “remarkable for extent and accuracy of learning, and for soundness and sobriety of judgement,” as Canon Cook vouches, Revised Version, p. 4), given in Bloomfield's “Critical Annotations on the Sacred Text,” p. 5, note: “In multis sanè N. T. locis lectionis variae, iisque gravissimi argumenti, de verâ scripturâ judicium firmum et absolutum, quo acquiescere possis, ferri nequit, nisi omnium subsidiorum nostrorum alicujus auctoritatis suffragia, et interna veri falsique indicia, diligenter explorata, justâ lance expendantur.... Quod in causâ est, ut re non satis omni ex parte circumspectâ, non solum critici tantopere inter se dissentiant, sed etiam singuli sententiam suam toties retractent atque commutent.” In the same spirit Lagarde, speaking of the more recent manuscripts of the Septuagint, thus protests: “Certum est eos non a somniis monachorum undecimi vel alius cujusquam saeculi natos, sed ex archetypis uncialibus aut ipsos aut intercedentibus aliis derivatos. Unde elucet criticum acuto judicio et doctrinâ probabili instructum codicibus recentioribus collectis effecturum esse (?) quid in communi plurium aliquorum archetypo scriptum fuerit” (Genesis, p. 19). Compare also Canon Cook, Revised Version of the First Three Gospels, p. 5.]

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[^293].” 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.

[^293: ‘So extravagant a statement could scarcely be deemed worthy of the elaborate confutation with which Dr. Scrivener has condescended to honour it’ (Saturday Review, Aug. 20, 1881). Yet this scheme of ‘Comparative Criticism made easy’ has obtained, for its childlike simplicity, more acceptance than the reviewer could reasonably suppose. Dr. Hort, of course, speaks very differently: ‘B must be regarded as having preserved not only a very ancient text, but a very pure line of very ancient text, and that with comparatively small depravation either by scattered ancient corruptions otherwise attested or by individualisms of the scribe himself. On the other hand, to take it as the sole authority except where it contains self-betraying errors, as some have done, is an unwarrantable abandonment of criticism, and in our opinion inevitably leads to erroneous results’ (Introd. p. 250).]

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[^294].

[^294: The textual labours of the Cambridge duumvirate have received all the fuller consideration in the learned world by reason of their authors having been members of the New Testament Revision Company, in whose deliberations they had a real influence, though, as a comparison of their text with that adopted by the Revisionists might easily have shown, by no means a preponderating one. I have carefully studied the chief criticisms which have been published on the controversy, without materially adding to the acquaintance with the subject which nearly eleven years of familiar conference with my colleagues had necessarily brought to me. The formidable onslaught on Dr. Hort's and Bishop Westcott's principles in three articles in the Quarterly Review [afterwards published together with additions in “The Revision Revised”] especially in the number for April, 1882, and Canon F. C. Cook's “Revised Version of the First Three Gospels” (1882), must be known to most scholars, and abound with materials from which a final judgement may be formed. “The Ely Lectures on the Revised Version of the N. T.” (1882), which my friend and benefactor Canon Kennedy was pleased to inscribe to myself, are none the less valuable for their attempt to hold the balance even between opposite views of the questions at issue. The host of pamphlets and articles in periodicals which the occasion has called forth could hardly be enumerated in detail, but some of them have been used with due acknowledgement in Chap. XII.]

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[^295]; 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).

[^295: We are concerned not with names but with things, so that Dr. Hort may give his ignis fatuus what appellation he likes, only why he calls it Syrian it is hard to determine. The notices connecting his imaginary revision with Lucian of Antioch which we have given above he feels to be insufficient, for he says no more than that “the conjecture derives some little support from a passage of Jerome, which is not itself discredited by the precariousness of the modern theories which have been suggested by it” (Hort, p. 138).]

(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[^296]. 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.

[^296: See Burgon's “The Revision Revised,” pp. 271-288.]

(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[^297].

[^297: Other examples may be seen in our notes in Chap. XII on Luke ii. 14 for Methodius; Luke xxii. 43, 44 for Hippolytus again; Luke xxiii. 34 for Irenaeus and Origen. Add Luke x. 1 for Irenaeus (p. 546, note 1); xxiii. 45 (Hippolytus); John xiii. 24 (Clem. Alex.); 2 Cor. xii. 7 (Iren. Orig.); Mark xvi. 17, 18 (Hippol.). See also Miller's “Textual Guide,” pp. 84, 85, where 165 passages on fifteen texts are gathered from writers before St. Chrysostom.]

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[^298].

[^298: For reasons which will be readily understood, we have quoted sparingly from the trenchant article in the Quarterly Review, April, 1882, but the following summary of the consequences of a too exclusive devotion to Codd. אB seems no unfit comment on the facts of the case: “Thus it would appear that the Truth of Scripture has run a very narrow risk of being lost for ever to mankind. Dr. Hort contends that it more than half lay perdu on a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library;—Dr. Tischendorf that it had found its way into a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine at the foot of Mount Sinai—from which he rescued it on February 4, 1859:—neither, we venture to think, a very likely supposition. We incline to believe that the Author of Scripture hath not by any means shown Himself so unmindful of the safety of the Deposit, as these learned persons imagine” (p. 365). The Revision Revised, p. 343.]

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[^299].

[^299: See Appendix of passages at the end of this chapter. Yet while refusing without hesitation the claim of the monstra which follow to be regarded as a part of the sacred text, we are by no means insensible to the fact impressed upon us by the Dean of Llandaff, that there are readings which conciliate favour the more we think over them: it being the special privilege of Truth always to grow upon candid minds. We subjoin his persuasive words: “It is deeply interesting to take note of the process of thought and feeling which attends in one's own mind the presentation of some unfamiliar reading. At first sight the suggestion is repelled as unintelligible, startling, almost shocking. By degrees, light dawns upon it—it finds its plea and its palliation. At last, in many instances, it is accepted as adding force and beauty to the context, and a conviction gradually forms itself that thus and not otherwise was it written.” (Vaughan, Epistle to Romans, Preface to the third edition, p. xxi.)]

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[^300]. 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.

[^300: Thus far we are in agreement with the “Two Members of the N. T. Company,” however widely we may differ from their general views: “The great contribution of our own times to a mastery over materials has been the clearer statement of the method of genealogy, and, by means of it, the corrected distribution of the great mass of documentary evidence” (p. 19). Only that arbitrary theories ought to be kept as far as possible out of sight.]

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[^301], 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)[^302]. 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.

[^301: So that we may be sure what we should have found in Cod. D, and with high probability in Cod. E, were they not defective, when in Acts xxvii. 5 we observe δι᾽ ἡμερῶν δεκάπεντε inserted after διαπλεύσαντες in 137, 184, and the Harkleian margin with an asterisk; as also when we note in Acts xxviii. 16 ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς before σύν in the last two and in demid.]

[^302: E.g. Luke xxiv. 3 τοῦ κυρίου ἰησοῦ omitted by D, a b e ff2 l; ver. 6 οὐκ ἔστιν ὦδε ἀλλὰ ἠγέρθη (comp. Mark xvi. 6), omitted by the same; ver. 9 ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου by the same, by c and the Armenian; the whole of ver. 12, by the same (except ff2) with fuld., but surely not by the Jerusalem Syriac, even according to Tischendorf's showing, or by Eusebius' canon, for he knew the verse well (comp. John xx. 5); ver. 36 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, εἰρήνη ὑμῖν omitted by D, a b e ff2 l as before (comp. John xx. 19, 26); the whole of ver. 40, omitted by the same and by Cureton's Syriac (comp. John xx. 20); ver. 51 καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν and ver. 52 προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν omitted by the same and by Augustine, the important clause in ver. 51 by א* also, and consequently by Tischendorf. Yet, as if to show how mixed the evidence is, D deserts a b ff2 l when, in company with a host of authorities, both manuscripts and versions (f q, Vulgate, Bohairic, Syriac, and others), they annex καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου to the end of ver. 42. See also Luke x. 41, 42; xxii. 19, 20, discussed in Chap. XII.]

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[^303].

[^303: So of certain of the chief versions we sometimes hear it said that they are less important in the rest of the N. T. than in the Gospels; which means that in the former they side less with אB.]

7. It is hoped that the general issue of the foregoing discussion may now be embodied in these four practical rules[^304]:—

[^304: Canon Kennedy, whose “Ely Lectures” exhibit, to say the least, no prejudice against the principles enunciated in Dr. Hort's Introduction, is good enough to commend the four rules here set forth to the attention of his readers (p. 159, note). The first three were stated in my first edition (1861), the fourth added in the second edition (1874), and, while they will not satisfy the advocates of extreme views on either side, suffice to intimate the terms on which the respective claims of the uncial and cursive manuscripts, of the earlier and the more recent authorities, may, in my deliberate judgement, be equitably adjusted.]

(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[^305].

[^305: Dean Burgon held that too much deference is here paid to the mere antiquity of those which happen to be the oldest MSS., but are not the oldest authorities. He would therefore enlarge the grounds of judgement.]

(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[^306].

[^306: The harmony subsisting between B and the Sahidic in characteristic readings, for which they stand almost or quite alone, is well worth notice: e.g. Acts xxvii. 37; Rom. xiii. 13; Col. iii. 6; Heb. iii. 2; 1 John ii. 14; 20.]

Ver. 22. Ὁ λύχνος τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου B, a b c ff1 n1.2 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 ff2 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[^307]. 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[^308].

[^307: “The intrinsic evidence seems immoveable against the insertion.” Textual Criticism of the N. T., B. B. Warfield, D.D., p. 135.]

[^308: Yet in Penn's “Annotations to the Vatican Manuscripts” (1837) “The restoration of this verse to its due place” is described as “the most important circumstance of this [sc. his own] revision.” Its omission is imputed to “the undue influence of a criticism of Origen [ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀποθανόντος], whom Jerome followed.”]

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[^309].

[^309: “This gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of history—a reading as preposterous as it is revolting,” is the vigorous protest of Dean Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 68, note.]

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[^310]. 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 g1.2? 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.

[^310: “Post enim duodecim apostolos septuaginta alios Dominus noster ante se misisse invenitur; septuaginta autem nec octonario numero neque denario” (Irenaeus, p. 146, Massuet). Tertullian, just a little later (re-echoed by the younger Cyril), compares the Apostles with the twelve wells at Elim (Ex. xv. 27), the seventy with the three-score and ten palm-trees there (Adv. Marc. iv. 24). So Eusebius thrice, Basil and Ambrose. On the other hand in the Recognitions of Clement, usually assigned to the second or third century, the number adopted is seventy-two, “vel hoc modo recognitâ imagine Moysis” and of his elders, traditionally set down at that number. Compare Num. xi. 16. Epiphanius, Hilary (Scholz), and Augustine are also with Cod. B.]

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[^311]. 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[^312] (also υἱὸς ὑμῶν Evst. 259), in e f g, the Sahidic, Peshitto and Harkleian[^313] 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.

[^311: To enable us to translate “a son, nay even an ox,” would require ἢ καί, which none read. The argument, moreover, is one a minori ad majus. Compare Ex. xxi. 33 with Ex. xxiii. 4; ch. xiii. 15.]

[^312: Let me add ex meo Codd. 22, 219, 492, 547, 549, 558, 559, 576, 582, 584, 594, 596, 597, 598, 601, being no doubt a large majority of cursives. So Cod. 662, apparently after correction.]

[^313: But not in the Beirût MS. discovered in 1877 by Dr. Is. H. Hall.]

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 ff2 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 ff2 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[^314].

[^314: A more ludicrous blunder of Cod. B has been pointed out to me in the Old Testament, Ps. xvii. 14 “they have children at their desire”: ΕΧΟΡΤΑΣΘΗΣΑΝ ΫΙΩΝ Cod. A, but ΕΧΟΡΤΑΣΘΗΣΑΝ ΫΕΙΩΝ Cod. B. The London papyrus has ΥΩΝ for ΥΙΩΝ.]

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[^315] 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.

[^315: Codex P is of far greater value than others of its own date. It is frequently found in the company of B, sometimes alone, sometimes with other chief authorities, especially in the Catholic Epistles, e.g. James iv. 15; v. 4; 14; 2 Pet. i. 17 (partly); ii. 6; 1 John ii. 20.]

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[^316] on the evidence of B, 96 only. Cod. B is very prone to omit the article, especially, but not exclusively, with proper names.

[^316: We note many small variations between the text of these critics as communicated to the Revisers some years before, and that finally published in 1881. The latter, of course, we have treated as their standard.]

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)[^317], 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.

[^317: This precious cursive forms one of a small class which in the Catholic Epistles and sometimes in the Acts conspire with the best uncials in upholding readings of the higher type: the other members are 69, 137, 182, to which will sometimes be added the text or margin of the Harkleian Syriac, Codd. 27, 29, the second hands of 57 and 66, 100, 180, 185, and particularly 221, which is of special interest in these Epistles. The following passages, examined by means of Tischendorf's notes, will prove what is here alleged: 1 Pet. iii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 4; 21; ii. 6; 11; 1 John i. 5; 7; 8; ii. 19; iii. 1; 19; 22; iv. 19; v. 5.]

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[^318]. 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.

[^318: Notice especially those instances in the Catholic Epistles, wherein the primary authorities are comparatively few, in which Cod. B accords with the later copies against Codd. אA(C), and is also supported by internal evidence: e.g. 1 Pet. iii. 18; iv. 14; v. 2; 2 Pet. ii. 20; 1 John ii. 10; iii. 23, &c. In 1 John iii. 21, where the first ἡμῶν is omitted by A and others, the second by C almost alone, B seems right in rejecting the word in both places. So in other cases internal probabilities occasionally plead strongly in favour of B, when it has little other support: as in Rom. viii. 24, where τίς ἐλπίζει; as against τις, τί καὶ ἐλπίζει; though B and the margin of Cod. 47 stand alone here, best accounts for the existence of other variations (see p. 248). In Eph. v. 22, B alone, with Clement and Jerome, the latter very expressly, omits the verb in a manner which can hardly fail to commend itself as representing the true form of the passage. In Col. iii. 6, B, the Sahidic, the Roman Ethiopic, Clement (twice), Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, and auct. de singl. cler., are alone free from the clause interpolated from Eph. v. 6.]

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[^319] 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.

[^319: Viz. Luke i. 1-4, some portion of the Gospel and most of the Acts: excluding such cases as St. Stephen's speech, Acts vii, and the parts of his Gospel which resemble in style, and were derived from the same sources as, those of SS. Matthew and Mark.]

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[^320].

[^320: Dr. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 141) confirms the foregoing statements, which we have repeated unchanged from our former editions. “What spellings are sufficiently probable to deserve inclusion among alternative readings, is often difficult to determine. Although many deviations from classical orthography are amply attested, many others, which appear to be equally genuine, are found in one, two, or three MSS. only, and that often with an irregularity which suggests that all our MSS. have to a greater or less extent suffered from the effacement of unclassical forms of words. It is no less true on the other hand that a tendency in the opposite direction is discernible in Western MSS.: the orthography of common life, which to a certain extent was used by all the writers of the New Testament, though in unequal degrees, would naturally be introduced more freely in texts affected by an instinct of popular adaptation.”]

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[^321]: 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)[^322] are the most constant in retaining it, though it is met with frequently in many cursive copies, and occasionally in almost all[^323]. 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[^324]. 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.

[^321: E.g. Aeschylus, Persae, 411: κόρυμβ᾽, ἐπ᾽ ἄλλην δ᾽ ἄλλος ἴθυνεν δόρυ, or Sophocles, Antigone, 219: τὸ μὴ πιχωρεῖν τοῖς ἀπιστοῦσιν τάδε.]

[^322: Cod. א, for instance, does not omit it above 208 times throughout the N. T., out of which 134 occur with verbs (three so as to cause a hiatus), 29 with nouns, 45 with adjectives (chiefly πᾶσι) or participles (Scrivener, Collation, &c., p. liv). Its absence produces the hiatus in B*C in 1 Pet. ii. 18 (ἐπιεικέσι), and not seldom in B, e.g. 1 Pet. iv. 6, where we find κριθῶσι and ζῶσι, which latter is countenanced by A, and both by אL.]

[^323: Wake 12 (Evan. 492), of the eleventh century, may be taken for a fair representative of its class and date. It retains ν with εἶπεν thirty-three times in St. Matthew, thirteen in St. Mark, as often as 130 in St. Luke. With other words it mostly reserves ν to indicate emphasis (e.g. Luke xxii. 14; xxiv. 30), or to stand before a break in the sense.]

[^324: The terminations which admit this moveable ν (including -ει of the pluperfect) are enumerated by Donaldson (Gr. Gram. p. 53). Tischendorf, however (N. T., Proleg. p. liv), demurs to εἴκοσιν, even before a vowel.]

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[^325], 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.

[^325: With the remarkable exception of those six leaves of Cod. א which Tischendorf assigns to the scribe who wrote Cod. B. In these leaves of Cod. א Ἰωάνης occurs four times: Matt. xvi. 14; xvii. 1; 13; Luke i. 13, in which last passage, however, B has the double nu.]

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[^326]. We have conceded to these forms the name of Alexandrian, because it is probable that they actually derived their origin from that city[^327], 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[^328]. 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.

[^326: These last might be supposed to have originated from the omission or insertion of the faint line for ν over the preceding letter, which (especially at the end of a line) we stated in Vol. I. p. 50 to be found even in the oldest manuscripts. Sometimes the anomalous form is much supported by junior as well as by ancient codices: e.g. θυγατέραν, Luke xiii. 16 by KXΓ*Λ, 209, also by 69, and ten others of Scrivener's.]

[^327: Thus Canon Selwyn cites from Lycophron κἀπὸ γῆς ἐσχάζοσαν, and Dr. Moulton (Winer, p. 91, note 5), after Mullach, ἔσχοσαν from Scymnus Chius.]

[^328: Tregelles presses yet another argument: “If Alexandrian forms had been introduced into the N. T. by Egyptian copyists, how comes it that the classical MSS. written in that country are free from them?” (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 178). But what classical MSS. does he know of, written while Egypt was yet Greek or Christian, and now extant for our inspection? I can only think of Cureton's Homer and Babington's papyri.]

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[^329]. 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[^330]. 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.

[^329: “It is hard to make St. Paul responsible for vulgarisms or provincialisms, which certainly his pen never wrote, and which there can be no proof that his lips ever uttered” (Epistle to the Romans, Preface to the third edition, p. xxi) is Dean Vaughan's comment on this “barbarism.” He regards the Apostle's habit of dictating his letters as a “sufficient reason for broken constructions, for participles without verbs, for suspended nominatives, for sudden digressions, for fresh starts.”]

[^330: Dr. Hort, however, accepts the form ἐφ᾽ in this place, aspirating ἐλπίδι, and in the same way favours but does not print οὐχ ὁλίγος eight times in the Acts, adding that although ὁλίγος “has no lost digamma to justify it, like some others, it may nevertheless have been in use in the apostolic age: it occurs in good MSS. of the LXX” (Introd., Notes, p. 143).]

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[^331].

[^331: “A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek regarded as the basis of N. T. Exegesis. By Dr. G. B. Winer. Translated from the German with large additions and full indices by Rev. W. F. Moulton, M. A., D. D.,” third edition revised, 8vo, Edinburgh, 1882. The forthcoming “Prolegomena” to Tischendorf's N. T. eighth edition (pp. 71-126), to which the kindness of Dr. Caspar René Gregory has given me access, contain a store of fresh materials on this subject; and Dr. Hort's “Notes on Orthography” (Introd., Notes, pp. 143-173) will afford invaluable aid to the student who is ever so little able to accept some of his conclusions. See also on the more general subject Dr. Neubauer's Article in the first issue of the Oxford “Studia Biblica” on “The Dialects of Palestine in the Time of Christ.” He controverts Dr. Roberts' opinion that “Christ spoke for the most part in Greek, and only now and then in Aramaic.” And he distinguishes between the Babylonian Aramaic, the Galilean Aramaic, and the dialect spoken at Jerusalem, which had more of Hebrew.]

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[^332], 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[^333]. 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[^334]. 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 ff1, 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.”

[^332: In Acts ix. 34 Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, the article between them being rejected, is read by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, on the adequate authority of אB*C, 13, 15, 18, 68, 111, 180, and a catena (probably also Cod. 36), with one or two Fathers, although against AEP, 31, 61, &c.]

[^333: I know not why Tischendorf cites Cod. 71 (gscr) for the omission of Ἰησοῦ. I have again consulted the MS. at Lambeth, and find ἰῦ in this place.]

[^334: See above, I. 130. The precise relation of the Latin Version of Cod. D to the parallel Greek text is fully examined in Scrivener's “Codex Bezae,” Introduction, chap. iii.]

We do not deny the importance of Irenaeus' express testimony[^335] (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[^336].

[^335: Mr. E. B. Nicholson, Bodley's Librarian, doubts the conclusiveness of Irenaeus' Latin here “because his copyist was in the habit of altering him into accordance with the oldest Latin version; and because his argument is just as strong if we read Jesu Christi autem as if we read Christi. The argument requires Christi, but does not in the least require it as against Jesu Christi.”]

[^336: “The clearly Western Τοῦ δὲ χριστοῦ,” as Dr. Hort admits, “is intrinsically free from objection, ... yet it cannot be confidently accepted. The attestation is unsatisfactory, for no other Western omission of a solitary word in the Gospels has any high probability” (N. T., Notes, p. 7). He retains ψευδόμενοι, Matt. v. 11.]

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 g1 (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 ff1 g1 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[^337], attest for it in the fourth; then come the Latin codices[^338] f g1 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.

[^337: Why should Gregory Nyssen (371) be classed among the opponents of the clause, whereas Griesbach honestly states, “suam expositionem his quidem verbis concludit: [ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ τοῦ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ τὴν ἰσχὺν κεκτημένου, οὗ ῥυσθείημεν] χάριτι [τοῦ] χριστοῦ, ὅτι αὐτοῦ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα ἅμα τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι, νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν”? Griesbach adds indeed, “sed pro parte sacri textûs neutiquam haec habuisse videtur;” and justly: they were rather a loose paraphrase of the sentence before him. See Textual Guide, Edward Miller, App. V.]

[^338: Canon Cook (Revised Version, p. 57) alleges as a probable cause of the general omission of the doxology in early Latin Versions and Fathers, that in all the Western liturgies it is separated from the petitions preceding by an intercalated Embolismus. More weighty is his observation that all the Greek Fathers, from Chrysostom onwards, who deal with the interpretation of the Lord's Prayer, “agree with that great expositor in maintaining the important bearings [of the doxology] upon the preceding petitions.”]

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[^339].

[^339: “Quite a test-passage” Mr. Hammond calls it (Outlines of Text. Crit., p. 76).]

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 ff1.2 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 g1 h m of the Old Latin. A few (Cureton's Syriac, b c ff1.2 g1 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[^340].

[^340: Third Edition. I would fain side in this instance with my revered friend and Revision colleague Dr. David Brown of Aberdeen, and all my prepossessions are strongly in favour of the textus receptus here. He is quite right in perceiving (Christian Opinion and Revisionist, p. 435) that the key of his position lies in the authenticity of ἀγαθέ ver. 16, which is undoubtedly found in Mark x. 17; Luke xviii. 18. If that word had abided unquestioned here, the form of reply adopted in the other two Gospels would have inevitably followed. As the case stands, there is not considerably less evidence for omitting ἀγαθέ (אBDL, 1, 22, 479, Evst. 5 [not “five Evangelistaria”], a e ff1, Eth., Origen twice, Hilary) than for Τί με ἐρωτᾷς κ.τ.λ., although Cureton's and the Jerusalem Syriac, the Bohairic, and the Vulgate with some other Latin copies, change sides here. It is upon these recreant versions that Dr. Brown must fix the charge of inconsistency. If ἀγαθέ be an interpolation, surely τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω is pertinently answered by Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ.]

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 ff1.2 h n and and. em. of the Vulgate[^341]) mostly support the same addition, though with many variations: d, as usual, agrees with none; g2has not the first clause down to εἶναι, while g1 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[^342], 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.

[^341: Canon Westcott (Smith's “Dictionary of the Bible,” Vulgate Version) adds Bodl. 857; Brit. Mus. Reg. i B. vii, and Reg. i. A. xviii in part, also Addit. 24,142 by the second hand. Tischendorf also cites theotisc.]

[^342: No passage more favours Bp. Middleton's deliberate conclusion respecting the history of the Codex Bezae: “I believe that no fraud was intended: but only that the critical possessor of the basis filled its margin with glosses and readings chiefly from the Latin, being a Christian of the Western Church; and that the whole collection of Latin passages was translated into Greek, and substituted in the text by some one who had a high opinion of their value, and who was, as Wetstein describes him, ‘καλλιγραφίας quàm vel Graecae vel Latinae linguae peritior.’” (Doctrine of the Greek Article, Appendix I. p. 485, 3rd edition.)]

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[^343]. 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 ff1.2 g1 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[^344], 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.

[^343: I see no reasonable ground for imagining with Lachmann that Origen who, as he truly observes, “non solet difficilia praeterire,” did not find in his copy anything between πατρός; and Ἀμήν in ver. 31. On the supposition that he read πρῶτος there was no difficulty to slur over. Moreover, there is not a vestige of evidence for omitting λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ ἰησοῦς, the existence of which words Lachmann clearly perceived to be fatal to his ingenious guess, although Dr. Hort will only allow that it “weakens his suggestion,” adding in his quiet way “This phrase might easily seem otiose if it followed immediately on words of Christ, and might thus be thought to imply the intervention of words spoken by others” (Notes, p. 17).]

[^344: Jerome conceives that the Jews “intellegere quidem veritatem, sed tergiversari, et nolle dicere quod sentiunt;” and so Canon G. F. Goddard, Rector of Southfleet, believed that their wantonly false answer brought on them the Lord's stern rebuke. Hilary's idea is even more far-fetched: viz. that though the second son disobeyed, it was because he could not execute the command. “Non ait noluisse sed non abisse. Res extra culpam infidelitatis est, quia in facti erat difficultate ne fieret.”]

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 g2 (not g1) 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 ff1.2 g1 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[^345]” (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[^346] 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.

[^345: His sole example is ὁδὸν ποιεῖν Mark ii. 23, which seems not at all parallel. The phrase may as well signify to ‘clear away’ as ‘make their way.’]

[^346: πολλὰ ἂ ἐποίει is the reading of Abbott's four and of Codd. 28, 122, 541, 561, 572, Evst. 196.]

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[^347]. 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.

[^347: Which is certainly its meaning in Lucian, Tom. ii. p. 705 (Salmur. 1619); I know no example like that in St. Mark.]

[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 ff2 g1.2 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[^348]. 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[^349]), 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[^350] which precedes them. Besides these, the twelve verses are omitted in none but some old Armenian codices[^351] 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[^352]. Other manuscripts contain marginal scholia respecting it, of which the following is the substance. Cod. 199 has τέλος[^353] 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[^354] 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.

[^348: I have ventured but slowly to vouch for Tischendorf's notion, that six leaves of Cod. א, that containing Mark xvi. 2-Luke i. 56 being one of them, were written by the scribe of Cod. B. On mere identity of handwriting and the peculiar shape of certain letters who shall insist? Yet there are parts of the case which I know not how to answer, and which have persuaded even Dr. Hort. Having now arrived at this conclusion our inference is simple and direct, that at least in these leaves, Codd. אB make but one witness, not two.]

[^349: The cases of Nehemiah, Tobit, and Daniel, in the Old Testament portion of Cod. B, are obviously in no wise parallel in regard to their blank columns.]

[^350: Of which supplement Dr. Hort says unexpectedly enough, “In style it is unlike the ordinary narratives of the Evangelists, but comparable to the four introductory verses of St. Luke's Gospel” (Introduction, p. 298).]

[^351: We ought to add that some Armenian codices which contain the paragraph have the subscription “Gospel after Mark” at the end of ver. 8 as well as of ver. 20, as though their scribes, like Cod. L's, knew of a double ending to the Gospel.]

[^352: Burgon (Guardian, July 12, 1882) speaks of seven manuscripts (Codd. 538, 539 being among them) wherein these last twelve verses begin on the right hand of the page. This would be more significant if a space were left, as is not stated, at the foot of the preceding page. In Cod. 550 the first letter α is small, but covers an abnormally large space.]

[^353: Of course no notice is to be taken of τέλος after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, as the end of the ecclesiastical lesson is all that is intimated. The grievous misstatements of preceding critics from Wetstein and Scholz down to Tischendorf, have been corrected throughout by means of Burgon's laborious researches (Burgon, pp. 114-123).]

[^354: The minute variations between these several codices are given by Burgon (Appendix E, pp. 288-90). Cod. 255 contains a scholion imputed to Eusebius, from which Griesbach had drawn inferences which Burgon (Last Twelve Verses, &c., Postscript, pp. 319-23) has shown to be unwarranted by the circumstances of the case.]

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[^355] 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[^356], 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[^357]. 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[^358].

[^355: Dr. C. Taylor, Master of St. John's College, Cambridge, in The Expositor for July, 1893, quotes more evidence from Justin Martyr—hinting that some also remains behind—proving that that Father was familiar with these verses. Also he cites several passages from the Epistle of Barnabas in which traces of them occur, and from the Quartodeciman controversy, and from Clement of Rome. The value of the evidence which Dr. Taylor's acute vision has discovered consists chiefly in its cumulative force. From familiarity with the passage numerous traces of it arose; or as Dr. Taylor takes the case reversely, from the fact of the occurrence of numerous traces evident to a close observer, it is manifest that there pre-existed in the minds of the writers a familiarity with the language of the verses in question.]

[^356: It is surprising that Dr. Hort, who lays very undue stress upon the silence of certain early Christian writers that had no occasion for quoting the twelve verses in their extant works, should say of Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived about a.d. 349, that his “negative evidence is peculiarly cogent” (Notes, p. 37). To our mind it is not at all negative. Preaching on a Sunday, he reminds his hearers of a sermon he had delivered the day before, and which he would have them keep in their thoughts. One of the topics he briefly recalls is the article of the Creed τὸν καθίσαντα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρός. He must inevitably have used Mark xvi. 19 in his Saturday's discourse.]

[^357: Several of these references are derived from “The Revision Revised,” p. 423.]

[^358: Nor were these verses used in the Greek Church only. Vers. 9-20 comprised the Gospel for Easter Monday in the old Spanish or Mozarabic Liturgy, for Easter Tuesday among the Syrian Jacobites, for Ascension Day among the Armenians. Vers. 12-20 was the Gospel for Ascension Day in the Coptic Liturgy (Malan, Original Documents, iv. p. 63): vers. 16-20 in the old Latin Comes.]

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[^359]. 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?

[^359: To get rid of one apparent ἀντιφωνία, that arising from the expression πρωῒ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου (sic), ver. 9, compared with ὀψὲ σαββάτων Matt. xxviii. 1, Eusebius proposes the plan of setting a stop between Ἀναστὰς δέ and πρωΐ, so little was he satisfied with rudely expunging the whole clause. Hence Cod. E puts a red cross after δέ: Codd. 20, 22, 34, 72, 193, 196, 199, 271, 345, 405, 411, 456, have a colon: Codd. 332, 339, 340, 439, a comma (Burgon, Guardian, Aug. 20, 1873).]

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[^360], either in his own writings, or in those of the authors he is most familiar with.

[^360: The following peculiarities have been noticed in these verses: ἐκεῖνος used absolutely, vers. 10, 11, 13; πορεύομαι vers. 10, 12, 15; τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις ver. 10; θεάομαι vers. 11, 14; ἀπιστέω vers. 11, 16; μετὰ ταῦτα ver. 12; ἕτερος ver. 12; παρακολουθέω ver. 17; ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι ver. 17; κύριος for the Saviour, vers. 19, 20; πανταχοῦ, συνεργοῦντος, βεβαιόω, ἐπακολουθέω ver. 20, all of them as not found elsewhere in St. Mark. A very able and really conclusive plea for the genuineness of the paragraph, as coming from that Evangelist's pen, appeared in the Baptist Quarterly, Philadelphia, July, 1869, bearing the signature of Professor J. A. Broadus, of South Carolina. Unfortunately, from the nature of the case, it does not admit of abridgement. Burgon's ninth chapter (pp. 136-190) enters into full details, and amply justifies his conclusion that the supposed adverse argument from phraseology “breaks down hopelessly under severe analysis.”]

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[^361]? 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.

[^361: “Can any one, who knows the character of the Lord and of His ministry, conceive for an instant that we should be left with nothing but a message baulked through the alarm of women” (Kelly, Lectures Introductory to the Gospels, p. 258). Even Dr. Hort can say: “it is incredible that the Evangelist deliberately concluded either a paragraph with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, or the Gospel with a petty detail of a secondary event, leaving his narrative hanging in the air” (Notes, p. 46).]

We emphatically deny that such wild surmises[^362] 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[^363]; 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[^364].

[^362: When Burgon ventures upon a surmise, one which is probability itself by the side of those we have been speaking of, Professor Abbot (ubi supra, p. 197) remarks upon it that “With Mr. Burgon a conjecture seems to be a demonstration.” We will not be deterred by dread of any such reproach from mentioning his method of accounting for the absence of these verses from some very early copies, commending it to the reader for what it may seem worth. After a learned and exhaustive proof that the Church lessons, as we now have them, existed from very early times (Twelve Verses, pp. 191-211), and noting that an important lesson ended with Mark xvi. 8 (see Calendar of Lessons); he supposes that τέλος, which would stand at the end of such a lesson, misled some scribe who had before him an exemplar of the Gospels whose last leaf (containing Mark xvi. 9-20, or according to Codd. 20, 215, 300 only vers. 16-20) was lost, as it might easily be in those older manuscripts wherein St. Mark stood last.]

[^363: The Codex lately discovered by Mrs. Lewis is said to omit the verses. But what is that against a host of other codices? And when the other MS. of the Curetonian includes the verses? Positive testimony is worth more than negative.]

[^364: Dr. Hort, however, while he admits the possibility of the leaf containing vers. 9-20 having been lost in some very early copy, which thus would become the parent of transcripts having a mutilated text (Notes, p. 49), rather inconsistently arrives at the conclusion that the passage in question “manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the apostolic age” (ibid. p. 51).]

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[^365], and the simple shepherds are sent away with a message, the diction of which no scholar has yet construed to his own mind[^366]. 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[^367]. 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.

[^365: Dr. Hort will hardly find many friends for his division (Notes, p. 56),

Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς, Εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.]

[^366: I am loth to sully with a semblance of unseasonable levity a page which is devoted to the vindication of the true form of the Angelic Hymn, and must ask the student to refer for himself to the 470th number of the Spectator, where what we will venture to call a precisely parallel case exercises the delicate humour of Addison. “So many ancient manuscripts,” he tells us, concur in this last reading, “that I am very much in doubt whether it ought not to take place. There are but two reasons which incline me to the reading as I have published it: first, because the rhyme, and secondly, because the sense, is preserved by it.”]

[^367: This torrent of testimony includes ninety-two places, of which “Tischendorf knew of only eleven, Tregelles adduces only six” (R. R., p. 45, note).]

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[^368].

[^368: Every word uttered by such a scholar as Dr. Field (d. 1885) is so valuable that no apology can be needed for citing the following critique from his charming “Otium Norvicense,” Part iii. p. 36, on the reading εὐδοκίας and the rendering “among men in whom he is well pleased.” “To which it may be briefly objected (1) that it ruins the stichometry; (2) that it separates ἐν from εὐδοκία, the word with which it is normally construed; (3) that ‘men of good pleasure’ (אנשי רצון) would be, according to Graeco-biblical usage, not ἄνθρωποι εὐδοκίας, but ἄνδρες εὐδοκίας; (4) that the turn of the sentence, ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία, very much resembles the second clause of Prov. xiv. 9: ובין ישרים רצון rendered by Symmachus καὶ ἀναμέσον εὐθέων εὐδοκία.” But this is almost slaying the slain.]

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[^369]: 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[^370], 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* ff2 g1.2, 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[^371], 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.

[^369: Κυριακὴ δευτεροπρώτη is cited by Sophocles in his Lexicon from “Eustr. 2381 B” in the sense of low Sunday (McClellan, N. T., p. 690). Canon Cook conjectures that it may mean the first sabbath in the second month (Iyar), precisely the time when wheat would be fully ripe (Revised Version, p. 69). [More probably it is “the first sabbath after the second day of the Passover.”] On the other hand, “If the word be a reality and originally in the text, its meaning, since in that case it must have been borrowed from something in the Jewish calendar, would have been traditionally known from the first.” (Green, Course of Developed Criticism, p. 56.) But why would it? The fancy that δευτεροπρώτῳ had its origin in numerals of reference (B A) set in the margin will most commend itself to such scholars as are under the self-imposed necessity of upholding Codd. אB united against all other evidence, of whatever kind.]

[^370: Just as Jerome, speaking of the latter part of 1 Cor. vii. 35, says, “In Lat. Codd. ob translationis difficultatem hoc penitus non invenitur.” (Vallars. ii. 261, as Burgon points out.)]

[^371: Dr. Hort and the Quarterly Reviewer (October, 1881, p. 348) almost simultaneously called attention to the question put by Jerome to his teacher Gregory of Nazianzus as to the meaning of this word. “Docebo te super hac re in ecclesia” was the only reply he obtained; on which Jerome's comment is, Eleganter lusit (Hier. ad Nepotianum, Ep. 52). Neither of these great Fathers could explain a term which neither doubted to be written by the Evangelist.]

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 ff2 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[^372], 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 g1 g2? 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.

[^372: Cyril applies the whole passage to enforce the duty of exercising with frugality the Christian duty of entertaining strangers: “And this He did for our benefit, that He might fix a limit to hospitality” (Dean Payne Smith's Translation, pp. 317-20).]

15. Luke xxii. 17-20. This passage has been made the subject of a most instructive discussion by Dean Blakesley[^373] (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[^374], 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.

[^373: Praelectio in Scholis Cantabrigiensibus habita Februarii die decimo quarto, mdcccl, quâ ... Lucae pericopam (xxii. 17-20) multis ante saeculis conturbatam vetustissimorum ope codicum in pristinam formam restituebat, Cathedram Theologicam ambiens, J. W. Blakesley, S. T. B., Coll. SS. Trinitatis nuper Socius (Cambridge, 1850).]

[^374: “Intrinsically both readings are difficult, but in unequal degrees. The difficulty of the shorter reading [that of pure omission in vers. 19, 20] consists exclusively in the change of order, as to the Bread and the Cup, which is illustrated by many phenomena of the relation between the narratives of the third and of the first two Gospels, and which finds an exact parallel in the change of order in St. Luke's account of the Temptation” (iv. 5-8; 9-12). Hort, Notes, p. 64.]

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[^375]. Thus both the chief Syriac translations found a difficulty here, though they remedied it in different ways[^376].

[^375: Adler says “in omnibus codicibus,” and guelph. heidelb. Dawkins iii and xvii in Jones, and cod. Rich are specified. Lee sets the verses in a parenthesis. But the Curetonian has them after ver. 19 in words but little differing from his or Schaaf's.]

[^376: “Si fides habenda A. F. Gorio ‘in Conspectu Quattuor Codicum Evangeliorum Syriacorum mirae aetatis’ apud Blanchini Evangelium Quadruplex p. dxl, et hi quattuor Codices cum Veronensi [b] faciunt.” Blakesley, Schema facing Praelectio, p. 20.]

The scheme of Dean Blakesley is put forth with rare ingenuity[^377], 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.

[^377: Especially mark his mode of dealing with ἐκχυννόμενον ver. 20, which by a little violence (not quite unprecedented) is made to refer to ποτήριον instead of to αἵματι: “Ex Matthaeo vel Marco accessit clausula ista τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον, fraude tamen ita piâ accessit, ut potius grammaticis legibus vim facere, quam vel literulam demutare maluerit interpolator. Ita fit ut vel hodie male assutus pannus centonem prodat. Postulat enim sermonis ratio, ut cuivis patet, τῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνομένω, non τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον, quod tamen in Matthaeo Marcoque optime Graece dicebatur, cum subjectum de quo praedicabatur non ἡ διαθήκη verum τὸ αἷμα esset” (Praelectio, p. 22).]

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[^378]. 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[^379], 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[^380]: 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[^381]. 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[^382]. 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 ff2 g1.2 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[^383]. 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[^384]. 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).

[^378: Very undue stress has been laid on Tischendorf's statement, “Hos versus A corrector uncis inclusit, partim etiam punctis notavit; C vero puncta et uncos delevit,” and אa has sometimes been spoken of as only a little less weighty than א itself. I had the satisfaction, through Dean Burgon's kindness, of showing some of our critics, Dr. Hort included, a fine photograph of the whole page. The points are nearly, if not quite, invisible, the unci are rude slight curves at the beginning and end of the passage only, looking as likely to have been scrawled fifty years since as fourteen hundred. Yet even now Dr. Hort maintains that Tischendorf's decision is probably right, strangely adding, “but the point is of little consequence” (Notes, p. 65).]

[^379: Bp. Lightfoot's Codd. 2, 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 22, 26 omit them altogether: they are in the margin of 1, 20. They stand in the text of 3, 14, 21, and so in 18 primâ manu, but in smaller characters.]

[^380: Yet Dr. Hort contends that “The testimony of A is not affected by the presence of Eusebian numerals, of necessity misplaced, which manifestly presuppose the inclusion of vv. 43, 44: the discrepance merely shows that the Biblical text and the Eusebian notation were taken by the scribe from different sources, as they doubtless were throughout” (Notes, p. 65). It is just this readiness to devise expedients to meet emergencies as they arise which is at once the strength and the weakness of Dr. Hort's position as a textual critic. These sections and canons illustrate the criticism of the text in some other places: e.g. Matt. xvi. 2, 3; xvii. 21; ch. xxiii. 34; hardly in Luke xxiv. 12.]

[^381: Ἰστέον ὅτι τὰ περὶ τῶν θρόμβων τινὰ τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐκ ἔχουσιν: adding that the clause is cited by Dionysius the Areopagite, Gennadius, Epiphanius, and other holy Fathers.]

[^382: Thus in Evst. 253 we find John xiii. 3-17 inserted uno tenore between Matt. xxvi. 20 and 21, as also Luke xxii. 43, 44 between vers. 39 and 40, with no break whatever. So again in the same manuscript with the mixed lessons for Good Friday.]

[^383: “Upwards of forty famous personages from every part of ancient Christendom recognize these verses as part of the Gospel; fourteen of them being as old, some of them being a great deal older, than our oldest manuscripts” (The Revision Revised, p. 81).]

[^384: The reader will see that I have understood this passage, with Grotius, as applying to an orthodox tampering with Luke xix. 41, not with xxii. 43, 44. As the text of Epiphanius stands I cannot well do otherwise, since Mill's mode of punctuation (N. T., Proleg. § 797), which wholly separates καὶ γενόμενος from the words immediately preceding, cannot be endured, and leaves καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρότατον unaccounted for. Yet I confess that there is no trace of any meddling with ἔκλαυσε by any one, and I know not where Irenaeus cites it.]

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[^385], 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 ff2 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[^386]. 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.

[^385: Lightfoot's Codd. 22, 26. The clause stands in the margin of 1, 20, in the text of 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23.]

[^386: Dean Burgon (Revision Revised, p. 83), who refers to upwards of forty Fathers and more than 150 passages (see also Miller's Textual Guide, App. II), burns with indignation as he sums up his results: “And what (we ask the question with sincere simplicity), what amount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubted confidence in any given reading, if not such a concurrence of authorities as this? We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not be enlarged upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from internal evidence. Let this verse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient external testimony, or is clearly forsaken thereby.”]

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[^387], 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.

[^387: “Gospel according to St. John from eleven versions,” 1872, p. 8. Dr. Malan also translates in the same way the Peshitto “the only Son of God” and its satellite the Persic of the Polyglott as “the only one of God.” With much deference to a profound scholar, I do not see how such a rendering is possible in the Peshitto: it is precisely that which he gives in ch. iii. 18, where the Syriac inserts ܒܪܚ ܕ (or ܕ ܚܪܒ). Bp. Lightfoot judges θεός the more likely rendering of the Bohairic, though θεοῦ is possible.]

Tregelles, who seldom notices internal probabilities in his critical notes, here pleads that an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον like μονογενὴς θεός[^388] 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.

[^388: We are not likely to adopt Tischendorf's latest reading and punctuation in Col. ii. 2, τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ.]

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[^389].

[^389: Hence we cannot think with Prebendary Sadler (Lost Gospel, p. 48) that μονογενὴς θεός is very probably the original reading, and must even take leave to doubt its orthodoxy. The received reading ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is upheld by Dr. Ezra Abbot in papers contributed to the American Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct. 1861, and to the Unitarian Review, June, 1875; it is attacked with characteristic vigour and fullness of research by Dr. Hort in the first of his “Two Dissertations” (pp. 1-72) written in 1876 as exercises for Theological degrees at Cambridge.]

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[^390], 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.

[^390: The Revision Revised, p. 133. Also Miller's “Textual Guide,” App. VI.]

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[^391], in EFGHIKMUVΓΔΠ (with an asterisk throughout), and all known cursives not enumerated above[^392]: 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[^393], 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.

[^391: To give but a very small part of the variations in ver. 4: δέ (pro γάρ) L, a b c ff, Vulg. -γάρ Evst. 51, Boh. + κυρίου (post γὰρ) AKLΔ, 12, 13, 69, 507, 509, 511, 512, 570 and fifteen others: at τοῦ θεοῦ 152, Evst. 53, 54.—κατὰ καιρὸν a b ff ἐλούετο (pro κατέβαινεν) A (K), 42, 507. Ethiop.—ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ a b ff. ἐταράσσετο τὸ ὕδωρ C3GHIMUVΛ*, 440, 509, 510, 512, 513, 515, 543, 570, 575, Evst. 150, 257, many others. + in piscinam (post ἐμβάς) c, Clementine Vulg. ἐγένετο FL, 69, at least fifteen others.]

[^392: Either Dean Burgon or I have recently found the passage in Codd. 518, 524, 541, 560, 561, 573, 582, 594, 598, 599, 600, 602, 604, 622.]

[^393: Of Lightfoot's list of manuscripts, the passage is omitted in Codd. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26. It stands in the text of 3, 9, 14, in the margin only of 1, 20.]

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[^394]; 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[^395].

[^394: “Both elements, the clause ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τῶν ὑδάτων (sic) κίνησιν, and the scholium or explanatory note respecting the angel, are unquestionably very ancient: but no good Greek document contains both, while each of them separately is condemned by decisive evidence” (Hort, Introd., p. 301).]

[^395: Dean Burgon has left a long vindication of the whole passage amongst his papers not yet published.]

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 ff2 l secundâ manu, Cureton's Syriac, the Bohairic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions[^396], 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.

[^396: Add from Dr. Malan (ubi supra, p. 97), the Georgian, Slavonic (text, not margin), Anglo-Saxon, and Persic. His Arabic (that of Erpenius) agrees with the Peshitto Syriac. The Armenian version of Ephraem's Tatian also reads non.]

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[^397]BCT (all very old authorities) LX[^398]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.

[^397: Codd. AC are defective in this place, but by measuring the space we have shown (p. 99, note 2) that A does not contain the twelve verses, and the same method applies to C. The reckoning, as McClellan remarks (N. T., p. 723), “does not preclude the possibility of small gaps having existed in A and C to mark the place of the Section, as in L and Δ.”]

[^398: Yet Burgon's caution should be attended to. “It is to mislead—rather it is to misrepresent the facts of the case—to say (with the critics) that Codex X leaves out the ‘pericope de adulterâ.’ This Codex is nothing else but a commentary on the Gospel, as the Gospel used to be read in public. Of necessity, therefore, it leaves out those parts of the Gospel which are observed not to have been publicly read” (Guardian, Sept. 10, 1873).]

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[^399] (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[^400], 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[^401]. 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).

[^399: The kindred copies Codd. Λ, 215 (20 has an asterisk only against the place), 262, &c., have the following scholium at ch. vii. 53: τὰ ὠβελισμένα ἔν τισιν ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται, οὐδὲ Ἀπολ[λ]ιναρίῳ; ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ὅλα κεῖ[ν]ται; μνημονεύουσιν τῆς περικοπῆς ταύτης καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἐν αἷς ἐξέθεντο διατάξεσιν εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς ἐκκλησίας. The reference is to the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 24. 4), as Tischendorf perceives.]

[^400: Yet so that the first hand of Cod. 207 recognizes it in the text, setting in the margin τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ζήτει εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ βιβλίου (Burgon, Guardian, Oct. 1, 1873).]

[^401: A learned friend suggests that, supposing the true place for this supplemental history to be yet in doubt, there would be this reason for the narrative to be set after Luke xxi, that a reader of the Synoptic Gospels would be aware of no other occasion when the Lord had to lodge outside the city: whereas with St. John's narrative before him, he would see that this was probably the usual lot of a late comer at the Feast of Tabernacles (ch. vii. 14). Mr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that the true place for the pericope is between ch. v and ch. vi, as for other reasons which we cannot depend upon, so from our illustrating the mention of the Mosaic Law in ch. viii. 5 by ch. v. 45, 46.]

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[^402], 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), ff2 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.

[^402: Yet on the whole this paragraph is found in more of Bp. Lightfoot's copies than would have been anticipated: viz. in the text of 3, 8, 14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, in the margin of 1, and on a later leaf of 20. It is wanting in 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 19, 21, 25, 26.]

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[^403].”

[^403: ‘Similiter Nicon ejectam esse vult narrationem ab Armenis, βλαβερὰν εἶναι τοῖς πολλοῖς τὴν τοιαύτην ἀκρόασιν dicentibus.’ Tischendorf ad loc. Nicon lived in or about the tenth century, but Theophylact in the eleventh does not use the paragraph.]

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)[^404], 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[^405].

[^404: Notice especially the reading of 48, 64, 604, 736 (primâ manu) in ver. 8 ἔγραφεν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἑνὸς ἑκάστου αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας.]

[^405: We are not surprised in this instance at Dr. Hort's verdict (Introd. p. 299): “No interpolation is more clearly Western, though it is not Western of the earliest type.” Dean Burgon has left amongst his papers an elaborate vindication of this passage, from which however the Editor cannot quote.]

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[^406]. 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[^407] 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)[^408]. 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[^409]; 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.

[^406: The form τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, objected to by Michaelis, is vindicated by Matt. i. 18, the reading of which cannot rightly be impugned. See above. Compare also ver. 12.]

[^407: ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ εὐνοῦχος πεισθεὶς καὶ παραυτίκα ἀξιῶν βαπτισθῆναι, ἔλεγε, Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. Harvey, vol. ii. p. 62.]

[^408: Such are αὐτῷ with or without ὁ Φίλιππος in E, 100, 105, 163, 186, 221, the Harkleian with an asterisk: σου added after καρδίας in E, 100, 105, 163, 186, tol., the Harkleian with an asterisk, the Armenian, Cyprian; but ex toto corde the margin of am. and the Clementine Vulgate: τόν omitted before Ἰησοῦν in 186, 221 and others.]

[^409: “Non reperi in graeco codice, quanquam arbitror omissum librariorum incuria. Nam et haec in quodam codice graeco asscripta reperi, sed in margine.” Erasmus, N. T., 1516.]

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[^410]. 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.

[^410: They plead, besides the confessed preponderance of manuscript evidence for Ἑλληνιστάς, that “A familiar word standing in an obvious antithesis was not likely to be exchanged for a word so rare that it is no longer extant, except in a totally different sense, anywhere but in the Acts and two or three late Greek interpretations of the Acts; more especially when the change introduced an apparent difficulty” (Hort, Notes, p. 93). Judicet lector.]

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[^411]. 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[^412] 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.

[^411: Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. lvi and lxxxii.]

[^412: But with the same lack of accuracy which so often deforms this great copy: ως ετροφοφορησεν σε κς ο θς σου ως ει τις τροποφορησει primâ manu (Vercellone).]

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)[^413]. 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.

[^413: Witness too Lucian's ὑπερμεγέθη ναῦν καὶ πέρα τοῦ μέτρου, μίαν τῶν ἀπ᾽ Αἰγύπτου εἰς Ἰταλίαν σιταγωγῶν (Navig. seu Vota, c. 1) which was driven out of its course to the Piraeus. Mr. Smith, of Jordan Hill, cannot bring its dimensions under 1,300 tons.]

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[^414]. 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[^415].

[^414: Dr. Field, however, says that “this is a mistake.” The Syriac is ἔχωμεν and nothing else. For ἔχομεν this version (and all others) would put ܐܬ ܥܢ (or ܢܥ ܬܐ): but “when the word is in the subjunctive mood, since ܐܬ (or ܬܐ) is indeclinable, it is a peculiarity of the Harkleian to prefix the corresponding mood of ܗܘܐ (or ܐܘܗ), here ܢܗܘܐ (or ܐܘܗܢ)” (Otium Norvicense, iii. p. 93). For this strange phrase he cites Rom. i. 13; 2 Cor. v. 12, and to such an authority I have but dare manus.]

[^415: It is simply impossible to translate with Jos. Agar Beet, in the [Wesleyan] London Quarterly, April, 1878, either “Let us then, justified by faith, have peace with God,” or “Let us then be justified by faith and have peace with God.” Acts xv. 36 will help him little: the other places he cites (Matt. ii. 13, &c.) not at all.]

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[^416], 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.

[^416: Dr. Vaughan (Epistle to the Romans) has ἔχωμεν in his text, and compares Heb. xii. 28, ἔχωμεν χάριν, “where there is the same variety of reading.” B is lost in this last place, but ἔχομεν, which is quite inadmissible, is found in Codd. אKP, the Latin of D, 31 and many other cursives, the printed Vulgate, and its best manuscripts. In Rom. xiv. 19 even Dr. Hort is driven by the versions and the sense to adopt in his text διώκωμεν of CD and the mass of cursives, rather than διώκομεν with אABFGLP, &c. The like confusion between ο and ω appears in the text we shall examine next but one (1 Cor. xiii. 3) and in the subjoined note (p. 384). See also φορέσομεν and φορέσωμεν, 1 Cor. xv. 49. We must confess, however, that in some of our oldest extant MSS. the interchange of ο and ω is but rare. In Cod. Sarravianus it is found in but twenty-three places out of 1224 in which itacisms occur, 830 of them being the mutation of ει and ι. On the other hand, ο stands for ω and vice versâ very frequently in that papyrus fragment of the Psalms in the British Museum which Tischendorf, perhaps a little hastily, judged to be older than any existing writing on vellum.]

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[^417] 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.

[^417: Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 116) observes that διαθρύπτω is specially used in the Septuagint (Lev. ii. 6; Isa. lviii. 7) for the breaking of bread.]

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[^418], 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)[^419]. 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[^420].

[^418: Few things are too hard for Dr. Hort, yet one is almost surprised to be told that “The text gives an excellent sense, for, as ver. 2 refers to a faith towards God which is unaccompanied by love, so ver. 3 refers to acts which seem by their very nature to be acts of love to men, but are really done in ostentation. First the dissolving of the goods in almsgiving is mentioned, then, as a climax, the yielding up of the very body; both alike being done for the sake of glorying, and unaccompanied by love” (Notes, p. 117).]

[^419: Tyler compares shoushou also in 2 Cor. vii. 5, 9; Ps. v. 11 (12).]

[^420: Neither Winer nor his careful translator, Professor Moulton, seems disposed to yield to Lachmann's authority in this matter. “In the better class of writers,” says Winer, “such forms are probably due to the transcribers (Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 721), but in later authors, especially the Scholiasts (as on Thucydides iii. 11 and 54), they cannot be set aside. In the N. T., however, there is very little in favour of these conjunctives” (Moulton's “Winer,” p. 89 and note 4, p. 361 and note 1). Yet Tregelles thinks “there would be no difficulty about the case, had not one been made by grammatical critics” (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 211, note †). But in his own example, John xvii. 2, ἵνα ... δώσῃ is read by אcACGKMSX, 33, 511, 546, and (so far as I can find) by no other manuscript whatever. On the other hand δώσει (read by Westcott and Hort; see Introd., Notes, p. 172) is supported by BEHUYΓΔΛΠ (א has δωσω, D εχη, L δωσ), and (as it would seem) by every other codex extant: δώσῃ came into the common text from the second edition of Erasmus. Out of the twenty-five collated by myself for this chapter, δώσει is found in twenty-four (now including Wake 12 or Cod. 492 and Cod. 622), and the following others have been expressly cited for it: 1, 10, 11, 15, 22, 42, 45, 48, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61 (Dobbin), 63, 65, 66, 106, 118, 124, 127, 131, 142, 145, 157, 250, 262, Evst. 3, 22, 24, 36, and at least fifty others, indeed one might say all that have been collated with any degree of minuteness: so too the Complutensian and first edition of Erasmus. The constant confusion of ει and η at the period when the uncials were written abundantly accounts for the reading of the few, though AC are among them. In later times such itacisms were far more rare in careful transcription, and the mediaeval copyists knew their native language too well to fall into the habit in this passage. In Pet. iii. 1 ἵνα κερδηθήσονται is read by all the uncials (אABCKLP), nearly all cursives, and the Complutensian edition, in the place of -σωνται of Erasmus and the Received text; just as we have ἵνα γινώσκομεν in אAB*LP, 98, 99, 101, 180, 184, 188, 190 in 1 John v. 20. The case for ἀρκεσθησόμεθα 1 Tim. vi. 8 is but a shade less feeble.]

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.[^421]), 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.

[^421: Tischendorf, however, boldly interposes a comma between the words (see p. 359, note), and is followed by Westcott and Hort and by Bp. Lightfoot, whose note on the passage (Coloss. p. 318) is very elaborate. This mode of punctuation would set χριστοῦ in apposition to μυστηρίου, in support of which construction ch. i. 27 (ὅ); 1 Tim. iii. 16 (ὅς) are alleged. This, however, is not the sense favoured by Hilary (in agnitionem sacramenti dei Christi, and again Deus Christus sacramentum est), and would almost call for the article before χριστοῦ. In meaning it would be equivalent to D*, &c., ὅ ἐστιν χσ.]

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[^422], 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.

[^422: In Dr. Swete's edition, vol. ii. p. 11, Theodore expounds thus in the old Latin version: sed facti sumus quieti in medio vestro, hoc est, “omni mediocritate et humilitate sumus abusi, nolentes graves aliquibus videri.”]

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[^423]. 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)[^424], 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[^425], 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.

[^423: A like combination is seen in Cod. 37 in 1 Tim. vi. 19 τῆς αἰωνίου ὄντως ζωῆς.]

[^424: Dean Burgon has just presented me with the photographed page in Cod. G, respecting whose evidence there can be no remaining doubt.]

[^425: The true reading of the Codex Alexandrinus in 1 Tim. iii. 16 has long been an interesting puzzle with Biblical students. The manuscript, and especially the leaf containing this verse (fol. 145), now very thin and falling into holes, must have been in a widely different condition from the present when it first came to England. At that period Young, Huish, and the rest who collated or referred to it, believed that ΘΣ was written by the first hand. Mill (N. T. ad loc.) declares that he had first supposed the primitive reading to be ΟΣ, seeing clearly that the line over the letters had not been entirely made, but only thickened, by a later hand, probably the same that traced the coarse, rude, recent, horizontal diameter now running through the circle. On looking more closely, however, he detected “ductus quosdam et vestigia satis certa ... praesertim ad partem sinistram, qua peripheriam literae pertingit,” evidently belonging to an earlier diameter, which the thicker and later one had almost defaced. This old line was afterwards seen by John Berriman and four other persons with him (Gloucester Ridley, Gibson, Hewett, and Pilkington) by means of a glass in the bright sunshine, when he was preparing his Lady Moyer's Lecture for 1737-8 (Critical Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16, p. 156). Wetstein admitted the existence of such a transverse line, but referred it to the tongue or sagitta of Ε on the reverse of the leaf, an explanation rejected by Woide, but admitted by Tregelles, who states in opposition to Woide that “Part of the Ε on the other side of the leaf does intersect the Ο, as we have seen again and again, and which others with us have seen also” (Horne, iv. p. 156). This last assertion may be received as quite true, and yet not relevant to the point at issue. In an Excursus appended to 1 Timothy in his edition of “The Pastoral Epistles” (p. 100, 1856), Bp. Ellicott declares, as the result of “minute personal inspection,” that the original reading was “indisputably” ΟΣ. But the fact is, that the page is much too far gone to admit of any present judgement which would weigh against past judgements, as any one who examines the passage can see for himself. Woide could see the line in 1765, but not in 1785.]

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[^426]. The evidence borne for θεός by Didymus (de Trin.) and Gregory Nyssen[^427] 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)[^428], Epiphanius (twice), Theodore of Mopsuestia (in Latin)[^429], 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).

[^426: Yet how can it be precarious in the face of such testimony as the following (Quarterly Review, Oct. 1881, p. 363)? Τὸ δὲ θεὸν ὄντα ἄνθρωπον θελῆσαι γενέσθαι καὶ ἀνασχέσθαι καταβῆναι τοσοῦτον ... τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἐκπλήξεως γέμον. Ὅ δὴ καὶ Παῦλος θαυμάζων ἔλεγε; καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; ποῖον μέγα? θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί; καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ; οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ὁ θεός (Chrysostom, i. 497). It is necessary to study the context well before we can understand the strength or weakness of Patristic evidence.]

[^427: Twenty-three times in all, as Ward (see p. 394, note) observes, adding that “nothing can be more express and unquestionable than his reading.” The Quarterly Reviewer speaks very well (ubi supra), “A single quotation is better than many references. Among a multitude of proofs that Christ is God, Gregory says: Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαρρήδην βοᾷ ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι” (ii. 693).]

[^428: Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 67, 'Σχόλια Photii MSS. (Bib. Pub. Cant.) ad loc. ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις Κύριλλος ἐν τῷ ιβ κεφαλαίῳ τῶν σχολίων φησίν, ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί.' Photius also quoted Gregory Thaumaturgus (or Apollinarius) for θεός.]

[^429: Dr. Swete, in his masterly edition of the Latin translation of Theodore's commentary on St. Paul's Epistles, after citing the Latin text as qui manifestatus est in carne, adds “Both our MSS. read qui, here and [15 lines] below and use the masculine consistently throughout the context.... Thus the present translation goes to confirm the inference already drawn from the Greek fragment of Theodore, de Incarn. xiii (Migne, P. G. 66, 987), that he read ὃς ἐφανερώθη” (vol. ii. p. 135 n.): pertinently observing that if Theodore used ὅς, he was in harmony with the Syriac versions.]

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[^430]. 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.

[^430: “Conspectum lectionis hujus loci optime dedit in sermone vernaculo William H. Ward, V. D. M. in Bibliotheca Sacrâ Americanâ, anni 1865,” Tregelles N. T. ad loc. For a copy of this work I am indebted to the kindness of A. W. Tyler of New York. Mr. Ward wonders that neither Tregelles nor I have noticed a certain pinhole in Cod. A, which was pointed out to Sir F. Madden by J. Scott Porter, made by some person at the extremity of the sagitta of the Ε on the opposite page, and falling exactly on the supposed transverse line of the Θ. I cannot perceive the pinhole, but the vellum is fast crumbling away from the effects of time, certainly through no lack of care on the part of those who keep the manuscript.]

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)[^431] 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.

[^431: “As the Apostle here applies to Christ language which in the Old Testament is made use of with reference to Jehovah (see Isa. viii. 13), he clearly suggests the supreme godhead of our Redeemer,” as Dr. Roberts puts the matter (Words of the New Testament, p. 170). Not, of course, that our critical judgement should be swayed one way or the other by individual prepossessions; but that those who in the course of these researches have sacrificed to truth much that they have hitherto held dear, need not suppress their satisfaction when truth is gain.]

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[^432], 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[^433], 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.

[^432: This translation of 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, and Jude, printed by Pococke from Bodl. Orient. 119, well deserves careful study, being totally different in style and character both from the Peshitto and the Harkleian, somewhat free and periphrastic, yet, in our paucity of good authorities just here, of great interest and full of valuable readings. Thus, in this very verse it reads ἀδικούμενοι (“being wronged as the hire of their wrong-doing”) with א*BP and the Armenian, difficult as it may seem to receive that word as genuine: in ver. 17 it omits εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα with אB and some other versions: in ch. iii. 10 it sides with the Sahidic alone in receiving οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται (apparently correctly) instead of εὑρεθήσεται of אBKP, of the excellent cursives 27, 29, 66 secundâ manu, of the Armenian and Harkleian margin, where the Received text follows the obvious κατακαήσεται of AL and the rest, and C hits upon ἀφανισθήσονται in pure despair.]

[^433: Bp. Chr. Wordsworth speaks as though there were a paronomasia, a play on the words ἀγάπη and ἀπάτη, comparing (after Windischmann) 2 Thess. ii. 10. “The false teachers called their meetings ἀγάπαι, love feasts, but they were mere ἀπάται, deceits. Their table was a snare” (Ps. lxix. 22). This view might be tenable if St. Peter, with whom the paronomasia must have taken its rise, were not the earlier writer of the two, as the Bishop of Lincoln believes he was, as firmly as we do. Perhaps Dr. Westcott's notion that 2 Peter is a translation, not an original, at least in ch. ii, will best account for the textual variations between it and St. Jude.]

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[^434]. 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[^435], 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.

[^434: See the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. xxxv, xxxvii.]

[^435: “Restitui in Grecis hoc membrum ex quatuor manuscr. codicum, veteris Latini et Syri interpretis auctoritate. sic etiam assueto Johanne istis oppositionibus contrariorum uti quam saepissimè.” Beza, N. T., 1582.]

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[^436].

[^436: Horne (Introduction, vol. ii. pt. ii. ch. iii. sect. 4), and after his example Tregelles (Horne, iv. pp. 384-8), give a curious list of more than fifty volumes, pamphlets, or critical notices on this question. The following are the most worthy of perusal: Letters to Edward Gibbon, Esq., by G. Travis, Archdeacon of Chester, 1785, 2nd edit.; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Richard Porson, 1790; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Herbert Marsh [afterwards Bp. of Peterborough], 1795; A Vindication of the Literary Character of Professor Porson, by Crito Cantabrigiensis [Thomas Turton, afterwards Bp. of Ely], 1827; Two Letters on some parts of the Controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, by Nicolas Wiseman, 1835, for which see Index. For Dr. Adam Clarke's “Observations,” &c., 1805, see Evan. 61. Add F. A. Knittel on 1 John v. 7. Professor Ezra Abbot's edition of “Orme's Memoir of the Controversy on 1 John v. 7,” New York, 1866, has not fallen in my way. As elaborate works, on the verses are “A new plea for the authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, or Porson's Letters to Travis eclectically examined,” Cambridge, 1867, being the performance of a literary veteran, the late Rev. Charles Forster, whose arguments in vindication of the Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, published in 1838, modern Biblical writers have found it easier to pass by than to refute; and “The Three Witnesses, the disputed text in St. John, considerations new and old,” by the Rev. H. T. Armfield, Bagster, 1883.]

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[^437]); 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.

[^437: That the Codex Montfortianus was influenced by the Vulgate is probably true, though it is a little hasty to infer the fact at once from a single instance, namely, the substitution of χριστός after that version and Uscan's Armenian for the second πνεῦμα in verse 6: “quae lectio Latina Graece in codicem 34 Dublinensem illum Montfortianum recepta luculenter testatur versionem vulgatam ad cum conficiendum valuisse” (Tischendorf ad loc.).]

The controverted words are not met with in any of the extant uncials (אABKLP) or in any cursives besides those named above[^438]: 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[^439]. 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.

[^438: It is really surprising how loosely persons who cannot help being scholars, at least in some degree, will talk about codices containing this clause. Dr. Edward Tatham, Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford (1792-1834), writing in 1827, speaks of a manuscript in his College Library which exhibited it, but is now missing, as having been once seen by him and Dr. Parsons, Bishop of Peterborough (Crito Cantabrigiensis, p. 334, note). Yet there can be no question that he meant Act. 33, which does not give the verse, but has long been known to have some connexion with the Codex Montfortianus, which does (see Act. 33).]

[^439: Of the two Spanish MSS. one leon.2 contains the passage only in the margin, the other leon.1 adds at the end of ver. 8, in xpo ihu. Canon Westcott cites a manuscript in the British Museum (Add. 11,852), of the ninth century, to the same effect, observing that, like m and cav., it contains the Epistle to the Laodiceans. This MS. runs “quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant sps et aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt. Sicut in caelo tres sunt pater verbum et sps et tres unum sunt.” Westcott's manuscript is, in fact, ulm., and had already been used by Porson (Letters, &c., p. 148).]

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[^440]: [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[^441], 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.

[^440: Mr. Forster (ubi supra, pp. 200-209) believed that he had discovered Greek authority of the fourth century for this passage, in an isolated Homily by an unknown author, in the Benedictine edition of Chrysostom (Tom. xii. pp. 416-21), whose date Montfaucon easily fixes by internal evidence at a.d. 381. As this discovery, if real, is of the utmost importance in the controversy, it seems only right to subjoin the words alleged by this learned divine, leaving them to make their own way with the reader: (1) εἷς κέκληται ὁ Πατὴρ καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον: (2) δεῖ γὰρ τῇ ἀποστολικῇ χορείᾳ παραχωρῆσαι τὴν Ἁγίαν Τριάδα, ἢν ὁ Πατὴρ καταγγέλλει. Τριὰς Ἀποστόλων, μάρτυς τῆς οὐρανίου Τριάδος.]

[^441: The “Prologus Galeatus in vii Epistolas Canonicas,” in which the author complains of the omission of ver. 7, “ab infidelibus translatoribus,” is certainly not Jerome's, and begins to appear in codices of about the ninth century.]

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[^442]), 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.

[^442: The writer of a manuscript note in the British Museum copy of Travis' “Letters to Gibbon,” 1785, p. 49, very well observes on the second citation from Cyprian: “That three are one might be taken from the eighth verse, as that was certainly understood of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, especially when Baptism was the subject in hand” [Matt. xxviii. 19].]

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[^443]. 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[^444]. 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[^445].

[^443: It will be seen upon examination of our collations on p. 402 that the points of difference between Codex Montfortianus (34) and Erasmus' printed text are two, viz. that 34 omits καί after πνεῦμα in ver. 8, and with the Complutensian leaves out its last clause altogether; while, on the other hand, Erasmus and Cod. 34 agree against the Complutensian in their barbarous neglect of the Greek article in both verses. As regards the omission in Cod. 34 of the last clause of ver. 8 (καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν), it is obvious to conjecture that the person, whosoever he was, that sent the transcript of the passage to Erasmus, who never saw the MS. for himself, might have broken off after copying the disputed words, and neglected to note down the further variation that immediately followed them. After the foregoing explanation we must leave the matter as it stands, for there is no known mode of accounting for the discrepancy, whereof Mr. Forster makes the very utmost in the following note, which, as a specimen of his book, is annexed entire: “Bishop Marsh labours hard to identify the Codex Britannicus used by Erasmus, with the Codex Montfortianus. Erasmus's own description of the Codex Britannicus completely nullifies the attempt: ‘Postremo: Quod Britannicum etiam in terrae testimonio addebat, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι, quod non addebatur hic duntaxat in editione Hispaniensi.’ Now as this clause is also omitted in the Montfort Codex, it cannot possibly be the same with the Codex Britannicus. In this as yet undiscovered MS., therefore, we have a second and independent Gr. MS. witness to the seventh verse. The zeal of the adversaries to evade this fact only betrays their sense of its importance” (p. 126). Alas! Hi motus animorum.]

[^444: I side with Porson against Travis on every important point at issue between them, and yet I must say that if the former lost a legacy (as has been reported) by publishing his “Letters,” he was entitled to but slender sympathy. The prejudices of good men (especially when a passage is concerned which they have long held to be a genuine portion of Scripture, clearly teaching pure and right doctrine) should be dealt with gently: not that the truth should be dissembled or withheld, but when told it ought to be in a spirit of tenderness and love. Now take one example out of fifty of the tone and temper of Porson. The immediate question was a very subordinate one in the controversy, namely, the evidence borne by the Acts of the Lateran Council, a.d. 1215. “Though this,” rejoins Porson, “proves nothing in favour of the verse, it proves two other points. That the clergy then exercised dominion over the rights of mankind, and that able tithe-lawyers often make sorry critics. Which I desire some certain gentlemen of my acquaintance to lay up in their hearts as a very seasonable innuendo” (Letters, p. 361, quoted from “A Tale of a Tub” p. 151). As if it were a disgrace for an Archdeacon to know a little about the laws which affect the clergy.]

[^445: Gaussen (Theopneustia, pp. 115-7) has still spirit remaining to press the masculine forms οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ver. 7 and οἱ τρεῖς ver. 8 as making in favour of the intervening clause: “Remove it, and the grammar becomes incoherent:” a reason truly, but one not strong enough to carry his point.]

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[^446]. 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[^447], 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[^448]]. 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.]

[^446: We are compelled to draw a sharp distinction between γεγεννημένος and γεννηθείς in the same context, and, with all deference to the Quarterly Reviewer (April, 1882, p. 366), we do not think his view of the matter more natural than that given in the text: “St. John,” he suggests, “is distinguishing between the mere recipient of the new birth (ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ),—and the man who retains the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit which he received when he became regenerate (ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ).” [The distinction given between the perfect and aorist, as I have altered it in the text, is perfectly just, and explains the passage. The effects of regeneration if continued are indefectible, but the mere fact of regeneration entails constant watchfulness.]]

[^447: So it certainly seems to me after careful inspection of Cod. A, although it may be too bold to say, as some have, that there are in it no corrections by later hands. Above in ver. 10 ἐν ἀυτῷ is supported by ABKLP and a shower of cursives in the room of ἐν ἑαυτῷ of א and the Received text, but here there is no difference of sense between the two forms. Dr. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 144) has an exhaustive and cautious note on the breathing of αυτου, αυτῳ, &c., and ultimately declines to exclude the aspirate from the N. T.]

[^448: The Revision Revised, pp. 247-8.]

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[^449].

[^449: For a very full and clear account of a MS. of this class, the reader may consult an article by Prof. Isaac H. Hall in the “Journal of the American Oriental Society,” vol. xi, No. 2, 1885.]

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[^450]. 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.

[^450: It is not meant that these terms occur as titles. Apostolos (ܫܥܝܐ or ܐܝܥܫ) as applied to a book means the fourteen Epp. of St. Paul. Evangeliom, in the sense of Evangelistary in a title, is quoted in “Thesaurus Syriacus.”

But many liturgical terms were borrowed from the Greeks, especially by the Maronites. For a succinct account of Greek and Latin Service Books, see Pelliccia's “Polity” (tr. Bellett, 1883), pp. 183-8: for the Syriac system, see Etheridge's “Syrian Churches,” pp. 112-6.]

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