{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36549/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36549","id":"gutenberg_36549","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36549","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. New Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\n\n        A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament\n\n                     For the Use of Biblical Students\n\n                               By The Late\n\n                    Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener\n\n                           M.A., D.C.L., LL.D.\n\n                  Prebendary of Exeter, Vicar of Hendon\n\n                        Fourth Edition, Edited by\n\n                       The Rev. Edward Miller, M.A.\n\n             Formerly Fellow and Tutor of New College, Oxford\n\n                                 Vol. II.\n\n              George Bell & Sons, York Street, Covent Garden\n\n                     London, New York, and Cambridge\n\n                                   1894\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nChapter I. Ancient Versions.\nChapter II. Syriac Versions.\nChapter III. The Latin Versions.\nChapter IV. Egyptian Or Coptic Versions.\nChapter V. The Other Versions Of The New Testament.\nChapter VI. On The Citations From The Greek New Testament Or Its Versions\nMade By Early Ecclesiastical Writers, Especially By The Christian Fathers.\nChapter VII. Printed Editions and Critical Editions.\nChapter VIII. Internal Evidence.\nChapter IX. History Of The Text.\nChapter X. Recent Views Of Comparative Criticism.\n   Appendix To Chapter X.\nChapter XI. Considerations Derived From The Peculiar Character And\nGrammatical Form Of The Dialect Of The Greek Testament.\nChapter XII. Application Of The Foregoing Materials And Principles To The\nCriticism Of Select Passages Of The New Testament.\nAppendix A. On Syriac Lectionaries.\nAppendix B. Additional Bohairic Manuscripts In Egypt (1893).\nIndex I. Texts Of The New Testament Illustrated In This Treatise.\nIndex II. Of Subjects.\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\nADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.\n\n\nPage 167, l. 16. I am convinced that it is only just measure to a book,\nwhich from a strong prejudice is not known nearly as much amongst\nTextualists as its great merit deserves, to draw more attention to \u201cThe\nRevision Revised\u201d by the late Dean Burgon. Those who have really studied\nit, to whichever school they belong, know how it teems with suggestion all\nthrough its striking pages. The present book owes a vast debt to him.\n\nP. 248, ll. 8, 9 from bottom, _for_ Sir Edmund Beckett _read_ Lord\nGrimthorpe.\n\nSome remains upon sacred Greek MSS. by Dr. Scrivener have been just\npublished under the name of \u201cAdversaria Critica Sacra,\u201d Cambridge:\nUniversity Press. Reference has been made in this edition to some of the\nproof-sheets which were sent to the Editor. Vol. I. Appendix A.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. ANCIENT VERSIONS.\n\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note: This book contains much Greek text, which will not be\nwell-rendered in plain text versions of this E-book. Also, there is much\nuse of Greek characters with a vertical bar across the tops of the letters\nto indicate abbreviations; because the coding system used in this e-book\ndoes not have such an \u201coverline\u201d, they are rendered here with underlines.\nIt also contains much text in Syriac, which is written right-to-left; for\nthe sake of different transcription methods, it is transcribed here in\nboth right-to-left and left-to-rights, so that regardless of the medium of\nthis E-book, one or the other should be readable.]\n\n1. The facts stated in the preceding volume have led us to believe that no\nextant manuscript of the Greek Testament yet discovered is older than the\nfourth century, and that those written as early as the sixth century are\nboth few in number, and (with one notable exception) contain but\nincomplete portions, for the most part very small portions, of the sacred\nvolume. When to these considerations we add the well-known circumstance\nthat the most ancient codices vary widely and perpetually from the\ncommonly received text and from each other, it becomes desirable for us to\nobtain, if possible, some evidence as to the character of those copies of\nthe New Testament which were used by the primitive Christians in times\nanterior to the date of the most venerable now preserved.\n\nSuch sources of information, though of a more indirect and precarious kind\nthan manuscripts of the original can supply, are open to us in the\nVersions of Holy Scripture, made at the remotest period in the history of\nthe Church, for the use of believers whose native tongue was not Greek.\nAfter the composition of the writings of the New Testament, it is evident\nthat the Church was in possession of Sacred Books which were of the utmost\nvalue, both to those who were already members, and in the conversion of\nsuch as had not yet come to the real knowledge of the Faith. The nearness\nof Syria to Judea, and the growth of the Church at Antioch and Damascus in\nthe earliest days, must have produced a demand for a rendering into the\nSyriac languages; and the bilingual condition of most of the Roman Empire\nmust have entailed a constant desire amongst vast multitudes to read in\ntheir own tongue a verification of the truths taught them. Accordingly\ntranslations, certainly of the New and probably also of the Old Testament,\nwere executed not later than the second century in the Syriac and Latin\nlanguages, and, so far as their present state enables us to judge of the\ndocuments from which they were rendered, they represent to us a\nmodification of the inspired text which existed within a century of the\ndeath of the Apostles. Later on, the influence of Alexandria opened the\ndistricts to the south and gave birth to the Coptic versions. And about\nthe time of the acceptance of the Christian Religion by the Empire a\nfurther impetus was given, and the Vulgate and the Gothic and Ethiopic\nversions were soon made, followed by others according as the demand arose.\n\nIndeed, the fact that versions as a class go much further back than MSS.,\nconstitutes one of the chiefest points of their importance in Textual\nCriticism; since the range of the ancient versions may be roughly\nestimated as reaching from the second to the tenth century, whereas the\nperiod of extant MSS. did not commence till the fourth century was well\nadvanced, and were continued into the sixteenth. Their respective ages,\ntoo, are actually known, and do not rest upon probabilities, as in the\nfirst kind of evidence. They are also generally authorized translations,\nmade either by a body of men, or by one eminent authority whose work was\nadopted amongst the people for whose use the Holy Scriptures had been\ntranslated. And they probably represented, either many MSS., or a small\nbody of accepted MSS.\n\nOn the other hand, versions as evidence are not without their special\ndrawbacks. It may be found as difficult to arrive at the primitive text of\na version, as of the Greek original itself; whether from variations in the\ndifferent copies, or from suspicions of subsequent correction. Besides\nthis, some are secondary versions, being derived not from the Greek, but\nfrom some version of the Greek. Again, some are \u201csense-translations(1),\u201d\nrather than word-renderings, and it is in many cases difficult to infer\ntheir real verdict. Of course, none but an expert, such as Dr. S. C.\nMalan, or the several revisers of the succeeding chapters of this edition,\ncan pronounce upon the character of the verdict of a version in question.\n\nIt will be seen then that versions by themselves cannot be taken to\nestablish any reading, because manuscripts are necessarily first\nauthorities, and there is no lack of abundance in such testimony. Yet they\nconfirm, or help to decide, the conclusions or the leanings of\nmanuscriptal evidence: and taken in connexion with other witnesses, they\nhave much independent force, varying of course according to the character\nof the version or versions, and the nature and extent of their agreement.\nIn this respect they possess great importance.\n\nThe experience of recent years has shown that it is misleading to\nconstruct classes of versions in regard to their relative importance.\nFuller knowledge casts aside, and often with contumely, such adventitious\nhelps. Readers are therefore referred for information upon each version to\nthe chapter or section which is devoted to it, and are recommended to\ngather their apprehensions of the several values of those versions from\nthe facts recorded therein, and from use of them in the various passages\nof Holy Scripture where they are cited. But the following is a list of the\nchief versions of the New Testament which were made before the\nintroduction of printing, and a few handposts are inserted here and there\nfor elementary guidance in the study of them:\u2014\n\nI. Peshitto Syriac (cent. ii), called \u201cthe Queen of Versions\u201d (Hort, cent.\niii).\n\nII. Latin version or versions(2) (ii, or ii-iv). Remarkable for age.\n\nIII. Bohairic (or Memphitic) (iii? Stern, iv or v), best of the Egyptian\nversions.\n\nIV. Sahidic (or Thebaic) (iii?), second Egyptian version.\n\nV. Middle-Egyptian (iii?).\n\nVI. Fayoumic (ii or iii?).\n\nVII. Curetonian (iv), corrupt,\u2014(Hort, ii).\n\nVIII. Vulgate (iv), made by Jerome from the various Latin texts in vogue\nat the time.\n\nIX. Gothic (iv).\n\nX. Armenian (iv).\n\nXI. Jerusalem (v?).\n\nXII. Ethiopic (v-vi). A large number of MSS. exist.\n\nXIII. Georgian (v, vi?).\n\nXIV. Philoxenian (A.D. 508), corrected by Thomas of Harkel, Harkleian\n(A.D. 616); very literal.\n\nXV. Arabic versions (ix-xvii), made from Greek, Syriac, Egyptian, &c.\n\nXVI. Anglo-Saxon (x) of the Gospels, made from the Vulgate.\n\nXVII. Frankish (ix).\n\nXVIII. Two Persic, from the Peshitto (xiii), and from the Greek (xiv).\n\nThe last four, being secondary, are worth but little as critical helps.\n\nIt may be added, that from the literary activity of the last ten years in\nthe closer examination of ancient records, and through discoveries in\nEgypt and elsewhere, a great deal has been added to the knowledge\npreviously existing upon this part of the subject of this book. Therefore\nin the succeeding chapters much alteration has been found necessary both\nin the way of correction, because some theories have been exploded under\nthe increased light of wider information, and by the insertion of\nadditions from the results of investigation and of study. The editor has\nbeen readily and generously assisted by several accomplished scholars who\nare experts in their respective departments; and the names of the various\nwriters who have contributed to the four succeeding chapters will form a\nsufficient guarantee for the soundness and completeness of the information\ntherein supplied.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. SYRIAC VERSIONS.\n\n\nIn the following account of the earlier Syriac versions, the Editor has\nreceived the most valuable help from the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D., Fellow\nof Hertford College, who is editing the Peshitto Gospels for the\nUniversity of Oxford. And upon the Harkleian version, he is indebted for\nimportant assistance to the Rev. H. Deane, late Fellow of St. John\u2019s\nCollege, whose labours have been unfortunately stopped by failure in\neyesight.\n\n\n\n\n1. The Peshitto.\n\n\nThe Aramaean or Syriac (preserved to this day as their sacred tongue by\nseveral Eastern Churches) is an important branch of the great Semitic\nfamily of languages, and as early as Jacob\u2019s age existed distinct from the\nHebrew (Gen. xxxi. 47). As we now find it in books, it was spoken in the\nnorth of Syria and in Upper Mesopotamia about Edessa, and survives to this\nday in the vernacular of the plateau to the north of Mardin and\nNisibis(3). It is a more copious, flexible, and elegant language than the\nold Hebrew (which ceased to be vernacular at the Babylonish captivity) had\never the means of becoming, and is so intimately akin to the Chaldee as\nspoken at Babylon, and throughout Syria, that the latter was popularly\nknown by its name (2 Kings xviii. 26; Isa. xxxvi. 11; Dan. ii. 4)(4). As\nthe Gospel took firm root at Antioch within a few years after the Lord\u2019s\nAscension (Acts xi. 19-27; xiii. 1, &c.), we might deem it probable that\nits tidings soon spread from the Greek capital into the native interior,\neven though we utterly rejected the venerable tradition of Thaddaeus\u2019\nmission to Abgarus, toparch of Edessa, as well as the fable of that\nmonarch\u2019s intercourse with Christ while yet on earth (Eusebius, Eccl.\nHist., i. 13; ii. 1). At all events we are sure that Christianity\nflourished in these regions at a very early period; it is even possible\nthat the Syriac Scriptures were seen by Hegesippus in the second century\n(Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv. 22); they were familiarly used and claimed as\nhis national version by the eminent Ephraem of Edessa in the fourth. Thus\nthe universal belief of later ages, and the very nature of the case, seem\nto render it unquestionable that the Syrian Church was possessed of a\ntranslation, both of the Old and New Testament, which it used habitually,\nand for public worship exclusively, from the second century of our era\ndownwards: as early as A.D. 170 \u1f41 \u03a3\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 is cited by Melito on Gen. xxii.\n13 (Mill, Proleg. \u00a7 1239)(5). And the sad history of that distracted\nChurch can leave no room to doubt what that version was. In the middle of\nthe fifth century, the third and fourth general Councils at Ephesus and\nChalcedon proved the immediate occasions of dividing the Syrian Christians\ninto three, and eventually into yet more, hostile communions. These\ngrievous divisions have now subsisted for fourteen hundred years, and\nthough the bitterness of controversy has abated, the estrangement of the\nrival Churches is as complete and hopeless as ever(6). Yet the same\ntranslation of Holy Scripture is read alike in the public assemblies of\nthe Nestorians among the fastnesses of Koordistan, of the Monophysites who\nare scattered over the plains of Syria, of the Christians of St. Thomas\nalong the coast of Malabar, and of the Maronites on the mountain-terraces\nof Lebanon. Even though these last acknowledged the supremacy of Rome in\nthe twelfth century, and certain Nestorians of Chaldaea in the eighteenth,\nboth societies claimed at the time, and enjoy to this day, the free use of\ntheir Syriac translation of Holy Scripture. Manuscripts too, obtained from\neach of these rival communions, have flowed from time to time into the\nlibraries of the West, yet they all exhibit a text in every important\nrespect the same; all are without the Apocalypse and four of the Catholic\nEpistles, which latter we know to have been wanting in the Syriac in the\nsixth century (Cosmas Indicopleustes apud Montfaucon, \u201cCollectio Nova\nPatrum et Script. Graec.,\u201d Tom. ii. p. 292), a defect, we may observe in\npassing, which alone is no slight proof of the high antiquity of the\nversion that omits them; all correspond with whatever we know from other\nsources of that translation which, in contrast with one more recent, was\ntermed \u201cold\u201d (\u0729\u0715\u0721\u0711 or \u0711\u0721\u0715\u0729) by Thomas of Harkel A.D. 616, and \u201cPeshitto\u201d\n(\u0726\u072b\u071d\u072c\u072c\u0710 or \u0710\u072c\u072c\u071d\u072b\u0726) the \u201cSimple,\u201d by the great Monophysite doctor, Gregory\nBar-Hebraeus [1226-86]. Literary history can hardly afford a more powerful\ncase than has been established for the identity of the version of the\nSyriac now called the _Peshitto_ with that used by the Eastern Church,\nlong before the great schism had its beginning in the native land of the\nblessed Gospel.\n\nThe first printed edition of this most venerable monument of the Christian\nfaith was published in quarto at Vienna in the year 1555 (some copies are\nre-dated 1562), at the expense of the Emperor Ferdinand I, on the\nrecommendation and with the active aid of his Chancellor, Albert\nWidmanstadt, an accomplished person, whose travelling name in Italy was\nJohn Lucretius. It was undertaken at the instance of Moses of Mardin,\nlegate from the Monophysite Patriarch Ignatius to Pope Julius III\n(1550-55), who seems to have brought with him a manuscript, the text\nwhereof was of the Jacobite family, although written at Mosul, for\npublication in the West. Widmanstadt contributed a second manuscript of\nhis own, though it does not appear whether either or both contained the\nwhole New Testament. This beautiful book, the different portions of which\nhave separate dedications, was edited by Widmanstadt, by Moses, and by W.\nPostell jointly, in an elegant type of the modern Syriac character, the\nvowel and diacritic points, especially the _linea occultans_, being\nfrequently dropped, with subscriptions and titles indicating the Jacobite\nChurch Lessons in the older, or Estrangelo, letter. It omits, as was\nnatural and right, those books which the Peshitto does not contain: viz.\nthe second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, that of Jude\nand the Apocalypse, together with the disputed passage John vii. 53-viii.\n11, and the doubtful, or more than doubtful, clauses in Matt. xxvii. 35;\nActs viii. 37; xv. 34; xxviii. 29; 1 John v. 7, 8. It omits Luke xxii. 17,\n18, _see_ Chap. XII on the passage. This _editio princeps_ of the Peshitto\nNew Testament, though now become very scarce (one half of its thousand\ncopies having been sent into Syria), is held in high and deserved repute,\nas its text is apparently based on manuscript authority alone.\n\nImmanuel Tremellius [1510-80], a converted Jew (the proselyte, first of\nCardinal Pole, then of Peter Martyr), and Professor of Divinity at\nHeidelberg, published the second edition in folio in 1569, containing the\nNew Testament in Hebrew type, with a literal Latin version, accompanied by\nthe Greek text and Beza\u2019s translation of it, having a Chaldee and Syriac\ngrammar annexed. Tremellius used several manuscripts, especially one at\nHeidelberg, and made from them and his own conjecture many changes, that\nwere not always improvements, in the text; besides admitting some\ngrammatical forms which are Chaldee rather than Syriac. His Latin version\nhas been used as their basis by later editors, down to the time of Schaaf.\nTremellius\u2019 and Beza\u2019s Latin versions were reprinted together in London,\nwithout their respective originals, in 1592. Subsequent editions of the\nPeshitto New Testament were those of the folio Antwerp or Royal Spanish\nPolyglott of Plantin (1571-73), in Hebrew and Syriac type, revised from a\ncopy written about A.D. 1200, which Postell had brought from the East: two\nother editions of Plantin in Hebrew type without points (1574, 8vo; 1575,\n18mo), the second containing various readings extracted by Francis\nRapheleng from a Cologne manuscript for his own reprints of 1575 and\nsubsequently of 1583: the smaller Paris edition, also in unpointed Hebrew\nletters, 1584, 4to, by Guy Le Fevre de la Boderie, who prepared the Syriac\nportion of the Antwerp Polyglott in 1571: that of Elias Hutter, in two\nfolio volumes (Nuremberg, 1599-1600), in Hebrew characters; this editor\nventuring to supply in Syriac of his own making the single passages\nwanting in the _editio princeps_ of Widmanstadt, and the spurious Epistle\nto the Laodiceans. Martin Trost\u2019s edition (Anhalt-C\u00f6then, 1621, 4to), in\nSyriac characters, with vowel-points, a list of various readings, and a\nLatin translation, is superior to Hutter\u2019s.\n\nThe magnificent Paris Polyglott (fol. 1645) is the first which gives us\nthe Old Testament portion of the Peshitto, though in an incomplete state.\nThe Maronite Gabriel Sionita, who superintended this part of the\nPolyglott, made several changes in the system of vowel punctuation,\npossibly from analogy rather than from manuscript authority, but certainly\nfor the better. He inserted as integral portions of the Peshitto the\nversion of the four missing Catholic Epistles, which had been published in\n1630 by our illustrious oriental scholar, Edward Pococke, from a\nmanuscript in the Bodleian (Orient. 119)(7): and another of the\nApocalypse, edited at Leyden in 1627 by Louis De Dieu, from a manuscript,\nsince examined by Tregelles, in the University Library there (Scaliger MS.\n18), and from one sent him by Archbishop Ussher, which is now in the\nLibrary of Trinity College, Dublin (B. 5. 16). Of the two, the version of\nthe Catholic Epistles seems decidedly the older, and both bear much\nresemblance to the later Syriac or Harkleian translation, but neither have\nclaim to be regarded as portions of the original Peshitto, to which,\nhowever, they have been appended ever since.\n\nBp. Walton\u2019s, or the London Polyglott (fol. 1654-7), affords us little\nmore than a reprint of Sionita\u2019s Syriac text, with Trost\u2019s various\nreadings appended, but interpolates the text yet further by inserting John\nvii. 53-viii. 11. This passage, which is the \u201cPericope de adultera,\u201d is\nfound in Archbishop Ussher\u2019s copy, dated A.D. 1627, and made from a\nMaronite MS. of much esteem at Kenobin under Mt. Lebanon; also in Brit.\nMus. 14,470, in Cod. Barsalibaei at New College, Oxford, and in the Paris\nNat. Library xxii, of which the two last copies are Harkleian, and the one\nin the British Museum is Peshitto(8). We are left to conjecture as to the\nreal date and origin of these translations, except that as far as the\nHarkleian is concerned, Dr. Gwynn has shown that according to the Paris\nand Brit. Mus. MSS. they are claimed for Paul, a contemporary of Thomas of\nHarkel.\n\nGiles Gutbier published at Hamburg (8vo, 1664) an edition containing all\nthe interpolated matter, and 1 John v. 7, 8 in addition, from Tremellius\u2019\nown version, which he inserted in _his_ margin. Gutbier used two\nmanuscripts, by one of which, belonging to Constantine L\u2019Empereur, he\ncorrected Sionita\u2019s system of punctuation. A glossary, notes, and various\nreadings are annexed. The Sulzbach edition 12mo, 1684, seems a mere\nreprint of Plantin\u2019s; nor does that published in Rome in 1713 for the use\nof the Maronites, though grounded upon manuscript authority, appear to\nhave much critical value.\n\nA collation of the various readings in all the preceding editions,\nexcepting those of 1684 and 1713, is affixed to the Syriac N. T. of J.\nLeusden and Ch. Schaaf (4to, Leyden, 1708-9: with a new title-page 1717).\nIt extends over one hundred pages, and, though most of the changes noted\nare very insignificant, is tolerably accurate and of considerable value.\nThis edition contains the Latin version of Tremellius not too thoroughly\nrevised, and is usually accompanied with an admirable \u201cLexicon Syriacum\nConcordantiale\u201d of the Peshitto New Testament. Its worth, however, is\nconsiderably lessened by a fancy of Leusden for pointing the vowels\naccording to the rules of Chaldee rather than of Syriac grammar: after his\ndeath, indeed, and from Luke xviii. 27 onwards, this grave mistake was\ncorrected by Schaaf(9). Of modern editions the most convenient, or\ncertainly the most accessible to English students, are the N. T. which\nProfessor Lee prepared in 1816 for the British and Foreign Bible Society\nwith the Eastern Church Lessons noted in Syriac, and that of Wm.\nGreenfield [d. 1831], both in Bagster\u2019s Polyglott of 1828, and in a small\nand separate form; the latter editor aims at representing Widmanstadt\u2019s\ntext distinct from the subsequent additions derived from other sources.\nLee\u2019s edition was grounded on a collation of three fresh manuscripts,\nbesides the application of other matter previously available for the\nrevision of the text; but the materials on which he founded his\nconclusions have never been printed, although their learned collector once\nintended to do so, and many years afterwards consented to lend them to\nScrivener for that purpose; a promise which his death in 1848 ultimately\nhindered him from redeeming. An edition of the Gospels printed in 1829 by\nthe British and Foreign Bible Society for the Nestorian Christians was\nbased on a single manuscript brought from Mosul by Dr. Wolff. Besides\nthese, two editions have been published by the American Bible Society, at\nOroomia, Persia, in 1846, and at New York (a reprint of the former) in\n1878(10).\n\nFrom the foregoing statement it will plainly appear that no edition of the\nPeshitto Syriac has yet been published with that critical care on the part\nof editors which its antiquity and importance so urgently demand. It is\ntherefore a matter of deep satisfaction that the work commenced by the\nlate Philip Pusey has been brought near conclusion by the Rev. G. H.\nGwilliam, for the University of Oxford. Mr. Gwilliam has informed the\neditor that the Peshitto \u201cTetraevangelium\u201d will be the first part\npublished, and will exhibit in its _apparatus criticus_ readings taken\nfrom forty manuscripts, some of which have been collated throughout,\nothers in parts. From the account given in the third volume of \u201cStudia\nBiblica et Ecclesiastica,\u201d we learn that the authorities on which he bases\nhis text in this elaborate edition are as follows:\u2014\n\n\n    1. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,479 [A.D. 534], the fourteen Epistles of St.\n    Paul, Hebrews being always included by the Syrians.\n\n    2. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,459 [A.D. 530, last letter illegible], SS.\n    Luke and John. Possibly older than the last.\n\n    3. Rome, Vatican [A.D. 548]. A Tetraevangelium, written at Edessa.\n\n    4. Florence, Laurentian Library [A.D. 586].\n\n    5. Brit. Mus. 14,460 [A.D. 600]. A Nestorian Estrangelo, written\n    in the district of Naarda, near Bagdad.\n\n    6. Brit. Mus. 14,471 [A.D. 615]. Another Nestorian MS. of the\n    Gospels, written at Nisibis.\n\n    7. Cod. Guelpherbytanus [A.D. 634]. Written in the convent of Beth\n    Chela, near Damascus.\n\n    8. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,448 [A.D. 699-700]. A Nestorian MS. Whole of\n    New Testament as received in the Syrian Church.\n\n    9. Brit. Mus. Add. 7157 [A.D. 768]. Written at Beth Kuka.\n\n    10. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,459 [about A.D. 450], SS. Matthew and Mark.\n\n    11. Brit. Mus. Add. 17,117 [about A.D. 450].\n\n    12. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,470 [v-vi]. Whole of Peshitto New\n    Testament. The Pericope de Adultera has been added as stated\n    above, p. 10.\n\n    13. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,453 [v-vi]. A Tetraevangelium.\n\n    14. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,476 [v-vi]. Paul.\n\n    15. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,480 [v-vi]. Paul.\n\n    16. Cod. Crawfordianus I [vi]. A very handsome Tetraevangelium,\n    and in excellent preservation.\n\n    17. Codd. Dawkinsiani III, XXVII, in the Bodleian Library.\n\n    18. Partial collations of many other MSS. in the British Museum.\n\n    19. The editions published by the American Bible Society, which\n    were, at least to some extent, revised on the authority of ancient\n    Nestorian copies.\n\n    20. The evidence of the Syriac Massorah of both the Nestorian and\n    the Jacobite (Karkaphensian) recensions.\n\n\nIt is necessary to mention briefly this remarkable wealth of evidence,\nprobably to be largely increased by future investigations, in which the\nPeshitto presents no inconsiderable parallel to the vast amount of\nauthorities on which the Greek Text of the New Testament depends, because\npeople are apt to underrate the grand position of the Peshitto version,\nwhen comparing it with the Curetonian Syriac, of which the sole evidence\nconsists only of two codices, if the newly-discovered one turns out to be\nwhat was anticipated.\n\nIt is not easy to determine why the name of _Peshitto_, \u201cSimple,\u201d\n\u201cCommon,\u201d should have been given to the oldest Syriac version of\nScripture, to distinguish it from others that were subsequently made(11).\nIn comparison with the Harkleian it is the very reverse of a close\nrendering of the original. Perhaps the title refers to its common and\npopular use(12). We shall presently submit to the reader a few extracts\nfrom it, contrasted with the same passages in other Syriac versions; for\nthe present we can but assent to the ripe judgement of Michaelis, who,\nafter thirty years\u2019 study of its contents, declared that he could consult\nno translation with so much confidence in cases of difficulty and\ndoubt(13).\n\n\n\n\n2. The Curetonian Syriac.\n\n\nThe volume which contained the greater part of the Curetonian portions of\nthe Gospels was brought by Archdeacon Tattam in 1842 from the Monastery of\nSt. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian Desert (p. 140). Eighty leaves and a half\nwere picked out by Dr. Cureton, then one of the officers in the Manuscript\ndepartment of the British Museum, from a mass of other matter which had\nbeen bound up with them by unlearned possessors, and comprise the\nAdditional MS. 14,451 of the Library they adorn, and two more reached\nEngland in 1847. They are in quarto, with two columns on a page, in a bold\nhand and the Estrangelo or old Syriac character, on vellum originally very\nwhite, the single points for stops, some titles, &c. being in red ink;\nthere are no marks of Church Lessons by the first hand, which Cureton (a\nmost competent judge) assigned to the middle of the fifth century. The\nfragments contain Matt. i. 1-viii. 22; x. 32-xxiii. 25; Mark xvi. 17-20;\nJohn i. 1-42; iii. 5-vii. 37; (but many words in iii. 6-iv. 6 are\nillegible); xiv. 10-12; 15-19; 21-23; 26-29; Luke ii. 48-iii. 16; vii.\n33-xv. 21; xvii. 23-xxiv. 44, or 1786 verses, so arranged that St. Mark\u2019s\nGospel is here immediately followed by St. John\u2019s. Three more leaves of\nthis version (part, perhaps, of the same MS.) were found among the Syriac\nMSS. procured by Dr. Sachau, and now at Berlin (Royal Libr. Orient. quart.\n528). They contain Luke xv. 22-xvi. 12; xvii. 1-23; John vii. 37-52; viii.\n12-19. They were published by Roediger (Monatsbericht, Berlin Royal\nAcademy of Sciences, July, 1872), and were privately printed by the late\nProfessor Wright to range with Cureton\u2019s volume. Within the last year the\ndiscovery has been announced of another Curetonian MS., which was found in\nthe Library of the Convent on Mount Sinai by Mrs. Lewis. An edition of it\nis now in progress, but will not be published soon enough for notice in\nthis work. The Syriac text of the London MS. was printed in fine\nEstrangelo type in 1848, and freely imparted to such scholars as might\nneed its help; but it was not till 1858 that the work was published(14),\nwith a very literal translation into rather bald English, a beautiful and\nexact facsimile (Luke xv. 11-13; 16-19) by Mrs. Cureton, and a Preface\n(pp. xcv), full of interesting and indeed startling matter. Dr. Cureton\nwent so far as to persuade himself that he had discovered in these Syriac\nfragments a text of St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel that \u201cto a great extent, has\nretained the identical terms and expressions which the Apostle himself\nemployed; and that we have here, in our Lord\u2019s discourses, _to a great\nextent_ the very same words as the Divine Author of our holy religion\nHimself uttered in proclaiming the glad tidings of salvation in the Hebrew\ndialect ...\u201d (p. xciii): that here in fact we have to a great extent the\noriginal of that Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew of which the canonical Greek\nGospel is but a translation. It is beside our present purpose to examine\nin detail the arguments of Dr. Cureton on this head(15), and it would be\nthe less necessary in any case, since they seem to have convinced no one\nsave himself: but the place his version occupies with reference to the\nPeshitto is a question upon which there has been and still prevails a\ncontroversy which largely concerns the issue between contending schools of\ntextual critics(16).\n\nAny one who shall compare the verses we have cited from them in parallel\ncolumns (pp. 38-40) will readily admit that the translations have a common\norigin, whatever that may be; many other passages, though not perhaps of\nequal length, might be named where the resemblance is closer still; where\nfor twenty words together the Peshitto and the Curetonian shall be\npositively identical, although the Syriac idiom would admit other words\nand another order just as naturally as that actually employed. Nor will\nthis conclusion be shaken by the not less manifest fact that throughout\nmany passages the diversity is so great that no one, with those places\nalone before him, would be led to suspect any connexion between the two\nversions; for resemblances in such a case furnish a positive proof, not to\nbe weakened by the mere negative presumption supplied by divergencies. Add\nto this the consideration that the Greek manuscripts from which either\nversion was made or corrected (as the case may prove) were materially\ndifferent in their character; the Peshitto for the most part favouring\nCod. A(17), the Curetonian taking part with Cod. D, or with the Old Latin,\nor often standing quite alone, unsupported by any critical authority\nwhatever; and the reader is then in possession of the whole case, from\nwhose perplexities we have to unravel our decision, which of these two\nrecensions best exhibits the text of the Holy Gospels as received from the\nsecond century downwards by the Syrian Church.\n\nWe must not dissemble the fact that Cureton\u2019s view of the superior\nantiquity of the Curetonian to the Peshitto has been adopted by many\neminent scholars. So for example Dr. Hort, who was obliged to account for\nthe relation of the two by a baseless supposition of an imaginary\nrecension at Edessa or Nisibis when the Peshitto was drawn up as a Syrian\n\u201cVulgate\u201d (The New Testament in Greek, pp. 135-7). So with more strength\nof argument Dr. Nestle in \u201cReal Encyclopedie f\u00fcr protestanche Theologie en\nKirche(18).\u201d\n\n1. Now it is obvious to remark, in the first place, that the Peshitto has\nthe advantage of _possession_, and that too of fourteen centuries\nstanding. The mere fact that the Syriac manuscripts of the rival sects,\nwhether modern or as old as the seventh century, agree with each other in\nthe most important points, and at least to a large extent with the\ncitations from Ephraem and Aphraates, as will be shown, seems to bring the\nPeshitto text, substantially in the same state as we have it at present,\nup to the fourth century of our era. Of this version, again, there are\nmany codices, of different ages and widely diffused; of the Curetonian\nthere is indeed one, of the fifth century, so far as the verdict of a most\naccomplished judge can determine so delicate a question: yet surely this\nis not to be much preferred, in respect to antiquity, to those ancient\ncopies of the Peshitto which we have enumerated on pp. 10, 11, and which\ninclude a MS. of the fifth century, several others nearly as ancient, and\ntwo which are dated in the sixth century, the Florentine of A.D. 586, and\nthe Vatican of A.D. 548. Another \u201cCuretonian\u201d MS., lately discovered, is\nstill under examination, and we have, as yet, no adequate account of it.\nFrom the Peshitto, as the authorized version of the Oriental Church, there\nare many quotations in Syriac books from the fourth century downwards; Dr.\nCureton, perhaps the profoundest Syriac scholar of his day in England,\nfailed to allege any _second_ citation from the Gospels by a native writer\nwhich might serve to keep in countenance the statement of Dionysius\nBarsalibi, late in the twelfth century, that \u201cthere is found occasionally\na Syriac copy made out of the Hebrew, which inserts the three kings in the\ngenealogy\u201d (Matt. i. 8)(19). With every wish to give to this respectable\nold writer, and to others who bear testimony to the same reading, the\nconsideration that is fairly their due, we can hardly fail to see that the\nweight of evidence enormously preponderates in the opposite scale.\n\n2. It will probably be admitted that in external proof Cureton\u2019s theory is\nnot strong, while yet the internal character of the version may be deemed\nby many powerfully to favour his view. Negligent or licentious renderings\n(and the Curetonian Syriac is pretty full of them) cannot but lessen a\nversion\u2019s usefulness as an instrument of criticism, by increasing our\ndifficulty of reproducing the precise words of the original which the\ntranslator had before him; but in another point of view these very faults\nmay still form the main strength of Dr. Cureton\u2019s case. It is, no doubt, a\ngrave suggestion, that the more polished, accurate, faithful, and\ngrammatical of the two versions\u2014and the Peshitto richly deserves all this\npraise\u2014is more likely to have been produced by a careful and gradual\nrevision of one much its inferior in these respects, than the worse to\nhave originated in the mere corruption of the better (Cureton, Pref. p.\nlxxxi). _A priori_, we readily confess that probability inclines this way;\nbut it is a probability which needs the confirmation of facts, and by\nadverse facts may be utterly set aside. Cureton\u2019s remark that \u201cupon the\ncomparison of several of the oldest copies now in the British Museum of\nthat very text of the Gospels which has been generally received as the\nPeshitto, the more ancient the manuscripts be, the more nearly do they\ncorrespond with the text of these Syriac fragments\u201d (Pref. p. lxxiii), is\nconfirmed by other, and subsequent, labourers in the same field. The\nreceived text of the Peshitto was printed from MSS. of a late type. It was\nthe opinion of P. E. Pusey (whose name has already been mentioned in these\npages) that a revision of the Peshitto text was made in the eighth\ncentury. The oldest Syriac Massoretic MS. which we possess is dated A. GR.\n1210 = A.D. 899(20), but a copy of the Gospels (Add. 14,448), the date of\nwhich appears to be A. H. 80 = A.D. 699-700, contains a text which\napproximates to the type of the printed Peshitto, but exhibits marginal\nnotes in a later hand, referring, however, chiefly to pronunciation and\naccentuation. There is no evidence that any formal revision took place;\nbut it would appear certain that as questions of orthography, of grammar,\nand of pronunciation were fixed by the decisions of the Massoretes and\ngrammarians, the faults (as they were deemed) of the older readings were\nemended by scribes. Hence it is, that if we open a codex of the Peshitto\nGospels of about the date of the Codex Curetonianus, we find many\nresemblances of the kind indicated by Cureton, between the fifth century\nPeshitto text and the Curetonian text, because both belong to an early,\nand perhaps less accurate era of transcription(21). But the resemblances\nonly extend to matters of grammar and spelling. In more important\nreadings, the fifth century form of the Peshitto does not approximate to\nthe Curetonian text. This was clearly seen by Pusey, as a result of the\ncollation of a large number of Peshitto MSS. He found that the text of the\noldest of them was substantially the same as that which is printed in the\nPolyglotts. The grammar may have been improved, but the translation was\nnot revised. This argument has been elaborated in two volumes of the\nOxford \u201cStudia Biblica,\u201d in part by the use of Philip Pusey\u2019s materials,\nin part by independent researches. In vol. i, paper viii, \u201cA Syriac\nBiblical MS. of the fifth century,\u201d the readings which appear to be\npeculiar to that MS. (about seventy in number, for it only contains SS.\nMatthew and Mark) are set out(22). Of these twenty-two can be compared\nwith the Curetonian; and it is found that only _three_ approximate more\nnearly than the printed Peshitto to the text which, it is contended, is\nolder than the Peshitto. Further on(23) a stronger argument is adduced;\nfor it is shown that in eleven passages, where the fifth century codex has\na different reading from the printed Peshitto, the Curetonian, instead of\nagreeing with the ancient text (as _ex hypothesi_ it ought) approximates\nto the printed Peshitto, and sometimes agrees with it. In vol. ii, paper\niii, \u201cThe materials for the criticism of the Peshitto New Testament,\u201d\nother evidence is adduced in support of the same conclusions. St. Matt. v.\n31-48 is given, with _varr. lectt._ derived from twenty distinct\nauthorities, so as to place before the reader the Peshitto in its best and\nmost ancient form. The same passage is set out in the Curetonian form. The\nvarious readings in the Peshitto in the eighteen verses amount to at least\nthirty-one; but the majority are the merest minutiae of spelling and\npronunciation. Only one deserves serious attention; and even that, more\nfor accuracy than in relation to the sense of the context; so little has\nthe Syriac New Testament been altered, or corrupted, in the course of ages\nof transcription. Again, when comparison is made with the Curetonian,\nwhile twenty-eight variations from the best form of the Peshitto occur in\nthe above passage, only four find any support in an old Peshitto MS., and\nbut one of the four is of any interest. In addition to these there is one\nplace where the Curetonian agrees with the oldest Peshitto MSS., against\nthe printed Peshitto text. It is plain then that, as far as the enquiry\nhas yet been pursued, the peculiar readings of the Curetonian cannot be\ntraced backwards through the form of text in the oldest Peshitto MSS. If\nsuch a revision of the Peshitto, as Dr. Hort\u2019s theory postulates, ever\ntook place, it must have been made at a very remote period in the history\nof Syriac Christian literature; and the new text must have been\nsubstituted for the old by measures so drastic that the old (as far as we\nknow) survives only in one Nitrian and (as we are told) in one Sinaitic\nMS. But this is not only improbable in itself, but is contrary to the\nanalogy supplied by the Latin versions.\n\nThose who contend for the superior antiquity of the Curetonian rely in\ngreat part on the character of the quotations in the two great Syriac\nwriters, Aphraates and Mar-Ephraem, who flourished in the century\npreceding the era in which our oldest Peshitto MSS. were transcribed(24).\nBoth writers abound in quotations from the New Testament, but many of them\nare very free, or mere adaptations. A large number in St. Ephraem are\ncertainly from the Peshitto. Wright, in his edition of Aphraates, was\ninclined to attribute that writer\u2019s quotations to the same source. This\nhas been traversed by others, who contend that the quotations in Aphraates\nmore nearly resemble the Curetonian, or the text of Tatian\u2019s Diatessaron,\nas far as we know it. The question of the source of St. Ephraem\u2019s\nquotations has been fully discussed in \u201cStudia Biblica,\u201d iii, paper iv, by\nRev. F. H. Woods, who has also taken some notice of those in Aphraates.\nMr. Woods holds, as do others (though, as we think, on insufficient\nevidence) that the text of the Peshitto was not fully settled in the days\nof Aphraates and Ephraem. His conclusion is that it is quite clear, that\nEphraem, in the main, used the Peshitto text (op. cit., p. 107), but as\nregards Aphraates, he holds that the quotations approximate more closely\nto the Curetonian. Yet Dr. Zahn, and many others, think that Aphraates\nused the Diatessaron. The statement of these differences of opinion is\nenough in itself to show that the source of quotations in these ancient\nSyriac books is not always easy to determine. Hence it follows that\narguments based on the writings of Aphraates and Ephraem are precarious.\nMoreover, a variation from the Peshitto does not necessarily indicate the\nemployment of another version. The variation might be derived from a Greek\ntext; for there was constant intercourse between Greek and Syrian\nChristians, and many of the latter were well acquainted with Greek.\n\nWhile we seek in vain amongst the readings of MSS., and the writings of\nSyriac authors, for any satisfactory explanation of the origin of the\nCuretonian, the work itself may perhaps reveal something of its nature, if\nnot of its history. We have already seen(25) that in the opinion of\ncertain textual critics the history of the Latin Vulgate must have its\ncounterpart in the history of the Bible of Edessa. The origin of Jerome\u2019s\ntranslation is well known. It is supposed that the Peshitto grew in like\nmanner out of an earlier translation. It is contended that the\n_Ur-Peshitto_ is represented to us by the text of the Curetonian; and the\ntwo texts have been compared in order to establish this relation. In so\ndoing, no sufficient account has been taken of the phenomena presented by\nthe differences between the Peshitto and the Curetonian. When it is argued\nthat in some of those differences the Peshitto text bears marks of\nemendation, of the improving touch of a later hand, we answer(26), that in\nothers there are as evident marks in the Curetonian of alteration and\ncorruption. Indeed, to so large an extent do these prevail, that there are\ngood grounds for the suspicion which has been entertained that the\nCuretonian (at least as exhibited by the editor from his MS.) is itself\nthe later version. In order to give effect to this argument, it would be\nnecessary to show the entire extant Curetonian text, side by side with the\ncorresponding portions of the Peshitto; otherwise it is scarcely possible\nto realize (i) how manifestly the Curetonian is an attempt to improve upon\nthe Peshitto text; and (ii) how frequently (as a later composition) it\ndemands an acquaintance with the Gospels on the part of the reader; and\n(iii) how it is pervaded by views of Gospel history, which belong to the\nChurch rather than to the sacred text. But even the short passages, which\nwe have printed as specimens, afford illustrations of the argument.\n\n1. In St. Matthew xii. 1-4, where the Peshitto exhibits the Textus\nReceptus, saying that the disciples were hungry, and began to pluck ears\nof corn and to eat, the Curetonian improves upon the Peshitto thus:\u2014\u201cand\nthe disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears of corn, _and break them\nin their hands_, and eat\u201d\u2014introducing words borrowed from St. Luke(27).\n\n2. (\u03b1) But in the next verse of the passage, where the words \u201con the\nsabbath\u201d are absolutely required in order to make the Pharisees\u2019 question\nintelligible to the first readers of St. Matthew, the Curetonian must\nneeds draw on the common knowledge of educated readers by exhibiting the\nquestion thus:\u2014\u201cWhy are thy disciples doing what is not lawful to do?\u201d Of\ncourse the Peshitto is here an \u201cimprovement\u201d on the Curetonian, in reading\nthe words \u201con the Sabbath\u201d; but that does not affect our argument. Would a\nprimitive version, intended for first converts, have left the reader\nignorant what the action objected to might be? whether to pluck ears in\nanother man\u2019s field, or to rub out grain on the Sabbath? But a later\neditor, who revised the text for some purpose (it matters not, at present,\nfor what purpose), might consider the explanatory words superfluous.\n\n(\u03b2) In like manner in ver. 4, \u201cthe bread of the table of the Lord,\u201d a\nsimple phrase, which every one could understand, has become in the\nCuretonian \u201cface-bread,\u201d an expression which demands knowledge of the\nearlier Scriptures on the part of the reader, and displays the erudition\nof the editor, as do his emendations in the list of names in the first\nchapter of St. Matthew(28).\n\n3. The other passage which we print (St. Mark xvi. 17-29) will illustrate\nour third criticism. The Curetonian is, \u201cOur Lord Jesus then, after He had\n_commanded_ His disciples, _was exalted_ to heaven, and sat on the right\nhand of God.\u201d The simpler Peshitto phrase runs thus, \u201cJesus our Lord then,\nafter He had _spoken with them, ascended_ to heaven, and sat on the right\nhand of God.\u201d The two slight touches of improvement in the Curetonian are\nevident, and belong to that aspect of the record which finds expression in\nthe Creeds, and in the obedience of the Church. A similar touch appears in\nthe Curetonian addition to ver. 17\u2014them that believe _on me_.\n\nAgain in Matt. v. 32 we read (with all authorities), \u201cWhosoever shall put\naway his wife, except for the cause of fornication,\u201d &c.; so the Peshitto;\nbut the Curetonian substitutes _adultery_, and thereby sanctions, not the\nprecept delivered by our Lord, but the interpretation almost universally\nplaced upon it. Now either the Curetonian has alone preserved the true\ntext, or the Curetonian is an emended version. The first supposition is\nunreasonable; the latter is alone suitable to this and to many other\npassages.\n\nNot less curious is the addition in ver. 41, \u201cWhosoever shall compel thee\nto go a mile, go with him _two others_.\u201d The Curetonian (with D and some\nLatin copies) make our Lord say, \u201cGo _three_ miles.\u201d If we cannot admit\nthat this is the true text, then it is an emendation; for it is no\naccidental change.\n\nBut there is a distinct group of emendations which vividly illustrates our\ncontention, that the Curetonian form of Syriac text is pervaded by views\nof Gospel history which belong rather to the Church than to the sacred\nrecords. While fully accepting the Catholic dogma of the perpetual\nvirginity of the Blessed Virgin, we must grant that it is in the nature of\na pious opinion, which Christian sentiment recognized as true, but which\nis not explicitly stated in the New Testament. Hence we view with grave\nsuspicion a class of emendations which are obviously framed to confute the\nheresy of the Helvidians. Such a class is found in St. Matt. i. In ver.\n16, Pesh., \u201cJoseph _the husband of Mary_;\u201d Cur., \u201cJoseph _to whom was\nespoused Mary the Virgin_.\u201d Ver. 19, Pesh., \u201cJoseph _her husband_, being a\njust man;\u201d Cur., \u201cJoseph, because he was a righteous man.\u201d Ver. 20, Pesh.,\n\u201cFear not to take unto thee Mary _thy wife_;\u201d Cur., \u201cMary _thy espoused_.\u201d\nVer. 24, Pesh., \u201cJoseph ... took unto him _his wife_;\u201d Cur., \u201ctook\n_Mary_.\u201d The Curetonian translator, for dogmatic purposes, makes four\ndistinct and separate omissions, in three of which he stands\nunsupported\u2014of the word _husband_ in two places, of the word _wife_ in two\nothers. These are emendations of a deliberate and peculiar kind. We cannot\naccount for all these vagaries by remarking that the Curetonian has often\nthe support of the so-called _Western_ family of text(29). We must face\nthe question whether the MS. of an ancient version, which exhibits such\nsingular phenomena on its first page, is worthy to be set above that\nversion, which is the common heritage of the whole Syriac Church, and\nwhich appears to be the basis of the Curetonian itself. To determine the\nplace of a document in our Apparatus Criticus, we must know something of\nits history. Of the history of the Curetonian version we know nothing. Its\ninternal character inspires grave doubts of its trustworthiness. We note\nits peculiarities with interest; but we do not yet see our way to yield\nmuch deference to its authority. The Peshitto bears witness to that form\nof text, which was received in very ancient times in the Syriac Church.\nThe Curetonian, like the Palestinian, is interesting as showing what\nreadings were accepted locally, or by individual editors(30).\n\n\n\n\n3. The Harkleian or Philoxenian Syriac.\n\n\nOf the history of the Harkleian Syriac version, which embraces the whole\nNew Testament except the Apocalypse, we possess more exact information,\nthough some points of difficulty may still remain unsolved. Moses of Aghel\nin Mesopotamia, who translated into Syriac certain works of the\nAlexandrian Cyril about A.D. 550, describes a version of the \u201cNew\nTestament and Psalter made in Syriac by Polycarp, Rural-Bishop(31) (rest\nhis soul!), for Xenaias of Mabug,\u201d &c. This Xenaias or Philoxenus, from\nwhom the original translation takes its name, was Monophysite Bishop of\nMabug (Hierapolis) in Eastern Syria (488-518), and doubtless wished to\nprovide for his countrymen a more literal translation from the Greek than\nthe Peshitto aims at being. His scheme may perhaps have been injudicious,\nbut it is a poor token of the presence of that quality which \u201cthinketh no\nevil,\u201d to assert, without the slightest grounds for the suspicion, \u201cMore\nprobable it is that his object was of a less commendable character; and\nthat he meant the version in some way to subserve the advancement of his\nparty(32).\u201d Dr. Davidson will have learnt by this time, that one may lie\nunder the imputation of heresy, without being of necessity a bigot or a\ndunce.\n\nOur next account of the work is even more definite. At the end of the\nmanuscripts of the Gospels from which the printed text is derived, we read\na subscription by the first hand, importing that \u201cthis book of the four\nholy Gospels was translated out of the Greek into Syriac with great\ndiligence and labour ... first in the city of Mabug, in the year of\nAlexander of Macedon 819 (A.D. 508), in the days of the pious Mar\nPhiloxenus, confessor, Bishop of that city. Afterwards it was collated\nwith much diligence by me, the poor Thomas, by the help of two [_or_\nthree] approved and accurate Greek Manuscripts in Antonia, of the great\ncity of Alexandria, in the holy monastery of the Antonians. It was again\nwritten out and collated in the aforesaid place in the year of the same\nAlexander 927 (A.D. 616), Indiction iv. How much toil I spent upon it and\nits companions the Lord alone knoweth ... &c.\u201d It is plain that by \u201cits\ncompanions\u201d the other parts of the N. T. are meant, for a similar\nsubscription (specifying but one manuscript) is annexed to the Catholic\nEpistles.\n\nThat the labour of Thomas (surnamed from Harkel, his native place, and\nlike Philoxenus, subsequently Monophysite Bishop of Mabug) was confined to\nthe collation of the manuscripts he names, and whose various readings,\nusually in Greek characters, with occasional exegetical notes, stand in\nthe margin of all copies but one at Florence, is not a probable opinion.\nIt is likely that he added the asterisks and obeli which abound in the\nversion(33) and G. H. Bernstein (De Charklensi N. T. transl. Syriac.\nCommentatio, Breslau, 1837) believes that he so modified the text itself,\nthat it remains in the state in which Polycarp left it only in one codex\nnow at Rome, which he collated for a few chapters of St. John.\n\nWe have been reminded by Tregelles, who was always ready to give every one\nhis due, that our own Pococke in 1630, in the Preface to his edition of\nthe Catholic Epistles not included in the Peshitto, both quotes an extract\nfrom Dionysius Barsalibi, Bishop of Amida (Diarbekr), who flourished in\nthe twelfth century, which mentions this version, and even shows some\nacquaintance with its peculiar character. Although again brought to notice\nin the comprehensive \u201cBibliotheca Orientalis\u201d (1719-28) of the elder J. S.\nAssemani [1687-1768], the Harkleian attracted no attention until 1730, in\nwhich year Samuel Palmer sent from Diarbekr to Dr. Gloucester Ridley four\nSyriac manuscripts, two of which proved to belong to this translation,\nboth containing the Gospels, one of them being the only extant copy of the\nActs and all the Epistles. Fortunately Ridley [1702-1774] was a man of\nsome learning and acuteness, or these precious codices might have lain\ndisregarded as other copies of the same version had long done in Italy; so\nthat though he did not choose to incur the risk of publishing them in\nfull, he communicated his discovery to Wetstein, who came to England once\nmore, in 1746, for the purpose of collating them for his edition of the N.\nT., then soon to appear: he could spare, however, but fourteen days for\nthe task, which was far too short a time, the rather as the Estrangelo\ncharacter, in which the manuscripts were written, was new to him. In 1761\nRidley produced his very careful and valuable tract, De Syriacarum N. F.\nVersionum Indole atque Usu Dissertatio, and on his death his manuscripts\nwent to New College, of which society he had been a Fellow. The care of\npublishing them was then undertaken by the Delegates of the Oxford Press,\nwho selected for their editor Joseph White [1746-1814], then Fellow of\nWadham College and Professor of Arabic, afterwards Canon of Christ Church;\nwho, though now, I fear, chiefly remembered for the most foolish action of\nhis life, was an industrious, able, and genuine scholar. Under his care\nthe Gospels appeared in two vols. 4to, 1778(34) with a Latin version and\nsatisfactory Prolegomena; the Acts and Catholic Epp. in 1799, the Pauline\nin 1803. Meanwhile Storr (Observat. super N. T. vers. Syr., 1772) and\nAdler (N. T. Version. Syr., 1789) had examined and described seven or\neight continental codices of the Gospels in this version, some of which\nare thought superior to White\u2019s(35).\n\nThe characteristic feature of the Harkleian is its excessive closeness to\nthe original: it is probably the most servile version of Scripture ever\nmade. Specimens of it will appear on pp. 38-40, by the side of those from\nother translations, which will abundantly justify this statement. The\nPeshitto is beyond doubt taken as its basis, and is violently changed in\norder to force it into rigorous conformity with the very letter of the\nGreek. In the twenty verses of Matt. xxviii we note seventy-six such\nalterations: three of them seem to concern various readings (vers. 2-18;\nand 5 _marg._); six are inversions in the order; about five are\nsubstitutions of words for others that may have grown obsolete: the rest\nare of the most frivolous description, the definite state of nouns being\nplaced for the absolute, or vice versa; the Greek article represented by\nthe Syriac pronoun; the inseparable pronominal affixes (that delicate\npeculiarity of the Aramaean dialects) retrenched or discarded; the most\nunmeaning changes made in the tenses of verbs, and the lesser particles.\nIts very defects, however, as being servilely accurate, give it weight as\na textual authority: there can be no hesitation about the readings of the\ncopies from which such a book was made. While those employed for the\nversion itself in the sixth century resembled more nearly our modern\nprinted editions, the three or more codices used by Thomas at Alexandria\nmust have been nearly akin to Cod. D (especially in the Acts), and, next\nto D, support BL, 1, 33, 69. \u201cTaken altogether,\u201d is Dr. Hort\u2019s comment,\n\u201cthis is one of the most confused texts preserved: but it may be rendered\nmore intelligible by fresh collations and better editing, even if they\nshould fail to distinguish the work of Thomas of Harkel from that of his\npredecessor Polycarpus\u201d (Introd., p. 156).\n\nThe number of MSS. of this Harkleian version is far greater than it was\nsupposed to have been. The important discovery of the Mohl MS., now in the\npossession of the Cambridge University Library, brings down the Epistle to\nthe Hebrews to the conclusion, so that we now possess the Pauline Epistles\ncomplete in this revision.\n\nThe following account of the MSS. of the Harkleian, consists in his own\nwords of what Mr. Deane has seen himself, many of which he has collated.\nThe letters are those by which he intended to have designated these MSS.\nhad his sight enabled him to complete his revision.\n\n\n    A. Cod. Mus. Brit. Add. 14,469. Saec. x (Wright\u2019s Catalogue cxx).\n    Very important.\n\n    B. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7163. Saec. ix. x (Forshall\u2019s Catalogue\n    xix). Very important.\n\n    C. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. \u201cCod. Or. 130.\u201d Saec. xii.\n\n    D. Cod. Bibl. Coll. Nov. Oxon. 333. Perhaps not so important as R.\n\n    F. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Dawk. 50.\n\n    G. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7164. Saec. xii (Forshall\u2019s Catalogue xx).\n\n    H. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7165. Saec. xiii (Forshall\u2019s Catalogue\n    xxi). In this MS. the two first lines of each page are for the\n    most part obliterated by damp.\n\n    K. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7166. Saec. xv. xvi (Forshall\u2019s Catalogue\n    xxii).\n\n    L. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7167. Saec. xv. xvi.\n\n    Q. Cod. Mus. Brit. Add. 17,124. Saec. xiii (No. 65 Wright\u2019s\n    Catalogue).\n\n    R. Cod. Bibl. Coll. Nov. Oxon. 334.\n\n    S. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Orient. 361. Saec. xiv.\n\n    T. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Poc. 316.\n\n    U. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7167. Saec. xv. xvi. Fragments on St.\n    Matthew only.\n\n    V. Cod. Mohl. Cambridge University Library. Saec. xii.\n\n\nThe last of these would probably be the text from which any new edition\nwould be printed. It is a most remarkable MS., executed with great care,\nand by a good Syrian scholar. Students should observe especially the\ncurious diacritic point by which he designates the Nom. pendens. \u201cI have\nnot seen,\u201d Mr. Deane adds, \u201cthat elsewhere, though doubtless it\nexists(36).\u201d\n\n\n\n\n4. The Palestinian or Jerusalem Syriac.\n\n\nThere are extant several scattered fragments of the Old and New\nTestaments, in a form of Syriac entirely distinct from the versions\nalready described. These fragments are all in one dialect, and are\napparently parts of a single version. The most considerable portion is an\nEvangelistarium which was discovered virtually by Adler, who collated,\ndescribed, and copied a portion of it (Matt. xxvii. 3-32) for that great\nwork in a small compass, his \u201cN. T. Versiones Syriacae\u201d (1789): S. E.\nAssemani the nephew had merely inserted it in his Vatican Catalogue\n(1756). It is a partial Lectionary of the Gospels in the Vatican (MS. Syr.\n19), on 196 quarto thick vellum leaves, written in two columns in a rude\nhand, the rubric notes of Church Lessons in _Carshunic_, i.e. Arabic in\nSyriac letters, with many mistakes. From a subscription, we learn that the\nscribe was Elias, a presbyter of Abydos, who wrote it in the Monastery of\nthe Abbat Moses at Antioch, in the year of Alexander 1341, or A.D. 1030.\nAdler gives a poor facsimile (Matt. xxvii. 12-22): the character is\npeculiar, and all diacritic points (even that distinguishing _dolath_ from\n_rish_), as well as many other changes, are thought to be by a later hand.\nTregelles confirms Assemani\u2019s statement, which Adler had disputed, that\nthe first six leaves, showing traces of Greek writing buried beneath the\nSyriac, proceeded from another scribe. The remarkable point, however,\nabout this version (which seems to be made from the Greek, and is quite\nindependent of the Peshitto) is the peculiar dialect it exhibits, and\nwhich has suggested its name. Its grammatical forms are far less Syriac\nthan Chaldee, which latter it resembles even in that characteristic\nparticular, the prefixing of _yud_, not _nun_, to the third person\nmasculine of the future of verbs(37); and many of the words it employs can\nbe illustrated only from the Chaldee portions of the Old Testament, or\nfrom the Jerusalem, or Palestinian, Targum and Talmud(38). Adler\u2019s account\nof the translation and its copyist is not very flattering, \u201csatis constat\ndialectum esse incultam et inconcinnam ... orthographiam autem vagam,\ninconstantem, arbitrariam, et ab imperito librario rescribendo et\ncorrigendo denuo impeditam\u201d (Vers. Syr., p. 149). As it is mentioned by no\nSyriac writer, it was probably used but in a few remote churches of\nLebanon or Galilee: but though (to employ the words of Porter) \u201cin\nelegance far surpassed by the Peshitto; in closeness of adherence to the\noriginal by the Philoxenian\u201d (Principles of Textual Criticism, Belfast,\n1848, p. 356); it has its value, and that not inconsiderable, as a witness\nto the state of the text at the time it was turned into Syriac; whether,\nwith Adler, we regard it as derived from a complete version of the Gospels\nmade not later than the sixth century, or with Tischendorf refer it to the\nfifth(39). Tregelles (who examined the codex at Rome) wrongly judged it a\nmere translation of some Greek Evangelistarium of a more recent date. Of\nall the Syriac books, this copy and Barsalibi\u2019s recension of the Harkleian\nalone contain John vii. 53-viii. 11; the Lectionary giving it as the\nProper Lesson for Oct. 8, St. Pelagia\u2019s day. In general its readings much\nresemble those of Codd. BD, siding with B eighty-five times, with D\nseventy-nine, in the portions published by Adler; but with D _alone_\neleven times, with B alone but three.\n\nThe information afforded by Adler respecting this remarkable document gave\nrise to a natural wish that the whole manuscript should be carefully\nedited by some respectable scholar. This has now been done by Count\nFrancis Miniscalchi Erizzo, who in 1861-4 published at Verona in two\nquarto volumes \u201cEvangeliarium Hierosolymitanum ex Codice Vaticano\nPalaestino deprompsit, edidit, Latin\u00e8 vertit, Prolegomenis ac Glossario\nadornavit Comes F. M. E.\u201d This elaborate work, for such it is, although\nits execution fails on the whole to satisfy critics of the calibre of Land\nand the Abb\u00e9 Martin, ends with a list of those chapters and verses of the\nGospels (according to the notation of the Latin Vulgate), which the\nmanuscript contains in full. Tischendorf, in the eighth edition of his\nGreek Testament, enriched his notes with the various readings these Church\nLessons exhibit; their critical character being much the same as Adler\u2019s\nslight specimen had given us reason to expect(40). The Lectionary closely\nresembles that of the Greek Church, the slight differences in the\nbeginnings and endings of the Lessons scarcely exceeding those subsisting\nbetween different Greek copies, as noticed in our Synaxarion. It contains\nthe Sunday and week-day Gospels for the first eight weeks beginning at\nEaster (with a few verses lost in two places of Week VIII); the Saturday\nand Sunday Gospels only for the rest of the year; the Lessons for the Holy\nWeek, complete as detailed in Vol. I. 85, with two or three slight\nexceptions; and the eleven Gospels of the Resurrection. In the Menology or\nCalendar of Immoveable Feasts, there is a greater amount of variation in\nregard to the Saints\u2019 Days kept, as indeed we might have looked for\nbeforehand. We subjoin a list of those whose Gospels are given at length\nin the manuscript, together with the portions of Scripture appointed for\neach day, in order that this curious Syriac service-book may be compared\nwith that of the Greeks.\n\n\n    September 1. Simaan Alepinus Stylites. 3. Commemoratio patris\n    nostri Anthioma, John x. 7-16. 4. Babul et puerorum et sanctorum\n    qui cum eo, Luke x. 1-12. 5. Zacharias, father of the Baptist,\n    Matt, xxiii. 29-39. 6. Eudoxio, Mark xii. 28-37. 8. Birthday of\n    the Virgin, _Matins_, Luke i. 39-56. _Ad Missam_, as p. 87. Sunday\n    before Elevation of the Cross, as p. 87. 14. Elevation of the\n    Cross, John xi. 53; xix. 6-35. 15. Nikita, Matt. x. 16-22. 16.\n    Eufemia, p. 87, note 2. 20. Eustathios et sociorum ejus, Luke xxi.\n    12-19. 21. Jonah the Prophet, Luke xi. 29-33. 30. Gregory the\n    Armenian(41), Matt. xxiv. 42-51.\n\n    October 3. Dionosios the Bishop, Matt. xiii. 45-54. Blagia (p. 87,\n    note 3), John viii. 1-11. 18. Luke, as p. 87. 21. Patris nostri\n    Ilarion, Luke vi. 17-23. 25. SS. Scriptorum Marciano et Martorio,\n    Luke xii. 2-12. 26. Demetrius et commemoratio terrae motus, Matt.\n    viii. 23-27.\n\n    November 1. SS. Thaumaturgorum Kezma et Damian, Matt. x. 1-8.\n\n    December 4. Barbara, Mark v. 24-34. 20. Ignathios, as p. 88. 22.\n    Anastasia, Mark xii. 28-44. \u201cDominica ante Nativitatem, et patrum\n    (compare p. 88). In nocte Nativitatis, as p. 88. 25. Christmas\n    Day, sanctorum,\u201d Matt. i. 1-17. 24. Ad mat. Nativitatis, Matt. i.\n    18-25 as p. 88. 26. Commemoratio dominae Mart. Mariam, as p. 88.\n    28. Jacob, frater Domini(42), Mark vi. 1-5 (p. 88).\n\n    January 1. Circumcision, as p. 88. 3. Matt. iii. 1, 5-11. Saturday\n    and Sunday \u201cante missam aquae,\u201d as p. 88. 5. Nocte missae aquae,\n    p. 88. 6. Missa aquae (both Lessons), as p. 88. 7. Commemoration\n    of John the Baptist, as p. 88. Saturday and Sunday post missam\n    aquae, as p. 88. 8. Luke iii. 19-22. 10. John x. 39-42. 11. Luke\n    xx. 1-8. Theodosis, Luke vi. 17-23. 15. Juhanna Tentorii, Matt.\n    iv. 25; v. 1-12. 28. Patris nostri Efrem, Matt. v. 14-19.\n\n    February 2. Ingressus Domini Jesu Christi in templum, as p. 88.\n    24. Finding of the Head of John the Baptist, _ad Mat._ as p. 88:\n    _ad Missam_, Matt. xi. 2-15.\n\n    March 9. Martyrii xl martyrum Sebastis, Matt. xx. 1-16. 25.\n    Annuntiationis Deiparae, _ad Missam_, as p. 88.\n\n    April 1. Mariam Aegyptiacae, Luke vii. 36-50 (compare p. 88, note\n    2).\n\n    May 8. Evan. Juhanna fil. Zebdiai(43), as p. 88.\n\n    June 14. Proph. Elisha, Luke iv. 22-30(44). 24. Birth of John the\n    Baptist, as p. 88. 29. Peter, as p. 88. 30. The Twelve Apostles,\n    Matt. ix. 36-x. 8.\n\n    July 22. Mariam Magdalanis, Luke viii. 1-3.\n\n    August 1. Amkabian Ascemonith, et filiorum suorum, Matt. x. 16-22.\n    6. Apparitio Domini nostri Jesu Christi in Monte Thabur, Luke ix.\n    28-36; Matt. xvii. 1-9; 10-22. 29. Beheading of John the Baptist,\n    as p. 88.\n\n    _Appendix._ Sanctae Christianae, Matt. xxv. 1-13 (_see_ Sept. 24,\n    p. 88). Justorum, Matt. xi. 27-30. Dominica xi, Matt. xv. 21-28.\n\n    This last (_of the Canaanites_, p. 88) had been omitted in its\n    usual place, and two lessons inserted about the same place, which\n    are not in the Greek, viz. \u201cJejunio sancto Banscira fer. 4, vesp.\n    Mark xi. 22-25,\u201d and \u201cfer. 6, vesp. John xv. 1-12.\u201d\n\n\nA new edition of Adler\u2019s Evangelistarium was projected by the late Dr. P.\nA. de Lagarde, who made a fresh collation of the MS. shortly before his\ndeath. The results have been published in a posthumous work entitled\n\u201cBibliothecae Syriacae a Paulo de Lagarde collectae,\u201d 1892. The latter\npart contains the Evangelistarium, with the text set out in the order of\nthe Gospels, instead of that of the Church Lessons, and notes are added on\nthe readings of the MS. and its correctors, and on the edition of\nMiniscalchi Erizzo.\n\n\n    Another edition has been announced by Mrs. Lewis(45), the text to\n    be taken from two Lectionaries, which she has recently discovered\n    in the Library of the Convent on Mount Sinai, with a collation of\n    the readings of the Vatican MS.\n\n    Some fragments of other MSS. of the same Evangelistarium are\n    preserved in the British Museum (Add. 14,450, fol. 14, and 14,664,\n    foll. 17, 20, 21), and in the Imperial Library, St. Petersburg.\n    They have been published by Professor Land in \u201cAnecdota Syriaca,\u201d\n    tom, iv, 1875, with a fragment of Acts (xiv. 6-13), in the St.\n    Petersburg Library.\n\n\nMr. J. Rendel Harris has published in \u201cBiblical Fragments from Mount\nSinai\u201d a leaf containing Gal. ii. 3-5, 12-14; iii. 17, 18, 24-28.\n\n\n    The same library is said to contain other remains of Palestinian\n    literature, patristic translations as well as biblical fragments.\n\n\nIn the Bodleian Library are four fragments, Col. iv. 12-18; 1 Thess. i.\n1-3; iv. 3-15; 2 Tim. i. 10-ii. 7; Titus i. 11-ii. 5, an edition of which\nhas been accomplished by the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam(46).\n\n\n\n\n5. The Karkaphensian or Syriac Massorah.\n\n\nAssemani (Biblioth. Orient., tom. ii. p. 283), on the authority of Gregory\nBar-Hebraeus, mentions what has been supposed to have been a Syriac\n\u201cversion\u201d of the N. T., other than the Peshitto and Harkleian, which was\nnamed \u201cKarkaphensian\u201d (\u0729\u072a\u0729\u0726\u0722\u072c\u0710 or \u0710\u072c\u0722\u0726\u0729\u072a\u0729), whether, as he thought,\nbecause it was used by Syrians of the _mountains_, or from _Carcuf_, a\ncity of Mesopotamia. Adler (Vers. Syr., p. 33) was inclined to believe\nthat Bar-Hebraeus meant rather a revised manuscript than a separate\ntranslation. Cardinal Wiseman, in the course of those youthful studies\nwhich gave such seemly, precocious, deceitful promise (Horae Syriacae,\nRom. 1828), discovered in the Vatican (MS. Syr. 152) a Syriac manuscript\nof readings from both Testaments, with the several portions of the New\nstanding in the following order; Acts, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, the\nfourteen Epistles of St. Paul, and then the Gospels, these being the only\nbooks contained in the true Peshitto. In the margin also are placed by the\nfirst hand many readings indicated by the abbreviation \u071b\u0718 (or \u0718\u071b) [with a\nline over the last letter], the title of some scribe or teacher(47). The\ncodex is on thick yellow vellum, in large folio, with the two columns so\nusual in Syriac writing; the ink, especially the points in vermilion, has\noften grown pale, and it has been carefully retouched by a later hand; the\noriginal document being all the work of one scribe: some of the marginal\nnotes refer to various readings. There are several long and tedious\nsubscriptions in the volume, whereof one states that the copy was written\n\u201cin the year of the Greeks 1291 (A.D. 980) in the [Monophysite] monastery\nof Aaron on [mount] Sigara, in the jurisdiction of Calisura, in the days\nof the Patriarchs John and Menna, by David a deacon of Urin in the\njurisdiction of Gera\u201d [\u0393\u03ad\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1, near Beroea or Aleppo]. It may be remarked\nthat Assemani has inserted a letter in the \u201cBibliotheca Orientalis\u201d from\nJohn the Monophysite Patriarch [of Antioch] to his brother Patriarch,\nMenna of Alexandria. This manuscript, of which Wiseman gives a rather rude\nfacsimile, is deemed by him of great importance in tracing the history of\nthe Syriac vowel-points. Other Karkaphensian manuscripts have been\nexamined since Wiseman\u2019s time; and all, whether containing more, or less,\nof the actual text, agree in the parts which are common, with, however,\nsome independent readings. We subjoin Matt. i. 19 in four texts, wherein\nthe close connexion of the Karkaphensian and the Nestorian recension with\nthe Peshitto is very manifest.\n\nCURETONIAN.\n\n\u071d\u0729\u0723\u0726\u071d \u0715\u071d\u0722 \u0721\u072c\u0720 \u0715\u0714\u072a\u0710 \u071a\u0718\u0710\n\u071b\u071b \u0710 \u0728\u071b \u0717\u0718\u0710 \u0715\u0722\u0726\u072a\u0723\u071a\u0718 \u0725\u0721\u072a\u071d\u0721\n\u0718\u0710\u072c\u072a\u0720\u0717 \u0717\u0718\u0710 \u0715\u071f\u071d\u0718\u072b\u0710\u0710\u071d\u072c \u0722\u072a\u0720\u0720\u071a\u0718\u0700\n\nNESTORIAN MASSORAH. Cod. Add. Brit. Mus. 12,138.\n\n\u071d\u0718\u0723\u0726 \u0715 \u071d\u0722 \u071f\u0720\u0720\u0717 \u0712\u0710\u0722\u0710 \u0717\u0718\u0710\n\u0718\u0710\u0710 \u0728\u0712\u0710 \u0715 \u0722\u0726\u072a\u0723\u071d\u0717 \u0718\u0710\u072c\u0715\u0720\u071d\u0718 (sic)\n\u0717\u0718\u0710 \u0715 \u0721\u0720\u071b\u072b\u071d\u072a\u072c \u0722\u072b\u072a\u071d\u0717 \u0700\n\nHARKLEIAN\u2014from _White_.\n\n\u071d\u0718\u0723\u0726 \u0715 \u071d\u0722 \u0717\u0718 \u0713\u071f\u072a\u0710 \u0715 \u071a\u0720\u0717 \u0715 \u0712\u0710\u0722\u0710\n\u0710\u072c\u0718\u0717\u071d\u0717\u0718\u0710\u0703 \u0718\u0710\u0710 \u0728\u0712\u0710\u0717\u0718\u0710 \u0715 \u0722\u0726\u072a \u0723\u071e\u0721\u0703\n\u0710\u072c\u071d\u072b\u0712 \u0715 \u071f\u071b\u0718\u072b\u071d\u0710 \u0722\u072b\u072a\u071d\u0717 \u0700\n\n* Marg. \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nJACOBITE MASSORAH (\u201cKARKAPHENSIAN\u201d). Cod. Add. Brit. Mus. 12,178.\n\n\u071d\u0718\u0723\u0726 \u0715 \u071d\u0722 \u071f\u0719\u0720\u0717 \u0712\u0710\u0722\u0710 \u0717\u0718\u0710\n\u0718\u0710\u0710 \u0728\u071f\u0710 \u0715 \u0722\u0726\u072a\u0723\u071d\u0717 \u0718\u0710\u072c\u072a\u0720\u071d \u0717\u0718\u0710\n\u0715 \u0721\u0720\u071b\u072b\u071d\u072a\u072c \u0722\u072b\u072a\u0717 \u0700\n\nPESHITTO TEXT\u2014from the MSS.\n\n\u071d\u0718\u0723\u0726 \u071d\u0722 \u071f\u0719\u0720\u0717 \u0712\u0710\u0722\u0710 \u0717\u0718\u0710 \u071d\u0718\u0723\u0726 \u0715 \u072b\u0722 \u0712\u0720\u0720\u0717 \u0712\u0710\u0722\u0710 \u0717\u0718\u0710 \u0718\u0720 \u0700\n\nThe reader must not be misled by this specimen to infer that the\nKarkaphensian always coincides with the Peshitto. It is not a continuous\ntext, but only those verses or passages are quoted where some word or\nwords occur concerning which some annotation is required in reference to\northography or pronunciation. Whole verses or parts of verses are often\nomitted(48).\n\nVery recently, since the last illness of Dr. Scrivener had commenced, the\nresults of a wider examination of Syriac MSS. in different Libraries have\nbeen made more generally known by Mr. Gwilliam\u2019s Essay in the third volume\nof \u201cStudia Biblica(49).\u201d According to the investigations of the leading\nSyriac scholars, it appears that the Karkaphensian is not a distinct\nversion, but a kind of Massorah\u2014the attempt to preserve the best\ntraditions of the orthography and pronunciation of the more important or\ndifficult words of the Syriac Vernacular Bible. This Massoretic teaching\ndiffers from the Hebrew Massorah, in that whilst the latter supplies us\nwith all that we know of the form of the Jewish Scriptures(50), the Syriac\nMassorah is younger than our oldest copies of the Syriac Bible. The\nfollowing are Syriac Massoretic MSS.:\u2014\n\n\n    1. Cod. Add. B. M. 12,138, a Nestorian work, written A.D. 899 at\n    Harran.\n\n    2. Cod. Vaticanus 152, A.D. 980 (Wiseman, as above).\n\n    3. Cod. Add. B. M. 12,178, a Jacobite work of the ninth or tenth\n    century.\n\n    4. Cod. Barberinus, described by Bianchini in \u201cEvangeliarium\n    Quadruplex,\u201d 1748, and afterwards by Wiseman, A.D. 1089 or 1093.\n\n    5. Cod. Add. B. M. 7183, also a Jacobite Massoretic work of the\n    early part of the twelfth century.\n\n    6. In the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale of Paris, a Massoretic MS.\n\n    7. M. l\u2019Abb\u00e9 Martin mentions another, A.D. 1015, in the Cathedral\n    of Mosul.\n\n\nThus the Massorah is extant in two forms, corresponding to the two\nbranches of the Syrian Church. But only one MS. is Nestorian (Cod. Add.\n12,138), whilst all except that one are Jacobite.\n\nThe name Karkaphensian is connected with the Jacobite Massorah, and\nsignifies the kind of text which was favoured in the Scriptorium of the\nSkull Convent(51). Allusions to the Skull Convent are found; the adjective\nitself occurs in St. Matt. xxvii. 33, and the parallel passages, as a\ntranslation of \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. It is known that grammatical and philological\nstudies were pursued by Jacob of Edessa (d. A.D. 710), probably by Joseph\nHuzita, rector of the school at Nisibis (vi); and a tract attached to Add.\n12,178 suggests a connexion between these criticisms and the labours of\none \u201cThomas the Deacon(52).\u201d\n\nWe have now traced the history of the several Syriac versions, so far at\nleast as to afford the reader some general idea of their relative\nimportance as materials for the correction of the sacred text. We will\nnext give parallel renderings of Matt. xii. 1-4; Mark xvi. 17-20 from the\nPeshitto, the Curetonian, and the Harkleian, the only versions known in\nfull; for Matt. xxvii. 3-8, in the room of the Curetonian, which is here\nlost, we have substituted the Jerusalem Syriac, and have retained\nthroughout Thomas\u2019 marginal notes to the Harkleian, its asterisks and\nobeli. We have been compelled to employ the common Syriac type, though\nevery manuscript of respectable antiquity is written in the Estrangelo\ncharacter. Even from these slight specimens the servile strictness of the\nHarkleian, and some leading characteristics of the other versions, will\nreadily be apprehended by an attentive student (e.g. of the Curetonian in\nMatt. xii. 1; 4; Mark xvi. 18; 20).\n\n                  \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWe hoped to include in this account some description of the MS. lately\ndiscovered by Mrs. Lewis in the Monastery of St. Catherine, at Mount\nSinai, and brought in copy last spring to Cambridge. It is now undergoing\nthe careful and skilful examination which the character of the\naccomplished assistants of Mrs. Lewis ensures, and it is impossible at\npresent to anticipate the verdict upon it which those scholars may\nrecommend, and which may be finally adopted by the learned world at large.\nThe photographic illustration of a page, which has been made public(53),\ndoes not suggest that the MS. possesses any very remarkable antiquity. But\nit is due to our argument upon the mutual relations of the Peshitto and\nthe Curetonian to remark, that the Curetonian will even then rest upon\nonly two MSS., one of them being a palimpsest, in face of the numerous\nsupports of the Peshitto, and that even if the Curetonian be proved, as\nseems improbable, to date from somewhat further back than we have\nsupposed, the claim of the Peshitto to production in the early part of the\nsecond century, and to a superior antiquity, will not thereby be removed.\n\nSyriac Versions. Matthew XII. 1-4.\n\nPESHITTO\n\n(1) \u071f\u0717\u0718 \u0719\u071f\u0722\u0710 : \u0721\u0717\u0720\u071f \u0717\u0718\u0710 \u071d\u072b\u0718\u0719\n\u071f\u072b\u071f\u072c\u0710 \u0712\u072c \u0719\u072a\u0725\u0710 \u0718\u072c\u0720\u0721\u0715\u072a\u0718\u0717\u071d\n\u0729\u0726\u0722\u0718 : \u0718\u072b\u072a\u071d\u0718 \u0721\u0720\u0713\u0722 \u072b\u071f\u0720 \u0718\u0710\u0729\u0720\u071d\u0722\n(2) \u0726\u072a\u071d\u072b\u0710 \u0715\u071d\u0722 \u0729\u072b \u071d\u0725\u0718 \u0710\u0722\u0718\u0722 \u0710\u0721\u072a\u071d\u0722\n\u0720\u0717 . \u0717\u0710 \u072c\u0720\u0721\u071d\u072b\u071f \u0725\u071f\u072b\u071d\u0722 \u0721\u071d\u0721\n\u0715\u0720 \u072b\u0720\u071d\u071b \u0720\u0721\u0725\u071f\u071d \u071f\u072b\u071f\u072c\u0710 . (3) \u0717\u0718\n\u0715\u071d\u0722 \u0710\u0721\u072a \u0720\u0717\u0718\u0722 . \u0720 \u0729\u072a\u071d\u072c\u0718\u0722 \u0721\u0722\u0710\n\u0725\u071f\u0715 \u0715\u0718\u071d\u0715 \u0729\u0715 \u0729\u0726\u0722 \u0718\u0710\u071d\u0720\u071d\u0722 \u0715\u0725\u0721\u0717 :\n(4) \u0710\u071d\u0729\u0722\u0710 \u0725\u0720 \u0720\u0712\u072c\u0710 \u0715\u0710\u0720\u0717\u0710 :\n: \u0718\u0720\u071a\u0721\u0710 \u0715\u0726\u072c\u0718\u072a\u0717 \u0715\u0721\u072a\u071d\u0710 \u0710\u0729\u0720\n\u0717\u0718 \u0715\u0710 \u072b\u0720\u071d\u071b \u0717\u0718\u0710 \u0720\u0717 \u0720\u0721\u0710\u0729\u0720 .\n\u0718\u0720 \u0720\u071d\u0720\u071d\u0722 \u0715\u0725\u0721\u0717 . \u0710\u0720\u0710 \u0710\u0722 \u0720\u0729\u0717\u0722\u0710\n\u071f\u0720\u071a\u0718\u0715 \u2058\n\nCURETONIAN.\n\n(1) \u0718\u071f\u0717\u0718 \u0719 \u071f\u0722\u0710 : \u0721\u0717\u0720\u071f \u0717\u0718\u0710 \u071d\u072b\u0718\u0725\n\u071f\u072b\u071f\u072c\u0710 \u0712\u071d\u072c \u0719\u072a\u0725\u0710 . \u0718\u072c\u0720\u0721\u071d\u072a\u0718\u0717\u071d\n\u0729\u0726\u0722\u0718 . \u0718\u072b\u072a\u071d\u0718 \u0721\u0720\u0713\u0722 \u072b\u071f\u0720 \u0718\u0726\u072a\u0729\u0722\n\u071f\u0710\u071d\u0715\u071d\u0717\u0718\u0722 \u0718\u0710\u0729\u0720\u071d\u0722 . (2) \u0729\u0715 \u071d\u0725\u0718\n\u0710\u0722\u0718\u0722 \u0726\u072a\u071d\u072b\u0710 \u0710\u0721\u072a\u071d\u0722 \u0720\u0717 . \u0721\u0722\u0710\n\u0725\u071f\u071d\u0722 \u072c\u0720\u0721\u071d\u072a\u071d\u071f \u0721\u072a\u0721 \u0715\u0720\u0710 \u072b\u0720\u071d\u071b\n\u0720\u0721\u0725\u071f\u0715 . (3) \u0710\u0721\u072a \u0720\u0717\u0718\u0722\u0720\n\u0729\u072a\u071d\u072c\u0718\u0722 \u0721\u0722\u0710 \u0725\u071f\u0715 \u0715\u0718\u071d\u072a \u0729\u072a\u0729\u0726\u0722\n\u0718\u0710\u071d\u0720\u071d\u0722 \u0715\u0725\u0721\u0717 . (4) \u0710\u071d\u0729\u0722\u0710 \u0725\u0720\n\u0720\u0712\u072c\u0717 \u0715\u0710\u0720\u0717\u0710 . \u0718\u0710\u071f\u0720 \u0721\u0722 \u0720\u071a\u0721\n\u0710\u0726\u0710 . \u0715\u0720 \u0720\u0717 \u072b\u0720\u071d\u071b \u0717\u0718\u0710 \u0720\u0721\u0710\u0729\u0720\n\u0710\u0726\u0720 \u0720\u071d\u0720\u071d\u0722 \u0715\u0725\u0721\u0717 . \u0710\u0720 \u0710\u0722 \u0720\u0729\u0717\u0722\u0710\n\u2058 \u071f\u0720\u071a\u0718\u0715\n\nHARKLEIAN.\n\n(1) \u071f\u0717\u0718 \u0719\u071f\u0722\u0710 : \u0721\u0717\u0720\u071f \u0717\u0718\u0710\n\u071d\u072b\u0718\u0725 \u071f\u072b\u071f\u072c\u0710 \u0712\u0715 \u0715\u072c \u0719\u072a\u0725\u0710.\n\u072c\u0720\u0721\u071d\u0715\u0718\u0717\u071d \u0715\u071d\u0722 \u0729\u0726\u0722\u0718 : \u0718\u072b\u072a\u071d\u0718\n\u0721\u0720\u0713\u0722 \u072b\u071f\u0720 \u0718\u0710\u0729\u0720\u071d\u0722 . (2) \u0726\u072a\u071d\u072b\u0710\n\u0715\u071d\u0722 \u0729\u0715 \u071d\u0725\u0710 \u0710\u0721\u072a\u0718 \u0720\u0717 . \u0717\u0710\n\u0710\u0720\u0721\u071d\u0715\u071d\u071f \u0725\u071f\u0715\u071d\u0722 \u0717\u0718 \u0721\u0710 \u0715\u0720 \u072b\u0720\u071d\u071b\n\u0720\u0721\u0725\u071f\u0715 \u071f\u072b\u071f\u072c\u0710 . (3) \u0717\u0718 \u0715\u071d\u0722 \u0710\u0721\u072a\n\u0720\u0717\u0718\u0722 . \u0720 \u0729\u072a\u071d\u072c\u0718\u0722 \u0721\u0722\u0710 \u0725\u071f\u072a \u0715\u0718\u071d\u0715 .\n\u0729\u0715 \u0729\u0726\u0722 \u0718\u0717\u0720\u071d\u0722 \u0715\u0725\u0721\u0717 : (4) \u0710\u071d\u0729\u0722\u0710\n\u0725\u0720 \u0720\u0712\u072c\u0717 \u0715\u0710\u0720\u0717\u0710 : \u0718\u0720\u071a\u0721\u0710\n\u0717\u0718\u0718 \u0729\u0715\u0721 \u0710\u0720\u0717\u0710 . \u0717\u0722\u0718 \u0715\u071d\u0722 \u0715\u0723\u071d\u0721\u071d\u0722\n\u0715\u0723\u071d\u0721\u0718\u072c \u0729\u0715\u0721\u0710 \u0710\u0729\u0720 : \u0717\u0720\u071d\u0722 \u0715\u0720\n\u072b\u0720\u071d\u071b \u0717\u0718\u0710 \u0720\u0717 \u0720\u0721\u0710\u0729\u0720 \u0718\u0720\n\u0720\u0717\u0722\u0718\u0722 \u0715\u0720\u0721\u0717 : \u0710\u0720 \u0710\u0722 \u0720\u0729\u0717\u0722\u0710\n\u071f\u0720\u071a\u0718\u0715\u071d\u0717\u0718\u0722 \u2058\n\nParallel Renderings. Matthew XXVII. 3-8\n\nPESHITTO.\n\n(3) \u0717\u071d\u0715\u071d\u0722 \u071d\u0717\u0718\u0715\u0710 \u0721\u072b\u0720\u0721\u0722\u0710 : \u0729\u0715\n\u071a\u0710 \u0715\u0710\u072c\u071a\u071d\u0712 \u071d\u072b\u0718\u0725 \u0710\u072c\u072c\u0718\u071d . \u0718\u0710\u0719\u0720\n\u0710\u0717\u0726\u071f \u0717\u0720\u071d\u0722 \u072c\u0720\u072c\u071d\u0722 \u0715\u0729\u0723\u0726\u0710 \u0720\u072a\u071f\u071d\n\u071f\u0717\u0728\u0710 \u0718\u0720\u0718\u072b\u072b\u0710 . (4) \u0718\u0710\u0721\u072a . \u071a\u071b\u072c\n\u0715\u0710\u072b\u0720\u0721\u072c \u0715\u0721\u0710 \u0719\u0729\u071d\u0710 . \u0717\u0722\u0718\u0722 \u0715\u071d\u0722 \u0710\u0721\u072a\u0718\n\u0720\u0717 . \u0720\u0722 \u0721\u0710 \u0720\u0722 . \u0710\u0722\u072c \u071d\u072a\u0725 \u0710\u0722\u072c\n(5) \u0718\u072b\u072a\u071d\u0717\u071d \u071f\u0723\u0726\u0710 \u071f\u0717\u071d\u0729\u0720 \u0718\u072b\u0722\u071d .\n\u0718\u0710\u0719\u0720 \u071a\u0722\u0729 \u0722\u0726\u072b\u0717 . (6) \u072a\u0712\u071d \u0729\u0721\u0722\u0710\n\u0715\u071d\u0722\u072b\u0718\u0720\u0718\u0717\u071d \u0720\u0729\u0723\u0726\u0710 \u0718\u0710\u0721\u072a\u0718 . \u0720\n\u072b\u0720\u071d\u071b \u0715\u0722\u072a\u0721\u071d\u0718\u0717\u071d \u0712\u072c \u0729\u0718\u072a\u071f\u0722\u0710 .\n\u0721\u071b\u0720 \u0715\u071b\u0721\u071d \u0715\u0721\u0710\u0717\u0718 . (7) \u0718\u0722\u0723\u071f\u0718\n\u0721\u0720\u0729\u0710 : \u0718\u0719\u071f\u0722\u0718 \u0712\u0717 \u0710\u0713\u0718\u072a\u0723\u0717 \u0715\u0726\u071a\u072a\u0710\n\u0720\u0712\u072c \u0729\u071f\u0718\u072a\u0710 \u0715\u0710\u071f\u0723\u0722\u071d\u0710 . (8) \u0721\u071b\u0720\n\u0717\u0722\u0710 \u0710\u072c\u0729\u072a\u071d \u0710\u0713\u0718\u072a\u0723\u0710 \u0717\u0718 : \u0729\u071d\u072a\u071d\u072c\u0710\n\u0715\u0715\u0721\u0710 \u0725\u0715\u0721\u0710 \u0720\u071d\u0718\u0721\u0722\u0710 \u2058\n\nJERUSALEM SYRIAC.\n\n\u0718\u0712\u072c\u0717 \u0729\u071d\u072a\u0718\u0723\u0710 \u071f\u0729\u0722 \u0729\u0715 \u071d\u0721\u0710\n\u071d\u0717\u0718\u0715\u0723 \u0715\u0721\u0723\u072a \u071d\u072c\u0717 \u0715\u0710\u072c\u071a\u071d\u0712 \u072c\u0717\u0710 \u2058\n\u0718\u0710\u072c\u072a\u0712 \u072c\u0720\u072c\u071d\u0722 \u0715\u0729\u0723\u0726\u0710 \u0720\u072a\u071d\u072b\u0710 \u071f\u0717\u0722\u071d\u0710\n(\u0715\u071f\u0721\u0722\u071d\u0710 s.m.) \u0718\u0729\u072b\u071d\u072b\u0710 . (4) \u0718\u0710\u0721\u072a\n\u0710\u0723\u0729\u0720\u072c \u0715\u0721 \u0723\u072a\u072c \u0710\u0715\u0721 ? \u0715\u071d\u0729 \u2058 \u0710\u0715\u0721\n(? \u0715\u071d\u0729 s.m.) \u0717\u0722\u0718\u0722 \u0715\u071d \u0710\u0721\u072a\u0718 \u0721\u0710\n\u0725\u0720\u071d\u0722\u0717 \u0710\u072c \u072c\u071d\u0721\u0710 (5) \u0718\u072b\u0715\u0710 \u0729\u0723\u0726\u0710\n\u071f\u0722\u0718\u0723\u0710 \u0718\u0710\u0719\u0720 \u071d\u0722\u0729\u0713\u072a\u0721\u0717 \u2058 (6) \u072a\u071d\u072b\u0710\n\u0729\u0717\u0722\u071d\u0710 \u0715\u071d \u0722\u0723\u071f\u0718 \u0729\u0723\u0726\u0710 \u0718\u0710\u0721\u072a\u0718\u0720\n\u072b\u0720\u071d\u071b \u0715\u0722\u072a\u0721\u0710 \u071d\u072c\u0717 \u071f\u0729\u0718\u072a\u071f\u0722\u0710 \u2058\n\u0720\u0713\u0720 \u0715\u0717\u0718 \u0715\u0721\u071d\u0722 \u0715\u0710\u0715\u0721 (7) \u0722\u0723\u071f\u0718\n\u0715\u071d \u0721\u071d\u0720\u071f (\u0721\u071d\u0720\u071f\u0710 _sic s.m._) \u0718\u0719\u071f\u0722\u0718\n\u0712\u0717\u0718\u0722 \u071b\u0718\u072a\u0717 \u0715\u0726\u071a\u072a\u0710 \u0720\u0721\u0718\u071f\u0718\u072a\u0710\n\u0720\u0729\u0723\u0722\u071a \u2058 (8) \u0720\u0729\u071d \u0722 \u0710\u072c\u0718\u072a\u071d \u071b\u0718\u072a\u0710 \u0717\u0710\u0718\n\u071d\u0718\u0720 \u0710\u0715\u0721\u0710 \u0725 \u072a \u0721\u071b\u0710 \u0720\u071d\u0718\u0721\u0715\u071d\u0722 \u2058\n\nHARKLEIAN.\n\n(3) \u0717\u071d\u072a\u071d\u0722 \u0729\u072a \u071a\u0722\u0710 \u071d\u0717\u0718\u0715\u0710 \u0717\u0718\n\u0715\u0710\u072b\u0720\u0721\u0717 \u0715\u0710\u072c\u072a\u071d\u0712 : \u0729\u072a \u0710\u072c\u072c\u0718\u071d :\n\u0710\u0717\u0726\u0722 \u0717\u0720\u071d\u0722 \u072c\u0720\u072c\u0722 \u0729\u0723\u0726\u0710 \u0720\u072a\u071d\u072b\u071d\n\u0729\u0717\u0722\u0710 \u0718\u0720\u0718\u072b\u071d\u072b\u0710 (4) \u0729\u0715 \u0710\u0717\u072a :\n\u071d\u071b\u072c \u0715\u0710\u072b\u0720\u0721\u072c \u0715\u0721\u0710 \u0719\u0712\u071d\u0710 . \u0717\u0722\u0718\u0722\n\u0715\u0722 \u0710\u0721\u072a\u0718 . \u0721\u0722\u0710 \u0720\u0718\u072c\u0722 . \u0710\u0722\u072c \u072c\u071a\u0722\u0710 .\n(5) \u0718\u0729\u0715 \u072b\u0715\u071d \u0710\u0722\u0718\u0722 \u0720\u0729\u0723\u0726\u0710 \u071f\u0717\u071d\u0729\u0720 :\n\u072b\u0722\u071d \u0718\u0710\u0719\u0720 \u071a\u0722\u0729  \u0717\u0718\u0720\u0717 .\n\u072a\u071d\u072b\u071d \u0729\u0717\u0722\u0710 \u0715\u071d\u0722 \u0729\u0715 \u072b\u0718\u0720\u0718 \u0710\u0722\u0718\u0722\n\u0720\u0729\u0723\u0726\u0710 \u0710\u0721\u072a\u0718 : \u0720 \u072b\u0720\u071d\u071b \u0720\u0721\u072a\u0721\u071d\u0718\n\u0712\u072c \u0729\u0718\u072a\u071f \u0710\u0722\u0710\u0722 : \u0721\u071b\u0720 \u0715\u071b\u071d\u0721\u0710 \u0715\u0715\u0721\u0710\n\u0710\u0722\u072c\u071d\u0717\u0718\u0722 . (7) \u0729\u0715 \u0715\u071d\u0722 \u0721\u0720\u0729\u0710 \u0722\u0723\u071f\u0718 :\n\u0719\u071f\u0725\u0718 \u0721\u0725\u0717\u0718\u0722 \u0710\u0713\u0718\u072a\u0723\u0710 (5) \u0715\u0726\u071a\u072a\u071d\u0710\n\u0720\u0712\u072c \u0729\u071f\u0718\u072a\u0710 \u071d\u0715\u0710\u0729\u0723\u0722\u071d\u0710 . (8) \u0721\u071b\u0720\n\u0717\u0715\u0710 \u0710\u072c\u0729\u072a\u071d \u0717\u0718 \u0710\u0713\u0718\u072a\u0723\u0710 \u0717\u0718 :\n\u0710\u0713\u0718\u072a\u0723\u0710 \u0715\u0715\u0721\u0710 \u0725\u0715\u0721\u0710 \u0720\u071d\u0718\u0721\u0722\u0710 \u2058\n\nSyriac Versions. Mark XVI. 17-20\n\nPESHITTO.\n\n(17) \u0710\u072c\u0718\u072c\u0710 \u0715\u071d\u0722 \u0720\u071d\u0720\u071d\u0722 \u0715\u0721\u0717\u071d\u0721\u0722\u071d\u0722\n\u0717\u0720\u071d\u0722 \u0722\u0718\u0726\u0722 . \u071f\u072b\u0721\u071d \u072b\u0710\u0715\u0710\n\u0722\u0726\u0729\u0718\u0722 \u0718\u071f\u0720\u072b\u0722\u0710 \u071a\u072a\u072c\u0710 \u0722\u0721\u0720\u0720\u0718\u0722 .\n(18) \u0718\u071a\u0718\u0718\u072c\u0710 \u0722\u072b\u0718\u0720\u0718\u0722 . \u0718\u0710\u0722 \u0723\u0721\u0710\n\u0715\u0721\u0718\u072c\u0710 \u0722\u072b\u072c\u0718\u0722 \u0720 \u0722\u0717\u072a \u0710\u0722\u0718\u0722 . \u0718\u0710\u071d\u0715\u071d\u0717\u0718\u0722\n\u0722\u0723\u071d\u0721\u0718 \u0722\u0725\u0720 \u0729\u072a\u071d\u0717\u0710 \u0718\u0722\u072c\u071a\u0720\u0721\u0718\u0722 .\n(19) \u071d\u072b\u0718\u0725 \u0715\u071d\u0722 \u0721\u072a\u0722 : \u0721\u0722 \u071f\u072c\u072a\n\u0715\u0721\u0720\u0720 \u0725\u0721\u0717\u0718\u0722 \u0720\u072b\u0721\u071d\u0710 \u0723\u0720\u0729\n\u0718\u071d\u072c\u0712 \u0721\u0722 \u071d\u0721\u071d\u0722\u0710 \u0715\u0710\u0720\u0717\u0710 . (20) \u0717\u0722\u0718\u0722\n\u0715\u071d\u0722 \u0722\u0726\u0729\u0718 \u0718\u0710\u0729\u072a\u0719\u0718 \u071f\u0729\u0720 \u0715\u0718\u0729\u0710 . \u0718\u0721\u072a\u0722\n\u0721\u0725\u0715\u072a \u0717\u0718\u0710 \u0720\u0717\u0718\u0722 : \u0718\u0721\u072b\u072a \u0721\u0720\u071d\u0717\u0718\u0722\n\u0712\u0710\u072c\u0718\u072c\u0710 \u0715\u0725\u071f\u0715\u071d\u0722 \u0717\u0718\u0718\u2058\n\nCURETONIAN.\n\n(17) \u0715\u0721\u0717\u071d\u0721\u0722\u071d\u0722 \u071f\u071d . \u0717\u0720\u071d \u0722\n\u0712\u072b\u0721\u071d \u0715\u071d\u0718\u0710 \u0722\u0726\u0718\u0718\u0722 . \u071f\u0720\u072b\u0722\u0710 \u071a\u0715\u072c\u0710\n\u0722\u0721\u0720\u0720\u0718\u0722  . (18) \u071a\u0718\u0718\u072c\u0710 \u0722\u072b\u0718\u0720\u0718\u0722\n\u0712\u0710\u072a\u0715\u071d\u0717\u0718\u0722 \u0718\u0710\u0722 \u0721\u072a\u0721 \u0723\u0721\u0710 \u0715\u0721\u0718\u072c\u0710\n\u0722\u072b\u072c\u0718\u0722 \u0720 \u0722\u0729\u0710 \u0710\u0722\u0718\u0722 . \u0710\u0720 \u0729\u072a\u0717\u0710\n\u0722\u0723\u071d\u0721\u0718\u0722 \u0710\u071d\u0715\u071d\u0717\u0718\u0722 \u0718\u0722\u072c\u071a\u0720\u0721\u0718\u0722\n(19) \u0721\u072a\u0722 \u0715\u071d\u0722 \u071d\u072b\u0718\u0725 \u0721\u0722 \u071f\u072c\u072a \u0715\u0726\u0718\u071d\n\u0720\u072c\u0720\u0721\u071d\u072a\u0718\u0717\u071d \u0710\u072c\u0725\u0720\u071d \u0720\u072b\u0721\u071d\u0720 .\n\u0718\u071d\u072c\u0712 \u0721\u0722 \u071d\u0721\u071d\u0710 \u0715\u0710\u0720\u0717\u0710 . (20) \u0717\u0722\u0718\u0722\n\u0715\u071d\u0722 \u0722\u0726\u0718\u0718 \u0718\u0710\u0729\u072a\u0719\u0718 \u071f\u0729\u0718\u0720 \u0715\u0718\u0712\u0710 . \u071f\u0715\n\u0721\u072a\u071d\u0710 \u0725\u0721\u0717\u0718\u0722 \u071f\u0729\u0720 . \u0718\u0721\u0720\u072c\u0717\u0718\u0722\n\u0721\u072b\u072a \u0717\u0718\u0710 \u0712\u0710\u072c\u0718\u072c\u0710 \u0715\u0725\u071f\u072a\u071d\u0722 \u0717\u0718\u0718 \u2058\n\nHARKLEIAN.\n\n(17) \u0710\u072c\u0718 \u072c\u0710\u0715\u071d\u0722 \u0720\u0717\u0722\u0718\u0722 \u0715\u0721\u0717\u071d\u0721\u0722\u071d\u0722\n\u0717\u0720\u071d\u0722 \u0722\u0718\u0726\u0722 . \u071f\u072b\u0721\u0710 \u0715\u071d\u0720\u071d \u0715\u071d\u0718\u0710\n\u0722\u0726\u0729\u0718\u0722 . \u0712\u0720\u072b\u0722\u0710 \u071a\u072a\u072c\u0710 \u0722\u0721\u0720\u0720\u0718\u0722 .\n(18) \u0718\u0712\u0710\u071d\u072a\u071d\u0710 \u071a\u0718\u0718\u072c\u0710 \u0722\u072b\u0718\u0720\u0718\u0722 .\n\u0718\u0710\u0722 \u0723\u0721\u0710 \u0721\u0721\u071d\u072c\u0722\u0710 \u0721\u072a\u0721 \u0722\u072b\u072c\u0718\u0722\n\u0720 \u0722\u0729\u0710 \u0710\u0722\u0718\u0722 . \u0725\u0720 \u0729\u072a\u071d\u0717\u0710 \u0710\u071d\u0715\u071d\u0710\n\u0722\u0723\u071d\u0721\u0718\u0722 : \u0718\u071b\u0712\u0710\u071d\u072c \u0722\u0717\u0718\u0718\u0722 \u2058 (19) \u0717\u0718\n\u0721\u0722 \u0717\u0729\u071d\u0720 \u0721\u072a\u071d\u0710 \u071d\u072b\u0718\u0725 : \u071f\u072c\u072a\n\u0715\u0721\u0720\u0720 \u0720\u0717\u0718\u0722 \u0710\u0723\u072c\u0720\u0729 \u0720\u072b\u0721\u071d\u0710 \u0718\u071d\u072c\u0712\n\u0721\u0722 \u071d\u0721\u071d\u0722\u0710 \u0715\u0710\u0720\u0717\u0710 \u2058 (20) \u0717\u0722\u0718\u0722\n\u0715\u071d\u0722 \u0729\u072a \u0722\u0726\u0718\u0718 \u0710\u0729\u072a\u0719\u0718 \u071f\u0729\u0720 \u0715\u0718\u0729\u072c\u0710\n\u0729\u072a \u0721\u072a\u071d\u0710 \u0721\u0725\u072a\u0715 \u0717\u0718\u0710 \u0718\u0720\u0721\u0720\u072c\u0710 \u0721\u072b\u0715\u072a\n\u0717\u0718\u0710 : \u071f\u071d\u0715 \u0710\u072c\u0718\u072c\u0710 \u0717\u0722\u071d\u0722 \u0715\u0722\u0726\u0718\u0722 \u0717\u0718\u071d \u2058\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. THE LATIN VERSIONS.\n\n\nSince the publication of the third edition of this book, exhaustive work\non the Old Latin Versions and the Vulgate, commenced before for the\nUniversity of Oxford, as is well known amongst biblical scholars, by the\nRight Rev. John Wordsworth, D.D., Bishop of Salisbury, with the assistance\nof the Rev. H. J. White, has been prosecuted further, resulting in the\npublication of three volumes of Old Latin Biblical Texts, and of the\nedition of the Vulgate New Testament as far as the end of St. Luke\u2019s\nGospel. It was therefore with the liveliest gratitude that the Editor\nreceived from the Bishop, in reply to consultation upon a special point,\nan offer to superintend the entire revision of this chapter, if Mr. White\nwould give him his important help, notwithstanding other laborious\noccupations. Mr. White has carried out the work under the Bishop\u2019s\ndirection, rewriting most of the chapter entirely, but incorporating,\nwhere possible, Dr. Scrivener\u2019s language.\n\n\n\n\n(1) The Old Latin, previous to Jerome\u2019s Revision.\n\n\nThere are passages in the works of the two great Western Fathers of the\nfourth century, Jerome [345?-420] and Augustine [354-430], whose obvious\nand literal meaning might lead us to conclude that there existed in their\ntime _many_ Latin translations, quite independent in their origin, and\nused almost indifferently by the faithful. When Jerome, in that Preface to\nthe Gospels which he addressed to Pope Damasus (in 384), anticipates but\ntoo surely the unpopularity of his revision of them among the people of\nhis own generation, he consoles himself by the reflection that the\nvariations of previous versions prove the unfaithfulness of them all:\n\u201cverum non esse quod variat etiam maledicorum testimonio comprobatur.\u201d\nThen follows his celebrated assertion: \u201cSi enim Latinis exemplaribus fides\nest adhibenda, respondeant quibus: tot enim sunt exemplaria pene quot\ncodices(54).\u201d The testimony of Augustine seems even more explicit, and at\nfirst sight conclusive. In his treatise, De Doctrina Christiana (lib. ii.\ncc. 11-15), when speaking of \u201cLatinorum interpretum infinita varietas,\u201d\nand \u201cinterpretum numerositas,\u201d as not without their benefit to an\nattentive reader, he uses these strong expressions: \u201cQui enim Scripturas\nex hebraea lingua in Graecam verterunt, numerari possunt, Latini autem\ninterpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus\nvenit codex Graecus, et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae\nhabere videbatur, ausus est interpretari\u201d (c. 11); and he soon after\nspecifies a particular version as preferable to the rest: \u201cIn ipsis autem\ninterpretationibus Itala(55) ceteris praeferatur. Nam est verborum\ntenacior cum perspicuitate sententiae\u201d (cc. 14-15).\n\nWhen, however, the surviving codices of the version or versions previous\nto Jerome\u2019s revision came to be studied and published by Sabatier(56) and\nBianchini(57), it was obvious that though there were many points of\ndifference, there were still traces of a source common to many, if not to\nall of them; and on a question of this kind, occasional divergency,\nhowever extensive, cannot weaken the impression produced by resemblance,\nif it be too close and constant to be attributable to chance, as we have\njust seen. The result of a careful and thorough examination and comparison\nof the existing Old Latin texts, is a conviction that they are all but\noff-shoots from one, or at most two, parent stocks. Now when, this fact\nfairly established, we look back at the language employed by Jerome and\nAugustine, we can easily see that, with some allowance for his habit of\nrhetorical exaggeration, the former may mean no more by the term\n\u201cexemplaria\u201d than that the scattered copies of the Latin translation in\nhis own day varied widely from each other; and though the assertions of\nAugustine are too positive to be thus disposed of, yet he is here\nspeaking, not from his own personal knowledge so much as from vague\nconjecture; and of what had been done, not in his own time, but \u201cin the\nfirst ages of the faith.\u201d\n\nOn one point, however, Augustine must be received as a competent and most\nsufficient witness. We cannot hesitate to believe that one of the several\nrecensions current towards the end of the fourth century was distinguished\nfrom the rest by the name of _Itala_(58), and in his judgement deserved\npraise for its clearness and fidelity. It was long regarded as certain\nthat here we should find the Old Latin version in its purest form, and\nthat in Italy it had been thus used from the very beginning of the Church,\n\u201ccum Ecclesia Latina sine versione Latina esse non potuerit\u201d (Walton,\nProleg. x. 1). Mill indeed reminds us that the early Church at Rome was\ncomposed to so great an extent of Jewish and other foreigners, whose\nvernacular tongue was Greek, that the need of a Latin translation of\nScripture would not at first be felt; yet even he would not place its date\nlater than Pius I (142-157), the first Bishop of Rome after Clement who\nbears a Latin name (Mill, Proleg. \u00a7 377). It was not until attention had\nbeen specially drawn to the style of the Old Latin version, that scholars\nbegan to suggest AFRICA as the place, and the second half of the second\ncentury as the time, of its origin. This opinion, which had obtained\nfavour with Eichhorn and some others before him, may be considered as\ndemonstrated by Cardinal Wiseman, in his \u201cTwo letters on some parts of the\ncontroversy concerning 1 John v. 7(59).\u201d So far as his argument rests on\nthe Greek character of the _Roman_ Church, it may not bring conviction to\nthe reflecting reader. Even though the early Bishops of Rome were of\nforeign origin, though Clement towards the end of the first, Gaius the\npresbyter late in the second century, who are proved by their names to be\nLatins, yet chose to write in Greek; it does not follow that the Church\nwould not contain many humbler members, both Romans and Italians, ignorant\nof any language except Latin, and for whose instruction a Latin version\nwould be required. On the ground of _internal_ evidence, however, Wiseman\nmade out a case which all who have followed him, Lachmann, Tischendorf,\nDavidson, Tregelles, accept as irresistible; indeed it is not easy to draw\nany other conclusion from his elaborate comparison of the words, the\nphrases, and grammatical constructions of the Latin version of Holy\nScripture, with the parallel instances by which they can be illustrated\nfrom African writers, and from them only (Essays, vol. i. pp. 46-66)(60).\nIt is impossible to exhibit any adequate abridgement of an investigation\nwhich owes all its cogency to the number and variety of minute\nparticulars, each one weak enough by itself, the whole comprising a mass\nof evidence which cannot be gainsaid. In the works of Apuleius and of the\nAfrican Fathers, Tertullian [150?-220?], Cyprian [\u2020 258], and in the\nfollowing century, Arnobius, Lactantius, Augustine, we obtain a glimpse\ninto the genius and character of the dialect in which the earliest form of\nthe Old Latin version is composed. We see a multitude of words which occur\nin no Italian author so late as Cicero; constructions (e.g. _dominantur\neorum_, Luke xxii. 25; _faciam vos fieri_, Matt. iv. 19) or forms of verbs\n(_sive consolamur ... sive exhortamur_, 2 Cor. i. 6) abound(61), which at\nRome had long been obsolete; while the lack of classic polish is not\nill-atoned for by a certain vigour which characterizes this whole class of\nwriters, but never degenerates into barbarism.\n\nThe _European_ and _Italian_ forms of the Old Latin version will be\ndiscussed afterwards.\n\nThe following manuscripts of the version are extant. They are usually\ncited by the small italic letters of the alphabet, according to the custom\nset by Lachmann (1842-1850), which has been considerably extended, and\npartially altered, since his time. His _a b c d_ of the Gospels, _d e_ of\nthe Acts, and _g_ of St. Paul, remain the same, but his _f_ and _ff_ of\nSt. Paul = our _d_ and _e_, and his _h_ = Primasius.\n\n\n    _Old Latin Manuscripts of the Gospels._\n\n    _a._ CODEX VERCELLENSIS [iv?], at Vercelli; according to a\n    tradition found in a document of the eighth century, this MS. was\n    written by Eusebius, Bishop of Vercellae (\u2020 370); M. Samuel\n    Berger, however, and other scholars would place it later. It is\n    written in silver on purple vellum. Bianchini, when Canon of\n    Verona, collated this treasure in 1727; see E. Mangenot, Joseph\n    Bianchini et les anciennes versions latines (Amiens, 1892), who\n    gives an interesting and sympathetic account of his work. _Mut._\n    in many letters and words throughout, and entirely wanting in\n    Matt. xxiv. 49-xxv. 16; Mark i. 22-34; iv. 17-25; xv. 15-xvi. 7\n    (xvi. 7-20 is in a later hand, taken from Jerome\u2019s Vulgate); Luke\n    i. 1-12; xi. 12-26; xii. 38-59. Published by J. A. Irici\n    (Sacrosanctus Evangeliorum Codex S. Eusebii Magni), Milan, 1748,\n    and by Bianchini on the left-hand page of his great \u201cEvangeliarium\n    Quadruplex,\u201d Rome, 1749; the latter edition has been reprinted in\n    Migne, Patr. Lat. tom. xii. Facsimile given in Zangemeister and\n    Wattenbach, Exempla codicum Latinorum, pl. 20 (Heidelberg, 1876);\n    compare Bethmann in Pertz, Archiv, xii. p. 606, and E. Ranke,\n    Fragmenta Curiensia, p. 8. Bianchini\u2019s work seems to have been\n    extremely accurate, though he does not keep to the actual division\n    of the lines in the original manuscripts either here or in his\n    edition of _b_. The Gospels are in the usual Western order,\n    Matthew, John, Luke, Mark; so also _a_2 _b d e f ff_2 _i n q r_.\n\n    _b._ COD. VERONENSIS [iv or v], also in Bianchini\u2019s \u201cEvangeliarum\n    Quadruplex\u201d on the right-hand page. _Mut._ Matt. i. 1-11, xv.\n    12-23, xxiii. 18-27; Mark xiii. 8-19; 24-xvi. 20; Luke xix.\n    26-xxi. 29; also John vii. 44-viii. 12 is _erased_.\n\n    _c._ COD. COLBERTINUS [xii], at Paris (Lat. 254); New Testament,\n    very important, though so late; edited in full by Sabatier (_see_\n    p. 42, n. 3), and in a smaller and cheaper form by J. Belsheim,\n    Christiania, 1888; Belsheim\u2019s work however is, as usual,\n    inaccurate. For the date of the MS. see E. Ranke, Fragmenta\n    Curiensia, p. 9. Beyond the Gospels, the version is Jerome\u2019s, and\n    in a later hand. _See_ below under Vulgate MSS., no. 53.\n\n    _d._ COD. BEZAE [vi], its Latin version; _see_ Vol. I. pp.\n    124-130, and for its defects p. 124, n. 2; also Prof. J. Rendel\n    Harris, A Study of Codex Bezae, Cambridge, 1891; and F. H. Chase,\n    The Syriac element in Codex Bezae, London, 1893.\n\n    _e._ COD. PALATINUS [iv or v], now at Vienna (Pal. 1185), where it\n    was acquired from Trent between 1800 and 1829; on purple vellum,\n    14 x 9-3/4, written with gold and silver letters, as are Codd. _a_\n    _b_ _f_ _i_ _j_, edited by Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1847. Only the\n    following portions are extant: Matt. xii. 49-xiii. 13; 24-xiv. 11\n    (_with breaks, twelve lines being lost_); 22-xxiv. 49; xxviii.\n    2-John xviii. 12; 25-Luke viii. 30; 48-xi. 4; 24-xxiv. 53; Mark i.\n    20-iv. 8; 19-vi. 9; xii. 37-40; xiii. 2, 3; 24-27; 33-36; i.e.\n    2627 verses, including all St. John but 13 verses, all St. Luke\n    but 38. Another leaf, bought for Trinity College, Dublin, by Dr.\n    Todd before 1847, containing Matt. xiii. 13-23, was published by\n    Dr. T.K. Abbott in his edition of Cod. Z. It was recognized in\n    1880 to be a fragment of _e_ by Mr. French, the sub-librarian;\n    _see_ also H. Linke, Neue Bruchst. des Evang. Pal. (S. B. of the\n    Munich Acad. 1893, Heft ii).\n\n    _f._ COD. BRIXIANUS [vi], at Brescia, edited by Bianchini beneath\n    Cod. _b. Mut._ Matt. viii. 16-26; Mark xii. 5-xiii. 32; xiv.\n    53-62; 70-xvi. 20. There are some bad slips in Migne\u2019s reprint of\n    this MS.\n\n    _ff_1. COD. CORBEIENSIS I [viii or ix], containing the Gospel of\n    St. Matthew, now at St. Petersburg (Ov. 3, D. 326). It formerly\n    belonged to the great monastic Library of Corbey, or Corbie, on\n    the Somme, near Amiens; and with the most important part of that\n    Library was transferred to St. Germain des Pr\u00e9s at Paris, in or\n    about the year 1638, and was there numbered 21. The St. Germain\n    Library, however, suffered severely from theft and pillage during\n    the French Revolution, and Peter Dubrowsky, Secretary to the\n    Russian Embassy at Paris, seems to have used his opportunities\n    during that troublous time to acquire MSS. stolen from public\n    libraries; _ff_1 with other MSS. fell into his hands and was\n    transferred to the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg about\n    1800-1805. In 1695 Dom Jean Martianay, well known as the principal\n    editor of the Benedictine St. Jerome, published _ff_1 with a\n    marginal collation of the St. Germain Bible (_g_1), and the Corbey\n    St. James (_see_ p. 52) in a small volume entitled \u201cVulgata\n    antiqua Latina et Itala versio secundum Matthaeum e vetustissimis\n    eruta monumentis illustrata Prolegomenis ac notis nuncque primum\n    edita studio et labore D.J.M. etc. Parisiis, apud Antonium\n    Lambin.\u201d Bianchini reprinted it underneath Cod. _a_, giving in its\n    place a collation of _ff_2 in SS. Mark, Luke, and John; Sabatier,\n    however, cites _ff_1 in Mark i. 1-v. 11, but it is difficult to\n    know to what MS. he refers. Finally it has been re-edited by\n    Belsheim (Christiania, 1882). For the history of this MS., _see_\n    Wordsworth, Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. xxii, and Studia Biblica,\n    i. p. 124; and for the history of the Library at Corbey, Delisle,\n    Biblioth\u00e8que de l\u2019Ecole des Chartes, 1860, p. 438; R. S. Bensly,\n    The missing fragment of the Latin Translation of the Fourth Book\n    of Ezra, p. 7 (Cambridge, 1875).\n\n    _ff_2. COD. CORBEIENSIS II [vi], now at Paris (Lat. 17,225),\n    formerly at Corbey, where it was numbered 195; it contains 190\n    leaves and is written in a beautiful round uncial hand. Quoted by\n    Sabatier, and a collation given by Bianchini in Mark, Luke, and\n    John; published in full by Belsheim (Christiania, 1887).\n    Belsheim\u2019s work, however, has been since revised by M. Berger and\n    his revision communicated to the present writer (H. J. White).\n    _Mut._ Matt. i. 1-xi. 6; John xvii. 15-xviii. 9; xx. 22-xxi. 8;\n    Luke ix. 48-x. 21; xi. 45-xii. 6; and a few verses missing in\n    Matt. xi, Mark ix and xvi; Facsimile in Palaeogr. Soc. i. pl. 87.\n\n    _g_1. COD. SANGERMANENSIS I [ix], now at Paris (Lat. 11,553);\n    formerly in the Library of St. Germain des Pr\u00e9s, where it was\n    first numbered 15 and afterwards 86; it is the second volume of a\n    complete Bible, the first volume of which has been lost. This MS.\n    was known to R. Stephens, who in his Latin Bible, published\n    1538-40 and again 1546, quotes it as _Germ. Lat._, in consequence\n    of its breadth; it was also examined by R. Simon, who, writing in\n    1680, speaks of it at some length; Martianay published a collation\n    of its readings in his edition of the Corbey St. Matthew (_see_\n    under _ff_1); and Martianay\u2019s collation, which indeed was faulty\n    enough, was reprinted by Bianchini. John Walker, Bentley\u2019s\n    coadjutor in his great but unfinished work for the New Testament,\n    collated it carefully in 1720; and finally Bp. Wordsworth\n    published St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel with full Introductions in 1883\n    (Old Latin Biblical Texts, No. 1, Oxford), and has collated the\n    other Gospels for his edition of the Vulgate. J. Walker cited the\n    MS. as \u03bc; Bp. Wordsworth cites it as _g_1 in St. Matthew, G in the\n    other books of the New Testament. The text can only be called\n    strictly _Old Latin_ in St. Matthew, where it seems to be partly\n    of the European, partly of the Italian type; in the other Gospels\n    it is Vulgate, though largely mixed with Old Latin readings. _See_\n    below under Vulgate, MSS., no. 21.\n\n    _g_2. COD. SANGERMANENSIS II [x], 116 leaves, Irish hand, with a\n    mixed Old Latin and Vulgate text. Now at Paris (Lat. 13,169), but\n    was originally at Angers, and then apparently at Mans in the\n    province of Tours; possibly brought there by Ulgrinus, Bishop of\n    Mans 1057-65. See Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les\n    premiers Si\u00e8cles du M.A., p. 48.\n\n    _h._ COD. CLAROMONTANUS [iv or v], now in the Vatican Library\n    (Lat. 7223), for which it was bought by Pius VI (1775-99),\n    contains, like _g_1, St. Matthew only in the Old Latin, the other\n    Gospels being Vulgate. _Mut._ Matt. i. 1-iii. 15; xiv. 33-xviii.\n    12. Sabatier gave extracts, and Mai published St. Matthew in full\n    in his \u201cScript. Vet. nova collectio Vaticana,\u201d iii. p. 257 (Rom.\n    1828); it has been republished by Belsheim (Evangelium secundum\n    Matthaeum ... e codice olim Claromontano nunc Vaticano),\n    Christiania, 1892.\n\n    _i._ COD. VINDOBONENSIS [vii], at Vienna (Lat. 1235), formerly\n    belonging to an Augustinian Monastery at Naples, whence it was\n    brought with ninety-four other MSS. to Vienna in 1717; consists of\n    142 leaves, and contains Luke x. 6-xxiii. 10; Mark ii. 17-iii. 29;\n    iv. 4-x. 1; 33-xiv. 36; xv. 33-40. The MS. was described and\n    edited by F. C. Alter, the Mark fragments in G. E. H. Paulus\u2019 \u201cN.\n    Repert. d. bibl. u. morgenl. Literatur,\u201d iii. pp. 115-170 (1791),\n    the Luke fragments in Paulus, Memorabilia, vii. pp. 58-95 (1795).\n    Bianchini had, however, previously obtained a collation for his\n    \u201cEvangeliarium Quadruplex\u201d from the Count of Thun and Hohenstein\n    (afterwards Bishop of Gurk in Carinthia), who had spent some time\n    at the Court of Vienna; and N. Forlosia, the principal Librarian\n    at Vienna, had given him a careful description of the MS.; _see_\n    \u201cEpistola Blanchinii ad Episcopum Gurcensem\u201d in Bianchini\u2019s\n    prolegomena. Finally Belsheim edited the MS. completely in 1885\n    (Leipzig, Weigel), and Dr. Rudolf Beer revised his edition for\n    Bishop Wordsworth\u2019s edition of the Vulgate in 1888.\n\n    _j._ COD. SARZANNENSIS or SARETIANUS [v] was discovered in 1872 in\n    the Church of Sarezzano near Tortona. It consists of eight quires\n    written on purple vellum in silver letters, and contains (much\n    mutilated) 292 verses of St. John, viz. i. 38-iii. 23; iii. 33-v.\n    20; vi. 29-49; 49-67; 68-vii. 32; viii. 6-ix. 21, written two\n    columns on a page. The text is peculiar, and much with _a_ _b_ _d_\n    _e_. Guerrino Amelli, sub-librarian of the Ambrosian Library (and\n    now at the Benedictine Monastery of Monte Cassino), published at\n    Milan the same year a \u201cDissertazione critico-storica,\u201d 18 pp. (2nd\n    edition, 1885), with a lithographed facsimile, whose characters\n    much resemble the round and flowing shape of those in _a_ _b_ _f_.\n    The MS. is now at Rome undergoing careful restoration, but no part\n    of it has yet been published.\n\n    _k._ COD. BOBIENSIS [v or vi], now in the National Library at\n    Turin (G. vii. 15), whither it was brought with a vast number of\n    other books from Bobbio; traditionally asserted to have belonged\n    to St. Columban, who died in the monastery he had founded there,\n    in 615. This MS. is perhaps the most important, in regard to text,\n    of all the Old Latin copies, being undoubtedly the oldest existing\n    representative of the African type. It contains Mark viii. 8-11;\n    14-16; 19-xvi. 9; Matthew i. 1-iii. 10; iv. 2-xiv. 17; xv. 20-36;\n    the order then was probably John, Luke, Mark, Matthew. It was\n    edited by F. F. Fleck in 1837, and by Tischendorf in 1847-49; but\n    so inaccurately by the former and so inconveniently by the latter\n    as to be little known and used by students. It was finally edited\n    by Bishop Wordsworth (1886) as No. 2 of the \u201cOld-Latin Bible\n    Texts,\u201d with full introduction, and with a dissertation on the\n    text by Professor Sanday.\n\n    _l._ COD. RHEDIGERANUS [vii], in the Rhedigeran Library at\n    Breslau; from a note at the end of St. Luke\u2019s Gospel, it appears\n    to have been bought by Thomas von Rhediger at Verona in the year\n    1569. J. E. Scheibel in 1763 published SS. Matthew and Mark, far\n    from correctly. D. Schulz wrote a dissertation on it in 1814, and\n    inserted his collation of it in his edition of Griesbach\u2019s N. T.,\n    vol. i. 1827. It was edited in full by H. F. Haase, Breslau (in\n    the \u201cIndex, lect. univ. Vratisl.\u201d), 1865-66. _Mut._ Matt. i. 1-ii.\n    15; John i. 1-16; vi. 32-61; xi. 56-xii. 10; xiii. 34-xiv. 23; xv.\n    3-15; xvi. 13 _ad fin._\n\n    _m._ This letter indicates the readings extracted by Mai from the\n    \u201cLiber de divinis scripturis sive speculum,\u201d ascribed to St.\n    Augustine, and containing extracts from the whole N. T. except\n    Philemon, Hebrews, and 3 John; it also has a citation from the\n    Epistle to the Laodiceans. It resembles the \u201cTestimonia\u201d of\n    Cyprian (and indeed one MS. has the subscription _explicit\n    testimoniorum_) in that it consists of extracts from both\n    Testaments, arranged in chapters under various heads. This\n    treatise was published by Mai, first in the \u201cSpicilegium Romanum,\u201d\n    1843, vol. ix. part ii. 1-88, and again in the \u201cNova Patrum\n    Bibliotheca,\u201d Rome, 1852, vol. i. part ii. 1-117; and Wiseman had\n    drawn attention to it in his celebrated \u201cTwo Letters\u201d (_see_ p.\n    43), because it contains 1 John v. 7 in two different places. Mai\n    had published it from the Sessorian MS. (no. 58) of the eighth or\n    ninth century, so called from the library of Sta. Croce in\n    Gerusalemme (Bibliotheca Sessoriana) at Rome, in which it is\n    preserved (see Reifferscheid, Bibl. Patr. Italica, ii. p. 129); he\n    furnished a facsimile. Recently the treatise has been excellently\n    edited by Dr. F. Weihrich in the Vienna \u201cCorpus script. eccl.\n    lat.,\u201d vol. xii (Vienna, 1887), from six MSS.; one of these is the\n    Codex Floriacensis (Libri MS. 16, now in the Bibl. Nat. at Paris,\n    Nouv. acq. lat. 1596), the readings of which are occasionally\n    cited by Sabatier under the name of _floriac_. (_see_ Weihrich, p.\n    xl, and L. Delisle, Cat. des MSS. des fonds Libri et Barrois,\n    1888, p. 25 and pl. iv. 1; also Palaeographical Soc., series ii.\n    pl. 34).\n\n    _n._ FRAGMENTA SANGALLENSIA [v or vi], in the Stiftsbibliothek at\n    St. Gall, to which Library they have probably belonged from its\n    foundation. The fragments are bound up in a large book numbered\n    1394, and entitled \u201cVeterum fragmentorum manuscriptis codicibus\n    detractorum Collectio;\u201d they contain Matt. xvii. 1-xviii. 20; xix.\n    20-xxi. 3; xxvi. 56-60; 69-74; xxvii. 62-xxviii. 3; 8-20; Mark\n    vii. 13-31; viii. 32-ix. 10; xiii: 2-20; xv. 22-xvi. 13; to this\n    must be added a whole leaf containing John xix. 28-42, and a slip\n    containing portions of John xix. 13-27, which are in the\n    Stadtbibliothek of the same city, bound up in a MS. numbered 70\n    and entitled \u201cCasus monasterii Sancti Galli;\u201d and the conjecture\n    of the Abb\u00e9 Batiffol and Dr. P. Corssen is undoubtedly right that\n    the fragment from St. Luke known as _a_2 (see below) is also a\n    part of this MS.\n\n    Tischendorf transcribed these fragments, intending to edit them\n    himself, but died before he had done so; the transcripts were\n    purchased from his widow by the Clarendon Press in 1883, and\n    published in the second volume of \u201cOld Lat. Bibl. Texts\u201d (Oxford,\n    1886) by the Rev. H. J. White, who revised them on the spot from\n    the originals; meanwhile they had been published in France by the\n    Abb\u00e9 Batiffol (Note sur un Evang\u00e9liare de Saint-Gall, Paris,\n    Champion, 1884, and \u201cFragmenta Sangallensia\u201d in the _Revue\n    arch\u00e9ologique_, pp. 305-321, for 1885). A facsimile was appended\n    to the Oxford edition, and is also given by the Palaeographical\n    Soc., series ii. plate 50.\n\n    _o._ [vii], another fragment at St. Gall, bound up in the same\n    volume with _n_, contains Mark xvi. 14-20; it may very possibly\n    have been written to complete the above-named MS. when it had lost\n    its last leaf, as it has the same number of lines to a page and\n    begins exactly at the point where _n_ leaves off. Edited by\n    Batiffol with _n_, and also in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. ii.\n\n    _p._ [vii or viii], also at St. Gall, bound up in the second\n    volume of the \u201cVeterum fragmentorum Collectio\u201d (pp. 430-433). This\n    fragment consists of two leaves written in an Irish hand, and\n    apparently belonging to a \u201cMissa pro defunctis,\u201d of which it was\n    the Gospel; it contains John xi. 16-44, introduced with the lines\n    from Ps. lxv, \u201cte decet d\u00f1e,\u201d &c. The opening verses of the Gospel\n    are adapted as an introduction of the lection; the rest of the\n    text is of the European type, but (with _r_) contains many\n    peculiar Irish characteristics. _p_ has been published three\n    times: by Forbes, in the \u201cPreface to the Arbuthnott Missal,\u201d p.\n    xlviii (Burntisland, 1864); by Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, vol.\n    i. Appendix G, p. 197 (Oxford, 1869); and in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts,\n    vol. ii.\n\n    _q._ COD. MONACENSIS [vii], now in the Royal Library at Munich\n    (Lat. 6224); it was transferred hither in 1802 with other MSS.\n    from the Chapter Library of Freising, in which it was numbered 24;\n    written by a scribe named Valerianus. Contains the four Gospels,\n    but _mut._ Matt. iii. 15-iv. 23; v. 25-vi. 4; 28-vii. 8; John x.\n    11-xii. 38; xxi. 8-20; Luke xxiii. 23-35; xxiv. 11-39; Mark i.\n    7-21; xv. 5-36. Published in full by the Rev. H. J. White in Old\n    Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. iii (Oxford, 1888); facsimiles given in the\n    Oxford edition and also by Silvestre (Pal\u00e9og. univ.; quatri\u00e8me\n    partie, no. 158).\n\n    _r_ or _r_1. CODEX USSERIANUS I [vii], in the Library of Trinity\n    College, Dublin (A. iv. 15); it is kept among the books which once\n    belonged to Archbishop Ussher, but nothing is known of its early\n    history. The MS. consists of 180 leaves or fragments, written in\n    an Irish hand, but much injured by damp; it contains the four\n    Gospels in the usual Old Latin order, but _mut._ Matt. i. 1-xv.\n    16; 31-xvi. 13; xxi. 4-21; xxviii. 16-20; John i. 1-15; Mark xiv.\n    58-xv. 8; 29-xvi. 20. Published in full by Professor T. K. Abbott,\n    Evangeliorum versio antehieronymiana (Dublin, 1884); facsimiles\n    are given in his edition, in the Palaeographical Society, series\n    ii. plate 33, and in the \u201cFacsimiles of National MSS. of Ireland,\u201d\n    part i (1874), pl. ii. It contains the _pericope de adultera_ in\n    St. John, but in the Vulgate, not the Old Latin, text.\n\n    _r_2. CODEX USSERIANUS II [ix or x], also in the Library of\n    Trinity College, Dublin (A. iv. 6). Contains the four Gospels, St.\n    Matt. in the Old Latin and in a text allied to _r_1; St. Mark, the\n    early part of St. Luke, and the small portion (only five leaves)\n    extant of St. John, present a text very near the Vulgate. Dr.\n    Abbott inserted a collation of this MS. in the second volume of\n    his book, and also a facsimile. _Mut._ Matt. i. 1-18, ii. 6-iv.\n    24; v. 29-xiii. 7; xiv. 1-xvi. 13; xviii. 31-xix. 26; xxvii.\n    58-xxviii. 20; Mark iii. 23-iv. 19; v. 31-vi. 13; Luke i. 1-13;\n    ii. 15-iii. 8; vi. 39-vii. 11; xi. 53-xii. 45; xiv. 18-xv. 25;\n    xvi. 15-xvii. 7; xxii. 35-59; xxiii. 14-xxiv. 53; John i. 1-v. 12;\n    vi. 24-viii. 7; x. 3-xxi. 25.\n\n    _s._ FRAGMENTA AMBROSIANA [vi], now in the Ambrosian Library at\n    Milan, where they are bound up in a volume (C. 73 inf.) containing\n    various treatises; they belonged originally to the Monastery of\n    St. Columban at Bobbio. Four leaves only remain, containing Luke\n    xvii. 3-29; xviii. 39-xix. 47; xx. 46-xxi. 22. They have been\n    edited by Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana, tom. i. fasc. i\n    (Milan, 1861), and again in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. ii; a\n    facsimile is given by the Palaeographical Society, series i. plate\n    54.\n\n    _t._ FRAGMENTA BERNENSIA [v], palimpsest fragments, now at Berne,\n    where they are bound up in a volume numbered 611; exceedingly\n    difficult to decipher, as the later writing is parallel to the\n    original text. Contain Mark i. 2-23; ii. 22-27; iii. 11-18. They\n    were first published by Professor H. Hagen under the title \u201cEin\n    Italafragment aus einem Berner Palimpsest des VI. Jahrhunderts\u201d in\n    Hilgenfeld\u2019s \u201cZeitschrift f\u00fcr wissenschaftliche Theologie,\u201d vol.\n    xxvii. p. 470 ff. (Leipzig, 1884); reprinted in Old Latin Bibl.\n    Texts, vol. ii, with rather important alterations in the\n    conjectural restitution of the missing half-columns.\n\n    _v._ FRAGMENTUM VINDOBONENSE [vii], at Vienna, where it is bound\n    up at the beginning of a volume numbered Lat. 502 and entitled\n    \u201cPactus legis Ripuariae;\u201d it contains John xix. 27-xx. 11, but the\n    writing is much faded. Transcribed by the Bishop of Salisbury and\n    the Rev. H. J. White in 1887, and published in Old Latin Bibl.\n    Texts, vol. iii.\n\n    _aur._ CODEX AUREUS or HOLMIENSIS, in the Royal Library at\n    Stockholm; Gospels [vii or viii], 195 leaves, complete with the\n    exception of one leaf, which contained Luke xxi. 8-30. According\n    to an inscription in Old English on the title-page, the book was\n    purchased by Alfred the Alderman from the pagans [Danes?] when\n    Alfred was king and Ethelred archbishop (A.D. 871-89), for the use\n    of Christ Church, Canterbury. It afterwards found its way to\n    Madrid, where Sparvenfeldt bought it in 1690 from the Library of\n    the Marquis de Liche. Edited, with facsimiles, by Belsheim\n    (Christiania, 1878), who classes it as Old Latin; but it is really\n    a Vulgate text, though with a certain admixture of Old Latin\n    readings. Hort\u2019s _holm_. (Introd., Notes, p. 5).\n\n    _a_2. FRAGMENTA CURIENSIA [v or vi], formerly preserved amongst\n    the Episcopal archives at Chur or Coire, now placed in the\n    Reatisches Museum of the same city. M. Batiffol was the first to\n    suggest that these fragments belonged to the same MS. as _n_; and\n    though this view was combated at first by Mr. White, it was\n    reasserted strongly by Dr. Corssen (G\u00f6ttingsche gel. Anzeigen,\n    1889, p. 316), and further examination has shown that it is\n    correct. The fragments contain Luke xi. 11-29; xiii. 16-34; they\n    were first discovered by Professor Hidber, of Berne, then\n    described by Professor E. Ranke in the \u201cTheol. Studien u.\n    Kritiken,\u201d 1872, pp. 505-520, and afterwards edited by him in\n    full, Curiensia Ev. Lucani Fragmenta Latiua (Vienna, 1874).\n\n    \u03b4. CODEX SANGALLENSIS, the interlinear Latin of Cod. \u0394, stands\n    remarkable especially for its alternative renderings of the Greek,\n    such as \u2019uxorem uel coniugem\u2019 for \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1 Matt. i. 20, and in\n    almost every verse. How far the Latin text of these MSS. is\n    independent, and how far it is a mere reproduction of the Greek,\n    or whether the Greek has in turn been influenced by the Latin, is\n    one of those elaborate and obscure problems which are still very\n    far from solution. The reader is referred to Prof. J. Rendel\n    Harris\u2019 work, The Codex Sangallensis (Cambridge, 1891), for an\n    interesting discussion of these alternative readings.\n\n    _In the Acts_ we have Codd. _d m_ as in the Gospels; _e_ the Latin\n    version of Cod. E (Laudianus) of the Acts, and also:\u2014\n\n    _g._ COD. GIGAS HOLMIENSIS [xiii], a Bohemian MS. of the whole N.\n    T., now at Stockholm, so called from its great size. Contains the\n    Acts and Apocalypse in the Old Latin version, the rest of the N.\n    T. in the Vulgate. Mr. Belsheim published the Acts and Apocalypse\n    in full and a collation of the other books (Christiania, 1878).\n    His edition was carefully revised for the Bishop of Salisbury by\n    Dr. H. Karlsson in 1891.\n\n    _g_2. FRAGMENTUM MEDIOLANENSE [x or xi], from a lectionary;\n    discovered by Ceriani in the Ambrosian Library at Milan and\n    published by him in \u201cMonumenta Sacra et Profana,\u201d tom. i. fasc.\n    ii. p. 127 (see also preface, pp. vi and vii). Contains Acts vi.\n    8-vii. 2; 51-viii. 4; i.e. lection for St. Stephen\u2019s day.\n\n    _h._ PALIMPSESTUS FLORIACENSIS [vi or vii], now in the Bibl. Nat.\n    at Paris, where it forms foll. 113 to 130 of a volume containing\n    various treatises and numbered Lat. 6400 G; it was formerly\n    numbered 5367, and was as such quoted by Sabatier, tom. iii. p.\n    507 ff., who had collated the first three pages. An inscription on\n    fol. 130 shows it to have belonged in the eleventh century to the\n    famous Benedictine Abbey of Fleury on the Loire. Mr. A. Vansittart\n    deciphered and published some more in the \u201cJournal of Philology\u201d\n    (vol. ii, 1869, p. 240, and vol. iv, 1872, p. 219), and M. H.\n    Omont published four pages of the Apocalypse in the \u201cBibl. de\n    l\u2019\u00c9cole des chartes\u201d (vol. xliv. 1883, p. 445). Belsheim published\n    an edition of the fragments in 1887 (\u201cAppendix Epist. Paulin. ex\n    cod. Sangerm.,\u201d Christiania); and finally M. Berger published a\n    most careful and complete edition in 1889 (Le Palimpseste de\n    Fleury, Paris, Fischbacher). The MS. contains fragments of the\n    Apocalypse, the Acts, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1 John; in the order\n    above mentioned. Of the Acts in M. Berger\u2019s edition we obtain the\n    following:\u2014iii. 2-iv. 18; v. 23-vii. 2; 42-viii. 2; ix. 4-23; xiv.\n    5-23; xvii. 34-xviii. 19; xxiii. 8-24; xxvi. 20-xxvii. 13.\n    Facsimile given by Berger.\n\n    _s._ COD. BOBIENSIS [v or vi], at Vienna, consisting of a number\n    of palimpsest leaves preserved loose and numbered Lat. 16 (_see_\n    \u201cTabulae Codd. MSS. praeter graecos et orientales in bibl.\n    Palatina Vindob. asservatorum,\u201d 1863-1875). They were brought with\n    other MSS. to Vienna from Naples in 1717, and formerly belonged to\n    the famous Monastery at Bobbio. Described by Denis (Codd. MSS.\n    theolog. bibl. Palat. Vindob., tom. ii. p. 1, col. 628) and later\n    by von Eichenfeld (Wiener Jahrb. der Literatur, 1824, Bd. xxvi. p.\n    20); then by Tischendorf in the same periodical (1847, Bd. cxx. p.\n    36). Finally published in full by Belsheim (Fragmenta\n    Vindobonensia, Christiania, 1886), who printed all the fragments\n    of this very hard palimpsest which Tischendorf had been able to\n    decipher, and the leaves which he himself had been able to make\n    out in addition. We thus obtain Acts xxiii. 18-23; xxv. 23-27;\n    xxvi. 22-xxvii. 7; 10-24; 28-31; xxviii. 16-28. The same MS. also\n    contains fragments of St. James and 1 Peter; _see_ below.\n\n    _In the Catholic Epistles_ we have:\u2014\n\n    _ff._ CODEX CORBEIENSIS [x], of the Epistle of St. James, now in\n    the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg, where it was numbered Qv.\n    i. 39. Formerly belonging to the Corbey Library, where it was\n    numbered 635, it was about 1638 transferred to St. Germain des\n    Pr\u00e9s and was numbered 717 in Dom Poirier\u2019s catalogue (made about\n    1791); and finally was taken to St. Petersburg by Peter Dubrowsky\n    about 1805 (see above on _ff_1, p. 46). The Epistle was published\n    in 1695 by Martianay in the same volume which included _ff_1;\n    later by Mr. Belsheim (Der Brief des Jacobus, Christiania, 1883);\n    and again, after revision by Professor V. Jernstedt, by Bishop\n    Wordsworth in \u201cStudia Biblica,\u201d vol. i.\n\n    There are also _h_, containing 1 Pet. iv. 17-2 Pet. ii. 6; 1 John\n    i. 8-iii. 20; _m_ as in Gospels; _s_ as in Acts, containing James\n    i. 1-25; ii. 14-iii. 5; 13-iv. 2; v. 19, 20; 1 Pet. i. 1-12; ii.\n    4-10.\n\n    _q._ One of the sets of fragments at Munich [vii], published by\n    Ziegler (_see_ below): they consist of two leaves, giving us 1\n    John iii. 8-v. 21, and containing the three Heavenly Witnesses (1\n    John v. 7), placed, however, _after_ v. 8, as in the Vulgate\n    _Codex Cavensis_ (_see_ Ziegler, p. 5 f.); these leaves are in the\n    collection of fragments marked Clm. 6436 (Fris. 236). Later in the\n    same year Ziegler published more fragments from the same MS.,\n    which had been used in covering some other books; these give us 1\n    Pet. i. 8-19; ii. 20-iii. 7; iv. 10-v. 14; 2 Pet. i. 1-4. See\n    Sitzungsberichte der k. b. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu M\u00fcnchen,\n    1876, Heft v. pp. 607-660.\n\n    _In the Pauline Epistles_ we have _m_ as in the Gospels. Codd. _d_\n    _e_ _f_ _g_ are the Latin versions of Codd. DEFG of St. Paul,\n    described above, Cod. D (Clarom.); Cod. E (Sangerm.); Cod. F\n    (Aug.); Cod. G (Boern.). To these must be added\n\n    _gue._ COD. GUELFERBYTANUS [vi], fragments of Rom. xi. 33-xii. 5;\n    17-xiii. 5; xiv. 9-20; xv. 3-13, found in the great Gothic\n    palimpsest at Wolfenb\u00fcttel (Evann. PQ), published with the other\n    matter by Knittel in 1762, and more fully by Tischendorf, Anecdota\n    sacra et profana, pp. 155-158. In the eighth edition of his N. T.\n    he adds readings from Rom. xiii. 3, 4, 6; 1 Tim. iv. 15.\n\n    _r._ COD. FRISINGENSIS [v or vi], consisting of twenty-one leaves\n    at Munich, numbered Clm. 6436 (Fris. 236), and containing Rom.\n    xiv. 10-xv. 13; 1 Cor. i. 1-iii. 5; vi. 1-vii. 7; xv. 14-43; xvi.\n    12-2 Cor. ii. 10; iii. 17-v. 1; vii. 10-viii. 12; ix. 10-xi. 21;\n    xii. 14-xiii. 10; Gal. ii. 5-iii. 5; Eph. i. 16-ii. 16; Phil. i.\n    1-20; 1 Tim. i. 12-ii. 15; v. 18-vi. 13; Hebr. vi. 6-vii. 5;\n    8-viii. 1; ix. 27-xi. 7. Eight of these leaves were examined by\n    Tischendorf in 1856, who drew attention to their importance in the\n    \u201cDeutsche Zeitschr. f. christliche Wissenschaft u. chr. Leben,\u201d\n    1856, n. 8; he incorporated many of their variant readings into\n    his N. T., and intended to publish the fragments. They were\n    published by L. Ziegler with _q_ and _r_2 (Italafragm. d.\n    paulinischen Briefe, Marburg, 1876); see E. W\u00f6lfflin, Freisinger\n    Itala (S. B. of Munich Acad. 1893, Heft ii).\n\n    _r_2. A single leaf from Munich [vii], containing Phil. iv. 11-23;\n    1 Thess. i. 1-10; published by Ziegler, _see_ above; also numbered\n    Clm. 6436 (Fris. 236).\n\n    _r_3. COD. GOTTVICENSIS [vi or vii], fragments of Romans and\n    Galatians, from the Benedictine Abbey of G\u00f6ttweig on the Danube,\n    and consisting of two leaves taken from the cover of another book.\n    They are numbered 1. (9) foll. 23, 24 in the Library Catalogue,\n    and contain Rom. v. 16-vi. 4; 6-19; Gal. iv. 6-19; 22-v. 2.\n    Published by H. Roensch in Hilgenfeld\u2019s Zeitschrift, vol. xxii\n    (1879), pp. 224-238.\n\n    _In the Apocalypse_ we have _m_ of the Gospels and _g_ of the\n    Acts; also _h_ of the Acts (_see_ above), containing i. 1-ii. 1;\n    viii. 7-ix. 11; xi. 16-xii. 14; xiv. 15-xvi. 5 (Lachmann cites\n    Primasius\u2019 version as _h_).\n\n\nTo these thirty-eight codices must be added extracts from the Latin\nFathers, of which the Latin interpreter of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian,\nAugustine, Priscillian, and Primasius are the most important for the\nhistory of the version. For Tertullian, considerable labour will be saved\nto the student by the work of H. Roensch (Das neue Testament Tertullians,\nLeipzig, 1871), who has arranged in order his quotations, direct and\nindirect; for Cyprian, Hartel\u2019s excellent edition (vol. iii in the Vienna\nCorpus) is marred by his having edited the Testimonia, which consist of\ndirect quotations from the Bible, arranged under various heads, from a\nlate and inferior MS. (_see_ O. L. Bibl. Texts, ii. p. xliii). The works\nof Priscillian, who suffered death as a heretic in 385, have been quite\nlately discovered and edited by Dr. G. Schepss (vol. xviii in the Vienna\nCorpus); the quotations in them bear a strong resemblance to those of the\nso-called \u201cSpeculum\u201d of St. Augustine (_m_), and are mainly from the\nEpistles. Primasius, bishop of Hadrumetum (d. 558?), was the author _inter\nalia_ of a commentary on the Apocalypse; in this he incorporated nearly\nthe entire text of that book, and as this text agrees almost word for word\nwith the citations found in Cyprian\u2019s Testimonia, we thus obtain a\ncomplete African text of a book in which so many MSS. are defective. In\naddition to this he quoted largely from another Latin translation of the\nApocalypse\u2014that of the Donatist Ticonius\u2014whose version seems to be a good\nspecimen of a later text approximating more closely to the Vulgate; these\nhave also been published quite recently by Professor Haussleiter (Zahn\u2019s\nForschungen, iv. Teil, Leipzig, 1891).\n\nWhen we come to arrange these authorities for the Latin version before\nJerome, we find a complicated and difficult task before us; for few of our\nMSS. present a consistent type of text. We will confine ourselves\ntherefore to grouping them in the three great families described by Dr.\nHort (Introd. p. 78), whose division has been accepted by most textual\ncritics, and to pointing out how here and there even that division must be\naccepted with some modification.\n\nThe _African_ family is comparatively easy to fix, from the rich store of\nbiblical quotations found in the African Fathers. Tertullian indeed does\nnot give us so much help as we should have expected, as he seems to have\nlargely used a Greek Bible and translated it into Latin himself. Cyprian\u2019s\nquotations, however, are valuable, as he apparently confined himself\nstrictly to the Latin Bible current in his time; he may be taken as the\nstandard of the early African version; to him we must add, for the\nGospels, the Bobbio MS. (_k_) and the Codex Palatinus (_e_), which,\nhowever, represents a stage somewhat later than _k_; for the Acts, the\nFleury palimpsest (_h_); for the Apocalypse, Primasius and _h_; and a\nlater and revised stage in the so-called \u201cSpeculum\u201d (_m_), and in the\nquotations from Ticonius preserved in Primasius.\n\nExisting simultaneously with the African family we find another type of\ntext current in Western Europe, though whether it is a revision of the\nAfrican text or is of independent origin, it is hard to say. This type Dr.\nHort calls the _European_. It is represented in the Gospels by _b_, which\nmay be taken as the typical European MS.; by _a_ in St. Matthew, _i_ (Luke\nand Mark), _n_ and _a_2 (giving us fragments of all the Gospels from the\nsame MS.); _t_ in St. Mark; in a slightly revised form by _h_ of St.\nMatthew; in a form marked by special local characteristics, in the Irish\nMSS. _r_1 and _p_ (St. John); to a certain extent also by _q_ (i.e. in its\nrenderings, and turns of expression, as distinct from the type of Greek\ntext underlying it); of the early Fathers, the Latin version of Irenaeus\nmay probably be referred to this family.\n\nFor the European text in the Acts, Dr. Hort cites the Gigas Holmiensis\n(_g_), and the Milan Lectionary _g_2, and the Bobbio fragments at Vienna\n(_s_); for the Epistles, the Corbey MS. of St. James (_ff_), though this\nhas possibly a tinge of Africanism in it (_see_ Bp. Wordsworth and Dr.\nSanday in \u201cStudia Biblica,\u201d i. pp. 113, 233); and _g_ again for the\nApocalypse.\n\nThe _Italian_ family presents us with a type of text mainly European, but\ndoubly revised; first in its renderings, \u201cto give the Latinity a smoother\nand more customary aspect,\u201d and secondly in its underlying text, which has\nbeen largely corrected from the Greek; in both these points the Italian\nMSS. are a sort of stepping-stone between the European MSS. and Jerome\u2019s\nVulgate; and as many of the Biblical quotations in Augustine\u2019s works agree\nclosely with them, it is distinctly probable that it was this revision\nwhich he praised as the Itala. To this group we would assign _f_ in the\nGospels, and less notably _q_; in the Epistles the Freisingen fragments\n_q_ of St. John and St. Peter, and _r_ _r_2 of St. Paul\u2019s Epistles, and\nthe G\u00f6ttweig fragments _r_3 of Romans and Galatians.\n\nBut it will be seen that this arrangement leaves a large number of MSS.\nunaccounted for; many of the Old Latin MSS. present texts which it is\nimpossible to class either as African, European, or Italian. Some of them\npossess all three characteristics; some have been half corrected from the\nVulgate; and local variation, independent translation from the Greek, and\nin the case of the Graeco-Latin MSS., assimilation _to_ the Greek, have\nstill further complicated matters. Among these mixed texts must be placed\n_a_ in SS. Mark, Luke, and John (with occasional Africanisms, and a large\nelement quite peculiar to itself); _c_, which gives us a text very near\nthe Vulgate in St. John; _d_, that apparently insoluble problem; _ff_1 and\n_f_2_g_1_s_\u03b4; _l_, a text which to a large extent is almost pure Vulgate,\nbut which at the same time preserves a number of readings, mostly\ninterpolations, that are quite peculiar.\n\nWe must bear in mind too that even the MSS. which seem to represent most\nconsistently one type of text, show here and there strange vacillations;\n_e_, African throughout as it seems at first sight, must have been copied\nfrom an ordinary European MS. in the last few chapters of St. Luke; the\nparent MS. of _r_ obviously did not contain the _pericope de adultera_,\nfor that passage has been supplied in a Vulgate text; and other instances\nmight be added.\n\n\n\n\n(2) Jerome\u2019s revised Latin Version, commonly called the Vulgate.\n\n\nThe extensive variations then existing between different copies of the Old\nLatin version, and the obvious corruptions which had crept into some of\nthem, prompted Damasus, Bishop of Rome, in A.D. 382, to commit the\nimportant task of a formal revision of the New, and probably of the Old\nTestament, to Jerome, a presbyter born at Stridon on the confines of\nDalmatia and Pannonia, probably a little earlier than A.D. 345. He had\njust returned to Rome, where he had been educated, from his hermitage in\nBethlehem, and in the early ripeness of his scholarship undertook a work\nfor which he was specially qualified, and whose delicate nature he well\nunderstood(62). Whatever prudence and moderation could do in this case to\nremove objections or relieve the scruples of the simple, were not\nneglected by Jerome, who not only made as few changes as possible in the\nOld Latin when correcting its text by the help of \u201cancient\u201d Greek\nmanuscripts(63), but left untouched many words and forms of expression,\nand not a few grammatical irregularities, which in a new translation (as\nhis own subsequent version of the Hebrew Scriptures makes clear) he would\nmost certainly have avoided. The four Gospels, as they stand in the\ntraditional Greek order without Western variation, revised but not\nre-translated on this wise principle, appeared in A.D. 384, accompanied\nwith his celebrated Preface to Damasus (\u201csummus sacerdos\u201d), who died that\nsame year. Notwithstanding his other literary engagements, it is probable\nenough that his recension of the whole New Testament for public use was\ncompleted A.D. 385, though the proof alleged by Mill (N. T., Proleg., \u00a7\n862), and by others after his example, hardly meets the case. In the next\nyear (A.D. 386), in his Commentary on Galat., Ephes., Titus, and Philem.,\nhe indulges in more freedom of alteration as a translator than he had\npreviously deemed advisable; while his new version of the Old Testament\nfrom the Hebrew (completed about A.D. 405) is not founded at all on the\nOld Latin, which was made from the Greek Septuagint; the Psalter excepted,\nwhich he executed at Rome at the same date, and in the same spirit, as the\nGospels. The boldness of his attempt in regard to the Old Testament is\nthat portion of his labours which _alone_ Augustine disapproved(64)\n(August, ad Hieron. Ep. x. tom. ii. p. 18, Lugd. 1586, A.D. 403), and\nindeed it was never received entire by the Western Church, which long\npreferred his slight revision of the Old Latin, made at some earlier\nperiod of his life. Gradually, however, Jerome\u2019s recension of the whole\nBible gained ground, as well through the growing influence of the Church\nof Rome as from its own intrinsic merits: so that when in course of time\nit came to take the place of the older version, it also took its name of\nthe _Vulgate_, or common translation(65). Cassiodorus indeed, in the\nmiddle of the sixth century, is said to have compared the new and old\nLatin (of the New, perhaps of both Testaments) in parallel columns, which\nthus became partially mixed in not a few codices: but Gregory the Great\n(590-604), while confessing that his Church used both \u201cquia sedes\nApostolica, cui auctore Deo praesideo, utr\u00e2que utitur,\u201d (Epist. Dedic. ad\nLeandrum, c. 5), awarded so decided a preference to Jerome\u2019s translation\nfrom the Hebrew, that this form of his Old Testament version, not without\nsome mixture with his translation from the Septuagint (Walton, Polyglott,\nProl. x. pp. 242-244, Wrangham), and his Psalter and New Testament as\nrevised from the Old Latin, came at length to comprise the Vulgate Bible,\nthe only shape in which Holy Scripture was accessible in Western Europe\n(except to a few scattered scholars) during the long night of the Middle\nAges.\n\nBut it was not a pure Vulgate text that was thus used; the old versions\nwent on side by side with it for centuries, and even when they were thus\nnominally superseded, fragments of them found their way into probably all\nexisting MSS. We have already remarked (in _c_ _g_ &c.) how the same MS.\nwill present us with an Old Latin text in some books of the New Testament,\nand with a Vulgate text in others; we shall note the same phenomenon in\nother MSS., especially the British and Irish (see the MSS. numbered 51,\n67, 78, 85, 87 below), which preserve on the whole a pure Hieronymian\ntext, but are coloured here and there from the earlier versions. Variation\nwas still further increased by the apparently numerous local or provincial\nrecensions which were made, sometimes anonymously, sometimes under the\neditorship of famous men. Many of the Irish MSS., for instance, seem to\nhave been corrected immediately from the Greek; but the two most notable\nrecensions of the text came, not, as we might have expected, directly from\nRome, but from Gaul; they are those of Alcuin and Theodulf in the ninth\ncentury. That of Alcuin was undertaken at the desire of Charles the\nGreat(66), who bade him (A.D. 797) review and correct certain copies by\nthe best Latin MSS. without reference to the original Greek. Charles\u2019\nmotive was not so much critical as a wish to obtain a standard Bible for\nchurch use, and consequently of simple and intelligible Latin. Alcuin\nobtained bibles for this purpose from his native Northumbria, the scene at\nthe beginning of the eighth century of an earlier recension of the text;\nfor it was to their monasteries at Wearmouth and Jarrow (_see_ below, p.\n71) that Benedict Biscop and Ceolfrid had brought the bibles and other\nbooks collected in Rome and elsewhere during their journeys; and it was in\nNorthumbria that the magnificent Anglian texts (such as those numbered 29,\n64, 82, 91, &c.) were written, perpetuating the pure Vulgate text\ncontained at that time in the Roman MSS.(67)\n\nAt Christmas in 801, Alcuin presented Charles with a copy of the revised\nBible(68); specimens of this revision are to be found in the MSS. numbered\nbelow, 5, 9, 25, 37, 117, and others.\n\nAbout the same time, Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans (787-821), undertook a\nsimilar revision, and not of a less scientific character, but followed a\ndifferent method. Theodulf, himself a Visigoth and born near Narbonne,\nseems to have done little more than introduce into France the Spanish type\nof MSS., which was mixed, confused, full of interpolations, and of very\nslight critical value(69); this however he corrected carefully and\nenriched with a large number of marginal readings. This revision is\npreserved for us in the Theodulfian Bible at Paris (no. 18 below), less\ncorrectly in its sister volume at Puy (no. 24), the Paris MS. (no. 22\nbelow), and partly also in the correction of the Bible of St. Hubert (no.\n6).\n\nTwo centuries later the text had again degenerated, and our Primate\nLanfranc (1069-89) attempted a similar task, perhaps rather with a view to\ntheology than textual criticism (\u201csecundum orthodoxam fidem studuit\ncorrigere\u201d)(70). In 1109 Stephen Harding, third abbot of Citeaux, made a\nfurther revision, partly from good Latin MSS., partly from the Greek,\npartly, in the Old Testament, from the Hebrew, as he obtained help from\nsome learned Jewish scholars(71). In 1150 his example was followed by\nCardinal Nicolaus Maniacoria(72). As these individual efforts seemed to\nhave but slight success, the task was taken up in the thirteenth century\nmore fully and systematically by bodies of scholars, in the so-called\n\u201cCorrectoria Bibliorum;\u201d here the variant readings with their authorities,\nGreek, Latin, ancient, modern, and citations from the Fathers, were\ncarefully registered. The most noticeable examples of these correctoria\nare (1) the \u201cCorrectorium Parisiense\u201d prepared by the Paris theologians.\nRoger Bacon had a poor opinion of the work done by these students; for\nsome time the MSS. of the Bible that were copied and bought and sold in\nParis, he says, were corrupt; they were bad to begin with, and copied\ncarelessly by the booksellers and their scribes, while the theologians\nwere not learned enough to discover and amend the mistakes(73). This\ncorrectorium is also frequently, but according to Denifle (p. 284)\nwrongly, called _Senonense_, as if it was undertaken at the instance of\nthe Bishop of Sens; there is, however, no _correctorium Senonense_, only\nthe _correctiones Senonenses_, i.e. corrections made in the Paris\nCorrectorium by the Dominicans residing at Sens; (2) the \u201cCorrectorium\u201d of\nthe Dominicans, prepared under the auspices of Hugo de S. Caro, about\n1240, the final corrected form of which is now preserved at Paris, B.N.\nLat. 16719-16722 (_see_ below, p. 70, no. 23)(74); this, however, was\nagain an attempt, not so much to get at Jerome\u2019s actual text as, to bring\nthe Latin text into accordance with the Greek or Hebrew(75); (3) a better\nand more critical revision, the \u201cCorrectorium Vaticanum,\u201d a good MS. of\nwhich is in the Vatican Library (Lat. 3466); the author of this has done\nhis best to restore Jerome\u2019s reading throughout, although well learned in\nGreek and Hebrew; and he has with some probability been identified by\nVercellone with a scholar much praised by Roger Bacon as a \u201csapientissimus\nhomo,\u201d who had spent nearly forty years in the correction of the text(76)\n(Denifle suggests Wilh. de Mara).\n\nThese remedies, partial and temporary as they were, seemed all that was\npossible before the invention of printing; and, indeed, by an unfortunate\nchance, the worst of the three correctoria, the \u201cParisiense,\u201d was made use\nof by Robert Stephen.\n\nAmong the earliest productions of the press, Latin Bibles took a prominent\nposition; and during the first half-century of printing at least 124\neditions were published(77). Of these perhaps the finest is the earliest,\nthe famous \u201cforty-two line\u201d Bible, issued at Mentz between 1452 and 1456,\nin two volumes, and usually ascribed to Gutenberg(78). This is usually\ncalled the \u201cMazarin Bible,\u201d from the copy which first attracted the notice\nof bibliographers having been discovered in the Library of Cardinal\nMazarin; in the New Testament, the order of books is Evv., Paul., Act.,\nCath., Apoc. Mr. Copinger enumerates twenty-five copies on vellum and\npaper as still known to exist; there are two in the British Museum. The\nfirst Bible published at Rome is dated 1471, and was printed by Conrad\nSweynheym and Arnold Pannartz, two vols., folio; the first octavo edition,\nor \u201cpoor man\u2019s Bible,\u201d was printed at Basle in 1491 by Froben. The early\neditions, however, reproduced the current mediaeval type of text, or\ncopied from each other, the only exceptions being those printed by Froben,\nwhose copies, says Mr. Copinger, were sought after, for their accuracy, by\nthe best scholars in Europe, and whose edition of 1502 with the \u201cglossa\nordinaria\u201d sometimes stands quite alone in possessing the true reading.\nThe first, edition with a collection of various readings appears to be one\npublished at Paris in 1504(79), followed by others at Venice and Lyons in\n1511, 1513; and a definite revision of the text was attempted by Cardinal\nXimenes, in the famous Complutensian Polyglott (1514, &c.; see Chap.\nV)(80), in which he made use of the Bible of Alcal\u00e1 (_see_ below, no. 42);\nbut though an advance was made on previous editions, the text was still\nfar from pure. Erasmus, in his famous edition of the Greek Testament,\nappended a Latin translation; this he made himself directly from the\nGreek, but in his notes he discusses the current Vulgate text and gives\nreadings from MSS. which he had examined; of these he mentions those at\nthe Royal Library at Mechlin, St. Paul\u2019s Cathedral, London, Corsendonk\nAustin Priory, Constance Cathedral, St. Donatian (Abbaye des Dunes) of\nBruges; of these the first and third only can be now identified, _see_\nbelow, pp. 84, 81, nos.(81) 134, 109. The first edition of a really\ncritical nature was that of Robert Stephen, in 1528; for this he used\nthree good MSS., the _Exemplar S. Germani parvum_ (Par. lat. 11937), the\nCorbey Bible (Par. lat. 11532-3), and the Bible of St. Denis (Par. lat.\n2); _see_ below, nos. 22, 20, 10; and he published a more important\nedition in 1538-40 (reprinted 1546), in which he made use of seventeen\nMSS., of which the following(82), numbered 19, 21, 22, 100 below, have\nbeen identified. _This edition is practically the foundation of the Modern\nVulgate_, and is cited by Wordsworth as \u03db. Later, John Hentenius, in his\nfolio edition of the Bible, (Louvain, 1547, and often reprinted); cited by\nWordsworth as [Gothic: H] seems to have used about thirty-one MSS. and two\nprinted copies; but as no various readings are cited from individual MSS.,\nthey cannot well be identified; _see_ his preface. Lucas Brugensis (_see_\nhis catalogue at the end of the Hentenian Bible of 1583, p. 6) also gives\na long list of MSS., which seem impossible to be identified(83), and we\nmust also bear in mind the corrected editions published by Th. Vivian\n(Paris), and Junta (Venice), 1534 (both are small copies of the New\nTestament, corrected occasionally from the Greek), Isidore Clarius\n(Venice, 1542), J. Benedictus (Paris, 1558), Paul Eber (1565), and Luke\nOsiander (1578).\n\nWhen the Council of Trent met, the duty of providing for the members of\nthe Church of Rome the most correct recension of the Latin Bible that\nskill and diligence could produce was obviously incumbent on it; and in\none of its earliest sittings (April 8, 1546) the famous decree was passed,\nordaining that of the many published editions of the Holy Scripture \u201chaec\nipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa\necclesia probata est\u201d should be chosen, and \u201cin publicis lectionibus,\ndisputationibus, praedicationibus, et expositionibus pro _authentica_\nhabeatur\u201d (Sess. iv. Decr. 2); and directing that \u201cposthac sacra\nScriptura, potissimum vero haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio quam\nemendatissime imprimatur.\u201d No immediate action, however, was taken in the\nmatter, and for forty years the editions were still printed and published\nby private scholars; the Hentenian, for the time being, becoming almost\nthe standard text of the Roman Catholic Church.\n\nPope Pius IV had indeed begun the task of correcting the Vulgate Bible,\nbut without immediate result, and under his successors the matter still\nrested, till the accession of Sixtus V (1585-90)(84), a Pope as energetic\nin his labours on the Holy Scripture as in other spheres of activity. He\nappointed a commission on the subject, under the presidency of Cardinal\nCarafa; and after they had presented the Pope with the result of their\nwork, in the beginning of 1589, he devoted himself personally to the\nstudy, reading through the whole Bible more than once, and using his best\nendeavours to bring it to the highest pitch of accuracy. The result of\nthis appeared in a folio edition of the Bible in three volumes, in\n1590(85), accompanied by a Bull, in which, after relating the extreme care\nthat had been taken in preparing the volume, Sixtus V declared that it was\nto be considered as the _authentic_ edition recommended by the Council of\nTrent, that it should be taken as the standard of all future reprints, and\nthat all copies should be corrected by it. The edition itself (cited by\nWordsworth as [Gothic: S]) was not without faults, and indeed received a\ngood number of corrections by hand after the proofs were printed off; it\npresents a text more nearly resembling that of Robt. Stephen than that of\nJohn Hentenius. In a few months, however, Sixtus was dead; a number of\nshort-lived Popes succeeded him, and in Jan. 1592, Clement VIII ascended\nthe throne. Almost immediately he gave orders for the copies of the\nSixtine Vulgate to be called in; it has been hitherto supposed _simply_ on\naccount of its inaccuracy, but Professor Nestle (pp. 17 ff.) argues\nreasonably enough that this ground is insufficient, and suggests that the\nrevocation was really due to the influence of the Jesuits, whom Sixtus had\noffended by placing one of Bellarmine\u2019s books on the _Index Librorum\nprohibitorum_. Be that as it may, in the same year the Clementine edition\nof the Vulgate (Wordsworth\u2019s [Gothic: C]) was published, differing from\nthe Sixtine in many places, and presenting a type of text more nearly\nallied to Hentenius\u2019 Bible. To avoid the appearance of a conflict between\nthe two Popes, the Clementine Bible was boldly published under the name of\nSixtus, with a preface by Bellarmine asserting that Sixtus had intended to\nbring out a new edition in consequence of errors that had occurred in the\nprinting of the first, but had been prevented by death; now, in accordance\nwith his desire, the work was completed by his successor. The opportunity,\nhowever, was too good a one for Protestants to miss, and Thomas James in\nhis \u201cBellum Papale sive Concordia discors\u201d (London, 1600), upbraids the\ntwo Popes on their high pretensions and the palpable failure of at least\none, possibly both of them(86).\n\nFrom this time forward the Clementine Vulgate (sometimes under the name of\nClement, sometimes under that of Sixtus, sometimes under both names)(87)\nhas been the standard edition for the Roman Church; by the Bull of 1592,\nevery edition must be assimilated to this one, no word of the text may be\naltered, nor even variant readings printed in the margin(88).\n\nThus the modern attempts at a scientific and critical revision of this\nversion have come from students mainly outside the communion of the Roman\nChurch.\n\nThe design of Bentley for a critical Greek Testament is described below\n(Chap. V); it was obvious that for its prosecution the MSS. of the Vulgate\nwould have to be collated as carefully as those of the Greek text itself;\nand accordingly the variant readings of a good number were collected by\nBentley himself, nos. 3, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71,\n72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 83, 85, 155, 160; other MSS. were collated by his\nfriend and colleague John Walker, who worked much at Paris in 1719 and the\nfollowing years; to him we owe collations of nos. 10, 11, 15, 16, 19, 20,\n21, 52, 96, 97, 102, 151, 164, while he obtained collations of the Tours\nMSS. (nos. 106, 107, 108, 166) from L. Chevalier, through their common\nfriend Sabatier; and of the Oxford MSS. (nos. 86, 87, 89, 90, 148, 161),\nfrom David Casley. Walker died, however, in November, 1741, six months\nbefore the great Bentley, and the projected edition came to naught(89).\nTheir collations have not been published, but are contained in the\nfollowing volumes, in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge: B. 17. 5\ncontaining collations by Walker, Chevalier, Casley, and Bentley; and B.\n17. 15 containing collations by Bentley; and they have been made use of by\nBishop Wordsworth in his edition of the Vulgate(90).\n\nTwo attempts are being made now to restore the text of St. Jerome: that of\nDr. Peter Corssen, of Berlin, and the Oxford edition under the hands of\nthe Bishop of Salisbury. Dr. Corssen\u2019s published results at present\nconsist only of the Epistle to the Galatians (\u201cEpistula ad Galatas,\u201d\nBerlin, Weidmann, 1885), but he has been spending several years in the\naccumulation of material, and other books of the New Testament will\nprobably be published before very long. The Bishop of Salisbury after\nnearly eleven years\u2019 preparation, in conjunction with the Rev. H. J. White\nand other friends, published the first volume of his edition, containing\nSt. Matthew\u2019s Gospel, in 1889; St. Mark following in 1891, and St. Luke in\n1892; and it is hoped that the rest of the New Testament may be published\nin due course. More than thirty MSS., those numbered 5, 6, 18, 21, 28, 29,\n37, 41, 51, 56, 64, 67, 68, 72, 77, 78, 82, 85, 86, 87, 91, 97, 98, 106,\n115, 128, 129, 130, 132, 147, 148, 153, 154, 159, 175 below, have been\ncarefully collated throughout for this edition, and a large number of\nothers are cited in all the important passages, besides _correctoria_, and\nthe more noticeable of the earlier printed Bibles.\n\nTo enumerate all the known MSS. of the Old Latin version was an easy task;\nto enumerate those of the Vulgate is almost impossible. It is computed\nthat there are at least 8,000 scattered throughout the various Libraries\nof Europe, and M. Samuel Berger, the greatest living authority on the\nsubject, has examined more than 800 in Paris alone. Nor would an\nexhaustive enumeration be of much critical value, as a large number of\ncomparatively late MSS. probably contain the same corrupt type of text.\n\nIn the following list it is hoped that most of the really important MSS.\nare included; the writer has had the unwearied and invaluable aid of M.\nSamuel Berger(91), besides that of many other kind friends, in its\ncompilation. It has been thought best to arrange the MSS. on a double\nsystem; _first_ according to their contents:\u2014A. Bibles, whole or\nincomplete; B. New Testament; C. Gospels; D. Acts and onwards; E. Epistles\nand Apocalypse; and _secondly_ under each of these heads, A-E, according\nto countries (alphabetically):\u2014Austria, British Isles, France, Germany,\nHolland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United States.\n\nFor other lists the student is referred to Le Long, Bibliotheca Sacra, ed.\n1723, vol. i. p. 235; Vercellone, Variae Lectiones, Romae, 1860, vol. i.\np. lxxxiii f., ii. p. xvii f.; Berger, p. 374 f.; and for a fuller\ntreatment of the history and text of the Vulgate, to Bishop Westcott\u2019s\narticle \u201cVulgate\u201d in Smith\u2019s Bible Dictionary; Kaulen, Geschichte d.\nVulgata, Mainz, 1865; Fritzsche, \u201cLateinische Bibel\u00fcbersetzungen\u201d in\nHerzog, Realencyclop\u00e4die, second ed., vol. viii; P. Corssen in Die Trierer\nAdahandschr., Leipzig, 1889; and the important work of S. Berger, Histoire\nde la Vulgate pendant les premiers si\u00e8cles du moyen \u00e2ge, Paris, 1893; to\neconomize space, this will be quoted below simply as \u201cBerger.\u201d\n\nAfter the list of MSS. are added indices of the various notations by which\nrespectively Bentley, Tischendorf, Wordsworth, &c., have cited them.\n\n\n    A. BIBLES.\n\n    a. _Austria: Vienna._\n\n    1. Imperial Library, Lat. 1190. Bible [early ix], probably copied\n    in the Abbey of St. Vedast at Arras, during the time of the Abbot\n    Rado (795-815); Alcuinian poems. _See_ M. Denis\u2019 Catalogue, i. p.\n    167, and Berger, p. 108 f.\n\n    b. _British Isles: British Museum._\n\n    2. Reg. I. B. xii. Bible [xiii], written in 1254 by William of\n    Hales for Thomas de la Wile, \u201cMagister Scolarum Sarum.\u201d Cited by\n    Bishop Wordsworth as W, and incorporated by him into his\n    _apparatus criticus_ as furnishing a fair specimen of the current\n    mediaeval text.\n\n    3. Reg. I. E. vii, viii. Bible [x], in two large folio volumes,\n    the first few pages of each volume, and the last pages of the\n    second, being supplied in a twelfth-century hand; contains\n    stichometry to several of the books, both in the Old and in the\n    New Testaments; order of New Test., Ev., Act., Cath., Paul. (Laod.\n    after Hebr.), Apoc.; Bentley\u2019s R.\n\n    4. Harl. 4772, 4773. Bible [xiii], in 2 vols., formerly belonging\n    to the Capucin Monastery of Montpellier; the second volume appears\n    to be somewhat later than the first. The MS. both in handwriting\n    and text seems to come from the south of France. _See_ Berger, p.\n    76.\n\n    5 5. Addit. 10,546. The noble Alcuinian Bible [ix], known usually\n    as \u201cCharlemagne\u2019s\u2019 Bible,\u201d or the Bible of Grandval (near Basle);\n    became the property of the British Museum in 1836. Probably\n    written about the time of Charles the Bald; a good specimen of the\n    Alcuinian revision; _see_ the Museum Catalogue, i pl. 42, 43, and\n    Westwood, Pal. Sacra Pict., p. 25. Wordsworth\u2019s K; collated by the\n    Revs. G. M. Youngman and H. J. White.\n\n    6. Addit. 24,142. Bible [ix], formerly belonging to the Monastery\n    of St. Hubert in the Ardennes; written in small minuscule hand,\n    strongly resembling that of the Theodulfian Bible (_see_ below,\n    no. 18), three columns to a page; contains Old Test., and in New\n    Test. Ev., Paul., Cath., as far as 1 Pet. iv. 3. Facsimile in\n    \u201cCatalogue of Anc. MSS. in the B. M.\u201d p. 5, pl. 45. Wordsworth\u2019s\n    H.\n\n    7. Addit. 28,107. The second volume of a Bible in large folio\n    [dated 1097], 240 leaves, from St. Remacle\u2019s at Stavelot, near\n    Li\u00e8ge; with peculiar capitula, and a stichometry. _See_ Lightfoot,\n    Journal of Philology, vol. iii. no. 6, p. 197 f.; Facsimile in\n    Palaeogr. Soc. ii. pl. 92, 93.\n\n    c. _France: Dijon._\n\n    8. Public Library, 9 bis. Bible, 4 vols, [xii], corrected\n    throughout by Stephen Harding, third abbot of Citeaux; _see_\n    above, p. 60.\n\n    _Paris._\n\n    9. B. N. Lat. 1, formerly 35,612. Bible [middle ix], 423 leaves,\n    fol., 50 x 38 cent., minuscule. This splendid MS., with pictures\n    and initials, was presented to Charles the Bald by Vivian, abbot\n    of St. Martin of Tours, and was for a long time in the Cathedral\n    treasury at Metz; it was given by the Chapter of Metz to Colbert\n    in 1675. _See_ Delisle, Cab. des MSS., iii. p. 234 ff.; Berger, p.\n    215 f.; Le Long, i. p. 237. Alcuinian text.\n\n    10. B. N. Lat. 2, formerly 3561 (not, as Le Long and Walker say,\n    3562). The Bible of St. Denis or of Charles the Bald [ix], 444\n    leaves, fol., minuscule, with fine initial letters, contains\n    verses in praise of Charles the Bald; in the N. T. the Apoc. is\n    wanting. _See_ O.L. Bibl. T., i. p. 55; Delisle, Cab. des MSS., i.\n    p. 200, and pl. xxviii. 1, 4, 5; Les Bibles de Th\u00e9odulfe, p. 7; De\n    Bastard, c-civ; Jorand, Grammatogr. du ixe si\u00e8cle, Paris, 1837;\n    Silvestre, Pal. Univ., clxxi; Berger, p. 287 f. Walker\u2019s \u03b5; used\n    previously by R. Stephen in his Bible of 1528.\n\n    11. Lat. 3, formerly Reg. 3562. Bible [middle ix], fol., thick\n    minuscule; parts of the Apoc. have been supplied by a later hand.\n    Belonged first to the Monastery of Glanfeuil, then to the Abbey of\n    St. Maur des Foss\u00e9s near Charenton, the library of which was\n    acquired by the St. Germain Abbey in 1716; a good specimen of the\n    Alcuinian revision. _See_ Delisle, Cab. des MSS., pl. xxv. 1, 2,\n    xxix. 4; Berger, p. 213 f. Walker\u2019s \u03b7.\n\n    12. Lat. 4, formerly Colbert 157, 158, then Reg. 357112.13; 2\n    vols., fol., 53.5 x 33 cent, [ix or x]; 42 contains 193 leaves,\n    with Psalms, Ev., Act., Cath., Apoc., Paul. This MS. was given to\n    Colbert by the Canons of Puy, and called \u201cCodex Aniciensis.\u201d The\n    first hand presents an Alcuinian text, but a second hand has added\n    a large number of remarkable variant readings, especially in the\n    Acts and Cath. Epp. It appears to belong to Languedoc. _See_\n    Berger, p. 73.\n\n    13. Lat. 6. Bible in 4 vols. [x], fol., 48 x 33.5 cent., from the\n    Abbey of Rosas in Catalonia. The fourth volume (64) contains the\n    New Test. (113 f.) in following order, Ev., Act., Cath., Paul.\n    (Laod. between Col. and Thess.), Apoc. Valuable text, the first\n    hand contains a large number of interesting and Old Latin\n    readings; and in the Acts, the second hand has added a number of\n    Old Latin variants in the margin. From the Noailles Library; _see_\n    Berger, p. 24.\n\n    14. Lat. 7, formerly Reg. 3567, one of Card. Mazarin\u2019s MSS. Bible,\n    fol., 51 x 34.5 cent. [xi probably], with fine illuminations;\n    order of books in New Test., Ev., Act., Cath., Paul., Apoc.\n    Interesting text in the Acts, and strongly resembling the second\n    hand of Lat. 42, this MS. was also probably written in Languedoc.\n    Facsimile in De Bastard. _See_ Berger, p. 73.\n\n    15. Lat. 45 and 93, formerly Reg. 3563-4. Bible [late ix], fol.,\n    thick minuscule; no. 93 has 261 leaves, the New Test. (Ev., Act.,\n    Cath., Paul., Apoc.), commencing on fol. 156. This MS. belonged\n    originally to the Monastery of St. Riquier on the Somme;\n    interesting text, especially in the Acts and Cath. Epp. Walker\u2019s\n    \u03b8. Berger, p. 96 f.\n\n    16. Lat. 47, formerly Reg. 3564a (Faurianus 32, i.e. in the\n    library of Antoine Faure). Part of a Bible [xi], fol., 176 leaves\n    minuscule; closely resembling no. 11 (Lat. 3) in text and perhaps\n    even more valuable; much _mut._ in N. T. Walker\u2019s \u03ba.\n\n    17. Lat. 140. Bible [xv], written in Germany, and bearing the name\n    and arms of a Tyrolese, Joachim Schiller ab Herdern. Order of\n    books in the New Test., Ev., Paul., Apoc., Cath., Act. Interesting\n    text, especially in the Acts, where it is more or less mixed;\n    examined by S. Berger.\n\n    18. Lat. 9380. Bible [ix], in beautiful and minute minuscule. The\n    famous Theodulfian Bible, formerly belonging to the Cathedral of\n    Orleans, and bearing such a strong resemblance to the other\n    Theodulfian Codex at Puy (_see_ below, no. 24), that M. Delisle\n    declares many pages look almost like proofs struck from the same\n    type. It bears a strong resemblance also to the St. Hubert Bible\n    (Brit. Mus. Add. 24,142, _see_ no. 6), though it is written in a\n    smaller hand; the Hubert text has been throughout assimilated to\n    this. _See_ Berger, p. 149 f.; Delisle, Cab. des MSS., pl. xxi. 3,\n    and Les Bibles de Th\u00e9odulfe, Paris, 1879. Wordsworth\u2019s \u0398; collated\n    by Revs. C. Wordsworth and H. J. White.\n\n    19. Lat. 11,504-5, formerly St. Germain 3, 4, afterwards 16, 17.\n    Bible [ix], fol., 199 and 215 leaves, minuscule; dated 822. New\n    Test. contains Ev., Act., Rom., 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil.,\n    Col., 1 and 2 Thess., 1 Tim.; then a lacuna; Apoc., Cath. _See_\n    O.L.B.T., i. p. 57; Del., Cab. des MSS., pl. xxiv; Berger, p. 93.\n    Walker\u2019s \u03bf2; he collated Act., Cath., Paul., Apoc.\n\n    20. Lat. 11,532, 11,533, formerly at Corbey, afterwards St.\n    Germain 1, 2, then 14, 15; 2 vols. Bible [ix], fol., minuscules;\n    probably written after 855 A.D., the year of the accession of\n    Lothair II, who is mentioned in an inscription at the end of the\n    book. Order of books in the New Test., Ev., Act., Cath., Paul.,\n    Apoc. Walker\u2019s \u03bd; he collated Act., Cath., Paul., Apoc., not Ev.;\n    see Wordsworth, O.L.B.T., i. p. 57; Berger, p. 104 f.\n\n    21. Lat. 11,553, described above (p. 47) as _g_1. Old Latin text\n    in St. Matthew; in the rest of the New Test, a Vulgate text, but\n    with strong admixture of Old Latin elements. Order of books in New\n    Test., Ev., Act., Cath., Apoc, Paul. Wordsworth\u2019s G, Walker\u2019s \u03bc;\n    _see_ also Berger, p. 65 ff.\n\n    22. Lat. 11,937, formerly St. Germain 9, then 645. First volume of\n    Bible [ix], 4to, 179 leaves, containing the Old Test., but\n    incomplete. This MS. was the \u201cGerm, parv.\u201d of R. Stephen, who\n    cites it also in Matt, v-viii; the volume, however, containing the\n    New Testament has since disappeared. _See_ Delisle, Les Bibles de\n    Th\u00e9odulfe, p. 28.\n\n    23. Lat. 16,719-16,722. Bible [xiii], in 4 vols., corrected\n    throughout by the Dominicans under the auspices of Hugo de St.\n    Caro, _see_ above, p. 60, often called the Bible of St. Hugo de\n    St. Caro.\n\n    _Puy._\n\n    24. Cathedral Library. The famous Bible [viii or ix], written\n    under the direction of Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans, and closely\n    resembling the Paris Codex B. N. Lat. 9380, though not of equal\n    critical value (_see_ above, p. 69, no. 18). Described by Delisle,\n    Les Bibles de Th\u00e9odulfe; _see_ also Le Long, i. p. 235; Berger, p.\n    171 f.\n\n    d. _Germany: Bamberg._\n\n    25. Royal Library, A. I. 5. Bible [ix], large folio, 423 leaves.\n    One of the finest examples of the Alcuinian recension, and a\n    typical specimen of the second period of Caroline writing and\n    ornamentation. Written in the monastery of St. Martin at Tours.\n    Apocalypse wanting. _See_ Leitschuh, F\u00fchrer durch d. kgl. Bibl. zu\n    Bamberg, 1889, p. 82. Wordsworth\u2019s B2 in Acts &c.; collated by the\n    Rev. H. J. White.\n\n    _Metz._\n\n    26. Public Library, no. 7. Second half of Bible [early ix],\n    minuscule. Mixed text, with Languedocian and Irish\n    characteristics. _See_ Berger, p. 100.\n\n    _W\u00fcrzburg_(92).\n\n    27. Mp. th. fol. max. 1. Bible [xi], 403 leaves, large folio,\n    formerly belonging to the Cathedral Library. Contains the whole\n    Bible except Pauline Epp. and Book of Baruch, which, together with\n    the Epistle to the Laodiceans, have been abstracted.\n\n    e. _Italy: La Cava._\n\n    28. Corpo di Cava (near Salerno); Benedictine Abbey. The\n    well-known \u201cCodex Cavensis\u201d of the whole Bible [prob. ix], written\n    in Spain, probably in Castile or Leon, in small, round Visigothic\n    minuscules, by a scribe Danila; a copy was made by the Abbate de\n    Rossi early in this century, and is now in the Vatican (Lat.\n    8484). A good representative of the Spanish type of text, and\n    closely resembling the Codex Toletanus (no. 41). _See_ Dom\n    Bernardo Gaetani de Aragona, Cod. diplomat. Cavensis, vol. i,\n    Naples, 1873; Silvestre, Pal. univ., iii; L. Ziegler, Sitzungsber.\n    der k. bayr. Akad. der Wissenschaften phil. phil. Klasse, Munich,\n    1876, p. 655 f.; Pertz, Archiv, v. p. 542. Collated by Bishop\n    Wordsworth. Tischendorf\u2019s _cav._, Wordsworth\u2019s C.\n\n    _Florence._\n\n    29. Laurentian Library. The far-famed Codex Amiatinus of the whole\n    Bible [end of vii or beginning of viii], 1029 leaves, large folio.\n    Till lately it was supposed to have been written by a sixth\n    century scribe in Italy; but now, principally through the\n    acuteness of G. B. de Rossi and the late Professor Hort, it has\n    been proved that it was written by the order of the abbot Ceolfrid\n    either at Wearmouth or Jarrow, and sent by him as a present to the\n    Pope at Rome in 715 A.D. Afterwards placed in the Monastic Library\n    at Monte Amiata, whence it was again sent to Rome for collation at\n    the time of the Sixtine revision (_see_ p. 64). The New Testament\n    was badly edited by F. F. Fleck, 1840; carefully, though not\n    without a few slips, by Tischendorf in 1850 (second ed. with some\n    emendations 1854); and by Tregelles in his Greek New Test. 1857.\n    Facsimiles in Zangemeister and Wattenb., Exempla codd. lat., pl.\n    35, and Palaeogr. Soc. ii. pl. 65, 66. Of the recent literature on\n    this MS., and especially on the first quaternion, with its lists\n    of the books of the Bible closely resembling those of Cassiodorus,\n    _see_ G. B. de Rossi, La Biblia offerta da Ceolfr. Abb. al\n    Sepolcro di S. Pietro, Rome, 1887; H. J. White, The Codex\n    Amiatinus and its Birthplace, in \u201cStudia Biblica,\u201d ii. p. 273\n    (Oxford, 1890); P. Corssen, Die Bibeln des Cassiodorus und der\n    Cod. Amiatinus, in the \u201cJahrb. f. prot. Theologie,\u201d 1883 and 1891;\n    Th. Zahn, Gesch. d. ntl. Kanons, ii. p. 267 f. Tischendorf\u2019s\n    _am._, Wordsworth\u2019s A.\n\n    _Milan._\n\n    30. Ambrosian Library, E. 26 _inf._ Part of a Bible [ix or x],\n    commencing with Chron. and finishing with Pauline Epp. Probably\n    written at Bobbio. Mixed text, especially interesting in St.\n    Paul\u2019s Epp.; does not contain the last three verses of Romans;\n    _see_ Berger, p. 138.\n\n    31. E. 53 _inf._ Bible [ix or x], much mutilated; 169 leaves,\n    containing the sacred books in the following order: Octateuch,\n    Jerem., Acts, Cath., Apoc., Kings, Solomon, Job, Tobit, Judith,\n    Esther, Esdras, Maccabees, Ezek., Dan., minor prophets, Isa.,\n    Pauline Epp.; i.e. the order in which they are read in\n    ecclesiastical lessons during the year. Formerly at Biasca, a\n    village in the valley of Tessin on the St. Gothard. Vulgate text,\n    but mixed with Old Latin elements; interesting as containing not\n    only the Ep. to the Laodiceans but also the apocryphal\n    correspondence between St. Paul and the Corinthians (cp. the Laon\n    MS., no. 161). _See_ Carri\u00e8re and Berger, La correspondance apocr.\n    de St. Paul et des Corinthiens, Paris, 1891.\n\n    _Monte Cassino._\n\n    32. Monastery of Monte Cassino: codd. 552 and 557 are mentioned by\n    Corssen (Ep. ad Galatas, Berlin, 1885, p. 15) as worthy of note:\n    552 Bible [xi], 557 Bible [xii-xiii], but both containing an\n    ancient text. Order of books in both is Ev., Act., Cath., Apoc.,\n    Paul. (Ev. lacking in 552). _See_ also \u201cBibliotheca Casinensis,\u201d\n    ii. pp. 313-352.\n\n    _Monza._\n\n    33. Collegiate Archives, G. 1. Bible [ix], written at Tours by the\n    scribe Amalricus, who was Archbishop of Tours: specimen of the\n    Alcuinian recension and resembling in text and in outward\n    appearance and writing the Parisian Bible, B. N. Lat. 3 (no. 11\n    above). _See_ Corssen, Epist. ad Galatas, p. 10; Berger, p. 221.\n\n    _Rome._\n\n    34. Vat. Lat. 5729, Codex Farfensis. Bible [xi], in one enormous\n    volume; in good preservation, written in three columns. _See_\n    Vercellone, Var. Lect., ii. p. xvii, and Le Long, i. p. 235; the\n    latter wrongly cites it as 6729.\n\n    35. Bible of S. Maria ad Martyres (La Rotonda, Pantheon). Bible\n    [x], large folio. The books in the New Test. are in the following\n    order: Ev., Act., Cath., Apoc., Paul.; used by Vercellone.\n\n    36. The splendid Bible [ix] preserved in the Library of \u201cS. Paul\n    without the walls;\u201d belonged to Charles the Bald, and preserves an\n    Alcuinian text, strongly resembling V. _See_ Vercellone, Var.\n    Lect., i. p. lxxxv; Le Long, i. p. 237; Berger, p. 292.\n\n    37. Vallicellian Library, B. vi. Bible [ix], 347 leaves, large\n    4to, Caroline minuscules. The Church of Sta. Maria in Vallicella\n    belongs to the Oratorian Fathers, and Bianchini himself was an\n    Oratorian; he refers to this MS. in the \u201cEvang. Quadr.,\u201d ii. pl.\n    viii. p. 600, and it is probably the best extant specimen of the\n    Alcuinian revision. Bp. Wordsworth collated it, and cites it as V;\n    _see_ also Berger, p. 197.\n\n    f. _Spain: Leon._\n\n    38. Cathedral Library, 15. Fragments of Bible [vii], palimpsest;\n    40 leaves, semi-uncial, under some writing in a Visigothic hand of\n    the tenth century. Contains in New Test. portions of Acts, 2 Cor.,\n    Col., and 1 John. Vulgate base but with Old Latin elements,\n    especially in 1 John. Discovered by Dr. Rudolf Beer, who is\n    proposing to publish the fragments. _See_ Berger, p. 8.\n\n    39. Cathedral Library, 6. Second volume of a Bible [x], formerly\n    belonging to the Convent of SS. Cosmas and Damian in the Valle de\n    Torio, and thought to date from the time of Ordogno II (913-923);\n    written by two scribes, Vimara, a presbyter, and John, a deacon;\n    minuscule, like Cavensis, only larger. Order of books in the New\n    Test. is Ev. (followed by a commentary), Act., Paul. (including\n    Laod.), Cath., Apoc.; examined by Bp. Wordsworth in 1882. _See_\n    Berger, p. 17.\n\n    40. Church of San Isidro; Codex Gothicus Legionensis. Bible [x],\n    folio, dated 998 of the Spanish era, i.e. 960 A.D.; minuscule of\n    the same type as Cavensis, only larger. Order of books in the New\n    Test.: Ev., Paul., Cath., Act., Apoc. Written \u201ca notario Sanctioni\n    presbitero,\u201d and was collated on behalf of the Sixtine revision of\n    the Vulgate for Card. Carafa, and by him called the Codex\n    Gothicus; this collation is preserved in the Vatican, Lat. 4859.\n    Examined by Bp. Wordsworth in 1882. _See_ Berger, p. 18.\n\n    _Madrid._\n\n    41. National Library. Bible [x? Berger would date it viii], in\n    three columns, the famous \u201cCodex Toletanus.\u201d According to a notice\n    in the MS. itself, its \u201cauctor possessorque\u201d (auctor = legal\n    owner?), Servandus of Seville, gave it to his friend John, Bishop\n    of Cordova, who in turn offered it in the year 988 to the see of\n    Seville; thence it passed in time to Toledo and ultimately to\n    Madrid. It is written in Visigothic characters, and presents the\n    Spanish type of text, strongly resembling the Cod. Cavensis (no.\n    28). Collated for the Sixtine revision by Chr. Palomares, whose\n    work, written in a Hentenian Bible of 1569, is now preserved in\n    the Vatican (Lat. 9508); it was not, however, used in that\n    revision, as it reached Cardinal Carafa too late. Bianchini\n    published the collation in his \u201cVindiciae Can. Script.,\u201d Rome,\n    1740, pp. xlvii-ccxvi (= Migne, Patr. Lat., tom. xxix). Bp.\n    Wordsworth collated the New Testament in 1882. _See_ Berger, p.\n    12; Merino, Escuela Paleogr., pl. v. pp. 53-9, Madrid, 1780; Mu\u00f1oz\n    y Rivero, Paleografia Visigoda, pl. viii, ix, Madrid, 1881; Ewald\n    and Loewe, Exempla Scr. Visig., pp. 7, 8, pl. ix. Tischendorf\u2019s\n    _tol._; Wordsworth\u2019s T.\n\n    42. University Library, no. 31: Codex Complutensis, i.e. of Alcal\u00e1\n    (= Complutum). Bible [ix or x]; in the New Test. Laod. follow\n    Hebrews. Plainly a Spanish text, but with peculiar readings in the\n    Epistles, and especially in the Acts. Purchased at Toledo by\n    Cardinal Ximenes; described by Berger, p. 22, and Westcott,\n    Vulgate, p. 1705.\n\n    43. University Library, no. 32. Second volume of a Bible [ix-x],\n    folio, containing from the Proverbs to the Apocalypse, in a\n    Visigothic hand; the ornaments somewhat resembling those of the\n    Codex Cavensis. It formerly belonged to Cardinal Ximenes: _see_\n    Berger, p. 15.\n\n    44. Royal Academy of History (Calle del Leon 21), No. F. 186. The\n    second volume of a Bible [x], small folio, written by the monk\n    Quisius. It formerly belonged to the Abbey of St. Emilianus (S.\n    Millan de la Cogolla), between Burgos and Logro\u00f1o. Order of books\n    in New Test.: Ev., Act., Paul., Cath., Apoc. (fragmentary). The\n    handwriting resembles Cavensis, though it is slightly larger, and\n    the text also belongs to the Spanish group. Examined by Bp.\n    Wordsworth in 1882; _see_ Berger, p. 16.\n\n    g. _Switzerland: Berne._\n\n    45. University Library, A. 9. Bible [xi], originally belonging to\n    Vienne in Dauphin\u00e9. Contains an interesting text in Cath. Epp. and\n    Acts, where it seems to be much under Theodulfian influence or\n    that of the texts belonging to the South of France; the\n    corrections too are interesting. _See_ Berger, p. 62 f.\n\n    _Einsiedeln._\n\n    46. Einsiedeln Library, no. 1. Bible [early x], possibly copied at\n    Einsiedeln; corrected in accordance with a text like that of St.\n    Gall 75. _See_ Berger, p. 132.\n\n    47. Einsiedeln Library, nos. 5-7. Bible [x], also corrected and\n    bearing strong resemblance to the one above; same order of books\n    as in 31.\n\n    _St. Gall._\n\n    48. Stiftsbibliothek, no. 11 [viii]. A collection of extracts\n    composed for the use of the monks; written by the monk Winithar.\n    Vulgate text but with a mixture of Old Latin readings. _See_\n    Berger, p. 121 f.\n\n    49. Stiftsbibliothek, no. 75. [ix], large folio; contains complete\n    Bible; corrected by the abbot Hartmotus. _See_ Berger, p. 129.\n\n    _Present position unknown._\n\n    50. Bible [xiii, but copied from an early exemplar], edited by\n    Matthaei (N. T.) in the Act., Epp., Apoc.; _see_ his preface to\n    Cath. Epp., p. xxx f.; belonged to Paul Demidov. Formerly at\n    Lyons; Tischendorf\u2019s _demid._\n\n    B. NEW TESTAMENTS.\n\n    a. _British Isles: Dublin._\n\n    51. Trin. Coll. The Book of Armagh. New Test. [ix], written by\n    Ferdomnach in a beautiful and small Irish hand. Order of books:\n    Evv., Paul. (Laod. after Col.), Cath., Apoc., Acts. The New Test.\n    was transcribed for Bp. Wordsworth by the Rev. G. M. Youngman; the\n    late Dr. Reeves, Bp. of Down, intended to edit it, and his work is\n    now (1893) being prepared for the press by Professors Gwynn and\n    Bernard, of Dublin. _See_ also \u201cNational MSS. of Ireland,\u201d i. pp.\n    xiv-xvii, plates xxv-xxix; Berger, p. 31 f. Wordsworth\u2019s D.\n\n    b. _France: Paris._\n\n    52. B. N. Lat. 250, formerly Reg. 3572; from Saint-Denis. New\n    Test. [ix], folio, minuscule: Evv., Act., Cath., Paul. (Laod.\n    after Col., which in turn is after Thess.), Apoc. Walker\u2019s \u03bb; he\n    collated Cath. and Apoc. Alcuinian text, _see_ Berger, p. 243.\n\n    53. Lat. 254. New Test. [xii]; has been described above as _c_ (p.\n    45). Text is Old Latin in the Gospels, Vulgate in the rest of the\n    New Test. _See_ Berger, p. 74.\n\n    54. Lat. 321, formerly belonging to Baluze. New Testament [early\n    xiii], written in the South of France, probably between\n    Carcassonne and Narbonne. Very interesting text; in the Epistles\n    and Acts there are a large number of Old Latin readings; the text\n    of the Acts is especially mixed; orthography incorrect. Berger, p.\n    77.\n\n    55. Lat. 342, formerly Colbert 6155. New Testament [early xiii],\n    written in the South of France; contains large mixture of Old\n    Latin readings throughout; examined by Berger.\n\n    c. _Germany: Fulda._\n\n    56. Abbey of Fulda in Prussia. The well-known Codex Fuldensis [vi]\n    of the New Testament, written for Bishop Victor of Capua, and\n    corrected by him A.D. 541-546. The Gospels are arranged in one\n    narrative, based on the order of Tatian\u2019s Diatessaron, but with a\n    Vulgate text; the Ep. to the Laodiceans follows that to the\n    Colossians. Described by Schannat in 1723 (Vindemiae Literariae\n    Collectio, pp. 218-21), collated by Lachmann and Ph. Buttmann in\n    1839, and edited in full by E. Ranke (Marburg, 1868); _see_ also\n    Th. Zahn, Tatian\u2019s Diatessaron, Erlangen, 1881, pp. 298-313; S.\n    Hemphill, The Diatessaron of Tatian, Dublin, 1888, pp. x, xi,\n    xxiv-v. Facsimiles in Ranke, and Zangem. and Wattenb., Exempla, p.\n    34. Tischendorf\u2019s _fuld._; Wordsworth\u2019s F.\n\n    d. _Sweden: Stockholm._\n\n    57. Royal Library: Codex Gigas Holmiensis [xiii]; Old Latin text\n    in Acts and Apoc., Vulgate in the New Testament; described above,\n    p. 51.\n\n    C. GOSPELS.\n\n    a. _Austria: Vienna._\n\n    58. _theo_ or _theotisc_ refers to the Latin version of the\n    \u201cFragmenta Theotisca versionis ant. Evang. S. Matthaei ...\n    ediderunt Steph. Endlicher et Hoffmann Fallerslebensis;\n    Vindobonae, 1834\u201d (2nd edit. cura T. F. Massmann; Viennae, 1841);\n    15 leaves [viii], containing St. Matt. viii. 33 to the end of the\n    Gospel, but much mutilated; the _recto_ side of each leaf contains\n    the Theotisc or Old German version, mixed with Gothic, the _verso_\n    contains the Latin; quoted by Tischendorf in Matt. xx. 28, where\n    it has the common Latin addition. _See_ also J. A. Schmeller,\n    Ammonii Alexandrini Harmonia Evangeliorum, Vienna, 1841.\n\n    b. _British Isles: British Museum._\n\n    59. Reg. I. A. xviii. Gospels [x], 199 leaves, written in Caroline\n    minuscules, originally belonging to King Athelstan, who gave it to\n    St. Augustine\u2019s monastery at Canterbury; _mut._ after John xviii.\n    21; _see_ British Museum Catalogue, p. 37. Bentley\u2019s O.\n\n    60. Reg. I. B. vii. Gospels [viii], 155 leaves, written in\n    England. The Rev. G. M. Youngman, who has examined this MS.\n    carefully, says the text is very interesting, though rather mixed;\n    has been corrected throughout. Bentley\u2019s H in Trin. Coll. Cam. B.\n    17. 14. _See_ Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 19, pl. 16, and Morin,\n    Liber Comicus, p. 426, 1893.\n\n    61. Reg. I. D. ix. Gospels [x], a handsome 4to volume of 150\n    leaves, the capitals throughout written in gold, and the initial\n    page to each Gospel finely illuminated; contains prefatory matter\n    and Capitulare, but is _mut._ after John xxi. 18. Formerly\n    belonged to King Canute, as an Anglo-Saxon inscription on fol. 43\n    _b_ testifies. _See_ Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS., p. 141; Pal.\n    Sacra Pict., pl. 23. Bentley\u2019s A.\n\n    62. Reg. I. E. vi. Gospels [end of viii], imperfect; 77 leaves,\n    half uncial characters, written in England; formerly belonging to\n    St. Augustine\u2019s, Canterbury, and in all probability the second\n    volume of the famous \u201cBiblia Gregoriana\u201d mentioned by Elmham.\n    _See_ Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS., pl. 14, 15; British Museum\n    Catalogue, p. 20, pl. 17, 18; Palaeogr. Soc, i. pl. 7; Berger, p.\n    35. Bentley\u2019s P.\n\n    63. Cotton Tib. A. ii [early x], written in Germany; Gospels, 216\n    leaves, written in Caroline minuscules, once the property of King\n    Athelstan; _see_ British Museum Catalogue, p. 35. Bentley\u2019s E.\n\n    64. Cotton Nero D. iv. The magnificent Lindisfarne Gospels [vii or\n    viii], rivalling even the Book of Kells (no. 78) in the beauty of\n    their writing and the richness of their ornamentation. Written by\n    Eadfrith, Bishop of Lindisfarne, 698-721 A.D., and other scribes;\n    preserve a very pure text, agreeing closely with the Codex\n    Amiatinus (no. 29), sometimes against all other known Vulgate MSS.\n    The Latin is accompanied by an interlinear version in the\n    Northumbrian dialect. Edited, rather carelessly, for the Surtees\n    Soc., by Stevenson and Waring, 1854-65; and W. W. Skeat, The\n    Gospel of St. Matthew; Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions,\n    Cambr., 1887; _see_ also Westwood, Anglo-Saxon and Ir. MSS., pp.\n    33-9, pl. 12, 13; Palaeogr. Sacra Pict., p. 45; Palaeogr. Soc., i.\n    pl. 3-6, 22; Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 15, pl. 8-11; Berger, p. 39;\n    Morin, Liber Comicus, p. 426. The Surtees text revised by the Rev.\n    G. M. Youngman. Wordsworth\u2019s and Bentley\u2019s Y.\n\n    65. Cotton Otho B. ix. Gospels [x?], nearly destroyed by fire;\n    there are twelve small fragments containing portions of prefatory\n    matter, and of SS. Matt., Mark, and John, in small Caroline\n    minuscules, but with a large capital at the beginning of St. Mark\n    and interlaced ornamentation. Bentley\u2019s D.\n\n    66. Cotton Otho C. v. St. Matt. and St. Mark [probably viii],\n    written in Saxon hand, and _possibly_ part of the same MS. as\n    Bentley\u2019s C (_see_ no. 76). This Manuscript is now simply a\n    collection of the shrivelled fragments of sixty-four leaves which\n    survived the fire of 1731; the last leaf contains Mark xvi. 6-20.\n    _See_ Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 20; the editors, however, doubt\n    whether it is part of the same MS. as no. 76. Bentley cites these\n    fragments as \u03c6.\n\n    67. Egerton 609. Gospels [viii or ix], formerly belonging to the\n    Monastery of Marmoutier (Majus Monasterium) near Tours, where it\n    was numbered 102. It is written, however, in an Irish hand and\n    presents an Irish type of text; it is much _mut._, especially in\n    St. Mark. _See_ Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 30. Cited by Calmet,\n    Tischendorf, &c., as _mm_; collated again by the Rev. G. M.\n    Youngman, and cited by Wordsworth as E.\n\n    68. Harl. 1775. Gospels [vi or vii], in small but very beautiful\n    uncial hand, and with an extremely valuable text. Formerly\n    numbered 4582 in the Biblioth\u00e8que Royale at Paris; stolen from\n    thence by Jean Aymon, it passed into the possession of Harley,\n    Earl of Oxford, and then to the British Museum. Collated in part\n    by Griesbach, Symbolae Criticae, i. pp. 305-26, Halae, 1785; by\n    Bentley or Walker; later by the Rev. G. Williams; and for Bp.\n    Wordsworth\u2019s Vulgate by the Rev. H. J. White; for facsimiles _see_\n    Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 14, pl. 3; Palaeogr. Soc., i. p. 16.\n    Wordsworth\u2019s and Bentley\u2019s Z; Tischendorf\u2019s _harl_.\n\n    69. Harl. 1802. Gospels [xii], 156 leaves, a small Irish MS., with\n    copious marginal notes, written by the scribe Maelbrigte; stolen\n    from Paris by Jean Aymon. Bentley\u2019s W.\n\n    70. Harl. 2788. Gospels [end of viii or beginning of ix], 208\n    leaves folio, an extremely fine MS., written throughout in golden\n    uncials, except the prefatory matter, which is in minuscules; the\n    vellum and also the colours used in the illumination are all\n    wonderfully bright and fresh. _See_ Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 22,\n    pl. 39-41; Corssen, Ada-H. S. p. 86; Bentley\u2019s M in Trin. Coll.\n    Cam. B. 17. 5.\n\n    71. Harl. 2826. Gospels [ix or x], 150 leaves, Caroline\n    minuscules; formerly belonging to the monastery of Eller, near\n    Cochem, on the Mosel; _see_ Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 32. Bentley\u2019s\n    H in Trin. Coll. Cam. B. 17. 5.\n\n    72. Addit. 5463. Gospels [viii or ix], from the nunnery of St.\n    Peter at Beneventum, formerly belonging to Dr. Richard Mead;\n    written in a fine revived uncial hand. The MS. has usually been\n    supposed to have been written at Beneventum, but Berger doubts\n    this (p. 92). Cited by Bentley as F, by Wordsworth as [Symbol: BF\n    ligature]. Facsimiles in Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 18, pl. 7, and\n    Palaeogr. Soc., i. p. 236.\n\n    _Cambridge._\n\n    73. University Library, I. i. 6. 32. The Book of Deer; Gospels\n    [viii or ix], small but rather wide 8vo, 86 leaves, but _mut._;\n    contains Matt. i. 1-vii. 23; Mark i. 1-v. 36; Luke i. 1-iv. 12;\n    John, complete. Belonged originally to the Columbian monastery of\n    Deer in Aberdeenshire: in 1697 belonged to Bp. J. Moore (of\n    Norwich and Ely), and with the rest of his library was bought for\n    the University of Cambridge in 1715. Contains many old and\n    peculiar readings (Westcott, p. 1694). Described by Westwood,\n    A.-S. and Ir. MSS., pp. 89-90; edited in full with facsimiles by\n    J. Stuart (for the Spalding Club), Edinburgh, 1869.\n\n    74. Univ. Libr. Kk. 1. 24. St. Luke and St. John [prob. viii],\n    written in Irish hand; collated by Bentley, who cites it as X, and\n    noticed by Westcott, Vulgate, pp. 1695 and 1712; it contains a\n    valuable text.\n\n    75. Trin. Coll. B. 10. 4. Gospels [ix], large 4to, written\n    apparently by the same scribe as Brit. Mus. Reg. I. D. ix (no.\n    61). This is Bentley\u2019s T; according to Westcott (p. 1713) it is\n    good Vulgate, with some old readings.\n\n    76. Corpus Chr. Coll. CXCVII. Fragments of St. Luke [viii],\n    possibly from the same MS. as Bentley\u2019s \u03c6; _see_ above, no. 66,\n    and also Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS., p. 49; this MS. has been\n    described, and the fragments of St. John published, by J. Goodwin,\n    Publications of the Cambr. Antiq. Soc., no. xiii, 1847. Bentley\u2019s\n    C.\n\n    77. Corpus Chr. Coll. CCLXXXVI Evan. Gospels [vii], formerly\n    belonging to the monastery of St. Augustine at Canterbury, and\n    alleged to have been sent by Pope Gregory to Augustine. They\n    contain an interesting text, the first hand being corrected\n    throughout in accordance with a MS. of the type of the Codex\n    Amiatinus. _See_ Westwood, Anglo-Sax. and Ir. MSS., pp. 49, 50;\n    Pal. Sacra Pict., pl. 11. 1-4; Palaeogr. Soc., i. pl. 33, 34, 44.\n    Collated by the Rev. A. W. Streane. Bentley\u2019s B; Wordsworth\u2019s X.\n\n    _Dublin._\n\n    78. Trinity College A. 1. 6. Gospels [vii or viii], commonly known\n    as the Book of Kells; given to Trinity College, Dublin, by\n    Archbishop Ussher. This MS. is principally known as being perhaps\n    the most perfect specimen of Irish writing and illumination in\n    existence, but it also contains a valuable text, though marked\n    with the characteristics of the Irish family. A collation is given\n    by Dr. Abbott in his edition of the Codex Usserianus, or _r_1\n    (_see_ p. 50). Facsimiles in Palaeogr. Soc., i. pl. 55-8, 88, 89;\n    Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS. pp. 25-33, pl. 8-11, and Pal. Sacra\n    Pict., pl. 16, 17; also National MSS. of Ireland, i. pp. x-xii,\n    pl. vii-xvii. Wordsworth\u2019s Q.\n\n    79. Trinity Coll. A. 4. 5. The Book of Durrow. Gospels [end of\n    vi], 8vo, semi-uncial, the text is allied to Amiatinus; cited by\n    Bp. Wordsworth as _durmach_. According to an inscription on what\n    was the last page, the MS. was written by St. Columba himself in\n    the space of twelve days; the inscription however, like the rest\n    of the book, is probably copied from an earlier exemplar. A\n    collation of this MS. is given by Professor Abbott in his edition\n    of _r_1 (_see_ p. 50); _see_ also his article \u201cOn the colophon of\n    the Book of Durrow\u201d (Dublin Hermathena, 1891, p. 199).\n\n    80. Trin. Coll. The Book of Moling. Gospels [viii or ix], small\n    4to, much the same size, writing, and ornamentation as the Gospels\n    of Macdurnan (_see_ 84); but so defaced by damp as to be quite\n    illegible in parts.\n\n    81. Royal Irish Academy. The Stowe St. John, formerly in the\n    Ashburnham Library; originally belonging to a Church in Munster.\n    Irish handwriting and text. _See_ Berger, p. 42.\n\n    _Durham._\n\n    82. Cathedral Library, A. ii. 16. Gospels [vii or viii], 134\n    leaves; said to have been written by Bede, and may very possibly\n    have come from the monastery at Jarrow; _mut._ in parts; text\n    allied to the Cod. Amiatinus. Cited by Bentley as K, by Wordsworth\n    (who makes use of it only in St. John) as \u0394.\n\n    83. Cathedral Library, A. ii. 17. St. John, St. Mark, and St. Luke\n    [prob. viii], with another fragment of St. Luke xxi. 33-xxiii. 34.\n    _See_ Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS., p. 47; Bentley\u2019s [xi], but to\n    be distinguished from his [xi] in Trin. Coll. Camb. B. 17. 5,\n    which is St. Chad\u2019s book at Lichfield (_see_ no. 85).\n\n    _Lambeth._\n\n    84. Lambeth Palace Library. The Gospels of Macdurnan [x], 216\n    leaves, Irish writing and ornamentation; an inscription (fol. 3\n    _b_), in square Saxon capitals, states that it was written by a\n    scribe named Maeielbrith Mac-Durnain. _See_ Westwood, Pal. Sacra\n    Pict., pl. 13, 14, 15.\n\n    _Lichfield._\n\n    85. Chapter Library. Gospels [vii or viii], traditionally ascribed\n    to St. Chad, who was Bishop of Lichfield; formerly the MS. was at\n    Llandaff on the altar of St. Telian; 110 leaves, Irish,\n    half-uncial; the writing and ornamentation are very beautiful and\n    resemble the Books of Kells, Lindisfarne, &c.; the text belongs to\n    the Irish group of MSS. Contains Matt., Mark, and Luke i. 1-iii.\n    9. A careful collation, with full introduction, and three\n    facsimiles, was published by Dr. Scrivener (Cambridge, 1887);\n    _see_ also Palaeogr. Soc., i. pl. 20, 21, 35; Westwood, Anglo-Sax.\n    and Ir. MSS., pp. 56-58, pl. 23, and Pal. Sacra Pict., pl. 12.\n    Bentley\u2019s [xi] in Trin. Coll. B. 17. 5; Wordsworth\u2019s L.\n\n    _Oxford._\n\n    86. Bodl. 857, and Auct. D. 2. 14. Gospels [vii], formerly\n    belonging to St. Augustine\u2019s Library at Canterbury, and generally\n    known as \u201cSt. Augustine\u2019s Gospels;\u201d British text. _See_ Westwood,\n    Palaeogr. Sacra Pict., pl. 11, no. 5. Casley\u2019s \u03c8; Tischendorf\u2019s\n    _bodl._; Wordsworth\u2019s O, collated for him by F. Madan and Rev. G.\n    M. Youngman.\n\n    87. Bodl. Auct. D. 2. 19. Gospels [ix], commonly called the\n    \u201cRushworth Gospels\u201d or \u201cGospels of Mac Regol,\u201d written by an Irish\n    scribe, who died A.D. 820; has an interlinear Anglo-Saxon version;\n    the Latin text belongs to the Irish type. _Mut._ Luke iv. 29-viii.\n    38; x. 19-39; xv. 16-xvi. 26. Collation given in the edition of\n    the Surtees Soc., The Lindisfarne and Rushworth Gospels, by\n    Stevenson and Waring, 1854-65; and by W. W. Skeat, The Gospel of\n    St. Matthew; Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions, Cambridge,\n    1887. Casley\u2019s \u03c7; Wordsworth\u2019s R.\n\n    88. Bodl. Laud. Lat. 102. Gospels [x], 210 leaves, fol., Saxon\n    minuscule; formerly at W\u00fcrzburg, where it was bought at the\n    instance of Archbishop Laud. Mixed text, but with traces of Irish\n    influence. _See_ Berger, p. 54.\n\n    89. Corp. Christi Coll. 122. Gospels [prob. xi], an Irish MS.;\n    _mut._ John i. 1-33; vii. 33-xviii. 20. Bentley\u2019s C in Trin. Coll.\n    Cam. B. 17. 5; collated for him by Casley; British type of text.\n\n    90. St. John\u2019s Coll. 194. Gospels [xi], in very small hand:\n    collated by Casley and cited by Bentley as \u03b3.\n\n    _Stonyhurst._\n\n    91. Stonyhurst, Jesuit College. The Gospel of St. John [vii];\n    originally the property, according to a legend which goes back to\n    the thirteenth century, of St. Cuthbert, in whose coffin it was\n    found; it was preserved in Durham Cathedral till the time of Henry\n    VIII. A minute but exquisitely written uncial MS., with a text\n    closely resembling A; facsimiles in Palaeogr. Soc., i. pl. 17;\n    Westwood, Palaeogr. Sacra Pict., pl. 11, no. 6. Wordsworth\u2019s S.\n\n    c. _France: Angers._\n\n    92. Angers Public Library, no. 20. Gospels [ix-x], written in a\n    French hand, but showing signs of Irish influence both in its\n    ornamentation and text. _See_ Berger, p. 48.\n\n    _Autun._\n\n    93. Autun, Grand S\u00e9minaire, no. 3. Gospels [dated 755], written\n    for Vosavius by Gundoh\u00ednus; uncial hand. Vulgate text but with a\n    good many variations. _See_ Berger, p. 90.\n\n    _Avignon._\n\n    94. Gospels in the monastery of St. Andrew near Avignon: extracts\n    in Martianay (Vulgata ant. Latina), 1695, and Calmet (Commentaire\n    litt., vii), 1726: cited by Tischendorf as _and_. The MS. has\n    disappeared. _See_ Berger, p. 80.\n\n    _Paris._\n\n    95. B. N. Lat. 256. Gospels [vii], in uncial hand; Vulgate text\n    but with a good many Old Latin readings. _See_ Berger, p. 91.\n\n    96. Lat. 262, formerly Reg. 3706, from Puy. Gospels [ix], with\n    prefatory matter, fol., 247 leaves, thick minuscule; _mut._ in\n    parts. Walker\u2019s \u03bf1.\n\n    97. Lat. 281 and 298. Gospels [viii], known as \u201cCodex Bigotianus,\u201d\n    in fine uncial hand, formerly at F\u00e9camp; probably written in\n    France, but both the text and the calligraphy show traces of Irish\n    influence. It is _mut._ in parts; collated by Walker, who cites it\n    as \u03c0, and again by Wordsworth, who cites it as B. _See_ Delisle,\n    Cab. des MSS., atlas, pl. x. 1, 2; Berger, p. 50.\n\n    98. Lat. 9389. Gospels [viii?], 223 leaves, 4to, formerly\n    belonging to the Benedictine Abbey of St. Willibrord at\n    Echternach; written in an Irish hand, with the interesting\n    subscription on the last page, \u201cProemendaui ut potui secundum\n    codicem de bibliotheca eugipi praespiteri quem ferunt fuisse sci\n    hieronimi indictione vi p(ost) con(sulatum) bassilii \u016b c. anno\n    septimo deximo = A.D. 558.\u201d This, however, must have been in the\n    exemplar from which it was copied, as the MS. itself is at least\n    two centuries later. It presents the Irish type of text, but has\n    been carefully corrected throughout, and the marginal readings\n    represent another type. _See_ Delisle, Cab. des MSS., pl. xix. 8;\n    Pal. universelle, pl. ccxxvi; Westwood, Anglo-Sax. and Ir. MSS.,\n    p. 58, pl. xxi; Berger, p. 52 f. Cited by Wordsworth as [Symbol:\n    EP ligature] collated by the Rev. H. J. White.\n\n    99. Lat. 10,439. St. John\u2019s Gospel [viii], formerly belonging to\n    the Cathedral of Chartres, where it was found in the reliquary\n    containing the sacred vest. A small manuscript, in uncial writing;\n    mixed text, the earlier chapters Old Latin, the rest Vulgate.\n    _See_ Berger, p. 89.\n\n    100. Lat. 11,955, formerly St. Germain 777, then 663 or 664. 2.\n    St. Matt. and St. Mark [viii?], 54 leaves, 4to, golden uncials on\n    purple vellum; _mut._ Matt. i. 1-vi. 2; xxvi. 42-xxvii. 49; Mark\n    i. 1-ix. 47; xi. 13-xii. 23. Walker\u2019s \u03b1; Tischendorf\u2019s _reg._;\n    _see_ O. L. Bibl. Texts, i. p. 55; Delisle, Cab. des MSS., atlas,\n    pl. i. 2.\n\n    101. Lat. 11,959. Gospels [ix], from St. Maur des Foss\u00e9s. Found by\n    Sabatier in the St. Germain Library and collated by him; cited by\n    Tischendorf as _foss_.\n\n    102. Lat. 13,171, formerly St. Germain numbered successively 18,\n    666, and 223. Gospels [ix], 4to, 223 leaves, small round\n    minuscule. Walker\u2019s \u03c6.\n\n    103. Lat. 17,226. Gospels [vii], in uncials. Vulgate text, but\n    with a certain number of old readings in it. _See_ Berger, p. 90.\n\n    104. Nouvelles acquisitions lat. 1587 (Libri 14). Gospels\n    [vii-ix], from St. Gatien\u2019s, Tours, then in the Ashburnham\n    Library, now at Paris. Quoted by Calmet (Nouv. Dissertations, pp.\n    448-488), 1720, and by Bianchini, Ev. Quadr.; contains a number of\n    Old Latin readings, and on the whole rather resembles Br. Mus.\n    Egerton 609 (no. 67) in text. Usually cited as _gat. See_ Berger,\n    p. 46.\n\n    105. Nouv. acq. lat. 2196. Evangeliarium [xi], from Luxeuil,\n    written about 105 A.D. by Gerard, abbot of the Benedictine\n    monastery there: sold at Didot\u2019s sale in 1879 to the National\n    Library at Paris; cited by Mabillon, Sabatier, and Tischendorf as\n    _lux. See_ Delisle, M\u00e9langes de Pal\u00e9ographie, p. 154 (1880).\n\n    _Tours._\n\n    106. Public Library 22; formerly at Saint Martin. Gospels [viii or\n    ix], in gold letters, interesting text. Quoted by Sabatier in\n    Mark, Luke, and John. Walker\u2019s \u03c1, Tischendorf\u2019s mt., Wordsworth\u2019s\n    [Symbol: MT ligature]; collated for his edition of the Vulgate by\n    the Rev. G. M. Youngman. _See_ also Berger, p. 47.\n\n    107. Public Libr. 23, formerly St. Martin 174. Gospels [ix], 192\n    leaves, minuscule. Collated by L. Chevalier, and cited by Walker\n    as \u03c3. _See_ Dorange, Cat. des MSS. de Tours, 1875, p. 9.\n\n    108. Public Libr. 25, formerly Marmoutier 231 according to\n    Delisle. Gospels [xii], but mut. in many parts and wanting after\n    John vii. 5; Collated by Chevalier. Walker\u2019s \u03c4.\n\n    d. _Germany: Berlin._\n\n    109. Royal Library, MS. Theol. lat. 4to, no. 4. Gospels [ix or x],\n    with prefatory matter; 164 leaves, 25 x 20 cent., minuscule. This\n    MS. formerly belonged to the Augustinian College of Corsendonk\n    near Turnhout in Brabant, and is the \u201cCorsendonkense Exemplar\u201d of\n    Erasmus, used by him in his second edition, with notes in his own\n    hand. _See_ O. L. Bibl. Texts, i. p. 53.\n\n    _Erlangen._\n\n    110. Gospels at Erlangen, used by Sanftl, Dissertatio etc.,\n    Ratisbon, 1789, p. 76, and cited by Tischendorf as _erl_.\n\n    _Karlsruhe._\n\n    111. Grand Ducal Library, Cod. Augiensis 211. Gospels [ix],\n    formerly at Reichenau; text strongly marked by Irish readings.\n    _See_ Berger, p. 56.\n\n    _Mayhingen._\n\n    112. Library of Prince \u0152ttingen-Wallerstein. Gospels [viii], from\n    the Abbey of St. Arnoul at Metz; has a note at the end \u201cLaurentius\n    vivat senio\u201d; the Laurentius referred to being probably the scribe\n    of the celebrated Echternach martyrology. _See_ Berger, p. 52.\n\n    _Munich._\n\n    113. Royal Libr. Lat. 13,601 = Cim. 54. Gospels [xi], 119 leaves,\n    folio, from Niederm\u00fcnster; magnificent pictures and illuminations;\n    _see_ Kugler, Museum, 1834, p. 164; Woltmann, Gesch. d. Malerei,\n    i. 258; Berth. Richl, Zur Bayr. Kunstgesch., i. 16.\n\n    114. Lat. 14,000, Cim. 55. Gospels [ix, dated 870], folio, from\n    St. Emmeram\u2019s, Ratisbon. This magnificent book is written in\n    golden uncials on fine white vellum, a good deal of purple being\n    employed in the earlier pages; there are splendid illuminations\n    before each Gospel. Collated by C. Sanftl, Dissertatio etc.,\n    Ratisbon, 1789. Tischendorf\u2019s _em_.\n\n    115. Royal Library. Gospels [vii], from Ingolstadt; _mut._ in many\n    places, especially in St. Matthew, where it only preserves xxii.\n    39-xxiv. 19; xxv. 14 _ad fin._ Collated by Tischendorf, who cited\n    it as _ing_. His collation is in the possession of Bp. Wordsworth,\n    who cites the MS. as I.\n\n    _Nuremberg._\n\n    116. Dr. Dombart in Hilgenfeld\u2019s Zeitschr., 1881, p. 455 f., has\n    drawn attention to some fragments [probably vi cent.] of St. Luke\n    and St. John now in the Germanisches Museum at Nuremberg; they\n    consist of twenty-eight leaves detached from the covers of books\n    and contain, though _mut._, Luke v. 19-xxiv. 31, John i. 19-33,\n    written in a most beautiful uncial hand, perhaps not surpassed by\n    any other MS. The text seems to be allied to Amiatinus, but with a\n    considerable mixture of Old Latin readings. More fragments from\n    the same MS. are to be found in the Libri collection; _see_\n    \u201cCatalogue de la partie r\u00e9serv\u00e9e de la collection Libri\u201d (1862),\n    p. 45, no. 226, pl. lviii.\n\n    _Trier._\n\n    117. Stadtbibliothek, no. xxii. Gospels [end of viii], 172 leaves,\n    folio, written partly in uncials but mostly in Caroline\n    minuscules; this is the famous \u201cCodex Aureus,\u201d or\n    \u201cAdahandschrift,\u201d and is a truly magnificent copy. A full\n    description, both of the palaeography and of the critical value of\n    the text, is given in the fine monograph published at Leipzig in\n    1889, and entitled \u201cDie Trierer Adahandschrift;\u201d by several\n    authors. The dissertation on the text is by Dr. P. Corssen.\n\n    _Wolfenb\u00fcttel._\n\n    118. A Wolfenb\u00fcttel palimpsest [v], quoted occasionally in the\n    Gospels by Tischendorf as _gue. lect._ _See_ \u201cAnecdota sacra et\n    profana,\u201d p. 164 f.\n\n    _W\u00fcrzburg._\n\n    119. University Library, Mp. Th. q. 1 _a_. Gospels [early vii],\n    152 leaves, 4to, formerly belonging to the Cathedral Treasury;\n    fine uncial writing, and beautiful ivory carving on the covers.\n    According to tradition this MS. belonged to St. Kilian and was\n    found in his tomb; _see_ however Berger, p. 54. _Mut_. Matt. i.\n    1-vi. 8; John xx. 23-xxi. 25. Facsimile in Zangemeister and\n    Wattenb., Supplem. ad Exempla codd. lat., pl. lviii-lviii _a_.(93)\n\n    120. Mp. th. q. 1. Gospels [x], 194 leaves, 4to, formerly\n    belonging to the Benedictine monastery of St. Stephen. A splendid\n    MS.\n\n    121. Mp. th. q. 4. Gospels [xi], 168 leaves, 4to, probably once\n    the property of the monastery at Neum\u00fcnster. A fine MS. and\n    strongly resembling Mp. th. f. 66 (no. 124).\n\n    122. Mp. th. f. 61. St. Matthew [viii], 34 leaves, folio,\n    Anglo-Saxon writing with interlinear glosses; the text is largely\n    intermixed with Old Latin readings. _See_ the monograph of K.\n    K\u00f6berlin, Eine W\u00fcrzb. Evang. Hdschr.; Progr. d. Studienanstalt bei\n    S. Anna in Augsburg, 1891.\n\n    123. Mp. th. f. 65. Gospels [viii or ix], 182 leaves, folio,\n    formerly belonging to the Cathedral Treasury. Fine minuscule.\n\n    124. Mp. th. f. 66. Gospels [viii or ix], 207 leaves, folio,\n    formerly belonging to the Cathedral Treasury. Fine minuscule; was\n    a special treasure of Bishop Heinrich.\n\n    125. Mp. th. f. 67. Gospels [vii or viii], 192 leaves, folio,\n    probably from the Cathedral Treasury; semi-uncial, and ivory\n    carving on the cover; there are occasional corrections in an early\n    hand, and the first hand has a large intermixture of Old Latin\n    readings; _mut_. after John xviii. 35, and does not contain John\n    v. 4.\n\n    126. Mp. th. f. 68. Gospels [vi or vii], 170 leaves, folio,\n    formerly belonging to the Cathedral Treasury; fine and large\n    uncial, and ivory carving on the cover; corrected frequently in a\n    later minuscule hand, but the reading of the first hand is always\n    visible, and agrees largely with Amiatinus, though in St. John\u2019s\n    Gospel there is a good proportion of Old Latin readings.\n\n    127. Mp. th. f. 88. Gospels [xii or xiii], 194 leaves, folio;\n    according to an inscription on fol. 194 the MS. was brought from\n    Rome by a Cardinal to the Council of Basle, and used by him there;\n    and then was bought for the Cathedral at W\u00fcrzburg and handsomely\n    bound.\n\n    e. _Holland: Utrecht._\n\n    128. Utrecht. At the end of the famous \u201cUtrecht Psalter\u201d are bound\n    up some fragments [vii or viii] of St. Matthew (i. 1-iii. 4) and\n    St. John (i. 1-21), written in an Anglian hand, strongly\n    resembling that of the Codex Amiatinus. Facsimiles are given in\n    the well-known edition of the Psalter, which was photographed by\n    the autotype process and published in London in 1873. Wordsworth\u2019s\n    U.\n\n    f. _Italy: Cividale._\n\n    129. Cividale, Friuli. Gospels [vi or vii]. St. Matthew, St. Luke,\n    and St. John are at Cividale in Friuli, from which the MS. is\n    named \u201cCodex Forojuliensis\u201d; St. Mark partly at Venice in a\n    wretched and illegible plight, partly at Prague. This last portion\n    (xii. 21-xvi. 20) was edited by J. Dobrowsky (Prague, 1778), and\n    is cited by Tischendorf as _prag._; the other Gospels are edited\n    by Bianchini in the \u201cEvang. Quadruplex,\u201d ii. app., p. 473 f., and\n    are cited by Tischendorf as _for._; the MS. is cited throughout by\n    Wordsworth as J. St. John is _mut._ xix. 29-40; xx. 19-xxi. 25.\n    Facsimile in Zangem. and Wattenb., pl. 36.\n\n    _Milan._\n\n    130. Ambrosian Library, C. 39 inf. Gospels [vi], 288 leaves,\n    uncial; with the numbers of the Sections and Canons in small Greek\n    uncials, and some early and interesting lectionary notes in the\n    margins; the text is also very interesting and valuable. _Mut._\n    Matt. i. 1-6; 25-iii. 12; xxiii. 25-xxv. 41; Mark vi. 10-viii. 12.\n    In a later hand [ix] are Mark xiv. 35-48; John xix. 12-23; also a\n    repeated Passion lesson, John xiii-xviii. Wordsworth\u2019s M;\n    transcribed for his edition of the Vulgate by Padre Fortunato\n    Villa, one of the \u201cScrittori\u201d of the Library.\n\n    131. Ambrosian Library, I. 61 sup. Gospels [viii], Irish hand;\n    interesting text; it has been corrected throughout, and the\n    corrections are as interesting as the original text, giving us\n    good specimens of \u201cWestern\u201d readings; _see_ Berger, p. 58.\n\n    _Perugia._\n\n    132. Chapter Library; part of St. Luke\u2019s Gospel [vi], in a purple\n    MS.; contains Luke i. 1-xii. 7, but much _mut._ Edited by\n    Bianchini, Evang. Quadr., ii. app., p. 562; Tischendorf\u2019s _pe._;\n    Wordsworth\u2019s P.\n\n    _Turin._\n\n    133. Gospels [vii?], at Turin, used by Tischendorf and cited by\n    him as _taur._; _see_ \u201cAnecdota Sacra et Profana,\u201d p. 160.\n\n    g. _Spain: Escurial._\n\n    134. Gospels [xi], 170 leaves, double columns, written apparently\n    at Spires on the Rhine, in gold letters; now in the Escurial, not\n    numbered, but exhibited under glass; the \u201cAureum exemplar\u201d of\n    Erasmus; _see_ Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. 51.\n\n    h. _Switzerland: Berne._\n\n    135. University Library, no. 671. Gospels [ix or x], written in a\n    small and graceful Irish hand; mixed text. _See_ Berger, p. 56.\n\n    _Geneva._\n\n    136. No. 6. Gospels [viii or ix], Anglo-Saxon text. Berger, p. 57.\n\n    _St. Gall._\n\n    137. Stiftsbibliothek. No. 17 [ix-x], part of a 4to volume of 342\n    pages, two MSS. bound up together; pp. 3-117 contain the Gospel of\n    St. Matthew; pp. 118-132, St. Mark i. 1-iii. 27 with preface.\n\n    138. No. 49 [ix], 4to, 314 pages. Gospels, with prefatory matter.\n\n    139. No. 50 [ix-x], 4to, 534 pages. Gospels, with prefatory matter\n    and capitulare.\n\n    140. No. 51 [viii], folio, 268 pages, Irish semi-uncial. Gospels;\n    illuminated title-pages and initials, strongly resembling the\n    style of the Books of Kells and Lindisfarne (nos. 78, 64). Vulgate\n    text, but with Old Latin readings, especially in the earlier\n    chapters of St. Matthew. _See_ Berger, p. 56.\n\n    141. No. 52 [ix], folio, 286 pages. Gospels, with prefatory\n    matter.\n\n    142. No. 53 [ix-x], folio, 305 pages. Gospels, with title-pages\n    and initials finely illuminated; written by Sintram, a Deacon at\n    St. Gall, and known as the \u201cEvangelium longum\u201d; remarkable also\n    for its handsome binding with ivory carvings.\n\n    143. No. 60 [viii], folio, 70 pages, Irish writing. St. John\u2019s\n    Gospel, with illuminated title-page and picture of St. John; this\n    is one of the thirty \u201clibri scottice scripti,\u201d mentioned in the\n    ninth century catalogue of the Library; Tischendorf transcribed\n    part of this MS.\n\n    144. No. 1394; the book of fragments that contains the Old Latin\n    fragments, _n o p_ (_see_ p. 49). Pages 101-104 are two leaves\n    small folio [ix] in Irish minuscules, and contain St. Luke i-iii;\n    transcribed by Tischendorf.\n\n    145. No. 1395 [vi], being pp. 7-327 of a 4to MS., containing 90\n    leaves and a number of fragments of a MS. of the Gospels in Roman\n    minuscules; only Matt. vi. 21-John xvii. 18 remain. The scribe\n    says that he had two Latin MSS. before him, and a Greek MS. to\n    which he occasionally referred. _See_ below, no. 180.\n    Tischendorf\u2019s _san_.\n\n    i. _United States: Oswego N. Y._\n\n    146. Library of Th. Irwin, Esq. Gospels [viii], gold letters on\n    purple vellum, formerly in the Hamilton Collection (No. 151);\n    falsely ascribed to Abp. Wilfrid of York (\u2020 709); _see_ Berger, p.\n    259.\n\n    D. ACTS, EPISTLES, APOCALYPSE.\n\n    a. _British Isles: British Museum._\n\n    147. Add. 11,852. Pauline Epp. (including Laod.), Act., Cath.,\n    Apoc. [ix], 215 leaves, small 4to, Caroline minuscule. Written for\n    Hartmotus, Abbot of St. Gall (872-884): it afterwards belonged to\n    the Library of Raymund Kraft at Ulm, and was described by J. G.\n    Schelhorn in 1725 and H\u00e4berlin in 1739; bought at Frankfort by Bp.\n    Butler: _see_ Dobbin, Cod. Montfort., Introd., p. 44; and the\n    careful examination by E. Nestle, Bengel als Gelehrter, pp. 58-60,\n    T\u00fcbingen, 1892. Wordsworth\u2019s U2; collated by the Rev. H. J. White.\n\n    _Oxford._\n\n    148. Bodl. 3418. The Selden Acts, Seld. 30 [vii or viii], mut.\n    xiv. 26-xv. 32. A most valuable uncial MS., collated by Casley,\n    who cited it as \u03c7, and by Bp. Wordsworth, who cites it as O2.\n    _See_ Westcott, Vulgate, p. 1696.\n\n    b. _France: Paris._\n\n    149. B. N. Lat. 305; Acts, Cath., Paul. (Laod. between Col. and\n    Thess.), Apoc. [xi], texts resembling B. N. 93 (_see_ above, no.\n    15); probably written at Saint Denis. Berger, p. 100.\n\n    150. Lat. 309; Acts, Epp., Apoc. [xi], in following order: Pauline\n    Epp. (with Laod. _after_ Thess.), Acts, Cath., Apoc. The text,\n    especially in the Acts, resembles that of B. N. 93 (_see_ above,\n    no. 15). Berger, p. 99.\n\n    151. Lat. 13,174. Formerly St. Germain 23, then 669; Acts, Cath.,\n    Apoc. [ix], 139 leaves, 4to, thick minuscule. Valuable text, and\n    contains an interesting note on the passage 1 John v. 7; Berger,\n    p. 103. Walker\u2019s \u03b3.\n\n    152. Lat. 17,250. Acts and Apocalypse [early xii]; 126 leaves, 32\n    x 23 cent.; a corrector, apparently of the thirteenth century, has\n    added in the Acts a number of interesting additions from an\n    extremely old version. Formerly at Navarre, and bought in 1445 by\n    Nic. de la Mare from Jean de Mouson. Examined by S. Berger.\n\n    c. _Germany: Munich._\n\n    153. Royal Lib. Lat. 6230. Formerly Freisingen 30. Acts, Cath.,\n    and Apoc. [early ix?], 126 leaves, large rough Caroline\n    minuscules. Described in the Munich Catalogue as tenth century,\n    but it seems nearer the beginning of the ninth; has a good text,\n    but rather mixed, especially in the Acts, where there are strange\n    conjunctions of good and bad readings. Wordsworth\u2019s M2. Collated\n    by the Rev. H. J. White.\n\n    d. _Switzerland: St. Gall._\n\n    154. Stiftsbibliothek. No. 2 [viii], part of a thick 4to volume of\n    586 pages (not leaves), containing various matter; pp. 301-489\n    contain Acts and Apoc. in a large minuscule hand, written by the\n    monk and priest Winithar; text interesting, but mixed.\n    Wordsworth\u2019s S2 in Acts and Apoc. Collated by the Rev. H. J.\n    White.\n\n    155. No. 63 [ix], 4to, 320 pages. Acts, Epistles, and Apoc.\n    divided as follows: foll. 2-163 Pauline Epp.; 163-244 Acts;\n    245-283 Catholic Epp. (but not 2 and 3 John), the \u201cthree heavenly\n    witnesses\u201d in 1 John v. 7 being added by a contemporary corrector;\n    283-320 Apocalypse.\n\n    156. No. 72 [ix], folio, 336 pages, containing St. Paul\u2019s Epp.,\n    Acts, Cath. Epp., and Apoc.\n\n    157. No. 83 [ix], large folio, 418 pages; a fine MS., written by\n    the order of Grimaldus and presented by him to the Library.\n    Contains St. Paul\u2019s Epp., Acts, Cath. Epp., and Apoc., with\n    prefatory matter.\n\n    158. No. 1398a [xi], folio. A collection of fragments, of which\n    ff. 230-255 contain fragments of Acts i. 1-v. 36.\n\n    E. EPISTLES (CATH., PAUL.) AND APOC.\n\n    a. _British Isles: British Museum._\n\n    159. Harl. 1772. Epistles and Apoc. [viii], Col. after Thess., and\n    lacking Jude and Laod.; the Apoc. is _mut._ xiv. 16-fin. Formerly\n    at Paris, from whence it was stolen by Jean Aymon. Written in a\n    French hand, but showing traces of Irish influence in its initials\n    and ornamentation; the text is much mixed with Old Latin readings;\n    it has been corrected throughout, and the first hand so carefully\n    erased in places as to be quite illegible. Collated in part by\n    Griesbach, Symb. Crit., i. pp. 326-82, and by the Rev. H. J.\n    White; _see_ also Berger, p. 50. Bentley\u2019s M in Trin. Coll. Cam.\n    B. 17. 14; Wordsworth\u2019s Z2.\n\n    _Cambridge._\n\n    160. Trin. Coll. B. x. 5 [ix], the Neville MS., 4to, Saxon hand:\n    St. Paul\u2019s Epp., beginning 1 Cor. vii. 32. Bentley\u2019s S.\n\n    _Oxford._\n\n    161. Bodl. Laud. Lat. 108 [ix], 4to, 117 leaves, Irish hand.\n    Contains St. Paul\u2019s Epp. with prefatory matter (ending at Heb. xi.\n    34), in following order: Rom., 1, 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., 1, 2\n    Thess., Col., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Philem., Heb. A valuable text,\n    corrected apparently by three hands; the original text Old Latin,\n    but has been much erased; in many cases agrees with _d_\n    (Claromontanus) against most, or all, other MSS. _See_ Westcott,\n    Vulgate, p. 1696. Casley\u2019s \u03c7; Wordsworth\u2019s O3.\n\n    b. _France: Laon_\n\n    162. Public Library, no. 45. Epistles and Apoc. [xiii], from the\n    monastery of St. Vincent near Laon. 141 leaves, 4 to, containing\n    latter part of the Old Testament, and the Epp. Apoc. in following\n    order: Rom., 1, 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., 1, 2 Thess., 1, 2\n    Tim., Tit., Philem., Heb., Apoc., James, 1, 2 Pet., 1, 2, 3 John,\n    Jude; and then the apocryphal Petitio Corinthiorum a Paulo\n    apostolo, and 3rd Ep. to the Corinthians. _See_ Bratke in Theol.\n    Lt. Zeitung, 1892, p. 585 ff.\n\n    _Orleans._\n\n    163. Public Library, no. 16. Consists of a number of fragments of\n    five Biblical MSS.; the two last contain portions of 1 Cor., 1\n    Thess., Eph., and Phil. [viii?]. Berger, p. 84.\n\n    _Paris._\n\n    164. B. N. 107. The Latin version of Cod. Claromontanus. Walker\n    collated Rom. and 1 Cor. as far as x. 4; he cites it as \u03b4.\n\n    165. Lat. 335. Pauline Epp. [viii], in Lombard characters. A\n    valuable MS. Wordsworth\u2019s L2.\n\n    166. Lat. 2328. Codex Lemovicensis. Catholic Epp. [ix], mixed\n    text; contains 1 John v. 7, with the \u201cThree Heavenly Witnesses,\u201d\n    but in a mutilated form. Wordsworth\u2019s L3.\n\n    167. Lat. 9553. Formerly Tours 116. St. Paul\u2019s Epp., with other\n    matter [xi], 114 leaves, long minuscule; _see_ Delisle, Notice sur\n    les MSS. disparus de la Bibl. de Tours, no. iv. p. 17 (1883).\n    Collated by Chevalier; Walker\u2019s \u03c5.\n\n    c. _Germany: Bamberg._\n\n    168. Royal Library, A. ii. 42. Apocalypse and Evangelistarium [x],\n    written in the monastery of Reichenau; a gift from the Empress\n    Kunigunde to the Collegiate foundation of St. Stephan. Noticeable\n    especially for the large number of pictures (fifty-seven) with\n    which the MS. is ornamented; it is perhaps one of the most\n    interesting specimens we have of the pictorial art of this period.\n    _See_ Leitschuh, F\u00fchrer durch d. kgl. Bibl. zu Bamberg, 1889, p.\n    89 ff.\n\n    _Munich._\n\n    169. Royal Library, Lat. 4577. St. Paul\u2019s Epp. [viii?], with\n    prefatory matter; Col. after Thess., and followed by Laod.; Heb.\n    at end.\n\n    170. Lat. 6229, formerly Freisingen 29. St. Paul\u2019s Epp. [viii or\n    ix], with prefatory matter. Order as above. The text of this MS.\n    appears to be like 169, and is excellent in the Romans, mixed in\n    the other Epp.; there is an interesting stichometry; examined by\n    Berger.\n\n    171. Lat. 14179. St. Paul\u2019s Epp. [ix or x]; interesting text.\n\n    _W\u00fcrzburg._\n\n    172. University Library, Mp. Th. f. 12. Epistles of St. Paul [ix],\n    with Irish glosses. A well-known MS. The glosses have been\n    published by Professor Zimmer (Glossae Hibernicae, Berlin, 1881),\n    and by Mr. Whitley Stokes, with a translation (The Old Irish\n    Glosses of W\u00fcrzburg and Carlsruhe, Austin, Hertford, 1887);\n    selections published and translated by the Rev. T. Olden (The Holy\n    Scriptures in Ireland a thousand years ago, Dublin, 1888).\n\n    173. Mp. Th. f. 69. Pauline Epp. [viii], with Irish initials; Col.\n    after Thess.\n\n    d. _Italy: Monza._\n\n    174. Collegiate Archives, no. 1-2/9. Fragments of a Bible [x],\n    Lombard writing; all that is left in the New Test. is part of the\n    Epistles of St. Paul. Probably copied from an ancient MS.; Col.\n    follows Eph.; text strongly resembles that of Milan E. 26 inf.\n    (no. 30 above). Berger, p. 139.\n\n    _Rome._\n\n    175. Vat. Reg. Lat. 9. Pauline Epp. [vii], 114 leaves, 30.3 x 20.3\n    cent., uncial. Collated for Bp. Wordsworth\u2019s Vulgate by Dr.\n    Meyncke, and cited as R2; _see_ also Bianchini, Vindiciae, p.\n    cclxxxiii. Colossians are placed after Thessalonians; _see_\n    Berger, p. 85.\n\n    _Verona._\n\n    176. Chapter Library, no. 74. St. Paul\u2019s Epistles [x], a text\n    strongly agreeing with the first corrector of Cod. Fuldensis\n    (_see_ above, p. 75, no. 56); Corssen, Ep. ad Galatas, Berlin,\n    1885, p. 19.\n\n    e. _Switzerland: St. Gall._\n\n    177. Stiftsbibliothek, no. 64. [ix], a 4to MS. of 414 pages, of\n    which ff. 1-267 contain St. Paul\u2019s Epp.\n\n    178. No. 70. [viii], folio, 258 pages, written by the monk\n    Winithar, of which ff. 1-250 contain St. Paul\u2019s Epp. (Hebrews\n    being placed after 2 Timothy). _See_ Berger, p. 117.\n\n    179. No. 907. [viii], 4to, 320 pages, large hand, written by the\n    monk Winithar; pp. 237-297 and 303-318 contain the Epistles of\n    James, Peter, and John, and Apoc. i. 1-vii. 2.\n\n    180. No. 908. 219 pages 4to [vi], of which pp. 77-219 form a very\n    valuable palimpsest MS.; the original writing, a Martyrology in\n    Roman semi-uncial hand; over this, St. Paul\u2019s Epp. in uncials,\n    beginning Eph. vi. 2 and finishing 1 Tim. ii. 5. Transcribed by\n    Tischendorf and quoted by him as _san_.\n\n    181. No. 1395 _See_ above, no. 145. Pages 440-441 in the same\n    collection contain fragments of Col. iii. 5-24 in a large Irish\n    hand.\n\n\nWe now subjoin the various notations of these MSS., Bentley\u2019s, Walker\u2019s,\nCasley\u2019s, Tischendorf\u2019s, Wordsworth\u2019s:\u2014\n\nBentley\u2019s notation.\n\nA = 61.\nB = 77.\nC = 76.\nC in Trin. Coll. Camb. B. 17.5 = 89.\nD = 65.\nE = 63.\nF = 72.\nH = 60.\nH in Trin. Coll. Camb. B. 17.5 = 71.\nK = 82.\nM = 159.\nM in Trin. Coll. Camb. B. 17.5 = 70.\nO = 59.\nP = 62.\nR = 3.\nS = 160.\nT = 75.\nW = 69.\nX = 74.\nY = 64.\nZ = 68.\n\u03c6 = 66.\n\u03be = 83.\n\u03be in Trin. Coll. Camb. B. 17.5 = 85.\n\nWalker\u2019s and Casley\u2019s notation.\n\n\u03b1 = 100.\n\u03b3 (Walker) = 151.\n\u03b3 (Casley) = 90.\n\u03b4 = 164.\n\u03b5 = 10.\n\u03b7 = 11.\n\u03b8 = 15.\n\u03ba = 16.\n\u03bb = 52.\n\u03bc = 21.\n\u03bd = 20.\n\u03bf1 = 96.\n\u03bf2 = 19.\n\u03c0 = 97.\n\u03c1 = 106.\n\u03c3 = 107.\n\u03c4 = 108.\n\u03c5 = 167.\n\u03c6 = 102.\n\u03c7 (Evv.) = 87.\n\u03c7 (Act.) = 148.\n\u03c7 (Epp.) = 161.\n\u03c8 = 86.\n\nTischendorf\u2019s notation.\n\n_am_. = 29.\n_and_. = 94.\n_bodl._ = 86.\n_cav._ = 28.\n_demid._ = 50.\n_em._ = 114.\n_erl._ = 110.\n_for._ = 129.\n_foss._ = 101.\n_fuld._ = 56.\n_gat._ = 104.\n_gue. lect._ = 118.\n_harl._ = 68.\n_ing._ = 115.\n_lux._ = 105.\n_mm._ = 67.\n_mt._ = 106.\n_pe._ = 132.\n_prag._ ( = _for._) = 129.\n_reg._ = 100.\n_san._ (_Ev._) = 145.\n_san._ (_Ep._) = 180.\n_taur._ = 133.\n_theotisc._ = 58.\n_tol._ = 41.\n\nWordsworth\u2019s notation.\n\nA = 29.\nB = 97.\nB2 = 25.\n[Symbol: BF ligature] = 72.\nC = 28.\nD = 51.\n\u0394 = 82.\nE = 67.\n[Symbol: EP ligature] = 98.\nF = 56.\nG = 21.\nH = 6.\n\u0398 = 18.\nI = 115.\nJ = 129.\nK = 5.\nL = 85.\nL2 = 165.\nL3 = 166.\nM = 130.\nM2 = 153\n[Symbol: MT ligature] = 106\nO = 86.\nO2 = 148.\nO3 = 161.\nP = 132.\nQ = 78.\nR = 87.\nR2 = 175.\nS = 91.\nS2 = 154.\nT = 41.\nU = 128.\nU2 = 147.\nV = 37.\nW = 2.\nX = 77.\nY = 64.\nZ = 68.\nZ2 = 159.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. EGYPTIAN OR COPTIC VERSIONS.\n\n\nThe critical worth of the Egyptian versions has only recently been\nappreciated as it deserves, and the reader is indebted for the following\naccount of them to the liberal kindness of one of the few English scholars\nacquainted with the languages in which they are written, the Rev. J. B.\nLightfoot, D.D., then Canon of St. Paul\u2019s, and Hulsean Professor of\nDivinity at Cambridge; who, in the midst of varied and pressing\noccupations, found time to comply with my urgent, though somewhat\nunreasonable, request for his invaluable aid in this particular for the\nbenefit of the second edition of the present work. His yet more arduous\nlabours, as Bishop of Durham (_cui quando ullum inveniemus parem?_) did\nnot hinder him from revising his contribution for the enriching of the\nthird edition of this work. In this, the fourth edition, the Editor has\nthe pleasure of acknowledging the most valuable help of the Rev. G.\nHorner, who has in particular revised the description of the MSS. of the\nBohairic version, and of the Rev. A. C. Headlam, Fellow of All Souls\nCollege, Oxford, who has added the result of more recent research. Mr.\nHeadlam\u2019s additions, are, wherever it is possible, distinguished by being\nenclosed in square brackets.\n\n\n\n\n(1) The Egyptian or Coptic Versions.\n\n\nMost ancient authors, from Herodotus downwards, referring to the heathen\nperiod of Egyptian history, mention two distinct modes of writing; the\nsacred and the common. In place of the former, however, Clement of\nAlexandria (Strom. v. 4, p. 657), who has left the most precise account of\nEgyptian writing, substitutes two modes, which he designates\n_hieroglyphic_ and _hieratic_ (or priestly) respectively; but since the\nhieratic is only a cursive adaptation of the hieroglyphic, the two are\ntreated as one by other writers under the common designation of \u201csacred\u201d\n(\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac). Both these forms of the sacred writing are abundantly represented\nin extant monuments, the one chiefly in sculptured stone, the other on\npapyrus rolls, as we might have anticipated.\n\nThe common writing is designated by various names. It is sometimes the\n\u201cdemotic\u201d or \u201cvulgar\u201d (\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac Herod. ii. 36, \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ce\u03b4\u03b7 Diod. iii. 3);\nsometimes the \u201cnative\u201d or \u201cenchorial\u201d (\u1f10\u03b3\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 in the trilingual\ninscriptions of Rosetta and Philae); sometimes \u201cepistolographic\u201d or\nletter-writer\u2019s character (Clem. Alex. _l. c._); and in a bilingual\ninscription recently (1866) discovered at Tanis (Reinisch u. Roesler, Die\nzweisprachige Inschrift von Tanis, Wien, 1866, p. 55), it is called\n\u201cEgyptian\u201d simply (\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2). This\nlast designation, as Lepsius remarks (Zeitschr. f. Aegyptische Sprache,\niv. p. 30, 1866), shows how completely the common writing had outstripped\nthe two forms of sacred character at the time of this inscription, the\nninth year of Ptolemy Euergetes I. This demotic character also is\nrepresented in a large number of extant papyri of various ages.\n\nThese two modes of writing, however\u2014the sacred and the vulgar\u2014besides the\ndifference in external character exhibit also two different languages, or\nrather (to speak more correctly) two different forms of the same language.\nOf ancient writers indeed the Egyptian Manetho alone mentions the\nexistence of two such forms (Joseph. c. Ap. i. 14), saying that in the\nword _Hyksos_ the first syllable is taken from \u201cthe sacred tongue\u201d (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03b3\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd), the second from the \u201ccommon dialect\u201d (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd): but this solitary and incidental notice is fully borne out by\nthe extant monuments. The sacred character, whether hieroglyphic or\nhieratic, presents a much more archaic type of the Egyptian language than\nthe demotic, differing from it very considerably, though the two are used\nconcurrently. The connexion of the two may be illustrated by the relation\nof the Latin and the Italian, as the ecclesiastical and vulgar tongues\nrespectively of mediaeval Italy. The sacred language had originally been\nthe ordinary speech of Egypt; but having become antiquated in common\nconversation it survived for sacred uses alone. Unlike the Latin however,\nit retained its archaic written character along with its archaic\ngrammatical forms. (_See_ Brugsch, De Natura et Indole Linguae Popularis\nAegyptiorum, Berlin, 1850, p. 1 sq.)\n\nThe earliest example of this demotic or enchorial or vulgar writing\nbelongs to the age of Psammetichus (the latter part of the seventh century\nB.C.); while the latest example of which I have found a notice must be\nreferred to some time between the years A.D. 165-169, as the titles\n(Armeniacus, Parthicus, &c.) given to the joint sovereigns M. Aurelius and\nL. Verus show(94). During the whole of this period, comprising more than\neight centuries, the sacred dialect and character are used concurrently\nwith the demotic.\n\nThe term _Coptic_ is applied to the Egyptian language as spoken and\nwritten by Christian people and in Christian times. It is derived from the\nearliest Arabic conquerors of Egypt, who speak of their native Christian\nsubjects as Copts. No instance of this appellation is found in native\nCoptic writers, with one very late and doubtful exception (Zoega, Catal.,\np. 648). Whence they obtained this designation, has been a subject of much\ndiscussion. Several theories which have been broached to explain the word\nwill be found in J. S. Assemani, Della Nazione dei Copti, &c., p. 172\n(printed in Mai, Script. Vet. Coll., V. P. 2), and in Quatrem\u00e8re,\nRecherches Critiques et Historiques sur la Langue et la Litt\u00e9rature de\nl\u2019\u00c9gypte, Paris, 1808, p. 30 sq. A very obvious and commonly adopted\nderivation is that which connects it with the town Coptos in Upper Egypt;\nbut as this place was not at that time prominent or representative, and\ndid not lie directly across the path of the Arab invaders, no sufficient\nreason appears why it should have been singled out as a designation of the\nwhole country. In earlier ages, however, it seems to have been a much more\nimportant place, both strategically and commercially (_see_ Brugsch, Die\nGeographie des alten \u00c4gyptens, i. p. 200; Egypt under the Pharaohs, i. p.\n212 sq., Eng. trans.). Even as late as the Roman epoch Strabo (xvii. p.\n815) describes it as \u201ca city with a mixed population of Egyptians and\nArabians\u201d (\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c1\u03ac\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd), and elsewhere (xvi. p.\n781) he mentions it as a station of Egyptian traffic with Arabia and\nIndia. Possibly therefore this Arabic name for the Egyptians is a survival\nof those early times. On the whole, however, it seems more probable that\nthe Arabic word is a modification of the Greek \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (Schwartze, Das\nalte Aegypten, i. p. 956). [And this derivation seems now to be generally\naccepted, the Greek word \u03b1\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 being represented in Coptic by \u2c84\u2ca8\u2ca0\u2ca6\u2c92\u2c9e\u2ca4,\nor \u2c94\u2ca8\u2ca0\u2ca6\u2c80\u2c92\u2c9e\u2ca4, whence came _Qibt_ (the common form) and our _Coptic_.\n(Stern, Koptische Grammatik, p. 1.)]\n\nFrom this account it will appear that the Coptic, as a language, cannot\ndiffer materially from the demotic. As a matter of fact the two are found\non examination to represent two successive stages of the same language\u2014a\nresult which history would lead us to anticipate. But while the language\nis essentially the same, the character of the writing is wholly different.\nThe demotic character was derived ultimately from the hieroglyphic. Hence\nit represents the same medley of signs. Only a small number are truly\nalphabetic, i.e. denote each a single sound. Others represent syllables.\nOthers again, and these a very large number, are not phonetic at all, but\npictorial. Of these pictorial or ideographic signs again there are several\nkinds; some represent the thing itself directly; others recall it by a\nsymbol; others again are determinative, i.e. exhibit the class or type, to\nwhich the object or action belongs. It is strange that this very confused,\ncumbrous, and uncertain mode of writing should have held its ground for so\nmany centuries, while all the nations around employed strictly phonetic\nalphabets; but Egypt was proverbially a land of the past, and some sudden\nshock was necessary to break up a time-honoured usage like this and to\neffect a literary revolution. This moral earthquake came at length in\nChristianity. Coincidently with the evangelization of Egypt and the\nintroduction of a Christian literature, we meet with a new and strictly\nphonetic alphabet. This new Egyptian or Coptic alphabet comprises thirty\nletters, of which twenty-four are adopted from the Greek alphabet, while\nthe remaining six, of which five represent sounds peculiar to the Egyptian\nlanguage and the sixth is an aspirate, are signs borrowed from the\nexisting Egyptian writing. If there is no direct historical evidence that\nthis alphabet was directly due to Christianity, yet the coincidence of\ntime and historic probability generally point to this. The Christians\nindeed had a very powerful reason for changing the character, besides\nliterary convenience. The demotic writing was interspersed with figures of\nthe Egyptian deities, used as symbolic or alphabetical signs. It must have\nbeen a suggestion of propriety, if not a dictate of conscience, in\ntranslating and transcribing the Scriptures to exclude these profane and\nincongruous elements from the sacred text.\n\nThe date at which this important change was introduced into Egyptian\nwriting has been a matter of much dispute. If it is correctly attributed\nto Christian influences, the new alphabet must have been coeval with the\nbirth of a native Christian literature in Egypt. The earliest extant\nremains of such a literature, to which we can fix a date with any\ncertainty, are the Epistles of St. Antony (who was born about the middle\nof the third century) to Athanasius and Theodore; but, as we shall see\npresently, one or both of the two principal Egyptian versions must have\nbeen already in common use at this time. Indeed, if the date assigned to a\nrecently discovered writing be correct, the introduction of the new\ncharacter was much earlier than this. On the back of a papyrus in the\nBritish Museum, containing the Funeral Oration of Hyperides, is a\nhoroscope in Greek and Egyptian, the latter written in Greek characters,\nwith the additional six letters almost, though not quite, identical with\nthe forms in the ordinary Coptic alphabet. Mr. C. W. Goodwin, who\ndescribes this important document in Chabas, \u201cM\u00e9langes \u00c9gyptologiques,\u201d\n2me s\u00e9rie, p. 294 sq., and in the \u201cZeitschrift f\u00fcr Aegyptische Sprache,\u201d\nvi. p. 18 sq., February, 1868, calculates (though he does not speak\nconfidently) that it is the horoscope of a person born A.D. 154(95).\n\nAny account of the Coptic dialects must start from the well-known passage\nin the Copto-Arabic grammar of Athanasius, bishop of Kos in the Thebaid,\nwho flourished in the eleventh century. \u201cThe Coptic language,\u201d he writes,\n\u201cis divided into three dialects; that is to say, the Coptic dialect of\nMisr, which is the same as the _Sahidic_; the _Bohairic_(96), which gets\nits name from the province of Bohairah; and the _Bashmuric_ in use in the\nregion of Bashmur. At the present time only the Bohairic and Sahidic\ncontinue to be used. These different dialects are derived from one and the\nsame language\u201d (quoted in Quatrem\u00e8re, Sur la Langue &c., p. 20 sq.). For\nthe present I will dismiss the Bashmuric, as it will require further\ninvestigation hereafter. The remaining two, the Bohairic and Sahidic, were\nthe principal dialects of the language, being spoken in Lower and Upper\nEgypt respectively; and are largely represented in extant remains of\nbiblical and ecclesiastical literature(97).\n\nThe Sahidic and Bohairic dialects are well defined and separate from each\nother. Among other distinctive features the Sahidic delights in the\nmultiplication of vowels as compared with the Bohairic; thus it has\n\u2c89\u2c97\u2c89\u2c9f\u2c9f\u2c97\u2c89 for \u2c81\u2c97\u2c9f\u2c97\u2c93, \u2c99\u2c8f\u2c8f\u2cb1\u2c89 for \u2c99\u2c8f\u2cb1, \u03e9\u2c81\u2c97\u2c81\u2c81\u2ca7\u2c89 for \u03e9\u2c81\u2c97\u2c81\u2ca7\u2c93, \u03e3\u2c89\u2c97\u2c89\u2c89\u2ca7 for \u03e3\u2c89\u2c97\u2c89\u2ca7,\n&c. Again the Sahidic has smooth-breathings where the Bohairic has\naspirates, e.g. \u2ca1\u2c8f\u2ca9\u2c89 for \u2cab\u2c8f\u2ca9\u2c93 \u201cheavens,\u201d \u2ca7\u2c8f\u2ca9 for \u2c91\u2c8f\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u201cwind\u201d; and it\nsubstitutes the simple aspirate for the stronger guttural, e.g. \u2cb1\u2c9b\u03e9 for\n\u2cb1\u2c9b\u2cad \u201clife,\u201d \u2ca1\u2c81\u03e9 for \u2cab\u2c81\u03e7 \u201crend.\u201d Besides these more general distinctions,\nthe two dialects have special peculiarities, not only in their grammatical\nforms, but even in their ordinary vocabulary; thus Sah. \u2c83\u2cb1\u2c95 for Boh. \u2c93 \u201cto\ngo,\u201d Sah. \u03e9\u2c89 for Boh. \u2ca3\u2c8f\u03ef \u201cmanner,\u201d Sah. \u03e9\u2c81\u03e9 for Boh. \u2c99\u2c8f\u03e3 \u201ca multitude,\u201d\n\u201cmany,\u201d and so forth. Indeed the relations of the Sahidic and Bohairic\ndialects to each other may be fairly illustrated, as will have appeared\nfrom these facts, by the relation of the Ionic and Attic, though the\ndifferences in the Egyptian dialects are greater than in the Greek. Like\nthe Attic, the Bohairic is the more literary and cultivated dialect of the\ntwo.\n\nThe demotic writing does not give the slightest indication that there were\ndifferent dialects of the spoken language (_see_ Brugsch, Grammaire\nD\u00e9motique, p. 10). In the Coptic, i.e. Christian, literature we learn this\nfact for the first time; and yet in the earliest age of this literature\nthe dialects are found to be fully developed. Brugsch, however, has shown\n(De Natura &c., p. 10) that transcriptions of several Egyptian words into\nGreek in the age of the Ptolemies occur in two different forms, which\ncorrespond fairly to the two dialects; and indeed it would seem probable\nthat the separation of the Bohairic and Sahidic should be ascribed to the\nmore remote time, when these regions formed separate kingdoms. The older\nEgyptian writing, whether sacred or demotic, would obscure the distinction\nof dialects, partly from a conservative fondness for time-honoured modes\nof representation, but chiefly owing to the nature of the character\nitself. Thus this character makes no provision for the nicer distinction\nof the vowel-sounds, while the dialectic differences depend very largely\non the divergent vocalization. Thus again it sometimes represents allied\nconsonants, such as _l_ and _r_, by the same sign; while one of the most\nstriking peculiarities of dialect is the common substitution of _l_ in the\ndialect of the Fayoum for _r_ in the Sahidic and Bohairic, as e.g. \u2c8f\u2c97\u2ca1 for\n\u2c8f\u2ca3\u2ca1 \u201cwine,\u201d \u2c97\u2c81\u2c99\u2ca1\u2c93 for \u2ca3\u2c9f\u2c99\u2ca1\u2c93 \u201cyear,\u201d \u2c97\u2c93\u2c99\u2c93 for \u2ca3\u2c93\u2c99\u2c93 \u201cweeping,\u201d and the like.\n\nOf the time when the Scriptures were translated into the two principal\ndialects of Egypt no direct record is preserved. Judging, however, from\nthe analogy of the Latin and Syriac and other early versions, and indeed\nfrom the exigencies of the case, we may safely infer that as soon as the\nGospel began to spread among the native Egyptians who were unacquainted\nwith Greek, the New Testament, or at all events some parts of it, would be\ntranslated without delay. Thus we should probably not be exaggerating, if\nwe placed one or both of the principal Egyptian versions, the Bohairic and\nthe Sahidic, or at least parts of them, before the close of the second\ncentury(98). There are, so far as I am aware, no phenomena whether of text\nor of interpretation in either, which are inconsistent with this early\ndate. Somewhat later than this we meet with notices which certainly\npresuppose the common use of a native version or versions of the\nScriptures. Quatrem\u00e8re (Sur la Langue &c., p. 9 sq.) and Schwartze (Das\nalte Aegypten, p. 956 sq.) have collected a number of such notices, from\nwhich we may gather that it was the exception and not the rule, when a\nnative Egyptian bishop or monk in the early centuries could speak the\nGreek language besides his own. Thus for instance St. Antony, who was born\nabout the year 250, could only speak his native tongue, and in conversing\nwith Greeks was obliged to use an interpreter (Athan., Vit. Ant. 74;\nHieron., Vit. Hilar. 30; Pallad., Hist. Laus. 26). His own letters, of\nwhich fragments are extant, were written in Egyptian. Yet he was a son of\nChristian parents, and as a boy listened constantly to the reading of the\nScriptures (Athan., _l. c._, \u00a7 1). When only eighteen or twenty years old,\nwe are told, he was powerfully influenced by hearing the Gospel read in\nchurch (\u00a7\u00a7 2, 3); and throughout his life he was a diligent reader and\nexpositor of the Scriptures. Indeed it is quite plain from repeated\nnotices, that the Scriptures in the Egyptian tongue were widely circulated\nand easily accessible at this time (_see_ esp. \u00a7 16 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 [i.e.\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2] \u03c4\u1fc7 \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1fc7 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1; \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.). Again his contemporary Theodore, a famous abbot to\nwhom one of his letters is addressed, was equally ignorant of any language\nbut his own, and had to use an interpreter in speaking with strangers and\nAlexandrians (Sahid. MS. clxxvii in Zoega, Catal., p. 371). The notices of\nTheodore\u2019s master Pachomius, the founder of Egyptian monasteries, point in\nthe same direction. This famous person, who was converted as a young man\nin the early years of the fourth century, was till late in life\nunacquainted with any language but his own. Receiving a visit from an\nAlexandrian, another Theodore, he assigned to him as his companion and\ninterpreter a monk who could speak Greek. After some time he himself\napplied himself to the study of this language that he might be able to\nconverse with his new friend (Zoega, p. 77 sq., and references in\nQuatrem\u00e8re, Sur la Langue &c, p. 12). Pachomius drew up rules for the\nguidance of his monastery in the Egyptian language. These rules, which are\nextant in Greek and Latin translations (Migne, Patrol. Graec., xl. p. 947;\nHieron., Op., ii. p. 53 sq.), demand a very diligent study of the\nScriptures from the brethren, even from novices before admission into the\norder. Again and again directions are given relating to the use of\nmanuscripts. These notices indeed refer chiefly to the Thebaid, which was\nthe great seat of the Egyptian monasteries; but the first part of St.\nAntony\u2019s life was spent in the monasteries of Alexandria, and it was only\nlater that he retired to the Thebaid (Athan., Vit. Ant. 49). Though\nprobably more common in Lower than in Upper Egypt, the knowledge of Greek\nwas even there an accomplishment denied to a large number of native\nChristians. Thus for instance, when Palladius visited John of Lycopolis,\nan abbot of the Nitrian desert, he found his knowledge of Greek so slight\nthat he could only converse through an interpreter (Hist. Laus. 43).\nThese, it will be remembered, are the most prominent names among the\nEgyptian Christians; and from such examples it must be plain that the\nordinary monk would be wholly dependent on a native version for his\nknowledge of the Scriptures. Yet the monks swarmed both in Upper and Lower\nEgypt at this time. Palladius reckons as many as 7,000 brethren under\nPachomius in the Tabennitic monastery (Hist. Laus. 38; comp. Hieron.,\nPraef. in Reg. Pach. 2, ii. p. 54), while Jerome states that close upon\n50,000 would assemble together at the chief monastery of the order to\ncelebrate the anniversary of the Lord\u2019s Passion (ib. \u00a7 7). After all\nallowance made for exaggeration, the numbers must have been very great.\nEven at a much later date the heads of the Egyptian Church were often\nwholly dependent on their native tongue. At the Robber Synod of Ephesus\n(A.D. 449) Calosirius, bishop of Arsinoe, spoke and signed through his\ndeacon, who acted as interpreter (Labb., Conc. iv. p. 1119, 1179, 1188,\ned. Colet.). And again two years later, when Dioscorus of Alexandria\nstarted for the Council of Chalcedon, he was accompanied by one Macarius,\nbishop of Tkou, a man of some note in his day, who could not be made to\nunderstand a word of Greek (Memph. MS. liv, in Zoega, Catal., p. 99).\n\n[The above was the most complete account of the dialects of the Coptic\nlanguage and of the early history of the Coptic versions at the time when\nit was written; but in the last ten years immense additions have been made\nto our knowledge\u2014additions which have rather complicated than solved the\nproblem. These have been mainly due to the process of new discovery and to\nthe labour of many scholars. A large number of previously unedited Coptic\nMSS. have been published; many new MSS. have been discovered, and the\ngrammar of the language has been studied with great minuteness. The credit\nof the discovery and editing of new MSS. must be largely given to the\nenergy and industry of the French school at Cairo, and especially to a\nformer member of it, M. Am\u00e9lineau, who has published a very large number\nof texts; the advances in our knowledge of the grammar are due to the\nlabours of the German school of Egyptologists, notably Stern, Erman, and\nSteindorff. More important in some ways has been the discovery of an\nimmense number of documents of a completely new class, written on papyrus,\npartly in and near the Fayoum, but also throughout the whole of Upper\nEgypt. These documents present us with the language in an earlier stage\nthan we had previously known, and in a class of writings such as letters,\ncontracts, and other legal documents, which conform to the spoken language\nof different parts of Egypt(99).\n\nIt is on the subject of the Egyptian dialects that our views have been\nmost modified. We have seen that three dialects in all are mentioned by\nAthanasius of Cos: the Bohairic, the Sahidic, and a third, the Bashmuric.\nWhen therefore fragments of a third version of the Scriptures were\ndiscovered, the name Bashmuric was at once assigned to them. The early\nhistory of the discussions on this dialect were admirably summed up by\nBishop Lightfoot. (3rd edition, pp. 401-403.)]\n\nThe first fragment, 1 Cor. ix. 9-16, was published at Rome in 1789 by\nGiorgi, from a MS. in the Borgian Museum, in the work which has been\nalready mentioned. He designated it Bashmuric, and, as the dialect\npresents affinities to both the Bohairic and Sahidic, he assigned to it a\ncorresponding locality. Herodotus (ii. 42) mentions the inhabitants of the\nAmmonian Oasis as speaking a language intermediate between the Egyptian\nand Ethiopian; and on the strength of this passage, combined with the\nphenomena just mentioned, Giorgi placed Bashmur in this region, deriving\nthe word from the Coptic \u2ca5\u2ca1\u2c81\u2c99\u2c8f\u2ca3 \u201cthe region beyond,\u201d i.e. west of the\nNile, and gave the dialect a second name _Ammonian_ (p. lxviii sq.). In\nthe same year M\u00fcnter in his work on the Sahidic dialect (_see_ above, p.\n393), published this same fragment independently at Copenhagen. He had not\nseen Giorgi\u2019s work, but adopted provisionally his name Ammonian, of which\nhe had heard, while at the same time he stated his own opinion that the\nvariations of form are too slight to constitute a separate dialect (p.\n76). In 1808 appeared Quatrem\u00e8re\u2019s work, to which I have more than once\nalluded. In it he included another fragment of this dialect (Baruch iv.\n22-v. 22, and Epist. Jerem.), from a MS. in the Imperial Library of Paris.\nAt the same time he pointed out that the passage in Herodotus will not\nbear the interpretation put upon it by Giorgi, and that, as a matter of\nfact, the Ammonians speak not a Coptic, but a Berber dialect. He also\nrefuted Giorgi\u2019s opinion about the position of Bashmur, and showed\nconclusively (p. 147 sq.) from several notices in Arabic writers that this\nregion must be placed in the Delta. In a later work (M\u00e9moires\nG\u00e9ographiques et Historiques sur l\u2019\u00c9gypte, i. p. 233, 1811) he identified\nit more definitely with Elearchia, the country of the Bucoli, that fierce\nand turbulent race of herdsmen, who, living in the marshy pasture land and\nprotected by the branches of the Nile, gave so much trouble to their\nPersian, Greek, and Roman rulers successively (_see_ Engelbreth, p. x).\nThe defiant attitude, which in earlier times these Bucoli assumed towards\ntheir successive masters, was maintained to the end by the Bashmurites\ntowards their Arab conquerors. While the other Copts succumbed and made\nterms, they alone stubbornly resisted. At length the Arab invaders were\nvictorious, and the Bashmuric race was extirpated. It would seem,\ntherefore, that Bashmur is the Arabic modification of the Coptic \u2ca1\u2ca5\u2c81\u2c99\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2ca3,\n\u201cregio cincta,\u201d the country girdled by the Nile.\n\nBut this being so, Quatrem\u00e8re, looking at the linguistic character of\nthese fragments, denies that they belong to the Bashmuric dialect at all;\nand suggests for them a locality which will explain their affinities to\nboth the Bohairic and Sahidic, assigning them to the Great and Little\nOasis, and accordingly designating them _Oasitic_. In 1810 Zoega\u2019s\n\u201cCatalogus,\u201d a posthumous work, appeared, in which he published all the\nfragments of this third Egyptian dialect found in the Borgian collection,\ncomprising (besides a portion of Isaiah) John iv. 28-53; 1 Cor. vi. 19-ix.\n16; xiv. 33-xv. 35; Eph. vi. 18-24; Phil. i. 1-ii. 2; 1 Thess. i. 1-iii.\n6; Heb. v. 5-9; v. 13-vi. 8-11; 15-vii. 5, 8-13; 16-x. 22, nearly all of\nthese passages being more or less mutilated. And in the following years\nthese same passages were edited by Engelbreth (Fragmenta Basmurico-Coptica\nVeteris et Novi Testamenti, Havniae, 1811), who had not seen Zoega\u2019s\nedition. Both Zoega and Engelbreth, though agreeing with Quatrem\u00e8re in the\nposition of Bashmur (the former without having seen Quatrem\u00e8re\u2019s book),\nyet claimed these fragments as Bashmuric.\n\nIn this opinion there is good reason for acquiescing. It seems highly\nimprobable that Athanasius of Kos, a Christian bishop, can have been\nignorant of a dialect so important that the Christian Scriptures were\ntranslated into it (for the various fragments oblige us to suppose a\ncomplete version of the Old and New Testaments), a dialect moreover which,\non Quatrem\u00e8re\u2019s hypothesis, was spoken not so very far from his own\nneighbourhood. And on the other hand it is not very probable that all\ntraces of a dialect which was known to him should have perished, as would\nbe the case if these fragments are not Bashmuric(100). To counterbalance\nthis twofold difficulty involved in Quatrem\u00e8re\u2019s hypothesis, the\nlinguistic objections ought to be serious indeed. But until we are better\nacquainted with the early history of Egypt than we are ever likely to be,\nit will be impossible to say why the Bashmuric dialect should not be\nseparated geographically from the Sahidic by a dialect like the Bohairic\nwith which it has fewer, though still some special affinities. The\ninterposition of an Ionic between two Dorian races in Greece will show the\ninsecurity of this mode of argument.\n\n[We must now continue the history. Although Bishop Lightfoot summed up in\nfavour of the theory which would assign these fragments to the Bashmuric,\nhis acuteness had noticed the difficulties which would be involved in the\nseparation of that dialect from the Sahidic, with which it had close\naffinities by what was then called the Memphitic. The greater knowledge of\nEgyptian history, which he desired but did not hope for, has become\npossible. And the objection is supported.\n\nIn 1878 Stern examined the history and character of the third Egyptian\ndialect (Z. A. S. 16, 1878, p. 23), and showed that it was almost\nimpossible on either linguistic or historical grounds to assign it to the\ndistrict of Bashmur. He pointed out that all the fragments we possessed of\nit had come from Upper Egypt, that we had positive evidence that there was\nno version of the Scriptures in the Bashmuric dialect, and that in\ndialectic affinities it was clearly akin to Sahidic. He also found\nevidence in Tuki of the existence of another dialect there called\nMemphiticus Alter, and that this was supported by papyrus documents which\ncame from the site of Memphis (_see_ below), which have some, although not\na complete, resemblance to the Bashmuric fragments. Hence he concluded\nthat the third dialect was Middle Egyptian, and, guided by two or three\nwords on a fragment of papyrus brought from the Fayoum, he decided that\nthat district must have presented the characters of isolation and\nindependence, which would make the development of a third dialect\npossible. The proof of his theory was not long to seek. Already in the\nyear 1877 attention had been called to the fragments now known as the\nFayoum papyri, and very soon they began to appear in European libraries;\nit was not long before Berlin and Vienna acquired very large collections.\nAn examination of the Coptic papyri in these collections has proved\nconclusively the truth of Stern\u2019s conclusions. The vast majority of these\npresent the same dialectic affinities as the third Bible translation, and\nshow also (as these had hinted) that the orthography of the dialect was\nnot fixed, in fact that hardly two documents present exactly the same\nlinguistic character, although all are definitely distinguished from the\nother two dialects. It may therefore be confidently asserted that all the\nliterature hitherto published as Bashmuric is in the dialect of the\nFayoum.\n\nBut the discoveries do not stop here. As early as 1876 M. E. Revillont had\npublished (Papyrus Coptes, 1876, p. 103) a collection of documents in the\nLouvre which came from the Monastery of Abba Jeremias, close to the\nSerapeum, near the site of the ancient Memphis. These were examined by\nStern (Z. A. S. 23, 1885, p. 145 sq.), who shows that here we have again a\ndifferent dialectic form. It has affinities to the Sahidic, affinities to\nthe Bohairic, and affinities to the Fayoum dialect. It represents in fact\nthe language of ancient Memphis, and an attempt has been made to call it\nMemphitic, but this would create endless confusion. Stern suggests Lower\nSahidic (Unter Sahidisch), but the name Middle Egyptian is the one which\nhas been generally adopted. It is this discovery that shows the necessity\nof avoiding the term Memphitic for the principal Egyptian version, and\nsubstituting the Arabic name \u2019Bohairic.\u2019 That was the language of the\nprovince on the sea-coast in the neighbourhood of Alexandria. And it was\nnot until the eleventh century, and the removal of the Patriarchate to\nCairo, that it became the language of the district of Memphis, that is,\nlong after the decline of Memphis had begun.\n\nBut our knowledge of the dialects of Egypt was still further to be\nextended. About ten years ago excavations were undertaken by the Egyptian\nDepartment of Antiquities in the Coptic Cemetery of Akhm\u00eem, the ancient\nChemnis or Panopolis in Upper Egypt. Amongst the results of this discovery\nwere the Apocryphal fragments, which have created a considerable sensation\nlately. These seem to have been considered by their discoverers to possess\nso little interest, that they were only accidentally given to the world\nseven years afterwards. The Coptic fragments were more fortunate, and in\n1884 M. Bouriant, head of the French School at Cairo, published\nconsiderable fragments of the Old Testament, including a hitherto unknown\nApocryphal work, the Testament of Sophonias (Zephaniah), in a fifth\ndialect, to which, for some reason, he at the time gave the name of\nBashmuric (M\u00e9moires, i. 1884, p. 243). This dialect was examined by Stern\n(Z. A. S. 24, 1886, p. 129), who showed that, while its affinities were\nwith the Middle Egyptian or Lower Sahidic, it represented a more primitive\nstage in the language, and that these documents are our oldest literary\nremains of the Coptic language.\n\nIn the place then of the two or three dialects known until recent years,\nwe have now at least five: the Bohairic, Sahidic, Fayoumic, Middle\nEgyptian, and Akhmimic, not to speak of the Bashmuric, in which no\nliterary remains exist. The exact relations of these dialects to one\nanother have not yet been satisfactorily worked out, and the problem is\ncomplicated by the fact that most of them had no fixed or standard form,\nand that papyri (especially those containing documents in the popular\nspeech) vary in every locality and every age. To write the history then of\nthese dialects and of the New Testament in them is not at present\npossible; but the following may suggest some more or less tentative\nconclusions.\n\nIn the earlier stages of the Egyptian language as we have it now in a\nwritten form, there are apparently no certain signs of dialectic\nvariations, although there is certainly evidence that such did exist in\nthe spoken language; and the changes introduced by Christianity are of\ngreat interest. The old language was fixed and definite in its\northography, and it represented the traditions of a caste of scribes, and\nnot of the popular speech. Christianity on the other hand was in Egypt a\ngreat popular movement; a new and simple alphabet became necessary; the\nScriptures were translated, not into the literary language, but into that\nof the people; and the copies of these translations in each locality\nreflected the local peculiarities of speech which had existed for\ncenturies, but which up to that time had left behind no literary memorial.\nGradually, however, the Christian Church created for itself literary\ntraditions, and a tendency towards unification set in round three centres,\nthe monasteries of the Natron Lakes, the great home of monastic life in\nLower Egypt, the monasteries of the Fayoum, and the great White Monastery\nDeir Amba Shenoudah near Sohag in Upper Egypt. Hence came the three\ndialects which have a more or less literary character. Then began the\ndecay of the Coptic language. First the dialect of the Fayoum died out,\nthen the Sahidic, until finally Bohairic became, as it is now, the church\nlanguage of the whole country.\n\nThe relation of these changes to the history of the versions has not yet\nbeen satisfactorily worked out. It has been sufficiently proved that\ntranslations into Coptic existed in the third century, very probably in\nthe second; but in what dialect they were made, and what relation they\nbore to the existing translations, has not yet been discovered, and the\nproblem remains unsolved.]\n\n\n\n\n(2) The Bohairic Version(101).\n\n\nThe Bohairic version was not included in the Polyglotts, though others\nmuch later in date and inferior in quality found a place there. The first\nuse of it is found in Bp. Fell\u2019s Oxford N. T. (1675), to which many\nreadings were contributed by the Oxford Oriental scholar, T. Marshall,\nRector of Lincoln College, who died in 1675, before the Coptic New\nTestament was published. It was afterwards employed by Mill, who\nrecognized its importance, and gave various readings from it in the notes\nand appendix to his edition of the Greek Testament (1707). These readings\nhe obtained partly from the papers of Marshall, who had contemplated an\nedition of the Coptic Gospels, but was prevented by death from\naccomplishing his design, and partly from the communications of a foreign\nscholar, Lud. Piques. The MSS. which supplied the former belonged at one\ntime to Marshall himself, and are now in the Bodleian; the latter were\ntaken from MSS. in the Royal Library at Paris (see Mill\u2019s \u201cProl.,\u201d pp.\nclii, clx, clxvii).\n\nThe _editio princeps_ of the Bohairic version appeared a few years later\nwith the title \u201cNovum Testamentum Aegyptium vulgo Copticum ex MSS.\nBodleianis descripsit, cum Vaticanis et Parisiensibus contulit, et in\nLatinum sermonem convertit David Wilkins Ecclesiae Anglicanae Presbyter,\nOxon. 1716.\u201d The editor Wilkins was a Prussian by birth, but an Oxonian by\nadoption. In his preface he gives an account of the MSS. which he used,\nand which will be described below. The materials at his disposal were\nample, if he had only known how to use them; but unfortunately his\nknowledge of the language was not thoroughly accurate, nor had he the\ncritical capacity required for such a task. His work was very severely\ncriticized at the time by two eminent Egyptian scholars, Jablonsky and La\nCroze, whose verdict has been echoed by most subsequent writers; and no\ndoubt it is disfigured by many inaccuracies. But he may fairly claim the\nindulgence granted to pioneers in untrodden fields of learning, and he has\nlaid Biblical scholars under a debt of gratitude which even greater errors\nof detail could not efface. With some meagre exceptions this was the first\nwork which had appeared in the Egyptian tongue; and under these\ncircumstances much may be forgiven in an editor. The defects which render\ncaution necessary in using it for critical purposes are twofold. _First._\nThe text itself is not constructed on any consistent or trustworthy\nprinciples. It is taken capriciously from one or other of the sources at\nhis disposal; no information is given respecting the authority for the\nprinted text in any particular passage; and, as a rule, no various\nreadings are added. In the prolegomena indeed (p. xi sq.) notices of two\nor three variations are given, but even here we have no specification of\nthe MSS. from which they are taken. _Secondly._ The translation cannot be\ntrusted. The extent of this inaccuracy may be seen from the examples in\nWoide, Append. Cod. Alex., p. 16 sq., and Schwartze, Evang. Memph. Praef.,\np. xxii. One instance will suffice. In 1 Cor. xiii. 3 Wilkins gives the\nrendering \u201cut comburar,\u201d corresponding to the common reading \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9; though the Memphitic has \u2c8f\u2ca7\u2c81 \u03e3\u2c9f\u2ca9\u03e3\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2c99\u2c99\u2c9f\u2c93 = \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9. Yet\nWilkins\u2019 error has been so contagious that Tattam in his Lexicon gives\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u201cincendere\u201d as a sense of \u03e3\u2c9f\u2ca9\u03e3\u2c9f\u2ca9, referring to this passage as an\nexample, though its universal meaning is \u201cto praise,\u201d \u201cto glorify.\u201d\n\nIn 1829 the British and Foreign Bible Society published an edition of the\nFour Gospels in Coptic (Bohairic) and Arabic. It is a handsomely printed\n4to, intended for the use of the native Christians of Egypt. In the Coptic\nportion, which was edited by Tattam, the text of Wilkins was followed for\nthe most part, but it was corrected here and there from a recent MS. which\nwill be described below, Evang. 14. This edition has no critical value.\n\nBetween the edition of Wilkins and those of Schwartze and Boetticher more\nthan a century and a quarter elapsed; but no important step was taken\nduring this period towards a more critical use of the Bohairic version.\nWetstein appears to have been satisfied with the information obtainable\nfrom Mill and Wilkins. Bengel was furnished with a few various readings\nfrom the Berlin MSS. by La Croze; and Woide again in his preface, p. 13,\ngave a collation of Mark i. from the Berlin MS. of this Gospel. Griesbach\nseems not to have gone beyond published sources of information; and this\nhas been the case with later editors of the Greek Testament.\n\nThe title of Schwartze\u2019s edition is \u201cQuatuor Evangelia in dialecto linguae\nCopticae Memphitica perscripta ad Codd. MS. Copticorum in Regia\nBibliotheca Berolinensi adservatorum nec non libri a Wilkinsio emissi\nfidem edidit, emendavit, adnotationibus criticis et grammaticis,\nvariantibus lectionibus expositis atque textu Coptico cum Graeco comparato\ninstruxit M. G. Schwartze.\u201d St. Matthew and St. Mark appeared in 1846, St.\nLuke and St. John in the following year. The title of the work fully\nexplains its aim. The editor was an exact Egyptian scholar, and so far it\nis thoroughly trustworthy. The defects of this edition, however, for\npurposes of textual criticism are not inconsiderable. (1) Schwartze\u2019s\nmaterials were wholly inadequate. Though the libraries of England, Paris,\nand Rome contain a large number of MSS. of different ages and qualities,\nnot one of these was consulted; but the editor confined himself to one\ngood MS. and one indifferent transcript, both in the Berlin library. These\nwill be described below. The text of the Bohairic Gospels therefore still\nremains in a very unsatisfactory state. (2) His collation with the Greek\ntext is at once superfluous and defective. This arises from his capricious\nchoice of standards of comparison, the Codex Ephraem and the printed texts\nof Lachmann and Tischendorf (1843). If he had given an accurate Latin\ntranslation of the whole, and had supplemented this with a distinct\nstatement of the reading of the Bohairic version, where variations are\nknown to exist in other authorities, and where at the same time a Latin\nversion could not be made sufficiently explicit, the result would have\nbeen at once more simple, more complete, and more available. As it is, he\nhas contented himself with translating particular sentences (more\nespecially those which are mistranslated in Wilkins), while his method of\ncomparison necessarily overlooks many variations. With all its defects,\nhowever, this edition has a far higher value than its predecessor for\ncritical purposes. Not the least useful part of Schwartze\u2019s notes is the\ncollation of the published portions of the Sahidic Version, where also he\nhas corrected errors in the edition of Woide and Ford (_see_ below, p. 129\nsq.).\n\nSchwartze only lived to complete the four Gospels. He had, however, made\nsome collations for the Acts and Epistles during his last visit to\nEngland; and after his death they were placed in the hands of P.\nBoetticher, who continued the work. The titles of Boetticher\u2019s editions\nare \u201cActa Apostolorum Coptice,\u201d and \u201cEpistulae Novi Testamenti Coptice,\u201d\nboth dated Halae, 1852. His plan, however, differs wholly from\nSchwartze\u2019s. He substitutes an 8vo size for the 4to of his predecessor;\nand he gives no translation or collation with the Greek, but contents\nhimself with noting the variations of his MSS. in Coptic at the foot of\nthe page. Thus his book is absolutely useless to any one who is\nunacquainted with the language. Moreover his materials, though less scanty\nthan Schwartze\u2019s, are far from adequate. For the Acts and for the Catholic\nEpistles he employed Schwartze\u2019s collations of two English MSS., which he\ncalls _tattamianus_ and _curetonianus_, and himself collated or obtained\ncollations of two others in the Paris Library (_p_), (_m_); while for the\nPauline Epistles he again used Schwartze\u2019s collations of the same two\nEnglish MSS., together with _another_ Paris MS. (_p_), and the Berlin\nMSS., which will be described below. The account, which he gives in his\npreface, of the MSS. employed by him is so meagre, that in some cases they\nare with difficulty identified. Nor again are the collations used for this\nedition nearly complete. I have pointed out below the defects in\nSchwartze\u2019s collation of one of the English MSS., which I have partially\nexamined; and Brugsch in an article in the \u201cZeitschr. der Deutschen\nMorgenl. Gesellsch.,\u201d vii. p. 115 sq. (1853), has given a full collation\nof the Berlin MS. of the Epistle to the Romans, showing how many\nvariations in this MS. are not recorded in Boetticher\u2019s edition. The\nApocalypse has never appeared.\n\nAbout the same time a magnificent edition of the whole of the New\nTestament in Coptic (Bohairic) and Arabic was published under the auspices\nof the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. The first part, which is\nentitled \u2ca1\u2c93 \u2cad\u2cb1\u2c99 \u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c93 \u2c87 \u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c93\u2c89\u2ca9\u2c81\u2c85\u2c85\u2c89\u2c97\u2c93\u2c9f\u2c9b \u2c89\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c81\u2c83, \u201cThe Book of the Four Holy\nGospels,\u201d bears the date 1847, Tattam\u2019s Coptic Lexicon having appeared in\n1836(102); the second, comprising the remaining books, including the\nApocalypse, is called \u2ca1\u2c93 \u2cad\u2cb1\u2c99 \u2c99\u2c81\u2c8b\u2c83 \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c89 \u03ef\u2c87\u2c93\u2c81\u2c91\u2c8f\u2c95\u2c8f \u2c99\u2c83\u2c89\u2ca3\u2c93, \u201cThe Second Book of\nthe New Testament,\u201d and appeared in 1852. We are informed in a Coptic\ncolophon at the end, that the Book was edited by \u201cHenry Tattam the\npresbyter of the Anglican Church for the Holy Patriarch and the Church of\nChrist in Egypt.\u201d The type is large and bold, and the volumes are very\nhandsome in all respects, being designed especially for Church use. The\neditor\u2019s eminent services to Coptic literature are well known, but the\ntitles and colophon do not suggest any high expectations of the value of\nthis edition to the scholar. The basis of the text in this edition was a\ncopy belonging to the Coptic Patriarch; but the editor collated it with\nMSS. in his own possession and with others belonging to the Hon. R.\nCurzon, adopting from these such variations as seemed to him to agree with\nthe best readings of the Greek MSS. As no various readings are recorded,\nthis edition is quite useless for critical purposes: nor indeed was the\naim which the editor set before him consistent with the reproduction of\nthe Bohairic New Testament in its authentic form. The interpolated\npassages for instance are printed without any indication that their\nauthority is at all doubtful.\n\nThe following account of the Bohairic MSS. existing in European libraries,\nthough probably very imperfect, will yet be found much fuller than any\nwhich has hitherto been given. Indeed the list in Le Long (Bibl. Sacr., i.\np. 140 sq.) is the only one which aims at completeness; and the date of\nthis work (1723) would alone disqualify it, as a guide on such a subject\nat the present time. Those manuscripts which I describe from personal\ninspection are marked with an asterisk. In other cases my authorities are\ngiven.\n\n\n    A. _The Gospels._\n\n    In the Bodleian Library at Oxford are:\n\n    *1. Hunt. 17, fol., paper, Copt. Arab., a very fine and highly\n    important MS. Among other illuminations are seated figures of the\n    four Evangelists prefixed to the several Gospels. The date is\n    given at the close of St. John as the year 890 (of the martyrs),\n    i.e. A.D. 1174(103). Wilkins (p. vi), though giving the Coptic\n    numerals correctly \u2cb1\u2c99, interprets them 790, i.e. A.D. 1074. This\n    will serve as an example of his inaccuracy; and in future I shall\n    not consider it necessary to point out his errors, which are very\n    numerous, unless there is some special reason for doing so. The\n    scribe\u2019s name, John a monk, appears in a colophon at the end of\n    St. Mark.\n\n    The importance of this MS. consists in a great measure in its\n    marginal additions, which are very frequent. The text seems to\n    give the original Bohairic version in a very pure form; while the\n    margin supplies all or nearly all the passages which in fewer or\n    greater numbers have crept into the text of other Bohairic MSS.,\n    and which (so far as regards the Bohairic version itself) must be\n    regarded as interpolations(104), whatever sanction they may have\n    in Greek MSS. or other ancient authorities. Among these marginal\n    additions I have noted Matt. vi. 13 (the doxology); Mark vi. 11\n    \u1f00\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., vii. 16 \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f66\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., xiii. 14 \u03c4\u1f78\n    \u1fe5\u03b7\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u1f74\u03bb \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, xv. 28 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; Luke i.\n    28 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c3\u1f7a \u1f10\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03be\u03af\u03bd (in this case, however, not in the\n    margin, but in the text in a smaller hand); xxii. 43, 44 (the\n    agony); xxiii. 17 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; xxiii. 34; John vii.\n    53-viii. 11. On the other hand the descent of the angel, John v.\n    3, 4, which is wanting in many Bohairic MSS. and can hardly have\n    been part of the original Bohairic version, stands in the text\n    here. At the end of St. Mark the margin gives in an ancient hand\n    (whether coeval with the MS. or not, I am unable to say) the\n    alternative ending of this Gospel substantially as it is found in\n    L and other authorities. This marginal note runs as follows: \u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9f\u03e9\n    \u2c9b\u2c8f \u2ca7\u2c8f\u2ca3\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2c89\u2ca7\u2c81\u03e5\u03e9\u2c9f\u2c9b\u03e9\u2c89\u2c9b \u2c99\u2c99\u2c9f\u03e5 [\u2c99\u2c99\u2cb1\u2c9f\u2ca9?] \u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c8f\u2c89\u2ca7 \u2c81\u2ca9\u2c93 \u2c99\u2c89\u2c9b\u2c89\u2c9b\u2ca5\u2c81 \u2ca1\u2c89\u2ca7\u2ca3\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9f\u03e9\n    \u03e7\u2c89\u2c9b \u2c9f\u2ca9\u2cb1\u2c9b\u03e9 \u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97 \u2c81\u2ca9\u2ca5\u2c81\u03eb\u2c93 \u2c99\u2c99\u2cb1\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9f\u03e9 \u2c99\u2c89\u2c9b\u2c89\u2c9b\u2ca5\u2c81 \u2c9b\u2c81\u2c93 \u2c87\u2c89 \u2c9f\u2c9b \u2c81\u03e5\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2cb1\u2c9b\u03e9 \u2c89\u2ca3\u2cb1\u2c9f\u2ca9\n    \u2c9b\u03eb\u2c89 \u2c93_\u2c8f_\u2ca5 \u2c93\u2ca5\u03eb\u2c89\u2c9b \u2c9b\u2c93\u2c99\u2c81\u2c9b\u03e3\u2c81\u2c93 \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c89 \u2cab\u2ca3\u2c8f \u03e3\u2c81 \u2c9b\u2c89\u03e5\u2c99\u2c81\u2c9b\u03e9\u2cb1\u2ca7\u2ca1 \u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9f\u03e9 \u2c81\u03e5\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2cb1\u2ca3\u2ca1\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2c89 \u03e9\u2c93\n    \u03e3\u2c89\u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c9f\u2ca9\u03e5 \u2c89\u2c91\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c81\u2c83 \u2c9b\u2c81\u2ca7\u2c99\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9b\u2c95 \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c89 \u2ca1\u2c93\u2cb1\u2c9b\u03e7 \u2c9b\u2c89\u2c9b\u2c89\u2c89 \u2c81\u2c99\u2c8f\u2c9b \u2c9b\u2c81\u2c93 \u2c9f\u2c9b \u2c9b\u2c91\u2cb1\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2c89\u2ca9\u2c8f\u2ca1\u2c93\n    \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9f\u03e9 \u2c99\u2c89\u2c9b\u2c89\u2c9b\u2ca5\u2c81 \u2c9b\u2c81\u2c93 \u2c89\u03e5\u2c89\u2ca7\u2c81\u03e9\u2cb1\u2c9f\u2ca9 [\u2c89\u2ca9\u2ca7\u2c81\u03e9\u2cb1\u2c9f\u2ca9?] \u2c9b[\u2c9b\u03eb\u2c89?] \u03e9\u2c81\u2c9b\u03e3\u2c91\u2c9f\u2ca3\u2ca7\u2c89\u2ca3\n    \u2c9b\u2c89\u2c99 \u03e9\u2c81\u2c9b\u03e9\u2c9f\u03eb\u03e9\u2c89\u03eb \u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9f\u03e9 \u2c99\u2ca1\u2c9f\u2ca9\u03eb\u2c89 \u03e9\u2c97\u2c93 \u2c9b\u03e9\u2c97\u2c93 \u2c9b\u2ca5\u2c81\u03eb\u2c93 \u2c9b\u2c81\u2ca9\u2c89\u2ca3\u2c9f\u03ef \u2c85\u2c81\u2ca3 \u2ca1\u2c89. \u201cAnd all\n    those things he commanded to those that went after Peter, and they\n    told them openly, and after these things again also (\u03b4\u03ad) Jesus\n    appeared to them from the rising of the sun unto the setting\n    thereof, and sent them to preach the holy and imperishable gospel\n    of eternal life. Amen. These again are reckoned (added) to them;\n    And after these things troubles and afflictions possess them, and\n    they said not a word to any man, for they were afraid.\u201d I have\n    translated the emendations suggested in brackets, for without them\n    it is hardly possible to make sense. But, even when thus\n    corrected, the passage is not free from confusion. The alternative\n    ending, as here given, most closely resembles the form in the\n    Aethiopic MSS.\n\n    *2. Hunt. 20, fol., paper. The titles, initials, &c., are\n    illuminated. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked,\n    besides Greek and Coptic chapters. This MS. omits the additions in\n    Matt. xviii. 11, Luke xxii. 43, 44; John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii.\n    11, but contains those of Matt. xxiii. 13 (after ver. 14); Luke\n    xxiii. 17, 34. The catalogue ascribes this MS., which is undated,\n    to the thirteenth century; but this is probably too early.\n\n    *3. Marshall 5, fol., paper. The titles, initials, &c.,\n    illuminated. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked.\n    This MS. is very like the last in general appearance. In the\n    catalogue the date of a donation is given as A. Mart. 1214 = 1498\n    A.D. It contains the additions Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34;\n    John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11; but omits Matt. xviii. 11.\n    Petraeus, who transcribed this MS. in the seventeenth century,\n    calls it very ancient and in ruinous condition.\n\n    *4. Marshall 6, fol., paper. The last few pages are supplied by a\n    later hand. A colophon gives the year of the original MS. as A.\n    Mart. 1036 = A.D. 1320, and that of the restoration = 1641 A.D.,\n    as A. Mart. 1357. This MS. omits the additions of Luke xxii. 43,\n    44; xxiii. 17; John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11.\n\n    *5. Marshall 99, small 8vo, paper, containing the Gospel of St.\n    John only. A comparatively recent but interesting MS. It has no\n    date recorded. It omits John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11.\n\n    In the British Museum:\n\n    *6. Oriental 425, 4to, paper, Copt. Arab: Ff. 2 a-6b contain the\n    Eusebian tables, after which originally followed the four Gospels\n    in the common order, ending fol. 116b. The whole of St. Luke\n    however, and the whole of St. John except xix. 6-xx. 13 and xxi.\n    13-25, are wanting, owing to the mutilation of the MS. The\n    original paging shows that they once formed part of the volume.\n    The subsequent matter is not Biblical. The Ammonian Sections and\n    Eusebian Canons are given throughout. A colophon at the end of St.\n    John gives the name of the scribe John, who must have copied it\n    from the codex in the possession of the Catholic Institute of\n    Paris in the year 1024 of the Martyrs, i.e. A.D. 1308. This MS.\n    was purchased at Archdeacon Tattam\u2019s sale. The addition in Matt.\n    xviii. 11 is wanting.\n\n    *7. Oriental 426, 4to, paper, Copt. Arab. The Gospel of St. John,\n    of which the beginning as far as i. 13 is wanting. After this\n    Gospel follow some extracts from the New Testament, Eph. iv. 1-13;\n    Matt. xvi. 13-19; Luke xix. 1-10, with other matter. Like the last\n    MS., this was bought at Tattam\u2019s sale. It has not the additions\n    John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11.\n\n    *8. Oriental 1001, large 8vo, paper, with illuminations, Copt.\n    Arab., \u201cbought of N. Nassif, 21 May, 1869.\u201d The four Gospels\n    complete. Each Gospel is preceded by introductory matter, table of\n    contents, &c. The first few leaves of the book are supplied by a\n    later hand. A note (fol. 77b), written by Athanasius, Bishop of\n    Apotheke or Abutij, A.M. 1508 = 1792 A.D., states that the\n    original date of the MS. was A. Mart. 908 (= A.D. 1192). This date\n    is also repeated fol. 264b. It may possibly be correct, though the\n    MS. does not appear so old. On fol. 125b this same Athanasius\n    records that he presented the book to the convent of St. Antony,\n    A. Mart. 1508 (= A.D. 1792). It contains Luke xxiii. 34, and the\n    pericope John vii. 53-viii. 11; but omits the additions Luke xxii.\n    43, 44; John v. 3, 4.\n\n    *9. Additional 5995, fol., paper, Copt. Arab, \u201cbrought from Egypt\n    by Major-General Turner, August, 1801.\u201d The four Gospels complete.\n    The few first leaves of St. Matthew and the last leaf of St. John,\n    besides some others in the middle of the volume, are added in a\n    later hand. In an Arabic colophon (fol. 233b) it is stated that\n    the book was repaired A. Mart. 1492 (i.e. A.D. 1776) by one\n    Ibrahim, son of Simeon, but that its original date was more than\n    four hundred years earlier. This is perhaps an exaggeration. The\n    same colophon says that it was written for the convent of Baramus\n    in the desert of Scete. Coptic chapters are written in uncials\n    while the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are in cursive\n    letters. It has not Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17; nor the pericope\n    John vii. 53-viii. 11; but contains Luke xxiii. 34, and the\n    interpolation in John v. 3, 4.\n\n    *10. Additional 14,740 A. A folio volume in which various Bohairic\n    and a few Armenian fragments are bound up together, of various\n    sizes and ages, some on vellum, some on paper. The following\n    fragments of the Bohairic New Testament on vellum are important on\n    account of their antiquity.\n\n    (i) Luke viii. 2-7, 8-10, 13-18.\n    (ii) 2 Cor. iv. 2-v. 4.\n    (iii) Eph. ii. 10-19; ii. 21-iii. 11.\n    (iv) 1 Thess. iii. 3-6; iii. 11-iv. 1.\n\n    The fragment from the Ephesians, the most ancient of them all,\n    appears from the handwriting to rival in antiquity the oldest\n    Sahidic fragments. They are all more or less mutilated. This\n    volume also contains several paper fragments of the Bohairic New\n    Testament, belonging chiefly (it would appear) to lectionaries,\n    but these are not worth enumerating.\n\n    *11. Oriental 1315. The four Gospels, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The\n    letter to Carpianus, Eusebian tables, &c., are prefixed. This MS.,\n    dated A.M. 924 = 1208 A.D., and bearing a statement of donations\n    in A.M. 973 = 1257 A.D., is very similar in writing to Cod. Vat.\n    ix, and the name of the scribe George occurs in both, but the\n    readings do not agree. This and the two following MSS. are from\n    Sir C. A. Murray\u2019s collection.\n\n    *12. Oriental 1316. The four Gospels, 8vo, paper, Copt. Arab.,\n    illuminated, and dated A.D. 1663.\n\n    *13. Oriental 1317. The four Gospels, 8vo, paper, Copt. Arab.,\n    elaborately illuminated, and dated 1814.\n\n    In the British and Foreign Bible Society\u2019s Library:\n\n    *14. The four Gospels, sm. 8vo size (five leaves in a quire),\n    paper, Copt. Arab. The volume begins with the letter to Carpianus\n    and the tables. Introductions are prefixed to the Gospels. The\n    Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked. This volume is a\n    copy made from one in the possession of the Patriarch of Cairo for\n    the Bible Society, and bears the date A.D. 1817 (in a colophon at\n    the end of St. Luke). It was partially used for the Society\u2019s\n    edition of the Coptic Gospels (_see_ above, p. 107). It contains\n    Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34; John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11,\n    and seems to represent the common Coptic text of the present day.\n\n    In private Libraries in England(105):\n\n    15. The Library of the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres. Fol.,\n    paper. The four Gospels. It was written (see colophon at the end\n    of St. Luke) by a scribe, Simon of Tampet, but the date A.M. 1230\n    = A.D. 1508 is of the donation to a monastery. Several leaves in\n    different parts of the volume were added much later, A. Mart. 1540\n    (i.e. A.D. 1824), by one George, a monk. It has a rough picture\n    and the Ammonian Sections and Canons throughout. There is a\n    tendency to Sahidic forms. For these particulars my thanks are due\n    to Mr. Rodwell who kindly allowed me to see his catalogue of Lord\n    Crawford\u2019s collection. Through inadvertence I omitted to inspect\n    the MS. itself.\n\n    *16. Parham 121, 122, 123 (nos. 9, 10, 11 in the printed\n    Catalogue, p. 29), in Lord Zouche\u2019s Library at Parham in Sussex.\n    Fol., paper, Copt. Arab. There is a date of donation A.M. 1211 =\n    1495 A.D. in 123. These three MSS., which contain respectively the\n    Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, must originally\n    have formed part of the same volume, which St. Mark is wanted to\n    complete. The last leaf of St. Luke is numbered \u2ca7\u2c95, the first of\n    St. John \u2ca7\u2c95\u2c83. Several pages at the beginning and end of St.\n    Matthew are supplied by a later hand. The Ammonian Sections and\n    Eusebian Canons are marked. These volumes are written in a large\n    hand, and have illuminations. They contain the additions Luke\n    xxiii. 34; John vii. 53-viii. 11; but not Luke xxii. 43, 44;\n    xxiii. 17; nor John v. 3, 4.\n\n    *17. Parham 126 (no. 14, p. 29, in the printed Catalogue), 12mo,\n    paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels in a small neat hand, smaller\n    than I remember to have seen in any Coptic MS. There are two\n    dates, A.M. 1392 = A.D. 1676, and A.M. 1446 = 1730 A.D., and it is\n    probable that the book was nearly finished at the earlier time.\n    Introductions and tables of contents are prefixed to each Gospel.\n    This MS. has the additions Luke xxiii. 34; John vii. 53-viii. 11;\n    but not Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17; nor John v. 3, 4; just as\n    was the case with the MS. last described, no. 16(106).\n\n    In the Paris National Library:\n\n    *18. Cod. Copt. 13, fol., vellum. The four Gospels. A very fine\n    manuscript, elaborately illuminated, with pictures of the\n    principal scenes in the Gospel history. It has the Ammonian\n    Sections and Eusebian Canons in the margin, with the tables at the\n    end of the Gospels. The writer, Michael, bishop of Damietta, gives\n    his name in a colophon at the end of St. Mark. The date at the end\n    of St. Matthew is 894 (or A.D. 1178); of the other Gospels 896 (or\n    A.D. 1180). This MS. is erroneously dated 1173 in the Catalogue,\n    and 1164 in Le Long. The additions Luke xxiii. 17, 34; and John\n    vii. 53-viii. 11, are part of the original text. Also Luke xxii.\n    43, 44, is written _prima manu_ and in the text, but in smaller\n    characters so as to make a distinction. On the other hand the\n    interpolation John v. 3, 4, is wanting.\n\n    *19. Cod. Copt. 14, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels. It\n    has the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons, and two other\n    capitulations besides. It contains Luke xxiii. 34, but has not the\n    additions Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17; John v. 3, 4; vii.\n    53-viii. 11. It is referred in the Catalogue to the thirteenth\n    century, which is probably about its date.\n\n    *20. Cod. Copt. 15 (Colbert 2913, Reg. 330. 3), 4to. The scribe\n    Victor gives his name in a colophon at the end. It belongs to the\n    more ancient Coptic MSS., though no date is given. The Ammonian\n    Sections and Eusebian Canons are given. The passages Luke xxii.\n    43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34; Joh. v. 3, 4, are added in the margin, but\n    form no part of the original text. On the other hand John vii.\n    53-viii. 11 now forms part of the text, but the leaf containing it\n    and several which follow have been supplied by a much later hand.\n    This is the case also with the beginning of St. Matthew and the\n    end of St. John.\n\n    *21. Cod. Copt. 16 (De La Mare 579, Reg. 330. 2), 4to, Copt.\n    Arab., paper. Owing to the Calendar at the end beginning 1204 A.D.\n    = A.M. 920, it is assigned to the thirteenth century. It has the\n    Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons and (like Cod. Copt. 14) the\n    Greek and Coptic chapters. It contains Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii.\n    17, 34; but not John v. 3, 4; nor John vii. 53-viii. 11.\n\n    *22. Cod. Copt. 59 (St. German. 25), \u201cEx Bibl. Coisl. olim\n    Seguer.\u201d Fol., paper. The four Gospels. It has the Ammonian\n    Sections and Eusebian Canons, and two other capitulations besides.\n    The date at the end is given as 946 A.M. i.e. 1230 A.D. It does\n    not contain the additions, Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34. The\n    earlier part of St. John containing the test passages is wanting.\n\n    *23. Cod. Copt. 60, fol., paper, a late MS. The four Gospels. On a\n    fly-leaf is written, \u201cQuatuor evangelia Coptice Venetiis emta per\n    me Fr. Bernardum de Montfaucon anno 1698, die 11 Augusti.\u201d It has\n    the Ammonian Sections and Canons. The additions, Luke xxii. 43,\n    44; xxiii. 17; John v. 3, 4, are wanting; but Luke xxiii. 34; John\n    vii. 53-viii. 11 stand as part of the text.\n\n    *24. Cod. Copt. 61, 8vo, paper. St. John\u2019s Gospel. A late MS. The\n    leaves are bound up in the wrong order, and some are wanting. It\n    contains John vii. 53-viii. 11.\n\n    *25. Cod. Copt. 62, 4to, paper. St. John\u2019s Gospel. Arabic words\n    are written interlinearly in the earlier part, but not throughout.\n    It has not v. 3, 4 nor vii. 53-viii. 11. It appears to be of fair\n    antiquity.\n\n    In the Berlin Royal Library:\n\n    26. MS. Orient. Diez. A. Fol. 40, described by Schwartze (Praef.\n    p. xiii sq.), who collated it for his edition. He says (p. xx),\n    \u201cdecimum saeculum non superat, dummodo aequet.\u201d The great body of\n    this MS. is written by two different scribes, both of whom perhaps\n    wrote in the thirteenth century; the two first and two last leaves\n    are supplied by a third and more recent hand. Of the two earlier\n    scribes the second was not contemporary with the first, as the\n    similarity of the paper and ink might suggest, but the MS. was\n    already mutilated when it came into his hands, and he supplied the\n    missing leaves. The date of A.M. 1125 = 1409 A.D. occurs in an\n    Arabic statement but with no mention of writing. There is a\n    tendency to Sahidic forms, more especially in the parts supplied\n    by the second scribe. This MS. is generally free from the\n    interpolated additions, e.g. Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34;\n    John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11; and seems to be of high value.\n\n    27. MS. Orient. Quart. 165, 166, 167, 168, four transcripts by\n    Petraeus, also collated by Schwartze (_see_ Praef., p. ix). The\n    first (165) has the lessons for Sundays and Festivals from the\n    four Gospels; the other three (166, 167, 168) contain the Gospels\n    of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke respectively, with the\n    exception of the parts included in the ecclesiastical lessons.\n    These transcripts were made in the year 1662, from a MS. which\n    Petraeus describes as \u201cvetustum\u201d and \u201cvetustissimum,\u201d and which is\n    now in the Bodleian Library (Maresc. 5).\n\n    In the G\u00f6ttingen University Library:\n\n    28. Orientalis 125, described incorrectly by Lagarde, Orientalia,\n    Heft i. p. 4. The four Gospels, written A. Mart. 1073 (A.D. 1357).\n    Some portions are written in another hand and on different paper\n    from the rest when the book was restored in A.D. 1774, but the\n    greater part is of 1357.\n\n    In the Vatican Library at Rome:\n\n    29. Copt. 8, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels. Some\n    leaves at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end have been\n    supplied more recently. The scribe of these later leaves was one\n    Arcadius, son of John, who gives the date 1303 (i.e. A.D. 1587).\n    The body of the MS. is ascribed by Assemani to the fourteenth\n    century. For further particulars see Mai, Coll. Vet. Script., v.\n    2, p. 120 sq. From the collection of I. B. Raymund (no. i), left\n    by will to the Vatican Library.\n\n    30. Copt. 9 (Raymund iv), fol., paper, Copt. Arab., with fine\n    illuminations. The four Gospels, preceded by the letter of\n    Eusebius to Carpianus and the Eusebian tables. It was given to the\n    Monastery of St. Antony in the Arabian desert, A. Mart. 986 (=\n    A.D. 1270), by one Michael Abu-Khal\u00ee\u1e33ah, as recorded in a colophon\n    written by Gabriel, who was patriarch of Alexandria at the time.\n    Assemani states that this Michael was also the writer of the MS.,\n    but more probably the writer was named George and wrote the book\n    in A.D. 1205 = A.M. 921. After the plunder of the monastery by the\n    Arabs, the MS. came into the possession of two other patriarchs of\n    the Copts, John (A.D. 1506) and Gabriel (A.D. 1526), and was\n    afterwards placed (A.D. 1537) in the Church of SS. Sergius and\n    Bacchus at Alexandria. These facts are stated in other colophons.\n    _See_ Mai, _l. c._, p. 122 sq.\n\n    31. Copt. 10 (Raymund vi), 4to, paper, Copt. Arab. The four\n    Gospels; ascribed to the fourteenth century by Assemani. _See_\n    Mai, _l. c._, p. 125. There are dates of births and marriages, the\n    earliest being A.D. 1488 = A.M. 1204.\n\n    32. Copt. 11 (Petri de Valle vi), fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The\n    Gospel of St. John. It bears the date 1062 (i.e. A.D. 1346). _See_\n    Mai, _l. c._, p. 125.\n\n    33. British Museum; Orient. 3381, fol., paper. The four Gospels.\n    Is not dated, though the writer gives his name as Victor. It is\n    probably of the thirteenth century, and somewhat resembles the\n    writing of Paris 59. The book was restored in A.D. 1793 under the\n    patronage of Athanasius, Bishop of Abu Tij. There is also record\n    of a collation by a priest in A.D. 1801, while a note in English\n    says that the MS. came from Esneh and was bought of the Bishop of\n    Luxor by Mr. Lieder, who sold it in 1864 to Mr. Geden, from whom\n    it passed to the Museum.\n\n    34. Paris; Copt. 14 A, Copt. Arab., fol., paper. The four Gospels.\n    Is dated A.M. 1309 = A.D. 1593. This date is mentioned in Paris 14\n    as being the time of a work which was performed on that book, and\n    there can be little doubt that this work was the copying of 14 A\n    from 14.\n\n    35. Paris; Copt. 60, fol., paper. The four Gospels. This MS. is\n    not dated, but is not ancient, and appears to be a copy of MS.\n    Diez in its present double form as far as the end of St. Luke. St.\n    John is by another hand, and may be of earlier date. The former\n    copier was a deacon, Abu al Monn\u00e2.\n\n    36. Paris, L\u2019Institut Catholique de, Copt. Arab., 4to, paper. The\n    four Gospels. It is dated A.M. 966 = A.D. 1250. The writer Gabriel\n    calls himself monk and priest, and afterwards became Patriarch. A\n    donation of the book to Church of St. Mercurius is recorded in\n    1750 A.D. The book was brought from Egypt by M. Am\u00e9lineau and sold\n    to the Institute a few years ago. There are very interesting\n    miniatures, which have been partly published in the Album of M.\n    l\u2019Abb\u00e9 Hyvernat.\n\n    B. _The Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts._\n\n    In the Bodleian Library at Oxford are:\n\n    1. Hunt. 43, fol., paper, Copt. Arab., containing Paul. Ep., Cath.\n    Ep., Acts, and Apocalypse. The paging ceases at the end of the\n    Acts, and between the Acts and Apocalypse are some blank pages. I\n    did not, however, notice any difference in the handwriting of the\n    two parts. The date given at the end of the Acts is 1398 (i.e.\n    A.D. 1682).\n\n    *2. Hunt. 203, 4to, paper. The Pauline Epistles. The beginning,\n    Rom. i. 1-ii. 26, and the end, 2 Tim. iv. 4-Tit. ii. 6, are in a\n    later hand. This later transcriber ends abruptly in the middle of\n    a page with \u2c89\u2c91\u2ca3\u2c9f\u2ca9, Tit. ii. 6. Thus the end of Titus and the whole\n    of Philemon are wanting. There are several lacunae in the body of\n    the work owing to lost leaves. The description in Wilkins is most\n    inaccurate.\n\n    *3. Hunt. 122, 4to, paper, illuminated. The Pauline Epistles. The\n    beginning and end are wanting. The MS. begins with Rom. viii. 29,\n    and ends with 2 Tim. i. 2. The date is given at the end of 2\n    Corinthians as 1002 of the Diocletian era, i.e. A.D. 1286. The\n    scribe gives his name as \u201c\u2ca1\u2c9f\u2c97\u03e5\u2c81\u03eb the son of the bishop.\u201d\n\n    In the British Museum:\n\n    *4. Orient. 424, 4to, paper, Copt. Arab., containing Paul. Ep.,\n    Cath. Ep., Acts. At the end of the Pauline Epistles, and at the\n    end of the Acts, are two important Arabic colophons, in which the\n    pedigree of the MS. is given. From these we learn that both\n    portions of this MS. were written A. Mart. 1024 (= A.D. 1308) by\n    one Abu Said. They were copied, however, from a previous MS. in\n    the handwriting of the patriarch Abba Gabriel and bearing the date\n    A. Mart. 966 (= A.D. 1250). This Abba Gabriel stated that \u201che took\n    great pains to copy it accurately and correct it, both as to the\n    Coptic and Arabic texts, to the best of human ability.\u201d This MS.\n    of Abba Gabriel again was copied from two earlier MSS., that of\n    the Pauline Epistles in the handwriting of Abba Yuhanna, bishop of\n    Sammanud, that of the Catholic Epistles and Acts in the\n    handwriting of \u201cJurja ibn Saksik(?) the famous scribe.\u201d This MS.\n    belonged to Archdeacon Tattam, and was purchased for the British\n    Museum at the sale of his books. It is the MS. designated\n    \u2019tattamianus\u2019 in the edition of Boetticher, who made use of a\n    collation obtained by Schwartze. The corrections in this MS.\n    (designated t* in Boetticher) are written in red ink.\n\n    5. Oriental 1318, ff. 294, fol., 4to, Copt. Arab., dated A. Mart.\n    1132 = A.D. 1416.\n\n    In private collections in England:\n\n    *6. Parham 124 (no. 12, p. 29, in the printed Catalogue), fol.,\n    paper, Copt. Arab. Paul. Ep., Cath. Ep., Acts. There are several\n    blank leaves at the end of the Pauline Epistles, and the numbering\n    of the leaves begins afresh with the Catholic Epistles, so that\n    this MS. is two volumes bound together. They are, however,\n    companion volumes and in the same handwriting. This is doubtless\n    the MS. of which Schwartze\u2019s collation was used by Boetticher\n    (_see_ above, p. 109), and which he calls \u201ccuretonianus.\u201d I am\n    informed that it is designated simply _cur._ by Schwartze himself.\n    It certainly never belonged to Cureton, but was brought with the\n    other Parham MSS. by the Hon. R. Curzon (afterwards Lord Zouche)\n    from the East, and ever afterwards belonged to his library.\n    Boetticher\u2019s designation therefore is probably to be explained by\n    a confusion of names. I gather moreover from private\n    correspondence which I have seen, that some of Mr. Curzon\u2019s Coptic\n    MSS. were in the keeping of Cureton at the British Museum about\n    the time when Schwartze\u2019s collation was made, and this may have\n    been one. If so, the mistake is doubly explained. I infer the\n    identity of this MS. with the _curetonianus_ of Boetticher for the\n    following reasons: (1) Having made all enquiries, I cannot find\n    that Dr. Cureton ever possessed a Coptic MS. of the whole or part\n    of the New Testament; (2) The MS. in question must have been in\n    England, and no other English MS. satisfies the conditions. My\n    first impression was that the MS. next described, Parham 121,\n    would prove to be the _curetonianus_, for I found between the\n    leaves an envelope addressed to Mr. Cureton at the British Museum,\n    and bearing the post mark, January, 1849; this fact indicating\n    that it had been in Mr. Cureton\u2019s hands about the time when\n    Schwartze\u2019s collation was made. But a comparison of the readings\n    soon showed that this identification must be abandoned. (3) The\n    cipher which Boetticher gives for the date is also found in this\n    MS. in two places, after the Pauline Epistles and again after the\n    Acts. This coincidence is the more remarkable as the cipher is not\n    very intelligible. (4) The readings of our MS., Parham 124, where\n    I compared them, agree with those of Boetticher\u2019s _curetonianus_,\n    with an occasional exception which may be accounted for by the\n    inaccuracy of the collation. This is the case with crucial\n    readings, as for instance the marginal alternative in Acts vii.\n    39. At the same time Schwartze\u2019s collation, if Boetticher has\n    given its readings fully, must have been very imperfect. In a\n    short passage which I collated I found more variations omitted\n    than there were verses.\n\n    *7. Parham 125 (no. 13, p. 29, printed Catalogue), small 4to,\n    paper, in a very neat hand, with illuminations, Copt. Arab. It\n    contains the Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts.\n\n    In the National Library at Paris:\n\n    *8. Copt. 17, fol., paper, Copt. Arab., described in the Catalogue\n    as \u201cantiquus et elegantissime scriptus.\u201d It contains the fourteen\n    Pauline Epistles. Is this the MS. collated by Boetticher for these\n    Epistles and designated _p_ by him?\n\n    *9. Copt. 63, small fol., paper. \u201cEmta per me Bernardum de\n    Montfaucon Venetiis anno 1698, 11 Augusti.\u201d It contains the\n    fourteen Pauline Epistles, and is dated at the end \u2c81\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca5, i.e. 1376\n    = A.D. 1660.\n\n    *10. Copt. 64, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. \u201cManuscrit de la\n    Biblioth\u00e8que de Saumaise acquis par l\u2019abb\u00e9 Sallier pour le B. R.\n    en 1752.\u201d It contains the fourteen Pauline Epistles.\n\n    *11. Copt. 66, 4to, paper, with occasional Arabic notes in the\n    margin. It belonged to the Coislin library, and previously to the\n    Seguerian. It contains the Catholic Epistles and Acts. The date of\n    its completion is given at the end as 1325, i.e. A.D. 1609. A\n    collation of this MS. was used by Boetticher for his edition, and\n    is designated _p_ by him.\n\n    *12. Copt. 65, fol., paper. \u201cEmta Venetiis per me Fr. I. Bernardum\n    de Montfaucon anno 1698, 2 Augusti.\u201d This volume contains the\n    Apocalypse, Catholic Epistles, and Acts. It consists of two parts,\n    ff. 1-32 containing the Apocalypse, and ff. 33-102 containing the\n    Catholic Epistles and Acts. The two parts are written on different\n    paper, and apparently in different hands. At the end of the\n    Apocalypse the date is given 1376 = A.D. 1660. At the end of the\n    Acts also the same date 1376 is given, and the scribe there\n    mentions his name \u2c93\u2cb1\u2c81\u2ca1\u2c93\u2ca1\u2ca3\u2c89\u2ca5\u2c83\u2ca9\u2ca7\u2c89\u2ca3\u2c9f\u2ca5. Boetticher collated this MS.\n    for his edition and designates it _m_.\n\n    In the Royal Library at Berlin:\n\n    13. Orient. 615, fol., Copt. Arab., containing the Epistles to the\n    Colossians, Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews, Timothy, Titus.\n\n    14. Orient. 116, fol., Copt. Arab., containing the Epistles to the\n    Romans and Corinthians.\n\n    15. Orient. 169, 4to. A transcript of the Epistles to the\n    Ephesians and Philippians in Coptic, made by Petraeus at Leyden in\n    1660.\n\n    These three were collated by Boetticher, from whom I have\n    extracted this meagre account, which is all that he gives. He\n    designates them _b_.\n\n    In the Vatican:\n\n    16. Copt. 12 (I. B. Raymund ii), fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The\n    Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts; ascribed by\n    Assemani to the fourteenth century. In this MS. the Epistle to the\n    Hebrews stands after the Epistle to Philemon, thus departing from\n    the usual Bohairic order, as above, no. 6. _See_ Mai, Coll. Vet.\n    Script., v. 2, p. 125 sq.\n\n    17. Copt. 13 (I. B. Raymund iii), fol., paper, Copt. Arab.,\n    ascribed by Assemani to the thirteenth century. The fourteen\n    Pauline Epistles. _See_ Mai, _l. c._, p. 127 sq.\n\n    18. Copt. 14 (I. B. Raymund v), 4to, paper, Copt. Arab.,\n    containing the Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts. It\n    was written by Michael the monk of the city of Bembge in the year\n    1074 (i.e. A.D. 1358), except the last leaf, which was supplied in\n    1220 (i.e. A.D. 1504). _See_ Mai, _l. c._, p. 128 sq.\n\n    C. _The Apocalypse._\n\n    In England:\n\n    *1. Bodleian, Hunt. 43, already described under Epistles 1.\n\n    *2. Library of Lord Crawford and Balcarres. A very small folio,\n    paper, with illuminations, Copt. Arab. \u03ef\u2c81\u2ca1\u2c9f\u2c95\u2c81\u2c97\u2c93\u2c99\u2caf\u2c93\u2ca5 \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c89 \u2c93\u2cb1\u2c81\u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c8f\u2ca5.\n    The Apocalypse itself is followed by \u201cThe Benediction which is\n    read before the Holy Apocalypse.\u201d The date 1091 (i.e. A.D. 1375)\n    is given at the end of the Apocalypse, where also the scribe\n    mentions his name Peter. On a later page he describes himself as a\n    monk and presbyter. There are corrections in the margin of the\n    Apocalypse, some in red, others in black ink. Some of these\n    contain various readings, e.g. x. 11 \u2ca1\u2c89\u03eb\u2cb1\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 for \u2ca1\u2c89\u03eb\u2c81\u03e5\n    \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9. This MS. once belonged to Tattam.\n\n    *3. Parham 123 (no. 15, p. 29 in the printed Catalogue). Small\n    fol., paper, rudely written in a recent hand. Copt. Arab. It\n    contains the Apocalypse, followed by the \u201cBook of the Holy\n    Benediction, &c.\u201d The scribe, who has evidently a very indifferent\n    knowledge of Coptic, gives his name as Matthew the son of Abraham,\n    and states that the work was finished\n    \u03e7\u2c89\u2c9b\u03ef\u2ca3\u2c9f\u2c99\u2ca1\u2c93\u2c9b\u03e3\u2c9f\u2ca3\u2c89\u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c93\u2c99\u2c81\u2ca3\u2ca7\u2ca9\u2ca3\u2c9f\u2ca5\u2c89\u2c91\u2ca9. This ought to be the year 1105 of\n    the Martyrs (= A.D. 1389); but the MS. must be later than this\n    date. The colophon itself is perhaps copied from an earlier MS.\n\n    *4. Parham 124 (no. 16, p. 29 in the printed Catalogue). A large\n    12mo, paper, Copt. Arab. It contains about fifteen lines in a\n    page, and about eleven letters in a line. Two or three pages\n    towards the beginning are in a later hand. The date is given at\n    the end, A. Mart. 1037 = A.D. 1321. This Apocalypse is not\n    Sahidic, as described in the printed Catalogue, but Bohairic.\n\n    At Paris:\n\n    *5. Copt. 65, already described under Epistles 11.\n\n    *6. Copt. 91, 8vo, paper, Copt. Arab., containing the Apocalypse\n    alone, \u03ef\u2c81\u2ca1\u2c9f\u2c95\u2c81\u2c97\u2ca9\u2c99\u2caf\u2c93\u2ca5 \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c89 \u2c93\u2cb1\u2c81\u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c8f\u2ca5 \u2ca1\u2c93\u2c89\u2ca9\u2c81\u2c85\u2c85\u2c89\u2c97\u2c93\u2ca5\u2ca7\u2c8f\u2ca5. It is dated at the\n    end 1117 (? = A.D. 1401).\n\n    In the printed Catalogue *Copt. 34 (Delamare 581, Reg. 342. 3) is\n    also stated to contain \u2019Apocalypsis e Graeca lingua in Copticam\n    conversa,\u2019 but there seems to be some mistake about this.\n\n    At Rome:\n\n    *7. Anglican Library, C. i. 9. The Apocalypse in Copt. Arab.\n    \u03ef\u2c81\u2ca1\u2c9f\u2c95\u2c81\u2c97\u2ca9\u2caf\u2c93\u2ca5 \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c89 \u2c93\u2cb1\u2c81 \u2ca1\u2c93\u2c89\u2ca9\u2c81\u2c85\u2c85\u2c89\u2c97\u2c93\u2ca5\u2ca7\u2c8f\u2ca5 \u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9f\u03e9 \u2c81\u2ca1\u2c9f\u2ca5\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2c97\u2c9f\u2ca5, &c., said to\n    belong to the fifteenth century.\n\n    8. Library of the Propaganda, large 8vo, paper, in a modern hand.\n    Copt. Arab. The Apocalypse somewhat mutilated. It contains i.\n    12-ii. 26, and iii. 9-xxii. 12. It is briefly described among the\n    Borgian MSS. by Zoega, p. 3.\n\n    9. Vatican, Copt. 15, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The Apocalypse\n    followed by \u201cOrdo dominicae palmarum\u201d (fol. 59). Referred by\n    Assemani to the fourteenth century. _See_ Mai, Coll. Vet. Script.,\n    v. 2, p. 130.\n\n    10. Vatican, Copt. 16 (I. B. Raymund, no. xi), 4to, paper, Copt.\n    Arab. The Apocalypse, followed by a Benedictio. It was written by\n    one John son of Abul-Menna in 1061 (i.e. A.D. 1345). The scribe\n    prays \u201comnes amicos suos sinceros ... ut castigent atque corrigant\n    errata illius pro sua prudentia, quoniam ausus sum fungi munere\n    mihi ignoto.\u201d _See_ Mai, _l. c._, p. 130 sq.(107)\n\n    Besides these MSS. of different parts of the New Testament there\n    is also a considerable number of Bohairic Lectionaries in the\n    different libraries of Europe.\n\n\nFrom this account of the MSS. it appears that, with the single exception\nof the Apocalypse, the Bohairic New Testament, as far back as we can trace\nits history, contained all the books of our present Canon. Nor have I\nnoticed any phenomena in the language of the several books, which point to\nany want of uniformity or separation of date; though it is possible that a\nmore thorough investigation and a more complete mastery of the language\nmight reveal such. It seems clear, however, that the Apocalypse had not a\nplace among the Canonical books. In the majority of cases it is contained\nin a separate MS. In the exceptions which I have investigated, where it is\nbound up with other books (the MSS. numbered 1, 12, of the Epistles and\nActs), it is distinguished from them in some marked way; and probably this\nwill be found to be the case with any which have not yet been examined. In\nshort, there is not a single authenticated case of a MS. in which it is\ntreated as of equal authority with the other Canonical books. Moreover in\nCopto-Arabic vocabularies it is omitted from its proper place at the end\nof the New Testament, all the other books being taken in order. This\ndepreciation of the Apocalypse may perhaps be taken as indicating the date\nof the completion or codification of the Bohairic version. The earlier\nAlexandrian writers, Clement and Origen, in the first decades of the third\ncentury, quote the Apocalypse without hesitation as the work of St. John.\nThe later Alexandrian Church also from the close of the third century\nonward seems to have had no doubt about its Apostolic authority (_see_\nWestcott, Canon, p. 321). But about the middle of the third century doubts\nwere entertained respecting its authorship, to which expression was given\nby Dionysius of Alexandria (flor. A.D. 233-265), though even Dionysius did\nnot deny its canonicity. The difficulty, however, may have been powerful\nenough to cause its exclusion from the Egyptian Canon.\n\nThe order of the several parts of the New Testament in the MSS. is (1)\nGospels, (2) Pauline Epistles, (3) Catholic Epistles, (4) Acts. The\nGospels occur in their common order. It is remarkable, however, that in\nthe vocabularies St. John frequently stands first, so that we get the\norder, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, which (with the doubtful exception of\nthe Sahidic) is unique. Of this, however, there is no trace in the MSS.;\nand, as some of these must carry the tradition further back than the\nvocabularies, the arrangement is perhaps to be explained in some other\nway. The Pauline Epistles include the Hebrews, which is placed after 1, 2\nThessalonians and before 1, 2 Timothy(108), as in the Greek MSS. \u05d0ABC, &c.\n(see p. 71). This accords with the general opinion of the Alexandrian\nschool, which regarded this Epistle as the work of St. Paul (_see_\nWestcott, Canon, p. 323 sq.). In other respects the familiar order is\nobserved in the Pauline Epistles, as is also the case with the Catholic\nEpistles(109).\n\nThe Bohairic version is for the most part a faithful rendering of the\noriginal, and the Egyptian language which by this time had borrowed\nlargely from the Greek vocabulary is fairly adequate for the purpose. This\nversion therefore may generally be consulted even for minute variations in\nthe text. The connecting particles are commonly observed; and as the\nlanguage has both definite and indefinite articles, it may be employed,\nthough with some caution, by the textual critic where other versions fail\nhim. In one point, however, it is quite useless. When the question lies\nbetween a participle and a finite verb in the construction of a sentence,\nthe looseness of the Egyptian syntax will seldom afford any clue to the\nreading which the translator had before him. Perhaps the weakest point in\nthe language is the absence of a passive voice, for which the third person\nplural active, used impersonally, acts as a substitute. This produces\nstrange awkwardnesses of expression. Thus John i. 6 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\nis rendered \u201cwhom they sent from God,\u201d \u2c89 \u2c81\u2ca9\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9f\u2ca3\u2ca1\u03e5 \u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97\u03e9\u2c93\u2ca7\u2c89\u2c9b \u2cab\u03ef, and i. 17\n\u1f41 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u039c\u03c9\u03c5\u03c3\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b4\u03cc\u03b8\u03b7 \u201cThe law they gave it by Moses,\u201d \u2ca1\u2c93 \u2c9b\u2c9f\u2c99\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u2c81\u2ca9\u2ca7\u2c8f\u2c93\u03e5\n\u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97\u03e9\u2c93\u2ca7\u2c89\u2c9b \u2c99\u2cb1\u2ca9\u2ca5\u2c8f\u2ca5. Another grave defect is the want of a word corresponding\nto the simple meaning of \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, which has to be rendered by various\nexpedients according to the context.\n\nTo the adoption of Greek words there seems to be hardly any limit but the\ncaprice of the translator. Already in the demotic writing we find a few of\nthese foreign intruders naturalized; but in the Coptic, as used for\necclesiastical purposes, they occur in the greatest profusion. Very\nfrequently their adoption cannot be explained by any exigencies of\ntranslation. Thus for instance the translator will sometimes render one\nGreek word by another, e.g. John xiii. 5, \u03bd\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 by \u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 or \u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7; Acts\nxix. 40, \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd by \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd; xxviii. 17, \u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 by \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1. Thus again\nhe will diversify the rendering in the same passage, using indifferently\nthe Greek and the Egyptian word for the same original, e.g. \u03e5\u2cb1\u2c9b\u2ca7 and\n\u2ca1\u2c93\u2ca3\u2c81\u2c8d\u2c93\u2c9b (\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd), Matt. iv. 1, 3; \u03eb\u2ca3\u2c9f\u03eb and \u2ca5\u2ca1\u2c89\u2ca3\u2c99\u2c81, John viii. 33, 37;\n\u2ca1\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2ca3\u2c9f and \u2c95\u2c89\u2ca5\u2c81\u2ca3 (\u039a\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1), John xix. 12, 15; \u2c93\u03e7 and \u2c87\u2c89\u2c99\u2cb1\u2c9b (\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd),\nMatt. viii. 16, 28, 33. And again and again Greek words are used, where\ncommon Egyptian equivalents were ready to hand. The conjunctions \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac, \u03b4\u03ad,\n\u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd, were doubtless needed to supply a want in the Egyptian language,\nwhich, like the Hebrew and Aramaic, was singularly deficient in\nconnecting-particles; but we should hardly have looked for such\ncombinations as \u1f45\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b3\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad, \u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u1f04\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2,\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b3\u03b5, and the like. Nor should we expect to find Greek terms\nintroduced with such reckless prodigality as in the following sentences:\nJohn xviii. 3, \u2c9b\u2c89\u2c99 \u03e9\u2c81\u2c9b\u2cab\u2c81\u2c9b\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u2c9b\u2c89\u2c99 \u03e7\u2c81\u2c9b \u2c97\u2c81\u2c99\u2ca1\u2c81\u2ca5 \u2c9b\u2c89\u2c99 \u03e9\u2cb1\u2c9b \u03e9\u2c9f\u2ca1\u2c97\u2c9f\u2c9b; Acts xxiii. 8,\n\u2c99\u2c99\u2c9f\u2c9b \u2c81\u2c9b\u2c81\u2ca5\u2ca7\u2c81\u2ca5\u2c93\u2ca5 \u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c87\u2c89 \u2c81\u2c85\u2c85\u2c89\u2c97\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c87\u2c89 \u2ca1\u2c9b\u2c89\u2ca9\u2c99\u2c81; Acts xxvii. 12, \u2c95\u2c81\u2ca7\u2c81\u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c81\u2c9b \u2c89 \u2cab\u2c9f\u2c93\u2c9b\u2c93\u2c9d\n\u2c89 \u2c89\u2ca3 \u2ca1\u2c81\u2ca3\u2c81\u2cad\u2c93\u2c99\u2c81\u2c8d\u2c93\u2c9b \u03e7\u2c89\u2c9b \u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2c97\u2ca9\u2c99\u2c8f\u2c9b; Rom. vi. 13, \u2c9b\u2c89\u2ca7\u2c89\u2c9b \u2c99\u2c89\u2c97\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u2c9b \u03e9\u2c9f\u2c97\u2ca1\u2c9f\u2c9b \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c89 \u03ef\n\u2c81\u2c87\u2c93\u2c95\u2c93\u2c81.\n\n[No definite discussion on the history or critical value of the Bohairic\nversion is possible until the edition which is being prepared by the Rev.\nG. Horner is published; based as it is on a collation of all known MSS.\n\nAn opinion which at present seems to prevail largely among scholars is\nthat of Stern (Z. A. S. 20, 1882, p. 202), who dates it to the fourth or\nfifth century, and ascribes it to the literary activity of the monks of\nthe Natron Lakes. He has further suggested that it and the Sahidic may\nboth be derived from, or at any rate connected with, the Akhm\u00eem version\n(Z. A. S. 24, 1886, p. 134).\n\nThe last statement may be definitely dismissed; it is based upon a single\nsentence quoted from an apocryphal book of the Old Testament, and is\ndefinitely disproved in the case of the New Testament by a comparison of\nthe two versions. They are not only different translations, but are based\non a different Greek text. The first statement is apparently based upon\nlanguage, and has undoubtedly an element of truth in it. The language of\nthe version as we have it was probably revised and corrected, and reduced\nto a fixed orthography and a more definite form, but even here it is not\npossible to speak quite positively, and we know that there are\nconsiderable variations in orthography preserved in some of the MSS. which\nmay represent the tradition of different monasteries. But, granting this,\nit does not by any means follow that there was not a Bohairic dialect and\na Bohairic version at an earlier date, which is closely represented by\nthis, as the Akhmim version was represented by the Sahidic, as regards the\nGreek text implied. In favour of an early version in the dialect of Lower\nEgypt is first the _a priori_ argument of the probability of Christianity\nspreading earliest in the Delta. We know that by the middle of the third\ncentury it had spread among the native population of Alexandria (Dion. Al.\nap. Eus. \u201cH. E.\u201d vi. 41), and probably had done so in the second century.\nIf Greek had spread so little in the Delta in the fourth or fifth century\nas to make a Bohairic version necessary, it is not likely to have been\nmore widely prevalent in the third. On these grounds then we should\nnaturally expect Christianity to spread earliest among the native\npopulations of the districts round Alexandria, and also that the New\nTestament or a portion of it would be translated very early into their\nlanguage. Nor again does there seem any evidence for deriving the Bohairic\ndialect from the Akhmimish. It is true that the latter represents the\nlanguage of Egypt in an earlier form, but it is not an earlier form of\nBohairic.\n\nTo these _a priori_ and negative considerations must be added the positive\nargument of Krall (Mitt. i. p. 111). He appears to have discovered earlier\nforms of the Bohairic dialect, and in addition points out that some of the\ncommonest abbreviations in Coptic MSS. could only have been derived from\nthe Bohairic, which seems to show that it was for Bohairic that the\nalphabet was first used. And this in the New Testament at any rate is\nsupported by the text of the version. A study of this has shown that in\nthe form in which we possess it in most printed editions and late MSS.,\nalthough as a whole its agreement with the oldest Greek MSS. is undoubted,\nit contains a considerable number of later additions which agree with the\ntraditional text. But, as Bishop Lightfoot showed, these clearly formed no\npart of the original Bohairic version, and subsequent investigation has\nmade it clear that the evidence in favour of this statement is even\nstronger than he represented it (_see_ Sanday, Appendices ad Novum\nTestamentum, App. III. p. 182 sq.). The original Bohairic text then\nrepresents a very pure tradition, untouched by the so-called Western\nadditions which are found in the Sahidic version, and it is difficult to\nbelieve that a version so singularly free from these should be later than\nthe Sahidic. Christianity spread in the Thebaid certainly as early as the\nbeginning of the third century (Eus. \u201cH. E.\u201d vi. 1), and that century is\nthe period to which internal evidence would assign the origin of the\nSahidic version. An even earlier date is probably demanded both for the\nextension of Christianity in the Delta and for the text of the Bohairic\nversion.]\n\n\n\n\n(3) The Sahidic (or Thebaic) Version.\n\n\nThe Sahidic version did not attract attention till a comparatively late\ndate. When Wilkins published what was then called the Coptic New\nTestament, he mentioned having found among the Oxford MSS. two which he\ndescribed as \u201clingua plane a reliquis MSS. Copticis, quae unquam vidi,\ndiversa\u201d (Praef. p. vii). These are written in the Thebaic or Sahidic\ndialect, of which as we may infer from his language, he did not even know\nthe existence. After no long time, however, we find La Croze and\nJablonski, with other Egyptian scholars, turning their attention to the\ndialect of Upper Egypt: and at length in 1778, C. G. Woide issued a\nprospectus in which he announced his intention of publishing from Oxford\nMSS. the fragments of the New Testament \u201cjuxta interpretationem dialecti\nSuperioris Aegypti, quae Thebaidica seu Sahidica appellatur.\u201d In the same\nyear he gave to the world some various readings of this version in J. A.\nCramer\u2019s \u201cBeytr\u00e4ge zur Bef\u00f6rderung theologischer und andrer wichtigen\nKenntnisse,\u201d Pt. iii, Kiel u. Hamburg, 1778. But before Woide\u2019s work\nappeared he was partially anticipated by other labourers in the same\nfield.\n\nIn the same year 1778 appeared a grammar of the two Egyptian dialects by\nRaphael Tuki, Roman Bishop of Arsinoe, with the title \u201cRudimenta Linguae\nCoptae sive Aegyptiacae ad usum Collegii Urbani de Propaganda Fide,\nRomae.\u201d It contains profuse quotations from the Sahidic version of the Old\nand New Testaments. This work, which preserves a large number of passages\nnot to be found elsewhere, has been strangely neglected by textual\ncritics(110). Caution, however, must be observed in the use of it, as the\npassages are apparently obtained, at least in many instances, not directly\nfrom MSS. of the version itself, but through the medium of Arabo-Egyptian\ngrammars and vocabularies; nor is Tuki\u2019s work generally at all accurate or\ncritical(111).\n\nIn 1785, J. A. Mingarelli published two fasciculi of an account of the\nEgyptian MSS. in the Nanian Library under the title \u201cAegyptiorum codicum\nreliquiae Venetiis in Bibliotheca Naniana asservatae, Bononiae.\u201d In these\nhe printed at length two portions of the Sahidic New Testament, Matt.\nxviii. 27-xxi. 15, and John ix. 17-xiii. 1.\n\nIn 1789, A. A. Giorgi (Georgius), an Augustinian eremite, brought out a\nwork entitled \u201cFragmentum Evangelii S. Joannis Graeco-Copto-Thebaicum\nSaeculi iv. &c., Romae.\u201d This volume contains John vi. 21-58, and vi.\n68-viii. 23, introduced by an elaborate preface and followed by other\nmatter. The MS. from which they are taken belonged to the Borgian\ncollection at Velletri, and has been described already among the Greek\nMSS., p. 141 sq. It is ascribed to the fourth or fifth century. In the\nsame year, 1789, additional fragments of this version from other Borgian\nMSS. were published by F. C. C. H. M\u00fcnter in a volume bearing the title,\n\u201cCommentatio de Indole Versionis Novi Testamenti Sahidicae. Accedunt\nFragmenta Epistolarum Pauli ad Timotheum ex membranis Sahidicis Musei\nBorgiani Velitris. Hafniae.\u201d The fragments referred to are 1 Tim. i.\n14-iii. 16; vi. 4-21; 2 Tim. i. 1-16. M\u00fcnter gives also some various\nreadings of this version in different parts of the four Gospels, taken\nlikewise from the Borgian MSS.\n\nLastly; in 1790 Mingarelli published a third fasciculus of his work on the\nEgyptian MSS. in the Nanian Library, and in it he printed another\nimportant fragment of this version, Mark xi. 29-xv. 32. This third part is\nvery rarely met with, and I have not seen a copy.\n\nMeanwhile Woide was busily engaged on his edition, and had already\nadvanced far when his labours were interrupted by death in May, 1790. His\npapers were placed in the hands of H. Ford, Professor of Arabic at Oxford,\nwho after several years completed the work. It was published with the\ntitle, \u201cAppendix ad Editionem Novi Testamenti Graeci e Codice MS.\nAlexandrino a C. G. Woide descripti, in qua continentur Fragmenta Novi\nTestamenti juxta interpretationem Dialecti Superioris Aegypti quae\nThebaidica vel Sahidica appellator, &c. Oxoniae, 1799.\u201d Woide\u2019s materials\nwere:\n\n1. Several MSS. of the Huntington collection in the Bodleian. These\nconsist of (_a_) Two folio lectionaries on paper (Hunt. 3, Hunt. 5); (_b_)\nA folio likewise on paper, containing fragments of St. John\u2019s Gospel\n(Hunt. 4); (_c_) An 8vo, containing fragments of the Acts and Catholic\nEpistles (Hunt. 394). Woide gives as the date A. Mart. 1041, and A.D.\n1315, \u201csi recte conjicio,\u201d but the two are not reconcileable; (_d_) A 4to\non paper (Hunt. 393), written A. Mart. 1109 (i.e. A.D. 1393) and\ncontaining \u201cDe Mysterio literarum Graecarum Discursus Gnostici,\u201d the work\nof one Seba an anchorite (_see_ Ford\u2019s \u201cPraef.,\u201d p. vi. sq., and p. 21,\nnote _a_).\n\n2. A very ancient papyrus belonging to the famous traveller Bruce, who had\nbrought it from Upper Egypt. It contains two Gnostic works, in which are\nquoted passages from the Old and New Testaments. It is now in the\nBodleian(112).\n\n3. An ancient vellum MS. containing the Gnostic treatise \u201cPistis Sophia,\u201d\nthen belonging to Askew and now in the British Museum. It quotes some\npassages of the Old and New Testaments. The \u201cPistis Sophia\u201d has been since\ntranscribed by Schwartze, and published from his papers by Petermann after\nhis death (1853).\n\n4. Several fragments belonging to Woide himself, having been transmitted\nto him from Upper Egypt while he was employed on the work. Some are\nSahidic; others Graeco-Sahidic. These formed a highly important accession\nto his materials. They now belong to the Clarendon Press at Oxford, and\nare deposited in the Bodleian.\n\nOne of these, a Graeco-Sahidic MS., said to belong to the fourth or fifth\ncentury, has been already described (Evan. T). But I am unable to assent\nto the opinion which is maintained by Tregelles and Tischendorf, and in\nwhich Dr. Scrivener there acquiesces, that these Woidian fragments (Ts or\nTwoi) were originally part of the same MS. with the Borgian Graeco-Sahidic\nfragments (T) published by Giorgi. And this for two reasons. (1) The\npaging of the two sets of fragments is quite inconsistent. The Woidian\nfragments, Luke xii. 5 (Sahid. Gr. 15)-xiii. 23 (Sahid. Gr. 32) and John\nviii. 22-32, are paged \u2ca9\u2c9b\u2c91-\u2ca9\u2ca1\u2c87 (459-484) and \u2cad\u2c9b\u2c8d, \u2cad\u2c9b\u2c8f (657, 658)\nrespectively (_see_ Ford\u2019s \u201cPraef.,\u201d p. 24). On the other hand the pages\nof the Borgian fragments, Luke xxii. 12-xxiii. 11; John vi. 21-58; vi.\n68-viii. 23, are numbered \u2ca5\u2c97\u2c91-\u2ca5\u2c9b\u2c87 (239-254), \u2ca7\u2c97\u2c87-\u2ca7\u2c99\u2c85, \u2ca7\u2c99\u2c9d-\u2ca7\u2c9d\u2c81 (334-343,\n346-361) respectively (_see_ Zoega, p. 184; Georgius, p. 11 sq.). (2)\nThough the last Woidian fragment begins _somewhere about_ where the last\nBorgian fragment ends, it does not begin at exactly the same place. The\nBorgian fragment ends \u2c81\u2c9b\u2c85 \u2c81\u2c9b\u2c9f\u2c95 \u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97\u03e9\u2c9b \u2ca7\u2ca1\u2c89 \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2cb1\u2ca7\u2c9b \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c89 (\u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03af; \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2), viii. 23; the Woidian fragment begins \u2c89 \u03ef\u2c9b\u2c81\u2c83\u2cb1\u2c95 \u2c89\u2ca3\u2c9f\u03e5 (\u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9), viii. 22. Thus the two have several lines in common. For these\nreasons the later judgement of Tregelles, who pronounces them to be\n\u201ccertainly parts of the _same_ MS.\u201d (Introductory notice to his G. T.),\nmust be abandoned; and we must revert to his earlier and more cautious\nopinion in which he describes the Woidian fragment as \u201ca portion of a MS.\nalmost a counterpart of T\u201d (Horne\u2019s \u201cIntroduction,\u201d p. 180).\n\n5. A Sahidic vocabulary in the Royal Library at Paris (Copt. 44),\ncontaining several passages from the Sahidic Bible.\n\n6. A few fragments communicated by Adler from the collection of Card.\nBorgia at Velletri. Besides these Woide incorporated the fragments\npublished by Mingarelli in his first two fasciculi. The works of Giorgi\nand M\u00fcnter, however, and the third fasciculus of Mingarelli, were\noverlooked by him or by his successor Ford.\n\nBesides elaborate prefaces by Ford and Woide this work gives a Latin\ntranslation in parallel columns with the Sahidic. It would not be\ndifficult to point out numerous errors in the execution of this volume;\nbut all allowance must be made for a posthumous work completed by a second\neditor who had to educate himself for the task, and the heavy obligation\nunder which Woide and Ford have laid Biblical scholars may well silence\nill-natured criticism(113).\n\nSome years later appeared a highly important contribution to Sahidic\nliterature in G. Zoega\u2019s \u201cCatalogus Codicum Copticorum manuscriptorum qui\nin Museo Borgiano Velitris adservantur, Romae, 1810,\u201d a posthumous work.\nThe compiler of this catalogue prints at length Eph. v. 21-33; Apoc. xix.\n7-18; xx. 7-xxi. 3, and gives besides (p. 200) a full list of the\nfragments of the Sahidic version, which are found in this rich collection\nof Egyptian MSS. These would go far towards filling up the gaps in Woide\u2019s\nedition. Thus, for instance, they contain about three-quarters of St.\nMark\u2019s Gospel, the whole of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and the whole of\nthe Epistle to the Philippians with the exception of five or six verses at\nthe beginning.\n\nIn the following year (1811) appeared Engelbreth\u2019s work on the Bashmuric\nversion, which has been mentioned above (p. 102). In it he printed, for\nthe sake of comparison with the Bashmuric, the following passages of the\nSahidic version: 1 Cor. i. 1-16; xv. 5-33; Phil. i. 7-23; 1 Thess. i.\n4-iii. 5; Heb. vii. 11-13; 16-21; ix. 2-10; 24-28; x. 5-10. These were\nderived wholly from the Borgian MSS., with the exception of a few verses\ntaken from Woide\u2019s book. Beyond this meagre contribution of Engelbreth\u2019s,\nnothing has been done during more than sixty years which have elapsed\nsince the appearance of Zoega\u2019s work towards the publication of these\nvaluable remains, important alike for the knowledge of the Egyptian\nlanguage and for purposes of Biblical criticism. A complete collection of\nall the fragments of the Sahidic New Testament is now the most pressing\nwant in the province of textual criticism.\n\nThe materials for such an edition are the following:\n\n1. The MSS. used by Woide and Ford, which however will require collating\nafresh.\n\n2. The Nanian fragments published by Mingarelli. The MSS. which he used\nare said to have disappeared.\n\n3. The MSS. of the Borgian collection, as indicated in the catalogue of\nZoega. After the dispersion of the museum at Velletri the Biblical MSS.\nfound their way to the Library of the Propaganda at Rome, where they now\nare.\n\n4. The quotations in Tuki, though for reasons already stated these must be\nused with caution. They should be traced, if possible, to their sources.\n\nTo these known materials the following, which (so far as I am aware), have\nnever been publicly noticed, must be added:\n\n1. *British Museum, Papyrus xiii, four leaves or eight pages numbered\n\u2c8b\u2c99\u2c81-\u2c8b\u2c99\u2c8f, containing John xx. 1-29 mutilated. It does not differ in any\nimportant respects from the text printed by Woide, but I noticed the\nfollowing variations: ver. 3, \u03a3\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2; ver. 8, add \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd after \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5;\nver. 10, om. \u03bf\u1f30 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03af; ver. 12, ins. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 before \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6; ver. 17, om. \u03b4\u1f72\nafter \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5; ver. 18, om. \u03b4\u03ad after \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; ver. 21, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd for \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03ad; ib. add [\u1f41] \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 after \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2; ver. 28, add \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 after \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b8\u03b7.\n\n2. *Paris, Copt. 102. Thebaic fragments of various ages, some very old.\nThose from the New Testament are (_a_) Luke iii. 21-iv. 9; (_b_) John\nxvii. 17-26, Theb. Arab., paper; (_c_) Acts vii. 51-viii. 3, vellum; (_d_)\nApoc. i. 13-ii. 2, vellum. The pages of this last fragment are marked \u2c89-\u2c8f.\n\n3. Crawford and Balcarres collection. Several very important Sahidic\nfragments which formerly belonged to Archdeacon Tattam. These are:\n\n*i. Mark ix. 18-xiv. 26, vellum, six leaves, the pages numbered \u2c93\u2c91-\u2c97, two\ncolumns in a page, and thirty-nine or forty lines in a column. I observed\nthe following readings: ix. 24, om. \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd; 44, 46, om. \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03ce\u03bb\u03b7\u03be \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; 50, om. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u1f01\u03bb\u1f76 \u1f01\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; xi. 26, omitted;\nxiii. 14, om. \u03c4\u1f78 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u1f74\u03bb \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5; xiv. 22, om. \u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5; 24\nhas \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\n*ii. Luke iii. 8-vi. 37, vellum, two columns in a page, thirty-five lines\nin a column. A very beautiful MS. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian\nCanons are given, and also the \u03c4\u03af\u03c4\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9. There is occasionally a rough\nconcordance in the margin; e.g. on Luke v. 18, \u2c93\u2c85 \u2c89\u2ca7\u2c83\u2c89\u2ca1\u2c89\u2ca7\u2ca5\u2c8f\u2c8b. \u2c93\u2cb1 \u2c8d. \u2c99\u2c91 \u2c93\u2c85.\n\u2c99\u2ca3. \u2c89, where St. John stands first. I noted down the following readings:\niii. 19, om. \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5; 27, \u1f38\u03c9\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03bd; 30, \u1f38\u03c9\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc; 32, \u1f38\u03c9\u03b2\u03ae\u03b4; 32, \u2ca5\u2c81\u2c97\u2c81 for\n\u03a3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03ce\u03bd, just as in ver. 35; iv. 26, \u03a3\u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; 41, om. \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2; ver. 38,\nom. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. In vi. 16 \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 is translated\n\u201cJudas the son of James.\u201d\n\n*iii. Luke xvii. 18-xix. 30, vellum, two columns in a page, twenty-seven\nlines in a column, five leaves, paged \u2ca3\u2c81 to \u2ca3\u2c93 (sic). No sections are\nmarked. It has these readings: xvii. 24, om. \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6; xviii. 28,\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1; xix. 5, om. \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03af.\n\n*iv. Gal. i. 14-vi. 16, fol., vellum, eight leaves, two columns in a page,\ntwenty-nine lines in a column, the pages marked \u03c1\u03c0\u03b8 onward. It has these\nreadings: i. 15, \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2; ii. 5, \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad; ii. 20, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6; iii.\n1, om. \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9; iii. 17, om. \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd; iv. 7,\n\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 [\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6; iv. 14, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; 15,\n\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6; v. 1, \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd.\n\nOf these four fragments ii and iv are the most ancient; while i and iii\nare much later, but still old. Beyond this I do not venture to hazard an\nopinion as to their date, remembering that Zoega with all his knowledge\nand experience declines to pronounce on the age of undated Egyptian\nMSS.(114)\n\n4*. A fragment (a single leaf) of a Graeco-Sahidic lectionary in double\ncolumns, belonging to the Rev. G. Horner, who brought it from Upper Egypt\nin 1873 [ix], 12-1/4 \u00d7 11. The Greek and Sahidic are not in opposite\ncolumns, but the Greek is followed by the Sahidic. The Greek is Matt. iv.\n2-11 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bd\u03cd\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7; the Sahidic\nis iv. 1-6 \u03a4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 ... \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03af \u03c3\u03b5. The Coptic character resembles\nclasses v and vi in Zoega. The Greek text has been already numbered as\nEvst. 299. This has now been presented to the Bodleian by Mr. Horner, MS.\nGr. Lit. c. 1.\n\n[Since the above was written, very considerable additions have been made\nto our knowledge of the Sahidic version.\n\n1. The Biblical MSS. of the Borgian collection preserved in the Library of\nthe Propaganda have been published by M. Am\u00e9lineau. The Old Testament in\nthe Recueil des Travaux, the New Testament in the \u201cZeitschrift f\u00fcr\nAegyptische Sprache,\u201d 24 (1886), pp. 41, 103; 25 (1887), pp. 47, 100, 125;\n26 (1888), p. 96. This publication was made under considerable\ndisadvantages. M. Am\u00e9lineau had not the opportunity of seeing the MSS.\nhimself, and merely published a transcript supplied him by the Coptic\nArchbishop Bschai, then resident in Rome. Moreover he gives no critical\nnotes on various readings in cases where there is more than one copy\nextant of any passage. Nor again does he edit the fragments completely,\nbut only such portions of the New Testament as were not previously known.\nHis edition therefore is not without inaccuracies, which have been noticed\nby Ciasca, vol. ii. pp. lix-lxxvii. These defects are, however, being\nremedied by an edition of all these fragments by Father Ciasca (known as\nthe editor of the Arabic Diatessaron), which is very complete. The first\ntwo volumes, containing the Old Testament with many facsimiles, have\nappeared: the New Testament portion is to follow. (Sacrorum Bibliorum\nFragmenta Copto-Sahidica Musei Borgiani iussu et sumptibus S.\nCongregationis de Propaganda Fide Studio P. Augustini Ciasca. Romae. Typis\neiusdem S. Congregationis. Vol. i. 1885; Vol. ii. 1889.)\n\n2. The Crawford and Balcarres fragments mentioned above have also been\nedited by M. Am\u00e9lineau in the Recueil des Travaux, v. (1883), p. 105.\n\n3. To O. von Lemm we owe a considerable number of fragments. Bruchst\u00fccke\nder Sahidischen Bibel\u00fcbersetzung nach Handschriften der kaiserlichen\n\u00f6ffentlichen Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg. Leipzig, 1885. And Sieben\nSahidische Bibel-Fragmente. Z. A. S. 23 (1885), p. 19.\n\n4. Fragments, mostly smaller in extent, have been edited by the following:\n\nBouriant M\u00e9moires, i. 259.\n   Recueil, iv. 1.\n\nMaspero   Recueil, vi. 35; vii. 47.\n  \u00c9tudes \u00c9gyptologiques, i. 3. Paris, 1883.\n\nCeugney   Recueil, ii. 94.\n\nKrall     Mittheilungen, ii. 68.\n\n5. But most important of all are the newly acquired fragments of the\nBiblioth\u00e8que Nationale at Paris. In 1883 that Library had the good fortune\nto obtain (largely through the influence of M. Am\u00e9lineau) from the famous\nWhite Monastery or Deir Amba Shenoudah of Upper Egypt a large collection\nof Sahidic fragments. The publication of these has been begun.\nConsiderable sections of the Old Testament have been published by Maspero\n(M\u00e9moires, vol. vi), and of documents relating to Early Church History by\nBouriant (ib. vol. viii). The New Testament fragments have not yet been\npublished, but M. Am\u00e9lineau, who is entrusted with them, has kindly put at\nmy disposal the following list of contents. I have omitted smaller\nFragments:\n\nMATTHEW (167 leaves): i. 1-20; i. 17-ii. 4; i. 1-22; ii. 4, 5, 8, 11, 14,\n15; iii. 1-11; 1-15; iii. 10-iv. 13; iii. 22-iv. 11; iv. 3-19; 21-v. 15;\niv. 15-v. 17; v. 17-32; 9-28; v. 25-vi. 3; vii. 6-viii. 4; vii. 8-27; x.\n9-28; viii. 1-17; 2-20; ix. 13-33; ix. 25-x. 15; ix. 33-x. 15; ix. 33-x.\n19; ix. 26-x. 19; x. 39-xxviii. 54 (36 leaves); x. 20-xii. 3; xi. 3-10;\nxi. 15-xii. 16; xi. 16-xii. 4; xii. 6-xiv. 31; xii. 19-40; xiii. 19-xiv.\n6; xiii. 22-25; xiii. 35-50; xiii. 41-xiv. 2; xiv. 8-xv. 4; xiv. 8-xv. 4;\nxiv. 17-35; xiv. 18-xv. 19; xiv. 20-35; xiv. 21-xv. 19; xiv. 24-xv. 11;\nxiv. 27-xv. 1; xiv. 31-54; xiv. 31-xv. 20; xv. 17-xvi. 19; xviii. 11-35;\n15-21; xviii. 26-xix. 1; xix. 7-22; xix. 13-xx. 16; xix. 24-xx. 16; xx.\n9-32; xxi. 8-12; 19-21; 12-37; 9-25; 22-33; xxi. 31-xxii. 5; xxi. 32-41;\nxxi. 38-xxii. 12; xxii. 22-xxiii. 12; xxiv. 7-xxvi. 64; xxiv. 2-42; xxiv.\n35-xxv. 36; xxiv. 47-xxvi. 47; xxvi. 41-60; xxvi. 69-xxvii. 5; xxvi.\n75-xxviii. 23; xxvii. 26-56; xxvii. 49-xxviii. 4; xxvii. 54-xxviii. 8.\nAlso a fragment containing the last few verses and the beginning of St.\nMark.\n\nMARK (43 leaves): i. 1-17; 4-5; i. 30-ii. 1; iv. 1-8; iv. 32-v. 11; v.\n30-vii. 36; v. 13-38; vi. 4-viii. 12; vii. 36-viii. 1; viii. 12-31; 23-38;\nx. 42-xi. 15; xi. 3-27; xi. 11-xiii. 14; xii. 12-35; xii. 31-xiii. 19;\nxiv. 6-xv. 2; xiv. 12-xv. 21; xiv. 20-40.\n\nLUKE (163 leaves): i. 1-26; 1-5; 26-61; 19-35; ii. 10-33; iii. 4-v. 8;\niii. 29-iv. 20; iii. 36-iv. 47; iv. 22-viii. 14; iv. 43-v. 29; v. 10-viii.\n7; vi. 35-ix. 16; vii. 1-ix. 5; vii. 7-15; vii. 37, 38; 41-45; viii. 2-12;\n6-15; 4-37; 7-26; viii. 14-ix. 8; viii. 32-44; ix. 3-22; 9-21; ix. 51-x.\n18; x. 39-xii. 37; xi. 23-34; 24-56, xii. 1-8, 36-48; xi. 28-44; xii.\n3-12; 37-51; xii. 48-xiii. 10; xii. 53-xiii. 9; xiii. 1-16; xiii. 11-31;\nxiii. 15-xiv. 15; xiv. 2-20; xiv. 3-xv. 2; xiv. 21-32; xv. 17-xvii. 19;\nxvi. 18-xvii. 16; xvii. 10-24; xviii. 4-xix. 42; xviii. 21-xix. 22; xix.\n3-28; xix. 28-xxi. 22; xix. 49-xx. 6; xxi. 22-xxii. 1; xxii. 11-27; xxii.\n8-xxiv. 10; xxiii. 1-39; xxiv. 27-53.\n\nAlso the following bilingual (Greek and Sahidic) texts:\n\niii. 15, 16; x. 11-21; xi. 16-32; xvii. 29-xviii. 1; xviii. 32-42; xxi.\n25-31; xxii. 66-xxiii. 17; and two leaves in Greek.\n\nJOHN (207 leaves). One MS. of 48 leaves, Luke iv. 38-v. 1; viii. 10-29;\nix. 9-62; John i. 23-vii. 40; ix. 6-27; xix. 13-33; xx. 31-xxi. 17. i.\n25-45; 25-36, ii. 7-18; i. 42-iii. 4; i. 43-ii. 11; i. 45-iv. 19; i.\n67-ii. 24; ii. 11-iii. 25; ii. 24-iv. 22; iii. 4-10; 13-16; iii. 24-iv. 8;\niv. 27-51; iv. 50-vii. 20; v. 24-vi. 5; vi. 12-35; 26-45; 30-41; vi.\n62-vii. 17; vi. 65-vii. 10; vii. 20-39; vii. 31-x. 12; vii. 41-viii. 23;\nvii. 44-viii. 20; viii. 25-44; viii. 22-ix. 28; viii. 36-49; ix. 7-xi. 22;\nix. 20-40; 27-39; xii. 4-18; x. 13-19; xi. 27-47; 34-48; 34-45; xi.\n44-xii. 2; xii. 25-34; xiii. 7-27; 18-31; xiii. 19-xiv. 1; xiv. 21-xviii.\n15; xv. 3-xvi. 15; xv. 6-26; xv. 22-xvi. 16; xvi. 1-23; xvi. 6-26; xvi.\n22-xxii. 8; xvii. 14-23; xviii. 3-26; xviii. 5-xix. 40; xviii. 23-xix. 2;\nxviii. 33-xix. 19; xix. 18-26; xx. 8-18; 19-27; xxi. 2-14.\n\nAlso the following bilingual:\n\ni. 19-23; ii. 2-9; iv. 5-13; 15-52; v. 12-21; xii. 36-46.\n\nACTS: ii. 2-17; 18-40; ii. 34-iv. 6; viii. 32-ix. 15; viii. 35-ix. 22; ix.\n27-40; x. 3-4; xii. 7-xiii. 5; xii. 23-xiii. 8; xiii. 10-xvi. 4; xiv.\n4-22; xviii. 21-xix. 6; xxvii. 38-xxviii. 4; xxviii. 9-23.\n\nROMANS: i. 26-ii. 25; ii. 28-iii. 13; iii. 20-iv. 4; viii. 35-ix. 22; ix.\n12-xi. 11; ix. 15-x. 1; ix. 24-xi. 30; xi. 30-xii. 15; xiv. 4-21; xv.\n10-30.\n\n1 COR.: i. 19-ii. 10; ii. 9-iv. 1; ii. 21-vi. 4; vii. 36-ix. 5; ix. 2-x.\n7; ix. 12-25; x. 13-xi. 15; xvii. 41-45; xvii. 16-21.\n\n2 COR.: xi. 1-20; xii. 21-xiii. 13 (with Heb. i. 14); xi. 33-xii. 14.\n\nHEB.: ii. 14-20; iv. 7-14; v. 12-vi. 10; ix. 2-14; 20-23; x. 9-10; xii.\n16-xiii. 9; xiii. 7-21; xiii. 10-25.\n\nGAL.: i. 1-vi. 18 (with Eph. i. 1-10; vi. 12-24; and Phil. i. 1-7); i.\n10-24; iii. 2-16; ii. 9-iii. 10.\n\nEPH.: iv. 17-v. 13 (with Phil. iii. 1-iv. 6).\n\nPHIL.: i. 23-ii. 6; i. 28-ii. 20.\n\nCOL.: i. 1-29; 9-11, 15 (with 1 Thess. ii. 15-iv. 4); i. 29-iii. 1.\n\n1 TIM.: iii. 2-v. 2.\n\n1 PET.: i. 18-vi. 14 (with 2 Pet. i. 1-iii. 1); ii. 23-iii. 13; iii.\n12-iv. 9; iii. 15-iv. 10.\n\n6. The British Museum has recently acquired a considerable number of\nfragments on vellum, containing\u2014\n\nMATT.: xv. 11-xvi. 12; xxi. 6-22.\n\nJOHN: ix. 7-26; x. 30-42; xi. 1-10; 37-57.\n\nACTS: xxii. 12-30; xxiii. 1-15.\n\nAnd also a large number of papyrus fragments in the Graf collection.\n\n7. Mr. Petrie also has in his possession a valuable papyrus MS. containing\nconsiderable portions of St. John. This will probably shortly be published\nby Mr. Crum.\n\nFrom the above account it becomes clear that we have now already\npublished, or preserved in European libraries, enough material to produce\na complete or almost a complete edition of the Sahidic New Testament. But\nnot only this. We have also a considerable number of fragments written on\npapyrus, which are much older than any of the MSS. previously known, and\nwill enable us to write a history of the version from an early date. May\nwe express a hope that M. Am\u00e9lineau, who has made large collections for\nthe purpose, would first of all give us an edition of the Paris fragments\nas accurate as that of Ciasca, and then of the Sahidic New Testament as a\nwhole? Much more than when Bishop Lightfoot wrote is the publication of it\nthe pressing need of Biblical criticism.]\n\nThe order of the books in the Sahidic New Testament, so far as regards the\ngreat groups, appears to have been the same as in the Bohairic, i.e. (1)\nThe Four Gospels, (2) The Pauline Epistles, (3) The Catholic Epistles and\nActs (_see_ above, p. 124). This may be inferred from the order of\nquotations in the Sahidic vocabulary described by Woide, Praef., p. 18;\nfor the Sahidic MSS. are so fragmentary that no inference on this point\ncan be drawn from them. Like the Bohairic, the original Sahidic Canon\nseems to have excluded the Apocalypse. In the vocabulary just mentioned it\ndoes not appear as part of the New Testament, but liturgical and other\nmatter interposes before it is taken. Moreover in most cases it is evident\nfrom the paging of the fragments which remain that the MSS. containing\nthis book formed separate volumes. In the Paris fragment described above\nthis is plainly the case, and it is equally obvious in the Borgian MSS.\nlxxxviii, lxxxix (Zoega, p. 187). Thus in lxxxviii, pp. 39-44 contain\nApoc. xii. 14-xiv. 13; and in lxxxix. pp. 59, 60, 63, 64 contain Apoc.\nxix. 7-18, xx. 7-xxi. 3. On the other hand in lxxxvii. where Apoc. iii. 20\nbegins on p. 279, this fragment must have formed part of a much larger\nvolume, which contained (as we may suppose) a considerable portion of the\nNew Testament.\n\nThe order of the four Gospels presents a difficulty. In the Sahidic\nvocabulary already referred to, the sequence is John, Matthew, Mark, Luke;\nand this order is also observed in the marginal concordance to the\nCrawford and Balcarres MS. described above. Thus there is reason for\nsupposing that at one time St. John stood first. But the paging of the\noldest MSS. does not favour this conclusion. In the Woidian and Borgian\nfragments of the Graeco-Sahidic Gospels, which belong to the fourth or\nfifth century, the numbering of the pages (see p. 130) shows that St. Luke\nstood before St. John. It is possible indeed that in the MSS. the\ntranscriber was guided by the usual Greek arrangement. But in other MSS.\nalso the synoptic evangelists precede St. John, e.g. Borg. xlvi, l, lxiv;\nwhile in other fragments again (Borg. lxx, lxxiv) the high numbers of the\npages of St. John show that the Evangelist cannot have stood first in the\nvolume, and this seems further supported by the Paris fragments, in which\nwe find St. John following St. Luke in the same MS.\n\nIn this version, as in the Bohairic, the Epistle to the Hebrews was\ntreated as the work of St. Paul; but instead of being placed, as there,\nafter 2 Thessalonians and before 1 Timothy, it stood between 2 Corinthians\nand Galatians(115). It clearly occupies this position in the Borgian MS.\nlxxx (Zoega, p. 186): and by calculating the pages I have ascertained that\nthis must also have been its place in all the other MSS. of the Pauline\nEpistles of which fragments after 2 Corinthians are preserved. These are\nthe Borgian fragments lxxxii, lxxxv, lxxxvi, (Zoega, p. 186 sq.), and the\nCrawford and Balcarres fragment (iv) described above (p. 132); all of\nwhich happily are paged.\n\nThe Oxford MS. Hunt. 394 is a proof that the Acts followed the Catholic\nEpistles in the Sahidic New Testament, as is the case also in the\nMemphitic. Woide indeed (Praef., p. 22), when describing this MS., says,\n\u201c_exorditur_ ab Actis Apostolicis\u201d; but, even if this be so, his own\naccount of the paging shows that the leaves have been displaced in\nbinding, and that the Catholic Epistles originally stood first. The\nvocabulary also places them before the Acts.\n\nThe Sahidic version appears to be in one respect less faithful to the\noriginal than the Bohairic. So far as I am able to judge, it pays more\nrespect to the Egyptian idiom, frequently omitting the conjunction and\nleaving the sentences disconnected. As regards the vocabulary, it adopts\nGreek words with as great facility as the Bohairic, or even greater. This\nwe should hardly anticipate in Upper Egypt, which must have been\ncomparatively free from Greek influence. Altogether it is a rougher and\nless polished version than the Bohairic.\n\nThe real textual value of the Sahidic cannot under present circumstances\nbe assigned with any certainty. What would be received by one school of\ncritics would not be admitted by another. But the Editor readily records\nthe verdict of Bishop Lightfoot that the text of it, though very ancient,\nis inferior to the Bohairic, and less pure; that it exhibits a certain\ninfusion of readings which were widely spread in the second century, and\nmay very probably have had, to a considerable extent, a Western origin;\nthat it differs very largely from the Traditional text; and that both in\ntext and in interpretation it is entirely independent of the Bohairic. The\ncoincidences are not greater than must have been exhibited by two separate\ntranslations in allied dialects from independent texts of the same\noriginal. Of any mutual influence of the versions of Upper and Lower Egypt\non each other no traces are discernible.\n\nThe following passage from Acts xvii. 12-16 will serve to illustrate the\nindependence of these two versions.\n\nBOHAIRIC.                        SAHIDIC.\n12 \u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c99\u2c8f\u03e3 \u2c99\u2c89\u2c9b \u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9b \u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97            12 \u03e9\u2c81\u03e9 \u2c91\u2c89 \u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97 \u2c89\u2c9b\u03e9\u2c8f\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca9\n\u2c9b\u03e7\u2c8f\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2c81\u2ca9\u2c9b\u2c81\u03e9\u03ef \u2c9b\u2c89\u2c99                \u2c81\u2ca9\u2ca1\u2c93\u2ca5\u2ca7\u2c89\u2ca9\u2c89 \u2c81\u2ca9\u2cb1 \u03e9\u2c89\u2c9b\u2ca5\u03e9\u2c93\u2c99\u2c89\n\u03e9\u2c81\u2c9b\u2c95\u2c89\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c89\u2c93\u2c9b\u2c93\u2c9b \u2c9b\u03e9\u2c93\u2c9f\u2c99\u2c93              _\u2c9b_\u03e9\u2c89\u2c97\u2c97\u2c8f\u2c9b _\u2c9b_\u2ca3_\u2c99_\u2c99\u2c81\u2c9f\n\u2c9b\u2c89\u2ca9\u2ca5\u2cad\u2c8f\u2c99\u2cb1\u2c9b \u2c9b\u2c89\u2c99 \u03e9\u2c81\u2c9b\u2c95\u2c89\u2ca3\u2cb1\u2c93           \u2c99_\u2c9b_ \u03e9\u2c89\u2c9b\u2ca3\u2cb1\u2c99\u2c89 \u2c89\u2c9b\u2c81\u03e3\u2cb1\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2058\n\u2c8f \u03e9\u2c81\u2c9b\u2c95\u2c9f\u2ca9\u03eb\u2c93 \u2c81\u2c9b\u2058                   13 _\u2c9b_\u2ca7\u2c89\u2ca3\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c89\u2c93\u2c99\u2c89\n13 \u2c89\u2ca7\u2c81\u2ca9\u2c89\u2c99\u2c93 \u2c87\u2c89 \u2c9b\u03eb\u2c89 \u2c9b\u2c93\u2c93\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c87\u2c81\u2c93       \u2c91\u2c89 _\u2c9b_\u2c91\u2c93 _\u2c9b_\u2c93\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c87\u2c81\u2c93 \u2c9b\u2c8f \u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97\u03e9_\u2c9b_\n\u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c89 \u2c91\u2c89\u2ca5\u2ca5\u2c81\u2c97\u2c9f\u2ca1\u2c93\u2c95\u2c8f \u03eb\u2c89               \u2c91\u2c89\u2ca5\u2c81\u2c97\u2c97\u2c9f\u2c9b\u2c93\u2c95\u2c8f \u03eb\u2c89\n\u2c81 \u2ca1\u2c81\u2ca9\u2c97\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u03e9\u2c93\u2cb1\u2c93\u03e3 \u03e7\u2c89\u2c9b               \u2c81\u2ca9\u2ca7\u2c81\u03e3\u2c89\u2c9f\u2c89\u2c93\u03e3 \u03e9_\u2c9b_ \u2c83\u2c89\u2ca3\u2c9f\u2c93\u2c81\n\u2ca7\u2c95\u2c89\u2c83\u2c89\u2ca3\u2c9f\u2c93\u2c81 \u2c99\u2ca1\u2c93\u2ca5\u2c81\u03eb\u2c93 \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c89            _\u2c99_\u2ca1\u03e3\u2c81\u03eb\u2c89 _\u2c99_\u2ca1\u2c9b\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2ca7\u2c89 \u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97\u03e9\u2c93\u2ca7_\u2c99_\n\u2cab\u2c9b\u2c9f\u2ca9\u03ef \u2c81\u2ca9\u2c93 \u2c89 \u2ca1\u2c93\u2c95\u2c89\u2c99\u2c81               \u2ca1\u2c81\u2ca9\u2c97\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u2c81\u2ca9\u2c89\u2c93\n\u2c89\u2ca7\u2c89\u2c99\u2c99\u2c81\u2ca9 \u2c89\u2ca9\u2c95\u2c93\u2c99 \u2c89                  \u2c9f\u2c9b \u2c89\u2c99\u2c81\u2ca9 \u2c89\u2ca9\u03e3\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca3\u2ca7_\u2ca3_\n\u2c9b\u2c93\u2c99\u2c8f\u03e3 \u2c89\u2ca9\u03e3\u2c91\u2c9f\u2ca3\u2ca7\u2c89\u2c99\u2c99\u2cb1\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2058             \u2c81\u2ca9\u2cb1 \u2c89\u2ca9\u2c95\u2c93\u2c99 \u2c89 \u2ca1\u2c99\u2c8f\u2c8f\u03e3\u2c89\u2058\n14 \u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca7\u2c89 \u2ca5\u2c81\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca9                  14 _\u2c9b_\u2ca7\u2c89\u2ca9\u2c9b\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2c87\u2c89 \u2c81 \u2c9b\u2c89\u2ca5\u2c9b\u2c8f\u2ca9\n\u2c81\u2ca9\u2ca7\u2cab\u2c89 \u2ca1\u2c81\u2ca9\u2c97\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97 \u2c9b\u03eb\u2c89            \u03eb\u2c9f\u2c9f\u2ca9 _\u2c99_\u2ca1\u2c81\u2ca9\u2c97\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u2c89 \u2ca7\u2ca3\u2c89\u03e5\u2c83\u2cb1\u2c95\n\u2c9b\u2c93\u2ca5\u2c9b\u2c8f\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2c89 \u2c91\u2ca3\u2c89\u03e5\u03e3\u2c89 \u2c89\u03eb\u2c89\u2c9b            \u03e9\u2ca3\u2c81\u2c93 \u2c89\u03eb_\u2c9b_ \u2c91\u2c81\u2c97\u2c81\u2ca5\u2ca5\u2c81\n\u2cab\u2c93\u2c9f\u2c99 \u2c81\u2ca9\u2ca5\u2cb1\u03eb\u2ca1 \u2c87\u2c89 \u2c99\u2c99\u2c81\u2ca9              \u2c81 \u2ca5\u2c93\u2c97\u2c81\u2ca5 \u2c87\u2c89 \u2c8b\u2cb1 _\u2c99_\u2c99\u2c9f\u2c9f\u2ca9\n\u2c9b\u03eb\u2c89 \u2ca5\u2c93\u2c97\u2c81\u2ca5 \u2c9b\u2c89\u2c99 \u2ca7\u2c93\u2c99\u2c9f\u2c91\u2c89\u2c9f\u2ca5\u2058          \u2c99_\u2c9b_ \u2ca7\u2c93\u2c99\u2c9f\u2c91\u2c89\u2c9f\u2ca5\u2058\n15 \u2c9b\u2c8f \u2c87\u2c89 \u2c89\u2ca7\u2c81\u2ca9\u2ca7\u2cab\u2c89                 15 \u2c9b\u2c89\u2ca7\u2c95\u2c81\u2c91\u2c93\u2ca5\u2ca7\u2c81\n\u2ca1\u2c81\u2ca9\u2c97\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u2c81\u2ca9\u2c89\u2c9b\u03e5 \u2c89\u03e9\u2ca3\u2c8f\u2c93 \u2c89             \u2c87\u2c89 \u2c99\u2ca1\u2c81\u2ca9\u2c97\u2c9f\u2ca5\n\u2c81\u2c91\u2c8f\u2c9b\u2c81\u2ca5 \u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9f\u03e9 \u2c89\u2ca7\u2c81\u2ca9\u2c8b\u2c93               \u2c81\u2ca9_\u2c9b_\u2ca7_\u03e5_ \u03e3\u2c81 \u2c81\u2c91\u2c89\u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c81\u2c93\u2c81\u2ca5\n\u2c89\u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2c97\u2c8f \u2c89 \u2c8b\u2c93 \u2ca1\u03e3\u2c93\u2c9b\u2c93 \u2c9b\u2ca5\u2c93\u2c97\u2c81\u2ca5         \u2c81\u2ca9\u2cb1 _\u2c9b_\u2ca7\u2c89\u2ca3\u2c9f\u2ca9\u03eb\u2c93 _\u2c9b_\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c89\u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2c97\u2c8f\n\u2c9b\u2c89\u2c99 \u2ca7\u2c93\u2c99\u2c9f\u2c91\u2c89\u2c9f\u2ca5                     _\u2c9b_\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2c9f\u2ca7_\u03e5_ \u03e3\u2c81 \u2ca5\u2c93\u2c97\u2c81\u2ca5\n\u03e9\u2c93\u2c9b\u2c81 \u2c9b\u2ca5\u2c89\u2c93 \u03e9\u2c81\u2ca3\u2c9f\u03e5 \u2c9b\u2cad\u2cb1\u2c97\u2c89\u2c99           \u2c99_\u2c9b_ \u2ca7\u2c93\u2c99\u2c9f\u2c91\u2c89\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u03eb\u2c89 \u2c89\u2ca9\u2c89\u2c89\u2c93\n\u2c81\u2ca9\u2c93 \u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97 \u2c81\u2ca9\u03e3\u2c89\u2c9b\u2cb1\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2058               \u03e3\u2c81\u2ca3\u2c9f\u03e5 \u03e9_\u2c9b_ \u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c8b\u2c89\u2ca1\u2c8f \u2c81\u2ca9\u2c89\u2c93\n16 \u2ca1\u2c81\u2ca9\u2c97\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u2c87\u2c89 \u2c9b\u2c81\u03e5                 \u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97\u2058\n\u03e9\u2c89\u2c9b \u2c81\u2c91\u2c8f\u2c9b\u2c81\u2ca5 \u2c89\u03e5\u2ca5\u2c9f\u2c99\u2ca5                16 \u2c89\u2ca3\u2c89 \u2ca1\u2c81\u2ca9\u2c97\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u2c87\u2c89\n\u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97 \u03e9\u2c81\u03eb\u2cb1\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2c81\u03e5\u03eb\u2cb1\u2c9b\u2ca7               \u2c8b\u2cb1\u03e3\u2ca7 \u03e9\u2c8f\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u03e9_\u2c9b_ \u2c81\u2c91\u2c8f\u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c81\u2c93\u2c81\u2ca5\n\u2c87\u2c89 \u2c9b\u03eb\u2c89 \u2ca1\u2c89\u03e5\u2ca1\u2c9b\u2c89\u2ca9\u2c99\u2c81                 \u2c81 \u2ca1\u2c89\u03e5\u2ca1\u2c9b\u2c89\u2ca9\u2c99\u2c81\n\u2c9b\u03e9\u2ca3\u2c8f\u2c93 \u2c9b\u03e9\u2c8f\u2ca7\u03e5 \u2c89\u03e5\u2c9b\u2c81\u2ca9 \u2c89              \u03e9\u2c9f\u03eb\u03e9\u2c89\u03eb _\u2c9b_\u03e9\u2c8f\u2ca7_\u03e5_ \u2c89\u03e5\u2c9b\u2c81\u2ca9\n\u03ef\u2ca1\u2c9f\u2c97\u2c93\u2ca5 \u2c89\u2ca5\u2c9f\u03e3 \u2c99\u2c99\u2c89\u2ca7\u03e3\u2c81\u2c99\u03e3\u2c89            \u2c89\u2ca7\u2ca1\u2c9f\u2c97\u2c93\u2ca5 \u2c89\u2c99\u2c99\u2c89\u03e9 _\u2c99_\u2c99\u2c81_\u2c9b_\u2c89\u2c93\u2c87\u2cb1\u2c97\u2c9f\u2c9b\u2058\n\u2c93\u2c87\u2cb1\u2c97\u2c9f\u2c9b\u2058\n\n\n\n\n[(4) The Fayoum Version.]\n\n\n[The history of the discovery of the third Egyptian version, and the\nreasons that have caused it to be assigned to the district of the Fayoum,\nhave been given above.\n\nThe Fayoum (\u2cab\u2c93\u2c9f\u2c99: \u2ca1\u2c93\u2c9f\u2c99: \u2ca1\u2c93\u2c81\u2c99) is a district of Egypt situated to the west\nof the Nile valley, from which it is separated by a narrow strip of\ndesert, and lying about eighty miles to the south of the apex of the\nDelta. It is a large depression in the desert, which has been reclaimed\nand fertilized by an offshoot of the Nile, now called the Bahr-il-Yousouf,\nand is distinguished at the present day for its extreme fertility. It\nappears to have been particularly prosperous and thickly populated in\nPtolemaic and Roman times; and in the desert surrounding the cultivated\nland are the remains of several Greek cities, and of large Coptic\nmonasteries; and it is from here that the chief part of the collection of\npapyrus fragments now in Berlin and Vienna have been obtained.\n\nThe dialect of this district, both in the fragments of the Scriptures\npreserved in it, and in the other documents more recently discovered (Z.\nA. S. 23, 1885, p. 26), presents very marked peculiarities. As regards\nvowels it shows the following amongst other variations as compared with\nSahidic. It substitutes \u2c81 for \u2c89: \u2c9b\u2c89\u2c95 for \u2c9b\u2c81\u2c95; \u2c97\u2c89\u2c9b for \u2ca3\u2c81\u2c9b; \u2c95\u2c89\u2c89\u2c83 for \u2cad\u2c81\u03e5 :\n\u2c95\u2c81\u2c81\u03e5; \u2c8f for \u2c89: \u2ca5\u2c8f\u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c93 for \u2ca5\u2c89\u2c9b\u03ef : \u2ca5\u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c89; \u2c8f\u2c99\u2c93 for \u2c89\u2c99\u2c93 : \u2c89\u2c93\u2c99\u2c89; \u2c81 for \u2c9f: \u2c83\u2c81\u2c97 for\n\u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97; \u2c97\u2c81\u2c83 for \u2c89\u2ca3\u2c9f\u03e5; \u2c9f for \u2cb1: \u03e9\u2c9f\u2c83 for \u03e9\u2cb1\u2c83; \u2c97\u2c9f\u2c99\u2c93 for \u2c97\u2cb1\u2c99\u2c93 (= \u2ca1\u2cb1\u2c99\u2c93 : \u2ca3\u2cb1\u2c99\u2c89).\nIn consonants it has two very marked features, the substitution of \u2c97 for\n\u2ca3, as \u2c89\u2c97, \u2c89\u2c97\u2c89, \u2c97\u2c89\u2ca1; \u03e3\u2c8f\u2c97\u2c93 for \u2c89\u2ca3, \u2c89\u2ca3\u2c89, &c., and of \u2c83 for final \u03e5, as \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c81\u2c83\nfor \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c9f\u03e5.\n\nA considerable amount of this version still probably remains unpublished,\nbut specimens may be discovered in the following:\n\n\n    1. Giorgi. Fragmentum Evangelii S. Joannis &c. (_see_ p. 128)\n    contains 1 Cor. ix. 9-16.\n\n    2. Zoega. Catalogus &c. (_See_ p. 102.)\n\n    3. Engelbreth. Fragmenta Basmurico-Coptica Veteris et Novi\n    Testamenti. Havniae, 1811.\n\n    4. Maspero. Recueil, 11 (1889), p. 116.\n\n    5. Mittheilungen, i. p. 69. Matt. xi. 27.\n\n    6. Mittelaegyptische Bibelfragmente, in \u00c9tudes Arch\u00e9ologiques\n    Linguistiques et Historiques d\u00e9di\u00e9es \u00e0 M. le Dr. C. Leemans.\n    Leide, 1885. (But perhaps this and 4 may be more correctly classed\n    as Middle Egyptian or Lower Sahidic.)\n\n\nOn this version Bishop Lightfoot wrote: \u201cAs the Bashmuric is a secondary\nversion, it has no independent value, and is only useful in passages where\nthe Sahidic is wanting.\u201d This opinion would hardly represent the present\nposition. That the Sahidic and Fayoum versions are not independent is\nquite true, but the relation of them to one another is much more that they\nare different forms of the same version, of which on the whole perhaps the\nFayoum represents the older and more primitive text.]\n\n\n\n\n[(5) The Middle Egyptian(116) or Lower Sahidic Version.]\n\n\n[It has already been explained that documents found on the site of Memphis\nexhibit a dialect different in some respects from any of those that we\nhave yet considered. In this also fragments have been found of a\ntranslation of the New Testament.\n\nThe dialect shows a combination of Sahidic and Bohairic forms. It has \u2c93\u2cb1\u2ca7\nfor Sah. \u2c89\u2c93\u2cb1\u2ca7; \u2c99\u2c89\u2ca7\u2c93\u2cb1\u2ca7 for \u2c99\u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c89\u2c93\u2cb1\u2ca7; \u2c93\u2cb1\u2c81\u2c9b\u2c8f\u2ca5 for \u2c93\u2cb1\u03e9\u2c81\u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c8f\u2ca5; \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca7\u2c95 for \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2c9f\u2ca7\u2c95;\n\u03e3\u2ca7\u2cb1\u2ca3\u2c93 for \u03e3\u2ca7\u2cb1\u2ca3\u2c89. It agrees again with the Fayoum dialect (which is\ngenerally considered a variety of it) in its affection for \u2c81, as \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c81\u2c95 for\n\u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2c95, and apparently in using \u2c97 for \u2ca3, but only occasionally.\n\nThe following specimen from Rom. xi. 31-36 will exhibit the character of\nthe dialect and the version: the Sahidic is taken from the Borgian\nfragment published by Am\u00e9lineau, Z. A. S. 25, 1887, p. 49; the Middle\nEgyptian from \u201cMittheilungen,\u201d ii. p. 69.\n\nMIDDLE EGYPTIAN.                      SAHIDIC.\nxi. 31. \u2ca7\u2c89\u2c93 \u2ca7\u2c89                        \u2ca7\u2c81\u2c93 \u2ca7\u2c89\n\u2c91\u2c8f \u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c89\u2c93 \u03e9\u2cb1\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2ca7\u2c89\u2c9b\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u00b7 \u2c89\u2c81\u2ca9              \u2c91\u2c8f \u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c81\u2c93 \u03e9\u2cb1\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2ca7\u2c89\u2c9b\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u00b7 \u2c89\u2c81\u2ca9\n\u2c89\u2c97\u2c81\u2ca7\u2c9b\u2c89\u03e9\u03ef \u2c89\u2ca1\u2c89\u2ca7_\u2c9b_\u2c9b\u2c81 \u00b7                  \u2ca3 \u2c81\u2ca7 \u2c9b\u2c81\u03e9 \u2ca7\u2c89 \u2c89\u2ca1\u2c89\u2ca7\u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c81 \u00b7\n\u03eb\u2c89\u2c95\u2c81\u2ca5 \u03e9\u2cb1\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2c89\u2ca9\u2c89\u2c9b\u2c89\u2c89\u2c93 \u2c9b\u2c8f\u2ca9                \u03eb\u2c89\u2c95\u2c81\u2ca5 \u03e9\u2cb1\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2c89\u2ca9\u2c89\u2c9b\u2c81 \u2c9b\u2c81\u2ca9\n32. _\u2c99\u2c9b_\u2c9b\u2ca5\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u00b7 \u2c81 \u2ca1\u2c9b\u2c9f\u2ca9\u03ef \u2c85\u2c81\u2ca3            \u2c99\u2c9b\u2c9b\u2ca5\u2cb1\u2ca5 \u2c81 \u2ca1\u2c9b\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2ca7\u2c89\n\u2c81\u2ca1\u2ca7 \u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c81\u2c9b \u2c9b\u2c93\u2c99 \u2c89\u03e9\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9b \u2c89\u2ca9                 \u2c89\u2ca7\u2ca1 \u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9f\u2c9b \u2c9b\u2c93\u2c99 \u2c89\u03e9\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9b \u2c89\u2c9f\u2ca9\n\u2c99\u2c89\u2ca7\u2c81\u2ca7\u2c9b\u2c89\u03e9\u03ef \u00b7 \u03eb\u2c89\u2c95\u2c81\u2c81\u2ca5                    \u2c99\u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c81\u2ca7\u2c9b\u2c81\u03e9\u2ca7\u2c89 \u00b7 \u03eb\u2c89\u2c95\u2c81\u2ca5\n\u2c89\u03e5\u2c89\u2c9b\u2c81 \u2c9b\u2c81\u2ca9 \u2ca7\u2c8f\u2ca3\u2c9f\u2ca9 :                     \u2c89\u03e5\u2c89\u2c9b\u2c81 \u2c9b\u2c81\u2ca9 \u2ca7\u2c8f\u2ca3\u2c9f\u2ca9 :\n33. \u2cb1 \u2ca1\u03e3\u2cb1\u2c95 \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c99\u2c89\u2ca7\u2ca3\u2c89\u2c99                   \u2cb1 \u2ca1\u03e3\u2c93\u2c95\u2c89 \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c99\u2c89\u2ca7\u2ca3\u2c89\u2c99\n\u2c99\u2c81\u2c9f \u00b7 _\u2c99\u2c9b_ \u2ca7\u2ca5\u2c9f\u2cab\u2c93\u2c81 \u00b7 _\u2c99\u2c9b_              \u2c99\u2c81\u2c9f \u2c99\u2c9b \u2ca7\u2ca5\u2c9f\u2cab\u2c93\u2c81 \u2c81\u2ca9\u2cb1\n\u2ca1\u2ca5\u2c9f\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9b \u2c99\u2ca1_\u2cab\u03ef_ \u00b7 \u2c9b\u2c91\u2c8f                   \u2ca1\u2ca5\u2c9f\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9b \u2c99\u2ca1\u2c9b\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2ca7\u2c89 \u2c9b\u2c91\u2c8f\n\u2c89\u2ca7\u2c89\u2c99\u2c89\u2ca9\u03e3\u2c99\u2c81\u03e3\u2ca7 \u2c9b\u2c89\u03e9\u2c89\u2ca1                     \u2c89\u2ca7\u2c89\u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c89\u2ca9\u2c89\u03e3\u2c99\u2c89\u03e3\u2ca7 \u2c9b\u2c89\u03e5\u03e9\u2c81\u2ca1\n\u2c99\u2ca1\u2c9b\u2c9f\u2ca9\u03ef \u00b7 \u2c81\u2ca9\u2cb1 \u03e9\u2c89\u2c9b                      \u2c81\u2ca9\u2cb1 \u2c89\u2ca7\u2c89 \u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c89\u2ca9\u2c89\u03e3\u2c89\u2c9b\n\u2c81\u2ca7\u2ca7\u2c89\u2c9b\u2c97\u2c89\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2c9b\u2c89 \u2c9b\u2c89\u03e5\u03e9\u2c93\u2c81\u2ca9\u2c93 \u00b7              \u2ca3\u2c81\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c89\u03e5\u03e9\u2c93\u2c9f\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c89\n34. \u2c9b\u2c93\u2c99 \u2c85\u2c81\u2ca3 \u2ca1\u2c89\u2ca7\u2c89 \u2c81\u03e5\u2c93\u2c99\u2c93 \u2c89\u2ca1             \u2c9b\u2c93\u2c99 \u2c85\u2c81\u2ca3 \u2ca1\u2c89\u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c81\u03e5\u2c89\u2c93\u2c99\u2c89 \u2c89\u2ca1\n\u03e9\u2c8f\u2ca7 \u2c99\u2ca1_\u2c9f\u2ca5_ \u00b7 \u2ca1\u2c89\u2c93 \u2c89\u2ca7\u2c9b\u2c81                 \u03e9\u2c8f\u2ca7 \u2c99\u2ca1\u03eb\u2c9f\u2c89\u2c93\u2ca5 \u00b7 \u2ca1\u2c81\u2c93 \u2c89\u2ca7\u2c9b\u2c81\n35. \u2ca5\u2c89 \u2c83\u2c93\u2c8f_\u2ca7\u03e5_ \u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97 \u00b7 \u2c93\u2c89 \u2c9b\u2c93\u2c99 \u2ca1\u2c89       \u2ca5\u2c89\u2c83\u2c89 \u2c89\u2c93\u2c81\u2ca7\u03e5 \u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97 \u2c8f \u2c9b\u2c93\u2c99 \u2ca1\u2c89\n\u2ca7\u2c89 \u2c81\u03e5\u03e3\u2cb1\u2ca1\u2c93 \u2c9b\u2c8f\u03e5 \u2c9b\u2c97\u2c89\u03e5                    \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c81\u03e5\u03e3\u2cb1\u2ca1\u2c89 \u2c9b\u2c81\u03e5 \u2c9b\u2ca3\u2c89\u03e5\n\u03eb\u2c93\u03e3\u2c81\u03eb\u2c9b\u2c93 \u00b7 \u2c93\u2c89 \u2c9b\u2c93\u2c99 \u2ca1\u2c89                   \u03eb\u2c93 \u03e3\u2c9f\u03eb\u2c9b\u2c89 \u00b7 \u2c8f \u2c9b\u2c93\u2c99 \u2ca1\u2c89\n\u2ca7\u2c89 \u2c81\u03e5\u2c93\u2c97\u2c93 \u2c9b\u2c8f\u03e5 \u2c9b\u03e3\u2c81\u2ca3\u2c89\u2ca1 \u00b7                 \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c81\u03e5\u2c89\u2c93\u2ca3\u2c89 \u2c9b\u2c81\u03e5 \u2c9b\u03e3\u2c9f\u2ca3\u2ca1\n36. \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c81\u2c97\u2c89\u03e5\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c93\u2c81 \u2c9b\u2c8f\u03e5 \u00b7 \u03eb\u2c89              \u2ca7\u2c81\u2ca3\u2c89\u03e5 \u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c89\u2c93\u2c9f \u2c9b\u0281\u03e5 \u00b7 \u03eb\u2c89\n\u2ca1\u2ca9\u2c8f_\u2ca3\u03e5_ _\u03e9\u2c9b_ \u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97 \u2c99\u2c99\u2c81\u03e5                \u2ca1\u2ca9\u2c8f\u2ca3\u03e5 \u03e9\u2c89\u2c9b \u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97 \u2c99\u2c99\u2c9f\u03e5\n\u2c9b\u2c89 \u00b7 \u2c81\u2ca9\u2cb1 \u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97\u03e9\u2c93\u2ca7\u2c81                     \u2c9b\u2c89 \u00b7 \u2c81\u2ca9\u2cb1 \u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97\u03e9\u2c93\u2ca7\u2c9f\n\u2c81_\u2ca7\u03e5_ \u00b7 \u2c81\u2ca9\u2cb1 \u2c89\u2ca9\u2c9b\u2c81\u2c95\u2c81\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca9                 \u2c81\u2ca7\u03e5 \u2c81\u2ca9\u2cb1 \u2c89\u2ca9\u2c9b\u2c81\u2c95\u2c9f\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca9\n\u2c89\u2c97\u2c81\u03e5 \u00b7 \u2ca1\u2cb1\u03e5 \u2ca1\u2c89 \u2ca1\u2c89\u2c9f\u2c9f\u2ca9                   \u2c89\u2ca3\u2c9f\u03e5 \u00b7 \u2ca1\u2cb1\u03e5 \u2ca1\u2c89 \u2ca1\u2c89\u2c9f\u2c9f\u2ca9\n\u2c9b\u03e3\u2c81 \u2c9b\u2c93\u2c89\u2c9b_\u03e9_ \u03e9\u2c81\u2c99\u2c8f\u2c9b.                    \u03e3\u2c81 \u2c9b\u2c93\u2c89\u2c9b\u2c89\u03e9 \u03e9\u2c81\u2c99\u2c8f\u2c9b.\n\nSpecimens of this version may be found in\u2014\n\n\n    1. M\u00e9moires de l\u2019Institut \u00e9gyptien, II. ii, edited by Bouriant.\n\n    2. Mittheilungen, ii. p. 69.\n\n    3. Coptic MSS. brought from the Fayoum by W. M. Flinders Petrie,\n    Esq., D.C.L., edited by W. E. Crum, p. 1.\n\n    4. It is also said to be contained in some Graeco-Coptic fragments\n    recently acquired by the British Museum.\n\n\nThe lines between this dialect and version and that of the Fayoum are not,\nhowever, clearly defined, and further research may make it necessary to\nrearrange the different specimens mentioned in this and the preceding\nsections.\n\nTextually the version is of equal value with that of the Fayoum, that is,\nit represents another tradition of the version of Upper Egypt, of which\nSahidic was the most important representative.]\n\n\n\n\n[(6) The Akhm\u00eem Dialect.]\n\n\n[It would have probably been more scientific to have begun our discussion\nof the versions of Upper Egypt with a description of the Akhm\u00eem dialect.\nIt certainly represents the language in an older form than any other\ndialect we have examined; unfortunately such a very small fragment of the\nNew Testament version exists that its importance at present can hardly be\nestimated.\n\nThe Akhm\u00eem dialect is known to us by a series of Apocryphal and Biblical\nfragments published by M. Bouriant (M\u00e9moires, i. p. 243), and has the\nfollowing characteristics. In its vowels its affinities are nearest to the\nMiddle Egyptian; it has \u2c81 for \u2c9f, \u2c81\u2ca9 for \u2c9f\u2c9f\u2ca9, and \u2c89 for \u2c81. It does not use\n\u2c97 for \u2ca3. Like the Sahidic it has double vowel-endings, and the weak final\n\u2c89, but not \u2cab, \u2c91, \u2cad for \u2ca1\u03e9, \u2ca7\u03e9, \u2c95\u03e9. It also has some Bohairic forms, such\nas \u2c9b\u2c9f\u2ca9, \u2c81\u2ca3\u2c89, \u2c81\u03e5. In the vowels it has the following peculiarities: \u2c81 for \u2c89\n(Sah.), \u2c81\u03e9\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9b, \u2c81\u03e9\u2ca3\u2c8f\u2c93, \u2c81\u2ca3\u2c81\u2c95, \u2c81\u2c83\u2c81\u2c97; \u2c93 or \u2c89\u2c93 for \u2c8f, \u2ca1\u2c93 (sun), \u2ca5\u2c99\u2c89\u2c93, \u2ca7\u03e9\u2c89\u2c93; \u2c9f\u2ca9\nfor \u2cb1, \u2c95\u2c9f\u2ca9, \u03eb\u2c9f\u2ca9, \u2ca5\u2c83\u2c9f\u2ca9; \u2c9f for \u2c81\u2ca9, \u2c9b\u2c9f, \u2ca5\u2c9b\u2c9f.\n\nBut its most distinguishing feature is an entirely new letter, [Symbol:\nCoptic \u201chori\u201d glyph with additional stroke to lower left]: this may\nrepresent \u03e3 of other dialects; [Symbol: the new glyph] for \u2c89\u03e3 (to know),\n\u2c89\u03e9 [with the new glyph] for \u2c81\u03e3; or \u03eb as \u2ca7\u03e9\u2ca1\u2c9f [with the new glyph] for \u03eb\u2ca1\u2c9f;\nor \u03e7 : \u03e9, as \u2cb1\u2c9b\u03e9 [with the new glyph] for \u2cb1\u2c9b\u03e7; \u2ca5\u03e9\u2c89\u2c93 [with the new glyph]\nfor \u2ca5\u03e7\u2c81\u2c93.\n\nThe textual affinities can hardly be worked out with the small amount of\nmaterial we possess, but there seems to be little doubt that it represents\nin a very early form the same version that we are acquainted with in\nSahidic. Further discoveries in this dialect may do much to make us\nacquainted with the early history of the version of Upper Egypt.\n\nOnly two short fragments of this version are known, which have been edited\nby Mr. W. E. Crum in his edition of the Coptic MSS. brought from the\nFayoum by W. M. Flinders Petrie (p. 2). They are contained in a parchment\nMS. of very great antiquity (Mr. Crum suggests the fourth century, but\nthis is certainly too early), and contain St. James iv. 12-13, St. Jude\n17-20. The following comparison of it with the Sahidic will show both the\nsimilarity of the versions and the differences of the dialect.\n\nAKHMIMIC.                             SAHIDIC.\nJude 17. _\u2c9b\u2c9b_\u03e3\u2c89\u03eb\u2c89 \u2c99\u2ca1_\u2c9b_\u03eb\u2c81\u2c89\u2c93\u2ca5 _\u2c93\u2ca5_     17. \u2c9b\u2c9b\u03e3\u2c81\u03eb\u2c89 \u2c99\u2ca1\u2c89\u03eb\u2c9f\u2c89\u2c93\u2ca5 _\u2c93\u2ca5_\n\u2ca1_\u2cad\u2ca5_ \u2c9b\u2c89\u2c93 \u2c89\u2ca7\u2c81 \u2c9b\u2c89\u03e5\u2c81\u2ca1\u2c9f\u2ca5\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2c97\u2c9f\u2ca5            \u2ca1\u2c89_\u2cad\u2ca5_ \u2c9b\u2c81\u2c93 _\u2c9b_\u2ca7\u2c81 \u2c9b\u2c89\u03e5\u2c81\u2ca1\u2c9f\u2ca5\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2c97\u2c9f\u2ca5\n\u03eb\u2c9f\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2c89\u03eb\u2c9b _\u2c9b_\u03e9\u2c81\u2ca3\u2ca1\u2019 \u2c81\u2c83\u2c81\u2c97 \u00b7              \u03eb\u2c9f\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u03eb\u2c93\u2c9b \u2c9b\u03e3\u2c9f\u2ca3\u2ca1 \u00b7 \u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97\n18. \u03eb\u2c89 \u2c81\u2ca9\u2c87\u2c9f\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u03eb\u2c89 \u03e9\u2c9b \u2ca7\u03e9\u2c81\u2c89\u2c93             18. \u03eb\u2c89 \u2c81\u2ca9\u2c87\u2c9f\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u03eb\u2c89 _\u03e9\u2c9b_ \u2c91\u2c81\u2c8f\n_\u2c9b\u2c9b_\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c81\u2c89\u2c93\u03e3 \u2c9f\u2ca9_\u2c9b_ \u03e9\u2c89\u2c9b\u2ca3\u2c89\u03e5\u03eb\u2ca3\u03eb\u2ca3\u2c89          _\u2c9b\u2c9b_\u2c89\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9f\u2c89\u2c93\u03e3 \u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9b \u03e9\u2c89\u2c9b\u2ca3\u2c89\u03e5\u03eb\u2ca3\u03eb\u2ca3\u2c89\n\u2c9b\u2c8f\u2ca9 \u2c89\u2ca9\u2c99\u2c81\u2c81\u03e9\u2c89 \u2c95\u2c81\u2ca7\u2c81 \u2c9b\u2c89\u2ca1\u2c93                 \u2c9b\u2c8f\u2ca9 \u2c89\u2ca9\u2c99\u2c9f\u2c9f\u03e3\u2c89 \u2c95\u2c81\u2ca7\u2c81 \u2c9b\u2c89\u2ca1\u2c93\n\u2c91\u2ca9\u2c99\u2c93\u2c81 \u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c9f\u2ca9_\u2c99\u2ca1_\u2ca7\u2019 \u03e9\u2c89_\u03e5\u2ca7_ \u00b7             \u2c91\u2ca9\u2c99\u2c93\u2c81 \u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c89\u2ca9\u2c99\u2ca1\u2ca7\u03e3\u2c81\u03e5\u2ca7\u2c89 \u00b7\n19. \u2c9b\u2c89\u2c93 \u2c9b\u2c89\u2ca7\u2ca1\u2cb1\u2ca3\u03eb \u2c81\u2c83\u2c81\u2c97 \u2c89\u03e9\u2c89\u2c9b             19. \u2c9b\u2c81\u2c93 \u2c9b\u2c89\u2ca7\u2ca1\u2cb1\u2ca3\u03eb \u2c81\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97 \u2c89\u03e9\u2c89\u2c9b\n\u2caf\u2ca9\u2cad\u2c93\u2c95\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u2c9b\u2c89 \u2c89_\u2c99\u2c9b_\u2ca7\u2c89\u2ca9 \u2ca1_\u2ca1\u2c9b_\u2c81            \u2caf\u2ca9\u2cad\u2c93\u2c95\u2c9f\u2c9b \u2c9b\u2c89 \u2c89_\u2c99\u2c9b_\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca9 \u2ca1_\u2c9b_\u2c81\n_\u2c99_\u2c99_\u2c9f_ \u00b7 20. _\u2c9b_\u2ca7\u2cb1\u2ca7\u2c9b\u2c89\u2c87\u2c89\u2c9b\u2c81_\u2c99\u2ca3_\u2ca3\u2c89 \u00b7    _\u2c99_\u2c99\u2c81\u2ca9 \u00b7 20. _\u2c9b_\u2ca7\u2cb1_\u2ca7\u2c9b_\u2c87\u2c89\u2c9b\u2c81\u2c99\u2c89\u2ca3\u2c81 \u00b7\n\u2ca7\u2c89 \u03e9\u2cb1\u2ca1\u2c89 \u2c89\u2ca7\u2c89_\u2ca7\u2c9b_ \u2c95\u2cb1\u2ca7 _\u2c99_\u2c99\u2cb1\u2ca7            \u2ca7\u2c89 \u2c89\u2ca7\u2c89_\u2ca7\u2c9b_ \u2c95\u2cb1\u2ca7 _\u2c99_\u2ca1\u2cb1\u2ca7\u2c89\u2c9b ...\n\u2c9b\u2c89 _\u03e9\u2c9b_ \u2ca7\u2c89_\u2ca7\u2c9b_\u2ca1\u2c93\u2ca5\u2ca7\u2c93\u2ca5 \u2c89\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c81\u2c81\u2c83\u2c89\n_\u2c99_\u2ca1\u03e3_\u2c81_ \u2c89\u2ca7\u2c89\u2ca7\u2c9b\u03e3\u2c97\u2c8f\u2c97 _\u03e9\u2c99_\n\u2ca1_\u2ca1\u2c9b_\u2c81 \u2c89\u2ca7\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c81\u2c81\u2c83\u2c89\n\nIt has only been possible in the above account to give a rough outline of\nmore recent discovery. Further investigation is necessary, and the lines\nwhich divide the different dialects, especially those between Fayoumic and\nMiddle Egyptian, require to be more accurately defined. Much may be hoped\nalso from the results of future discovery. The rubbish heaps of the\nmonasteries, the concealed libraries, the graves, have yielded up some of\ntheir treasures, but all has not yet been brought to light. Enough has\nbeen written to suggest that discoveries of great interest for the life\nand character of early Egyptian Christianity have been made, and that much\nstill remains to be found, which may indirectly throw a flood of light on\nthe early history of Christianity as a whole(117).]\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. THE OTHER VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n\nThe remaining Versions are of less importance in the ascertainment of the\nsacred text. But some of them have recently received more attention in the\ngeneral widening of research, and in becoming better known have\nstrengthened their claims to recognition and value. Three of them, at all\nevents, date from the period of the oldest manuscripts of the New\nTestament now known to be in existence. And the presence amongst us of\neminent scholars acquainted with them renders reference to them more easy\nthan it was a few years ago.\n\nNevertheless, some are of slight service to the critic, being secondary\nversions, and as such becoming handmaids, not of the Greek, but of some\nother version translated from the Greek.\n\nIn the account of these versions, the Editor of this edition is indebted\nfor most valuable assistance to Mr. F. C. Conybeare, late Fellow of\nUniversity College, Oxford, who has re-written the sections on the\nArmenian and Georgian versions; to Professor Margoliouth, who has also\nre-written those on the Ethiopic and Arabic; to the Rev. Llewellyn J. M.\nBebb, Fellow of Brasenose College, who has re-written the account of the\nSlavonic; and to Dr. James W. Bright, Assistant-Professor of English\nPhilology in the John Hopkins University, who has contributed what is\nknown on the Anglo-Saxon Version.\n\n\n\n\n(1) The Gothic Version (Goth.).\n\n\nThe history of the Goths, who from the wilds of Scandinavia overran the\nfairest regions of Europe, has been traced by the master-hand of Gibbon\n(Decline and Fall, Chapters x, xxvi, xxxi, &c.), and needs not here be\nrepeated. While the nation was yet seated in Moesia, Ulphilas or Wulfilas\n[318-388], a Cappadocian, who succeeded their first Bishop Theophilus in\nA.D. 348, though himself an Arian and a teacher of that subtil heresy to\nhis adopted countrymen, became their benefactor, by translating both the\nOld(118) and New Testament into the Gothic, a dialect of the great\nTeutonic stock of languages, having previously invented or adapted an\nalphabet expressly for their use. There can be no question, from internal\nevidence, that the Old Testament was rendered from the Septuagint, the New\nfrom the Greek original(119): but the existing manuscripts testify to some\ncorruption from Latin sources, very naturally arising during the\noccupation of Italy by the Goths in the fifth century. These venerable\ndocuments are principally three, or rather may be treated under two MSS.\nand one group.\n\n\n    1. CODEX ARGENTEUS, the most precious treasure of the University\n    of Upsal, in the mother-country of the Gothic tribes. It appears\n    to be the same copy as Ant. Morillon saw at Werden in Westphalia\n    towards the end of the sixteenth century, and was taken by the\n    Swedes at the siege of Prague in 1648. Queen Christina gave it to\n    her librarian, Isaac Vossius, and from him it was very rightly\n    purchased about 1662 by the Swedish nation and deposited at Upsal.\n    This superb codex contains fragments of the Gospels (in the\n    Western order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark) on 187 leaves, 4to (out\n    of 330), of purple vellum; the bold, uncial, Gothic letters being\n    in silver, sometimes in gold, of course much faded, and so regular\n    that some have imagined, though erroneously, that they were\n    impressed with a stamp. The date assigned to it is the fifth or\n    early in the sixth century, although the several words are\n    divided, and some various readings stand in the margin _prim\u00e2\n    manu_.\n\n    2. Codex Carolinus, described above for Codd. PQ, and for the Old\n    Latin _gue_, contains in Gothic about forty verses of the Epistle\n    to the Romans, first published by Knittel, 1762.\n\n    3. Codices Ambrosiani, or palimpsest fragments of five\n    manuscripts, apparently like Cod. Carolinus, from Bobbio, and of\n    about the same date, discovered by Mai in 1817 in the Ambrosian\n    Library at Milan, and published by him and Count C. O. Castiglione\n    (Ulphil\u00e6 Partium Ineditarum ... Specimen, in five parts, Milan,\n    1819, 1820, 1834, 1835, 1839). The last-named manuscripts are\n    minutely described and illustrated by a rude facsimile in Horne\u2019s\n    \u201cIntroduction,\u201d and after him in Tregelles\u2019 \u201cHorne,\u201d vol. iv. pp.\n    304-7. They consist of (1) a portion of St. Paul\u2019s Epistles, under\n    Homilies of Gregory the Great (viii); (2) portions of St. Paul,\n    under Jerome on Isaiah (viii or ix); (3) parts of the Old\n    Testament, under Plautus and part of Seneca; (4) under four pages\n    of St. John in Latin part of St. Matt. xxvi, xxvii. The fifth\n    fragment consists of Acts of the Council of Chalcedon with no\n    extracts from the Bible. Mai refers some of the Gothic writing to\n    the sixth century and some as far back as the fourth or beginning\n    of the fifth. Unlike the Codex Argenteus (at least if we trust Dr.\n    E. D. Clarke\u2019s facsimile of the latter), the words in Mai\u2019s\n    palimpsests are continuous: they contain parts of Esther, Nehemiah\n    (apparently no portion of the books of Kings), a few passages of\n    the Gospels, and much of St. Paul(120). H. F. Massmann (Ulfilas,\n    Stuttgart, 1855-57) also added from an exposition a few verses of\n    St. John, and there are fragments at Vienna and Rome(121).\n\n\nThese fragments (for such they still must be called)(122), in spite of the\ninfluence of the Latin, approach nearer to the received text, in respect\nof their readings, than the Egyptian or one or two other versions of about\nthe same age; and from their similarity in language to the Teutonic have\nbeen much studied in Germany. The fullest and best edition of the whole\ncollected, with a grammar and lexicon, is by H. C. von der Gabelentz and\nJ. Loebe (Ulfilas Vet. et N. Testamenti versionis Gothicae fragmenta quae\nsupersunt, Leipsic, 1836-46, viz. vol. i. Text, 1836; Pars ii. Glossarium,\n1843; Pars ii. Grammatik, 1846), and of the Codex Argenteus singly that of\nAnd. Uppstrom (with a good facsimile), Upsal, 1854. This scholar published\nseparately in 1857 ten leaves of the manuscript which had been stolen\nbetween 1821 and 1834, and were restored through him by the penitent thief\non his death-bed. The Gothic Gospels, however, had been cited as early as\n1675 in Fell\u2019s N. T., and more fully in Mill\u2019s, through Francis Junius\u2019\nedition (with Marshall\u2019s critical notes), which was printed at Dort in\n1665, from Derrer\u2019s accurate transcript of the Upsal manuscript, made in\nor about 1655, when it was in Isaac Vossius\u2019 possession. Other editions of\nthe Codex Argenteus were published by G. Stiernhielm in 1671 for the\nCollege of Antiquaries at Stockholm; by E. Lye at the Clarendon Press in\n1750 from the revision of Eric Benzel, Archbishop of Upsal; and (with the\naddition of the fragments in the Codex Carolinus) by Jo. Ihre in 1763, and\nby J. C. Zahn in 1805. And also the Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in\nparallel columns with the Versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale, London, 1865,\nand Ulfila, oder die Gotische Bibel (N. T.), E. Bernhardt, Halle, 1875,\nand St. Mark with a grammatical commentary, R. M\u00fcller and H. Hoeppe, 1881,\nand Skeat, Gospel of St. Mark in Gothic, Clarendon Press, 1882.\n\n\n\n\n(2) The Armenian Version.\n\n\nThe existing Armenian version is a recension made shortly after the\nCouncil of Ephesus of a still earlier version, which was based in part\nupon a Syriac, in part upon a Greek original. This latest recension was\nmade according to \u201caccurate and reliable copies\u201d of the Greek Bible,\nwhich, along with the Canons of the Council of Ephesus, were brought from\nConstantinople about the year 433. One would naturally wish for more\ndetails than the above brief statement contains; yet it is all that one\ncan definitely infer from the history of the version as related by three\nnearly contemporary writers, whose accounts we now subjoin, namely,\nKoriun, Lazar of Pharpi, and Moses Khorenatzi.\n\nKoriun(123) in his life of St. Mesrop (written between 441 and 452 A.D.)\nrelates as follows:\u2014\n\nIn the fifth year of the reign of Vramshapho [i.e. about 397 A.D.], St.\nMesrop was first in Edessa, then in Amid, lastly in Samosata, busy all the\ntime about his discovery of the Armenian characters(124). In Samosata,\nwhere he was received with great respect by the clergy and bishop, Mesrop\nmet with a Greek scribe, Hrofanos (? Rufinus), in conjunction with whom,\nand with the help of two pupils named John and Joseph, he undertook a\ntranslation of the Bible. They began\u2014and this is noteworthy\u2014with the book\nof the Proverbs of Solomon; Hrofanos or Rufinus writing down the\ntranslation with his own hand. Mesrop next visited the Bishop of the\nSyrians, who congratulated him on his work. He then returned to Nor\nChalach, or new city, as Valarshapat was called by the Romans, in the\nsixth year of Vramshapho\u2019s reign, A.D. 398. At a later time, Koriun, the\nwriter, was himself sent with Eznik to Constantinople, apparently in quest\nof books to translate; for they returned with a _sure_ copy of the\nScriptures, with works of the Fathers, and with the canons of the Councils\nof Nice and Ephesus. \u201cNow St. Sahak had long before translated the\ncollection of Church books from Greek into Armenian, as well as much true\nwisdom of the holy Patriarchs. But he now resumed, and taking with the\nhelp of Eznik the former translations made hurriedly and offhand, he\nconfirmed them by the help of the true copies now brought, and they\ntranslated much commentary on the books.\u201d The above is the gist of what\nKoriun has to tell us, though he mentions that scholars were sent to\nEdessa to translate and bring back the works of the Fathers. Why Mesrop\nbegan with the Book of Proverbs, whether he translated more than that, and\nfrom which language, we do not learn from Koriun. Lazar of Pharpi(125),\nwho wrote in the last half of the sixth century, is our next authority. He\nstates that up to the last decade of the fourth century, the offices of\nreligion were still read in Greater Armenia in Syriac, a language which\nthe people did not understand. The edicts of the kings of Armenia were\nalso written out in Syriac or Greek characters. But as soon as the\nArmenian alphabet was discovered, St. Sahak\u2014who was patriarch 390-428 A.D.\nand an expert in Greek\u2014set himself, in response to the patriotic\nexhortations of St. Mesrop, of Vramshapho the king, and of the clergy and\nnobles, to translate the Holy Scriptures. He states that St. Sahak\u2019s\nversion comprised the whole of the Old and New Testaments, and was made\nfrom Greek.\n\nMoses of Chorene, bk. iii. ch. 36 ff., copies, confuses, and adds to\nKoriun\u2019s account. A little before 370 A.D. the Persians overran Armenia,\nand Meroujah, their leader, burned all the books he could find in the\ncountry, proscribed the study of the Greek language, and enacted penalties\nagainst any who should speak it or translate from it. At that time, adds\nMoses, the offices of the church were performed in Greek, because the\nArmenian alphabet did not yet exist. On the death of Theodosius (Jan. 395\nA.D.) there was a partition of Armenia between his successor Arcadius and\nthe king of Persia, by which the latter took undisputed possession of the\neastern provinces, including the basin of Ararat, in which lay the new\nreligious centre Valarshapat or Edschmiadzin, the \u03bd\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 of the Romans.\nThe new Mesropic alphabet was at first used only in Persian Armenia; for,\nsays Moses, in the parts dependent on the Greeks, all writing had to be in\nGreek characters, Syriac being forbidden. As soon as Mesrop had elaborated\nhis alphabet with the aid of Hrophanos, he betook himself to the work of\ntranslation; and with the aid of his pupils John and Joseph, translated\nthe entire twenty-two authentic books along with the New Testament, taking\ncare to begin with the Book of Proverbs. About the year 406 he returned to\nArmenia, and found St. Sahak engaged in translating the Syriac Bible. He\nhints that Sahak would have preferred a Greek original, if Meroujah had\nnot burned all the Greek books nearly thirty years before. This perhaps\nimplies that the version, on which Mesrop had been engaged in Samosata,\nwas made from Greek. Nor is that unlikely; for Rufinus, who helped him,\nwas a Greek, and we learn from Koriun that there were Armenians in Edessa\nstudying both Greek and Syriac. We read in bk. iii. ch. 60 of the History\nof Moses, about missions sent to Edessa and Byzantium in order to the\ntranslation of the works of the Fathers, but we hear nothing more\nexpressly touching the Version of the Bible, save this, that after the\nCouncil of Ephesus, Sahak and Mesrop, then in Ashtishat in Taron, received\nfrom Byzantium, as aforesaid, the canons of the council recently held,\nalong with accurate copies of the Greek Bible. On receipt of these, Sahak\nand Mesrop translated afresh what had already been translated, and were\nzealous in recasting the text. But they were not, it seems, after all,\nsatisfied with their work, and sent Moses to Alexandria to learn the\n\u201cbeautiful tongue\u201d (i.e. Greek), with a view to a more accurate\narticulation and division (of the Armenian scriptures).\n\nThe above summary exhausts the evidence of Moses of Khorene(126). It would\nappear therefrom that the Bible was translated twice into Armenian before\nthe end of the fourth century; by Mesrop from Greek, and by Sahak from\nSyriac. The circumstance that Mesrop in Samosata began with the Proverbs\nof Solomon raises a suspicion that the earlier books had already been\nrendered, when and by whom is unknown. Certainly the reasons given by\nKoriun and by Moses for Mesrop beginning with Proverbs are insufficient.\nMoses again in stating that Sahak rendered the entire Bible from Syriac\ncontradicts both Koriun and Lazar. Are we to infer that Sahak and Mesrop\nafter 430 A.D. retranslated according to the Constantinople Bibles what\nthey had already translated from Syriac, and also it would seem from a\npresumably less perfect Greek text? Anyhow it is unlikely that they would\nwholly sacrifice their own work, and we should therefore expect to find in\nthe Armenian version a mixture of texts, namely of some old Syriac text,\nwhich must have been in vogue as late as 380, of some older Greek text\nsupplied in Edessa or Samosata, and of the Constantinopolitan texts; which\nlast may well have been among the fifty splendid copies which had been\nprepared under the order of Constantine by Eusebius a century before. If,\nand how far, these different elements enter into the Version can only be\ndetermined by a careful analysis of its readings. It may be that in some\nMSS. there lurks more of the unrevised text than in others(127). The\nentire history is an apt illustration of that political see-saw between\nthe Roman and the Persian powers which went on in Armenia during the\nfourth and fifth centuries, and out of which the patriotic vigour and\ndevotion of St. Mesrop and St. Sahak carved at last a truly national\nArmenian Church, with an independent life and literature of its own.\n\nThe Armenian Version was collated for Robert Holmes\u2019 edition of the\nSeptuagint, though not with desirable accuracy nor from the oldest MSS.\nFor example, the Codex Arm. 3 of the Pentateuch, which Holmes declares,\n_teste Adlero_, to be of the year 1063, is but an eighteenth century\ncodex. The collation of the New Testament in the eighth edition of\nTischendorf\u2019s N. T. is accurate so far as it goes, but is far from being\nexhaustive or based on a consensus of the oldest MSS. Old codices of the\nArmenian Gospels are very common, and the present writer knows of as many\nas eight, none of them later than the year A.D. 1000; of four of these he\nhas complete collations. The rest of the N. T. is only found in codices of\nthe whole Bible, which are rare and always written in minuscules, never in\nuncials as are the Gospels. He knows of no copies of the whole Bible older\nthan the twelfth century.\n\nTwo further questions call for brief answer:\u20141. Have we the Armenian\nversion as it left the hands of the fifth century translators 2. Did the\nfifth century version comprise the whole of the Old and New Testament?\n\nIn regard to the first question, it must be admitted as probable that\nchanges were subsequently made, at least in the New Testament, in the way\nboth of omission and addition; e.g. in St. Luke xxii. 44, out of four very\nearly uncial codices collated by the writer, the words: \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd, are found only in\none, and that one the earliest, being dated 902 A.D. The words which\nprecede \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b4\u2014\u1f72\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf are omitted in all four of them. We may infer\nthat ver. 44 was in the original version, and was omitted from the three\ncodices for doctrinal reasons. The additions made to the text after the\nfifth century are easier to detect; because they only come in some MSS.\nand not in others, and also because there is so much discrepancy of\nreadings between those codices which add them, that they are at once seen\nto be lacunas supplied by different hands. This is the case, for example,\nwith the end of St. Mark\u2019s Gospel, which only comes in one of the four\ncodices mentioned, namely in the oldest Edschmiadzin Codex, under the\nheading \u201cof the Elder Ariston,\u201d which may refer to Aristion, teacher of\nPapias, or to Ariston of Pella. The case is the same with the episode of\nthe woman taken in adultery. For the settlement of such points there is\nwanted a careful collation of the oldest codices.\n\nIn answer to the other question we may state, without entering into the\nproof of it, that the fifth century version included all the books of the\nOld and New Testament save the third book of Ezra, Esther, Tobit, Judith,\nWisdom of Solomon, and perhaps the Maccabees. For as we read in Elisaeus\nthat Vartan Mamikonean in the middle of the fifth century inspired his\ntroops to deeds of valour against the Persians by reading to them the Book\nof Maccabees, we may fairly infer that that also was already then\nrendered. It may be added that the Psalms were rendered for church use\nprior to the rest of the Bible, and were translated afresh by Mesrop and\nhis disciples; also that the Book of Revelations was translated twice. The\ndouble translation of both these books is a fact which can be traced in\nvarious MSS.\n\nOne other point must be noticed. From the history of Moses of Chorene, it\nis not clear what were the imperfections of the Armenian version, to\nremedy which Moses was sent to Alexandria. We cannot suppose that Mesrop\nand Sahak and Eznik, and the other doctors who had already translated the\nGreek codices brought from Byzantium, were incompetent Greek scholars. The\nobject therefore of Moses\u2019 voyage to Alexandria was probably that he might\nadd to the Armenian text the Sections of Ammonius, and also the asterisks\nand obeli of Origen\u2019s Hexaplaric copy(128). The Ammonian Sections are\nfound in all Armenian New Testaments, and in some copies of the Bible the\nOrigenian marks as well; for instance, in Codex 3270 of the Bibliotheca\nVindobonensis. There is no evidence that the Armenians ever used a version\nof Tatian\u2019s Diatessaron.\n\nThe following is a list\u2014not exhaustive\u2014of the oldest known codices of the\nArmenian Gospels, or \u201cAvetaran\u201d:\u2014\n\n\n    1. In the Library of the Lazareffski Institute in Moscow, written\n    in large uncials on parchment, dated in the year 336 of the\n    Armenian era = A.D. 887. Size, 37.75 \u00d7 28 cent.; 229 folios.\n\n    2. In the Library of the Mechitarists in the island of San Lazaro,\n    in Venice, an uncial codex, on parchment, written in the year 351\n    of the Armenian era = A.D. 902.\n\n    3. In the same Library, on parchment, in large uncials, dated\n    1006.\n\n    4. In the same Library, in large uncials, on parchment, undated,\n    but evidently older than No. 2.\n\n    5. In the Patriarchal Library of Edschmiadzin in Russian Armenia,\n    No. 222 of the printed catalogue of Jacob Kareneantz (Tiflis,\n    1863). This book is bound in ivory covers, carved, as it would\n    seem, in the Ravennese style in the fifth or sixth century. In\n    large uncials, on parchment, written A.D. 989.\n\n    6. In the same Library is No. 223, an uncially written parchment\n    codex. The earliest of the colophons dates from A.D. 1260 and is\n    in majuscule, but the codex itself seems to be at least two\n    centuries and a half earlier.\n\n    7. In the same Library, No. 229, written in miniscule, on\n    parchment, A.D. 1035.\n\n    8, 9. In the same Library, Nos. 224, 225, in large uncials, on\n    parchment, presumably as old as the eleventh century, but undated.\n\n    10. In Tiflis, in an Armenian church. In large uncials, on\n    parchment. Undated, but certainly prior to A.D. 1000.\n\n    11. In the Library of the British Museum, in large uncials, on\n    parchment, undated. Probably of the ninth century, but not after\n    the tenth, according to Dr. Baronean, author of the British Museum\n    Catalogue.\n\n    12. In Karin or Erzeroum, in large uncials, on parchment. Dated\n    A.D. 986.\n\n    13. In the Library of the Fathers of St. Anthony, in\n    Constantinople. Dated A.D. 960.\n\n    14. In the island monastery of Sevan, on the lake of that name in\n    Russian Armenia. In large uncials, on parchment. Written during\n    primacy of Vahan, _circa_ A.D. 966.\n\n    15. In uncials, on parchment; written in Macedonia, under the\n    Emperor Basil, A.D. 1011. (Car\u00e9kin, Catalogue des Traductions,\n    omits to specify in what library.)\n\n    16. Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale in Paris. Codex Armenus VII contains\n    the Four Gospels. Codex Bombyc, litteris uncialibus scriptus.\n\n    17. In the same Library, Cod. Arm. VIII. Membranaceus, litteris\n    uncialibus scriptus.\n\n\n\n\n(3) The Ethiopic Version (Eth.).\n\n\nThe Ethiopic translation of the Bible is assigned by Guidi to the end of\nthe fifth, or beginning of the sixth century, the time at which\nChristianity became the dominant religion in Abyssinia. That religion\nafter a period of decadence began to flourish again in the twelfth\ncentury, but in dependence on the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The two\nprincipal classes of Ethiopic Biblical MSS. are connected with these\nperiods respectively; the first class being derived from the Greek text\nbefore, and the latter after the Alexandrian recension. The corrections,\nhowever, vary in different copies, and appear to be the result of\ndesultory rather than of systematic alteration. The MSS. of the Ethiopic\nN. T. are rarely complete; ordinarily the Gospels, the Epistles of St.\nPaul, and the Catholic Epistles with the Acts and the Apocalypse\nconstitute separate volumes. The oldest copy of the Gospels would seem to\nbe no. 32 of the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale in Paris, written in the reign of\nYek\u016bn\u014d Aml\u0101k; whereas MS. 33 of the same collection represents the later\ntext. Examples of the different recensions are given by Guidi, Atti della\nR. Academia dei Lincei: Classe di scienze morali &c., iv. 1888, from whom\nmost of the above statements are taken.\n\nCopies of the N. T., especially of the Gospels, are to be found in most\ncollections of Ethiopic MSS.; _see_ especially Wright, Ethiopic MSS. of\nthe British Museum, pp. 23-39, and Zotenberg, Catalogue des MSS.\n\u00c9thiopiens de la Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale (nos. 32-48; in the preface to\nthis latter work a list of other collections are given); also Dillmann,\nAbessinische Handschriften der K\u00f6niglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin (no. 20,\nthe four Gospels; 21, the Gospel of St. John); D\u2019Abbadie, Catalogue\nRaisonn\u00e9 de MSS. \u00c9thiopiens (Paris, 1859; nos. 2, 47, 82, 95, 112, 173,\nthe four Gospels; no. 119, St. Paul\u2019s Epistles; no. 164, Catholic Epp.,\nApoc., and Acts); Dillmann, Catalogus MSS. Aethiop. in Bibliotheca\nBodleiana, nos. 10-15; Fr. M\u00fcller, Aethiop. Handschriften der K. K.\nHofbibliothek in Wien (Z. D. M. G., xvi. p. 554, no. v, the Gospels; no.\nvi, St. John\u2019s Gospel); \u201cBulletin Scientifique de S. P\u00e9tersbourg,\u201d ii. 302\n(account of a MS. of the Gospels in the Asiatic Institute at St.\nPetersburg), iii. 148 (account of a MS. of the four Gospels, bearing the\ndate 78 = 1426 A.D., in the Public Library at St. Petersburg, and another\nof St. John\u2019s Gospel).\n\nThe Ethiopic N. T. was first printed in Rome, 1548, cum epistola Pauli ad\nHebraeos tantum, cum concordantiis Evangelistarum Eusebii et numeratione\nomnium verborum eorundem. Quae omnia curavit Fr. Petrus Ethyops auxilio\npriorum sedente Paulo iii. Pont. Max. et Claudio illius regni imperatore\n(edition of Tasf\u0101 Sion). The remaining thirteen Epistles of St. Paul were\nprinted in 1549. This edition was reproduced in the London Polyglott.\nAnother was issued by T. P. Platt (for the Bible Society) in 1830,\nreprinted 1844 and 1874. These editions are based on MSS. containing mixed\nrecensions, and are therefore of no critical value.\n\n\n\n\n(4) The Georgian Version (Georg.).\n\n\nThe Church of the Iberians was founded during the reign of Constantine\naccording to tradition; though, if we consider how intimate and frequent\nhad been from a much earlier period their intercourse with the Greeks, we\nmay safely infer that the seeds of Christianity had been long before sown\namong them. There is no certain evidence of the date at which they\ntranslated the Scriptures; but it is probable that their version of the\nNew Testament was made in the fifth and sixth centuries; and that it was\nmade from a Greek text the most perfunctory examination suffices to prove.\nAccording to Armenian historians of the fifth century, St. Mesrop, at the\nsame time that he invented the Armenian characters and made the Armenian\nversion for his own countrymen, fulfilled the same service for the\nGeorgians also. In this tradition, however, the Georgians do not concur;\nand, no doubt, rightly, seeing that their ancient alphabet and their\nversion are alike independent of the Armenian. It is said by some native\nGeorgian scholars that before the tenth century a revision was made of\ntheir version, in order to make it more complete.\n\nThe present writer knows of no manuscript of the entire Bible in Europe\nexcept at Mount Athos, where there is one reputed to be of the tenth\ncentury. Others are preserved in the Convents of the Holy Cross at\nJerusalem, and of Mount Sinai. In the Vatican Library there is a codex of\nthe New Testament, neatly written on parchment in majuscule, parts of\nwhich the present writer has collated with the printed text. This codex is\nat least as old as the thirteenth century, and in the collations below is\nreferred to as _a_. Beside this codex the writer has examined in the\nGeorgian Library at Tiflis three very ancient codices of the Gospels,\nwritten in uncials on parchment. These books were smaller in size than\nare, as a rule, the copies of the Gospels used in Eastern Churches.\n\nOf the accompanying collations, nos. i-iv are made from them, and the\npassages collated were photographed by the present writer. These\nphotographs, which represent the originals on a reduced scale, have been\ndeposited by him in the Bodleian Library for the inspection of the\ncurious. The text referred to as _b_ is probably of the tenth century or\nearlier; the one referred to as _c_ cannot be much later than the\neleventh, while that indicated by _d_ must belong to the twelfth, and is\nthe most beautifully written of them.\n\nThe Bible was not printed in Georgian until the year 1743 at Moscow in\nlarge folio. It is a rare volume, and has never been reprinted. The\ncharacter is that called ecclesiastical or priestly majuscule, which\ndiffers wholly from the civil characters and can, as a rule, be read by\nthe priests only. The New Testament and Psalms have been reprinted at\nvarious times from this original edition, both in priestly and civil\ncharacters, and of the latter kind very good and cheap copies can be\nobtained at the British and Foreign Bible Society, printed, however, at\nTiflis. It is said that the edition of 1743 was conformed to the Slavonic\nversion of the Bible; and if this were true, it would, of course, impair\nits value for critical purposes. Of this statement, however, the writer\u2019s\ncollations, so far as they go, afford no proof. Such variations as there\nare between the printed edition and the manuscript texts are notified in\nthese collations. The point, however, could easily be settled by a\nthorough comparison of the printed text with the Slavonic.\n\nThe MSS. of Tiflis include the last verses of Mark, and the Vatican MS.\ncontains the narrative of the woman taken in adultery, but places it after\nver. 44, instead of after ver. 52 of the seventh chapter of John. The\nprinted edition places it after ver. 52, and this uncertainty as to where\nto insert the narrative, in itself indicates that it is a later\ninterpolation. The printed text also contains the text about the three\nwitnesses; but it is pieced into the context in an awkward and\nungrammatical way; and whether it is in any MS. the writer cannot say. The\nfollowing all too brief collations prove that the printed text fairly\nrepresents the MSS.; from which, indeed, it differs very little except in\nits more modern orthography. It is certain, however, that the most ancient\nMSS. of this version must be collated and a critical text of it prepared,\nbefore it can be quite reliably used as an early witness to the Greek text\nin regard to any particular points. Where the earliest Greek authorities\nwaver as to the particles by which the parts of the narrative shall be\nconnected\u2014some, e.g. giving \u03ba\u03b1\u03af, others \u03b4\u03ad, others \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd\u2014the Georgian\nconstantly passes abruptly to the new matter without any connecting\nparticle at all\u2014and this, although as a language Georgian is richer in\nsuch connecting particles than is Greek. This peculiarity of the version,\nwhich is also shared by the old Armenian version, seems to prove that it\nwas made from a primitive text, in which editors had not yet begun to\nsmooth away the sudden transitions.\n\n\n\n\n(5) The Slavonic Version (Slav.(129)).\n\n\nThis version of the Bible is ascribed to Cyril and Methodius, who lived at\nthe end of the ninth century. It is uncertain, however, how much of the\nNew Testament was translated at that date, and how much was the work of a\nlater time. The manuscripts of the version exist in two characters called\nGlagolitic and Cyrillic: of these it is now generally agreed that the\nformer is the earlier. In considering the version from the point of view\nof the textual criticism of the New Testament, we need not deal with its\nlater history except in so far as that throws light on its original form.\nThe chief points to which reference will be made will be (i) the different\nManuscripts in which the version exists, with their distinctive\ncharacteristics, and the evidence they afford as to the earliest form\u2014the\n_Urtext_\u2014of the version, and (ii) the Greek text presupposed by the\nversion in the form in which we have it.\n\nIt will be convenient to divide the New Testament into three component\nparts, (i) the Gospels, (ii) the Acts and Epistles, or the _Apostol_ as it\nis called in Slavonic, (iii) the Apocalypse. There can be little doubt\nthat the Gospels were the earliest part to be translated or that this\ntranslation was made for liturgical purposes. This last point explains the\ngreat preponderance of MSS. of the version in which the Gospels are\narranged in the form of a lectionary(130).\n\nAmongst the earliest manuscripts of the Gospels are the Codex\nZographensis, Codex Marianus, and the Codex Assemanicus. The two first\nJagi\u0107 ascribes to the tenth or eleventh century. All these are written for\nthe most part in the Glagolitic character. Besides these, mention must be\nmade of the Ostromir Codex, written in Cyrillic characters, by Gregory, a\ndeacon at Novgorod, and dating from the year 1056-7. In considering the\ndistinctive characteristics of these manuscripts of the version, the first\npoint to notice is that they each preserve certain dialectical forms and\nexpressions by which their place of origin and to some extent their date\ncan be determined. Thus Miklosich regards the Codex Zographensis and Codex\nAssemanicus as preserving Bulgarico-Slovenish forms, the Ostromir Codex as\nrepresentative of Russo-Slovenish, and so on. It is mainly in these\nparticulars that the manuscripts differ, though there are also other\ndifferences by means of which it has been determined that some Codices,\nespecially those in the Glagolitic character, preserve the version in a\nmore original form than others, as for example the Ostromir Codex. These\ndifferences consist(131), (i) in orthography, (ii) in the fact that the\nlater forms of the version translate Greek words left untranslated in the\nolder forms, (iii) in the substitution of later and easier words for\narchaisms. It may also be noted that alterations are more numerous, as\nmight be expected, in copies of the Gospels made for liturgical purposes\nthan in other copies.\n\nThe same remarks would be true of the second part of the Bible, the\n_Apostol_. This is pointed out by Voskresenski in the book to which\nreference has been made, but which is known to the writer of these lines\nonly from a review. A very careful examination of the text of the\n\u201cApostol,\u201d based on the manuscripts of the Synodal Library, is made by\nGorski and Nevostruiev in the work referred to above, pp. 292 ff.\n\nOblak has examined the Slavonic version of the Apocalypse, of which the\nmanuscripts are fewer and later. The earliest manuscript is ascribed to\nthe thirteenth century, but the textual corruption which it exhibits in\ncomparison with other manuscripts requires that the version which it\nembodies should be referred at least to the twelfth century. We do indeed\nfind a quotation of the Apocalypse (ix. 14) as early as the Isbornik of\nSviatoslav of the year 1073, but in a form so different from the MSS. of\nthe version now extant, that we must regard it as a quotation from memory.\nThe MSS. have many small variations, sometimes merely dialectical,\nsometimes based on a different Greek text. They also show marks in places\nof having been corrected with the help of the Latin. But in spite of all\ntheir variations Oblak believes that all the manuscripts are to be\nreferred to one common translation made from a Greek text of the\nConstantinopolitan type, which has been here and there corrupted by\nWestern influence.\n\nIt may be noted in conclusion that the earliest dated complete manuscript\nof the Gospels is dated 1144, the earliest manuscript of the whole Bible,\nA.D. 1499, and that the earliest printed edition is the famous Ostrog\nBible of 1581.\n\nIt remains to say something of the Greek text underlying the Slavonic\nversion, for this is the special point of view from which the versions are\nbeing here considered. The instances will all be taken from the Gospels,\nthough others might have been added from those collected by Gorski. In the\nfirst place it is necessary to draw attention to the fact that for\ncritical purposes a modern edition of the version will be found\ninsufficient. The following are cases(132) where the edition published by\nthe British and Foreign Bible Society, probably based on the Textus\nReceptus, is misleading as to the real original reading of the version. In\nSt. Matt. xi. 2 Codd. Assem., Zograph., Ostrom., all imply the reading\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac, the modern edition \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf: in St. John i. 28 the MSS. have Bethany, the\nedition Bethabara; in St. John vii. 39 the MSS. insert, the edition omits,\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd; in St. Matt. xxv. 2 the MSS. put \u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03af before \u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, the\nedition inverts the order. The Ostromir Codex presents a later form of the\nversion, and so we find instances where the other two MSS., just referred\nto, preserve what is probably a better reading. Thus in St. Luke ii. 3\nthey have \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, the Ostromir \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6; in St.\nJohn ix. 8 they have \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, it has \u03c4\u03c5\u03c6\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2; in St. John xix. 14 they\nhave \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7, it reads \u1f15\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7; in St. John xxi. 15 they have \u1f00\u03c1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, it has\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1. Again there are cases where one MS. of the version stands alone.\nThus Codex Zogr. stands alone, as against Assem. and Ostrom., in omitting\nSt. Luke xiv. 24, and inserting \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1ff3 in St. Luke vi. 1. Again in\nthe choice of Slavonic words for the same Greek original, Cod. Zogr. will\nagree with Codex Assem. against Codex Ostrom., though where the Codex\nAssemanicus is freer in its rendering, the Ostromir Codex and Codex\nZographensis agree. Sometimes again the Codex Zographensis is alone in\ncurious readings which seem to be conflations of the texts found in the\nother two manuscripts, or based on a conflate Greek text.\n\nThis version and the various manuscripts which contain it have received\nmost attention from Slavonic philologists engaged in examining the\nearliest monuments of their language; but the readings which have been\ngiven will be enough to show that it does not deserve to be dismissed, as\nsummarily as has been sometimes the case, from the number of those\nversions which have a value for purposes of the Textual Criticism of the\nNew Testament.\n\n\n\n\n(6) The Arabic Version (Arab.).\n\n\nArabic versions (Arab.) are many, though of the slightest possible\ncritical importance; their literary history, therefore, need not be traced\nwith much minuteness. A notice is quoted from Bar-hebraeus (Assemani,\nBibl. Or., ii. 335) to the effect that John, Patriarch of the Monophysites\nfrom 631-640, translated the \u201cGospel\u201d from Syriac into Arabic; and some\nscholars have believed in the existence of a pre-Mohammedan version of\nparts at least of the New Testament on other grounds; from such a version\n(written in the \u201cHebrew\u201d character) in the opinion of Sprenger (Das Leben\nund die Lehre Muhammads, i. 131) come the verses of St. John\u2019s Gospel (xv.\n23-27, xvi. 1), cited by Ibn Ishaq (ob. 768) in his \u201cLife of Mohammed\u201d\n(ed. W\u00fcstenfeld, i. 150)(133). These verses are evidently translated from\nthe (Jerusalem?) Syriac; but the translation of the Gospel, from the\nSyriac into Arabic, existing in a Leipzig MS. brought by Tischendorf from\nthe East and described at length by Gildemeister (De evangeliis in\nArabicum e simplici Syriaco translatis, Bonn, 1865) is shown by internal\nevidence to be posterior to Islam (pp. 30 sq.). The Arabic versions of the\nGospel existing in MS. are divided by Guidi (Atti della R. Academia dei\nLincei, classe di scienze morali &c., 1888, 1-30) into five sorts: (1)\nthose made directly from the Greek; (2) made directly or corrected from\nthe Peshitto; (3) made directly or corrected from the Coptic; (4) MSS. of\ntwo distinct eclectic recensions made in the Alexandrian Patriarchate in\nthe thirteenth century; (5) MSS. (chiefly derived from the Syriac) which\nare distinguished by their style; being in rhymed prose or elegant Arabic.\nMSS. of the first sort can all, he says, be traced to the convent of St.\nSaba near Jerusalem, and are preceded by the lives of its founders, St.\nEutimius and St. Saba; the version they contain is to be ascribed to the\ntime of the Caliph Mamun (ninth century). Of the MSS. of class 4, one set\nrepresents a recension made by Ibn El-Ass\u0101l, circ. 1250; while another\nrepresents a less elaborate recension made shortly afterwards, in which\nthe passages omitted in the other were restored, while marginal notes\nrecorded their omission in other versions. Versions of the fifth class\nwere made in the tenth, fourteenth, and seventeenth centuries. A list of\nMSS. containing the different recensions of all these classes is given by\nGuidi, _l. c._, pp. 30-33.\n\nThe printed texts all represent varieties of the second eclectic recension\nof class 4, of which five editions are enumerated by Gildemeister(_l. c._,\npp. 42, 3, and iv). 1. Roman edition of the Gospels from the Medicean\nPress, 1591 (ar.r), edited by J. Baptista Raymundi, some copies having a\nLatin translation by Antonius Sionita. The MS. on which this edition was\nbased is unknown. 2. Edition of Thomas Erpenius (1584-1624), Leyden, 1616,\ncontaining the whole New Testament (ar.e). This edition was based on the\nLeyden MS., Scaliger 217, written in Egypt in the year of the Martyrs 1059\n(A.D. 1342-3); two other manuscripts also employed by Erpenius for the\nGospels are now in the Cambridge University Library (G. 5. 33, and G. 5.\n27, written A.D. 1285). A third MS. employed for this edition was in the\nCarshunic character. The Acts and Pauline Epistles, the Epistles of St.\nJames, St. Peter 1 and St. John 1 in this edition are translated from the\nPeshitto; the remaining Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse are from some\nother source; the latter shows some remarkable agreement with the\nMemphitic (Hug, Einleitung in das N. T., pp. 433-5). 3. Edition of the\nwhole N. T. in the Paris Polyglott (ar.p), 1645, reprinted with little\nalteration in the London Polyglott (1657). Gildemeister, _l. c._, proves\nagainst Lagarde (_l. c._, xi) that this recension in the Gospels is not an\ninterpolated reprint of the Roman edition, but is based on a MS. similar\nto Paris Anc. f. 27 (of A.D. 1619) and Coisl. 239 (new Suppl. Ar. 27)\ndescribed by Scholz, \u201cBibl. Krit. Reise,\u201d pp. 56, 58. The Acts, Epistles,\nand Apocalypse follow the Greek, but are by another translator. 4. Edition\nof the whole N. T. in the Carshunic character (Rome, 1703), edited by\nFaustus Naironus, for the use of the Maronites, from a MS. brought from\nCyprus, reprinted Paris, 1827; the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse\nrepresent the same version as that of Erpenius, but in a different\nrecension. 5. Edition of the four Gospels from a Vienna MS. (previously\ndescribed by S. C. Storr, Dissertatio inauguralis critica de evangeliis\nArabicis, T\u00fcbingen, 1875, p. 17 sq.), by P. de Lagarde (Die vier\nEvangelien Arabisch, Leipzig, 1864). The MS. contains various readings\nfrom the Coptic, Syriac, and Latin (according to Lagarde, Gildemeister\nmore naturally renders r\u016bm\u012b by Greek). The editor has prefixed a table of\nvariants between his text and that of Erpenius, but regards the relation\nof the former to the original as involving questions too complicated for\nimmediate discussion (p. xxxi).\n\nExtracts from MSS. of Arabic versions in French and Italian libraries are\ngiven by J. M. A. Scholz, Biblisch-Kritische Reise, Leipzig and Sorau,\n1823; a description of several others, some of great antiquity, is to be\nfound in Tischendorf\u2019s \u201cAnecdota Sacra et Profana,\u201d pp. 70-73 (2nd ed.);\nand Professor Rendel Harris, in \u201cBiblical Fragments from Sinai\u201d\n(Cambridge, 1890) has published a facsimile of a fragment of an Arabic\nversion from a bilingual MS. of the ninth century; the version whence it\nis derived agrees with none of those that have been published, and was\nprobably older than any of them.\n\nThe repeated revision and correction which these translations have\nundergone (Gildemeister, _l. c._, 1-3), while they give evidence of the\nindustry and zeal of the Arabic-speaking Christians, have made scholars\ndespair of employing them for critical purposes; \u201cthey rather serve,\u201d says\nGildemeister, \u201cto illustrate the history of biblical and Christian\nstudies.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n(7) The Anglo-Saxon Version (Sax.).\n\n\nThere is but one known version of the four Gospels (the only portion of\nthe N. T. that was translated into A.-S.); this version was made, probably\nin the South-West of England at or near Bath, in the last quarter of the\ntenth century. It is preserved in four MSS.: (Corp.) Corpus Christi Coll.\nCamb. MS. 140; (B) Bodleian Lib. MS. 441; (C) Cotton MS. Otho C. I\n(seriously injured by fire), and (A) Camb. Univ. Lib. MS. Ii. 2. 11. Of\nthese the first three may be dated, in round number, about the year 1000;\nthe fourth (A) belongs to the following half-century. The Bodl. Lib. has\nalso recently acquired a fragment of four leaves of St. John\u2019s Gospel,\nwhich agrees closely with A. [Published by Napier in \u201cArchiv f. n.\nSprachen,\u201d vol. lxxxvii. p. 255 f.]\n\nIt may also be mentioned that there are in the Brit. Mus. two additional\ncopies of this version (Bibl. Reg. MS. I. A. xiv, and Hatton MS. 38).\nThese belong to a period after the Conquest and have no critical value,\nfor the first is copied from B, and the second is copied from the first.\n\nThis version is based upon a type of the Vulgate MSS. that has not yet\nbeen definitely determined. Old Latin readings make it certain that the\noriginal MS. was of the mixed type.\n\nNext in importance to this version are the two following Latin MSS. of the\nfour Gospels, with an interlinear Anglo-Saxon gloss. (1) MS. Nero D. 4\n(the Lindisfarne MS., also known as the Durham Book). The Latin was\nwritten by Eadfrith, bishop of Lindisfarne 698-721; the interlinear gloss\nbeing about two and a half centuries later, made near Durham about the\nyear 950. (2) The Rushworth MS. (Bodl. Lib. Auct. D. ii. 19). The Latin\nwas written by the scribe Macregol, probably in the eighth century. The\ngloss, by the scribes Farman and Owun, is referred to the latter half of\nthe tenth century. These two Latin texts differ but slightly; they are\nalso of the Vulgate types.\n\nAll the MSS. that have now been mentioned are published in one volume (of\nfour parts) by Professor W. W. Skeat: \u201cThe Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon,\nNorthumbrian, and Old Mercian Versions, synoptically arranged, with\ncollations exhibiting all the readings of all the MSS.; together with the\nEarly Latin Version as contained in the Lindisfarne MS.; collated with the\nLatin Version in the Rushworth MS. Cambridge: University Press,\n1871-1887.\u201d Dr. James W. Bright has published an edition of St. Luke\u2019s\nGospel of the A.-S. Version, Oxford, 1892, and has in preparation a\ncritical edition of the entire Version [which has been published\nrecently]. The earlier editions of the Anglo-Saxon Gospels are by\nArchbishop Parker, 1571; Dr. Marshall (rector of Lincoln College), 1665;\nBenjamin Thorpe, 1842; Dr. Joseph Bosworth, 1865.\n\n\n\n\n(8) The Frankish Version (Fr.).\n\n\nA Frankish version of St. Matthew, from a manuscript of the ninth century\nat St. Gall, in the Frankish dialect of the Teutonic, was published by J.\nA. Schmeller in 1827. Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. 225) thinks it\nworthy of examination, but does not state whether it was translated from\nthe Greek or Latin: the latter supposition is the more probable.\n\n\n\n\n(9) Persic Versions (Pers.).\n\n\nPersic versions of the Gospels only, in print, are two: (1) one in\nWalton\u2019s Polyglott (pers.p) with a Latin version by Samuel Clarke (which\nC. A. Bode thought it worth his while to reconstruct, Helmstedt, 1750-51,\nwith a learned Preface), obviously made from the Peshitto Syriac, which\nthe Persians had long used (\u201cyet often so paraphrastic as to claim a\ncharacter of its own,\u201d Malan, _ubi supra_, p. xi), \u201cinterprete Symone F.\nJoseph Taurinensi,\u201d and taken from a single manuscript belonging to E.\nPocock(134), _probably_ dated A.D. 1341. This version may prove of some\nuse in restoring the text of the Peshitto. (2) The second, though\napparently modern [xiv?] was made from the Greek (pers.w). Its publication\nwas commenced in 1652 by Abraham Wheelocke, Professor of Arabic and\nAnglo-Saxon and University Librarian at Cambridge, at the expense of Sir\nTh. Adams, the generous and loyal alderman of London. The basis (as\nappears from the volume itself) was an Oxford codex (probably Laud. A. 96\nof the old notation), which Wheelocke, in his elaborate notes at the end\nof each chapter, compared with Pocock\u2019s and with a third manuscript at\nCambridge (Gg. v. 26), dated 1014 of the Hegira (A.D. 1607). On\nWheelocke\u2019s death in 1653 only 108 pages (to Matt, xviii. 6) were printed,\nbut his whole text and Latin version being found ready for the press, the\nbook was published with a second title-page, dated London, 1657, and a\nshort Preface by an anonymous editor (said to be one Pierson), who in lieu\nof Wheelocke\u2019s notes, which break off after Matt. xvii., appended a simple\ncollation of the Pocock manuscript from that place. The Persians have\nolder versions, parts of both Testaments, still unpublished. There is\nanother copy of the Persian Gospels at Cambridge, which once belonged to\nArchbishop Bancroft, and was brought from Lambeth in 1646, but was not\nrestored in 1662 with the other books belonging to the Lambeth Library.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. ON THE CITATIONS FROM THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT OR ITS VERSIONS\nMADE BY EARLY ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS, ESPECIALLY BY THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS.\n\n\n1. We might at first sight be inclined to suppose that the numerous\nquotations from the New Testament contained in the remains of the Fathers\nof the Church and other Christian writers from the first century of our\nera downwards, would be more useful even than the early versions, for\nenabling us to determine the character of the text of Scripture current in\nthose primitive times, from which no manuscripts of the original have come\ndown to us(135). Unquestionably the testimony afforded by these venerable\nwritings will be free from some of the objections that so much diminish\nthe value of translations for critical purposes which have been stated at\nthe commencement of this volume: and the use made of it by Dean Burgon in\nhis remarkable volume entitled the \u201cRevision Revised(136),\u201d has shown\nscholars how vast a body of valuable illustrations has received inadequate\nattention. But not to insist on the fact that many important passages of\nthe New Testament have not been cited at all in any very ancient work now\nextant, this species of evidence labours under difficulties peculiarly its\nown. Not only is this kind of testimony fragmentary and not (like that of\nversions) continuous, so that it often fails us where we should most wish\nfor information: but the Fathers were better theologians than critics;\nthey sometimes quoted loosely, or from memory, often no more of a passage\nthan their immediate purpose required; and what they actually wrote has\nbeen found liable to change on the part of copyists and unskilful editors.\nBut when all is considered, the Fathers must be at least held under due\nlimitations to be witnesses to the readings found in the codices which\nthey used. If theirs is secondary evidence, it is nevertheless in many\ncases virtually older than any that can be had from MSS. of the entire\ntext. The fewness of early MSS. adds importance to other early testimony.\nAnd the strength of this kind of evidence is found at the highest, when\nthe issue is of a somewhat broader character than usual, and when a large\nnumber of quotations are found to corroborate testimony from MSS. and the\ntestimony of Versions. In fact the strength of their evidence is to be\nseen especially in three aspects: First, they supply us with numerous\ncodices, though at second hand, at a very early date; secondly, there is\nno doubt whatever that the date of the codices used by them is not later\nthan when they wrote, and their own date is usually a matter of no\nquestion; and thirdly, they help us to assign the locality to remarkable\nreadings(137). In other words, the unknown MS. derives life and character\nfrom the Father who uses it(138). On the other hand, the same author\nperpetually cites the selfsame text under two or more various forms; in\nthe Gospels it is often impossible to determine to which of the three\nearlier ones reference is made; and, on the whole, where Scriptural\nquotations from ecclesiastical writers are single and unsupported, they\nmay safely be disregarded altogether. An _express_ citation, however, by a\nreally careful Father of the first four or five centuries (as Origen, for\nexample), if supported by manuscript authority, and countenanced by the\nbest versions, claims our respectful attention, and powerfully vindicates\nthe reading which it favours(139). In fact, like Versions, Patristic\ncitations cannot be taken primarily to establish any reading. But they are\noften invaluable in supplying support to manuscriptal authority, whether\nby proving a primitive antiquity, or in demonstrating by an overwhelming\nbody of testimony that the passage or reading was accepted in all ages and\nin many provinces of the earlier church. Frequently also, they are of\nunquestionable use, when they bear witness in a less striking manner, or\nin smaller number.\n\n2. The practice of illustrating the various readings of Scripture from the\nreliques of Christian antiquity is so obvious and reasonable, that all who\nhave written critical annotations on the sacred text have resorted to it,\nfrom Erasmus downwards: the Greek or Latin commentators are appealed to in\nfour out of the five marginal notes found in the Complutensian N. T. When\nBishop Fell, however, came to prepare the first edition of the Greek\nTestament attended with any considerable apparatus for improving the text,\nhe expressly rejected \u201cS. Textus loca ab antiquis Patribus aliter quam pro\nrecepto more laudata,\u201d from which the toil of such a task did not so much\ndeter him, \u201cquam cogitatio quod minus utile esset futurum iisdem\ninsistere.\u201d (N. T. 1675, Praef.). \u201cVenerandi enim illi scriptores,\u201d he\nadds, \u201cde verborum apicibus non multum soliciti, ex memori\u00e2 quae ad\ninstitutum suum factura videbantur passim allegabant; unde factum ut de\nprisc\u00e2 lectione ex illorum scriptis nil fer\u00e8 certi potuerit hauriri.\u201d It\nis certainly to the credit of Mill\u2019s sagacity that he did not follow his\npatron\u2019s example by setting aside Patristic testimony in so curt and\ncompendious a manner(140). Nevertheless, no one can study Mill\u2019s\n\u201cProlegomena\u201d without being conscious of the fact, that the portion of\nthem relating to the history of the text, as gathered from ecclesiastical\nwriters, and the accumulation of that mass of quotations from the Fathers\nwhich stands below his Scripture text, must have been, what he asserts,\nthe result of some years\u2019 labour (N. T. Proleg. \u00a7 1513): yet these are\njust the parts of his celebrated work that have given the least\nsatisfaction. The field indeed is too vast to be occupied by one man. A\nwhole library of authors has to be thoroughly searched; each cited passage\nmust be patiently examined; the help of _indices_ should be employed\ncritically and warily; the best editions must be used, and even then the\ntext of the very writers is to be corrected, so far as may be, by the\ncollation of other manuscripts(141).\n\n3. To Griesbach must be assigned the merit of being the earliest editor of\nthe Greek Testament who saw, or at least who acted upon the principle,\nthat it is far more profitable as well as more scholarlike to do one thing\nwell, than to attempt more than can be performed completely and with\naccuracy. He was led by certain textual theories he had adopted, and which\nwe shall best describe hereafter, to a close examination of the works of\nOrigen, the most celebrated Biblical critic of antiquity. The result,\npublished in the second volume of his Symbolae Criticae, is a lasting\nmonument both of his industry and acuteness; and, if not quite faultless\nin point of correctness, deserves to be taken as a model by his\nsuccessors. Tregelles, of whose Greek Testament we shall presently speak,\nhas evidently bestowed much pains on his Patristic citations; to Eusebius\nof Caesarea, especially to those portions of his works which have been\nrecently edited or brought to light, he has paid great attention: but\nbesides many others, Chrysostom has been grievously neglected, although\nthe subjects of a large portion of his writings, the early date of some of\nhis codices(142), the extensive collations of Matthaei, and the excellent\nmodern editions of most of his Homilies, might have sufficed to commend\nhim to our particular regard. The custom, commenced by Lachmann, and\nadopted by Tregelles (though not uniformly by Tischendorf), of recording\nthe exact edition, volume, and page of the writer quoted, and in important\ncases of copying his very words, cannot be too much praised: we would\nsuggest, however, the expediency of further indicating, by an asterisk or\nsome such mark, those passages about which there can be no ambiguity as to\nthe reading adopted by the author, in order to distinguish them from\nothers which are of infinitely less weight and importance.\n\n4. But the greatest step of all towards an extended use of Patristic\ntestimony has been taken by Dean Burgon, and since his much lamented death\nthe results of his labours have been made public. In the early stages of\nhis studies in Sacred Textual Criticism, Burgon saw the extreme\nvalue\u2014afterwards recognized by Dr. Scrivener\u2014of an exhaustive use of\ncitations from the Fathers and other ecclesiastical authors; and after a\nconversation with the Earl of Cranbrook, then Mr. Gathorne Hardy, he set\nhimself upon the vast task of collecting indices of New Testament\nquotations occurring in the books of those writers. \u201cThis involved his\nlooking through all the Greek and Latin folios of the Fathers, and marking\nthe texts in the margin. Then the folios passed into the hands of his\nassistants, who arranged the references in the order of the Books of the\nNew Testament, and copied them out; so that it might be only the work of a\nminute to ascertain how Cyril, or Eusebius, or Gregory of Nyssa quoted\nsuch a text(143),\u201d and how many times it was quoted by the Father in\nquestion. They were revised and enlarged some years after their first\ncollection. The striking use to which Burgon put his own indices has been\nalready noticed. After his death the sixteen stout volumes containing them\nwere acquired by the authorities of the British Museum, where they have\nbeen found to be of much use in cataloguing. Steps have been already taken\nfor the publication of the part relating to the Gospels with Dean Burgon\u2019s\nother works on this great subject.\n\n5. It may be convenient to subjoin an alphabetical list of the\necclesiastical writers, both in Greek and Latin and in other languages\n(with the usual abridgements for their names), which are the most often\ncited in critical editions of the New Testament. The Latin authors are\nprinted in italics, and unless they happen to appeal unequivocally to the\nevidence of Greek codices, are available only for the correction of their\nvernacular translation. The dates annexed generally indicate the death of\nthe persons they refer to, except when \u201cfl.\u201d ( = _floruit_) is prefixed.\n\n_Alcimus_ (Avitus), fl. 360.\n\n_Ambrose_, Bp. of Milan, A.D. 397 (Ambr.).\n\n_Ambrosiaster_, the false Ambrose, perhaps _Hilary_ the Deacon, of the\nfourth century (Ambrst.).\n\nAmmonius of Alexandria, circa 438 (Ammon.) _in Catenis_.\n\nAmphilochius, fl. 380.\n\nAnastasius, Abbot, fl. 650.\n\nAnastasius Sinaita, fl. 570.\n\nAndreas, Bishop of Caesarea, sixth century? (And.)\n\nAndreas of Crete, seventh century.\n\nAntiochus, monk, fl. 614.\n\nAntipater, Bp. of Bostra, fl. 450.\n\nAphraates, the Syrian, fourth century.\n\nArchelaus and Manes, fl. 278.\n\nArethas, Bp. of Caesarea Capp., tenth century? (Areth.)\n\nAristides, fl. 139.\n\nArius, fl. 325.\n\n_Arnobius_ of Africa, 306 (Arnob.).\n\nAsterius, fourth century.\n\nAthanasius, Bp. of Alexandria, 373 (Ath.).\n\nAthenagoras of Athens, 177 (Athen.).\n\n_Augustine_, Bp. of Hippo, 430 (Aug.).\n\nBarnabas, first or second century? (Barn.)\n\nBasil, Bp. of Caesarea, 379 (Bas.).\n\nBasil of Cilicia, fl. 497.\n\nBasil of Seleucia, fl. 440 (Bas. Sel.).\n\n_Bede_, the Venerable, 735 (Bede).\n\nCaesarius of Arles, fl. 520.\n\nCaesarius (Pseudo-) of Constantinople, 340 (Caes.).\n\nCandidus Isaurus, fl. 500.\n\nCapreolus, fl. 430.\n\nCarpathius, John, fl. 490.\n\nCassianus, fl. 415.\n\n_Cassiodorus_, 468-560 (?) (Cassiod.)\n\n_Chromatius_, Bp. of Aquileia, fl. 390 (Chrom.).\n\nChrysostom, Bp. of Constantinople, 407 (Chrys.).\n\nChrysostom (Pseudo-), fl. eighth century.\n\nClement of Alexandria, fl. 194 (Clem.).\n\nClement, Bp. of Rome, fl. 90 (Clem. Rom.).\n\nClementines, the, second century.\n\nCorderius,\n\nCosmas, Bp. of Maiuma, fl. 743.\n\nCosmas Indicopleustes, 535 (Cosm.).\n\n_Cyprian_, Bp. of Carthage, 258 (Cypr.).\n\nCyril, Bp. of Alexandria, 444 (Cyr.).\n\nCyril, Bp. of Jerusalem, 386 (Cyr. Jer.).\n\nDalmatius, fl. 450.\n\nDamascenus, John, 730 (Dam.)(144).\n\nDamasus, Pope, fl. 366.\n\nDidache, 80-120.\n\nDidymus of Alexandria, 370 (Did.).\n\nDiodorus of Tarsus, fl. 380.\n\nDionysius, Bp. of Alexandria, 265 (Dion.).\n\nDionysius of Alexandria (Pseudo-), third century.\n\nDionysius (Pseudo-) Areopagita, fifth century (Dion. Areop.).\n\nDionysius Maximus, fl. 259 (?).\n\nEphraem the Syrian, 378 (Ephr.).\n\nEphraem the Syrian (Pseudo-), fourth century.\n\nEphraim, Bp. of Cherson.\n\nEpiphanius, Bp. of Cyprus, 403 (Epiph.).\n\nEpiphanius, Deacon of Catana, fl. 787.\n\nErechthius, fl. 440.\n\nEudocia, wife of Theodosius II, fl. 430.\n\nEulogius, sixth century.\n\nEusebius of Alexandria,\n\nEusebius, Bp. of Caesarea, 340 (Eus.).\n\nEustathius, Bp. of Antioch, fl. 350.\n\nEustathius, monk,\n\nEuthalius, Bp. of Sulci, 458 (Euthal.).\n\nEutherius, fl. 431.\n\nEuthymius Zigabenus, 1116 (Euthym.).\n\nEutychius, fl. 553.\n\nEvagrius of Pontus, 380 (Evagr.).\n\nEvagrius Scholasticus, the historian, fl. 492.\n\n_Facundus_, fl. 547.\n\n_Faustus_, fl. 400.\n\nFerrandus, fl. 356.\n\n_Fulgentius_ of Ruspe, fl. 508 (Fulg.).\n\n_Gaudentius_, fl. 405 (Gaud.).\n\nGelasius of Cyzicus, fl. 476.\n\nGennadius, fl. 459.\n\nGermanus of Constantinople, fl. 715.\n\nGregentius, fl. 540.\n\nGregory of Nazianzus, the Divine, Bp. of Constantinople, 389 (Naz.).\n\nGregory Naz. (Pseudo-).\n\nGregory, Bp. of Nyssa, 396 (Nyss.).\n\nGregory Thaumaturgus, Bp. of Neocaesarea, 243 (Thauma.).\n\n_Gregory_ the Great, Bp. of Rome, 605 (Greg.).\n\n_Haymo_, Bp. of Halberstadt, ninth century (Haym.).\n\nHegesippus, fl. 180.\n\nHermas, second century.\n\n_Hieronymus_ (Jerome), 420 (Hier.) or (Jer.).\n\n_Hilary_, Bp. of Arles, 429.\n\n_Hilary_, Bp. of Poictiers, fl. 354 (Hil.).\n\n_Hilary_, the deacon, fourth century.\n\nHippolytus, Bp. of Portus (?), fl. 220 (Hip.).\n\nIgnatius, Bp. of Antioch, 107 (Ign.).\n\nIgnatius (Pseudo-), fourth century.\n\nIrenaeus, Bp. of Lyons, fl. 178; chiefly extant in an old Latin version\n(Iren.).\n\nIsidore of Pelusium, 412 (Isid.).\n\nJacobus Nisibenus, fl. 335.\n\nJobius, sixth century.\n\nJulian, heretic, fl. 425.\n\nJulius Africanus, fl. 220.\n\nJustin Martyr, 164 (Just.).\n\nJustin Martyr (Pseudo-), fourth century.\n\nJustinian, Emperor, fl. 527-565.\n\n_Juvencus_, fl. 320 (Juv.).\n\n_Lactantius_, 306 (Lact.).\n\n_Leo_ the Great, fl. 440.\n\nLeontius of Byzantium, fl. 348.\n\nLiberatus of Carthage, fl. 533.\n\n_Lucifer_, Bp. of Cagliari, 367 (Luc.).\n\nMacarius Magnes, third or fourth century.\n\nMacarius Magnus, fourth century.\n\nManes, fl. 278. See Archelaus.\n\nMarcion the heretic, 139 (Mcion.), cited by Epiphanius (Mcion-e) and by\n_Tertullian_ (Mcion-t).\n\nMaxentius, sixth century.\n\nMaximus the Confessor, 662 (Max. Conf).\n\n_Maximus_ Taurinensis, 466 (Max. Taur.).\n\nMercator, Marius, fl. 218.\n\nMethodius, 311 (Meth.).\n\nModestus, patriarch of Jerus. seventh century.\n\nNestorius of C. P., fifth century.\n\nNicephorus, fl. 787.\n\n_Nicetas_ of Aquileia, fifth century.\n\nNicetas of Byzantium, 1120.\n\nNilus, monk, fl. 430.\n\nNonnus, fl. 400 (Nonn.).\n\n_Novatianus_, fl. 251 (Novat.).\n\nOecumenius, Bp. of Tricca, tenth century? (Oecu.)\n\n_Optatus_, fl. 371.\n\nOrigen, b. 186, d. 253 (Or.).\n\nPacianus, Bp. of Barcelona, fl. 370.\n\nPamphilus the Martyr, 308 (Pamph.).\n\nPapias, fl. 160.\n\n_Paschasius_, the deacon?\n\nPaulus, Bp. of Emesa, fl. 431.\n\nPaulus, patriarch of Constantinople, fl. 648.\n\nPeter, Bp. of Alexandria, 311 (Petr.).\n\n_Petrus_ Chrysologus, Archbp. of Ravenna, fl. 440.\n\n_Petrus_, Deacon, fl. sixth century.\n\nPetrus Siculus, fl. 790.\n\nPhilo of Carpasus, fourth century.\n\n_Phoebadius_, Bp. of Agen, fl. 358.\n\nPhotius, Bp. of Constantinople, 891 (Phot.).\n\nPolycarp, Bp. of Smyrna, 166 (Polyc).\n\nPorphyrius, fl. 290.\n\n_Primasius_, Bp. of Adrumetum, fl. 550 (Prim.).\n\n_Prosper_ of Aquitania, fl. 431.\n\n_Prudentius_, 406 (Prud.).\n\n_Rufinus_ of Aquileia, 397 (Ruf.).\n\nSeverianus, a Syrian Bp., 409 (Sevrn.).\n\nSeverus of Antioch, fl. 510.\n\nSocrates, Church Historian, fl. 440 (Soc.).\n\nSozomen, Church Historian, 450 (Soz.).\n\nSuidas the lexicographer, 980? (Suid.).\n\nSymeon, fl. 1000.\n\n_Symmachus_, fourth century.\n\nTatian of Antioch, 172 (Tat.).\n\nTatian (Pseudo-), third century.\n\n_Tertullian_ of Africa, fl. 200 (Tert.)(145).\n\nTheodore, Bp. of Mopsuestia, 428 (Thdor. Mops.).\n\nTheodoret, Bp. of Cyrus or of Cyrrhus in Commagene, 458 (Thdrt.).\n\nTheodorus of Heracleia, fl. 336.\n\nTheodorus, Lector, fl. 525.\n\nTheodorus Studita, fl. 794.\n\nTheodotus of Ancyra, fl. 431.\n\nTheophilus of Alexandria, fl. 388.\n\nTheophilus, Bp. of Antioch, 182 (Thph. Ant.).\n\nTheophylact, Archbp. of Bulgaria, fl. 1077 (Theophyl.).\n\n_Tichonius_ the Donatist, fl. 390 (Tich.).\n\nTimotheus of Antioch, fifth century.\n\nTimotheus of Jerusalem, sixth century.\n\nTitus, Bp. of Bostra, fl. 370 (Tit. Bost.).\n\nVictor of Antioch, 430 (Vict. Ant.)(146).\n\n_Victor_, Bp. of Tunis, 565 (Vict. Tun.).\n\n_Victorinus_, Bp. of Pettau, 360 (Victorin.).\n\n_Victorinus_ of Rome, fl. 361.\n\n_Vigilius_ of Thapsus, 484 (Vigil.).\n\nVincentius Lirinensis, fl. 434.\n\nZacharias, patriarch of Jerusalem, fl. 614.\n\nZacharias, Scholasticus, fl. 536.\n\nZeno, Bp. of Verona, fl. 463.\n\nBesides the writers, the following anonymous works contain quotations from\nthe New Testament:\u2014\n\n_Auctor libri de xlii. mansionibus_ (auct. mans.), fourth century.\n\n_Auctor libri de Promissionibus dimid. temporis_ (Prom.), third century.\n\n_Auctor libri de Rebaptismate_ (Rebapt.), fourth century.\n\n_Auctor libri de singularitate clericorum_ (auct. sing. cler.), fourth\ncentury.\n\n_Auctor libri de Vocatione gentium_ (Vocat.), fourth century.\n\nActa Apostolica (Syriac), fourth century.\n\nActa Philippi, fourth century.\n\nActa Pilati, third or fourth century.\n\nAnaphora Pilati, fifth century.\n\nApocalypse of Peter, 170 (?)\n\nApocryphal Gospels, second century, &c.\n\nApostolic Canons, third to fifth century.\n\nApostolic Constitutions, third and fourth centuries.\n\nChronicon Paschale, 628.\n\nConcilia, Labb\u00e8 or Mansi.\n\nCramer\u2019s Catena.\n\nDialogus, fourth or fifth century.\n\nEastern bishops at Ephesus, 431.\n\nGospel of Peter, about 165.\n\n_Opus Imperfectum_, fifth century.\n\n_Quaestiones ex utroque Testamento_, fourth century(147).\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. PRINTED EDITIONS AND CRITICAL EDITIONS.\n\n\nIt would be quite foreign to our present design, to attempt to notice all\nthe editions of the New Testament in Greek which have appeared in the\ncourse of the last three centuries and a half, nor would a large volume\nsuffice for such a labour. We will limit our attention, therefore, to\nthose early editions which have contributed to form our commonly received\ntext, and to such others of more recent date as not only exhibit a revised\ntext, but contain an accession of fresh critical materials for its more\ncomplete emendation(148).\n\nSince the Latin or \u201cMazarin\u201d Bible, printed between 1452 and 1456, was the\nfirst production of the new-born printing-press (_see_ above, p. 61), and\nthe Jews had published the Hebrew Bible in 1488, we must impute it to the\ngeneral ignorance of Greek among divines in Western Europe, that although\nthe two songs, _Magnificat_ and _Benedictus_ (Luke i), were annexed to a\nGreek Psalter which appeared first at Milan in 1481, without a printer\u2019s\nname; next at Venice in 1486, being edited by a Greek; again at Venice\nfrom the press of Aldus in 1496 or 1497: and although the first six\nchapters of St. John\u2019s Gospel were published at Venice by Aldus Manutius\nin 1504, and John vi. 1-14 at T\u00fcbingen in 1514, yet the first _printed_\nedition of the whole in N. T. the original is that contained in\u2014\n\n1. THE COMPLUTENSIAN POLYGLOTT(149) (6 vols., folio), the munificent\ndesign of Francis Ximenes de Cisneros [1437-1517], Cardinal Archbishop of\nToledo, and Regent of Castile (1506-1517). This truly eminent person, six\nyears of whose humble youth were spent in a dungeon through the caprice of\none of his predecessors in the Primacy of Spain, experienced what we have\nseen so conspicuously illustrated in other instances, that long\nimprisonment ripens the intellect which it fails to extinguish. Entering\nthe Franciscan order in 1482, he carried the ascetic habit of his\nprofession to the throne of Toledo and the palace of his sovereign.\nBecoming in 1492 Confessor to Queen Isabella the Catholic, and Primate\nthree years later, he devoted to pure charity or to public purposes the\nenormous revenues of his see; founding the University at Alcal\u00e1 de Henares\nin New Castile, where he had gone to school, and defraying the cost of an\nexpedition which as Regent he led to Oran against the Moors. In 1502 he\nconceived the plan of the first Polyglott Bible, to celebrate the birth of\nhim who afterwards became the Emperor Charles V, and gathered in his\nUniversity of Alcal\u00e1 (_Complutum_) as many manuscripts as he could\nprocure, with men he deemed equal to the task, of whom James Lopez de\nStunica (subsequently known for his controversy with Erasmus) was the\nprincipal: others being \u00c6. Antonio of Lebrixa, Demetrius Ducas of Crete,\nand Ferdinand of Valladolid (_Pintianus_). The whole outlay of Cardinal\nXimenes on the Polyglott is stated to have exceeded 50,000 ducats or about\n\u00a323,000, a vast sum in those days:\u2014but his yearly income as Primate was\nfour times as great. The first volume printed, Tom. v, contains the New\nTestament in two parallel columns, Greek and Latin, the latter being that\nmodification of the Vulgate then current: the colophon on the last page of\nthe Apocalypse states that it was completed January 10, 1514, the printer\nbeing Arnald William de Brocario. Tom. vi, comprising a Lexicon, indices,\n&c., bears date March 17, 1515; Tom. i-iv of the Old Testament and\nApocrypha, 1517 (Tom. iv dated July 10), on November 8 of which year the\nCardinal died, full of honours and good deeds. This event must have\nretarded the publication of the whole, since Pope Leo\u2019s licence was not\ngranted until March 22, 1520, and Erasmus did not see the book before\n1522. As not more than six hundred copies were printed, this Polyglott\nmust from the first have been scarce and dear, and is not always met with\nin Public Libraries.\n\nThe Apocryphal books, like the N. T., are of course given only in two\nlanguages; in the Old Testament the Latin Vulgate holds the chief place in\nthe middle, between the Hebrew and the Septuagint Greek(150). The Greek\ntype in the other volumes is of the common character, with the usual\nbreathings and accents; in the fifth, or New Testament volume, it is quite\ndifferent, being modelled after the fashion of manuscripts of about the\nthirteenth century, very bold and elegant (_see_ Plate x, No. 26), without\nbreathings, and accentuated according to a system defended and explained\nin a bilingual preface \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03be\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, but never heard of before\nor since: monosyllables have no accent, while in other words the _tone_\nsyllable receives the acute, the grave and circumflex being discarded. The\nLatin is in a noble church-character, references are made from the one\ntext to the other by means of small letters, and where in either column\nthere is a void space, in consequence of words omitted or otherwise, it is\nfilled up by such curves as are seen in the bottom line of our specimen.\nThe foreign matter in this volume consists of the short Preface in Latin\nand Greek, Eusebius Carpiano (but without the canons), Jerome\u2019s letter to\nDamasus, with the ordinary Latin Prologues and Arguments before each book.\nSt. Paul\u2019s Epistles precede the Acts, as in Codd. \u05d0, 61, 69, 90, &c. and\nbefore them stand the \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, Euthalii \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, the ordinary\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 to all the twenty-one Epistles (grouped together), with\nTheodoret\u2019s _prologues_ subjoined to thirteen of the \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. By the\nside of the Latin text are numerous parallel passages, and there are also\nfive marginal notes (on Matt. vi. 13; 1 Cor. xiii. 3; xv. 31; 51; 1 John\nv. 7, 8). The only divisions are the common Latin chapters, subdivided by\nthe letters A, B, C, D, &c. Copies of laudatory verses(151), an\ninterpretation of Proper Names, and a Greek Lexicon of the N. T., close\nthe volume.\n\nIt has long been debated among critics, what manuscripts were used by the\nComplutensian editors, especially in the N. T. Ximenes is reported to have\nspent 4,000 ducats in the purchase of such manuscripts; in the Preface to\nthe N. T. we are assured that \u201cnon quevis exemplaria impressioni huic\narchetypa fuisse: sed antiquissima emendatissimaque: ac tante preterea\nvetustatis, ut fidem eis abrogare nefas videatur: Que sanctissimus in\nChristo pater et dominus noster Leo decimus pontifex maximus, huic\ninstituto favere cupiens ex apostolica bibliotheca educta misit....\u201d Yet\nthese last expressions can hardly refer to the N. T., inasmuch as Leo X\nwas not elected Pope till March 11, 1513, and the N. T. was _completed_\nJan. 10 of the very next year(152). Add to this that Vercellone, whose\nservices to sacred literature have been spoken of above, brought to light\nthe fact that only two manuscripts are recorded as having been sent to the\nCardinal from the Vatican in the first year of Leo, and neither of them\n(Vat. 330, 346) contained any part of the N. T.(153) The only one of the\nComplutensian codices specified by Stunica, the Cod. Rhodiensis (Act. 52),\nhas entirely disappeared, and from a Catalogue of the thirty volumes of\nBiblical manuscripts once in the library at Alcal\u00e0, but now at Madrid,\ncommunicated in 1846 by Don Jos\u00e9 Gutierrez, the Librarian, we find that\nthey consist exclusively of Latin and Hebrew books, with the exception of\ntwo which contain portions of the Septuagint in Greek(154). Thus we seem\ncut off from all hope of obtaining direct information as to the age,\ncharacter, and present locality of the materials employed for the Greek\ntext of this edition.\n\nIt is obvious, however, that in the course of twelve years (1502-14),\nXimenes may have obtained _transcripts_ of codices he did not himself\npossess, and since some of the more remarkable readings of the\nComplutensian are found in but one or two manuscripts (e.g. Luke i. 64 in\nCodd. 140, 251; ii. 22 in Cod. 76), such copies should of course be\nnarrowly watched. We have pointed out above the resemblance that Siedel\u2019s\ncodex (Act. 42, Paul. 48, Apoc. 13) bears to this edition: so too Cod. 4\nof the Gospels. Mill first noticed its affinity to Laud. 2 or Evan. 51,\nAct. 32, Paul. 38 (Evan. 51), and though this is somewhat remote in the\nGospels, throughout the Acts and Epistles it is close and\nindubitable(155). We see, therefore, no cause for believing that either\nCod. B, or any manuscript much resembling it in character, or any other\ndocument of high antiquity or first-rate importance, was employed by the\neditors of this Polyglott. The text it exhibits does not widely differ\nfrom that of most codices written from the tenth century downwards.\n\nThat it was corrupted from the parallel Latin version was contended by\nWetstein and others on very insufficient grounds. Even the Latinism\n\u03b2\u03b5\u03b5\u03bb\u03b6\u03b5\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03b2 Matt. x. 25, seems a mere inadvertence, and is corrected\nimmediately afterwards (xii. 24, 27), as well as in the four other places\nwherein the word is used. We need not deny that 1 John v. 7, 8 was\ninterpolated, and probably translated from the Vulgate; and a few other\ncases have a suspicious look (Rom. xvi. 5; 2 Cor. v. 10; vi. 15; and\nespecially Gal. iii. 19); the articles too are employed as if they were\nunfamiliar to the editor (e.g. Acts xxi. 4; 8): yet we must emphatically\ndeny that on the whole the Latin Vulgate had an appreciable effect upon\nthe Greek. This last point had been demonstrated to the satisfaction of\nMichaelis and of Marsh by Goeze(156), in whose short tract many readings\nof Cod. Laud. 2 are also examined. In the more exact collation of the N.\nT., which we have made with the common text (Elzevir 1624), and which\nappeared in the first edition of the present work, out of 2,780 places in\nall, wherein the Complutensian edition differs from that of Elzevir (viz.\n1,046 in the Gospels, 578 in the Pauline Epistles, 542 in the Acts and\nCatholic Epistles, 614 in the Apocalypse), in no less than 849 the Latin\nis at variance with the Greek; in the majority of the rest the difference\ncannot be expressed in another language. Since the Complutensian N. T.\ncould only have been published from manuscripts, it deserves more minute\nexamination than it has received from Mill or Wetstein; and it were much\nto be desired that minute collations could be made of several other early\neditions, especially the whole five of Erasmus.\n\n\n    Since this Polyglott has been said to be very inaccurately\n    printed, it is necessary to state that we have noted just fifty\n    pure errors of the press; in one place, moreover (Heb. vii. 3),\n    part of the ninth Euthalian \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (\u03b5\u03bd \u03c9 \u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03ac\u03bc\n    \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7) has crept into the text. All the usual peculiarities\n    observable in later manuscripts are here, e.g. 224 itacisms\n    (chiefly \u03c9 for \u03bf, \u03b7 for \u03b5\u03b9, \u03b5\u03b9 for \u03b9, \u03c5 for \u03b7, \u03bf\u03b9 for \u03b5\u03b9, and vice\n    vers\u00e2); thirty-two instances of \u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03ba\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, or the\n    superabundant \u03bd, before a consonant; fifteen cases of the hiatus\n    for the lack of \u03bd before a vowel; \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 is sometimes found before\n    a consonant, but \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9 sixty-eight times; \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba and \u03bf\u03c5\u03c7 are\n    interchanged twelve times. The following peculiarities, found in\n    many manuscripts, and here retained, may show that the grammatical\n    forms of the Greek were not yet settled among scholars; \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd\n    Mark vi. 8; \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5 Luke ix. 60; \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd Acts iv. 2;\n    \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd Acts xxi. 26; \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd 1 Cor. ii. 1; \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9 1 Cor.\n    vii. 10; \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd 2 Cor. vii. 7; \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd 2 Thess. iii. 4;\n    \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5 1 Tim. iv. 11; v. 7; vi. 17. The augment is omitted nine\n    times (Matt. xi. 17; Acts vii. 42; xxvi. 32; Rom. i. 2; Gal. ii.\n    13; 1 Tim. vi. 10; 2 Tim. i. 16; Apoc. iv. 8; xii. 17); the\n    reduplication twice (John xi. 52; 1 Cor. xi. 5); \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 and \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\n    are confounded, Mark iv. 38; Acts xviii. 17; Apoc. iii. 2; xii. 4.\n    Other anomalous forms (some of them would be called Alexandrian)\n    are \u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 Mark viii. 1; \u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03bd Rom. xvi. 15; \u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03b5 1 Cor.\n    v. 13; \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 2 Cor. iii. 6, _passim_; \u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd Gal. v. 25;\n    \u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b1 Heb. iii. 10; \u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 _ibid._ ix. 12; \u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c7\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 1 Pet. ii.\n    11; \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 2 Pet. ii. 15; \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 Apoc. iii. 5;\n    \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 _ibid._ xxii. 8. The stops are placed carelessly in the\n    Greek, being (.), (,), rarely (\u00b7), never (;). In the Latin the\n    stops are pretty regular, but the abbreviations very numerous,\n    even such purely arbitrary forms as _xps_ for _Christus_. In the\n    Greek \u03c3 often stands at the end of a word for \u03c2, \u00ef and often \u00fc or\n    _\u03c5_ are set at the beginning of syllables: there are no instances\n    of \u03b9 _ascript_ or _subscript_, and no capital letters except at\n    the beginning of a chapter, when they are often flourished. The\n    following forms are also derived from the general practice of\n    manuscripts, and occur perpetually: \u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9, \u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b1\u03bd (for \u03b4\u1fbd\n    \u1f02\u03bd), \u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae, \u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc, \u03b5\u03c6\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u03c9\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5,\n    \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1, \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ae, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9; and\n    for the most part \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03af, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9.\n    Sometimes the preposition and its case make but a single word, as\n    \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, and once we find \u03b5\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, Vulg. _benefacere_ (Mark\n    xiv. 7).\n\n\nThe Complutensian text has been followed in the main by only a few later\neditions, chiefly by Chr. Plantin\u2019s Antwerp Polyglott (1569-72)(157).\n\n2. ERASMUS\u2019 NEW TESTAMENT was by six years the earlier published, though\nit was printed two years later than the Complutensian. Its editor, both in\ncharacter and fortunes, presents a striking contrast with Ximenes; yet\nwhat he lacked of the Castilian\u2019s firmness he more than atoned for by his\ntrue love of learning, and the cheerfulness of spirit that struggled\npatiently, if not boldly, with adversity. Desiderius Erasmus (\u1f10\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\ni.e. Gerald) was born at Rotterdam in 1465, or, perhaps, a year or two\nlater, the illegitimate son of reputable and (but for that sin) of\nvirtuous parents. Soon left an orphan, he was forced to take reluctantly\nthe minor orders, and entered the priesthood in 1492. Thenceforward his\nwas the hard life of a solitary and wandering man of letters, earning a\nprecarious subsistence from booksellers or pupils(158), now learning Greek\nat Oxford (but \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2)(159), now teaching it at Cambridge (1510);\nlosing by his reckless wit the friends his vast erudition had won;\nrestless and unfrugal, perhaps, yet always labouring faithfully and with\ndiligence. He was in England when John Froben, a celebrated publisher at\nBasle, moved by the report of the forthcoming Spanish Bible and eager to\nforestall it, made application to Erasmus, through a common friend, to\nundertake immediately an edition of the N. T.: \u201cse daturum pollicetur,\nquantum alius quisquam,\u201d is the argument employed. This proposal was sent\non April 17, 1515, years before which time Erasmus had prepared numerous\nannotations to illustrate a revised Latin version he had long projected.\nOn September 11 it was yet unsettled whether this, improved version should\nstand by the Greek in a parallel column (the plan actually adopted), or be\nprinted separately: yet the colophon at the end of Erasmus\u2019 first edition,\na large folio of 1,027 pages in all, is dated February, 1516; the end of\nthe Annotations, March 1, 1516; Erasmus\u2019 dedication to Leo X, Feb. 1,\n1516; and Froben\u2019s Preface, full of joyful hope and honest pride in the\nfriendship of the first of living authors, Feb. 24, 1516. Well might\nErasmus, who had besides other literary engagements to occupy his time,\ndeclare subsequently that the volume \u201cpraecipitatum fuit verius quam\neditum;\u201d yet both on the title-page, and in his dedication to the Pope, he\nallows himself to employ widely different language(160). When we read the\nassurance he addressed to Leo, \u201cNovum ut vocant testamentum universum ad\nGraecae originis fidem recognovimus, idque non temere neque levi opera,\nsed adhibitis in consilium compluribus utriusque linguae codicibus, nec\niis sane quibuslibet, sed vetustissimis simul et emendatissimis,\u201d it is\nalmost painful to be obliged to remember that a portion of ten months at\nthe utmost could have been devoted to his task by Erasmus; while the only\nmanuscripts he can be imagined to have constantly used are Codd. Evan. 2,\nAct. Paul. 2 and Paul. 7, with occasional reference to Evan. Act. Paul. 1\nand Act. Paul. 4 (all still at Basle) for the remainder of the New\nTestament, to which add Apoc. 1, now happily recovered, alone for the\nApocalypse. All these, excepting Evan. Act. Paul. 1, were neither ancient\nnor particularly valuable, and of Cod. 1 he professed to make but small\naccount(161). As Apoc. 1 was mutilated in the last six verses, Erasmus\nturned these into Greek from the Latin; and some portions of his self-made\nversion, which are found (however some editors may speak vaguely) _in no\none known Greek manuscript whatever_, still cleave to our received\ntext(162). Besides this scanty roll, however, he not rarely refers in his\nAnnotations to other manuscripts he had seen in the course of his travels\n(e.g. on Heb. i. 3; Apoc. i. 4; viii. 13), yet too indistinctly for his\nallusions to be of much use to critics. Some such readings, as alleged by\nhim, have not been found elsewhere (e.g. Acts xxiv. 23; Rom. xii. 20), and\nmay have been cited loosely from distant recollection (comp. Col. iii. 3;\nHeb. iv. 12; 2 Pet. iii. 1; Apoc. ii. 18).\n\nWhen Ximenes, in the last year of his life, was shown Erasmus\u2019 edition\nwhich had thus got the start of his own, and his editor, Stunica, sought\nto depreciate it, the noble old man replied, \u201cwould God that all the\nLord\u2019s people were prophets! produce better, if thou canst; condemn not\nthe industry of another(163).\u201d His generous confidence in his own work was\nnot misplaced. He had many advantages over the poor scholar and the\nenterprising printer of Basle, and had not let them pass unimproved. The\ntypographical errors of the Complutensian Greek have been stated; Erasmus\u2019\nfirst edition is in that respect the most faulty book I know.\nOecolampadius, or John Hausschein of Basle [1482-1531], afterwards of some\nnote as a disputer with Luther on the Sacramentarian controversy, had\nundertaken this department for him; and was glad enough to serve under\nsuch a chief; but Froben\u2019s hot haste gave him little leisure to do his\npart. No less than 501 _itacisms_ are imported from the manuscripts into\nhis printed text, and the \u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03ba\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd is perpetually used with verbs,\nbefore a consonant beginning the next word. We must, however, impute it to\ndesign that \u03b9 _subscript_, which is elsewhere placed pretty correctly, is\nhere set under \u03b7 in the plural of the subjunctive mood active, but not in\nthe singular (e.g. James ii. \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c8\u1fc3\u03c4\u03b5, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u1fc3\u03c4\u03b5 _bis_, but ver. 2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b8\u03b7\n_bis_). With regard to the text, the difference between the two editions\nis very wide in the Apocalypse, the text of the Complutensian being\ndecidedly preferable; elsewhere they resemble each other more closely, and\nwhile we fully admit the error of Stunica and his colleagues in\ntranslating from the Latin version into Greek, 1 John v. 7, 8, it would\nappear that Erasmus has elsewhere acted in the same manner, not merely in\ncases which for the moment admitted no choice, but in places where no such\nnecessity existed: thus in Acts ix. 5, 6, the words from \u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd to \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd are interpolated from the Vulgate, partly by the help of Acts\nxxvi(164).\n\nErasmus died at Basle in 1536, having lived to publish four editions\nbesides that of 1516. The second has enlarged annotations, and very truly\nbears on its title the statement \u201cmulto quam antehac diligentius ab Er.\nRot. recognitum;\u201d for a large portion of the misprints, and not a few\nreadings of the first edition, are herein corrected, the latter chiefly on\nthe authority of a fresh codex, Evan. Act. Paul. 3; The colophon to the\nApocalypse is dated 1518, Froben\u2019s Epistle to the reader, Feb. 5, 1519. In\nthis edition \u03b9 _subscript_ is for the most part set right; _Carp._, _Eus.\nt._, \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6. _t._, \u03c4\u03af\u03c4\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, _Am._, _Eus._ are added in the Gospels; Dorotheus\u2019\n\u201cLives of the Four Evangelists\u201d (_see_ Act. 89) stood before St. Matthew\nin 1516; but now the longer \u201cLives\u201d by Sophronius, with Theophylact\u2019s\n\u201cPrologues,\u201d are set before each Gospel. \u039a\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1 (not the Euthalian) are\ngiven in both editions in Rom. 1, 2 Corinth. only, but the Latin chapters\nare represented in the margin throughout, with the subdivisions A, B, C,\nD. Of these two editions put together 3,300 copies were printed. The third\nedition (1522) is chiefly remarkable for its insertion of 1 John v. 7, 8\nin the Greek text(165), under the circumstances described above, Vol. I.\np. 200, in consequence of Erasmus\u2019 controversy with Stunica and H.\nStandish, Bp. of St. Asaph (d. 1534), and with a much weaker antagonist,\nEdward Lee, afterwards Archbishop of York, who objected to his omission of\na passage which no Greek codex was then known to contain. This edition\nagain was said to be \u201ctertio jam ac diligentius ... recognitum,\u201d and\ncontains also \u201cCapita argumentorum contra morosos quosdam ac indoctos,\u201d\nwhich he subsequently found reason to enlarge. The fourth edition (dated\nMarch, 1527) contains the text in three parallel columns, the Greek, the\nLatin Vulgate, and Erasmus\u2019 recension of it. He had seen the Complutensian\nPolyglott in 1522, shortly after the publication of his third edition, and\nhad now the good sense to avail himself of its aid in the improvement of\nthe text, especially in the Apocalypse, wherein he amended from it at\nleast ninety readings. His last edition of 1535 once more discarded the\nLatin Vulgate, and differs very little from the fourth as regards the\ntext(166).\n\nA minute collation of all Erasmus\u2019 editions is a desideratum we may one\nday come to see supplied. The present writer hopes soon to publish a full\ncomparison of his first and second editions with the Complutensian\ntext(167), as also with that of Stephen 1550, of Beza 1565, and of Elzevir\n1624. All who have followed Mill over any portion of the vast field he\nendeavoured to occupy, will feel certain that his statements respecting\ntheir divergences are much below the truth: such as they are, we repeat\nthem for want of more accurate information. He estimates that Erasmus\u2019\nsecond edition contains 330 changes from the first for the better, seventy\nfor the worse (N. T., Proleg. \u00a7 1134); that the third differs from the\nsecond in 118 places (_ibid._ \u00a7 1138)(168); the fourth from the third in\n106 or 113 places, ninety being those from the Apocalypse just spoken of\n(_ibid._ \u00a7 1141)(169). The fifth he alleges to differ from the fourth only\nfour times, so far as he noticed (_ibid._ \u00a7 1150): but we meet with as\nmany variations in St. James\u2019 Epistle alone(170).\n\n3. In 1518 appeared the Graeca Biblia at Venice, from the celebrated press\nof Aldus: the work professes to be grounded on a collation of many most\nancient copies(171). However true this must be with regard to the Old\nTestament, which was now published in Greek for the first time, Aldus\nfollows the first edition of Erasmus so closely in the New as to reproduce\nhis very errors of the press (Mill, N. T., Proleg. \u00a7 1122), even those\nwhich Oecolampadius had corrected in the list of errata; though Aldus is\nstated to differ from Erasmus in about 200 places, for the better or\nworse(172). If this edition was really revised by means of manuscripts\n(Cod. 131) rather than by mere conjecture, we know not what they were, or\nhow far intelligently employed.\n\nAnother edition out of the many which now began to swarm, wherein the\ntestimony of manuscripts is believed to have been followed, is that of\nSimon Colinaeus, Paris, 1534, in which the text is an eclectic mixture of\nthe Complutensian and Erasmian(173). Mill states (Proleg. \u00a7 1144) that in\nabout 150 places Colinaeus deserts them both, and that his variations are\nusually supported by the evidence of known codices (Evan. 119, 120 at\nParis, and Steph. \u03b9\u03b1\u1fbd, i.e. Act. 8, Paul. 10, have been suggested), though\na few still remain which may perhaps be deemed conjectural. Wetstein (N.\nT., Proleg. vol. i. p. 142) thinks that for Bogard\u2019s Paris edition of 1543\nwith various readings Evan. 120 or Steph. \u03b9\u03b4\u1fbd might have been used, but\nhis own references hardly favour that notion.\n\n4. The editions of Robert Stephen (Estienne), mainly by reason of their\nexquisite beauty, have exercised a far wider influence than these, and\nStephen\u2019s third or folio edition of 1550 is by many regarded as the\nreceived or standard text. This eminent and resolute man [1503-59], \u201cwhose\nBiblical work taken altogether had perhaps more influence than that of any\nother single man in the sixteenth century(174),\u201d early commenced his\nuseful career as a printer at Paris, and, having incurred the enmity of\nthe Doctors of the Sorbonne for his editions of the Latin Vulgate, was yet\nprotected and patronised by Francis I [d. 1547] and his son Henry II. It\nwas from the Royal Press that his three principal editions of the Greek N.\nT. were issued, the fourth and last being published in 1551 at Geneva, to\nwhich town he finally withdrew the next year, and made public profession\nof the Protestant opinions which had long been gathering strength in his\nmind. The editions of 1546, 1549 are small 12mo in size, most elegantly\nprinted with type cast at the expense of Francis: the opening words of the\nPreface common to both, \u201c_O mirificam_ Regis nostri optimi et\npraestantissimi principis liberalitatem...\u201d have given them the name by\nwhich they are known among connoisseurs. Erasmus and his services to\nsacred learning Stephen does not so much as name, nor indeed did he as yet\nadopt him for a model: he speaks of \u201ccodices ipsa vetustatis specie pene\nadorandos\u201d which he had met with in the King\u2019s Library, by which, he\nboldly adds, \u201cita hunc nostrum recensuimus, ut nullam omnino literam secus\nesse pateremur quam plures, iique meliores libri, tanquam testes,\ncomprobarent.\u201d The Complutensian, as he admits, assisted him greatly, and\nhe notes its close connexion with the readings of his manuscripts(175).\nMill assures us (Proleg. \u00a7 1220) that Stephen\u2019s first and second editions\ndiffer but in sixty-seven places. My own collation of the two books gives\n139 cases of divergence in the text, twenty-eight in punctuation. They\ndiffer jointly from the third edition 334 times in the text, twenty-seven\nin punctuation. In the Apocalypse the first and second editions are close\nto the text of Erasmus, differing from each other but in eleven places,\nwhile the third edition follows the Complutensian or other authorities\nagainst the first in sixty-one places. In the folio or third edition of\n1550 the various readings of the codices, obscurely referred to in the\nPreface to that of 1546, are entered in the margin. This fine volume\n(bearing on its title-page, in honour of Henry II, the inscription \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\n\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1ff7, \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u1fc7) derives much importance from its being the\nearliest ever published with critical apparatus. In the Preface or Epistle\nto the Reader, written after the example of the Complutensian editors both\nin Greek and Latin, his authorities are declared to be sixteen; viz. \u03b1\u2019,\nthe Spanish Polyglott; \u03b2\u2019, which we have already discussed (_above_, p.\n124, _note_ 3), \u03b3\u1fbd, \u03b4\u1fbd, \u03b5\u1fbd \u03db\u1fbd, \u03b6\u1fbd, \u03b7\u1fbd, \u03b9\u1fbd, \u03b9\u03b5\u1fbd taken from King Henry II\u2019s\nLibrary; the rest (i.e. \u03b8\u1fbd, \u03b9\u03b1\u1fbd, \u03b9\u03b2\u1fbd, \u03b9\u03b3\u1fbd, \u03b9\u03b4\u1fbd, \u03b9\u03db\u1fbd) are those \u1f02 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, or, as the Latin runs, \u201cquae undique corrogare\nlicuit:\u201d these, of course, were not necessarily his own, one at least\n(\u03b9\u03b3\u1fbd, Act. 9, Paul. 11) we are sure was not. Although Robert Stephen\nprofessed to have collated the whole sixteen for his two previous\neditions, and that too \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f37\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, this part of his work\nis now known to be due to his son Henry [1528-98], who in 1546 was only\neighteen years old (Wetstein, N. T., Proleg., vol. i. pp. 143-4). The\ndegree of accuracy attained in this collation may be estimated from the\nsingle instance of the Complutensian, a book printed in very clear type,\nwidely circulated, and highly valued by Stephen himself. Deducting mere\n_errata_, itacisms, and such like, it differs from his third edition in\nmore than 2,300 places, of which (including cases where \u03c0. or \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\nstands for _all_ his copies) it is cited correctly 554 times (viz. 164 in\nthe Gospels, ninety-four in St. Paul, seventy-six in the Acts and Catholic\nEpistles, 220 in the Apocalypse), and falsely no less than fifty-six\ntimes, again including errors from a too general use of \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2(176). I\nwould not say with some that these authorities stand in the margin more\nfor parade than use, yet the text is perpetually at variance with the\nmajority of them, and in 119 places with them all(177). If we trust\nourselves once more to the guidance of Mill (Proleg. \u00a7 1228), the folio of\n1550 departs from its smaller predecessors of 1546, 1549, in 284\nreadings(178), chiefly to adopt the text of Erasmus\u2019 fifth edition, though\neven now the Complutensian is occasionally preferred (e.g. \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 Matt.\nxxvi. 26), most often in the Apocalypse, and that with very good reason.\nOf his other fifteen authorities, \u03b9\u03b1\u1fbd (= Act. 8) and \u03b9\u03db\u1fbd (= Apoc. 3) have\nnever been identified, but were among the six in private hands: \u03b2\u1fbd\ncertainly is Cod. D or Bezae; the learned have tried, and on the whole\nsuccessfully, to recognize the remainder, especially those in the Royal\n(or Imperial, or National) Library at Paris. In that great collection Le\nLong has satisfied us that \u03b3\u1fbd is probably Evan. 4; \u03b4\u1fbd is certainly Evan.\n5; \u03b5\u1fbd Evan. 6; \u03db\u1fbd Evan. 7; \u03b7\u1fbd Evan. L; \u03b6\u1fbd he rightly believed to be Evan.\n8 (above, p. 191, note); \u03b9\u1fbd appears to be Act. 7. Of those in the\npossession of individuals in Stephen\u2019s time, Bp. Marsh (who in his\n\u201cLetters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis,\u201d 1795, was led to examine this subject\nvery carefully) has proved that \u03b9\u03b3\u1fbd is Act. 9; Wetstein thought \u03b8\u1fbd was\nEvan. 38 (which however see); Scholz seems to approve of Wetstein\u2019s\nconjecture which Griesbach doubted (N. T., Proleg., Sect. 1. p. xxxviii),\nthat \u03b9\u03b2\u1fbd is Evan. 9: Griesbach rightly considers \u03b9\u03b4\u1fbd to be Evan. 120; \u03b9\u03b5\u1fbd\nwas seen by Le Long to be Act. 10: these last four are now in the Royal\nLibrary. It has proved the more difficult to settle them, as Robert\nStephen did not even print all the materials that Henry had gathered; many\nof whose various readings were published subsequently by Beza(179) from\nthe collator\u2019s own manuscript, which itself must have been very defective.\nWith all its faults, however, the edition of 1550 was a foundation on\nwhich others might hereafter build, and was unquestionably of great use in\ndirecting the attention of students to the authorities on which alone the\ntrue text of Scripture is based. This standard edition contains the\nfollowing supplementary matter besides the Epistle to the reader:\nChrysostom\u2019s Hom. I in S. Matthaeum (then first published): _Carp._, _Eus.\nt._: \u03a0\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03be \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd of O. T. passages cited in the N. T. being (1)\nliteral, (2) virtual: seventy-two Hexameter lines, headed \u0395\u03c1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\n\u03a1\u03c9\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9: _prol._ by Theophylact following \u201cLives\u201d\nby Sophronius and Dorotheus of Tyre, with \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6. _t._ before each Gospel:\n\u03c4\u03af\u03c4\u03bb., \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6., _Am._, _Eus._ Before the Acts stand \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03a0\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 and\nEuthalius \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6. _t._ Before the Epistles is a new\ntitle-page. Chrysostom\u2019s _prol._ on the Pauline Epistles begins the new\nvolume. Each separate Epistle has prefixed _prol._ (chiefly by Theodoret)\nand \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6. _t._ The Acts and Epistles have \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6., but the Apocalypse no prol.\nor \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6., except the ordinary Latin chapters, which are given throughout\nthe N. T., subdivided by letters.\n\nR. Stephen\u2019s smaller edition (16mo), published in 1551 at Geneva, though\nthat name is not on the title-page, is said to contain the Greek Text of\n1550 almost unchanged(180), set between the Vulgate and Erasmus\u2019 Latin\nversions. In this volume we first find our present division of the N. T.\ninto verses: \u201ctriste lumen,\u201d as Reuss calls it (p. 58), \u201cnec posthac\nextinguendum.\u201d\n\n5. Theodore de B\u00e8ze [1519-1605], a native of Vezelai in the Nivernois,\nafter a licentious youth, resigned his ecclesiastical preferments at the\nage of twenty-nine to retire with the wife of his early choice to Geneva,\nthat little city to which the genius of one man has given so prominent a\nplace in the history of the sixteenth century. His noble birth and\nknowledge of the world, aided by the impression produced at the Conference\nat Poissy (1561) by his eloquence and learning, easily gained for Beza the\nchief place among the French Reformed on the death of their teacher Calvin\nin 1564. Of his services in connexion with the two Codd. D we have already\nspoken: he himself put forth at intervals, besides his own elegant Latin\nversion published in 1556, ten editions of the N. T. (viz. four in folio\nin the years 1565, 1582, 1588, 1598, and six in octavo in 1565, 1567,\n1580, 1591, 1604, and 1611), the Latin Vulgate, and Annotations(181). A\nbetter commentator perhaps than a critic, but most conspicuous as the\nearnest leader of a religious party, Beza neither sought very anxiously\nafter fresh materials for correcting the text, nor made any great use of\nwhat were ready at hand, namely, his own two great codices, the papers of\nHenry Stephen, and Tremellius\u2019 Latin version of the Peshitto. All his\neditions vary somewhat from Stephen and from each other, yet there is no\nmaterial difference between any of them(182). He exhibits a tendency, not\nthe less blameworthy because his extreme theological views would tempt him\nthereto, towards choosing that reading out of several which might best\nsuit his own preconceived opinions. Thus in Luke ii. 22 he adopts (and our\nAuthorized English version condescends to follow his judgement) \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 from the Complutensian, for which he could have known of\nno manuscript authority whatever: _ejus_ of the Vulgate would most\nnaturally be rendered by \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (_see_ Campbell in loc.). Wetstein\ncalculates that Beza\u2019s text differs from Stephen\u2019s in some fifty places\n(an estimate we shall find below the mark), and that either in his\ntranslation or his Annotations he departs from Stephen\u2019s Greek text in 150\npassages (Wetst. N. T., Proleg., Tom. ii. p. 7).\n\n6. The brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir set up a printing-press at\nLeyden, which maintained its reputation for elegance and correctness\nthroughout the greater part of the seventeenth century. One of their\nminute editions, so much prized by bibliomanists, was a Greek Testament,\n24mo, 1624, alleging on the title-page (there is no Preface whatever) to\nbe ex _Regiis aliisque optimis editionibus cum cur\u00e2 expressum_: by\n_Regiis_, we presume, Stephen\u2019s editions are meant, and especially that of\n1550. The supposed accuracy (for which its good name is not quite\ndeserved) and the great neatness of this little book procured for it much\npopularity. When the edition was exhausted, a second appeared in 1633,\nhaving the verses broken up into separate sentences, instead of their\nnumbers being indicated in the margin, as in 1624. In the Preface it seems\nto allude to Beza\u2019s N. T., without directly naming him: \u201cEx regiis ac\n_ceteris editionibus_, quae maxime ac prae ceteris nunc omnibus\nprobantur.\u201d To this edition is prefixed, as in 1624, a table of quotations\n(\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03be \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd) from the Old Testament, to which are now added tables of\nthe \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1 of the Gospels, \u1f14\u03ba\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd of the Acts and all the\nEpistles. Of the person entrusted with its superintendence we know\nnothing; nearly all his readings are found either in Stephen\u2019s or Beza\u2019s\nN. T. (he leans to the latter in preference(183)); but he speaks of the\nedition of 1624 as that \u201comnibus acceptam;\u201d and boldly states, with a\nconfidence which no doubt helped on its own accomplishment, \u201ctextum ergo\nhabes nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum\ndamus.\u201d His other profession, that of superior correctness, is also a\nlittle premature: \u201cut si quae vel minutissimae in nostro, aut in iis, quos\nsecuti sumus libris, superessent mendae, cum judicio ac cura tollerentur.\u201d\nAlthough some of the worst misprints of the edition of 1624 are amended in\nthat of 1633 (Matt. vi. 34; Acts xxvii. 13; 1 Cor. x. 10; Col. ii. 13; 1\nThess. ii. 17; Heb. viii. 9; 2 Pet. i. 7), others just as gross are\nretained (Acts ix. 3; Rom. vii. 2; xiii. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 23; xiii. 3; 2\nCor. iv. 4; v. 19; viii. 8; Heb. xii. 9; Apoc. iii. 12; vii. 7; xviii.\n16), to which much be added a few peculiar to itself (e.g. Mark iii. 10;\nRom. xv. 3; 1 Cor. ix. 2; 2 Cor. i. 11; vi. 16; Col. i. 7; iv. 7; Apoc.\nxxii. 3): \u1f10\u03b8\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7 in 1 Cor. v. 7 should not be reckoned as an erratum, since\nit was adopted designedly by Beza, and after him by both the Elzevir\neditions. Of real various readings between the two Elzevirs we mark but\nseven or eight instances (in six of which that of 1633 follows the\nComplutensian); viz. Mark iv. 18; viii. 24; Luke xi. 33; xii. 20; John\niii. 6 _bis_; 2 Tim. i. 12; iv. 51(184); Apoc. xvi. 5: and in 2 Pet. i. 1\n(as also in ed. 1641) \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd is omitted after \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2(185).\n\nSince Stephen\u2019s edition of 1550 and that of the Elzevirs have been taken\nas the standard or _Received_ text(186), the former chiefly in England,\nthe latter on the Continent, and inasmuch as nearly all collated\nmanuscripts have been compared with one or the other of these, it becomes\nabsolutely necessary to know the precise points in which they differ from\neach other, even to the minutest errors of the press. Mill (N. T.,\nProleg., 1307) observed but twelve such variations; Tischendorf gives a\ncatalogue of 150 (N. T., Proleg., p. lxxxv, seventh edition). For the\nfirst edition of the present work a list of 287 was drawn up, which, it is\nhoped, will soon be reprinted, in a more convenient shape, in a volume now\nin preparation(187).\n\nThe Science of Sacred Textual Criticism was built up in successive\nCritical Editions of the Greek Testament, and to a brief description of\nthose this chapter will be devoted. It will not include therefore any\nnotice of editions like that of Valpy, or of Bloomfield, or Alford, or\nWordsworth, in which the textual treatment did not assume prominence or\ninvolve advancement in this province. Still less is there space for such a\nlist of general editions of the New Testament as the very valuable one\ncompiled by Dr. Isaac H. Hall, and found in Schaffs \u201cCompanion to the New\nTestament,\u201d to which notice has been already directed. The progress of\nTextual Science has involved two chief stages; the first, in which all\nevidence was accepted and registered, and the second, when a selection was\nmade and the rest either partially or totally disregarded. Lachmann was\nthe leader in the second stage, of which to some extent Griesbach was the\npioneer. It is evident that in the future a return must be made, as has\nbeen already advocated by many, to the principles of the first stage(188).\n\n1. R. Stephen was the first to bring together any considerable body of\nmanuscript evidence, however negligently or capriciously he may have\napplied it to the emendation of the sacred text. A succession of English\nscholars was now ready to follow him in the same path, the only direct and\nsure one in criticism; and for about eighty years our countrymen\nmaintained the foremost place in this important branch of Biblical\nlearning. Their van was led by Brian Walton [1600-61], afterwards Bishop\nof Chester, who published in 1657 the London Polyglott, which he had\nplanned twelve years before, as at once the solace and meet employment of\nhimself and a worthy band of colleagues during that sad season when\nChrist\u2019s Church in England was for a while trodden in the dust, and its\nministers languished in silence and deep poverty. The fifth of his huge\nfolios was devoted to the New Testament in six languages, viz. Stephen\u2019s\nGreek text of 1550(189), the Peshitto-Syriac, the Latin Vulgate, the\nEthiopic, Arabic, and (in the Gospels only) the Persic. The exclusively\ncritical apparatus, with which alone we are concerned, consists of the\nreadings of Cod. A set at the foot of the Greek text, and, in the sixth or\nsupplementary volume, of Lucas Brugensis\u2019 notes on various readings of the\nGospels in Greek and Latin; of those given by the Louvain divines in their\nedition of the Vulgate (Walton, Polygl., Tom. vi. No. xvii); and\nespecially of a collation of sixteen authorities, whereof all but three,\nviz. Nos. 1, 15, 16(190), had never been used before (Walton, Tom. vi. No.\nxvi). These various readings had been gathered by the care and diligence\nof Archbishop Ussher [1580-1656], then living in studious and devout\nretirement near London(191). They are as follows:\u2014(1) _Steph._ the sixteen\ncopies extracted from Stephen\u2019s margin: (2) _Cant._ or Evan. D: (3)\n_Clar._ or Paul. D: (4) _Gon._ or Evan. 59: (5) _Em._ or Evan. 64, and\nalso Act. 53: (6) _Goog._ or Evan. 62: (7) _Mont._ or Evan. 61: (8) _Lin._\nor Evan. 56, and also Act. 33: (9) _Magd._ 1 or Evan. 57: (10) _Magd._ 2\nor Paul. 42: (11) _Nov._ 1 or Evan. 58: (12) _Nov._ 2 or Act. 36: (13)\n_Bodl._ 1 or Evan. 47: (14) _Trit._ or _Bodl._ 2, Evan. 96: (15) _March.\nVeles._, the Velesian readings, described above, Vol. i. p. 209: (16)\n_Bib. Wech._, the Wechelian readings, which deserve no more regard than\nthe Velesian. They were derived from the margin of a Bible printed at\nFrankfort, 1597, by the heirs of And. Wechel. It is indifferent whether\nthey be referred to Francis Junius or F. Sylburg as editors, since all the\nreadings in the New Testament are found in Stephen\u2019s margin, or in the\nearly editions.\n\nWalton was thus enabled to publish very extensive additions to the\nexisting stock of materials. That he did not try by their means to form\nthus early a corrected text, is not at all to be regretted; the time for\nthat attempt was not yet arrived. He cannot, however, be absolved from the\ncharge to which R. Stephen had been before amenable, of suppressing a\nlarge portion of the collations which had been sent him. The Rev. C. B.\nScott, Head Master of Westminster School, found in the Library of Emmanuel\nCollege, Cambridge, the readings of Codd. D. 59, 61, 62, prepared for\nWalton (Dobbin, Cod. Montfort., Introd. p. 21), which Mill had access to,\nand in his N. T. made good use of, as well as of Ussher\u2019s other papers\n(Mill, Proleg. \u00a7 1505).\n\n2. Steph. Curcellaeus or Courcelles published his N. T. at Amsterdam in\n1658, before he had seen Walton\u2019s Polyglott. The peculiar merit of his\nbook arises from his marginal collection of parallel texts, which are more\ncopious than those of his predecessors, yet not too many for convenient\nuse: later editors have been thankful to take them as a basis for their\nown(192). There are many various readings(193) (some from two or three\nfresh manuscripts) at the foot of each page, or thrown into an appendix,\nmingled with certain rash conjectures which betray a Socinian bias: but\nsince the authorities are not cited for each separate reading, these\ncritical labours were as good as wasted(194).\n\n3. A more important step in advance was taken in the Greek Testament in\n8vo, issued from the Oxford University Press in 1675. This elegant volume\n(whose Greek text is mainly that of Elzevir 1633(195)) was superintended\nby John Fell [1625-86], Dean of Christ Church, soon afterwards Bishop of\nOxford, the biographer of saint-like Hammond, himself one of the most\nlearned and munificent, if not quite the most popular Prelate, of that\ngolden age of the English Church, in whose behalf Anthony \u00e0 Wood\ndesignates him \u201cthe most zealous man of his time.\u201d His brief yet\ninteresting Preface not only discusses the causes of various\nreadings(196), and describes the materials used for his edition, but\ntouches on that weak and ignorant prejudice which had been already raised\nagainst the collection of such variations in the text of Scripture; and\nthat too sometimes by persons like John Owen(197) the Puritan, intrusive\nDean of Christ Church under Cromwell, who, but that we are loth to doubt\nhis integrity, would hardly be deemed a victim of the panic he sought to\nspread. In reply to all objectors the Bishop pleads the comparative\ninsignificance of the change produced by various readings in the general\nsense of Holy Writ, and especially urges that God hath dealt so\nbountifully with His people \u201cut necessaria quaeque et ad salutis summam\nfacientia in S. literis saepius repeterentur; ita ut si forte quidpiam\nminus commode alicubi expressum, id damnum aliunde reparari possit\u201d\n(Praef. p. 1). On this assurance we may well rest in peace. This edition\nis more valuable for the impulse it gave to subsequent investigators than\nfor the richness of its own stores of fresh materials, although it is\nstated on the title-page to be derived \u201c_ex plus_ 100 _MSS. Codicibus_.\u201d\nPatristic testimony, as we have seen, Bishop Fell rather undervalued: the\nuse of versions he clearly perceived, yet of those at that time available,\nhe only attends to the Gothic and Coptic as revised by Marshall: his list\nof manuscripts hitherto untouched is very scanty. To those used by Walton\nwe can add only _R_, the Barberini readings, then just published (_see_ p.\n210); _B_, twelve Bodleian codices \u201cquorum plerique intacti prius,\u201d in\nno-wise described, and cited only by the number of them which may\ncountenance each variation; _U_, the two Ussher manuscripts Evan. 63, 64\nas collated by H. Dodwell; _P_, three copies from the Library of Petavius\n(Act. 38, 39, 40); _Ge._, another from St. Germains (Paul. E): the\nreadings of the last four were furnished by Joh. Gachon. Yet this slight\nvolume (for so we must needs regard it) was the legitimate parent of one\nof the noblest works in the whole range of Biblical literature, of which\nwe shall speak next.\n\n4. NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECUM of Dr. John Mill, Oxford, 1707, in folio.\nThis able and laborious critic, born in 1645, quitted his native village\nin Westmoreland at sixteen for Queen\u2019s College, Oxford, of which society\nhe became a Fellow, and was conspicuous there both as a scholar and as a\nready extemporary preacher. In 1685 his College appointed him Principal of\nits affiliated Hall, St. Edmund, so honourably distinguished for the\nBiblical studies of its members; but Mill had by that time made good\nprogress in his Greek Testament, on which he gladly spent the last thirty\nyears of his life, dying suddenly in 1707, a fortnight after its\npublication. His attention was first called to the subject by his friend,\nDr. Edward Bernard, the Savilian Professor at Oxford, whom he vividly\nrepresents as setting before him an outline of the work, and encouraging\nhim to attempt its accomplishment. \u201cVides, Amice mi, opus ... omnium, mihi\ncrede, long\u00e8 dignissimum, cui in hoc aetatis tuae flore, robur animi tui,\nvigilias ac studia, liberaliter impendas\u201d (Proleg. \u00a7 1417). Ignorant as\nyet both of the magnitude and difficulty of his task, Mill boldly\nundertook it about 1677, and his efforts soon obtained the countenance of\nBishop Fell, who promised to defray the expense of printing, and, mindful\nof the frailty of life, urged him to go to press before his papers were\nquite ready to meet the public eye. When about twenty-four chapters of St.\nMatthew had been completed, Bishop Fell died prematurely in 1686, and the\nbook seems to have languished for many following years from lack of means,\nthough the editor was busy all the while in gathering and arranging his\nmaterials, especially for the Prolegomena, which well deserve to be called\n\u201cmarmore perenniora.\u201d As late as 1704 John Sharp [1644-1714], Archbishop\nof York, whose remonstrances to Queen Anne some years subsequently\nhindered the ribald wit that wrote \u201cA Tale of a Tub\u201d from polluting the\nepiscopal throne of an English see, obtained from her for Mill a stall at\nCanterbury, and the royal command to prosecute his New Testament\nforthwith. The preferment came just in time. Three years afterwards the\nvolume was given to the Christian world, and its author\u2019s course was\nalready finished: his life\u2019s work well ended, he had entered upon his\nrest. He was spared the pain of reading the unfair attack alike on his\nbook and its subject by our eminent Commentator, Daniel Whitby (\u201cExamen\nVariantium Lectionum,\u201d 1710), and of witnessing the unscrupulous use of\nWhitby\u2019s arguments made by the sceptic Anthony Collins in his \u201cDiscourse\nof Free Thinking,\u201d 1713.\n\nDr. Mill\u2019s services to Biblical criticism surpass in extent and value\nthose rendered by any other, except perhaps one or two men of our own\ntime. A large proportion of his care and pains, as we have seen already,\nwas bestowed on the Fathers and ancient writers of every description who\nhave used or cited Scripture. The versions are usually considered his\nweakest point, although he first accorded to the Vulgate and to its\nprototype the Old Latin the importance they deserve. His knowledge of\nSyriac was rather slight, and for the other Eastern tongues, if he was not\nmore ignorant than his successors, he had not discovered how little Latin\ntranslations of the Ethiopic, &c., can be trusted. As a collator of\nmanuscripts the list subjoined will bear full testimony to his industry:\nwithout seeking to repeat details we have entered into before under the\nCursive MSS., it is right to state that he either himself re-examined, or\notherwise represented more fully and exactly, the codices that had been\npreviously used for the London Polyglott and the Oxford N. T. of 1675.\nStill it would be wrong to dissemble the fact that Mill\u2019s style of\ncollation is not such as the strictness of modern scholarship demands. He\nseldom notices at all such various readings as arise from the\ntransposition of words, the insertion or omission of the Greek article,\nfrom homoeoteleuta, or itacisms, or from manifest errors of the pen; while\nin respect to general accuracy he is as much inferior to those who have\ntrod in his steps, as he rises above Stephen and Ussher, or the persons\nemployed by Walton and Fell. It has been my fortune to collate not a few\nmanuscripts after this great critic, and I have elsewhere been obliged to\nnotice these plain facts, I would fain trust in no disparaging temper.\nDuring the many years that Mill\u2019s N. T. has been my daily companion, my\nreverence for that diligent and earnest man has been constantly growing:\nthe principles of internal evidence which guided his choice between\nconflicting authorities were simple (as indeed they ought to be), but\napplied with rare judgement, sagacity, and moderation: his zeal was\nunflagging, his treatment of his sacred subject deeply reverential. Of the\ncriticism of the New Testament in the hands of Dr. John Mill it may be\nsaid, that he found the edifice of wood, and left it marble.\n\nThe following Catalogue of the manuscripts known to Mill exhibits the\nabridged form in which he cites them, together with the more usual\nnotation, whereby they are described in this work, and will tend, it is\nbelieved, to facilitate the use of Mill\u2019s N. T.\n\n_Alex._     Cod. A\n\n_Barb._     Evan.  112 (Wetstein)\n\n_Baroc._    Act. 23\n\n_B._ 1      Evan. E\n\n_B._ 2      Act. 2\n\n_B._ 3      Act. 4\n\n_Bodl._ 1   Evan. 45\n\n_Bodl._ 2   Evan. 46\n\n_Bodl._ 3   Evst. 5\n\n_Bodl._ 4   Evst. 18\n\n_Bodl._ 5   Evst. 19\n\n_Bodl._ 6   Evan. 47\n\n_Bodl._ 7   Evan. 48\n\n_Bu._       Evan. 70\n\n_Cant._     Evan. Act. D\n\n_Cant._ 2   Act. 24\n\n_Cant._ 3   Act. 53\n\n_Clar._     Paul. D\n\n_Colb._ 1   Evan. 27\n\n_Colb._ 2   Evan. 28\n\n_Colb._ 3   Evan. 29\n\n_Colb._ 4   Evan. 30, 31\n\n_Colb._ 5   Evan. 32\n\n_Colb._ 6   Act. 13\n\n_Colb._ 7   Paul. 17\n\n_Colb._ 8   Evan. 33\n\n_Colb._ 9 = Colb. 1\n\n_Colb._ 10 = Colb. 2\n\n_Colb._ 11 = Colb. 1\n\n_Cov._ 1    Evan. 65\n\n_Cov._ 2    Act. 25\n\n_Cov._ 3    Act. 26\n\n_Cov._ 4    Act. 27\n\n_Cov._ 5 _Sin._  Act. 28\n\n_Cypr._     Evan. K\n\n_Em._       _see_ Evan. 64\n\n_Eph._      Evan. 71\n\n_Gal._      Evan. 66\n\n_Ger._      Paul. E\n\n_Genev._    Act. 29\n\n_Go._       Evan. 62\n\n_Gon._      Evan. 59\n\n_Hunt._ 1   Act. 30\n\n_Hunt._ 2   Evan. 67\n\n_L._        Evan. 69\n\n_Laud._ 1   Evan. 50\n\n_Laud._ 2   Evan. 51\n\n_Laud_. 3      Act. E\n\n_Laud_. 4      Evst. 20\n\n_Laud_. 5      Evan. 52\n\n_Lin_.         Evan. 56\n\n_Lin_. 2       Act. 33\n\n_Lu_.          Act. 21\n\n_M_. 1         Evan. 60\n\n_M_. 2         Evst. 4\n\n_Magd_. 1      Evan. 57\n\n_Magd_. 2      Paul. 42\n\n_Med_.         Evan. 42\n\n_Mont_.        Evan. 61\n\n_N_. 1         Evan. 58\n\n_N_. 1         Act. 36\n\n_N_. 2         Act. 37\n\n_Per_.         Evan. 91\n\n_Pet_. 1       Act. 38\n\n_Pet_. 2       Act. 39\n\n_Pet_. 3       Act. 40\n\n_Roe_. 1       Evan. 49\n\n_Roe_. 2       Paul. 47\n\n_Seld_. 1      Evan. 53\n\n_Seld_. 2      Evan. 54\n\n_Seld_. 3      Evan. 55\n\n_Seld_. 4      Evst. 21\n\n_Seld_. 5      Evst. 22\n\n_Steph. codices_ XVI. _videas_  pp. 190-191\n\n_Trin_.        Apost. 3\n\n_Trit_.        Evan. 96\n\n_Vat_.         Cod. B\n\n_Vel_.         Evan. 111 (Wetstein)\n\n_Vien_.        Evan. 76\n\n_Usser_. 1     Evan. 63\n\n_Usser_. 2     Evan. 64\n\n_Wheel_. 1     Evan. 68\n\n_Wheel_. 2     Evan. 95\n\n_Wheel_. 3     Evst. 3\n\n_Wech. videas_ p. 191\n\nMill merely drew from other sources _Barb._, _Steph._, _Vel._, _Wech._;\nthe copies deposited abroad (B 1-3, _Clar._, _Colb._ 1-11, _Cypr._,\n_Genev._, _Med._, _Per._, _Pet._ 1-3, _Vat. Vien._), and _Trin._ or Apost.\n3 he only knew from readings sent to him; all the rest, not being included\nin Walton\u2019s list, and several of them also, he collated for himself.\n\nThe Prolegomena of Mill, divided into three parts\u2014(1) on the Canon of the\nNew Testament; (2) on the History of the Text, including the quotations of\nthe Fathers and the early editions; and (3) on the plan and contents of\nhis own work,\u2014though by this time too far behind the present state of\nknowledge to bear reprinting, comprise a monument of learning such as the\nworld has seldom seen, and contain much information the student will not\neven now easily find elsewhere. Although Mill perpetually pronounces his\njudgement on the character of disputed readings(198), especially in his\nProlegomena, which were printed long after some portions of the body of\nthe work, yet he only aims at reproducing Stephen\u2019s text of 1550, though\nin a few places he departs from it, whether by accident or design(199).\n\nIn 1710 Ludolph Kuster, a Westphalian, republished Mill\u2019s Greek Testament,\nin folio, at Amsterdam and Rotterdam (or with a new title page, Leipsic,\n1723, Amsterdam, 1746), arranging in its proper place the matter cast by\nMill into his Appendix, as having reached him too late to stand in his\ncritical notes, and adding to those notes the readings of twelve fresh\nmanuscripts, one collated by Kuster himself, which he describes in a\nPreface well worth reading. Nine of these codices collated by, or under,\nthe Abb\u00e9 de Louvois are in the Royal Library at Paris (viz. _Paris._ 1,\nwhich is Evan. 285; _Paris._ 2 = Evan. M; _Paris._ 3 = Evan. 9; _Paris._ 4\n= Evan. 11; _Paris._ 5 = Evan. 119; _Paris._ 6 = Evan. 13; _Paris._ 7 =\nEvan. 14; _Paris._ 8 = Evan. 15; _Paris._ 9 = the great Cod. C): but\n_Lips._ = Evan. 78 was collated by Boerner; _Seidel._ = Act. 42 by\nWestermann; Boerner. = Paul. G by Kuster himself. He keeps his own notes\nseparate from Mill\u2019s by prefixing and affixing the marks [symbol],\n[symbol], and his collations both of his own codices and of early editions\nwill be found more complete than his predecessor\u2019s.\n\n5. In the next year after Kuster\u2019s Mill (1711), appeared at Amsterdam,\nfrom the press of the Wetsteins, a small N. T., 8vo, containing all the\ncritical matter of the Oxford edition of 1675, a collation of one Vienna\nmanuscript (_Caes._ = Evan. 76), 43 canons \u201csecundum quos variantes\nlectiones N. T. examinandae,\u201d and discussions upon them, with other\nmatter, especially parallel texts, forming a convenient manual, the whole\nby G. D. T. M. D., which being interpreted means Gerhard de Trajecto Mosae\nDoctor, this Gerhard von M\u00e4stricht being a Syndic of Bremen. The text is\nFell\u2019s, except in Apoc. iii. 12, where the portentous erratum \u03bb\u03b1\u1ff7 for \u03bd\u03b1\u1ff7\nof Stephen is corrected. A second and somewhat improved edition was\npublished in 1735, but ere that date the book must have become quite\nsuperseded.\n\n6. We have to return to England once more, where the criticism of the New\nTestament had engrossed the attention of RICHARD BENTLEY [1662-1742],\nwhose elevation to the enviable post of Master of Trinity College,\nCambridge, in 1699, was a just recognition of his supremacy in the English\nworld of letters. As early as 1691 he had felt a keen interest in sacred\ncriticism, and in his \u201cEpistola ad Johannem Millium\u201d had urged that\neditor, in language fraught with eloquence and native vigour, to hasten on\nthe work (whose accomplishment was eventually left to others) of\npublishing side by side on the opened leaf Codd. A, D (_Bezae_), D\n(_Clarom._), E (_Laud._). For many years afterwards Bentley\u2019s laurels were\nwon on other fields, and it was not till his friend was dead, and his\nadmirable labours were exposed to the obloquy of opponents (some honest\nthough unwise, others hating Mill because they hated the Scriptures which\nhe sought to illustrate), that our Aristarchus exerted his giant strength\nto crush the infidel and to put the ignorant to silence. In his \u201cRemarks\nupon a late Discourse of Free Thinking in a letter to F[rancis] H[are]\nD.D. by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis,\u201d 1713, Bentley displayed that intimate\nfamiliarity with the whole subject of various readings, their causes,\nextent, and consequences, which has rendered this occasional treatise more\ntruly valued (as it was far more important) than the world-renowned\n\u201cDissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris\u201d itself. As his years were now\nhastening on and the evening of life was beginning to draw nigh, it was\nseemly that the first scholar of his age should seek for his rare\nabilities an employment more entirely suited to his sacred office than\neven the most successful cultivation of classical learning; and so, about\nthis time, he came to project what he henceforth regarded as his greatest\neffort, an edition of the Greek New Testament. In 1716 we find him in\nconference with J. J. Wetstein, then very young, and seeking his aid in\nprocuring collations. In the same year he addressed his memorable \u201cLetter\u201d\nto Wm. Wake [1657-1737], Archbishop of Canterbury, whose own mind was full\nof the subject, wherein he explains, with characteristic energy and\nprecision, the principles on which he proposed to execute his great\nscheme. As these principles must be reviewed afterwards, we will but touch\nupon them now. His theory was built upon the notion that the oldest\nmanuscripts of the Greek original and of Jerome\u2019s Latin version resemble\neach other so marvellously, even in the very order of the words, that by\nthis agreement he could restore the text as it stood in the fourth\ncentury, \u201cso that there shall not be twenty words, or even particles,\ndifference.\u201d \u201cBy taking two thousand errors out of the Pope\u2019s [i.e. the\nClementine] Vulgate, and as many out of the Protestant Pope Stephen\u2019s\n[1550], I can set out an edition of each in columns, without using any\nbook under nine hundred years old, that shall so exactly agree word for\nword, and, what at first amazed me, order for order, that no two tallies,\nnor two indentures, can agree better(200).\u201d In 1720, some progress having\nbeen made in the task of collation, chiefly at Paris, by John Walker,\nFellow of Trinity, who was designated by Bentley \u201coverseer and corrector\nof the press,\u201d but proved in fact a great deal more; Bentley published his\nProposals for Printing(201), a work which \u201che consecrates, as a \u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03bb\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd,\na \u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b1\u03b5\u03af, a _charter_, a _magna charta_, to the whole Christian\nChurch; to last when all the ancient MSS. here quoted may be lost and\nextinguished.\u201d Alas for the emptiness of human anticipations! Of this\nnoble design, projected by one of the most diligent, by one of the most\nhighly gifted men our dear mother Cambridge ever nourished, nothing now\nremains but a few scattered notices in treatises on Textual Criticism, and\nlarge undigested stores of various readings and random observations,\naccumulated in his College Library; papers which no real student ever\nglanced through, but with a heart saddened\u2014almost sickened\u2014at the sight of\nso much labour lost(202). The specimen chapter (Apocalypse xxii) which\naccompanied his Proposals shows clearly how little had yet been done\ntowards arranging the materials that had been collected; codices are cited\nthere, and in many of his loose notes, not separately and by name, as in\nMill\u2019s volume, but mostly as \u201cAnglicus unus, tres codd. veterrimi, Gall.\nquatuor, Germ. unus,\u201d &c., in the rough fashion of the Oxford N. T. of\n1675(203).\n\nIt has been often alleged that Bentley seems to have worked but little on\nthe Greek Testament after 1729: that his attention was diverted by his\neditions of Paradise Lost (1732) and of Manilius (1739), by his Homeric\nstudies and College litigation, until he was overtaken by a paralytic\nstroke in 1739, and died in his eighty-first year in 1742. Walker\u2019s\ncollations of cursive manuscripts at Christ Church (Evan. 506), however,\nobviously made for Bentley\u2019s use, bear the date of 1732(204), and a closer\nexamination of his papers, bequeathed in 1786 by his nephew Richard\nBentley to Trinity College, shows that much more progress had been made by\nhim than has been usually supposed. Besides full collations of the uncial\nCodd. AD (Gospels and Acts), of Cod. F (his \u03b8) and G of St. Paul, of\nArundel 547 (Evst. 257) executed by Bentley himself, of Codd. B and C by\nothers at his cost, three volumes are found there full of critical\nmaterials, which have been described by Mr. Ellis, and digested by Dr.\nWestcott. One of these (B. xvii. 5) I was allowed by the Master and\nSeniors to study at leisure at home. It is a folio edition of the N. T.,\nGreek and Latin (Paris, ap. Claud. Sonnium, 1628, the Greek text being\nthat of Elzevir 1624), whose margin and spaces between the lines are\nfilled with various readings in Bentley\u2019s hand, but not all of them\nnecessarily the results of his own labour, collected out of ten Greek and\nthirty Latin manuscripts. The Greek are all cursives save Evst. 5, and his\nconnexion with them has been referred to above under the Cursive MSS. They\nare\n\nEvan. 51 (\u03b3),\nEvan.  54 (\u03ba),\nEvan.  60 (\u03b5),\nEvan. 113 (\u03b8?),\nEvan. 440 (\u03bf),\nEvan. 507 (\u03c4),\nEvan.  508 (\u03b4),\nAct.  23 (\u03c7),\nApoc. 28 (\u03ba),\nEvst.  5 (\u03b1).\n\nThe Latin copies, which alone are described by Bentley in the fly-leaves\nof the volume, may not be as easily identified, but some of them are of\ngreat value, and are described above in Chap. III. These are\n\n_chad._ (\u03be),\n_dunelm._ (\u039a),\n_harl._3 (\u039c),\n_lind._ (\u03b7),\n_mac-regol_ (\u03c7),\n_oxon._ (\u03a3),\n_oxon._ (Paul. \u03c7),\n_seld._ (Act. \u03c7),\n_vall._,\nWestcott adds _harl._4 (\u0397).\n\nA second mass of materials, all Latin, about twenty in number, and\ndeposited in England, is contained in the first volume of the Benedictine\nedition of St. Jerome\u2019s works (Paris, 1693). In this book (B. xvii. 14)\nDr. Westcott has pasted a valuable note, wherein he identifies the\nmanuscripts used by Bentley by the means of his own actual collation.\nThose described above in Chap. III are the following:\n\nB. M. Harl. 1802 (W),\nB. M. _harl._2 (M. of Epistles, &c.),\nB. M. Addit. 5463 (F),\nB. M. King\u2019s Lib. I. A. 18 (O),\nB. M. King\u2019s Lib. I. B. VII. (H),\nB. M. King\u2019s Lib. I. E. VI. (P),\nB. M. C. C. C. Camb. 286 (B),\nB. M. Trin. Coll. Camb. B. X. 5 (S),\nB. M. Trin. Coll. Camb. B. X. 4 (T, _ibid._),\nB. M. _lind._ (Y: as in B. XVII. 5),\nB. M. Camb. Univ. Lib. Kk. I. 24 (\u03c7).\n\nWestcott further appropriates B. M. Cotton, Otho B. ix, as Bentley\u2019s D;\nCotton Tib. A. ii (\u201cthe Coronation book\u201d) as his \u03b5; Cotton Otho C. v as\nhis \u03c6; C. C. C. Camb. 197 as his C; King\u2019s Library 1 D. ix as his A. His \u03be\nin B. xvii. 14 seems unrecognized.\n\nThese, of course, are no more than the rough materials of criticism.\nAnother copy of the N. T. has been carefully and curiously made available\nfor my use by the goodness of my friend Edwin Palmer, D.D., Archdeacon of\nOxford. It is numbered B. xvii. 6, and is a duplicate copy (without its\ntitle-page) of the same printed book as B. xvii. 5. It is interleaved\nthroughout, and was prepared very early in the course of this undertaking,\ninasmuch as Bentley describes it in an undated letter to Wetstein, which\nthe latter answered Nov. 3, 1716. In the printed text itself, both Greek\nand Latin, as they stand in parallel columns, Bentley makes the\ncorrections which he at that period was willing to adopt. There is no\ncritical apparatus to justify his changes in the Latin version, but on the\nblank leaves of the book he sets down his Greek authorities, always cited\nby name, as _Alex._, _Cant._, _Rom._ (Cod. B.), _Ox._ in the Acts (Cod.\nE), \u03b8 in St. Paul for Cod. Augiensis (F), though this last did not reach\nhim before 1718. Cod. C is sometimes called _Eph._, sometimes it is mixed\nup with Wetstein\u2019s other copies (1 Wetstein, 2 Wetstein, &c.). This most\ninteresting volume, therefore, contains the first draft of Bentley\u2019s great\ndesign, and must have been nearly in its present state when the\n\u2019Proposals\u2019 were published in 1720, since the specimen chapter (Apoc.\nxxii) which accompanied them is taken _verbatim_ from B. xvii. 6, save\nthat authorities are added to vindicate the alterations of the Latin text,\nwhich is destitute of them in the printed book. Mr. Ellis too has printed\nthe Epistle to the Galatians from the same source, and this specimen also\nproduces much the same impression of meagreness and imperfection. It was\ndoubtless in some degree to remedy an apparent crudeness that cursive\ncopies were afterwards called in, as in B. xvii. 5 and in Walker\u2019s Oxford\ncollections. The fact is that Bentley\u2019s main principle, as set forth by\nhim from 1716 to 1720, that of substantial identity between the oldest\nGreek and Latin copies, is more favoured by Cod. A, which he knew soonest\nand best, than by any other really ancient documents, least of all by Cod.\nB, with which he obtained fuller acquaintance in or about 1720. Our\nAristarchus then betook himself at intervals to cursive codices in the\nvain hope of getting aid from them, and so lost his way at last in that\nwide and pathless wilderness. We cannot but believe that nothing less than\nthe manifest impossibility of maintaining the principles which his\n\u201cLetter\u201d of 1716 enunciated, and his \u2019Proposals\u2019 of 1720 scarcely\nmodified, in the face of the evidence which his growing mass of collations\nbore against them(205), could have had power enough to break off in the\nmidst that labour of love from which he had looked for undying fame(206).\n\n7. The anonymous text and version of William Mace, said to have been a\nPresbyterian minister (\u201cThe New Testament in Greek and English,\u201d 2 vols.\n8vo, 1729), are alike unworthy of serious notice, and have long since been\nforgotten(207). And now original research in the science of Biblical\ncriticism, so far as the New Testament is concerned, seems to have left\nthe shores of England, to return no more for upwards of a century(208);\nand we must look to Germany if we wish to trace the further progress of\ninvestigations which our countrymen had so auspiciously begun. The first\nconsiderable effort made on the Continent was:\u2014\n\n8. The New Testament of John Albert Bengel, 4to, T\u00fcbingen, 1734(209): his\n\u201cProdromus N. T. Gr. rect\u00e8 caut\u00e8que adornandi\u201d had appeared as early as\n1725. This devout and truly able man [1687-1752], who held the office\n(whatever might be its functions) of Abbot of Alpirspach in the Lutheran\ncommunion of W\u00fcrttemberg, though more generally known as an interpreter of\nScripture from his invaluable \u201cGnomon Novi Testamenti,\u201d yet left the stamp\nof his mind deeply imprinted on the criticism of the sacred volume. As a\ncollator his merits were not high; nearly all his sixteen codices have\nrequired and obtained fresh examination from those who came after\nhim(210). His text, which he arranged in convenient paragraphs, as has\nbeen said, is the earliest important specimen of intentional departure\nfrom the received type; hence he imposes on himself the strange\nrestriction of admitting into it no reading (excepting in the Apocalypse)\nwhich had not appeared in one or more of the editions that preceded his\nown. He pronounces his opinion on other _select_ variations by placing\nthem in his lower margin with Greek numerals attached to them, according\nas he judged them decidedly better (\u03b1), or somewhat more likely (\u03b2), than\nthose which stand in his text: or equal to them (\u03b3); or a little (\u03b4), or\nconsiderably (\u03b5), inferior. This notation has advantages which might well\nhave commended it to the attention of succeeding editors. In his\n\u201cApparatus Criticus\u201d also, at the end of his volume, he set the example,\nnow generally followed, of recording definitely the testimony in favour of\na received reading, as well as that against it.\n\nBut the peculiar importance of Bengel\u2019s N. T. is due to the critical\nprinciples developed therein. Not only was his native acuteness of great\nservice to him, when weighing the conflicting probabilities of internal\nevidence, but in his fertile mind sprang up the germ of that theory of\n_families_ or _recensions_, which was afterwards expanded by J. S. Semler\n[1725-91], and grew to such formidable dimensions in the skilful hands of\nGriesbach. An attentive student of the discrepant readings of the N. T.,\neven in the limited extent they had hitherto been collected, could hardly\nfail to discern that certain manuscripts, versions, and ecclesiastical\nwriters have a manifest affinity with each other; so that one of them\nshall seldom be cited in support of a variation (not being a manifest and\ngross error of the copyist), unless accompanied by several of its kindred.\nThe inference is direct and clear, that documents which thus withdraw\nthemselves from the general mass of authorities, must have sprung from\nsome common source, distinct from those which in characteristic readings\nthey but slightly resemble. It occurred, therefore, to Bengel as a hopeful\nmode of making good progress in the criticism of the N. T., to reduce all\nextant testimony into \u201ccompanies, families, tribes, and nations,\u201d and thus\nto simplify the process of settling the sacred text by setting class over\nagainst class, and trying to estimate the genius of each, and the relative\nimportance they may severally lay claim to. He wished to divide all extant\ndocuments into two nations: the _Asiatic_, chiefly written in\nConstantinople and its neighbourhood, which he was inclined to disparage;\nand the _African_, comprising the few of a better type (\u201cApparatus\nCriticus,\u201d p. 669, 2nd edition, 1763). Various circumstances hindered\nBengel from working out his principle, among which he condescends to set\nhis dread of exposing his task to senseless ridicule(211); yet no one can\ndoubt that it comprehends the elements of what is both reasonable and\ntrue; however difficult it has subsequently proved to adjust the details\nof any consistent scheme. For the rest, Bengel\u2019s critical verdicts, always\nconsidered in relation to his age and opportunities, deserve strong\ncommendation. He saw the paramount worth of Cod. A, the only great uncial\nthen much known (N. T., Apparat. Crit., pp. 390-401). The high character\nof the Latin version, and the necessity for revising its text by means of\nmanuscripts (_ibid._, p. 391), he readily conceded, after Bentley\u2019s\nexample. His mean estimate of the Greek-Latin codices (Evan. Act. D; Act.\nE; Paul. DFG) may not find equal favour in the eyes of all his admirers;\nhe pronounces them \u201cre ver\u00e2 bilingues;\u201d which, for their perpetual and\nwilful interpolations, \u201cnon pro codicibus sed pro rhapsodiis, haberi\ndebeant\u201d (_ibid._, p. 386)(212).\n\n9. The next step in advance was made by John James Wetstein [1693-1754], a\nnative of Basle, whose edition of the Greek New Testament (\u201ccum\nlectionibus variantibus Codicum MSS., Editionum aliarum, Versionum et\nPatrum, necnon Commentario pleniore ex scriptoribus veteribus, Hebraeis,\nGraecis, et Latinis, historiam et vim verborum illustrante\u201d) appeared in\ntwo volumes, folio, Amsterdam, 1751-2. The genius, the character, and (it\nmust in justice be added) the worldly fortunes of Wetstein were widely\ndifferent from those of the good Abbot of Alpirspach. His taste for\nBiblical studies showed itself early. When ordained pastor at the age of\ntwenty he delivered a disputation, \u201cDe variis N. T. lectionibus,\u201d and zeal\nfor this fascinating pursuit became at length with him a passion\u2014the\nmaster-passion which consoled and dignified a roving, troubled,\nunprosperous life. In 1714 his eager search for manuscripts led him to\nParis, in 1715-16 and again in 1720 he visited England, and was employed\nby Bentley in collecting materials for his projected edition, but he seems\nto have imbibed few of that great man\u2019s principles: the interval between\nthem, both in age and station, almost forbade much sympathy. On his return\nhome he gradually became suspected of Socinian tendencies, and it must be\nfeared with too much justice; so that in the end he was deposed from the\npastorate (1730), driven into exile, and after having been compelled to\nserve in a position the least favourable to the cultivation of learning,\nthat of a military chaplain, he obtained at length (1733) a Professorship\namong the Remonstrants at Amsterdam (in succession to the celebrated\nLeclerc), and there continued till his death in 1754, having made his\nthird visit to England in 1746. His \u201cProlegomena,\u201d first published in\n1730, and afterwards, in an altered form, prefixed to his N. T.(213),\npresent a painful image both of the man and of his circumstances. His\nrestless energy, his undaunted industry, his violent temper, his love of\nparadox, his assertion for himself of perfect freedom of thought, his\nsilly prejudice against Jesuits and bigots, his enmities, his wrongs, his\nill-requited labours, at once excite our respect and our pity: while they\nall help to make his writings a sort of unconscious autobiography, rather\ninteresting than agreeable. _Non sic itur ad astra_, whether morally or\nintellectually; yet Wetstein\u2019s services to sacred literature were of no\ncommon order. His philological annotations, wherein the matter and\nphraseology of the inspired writers are illustrated by copious\u2014too\ncopious\u2014quotations from all kinds of authors, classical, Patristic, and\nRabbinical, have proved an inexhaustible storehouse from which later\nwriters have drawn liberally and sometimes without due acknowledgement;\nbut many of the passages are of such a tenor as (to use Tregelles\u2019 very\ngentle language respecting them) \u201conly to excite surprise at their being\nfound on the same page as the text of the New Testament\u201d (Account of\nPrinted Text, p. 76). The critical portion of his work, however, is far\nmore valuable, and in this department Wetstein must be placed in the very\nfirst rank, inferior (if to any) to but one or two of the highest names.\nHe first cited the manuscripts under the notation by which they are\ncommonly known, his list already embracing A-O, 1-112 of the Gospels; A-G,\n1-58 of the Acts; A-H, 1-60 of St. Paul; A-C, 1-28 of the Apocalypse; 1-24\nEvangelistaria; 1-4 of the Apostolos. Of these Wetstein himself collated\nabout one hundred and two(214); if not as fully or accurately as is now\nexpected, yet with far greater care than had hitherto been usual: about\neleven were examined for him by other hands. On the versions and early\neditions he has likewise bestowed great pains; and he improved upon\nquotations from the Fathers. His text is that of Elzevir (1633), not very\nexactly printed(215), and immediately below it he placed such readings of\nhis manuscripts as he judged preferable to those received. The readings\nthus approved by Wetstein (which do not amount to five hundred, and those\nchiefly in the Apocalypse) were inserted in the text of a Greek Testament\npublished in London, 1763, 2 vols., by W. Bowyer, the learned printer,\nwith a collection of critical conjectures annexed, which were afterwards\npublished separately.\n\nWetstein\u2019s Prolegomena have also been reproduced by J. S. Semler (Halle,\n1764), with good notes and facsimiles of certain manuscripts, and more\nrecently, in a compressed and modernized form, by J. A. Lotze (Rotterdam,\n1831), a book which neither for design nor execution can be much praised.\nThe truth is that both the style and the subject-matter of much that\nWetstein wrote are things of the past. In his earlier edition of his\nProlegomena (1730) he had spoken of the oldest Greek uncial copies as they\ndeserve; he was even disposed to take Cod. A as the basis of his text. By\nthe time his N. T. was ready, twenty years later, he had come to include\nit, with all the older codices of the original, under a general charge of\nbeing conformed to the Latin version. That such a tendency may be detected\nin some of the codices accompanied by a Latin translation, is both\npossible in itself, and not inconsistent with their general spirit; but he\nhas scattered abroad his imputations capriciously and almost at random, so\nas greatly to diminish the weight of his own decisions. Cod. A, in\nparticular, has been fully cleared of the charge of Latinizing by Woide,\nin his excellent Prolegomena (\u00a7 6). His thorough contempt for that critic\nprevented Wetstein from giving adequate attention to Bengel\u2019s theory of\nfamilies; indeed he can hardly be said to have rejected a scheme which he\nscorned to investigate with patience. On the other hand no portion of his\nlabours is more valuable than the \u201cAnimadversiones et Cautiones ad examen\nvariarum lectionum N. T. necessariae\u201d (N. T., Tom. ii. pp. 851-74). In\nthis tract his natural good sense and extensive knowledge of authorities\nof every class have gone far to correct that impetuous temperament which\nwas ever too ready to substitute plausible conjecture in the room of\nascertained facts.\n\nDuring the twenty years immediately ensuing on the publication of\nWetstein\u2019s volumes, little was attempted in the way of enlarging or\nimproving the domain he had secured for Biblical science. In England the\nattention of students was directed, and on the whole successfully, to the\ncriticism of the Hebrew Scriptures; in Germany, the younger (J. D.)\nMichaelis [1717-91] reigned supreme, and he seems to have deemed it the\nhighest effort of scholarship to sit in judgement on the labours of\nothers. In process of time, however, the researches of John James\nGriesbach [1745-1812], a native of Hesse Darmstadt and a pupil of Semler,\nand J. A. Ernesti [1707-81] (whose manual, \u201cInstitutio Interpretis N. T.,\u201d\n1761, has not long been superseded), began to attract general notice. Like\nWetstein, he made a literary tour in England early in life (1769), and\nwith far more profit; returning to Halle as a Professor, he published\nbefore he was thirty (1774-5) his first edition of the N. T., which\ncontained the well-defined embryo of his future and more elaborate\nspeculations. It will be convenient to reserve the examination of his\nviews until we have described the investigations of several collators who\nunknowingly (and in one instance, no doubt unwillingly) were busy in\ngathering stores which he was to turn to his own use.\n\n10. Christian Frederick Matthaei, a Thuringian [1744-1811], was appointed,\non the recommendation of his tutor Ernesti, to the Professorship of\nClassical Literature at Moscow: so far as philology is concerned, he\nprobably merited Bp. Middleton\u2019s praise, as \u201cthe most accurate scholar who\never edited the N. T.\u201d (Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 244, 3rd\nedition.) At Moscow he found a large number of Greek manuscripts, both\nBiblical and Patristic, originally brought from Athos, quite uncollated,\nand almost entirely unknown in the west of Europe. With laudable\nresolution he set himself to examine them, and gradually formed the scheme\nof publishing an edition of the New Testament by the aid of materials so\nprecious and abundant. All authors that deserve that honourable name may\nbe presumed to learn not a little, even on the subject they know best,\nwhile preparing an important work for the public eye; but Matthaei was as\nyet ignorant of the first principles of the critical art; and beginning\nthus late, there was much, and that of a very elementary character, which\nhe never understood at all. When he commenced writing he had not seen the\nvolumes of Mill or Wetstein; and to this significant fact we must impute\nthat inability which clave to him to the last, of discriminating the\nrelative age and value of his own or others\u2019 codices. The palaeographical\nportion of the science, indeed, he gradually acquired from the study of\nhis documents, and through the many facsimiles of them he represents in\nhis edition; but what can be thought of his judgement, when he persisted\nin asserting the intrinsic superiority of Cod. 69 of the Acts to the great\nuncials AC (N. T., Tom. xii. p. 222)(216)? Hence it results that\nMatthaei\u2019s text, which of course he moulded on his own views, must be held\nin slight esteem: his services as a collator comprehend his whole claim\n(and that no trifling one) to our thankful regard. To him solely we are\nindebted for Evan. V; 237-259; Act. 98-107; Paul. 113-124; Apoc. 47-502\n(i.e. r); Evst. 47-57; Apost. 13-20; nearly all at Moscow: the whole\nseventy(217), together with the citations of Scripture in thirty-four\nmanuscripts of Chrysostom(218), being so fully and accurately collated,\nthat the reader need not be at a loss whether any particular copy supports\nor opposes the reading in the common text. Matthaei\u2019s further services in\nconnexion with Cod. G Paul, and a few others (Act. 69, &c.) have been\nnoticed in their proper places. To his Greek text was annexed the Latin\nVulgate (the only version, in its present state, he professes to regard,\nTom. xi. p. xii) from the Cod. Demidovianus. The first volume of this\nedition appeared in 1782, after it had been already eight years in\npreparation: this comprised the Catholic Epistles. The rest of the work\nwas published at intervals during the next six years, in eleven more thin\nparts 8vo, the whole series being closed by SS. Matthew and Mark in 1788.\nEach volume has a Preface, much descriptive matter, and facsimiles of\nmanuscripts (twenty-nine in all), the whole being in complete and almost\nhopeless disorder, and the general title-page absurdly long. Hence his\ncritical principles (if such they may be termed) must be picked up\npiecemeal; and it is not very pleasant to observe the sort of influence\nwhich hostile controversy exercised over his mind and temper. While yet\nfresh at his task (1782), anticipating the fair fame his most profitable\nresearches had so well earned, Matthaei is frank, calm, and rational: even\nat a later period J. D. Michaelis is, in his estimation, the keenest of\nliving judges of codices, and he says so the rather \u201cquod ille vir\ndoctissimus multis modis me, _qu\u00e2 de caus\u00e2 ipse ignoro_, partim jocos\u00e8,\npartim seri\u00f2, vexavit\u201d (Tom. ii, 1788, p. xxxi). Bengel, whose sentiments\nwere very dissimilar from those of the Moscow Professor, \u201cpro acumine,\ndiligenti\u00e2 et religione su\u00e2,\u201d would have arrived at other conclusions, had\nhis Augsburg codices been better (_ibid._, p. xxx). But for Griesbach and\nhis recension-theory no terms of insult are strong enough; \u201crisum vel adeo\npueris debet ille Halensis criticus,\u201d who never saw, \u201c_ut credibile est_,\u201d\na manuscript even of the tenth century (_ibid._, p. xxiii), yet presumes\nto dictate to those who have collated seventy. The unhappy consequence\nwas, that one who had taken up this employment in an earnest and candid\nspirit, possessed with the simple desire to promote the study of sacred\nliterature, could devise no fitter commencement for his latest Preface\nthan this: \u201cLaborem igitur molestum invidiosum et infamem, inter convicia\nranarum et latratus canum, aut ferre\u00e2 patienti\u00e2 aut invict\u00e2 pertinaci\u00e2 his\nquindecim annis vel sustinui, vel utcunque potui perfeci, vel denique et\nfastidio et taedio, ut fortasse non nulli opinantur, deposui et abjeci\u201d\n(Tom. i, Praef. p. 1): he could find no purer cause for thankfulness, than\n(what we might have imagined but a very slight mercy) that he had never\nbeen commended by those \u201cof whom to be dispraised is no small praise;\u201d or\n(to use his own more vigorous language) \u201cquod nemo scurra ... nemo denique\nde grego novorum theologorum, hanc qualemcunque operam meam ausus est ore\nimpuro suo, laudeque contumelios\u00e2 comprobare.\u201d Matthaei\u2019s second edition\nin three volumes (destitute of the Latin version and most of the critical\nnotes) bears date 1803-7(219). For some cause, now not easy to understand,\nhe hardly gave to this second edition the advantages of his studies during\nthe fifteen years which had elapsed since he completed his first. We saw\nhis labours bestowed on the Zittau N. T. in 1801-2 (Evan. 605). On the\nlast leaf of the third volume of his second edition, writing from Moscow\nin May, 1805, he speaks of a book containing collations of no less than\ntwenty-four manuscripts, partly fresh, partly corrected, which, when he\nreturned into Russia, he delivered to Augustus Schumann, a bookseller at\nRonneburg (in Saxe Altenburg), to be published in close connexion with his\nsecond edition against the Easter Fair at Leipzig in 1805. Another book\ncontained extracts from St. Chrysostom with a commentary and index, to be\npublished at the same time, and both at Schumann\u2019s risk. \u201cUtrum isti libri\njam prodierint necne,\u201d our author adds pathetically, \u201cnondum factus sum\ncertior. Certe id vehementer opto.\u201d But in 1805 evil times were hastening\nupon Germany, and so unfortunately for the poor man and for textual\nstudents these collections have disappeared and left no trace behind.\n\n10.a The next, and a far less considerable contribution to our knowledge\nof manuscripts of the N. T., was made by Francis Karl Alter [1749-1804], a\nJesuit, born in Silesia, and Professor of Greek at Vienna. His plan was\nnovel, and, to those who are compelled to use his edition (N. T. Graecum,\nad Codicem Vindobonensem Graec\u00e8 expressum, 8vo, Vienna, 2 tom., 1786-7),\ninconvenient to the last degree. Adopting for his standard a valuable, but\nnot very ancient or remarkable, manuscript in the Imperial Library (Evan.\n218, Act. 65, Paul. 57, Apoc. 83), he prints this copy at full length,\nretaining even the \u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03ba\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd when it is found in his model, but not\n(as it would seem) all the itacisms or errors of the scribe, conforming in\nsuch cases to Stephen\u2019s edition of 1546. With this text he collates in\nseparate Appendices twenty-one other manuscripts of the same great\nLibrary, comprising twelve copies of the Gospels (Codd. N, a fragment, 3,\n76, 77, 108, 123, 124, 125, 219, 220, 224, 225); six of the Acts, &c. (3,\n43, 63, 64, 66, 67); seven of St. Paul (3, 49, 67-71); three of the\nApocalypse (34, 35, 36), and two Evangelistaria (45, 46). He also gives\nreadings from Wilkins\u2019 Coptic version, four Slavonic codices and one Old\nLatin (_i_). In employing this ill-digested mass, it is necessary to turn\nto a different place for every manuscript to be consulted, and Alter\u2019s\nsilence in any passages must be understood to indicate resemblance to his\nstandard, Evan. 218, and not to the common text. As this silence is very\noften clearly due to the collator\u2019s mere oversight, Griesbach set the\nexample of citing these manuscripts in such cases within marks of\nparenthesis: thus \u201c218 (108, 220)\u201d indicates that the reading in question\nis certainly found in Cod. 218, and (so far as we may infer _ex Alteri\nsilentio_) not improbably in the other two. Most of these Vienna codices\nwere about the same time examined rather slightly by Andrew Birch.\n\n11. This eminent person, who afterwards bore successively the titles of\nBishop of Lolland, Falster, and Aarhuus, in the Lutheran communion\nestablished in Denmark, was one of a company of learned men sent by the\nliberal care of Christian VII to examine Biblical manuscripts in various\ncountries. Adler pursued his Oriental studies at Rome and elsewhere; D. G.\nMoldenhawer and O. G. Tychsen (the famous Orientalist of Rostock) were\nsent into Spain in 1783-4; Birch travelled on the same good errand in\n1781-3 through Italy and Germany. The combined results of their\ninvestigations were arranged and published by Birch, whose folio edition\nof the Four Gospels (also in 4to) with Stephen\u2019s text of 1550(220), and\nthe various readings contributed by himself and his associates, full\ndescriptive Prolegomena and facsimiles of seven manuscripts (Codd. S, 157\nEvan.; and five in Syriac), appeared at Copenhagen in 1788. Seven years\nafterwards (1795) a fire destroyed the Royal Printing-house, the type,\npaper, and unsold stock of the first volume, the collations of the rest of\nthe N. T. having very nearly shared the same fate. These poor fragments\nwere collected by Birch into two small 8vo volumes, those relating to the\nActs and Epistles in 1798, to the Apocalypse (with facsimiles of Codd. 37,\n42) in 1800. In 1801 he revised and re-edited the various readings of the\nGospels, in a form to correspond with those of the rest of the N. T.\nNothing can be better calculated to win respect and confidence than the\nwhole tone of Birch\u2019s several Prolegomena: he displays at once a proper\nsense of the difficulties of his task, and a consciousness that he had\ndone his utmost to conquer them(221). It is indeed much to be regretted\nthat, for some cause he does not wish to explain, he accomplished but\nlittle for Cod. B; many of the manuscripts on his long list were beyond\nquestion examined but very superficially; yet he was almost the first to\nopen to us the literary treasures of the Vatican, of Florence, and of\nVenice. He more or less inspected the uncials Cod. B, Codd. ST of the\nGospels, Cod. L of the Acts and Epistles. His catalogue of cursives\ncomprises Codd. 127-225 of the Gospels; Codd. 63-7, 70-96 of the Acts;\nCodd. 67-71, 77-112 of St. Paul; Codd. 33-4, 37-46 of the Apocalypse;\nEvangelistaria 35-39; Apostolos 7, 8: in all 191 copies, a few of which\nwere thoroughly collated (e.g. Evan. S, 127, 131, 157, Evst. 36). Of\nAdler\u2019s labours we have spoken already; they too are incorporated in\nBirch\u2019s work, and prefaced with a short notice (Birch, Proleg. p. lxxxv)\nby their author, a real and modest scholar. Moldenhawer\u2019s portion of the\ncommon task was discharged in another spirit. Received at the Escurial\nwith courtesy and good-will, his colleague Tyschen and he spent four whole\nmonths in turning over a collection of 760 Greek manuscripts, of which\nonly twenty related to the Greek Testament. They lacked neither leisure,\nnor opportunity, nor competent knowledge; but they were full of dislike\nfor Spain and its religion, of overweening conceit, and of implicit trust\nin Griesbach and his recensions. The whole paper contributed by\nMoldenhawer to Birch\u2019s Prolegomena (pp. lxi-lxxxiv) is in substance very\ndisappointing, while its arrogance is almost intolerable. What he effected\nfor other portions of the N. T. I have not been able to trace (226, 228\nEvan., which also contain the Acts and Epistles, are but nominally on\nScholz\u2019s list for those books); the fire at Copenhagen may probably have\ndestroyed his notes. Of the Gospels he collated eight codices (226-233),\nand four Evangelistaria (40-43), most of them being dismissed, after a\ncursory review, with some expression of hearty contempt. To Evann. 226,\n229, 230 alone was he disposed to pay any attention; of the rest, whether\n\u201che soon restored them to their primitive obscurity\u201d (p. lxxi), or \u201cbade\nthem sweet and holy rest among the reliques of Saints and Martyrs\u201d (p.\nlxvii), he may be understood to say, once for all, \u201cOmnino nemo, qui horum\nlibrorum rationem ac indolem ... perspectam habet, ex iis lectionis\nvarietatem operose eruere aggredietur, nec, si quam inde conquisiverit,\noperae pretium fecisse a peritis arbitris existimabitur\u201d (p. lxxiv). It\nwas not thus that Matthaei dealt with the manuscripts at Moscow.\n\n12. Such were the materials ready for Griesbach\u2019s use when he projected\nhis second and principal edition of the Greek Testament (vol. i. 1796,\nvol. ii. 1806). Not that he was backward in adding to the store of various\nreadings by means of his own diligence. His \u201cSymbolae Criticae(222)\u201d (vol.\ni. 1785, vol. ii. 1793) contained, together with the readings extracted\nfrom Origen, collations, in whole or part, of many copies of various\nportions of the N. T., Latin as well as Greek. Besides inspecting Codd. AD\n(Evann.), and carefully examining Cod. C(223), he consulted no less than\ntwenty-six codices (including GL) of the Gospels, ten (including E) of the\nActs, &c., fifteen (including DEH) of St. Paul, one of the Apocalypse\n(Cod. 29) twelve Lectionaries of the Gospels, and two of the Apostolos,\nfar the greater part of them being deposited in England. It was not,\nhowever, his purpose to exhibit in his N. T. (designed, as it was, for\ngeneral use) all the readings he had himself recorded elsewhere, much less\nthe whole mass accumulated by the pains of Mill or Wetstein, Matthaei or\nBirch. The distinctive end at which he aims is to form such a selection\nfrom the matter their works contain, as to enable the theological student\nto decide for himself on the genuineness or corruption of any given\nreading, by the aid of principles which he devotes his best efforts to\nestablish. Between the text (in which departures from the Elzevir edition\nof 1624 are generally indicated by being printed in smaller type(224)) and\nthe critical notes at the foot of each page, intervenes a narrow space or\ninner margin, to receive those portions of the common text which Griesbach\nhas rejected, and such variations of his authorities as he judges to be of\nequal weight with the received readings which he retains, or but little\ninferior to them. These decisions he intimates by several symbols, not\nquite so simple as those employed by Bengel, but conceived in a similar\nspirit; and he has carried his system somewhat further in his small or\nmanual edition, published at Leipzig in 1805, which may be conceived to\nrepresent his last thoughts with regard to the recension of the Greek text\nof the N. T. But though we may trace some slight discrepancies of opinion\nbetween his earliest(225) and his latest works(226), as might well be\nlooked for in a literary career of forty years, yet the theory of his\nyouth was maintained, and defended, and temperately applied by Griesbach\neven to the last. From Bengel and Semler he had taken up the belief that\nmanuscripts, versions, and ecclesiastical writers divide themselves, with\nrespect to the character of their testimony, into races or families. This\nprinciple he strove to reduce to practice by marshalling all his\nauthorities under their respective heads, and then regarding the evidence,\nnot of individuals, but of the classes to which they belong. The advantage\nof some such arrangement is sufficiently manifest, if only it could be\nmade to rest on grounds in themselves certain, or, at all events, fairly\nprobable. We should then possess some better guide in our choice between\nconflicting readings, than the very rough and unsatisfactory process of\ncounting the _number_ of witnesses produced on either side. It is not that\nsuch a mode of conducting critical enquiries would not be very convenient,\nthat Griesbach\u2019s theory is universally abandoned by modern scholars, but\nbecause there is no valid reason for believing it to be true.\n\nAt the onset of his labours, indeed, this acute and candid enquirer was\ndisposed to divide all extant materials into five or six different\nfamilies; he afterwards limited them to three, the Alexandrian, the\nWestern, and the Byzantine recensions. The standard of the Alexandrian\ntext he conceived to be Origen; who, although his works were written in\nPalestine, was assumed to have brought with him into exile copies of\nScripture, similar to those used in his native city. To this family would\nbelong a few manuscripts of the earliest date, and confessedly of the\nhighest character, Codd. ABC, Cod. L of the Gospels, the Egyptian and some\nlesser versions. The Western recension would survive in Cod. D of the\nGospels and Acts, in the other ancient copies which contain a Latin\ntranslation, in the Old Latin and Vulgate versions, and in the Latin\nFathers. The vast majority of manuscripts (comprising perhaps\nnineteen-twentieths of the whole), together with the larger proportion of\nversions and Patristic writings, were grouped into the Byzantine class, as\nhaving prevailed generally in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. To this\nlast class Griesbach hardly professed to accord as much weight as to\neither of the others, nor, if he had done so, would the result have been\nmaterially different. The joint testimony of two classes was, _ceteris\nparibus_, always to prevail; and since the very few documents which\ncomprise the Alexandrian and Western recensions seldom agree with the\nByzantine even when at variance with each other, the numerous codices\nwhich make up the third family would thus have about as much share in\nfixing the text of Scripture, as the poor citizens whose host was included\nin one of Servius Tullius\u2019 lower classes possessed towards\ncounterbalancing the votes of the wealthy few that composed his first or\nsecond(227).\n\nInasmuch as the manuscripts on which our received text was based must,\nbeyond question, be referred to his Byzantine family, wide as were the\nvariations of Griesbach\u2019s revised text from that of Elzevir(228), had his\ntheory been pushed to its legitimate consequences, the changes it required\nwould have been greater still. The very plan of his work, however, seemed\nto reserve a slight preference for the received text _as such_, in cases\nof doubt and difficulty; and this editor, with a calmness and sagacity\nwhich may well be called judicial, was usually disposed to relax his stern\nmechanical law when persuaded by reasons founded on internal\nprobabilities, which (as we cheerfully admit) few men have been found able\nto estimate with so much patience and discrimination. The plain fact is,\nthat while disciples like Moldenhawer and persons who knew even less than\nhe were regarding Griesbach\u2019s system as self-evidently true, their wiser\nmaster must have had many a misgiving as to the safety of that imposing\nstructure his rare ingenuity had built upon the sand. The very essence of\nhis theory consisted in there being not two distinct families, but\n_three_; the majority deciding in all cases of dispute. Yet he hardly\nattempted, certainly neither he nor any one after him succeeded in the\nattempt, to separate the Alexandrian from the Western family, without\nresorting to arguments which would prove that there are as many classes as\nthere are manuscripts of early date. The supposed accordance of the\nreadings of Origen, so elaborately scrutinized for this purpose by\nGriesbach, with Cod. A, on which our editor lays the greatest stress, has\nbeen shown by Archbishop Laurence (Remarks on Griesbach\u2019s Systematic\nClassification, 1814) to be in a high degree imaginary(229). It must have\nbeen in anticipation of some such researches, and in a partial knowledge\nof their sure results, that Griesbach was driven to that violent and most\nunlikely hypothesis, that Cod. A follows the Byzantine class of\nauthorities in the Gospels, the Western in the Acts and Catholic Epistles,\nand the Alexandrian in St. Paul.\n\nIt seems needless to dwell longer on speculations which, however\nattractive and once widely received, will scarcely again find an advocate.\nGriesbach\u2019s text can no longer be regarded as satisfactory, though it is\nfar less objectionable than such a system as his would have made it in\nrash or unskilful hands. His industry, his moderation, his fairness to\nopponents, who (like Matthaei) had shown him little forbearance, we may\nall imitate to our profit. His logical acuteness and keen intellectual\nperception fall to the lot of few; and though they may have helped to lead\nhim into error, and have even kept him from retracing his steps, yet on\nthe whole they were worthily exercised in the good cause of promoting a\nknowledge of God\u2019s truth, and of keeping alive, in an evil and unbelieving\nage, an enlightened interest in Holy Scripture, and the studies which it\nserves to consecrate.\n\n13. Of a widely different order of mind was John Martin Augustine Scholz\n[d. 1852], Roman Catholic Dean of Theology in the mixed University of\nBonn. It would have been well for the progress of sacred learning and for\nhis own reputation had the accuracy and ability of this editor borne some\nproportion to his zeal and obvious anxiety to be useful. His first essay\nwas his \u201cCurae Criticae in historiam text\u00fbs Evangeliorum,\u201d in two\ndissertations, Heidelberg, 4to, 1820, containing notices of forty-eight\nParis manuscripts (nine of them hitherto unknown) of which he had fully\ncollated seventeen: the second Dissertation is devoted to Cod. K of the\nGospels. In 1823 appeared his \u201cBiblisch-Kritische Reise,\u201d Leipsic, 8vo,\nBiblio-Critical Travels in France, Switzerland, Italy, Palestine and the\nArchipelago, which Schulz laid under contribution for his improved edition\nof Griesbach\u2019s first volume(230). Scholz\u2019s \u201cN. T. Graece,\u201d 4to, was\npublished at Leipsic, vol. i, 1830 (Gospels); vol. ii, 1836.\n\nThe accession of fresh materials made known in these works is almost\nmarvellous: Scholz was the first to indicate Codd. 260-469 of the Gospels;\n110-192 of the Acts, &c.; 125-246 of St. Paul; 51-89 of the Apocalypse;\n51-181 Evangelistaria; 21-58 Lectionaries of the Apostolos; in all 616\ncursive codices. His additions to the list of the uncials comprise only\nthe three fragments of the Gospels Wa Y and the Vatican leaves of N. Of\nthose examined previously by others he paid most attention to Evan. KX (M\nalso for its synaxaria), and G (now L) Act., Paul.; he moreover inspected\nslightly eighty-two cursive codices of the Gospels after Wetstein, Birch,\nand the rest; collated entire five (Codd. 4, 19, 25, 28, 33), and twelve\nin the greater part, adding much to our knowledge of the important Cod.\n22. In the Acts, &c., he inspected twenty-seven of those known before,\npartially collated two; in St. Paul he collated partially two, slightly\ntwenty-nine; in the Apocalypse sixteen, cursorily enough it would seem\n(_see_ Codd. 21-3): of the Lectionaries he touched more or less thirteen\nof the Gospels, four of the Apostolos. On turning to the 616 codices\nScholz placed on the list for the first time, we find that he collated\nentire but thirteen (viz. five of the Gospels, three of the Acts, &c.,\nthree of St. Paul, one each of the Apocalypse and Evangelistaria): a few\nof the rest he examined throughout the greater part; many in only a few\nchapters; while some were set down from printed Catalogues, whose\nplenteous errors we have used our best endeavours to correct in the\npresent volume, so far as the means were within our reach.\n\nYet, after making a large deduction from our first impressions of the\n_amount_ of labour performed by Scholz, enough and more than enough would\nremain to entitle him to our lasting gratitude, if it were possible to\nplace any tolerable reliance on the correctness of his results. Those who\nare, however superficially, acquainted with the nature of such pursuits,\nwill readily believe that faultless accuracy in representing myriads of\nminute details is not to be looked for from the most diligent and careful\ncritic. Oversights will mar the perfection of the most highly finished of\nhuman efforts; but if adequate care and pains shall have been bestowed on\ndetecting them, such blemishes as still linger unremoved are no real\nsubject of reproach, and do not greatly lessen the value of the work which\ncontains them. But in the case of Scholz\u2019s Greek Testament the fair\nindulgence we must all hope for is abused beyond the bounds of reason or\nmoderation. The student who has had much experience of his volumes,\nespecially if he has ever compared the collations there given with the\noriginal manuscripts, will never dream of resorting to them for\ninformation he can expect to gain elsewhere, or rest with confidence on a\nstatement of fact merely because Scholz asserts it. J. Scott Porter\n(Principles of Textual Criticism, Belfast, 1848, pp. 263-66) and\nTischendorf (N. T., Proleg. c-cii, 7th edition) have dwelt upon his\nstrange blunders, his blind inconsistencies, and his habitual practice of\ncopying from his predecessors without investigation and without\nacknowledgement; so that it is needless for us to repeat or dwell on that\nungracious task(231); but it is our duty to put the student once for all\non his guard against what could not fail to mislead him, and to express\nour sorrow that twelve years and more of hard and persevering toil should,\nthrough mere heedlessness, have been nearly thrown away.\n\nAs was natural in a pupil of J. L. Hug of Freyburg (_see_ vol. i. p. 111),\nwho had himself tried to build a theory of recensions on very slender\ngrounds, Dr. Scholz attempted to settle the text of the N. T. upon\nprinciples which must be regarded as a modification of those of Griesbach.\nIn his earliest work, like that great critic, he had been disposed to\ndivide all extant authorities into five separate classes; but he soon\nreduced them to two, the Alexandrian and the Constantinopolitan. In the\nAlexandrian family he included the whole of Griesbach\u2019s Western recension,\nfrom which indeed it seems vain to distinguish it by any broad line of\ndemarcation: to the other family he referred the great mass of more recent\ndocuments which compose Griesbach\u2019s third or Byzantine class; and to this\nfamily he was inclined to give the preference over the other, as well from\nthe internal excellency of its readings, as because it represents the\nuniform text which had become traditional throughout the Greek Church.\nThat such a standard, public, and authorized text existed he seems to have\ntaken for granted without much enquiry. \u201cCodices qui hoc nomen\n[Constantinopolitanum] habent,\u201d he writes, \u201cparum inter se dissentiunt.\nConferas, quaeso, long\u00e8 plerosque quos huic classi adhaerere dixi, atque\nlectiones diversas viginti trigintave in totidem capitibus vix reperies,\nunde conjicias eos esse accuratissim\u00e8 descriptos, eorumque antigrapha\nparum inter se discrepasse\u201d (N. T., Proleg., vol. i. \u00a7 55). It might have\noccurred to one who had spent so many years in studying Greek manuscripts,\nthat this marvellous concord between the different Byzantine witnesses\n(which is striking enough, no doubt, as we turn over the pages of his\nGreek Testament) is after all due to nothing so much as to the haste and\ncarelessness of collators. The more closely the cursive copies of\nScripture are examined, the more does the individual character of each of\nthem become developed. With certain points of general resemblance, whereby\nthey are distinguished from the older documents of the Alexandrian class,\nthey abound with mutual variations so numerous and perpetual as to vouch\nfor the independent origin of nearly all of them, and their exact study\nhas \u201cswept away at once and for ever\u201d (Tregelles\u2019 \u201cAccount of Printed\nText,\u201d p. 180) the fancy of a standard Constantinopolitan text, and every\ninference that had been grounded upon its presumed existence. If (as we\nfirmly believe) the less ancient codices ought to have their proper weight\nand appreciable influence in fixing the true text of Scripture, our\nfavourable estimate of them must rest on other arguments than Scholz has\nurged in their behalf.\n\nSince this editor\u2019s system of recensions differed thus widely from\nGriesbach\u2019s, in suppressing altogether one of his three classes, and in\nyielding to the third, which the other slighted, a decided preference over\nits surviving rival, it might have been imagined that the consequences of\nsuch discrepancy in theory would have been strongly marked in their\neffects on his text. That such is not the case, at least to any\nconsiderable extent (especially in his second volume), must be imputed in\npart to Griesbach\u2019s prudent reserve in carrying out his principles to\nextremity, but yet more to Scholz\u2019s vacillation and evident weakness of\njudgement. In fact, on his last visit to England in 1845, he distributed\namong Biblical students here a \u201cCommentatio de virtutibus et vitiis\nutriusque codicum N. T. familiae,\u201d that he had just delivered on the\noccasion of some Encaenia at Bonn, in which (after various statements that\ndisplay either ignorance or inattention respecting the ordinary phenomena\nof manuscripts which in a veteran collator is really unaccountable(232))\nhe declares his purpose, chiefly it would seem from considerations of\ninternal evidence, that if ever it should be his lot to prepare another\nedition of the New Testament, \u201cse plerasque codicum Alexandrinorum\nlectiones illas quas in margine interiore textui editionis suae\nAlexandrinas dixit, in textum recepturum\u201d (p. 14). The text which its\nconstructor distrusted, can have but small claim on the faith of others.\n\n14. \u201cNovum Testamentum Graece et Latine, Carolus Lachmannus recensuit,\nPhilippus Buttmannus Ph. F. Graecae lectionis auctoritates apposuit\u201d is\nthe simple title-page of a work, by one of the most eminent philologists\nof his time, the first volume of which (containing the Gospels) appeared\nat Berlin (8vo), 1842, the second and concluding one in 1850, whose\nboldness and originality have procured it, as well for good as for ill, a\nprominent place in the history of the sacred text. Lachmann had published\nas early as 1831 a small edition containing only the text of the New\nTestament, with a list of the readings wherein he differs from that of\nElzevir, preceded by a notice of his plan not exceeding a few lines in\nlength, itself so obscurely worded that even to those who happened to\nunderstand his meaning it must have read like a riddle whose solution they\nhad been told beforehand; and referring us for fuller information to what\nhe strangely considered \u201ca more convenient place,\u201d a German periodical of\nthe preceding year\u2019s date(233). Authors who take so little pains to\nexplain their fundamental principles of criticism, especially if (as in\nthe present case) these are novel and unexpected, can hardly wonder when\ntheir drift and purpose are imperfectly apprehended; so that a little\nvolume, which we now learn had cost Lachmann five years of thought and\nlabour, was confounded, even by the learned, with the mass of common,\nhasty, and superficial reprints. Nor was the difficulty much removed on\nthe publication of the first volume of his larger book. It was then seen,\nindeed, how clean a sweep he had made of the great majority of Greek\nmanuscripts usually cited in critical editions:\u2014in fact he rejects all in\na heap excepting Codd. ABC, the fragments PQTZ (and for some purposes D)\nof the Gospels; DE of the Acts only; DGH of St. Paul. Yet even now he\ntreats the scheme of his work as if it were already familiarly known, and\nspends his time in discursive controversy with his opponents and\nreviewers, whom he chastises with a heartiness which in this country we\nimputed to downright malice, till Tregelles was so good as to instruct us\nthat in Lachmann it was but \u201ca tone of pleasantry,\u201d the horseplay of\ncoarse German wit (Account of Printed Text, p. 112). The supplementary\nProlegomena which preface his second volume of 1850 are certainly more\nexplicit: both from what they teach and from the practical examples they\ncontain, they have probably helped others, as well as myself, in gaining a\nnearer insight into his whole design.\n\nIt seems, then, to have been Lachmann\u2019s purpose, discarding the slightest\nregard for the _textus receptus_ as such, to endeavour to bring the sacred\ntext back to the condition in which it existed during the fourth century,\nand this in the first instance by documentary aid alone, without regarding\nfor the moment whether the sense produced were probable or improbable,\ngood or bad; but looking solely to his authorities, and following them\nimplicitly wheresoever the numerical majority might carry him. For\naccomplishing this purpose he possessed but one Greek copy written as\nearly as the fourth century, Cod. B; and of that he not only knew less\nthan has since come to light (and even this is not quite sufficient), but\nhe did not avail himself of Bartolocci\u2019s papers on Cod. B, to which Scholz\nhad already drawn attention. His other codices were not of the fourth\ncentury at all, but varying in date from the fifth (ACT) to the ninth (G);\nand of these few (of C more especially) his assistant or colleague\nButtmann\u2019s representation was loose, careless, and unsatisfactory. Of the\nGreek Fathers, the scanty Greek remains of Irenaeus and the works of\nOrigen are all that are employed; but considerable weight is given to the\nreadings of the Latin version. The Vulgate is printed at length as\nrevised, after a fashion, by Lachmann himself, from the Codices Fuldensis\nand Amiatinus: the Old Latin manuscripts _abc_, together with the Latin\nversions accompanying the Greek copies which he receives(234), are treated\nas primary authorities: of the Western Fathers he quotes Cyprian, Hilary\nof Poictiers, Lucifer of Cagliari, and in the Apocalypse Primasius also.\nThe Syriac and Egyptian translations he considers himself excused from\nattending to, by reason of his ignorance of their respective languages.\n\nThe consequence of this voluntary poverty where our manuscript treasures\nare so abundant, of this deliberate rejection of the testimony of many\nhundreds of documents, of various countries, dates, and characters, may be\ntold in a few words. Lachmann\u2019s text seldom rests on more than four Greek\ncodices, very often on three, not unfrequently on two; in Matt. vi.\n20-viii. 5, and in 165 out of the 405 verses of the Apocalypse, on but\n_one_. It would have been a grievous thing indeed if we really had no\nbetter means of ascertaining the true readings of the New Testament than\nare contained in this editor\u2019s scanty roll; and he who, for the sake of\nsome private theory, shall presume to shut out from his mind the great\nmass of information God\u2019s Providence has preserved for our use, will\nhardly be thought to have chosen the most hopeful method for bringing\nhimself or others to the knowledge of the truth.\n\nBut supposing, for the sake of argument, that Lachmann had availed himself\nto the utmost of the materials he has selected, and that they were\nadequate for the purpose of leading him up to the state of the text as it\nexisted in the fourth century, would he have made any real advance in the\ncriticism of the sacred volume? Is it not quite evident, even from the\nauthorities contained in his notes, that copies in that age varied as\nwidely\u2014nay even more widely\u2014than they did in later times? that the main\ncorruptions and interpolations which perplex the student in Cod. Bezae and\nits Latin allies, crept in at a period anterior to the age of Constantine?\nFrom the Preface to his second volume (1850) it plainly appears (what\nmight, perhaps, have been gathered by an esoteric pupil from the Preface\nto his first, pp. v, xxxiii), that he regarded this fourth century text,\nfounded as it is on documentary evidence alone, as purely provisional; as\nmere subject-matter on which individual _conjecture_ might advantageously\noperate (Praef. 1850, p. v). Of the many examples wherewith he illustrates\nhis principle we must be content with producing one, as an ample specimen\nboth of Lachmann\u2019s plan and of his judgement in reducing it to practice.\nIn Matt. xxvii. 28 for \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, which gives a perfectly good sense, and\nseems absolutely required by \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f31\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 in ver. 31, _BDabc_ read\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, a variation either borrowed from Mark xv. 17, or more probably\na mere error of the pen. Had the whole range of manuscripts, versions, and\nFathers been searched, no other testimony in favour of \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 could\nhave been found save Cod. 157, _ff_2 and _q_ of the Old Latin, the Latin\nversion of Origen, and a few codices of Chrysostom(235). Against these we\nmight set a vast company of witnesses, exceeding those on the opposite\nside by full a hundred to one; yet because Cod. A and the Latin Vulgate\nalone are on Lachmann\u2019s list, he is compelled by his system to place\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 in the text as the reading of his authorities, reserving to\nhimself the privilege of removing it on the ground of its palpable\nimpropriety: and all this because he wishes to keep the \u201crecensio\u201d of the\ntext distinct from the \u201cemendatio\u201d of the sense (Praef. 1850, p. vi).\nSurely it were a far more reasonable, as well as a more convenient\nprocess, to have reviewed from the first the entire case on both sides,\nand if the documentary evidence were not unevenly balanced, or internal\nevidence strongly preponderated in one scale, to place in the text once\nfor all the reading which upon the whole should appear best suited to the\npassage, and most sufficiently established by authority.\n\nBut while we cannot accord to Lachmann the praise of wisdom in his design,\nor of over-much industry and care in the execution of it (_see_\nTischendorf, N. T., Proleg. pp. cvii-cxii), yet we would not dissemble or\nextenuate the power his edition has exerted over candid and enquiring\nminds. Earnest, single-hearted, a true scholar both in spirit and\naccomplishments, he has had the merit of restoring the Latin versions to\ntheir proper rank in the criticism of the New Testament, which since the\nfailure of Bentley\u2019s schemes they seem to have partially lost. No one will\nhereafter claim for the received text any further weight than it is\nentitled to as the representative of the manuscripts on which it was\nconstructed: and the principle of recurring exclusively to a few ancient\ndocuments in preference to the many (so engaging from its very\nsimplicity), which may be said to have virtually originated with him, has\nnot been without influence with some who condemn the most strongly his\nhasty and one-sided, though consistent, application of it. Lachmann died\nin 1851.\n\n15. \u201cNovum Testamentum Graece. Ad antiquos testes denuo recensuit,\napparatum criticum omni studio perfectum apposuit, commentationem\nisagogicam praetexuit Aenoth. Frid. Const. Tischendorf, editio octava:\u201d\nLipsiae, 1865-1872. This is beyond question the most full and\ncomprehensive edition of the Greek Testament existing; it contains the\nresults of the latest collations and discoveries, and as copious a body of\nvarious readings as is compatible with the design of adapting it for\ngeneral use: though Tischendorf\u2019s notes are not sufficiently minute (as\nregards the cursive manuscripts) to supersede the need of perpetually\nconsulting the labours of preceding critics. His earliest enterprise(236)\nin connexion with Biblical studies was a small edition of the New\nTestament (12mo, 1841), completed at Leipzig in 1840, which, although\ngreatly inferior to his subsequent works, merited the encouragement which\nit procured for him, and the praises of D. Schulz, which he very\ngratefully acknowledged. Soon afterwards he set out on his first literary\njourney: \u201cquod quidem tam pauper suscepi,\u201d he ingenuously declares, \u201cut\npro paenula quam portabam solvere non possem;\u201d and, while busily engaged\non Cod. C, prepared three other editions of the New Testament, which\nappeared in 1843 at Paris, all of them being booksellers\u2019 speculations on\nwhich, perhaps, he set no high value; one inscribed to Guizot, the\nProtestant statesman, a second (having the Greek text placed in a parallel\ncolumn with the Latin Vulgate, and somewhat altered to suit it) dedicated\nto Denys Affre, the Archbishop of Paris who fell so nobly at the\nbarricades in June, 1848. His third edition of that year contained the\nGreek text of the second edition, without the Latin Vulgate. It is\nneedless to enlarge upon the history of his travels, sufficiently\ndescribed by Tischendorf in the Preface to his seventh edition (1859); it\nwill be enough to state that he was in Italy in 1843 and 1866; four times\nhe visited England (1842, 1849, 1855, 1865); and thrice went into the\nEast, where his chief discovery\u2014that of the Cod. Sinaiticus\u2014was ultimately\nmade. In 1849 came forth his second Leipzig or fifth edition of the New\nTestament, showing a very considerable advance upon that of 1841, though,\nin its earlier pages more especially, still very defective, and even as a\nmanual scarce worthy of his rapidly growing fame. The sixth edition was\none stereotyped for Tauchnitz in 1850 (he put forth another stereotyped\nedition in 1862), representing the text of 1849 slightly revised: the\nseventh, and up to that date by far the most important, was issued in\nthirteen parts at Leipsic during the four years 1856-9. It is indeed a\nmonument of persevering industry which the world has not often seen\nsurpassed: yet it was soon to be thrown into the shade by his eighth and\nlatest edition, issued in eleven parts, between 1864 and 1872, the text of\nwhich is complete, but the Prolegomena, to our great loss, were never\nwritten, by reason of his illness and death (Dec. 7, 1874)(237).\n\nYet it may truly be asserted that the reputation of Tischendorf as a\nBiblical scholar rests less on his critical editions of the N. T., than on\nthe texts of the chief uncial authorities which in rapid succession he has\ngiven to the world. In 1843 was published the New Testament, in 1845 the\nOld Testament portion of \u201cCodex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (Cod. C)\u201d, 2\nvols. 4to, in uncial type, with elaborate Prolegomena, notes, and\nfacsimiles. In 1846 appeared \u201cMonumenta sacra inedita,\u201d 4to, containing\ntranscripts of Codd. FaLNWaY\u0398a of the Gospels, and B of the Apocalypse;\nthe plan and apparatus of this volume and of nearly all that follow are\nthe same as in the Codex Ephraemi. In 1846 he also published the Codex\nFriderico-Augustanus in lithographed facsimile throughout, containing the\nresults of his first discovery at Mount Sinai: in 1847 the Evangelium\nPalatinum ineditum of the Old Latin: in 1850 and again in 1854 less\nsplendid but good and useful editions of the Codex Amiatinus of the Latin\nVulgate. His edition of Codex Claromontanus (D of St. Paul), 1852, was of\nprecisely the same nature as his editions of Cod. Ephraemi, &c, but his\nbook entitled \u201cAnecdota sacra et profana,\u201d 1855 (second and enlarged\nedition in 1861), exhibits a more miscellaneous character, comprising\n(together with other matter) transcripts of Oa of the Gospels, M of St.\nPaul; a collation of Cod. 61 of the Acts _being the only cursive copy he\nseems to have examined_; notices and facsimiles of Codd. \u0399\u0393\u039b tisch.(238)\nor Evan. 478 of the Gospels, and of the lectionaries tisch.ev (Evst. 190)\nand tisch.6. f. (Apost. 71). Next was commenced a new series of \u201cMonumenta\nsacra inedita\u201d (projected to consist of nine volumes), on the same plan as\nthe book of 1846. Much of this series is devoted to codices of the\nSeptuagint version, to which Tischendorf paid great attention, and whereof\nhe published four editions (the latest in 1869) hardly worthy of him; but\nvol. i (1855) contains transcripts of Codd. I, venev. (Evst. 175); vol. ii\n(1857) of Codd. NbR\u0398a; vol. iii (1860) of Codd. QWc, all of the Gospels;\nvol. iv (1869) was given up to the Septuagint, as vol. vii would have been\nto the Wolfenb\u00fcttel manuscript of Chrysostom, of the sixth century; but\nCod. P of the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse comprises a portion of vols.\nv (1865) and of vi (1869); while vol. viii was to have been devoted to\npalimpsest fragments of both Testaments, such as we have described amongst\nthe Uncials: the Appendix or vol. ix (1870) contains Cod. E of the Acts,\n&c. An improved edition of his system of Gospel Harmony (Synopsis\nEvangelica, 1851) appeared in 1864, with some fresh critical matter, a\nbetter one in 1871, and the fifth in 1884. His achievements in regard to\nCodd. \u05d0 and \u0392 we have spoken of in their proper places. He published his\n\u201cNotitia Cod. Sinaitici\u201d in 1860, his great edition of that manuscript in\n1862, with full notes and Prolegomena; smaller editions of the New\nTestament only in 1863 and 1865; \u201can Appendix Codd. celeberrimorum\nSinaitici, Vaticani, Alexandrini with facsimiles\u201d in 1867. His marvellous\nyet unsatisfactory edition of Cod. Vaticanus, prepared under the\ndisadvantages we have described, appeared in 1867; its \u201cAppendix\u201d\n(including Cod. B of the Apocalypse) in 1869; his unhappy \u201cResponsa ad\ncalumnias Romanas\u201d in 1870. To this long and varied catalogue must yet be\nadded exact collations of Codd. EGHKMUX Gospels, EGHL Acts, FHL of St.\nPaul, and more, all made for his editions of the N. T. A poor issue of the\nAuthorized English Version of the N. T. was put forth in his name in 1869,\nbeing the thousandth volume of Tauchnitz\u2019s series.\n\nThe consideration of the text of Tischendorf\u2019s several editions will be\ntouched upon in Chapter X. To the _general_ accuracy of his collations\nevery one who has followed him over a portion of his vast field can bear\nand is bound to bear cheerful testimony. For practical purposes his\ncorrectness is quite sufficient, even though one or two who have\naccomplished very much less may have excelled in this respect some at\nleast of his later works. For the unflinching exertions and persevering\ntoil of full thirty years Tischendorf was called upon in 1873 to pay the\nnatural penalty in a stroke of paralysis, which prostrated his strong\nframe, and put a sudden end to his most fruitful studies. He was born at\nLengenfeld in the kingdom of Saxony in 1815 and died in 1874, having\nnearly completed his sixtieth year(239).\n\n16. \u201cThe Greek New Testament, edited from ancient authorities; with the\nvarious readings of all the ancient MSS., the ancient versions, and other\necclesiastical writers (to Eusebius inclusive); together with the Latin\nversion of Jerome, from the Codex Amiatinus of the sixth century. By\nSamuel Prideaux Tregelles, LL.D.\u201d 4to, 1857-1872, pp. 1017. [Appendix by\nDr. Hort, 1879, pp. i-xxxii; 1018-1069.]\n\nThe esteemed editor of the work of which the above is the full title,\nfirst became generally known as the author of \u201cThe Book of Revelation in\nGreek, edited from ancient authorities; with a new English Version,\u201d 1844:\nand, in spite of some obvious blemishes and defects, his attempt was\nreceived in the English Church with the gratitude and respect to which his\nthorough earnestness and independent views justly entitled him. He had\narranged in his own mind as early as 1838 the plan of a Greek Testament,\nwhich he announced on the publication of the Apocalypse, and now set\nhimself vigorously to accomplish. His fruitless endeavour to collate Cod.\nB has already been mentioned, but when he was on the continent in 1845-6,\nand again in 1849-50, also in 1862, he thoroughly examined all the\nmanuscripts he could meet with, that fell within the compass of his\ndesign. In 1854 he published a volume full of valuable information, and\nintended as a formal exposition of his critical principles, intitled \u201cAn\nAccount of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament.\u201d In 1856 he\nre-wrote, rather than re-edited, that portion of the Rev. T. Hartwell\nHorne\u2019s well-known \u201cIntroduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of\nthe Holy Scriptures\u201d which relates to the New Testament, under the title\nof \u201cAn Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,\u201d\n&c.(240) In 1857 appeared, for the use of subscribers only, the Gospels of\nSS. Matthew and Mark, as the first part of his \u201cGreek New Testament\u201d (pp.\n1-216); early in 1861 the second part, containing SS. Luke and John (pp.\n217-488), with but a few pages of \u201cIntroductory Notice\u201d in each. In that\nyear, paralysis, _mercurialium pestis virorum_, for a while suspended our\neditor\u2019s too assiduous labours: but he recovered health sufficient to\npublish the Acts and Catholic Epistles in 1865, the Epistles of St. Paul\ndown to 2 Thess. in 1869. Early in 1870, while in the act of revising the\nconcluding chapters of the Apocalypse, he was visited by a second and very\nsevere stroke of his fell disease. The remaining portion of the Pauline\nEpistles was sent out in 1870 as he had himself prepared it; the\nRevelation (alas! without the long-desired Prolegomena) in 1872, as well\nas the state of Tregelles\u2019 papers would enable his friends S. J. B.\nBloxsidge and B. W. Newton to perform their office. The revered author\ncould contribute nothing save a message to his subscribers, full of devout\nthankfulness and calm reliance on the Divine wisdom. The text of the\nApocalypse differs from that which he arranged in 1844 in about 229\nplaces.\n\nExcept Codd. \u039f\u039e, which were published in 1861 (_see_ under those MSS.),\nthis critic has not edited in full the text of any document, but his\nrenewed collations of manuscripts are very extensive: viz. Codd.\nEGHKMNbRUXZ\u0393\u039b 1, 33, 69 of the Gospels; HL 13, 31, 61 of the Acts; DFL 1,\n17, 37 of St. Paul, 1, 14 of the Apocalypse, _Am._ of the Vulgate. Having\nfollowed Tregelles through the whole of Cod. 69 (Act. 31, Paul. 37, Apoc.\n14), I am able to speak positively of his scrupulous exactness, and in\nregard to other manuscripts now in England it will be found that, where\nTischendorf and Tregelles differ, the latter is seldom in the wrong. To\nthe versions and Fathers (especially to Origen and Eusebius) he has\ndevoted great attention. His volume is a beautiful specimen of\ntypography(241), and its arrangement is very convenient, particularly his\nhappy expedient for showing at every open leaf the precise authorities\nthat are extant at that place.\n\nThe peculiarity of Tregelles\u2019 system is intimated, rather than stated, in\nthe title-page of his Greek N. T. It consists in resorting to \u201cancient\nauthorities\u201d alone in the construction of his revised text, and in\nrefusing not only to the received text, but to the great mass of\nmanuscripts also, all voice in determining the true readings. This scheme,\nalthough from the history he gives of his work (An Account of Printed\nText, pp. 153, &c.), it was apparently devised independently of Lachmann,\nis in fact essentially that great scholar\u2019s plan, after those parts of it\nare withdrawn which are manifestly indefensible. Tregelles\u2019 \u201cancient\nauthorities\u201d are thus reduced to those manuscripts which, not being\nLectionaries, happen to be written in uncial characters, with the\nremarkable exceptions of Codd. 1, 33, 69 of the Gospels, 61 of the Acts,\nwhich he admits because they \u201cpreserve an ancient text.\u201d We shall\nhereafter enquire (Chap. X) whether the text of the N. T. can safely be\ngrounded on a basis so narrow as that of Tregelles.\n\nThis truly eminent person, born at Falmouth of a Quaker family January 30,\n1813, received what education he ever got at Falmouth Classical School (of\nwhich I was Master twenty years later), from 1825 to 1828. At an early age\nhe left the communion in which he was bred, to join a body called the\nPlymouth Brethren, among whom he met with much disquietude and some mild\npersecution: his last years were more happily spent as a humble lay member\nof the Church of England, a fact he very earnestly begged me to keep in\nmind(242). The critical studies he took up as early as 1838, when he was\nonly twenty-five years old, were the main occupation of his life. The\ninconvenient and costly form in which he published his Greek Testament,\nbrought upon him pecuniary loss, and even trenched upon the moderate\nfortune of his true and loving wife. After several years of deep\nretirement he died at Plymouth, April 24, 1875: and whereas his widow, who\nhas since followed him to the other world, was anxious that his great work\nshould be as far as possible completed, Dr. Hort has manifested his\nveneration for an honoured memory by publishing in 1879 an \u201cAppendix\u201d to\nthe Greek New Testament, embracing what materials for Prolegomena\nTregelles\u2019 published writings supplied, and supplementary corrections to\nevery page of the main work, compiled by the Rev. A. W. Streane, Fellow of\nC. C. C, Cambridge, which comprise a wonderful monument of minute\ndiligence and devotion.\n\nOf Tischendorf and Tregelles, that duumvirate of Biblical critics, I may\nbe allowed to repeat a few words, extracted from the Preface to the Greek\nTestament of 1876, in the series of \u201cCambridge Texts:\u201d \u201cEheu quos viros!\nnatu fer\u00e8 aequales, indole et fam\u00e2 satis dispares, ambo semper in adversum\nnitentes, ambo piis laboribus infractos, intra paucos menses mors abripuit\nimmatura.\u201d\n\n17. \u201cThe New Testament in the original Greek. The text revised by Brooke\nFoss Westcott, D.D. [Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of\nCambridge], and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. [Hulsean Professor of\nDivinity there]. Vol. I. Cambridge and London, 1881.\u201d \u201cIntroduction and\nAppendix,\u201d in a separate volume, by Dr. Hort only, 1881. This important\nand comprehensive work, the joint labour of two of the best scholars of\nthis age, toiling, now separately, now in counsel, for five and twenty\nyears, was published, the text a few days earlier than the Revised English\nVersion (May 17, 1881), the Introduction about four months later. The\ntext, or one almost identical with it, had been submitted to the Revisers\nof the N. T., and to a few other Biblical students, several years before,\nso that the general tenor and spirit of our authors\u2019 judgement was known\nto many: the second edition of my present work was enriched by the free\npermission granted by them to announce their conclusions regarding\npassages which come up for discussion in Chapter XII, and elsewhere. Drs.\nWestcott and Hort depart more widely from the _textus receptus_ than any\nprevious editor had thought necessary; nor can they be blamed for carrying\nout their deliberate convictions, if the reasons they allege shall prove\nsufficient to justify them. Those reasons are given at length by Dr. Hort\nin his \u201cIntroduction,\u201d a treatise whose merits may be frankly acknowledged\nby persons the least disposed to accept his arguments: never was a cause,\ngood or bad in itself, set off with higher ability and persuasive power.\nOn the validity of his theory we shall have much to say in Chapters X and\nXII, to which we here refer once for all. The elegant volume which\nexhibits the Greek text contains in its margin many alternative readings,\nchiefly recorded in passages wherein a difference of opinion existed\nbetween the two illustrious editors. Words or passages supposed to be of\ndoubtful authority are included in brackets ([ ]), those judged to be\nprobably or certainly spurious\u2014and their number is ominously large\u2014in\ndouble brackets ([[ ]]). Mark xvi. 9-20; John vii. 53-viii. 11 are\nbanished to the end of their respective Gospels, as if they did not belong\nto them. Finally, quotations from and even slight allusions to the Old\nTestament, in great but judicious plenty, are printed in a kind of uncial\nletter, to the great benefit of the student.\n\nThis notice cannot be left without an expression of deep regret upon the\nloss of Dr. Hort at a comparatively early age. Much as the author of this\nwork and the editor of this edition has differed from the views of that\ndistinguished man, the services which he has rendered in many ways to the\ncause of sacred textual criticism cannot here be forgotten or\nunrecognized. His assiduity and thoroughness are a pattern to all who come\nafter him.\n\n18. The text constructed by the English Revisers in preparation for their\nRevised Translation was published in two forms at Oxford and Cambridge\nrespectively in 1881. The Oxford edition, under the care of Archdeacon\nPalmer, incorporated in the text the readings adopted by the Revisers with\nthe variations at the foot of the Authorized edition of 1611, of\nStephanus\u2019 third edition published in 1550, and of the margin of the\nRevised Version. The Cambridge edition, under the care of Dr. Scrivener,\ngave the Authorized text with the variations of the Revisers mentioned at\nthe foot. Both editions are admirably edited. The number of variations\nadopted by the Revisers, which are generally based upon the principles\nadvocated by Westcott and Hort, has been estimated by Dr. Scrivener at\n5,337 (Burgon\u2019s \u201cRevision Revised,\u201d p. 405). The titles in full of these\ntwo editions are:\u2014\n\n1. The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed\nin the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in the\nRevised Version. Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press,\nby F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., L.L.D., Prebendary of Exeter and\nVicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.\n\n2. \u0397 \u039a\u0391\u0399\u039d\u0397 \u0394\u0399\u0391\u0398\u0397\u039a\u0397. The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the\nRevisers of the Authorized Version. Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1881.\n[Preface by the Editor, Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.]\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. INTERNAL EVIDENCE.\n\n\nWe have now described, in some detail, the several species of external\ntestimony available for the textual criticism of the New Testament,\nwhether comprising manuscripts of the original Greek, or ancient\ntranslations from it, or citations from Scripture made by ecclesiastical\nwriters. We have, moreover, indicated the chief editions wherein all these\nmaterials are recorded for our use, and the principles that have guided\ntheir several editors in applying them to the revision of the text. One\nsource of information, formerly deemed quite legitimate, has been\ndesignedly passed by. It is now agreed among competent judges that\n_Conjectural Emendation_ must never be resorted to, even in passages of\nacknowledged difficulty(243); the absence of proof that a reading proposed\nto be substituted for the common one is actually supported by some\ntrustworthy document being of itself a fatal objection to our receiving\nit(244). Those that have been hazarded aforetime by celebrated scholars,\nwhen but few codices were known or actually collated, have seldom, very\nseldom, been confirmed by subsequent researches: and the time has now\nfully come when, in the possession of abundant stores of variations\ncollected from memorials of almost every age and country, we are fully\nauthorized in believing that the reading to which no manuscript, or old\nversion, or primitive Father has borne witness, however plausible and (for\nsome purposes) convenient, cannot safely be accepted as genuine or even as\nprobable; even though there may still remain a few passages respecting\nwhich we cannot help framing a shrewd suspicion that the original reading\ndiffered from any form in which they are now presented to us(245).\n\nIn no wise less dangerous than bare conjecture destitute of external\nevidence, is the device of Lachmann for unsettling by means of emendation\n(_emendando_), without reference to the balance of conflicting testimony,\nthe very text he had previously fixed by revision (_recensendo_) through\nthe means of critical authorities: in fact the earlier process is but so\nmuch trouble misemployed, if its results are liable to be put aside by\nabstract judgement or individual prejudices. Not that the most sober and\ncautious critic would disparage the fair use of internal evidence, or\nwithhold their proper influence from those reasonable considerations which\nin practice cannot, and in speculation should not, be shut out from every\nsubject on which the mind seeks to form an intelligent opinion. Whether we\nwill or not, we unconsciously and almost instinctively adopt that one of\ntwo opposite statements, _in themselves pretty equally attested to_, which\nwe judge the better suited to recognized phenomena, and to the common\ncourse of things. I know of no person who has affected to construct a text\nof the N. T. on diplomatic grounds exclusively, without paying some regard\nto the character of the sense produced; nor, were the experiment tried,\nwould any one find it easy to dispense with discretion and the dictates of\ngood sense: nature would prove too strong for the dogmas of a wayward\ntheory. \u201cIt is difficult not to indulge in _subjectiveness_, at least in\nsome measure,\u201d writes Dr. Tregelles (Account of Printed Text, p. 109):\nand, thus qualified, we may add that it is one of those difficulties a\nsane man would not wish to overcome.\n\nThe foregoing remarks may tend to explain the broad distinction between\nmere conjectural emendation, which must be utterly discarded, and that\njust use of internal testimony which he is the best critic who most\njudiciously employs. They so far resemble each other, as they are both\nproducts of the reasoning faculty exercising itself on the sacred words of\nScripture: they differ in this essential feature, that the one proceeds in\nignorance or disregard of evidence from without, while the office of the\nother has no place unless where external evidence is evenly, or at any\nrate not very unevenly, balanced. What degree of preponderance in favour\nof one out of several readings, all of them affording some tolerable\nsense, shall entitle it to reception as a matter of right; to what extent\ncanons of subjective criticism may be allowed to eke out the scantiness of\ndocumentary authority; are points that cannot well be defined with strict\naccuracy. Men\u2019s decisions respecting them will always vary according to\ntheir temperament and intellectual habits; the judgement of the same\nperson (the rather if he be by constitution a little unstable) will\nfluctuate from time to time as to the same evidence brought to bear on the\nself-same passage. Though the _canons_ or rules of internal testimony be\nthemselves grounded either on principles of common sense, or on certain\npeculiarities which all may mark in the documents from which our direct\nproofs are derived; yet has it been found by experience (what indeed we\nmight have looked for beforehand), that in spite, perhaps in consequence,\nof their extreme simplicity, the application of these canons has proved a\nsearching test of the tact, the sagacity, and the judicial acumen of all\nthat handle them. For the other functions of an editor accuracy and\nlearning, diligence and zeal are sufficient: but the delicate adjustment\nof conflicting probabilities calls for no mean exercise of a critical\ngenius. This innate faculty we lack in Wetstein, and notably in Scholz; it\nwas highly developed in Mill and Bengel, and still more in Griesbach. His\nwell-known power in this respect is the main cause of our deep regret for\nthe failure of Bentley\u2019s projected work, with all its faults whether of\nplan or execution.\n\n                  \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nNearly all the following rules of internal evidence, being founded in the\nnature of things, are alike applicable to all subjects of literary\ninvestigation, though their general principles may need some modification\nin the particular instance of the Greek Testament.\n\nI. PROCLIVI SCRIPTIONI PRAESTAT ARDUA: the more difficult the reading the\nmore likely it is to be genuine. It would seem more probable that the\ncopyist tried to explain an obscure passage, or to relieve a hard\nconstruction, than to make that perplexed which before was easy: thus in\nJohn vii. 39, Lachmann\u2019s addition of \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd to \u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is\nvery improbable, though countenanced by Cod. B and (of course) by several\nof the chief versions. We have here Bengel\u2019s prime canon, and although\nWetstein questioned it (N. T., vol. i. Proleg. p. 157), he was himself\nultimately obliged to lay down something nearly to the same effect(246).\nYet this excellent rule may easily be applied on a wrong occasion, and is\nonly true _ceteris paribus_, where manuscripts or versions lend strong\nsupport to the harder form. \u201cTo force readings into the text merely\nbecause they are difficult, is to adulterate the divine text with human\nalloy; it is to obtrude upon the reader of Scripture the solecisms of\nfaltering copyists, in the place of the word of God\u201d (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth,\nN. T., vol. i. Preface, p. xii)(247). See Chap. XII on Matt. xxi. 28-31.\nCompare also above, Vol. I. i. \u00a7 11.\n\nII. That reading out of several is preferable, from which all the rest may\nhave been derived, although it could not be derived from any of them.\nTischendorf (N. T., Proleg. p. xlii. 7th edition) might well say that this\nwould be \u201comnium regularum principium,\u201d if its application were less\nprecarious. Of his own two examples the former is too weakly vouched for\nto be listened to, save by way of illustration. In Matt. xxiv. 38 he(248)\nand Alford would simply read \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 on the very\nfeeble evidence of Cod. L, one uncial Evst. (13), _a_ _e_ _ff_, the\nSahidic version, and Origen (in two places); because the copyists, knowing\nthat the eating and drinking and marrying took place not in the days of\nthe flood, but before them (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 ver.\n39), would strive to evade the difficulty, such as it was, by adopting one\nof the several forms found in our copies: \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb., or\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb., or \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb., or\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb., or even \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u1ff6\u03b5. In his\nsecond example Tischendorf is more fortunate, unless indeed we choose to\nrefer it rather to Bengel\u2019s canon. James iii. 12 certainly ought to run \u03bc\u1f74\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c3\u03c5\u03ba\u1fc6 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f22 \u1f04\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u1fe6\u03ba\u03b1; \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 (_vel_\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72) \u1f01\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u1f7a \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1, as in Codd. \u05d0ABC, in not less than six\ngood cursives, the Vulgate and other versions. To soften the ruggedness of\nthis construction, some copies prefixed \u03bf\u1f45\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 to \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 or \u03bf\u1f54\u03b4\u03b5, while\nothers inserted the whole clause \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u1f74 \u1f01\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03af before\n\u03b3\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u1f7a \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1. Other fair instances may be seen in Chap. XII, notes\non Luke x. 41, 42; Col. ii. 2(249). In the Septuagint also the reading of\n\u05d0 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 1 Macc. xii. 48 appears to be the origin both of\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 with A, the uncial 23, and four cursives at least, and of\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 of the Roman edition and the mass of cursives.\n\nIII. \u201cBrevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium auctoritate\npenitus destituatur, praeferenda est verbosiori. Librarii enim mult\u00f2\nproniores ad addendum fuerunt, quam ad omittendum\u201d (Griesbach, N. T.,\nProleg. p. lxiv. vol. i). This canon bears an influential part in the\nsystem of Griesbach and his successors, and by the aid of Cod. B and a few\nothers, has brought great changes into the text as approved by some\ncritics. Dr. Green too (Course of Developed Criticism on Text of N. T.)\nsometimes carries it to excess in his desire to remove what he considers\n_accretions_. It is so far true, that scribes were no doubt prone to\nreceive marginal notes into the text which they were originally designed\nonly to explain or enforce (e.g. 1 John v. 7, 8)(250); or sought to\namplify a brief account from a fuller narrative of the same event found\nelsewhere, whether in the same book (e.g. Act. ix. 5 compared with ch.\nxxvi. 14), or in the parallel passage of one of the other synoptical\nGospels. In quotations, also, from the Old Testament the shorter form is\nalways the more probably correct (_ibid._). Circumstances too will be\nsupplied which were deemed essential for the preservation of historical\ntruth (e.g. Act. viii. 37), or names of persons and places may be inserted\nfrom the Lectionaries: and to this head we must refer the graver and more\ndeliberate interpolations so frequently met with in Cod. D and a few other\ndocuments. Yet it is just as true that words and clauses are sometimes\nwilfully omitted for the sake of removing apparent difficulties (e.g. \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, Matt, xxiii. 35 in Cod. \u05d0 and a few others), and that the\nnegligent loss of whole passages through \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd is common to\nmanuscripts of every age and character. On the whole, therefore, the\nindiscriminate rejection of portions of the text regarded as\nsupplementary, on the evidence of but a few authorities, must be viewed\nwith considerable distrust and suspicion.\n\nIV. That reading of a passage is preferable which best suits the peculiar\nstyle, manner, and habits of thought of an author; it being the tendency\nof copyists to overlook the idiosyncrasies of the writer. For example, the\nabrupt energy of St. James\u2019 _asyndeta_ (e.g. ch. i. 27), of which we have\njust seen a marked instance, is much concealed by the particles inserted\nby the common text (e.g. ch. ii. 4, 13; iii. 17; iv. 2; v. 6): St. Luke in\nthe Acts is fond of omitting \u201csaid\u201d or \u201csaith\u201d after the word indicating\nthe speaker, though they are duly supplied by recent scribes (e.g. ch. ii.\n38; ix. 5; xix. 2; xxv. 22; xxv. 28, 29). Thus again, in editing\nHerodotus, an Ionic form is more eligible than an Attic one equally well\nattested, while in the Greek Testament an Alexandrian termination should\nbe chosen under similar circumstances. Yet even this canon has a double\nedge: habit or the love of critical correction will sometimes lead the\nscribe to change the text to his author\u2019s more usual style, as well as to\ndepart from it through inadvertence (_see_ Acts iv. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 24): so\nthat we may securely apply the rule only where the external evidence is\nnot unequally balanced.\n\nV. Attention must be paid to the genius and usage of each several\nauthority, in assigning the weight due to it in a particular instance.\nThus the testimony of Cod. B is of the less influence in omissions, that\nof Cod. D (Bezae) in additions, inasmuch as the tendency of the former is\nto abridge, that of the latter to amplify the sacred text. The value of\nversions and ecclesiastical writers also much depends on the degree of\ncare and critical skill which they display.\n\nEvery one of the foregoing rules might be applied _mutatis mutandis_ to\nthe emendation of the text of any author whose works have suffered\nalteration since they left his hands: the next (so far as it is true) is\npeculiar to the case of Holy Scripture.\n\nVI. \u201cInter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspect\u00e2 merito habetur,\nquae orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifest\u00e8 prae ceteris favet\u201d (Griesbach, N.\nT., Proleg., p. lxvi. vol. i). I cite this canon from Griesbach for the\nsake of annexing Archbishop Magee\u2019s very pertinent corollary: \u201cfrom which,\nat least, it is reasonable to infer, that whatever readings, in favour of\nthe Orthodox opinion, may have had _his_ sanction, have not been preferred\nby him from any bias in behalf of Orthodoxy\u201d (Discourses on Atonement and\nSacrifice, vol. iii. p. 212). Alford says that the rule, \u201csound in the\nmain,\u201d does not hold good, when, \u201c_whichever reading is adopted, the\northodox meaning is legitimate_, but _the adoption of the stronger\northodox reading is absolutely incompatible with the heretical\nmeaning_,\u2014then it is probable that _such stronger orthodox reading was the\noriginal_\u201d (N. T., Proleg., vol. i. p. 83, note 6, 4th edition):\ninstancing Act. xx. 28, where the weaker reading \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\nwould quite satisfy the orthodox, while the alternative reading \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u201cwould have been certain to be altered by the heretics.\u201d But in truth\nthere seems no good ground for believing that the rule is \u201csound in the\nmain,\u201d though two or three such instances as 1 Tim. iii. 16(251) and the\ninsertion of \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd in Jude, ver. 4, might seem to countenance it. We\ndissent altogether from Griesbach\u2019s statement, \u201cScimus enim, lectiones\nquascunque, etiam manifest\u00f2 falsas, dummodo orthodoxorum placitis\npatrocinarentur, inde a tertii seculi initiis mordicus defensas seduloque\npropagatas, ceteras autem ejusdem loci lectiones, quae dogmati\necclesiastico nil praesidii afferrent, haereticorum perfidiae attributas\ntemere fuisse\u201d (Griesb. _ubi supra_), if he means that the orthodox forged\nthose great texts, which, _believing them to be authentic_, it was surely\ninnocent and even incumbent on them to employ(252). The Church of Christ\n\u201cinde a tertii seculi initiis\u201d has had her faults, many and grievous, but\nshe never did nor shall fail in her duty as a faithful \u201cwitness and keeper\nof Holy Writ.\u201d But while vindicating the copyists of Scripture from all\nwilful tampering with the text, we need not deny that they, like others of\ntheir craft, preferred that one out of several extant readings that seemed\nto give the fullest and most emphatic sense: hence Davidson would fain\naccount for the addition \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n(which, however, is not unlikely to be genuine(253)) in Eph. v. 30. Since\nthe mediaeval scribes belonged almost universally to the monastic orders,\nwe will not dispute the truth of Griesbach\u2019s rule, \u201cLectio prae aliis\nsensum pietati (praesertim monasticae) alendae aptum fundens, suspecta\nest,\u201d though its scope is doubtless very limited(254). Their habit of\ncomposing and transcribing Homilies has also been supposed to have led\nthem to give a hortatory form to positive commands or dogmatic statements\n(_see_ Vol. I. p. 17), but there is much weight in Wordsworth\u2019s remark,\nthat \u201csuch suppositions as these have a tendency to destroy the credit of\nthe ancient MSS.; and if such surmises were true, those MSS. would hardly\nbe worth the pains of collating them\u201d (_note on_ 1 Cor. xv. 49).\n\nVII. \u201cApparent probabilities of erroneous transcription, permutation of\nletters, itacism and so forth,\u201d have been designated by Bp. Ellicott\n\u201c_paradiplomatic_ evidence\u201d (Preface to the Galatians; p. xvii, first\nedition), as distinguished from the \u201c_diplomatic_\u201d testimony of codices,\nversions, &c. This species of evidence, which can hardly be deemed\ninternal, must have considerable influence in numerous cases, and will be\nused the most skilfully by such as have considerable practical\nacquaintance with the rough materials of criticism. We have anticipated\nwhat can be laid before inexperienced readers on this topic in the first\nchapter of our first volume, when discussing the sources of various\nreadings(255): in fact, so far as canons of internal or of paradiplomatic\nevidence are at all trustworthy, they instruct us in the reverse process\nto that aimed at in Vol. I. Chap. I; the latter showing by what means the\npure text of the inspired writings was brought into its present state of\n_partial_ corruption, the former promising us some guidance while we seek\nto retrace its once downward course back to the fountain-head of primeval\ntruth(256). To what has been previously stated in regard to paradiplomatic\ntestimony it may possibly be worth while to add Griesbach\u2019s caution\n\u201clectiones RHYTHMI fallaci\u00e2 facillim\u00e8 explicandae nullius sunt pretii\u201d (N.\nT., Proleg. p. lxvi), a fact whereof 2 Cor. iii. 3 affords a memorable\nexample. Here what once seemed the wholly unnatural reading \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u1f76\n_\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2_ \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, being disparaged by dint of the rhyming termination,\nis received by Lachmann in the place of \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, on the authority of Codd.\nAB (_sic_) CDEGLP, perhaps a majority of cursive copies (seven out of\nScrivener\u2019s twelve, and Wake 12 or Paul. 277); to which add Cod. \u05d0 unknown\nto Lachmann, and that abject slave of manuscripts, the Harkleian Syriac.\nCodd. FK have \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, with all the other versions. If we attempt to\ninterpret \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, we must either render with Alford, in spite of the\norder of the Greek, \u201con fleshy tables, [your] hearts:\u201d or with the\nRevisers of 1881 \u201cin tables _that are_ hearts of flesh;\u201d yet surely\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 as well as \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 must agree with \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03af. Dr. Hort in mere\ndespair would almost reject the second \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03af (Introd., Notes, p. 119).\n\nIt has been said that \u201cwhen the cause of a various reading is known, the\nvariation usually disappears(257).\u201d This language may seem extravagant,\nyet it hardly exaggerates what may be effected by internal evidence, when\nit is clear, simple, and unambiguous. It is, therefore, much to be\nlamented that this is seldom the case in practice. Readings that we should\nuphold in virtue of one canon, are very frequently (perhaps in a majority\nof really doubtful passages) brought into suspicion by means of another;\nyet they shall each of them be perfectly sound and reasonable in their\nproper sphere. An instance in point is Matt. v. 22, where the external\nevidence is divided. Codd. \u05d0\u0392 (in \u0394 _secund\u00e2 manu_), 48, 198, 583, 587,\nOrigen _twice_, the Ethiopic and Vulgate, omit \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6 after \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f41\n\u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, Jerome fairly stating that it is \u201cin\nquibusdam codicibus,\u201d not \u201cin veris,\u201d which may be supposed to be Origen\u2019s\nMSS., and therefore removing it from his revised Latin version. It is\nfound, however, in all other extant copies (including \u03a3DEKLMSUV\u0394 (_prim\u00e2\nmanu_) \u03a0, most cursives, all the Syriac (the Peshitto inserting, not a\nSyriac equivalent, but the Greek word \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6) and Old Latin copies, the\nBohairic, Armenian, and Gothic versions), in Eusebius, in many Greek\nFathers, in the Latin Fathers from Irenaeus downwards(258), and even in\nthe Old Latin Version of Origen himself; the later authorities uniting\nwith Codd. \u03a3D and their associates against the two oldest manuscripts\nextant. Under such circumstances the suggestions of internal evidence\nwould be precious indeed, were not that just as equivocal as diplomatic\nproof. \u201cGriesbach and Meyer,\u201d says Dean Alford, \u201chold it to have been\nexpunged from motives of moral rigorism:\u2014De Wette to have been inserted to\nsoften the apparent rigour of the precept(259).\u201d Our sixth Canon is here\nopposed to our first(260). The important yet precarious and strictly\nauxiliary nature of rules of internal evidence will not now escape the\nattentive student; he may find them exemplified very slightly and\nimperfectly in the twelfth Chapter of this volume, but more fully by\nrecent critical editors of the Greek Testament; except perhaps by\nTregelles, who usually passes them by in silence, though to some extent\nthey influence his decisions; by Lachmann, in the formation of whose\nprovisional text they have had no share; and by Dean Burgon, who held that\n\u201cwe must resolutely maintain, that External Evidence must after all be our\nbest, our only safe guide\u201d (The Revision Revised, p. 19)(261). We will\nclose this investigation by citing a few of those crisp little periods\n(conceived in the same spirit as our own remarks) wherewith Davidson is\nwont to inform and sometimes perhaps to amuse his admirers:\n\n\n    \u201cReadings must be judged on internal grounds. One can hardly avoid\n    doing so. It is natural and almost unavoidable. It must be\n    admitted indeed that the choice of readings on internal evidence\n    is liable to abuse. Arbitrary caprice may characterize it. It may\n    degenerate into simple _subjectivity_. But though the temptation\n    to misapply it be great, it must not be laid aside.... While\n    allowing superior weight to the external sources of evidence, we\n    feel the pressing necessity of the subjective. Here, as in other\n    instances, the objective and subjective should accompany and\n    modify one another. They cannot be rightly separated.\u201d (Biblical\n    Criticism, vol. ii. p. 374, 1852.)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX. HISTORY OF THE TEXT.\n\n\nAn adequate discussion of the subject of the present chapter would need a\ntreatise by itself, and has been the single theme of several elaborate\nworks. We shall here limit ourselves to the examination of those more\nprominent topics, a clear understanding of which is essential for the\nestablishment of trustworthy principles in the application of _external_\nevidence to the correction of the text of the New Testament.\n\n1. It was stated at the commencement of this volume that the autographs of\nthe sacred writers \u201cperished utterly in the very infancy of Christian\nhistory:\u201d nor can any other conclusion be safely drawn from the general\nsilence of the earliest Fathers, and from their constant habit of\nappealing to \u201cancient and approved copies(262),\u201d when a reference to the\noriginals, if extant, would have put an end to all controversy on the\nsubject of various readings. Dismissing one passage in the genuine\nEpistles of Ignatius (d. 107), which has no real connexion with the\nmatter(263), the only allusion to the autographs of Scripture met with in\nthe primitive ages is the well-known declaration of Tertullian (fl. 200):\n\u201cPercurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae\nApostolorum suis locis praesident, apud quas ipsae Authenticae Literae\neorum recitantur, sonantes vocem, et repraesentantes faciem uniuscujusque.\nProxim\u00e8 est tibi Achaia, habes Corinthum. Si non long\u00e8 es a Macedoni\u00e2,\nhabes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes in Asiam tendere, habes\nEphesum. Si autem Italiae adjaces, habes Romam ...\u201d (De Praescriptione\nHaereticorum, c. 36.) Attempts have been made, indeed, and that by eminent\nwriters, to reduce the term \u201cAuthenticae Literae\u201d so as to mean nothing\nmore than \u201cgenuine, unadulterated Epistles,\u201d or even the authentic Greek\nas opposed to the Latin translation(264). It seems enough to reply with\nErnesti, that any such non-natural sense is absolutely excluded by the\nword \u201cipsae,\u201d which would be utterly absurd, if \u201cgenuine\u201d only were\nintended (Institutes, Pt. iii. Ch. ii. 3)(265): yet the African Tertullian\nwas too little likely to be well informed on this subject, to entitle his\nrhetorical statement to any real attention(266). We need not try to\nexplain away his obvious meaning, but we may fairly demur to the evidence\nof this honest, but impetuous and wrong-headed man. We have no faith in\nthe continued existence of autographs which are vouched for on no better\nauthority than the real or apparent exigency of _his_ argument(267).\n\n2. Besides the undesigned and, to a great extent, unavoidable differences\nsubsisting between manuscripts of the New Testament within a century of\nits being written, the wilful corruptions introduced by heretics soon\nbecame a cause of loud complaint in the primitive ages of the Church(268).\nDionysius, Bishop of Corinth, addressing the Church of Rome and Soter its\nBishop (A.D. 168-176), complains that even his own letters had been\ntampered with: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b6\u03b9\u03b6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f03\n\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f03 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2; \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9: adding, however,\nthe far graver offence, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1fe5\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\n\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv. 23), where \u03b1\u1f31 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03af can be none other than the Holy Scriptures. Nor was the evil new in\nthe age of Dionysius. Not to mention Asclepiades, or Theodotus, or\nHermophylus, or Apollonides, who all under the excuse of correcting the\nsacred text corrupted it(269), or the Gnostics Basilides (A.D. 130?) and\nValentinus (A.D. 150?) who published additions to the sacred text which\nwere avowedly of their own composition, Marcion of Pontus, the\narch-heretic of that period, coming to Rome on the death of its Bishop\nHyginus (A.D. 142)(270), brought with him that mutilated and falsified\ncopy of the New Testament, against which the Fathers of the second century\nand later exerted all their powers, and whose general contents are known\nto us chiefly through the writings of Tertullian and subsequently of\nEpiphanius. It can hardly be said that Marcion deserves very particular\nmention in relating the history of the sacred text(271). Some of the\nvariations from the common readings which his opponents detected were\ndoubtless taken from manuscripts in circulation at the time, and, being\nadopted through no private preferences of his own, are justly available\nfor critical purposes. Thus in 1 Thess. ii. 15, Tertullian, who saw only\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 in his own copies, objects to Marcion\u2019s reading \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 (\u201clicet _suos_ adjectio sit haeretici\u201d), although \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 stands\nin the received text, in Evann. KL (DE in later hands) and all cursives\nexcept eight, in the Gothic and both (?) Syriac versions, in Chrysostom,\nTheodoret, and John Damascenus. Here the heretic\u2019s testimony is useful in\nshowing the high antiquity of \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, even though \u05d0ABDEFGP, eight\ncursives, Origen thrice, the Vulgate, Armenian, Ethiopic, and all three\nEgyptian versions, join with Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott\nand Hort in rejecting it, some of them perhaps in compliance with\nTertullian\u2019s decision. In similar instances the evidence of Marcion, as to\nmatters of fact to which he could attach no kind of importance, is well\nworth recording(272): but where on the contrary the dogmas of his own\nmiserable system are touched, or no codices or other witnesses countenance\nhis changes (as is perpetually the case in his edition of St. Luke, the\nonly Gospel\u2014and that maimed or interpolated from the others\u2014he seems to\nhave acknowledged at all), his blasphemous extravagance may very well be\nforgotten. In such cases he does not so much as profess to follow anything\nmore respectable than the capricious devices of his misguided fancy.\n\n3. Nothing throws so strong a light on the real state of the text in the\nlatter half of the second century as the single notice of Irenaeus (fl.\n178) on Apoc. xiii. 18. This eminent person, the glory of the Western\nChurch in his own age, whose five books against Heresies (though chiefly\nextant but in a bald old Latin version) are among the most precious\nreliques of Christian antiquity, had been privileged in his youth to enjoy\nthe friendly intercourse of his master Polycarp, who himself had conversed\nfamiliarly with St. John and others that had seen the Lord (Euseb., Eccl.\nHist., v. 20). Yet even Irenaeus, though removed but by one stage from the\nvery Apostles, possessed (if we except a bare tradition) no other means of\nsettling discordant readings than are now open to ourselves; namely, to\nsearch out the best copies and exercise the judgement on their contents.\nHis _locus classicus_ must needs be cited in full, the Latin throughout,\nthe Greek in such portions as survive. The question is whether St. John\nwrote \u03c7\u03be\u03b9\u03db\u1fbd (666), or \u03c7\u03b9\u03db\u1fbd (616).\n\n\n    \u201cHic autem sic se habentibus, et in omnibus antiquis et\n    probatissimis et veteribus scripturis numero hoc posito, et\n    testimonium perhibentibus his qui facie ad faciem Johannem\n    viderunt (\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n    \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n    \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f44\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f11\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd,\n    \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n    \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c8\u1fc6\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n    [\u1f10\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9]), et ratione docente nos quoniam numerus nominis\n    bestiae, secundum Graecorum computationem, per literas quae in eo\n    sunt sexcentos habebit et sexaginta et sex: ignoro quomodo\n    erraverunt quidam sequentes idiotismum et medium frustrantes\n    numerum nominis, quinquaginta numeros deducentes, pro sex decadis\n    unam decadem volentes esse (\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\n    \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f20\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n    \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bd\u1fbd \u03c8\u03ae\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f13\u03be \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\n    \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9). Hoc autem arbitror scriptorum peccatum fuisse,\n    ut solet fieri, quoniam et per literas numeri ponuntur, facil\u00e8\n    literam Graecam quae sexaginta enuntiat numerum, in iota Graecorum\n    literam expansam.... Sed his quidem qui simpliciter et sine\n    malitia hoc fecerunt, arbitramur veniam dari a Deo.\u201d (Contra\n    Haeres. v. 30. 1: Harvey, vol. ii. pp. 406-7.)\n\n\nHere we obtain at once the authority of Irenaeus for receiving the\nApocalypse as the work of St. John; we discern the living interest its\ncontents had for the Christians of the second century, even up to the\n_traditional_ preservation of its minutest readings; we recognize the fact\nthat numbers were then represented by letters(273); and the far more\nimportant one that the original autograph of the Apocalypse was already so\ncompletely lost, that a thought of it never entered the mind of the\nwriter, though the book had not been composed one hundred years, perhaps\nnot more than seventy(274).\n\n4. Clement of Alexandria is the next writer who claims our attention (fl.\n194). Though his works abound with citations from Scripture, on the whole\nnot too carefully made (\u201cin adducendis N. T. locis creber est et\n_castus_,\u201d is rather too high praise, Mill, Proleg. \u00a7 627), the most has\nnot yet been made of the information he supplies. He too complains of\nthose who tamper with (or metaphrase) the Gospels for their own sinister\nends, and affords us one specimen of their evil diligence(275). His pupil\nOrigen\u2019s [185-253] is the highest name among the critics and expositors of\nthe early Church; he is perpetually engaged in the discussion of various\nreadings of the New Testament, and employs language in describing the then\nexisting state of the text, which would be deemed strong if applied even\nto its present condition, after the changes which sixteen more centuries\nmust needs have produced. His statements are familiar enough to Biblical\nenquirers, but, though often repeated, cannot be rightly omitted here.\nSeldom have such warmth of fancy and so bold a grasp of mind been united\nwith the life-long patient industry which procured for this famous man the\nhonourable appellation of _Adamantius_. Respecting the sacred autographs,\ntheir fate or their continued existence, he seems to have had no\ninformation, and to have entertained no curiosity: they had simply passed\nby and were out of reach. Had it not been for the diversities of copies in\nall the Gospels on other points (he writes)\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u2014he should not have ventured\nto object to the authenticity of a certain passage (Matt. xix. 19) on\ninternal grounds: \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f74 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac,\n\u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1fe5\u03b1\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f22 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (Comment. on Matt., Tom. iii. p. 671,\n_De la Rue_). \u201cBut now,\u201d saith he, \u201cgreat in truth has become the\ndiversity of copies, be it from the negligence of certain scribes, or from\nthe evil daring of some who correct what is written, or from those who in\ncorrecting add or take away what they think fit(276):\u201d just like Irenaeus\nhad previously described revisers of the text as persons \u201cqui peritiores\napostolis volunt esse\u201d (Contra Haeres. iv. 6. 1).\n\n5. Nor can it easily be denied that the various readings of the New\nTestament current from the middle of the second to the middle of the third\ncentury, were neither fewer nor less considerable than such language would\nlead us to anticipate. Though no surviving manuscript of the Old Latin\nversion, or versions, dates before the fourth century, and most of them\nbelong to a still later age, yet the general correspondence of their text\nwith that used by the first Latin Fathers is a sufficient voucher for its\nhigh antiquity. The connexion subsisting between this Latin version, the\nCuretonian Syriac, and Codex Bezae, proves that the text of these\ndocuments is considerably older than the vellum on which they are written;\nthe Peshitto Syriac also, most probably the very earliest of all\ntranslations, though approaching far nearer to the received text than\nthey, sufficiently resembles these authorities in many peculiar readings\nto exhibit the general tone and character of one class of manuscripts\nextant in the second century, two hundred years anterior to Codd. \u05d0B. Now\nit may be said without extravagance that no set of Scriptural records\naffords a text less probable in itself or less sustained by any rational\nprinciples of external evidence, than that of Cod. D, of the Latin\ncodices, and (so far as it accords with them) of Cureton\u2019s Syriac.\nInterpolations, as insipid in themselves as unsupported by other evidence,\nabound in them all(277): additions so little in accordance with the\ngenuine spirit of Holy Writ that some critics (though I, for one, profess\nno skill in such alchemy) have declared them to be as easily separable\nfrom the text which they encumber, as the foot-notes appended to a modern\nbook are from the main body of the work (Tregelles, An Account of the\nPrinted Text, p. 138, note). It is no less true to fact than paradoxical\nin sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever\nbeen subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed;\nthat Irenaeus and the African Fathers and the whole Western, with a\nportion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those\nemployed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephen thirteen centuries later, when\nmoulding the Textus Receptus. What passage in the Holy Gospels would be\nmore jealously guarded than the record of the heavenly voice at the Lord\u2019s\nBaptism? Yet Augustine (De Consensu Evangelist, ii. 14) marked a variation\nwhich he thought might be found \u201cin aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus,\u201d\nthough not \u201cin antiquioribus codicibus Graecis,\u201d where, in the place of \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f20\u03c5\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1 (Luke iii. 22), the words \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5 are\nsubstituted from Psalm ii. 7: so also reads the Manichaean Faustus apud\nAugustin.; Enchiridion ad Laurentium, c. 49. The only Greek copy which\nmaintains this important reading is D: it is met with moreover in _abc_\n(in _d_ of course), in _ff_1 _prim\u00e2 manu_, and in _l_, whose united\nevidence leaves not a doubt of its existence in the primitive Old Latin;\nwhence it is cited by Hilary three times, by Lactantius and Juvencus, to\nwhich list Abbot adds Hilary the deacon (Quaestiones V. et N. T.). Among\nthe Greeks it is known but to Methodius, and to those very early writers,\nJustin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, who seem to have derived the\ncorruption (for such it must doubtless be regarded) from the Ebionite\nGospel (Epiphan., Haeres., xxi. 13)(278). So again of a doubtful passage\nwhich we shall examine in Chapter XII, Irenaeus cites Acts viii. 37\nwithout the least misgiving, though the spuriousness of the verse can\nhardly be doubted; and expressly testifies to a reading in Matt. i. 18\nwhich has not till lately found many advocates. It is hard to believe that\n1 John v. 7, 8 was not cited by Cyprian, and even the interpolation in\nMatt. xx. 28 was widely known and received. Many other examples might be\nproduced from the most venerable Christian writers, in which they\ncountenance variations (and those not arbitrary, but resting on some sort\nof authority) which no modern critic has ever attempted to vindicate.\n\n6. When we come down to the fourth century, our information grows at once\nmore definite and more trustworthy. Copies of Scripture had been\nextensively destroyed during the long and terrible period of affliction\nthat preceded the conversion of Constantine. In the very edict which\nmarked the beginning of Diocletian\u2019s persecution, it is ordered that the\nholy writings should be burnt (\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, Eusebius,\nEccl. Hist., viii. 2); and the cruel decree was so rigidly enforced that a\nspecial name of reproach (_traditores_), together with the heaviest\ncensures of the Church, was laid upon those Christians who betrayed the\nsacred trust (Bingham, Antiquities, book xvi. ch. vi. 25). At such a\nperiod critical revision or even the ordinary care of devout transcribers\nmust have disappeared before the pressure of the times. Fresh copies of\nthe New Testament would have to be made in haste to supply the room of\nthose seized by the enemies of our Faith; and, when made, they had to\ncirculate by stealth among persons whose lives were in jeopardy every\nhour. Hence arose the need, when the tempest was overpast, of transcribing\nmany new manuscripts of the Holy Bible, the rather as the Church was now\nreceiving vast accessions of converts within her pale. Eusebius of\nCaesarea, the ecclesiastical historian, seems to have taken the lead in\nthis happy labour; his extensive learning, which by the aid of certain\nother less commendable qualities had placed him high in Constantine\u2019s\nfavour, rendered it natural that the emperor should employ his services\nfor furnishing with fifty copies of Scripture the churches of his new\ncapital, Constantinople. Eusebius\u2019 deep interest in Biblical studies is\nexhibited in several of his surviving works, as well as in his Canons for\nharmonizing the Gospels: and he would naturally betake himself for the\ntext of his fifty codices to the Library founded at his Episcopal city of\nCaesarea by the martyr Pamphilus, the dear friend and teacher from whom he\nderived his own familiar appellation _Eusebius Pamphili_. Into this\nLibrary Pamphilus had gathered manuscripts of Origen as well as of other\ntheologians, and of these Eusebius made an index (\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd:\nEccles. Hist., vi. 32). From this collection Cod. H of St. Paul and others\nare stated to have been derived, nay even Cod. \u05d0 in its Old Testament\nportion (_see_ vol. I. p. 55 and note), which is expressly declared to\nhave been corrected to the Hexapla of Origen. Indeed we know from Jerome\n(Comment. in Epist. ad Tit.) that the very autograph (\u201cipsa authentica\u201d)\nof Origen\u2019s Hexapla was used by himself at Caesarea, and Montfaucon\n(Praeliminaria in Hexapl., chap. i. 5) cites from one manuscript the\nfollowing subscription to Ezekiel, \u1f49 \u0395\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03c3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1.\n\u03a0\u03ac\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c1\u03b8\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf.\n\n7. We are thus warranted, as well from direct evidence as from the analogy\nof the Old Testament, to believe that Eusebius mainly resorted for his\nConstantinopolitan Church-books to the codices of Pamphilus, which might\nonce have belonged to Origen. What critical corrections (if any) he\nventured to make in the text on his own judgement is not so clear. Not\nthat there is the least cause to believe, with Dr. Nolan (Inquiry into the\nIntegrity of the Greek Vulgate, p. 27), that Eusebius had either the power\nor the will to suppress or tamper with the great doctrinal texts 1 John v.\n7, 8; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Acts xx. 28; yet we cannot deny that his\nprepossessions may have tempted him to arbitrary alterations in other\npassages, which had no direct bearing on the controversies of his\nage(279). Codd. \u05d0B are quite old enough to have been copied under his\ninspection(280), and it is certainly very remarkable that these two early\nmanuscripts omit one whole paragraph (Mark xvi. 9-20) with his sanction,\nif not after his example (_see_ below, Chap. XII). Thus also in Matt,\nxxiii. 35 Cod. \u05d0, with the countenance only of Evan. 59, Evst. 6, 13, 222\n(see under Evst. 222), discards \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, for which change Eusebius\n(_silentio_) is literally the only authority among the Fathers, Irenaeus\nand even Origen retaining the words, in spite of their obvious difficulty.\nThe relation in which Cod. \u05d0 stands to the other four chief manuscripts of\nthe Gospels, may be roughly estimated from analyzing the transcript of\nfour pages first published by Tischendorf(281), as well as in any other\nway. Of the 312 variations from the common text therein noted, \u05d0 stands\nalone in forty-five, in eight agrees with ABCD united (much of C, however,\nis lost in these passages), with ABC together thirty-one times, with ABD\nfourteen, with AB thirteen, with D alone ten, with B alone but once (Mark\ni. 27), with C alone once: with several authorities against AB thirty-nine\ntimes, with A against B fifty-two, with B against A ninety-eight. Hence,\nwhile the discovery of this precious document has unquestionably done much\nto uphold Cod. B (which is the more correctly written, and doubtless the\nmore valuable of the two) in many of its more characteristic and singular\nreadings, it has made the mutual divergencies of the very oldest critical\nauthorities more patent and perplexing than ever(282).\n\n8. Codd. \u05d0B were apparently anterior to the age of Jerome, the latest\necclesiastical writer whose testimony need be dwelt upon, since from his\ntime downwards the stream of extant and direct manuscript evidence,\nbeginning with Codd. AC, flows on without interruption. Jerome\u2019s attention\nwas directed to the criticism of the Greek Testament by his early Biblical\nstudies, and the knowledge he thus obtained had full scope for its\nexercise when he was engaged on revising the Old Latin version. In his\nso-often cited \u201cPraefatio ad Damasum,\u201d prefixed to his recension of the\nGospels, he complains of certain \u201ccodices, quos a Luciano et Hesychio\nnuncupatos, paucorum hominum asserit perversa contentio,\u201d and those not of\nthe Old Testament alone, but also of the New. This obscure and passing\nnotice of corrupt and (apparently) interpolated copies has been made the\nfoundation of more than one theory as fanciful as ingenious. Jerome\nfurther informs us that he had adopted in his translation the canons which\nEusebius \u201cAlexandrium secutus Ammonium\u201d (_but __ see_ Vol. I. pp. 59, &c.)\nhad invented or first brought into vogue; stating, and, in his usual\nfashion, somewhat exaggerating(283), an evil these canons helped to\nremedy, the mixing up of the matter peculiar to one Evangelist with the\nnarrative of another. Hence we might naturally expect that the Greek\nmanuscripts he would view with special favour, were the same as Eusebius\nhad approved before him. In the scattered notices throughout his works,\nJerome sometimes speaks but vaguely of \u201cquaedam exemplaria tam Graeca quam\nLatina\u201d (Luke xxii. 43-4, almost in the words of Hilary, his senior); or\nappeals to readings \u201cin quibusdam exemplaribus et maxim\u00e8 in Graecis\ncodicibus\u201d (Mark xvi. 14). Occasionally we hear of \u201cmulti et Graeci et\nLatini codices\u201d (John vii. 53), or \u201cvera exemplaria\u201d (Matt. v. 22; xxi.\n31), or \u201cantiqua exemplaria\u201d (Luke ix. 23), without specifying in which\nlanguage: Mark xvi. 9-20 \u201cin raris fertur Evangeliis,\u201d since \u201comnes\nGraeciae libri paene\u201d do not contain it(284). In two places, however, he\ngives a more definite account of the copies he most regarded. In Galat.\niii. 1 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 is omitted by Jerome, because it is not\ncontained \u201cin exemplaribus Adamantii,\u201d although (as he elsewhere informs\nus) \u201cet Graeca exemplaria hoc errore confusa sint.\u201d In the other of the\ntwo passages Jerome remarks that in some Latin copies of Matt. xxiv. 36\n_neque filius_ is added, \u201cquum in Graecis, et maxime Adamantii et Pierii\nexemplaribus, hoc non habeatur adscriptum.\u201d Pierius the presbyter of\nAlexandria, elsewhere called by Jerome \u201cthe younger Origen\u201d (Cat. Scriptt.\nEccl., i. p. 128), has been deprived by fortune of the honour due to his\nmerit and learning. A contemporary, perhaps the teacher of Pamphilus\n(Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vii. 32) at Caesarea, his copies of Scripture would\nnaturally be preserved with those of Origen in the great Library of that\ncity. Here they were doubtless seen by Jerome when, to his deep joy, he\nfound Origen\u2019s writings copied in Pamphilus\u2019 hand (Cat. Scriptt. Eccl.,\n_ubi supra_), which volumes Acacius and Euzoius, elder contemporaries of\nJerome himself, had taken pious care to repair and renew (_ibid._ i. p.\n131; ad Marcell. Ep. cxli). It is not therefore wonderful if, employing as\nthey did and setting a high value on precisely the same manuscripts of the\nN. T., the readings approved by Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome should\nclosely agree.\n\n9. Epiphanius [d. 403], who wrote at about the same period as Jerome,\ndistinguishes in his note on Luke xix. 41 or xxii. 44 (Tom. ii. p. 36)\nbetween the uncorrected copies (\u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2), and those used by the\nOrthodox(285). Of the function of the \u201ccorrector\u201d (\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2) of an\nancient manuscript we have spoken several times before: but a system was\ndevised by Professor J. L. Hug of Freyburg (Einleitung, 1808), and\nmaintained, though with some modifications, by J. G. Eichhorn, which\nassigned to these occasional, and (as they would seem to be) unsystematic\nlabours of the reviser, a foremost place in the criticism of the N. T. Hug\nconceived that the process of corruption had been going on so rapidly and\nuniformly from the Apostolic age downwards, that by the middle of the\nthird century the state of the text in the general mass of codices had\ndegenerated into the form exhibited in Codd. D, 1, 13, 69, 124 of the\nGospels, the Old Latin and Sahidic (he would now have added the Curetonian\nSyriac) versions, and to some extent in the Peshitto and in the citations\nof Clement of Alexandria and of Origen in his early works. To this\nuncorrected text he gave the name of \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u1f14\u03ba\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, and that it existed,\nsubstantially in the interpolated shape now seen in Cod. D, the Old Latin,\nand Cureton\u2019s Syriac, as early as the second century, need not be doubted.\nThere is some foundation for this position, but it was marred by Hug\u2019s\nlack of sobriety of judgement. What we may fairly dispute is that this\ntext ever had extensive circulation or good repute in the Churches whose\nvernacular language was Greek. This \u201ccommon edition\u201d Hug supposes to have\nreceived three separate emendations in the middle of the third century;\none made by Origen in Palestine, which he thinks Jerome adopted and\napproved; two others by Hesychius and Lucian (a presbyter of Antioch and\nMartyr), in Egypt and Syria respectively, both which Jerome condemned, and\nPope Gelasius (A.D. 492-6) declared to be apocryphal(286). To Origen\u2019s\nrecension he referred such copies as AKM, 42, 106, 114, 116, 253 of the\nGospels, the Harkleian Syriac, the quotations of Chrysostom and Theodoret;\nto Hesychius the Alexandrian codices BCL; to Lucian the Byzantine\ndocuments EFGHSV and the mass of later books. The practical effect of this\nelaborate theory would be to accord to Cod. A a higher place among our\nauthorities than some recent editors have granted it, even than it quite\ndeserves, yet its correspondence with Origen in many characteristic\nreadings would thus be admitted and accounted for (_but see_ p. 226). But\nin truth Hug\u2019s whole scheme is utterly baseless as regards historical\nfact, and most insufficiently sustained by internal proof. Jerome\u2019s slight\nand solitary mention of the copies of Lucian and Hesychius abundantly\nevinces their narrow circulation and the low esteem in which they were\nheld; and even Eichhorn perceived that there was no evidence whatever to\nshow that Origen had attempted a formal revision of the text. The passages\ncited above, both from Eusebius and Jerome\u2014and no others are known to bear\non the subject\u2014will carry us no further than this:\u2014that these Fathers had\naccess to codices of the N. T. once possessed by Adamantius, and here and\nthere, perhaps, retouched by his hand. The manuscripts copied by Pamphilus\nwere those of Origen\u2019s own works; and while we have full and detailed\naccounts of what he accomplished for the Greek versions of the Old\nTestament, no hint has been thrown out by any ancient writer that he\ncarried his pious labour into the criticism of the New. On the contrary,\nhe seems to disclaim the task in a sentence now extant chiefly in the old\nLatin version of his works, wherein, to a notice of his attempt to remove\ndiversity of reading from codices of the Septuagint by the help of \u201cthe\nother editions\u201d (\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, i.e. the\nversions of Aquila and the rest), he is represented as adding, \u201cIn\nexemplaribus autem Novi Testamenti, hoc ipsum me posse facere sine\npericulo non putavi\u201d (Origen, Tom. iii. p. 671).\n\n10. Hug\u2019s system of recensions was devised as a corrective to those of\nBengel and of Griesbach, which have been adequately discussed in Chapter\nVII. The veteran Griesbach spent his last effort as a writer in bringing\nto notice the weak points of Hug\u2019s case, and in claiming him, where he\nrightly could, as a welcome ally(287). But neither did Hug\u2019s scheme, nor\nthat propounded by Scholz some years later, obtain the general credit and\nacceptance which had once been conceded to Griesbach\u2019s. It was by this\ntime plainly seen that not only were such theories unsupported by\nhistorical testimony (to which indeed the Professor of Halle had been too\nwise to lay claim), but that they failed to account for more than a part,\nand that usually a small part, of the phenomena disclosed by minute study\nof our critical materials. All that can be inferred from searching into\nthe history of the sacred text amounts to no more than this: that\nextensive variations, arising no doubt from the wide circulation of the\nNew Testament in different regions and among nations of diverse languages,\nsubsisted from the earliest period to which our records extend. Beyond\nthis point our investigations cannot be carried, without indulging in\npleasant speculations which may amuse the fancy, but cannot inform the\nsober judgement. Such is the conclusion to which we are reluctantly\nbrought after examining the principles laid down, as well by the critics\nwe have named above, as by Lachmann, by his disciple Tregelles, and even\nby the _par nobile_ of Cambridge Doctors, Professor Hort and Bishop\n(formerly Canon) Westcott, of whose labours we shall speak presently.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X. RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.\n\n\nYet is it true that we are thus cast upon the wide ocean without a compass\nor a guide? Can no clue be found that may conduct us through the tangled\nmaze? Is there no other method of settling the text of the New Testament\nthan by collecting and marshalling and scrutinizing the testimony of\nthousands of separate documents, now agreeing, now at issue with each\nother:\u2014manuscripts, versions, ecclesiastical writers, whose mutual\nconnexion and interdependence, as far as they exist (and to some extent\nthey do and _must_ exist), defy all our skill and industry to detect and\nestimate aright? This would surely be a discouraging view of critical\nscience as applied to the sacred volume, and it is by no means warranted\nby proved and admitted facts. Elaborate systems have failed, as might have\nbeen looked for from the first. It was premature to frame them in the\npresent stage of things, while the knowledge we possess of the actual\ncontents of our extant authorities is imperfect, vague, and fragmentary;\nwhile our conclusions are liable to be disturbed from time to time by the\nrapid accession of fresh materials, of whose character we are still quite\nignorant. But if we be incompetent to devise theories on a grand or\nimposing scale, a more modest and a safer course is open. Men of the\npresent generation may be disqualified for taking a general survey of the\nwhole domain of this branch of divine learning, who may yet be employed,\nserviceably and with honour, in cultivating each one for himself some\nlimited and humble field of special research, to which his taste, his\nabilities, or opportunities have attached him: those persons may usefully\nimprove a farm, who cannot hope to conquer a kingdom. Out of the long\narray of uncollated manuscripts which swell our catalogues, let the\nstudent choose from the mass a few within his reach which he may deem\nworthy of complete examination; or exhaust the information some\necclesiastical writer of the first six centuries can afford; or contribute\nwhat he can to an exact acquaintance with some good ancient version,\nascertaining the genius of its language and (where this is attainable) the\nliterary history of its text. If, in the course of such quiet toil, he\nshall mark (as a patient observer will find cause to mark) resemblances\nand affinities more than accidental, between documents of widely different\nages and countries; he will not only be contributing to the common stock\nwhat cannot fail to be available hereafter as raw material, but he will be\nhelping to solve that great problem which has hitherto in part eluded the\nmost earnest inquiries, the investigation of the true laws and principles\nof COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.\n\nThe last-mentioned term has been happily applied by Tregelles to that\ndelicate and important process, whereby we seek to determine the\n_comparative_ value, and trace the mutual relation, of authorities of\nevery kind upon which the original text of the N. T. is based. Thus\nexplained (and in this enlarged sense scholars have willingly accepted\nit), its researches may be pursued with diligence and interest, without\nreference to the maintenance or refutation of any particular system or\nscheme of recensions. The mode of procedure is experimental and tentative,\nrather than dogmatical; the facts it gradually develops will eventually\n(as we trust) put us on the right road, although for the present we meet\nwith much that is uncertain, perplexing, ambiguous. It has already enabled\ncritics in some degree to classify the documents with which they have to\ndeal; it may possibly lead them, at some future period, to the\nestablishment of principles more general, and therefore more simple, than\nwe can now conceive likely or even possible to be attained to.\n\n1. In the course of investigations thus difficult and precarious, designed\nto throw light on a matter of such vast consequence as the genuine\ncondition of the text of Scripture, one thing would appear at first sight\nalmost too clear for argument, too self-evident to be disputed,\u2014that it is\nboth our wisdom and our duty _to weigh the momentous subject at issue in\nall its parts_, shutting out from the mind no source of information which\ncan reasonably be supposed capable of influencing our decision. Nor can\nsuch a course become less right or expedient because it must perforce\ninvolve us in laborious, extensive, and prolonged examination of a vast\nstore of varied and voluminous testimony. It is essential that divines\nshould strive to come to definite conclusions respecting disputed points\nof sacred criticism; it is not necessary that these conclusions should be\ndrawn within a certain limited period, either this year, or even in the\nlifetime of our generation. Hence such a plan as that advocated by\nLachmann, for abridging the trouble of investigation by the arbitrary\nrejection of the great mass of existing evidence, must needs be condemned\nfor its rashness by those who think their utmost pains well bestowed in\nsuch a cause; nor can we consistently praise the determination of others,\nwho, shunning the more obvious errors into which Lachmann fell, yet follow\nhis example in constructing the text of the N. T. on a foundation somewhat\nless narrow, but scarcely more firm than his. As the true science of\nBiblical criticism is in real danger of suffering harm from the efforts of\ndisciples of this school, it cannot be out of place if we examine the\npleas which have been urged in vindication of their scheme, and assign (as\nbriefly as we may) our reasons for believing that its apologists are but\nlabouring in vain.\n\n2. _Brevis vita, ars longa._ For this lawful cause, if for no other, the\nmost ardent student of Biblical criticism would fain embrace some such\nsystem as is advocated by Lachmann and his followers, if only it could be\ndone in tolerable safety. The process of investigation might thus be\ndiminished twentyfold, and the whole subject brought within a compass not\ntoo vast for one man\u2019s diligence or the space of an ordinary lifetime. The\nsimplicity and comparative facility of this process of resorting to the\nfew for instruction hitherto supposed to be diffused among the many, has\ncreated in its favour a strong and not unnatural prejudice, which has\nyielded, so far as it has yet yielded at all, to nothing but the stubborn\nopposition of indisputable facts. It will also readily be admitted, that\ncertain principles, not indeed peculiar to this theory, but brought by it\ninto greater prominence, are themselves most reasonable and true. No one\nwill question, for example, that \u201cif the reading of the ancient\nauthorities in general is unanimous, there can be but little doubt that it\nshould be followed, whatever may be the later testimonies; for it is most\nimprobable that the independent testimony of early MSS., versions, and\nFathers should accord with regard to something entirely groundless\u201d\n(Tregelles, N. T., Introductory Notice, p. 2). No living man, possessed of\na tincture of scholarship, would dream of setting up testimony exclusively\nmodern against the unanimous voice of antiquity. The point on which we\ninsist is briefly this:\u2014that the evidence of ancient authorities is\nanything but unanimous; that they are perpetually at variance with each\nother, even if we limit the term ancient within the narrowest bounds.\nShall it include, among the manuscripts of the Gospels, none but the five\noldest copies Codd. \u05d0ABCD(288)? The reader has but to open the first\nrecent critical work he shall meet with, to see them scarcely ever in\nunison; perpetually divided two against three, or perhaps four against\none. All the readings these venerable monuments contain must of course be\n_ancient_, or they would not be found where they are; but they cannot all\nbe true. So again, if our search be extended to the versions and primitive\nFathers, the same phenomenon unfolds itself, to our grievous perplexity\nand disappointment. How much is contained in Cureton\u2019s Syriac and the Old\nLatin for which no Greek original can now be alleged? Do not the earliest\necclesiastical writers describe readings as existing and current in their\ncopies, of which few traces can be met with at present(289)? If the\nquestion be fairly proposed, \u201cWhat right have we to set virtually aside\nthe agreement in the main of our oldest uncials, at the distance of one or\ntwo centuries\u2014of which, owing probably to the results of persecution, we\nhave no MS. remains\u2014with the citations of the primitive Fathers, and with\nthe earliest versions?\u201d: the answer must be rendered, without hesitation,\n_no right whatever_. Where the oldest of these authorities really agree,\nwe accept their united testimony as practically conclusive. It is not at\nall our design to seek our readings from the later uncials, supported as\nthey usually are by the mass of cursive manuscripts; but to employ their\nconfessedly secondary evidence in those numberless instances wherein their\nelder brethren are hopelessly at variance(290). We do not claim for the\nrecent documents the high consideration and deference fitly reserved for a\nfew of the oldest; just as little do we think it right to pass them by in\nsilence, and allow to them no more weight or importance than if they had\nnever been written. \u201cThere are passages,\u201d to employ the words of a very\ncompetent judge, \u201cwhere the evidence of the better cursives may be of\nsubstantial use in confirming a good reading, or in deciding us between\ntwo of nearly equal merit to place one in the text and assign the other to\nthe margin(291).\u201d\n\n3. It may readily be supposed that the very few manuscripts which, being\nancient themselves, are regarded by the school of Lachmann as alone\npreserving an ancient and genuine form, have not been selected as\nvirtually the sole authorities for the settling of the sacred text, except\nfor reasons which those who thus adopt them regard as weighty, and which\nmerit at any rate our best consideration before we put them aside as\ninsufficient. The great uncials, we are told, are treated with so much\ndeference, not only or chiefly because they are old, but because they have\nbeen rigorously tested and have proved on trial to deserve the confidence\nwhich has been reposed in them. The process of investigation shall now be\nstated, as fairly and even favourably as possible. It is not worth while,\nas it certainly is not our desire, to snatch a transient advantage by\nmisrepresenting the views we are controverting. We would rather comprise\nin our own system all that is sound and exact in them, while we withstand\nthe attempt to carry them beyond the limits which they may legitimately\noccupy, and refuse to generalize on the strength of facts which are only\npartially true.\n\nWe have already laid down the axiom admitted by all, that manuscripts of\nthe original hold the first rank among our critical materials; versions,\nand, yet more, the citations of ecclesiastical authors being subordinate\nto them. Yet whatever other disadvantages the Patristic writings may\nlabour under, we are at any rate certain respecting the age in which they\nwere composed, the works themselves being assumed to be authentic. If\nIrenaeus, or Tertullian, or Origen, expressly assure us that particular\nwords which they name were read in their copies of Scripture, we cannot\nwithstand their testimony that such words were really found in manuscripts\nof the New Testament in the second and third centuries, one or two hundred\nyears before Codd. \u05d0B were in existence. If, therefore, we take a various\nreading of the text for which any one of these venerable men has vouched,\nand observe that it is supported perhaps by a few manuscripts of various\nages, then by a version or two, especially if they be natives of different\ncountries, and flow together into the same stream from sources remote from\neach other;\u2014the rather too if the reading be plausible and even probable\nin itself:\u2014and if, after having formed an opinion that on the whole it\ndeserves to be respectfully considered, we then turn to \u05d0 or B, or to\nboth, and discover the same reading in them also:\u2014not only has the\nvariation itself made out an urgent case for our acceptance, but the\ncharacter of \u05d0 and B as faithful witnesses is largely enhanced. It is\nmoreover evident, that if the same method of investigation be pursued many\ntimes over with the same, or something approaching to the same success,\nthe value of \u05d0 and B as truthful codices will be proportionally increased.\n\nA single good example of this process will make it yet more intelligible\nto the careful student. It shall be one that has been chosen for the\npurpose by more than one of the advocates of the system we are on the\nwhole opposing. Of the two forms in which the Lord\u2019s Prayer is delivered\nto us, Matt. vi. 13 has the clause \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1fe5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 in\nevery known authority: in Luke xi. 4 the case is far otherwise. That\nTertullian, when citing the words before and after it, should take no\nnotice of it, would of itself prove little. Origen, however, once passes\nit by in like manner, once more expressly declares that it was not in St.\nLuke (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u1fb7 \u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9), a third time explains in his most happy\nmanner why it was omitted by the one Evangelist, inserted by the other.\nThe question thus raised sets us upon the inquiry what other evidence we\nhave for rejecting the clause in St. Luke. It appears to be wanting in\nseveral Greek manuscripts, such as L, 1, 22, 57, 130 both Greek and Latin,\n131, 226*, 237, 242, 426, 582, 604, and in the catenas annexed to 36, 237,\n239, 253, 259, 426; several of these codices (as 57, 226, 242) not being\nmuch found in such company. It is absent from the Vulgate version, and\napparently from some forms of the Old Latin, the rather as Augustine says\nthat St. Luke gives five petitions in the Lord\u2019s Prayer, St. Matthew\nseven, and attributes the omission of our clause to some such reason as\nOrigen had assigned. It is omitted also in the Armenian version, which,\nexcept for the later translation by Sahak from Syriac, might be supposed\nto differ _toto caelo_ from the Latin in country and genius. The list is\nclosed by the younger Cyril, a pure witness from another region, very\ndifferent lines of evidence thus converging into one. Then comes the\nprobability that if one of the Gospels contained the Lord\u2019s Prayer in a\nshorter form than the other, nothing was so likely as that a scribe in\nperfect innocence would supply what he considered an undoubted defect,\nwithout staying to reflect with Origen and Augustine that the two were\ndelivered on different occasions, to different classes of persons, with\ndifferent ends in view. Turning therefore now, with a strong case already\nmade out for the omission of the clause, to \u05d0 and B, which have been\nhitherto kept out of sight, we find that B has not the disputed words at\nall, nor had \u05d0 by the first hand, but in one three centuries later. The\nclear result, so far as it goes, is at once to vindicate the claim of \u05d0B\nto high consideration, and to make out a formidable case against the\ngenuineness of the six words involved. We say advisedly a formidable, not\nnecessarily a fatal case, for the counter evidence is still very strong,\nand comes as much as that alleged above from different quarters, being\nalso as early as widely diffused. It consists of Codd.\nACDEFGHKMR(292)SUV\u0393\u0394\u039b\u03a0, of all cursives not named above, of the Old Latin\n_b_ _c_ _f_ _ff_ _i_ _l_ _q_, whereof _f_ mostly goes with the Vulgate\n(_hiant a e_), the Bohairic, Peshitto, Curetonian, Harkleian Syriac (the\nJerusalem not containing this week-day Lesson), and the Ethiopic versions.\nSo far as this side as stated is weak at all, it lacks Patristic evidence\n(which cannot now be investigated for our purpose), and the balance of\ninternal evidence is decidedly adverse to it.\n\n4. The student may try the same experiments on two other passages often\nurged in this debate, Matt. v. 22, for which he will find the materials\nabove, p. 255, and Matt. xix. 17, which will be discussed in Chap. XII. We\nfreely admit that these are but a few out of many cases where the\nstatements of ancient writers about whose date there can be no question\nare borne out by the readings of the more ancient codices, especially of \u05d0\nor B, or of the two united. Undoubtedly this circumstance lends a weight\nand authority to these manuscripts, and to the few which side with them,\nwhich their mere age would not procure for them: it does not entitle them\nto be regarded as virtually the only documents worthy of being consulted\nin the recension of the sacred text; as qualifying to be sole arbiters in\ncritical questions relating to the New Testament, against whose decision\nthere can be no appeal. Yet nothing less than this is claimed in behalf of\none or two of them by their devoted admirers. In a court of justice, we\nare told, when once the evidence of a witness has been thoroughly probed\nand tested, it is received thenceforth as true, even on those points where\nit stands alone, and in the face of strong antecedent improbabilities. Now\nreasoning in metaphor has its advantages, as well for the sake of clearly\nexpressing our meaning, as of making an impression on those we address;\nbut it is attended with this grave inconvenience, that, since the analogy\nbetween no two things that can be compared is quite complete, we are\nsorely tempted to apply to the one of them properties which appertain\nexclusively to the other. In the present instance, besides the properties\nwherein documentary can be assimilated to oral testimony, such as general\naccuracy and means of information, an important element is present in the\nlatter, to which the former has nothing parallel, namely, moral character,\nthat full persuasion of a witness\u2019s good faith and disinterested integrity\nto which a jury will often surrender, and rightly surrender, all earlier\nimpressions and predilections. Of this we can have nothing in the case of\nthe manuscripts of Scripture which we now possess. In the second century\nwe have seen too many instances of attempts to tamper with the text of\nScripture, some merely injudicious, others positively dishonest; but all\nthis was over long before the scribes of the fourth and fifth centuries\nbegan their happy task, as simple and honest copyists of the older records\nplaced before them. Let their testimony be received with attention at all\ntimes; let it be accepted as conclusive whensoever there are no grave\nreasons to the contrary, but let not their paramount authority shut out\nall other considerations, external and internal, which might guide us to\nthe true reading of a passage; nor let us be so illogical as to conclude,\nbecause \u05d0 and B are sometimes right, that therefore they never are in the\nwrong(293).\n\nThe results of this excessive and irrational deference to one of our chief\ncodices, that which he was so fortunate as to bring to the light\ntwenty-five years ago, appears plainly in Tischendorf\u2019s eighth edition of\nthe New Testament. That great critic had never been conspicuous for\nstability of judgement. His third edition was constructed almost without\nany reference to the cursive manuscripts, which, unless they be, what no\none asserts or imagines, merely corrupt copies, or copies of copies, of\nexisting uncials, must needs be the representatives of yet older codices\nwhich have long since perished: \u201crespectable ancestors\u201d (as one has\nquaintly put the matter) \u201cwho live only in their descendants\u201d (Long,\nCiceronis Verrin. Orat., Praef. p. vi)(294). In Tischendorf\u2019s seventh\nedition, completed in 1859, that error was rectified, and the sum of\ntextual variations between the third and seventh edition in consequence\namounted to 1296, in no less than 595 of which (430 of the remainder being\nmere matters of spelling) he returned to the readings of the Received\ntext, which he had before deserted, but to which fresh materials and\nlarger experience had brought him back(295). In the eighth edition another\ndisturbing element is introduced, and that edition differs from his\nseventh in as many as 3369 places, to the scandal of the science of\nComparative Criticism, as well as to his own grave discredit for\ndiscernment and consistency. The evidence of Cod. \u05d0, supported or even\nunsupported by one or two authorities of any description, proved with him\nsufficient to outweigh all other witnesses, whether manuscripts, versions,\nor ecclesiastical writers.\n\nThe foregoing examination will probably have satisfied the student that we\nhave no right to regard Cod. B as a second Infallible Voice proceeding\nfrom the Vatican, which, when it has once spoken, must put an end to all\nstrife. Yet nothing less than this is claimed for it by writers, who yet\nhave bestowed much thought and labour on this controversy. \u201cSeeing that\nthe Vatican manuscript does not contain one single passage that can be\ndemonstrated to be spurious, or that by the evidence of other manuscripts\nand of the context, admits of just doubt as to its authenticity, a\nposition that no other manuscript enjoys, man is bound to accept the\ntestimony of that manuscript alone, as his present text of the sacred\nrecord, wherever he possesses its teaching(296).\u201d I am not sure whether,\nif we conceded this writer\u2019s premisses, we should be bound to accept his\nconclusion; but the easiest way of disposing of his argument, as well as\nof that of persons, who, in heart agreeing with him, would hardly like to\nenunciate their principle so broadly, is presently to lay before the\nstudent a few readings of Cod. B, either standing alone, or supported by \u05d0\nand others, respecting whose authenticity, or rather genuineness, some of\nus must be forgiven if we cherish considerable doubts. It is right,\nhowever, to declare that this discussion is forced upon us through no wish\nto dissemble the great value of the Codex Vaticanus, which in common with\nour opponents we regard as the most weighty single authority that we\npossess, but entirely by way of unavoidable protest against a claim for\nsupremacy set up in its behalf, which can belong of right to no existing\ndocument whatsoever.\n\n5. But indeed the theories of preceding critics, as well as the practical\napplication of those theories to the sacred text, have been thrown into\nthe shade by the more recent and elaborate publications of Drs. Hort and\nWestcott, briefly noticed in a preceding chapter, and claiming in this\nplace our serious attention(297).\n\nThe system on which their text has been constructed has been vindicated,\nso far as vindication was possible, in Dr. Hort\u2019s \u201cIntroduction,\u201d a very\nmodel of earnest reasoning, calling for and richly rewarding the close and\nrepeated study of all who would learn the utmost that can be done for\nsettling the text of the New Testament on dogmatic principles. The germ of\nthis theory can be traced in the speculations of Bentley and Griesbach;\nits authors would confess themselves on many points disciples of Lachmann,\nalthough their process of investigation is far more artificial than his.\nBut there is little hope for the stability of their imposing structure, if\nits foundations have been laid on the sandy ground of ingenious\nconjecture: and since barely the smallest vestige of historical evidence\nhas ever been alleged in support of the views of these accomplished\neditors, their teaching must either be received as intuitively true, or\ndismissed from our consideration as precarious, and even visionary. This\nmuch said by way of preface, we will endeavour to state the principles\nthey advocate, as fairly and concisely as we can.\n\n(\u03b1) The books of the New Testament, even the Holy Gospels themselves,\ncould not well have been collected into one volume till some time after\nthe death of St. John. During this early period, each portion of the\ninspired record would be circulated separately, until at length the four\nGospels would be brought together in one book or Quaternion, and, since\neach component member had to receive a distinctive appellation, the\nsimplest and the earliest headings would ascribe them to their respective\nauthors, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., the general title of the four\nbeing \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. \u201cIt is quite uncertain to what extent the whole N. T.\nwas ever included in a single volume in Ante-Nicene times\u201d (Hort,\nIntroduction, pp. 223, 268), only that the Gospels had certainly been\ncollected together when Justin Martyr wrote his first Apology between A.D.\n139 and 150, inasmuch as he appeals thrice over to the Memoirs of the\nApostles, which he once identifies with the Gospels (\u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f03 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1). Justin\u2019s\ndisciple Tatian, again, composed a Harmony of the Four (\u0394\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd),\nrespecting the precise nature of which we have recently gained very\nseasonable information. \u201cThe idea, if not the name, of a collective\n\u2018Gospel\u2019 is implied throughout the well-known passage in the third book of\nIrenaeus, who doubtless received it from earlier generations\u201d (Hort, p.\n321). Hence it is not unreasonable to suspect that our great codices\n(\u05d0ABC), which originally contained the whole N. T., may have been\ntranscribed in their several parts from copies differing from each other\nin genius and in date. With such a possibility before us we ought not to\nbe perplexed if the character of the text whether of Cod. A or of Cod. B\ndiffers in the Gospels from that which it bears in the Acts and the\nEpistles; or if Cod. C in the Apocalypse, and Cod. \u0394 in St. Mark, as has\nbeen already explained under those MSS., appear to belong to a family or\ngroup apart from that of the rest of their respective codices.\n\n(\u03b2) At this remote period, during the first half of the second century,\nmust have originated the wide variations from the prevailing text on the\npart of our primary authorities, both manuscripts and versions, which\nsurvive in Cod. Bezae of the Greek, and in the Old Latin codices or at\nleast in some of them. The text they exhibit is distinguished as Western,\nand they have been joined by a powerful ally, the Curetonian Syriac.\nCritics of every school agree in admitting the primitive existence of this\nWestern recension, and in their estimate of its general spirit. \u201cThe\nearliest readings which can be fixed chronologically belong to it... But\nany prepossessions in its favour that might be created by this imposing\nearly ascendency are for the most part soon dissipated by continuous study\nof its internal character\u201d (Hort, p. 120). \u201cThe chief and most constant\ncharacteristic of the Western readings is a love of paraphrase. Words,\nclauses, and even whole sentences were changed, omitted, and inserted with\nastonishing freedom, wherever it seemed that the meaning could be brought\nout with greater force and definiteness\u201d (_ibid._ p. 122). \u201cAnother\nequally important characteristic is a disposition to enrich the text at\nthe cost of its purity by alterations or additions taken from traditional\nand perhaps from apocryphal and other non-biblical sources\u201d (_ibid._ p.\n123). Especially may we note among other interpolations the long passage\nafter Matt. xx. 28 which we cited above, Vol. I. p. 8.\n\n(\u03b3) We now come to the feature which distinguishes Dr. Hort\u2019s system from\nany hitherto propounded; by the acceptance or non-acceptance of which his\nwhole edifice must stand or fall. He seems to exaggerate the force of\nextant evidence when he judges that the corrupt Western \u201cwas the more\nwidely-spread text of Ante-Nicene times\u201d (_ibid._ p. 120); but he tacitly\nassumes that many codices, versions, and ecclesiastical writers remained\nfree from its malignant influence. The evidence of this latter class was\npreserved comparatively pure until the middle of the third century, when\nit was taken in hand, at some time between A.D. 250 and 350, \u201cat what date\nit is impossible to say with confidence, and even for conjecture the\nmaterials are scanty\u201d (_ibid._ p. 137), by the Syrian bishops and Fathers\nof the Patriarchate of Antioch, who undertook (1) \u201can authoritative\nrevision at Antioch\u201d of the Greek text, which (2) was then taken as a\nstandard for a similar authoritative revision of the Syriac text, and (3)\nwas itself at a later time subjected to a second authoritative revision,\ncarrying out more completely the purposes of the first (_ibid._ p. 137).\nOf this twofold authoritative revision of the Greek text, of this formal\ntransmutation of the Curetonian Syriac into the Peshitto (for this is what\nDr. Hort means, though his language is a little obscure), although they\nmust have been of necessity public acts of great Churches in ages\nabounding in Councils General or Provincial, not one trace remains in the\nhistory of Christian antiquity; no one writer seems conscious that any\nmodification either of the Greek Scriptures or of the vernacular\ntranslation was made in or before his time. It is as if the Bishops\u2019 Bible\nhad been thrust out of the English Church service and out of the studies\nof her divines, and the Bible of 1611 had silently taken its place, no one\nknew how, or when, or why, or indeed that any change whatever had been\nmade. Yet regarding his speculative conjecture as undubitably true, Dr.\nHort proceeds to name the text as it stood before his imaginary era of\ntransfusion a _Pre-Syrian_ text, and that into which it was changed,\nsometimes _Antiochian_, more often _Syrian_(298); while of the latter\nrecension, though made deliberately, as our author believes, by the\nauthoritative voice of the Eastern Church, he does not shrink from\ndeclaring that \u201call distinctively Syrian readings must be at once\nrejected\u201d (_ibid._ p. 119), thus making a clean sweep of all critical\nmaterials, Fathers, versions, manuscripts uncial or cursive, comprising\nabout nineteen-twentieths of the whole mass, which do not correspond with\nhis preconceived opinion of what a correct text ought to be (_ibid._ p.\n163).\n\n(\u03b4) But one or two steps yet remain in this thorough elimination of\nuseless elements. A few authorities still survive which are honoured as\n_Pre-Syrian_, and continued unaffected by the phantom revisions, which,\nfor critical purposes, have reduced their colleagues to ignominious\nsilence. Besides the Western, Dr. Hort has in reserve two other groups,\nthe Alexandrian and the Neutral. The former retains a text essentially\npure from Syrian (though not from Western) mixture, but its component\nmembers are portentously few in number, being tolerably void of corruption\nas regards the substance, with \u201cno incorporation of matter extraneous to\nthe canonical text of the Bible, and no habitual or extreme license of\nparaphrase ... the changes made having usually more to do with language\nthan with matter, and being marked by an effort after correctness of\nphrase\u201d (_ibid._ p. 131). There are no unmixed vouchers for this\nNon-Western, Pre-Syrian, Alexandrian class, though Cyril of Alexandria\nseems to come the nearest to purity (_ibid._ p. 141), then Origen,\noccasionally other Alexandrian Fathers, also the Sahidic, and especially\nthe Bohairic version (_ibid._ p. 131). No extant MS. has preserved so many\nAlexandrian readings as Cod. L (_ibid._ p. 153). Cod. C has some, T and \u039e\nmore: in the Gospels they are chiefly marked by the combination \u05d0CLXZ, 33\n(_ibid._ p. 166). In Cod. A, for the Acts and Epistles, the Alexandrian\noutnumber both the Syrian and Western readings (Hort, p. 152), but they\nall are mere degenerations so far as they depart from Dr. Hort\u2019s standard\n\n(\u03b5) The _Neutral_ type of text: so called because it is free from the\nglaring corruption of the Western, from the smooth assimilations of the\nSyrian, and from the grammatical purism of the Alexandrian. Only two\ndocuments come under this last head, Codd. B and \u05d0, and of these two, when\nthey differ, B is preferable to \u05d0, which has a not inconsiderable Western\nelement, besides that the scribe\u2019s bold and rough manner has rendered \u201call\nthe ordinary lapses due to rapid and careless transcription more numerous\u201d\nthan in B (_ibid._ p. 246). Yet, with certain slight exceptions which he\ncarefully specifies, it is our learned author\u2019s belief \u201c(1) that the\nreadings of \u05d0B should be accepted as the true readings until strong\ninternal evidence is found to the contrary, and (2) that no readings of \u05d0B\ncan safely be rejected absolutely, though it is sometimes right to place\nthem only on an alternative footing, especially where they receive no\nsupport from Versions and Fathers\u201d (_ibid._ p. 225): and this their\npre-eminence, in our critic\u2019s judgement, \u201cis due to the extreme, and, as\nit were, primordial antiquity of the common original from which the\nancestries of the two MSS. have diverged, the date of which cannot be\nlater than the earlier part of the second century, and may well be yet\nearlier\u201d (_ibid._ p. 223).\n\nThat \u05d0B should thus lift up their heads against all the world is much,\nespecially having regard to the fact that several versions and not a few\nFathers are older than they: for, while we grant that a simple patristic\ncitation, standing by itself, is of little value, yet when the context or\ncurrent of exposition renders it clear what reading these writers had\nbefore them, they must surely for that passage be equivalent as\nauthorities to a manuscript of their own age. Nor will Dr. Hort allow us\nto make any deduction from the weight of the united testimony of \u05d0B by\nreason of the curious fact, demonstrated as well to his satisfaction\n(Hort, p. 213) as to our own, that the scribe of B was the actual writer\nof parts of three distinct quires, forming three pairs of conjugate leaves\nof \u05d0 (_see_ above, p. 96, note 1); but on this head we think he will find\nfew readers to agree with him. His devotion to Cod. B when it stands alone\nis of necessity far more intelligent than that of the unnamed writer\nmentioned already, yet we believe that his implied confidence is scarcely\nthe less misplaced. He is very glad when he can to find friends for his\nfavourite, and discusses with great care the several binary combinations,\nsuch as BL, BC, BT, B\u03b9, BD (which last, indeed, is unsafe enough), AB, BZ,\nB 33 or B\u0394 (for St. Mark) in the Gospels; AB, BC, &c., in the rest of the\nN. T. (Hort, p. 227). He does not disparage the _subsingular_ readings of\nB, meaning by this convenient, perhaps novel, term, the agreement of B\nwith \u201cinferior Greek MSS., Versions, or Fathers, or combinations of\ndocumentary evidence of these kinds\u201d (_ibid._ p. 230). But, when the worst\ncomes to the worst, and Cod. B is left absolutely alone, its advocates\nneed not despair, inasmuch as no readings of that manuscript, not\ninvolving clerical error (and \u201cthe scribe reached by no means a high\nstandard of accuracy,\u201d _ibid._ p. 233), must be lightly or hastily\nrejected, so powerfully do they commend themselves on their own merits\n(_ibid._ p. 238). This transcendent excellency, however, belongs to it\nchiefly in the Gospels. In the Acts and Catholic Epistles, if the value of\nA increases as has been said, that of B is somewhat diminished; while in\nthe Pauline Epistles a \u201clocal Western element of B\u201d (Hort, p. 240) brings\nit into the less reputable company of DFG or even of D alone. Hence in the\nformation of Westcott and Hort\u2019s Pauline text we sometimes meet with what\nappears the paradoxical result that the evidence of B alone is accepted,\nwhile that of B attended by other codices is laid aside as insufficient.\n\nIt is very instructive to compare the foregoing sketch of Dr. Hort\u2019s\nsystem, brief and inadequate, yet not we trust unfair, as it is, with the\ntheory of Griesbach, for whose labours and genius we share much of his\nsuccessor\u2019s veneration. As regards the modification of text called Western\ntheir views are nearly identical, only that Griesbach was necessarily\nignorant of such important constituents of it as the Curetonian Syriac and\nthe Old Latin codices which have come to light since his day, and thus was\nexempted from the temptation to which Dr. Hort has unhappily yielded, of\nbelieving that Codd. \u05d0B, with all their comparative purity, represent a\nprimitive text already corrupted by certain accretions from which the\nWestern copies were free (_see_ below, p. 299 and note 1): a violent\nsupposition which seriously impairs the homogeneousness and\nself-consistency of his whole argument (Hort, pp. 175-6). Griesbach\u2019s\nAlexandrian class includes not only that which Dr. Hort understands by the\nname, but the later critic\u2019s _Neutral_ class also, which indeed we fail to\ndistinguish from the other by any marked peculiar characteristics. The\nmore mixed text which Griesbach called Constantinopolitan, and which is\nrepresented by Cod. A in the Gospels, in part by Cod. C, the Latin\nVulgate, and later authorities, differs from Dr. Hort\u2019s Syrian in much\nmore than name. Wider and deeper researches have made it evident that\nGriesbach\u2019s notion of a gradual modernizing of the text used from the\nfourth century downwards in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, would not\nadequately account for the phenomena wherewith we have to deal. The\ngeneral, almost universal, prevalence of such a departure from the\nreadings of \u05d0B, met with in ecclesiastical writers at least as early in\ndate as the parchment of those manuscripts themselves, can be explained by\nnothing less than a comprehensive, deliberate, authoritative recension of\nthe sacred books, undertaken by the chief rulers of the Antiochene Church,\naccepted throughout that great Patriarchate, yet, in spite of all this,\nnever noticed even in the way of passing reference by writers of any\ndescription from that period onwards, until its consequences, not its\nprocess, became known to eminent critics in the latter half of the\nnineteenth century. Nothing less than the exigency of his case could have\ndriven our author to encumber himself with a scheme fraught with\ndifficulties too great even for his skill to overcome.\n\nDr. Hort\u2019s system, therefore, is entirely destitute of historical\nfoundation(299). He does not so much as make a show of pretending to it:\nbut then he would persuade us, as he has persuaded himself, that its\nsubstantial truth is proved by results; and for results of themselves to\nestablish so very much, they must needs be unequivocal, and admit of no\nlogical escape from the conclusions they lead up to. But is this really\nthe case? \u201cTwo Members of the New Testament Company\u201d of Revisers, in a\ntemperate and very able pamphlet, have answered in the affirmative, and\nhave assigned, after Dr. Hort, but with greater precision than he, _three_\nreasons \u201cfor the belief that the Syrian text is posterior in origin to\nthose which he calls Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral\u201d (The Revisers and\nthe Greek text of the N. T., p. 25). Granting for our present purpose the\nreality of this Syrian text, of whose independent existence we have no\ndirect proof whatever, let us see what the three reasons will amount to.\n\n(\u03b1) \u201cThe first reason appears to us almost sufficient to settle the\nquestion by itself. It is founded on the observation ... that the Syrian\ntext presents numerous instances of readings which, according to all\ntextual probability, must be considered to be combinations of early\nreadings still extant.\u201d... \u201cThe reader will find in Dr. Hort\u2019s own pages\nabundant illustration of the fact in eight examples rigorously analyzed,\nwhich seem to supply a proof, as positive as the subject admits, that\nSyrian readings are posterior both to Western readings, and to other\nreadings which may be properly described as Neutral\u201d (_ibid._ pp. 25-6).\nBut the misfortune is that the subject does not admit of positive proof;\nthat what appears to one scholar \u201ctextual probability,\u201d appears to another\na mere begging of the whole question. These eight examples have been\nre-analyzed by Canon Cook (Revised Version, pp. 205-18), and just before\nhim by the _Quarterly Reviewer_ (Revision Revised, pp. 258-65), writers\nnot destitute either of learning or of natural acuteness, who would fain\nlead us to draw directly opposite inferences from Dr. Hort\u2019s. We will take\nbut one specimen, the eighth and last, to make our meaning as clear as\npossible. \u201cThis simple instance,\u201d says Dr. Hort complacently, \u201cneeds no\nexplanation\u201d (Hort, p. 104).\n\nLuke xxiv. 53. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff7, \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd. Thus it stands in the Received text with AC**FHKMSUVX\u0393\u0394\u039b\u03a0, all\ncursives, even those most esteemed by Westcott and Hort, with _c_ _f_ _g_,\nthe Vulgate, Peshitto and Harkleian Syriac, the Armenian, and Ethiopic\nvirtually (\u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd). This is called the Syrian\nreading.\n\nThe two so-termed Pre-Syrian forms are,\n\n\n    om. \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u05d0BCL*, Bohairic (Hort), Jerusalem Syriac. This\n    is the Neutral and Alexandrian text.\n\n    om. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 D, _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_ _l_, _gat._ _bodl._,\n    Bohairic (Tischendorf). This is the Western text.\n\n\nThe assumption of course is that the Syrian reading is a _conflation_ of\nthose of the other two classes, so forming a full but not overburdened\nclause. But if this _praejudicium_ be met with the plea that D and the\nLatins perpetually, B and its allies very often, seek to abridge the\nsacred original, it would be hard to demonstrate that the latter\nexplanation is more improbable than the former. Beyond this point of\nsubjective feeling the matter cannot well be carried, whether on one side\nor the other.\n\nDr. Hort\u2019s other examples of conflation have the same double edge as Luke\nxxiv. 53, and there is no doubt that Dr. Sanday is right in asserting that\nlike instances may be found wheresoever they are looked for; but they\nprove nothing to any one who has not made up his mind beforehand as to\nwhat the reading ought to be. We have already confessed that there is a\ntendency on the part of copyists to assimilate the narratives of the\nseveral Gospels to each other; and that such Harmonies as that of Tatian\nwould facilitate the process; that synonymous words are liable to be\nexchanged and harsh constructions supplied. Part of the value of the older\ncodices arises from their comparative freedom from such corrections: but\nthen this modernizing process is on the part of copyists unsystematic,\nalmost unconscious; it is wholly different from the deliberate formal\nemendations implied throughout Dr. Hort\u2019s volume.\n\n(\u03b2) The second reason adduced by the _Two Revisers_ \u201cis almost equally\ncogent\u201d in their estimation. It is that while the Ante-Nicene Fathers\n\u201cplace before us from separate and in some cases widely distant countries\nexamples of Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral readings, it appears to be\ncertain that before the middle of the third century we have no historical\ntraces of readings which can properly be entitled distinctively Syrian\u201d\n(The Revisers, &c., p. 26). Now the middle of the third century is the\nearliest period assigned by Dr. Hort for the inception of his phantom\nscheme of Syrian revision, and we feel sure that the epoch of Patristic\nevidence was not put thus early, in order to exclude Origen, whose support\nof his Alexandrian readings Griesbach found so partial and precarious\n(_see_ above, p. 226). In fact Dr. Hort expressly states that \u201cThe only\nperiod for which we have anything like a sufficiency of representative\nknowledge consists roughly of three-quarters of a century from about 175\nto 250: but the remains of four eminent Greek Fathers, which range through\nthis period, cast a strong light on textual history backward and forward.\nThey are Irenaeus, of Asia Minor, Rome, and Lyons; his disciple\nHippolytus, of Rome; Clement, of Athens and Alexandria; and his disciple,\nOrigen, of Alexandria and Palestine\u201d (Hort, p. 112). Even if the extant\nwritings of these Fathers had been as rigorously examined and as\nthoroughly known as they certainly are not, \u201ctheir scantiness and the\ncomparative vagueness of the textual materials contained in them\u201d\n(_ibid._) would hinder our drawing at present any positive conclusions\nregarding the sacred text as known to them. Even the slender specimens of\ncontroverted readings collected in our Chap. XII would suffice to prove\nthat their evidence is by no means exclusively favourable to Dr. Hort\u2019s\nopinions, a fact for which we will allege but one instance out of many,\nthe support given to the Received text by Hippolytus in that grand\npassage, John iii. 13(300).\n\nThere are three considerable works relating to the criticism of the N. T.\nstill open to the enterprise of scholars, and they can hardly be taken up\nat all except by the fresh hopefulness of scholars yet young. We need a\nfuller and more comprehensive collation of the cursive manuscripts (Hort,\npp. 76-7): \u201ca complete collection of all the fragments of the Thebaic New\nTestament is now the most pressing want in the province of textual\ncriticism,\u201d writes Bp. Lightfoot, and he might have added a better edition\nof the Bohairic also: but for the demands of the present controversy we\nmust set in the first rank the necessity for a complete survey of the\nPatristic literature of the first five centuries at the least. While we\nconcede to Dr. Hort that as a rule \u201cnegative patristic evidence\u201d\u2014that\nderived from the mere silence of the writer, \u201cis of no force at all\u201d\n(Hort, p. 201), and attach very slight importance to citations which are\nnot express, it is from this source that we must look for any stable\ndecision regarding the comparative purity in reference to the sacred\nautographs of the several classes of documents which have passed under our\nreview.\n\n(\u03b3) Hence the second reason for supporting the text of Westcott and Hort\nurged by the _Two Revisers_ relates to an investigation of facts hitherto\nbut partially ascertained: the third, like the first, involves only\nmatters of opinion, in which individual judgements and prepossessions bear\nthe chief part. \u201cYet a third reason is supplied by Internal Evidence, or,\nin other words, by considerations ... of intrinsic or of Transcriptional\nProbability\u201d (The Revisers &c., p. 26): and \u201chere,\u201d they very justly add,\n\u201cit is obvious that we enter at once into a very delicate and difficult\ndomain of textual criticism, and can only draw our conclusions with the\nutmost circumspection and reserve\u201d (_ibid._). On the subject of Internal\nEvidence enough for our present purpose has been said, and Dr. Hort\u2019s\nTranscriptional head appears to be Bp. Ellicott\u2019s _paradiplomatic_ under a\nmore convenient name. Our author\u2019s discussion of what he calls the\n\u201crudimental criticism\u201d of Internal evidence (Hort, Part ii. pp. 19-72), if\nnecessarily somewhat abstruse, is one of the most elaborate and\ninteresting in his admirable volume. It is sometimes said that all\nreasoning is analytical, not synthetical; the reducing a foregone\nconclusion to the first principles on which it rests, rather than the\nbuilding upon those first principles the materials wherewith to construct\nthe conclusion. Of this portion of Dr. Hort\u2019s labours the _dictum_ is\nemphatically true. Cod. B and its characteristic peculiarities are never\nout of the author\u2019s mind, and those lines of thought are closely followed\nwhich most readily lead up to the theory of that manuscript\u2019s practical\nimpeccability. We allege this statement in no disparaging spirit, and it\nmay be that Dr. Hort will not wholly disagree with us. Not only is he duly\nsensible of the precariousness of Intrinsic evidence, inasmuch as \u201cthe\nuncertainty of the decision in ordinary cases is shown by the great\ndiversity of judgement which is actually found to exist\u201d (Hort, p. 21),\nbut he boldly, and no less boldly than truly, intimates that in such cases\nthe ultimate decision must rest with the individual critic: \u201cin almost all\ntexts variations occur where personal judgement inevitably takes a large\npart in the final decision.... Different minds will be impressed by\ndifferent parts of the evidence as clearer than the rest, and so virtually\nruling the rest: here therefore personal discernment would seem the surest\nground for confidence\u201d (_ibid._ p. 65). For the critic\u2019s confidence\nperhaps, not for that of his reader.\n\nThe process of grouping authorities, whether by considerations of their\ngeographical distribution or (more uncertainly) according to their\ngenealogy as inferred from internal considerations (_ibid._ pp. 49-65),\noccupies a large measure of Dr. Hort\u2019s attention. The idea has not indeed\noriginated with him, and its occasional value will be frankly acknowledged\nin the ensuing pages, so that on this head we need not further enlarge. In\nconclusion we will say, that the more our Cambridge Professor\u2019s\n\u201cIntroduction\u201d is studied the more it grows upon our esteem for fulness of\nlearning, for patience of research, for keenness of intellectual power,\nand especially for a certain marvellous readiness in accounting after some\nfashion for every new phenomenon which occurs, however apparently adverse\nto the acceptance of his own theory. With all our reverence for his\ngenius, and gratitude for much that we have learnt from him in the course\nof our studies, we are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our\nstrong conviction that the hypothesis to whose proof he has devoted so\nmany laborious years, is destitute not only of historical foundation, but\nof all probability resulting from the internal goodness of the text which\nits adoption would force upon us(301).\n\nThis last assertion we will try to verify by subjoining a select number of\nthose many passages in the N. T. wherein the two great codices \u05d0 and B,\none or both of them, are witnesses for readings, nearly all of which, to\nthe best of our judgement, are corruptions of the sacred originals(302).\n\n6. Those who devote themselves to the criticism of the text of the New\nTestament have only of late come to understand the full importance of\nattending closely to the mutual connexion subsisting between their several\nmaterials of every description, whether manuscripts, versions, or Fathers.\nThe study of _grouping_ has been recently and not untruly said to be the\nfoundation of all enduring criticism(303). Now that theories about the\nformal recensions of whole classes of these documents have generally been\ngiven up as purely visionary, and the very word _families_ has come into\ndisrepute by reason of the exploded fancies it recalls, we can discern not\nthe less clearly that certain groups of them have in common not only a\ngeneral resemblance in regard to the readings they exhibit, but\ncharacteristic peculiarities attaching themselves to each group.\nSystematic or wilful corruption of the sacred text, at least on a scale\nworth taking into account, there would seem to have been almost none; yet\nthe tendency to licentious paraphrase and unwarranted additions\ndistinguished one set of our witnesses from the second century downwards;\na bias towards grammatical and critical purism and needless omissions\nappertained to another; while a third was only too apt to soften what\nmight seem harsh, to smooth over difficulties, and to bring passages,\nespecially of the Synoptic Gospels, into unnatural harmony with each\nother. All these changes appear to have been going on without notice\nduring the whole of the third and fourth centuries, and except that the\ngreat name of Origen is associated (not always happily) with one class of\nthem, were rather the work of transcribers than of scholars. Eusebius and\nJerome, in their judgements about Scripture texts, are more the echoes of\nOrigen than independent investigators.\n\nNow, as a first approximation to the actual state of the case, the several\nclasses of changes which we have enumerated admit of a certain rude\ngeographical distribution, one of them appertaining to Western Christendom\nand the earliest Fathers of the African and Gallic Churches (including\nNorth Italy under the latter appellation); a second to Egypt and its\nneighbourhood; the third originally to Syria and Christian Antioch, in\nlater times to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. We have here, no doubt,\nmuch to remind us of Griesbach and his scheme of triple recensions, but\nwith this broad distinction between his conclusions and those of modern\ncritics, that whereas he regarded the existence of his families as a\npatent fact, and grounded upon it precise and mechanical rules for the\narrangement of the text, we are now content to perceive no more than\nunconscious tendencies, liable to be modified or diverted by a thousand\noccult influences, of which in each single case it is impossible to form\nan estimate beforehand. Even that marked bias in the direction of adding\nto the record, which is the reproach of Codex Bezae and some of its\ncompeers, and renders the text of the Acts as exhibited by DE, by the\ncursive 137, and the margin of the Harkleian Syriac, as unlike that\ncommonly read as can well be imagined(304), is mixed up with a proneness\nto omissions which we should look for rather from another class of\ndocuments (e.g. the rejection of \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 Matt. v. 11), and which in the\nlatter part of St. Luke\u2019s Gospel almost suggests the idea of representing\nan earlier edition than that now in ordinary use, yet proceeding from the\nEvangelist\u2019s own hand (_see_ p. 18)(305). Again, the process whereby the\nrough places are made plain and abrupt constructions rounded, is\nabundantly exemplified in the readings of the great uncial A, supported as\nit is by the mass of later manuscripts (e.g. Mark i. 27; Acts xv. 17, 18;\nxx. 24); yet in innumerable instances (_see_ Appendix to this chapter)\nthese self-same codices retain the genuine text of the sacred writers\nwhich their more illustrious compeers have lost or impaired.\n\nHence it follows that in judging of the character of a various reading\nproposed for our acceptance, we must carefully mark whether it comes to us\nfrom many directions or from one. And herein the native country of the\nseveral documents, even when we can make sure of it, is only a precarious\nguide. If the Ethiopic or the Armenian versions have really been corrected\nby the Latin Vulgate, the geographical remoteness of their origin must go\nfor nothing where they agree with the latter version. The relation in\nwhich Cod. L and the Bohairic version stand to Cod. B is too close to\nallow them their full value as independent witnesses unless when they are\nat variance with that great uncial, wheresoever it may have been written:\nthe same might be said of the beautiful Latin fragment _k_ from Bobbio. To\nwhatever nations they belong, their resemblances are too strong and\nperpetual not to compel us to withhold from them a part of the\nconsideration their concord would otherwise lay claim to. The same is\nincontestably the case with the Curetonian and margin of the Harkleian\nSyriac in connexion with Cod. D. Wide as is the region which separates\nSyria from Gaul, there must have been in very early times some remote\ncommunication by which the stream of Eastern testimony or tradition, like\nanother Alpheus, rose up again with fresh strength to irrigate the regions\nof the distant West. The Peshitto Syriac leans at times in the same\ndirection, although both in nation and character it most assimilates to\nthe same class as Cod. A.\n\nWith these, and it may be with some further reservations which experience\nand study shall hereafter suggest, the principle of grouping must be\nacknowledged to be a sound one, and those lines of evidence to be least\nlikely to lead us astray which converge from the most varied quarters to\nthe same point. It is strange, but not more strange than needful, that we\nare compelled in the cause of truth to make one stipulation more: namely,\nthat this rule be henceforth applied impartially in all cases, as well\nwhen it will tell in favour of the Received text, as when it shall help to\nset it aside. To assign a high value to cursive manuscripts of the best\ndescription (such as 1, 33, 69, 157, Evst. 259, or 61 of the Acts), and to\nsuch uncials as LR\u0394, or even as \u05d0 or C, whensoever they happen to agree\nwith Cod. B, and to treat their refined silver as though it had been\nsuddenly transmuted into dross when they come to contradict it, is a\npractice too plainly unreasonable to admit of serious defence, and can\nonly lead to results which those who uphold it would be the first to\ndeplore(306).\n\n7. It is hoped that the general issue of the foregoing discussion may now\nbe embodied in these four practical rules(307):\u2014\n\n(1) That the true readings of the Greek New Testament cannot safely be\nderived from any one set of authorities, whether manuscripts, versions, or\nFathers, but ought to be the result of a patient comparison and careful\nestimate of the evidence supplied by them all.\n\n(2) That where there is a real agreement between all documents containing\nthe Gospels up to the sixth century, and in other parts of the New\nTestament up to the ninth, the testimony of later manuscripts and\nversions, though not to be rejected unheard, must be regarded with great\nsuspicion, and, UNLESS UPHELD BY STRONG INTERNAL EVIDENCE, can hardly be\nadopted(308).\n\n(3) That where the more ancient documents are at variance with each other,\nthe later uncial and cursive copies, especially those of approved merit,\nare of real importance, as being the surviving representatives of other\ncodices, very probably as early, perhaps even earlier, than any now\nextant.\n\n(4) That in weighing conflicting evidence we must assign the highest value\nnot to those readings which are attested by the greatest number of\nwitnesses, but to those which come to us from several remote and\nindependent sources, and which bear the least likeness to each other in\nrespect to genius and general character.\n\n\n\n\nAppendix To Chapter X.\n\n\nMatt. vi. 8. The transparent gloss \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is inserted before \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\nby Codd. \u05d0*B and the Sahidic version(309).\n\nVer. 22. \u1f49 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 B, _a_ _b_ _c_ _ff_1\n_n_1.2 _h_ _l_, the printed Vulgate, some Latin writers, and the Ethiopic.\nThe addition of \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 is more strongly attested in Luke xi. 34 by \u05d0*ABCDM,\nbut is intolerable in either place.\n\nMatt. xvi. 21. \u1f08\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f24\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f30\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2: so the first hands of \u05d0 and\nB, with the Bohairic version only, their very frequent companion.\n\nMatt. xxvii. 28. On the impossible reading of \u05d0cBD, _a_ _b_ _c_ _ff_2 _q_,\nand a few others, enough has been said in Chap. VII. p. 234.\n\nVer. 49. We are here brought face to face with the gravest interpolation\nyet laid to the charge of B, whose tendency is usually in the opposite\ndirection. Westcott and Hort alone among the editors feel constrained to\ninsert in the text, though enclosed in their double brackets and regarded\nas \u201cmost probably an interpolation,\u201d a sentence which neither they nor any\nother competent scholar can easily believe that the Evangelist ever\nwrote(310). After \u03c3\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd are set the following words borrowed from\nJohn xix. 34, with a slight verbal change, and representing that the\nSaviour was pierced before his death: \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f7c\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03c5\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f01\u1fd6\u03bc\u03b1. Thus we read in \u05d0BCLU (which has\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 before \u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1) \u0393, 5, 48, 67, 115, 127*, five good\nmanuscripts of the Vulgate, _Kells_, _gat._, _mm._, _chad._, _mac-regol._,\nand _Oxon._, _C. C._ (_not_ in _Bodl._), _Harl._ 1023 and 1802*, and the\nmargin of 1 E. VI, the Jerusalem Syriac once when the Lesson occurs, and\nthe Ethiopic. Chrysostom thus read in his copy, but used the clause with\nso little reflection that he regarded the Lord as dead already. Severus of\nAntioch [d. 539], who himself protested against this gross corruption,\ntells us that Cyril of Alexandria as well as Chrysostom received it. A\nscholion found in Cod. 72 refers this addition \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03b4\u03ce\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, on the\nauthority of Chrysostom; and from the unintentional blunders of Harmonists\nlike Tatian such an insertion might very well have crept in. The marvel is\nthat it found favour so widely as it did(311).\n\nMatt. xxviii. 19. \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 occurs only in BD (whose Latin has\n_baptizantes_), as though Baptism were to precede instruction in the\nfaith. Tregelles alone dares to place this reading in the text: Westcott\nand Hort have it in their margin.\n\nMark iii. 14, 16. After noticing the evidence which supported the corrupt\nsentence in Matt. xxvii. 49, we are little disposed to accept what is in\nsubstance the same for such feeble glosses as are afforded us in these two\nverses; namely, \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f60\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd after \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 in ver. 14\n(derived from Luke vi. 13), and \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 at the beginning\nof ver. 16. Westcott and Hort receive both clauses, Tischendorf only the\nlatter, with \u05d0BC*\u0394 and an Ethiopic manuscript: yet the former, if less\nlikely to be genuine, is the better supported. It is found in \u05d0BC*\u0394 (with\nsome variation), in 13, 28, 69, 124, 238, 346, the Bohairic, the margin of\nthe Harkleian Syriac, the Ethiopic, the Arabic of the Polyglott: a goodly\narray from divers sources to uphold so bad a reading.\n\nMark vi. 2. \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af is read by Westcott and Hort (so Tischendorf)\ninstead of \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af with BL, 13, 28, 69, 346. Three out of the four cursives\nbelong to Professor Ferrar\u2019s group.\n\nVer. 22. In the room of \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c1\u03c9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 a serious\nvariation of \u05d0BDL\u0394, 238, 473, 558 is admitted into the text by Westcott\nand Hort, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (+ \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 238, 558) \u1f29\u03c1\u1ff3\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, thus bringing St.\nMark into direct contradiction with Josephus, who expressly states that\nthe wretched girl was named Salome, and was the daughter of Herod Philip\nby Herodias, who did not leave her husband till after Salome\u2019s birth\n(Josephus, Antiq., lib. xviii. ch. v. \u00a7 4). Add to this the extreme\nimprobability that even Herod the Tetrarch should have allowed his own\nchild to degrade herself in such wise as Salome did here, or that she\ncould not have carried her point with her father without resorting to\nlicentious allurements. We must therefore regard \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 as certainly false,\nwhile \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 strongly expresses the writer\u2019s feeling that even Herodias\ncould stoop so low, and being used emphatically has so much offended a few\nthat they omit it altogether. Such are 1, 118, 209, and some versions (_b_\n_c_ _f_, the Bohairic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Gothic) which did not\nunderstand it. Tischendorf was hardly right in adding the Peshitto to the\nlist(312).\n\nMark ix. 1. \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd for \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5 (\u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd) is the almost impossible\nreading of BD*, _c_ _k_* (_a_ _d_ _q_ _n_ are uncertain), adopted the more\nreadily by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, because all have the\nproper order \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5 in Matt. xvi. 28.\n\nMark xiii. 33. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort reject (Tregelles\nmore fitly sets within brackets) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 with BD, 122, and the\nLatin _a_ _c_ _k_ and _tol._* of the Vulgate only. It is in the favour of\nthe two words that they cannot have come from the parallel place in St.\nMatthew (ch. xxiv. 42), nor is the preceding verb the same in ch. xiv. 38.\nHere even \u05d0L\u0394 side against B with AC and all other authorities, including\nthe Egyptian and most Latin, as well as the Syriac versions.\n\nLuke iv. 44. The wonderful variation \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 is brought into the text of\nHort and Westcott, the true reading \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 being banished to their\nmargin. Their change is upheld by a strong phalanx indeed: \u05d0NBCLQR, 1, 21,\n71, Evst. 222, 259 and some twenty other cursives (Evan. 503 and two\nLectionaries read \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd instead of either), the Bohairic and the text of\nthe Harkleian: authorities enough to prove anything not in itself\nimpossible, as \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 is in this place. Not only is Galilee the scene of\nthe events recorded immediately before and after the present verse, but\nthe passage is manifestly parallel to Mark i. 39. The three Synoptic\nGospels are broadly distinguished from that of St. John by their silence\nrespecting the Lord\u2019s ministry in Judaea before He went up to the last\npassover. Yet Alford _in loco_, while admitting that \u201cour narrative is\nthus brought into the more startling discrepancy with that of St. Mark, in\nwhich unquestionably the same portion of the sacred history is related,\u201d\nmost strangely adds, \u201cStill these are considerations which must not weigh\nin the least degree with the critic. It is his province simply to track\nout what is the sacred text, not what, in his own feeble and partial\njudgement, _it ought to have been_.\u201d\n\nLuke vi. 48. It is surprising how a gloss so frigid as \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2\n\u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd could have been accepted by Tischendorf, Tregelles,\nWestcott and Hort, in the room of \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, chiefly,\nit may be presumed, because the latter is the expression of St. Matthew\n(ch. vii. 25). Yet such is the reading of \u05d0BL\u039e, of the two best cursives\n33, 157, of the Bohairic (with some variation in its copies), of the\nmargin of the Harkleian, and of Cyril of Alexandria. The Ethiopic\npreserves both forms. As the present \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 early in the verse\ninvolves a plain contradiction when compared with the perfect \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\nat the end, Tregelles changes the latter into \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 on the feeble\nauthority of the third hand of B, of 33, and possibly of 157.\n\nLuke viii. 40. For \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd after \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 we find \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd in \u05d0 only. Of\ncourse the variation is quite wrong, but it is hard to see the pertinency\nof Dr. Vance Smith\u2019s hint (_Theological Review_, July, 1875) \u201cthat it\ncannot have got in by accident.\u201d\n\nLuke x. 1. This case is interesting, as being one wherein B (not \u05d0) is at\nvariance with the very express evidence of the earliest ecclesiastical\nwriters, while it makes the number of these disciples, not seventy, but\nseventy-two(313). With B are DM, also R (\u201cita enim cert\u00e8 omnino videtur,\u201d\nTisch., Monum. sacra inedita, vol. ii. Proleg. p. xviii), in the prefixed\ntable of \u03c4\u03af\u03c4\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 (Vol. I. p. 57, _n_), its text being lost, Codd. 1, 42, _a\nc e g_1.2? _l_, the Vulgate, Curetonian Syriac, and Armenian. Lachmann\nwith Westcott and Hort insert \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf, but within brackets, for the evidence\nagainst it is overwhelming both in number and in weight: namely, Codd.\n\u05d0ACEGHKLSUVX\u0393\u0394\u039b\u039e\u03a0, all other cursives, _b f g_ of the Old Latin, the\nBohairic, the three other Syriac, the Gothic, and Ethiopic versions.\n\nLuke xiv. 5. Here again we have a strong conviction that \u05d0, though now in\nthe minority, is more correct than B, supported as the latter is by a\ndense array of witnesses of every age and country. In the clause \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 of the Received text all the critical editors substitute\n\u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 for \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, which introduces a bathos so tasteless as to be almost\nludicrous(314). Yet \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 is found with or without \u1f41 before it in AB\n(_hiant_ CF)EGHMSUV\u0393\u0394\u039b, in no less than 125 cursive copies already cited\nby name(315) (also \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd Evst. 259), in _e f g_, the Sahidic, Peshitto\nand Harkleian(316) Syriac versions: Cod. 508 and the Curetonian combine\nboth forms \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f22 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, and Cod. 215 has \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f22 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 without \u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2.\nAdd to these Cyril of Alexandria (whose words are cited in catenas, as in\nthe scholia to X, 253, 259), Titus of Bostra the commentator, Euthymius,\nand Theophylact. For \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 are \u05d0KLX\u03a0, 1, 33, 66 _secund\u00e2 manu_, 69 (\u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2),\n71, 207 _sec. man._, 211, 213, 407, 413, 492, 509, 512, 549, 550, 555,\n556, 569, 570, 599, 602, and doubtless others not cited: also the text of\nX, 253, 259 in spite of the annexed commentary; of the versions _a b c i\nl_ of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Bohairic, Jerusalem Syriac, Armenian,\nand Ethiopic (_bos eius aut asinus_), though the Slavonic codices and\nPersic of the Polyglott make for \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2. Cod. 52 (_sic_) and the Arabic of\nthe Polyglott omit \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f24, while D has \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd (_ovis d_) for \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (comp.\nMatt. xii. 11), and 557 exhibits \u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f22 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. \u03a5\u03a3 or \u039f\u0399\u03a3 mistaken as the\ncontraction for \u03a5\u0399\u039f\u03a3 is a mere guess, and we are safest here in clinging\nto common sense against a preponderance of outward evidence.\n\nLuke xv. 21. Here by adding from ver. 19 \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\n(placed in the text by Westcott and Hort within brackets) the great\ncodices \u05d0BD, with UX, 33, 512, 543, 558, 571, a catena, and four\nmanuscripts of the Vulgate (_bodl. gat. mm. tol._), manage to keep out of\nsight that delicate touch of true nature which Augustine points out, that\nthe son never carried out his purpose of offering himself for a hireling,\n\u201cquod post osculum patris generosissime jam dedignatur.\u201d\n\nLuke xvi. 12. It is hard to tell how far thorough scholars and able\ncritics are prepared to push a favourite theory, when Westcott and Hort\nplace \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd in the text, reserving \u1f51\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd for the\nmargin. Not to mention that the interchange of \u03b7 and \u03c5 in these pronouns\nis the most obstinate of all known itacisms, and one to which B is\nespecially prone (e.g. Acts xvii. 28; 1 Pet. ii. 24; 1 John ii. 25; iii.\n1, Vol. I. p. 11), \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd is found only in BL, Evst. 21, and Origen\nonce: in 157, _e i l_, and in Tertullian twice it is softened down to\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd.\n\nLuke XXI. 24: \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd [\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9] kairo\u1f76 \u1f10thn\u1ff6n. The words\nwithin brackets appear thus in Westcott and Hort\u2019s text alone; what\npossible meaning can be assigned to them in the position they there occupy\nit is hard to see. They are obviously derived by an error of the scribe\u2019s\neye from \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (the reading of \u05d0BD, &c.) at the beginning of ver.\n25. This unintelligible insertion is due to B; but L, the Bohairic, and a\ncodex cited in the Harkleian margin also have it with another \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03af\nprefixed to \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. D runs on thus: \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 (om. \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b8\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd). Those who discover some recondite beauty in the\nreading of B compare with this the genuine addition \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd after\n\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd in 1 John iii. 1. _Nemp\u00e8 amatorem turpia decipiunt caecum vitia,\naut etiam ipsa haec delectant._\n\nLuke xxiii. 32. For \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9, which is unobjectionable in the\nGreek, though a little hard in a close English translation, \u05d0B and the two\nEgyptian versions, followed by Westcott and Hort, have the wholly\nimpossible \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf.\n\nJohn ii. 3. The loose paraphrase of Cod. \u05d0 in place of \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\ncommends itself to no one but Tischendorf, who in his turn admires the\nworst deformities of his favourite: it runs \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f41 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, in which few readers will be able to\ndiscern with him the manner and style of St. John. The Old Latin _a b ff_2\nand Gaudentius [iv]; also _e l_, the Ethiopic, and the margin of the\nHarkleian in part, exhibit the same vapid circumlocution. Cod. \u05d0 in this\nGospel, and sometimes elsewhere, has a good deal in common with the\nWestern codices and Latin Fathers, and some of its glosses are simply\ndeplorable: e.g. \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 for \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, James v. 10; \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\nfor \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, 1 Pet. iii. 7; \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 for \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, 1 Pet. iv. 1\nafter ch. ii. 21, where it does not stand alone, as here. Of a better\ncharacter is its bold supplement of \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 before \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae in 1 Pet.\nv. 13, apparently borrowed from primitive tradition, and supported by the\nPeshitto, Vulgate (in its best manuscripts and editions), and Armenian\nversions.\n\nJohn iv. 1. After \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 we find \u1f24 omitted in AB* (though it is added in\nwhat Tischendorf considers an ancient hand, his B2) GL\u0393, 262, Origen and\nEpiphanius, but appears in \u05d0CD and all the rest. Tregelles rejects \u1f24 in\nhis margin, Hort and Westcott put it within brackets. Well may Dr. Hort\nsay (Notes, p. 76), \u201cIt remains no easy matter to explain how the verse as\nit stands can be reasonably understood without \u1f24, or how such a mere slip\nas the loss of \u0397 after \u0395\u0399 should have so much excellent Greek authority,\nmore especially as the absence of \u1f24 increases the obvious no less than the\nreal difficulty of the verse.\u201d\n\nJohn vii. 39. One of the worst faults a manuscript (the same is not true\nof a version) can have is a habit of supplying, either from the margin or\nfrom the scribe\u2019s misplaced ingenuity, some word that may clear up a\ndifficulty, or limit the writer\u2019s meaning. Certainly this is not a common\nfault with Cod. B, but we have here a conspicuous example of it. It stands\nalmost alone in receiving \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd after \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1: one cursive (254) has\n\u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd, and so read _a b c e ff_2 _g l q_, the Vulgate, the Peshitto, and\nthe Georgian (Malan, St. John), the Jerusalem Syriac, the Polyglott\nPersic, a catena, Eusebius and Origen in a Latin version: the margin of\nthe Harkleian Syriac makes a yet further addition. The Sahidic, Ethiopic,\nand Erpenius\u2019 Arabic also supply some word. But the versions and\ncommentators, like our own English translations, probably meant no more\nthan a bold exposition. The whole blame of this evident corruption rests\nwith the two manuscripts. No editor follows B here.\n\nJohn ix. 4. Most readers will think with Dean Burgon that the reading \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (whether followed by \u03bc\u03b5 or \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2)\n\u201ccarries with it its own sufficient condemnation\u201d (Last Twelve Verses,\n&c., p. 81). The single or double \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, turning the whole clause into a\ngeneral statement, applicable to every one, is found in \u05d0*BDL, the two\nEgyptian, Jerusalem Syriac, Erpenius\u2019 Arabic, and Roman Ethiopic versions,\nin the younger Cyril and the versifier Nonnus. Origen and Jerome cite the\npassage as if the reading were \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5, which, by a familiar _itacism_\n(_see_ p. 11), is the reading of the first hand of B. The first \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 is\nadopted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort: the second by\nTischendorf alone after \u05d0*L, the Bohairic, Roman Ethiopic, Erpenius\u2019\nArabic, and Cyril. Certainly \u03bc\u03b5 of BD, the Sahidic, and Jerusalem Syriac,\nis very harsh.\n\nJohn x. 22. For \u03b4\u03ad after \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf Westcott and Hort read \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 with BL, 33,\nthe Sahidic, Gothic, Slavonic, and Armenian versions. No such use of \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\nin this order, and without another particle, will be found in the New\nTestament, or easily elsewhere. The Bohairic and _gat._ of the Vulgate\nhave \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5, which is a different thing. Moreover, the sense will not\nadmit so sharp a definition of sameness in time as \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 implies. Three\nmonths intervened between the feast of Tabernacles, in and after which all\nthe events named from ch. vii downwards took place, and this winter feast\nof Dedication.\n\nJohn xviii. 5. For \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f30\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce \u1f10\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9, B and a have the\nmiserable variation \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce \u1f10\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9 \u1f30\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, which Westcott and Hort\nadvance to a place in their margin. The first \u0399\u03a3 (omitting \u1f41) was absorbed\nin the last syllable of \u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\u0399\u03a3, the second being a mere repetition of the\nfirst syllable of \u0399\u03a3\u03a4\u0397\u039a\u0395\u0399 (_sic_ B _prim\u00e2 manu_). Compare Vol. I. p. 10.\nWith so little care was this capital document written(317).\n\nActs iv. 25. We have here, upheld by nearly all the authorities to which\nstudents usually defer, that which cannot possibly be right, though\ncritical editors, in mere helplessness, feel obliged to put it in their\ntext: \u1f41 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03c5\u03b5\u1f76\u03b4 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03ce\u03bd. Thus read \u05d0ABE, 13, 15, 27, 29, 36, 38. Apost. 12, a catena and\nAthanasius. The Vulgate and Latin Fathers, the Harkleian Syriac and\nArmenian versions conspire, but with such wide variations as only serve to\ndisplay their perplexity. We have here two several readings, either of\nwhich might be true, combined into one that cannot. We might either adopt\nwith D \u1f43\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 _\u03bc\u03bd\u03c2_ \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03c5\u03b5\u1f76\u03b4 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 (but\n_david puero tuo_ d), or better with Didymus \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b1\u03c5\u03b5\u1f76\u03b4 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03ce\u03bd (which will fairly suit the Peshitto\nand Bohairic); or we might prefer the easier form of the Received text \u1f41\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b2\u1f76\u03b4 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03ce\u03bd, which has no support except from\nP(318) and the cursives 1, 31, 40, 220, 221, &c. (the valuable copy 224\nreads \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd _\u03b4\u03b1\u03b4_), and from Theophylact, Chrysostom\nbeing doubtful. Tischendorf justly pleads for the form he edits that it\nhas second, third, and fourth century authority, adding \u201csingula verba\npraeter morem sed non sine causs\u00e2 collocata sunt.\u201d _Praeter morem_ they\ncertainly are, and _non sine causs\u00e2_ too, if this and like examples shall\nlead us to a higher style of criticism than will be attained by setting up\none or more of the oldest copies as objects of unreasonable idolatry.\n\nActs vii. 46. \u1f90\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2. The portentous variant\n\u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u1ff3 for \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 is adopted by Lachmann, and by Tischendorf, who observes of\nit \u201cminim\u00e8 sensu caret:\u201d even Tregelles sets it in the margin, but\nWestcott and Hort simply obelize \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 as if they would read \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2\n(compare Psalm xxiv. 6, cxxxii. 5 with Gen. xlix. 24). Yet \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u1ff3 appears in\n\u05d0*BDH against \u05d0cACEP, all cursives (including 13, 31, 61, 220, 221), all\nversions. Observe also in ch. viii. 5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 in \u05d0* for \u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 on\naccount of ver. 40 and ch. xxi. 8.\n\nActs x. 19. \u1f38\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf is the reading of Westcott and Hort\u2019s text\n([\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2] margin) after B only, the true number being three (ver. 7): in\nch. xi. 11 Epiphanius only has \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf. There might be some grounds for\nomitting \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 here, as Tischendorf does, and Tregelles more doubtfully in\nhis margin (with DHLP, 24, 31, 111, 182, 183, 184, 185, 188, 189, 220,\n221, 224, _m_, the later Syriac, the Apostolical Constitutions, the elder\nCyril, Chrysostom and Theophylact, Augustine and Ambrose), no reason\nsurely for representing the Spirit as speaking only of the \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nActs xii. 25. An important passage for our present purpose. That the two\nApostles returned from, not to, Jerusalem is too plain for argument (ch.\nxi. 29, 30), yet \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc (which in its present order surely cannot\nbe joined with \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2) is the reading of Westcott and Hort\u2019s text (\u1f10\u03be\nand the fatal obelus [Glyph: dagger] being in their margin) after \u05d0BHLP,\n61, four of Matthaei\u2019s copies, Codd. 2, 4, 14, 24, 26, 34, 64, 78, 80, 95,\n224, and perhaps twenty other cursives, but besides these only the margin\nof the Harkleian, the Roman Ethiopic, the Polyglott Arabic, some copies of\nthe Slavonic and of Chrysostom, with Theophylact and Erasmus\u2019 first two\neditions, who says in his notes \u201cita legunt Graeci,\u201d i.e. his Codd. 2, 4.\nA few which substitute \u201cAntioch\u201d for \u201cJerusalem\u201d (28, 38, 66 _marg._,\n67**, 97 _marg._, Apost. 5) are witnesses for \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2, but not so those which,\nreading \u1f10\u03be or \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc, add with the Complutensian \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd (E, 7, 14**,\n27, 29, 32, 42, 57, 69, 98 _marg._, 100, 105, 106, 111, 126**, 182, 183,\n186, 220, 221, the Sahidic, Peshitto, and Erpenius\u2019 Arabic): Cod. 76 has\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc. C is defective here, and the only three\nremaining uncials are divided between \u1f10\u03be (A, 13, 27, 29, 69, 214, Apost.\n54, Chrysostom sometimes) and \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc (DE, 15, 18, 36, 40, 68, 73, 76, 81, 93,\n98, 100, 105, 106, 111, 113, 180, 183, 184, a copy of Chrysostom, and the\nVulgate _ab_). The two Egyptian, the Peshitto, the Philoxenian text, the\nArmenian and Pell Platt\u2019s Ethiopic have \u201cfrom,\u201d the only possible sense,\nin spite of \u05d0B. Tischendorf in his N. T. Vaticanum 1867 alleges that in\nthat codex \u201clitterae \u03b5\u03b9\u03c3 \u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 prim\u00e2 ut videtur manu rescriptae. Videtur\nprimum \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf pro \u03b5\u03b9\u03c3 scriptum fuisse.\u201d But since he did not repeat the\nstatement three years later in his eighth edition, he may have come to\nfeel doubtful about it. Dr. Hort conjectures that the original order was\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bc \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nActs xvii. 28. Here Westcott and Hort place \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 in their text, \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 in\nthe margin. For \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 we find only B, 33, 68, 95, 96, 105, 137, and rather\nwonder than otherwise that the itacism is not met with in more cursives\nthan six. The Bohairic has been cited in error on the same side. It needs\nnot a word to explain that the stress of St. Paul\u2019s argument rests on\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2. To the Athenians he quotes not the Hebrew Scriptures, but the poets\nof whom they were proud. Compare Luke xvi. 12, above.\n\nAn itacism not quite so gross in ch. xx. 10 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 (B*, 185, 224*)\nis likewise honoured with a place in Westcott and Hort\u2019s margin. In Matt.\nxi. 16 they follow Tischendorf and Tregelles in adopting \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 for\n\u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 with BCDZ, and indeed the mass of copies. This last itacism (for\nit can be nothing better) was admitted so early as to affect many of the\nchief versions.\n\nActs xx. 30. Cod. B omits \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd after \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, where it is much wanted,\napparently with no countenance except from Cod. 186, for this is just a\npoint in which versions (the Sahidic and both Ethiopic) can be little\ntrusted. The present is one of the countless examples of Cod. B\u2019s\ninclination to abridge, which in the Old Testament is carried so far as to\neject from the text of the Septuagint words that are, and always must have\nbeen, in the original Hebrew. Westcott and Hort include \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd within\nbrackets.\n\nActs xxv. 13. Agrippa and Bernice went to Caesarea to greet the new\ngovernor (\u1f00\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9), not surely after they had sent their greeting\nbefore them (\u1f00\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9), which, if it had been a fact, would not have\nbeen worth mentioning. Yet, though the reading is so manifestly false, the\nevidence for the aorist seems overwhelming (\u05d0ABHLP, the Greek of E, 13,\n24*, 31, 68, 105, 180, 220, 224*, a few more copies, and the Coptic and\nEthiopic versions). The future is found possibly in C, certainly in 61,\n221, and the mass of cursives, in _e_ and other versions, in Chrysostom,\nand in one form of Theophylact\u2019s commentary. Here again Dr. Hort suspects\nsome kind of prior corruption (Notes, p. 100).\n\nActs xxviii. 13. For \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 of all other manuscripts and versions\n\u05d0*B have \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, evidently borrowed from ch. xxvii. 40. Even this\nvile error of transcription is set in Westcott and Hort\u2019s text, the\nalternative not even in their margin. In ver. 15 they once set \u03bf\u1f31 within\nbrackets(319) on the evidence of B, 96 only. Cod. B is very prone to omit\nthe article, especially, but not exclusively, with proper names.\n\nRom. vii. 22. The substitution of \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u03cc\u03c2 (cf. ver. 23) for \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\nseems peculiar to Cod. B.\n\nRom. xv. 31. Lachmann and Tregelles (in his margin only) accept the\nmanifest gloss \u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 for \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 with B (_see_ Vol. I. p. 290 for its\n\u201c_Western_ element\u201d) D*FG (_d_ _e_ have _remuneratio_) and Ambrosiaster\n(_munerum meorum ministratio_). But \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 is found in \u05d0ACD2 and 3 and\nconsequently in E (_see_ Vol. I. p. 176), _f_ (_ministratio_), _g_\n(_administratio_), Vulg. (_obsequii mei oblatio_), so _d_***, _fuld._ and\nOrigen in the Latin (_ministerium_), with both Syriac, the Bohairic,\nArmenian and Ethiopic versions, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and John Damascene.\n\n1 Cor. xiii. 5. Never was a noble speech more cruelly pared down to a\ntrite commonplace than by the reading of B and Clement of Alexandria (very\nexpressly) \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2, in the place of \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f70 (or \u03c4\u1f78)\n\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 of the self-same Clement just as expressly elsewhere (_see_ p. 262\nand note 3), and of all other authorities of every description. Here\nWestcott and Hort place \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ae in their margin.\n\nCol. iv. 15. For \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 Lachmann, Tregelles\u2019 margin, Hort and Westcott have\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 from B, 676**, and the text of the later Syriac, thus implying that\n\u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1 is the Doric feminine form, which is very unlikely.\n\n1 Thess. v. 4. Lachmann with Hort and Westcott (but not their margin)\nreads \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 for \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 with AB and the Bohairic, but this cannot be\nright.\n\nHeb. vii. 1. For \u1f41 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 Lachmann, Tregelles, Hort and Westcott\u2019s\ntext have \u1f43\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 with \u05d0ABC**DEK, 17, a broken sentence: but this is\ntoo much even for Dr. Hort, who says, in the language habitual to him,\nthat \u1f41 seems \u201ca right emendation of the Syrian revisers\u201d (Notes, p. 130).\n\nJames i. 17. What can be meant by \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 of \u05d0*B it is hard to say.\nThe versions are not clear as to the sense, but _ff_ alone seems to\nsuggest the genitive (_modicum obumbrationis_). That valuable Cod. 184,\nnow known only by Sanderson\u2019s collation at Lambeth (No. 1255, 10-14)(320),\nis said by him to _add_ to the end of the verse \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, which seems like a scholion on the preceding\nclause, and is found also in Cod. 221.\n\nNor will any one praise certain readings of Cod. B in James i. 9; 1 Pet.\ni. 9; 11; ii. 1; 12; 25; iii. 7; 14; 18 (_om._ \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7); iv. 1; v. 3; 2\nPet. i. 17; 1 John i. 2; ii. 14; 20; 25; 27; iii. 15; 3 John 4; 9; Jude 9,\nwhich passages the student may work out for himself.\n\nEnough of the weary and ungracious task of finding fault. The foregoing\nlist of errors patent in the most ancient codices might be largely\nincreased: two or three more will occur incidentally in Chapter XII (1\nCor. xiii. 3; Phil. ii. 1; 1 Pet. i. 23; _see_ also pp. 254, 319). Even if\nthe reader has not gone with me in every case, more than enough has been\nalleged to prove to demonstration that the true and pure text of the\nsacred writers is not to be looked for in \u05d0 or B, in \u05d0B, or BD, or BL, or\nany like combination of a select few authorities, but demands, in every\nfresh case as it arises, the free and impartial use of every available\nsource of information. Yet after all, Cod. B is a document of such value,\nthat it grows by experience even upon those who may have been a little\nprejudiced against it by reason of the excessive claims of its too zealous\nfriends(321). Its best associate, in our judgement, is Cod. C, where the\ntestimony of that precious palimpsest can be had. BC together will often\ncarry us safe through difficulties of the most complicated character, as\nfor instance, through that vexatious passage John xiii. 25, 26. Compare\nalso Acts xxvi. 16. Yet even here it is necessary to commend with reserve:\nBC stand almost alone in maintaining the ingenious but improbable\nvariation \u1f10\u03ba\u03c3\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 in Acts xxvii. 39 (_see_ Chap. XII), and the frigid\ngloss \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 in 1 Pet. iv. 5: they unite with others in foisting on St.\nMatthew\u2019s text its worst corruption, ch. xxvii. 49. In Gal. iii. 1, C\nagainst AB contains the gloss \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. Again, since no\nfact relating to these pursuits is more certain than the absolute\nindependence of the sources from which A and B are derived, it is manifest\nthat their occasional agreement is always of the greatest weight, and is\nlittle less than conclusive in those portions of the N. T. where other\nevidence is slender in amount or consideration, e.g. 1 Pet. i. 21 and v.\n10 (with the Vulgate); v. 11: also supported by those admirable cursives\n27, 29, in 1 Pet. v. 14; 1 John iv. 3; 19; 2 John 3; 12. See also 1 John\nv. 18, to be discussed in Chap. XII.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI. CONSIDERATIONS DERIVED FROM THE PECULIAR CHARACTER AND\nGRAMMATICAL FORM OF THE DIALECT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT.\n\n\n1. It will not be expected of us to enter in this place upon the wide\nsubject of the origin, genius, and peculiarities, whether in respect to\ngrammar or orthography, of that dialect of the Greek in which the N. T.\nwas written, except so far as it bears directly upon the criticism of the\nsacred volume. Questions, however, are perpetually arising, when we come\nto examine the oldest manuscripts of Scripture, which cannot be resolved\nunless we bear in mind the leading particulars wherein the diction of the\nEvangelists and Apostles differs not only from that of pure classical\nmodels, but also of their own contemporaries who composed in the Greek\nlanguage, or used it as their ordinary tongue.\n\n2. The Greek style of the N. T., then, is the result of blending two\nindependent elements, the debased vernacular speech of the age, and that\nstrange modification of the Alexandrian dialect which first appeared in\nthe Septuagint version of the Old Testament, and which, from their\nhabitual use of that version, had become familiar to the Jews in all\nnations under heaven; and was the more readily adopted by those whose\nnative language was Aramaean, from its profuse employment of Hebrew idioms\nand forms of expression. It is to this latter, the Greek of the\nSeptuagint, of the Apocalypse, and of the foreign Jews, that the name of\n_Hellenistic_ (Acts vi. 1) strictly applies. St. Paul, who was born in a\npure Greek city (Juvenal, iii. 114-118); perhaps even St. Luke, whose\noriginal writings(322) savour strongly of Demosthenes and Polybius, cannot\nbe said to have _affected_ the Hellenic, which they must have heard and\nspoken from their cradles. Without denying that the Septuagint translation\nand (by reason of their long sojourning in Palestine) even Syriac\nphraseology would powerfully influence the style of these inspired penmen,\nit is not chiefly from these sources that their writings must be\nillustrated, but rather from the kind of Greek current during their\nlifetime in Hellenic cities and colonies.\n\n3. Hence may be seen the exceeding practical difficulty of fixing the\northography, or even the grammatical forms, prevailing in the Greek\nTestament, a difficulty arising not only from the fluctuation of\nmanuscript authorities, but even more from the varying circumstances of\nthe respective authors. To St. John, for example, Greek must have been an\nalien tongue; the very construction of his sentences and the subtil\ncurrent of his thoughts amidst all his simplicity of mere diction, render\nit evident (even could we forget the style of his Apocalypse) that he\n_thought_ in Aramaean: divergences from the common Greek type might be\nlooked for in him and in those Apostles whose situation resembled his,\nwhich it is very unlikely would be adopted by Paul of Tarsus. Bearing\nthese facts always in mind (for the style of the New Testament is too apt\nto be treated as an uniform whole), we will proceed to discuss briefly,\nyet as distinctly as may be, a few out of the many perplexities of this\ndescription to which the study of the original codices at once introduces\nus(323).\n\n4. One of the most striking of them regards what is called \u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03ba\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd,\nthe \u201c\u03bd attached,\u201d which has been held to be an arbitrary and secondary\nadjunct. This letter, however, which is \u201cof more frequent occurrence at\nthe end of words, is itself of such a weak and fleeting consistency, that\nit often becomes inaudible, and is omitted in writing\u201d (Donaldson, Greek\nGrammar, p. 53, 2nd edit.). Hence, though, through the difficulty of\npronunciation, it became usual to neglect it before a consonant, it always\ncomprised _a real portion of the word to which it was annexed_, and the\ngreat Attic poets are full of verses which cannot be scanned in its\nabsence(324): on the other hand, the cases are just as frequent where its\ninsertion before a consonant would be fatal to the metre. In these\ninstances the laws of prosody infallibly point out the true reading, and\nlead us up to a general rule, that the weak or moveable \u03bd is more often\ndropped before a consonant than otherwise. This conclusion is confirmed by\nthe evidence of surviving classical manuscripts, although but few of them\nare older than the tenth century, and would naturally be conformed, in\nsuch minute points, to the fashion of that period. Codices of the Greek\nTestament, and of the Septuagint, however, which date from the fourth\ncentury downwards, present to us this remarkable phenomenon, that they\nexhibit the final \u03bd before a consonant full as often as they reject it,\nand, speaking generally, the most ancient (e.g. Evan. \u05d0ABCD)(325) are the\nmost constant in retaining it, though it is met with frequently in many\ncursive copies, and occasionally in almost all(326). Hence arises a\ndifficulty, on the part of modern editors, in dealing with this\ntroublesome letter. Lachmann professes to follow the balance of evidence\n(such evidence as he received) in each separate case, and, while he\nusually inserted, sometimes omitted _nu_ where he had no cause for such\ninconsistency except the purely accidental variation of his manuscripts;\nTischendorf admits it almost always (N. T., Proleg. p. liii, 7th edition),\nTregelles (I think), as also Westcott and Hort, invariably. Whether it be\nemployed or not, the practice should at any rate be uniform, and it is\nhard to assign any reason for using it which would not apply to classical\nwriters, whose manuscripts would no doubt contain it as often as those of\nthe N. T., were they as remote in date(327). The same facts are true, and\nthe same remarks equally apply to the representing or withdrawing of the\nweak \u03c2 in \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 before a consonant. Each of the aforenamed editors,\nhowever, for the sake of euphony, prefers \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 before \u03c3 at the beginning\nof the next word, except that Tregelles ventures on \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 in Acts\nxxiii. 11. Cod. \u05d0 has \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 about fourteen times in the N. T.\n\n5. In the mode of spelling proper names of places and persons peculiar to\nJudaea, the general practice of some older codices is to represent harsher\nforms than those met with in later documents. Thus in Mark i. 21\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc is found in \u05d0BD\u0394, 33, 69, Origen (_twice_), the Latin,\nBohairic, and Gothic (_but not the Syriac_: \u0712\u0726\u072a\u0722\u071d\u0718\u0721 or \u0721\u0718\u071d\u0722\u072a\u0726\u0712) versions,\nand, from the facility of its becoming softened by copyists, this may be\npreferred to \u03ba\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc of AC and the great numerical majority: yet we see\nLP with C in Matt. iv. 13, where Z sides with BD. In other instances the\npractice varies, even in the same manuscript, or in different parts of the\nN. T. Tischendorf, for example, decides that we ought always to read\n\u03bd\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b8 in St. Matthew, \u03bd\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4 in St. John (N. T., Proleg. p. lv, note):\nyet the Peshitto in all twelve places that the name occurs, and the\nCuretonian in the four wherein it is extant (Matt. ii. 23; iv. 13; xxi.\n11; Luke ii. 51), have the aspirate (\u0722\u0728\u0715\u0710 or \u0710\u0715\u0728\u0722), and being written in a\nkindred dialect, claim all the more consideration. Everywhere the\nmanuscripts vary considerably: thus in Mark i. 9 \u03bd\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4 is found in\n\u05d0BL\u0393\u0394, 33, 69, and most cursives (seventeen of Scrivener\u2019s), Origen, the\nHarkleian Syriac and Old Latin _a_ _b_ _f_: \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4 in AP: but \u03bd\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b8 in\nD (not its Latin version, _d_) EFHKMUV\u03a0, 1, and at least sixteen other\ncursives (but not Cod. 69 by the first hand, as Tregelles states), the Old\nLatin _c_, the Vulgate, the Bohairic and Gothic as well as the elder\nSyriac. In Matt. iv. 13 Cod. B has \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac by the first hand (but -\u03ad\u03c4 ch.\nii. 23), Cod. \u05d0 by a later one, with Z, 33 (so \u039e in Luke iv. 16); CP\u0394\n\u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b8, which is found in \u0394 nine times, in A twice: so that regarding the\northography of this word (which is inconstant also in the Received text),\nno reasonable certainty is to be attained. For \u039c\u03b1\u03b8\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, again (the\nvariation from the common form \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf,\nTregelles, Westcott and Hort), the authority is but slender, nor is the\ninternal probability great. Codd. \u05d0B\u0394 read \u039c\u03b1\u03b8\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 in the title and\nheadings to the first Gospel, while, in the five places where it occurs in\nthe text, B (_prim\u00e2 manu_), the fragment Te, and D have it always, \u05d0 three\ntimes (but \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 Matt. x. 3, \u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd Mark iii. 18 with \u03a3 in the\nsubscription to the first Gospel), the Sahidic and Gothic each twice: the\nPeshitto and title of the Curetonian too (all that is extant) have \u0721\u072c\u071a (or\n\u071a\u072c\u0721). For \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 the proof is yet weaker, for here Cod. B alone, and not\nquite consistently (e.g. Luke i. 13; 60; 63; Acts iii. 4, &c.), reads\n\u0399\u03c9\u03b1\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, Cod. \u05d0 \u0399\u03c9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2(328), while Cod. D fluctuates between the two. In\nquestions of orthography Westcott and Hort, as also the other editors in\nsome degree, adopt a uniform mode of spelling, without reference to the\nstate of the evidence in each particular case.\n\n6. Far more important than these are such variations in orthography as\nbear upon the dialect of the N. T. Its affinity to the Septuagint is\nadmitted on all hands, the degree of that affinity must depend on the\ninfluence we grant to certain very old manuscripts of the N. T., which\nabound in Alexandrian forms for the most part absent in the great mass of\ncodices. Such are the verbal terminations -\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, -\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5, -\u03b1\u03bd in the plural\nof the second aorist indicative, -\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd for -\u03bf\u03bd in the plural imperfect or\nsecond aorist, -\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd for -\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd, -\u03b1\u03bd for -\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 of the perfect, -\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 for\n-\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9, -\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf for -\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, -\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 for -\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. In nouns the principal changes\nare -\u03b1\u03bd for -\u03b1 in the accusative of the third declension, and (more\nrarely) the converse \u03b1 for -\u03b1\u03bd in the first(329). We have conceded to\nthese forms the name of Alexandrian, because it is probable that they\nactually derived their origin from that city(330), whose dialectic\npeculiarities the Septuagint had propagated among all Jews that spoke\nGreek; although some of them, if not the greater part, have been clearly\ntraced to other regions; as for example -\u03b1\u03bd for -\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 to Western Asia Minor\nalso and to Cilicia (Scholz, Commentatio, p. 9, notes w, x), occurring too\nin the Pseudo-Homeric \u201cBatrachomyomachia\u201d (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac \u03bc\u1fbd \u1f14\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd, ver.\n179). Now when we come to examine our manuscripts closely we find the\nforms we have enumerated not quite banished from the most recent, but\nappearing far more frequently in such copies as \u05d0ABC (especially D) LZ\nthan in those of lower date. It has been usual to ascribe such anomalous\n(or, at all events, unclassical) inflexions to the circumstance that the\nfirst-rate codices were written in Egypt; but an assumption which might be\nplausible in the case of two or three is improbable as regards them all;\nit will not apply at all to those Greek-Latin manuscripts which must have\nbeen made in the West, or to the cursives in which such forms are sparsely\nmet with, but which were certainly not copied from _surviving_\nuncials(331). Thus we are led to the conclusion that the older documents\nretained these irregularities, because they were found in _their_\nprototypes, the copies first taken from the sacred originals: that some of\nthem were in all likelihood the production of the skilful scribes of\nAlexandria, though their exhibiting these forms does not prove the fact,\nor even render it very probable: and that the sacred penmen, some perhaps\nmore than others, but all to some extent, were influenced by their\nrecollections and habitual use of the Septuagint version. Our practical\ninference from the whole discussion will be, not that Alexandrian\ninflexions should be invariably or even usually received into the text, as\nsome recent editors have been inclined to do, but that they should be\njudged separately in every case on their merits and the support adduced in\ntheir behalf; and be held entitled to no other indulgence than that a\nlower degree of evidence will suffice for them than when the sense is\naffected, inasmuch as idiosyncrasies in spelling are of all others the\nmost liable to be gradually and progressively modernized even by faithful\nand painstaking transcribers.\n\n7. The same remarks will obviously apply to those other dialectic forms,\nwhich, having been once peculiar to some one race of the great Greek\nfamily, had in the Apostles\u2019 time spread themselves throughout the Greek\ncolonies of Asia and Africa, and become incorporated into the common\nspeech, if they did not enter into the cultivated literary style, of the\nwhole nation. Such are the reputed Dorisms \u1f40\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 Luke xvi. 25, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03c7\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\nRom. ii. 17, 1 Cor. iv. 7 of the Received text, with no real variation in\nany known manuscript: all such examples must stand or fall on their own\nproper grounds of external evidence, the internal, so far as it ought to\ngo, being clearly in their favour. Like to them are the Ionisms \u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2\nLuke xxi. 24 (B*\u0394 _only_); Heb. xi. 34 (\u05d0AD*); 37 (\u05d0D*): \u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u1fc3 Luke\nxxii. 49 (\u05d0B*DLT _only_); Acts xii. 2 (\u05d0AB*D**, 61): \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03c5\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 Acts v. 2\n(AB3E _only_, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b9\u03b4\u03c5\u03b7\u03c2 \u05d0, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b9\u03b4\u03c5\u03b9\u03b7\u03c2 B*): \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 Acts xxvii. 1 of the\ncommon text, where the only authorities for the more familiar \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 seem\nto be Chrysostom, the cursives 37, 39, 56, 66, 100, 111, 183, 186, 188,\n189. To this class belong such changes of conjugation as \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd Mark\nv. 40 in K, 228, 447, 511 or cscr; or _vice vers\u00e2_, as \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 Cod.\n69, in Mark xiv. 4. The form \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd for \u1f15\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd John viii. 44; Apoc. xii.\n4, adopted by Westcott and Hort as the imperfect of \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03c9 (Mark xi. 25,\n&c.), does not seem suitable to the context in either place, although \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\nprecedes in the former passage in \u05d0B*DLX\u0394\u039b*, 1, 69*, 253, 507, 508, Evst.\n234.\n\n8. One caution seems called for in this matter, at least if we may judge\nfrom the practice of certain critics of high and merited fame. The sacred\npenmen may have adopted orthographical forms from the dialect of the\nSeptuagint, or from the debased diction of common life, but they did not,\nand could not, write what was merely inaccurate or barbarous. Hence\nrepudiate, in St. Paul especially, expressions like Tischendorf\u2019s \u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b9 Rom. viii. 20, as simply incredible on any evidence(332). He may\nallege for it Codd. \u05d0B*D*FG, of which the last three are bilingual\ncodices, the scribes of FG showing marvellous ignorance of Greek(333).\nThat Codd. \u05d0B should countenance such a _monstrum_ only enables us to\naccumulate one example the more of the fallibility of the very best\ndocuments, and to put in all seriousness the inquiry of Cobet in some like\ninstance: \u201cQuot annorum Codex te impellet ut hoc credas?... ecquis est,\ncui _fides veterum membranarum_ in tali re non admodum ridicula et inepta\nvideatur?\u201d (N. T. Vatic., Praef. p. xx). In the same way we utterly\ndisregard the manuscripts when they confound \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 with \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba (but _see_ p.\n318), \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 with \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9, sense with nonsense.\n\nThe reader has, we trust, been furnished with the leading principles on\nwhich it is conceived that dialectic peculiarities should be treated in\nrevising the text of the N. T. It would have been out of place to have\nentered into a more detailed account of variations which will readily be\nmet with (and must be carefully studied) in any good Grammar of the Greek\nNew Testament. Dr. Moulton\u2019s translation of Winer ought to be in the hands\nof every student, and leaves nothing to be regretted, except that accurate\nscholarship and unsparing diligence should have been expended on improving\nanother man\u2019s work, by one who is well able to produce a better of his\nown(334).\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII. APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS AND PRINCIPLES TO THE\nCRITICISM OF SELECT PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n\nIn applying to the revision of the sacred text the diplomatic materials\nand critical principles it has been the purpose of the preceding pages to\ndescribe, we have selected the few passages we have room to examine,\nchiefly in consideration of their actual importance, occasionally also\nwith the design of illustrating by pertinent examples the canons of\ninternal evidence and the laws of Comparative Criticism. It will be\nconvenient to discuss these passages in the order they occupy in the\nvolume of the New Testament: that which stands first affords a conspicuous\ninstance of undue and misplaced _subjectivity_.\n\n\n\n\nFirst Series. Gospels.\n\n\n1. MATT. i. 18. \u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 ... is altered by Tregelles into \u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 being omitted: Westcott and Hort place \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 between\nbrackets, and \u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 of Cod. B in the margin: Tischendorf,\nwho had rejected \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 in his fifth and seventh editions, restored it in\nhis eighth. Michaelis had objected to the term \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, Acts\nviii. 37 (see that verse, to be examined below), on the ground that \u201cIn\nthe time of the Apostles the word Christ was never used as the Proper Name\nof a Person, but as an epithet expressive of the ministry of Jesus;\u201d and\nalthough Bp. Middleton has abundantly proved his statement incorrect\n(Doctrine of the Greek Article, note on Mark ix. 41), and \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2(335), especially in some one of the oblique cases after\nprepositions, is very common, yet the precise form \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 occurs\nonly in these places and in 1 John iv. 3; Apoc. xii. 17, where again the\nreading is more than doubtful. Hence, apparently, the determination to\nchange the common text in St. Matthew, on evidence however slight. Now\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 is omitted _in no Greek manuscript whatsoever_(336). The Latin\nversion of Cod. D (_d_) indeed rejects it, the parallel Greek being lost;\nbut since _d_ sometimes agrees with other Latin copies against its own\nGreek, it cannot be deemed quite certain that the Greek rejected it\nalso(337). Cod. B reads \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6, in support of which Lachmann\ncites Origen, iii. 965 _d_ in the Latin, but on very precarious grounds,\nas Tregelles (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 189, note \u2020) candidly\nadmits. Tischendorf quotes Cod. 74 (after Wetstein), the Persic (of the\nPolyglott and in manuscript), and Maximus, Dial. de Trinitate, for \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f30\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6. The real testimony in favour of \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 consists of the Old\nLatin copies _a_ _b_ _c_ _d_ _f_ _ff_1, the Curetonian Syriac (I know not\nwhy Cureton should add \u201cthe Peshitto\u201d), the Latin Vulgate, the Frankish\nand Anglo-Saxon, Wheelocke\u2019s Persic, and Irenaeus in three places, \u201cwho\n(after having previously cited the words \u2018_Christi autem generatio sic\nerat_\u2019) continues \u2018Ceterum potuerat dicere Matthaeus, _Jesu vero generatio\nsic erat_; sed praevidens Spiritus Sanctus depravatores, et praemuniens\ncontra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthaeum ait: _Christi autem generatio\nsic erat_\u2019 (Contra Haeres., lib. iii. 16. 2). This is given in proof that\nJesus and Christ are one and the same Person, and that Jesus cannot be\nsaid to be the receptacle that afterwards received Christ; for _the Christ\nwas born_\u201d (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 188). To this most meagre\nlist of authorities Scholz adds, \u201cPseudo-Theophil. in Evang.,\u201d manuscripts\nof Theophylact, Augustine, and one or two of little account: but even in\nIrenaeus (Harvey, vol. ii. p. 48) \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 _\u03b9\u03c5_ _\u03c7\u03c5_ (_tacit\u00e8_), as\npreserved by Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople [viii], stands over\nagainst the Latin \u201cChristi.\u201d\n\nWe do not deny the importance of Irenaeus\u2019 express testimony(338) (a\nlittle impaired though it be by the fanciful distinction which he had\ntaken up with), had it been supported by something more trustworthy than\nthe Old Latin versions and their constant associate, the Curetonian\nSyriac. On the other hand, all uncial and cursive codices\n(\u05d0C\u03a3EKLMPSUVZ\u0393\u0394\u03a0: ADFG\u03a6 &c. being defective here), the Syriac of the\nPeshitto, Harkleian, and Jerusalem (\u03b4\u03ad only being omitted, since the\nChurch Lesson begins here), the Sahidic, Bohairic, Armenian, and Ethiopic\nversions, Tatian, Irenaeus, Origen (in the Greek), Eusebius, Didymus,\nEpiphanius, Chrysostom, and the younger Cyril, comprise a body of proof,\nnot to be shaken by subjective notions, or even by Western evidence from\nthe second century downwards(339).\n\n2. MATT. vi. 13. \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2. \u1f00\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd. It is right to say that I can no longer regard this\ndoxology as _certainly_ an integral part of St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel: but\n(notwithstanding its rejection by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,\nWestcott and Hort) I am not yet absolutely convinced of its spuriousness\n[i.e. upon much less evidence than is now adduced]. It is wanting in the\noldest uncials extant, \u05d0BDZ, and since ACP (whose general character would\nlead us to look for support to the Received text in such a case) are\nunfortunately deficient here, the burden of the defence is thrown on \u03a6 and\n\u03a3 and the later uncials EGKLMSUVWf\u0394\u03a0 (_hiat_ \u0393), whereof L is conspicuous\nfor usually siding with B. Of the cursives only _five_ are known to omit\nthe clause, l, 17 (_habet_ \u1f00\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd), 118, 130, 209, but 566 or hscr (and as\nit would seem some others) has it obelized in the margin, while the\nscholia in certain other copies indicate that it is doubtful: even 33\ncontains it, 69 being defective, while 157, 225, 418 add to \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, but 422 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 _\u03c0\u03c1\u03c3_ only.\nVersions have much influence on such a question, it is therefore important\nto notice that it is found in all the four Syriac (Cureton\u2019s omitting \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f21 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, and some editions of the Peshitto \u1f00\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd, which is in _at least_\none manuscript), the Sahidic (omitting \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1), the Ethiopic,\nArmenian, Gothic, Slavonic, Georgian, Erpenius\u2019 Arabic, the Persic of the\nPolyglott from Pococke\u2019s manuscript, the margin of some Bohairic codices,\nthe Old Latin _k_ (quoniam est tibi virtus in saecula saeculorum), _f_\n_g_1 (omitting _amen_) _q_. The doxology is not found in most Bohairic\n(but is in the margin of Hunt. 17 or Bp. Lightfoot\u2019s Cod. 1) and Arabic\nmanuscripts or editions, in Wheelocke\u2019s Persic, in the Old Latin _a_ _b_\n_c_ _ff_1 _g_1 _h_ _l_, in the Vulgate or its satellites the Anglo-Saxon\nand Frankish (the Clementine Vulg. and Sax. add _amen_). Its absence from\nthe Latin avowedly caused the editors of the Complutensian N. T. to pass\nit over, though it was found in their Greek copies: the earliest Latin\nFathers naturally did not cite what the Latin codices for the most part do\nnot contain. Among the Greeks it is met with in Isidore of Pelusium (412),\nand in the Pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions, probably of the fourth century:\nsoon afterwards Chrysostom (Hom. in Matt. xix. vol. i. p. 283, Field)\ncomments upon it without showing the least consciousness that its\nauthenticity was disputed. The silence of some writers, viz. Tertullian,\nCyprian, Origen, Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Maximus, especially\nwhen expounding the Lord\u2019s Prayer, may be partly accounted for by the fact\nof the existence of the shorter form of the Lord\u2019s Prayer as given in St.\nLuke without the doxology; or upon the supposition that the doxology was\nregarded not so much a portion of the Prayer itself, as a hymn of praise\nannexed to it; yet this latter fact would be somewhat unfavourable to its\ngenuineness, and would be fatal unless we knew the precariousness of any\nargument derived from such silence. The Fathers are constantly overlooking\nthe most obvious citations from Scripture, even where we should expect\nthem most, although, as we learn from other passages in their writings,\nthey were perfectly familiar with them. Internal evidence is not unevenly\nbalanced. It is probable that the doxology was interpolated from the\nLiturgies, and the variation of reading renders this all the more likely;\nit is just as probable that it was cast out of St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel to\nbring it into harmony with St. Luke\u2019s (xi. 4): I cannot concede to Scholz\nthat it is \u201cin interruption of the context,\u201d for then the whole of ver. 13\nwould have to be cancelled (a remedy which no one proposes), and not\nmerely this concluding part of it.\n\nIt is vain to dissemble the pressure of the adverse case, though it ought\nnot to be looked upon as conclusive. The \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u03ae (with variation) and the\nSyriac and Sahidic versions bring up the existence of the doxology to the\nsecond century; the Apostolic Constitutions in the third; Ambrose,\nCaesarius, Chrysostom, the Opus Imperfectum, Isidore, and perhaps\nothers(340), attest for it in the fourth; then come the Latin codices(341)\n_f_ _g_1 _k_ _q_, the Gothic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, and lastly Codd.\n\u03a6 and \u03a3 of the fifth or sixth century, and the whole flood-tide of Greek\nmanuscripts from the eighth century downwards, including even L, 33, with\nTheophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus in the eleventh and twelfth. Perhaps\nit is not very wise \u201c_quaerere quae habere non possumus_,\u201d yet those who\nare persuaded, from the well-ascertained affinities subsisting between\nthem, that ACP, or at least two out of the three, would have preserved a\nreading sanctioned by the Peshitto, by Codd. _f_ _k_, by Chrysostom, and\nby nearly all the later documents, may be excused for regarding the\nindictment against the last clause of the Lord\u2019s Prayer as hitherto\n_unproven_, in Dr. Scrivener\u2019s judgement passed upon much less than the\nevidence in favour adduced above; and for supposing the genuineness of the\nclause to be proved when the additional evidence is taken into\nconsideration.\n\n3. MATT. xi. 19. The change of \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd of the Received text into \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd, as\nmade by Tischendorf, Tregelles (who retains \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd in his margin), by Hort\nand Westcott, is quite destructive to the sense, so far as we can\nperceive, for Jerome\u2019s exposition (\u201cSapientia quippe non quaerit vocis\ntestimonium, sed operum\u201d) could hardly satisfy any one but himself. The\nreading \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd is supported by \u05d0B* (with \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd in the margin by the hand\nB2), 124, the Peshitto Syriac (apparently; for all the older editions we\nknow punctuate \u0720\u0712\u0715\u0718 (or \u0718\u0715\u0712\u0720) \u201cdoers,\u201d not \u0720\u0712\u0715\u0718 (or \u0718\u0715\u0712\u0720) \u201cworks\u201d), the\nHarkleian text (but not its margin), the Bohairic, some copies known to\nJerome, Armenian manuscripts, the Ethiopic (one MS. contains both forms),\nand (after the Peshitto Syriac) the Persic of the Polyglott and its\ncodices. We can hardly question that the origin of the variation arose\nfrom the difficulty on the part of translators and copyists to understand\nthe Hellenistic use of \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd in this place, and modern editors have been\ntempted to accept it from a false suspicion that the present passage has\nbeen assimilated to Luke vii. 35, where indeed Cod. \u05d0 and St. Ambrose have\n\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2. As we have alleged that Jerome\u2019s explanation\nis unsatisfactory in St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel, we subjoin that of Ambrose,\nwhich is certainly no less obscure, on the parallel place of St. Luke:\n\u201cBene _ab omnibus_ quia circa omnes justitia servatur, ut susceptio fiat\nfidelium, rejectio perfidorum. Unde plerique Graeci sic habent:\n_justificata est sapientia ab omnibus operibus suis_, quod opus justitiae\nsit, circa uniuscujusque meritum servare mensuram.\u201d In the face of the\nlanguage of these two great Latin Fathers it is remarkable that all other\nLatin authorities agree with the Curetonian Syriac and the mass of Greek\nmanuscripts in upholding \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, which is undoubtedly the only true\nreading.\n\n4. MATT. xvi. 2, 3. The whole passage from \u1f48\u03c8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 ver. 2 to the end of ver.\n3 is set within brackets by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, within\ndouble brackets by Westcott and Hort, who holds (Notes, p. 13) that \u201cboth\ndocumentary evidence and the impossibility of accounting for omission\nprove these words to be no part of the text of Mt.\u201d Yet it might seem\nimpossible for any one possessed of the slightest tincture of critical\ninstinct to read them thoughtfully without feeling assured that they were\nactually spoken by the Lord on the occasion related in the Received text,\nand were omitted by copyists whose climate the natural phenomena described\ndid not very well suit, the rather as they do not occur in the parallel\ntext, ch. xii. 38, 39. Under these circumstances, the internal evidence in\nfavour of the passage being thus clear and irresistible, the witnesses\nagainst it are more likely to damage their own authority than to impair\nour confidence in its genuineness. These witnesses are \u05d0BVX\u0393, 2, 13, 34,\n39, 44, 84, 124 _prim\u00e2 manu_, 157, 180, 194, 258, 301, 511, 575. Cod. 482\nhas the words, but only in a later hand at the foot of the page\n(Nicholson). Of these cursive codices 157 alone is of the first class for\nimportance, and the verses are explained in the scholia of X (for ver. 3)\nand of 39. E and 606 have them with an asterisk; but they are wanting in\nthe Curetonian Syriac, the Bohairic according to Mill (but not so other\nCoptic manuscripts and editions), and the Armenian, as unaltered from the\nLatin. Origen passes them over in his commentary, and Jerome, in his\nsweeping way, declares \u201choc in plerisque codicibus non habetur.\u201d They are\nrecognized in the Eusebian canons (Tregelles, An Account of the Printed\nText, p. 205).\n\nThe united testimony of \u05d0B and the Curetonian version suffices to show\nthat the omission was current as early as the second century, while the\naccordance of CD, of all the Latins and the Peshitto, with the mass of\nlater codices assures us that the words were extant at the same early\ndate. If any one shall deem this a case best explained by the existence of\ntwo separate recensions of the same work, one containing the disputed\nsentences, the other derived from copies in which they had not yet been\ninserted, he may find much encouragement for his conjecture by considering\ncertain passages in the latter part of St. Luke\u2019s Gospel, where the same\nsort of omissions, supported by a class of authorities quite different\nfrom those we have to deal with here, occur too often to be merely\naccidental.\n\n5. MATT. xix. 17. For \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd? \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2, \u1f41\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and\nHort read \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6? \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2. The self-same\nwords as in the Received text occur in the parallel places Mark x. 18,\nLuke xviii. 19 with no variation worth speaking of; a fact which (so far\nas it goes) certainly lends some support to the supposition that St.\nMatthew\u2019s autograph contained the other reading [?]. Add to this that any\nchange made from St. Matthew, _supposing the common reading to be true_,\nmust have been wilfully introduced by one who was offended at the doctrine\nof the Divine Son\u2019s inferiority to the Father which it seemed to assert or\nimply. Internal evidence, therefore, would be a little in favour of the\nalteration approved by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and the rest; and in\ndiscussing external authority, their opponents are much hampered by the\naccident that A is defective in this place, while \u05d0 has recently been\nadded to the list of its supporters [though more recently \u03a6 and \u03a3 have\ncome into the opposite balance]. Under these circumstances we might have\nbeen excused from noticing this passage at all, as we are no longer able\nto uphold the Received text with the same confidence as before, but that\nit seemed dishonest to suppress a case on which Tregelles (An Account of\nthe Printed Text, pp. 133-8) has laid great stress, and which, when the\ndrift of the internal evidence is duly allowed for, tells more in his\nfavour than any other he has alleged, or is likely to be met with\nelsewhere(342).\n\nThe alternative reading \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. occurs in \u05d0BD\n(omitting \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 and \u1f41) L, 1 (omitting \u1f41), 22, 604. In 251 both readings are\ngiven, the Received one first, in ver. 17, the other interpolated after\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 ver. 18, prefaced by \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f30\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7. Excepting these seven,\nall other extant codices reject it, CEFGHKMSUV\u0393\u0394 (\u0393 omits \u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd; \u0394 omits \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03a0 is defective here), even Codd. 33, 69. The\nversions are more seriously divided. The Peshitto Syriac, the Harkleian\ntext, the Sahidic (Oxford fragments), the Old Latin _f_ _q_, the Arabic,\n&c., make for the common reading; Cureton\u2019s and the Jerusalem Syriac, the\nOld Latin _a_ _b_ _c_ _e_ _ff_1.2 _l_, the Vulgate (the Anglo-Saxon and\nFrankish, of course), Bohairic and Armenian, for that of Lachmann and his\nfollowers. Several present a mixed form: \u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6?\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2: viz. the margin of the Harkleian, the Ethiopic,\nand _g_1 _h_ _m_ of the Old Latin. A few (Cureton\u2019s Syriac, _b_ _c_\n_ff_1.2 _g_1 _h_ _l_ _m_, Jerome and the Vulgate) add \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, as in the\ncommon text; but this is unimportant.\n\nTregelles presses us hard with the testimony of Origen in favour of the\nreading he adopts: \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7, \u03a4\u03af \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9? \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd. \u1f49 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u1fb6\u03c2\n\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd? \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2,\n\u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 (Tom. iii. p. 644 _d_). \u201cThe reading which is _opposed_ to the\ncommon text,\u201d Tregelles writes, \u201chas the express testimony of Origen in\nits favour\u201d (p. 134); \u201cmight I not well ask for some _proof_ that the\nother reading existed, in the time of Origen, in copies of St. Matthew\u2019s\nGospel?\u201d (p. 137). I may say in answer, that the testimony of Origen\napplies indeed to the former part of the variation which Tregelles\nmaintains (\u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6), but not at all to the latter\n(\u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2), and that the Peshitto Syriac version of the second,\nas also the Sahidic of the third century, uphold the common text, without\nany variation in the manuscripts of the former, that we know of. Or if he\nasks for the evidence of Fathers to counterbalance that of a Father, we\nhave Justin Martyr: \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (words which\nshow, as Tischendorf observes, that St. Matthew\u2019s is the only Gospel that\ncan be referred to) \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd, \u039f\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74\n\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, citing loosely, as is usual with him, but\nnot ambiguously. Or if half the variation will satisfy, as it was made to\ndo for Origen, Tregelles\u2019 own note refers us to Irenaeus 92 for \u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5\n\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd? \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, and to Eusebius for the other half in the\nform above quoted from the Ethiopic, &c. Moreover, since he cites the last\nfive words of the subjoined extract _as belonging to St. Matthew_,\nTregelles entitles us to employ for our purpose the whole passage, Marcos.\napud Iren. 92, which we might not otherwise have ventured to do; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f61\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd? \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2. Jerome\nand Augustine (for the first clause only, though very expressly: de\nConsensu Evan. ii. 63) are with the Latin Vulgate, Hilary with the common\nGreek text, as are also Optatus, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and the main body of\nlater Fathers. Thus the great mass of manuscripts, headed by C [followed\nby \u03a6 and \u03a3], is well supported by versions, and even better by\necclesiastical writers; yet, in virtue of the weight of internal evidence\n[?], we dare not hold out unreservedly against the reading of BDL, &c.,\nnow that Cod. \u05d0 is found to agree with them, even though subsequent\ninvestigations have brought to light so close a relation between \u05d0 and B\nas to render it impossible, in our opinion, to regard them as independent\nwitnesses(343).\n\n6. MATT. xx. 28. The extensive interpolation which follows this verse in\nsome very ancient documents has been given above (I. 8), in the form\nrepresented in the Curetonian Syriac version. It bears the internal marks\nof evident spuriousness, the first sentence consisting of a rhetorical\nantithesis as unsuitable as can be imagined to the majestic simplicity of\nour Lord\u2019s usual tone, while the sentiment of the rest is manifestly\nborrowed from Luke xiv. 8-10, although there is little or no resemblance\nin the words. The only extant Greek for the passage is in Codd. \u03a6 and D,\nof which D gives the fullest text, as follows: \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5; \u03b5\u03ba\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u03c5\u03be\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03ba \u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u0395\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9; \u03bc\u03b7 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b7 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\n\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9; \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b7 \u0395\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2; \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b7\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b7\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b7\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1; \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bd\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd. The codices of the Old Latin version (_a_ _b_ _c_ _e_ _ff_1.2\n_h_ _n_ and _and._ _em._ of the Vulgate(344)) mostly support the same\naddition, though with many variations: _d_, as usual, agrees with none;\n_g_2has not the first clause down to \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, while _g_1 _m_ have nothing\nelse. Besides the Curetonian Syriac, the margin of the Harkleian contains\nit in a shape much like _d_, noting that the paragraph is \u201cfound in Greek\ncopies in this place, but in ancient copies only in St. Luke, \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6. 53\u201d\n[ch. xiv. 8, &c.]: Cureton has also seen it in one manuscript of the\nPeshitto (Brit. Mus. 14,456), but there too in the margin. Marshall states\nthat it is contained in four codices of the Anglo-Saxon version, which\nproves its wide reception in the West. Of the Fathers, Hilary recognizes\nit, as apparently do Juvencus and Pope Leo the Great (A.D. 440-461). It\nmust have been rejected by Jerome, being entirely absent from the great\nmass of Vulgate codices, nor is it in the Old Latin, _f_ _l_ _q_. No other\nGreek codex, or version, or ecclesiastical writer, has any knowledge of\nthe passage: while the whole language of the Greek of Cod. D, especially\nin such words as \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f25\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, is so foreign\nto the style of St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel, that it seems rather to have been\nrendered from the Latin(345), although in the midst of so much variation\nit is hard to say from what copy. Cureton too testifies that the Syriac of\nthe version named from him must have been made quite independently of that\nin the margins of the Harkleian and Peshitto.\n\nNo one has hitherto ventured to regard this paragraph as genuine, however\nperplexing it may be to decide at what period or even in what language it\noriginated. The wide divergences between the witnesses must always dismiss\nit from serious consideration. Its chief critical use must be to show that\nthe united testimony of the Old Latin, of the Curetonian Syriac, and of\nCod. D, are quite insufficient in themselves to prove any more than that\nthe reading they exhibit is ancient: certainly as ancient as the second\ncentury.\n\n7. MATT. xxi. 28-31. This passage, so transparently clear in the common\ntext, stands thus in the edition of Tregelles: (28) \u03a4\u03af \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6?\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd, \u03a4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f55\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\n\u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9. (29) \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd, \u039f\u1f50 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9;\n\u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd. (30) \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\n\u1f61\u03c3\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2. \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f18\u03b3\u03ce, \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c0\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd. (31) \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2? \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f49 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. The above is\nindeed a brilliant exemplification of Bengel\u2019s Canon, \u201cProclivi orationi\npraestat ardua.\u201d Lachmann in 1842 had given the same reading, with a few\nslight and unimportant exceptions. The question is proposed which of the\ntwo sons did their father\u2019s will; the reply is \u1f41 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, the one that\npromised and then failed! Lachmann in 1850 (N. T., vol. ii. Praef. p. 5)\nremarks that had he been sure that \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (ver. 31) was the reading of\nCod. C, he should have honoured it, _the only word that makes sense_, with\na place in his margin: \u201cNihilo minus,\u201d he na\u00efvely adds, \u201cid quod nunc\nsolum edidi ... \u1f41 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 veri similius est altero, quod facile aliquis\ncorrectori adscribat, illud non item;\u201d and we must fairly confess that no\ncopyist would have sought to introduce a plain absurdity into so beautiful\nand simple a parable. \u201cQuid vero,\u201d he goes on to plead, \u201csi id quod veri\nsimilius esse dixi ne intellegi quidem potest?\u201d (a pertinent question\ncertainly) \u201cCORRIGETUR, SI MODO NECESSE ERIT:\u201d critical conjecture, as\nusual, is his panacea. Conjecture, however, is justly held inadmissible by\nTregelles, whose mode of interpretation is a curiosity in its way. \u201cI\nbelieve,\u201d he says, \u201cthat \u1f41 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 refers not to the order in which the\ntwo sons have been mentioned, but to the previous expression about the\nelder son, \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, _afterwards_ he repented and\nwent.\u201d \u201cWhich of the two did his father\u2019s will! \u1f41 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. _He who\nafterwards_ [repented and went]. This answers the charge that the reading\nof Lachmann is void of sense\u201d (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 107). I\nentertain sincere veneration for the character and services of Dr.\nTregelles, but it is only right to assert at once that what stands in his\ntext is impossible Greek. Even granting that instead of the plain answer\n\u201cthe first,\u201d our Lord\u2019s adversaries resorted to the harsh and equivocal\nreply \u201che who afterwards,\u201d they would not have said \u1f41 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, but \u1f41\n\u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, or (the better to point out their reference to \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd in ver.\n29) \u1f41 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nWhy then prefer nonsense, for the mere purpose of carrying out Bengel\u2019s\ncanon to the extremity? The passage, precisely as it stands in Tregelles\u2019\nN. T., _is sanctioned by no critical authority whatsoever_. Cod. B indeed\nhas \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (which is here followed by Westcott and Hort), Cod. 4\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, Codd. 13, 69, 124, 346 (Abbott\u2019s four), and 238, 262, 556, 604,\nperhaps others, \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, one or other of which is in the Jerusalem Syriac\nand Bohairic, the Ethiopic (two manuscripts), the Armenian and two chief\nArabic versions; but all these authorities (with _tol._ of the Vulgate\n_secund\u00e2 manu_, as also Isidore, the Pseudo-Athanasius, and John\nDamascene), transpose the order of the two sons in vv. 29, 30, so that the\nresult produces just the same sense as in the Received text. The\nsuggestion that the clauses were transferred in order to reconcile \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\nor \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 with the context may be met by the counter-statement that\n\u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 was just as likely to be substituted for \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 to suit the\ninversion of the clauses. Against such inversion (which we do not pretend\nto recommend, though Westcott and Hort adopt it) Origen is an early\nwitness, so that Cod. B and its allies are no doubt wrong: yet as that\nFather does not notice any difficulty in ver. 31, the necessary inference\nought to be that he read \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2(346). Hippolytus testifies to \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in\nver. 31, but his evidence cannot be used, since he gives no indication in\nwhat order he took the clauses in vv. 29, 30. The indefensible part of\nTregelles\u2019 arrangement is that, allowing the answers of the two sons to\nstand as in our common Bibles, he receives \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 in the room of \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\non evidence that really tells against him. The only true supporters of his\ngeneral view are Cod. D \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (i.e. \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2), the Old Latin copies _a_\n_b_ _e_ _ff_1.2 _g_1 _h_ _l_, the best codices of the Vulgate (_am._\n_fuld._ _for._ _san._ _tol._ _harl._*), the Anglo-Saxon version, and\nAugustine, though not the Clementine edition of the Vulgate. Hilary\nperplexes himself by trying to explain the same reading; and Jerome,\nalthough he says \u201cSciendum est in veris exemplaribus non haberi\n_novissimum_ sed _primum_,\u201d has an expedient to account for the former\nword(347), which, however (if _am._ _fuld._, &c. may be trusted), he did\nnot venture to reject when revising the Old Latin. On no true principles\ncan Cod. D and its Latin allies avail against such a mass of opposing\nproof, whereof Codd. \u05d0C\u03a6\u03a3LX lead the van. Even the Curetonian Syriac,\nwhich so often favours Cod. D and the Old Latin, is with the _textus\nreceptus_ here.\n\n8. MATT. xxvii. 35. After \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd the Received text, but not the\nComplutensian edition, has \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5,\n\u0394\u03b9\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f31\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. Internal evidence may be about equal for the omission of the\nclause by homoeoteleuton of \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, and for its interpolation from John\nxix. 24, \u201cwith just the phrase \u03c4\u1f78 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 (or \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78) \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\nassimilated to Matthew\u2019s usual form of citation\u201d (Alford, _ad loc._).\nExternal evidence, however, places the spuriousness of the addition beyond\ndoubt. It is first heard of in citations of Eusebius, and is read in the\nOld Latin codices _a_ _b_ _c_ _g_2 (not _g_1) _h_ _q_, the Clementine (not\nthe Sixtine) Vulgate and even in _am._ _lux._, Harl. 2826, _lind._, in\nKing\u2019s Libr. 1. D. ix and the margin of 1. E. vi (but not in _fuld._\n_for._ _tol._* _em._ _ing._ _jac._ _san._ nor in _f_ _ff_1.2 _g_1 _l_),\nthe Armenian (whose resemblance to the Vulgate is so suspicious), the\nFrankish and Anglo-Saxon, and as a matter of course in the Roman edition\nof the Arabic, and in the Persic of the Polyglott. The clause seems to be\nfound in no manuscript of the Peshitto Syriac, and is consequently absent\nfrom Widmanstadt\u2019s edition and the Antwerp, Paris, and London Polyglotts.\nTremellius first turned the Greek words into Syriac and placed them in the\nmargin of his book, whence they were most unwisely admitted into the text\nof several later editions (but not into Lee\u2019s), without the slightest\nauthority. They also appear in the text of the Harkleian, but the marginal\nnote states that \u2019this passage from the prophet is not in two [\u201cthree\u201d\nCodd. Assemani] Greek copies, nor in the ancient Syriac.\u2019 All other\nversions and Fathers (except Eusebius and the Pseudo-Athanasius), and all\nGreek manuscripts reject the clause, except \u0394, 1, 17, 58 (_marg._), 69,\n118, 124, 262, 300, 503, 550, Evst. 55: Scholz adds \u201caliis multis,\u201d which\n(judging from my own experience) I must take leave to doubt. Besides other\nslight changes (\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u0394, \u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 69 _secund\u00e2 manu_) Codd. \u0394, 61, 69, 503\nand Eusebius read \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac for \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc. The present case is one out of many that\nshow an intimate connexion subsisting between Codd. 61 and 69.\n\n9. Mark vi. 20. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03b4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f24\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03b5.\n\u201c \u2018Did many things\u2019 Engl. vers. I think it must have occurred to many\nreaders that this is, to say the least, a very singular expression.\u201d So\nwrites Mr. Linwood, very truly, for nothing can well be more tame or\nunmeaning. His remedy we can say little for. \u201cI think that for \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 we should read \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9, i.e. magni faciebat. It is true that\nclassical usage would require the middle voice, sc. \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf. But\nthis rule is not always observed by the N. T. writers(348)\u201d (Linwood, p.\n11). If, instead of resorting to conjecture, he had opened Tischendorf\u2019s\neighth edition, he would have found there a reading, adopted as well by\nthat editor as by Westcott and Hort, whose felicity, had it been nothing\nmore than a happy conjecture, he might well have admired. Codd. \u05d0BL for\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9(349) have \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f20\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u201cwas much perplexed,\u201d which the\nBohairic confirms, only that, in translating, it joins \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac with \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2.\nThis close resemblance between the Bohairic version and Codd. \u05d0B\n(especially Cod. B) is very apparent throughout the N. T.; a single\nexample being their united omission of \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd in Matt. xiv. 30 in company\nwith but one other authority, the great cursive Cod. 33. Hence we do not\nhesitate to receive a variation supported by only a few first-rate\nauthorities, where internal evidence (Canon II, p. 248) pleads so\npowerfully in its favour. Although the middle voice is found elsewhere in\nthe N. T., yet the active in this precise sense may be supported by good\nexamples, even when used absolutely, as here: e.g. \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf Herod. i. 191: \u1f41 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9, \u03bc\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c7\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff4\u03bf\u03c5 Thuc. ii. 102.\n\nAnother less considerable but interesting variation, occurring just\nbefore, in chap. v. 36, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u201coverhearing\u201d instead of \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, may\nbe deemed probable on the evidence of \u05d0*BL\u0394 and the Latin _e_, which must\nhave had the reading, though it is mistranslated _neglexit_(350). We\ngladly credit the same group (\u05d0BCL\u0394, 473, Evst. 150, 259) with another\nrare compound, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 in ch. x. 16, whose intensive force is very\nexcellent. In ch. xii. 17 a similar compound \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd is too feebly\nvouched for by \u05d0B alone.\n\n[THIRD EDITION. It is only fair to retain unchanged the note on Mark vi.\n20, inasmuch as the \u201cTwo Members of the N. T. Company\u201d have exercised\ntheir right of claiming my assent to the change of \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 into \u1f20\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9. I\nmust, however, retract that opinion, for the former reading now appears to\nme to afford an excellent sense. Herod gladly heard the Baptist, and _did\nmany things_ at his exhortation; every thing in fact save the one great\nsacrifice which he could not persuade himself to make.]\n\n10. MARK vii. 19. The substitution of \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd for \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd, so far from\nbeing the unmeaning itacism it might seem at first sight, is a happy\nrestoration of the true sense of a passage long obscured by the false\nreading. For the long vowel there is the overwhelming evidence of \u05d0AB\n(_hiat_ C) EFGH LSX\u0394, 1, 13, 28, 48, 50, 53, 58, 59 (_me teste_), 61**,\n64, 65, 69, 122* 124, 229, 235, 244, 251, 282, 346, 435, 473, 492, 508,\n515, 570, 622, Evst. 49, 259, and Erasmus\u2019 first edition: his second reads\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd, his third \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd of \u03a6\u03a3KMUV\u0393\u03a0, 547, 558, and perhaps a\nmajority of the cursives. The reading of D \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd 61 _prim\u00e2\nmanu_), as also \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 of Evst. 222 and the Latin _i_, seem to\nfavour the termination -\u03bf\u03bd: _purgans_ of _a_ _b_ _c_ (even _d_) _f_ _ff_2\n_g_1.2 _l_? _n_ _q_ and the Vulgate, is of course neutral. The Peshitto\n\u0715\u0721\u0715\u0712\u071d\u0710 (or \u0710\u071d\u0712\u0715\u0721\u0715) (qui purgat) refers in gender to the noun immediately\npreceding, and would require \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. Will any one undertake to say\nwhat is meant by the last clause of the verse as it stands in the\nAuthorized English version, and as it must stand, so long as \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd is\nread? If, on the other hand, we follow Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,\nWestcott and Hort, we must take the Lord\u2019s words to end with \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\nand regard \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 as the Evangelist\u2019s comment upon\nthem: \u201c_This he said_, to make all things clean.\u201d Compare Acts x. 15.\nThis, and none other, seems to have been the meaning assigned to the\npassage by the Greek Fathers. It is indeed most simply expressed by\nChrysostom (Hom. II. in Matt. p. 526 A): \u1f49 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd, where Dr. Field\u2019s elaborate note should be\nconsulted. He rightly judges that Chrysostom was treading in the steps of\nOrigen: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f41 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1. Hence Gregory Thaumaturgus designates the Lord as \u1f41\n\u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1. I know not how Tischendorf came to\noverlook the passage from Chrysostom: Tregelles very seldom uses him. It\nis obvious how well the elliptical form of the expression suits this\nEvangelist\u2019s style, which is often singularly concise and abrupt, yet\nnever obscure.\n\n11. MARK xvi. 9-20. In Vol. I. Chap. I, we engaged to defend the\nauthenticity of this long and important passage, and that without the\nslightest misgiving (p. 7). Dean Burgon\u2019s brilliant monograph, \u201cThe Last\nTwelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark vindicated against\nrecent objectors and established\u201d (Oxford and London, 1871), has thrown a\nstream of light upon the controversy, nor does the joyous tone of his book\nmisbecome one who is conscious of having triumphantly maintained a cause\nwhich is very precious to him. We may fairly say that his conclusions have\nin no essential point been shaken by the elaborate and very able\ncounter-plea of Dr. Hort (Notes, pp. 28-51). This whole paragraph is set\napart by itself in the critical editions of Tischendorf and Tregelles.\nBesides this, it is placed within double brackets by Westcott and Hort,\nand followed by the wretched supplement derived from Cod. L (_vide\ninfra_), annexed as an alternative reading (\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2). Out of all the great\nmanuscripts, the two oldest (\u05d0B) stand alone in omitting vers. 9-20\naltogether(351). Cod. B, however, betrays consciousness on the scribe\u2019s\npart that something is left out, inasmuch as after \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 ver. 8, a\nwhole column is left perfectly blank (_the only blank one in the whole\nvolume_(352)), as well as the rest of the column containing ver. 8, which\nis usual in Cod. B at the end of every other book of Scripture. No such\npeculiarity attaches to Cod. \u05d0. The testimony of L, that close companion\nof B, is very suggestive. Immediately after ver. 8 the copyist breaks off;\nthen in the same hand (for all corrections in this manuscript seem _prim\u00e2\nmanu_: _see_ p. 138), at the top of the next column we read ... \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1+ ... \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03c9\u03c3\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03b3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd+ \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 _\u03b9\u03c3_, \u1f01\u03c0\u03bf \u1f01\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f01\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c3\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf \u03ca\u1f11\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f01\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1+\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3 \u03b1\u1f31\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3+\n... \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf \u1f11\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1+ ... \u0391\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u00ef\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5+\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., ver. 9, _ad fin. capit._ (Burgon\u2019s _facsimile_,\nfacing his p. 113: our _facsimile_ No. 21): as if vv. 9-20 were just as\nlittle to be regarded as the trifling apocryphal supplement(353) which\nprecedes them. Besides these, the twelve verses are omitted in none but\nsome old Armenian codices(354) and two of the Ethiopic, _k_ of the Old\nLatin, and an Arabic Lectionary [ix] No. 13, examined by Scholz in the\nVatican. The Old Latin Codex _k_ puts in their room a corrupt and careless\nversion of the subscription in L ending with \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (_k_ adding _amen_):\nthe same subscription being appended to the end of the Gospel in the two\nEthiopic manuscripts, and (with \u1f00\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd) in the margin of 274 and the\nHarkleian. Not unlike is the marginal note in Hunt. 17 or Cod. 1 of the\nBohairic, translated by Bp. Lightfoot above. Of cursive Greek manuscripts\n137, 138, which Birch had hastily reported as marking the passage with an\nasterisk, each contains the marginal annotation given below, which claims\nthe passage as genuine, 138 with no asterisk at all, 137 (like 36 and\nothers) with an ordinary mark of reference from the text to the note,\nwhere (of course) it is repeated(355). Other manuscripts contain marginal\nscholia respecting it, of which the following is the substance. Cod. 199\nhas \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2(356) after \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 and before \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad, and in the same\nhand as \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 we read, \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9. The kindred Codd. 20, 215, 300 (but after ver. 15, not\nver. 8) mark the omission in some (\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03af) copies, adding \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, and these had been corrected from\nJerusalem copies (_see_ pp. 161 and note, 193). Cod. 573 has for a\nsubscription \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03bb\u03b6: where Burgon, going back to St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel (_see_ p. 161, note)\ninfers that the old Jerusalem copies must have contained our twelve\nverses. Codd. 15, 22 conclude at \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, then add in red ink that\nin some copies the Evangelist ends here, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\naffixing vers. 9-20. In Codd. 1, 205 (in its duplicate 206 also), 209 is\nthe same notice, \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 standing for \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 in 206, with the additional\nassertion that Eusebius \u201ccanonized\u201d no further than ver. 8, a statement\nwhich is confirmed by the absence of the Ammonian and Eusebian numerals\nbeyond that verse in \u05d0ALSU and at least eleven cursives, with _am. fuld.\ning._ of the Vulgate. It would be no marvel if Eusebius, the author of\nthis harmonizing system, had consistently acted upon his own rash opinion\nrespecting the paragraph, an opinion which we shall have to notice\npresently, and such action on his part would have added nothing to the\nstrength of the adverse case. But it does not seem that he really did so.\nThese numerals appear in most manuscripts, and in all parts of them, with\na good deal of variation which we can easily account for. In the present\ninstance they are annexed to ver. 9 and the rest of the passage in Codd.\nCEKV\u03a0, and (with some changes) in GHM\u0393\u0394\u039b and many others: in Cod. 566 the\nconcluding sections are there (\u03c3\u03bb\u03b4 ver. 11, \u03c3\u03bb\u03b5 ver. 12, \u03c3\u03bb\u03c2 ver. 14)\nwithout the canons. In their respective margins the annotated codices 12\n(of Scholz), 24, 36, 37, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195,\n210, 221, 222, 237, 238, 255, 259, 299, 329, 374 (twenty-four in all),\npresent in substance(357) the same weighty testimony in favour of the\npassage: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (thus far also Cod. 119,\nadding only \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9) \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3, \u1f61\u03c2\n\u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9; \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f21\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\nNow this is none other than an extract from Victor of Antioch\u2019s [v]\ncommentary on St. Mark, which they all annex in full to the sacred text,\nand which is expressly assigned to that Father in Codd. 12, 37, 41. Yet\nthese very twenty-four manuscripts have been cited by critical editors as\nadverse to the authenticity of a paragraph which their scribes never\ndreamt of calling into question, but had simply copied Victor\u2019s decided\njudgement in its favour. His appeal to the famous Palestine codices which\nhad belonged to Origen and Pamphilus (_see_ p. 55 and note), is found in\ntwenty-one of them, possibly these documents are akin to the Jerusalem\ncopies mentioned in Codd. Evan. \u039b, 20, 164, 262, 300, &c.\n\n_All_ other codices, e.g. ACD (which is defective from ver. 15, _prim\u00e2\nmanu_) EFwGH (begins ver. 14) KMSUVX\u0393\u0394\u03a0, 33, 69, the Peshitto, Jerusalem\nand Curetonian Syriac (which last, by a singular happiness, contains vv.\n17-20, though no other part of St. Mark), the Harkleian text, the Sahidic\n(only ver. 20 is preserved), the Bohairic and Ethiopic (with the\nexceptions already named), the Gothic (to ver. 12), the Vulgate, all\nextant Old Latins except _k_ (though _a_ _prim\u00e2 manu_ and _b_ are\ndefective), the Georgian, the printed Armenian, its later manuscripts, and\nall the lesser versions (Arabic, &c.), agree in maintaining the paragraph.\nIt is cited, possibly by Papias, unquestionably by Irenaeus (both in Greek\nand Latin), by Tertullian, and by Justin Martyr(358) as early as the\nsecond century; by Hippolytus (_see_ Tregelles, An Account of the Printed\nText, p. 252), by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage, by the\nActa Pilati, the Apostolic Constitutions, and apparently by Celsus in the\nthird; by Aphraates (in a Syriac Homily dated A.D. 337), the Syriac Table\nof Canons, Eusebius, Macarius Magnes, Didymus, the Syriac Acts of the\nApostles, Leontius, Ps.-Ephraem, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem(359),\nEpiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, in the fourth; by Leo,\nNestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch, Patricius, Marius\nMercator, in the fifth; by Hesychius, Gregentius, Prosper, John, abp. of\nThessalonica, and Modestus, in the fifth and sixth(360). Add to this, what\nhas been so forcibly stated by Burgon (_ubi supra_, p. 205), that in the\nCalendar of Greek Church lessons, which existed certainly in the fourth\ncentury, very probably much earlier, the disputed verses were honoured by\nbeing read as a special matins service for Ascension Day (_see_ p. 81),\nand as the Gospel for St. Mary Magdalene\u2019s Day, July 22 (p. 89); as well\nas by forming the third of the eleven \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f11\u03c9\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac, the\npreceding part of the chapter forming the second (p. 85): so little were\nthey suspected as of even doubtful authenticity(361).\n\nThe earliest objector to vers. 9-20 we know of was Eusebius (Quaest. ad\nMarin.), who tells that they were not \u1f10\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, but after\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 that \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f11\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 are found \u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, yet not in \u03c4\u1f70\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1fc6: language which Jerome _twice_ echoes and almost exaggerates by\nsaying \u201cin raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Graeciae libris paene hoc\ncapitulum fine non habentibus.\u201d A second cause with Eusebius for rejecting\nthem is \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3(362). The language of Eusebius has been minutely examined by Dean\nBurgon, who proves to demonstration that all the subsequent evidence which\nhas been alleged against the passage, whether of Severus, or Hesychius, or\nany other writer down to Euthymius Zigabenus in the twelfth century, is a\nmere echo of the doubts and difficulties of Eusebius, if indeed he is not\nretailing to us at second-hand one of the fanciful Biblical speculations\nof Origen. Jerome\u2019s recklessness in statement has been already noticed\n(Vol. II. p. 269); besides that, he is a witness on the other side, both\nin his own quotations of the passage and in the Vulgate, for how could he\nhave inserted the verses there, if he had judged them to be spurious?\n\nWith regard to the argument against these twelve verses arising from their\nalleged difference in style from the rest of the Gospel, I must say that\nthe same process might be applied\u2014and has been applied\u2014to prove that St.\nPaul was not the writer of the Pastoral Epistles (to say nothing of that\nto the Hebrews), St. John of the Apocalypse, Isaiah and Zechariah of\nportions of those prophecies that bear their names. Every one used to\nliterary composition may detect, if he will, such minute variations as\nhave been made so much of in this case(363), either in his own writings,\nor in those of the authors he is most familiar with.\n\nPersons who, like Eusebius, devoted themselves to the pious task of\nconstructing harmonies of the Gospels, would soon perceive the difficulty\nof adjusting the events recorded in vers. 9-20 to the narratives of the\nother Evangelists. Alford regards this inconsistency (more apparent than\nreal, we believe) as \u201ca valuable testimony to the antiquity of the\nfragment\u201d (N. T. _ad loc._): we would go further, and claim for the harder\nreading the benefit of any critical doubt as to its genuineness (Canon I.\nVol. II. p. 247). The difficulty was both felt and avowed by Eusebius, and\nwas recited after him by Severus of Antioch or whoever wrote the scholion\nattributed to him. Whatever Jerome and the rest may have done, these\nassigned the \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1, the \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 they thought they perceived, as a\nreason (not the first, nor perhaps the chief, but still as a reason) for\nsupposing that the Gospel ended with \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1. Yet in the balance of\nprobabilities, can anything be more unlikely than that St. Mark broke off\nso abruptly as this hypothesis would imply, while no ancient writer has\nnoticed or seemed conscious of any such abruptness(364)? This fact has\ndriven those who reject the concluding verses to the strangest\nfancies;\u2014namely, that, like Thucydides, the Evangelist was cut off before\nhis work was completed, or even that the last leaf of the original Gospel\nwas torn away.\n\nWe emphatically deny that such wild surmises(365) are called for by the\nstate of the evidence in this case. All opposition to the authenticity of\nthe paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the\ntestimony of \u05d0B. Let us accord to these the weight which is their due: but\nagainst their verdict we can appeal to a vast body of ecclesiastical\nevidence reaching back to the earlier part of the second century(366); to\nnearly all the versions; and to all extant manuscripts excepting two, of\nwhich one is doubtful. So powerfully is it vouched for, that many of those\nwho are reluctant to recognize St. Mark as its author, are content to\nregard it notwithstanding as an integral portion of the inspired record\noriginally delivered to the Church(367).\n\n12. LUKE ii. 14. If there be one case more prominent than another in the\ncriticism of the New Testament, wherein solid reason and pure taste revolt\nagainst the iron yoke of ancient authorities, it is that of the Angelic\nHymn sung at the Nativity. In the common text all is transparently clear:\n\n\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b1 \u03b5\u03bd \u03c5\u03c8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff3,     Glory to God in the highest,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b7\u03c3 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b7;       And on earth peace:\n\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3 \u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1.     Good will amongst men.\n\nThe blessed words are distributed, after the Hebrew fashion, into a stanza\nconsisting of three members. In the first and second lines heaven and\nearth are contrasted; the third refers to both those preceding, and\nalleges the efficient cause which has brought God glory and earth peace.\nBy the addition of a single letter to the end of the last line, by merely\nreading \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 for \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1, the rhythmical arrangement is utterly\nmarred(368), and the simple shepherds are sent away with a message, the\ndiction of which no scholar has yet construed to his own mind(369). Yet\nsuch is the conclusion of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and\nHort, although Tregelles and the Cambridge fellow-workers allow \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 a\nplace in their margins. Of the five great uncials C is unfortunately\ndefective, but \u05d0*AB*D, and no other Greek manuscript whatever, read\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2: yet A is so inconstant in this matter that in the primitive 14th\nor Morning Hymn, a cento of Scripture texts, annexed to the Book of\nPsalms, its reading is \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 (Baber, Cod. Alex., p. 569), and such was\nno doubt the form used in Divine service, as appears from the great Z\u00fcrich\nPsalter Od. The rest of the uncials extant (\u05d0cB3EGHKLMPSUV\u0393\u0394\u039b\u039e, &c.), and\nall the cursives follow the common text, which is upheld by the Bohairic,\nby the three extant Syriac (the Peshitto most emphatically, the Jerusalem,\nand the Harkleian both in the text and Greek margin), by the Armenian and\nEthiopic versions. The Vulgate, as is well known, renders \u201cin hominibus\nbonae voluntatis,\u201d and thus did all the forms of the Old Latin, and after\nit the Gothic. Hence it follows, as a matter of course, that the Latin\nFathers, such as Hilary and Augustine, and the Latin interpreters of\nIrenaeus (who seems really to have omitted \u1f10\u03bd, as do D and a few cursives)\nand of the false Athanasius, adopted the reading of their own Bibles.\nOrigen also, in a passage not now extant in the Greek, is made in Jerome\u2019s\ntranslation of it manifestly to choose the same form. We can only say that\nin so doing he is the only Greek who favours \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, and his own text\nhas \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 in three several places, though no special stress is laid by\nhim upon it. But here comes in the evidence of the Greek Fathers\u2014their\nvirtually unanimous evidence\u2014with an authority from which there is, or\nought to be, no appeal. Dean Burgon (The Revision Revised, pp. 42-46)\naffords us a list of forty-seven, all speaking in a manner too plain for\ndoubt, most of them several times over, twenty-two of them having\nflourished before the end of the fifth century, and who must have used\ncodices at least as old and pure as \u05d0 or B. They are Irenaeus, of the\nsecond century; the Apostolical Constitutions and Origen three times in\nthe third; Eusebius, Aphraates the Persian, Titus of Bostra, Didymus,\nGregory Nazianzen, Cyril of Jerusalem (who has been quoted in error on the\nwrong side), Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa four times, Ephraem Syrus, Philo\nof Carpasus, a nameless preacher at Antioch, and Chrysostom (nine times\nover, interpreting also \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 by \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ae) in the fourth; Cyril of\nAlexandria on fourteen occasions, Theodoret on four, Theodotus of Ancyra,\nthe Patriarch Proclus, Paulus of Emesa, the Eastern Bishops at Ephesus in\n431, and Basil of Seleucia in the fifth; Cosmas Indicopleustes, Anastasius\nSinaita, and Eulogius of Alexandria in the sixth; Andreas of Crete in the\nseventh; with Cosmas of Maiuma, John Damascene, and Germanus, Archbishop\nof Constantinople, in the eighth(370). Such testimony, supported by all\nlater manuscripts, together with the Bohairic and Syriac versions, cannot\nbut overpower the transcriptional blunder of some early scribe, who\ncannot, however, have lived later than the second century.\n\nTo those with whom the evidence of \u05d0BD and of the Latins united appears\ntoo mighty to resist, we would fain prefer one request, that in their\nefforts to extract some tolerable sense out of \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, they will not\nallow themselves to be driven to renderings which the Greek language will\nnot endure. To spoil the metrical arrangement by forcing the second and\nthird members of the stanza into one, is in itself a sore injury to the\npoetical symmetry of the passage, but from their point of view it cannot\nbe helped. When they shall come to translate, it will be their endeavour\nto be faithful, if grammatical faithfulness be possible in a case so\ndesperate. \u201cPeace on earth for those that will have it,\u201d as Dean Alford\ntruly says, is untenable in Greek, as well as in theology: \u201camong men of\ngood pleasure\u201d is unintelligible to most minds. Professor Milligan (Words\nof the New Testament, p. 194) praises as an interesting form \u201camong men of\nhis good pleasure,\u201d which, not at all unnecessarily, he expounds to\nsignify \u201camong men whom He hath loved.\u201d Again, \u201camong men in whom He is\nwell pleased\u201d (compare chap. iii. 22) can be arrived at only through some\nprocess which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator\nmight like to put upon it. The construction adopted by Origen as rendered\nby Jerome, _pax enim quam non dat Dominus non est pax bonae voluntatis_,\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 being joined with \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7, is regarded by Dr. Hort \u201cto deserve\nserious attention, if no better interpretation were available\u201d and for the\ntrajection he compares ch. xix. 38; Heb. xii. 11 (Notes, p. 56). Dr.\nWestcott holds that since \u201c\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 is undoubtedly a difficult\nphrase, and the antithesis of \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 and \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 agrees with Rom. viii. 22,\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 claims a place in the margin\u201d (_ibid._): no very great concession,\nwhen the general state of the evidence is borne in mind(371).\n\n13. LUKE vi. 1. \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1ff3. Here again Codd. \u05d0B\ncoincide in a reading which cannot be approved, omitting \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1ff3 by\nway of getting rid of a difficulty, as do both of them in Mark xvi. 9-20,\nand \u05d0 in Matt. xxiii. 35. The very obscurity of the expression, which does\nnot occur in the parallel Gospels or elsewhere, attests strongly to its\ngenuineness, if there be any truth at all in canons of internal\nevidence(372): not to mention that the expression \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 ver. 6\nfavours the notion that the previous sabbath had been definitely\nindicated. Besides \u05d0B, \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1ff3 is absent from L, 1, 22, 33, 69 (where\nit is inserted in the margin by W. Chark, and should not be noticed, _see_\nabove), 118, 157, 209. A few (R\u0393, 13, 117, 124 _prim\u00e2 manu_, 235) prefer\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03c9, which, as the student will perceive, differs from the\ncommon reading only by a familiar itacism. As this verse commences a\nChurch lesson (that for the seventh day or Sabbath of the third week of\nthe new year, _see_ Calendar), Evangelistaria _leave out_, as usual, _the\nnotes of time_; in Evst. 150, 222, 234, 257, 259 (and no doubt in other\nsuch books, certainly in the Jerusalem Syriac), the section thus begins,\n\u1f18\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd: this however is not, properly speaking,\na various reading at all. Nor ought we to wonder if versions pass over\naltogether what their translators could not understand(373), so that we\nmay easily account for the silence of the Peshitto Syriac, Bohairic, and\nEthiopic, of the Old Latin _b_ _c_ _l_ _q_ _f_ (_secund\u00e2 manu_) _q_, and\n(if they were worth notice) of the Persic and the Polyglott Arabic, though\nboth the Roman and Erpenius\u2019 Arabic have \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff3, and so too the Ethiopic\naccording to Scholz; _e_ \u201csabbato mane,\u201d _f_ \u201csabbato a primo:\u201d the\nHarkleian Syriac, which renders the word, notes in the margin its absence\nfrom some copies. Against this list of authorities, few in number, and\ndoubtful as many of them are, we have to place the Old Latin _a_ _f_*\n_ff_2 _g_1.2, all copies of the Vulgate, its ally the Armenian, the Gothic\nand Harkleian Syriac translations, the uncial codices ACDEHKMRSUVX\u0393\u0394\u039b\u03a0,\nall cursives except the seven cited above, and the Fathers or scholiasts\nwho have tried, with whatever success, to explain the term: viz.\nEpiphanius, Chrysostom, Isidore of Pelusium, Pseudo-Caesarius, Gregory of\nNazianzus, Jerome(374), Ambrose (all very expressly, as may be seen in\nTischendorf\u2019s note, and in Dean Burgon\u2019s \u201cThe Revision Revised,\u201d pp.\n73-4), Clement of Alexandria probably, and later writers. Lachmann and\nAlford place \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1ff3 within brackets, Tregelles rejects it, as does\nTischendorf in his earlier editions, but restores it in his seventh and\neighth, in the latter contrary to Cod. \u05d0. Westcott and Hort banish it to\nthe margin, intimating (if I understand their notation aright) that it\nseems to contain distinctive and fresh matter, without deserving a place\nin the text even as well as \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 in Matt. i. 18. On reviewing the whole\nmass of evidence, internal and external, we submit the present as a clear\ninstance in which the two oldest copies conspire in a false or highly\nimprobable reading, and of a signal exemplification of the Canon,\n_Proclivi orationi praestat ardua_.\n\n14. LUKE x. 41, 42. \u1f19\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1. This solemn speech of our Divine\nMaster has shaken many a pulpit, and sanctified many a life. We might be\nalmost content to estimate Cod. B\u2019s claim to paramount consideration as a\nprimary authority by the treatment this passage receives from the hand of\nits scribe, at least if the judgement were to rest with those who are\nwilling to admit that a small minority, whereof B happens to form one of\nthe members, is not necessarily in the right. Westcott and Hort in the\nmargin of their published edition (1881) reduce the whole sentence between\n\u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03b8\u03b1 ver. 41 and \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 ver. 42 to the single word \u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03b2\u03ac\u03b6\u1fc3, the truer\nreading in the place of \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03b6\u1fc3: in their privately circulated issue dated\nten years earlier they had gone further, placing within double brackets\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bd\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af and from \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac downwards. They could hardly do less on\nthe principles they have adopted, while yet they feel constrained to\nconcede that, though not belonging to the original Gospel, the excluded\nwords do not, on the other hand, read like the invention of a paraphrast.\nThey do not indeed: and it is when abstract theories such as modern\ncritics have devised are subjected to so violent a strain, that we can\nbest discern their intrinsic weakness, of which indeed these editors have\nhere shown their consciousness by a change of mind not at all usual with\nthem. For the grave omission indicated above we have but one class of\nauthorities, that of the D, _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_2 _i_ _l_, and Ambrose, the\nLatins omitting \u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03b2\u03ac\u03b6\u1fc3 too: while \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 is not found in _c_\nalso, and does not appear in Clement. The succeeding \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 or \u03b4\u03ad is of\ncourse left out by all these, and by 262, the Vulgate, Curetonian Syriac,\nArmenian, and Jerome. This testimony, almost purely Western, is confirmed\nor weakened as the case may be, by the systematic omissions of clauses\ntowards the end of the Gospel in the same books, of which we spoke in\nChap. X (_see_ p. 299, note).\n\nWe confess that we had rather see this grand passage expunged altogether\nfrom the pages of the Gospel than diluted after the wretched fashion\nadopted by \u05d0 and B: \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f22 \u1f11\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2; the first hand of \u05d0\nomitting \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 in its usual blundering way. This travestie of a speech\nwhich seems to have shocked the timorous by its uncompromising\nexclusiveness, much as we saw in the case of Matt. v. 22, is further\nsupported (with some variation in the order) by L, by the very ancient\nsecond hand of C, by 1, 33, the Bohairic, Ethiopic, the margin of the\nHarkleian, by Basil, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria in the Syriac translation\nof his commentary(375), and by Origen as cited in a catena: \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 is found in 38, the Jerusalem Syriac, and in the Armenian (\u1f67\u03b4\u03b5 being\ninserted before \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd). This latter reading is less incredible than that\nof \u05d0BL, notwithstanding the ingenuity of Basil\u2019s comment, \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ae\u03bd, \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6. In this instance, as in\nsome others, the force of internal evidence suffices to convince the\nunprejudiced reader (it has almost convinced Drs. Westcott and Hort, who\nhave no note on the passage), that the Received text should here remain\nunchanged, vouched for as it is by AC*EFGHKMPSUV\u0393\u0394\u039b\u03a0 (\u03a7 and \u039e being\ndefective), by every cursive except three, by the Peshitto and Cureton\u2019s\nSyriac (the latter so often met with in the company of D), by the\nHarkleian text, by _f_ _g_1 _g_2? _q_ of the Old Latin, and by the\nVulgate. Chrysostom, Augustine (twice), John Damascene and one or two\nothers complete the list: even Basil so cites the passage once, so that\nhis comment may not be intended for anything more than a gloss. No nobler\nsermon was ever preached on this fertile text than that of Augustine, De\nverbis Domini, in Evan. Luc. xxvii. His Old Latin copies, at any rate,\ncontained the words \u201cCirca multa es occupata: porro unum est necessarium.\nJam hoc sibi Maria legit.\u201d \u201cTransit labor multitudinis, et remanet caritas\nunitatis\u201d is his emphatic comment.\n\n15. LUKE xxii. 17-20. This passage has been made the subject of a most\ninstructive discussion by Dean Blakesley(376) (d. 1885), whose notion\nrespecting it deserves more consideration than it would seem to have\nreceived, though it must no doubt be ultimately set aside through the\noverpowering weight of hostile authority. He is perplexed by two\ndifficulties lying on the surface, the fact that the Lord twice took a\ncup, before and after the breaking of the bread; and the close resemblance\nborne by vv. 19 and 20 to the parallel passage of St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 24,\n25. The common mode of accounting for the latter phenomenon seems very\nreasonable, namely, that the Evangelist, Paul\u2019s almost constant companion\nin travel, copied into his Gospel the very language of the Apostle, so far\nas it suited his design. In speaking of the two cups St. Luke stands\nalone, and much trouble has been taken to illustrate the use of the\nPaschal cup from Maimonides [d. 1206] and other Jewish doctors, all too\nmodern to be implicitly depended on. Dean Alford indeed (N. T. _ad loc._)\nhails \u201cthis most important addition to our narrative,\u201d which \u201camounts, I\nbelieve, to a solemn declaration of the fulfilment of the Passover rite,\nin both its usual divisions\u2014the eating of the lamb, and drinking the cup\nof thanksgiving.\u201d Thus regarded, the old rite would be concluded and\nabrogated in vv. 17, 18; the new rite instituted in vv. 19, 20. To Dean\nBlakesley all this appears wholly unsatisfactory, and he resorts for help\nto our critical authorities. He first gets rid of the words of ver. 19\nafter \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, and of all ver. 20, and so far his course is sanctioned by\nWestcott and Hort, who place the whole passage within their double\nbrackets, and pronounce it a perverse interpolation from 1 Cor. xi. 24,\n25. This much accomplished, the cup is now mentioned but once, but with\nthis awkward peculiarity, that it precedes the bread in the order of\ntaking and blessing, which is a downright contradiction of St. Matthew\n(xxvi. 26-29) and of St. Mark (xiv. 22-25), as well as of St. Paul. Here\nWestcott and Hort refuse to be carried further, and thus leave the remedy\nworse than the disease(377), if indeed there be any disease to remedy.\nDean Blakesley boldly places Luke xxii. 19 (ending at \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5) before\nver. 17, and his work is done: the paragraph thus remodelled is\nself-consistent, but it is robbed of everything which has hitherto made it\na distinctive narrative, supplementing as well as confirming those of the\nother two Evangelists.\n\nNow for the last step in Dean Blakesley\u2019s process of emendation, the\ntransposition of ver. 19 before ver. 17, there is no other authority save\n_b_ _e_ of the Old Latin and Cureton\u2019s Syriac, the last with this grave\nobjection in his eyes, that it exhibits the whole of ver. 19, including\nthat \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd which he would regard as\nspecially belonging of right, and as most suitable for, St. Paul\u2019s\nnarrative (Praelectio, p. 16), although Justin Martyr cites the expression\nwith the prelude \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f02 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1. The later portion of ver. 19 and\nthe whole of ver. 20, as included in the double brackets of Westcott and\nHort, are absent from Cod. D, and of the Latins from _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_ _i_\n_l_, as is ver. 20 from the Curetonian Syriac also: authorities for the\nmost part the same as we had to deal with in our Chap. X. p. 299, note.\nAnother, and yet more violent remedy, to provide against the double\nmention of the cup, is found in the utter omission of vers. 17, 18 in\nEvst. 32 and the _editio princeps_ of the Peshitto Syriac, countenanced by\nmany manuscripts of the same(378). Thus both the chief Syriac translations\nfound a difficulty here, though they remedied it in different ways(379).\n\nThe scheme of Dean Blakesley is put forth with rare ingenuity(380), and\nmaintained with a boldness which is best engendered and nourished by\nclosing the eyes to the strength of the adverse case. We have carefully\nenumerated the authorities of every kind which make for him, a slender\nroll indeed. When it is stated that the Received text (with only slight\nand ordinary variations) is upheld by Codd. \u05d0ABCEFGHKLM (_hiant_ PR)\nSUXV\u0393\u0394\u039b\u03a0, by all cursives and versions, except those already accounted\nfor, it will be seen that his view of the passage can never pass beyond\nthe region of speculation, until the whole system of Biblical Criticism is\nrevolutionized by means of new discoveries which it seems at present vain\nto look for.\n\n16. LUKE xxii. 43, 44. \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3, \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf; \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd. It is a positive relief to\nknow that any lingering doubt which may have hung over the authenticity of\nthese verses, whose sacred words the devout reader of Scripture could so\nill spare, is completely dissipated by their being contained in Cod.\n\u05d0(381). The two verses are omitted in ABRT, 124, 561 (in 13 only \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72\nis _prim\u00e2 manu_), in _f_ of the Old Latin, in at least ten manuscripts of\nthe Bohairic(382), with some Sahidic and Armenian codices. A, however,\nwhose inconsistency we had to note when considering ch. ii. 14, affixes to\nthe latter part of ver. 42 (\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd), \u201cto which they cannot belong\u201d\n(Tregelles), the proper Ammonian and Eusebian numerals for vv. 43-4\n(\u03b9)\u03c3\u03c0\u03b3, and thus shows that its scribe was acquainted with the\npassage(383): some Armenian codices leave out only ver. 44, as apparently\ndoes Evan. 559. In Codd. \u0393, 123, 344, 512, 569, (440 _secund\u00e2 manu_ in\nver. 43) the verses are obelized, and are marked by asterisks in ESV\u0394\u03a0,\n24, 36, 161, 166, 274, 408: these, however, may very well be, and in some\ncopies doubtless are, lesson-marks for the guidance of such as read the\ndivine service (_cf. sequent._). A scholion in Cod. 34 [xi] speaks of its\nabsence from some copies(384). In all known Evangelistaria and in their\ncognate Cod. 69* and its three fellows, the two verses, omitted in this\nplace, follow Matt. xxvi. 39, as a regular part of the lesson for the\nThursday in Holy Week: in the same place the margin of C (_terti\u00e2 manu_)\ncontains the passage, C being defective in Luke xxii from ver. 19. In Cod.\n547 the two verses stand (in redder ink, with a scholion) not only after\nMatt. xxvi. 39, but also in their proper place in St. Luke(385). Thus too\nCod. 346, and the margin of Cod. 13. Codd. LQ place the Ammonian sections\nand the number of the Eusebian canons differently from the rest (but this\nkind of irregularity very often occurs in manuscripts), and the\nPhiloxenian margin in one of Adler\u2019s manuscripts (Assem. 2) states that it\nis not found \u201c_in Evangeliis apud Alexandrinos_, proptereaque [non?]\nposuit eam S. Cyrillus in homilia ...:\u201d the fact being that the verses are\nnot found in Cyril\u2019s \u201cHomilies on Luke,\u201d published in Syriac at Oxford by\nDean Payne Smith, nor does Athanasius ever allude to them. They are read,\nhowever, in Codd. \u05d0DFGHKLMQUX\u039b, 1, and all other known cursives, without\nany marks of suspicion, in the Peshitto, Curetonian (omitting \u1f00\u03c0\u1fbd\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6), Harkleian and Jerusalem Syriac (this last obelized in the\nmargin), the Ethiopic, in some Sahidic, Bohairic, and Armenian manuscripts\nand editions, in the Old Latin _a_ _b_ _c_ _e_ _ff_2 _g_1.2 _i_ _l_ _q_,\nand the Vulgate. The effect of this great preponderance is enhanced by the\nearly and express testimony of Fathers. Justin Martyr (Trypho, 103) cites\n\u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b8\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9 as contained \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f05 \u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (_see_ Luke i. 3,\nAlford) \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. Irenaeus (iii. 222) declares that the Lord \u1f35\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\n\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in the second century. In the third, Hippolytus twice,\nDionysius of Alexandria, and Pseudo-Tatian; in the fourth, Arius,\nEusebius, Athanasius, Ephraem Syrus, Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzen,\nEpiphanius, Chrysostom, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita; in the fifth, Julian\nthe heretic, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria,\nPaulus of Emesa, Gennadius, Theodoret, Bishops at Ephesus in 431; and\nlater writers such as Pseudo-Caesarius, Theodosius of Alexandria, John\nDamascene, Maximus, Theodore the heretic, Leontius of Byzantium,\nAnastasius Sinaita, Photius, as well as Hilary, Jerome, Augustine,\nCassian, Paulinus, Facundus(386). Hilary, on the other hand, declares that\nthe passage is not found \u201cin Graecis et in Latinis codicibus compluribus\u201d\n(p. 1062 a, Benedictine edition, 1693), a statement which Jerome, who\nleans much on others in such matters, repeats to the echo. Epiphanius,\nhowever, in a passage we have before alluded to (p. 270, note), charges\n\u201cthe orthodox\u201d with removing \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 in ch. xix. 41, though Irenaeus had\nused it against the Docetae, \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03ae\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f35\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f41 \u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u1f7c\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd: Epiphan. Ancor.\nxxxi(387). Davidson states that \u201cthe Syrians are censured by Photius, the\nArmenians by Nicon [x], Isaac the Catholic, and others, for expunging the\npassage\u201d (Bibl. Critic. ii. p. 438).\n\nOf all recent editors, before Westcott and Hort set them within their\ndouble brackets, Lachmann alone had doubted the authenticity of the\nverses, and enclosed them within brackets: but for the accidental presence\nof the fragment Cod. Q his hard rule\u2014\u201c_mathematica recensendi ratio_\u201d as\nTischendorf terms it\u2014would have forced him to expunge them, unless indeed\nhe judged (which is probably true) that Cod. A makes as much in their\nfavour as against them. So far as the language of Epiphanius is concerned,\nit does not appear that this passage was rejected by the orthodox as\nrepugnant to their notions of the Lord\u2019s Divine character, and such may\nnot have been at all the origin of the variation. We have far more just\ncause for tracing the removal of the paragraph from its proper place in\nSt. Luke to the practice of the Lectionaries, whose principal lessons\n(such as those of the Holy Week would be) were certainly settled in the\nGreek Church as early as the fourth century (_see_ above, Vol. I. pp.\n74-7, and notes). I remark with lively thankfulness that my friend\nProfessor Milligan does not disturb these precious verses in his \u201cWords of\nthe New Testament:\u201d and Mr. Hammond concludes that \u201con the whole there is\nno reasonable doubt upon the passage.\u201d Thus Canon Cook is surely justified\nin his strong asseveration that \u201csupporting the whole passage we have an\narray of authorities which, whether we regard their antiquity or their\ncharacter for sound judgement, veracity, and accuracy, are scarcely\nparalleled on any occasion\u201d (Revised Version, p. 103).\n\n17. LUKE xxiii. 34. We soon light upon another passage wherein the\nProcrustean laws of certain eminent editors are irreconcileably at\nvariance with their own Christian feeling and critical instinct. No holy\npassage has been brought into disrepute on much slighter grounds than this\nspeech of the Lord upon the cross: the words from \u1f49 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 down to\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd are set within brackets by Lachmann, within double brackets by\nWestcott and Hort. They are omitted by only BD*, 38, 435, among the\nmanuscripts: by E they are marked with an asterisk (comp. Matt. xvi. 2, 3;\nch. xxii. 43,44); of \u05d0 Tischendorf speaks more cautiously than in the case\nof ch. xxii. 43, 44, \u201cA [a reviser] (ut videtur) uncos apposuit, sed\nrursus deleti sunt,\u201d and we saw there how little cause there was for\nassigning the previous omission to \u05d0a. In D the clause is inserted, with\nthe proper (Ammonian) section (\u03c4\u03ba or 320), in a hand which cannot be\nearlier than the ninth century (_see_ Scrivener\u2019s Codex Bezae, facsimile\n11, and Introd. p. xxvii). To this scanty list of authorities for the\nomission we can only add _a_ _b_ of the Old Latin, the Latin of Cod. D,\nthe Sahidic version, two copies of the Bohairic(388), and a passage in\nArethas of the sixth century. Eusebius assigned the section to his tenth\ntable or canon, as it has no parallel in the other three Gospels. The\npassage is contained without a vestige of suspicion in \u05d0ACFGHK (even L) M\n(_hiat_ P) QSUV\u0393\u0394\u039b\u03a0, all other cursives (including 1, 33, 69), _c_ _e_ _f_\n_ff_2 _l_, the Vulgate, all four Syriac versions, all Bohairic codices\nexcept the aforenamed two, the Armenian and Ethiopic. The Patristic\nauthorities for it are (as might be anticipated) express, varied, and\nnumerous:\u2014such as Irenaeus and Origen in their Latin versions, the dying\nwords of St. James the Just as cited in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., lib. ii.\ncap. 23, after Hegesippus, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2\n(Eus.), Hippolytus, the Apostolic Constitutions twice, the Clementine\nHomilies, Ps.-Tatian, Archelaus with Manes, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory\nof Nyssa, Theodorus of Heraclea, Basil, Ephraem Syrus, Ps.-Ephraem,\nPs.-Dionysius Areopagita, Acta Pilati, Syriac Acts of the Apostles,\nPs.-Ignatius, Ps.-Justin, Cyril of Alexandria, Eutherius, Anastasius\nSinaita, Hesychius, Antiochus Monachus, Andreas of Crete, Ps.-Chrysostom,\nPs.-Amphilochius, Opus Imperfectum, Chrysostom often (sometimes loosely\nenough _more suo_), Hilary, Ambrose eleven times, Jerome twelve times,\nAugustine more than sixty times, Theodoret, and John Damascene.\nTischendorf adds\u2014_valeant quantum_\u2014(but only a fraction of this evidence\nwas known to Tischendorf), the apocryphal Acta Pilati(389). It is almost\nincredible that acute and learned men should be able to set aside such a\n_silva_ of witness of every kind, chiefly because D is considered\nespecially weighty in its omissions, and B has to be held up, in practice\nif not in profession, as virtually almost impeccable. Vain indeed is the\napology, \u201cFew verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to\nthe truth of what they record than this first of the Words from the Cross;\nbut it need not therefore have belonged originally to the book in which it\nis now included. We cannot doubt that it comes from an extraneous source\u201d\n(Hort, Notes, p. 68). Nor can we on our part doubt that the system which\nentails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned.\n\n18. JOHN i. 18. \u1f41 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f41 \u1f62\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2... This\npassage exhibits in a few ancient documents of high consideration the\nremarkable variation \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 for \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2, which however, according to the form\nof writing universal in the oldest codices (_see_ Vol. I. pp. 15, 50),\nwould require but the change of a single letter, _\u03a5\u03a3_ or _\u0398\u03a3_. In behalf\nof _\u0398\u03a3_ stand Codd. \u05d0BC _prim\u00e2 manu_, and L (all wanting the article\nbefore \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2, and \u05d0 omitting the \u1f41 \u1f64\u03bd that follows), 33 alone among\ncursive manuscripts (but prefixing \u1f41 to \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2, as does a later hand of\n\u05d0), of the versions the Peshitto (not often found in such company), and\nthe margin of the Harkleian (whose affinity with Cod. L is very decided),\nthe Ethiopic, and a host of Fathers, some expressly (e.g. Clement of\nAlexandria, Didymus \u201cde Trinitate,\u201d Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, &c.),\nothers by apparent reference (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa). The Egyptian\nversions may have read either \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 or \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, more probably the latter, as\nPrebendary Malan translates for the Bohairic(390), the Sahidic being here\nlost. Their testimonies are elaborately set forth by Tregelles, who\nstrenuously maintains \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 as the true reading, and thinks it much that\nArius, though \u201copposed to the dogma taught,\u201d upholds \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. It\nmay be that the term suits that heretic\u2019s system better than it does the\nCatholic doctrine: it certainly does not confute it. For the received\nreading \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 we can allege AC (_terti\u00e2 manu_) EFGHKMSUVX\u0394\u039b\u03a0 (D and the\nother uncials being defective), every cursive manuscript except 33\n(including Tregelles\u2019 allies 1, 69), all the Latin versions, the\nCuretonian, Harkleian, and Jerusalem Syriac, the Georgian and Slavonic,\nthe Armenian and Platt\u2019s Ethiopic, the Anglo-Saxon and Arabic. The array\nof Fathers is less imposing, but includes Athanasius (often), Chrysostom,\nand the Latin writers down from Tertullian. Origen, Eusebius, and some\nothers have both readings. Cyril of Jerusalem quotes without \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 or\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2,\u2014\u1f43\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd; \u1f41 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf. C.\n7, l. 27, p. 107, ed. Oxon., Pereira.\n\nTregelles, who seldom notices internal probabilities in his critical\nnotes, here pleads that an \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd like \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2(391) might\neasily be changed by copyists into the more familiar \u1f41 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 from\nJohn iii. 16; 18; i John iv. 9, and he would therefore apply Bengel\u2019s\nCanon (I. _see_ p. 247). Alford\u2019s remark, however, is very sound: \u201cWe\nshould be introducing great harshness into the sentence, and a new and [to\nus moderns] strange term into Scripture, by adopting \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2: a consequence\nwhich ought to have no weight whatever where authority is overpowering,\nbut may fairly be weighed where this is not so. The \u2018praestat procliviori\nardua\u2019 finds in this case a legitimate limit\u201d (N. T., note on John i. 18).\nEvery one indeed must feel \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 to be untrue, even though for the sake of\nconsistency he may be forced to uphold it. Westcott and Hort set \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in the text, but concede to \u1f41 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 a place in their margin.\n\nThose who will resort to \u201cancient evidence exclusively\u201d for the recension\nof the text may well be perplexed in dealing with this passage. The oldest\nmanuscripts, versions, and writers are hopelessly divided, so that we can\nwell understand how some critics (not very unreasonably, perhaps, yet\nwithout a shadow of authority worth notice) have come to suspect both \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\nand \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 to be _accretions_ or spurious additions to \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2. If the\nprinciples advocated in Vol. II. Ch. X be true, the present is just such a\ncase as calls for the interposition of the more recent uncial and cursive\ncodices; and when we find that they all, with the single exception of Cod.\n33, defend the reading \u1f41 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2, we feel safe in concluding that\nfor once Codd. \u05d0BC and the Peshitto do not approach the autograph of St.\nJohn so nearly as Cod. A, the Harkleian Syriac, and Old Latin\nversions(392).\n\n19. JOHN iii. 13. Westcott and Hort remove from the text to the margin the\nweighty and doubtless difficult, but on that account only the more\ncertainly genuine, words \u1f41 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7. Tischendorf rejected them (as\nindeed does Professor Milligan) in his \u201cSynopsis Evangelica,\u201d 1864, but\nafterwards repented of his decision. The authorities for omission are \u05d0BL\n(which read \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in ch. i. 18) Tb [vi], 33 alone among\nmanuscripts. CDF are defective here: but the clause is contained in\nAEGHKMSUV\u0393\u0394\u039b\u03a0, and in all cursives save one, A* and one Evangelistarium\n(44) omitting \u1f64\u03bd. No versions can be cited against the clause except one\nmanuscript of the Bohairic: it appears in every one else, including the\nLatin, the four Syriac, the Ethiopic, the Georgian, and the Armenian.\nThere is really no Patristic evidence to set up against it, for it amounts\nto nothing that the words are not found in the Armenian versions of\nEphraem\u2019s Exposition of Tatian\u2019s Harmony (_see_ Vol. I. p. 59, note 2);\nthat Eusebius might have cited them twice and did not; that Cyril of\nAlexandria, who alleges them once, passed over them once; that Origen also\n(in the Latin translation) neglected them once, inasmuch as he quotes them\ntwice, once very expressly. Hippolytus [220] is the prime witness in their\nbehalf, for he draws the theological inference from the passage\n(\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03be\u1fc3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7), wherein he\nis followed in two places by Hilary and by Epiphanius. To these add\nDionysius of Alexandria [iii], Novatian [iii], Aphraates the Persian,\nDidymus, Lucifer, Athanasius, Basil, besides Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine,\nand by John Damascene (thrice), by Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, and\nTheodoret each four times,\u2014indeed, as Dean Burgon has shown(393), more\nthan fifty passages from thirty-eight ecclesiastical writers; and we then\nhave a _consensus_ of versions and ecclesiastical writers from every part\nof the Christian world, joining Cod. A and the later manuscripts in\nconvicting \u05d0BL, &c., or the common sources from which they were derived,\nof the deliberate suppression of one of the most mysterious, yet one of\nthe most glorious, glimpses afforded to us in Scripture of the nature of\nthe Saviour, on the side of His Proper Divinity.\n\n20. JOHN V. 3, 4. \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ae\u03b8\u03c1\u1fb3, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1; \u1f41 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f51\u03b3\u03b9\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, \u1fa7 \u03b4\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9. This passage is expunged by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford,\nWestcott and Hort, obelized (=) by Griesbach, but retained by Scholz and\nLachmann. The evidence against it is certainly very considerable: Codd.\n\u05d0BC*D, 33, 157, 314, but D, 33 contain \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd ... \u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, which\n_alone_ A*L, 18 omit. It may be observed that in this part of St. John A\nand L are much together against N, and against B yet more. The words from\n\u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 to \u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 are noted with asterisks or obeli (employed\nwithout much discrimination) in S\u039b, 8, 11?, 14 (\u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 being\nleft out), 21, 24, 32, 36, 145, 161, 166, 230, 262, 269, 299, 348, 408,\n507, 512, 575, 606, and Armenian manuscripts. The Harkleian margin marks\nfrom \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 to \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 with an asterisk, the remainder of the verse with\nobeli. The whole passage is given, although with that extreme variation in\nthe reading which so often indicates grounds for suspicion(394), in\nEFGHIKMUV\u0393\u0394\u03a0 (with an asterisk throughout), and all known cursives not\nenumerated above(395): of these Cod. I [vi] is of the greatest weight.\nCod. A contains the whole passage, but down to \u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd _secund\u00e2 manu_;\nCod. C also the whole, _terti\u00e2 manu_. Of the versions, Cureton\u2019s Syriac,\nthe Sahidic, Schwartze\u2019s Bohairic(396), some Armenian manuscripts, _f_ _l_\n_q_ of the Old Latin, _san. harl._* and two others of the Vulgate (_vid._\nGriesbach) are for omission; the Roman edition of the Ethiopic leaves out\nwhat the Harkleian margin obelizes, but the Peshitto and Jerusalem Syriac,\nall Latin copies not aforenamed, Wilkins\u2019 Bohairic, and Armenian editions\nare for retaining the disputed words. Tertullian clearly recognizes them\n(\u201cpiscinam Bethsaidam angelus interveniens commovebat,\u201d _de Baptismo_, 5),\nas do Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Ambrose (twice), Theophylact, and\nEuthymius. Nonnus [v] does not touch it in his metrical paraphrase.\n\nThe first clause (\u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7 ... \u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd) can hardly stand in Dr. Scrivener\u2019s\nopinion, in spite of the versions which support it, as DI are the oldest\nmanuscript witnesses in its favour, and it bears much of the appearance of\na gloss brought in from the margin. The succeeding verse is harder to deal\nwith(397); but for the countenance of the versions and the testimony of\nTertullian, Cod. A could never resist the joint authority of \u05d0BCD,\nillustrated as they are by the marks of suspicion set in so many later\ncopies. Yet if ver. 4 be indeed but an \u201c_insertion to complete that\nimplied in the narrative with reference to the popular belief_\u201d (Alford,\n_ad loc._), it is much more in the manner of Cod. D and the Curetonian\nSyriac, than of Cod. A and the Latin versions; and since these last two\nare not very often found in unison, and together with the Peshitto,\nopposed to the other primary documents, it is not very rash to say that\nwhen such a conjunction does occur, it proves that the reading was early,\nwidely diffused, and extensively received. Yet, after all, if the passage\nas it stands in our common text can be maintained as genuine at all, it\nmust be, we apprehend, on the principle suggested above, Vol. I. Chap. I.\n\u00a7 11, p. 18. The chief difficulty, of course, consists in the fact that so\nmany copies are still without the addition, if assumed to be made by the\nEvangelist himself: nor will this supposition very well account for the\nwide variations subsisting between the manuscripts which do contain the\nsupplement, both here and in chh. vii. 53-viii. 11(398).\n\n21. JOHN vii. 8. This passage has provoked the \u201cbark\u201d of Porphyry the\nphilosopher, by common consent the most acute and formidable adversary our\nfaith encountered in ancient times [d. 304]. \u201cIturum se negavit,\u201d as\nJerome represents Porphyry\u2019s objection, \u201cet fecit quod prius negaverat:\nlatrat Porphyrius, inconstantiae et mutationis accusat.\u201d Yet in the common\ntext, which Lachmann, Westcott and Hort, apparently with Professor\nMilligan, join in approving, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd,\nthere is no vestige of levity of purpose on the Lord\u2019s part, but rather a\ngentle intimation that what He would not do then, He would do hereafter.\nIt is plain therefore that Porphyry the foe, and Jerome the defender of\nthe faith, both found in their copies \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba, not \u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9, and this is the\nreading of Tischendorf and Tregelles: Hort and Westcott set it in their\nmargin. Thus too Epiphanius and Chrysostom in the fourth century, Cyril in\nthe fifth, each of them feeling the difficulty of the passage, and meeting\nit in his own way. For \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba we have the support of \u05d0 (AC _hiant_) DKM\u03a0, 17\n_secund\u00e2 manu_, 389: add 507, 570, being Scrivener\u2019s pw (two excellent\ncursives, often found together in vouching for good readings), 558, Evst.\n234, the Latin _a_ _b_ _c_ _e_ _ff_2 _l_ _secund\u00e2 manu_, Cureton\u2019s Syriac,\nthe Bohairic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions(399), a minority of the\nwhole doubtless, yet a goodly band, gathered from east and west alike. In\nthis case no hesitation would have been felt in adopting a reading, not\nonly the harder in itself, but the only one that will explain the history\nof the passage, had not the palpable and wilful emendation \u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9 been\nupheld by B: _ignoscitur isti_, even when it resorts to a subterfuge which\nin any other manuscript would be put aside with scorn. The change,\nhowever, from the end of the third century downwards, was very generally\nand widely diffused. Besides B and its faithful allies LT, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9 is read in\nEFGHSUVX\u0393\u0394\u039b, in all cursives not cited above, in _f_ _g_ _q_, in some\nVulgate codices (but in none of the best), the Sahidic, Gothic, and three\nother Syriac versions, the Harkleian also in its Greek margin. Basil is\nalleged for the same reading, doubtless not expressly, like the Fathers\nnamed above. It is seldom that we can trace so clearly the date and origin\nof an important corruption which could not be accidental, and it is well\nto know that no extant authorities, however venerable, are quite exempt\nfrom the influence of dishonest zeal.\n\n22. JOHN vii. 53-viii. 11. On no other grounds than those just intimated\nwhen discussing ch. v. 3, 4 can this celebrated and important paragraph,\nthe _pericope adulterae_ as it is called, be regarded as a portion of St.\nJohn\u2019s Gospel. It is absent from too many excellent copies not to have\nbeen wanting in some of the very earliest; while the arguments in its\nfavour, internal even more than external, are so powerful, that we can\nscarcely be brought to think it an unauthorized appendage to the writings\nof one, who in another of his inspired books deprecated so solemnly the\nadding to or taking away from the blessed testimony he was commissioned to\nbear (Apoc. xxii. 18, 19). If ch. xx. 30, 31 show signs of having been the\noriginal end of this Gospel, and ch. xxi be a later supplement by the\nApostle\u2019s own hand, which I think with Dean Alford is evidently the case,\nwhy should not St. John have inserted in this second edition both the\namplification in ch. v. 3, 4, and this most edifying and eminently\nChristian narrative? The appended chapter (xxi) would thus be added at\nonce to all copies of the Gospels then in circulation, though a portion of\nthem might well overlook the minuter change in ch. v. 3, 4, or, from\nobvious though mistaken motives, might hesitate to receive for general use\nor public reading the history of the woman taken in adultery.\n\nIt must be in this way, if at all, that we can assign to the Evangelist\nchh. vii. 53-viii. 11; on all intelligent principles of mere criticism the\npassage must needs be abandoned: and such is the conclusion arrived at by\nall the critical editors. It is entirely omitted (ch. viii. 12 following\ncontinuously to ch. vii. 52) in the uncial Codd. \u05d0A(400)BCT (all very old\nauthorities) LX(401)\u0394, but L\u0394 leave a void space (like B\u2019s in Mark xvi.\n9-20) too small to contain the verses (though any space would suffice to\nintimate the consciousness of some omission), before which \u0394* began to\nwrite ch. viii. 12 after ch. vii. 52.\n\nAdd to these, as omitting the paragraph, the cursives 3, 12, 21, 22, 33,\n36, 44, 49, 63 (_teste_ Abbott), 72, 87, 95, 96, 97, 106, 108, 123, 131,\n134, 139, 143, 149, 157, 168, 169, 181, 186, 194, 195, 210, 213, 228, 249,\n250, 253, 255, 261, 269, 314, 331, 388, 392, 401, 416, 453, 473 (with an\nexplanatory note), 486, 510, 550, 559, 561, 582 (in ver. 12 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 for\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd): it is absent in the first, added by a second hand in 9, 15, 105,\n179, 232, 284, 353, 509, 625: while ch. viii. 3-11 is wanting in 77, 242,\n324 (sixty-two cursive copies). The passage is noted by an asterisk or\nobelus or other mark in Codd. MS, 4, 8, 14, 18, 24, 34 (with an\nexplanatory note), 35, 83, 109, 125, 141, 148 (_secund\u00e2 manu_), 156, 161,\n166, 167, 178, 179, 189, 196, 198, 201, 202, 219, 226, 230, 231 (_secund\u00e2\nmanu_), 241, 246, 271, 274, 277, 284?, 285, 338, 348, 360, 361, 363, 376,\n391 (_secund\u00e2 manu_), 394, 407, 408, 413 (a row of commas), 422, 436, 518\n(_secund\u00e2 manu_), 534, 542, 549, 568, 575, 600. There are thus noted vers.\n2-11 in E, 606: vers. 3-11 in \u03a0 (_hiat_ ver. 6), 128, 137, 147: vers. 4-11\nin 212 (with unique rubrical directions) and 355: with explanatory scholia\nappended in 164, 215, 262(402) (sixty-one cursives). Speaking generally,\ncopies which contain a commentary omit the paragraph, but Codd. 59-66,\n503, 526, 536 are exceptions to this practice. Scholz, who has taken\nunusual pains in the examination of this question, enumerates 290\ncursives, others since his time forty-one more, which contain the\nparagraph with no trace of suspicion, as do the uncials DF (_partly\ndefective_) GHKU\u0393 (with a hiatus after \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd ver. 3): to which\nadd Cod. 736 (_see addenda_) and the recovered Cod. 64, for which Mill on\nver. 2 cited Cod. 63 in error. Cod. 145 has it only _secund\u00e2 manu_, with a\nnote that from ch. viii. 3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\n\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. The obelized Cod. 422 at the same place has in the margin by a\nmore recent hand \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2. Codd. 1, 19, 20, 129, 135,\n207(403), 215, 301, 347, 478, 604, 629, Evst. 86 contain the whole\n_pericope_ at the end of the Gospel. Of these, Cod. 1 in a scholium pleads\nits absence \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, and from the commentaries of\nChrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodore of Mopsuestia; while 135,\n301 confess they found it \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2: Codd. 20, 215, 559 are\nobelized at the end of the section, and have a scholium which runs in the\ntext \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f60\u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, and on the back of the last leaf of both copies \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\n\u1f44\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. In Codd. 37, 102, 105, ch. viii. 3-11 alone is put at\nthe end of the Gospel, which is all that 259 supplies, though its omission\nin the text begins at ch. vii. 53. Cod. 237, on the contrary, omits only\nfrom ch. viii. 3, but at the end inserts the whole passage from ch. vii.\n53: in Cod. 478, ch. vii. 53-viii. 2 stands _prim\u00e2 manu_ with an asterisk,\nthe rest later. Cod. 225 sets chh. vii. 53-viii. 11 after ch. vii. 36; in\nCod. 115, ch. viii. 12 is inserted between ch. vii. 52 and 53, and\nrepeated again in its proper place. Finally, Codd. 13, 69, 124, 346 (being\nAbbott\u2019s group), and 556 give the whole passage at the end of Luke xxi,\nthe order being apparently suggested from comparing Luke xxi. 37 with John\nviii. 1; and \u1f64\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5 Luke xxi. 38 with \u1f44\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 John viii. 2(404). In the\nLectionaries, as we have had occasion to state before (Vol. I. p. 81,\nnote), this section was never read as a part of the lesson for Pentecost\n(John vii. 37-viii. 12), but was reserved for the festivals of such saints\nas Theodora Sept. 18, or Pelagia Oct. 8 (_see_ Vol. I. p. 87, notes 2 and\n3), as also in Codd. 547, 604, and in many Service-books, whose Menology\nwas not very full (e.g. 150, 189, 257, 259), it would thus be omitted\naltogether. Accordingly, in that remarkable Lectionary, the Jerusalem\nSyriac, the lesson for Pentecost ends at ch. viii. 2, the other verses\n(3-11) being assigned to St. Euphemia\u2019s day (Sept. 16).\n\nOf the other versions, the paragraph is entirely omitted in the true\nPeshitto (being however inserted in printed books with the circumstances\nbefore stated under that version), in Cureton\u2019s Syriac, and in the\nHarkleian; though it appears in the Codex Barsalibaei, from which White\nappended it to the end of St. John: a Syriac note in this copy states that\nit does not belong to the Philoxenian, but was translated in A.D. 622 by\nMaras, Bishop of Amida. Maras, however, lived about A.D. 520, and a\nfragment of a very different version of the section, bearing his name, is\ncited by Assemani (Biblioth. Orient, ii. 53) from the _writings_ of\nBarsalibi himself (Cod. Clem.-Vat. Syr. 16). Ridley\u2019s text bears much\nresemblance to that of de Dieu, as does a fourth version of ch. vii.\n53-viii. 11 found by Adler (N. T. Version. Syr., p. 57) in a Paris codex,\nwith the marginal annotation that this \u201c\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03c2\u201d is not in all the\ncopies, but was interpreted into Syriac by the Abbot Mar Paulus. Of the\nother versions it is not found in the Sahidic, or in some of Wilkins\u2019 and\nall Schwartze\u2019s Bohairic copies(405), in the Gothic, Zohrab\u2019s Armenian\nfrom six ancient codices (but five very recent ones and Uscan\u2019s edition\ncontain it), or in _a_ _f_ _l_ (text) _q_ of the Old Latin. In _b_ the\nwhole text from ch. vii. 44 to viii. 12 has been wilfully erased, but the\npassage is found in _c_ _e_ (we have given them at large, pp. 362-3),\n_ff_2 _g_ _j_ _l_ (margin), the Vulgate (even _am. fuld. for. san._),\nEthiopic, Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon, Persic (but in a Vatican codex placed in\nch. x), and Arabic.\n\nOf the Fathers, Euthymius [xii], the first among the Greeks to mention the\nparagraph in its proper place, declares that \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u03b5\u1f55\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f22 \u1f60\u03b2\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7. The Apostolic Constitutions [iii or iv] had plainly alluded to\nit, and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. _fin._) had described from Papias,\nand as contained in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the story of a woman \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, but did not at all regard\nit as Scripture. Codd. KM too are the earliest which raise the number of\n\u03c4\u03af\u03c4\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 or larger \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1 in St. John from 18 to 19, by interpolating \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6.\n\u03b9\u00b4 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, which soon found admittance into the mass of\ncopies: e.g. Evan. 482.\n\nAmong the Latins, as being in their old version, the narrative was more\ngenerally received for St. John\u2019s. Jerome testifies that it was found in\nhis time \u201cin multis et Graecis et Latinis codicibus;\u201d Ambrose cites it,\nand Augustine (de adult. conjugiis, lib. ii. c. 7) complains that\n\u201cnonnulli modicae fidei, vel potius inimici verae fidei,\u201d removed it from\ntheir codices, \u201c_credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus\nsuis_(406).\u201d\n\nWhen to all these sources of doubt, and to so many hostile authorities, is\nadded the fact that in no portion of the N. T. do the variations of\nmanuscripts (of D beyond all the rest) and of other documents bear any\nsort of proportion, whether in number or extent, to those in these twelve\nverses (of which statement full evidence may be seen in any collection of\nvarious readings)(407), we cannot help admitting that if this section be\nindeed the composition of St. John, it has been transmitted to us under\ncircumstances widely different from those connected with any other genuine\npassage of Scripture whatever(408).\n\n\n\n\nSecond Series. Acts.\n\n\n23. Acts viii. 37. \u0395\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u03a6\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u0395\u1f30 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f45\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2,\n\u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd. \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5, \u03a0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd(409). We cannot safely question the spuriousness of this verse,\nwhich all the critical editors condemn, and which seems to have been\nreceived from the margin, where the formula \u03a0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. had been\nplaced, extracted from some Church Ordinal: yet this is just the portion\ncited by Irenaeus, both in Greek(410) and Latin; so early had the words\nfound a place in the sacred text. It is contained in no manuscripts except\nE (D, which might perhaps be expected to favour it, being here defective),\n4 (_secund\u00e2 manu_), 13, 15, 18?, 27, 29, 36, 60, 69, 97, 100, 105, 106,\n107, 163, 227, Apost. 5, 13 once; and in the margin, 14, 25 &c., in Cod.\n186 alone out of Scrivener\u2019s thirteen: manuscripts of good character, but\nquite inadequate to prove the authenticity of the verse, even though they\ndid not differ considerably in the actual readings they exhibit, which is\nalways in itself a ground of reasonable suspicion (_see_ pp. 361, 368,\n374)(411). Here again, as in Matt. xxvii. 35, Gutbier and Schaaf\ninterpolated in their Peshitto texts the passage as translated into Syriac\nand placed within brackets by Elias Hutter: the Harkleian also exhibits\nit, but marked with an asterisk. It is found in the Old Latin _g_ and _m_\nalthough in an abridged form, in the Vulgate (both printed and _demid.\ntol._, but not in _am._ _prim\u00e2 manu_, _fuld._ &c.), and in the satellites\nof the Vulgate, the Armenian, Polyglott Arabic, and Slavonic. Bede,\nhowever, who used Cod. E, knew _Latin_ copies in which the verse was\nwanting: yet it was known to Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Pacian, &c. among\nthe Latins, to \u0152cumenius and Theophylact (twice quoted) among the Greeks.\nErasmus seems to have inserted the verse by a comparison of the later hand\nof Cod. 4 with the Vulgate(412); it is not in the Complutensian edition.\nThis passage affords us a curious instance of an _addition_ well received\nin the Western Church from the second century downwards (_see_ p. 164),\nand afterwards making some way among the later Greek codices and writers.\n\n24. ACTS xi. 20. We are here in a manner forced by the sense to adopt,\nwith Griesbach, Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,\nthe reading \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 in the room of \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 of the Received text,\nretained by Westcott and Hort(413). Immediately after the call of the\nGentiles to the privileges of the Gospel was acknowledged and acquiesced\nin at Jerusalem (ver. 18), we read that some of those who had been\nscattered abroad years ago went about preaching the word to Jews only\n(ver. 19). In this there was nothing new: there had been \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\n\u201cGreek-speaking Jews\u201d among the brethren long since (ch. vi. 1), and to\nsay that they were again preached to was not at all strange: the marvel is\ncontained in ver. 20. \u201cBut there were some of them, men of Cyprus and\nCyrene, which, when they came to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2: \u03ba\u03b1\u03af intimating the additional information), and that\nwith such success in converting these heathen Greeks, that Gentile\nChristians first obtained at Antioch the name, no longer of Nazarenes (ch.\nxxiv. 5), but of Christians (ver. 26). The meaning being thus evident, we\nlook to the authorities which uphold it, and these are few, confessedly\ninsufficient if the sense left us any choice, but recommended to us, as\nthe matter stands, by their intrinsic excellence: they are AD* (the latter\nwithout \u03ba\u03b1\u03af, which is, however, otherwise abundantly attested to) Cod.\n184, one of the best of the cursives, but not its kindred 221, the\nPeshitto Syriac, the Armenian, perhaps the Ethiopic. The Vulgate,\nBohairic, Sahidic, and Harkleian Syriac draw no distinction between\n\u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 and \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af: the Peshitto unquestionably does, since it renders\n\u201cGreek disciples\u201d in ch. vi. 1, \u201cthose Jews who knew Greek\u201d (an excellent\ndefinition) in ch. ix. 29, but \u201cGreeks\u201d here. Eusebius clearly reads\n\u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, as does Chrysostom in his exposition (not in his text), all the\nmore surely because he is perplexed how to expound it: his words are\nechoed by \u0152cumenius and in both commentaries of Theophylact, only that\nthey substitute \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 for \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 in repeating his words \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f11\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u00ef\u03c3\u03c4\u03af, \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd: they both have \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 in the text.\nThus for once B is associated with E, with a later hand of D (of the\nseventh or eighth century), with the later uncials HLP and all cursives\nexcept one, in maintaining a variation demonstrably false. C is defective\nhere, and the first hand of \u05d0, which presents us with the wonderful\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2, makes so far in favour of B; but \u05d0c corrects that error into\n\u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n25. ACTS xiii. 18. We have here as nice a balance between conflicting\nreadings (differing only by a single letter) as we find anywhere in the N.\nT. The case is stated in the margin to our Authorized version of the\nBible, more minutely than is its wont, though modern printers have\nunwarrantably left out the reference to 2 Macc. vii. 27 in copies not\ncontaining the Apocrypha(414). For \u1f10\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u201csuffered he their\nmanners\u201d of Tregelles, of Westcott and Hort, are cited \u05d0B, the very\nancient second hand of C, D (in the Greek), HLP, 61 with almost all other\ncursives and the catenas: for the alternative \u1f10\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u201cfed them like\na nurse\u201d of Lachmann and Tischendorf (Tregelles placing it in his margin)\nwe find ACE, 13, 24* (not 24** with Tischendorf), 68, 78* (margin), 93,\n100, 105, 142, _d_ against its own Greek and the Vulgate jointly. Versions\nare in such a case of special weight, but unfortunately they too are\nsomewhat divided. For \u03c0 we find the Vulgate and a Greek note set in the\nHarkleian margin, for \u03c6 the Peshitto and Harkleian Syriac, both Egyptian,\nthe Armenian, and both Ethiopic, with Erpenius\u2019 Arabic: the Arabic of the\nPolyglott gives both renderings. Thus the majority of the versions incline\none way, the oldest and most numerous manuscripts the other. It is useless\nto cite Greek writers, except they show from the context which word they\nfavour. The form with \u03c6 was doubtless read in the Apostolic Constitutions,\nand twice in Cyril of Alexandria, and that word is supported as well by 2\nMacc. vii. 27, as by the other text cited in the margin of the Authorized\nEnglish Bible, Deut. i. 31, to which the Apostle\u2019s reference is so\nmanifest, that we cannot but regard it as nearly decisive which expression\nhe used. Although in Deuteronomy also Greek copies vary a little between \u03c0\nand \u03c6, yet both A and B(415) read the latter, indeed the Hebrew \u05e0\u05e9\u05d0, _pace\nHortii_, would admit of nothing else. For \u03c0 Origen is express, both in his\nGreek commentary (not his text) and Latin version, but then he seems to\nemploy it even in Deut. i. 31, where it cannot be correct. Chrysostom and\nTheophylact give no certain sound. Wetstein seasonably illustrates \u1f10\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0.\nfrom Rom. ix. 22. Internal evidence certainly points to \u1f10\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd,\nwhich on the whole may be deemed preferable. The Apostle is anxious to\nplease his Jewish hearers by enumerating the mercies their nation had\nreceived from the Divine favour. God had chosen them, exalted them in\nEgypt, brought them out with a high hand, fed them in the wilderness, and\ngiven them the land of Promise. It would hardly have suited his purpose to\nhave interposed, by way of parenthesis, in the midst of his detail of\nbenefits received, the unwelcome suggestion of their obstinate ingratitude\nand of God\u2019s long forbearance.\n\n26. ACTS xiii. 32. Here for \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd Lachmann, Tischendorf,\nTregelles, Westcott and Hort read \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. As well from the fact\nthat it is much the harder form (_see_ Canon I), as from the state of the\nexternal evidence, they could not act otherwise. In defence of \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd we\nhave \u05d0ABC*D, but apparently no cursives, the Vulgate version, Hilary,\nAmbrose, Bede (with the variant \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd in _tol._ and elsewhere), and both\nEthiopic. We cannot resist the five great uncials when for once they are\nin harmony. The Received text is supported by the third hand of C, by\nEHLP, by all the cursives, by the two Syriac and Armenian versions, the\ncatenae, Chrysostom and Theophylact. The Sahidic omits \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, the Bohairic\nboth pronouns. To take up \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd without \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, the reading of a solitary\ncursive of the eleventh century, Cod. 76, would approach the limits of\nmere conjecture, yet every one can see how well it would account for all\nother variations. \u201cThe text, which alone has any adequate authority, and\nof which all or nearly all the readings are manifest corrections, gives\nonly an improbable sense. It can hardly be doubted that \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd is a\nprimitive corruption of \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 and \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 being alike\nabsolute. The suggestion is due to Bornemann, who cites x. 41 in\nillustration\u201d (Hort, Notes, p. 95). _Optim\u00e8._\n\n27. ACTS xiii. 33. The variation \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1ff3 for \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 of the Received text\ncommended itself to Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,\nmerely from its apparent difficulty; yet there is no manuscript authority\nfor it except D, _g_, and \u201cquidam codices\u201d known to Bede. Origen and\nHilary indeed mention the variation, but they explain at the same time the\ncause, as do Eusebius and others. Tertullian and Cyprian also quote the\nwords as from the first Psalm, and the arrangement of the two Psalms\nsometimes together, sometimes separate, is as old as Justin Martyr\u2019s time.\nUnder these circumstances Westcott and Hort are surely fully justified in\nabiding by the common reading, against which there is no other evidence\nthan what has been named above.\n\n28. ACTS xv. 34. \u1f14\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a3\u03af\u03bb\u1fb3 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. This verse is omitted\nby \u05d0ABEGHP, and of the cursives by 31, 61 of the first rank, by 24, 91,\n184, 185, 188, 189, 221, and full fifty others. Erasmus inserted it in his\neditions from the margin of Cod. 4. It is wanting in the Peshitto (only\nthat Tremellius and Gutbier between them thrust their own version into the\ntext), in the Bohairic, Polyglott Arabic, Slavonic, the best manuscripts\nof the Latin Vulgate (_am. fuld. demid._, &c.), and by Chrysostom and\nTheophylact in at least one copy. In C it runs \u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03c9 \u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, which is followed by many cursives: some of which, however, have\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, two \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, 42, 57, 69, 182, 186, 187, 219 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03b8\u03b9, with the\nComplutensian Polyglott. The common text is found in the Sahidic,\nTremellius\u2019 Syriac, in the Harkleian with an asterisk, also in Erpenius\u2019\nArabic, Theophylact, and \u0152cumenius. In D we read \u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03c9 \u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b1\n\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 [\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 _secund\u00e2 manu_] \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (sustinere eos _d_) \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b7, which Lachmann cites in Latin as extant _in this form_ only in\none Vienna Codex (for which see his N. T., Proleg. vol. i. p. xxix): thus\ntoo _tol._, the Armenian (not that of Venice), and the printed Slavonic.\nThe common Vulgate, Cassiodorus and Hutter\u2019s Syriac add \u201cJerusalem,\u201d so\nthat the Clementine Latin stands thus: \u201cVisum est autem Silae ibi\nremanere; Judas autem solus abiit Jerusalem.\u201d The Ethiopic is rendered \u201cEt\nperseveravit Paulus manens,\u201d to which Platt\u2019s copies add \u2019ibi.\u2019\n\nNo doubt this verse is an unauthorized addition, self-condemned indeed by\nits numerous variations (_see_ p. 361). One can almost trace its growth,\nand in the shape presented by the Received text it must have been (as Mill\nconjectures) a marginal gloss, designed to explain how (notwithstanding\nthe terms of ver. 33) Silas was at hand in ver. 40, conveniently for St.\nPaul to choose him as a companion in travel.\n\n29. ACTS xvi. 7. After \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 at the end of this verse Lachmann,\nTischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort most rightly add \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6. The\nevidence in its favour is overwhelming, and it is not easy to conjecture\nhow it ever fell out of the text: compare Rom. viii. 9. It is wanting only\nin HLP and the mass of the cursives, even in Codd. 184, 221: Codd. 182,\n219 omit the whole clause from \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f34\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, nor does \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 appear in\nthe Sahidic version, or in three Armenian manuscripts, nor is it\nrecognized by Chrysostom or Theophylact. \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 is read by \u05d0ABC**DE, 13,\n15, 31, 33, 36, 61 (_prim\u00e2 manu_), 73, Apost. 40: but Cod. 105 and a few\nothers have \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6. The versions are all but unanimous for the\naddition, being all the known Latin except _demid._, the Bohairic, both\nSyriac, both Ethiopic, and three manuscripts of the Armenian: two more of\nits codices with one edition read \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, six (with Epiphanius) \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\nin its room, while _demid._ has \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 with the first hand of C. The\ncatenae exhibit \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 in spite of Chrysostom, as do Didymus, Cyril of\nAlexandria, and the false Athanasius both in Greek and Latin.\n\n30. ACTS xx. 28. \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f23\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. This reading of the Received text, though different from that of\nthe majority of copies, is pretty sure to be correct: it has been adopted\nby Alford (who once rejected \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 for \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5), and by Westcott and Hort:\nTregelles places it in his margin, though, with Lachmann and Tischendorf,\nhe has \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 in the text. _\u0398\u03a5_ is upheld by \u05d0B (the latter now for\ncertain), 4, 22, 23, 25, 37, 46, 65, 66*(?), 68, 84, 89, 154, 162, Apost.\n12, and _ex silentio_, on which one can lay but little stress, by Codd. 7,\n12, 16, 39, 56, 64, together with 184 and 186, codices not now in England.\n\u201cDei\u201d is read by all known manuscripts and editions of the Vulgate except\nthe Complutensian, which was probably altered to suit the parallel Greek.\nFrom the Vulgate this form was taken by Erasmus, and after him by\nTyndale\u2019s and later English versions. Lee\u2019s edition of the Peshitto has\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5, from three codices (the Travancore, a Vatican Lectionary of Adler\n[xi], and one at the Bodleian), and so has the Harkleian text. \u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n(differing but by one letter, _see_ our Plates v. No. 13; x. No. 25) is in\nAC*DE (and therefore in _d_, _e_), 13, 15, 18, 36 (_text_), 40, 69, 73,\n81, 95*, 130, 156, 163, 180, 182, 219, Apost. 58, some catenae, the\nHarkleian _margin_, the Sahidic, Bohairic, Armenian, and possibly also the\nRoman Ethiopic, though there the same word is said to represent both _\u03b8\u03c5_\nand _\u03ba\u03c5_. Platt\u2019s Ethiopic, all editions of the Peshitto except Lee\u2019s, and\nErpenius\u2019 Arabic, have \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, with Origen once, Theodoret twice, and\nfour copies of Athanasius: the Old Latin _m_ reads \u2019Jesu Christi.\u2019 Other\nvariations, too weakly supported to be worth further notice, are \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 3, 95**, the Polyglott Arabic; \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 47; and the\nGeorgian \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. The great mass of later manuscripts give \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, viz. C (_terti\u00e2 manu_), HLP, 24, 31, 111, 183, 185, 187,\n188, 189, 221, 224, and more than one hundred other cursives, including\nprobably every one not particularized above. This is the reading of the\nComplutensian editors, both in the Greek and Latin, and of some modern\ncritics who would fain take a safe and middle course; but is countenanced\nby the reading of no version except the Slavonic, and by no ecclesiastical\nwriter before Theophylact. It is plainly but a device for reconciling the\ntwo principal readings; yet from the non-repetition of the article and\nfrom the general turn of the sentence it asserts the Divinity of the\nSaviour almost as unequivocally as \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 could do alone. Our choice\nevidently lies between \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 and \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, which are pretty equally supported\nby manuscripts and versions: Patristic testimony, however, may slightly\nincline to the latter. Foremost comes that bold expression of Ignatius\n[A.D. 107] \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b6\u03c9\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 (ad Ephes. i), which the old\nLatin version renders \u201cChristi Dei,\u201d and the later interpolator softens\ninto \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6: so again (ad Roman. vi), \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5. It may be\ntrue that Ignatius \u201cdoes not adopt it [the first passage] as a quotation\u201d\n(Davidson _ad loc._), yet nothing short of Scriptural authority could have\ngiven such early vogue to a term so startling as \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, which is also\nemployed by Tertullian (ad uxorem, ii. 3) and Clement of Alexandria (Quis\ndives, 34). The elder Basil, Epiphanius (_twice_), Cyril of Alexandria\n(_twice_), Ibas (in the Greek only), Ambrose, Caelestine, Fulgentius,\nPrimasius, Cassiodorus, &c., not to mention writers so recent as \u0152cumenius\nand Theophylact, expressly support the same word. Manuscripts of\nAthanasius vary between \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, and \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, but his evidence would\nbe regarded as hostile to the Received text, inasmuch as he states (as\nalleged by Wetstein) that \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03ce\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03af; \u1f08\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bc\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 (contra Apollinar.): only that for\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 (_which even Tischendorf cites in his seventh edition_), the\ncorrect reading is \u03b4\u03af\u03c7\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 or \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, a citation fatal to any such\ninference. In Chrysostom too the readings fluctuate, and some (e.g.\nTregelles) have questioned whether the Homilies on the Acts, wherein he\nhas \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, are of his composition. In behalf of \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 are cited the Latin\nversion of Irenaeus, Lucifer of Cagliari, Augustine, Jerome, Ammonius,\nEusebius, Didymus, Chrysostom (whence Theophylact), possibly Theodoret,\nand the Apostolic Constitutions, while the exact expression _sanguis Dei_\nwas censured by Origen and others. It has been urged, however, and not\nwithout some show of reason (Nolan, Integrity of Greek Vulgate, p. 517,\nnote 135), that the course of Irenaeus\u2019 argument proves that \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 was used\nin his lost Greek text. After all, internal evidence\u2014subjective feeling if\nit must be so called\u2014will decide the critic\u2019s choice where authorities are\nso much divided as here. It seems reasonable to say that the whole mass of\nwitnesses for \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 vouches for the existence of \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 in the\nearliest codices, the commonplace \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 being the rather received from\nother quarters, as it tends to point more distinctly to the Divine Person\nindicated in the passage. If this view be accepted, the preponderance in\nfavour of \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, _undoubtedly the harder form_, is very marked, and when\nthe consideration suggested above from Dean Alford is added, there will\nremain little room for hesitation. It has been pleaded on both sides of\nthe question, and appears little relevant to the case of either, that St.\nPaul employs in ten places the expression \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, but never\nonce \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 or \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\nIt is right to mention that, in the place of \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, the more\nemphatic form \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 ought to be adopted from \u05d0A (_see_\nPlate v. No. 13) BCDE, 31, 182, 184 (Sanderson), with some twenty other\ncursives, Didymus, &c.; while \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is only in HLP, the\nmajority of cursives, Athanasius, Chrysostom, &c. We must, however,\nprotest strongly against the interpretation put upon \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\nby Mr. Darby in his \u201cNew Translation,\u201d \u201cthe blood of his own,\u201d \u201cle sang de\nson propre [fils],\u201d as being no less unwarrantable, though more\nreverential, than that of Wakefield, which Bp. Middleton (Doctrine of the\nGreek Article, pp. 293-5) condemns so justly. Nor can we do less than\nrepudiate unreservedly Dr. Hort\u2019s expedient (Notes, p. 99), who would\nrender \u201cthrough the blood that was His own,\u201d i.e. as being His Son\u2019s.\nIndeed he has so little faith in it that he is constrained to say \u201cIt is\nhowever true that this general sense, if indicated, is not sufficiently\nexpressed in the text as it stands.\u201d\n\n31. ACTS xxvii. 16. \u039a\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b4\u03b1, the form which Erasmus noted as that of Cod. B,\nis adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, in preference to\n\u039a\u03bb\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b4\u03b1 of Tischendorf and the Received text. Putting _Kura_ of the\nPeshitto, _Keda_ of Pell Platt\u2019s Ethiopic, out of the question, we note\nthat \u05d0c, the Vulgate and Latins (Jerome has _Cauden_, Cassiodorus Gaudem),\nfollowed by the Roman edition of the Ethiopic, alone omit the \u03bb. In the\nfirst century Pomponius Mela wrote _Cauda_, the other Pliny _Gaudos_, and\nSuidas speaks of _Caudo_ as an island near Crete: it is now called Gozo,\nand is not to be confounded with the island of Gaulus near Malta, now\nbearing the same name. The \u03bb is inserted by Ptolemy, the celebrated\ngeographer of the second century, and by later writers: it is found in\n\u05d0*AHLP, in all known cursives (with a like variation in the termination as\nin the other form), the Bohairic, the later Syriac both in its text and in\nGreek letters in its margin, the Armenian, and Erpenius\u2019, or the only\ntrustworthy form of the Arabic. Chrysostom and Bede have the same reading,\nwhich must surely be retained unless the union of Cod. B with the Latins\nis to prevail against all other evidence put together.\n\n32. ACTS xxvii. 37. In the place of \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f15\u03be Westcott and\nHort have received into their text \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f15\u03be, placing the common\nreading in the margin. Their form is supported by Cod. B and the Sahidic\nversion only, and was plainly resorted to by those who were slow to\nbelieve that a corn ship, presumably heavily laden (vers. 6, 18), would\ncontain so many souls. There is a slight variation in the other\nauthorities, as is usual where numbers are concerned, from the ancient\npractice of representing them by letters, whereof many traces are yet\nremaining throughout Codex Sarravianus of the Septuagint, dating from the\nend of the fourth century, and in our present copies (Cod. D in Acts xiii.\n18; 20; xix. 9) of the New Testament: even in this place Cod. 61 has \u03c3\u03bf\u03db.\nHence A reads \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 for \u1f15\u03be, 31 omits \u1f15\u03be entirely, one Bohairic copy has\nthe incredible number of 876 (\u03c9\u03bf\u03db), another 176 (\u03c1\u03bf\u03db). The Ethiopic is\nreported by Tregelles to read \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f15\u03be, but that in the Polyglott\nfavours the common text; Epiphanius comes nearest to B (\u1f61\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1),\n\u201clibere\u201d adds Tischendorf. For the more specific number assigned by B \u1f61\u03c2\nis not so well suited.\n\nIn ordinary cases the common reading would be abided by without\nhesitation, upheld as it is by \u05d0CHLP, by all cursives, virtually by A, 31,\ncompletely by the Latin, both Syriac, the Armenian, and most copies of the\nBohairic. It is obvious also that the writer wishes to impress upon us the\nfact that out of so large a party all were saved, and seventy-six would be\na small number indeed. Josephus was wrecked in the Adriatic with 600 on\nboard (Josephus\u2019 Life, c. 3: see Whiston\u2019s note)(416). It is right,\nhowever, to point out that, on the possible supposition that numeral\nletters, not words, were employed in St. Luke\u2019s autograph, the difference\nbetween B and the Received text would consist of the insertion or the\ncontrary of the letter \u03c9: whether in fact it be assumed that the\nEvangelist wrote \u03c9\u03c3\u03bf\u03db or \u03c3\u03bf\u03db, \u201cabout 76\u201d or \u201c276.\u201d Surely it is more\nlikely that \u03c9 was inserted than omitted.\n\nIn ver. 39 the first hand of B, this time favoured by C, and supported by\nthe Bohairic, Armenian, and (in Tregelles) the Ethiopic versions, has\nanother curious variation, also promoted into the text by Westcott and\nHort, \u1f10\u03ba\u03c3\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 for the common \u1f10\u03be\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, which they banish into the margin.\nThis change also is very minute, being simply the resolution of _xi_ into\nthe two consonants for which it stands, and the reading very ingenious,\nunless indeed it be regarded as a mistake made _ex ore dictantis_ (_see_\np. 10), which with Madvig as cited by Mr. Hammond (Outlines of Textual\nCriticism, first edition, p. 13, note) we regard as a slovenly plan, such\nas one would be loth to impute hastily to the scribes of so noble a copy\nas Cod. B. Here, however, as ever, internal evidence being equiponderant,\nwe must decide by the weight of documentary proof, and adopt \u1f10\u03be\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 with\n\u05d0AHLP, all cursives (including 61), the Latin and Syriac versions.\n\n\n\n\nThird Series. St. Paul.\n\n\n33. ROM. v. 1. \u0394\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd.\nHere, as in 2 Cor. iii. 3, we find the chief uncials supporting a reading\nwhich is manifestly unsuitable to the context, although, since it does not\nabsolutely destroy the sense, it does not (nor indeed does that other\npassage) lack strenuous defenders. Codd. \u05d0B for \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd have _prim\u00e2 manu_\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, and though some doubt has been thrown on the primitive reading of\nB, yet Mai and Tregelles (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 156) are\neyewitnesses to the fact, which is now settled: Tischendorf in 1866\nreferred \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd to the third hand of B, Codd. ACDEKL, not less than thirty\ncursives, including 104, 244, 257 and the remarkable copies 17, 37, also\nread \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, as do _d_ _e_ _f_ _g_, the Vulgate (\u201chabeamus\u201d), the Peshitto\nSyriac (\u0722\u071a\u0718\u0710 \u0720\u0722 \u072b\u0720\u0721\u0710 or \u0710\u0721\u0720\u072b \u0722\u0720 \u0710\u0718\u071a\u0722), Bohairic, Ethiopic (in both forms),\nand Arabic. Chrysostom too supports this view, and so apparently\nTertullian (\u201cmonet justificatos ex fide Christi ... pacem ad Deum\nhabere\u201d). The case for \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd is much weaker in itself: Codd. \u05d0aB3FG (in\nspite of the contrary testimony of _f_ _g_, their respective Latin\nversions) P, perhaps the majority of the cursive manuscripts (29, 30, 47,\n221, 260, 265, &c.), Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril (once), and the Slavonic.\nThe later Syriac might seem to combine both readings (\u0722\u0717\u0718\u0710 \u0710\u072c \u0720\u0722 \u0720\u0718\u0710 \u0710\u0720\u0717\u0710\n\u072b\u071d\u0722\u0710 or \u0710\u0722\u071d\u072b \u0710\u0717\u0720\u0710 \u0710\u0718\u0720 \u0722\u0720 \u072c\u0710 \u0710\u0718\u0717\u0722): White translates \u201chabemus,\u201d but has no\nnote on the passage(417). Had the scales been equally poised, no one would\nhesitate to prefer \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, for the closer the context is examined the\nclearer it will appear that _inference_ not _exhortation_ is the Apostle\u2019s\npurpose: hence those who most regard \u201cancient evidence\u201d (Tischendorf and\nTregelles, Westcott and Hort; Lachmann could not make up his mind) have\nstruggled long before they would admit \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd into the text. The \u201cFive\nClergymen\u201d who in or about 1858 benefited the English Church by revising\nits Authorized version of this Epistle, even though they render \u201c_let us\nhave peace with God_,\u201d are constrained to say, \u201cAn overwhelming weight of\nauthority has necessitated a change, which at the first sight seems to\nimpair the logical force of the Apostle\u2019s argument. No consideration,\nhowever, of this kind can be allowed to interfere with the faithful\nexhibition of the true text, as far as it can be ascertained; and no doubt\nthe real Word of God, thus faithfully exhibited, will vindicate its own\nmeaning, and need no help from man\u2019s shortsighted preference\u201d (Preface, p.\nvii). Every one must honour the reverential temper in which these eminent\nmen approached their delicate task; yet, if their sentiments be true,\nwhere is the place for internal evidence at all? A more \u201coverwhelming\nweight\u201d of manuscript authority upholds \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 in 2 Cor. iii. 3: shall\nwe place it in the text, \u201cleaving the real Word of God to vindicate its\nown meaning\u201d? Ought we to assume that the reading found in the few most\nancient codices\u2014not, in the case of Rom. v. 1, in the majority of the\nwhole collection\u2014must _of necessity_ be the \u201creal Word of God, faithfully\nexhibited\u201d? I see no cause to reply in the affirmative, nor do Meyer and\nDr. Field(418).\n\nWe conclude, therefore, that this is a case for the application of the\n_paradiplomatical_ canon (VII): that the itacism \u03c9 for \u03bf, so familiar to\nall collators of Greek manuscripts(419), crept into some very early copy,\nfrom which it was propagated among our most venerable codices, even those\nfrom which the earliest versions were made:\u2014that this is one out of a\nsmall number of well-ascertained cases in which the united testimonies of\nthe best authorities conspire in giving a worse reading than that\npreserved by later and, on the whole, quite inferior copies.\n\n34. 1 COR. xi. 24. I am as unwilling as Mr. C. Forster could have been to\nstrike out from the Received text \u201ca word which (if genuine) THE LORD GOD\nHAD SPOKEN!\u201d (A new Plea for the Three Heavenly Witnesses, Preface, p.\nxvii), but I cannot censure Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, or Westcott\nand Hort, or Dean Blakesley for deciding on the state of the evidence, as\nnow generally taken, that it is not genuine. Yet it is with great\nsatisfaction that I find Bp. Chr. Wordsworth able to retain \u03ba\u03bb\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, and\nto save the solemn clause \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd from being \u201cbald and impressive\nwithout the participle.\u201d Mr. Forster\u2019s argument in behalf of \u03ba\u03bb\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\nthat it refers to ch. x. 16, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f43\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, has a double edge, and\nmight be employed to indicate the source from which the word crept in\nhere. It is more to the purpose to urge with Bp. Wordsworth that early\nscribes were offended by the apparent inconsistency of the term with John\nxix. 36, and because there is nothing like it in the narratives of the\nthree earlier Evangelists. If we decide to retain \u03ba\u03bb\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, it must be in\nopposition to the four chief manuscripts \u05d0ABC, though \u05d0C insert it by the\nthird hand of each. Cod. D, like its namesake of the Gospels and Acts, is\nsomewhat inclined to paraphrases, and has \u03b8\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd(420) by the first\nhand, \u03ba\u03bb\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd by the second. Only two cursives here side with the great\nuncials (17, and the valuable second hand of 67), as do Zohrab\u2019s Armenian,\nCyril of Alexandria and Fulgentius in the fifth century, and Theodoret\u2019s\nreport of Athanasius. The word \u03ba\u03bb\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd is found in EFGKLP, all other\ncursives, the Latin versions of DE (_quod frangitur_), with Ambrosiaster:\nG and the interlinear Latin of F, which, as has been already shown under\nthat MS., is taken from G, prefer _quod frangetur_, with both Syriac, the\nGothic, and the Armenian of Uscan. The Latin Vulgate has _tradetur_ (but\n_traditur_ in _harl._2, even in the parallel column of F and against its\nGreek, and so Cyprian); the Bohairic renders _traditur_; but the Sahidic\nand Ethiopic _datur_, after the \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd of Zacagni\u2019s Euthalius, derived\nfrom Luke xxii. 19. Theodoret himself knew of both forms. The main\nstrength of \u03ba\u03bb\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd rests on Patristic evidence. Mr. Forster has added to\nour previous store the \u201cconclusive testimony\u201d of Basil (Forster, p. xxvi)\nand of Athanasius himself (_ibid._ p. xvii), which is better than\nTheodoret\u2019s report at second hand; and thus too Chrysostom in three\nplaces, one manuscript of Euthalius, John Damascene, the Patriarch\nGermanus (A.D. 715, _ibid._ p. xix), \u0152cumenius and Theophylact. Mr.\nForster is perfectly justified also in pressing the evidence of the\nPrimitive Liturgies, in all of which \u03ba\u03bb\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd occurs in the most sacred\nwords of Institution (_ibid._ pp. xx, xxi). Whatsoever change these\nservices have received in the course of ages, they have probably been\nlittle altered since the fourth century, and very well established must\nthe word have then been to have found a place in them all. On the whole,\ntherefore, we submit this important text as a proof that the united\nreadings of \u05d0ABC are sometimes at variance, not only with the more modern\ncodices united, but with the text of the oldest versions and most\nillustrious Fathers. We confess, however, that in ver. 29 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 (compare\nver. 27) and \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 _\u03ba\u03cd_ look too much like glosses to be maintained\nconfidently against the evidence of \u05d0*ABC*, 17, (67**) and some\nmanuscripts of the Ethiopic.\n\n35. 1 COR. xiii. 3. \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u1ff6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u201cthough I give\nmy body to be burned.\u201d Here we find the undoubtedly false reading\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 in the three chief codices \u05d0AB and in 17, adopted by Drs.\nWestcott and Hort(421), and it is said to have been favoured by Lachmann\nin 1831, by Tregelles in 1873 (A. W. Tyler, Bibl. Sacra, 1873, p. 502).\nJerome testifies that in his time \u201capud Graecos ipsos ipsa exemplaria esse\ndiversa,\u201d and preferred \u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 (though all copies of the Latin have\n_ut ardeam_ or _ut ardeat_), which is said to be countenanced by the Roman\nEthiopic: the case of the Bohairic is stated by Bp. Lightfoot (Chap.\nIV)(422). Tischendorf cites Ephraem (ii. 112) for \u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9. This\nvariation, which involves the change of but one letter, is worth notice,\nas showing that the best uncial MSS. are not always to be depended upon,\nand sometimes are \u201cblemished with errors\u201d (Wordsworth, N. T., _ad loc._).\nAs a parallel use, Theodotion\u2019s version of Dan. iii. 8 (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1) is very pertinent: and for the punishment of burning\nalive, as practised in those times, consult (if it be thought needful)\nJoseph., Antiq. xvii. 6, 4 (Hort). \u039a\u03b1\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 may have obtained the more\ncredit, inasmuch as each of the other principal readings, namely\nTischendorf\u2019s \u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 (DEFGL, 44, 47, 71, 80, 104, 113**, 253**, 254,\n255, 257, 260, 265, with nine of Matthaei\u2019s, and some others: \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\n244) and \u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 (CK, 29, 37, and many others, Chrysostom, Theodoret,\n&c.) of Lachmann and Tregelles, are anomalous, the former in respect to\nmood, the latter to tense. The important cursive 73 has \u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 with\nsome Latin copies: Codd. 1, 108*, Basil (perhaps Cyprian) adopt \u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03b8\u1fc7: the\nSyriac (\u0715\u0722\u0710\u0718\u0715 or \u0715\u0718\u0710\u0722\u0715), and I suppose the Arabic, will suit either of\nthese last. Evidence seems to preponderate on the side of \u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, but\nin the case of these itacisms manuscripts are very fallacious we know.\nSuch a subjunctive future as \u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, however, I should have been\ndisposed to question, had it not passed muster with much better scholars\nthan I am: but to illustrate it, as Tregelles does (An Account of the\nPrinted Text, p. 117, note), from \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u1fc3 Apoc. viii. 3, is to accomplish\nlittle, since \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b7\u03b9 is the reading of \u05d0AC, 1 (although Erasmus has \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u1fc3\nwith BP, 6, 7, 91, 98, and the Complutensian), 13, 28, 29, 30, 37, 40, 48,\n68, 87, 94, 95, 96 (\u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 8, 26, 27: \u03b4\u03c9 14), together with the best copies\nof Andreas, and is justly approved by Lachmann and Tischendorf, nay even\nby Tregelles himself in his second revision (1872). It seems most likely\nthat in both places \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1, the particle of design, is followed by the\n_indicative_ future, as (with Meyer and Bp. Ellicott) I think to be\nclearly the case in Eph. vi. 3. In John xvii. 3 even Tregelles adopts \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd(423).\n\n36. 1 COR. xv. 51. We have now come to a passage which has perplexed\nBiblical students from St. Jerome\u2019s time, and has exercised the keen\njudgement of Bp. Pearson in his Exposition of the seventh article of the\nApostles\u2019 Creed. There is but little doubt that the Received text, as\nrendered in our English versions, is the true reading: (a) \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1. Some of the leading authorities\nomit \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd, a few put \u03b4\u03ad or \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 in its place, but, with this trifling\nexception, the clause stands thus in B, the third hand of D, and\nconsequently in EKLP, 37, 47, 265, and indeed nearly all the cursives, as\nin some manuscripts known to Jerome, and has the support of Theodore of\nHeraclea and Apollinarius: and so the two Syriac, the Bohairic (the\nSahidic not being extant), the Gothic, and one edition of the Ethiopic\nversion. For the same form may be cited Ephraem the Syrian, Caesarius,\nGregory of Nyssa, and Chrysostom (often) in the fourth century; Theodoret\nand Euthalius in the fifth century; Andreas of Caesarea in the sixth; John\nDamascene in the eighth. A modification of this main and true reading (b)\n\u039f\u1f50 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 is supported only by Origen\nand some copies known to Jerome: it is only a clearer way of bringing out\nthe foregoing sense. The next form also hardly enters into competition,\n(c) \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 [\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd] \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1: it is supported\nby the first hand of D, by the Vulgate (whose manuscripts vary between\n_resurgimus_ and _resurgemus_, while _m_ omits the negative), by\nTertullian and Hilary. Even the Latin versions of EF maintain it against\ntheir own Greek, while Jerome and Augustine note it as a point wherein the\nLatin copies diverge from the Greek. A fourth variation is due to Cod. A\nalone, (d) \u039f\u1f31 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, the\nsecond \u03bf\u03b9 being altered by the first hand, and \u03bf\u03c5 by the same or a very\nearly hand super-added after \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad: but this is only a correction\nof transcriptional error. The real variation consists in the transfer of\nthe negative from the first clause to the second, (e) \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 [\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd]\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 of \u05d0C(F)G, 17, and apparently of\nA also by intention. This last is discussed by Jerome, who alleges in its\nfavour Didymus and Acacius of Caesarea; it appears also in Origen, Cyril\nof Alexandria, and in copies known to Pelagius and Maximus, but their\ntestimony fluctuates. In its favour are quoted the Armenian and one form\nof the Ethiopic, but all the Latin prefer (c) except the interlinear\nversion of G, and the rendering set above the Vulgate text of F, which is\nassimilated to the latter. The Complutensian margin in a special note\nchronicles one other change, \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, but this is bye-work. \u201cThe objection made in ancient times\nto the Received reading was, that the _wicked_ would not be changed,\nnamely, glorified; but St. Paul is here speaking only of the resurrection\nof the Just\u201d (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth): compare 1 Thess. iv. 14-17. Thus Cod.\nB and the cursives for once unite to convict of falsehood a change which\nmen were pleased to devise in order to evade a difficulty of their own\nmaking.\n\n37. EPH. v. 14. It is instructive to observe how a reading, pretty widely\ndiffused in the fourth century, though not obtaining much acceptance even\nat that period, has almost entirely disappeared from extant codices. In\nthe place of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 the first hand of D, followed of\ncourse by E (Sangermanensis) and the Latin versions of both, exhibits an\ninteresting variant \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c8\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, _continges Christum_. Jerome\nhad heard of it in the form \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c8\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, id est _continget te Christus_, but\nrefused to vouch for it, as do Chrysostom and Theodoret, though they treat\nit with somewhat more consideration. The Latin interpreter of Origen\n(against his own Greek twice, and the Latin once), with Victorinus and the\nwriter cited as Ambrosiaster, adopt it as genuine. Augustine (on Psalm\niii) has _et continget te_ once, but once elsewhere the common reading.\nTheodore of Mopsuestia, in the Latin version of his Commentary on St.\nPaul\u2019s Epistles, recently edited by Dr. Swete from two manuscripts, one at\nAmiens (Cod. 68) brought from Corbey [x], a second from Cuza, now\nHarleian. 3063 [ix], after translating _inluminabit tibi Christus_, goes\non to say \u201calii _continget te Christus_ legerunt; habet autem nullam\nsequentiam\u201d (Swete, vol. i. p. 180). The variation of D* is surely too\ncurious to be lost sight of altogether. \u201cThe two imperatives [\u1f14\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5 and\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1] doubtless suggested that the following future would be in the\nsecond person, the required \u03c3 stood next after \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, easily read as\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c8\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, and then the rest would follow accordingly.\u201d Hort, Notes, p.\n125. Such are the harmless recreations of a critical genius.\n\n38. PHIL. ii. 1. \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1. For \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1, to\nthe critic\u2019s great perplexity, \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 is found in \u05d0ABCD EFGKLP, that is, in\n_all_ the uncials extant at this place. As regards the cursives nearly the\nsame must be said. Of the seventeen collated by Scrivener, eleven read \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\n(29, 30, 252, 254, 255, 257, 258, 260, 265, 266, 277), and six \u03c4\u03b9 (31,\n104, 221, 244, 253, 256). Mill enumerates sixteen others that give \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2,\none (40) that has \u03c4\u03b9: Griesbach reckons forty-five in favour of \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, eight\n(including Cod. 4) for \u03c4\u03b9, to which Scholz adds a few more (18, 46, 72,\n74). Thus _am. fuld. tol._ of the Vulgate render _si quid viscera_, for\nthe more usual _si qua viscera_. One cursive (109) and a manuscript of\nTheodoret have \u03c4\u03b5. Basil, Chrysostom (in manuscript) and others read \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2,\nas do the Complutensian, the Aldine (1518), Erasmus\u2019 first four, and R.\nStephen\u2019s first two editions. In fact it may be stated that no manuscript\nwhatever has been cited for \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1, which is not therefore likely to be\nfound in many. Theodore of Mopsuestia alone, in his Latin version\npublished by Dr. Swete (vol. i. p. 214), has _si qua et viscera_ against\nthe Vulgate. In spite of what was said above with regard to far weaker\ncases, it is impossible to blame editors for putting \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 into the text\nhere before \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03bd\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1: to have acted otherwise (as Tischendorf fairly\nobserves) would have been \u201c_grammatici quam editoris partes agere_.\u201d Yet\nwe may believe the reading to be as false as it is intolerable, and to\nafford us another proof of the early and (as the cursives show) the\nwell-nigh universal corruption of our copies in some minute particulars.\nOf course Clement and later Fathers give \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1, indeed it is surprising\nthat any cite otherwise; but, _in the absence of definite documentary\nproof_, this can hardly be regarded as genuine. Probably St. Paul wrote \u03c4\u03b9\n(the reading of about nineteen cursives), which would readily be corrupted\ninto \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, by reason of the \u03c3 following (\u03a4\u0399\u03a3\u03a0\u039b\u0391\u0393\u03a7\u039d\u0391), and the \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 which had\njust preceded. See also Moulton\u2019s \u201cWiner,\u201d p. 661, and note 3.\n\n39. COL. ii. 2. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u201cof the\nmystery of God the Father, and of Christ.\u201d The reading of B (approved by\nLachmann, by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, by Tregelles, Westcott and\nHort, Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, and Bp. Ellicott), \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (\u201cita cod. nihil interponens inter \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,\u201d Mai, 2nd\ned.(424)), has \u201cevery appearance of being the original reading, and that\nfrom which the many perplexing variations have arisen\u201d (Canon II). At\npresent it stands in great need of confirmation, since Hilary (de Trin.\nix) alone supports it (but \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 Cyril), though the Scriptural\ncharacter of the expression is upheld by the language of ch. i. 27 just\npreceding, and by the Received text in 1 Tim. iii. 16. Some, who feel a\ndifficulty in understanding how \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 was removed from the text, if it\never had a place there, conceive that the verse should end with \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, all\nadditions, including \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 the simplest, being _accretions_ to the\ngenuine passage. These alleged accretions are \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2,\nmanifestly an expansion of \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 and derived from ch. i. 27; \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6: \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, the final form of\nthe Received text. Now, of these four readings, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 the shortest,\nand, according to Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf in his seventh edition,\nAlford, and Dr. Green, the true one, is found only in the late uncial P,\nand in a few, though confessedly good, cursives: 37, 71, 80*, 116 (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 23), and the important second hand of 67; witnesses too few and\nfeeble, unless we consent to put our third Canon of internal evidence to a\nrather violent use. Of the longer readings, \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 is favoured by\nD (though obelized by the second hand, which thus would read only \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6), _d_ _e_ (whose parallel Greek speaks differently), by Augustine and\nVigilius of Thapsus, but apparently by no cursives. The form best vouched\nfor appears to be that of \u05d0*AC, 4, of the Sahidic according to one of the\nreadings of Griesbach, and of an Arabic codex of Tischendorf, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (\u05d0* omits \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6) \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. To these words \u201c_ihu_\u201d is simply added\nby _f_ (FG, _g_ are unfortunately lost here) and by other manuscripts of\nthe Vulgate (_am. fuld._, &c.), though the Clementine edition has \u201cDei\npatris et Christi Jesu,\u201d the Complutensian in the Latin \u201cdei et patris et\nC.J.\u201d With the Clementine Vulgate agree the Bohairic, and (omitting \u1f30\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6)\nthe Peshitto Syriac, Arabic, 47, 73, Chrysostom; while 41, 115, 213, 221,\n253* (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7.), so far strengthen the case of \u05d0AC. The\nReceived text is found in (apparently) the great mass of cursives, in D\n(_terti\u00e2 manu_), EKL, the Harkleian Syriac (but the \u03ba\u03b1\u03af after \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2\nmarked with one of Harkel\u2019s asterisks), Theodoret, John Damascene and\nothers. The minor variations, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 of Clement and\nAmbrosiaster, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 of 17, uphold D*, as may the Ethiopic\n(\u201cdomini quod de Christo\u201d): to the reading of Cod. 17 Zohrab\u2019s or the\nVenice Armenian (A.D. 1789) simply adds \u201cJesu.\u201d We also find \u201cdei Christi\nJesu patris et domini\u201d in _tol._, \u201cdei patris et domini nostri Christi\u201d in\n_demid._, \u201cdei patris in Christo Jesu\u201d in Uscan\u2019s Armenian; but these\ndeserve not attention. Theodore of Mopsuestia (Swete, vol. i. p. 283), has\n_mysterii Dei Patris et Christi_, which need not imply the omission of \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\nbefore \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nOn reviewing the whole mass of conflicting evidence, we may unhesitatingly\nreject the shortest form \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, some of whose maintainers do not\nusually found their text on cursive manuscripts almost exclusively. We\nwould gladly adopt \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, so powerfully do internal\nconsiderations plead in its favour, were it but a little better supported:\nthe important doctrine which it declares, Scriptural and Catholic as that\nis, will naturally make us only the more cautious in receiving it\nunreservedly. Yet the more we think over this reading, the more it grows\nupon us, as the source from which all the rest are derived. At present,\nperhaps, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 may be looked upon as the most\nstrongly attested, but in the presence of so many opposing probabilities,\na very small weight might suffice to turn the critical scale.\n\n40. 1 THESS. ii. 7. We have here a various reading, consisting of the\nprefix of a single letter, which seems to introduce into a simple verse\nwhat is little short of an absurdity. Instead of \u1f24\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 of the Received\ntext, of Tischendorf and Tregelles, we find \u03bd\u03ae\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 adopted by Lachmann as\na consequence of his own stringent rules, and by Westcott and Hort of\ntheir own free will, unless indeed it be said that they also are working\nin chains of their own forging. How St. Paul can compare himself to a babe\nin one clause of the verse and to its nurse in the other would be quite\nunintelligible if Origen, who read \u03bd\u03ae\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, had not instructed us that the\nnurse is playing at baby for the babe\u2019s amusement (\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03bd\u03ae\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, iii. 662). It needs but the exercise of common sense to\nbrush away such a fancy as this, and the state of the evidence will show\nus how the best authorities are sometimes hopelessly in the wrong; for\n\u03bd\u03ae\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 is the form favoured by \u05d0*BC*D*FG, 5, 23, 26, 31* 37, 39**, 74, 87,\n109**, 114, 115, 137, 219*, 252, and is easily accounted for by the\naccidental reduplication of the letter after \u039d in \u0397\u039c\u0395\u039d\u0397\u03a0\u0399\u039f\u0399 (_see_ p. 10).\nThe Vulgate and the Latin versions accompanying DEFG (_e_ testifying\nagainst its own Greek) have _parvuli_, and so the Bohairic, Ethiopic,\nClement of Alexandria (\u1f24\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bd\u03ae\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2), Ambrosiaster, Jerome, and\nAugustine very expressly. On the other hand \u1f24\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 is vouched for by\n\u05d0**AC**D**EKLP, 17, 47, 61, 260, and by all cursives not named above, by\nboth Syriac versions, by the Sahidic and by its follower the Bashmuric, by\nthe Armenian, by Clement and Origen elsewhere (but their inconsistency\nmeans nothing but carelessness), Basil, Chrysostom, Theodore of\nMopsuestia(425), Theodoret, Euthalius, \u0152cumenius, John Damascene and the\ncatenae. Theophylact knew of and expounds both readings. It is almost\npathetic to mark Dr. Hort\u2019s brave struggle to maintain a cause which in\nthis instance is simply hopeless. \u201cThe second \u03bd might be inserted or\nomitted with equal facility; but the change from the bold image to the\ntame and facile adjective is characteristic of the difference between St.\nPaul and the Syrian revisers (cf. 1 Cor. iii. 1, 2; ix. 20, &c.). It is\nnot of harshness that St. Paul here declares himself innocent, but of\nflattery and the rhetorical arts by which gain or repute is procured, his\nadversaries having doubtless put this malicious interpretation upon his\nlanguage among the Thessalonians\u201d (Notes, p. 128). For his alleged Syrian\nrevision, _see_ above, p. 287.\n\n41. 1 TIM. iii. 16. \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af. This text has proved the\n_crux criticorum_. The Vatican has now failed us, but all manuscripts (D\n_terti\u00e2 manu_, KLP, 300 cursives) read \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 with the common text, except\n\u05d0*A*? C*? FG, 17, 73, which have \u1f45\u03c2, D* which (after the Latin versions)\nhas \u1f45: the Leicester codex, 37, gives \u1f41 _\u03b8\u03c2_ (_see_ facsimile No. 40, l.\n1), as if to combine two of the variations(426). In the abridged form of\nwriting usual in all manuscripts, even the oldest, the difference between\n\u039f\u03a3 and _\u0398\u03a3_ consists only in the presence or absence of two horizontal\nstrokes; hence it is rather to be regretted than wondered at that the true\nreading of each of the uncial authorities for the former is more or less\nopen to question. Respecting Cod. \u05d0 we have the statement of Tischendorf,\na most consummate judge in such matters: \u201c_corrector aliquis, qui omnium\nultimus textum attigit, saeculi fer\u00e8 duodecimi_, [_pro_ \u03bf\u03c2 _primae man\u00fbs_]\nreposuit \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, _sed hoc tam caut\u00e8 ut antiquissimam scripturam intactam\nrelinqueret_\u201d (Notitia Cod. Sinait. p. 20), which is unequivocal enough:\n_see_ facsimile No. 13 in Scrivener\u2019s \u201cCollation of Cod. Sin.,\u201d and\nIntrod., p. xxv: also Plate iv, facsimile No. 11 c of this volume, wherein\nthe twelfth century \u03b8\u03b5 above the line, the new accent over \u039f\u03a3, and the\ntriple points to denote insertion, are very conspicuous. Nor is there any\nreal doubt respecting the kindred codices FG. From the photographed\ntitle-page of the published \u201cCod. Augiensis\u201d (F) l. 9, and Matthaei\u2019s\nfacsimile of G (N. T., vol. i. p. 4)(427), it will be seen that while\nthere is not the least trace of the horizontal line within the circle of\nomicron, the line above the circle in _both_ (_\u039f\u03a3_) is not horizontal, but\nrises a little towards the right: such a line not unfrequently in F,\noftener in G, is used (as here) to indicate the rough breathing: it\nsometimes stands even for the _lenis_ (e.g. \u1f31\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd 1 Cor. vi. 18; vii. 4;\n37; \u1f31\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 Phil. ii. 6). Those who never saw Cod. C must depend on\nTischendorf\u2019s Excursus (Cod. Ephraemi, pp. 39-42) and his facsimile,\nimitated in our Plate x. No. 24. His decision is that the primitive\nreading was \u039f\u03a3, but he was _the first to discern a cross line within_ \u039f\n(facsimile, l. 3, eighth letter); which, however, from the colour\n(\u201c_subnigra_\u201d) he judges to belong to the second or third hand, rising\nupwards (a tendency rather exaggerated than otherwise in our Plate); while\nthe coarse line above, and the musical notes (denoting a word of two\nsyllables) below, are plainly of the third hand. This verdict, especially\ndelivered by such a man, we know not how to gainsay, and merely point to\nthe fact that the cross line in \u0398, the ninth letter further on, which is\ncertainly _prim\u00e2 manu_, also ascends towards the right. Cod. A, however, I\nhave examined at least twenty times within as many years, and yet am not\nquite able to assent to the conclusion of Mr. Cowper when he says \u201cwe hope\nthat no one will think it possible, either with or without a lens, to\nascertain the truth of the matter by any inspection of the Codex\u201d (Cod.\nAlex., Introd. p. xviii). On the contrary, seeing (as every one must see\nfor himself) with my own eyes, I have always felt convinced with Berriman\nand the earlier collators that Cod. A read _\u0398\u03a3_, and, so far as I am\nshaken in my conviction at all, it is less by the adverse opinion even of\nBp. Ellicott(428), than by the more recently discovered fact that \u039f\u03a3\n(which is adopted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson,\nTregelles, Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Hort and Westcott), was read in \u05d0\nas early as the fourth century.\n\nThe secondary witnesses, versions, and certain of the Fathers, also\npowerfully incline this way, and they deserve peculiar attention in a case\nlike the present. The Peshitto (\u0715) and Harkleian (text and \u0717\u0718 in margin)\nSyriac have a relative (whether \u1f45\u03c2 or \u1f45); so have the Armenian, the Roman\nEthiopic, and Erpenius\u2019 Arabic. The Gothic supports \u1f45\u03c2; the Sahidic,\nBohairic, and Platt\u2019s Ethiopic favour \u1f45\u03c2 or \u1f45: all Latin versions (even\n_f_ _g_ whose Greek is _\u039f\u03a3_) read \u201cquod,\u201d while \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 appears only in the\nSlavonic (which usually resembles KL and the later copies) and the\nPolyglott Arabic. Of ecclesiastical writers the best witness for the\nReceived text is Ignatius, \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 (\u201cEphes.\u201d 19),\nboth in the Greek and Old Latin, although the Syriac abbreviator seems to\nhave \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6: the later interpolator expanded the clause thus: \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f61\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Hippolytus (Adv.\nNot. 17: fl. 220) makes a \u201cfree reference\u201d to it in the words \u039f\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7, and elsewhere with \u1f41 before\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03ce\u03bd. The testimony of Dionysius of Alexandria (265) can no longer be\nupheld (Tregelles, Horne, iv. p. 339), that of Chrysostom to the same\neffect is by some deemed precarious, since his manuscripts fluctuate, and\nCramer\u2019s catena on 1 Tim. p. 31 is adverse(429). The evidence borne for\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 by Didymus (de Trin.) and Gregory Nyssen(430) is beyond all doubt;\nthat of later writers, Theodoret, John Damascene, Theophylact, \u0152cumenius\n(as might be looked for) is clear and express. The chief Latins, Hilary,\nJerome, Augustine, &c., exhibit either _qui_ or _quod_: Cyril of\nAlexandria (for so we must conclude both from manuscripts and his\ncontext)(431), Epiphanius (_twice_), Theodore of Mopsuestia (in\nLatin)(432), and others of less weight, or whose language is less direct,\nare cited in critical editions of the N. T. in support of a relative; add\nto which that \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is not quoted by Fathers (e.g. Cyprian, p. 35; Bentleii\nCritica Sacra, p. 67) in many places where it might fairly be looked for;\nthough this argument must not be pushed too far. The idle tale, propagated\nby Liberatus the Deacon of Carthage, and from him repeated by Hincmar and\nVictor, that Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople (A.D. 506) was\nexpelled by the Emperor Anastasius for corrupting \u039f or \u039f\u03a3 into \u0398\u03a3,\nalthough lightly credited by Dr. Tregelles (An Account of the Printed\nText, p. 229) and even by Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 133), is sufficiently\nrefuted by Bp. Pearson (On the Creed, Art. ii. p. 128, 3rd edition).\n\nOn a review of the whole mass of external proof, bearing in mind too that\n\u039f\u03a3 (from which \u1f45 of D* is an evident corruption) is grammatically much the\n_harder_ reading after \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (Canon I), and that it might easily pass\ninto \u0398\u03a3, we must consider it probable (indeed, if we were sure of the\ntestimony of the first-rate uncials, we might regard it as certain) that\nthe second of our rules of Comparative Criticism must here be applied, and\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 of the more recent many yield place to \u1f45\u03c2 of the ancient few(433).\nYet even then the force of the Patristic testimony remains untouched. Were\nwe to concede to Dr. Hort\u2019s unproved hypothesis that Didymus, de\nTrinitate, abounds in what he calls Syrian readings, and that they are not\nrare with Gregory Nyssen (Notes, p. 133), the clear references of Ignatius\nand Hippolytus are not thus to be disposed of. I dare not pronounce \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 a\ncorruption.\n\nThis decision of Dr. Scrivener would probably have been considerably\nstrengthened in favour of \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, if the above passage had been written\nafter, instead of before, the composition and appearance of Dean Burgon\u2019s\nelaborate and patient examination of all the evidence, which occupies\nseventy-seven pages in his \u201cRevision Revised\u201d (pp. 424-501). Dean Burgon\nshows at length that after about 1770 the passage in A became so worn that\nit has been since that time increasingly difficult to see it; he casts\nmuch doubt upon the witness of C for \u1f45\u03c2, which Mr. Hoskier (Cod. 604,\nAppendix J), after a long examination of the MS., not only confirms, but\nactually removes in the opposite direction by claiming C as a witness for\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2; he maintains with reason that the transverse line in F and G is the\nsign of contraction; he exhibits the consentient testimony of the\ncursives; he claims upon the testimony of the scholar who was editing the\nHarkleian that version, as also the Georgian and Slavonic; and he adds to\nthe Fathers enumerated above, besides doubtful testimonies, Gregory of\nNazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, Diodorus of Tarsus,\nEuthalius, Macedonius, Epiphanius of Catana, Theodorus Studita, Euthymius,\nsome scholia, the author of \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, and an anonymous\nauthor,\u2014making some fifty testimonies in all.\n\n42. 1 TIM. vi. 7. By omitting \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd of the Received text, Lachmann,\nTischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, produce a Greek sentence as\ninconsequential as the most thorough votaries of the \u201charder reading\u201d can\nwish for: \u201cFor we brought nothing into the world, because neither can we\ncarry anything out.\u201d Dr. Hort sees, of course, that St. Paul could not\nreason in this fashion, and says that \u201cThe text [i.e. _his_ text, without\n\u03b4\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd] is manifestly the parent of all the other readings, which are\nfutile attempts to smooth away its difficulty. A primitive corruption must\nlurk somewhere,\u201d\u2014and then ventures on the awkward suggestion that \u039f\u03a4\u0399\narose from the transcriptional repetition of the last syllable of \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\n(\u039f\u039d being read as \u039f\u03a4\u0399), a guess which we observe that Dr. Westcott does\nnot care to vouch for (Notes, p. 134). But why create a difficulty at all?\nCod. B, which ends in Heb. ix. 14, is now lost to us, and of the rest\n\u03b4\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd is omitted in \u05d0*AFG and its Latin version _g_ with copies of the\nVulgate referred to by Lachmann, the Bohairic (\u03ba\u03b1\u03af for \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9), Sahidic; the\nArmenian and both Ethiopic varying with the Bohairic. Instead of \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd D*,\n_m_, _fuld._, Cyprian and the Gothic have \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03c2, and the printed Vulgate\nwith its codices (even _f_) and Ambrosiaster _haud dubium_, which will\nsuit \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd well enough, as will \u0718\u0715\u071d\u0725\u0710 (or \u0710\u0725\u071d\u0715\u0718) (_et notum est_) of the\nSyriac versions. For \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd itself stand \u05d0**D** (_hiat_ E) KLP, all the\ncursives save one, and of the Fathers Basil, Macarius, Chrysostom,\nEuthalius, Theodoret, and John Damascene, evidence which we should have\nliked to see a little stronger.\n\n43. PHILEM. 12. For \u1f43\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1; \u03c3\u1f7a \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1,\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6 of the Received text, the critics, Lachmann, Tischendorf,\nTregelles (but not his margin), Bp. Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort read \u1f43\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03ac \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1, omitting \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6, which\nthey judge to have been interpolated from ver. 17. Tregelles and Bp.\nLightfoot, moreover, put a full stop after \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, so that \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd is regarded\nas an \u201caccusative suspended; the sentence changes its form and loses\nitself in a number of dependent clauses; and the main point is not resumed\ntill ver. 17 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ad, the grammar having been meanwhile\ndislocated.\u201d So Lightfoot, who vindicates the emphatic place he has\nassigned to \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd by the not very close parallels John ix. 21, 23; Eph. i.\n22. Manuscripts, of course, will not help us much in punctuation, but\nCodd. \u05d0*A, 17 are very good witnesses for \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 in the room of \u03c3\u1f7a \u03b4\u03ad and for\nthe omission of \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6, a simple, although somewhat rude, construction\nwell worthy of attention. For \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, with or without \u03c3\u1f7a \u03b4\u03ad following, we\nhave the additional support of C*DE, _d_ _e_ and _g_ against its own\nGreek, the Clementine Vulgate and such Vulgate codices as _demid.\nharl._2**, the Peshitto Syriac, Bohairic, Armenian, Ethiopic, &c. For the\nomission of \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6, which is of course the chief variation, besides\n\u05d0*A, 17 are cited F and G in the Greek but not in their Latin versions, 37\nand others setting it before \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. It is found in all the rest,\nD**E**KLP, all other cursives, and (as might have been anticipated) the\nversions, as well Latin as Syriac, Bohairic (which reads as Cod. 37),\nGothic, and Ethiopic: _g_, the Armenian and Theodoret put it after \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n\n\n\nFourth Series. Catholic Epistles.\n\n\n44. JAMES iv. 4. \u039c\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af should be omitted before \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 on the\ntestimony of \u05d0*AB, 13. The Peshitto, Bohairic, Latin, Armenian, and both\nEthiopic versions have \u201cadulterers\u201d (_fornicatores ff_) only, but since no\nGreek copy thus reads, we must suppose that their translators were\nstartled by the bold imagery so familiar to the Hebrew prophets (Isa. liv.\n5; Jer. ii. 2; Ezek. xvi. 32 are cited from a host of similar passages by\nWordsworth) and endeavoured to dilute it in this way. Tischendorf would\njoin \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 with \u03b4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 ver. 3, alleging the point or stop placed\nafter it in Cod. B: but this point is not found in Vercellone\u2019s edition,\nalthough he leaves a small space before \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba. The full form \u039c\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 of \u05d0cKLP, the later Syriac, and all other known copies, is\nevidently a correction of early scribes.\n\n45. JAMES iv. 5. The variation between \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff4\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd and \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff4\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd is plainly\nto be attributed to a mere itacism, whichsoever is to be regarded as the\ntrue form. We find \u03b9 in \u05d0AB, 101, 104 only, nor is it quite accurate to\nsay with Tischendorf that collators are apt to overlook such points. In\nKLP, and apparently in all other manuscripts of every class, \u03b7 is read,\nand so the catenas, with Theophylact and \u0152cumenius, understand this\ndifficult passage. That all the versions (Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, &c.)\nthus render seems decisive in favour of \u03b7. The combination of \u05d0AB, however\nstrong, has repeatedly been seen not to be irresistible; and while it must\nbe confessed that in our existing Greek copies the interchange of \u03b9 and \u03b7\n(though found in Cod. A) is not an itacism of the very oldest type (p.\n10), yet here the testimony of the versions refers it back to the second\ncentury. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, combine in\nreading \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff4\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n46. 1 PET. i. 23. Here we have a remarkable example to illustrate what we\nsaw in the cases of Rom. viii. 20; 2 Cor. iii. 3, Phil. ii. 1, that the\nchief uncials sometimes conspire in readings which are unquestionably\nfalse, and can hardly have arisen independently of each other. For \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2\n\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 Codd. \u05d0AC have \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c3 \u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2, the scribe\u2019s eye wandering in\nwriting \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 to the beginning of the next word: Cod. B is free from this\nvile corruption. When Mill records the variation for Cod. A, he adds (as\nwell he might), \u201cdormitante scrib\u00e2:\u201d but that the same gross error should\nbe found in three out of the four oldest codices, _and in no other_, is\nvery suggestive, and not a little perplexing to false theorists.\n\n47. 1 PET. iii. 15. \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. For\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd we find \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd (a change of considerable doctrinal importance)(434)\nin \u05d0ABC, 7, 8 (Stephen\u2019s \u03b9\u03b1\u00b4), 13, 33 (_margin_), 69, 137, 182, 184 (but\nnot 221: _see_ p. 310, note 2), Apost. 1 (_\u03b9\u03bd_ _\u03c7\u03bd_ \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd) with its Arabic\ntranslation. Thus too read both Syriac versions, the Sahidic, Bohairic,\nArmenian (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd), Erpenius\u2019 Arabic, the Vulgate, Clement\nof Alexandria, Fulgentius, and Bede. Jerome has \u201cJesum Christum:\u201d the\nEthiopic and one other (Auctor de promiss., fourth century) omit both\nwords. Against this very strong case we can set up for the common text\nonly the more recent uncials KLP (not more than seven uncials contain this\nEpistle), the mass of later cursives (ten out of Scrivener\u2019s twelve, also\nWake 12, or Cod. 193), the Polyglott Arabic, Slavonic, Theophylact, and\n\u0152cumenius, authorities of the ninth century and downwards. It is a real\npleasure to me in this instance to express my cordial agreement with\nTregelles (and so read Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort), when he\nsays, \u201cThus the reading \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd may be relied on _confidently_\u201d (An\nAccount of the Printed Text, p. 285). I would further allege this text as\none out of many proofs that the great uncials seldom or never conspire in\nexhibiting a really valuable departure from the later codices, unless\nsupported by some of the best of the cursives themselves. See, however,\nActs xiii. 32.\n\n48. 2 PET. ii. 13. The resemblance between the second epistle of St. Peter\nand that of St. Jude is too close to be unobserved by the most careless\nreader, and the supposition that the elder Apostle\u2019s letter was in Jude\u2019s\nhands when he wrote his own is that which best meets the circumstances of\nthe case. The \u03c3\u03c0\u1fd6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 of the present verse, for example, looks like the\norigin of \u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 in Jude 12, where the latter word is employed in a\nsignification almost unprecedented in classical Greek, though the Orphic\npoems have been cited for its bearing the sense of \u201cspots,\u201d which all the\nancient versions rightly agree with our Authorized Bible in attributing to\nit. Bearing in mind the same verse of St. Jude, it seems plain that\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 of the Received text cannot be accepted as true, as well because\nit affords so poor a meaning in connexion with \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 and\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, as because the later writer must have seen \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 in his\nmodel, when he paraphrased it by \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. For this change of two letters we have the support of Cod.\nA (as corrected by the first hand) and B alone of the manuscripts, but of\nthe versions, the Latin Speculum _m_ which in these later epistles is\nstrangely loose, yet cannot be misunderstood in the present place, the\nVulgate, the Sahidic version, the Ethiopic, the Syriac printed with the\nPeshitto(435), and the margin of the Harkleian version. Add to these\nEphraem and the Latin author of the tract \u201cde singularitate clericorum,\u201d\nboth of the fourth century. The little group of cursives 27, 29, and the\nsecond hand of 66 read \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2; but \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, _nescio quo sensu_(436),\nstill cleaves to the text of Tischendorf and of Westcott and Hort, and to\nthe margin of Tregelles, who in the text prefers \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 with Lachmann and\nWestcott and Hort\u2019s margin. Codd. \u05d0A (in its original form) CKLP, all\nother cursives, the catenas (Cod. 36, &c.), the Bohairic, Armenian, and\nHarkleian versions also have \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, and so Theophylact and \u0152cumenius,\nbut hardly Jerome as cited by Tischendorf.\n\n49. 1 JOHN ii. 23. The English reader will have observed that the latter\nclause of this verse, \u201c_but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father\nalso_,\u201d is printed in italics in our Authorized version, this being the\nonly instance in the New Testament wherein variety of reading is thus\ndenoted by the translators, who derived both the words and this method of\nindicating their doubtful authenticity from the \u201cGreat Bible\u201d of\n1539(437). The corresponding Greek \u1f41 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\n(which appears to have been lost out of some copies by Homoeoteleuton),\nwas first inserted in Beza\u2019s Greek Testament in 1582(438), it is approved\nby all modern editors (Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf,\nTregelles, Westcott and Hort), and, though still absent from the _textus\nreceptus_, is unquestionably genuine. This is just such a point as\nversions are best capable of attesting. The \u201cGreat Bible\u201d had no doubt\ntaken the clause from the Latin Vulgate, in whose printed editions and\nchief manuscripts it is found (e.g. in _am. fuld. demid. tol. harl._), as\nalso in both Syriac, both Egyptian (the Sahidic not for certain), the\nArmenian, Ethiopic, and Erpenius\u2019 (not the Polyglott) Arabic version. Of\nmanuscripts the great uncials \u05d0ABC (with P) contain the clause, the later\nKL omit it. Of the cursives only two of Scrivener\u2019s (182, 225) have it,\nand another (183) _secund\u00e2 manu_: from twelve or more of them it is\nabsent, as also from seven of Matthaei\u2019s: but of the other cursives it is\npresent in at least thirty, whereof 3, 5, 13, 66** (_marg._), 68, 69, 98\nare valuable. It is also acknowledged by Clement, Origen (_thrice_),\nEusebius, both Cyrils, Theophylact, and the Western Fathers. The younger\nCyril, possibly Euthalius, and one or two others have \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6 for the\nfinal \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9: the Old Latin _m_, Cyprian, and Hilary repeat \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\nbefore \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9. The critical skill of Beza must not be estimated\nvery highly, yet in this instance he might well have been imitated by the\nElzevir editors.\n\n50. 1 JOHN v. 7, 8. \u1f4d\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 [\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7, \u1f41\n\u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, \u1f41 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f0d\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u1fc7], \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f15\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nThe authenticity of the words within brackets will, perhaps, no longer be\nmaintained by any one whose judgement ought to have weight; but this\nresult has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which\nhelped to keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical\nstudies, and led to investigations into collateral points of the highest\nimportance, such as the sources of the Received text, the manuscripts\nemployed by R. Stephen, the origin and value of the Velesian readings, and\nother points. A critical _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of the whole discussion might be\nprofitably undertaken by some competent scholar; we can at present touch\nonly upon the chief heads of this great debate(439).\n\nThe two verses appear in the early editions, with the following notable\nvariations from the common text, C standing for the Complutensian, Er. for\none or more of Erasmus\u2019 five editions. Ver. 7.\u2014\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7 _usque ad_ \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03b3\u1fc7 ver. 8, Er. 1, 2.\u2014\u1f41 _prim. et __ secund_. Er. 3. [_non_ C. Er. 4, 5]. +\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 (_post_ \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1) C.\u2014\u03c4\u03cc Er. 3. \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd Er. 3, 4, 5.\u2014\u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 C. + \u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\n\u03c4\u03bf (_ante_ \u03b5\u03bd) C. Ver. 8, \u03b5\u03c0\u03af \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b7\u03c2 C.\u2014\u03c4\u1f78 _ter_ Er. 3, 4, 5 [_habent_ C.\nEr. 1, 2].\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 _ad_ _fin. vers._ C. They are found, including the\nclause from \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7 to \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u1fc7 in no more than three Greek\nmanuscripts, and those of very late date, one of them (Cod. Ravianus,\nEvan. 110) being a mere worthless copy from printed books; and in the\nmargin of a fourth, in a hand as late as the sixteenth century. The real\nwitnesses are the Codex Montfortianus, Evan. 61, Act. 34 (whose history\nwas described above, p. 187(440)); Cod. Vat.-Ottob. 298 (Act. 162), and,\nfor the margin, a Naples manuscript (Act. 83 or 173, q. v.). On comparing\nthese slight and scanty authorities with the Received text we find that\nthey present the following variations: ver. 7. \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 (_pro_ \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7) 162.\u2014\u1f41 _prim. et secund._ 34, 162.\u2014\u03c4\u03cc 34, 162. _\u03c0\u03bd\u03b1_ \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd 34,\n162.\u2014\u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 162. + \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc (_ante_ \u1f15\u03bd) 162. Ver. 8. \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03af 73 _marg._ \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 162.\u2014\u03c4\u03cc _ter_ 34.\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03af (_post_ _\u03c0\u03bd\u03b1_) 34, 162.\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 _ad fin._\n_vers_. 34, 162, _fin_. \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9 173. No printed edition, therefore, is found\nto agree with either 34 or 162 (173, whose margin is so very recent, only\ndiffers from the common text by dropping \u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03ba\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd), though on the\nwhole 162 best suits the Complutensian: but the omission of the article in\nver. 7, while it stands in ver. 8 in 162, proves that the disputed clause\nwas interpolated (probably from its parallel Latin) by one who was very\nill acquainted with Greek.\n\nThe controverted words are not met with in any of the extant uncials\n(\u05d0ABKLP) or in any cursives besides those named above(441): the cursives\nthat omit them were found by the careful calculation of the Rev. A. W.\nGrafton, Dean Alford\u2019s secretary (N. T. _ad. loc._), to amount to 188 in\nall (to which we may now add Codd. 190, 193, 219-221), besides some sixty\nLectionaries. The aspect of things is not materially altered when we\nconsult the versions. The disputed clause is not in any manuscript of the\nPeshitto, nor in the best editions (e.g. Lee\u2019s): the Harkleian, Sahidic,\nBohairic, Ethiopic, Arabic do not contain it in any shape: scarcely any\nArmenian codex exhibits it, and only a few recent Slavonic copies, the\nmargin of a Moscow edition of 1663 being the first to represent it. The\nLatin versions, therefore, alone lend it any support, and even these are\nmuch divided. The chief and oldest authority in its favour is Wiseman\u2019s\nSpeculum _m_ and _r_ of the earlier translation; it is found in the\nprinted Latin Vulgate, and in perhaps forty-nine out of every fifty of its\nmanuscripts, but not in the best, such as _am. fuld. harl._3; nor in\nAlcuin\u2019s reputed copies at Rome (_prim\u00e2 manu_) and London (Brit. Mus. Add.\n10,546), nor in the book of Armagh and full fifty others. In one of the\nmost ancient which contain it, _cav._, ver. 8 precedes ver. 7 (as appears\nalso in _m. tol. demid._ and a codex at Wolfenb\u00fcttel, _Wizanburg._ 99\n[viii] cited by Lachmann), while in the margin is written \u201c_audiat hoc\nArius et ceteri_,\u201d as if its authenticity was unquestioned(442). In\ngeneral there is very considerable variety of reading (always a suspicious\ncircumstance, as has been already explained), and often the doubtful words\nstand only in the margin: the last clause of ver. 8 (_et hi tres unum\nsunt_), especially, is frequently left out when the \u201cHeavenly Witnesses\u201d\nare retained. It is to defend _this_ omission by the opinion of Thomas\nAquinas, not to account for the reception of the doubtful words, that the\nComplutensian editors wrote a note, the longest and indeed almost the only\none in their New Testament. We conclude, therefore, that the passage from\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7 to \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u1fc7 had no place in ancient Greek manuscripts, but\ncame into some of the Latin at least as early as the sixth century.\n\nThe Patristic testimony in its favour, though quite insufficient to\nestablish the genuineness of the clause, is entitled to more\nconsideration. Of the Greek Fathers it has been said that no one has cited\nit, even when it might be supposed to be most required by his argument, or\nthough he quotes consecutively the verses going immediately before and\nafter it(443): [but a passage occurs in the Greek Synopsis of Holy\nScripture of uncertain date (fourth or fifth century), which appears to\nrefer to it, and another from the Disputation with Arius\n(Ps.-Athanasius)]. The same must be said of the great Latins, Hilary,\nLucifer, Ambrose, Jerome(444), and Augustine, with others of less note. On\nthe other hand the _African_ writers, Vigilius of Thapsus, at the end of\nthe fifth century, and Fulgentius of Ruspe (fl. 508) in two places,\nexpressly appeal to the \u201cthree Heavenly Witnesses\u201d as a genuine portion of\nSt. John\u2019s Epistle; nor is there much reason to doubt the testimony of\nVictor Vitensis, who records that the passage was insisted on in a\nconfession of faith drawn up by Eugenius Bishop of Carthage and 460\nbishops in 484, and presented to the Arian Hunneric, king of the Vandals\n[or of Cassiodorus, an Italian, in the sixth century]. From that period\nthe clause became well known in other regions of the West, and was in time\ngenerally accepted throughout the Latin Church.\n\nBut a stand has been made by the maintainers of this passage on the\nevidence of two African Fathers of a very different stamp from those\nhitherto named, Tertullian and Cyprian. If it could be proved that these\nwriters cited or alluded to the passage, it would result\u2014_not by any means\nthat it is authentic_\u2014but that like Acts viii. 37 and a few other like\ninterpolations, it was known and received in some places, as early as the\nsecond or third century. Now as regards the language of Tertullian (which\nwill be found in Tischendorf\u2019s and the other critical editions of the N.\nT.; advers. Prax. 25; de Pudic. 21), it must be admitted that Bp. Kaye\u2019s\nview is the most reasonable, that \u201cfar from containing an allusion to 1\nJohn v. 7, it furnishes most decisive proof that he knew nothing of the\nverse\u201d (Writings of Tertullian, p. 550, second edition); but I cannot thus\ndispose of his junior Cyprian (d. 258). One must say with Tischendorf\n(who, however, manages to explain away his testimony) \u201c_gravissimus est_\nCyprianus _de eccles. unitate_ 5.\u201d His words run, \u201cDicit dominus, _Ego et\npater unum sumus_ (John x. 30), et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu\nSancto scriptum est, _Et tres unum sunt_.\u201d And yet further, in his Epistle\nto Jubaianus (73) on heretical baptism: \u201cSi baptizari quis apud haereticos\npotuit, utique et remissam peccatorum consequi potuit,\u2014si peccatorum\nremissam consecutus est, et sanctificatus est, et templum Dei factus est,\nquaero cujus Dei? Si Creatoris, non potuit, qui in eum non credidit; si\nChristi, nec hujus fieri potuit templum, qui negat Deum Christum; si\nSpiritus Sancti, cum tres unum sunt, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus\nesse ei potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus est?\u201d If these two\npassages be taken together (the first is manifestly much the\nstronger(445)), it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian\nread ver. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus\n[vi], that the holy Bishop was merely putting on ver. 8 a spiritual\nmeaning; although we must acknowledge that it was in this way ver. 7\nobtained a place, first in the margin, then in the text of the Latin\ncopies, and though we have clear examples of the like mystical\ninterpretation in Eucherius (fl. 440) and Augustine (contra Maximin. 22),\nwho only knew of ver. 8.\n\nStunica, the chief Complutensian editor, by declaring, in controversy with\nErasmus, with reference to this very passage, \u201cSciendum est, Graecorum\ncodices esse corruptos, nostros [i.e. Latinos] ver\u00f2 ipsam veritatem\ncontinere,\u201d virtually admits that ver. 7 was translated in that edition\nfrom the Latin, not derived from Greek sources. The versions (for such we\nmust call them) in Codd. 34, 162 had no doubt the same origin, but were\nsomewhat worse rendered: the margin of 173 seems to be taken from a\nprinted book. Erasmus, after excluding the passage from his first two\neditions, inserted it in his third under circumstances we have before\nmentioned; and notwithstanding the discrepancy of reading in ver. 8, there\ncan be little or no doubt of the identity of his \u201cCodex Britannicus\u201d with\nMontfort\u2019s(446). We have detailed the steps by which the text was brought\ninto its present shape, wherein it long remained, unchallenged by all save\na few such bold spirits as Bentley, defended even by Mill, implicitly\ntrusted in by those who had no knowledge of Biblical criticism. It was\nquestioned in fair argument by Wetstein, assailed by Gibbon in 1781 with\nhis usual weapons, sarcasm and insinuation (Decline and Fall, chap.\nxxxvii). Archdeacon Travis, who came to the rescue, a person \u201cof some\ntalent and attainments\u201d (Crito Cantab., p. 335, note), burdened as he was\nwith a weak cause and undue confidence in its goodness, would have been at\nany rate\u2014_impar congressus Achilli_\u2014no match at all for the exact\nlearning, the acumen, the wit, the overbearing scorn of Porson(447). The\n\u201cLetters\u201d of that prince of scholars, and the contemporaneous researches\nof Herbert Marsh, have completely decided the contest. Bp. Burgess alone,\nwhile yet among us [d. 1837], and after him Mr. Charles Forster [d. 1871],\nclung obstinately to a few scattered outposts after the main field of\nbattle had been lost beyond recovery(448).\n\nOn the whole, therefore, we need not hesitate to declare our conviction\nthat the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were\noriginally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they\nhad been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the\nLatin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the\nprinted Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim. We will\nclose this slight review with the terse and measured judgement of\nGriesbach on the subject: \u201cSi tam pauci, dubii, suspecti, recentes testes,\net argumenta tam levia, sufficerent ad demonstrandam lectionis cujusdam\n\u03b3\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, licet obstent tam multa tamque gravia, et testimonia et\nargumenta: nullum prorsus superesset in re critic\u00e2 veri falsique\ncriterium, et _textus Novi Testamenti universus plan\u00e8 incertus esset atque\ndubius_\u201d (N. T., _ad locum_, vol. ii. p. 709).\n\n51. 1 JOHN v. 18. In this verse, according to the Received text, we have\nthe perfect \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 of continued effects and the aorist \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 of\ncompleted action used for the same person, although elsewhere in the same\nEpistle the man begotten of God is invariably \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (ch. ii. 29;\niii. 9 _bis_; iv. 7; v. 1, 4). Hence the special importance of the various\nreading \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd for \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd after \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6, since, if this were to be accepted,\n\u1f41 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 could be none other than the Only-begotten Son who keepeth the\nhuman sons of God, agreeably to His own declaration in John xvii. 12(449).\nIn behalf of \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd we can allege only AB, 105 (a cursive collated by\nMatthaei), and the Vulgate (_conservat eum_), the testimony of A, always\nso powerful when sanctioned by B, being nothing weakened by the fact that\nit is corrected into \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd by the original [?] scribe(450), who in\ncopying had faithfully followed his _exemplar_, and on second thoughts\nsupposed he had gone wrong. _All_ other authorities, including copies,\nversions, and Fathers, \u05d0 and the rest (C being lost here), have \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd,\nthe Peshitto very expressly [and Origen thrice, Didymus four times,\nEphraem Syrus and Severus twice each, besides Theophylact and\n\u0152cumenius(451)]. We venture to commend this variation as one of a class\nDean Vaughan speaks of, which, seeming violently improbable at first\nsight, grows upon the student as he becomes familiar with it. It must be\nconfessed, however, that St. Paul makes but slight distinction between the\ntwo tenses in Gal. iv. 23, 29, and that we have no other example in\nScripture or ecclesiastical writers of \u1f41 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 being used absolutely\nfor the Divine Son, though the contrast here suggested is somewhat\ncountenanced by that between \u1f41 \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd and \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 in Heb. ii. 11.\n[So that Dr. Scrivener\u2019s view demands considerable sacrifice for its\nacceptance.]\n\n52. JUDE 5. Here we have a variation, vouched for by AB united, which it\nis hard to think true, however interesting the doctrinal inference would\nbe. Instead of \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, the article is omitted\nby \u05d0AB, and perhaps by C*, so that it must at any rate resign its place;\nwhile for _\u039a\u03a3_ of \u05d0 (apparently of C*) and the mass of copies, with the\nHarkleian, we find _\u0399\u03a3_ in AB, 6, 7, 13, 29, 66 (_secund\u00e2 manu_), the\nVulgate, Sahidic, Bohairic, and both Ethiopic versions. The Bodleian\nSyriac has yet another variation, \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, in support of which we have the\nimportant second hand of C, 5, 8, 68, tol. of the Vulgate, the Armenian\n(with _\u03b9\u03c3_ in the margin), the Arabic of Erpenius, Clement of Alexandria,\nand Lucifer. The Greek of Didymus has _\u03ba\u03c3_ _\u03b9\u03c3_, but his Latin translation\n_\u03b9\u03c3_, which Jerome also recognized, although he wrongly supposed that\nJoshua was meant. While we acknowledge that the Person who saved Israel\nout of Egypt was indeed the Saviour of the world, we should rather expect\nthat He would be called the Christ (1 Cor. x. 4) than Jesus. There is a\nsimilar variation between _\u03c7\u03bd_, _\u03ba\u03bd_, and _\u03b8\u03bd_ in the parallel passage 1\nCor. x. 9.\n\nLachmann alone reads \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 here, though Tregelles gives it a place in his\nmargin. Westcott and Hort would be acting on their general principle if\nthey received it, but, while setting \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in the text and \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 in the\nmargin, they brand the passage as corrupt, and would be inclined to\nbelieve that the original words were \u1f41 ... \u03c3\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, without either of the\nnouns. Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 106) points out how slight the change would be\nfrom \u039f\u03a4\u0399\u039f to \u039f\u03a4\u0399\u03a3 (one \u0399 being dropped) in the simple uncials of early\ntimes.\n\n\n\n\nFifth Series. Apocalypse.\n\n\n53. APOC. xiii. 10. \u0395\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9.\nThis reading of the Received text is perfectly clear; indeed, when\ncompared with what is found in the best manuscripts, it is too simple to\nbe true (Canon I, Chap. VIII). We read in Codd. \u05d0BC: \u03b5\u03b9 (C) \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03b1\u03b9\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 (\u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u1fc3 B), the reading also of those excellent cursives\n28, 38, 79, 95, and of a manuscript of Andreas: \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 is further omitted in\n14 (_sic_), and in 92 its echo, in 32, 47, the Bohairic (?), Arabic\n(Polyglott), and a Slavonic manuscript: and so Tregelles in 1872. The\nsense of this reading, if admissible at all, is very harsh and elliptical;\nthat of the only remaining uncial A, though apparently unsupported except\nby a Slavonic manuscript and the best copies of the Vulgate (_am. fuld._\nand another known to Lachmann), looks more probable: \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9: \u201cif any one _is_ for captivity, into\ncaptivity he goeth\u201d (Tregelles, Kelly: the latter compares Jer. xv. 2,\nLXX): the second \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd being omitted by Homoeoteleuton in the\nabove-mentioned codices. Tregelles (in 1844), Lachmann, Tischendorf,\nKelly, Westcott and Hort follow Cod. A, and it would seem rightly.\n\nAll other variations were devised for the purpose of supplying the\nellipsis left in the uncials. For \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 of the common text (now that it\nis known not to be found in C) no Greek authority is expressly cited\nexcept Reuchlin\u2019s Cod. 1, after Andreas (whence it came into the text of\nErasmus) and the _recent_ margin of 94. The favourite form of the cursives\nis that printed in the Complutensian Polyglott: \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd,\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9, after P, 2, 6, 8, 13, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 37, 40, 41, 42, 48, 49,\n50, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94*, 96, 97, 98, perhaps some six others, a Slavonic\nmanuscript, Andreas in the edition of 1596. The Vulgate, the Latin version\nprinted with the Peshitto Syriac, and Primasius in substance, read \u201cQui in\ncaptivitatem duxerit, in captivitatem vadet,\u201d but (as we stated above)\n_am. fuld._ (not _demid._) and the best codices omit \u201cduxerit\u201d and have\n\u201cvadit\u201d (Syr. \u0721\u0718\u0712\u0725 ... \u0710\u0719\u0725 or \u0725\u0719\u0710 ... \u0725\u0712\u0718\u0721), _which brings the clause into\naccordance with Cod. A._ The Greek corresponding with the _printed_\nVulgate is \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 (33 omits \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2) \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd (\u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 87), \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 (\u1f10\u03c2 87)\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9, 33, 35, 87. Other modes of expression (e.g. \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9, 7; \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6,\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, 18; \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7. \u1f51\u03c0. 36, &c.) resemble\nthose already given, in their attempt to enlarge and soften what was\noriginally abrupt and perhaps obscure.\n\nWe submit the two following as a pair of readings which, originating in\nthe pure error of transcribers, have been adopted by eminent critics in\ntheir unreasonable and almost unreasoning admiration for Bengel\u2019s canon,\n\u201cProclivi orationi praestat ardua.\u201d\n\n54. APOC. xv. 6. In the transparently clear clause \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd Lachmann, Tregelles in his text, Westcott and Hort, present the\nvariation \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd for \u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u201carrayed with stone,\u201d i.e. precious stone, for\nwhich \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u201cclean\u201d would be no appropriate epithet. Dr. Hort (Notes, p.\n139) justifies what he rightly calls \u201cthe bold image expressed by this\nwell-attested reading\u201d by Ezek. xxviii. 13 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n(or \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9), \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03b6\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., but that was said of a king\nof Tyre, not of the angelic host. The manifestly false \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd is only too\n\u201cwell-attested\u201d for the reputation of its advocate, AC, 38 in the margin,\n48, 90, the best manuscripts of the Vulgate (_am. fuld. demid. tol.\nlips._4.5.6, &c.), though not the printed editions. Andreas knew of the\nvariation without adopting it: Haymo and Bede also mention both readings.\nCod. \u05d0 reads \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 with the Bohairic, and so helped to keep\nTischendorf right: Tregelles sets this form in his margin. For \u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd or\n\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd or \u03bb\u03b7\u03bd- we have all the other manuscripts and other authorities,\nincluding BP, that excellent cursive Cod. 95, Primasius. Between the two\nforms with \u03bd we should probably choose \u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd of B, [7], 14, 18, 92, 97,\nas \u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd seems to belong to the raw material in a rough state. The later\nSyriac has \u0712\u072c\u0722\u0710 (or \u0710\u0722\u072c\u0712) (\u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1), which admits of no ambiguity.\n\n55. APOC. xviii. 3. For \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 of the Received text, or \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd of\nLachmann and Tischendorf, Tregelles (whose margin has \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03ce\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd),\nWestcott and Hort in their text (not margin) have \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd. Dr. Hort has\nno note on this place, but treats it in his index of \u201cQuotations from the\nOld Testament\u201d as a reference to Isa. li. 17, 22 (\u1f21 \u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2) and to Jer. xxv. 27 (\u03c0\u03af\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03cd\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5), with\nthe notion of stumbling through drink. What is required to complete the\nparallel is some passage in the Septuagint wherein \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd stands alone,\nwhether \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 be in the text or not, and, in the absence of such\nparallel, \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd must be regarded as incredible on any evidence. Yet\n\u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd or the virtually identical \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03ce\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd is found in \u05d0AC, in B, 7,\n8, 14, 25, 27, 29, 91, 92, 94, 95 (\u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 _prim\u00e2 manu_), the Bohairic and\nEthiopic. The alternative reading \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd or \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03ce\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (\u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 96) occurs\nin P, 1, 18, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 47, 48, 49, 50, 79, 87, 90, 93, 97,\n98, the Latin and later Syriac. Thus the very versions are divided in a\ncase where the omission of a single letter produces so great a change in\nthe sense.\n\n56. APOC. xxi. 6. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, \u0393\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5. \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u0391 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a9. Here the\ntrue reading \u0393\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd \u201cThey are done\u201d (adopted, with or without \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 after\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ce, by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Kelly, Archdeacon Lee in the\n\u201cSpeaker\u2019s Commentary,\u201d Westcott and Hort) is preserved by Cod. A, whose\nexcellency is very conspicuous in the Apocalypse: its compeer C is\ndefective here. The very valuable Apoc. 38 confirms it (\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd), as did\n\u05d0c, but the whole word was afterwards erased: the interpreter of Irenaeus\nrenders _facta sunt_, and this is all the support A has. The first hand of\n\u05d0 with BP, 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 35, 47, 48, 79, 87,\n89, 91, 92 (_hiat_ 14), 93, 96, 97, 98, the Armenian, Origen (_quod\nmireris_), Andreas, Arethas, with the Complutensian, read \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1, most of\nthem omitting either the \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce or the \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 which follows. Erasmus was\ntoo good a scholar to adopt from Apoc. 1 a meaning for \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 which it\ncannot possibly bear, and seems to have got his own reading \u0393\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5 (though\nhe recognizes that of Apoc. 1 in his Annotations) from the Vulgate _factum\nest_, which is confirmed by Primasius: it probably has no Greek authority\nwhatsoever. The Syriac printed with the Peshitto (commonly assigned to the\nsixth century) appears, like the hand which followed \u05d0c, to omit \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1,\nas do the Bohairic and Ethiopic versions, with _lux._ of the Vulgate.\nThose which read \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 yet retain the following \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce (\u05d0BP, 7 and some\nothers) obviously differ from the true reading \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd by the single\nstroke which in uncial manuscripts was set over a letter to represent\n_nu_, especially at the end of a line, and so avoid the monstrous\nrendering necessarily implied in 1, 8, 93, 96, 97, 98, \u201cI have _become_\nalpha and omega, the first and the last.\u201d P accordingly puts the proper\nstop after \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n                  \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nGod grant that if these studies shall have made any of us better\ninstructed in the letter of His Holy Word, we may find grace to grow, in\nlike measure, in that knowledge which tendeth to salvation, through faith\nin His mercy by Christ Jesus.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX A. ON SYRIAC LECTIONARIES.\n\n\nA very interesting group of Syriac manuscripts is found in the collections\nof Syriac MS. Lectionaries which have descended to us. That the number of\nthem is large may be inferred from the fact that thirty-five may be found\nin the British Museum alone (Catalogue, i. pp. 146-203).\n\nSyriac Lectionaries are of two classes, (i) those according to the Greek\nUse, and (ii) those according to the native Syriac Use. The former, or\n_Malkite_ Lectionaries, may be dismissed from the present enquiry. They\nare only Greek works in a Syriac dress, and their value is historical\nrather than critical(452).\n\nThe true Syriac Lectionaries, whether Jacobite or Nestorian, follow as to\ntheir main features the Greek Lectionaries which have been described in\nour first volume, coming under two main classes, Evangelistaries and\nApostolos(453). But they present one important contrast. In both families\nof Syriac descent, the Ecclesiastical year begins with Advent, and not, as\nin Greek Lectionaries, with Easter; and in general the arrangement is\nsimilar in both, so that the system must at least be of considerably\ngreater antiquity than the days of the schism. In some of the Jacobite\ncopies the text of the Harkleian revision has been substituted for the\nancient Peshitto. Some include Lessons from the Old Testament. Some\ncontain a Menology. In a few instances the Lessons for special festivals\nform a separate volume.\n\nThe majority of the Syriac MS. Lectionaries are comparatively late, but\nothers possess an antiquity which, in the case of some MSS., would be\nconsidered remarkable. The British Museum copies, Add. 14,485 and 14,486,\nare each dated A. GR. 1135 = A.D. 824. Others must be referred to the same\ncentury. Add. 14,528, foll. 152-228 (an Index), and the leaf in Add.\n17,217, appear to be three centuries older. Another sixth century MS.,\nAdd. 14,455 (the Four Gospels), contains many Rubrics, a pr. m. in the\ntext, besides those in the margins by later hands, such as occur in MSS.\nof all ages. When to these facts we add the consideration already\nmentioned, that the same system was in use in both branches of the Syrian\nChurch, we see the importance of the testimony of works of this class.\nThey are very ancient ecclesiastical records from the unchangeable East.\nLike Greek Lectionaries, they are difficult to use, because of their\narrangement of Lessons in the succession ordered by the calendar: they are\nof course public documents, and in consequence possess an importance above\nthat of copies which were in many cases the property of private persons,\nand may have been carelessly and cheaply prepared. Yet it would not be\nright to claim for copies of a version a position quite as important as\nthat held by the Greek service-books, since the evidence of versions, as\nwell as of quotations in ancient writers, is only subsidiary.\nNevertheless, in the fact that the number of ancient Greek copies of the\nNew Testament is relatively small as compared with the early copies of the\nPeshitto version, we are warned not to underrate Syriac Lectionaries,\nthough they are of less value for the Syriac, on account of the large\nnumber of very ancient and well-written copies which have come down to us,\nsuch as those which have been enumerated in our account of the materials\nfor ascertaining the text of the Peshitto.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX B. ADDITIONAL BOHAIRIC MANUSCRIPTS IN EGYPT (1893).\n\n\nCairo 1 [1184] attributed and possible date, fol., _chart._, ff. 290, 27 \u00d7\n18\u00b76 (23), \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6., Copt. Gr., _Am._, _Eus._, _pict._ Evann., Copt., restored\nunder patronage of Athanasius, Bp. of Abutij, 1794, whose statement gives\ndate 900 of the martyrs. Dedication to monastery of St. Antony in the\neastern desert; now in the library of the Patriarch in Cairo, numbered 12\nand 14.\n\nAncient writing begins St. Matt. v. 25,\ncontinues to St. Luke x. 2.\nbegins St. Luke x. 27,\ncontinues to St. Luke xxii. 52.\nbegins St. Luke xxii. 66,\ncontinues to St. Luke xxiv. 53.\nbegins St. John i. 31,\ncontinues to St. John xix. 24.\n\nCairo 2 [1291], fol., _chart._, ff. 409, 26\u00b79 \u00d7 18 (24, 25), \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6., Copt.\nGr., _Am._, _Eus._, _pict._ (pictures of SS. Mark, Luke, and John). Evann.\nCopt. Arab. Written by Deacon Barsuma, mended by Michael of Akhm\u00eem, monk\nof monastery of Siryani (Nitrian), under patronage of Cyril, 112th\nPatriarch, 1878. Dedication to monastery of St. Barsuma, called Al\nShahr\u00e2n, 1329; now in the library of the Patriarch in Cairo, numbered 12\nand 14. Quires numbered in Syriac. Same text as Paris 15.\n\nCairo 3 [xviii], fol., _chart._, ff. 342, 22\u00b78 \u00d7 13 (29), _Carp._ and\n_Eus. t._ at end of St. Mark, _proll._, \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6. _t._, \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6., Copt. Gr., _Am._,\n_Eus._, _pict._ Evann. Copt. Arab. Written by Michael Pilatos, who gives\nhis name in the duplicate book at Alexandria, and who wrote the Epistles\nand Acts below in 1714. In the library of the Patriarch in Cairo. Text\nsame as Curzon 126.\n\nCairo 4 [1327], fol., _chart._, ff. 395, 27\u00b75 \u00d7 17\u00b78 (27), \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6., Copt.,\n_Am._, _Eus._, _pict._ Evann. Copt. Written by Thomas. Dedication to the\nChurch of St. Mercurius in old Cairo, where it now rests. Text of St.\nMatt. is same as Brit. Mus. 3381.\n\nCairo 5 [1257], fol., _chart._, ff. 382, 26\u00b74 \u00d7 19 (25), _prol._ St. Luke,\nCapp. Copt. _Am._, _Eus._, _pict._, _mut._ Evann. Copt. Arab. _Mut._ St.\nMatt. i-iv. 5, St. Mark i. 1-7, St. John i. 1-21; a few leaves restored.\nWritten by monk and priest Gabriel, who wrote in the house of Ibn \u00b4Ass\u00e2l;\nnow in the Church of Al Moallaqah in old Cairo. Text similar to manuscript\nof G\u00f6ttingen.\n\nCairo 6 [1272], fol., _chart._, ff. 328, 24\u00b79 \u00d7 17 and 25\u00b77 \u00d7 18. Epilogue\nto St. Matt. \u039a\u03b5\u03c6., Copt., _Am._, _Eus._, _pict._, _mut._ Evann. Copt. St.\nMatt. by more recent writer. SS. Mark, Luke, and John written by original\nscribe, Simon Ibn Abu Nasr. Text of St. Matt. similar to Bodl. vii. In the\nPatriarchal Library in Cairo.\n\nCairo 7 [xiv], 4to, St. Luke, restored under Bp. Athanasius of Abutij.\nText unimportant.\n\nBesides several which are too late to have any critical importance.\n\nAPOCALYPSE.\n\n1. [xix], folio.\n\nALEXANDRIA 1 [xviii], fol., paper, duplicate of Cairo 3, by same writer.\nEvann.\n\n2. [xix], SS. Matt. and Mark.\n\n3. [1861], St. John, Copt.\n\nDAYR AL MOHARRAQ, nr. Manfal\u00fbt on the Nile (station and telegraph Nas\u00e2li\nG\u00e2n\u00fbb).\n\n1. [1345], fol., _chart._, 22\u00b75 \u00d7 14\u00b72 (27), _Carp._ at end. _Mut._, but\nfairly perfect, _pict._, and richly glossed. Text unimportant. Evann.\nCopt. Arab.\n\nST. PAUL, CATH., ACTS.\n\n1. [xii?], probably of same date as Evann., Cairo 1, fol., _chart._, ff.\n432, 25\u00b76 \u00d7 18\u00b72 (24), \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6., Copt. Gr. Thess., Heb., Tim., _pict._, Copt.:\nrestored Rom. and 1 Cor. i-xvi. 12, copious glosses in Arabic.\n\n2. [xiv], fol., _chart._, 26 \u00d7 18\u00b75 (25), \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6., Copt. Gr., _pict._\nPhilemon, Hebr., Copt.\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX I. TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATED IN THIS TREATISE.\n\n\n(Where the page is given alone, the reference is to the first volume. _n_\nindicates _note_.)\n\nST. MATTHEW.\n    i. 18            II. 321-3\n    iv. 18                   12\n    v. 11              II. 298\n       22      8; II. 255, 281\n    vi. 1                    13\n       8               II. 302\n       13          9; II. 279, 323-5\n       22              II. 302\n    vii. 2                    13\n       14                   16\n       28                   13\n    viii. 5                    12\n       28                   17\n    ix. 17                   12\n       29                   13\n       36                   13\n    x. 23                    9\n    xi. 16                   11\n       19            II. 325-6\n    xiii. 15                   11\n       40                   13\n    xiv. 22                   12\n    xv. 5                11, 14\n       8                    13\n    xvi. 2, 3          II. 326-7\n       21              II. 302\n    xvii. 20            II. 255 _n_\n    xix. 17         17; II. 281, 327-9\n    xx. 28            8; II. 330-1\n    xxi. 23                   14\n       28        31; II. 331-6\n    xxii. 37                   13\n    xxiii. 14-16                 9\n       35                   17\n    xxiv. 15                   12\n       36            II. 269 _n_\n    xxv. 16                   13\n    xxvi. 39                   16\n    xxvii. 4                   13\n       9                   17\n       28         II. 234, 302\n       35                   12\n       49              II. 303\n       60                   16\n    xxviii. 19              II. 303\n\nST. MARK.\n    i. 2                    17\n       21              II. 315\n    ii. 17                   12\n       27               II. 299\n    iii. 3                    11\n       14, 16          II. 303\n    iv. 19                   11\n    v. 14                   10\n       40              II. 318\n    vi. 2               II. 303\n       22              II. 303\n    vii. 2                13, 14\n       19        11; II. 336-7\n    ix. 1               II. 303\n    x. 30                   11\n    xiii. 14                   12\n       32                   17\n       33              II. 303\n    xiv. 4               II. 318\n       35                   16\n    xv. 28                   12\n    xvi. 9-20        7; II. 269, 337-44\n\nST. LUKE.\n    ii. 14            II. 344-9\n       15                   14\n       22                   17\n    iv. 18                   13\n    iv. 44              II. 304\n    v. 32                   12\n       38                   12\n    vi. 1                    17\n       4                     8\n       48              II. 304\n    vii. 31                   12\n    viii. 40              II. 304\n    ix. 49                   10\n    x. 1               II. 304\n       22                   12\n       30                   14\n       41, 42       II. 349-50\n    xi. 4            II. 279-81\n       36                    9\n    xii. 54                   15\n    xiv. 5               II. 305\n    xv. 21              II. 305\n    xvi. 12          11; II. 305\n       20                   10\n    xvii. 36                    9\n    xviii. 39                    9\n    xxi. 24         II. 306, 319\n    xxii. 37                   12\n       43, 44      9; II. 269, 353-6\n       49              II. 319\n    xxiii. 32              II. 306\n       34            II. 356-8\n    xxiv. 3, 6, 9, 12, 36, 40, 42, 51      II. 299 _n_\n\nST. JOHN.\n    i. 18       17; II. 358-60\n       28                   17\n       44                   12\n    ii. 3               II. 306\n    iii. 13            II. 360-1\n    iv. 1               II. 306\n    v. 3, 4.   9, 19; II. 361-3.\n       35.   10\n    vii. 8.   17; II. 363-4\n       39.   II. 306\n       53-viii. 11.   vii, 19; II. 364-8\n    viii. 44.   II. 318\n    ix. 4.   II. 307\n    x. 22.   II. 307\n    xiii. 25, 26.   19\n    xviii. 5.   II. 307\n    xix. 6-35.   12\n       14.   17\n\nACTS.\n    iii. 6.   11\n    iv. 25.   II. 307\n    v. 2.   II. 318\n    vii. 37.   13\n       46.   II. 308\n    viii. 7.   13\n       37.   8; II. 368-70\n    ix. 5, 6 (xxvi. 14, 15).   12\n       12.   9\n    x. 19.   II. 308\n    xi. 19-27; xiii. 1.   312\n       20.   II. 370-1\n    xii. 25.   II. 308\n    xiii. 18.   II. 371-2\n       32.   II. 372-3\n       33.   13\n    xiv. 8.   14\n       24.   13\n    xv. 17, 18.   II. 299\n       34.   II. 373-4\n    xvi. 3.   14\n       7.   17; II. 374\n    xvii. 28.   11; II. 309\n    xviii. 26; xix. 4, 15, 8, 34.   14\n    xx. 4, 15.   19\n       10.   II. 309\n       24.   II. 299\n       28.   17; II. 374-7\n       30.   II. 309\n    xxiv. 6-8.   19\n    xxv. 13.   II. 309\n    xxvii. 1.   II. 318\n       5.   II. 298 _n_\n       16.   II. 377\n       37.   II. 378-9\n    xxviii. 13.   II. 309\n    xxviii. 16.   II. 298 _n_\n\nROMANS.\n    v. 1.    17; II. 379-81\n       22.   II. 310\n  viii. 20.   II. 319\n       24.   II. 311 _n_\n    xii. 11.   15\n    xv. 31.   II. 310\n\n1 CORINTHIANS.\n    vii. 29.   118 _n_\n    xi. 24.   II. 381-2\n       29.   8\n    xii. 20.   14\n    xiii. 3.   II. 382-4\n       5.   II. 310\n    xv. 49.   17\n       51.   17; II. 384-6\n\n2 CORINTHIANS.\n    iii. 10.   10\n    iv. 12.   14\n    viii. 4.   13\n    xii. 1.   11\n    xiii. 2.   13\n       3.   11\n\nGALATIANS.\n    iii. 1.   9; II. 311\n    v. 7.   9\n\nEPHESIANS.\n    v. 14.   II. 386-7\n\nPHILIPPIANS.\n    i. 30.   11\n    ii. 1.   II. 387-9\n\nCOLOSSIANS.\n    iii. 6.   II. 311 _n_\n    iv. 15.   II. 310\n\n1 THESSALONIANS.\n    ii. 7.   II. 389-90\n       19.   12\n    iii. 13.   12\n    v. 4.   II. 310\n\n2 THESSALONIANS.\n    i. 8, 12.   12\n\n1 TIMOTHY.\n    ii. 6.   17\n    iii. 16.   15; II. 390-5\n    vi. 7.   13; II. 395-6\n\n2 TIMOTHY.\n    iv. 5.   12\n       15.   13\n\nPHILEMON.\n       12 (17).   13; II. 396\n\nHEBREWS.\n    ii. 7.   13\n    vi. 16.   14\n    vii. 1.   II. 310\n    xii. 20.   13\n\nJAMES.\n    i. 17.   II. 310\n    iv. 4.   II. 397\n       5.   II. 397\n\n1 PETER.\n    i. 3, 12.   11\n       23.   II. 397-8\n    ii. 3.   11\n       21.   11\n    iii. 1.   11\n       18.   11\n       20.   10\n       21.   11\n    iv. 5.   II. 311\n    v. 10.   11\n       13.   II. 398-400\n\n1 JOHN.\n    ii. 23.   9; II. 400-1\n    iii. 21.   II. 311 _n_\n    v. 7, 8.   8; II. 401-7\n       18.   II. 407-8\n\nJUDE.\n       4.   17\n       5.   II. 409\n\nAPOCALYPSE.\n    ii. 20.   14\n    iii. 16.   9\n    xiii. 10.   II. 409-10\n    xv. 6.   II. 410-1\n    xvi. 7.   17\n       10.   10\n    xviii. 3.   II. 411\n    xxi. 6.   II. 412\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX II. OF SUBJECTS.\n\n\n(N.B.\u2014For Greek manuscripts of the N. T. consult Vol. I. Index I. For\nseparate Fathers, see Vol. II. pp. 172-4, and for present owners of MSS.,\nVol. I. Index I. _n_ indicates _note_.)\n\n\u05d0, _see_ Sinaitic.\n\nAbbot, Ezra, II. 236 _n_, 343 _n_ 1, 360 _n_.\n\nAbbott, T. K., 154-5, 166; II. 46, 50.\n\nAbbott\u2019s group, _see_ Ferrar.\n\nAbbreviations in manuscripts, &c., 49-51, 92, 144, &c.\n\nAccents employed in manuscripts, &c., 45-8, 100.\n\nAccretions, II. 249, 291, 362, 369, 374.\n\nActs and Cath. Epist. (Act., Cath.), 63-5, 78.\n\nAcus employed by scribes, 27, 129.\n\nAdamantius, _see_ Origen.\n\nAdler, J. G. C., II. 30, 222, &c. &c.\n\nAfrican form of Old Latin version, _see_ Versions.\n\nAlcuin\u2019s Latin manuscripts, II. 59.\n\nAldus, N. T., II. 187-8.\n\nAlexander II of Russia, 32, 91.\n\nAlexandrian MS. (A), 97-105; history, 97-98;\n  description, 98-101; age, 103;\n  written by one hand or more, 101;\n  collations and editions, 103-4;\n  character, 104-105, and _passim_.\n\nAlexandrianisms, 141; II. 224-6, 312, 316-8.\n\nAlford, B. H., 147.\n\nAlford, H., Dean, 12 _n_, 114 and _n_; II. 252 _n_ 4, 346, 351, and\n            frequently.\n\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac, when to be edited, 14 _n_.\n\nAlphabet, Gothic, invented, II. 146.\n\nAlphabet, so Armenian, II. 150.\n\nAlter, F. K., N. T. and manuscripts, II. 220, &c.\n\nAmanuensis, influence of, II. 319 _n_ 1.\n\nAm\u00e9lineau, M., II. 133-4.\n\nAmelli, Guer., II. 48.\n\nAmiatinus, Cod. Lat. (_am_.), II. 71.\n\nAmmonian Oasis and dialect, II. 101.\n\nAmmonian sections, 59-63;\n  without Eusebian Canons, 62, 68, 189, and _passim_.\n\n\u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, 189, 64.\n\n\u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, 189, 68-9, 75 _n_ 1, 139, &c. &c.\n\n\u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u1f70 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1, 85, Evst. 30, 240; Mark vi. 9-20 read in them, II.\n            341.\n\nAncient authorities, II. 276-8;\n  often divided, _ibid_.;\n  _see_ also 240, 359, 300-1.\n\nAndreas, Abp., paragraphs, chapters, and summaries of the Apocalypse, 64,\n            67, Evann. 18, &c.\n\nAndreas, priest, Evann. 15, 232, &c.\n\nAngelus Vergecius, 44 _n_ 1.\n\nAnglo-Saxon version, _see_ Versions.\n\nAntiochene, (supposed) revision of text, II. 287-8.\n\nAntony, St., II. 98-9.\n\nAphraates, II. 20-21, &c.\n\nApocalypse (Apoc.), 78,\n  character of text, 14;\n  wanting in Peshitto, 8;\n  in Bohairic, II. 123;\n  in Sahidic, II. 137.\n\nApocrypha, II. 177.\n\nApocryphal insertions, 8; II. 271 _n_. _See_ Western Interpolations.\n\n\u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1, 74.\n\nApostolos or Praxapostolos (Apost.), 74-5.\n\nApostrophus, 49, 138, 175; II. 270 _n_.\n\nAquila, II. 272.\n\nArabic versions, II. 161-4; in other MSS., Evan. 211, 240 _n_, Act. 96,\n            Evst. 6, 328; II. 113-23.\n\nAramaean, II. 2, 28, 312-3, 320 _n_.\n\nArethas, Abp., on Apocalypse, 67.\n\nArgenteus, Cod. Gothicus, II. 146.\n\nAristophanes of Byzantium, 46.\n\n\u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae and \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, 76.\n\nArmagh, book of (_arm._), II. 74.\n\nArmenian version, _see_ Versions.\n\nArmfield, H. T., II. 401 _n_.\n\nArticle, Coptic, II. 124.\n\nArticle, Greek, fluctuating use of, 15.\n\nAscetic temper alleged to be traced in manuscripts, II. 252 _n_ 4, 255,\n            349.\n\nAsiatic family of text, II. 212.\n\nAsper, value of, 239 _n_.\n\nAssemani, J. S., II. 27, 34.\n\nAssemani, S. E., II. 30.\n\nAssembly of Divines, 103 _n_ 1.\n\nAsterisks, 133; II. 37, 354, 361, 365.\n\nAthanasius, Bp. of Kos, II. 96, 100, 102.\n\nAthos, Mount, Evann. 905, &c., _passim_.\n\nAugustine, Bp., II. 42-3, 4 n, and _passim_.\n\nAureus, Cod., II. 51.\n\nAutographs of the N. T., 2; II. 257-9, 262-3.\n\nAvailable evidence to be used in full, II. 275, &c., 300-1.\n\n\u0392 and \u03a5 confounded, 43 _n_ 2.\n\nBaber, H. H., 104.\n\nBabington, Churchill, papyri, 22.\n\nBalance (nice) of evidence, II. 371-2.\n\nBarbarous readings inadmissible, II. 319 _n_ 1.\n\nBarnabas, St., Epistle of, 96;\n  his apocryphal \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, Evan. 239.\n\nBarrett, John, 153-4.\n\nBarsalibi, Dion., Bp., II. 18, 27 _n_, 31.\n\nBashmuric dialect, II. 96, 100;\n  really Middle Egyptian or Middle Coptic, 103.\n  _See_ Versions.\n\nBatiffol, P., 166; II. 51.\n\nBebb, Rev. Ll. J. M., II. 3 _n_ 1, 145, 158-61, 168 _n_ 1.\n\nBede, the Venerable, II. 369.\n\nBelsheim, J., Evann. 613-7; II. 46, 48, 51, 52.\n\nBengel, II. 210-13;\n  his paragraphs (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03af), 211, I. 271;\n  families, II. 211-2;\n  character, 212;\n  Canon, 247, and _passim_.\n\nBensly, R. S., Prof., II. 46.\n\nBentley, Richard, II. 204-9;\n  his career, 204-5;\n  projected edition of N. T., 205-6;\n  his papers and MSS., 206-9;\n  causes of failure, 209; I. 110, 285; II. 65-6, 89, 245 _n_ 1, and\n              _passim_.\n\nBentley, Thomas, 110, 177; II. 207.\n\nBerger, M. Sam., II. 66 _n_, 46.\n\nBernard, Edward, II. 200.\n\nBerriman, J., II. 392 _n_.\n\nBessarion, Jo., Cardinal, 105.\n\nBeza, Theod., his N. T., II. 192-3.\n\nBezae, Cod. (D), 124-30;\n  same as Stephen\u2019s \u03b2\u00b4, 124 _n_ 3;\n  history, 124-5;\n  collations and editions, 126-7, 130;\n  character, 130.\n\nBianchini, Jos., _see_ Index of Facsimiles, Vol. I.\n\nBible, English, margin of Authorized, II. 371-2.\n\nBible, Great, II. 400.\n\nBible, Hebrew, first printed, II. 175.\n\nBible, Latin, first printed, II. 61, 175.\n\nBilingual MSS., _see_ Cod. Bezae (D), Evan. \u0394, Act. E, Paul. D, Paul. F,\n            Paul. G.\n\nBinding, manuscripts used for, 91, 151, 159, 171, 183.\n\nBirch, Andr., II. 220-2; 110-111, &c.\n\nBirks, T. R., Canon, II. 282 _n_ 2.\n\nBlakesley, J. W., Dean, II. 351, 352.\n\nBloomfield, S. T., _see_ Index II, Vol. I.\n\nBobbio, II. 146.\n\nBodleian Euclid, 42.\n\nBoetticher, P. (Lagarde), II. 109, 283 _n_.\n\nB\u00f6ttiger, 180.\n\nBohairic or Memphitic dialect, _see_ Versions (Coptic).\n\nBosworth, Dr. J., Anglo-Saxon Gospels, II. 165.\n\nBowyer, W., II. 245 _n_.\n\nBradshaw, H., 151, 189 _n_.\n\nBreathings in manuscripts, 45-8, 100, &c.\n\nBreves, _see_ \u03c4\u03af\u03c4\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nBright, J. W., Dr., 145, 164-5.\n\nBroadus, J. A., II. 342.\n\nBrown, D., II. 329 _n_.\n\nBruce, Ja., the traveller, II. 129.\n\nBrugsch, 91 _n_; II. 97.\n\nBurgess, Bp., II. 407.\n\nBurgon, J. W., Dean, his enlargement of the study, 78-9;\n  his letters to the _Guardian_, 189 _n_; II. 338;\n  use of quotations from the Fathers, II. 167-71;\n  his great book on \u201cThe Revision Revised,\u201d 167;\n  also I. 120 _n_ 2, 240-1 (his enlargement of the list in ed. 3), 251,\n              252, 255, 256; II. 282 _n_ 1, 301, 327, 341, 343 _n_ 2, 345,\n              357 _n_ 2, 363 _n_ 1, 368 _n_ 3, 395, and _passim_.\n\nButtmann, Phil., II. 231-3.\n\nByzantine revision of text(?), II. 224, 229.\n\nCaesarea, library of, II. 266-9.\n\nCalendar, Greek, 80-9.\n\nCambridge Texts, Greek Testament, 19.\n\nCanonici, M. L., library of, 246.\n\nCanons of Comparative Criticism, _see_ Comparative Criticism.\n\nCanons of Internal Evidence, _see_ Internal Evidence.\n\nCapernaum, its orthography, II. 315.\n\nCapitals, 29, 51-2, and _passim_, and _description of plates_.\n\nCaro, Hugo de S., Cardinal, 69.\n\nCarolinus, Cod. Gothicus, II. 146.\n\nCarpianus, Epistle to, &c., 60-3, 189, and _passim_.\n\nCarshunic characters, II. 30.\n\nCasley, II. 65, 89.\n\nCatena, 67, and _passim_.\n\nCeriani, Ant., I. 120 _n_ 3; II. 50, 52, &c.\n\nChapters, _see_ Sections.\n\nChapters, Latin or modern, 69-71, 68.\n\nCharles the Great, Emperor, II. 59.\n\nChristian VII of Denmark, II. 220.\n\nChurch, the, the Keeper of Holy Writ, II. 252, 296 _n_ 1.\n\nChurch Lessons, _see_ Evangelistaria, Apostolos.\n\nCilicisms, II. 317.\n\nCitation of O. T., marks of, 64 _n_, &c.\n\nClasses, six, of manuscripts, 77-8.\n\nClement of Alexandria, II. 262-3.\n\nClement of Rome, Epistles, 99.\n\nClement VIII, his Vulgate, II. 64-5.\n\nCobet, C. G., 113 _n_ 2; II. 253 _n_, 263 _n_ 1.\n\nCodex Britannicus, Evan. 61.\n\nCodex Friderico-Augustanus, 31 &c., 90.\n\nCodices, 28.\n\nCoislin, Bp., his Library, Evan. H.\n\nCoislin, his Octateuch, Evan. Fa.\n\nColbert, Pentateuch, &c., LXX (Paris), same MS. as Cod. Sarravianus, which\n            _see_.\n\nColeridge, S. T., II. 258 _n_ 3.\n\nColinaeus, S., his N. T.; II. 188.\n\nColumns in manuscripts, 28, and _passim_.\n\nComes, Latin Church Lessons, II. 341 _n_ 3.\n\nCommentary (\u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1),\n  (a) of Andreas or Arethas, 67, 64,\n  (b) Chrysostom, 242, &c.,\n  (c) Theophylact, 242, &c.\n\nComparative Criticism, II. 274-301;\n  its nature, 274-5;\n  completeness of comparison essential, 275-6;\n  cannot be confined to a few authorities, 276-8;\n  even to the oldest, 278-81;\n  B and \u05d0 not infallible, 281-4;\n  Westcott and Hort\u2019s theory unsound, 284-97,\n  being on explanation (285-90),\n  destitute of historical foundation (290-2),\n  of critical groundwork (292-3),\n  of Ante-Nicene authority (293-5)\n  of internal probability (295-6),\n  and of confirmation when applied to passages (302-11);\n  true view, 297-301.\n\nComplete copies of N. T., 72.\n\nComplutensian Polyglott, II. 176-181;\n  deviser of, 176;\n  character, 177-8;\n  MSS. used for, 178-180;\n  text, 180-181, and _passim_.\n\nConflate readings (so-called), II. 292-3.\n\nConfusion of certain vowels and diphthongs, 10.\n\nConfusion of uncial letters, 10.\n\nConjectural emendation inadmissible, II. 244-7.\n\nConstantine, Emperor, 118 _n_ 2.\n\nContents of MSS., 71-72.\n\nConybeare, F. C., II. 145, 148-54, 156-8.\n\nCook, F. C., Canon, II. 283 _n_, 325 _n_, 356.\n\nCoptic (or Egyptian) language, its dialects and versions, II. 91-144.\n            _See_ Versions.\n\nCopying, mistakes in, 10; additions in, 13.\n\nCorrector (\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2), 54-5.\n\nCorrectoria, II. 60.\n\nCorrectorium, Bibl. Lat., Evan. 81.\n\nCorruptions of text in second century, II. 259-65.\n\nCorssen, Dr., 182; II. 51, 66.\n\nCotton fragment of Genesis, 32-40.\n\nCotton paper (bombycina), 23.\n\nCourcelles, Stephen, II. 198.\n\nCowper, B. H., 104; II. 391.\n\nCoxe, H. O., 240, 297 _n_, 324 _n_, &c.\n\nCozza-Luzi, Joseph, 116-19.\n\nCramer, J. A., II. 128.\n\nCranbrook, Earl of, II. 171.\n\nCrawford, Earl of, his Library, II. 114, 121, 132.\n\nCritical editions, 196-243.\n\nCritical revision a source of various readings, 16-17.\n\nCrito Cantabrigiensis (Turton, T., Bp.), II. 401 _n_, 403 _n_.\n\nCrowding of letters, 41, 51, 132, &c.\n\nCrum, W. E., II. 143-4.\n\nCureton, W., Canon, 8. _See_ Versions.\n\nCuretonian, _see_ Versions.\n\nCureton\u2019s Homer, 44.\n\nCursive letters, described, 29, 30;\n  earliest cursive biblical MS., 41 _n_ 1;\n  earlier MSS. still, 42.\n\nCursive manuscripts, their critical value, II. 277, 297-301.\n\nCurzon, Hon. R. (Lord de la Zouche), and his Parham MSS., 240, 252; II.\n            114-5; 119, 122.\n\nCyril Lucar, _see_ Lucar.\n\nDamasus, Pope, II. 56-7.\n\nDated manuscripts, 41-2. _See_ Indiction.\n\nDavidson, S., II. 292.\n\nDeane, Rev. H., II. 6, 29.\n\nDe Dieu, L., II. 10.\n\nDelitzsch, F., II. 180 _n_ 1, 184 _n_ 1.\n\nDemotic writing, II. 92, 97.\n\nDesigned alterations alleged in text, 17; II. 259, 327, 363.\n\nDialectic forms, II. 312-20;\n  grounded on the Hellenistic dialect, 312-3;\n  effect of Hebrew Aramaic, 313;\n  \u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03ba\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, 314-5;\n  harsher forms in older\n  MSS., 315-6;\n  variations in grammatical forms, 316-8;\n  other dialectic forms, 318-20; I. 14.\n\nDickinson, John, 126.\n\nDictation, 10; II. 319 _n_.\n\nDio Cassius, the Vatican MS., 28 _n_ 2.\n\nDiocletian\u2019s persecution, II. 266, 104 _n_ 1.\n\nDionysius, Bp. of Corinth, II. 259.\n\nDioscorides, the Vienna MS., 46, 164.\n\nDivisions of N. T., _see_ Sections.\n\nDivisions, Slavonic, II. 158. _See_ Versions.\n\nDobbin, Orlando, 120, Evann. 58, 61.\n\nDoctrinal corruption, 17; II. 327, 407.\n\nDonaldson, J. W., II. 210 _n_ 3, 314, 315 _n_.\n\nDorisms in N. T., II. 310, 318.\n\nDuchesne, Prof., 166.\n\nEcclesiastical writers, _see_ Fathers.\n\nEclogadion, 77;\n  list throughout the year, 77, 80-7. _See_ Synaxarion.\n\n\u201cEdinburgh Review\u201d (Tregelles in), II. 210 _n_ 1.\n\nEgyptian versions of N. T., _see_ Versions.\n\nEllicott, C. J., Bp., II. 253, 384, 392.\n\nEllis, A. A. (Bentleii Crit. Sacra), II. 206, 207, 209.\n\nElzevir editions of N. T., II. 193-5.\n\nEmbolismus, II. 325 _n_ 2.\n\nEmendation and recension distinguished, II. 245-6.\n\nEngelbreth, W. F. (Bashmuric), II. 131.\n\nEphraem Syrus, II. 20-1.\n\nEphraemi, Cod. (C), 121-24;\n  palimpsest, 121;\n  history, 121-2;\n  described, 122-4.\n\nEpiphanius, Bp., II. 270.\n\nErasmus, Desid., II. 182-7;\n  first editions of Gr. Test., 182-5;\n  other editions, 185;\n  their character, 185-7, &c. &c.\n\nErizzo, F. M., Count, II. 31.\n\nErnesti, J. A., II. 216.\n\nErpenius, T., Arabic version, II. 162-3.\n\nEstrangelo character, II. 9, 14, 37.\n\nEthiopic version, _see_ Versions.\n\nEuchology, 75, 80.\n\nEuclid, dated manuscript of, in the Bodleian, 42.\n\nEumenes, king of Pergamus, 24.\n\nEusebius, 120 n; II. 266-7, &c.;\n  letter to Carpianus, 60-3, 189.\n\n\u201cEusebian\u201d canons, 59-63; 189, and _passim._\n\n\u201cEusebian\u201d canons, tables of, omitted in many MSS., 62.\n\nEustathius of Antioch, 53.\n\nEuthalius, Bp., 63-4, 53, 190, and _passim_. _See_ Sections.\n\nEvangelia (Evan.), 78.\n\nEvangelistaria (Evst.), the term used in modern Greek catalogues; II,\n            74-5, 327, &c.\n\nFabiani, H., Canon, 118.\n\nFacsimiles of MSS., 104.\n\nFamilies of MSS., Bengel\u2019s theory, II. 211-12;\n  Griesbach\u2019s, 224-6;\n  Hug\u2019s theory of recensions, II. 270-2;\n  Scholz\u2019 theory, 229-30.\n\nFathers, value of citations from, II. 167-71;\n  drawbacks, 168;\n  list of, with dates, 171-4.\n\nFayoumic version, II. 140. _See_ Versions.\n\nFell, John, Bp., II. 199-200, 106, 169.\n\nFerrar, W. H., the F. group, _see_ (Evann. 13, 69, 124, 346, 556, 561)\n            192, 255, 624\n\nField, Dr., II. 7 _n_ 1, 347 _n_ 1.\n\nFleck, F. F., 121.\n\nFolio, _see_ Form.\n\nForbes, G., 50.\n\nFord, Henry, II. 131.\n\nForeign matter in manuscripts, 66-7, _passim_ under MSS.\n\nForm of manuscripts, 28.\n\nForster, C., 129 _n_; II. 401-7.\n\nFrankish version, II. 165.\n\nFriderico-Augustanus, 90-1, 33-9.\n\nFroben, J., II. 182-5.\n\nGabelentz, H. C. de, and J. Loebe, II. 147.\n\nGale, Th., Dean, 48.\n\nGebhart, Oscar von, 164.\n\nGenevan N. T., 71.\n\nGeorgian version, II. 156-8. _See_ Versions.\n\nGildemeister, II. 162-4.\n\nGiorgi, A. A., II. 128.\n\nGlosses, marginal, &c., II. 249-50.\n\nGold, used in writing, 27.\n\nGolden Evangelistarium, 88 _n_ 2.\n\nGospels, divisions of, _see_ Sections.\n\nGothic version, II. 145-8. _See_ Versions.\n\nGoulburn, Dean, 171.\n\nGrammatical forms, peculiar, II. 312-20, 181.\n\nGreek era in dated manuscripts, 42 _n_ 2.\n\nGreen, T. S., II. 249.\n\nGregory, Dr. Caspar Ren\u00e9, 79, 241-2, 272-83, 303-5, 317-9, 325-6, 356-65,\n            373-6, 384-9, App. A; II. 320 _n_, and _passim_, especially\n            under Cursive MSS.\n\nGriesbach, J. J., II. 222-226; 170, 196, 216, 249, 251;\n  his N. T., 223;\n  theory of families and recensions, 224-6;\n  character, 226; 272 _n_, 285, 290.\n\nGrimthorpe, Lord, II. 248 _n_ 2.\n\nGrouping of authorities, II. 297-300, 279-80.\n\nGuidi, II. 154.\n\nGutbier, Giles, Peshitto N. T., II. 10.\n\nGwilliam, Rev. G. H., II. 6, 12, 13, 34, 36.\n\nGwynn, J., Dean, 94; II. 10.\n\nHaddan and Stubbs, II. 50.\n\nHagen, H., II. 51.\n\nHall, Dr. Isaac H., II. 27 _n_, 175 _n_, 193 _n_, 196.\n\nHammond, C. E., 18 _n_ 1; II. 379.\n\nHands of MSS. changed, 96, 101 _n_ 1, 337.\n\nHansell, E. H., 170.\n\nHarkel, Thomas of, II. 25.\n\nHarley, R., Earl of Oxford, 175.\n\nHarmonies of the Gospel History, 67 _n_ 4, 190. _See_ Eusebian Canons.\n\nHarnack, A., 164.\n\nHarris, J. Rendel, 130, 151, 203, 255, Appendix D; II. 34, 51, 163, 172,\n            366 _n_ 2, &c.\n\nHartel, II. 54.\n\nHeadlam, Rev. A. C., II. 91-144.\n\nHearne, Th., 170.\n\nHebrew Bible first printed, II. 175.\n\nHebrew (or Jewish) Gospel, 161; II. 15 _n_ 2, 259 _n_ 1.\n\nHebrews, Ep. of, place in N. T., 74, 57, 99.\n\nHellenistic dialect, II. 312-20.\n\nHentenius, John (Louvain Lat. Bible), II. 62-4.\n\nHerculanean papyri, 21, 22, 33, 42, 44, 47, 108.\n\nHermas, 66, 67.\n\nHesychius of Egypt, II. 268, 270-1.\n\nHieratic writing, II. 91-2.\n\nHieroglyphic writing, II. 91-2.\n\nHieronymus, _see_ Jerome.\n\nHomer and his manuscripts, 4, 44, 45, 50, 145.\n\nHomoeoteleuton, 9.\n\nHorne, T. H., Introduction and Tregelles\u2019 edition, II. 485, and _passim_.\n\nHort, F. J. A., II. 242-3; I. 18 _n_ 2; II. 244, 313 _n_ 2, 333 _n_ 1, 337\n            _n_ 1, and _passim_.\n\nHort, Westcott and, II. 284-97;\n  their views explained, 285-90;\n  compared with those of Griesbach, 290-1;\n  destitute of historical foundation, 291;\n  examination of the three reasons of the two Revisers, 293-4;\n  these views unsound, 296-7; 242-3, 273.\n\nHoskier, H. C., 191, 251.\n\nHug, J. L., 107, 111, 120;\n  his system of recensions, II. 229, 270-2.\n\nHutter, Elias, Peshitto N. T., II. 10.\n\nHyperides, papyrus fragments of, 22, 34-41, 45, &c.\n\nIberian version, II. 156-8. _See_ Georgian.\n\nIgnatius, St., 257.\n\nIndiction, I. Append. C; 42 _n_ 2, 156.\n\nInk, 26-7,\n  black and coloured, _ibid_.\n\nInsertion of glosses, 13.\n\nInternal evidence, II. 244-56;\n  not solely conjectural, 244-7;\n  textual canons, 247-56.\n\nInterpolations, various readings arising from, 7-9; II. 249.\n\nInterpolations for liturgical use, 327.\n\nIota, ascript and subscript, 44-5.\n\nIrenaeus, St., II. 261.\n\nIrish monks at St. Gall, 158, 180.\n\nIsaiah, Dublin MS., 154.\n\nItacism, 10-11, 17.\n\nItala, 44, 55-6; II. 42.\n\nItalics of English Bible, 9, 400.\n\nJablonsky, II. 100, 119.\n\nJackson, John, 126.\n\nJebb, R. C., II. 209 _n_.\n\nJerome, II. 268-70;\n  recklessness in statement, 355. _See_ Vulgate, and _passim_.\n\nJerusalem, Convent of Cross at, 240.\n\nJerusalem, Palestinian or J, II. 30-4. _See_ Versions.\n\nJude, St., followed 2 Pet., II. 398-9.\n\nJunius, Fr., II. 147.\n\n\u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, orthography of, II. 316.\n\n\u039a\u03b1\u03af abridged, 15, 16 and _n_.\n\nKarkaphensian, 35-6. _See_ Versions.\n\nKaye, Bp., II. 258 _n_ 3.\n\nKelly, W., 70 _n_ 2, 343 _n_ 1.\n\nKennedy, B. H., Canon, II. 300 _n_.\n\n\u039a\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1, _see_ Sections.\n\nKipling, T., Dean, 126.\n\nKitchin, G. W., Dean, 152.\n\nKoriun, II. 148 _n_, &c.\n\nKuenen, A., _see_ Cobet, C. G.\n\nKuster, L., 122; II. 203-4.\n\nLa Croze, II. 100, 119.\n\nLachmann, C., II. 231-5, 245, 285;\n  his system, 231-2;\n  unsoundness of it, 232-4, 273, 276, &c.;\n  his character, 234-5; 170, 256, and _passim_.\n\nLagarde, P., _see_ Boetticher.\n\nLanfranc, Abp., II. 60.\n\nLatinizing, 130, 182; II. 180, 215.\n\nLaud, W., Abp., 170.\n\nLaurence, R., Abp., II. 226.\n\nLeaning uncial letters, 41, 144, 151, 155, &c.\n\nLectionaries of N. T., 74-7;\n  system, age of, 75 and _n_ 2, 190. _See_ Evangelistaria, Apostolos.\n\nLectionaries, Syriac, II. Append. A.\n\nLectionaries of Old Testament, 76, 329 _n_, &c.\n\nLee, Edw., Abp., II. 186.\n\nLee, Sam., Peshitto, II. 11.\n\nLe Long, J., II. 104, 191.\n\nLent, Lessons for, 84-5.\n\nLeusden and Schaaf\u2019s Peshitto N. T., II. 11.\n\nLewis, Mrs., discovery of an old Syriac MS., II. 14, 17, 37.\n\nLiddon, H. P., D.D., II. 252 _n_ 1.\n\nLightfoot, J. B., Bp., on the Coptic versions, II. 91-139, &c.\n\nLine set over Proper Names, Evan. 530.\n\nLinen Paper (_charta_), 23, 189.\n\nLinwood, W., II. 245 _n_ 2.\n\nLiturgical notes, _see_ \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, Lect., \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae and \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, 189-90, &c.\n            &c., 11-12.\n\nLloyd, C., Bp. (N. T., Oxon.), 60, 67-8.\n\n\u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9, 68.\n\nLouvain Vulgate, _see_ Hentenius.\n\nLucar, Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, and afterwards of Constantinople,\n            97-8.\n\nMabug, II. 25.\n\nMace, W., his N. T., II. 210.\n\nMadden, Sir F., 21, 44.\n\nMagee, W., Abp., II. 251.\n\nMahaffy, J. P., 166.\n\nMai, Angelo, Cardinal, 111 _n_ 2, 112-15.\n\nMalan, S. C., D.D., 77 _n_ 2; II. 3, 32 _n_ 2,\n120 _n_ 1, 146 _n_ 2, &c.\n\nManuscripts\u2014\n  (1) Greek. _See_ Index I, Vol. I: containing the whole Greek Testament,\n              72 and _n_ 1;\n    containing the four Gospels complete, 136.\n  (2) Syriac, II. 12-13, 29.\n  (3) Latin.\n    (a) Old Latin (_a_, _b_, _c_, _d_, &c.), II. 45-54.\n    (b) Vulgate, II. 67-90;\n       various notations (Tischendorf, _am._, _and._, _bodl._, _cav._,\n                   &c.), 89-90.\n  (4) Coptic.\n    (a) Bohairic, II. 110-23.\n    (b) Sahidic, II. 132-6.\n  (5) Gothic (Argenteus, Carolinus, Ambrosiani), II. 146-7.\n  (6) Armenian, II. 153-4.\n\nMarcion, heretic, II. 259-60.\n\nMargoliouth, Prof. D. G., II. 145, 154-5, 161-4.\n\nMarsh, Herbert, Bp., 127; II. 191, 401 _n_, 407.\n\nMarshall, Th., II. 106, 147.\n\nMartianay, D. J., II. 46, 47.\n\nMartin, Abb\u00e9, 242, 269-72, 303, 317, Append. A; II. 28 _n_ 1.\n\n\u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, II. 192, 194.\n\nMartyrs, era of, 98, 104 _n_ 1.\n\nMary Deipara, St., convent of, 145.\n\nMaterials for writing, 22-6.\n\nMatthaei, Ch. F., II. 216-20; I. 75, 172;\n  his accuracy, II. 216;\n  his collations, 217-8;\n  mode of controversy, 218-9.\n\n\u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, orthography of, II. 316.\n\nMazarin Bible, II. 61, 175.\n\nMcClellan, J. B., 347 _n_ 2.\n\nMemphitic version (_see_ Bohairic).\n\nMenology, 76-7;\n  list of, throughout the year, 87-9.\n\nMesrop, St., II. 148-53, 156.\n\nMichaelis, J. D., II. 13, 180, 216, 321.\n\nMico, Abbate, 110-11.\n\nMiddleton, T. F., Bp., 15; II. 182 _n_ 2, 321, 331 _n_.\n\nMill, Dr. J., II. 200-3;\n  his career, 200-1;\n  character of his services, 201-2;\n  his MSS., 202-3;\n  his Prolegomena, 203.\n  _See_ also I. 122; II. 106, 169, and _passim_.\n\nMiller, Edward, II. 3 _n_ 2, 24 _n_ 2, 256 _n_, 325 _n_ 2.\n\nMiller, Emmanuel, 222, 273, I. Index II, &c.\n\nMilligan, Wm., II. 346.\n\nMingarelli, J. A., II. 128, 129.\n\nMoldenhawer, D. G., II. 221, 222, &c.\n\nMonasteries, Egyptian, II. 99.\n\nMontfaucon, Bernard de, 21, 134, and _passim_.\n\nMorning hymn, Greek, II. 345.\n\nMoses of Chorene, II. 149, &c.\n\nMoulton, W. F., II. 319-20.\n\nMoveable type, supposed cases of, 140; II. 146.\n\nMozarabic Church Lessons, II. 341 _n_ 3.\n\nM\u00fcnter, M. F., II. 129.\n\nMuralt, Edw. de, edition of B, 110, 244.\n\nMusical or vocal notes in red, _passim_ under Evst.\n\nN, abridged form of, 50.\n\n\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03ba\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd or attached, 139; II. 181, 185, 314-5, &c.\n\nNablous, copy of Samaritan Pentateuch at, 28 _n_ 2.\n\nNazarenes, Gospel of, 161.\n\nNazareth, its orthography, II. 315.\n\nNeubauer, Dr., II. 320 _n_.\n\nNicholson, E. B., 245, 341; II. 322 _n_ 2, 327.\n\nNicoll, Prof. of Hebrew, Oxford, 98.\n\nNitrian desert, manuscripts from, 145.\n\nNolan, Dr., II. 267.\n\nNorthumbria, MSS. written in, II. 59.\n\nNotation of manuscripts of N. T., 77-8.\n\nObeli, II. 26 _n_ 1, 323, 365-6, &c.\n\nOblak, II. 159.\n\nOecumenii \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 to N. T., &c., 67, also under the MSS.\n\nOld Latin Biblical Texts, II. 48, 49, 50.\n\nOld Latin version, _see_ Versions.\n\nOmissions, 7, 15.\n\nOrder of books in N. T., 72-4;\n  Western order, 73 _n_ 2, Evan. 461.\n\nOrder of words, variations in, 9.\n\nOrigen, fanciful biblical speculations, II. 262-3, 266, 269-70, 271.\n\nOrigen, his Hexapla, II. 266.\n\nOrme\u2019s memoir of 1 John v. 7, II. 401 _n_.\n\nOrthodox readings, not improbable, II. 251-2.\n\nOrthography of manuscripts of N. T., II. 312-20.\n\nOstromir Gospels, II. 159.\n\nPalaeographical Society, I. App. B.\n\nPalestinian, _see_ Versions.\n\nPalimpsest described, 25; double, 141.\n\nPalmer, E., Archdn., 119 _n_; II. 208, 243.\n\nPamphilus, Martyr, and his library, II. 266-7.\n\nPaper, cotton and linen, 23.\n\nPapyrus, 23-4; MSS. on, 33;\n  of Hyperides, 41, 44, 48.\n  _See_ Herculanean Rolls.\n\nParadiplomatic evidence, II. 253-4.\n\nParagraph, 128. _See_ Sections.\n\nParchment, 23-6; dyed purple, 26.\n\nParonomasia, II. 399 _n_ 2.\n\nParticles omitted or interchanged, 14.\n\nPatriarchates, the five, 67, Evan. 211.\n\nPaul, Acts of, 97.\n\nPauline Epistles (Paul.), ancient divisions of, 64-6, 78.\n\nPenn, Granville, 15 _n_ 1.\n\nPens, different instruments used for, 27.\n\nPericopae of Church Lessons, 11, 75. _See_ Bengel.\n\nPericope adulterae, 81 _n_, 99 _n_ 2.\n\nPersic versions of N. T., II. 165-6. _See_ Versions.\n\nPeshitto, II. 6-14. _See_ Versions.\n\nPetrie, Dr. Flinders, II. 143.\n\nPhilodemus \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, 30, 33, 44.\n\nPhiloxenian Syriac, II. 25-9. _See_ Versions, Harkleian.\n\nPhiloxenus or Xenaias, Bp., II. 25.\n\nPictures in MSS., 190, and _passim_.\n\nPierius, II. 269.\n\nPius IV, II. 63.\n\nPlantin, Greek N. T., II. 181;\n  Peshitto N. T., II. 9.\n\nPlato, dated manuscript of, in the Bodleian, 42.\n\nPocock, Edw., II. 165.\n\nPocock, Rev. Nicholas, 182.\n\nPococke, Richard, II. 26.\n\nPolyglott, Antwerp (Plantin), II. 9.\n\nPolyglott, Bagster\u2019s, II. 11.\n\nPolyglott, Complutensian (_see_ Complutensian), II. 176-81.\n\nPolyglott, London (_see_ Walton), II. 163.\n\nPolyglott, Paris, II. 10.\n\nPorson, R., II. 406.\n\nPorter, J. Scott, II. 31, 228.\n\nPraxapostolos, _see_ Apostolos.\n\nPrinting, invention of, II. 61, 175.\n\n\u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, Evan. 597.\n\nPrologues, 67, 68, 190, and _passim_.\n\n\u201cPsalms of Solomon,\u201d 99.\n\nPsalters, Greek, first printed, II. 175.\n\nPsalters, MS. on papyrus, 46.\n\nPunchard, E. G., II. 248 _n_ 2.\n\nPunctuation, 48-9, and _passim_.\n\nPurple and gold or silver manuscripts, 27.\n\nPusey, Philip E., II. 12, 18, 19.\n\nQuarto, _see_ Form.\n\nQuaternion, _see_ Form.\n\nQuatrem\u00e8re, _see_ Coptic.\n\nQuotations from Fathers, II. 167-74. _See_ Fathers.\n\nQuotations from Old Test. in New, 12-13.\n\nReceived Text, II. 264; founded on what editions, II. 195 _n_ 3, 193 _n_\n            1.\n\nRecension, false, 16-17; recensions, _see_ Families.\n\nReed used for writing, 27.\n\nReiche, J. G., II. 283 _n_.\n\n\u1fec\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u1fb3 or \u1fe5\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, 65, 68-9, App. D.\n\nRettig, H. C. M., 157.\n\nReuchlin, J., 10 _n_.\n\nReuss, Ed., II. 175 _n_, 181 _n_, &c.\n\nRevised Text, II. 243.\n\nRevisers, the two, II. 292-6.\n\nRhythm, cause of various readings, II. 254.\n\nRidley, Gloucester, II. 27.\n\nRoberts, Alex., 18 _n_ 1; II. 244 _n_ 2, 248 _n_ 1, 320 _n_.\n\nRolled manuscripts, 28-9.\n\nR\u00f6nsch, H., II. 54.\n\nRosetta stone, 31, &c.\n\nRulotta, Abbate, 110.\n\n\u03a3, the weak, II. 315.\n\nSabatier, P., II. 42. _See_ under Lat. MSS.\n\n\u03a3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03af, 328, &c.\n\nSahak, St., 148, &c.\n\nSahidic or Thebaic dialect and version, II. 119-39. _See_ Versions.\n\nSakkelion, A. I., 272.\n\nSanday, Dr., II. 48, 127, 293.\n\nSarravianus, Cod. LXX, 49 _n_, 51; II. 378. Part of the Colbert\n            Pentateuch.\n\nSchaaf, Ch., and Leusden, J., Peshitto N. T., II. 181, 183.\n\nSchmeller, J. A., Frankish version, II. 165.\n\nScholz, J. M. A., 240; II. 226-30;\n  labours, 227; character, 228; theory of families, 229-30, and _passim_.\n\nSchulz, D., II. 48, 228.\n\nSchwartze, M. G., Bohairic N. T., &c., II. 101-3.\n\nScott, C. B., D.D., II. 198.\n\nScribes, chiefly clergy or monks, II. 252.\n\nScrivener, F. H. A., his Collations, _see_ Vol. I. Index II;\n  edition of D, 127, &c.;\n  of Cod. Augiensis, 177-8;\n  of Revised Gr. Text, II. 243;\n  of \u201cAdversaria et Critica Sacra,\u201d I. App. I, I. 252.\n  _See_ also II. 79, 195 _n_ 3, 243, and _passim_.\n\nSections,\n  (1) in B, 56-7;\n  (2) greater, 57-8;\n  (3) \u201cAmmonian,\u201d 59-63;\n  (4) Euthalian, 63-4;\n  (5) other, 64-5.\n\nSemicursive letters, Evan. M, 274.\n\nSemler, J. S., II. 211, 215.\n\nSignatures of sheets, 28, 164.\n\nSilver, used in writing, 27.\n\nSilvestre, M. J. B., Pal\u00e9ographie Universelle, 21, &c., App. C.\n\nSimonides, Constantine, 94-7\u00b7\n\nSinaitic MS. (\u05d0), 90-7;\n  discovery of, 90-1;\n  description, 91-3;\n  age, 94-5;\n  derived from a papyrus, 95;\n  imposture of Simonides, 95-7;\n  character of, 97; II. 267-8.\n\nSionita, Gabriel, Peshitto N. T., &c., II. 10.\n\nSixtus V, Pope, his Latin Bible, II. 63-5.\n\nSkeat, W. W., II. 148, 164.\n\nSlavonic, II. 158-61. _See_ Versions.\n\nSlips of the pen, a source of various readings, 16.\n\nSmith, R. Payne, Dean, II. 354.\n\nSociety for Promoting Christian Knowledge, II. 103.\n\nSpecimens of four Syriac versions of N. T., II. 38-40.\n\nSpecimens of the Coptic, II. 128, 139, 142, 144.\n\n\u201cSpectator,\u201d No. 470, II. 345 _n_.\n\nSpelling, variations in, 14.\n\nStandish, II. 186.\n\nStephen, Henry, 70.\n\nStephen, Robert, II. 188-92; I. 70-1, 124-6, 137; II. 61-2, 196.\n\nStephen, Robert, editions, II. 188-9;\n  MSS. used by him, I. 124 _n_ 3, 191, 192, 196, Act. 8, Act. 50, Apoc. 2.\n\nStichometry, 52-4, 65, 68-70, 137, I. App. D, and _passim_.\n\nStilus, 27, 137.\n\n\u03a3\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9, _see_ Stichometry.\n\nStops, their power varies with their position, 48, 137.\n\nStorr, G. C., II. 163.\n\nStreane, A. W., II. 241.\n\nStunica, J., Lopez de, II. 184, 186, 405.\n\nStyle, change of, no decisive proof of spuriousness, II. 342.\n\nSubjunctive future, II. 384.\n\nSubscriptions, 55, 65-6, 190, and _passim_ under MSS.\n\nSuicer, J. C., 53 _n_ 1, 144.\n\nSulci or Sulca, 63.\n\nSwete, Dr., II. 286, 393 _n_ 4.\n\nSynaxarion, 77 and _n_ 1;\n  list of Lessons throughout the year, 80-7.\n\nSynonyms interchanged, 13.\n\nSyriac Evangelistaries, II. 32, App. A.\n\nSyriac language and dialects, II. 6-8, 312-3.\n\nSyrian Christians, sects of, II. 6-33.\n\nSyro-hexaplar version, II. 13 _n_ 1.\n\nTatham, Edw., II. 402 _n_ 2.\n\nTatian\u2019s Diatessaron, 12, 57, 59, &c.\n\nTattam, H., Archd., II. 110.\n\nTaylor, Isaac, 18 _n_ 2.\n\nTentative process commended, II. 264-5.\n\nTertullian, II. 257.\n\nTextual Canons, II. 247-56.\n\nTextual criticism and its results, 4-7; II. 257-301.\n\nTextus receptus, _see_ Received Text.\n\nThebaic, _see_ Sahidic.\n\nThecla, St., 101-2.\n\nTheodora, or Theodosia, St., 87 and _n_ 2.\n\nTheodulphus, Bp., II. 59.\n\nTheophylact, _see_ Commentary.\n\nThompson, E. Maunde, 22, 102, 104, 147 _n_, App. C.\n\nThorpe, Benj., Anglo-Saxon Gospels, II. 165.\n\nTischendorf, II. 235-8;\n  his great editions, 235-6;\n  texts, 236-8; I. 115-7, 122, 155-6, 159-60, 163; II. 89, 163, 248, 282;\n  collations, _see_ Vol. I. Index II, and _passim_.\n\nTitles of the books, 65.\n\n\u03a4\u03af\u03c4\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, 57-9, 68, 190, _passim_ under MSS.\n\nTodd, H. J., Archd., Catalogue of Lambeth MSS., 249.\n\nTraditores, II. 266.\n\nTranscription, _see_ Copying.\n\nTransposition of sentences, 12.\n\nTransposition of words, &c., 9-10.\n\nTravis, G., Archd., II. 401 _n_, 406 and _n_ 2.\n\nTregelles, S. P., 18 _n_ 1, 111; II. 238-41;\n  his books, 239;\n  texts and collations, 240;\n  his system, 240-1;\n  life, 241; 170, 231-2, 246, 255, 273, 275, 328, and _passim_.\n  _See_ also for Collations, Vol. I. Index II.\n\nTremellius, Im., Peshitto N. T., II. 9.\n\nTrent, Council of, II. 63.\n\n\u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, 103.\n\nTrost, Martin, Peshitto N. T., II. 10.\n\nT\u00fcbingen edition of John i-vi, II. 176.\n\nTuki, R., Bp., II. 128.\n\nTwo Revisers, II. 292-6.\n\nTychsen, O. G., II. 221, 222.\n\nTyler, A. W., II. 383.\n\nTyndale, W., II. 186 _n_ 1.\n\nTypicum defined, 144, Evan. 608.\n\nUlphilas or Ulfilas, Bp., II. 145.\n\nUncial letters, described, 29-30;\n  mistakes in, 10;\n  how distinguished as to age, 31-40;\n  compressed uncials, 137;\n  mixed with cursives, 142 _n_ 1.\n\nUncial MSS., list of, 90-188, 3; Evst., 328.\n\n\u1f5d\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af (subdivisions of chapters), 64 _n_ 2.\n\nUssher, James, Abp., II. 10, 197-8.\n\nUtrecht Psalter, the, 28 _n_ 2.\n\nValla, Laurentius, 205.\n\nVansittart, A. A., 152, 278 _n_.\n\nVarious readings defined, 3;\n  different classes, 7-17.\n\nVatican MS. (B), 105-121; sections of, 56-7, 68;\n  history, 105;\n  description, 105-9;\n  collations and editions, 109-19;\n  age, 105, 118 _n_ 2;\n  character, II. 268.\n\nVaughan, C. J., Dean, II. 297 _n_ 1.\n\nVellum, manufacture of, 22-5.\n\nVercellone, C., 56, 112, 113, 116-18.\n\nVermilion paint (\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bd\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2), 61.\n\nVerses, Greek or Latin in MSS., 192, _passim_ under MSS.\n\nVerses, modern in N. T., 68, 70-1.\n\nVersions, 1-5; use and defects, II. 2-3; various early, 3-4.\n\n1. Syriac:\n\n(1) Peshitto, II. 6-14;\n  dates probably from the second century, II. 7, 264;\n  printed edd., II. 8-12;\n  new one by P. E. Pusey and G. H. Gwilliam, Peshitto MSS., II. 12-13;\n  why so called, II. 13.\n\n(2) Curetonian, II. 14-24;\n  first discovery, II. 14;\n  second, II. 14;\n  publication by Cureton, 11;\n  common origin of Peshitto and Curetonian, II. 16;\n  Peshitto the older, II. 17-24.\n\n(3) Harkleian or Philoxenian, II. 25-9;\n  made first by Xenaias, or Philoxenus, 25;\n  next, collated by Thomas of Harkel, edd. of, 26-8;\n  character, 28;\n  MSS. of, 29;\n  Mr. Deane\u2019s work, 29.\n\n(4) Palestinian or Jerusalem, II. 30-4;\n  fragments, esp. of an Evst., 30;\n  description, 30;\n  Erizzi\u2019s edition, 31;\n  menology, 32-3;\n  Lagarde, Harris, and Gwilliam, 34.\n\n(5) Karkaphensian or Massorah, II. 34-6;\n  discovered by Wiseman, 34;\n  description, 34-6;\n  a Massorah, 36.\n\n2. Latin, II. 41-90:\n\n(1) Old Latin, 41-56; many versions (3 _n_ 2) (Jerome, Augustine), 41-2;\n  probably one, 42-3\u2014but cf. 3 _n_ 2;\n  \u201cItala,\u201d arose in Africa, 43-4;\n  age, 264;\n  Old Latin MSS. of the Gospels, 45-51;\n  Act. and Cath., 51-3;\n  Paul., 53-4;\n  Apoc., 54;\n  Latin Fathers, 54;\n  African family, 55;\n  European, 55;\n  Italian, 55-6.\n\n(2) Vulgate, II. 56-90;\n  history, 56-65;\n  text often incorrect, 58-9;\n  revisions, 59;\n  correctoria, 60-1;\n  printing, 63;\n  authorized recension, 63-5;\n  editions, 65-6; MSS., 66-89;\n  Bibles, 67-74;\n  New Testaments, 74-5;\n  Gospels, 75-85;\n  Acts, Epistles, Apoc., 85-9;\n  notations, 89-90.\n\n3. Egyptian or Coptic versions, 91-145;\n  history and description, 91-106;\n  sacred and demotic writing, 91-3;\n  Coptic, 92-6; dialects, 96-106;\n  at least five instead of three, 103-6:\n\n(1) Bohairic (Coptic or Memphitic), 106-27;\n  editions, 106-10; MSS.,\n  Gospels, 110-18,\u2014Paul., Cath., and Act., 118-21, Apoc. 121-3;\n  all except Apoc. in the Canon;\n  order of books, 124;\n  character, 124-5;\n  date, 125-7.\n\n(2) Sahidic or Thebaic, 127-39;\n  editions, 127-32;\n  MSS., 132-6;\n  order of books, 137-8;\n  character, 138-9.\n\n(3) Fayoumic or Bashmuric, 140-1.\n\n(4) Middle Egyptian or Middle Coptic, or Lower Sahidic, 141-3.\n\n(5) Akhmimic, 143-4.\n\n4. Other old versions, 145-66:\n\n(1) Gothic, history, 145;\n  MSS., 146-7;\n  editions, 147-8.\n\n(2) Armenian, history, 148-51;\n  collation, 151-2;\n  character of text, 152-3;\n  MSS., 153-4.\n\n(3) Ethiopic, date and MSS., 154-5;\n  editions, 155.\n\n(4) Georgian, history and MSS., 156;\n  editions, 157;\n  character, 157-8.\n\n(5) Slavonic, history and divisions, 158;\n  MSS., 159-60;\n  character, 160-1.\n\n(6) Arabic, history and MSS., 161-2;\n  editions, 162-3;\n  character, 163-4.\n\n(7) Anglo-Saxon, history, MSS., and editions, 164-5.\n\n(8) Frankish, 165.\n\n(9) Persic, versions and MSS., 165-6.\n\nVossius, Isaac, II. 146.\n\nVulgate version, II. 56-96. _See_ Versions.\n\nWake, Wm., Abp., his MSS., 204 _n_, 246-8.\n\nWalker, John, II. 206-9; I. 248 _n_; II. 65, 89.\n\nWaller, Rev. Dr., II. 21 _n_ 2.\n\nWalton, Brian, Bp., II. 10, 165 (Persic), 197-8.\n\nWard, W. H., II. 394 _n_ 2.\n\nWestcott, B. F., D.D., Bp., 59 _n_ 2; II. 242, 258 _n_ 1, &c. _See_ Hort.\n\nWestern text, II. 264, 138, 224-6, 229-30, 231 _n_, 264-5, 272 _n_,\n            286-73;\n  interpolations, 130; II. 264, 330. _See_ Apocryphal insertions.\n\nWetstein, J. J., II. 213-16; I. 78 _n_, 122, 209, 210, 247, and _passim_.\n\nWheelocke, Abr., II. 165.\n\nWhite, E., 151.\n\nWhite, H. J., Rev., II. 41-90, 66, 69, 71, 80, 85.\n\nWhite, Joseph, II. 27.\n\nWidmanstadt, Albert, Peshitto N. T., II. 8-9.\n\nWilkins, D., Coptic N. T., II. 106-7.\n\nWiner, G. B., II. 284 _n_.\n\nWiseman, N., Card., 112; II. 34, 42, 406 _n_ 2.\n\nWoide, C. G., 103; II. 129-31, 215, &c.\n\nWoods, F. H., Rev., 21.\n\nWordsworth, C., Rev., 69.\n\nWordsworth, Chr., Bp., D.D., 17; II. 381-2, &c. &c.\n\nWordsworth, J., Bp., D.D., 41-90, 66, 90.\n\nWright, W., Dr., II. 155.\n\nWriting, style of, 15; slips of the pen, 16.\n\nXenaias or Philoxenus, _see_ Versions.\n\nXimenes, Fr. de Cisneros, Card., II. 176-81, 184.\n\nYear, Greek ecclesiastical, 80-9.\n\nYoung, Patrick, 103, 123.\n\nZacagni, L. A., 110.\n\nZacynthius, Cod., II. 365 _n_ 2.\n\nZahn, Dr., II. 21.\n\nZahn, J. C., Gothic N. T. II. 147.\n\nZoega, G., Cat. Codd. Copt., II. 131-2.\n\nZouche, de la, Lord, _see_ Curzon.\n\nZurich Psalter, 16 _n_.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n    1 See Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, ii. \u201cEvidence of Early Versions\n      and Patristic Quotations, &c.,\u201d by the Rev. Ll. J. M. Bebb, M.A., p.\n      211. In this chapter, which from press reasons has been curtailed, I\n      am glad to refer to Mr. Bebb\u2019s careful and thoughtful essay.\n\n    2 I cannot help expressing my strong opinion that there were a great\n      many distinct Latin versions, and that they had a great many sources\n      of origin:\u2014briefly speaking,\n\n      (_a_) Because of the testimony of Augustine and Jerome;\n\n      (_b_) Because Latin translations from the first _must_ have been\n      wanted everywhere, and must have been constantly supplied. On the\n      one hand the bilingualism prevalent in the Roman Empire would ensure\n      a large number of translators: and on the other the want of accurate\n      Greek scholarship would account for the numerous errors found in and\n      propagated by the old Latin manuscripts. Copies of one translation\n      could not in those days have been supplied in every place adequately\n      to the want;\n\n      (_c_) Because of the multitude of synonyms to be found in Old Latin\n      MSS.;\n\n      (_d_) Because on almost all disputed passages Old Latin evidence can\n      be quoted on both sides;\n\n      (_e_) Because the various MSS. differ so thoroughly that each MS. is\n      quoted as resting upon its own authority, and no one standard has\n      been reached or is in view, the utmost that has been done in this\n      respect being to group them.\n\n      But see next chapter: this is an undecided question.\u2014ED.\n\n    3 Duval, Grammaire Syriaque, p. xi.\n\n    4 Dr. Neubauer in Studia Biblica, vol. i. (Clarendon Press), \u201cThe\n      Dialects of Palestine in the time of Christ,\u201d distinguishes between\n      (1) Babylonian Aramaic, (2) Galilaean Aramaic, (3) the purer Aramaic\n      spoken at Jerusalem, and (4) modernized Hebrew also used at\n      Jerusalem.\n\n    5 I cannot agree with Dr. Field (Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt,\n      Proleg. lxxvii, 1874) that the Peshitto is not the Syriac version\n      here quoted by Melito; but, while he admits a frequent resemblance\n      between it and the renderings imputed to \u201cthe Syrian,\u201d he certainly\n      produces not a few instances of diversity between the two. Besides\n      Theodoret, who often opposes \u1f41 \u03a3\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 to \u1f41 \u0395\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 (Thren. 1. 15 and\n      passim), Field notes the following writers as citing the\n      former,\u2014Didymus, Diodorus, Eusebius of Emesa, Polychronius,\n      Apollinarius, Chrysostom, Procopius (ibid. p. lxvii).\n\n    6 All modern accounts of the unorthodox sects of the East confirm\n      Walton\u2019s gracious language two hundred years ago: \u201cEtsi ver\u00f2, olim\n      in haereses miser\u00e8 prolapsi, se a reliquis Ecclesiae Catholicae\n      membris separarint, unde justo Dei judicio sub Infidelium jugo\n      oppressi serviunt, qui ipsis dominantur, ex continuis tamen\n      calamitatibus edocti et sapientiores redditi (est enim Schola Crucis\n      Schola Lucis) tandem eorum misertus Misericordiarum Pater eos ad\n      rectam sanamque mentem, rejectis antiquis erroribus, reduxit\u201d\n      (Walton, Prolegomena, Wrangham, Tom. ii. p. 500).\n\n    7 Dean Payne Smith\u2019s Catalogue, pp. 109-112. In the great Cambridge\n      manuscript (Oo. I. 1, 2) the Epistles of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and\n      Jude follow 1 John, and are continued on the same quire, as Mr.\n      Bradshaw reports.\n\n    8 See an admirable paper by Dr. Gwynn in \u201cTransactions of the Royal\n      Irish Academy,\u201d xxvii. 8, \u201cOn a Syriac MS. belonging to Archbishop\n      Ussher.\u201d This MS. was procured for Ussher in 1626 by T. Davies, lent\n      to De Dieu, who used it in 1631, and is now in Trinity College\n      Library, Dublin.\n\n    9 Yet, besides his error of judgement in bringing into the Peshitto\n      text such passages as we have just enumerated, Schaaf follows the\n      Paris and London Polyglotts when interpolating \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd Apoc.\n      xxi. 24, although the words had been omitted by De Dieu (1627) and\n      Gutbier (1664).\n\n   10 Compare the Printed Editions of the Syriac New Testament, _Church\n      Quarterly Review_, vol. xxvi, no. lii, 1888, and a Bibliographical\n      Appendix by Prof. Isaac H. Hall to Dr. Murdock\u2019s Translation of the\n      Peshitto.\n\n   11 Tregelles in \u201cSmith\u2019s Dictionary of the Bible\u201d thinks that the term\n      was originally applied to the Syriac version of the Hebrew Old\n      Testament, in order to discriminate between it and the Greek\n      Hexapla, or the Syro-hexaplar translation derived from it, with\n      their apparatus of obeli and asterisks. To this view Dr. Field adds\n      his weighty authority (Origenis Hexapla, Proleg. p. ix, note 1),\n      adding that for this reason the pure Septuagint version also is\n      called \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd (1 Kings vii. 13; xii. 22), to distinguish its\n      rendering from what is given \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f11\u03be\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u1ff7. The epithet which was\n      proper to the Old Testament in course of time attached itself to the\n      New.\n\n   12 \u0726\u072b\u071d\u072c\u072c\u0710 or \u0710\u072c\u072c\u071d\u072b\u0726, versio vulgata, popularis, Thes. Syr. 3319.\n\n   13 A full list of editions of all the Syriac versions is given in the\n      Syriac Grammar of Nestle (tr. Kennedy), Litteratura, pp. 17-30.\n\n   14 \u201cRemains of a very ancient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac,\n      hitherto unknown in Europe, discovered, edited, and translated by\n      William Cureton, D.D. ... Canon of Westminster,\u201d 4to, London, 1858.\n      _See_ also Wright\u2019s description of the MSS. in Catalogue of Syriac\n      MSS. in the British Museum, vol. i. pp. 73-5.\n\n   15 Less able writers than Dr. Cureton have made out a strong, though\n      not a convincing case, for the Hebrew origin of St. Matthew\u2019s\n      Gospel, and thus far his argument is plausible enough. To\n      demonstrate that the version he has discovered is based upon that\n      Hebrew original, at least so far as to be a modification of it and\n      not a translation from the Greek, he has but a single plea that will\n      bear examination, viz. that out of the many readings of the Hebrew\n      or Nazarene Gospel with which we are acquainted, his manuscript\n      agrees with it in the one particular of inserting the _three kings_,\n      ch. i. 8, though even here the number of _fourteen_ generations\n      retained in ver. 17 shows them to be an interpolation. Such cases as\n      _Juda_, ch. ii. 1; _Ramtha_, ver. 18; \u0715 for \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 or the relative, ch.\n      xiii. 16, can prove nothing, as they are common to the Curetonian\n      with the Peshitto, from which version they may very well have been\n      derived.\n\n   16 The title to St. Matthew is remarkable; for while (in the\n      subscription) we read, \u201cGospel of Markos,\u201d and \u201cGospel of Juchanan\u201d\n      occurs, as in other Syriac MSS., to St. Matthew is prefixed the\n      title \u201cEvangeliom dampharsa Mattai.\u201d The meaning of the second word\n      is doubtful in this application. The root means _divide_,\n      _distinguish_, _separate_\u2014cf. Daniel v. 28. Cureton (Pref. vi) says\n      (1) that the great authority Bernstein suggested \u201cEvangelium per\n      anni circulum dispositum.\u201d This is inapplicable, because the copy is\n      not set out in Church Lessons, although some are noted by a much\n      later hand in the margins. (2) Cureton himself, noticing a defect in\n      the vellum before \u0721\u072c\u071d (or \u071d\u072c\u0721), would read \u0715\u0721\u072c\u071d (or \u071d\u072c\u0721\u0715), and\n      render \u201cThe distinct Gospel of Matthew.\u201d This he understood to\n      indicate that the translation of Matthew had a different origin from\n      the other books, and was \u201cbuilt upon the original Aramaic text,\n      which was the work of the Apostle himself.\u201d But there is nothing to\n      justify the insertion of a \u0715, which is required to connect the title\n      with the following name. The title belongs to the whole work,\n      \u201cEvangeliom dampharsa\u2014Mattai\u201d [Catalogue Brit. Mus. _l. c._]; the\n      other names being preceded by \u201cEvangeliom\u201d only. (3) \u201cDampharsa\u201d has\n      been rendered \u201cexplained\u201d [see the review in \u201cJournal of Sacred\n      Literature,\u201d 1858], viz. from the text of the Peshitto; and this, as\n      we shall see presently, agrees with the character of the Curetonian,\n      for it abounds in deliberate alterations. But (4) from the\n      quotations and references in the \u201cThesaurus Syriacus\u201d (R. Payne\n      Smith), col. 3304, it seems almost certain that the epithet means\n      \u201cseparated,\u201d as opposed to \u201cunited in a Harmony.\u201d Such, of course,\n      the Codex Curetonianus is, but further evidence is required to\n      justify the inference that the Curetonian was the offspring of\n      Tatian\u2019s Harmony, and became the parent of the Peshitto, an opinion\n      in large measure contradicted by the character of the translation.\n\n   17 \u201cSi nous devons en croire Scrivener, la version syriaque dite\n      _Peshitto_ s\u2019accorde bien plus avec lui [Cod. A] qu\u2019avec (B).\u201d (Les\n      Livres Saints, &c., Pau et Vevey, 1872, Pr\u00e9face, p. iii.) The fact\n      is notoriously true, and of course rests not on Scrivener\u2019s\n      evidence, but on universal consent.\n\n   18 The student may also consult:\u2014Evangelienfragmente, F. Baethgen,\n      1885. Disputatio de cod. Evangg. Syr. Curetoniano, Hermansen, 1859.\n      Lehir\u2019s Etude, Paris, 1859. Dr. Harman in Journal of the Society of\n      Biblical Literature, Boston, 1885. Zeitschrift des Morgenl\u00e4ndische\n      Gesellschaft, 1859, p. 472. Dr. Wildeboer in De Waarde der Syrische\n      Evangeli\u00ebn (Leiden, 1880) gives three pages of the literature of the\n      question.\n\n   19 Cureton, Preface, pp. xi, xciii.\n\n   20 Brit. Mus. Add. 12,138\u2014_see_ p. 36.\n\n   21 So Roediger in Z.M.D.G., b. 16, p. 550, instances \u0710\u071a\u0722\u0722 (or \u0722\u0722\u071a\u0710);\n      but it proves nothing, for the form occurs also in old Peshitto MSS.\n\n   22 Pages 164-5.\n\n   23 Pages 171-2.\n\n   24 Some of the Homilies of Aphraates were composed between 337 and 345.\n      Ephraem died A.D. 373. Bickell, Conspectus, p. 18.\n\n   25 Page 14.\n\n   26 In the following paragraphs we quote from a MS. exhibiting the\n      results of investigations made by the Rev. Dr. Waller, Principal of\n      St. John\u2019s Hall, Highbury, who has most generously permitted us to\n      make use of his labours.\n\n   27 For other like cases see Mat. iv. 11, 21; v. 12, 47, in the\n      Curetonian.\n\n   28 The forms in which O. T. quotations appear in the Curetonian demand\n      attention, as they seem to suggest similar inferences.\n\n   29 E.g. in the transposition of the Beatitudes in St. Matt. v. 4, 5.\n\n   30 Since the discovery of the Curetonian version in Syriac by\n      Archdeacon Tattam in 1842 and Canon Cureton, some Textualists have\n      maintained that it was older than the Peshitto on these main\n      grounds:\u2014\n\n      1. Internal evidence proves that the Peshitto cannot have been the\n      original text.\n\n      2. The Curetonian is just such a text as may have been so, and would\n      have demanded revision.\n\n      3. The parallels of the Latin texts which were revised in the\n      Vulgate suggests an authoritative revision between A.D. 250 and 350.\n\n      These arguments depend upon a supposed historical parallel, and\n      internal evidence.\n\n      The parallel upon examination turns out to be illusory:\u2014\n\n      1. There was a definite recorded revision of the Latin Texts, but\n      none of the Syrian. If there had been, it must have left a trace in\n      history.\n\n      2. There was an \u201cinfinita varietas\u201d (August. De Doctr. Christ., ii.\n      11) of discordant Latin texts, but only one Syriac, so far as is\n      known.\n\n      3. Badness in Latin texts is just what we should expect amongst\n      people who were poor Greek scholars, and lived at a distance. The\n      Syrians on the contrary were close to Judea, and Greek had been\n      known among them for centuries. It was not likely that within reach\n      of the Apostles and almost within their lifetime a version should be\n      made so bad as to require to be thrown off afterwards.\n\n      As to internal evidence, the opinion of some experts is balanced by\n      the opinion of other experts (see Abb\u00e9 Martin, Des Versions\n      Syriennes, Fasc. 4). The position of the Peshitto as universally\n      received by Syrian Christians, and believed to date back to the\n      earliest times, is not to be moved by mere conjecture, and a single\n      copy of another version [or indeed by two copies]. Textual Guide,\n      Miller, 1885, p. 74, note 1.\n\n   31 On the order, functions, and decay of the \u03a7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, _see_\n      Bingham\u2019s \u201cAntiquities,\u201d book ii, chap. xiv.\n\n   32 Davidson, Bibl. Crit., vol. ii. p. 186, first edition. The Abb\u00e9\n      Martin (_see_ p. 323 note), after stating that this version was\n      never used by any Syrian sect save the Monophysites or Jacobites,\n      goes on to ask \u201cEst-ce \u00e0 dire que cette version soit entach\u00e9e de\n      monophysisme? Nous ne le pensons pas; pour l\u2019affirmer, il faudra\n      l\u2019examiner tr\u00e8s minutieusement; car l\u2019h\u00e9r\u00e9sie monophysite est, \u00e0\n      quelques points de vue, une des plus subtiles qui aient jamais paru\u201d\n      (Des Versions Syriennes, p. 162).\n\n   33 The asterisks ([symbol] [symbol]) and obeli ([symbol] [symbol]) of\n      this version will be observed in our specimens given below. Like the\n      similar marks in Origen\u2019s Hexapla (from which they were doubtless\n      borrowed), they have been miserably displaced by copyists; so that\n      their real purpose is a little uncertain. Wetstein, and after him\n      even Storr and Adler, refer them to changes made in the Harkleian\n      from the Peshitto: White more plausibly considers the asterisk to\n      intimate an addition to the text, the obelus to recommend a removal\n      from it.\n\n   34 \u201cSacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana, ex Codd. MSS.\n      Ridleianis in Bibliotheca Novi Collegii Oxon. repositis; nunc primum\n      edita, cum Interpretation Latin\u00e2 et Annotationibus Josephi White.\n      Oxonii e Typographeo Clarendoniano,\u201d 1778, 2 tom. 4to. And so for\n      the two later volumes. Ridley named that one of his manuscripts\n      which contains only the Gospels Codex Barsalibaei, as notes of\n      revision by that writer are found in it (e.g. John vii. 53-viii.\n      11). G. H. Bernstein has also published St. John\u2019s Gospel (Leipzig,\n      1853) from manuscripts in the Vatican. In or about 1877 Professor\n      Isaac H. Hall, an American missionary, discovered at Beer\u00fbt a\n      manuscript in the Estrangelo character, much mutilated (of which he\n      kindly sent me a photographed page containing the end of St. Luke\n      and the beginning of St. John), which in the Gospels follows the\n      Harkleian version, although the text differs much from White\u2019s, but\n      the rest of the N. T. is from the Peshitto. Dr. Hall has drawn up a\n      list of over 300 readings differing from White\u2019s.\n\n   35 Martin names as useful for the study of a version as yet too little\n      known, the Lectionaries Bodleian 43; Brit. Mus. Addit. 7170, 7171,\n      7172, 14,490, 14,689, 18,714; Paris 51 and 52; Rome, Vatic. 36 and\n      Barberini vi. 32.\n\n_   36 See_ also Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian version,\n      Acts and Epp. of the Peshitto version ... by the Monk John.\n      Presented to the Syrian Protestant College, &c., described with\n      phototyped facsimiles by Prof. Isaac H. Hall [viii-ix], ff. 219 + a\n      fragment at end. _Mut._ at beg. and end, &c. Written in old Jacobite\n      characters. Sent courteously to the Editor.\n\n   37 Thus also the termination of the definite state plural of nouns is\n      made in \u0710 [final form] for \u0710: the third person affix to plural nouns\n      in \u0718 for \u0717\u0718. In the compass of the six verses we have cited\n      (_below_, p. 39) occur not only the Greek words \u0718\u071d\u072a\u0718\u0723\u0710 (or \u0710\u0723\u0718\u072a\u071d\u0718)\n      (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2), _v._ 3, and \u0722\u0718\u0723\u0710 (or \u0710\u0723\u0718\u0722) (\u03bd\u03b1\u03cc\u03c2), _v._ 5, which are\n      common enough in all Syriac books, but such Palestinian words and\n      forms as \u0715\u071d (or \u071d\u0715) for \u0715\u071d\u0722 (or \u0722\u071d\u0715), \u03b4\u03ad (_vv._ 4, 6, 7); \u0712\u0712\u071d\u0722 (or\n      \u0722\u071d\u0712\u0712) _v._ 3, \u201cwhen;\u201d \u0710\u0717\u0710 _v._ 3, \u201crepented;\u201d \u0710\u0715\u0721\u0710 (or \u0710\u0721\u0715\u0710) for \u0715\u0721\u0710\n      (or \u0710\u0721\u0715) (_vv._ 4, 6, 8), \u201cblood;\u201d \u0725\u0725\u071d\u0722\u0717 (or \u0717\u0722\u071d\u0725\u0725), _v._ 4, \u201cto\n      us;\u201d \u0713\u072a\u0721\u0710 (or \u0710\u0721\u072a\u0713), _v._ 5, \u201chimself;\u201d \u0715\u0721\u071d\u0722 (or \u0722\u071d\u0721\u0715), _v._ 6,\n      \u201cprice\u201d (Pesh. has \u071b\u0721\u071d (or \u071d\u0721\u071b), Hark. \u071b\u071d\u0721\u0710 (or \u0710\u0721\u071d\u071b) (pl.) \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae);\n      \u0725\u0726\u071d\u0722 (or \u0722\u071d\u0726\u0725) _v._ 8, \u201ctherefore;\u201d \u0717\u0710\u0718 (or \u0718\u0710\u0717), _v._ 8, \u201cthis.\u201d\n\n   38 Hence the name by which this version is distinguished. For the\n      recensions of Targum and Talmud, _see_ Etheridge\u2019s \u201cHebrew\n      Literature,\u201d pp. 145-6, 195-7.\n\n   39 Dr. Hort\u2019s not very explicit judgement should now be added: \u201cThe\n      Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary has an entirely different text [from the\n      Harkleian], probably not altogether unaffected by the Syriac Vulgate\n      [meaning thereby the Peshitto], but more closely related to the Old\n      Syriac [meaning the Curetonian]. Mixture with one or more Greek\n      texts containing elements of every great type, but especially the\n      more ancient, has however given the whole a strikingly composite\n      character\u201d (Introd., p. 157).\n\n   40 On these readings, and those of the MSS. mentioned below (p. 34),\n      _see_ \u201cThe New Syriac Fragments\u201d (F. H. Woods), in the _Expository\n      Times_, Nov., 1893.\n\n_   41 See_ the \u201cLife and Times of Gregory the Illuminator, the Founder\n      and Patron Saint of the Armenian Church,\u201d translated by the Rev. S.\n      C. Malan, London, 1868.\n\n   42 Kept by the Greeks Oct. 23. Gale O. 4. 22 and other Greek\n      Evangelistaria commemorate this holiday.\n\n   43 Dec. 27 in the Western Calendar.\n\n   44 So Gale O. 4. 22, with the same Lesson.\n\n   45 See _Athenaeum_, Oct. 28, 1893.\n\n   46 Anecdota Oxoniensia, \u201cThe Palestinian Version of the Holy\n      Scripture;\u201d edited by G. H. Gwilliam, B.D.: Oxford, Clarendon Press,\n      1893.\n\n   47 The full form (\u071b\u0718\u0712\u0722\u0710 or \u0710\u0722\u0712\u0718\u071b _blessed_) occurs in the scholion to\n      Rom. viii. 15; Wiseman thought it meant the Peshitto; but see\n      \u201cStudia Biblica,\u201d iii. 60 and note.\n\n   48 Our specimens show the use in MSS. of _rucaca_ and _kushaia_, here\n      printed with fine points. The dots and dashes of the Nestorian\n      Massorah ore also shown.\n\n   49 Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, iii. 56.\n\n   50 The Codex Babylonicus, A.D. 916, is the oldest Old Testament MS.\n      known at present. Dr. Neubauer, Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., iii. 27.\n\n   51 Karkaphta = skull. See also \u201cThes. Syr.,\u201d col. 3762.\n\n   52 Mr. Gwilliam suggests that this may have been the well-known Thomas\n      Heracleensis. M. l\u2019Abb\u00e9 Martin (Tradition Karkaphienne, ou la\n      Massore chez les Syriens), who carefully studied the subject twenty\n      years ago, suggests Thomas of Edessa, teacher of Mar Abbas. _See_\n      Mr. Gwilliam\u2019s Essay in \u201cStud. Bibl. et Eccl.,\u201d iii. pp. 56-65.\n\n   53 \u201cHow the Codex was found\u201d (Lewis and Gibson), 1893.\n\n   54 Of no passage is this judgement more true than of this actual\n      sentence itself, which is hardly quoted in the same way in any three\n      MSS.; see Wordsworth\u2019s Vulgate, Fasc. 1, p. 2.\n\n   55 For _Itala_ Bentley conjectured _et illa_, changing the following\n      _nam_ into _quae_; and he wrote to Sabatier almost ridiculing the\n      idea of a \u201cVersio Italica;\u201d _see_ Correspondence, ed. Wordsworth,\n      1842, p. 569; and \u201cVersio Latina Italica, somnium merum,\u201d in Ellis,\n      Bentleii Critica Sacra, pp. 157-159; Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulgata,\n      Mainz, 1868, p. 116 f.; Abp. Potter conjectured _usitata_ for\n      _Itala_; _see_ Field, Otium Norvicense, pars tertia, p. 57.\n\n   56 Bibliorum Sacr. Latinae Versiones Ant. seu Vetus Italica etc. opera\n      et studio D. Petri Sabatier, 3 vols., Rheims, 1743-1749; a revised\n      edition of this great work, for the Old Test., is in course of\n      preparation under the auspices of the Munich Academy, and the able\n      superintendence of Professor E. W\u00f6lfflin.\n\n   57 Evangeliarium Quadruplex Latinae Versionis Antiquae, seu Veteris\n      Italicae, editum ex codicibus manuscriptis ... a Josepho Blanchino,\n      2 vols., Rome, 1749; reprinted by Migne, Patr. Lat. xii, with the\n      works of Eusebius Vercellensis.\n\n   58 That is, by scholars who did not live in Italy; Italian Christians\n      would use other names, _vetus_, _antiqua_, _usitata_, _communis_,\n      _vulgata_; Kaulen, p. 118, Berger, p. 6.\n\n   59 Published in the _Catholic Magazine_ for 1832-3; since reprinted in\n      his \u201cEssays on various subjects,\u201d 1853, vol. i.\n\n   60 We have let these sentences stand as Dr. Scrivener penned them in\n      1883; since that time the opinion of scholars has become less\n      positive as to the African origin of the Latin version. It is true\n      that the words, phrases, &c., of that version in its earlier forms\n      can be illustrated from contemporary African writers, and from them\n      only; but that is because during this period we are dependent almost\n      exclusively on Africa for our Latin literature; and consequently are\n      able to use only the method of _agreement_ and not the method of\n      _difference_ in testing the origin and characteristics of the Latin\n      New Testament. These characteristics may be the result only of the\n      time and not of the supposed place of writing. Nor can more stress\n      be laid on the use of Greek names in the West than on the use of\n      Latin names (plenty of which could be cited) in the East.\n\n_   61 See_ Kaulen, p. 130 f., and also his Handb. d. Vulg., Mainz, 1870.\n\n   62 \u201cNovum opus me facere cogis ex veteri: ut post exemplaria\n      Scripturarum toto orbe dispersa, quasi quidam arbiter sedeam: et\n      quia inter se variant, quae sint ilia quae cum Graeca consentiant\n      veritate, decernam. Pius labor, sed periculosa praesumptio, judicare\n      de ceteris, ipsum ab omnibus judicandum: senis mutare linguam, et\n      canescentem jam mundum ad initia retrahere parvulorum.\u201d Praef. ad\n      Damasum.\n\n   63 \u201c[Evangelia] Codicum Graecorum emendata collatione, sed veterum,\n      quae ne multum a lectionis Latinae consuetudine discreparent, ita\n      calamo temperavimus, ut his tantum quae sensum videbantur mutare\n      correctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant.\u201d _Ibid._ For a\n      signal instance, see below, ch. ix, note on Matt. xxi. 31.\n\n   64 To his well-known censure of Jerome\u2019s rendering of the Old Testament\n      from the Hebrew, Augustine adds, \u201cProinde non parvas Deo gratias\n      agimus de opere tuo, quod Evangelium ex Graeco interpretatus es:\n      quia pene in omnibus nulla offensio est, cum Scripturam Graecam\n      contulerimus.\u201d\n\n   65 Roger Bacon\u2019s writings, however, in the thirteenth century, are the\n      first in which Jerome\u2019s translation is cited as the \u201cVulgate\u201d in the\n      modern sense of the term. _See_ Denifle, Die Handschriften der\n      Bibel-correctorien des 13. Jahrhunderts, 1883, p. 278.\n\n_   66 See_ Jaff\u00e9, Monumenta Carolina, p. 373, \u201cJam pridem universos\n      Veteris ac Novi instruments libros ... examussim correximus;\u201d S.\n      Berger\u2019s essay (to be distinguished from his larger work), De\n      l\u2019histoire de la Vulgate en France (1887), p. 3 f.\n\n_   67 See_ the Oxford \u201cStudia Biblica et Ecclesiastica,\u201d ii (1890), p.\n      278 f.\n\n   68 Fritzsche, \u201cLatein. Bibel\u00fcbersetzungen\u201d in Herzog, R. E.2 viii. p.\n      449; Westcott, \u201cVulgate,\u201d in Smith\u2019s Bibl. Dict. iii. p. 1703;\n      Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulg., p. 229 f.; P. Corssen, in \u201cDie Trierer\n      Adahandschr.\u201d (Leipzig, 1889), p. 31.\n\n   69 Berger, as above, p. 7.\n\n_   70 See_ the Life of Lanfranc, by Milo Crispinus, a monk of Bec, ch.\n      xv, in Migne, Patr. Lat. 150, col. 55, and his Commentary, _ibid._,\n      col. 101 f.; Mill, Proleg., \u00a7 1058; Cave\u2019s remark (Hist. Lit. 1743,\n      vol. ii. p. 148), \u201cLanfrancus textum continuo emendat,\u201d seems hardly\n      borne out by the facts.\n\n   71 His corrected Bible in four vols. is now preserved at Dijon, public\n      library, 9 bis, _see_ below, p. 68, no. 8; also Denifle, Die Hdss.\n      d. Bibel-correctorien des 13. Jahrh. 1883, p. 267; Kaulen, p. 245.\n\n   72 His criticisms are preserved in a MS. at Venice (Marciana Lat.\n      class. x. cod. 178, fol. 141); _see_ Denifle, p. 270, who prints\n      them.\n\n_   73 See_ the quotations in Denifle, p. 277 f., and Hody, p. 419 f.\n\n_   74 See_ S. Berger, De l\u2019histoire de la Vulgate en France, p. 9 f.,\n      1887, and Revue de Th\u00e9ol. et de Philos. de Lausanne, t. xvi. p. 41,\n      1883.\n\n_   75 See_ Hugo\u2019s remark (Denifle, p. 295), \u201cIn multis libris maxime\n      historialibus, non utimur translatione Hieronymi.\u201d\n\n_   76 See_ Vercellone, Diss. Acad., Rome, 1864, pp. 44-51; Hody, pp.\n      426-430; and Denifle, pp. 295-298. This correctorium is cited in\n      Wordsworth\u2019s Vulgate as _cor. vat._; _see_ Berger, Notitia Linguae\n      Hebraicae etc., p. 32 (1893).\n\n_   77 See_ W. A. Copinger, Incunabula Biblica, or the first half-century\n      of the Latin Bible, p. 3, London, 1892; and L. Delisle, Journ. des\n      Savants, Apr. 1893.\n\n   78 Or to Peter Schoeffer, _see_ J. H. Hessels, in the _Academy_, June,\n      1887, p. 396; August, p. 104; or to Johann Fust. _See_ the British\n      Museum \u201cCatalogue of Printed Books,\u201d Bible, part i. col. 16.\n\n   79 Westcott, Vulgate, p. 1704. This seems to be that of \u201cThielman\n      Kerver, impensis J. Parvi,\u201d with emendations of A. Castellani.\n\n   80 The British Museum possesses a copy (340. d. 1); _see_ the\n      \u201cCatalogue,\u201d part i. col. 1.\n\n   81 For details _see_ \u201cOld Lat. Bibl. Texts,\u201d i. p. 51 f.\n\n_   82 Ibid._, p. 48 f.\n\n   83 The critical notes of Lucas Brugensis himself appear to be found in\n      three forms:\u2014\n\n      (1) The \u201cNotationes,\u201d published in 1580, and incorporated in the\n      Hentenian Bible of 1583.\n\n      (2) The \u201cVariae Lectiones,\u201d printed in Walton\u2019s Polyglott, and taken\n      from the Louvain Bible of 1584. These are simply a list of various\n      readings to the Vulgate, with MS. authorities; he frequently adds\n      the letters Q. N., i.e. \u201cquaere notationes,\u201d where he has treated\n      the subject more fully in (1).\n\n      (3) The \u201cNotae ad Varias Lectiones,\u201d also printed (for the Gospels)\n      in Walton\u2019s Polyglott; a _delectus_ of them is given in Sabatier at\n      the end of each book of the New Testament, under the title \u201cRoman.\n      Correctionum auctore Fr. L. Br. delectus.\u201d\n\n_   84 See_ E. Nestle, Ein Jubil\u00e4um der lateinischen Bibel, T\u00fcbingen, p.\n      13 f., 1892.\n\n   85 There is a copy in the British Museum, Q. e. 5. It is practically in\n      one volume, as the paging is continuous throughout.\n\n   86 He gives a long list of the variations between the Sixtine and\n      Clementine Bibles; Vercellone estimated their number at 3,000. It is\n      to be noticed that the _versing_ of the Sixtine ed. differs\n      considerably from the Clementine as well as from Stephen.\n\n   87 The regular form of title, \u201cBiblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti V\n      Pont. Max. jussu recognita et Clementis VIII auctoritate edita,\u201d\n      does not appear in any edition known to the writer before that of\n      Rouille, Lyons, 1604. _See_ Brit. Mus. Catalogue, col. 50. The\n      earliest edition with this title known to Masch (Le Long, Bibl.\n      Sacra, 1783, ii. p. 251) is dated 1609; and Vercellone (Variae Lect.\n      i. p. lxxii) names others considerably later as the earliest.\n\n_   88 See_ Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. xvi.\n\n_   89 Ibid._, p. xxv.\n\n_   90 See_ Fasc. i. p. xv, and Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Cambridge,\n      1862.\n\n   91 M. Berger, with exceptional kindness, allowed me to see the\n      proof-sheets of his \u201cHistory of the Vulgate\u201d as they were printed,\n      and to add a large number of MSS. to this list from that source.\n\n   92 For the W\u00fcrzburg MSS., _see_ G. Schepps, Die \u00e4ltesten\n      Evangelienhandschriften der Universit\u00e4tsbibliothek, W\u00fcrzburg, 1887,\n      from which these descriptions are mainly taken.\n\n   93 For these MSS., _see_ as before, G. Schepss, Die \u00e4ltesten\n      Evangelienhandschriften d. W\u00fcrzb. Univ. B., 1887.\n\n   94 My authority for these facts is Brugsch, Grammaire D\u00e9motique, p. 4,\n      but what does he mean by the words which I have italicised? \u201cAu\n      nombre des auteurs les plus r\u00e9cents qui nous aient donn\u00e9 des\n      t\u00e9moignages sur l\u2019existence du d\u00e9motique il faut citer St. Cl\u00e9ment,\n      pr\u00eatre de l\u2019\u00e9glise chr\u00e9tienne \u00e0 Alexandrie, et qui vivait vers l\u2019an\n      190 de notre \u00e8re, ou environ le temps o\u00f9 r\u00e9gnait l\u2019empereur S\u00e9v\u00e8re.\n      Mais les monuments nous prouvent que _cette date n\u2019est pas la\n      derni\u00e8re_; il se trouve encore des inscriptions d\u2019une \u00e9poque plus\n      rapproch\u00e9e; telle est par exemple une inscription d\u00e9motique que M.\n      de Saulcy avait copi\u00e9e en \u00c9gypte et qu\u2019il eut la complaisance de me\n      communiquer pendant mon s\u00e9jour \u00e0 Paris; elle date du r\u00e8gne en commun\n      d\u2019Aur\u00e9lius et de V\u00e9rus, ce qui prouve que _dans la premi\u00e8re moiti\u00e9\n      du troisi\u00e8me si\u00e8cle_ le d\u00e9motique \u00e9tait encore connu et en usage.\u201d\n      L. Verus died A.D. 169.\n\n   95 The date, however, is placed very much earlier by Revillout\n      (M\u00e9langes d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie \u00c9gyptienne et Assyrienne, p. 40), who\n      supposes the Coptic alphabet to have been a work commenced by pagan\n      Gnostics, completed by Christian Gnostics, and adopted when complete\n      by their orthodox successors.\n\n   96 [That Bahiric is a wrong transliteration is shown by Stern,\n      Zeitschr. f\u00fcr Aeg. Sprache, 16 (1878), p. 23.]\n\n   97 [There has been considerable variation in the names given to the\n      different dialects. The terms Thebaic and Memphitic have been\n      commonly adopted as a more convenient nomenclature, but, as will be\n      shown below, the latter name at any rate is incorrect and\n      misleading. Owing to the accident that the Memphitic dialect was the\n      form of Coptic best known and earliest studied in Western Europe,\n      the term Coptic has been sometimes confined to the Bohairic or\n      Memphitic, as distinguished from the Sahidic or Thebaic, and was so\n      used by Tischendorf; this usage also is erroneous and misleading;\n      and the names Bohairic and Sahidic are almost universally employed\n      by scholars at the present day.]\n\n   98 Schwartze, whose opinion will not be suspected of any theological\n      bias, infers from the historical notices that \u201cthe greatest part of\n      the New Testament writings, if not all, and a part of the Old\n      Testament, especially the Psalms, had been already translated, in\n      the second century, into the Egyptian language, and indeed into that\n      of Lower as well as into that of Upper Egypt\u201d (p. 963).\n\n   99 For convenience the following abbreviations will be used: \u201cZ. A. S.\u201d\n      for _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Aegyptische Sprache_; \u201cRecueil\u201d for the\n      _Recueil de travaux relatifs \u00e0 la philologie et \u00e0 l\u2019arch\u00e9ologie\n      \u00e9gyptiennes et assyriennes_; \u201cM\u00e9moires\u201d for the _M\u00e9moires de la\n      Mission Arch\u00e9ologique Fran\u00e7aise au Caire_; and \u201cMitt.\u201d for the\n      _Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer_.\n\n  100 Quatrem\u00e8re can only point to a single word accidentally preserved,\n      which according to his hypothesis belongs to the real Bashmuric (Sur\n      la Langue &c., p. 213 sq.).\n\n  101 Memphitic (Lightfoot), Coptic (Tischendorf and others).\n\n_  102 See_ also A. J. Butler\u2019s \u201cCoptic Churches,\u201d vol. ii, Oxford.\n\n  103 I have always added 284 to the year of the Martyrs for the year\n      A.D.; but this will not give the date accurately in every case, as\n      the Diocletian year began in August or September; _see_ Clinton,\n      Fast. Rom., ii. p. 210.\n\n  104 I have observed Luke xxiii. 17 in at least three wholly distinct\n      forms in different Bohairic MSS.\n\n  105 My sincere thanks are due to the late Earl of Crawford and\n      Balcarres, and to Lord Zouche, for their kindness in allowing me\n      free access to their valuable collections of Coptic MSS., and in\n      facilitating my investigations in many ways.\n\n  106 The volume, *Parham 102, described in the printed Catalogue (no. 1,\n      vellum, p. 27) as a MS. of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark,\n      is really a selection of passages taken in order from the four\n      Gospels, with a patristic catena attached to each. The leaves,\n      however, are much displaced in the binding, and many are wanting.\n      The title to the first Gospel is \u03ef \u2c89\u2ca3\u2c99\u2c8f\u2c9b\u2c93\u2c81 \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c89 \u2ca1\u2c93\u2c89\u2ca9\u2c81\u2c85\u2c85\u2c89\u2c97\u2c93\u2c9f\u2c9b \u2c89\u2c91\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c81\u2c83\n      \u2c95\u2c81\u2ca7\u2c81 \u2c99\u2c81\u2c91\u2c89\u2c9f\u2c9b \u2c89\u2c83\u2c9f\u2c97\u03e9\u2c93\u2ca7\u2c89\u2c9b \u03e9\u2c81\u2c9b\u2c99\u2c8f\u03e3 \u2c9b\u2ca5\u2c81\u03e7 \u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c9f\u03e9 \u2c9b\u2cab\u2cb1\u2ca5\u2ca7\u2c8f\u2ca3 \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c89 \u03ef \u2c89\u2c95\u2c95\u2c97\u2c8f\u2ca5\u2c93\u2c81, &c.\n      \u201cThe interpretation of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew from\n      numerous doctors and luminaries of the Church.\u201d Among the Fathers\n      quoted I observed Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Clement, the two\n      Cyrils (of Jerusalem and of Alexandria), Didymus, Epiphanius,\n      Eusebius, Evagrius, the three Gregories (Thaumaturgus, Nazianzen,\n      and Nyssen), Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Severianus of Gabala, Severus of\n      Antioch (often styled simply the Patriarch), Symeon Stylites,\n      Timotheus, and Titus.\n\n      In the account of this MS. in the Catalogue it is stated that \u201cthe\n      name of the scribe who wrote it is Sapita Leporos, a monk of the\n      monastery, or monastic rule, of Laura under the sway of the great\n      abbot Macarius,\u201d and the inference is thence drawn that it must have\n      been written before 395, when Macarius died. This early date,\n      however, is at once set aside by the fact that writers who lived in\n      the sixth century are quoted. Professor Wright (Journal of Sacred\n      Literature, vii. p. 218), observing the name of Severus in the\n      facsimile, points out the error of date, and suggests as an\n      explanation that the colophon (which he had not seen) does not speak\n      of the great Macarius, but of \u201c_an abbot_ Macarius.\u201d The fact is,\n      that though the great Macarius is certainly meant, there is nothing\n      which implies that he was then living. The scribe describes himself\n      as \u2c81\u2c9b\u2c9f\u2c95 \u03e7\u2c81 \u2ca1\u2c93 \u2ca7\u2c81\u2c97\u2c89\u2ca1\u2cb1\u2ca3\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u2c89\u2ca7\u2c81\u03e5\u2ca5\u03e7\u2c81\u2c93, \u201cI the unhappy one (\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c0\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2)\n      who wrote it\u201d (which has been wrongly read and interpreted as a\n      proper name Sapita Leporos). He then gives his name \u2c91\u2c89\u2c9f\u2c97 \u2ca1\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2ca5\u2c93\u2ca3\u2c93\n      (Theodorus of Busiris?) and adds, \u2ca1\u2c93\u2c81\u2ca7\u2c99\u2ca1\u03e3\u2c81 \u2c99\u2c99\u2c9f\u2c9b\u2c81\u2cad\u2c9f\u2ca5 \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c89 \u03ef\u2c97\u2c81\u2ca9\u2ca3\u2c81\n      \u2c89\u2c91\u2c9f\u2ca9\u2c81\u2c83 \u2c9b\u2ca7\u2c89 \u2ca1\u2c93\u2c9b\u2c93\u03e3\u03ef \u2c81\u2c83\u2c83\u2c81 \u2c99\u2c81\u2c95\u2c81\u2ca3\u2c93, \u201cthe unworthy monk of the holy laura\n      of the great abbot Macarius.\u201d He was merely an inmate of the\n      monastery of St. Macarius; see the expression quoted from the Vat.\n      MS. lxi in Tattam\u2019s Lexicon, p. 842. This magnificent MS. is dated\n      A.M. 604 = A.D. 888 and has been published by Professor De Lagarde;\n      but its value may not be very great for the Bohairic Version, as it\n      is perhaps translated from the Greek.\n\n      The *Parham MS. 106 (no. 5, p. 28) is wrongly described as\n      containing the Gospel of St. John. The error is doubtless to be\n      explained by the fact that the name \u2c93\u2cb1\u2c81\u2c9b\u2c9b\u2c9f\u2ca9 occurs at the bottom of\n      one of the pages; but the manuscript is not Biblical. Another MS.\n      (no. 13, p. 29) is described as \u201cSt. Matthew with an Arabic\n      translation, very large folio: a modern MS. copied at Cairo from an\n      antient one in the library of the Coptic Patriarch.\u201d I was not able\n      to find this, when through the courtesy of Lord Zouche I had access\n      to the Parham collection.\n\n  107 The above account has been throughout revised by the Rev. G. Horner,\n      who has collated or examined all MSS. of the Bohairic versions in\n      European libraries.\n\n  108 The MSS. 7 and 16 are exceptions.\n\n  109 No weight can be given to the abnormal order in no. 12, until we\n      know something more of this MS., which is perhaps a late transcript.\n\n  110 It is used in the Apocalypse by Tregelles, and apparently also by\n      Tischendorf in his eighth edition; and in the Rev. S. C. Malan\u2019s\n      \u201cGospel according to St. John, translated from the Eleven Oldest\n      Versions except the Latin,\u201d London, 1862, all Tuki\u2019s Sahidic\n      fragments of this Evangelist are included.\n\n_  111 See_ M\u00fcnter, De Indole, &c., Praef., p. iv. Schwartze (Quat. Evang.\n      p. xx) says, \u201cPraeterquam quod sicut omnes Tukii libri scatent\n      vitiis, etiam angustioris sunt fidei _Rudimenta_, Sahidicis locis\n      partim e versione Arabica a Tukio concinnatis.\u201d I do not know on\n      what grounds Schwartze makes this last statement.\n\n  112 This has now been published. By Am\u00e9lineau, Notice sur le Papyrus\n      Gnostique Bruce. Texte et Traduction, Notices et Extraits de la\n      Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale et autres Biblioth\u00e8ques. Tome xxix. lre\n      Partie. Paris, 1891; and Gnostische Schriften in Koptischer Sprache\n      aus dem Codex Brucianus, von Carl Schmidt, Leipzig, 1892.\n\n  113 In the interval between Woide and Zoega, Griesbach (1806) appears to\n      have obtained a few readings of this version from the Borgian MSS.,\n      e.g. Acts xxiv. 22, 23; xxv. 6; xxvii. 14; Col. ii. 2. At least I\n      have not succeeded in tracing them to any printed source of\n      information.\n\n      Of the use which Schwartze has made of the published portions of the\n      Sahidic text in his edition of the Bohairic Gospels, I have already\n      spoken (p. 108). He has added no unpublished materials.\n\n  114 Catal., p. 169: \u201cSi de aetate codicum quaeris, scio equidem non\n      defuisse qui singulos ad saecula sua referre satagerent, qui si\n      aliquid profecerunt, ego sane non obstrepo. Sed quoniam meum sit\n      quacumque in re ignorantiam fateri potius quam quae mihi non\n      satisfaciunt, aliis velut explorata offerre, &c.\u201d But since this was\n      written the publication of Hyvernat\u2019s \u201cAlbum de Pal\u00e9ographie Copte\u201d\n      has given much assistance; and more may be looked for from the\n      publication of the Paris fragments.\n\n  115 Its position was before Galatians, and not, as in the archetype of\n      the Codex Vaticanus, after it.\n\n  116 The term \u201cMiddle Egyptian\u201d is often used as a general term to\n      include the three varieties of Fayoumic, Lower Sahidic or what is\n      properly Memphitic, and Akhmimic.\n\n  117 The writer must express his regret that, owing to the haste with\n      which the additions to this article had to be written, much must\n      have been passed over.\n\n  118 \u201cBut he prudently suppressed the four books of Kings, as they might\n      tend to irritate the fierce and sanguinary spirit of the\n      barbarians;\u201d Gibbon, ch. xxxvii.\n\n  119 \u201cA faithful, a stern and noble Teutonic rendering of the Greek,\u201d is\n      the verdict of Prebendary S. C. Malan (St. John\u2019s Gospel, translated\n      from the Eleven Oldest Versions except the Latin, &c., 4to, 1872,\n      Preface, p. viii). Bishop Ellicott also praises this version as\n      usually faithful and accurate, yet marks an Arian tinge in the\n      rendering of Phil. ii. 6-8.\n\n  120 Goth. Version. Paul. Epist. quae supersunt, C. O. Castiglione,\n      Milan, 1834.\n\n  121 Skeat, St. Mark, 1882.\n\n  122 Matt. iii. 11; v. 8; 15-vi. 32; vii. 12-x. 1; 23-xi. 25; xxv.\n      38-xxvi. 3; 65-xxvii. 19; 42-66; Mark i. 1; vi. 30; 58-xii. 38;\n      xiii. 16-29; xiv. 4-16; 41-xvi. 12; Luke i. 1-x. 30; xiv. 9-xvi. 24;\n      xvii. 3-xx. 46; John i. 29; iii. 3-5; 23-26; 29-32; v. 21-23; 35-38;\n      45-xi. 47; xii. 1-49; xiii. 11-xix. 13; Rom. vi. 23; vii. 1-viii.\n      10; 34-xi. 1; 11-xii. 5; 8-xiv. 5; 9-20; xv. 3-13; xvi. 21-24; 1\n      Cor. i. 12-25; iv. 2-12; v. 3-vi. 1; vii. 5-28; viii. 9-ix. 9; 19-x.\n      4; 15-xi. 6; 21-31; xii. 10-22; xiii. 1-12; xiv. 20-27; xv. 1-35;\n      46-Gal. i. 7; 20-iii. 6; 27-Eph. v. 11; 17-29; vi. 8-24; Phil. i.\n      14-ii. 8; 22-iv. 17; Col. i. 6-29; ii. 11-iv. 19; 1 Thess. ii. 10-2\n      Thess. ii. 4; 15-1 Tim. v. 14; 16-2 Tim. iv. 16; Tit. i. 1-ii. 1;\n      Philem. 1-23; but no portion of the Acts, Hebrews, Catholic\n      Epistles, or Apocalypse.\n\n_  123 See_ p. 10 of the Armenian edition; Venice, 1833. The French\n      translation of this in the \u201cCollection des Historiens de l\u2019Arm\u00e9nie,\u201d\n      Paris, 1869, is untrustworthy in all ways, and especially because\n      the translator both adds to and omits from the Armenian text at\n      random.\n\n  124 The true history of which we cannot now make out, for, as given by\n      his contemporaries, it is already obscured by legend and miracle.\n\n  125 The translation of this writer in Langlois\u2019 second volume is\n      reliable.\n\n  126 Some critics bring down the date of Moses as late as the seventh or\n      eighth century.\n\n  127 Dr. Baronean thinks that the varieties of readings in the oldest\n      Armenian MSS. is due to the fact that more than one _sure_ copy was\n      brought from Constantinople on which to base the final revision.\n\n  128 This is the conclusion at which P. P. Car\u00e9kin arrives. See his\n      \u201cCatalogue of Ancient Armenian Translations,\u201d Venice, 1889, p. 228.\n\n  129 Among the chief authorities on the Slavonic version are the\n      following:\u2014\n\n      (i) \u0413\u043e\u0440\u0441\u043a\u0456\u0439 \u0438 \u041d\u0435\u0432\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0443\u0435\u0432\u044a, \u043e\u043f\u0438\u0441\u0430\u043d\u0456\u0435 \u0441\u043b\u0430\u0432\u044f\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0445\u044a \u0440\u0443\u043a\u043e\u043f\u0438\u0441\u0435\u0439 \u041c\u043e\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439\n      \u0421\u0438\u043d\u043e\u0434\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0411\u0438\u0431\u043b\u0456\u043e\u0442\u0435\u043a\u0438. \u041c\u043e\u0441\u043a\u0432\u0430, 1855.\n\n      (ii) \u0410\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0444\u044c\u0435\u0432\u044a, \u041e\u043f\u044c\u0456\u0442\u044a \u0438\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0456\u0438 \u0431\u0438\u0431\u043b\u0456\u0438 \u0432\u044a \u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0456\u0438 \u0432\u044a \u0441\u0432\u044f\u0437\u0438 \u0441\u044a\n      \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0441\u0432\u0463\u0449\u0435\u043d\u0456\u0435\u043c\u044a \u0438 \u043d\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430\u043c\u0438. \u0421. \u041f\u0435\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0431\u0443\u0440\u0433\u044a, 1892.\n\n      (iii) Voskresenski, \u0425\u0430\u0440\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0456\u044f \u0447\u0435\u0440\u0442\u044a\u0456 \u0433\u0438\u0430\u0432\u043d\u044a\u0456\u0445\u044a \u0440\u0435\u0434\u0430\u043a\u0446\u0456\u0439\n      \u0441\u043b\u0430\u0432\u044f\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0430\u0433\u043e \u043f\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0430 \u0415\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0433\u0435\u043b\u0456\u044f.\n\n      (iv) Voskresenski, \u0414\u0440\u0435\u0432\u043d\u0456\u0439 \u0441\u043b\u0430\u0432\u044f\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0456\u0439 \u043f\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0432\u043e\u0434\u044a \u0410\u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u043e\u043b\u0430 \u0438 \u0435\u0433\u043e \u0441\u0443\u0434\u044c\u0431\u044b\n      \u0434\u043e xv \u0432\u0463\u043a\u0430.\n\n      (v) Oblak, Die Kirchenslavische Uebersetzung der Apocalypse [in the\n      \u201cArchiv f\u00fcr Slavische Philologie,\u201d xiii. pp. 321-361].\n\n      (vi) Prolegomena to the editions of the Codex Marianus and the Codex\n      Zographensis, &c., by Jagi\u0107.\n\n      (vii) Kaluzniacki, Monumenta Linguae Palaeoslavonicae, vol. i.\n\n  130 In the Synodal Library at Moscow this proportion is as nine to two,\n      and in another library as twelve to one. _See_ \u041e\u043f\u0438\u0441\u0430\u043d\u0456\u0435 \u0441\u043b\u0430\u0432\u044f\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0445\u044a\n      \u0440\u0443\u043a\u043e\u043f\u0438\u0441\u0435\u0439 \u0438 \u0442. \u0434. (as above), p. 299.\n\n  131 Kaluzniacki, _l. c._, p. xlv, gives instances.\n\n_  132 See_ Jagi\u0107, Codex Zographensis, pp. xxvii ff.\n\n  133 The statement that John Bishop of Seville translated the Bible into\n      Arabic in A.D. 719 is disproved by Lagarde (Die vier Evangelien\n      Arabisch, p. xv).\n\n  134 Edward Pocock, Professor of Hebrew at Oxford (1648-91) and a great\n      Oriental scholar, should be distinguished from Richard Pococke, an\n      Eastern traveller and Bishop of Meath, who died in 1765.\n\n  135 I have been obliged to alter the first paragraph in this chapter\n      because of Dr. Scrivener\u2019s private confession to myself of the great\n      value of Dean Burgon\u2019s services in this province of Sacred Textual\n      Criticism. I am convinced that he could not have continued to\n      maintain an opinion so adverse to the value of early citations as\n      that which he formed when people were not sufficiently aware of the\n      wealth of illustrative evidence that lay ready to their hands. As\n      Editor I owe very much in this chapter, both to the express teaching\n      in Dean Burgon\u2019s great book, and to his method of argument in\n      respect to patristic citations. The Dean did not leave this province\n      at all as he found it.\n\n  136 The Revision Revised, by John William Burgon, B. D., Dean of\n      Chichester. John Murray, 1883.\n\n_  137 See_ some very thoughtful and cautious remarks by the Rev. Ll. J.\n      M. Bebb in the second volume of the Oxford \u201cStudia Biblica (et\n      Ecclesiastica).\u201d Mr. Bebb\u2019s entire Article on \u201cThe Evidence of the\n      Early Versions and Patristic Quotations on the Text of the Books of\n      the New Testament\u201d is well worth careful study.\n\n  138 \u201cDated codices, in fact they are, to all intents and purposes.\u201d\n      Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 292. \u201cEvery Father is seen to be a\n      dated witness and an independent authority,\u201d p. 297.\n\n  139 I am glad to be able to coincide thus far with the judgement of Mr.\n      Hammond, who says: \u201cThe value of even the most definite Patristic\n      citation is only corroborative. Standing by itself, any such\n      citation might mean no more than that the writer found the passage\n      in his own copy, or in those examined by him, in the form in which\n      he quotes it. The moment, however, it is found to be supported by\n      other good evidence, the writer\u2019s authority may become of immense\n      importance\u201d (Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 66, 2nd edition). His\n      illustration is the statement of Irenaeus in Matt. i. 18, which is\n      discussed below, Chap. XI. (Third Edition.)\n\n  140 He speaks (N. T., Proleg., \u00a7 1478) of Bp. Fell\u2019s \u201cpraepropera\n      opinio;\u201d he merely stated as _universally_ true what for the most\n      part certainly is so.\n\n  141 Take the case of Irenaeus, in some respects the most important of\n      them all. The _editio princeps_ of Erasmus (1526) was printed from\n      manuscripts now unknown. The three best manuscripts are in Latin\n      only. The oldest of them I saw at Middle-hill, an exquisite specimen\n      of the tenth or eleventh century, _olim_ Claromontanus; another, of\n      the twelfth, is in the Arundel collection in the British Museum; the\n      third once belonged to Vossius.\n\n  142 Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. 256, 7th edition) speaks of one\n      Wolfenb\u00fcttel manuscript of the sixth century containing the Homilies\n      on St. Matthew, which he designed to publish in his \u201cMonumenta Sacra\n      Inedita,\u201d vol. vii. He indicates its readings by Chrgue.\n\n  143 Life of Dean Burgon, by Dean Goulburn, p. 82, note. Murray, 1892.\n\n  144 Dampar cod. i.e. \u201cJoh. Damasceni parallela sacra ex cod. Rupefuc.\n      saeculi fer\u00e8 8.\u201d Tischendorf, N. T., Preface to vol. i of the eighth\n      edition, 1869. He promised full information in his \u201cProlegomena,\u201d\n      which never appeared. Here we have a manuscript ascribed to the same\n      century as the Father whose work it contains. One MS. is at Paris\n      (collated by Mr. Rendel Harris, A.D. 1884); another in Phillipps\n      collection at Cheltenham.\n\n  145 This important witness for the Old Latin version must now be used\n      with H. Roensch\u2019s \u201cDas Neue Testament Tertullian\u2019s,\u201d Leipzig, 1871,\n      wherein all his citations from the N. T. are arranged and critically\n      examined.\n\n_  146 See_ Dean Burgon\u2019s Appendix (D) to his \u201cLast Twelve Verses of St.\n      Mark,\u201d pp. 269-287, which well deserves the praise accorded to it by\n      a not very friendly critic. The Dean discusses at length the genius\n      and character of Victor of Antioch\u2019s Commentary on St. Mark, and\n      enumerates the manuscripts which contain it.\n\n  147 It should be stated that some of the dates in the two tables just\n      given are doubtful, authorities differing.\n\n  148 Since the first edition of this book was issued, Ed. Reuss has\n      published \u201cBibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci, cuius editiones ab\n      initio typographiae ad nostram aetatem impressas quotquot reperiri\n      potuerunt collegit digessit illustravit E. R. Argentoratensis\u201d\n      (Brunsvigae, 1872), to which the reader is referred for editions\n      which our purpose does not lead us to notice. Some of his statements\n      regarding the text of early editions we have repeated in the notes\n      of the present chapter. His enumeration is not grounded on a\n      complete collation of any book, but from the study of a thousand\n      passages (p. 24) selected for his purpose. Hence his numerical\n      results are perpetually less than our own, or even than Mill\u2019s.\n      Professor Isaac H. Hall in Schaff\u2019s \u201cCompanion to the Greek\n      Testament and the English Version,\u201d D. I. Macmillan, 1883, has\n      improved upon Reuss, and given a list of editions which as to\n      America is, I believe, exhaustive (_see_ also his \u201cAmerican Greek\n      Testaments\u2014a Critical Bibliography of the Greek New Testament as\n      published in America\u201d\u2014Philadelphia, Pickwick and Company, 1883), and\n      is very full as regards English and other editions. I should like to\n      have availed myself of the Professor\u2019s kind permission to copy that\n      list, but it would have been going out of the way to do so, since\n      these two chapters are simply upon the _Early_ Printed and the\n      _Critical_ Editions of the Text.\u2014ED.\n\n  149 \u201cNovum Testamentum Grece et Latine in academia complutensi noviter\n      impressum,\u201d Tom. v.\n\n  150 Quite enough has been made of that piece of grim Spanish humour,\n      \u201cMediam autem inter has latinam beati Hieronymi translationem velut\n      inter Synagogam et Orientalem Ecclesiam posuimus: tanquam duos hinc\n      et inde latrones, medium autem Jesum, hoc est Romanam sive latinam\n      Ecclesiam collocantes\u201d (Prol. Tom. i). The editors plainly meant no\n      disparagement to the original Scriptures, _as such_; but they had\n      persuaded themselves that Hebrew codices had been corrupted by the\n      Jew, the Septuagint by the schismatical Greek, and so clung to the\n      Latin as the only form (even before the Council of Trent) in which\n      the Bible was known or studied in Western Europe.\n\n  151 Of these, two copies are in Greek, three in Latin Elegiacs. I\n      subjoin those of the native Greek editor, Demetrius Ducas, as a\n      rather favourable specimen of verse composition in that age: the\n      fantastic mode of accentuation described above was clearly not _his_\n      work.\n\n      \u0395\u03b9\u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c2 \u1f45\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd,\n      \u1f10\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u1ff6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n      \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03be\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9. \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u1f24\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03be\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u1ff6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5.\n\n  152 Tregelles (Account of the Printed Text, p. 7, note) states that he\n      was _elected_ Feb. 28, crowned March 11: Sir Harris Nicolas\n      (\u201cChronology of History,\u201d p. 194) that he was elected March 11,\n      without naming the date of his coronation as usual, but mentioning\n      that \u201cLeo X, in his letters, dated the commencement of his\n      pontificate before his coronation.\u201d\n\n  153 The following is the document (a curiosity in its way) as cited by\n      Vercellone: \u201cAnno primo Leonis PP. X. Reverendiss. Dom. Franciscus\n      Card. Toletanus de mandato SS. D. N. Papae habuit ex bibliotheca a\n      Dom. Phaedro Bibliothecario duo volumina graeca: unum in quo\n      continentur libri infrascripti; videlicet Proverbia Salomonis,\n      Ecclesiastes, Cant. Cant., Job, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Esdras,\n      Tobias, Judith [this is Vat. 346, or 248 of Parsons]. Sunt in eo\n      folia quingenta et duodecim ex papyro in nigro. Fuit extractum ex\n      blancho primo bibliothecae graecae communis. Mandatum Pontificis\n      super concessione dictorum librorum registratum fuit in Camera\n      Apostolica per D. Franciscum De Attavantes Notarium, ubi etiam\n      annotata est obligatio. Promisit restituere intra annum sub poena\n      ducentorum ducatorum.\u201d\u2014\u201cRestituit die 9 Julii, MDXVIII. Ita est. Fr.\n      Zenobius Bibliothecarius.\u201d\n\n  154 The Catalogue is copied at length by Tregelles (Account of the\n      Printed Text, pp. 15-18). It is scarcely worth while to repeat the\n      silly story taken up by Moldenhawer, whose admiration of _las cosas\n      de Espa\u00f1a_ was not extravagantly high, that the Alcal\u00e0 manuscripts\n      had been sold to make sky-rockets about 1749; to which statement Sir\n      John Bowring pleasantly adds in 1819, \u201cTo celebrate the arrival of\n      some worthless grandee.\u201d Gutierrez\u2019s recent list comprehends all the\n      codices named in the University Catalogue made in 1745; and we may\n      hope that even in Spain all grandees are not necessarily worthless.\n\n  155 Thus in St. Mark the Complutensian varies from Laud. 2 in fifty-one\n      places, and nowhere agrees with it except in company with a mass of\n      other copies. In the Acts on the contrary they agree 139 times, and\n      differ but forty-one, some of their _loci singulares_ being quite\n      decisive: e.g. x. 17; 21; xii. 12; xvii. 31; xx. 38; xxiv. 16; 1\n      Pet. iii. 12; 14; 2 Pet. i. 11. In most of these places Seidel\u2019s\n      Codex, in some of them Act. 69, and in nearly all Cod. Havn. 1\n      (Evan. 234, Act. 57, Paul. 72) are with Laud. 2. On testing this\n      last at the Bodleian in some forty places, I found Mill\u2019s\n      representation fairly accurate. As might have been expected, his\n      Oxford manuscripts were collated much the best.\n\n  156 Goeze\u2019s \u201cDefence of the Complutensian Bible,\u201d 1766. He published a\n      \u201cContinuation\u201d in 1769. _See_ also Franc. Delitzsch\u2019s \u201cStudies on\n      the Complutensian Polyglott\u201d (Bagster, 1872), derived from his\n      Academical Exercise as Dean of the Theological Faculty at Leipzig,\n      1871-2.\n\n  157 Reuss says boldly that the Complutensian text \u201cpurus et authenticus\n      a veteribus nunquam repetitus est\u201d (p. 25), and gives a list of\n      forty-four places in which the Complutensian and Plantin editions\n      are at variance (pp. 16, 17). He subjoins a list of 185 cases in\n      which the two are in unison against Erasmus and Stephen jointly (pp.\n      18-21), so that the influence of the former over the latter cannot\n      be disputed.\n\n  158 At forty he obtained the countenance of that good and bountiful\n      rather than great prelate, William Wareham, Archbishop of Canterbury\n      (1502-32), who, prosperous in life, was so singularly \u201cfelix\n      opportunitate mortis.\u201d It gladdens and makes sad at once an English\n      heart to read what Erasmus writes about him ten years later:\n      \u201cCujusmodi Maecenas, si mihi primis illis contigisset annis,\n      fortassis aliquid in bonis literis potuissem. Nunc natus saeculo\n      parum felici, cum passim impun\u00e8 regnaret barbaries, praesertim apud\n      nostrates, apud quos turn crimen etiam erat quicquam bonarum\n      literarum attigisse, tantum aberat ut honos aleret hominum studia in\n      e\u00e2 regione, quae Baccho Cererique dicata sunt verius quam musis\u201d (N.\n      T. 1516, Annot. 1 Thess. ii. p. 554).\n\n  159 Bishop Middleton may have lost sight of this pregnant fact when he\n      wrote of Erasmus, \u201can acquaintance with Greek criticism was\n      certainly not among his best acquirements, as his Greek Testament\n      plainly proves: indeed he seems not to have had a very happy talent\n      for languages\u201d (Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 395, 3rd edition).\n\n  160 The title-page is long and rather boastful. \u201cNovum Instrumentum\n      omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et emendatum, non\n      solum ad graecam veritatem, verum etiam ad multorum utriusque\n      linguae codicum, eorumque veterum simul et emendatorum fidem,\n      postremo ad probatissimorum autorum citationem, emendationem, et\n      interpretationem, praecipue, Origenis, Chrysostomi, Cyrilli,\n      Vulgarii, Hieronymi, Cypriani, Ambrosii, Hilarii, Augustini, una cum\n      Annotationibus, quae lectorem doceant, quid qua ratione mutatum sit.\n      Quisquis igitur amas veram theologiam, lege, cognosce, ac deinde\n      judica. Neque statim offendere, si quid mutatum offenderis, sed\n      expende, num in melius mutatum sit. Apud inclytam Germaniae\n      Basilaeam.\u201d The Vulgarius of Erasmus\u2019 first edition is no less a\n      person than Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, as appears plainly\n      from his Annotations, p. 319, \u201cnec in ullis graecorum exemplaribus\n      addita reperi [\u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6, Luke i. 35], ne apud Vulgarium quidem, nec in\n      antiquis codicibus Latinis.\u201d He had found out his portentous blunder\n      by 1528, when, in his \u201cResponsio ad Object, xvi. Hispanorum,\u201d he\n      gives that commentator his right name.\n\n  161 Yet he could have followed none other than Cod. 1 in Matt. xxii. 28;\n      xxiii. 25; xxvii. 52; xxviii. 3, 4, 19, 20; Mark vii. 18, 19, 26; x.\n      1; xii. 22; xv. 46; Luke i. 16, 61; ii. 43; ix. 1, 15; xi. 49; John\n      i. 28; x. 8; xiii. 20; in all which passages the Latin Vulgate is\n      neutral or hostile. See also Hoskier, Cod. Ev. 604, App. F. p. 4.\n\n  162 Such are \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, Apoc. xxii. ver. 16; \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03ad bis, \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9, \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\n      \u03c4\u03cc, ver. 17; \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1,\u2014\u03c4\u1ff7 (_ante_\n      \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3) ver. 18; \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1fc7, \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 _secund_., \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\n      ult-\u03c4\u1ff7 (_ante_ \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3) ver. 19; \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, ver. 21. Erasmus in his\n      Annotations fairly confesses what he did: \u201cquanquam in calce hujus\n      libri, nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros, quae aberant in Graecis\n      exemplaribus, ea tamen ex latinis adjecimus.\u201d But since the text and\n      commentary in Cod. Reuchlini are so mixed up as to be\n      undistinguishable in parts without the aid of a second manuscript\n      (Tregelles\u2019 \u201cDelitzsch\u2019s Handschriftliche Funde,\u201d Part ii. pp. 2-7),\n      it is no wonder that in other places Erasmus in his perplexity was\n      sometimes tempted to translate into his own Greek from the Latin\n      Vulgate such words or clauses as he judged to have been wrongly\n      passed over by his sole authority, e.g. ch. ii. 2, 17; iii. 5, 12,\n      15; vi. 11, 15 (_see_ under Apoc. 1); vii. 17; xiii. 4, 5; xiv. 16;\n      xxi. 16; xxii. 11, where the Greek words only of Erasmus are false;\n      while in ch. ii. 3; v. 14 (_bis_); vi. 1, 3, 5, 7; xiii. 10; xiv. 5\n      (as partly in xxii. 14), he was misled by the recent copies of the\n      Vulgate, whereto alone he had access, to make additions which no\n      Greek manuscript is known to support. Bengel\u2019s acuteness had long\n      before suspected that ch. v. 14; xxii. 11, and the form \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\n      ch. xvii. 4 (where Apoc. 1 has \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1) had their origin in no\n      Greek copy, but in the Vulgate. Nor does Apoc. 1 lend any\n      countenance to ch. xvii. 8, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, or to ver. 13,\n      \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. For Erasmus\u2019 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 ch. vi. 11, Apoc. 1 has\n      \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, the Latin _impleantur_; for his \u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, ch. vii. 3,\n      we find \u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd in Apoc. 1, but the latter omits \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5,\n      ch. xiv. 18, and so does Erasmus on its authority.\n\n  163 Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, p. 19.\n\n  164 It sometimes happens that a reading cited in the Annotations is at\n      variance with that given in the text; but Erasmus had been engaged\n      in writing the former for about ten years at intervals, and had no\n      leisure to revise them then. Thus John xvii. 2 \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 (after Cod. 1,\n      but corrected to \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b7 in the errata); 1 Thess. ii. 8; iii. 1; 1 Tim.\n      v. 21; Apoc. i. 2; ii. 18; xiv. 10, 13; xxi. 6.\n\n  165 The first complete printed English N. T. (Tyndale 1526) followed\n      Erasmus\u2019 third edition rather than his second: cf. Rom. viii. 20, 21\n      as well as 1 John v. 7, 8.\n\n  166 I never saw the Basle manuscripts, and probably Dean Alford had been\n      more fortunate, otherwise I do not think he has evidence for his\n      statement that \u2019Erasmus tampered with the readings of the very few\n      MSS. which he collated\u2019 (N. T., vol. i. Proleg. p. 74, 4th edition).\n      The truth is, that to save time and trouble, he used them as _copy_\n      for the press, as was intimated above, where Burgon\u2019s evidence is\n      quite to the point. For this purpose corrections would of course be\n      necessary (those made by Erasmus were all too few), and he might\n      fairly say, in the words cited by Wetstein (N. T., Proleg., p. 127),\n      \u201cse codices suos praecastigasse.\u201d Any wanton \u201ctampering\u201d with the\n      text I am loth to admit, unless for better reasons than I yet know\n      of.\n\n  167 Reuss (p. 24) enumerates 347 passages wherein the first edition of\n      Erasmus differs from the Complutensian, forty-two of which were\n      changed in his second edition. In fifteen places the first edition\n      agrees with the Complutensian against the second (p. 30).\n\n  168 Besides the weighty insertion of 1 John v. 7, 8, Reuss (p. 32) gives\n      us only seven changes in the third edition from the second: Mill\u2019s\n      other cases, he says, must be mere trifles.\n\n  169 Here again Reuss declares \u201cpaucissimas novas habet\u201d (p. 36), and\n      names only six.\n\n  170 \u201cNon deserit quartam nisi duobus in locis: 1 Cor. xii. 2; Acts ix.\n      28\u201d (Reuss, p. 37). Reuss had evidently not seen the first edition\n      of the present work.\n\n  171 Multis vetustissimis exemplaribus collatis, adhibita etiam quorundam\n      eruditissimorum hominum cura, Biblia (ut vulgo appellant) graece\n      cuncta eleganter descripsi (Andreas Aesulanus Cardinali Aegidio).\n\n  172 This is Mill\u2019s calculation, but Wetstein followed him over the\n      ground, adding (especially in the Apocalypse) not a few variations\n      of Aldus which Mill had overlooked, now and then correcting his\n      predecessor\u2019s errors (e.g. 2 Cor. xi. 1; Col. ii. 23), not without\n      mistakes of his own (e.g. Luke xi. 34; Eph. vi. 22). Since\n      Wetstein\u2019s time no one seems to have gone carefully through the\n      Aldine N. T., except Delitzsch in order to illustrate the Codex\n      Reuchlini (1) in the Apocalypse. Reuss (p. 28) notes eleven places\n      in which it agrees with the Complutensian against Erasmus; seven\n      wherein it rejects both books.\n\n  173 The title-page runs \u03b5\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\n      \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9 \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2\n      \u03b1 \u03c6 \u03bb \u03b4. This book has no Preface, and the text does not contain 1\n      John v. 7, 8. It stands alone in reading \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b1, 1 John i. 5. Reuss\n      (p. 46), who praises Colinaeus highly, states that he deserts\n      Erasmus\u2019 third edition 113 times out of his own thousand,\n      fifty-three of them to side with the Complutensian, and subjoins a\n      list of fifty-two passages wherein he stands alone among early\n      editors, for most of which he may have had manuscript authority.\n\n  174 Wordsworth, Old Latin Biblical Texts, I. xv.\n\n  175 Reuss (pp. 50, 51, 54) mentions only nine places wherein Stephen\u2019s\n      first edition does not agree either with the Complutensian or\n      Erasmus; in the second edition four (or rather three) more; in the\n      third nine, including the great erratum, 1 Pet. iii. 11. He further\n      alleges that in the Apocalypse whatever improvements were introduced\n      by Stephen came from the fourth edition of Erasmus, not from the\n      Complutensian.\n\n  176 Mill states that Stephen\u2019s citations of the Complutensian are 598,\n      Marsh 578, of which forty-eight, or one in twelve, are false; but we\n      have tried to be as exact as possible. Certainly some of Stephen\u2019s\n      inaccuracies are rather slight, viz. Acts ix. 6; xv. 29; xxv. 5;\n      xxviii. 3; Eph. iv. 32; Col. iii. 20; Apoc. i. 12; ii. 1, 20, 24;\n      iii. 2, 4, 7, 12; iv. 8; xv. 2: \u03b2\u2019 seems to be put for \u03b1\u2019 Matt. x.\n      25.\n\n  177 Viz. in the Gospels 81, Paul. 20, Act. Cath. 17, Apoc. 1 (ch. vii.\n      5): but for the Apocalypse the margin had only three authorities,\n      \u03b1\u1fbd, \u03b9\u03b5\u1fbd, \u03b9\u03db\u1fbd (\u03b9\u03db\u1fbd ending ch. xvii. 8), whose united readings Stephen\n      rejects no less than fifty-four times. _See_, moreover, above, p.\n      154, note 3.\n\n  178 Here, again, my own collation represents Stephen\u2019s first edition as\n      differing from his third in 797 places, of which 372 only are real\n      various readings, the rest relating to accents, or being mere\n      errata. Of these 372 places, the third edition agrees in fifty-six\n      places with \u03c0. or \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 of its own margin, and in fifty-five with\n      some of the authorities cited therein. Stephen no doubt knew of\n      manuscript authority for many of his other changes, though some may\n      be mere errata.\n\n  179 Wetstein (N. T., Prol., vol. i. p. 36) instances the readings of\n      Cod. D (indicated as \u201cquidam codex\u201d by Beza in 1565) in Mark ix. 38;\n      x. 50; Luke vii. 35. We may add that Beza in 1565 cites the evidence\n      of one Stephanic manuscript for the omission of \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, Matt. xxiii.\n      9; of two for \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03be\u03b5\u03bd Mark i. 36; in later editions of two also\n      in Luke xx. 4, and Acts xxii. 25; of three for \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3; Matt. xxi. 30,\n      two of which would be Cod. D and Evan. 9 (Steph. \u03b9\u03b2\u1fbd). In his\n      dedication to Queen Elizabeth in 1565, Beza speaks plainly of an\n      \u201cexemplar ex Stephani nostri bibliotheca cum viginti quinque plus\n      minus manuscriptis codicibus, et omnibus paen\u00e8 impressis, ab Henrico\n      Stephano ejus filio, et paternae sedulitatis haerede, quam\n      diligentissim\u00e8 collatum.\u201d\n\n  180 But here again we must qualify previous statements. Reuss (p. 58)\n      cites six instances wherein Stephen\u2019s third and fourth editions\n      differ (Matt. xxi. 7; xxiii. 13, 14; xxiv. 15; Luke xvii. 36; Col.\n      i. 20; Apoc. iii. 12): to which list add Mark xiv. 21; xvi. 20; Luke\n      i. 50; viii. 31; xii. 1; Acts xxvii. 13; 2 Cor. x. 6; Heb. vii. 1.\n\n  181 Professor Isaac H. Hall, who has the advantage of Dr. Scrivener in\n      actually himself possessing all the ten editions of Beza, as he\n      states in MS. in a copy of his \u201cAmerican Greek Testaments\u201d kindly\n      given to me, says, p. 60, note, that in the edition of 1556 the\n      Greek does not occur, and that Beza\u2019s first _Greek_ text was\n      published in 1565. Beza must have reckoned his Latin amongst his\n      editions when he spoke of his folio of 1565 as his second edition,\n      and must generally have dated from 1556 as the beginning of his\n      labours. The dates of the ten editions given above are extracted\n      from Professor Hall\u2019s list in Schaff\u2019s \u201cCompanion to the Bible,\u201d pp.\n      500-502.\n\n  182 Reuss says fairly enough (p. 85) that Beza was the true author of\n      what is called the received text, from which the Elzevir of 1624\n      rarely departs. He used as his basis the fourth edition of Stephen,\n      from which he departed in 1565, so far as Reuss has found, only\n      twenty-five times, nine times to side with the Complutensian, four\n      times with Erasmus, thrice with the two united; the other nine\n      readings are new, whereof two (Acts xvii. 25; James v. 12) had been\n      adopted by Colinaeus. The second edition of 1582 withdraws one of\n      the peculiar readings of its predecessor, but adds fourteen more.\n      The third edition (1588), so far as Reuss knows, departs from the\n      second but five times, and the fourth (1598) from the third only\n      twice, Matt. vi. 1 (\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd); Heb. x. 17 (add. \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5),\n      neither of which I can verify. These results, on Reuss\u2019s system of\n      investigation, can be only approximately true (_see_ p. 154, note),\n      and do not include some changes silently introduced into Beza\u2019s\n      Latin version, as suggested in his Annotations.\n\n  183 Reuss (p. 109) states that out of his thousand select examples\n      Elzevir 1624 differs from Beza\u2019s smaller New Testament of 1565 in\n      only eight readings, all of which may be found in some of Beza\u2019s\n      other editions (e.g. the small edition of 1580), except one misprint\n      (Rom. vii. 2).\n\n  184 \u039f\u1f31 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 is disputed by Hoskier (App. C. p. 18, n.), who says that\n      he has seen besides his own copy of 1624 several which read \u03bf\u1f31\n      \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5. He had also inspected mine. \u201cAnd although he says it reads\n      \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, I read easily \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9. The type is rather faulty, that is\n      all.\u201d The point is not worth disputing.\n\n  185 \u201cAmerican Additions and Corrections,\u201d p. 50.\n\n  186 Professor Hall states (Schaff\u2019s \u201cCompanion,\u201d p. 501) that Beza\u2019s\n      editions of 1588 and 1598 were the chief foundations of the\n      Authorized Version of 1611. Archdeacon Palmer (Preface to Greek\n      Testament with Revisers\u2019 Readings, p. vii) refers chiefly to\n      Stephen\u2019s edition of 1550. Dr. Scrivener (to whom Archdeacon Palmer\n      refers), Cambridge Greek Testament, Praef., p. vi, in taking the\n      Elzevir edition of 1624 as the authority for the \u201cTextus Receptus,\u201d\n      says that it rests upon Stephen\u2019s 1550, and Beza\u2019s 1565, 1582, 1589\n      (= 1588), and 1598 (especially the later editions, and particularly\n      1598, Authorized Edition of the British Bible, p. 60), besides also\n      Erasmus, the Complutensian, and the Vulgate (Authorized Edition, p.\n      60). Dr. Scrivener adds in the passage just named that out of 252\n      passages the \u201cTranslators abide with Beza against Stephen in 113,\n      with Stephen against Beza in fifty-nine, with the Complutensian,\n      Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in eighty.\u201d\n\n  187 \u201cThe Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent\n      Reprints and Modern Representatives.\u201d By F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A.,\n      D.C.L., LL.D., &c., Cambridge, University Press, 1884. Appendix E.\n\n_  188 See_ Miller\u2019s \u201cTextual Guide,\u201d George Bell & Sons, 1885. Also Dr.\n      Scrivener\u2019s \u201cAdversaria et Critica Sacra\u201d (not yet\n      published).\u2014Postscript.\n\n  189 Reuss (p. 56) excepts Matt. ix. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 13; Philem. 6, where\n      Walton prefers the Complutensian reading.\n\n  190 Nos. 2 and 3 had been partially used by Beza (American Additions, p.\n      50).\n\n  191 If Ussher lacked severe accuracy in collating his manuscripts, as\n      well as skill in deciphering them, we have not to look far for the\n      cause. In a Life prefixed to Ussher\u2019s \u201cBody of Divinity,\u201d 1678, p.\n      11, we are told that \u201cin the winter evenings he constantly spent two\n      hours in comparing old MSS. of the Bible, Greek and Latin, taking\n      with his own hand the _variae lectiones_ of each:\u201d on which\n      statement Dean Burgon (Letter in the _Guardian_, June 28, 1882)\n      makes the pregnant comment, \u201cSuch work carried on at seventy or more\n      by candlelight, is pretty sure to come to grief, especially when\n      done with a heart-ache.\u201d\n\n  192 \u201cSed, cum aliqui ex editoribus N. T. in analogiis discernendis nimis\n      fortasse curiosi loca Parallela ad infinitum fere numerum auxerint,\n      quorum alia parum definitae similitudinis, alia remotioris sunt\n      argumenti quam quae servatis sanae interpretationis legibus possint\n      adhiberi, satius habuimus Curcellaeum sequi, qui nec parcior est,\n      nec nimis minutus in locis allegandis, nec dissimilia unquam aut\n      prorsus \u1f00\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 ad marginem locavit.\u201d\u2014Car. Oxon. (Bishop C.\n      Lloyd) Monitum N. T. Oxonii, 1827.\n\n  193 1 John v. 7, 8 is included in brackets. Reuss (p. 130) thinks that\n      the text follows Elzevir 1633 everywhere else but in Luke x. 22.\n      Mill (N. T., Proleg. \u00a7 1397) says that it was printed \u201cad editiones\n      priores Elzevirianas, typis Elzevirianis nitidissimis.\u201d\n\n  194 \u201cStephani Curcellaei annotationes variantium lectionum, pro\n      variantibus lectionibus non habendae, quia ille non notat codices,\n      unde eas habeat, an ex manuscriptis, an vero ex impressis\n      exemplaribus. Possunt etiam pro uno codice haberi.\u201d Canon xiii. pp.\n      11, 69-70 of the N. T. by G. D. T. M. D. (_see_ below, p. 204).\n\n  195 But it goes with Elz. 1624 in Mark iv. 18; 2 Tim. i. 12; Apoc. xvi.\n      5, and sometimes prefers the readings of Stephen 1550, e.g. Mark i.\n      21; vi. 29, and notably Luke ii. 22 (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd); Luke x. 22; Rom. vii.\n      2; Philem. 7. Peculiarities of this edition are \u0395\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 for \u0395\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 Heb.\n      xii. 9; \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 1 Pet. iii. 7. Wetstein\u2019s text follows its\n      erratum, Acts xiii. 29 \u1f10\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. Mill seems to say (N. T., Proleg. \u00a7\n      1409) that Fell\u2019s text was taken from that of Curcellaeus.\n\n  196 Fell imputes the origin of various readings to causes generally\n      recognized, adding one which does not seem very probable, that\n      accidental slips once made were retained and propagated through a\n      superstitious feeling of misplaced reverence, citing in illustration\n      Apoc. xxii. 18, 19. He alleges also the well-known subscription of\n      Irenaeus, preserved by Eusebius, which will best be considered\n      hereafter; and remarks, with whatever truth, that contrary to the\n      practice of the Jews and Muhammedans in regard to their sacred\n      books, it was allowed \u201ce vulgo quibusvis, calamo pariter et manu\n      profanis, sacra ista [N. T.] tractare\u201d (Praef. p. 4).\n\n  197 \u201cConsiderations on the Biblia Polyglotta,\u201d 1659: to which Walton\n      rejoined, sharply enough, in \u201cThe Considerator considered,\u201d also in\n      1659.\n\n  198 Dr. Hort says that \u201chis comprehensive examination of individual\n      documents, seldom rising above the wilderness of multitudinous\n      details, [is] yet full of sagacious observations\u201d (Introd. p. 180).\n\n  199 As Mill\u2019s text is sometimes reprinted in England as if it were quite\n      identical with that commonly received, it is right to note the\n      following passages wherein it does not coincide with Stephen\u2019s of\n      1550, besides that it corrects his typographical errors: Matt. xx.\n      15; 22; xxiv. 15; Mark ix. 16; xi. 22; xv. 29; Luke vii. 12 _bis_;\n      x. 6; xvii. 1; John viii. 4; 25; xiii. 30-31; xix. 7; Acts ii. 36;\n      vii. 17; xiv. 8; Rom. xvi. 11; 1 Cor. iii. 15; x. 10; xv. 28; 2 Cor.\n      vi. 16; Eph. iv. 25; Tit. ii. 10; 1 Pet. iii. 11; 21; iv. 8; 2 Pet.\n      ii. 12; Apoc. ii. 5; xx. 4. Reuss (p. 149) tells us that Kuster\u2019s\n      edition recalls the Stephanic readings in Matt. xxiv. 15; Apoc. ii.\n      5.\n\n  200 Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Introductory Preface, p. xv.\n\n  201 Ellis, _ubi supra_, pp. xvii-xix. These _Proposals_ were also very\n      properly reprinted by Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg. lxxxvii-xcvi, 7th\n      edition), together with the specimen chapter (Apoc. xxii). The full\n      title was to have been: \u201c\u1f29 \u039a\u0391\u0399\u039d\u0397 \u0394\u0399\u0391\u0398\u0397\u039a\u0397 Graece. Novum Testamentum\n      Versionis Vulgatae, per stum Hieryonymum ad vetusta exemplaria\n      Graeca castigatae et exactae. Utrumque ex antiquissimis Codd. MSS.,\n      cum Graecis tum Latinis, edidit Richardus Bentleius.\u201d\n\n  202 This is all the more lamentable, inasmuch as Bentley was not\n      accurate enough as a collator to make it unnecessary to follow him\n      over the same ground. Dr. Westcott confirms my own experience in\n      this respect when in a MS. note inserted by him on a blank leaf of\n      Trin. Coll. B. XVII. 14, he states that \u201cBentley\u2019s testimony, when\n      he quotes a reading, may always be taken as true; but it is not so\n      when he notes no variation in particular. On an average he omits\n      _one-third_ of the variations of the MSS., without following, as far\n      as I can discover, any law in the selection of readings.\u201d\n\n  203 Bp. John Wordsworth would vindicate both Bentley and Walker from the\n      suspicion of lightly taking up and lightly dropping so important a\n      task. Walker, whom Bentley, as is said, called \u201cClarissimus Walker,\u201d\n      died on Nov. 9, 1741, at the age of forty-eight.\u2014Wordsworth, Old\n      Biblical Texts, I. xxv. p. 65. And for the Latin and Greek Texts\n      collated by him wholly or partially, _see_ pp. 55-63.\n\n  204 He continued this work till after 1735. _See_ paper found by Dr.\n      Ince at Christ Church, quoted by Bp. J. Wordsworth, Old Latin\n      Biblical Texts, I. xxv. note 2.\n\n  205 Mr. Jebb (Life of Bentley, p. 164) imputes the failure of Bentley\u2019s\n      grand scheme partly to the worry of litigation which harassed him\n      from 1729 to 1738; partly to a growing sense of complexity in the\n      problem of the text, especially after he became better acquainted\n      with the Vatican readings, i.e. about 1720 and 1729. Reuss (p. 172)\n      ought never to have conditioned the ultimate success of such a man\n      by the proviso \u201csi consilio par fuerit perseverantia.\u201d\n\n  206 \u201cThis thought has now so engaged me, and in a manner inslaved me,\n      that _vae mihi_ unless I do it. Nothing but sickness (by the\n      blessing of God) shall hinder me from prosecuting it to the end\u201d\n      (Bentley to Archbp. Wake, 1716: Ellis, _ubi supra_, p. xvi). A short\n      article in the _Edinburgh Review_ for July, 1860, apparently from\n      the pen of Tregelles, draws attention to \u201cNicolai Toinardi Harmonia\n      Graeco-Latina,\u201d Paris, 1707, fol. (\u201cliber rarissimus,\u201d Reuss, p.\n      167), who so far anticipates Bentley\u2019s labours, that he forms a new\n      Greek text by the aid of two Roman manuscripts (Cod. B being one of\n      them) and of the Latin version.\n\n  207 Dr. Gregory says that though Mace\u2019s edition had no accents or soft\n      breathing, he anticipates most of the changes accepted by some\n      critics of the present day.\n\n  208 I cannot help borrowing the language of Donaldson, used with\n      reference to an entirely different department of study, in the\n      opening of one of his earliest and by far his most enduring work:\n      \u201cIt may be stated as a fact worthy of observation in the literary\n      history of modern Europe, that generally, when one of our countrymen\n      has made the first advance in any branch of knowledge, we have\n      acquiesced in what he has done, and have left the further\n      improvement of the subject to our neighbours on the continent. The\n      man of genius always finds an utterance, for he is urged on by an\n      irresistible impulse\u2014a conviction that it is his duty and vocation\n      to speak: but we too often want those who shall follow in his steps,\n      clear up what he has left obscure, and complete his unfinished\n      labours\u201d (New Cratylus, p. 1). Dr. Gregory quotes against Dr.\n      Scrivener, Mace (1729), Bowyer, a follower of Wetstein (1763),\n      Harwood (1776), besides Whitby, Middleton, and Twells: but Dr. S.\n      looked for greater names, and till Middleton, a more advancing\n      study.\n\n  209 The full title is \u201c\u2019\u1f29 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7. Novum Testamentum Graecum ita\n      adornatum ut Textus probatarum editionum medullam, Margo variantium\n      lectionum in suas classes distributarum locorumque parellelorum\n      delectum, Apparatus subjunctus criseos sacrae Millianae praesertim\n      compendium limam supplementum ac fructum exhibeat, inserviente J. A.\n      B.\u201d\n\n  210 They consist of seven Augsburg codices (_Aug._ 1 = Evan. 83; _Aug._\n      2 = Evan. 84; _Aug._ 3 = Evan. 85; _Aug._ 4 = Evst. 24; _Aug._ 5 =\n      Paul. 54; _Aug._ 6 = Act. 46; _Aug._ 7 = Apoc. 80); _Poson._ = Evan.\n      86; extracts sent by Isel from three Basle copies (_Bas._ \u03b1 = Evan.\n      E; _Bas._ \u03b2 = Evan. 2; _Bas._ \u03b3 = Evan. 1); _Hirsaug._ = Evan. 97;\n      _Mosc._ = Evan. V; extracts sent by F. C. Gross. To these add\n      Uffenbach\u2019s three, _Uffen._ 2 or 1 = Paul. M; _Uffen._ 1 or 2 = Act.\n      45; _Uffen._ 3 = Evan. 101.\n\n  211 It is worth while to quote at length Bengel\u2019s terse and vigorous\n      statement of his principle: \u201cPosset variarum lectionum ortus, per\n      singulos codices, per paria codicum, per syzygias minores\n      majoresque, per familias, tribus, nationesque illorum, investigari\n      et repraesentari; et inde propinquitates discessionesque codicum ad\n      schematismos quosdam reduci, et schematismorum aliquae concordantiae\n      fieri; atque ita res tota per tabulam quandam quasi genealogicam\n      oculis subjici, ad quam tabulam quaelibet varietas insignior cum\n      agmine suorum codicum, ad convincendos etiam tardissimos dubitatores\n      exigeretur. Magnam conjectanea nostra sylvam habent: sed manum de\n      tabul\u00e2, ne risuum periculo exponatur veritas. Bene est, quod\n      praetergredi montem hunc, et planiore via pervenire datur ad codices\n      discriminandos. Datur autem per hanc regulam aequissimam: Quo\n      saepius non modo singuli codices, sed etiam syzygiae minores eorum\n      vel majores, in aberrationes manifestas tendunt; eo levius ferunt\n      testimonium in discrepantiis difficilioribus, eoque magis lectio ab\n      eis deserta, tanquam genuina retineri debet\u201d (N. T., Apparat. Crit.,\n      p. 387).\n\n  212 See a eulogistic yet discriminating discussion upon Bengel in\n      _Bengel als Gelehrter, ein Bild f\u00fcr unsere Tage_, from the eminent\n      pen of Dr. Nestle, which has been courteously sent to the editor\n      through the Rev. H. J. White.\n\n  213 The opposition of Frey and his other adversaries delayed that _opus\n      magnum_ for twenty years (N. T., Proleg., vol. i. p. 218).\n\n  214 We here reckon separately, as we believe is both usual and\n      convenient, every distinct portion of the N. T. contained in a\n      manuscript. Thus Codd. C and 69 Evan. will each count for four.\n\n  215 Errors of Wetstein\u2019s text will be found in John xi. 31; Acts i. 26;\n      xiii. 29 \u1f10\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, from the Oxford N. T. 1675, though Wetstein\n      himself remarks this. He corrects a few obvious misprints of Elzevir\n      1633, but his note shows that he does not _intend_ to read \u03c4\u1ff7 in\n      Mark vi. 29. The following seem to be deliberate variations from the\n      Elzevir text: Matt. xiii. 15; xxi. 41; Mark xiv. 54; Luke ii. 22;\n      xi. 12; xiii. 19; 1 Cor. i. 29; v. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15; Phil. iii.\n      5; 1 Tim. iii. 2, 11 (yet not Tit. ii. 2); Philem. 7; 1 Pet. i. 3;\n      iii. 7. All these deliberate variations are found in Von Mastricht\u2019s\n      edition of 1735, which seems to have been used by Wetstein as the\n      basis of his text; and in all of them (except Matt. xxi. 41; Luke\n      xi. 12, and Phil. iii. 5) Fell\u2019s text agrees with Wetstein\u2019s. In\n      Matt. xiii. 15; Mark xiv. 54; 1 Cor. i. 29; v. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15;\n      Phil. iii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 7, the Elzevir editions vary. (American\n      Additions and Corrections, p. 51.) He spells \u03bd\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4 uniformly,\n      except in John i. 46, 47. Reuss (p. 183) adds nine changes made by\n      Wetstein in the text for critical reasons: Matt. viii. 28; Luke xi.\n      2; John vii. 53-viii. 11; Acts v. 36; xx. 28; 1 Tim. iii. 16 (\u03b4);\n      Apoc. iii. 2; x. 4; xviii. 17.\n\n  216 One other specimen of Matthaei\u2019s critical skill will suffice: he is\n      speaking of his Cod. H, which is our Evst. 50. \u201cHic Codex scriptus\n      est literis quadratis, estque eorum omnium, qui adhuc in Europa\n      innotuerunt et vetustissimus et praestantissimus. Insanus quidem\n      fuerit, qui cum hoc aut Cod. V [p. 144] comparare, aut aequiparare\n      voluerit Codd. Alexandr. Clar. Germ. Boern. Cant. [Evan. AD, Paul.\n      ADEG], qui sine ullo dubio pessim\u00e8 ex scholiis et Versione Latin\u00e2\n      Vulgat\u00e2 interpolati sunt\u201d (N. T., Tom. ix. p. 254).\n\n  217 In using Matthaei\u2019s N. T. the following index of manuscripts first\n      collated by him will be found useful: a = Evan. 259, Act. 98 (a 1),\n      Paul. 113 (a or a 2), Apost. 82 (a 3): B = Evst. 47: b = Apost. 13:\n      c = Act. 99, Paul. 114, Evst. 48: d = Evan. 237, Act. 100, Paul.\n      115: e = Evan. 238, Apost. 14: f = Act. 101, Paul. 116, Evst. 49: g\n      = Evan. 239, Act. 102, Paul. 117: H = Evst. 50: h = Act. 103, Paul.\n      118: i = Evan. 240, Paul. 119: k = Evan. 241, Act. 104, Paul. 120,\n      Apoc. 47: l = Evan. 242, Act. 105, Paul. 121, Apoc. 48: m = Evan.\n      243, Act. 106, Paul. 122: n = Evan. 244, Paul. 123: o = Evan. 245,\n      Apoc. 49: p = Evan. 246, Apoc. 50: q = Evan. 247, Paul. 124: r =\n      Evan. 248, also Apoc. 502, Apoc. 90: s = Evan. 249, Paul. 76: t =\n      Apoc. 32, Evst. 51: tz = Apost. 15: V = V: v = Evan. 250, Apost. 5:\n      x = Evan. 251, Act. 69, Paul. 74, Apoc. 30 (from Knittel); z = Evan.\n      252: 10 = Evan. 253: 11 = Evan. 254: 12 = Evan. 255: 14 = Evan. 256:\n      15 = O, 16 = Evst. 56, Apost. 20: 17 = Evan. 258: 18 = Evan. 99: 19\n      = Evst. 57: 20 = Evan. 89: \u03be = Evst. 52, Apost. 16: \u03c7 = Evst. 53,\n      Apost. 17: \u03c8 = Evst. 54, Apost. 18: \u03c9 = Evst. 55, Apost. 19: Frag.\n      Vet. = part of H: Gpaul. It should be noted, that in several of\n      these cases different MSS. are included under one letter: e.g. c =\n      Evst. 48 is a different MS. from c = Act. 99.\n\n  218 The copies of Chrysostom\u2019s homilies on the Gospels freshly collated\n      by this editor are noted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, \u03b1, \u03b2, \u03b3, \u03b4,\n      \u03b5, \u03b6, \u03b7, \u03b8, \u03bb, \u03bc, \u03c0, \u03c1, \u03c6: those on St. Paul\u2019s Epistles are noted 1,\n      2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, \u03b1, \u03b2.\n\n  219 Reuss (p. 207) calculates that, besides misprints, Matthaei\u2019s second\n      and very inferior edition differs in text from his first in but\n      twenty-four places, none of them being in the Gospels.\n\n  220 \u201cTextui ad Millianum expresso\u201d says Reuss (p. 151), which is not\n      quite the same thing: _see_ p. 203, note 2.\n\n  221 \u201cConscius sum mihi, me omnem et diligentiam et intentionem\n      adhibuisse, ut haec editio quam emendatissima in manus eruditorum\n      perveniret, utque in hoc opere, in quo ingenio non fuit locus, curae\n      testimonium promererem; nulla tamen mihi est fiducia, me omnia, quae\n      exigi possint, peregisse. Vix enim potest esse ulla tam perpetua\n      legentis intentio, quae non obtutu continuo fatigetur, praesertim in\n      tali genere, quod tam multis, saepe parvis, observationibus\n      constat.\u201d (Lecturis Editor, p. v. 1788.) Well could I testify to the\n      truth of these last words!\n\n  222 \u201cSymbolae Criticae ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum N. T.\n      lectionum Collectiones. Accedit multorum N. T. Codicum Graecorum\n      descriptio et examen.\u201d\n\n  223 Yet Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. xcvii, 7th ed.) states that he\n      only added two readings (Mark vi. 2, 4) to those given by Wetstein\n      for Cod. C. From Cod. D too he seems to have taken only one reading,\n      and that erroneously, \u03b5\u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, Acts xiv. 2.\n\n  224 In the London edition of 1809 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 is printed for the first \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03af,\n      Mark iv. 18. Griesbach also omits \u03ba\u03b1\u03af in 2 Pet. i. 15: no manuscript\n      except Cod. 182 (ascr) is known to do so.\n\n  225 \u201cDissertatio critica de Codicibus quatuor Evangeliorum Origenianis,\u201d\n      Halae, 1771: \u201cCurae in historiam textus Graeci epistolarum\n      Paulinarum,\u201d Jenae, 1777.\n\n  226 \u201cCommentarius Criticus in textum Gr. N. T.,\u201d Part i. 1798; Part ii.\n      1811.\n\n  227 The following specimen of a reading, _possessing no internal\n      excellence_, preferred or favoured by Griesbach on the slightest\n      evidence, will serve to illustrate the dangerous tendency of his\n      system, had it been consistently acted upon throughout. In Matt.\n      xxvii. 4 for \u1f00\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bf\u03bd he indicates the mere gloss \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd as equal or\n      preferable (though in his _later_ manual edition of 1805 he marks it\n      as an inferior reading), on the authority of the _later_ margin of\n      Cod. B, of Cod. L, the Sahidic Armenian, and Latin versions and\n      Fathers, and Origen in four places (\u1f00\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bf\u03bd once). He adds the Syriac,\n      but this is an error as regards the Peshitto or Harkleian; the\n      Jerusalem may countenance him; though in such a case the testimony\n      of versions is precarious on either side. Here, however, Griesbach\n      defends \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd against all likelihood, because BL and Origen are\n      Alexandrian, the Latin versions Western.\n\n  228 Reuss (p. 198) calculates that in his second edition out of Reuss\u2019\n      thousand chosen passages Griesbach stands with the Elzevir text in\n      648, sides with other editions in 293, has fifty-nine peculiar to\n      himself. The second differs from the first edition (1774-5) in about\n      fifty places only.\n\n  229 Laurence, in the Appendix to his \u201cRemarks,\u201d shows that while Cod. A\n      agrees with Origen against the received text in 154 places, and\n      disagrees with the two united in 140, it sides with the received\n      text against Origen in no less than 444 passages.\n\n  230 David Schulz published at Berlin, 1827, 8vo, a third and much\n      improved edition of his N. T., vol. i (Gospels), containing also\n      collations of certain additional manuscripts, unknown to Griesbach.\n\n  231 One of Porter\u2019s examples is almost amusing. It was Scholz\u2019s constant\n      habit to copy Griesbach\u2019s lists of critical authorities (errors,\n      misprints, and all) without giving the reader any warning that they\n      were not the fruit of his own labours. The note he borrowed from\n      Griesbach on 1 Tim. iii. 16, contains the words \u201cuti docuimus in\n      Symbolis Criticis:\u201d this too Scholz appropriates (Tom. ii. p. 334,\n      col. 2) so as to claim the \u201cSymbolae Criticae\u201d of the Halle\n      Professor as his own! See also p. 217, Evan. 365; p. 253, Act. 86,\n      and Tischendorf\u2019s notes on Acts xix. 25; 2 Pet. i. 15 (N. T., eighth\n      edition). His very text must have been set up by Griesbach\u2019s. Thus,\n      since the latter, by a mere press error, omitted \u03bc\u03b5 in 2 Cor. ii.\n      13, Scholz not only follows him in the omission, but cites in his\n      note a few cursives in which he had met with \u03bc\u03b5, a word really\n      absent from no known copy. In Heb. ix. 5 again, both editors in\n      error prefix \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 to \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2. Scholz\u2019s inaccuracy in the description of\n      manuscripts which he must have had before him when he was writing is\n      most wearisome to those who have had to trace his steps, and to\n      verify, or rather to falsify, his statements. He has half filled our\n      catalogues with duplicates and codices which are not Greek or are\n      not Biblical at all. After correcting not a few of his\n      misrepresentations of books in the libraries at Florence, Burgon\n      breaks out at last: \u201cWhat else but calamitous is it to any branch of\n      study that it should have been prosecuted by such an incorrigible\n      blunderer, a man so abominably careless as this?\u201d (_Guardian_, Aug.\n      27, 1873.)\n\n  232 Some of these statements are discussed in Scrivener\u2019s \u201cCollation of\n      the Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels,\u201d Introd. pp. lxix-lxxi.\n\n  233 The following is the _whole_ of this notice, which we reprint after\n      Tregelles\u2019 example: \u201cDe ratione et consilio hujus editionis loco\n      commodiore expositum est (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1830, pp.\n      817-845). Hic satis erit dixisse, editorem nusquam judicium suum,\n      sed consuetudinem antiquissimarum orientis ecclesiarum secutum esse.\n      Hanc quoties minus constantem fuisse animadvertit, quantum fieri\n      potuit quae Italorum et Afrorum consensu comprobarentur praetulit:\n      ubi pervagatam omnium auctorum discrepantiam deprehendit, partim\n      uncis partim in marginibus indicavit. Quo factum est ut vulgatae et\n      his proximis duobus saeculis _receptae lectionis_ ratio haberi non\n      posset. Haec diversitas hic in fine libri adjecta est, quoniam ea\n      res doctis judicibus necessaria esse videbatur.\u201d Here we have one of\n      Lachmann\u2019s leading peculiarities\u2014his absolute disregard of the\n      received readings\u2014hinted at in an incidental manner: the influence\n      he was disposed to accord to the Latin versions when his chief\n      authorities were at variance is pretty clearly indicated: but no one\n      would guess that by the \u201ccustom of the oldest Churches of the East\u201d\n      he intends the few very ancient codices comprising Griesbach\u2019s\n      Alexandrian class, and not the great mass of authorities, gathered\n      from the Churches of Syria, Asia Minor, and Constantinople, of which\n      that critic\u2019s Byzantine family was made up.\n\n  234 These are _d_ for Cod. Bezae, _e_ for Cod. Laud. 35, _f_ being\n      Lachmann\u2019s notation for Paul. Cod. D, as _ff_ is for Paul. Cod. E\n      (whose Latin translation is cited independently), _g_ for Paul. Cod.\n      G.\n\n  235 We must now except the seventh century corrector of Cod. \u05d0 called by\n      Tischendorf Ca, who actually changes the original reading \u03b5\u03ba\u03b4. into\n      \u03b5\u03bd\u03b4., to be himself set right by a later hand Cb. This is one out of\n      many proofs of something more than an accidental connexion between\n      Codd. \u05d0 and B at a remote period. _See_ vol. i. p. 96, and note.\n\n  236 In dedicating the third volume of his \u201cMonumenta sacra inedita\u201d in\n      1860 to the Theological Faculty at Leyden, Tischendorf states that\n      he took to these studies twenty-three years before, that is, at\n      about twenty-two years of age.\n\n  237 Tischendorf left almost no papers behind him. Hence the task of\n      writing Prolegomena to his eighth edition, gallantly undertaken by\n      two American scholars, Dr. Caspar Ren\u00e9 Gregory of Leipzig, and Dr.\n      Ezra Abbot of Cambridge, U. S., but for their own independent\n      researches, might seem to resemble that of making bricks without\n      straw.\n\n  238 Through his haste to publish Cod. E of the Acts, in which design he\n      feared to be forestalled by a certain Englishman, Tischendorf\n      postponed to it vols. vii and viii, which he did not live to resume.\n      Oscar von Gebhardt, now of Berlin, will complete vol. vii; Caspar\n      Ren\u00e9 Gregory hopes to do what is possible for vol. viii.\n\n  239 For further information respecting this indefatigable scholar and\n      his labours we may refer to a work published at Leipzig in 1862,\n      \u201cConstantin Tischendorf in seiner f\u00fcnfundzwanzigj\u00e4hrigen\n      schriftstellerischen wirksamkeit. Literar-historische skizze von Dr.\n      Joh. Ernst Volbeding.\u201d I have also seen, by Dr. Ezra Abbot\u2019s\n      courtesy, his paper in the _Unitarian Review_, March, 1875.\n\n  240 A pamphlet of thirty-six pages appeared late in 1860, \u201cAdditions to\n      the Fourth Volume of the Introduction to the Holy Scriptures,\u201d &c.,\n      by S. P. T. Most of this industrious writer\u2019s other publications are\n      not sufficiently connected with the subject of the present volume to\n      be noticed here, but as throwing light upon the literary history of\n      Scripture we may mention his edition of the \u201cCanon Muratorianus,\u201d\n      liberally printed for him in 1867 by the Delegates of the Oxford\n      University Press. Burgon, however, on comparing Tregelles\u2019 book with\n      the document itself at Milan, cannot overmuch laud his minute\n      correctness (_Guardian_, Feb. 5, 1873). Isaac H. Hall made the same\n      comparison at Milan and confirms Burgon\u2019s judgement. The custodian\n      of the Ambrosian Library at Milan, the famous Ceriani, had nothing\n      to do with the work or with the lithograph facsimile.\n\n  241 As a whole it may be pronounced very accurate as well as beautiful,\n      with the conspicuous drawback that the Greek accents are so ill\n      represented as to show either strange ignorance or utter\n      indifference about them on the part of the person who revised the\n      sheets for the press.\n\n  242 He gave the same assurance to A. Earle, D.D., Bishop of Marlborough,\n      assigning as his reason the results of the study of the Greek N. T.\n\n  243 Dr. Hort (Introd. p. 277) hardly goes so far as this: \u201cThose,\u201d he\n      says, \u201cwho propose remedies which cannot possibly avail are not\n      thereby shown to have been wrong in the supposition that remedies\n      were needed; and a few have been perhaps too quickly forgotten.\u201d\n\n  244 I hope that the change made in the wording of the above sentence\n      from what stood in the first edition will satisfy my learned and\n      acute critic, Mr. Linwood (Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as\n      applied to the New Testament, 1873, p. 9, note); although I fear\n      that the difference between us is in substance as wide as ever. At\n      the same time I would hardly rest the main stress of the argument\n      where Dr. Roberts does when he says that \u201cconjectural criticism is\n      entirely banished from the field, &c., simply because all sober\n      critics feel that there is no need for it\u201d (Words of the N. T., p.\n      24). There are texts, no doubt, some of those for example which Dr.\n      Westcott and Dr. Hort have branded with a marginal [+] in their\n      edition; e.g. Acts vii. 46; xiii. 32; xix. 40; xxvi. 28; Rom. viii.\n      2; 1 Cor. xii. 2 (where Eph. ii. 11 might suggest \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad); 1 Tim.\n      vi. 7, and especially in the kindred Epistles, 2 Pet. iii. 10; 12;\n      Jude 5; 22, 23, wherein, whether from internal difficulties or from\n      the actual state of the external evidence, we should be very glad of\n      more light than our existing authorities will lend us. What I most\n      urge is the plain fact, that the conjectures, even of able and\n      accomplished men, have never been such as to approve themselves to\n      any but their authors, much less to commend themselves to the\n      judgement of scholars as intuitively true.\n\n  245 Bentley, the last great critic who paid much regard to conjectural\n      emendations, promised in his Prospectus of 1720 that \u201cIf the author\n      has anything to suggest towards a change of the text, not supported\n      by any copies now extant, he will offer it separate in his\n      Prolegomena.\u201d It is really worth while to turn over Wm. Bowyer\u2019s\n      \u201cCritical Conjectures and Observations on the N. T.,\u201d or the summary\n      of them contained in Knappe\u2019s N. T. of 1797, if only to see the\n      utter fruitlessness of the attempt to illustrate Scripture by\n      ingenious exercise of the imagination. The best (_e.g._\n      \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 Acts i. 4; \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 for \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 _ibid._ xv. 20, 29),\n      no less than the most tasteless and stupid (_e.g._ \u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd for\n      \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd Acts xxvii. 9), in the whole collection, are hopelessly\n      condemned by the deep silence of a host of authorities which have\n      since come to light. Nor are Mr. Linwood\u2019s additions to the\n      over-copious list likely to fare much better. Who but himself will\n      think \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 in Luke ii. 2 corrupted through the intermediate \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\n      from \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 (_ubi supra_ p. 5); or that \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac in Rom. xv. 22\n      ought to be \u1f10\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac (p. 13)? Add to this, that he gives up\n      existing readings much too easily, even where his emendations are\n      more plausible than the foregoing, as when he would adopt \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd for\n      \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd in John viii. 44 (p. 6); and this is perhaps his best attempt.\n      His worst surely is \u039f\u03a3 for _\u0398\u03a3_ (\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2) Rom. ix. 5, which could not\n      be endured unless \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd followed \u1f45\u03c2, as it does in the very passage\n      (Rom. i. 25) which he cites in illustration (p. 13).\n\n  246 \u201cVII. Inter duas variantes lectiones, si quae est \u03b5\u1f50\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 aut\n      planior aut Graecantior, alteri non protinus praeferenda est, sed\n      contra saepius. VIII. Lectio exhibens locutionem minus usitatam, sed\n      alioqui subjectae materiae convenientem, praeferenda est alteri,\n      quae, cum aeque conveniens sit, tamen phrasim habet minus\n      insolentem, usuque magis tritam.\u201d Wetstein\u2019s whole tract,\n      \u201cAnimadversiones et Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum N. T.\n      necessariae\u201d (N. T., vol. ii. pp. 851-874) deserves attentive study.\n      See also the 43 Canones Critici and their Confirmatio in N. T. of G.\n      D. T. M. D.\n\n  247 So even Dr. Roberts, whose sympathies on the whole would not be the\n      same as the Bishop of Lincoln\u2019s: \u201cOf course occasions might occur on\n      which, from carelessness or oversight, a transcriber would render a\n      sentence obscure or ungrammatical which was clear and correct in his\n      exemplar; but it is manifest that, so far as intentional alteration\n      was concerned, the temptation all lay in the opposite direction\u201d\n      (\u201cWords of the New Testament,\u201d p. 7). So again speaks E. G. Punchard\n      on James iii. 3 in Bp. Ellicott\u2019s Commentary, \u201cThe supporters of\n      such curious corrections argue that the less likely is the more so;\n      and thus every slip of a copyist, either in grammar or spelling,\n      becomes more sacred in their eyes than is the Received text with\n      believers in verbal inspiration.\u201d Sir Edmund Beckett (\u201cShould the\n      Revised New Testament be Authorised?\u201d 1882) writes in so scornful a\n      spirit as to neutralize the effects on a reader\u2019s mind of his native\n      acuteness and common sense, but he deals well with the argument\n      \u201cthat an improbable reading is more likely right, because nobody\n      would have invented it.\u201d \u201cI suppose,\u201d he rejoins, \u201can accidental\n      piece of carelessness can produce an improbable and absurd error in\n      copying as well as a probable one.\u201d (p. 7.)\n\n  248 In his seventh edition, not in his eighth.\n\n  249 One other example to illustrate this rule, so difficult in its\n      practical use, may be added from Alford on Mark ii. 22, where the\n      reading \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03af (whether the verse end or\n      not in these words) appears to have been the original form, since\n      \u201cit fully explains all the others, either as emendations of\n      construction, or corrections from parallel places.\u201d The reader may\n      apply this canon, if he pleases, to Aristotle, Ethic. iv. 9, in\n      selecting between the three different readings \u1f40\u03ba\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03af or \u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03af or\n      \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03af to close the sentence \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f20\u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03af \u03b3\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n      \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd ... having careful reference to the context in\n      which it stands: or to the easier case of \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5 and its\n      variations in Acts xvii. 27: or to Rom. viii. 24, where the first\n      hand of B and the margin of Cod. 47 (very expressly), by omitting \u03c4\u03af\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03af, appear to present the original text.\n\n  250 \u201cThough the theory of explanatory interpolations of marginal glosses\n      into the text of the N. T. has been sometimes carried too far (e.g.\n      by _Wassenberg_ in \u2018Valcken.\u2019 Schol. in N. T., Tom. i), yet probably\n      this has been the most fertile source of error in some MSS. of the\n      Sacred Volume.\u201d (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, N. T., on 2 Cor. iii. 3.) Yes,\n      in _some_ MSS.\n\n  251 On this passage Canon Liddon justly says, \u201cThe question may still\n      perhaps be asked ... whether here, as elsewhere, the presumption\n      that copyists were always anxious to alter the text of the New\n      Testament in theological interests, is not pressed somewhat\n      excessively\u201d (Bampton Lectures, 1866, p. 467, note).\n\n  252 Griesbach\u2019s \u201cetiam manifest\u00f2 falsas\u201d can allude only to 1 John v. 7,\n      8; yet it is a strong point against the authenticity of that passage\n      that it is _not_ cited by Greek writers, who did not find it in\n      their copies, but only by the Latins who did.\n\n  253 The clause might have been derived from Gen. ii. 23, yet the\n      evidence against it is strong and varied (\u05d0AB, 17, 67, Bohair.,\n      &c.).\n\n  254 Alford\u2019s only _definite_ example (and that derived from Wetstein, N.\n      T., vol. ii. p. 11) is found but in a single cursive (4) in Rom.\n      xiv. 17, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n      \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 _\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2_ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7. Tregelles (An Account of\n      Printed Text, p. 222) adds 1 Cor. vii. 5; Act. x. 30; Rom. xii. 13\n      (!) More to their purpose, perhaps, if we desired to help them on,\n      would be the suspected addition of \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 in Mark ix. 29, and\n      of the whole verse in the parallel place Matt. xvii. 21; the former\n      being brought into doubt on the very insufficient authority of Codd.\n      \u05d0 (by the first hand) \u0392, of the beautiful Latin copy _k_ from\n      Bobbio, and by reason of the silence of Clement of Alexandria: the\n      latter on the evidence of the same Greek manuscripts (_k_ being\n      defective) with Cod. 33, both (?) Egyptian, the Curetonian and\n      Jerusalem Syriac, the Latin _e_ _ff_1, some forms of the Ethiopic\n      version, and from the absence of the Eusebian canon, which ought to\n      have referred us to the parallel place in St. Mark, whereas that\n      verse is assigned to the _tenth_ canon. In the face of such readings\n      of \u05d0\u0392 it is hard to understand the grounds of Mr. Darby\u2019s vague\n      suspicion that they \u201cbear the marks of having been in ecclesiastical\n      hands.\u201d (N. T., Preface, p. 3.)\n\n  255 See (6), (7), (17), (18). The uncial characters most liable to be\n      confounded by scribes (p. 10) are \u0391\u0394\u039b, \u0395\u03a3, \u039f\u0398, \u039d\u03a0, and less probably\n      \u0393\u0399\u03a4. An article in a foreign classical periodical, written by\n      Professor Cobet, the co-editor of the Leyden reprint of the N. T.\n      portion of Cod. B, unless regarded as a mere _jeu d\u2019esprit_, would\n      serve to prove that the race of conjectural emendators is not so\n      completely extinct as (before Mr. Linwood\u2019s pamphlet) I had\n      supposed. By a dexterous interchange of letters of nearly the same\n      form (\u0394 for \u0391, \u0395 for \u03a3, \u0399 for \u03a4, \u03a3 for \u0395, \u03ba for \u0399\u03a3, \u03a4 for \u0399) this\n      modern Bentley\u2014and he well deserves the name\u2014suggests for \u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u0399\u039f\u03a3 \u03c4\u1ff7\n      \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 Act. vii. 20 [compare Heb. xi. 23] the common-place \u0394\u0395\u039a\u03a4\u039f\u03a3 \u03c4\u1ff7\n      \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7, from Act. x. 35. Each one of the _six_ necessary changes Cobet\n      profusely illustrates by examples, and even the reverse substitution\n      of \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 for \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 from Alciphron: but in the absence of all\n      manuscript authority for the very smallest of these several\n      permutations in Act. vii. 20, he excites in us no other feeling than\n      a sort of grudging admiration of his misplaced ingenuity. In the\n      same spirit he suggests \u0397\u0394\u0395\u0399\u039f\u039d\u0391 for \u03a0\u039b\u0395\u0399\u039f\u039d\u0391, Heb. xi. 4; while in 1\n      Cor. ii. 4 for \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 he simply reads \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u1fd6\n      \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, the \u03c3 which begins \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 having become accidentally doubled\n      and \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 subsequently added to explain \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, which he holds to\n      be no Greek word at all: it seems indeed to be met with nowhere\n      else. Dr. Hort\u2019s comment on this learned trifling is instructive:\n      \u201cThough it cannot be said that recent attempts in Holland to revive\n      conjectural criticism for the N. T. have shown much felicity of\n      suggestion, they cannot be justly condemned on the ground of\n      principle\u201d (Introd., p. 277).\n\n  256 Thus Canon I of this chapter includes (12), (19): Canon III includes\n      (2), (3), (4), (8), (9), (10); while (13) comes under Canon IV; (20)\n      under Canon VI.\n\n  257 \u201cCanon Criticus\u201d xxiv, N. T., by G. D. T. M. D., p. 12, 1735.\n\n  258 Dean Burgon cites (Revision Revised, pp. 359, 360) \u201cno less than\n      thirty ancient witnesses.\u201d\n\n  259 \u2019The precept, if we omit the phrase, is in striking harmony with the\n      at first sight sharp, extreme, almost paradoxical character of\n      various other precepts of the \u201cSermon on the Mount.\u201d Milligan, Words\n      of the N. T., p. 111.\n\n  260 Very similar in point of moral feeling is the variation between\n      \u1f40\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, the gentler, intrinsically perhaps the more probable,\n      and \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, the more emphatic term, in Matt. xvii. 20. Both must\n      have been current in the second century, the former having the\n      support of Codd. \u05d0B, 13, 22, 33, 124, 346 [_hiat_ 69], the\n      Curetonian Syriac (and that too against Cod. D), both Egyptian, the\n      Armenian and Ethiopic versions, Origen, Chrysostom (very expressly,\n      although his manuscripts vary), John Damascene, but of the Latins\n      Hilary alone. All the rest, including Codd. CD, the Peshitto Syriac,\n      and the Latins among first class witnesses, maintain \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd of the\n      common text.\n\n  261 Perhaps I may refer to my \u201cTextual Guide,\u201d p. 120. The utmost\n      caution should be employed in the use of this kind of evidence:\n      perhaps nowhere else do authorities differ so much.\u2014ED.\n\n  262 E.g. Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, v. 30. 1, for which see below, p.\n      261: the early date renders this testimony most weighty.\n\n  263 In deference to Lardner and others, who have supposed that Ignatius\n      refers to the sacred autographs, we subjoin the sentence in dispute.\n      \u1f18\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f24\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f55\u03c1\u03c9, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n      \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n      \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. \u1f18\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03ac \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2\n      \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (Ad Philadelph. c. 8.) On account of \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 in the succeeding\n      clause, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 has been suggested as a substitute for the\n      manuscript reading \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, and so the interpolators of the genuine\n      Epistle have actually written. But without denying that a play on\n      the words was designed between \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 and \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, both copies of\n      the Old Latin version maintain the distinction made in the Medicean\n      Greek (\u201csi non in veteribus invenio\u201d and \u201cMihi autem principium est\n      Jesus Christus\u201d), and any difficulty as to the sense lies not in\n      \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 but in \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Chevallier\u2019s translation of the passage\n      is perfectly intelligible, \u201cBecause I have heard some say, Unless I\n      find it in the ancient writings, I will not believe in the Gospel.\n      And when I said to them, \u2018It is written [in the Gospel],\u2019 they\n      answered me, \u2018It is found written before [in the Law].\u2019 \u201d Gainsayers\n      set the first covenant in opposition to the second and better one.\n\n  264 Thus Dr. Westcott understands the term, citing from Tertullian, De\n      Monogamia, xi: \u201csciamus plan\u00e8 non sic esse in Graeco authentico.\u201d\n      Dean Burgon refers us to Routh\u2019s \u201cOpuscula,\u201d vol. i. pp. 151 and\n      206.\n\n  265 Compare too Jerome\u2019s expression \u201cipsa authentica\u201d (Comment. in\n      Epist. ad Titum), when speaking of the autographs of Origen\u2019s\n      Hexapla: below, p. 263.\n\n  266 The view I take is Coleridge\u2019s (Table Talk, p. 89, 2nd ed.). \u201cI beg\n      Tertullian\u2019s pardon; but among his many _bravuras_, he says\n      something about St. Paul\u2019s autograph. Origen expressly declares the\n      reverse;\u201d referring, I suppose, to the passage cited below, p. 263.\n      Bp. Kaye, the very excellence of whose character almost unfitted him\n      for entering into the spirit of Tertullian, observes: \u201cSince the\n      whole passage is evidently nothing more than a declamatory mode of\n      stating the weight which he attached to the authority of the\n      Apostolic Churches; to infer from it that the very chairs in which\n      the Apostles sat, or that the very Epistles which they wrote, then\n      actually existed at Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, &c., would be only to\n      betray a total ignorance of Tertullian\u2019s style\u201d (Kaye\u2019s\n      \u201cEcclesiastical History ... illustrated from the writings of\n      Tertullian,\u201d p. 313, 2nd ed.). Just so: the autographs were no more\n      in those cities than the chairs were: but it suited the purpose of\n      the moment to suppose that they were extant; and, _knowing nothing\n      to the contrary_, he boldly sends the reader in search of them.\n\n  267 I do not observe, as some have thought, that Eusebius (Hist. Eccl.\n      v. 10) intimates that the copy of St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel in Hebrew\n      letters, left by St. Bartholomew in India, was the Evangelist\u2019s\n      autograph; and the fancy that St. Mark wrote with his own hand the\n      Latin fragments now at Venice (_for._) is worthy of serious notice.\n      The statement twice made in the \u201cChronicon Paschale,\u201d of Alexandria,\n      compiled in the seventh century, _but full of ancient fragments_,\n      that \u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u1f74 was the true reading of John xix. 14 \u201c\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\n      \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1fc6 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n      \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u201d (Dindorf, Chron. Pasch., pp.\n      11 and 411), is simply incredible. Isaac Casaubon, however, a most\n      unimpeachable witness, says that this passage, and another which he\n      cites, were found by himself in a fine fragment of the Paschal\n      treatise of \u201cPeter Bp. of Alexandria and martyr\u201d [d. 311], which he\n      got from Andrew Damarius, a Greek merchant or calligrapher\n      (Pattison, Life of Is. Casaubon, p. 38). Casaubon adds to the\n      assertion of Peter \u201cHec ille. Ego non ignoro quid adversus hanc\n      sententiam possit disputari: de quo judicium esto eruditorum\u201d\n      (Exercit. in Annal. Eccles. pp. 464, 670, London, 1614).\n\n  268 \u201cI have no doubt,\u201d says Tischendorf, \u201cthat in the very earliest ages\n      after our Holy Scriptures were written, and before the authority of\n      the Church protected them, wilful alterations, and especially\n      additions, were made in them,\u201d English N. T., 1869, Introd. p. xv.\n\n  269 Caius (175-200) in Routh\u2019s \u201cReliquiae,\u201d ii. 125, quoted in Burgon\u2019s\n      \u201cRevision Revised,\u201d p. 323.\n\n  270 \u201cNecdum quoque Marcion Ponticus de Ponto emersisset, cujus magister\n      Cerdon sub Hygino tunc episcopo, qui in Urbe nonus fuit, Romam\n      venit: quem Marcion secutus...\u201d Cyprian., Epist. 74. Cf. Euseb.,\n      Eccl. Hist., iv. 10, 11.\n\n  271 Dean Burgon attributes more importance to Marcion\u2019s mutilations.\n      _See_ e.g. \u201cThe Revision Revised,\u201d pp. 34-35.\n\n  272 In 1 Cor. x. 9 Marcion seems to uphold the true reading against the\n      judgement of Epiphanius: \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 _\u03ba\u03bd_ _\u03c7\u03bd_ \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.\n      Consult also Bp. Lightfoot\u2019s note (Epistle to the Colossians, p.\n      336, n. 1) on Heracleon\u2019s variation of \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 for \u1f13\u03be in John ii. 20.\n      \u201cThere is no reason to think,\u201d he says, \u201cthat Heracleon falsified\n      the text here; he appears to have found this various reading already\n      in his copy.\u201d\n\n_  273 See_ Chap. XI on Acts xxvii. 37.\n\n  274 Irenaeus\u2019 anxiety that his own works should be kept free from\n      corruption, and the value attached by him to the labours of the\n      corrector, are plainly seen in a remarkable subscription preserved\n      by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. v. 20), which illustrates what has been\n      said above, \u1f49\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03b6\u03c9 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f30\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f27\u03c2\n      \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u1fc3\u03c2 \u1f43 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03c9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03ce\u03c3\u1fc3\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03c9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2,\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u1fc3\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u1ff3.\n      Here the copyist (\u1f41 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) is assumed to be the same person\n      as the reviser or corrector. Mr. Linwood also (_ubi supra_, p. 11)\n      illustrates from Martial (Lib. vii. Epigram. x) the reader\u2019s natural\n      wish to possess an author\u2019s original manuscript rather than a less\n      perfect copy: _Qui vis_ archetypas _habere nugas_. A still stronger\n      illustration of the passage in Irenaeus (v. 30) is Linwood\u2019s\n      citation of a well-known passage in Aulus Gellius, a contemporary of\n      that Father, wherein he discusses with Higinus the corrupt variation\n      _amaro_ for _amaror_ in Virgil, Geor. ii. 247 (Noctes Atticae, Lib.\n      i. cap. 21).\n\n  275 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f76\n      \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; \u1f24, \u1f65\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1,\n      \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76\n      \u1f14\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9; \u03ba\u03b1\u03af, \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f14\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\n      \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (Stromata, iv. 6). Tregelles (Horne, p.\n      39, note 2) pertinently remarks that Clement, in the very act of\n      censuring others, subjoins the close of Matt. v. 9 to v. 10, and\n      elsewhere himself ventures on liberties no less extravagant, as when\n      he thus quotes Matt. xix. 24 (or Luke xviii. 25): \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff7\n      \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc7 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3, \u0398\u1fb6\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\n      \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f22 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd (Stromata, ii. 5).\n\n  276 In this place (contrary to what might have been inferred from the\n      language of Irenaeus, cited above, p. 262, note 2) the copyist\n      (\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2) is clearly distinct from the corrector (\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2), who\n      either alters the words that stand in the text, or adds to and\n      subtracts from them. In Cobet\u2019s masterly Preface to his own and\n      Kuenen\u2019s \u201cN. T. ad fidem Cod. Vaticani,\u201d Leyden, 1860, pp.\n      xxvii-xxxiv, will be found most of the passages we have used that\n      bear on the subject, with the following from classical writers,\n      \u201cNota est Strabonis querela xiii. p. 609 de bibliopolis, qui libros\n      edebant \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2... Sic in\n      Demosthenis Codice Monacensi ad finem Orationis xi annotatum est\n      \u0394\u03b9\u03c9\u03c1\u03b8\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f08\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac, id est, _correctus est_ (hic liber) _ex\n      duobus codicibus ab Attico_ (nobili calligrapho) _descriptis_.\u201d Just\n      as at the end of each of Terence\u2019s plays the manuscripts read\n      \u201cCalliopius recensui.\u201d\n\n  277 No doubt certain that are quite or almost peculiar to Cod. D would\n      deserve consideration if they were not destitute of adequate\n      support. Some may be inclined to think the words cited above in vol.\n      I. p. 8 not unworthy of Him to whom they are ascribed. The margin of\n      the Harkleian Syriac alone countenances D in that touching appendage\n      to Acts viii. 24, which every one must wish to be genuine, \u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\n      \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03c5[\u03b9]\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd. Several minute facts are also inserted by\n      D in the latter part of the same book, which are more likely to rest\n      on traditional knowledge than to be mere exercises of an idle fancy.\n      Such are \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf \u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5 \u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 annexed to the end of Acts xix. 9:\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u039c\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1 to Acts xxi. 1; the former of which is also found in Cod.\n      137 and the Harkleian margin; the latter in the Sahidic and one or\n      two Latin copies.\n\n  278 Considering that Cod. D and the Latin manuscripts contain the\n      variation in Luke iii. 22, but not in Matt. iii. 17, we ought not to\n      doubt that Justin Martyr (p. 331 B, ed. Paris, 1636) and Clement (p.\n      113, ed. Potter) refer to the former. Hence Bp. Kaye (Account of the\n      Writings of Clement, p. 410) should not have produced this passage\n      among others to show (what in itself is quite true) that \u201cClement\n      frequently quotes from memory.\u201d\n\n  279 This point is exceedingly well stated by Canon Cook (Revised Version\n      of the first three Gospels, p. 176): \u201cI will not dwell upon\n      indications of Arian tendencies. They are not such as we should be\n      entitled to rely upon.... Eusebius was certainly above the suspicion\n      of consciously introducing false statements or of obliterating true\n      statements. As was the case with many supporters of the high Arian\n      party, which came nearest to the sound orthodox faith, Eusebius was\n      familiar with all scriptural texts which distinctly ascribe to our\n      Lord the divine attributes and the divine name, and was far more\n      likely to adopt an explanation which coincided with his own system,\n      than to incur the risk of exposure and disgrace by obliterating or\n      modifying them in manuscripts which would be always open to public\n      inspection.\u201d\n\n  280 \u201cThis is possible, though there is no proof of it,\u201d is Professor\n      Abbot\u2019s comment (_ubi supra_, p. 190, but _see_ above, vol. i. p.\n      118, note 2).\n\n  281 In the \u201cNotitia Editionis Cod. Sin.,\u201d 1860. They are Matt. xxvii.\n      64-xxviii. 20; Mark i. 1-35; Luke xxiv. 24-53; John xxi. 1-25. Other\n      like calculations, with much the same result, are given in\n      Scrivener\u2019s \u201cCod. Sin.,\u201d Introd. pp. xlii, xliii.\n\n  282 And that too hardly to the credit of either of them. \u201cOught it not,\u201d\n      asks Dean Burgon, \u201csensibly to detract from our opinion of the value\n      of their evidence to discover that _it is easier to find two\n      consecutive verses in which the two MSS. differ, the one from the\n      other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree_?...\n      On every such occasion only one of them can possibly be speaking the\n      truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these\n      perpetual inconsistencies between Codd. B and 8\u2014grave\n      inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross ones\u2014altogether destroy\n      my confidence in either?\u201d (Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, pp.\n      77-8.)\n\n  283 Magnus siquidem hic in nostris codicibus error inolevit, dum quod in\n      eadem re alius Evangelista plus dixit, in alio, quia minus\n      putaverint, addiderunt. Vel dum eundem sensum alius aliter\n      expressit, ille qui unum e quatuor primum legerat, ad ejus exemplum\n      ceteros quoque existimaverit emendandos. _Unde accidit ut apud nos\n      mixta sint omnia_ (Praef. ad Damasum).\n\n  284 The precise references may be seen in Tischendorf\u2019s, and for the\n      most part more exactly in Tregelles\u2019 N. T. That on Matt. xxiv. 36 is\n      Tom. vii. p. 199, or vi. p. 54; on Galat. iii. 1 is Tom. vii. pp.\n      418, 487.\n\n  285 See our note on Luke xxii. 44 below in Chap. XI. This same writer\n      testifies to a practice already partially employed, of using\n      breathings, accents, and stops in copies of Holy Scripture. \u1f18\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74\n      \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u1ff3\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u1ff3\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5: \u1f40\u03be\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u1fbd, \u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u1fbd, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u1fbd, \u03c8\u03b9\u03bb\u1f74 \u1fbd, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c0\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u1fbd, \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u1fbd, \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70 \u2014, \u1f51\u03c6\u1f72\u03bd \u1fbd, \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u1fbd, \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae, \u1f69\u03c3\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (Epiphan., De Mensur., c. 2, Tom. iii. p. 237\n      Migne). This passage may tend to confirm the statements made above,\n      Vol. I. pp. 45-8, respecting the presence of such marks in very\n      ancient codices, though on the whole we may not quite vouch for Sir\n      F. Madden\u2019s opinion as regards Cod. A.\n\n  286 \u201cEvangelia quae falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha.\u201d \u201cEvangelia quae\n      falsavit Esitius [_alii_ Hesychius _vel_ Isicius], apocrypha,\u201d occur\n      separately in the course of a long list of spurious books (such as\n      the Gospels of Thaddaeus, Matthias, Peter, James, that \u201cnomine\n      Thomae quo utuntur Manichaei,\u201d &c.) in Appendix iii to Gelasius\u2019\n      works in Migne\u2019s Patrologia, Tom. lix. p. 162 [A.D. 494]. But the\n      authenticity of those decrees is far from certain, and since we hear\n      of these falsified Gospels nowhere else, Gelasius\u2019 knowledge of them\n      might have been derived from what he had read in Jerome\u2019s \u201cPraef. ad\n      Damasum.\u201d\n\n  287 Griesbach rejoices to have Hug\u2019s assent \u201cin eo, in quo disputationis\n      de veteribus N. T. recensionibus cardo vertitur; nempe extitisse,\n      inde a secundo et tertio saeculo, plures sacri text\u00fbs recensiones,\n      quarum una, si Evangelia spectes, supersit in Codice D, altera in\n      Codd. BCL, alia in Codd. EFGHS et quae sunt reliqua\u201d (Meletemata, p.\n      lxviii, prefixed to \u201cCommentarius Criticus,\u201d Pars ii, 1811). I\n      suppose that Tregelles must have overlooked this decisive passage\n      (probably the last its author wrote for the public eye) when he\n      states that Griesbach now \u201cvirtually gave up his system\u201d as regards\n      the possibility of \u201cdrawing an actual line of distinction between\n      his Alexandrian and Western recensions\u201d (An Account of the Printed\n      Text, p. 91). He certainly showed, throughout his \u201cCommentarius\n      Criticus,\u201d that Origen does not lend him the support he had once\n      anticipated; but he still held that the theory of a triple recension\n      was the very _hinge_ on which the whole question turned, and clung\n      to that theory as tenaciously as ever. THIRD EDITION. Dr. Hort (N.\n      T., Introd. p. 186) has since confirmed our opinion that Griesbach\n      was faithful to the last to the essential characteristics of his\n      theory, adding that \u201cthe Meletemata of 1811 ... reiterate\n      Griesbach\u2019s familiar statements in precise language, while they show\n      a growing perception of mixture which might have led him to further\n      results if he had not died in the following spring.\u201d\n\n  288 It should be also observed that \u03a6\u03a3 containing SS. Matthew and Mark\n      are probably older than D.\n\n  289 E.g. Matt. i. 18; Acts viii. 37 for Irenaeus: Acts xiii. 33 for\n      Origen. It is rare indeed that the express testimony of a Father is\n      so fully confirmed by the oldest copies as in John i. 28, where\n      \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3, said by Origen to be \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\n      actually appears in \u05d0*ABC*.\n\n  290 This view is controverted in Burgon\u2019s \u201cRemains.\u201d\n\n  291 Mr. A. A. Vansittart, Journal of Philology, vol. ii. No. 3, p. 35. I\n      suppose too that Mr. Hammond means much the same thing when he says,\n      \u201cIt seems almost superfluous to affirm that _every element of\n      evidence must be allowed its full weight_; but it is a principle\n      that must not be forgotten.\u201d (Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 93,\n      2nd edition.) Truly it is not superfluous to insist on this\n      principle when we so perpetually find the study of the cursive\n      manuscripts disparaged by the use of what we may venture to call the\n      Caliph Omar\u2019s argument, that if they agree with the older\n      authorities their evidence is superfluous, if they contradict them,\n      it is necessarily false.\n\n  292 The evidence of Evan. R, which contains only the decisive letters\n      \u039d\u0397\u03a1\u039f\u03a5, is the more valuable, inasmuch as it has been alleged to\n      support the readings of documents of the other class (which no doubt\n      it often does) and thus to afford a confirmation of their authority;\n      it cannot help them much when its vote is against them. On analyzing\n      the 908 readings for which R is cited in Tischendorf\u2019s eighth\n      edition, I find that it sides with A, the representative of the one\n      class, 356 times; with its better reputed rival B 157 times, where A\n      and B are at variance. It is with A alone of the great uncials 101\n      times, with B alone four, with \u05d0 alone five, with C alone (but C is\n      lost in 473 places out of the 908) six; with D alone twenty-four.\n      Some of its other combinations are instructive. It is with AC\n      forty-two times and with ACL sixteen; with AD fifty-one and with ADL\n      eighteen; with \u05d0B eleven and with \u05d0BL twenty-nine; with \u05d0L nine\n      times; with AL nineteen; with BL fifteen; with CL never; with DL\n      twice. Cod. R stands unsupported by any of the preceding eighty-nine\n      times, seldom without some countenance (but see Luke xi. 24 \u1f10\u03ba),\n      such as the Memphitic version, or later codices. In the places where\n      its fragments coincide with those of Cod. \u039e (which is much more\n      friendly to B) they agree 127 times, differ 105.\n\n  293 Dean Burgon avers that he is thoroughly convinced that \u201cno reading\n      can be of real importance\u2014I mean has a chance of being _true_\u2014which\n      is witnessed to exclusively by a very few copies, whether uncial or\n      cursive.... Nothing else are such extraordinary readings, _wherever\n      they may happen to be found_, but fragments of primitive error,\n      repudiated by the Church (\u2018a witness and keeper of Holy Writ\u2019) in\n      her corporate capacity.\u201d (Letter in the _Guardian_, July 12, 1882.)\n      I cannot go quite so far as this. [Dean Burgon has left his reply.]\n\n  294 Not that we can in any way assent to the notions of Canon T. R.\n      Birks (Essay on the right estimation of manuscript evidence in the\n      text of the N. T., 1878), whose proposition that \u201cConstant increase\n      of error is no certain and inevitable result of repeated\n      transcription\u201d (p. 33) is true enough in itself, though we cannot\n      follow him when he adds that \u201cErrors, after they have found\n      entrance, may be removed as well as increased in later copies. A\n      careful scribe may not only make fewer mistakes of his own, but he\n      may correct manifest faults of the manuscript from which he copies,\n      and avail himself of the testimony of others, so as to revise and\n      improve the text of that on which he chiefly relies.\u201d Only such a\n      scribe would no longer be a witness for the state of the text as\n      extant in his generation, but a critical editor, working on\n      principles of his own, whether good or bad alike unknown to us.\n\n  295 Very pertinent to this matter is a striking extract from J. G.\n      Reiche (a critic \u201cremarkable for extent and accuracy of learning,\n      and for soundness and sobriety of judgement,\u201d as Canon Cook vouches,\n      Revised Version, p. 4), given in Bloomfield\u2019s \u201cCritical Annotations\n      on the Sacred Text,\u201d p. 5, note: \u201cIn multis san\u00e8 N. T. locis\n      lectionis variae, iisque gravissimi argumenti, de ver\u00e2 scriptur\u00e2\n      judicium firmum et absolutum, quo acquiescere possis, ferri nequit,\n      nisi omnium subsidiorum nostrorum alicujus auctoritatis suffragia,\n      et interna veri falsique indicia, diligenter explorata, just\u00e2 lance\n      expendantur.... Quod in caus\u00e2 est, ut re non satis omni ex parte\n      circumspect\u00e2, non solum critici tantopere inter se dissentiant, sed\n      etiam singuli sententiam suam toties retractent atque commutent.\u201d In\n      the same spirit Lagarde, speaking of the more recent manuscripts of\n      the Septuagint, thus protests: \u201cCertum est eos non a somniis\n      monachorum undecimi vel alius cujusquam saeculi natos, sed ex\n      archetypis uncialibus aut ipsos aut intercedentibus aliis derivatos.\n      Unde elucet criticum acuto judicio et doctrin\u00e2 probabili instructum\n      codicibus recentioribus collectis effecturum esse (?) quid in\n      communi plurium aliquorum archetypo scriptum fuerit\u201d (Genesis, p.\n      19). Compare also Canon Cook, Revised Version of the First Three\n      Gospels, p. 5.\n\n  296 \u201cSo extravagant a statement could scarcely be deemed worthy of the\n      elaborate confutation with which Dr. Scrivener has condescended to\n      honour it\u201d (_Saturday Review_, Aug. 20, 1881). Yet this scheme of\n      \u201cComparative Criticism made easy\u201d has obtained, for its childlike\n      simplicity, more acceptance than the reviewer could reasonably\n      suppose. Dr. Hort, of course, speaks very differently: \u201cB must be\n      regarded as having preserved not only a very ancient text, but a\n      very pure line of very ancient text, and that with comparatively\n      small depravation either by scattered ancient corruptions otherwise\n      attested or by individualisms of the scribe himself. On the other\n      hand, to take it as the sole authority except where it contains\n      self-betraying errors, as some have done, is an unwarrantable\n      abandonment of criticism, and in our opinion inevitably leads to\n      erroneous results\u201d (Introd. p. 250).\n\n  297 The textual labours of the Cambridge duumvirate have received all\n      the fuller consideration in the learned world by reason of their\n      authors having been members of the New Testament Revision Company,\n      in whose deliberations they had a real influence, though, as a\n      comparison of their text with that adopted by the Revisionists might\n      easily have shown, by no means a preponderating one. I have\n      carefully studied the chief criticisms which have been published on\n      the controversy, without materially adding to the acquaintance with\n      the subject which nearly eleven years of familiar conference with my\n      colleagues had necessarily brought to me. The formidable onslaught\n      on Dr. Hort\u2019s and Bishop Westcott\u2019s principles in three articles in\n      the _Quarterly Review_ [afterwards published together with additions\n      in \u201cThe Revision Revised\u201d] especially in the number for April, 1882,\n      and Canon F. C. Cook\u2019s \u201cRevised Version of the First Three Gospels\u201d\n      (1882), must be known to most scholars, and abound with materials\n      from which a final judgement may be formed. \u201cThe Ely Lectures on the\n      Revised Version of the N. T.\u201d (1882), which my friend and benefactor\n      Canon Kennedy was pleased to inscribe to myself, are none the less\n      valuable for their attempt to hold the balance even between opposite\n      views of the questions at issue. The host of pamphlets and articles\n      in periodicals which the occasion has called forth could hardly be\n      enumerated in detail, but some of them have been used with due\n      acknowledgement in Chap. XII.\n\n  298 We are concerned not with names but with things, so that Dr. Hort\n      may give his _ignis fatuus_ what appellation he likes, only why he\n      calls it Syrian it is hard to determine. The notices connecting his\n      imaginary revision with Lucian of Antioch which we have given above\n      he feels to be insufficient, for he says no more than that \u201cthe\n      conjecture derives some little support from a passage of Jerome,\n      which is not itself discredited by the precariousness of the modern\n      theories which have been suggested by it\u201d (Hort, p. 138).\n\n_  299 See_ Burgon\u2019s \u201cThe Revision Revised,\u201d pp. 271-288.\n\n  300 Other examples may be seen in our notes in Chap. XII on Luke ii. 14\n      for Methodius; Luke xxii. 43, 44 for Hippolytus again; Luke xxiii.\n      34 for Irenaeus and Origen. Add Luke x. 1 for Irenaeus (p. 546, note\n      1); xxiii. 45 (Hippolytus); John xiii. 24 (Clem. Alex.); 2 Cor. xii.\n      7 (Iren. Orig.); Mark xvi. 17, 18 (Hippol.). _See_ also Miller\u2019s\n      \u201cTextual Guide,\u201d pp. 84, 85, where 165 passages on fifteen texts are\n      gathered from writers before St. Chrysostom.\n\n  301 For reasons which will be readily understood, we have quoted\n      sparingly from the trenchant article in the _Quarterly Review_,\n      April, 1882, but the following summary of the consequences of a too\n      exclusive devotion to Codd. \u05d0B seems no unfit comment on the facts\n      of the case: \u201cThus it would appear that the Truth of Scripture has\n      run a very narrow risk of being lost for ever to mankind. Dr. Hort\n      contends that it more than half lay _perdu_ on a forgotten shelf in\n      the Vatican Library;\u2014Dr. Tischendorf that it had found its way into\n      a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine at the foot of\n      Mount Sinai\u2014from which he rescued it on February 4, 1859:\u2014neither,\n      we venture to think, a very likely supposition. We incline to\n      believe that the Author of Scripture hath not by any means shown\n      Himself so unmindful of the safety of the Deposit, as these learned\n      persons imagine\u201d (p. 365). The Revision Revised, p. 343.\n\n_  302 See_ Appendix of passages at the end of this chapter. Yet while\n      refusing without hesitation the claim of the _monstra_ which follow\n      to be regarded as a part of the sacred text, we are by no means\n      insensible to the fact impressed upon us by the Dean of Llandaff,\n      that there are readings which conciliate favour the more we think\n      over them: it being the special privilege of Truth always to grow\n      upon candid minds. We subjoin his persuasive words: \u201cIt is deeply\n      interesting to take note of the process of thought and feeling which\n      attends in one\u2019s own mind the presentation of some unfamiliar\n      reading. At first sight the suggestion is repelled as\n      unintelligible, startling, almost shocking. By degrees, light dawns\n      upon it\u2014it finds its plea and its palliation. At last, in many\n      instances, it is accepted as adding force and beauty to the context,\n      and a conviction gradually forms itself that thus and not otherwise\n      was it written.\u201d (Vaughan, Epistle to Romans, Preface to the third\n      edition, p. xxi.)\n\n  303 Thus far we are in agreement with the \u201cTwo Members of the N. T.\n      Company,\u201d however widely we may differ from their general views:\n      \u201cThe great contribution of our own times to a mastery over materials\n      has been the clearer statement of the method of genealogy, and, by\n      means of it, the corrected distribution of the great mass of\n      documentary evidence\u201d (p. 19). Only that arbitrary theories ought to\n      be kept as far as possible out of sight.\n\n  304 So that we may be sure what we should have found in Cod. D, and with\n      high probability in Cod. E, were they not defective, when in Acts\n      xxvii. 5 we observe \u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 inserted after\n      \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 in 137, 184, and the Harkleian margin with an\n      asterisk; as also when we note in Acts xxviii. 16 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2\n      before \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd in the last two and in _demid._\n\n  305 E.g. Luke xxiv. 3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f30\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 omitted by D, _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_2\n      _l_; ver. 6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f66\u03b4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f20\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7 (comp. Mark xvi. 6), omitted\n      by the same; ver. 9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 by the same, by _c_ and the\n      Armenian; the whole of ver. 12, by the same (except _ff_2) with\n      _fuld._, but surely not by the Jerusalem Syriac, even according to\n      Tischendorf\u2019s showing, or by Eusebius\u2019 canon, for he knew the verse\n      well (comp. John xx. 5); ver. 36 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd\n      omitted by D, _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_2 _l_ as before (comp. John xx. 19,\n      26); the whole of ver. 40, omitted by the same and by Cureton\u2019s\n      Syriac (comp. John xx. 20); ver. 51 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\n      and ver. 52 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd omitted by the same and by\n      Augustine, the important clause in ver. 51 by \u05d0* also, and\n      consequently by Tischendorf. Yet, as if to show how mixed the\n      evidence is, D deserts _a_ _b_ _ff_2 _l_ when, in company with a\n      host of authorities, both manuscripts and versions (_f_ _q_,\n      Vulgate, Bohairic, Syriac, and others), they annex \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n      \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 to the end of ver. 42. _See_ also Luke x. 41, 42; xxii. 19,\n      20, discussed in Chap. XII.\n\n  306 So of certain of the chief versions we sometimes hear it said that\n      they are less important in the rest of the N. T. than in the\n      Gospels; which means that in the former they side less with \u05d0B.\n\n  307 Canon Kennedy, whose \u201cEly Lectures\u201d exhibit, to say the least, no\n      prejudice against the principles enunciated in Dr. Hort\u2019s\n      Introduction, is good enough to commend the four rules here set\n      forth to the attention of his readers (p. 159, note). The first\n      three were stated in my first edition (1861), the fourth added in\n      the second edition (1874), and, while they will not satisfy the\n      advocates of extreme views on either side, suffice to intimate the\n      terms on which the respective claims of the uncial and cursive\n      manuscripts, of the earlier and the more recent authorities, may, in\n      my deliberate judgement, be equitably adjusted.\n\n  308 Dean Burgon held that too much deference is here paid to the mere\n      antiquity of those which happen to be the oldest MSS., but are not\n      the oldest authorities. He would therefore enlarge the grounds of\n      judgement.\n\n  309 The harmony subsisting between B and the Sahidic in characteristic\n      readings, for which they stand almost or quite alone, is well worth\n      notice: e.g. Acts xxvii. 37; Rom. xiii. 13; Col. iii. 6; Heb. iii.\n      2; 1 John ii. 14; 20.\n\n  310 \u201cThe intrinsic evidence seems immoveable against the insertion.\u201d\n      Textual Criticism of the N. T., B. B. Warfield, D.D., p. 135.\n\n  311 Yet in Penn\u2019s \u201cAnnotations to the Vatican Manuscripts\u201d (1837) \u201cThe\n      restoration of this verse to its due place\u201d is described as \u201cthe\n      most important circumstance of this [sc. his own] revision.\u201d Its\n      omission is imputed to \u201cthe undue influence of a criticism of Origen\n      [\u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2], whom Jerome followed.\u201d\n\n  312 \u201cThis gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of\n      history\u2014a reading as preposterous as it is revolting,\u201d is the\n      vigorous protest of Dean Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 68, note.\n\n  313 \u201cPost enim duodecim apostolos septuaginta alios Dominus noster ante\n      se misisse invenitur; septuaginta autem nec octonario numero neque\n      denario\u201d (Irenaeus, p. 146, Massuet). Tertullian, just a little\n      later (re-echoed by the younger Cyril), compares the Apostles with\n      the twelve wells at Elim (Ex. xv. 27), the seventy with the\n      three-score and ten palm-trees there (Adv. Marc. iv. 24). So\n      Eusebius thrice, Basil and Ambrose. On the other hand in the\n      Recognitions of Clement, usually assigned to the second or third\n      century, the number adopted is seventy-two, \u201cvel hoc modo recognit\u00e2\n      imagine Moysis\u201d and of his elders, traditionally set down at that\n      number. Compare Num. xi. 16. Epiphanius, Hilary (Scholz), and\n      Augustine are also with Cod. B.\n\n  314 To enable us to translate \u201ca son, nay even an ox,\u201d would require \u1f22\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03af, which none read. The argument, moreover, is one _a minori ad\n      majus_. Compare Ex. xxi. 33 with Ex. xxiii. 4; ch. xiii. 15.\n\n  315 Let me add _ex meo_ Codd. 22, 219, 492, 547, 549, 558, 559, 576,\n      582, 584, 594, 596, 597, 598, 601, being no doubt a large majority\n      of cursives. So Cod. 662, apparently after correction.\n\n  316 But not in the Beir\u00fbt MS. discovered in 1877 by Dr. Is. H. Hall.\n\n  317 A more ludicrous blunder of Cod. B has been pointed out to me in the\n      Old Testament, Ps. xvii. 14 \u201cthey have children at their desire\u201d:\n      \u0395\u03a7\u039f\u03a1\u03a4\u0391\u03a3\u0398\u0397\u03a3\u0391\u039d \u03ab\u0399\u03a9\u039d Cod. A, but \u0395\u03a7\u039f\u03a1\u03a4\u0391\u03a3\u0398\u0397\u03a3\u0391\u039d \u03ab\u0395\u0399\u03a9\u039d Cod. B. The London\n      papyrus has \u03a5\u03a9\u039d for \u03a5\u0399\u03a9\u039d.\n\n  318 Codex P is of far greater value than others of its own date. It is\n      frequently found in the company of B, sometimes alone, sometimes\n      with other chief authorities, especially in the Catholic Epistles,\n      e.g. James iv. 15; v. 4; 14; 2 Pet. i. 17 (partly); ii. 6; 1 John\n      ii. 20.\n\n  319 We note many small variations between the text of these critics as\n      communicated to the Revisers some years before, and that finally\n      published in 1881. The latter, of course, we have treated as their\n      standard.\n\n  320 This precious cursive forms one of a small class which in the\n      Catholic Epistles and sometimes in the Acts conspire with the best\n      uncials in upholding readings of the higher type: the other members\n      are 69, 137, 182, to which will sometimes be added the text or\n      margin of the Harkleian Syriac, Codd. 27, 29, the second hands of 57\n      and 66, 100, 180, 185, and particularly 221, which is of special\n      interest in these Epistles. The following passages, examined by\n      means of Tischendorf\u2019s notes, will prove what is here alleged: 1\n      Pet. iii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 4; 21; ii. 6; 11; 1 John i. 5; 7; 8; ii. 19;\n      iii. 1; 19; 22; iv. 19; v. 5.\n\n  321 Notice especially those instances in the Catholic Epistles, wherein\n      the primary authorities are comparatively few, in which Cod. B\n      accords with the later copies against Codd. \u05d0A(C), and is also\n      supported by internal evidence: e.g. 1 Pet. iii. 18; iv. 14; v. 2; 2\n      Pet. ii. 20; 1 John ii. 10; iii. 23, &c. In 1 John iii. 21, where\n      the first \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd is omitted by A and others, the second by C almost\n      alone, B seems right in rejecting the word in both places. So in\n      other cases internal probabilities occasionally plead strongly in\n      favour of B, when it has little other support: as in Rom. viii. 24,\n      where \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9; as against \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c4\u03af \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9; though B and the\n      margin of Cod. 47 stand alone here, best accounts for the existence\n      of other variations (_see_ p. 248). In Eph. v. 22, B alone, with\n      Clement and Jerome, the latter very expressly, omits the verb in a\n      manner which can hardly fail to commend itself as representing the\n      true form of the passage. In Col. iii. 6, B, the Sahidic, the Roman\n      Ethiopic, Clement (twice), Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, and auct. de\n      singl. cler., are alone free from the clause interpolated from Eph.\n      v. 6.\n\n  322 Viz. Luke i. 1-4, some portion of the Gospel and most of the Acts:\n      excluding such cases as St. Stephen\u2019s speech, Acts vii, and the\n      parts of his Gospel which resemble in style, and were derived from\n      the same sources as, those of SS. Matthew and Mark.\n\n  323 Dr. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 141) confirms the foregoing statements,\n      which we have repeated unchanged from our former editions. \u201cWhat\n      spellings are sufficiently probable to deserve inclusion among\n      alternative readings, is often difficult to determine. Although many\n      deviations from classical orthography are amply attested, many\n      others, which appear to be equally genuine, are found in one, two,\n      or three MSS. only, and that often with an irregularity which\n      suggests that all our MSS. have to a greater or less extent suffered\n      from the effacement of unclassical forms of words. It is no less\n      true on the other hand that a tendency in the opposite direction is\n      discernible in Western MSS.: the orthography of common life, which\n      to a certain extent was used by all the writers of the New\n      Testament, though in unequal degrees, would naturally be introduced\n      more freely in texts affected by an instinct of popular adaptation.\u201d\n\n  324 E.g. Aeschylus, Persae, 411: \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u1fbd, \u1f10\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f34\u03b8\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\n      \u03b4\u03cc\u03c1\u03c5, or Sophocles, Antigone, 219: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n      \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5.\n\n  325 Cod. \u05d0, for instance, does not omit it above 208 times throughout\n      the N. T., out of which 134 occur with verbs (three so as to cause a\n      hiatus), 29 with nouns, 45 with adjectives (chiefly \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9) or\n      participles (Scrivener, Collation, &c., p. liv). Its absence\n      produces the hiatus in B*C in 1 Pet. ii. 18 (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9), and not\n      seldom in B, e.g. 1 Pet. iv. 6, where we find \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9 and \u03b6\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9,\n      which latter is countenanced by A, and both by \u05d0L.\n\n  326 Wake 12 (Evan. 492), of the eleventh century, may be taken for a\n      fair representative of its class and date. It retains \u03bd with \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\n      thirty-three times in St. Matthew, thirteen in St. Mark, as often as\n      130 in St. Luke. With other words it mostly reserves \u03bd to indicate\n      emphasis (e.g. Luke xxii. 14; xxiv. 30), or to stand before a break\n      in the sense.\n\n  327 The terminations which admit this moveable \u03bd (including -\u03b5\u03b9 of the\n      pluperfect) are enumerated by Donaldson (Gr. Gram. p. 53).\n      Tischendorf, however (N. T., Proleg. p. liv), demurs to \u03b5\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n      even before a vowel.\n\n  328 With the remarkable exception of those six leaves of Cod. \u05d0 which\n      Tischendorf assigns to the scribe who wrote Cod. B. In these leaves\n      of Cod. \u05d0 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 occurs four times: Matt. xvi. 14; xvii. 1; 13; Luke\n      i. 13, in which last passage, however, B has the double _nu_.\n\n  329 These last might be supposed to have originated from the omission or\n      insertion of the faint line for \u03bd over the preceding letter, which\n      (especially at the end of a line) we stated in Vol. I. p. 50 to be\n      found even in the oldest manuscripts. Sometimes the anomalous form\n      is much supported by junior as well as by ancient codices: e.g.\n      \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, Luke xiii. 16 by KX\u0393*\u039b, 209, also by 69, and ten others\n      of Scrivener\u2019s.\n\n  330 Thus Canon Selwyn cites from Lycophron \u03ba\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, and Dr.\n      Moulton (Winer, p. 91, note 5), after Mullach, \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd from Scymnus\n      Chius.\n\n  331 Tregelles presses yet another argument: \u201cIf Alexandrian forms had\n      been introduced into the N. T. by Egyptian copyists, how comes it\n      that the classical MSS. written in that country are free from them?\u201d\n      (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 178). But what classical MSS.\n      does he know of, written while Egypt was yet Greek or Christian, and\n      now extant for our inspection? I can only think of Cureton\u2019s Homer\n      and Babington\u2019s papyri.\n\n  332 \u201cIt is hard to make St. Paul responsible for vulgarisms or\n      provincialisms, which certainly his pen never wrote, and which there\n      can be no proof that his lips ever uttered\u201d (Epistle to the Romans,\n      Preface to the third edition, p. xxi) is Dean Vaughan\u2019s comment on\n      this \u201cbarbarism.\u201d He regards the Apostle\u2019s habit of dictating his\n      letters as a \u201csufficient reason for broken constructions, for\n      participles without verbs, for suspended nominatives, for sudden\n      digressions, for fresh starts.\u201d\n\n  333 Dr. Hort, however, accepts the form \u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd in this place, aspirating\n      \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b9, and in the same way favours but does not print \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f41\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2\n      eight times in the Acts, adding that although \u1f41\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u201chas no lost\n      digamma to justify it, like some others, it may nevertheless have\n      been in use in the apostolic age: it occurs in good MSS. of the LXX\u201d\n      (Introd., Notes, p. 143).\n\n  334 \u201cA Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek regarded as the\n      basis of N. T. Exegesis. By Dr. G. B. Winer. Translated from the\n      German with large additions and full indices by Rev. W. F. Moulton,\n      M. A., D. D.,\u201d third edition revised, 8vo, Edinburgh, 1882. The\n      forthcoming \u201cProlegomena\u201d to Tischendorf\u2019s N. T. eighth edition (pp.\n      71-126), to which the kindness of Dr. Caspar Ren\u00e9 Gregory has given\n      me access, contain a store of fresh materials on this subject; and\n      Dr. Hort\u2019s \u201cNotes on Orthography\u201d (Introd., Notes, pp. 143-173) will\n      afford invaluable aid to the student who is ever so little able to\n      accept some of his conclusions. See also on the more general subject\n      Dr. Neubauer\u2019s Article in the first issue of the Oxford \u201cStudia\n      Biblica\u201d on \u201cThe Dialects of Palestine in the Time of Christ.\u201d He\n      controverts Dr. Roberts\u2019 opinion that \u201cChrist spoke for the most\n      part in Greek, and only now and then in Aramaic.\u201d And he\n      distinguishes between the Babylonian Aramaic, the Galilean Aramaic,\n      and the dialect spoken at Jerusalem, which had more of Hebrew.\n\n  335 In Acts ix. 34 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, the article between them being\n      rejected, is read by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and\n      Hort, on the adequate authority of \u05d0B*C, 13, 15, 18, 68, 111, 180,\n      and a catena (probably also Cod. 36), with one or two Fathers,\n      although against AEP, 31, 61, &c.\n\n  336 I know not why Tischendorf cites Cod. 71 (gscr) for the omission of\n      \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6. I have again consulted the MS. at Lambeth, and find _\u1f30\u1fe6_ in\n      this place.\n\n_  337 See_ above, I. 130. The precise relation of the Latin Version of\n      Cod. D to the parallel Greek text is fully examined in Scrivener\u2019s\n      \u201cCodex Bezae,\u201d Introduction, chap. iii.\n\n  338 Mr. E. B. Nicholson, Bodley\u2019s Librarian, doubts the conclusiveness\n      of Irenaeus\u2019 Latin here \u201cbecause his copyist was in the habit of\n      altering him into accordance with the oldest Latin version; and\n      because his argument is just as strong if we read _Jesu Christi\n      autem_ as if we read _Christi_. The argument requires _Christi_, but\n      does not in the least require it as against _Jesu Christi_.\u201d\n\n  339 \u201cThe clearly Western \u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,\u201d as Dr. Hort admits, \u201cis\n      intrinsically free from objection, ... yet it cannot be confidently\n      accepted. The attestation is unsatisfactory, for no other Western\n      omission of a solitary word in the Gospels has any high probability\u201d\n      (N. T., Notes, p. 7). He retains \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, Matt. v. 11.\n\n  340 Why should Gregory Nyssen (371) be classed among the opponents of\n      the clause, whereas Griesbach honestly states, \u201csuam expositionem\n      his quidem verbis concludit: [\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3\n      \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u1f7a\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u03bf\u1f57 \u1fe5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd] \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9 [\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u1f21 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd\u201d? Griesbach adds indeed, \u201csed\n      pro parte sacri text\u00fbs neutiquam haec habuisse videtur;\u201d and justly:\n      they were rather a _loose paraphrase_ of the sentence before him.\n      _See_ Textual Guide, Edward Miller, App. V.\n\n  341 Canon Cook (Revised Version, p. 57) alleges as a probable cause of\n      the general omission of the doxology in early Latin Versions and\n      Fathers, that in all the Western liturgies it is separated from the\n      petitions preceding by an intercalated _Embolismus_. More weighty is\n      his observation that all the Greek Fathers, from Chrysostom onwards,\n      who deal with the interpretation of the Lord\u2019s Prayer, \u201cagree with\n      that great expositor in maintaining the important bearings [of the\n      doxology] upon the preceding petitions.\u201d\n\n  342 \u201cQuite a test-passage\u201d Mr. Hammond calls it (Outlines of Text.\n      Crit., p. 76).\n\n  343 THIRD EDITION. I would fain side in this instance with my revered\n      friend and Revision colleague Dr. David Brown of Aberdeen, and all\n      my prepossessions are strongly in favour of the _textus receptus_\n      here. He is quite right in perceiving (Christian Opinion and\n      Revisionist, p. 435) that the key of his position lies in the\n      authenticity of \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad ver. 16, which is undoubtedly found in Mark x.\n      17; Luke xviii. 18. If that word had abided unquestioned here, the\n      form of reply adopted in the other two Gospels would have inevitably\n      followed. As the case stands, there is not considerably less\n      evidence for omitting \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad (\u05d0BDL, 1, 22, 479, Evst. 5 [_not_ \u201cfive\n      Evangelistaria\u201d], _a_ _e_ _ff_1, Eth., Origen twice, Hilary) than\n      for \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., although Cureton\u2019s and the Jerusalem\n      Syriac, the Bohairic, and the Vulgate with some other Latin copies,\n      change sides here. It is upon these recreant versions that Dr. Brown\n      must fix the charge of inconsistency. If \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad be an interpolation,\n      surely \u03c4\u03af \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9 is pertinently answered by \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n  344 Canon Westcott (Smith\u2019s \u201cDictionary of the Bible,\u201d Vulgate Version)\n      adds Bodl. 857; Brit. Mus. Reg. I B. vii, and Reg. I. A. xviii in\n      part, also Addit. 24,142 by the second hand. Tischendorf also cites\n      _theotisc_.\n\n  345 No passage more favours Bp. Middleton\u2019s deliberate conclusion\n      respecting the history of the Codex Bezae: \u201cI believe that no fraud\n      was intended: but only that the critical possessor of the basis\n      filled its margin with glosses and readings chiefly from the Latin,\n      being a Christian of the Western Church; and that the whole\n      collection of Latin passages was translated into Greek, and\n      substituted in the text by some one who had a high opinion of their\n      value, and who was, as Wetstein describes him, \u2018\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 qu\u00e0m\n      vel Graecae vel Latinae linguae peritior.\u2019 \u201d (Doctrine of the Greek\n      Article, Appendix I. p. 485, 3rd edition.)\n\n  346 I see no reasonable ground for imagining with Lachmann that Origen\n      who, as he truly observes, \u201cnon solet difficilia praeterire,\u201d did\n      not find in his copy anything between \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2; and \u1f08\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd in ver. 31.\n      On the supposition that he read \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 there was no difficulty to\n      slur over. Moreover, there is not a vestige of evidence for omitting\n      \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f30\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, the existence of which words Lachmann clearly\n      perceived to be fatal to his ingenious guess, although Dr. Hort will\n      only allow that it \u201cweakens his suggestion,\u201d adding in his quiet way\n      \u201cThis phrase might easily seem otiose if it followed immediately on\n      words of Christ, and might thus be thought to imply the intervention\n      of words spoken by others\u201d (Notes, p. 17).\n\n  347 Jerome conceives that the Jews \u201cintellegere quidem veritatem, sed\n      tergiversari, et nolle dicere quod sentiunt;\u201d and so Canon G. F.\n      Goddard, Rector of Southfleet, believed that their wantonly false\n      answer brought on them the Lord\u2019s stern rebuke. Hilary\u2019s idea is\n      even more far-fetched: viz. that though the second son disobeyed, it\n      was because he _could_ not execute the command. \u201cNon ait noluisse\n      sed non abisse. Res extra culpam infidelitatis est, quia in facti\n      erat difficultate ne fieret.\u201d\n\n  348 His sole example is \u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd Mark ii. 23, which seems not at all\n      parallel. The phrase may as well signify to \u201cclear away\u201d as \u201cmake\n      their way.\u201d\n\n  349 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f02 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 is the reading of Abbott\u2019s four and of Codd. 28, 122,\n      541, 561, 572, Evst. 196.\n\n  350 Which is certainly its meaning in Lucian, Tom. ii. p. 705 (Salmur.\n      1619); I know no example like that in St. Mark.\n\n  351 I have ventured but slowly to vouch for Tischendorf\u2019s notion, that\n      six leaves of Cod. \u05d0, _that containing_ Mark xvi. 2-Luke i. 56\n      _being one of them_, were written by the scribe of Cod. B. On mere\n      identity of handwriting and the peculiar shape of certain letters\n      who shall insist? Yet there are parts of the case which I know not\n      how to answer, and which have persuaded even Dr. Hort. Having now\n      arrived at this conclusion our inference is simple and direct, that\n      at least in these leaves, Codd. \u05d0B make but one witness, not two.\n\n  352 The cases of Nehemiah, Tobit, and Daniel, in the Old Testament\n      portion of Cod. B, are obviously in no wise parallel in regard to\n      their blank columns.\n\n  353 Of which supplement Dr. Hort says unexpectedly enough, \u201cIn style it\n      is unlike the ordinary narratives of the Evangelists, but comparable\n      to the four introductory verses of St. Luke\u2019s Gospel\u201d (Introduction,\n      p. 298).\n\n  354 We ought to add that some Armenian codices which contain the\n      paragraph have the subscription \u201cGospel after Mark\u201d at the end of\n      ver. 8 as well as of ver. 20, as though their scribes, like Cod.\n      L\u2019s, knew of a double ending to the Gospel.\n\n  355 Burgon (_Guardian_, July 12, 1882) speaks of seven manuscripts\n      (Codd. 538, 539 being among them) wherein these last twelve verses\n      begin on the right hand of the page. This would be more significant\n      if a space were left, as is not stated, at the foot of the preceding\n      page. In Cod. 550 the first letter \u03b1 is small, but covers an\n      abnormally large space.\n\n  356 Of course no notice is to be taken of \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 after \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, as\n      the end of the ecclesiastical lesson is all that is intimated. The\n      grievous misstatements of preceding critics from Wetstein and Scholz\n      down to Tischendorf, have been corrected throughout by means of\n      Burgon\u2019s laborious researches (Burgon, pp. 114-123).\n\n  357 The minute variations between these several codices are given by\n      Burgon (Appendix E, pp. 288-90). Cod. 255 contains a scholion\n      imputed to Eusebius, from which Griesbach had drawn inferences which\n      Burgon (Last Twelve Verses, &c., Postscript, pp. 319-23) has shown\n      to be unwarranted by the circumstances of the case.\n\n  358 Dr. C. Taylor, Master of St. John\u2019s College, Cambridge, in _The\n      Expositor_ for July, 1893, quotes more evidence from Justin\n      Martyr\u2014hinting that some also remains behind\u2014proving that that\n      Father was familiar with these verses. Also he cites several\n      passages from the Epistle of Barnabas in which traces of them occur,\n      and from the Quartodeciman controversy, and from Clement of Rome.\n      The value of the evidence which Dr. Taylor\u2019s acute vision has\n      discovered consists chiefly in its cumulative force. From\n      familiarity with the passage numerous traces of it arose; or as Dr.\n      Taylor takes the case reversely, from the fact of the occurrence of\n      numerous traces evident to a close observer, it is manifest that\n      there pre-existed in the minds of the writers a familiarity with the\n      language of the verses in question.\n\n  359 It is surprising that Dr. Hort, who lays very undue stress upon the\n      silence of certain early Christian writers that had no occasion for\n      quoting the twelve verses in their extant works, should say of Cyril\n      of Jerusalem, who lived about A.D. 349, that his \u201cnegative evidence\n      is peculiarly cogent\u201d (Notes, p. 37). To our mind it is not at all\n      negative. Preaching on a Sunday, he reminds his hearers of a sermon\n      he had delivered the day before, and which he would have them keep\n      in their thoughts. One of the topics he briefly recalls is the\n      article of the Creed \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2. He must\n      inevitably have used Mark xvi. 19 in his Saturday\u2019s discourse.\n\n  360 Several of these references are derived from \u201cThe Revision Revised,\u201d\n      p. 423.\n\n  361 Nor were these verses used in the Greek Church only. Vers. 9-20\n      comprised the Gospel for Easter Monday in the old Spanish or\n      Mozarabic Liturgy, for Easter Tuesday among the Syrian Jacobites,\n      for Ascension Day among the Armenians. Vers. 12-20 was the Gospel\n      for Ascension Day in the Coptic Liturgy (Malan, Original Documents,\n      iv. p. 63): vers. 16-20 in the old Latin _Comes_.\n\n  362 To get rid of one apparent \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, that arising from the\n      expression \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u1fd2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (_sic_), ver. 9, compared with\n      \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd Matt. xxviii. 1, Eusebius proposes the plan of setting\n      a stop between \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad and \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u0390, so little was he satisfied with\n      rudely expunging the whole clause. Hence Cod. E puts a red cross\n      after \u03b4\u03ad: Codd. 20, 22, 34, 72, 193, 196, 199, 271, 345, 405, 411,\n      456, have a colon: Codd. 332, 339, 340, 439, a comma (Burgon,\n      _Guardian_, Aug. 20, 1873).\n\n  363 The following peculiarities have been noticed in these verses:\n      \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 used absolutely, vers. 10, 11, 13; \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 vers. 10, 12,\n      15; \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 ver. 10; \u03b8\u03b5\u03ac\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 vers. 11, 14;\n      \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9 vers. 11, 16; \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 ver. 12; \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 ver. 12;\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9 ver. 17; \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 ver. 17; \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 for the Saviour,\n      vers. 19, 20; \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c9, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9 ver. 20,\n      all of them as not found elsewhere in St. Mark. A very able and\n      really conclusive plea for the genuineness of the paragraph, as\n      coming from that Evangelist\u2019s pen, appeared in the _Baptist\n      Quarterly_, Philadelphia, July, 1869, bearing the signature of\n      Professor J. A. Broadus, of South Carolina. Unfortunately, from the\n      nature of the case, it does not admit of abridgement. Burgon\u2019s ninth\n      chapter (pp. 136-190) enters into full details, and amply justifies\n      his conclusion that the supposed adverse argument from phraseology\n      \u201cbreaks down hopelessly under severe analysis.\u201d\n\n  364 \u201cCan any one, who knows the character of the Lord and of His\n      ministry, conceive for an instant that we should be left with\n      nothing but a message baulked through the alarm of women\u201d (Kelly,\n      Lectures Introductory to the Gospels, p. 258). Even Dr. Hort can\n      say: \u201cit is incredible that the Evangelist deliberately concluded\n      either a paragraph with \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, or the Gospel with a petty\n      detail of a secondary event, leaving his narrative hanging in the\n      air\u201d (Notes, p. 46).\n\n  365 When Burgon ventures upon a surmise, one which is probability itself\n      by the side of those we have been speaking of, Professor Abbot (_ubi\n      supra_, p. 197) remarks upon it that \u201cWith Mr. Burgon a conjecture\n      seems to be a demonstration.\u201d We will not be deterred by dread of\n      any such reproach from mentioning his method of accounting for the\n      absence of these verses from some very early copies, commending it\n      to the reader for what it may seem worth. After a learned and\n      exhaustive proof that the Church lessons, as we now have them,\n      existed from very early times (Twelve Verses, pp. 191-211), and\n      noting that an important lesson ended with Mark xvi. 8 (_see_\n      Calendar of Lessons); he supposes that \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, which would stand at\n      the end of such a lesson, misled some scribe who had before him an\n      _exemplar_ of the Gospels whose last leaf (containing Mark xvi.\n      9-20, or according to Codd. 20, 215, 300 only vers. 16-20) was lost,\n      as it might easily be in those older manuscripts wherein St. Mark\n      stood last.\n\n  366 The Codex lately discovered by Mrs. Lewis is said to omit the\n      verses. But what is that against a host of other codices? And when\n      the other MS. of the Curetonian includes the verses? Positive\n      testimony is worth more than negative.\n\n  367 Dr. Hort, however, while he admits the possibility of the leaf\n      containing vers. 9-20 having been lost in some very early copy,\n      which thus would become the parent of transcripts having a mutilated\n      text (Notes, p. 49), rather inconsistently arrives at the conclusion\n      that the passage in question \u201cmanifestly cannot claim any apostolic\n      authority; but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the\n      apostolic age\u201d (_ibid._ p. 51).\n\n  368 Dr. Hort will hardly find many friends for his division (Notes, p.\n      56),\n\n      \u0394\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2,\n      \u0395\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n  369 I am loth to sully with a semblance of unseasonable levity a page\n      which is devoted to the vindication of the true form of the Angelic\n      Hymn, and must ask the student to refer for himself to the 470th\n      number of the _Spectator_, where what we will venture to call a\n      precisely parallel case exercises the delicate humour of Addison.\n      \u201cSo many ancient manuscripts,\u201d he tells us, concur in this last\n      reading, \u201cthat I am very much in doubt whether it ought not to take\n      place. There are but two reasons which incline me to the reading as\n      I have published it: first, because the rhyme, and secondly, because\n      the sense, is preserved by it.\u201d\n\n  370 This torrent of testimony includes ninety-two places, of which\n      \u201cTischendorf knew of only eleven, Tregelles adduces only six\u201d (R.\n      R., p. 45, note).\n\n  371 Every word uttered by such a scholar as Dr. Field (d. 1885) is so\n      valuable that no apology can be needed for citing the following\n      critique from his charming \u201cOtium Norvicense,\u201d Part iii. p. 36, on\n      the reading \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 and the rendering \u201camong men in whom he is well\n      pleased.\u201d \u201cTo which it may be briefly objected (1) _that it ruins\n      the stichometry_; (2) that it separates \u1f10\u03bd from \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1, the word\n      with which it is normally construed; (3) that \u2018men of good pleasure\u2019\n      (\u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9 \u05e8\u05e6\u05d5\u05df) would be, according to Graeco-biblical usage, not\n      \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, but \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; (4) that the turn of the\n      sentence, \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1, very much resembles the second\n      clause of Prov. xiv. 9: \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e8\u05e6\u05d5\u05df rendered by Symmachus \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1.\u201d But this is almost slaying the slain.\n\n  372 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 is cited by Sophocles in his Lexicon from\n      \u201cEustr. 2381 B\u201d in the sense of _low Sunday_ (McClellan, N. T., p.\n      690). Canon Cook conjectures that it may mean the first sabbath in\n      the second month (_Iyar_), precisely the time when wheat would be\n      fully ripe (Revised Version, p. 69). [More probably it is \u201cthe first\n      sabbath after the second day of the Passover.\u201d] On the other hand,\n      \u201cIf the word be a reality and originally in the text, its meaning,\n      since in that case it must have been borrowed from something in the\n      Jewish calendar, would have been traditionally known from the\n      first.\u201d (Green, Course of Developed Criticism, p. 56.) But why would\n      it? The fancy that \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1ff3 had its origin in numerals of\n      reference (B A) set in the margin will most commend itself to such\n      scholars as are under the self-imposed necessity of upholding Codd.\n      \u05d0B united against all other evidence, of whatever kind.\n\n  373 Just as Jerome, speaking of the latter part of 1 Cor. vii. 35, says,\n      \u201cIn Lat. Codd. OB TRANSLATIONIS DIFFICULTATEM hoc penitus non\n      invenitur.\u201d (Vallars. ii. 261, as Burgon points out.)\n\n  374 Dr. Hort and the _Quarterly Reviewer_ (October, 1881, p. 348) almost\n      simultaneously called attention to the question put by Jerome to his\n      teacher Gregory of Nazianzus as to the meaning of this word. \u201cDocebo\n      te super hac re in ecclesia\u201d was the only reply he obtained; on\n      which Jerome\u2019s comment is, _Eleganter lusit_ (Hier. _ad Nepotianum_,\n      Ep. 52). Neither of these great Fathers could explain a term which\n      neither doubted to be written by the Evangelist.\n\n  375 Cyril applies the whole passage to enforce the duty of exercising\n      with frugality the Christian duty of entertaining strangers: \u201cAnd\n      this He did for our benefit, that He might fix a limit to\n      hospitality\u201d (Dean Payne Smith\u2019s Translation, pp. 317-20).\n\n  376 Praelectio in Scholis Cantabrigiensibus habita Februarii die decimo\n      quarto, MDCCCL, qu\u00e2 ... Lucae pericopam (xxii. 17-20) multis ante\n      saeculis conturbatam vetustissimorum ope codicum in pristinam formam\n      restituebat, Cathedram Theologicam ambiens, J. W. Blakesley, S. T.\n      B., Coll. SS. Trinitatis nuper Socius (Cambridge, 1850).\n\n  377 \u201cIntrinsically both readings are difficult, but in unequal degrees.\n      The difficulty of the shorter reading [that of pure omission in\n      vers. 19, 20] consists exclusively in the change of order, as to the\n      Bread and the Cup, which is illustrated by many phenomena of the\n      relation between the narratives of the third and of the first two\n      Gospels, and which finds an exact parallel in the change of order in\n      St. Luke\u2019s account of the Temptation\u201d (iv. 5-8; 9-12). Hort, Notes,\n      p. 64.\n\n  378 Adler says \u201cin omnibus codicibus,\u201d and _guelph. heidelb._ Dawkins\n      iii and xvii in Jones, and cod. Rich are specified. Lee sets the\n      verses in a parenthesis. But the Curetonian has them after ver. 19\n      in words but little differing from his or Schaaf\u2019s.\n\n  379 \u201cSi fides habenda A. F. Gorio \u2018in Conspectu Quattuor Codicum\n      Evangeliorum Syriacorum mirae aetatis\u2019 apud Blanchini Evangelium\n      Quadruplex p. DXL, et hi quattuor Codices cum Veronensi [_b_]\n      faciunt.\u201d Blakesley, _Schema_ facing _Praelectio_, p. 20.\n\n  380 Especially mark his mode of dealing with \u1f10\u03ba\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd ver. 20, which\n      by a little violence (not quite unprecedented) is made to refer to\n      \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd instead of to \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9: \u201cEx Matthaeo vel Marco accessit\n      clausula ista \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, fraude tamen ita pi\u00e2\n      accessit, ut potius grammaticis legibus vim facere, quam vel\n      literulam demutare maluerit interpolator. Ita fit ut vel hodie male\n      assutus pannus centonem prodat. Postulat enim sermonis ratio, ut\n      cuivis patet, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9, non \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\n      quod tamen in Matthaeo Marcoque optime Graece dicebatur, cum\n      subjectum de quo praedicabatur non \u1f21 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7 verum \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 esset\u201d\n      (_Praelectio_, p. 22).\n\n  381 Very undue stress has been laid on Tischendorf\u2019s statement, \u201cHos\n      versus A corrector uncis inclusit, partim etiam punctis notavit; C\n      vero puncta et uncos delevit,\u201d and \u05d0a has sometimes been spoken of\n      as only a little less weighty than \u05d0 itself. I had the satisfaction,\n      through Dean Burgon\u2019s kindness, of showing some of our critics, Dr.\n      Hort included, a fine photograph of the whole page. The points are\n      nearly, if not quite, invisible, the unci are rude slight curves at\n      the beginning and end of the passage only, looking as likely to have\n      been scrawled fifty years since as fourteen hundred. Yet even now\n      Dr. Hort maintains that Tischendorf\u2019s decision is probably right,\n      strangely adding, \u201cbut the point is of little consequence\u201d (Notes,\n      p. 65).\n\n  382 Bp. Lightfoot\u2019s Codd. 2, 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 22, 26 omit them\n      altogether: they are in the margin of 1, 20. They stand in the text\n      of 3, 14, 21, and so in 18 _prim\u00e2 manu_, but in smaller characters.\n\n  383 Yet Dr. Hort contends that \u201cThe testimony of A is not affected by\n      the presence of Eusebian numerals, of necessity misplaced, which\n      manifestly presuppose the inclusion of vv. 43, 44: the discrepance\n      merely shows that the Biblical text and the Eusebian notation were\n      taken by the scribe from different sources, as they doubtless were\n      throughout\u201d (Notes, p. 65). It is just this readiness to devise\n      expedients to meet emergencies as they arise which is at once the\n      strength and the weakness of Dr. Hort\u2019s position as a textual\n      critic. These sections and canons illustrate the criticism of the\n      text in some other places: e.g. Matt. xvi. 2, 3; xvii. 21; ch.\n      xxiii. 34; hardly in Luke xxiv. 12.\n\n  384 \u1f38\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd:\n      adding that the clause is cited by Dionysius the Areopagite,\n      Gennadius, Epiphanius, and other holy Fathers.\n\n  385 Thus in Evst. 253 we find John xiii. 3-17 inserted _uno tenore_\n      between Matt. xxvi. 20 and 21, as also Luke xxii. 43, 44 between\n      vers. 39 and 40, with no break whatever. So again in the same\n      manuscript with the mixed lessons for Good Friday.\n\n  386 \u201cUpwards of forty famous personages from every part of ancient\n      Christendom recognize these verses as part of the Gospel; fourteen\n      of them being as old, some of them being a great deal older, than\n      our oldest manuscripts\u201d (The Revision Revised, p. 81).\n\n  387 The reader will see that I have understood this passage, with\n      Grotius, as applying to an orthodox tampering with Luke xix. 41, not\n      with xxii. 43, 44. As the text of Epiphanius stands I cannot well do\n      otherwise, since Mill\u2019s mode of punctuation (N. T., Proleg. \u00a7 797),\n      which wholly separates \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 from the words immediately\n      preceding, cannot be endured, and leaves \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n      unaccounted for. Yet I confess that there is no trace of any\n      meddling with \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 by any one, and I know not where Irenaeus\n      cites it.\n\n  388 Lightfoot\u2019s Codd. 22, 26. The clause stands in the margin of 1, 20,\n      in the text of 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23.\n\n  389 Dean Burgon (Revision Revised, p. 83), who refers to upwards of\n      forty Fathers and more than 150 passages (_see_ also Miller\u2019s\n      Textual Guide, App. II), burns with indignation as he sums up his\n      results: \u201cAnd _what_ (we ask the question with sincere simplicity),\n      _what_ amount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubted\n      confidence in any given reading, if not such a concurrence of\n      authorities as this? We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of\n      the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not\n      be enlarged upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from\n      internal evidence. Let this verse of Scripture stand or fall as it\n      meets with sufficient external testimony, or is clearly forsaken\n      thereby.\u201d\n\n  390 \u201cGospel according to St. John from eleven versions,\u201d 1872, p. 8. Dr.\n      Malan also translates in the same way the Peshitto \u201cthe only Son of\n      God\u201d and its satellite the Persic of the Polyglott as \u201cthe only one\n      of God.\u201d With much deference to a profound scholar, I do not see how\n      such a rendering is possible in the Peshitto: it is precisely that\n      which he gives in ch. iii. 18, where the Syriac inserts \u0712\u072a\u071a \u0715 (or \u0715\n      \u071a\u072a\u0712). Bp. Lightfoot judges \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 the more likely rendering of the\n      Bohairic, though \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 is possible.\n\n  391 We are not likely to adopt Tischendorf\u2019s latest reading and\n      punctuation in Col. ii. 2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n  392 Hence we cannot think with Prebendary Sadler (Lost Gospel, p. 48)\n      that \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is very probably the original reading, and must\n      even take leave to doubt its orthodoxy. The received reading \u1f41\n      \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 is upheld by Dr. Ezra Abbot in papers contributed to\n      the American _Bibliotheca Sacra_, Oct. 1861, and to the _Unitarian\n      Review_, June, 1875; it is attacked with characteristic vigour and\n      fullness of research by Dr. Hort in the first of his \u201cTwo\n      Dissertations\u201d (pp. 1-72) written in 1876 as exercises for\n      Theological degrees at Cambridge.\n\n  393 The Revision Revised, p. 133. Also Miller\u2019s \u201cTextual Guide,\u201d App.\n      VI.\n\n  394 To give but a very small part of the variations in ver. 4: \u03b4\u03ad (_pro_\n      \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1) L, _a_ _b_ _c_ _ff_, Vulg. -\u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 Evst. 51, Boh. + \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 (_post_\n      \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1) AKL\u0394, 12, 13, 69, 507, 509, 511, 512, 570 and fifteen others:\n      at \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 152, Evst. 53, 54.\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd _a b ff_ \u1f10\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf (_pro_\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd) A (K), 42, 507. Ethiop.\u2014\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ae\u03b8\u03c1\u1fb3 a b ff.\n      \u1f10\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 C3GHIMUV\u039b*, 440, 509, 510, 512, 513, 515, 543,\n      570, 575, Evst. 150, 257, many others. + in piscinam (_post_ \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03c2)\n      _c_, Clementine Vulg. \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf FL, 69, at least fifteen others.\n\n  395 Either Dean Burgon or I have recently found the passage in Codd.\n      518, 524, 541, 560, 561, 573, 582, 594, 598, 599, 600, 602, 604,\n      622.\n\n  396 Of Lightfoot\u2019s list of manuscripts, the passage is omitted in Codd.\n      2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26. It stands in the text\n      of 3, 9, 14, in the margin only of 1, 20.\n\n  397 \u201cBoth elements, the clause \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03b4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (sic) \u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n      and the scholium or explanatory note respecting the angel, are\n      unquestionably very ancient: but no good Greek document contains\n      both, while each of them separately is condemned by decisive\n      evidence\u201d (Hort, Introd., p. 301).\n\n  398 Dean Burgon has left a long vindication of the whole passage amongst\n      his papers not yet published.\n\n  399 Add from Dr. Malan (_ubi supra_, p. 97), the Georgian, Slavonic\n      (text, not margin), Anglo-Saxon, and Persic. His Arabic (that of\n      Erpenius) agrees with the Peshitto Syriac. The Armenian version of\n      Ephraem\u2019s Tatian also reads _non_.\n\n  400 Codd. AC are defective in this place, but by measuring the space we\n      have shown (p. 99, note 2) that A does not contain the twelve\n      verses, and the same method applies to C. The reckoning, as\n      McClellan remarks (N. T., p. 723), \u201cdoes not preclude the\n      possibility of small gaps having existed in A and C to mark the\n      _place_ of the Section, as in L and \u0394.\u201d\n\n  401 Yet Burgon\u2019s caution should be attended to. \u201cIt is to mislead\u2014rather\n      it is to misrepresent the facts of the case\u2014to say (with the\n      critics) that Codex X leaves out the \u2018pericope de adulter\u00e2.\u2019 This\n      Codex is nothing else but a _commentary on the Gospel, as the Gospel\n      used to be read in public_. Of necessity, therefore, it leaves out\n      those parts of the Gospel which are observed _not_ to have been\n      publicly read\u201d (_Guardian_, Sept. 10, 1873).\n\n  402 The kindred copies Codd. \u039b, 215 (20 has an asterisk only against the\n      place), 262, &c., have the following scholium at ch. vii. 53: \u03c4\u1f70\n      \u1f60\u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb[\u03bb]\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3; \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f45\u03bb\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6[\u03bd]\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n      \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. The reference is to the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 24.\n      4), as Tischendorf perceives.\n\n  403 Yet so that the first hand of Cod. 207 recognizes it in the text,\n      setting in the margin \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03b6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n      (Burgon, _Guardian_, Oct. 1, 1873).\n\n  404 A learned friend suggests that, supposing the true place for this\n      supplemental history to be yet in doubt, there would be this reason\n      for the narrative to be set after Luke xxi, that a reader of the\n      Synoptic Gospels would be aware of no other occasion when the Lord\n      had to lodge outside the city: whereas with St. John\u2019s narrative\n      before him, he would see that this was probably the usual lot of a\n      _late_ comer at the Feast of Tabernacles (ch. vii. 14). Mr. J.\n      Rendel Harris thinks that the true place for the _pericope_ is\n      between ch. v and ch. vi, as for other reasons which we cannot\n      depend upon, so from our illustrating the mention of the Mosaic Law\n      in ch. viii. 5 by ch. v. 45, 46.\n\n  405 Yet on the whole this paragraph is found in more of Bp. Lightfoot\u2019s\n      copies than would have been anticipated: viz. in the text of 3, 8,\n      14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, in the margin of 1, and on a later leaf of\n      20. It is wanting in 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 19, 21, 25, 26.\n\n  406 \u201cSimiliter Nicon ejectam esse vult narrationem ab Armenis, \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd\n      \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd dicentibus.\u201d Tischendorf\n      _ad loc._ Nicon lived in or about the tenth century, but Theophylact\n      in the eleventh does not use the paragraph.\n\n  407 Notice especially the reading of 48, 64, 604, 736 (_prim\u00e2 manu_) in\n      ver. 8 \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n  408 We are not surprised in this instance at Dr. Hort\u2019s verdict (Introd.\n      p. 299): \u201cNo interpolation is more clearly Western, though it is not\n      Western of the earliest type.\u201d Dean Burgon has left amongst his\n      papers an elaborate vindication of this passage, from which however\n      the Editor cannot quote.\n\n  409 The form \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, objected to by Michaelis, is vindicated\n      by Matt. i. 18, the reading of which cannot rightly be impugned.\n      _See_ above. Compare also ver. 12.\n\n  410 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5,\n      \u03a0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. Harvey, vol. ii. p.\n      62.\n\n  411 Such are \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 with or without \u1f41 \u03a6\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 in E, 100, 105, 163, 186,\n      221, the Harkleian with an asterisk: \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 added after \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 in E,\n      100, 105, 163, 186, _tol._, the Harkleian with an asterisk, the\n      Armenian, Cyprian; but _ex toto corde_ the margin of _am._ and the\n      Clementine Vulgate: \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd omitted before \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd in 186, 221 and\n      others.\n\n  412 \u201cNon reperi in graeco codice, quanquam arbitror omissum librariorum\n      incuria. Nam et haec in quodam codice graeco asscripta reperi, sed\n      in margine.\u201d Erasmus, N. T., 1516.\n\n  413 They plead, besides the confessed preponderance of manuscript\n      evidence for \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2, that \u201cA familiar word standing in an\n      obvious antithesis was not likely to be exchanged for a word so rare\n      that it is no longer extant, except in a totally different sense,\n      anywhere but in the Acts and two or three late Greek interpretations\n      of the Acts; more especially when the change introduced an apparent\n      difficulty\u201d (Hort, Notes, p. 93). _Judicet lector._\n\n  414 Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. lvi and lxxxii.\n\n  415 But with the same lack of accuracy which so often deforms this great\n      copy: \u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5 _\u03ba\u03c2_ \u03bf _\u03b8\u03c2_ \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\n      _prim\u00e2 manu_ (Vercellone).\n\n  416 Witness too Lucian\u2019s \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7 \u03bd\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u1f00\u03c0\u1fbd \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f38\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd (Navig. seu Vota, c. 1) which was\n      driven out of its course to the Piraeus. Mr. Smith, of Jordan Hill,\n      cannot bring its dimensions under 1,300 tons.\n\n  417 Dr. Field, however, says that \u201cthis is a mistake.\u201d The Syriac is\n      \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd and nothing else. For \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd this version (and all others)\n      would put \u0710\u072c \u0725\u0722 (or \u0722\u0725 \u072c\u0710): but \u201cwhen the word is in the subjunctive\n      mood, since \u0710\u072c (or \u072c\u0710) is indeclinable, it is a peculiarity of the\n      Harkleian to prefix the corresponding mood of \u0717\u0718\u0710 (or \u0710\u0718\u0717), here\n      \u0722\u0717\u0718\u0710 (or \u0710\u0718\u0717\u0722)\u201d (Otium Norvicense, iii. p. 93). For this strange\n      phrase he cites Rom. i. 13; 2 Cor. v. 12, and to such an authority I\n      have but _dare manus_.\n\n  418 It is simply impossible to translate with Jos. Agar Beet, in the\n      [Wesleyan] _London Quarterly_, April, 1878, either \u201cLet us then,\n      justified by faith, have peace with God,\u201d or \u201cLet us then be\n      justified by faith and have peace with God.\u201d Acts xv. 36 will help\n      him little: the other places he cites (Matt. ii. 13, &c.) not at\n      all.\n\n  419 Dr. Vaughan (Epistle to the Romans) has \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd in his text, and\n      compares Heb. xii. 28, \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd, \u201cwhere there is the same\n      variety of reading.\u201d B is lost in this last place, but \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, which\n      is quite inadmissible, is found in Codd. \u05d0KP, the Latin of D, 31 and\n      many other cursives, the printed Vulgate, and its best manuscripts.\n      In Rom. xiv. 19 even Dr. Hort is driven by the versions and the\n      sense to adopt in his text \u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd of CD and the mass of cursives,\n      rather than \u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd with \u05d0ABFGLP, &c. The like confusion between \u03bf\n      and \u03c9 appears in the text we shall examine next but one (1 Cor.\n      xiii. 3) and in the subjoined note (p. 384). See also \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd and\n      \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, 1 Cor. xv. 49. We must confess, however, that in some of\n      our oldest extant MSS. the interchange of \u03bf and \u03c9 is but rare. In\n      Cod. Sarravianus it is found in but twenty-three places out of 1224\n      in which itacisms occur, 830 of them being the mutation of \u03b5\u03b9 and \u03b9.\n      On the other hand, \u03bf stands for \u03c9 and _vice vers\u00e2_ very frequently\n      in that papyrus fragment of the Psalms in the British Museum which\n      Tischendorf, perhaps a little hastily, judged to be older than any\n      existing writing on vellum.\n\n  420 Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 116) observes that \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03c1\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9 is specially used\n      in the Septuagint (Lev. ii. 6; Isa. lviii. 7) for the breaking of\n      bread.\n\n  421 Few things are too hard for Dr. Hort, yet one is almost surprised to\n      be told that \u201cThe text gives an excellent sense, for, as ver. 2\n      refers to a faith towards God which is unaccompanied by love, so\n      ver. 3 refers to acts which seem by their very nature to be acts of\n      love to men, but are really done in ostentation. First the\n      dissolving of the goods in almsgiving is mentioned, then, as a\n      climax, the yielding up of the very body; both alike being done for\n      the sake of glorying, and unaccompanied by love\u201d (Notes, p. 117).\n\n  422 Tyler compares _shoushou_ also in 2 Cor. vii. 5, 9; Ps. v. 11 (12).\n\n  423 Neither Winer nor his careful translator, Professor Moulton, seems\n      disposed to yield to Lachmann\u2019s authority in this matter. \u201cIn the\n      better class of writers,\u201d says Winer, \u201csuch forms are probably due\n      to the transcribers (Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 721), but in later\n      authors, especially the Scholiasts (as on Thucydides iii. 11 and\n      54), they cannot be set aside. In the N. T., however, there is very\n      little in favour of these conjunctives\u201d (Moulton\u2019s \u201cWiner,\u201d p. 89\n      and note 4, p. 361 and note 1). Yet Tregelles thinks \u201cthere would be\n      no difficulty about the case, had not one been made by grammatical\n      critics\u201d (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 211, note \u2020). But in\n      his own example, John xvii. 2, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 ... \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u1fc3 is read by \u05d0cACGKMSX,\n      33, 511, 546, and (so far as I can find) by no other manuscript\n      whatever. On the other hand \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 (read by Westcott and Hort; _see_\n      Introd., Notes, p. 172) is supported by BEHUY\u0393\u0394\u039b\u03a0 (\u05d0 has \u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u03c9, D\n      \u03b5\u03c7\u03b7, L \u03b4\u03c9\u03c3), and (as it would seem) by every other codex extant:\n      \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u1fc3 came into the common text from the second edition of Erasmus.\n      Out of the twenty-five collated by myself for this chapter, \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 is\n      found in twenty-four (now including Wake 12 or Cod. 492 and Cod.\n      622), and the following others have been expressly cited for it: 1,\n      10, 11, 15, 22, 42, 45, 48, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61 (Dobbin), 63, 65, 66,\n      106, 118, 124, 127, 131, 142, 145, 157, 250, 262, Evst. 3, 22, 24,\n      36, and at least fifty others, indeed one might say all that have\n      been collated with any degree of minuteness: so too the\n      Complutensian and first edition of Erasmus. The constant confusion\n      of \u03b5\u03b9 and \u03b7 at the period when the uncials were written abundantly\n      accounts for the reading of the few, though AC are among them. In\n      later times such itacisms were far more rare in careful\n      transcription, and the mediaeval copyists knew their native language\n      too well to fall into the habit in this passage. In Pet. iii. 1 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n      \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b4\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 is read by all the uncials (\u05d0ABCKLP), nearly all\n      cursives, and the Complutensian edition, in the place of -\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 of\n      Erasmus and the Received text; just as we have \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd in\n      \u05d0AB*LP, 98, 99, 101, 180, 184, 188, 190 in 1 John v. 20. The case\n      for \u1f00\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 1 Tim. vi. 8 is but a shade less feeble.\n\n  424 Tischendorf, however, boldly interposes a comma between the words\n      (_see_ p. 359, note), and is followed by Westcott and Hort and by\n      Bp. Lightfoot, whose note on the passage (Coloss. p. 318) is very\n      elaborate. This mode of punctuation would set \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 in apposition\n      to \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, in support of which construction ch. i. 27 (\u1f45); 1 Tim.\n      iii. 16 (\u1f45\u03c2) are alleged. This, however, is not the sense favoured\n      by Hilary (_in agnitionem sacramenti dei Christi_, and again _Deus\n      Christus sacramentum est_), and would almost call for the article\n      before \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. In meaning it would be equivalent to D*, &c., \u1f45\n      \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd _\u03c7\u03c3_.\n\n  425 In Dr. Swete\u2019s edition, vol. ii. p. 11, Theodore expounds thus in\n      the old Latin version: _sed facti sumus quieti in medio vestro_, hoc\n      est, \u201comni mediocritate et humilitate sumus abusi, nolentes graves\n      aliquibus videri.\u201d\n\n  426 A like combination is seen in Cod. 37 in 1 Tim. vi. 19 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n      \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\n  427 Dean Burgon has just presented me with the photographed page in Cod.\n      G, respecting whose evidence there can be no remaining doubt.\n\n  428 The true reading of the Codex Alexandrinus in 1 Tim. iii. 16 has\n      long been an interesting puzzle with Biblical students. The\n      manuscript, and especially the leaf containing this verse (fol.\n      145), now very thin and falling into holes, must have been in a\n      widely different condition from the present when it first came to\n      England. At that period Young, Huish, and the rest who collated or\n      referred to it, believed that _\u0398\u03a3_ was written by the first hand.\n      Mill (N. T. _ad loc._) declares that he had first supposed the\n      primitive reading to be _\u039f\u03a3_, seeing clearly that the line _over_\n      the letters had not been entirely made, but only thickened, by a\n      later hand, probably the same that traced the coarse, rude, recent,\n      horizontal diameter now running through the circle. On looking more\n      closely, however, he detected \u201cductus quosdam et vestigia satis\n      certa ... praesertim ad partem sinistram, qua peripheriam literae\n      pertingit,\u201d evidently belonging to an earlier diameter, which the\n      thicker and later one had almost defaced. This old line was\n      afterwards seen by John Berriman and four other persons with him\n      (Gloucester Ridley, Gibson, Hewett, and Pilkington) by means of a\n      glass in the bright sunshine, when he was preparing his Lady Moyer\u2019s\n      Lecture for 1737-8 (Critical Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16, p.\n      156). Wetstein admitted the existence of such a transverse line, but\n      referred it to the tongue or _sagitta_ of \u0395 on the reverse of the\n      leaf, an explanation rejected by Woide, but admitted by Tregelles,\n      who states in opposition to Woide that \u201cPart of the \u0395 on the other\n      side of the leaf _does_ intersect the \u039f, as we have seen again and\n      again, and which others with us have seen also\u201d (Horne, iv. p. 156).\n      This last assertion may be received as quite true, and yet not\n      relevant to the point at issue. In an Excursus appended to 1 Timothy\n      in his edition of \u201cThe Pastoral Epistles\u201d (p. 100, 1856), Bp.\n      Ellicott declares, as the result of \u201cminute personal inspection,\u201d\n      that the original reading was \u201cindisputably\u201d \u039f\u03a3. But the fact is,\n      that the page is much too far gone to admit of any present judgement\n      which would weigh against past judgements, as any one who examines\n      the passage can see for himself. Woide could see the line in 1765,\n      but not in 1785.\n\n  429 Yet how can it be _precarious_ in the face of such testimony as the\n      following (_Quarterly Review_, Oct. 1881, p. 363)? \u03a4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n      \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd ...\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03cc \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd. \u1f4d \u03b4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1? \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n      \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6; \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n      \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 (Chrysostom, i. 497). It is necessary to study the context\n      well before we can understand the strength or weakness of Patristic\n      evidence.\n\n  430 Twenty-three times in all, as Ward (_see_ p. 394, note) observes,\n      adding that \u201cnothing can be more express and unquestionable than his\n      reading.\u201d The _Quarterly Reviewer_ speaks very well (_ubi supra_),\n      \u201cA single quotation is better than many references. Among a\n      multitude of proofs that Christ is God, Gregory says: \u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u1ff3 \u03b4\u1f72\n      \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03ae\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u1fb7 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af, \u1f10\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u201d\n      (ii. 693).\n\n  431 Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 67, \u2019\u03a3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1 Photii MSS. (Bib. Pub. Cant.)\n      _ad loc_. \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 _\u03b9\u03b2_ \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n      \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u1f43\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af.\u2019 Photius also quoted Gregory\n      Thaumaturgus (or Apollinarius) for \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n  432 Dr. Swete, in his masterly edition of the Latin translation of\n      Theodore\u2019s commentary on St. Paul\u2019s Epistles, after citing the Latin\n      text as _qui manifestatus est in carne_, adds \u201cBoth our MSS. read\n      _qui_, here and [15 lines] below and use the masculine consistently\n      throughout the context.... Thus the present translation goes to\n      confirm the inference already drawn from the Greek fragment of\n      Theodore, de Incarn. xiii (Migne, P. G. 66, 987), that he read \u1f43\u03c2\n      \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7\u201d (vol. ii. p. 135 n.): pertinently observing that if\n      Theodore used \u1f45\u03c2, he was in harmony with the Syriac versions.\n\n  433 \u201cConspectum lectionis hujus loci optime dedit in sermone vernaculo\n      William H. Ward, V. D. M. in Bibliotheca Sacr\u00e2 American\u00e2, anni\n      1865,\u201d Tregelles N. T. _ad loc_. For a copy of this work I am\n      indebted to the kindness of A. W. Tyler of New York. Mr. Ward\n      wonders that neither Tregelles nor I have noticed a certain pinhole\n      in Cod. A, which was pointed out to Sir F. Madden by J. Scott\n      Porter, made by some person at the extremity of the sagitta of the \u0395\n      on the opposite page, and falling exactly on the supposed transverse\n      line of the \u0398. I cannot perceive the pinhole, but the vellum is fast\n      crumbling away from the effects of time, certainly through no lack\n      of care on the part of those who keep the manuscript.\n\n  434 \u201cAs the Apostle here applies to _Christ_ language which in the Old\n      Testament is made use of with reference to Jehovah (_see_ Isa. viii.\n      13), he clearly suggests the supreme godhead of our Redeemer,\u201d as\n      Dr. Roberts puts the matter (Words of the New Testament, p. 170).\n      Not, of course, that our critical judgement should be swayed one way\n      or the other by individual prepossessions; but that those who in the\n      course of these researches have sacrificed to truth much that they\n      have hitherto held dear, need not suppress their satisfaction when\n      truth is gain.\n\n  435 This translation of 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, and Jude, printed by Pococke\n      from Bodl. Orient. 119, well deserves careful study, being totally\n      different in style and character both from the Peshitto and the\n      Harkleian, somewhat free and periphrastic, yet, in our paucity of\n      good authorities just here, of great interest and full of valuable\n      readings. Thus, in this very verse it reads \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 (\u201cbeing\n      wronged as the hire of their wrong-doing\u201d) with \u05d0*BP and the\n      Armenian, difficult as it may seem to receive that word as genuine:\n      in ver. 17 it omits \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 with \u05d0B and some other versions:\n      in ch. iii. 10 it sides with the Sahidic alone in receiving \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\n      \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (apparently correctly) instead of \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 of \u05d0BKP,\n      of the excellent cursives 27, 29, 66 _secund\u00e2 manu_, of the Armenian\n      and Harkleian margin, where the Received text follows the obvious\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 of AL and the rest, and C hits upon \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 in\n      pure despair.\n\n  436 Bp. Chr. Wordsworth speaks as though there were a _paronomasia_, a\n      play on the words \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7 and \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7, comparing (after Windischmann) 2\n      Thess. ii. 10. \u201cThe false teachers called their meetings \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9,\n      _love feasts_, but they were mere \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, _deceits_. Their _table_\n      was a _snare_\u201d (Ps. lxix. 22). This view might be tenable if St.\n      Peter, with whom the _paronomasia_ must have taken its rise, were\n      not the earlier writer of the two, as the Bishop of Lincoln believes\n      he was, as firmly as we do. Perhaps Dr. Westcott\u2019s notion that 2\n      Peter is a translation, not an original, at least in ch. ii, will\n      best account for the textual variations between it and St. Jude.\n\n  437 See the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. xxxv, xxxvii.\n\n  438 \u201cRestitui in Grecis hoc membrum ex quatuor manuscr. codicum, veteris\n      Latini et Syri interpretis auctoritate. sic etiam assueto Johanne\n      istis oppositionibus contrariorum uti quam saepissim\u00e8.\u201d Beza, N. T.,\n      1582.\n\n  439 Horne (Introduction, vol. ii. pt. ii. ch. iii. sect. 4), and after\n      his example Tregelles (Horne, iv. pp. 384-8), give a curious list of\n      more than fifty volumes, pamphlets, or critical notices on this\n      question. The following are the most worthy of perusal: Letters to\n      Edward Gibbon, Esq., by G. Travis, Archdeacon of Chester, 1785, 2nd\n      edit.; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Richard Porson,\n      1790; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Herbert Marsh\n      [afterwards Bp. of Peterborough], 1795; A Vindication of the\n      Literary Character of Professor Porson, by Crito Cantabrigiensis\n      [Thomas Turton, afterwards Bp. of Ely], 1827; Two Letters on some\n      parts of the Controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, by Nicolas Wiseman,\n      1835, for which _see_ Index. For Dr. Adam Clarke\u2019s \u201cObservations,\u201d\n      &c., 1805, _see_ Evan. 61. Add F. A. Knittel on 1 John v. 7.\n      Professor Ezra Abbot\u2019s edition of \u201cOrme\u2019s Memoir of the Controversy\n      on 1 John v. 7,\u201d New York, 1866, has not fallen in my way. As\n      elaborate works, on the verses are \u201cA new plea for the authenticity\n      of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, or Porson\u2019s Letters to\n      Travis eclectically examined,\u201d Cambridge, 1867, being the\n      performance of a literary veteran, the late Rev. Charles Forster,\n      whose arguments in vindication of the Pauline origin of the Epistle\n      to the Hebrews, published in 1838, modern Biblical writers have\n      found it easier to pass by than to refute; and \u201cThe Three Witnesses,\n      the disputed text in St. John, considerations new and old,\u201d by the\n      Rev. H. T. Armfield, Bagster, 1883.\n\n  440 That the Codex Montfortianus was influenced by the Vulgate is\n      probably true, though it is a little hasty to infer the fact at once\n      from a single instance, namely, the substitution of \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 after\n      that version and Uscan\u2019s Armenian for the second \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 in verse 6:\n      \u201cquae lectio Latina Graece in codicem 34 Dublinensem illum\n      Montfortianum recepta luculenter testatur versionem vulgatam ad cum\n      conficiendum valuisse\u201d (Tischendorf _ad loc._).\n\n  441 It is really surprising how loosely persons who cannot help being\n      scholars, at least in some degree, will talk about codices\n      containing this clause. Dr. Edward Tatham, Rector of Lincoln\n      College, Oxford (1792-1834), writing in 1827, speaks of a manuscript\n      in his College Library which exhibited it, but is now missing, as\n      having been once seen by him and Dr. Parsons, Bishop of Peterborough\n      (Crito Cantabrigiensis, p. 334, note). Yet there can be no question\n      that he meant Act. 33, which does not give the verse, but has long\n      been known to have some connexion with the Codex Montfortianus,\n      which does (_see_ Act. 33).\n\n  442 Of the two Spanish MSS. one _leon._2 contains the passage only in\n      the margin, the other _leon._1 adds at the end of ver. 8, _in\n      __xpo__ __ihu_. Canon Westcott cites a manuscript in the British\n      Museum (Add. 11,852), of the ninth century, to the same effect,\n      observing that, like _m_ and _cav._, it contains the Epistle to the\n      Laodiceans. This MS. runs \u201cquia tres sunt qui testimonium dant _sps_\n      et aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt. Sicut in caelo tres sunt\n      pater verbum et _sps_ et tres unum sunt.\u201d Westcott\u2019s manuscript is,\n      in fact, _ulm._, and had already been used by Porson (Letters, &c.,\n      p. 148).\n\n  443 Mr. Forster (_ubi supra_, pp. 200-209) believed that he had\n      discovered _Greek_ authority of the fourth century for this passage,\n      in an isolated Homily by an unknown author, in the Benedictine\n      edition of Chrysostom (Tom. xii. pp. 416-21), whose date Montfaucon\n      easily fixes by internal evidence at A.D. 381. As this discovery, if\n      real, is of the utmost importance in the controversy, it seems only\n      right to subjoin the words alleged by this learned divine, leaving\n      them to make their own way with the reader: (1) \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03a5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f0d\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd: (2) \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc7 \u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f09\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1, \u1f22\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9. \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2\n      \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  444 The \u201cPrologus Galeatus in vii Epistolas _Canonicas_,\u201d in which the\n      author complains of the omission of ver. 7, \u201cab infidelibus\n      translatoribus,\u201d is certainly not Jerome\u2019s, and begins to appear in\n      codices of about the ninth century.\n\n  445 The writer of a manuscript note in the British Museum copy of\n      Travis\u2019 \u201cLetters to Gibbon,\u201d 1785, p. 49, very well observes on the\n      second citation from Cyprian: \u201cThat three are one might be taken\n      from the eighth verse, as that was certainly understood of Father,\n      Son, and Holy Ghost, _especially when Baptism was the subject in\n      hand_\u201d [Matt. xxviii. 19].\n\n  446 It will be seen upon examination of our collations on p. 402 that\n      the points of difference between Codex Montfortianus (34) and\n      Erasmus\u2019 printed text are two, viz. that 34 omits \u03ba\u03b1\u03af after \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\n      in ver. 8, and with the Complutensian leaves out its last clause\n      altogether; while, on the other hand, Erasmus and Cod. 34 agree\n      against the Complutensian in their barbarous neglect of the Greek\n      article in both verses. As regards the omission in Cod. 34 of the\n      last clause of ver. 8 (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f15\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd), it is obvious\n      to conjecture that the person, whosoever he was, that sent the\n      transcript of the passage to Erasmus, who never saw the MS. for\n      himself, might have broken off after copying the disputed words, and\n      neglected to note down the further variation that immediately\n      followed them. After the foregoing explanation we must leave the\n      matter as it stands, for there is no known mode of accounting for\n      the discrepancy, whereof Mr. Forster makes the very utmost in the\n      following note, which, as a specimen of his book, is annexed entire:\n      \u201cBishop Marsh labours hard to identify the Codex Britannicus used by\n      Erasmus, with the Codex Montfortianus. Erasmus\u2019s own description of\n      the Codex Britannicus completely nullifies the attempt: \u2018Postremo:\n      Quod Britannicum etiam in terrae testimonio addebat, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n      \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f15\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9, quod non addebatur hic duntaxat in editione\n      Hispaniensi.\u2019 Now as this clause is also omitted in the Montfort\n      Codex, it cannot possibly be the same with the Codex Britannicus. In\n      this as yet undiscovered MS., therefore, we have a second and\n      independent Gr. MS. witness to the seventh verse. The zeal of the\n      adversaries to evade this fact only betrays their sense of its\n      importance\u201d (p. 126). Alas! _Hi motus animorum._\n\n  447 I side with Porson against Travis on every important point at issue\n      between them, and yet I must say that if the former lost a legacy\n      (as has been reported) by publishing his \u201cLetters,\u201d he was entitled\n      to but slender sympathy. The prejudices of good men (especially when\n      a passage is concerned which they have long held to be a genuine\n      portion of Scripture, clearly teaching pure and right doctrine)\n      should be dealt with gently: not that the truth should be dissembled\n      or withheld, but when told it ought to be in a spirit of tenderness\n      and love. Now take one example out of fifty of the tone and temper\n      of Porson. The immediate question was a very subordinate one in the\n      controversy, namely, the evidence borne by the Acts of the Lateran\n      Council, A.D. 1215. \u201cThough this,\u201d rejoins Porson, \u201cproves nothing\n      in favour of the verse, it proves two other points. That the clergy\n      then exercised dominion over the rights of mankind, and that able\n      tithe-lawyers often make sorry critics. _Which I desire some certain\n      gentlemen of my acquaintance to lay up in their hearts as a very\n      seasonable innuendo_\u201d (Letters, p. 361, quoted from \u201cA Tale of a\n      Tub\u201d p. 151). As if it were a disgrace for an Archdeacon to know a\n      little about the laws which affect the clergy.\n\n  448 Gaussen (Theopneustia, pp. 115-7) has still spirit remaining to\n      press the masculine forms \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 ver. 7 and \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 ver. 8\n      as making in favour of the intervening clause: \u201cRemove it, and the\n      grammar becomes incoherent:\u201d a reason truly, but one not strong\n      enough to carry his point.\n\n  449 We are compelled to draw a sharp distinction between \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n      and \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 in the same context, and, with all deference to the\n      _Quarterly Reviewer_ (April, 1882, p. 366), we do not think his view\n      of the matter more natural than that given in the text: \u201cSt. John,\u201d\n      he suggests, \u201cis distinguishing between the mere recipient of the\n      new birth (\u1f41 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6),\u2014and the man who retains the\n      sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit which he received when he\n      became regenerate (\u1f41 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6).\u201d [The distinction\n      given between the perfect and aorist, as I have altered it in the\n      text, is perfectly just, and explains the passage. The effects of\n      regeneration if continued are indefectible, but the mere fact of\n      regeneration entails constant watchfulness.]\n\n  450 So it certainly seems to me after careful inspection of Cod. A,\n      although it may be too bold to say, as some have, that there are in\n      it no corrections by later hands. Above in ver. 10 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 is\n      supported by ABKLP and a shower of cursives in the room of \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7\n      of \u05d0 and the Received text, but here there is no difference of sense\n      between the two forms. Dr. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 144) has an\n      exhaustive and cautious note on the breathing of \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff3, &c.,\n      and ultimately declines to exclude the aspirate from the N. T.\n\n  451 The Revision Revised, pp. 247-8.\n\n  452 For a very full and clear account of a MS. of this class, the reader\n      may consult an article by Prof. Isaac H. Hall in the \u201cJournal of the\n      American Oriental Society,\u201d vol. xi, No. 2, 1885.\n\n  453 It is not meant that these terms occur as titles. _Apostolos_ (\u072b\u0725\u071d\u0710\n      or \u0710\u071d\u0725\u072b) as applied to a book means the fourteen Epp. of St. Paul.\n      _Evangeliom_, in the sense of _Evangelistary_ in a title, is quoted\n      in \u201cThesaurus Syriacus.\u201d\n\n      But many liturgical terms were borrowed from the Greeks, especially\n      by the Maronites. For a succinct account of Greek and Latin Service\n      Books, _see_ Pelliccia\u2019s \u201cPolity\u201d (tr. Bellett, 1883), pp. 183-8:\n      for the Syriac system, _see_ Etheridge\u2019s \u201cSyrian Churches,\u201d pp.\n      112-6.\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. II.","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":187838}