{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_76224/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_76224","id":"gutenberg_76224","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/76224","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. New Testament -- Criticism, Textual","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Introduction to the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament\n\n\n\n\n                    THEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION LIBRARY\n\n                               VOL. XIII.\n\n                  NESTLE\u2019S INTRODUCTION TO THE TEXTUAL\n                  CRITICISM OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT\n\n\n\n\n    INTRODUCTION TO THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT\n\n                                   BY\n\n                     EBERHARD NESTLE, PH. AND TH.D.\n\n                               MAULBRONN\n\n\n                  _TRANSLATED FROM THE SECOND EDITION_\n\n            (_With Corrections and Additions by the Author_)\n\n                                   BY\n\n                           WILLIAM EDIE, B.D.\n\n                              KING EDWARD\n\n\n                      AND EDITED WITH A PREFACE BY\n\n                          ALLAN MENZIES, D.D.\n\n          PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM IN THE\n                       UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS\n\n\n                          WILLIAMS AND NORGATE\n\n               14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON\n                  20 SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH\n                       AND 7 BROAD STREET, OXFORD\n                     NEW YORK: G. P. PUTNAM\u2019S SONS\n                                  1901\n\n                               PRINTED BY\n                       NEILL AND COMPANY LIMITED\n                          BELLEVUE, EDINBURGH\n\n\n\n\n                           EDITOR\u2019S PREFACE.\n\n\nProfessor Eberhard Nestle of Maulbronn is one of the distinguished\ncompany of philologists who have in recent years directed their\nattention to the study of the New Testament. He is by no means a\nstranger in this country. Readers of the _Expositor_ and the _Expository\nTimes_ are familiar with his name, and are accustomed to receive from\nhim original and independent discussions of New Testament textual\nproblems. He is consulted by scholars both in this country and on the\nContinent on questions of Aramaic and Syriac scholarship, and has\ncontributed, in the way of criticism and careful proof reading, to many\nimportant publications of English scholars, such as Professor Swete\u2019s\nedition of the Septuagint,[1] the publications of Mrs. Lewis and Mrs.\nGibson (_The Sinaitic Palimpsest_, etc.), and the _Gospel of the Twelve\nApostles_ recently published by Professor Rendel Harris.\n\nThe readers of this volume may be glad to know a little more of its\nauthor. A native of W\u00fcrttemberg, he was educated at the Gymnasium of\nStuttgart and then at the Theological Seminary of Blaubeuren, the latter\nbeing one of the four old cloister schools of W\u00fcrttemberg, in which, far\nfrom the distractions of large towns, a thorough philological training\nis provided for the future clergy of that kingdom. It was as\n\u201cPraeceptor\u201d of one of these schools that Albrecht Bengel, that great\ntextual critic and unaffectedly pious man, spent the best part of his\nlife, and in his _Marginalien und Materialien_ Dr. Nestle gives an\ninteresting account of Bengel as a scholar, and describes the studies of\nthe school over which he presided. Our author studied divinity and\noriental languages at the Universities of T\u00fcbingen and Leipzig, and\nconsiders it one of the happy dispensations of his life that he was\npermitted to live in England for two years, working in the British\nMuseum and preaching to German congregations in London. He was then\nRepetent or Tutor at the Theological Seminary of T\u00fcbingen, and, after a\nshort period of work as a preacher, was called to the Gymnasium of Ulm\nto teach Greek, German, Hebrew, and Religion. For two years he filled\nthe vacant professorship of Semitic languages at the University of\nT\u00fcbingen, but, not being appointed to the chair, he returned to Ulm.\nFrom there he moved to the Seminary at Maulbronn, which offered better\nopportunities for combined philological and theological studies.\n\nDr. Nestle\u2019s principal works are:\u2014_Die israelitischen Eigennamen nach\nihrer religionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung_ (Proper Names in Israel: their\nsignificance for the history of religion), the Prize Essay of the Leiden\nTyler Society, 1876. An earlier Prize Essay at T\u00fcbingen on the\nSeptuagint and Massorah of Ezekiel was also successful, but was not\npublished.\n\n_Psalterium Tetraglottum_ (_Graece_, _Syriace_, _Chaldaice_, _Latine_),\n1879. Sixth and Seventh Editions of Tischendorf\u2019s _Septuagint_ (with new\ncollation of Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus) 1880,\n1887.\n\n_Septuagintastudien_, i.-iii., 1886, 1896, 1898.\n\n_Syriac Grammar_ (Latin, 1881; German, 1888; English, 1889).\n\n_Novi Testamenti Graeci Supplementum_, 1896 (Collation of Codex Bezae:\nApocryphal Gospels).\n\n_Philologica Sacra_, 1896.\n\nMinor publications collected in _Marginalien und Materialien_, 1893.\n\nEdition of the _Greek New Testament_ for the Stuttgart Bible Society,\n1898, of which a third edition is now in preparation.\n\nNumerous contributions to theological and literary Journals (_Jahrb\u00fccher\nf\u00fcr deutsche Theologie_, _Studien und Kritiken_, _Theologische\nLiteraturzeitung_, _Literarisches Centralblatt_) and to Herzog-Hauck,\n_Encyklop\u00e4die f\u00fcr Protestantische Theologie_.\n\nThe _Introduction_ now brought before the English public in Mr. Edie\u2019s\ntranslation is thus the work of one who is, and has long been, actively\nengaged in the studies belonging to several parts of the great subject\nof the text of the New Testament, and who possesses an exact and\npractised knowledge of the words of the sacred books of Christianity.\nThe present manual accordingly shows the instruments of criticism in\nactual operation in the hands of a master. It was meant originally for\nthe _G\u00f6schen-Sammlung_, a collection of small manuals for the general\npublic, and arose out of the wish of the author to tell his pupils with\nwhom he read the Greek Testament, as well as others, more about the\nhistory of the New Testament text than was at the time generally\naccessible. The handbook was brought out by the theological publishers\nVandenhoeck and Ruprecht, literary references being then added to fit it\nfor use by students of theology. It met with a warm welcome from such\nreaders, and the second edition was largely recast so as to meet still\nfurther the purposes of students. The long experience of Professor\nNestle as a teacher of younger pupils has no doubt enabled him to\npresent the subject so clearly that his book may find favour in the eyes\nof the general reader, and commend itself to all who care for the New\nTestament.\n\nThe absence of theological bias will not be thought by any wise judge a\ndisadvantage in a work of this character. It will be observed that\nProfessor Nestle does not regard the texts recently formed by great\nscholars as constituting, either singly or jointly, a _Textus Receptus_\nin view of which textual enquiry may now desist from its labours, but\nthat he believes that much is still to be learned about the text both of\nthe Gospels and of the other books of the New Testament.\n\nThis translation, as the title-page indicates, has been made from the\nsecond, enlarged, edition, and the author has kindly furnished various\ncorrections and additions, bringing the book in its English form up to\ndate. Some additional references to English books and periodicals have\nbeen inserted by the translator.\n\nA. M.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  See the Dedication to Dr. Nestle of Professor Swete\u2019s _Introduction to\n  the Old Testament in Greek_, just published.\n\n\n\n\n                               CONTENTS.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n=History of the Printed Text since 1514=, ...... 1-27\n\nComplutensian Polyglot\u2014Aldus\u2014Erasmus\u2014Collections of\neditions\u2014Literature\u2014First critical edition: Colinaeus\u2014Stephen\u2014Verse\ndivision\u2014Beza\u2014Polyglots: Antwerp: Paris: London\u2014Elzevir\u2014_Textus\nReceptus_\u2014Critical attempts: Caryophilus: Courcelles: Saubert:\nSimon\u2014Mill\u2014Toinard\u2014Bentley\u2014Gerhard von\nMaestricht\u2014Bengel\u2014Wettstein\u2014Griesbach\u2014\nMatthaei\u2014Birch\u2014Moldenhauer\u2014Adler\u2014Scholz\u2014Lachmann\u2014\nTischendorf\u2014Tregelles\u2014Westcott and Hort: their types of\ntext\u2014Weymouth\u2014B. Weiss\u2014von Gebhardt\u2014Stuttgart New\nTestament\u2014Schj\u00f8tt\u2014Baljon\u2014Catholic editions: Gratz\u2014van\nEss\u2014Gehringer\u2014Patricius\u2014Jaumann\u2014Reithmayer\u2014Hetzenauer\u2014Brandscheid\u2014Apocrypha\nand Pseudepigrapha.\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n=Materials of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament=, ...... 28-155\n\nAutographs\u2014Manuscripts\u2014Versions\u2014Quotations\u2014Number of Manuscripts\u2014Uncial\nand Cursive Script\u2014Age\u2014Material\u2014_Scriptio continua_\u2014\nAccentuation\u2014Stichometry\u2014Palimpsests\u2014Punctuation\u2014Size\u2014\nContents\u2014Lectionaries\u2014Parchment\u2014Ink\u2014Papyrus\u2014Paper\u2014Pen\u2014Manuscripts de\nluxe\u2014Illustration\u2014Uncials: of the whole New Testament: of the Gospels:\nof the Acts and Catholic Epistles: of the Pauline Epistles: of the\nApocalypse\u2014Minuscules\u2014Ferrar Group\u2014Lectionaries\u2014Versions: Syriac:\nPeshitto: Curetonian: Lewis: Tatian: Philoxenian: Harklean: Gwynn:\nJerusalem: Literature of Syriac Versions\u2014Latin Versions: Old Latin\nmanuscripts: Fathers: The Vulgate: Jerome: Alcuin: Theodulf: Harding:\nCorrectoria Bibliorum: Mazarin Bible: Sixtine and Clementine\nVulgate\u2014Egyptian Versions: Bohairic: Sahidic: Middle\nEgyptian\u2014Gothic\u2014Ethiopic\u2014Armenian\u2014Georgian\u2014Arabic\u2014Patristic Quotations.\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n=Theory and Praxis of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament=,\n...... 156-246\n\nTask and method\u2014Internal criticism\u2014Conjecture\u2014Eclectic\nmethod\u2014Genealogical method\u2014External testimony\u2014Lucian: his relation to\nthe Peshitto\u2014Hesychius: Codex B\u2014Eusebius: Pamphilus: Origen: Euthalius:\nEvagrius: Athos manuscript\u2014Later revisers\u2014Pre-Origenic texts\u2014Heretics:\nArtemonites, Marcosians, Basilides, Noetus, Valentinians, Gnostics,\nMarcionites, Arians\u2014Marcion: his relation to the Western text\u2014Tatian:\nquestion as to a Greek Harmony: his relation to the Western text\u2014The\nWestern text: theory of Blass: the Lucan writings in Codex Bezae:\nconclusion of Luke\u2019s Gospel: the Apostolic Decree\u2014Rules of Textual\ncriticism: sources of error: illegibility: homoioteleuton: transposition\nof letters and words: itacism: substitution of synonymous terms:\nadditions: conscious alterations: stylistic, liturgic, and dogmatic\nchanges: critical canons: proper names: textus brevior\u2014Conclusion.\n\n=Critical Notes on Various Passages of the New Testament=, ......\n247-335\n\n=Appendix I. List of Greek and Latin Writers=, ...... 336\n\n=Appendix II. List of Passages referring to= \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1, ...... 340\n\n=Index of Subjects=, ...... 343\n\n=Index of New Testament Passages referred to=, ...... 350\n\n\n\n\n                             ABBREVIATIONS.\n\n\nThe symbols used to indicate the various manuscripts and versions will\nbe found in the chapter on Materials. The student will compare the Notes\nin Tischendorf\u2019s _Edito octava minor_ and the Index in the _Octava\nmaior_, vol. iii. The following contractions are employed in the course\nof this work:\u2014\n\n    _GGA._      = G\u00f6ttinger gelehrte Anzeigen.\n    _GK._ = Zahn\u2019s _Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons_. See p.\n       196 n. 2.\n    _LCbl._     = Literarisches Centralblatt.\n    PRE.             = Protestantische Real-Encyklop\u00e4die. See p. 7.\n    _ThLbl._    = Theologisches Literaturblatt.\n    _ThLz._     = Theologische Literaturzeitung.\n    _ThStKr._   = Theologische Studien und Kritiken.\n    _TiGr._ = Tischendorf\u2019s _N.T. Graece_, _editio octava maior_, vol.\n       iii. See p. 6.\n    _TU._       = Texte und Untersuchungen.\n    _Urt._      = Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibel. See p. 6.\n    W-H.             = Westcott and Hort. See p. 21.\n    W-W.             = Wordsworth and White. See pp. 123, 131.\n    _ZdmG._     = Zeitschrift der morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft.\n    _ZfdPhil._  = Zeitschrift f\u00fcr deutsche Philologie.\n    _ZfwTh._    = Zeitschrift f\u00fcr wissenschaftliche Theologie.\n\n\n                                ADDENDA.\n\n\n_Page 6._ To the Literature add: R\u00fcegg, _Die neutestamentliche\nTextkritik seit Lachmann_, Zurich, 1892.\n\n_Page 74._ Two fragments of N.T. text have been published by Grenfell\nand Hunt in _The Amherst Papyri, Part I.: The Ascension of Isaiah and\nother theological fragments_ (London, 1900). The first consists of\nHebrews i. 1, written, along with Genesis i. 1, in a small uncial hand\nof the late third, or more probably early fourth, century at the top of\na _papyrus_ leaf containing a letter from Rome. The verse from the N.T.\nexhibits the reading \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, which is not found in any of\nthe manuscripts. The other fragment consists of Acts ii. 11-22 with\nlacunae, written on vellum and dating apparently from about the fifth or\nsixth century. It contains a few singular readings such as: (verse 12)\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd; (13) \u1f10\u03c7\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, which is practically the\nreading of D, the only difference being that D has the compound verb\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c7\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd; (14) \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, apparently; (17) \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 with B\ninstead of \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, and also, apparently, \u1f10\u03bd\u03cd\u03c0\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 with\nthe _textus receptus_; (20) \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u1f22 with the _textus receptus_; (21) \u1f43\u03c2\n\u1f02\u03bd with the _textus receptus_.\n\n_Page 91._ Add: J. R. Harris, _Further Researches into the History of\nthe Ferrar Group_, 1900.\n\n_Page 106 (5)._ Add: Hilgenfeld, _Thomas von Heraklea und die\nApostelgeschichte_, in the _ZfwTh._, 1900, 3.\n\n_Page 137._ Add: Forbes Robinson, _Coptic Apocryphal Gospels_, in _Texts\nand Studies_, iv. 2, 1896.\n\n_Page 139._ To Kauffmann\u2019s _Beitr\u00e4ge_ must now be added: v. _Der codex\nBrixianus_ (_ZfdPhil._ xxxii. pp. 305-335). In this important\ncontribution Kauffmann corroborates the view expressed by Burkitt in the\n_Journal of Theological Studies_, i. pp. 129-134, that Wordsworth and\nWhite were mistaken in regarding the text of codex Brixianus (f) as a\nrecension of the Old Latin closely allied to Jerome\u2019s revision. Burkitt\nholds that the text of Brixianus was corrected from the Vulgate, and\nafterwards altered in conformity with the Gothic. The only difference\nbetween Burkitt and Kauffmann is that the latter believes that the text\nof Brixianus was derived from an earlier Latin manuscript which had been\naltered in conformity with the Gothic, and that it was _afterwards_\nassimilated to the Vulgate. This view must also be noted in connection\nwith the Old Latin codex gue (see p. 118). For an example of the\nconnection between Brixianus and the Gothic see the note to p. 289,\nbelow.\n\n_Page 162._ Add: (9) John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, in cod. min. 90. _Page\n289._ John vii. 15. For \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 f here reads _turbae_, which is\ninteresting as agreeing with the Gothic, which has _manageius_. Compare\nthe view of Burkitt and Kauffmann in the note to p. 139 above. The\nvariant is not mentioned in Tischendorf.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I.\n                HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514.\n\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note: Throughout this book, superscripts and subscripts\nare used for various purposes. Superscripts after the titles of books\nindicate edition numbers. Superscripts after the symbols for manuscript\ngroups are used to name members of the group. Subscripts are also used\nfor distinguishing documents.\n\nIn this text version, superscripts are indicated with the caret symbol:\n^. A single-character superscript will be shown as text^1; a\nmultiple-character superscript will be wrapped in brackets: text^{1, 2},\ntext^{abc}. Subscripts are indicated with the underscore, followed by\nthe subscript text wrapped in brackets: text_{1}.\n\nThe asterisk, *, is often used as part of the name of a manuscript.\n\nThere are also some instances of characters printed, one on top of the\nother. In this e-book they are rendered A/B, with A on top and B on the\nbottom.]\n\n\nIt is not quite creditable to Christian scholarship at the close of the\nMiddle Ages that not a single printed edition of the Greek New Testament\nappeared during the course of the fifteenth century. The Jews printed\ntheir Hebrew Psalter as early as 1477, and the entire Hebrew Bible in\n1488.\n\n[Sidenote: Editio princeps.\n           Complutensian Polyglot.]\n\n1. The honour of producing the first edition belongs to the Spanish\nCardinal Francis XIMENES de Cisneros (1437-1517). It was included in the\nso-called _Complutensian Polyglot_, which takes its name from Complutum\n(now Alcal\u00e0 de Henares), where it was printed. The plan of the work was\nconceived as early as 1502, in celebration of the birth of the future\nEmperor Charles V. The scholar who had the principal part in it was\nJames Lopez de Stunica. The printing of the New Testament was completed\non the 10th January 1514, and of the remaining five volumes, comprising\nthe Old Testament with Grammar and Lexicon, on the 10th July 1517. On\nthe 8th November of the same year the Cardinal died. It was not,\nhowever, till the 22nd March 1520 that Pope Leo X. sanctioned the\npublication of the work, the two Vatican manuscripts of the Greek Old\nTestament, which had been borrowed in the first year of Leo\u2019s papacy,\nhaving been returned on the 9th July 1519.[2] On the 5th December 1521,\nthe presentation copy designed for the Pope, printed on parchment and\nbound in red velvet, was placed in the Vatican Library. No copies seem\nto have reached Germany through the trade till the year 1522. Only 600\ncopies were printed, which were sold at 6-\u00bd ducats per copy\u2014about \u00a33 of\nour present English money. The Cardinal, who enjoyed the income of a\nking but was content to live like a monk, expended over 50,000 ducats on\nthe undertaking. At the present time, copies of the Complutensian\nPolyglot, especially those printed on parchment, are counted among the\nrarest treasures of libraries. The Old Testament is printed in three\ncolumns, the Latin text of the Bible used in the Church of the Middle\nAges standing between the original Hebrew text of the Synagogue and the\nAlexandrian Greek version, \u201clike Jesus between the two thieves.\u201d The New\nTestament has only two columns, that on the left containing the Greek\ntext, that on the right the Latin version. For the sake of those\nlearning Greek the corresponding words in each are indicated. The type\nis modelled on the characters found in good manuscripts. Of accents, the\nacute alone is used to mark the tone syllable.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014Scrivener, _Introduction_, ii. c. 7; Hoskier (see below,\n    p. 5); Frz. Delitzsch, _Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der\n    Polyglottenbibel des Cardinals Ximenes_, Leipzig, 1871;\n    _Fortgesetzte Studien_, 1886; _Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibel_,\n    p. 64. A facsimile of the title-page and colophon will be found in\n    Schaff\u2019s _Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version_.\n    The decree of Pope Leo X. is printed in the Greek and Latin\n    Testament of Van Ess, T\u00fcbingen, 1827.\n\nPrevious to Ximenes, however, the famous Venetian printer Aldus Manutius\nhad conceived the idea of such a Polyglot. In the Preface to his undated\nGreek Psalter (_circa_ 1497), a triglot Bible was promised. Of this he\nwas reminded from London by Grocyn on the 6th October 1499. On the 9th\nJuly 1501 he wrote about it to the German humanist Conrad Celtes, to\nwhom he sent the first specimen page on the 3rd September of the same\nyear. (Facsimile in Renouard, _L\u2019Imprimerie des Aldes_^{2, 3}.)\n\nStill earlier, the Magnificat and the Benedictus[3] had been printed\namong the hymns at the end of the Greek Psalter (Milan, 1481; Venice,\n1486). These were the first portions of the Greek New Testament to be\nprinted, while the first printed in Germany appeared at Erfurt in\n1501-2. The first edition of the Greek New Testament for sale was\nErasmus\u2019s edition of 1516.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014On Aldus, see Nestle, _Septuagintastudien_, i. 2; ii.\n    11. On Aldus\u2019s well-known device, the anchor and dolphin, see L\u00e9on\n    Dorez, _\u00c9tudes Aldines_, Revue des biblioth\u00e8ques, vi. (1896), part\n    5-6, p. 143 ff.; part 7-9; also J. R. Harris, _The Homeric\n    Centones_, London, 1898, p. 24. The device is emblematic of the\n    favourite motto of Augustus and Titus, \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2, Semper\n    festina lente.\n\n[Sidenote: Erasmus, 1516.]\n\n2. Froben, the printer of Basel, was anxious to forestall the costly\nedition of the Spanish Cardinal, and with this object appealed on the\n15th March 1515 to the famous humanist Desiderius ERASMUS (1467-1536),\nthen in England. His edition appeared as early as the 1st March 1516,\nand was dedicated on the 1st February to Pope Leo. The printing was\nbegun in the previous September, and was partly superintended by\nZwingli\u2019s friend, John Oecolampadius of Weinsberg. Erasmus himself\nconfessed afterwards that his New Testament was \u201cpr\u00e6cipitatum verius\nquam editum,\u201d though he boasted that he had employed in its preparation\nnot any sort of manuscripts, but the oldest and most correct copies.[4]\nAs early as 1734, J. A. Bengel recognised that in the Apocalypse Erasmus\nmust have used only one manuscript, and that partly mutilated, so that\nhe was unable to read it correctly and was obliged to supply its lacun\u00e6\nby means of a retranslation from the Latin into Greek. And this\nconclusion was confirmed in 1861 by the rediscovery of that very\nmanuscript by Franz Delitzsch in the Oettingen-Wallerstein Library at\nMayhingen.[5]\n\nIn a parallel column Erasmus gave a translation of the Greek into\nelegant Latin. The Emperor protected the edition for four years by\ncopyright, but as early as February 1518 it was reprinted by Aldus\nManutius in his Greek Bible. It was sanctioned by the Pope on the 10th\nSeptember 1518. Four successive editions were afterwards prepared by\nErasmus: the second in 1519, the third in 1522, the fourth (improved) in\n1527, and the fifth in 1535.\n\nIn his third edition, Erasmus for the first time incorporated the\nwell-known \u201ccomma Johanneum,\u201d the passage about the Three Witnesses (1\nJohn v. 7). He did so on the evidence of a manuscript now in Dublin\n(Montfortianus, 61), in which the passage had probably been inserted\nfrom the Vulgate by the English Franciscan monk Roy. From the Vulgate it\nhad already been received, in a slightly different form, into the\nComplutensian Polyglot. Luther himself purposely omitted it from his\nversion. The first edition of his translation to contain it was that\nprinted at Frankfurt by Feyerabend in 1576. It was not inserted in the\nWittenberg editions till 1596. After 1534 no Greek edition appeared\nwithout it for the space of 200 years.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014Scrivener, vol. ii. p. 182 ff.; Frz. Delitzsch,\n    _Handschriftliche Funde_, i., Leipzig, 1861; H. C. Hoskier, _A full\n    Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium 604 ...\n    together with ten Appendices containing ..._ (B) _... the various\n    readings by the five editions of Erasmus_, 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527,\n    1535.... (F) _Report of a Visit to the Public Library at B\u00e2le, with\n    facsimile of Erasmus\u2019s second MS. Evan. 2_, ... London, 1890. On\n    Erasmus\u2019s supplementary matter, the New Version, Annotationes,\n    Paraclesis ad lectorem, Methodus and Apologia, as also on the entire\n    practical and reforming aim of his N.T., see R. St\u00e4helin in the\n    _Protestantische Real-Encyklop\u00e4die_, third edition, v. 438. Froude,\n    _Life and Letters of Erasmus_, p. 126 ff.\n\n[Sidenote: Collections of editions.]\n\n3. The number of editions of the Greek New Testament which have been\nbrought out since the time of Ximenes is about 1000. No library in the\nworld contains them all. In the last century the Danish Pastor Lorck\npossessed perhaps the largest private collection of Bibles. This was\npurchased by Duke Charles of W\u00fcrttemberg, and has found a place in the\nRoyal Public Library at Stuttgart. Unfortunately, it is not possible to\nsupplement or enlarge it in the way that it deserves. The largest\ncollection of the present century is that of the late Prof. Ed. Reuss of\nStrassburg. In his descriptive catalogue he established the genealogy of\nthe separate editions by a collation of the readings in 1000 selected\npassages. Several editions he was unable to obtain: some he was obliged\nto regard as of doubtful existence: others, again, mistakenly quoted by\nprevious collectors, he was able to discard once for all. His labours\nform the basis of those further researches prosecuted with much ardour\nchiefly in England and America: in the latter by the German-Swiss\nscholar Philip Schaff (d. 20th Oct. 1893), and his American friend I. H.\nHall (d. 1896), in England by F. H. A. Scrivener (d. 26th Oct. 1891),\nand in Germany by the American C. R. Gregory. Mention can be made of\nonly a few of these printed editions.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014Ed. Reuss, _Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci, cuius\n    editiones ab initio typographiae ad nostram aetatem impressas\n    quotquot reperiri potuerunt collegit digessit illustravit E. R.\n    Argentoratensis_, Brunsvigae, 1872. Tischendorf, _Novum Testamentum\n    Graece ad antiquissimos testes denuo recensuit apparatum criticum\n    apposuit Constantinus de Tischendorf_, Lipsiae (Hinrichs), vol. i.\n    1869; vol. ii. 1872; vol. iii., _Prolegomena scripsit Caspar Renatus\n    Gregory additis curis Ezrae Abbot_, 1894, 8vo. (vol. iii. cited in\n    the following part of this work under the symbol _TiGr._). F. H. A.\n    Scrivener, _A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New\n    Testament_. Fourth edition, edited by Ed. Miller, 2 vols., London,\n    1894. P. Schaff, _Companion to the Greek Testament and the English\n    Version_. Fourth edition revised, New York, Harper, 1892. Schaff\u2019s\n    _Companion_ gives, in an Appendix, Reuss\u2019s list of printed editions\n    of the Greek N.T., with additions bringing it down to 1887, by I. H.\n    Hall. It also contains an interesting set of facsimile illustrations\n    of twenty-one standard editions of the Greek N.T., showing in each\n    case the title-page and a page of the print. I. H. Hall, _A Critical\n    Bibliography of the Greek New Testament, as published in America_,\n    Philadelphia, 1883. Also, by the same author, _Some Remarkable Greek\n    New Testaments_, in the Journal of the Society of Biblical\n    Literature and Exegesis, Dec. 1886, 40-63. S. P. Tregelles, _Account\n    of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament with remarks on its\n    revision and a collation of the critical texts with that in common\n    use_, 1854. Copinger, _The Bible and its Transmission, being an\n    historical and bibliographical view of the Hebrew and Greek Texts,\n    and the Greek, Latin, and other Versions of the Bible (both\n    manuscript and printed) prior to the Reformation. With 28\n    facsimiles._ London, Sotheran, 1897, large 8vo. H. J. Holtzmann,\n    _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_ (_Allgemeiner Teil_, _Geschichte\n    des Textes_), Freiburg, 1886. _Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibel\n    in \u00fcbersichtlicher Darstellung_, a reprint of the article \u201cBibeltext\n    und Bibel\u00fcbersetzungen,\u201d in the third edition of the\n    Real-Encyklop\u00e4die f\u00fcr protestantische Theologie und Kirche, Leipzig,\n    Hinrichs, 1897, pp. 15-61 (Tischendorf), O. v. Gebhardt, \u201c_Bibeltext\n    des Neuen Testamentes_,\u201d PRE, ii. 728-773 (cited hereafter as\n    _Urt._). C. R. Gregory, _Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes_, vol. i.\n    Leipzig, 1900. Vol. ii. in the press.\n\n[Sidenote: First critical edition.]\n\n4. The first to prepare a really critical edition of the Greek New\nTestament, _i.e._ one based on a collation of manuscripts, was Simon de\nColines (COLINAEUS), the father-in-law of the Parisian printer Robert\nStephen (Estienne). In his edition^1, which appeared in 1534, he adopted\nfor the first time a number of readings that are now generally accepted,\nthough naturally he did not succeed in gaining credit for them. Up till\nthe time of Mill and Bengel the publishers and their more or less\nuncritical coadjutors simply reprinted the text of Ximenes and Erasmus,\nmostly the latter, with trifling variations.\n\nAmong the innovations introduced by these editors was the choice of a\nmore convenient form. The first editions were all in folio. But in 1521,\nAnselm, then in Hagenau but previously in T\u00fcbingen, reduced the size to\nquarto; in 1524 Cephaleus in Strassburg still further to octavo; while\nValder printed the first miniature edition in Basel in 1536. The\nsmallest edition printed previous to this century is that of Jannon,\n1628 (Sedan); the smallest of this century is that of Pickering, 1828\n(London).\n\nBut a much more important feature was the collation of fresh\nmanuscripts. The credit of being pioneer in this respect rests with the\nParisian Typographer-Royal, Robert STEPHEN (1503-1559). [Sidenote:\nStephen.] He was assisted by his son Henry Stephen (1528-1598),\nparticularly in the preparation of his third edition of 1550, the\n_Editio Regia_, which takes its name from the inscription on its\ntitle-page in honour of Henry II., \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1ff7, \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff7 \u03c4\u2019\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u1fc7.[6] The first edition, called _O mirificam_, from the opening\nwords of its preface, appeared in 1546. The Editio Regia was the first\nto contain a critical apparatus in which fifteen manuscripts indicated\nby the Greek letters \u03b2\u2014\u03b9\u03db were collated with the text of the\nComplutensian which was designated \u03b1. All the manuscripts employed were\nof late date, with two exceptions, viz., the Codex Bezae, of which we\nshall have a good deal to say in the sequel, and a Parisian MS. of the\neighth century, now known as L.\n\n[Sidenote: Verse division.]\n\nAn important innovation of another sort is due to the same Robert\nStephen, who printed at Geneva in the following year (1551) a fourth\nedition containing the Greek text with the Latin version of Erasmus on\nthe outer side and the Vulgate on the inner.[7] With a view to carrying\nout this arrangement conveniently, he divided the text into separate\nverses or very small sections, which he numbered on the margin. In this\nway he introduced into the New Testament not only a convenient\nverse-enumeration\u2014there are 7959 verses in all\u2014but also the unfortunate\npractice of printing the text in separate verses. Mill in 1707, and\nnotably Bengel in 1734, were the first to revert to the practice of\nprinting the text in paragraphs divided according to the sense while\nretaining the enumeration of the verses in the margin. [Sidenote:\nChapters.] The customary division of the New Testament books into\nchapters is much earlier, having been first invented in Paris for the\nLatin Bible by Stephen Langton (died Archbishop of Canterbury in 1228),\nand at once adopted in the earliest printed editions of the Vulgate. It\nwas employed in the Complutensian Polyglot with a subdivision of the\nvarious chapters into A B C etc.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014_Nov. Test. textus Stephanici_ A.D. 1550, _ed._\n    Scrivener, Camb., 1859, 1871 etc. Hoskier (as above) ... (B) _A\n    Reprint with corrections of Scrivener\u2019s list of differences between\n    the editions of Stephen 1550 and Elzevir 1624, Beza 1565 and the\n    Complutensian, together with fresh evidence ... by the other\n    editions of Stephen of 1546, 1549, 1551...._ Ezra Abbot, _De\n    Versibus_, in _TiGr._ 167-182. I. H. Hall, _Modern Chapters and\n    Verses_, in Schaff\u2019s _Religious Encyclop\u00e6dia_, i. 433. _Journal of\n    the Soc. of Bib. Lit. and Exeg._, 1883, 60; 1891, 65.\n\nIt is frequently stated that copies exist of Stephen\u2019s edition of 1551\n(the first to contain the verse enumeration) bearing on the title-page\nthe date MDXLI. In the two I examined belonging to the collections of\nLorck and Reuss, the two halves of the number MD and LI are far apart.\nIn the case of the Lorck copy it is possible to suppose that a letter\nhas been erased from the middle, but not in the Reuss copy. In his\nPreface, Stephen says: \u201cQuod autem per quosdam ut vocant versiculos opus\ndistinximus, id, vetustissima Graeca Latinaque ipsius Novi Testamenti\nexemplaria secuti, fecimus: eo autem libentius ea sumus imitati, quod\nhac ratione utraque translatio posset omnino eregione Graeco contextui\nrespondere.\u201d As Ezra Abbot pointed out, Stephen gave a double number\n19/20 to the verse \u03a4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 ... \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad in Acts xxiv. A similar double\nenumeration occurs in the previous chapter, where the verse \u0393\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 ...\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is numbered 25/26. Accordingly, Abbot\u2019s supposition becomes\npretty certain, that the verse division was originally made for a Latin\ncopy which, at the passage in Acts xxiv., contained the additional\nsentence: Et apprehenderunt me clamantes et dicentes, Tolle inimicum\nnostrum. And in chapter xxiii. several Latin editions show an extra\nsentence at the place marked with the double number: et ipse postea\ncalumniam sustineret tanquam accepturus pecuniam. But what edition it\nwas from which Stephen took the enumeration into his Greek copy is not\nyet known. Unfortunately, as Abbot shows (_l.c._ 173-182), later\neditions frequently deviated from Stephen\u2019s enumeration. Even Oscar v.\nGebhardt, in his editions of Tischendorf\u2019s text, followed in eight\ninstances a different verse division from that recommended by Gregory in\nhis Emendanda (p. 1251 ff.).\n\nSeveral mistakes in numbering crept into the Stuttgart edition of the\nN.T., but the division and enumeration have been carefully compared with\nthat of the Reuss copy for the second edition. There are differences in\nverse-division even in the reprint of Westcott and Hort\u2019s Greek\nTestament (Macmillan fount, 1895), Heb. xii. 22, 23: in Swete\u2019s _Gospel\nof St. Mark_ (Mk. ii. 18, 19), and in Cronin\u2019s edition of _Codex\nPurpureus Petropolitanus_ (Lk. iii. 23, 24, ix. 7, 8.)\n\nThe Textus Receptus is usually indicated by the Greek letter \u03db, the\ninitial of Stephen\u2019s name.\n\n[Sidenote: Beza.]\n\nFollowing Stephen, the French theologian Theodore de B\u00e8ze (BEZA\n1519-1605), the friend and successor of Calvin in Geneva, prepared,\nbetween 1565 and 1611, four folio and six octavo editions,[8] which are\nnoteworthy as forming, with the last two editions of Stephen, the basis\nof the English Authorised Version. Beza was the owner of two valuable\nGreek-Latin manuscripts of the Gospels with the Acts and Pauline\nEpistles, one of which, the now so famous Codex Bezae, he presented to\nthe University of Cambridge in 1581. He himself, however, made little\nuse of these in his editions, as they deviated too far from the printed\ntexts of the time. Beza seems also, in the preparation of his Geneva\nedition, to have been the first to collate the oriental versions. For\nthis purpose he employed the Syriac edition of Emmanuel Tremellius\n(1569), and for Acts and 1 and 2 Corinthians the Arabic version put at\nhis disposal by Franciscus Junius.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014Scrivener, ii. 188 ff.; Hoskier (as above): _the various\n    readings ... by the remaining three Bezan editions in folio of 1582,\n    1588-9, 1598, and the 8vo. editions of 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590,\n    1604_.\n\n[Sidenote: Polyglots.\n           1. Antwerp.]\n\n5. The credit of presenting these oriental versions in a convenient\ncombination for the interpretation of the Bible belongs to the so-called\n_Antwerp Polyglot_, the Biblia Regia, printed in eight folio volumes\nbetween 1569 and 1572 by Christopher Plantin, a French printer residing\nin Antwerp. In this work the Greek New Testament is printed twice, first\nin vol. v., alongside the Vulgate and the Syriac text with its Latin\ntranslation, and again in vol. vi. with the interlinear version of Arias\nMontanus. Plantin was aided in this enterprise by a grant of 12,000\nducats from King Philip II. It was carried out under the supervision of\nthe Spanish theologian Benedict Arias, called Montanus from his\nbirth-place Frexenal de la Sierra.\n\n    \u201cLabore et Constantia\u201d was the motto of this celebrated family of\n    printers, who continued to carry on their trade on the same premises\n    till August 1867. Nine years later the house was sold to the city\n    and converted into the \u201cMus\u00e9e Plantin.\u201d\n\nOf the Antwerp Polyglot 960 ordinary copies were printed, 200 of a\nbetter quality, 30 fine, 10 superfine, and 13 on parchment, for which\nlast 16,263 skins were used. One of these Montaigne saw and admired in\nthe Vatican Library; another, the copy dedicated to the Archduke Alba,\nis in the possession of the British Museum. The undertaking was the\nglory of Plantin\u2019s life, but it was also the beginning of his financial\ndifficulties. Copies were sold to book-sellers at 60 gulden each, and to\nthe public at 70 gulden (about \u00a36 and \u00a37). Ordinary copies now fetch\nfrom \u00a36 to \u00a37 or \u00a38. At the sale of the Ashburnham Collection in 1897 a\nparchment copy realised \u00a379. The supplements, including lexical and\nother matter, are still valuable to a certain extent. But here the\ncollector must note that certain parts have been reprinted.\n\nOn the Polyglots, see: _Discours historique sur les principales \u00e9ditions\ndes Bibles Polyglottes. Par l\u2019Auteur de la Biblioth\u00e8que Sacr\u00e9e_, Paris,\n1713; especially pp. 301-554, \u201cPi\u00e8ces justificatives du discours\npr\u00e9c\u00e9dent.\u201d Also, Ed. Reuss, _Polyglottenbibeln_, PRE^2, xii. 95-103\n(1883). Max Rooses, _Christophe Plantin, Imprimeur Anversois_, Antwerp,\n1884. Fol. 100 plates. Also _Correspondance de Plantin_, edited by\nRooses. 2 vols. 1886. L. Degeorge, _La Maison Plantin \u00e0 Anvers_. 3rd ed.\nParis, 1886. R. Lorck, _Das Plantin-Haus in Antwerpen_. Vom Fels zum\nMeer, 1888-9, ix. 328-346. On the double imprint see Rooses, p. 123; A.\nRahlfs in Lagarde\u2019s Bibliotheca Syriaca, p. 19. On Plantin\u2019s connection\nwith the Familists see PRE^3, v. 751-755.\n\n[Sidenote: 2. Parisian.]\n\nA still more extensive undertaking than the Antwerp Polyglot is that\nbrought out in Paris by the advocate Guy Michel LE JAY. This _Parisian\nPolyglot_ extends to ten folio volumes of the largest size, furnished\nexternally in the most sumptuous manner. Le Jay expended his whole\nfortune on the edition, and was obliged at last to sell it as waste\npaper, being too proud to accept the offer of Cardinal Richelieu, who\nwished to purchase the patronage of the enterprise for a large sum and\nthereby acquire the credit of it. The scholars who gave most assistance\nin the preparation of the oriental texts were Jean Morin and the\nMaronite Gabriel Sionita, the latter of whom superintended the Syriac\nportion. The two volumes of the New Testament, viz. vol. v. 1,\ncomprising the Gospels, and vol. v. 2, the Acts, Epistles, and\nApocalypse, appeared in 1630 and 1633. In addition to the texts printed\nin the Antwerp Polyglot, the Parisian contained a Syriac version of the\nso-called Antilegomena, _i.e._ those parts of the New Testament at one\ntime disputed (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Apocalypse), and it had\nalso an Arabic version, each one being accompanied with a Latin\ntranslation.[9]\n\n[Sidenote: 3. London.]\n\nLess sumptuous, but more copious, convenient, and critically valuable,\nis the last, and at the present day still most used of the four great\nPolyglots\u2014the _London Polyglot_ of Brian WALTON (1600-1661). It contains\nin all nine languages. In the New Testament (vol. v.) there is the Greek\ntext of Stephen with slight alterations, the version of Arias, the\nVulgate, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, and (for the Gospels only) Persic\nversions, each with a literal translation into Latin. The sixth volume\nalso contains Walton\u2019s Apparatus, which was re-issued at Leipzig in\n1777, and again at Cambridge by F. Wrangham in two volumes in 1828. It\nis really a kind of Introduction to Biblical Criticism. Finally, in two\nsupplementary parts, there is Edmund Castle\u2019s _Lexicon Heptaglotton_, a\nthesaurus linguae semiticae such as no one since has ventured to\nundertake.\n\n    The London Polyglot first appeared in 1657, under the patronage of\n    Cromwell, but after the Restoration it received a new Preface from\n    the editor, who was raised to the See of Chester by Charles II. In\n    this Preface Cromwell is styled \u201cMagnus Draco ille.\u201d Accordingly,\n    bibliophiles draw a sharp line of distinction between republican and\n    loyalist copies. One of the former costs considerably more than the\n    latter, the most recent prices running from \u00a322 to \u00a331. This is said\n    to have been the first work brought out in England by subscription.\n    See Schaff\u2019s \u201c_Companion_\u201d for facsimiles of title-page and page of\n    text. Todd: _Life of Brian Walton with the Bishop\u2019s Vindication of\n    the London Polyglot Bible_. London, 1821. 2 vols.\n\nFor this Polyglot, in addition to the critical works of previous\nscholars, the Codex Alexandrinus of the Greek Bible, sent by Cyril Lucar\nto Charles I. in 1628, was also employed for the first time. Its\nreadings are set at the foot of the Greek text and indicated by the\nletter A. This was the origin of the modern custom of indicating\nmanuscripts with Roman letters in the apparatus of critical editions not\nonly of the New Testament but of other books as well, a custom which has\ngenerally prevailed since the time of Wettstein. That gift of Cyril\nLucar seems really to have awakened for the first time a general desire\nfor critical editions. At the same time it was Walton\u2019s edition that\nmade Stephen\u2019s text of 1550 the \u201ctextus receptus\u201d in England.\n\n[Sidenote: Elzevir.]\n\n6. On the Continent a similar result was attained by the enterprising\nDutch printers Bonaventura and Abraham ELZEVIR of Leyden. What scholars\nhad a hand in their edition, if we may speak of scholars at all in this\nconnection, is not known. In 1624 the Elzevirs published, in a handy\nform and beautifully printed, an edition the text of which was taken\nmainly from Beza\u2019s octavo edition of 1565. In their Preface to a new\nissue in 1633 they said \u201ctextum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum, in\nquo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus,\u201d while they professed that even\nthe smallest errors\u2014\u201cvel minutissimae mendae\u201d\u2014had been eliminated with\njudgment and care. By means of this catchword they actually succeeded in\nmaking their text the most widely disseminated of all during 200 years.\nThe English Bible Society alone have issued not fewer than 351,495\ncopies of it in the 90 years of their existence, and at the present time\nare still printing this text alone. They issued 12,200 copies of it in\nthe year 1894. For several centuries, therefore, thousands of Christian\nscholars have contented themselves with a text based ultimately on two\nor three late manuscripts lying at the command of the first\neditors\u2014Stephen, Erasmus, and Ximenes\u2014a text, moreover, in which the\nerroneous readings of Erasmus, already referred to, are retained to this\nday.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014Scrivener, ii. 193. Hoskier ... (C) _a full and exact\n    comparison of the Elzevir editions of 1624 and 1633, doubling the\n    number of the real variants hitherto known, and exhibiting the\n    support given in the one case and in the other by the subsequent\n    editions of 1641, 1656, 1662, 1670, and 1678_. On the Elzevirs see\n    G. Berghman, _Nouvelles \u00c9tudes sur la Bibliographie Elzevirienne.\n    Suppl\u00e9ment \u00e0 l\u2019ouvrage sur les Elzevier de M. Alphonse Willems_,\n    Stockholm, 1897. Also, A. de Reume, _Recherches historiques,\n    g\u00e9n\u00e9alogiques et bibliographiques sur les Elzevier_, Brussels.\n    Facsimile of the edition of 1633 in Schaff\u2019s _Companion_.\n\n[Sidenote: Critical attempts.]\n\n7. Even those who were impelled by a greater spirit of research did not\nyet get back to the oldest attainable sources. In Rome, CARYOPHILUS set\nabout preparing a new edition. With this view, about the year 1625 he\ncollated twenty-two manuscripts with the Antwerp Polyglot\u2014ten for the\nGospels, eight for the Acts and Epistles, and four for the Apocalypse.\nAmong these were the most celebrated manuscript of the Vatican Library,\nthe \u201cCodex Vaticanus\u201d _par excellence_, and another of the same\ncollection, dating from the year 949 (Tischendorf\u2019s S), one of the\noldest manuscripts of the Greek New Testament whose date is known with\ncertainty. The results of this collator\u2019s labours were printed at Rome\nin 1673. But such collations were not then made with that exactitude\nwhich is the primary condition of works of this nature at the present\nday, though even now it is not always observed. In 1658 Stefan de\nCOURCELLES (Curcellaeus, 1586-1659), a native of Geneva, brought out an\nedition which was printed by the Elzevirs, and which is valuable for its\nscholarly Introduction, its careful collection of parallel passages, and\nits fresh collation of manuscripts. In this edition the \u201cComma\nJohanneum\u201d was included in brackets. The editor also expressed the\nopinion that even conjectural readings deserve consideration. Courcelles\nhad further projects in view, but these were interrupted by his death.\n\nIn 1672, in Germany, John SAUBERT published a collection of various\nreadings in St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel which he had compiled from printed\neditions, manuscripts, ancient versions, and quotations in the Greek and\nLatin Fathers.\n\nIn 1675 John FELL, afterwards Bishop of Oxford, published anonymously at\nthe Sheldonian Theatre, _i.e._ the Oxford University Press, an edition\nin the preparation of which more than 100 Greek manuscripts were\nemployed. Among the ancient versions the Gothic of Ulfilas and the\nCoptic were also made use of.\n\nAbout the same time (1689) there appeared anonymously at Rotterdam a\n_Histoire Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testament_, by Richard SIMON, a\nmember of the French Congregation of the Oratory. Simon is the father of\nthe historical method of critical introduction to the New Testament.\nWith his work, what might be called the infancy of New Testament\ncriticism comes to a close. With Mill\u2019s New Testament begins the period\nof its maturity, especially if Simon\u2019s works are taken as belonging to\nit. Such, at least, was the judgment expressed in 1777 by the G\u00f6ttingen\nscholar J. D. Michaelis. But we would say rather the period of its\nyouth, for otherwise we should now have reached the time of its old age,\nand much work still remains to be done.\n\n[Sidenote: Mill, 1707.]\n\n8. Encouraged by Bishop Fell, John MILL (1645-1707), about 1677, set to\nwork upon an edition which appeared in the year of his death.[10] The\nvalue of Mill\u2019s New Testament lies in its extended critical apparatus,\nand particularly in its Prolegomena. An enlarged edition was brought out\nin 1710 by Ludolf K\u00fcster of Westphalia (1670-1716), which, however, had\nsuch a small sale that it had to be reissued with a new title-page at\nLeipzig in 1723, and again at Amsterdam in 1746. In Mill\u2019s time the\nnumber of various readings in the New Testament was estimated at 30,000:\na competent estimate will now make them more than four or five times as\nmany. That is to say, there are almost more variants than words.\n\nMention must also be made of Nicolaus TOINARD\u2019S Latin-Greek Harmony of\nthe Gospels, which appeared at Orleans in the same year as Mill\u2019s New\nTestament, and which was the fruit of nearly as many years\u2019 labour.\nToinard was the first Catholic after Erasmus, and the last previous to\nScholz, to undertake a critical edition of the New Testament. He was\nalso the first editor after Beza to estimate properly the critical value\nof the Vulgate.\n\n[Sidenote: Bentley.]\n\nIt was Edward Wells who set the example of greater freedom in the\nadoption into the text of new readings from the manuscripts. His famous\ncountryman, the great philologist Richard BENTLEY (1662-1742), projected\na great critical edition of the New Testament, but unfortunately got no\nfurther than the preparation of materials and the publication of his\n\u201cProposals\u201d in 1720. He undertook to remove two thousand errors from the\nPope\u2019s Vulgate, and as many from that of the Protestant Pope (Stephen),\nwithout using any manuscript under 900 years old. But as his edition\nnever appeared, his nephew had to refund the 2000 guineas prepaid by the\nsubscribers.\n\nIn 1729 MACE published an edition anonymously, in which, perhaps, most\ncourage was shown in departing from the ordinary text. Thereafter,\nEnglish work in this department was suspended for nearly a century. It\nwas transferred to Germany and the Netherlands by the Swabian scholar\nBengel and by Wettstein of Basel.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014A. A. Ellis, _Bentleii Critica Sacra_, Camb., 1862. R.\n    C. Jebb, _Bentley_, London, 1882. _TiGr._, 229-240.\n    Wordsworth-White, I. pp. xv-xxviii (see below, p. 123).\n\n[Sidenote: Bengel.]\n\n9. As early as 1711, G.D.T.M.D., _i.e._ Gerhard de Trajectu Mosae\n(Maestricht) Doctor, a Syndic of Bremen, published at Amsterdam an\nedition prefaced by 43 canons or rules of criticism. Thereafter, in\n1725, J. A. BENGEL (1687-1752) issued his _Prodromus Novi Testamenti\nGraeci recte cauteque adornandi_, in which he unfolded a most carefully\nthought-out scheme for a new edition, undertaking to reduce all Gerhard\nvon Maestricht\u2019s 43 canons to one comprehensive rule of four words. That\nwas the principle now commonly expressed in the shorter but less\nsatisfactory form\u2014_lectio difficilior placet_. Bengel himself chose a\nmore careful mode of expression\u2014_proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua_.\nSix years later he was able to issue his _Notitia Novi Testamenti Graeci\nrecte cauteque adornati_. It was published in 1734 at T\u00fcbingen by Cotta\nin a handsome quarto.[11] In the same year a small octavo edition\nappeared at Stuttgart in which he urged the duty expressed in the motto,\n\n                        Te totum applica ad textum,\n                        Rem totam applica ad te.\n\nOf the latter, four editions were afterwards brought out. Of the large\nedition, the Apparatus, pronounced by Haussleiter to be a \u201cmemorable\nwork of most solid and productive learning,\u201d was reprinted separately\nafter his death. Bengel was too timid. He was unwilling to admit into\nthe text any reading which had not already appeared in some printed\nedition. But he inserted new readings in the margin and classified them.\nOut of 149 readings pronounced by Bengel to be genuine, only 20 are not\nnow generally approved. Out of 118 whose genuineness appeared to him\nprobable but not quite certain, 83 are now accepted.\n\nBut Bengel\u2019s most important contribution to the textual criticism of the\nGreek New Testament consists in the sound critical principles which he\nlaid down. He recognised that the witnesses must not be counted but\nweighed, _i.e._ classified, and he was accordingly the first to\ndistinguish two great groups or families of manuscripts. His principles\nwere reaffirmed by the celebrated philologist Lachmann, the first great\ntextual critic of our time, and the advance which the latest English\ncritics have made on Tischendorf is really due to the fact that they\nhave gone back to Bengel.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014Eb. Nestle, _Bengel als Gelehrter, ein Bild f\u00fcr unsere\n    Tage_. (In Marginalien und Materialien; also printed separately,\n    T\u00fcbingen, 1893.) Scrivener, ii. 204.\n\n[Sidenote: Wettstein.]\n\nFor the time, however, Bengel\u2019s rival, John WETTSTEIN (1693-1754),\noutdid him. His treatise on the Various Readings of the New Testament\nwas published as early as 1713, to be followed by his Prolegomena, which\nappeared anonymously in 1730, and later by his New Testament,[12] which\nwas issued in two folio volumes in 1751 and 1752. His Apparatus is\nfuller than that of any previous editor, while he also gives a detailed\naccount of the various manuscripts, versions, and Patristic writers. It\nwas he who introduced the practice, already referred to, of indicating\nthe ancient MSS. by Roman letters and the later MSS. by Arabic numerals.\nHe too, however, still printed the Elzevir text, following Maestricht\u2019s\nedition of 1735. At the foot of the text he placed those readings which\nhe himself held to be correct.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014Scrivener, _Introduction_, ii. 213; Carl Bertheau,\n    PRE^2, xvii. 18-24, 1886.\n\n[Sidenote: Griesbach.]\n\n10. J. J. GRIESBACH (1745-1812) was the first in Germany who ventured to\nprint the text of the New Testament in the form to which his criticism\nled him. He was the pupil of Salomo Semler, who had combined the\nprinciples of Bengel and Wettstein. These principles were adopted and\ncarried out by Griesbach. He enlarged the Apparatus by a more exact use\nof citations from the Fathers, particularly from Origen, and of various\nversions, such as the Gothic, the Armenian, and the Philoxenian. In his\nclassification of the witnesses, Griesbach distinguished a Western, an\nAlexandrian, and a Byzantine Recension. The edition, in four folio\nvolumes, printed by G\u00f6schen at Leipzig (1803-1807), is rightly described\nby Reuss as \u201ceditio omnium quae extant speciosissima.\u201d[13] His text was\nmore or less faithfully followed by many later editors like Schott,\nKnapp, Tittmann, and also by Theile.\n\n[Sidenote: Matthaei.]\n\nGriesbach\u2019s opponent, Christian Friedrich MATTHAEI, a Th\u00fcringian\n(1744-1811), was misled into attributing a too great value to a large\nnumber of manuscripts in Moscow of the third, the Byzantine, class.\n\nA considerable amount of critical material was collected at the expense\nof the King of Denmark by Andreas Birch (afterwards Bishop of Lolland,\nFalster, and Aarhuus), by D. G. Moldenhauer, and by Adler.\n\nA similar service was rendered, though not with sufficient care, by J.\nM. Augustin SCHOLZ, Professor of Catholic Theology in Bonn.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014On Matthaei see O. v. Gebhardt, _Christian Friedrich\n    Matth\u00e6i und seine Sammlung griechischer Handschriften_, Leipzig,\n    1898.\n\n[Sidenote: Lachmann.]\n\nIt was Carl LACHMANN (1793-1851) who first broke with the Textus\nReceptus altogether. He was a master in the domain of textual criticism.\nHe distinguished himself first in the department of classical and\nTeutonic philology, but came afterwards to render equal service to the\ntextual criticism of the New Testament. His object was to restore the\ntext to the form in which it had been read in the ancient Church about\nthe year 380, going on the ground of the oldest known Greek and Latin\nmanuscripts, _i.e._ the oldest Eastern and Western authorities.[14] He\ndid not claim to go further back than that date with any certainty. But\nit was still open to question whether that were not possible, and\nwhether the grounds on which Lachmann\u2019s work was based might not be\nstill further extended and confirmed.\n\n[Sidenote: Tischendorf.]\n\n11. The task which Lachmann set before him was prosecuted with the most\nbrilliant success in and from Germany by Gottlob (Aenotheus) Friedrich\nConstantin von TISCHENDORF (b. 18th January 1815, d. 7th December 1874).\nIn the course of several tours, first in Europe and afterwards in the\nEast, from the year 1841 onwards, he discovered and collated a number of\nthe most important and ancient manuscripts of the Bible. Among these the\nmost notable was the Codex Sinaiticus, found by him on Mount Sinai in\n1859, and now in St. Petersburg, the oldest known manuscript of the\npresent day which contains the entire Greek New Testament. On the basis\nof the material collected by himself and others, Tischendorf prepared\neight different editions between 1841 and 1872.[15] His seventh edition,\nconsisting of 3500 copies, appeared in 1859, previous to the discovery\nof the Sinaiticus. The text of this edition differed from that of 1849\nin 1296 instances, of which no fewer than 595 were reversions to the\nTextus Receptus. The text of the last edition, the octava critica maior,\nwhich was issued complete in eleven parts between 1864 and 1872,\ndiffered from that of the seventh in 3572 places. The third volume of\nthe editio octava maior, containing the Prolegomena, was completed in\nthree parts, extending to 1428 pages, by Caspar Ren\u00e9 Gregory between\n1884 and 1894, a work which affords the most complete survey of what has\nbeen done on the Greek New Testament up to the present time.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014Scrivener, ii. 235; _TiGr._, 1-22; _Urt._, 49-52. Apart\n    from the Editio Octava Maior, the most useful editions will be found\n    to be those of O. v. Gebhardt (see below, p. 23), or the Editio\n    Academica ad editionem oct. maior. conformata, Leipzig, Mendelssohn,\n    16mo, 1855, twentieth edition, 1899.\n\n[Sidenote: Tregelles.]\n\nWhile the editions of Tischendorf were appearing on the Continent, an\nedition began to be issued in England, which was completed in the course\nof twenty years. It was the work of a Quaker, Samuel Prideaux TREGELLES\n(b. 1813, d. 1875), who, while reaping no profit from his undertaking,\nhas left in it a monument to his fidelity. In this edition\n(1857-1879)[16] those passages in which the editor was unable to\npronounce a final judgment from the accessible material are indicated by\nthe form of the type.\n\n[Sidenote: Westcott and Hort.]\n\nA still more important advance was made by Brooke Foss WESTCOTT (b.\n1825), now Bishop of Durham, and Fenton John Anthony HORT (b. 23rd April\n1828, d. 30th November 1892). In 1881, these Cambridge scholars, after\nnearly thirty years of joint labour, published two volumes, the first\ncontaining the Text with a brief survey of its history and resulting\ncriticism, the second giving a detailed exposition of their critical\nprinciples by Hort himself. They were led by their investigation to\ndistinguish four main types of text:\u2014\n\n(1) A late type, originating in Syria about the year 300, which, issuing\nfrom Constantinople, became the prevailing text in later manuscripts,\nand corresponds essentially with the textus receptus of early printed\neditions:\n\n(2) A type originating in Alexandria, characterized by linguistic\nemendations:\n\n(3) A type originating in Syria but reaching the West previous to the\nyear 200, represented essentially by the Old Latin versions on the one\nhand and by the Syriac on the other, and displaying all sorts of\nremarkable additions:\n\n(4) The Neutral text, which displays no sort of corruptions.\n\nWestcott and Hort\u2019s work is the latest and most thorough attempt yet\nmade at a complete edition of the New Testament.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014_The New Testament in the original Greek. The text\n    revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort,\n    D.D._, Cambridge and London. Vol. i. Text (Fourth Edition, 1898).\n    Vol. ii., Introduction and Appendix (Third Edition, 1896). A smaller\n    edition of the text, 1885. Text, from new type, in larger form,\n    1895. For \u201cSome trifling Corrections to W.-H.\u2019s New Testament,\u201d see\n    Nestle in the _Expository Times_, viii. 479; ix. 95, 333, 424. See\n    _Life and Letters of F. J. A. Hort, by his son, A. F. Hort, 2 vols.,\n    London, 1896; also article on Hort_, by Gregory in the PRE^3, viii.\n    368. Facsimile of the American Edition with Introduction by Schaff,\n    in Schaff\u2019s _Companion_.\n\n[Sidenote: Weymouth.]\n\nThe \u201cResultant Greek Testament\u201d of R. F. WEYMOUTH affords a convenient\ncomparison of the text of the most important editions.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014_The Resultant Greek Testament, exhibiting the text in\n    which the majority of modern editors are agreed, and containing the\n    readings of Stephen (1550), Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,\n    Lightfoot, Ellicott, Alford, Weiss, the B\u00e2le edition (1880),\n    Westcott and Hort, and the Revision Committee._ By Richard Francis\n    Weymouth. With an Introduction by the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of\n    Worcester. London, 1886.... Cheap Edition, 1892, pp. xix. 644.\n    Besides the editions mentioned in the title, the Complutensian,\n    Elzevir (1633), Scrivener and others are compared in several places.\n\n[Sidenote: Weiss.]\n\nQuite recently, Bernhard WEISS, of Berlin, began a new and independent\nrevision of the text, which has been published in three large volumes\nwith introduction and explanatory notes.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014_Das Neue Testament. Textkritische Untersuchungen und\n    Textherstellung von D. Bernhard Weiss. Erster Theil,\n    Apostelgeschichte: Katholische Briefe: Apocalypse._ Leipzig, 1894.\n    _Zweiter Theil, Die paulinischen Briefe einschliesslich des\n    Hebr\u00e4erbriefs_, 1896. _Dritter Theil, Die vier Evangelien_ 1900.\n    Vol. i. is compiled from _Texte und Untersuchungen_, ix. 3, 4; viii.\n    3; vii. 1. The section in vol. ii. entitled _Textkritik der\n    paulinischen Briefe_, is taken from _TU._ xiv. 3, and the\n    corresponding section in vol. iii. from _TU._ xix. 2 (New Series,\n    iv. 2). See \u201cB. Weiss and the New Testament,\u201d by C. R. Gregory in\n    the _American Journal of Theology_, 1897, i. 16-37.\n\n[Sidenote: Von Gebhardt.]\n\nIn Germany, O. von GEBHARDT has done good service by issuing the text of\nTischendorf\u2019s last edition, with the necessary corrections, and giving\nin the margin the readings adopted by Tregelles and Westcott-Hort, when\nthese differ from the text. In the \u201ceditio stereotypa minor,\u201d the\ndifferences of Westcott-Hort alone are shown. In his Greek-German New\nTestament, he also exhibits at the foot of Luther\u2019s German text those\nreadings wherein the text of Erasmus\u2019s second edition of 1519, used by\nLuther, differs from that of the last edition of Tischendorf. In this\ndiglot of v. Gebhardt, therefore, one can see at a glance not only how\nfar the Greek text of the present day differs from that printed at the\nbeginning of the sixteenth century, but also the amount of agreement\nbetween present-day editors working on such different principles as\nTischendorf and Westcott and Hort. In the Adnotatio Critica found in the\nAppendix to the larger edition, there is a brief digest of the critical\nApparatus, but it extends only to those passages where Tischendorf and\nWestcott-Hort disagree. The editio minor contains 600 pages. One of\nthese, p. 501, shows not a single disagreement between these great\neditors, while 18 pages exhibit only one variation each, and these, for\nthe most part, mere grammatical trifles.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014_Novum Testamentum Graece recensionis Tischendorfianae\n    ultimae textum cum Tregellesiano et Westcottio-Hortiano contulit et\n    brevi adnotatione critica additisque locis parallelis illustravit\n    Oscar de Gebhardt._ Editio stereotypa. Lipsiae (Tauchnitz), 1881.\n    Seventh edition, 1896.\n\n    _N. T. Graece et Germanice._ Leipzig, 1881. Fourth edition, 1896. In\n    this edition the Greek is that of Tischendorf\u2019s last edition, and\n    the German is the Revised text of Luther (1870). The various\n    readings are shown for both texts, and a selection of parallel\n    passages is also given.\n\n    _N. T. Graece ex ultima Tischendorfii recensione edidit Oscar de\n    Gebhardt._ Editio stereotypa minor. Lipsiae, 16mo., 1887. Fourth\n    edition, 1898.\n\n[Sidenote: Stuttgart New Testament.]\n\nThe text of the Greek and Greek-German New Testaments prepared by me,\nand issued by the W\u00fcrttemberg Bible Institute, is based on a comparison\nof the three editions of Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, and Weymouth. The\nvariations of these editions are shown at the foot of the page, where\nare given also the readings inserted by Westcott and Hort in their\nAppendix and omitted by O. v. Gebhardt. From Acts onwards, the readings\nadopted by Weiss are indicated as well. In a lower margin, a number of\nimportant manuscript readings are given. In the Gospels and Acts, these\nare taken mainly, though not exclusively, from Codex Bezae. In the\nGreek-German edition, the text (German) is that of the Revised Version\nof 1892. Below it are given the readings of Luther\u2019s last edition\n(1546), with several of his marginal glosses and earlier renderings.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014_Novum Testamentum Graece cum apparatu critico ex\n    editionibus et libris manu scriptis collecto._ Stuttgart, 1898.\n    Second corrected edition, 1899. Also issued in two and in ten parts,\n    and interleaved. Third edition in preparation.\n\n[Sidenote: Schj\u00f8tt.]\n\nFr. SCHJ\u00d8TT published an edition at Copenhagen in 1897 the text of which\nwas determined by the agreement between the Codex Vaticanus\n(Claromontanus, from Heb. ix. 14 onwards) and the Sinaiticus. Where they\ndisagreed he called in the next oldest manuscript as umpire. For this\npurpose he employed for the Gospels the manuscripts A C D E F H I^b K L\nP Q T U V X Z \u0393 \u0394, for the Acts and Catholic Epistles A C D E H K L P,\nfor the Pauline Epistles A C D E F G H L P, and for the Apocalypse A C P\n1, 18, 38, 49, 92, 95. At the foot of the text his edition gives, in two\ndivisions, a comparison with the Elzevir text and with that of\nTischendorf-Gebhardt (1894). From what source Schj\u00f8tt derived his\nknowledge of the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus is not mentioned. The\nphotograph of the former seems not to have been employed.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014_Novum Testamentum Graece ad fidem testium\n    vetustissimorum recognovit necnon variantes lectiones ex editionibus\n    Elzeviriana et Tischendorfiana subjunxit Fr. Schj\u00f8tt._ Hauniae,\n    1897, pp. xi. 562.\n\n[Sidenote: Baljon.]\n\nThe edition of J. M. S. BALJON is in the main an abridgment of\nTischendorf\u2019s octava maior. He avails himself, however, of later\ndiscoveries, such as the Sinai-Syriac Palimpsest for the Gospels, and\nthe Syriac version published by Gwynn for the Apocalypse. In Acts,\nBlass\u2019s restoration of the so-called Forma Romana is regularly\nindicated. No other edition, for one thing, shows more conveniently\nwhere recent scholars recognise glosses or other interpolations, or\npropose transpositions or conjectural emendations and such like. So far,\ntherefore, it may be commended to those who do not possess an edition\nwith a more copious critical apparatus. But even Baljon\u2019s New Testament\nfails to realise the ideal of a practical edition.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014_Novum Testamentum Graece praesertim in usum studiosorum\n    recognovit J. M. S. Baljon_, Groningae, 1898, pp. xxiii. 731. The\n    first 320 pages are also issued separately as Volumen primum\n    continens Evangelia Matthaei, Marci, Lucae et Ioannis. _Vide_\n    Bousset in the _Theologische Rundschau_ for July 1898.\n\n[Sidenote: Catholic editions.]\n\nFrom the Catholic side little has been done in Germany in this\ndepartment of scholarship for a long time. In 1821 Aloys GRATZ reprinted\nthe Complutensian at T\u00fcbingen; while Leander van ESS issued an edition\nwhich combined the Complutensian and Erasmus\u2019s fifth edition.[17] This\nalso appeared at T\u00fcbingen in 1827. Both of these contained the Vulgate,\nand showed where recent editions gave a different text.\n\nReuss mentions two Synopses, one by Joseph GEHRINGER (T\u00fcbingen, 1842,\n4^o), the other by Fr. X. PATRICIUS (Freiburg, 1853, 4^o), and two small\neditions, one of which, by A. JAUMANN (Munich, 1832), was the first to\nbe printed in Bavaria. The other is by Fr. X. REITHMAYER (Munich, 1847),\nand closely follows the text of Lachmann.\n\nThere has also appeared recently at Innsbruck a Greek-Latin edition in\ntwo volumes by Michael HETZENAUER, a Capuchin. The first volume contains\nthe Evangelium and the second the Apostolicum. But as the strict\nCatholic is bound by the decision of the Holy Office, Hetzenauer\u2019s\nedition hardly falls to be considered here. A resolution of the Holy\nOffice of 13th January 1897 pronounced even the Comma Johanneum (1 John\nv. 7) to be an integral part of the New Testament. This was confirmed by\nthe Pope on the 15th January, and published in the _Monitore\nEcclesiastico_ of the 28th February of the same year. An edition in\nGreek and Latin was issued by BRANDSCHEID at Freiburg in 1893.\n\nIt is impossible to enumerate here editions of separate books of the New\nTestament. Many of these are in the form of Commentaries. In addition to\nthe works of Blass, to which reference will be made later, mention may\nbe made here of a recent and most thorough piece of work\u2014viz., _The\nGospel according to St. Mark: The Greek Text, with Introduction and\nNotes_, by Henry Barclay SWETE, D.D., pp. cx. 412 (London, Macmillan,\n1898); also of _The Gospel according to St. Luke after the Westcott-Hort\ntext, edited with parallels, illustrations, various readings, and\nnotes_, by the Rev. Arthur Wright: London, Macmillan, 1900; and of\nHilgenfeld\u2019s edition of the Acts in Greek and Latin. Berlin, 1899.\n\n[Sidenote: Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.]\n\nNor can we enter particularly the field of early Christian Apocrypha and\nPseudepigrapha. Those who cannot obtain Hilgenfeld\u2019s _Novum Testamentum\nextra Canonem Receptum_, or Resch\u2019s _Agrapha_, or the editions of\nTischendorf, Lipsius, and Bonnet, will find a handy and inexpensive\nselection in my _Supplement_ to Gebhardt\u2019s editions of Tischendorf.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014_Novi Testamenti Graeci Supplementum editionibus de\n    Gebhardt-Tischendorfianis adcommodavit Eb. Nestle. Insunt Codicis\n    Cantabrigiensis Collatio, Evangeliorum deperditorum Fragmenta, Dicta\n    Salvatoris Agrapha, Alia._ Lipsiae (Tauchnitz), 1896, pp. 96.\n\nThere can be no question that in these last mentioned editions which\nhave been brought out at the end of the nineteenth century, we have a\ntext corresponding far more closely to the original than that contained\nin the first editions of the Greek New Testament issued at the beginning\nof the sixteenth century, on which are based the translations into\nmodern languages used in the Christian churches of Europe at the present\ntime. It would be a vast mistake, however, to conclude from the textual\nagreement displayed in these latest editions, that research in this\ndepartment of New Testament study has reached its goal. Just as\nexplorers, in excavating the ruined temples of Olympia or Delphi, are\nable from the fragments they discover to reconstruct the temple, to\ntheir mind\u2019s eye at least, in its ancient glory\u2014albeit it is actually in\nruins\u2014so too, much work remains to be done ere even all the materials\nare re-collected, and the plan determined which shall permit us to\nrestore the Temple of the New Testament Scriptures to its original form.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  They were reinserted in the library on the 23rd August.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  Mary\u2019s Hymn, Luke i. 46-55; and Hymn of Zacharias, Luke i. 68-79.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  \u201cNec eis sane quibuslibet, sed vetustissimis simul et emendatissimis.\u201d\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  At the present time this text of Erasmus is still disseminated by tens\n  and even hundreds of thousands by the British and Foreign Bible\n  Society of London. To this day the word \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is printed in\n  their editions at Apoc. xvii. 4, though there is no such word in the\n  Greek language as \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, meaning uncleanness. In the concluding\n  verses of the New Testament, which were retranslated by Erasmus from\n  his Latin Bible, there stands the lovely future \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 for \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6.\n  We find also constructions like \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd, in c. xvii. 8,\n  where, however, the accentuation \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd makes Erasmus responsible for\n  an additional error he did not commit, seeing that he at least printed\n  \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd. Every college lad knows that \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 is construed with the\n  participle, though it is not perhaps every one that will see just at\n  once that \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 is the correct reading. [_Cf._ Mark xv. 6, where\n  the MSS. fluctuate in like manner between \u1f43\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf and \u1f45\u03bd\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n  \u1f92\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf (\u039f\u039d\u03a0\u0391\u03a1\u0397\u03a4\u039f\u03a5\u039d\u03a4\u039f.)] Other instances where the Textus Receptus has\n  adopted the reading of Erasmus in spite of the fact that it is\n  unsupported by any known MS. are to be found, _e.g._ in 1 Pet. ii. 6\n  (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9) and in 2 Cor. i. 6. Luther, who used Erasmus\u2019s second\n  edition of 1519, followed him in saying of the Beast, \u201cthat is not\n  although it is.\u201d This, however, is not so remarkable as that in the\n  year 1883 such things were still allowed to stand in the first\n  impression of the Revised Version of Luther\u2019s Bible issued by the\n  Conference of German Evangelical Churches, and only removed in their\n  last Revision of 1892. The error in Apoc. xvii. 8 was copied into the\n  English Authorised Version of 1611 (\u201cis not and yet is\u201d) but was\n  corrected by the Revisers of 1884 (\u201cis not and shall come\u201d).\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  Facsimile in Schaff\u2019s _Companion_.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  Facsimile in Schaff\u2019s _Companion_.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  Facsimiles of Folio 1598 and Octavo 1604 in Schaff\u2019s _Companion_.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  Copies of the Parisian Polyglot now cost about \u00a36.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  Facsimile in Schaffs\u2019s _Companion_.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  Facsimile in Schaff\u2019s _Companion_.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  Facsimile in Schaff\u2019s _Companion_.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  Facsimile of the second edition, Halle and London, 1796, in Schaff\u2019s\n  _Companion_.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  Facsimile in Schaff\u2019s _Companion_.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  Facsimiles of the edition of 1841, and the octava maior 1872, in\n  Schaff\u2019s _Companion_.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  Facsimile in Schaff\u2019s _Companion_.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  Van Ess\u2019s edition was issued with two different title-pages. One of\n  these gives the names of the Protestant editors, Matthaei and\n  Griesbach. But the other omits the names together with the Notanda on\n  the back of the title-page, so that the reader is left in the dark as\n  to the meaning of the symbols Gb, M, etc., in the margin. Most copies\n  omit the Introduction, which contains the Pope\u2019s sanction of the\n  editions of Erasmus and Ximenes.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER II.\n        MATERIALS OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n\nEven in the age of printing, and with all the security afforded by that\ninvention, it is not always easy or even possible to exhibit or restore\nthe literary productions of a great mind in their original form. One has\nbut to think of the obscurity in which the works of Shakespeare and\ntheir early editions are enveloped, or the questions raised over the\nWeimar edition of Luther\u2019s works. And even when the author\u2019s original\nmanuscript is still preserved, but the proof-sheets, as is usual,\ndestroyed, we cannot always be certain whether occasional discrepancies\nbetween the print and the manuscript are intentional or not. Nay, even\nwhen the two agree, there is still the possibility that what the author\nwrote and allowed to be printed was not what he thought or intended to\nbe read. Did Lessing, _e.g._, mean us to read in _Nathan_ ii. 5, 493,\n\u201cthe great _man_ requires always plenty of room,\u201d or \u201cthe great _tree_\u201d\ndoes so? Various writers, in speaking of this or that artist\u2019s talents\nor dexterity, have used the words \u201chaud impigre.\u201d To take them at their\nword, the object of their praise had no such endowment beyond the\ncommon. We may be certain that what they meant to convey was the very\nopposite of what they actually wrote, viz. \u201chaud pigre\u201d or \u201cimpigre.\u201d As\na rule, however, the purchaser of a modern classic may rely upon reading\nit in the form in which the author intended it to be circulated. It is\nquite different in the case of those works which were composed at a time\nwhen their multiplication was only possible by means of copying, and\nspecially so in the case of those that are older by a thousand years\nthan the invention of printing. For then every fresh copy was a fresh\nsource of errors, even when the copyist was as painfully exact as it was\npossible for him to be. It is simply astonishing, in view of all the\nperils to which literary works have been exposed, to find how much has\nbeen preserved, and, on the whole, how faithfully.\n\n[Sidenote: Autographs.]\n\nThe matter is, of course, quite a simple one, when by good fortune the\nauthor\u2019s own manuscript, his =autograph=, is extant. The abstract\npossibility of this being so in the case of the New Testament writings\ncannot be denied. Thanks to the dryness of the climate of Egypt and the\nexcellence of ancient writing material, we have documents more than\ntwice the age that the New Testament autographs would be to-day did we\npossess them. Now and again we find a report circulated in the\nnewspapers that such an original document has been found,\u2014of Peter,\n_e.g._, or some other Apostle. About the year 489 it was asserted that\nthe original copy of Matthew had been discovered in the grave of\nBarnabas in Cyprus. And to the eyes of the devout there are still\nexhibited not only the Inscription from the Cross, but works from the\nartist hand of Luke. In reality, however, we have no longer the\nautograph of a single New Testament book. Their disappearance is readily\nunderstood when we consider that the greater portion of the New\nTestament, viz. the Epistles, are occasional writings never intended for\npublication, while others were meant to have only a limited circulation.\nEven in the early ages of the Christian Church, when there must have\nbeen frequent occasion to appeal to them, the autographs were no longer\nin existence.\n\n    Tertullian (_De Praescriptione Haereticorum_, 36) mentions\n    Thessalonica among the cities in which he believed the letters of\n    the Apostles that were addressed there were still read from\n    autograph copies.[18] \u201cPercurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas\n    ipsae adhuc cathedrae apostolorum suis locis praesident, apud quas\n    ipsae authenticae literae eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem et\n    repraesentantes faciem uniuscuiusque.\u201d But when the same author, in\n    his _De Monogamia_, speaks of \u201cGraecum authenticum,\u201d he refers not\n    to the autograph, but to the original text as distinguished from a\n    version.\n\n    On the copy of Matthew\u2019s Gospel found in the grave of Barnabas in\n    Cyprus, _vide_ Theodorus Lector (Migne, 86, 189); Severus of Antioch\n    in Assemani, _Bibliotheca Orientalis_, ii. 81; _Vitae omnium 13\n    Apostolorum_: \u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2 ... \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd\n    \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039a\u03cd\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.[19]\n    In the Imperial Court Chapel the lessons were read from this copy on\n    Holy Thursday of every year. _Vide_ Fabricius, _Evv. Apocr._, 341.\n\n    On the supposed autograph of Mark in Venice see Jos. Dobrowsky,\n    _Fragmentum Pragense Ev. S. Marci, vulgo autographi_, Prague, 1778.\n    It is really a fragment of a Latin manuscript of the Vulgate, dating\n    from the seventh century, of which other fragments exist in Prague.\n\n    In the _Chronicon Paschale_ there is a note on the reading \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7 for\n    \u1f15\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7 in John xix. 14, to the following effect:\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1fc6\n    \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 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\n    \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f18\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n    \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. Bengel himself said on 1 John v.\n    7:\u2014\u201cEt tamen etiam atque etiam sperare licet, si non autographum\n    Johanneum, at alios vetustissimos codices graecos, qui hanc\n    periocham habeant, in occultis providentiae divinae forulis adhuc\n    latentes, suo tempore productum iri.\u201d (N.T. 420, 602, 770.)\n\n    In disproof of an alleged autograph of Peter, see Lagarde, _Aus dem\n    deutschen Gelehrtenleben_, G\u00f6ttingen, 1880, p. 117 f. On legends of\n    this sort among the Polish Jews, on the autograph copy of the\n    Proverbs that Solomon sent to the Queen of Sheba, and now in the\n    possession of the Queen of England, etc., _vide_ S. Schechter, _Die\n    Hebraica in der Bibliothek des Britischen Museums_, in the\n    _J\u00fcdisches Literatur-Blatt_ for 1888, No. 46.\n\n    At the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680-1, which Harnack (_DG._ ii.\n    408) says might be called the \u201cCouncil of Antiquaries and\n    Palaeographers\u201d, investigations were instituted in this department\n    with some success.\n\n    J. G. Berger, _De Autographis Veterum_, Vitenb., 1723. 4^o.\n\n    J. R. Harris, _New Testament Autographs_ (Supplement to the\n    _American Journal of Philology_, No. 12), Baltimore, 1882. With\n    three plates.\n\n    In this connection reference might be made to the falsifications of\n    Constantine Simonides: _Facsimiles of certain portions of the Gospel\n    of St. Matthew, and of the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude,\n    written on papyrus of the first century_. London, 1862. Fol.\n\n[Sidenote: Manuscripts.]\n\nSeeing, then, that the autographs of the New Testament books have all\nperished, we have to do as in the case of the Greek and Latin classics,\nviz. apply to later copies of them, the so-called =manuscripts= of which\nfrequent mention has already been made. But while in the case of most\nliterary products of antiquity these manuscript copies are the _only_\nsources whence we may derive our knowledge of them, we are happily more\nfortunate in regard to the New Testament.\n\n[Sidenote: Versions.]\n\nThe new faith very early and very rapidly spread to distant peoples\nspeaking other languages than that in which the Gospel was first\npreached. Indeed, even in its native land of Palestine, several\nlanguages were in use at the same time. Accordingly, at a very early\ndate, as early as the second, and perhaps, in the case of fragments,\neven in the first century, there arose in the East, and in the South,\nand in the West, =versions= of the Christian books very soon after their\ncomposition. At first only separate portions would be translated, but as\ntime went on versions of the entire New Testament made their appearance.\nManifestly, the value for our purpose of these versions depends on their\nage and accuracy. It is impossible, without further knowledge, to be\ncertain whether a Greek copyist of later centuries followed his original\nquite faithfully or not. But a Latin version of the New Testament which\ndates from the second century, _e.g._, will represent with tolerable\ncertainty the second century Greek manuscript from which it is derived,\neven supposing that our present copy of that version is not earlier than\nthe sixth century or even later. But these versions confer yet another\nadvantage. In the case of most, and certainly of the oldest Greek\nmanuscripts, we do not know in what country they originated. But it is\nquite certain that a Latin version could not have originated in Egypt,\nor a Coptic version in Gaul. In this way we may learn from the versions\nhow the text of the Bible read at a particular time and in a particular\nregion. Lastly, if it should happen that several versions originating in\nquite isolated regions, in the Latin West, and in the Syrian East, and\nin the Egyptian South, agree, then we may be certain that what is common\nto them all must go back to the earliest times and to their common\noriginal.\n\n[Sidenote: Quotations.]\n\nIn addition to the Greek manuscripts and the versions, we have still a\nthird and by no means unimportant class of material that we can employ\nin reconstructing our text of the New Testament. We possess an\nuncommonly rich Christian literature, which gathers volume from the\nsecond half, or, at all events, from the last quarter of the first\ncentury onwards. Now, what an early Church teacher, or, for that matter,\nwhat any early writer quotes from the New Testament will have for us its\nown very peculiar importance, under certain conditions. Because, as a\nrule, we know precisely where and when he lived. So that by means of\nthese =patristic quotations= we are enabled to locate our ancient\nmanuscripts of the Bible even more exactly, and trace their history\nfurther than we are able to do with the help of the versions. Here, of\ncourse, we must make sure that our author has quoted accurately and not\nloosely from memory, and also that the quotations in his book have been\naccurately preserved and not accommodated to the current text of their\ntime by later copyists or even by editors of printed editions, as has\nactually been done even in the nineteenth century. We shall now proceed\nto describe these three classes of auxiliaries.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014W. Wattenbach, _Anleitung zur griechischen\n    Palaeographie_, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1877; V. Gardthausen, _Griechische\n    Palaeographie_, Leipzig, 1879; Fr. Blass, _Palaeographie,\n    B\u00fccherwesen, und Handschriftenkunde_, in I. v. M\u00fcller\u2019s Handbuch der\n    klassischen Alterthumswissenschaft, 2nd ed., vol. i., Munich, 1892;\n    E. M. Thompson, _Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography_, London,\n    1891; T. Birt, _Das antike Buchwesen_, Berlin, 1882; W. A. Copinger,\n    _The Bible and its Transmission_; F. G. Kenyon, _Our Bible and the\n    ancient Manuscripts_, London, third edition, 1897; F. H. A.\n    Scrivener, _Six Lectures on the Text of the N.T. and the ancient\n    Manuscripts which contain it_, Cambridge and London, 1875; _A\n    Collation of about 20 Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels_, London,\n    1853; _Adversaria critica sacra_, Cambridge, 1893; Hoskier; _Urt._,\n    pp. 16, 54; O. Weise, _Schrift- und Buchwesen in alter und neuer\n    Zeit_, Leipzig (Teubner), 1899 (with Facsimiles: a popular work); F.\n    G. Kenyon, _The Palaeography of Greek Papyri_, Oxford, 1899 (with 20\n    Facsimiles and a Table of Alphabets, pp. viii., 160); Ulr. Wilcken,\n    _Tafeln zur \u00e4lteren griechischen Palaeographie, Nach Originalen des\n    Berliner K. Museums_, Berlin and Leipzig, 1891 (with 20\n    photographs); G. Vitelli e C. Paoli, _Collezione Fiorentina di\n    facsimili paleografici greci e latini_, Firenze, 1884-1897 (with 50\n    Greek Plates and 50 Latin, Folio); Charles F. Sitterly, _Praxis in\n    Manuscripts of the Greek Testament; the mechanical and literary\n    processes involved in their writing and preservation_ (with table of\n    Manuscripts and 13 Facsimile Plates), New York and Cincinnati, 1898,\n    second enlarged edition, 1900; F. Carta, C. Cipolla e C. Frati,\n    _Monumenta Palaeographica sacra: Atlante paleografico-artistico\n    composto sui manuscritti_, Turin, 1899; Karl Dziatzko,\n    _Untersuchungen \u00fcber ausgew\u00e4hlte Kapitel des antiken Buchwesens. Mit\n    Text, Uebersetzung und Erkl\u00e4rung von Plinii Histor. Nat._, lib.\n    xiii. \u00a7 68, 69, Leipzig, Teubner, 1900.\n\n\n                            1. MANUSCRIPTS.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Number of manuscripts.]\n\nFor no literary production of antiquity is there such a wealth of\nmanuscripts as for the New Testament. Our classical scholars would\nrejoice were they as fortunate with Homer or Sophocles, Plato or\nAristotle, Cicero or Tacitus, as Bible students are with their New\nTestament. The oldest complete manuscript of Homer that we have dates\nfrom the thirteenth century, and only separate papyrus fragments go back\nto the Alexandrian age. All that is extant of Sophocles we owe to a\nsingle manuscript dating from the eighth or ninth century in the\nLaurentian Library at Florence. But of the New Testament, 3829\nmanuscripts have been catalogued up till the present. A systematic\nsearch in the libraries of Europe might add still more to the list; a\nsearch in those of Asia and Egypt would certainly do so. Gregory\nbelieves that there are probably some two or three thousand manuscripts\nwhich have not yet been collated, and every year additional manuscripts\nare brought to light. Most of these are, of course, late, and contain\nonly separate portions, some of them mere fragments, of the New\nTestament.[20] Not a few, however, go much further back than our\nmanuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament and most of the Greek and Latin\nClassics. Only in the case of the Mohammedan sacred books is the\ncondition of things more favourable. These came into existence in the\nseventh century, and the variations between separate manuscripts are a\nvanishing quantity, because the text of the Koran was officially fixed\nat a very early date and regarded as inviolably sacred. Fortunately, one\nmight almost say, it is quite different with the New Testament, which\nwas put together in a totally different way. In its case the very\ngreatest freedom prevailed for at least a century and a half.\n\nThe manuscripts of the New Testament being so numerous, it becomes\nnecessary to arrange them. One of the most important considerations\nhitherto has been that of age, and therefore manuscripts have been\ndivided into =Uncials= (or Majuscules) and =Cursives= (or Minuscules),\naccording to the style of writing in use at earlier or later times.\n\n[Sidenote: Uncial, and Cursive script.]\n\nIn early times, as at the present day, inscriptions on monuments and\npublic buildings were engraved in capital letters. This form of writing\nwas also employed for books, especially those containing valuable or\nsacred writing. The letters were not joined together, but set down side\nby side.[21] They were called _litterae majusculae_, _capitales_,\n_unciales_, _i.e._ \u201cinch-high,\u201d as Jerome says with ridicule\u2014_uncialibus\nut vulgo aiunt litteris onera magis exarata quam codices_. Alongside of\nthis there arose, even previous to the Christian era, a smaller Cursive\nform (_Minusculae_), for use in common life, in which the letters were\njoined.[22] This running hand found its way into manuscripts of the\nBible in the course of the ninth century. In some cases, in Codex \u039b\n_e.g._, both styles are found alongside or following each other.[23]\n\nThe oldest Cursive manuscript of the New Testament, the exact date of\nwhich is known, is 481^{evv.}; it bears the date 835. The great majority\nof New Testament manuscripts belong to this later date, seeing that out\nof the 3829 manuscripts there are only 127 Uncials to 3702 Minuscules.\nGreek copyists not being accustomed to date their manuscripts exactly,\nit becomes the task of pal\u00e6ography to settle the criteria by which the\ndate and place of a manuscript\u2019s origin may be determined. These are the\nstyle of writing\u2014whether angular or round, upright or sloping, the\npunctuation\u2014whether simple or elaborate, and the different material and\nform of the book. These distinctions, however, are often very\nmisleading. The following table will show the distribution of the\nmanuscripts according to the centuries in which they were written, as\ngiven by Vollert, Scrivener, and von Gebhardt[24]:\u2014\n\n                             Vollert.   Scrivener. v. Gebhardt.\n               IVth Century,        5          ...            2\n                    Vth    \u201c        4           10           15\n                   VIth    \u201d       18           22           24\n                  VIIth    \u201c        6            9           17\n                 VIIIth    \u201d        8            8           19\n                   IXth    \u201c       23          ...           31\n                    Xth    \u201d        4          ...            6\n\n[Sidenote: Papyrus and parchment.]\n\nManuscripts are distinguished according to the =material= on which they\nare written, which may be either parchment or paper.\n\n=Parchment= derives its name from Pergamum, where it was introduced in\nthe reign of King Eumenes (197-159 B.C.). But prior to the use of\nparchment, and to a certain extent alongside of it, =papyrus= was used,\nespecially in Egypt, down to the time of the Mohammedan Conquest.\nPapyrus books were originally in the form of rolls (_volumina_). Only a\nfew fragments of the New Testament on papyrus remain. The use of\nparchment gave rise to the book or Codex form. In the case of parchment\ncodices, a further distinction is drawn between those made of vellum\nmanufactured from the skins of very young calves, and those made of\ncommon parchment from the skins of sheep, goats, and antelopes.\n\n[Sidenote: Paper.]\n\nAs early as the eighth century (not the ninth), the so-called =cotton\npaper= (_charta bombycina_) was introduced from the East. This, however,\nnever consisted of pure cotton, but rather of flax and hemp. It had been\nin use for a long time in China and the centre of Eastern Asia, but\nseems to have been unknown in Syria and Egypt till after the fall of\nSamarcand in 704. From the thirteenth century onwards, paper made of\nlinen was employed.\n\nIn the New Testament, both papyrus and parchment are referred to. In 2\nTim. iv. 13, Paul asks that the \u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 he had left at Troas might be\nbrought to him, and \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1, but specially \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2. Here,\n\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 means cloak rather than satchel; \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 are the papyrus\nbooks, possibly his Old Testament, while \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 are clean sheets\nof parchment. In 2 John 12 the word \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 is used of papyrus. There,\nand in 3 John 13, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd is the ink, and the \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 (_lat._ canna) is\nthe reed pen, still used for writing in the East. The quill pen, strange\nto say, is not mentioned prior to the time of Theodoric the Ostrogoth in\nthe sixth century. The size of a sheet of writing paper may be inferred\nfrom the passages in 2nd and 3rd John alluded to above.\n\n[Sidenote: Scriptio continua.]\n\nIn order to economize space, the writing was continuous, with no break\nbetween the words (=scriptio continua=), breathings and accents being\nalso omitted. This is a frequent source of ambiguity and\nmisunderstanding. In Matt. ix. 18, _e.g._, \u0395\u0399\u03a3\u0395\u039b\u0398\u03a9\u039d may be either \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd or \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd. In Mark x. 40, \u0391\u039b\u039b\u039f\u0399\u03a3\u0397\u03a4\u039f\u0399\u039c\u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0391\u0399 was rendered \u201caliis\npraeparatum,\u201d \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 being read instead of \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2. In Matt. xvi. 23,\n\u0391\u039b\u039b\u0391 may be taken either as \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 or \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f03. In 1 Cor. xii. 28, again,\nthe Ethiopic translator read \u03bf\u1f56\u03c2 instead of \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2. The Palestinian-Syriac\nLectionary translates 1 Tim. iii. 16 as though it were \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd. There is something to be said for this, but Naber\u2019s proposed\nreading of Gal. ii. 11, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f43\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd, cannot be accepted.\n\n[Sidenote: Columns, Lines.]\n\nMost manuscripts show two =columns= to the page. The Sinaitic, however,\nhas four, while the Vatican has three. Columns vary considerably in\nwidth. They may be the width of a few letters only, or of an average\nhexameter line of sixteen to eighteen syllables or about thirty-six\nletters. Such a line is called a \u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, and as the scribe was paid\naccording to the number of \u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9, we find at the end of several books a\nnote giving the total number of \u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9 contained in them. In carefully\nwritten manuscripts, every hundredth, sometimes every fiftieth \u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 is\nindicated in the margin. These stichometric additions were afterwards\nadopted for the entire Bible. Their value in many respects will be\nobvious.\n\nAs the church increased in wealth and prestige, New Testament\nmanuscripts acquired a more sumptuous form, either from the luxury of\nthe rich or the pious devotion of kings and churches.\n\n[Sidenote: Palimpsests.]\n\nParchment, however, grew more and more expensive, and so the practice\narose of using an old manuscript a second time. The original writing was\nerased by means of a sponge or pumice stone or a knife, and the sheets\nwere then employed to receive other matter, or it might even be the same\nmatter over again. And so we have =Codices Rescripti= or =Palimpsesti=\nas they were called, a term known to Cicero, who says, though of a wax\ntablet, \u201cquod in palimpsesto, laudo parsimoniam\u201d (_ad Diversos_ vii.\n18). Some manuscripts were used as often as three times for distinct\nworks in three different languages _e.g._ Greek, Syriac, and Iberian.\nCodex I^b is one of these thrice used manuscripts, being written first\nin Greek and then twice in Syriac.\n\n[Sidenote: Punctuation.]\n\nMarks of =punctuation= are hardly to be found in the earliest times. It\nwas frequently, therefore, a question with church teachers whether a\nsentence was to be taken interrogatively or indicatively, or how the\nsentences were to be divided, as in the case of John i. 3 and 4. In the\ngeneral absence of punctuation, the appearance of quotation marks in\nsome of the oldest manuscripts, like Codex Vaticanus _e.g._, to indicate\ncitations from the Old Testament, is remarkable.\n\n[Sidenote: Size.]\n\nThe =size= of a manuscript varies from a large folio, which in the case\nof a parchment codex must have been very expensive, to a small octavo.\nIn regions inhabited by a mixed population we find =bilingual=\nmanuscripts, Greek-Latin, Greek-Coptic, Greek-Armenian, and such like.\nIf the manuscript was designed for use in church, the two languages were\nwritten in parallel columns, the Greek frequently occupying the left\ncolumn or reverse side of the sheet, being the place of honour. In\nmanuscripts intended for use in schools, the translation was written\nbetween the lines. Codex \u0394 is an example of a manuscript with an\ninterlinear version of this sort.\n\n[Sidenote: Contents.]\n\nOf more importance is the distinction of manuscripts according to their\n=contents=. Of all our recorded Uncials, only one contains the whole of\nthe New Testament complete. That is the Codex Sinaiticus discovered by\nTischendorf in 1859. A few others, like Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus,\nEphraemi, were once complete, but are no longer so. Of the later\nMinuscules, some twenty-five alone contain the entire New Testament. Of\nthe English Minuscules, five are complete. The fragmentary nature of our\nmanuscripts is intelligible on two grounds. One is that a New Testament\ncodex written in uncial characters is a very bulky and ponderous volume\nrunning to about 150 sheets. Comparatively few would be in a position to\nprocure such a costly work all at once. The other reason is that the New\nTestament itself is not a single book, but a series of different\ncollections, which at first, and even afterwards, were circulated\nseparately. To the same reason is due the great variety in the order of\nthe several parts of the New Testament found in the manuscripts, and\nstill, to a certain extent, in our printed editions. It is not exactly\nknown who it was that first collected and inscribed in one volume the\nbooks and the parts that now make up the New Testament. Such a single\nvolume of the entire New Testament was afterwards known as a \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2,\nand in Latin, _bibliotheca_. The parts into which the New Testament is\ndivided are\u2014\n\n    1. The four Gospels.\n\n    2. (_a_) The Acts of the Apostles. (_b_) The so-called Catholic\n    Epistles, _i.e._ those not addressed to any particular church or\n    individual, viz., James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude.\n\n    3. The thirteen Pauline Epistles, or, including Hebrews, fourteen.\n\n    4. The Apocalypse.\n\n[Sidenote: Lectionaries.]\n\nAmong these incomplete manuscripts of the New Testament may be classed\nthe so-called =lectionaries=\u2014_i.e._ manuscripts containing only those\nportions read at church services. Following the custom of the Synagogue,\nin which portions of the Law and the Prophets were read at divine\nservice each Sabbath day, the practice was early adopted in the\nChristian Church of reading passages from the New Testament books at\nservices. A definite selection of such extracts was formed at an early\ndate from the Gospels and Epistles, and the custom arose of arranging\nthese according to the order of Sundays and Holy days, for greater\nconvenience in use. A collection of selected passages from the Gospels\nwas called a \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, and in Latin _Evangeliarium_,[25] in\ndistinction to the books containing the continuous text, which were\ncalled \u03a4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, while the selections from the Epistles were\nknown as \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03a0\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. These lectionaries, though mostly\nof later origin, are nevertheless important as indicating the official\ntext of the various provinces of the Church. They show, moreover, how\nsundry slight alterations found their way into the text of the New\nTestament.\n\nWe can easily understand why it is that manuscripts of the Gospels are\nby far the most numerous, while those of the last book of the New\nTestament are the fewest. Among the Uncials, 73 contain the Gospels, and\nonly 7 have the Apocalypse. Of these 73 Uncials, again, only 6, viz. \u05d0 B\nK M S U, or, if we include \u03a9, only 7 are quite complete; 9 are almost\nso; 11 exhibit the greater part of the Gospels, while the remainder\ncontain only fragments. Of the 20 Uncials of the Pauline Epistles, only\n1 is entirely complete\u2014viz., \u05d0; 2 are nearly complete, D G; 8 have the\ngreater part. It is plain that our resources are not so great, after\nall, as the number of manuscripts given above would lead us to expect.\nHere also there are \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03af, \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03af.\n\n\n                               Parchment.\n\n\nThe manufacture of parchment is perhaps older than that of papyrus. It\nis said to owe both its name and wide circulation as writing material to\nthe encouragement given to its manufacture by Eumenes II. of Pergamum\n(197-159 B.C.). Pliny\u2019s story,[26] which he gives on the authority of\nVarro, is that Eumenes wished to found a library which should, as far as\npossible, excel that of Alexandria. To frustrate this intention Ptolemy\nEpiphanes prohibited the exportation of papyrus to Asia Minor. (In the\nlist of principal exports of Alexandria, Lumbroso[27] mentions \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\nand \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7 in the second place after \u1f51\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1, and \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 in the seventh.)\nEumenes was accordingly obliged to prepare parchment at Pergamum, and\nhence its name, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03ae. The name first occurs in Diocletian\u2019s\nPrice-list,[28] and in Jerome. The word used in earlier times was\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9,[29] or \u03b4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2,[30] or \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 as in 2 Tim. iv. 13, which\nlast was taken from the Latin. At first parchment was less valuable than\npapyrus, and was used more for domestic and school purposes than for the\nmaking of books, as the writing was easier erased from the skin. But it\ngradually supplanted papyrus, and with its employment came also the\nchange from the roll to the \u201ccodex\u201d form of book. If papyrus was the\nvehicle of Pagan Greek literature, parchment was the means whereby the\nliterature of the new faith became known to mankind, and the remnant of\nthe ancient culture at the same time preserved. Origen\u2019s library, which\nstill consisted for the most part of papyrus rolls, was re-written in\nparchment volumes (\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, _corpus_) by two priests shortly before the\ntime of Jerome. Our principal manuscripts of Philo are derived from one\nof these codices.[31] When Constantine ordered Eusebius to provide a\ncertain number of Bibles for presentation to the churches of his Empire,\nhe sent him, not rolls, but codices, \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nParchment was prepared from the skins of goats, sheep, calves, asses,\nswine, and antelopes. Our oldest manuscripts of the Bible exhibit the\nfinest and whitest parchment. The Codex Sinaiticus, _e.g._, displays the\nvery finest prepared antelope skin, and is of such a size that only two\nsheets could be obtained from one skin. As a rule, four sheets were\nfolded into a quire (quaternio), the separate sheets having been\npreviously ruled on the grain side. They were laid with the flesh side\nto the flesh side, and the grain side to the grain side, beginning with\nthe flesh side outermost, so that in each quaternio, pages 1, 4, 5, 8,\n9, 12, 13, 16 were white and smooth with the lines showing in relief,\nwhile the others, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15 were darker and rough, with\nindented lines.[32]\n\n[Sidenote: Ink.]\n\nFor writing on papyrus, ink made of soot was employed. Three parts of\nlamp-black were mixed with one part of gum and diluted with water. This\nink, however, was easily washed off, and did not stick well to\nparchment, and therefore recourse was had to ink made of gall nuts.\nSulphate of iron was afterwards added to it, with the result that the\nwriting material is frequently corroded with the ink. From its having\nbeen boiled the mixture was also called \u1f14\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, hence our word \u201cink\u201d\n(encre). Many old recipes for making ink are still preserved.[33] Even\nin early Egyptian writing, coloured inks, especially red, were used. One\nof the most beautiful manuscripts extant is a Syriac Codex in the\nBritish Museum, of date 411, in which the red, blue, green, and yellow\ninks are still quite fresh. Eusebius used cinnabar for numbering the\nparagraphs, and Jerome makes mention of minium or vermilion. In times of\ngreat wealth parchments were dyed purple and inscribed with gold and\nsilver letters.\n\n\n                                Papyrus.\n\n\nAmong ancient writers, Pliny gives the fullest description of the\npreparation of papyrus, in his _Historia Naturalis_, xiii. 11.[34] The\nsheets were prepared, not from the bark, but from the pith of the plant.\nThis was cut into strips (\u03c3\u03c7\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2) as thin and broad, and, according to\nsome, as long as possible. These were laid side by side as firmly as\nmight be, to form the first layer (\u03c3\u03c7\u03ad\u03b4\u03b1). On this a second layer was\nlaid crosswise and fastened to the lower with moisture or gum. The two\nlayers were then compressed to form the writing sheet (\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c2), which was\ncarefully dried and polished with ivory or a smooth shell. The roll\n(\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2) consisted of a number of \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 joined together to\nmake one long strip\u2014sometimes as much as 20 or 40 feet long, or even\nlonger. The upper side, the side used for writing on, was the one in\nwhich the fibres ran in a horizontal direction parallel to the edge of\nthe roll.[35] The under or outer side was only used in cases of\nnecessity.[36] The first sheet (\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd) was made stronger than the\nrest, and its inner edge was glued to a wooden roller (\u1f44\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2), with a\nknob at the end (\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2). The margin of the roll, what corresponds to the\nedge of our books, was frequently glazed and coloured, while the back\nwas protected against worms and moths by being rubbed with cedar oil.\nThe title was inscribed on a separate label of parchment (\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u03c5\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 or\n\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2). The separate rolls were enclosed in a leather case (\u03b4\u03b9\u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\nor \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2, see 2 Tim. iv. 13), and a number of them kept in a chest\n(\u03ba\u03b9\u03b2\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 or \u03ba\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7).\n\nOn the literature cf. also Paul Kr\u00fcger, _Ueber die Verwendung von\nPapyrus und Pergament f\u00fcr die juristische Litteratur der R\u00f6mer_,\nZeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung f\u00fcr Rechtsgeschichte. Roman section,\nviii. pp. 76-85 (1887). Wilcken, _Archiv f\u00fcr Papyrus-Forschung und\nverwandte Gebiete_, Leipzig, Teubner. F. G. Kenyon, _Palaeography of\nGreek Papyri_. C. Haeberlin, _Griechische Papyri_, Leipzig, 1897:\n\u201cNearly 150 years have fled since 432 complete Rolls and 1806 Papyrus\nFragments were discovered in the year 1752 at Herculaneum, in the Villa\nof L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, the pupil and friend of the Epicurean\nphilosopher Philodemus. Then twenty-five years later the soil of Egypt,\nthat home and nursery of literature, opened for the first time to\nvouchsafe to us a Greek Papyrus Roll, destined to be the forerunner of a\nseries of discoveries often interrupted but never ceasing altogether. It\nwas, perchance, not the only one of its kind; but out of the fifty rolls\naccidentally discovered in the year 1778 by Arabian peasants in the\nneighbourhood of Memphis, it alone had the fortune to come into the\npossession of Cardinal Stefano Borgia. The rest were burned by their\nunsuspecting discoverers, who found a peculiar pleasure in the resinous\nodour that arose from their smoking pyre.\u201d\n\n\n                                 Paper.\n\n\nThe collection of manuscripts brought from the East by the Archduke\nRainer gave a stimulus to the study of the early history of\npaper-making, and at the same time supplied the materials for a more\nexact investigation of the subject than had previously been possible.\nEarlier works, therefore, like that of G. Meerman, _De Chartae vulgaris\nseu lineae Origine_, ed. J. v. Vaassen, Hagae Comitum, 1767, have been\nsuperseded. The manufacture of paper seems to have been introduced into\nEurope by the Moors in Spain, where it went by the name of _pergameno de\npanno_ to distinguish it from the _pergameno de cuero_. In the Byzantine\nEmpire it was called \u03be\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd or \u03be\u03c5\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, as being a vegetable\nproduct. It came afterwards to be known as \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u0394\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, from its\nchief place of manufacture. The Arabs introduced it into Sicily, whence\nit passed into Italy. After 1235, we find paper mentioned as one of the\nexports of Genoa. European paper is distinguished from that of Eastern\nmanufacture chiefly by the use of water marks, such as ox-heads, _e.g._,\nwhich were unknown in the East. Older sorts of paper bear a great\nresemblance to parchment. The Benedictine monks, who owned the fragments\nof Mark\u2019s Gospel preserved in Venice, asserted that they were written on\nbark. Montfaucon declared the material to be papyrus. Massei said it was\ncotton paper. But the microscope shows it to be parchment. In many\nmanuscripts a mixture of parchment and paper is found. This is so in the\nLeicester Codex, in which the leaves are regularly arranged in such a\nway that the outer and inner sheets of a quire are of parchment, while\nthe three intermediate sheets are of paper. See J. R. Harris, _The\norigin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament_, 1887, p. 14 ff.\n\n[Sidenote: Lead.]\n\nLead was also employed in early times for writing on. Budde sees a\nreference to this practice in the well-known passage, Job xix. 24. He\nholds that the lead there mentioned is not to be supposed as run into\nletters cut out in the rock, which would be a very unlikely thing to do,\nand a practice for which there is no evidence. He would therefore\ncorrect the text so as to read \u201cwith an iron pen on lead.\u201d Hesiod\u2019s\n\u1f1c\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1, _e.g._, was preserved on lead in the temple of the Muses on\nHelicon.[37] A leaden tablet from Hadrumet contains an incantation\nshowing strong traces of O.T. influence.[38] At Rhodes there was\nrecently discovered a roll of lead inscribed with the 80th Psalm, which\nwas used as a charm to protect a vineyard.[39]\n\n[Sidenote: Clay.]\n\nClay and brick were also used as writing material, a fact which Strack\nhas omitted to mention in his article on Writing in the\n_Realencyklop\u00e4die_ (see Ezek. iv. 1). So far, however, no traces of N.T.\nwriting have been discovered in the Ostraca literature of which we have\nnow a considerable quantity. We have tiles of this sort dating from a\nperiod of over a thousand years from the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus\nonwards, inscribed with ink and a reed pen. Several of these contain\nportions of literary works such as those of Euripides.[40]\n\n[Sidenote: Linen.]\n\nLinen was also written on.[41] It was used, _e.g._, for the Sibylline\nOracles (lintea texta, carbasus: _Orac. Sib._ ed. Alexandre, ii., 159,\n178, 189). But up to the present no N.T. writing has been found on\nlinen.\n\n\n                            Paul\u2019s \u201cbooks.\u201d\n\n\nOn Paul\u2019s \u201cbooks and parchments,\u201d see Zahn, _Kanon_ ii., 938 ff. I am\nnot aware if J. Joseph takes up this point or not in his La Biblioth\u00e8que\nde l\u2019Ap\u00f4tre Paul (Chr\u00e9tien \u00c9vang., 1897, v. 224-227). In the _Theol.\nTijdschrift_, 1898, p. 217, the view that the \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 Paul sent for\nwere blank sheets of parchment is called in question. The most natural\nexplanation, certainly, is that they were.\n\n\n                                  Pen.\n\n\nThe N.T. makes no mention of the metal, wood, or bone stilus. By \u201cthe\nwild beast of the reeds\u201d (Ps. lxviii. 31) the Rabbis understood the\nreed pen, which in Syriac also is commonly denoted by \u05e7\u05e0\u05d4, and they\ntook it as referring to Rome and the Emperor, who decided the fate of\nnations with a single stroke of his pen.[42] Luther, moreover, was not\nwithout precedent in speaking of \u201cgovernors with the pen\u201d in Jud. v.\n14, as the Syriac version renders it in the same way. In Ps. xlv. 2,\nthe Hebrew \u05e2\u05b5\u05d8 is rendered \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 (LXX), \u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (Aquila), and\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd (Symmachus). It is also rendered \u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 by the translator of\nJeremiah viii. 8, where Aquila has \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd. \u03a3\u03c7\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 must therefore be\nadded to the Bible names for pen. \u0393\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03c2 for \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, mentioned\nalongside of \u1f44\u03bd\u03c5\u03be \u1f00\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 in Jer. xvii. 1, seems to belong to the\nSpanish-Greek of the Complutensian, but is really classic, as also its\ndiminutive \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. According to the Rabbis, pens were among the\nthings God made in the evening of the last day of the creation. They\nwere also venerated by the Egyptians and the Greeks as an invention of\nthe Deity.[43] According to Antisthenes[44] or Democritus,[45] a young\nman, in order to enter the school of wisdom, requires to have a\n\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 (= \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5. In Cyprus, the stilus is called \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, and the\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 in like manner \u03b4\u03b9\u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2.[46] In the recently\ndiscovered fragments of Diocletian\u2019s _List of Wares_, the section \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 (goose, swan, and peacock feathers) is followed by that \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, and then by that \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Ink costs 12\ndrachmae the quart; Paphian and Alexandrian \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9[47] cost 4\ndrachmae; and \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4[\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2] \u03c6\u03ce\u03c1[\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2] the same. Baruch, the\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, purchased ink and a pen in the market of the Gentiles, in\norder to write his letter to Jeremiah (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd [v.\nl. \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2] \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f24\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1 [v. l. \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd]).[48]\nDemosthenes was not the only possessor of a silver stilus. Boniface,\n_e.g._, had one of that sort sent him from England.\n\n[Sidenote: Reading and writing.]\n\nThe following is a list of expressions relating to reading and writing\ntaken from the Greek Versions of the O.T. It makes no claim to be\ncomplete. The passages will be found in Hatch and Redpath\u2019s _Concordance\nto the Septuagint_.\n\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03cc\u03c9, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd;\n\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf-), \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 (Est. iii. 13, Complut.),\n\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7, \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd (\u03b2\u03c5-), \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 (\u03b2\u03c5-); \u03b3\u03b1\u03b6\u03ac, \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1,\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2,\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1-, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf-, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9-, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1-, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd-), \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd (\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd),\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 (\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2), \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1-, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf-, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd-), \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03c2;\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, \u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd; \u03b5\u1f34\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2- or \u1f10\u03b3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae, \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9,\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1; \u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03be; \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 (\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, _vide_ Field\u2019s\n_Hexapla_ on Ezek. ix. 2) \u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03c2; \u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03ac\u03bc, \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u03bc\u03af\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03b2\u03b4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; \u03be\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2; \u1f44\u03bd\u03c5\u03be \u1f00\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u1f40\u03be\u03c5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2; \u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03be, \u03c0\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, \u03c0\u03c5\u03be\u03af\u03bf\u03bd; \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c2, \u03c3\u03bc\u03af\u03bb\u03b7,\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, \u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c2, \u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; \u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 (\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5,\nIsa. viii. 1; also 1 Esdras vi. 23 for \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2), \u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2; \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2,\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1.\n\n\n                          Diastole and hyphen.\n\n\nAncient Homeric grammarians used to debate whether contiguous letters\nwere to be read as one word or not. To obviate misunderstanding, they\nemployed the \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae as the mark of division (\u1f45, \u03c4\u03b9, _e.g._), and\nthe \u1f51\u03c6\u2019 \u1f15\u03bd as the mark of combination (\u0394\u03b9\u03cc[\u03c3\u03ba]\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, not \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9).\nSuch marks are also found in manuscripts of the Bible, in the\nSeptuagint, _e.g._, in the case of proper names. It goes without saying\nthat the scriptio continua made the reading as well as the copying of\nmanuscripts a matter of some difficulty. Hermas (Visio ii. 1) says of\nthe book given him to copy \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03ac\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u03b7\u1f55\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c2.[49] For two instructive mistakes in the Latin\ninterlinear version of Codex Boernerianus see p. 77.\n\n\n                        Breathings and accents.\n\n\nBreathings and accents were found in various manuscripts of the Bible as\nearly as the time of Epiphanius and Augustine. In our oldest manuscripts\nthey seldom occur before the seventh century. They were inserted by the\nfirst hand of the Ambrosian Hexateuch (Swete\u2019s F), which is ascribed to\nthe first half of the fifth century by Ceriani. They seem to have been\nadded to the Codex Vaticanus by the third hand, probably in the twelfth\ncentury, and do not always conform to our rules. Augustine, commenting\non the rival readings _filiis_ and _porcina_, in Psalm xvi. 14, says:\n\u201cquod (porcina) alii codices habent et verius habere perhibentur, quia\ndiligentiora exemplaria per accentus notam eiusdem verbi graeci\nambiguitatem graeco scribendi more dissolvunt, obscurius est\u201d (ii.\n504-5, in Lagarde\u2019s _Probe einer neuen Ausgabe_, p. 40). Similarly,\nspeaking of the difference between \u1fe5\u03ac\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 and \u1fe5\u03ac\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, Gen.\nxlvii. 31, he says:\u2014\u201cfallit enim eos verbum graecum, quod eisdem literis\nscribitur sive _eius_ sive _suae_; sed accentus [= spiritus] dispares\nsunt et ab eis qui ista noverunt, in codicibus non contemnuntur\u201d (iv. 53\ned. Lugd. 1586, cited by Scrivener, i. p. 47).\n\n[Sidenote: Abbreviation.]\n\nThe practice of abbreviating words of frequent occurrence like \u0398\u0305\u03a3\u0305,\n\u03a7\u0305\u03a3\u0305, \u03a7\u0305\u03a3\u0305, \u0391\u0305\u039d\u0305\u039f\u0305\u03a3\u0305 goes back to very early times. So, too, does the\nuse of letters as numerals, \u0399 for 10, etc.\n\n[Sidenote: Divisions.]\n\nIn dividing syllables the Greek copyists in general observed the rule of\nbeginning each new line with a consonant. A good many exceptions occur\nhowever, especially in the Vaticanus, most of which have been corrected\nby a later hand. These are indicated in the third volume of Swete\u2019s\nedition of the LXX. A good instance of this is seen in Jer. xiv. 12,\nwhere the Vaticanus and Marchalianus both originally had \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3 \u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\nwhich in the former is corrected to \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf \u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, and in the latter to\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5 \u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. For examples from the O.T. portion of the Codex\nVaticanus see Nestle\u2019s _Septuagintastudien_, ii. 20.\n\n\n                              Stichometry.\n\n\nCarefully written manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments are provided\nwith a system of stichometry just as occurs in the better manuscripts of\nthe classics, as _e.g._ Herodotus and Demosthenes. In the N.T. it is\nfound specially in those Pauline Epistles that go back to the recension\nof Euthalius. One of the writers of the Codex Vaticanus has copied, in\nseveral of the books of the O.T., the stichometric enumeration which he\nfound in his original, and the numbers show that the manuscript he\ncopied contained almost twice as much matter in a line as the one he\nhimself wrote. See Nestle, _Septuagintastudien_, ii. 20 f.; Lagarde,\n_Die Stichometrie der syrisch-hexaplarischen Uebersetzung des alten\nTestaments_ (_Mitteilungen_, iv. 205-208). On the stichometric list in\nthe Codex Claromontanus of the Pauline Epistles (D_{2}), see p. 76.\n\nAmerican scholars have counted the number of words in the Greek N.T. In\nMatthew the number is 18,222, in Mark 11,158, in Luke 19,209.\nUnfortunately, I am unable to give the total number in the N.T. See\nSchaff\u2019s _Companion_, pp. 57, 176.\n\nGraux (_Revue de Philologie_, ii.) has counted not only the words but\nthe letters in the various books. The numbers are given in Zahn\u2019s\n_Geschichte des N.T. Kanons_, i. 76. They are as follows:\u2014\n\n                                      Letters.   Stichoi.\n\n               Matthew,                 89,295       2480\n\n               Mark,                    55,550       1543\n\n               Luke,                    97,714       2714\n\n               John,                    70,210       1950\n\n               Acts,                    94,000       2610\n\n               3 John,                   1,100         31\n\n               Apocalypse,              46,500       1292\n\n               For Philemon, Zahn        1,567         44\n               gives\n\nIn this last epistle I find that my edition has 1538 letters, or\nincluding the title 1550. The lines in my edition happen to coincide as\nnear as may be with the ancient stichoi. 41 stichoi at 36 letters to the\nstichos would give a total of 1476. Now in the 41 complete lines which\nmy edition gives to Philemon I find 1469 letters, that is, only 7 fewer.\nIn Jude, again, Graux enumerates 71 stichoi, while my edition shows\nexactly 70 lines or 71 with the title. For stichometric calculations,\ntherefore, this edition will prove very convenient.\n\nFor a \u201cTable of Ancient and Modern Divisions of the New Testament,\u201d see\nScrivener, i. 68; also Westcott, _Canon_, Appendix D, xix., xx.; _Bible\nin the Church_, Appendix B, 4.\n\n[Sidenote: Cola and commata.]\n\nThe Cola and Commata were quite different from the stichoi. The length\nof the latter was regulated according to the space (space-lines), that\nof the former by the sense and structure of the sentence (sense-lines).\nOn cola and commata see Wordsworth and White, _De colis et commatibus\ncodicis Amiatini et editionis nostrae_, in the _Epilogus_ to their\nedition of the Vulgate, i. pp. 733-736. On the stichometry proper see\n_Ibid._, p. 736, _De stichorum numeris in euangeliis_.\n\n\n                          Manuscripts de luxe.\n\n\nSolomon perfumed with musk the letter he sent to Bilqis, Queen of Sheba,\nwho herself could both read and write.[50] Mani inscribed characters on\nwhite satin in such a way that if a single thread was drawn out the\nwriting became invisible.[51] On gold and silver writing among the\nSyrians see Zahn, _Tatian, Forschungen_, 108, n. 1; also R. Wessely,\n_Iconographie_ (_Wiener Studien_, xii. 2, 259-279). The earliest mention\nof this kind of writing that I know is in the Epistle of Aristeas,[52]\n\u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd ... \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f37\u03c2 [\u1f26\u03bd] \u1f21 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03ca\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9, \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2. In\nAlexander\u2019s copy of the Pentateuch the name of God was written in gold\nletters.[53]\n\nOn the fineness of the parchment and the beauty of the writing see\nChrysostom, _Hom. 32 in Joannem_: \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. Ephraem Syrus commended this Christian\nmunificence, as is pointed out in the _Histor. Polit. Bl\u00e4tter_, 84, 2,\n104. Gold writing is also mentioned in the Targum on Ps. xlv. 10.\n\nThe passage in the Epistle of Theonas to Lucian referring to the use of\npurple-dyed parchment is thought by Batiffol to be derived from that in\nJerome\u2019s Commentary on Job, and he founds on this an argument against\nthe genuineness of the Epistle.[54] In the Martyrium of Qardagh the\nPersian, particular mention is made of the remarkable beauty and\nwhiteness of the parchment (\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) on which he wrote his\nepistles.[55]\n\nFor the preparation of his Bible, Origen procured the services not only\nof rapid writers (\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03c5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9) but also of girls who could write\nbeautifully (\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9). Cassiodorus pleads\u2014qui emendare praesumitis,\nut superadjectas literas ita pulcherrimas facere studeatis, ut potius ab\n_Antiquariis_ scriptae fuisse judicentur.[56] We also find him making\nproposals for expensive bindings in the _De Inst._, c. 30, a passage\nwhich, according to Springer,[57] has been overlooked in the literature\non illustrated bindings in modern histories of art.\n\nOn various decorated manuscripts see W. Wattenbach, _Ueber die mit Gold\nauf Purpur geschriebene Evangelien-handschrift der Hamiltonschen\nBibliothek_, in the _Berliner Sitz.-Ber._, 7th March 1889, xiii.\n143-156. Cf. _Berl. Phil. Wochenschrift_, 1889, 33, 34. This manuscript\npurported to be a gift to Henry VIII. from Pope Leo X., but was rather\nfrom Wolsey. Bishop Wilfrid of Ripon (670-688) had the four Gospels\nwritten with the finest gold. Boniface requested his English friends to\nsend him the Epistles of Paul written with gold in order therewith to\nimpress the simple-minded Germans (Ep. 32, p. 99), a fact of which\nGustav Freitag makes use in his _Ingo und Ingraban_, p. 476. (See _Die\nChristliche Welt_, 1888, 22.) _Cf._ also the manuscripts of Theodulf in\nParis and Puy (see below, p. 125). The Cistercians forbade the use of\ngold and silver bindings or clasps (firmacula) and also of different\ncolours.\n\n[Sidenote: Illustration.]\n\nIllustrations must have made their appearance in Greek manuscripts a\nwhole century earlier than has hitherto been supposed if H. Kothe is\nright in his interpretation of the passage in Diogenes Laertius, ii. 3,\n8 (= Clem., _Strom._, i. 78, p. 364, Potter): \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc7 (\u201cwith a picture\u201d: formerly read as\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2). In addition to the works of Aristotle and the obscene poems\nof Philainis, illustrated manuscripts were known to exist of the works\nof the astronomers Eudoxus and Aratus, of the botanist Dioscorides, of\nthe tactician Euangelos, and of the geographer Ptolemy. A description of\nthe earliest illustrated Bibles is given by Victor Schultze in the\n_Daheim_, 1898, No. 28, 449 ff., with good facsimiles. On the horses in\nthe chariot of Elijah in a Greek manuscript of the ninth century in the\nVatican Library, and on the pictures of the horsemen in the codex of\nJoshua also contained there, see F. aus\u2019m Weerth in the _Jahrbuch des\nVereins von Altertums-Freunden im Rheinland_, Heft 78 (1884), Plate VI.\n\nCassiodorus had a Pandectes Latinus\u2014_i.e._ a manuscript of the Old Latin\nBible of large size\u2014which contained pictures of the Tabernacle and the\nTemple. There is an old work on this subject by P. Zornius entitled\n_Historia Bibliorum pictorum ex antiquitatibus Ebraeorum et\nChristianorum illustrata cum figuris_, Lipsiae, 1743, 4to; and by the\nsame author, _Von den Handbibeln der ersten Christen_, Lips. 1738, also\n_Historia Bibliorum ex Ebraeorum diebus festis et jejuneis illustrata_,\nLips., 1741. See also Georg Thiele, _De antiquorum libris pictis capita\nquattuor_, _Marburg_, 1897.\n\n\n                              Palimpsests.\n\n\nPalimpsests of Bible manuscripts came to be prohibited by the Church.\nThe Sixth Ecumenical Council (Trullan, Concilium quinisextum, 680-681),\nin its 68th canon, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, forbids the sale of old\nmanuscripts of the Bible to the \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 or the \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c8\u03bf\u03af, or to any\npersons whatever.[58] There was naturally a special aversion to letting\nsuch manuscripts fall into the hands of Jews; but yet there were\ndiscovered, in the lumber room of the Synagogue of Old Cairo, fragments\nof a Greek MS. of the Gospels, which had been afterwards employed to\nreceive Jewish writing. Parchments of this sort were at first used only\nfor rough drafts and such like, instead of wax tablets from which the\nwriting could be erased again.\n\n\n                              Punctuation.\n\n\nA good example of the importance of punctuation will be found in Lk. i.\n35, on which see p. 201. Compare also Lk. xxi. 8, 1 Tim. ii. 5, where\nLachmann punctuates \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. By a different punctuation in\nHeb. i. 9, Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort make \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 vocative and\nnominative respectively. In the former case the Messiah is God, in the\nother God is the one who anoints him. This difference was not observed\nat first by O. v. Gebhardt. Similarly there is a difference between the\ntext and the margin of Westcott and Hort in verse 8, where by the\ninsertion or omission of the two commas before and after \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 the\nmeaning is either that Messiah is God or that God is Messiah\u2019s throne.\nConsidering the importance of such marks of division, the rule laid down\nby Ephraem Syrus in the year 350, and again emphasized by Bengel and\nLagarde, should be carefully attended to in the New Testament: \u03b5\u1f30\n\u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c7\u1f72\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u00b7 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f22 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 (see Nestle, _Bengel als Gelehrter_, p.\n24). Compare also what Chrysostom says regarding punctuation on Mt.\nviii. 9: \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f64\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u1f7a \u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u2019\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2. See also Victor (or whoever it is) on Mk. xvi. 9. On\nthe change of the sense by means of false emphasis or punctuation see\nbelow, pp. 204(7), 276. J. A. Robinson thinks it probable that \u1f41\n\u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 is a separate title of the Messiah, and would point \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5,\n\u1f41 \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 in Mk. i. 11, ix. 7 on the authority of the _Ascensio Esaiae_\nand the Old Syriac (see Hastings\u2019 _Bible Dictionary_, ii. 501).\n\n\n                               Contents.\n\n\nOn the contents of Bible manuscripts see Zahn, _GK._ i. 62 f. According\nto him Jerome\u2019s Old Testament was in 14 volumes. In addition to some\nentire Bibles Cassiodorus had the Scriptures written out in 9 codices.\nOf these vol. VII. comprised the Gospels, VIII. the Epistles, and IX.\nthe Acts and Apocalypse. Leontius speaks of 6 books of the New\nTestament, of which probably I. was Mt. and Mk., II. Lk. and Jn., III.\nActs, IV. Catholic Epistles, V. Pauline Epistles, VI. Apocalypse. As a\nrule the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles made two codices.\n\nIn cod. \u05d0 we find that the different parts of the New Testament display\na different type of text, from which we may conclude that the codex was\ncopied, not from a single manuscript but from several. Similarly, the\nsingular type of text exhibited by cod. \u0394 in Mark would show that this\ncodex, or that from which it was copied, was transcribed from different\nrolls or codices, each containing one Gospel. See Zahn, _GK._ i. 63.\n\n\n                              Bibliotheca.\n\n\nOn the designation _Bibliotheca_ and _Pandectes_ for Bible manuscripts,\nsee Zahn, _GK._ i. 65. On \u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, _ibid._ 67. He informs us that the\nearliest mention of a Christian _bibliotheca_ and its _armaria_ is in\nthe heathen protocol of the year 304, in the _Gesta apud Zenophilum_\ngiven in Dupin after Optatus, p. 262. The next earliest notice is in\nAugustine. The custodians of the bibliothecae were probably the Readers.\nIn Ruinart\u2019s _Acta Saturnini_ a certain Ampelius is mentioned as \u201ccustos\nlegis, scripturarumque divinarum fidelissimus conservator.\u201d From\nIrenaeus, iv. 33, 2 Lessing concluded that at that time the few existing\ncopies of the Scriptures were in the custody of the clergy, and were\nonly to be perused in their presence. (_Zus\u00e4tze zu einer n\u00f6tigen\nAntwort._ Works, ed. Maltzahn, xi. 2, 179.) On this point see Zahn,\n_GK._ i. 140.\n\n\n                       (_a._) UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS.\n\n\n[Sidenote: \u05d0]\n\n\u05d0 CODEX SINAITICUS, now in St. Petersburg, contains the entire New\nTestament written in the fourth or more probably at the beginning of the\nfifth century. The story of its discovery and acquisition is quite\nromantic. When Tischendorf, under the patronage of his sovereign King\nFrederick Augustus of Saxony, came to the Convent of St. Catherine on\nMount Sinai for the first time in 1844, he rescued from a basket there\nforty-three old sheets of parchment which, with other rubbish, were\ndestined for the fire. In this way he obtained possession of portions of\none of the oldest MSS. of the Old Testament, which he published as the\nCodex Frederico-Augustanus (F-A) in 1846. At the same time he learned\nthat other portions of the same Codex existed in the Monastery. He could\nfind no trace of these, however, on his second visit in 1853. But on his\nthird visit, undertaken with the patronage of the Emperor of Russia, the\nsteward of the monastery brought him, shortly before his departure on\nthe 4th February 1859, what surpassed all his expectations, the entire\nremaining portions of the Codex comprising a great part of the Old\nTestament and the whole of the New, wrapped up in a red cloth. Not only\nwas the New Testament perfect, but in addition to the twenty-seven\nbooks, the MS. contained the Epistle of Barnabas and part of the\nso-called Shepherd of Hermas, two books of the greatest repute in early\nChristian times, the Greek text of which was only partially extant in\nEurope. Tischendorf managed to secure the MS. for the Emperor of Russia,\nat whose expense it was published in four folio volumes in the year 1862\non the thousandth anniversary of the founding of the Russian Empire. In\nreturn for the MS. the monastery received a silver shrine for St.\nCatherine, a gift of 7000 roubles for the library and 2000 for the\nmonastery on Mount Tabor, while several Russian decorations were\ndistributed among the Fathers.\n\nUnfortunately the art of photography was not so far advanced\nthirty-eight years ago as to permit a perfect facsimile to be made of\nthe MS., and Tischendorf had to be content with a printed copy executed\nas faithfully as the utmost care and superintendence would admit.\n\nTo what date does the manuscript belong? There is still extant a letter\nof the first Christian Emperor Constantine dating from the year 331, in\nwhich he asks Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, to provide him\nwith fifty copies of the Old and New Testament for use in the principal\nchurches of his empire (\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2)\nand puts two public carriages at the bishop\u2019s disposal for their safe\ntransport. We have also the letter that Eusebius sent along with these\nBibles, in which he consigns them \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f20\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u1fb6\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u1fb6\u2014_i.e._ \u201cin expensively prepared volumes of three and four.\u201d\nWith former scholars Tischendorf understood the expression \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u1fb6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u1fb6 of the number of sheets in the quires of the manuscripts, as\nthough they had been composed of ternions and quaternions of twelve and\nsixteen pages respectively. Others took it as referring to the number of\ncolumns on the pages, Codex Sinaiticus, which Tischendorf believed to be\none of these fifty Bibles, being unique in showing four columns to the\npage. The most probable explanation of the phrase is, however, that it\nindicates the number of volumes each Bible comprised, and means that\neach Bible of three or four parts, as the case might be, was packed in a\nseparate box.[59] Tischendorf, as has been said, saw in Codex Sinaiticus\none of these fifty Bibles. He also thought that \u05d0 was the work of four\ndifferent scribes, and was confident that one of these, the one who had\nwritten only six leaves of the New Testament, was the scribe of Codex\nVaticanus. But other authorities bring \u05d0 down to the beginning of the\nfifth century.\n\nOne can understand how it was that Tischendorf was led to overrate the\nvalue of this manuscript at first, and to call it by the first letter of\nthe Hebrew alphabet to signify its pre-eminence over all other\nmanuscripts. The claim is so far justified that it is at least one of\nthe oldest manuscripts, and of the oldest the only one that contains the\nentire New Testament. The order is that of the Gospels, Pauline Epistles\n(among which Hebrews is found after 2 Thess.), Acts, Catholic Epistles,\nApocalypse, after which come Barnabas and Hermas.[60] This same order is\nobserved in the Old Syriac Bible, and in the first printed Greek New\nTestament, the Complutensian Polyglot. The fact that Barnabas is still\ntacitly included in the books of the New Testament may be taken equally\nas indicating the age of \u05d0 itself or that of the exemplar from which it\nwas copied.[61] Jerome\u2019s recension of Origen\u2019s Lexicon of Proper Names\nin the Greek New Testament is still extant, and in it Barnabas is cited\nlike the other books. In the Catalogus Claromontanus, which is a very\nold list of the books of the New Testament, Barnabas is even found\nbefore the Apocalypse, an arrangement which is not found again in the\nsucceeding centuries.\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note: In this paragraph, there are two cases of letters\nseparated by a slash, as if describing arithmetic division, like \u201ca/b\u201d.\nIn the original book they are printed with the first item, \u201ca\u201d, raised\nup, and the second item, \u201cb\u201d, printed below the first. In this e-book,\nthey are represented in this \u201ca/b\u201d form.]\n\n[Sidenote: Canons.]\n\n\u05d0 is also the oldest MS. that has the so-called =Ammonian Sections= and\n=Eusebian Canons=. In order to facilitate the study of the Gospels,\nAmmonius of Alexandria arranged, alongside of Matthew\u2019s Gospel, the\nparallel passages in Mark, Luke, and John. For this purpose he was\nobliged of course to dislocate these last.[62] Eusebius, however, simply\ndivided the four Gospels into 1162 sections\u2014viz., 355 in Matthew, 233 in\nMark, 342 in Luke, and 232 in John. These he numbered consecutively in\neach Gospel, and then arranged the numbers in ten Canons or Tables. The\nfirst contained those passages which are found in all the four Gospels;\nthe second, third, and fourth those common to any particular combination\nof three; the fifth to the ninth comprised the passages common to any\ntwo, and the tenth those peculiar to each one. The number of its Canon\nwas then set under that of the section in the margin, and the Table\ninserted at the beginning or end of the manuscript. By this means it was\npossible to know in the case of each section whether a parallel was to\nbe found in the other Gospels, and where. In the margin opposite John\nxv. 20, _e.g._, we find the numbers \u03c1\u03bb\u03b8/\u03b3, _i.e._ 139/3. This tells us\nthat this 139th section of John is also found in Matthew and Luke. For\non referring to Canon 3 we find that it contains the passages common to\nJohn, Matthew, and Luke, and that this section numbered 139 in John, is\n90 in Matthew and 58 in Luke. And the sections being numbered\nconsecutively in each Gospel, we easily ascertain that the former is\nMatthew x. 24, and the latter Luke vi. 40. These, or similar numbers,\nwere afterwards inserted in the lower margin of manuscripts, as, _e.g._,\nin Codex Argenteus of the Version of Ulfilas. They are still printed\nalongside the text in our larger editions, though, of course, owing to\nthe introduction of our system of chapter and verse division they have\nlost their main significance.\n\n[Sidenote: Revisions.]\n\nNow, a Codex like \u05d0 represents to us not one manuscript only, but\nseveral at once. It embodies first of all the manuscript from which its\ntext was immediately derived, and then also that or those by which it\nwas revised. That is to say, after the manuscript was written by the\nscribe, either to dictation or by copying, it was, particularly in the\ncase of a costly manuscript, handed over to a person called the\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 and revised. This might be done several times over; it might\nbe done by a later owner if he were a scholar. But it might happen, as\nin the case of \u05d0 _e.g._, that the exemplar by which the manuscript was\nrevised was not the identical one from which it had been copied but a\ndifferent one, perhaps older, perhaps exhibiting another form of text\naltogether. Tischendorf distinguished no fewer than seven correctors in\n\u05d0. One of these, belonging, it may be, to the seventh century, adds a\nnote at the end of the book of Ezra to the following effect,\u2014\u201cThis codex\nwas compared with a very ancient exemplar which had been corrected by\nthe hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus; which exemplar contained at the\nend the subscription in his own hand: \u2018Taken and corrected according to\nthe Hexapla of Origen: Antonius compared it: I, Pamphilus, corrected\nit.\u2019\u201d[63] A similar note is found appended to the Book of Esther, where\nit is also pointed out that variants occurred in the case of proper\nnames. Traces are still discoverable in the Psalms which go to prove\nthat the corrector\u2019s Bible agreed with that of Eusebius, while the\nmanuscript itself had been copied from one that was very different.\n\nA considerable number of scholars are of opinion that \u05d0 was written in\nthe West, perhaps in Rome. (_See Plate I._)\n\n    Tischendorf: (1) _Notitia editionis_, 1860; (2) _Bibliorum Codex\n    Sinaiticus Petropolitanus_, Petropoli, 1862, fol. Vol. I.,\n    Prolegomena et Commentaria; Vol. IV., Novum Testamentum. (3) _N. T.\n    Sinaiticum_, Lips. 1863. (_Die Anfechtungen der Sinaibibel_, Lips.\n    1863; _Waffen der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel_, Lips. 1863.)\n    (4) _N. T. Graece ex Sinaitico Codice omnium antiquissimo_, Lips.\n    1865. _Collatio textus graeci editionis polyglottae cum Novo\n    Testamento Sinaitico. Appendix editionis Novi Testamenti\n    polyglottae_, Bielefeldiae. Sumptibus Velhagen et Klasing, 1894,\n    large 8vo, pp. iv. 96. (Preface only by Tischendorf.) On Kenyon\u2019s\n    showing, the recent papyrus discoveries give no occasion for\n    abandoning the conclusions formerly come to regarding the age of\n    these parchment manuscripts (_Palaeography_, p. 120). Scrivener, _A\n    full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the\n    N. Testament_, 2nd edition, 1867. Ezra Abbot, \u201cOn the comparative\n    antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts of the Greek\n    Bible,\u201d _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, vol. x., i.\n    1872, pp. 189 ff.\n\n[Sidenote: A.]\n\nA. CODEX ALEXANDRINUS: middle or end of the fifth century: written\nprobably at Alexandria: contains a note in Arabic stating that it was\npresented to the library of the Patriarch of Alexandria in the year\n1098. The Codex was sent by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, to\nCharles I. of England in 1628, and was deposited in the library of the\nBritish Museum on its foundation in 1753, where it has been ever since.\nIt has been employed in the textual criticism of the New Testament since\nthe time of Walton. It was printed in 1786 by Woide in facsimile from\nwooden type. The Old Testament portion of it was also published in\n1816-1828 by Baber. The entire manuscript was issued in autotype\nfacsimile in 1879 and 1880.\n\nThe Codex is defective at the beginning of the New Testament, the first\ntwenty-six leaves down to Matthew xxv. 6 being absent, as also two\ncontaining John vi. 50-viii. 52, and three containing 2 Cor. iv. 13-xii.\n6. It also contains after the Apocalypse the (first) Epistle of Clement\nof Rome and a small fragment of the so-called second Epistle, which is\nreally an early sermon. In the Codex these are recognised as parts of\nthe New Testament, inasmuch as in the table of contents prefixed to the\nentire work they are included with the other books under the title \u1f21\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b7.[64] After them is given the number of books \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1,\nonly the figures are now, unfortunately, torn away. The contents\nindicate that the Psalms of Solomon should have followed, but these have\nbeen lost with the rest of the manuscript.\n\nA is distinguished among the oldest manuscripts by the use of capital\nletters to indicate new sections. But in order to economize room and to\nobviate spacing the lines, the first letter of the section, if it occurs\nin the middle of a line, is not written larger, but the one that occurs\nat the beginning of the next whole line is enlarged and projects into\nthe margin. (_See Plate I. 2._) Later scribes have copied this so\nslavishly that they have written these letters in capitals even when\nthey occur in the middle of the line in their manuscripts. The Egyptian\norigin of this Codex is shown by its use of Coptic forms for A and M. In\nseveral books A displays a remarkable affinity with Jerome in those very\npassages where he deviates from the older Latin version.\n\nThe books in A follow the order\u2014Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles,\nPauline Epistles, Apocalypse. (Westcott, _Canon_, Appendix D. xii.;\n_Bible in the Church_, Appendix B.)\n\n    Woide, 1786; eiusdem, _Notitia codicis Alexandrini, Recud. cur.\n    notasque adjecit_ G. L. Spohn, Lipsiae, 1788; Cowper, 1860, Hansell,\n    1864; Photographic facsimile by Thompson, 1879; and in the\n    Facsimiles of the Pal\u00e6ographical Society, Pl. 106.\n\n    The mixed character of the text of A was early observed; see\n    Lagarde, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, p. 94.\n\n    C. F. Hoole ascribes the Codex Alexandrinus to the middle of the\n    fourth century (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1891; see _Academy_, July\n    25, 1891, 73).\n\n[Sidenote: B.]\n\nB. CODEX VATICANUS _par excellence_, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library at\nRome, inserted there shortly after its foundation by Pope Nicolas V.,\nand one of its greatest treasures. Like A it once contained the whole of\nthe Old Testament with the exception of the Books of Maccabees. The\nfirst 31 leaves, containing Gen. i. 1-xlvi. 28, are now wanting, as well\nas 20 from the Psalms containing Ps. cv. (cvi.) 27-cxxxvii. (cxxxviii.)\n6. The New Testament is complete down to Heb. ix. 14, where it breaks\noff at \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1[\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9]. 1 and 2 Tim., Titus, Philemon, and the Apocalypse\nare, therefore, also wanting. Rahlfs supposes that the manuscript may\nhave originally contained the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas as\nwell. Erasmus obtained some account of this manuscript, and Pope Sixtus\nV. made it the basis of an edition of the Greek Old Testament, which was\npublished in 1586, thereby determining the _textus receptus_ of that\nportion of the Bible.\u2014Would he had done the same for the New Testament!\nThis task was undertaken afterwards, specially by Bentley and Birch.\nProfessor Hug of Freiburg recognised the value of the Codex when it was\nremoved from Rome to Paris by Napoleon in 1809. Cardinal Angelo Mai\nprinted an edition of it between 1828 and 1838, which, however, did not\nappear till 1857, three years after his death, and which was most\nunsatisfactory. After Tischendorf had led the way with the Codex\nSinaiticus, Pope Pio Nono gave orders for an edition, which was printed\nbetween 1868 and 1872 in five folio volumes. Not till 1881, however, did\nthe last volume of this edition appear containing the indispensable\ncommentary prepared under the supervision of Vercellone, J. Cozza, C.\nSergio, and H. Fabiani, with the assistance of U. Ubaldi and A. Rocchi.\nThen at last the manuscript was photographed, the New Testament in 1889,\nand the Old Testament, in three volumes, in 1890\u2014a veritable \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1. No facsimile now can give any idea of its original beauty,\nbecause a hand of the tenth or eleventh century\u2014or as the Roman editors\nsay, a monk called Clement in the fifteenth century\u2014went over the whole\nmanuscript, letter by letter, with fresh ink, restoring the faded\ncharacters and at the same time adding accents and breathings in\naccordance with the pronunciation of his time (\u1f04\u03bc\u03b1\u03be\u03b1, for example, and\n\u1f01\u03bb\u03ce\u03c0\u03b7\u03be, \u03b4\u1f12). The Old Testament is the work of at least two scribes, one\nof whom wrote down to 1 Sam. ix. 11, and the other to the end of 2\nEsdras. Tischendorf\u2019s opinion with regard to the writer of the New\nTestament has been already noticed. There can be no question that B is\nmore carefully written than \u05d0. In the Gospels the Vatican exhibits a\npeculiar division into 170, 62, 152, and 80 sections respectively, which\nis found also in \u039e; in the Acts there is a double division into 36 and\n69.[65] The enumeration affixed to the Pauline Epistles shows that these\nwere copied from a manuscript in which Hebrews came after Galatians,\nthough in B its position has been changed so as to follow 2\nThessalonians. The copyist has also retained in part of the Old\nTestament the enumeration of the stichoi which he found in his original.\nIn the New Testament the order of the books is Gospels, Acts, Catholic\nEpistles, Pauline Epistles. An increased interest would be lent to this\nmanuscript if, as has been supposed, it represents the recension of the\nEgyptian Bishop and Martyr Hesychius, of which Jerome makes mention in\ntwo places. (Bousset, _Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament_, pp.\n74-110, see especially p. 96.) On the Egyptian character of B, see also\nBurkitt in _Texts and Studies_, v. p. viii. f., and compare below, p.\n183 f. (_See Plate IV._)\n\n    Hug, _Commentatio de antiquitate codicis Vaticani_, 1810.\n    Vercellone, _Dell\u2019 antichissimo codice Vaticano della Bibbia Greca_,\n    1859; reprinted in his _Dissertazioni accademiche_, Roma, 1864, 115\n    ff. First facsimile reproduction, _Bibliorum sacrorum Graecus Codex\n    Vaticanus ... collatis studiis Caroli Vercellone et Josephi Cozza\n    editus_, vol. v., Rome, 1868; vol. vi. (Proleg. Comment. Tab. ed.\n    Henr. Fabiani et Jos. Cozza), 1881; _cf._ _ThLz._, 1882, vi. 9. A.\n    Giovanni, _Della Illustrazione dell\u2019 edizione Romana del Codice\n    Vaticano_, Rome, 1869. Photographic edition, _Novum Testamentum e\n    Codice Vaticano 1209 ... phototypice repraesentatum ... curante Jos.\n    Cozza-Luzi_, Rome, 1889, fol.; see H. C. Hoskier, _The Expositor_,\n    1889, vol. x. 457 ff.; O. v. Gebhardt, _ThLz._, 1890, 16; Nestle,\n    _Sep.-St._, ii. 16 ff. Alf. Rahlfs, _Alter und Heimat der\n    Vatikanischen Bibelhandschrift_ (Nachrichten der Gesell. der Wiss.\n    zu G\u00f6ttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, 1889, Heft i. pp.\n    72-79). In this article Rahlfs seeks to prove that the number and\n    order of the books in the Old and New Testaments contained in B\n    correspond exactly to the Canon of the Scriptures given by\n    Athanasius in his thirty-ninth Festal Letter of the year 367. In it,\n    Athanasius, after mentioning all the canonical books of the Bible,\n    including those of the N. T., cites the extra-canonical books of the\n    O. T. which are allowed to be read, putting them after the second\n    group, \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c7\u03ae\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, because two of these books, Wisdom and\n    Sirach, were to be written \u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c7\u03b7\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd. In the N. T. the Greek and\n    Syriac forms of the Festal Letter put Hebrews expressly between the\n    Epistles to the Churches and the Pastoral Epistles. In the Sahidic\n    version of the Letter, however, Hebrews stands before Galatians.\n    This latter arrangement is evidently the survival of a\n    pre-Athanasian order which has been longer preserved in the Sahidic\n    translation.[66] But if B is the work of Athanasius, it follows that\n    it cannot be one of the Bibles ordered by Constantine. In this case\n    it would rather be written in Egypt, and we should have in it the\n    Recension of Hesychius, as Grabe supposed was the case in the O. T.,\n    while Hug held the same view in regard to the N. T. text of this\n    manuscript (see below, c. III.). Against the theory of Rahlfs, see\n    O. v. Gebhardt in the _Theologische Litteraturzeitung_, 1899, n. 20.\n\n[Sidenote: C.]\n\nC. CODEX EPHRAEMI RESCRIPTUS, No. 9 in the National Library at Paris,\nthe most important of the palimpsests. This manuscript receives its name\nfrom the fact that in the twelfth century thirty-eight treatises of\nEphraem, the Syrian Father (d. 373), were written over the original\ntext. After various attempts had been made at its decipherment by\nWettstein and others, Tischendorf in 1843 and 1845 published as much of\nthe New and Old Testaments as he was able to make out after eighteen\nmonths\u2019 labour, thereby establishing his reputation as a textual critic.\n\nThe manuscript once contained the entire Bible, but the whole of 1 and 2\nThessalonians has been lost, as also some 37 chapters from the Gospels,\n10 from the Acts, 42 from the Epistles, and 8 from the Apocalypse. There\nis no trace of a chapter division in Acts, Epistles, or Apocalypse. This\nlast seems to have been copied from an exemplar consisting of about 120\nsmall leaves, one of which had been displaced by some mistake. The Codex\ndates from the fifth century, and may possibly have been written in\nEgypt. Its earliest corrections are important, and were inserted in the\nsixth century.\n\nA detailed list of the contents of C is given by Scrivener, vol. i. 121.\nFacsimile, _ibid._, Plate X. p. 121.\n\n    Tischendorf, _Th. St. und Kr._, 1841, 126 ff; N. T. edited 1843, O.\n    T. 1845. Lagarde, _Ges. Abhandlungen_, p. 94. The page of the O. T.\n    which Tischendorf issued in facsimile has most unfortunately\n    disappeared, as Martin points out in his _Description technique des\n    manuscrits grecs relatifs au N. T., etc._, Paris, 1884, p. 4. A.\n    Jacob, _Notes sur les MSS. grecs palimpsestes de la Biblioth\u00e8que\n    Nationale_, in _Melanges Julien Havet_, 759-770.\n\nThe foregoing is what remains of the four great manuscripts which once\ncontained the whole Bible. It will be observed that at the present time\nthey are distributed among the Capitals of the great branches of the\nChristian Church\u2014viz., St. Petersburg (Greek), Rome and Paris (Roman),\nand London (Anglican). German scholars have taken a foremost place in\nthe work of their investigation.\n\n[Sidenote: D.]\n\nD. CODEX BEZAE CANTABRIGIENSIS, inferior to the foregoing in age,\ncompass, and repute, but perhaps surpassing all of them in importance,\nby reason of its unique character. The manuscript was presented to the\nUniversity of Cambridge in 1581 by Calvin\u2019s friend Theodore Beza, \u201cut\ninter vere christianas antiquissimae plurimisque nominibus\nceleberrimae.\u201d It is not earlier than the beginning of the sixth\ncentury, but is of peculiar importance as the oldest of the Greek-Latin\nmanuscripts of the Bible. It now contains, with certain lacun\u00e6, the\nGospels (in the order Matthew, John, Luke, Mark), the concluding verses\nof the Latin text of 3 John, followed immediately by the Acts, showing\nthat in this manuscript the Epistle of Jude either stood somewhere else\nor was absent altogether. At least nine later hands can be distinguished\nin it. The first scribe was more familiar with Latin than Greek, and\ntherefore inserts a Roman letter here and there in the middle of a Greek\nword, and has frequently to use the sponge to wash out the mistakes he\nmakes in writing his manuscript.[67] Innumerable passages occur,\nparticularly in Luke and Acts, where the text of D differs in the most\nremarkable manner from that of all the Greek manuscripts we are\nacquainted with. It alone, _e.g._, contains after Luke vi. 4 the\nincident of the man working in the field on the Sabbath day, to whom\nJesus said, \u201cO Man, if thou knowest what thou doest, blessed art thou,\nbut if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the Law.\u201d\nIt is the only one also that has the words in Luke xi. 2, \u201cwhen ye pray,\nuse not vain repetitions as the \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03af.\u201d In Luke xxiii. 53, it says that\nthe stone before the grave of Jesus was of such a size \u1f43\u03bd \u03bc\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, an addition in which it has the support of only one Latin MS.\nand the Sahidic Version. Again in Acts xii. 10, it is alone in recording\nthat there were seven steps down from the prison in Jerusalem (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2). Other examples might be given of similar peculiar\ninterpolations for the explanation of which reference must be made to c.\nIII. below.\n\nIts companion Latin text d is not translated directly from its own Greek\nbut from the Greek of the parent manuscript. Seeing that the manuscript\nwas discovered in the Monastery of Iren\u00e6us at Lyons, and that its text\nagrees with the Scripture quotations found in that Father even in the\nmatter of clerical mistakes, it is possible that the Greek text is\nderived from his copy. The Greek occupies the left-hand page of the open\nvolume, which is the place of honour. (_See Plates II and III._)\n\n    Kipling, Facsimile edition, _Codex Th. Bezae Cantabrigiensis_, 1793,\n    2 vols.; Scrivener, _Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis. An exact copy in\n    ordinary type ... with critical introduction, annotations, and\n    facsimiles_. 4to, pp. lxiv + 453, 1864. Collation of the same by\n    Nestle, _Supplementum_, 1896 (see p. 26). Cambridge University\n    Press, _Photographic facsimile_. _Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis\n    Quattuor Evangelia et Actus Apostolorum continens Graece et Latine._\n    2 vols., pp. 830, 1899. 12 guineas. (See _Literature_, 29th April\n    1899, p. 451 ff.); Dav. Schulz, _Disputatio de Codice D._, 1827; K.\n    A. Credner, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Einleitung_, vol. i., 1832, pp. 452-518;\n    J. R. Harris, _Codex Bezae. A study of the so-called Western Text of\n    the N. T._ (_Texts and Studies_, vol. ii.) Cambridge, 1891; also\n    _Credner and the Codex Bezae. A Lecture delivered in the Divinity\n    School, Cambridge, 19th Nov. 1892._ (_The Classical Review_, vol.\n    vii. 6, _June 1893_, pp. 237-243); Chase, _The Old Syriac Element in\n    the text of Codex Bezae_, London, 1893; also _The Syro-Latin Text of\n    the Gospels_, London, 1895; Nestle, _Some Observations on the Codex\n    Bezae_ in the _Expositor_, v. 2, 1895, p. 235; H. Trabaud, _Un\n    curieux manuscrit du N. T._ in the _Revue de th\u00e9ologie et de\n    philosophie_, Lausanne, 1896, p. 378; Fr. Blass: 1. _Die zwiefache\n    Text\u00fcberlieferung in der Apostelgeschichte_ (_Th. St. Kr._, 1894, p.\n    86 ff.); 2. _Acta Apostolorum sive Lucae ad Theophilum Liber alter.\n    Editio philologica_, G\u00f6ttingen, 1895; 3. _Acta Apostolorum ...\n    secundum formam quae videtur Romanam_, Leipzig, 1896; 4. _Ueber die\n    verschiedenen Textformen in den Schriften des Lukas_ (_Neue\n    Kirchliche Zeitschrift_, 1895, p. 712); 5. _De duplici forma Actorum\n    Lucae_ (_Hermathena_, Dublin, 1895, p. 121); 6. _De variis formis\n    Evangelii Lucani_ (_Ibid._, Dublin, 1896, p. 291); 7. _Neue\n    Texteszeugen f\u00fcr die Apostelgeschichte_ (_Th. St. Kr._, 1896, p.\n    436); 8. _Evangelium secundum Lucam sive Lucae ad Theophilum Liber\n    prior. Secundum formam quae videtur Romanam_, Leipzig, 1897; B.\n    Weiss, _Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte. Textkritische\n    Untersuchung_, Leipzig, 1897, (= Texte und Untersuchungen. N. F.\n    Zweiter Band, Heft 1); F. Graefe, _Der Codex Bezae und das\n    Lucasevangelium_, _Th. St. Kr._, 1898, i. 116-140; compare\n    especially, _On the Italian Origin of Codex Bezae. 1. Codex Bezae\n    and cod. 1071_, by the Rev. K. Lake; _2. The Marginal Notes of\n    Lections_, by the Rev. F. E. Brightman in the _Journal of\n    Theological Studies_, i. 3 (April 1900) pp. 441-454. Codex 1071 is a\n    minuscule on Mt. Athos, in which the text of the Pericope Adulterae\n    (John viii.) is essentially the same as the singular text exhibited\n    by D. It seems to have come from Calabria. The lectionary indicated\n    in the margin of D points to a mixed Greek and Latin population such\n    as that in the South of Italy.\n\nIn what follows the manuscripts are grouped according to their contents\nas copies of the Gospels, Acts and Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles,\nor of the Apocalypse.\n\n[Sidenote: Gospels.]\n\nE. CODEX BASILIENSIS, by some ascribed to the seventh century, but\nbelonging more probably to the eighth: brought to Europe by Cardinal\nJohn de Ragusio, who was sent on a mission to the Greeks by the Council\nof Basel (1431): used by Mill, Bengel, and Wettstein: Luke iii. 4-15 and\nxxiv. 47-53 wanting: has been in the University Library at Basel since\n1559. (Scrivener, i. p. 131, Plate XI. 27.)\n\nF. BOREELIANUS, written in the ninth century: so called as belonging at\none time to a Dutchman named John Boreel: now in Utrecht: has many\nlacun\u00e6, some of which have arisen since Wettstein collated the\nmanuscript in 1730. (Scrivener, i. 131, Plate XI. 28.)\n\nF^a. COISLINIANUS, of the seventh century, though some say the sixth and\nothers the eighth: consists of only 26 verses from Matthew, Luke, John,\nActs, 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Col., and Heb., written on the margin of a\nfamous Parisian manuscript of the Octoteuch in Greek containing\nGen.-Deut., Josh., Jud., and Ruth. List of contents of F^a in Scrivener,\ni. 134.\n\nG. SEIDELIANUS, of the tenth century: part of it in the British Museum\nin London and part in Trinity College, Cambridge: brought from the East\nby Seidel and presented in 1718 by the Berlin Librarian La Croze to J.\nChr. Wolf, a clergyman in Hamburg who cut out half a page to send to\nBentley in 1721. (Scrivener, i. 131, Plate XI. 29.)\n\nH. SEIDELIANUS II., of the ninth century, in Hamburg: bequeathed with\nhis library to his native city by Wolf, and rediscovered there in 1838.\n(Scrivener, i, 134, Plate XII. 31.)\n\nI. TISCHENDORFIANUS II., fragments of seven manuscripts in St.\nPetersburg found by Tischendorf in the Monastery of Mar Saba, near the\nDead Sea: consists of 28 palimpsest leaves with Greek writing of the\ntenth century containing only 255 verses of the New Testament, of which\n190 are from the Gospels: the three oldest leaves are of the fifth\ncentury; some of them are perhaps parts of a once complete Bible:\ndetailed list of contents in Scrivener, i. 134 f.\n\nI^b. So indicated by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, formerly known\nas N^b, of the fourth or more probably the fifth century: a threefold\npalimpsest written first in Greek and afterwards twice in Syriac:\ncontains 17 verses from John\u2019s Gospel: now in the British Museum: list\nof verses in Scrivener, i. 141.\n\nK. CYPRIUS, No. 63 in the National Library at Paris: middle of the ninth\ncentury: purchased in Cyprus for Colbert in 1673: one of the six, or\nincluding \u03a9 seven, complete uncial manuscripts of the Gospels, the\nothers being \u05d0 BMSU (\u03a9). Facsimile in Scrivener, i., Plate VII. p. 153.\n\nL. REGIUS, No. 62 in the National Library at Paris: of the eighth\ncentury: contains the four Gospels complete with the exception of five\nlacun\u00e6 in Matthew iv. v. and xxviii., Mark x. and xv., and in John xxi.:\nimportant as showing the double conclusion of Mark\u2019s Gospel which is\nexhibited as yet, except in versions, in only three other uncials (\u05d3, \u05e7,\nand \u03a8) and one minuscule (see Plate X.). Facsimile of L, Mark xvi. 8, 9,\nin Scrivener, i., Plate IX. 21, p. 137. The conclusions, as found in L,\n\u05d3, \u05e7, and \u03a8, are printed and discussed in Swete\u2019s _Gospel according to\nSt. Mark_, pp. xcviii, xcix. See also Westcott and Hort\u2019s Introduction,\nAppendix, p. 28 ff.; Scrivener, ii. 337; Hastings\u2019 _Dictionary of the\nBible_, iii. p. 13.\n\nM. CAMPIANUS, 48 in the National Library, Paris: of the ninth century:\npresented to Louis XIV. by the Abb\u00e9 Fran\u00e7ois de Camps, 1st January 1706:\ncontains the four Gospels complete: one of the oldest manuscripts, with\nthe exception of D, that exhibit the pericope of the adulteress, John\nvii. 53 ff. Facsimile in Scrivener, i., Plate XII. p. 134.\n\nN. PURPUREUS, belonging to the end of the sixth century: one of the most\nlovely manuscripts, consisting of 45 leaves, of which 6 are in the\nVatican Library at Rome, 4 in the British Museum, 2 in Vienna, and the\nremaining 33 in the Monastery of St. John in Patmos, from which, in all\nprobability, the others were carried off. The manuscript is written with\nsilver letters on a purple ground, only the letters are not printed on\nit with movable type as was formerly supposed in the case of the similar\nCodex Argenteus of Ulfilas. The contents are given in Scrivener, i. 139\nf., and a facsimile at p. 98, Plate V. 182 other leaves belonging to\nthis manuscript were recently acquired in Cappadocia for Russia.\n\n    The Vienna fragment is most beautifully printed in facsimile in that\n    superb work, _Die Wiener Genesis_, edited by Wilh. Ritter von Hartel\n    and Franz Wickhoff: Supplement to vols. xv. and xvi. of the\n    _Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerh\u00f6chsten\n    Kaiserhauses_. Vienna, 1895. Hartel (p. 142) sees no reason why the\n    manuscript should not be ascribed to the fifth century.\n\n    The text of Codex N, including the new Russian fragments, has been\n    published with Introduction and Appendix by the Rev. H. S. Cronin in\n    _Texts and Studies_, v. 4, 1899. The Appendix contains a collation\n    of the Gospel of Mark in the Codex Imperatricis Theodorae (Scriv.\n    473: Hort 81: Tisch. 2^{pe}: Greg. 565; see note on p. 151). See\n    Nestle in the _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr wiss. Theologie_, 42 (1899), pp.\n    621-623.\n\n    Some leaves of another purple manuscript have been acquired in\n    Paris. See H. Omont, _Acad. des Inscr._, Mars-Avril 1900.\n\nO. In Moscow, consists of a few leaves taken from the binding of a book:\ncontains 15 verses from John\u2019s Gospel i. and xx.: written in the ninth\ncentury.\n\nO^{a-h}. Psalters, in which are found, after the Psalms among the poetic\nselections from the Bible, the Magnificat, the Benedictus, and the Nunc\nDimittis from the first and second chapters of Luke\u2019s Gospel. O^c is a\nGreek Psalter of the sixth century written in Latin characters and is at\nVerona. O^d is a purple Psalter of the seventh century at Zurich. O^e at\nSt. Gall is a Psalter of the ninth century, written partly in Latin and\npartly in Greek.\n\nP and Q. Two palimpsests at Wolfenb\u00fcttel, the former belonging to the\nsixth and the latter to the fifth century. P, it appears, came from\nBobbio and was afterwards at Weissenburg, Mayence, and Prague. Q,\ntogether with a portion of Ulfilas\u2019s Gothic Bible, has been employed to\nreceive the works of Isidore of Seville. The codices were edited with\ngreat care by Tischendorf in 1869.\n\nR. NITRIENSIS, of the sixth century: in the British Museum: consists of\n48 leaves containing some 516 verses from Luke\u2019s Gospel, over which and\na manuscript of 4000 verses of the Iliad, the Syriac works of Severus of\nAntioch were written in the ninth century. The palimpsest was brought\nfrom the Nitrian Desert in 1847, and deposited in the British Museum.\n(Scrivener, i. 145, Plate VI, 17.)\n\nS. VATICANUS 354: one of the earliest manuscripts of the Greek New\nTestament that bears an exact date. At the end is written, \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u1f21\n\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039c\u03b9\u03c7\u03b1\u1f74\u03bb \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u1f76 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u1ff3\n\u03b1\u2019, \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03ad, \u1f65\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03db\u2019, \u1f14\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03db\u03c5\u03bd\u03b6\u2019, \u1f30\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b6\u2019, _i.e._ at six o\u2019clock\non Thursday, 1st March 6457 in the 7th Indiction[68] or 949 A.D.\n\nT^a. Of the fifth century: in the Museum Borgianum at Rome: written\nprobably by a Coptic monk: unfortunately a mere fragment containing only\n17 leaves from Luke and John: is written in two columns, that on the\nleft containing a Sahidic version. T^b, similar small fragments of John\nin St. Petersburg of the sixth century. T^c, also of the sixth century,\na fragment of Matthew, formerly in the possession of Bishop Porfiri\nUspenski of Kiev, and now at St. Petersburg. T^d, of the seventh\ncentury, in Rome, part of a Sahidic-Greek Evangeliarium, containing a\nfew verses from Matthew, Mark, and John. T^e, of the sixth century (?),\nat Cambridge, consists of four verses, Matthew iii. 13-16. T^h (T^k in\n_TiGr._ p. 450), three leaves from Matthew xx. and xxii. T^{i-r},\nfragments of six Greek-Coptic and three Greek Gospels of the ninth and\ntenth centuries, but possibly the seventh and eighth, published by\nAm\u00e9lineau in vol. xxxiv. of the _Notices et Extraits de la Biblioth\u00e8que\nNationale_, 1895, 363 ff.; _cf._ v. Dobsch\u00fctz in the _Lit.\nCent.-Blatt._, 1895, 42, 1857. T^l contains the double conclusion of\nMark\u2019s Gospel. T^{woi}, similar leaves at Oxford which once belonged to\nWoide, but by a different hand from T^a.\n\nTo these Gr\u00e6co-Coptic fragments there is now to be added two chapters of\nJohn\u2019s Gospel (iii. 5-iv. 49), in Greek and Middle Egyptian, written in\nthe sixth century. They are published by W. E. Crum and F. G. Kenyon in\nthe _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. 3 (April 1900), pp. 415-433.\nThe find contains no remarkable readings. The editors call its text\nneutral, and think it helps to show that Egypt was the home of such\ncorrect and upright texts. (T^w Greg.)\n\nU. NANIANUS, so called from a former possessor: of the end of the ninth\nor beginning of the tenth century: in Venice: a very beautiful and\ncomplete manuscript of the Gospels, with ornamentations in gold.\n(Scrivener, i. 137, Plate IX. 22.)\n\nV. Formerly at Mount Athos, now in Moscow: of the ninth century: first\nemployed by Bengel and Wettstein through the medium of G. B. Bilfinger.\n\nW. Various small fragments: W^a of the eighth century in Paris: a\nfragment of Luke. W^b of the eighth century (or the ninth) in Naples: a\npalimpsest with parts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. W^c of the ninth\ncentury at St. Gall: a palimpsest, containing fragments of Mark and\nLuke, perhaps once bilingual, Greek-Latin. W^d of the ninth century in\nCambridge. W^e of the ninth century: part of John, at Mount Athos,\nOxford, and Athens. W^f of the ninth century: in Oxford: fragment of\nMark. W^g of the ninth century: consisting of 36 palimpsest leaves with\n497 verses from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in the British Museum.\nW^h of the ninth century: in Oxford: part of Mark. W^{i-m} in Paris, of\nthe seventh to the eighth or ninth century: fragments of Mark and Luke,\nof which W^l and W^k are printed in Omont\u2019s _Catalogue des Manuscrits\nGrecs, Latins, Fran\u00e7ais, et Espagnols et des Portulans, recueillis par\nfeu Emmanuel Miller_, Paris, 1897. W^n of the seventh century, in\nVienna: fragments of John. W^o of the ninth century, in Milan: 16\nmutilated palimpsest leaves, containing portions of Matthew, Mark, and\nLuke.\n\nX. MONACENSIS, written at the end of the ninth or beginning of the tenth\ncentury, now in Munich, contains the Gospels, with lacun\u00e6, and a\ncommentary, in the order Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. Scrivener, i. 343,\nPlate XIII. 38; for contents see _ibid._, p. 152.\n\nX^b. Fragment containing Luke i. 1-ii. 40, hitherto reckoned among the\nminuscules and numbered 429; also in Munich.\n\nY. Belonging to the eighth century, in the Barberini Library at Rome: 6\nleaves containing John xvi. 3-xix. 41.\n\nZ. A palimpsest in Dublin of the fifth or sixth century, containing 295\nverses of Matthew\u2019s Gospel. Scrivener, i. 153; Plate VII. 18.\n\nThe Roman alphabet not being sufficient for the number of uncial\nmanuscripts, recourse was taken to those letters of the Greek and Hebrew\nwhich have a distinct form from those already employed. It was proposed\nby others to reserve the Greek letters for those manuscripts no longer\nextant, whose text can be reconstructed from a number of kindred\nmanuscripts as their common archetype.\n\n\u0393. Of the ninth or tenth century: part in Oxford and part in St.\nPetersburg, the former having been obtained from Tischendorf in 1855 and\nthe latter in 1859: contains the whole of Luke and John, but Mark is\ndefective from iii. 34 to vi. 20, while Matthew is still more defective.\nThe writing of the manuscript was finished on a certain Thursday, the\n27th November, in the eighth year of an indiction. Tischendorf\naccordingly fixed its date as 844. It was previously assigned by\nGardthausen to the year 979. Scrivener, i. 134, Plate XII. 35.\n\n\u0394. SANGALLENSIS, written at the end of the ninth or beginning of the\ntenth century: now at St. Gall, where it was probably transcribed by an\nIrish monk: has an interlinear Latin version, and was not, therefore,\nlike D, intended for church but for school purposes. The Codex has the\nfour Gospels complete with the exception of John xix. 17-35. In Mark the\ntext shows a closer agreement with CL than in the other Gospels. The\nmanuscript has been copied from one written _scriptione continua_, and\nin consequence the words are often wrongly divided. See G_{3} below, p.\n77.\n\n\u0398^{a-d}. Small fragments brought from the East by Tischendorf, of which\n\u0398^a belongs to the seventh century, and \u0398^{bcd} to the seventh, sixth,\nand seventh or eighth century respectively. The first is in Leipzig, the\nothers in St. Petersburg. \u0398^{e-h} were formerly in the possession of\nBishop Porfiri of Kiev.\n\n\u039b. Of the ninth century: contains the Gospels of Luke and John entire:\nevidently the second part of a minuscule brought to St. Petersburg by\nTischendorf, No. 566^{evv} (Greg.)[69]: marginal scholia are affixed to\nfour passages in Matthew\u2014viz. iv. 5, xvi. 17, xviii. 22, xxvi. 74,\ngiving the readings of \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f38o\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03ca\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, _i.e._ the lost Gospel according to\nthe Hebrews, and its subscription runs, \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f44\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b2\u03c6\u03b9\u03b4\u2019 (2514) \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bd\u03b5\u2019 (345). The manuscript is in the\nBodleian Library at Oxford. Scrivener, i. 131, Plate XI. 30.\n\n    _Cf._ von Dobsch\u00fctz, _Zwei Bibelhandschriften mit doppelter\n    Schriftart_ (_Th. Lz._, 1889, iii. 74 f.).\n\n\u039e. ZACYNTHIUS, a palimpsest of the eighth century from Zante, now in the\nLibrary of the British and Foreign Bible Society in London: the earliest\nmanuscript with a commentary: has the same system of chapter division as\nB, and is oftener found supporting B against A than _vice versa_.\n\n\u03a0. Of the ninth century: contains the Gospels almost complete: once the\nproperty of a Greek of Smyrna called Parodos: procured by Tischendorf\nfor the Emperor of Russia.\n\n\u03a3. Of the sixth century: written on purple with gold and silver\nlettering and 17 miniatures, being the earliest manuscript to contain\nsuch: rescued from obscurity in 1879 by Oscar v. Gebhardt and A.\nHarnack, who discovered it at Rossano in Calabria: hence designated as\nCodex Rossanensis: is nearly related to N. Scrivener, i. 124, Plate XIV.\n43.\n\n    O. v. Gebhardt, _Die Evangelien des Matth\u00e4us und des Marcus aus dem\n    Codex Purpureus Rossanensis herausgegeben_ (T. und U., i. 4, 1883).\n    A. Haseloff, _Cod. Pur. Rossanensis. Die Miniaturen der griechischen\n    Evangelien-Handschrift in Rossano. Nach photographischen Aufnahmen\n    herausgegeben._ Leipzig, 1898 (contains 14 facsimiles of the text\n    and 15 photographic plates). _Vide_ S. Berger in _Bull. Crit._,\n    1899, 6: also F. X. v. Funk, _Die Zeit. des Cod. Rossanensis_ in the\n    _Hist. Jahrbuch der G\u00f6rresgeschellschaft_, xvii. 2, 1896, 331-344.\n\n\u03a6. CODEX BERATINUS, of the sixth century: at Berat in Albania: like the\nlast a purple Codex with silver writing: contains portions of Matthew\nand Mark: seen and published by Batiffol. Scrivener, i. 166, Plate XV.\n\n\u03a8. Fragments of the eighth or ninth century at Athos: contains Mark ix.\n5 to the end, Luke, John, Acts, seven Catholic Epistles, Romans to\nPhilemon, and Hebrews: exhibits after Mark xvi. 8 the same double\nconclusion as is found in L and one Sinai manuscript. On some readings\nof \u03a8, see Lake in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, No. i. p, 88;\nii. pp. 290-292.\n\n\u03a9. Of the eighth or ninth century: in the Monastery of Dionysius at\nAthos: contains the Gospels entire.\n\nThe last-mentioned codices have not yet been thoroughly collated, some\nof them having been only recently discovered.\n\nThe following are indicated by Hebrew letters.\n\n\u05d1. Of the ninth or tenth century: in the Monastery of St. Andrew at\nAthos: contains the Gospels with lacun\u00e6.\n\n\u05d2. GREGORIANUS, a purple manuscript from Cappadocia now admitted to be\npart of N.\n\n\u05d3^{6-13}. Several leaves dating from the fifth to the ninth century,\ndiscovered at Sinai by J. R. Harris and published by him (_Biblical\nfragments from Mount Sinai_, 1890): \u05d3^{12} contains the double\nconclusion of Mark: \u05d3^{13} is a purple fragment of the seventh century\ncontaining a few verses from the first chapter of Luke, perhaps only a\nquotation.\n\n\u05e7. Swete indicates with this letter the fragment cited above as T^l,\nwhich exhibits the double conclusion of Mark\u2019s Gospel. See his _Gospel\naccording to St. Mark_, pp. xcii., xcix.\n\n\u05e8. An Oxyrhynchus fragment of the fifth or sixth century, published by\nGrenfell and Hunt, _The Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, Part I. with eight Plates,\nLondon, 1898: contains only Mark x. 50 f. and xi. 10 f.: cited by Swete.\n(T^g Greg.)\n\nPart II. of _The Oxyrhynchus Papyri_ (1899, pp. 1-8) contains a fragment\nof John\u2019s Gospel (cc. i. and xx.) from a sheet of a papyrus codex\nwritten between 200 and 300 A.D. This is one of the earliest fragments\nthat have been discovered of a papyrus _book_ (not a _roll_). It\nexhibits already the abbreviations usually found in theological\nmanuscripts, such as \u0398\u0305\u03a3\u0305, \u0399\u0305\u0397\u0305\u03a3\u0305, \u03a7\u0305\u03a3\u0305, \u03a0\u0305\u039d\u0305\u0391\u0305. The Codex agrees with \u05d0\nin several readings not found elsewhere. (T^x Greg.) See _Addenda_, p.\nxv.\n\n[Sidenote: Acts and Catholic Epistles.]\n\nThe second group is composed of manuscripts of the Acts and Catholic\nEpistles which are distinguished from those in the first by affixing the\nexponent _{2} at the bottom of the symbol.\n\n\u05d0 A B exhibit the Acts and Catholic Epistles complete:\n\nE_{2} D have the Acts all but entire:\n\nK L have the Catholic Epistles complete:\n\nC P have the greater part of them.\n\nFor \u05d0 A B C D F^a (a few verses of the Acts), see above.\n\nE_{2}. LAUDIANUS 35, in Oxford, written at the end of the sixth century:\nbilingual, Latin-Greek, the Latin occupying the place of honour on the\nleft: breaks off at Acts xxvi. 29: the text very peculiar and somewhat\nlike that of D. The manuscript was formerly in Sardinia, and was\nprobably brought to England by Theodore of Tarsus in 668. It was\nemployed by the Venerable Bede (d. 735) in his _Expositio_ of the Acts\nand afterwards in his _Expositio Retractata_. Archbishop Laud presented\nthe manuscript with many others to the University of Oxford. Fell and\nMill made use of it. Scrivener, i. 121, Plate X. 25.\n\nG_{2}. Of the seventh century, a single leaf in St. Petersburg\ncontaining Acts ii. 45-iii. 8, torn from the cover of a Syriac\nmanuscript.\n\nG^b. Of the ninth century, a palimpsest of six leaves in Rome containing\nportions of Acts xvi. 32-xviii. 20. (Vat. Gr. 2302.)\n\nH_{2}. Ninth century, in Modena, has the Acts with some lacun\u00e6.\n\nI_{2}. Fragments in St. Petersburg of the fifth and seventh centuries:\nfour leaves from three different manuscripts of the Acts.\n\nK_{2}. Of the ninth century: brought to Moscow from Athos: contains the\nCatholic and Pauline Epistles.\n\nL_{2}. Written at the end of the ninth century: in the Angelica Library\nat Rome: contains the Acts from c. viii. onwards, the Catholic Epistles,\nand the Pauline down to Hebrews xiii.\n\nP_{2}. Of the ninth century: formerly in the possession of Bishop\nPorfiri of Kiev and now at St. Petersburg: published by Tischendorf:\ncontains Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles, and Apocalypse, with\nseveral lacun\u00e6.\n\nS_{2}. Of the eighth or ninth century: at Athos: contains Acts, Catholic\nEpistles, Romans, portions of 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Ephesians.\n\n\u05d1_{2}. A palimpsest of the fifth century: in Rome: rediscovered by\nBatiffol: consists of fragments of Acts, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and\n3 John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,\n1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews.\n\n[Sidenote: Pauline Epistles.]\n\nThe third group is composed of manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles. Of\nthese there is a comparatively large number, which may be taken as\nindicating the important position ascribed to Paul even in early times.\n\u05d0, however, is the only Codex that contains his Epistles complete; in D\nL they are almost complete, and A B C E F G K exhibit the greater part\nof them.\n\nFor \u05d0 A B C, see above.\n\nA is defective in 2 Cor. iv. 13-xii. 6 inclusive.\n\nB breaks off at Hebrews ix. 14, consequently 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and\nPhilemon are wanting.\n\nD_{2}. CODEX CLAROMONTANUS: takes its name from Clermont near Beauvais.\nThe manuscript was written in the sixth century, and is bilingual in\nGreek and Latin, having the Greek on the left-hand page. The Greek is\nwanting in Rom. i. 1-7, 27-30, and in 1 Cor. xiv. 13-22. In Gal. v. 9\nD_{2} reads \u03b4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6, and in verse 14 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, in both places agreeing with\nMarcion. At least nine hands are distinguishable in the manuscript, one\nof whom corrected the text in over 2000 places in the ninth or tenth\ncentury. Two leaves are palimpsest, their text being written over part\nof a play of Euripides. Hebrews has evidently been copied into the Codex\nfrom a different manuscript by a later scribe. Before it is a list of\n\u201cversus scribtuarum sanctarum,\u201d one of the oldest stichometric\ncatalogues of the books of the Old and New Testaments, which is derived\nfrom an early Greek original. This Catalogus Claromontanus is given in\nWestcott\u2019s _History of the Canon_, App. D, xx. p. 563, and in his _Bible\nin the Church_, App. B, p. 309. See also Zahn, _Geschichte des N. T.\nKanons_, II. 157-172, 1012; J\u00fclicher, _Einleitung_, \u00a7 40. Thirty-five\nleaves of Codex D_{2} were stolen by John Aymont in 1707, but afterwards\nrestored by their purchasers, some of them in 1720, and the others in\n1729. (_See Plates II. and III._)\n\nE_{3}. SANGERMANENSIS, of the ninth century: also Greek-Latin: brought\nfrom St. Germain de Pr\u00e8s to St. Petersburg during the Revolution: in the\nGreek merely an incorrect transcript of D_{2}, and may therefore be\ndismissed. See p. 179 n. 1.\n\nF_{2}. AUGIENSIS, of the ninth century: another Greek-Latin manuscript:\ndefective in Rom. i. 1-iii. 19; 1 Cor. iii. 8-16; vi. 7-14; Col. ii.\n1-8; Philemon 21-25: Hebrews from the first only in the Latin. The\nmanuscript was formerly at Reichenau (Augia Dives, hence its name). It\nwas purchased by Bentley in 1718 for 250 Dutch florins, and is now at\nCambridge. An edition of it was published by Scrivener in 1859. For F^a,\nsee above, p. 66.\n\n    Scrivener, _An exact transcript of the Codex Augiensis ... to which\n    is added a full collation of fifty manuscripts containing various\n    portions of the Greek N. T._, 1859. F. Zimmer, _Der Codex Augiensis\n    eine Abschrift des Boernerianus_ (_ZfwTh._, 1887, i. 76-91).\n\nG_{3}. BOERNERIANUS, of the ninth century, so called from Professor C.\nF. Boerner of Leipzig, who purchased it in 1705: now in Dresden. It is a\nGreek-Latin manuscript, the Latin being interlinear. It is manifestly\nthe second part of \u0394, and has a close affinity with F_{2}, though the\nGreek of F was not copied from G, as Zimmer and Hort assert. The fact is\nrather that both are derived from one and the same original, in which\n_e.g._ \u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03b9, sicut cancer ut serpat, was found in 2\nTim. ii. 17, and \u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, eramus autem servientes, in Gal.\niv. 3. This manuscript contains some interesting Irish verses.[70] At\nthe end of Philemon there stands the title \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, ad\nlaudicenses, but the Epistle that should have followed has been lost.\n\n    P. Corssen, _Epistularum Paulinarum codices graece et latine\n    scriptos Augiensem, Boernerianum, Claromontanum examinavit, inter se\n    comparavit, ad communem originem revocavit. Specimen primum_, 1887.\n    _Alterum_, 1889.\n\n[Sidenote: Euthalian Recension.]\n\nH_{3}. Written in the sixth century, one of the most valuable\nmanuscripts, but unfortunately incomplete. Its leaves were used in 975\nand 1218 to cover some manuscripts at Mount Athos. Forty-one of these\nhave been rescued, of which 22 are now in Paris, 8 at Mount Athos, 3 in\nSt. Petersburg, 3 in Moscow, 2 in Turin, and 3 in Kiev. They contain\nportions of 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians,\n1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews. The value of the manuscript is\nindicated in the subscription, which runs, \u201cI, Euthalius,[71] wrote this\nvolume of the Apostle Paul as carefully as possible in stichoi, so that\nit might be read with intelligence: the book was compared with the copy\nin the library at C\u00e6sarea, written by the hand of Pamphilus the\nsaint.\u201d[72] The subscription may of course have stood in the original of\nH, and simply been copied into it along with the text, as in the case of\nthe minuscules 15, 83, and 173 of the Acts. But no matter, it serves to\nlocate the text of this manuscript, and it is one of our main witnesses\nfor the so-called =Euthalian Recension= of the Acts and Catholic\nEpistles.\n\nIn or previous to the year 396, a deacon called Euthalius, afterwards\nknown as Bishop of Sulce,[73] published an edition of the Acts and\nCatholic and Pauline Epistles, in which, following the rules laid down\nby the Greek schools of oratory, the text was carefully broken up into\nlines, the length of which depended on the sense (_sense-clauses_), and\ndivided into paragraphs or chapters. Euthalius also provided a system of\nChurch lections, added a summary of contents to the various chapters,\nand catalogued the quotations from the Old Testament and elsewhere in\nthe separate Epistles and in the entire group. This edition became a\nsort of model for later times, and seems to have been made use of for\nthe Armenian version among the rest. The comparison of the manuscript\nwith those of Pamphilus, as well as other additions, would seem then to\nhave been made on the occasion of a later revision. Ehrhard, however,\nthinks that we have the autograph edition of this system in Codex H, but\nthat Evagrius is to be read instead of Euthalius in the place where the\nname has been erased. This view is combated by Dobsch\u00fctz, and in part\nrightly. Working independently of both, Conybeare, from Armenian\nsources, establishes the year 396 as the date of Euthalius. But in a\nparchment manuscript of the eleventh century in the library of the Laura\nat Mount Athos, Wobbermin found a fragment of a dogmatic treatise with\nthe inscription, \u0395\u1f50\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, from which he makes out that Euthalius lived in the second half\nof the seventh century and that Sulce was in Sardinia. See G. Kr\u00fcger in\nthe _Lit. Cent. Blatt_ 1899, No. 14.\n\n    Omont, _Notice sur un tr\u00e8s ancien manuscrit grec en onciales des\n    \u00e9p\u00eetres de S. Paul_, Paris, 1889. J. A. Robinson, _Euthaliana_,\n    Texts and Studies, iii. 3, 1895. (See S. Berger, _Bull. Crit._, 96,\n    8.) Th. Zahn, _Euthaliana_, _Theol. Lit. Blatt._, 1895, 593, 601.\n    Ehrhard, _Der codex H ad Epistolas Pauli und Euthalius diaconus,\n    Eine palaeographisch-patrologische Untersuchung_ in the\n    _Centralblatt f\u00fcr Bibliothekswesen_, 1891, pp. 385-411. E. v.\n    Dobsch\u00fctz, _Ein Beitrag zur Euthaliusfrage_, in the same magazine,\n    1893, pp. 49-70; _Euthaliusstudien_ in the ZKG. xix. pp. 107-154\n    (1898): also, _Euthalius_, in the PRE^3, v. pp. 631-633 (1898).\n    Islinger, _Die Verdienste des Euthalius um den neutestamentlichen\n    Bibeltext_, Hof. 1867 (Prog.). Conybeare, _On the Codex Pamphili and\n    date of Euthalius_, in the _Cambridge Journal of Philology_, xxiii.\n    241 (1895). R. L. Bensly, _The Harklean Version etc._, pp. 9, 27\n    (1889). See also J. A. Robinson, _Texts and Studies_, vi. 1; C.\n    Butler, _The Lausiac History of Palladius_, p. 104 ff., and note 2,\n    p. 188 below.\n\nI_{2}, K_{2}, L_{2}, P_{2}: See above, p. 75.\n\nM_{2}. CODEX RUBER, of the ninth century: four leaves written in bright\nred ink or other colouring matter, two of them in London and the other\ntwo in Hamburg.\n\nN_{2}. Of the ninth century, consisting of two leaves with portions of\nGalatians and Hebrews: in St. Petersburg.\n\nO_{2}. Of the ninth century, two leaves in the same library containing\nportions of 2 Corinthians.\n\nO^b. Of the sixth century, one leaf with part of Ephesians: in Moscow.\n\nQ_{2}. Of the fifth century, five _papyrus_ leaves with fragments of 1\nCorinthians: in St. Petersburg.\n\nR_{2}. Of the seventh century, a single leaf with part of 2 Corinthians:\nin Grotteferrata.\n\nS_{2}. See above, p. 75.\n\nT^g. A few sentences from 1 Timothy. See _TiGr._, p. 441.\n\nT^s. Two leaves containing 1 Corinthians i. 22-29, written in the ninth\nor tenth century, and published simultaneously with T^{i-r}. Gregory now\ndesignates T^g as T^{a Paul}, and T^s as T^{b Paul}.\n\n\u05d1_{2}. See above, p. 75.\n\n\u05d3^{14}. A fragment of papyrus containing part of 1 Corinthians, cc. i.,\nii., iii., written in the fifth century.\n\nThe first seven verses of the first chapter of Romans have been\npublished in _The Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, Part II. (pp. 8 f., Plate II.).\nThe fragment is probably a schoolboy\u2019s exercise. It is written in a\nlarge rude uncial hand, and dates from the first half of the fourth\ncentury. In verse 7 it reads \u039a\u0305\u03a5\u0305 \u03a7\u0305\u03a1\u0305\u03a5\u0305 \u0399\u0305\u0397\u0305\u03a5\u0305.\n\n[Sidenote: Apocalypse.]\n\nThere are fewest manuscripts of the Apocalypse. It is found entire only\nin \u05d0 A B, while C and P exhibit portions of it. In the Apocalypse,\nhowever, it is to be observed that Codex B is not the famous Codex\nVaticanus 1209 but a much later manuscript 2066, dating from the end of\nthe eighth century. It would be better, therefore, with some editors, to\ncall it Q or B_{2}.\n\nAltogether the number of Greek manuscripts is as follows[74]:\u2014\n\n                    UNCIALS:\n                      Gospels,                        73\n                      Acts and Catholic Epistles,     19\n                      Pauline Epistles,               28\n                      Apocalypse,                      7\n                                                     \u2014-\n                                           Total,    127\n                    CURSIVES,                       3702\n\n[Sidenote: Book-hand and hand of common life.]\n\nIn closing our survey of the extant uncials, it is to be borne in mind\nthat we are not at liberty to regard even the oldest of them as\npresenting the very form of the New Testament autographs. The books of\nthe New Testament, at all events the majority of them, were not\noriginally intended for publication at all, while the others were meant\nfor only a limited circle of readers. Now these recent papyrus\ndiscoveries have shown conclusively what a vast difference existed even\nin those days between the =book-hand= and what we may call the =hand of\ncommon life= and business. A glance at Kenyon\u2019s _Pal\u00e6ography of Greek\nPapyri_ will show how fundamental is the distinction between literary\nand non-literary papyri. That writer states that in many cases the\ndifference is just as marked as between handwriting and print at the\npresent day, and he instances also the distinction between the book-hand\nand the charter-hand of the Middle Ages. Of course documents of this or\nthe other class may occasionally be found written in the hand that is\nnot the usual one, a prescription, _e.g._, in book-hand, or conversely a\nliterary text in the hand of common life. The greater part of\nAristotle\u2019s work on the _Polity of the Athenians_, for instance, has\nbeen preserved in the common hand. This papyrus, which is attributed to\nthe first century of the Christian era, is the work of four scribes. But\nonly one of these writes in a style approximating to the book-hand; the\nother parts are written in a very cursive style on the back of an old\naccount, probably by one who had borrowed a copy of the work for a short\ntime and transcribed it with the help of two or three friends or slaves.\nKenyon quite properly instances this as an illustration of the manner of\nthe origin and propagation of the New Testament books, and suggests that\nthis mode of propagation has to be considered in connection with times\nof persecution. Our very oldest manuscripts are superb codices, editions\nde luxe, such as could be prepared only in an age when the Church had\nattained a position of affluence and power. The distinction referred to\nabove is one that has had but little attention paid to it hitherto, as\nis shown by the illustration given in Harris\u2019s excellent work on the New\nTestament autographs. It is manifest at the same time that this\nconsideration is of great importance in trying to understand the origin\nand dissemination of the various readings that occur in our manuscripts.\nIt is just a pity that Kenyon has not given a sample of this manuscript\nof Aristotle in his book, seeing that the latter is more accessible to\nthe ordinary student than the complete facsimile edited in 1891 by the\nTrustees of the British Museum, or the Plate published in the second\nvolume of the work of the Pal\u00e6ographical Society.\n\n[Sidenote: Uncial and minuscule script.]\n\nA further consideration is emphasised by means of these papyrus\ndiscoveries\u2014viz. that =no distinction of time= can be drawn between the\nuncial and cursive hands found in the manuscripts. Even in the very\nearliest documents the hand of common life displays a very cursive\ncharacter, and a fairly cursive uncial hand with ligatures is not\nnecessarily later than an uncial hand without ligatures. It is somewhat\ndifferent in the case of writing on parchment: here the old distinction\nof uncial and minuscule manuscripts is rightly maintained, only we must\nguard against supposing that the minuscule hand and the cursive are\nquite the same thing; nor must we forget that for a considerable time\nthe older uncial and the later minuscule scripts were in use\ntogether.[75] The sharp line of demarcation, therefore, which has\nhitherto been drawn in the textual criticism of the New Testament\nbetween these two classes of manuscripts has no real justification in\nfact. The present account, however, is intended merely as a survey of\nthe position of things up to the present, and the following description\nof the minuscules is subject to that limitation.\n\n\n             (_b._) SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT MINUSCULES.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Minuscules.]\n\nWhen the Greek New Testament began to be printed, the editors had\nnecessarily to be content with indifferent and late minuscules, and even\nthose who followed them, like Bentley and Lachmann, thought they were at\nliberty to disregard these altogether and to found their text\nexclusively on the oldest uncials. They forgot that the text of a late\nmanuscript may be derived from a very early and good source through\ncomparatively few intermediaries, and that it is possible to reconstruct\na lost original by means of a comparison of several witnesses.\nAccordingly, in more recent times, English editors like Tregelles,\nBurgon, Ferrar, Hoskier, and Scrivener have rendered great service in\nthe way of collating manuscripts, and the last-mentioned as well as\nGregory in Germany has also catalogued them. At the present moment a\nsystematic investigation in this department is being carried on in\nBerlin. Most of the minuscules are still written on parchment which\nbegan to be mixed with paper in the ninth century, and was ultimately\nsuperseded by it. Various minuscules contain commentaries and other\nadditional matter, such as the List of the Seventy Apostles, short\nBiographies of the Apostles, Summaries of the journeys of St. Paul, or\nnotes as to the date and place of the composition of the different\nbooks. When dates are given in the manuscripts, they are still as a rule\ncomputed in the Byzantine manner, reckoning from the Creation of the\nworld (5508 B.C.). In only a few cursives is the date reckoned from the\nBirth of Christ.\n\nSince the time of Wettstein the minuscule manuscripts have been\nindicated by Arabic numerals, the numbers in each of the four groups\nbeginning with 1, so that one and the same manuscript may have three or\nfour numbers\u201418^{evv.} _e.g._ being 113^{Acts,} 132^{Paul,} and\n51^{Apoc.,} while 209^{evv} is the same as 95^{Acts,} 108^{Paul,} and\n46^{Apoc.} It is still more awkward that in the two principal works on\nthe minuscules, that of Scrivener and of Gregory, the recently\ndiscovered manuscripts are numbered differently. Our enumeration will\nfollow that of Scrivener.\n\n\n                       MINUSCULES OF THE GOSPELS.\n\n\n1 (Acts 1, Paul 1). Of the tenth century, but according to others of the\ntwelfth or the thirteenth, in Basel, with beautiful miniatures which\nwere stolen prior to 1860. The manuscript was borrowed by Reuchlin and\nused by Erasmus for his second edition. (Scrivener, i. 137, Plate IX.\n23.)\n\n2. Of the twelfth century, though some strangely suppose the fifteenth:\nalso in Basel: formerly purchased for two Rhenish florins: printed by\nErasmus.\n\n3. Of the twelfth century, in Vienna, lent to Erasmus for his second\nedition.\n\n[Sidenote: Ferrar Group.]\n\n4-41 are all in the National Library at Paris. 4-9 and 38 were used by\nStephen. The most notable among them is 13, together with 69, 124, 211,\n346, 348, 556, 561 (788), 624, and 626, which are remarkable for their\nvery peculiar form of text and their additions.[76] Luke xxii. 43, 44 is\nfound after Matthew xxvi. 39, and John vii. 53\u2014viii. 11 after Luke xxi.\n38. The subscriptions, moreover, state that Matthew was written in\nHebrew eight years after our Lord\u2019s Ascension, and contained 2522 \u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\nand 2560 stichoi, Mark \u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 ten years after the Ascension with 1675\n\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 and 1604 stichoi, Luke \u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 fifteen years after with 3803\n(_lege_ 3083) \u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 and 2750 stichoi, and John thirty-two years after\nwith 1938 \u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1. These manuscripts were referred to a common archetype\nby the Irish scholar Ferrar, and were accordingly denominated the Ferrar\nGroup, and indicated by the letter \u03a6 before that symbol was appropriated\nto the Codex Beratinus. Most of them came from Calabria, and another has\nlately been added to the number. Their additions, however, as Rendel\nHarris shows, are rather of Syrian origin. In the first edition I\nventured to suggest that these manuscripts might go back to Lucian the\nMartyr (d. 312) of whom Jerome makes mention, saying that he knew of\ncodices quos a Luciano (et Hesychio) nuncupatos paucorum hominum adserit\nperversa contentio, quibus ... nec in novo testamento profuit emendasse,\ncum multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse\nquae addita (cod. E _edita_) sunt. That, however, is not possible in the\nevent of the so-called Syrian recension being the work of Lucian, which\nHort indicates as possible. In any case, these minuscules have preserved\nto us a very early attempt to restore the text.\n\n16 is noteworthy as being written in four different colours according to\nthe contents. The continuous narrative is written in green, the words of\nJesus and the Angels are in red and occasionally in gold, the words of\nHis followers are in blue, while those of the Pharisees, the multitude,\nand of the devil, are written in black.\n\n28. Contains relics of a very ancient text and bears some resemblance to\nD.\n\n33. Written about the tenth century: the \u201cqueen of the cursives\u201d: its\ntext bears a greater resemblance to that of B, D, L than does that of\nany other cursive. The manuscript is much damaged, but 34, which is\nequally old, is still in splendid condition, as though it were fresh\nfrom the hand of the artist. (Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII. 39.)\n\n38. Sent by the Emperor Michael Pal\u00e6ologus to St. Louis (d. 1270).\n\n51. At Oxford: text resembles that of the Complutensian.\n\n59. At Cambridge: has many points of connection with D.\n\n61. Of the fourteenth or fifteenth century. This is the notorious Codex\nMontfortianus, now in Dublin, which derives its name from one of its\nlater possessors. It was this manuscript, \u201ccodex apud Anglos repertus,\u201d\nthat decided Erasmus to insert in his third edition of 1522 the passage\nof the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 7, 8. It was probably written\nby a Franciscan monk of the name of Froy or Roy. Its twin brother, the\nparchment codex Ravianus (Rau), formerly numbered 110, and now in\nBerlin, which also contains the passage, proves to be nothing more than\na transcript of the text of the Complutensian. Manuscripts, it may be\nobserved, continued to be prepared long after the invention of printing.\nMelanchthon, _e.g._, wrote out the Epistle to the Romans three times in\nGreek; and the manuscript in the Zurich Library hitherto cited as\n56^{Paul} is nothing else than a copy of Erasmus\u2019s printed edition of\n1516 made by Zwingli in the following year.\n\n69. _Cf._ 13 above, and see J. R. Harris, _Origin of the Leicester Codex\nof the New Testament_, 1887. (Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII. 40.)\n\n77 and 78. Formerly in the fine library of Matthias Corvinus, King of\nHungary (d. 1490).\n\n90. In this manuscript the Gospels are in the order John, Luke, Matthew,\nMark.\n\n106. Would be important, but has been lost sight of since the time of\nWettstein.\n\n140. Presented to Pope Innocent VII. by the Queen of Cyprus. This\nmanuscript reads \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 in Luke i. 64, therein agreeing with the\nComplutensian.\n\n146-153. In Rome, came from Heidelberg.\n\n154-156. Once the property of Christina, Queen of Sweden.\n\n157. In Rome: its text is said to bear a considerable resemblance to the\nquotations found in the early Christian writer Marcion. See below, p.\n211.\n\n164. The subscription of this manuscript states that it was compared\nwith certain ancient manuscripts in Jerusalem.\n\n205-215 and 217 are in Venice, being part of the donation of Cardinal\nBessarion. 209 contains the whole of the New Testament, and was the\nCardinal\u2019s own copy which he had with him at the Council of Florence in\n1439.\n\n218-225 are in Vienna.\n\n226-233 are in the Escorial.\n\n237-259 are at Moscow, with the exception of four at Dresden.\n\n263-320 are in Paris, with the exception of 272, which was removed\nthence to the British Museum.\n\n274 exhibits the shorter conclusion of Mark\u2019s Gospel in the lower\nmargin. (See Plate X.)\n\n405-418 are now in Venice, and, like U, once belonged to the Nani\nfamily.\n\n422-430. In Munich.\n\n431. This manuscript is sometimes stated to have perished at Strassburg,\nin the war of 1870, like 180^{Acts.} This, however, is incorrect.\n\n452. In Parma, one of the most superb codices.\n\n473. Of the ninth and tenth centuries, a purple manuscript with gold\nlettering, said to have been written by the Empress Theodora. See under\nN. above, and note, p. 151.\n\n481, dated 7th May 835, is the earliest manuscript of the Greek New\nTestament bearing an exact date.\n\n531. Written in a microscopic hand.\n\n604. Written in the twelfth century, now in the British Museum, exhibits\n2724 variations from the Textus Receptus, and has besides 270 readings\npeculiar to itself. It is the only witness we know that supports that\npeculiar form of the second petition of the Lord\u2019s Prayer found in\nMarcion in the second century, and in Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth,\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03ac \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 (Luke xi.\n2).[77]\n\n743 has the double conclusion in Mark.\n\n1071. See under D, p. 66.\n\nIn his _Gospel according to St. Mark_, Swete cites frequently, in\naddition to those just mentioned and those of the Ferrar Group, 1, 28,\n33, 66, 109, 118, 131, 157, 209, 238, 242, 299, 435, 473, 475, 556, 570,\n736.\n\n\n                                 ACTS.\n\n\n2 and 4. Used by Erasmus.\n\n7-10. Used by Stephen.\n\n15, 83, 173. These, like \u05d0 in the Old Testament and H_{3}, were compared\nwith the Codex of Pamphilus\u2014_i.e._ were faithfully copied from such an\nexemplar.\n\n33. The parent manuscript of Montfortianus. See above, p. 86.\n\n42. Closely related to the Complutensian.\n\n52. Once in the possession of Stunica, the chief editor of the\nComplutensian. It has now disappeared.\n\n61 has been designated the most important minuscule of the Acts. This,\nhowever, is an exaggeration.\n\n137 supplements D E where these are defective.\n\n158. Used by Cardinal Mai to supply the defects of Codex B in the\nPauline Epistles.\n\n162. Of the fourteenth or fifteenth century, now in Rome: a bilingual in\nLatin and Greek: contains the passage 1 John v. 7.\n\n182. Numbered 110 by Hort, who calls it one of the best of the cursives.\n\n220. One of the finest manuscripts of the latter part of the New\nTestament.\n\n232. An equally superb copy, on which a monk called Andreas bestowed\nthree years\u2019 labour.\n\n246. Written in gold letters for Charlotte, Queen of Cyprus (d. 1487).\n\n419. Written in 800 by the Empress Maria, after being divorced by\nConstantine VI.\n\n\n                           PAULINE EPISTLES.\n\n\n7. Used by Erasmus.\n\n56 and 66 are quite worthless, being simply copies of Erasmus\u2019s printed\ntext. (See above under 61^{evv}).\n\n67. A valuable manuscript on account of its corrector having evidently\nmade use of an exemplar with a text very closely akin to that of B M.\n\n80 bears a close resemblance to 69^{evv}.\n\n\n                              APOCALYPSE.\n\n\n1. This was the only manuscript at Erasmus\u2019s command for this part of\nthe New Testament. It is defective in the last chapter from verse 16 to\nthe end. For the rest it exhibits a fairly good text. (See p. 3 f.)\n\n36. A text akin to \u05d0.\n\n38 has a text resembling that of A C.\n\n68. Resembles A.\n\n95 does so still more. This last has the reputation of being one of the\nbest minuscules of the Apocalypse.\n\nThe number of minuscules under each class is, according to Scrivener\n(Miller), as follows:\u2014\n\n                       Gospels,             1326\n\n                       Acts and Catholic     422\n                       Epistles,\n\n                       Pauline Epistles,     497\n\n                       Apocalypse,           184\n\n                                              \u2014\u2014\n\n                                            2429\n\nA great many New Testament manuscripts are in England. Some are in the\npossession of private individuals, like those at Parham Park in Sussex\nbelonging to Lord de la Zouche. In 1870-72 the Baroness Burdett Coutts\nbrought with her from Janina in Epirus over one hundred manuscripts, of\nwhich sixteen were of the Gospels, one of them belonging to the Ferrar\nGroup, and as many were Evangeliaria. There are 136 manuscripts of the\nNew Testament in the British Museum.\n\n                       The number in Great   438\n                       Britain is\n\n                       In the National       298\n                       Library of Paris,\n\n                       In Germany,           140\n\n                       In Italy,             644\n\nFor the total number of Greek manuscripts arranged according to\ncountries, see Scrivener, i., Indices I., II., pp. 392 ff.\n\nWhat a vast number of manuscripts are still waiting to be examined is\nshown by the account given by Dr. von der Goltz. Accompanied by Dr. G.\nWobbermin, he made a journey to Athos in the winter of 1897-98, and\nthere in that ancient Monastery, the Laura of St. Athanasius, he found,\namong about 1800 manuscripts altogether, including Lectionaries, some\n250 codices of the New Testament, of which only a very few have been\nnoted by Gregory. And these manuscripts may be of the very utmost\nimportance, as witness the further statement of the same explorer. He\nwas looking through the manuscripts of the Apostolos, to which he and\nhis companion had to give most of their attention, when his eye fell on\none written in the tenth or eleventh century, containing the following\nnote before the Pauline Epistles: \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5,\n\u03bf\u1f57 \u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f68\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f22 \u1f41\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd ... \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac, \u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f14\u03be\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74\n\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd \u1f22 \u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd. And\nfrom the subscription at the end of the Pauline Epistles we learn that\nthe manuscript, or, as von der Goltz believes, the exemplar from which\nit was copied, was written by a monk called Ephraim. See further in von\nder Goltz, _Eine textkritische Arbeit des zehnten bezw. sechsten\nJahrhunderts herausgegeben nach einem Kodex des Athosklosters Lawra. Mit\neiner Doppeltafel in Lichtdruck._ Leipzig, 1899. (Texte und\nUntersuchungen, Neue Folge, ii. 4); and compare below, p. 190.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014On 2^{evv}, see Hoskier, above, p. 5.\n\n    On 13, see W. H. Ferrar, _Collation of four important Manuscripts of\n    the Gospels_, edited by T. K. Abbott, Dublin, 1877. J. P. P. Martin,\n    _Quatre manuscrits du N. T., auxquels on peut ajouter un cinqui\u00e8me_,\n    Amiens, 1886. J. R. Harris, _On the Origin of the Ferrar Group_,\n    London, 1894. K. Lake, \u201cSome new members of the Ferrar Group of MSS.\n    of the Gospels,\u201d in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, I. i. pp.\n    117-120. The well-known manuscript of the pre-Lutheran German Bible,\n    the Codex Teplensis, has the words from John viii. 2, \u201cin the\n    morning he came again into the temple,\u201d after Luke xxi. 38, an\n    arrangement similar to that which is characteristic of the Ferrar\n    Group, in which John vii. 53-viii. 11 is found after Luke xxi. 38.\n    See S. Berger, _Bull. Crit._, 1894, p. 390. See _Addenda_, p. xv.\n\n    On 561, Codex Algerinae Peckover, see J. R. Harris in the _Journal\n    of the Exegetical Society_, 1886, 79-96.\n\n    On 892^{evv}, see Harris, \u201cAn Important Manuscript of the N. T.\u201d in\n    the _Journal of Biblical Literature_, ix., 1890, 31 ff.\n\n    On Minuscules of the Apocalypse, see Bousset, _Textkritische\n    Studien_ in _T. und U._, xi. 4.\n\n    C. R. Gregory, \u201cDie Kleinhandschriften des N. Testaments\u201d\n    (_Theologische Studien f\u00fcr B. Weiss._, G\u00f6ttingen, 1897, 274-283).\n\n    E. J. Goodspeed, \u201cA Twelfth Century Gospel Manuscript\u201d (_Biblical\n    World_, x. 4).\n\n\n                          (_c._) LECTIONARIES.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Lectionaries.]\n\nTill quite recently the Lectionaries, or Books of Church Pericopae, were\neven more neglected than the minuscules. And yet they are reliable\nwitnesses to the text of the Bible in the provinces to which they\nbelong, on account of their official character and because their\nlocality can be readily distinguished. The slight alterations of the\ntext occurring at the beginning of the pericopae, and consisting usually\nin the insertion of the subject of the sentence or of an introductory\nclause, are easily recognisable as such, and deceive no one. It is not\nalways easy to determine the date of such books, because the uncial hand\nwas employed in this sort of manuscript much longer than in the others.\nAmong the oldest, perhaps, is 135, a palimpsest (of which there is a\nconsiderable number among the Lectionaries), assigned by Tischendorf to\nthe seventh century, and 968, written on papyrus and ascribed to the\nsixth century, which was found in Egypt in the year 1890. When these\nLectionaries originated has not yet been clearly made out.[78] Up till\nthe present 980 Evangeliaria\u2014_i.e._ Lessons from the Gospels\u2014have been\ncatalogued, and 268 Apostoli or Praxapostoli\u2014_i.e._ Lessons from the\nActs and Epistles. Some of them are magnificently executed; some, alas,\nhave been sadly mutilated. 117, in Florence, is a very beautiful codex;\nand 162, in Siena, is perhaps \u201cone of the most splendid Service-books in\nthe world.\u201d 235 may have been written in part by the Emperor Alexius\nComnenus (1081-1118). 286 is the Golden Evangeliarium on Mount Sinai,\ndating from the ninth to the eleventh century, though the tradition of\nthe monks says that it was written by no less a personage than the\nEmperor Theodosius (d. 395). Tischendorf\u2019s 352-360 are now in the\nNational Library at Paris. 355 is printed in Omont\u2019s _Catalogue_ (see\nabove, p. 71). 45^{evl} is a fragment of black parchment inscribed with\ngold letters preserved at Vienna.[79] 40 is kept in the Escorial along\nwith the reliques of St. Chrysostom, and regarded as his autograph.[80]\nBilingual Lectionaries are also found, in Greek and Arabic for example.\nThe arrangement of these Service-books varies with the time and region\nin which they were composed. Several fragments which were formerly\nregarded as parts of manuscripts of the Gospels should perhaps be\nclassed among the Evangeliaria\u2014_e.g._ the solitary leaf of a Bible\nmanuscript W\u00fcrttemberg is known to possess, and the T\u00fcbingen Fragment,\nformerly classed among the uncials as R of the Gospels, but now\nenumerated as 481^{evl}. An important Syriac Lectionary will fall to be\nconsidered under the head of the Versions.\n\nFor further details, reference must be made to Scrivener, to _TiGr._,\nand now especially to Gregory, _Textkritik_, i. pp. 327-478.\n\n\n                              2. VERSIONS.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Versions.]\n\nOur second source of material for the reconstruction of the text of the\nNew Testament is the early Versions. The value of their testimony\ndepends on their age and fidelity. When did the first versions\noriginate? This question reminds us of the Inscription on the Cross, a\nportion of which is still exhibited in Rome. It was written in Hebrew,\nGreek, and Latin. But we may get further back still. Palestine at the\ntime of Christ was a country where the most diverse languages and\ndialects came into contact with each other. In the last century B.C. a\ntransformation had occurred, which might be regarded as a counterpart to\nthe supplanting of Norman French by English, or of Low by High German.\nAramaic had already taken the place of the old Hebrew, and after the\ntime of Alexander came the intrusion of Greek, and later still of Latin.\nSome of the disciples of Jesus bore old Hebrew names, like James\n(\u1f38\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2) and John (\u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2); others had names wholly or partly Aramaic,\nas Cephas (= Peter), the cognomen of Simon, and Bartholomew; while\nothers, again, had Greek names, as Philip (\u03a6\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2) and Andrew\n(\u1f08\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2). To the question what language Jesus Himself spoke, the most\nprobable answer is that it was Aramaic with a Galilean colouring. \u201cThou\nart a Galilean, thy speech bewrayeth thee,\u201d said the Jerusalem girl to\nPeter. The Galileans, like the Babylonians and the Samaritans, were\nrecognisable by their not distinguishing the gutturals so sharply as the\npure Jews did. At the same time, Jesus certainly understood the Hebrew\nof the Old Testament. But those words of His that have been preserved\nare Aramaic\u2014_talitha_, _abba_, and so is _sabaqtani_ in Matthew xxvii.\n46, and Mark xv. 34, if that is the original form of the text, and not\n_asabthani_, as a number of manuscripts show.\n\nIn what language, however, the first record of the preaching of the\nGospel was made, whether it was in the classic Hebrew of the Old\nTestament or in the Aramaic of the time, is still subject of\ndispute.[81] But as this question is of moment only for the original\nsources, and even then for only a certain part of the New Testament\u2014viz.\nthe Gospels\u2014it does not fall to be considered here. We have to do only\nwith those versions that are derived from the Greek, and again with\nthose of them only that are important for the criticism of the text,\nwhich are the oldest.\n\nThe versions which are of consequence here may be placed under three or\nfour heads.\n\n[Sidenote: East.]\n\nIn the East, Antioch, with its semi-Greek, semi-Syrian population, very\nearly became the centre of the new faith, which, indeed, obtained its\nname there, and must very soon have established itself in Damascus and\nMesopotamia. In that region the form of Aramaic now commonly known as\nSyriac was spoken.\n\n[Sidenote: West, South.]\n\nIn the West, Greek was mostly spoken and understood, even in Rome. Paul\nconsequently, and others as well as he, wrote to Rome in Greek. At the\nsame time, the need must have existed, even in the second century, of\nhaving the Gospel in the Latin language in parts of Africa, in the north\nof Italy, and in the South of Gaul. Quite as early, perhaps, the new\nfaith spread to Egypt, which at that time was a kind of centre of\nreligious culture, and so we find in Egypt not one but several versions\nin various dialects.\n\nThe Gothic version of Ulfilas deserves special mention as being the\noldest monument of Christianity among the Germanic people, and valuable\ntoo in the criticism of the text.\n\n    L. J. M. Bebb, _Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic\n    Quotations_, etc., in _Studia Biblica_, ii., Oxford, 1890. Lagarde,\n    _De Novo Testamento ad Versionum Orientalium fidem edendo_. Berlin\n    (1857); with slight alterations in his _Ges. Abhandlungen_, 1886,\n    pp. 84-119. Reprinted 1896. _Urtext_ (see p. 7). Copinger (see p.\n    6). An earlier bibliographical work is the _Bibliotheca Sacra post\n    ... Jacobi Le Long et C. F. Boerneri iteratas curas ordine\n    disposita, emendata, suppleta, continuata ab A. G. Masch_. Halle,\n    1778-90, 4to. _Pars I., De editionibus textus originalis. Pars II.,\n    De versionibus librorum sacrorum_ (3 Vols.). R. Simon, _Histoire\n    critique des versions du N. T._, 1690. _Nouvelles observations sur\n    le texte et les versions du N. T._, 1695.\n\n\n                        (_a._) SYRIAC VERSIONS.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Peshitto.]\n\nThe Bible used in the Syrian Church has long and deservedly borne the\nhonourable appellation of \u201cthe Queen of the Versions.\u201d It was first\npublished in 1555 at the expense of the Emperor Ferdinand I. by J.\nAlbert Widmanstadt with the assistance of a Syrian Jacobite called\nMoses, who came from Mardin as legate to Pope Julius III. The type for\nthis edition was beautifully cut by Caspar Kraft of Ellwangen. All the\nbranches into which the Syrian church was divided in the fifth century\nhave used the same translation of the Scriptures. To this day the Syriac\nNew Testament wants the five so-called Antilegomena\u2014viz. 2 Peter, 2 and\n3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse\u2014a sufficient proof that it goes back to\na time and a region in which these books were not yet reckoned in the\nCanon of the New Testament. In place of these it contained in early\ntimes an alleged Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, and an\nEpistle of the Corinthians to Paul (_cf._ below, p. 142). To distinguish\nit from other Syriac translations, this Version has been called by\nSyriac scholars, since the tenth century, the Peshi\u1e6dto\u2014_i.e._ the\n\u201cSimple\u201d or perhaps the \u201cCommon,\u201d which is sometimes pronounced Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n(\u05e4\u05b0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05d8\u05ea\u05b8\u05d0) and spelt simply =Peshitto=.\n\nWhen and where was this translation made? An ancient Syrian tradition\nasserts that it was done by the Apostle Thaddaeus, who came on a mission\nto Abgar Uchama\u2014_i.e._ Abgar the Black\u2014King of Edessa, after the death\nof Jesus, which mission, they say, arose out of a correspondence that\nAbgar had previously had with Jesus. Another tradition ascribes it to\nAggaeus (Aggai), the disciple of Thaddaeus, and it is even attributed to\nMark the Evangelist. It is also said that Luke was by birth a Syrian of\nAntioch, a tradition which may preserve an element of truth.\n\nThe earliest notice of a Syriac Gospel is found in Eusebius\u2019s\n_Ecclesiastical History_, iv. 22. That historian mentions that\nHegesippus (c. 160-180) quotes certain things from the Gospel of the\nHebrews\u2014_i.e._ of the Palestinian (?) Jewish Christians, and from the\nSyriac (_sc._ Gospel), and particularly from the Hebrew dialect, showing\nthat he himself was a convert from the Hebrews (\u1f14\u03ba \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u0390\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\n\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9). This can hardly be\nunderstood otherwise than as implying that a Syriac version was already\nin existence. Whether it contained all the four Gospels or only one of\nthem, or Tatian\u2019s Harmony of the Gospels, as Michaelis supposed and as\nZahn has recently shown some ground for believing, or whether it\ncontained a primitive Gospel, now perished, cannot be established with\ncertainty.\n\nFrom the middle of the present century manuscripts of this version have\nfound their way into European libraries in great numbers. Some of these\nare inestimable. At least ten date from the fifth, and thirty from the\nsixth century. This is somewhat remarkable when we remember how small a\nremnant of the Greek manuscripts has been preserved. G. H. Gwilliam is\nat present engaged on an edition of the Syriac Tetraevangelium for the\nUniversity of Oxford on the basis of forty manuscripts. The task might\nseem to be an easy one, considering that these Syriac manuscripts\ndisplay a far greater unanimity in their text than is found in any\nwritten in Greek. The difficulty in their case lies in another\ndirection.\n\n[Sidenote: Curetonian.]\n\nIn the year 1842 a Syriac manuscript containing considerable portions of\nthe Gospels was brought from Egypt and deposited in the British Museum.\nIt was afterwards published by Dr. Cureton in 1858 with the title\n\u201cRemains of a very antient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac\nhitherto unknown in Europe.\u201d Cureton himself thought he had discovered\nthe original of St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel in this version. While this was\neasily shown to be a mistake, the question as to the relationship\nbetween the Curetonian Syriac and the Peshitto, whether the two texts\nare independent of each other, or if not, which is the earlier and which\nthe recension, is not yet decided.\n\n[Sidenote: Lewis.]\n\nIt seemed as if the solution of the problem was in sight when fragments\nof a Syriac palimpsest were discovered on Mount Sinai in February 1892\nby Mrs. Lewis and her sister, Mrs. Gibson. These they perceived to be\npart of a very old manuscript of the Gospels, and Professor Bensly of\nCambridge recognised that their text was closely related to that of the\nCuretonian. (_See Plate V._) A second expedition was made to Sinai in\nthe spring of 1893, when the fragments were transcribed by Professor\nBensly, F. C. Burkitt, and J. R. Harris. As Bensly died three days after\ntheir return, the manuscript was published by the others in 1894, with\nan introduction by Mrs. Lewis. On a third visit to Sinai this lady\ncompleted the work of the triumvirate, and also published an English\ntranslation of the whole. How, then, is this Sinai-Syriac or\nLewis-Syriac, as it is called, related to the Curetonian and to the\nPeshitto? The problem becomes more complicated still by the introduction\nof a fourth factor, the most important of them all.\n\n[Sidenote: Tatian.]\n\nFrom early sources it was known that Tatian,[82] a Syrian and a pupil of\nJustin Martyr, composed a harmony of the Gospels called the\n=Diatessaron=\u2014_i.e._ \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, an expression which may\nbe taken either as referring to the four Gospels or as a musical term\nequivalent to _harmony_ or _chord_. This Harmony was in use among the\nSyrians till the fifth century. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, informs us\nthat he destroyed 200 copies of it in his semi-Syriac, semi-Greek\ndiocese.[83] About the same time Bishop Rabbulas of Edessa (407-435)\ninstructed his presbyters and deacons to see that all the churches\npossessed and read a copy of the Distinct Gospel\u2014_i.e._ not mixed or\nharmonised. The Lewis-Syriac bears this very title, _Gospel of the\nDistinct_ or _Divided_, which is found also as the title of Matthew\u2019s\nGospel in the Curetonian version. Tatian\u2019s Harmony has not yet been\ndiscovered in Syriac, but a Latin Harmony of the Gospels derived from it\nhas long been known, and in 1883 a Harmony in Arabic was published by\nCiasca which proves to be a translation from the Syriac made by Ibn\net-Tabib (d. 1043) or a recension of it. Again, in 1836 the Armenian\nversion of a Syriac Commentary by Ephraem of Edessa (d. 373) was\nprinted, and translated into Latin in 1876. [_Evangelii concordantis\nexpositio facta a S. Ephraemo doctore Syro. In Latinum translata a J. B.\nAucher, ed. G. Moesinger._ Venetiis.] Finally Theodor Zahn discovered in\nthe works of the Syriac writer Aphraates, who wrote between 337 and 345,\nquotations which must be derived from this Harmony of Tatian; and\nisolated quotations from Tatian are also found in later Syriac authors.\nAnd so the materials are provided for deciding the question whether or\nnot Tatian made use of an earlier Syriac version in the preparation of\nhis Harmony, and how T^{(atian)}, Syr^{cu(reton)}, Syr^{sin} and\nSyr^{sch(aaf)}[84] are related to each other. The most probable view\nperhaps is that T is the earliest form in which the Gospel came to\nSyria, that in Syr^{cu} and Syr^{sin} we have two attempts to exhibit T\nin the form of a version of the separate Gospels which were not\ngenerally accepted, while Syr^{sch} actually succeeded and passed into\ngeneral use.\n\nThe interest attaching to this question may be learned from the form in\nwhich the text of Matthew i. 16 is given in these witnesses. Syr^{sch}\nagrees exactly with our present Greek text, but Syr^{cu} presents a form\nwhich, when translated into Latin, reads, _Joseph cui desponsata virgo\nMaria genuit Jesum Christum_. Now, the only Greek manuscripts that\npresent a form corresponding to this are four minuscules, 346, 556, 624\nand 626, which differ in this respect even from the other members of the\nFerrar Group to which they belong. In these four manuscripts the verse\nreads, \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u1fa7 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1 (_sic_) \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u1f70\u03bc \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. In the Latin, however, this text is represented by a\nnumber of the oldest manuscripts, seven at least, one of which omits the\nword _virgo_, while two have _peperit_ instead of _genuit_, and \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd is omitted. But in Syr^{sin} we find: _Joseph: Joseph autem\ncui desponsata (erat) virgo Maria genuit Jesum Christum_. The passage is\nsimilarly cited in the recently published _Dialogue of Timotheus and\nAquila_,[85] along with two other forms, thus:\u2014\u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u1f7c\u03b2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f10\u03be \u1f27\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n\nThe exact wording of Tatian can no longer be determined, but it is\nevident that of these three forms in which the verse is found, only one\nor none can be the original. If we had no more than our oldest uncials\nor the great body of our minuscules to go by, no one could have the\nslightest suspicion that in our Greek text all is not in perfect order.\nBut here, in an old Syriac fragment from the far East, there suddenly\nappears a reading which is also found in Latin witnesses from the far\nWest, and which is confirmed by four solitary Greek manuscripts, written\nprobably in Calabria at the close of the Middle Ages. How are these\nfacts connected, and how do they stand to the other two readings, that\nof the common Greek text, and that of the Lewis-Syriac? The history of\nthe text of the New Testament presents many such problems.\n\n[Sidenote: Philoxenus-Polycarp.]\n\nBut Syrian scholars were not satisfied with those forms of the New\nTestament already mentioned. In the year of Alexander 819 (A.D.\n508),[86] a new and much more literal version was made from the Greek at\nthe desire of Xenaia (Philoxenus), Bishop of Mabug[87] (488-518), by his\nrural Bishop Polycarp. Part of this version was published in England by\nPococke in 1630\u2014viz. the four Epistles in the Antilegomena not included\nin the Peshitto, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Unfortunately this\nedition was prepared from a somewhat inaccurate manuscript, which is now\nin the Bodleian Library. The later European editions of the Syriac New\nTestament took the text of these Epistles from Pococke\u2019s edition, which\nwas also the one used for critical editions of the Greek text. In 1886\nIsaac H. Hall published a phototype edition of another manuscript of\nthis version (the Williams MS.), the property of a private gentleman in\nAmerica, and corrected from it the text of the Syriac New Testament\nissued by the American Bible Society. The other parts of this version\nhave not yet been found, but the same American scholar thought he\ndiscovered the Gospels in a ninth century manuscript belonging to the\nSyrian Protestant College in Beirut, and deposited in the Library of the\nUnion Theological Seminary in New York.[88] Bernstein thought he made\nthe same discovery in 1853 in a manuscript belonging to the Angelica\nLibrary in Florence.\n\n[Sidenote: Thomas of Heraclea.]\n\nOn the basis of four manuscripts sent from Diarbeker in 1736 to Dr.\nGloucester Ridley, Joseph White published, between 1778 and 1803,[89] a\nversion which he designated by the name of _Versio Philoxenia_, and\nwhich still passes under this title. But this so-called Philoxenian\nversion is not the identical version made for Philoxenus by Polycarp,\nbut a revision undertaken by Thomas of Heraclea (Charkel), in the year\n616-7. This revision was made at Alexandria with the object of making\nthe Syriac text represent the Greek as closely as possible, even to the\norder of the words and the insertion of the article. The critical\nsymbols used by Homeric commentators, the asterisk and the obelus, as\nwell as numerous marginal notes, were employed to indicate the various\nreadings found in the manuscripts. And it is very remarkable to observe\nthat there were manuscripts in Alexandria at the beginning of the\nseventh century which were regarded by Thomas of Harkel as particularly\nwell authenticated, but which deviate in a marked degree from the bulk\nof our present manuscripts, and which, especially in the Acts, agree\nalmost entirely with Codex D, which occupies so singular a position\namong Greek manuscripts. A new edition of the Syriac text is necessary\nbefore any further use can be made of it in the criticism of the New\nTestament. Mr. Deane set himself to this task, going on the basis of\nsixteen manuscripts in England alone, but unfortunately he was unable to\nbring it to a conclusion.\n\n[Sidenote: Apocalypse.]\n\nThe Apocalypse was first edited in 1627 by de Dieu at Leyden, from a\nmanuscript that had been in the possession of Scaliger. It is found in a\nfew other manuscripts, in one, _e.g._, that was transcribed about this\nsame time for Archbishop Ussher from a Maronite manuscript at Kenobin on\nMount Lebanon. It is not found in the Syriac New Testament, but the\nlater editions insert it from de Dieu. In Apoc. viii. 13, instead of \u201can\neagle in the midst of heaven\u201d (\u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9), the Syriac translator\ntook it as \u201cin the midst with a bloody tail\u201d (\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1, \u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1).\nAnother Syriac version, in which this error is avoided, was discovered\nin 1892 by J. Gwynn in a Codex belonging to Lord Crawford, and published\nby him as the first book printed in Syriac at the Dublin University\nPress. Still more interesting is it to know that in a manuscript, once\nthe property of Julius Mohl, and now in Cambridge, both the so-called\nEpistles of Clement are found after the Catholic Epistles. This\nmanuscript, part of which was published by Bensly in 1889 (see above, p.\n79), contains a note at the end to the effect that it was derived, so\nfar as the Pauline Epistles are concerned, from the copy of\nPamphilus.[90]\n\nAbout the same time and in the same region, Paul of Tella translated one\nof the best Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament into Syriac almost as\nliterally as Thomas of Harkel, thereby doing immense service in the\nconstruction of the Syriac Hexapla, a work of inestimable value for the\ntextual criticism of the Old Testament.\n\n[Sidenote: Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum.]\n\nMention may be made here of another Syriac version of the New Testament,\nthe so-called _Jerusalem_ or _Palestinian Syriac_ (Syr^{hr} or\nSyr^{hier}). This version, hitherto known almost solely from an\nEvangeliarium in the Vatican of the year 1030, was edited by Count\nMiniscalchi Erizzo at Verona in 1861-4, and an excellent edition was\npublished in 1892 in _Bibliothecae Syriacae a Paulo de Lagarde collectae\nquae ad philologiam sacram pertinent_. And now not only have two fresh\nmanuscripts of this Evangeliarium been discovered on Mount Sinai by J.\nR. Harris and Mrs. Lewis, and edited by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson, but\nfragments of the Acts and Pauline Epistles have also been found and\npublished, as well as portions of the Old Testament and other Church\nliterature.[91] The dialect in which these fragments are written is\nquite different from ordinary Syriac, and may, perhaps, bear a close\nresemblance to that in which Jesus spoke to His disciples. At what time\nand in what region this entire literature took its rise is not yet\ndetermined with certainty. The Greek text on which the Evangeliarium is\nbased has many peculiarities. In Matthew xxvii. 17, _e.g._, the robber\nis called Jesus Barabbas, or, rather, Jesus Barrabbas, a fact known to\nOrigen, but now recorded only in a few Greek minuscules by the first or\nsecond hand.\n\nWhat used to be called the Versio Karkaphensis or Montana is not really\na version, but merely the Massoretic work of a monastery school intended\nto preserve the proper spelling and pronunciation of the text of the\nBible.\n\nNo other branch of the Church has taken such pains as the Syrian,\nfaithfully to transmit and to circulate the Gospel. From the mountains\nof Lebanon and Kurdistan, from the plains of Mesopotamia and the coast\nof Malabar, and even from distant China there have come into the\nlibraries of Europe Syriac manuscripts of the utmost value for the\ntextual criticism of the New Testament.\n\n    LITERATURE on the Syriac Versions:\u2014\n\n    J. G. Christian Adler, _Novi Testamenti Versiones Syriacae, Simplex,\n    Philoxeniana, et Hierosolymitana. Denuo examinatae et ad fidem\n    codicum manu scriptorum ... novis observationibus atque tabulis aere\n    incisis illustratae._ Hafniae, pp. viii. 206. _With eight Plates._\n    1789, 4to. For the complete list of editions up to 1888, see my\n    _Litteratura Syriaca_ (Syr. Gr., 2nd edition, pp. 20 ff.). Appendix\n    thereto in _Urt._, 227 ff.; R. Duval, _La Litt\u00e9rature Syriaque_.\n    Paris, 1899, pp. 42-67; _TiGr._, 813-822; Scrivener, fourth edition,\n    ii. 6-40, with the help of Gwilliam and Deane; _The Printed Editions\n    of the Syriac New Testament_, in the _Church Quarterly Review_,\n    1888, July, 257-297; G. H. Gwilliam, in the _Studia Biblica et\n    Ecclesiastica_ (Oxford), ii. 1890, iii. 1891; F. C. Conybeare, _The\n    growth of the Peshitta Version of the New Testament_, in the\n    _American Journal of Theology_, 1897, iv. 883-912; Burkitt, in the\n    _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. (July 1900), 569 ff., referring\n    to his forthcoming edition of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, says\n    that he has had to go over the Gospel quotations of St. Ephraem, and\n    closes by saying, \u201cI confess that I am unconvinced that what we call\n    the New Testament Peshitta was in existence in St. Ephraem\u2019s day,\n    and I believe that we owe both its production and victorious\n    reception to the organizing energy of the Great Rabbula, Bishop of\n    Edessa from 411 to 435 A.D.\u201d\n\n    1. Till Gwilliam\u2019s edition of the Gospels appears, which has been\n    promised since 1891, the best edition will be the Editio Princeps of\n    Widmanstadt, 1555; then that of Leusden and Schaaf, _Novum Domini\n    nostri Jesu Christi Testamentum Syriacum cum versione latina cura et\n    studio J. Leusden et C. Schaaf editum. Ad omnes editiones diligenter\n    recensitum et variis lectionibus magno labore collectis adornatum._\n    Lugd. Bat., 1709, 4to. _Acc. Schaaf, Lexicon Syriacum\n    concordantiale._ The text reprinted by Jones at Oxford, 1805; the\n    editions of the London Bible Society, 1816 and 1826, and better\n    still, the Syriac and New-Syriac editions of the American Mission in\n    Urmia, 1846, and of the American Bible Society of New York, 1868,\n    1874, and frequently (with the Nestorian vocalisation). An edition\n    is promised from the Jesuit Press at Beyruth, _Nouveau Testament\n    Syriaque en petits caract\u00e8res, d\u2019apr\u00e8s plusieurs manuscrits anciens,\n    \u00e9d. par le P. L. Cheikho_.\n\n    The New Testament part of the Peshitto has been very much neglected\n    in the present century. On the O.T., investigations, chiefly in the\n    form of dissertations on most of the books, have been published,\n    establishing the relation of the Syriac to the Massoretic text, the\n    Septuagint, and the Targum. But almost nothing of this sort has been\n    done for the N.T., at least in Germany, since the time of Michaelis\n    and L\u00f6hlein. The question has never once been taken up how many\n    translators\u2019 hands can be distinguished in the N.T.\n\n    J. D. Michaelis, _Curae in Versionem Syriacam Act. Apost. cum\n    consectariis criticis de indole, cognationibus et usu versionis\n    Syriacae tabularum Novi Foederis_. G\u00f6ttingen, 1755. C. L. E.\n    L\u00f6hlein, _Syrus Epistolae ad Ephesios interpres in causa critica\n    denuo examinatus_, Erlangen, 1835.\n\n    2. Cureton\u2019s _Remains_ (1858) is now out of print. Till Burkitt\u2019s\n    new edition appears its place will be taken by Baethgen\u2019s\n    Retranslation into Greek (_Evangelienfragmente. Der griechische Text\n    des Curetonschen Syrers wiederhergestellt_, Leipzig, 1885); and more\n    especially by Albert Bonus\u2019s _Collatio codicis Lewisiani rescripti\n    evangeliorum Syriacorum cum codice Curetoniano_, Oxford, 1896; and\n    by Carl Holzhey\u2019s _Der neuentdeckte Codex Sinaiticus untersucht. Mit\n    einem vollst\u00e4ndigen Verzeichnis der Varianten des Codex Sinaiticus\n    und Codex Curetonianus_, Munich, 1896. See A. Bonus, _The Sinaitic\n    Palimpsest and the Curetonian Syriac_, in the _Expository Times_,\n    May 1895, p. 380 ff. The publications of T. R. Crowfoot, _Fragmenta\n    Evangelica, Pars I., II._, 1870, 1872, and _Observations on the\n    Collations in Greek of Cureton\u2019s Syriac Fragments_, 1872, contain\n    useful material, but there are a good many mistakes.\n\n    3. The Editio Princeps of the Lewis text is, of course, that of\n    Bensly, Harris, and Burkitt, _The Four Gospels in Syriac,\n    transcribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest ..._ Cambridge, 1894. To\n    this must be added its complement by Mrs. Lewis, _Some Pages of the\n    Four Gospels retranscribed_ (with or without an English\n    translation), London, 1896; further, _Last Gleanings from the Sinai\n    Palimpsest_, _Expositor_, Aug. 1897, pp. 111-119; also, _An Omission\n    from the Text of the Sinai Palimpsest_, _Expositor_, Dec. 1897, p.\n    472. On the discovery of the manuscript, see Mrs. Gibson, _How the\n    Codex was found, ..._ Cambridge, 1893, and Mrs. Lewis, _In the\n    shadow of Sinai, ..._ Cambridge, 1898; also Mrs. Bensly, _Our\n    Journey to Sinai, ... With a chapter on the Sinai Palimpsest_.\n    London, 1896. See also Mrs. Lewis, _The Earlier Home of the Sinaitic\n    Palimpsest_, _Expositor_, June 1900, pp. 415-421. The text has been\n    translated into German by Adalbert Merx, who has added a brief but\n    valuable critical discussion. Berlin (Reimer), 1897. The second\n    part, comprising the commentary, has not yet appeared. See also\n    Gwilliam\u2019s notice of the editio princeps in the _Expository Times_,\n    Jan. 1895, p. 157 ff.\n\n    4. On Tatian, the latest and best is Zahn, _Evangelienharmonie_,\n    PRE^3, v. (1898), 653 ff.; also his _Forschungen_, i. (1881),\n    _Tatian\u2019s Diatessaron_, ii. p. 286 ff. (1883), iv. (1891); _Gesch.\n    des Kanons_, i. 387-414, ii. 530-556. J. H. Hill, _The earliest Life\n    of Christ ever compiled from the Four Gospels, being the Diatessaron\n    of Tatian_ (c. A.D. 160), _literally translated from the Arabic\n    Version_. Edinburgh, 1893. J. R. Harris, _The Diatessaron of Tatian,\n    a Preliminary Study_. Cambridge, 1890. _The Diatessaron, a Reply_,\n    in the _Contemporary Review_, Aug. 1895, in answer to W. R. Cassels,\n    in the _Nineteenth Century_, April 1895; also by the same writer,\n    _Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus upon the Diatessaron_.\n    London, 1895.... J. H. Hill, _A Dissertation on the Gospel\n    Commentary of S. Ephrem the Syrian ..._ Edinburgh, 1896. J. A.\n    Robinson, _Tatian\u2019s Diatessaron and a Dutch Harmony_, in the\n    _Academy_, 24th March 1894. Hope W. Hogg, _The Diatessaron of\n    Tatian, with introduction and translation_, in the _Ante-Nicene\n    Library. Additional Volume ..._ edited by Allan Menzies. Edinburgh,\n    1897, pp. 33-138. W. Elliott, _Tatian\u2019s Diatessaron and the Modern\n    Critics_. Plymouth, 1888. I. H. Hall, _A Pair of Citations from the\n    Diatessaron_, in the _Journal of Biblical Literature_, x. 2 (1891),\n    153-155. J. Goussen, _Pauca Fragmenta genuina Diatessaroniana_,\n    appended to the _Apocalypsis S. Joannis Versio Sahidica_, 1895. See\n    also B\u00e4umer in the _Literarischer Handweiser_, 1890, 153-169; the\n    article _Tatian_ in the _Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica_, and Hastings\u2019\n    _Bible Dictionary_, vol. ii. p. 697 f.\n\n    5. On the later Syriac versions, see _Urt._, 228, 236 f.; Gwynn,\n    _The older Syriac Version of the four Minor Catholic Epistles_,\n    _Hermathena_, No. xvi. (vol. vii.), 1890, 281-314. Merx, _Die in der\n    Peschito fehlenden Briefe des Neuen Testamentes in arabischer der\n    Philoxeniana entstammender Uebersetzung ..._ _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n    Assyriologie_, xii. 240 ff., 348 ff., xiii. 1-28. Bensly, _The\n    Harklean Version of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ..._ Cambridge,\n    1889. In this edition will be found the subscription mentioned\n    above, connecting the manuscript with that of Pamphilus. See\n    _Addenda_, p. xv.\n\n    6. On the Jerusalem Evangeliarium, see _Urt._, 228, 237. Zahn,\n    _Forschungen_, i. 329 ff. Lagarde, _Mitteilungen_, i. 111, iv. 328,\n    340. A. de Lagarde, _Erinnerungen an P. de Lagarde_, p. 112 ff.\n    Lewis and Gibson, _The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels\n    re-edited from two Sinai MSS. and from P. de Lagarde\u2019s edition of\n    the Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum_, London, 1899. The Lectionary\n    published in the _Studia Sinaitica_, vi., contains, in the N.T.,\n    passages from Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Ephes., Philip.,\n    Col., 1 Thess., 1 and 2 Tim., Heb., James. See notice in the\n    _Expository Times_, Jan. 1898, p. 190 ff. _The Liturgy of the Nile_,\n    published by G. Margoliouth, 1896 (_Journal of the Royal Asiatic\n    Society_, Oct. 1896, 677-731, and also published separately),\n    contains Acts xvi. 16-34. See also Woods, _The New Syriac Fragments_\n    in the _Expository Times_, Nov. 1893.\n\n\n                         (_b._) LATIN VERSIONS.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Jerome.]\n\nThe name most closely associated with the Latin Versions of the New\nTestament is that of =Jerome= (Hieronymus). This scholar was born at\nStridon, on the borders of Dalmatia,[92] about the year 345, and\neducated at Rome. After leading for some time a hermit life in\nPalestine, Jerome returned to Rome, and it was during his residence\nthere, in the year 382, that he was urged by Pope Damasus to undertake a\nrevision of the Latin version of the New Testament then in use. This he\ndid, and in 383 sent the Pope, who died in the following year, the first\ninstalment of the work, the Four Gospels, accompanied with a letter\nbeginning thus:\u2014\u201cThou compellest me to make a new work out of an old;\nafter so many copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed throughout\nthe whole world, I am now to occupy the seat of the arbiter, as it were,\nand seeing they disagree, to decide which of them accords with the truth\nof the Greek; a pious task, verily, yet a perilous presumption, to pass\njudgment on others and oneself to be judged by all.\u201d He anticipates that\neveryone, no matter who, learned or ignorant, that takes up a Bible and\nfinds a discrepancy between it and the usual text will straightway\ncondemn him as an impious falsifier who presumed to add to or alter or\ncorrect the ancient Scriptures. But he comforts himself with the\nreflection that it is the High Pontiff himself that has laid this task\nupon him, and that the testimony of his jealous opponents themselves\nproves that discrepancies are an indication of error (verum non esse\nquod variat, etiam maledicorum testimonio comprobatur); for if they tell\nus we are to rest our faith on the Latin exemplars, they must first say\nwhich, because there are almost as many versions as manuscripts (tot\nenim sunt exemplaria paene quot codices); if it is to be the majority of\nthese, why not rather go back to the Greek original which has been badly\nrendered by incompetent translators (a vitiosis interpretibus male\nedita), made worse instead of better by the presumption of unskilful\ncorrectors (a praesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius), and added\nto or altered by sleepy scribes (a librariis dormitantibus aut addita\nsunt aut mutata). In a letter to his learned friend Marcella, written in\nthe year 384, he gives instances of what he complains of, citing,\n_e.g._, Romans xii. 11, where _tempori servientes_ had hitherto been\nread instead of _domino servientes_ (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff7 instead of \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3), and 1 Tim.\nv. 19, \u201cagainst an elder receive not an accusation,\u201d where the\nqualifying clause, \u201cexcept before two or three witnesses,\u201d was dropped,\nand also 1 Tim. i. 15, iii. 1, where _humanus sermo_ was given in place\nof _fidelis_. In all three instances, our most recent critical editions\ndecide in favour of Jerome, against the Old Latin Version. In the last\ninstance cited, we know of only one Latin-Greek manuscript that has\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 instead of \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, and that only in c. iii. 1, viz. D*.\nJerome accordingly issued an improved version of the New Testament,\nbeginning with the Gospels. For this purpose he made a careful\ncomparison of old Greek manuscripts (codicum Graecorum emendata\nconlatione sed veterum). In his version he was also careful only to make\nan alteration when a real change of meaning was necessary, retaining in\nall other cases the familiar Latin wording. The Gospels were in the\norder which has been the prevailing one since his day\u2014Matthew, Mark,\nLuke, John.\n\n[Sidenote: Augustine.]\n\nWe learn from the great Church Teacher AUGUSTINE, who lived in Africa\nabout the same time (354-430), that there was an endless variety and\nmultitude of translators (latinorum interpretum infinita varietas,\ninterpretum numerositas). He tells us that while it was possible to\ncount the number of those who had translated the Bible\u2014_i.e._ the Old\nTestament\u2014from Hebrew into Greek, the Latin translators were\ninnumerable; that in the early age of the Christian faith (primis fidei\ntemporibus), no sooner did anyone gain possession of a Greek Codex, and\nbelieve himself to have any knowledge of both languages, than he made\nbold to translate it (ausus est interpretari). [Sidenote: Itala.] The\nadvice he himself gives is to prefer the _Italic_ version to the others,\nas being the most faithful and intelligible (in ipsis autem\ninterpretationibus Itala praeferatur; nam est verborum tenacior cum\nperspicuitate sententiae. _De Doctrina Christiana_, ii. 14, 15).\n[Sidenote: Vulgate.] On the ground of this passage, the pre-Jeromic\nversions have been comprehended under the title of the =Itala=, as\ndistinguished from Jerome\u2019s own work, which is called the =Vulgate=,\nseeing that it became the prevailing text in the Church of the Middle\nAges. By the Itala, Augustine himself, however, must have referred to a\nparticular version, and, according to the usage of that time, the word\ncannot mean anything else than a version originating in or prevalent in\nItaly\u2014_i.e._ the North of Italy, what is called Lombardy. It is not\ndifficult to understand how it came to pass that Augustine used such a\nversion in Africa, seeing that he was a pupil of Ambrose, Bishop of\nMilan. In recent times Burkitt has revived the opinion that by Itala\nAugustine means neither more nor less than Jerome\u2019s Revision of the\nGospels. He demonstrates that Augustine\u2019s _De Consensu_, written about\nthe year 400, is based on Jerome\u2019s revised text. In this, Zahn[93]\nagrees with him on grounds that admit of no question so far as this\npoint is concerned. But Wordsworth-White[94] will not admit the\ninference that Augustine must have meant this Revision when he spoke of\nItala in the year 397, seeing that in his letter to Jerome,[95] written\nin 403, he thanks God for the interpretation of the Gospel, \u201cquasi de\nopere recenter cognito,\u201d while in his earlier letters to Jerome[96] he\nmakes no mention of it: \u201cquod mirandum esset si in opere ante sex annos\npublici iuris facto eam collaudasset.\u201d[97]\n\n(1.) LATIN VERSIONS BEFORE JEROME.\n\n[Sidenote: Old Latin Texts.]\n\nWhere, when, and by whom was the New Testament, or at least were parts\nof it, first translated into Latin? From the passage in Augustine quoted\nabove, we learn that it was done by all and sundry in the very earliest\ntimes of the Christian faith. Rome used to be regarded as the place\nwhere the Latin versions took their rise. But it was observed that Greek\nwas very commonly employed as the written language at Rome, especially\namong Christians. The first Bishops of Rome have pure Greek names, and\neven the first representative of the Roman Church with a Latin name, the\nClement that wrote the Epistle to the Corinthians about the year 95,\neven he wrote in Greek. Moreover, when the relics of the Old Latin\nBibles began to be examined, it was observed that their language, both\nin vocabulary and grammar, entirely agreed with that found in African\nwriters of that age, and in some things agreed with these alone.\n[Sidenote: African Latin.] It is, of course, a fact that the majority of\nthe writers of that age known to us are African. Till quite recently,\ntherefore, it was held to be tolerably well made out that the birthplace\nof the Latin Bible is to be found in Africa. It was regarded by many as\nequally certain, that in spite of the statements of Jerome and\nAugustine, and in spite too of the various forms in which the Old Latin\nBible now exists, these all proceed from a common origin, or at most\nfrom two sources, so that it was not quite correct to speak of a\n\u201cmultitude of translators\u201d in the very earliest times. The settlement of\nthis question is rendered more difficult by the fact that, while the\nextant copies of the pre-Jeromic Bible are undoubtedly very early, they\nare few in number, and for the most part mutilated. The reason of this\nis not far to seek. For, as time went on and Jerome\u2019s new version came\nto be more and more exclusively used, manuscripts of the earlier version\nlost their value, and were the more frequently used for palimpsests and\nbook covers. One has also to take into account how liable the text of\nboth was to be corrupted, either by the copyist of an Old Latin Bible\ninserting in the margin, or even interpolating in the text, various\npassages from Jerome\u2019s translation that seemed to him to be a decided\nimprovement, or conversely, by the scribe who should have written the\nnew rendering involuntarily permitting familiar expressions to creep in\nfrom the old. It is estimated that we have about 8000 manuscripts of\nJerome\u2019s recension, of which 2228 have been catalogued by Gregory.\nSamuel Berger, the most thorough investigator in this field, examined\n800 manuscripts in Paris alone. But on the other hand, only 38\nmanuscripts of the Old Latin Version of the New Testament are known to\nexist. The credit of collecting the relics of these pre-Jeromic versions\nof the Old and New Testament, so far as they were accessible at that\ntime, belongs to Peter Sabatier the Maurist (Rheims, 1743, 3 vols.\nfolio).\n\nIn critical editions of the New Testament the manuscripts of the\npre-Jeromic versions are indicated by the small letters of the Roman\nalphabet. They are the following:\u2014\n\n\n1. GOSPELS.\n\n\na. Vercellensis: according to a tradition recorded in a document of the\neighth century this manuscript was written by Eusebius, Bishop of\nVercelli, who died in the year 370 or 371. Recent scholars, however,\ndate it somewhat later. It is written on purple with silver letters. The\norder of the Gospels is that found in most of these Old Latin MSS.\u2014viz.\nMatthew, John, Luke, Mark. The manuscript is defective in several\nplaces.\n\n    The codex was edited by Irico in 1748, and by Bianchini in 1749\n    along with some of the others in his Evangeliarium Quadruplex. This\n    latter edition was reprinted, with some inaccuracies, in Migne\u2019s\n    _Patrologia Latina_, vol. xii. The manuscript was again edited by\n    Belsheim; _Codex Vercellensis. Quatuor Evangelia ante Hieronymum\n    latine translata ex reliquiis Codicis Vercellensis, saeculo ut\n    videtur quarto scripti, et ex Editione Iriciana principe denuo\n    ededit_ (sic) _Jo. Belsheim._ Christiania, 1894.\n\nb. Veronensis: of the fourth or fifth century, also written with silver\non purple. In this Codex, John vii. 44-viii. 12 has been erased. The\nmanuscript is defective.\n\n    Edited by Bianchini (see above). A Spagnolo, _L\u2019Evangeliario\n    Purpureo Veronese_. Nota (Torino, 1899. Estratta dagli Atti dell\u2019\n    Accademia Reale delle Scienze di Torino).\n\nc. Colbertinus: in Paris, written in the twelfth century, but still\ncontaining the Old Latin text in the Gospels, though exhibiting Jerome\u2019s\nversion in other parts.\n\n    Edited by Sabatier, and again by Belsheim; _Codex Colbertinus\n    Parisiensis. Quatuor Evangelia ante Hieronymum latine translata post\n    editionem Petri Sabatier cum ipso codice collatam denuo edidit Jo.\n    Belsheim._ Christiania, 1888.\n\nd. The Latin part of Codex D; see p. 64 ff.\n\ne. Palatinus: of the fourth or fifth century, written like a b f i j on\npurple with gold and silver letters: now in Vienna, with one leaf in\nDublin.\n\n    Two other fragments were published in 1893 by Hugo Linke from a\n    transcript made for Bianchini in 1762. The entire codex was edited\n    by Belsheim, Christiania, 1896. See von Dobsch\u00fctz in the _LCbl._,\n    1896, 28.\n\nf. Brixianus, of the sixth century, in Brescia. In their new edition of\nthe Vulgate, Wordsworth and White printed the text of this manuscript\nunderneath that of Jerome for comparison\u2019s sake as probably containing\nthe text most nearly resembling that on which Jerome based his\nrecension. But see Burkitt\u2019s Note in the _Journal of Theological\nStudies_, I. i. (Oct. 1899), 129-134, and the note to p. 139 in\n_Addenda_.\n\nff_{1}. Corbeiensis I., contains the Gospel according to Matthew alone.\nThe manuscript formerly belonged to the Monastery of Corbey, near\nAmiens, and with others was transferred to St. Petersburg during the\nFrench Revolution.\n\nff_{2}. Corbeiensis II., written in the sixth century and now in Paris:\ncontains the Gospels with several lacun\u00e6.\n\n    On Belsheim\u2019s editions of ff_{1} and ff_{2} (1881 and 1887), see E.\n    Ranke in the _ThLz._, 1887, col. 566, and S. Berger, _Bull. Crit._,\n    1891, 302 f.\n\ng_{1}. Sangermanensis I., of the ninth century, in Paris, exhibits a\nmixed text. The manuscript was used by Stephen for his Latin Bible of\n1538.\n\ng_{2}. Sangermanensis II., written in an Irish hand of the tenth\ncentury, has a mixed text: in Paris (Lat. 13069).\n\nh. Claromontanus, of the fourth or fifth century, now in the Vatican:\nhas the Old Latin text in Matthew only. The manuscript is defective at\nthe beginning down to Matt. iii. 15 and also from Matt. xiv. 33-xviii.\n12.\n\n    Edited by Mai in his _Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio_, iii.\n    257-288, and by Belsheim, Christiania, 1892.\n\ni. Vindobonensis, of the seventh century, contains fragments of Luke and\nMark written on purple with silver and gold.\n\n    Edited by Belsheim, _Codex Vindobonensis membranaceus purpureus ...\n    antiquissimae evangeliorum Lucae et Marci translationis Latinae\n    fragmenta edidit Jo. Belsheim_. Lipsiae, 1885 (cum tabula).\n\nj (z in _TiGr._). Saretianus or Sarzannensis, of the fifth century,\ncontains 292 verses from John written on purple. The manuscript was\ndiscovered in 1872 in the Church of Sarezzano, near Tortona, and is not\nyet completely edited.\n\n    Compare G. Amelli, _Un antichissimo codice biblico Latino purpureo\n    conservato nella chiesa di Sarezzano presso Tortona_. Milan, 1872.\n\nk. Bobiensis, of the fifth century, is perhaps the most important of the\nOld Latin manuscripts, but unfortunately contains only fragments of\nMatthew and Mark. It is said to have belonged to St. Columban, the\nfounder of the monastery of Bobbio, who died in the year 615. It is now\npreserved at Turin. See Burkitt on Mark xv. 34 in Codex Bobiensis in the\n_Journal of Theological Studies_, i. 2 (Jan. 1900), p. 278 f.\n\nl. Rehdigeranus, in Breslau, purchased in Venice by Thomas von Rehdiger\nin 1569. Matthew i. 1-ii. 15 and a good deal of John wanting.\n\n    Edited by H. Fr. Haase, Breslau, 1865, 1866: _Evangeliorum quattuor\n    vetus latina interpretatio ex codice Rehdigerano nunc primum edita_.\n\nm. Does not represent any particular manuscript and should properly be\nomitted here. It indicates the _Liber de divinis scripturis sive\nSpeculum_, a work mistakenly ascribed to Augustine, consisting of a\ncollection of proof-passages (testimonia) from the Old and New\nTestaments. All the books of the latter are made use of except Philemon,\nHebrews, and 3 John, but the Epistle to the Laodic\u00e6ans is cited among\nthe number.\n\n    _Fragmenta Novi Testamenti in translatione latina antehieronymiana\n    ex libro qui vocatur Speculum eruit et ordine librorum Novi\n    Testamenti exposuit J. Belsheim._ Christiania, 1899.\n\nn o p. Are fragments at St. Gall: published in the Old Latin Biblical\nTexts, see below, p. 131 f.\n\nn. Written in the fifth or sixth century, has probably been in the\nLibrary at St. Gall since its foundation. It contains portions of\nMatthew and Mark, with John xix. 13-42.\n\no. Written in the seventh century, possibly to take the place of the\nlast leaf of n, which is wanting, contains Mark xvi. 14-20.\n\np. Two leaves of an Irish missal written in the seventh or eighth\ncentury.\n\na_{2}. Is part of the same manuscript as n. It consists of a leaf\ncontaining Luke xi. 11-29 and xiii. 16-34. It was found in the Episcopal\narchives at Chur, and is preserved in the Rh\u00e6tisches Museum there.\n\nq. Monacensis, written in the sixth or seventh century, came originally\nfrom Freising. Published in the Old Latin Biblical Texts.\n\nr or r_{1} and r_{2}. Usserianus I. and II., are both in Dublin. The\nformer is written in an Irish hand of the seventh century, and has\nseveral lacun\u00e6. r_{2} belongs to the ninth or tenth century and has an\nOld Latin text in Matthew resembling that of r_{1}. It shows affinity\nwith Jerome\u2019s text in Mark, Luke, and John, of which, however, only five\nleaves remain.\n\n    Edited by T. K. Abbott, _Evangeliorum versio antehieronymiana ex\n    codice Usseriano (Dublinensi), adjecta collatione codicis Usseriani\n    alterius. Accedit versio Vulgata...._ Dublin, 1884, 2 Parts.\n\ns. Four leaves with portions of Luke, written in the sixth century. The\nfragments came originally from Bobbio, and are now in the Ambrosian\nLibrary at Milan. Published in the Old Latin Biblical Texts.\n\nt. A palimpsest very difficult to decipher, containing portions of the\nfirst three chapters of Mark, written in the fifth century, and now at\nBerne. Published in the Old Latin Biblical Texts.\n\nv. Bound in the cover of a volume at Vienna entitled, _Pactus Legis\nRipuari\u00e6_: exhibits John xix. 27-xx. 11. Published in the Old Latin\nBiblical Texts.\n\naur. Aureus or Holmiensis, written in the seventh or eighth century,\nexhibits the Gospels entire, with the exception of Luke xxi. 8-30. An\ninscription in old English states that the manuscript was purchased from\nthe heathen (the Danes?) by Alfred the Alderman for Christ Church,\nCanterbury, when Alfred was King and Ethelred Archbishop (871-889). It\nwas afterwards in Madrid, and is now at Stockholm. It is really a\nVulgate text with an admixture of Old Latin readings. Published by\nBelsheim in 1878.\n\n\u03b4. Is the interlinear Latin version of \u0394 (see p. 72), and is interesting\non account of its alternative readings given in almost every verse\u2014e.g.\n_uxorem vel conjugem_ for \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1, Matt. i. 20. Compare Harris, _The\nCodex Sangallensis_, Cambridge, 1891.\n\n    On the Prolegomena found in many Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts\n    of the Gospels, see Peter Corssen, _Monarchianische Prologe zu den\n    vier Evangelien_. Leipzig, 1896 (_TU._, xv. 1). This has been\n    supplemented by von Dobsch\u00fctz\u2019s _Prolog zur Apostelgeschichte_. See\n    also J\u00fclicher in the _GGA._, 1896, xi. 841-851. J. S. in the _Revue\n    Critique_, 1897, vii. 135 f. H. Holtzmann in the _Th. Lz._, 1897,\n    xii. col. 231 ff. A. Hilgenfeld, _Altchristliche Prolegomena zu den\n    Evangelien_ in the _ZfwTh._, 1897, iii. 432-444.\n\n\n2. ACTS.\n\n\nd m As for the Gospels.\n\ne. The Latin text of E. See above, p. 75.\n\ng. Gigas Holmiensis, the immense manuscript of the entire Latin Bible\npreserved at Stockholm. The text is Old Latin only in the Acts and\nApocalypse, the rest of the New Testament exhibiting Jerome\u2019s version.\nThe manuscript was brought to Sweden from Prague as a prize of war in\n1648, along with the Codex Argenteus.\n\n    The Acts and Apocalypse were edited by Belsheim, Christiania, 1879.\n    On this see O. v. Gebhardt in the _ThLz._, 1880, col. 185. A new\n    collation of this manuscript was made for W.-W. by H. Karlsson in\n    1891.\n\ng_{2}. In Milan, is part of a Lectionary written in the tenth or\neleventh century, and contains the pericope for St. Stephen\u2019s day, Acts\nvi. 8-vii. 2, vii. 51-viii. 4.\n\n    Published by Ceriani in his _Monumenta Sacra et Profana_, i. 2, pp.\n    127, 128. Milan, 1866.\n\nh. Floriacensis, a palimpsest formerly belonging to the Abbey of Fleury\non the Loire, and now in Paris, written probably in the seventh century.\nIt contains fragments of the Apocalypse, Acts, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1\nJohn, in this order. (Tischendorf\u2019s reg.: Blass\u2019s f.)\n\n    The latest and best edition is that of S. Berger: _Le Palimpseste de\n    Fleury_. Paris, 1889.\n\np_{2}, written in the thirteenth century, exhibits a text with an\nadmixture of Old Latin readings in the Acts only. The manuscript came\noriginally from Perpignan, and is now in Paris, No. 321. It was used by\nBlass.\n\n    Published by Berger: _Un ancien texte latin des Actes des Ap\u00f4tres_,\n    etc. Paris, 1895. See von Dobsch\u00fctz in the _ThLz._, 1896, 4;\n    Haussleiter in the _Th. Lbl._, no. 9; Schmiedel in the _L. Cbl._,\n    no. 33; E. Beurlier, _Bull. Crit._, 1896, 32, p. 623.\n\ns_{2}. Bobiensis, a palimpsest of the fifth or sixth century at Vienna,\ncontaining fragments of Acts xxiii., xxv.-xxviii., and of James and 1\nPeter.\n\nx_{1}. Written in the seventh or eighth century, contains the Acts with\nthe exception of xiv. 26-xv. 32. The manuscript is preserved at Oxford\nand is not completely published.\n\nw. Is the symbol given by Blass to a paper manuscript of the New\nTestament written, it seems, in Bohemia in the fifteenth century, and\nnow at Wernigerode. In the main it exhibits Jerome\u2019s text even to a\ngreater extent than p, but preserves elements of the Old Latin,\nparticularly in the latter half of the Acts. The mixture is similar to\nthat observed in the Proven\u00e7al New Testament,[98] which is derived from\na Latin manuscript of this nature, and to that in the pre-Lutheran\nGerman Bible. (See _Urt._, p. 127 f.)\n\n    On Acts, see especially P. Corssen, _Der Cyprianische Text der Acta\n    Apostolorum_. Berlin, 1892.\n\n\n3. CATHOLIC EPISTLES.\n\n\nh m s. As above.\n\nff. Corbeiensis, at St. Petersburg, of the tenth century, contains the\nEpistle of James.\n\n    Edited by Belsheim in the _Theologisk Tidsskrift for den\n    evangelisk-lutherske Kirke i Norge_ (N.S. Vol. ix. Part 2); also by\n    J. Wordsworth, _The Corbey St. James_, etc., in _Studia Biblica_, i.\n    pp. 113-150. Oxford, 1885.\n\nq. Written in the seventh century, and preserved at Munich, contains\nfragments of 1 John, and of 1 and 2 Peter. The text exhibits the passage\nof the Three Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John v., but verse 7 follows verse\n8.\n\n    Published by Ziegler in 1877, _Bruchst\u00fccke einer\n    vorhieronymianischen Uebersetzung der Petrusbriefe_.\n\n\n4. PAULINE EPISTLES.\n\n\nm. As for the Gospels.\n\nd e f g. The Latin versions of the Greek Codices D E F G.\n\ngue. Guelferbytanus, of the sixth century, contains fragments of Romans\ncc. xi.-xv., found in the Gothic palimpsest at Wolfenb\u00fcttel. See p. 69.\n\n    Published by Tischendorf in his _Anecdota Sacra et Profana_, 1855,\n    pp. 153-158. See Burkitt, in the _Journal of Theological Studies_,\n    i. 1 (Oct. 1899), p. 134, and compare the note to p. 139 in the\n    _Addenda_, p. xv.\n\nr. Written in the fifth or sixth century, came originally from Freising,\nand is now at Munich: contains portions of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians,\nGalatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, and Hebrews.\n\n    Ziegler, _Italafragmente der paulinischen Briefe_. Marburg, 1876.\n    W\u00f6lfflin, _Neue Bruchst\u00fccke der Freisinger Itala_ (M\u00fcnchener\n    Sitzungsberichte, 1893, ii. 253-280).\n\nr_{2}. Also at Munich, a single leaf, with part of Phil. iv. and of 1\nThess. i.\n\nr_{3}. In the Benedictine Abbey of G\u00f6ttweih on the Danube: fragments of\nRomans v. and vi. and of Galatians iv. and v., written on leaves used as\na book cover.\n\n    Published by R\u00f6nsch in the _ZfwTh._, xxii. (1879), pp. 234-238.\n\nx_{2}. At Oxford, of the ninth century, contains the Pauline Epistles:\ndefective from Heb. xi. 34-xiii. 25.\n\n    See also Fr. Zimmer, _Der Galaterbrief im altlateinischen Text, als\n    Grundlage f\u00fcr einen textkritischen Apparat der Vetus Latina_ in the\n    _Theologische Studien und Skizzen aus Ostpreussen_. K\u00f6nigsberg, i.\n    (1887), pp. 1-81.\n\n\n5. APOCALYPSE.\n\n\nThe only manuscripts are m as for the Gospels, and g and h as for the\nActs, h exhibits only fragments of cc. i. and ii., viii. and ix., xi.\nand xii., and xiv.-xvi.\n\n    For the Old Latin Biblical Texts edited by Wordsworth and White, see\n    below, p. 131.\n\n[Sidenote: Latin Fathers.]\n\nOn account of the small number of these manuscripts the quotations of\nthe Latin Fathers are valuable, especially those of _Cyprian_ of\nCarthage,[99] and after them the recently discovered citations in\n_Priscillian_, who was the first to suffer death as a heretic in the\nyear 385. In the Apocalypse we have the quotations of _Primasius_,\nBishop of Hadrumet (ca. 550), who used in his commentary on the\nApocalypse not only his own Old Latin Bible but also a revised version\nthe same as that used by the African Donatist _Tyconius_. In attempting\nto classify these witnesses it was found that the text of certain\nmanuscripts coincided with that of the Bible used by Cyprian\u2014viz., in\nthe Gospels k especially, in Acts h, and in the Apocalypse Primasius and\nh. This family has accordingly been designated the =African=.\n\n_Tertullian_, a still earlier African Father, undoubtedly refers to the\nexistence of a Latin Version in his time, but the quotations found in\nhis Latin works cannot be taken into account, for this reason, that in\nciting the New Testament he seems to have made an independent\ntranslation from the Greek for his immediate purpose.[100]\n\nAs for the quotations in Augustine, they are found to resemble the text\nof f and q in the Gospels, particularly the former, and that of q, r,\nand r_{3} in the Epistles. To this group, therefore, the name =Italian=\nhas been given. It has, however, been deemed necessary to regard this\nItalian family as being itself a revised and smoother form of a still\nearlier version styled the =European=, which is thought to be\nrepresented by g, g_{2}, and s in the Acts, by ff in the Epistles, and\nby g in the Apocalypse.\n\n[Sidenote: Old Latin Texts.]\n\nAs illustrating the way in which the various forms deviate from each\nother, take the text of Luke xxiv., verses 4, 5, 11, and 13 as exhibited\nby a b c d e f and the Vulgate (vg).\n\nv. 4.\u2014All the seven agree in the opening words, Et factum est dum; but\nafter that there follows:\u2014\n\n(1) stuperent a c, mente consternatae essent b, vg; mente consternatae\nsunt e, aporiarentur d, haesitarent f.\n\n(2) de hoc a c f, de facto b, de eo d, de isto e, vg.\n\n(3) ecce a c d f, vg; et ecce b e.\n\n(4) viri duo a f, duo viri b c d e, vg.\n\n(5) adstiterunt a f, astiterunt c, adsisterunt d, steterunt b e, vg.\n\n(6) iuxta illas a f, secus illas b c e, vg; eis d.\n\n(7) in veste fulgenti a f, vg; in veste fulgente b c e, in amictu\nscoruscanti d.\n\n(8) v. 5: timore autem adprehensae inclinantes faciem ad terram a; cum\ntimerent autem et declinarent vultum in terram b e f, vg; conterritae\nautem inclinaverunt faciem in terram c; in timore autem factae\ninclinaverunt vultus suos in terra d.\n\n(9) v. 11: et visa sunt a b c (visae) e f, vg; et paruerunt d.\n\n(10) illis a, ante illos b, vg; apud illos c e, in conspectu eorum d,\ncoram illos f.\n\n(11) tanquam a, sicut b e, vg; quasi c d f.\n\n(12) delira a, deliramentum b e f, vg; (b spells -lirr-, and f -ler-),\ndeliramenta c, derissus d.\n\n(13) v. 13: municipium a, castellum b c d e f, vg.\n\n(14) stadios habentem LX ab hierusalem a, quod aberat stadia sexaginta\nab hierusalem b, quod abest ab ierosolymis stadia sexag. c, iter\nhabentis stadios sexag. ab hierus. d, quod est ab hierosolymis stadia\nseptem e, quod aberat spatio stadiorum LX ab hierus. f, quod erat in\nspatio stadiorum sexaginta ab hierusalem vg.\n\n(15) cui nomen a, nomine b c d e f, vg.\n\n(16) ammaus a, cleopas et ammaus b, emmaus c f, vg; alammaus d, ammaus\net cleopas e.\n\nIs not this almost exactly as Jerome said: tot exemplaria, quot codices?\nAnd when we take into account that all this variety in the Latin\nmanuscripts is not simply due to a difference in translation, but that a\nsimilar diversity exists in the Greek,[101] we can easily understand\nwhat a task it is to extricate the original text from out these\nconflicting witnesses. At the same time, we have evidence of the\nsingular position in which D stands to all the others; while the last\nexample also affords an illustration of the way in which mistakes might\narise. The reading \u1f97 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 in verse 13 would preclude any possibility of\nmisunderstanding. But suppose the reader or the translator had before\nhim a manuscript like D, in which the reading was \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9. What\nhappened, we shall suppose, was this. The phrase, \u201cEmmaus by name,\u201d was\ntaken as referring, not to the village, but to the subject of the\nsentence; the other name, Cleopas, was then inserted from verse 18, and\nin time placed even before Emmaus by a later copyist. And accordingly we\nfind, even in Ambrose of Milan, that the two travellers are regularly\ncalled Ammaon et Cleopas. It was just as Jerome said: a vitiosis\ninterpretibus male edita, a praesumptoribus imperitis emendata\nperversius, a librariis dormitantibus aut addita aut mutata.\n\n(2.) THE LATIN VERSION OF JEROME.\n\n[Sidenote: Codex Epternacensis.]\n\nIt is a comparatively easy task to restore the work of Jerome; first of\nall because all our present manuscripts are derived from one and only\none source, secondly because the number of existing manuscripts is very\ngreat, and lastly because some of them at least go back to the sixth\ncentury. There is a Codex in Paris which formerly belonged to the Church\nof St. Willibrord at Echternach, written by an Irish hand of the eighth\nor ninth century, and containing a subscription copied from its original\nto the following effect: proemendavi ut potui secundum codicem in\nbibliotheca Eugipi praespiteri quem ferunt fuisse sci Hieronymi,\nindictione VI. p(ost) con(sulatum) Bassilii u. c. anno septimo decimo.\nThat must have been in the year 558. [Sidenote: Codex Amiatinus.] Codex\nAmiatinus, now in Florence, was formerly supposed to belong to the same\ntime, but this turns out to be a mistake, because it has been proved\nthat it was written for Ceolfrid, Abbot of Wearmouth, who died at\nLangres on the 25th September 716, on his way to Rome, where he intended\nto present this Codex to the Pope. [Sidenote: Codex Fuldensis.] One of\nthe oldest and most valuable manuscripts of the Vulgate is at Fulda,\nwhere it has been preserved, perhaps, from the time of Boniface. This\nCodex Fuldensis was written between 540 and 546, by order of Bishop\nVictor of Capua, and corrected by himself. It contains the whole of the\nNew Testament according to Jerome\u2019s version, only in place of the four\nseparate Gospels it has a Harmony composed by Victor, who followed\nTatian\u2019s plan, using the Latin text of Jerome. Victor\u2019s Harmony in turn\nbecame the basis of the so-called Old German Tatian.\n\n[Sidenote: Wordsworth and White.]\n\nThe task of restoring the original text of Jerome\u2019s version has been\nundertaken in England by the Bishop of Salisbury, who has been at work\non all the available material for more than fifteen years. The edition\nbears the title, _Novum Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi secundum\neditionem sancti Hieronymi ad codicum manuscriptorum fidem recensuit\nJohannes Wordsworth in operis societatem adsumpto Henrico Juliano\nWhite_. Five parts of the first volume have already appeared, containing\nthe four Gospels with an _Epilogus ad Evangelia_.[102] In France, J.\nDelisle, the Director of the Paris National Library, has rendered great\nservice by his work upon the manuscripts under his care; while Samuel\nBerger has constituted himself pre-eminently the historian of the\nVulgate by bringing fresh testimony from the early Middle Ages and the\nremotest provinces of the Church to bear upon the history of the Vulgate\nand its text as well as on the origin and dissemination of the different\nforms. In his compendious _Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers\nsi\u00e8cles du moyen \u00e2ge_ (Paris, 1893), he has, _e.g._, indicated no fewer\nthan 212 different ways in which the books of the Old Testament were\narranged in the manuscripts that he examined, and thirty-eight varieties\nin the order of the New Testament books. In Germany Bengel applied\nhimself to the reconstruction of the Latin text of the Bible in the last\ncentury, and in this he was followed by Lachmann in the present century,\nwhile Riegler, van Ess, and Kaulen have added to our knowledge of the\nhistory of the Vulgate. Dr. Peter Corssen has followed up the labours of\nZiegler and R\u00f6nsch in the particular field of the pre-Jeromic Bible and\nits text with a methodical examination of the earlier editions, and E.\nv. Dobsch\u00fctz has begun to publish _Studies in the Textual Criticism of\nthe Vulgate_. The valuable researches of Carlo Vercellone (1860-64) were\nconcerned almost exclusively with the Old Testament, and do not seem to\nhave been followed up in Italy. \u201cUtinam Papa Leo XIII.,\u201d says Gregory,\n\u201ctanta scientia tanta magnanimitate insignis curam in se suscipiat\ntextus sacrosanctorum Bibliorum Latini edendi; cura, opus ecclesia et\nPapa dignum.\u201d Meanwhile Wordsworth and White appear to have accomplished\nas much as is possible at present in the field of the Gospels.[103]\n\n[Sidenote: MSS. used by Jerome.]\n\nThe principles on which Jerome went in his revision of the text have\nbeen already referred to, but what the early Greek manuscripts were that\nhe employed is not yet clearly made out. The relics of the material he\nused are as scanty as those of his own work. He must, however, have been\nable to make use of manuscripts that went back to Eusebius, seeing that\nhe adopted the Eusebian Canons in his New Testament. But there are\ncertain readings in Jerome which we have not yet been able to discover\nin any Greek manuscript that we know. For instance, he gives _docebit\nvos omnem veritatem_ in John xvi. 13, where our present Greek editions\nread \u1f41\u03b4\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3, so that he would seem to have\nread \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. As a matter of fact, this\nreading does occur in two passages of Eusebius and in Cyril of\nJerusalem, as well as in the Arabic version of Tatian, but it has not\nbeen discovered in any Greek manuscript.[104] In the other parts of the\nNew Testament, the revision of which was perhaps completed by the year\n386, Jerome inserted hardly any new readings from the Greek, but\ncontented himself with improving the grammar and diction of the Latin.\nHis work on the Old Testament was much more comprehensive, but does not\nfall to be discussed here.\n\n[Sidenote: History of the Vulgate.]\n\nIt was only by degrees that Jerome\u2019s recension gained ground. In Rome,\nGregory the Great (d. 604) for one preferred it to the old, though at\nthe same time he says expressly: sedes apostolica, cui auctore Deo\npraesideo, utraque utitur. [Sidenote: Alcuin.] Owing to the use of both\nforms the diversity of copies grew to such an extent that in 797 Charles\nthe Great ordered =Alcuin= to make a uniformly revised text from the\nbest Latin manuscripts for use in the Churches of his Empire. For this\npurpose Alcuin sent to his native Northumbria for manuscripts, by which\nhe corrected the text of the Bible, and he was able to present the first\ncopy to the Emperor at Christmas 801. A good many of the superb\n_Carolingian_ manuscripts, as they are called, which are found in our\nlibraries, contain Alcuin\u2019s Revision, as for instance the Bible of\nGrandval near Basel, which was probably written for Charles the Bald,\nand which is now in the British Museum (see Plate VII.); the Bible\npresented to the same monarch by Vivian, Abbot of St. Martin of Tours,\nwhich was sent by the Chapter of Metz from the Cathedral treasury there\nto Colbert in 1675, and is now in Paris (B. N., Lat. 1); another written\nin the same monastery of St. Martin, and now at Bamberg; and that in the\nVallicellian Library of the Church of Sta. Maria in Rome, which is\nperhaps the best specimen of the Alcuinian Bible.\n\n[Sidenote: Theodulf.]\n\nAnother revision was introduced into France by Alcuin\u2019s contemporary\n=Theodulf=, Bishop of Orleans (787-821). He was a Visigoth, born in the\nneighbourhood of Narbonne, and the type of text he introduced was taken\nessentially from Spanish manuscripts. We have his revision in the\nso-called Theodulfian Bible, which formerly belonged to the Cathedral\nChurch of Orleans, and is now in Paris (Lat. 9380); in its companion\nvolume, formerly in the Cathedral of Puy, and now in the British Museum\n(24142); and in the Bible of St. Hubert, which came from the monastery\nof that name in the Ardennes.\n\n[Sidenote: Harding.]\n\nA further revision was made by Stephen =Harding=, third Abbot of\nCiteaux. About the year 1109 he prepared a standard Bible for his\ncongregation, in which the Latin text of the New Testament was corrected\nby the Greek. At the same time the Old Testament was revised from the\nHebrew with the help of some Jewish scholars. Harding\u2019s copy of the\nstandard Bible, in four volumes, is still preserved in the Public\nLibrary at Dijon. A similar work was done for his monastery by William,\nAbbot of Hirsau.\n\n[Sidenote: Correctoria.]\n\nAttempts were also made to settle the text by means of the so-called\n=Correctoria Bibliorum=, in which those readings which were supposed to\nbe correct were carefully collected and arranged. The University of\nParis in particular did a great deal in this way, and such was its\ninfluence, that by the middle of the fifteenth century the Parisian text\nwas the one most commonly followed in manuscripts, and the invention of\nprinting gave it a complete ascendancy over the others.\n\n[Sidenote: Printed text.]\n\nThe first fruits of the printing press are understood to be the undated\n\u201cforty-two line Bible,\u201d usually called the _Mazarin_ Bible, seeing that\nit was the copy in the library of Cardinal Mazarin that first attracted\nthe attention of bibliographers. The first dated Bible is of the year\n1462. Copinger estimates that 124 editions were printed before the close\nof the fifteenth century, and over 400 during the sixteenth. The first\nedition in octavo, \u201cfor the poor man,\u201d was issued at Basel in 1491 from\nthe Press of Froben, the same printer who prompted Erasmus to prepare\nthe first Greek New Testament. The first edition in Latin with various\nreadings was printed in 1504. In the following year Erasmus published\nthe _Annotationes_ which Laurentius Valla had prepared for the Latin\nBible as early as 1444. The year 1528 saw the first really critical\nedition. It was brought out by Stephen, who used in its preparation\nthree good Paris manuscripts\u2014the Bible of Charles the Bald already\nreferred to, that of St. Denis, and another of the ninth century, the\nNew Testament portion of which has now disappeared. He afterwards\npublished in 1538-40 another edition, for which he employed seventeen\nmanuscripts, and which became the foundation of the present authorised\nVulgate. [Sidenote: Henten.] About the same time John =Henten= published\na very valuable edition [1547] on the basis of thirty-one manuscripts,\nin the preparation of which he was assisted by the theologians of\nLouvain. This was followed in 1573 and 1580 by two further editions\ncontaining important annotations by Lucas of Br\u00fcgge. [Sidenote:\nAuthorised Vulgate.] In the year previous to that in which Henten\u2019s\nedition appeared, the Council of Trent, in its fourth sitting of the 8th\nApril 1546, decided \u201cut haec vetus et vulgata editio in publicis\nlectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus et expositionibus pro\nauthentica habeatur,\u201d and at the same time ordained \u201cposthac sacra\nscriptura, potissimum vero haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio quam\nemendatissime imprimatur.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Sixtine.]\n\nThe latter part of this decree was carried into effect in the papacy of\nSixtus V. His predecessor, Pius V., began the work of revising the text\nof the Bible, and a \u201cCongregatio pro emendatione Bibliorum\u201d gave\ntwenty-six sittings to it in the year 1569. His successor seems to have\nallowed the work to lapse, but Sixtus V. appointed a new commission for\nthe purpose under the Presidency of Cardinal Caraffa. The Pope himself\nrevised the result of their labours, which was printed at the Vatican\nPress that he had founded. This edition, which takes its name from him,\nwas issued under the Bull \u201cAeternus ille\u201d of the 1st March 1589, and\npublished in the following year. It is the first official edition of the\nVulgate. Sixtus died on the 27th August 1590, and was succeeded by four\nPopes in the space of two years. [Sidenote: Clementine.] His fourth\nsuccessor in the Chair of Peter, Clement VIII., issued a new edition\nunder the name of the old Pope, accompanied by the Bull \u201cCum sacrorum\u201d\nof the 9th November 1592. This edition, containing a preface written by\nCardinal Bellarmin, was substituted for the former, and has continued\nfrom that day without any alteration as the authorised Bible of the\nentire Roman Church. The text of this second edition approximated more\nclosely to that of Henten, for which the Commission of Pope Sixtus had\nalso expressed their preference, though their printed edition went\nrather by that of Stephen. The number of the variations between these\ntwo editions has been estimated at 3000. For our purpose both alike are\nsuperseded by the edition of Wordsworth and White. It may be added that\nthe first edition to contain the names of both the Popes upon the title\npage is that of 1604. The title runs: \u201cSixti V. Pont. Max. iussu\nrecognita et Clementis VIII. auctoritate edita.\u201d Those printed at Rome\nat the present day are entitled: \u201cSixti V. et Clementis VIII. Pontt.\nMaxx. iussu recognita atque edita.\u201d See below, p. 132.\n\nAn enumeration of all the manuscripts of the Vulgate mentioned by\nTischendorf in his eighth edition, or even of the earliest and most\nimportant of them, cannot be attempted. Those, however, mentioned by\nGebhardt in his _Adnotatio Critica_ are given here, with the notation\nadopted by Wordsworth and White.\n\nThe best manuscripts, in the judgment of the English editors, are Codex\nAmiatinus, Codex Fuldensis, and the one in the Ambrosian Library at\nMilan (C 39 inf.), written in the sixth century. (M in W.-W.; not cited\nby Tischendorf.)\n\nam. Amiatinus (_vide supra_, p. 122), written ca. 700, is an excellent\nmanuscript, and particularly interesting as containing in the\nintroduction a double catalogue of the Books of the Bible resembling\nthat of the Senator Cassiodorus. See Westcott, _Bible in the Church_,\nAppendix B; _Canon_, Appendix D. (A in W.-W.) (See Plate VI.)\n\nbodl. Bodleianus, of the seventh century, formerly belonging to the\nLibrary of St. Augustine at Canterbury. (O in W.-W.)\n\ndemid. Demidovianus, belonging to the thirteenth century, but copied\nfrom an earlier exemplar; formerly at Lyons; present locality unknown;\nnot cited in W.-W.\n\nem. Emeram, written in the year 870, in gold uncials with splendid\nminiatures: at Munich, Cimelie 55: not cited in W.-W.\n\nerl. Erlangen, of the ninth century (Irmischer\u2019s Catalogue, 467): used\nonly indirectly by Tischendorf, and not cited in W.-W.\n\nfor. Foroiuliensis, written in the sixth or seventh century, and now at\nCividale, Friuli: fragments of it at Venice and Prague. (J in W.-W.)\n\nfos. Of the ninth century: from St. Maur des Foss\u00e9s, now in Paris. (Lat.\n11959.)\n\nfu. Fuldensis (_vide supra_, p. 122), written between 540 and 546:\ncontains the Epistle to the Laodicaeans after Colossians: edited with\nfacsimiles by E. Ranke. (F in W.-W.)\n\ngat. Gatianus, from St. Gatien\u2019s in Tours: written in the eighth or\nninth century: stolen from Libri: purchased by Lord Ashburnham and now\nin Paris: not cited in W.-W.\n\nharl. Harleianus 1775, of the sixth or seventh century: in the British\nMuseum, formerly in Paris 4582: stolen from there by John Aymont in\n1707. (Z in W.-W.)\n\ning. Ingolstadt, of the seventh century, now in the University Library\nat Munich: defective. (I in W.-W.) See von Dobsch\u00fctz, _Vulgatastudien_\n(with two facsimiles).\n\nmm. Of the tenth or eleventh century, from Marmoutiers, near Tours: in\nthe British Museum, Egerton 609. (E in W.-W.)\n\nmt. Of the eighth or ninth century, from St. Martin\u2019s, and still at\nTours: written in gold letters. (M\u0305, in W.-W.)\n\npe. A very old purple manuscript of the sixth century at Perugia,\ncontaining Luke i. 1-xii. 7. (P in W.-W.)\n\nprag. The fragments cited under _for._ (see above).\n\nreg. Regius, of the seventh or eighth century, a purple manuscript\ninscribed in gold, containing Matthew and Mark, with lacun\u00e6: at Paris\n11955: not cited in W.-W.\n\nrus. The so-called Rushworth Gospels, written by an Irish scribe who\ndied in the year 820: has an interlinear Anglo-Saxon version. (R in\nW.-W.)\n\nsan. At St. Gall, a fragment containing Matthew vi. 21-John xvii. 18,\nwritten by a scribe who says that he used two Latin and one Greek\nmanuscripts. In the Epistles san. is a palimpsest at St. Gall containing\nEphes. vi. 2 to 1 Tim. ii. 5, the Biblical text being the uppermost.\n\ntaur. Of the seventh century, at Turin, contains the Gospels beginning\nat Matthew xiii. 34: not cited in W.-W.\n\ntol. Written in the eighth century: this manuscript, which was written\nby a Visigoth, was given by Servandus of Seville to John, Bishop of\nCordova, who presented it to the See of Seville in 988: it was\nafterwards at Toledo, and is now at Madrid. It was collated for the\nSixtine Recension by Palomares, but reached Rome too late to be of use.\n(T in W.-W.)\n\nIn addition to the eleven manuscripts mentioned above as cited by\nWordsworth and White, twenty-one others are regularly used by them, and\na great number are cited occasionally. For these reference must be made\nto their edition, and for further particulars to Berger\u2019s incomparable\nwork.\n\n    On the Latin Versions compare _TiGr._, 948-1108, 1313, and\n    especially Scrivener. The chapter on _The Latin Versions_ in the\n    Fourth Edition of the latter work (c. iii.) was re-written by H. J.\n    White, the collaborateur of Wordsworth. See also _Urt._, 85-118,\n    which deals with the Old Testament as well, and the article on the\n    _Old Latin Versions_ in Hastings\u2019 _Dictionary of the Bible_, iii.\n    47-62.\n\n    1. G. Riegler, _Kritische Geschichte der Vulgata_, Sulzbach, 1820;\n    Lean. van Ess, _Pragmatisch-kritische Geschichte der Vulgata im\n    Allgemeinen und zun\u00e4chst in Beziehung auf das Trientische Decret_,\n    T\u00fcbingen, 1824; Kaulen, _Geschichte der Vulgata_, Mainz, 1868;\n    Berger, _Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers si\u00e8cles du\n    moyen \u00e2ge_, Paris, 1893 (List of the chief works dealing with the\n    history of the Vulgate given on p. xxii. ff.).\n\n    2. On the subject of the Itala see Ziegler, _Die Lateinischen\n    Bibel\u00fcbersetzungen vor Hieronymus und die Itala des Augustinus_,\n    Munich, 1879; Zycha, _Bemerkungen zur Italafrage_, in the _Eranos\n    Vindobonensis_, 1893, 177-184; Burkitt, _The Old Latin and the\n    Itala_ (_Texts and Studies_, vol. iv., No. 3, 1896).\n\n    3. On the language see R\u00f6nsch (d. 1888), _Itala und Vulgata_, 2nd\n    Edition, 1875; also _Die \u00e4ltesten lateinischen-Bibel\u00fcbersetzungen\n    nach ihrem Werthe f\u00fcr die lateinische Sprachwissenschaft_, by the\n    same writer in the _Collectanea Philologa_, Bremen, 1891, 1-20;\n    Kaulen, _Handbuch zur Vulgata, Eine systematische Darstellung ihres\n    Sprachcharakters_, Mainz, 1870. Saalfeld, _De Bibliorum S. Vulgat\u00e6\n    Editionis Graecitate_, Quedlinburg, 1891.\n\n    4. Editions of the Text:\u2014Among the earlier works the most important\n    is that of Sabatier, which is not yet superseded, in the Old\n    Testament at least, _Bibliorum sacrorum Latin\u00e6 Versiones antiqu\u00e6,\n    seu Vetus Italica, et c\u00e6ter\u00e6 qu\u00e6cunque in codicibus MSS. et\n    antiquorum libris reperiri potuerunt, etc., opera et studio D. Petri\n    Sabatier_, 3 vols. folio,[105] Rheims, 1743. Jos. Bianchini\n    (Blanchinus), _Evangeliarium Quadruplex_, 2 vols. folio, Rome, 1749\n    (copies now cost about \u00a34). After a long interval work in this field\n    has been resumed in the _Old Latin Biblical Texts_, published at the\n    Clarendon Press, Oxford, of which four parts have appeared:\u20141. _The\n    Gospel according to St. Matthew from the St. Germain MS._ (g_{1}),\n    _now numbered Lat. 11553 in the National Library at Paris, with\n    Introduction and five Appendices, edited by John Wordsworth, D.D._,\n    1883 (6/-). 2. _Portions of the Gospels according to St. Mark and\n    St. Matthew from the Bobbio MS._ (k), _now numbered G. VII. 15 in\n    the National Library at Turin, together with other fragments of the\n    Gospels from six MSS. in the Libraries of St. Gall, Coire, Milan,\n    and Berne (usually cited as n, o, p, a_{2}, s, and t). Edited, with\n    the aids of Tischendorf\u2019s Transcripts and the printed Texts of\n    Ranke, Ceriani, and Hagen, with two facsimiles, by J. Wordsworth,\n    D.D., ... W. Sanday, D.D., ... and H. J. White, M.A._, 1886 (21/-).\n    3. _The Four Gospels, from the Munich MS._ (q), _now numbered Lat.\n    6224 in the Royal Library at Munich, with a Fragment from St. John\n    in the Hof-Bibliothek at Vienna (Cod. Lat. 502). Edited, with the\n    aid of Tischendorf\u2019s Transcript (under the direction of the Bishop\n    of Salisbury), by H. J. White,_ _M.A._, 1888 (12/6). 4. _Portions of\n    the Acts of the Apostles, of the Epistle of St. James, and of the\n    First Epistle of St. Peter from the Bobbio Palimpsest_ (s), _now\n    numbered Cod. 16 in the Imperial Library at Vienna. Edited, with the\n    aid of Tischendorf\u2019s and Belsheim\u2019s printed Texts, by H. J. White,\n    M.A., with a Facsimile_, 1897 (5/-). (See notice in the _Expository\n    Times_, April 1898, p. 320 ff.)\n\n    5. Wordsworth and White\u2019s edition of the Vulgate is noticed by\n    Berger in the _Bull. Crit._, 1899, viii. 141-144. It may be added\n    here, as that critic observes, that insufficient regard is paid to\n    the later history of the Latin text in this edition. At least one\n    representative of a recension so important as that of the University\n    of Paris in the thirteenth century might have been collated, and\n    perhaps also the first printed edition, \u201cthe forty-two line\u201d Bible.\n\n    On the authorised edition of 1590 and 1592, see Eb. Nestle, _Ein\n    Jubil\u00e4um der lateinischen Bibel. Zum 9 November 1892_, in\n    _Marginalien und Materialien_, 1893; also printed separately.\n\n    An exact reprint of the Latin Vulgate has recently been published by\n    M. Hetzenauer from his Greek-Latin New Testament (see above, p. 25),\n    entitled _Novum Testamentum Vulgatae Editionis. Ex Vaticanis\n    Editionibus earumque Correctorio critice edidit Michael Hetzenauer._\n    Oeniponte, 1899. As an introduction to this edition reference may be\n    made to the same writer\u2019s _Wesen und Principien der Bibelkritik auf\n    katholischer Grundlage. Unter besonderer Ber\u00fccksichtigung der\n    offziellen Vulgataausgabe dargelegt._ Innsbruck, 1900.\n\n\n                       (_c._) EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.\n\n\nNext in importance to the Syriac versions from the East and the Latin\nfrom the West are the =Egyptian= versions from the South. Here too we\nfind not one early version but several.\n\n[Sidenote: Dialects.]\n\nWhat used till lately to be called Coptic[106] is merely one of the\ndialects into which the language of ancient Egypt was divided. And here\nwe must distinguish three main branches\u2014the Bohairic, the Sahidic, and\nthe Middle Egyptian.\n\n[Sidenote: Bohairic.]\n\n(1) =Bohairic=[107] is the name given to the dialect that was spoken in\nthe Bohaira\u2014_i.e._ the district by the sea and therefore Lower Egypt,\nthe neighbourhood of Alexandria. It was the principal dialect, and being\nthat used for ecclesiastical purposes over the whole country, and,\nmoreover, that with which European scholars first became acquainted, the\nversions written in it were described as the Coptic simply. The term\nMemphitic, which was preferred for a time, is incorrect, because it was\nnot till the eleventh century that the Patriarchate was transferred to\nCairo\u2014_i.e._ the district of Memphis, and in early times a different\ndialect was spoken there.\n\n[Sidenote: Sahidic.]\n\n(2) =Sahidic= is the name used to describe the dialect of Upper Egypt.\nIt is sometimes and not improperly spoken of as the Thebaic in\ndistinction to the Memphitic.\n\n[Sidenote: Middle Egyptian.]\n\n(3) Under the =Middle Egyptian=[108] we have to distinguish\u2014\n\n(_a_) The _Fayumic_, spoken in the Fayum\u2014_i.e._ the district to the S.W.\nof the Delta, watered by the Joseph Canal, and separated from the valley\nof the Nile by a narrow strip of the desert. It was in this district\nthat those recent papyrus discoveries were made which have enriched the\nlibraries and museums of Europe.\n\n(_b_) The _Middle Egyptian proper_, or Lower Sahidic, a dialect which\nhas its home on the site of ancient Memphis.\n\n(_c_) The dialect of _Achmim_, which preserves a more primitive form of\nearly Egyptian than any of those already referred to.\n\nIn the eleventh century the Coptic Bishop Athanasius specifies three\ndialects of the Coptic language\u2014the Bohairic, the Sahidic, and a third\nwhich he says was already extinct, and to which he gives the name of\nBashmuric; but whether this last is to be identified with the dialects\nincluded above under the name of Middle Egyptian, is not quite certain.\n\n\n(1.) _The Bohairic Version._\n\n\n[Sidenote: Bohairic.]\n\nThis version, formerly designated as the Coptic, was first used for the\nNew Testament by Bishop Fell of Oxford, who was indebted for his\nknowledge of it to Marshall. It was afterwards employed by Mill for his\nedition of 1707. It was first published in 1716 by Wilkins (or rather\nWilke), a Prussian who had settled in England, with the title, \u201cNovum\nTestamentum Aegyptium vulgo Copticum.\u201d His edition was accompanied with\na Latin translation. In 1734 Bengel obtained a few particulars regarding\nthis version from La Croze, the Berlin Librarian. An edition of the\nGospels by Moritz Schwartze appeared in 1846-47, and after his death the\nActs and Epistles were published (1852) by Paul Boetticher, afterwards\ndistinguished under his adopted name of de Lagarde. About the same time\nTattam prepared a wholly uncritical edition of the entire New Testament,\nincluding the Apocalypse which did not originally form part of this\nversion.[109] Steindorff is of opinion that the Bohairic version\noriginated in the Natron Valley during the fourth or fifth century, but\nothers affirm that it is older, or at all events rests on an older\nfoundation. The order of the New Testament books was originally: (1) the\nGospels, in which John stood first, followed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, (2)\nthe Pauline Epistles, with Hebrews between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim., (3) the\nseven Catholic Epistles, and (4) the Acts. More than fifty Bohairic\nmanuscripts are preserved in the libraries of Europe, and from these an\nedition has been prepared for the Clarendon Press in two volumes, with\nexhaustive Introduction by G. Horner (1898).\n\nThe Greek text on which this version is based is regarded by present\ncritics as particularly pure, and free from so-called Western additions.\n\n\n(2.) _The Sahidic Version._\n\n\n[Sidenote: Sahidic.]\n\nIt was a long time before this version attracted any attention. In his\nNew Testament, Wilkins mentioned two manuscripts, \u201clingua plane a\nreliquis MSS. Copticis diversa,\u201d and Woide in 1778 announced his\nintention of editing certain fragments of the New Testament \u201ciuxta\ninterpretationem superioris Aegypti quae Thebaidica vocatur,\u201d which were\nafterwards published by Ford in 1799. At the close of last century and\nthe beginning of this, various other fragments were issued by Tuki,\nMingarelli, M\u00fcnter, Zoega, and Engelbreth, but it was not till more\nrecent times that really important parts of the Old and New Testaments\nwere published by Am\u00e9lineau, Ciasca (in two vols.), Bouriant, Maspero,\nCeugney, and Krall. In 1895 Goussen gave us a large part of the\nApocalypse.[110] This version, like the former, contained the entire New\nTestament, with the exception of the Apocalypse, and originally\nexhibited the Gospels in the same order\u2014John, Matthew, Mark, Luke.\nHebrews, however, stood between 2 Corinthians and Galatians. Its Greek\noriginal was quite different from that of the Bohairic version. (See\nPlate VIII.)\n\n\n(3.) _The Middle Egyptian Versions._\n\n\n[Sidenote: Middle Egyptian.]\n\nOf these only fragments are as yet known to exist. Portions of Matthew\nand John, and of 1 Cor., Ephes., Phil., Thess., and Hebrews in the\nFayumic, or, as it used to be called, the Bashmuric dialect, were first\npublished by Zoega in 1809, by Engelbreth in 1811, and especially by\nBouriant (1889) and Crum (1893).\n\nFragments in the Lower Sahidic have been published in the _Mitteilungen\naus der Sammlung der Papyrus des Erzherzogs Rainer_.\n\nIn the Achmim dialect, James iv. 12, 13 and Jude 17-20 are the only\nfragments that have been discovered as yet, and these have been\npublished by Crum. Whether these fragments are really parts of a\nseparate version, or merely dialectical modifications of the Sahidic, is\nnot quite certain.[111]\n\nAs to the =date= of these versions we have no definite information. It\nhas been understood from certain passages in the Life of St. Anthony,\nwho was born about the year 250, that in his boyhood he heard the Gospel\nread in Church in the language of Egypt, but that need not imply the\nexistence of a written version, as the translation may have been made by\na reader who interpreted as he read. In the third century, however,\nversions may have arisen, and it was certainly in the South that the\nfirst attempts at translation were made. Our oldest known manuscripts, a\nSahidic containing 2 Thess. iii., and one in Middle Egyptian of Jude\n17-20, date from the fourth or fifth century. The Sahidic version seems\nto have been made first, then the Middle Egyptian, and finally the\nBohairic. To what extent the one influenced the other is a question\nrequiring further investigation.\n\nA correct edition and a critical application of these Egyptian versions\nis, next to a fresh examination of the minuscules, the task of most\nimportance at present for the textual criticism of the New Testament.\nFor the Sahidic version in particular represents a type of text found\nhitherto almost exclusively in the West, and looked upon as the outcome\nof Western corruption and licence, whereas it may really bear the most\nresemblance to the original form. In the Acts especially its agreement\nwith the text of Codex D is remarkable. One might instance, _e.g._, the\nmention of Pentecost in Acts i. 5, the insertion of the Golden Rule in\nits negative form in xv. 20, 29, the relation of the vision in xvi. 10,\nand the description of the stone which twenty men could not roll away in\nLuke xxiii. 53, all of which are now found in a Greek-Sahidic\nmanuscript. The Sahidic version, like the Bohairic, is well represented\nin European libraries, and the manuscripts are dated as a rule in the\nEgyptian fashion according to the years of the Martyrs\u2014_i.e._ according\nto an era reckoned from August or September 284 A.D.\n\n    _TiGr._, 859-893. Scrivener^4, ii. 91-144, revised by Horner, with\n    additions by Headlam. H. Hyvernat, _\u00c9tude sur les Versions Coptes de\n    la Bible_ (_Revue Biblique_, v. (1896) 427-433, 540-569; vi. 1\n    (1897) 48-74.) _Urt._, 144-147. Forbes Robinson, _Egyptian\n    Versions_, in Hastings\u2019 _Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. i. (1898)\n    668-673. W. E. Crum, _Coptic Studies_ from the _Egypt Exploration\n    Fund\u2019s Report_ for 1897-1898, 15 pp. 4to. For the Gospels, Horner\u2019s\n    edition eclipses all others. It is entitled, _The Coptic Version of\n    the New Testament in the Northern dialect, otherwise called\n    Memphitic or Bohairic, with Introduction, Critical Apparatus, and\n    literal English Translation. Vol. I. Introduction, Matthew and\n    Mark_, cxlviii. 484. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1898; _Vol. II. Luke\n    and John_, 548 pp., 1898. See notice by Hyvernat in the _Revue\n    Biblique_, 1899, pp. 148-150, and also W. E. Crum, _lib. cit._,\n    where reference is also made to the _Manuscrits Coptes au Mus\u00e9e ...\n    \u00e0 Leide_, 1897. As Horner\u2019s edition as yet only covers the Gospels,\n    the remaining portions of the New Testament must still be sought in\n    the two parts published by Lagarde after Schwartze\u2019s death, _Acta\n    Apostolorum coptice_ (1852), and _Epistulae Novi Testamenti coptice_\n    (1852). On Brugsch\u2019s _Recension_ in the _Zeitschrift der deutschen\n    morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, vii. (1853) pp. 115-121, see\n    _ibid._, p. 456, and Lagarde, _Aus dem deutschen Gelehrtenleben_,\n    pp. 25-65, 73-77. Tattam\u2019s Bohairic-Arabic edition was published by\n    the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.\n\n    The first fragments of the New Testament in Sahidic appeared in\n    Tuki\u2019s _Rudimenta_ in 1778, and Woide\u2019s editio princeps, announced\n    in the same year, was brought out after his death by Ford in 1799.\n    Am\u00e9lineau\u2019s _Fragments Th\u00e9baines in\u00e9dits du Nouveau Testament_ were\n    published in vols. xxiv.-xxvi. of the _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr \u00e4gyptische\n    Sprache_ (1886-1888). Considerable portions of the Apocalypse were\n    issued in facsimile by Goussen in the first Fasciculus of his\n    _Studia Theologica_ (Lipsiae, 1897). Apocryphal and\n    Pseudepigraphical writings have also been discovered in recent\n    times, as, for example, the _Acta Pauli_ in a manuscript of the\n    seventh century, written in Sahidic consonants with Middle Egyptian\n    vocalisation. These are to be published by A. Schmidt. See\n    _Addenda_, p. xv.\n\n    See also Am\u00e9lineau, _Notice des manuscrits coptes de la Biblioth\u00e8que\n    Nationale renfermant des textes bilingues du Nouveau Testament_, in\n    the _Athen\u00e6um_, No. 3601, p. 599.\n\nThe foregoing versions are those of most importance in the criticism of\nthe text. There are, however, one or two others which, though inferior\nin value, are still interesting. Among these is\u2014\n\n\n                       (_d._) THE GOTHIC VERSION.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Gothic.]\n\nThis is the work of =Ulfilas=\u2014_i.e._ W\u00f6lflin\u2014a Cappadocian by descent,\nwho in the year 340 succeeded Theophilus, the first Bishop of the\nGoths.[112] While the tribe was still settled in the Crimea, he is said\nto have invented an alphabet, and translated both the Old and the New\nTestament for their use. In the Old Testament Ulfilas followed the\nSeptuagint according to the Recension of Lucian of Antioch (d. 312),\nwhich circulated in the diocese of Constantinople. In the New Testament\nthe text is likewise essentially that of Chrysostom. The traces of Latin\ninfluence which were supposed to be discernible in the version, and\nwhich may either have existed from the first or been introduced at a\nlater time, relate at most, perhaps, to matters of orthography.\n\n(1) The Gothic version first became known through the so-called Codex\nArgenteus which Ant. Morillon, Granvella\u2019s secretary, and Mercator the\ngeographer saw in the Monastery of Werden in the sixteenth century. It\nwas afterwards seen at Prague by Richard Strein (d. 1601). In 1648 it\nwas brought to Sweden as a prize of war, and presented to Queen\nChristina, or her librarian, Isaac Voss. It was purchased by Marshall de\nla Gardie in 1662, bound in silver, and deposited in the library at\nUpsala, where it has since remained. Ten leaves were stolen from the\nmanuscript between 1821 and 1834, but restored, after many years, by the\nthief upon his deathbed. This magnificent Codex was written in the fifth\nor sixth century on purple with gold and silver lettering. It now\ncomprises 187 leaves out of 330, and contains fragments of the four\nGospels in the order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. It was published for\nthe first time in 1665, from a transcript made by Derrer ten years\nbefore.\n\n(2) Codex Carolinus, the Wolfenb\u00fcttel palimpsest already referred to as\nQ of the Gospels (see p. 69 above) and the Old Latin gue of Paul (see p.\n118), contains some forty verses of the Epistle to the Romans. It was\nfirst published in 1762.\n\n(3) Fragments of seven palimpsests in the Ambrosian Library at Milan,\ndiscovered by Cardinal Mai in 1817. Like Codex Carolinus, they are in\nall probability from the Monastery of Bobbio. They exhibit part of the\nPauline Epistles and fragments of the Gospels. A few quotations from\nHebrews are also found in a theological work. No portion of Acts,\n(Hebrews), Catholic Epistles, or Apocalypse has as yet been discovered.\nEditions of the Gothic version have been published by Gabelentz and L\u00f6be\n(1836-1843), Stamm (1858), Heyne ^5(1872) ^9(1896), Bernhardt (Halle,\n1875, 1884), and Balg (Milwaukee, 1891). St. Mark was edited by M\u00fcller\nand H\u00f6ppe in 1881, and by Skeat in 1882.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014On Ulfilas, see Scott, _Ulfilas, the Apostle of the\n    Goths_, Cambr., 1885. Bradley, _The Goths_, in the \u201cStory of the\n    Nations\u201d Series, 1888. Gwatkin, _Studies of Arianism_, 1882. _Urt._,\n    pp. 119-120, where see literature, to which add Eckstein, _Ulfilas\n    und die gothische Uebersetzung der Bibel_, in Westermann\u2019s _Illustr.\n    Monatshefte_, Dec. 1892, 403-407; Jostes, _Das Todesjahr des Ulfilas\n    und der Uebertritt der Gothen zum Arianismus_ (_Beitr\u00e4ge zur\n    Geschichte der deutschen Sprache_, xxii. i. 158 ff.). Jostes gives\n    383 as the date of Ulfilas\u2019s death. On the other side, see\n    Kauffmann, _Der Arianismus des Wulfila_ in the _ZfdPhil._, xxx.\n    (1897) 93-113; Luft, _Die arianischen Quellen \u00fcber Wulfila_ in the\n    _ZfdAltert._, xlii. 4; Vogt, _Zu Wulfilas Bekenntnis und dem Opus\n    imperfectum_, _ibid._ Kauffmann, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Quellenkritik der\n    gotischen Bibel\u00fcbersetzung_ in the _ZfdPhil._; (ii.) _das N. T._\n    (xxx., 1897, 145-183); (iii.) _das gotische Matth\u00e4usevangelium und\n    die Itala_; (iv.) _die griechische Vorlage des gotischen\n    Johannesevangeliums_ (xxxi., 1898, 177-198): also by the same\n    author, _Aus der Schule des Wulfila. Auxentii Dorostorensis epistula\n    de Fide, Vita, et Obitu Wulfila im Zusammenhang der Dissertatio\n    Maximini contra Ambrosium herausgegeben._ Strassburg, 1899. P.\n    Batiffol, _De quelques homilies de St. Chrysostome et de la version\n    gothique des \u00e9critures_ (_Revue Biblique_, Oct. 1899, pp. 566-572),\n    see also _ThLz._, 1900, No. i.; _LCbl._, 1900, No. 28. On the\n    relation of the Gothic version to the codex Brixianus (f), see\n    Burkitt in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. p. 131 ff., and\n    compare _Addenda_, p. xv.\n\n    On the Gothic language and writing, see Douse, _Introduction to the\n    Gothic of Ulfilas_. London, 1886; the grammars of Braune and Skeat,\n    and the dictionaries of Schulze, Heyne, and Bernhardt; see also\n    Luft, _Studien zu den \u00e4ltesten germanischen Alfabeten_, G\u00fctersloh,\n    1898, viii. 115, who traces eighteen characters to the Greek\n    alphabet and nine to the Latin and Ulfilas\u2019s own invention. On R.\n    L\u00f6we\u2019s _Reste der Germanen am schwarzen Meer_ (Halle, 1896), see the\n    story told by Melanchthon according to Pirkheimer (_Th. St. und\n    Kr._, 1897, 784 ff.).\n\nTo what extent the remaining ancient versions were taken directly from\nthe Greek or influenced by one or other of those already described is\nstill subject of dispute.\n\n\n                      (_e._) THE ETHIOPIC VERSION.\n\n\nAccording to the tradition of the Abyssinian Church, the Ethiopic\nversion of the New Testament was made from the Greek previous to the\nfifth century. Dillmann accepts this as correct, but Gildemeister would\nassign it to the sixth or seventh century, and thinks that traces are\ndiscernible of Syrian Monophysitism. Guidi decides for the end of the\nfifth or beginning of the sixth century. In addition to the usual\ntwenty-seven books, the Ethiopic New Testament has an Appendix\nconsisting of a work on Canon Law in eight books called the Synodos, so\nthat the Ethiopian Church reckons in all thirty-five books in the New\nTestament. In later times the version was undoubtedly corrected from\nArabic and Coptic texts. The first edition appeared in Rome in\n1548-1549, but neither it nor those issued since are of any real\ncritical worth.\n\nAt least a hundred Ethiopic manuscripts, mostly of late origin, exist in\nthe libraries of Europe. What is perhaps the oldest is preserved in\nParis. It dates from the thirteenth century, and exhibits the Gospels in\nan unrevised text.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014See _TiGr._, 894-912. Scrivener, ii. 154 ff. re-written\n    by Margoliouth. _Urt._, 147-150 (F. Praetorius). R. H. Charles,\n    _Ethiopic Version_ in Hastings\u2019 _Dictionary of the Bible_, i.\n    791-793. C. Conti Rossini, _Sulla Versione e sulla Revisione delle\n    Sacre Scritture in Etiopico_, in the _Z. f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, x. 2, 3\n    (1895). The view of Lagarde (_Ank\u00fcndigung_, 1882, p. 28; _cf._ also\n    _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, lxi. 113), that this version may have\n    been made from the Arabic or Egyptian in the fourteenth century, is\n    now generally rejected.\n\n\n                      (_f._) THE ARMENIAN VERSION.\n\n\nLa Croze, the Berlin Librarian, thought this the \u201cQueen of the\nVersions.\u201d\n\nTill the fifth century of the Christian era Syrian influence was supreme\nin Armenia, and the inhabitants of that region first received the\nScriptures of the Old and New Testaments in the form of a translation\nfrom the Syriac. But in the year 433 two pupils of Mesrob, returning\nfrom the Synod of Ephesus, are said to have brought back with them from\nConstantinople a Greek Bible, and having learned Greek in Alexandria, to\nhave translated it into Armenian. According to another account this was\ndone by St. Sahak (390-428) about the year 406. The first edition of the\nArmenian New Testament was brought out in Amsterdam in the year\n1666[113] by Osgan of Eriwan, who had been sent to Europe four years\npreviously by the Armenian Synod. It was edited from a defective\nmanuscript, the missing portions of which Osgan supplied from the\nVulgate. A better edition was published in 1789 by Zohrab, who used\ntwenty manuscripts, and especially a Cilician Codex of the year 1310. He\nwas of opinion that the Armenians did not receive the Apocalypse before\nthe eighth century. Zohrab\u2019s text was collated for Tregelles by Rieu,\nwhom Tischendorf seems to have drawn upon in his editions.\n\nThe Armenian manuscripts display variations of several sorts. In some\nJohn\u2019s Gospel precedes the Synoptists, in others it is followed by the\nApocryphal \u201cRest of St. John.\u201d The Apocalypse was not read in church\nprior to the twelfth century. In the oldest manuscript of the entire New\nTestament, at Venice, which dates from the year 1220, the order of the\nother books is Acts, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, Pauline Epistles,\nwith the Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul. In Moscow there is a\nmanuscript of the year 887, in Venice one dated 902, in Etschmiadzin one\nwritten in the year 986 and bound in ivory covers of the third or fourth\ncentury. In the last-mentioned Codex the words, \u201cof Ariston the\nPresbyter,\u201d are found after Mark xvi. 8, as the heading of what follows.\n(_See Plate IX._) We learn from this, what is evidently correct, viz.,\nthat the present conclusion of Mark\u2019s Gospel is due to a certain\nAriston, who may perhaps be identified with Aristion, the teacher of\nPapias in the second century. The earlier Armenian version also\ncontained the two verses Luke xxii. 43, 44, which were omitted in the\nlater.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014_TiGr._, 912-922. Scrivener, ii. 148-154. F. C.\n    Conybeare, _Armenian Versions of N. T._, in Hastings\u2019 _Bible\n    Dictionary_, i. 153 f. See also J. A. Robinson, _Euthaliana_, c. v.;\n    _The Armenian Version and its supposed relation to Euthalius_, in\n    _Texts and Studies_, vol. iii. (1895). On Aristion see _Expositor_,\n    1894, p. 241, and below, p. 295.\n\n\n                      (_g._) THE GEORGIAN VERSION.\n\n\nThis version, called also the Grusinian or Iberian, is thought to have\nbeen made from the Greek in the sixth century, though it may also be\nderived from the Armenian. It contains the pericope adulter\u00e6 (John vii.\n53-viii. 11), but places it immediately after ch. vii. 44, which is the\nmore remarkable, seeing that in the Old Latin Codex b, the passage from\nvii. 44 onwards has been erased. The Georgian version was first printed\nat Moscow in 1743.\n\n    Scrivener, ii. 156-158; re-written by F. C. Conybeare. _TiGr._, 922\n    f.\n\n\n                      (_h._) THE ARABIC VERSIONS.\n\n\nSome of these were made directly from the Greek, others from the Syriac\nand the Coptic, while there are also manuscripts exhibiting a recension\nundertaken at Alexandria in the thirteenth century, The New Testament\nwas even cast into that form of rhymed prose made classic by the Koran.\nAs early as the eighth century we find Mohammedan scholars quoting\nvarious passages of the New Testament, particularly the sayings\nregarding the Paraclete in John xv. 26, 27, xvi. 13, which they\nunderstood of Mohammed. He himself, however, knew the Gospel narrative\nfrom oral tradition only. The oldest known manuscript is perhaps one at\nSinai, written in the ninth century, from which Mrs. Gibson edited the\ntext of Romans, 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., and Ephes. i. 1-ii. 9, in the\n_Studia Sinaitica_, ii. The four Gospels were published in 1864 by\nLagarde from a Vienna manuscript, in which a number of various readings\nwere cited from the Coptic, Syriac, and Latin, this last, _e.g._, being\nadduced in support of a reading hitherto found only in D, one Old Latin\n(g), and the Lewis-Syriac: \u03bf\u1f54\u03ba \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f22 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 ... \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2\n\u03bf\u1f54\u03ba \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd (Matthew xviii. 20). The first edition of the\nGospels appeared at Rome in 1591. [Sidenote: Other versions.] In common\nwith the remaining versions of the New Testament, _Persic_, _Old High\nGerman_, _Anglo-Saxon_, _Bohemian_, and _Slavonic_, these secondary\nArabic versions are not only exceedingly interesting from the point of\nview of the history of language and culture, but they are also valuable\nhere and there for the restoration of the original text. In the present\nwork, however, we cannot enter more fully into them.\n\n    LITERATURE.\u2014_TiGr._, 928-947. Scrivener, ii. 161-164. _Urt._,\n    150-155. F. C. Burkitt, _Arabic Versions_, in Hastings\u2019 _Dictionary\n    of the Bible_, i. 136-138, where see literature. Burkitt thinks that\n    the oldest monument of Arabic Christianity is the manuscript\n    formerly belonging to the Convent of Mar Saba, now known as Cod.\n    Vat. Arab. 13, and numbered 101 in _TiGr._, which is generally\n    assigned to the eighth century. It originally contained the Psalter,\n    Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, and is derived from the Syriac.\n    Fragments of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and of the Pauline Epistles,\n    are all that now remain. From the same convent come two manuscripts\n    of the ninth century, containing a version made directly from the\n    Greek, and perhaps ultimately derived from the Greek-Arabic\n    manuscript cited as \u0398^h, of which only four leaves have been\n    preserved (see above, p. 72). On a Gr\u00e6co-Arabic MS. connected with\n    the Ferrar Group (211^{ev}), see Lake in the _Journal of Theological\n    Studies_, i. 117 ff. Most of the Coptic manuscripts are accompanied\n    by an Arabic version. The one contained in Cod. Vat. Copt. 9 of the\n    year 1202 is the best, and forms the basis of our printed editions.\n    The first revision was undertaken in the year 1250, at Alexandria,\n    by Hibat All\u00e2h ibn el-Ass\u00e2l, and a second towards the end of the\n    thirteenth century, from which the variants in Lagarde\u2019s edition are\n    derived. An Arabic version of the Acts and all seven Catholic\n    Epistles, found in a ninth century manuscript at Sinai, and numbered\n    154 in Mrs. Gibson\u2019s Catalogue, is published by her in _Studia\n    Sinaitica_, vii. (1899).\n\n    For the remaining versions of the N. T., see Scrivener, ii. pp.\n    158-166 (Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon, Frankish, Persic). These minor\n    versions will be treated in vol. iv. of Hastings\u2019 _Bible\n    Dictionary_, under the general heading of Versions. See also _Urtext\n    und Uebersetzungen der Bibel_.\n\n\n                             3. QUOTATIONS.\n\n\nOur third source of material for the restoration of the text of the New\nTestament is =Quotations= found in other books. These are of great\nvalue, because they represent, for the most part, definite manuscripts\nexisting in certain places at the time of the writer quoting them, and\nalso because a large number of them belong to a time from which no\ncodices have come down to us. The value of their testimony depends, of\ncourse, on the conditions already mentioned (p. 32)\u2014viz., that the\nauthor quoted accurately, and the copyist copied faithfully, and the\neditor edited correctly. Quotations made by _Jewish_ writers as well as\nby Christian will fall to be considered, only it is doubtful if in their\ncase we have more than one or two uncertain allusions to Matthew v. 17.\nSo, too, will the quotations made by _pagan opponents_ of Christianity,\nparticularly those of _Celsus_ in the second century, and of the Emperor\nJulian. But here again we are not in possession of their complete works,\nwhich can only be restored by a similar process and with more or less\nuncertainty from the quotations from them found in the writings of the\nApologists.[114] The books of those Christian Churches which were\nisolated from the main church will also be valuable. Even a verse of\nScripture carved upon a stone in an old ruin may have something to tell\nus.\n\nBrief quotations were usually made from memory. It was not so convenient\nto turn up the passage in an old manuscript as it is now in our handy\nprinted editions.[115] In the case of longer passages and verbal\nquotations generally, indolent copyists were sometimes content with\nsimply adding \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f11\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2. In the _Apostolic Constitutions_, ii. 22, for\nexample, where the entire prayer of Manasses was meant to be given, the\ncopyist of a certain manuscript,[116] after writing the opening words\nfrom \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5 down to \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, omitted all the rest, amounting to\nthirty-one lines of print, substituting simply \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f11\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f03\n\u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5. (See further, _Apost. Const._, i. 7, Lagarde, p. 8,\n23; ii. 14, p. 28, 7. 11; 29, 2). This, however, is not without its\nparallel in modern times. As late as 1872, an Oxford editor, in bringing\nout Cyril of Alexandria\u2019s Commentary on the Gospel according to St.\nJohn, wrote down only the initial and final words of the quotations in\nhis manuscript, and allowed the compositor to set up the rest from a\nprinted edition of the Textus Receptus. Another editor in Vienna, in\npreparing an edition of Cyprian\u2019s Works, preferred those very\nmanuscripts in which the Scriptural quotations had been accommodated to\nthe current text of later times. Only when a quotation is given by an\nauthor several times in exactly the same form is it safe to depend on\nthe actual wording, or when in a Commentary, _e.g._, the context agrees\nwith the quoted text. Collections of Scriptural passages like the\n_Testimonia_ of Cyprian and the so-called _Speculum_ of Augustine are\nalso taken directly from manuscripts of the Bible.\n\nFrancis Lucas of Br\u00fcgge was the first to explore the writings of the\nChurch Fathers for the express purposes of textual criticism. They are\nreferred to in four notes found in the Complutensian Polyglot. In his\nedition of 1516, Erasmus cites a whole series of Patristic\nwitnesses\u2014Ambrosius, Athanasius, Augustine, Cyprian, Gregory of\nNazianzen, Origen, and Theodoret. Since that time all judicious critics\nhave paid attention to them. Valuable service has been rendered for\nTertullian by R\u00f6nsch, and for Origen by Griesbach. For Augustine,\nLagarde is specially to be mentioned. Most of the Fathers were thus\ncared for by Burgon, who indexed the New Testament quotations in sixteen\nlarge volumes, which were deposited in the British Museum after his\ndeath. The only pity is that the works of those very Fathers that are of\nmost importance are not yet satisfactorily edited. All the more welcome,\ntherefore, is the appearance of the Vienna Academy\u2019s _Corpus Scriptorum\nEcclesiasticorum Latinorum_, of which forty volumes have been issued\nsince 1867, and of the Berlin Academy\u2019s edition of the Ante-Nicene Greek\nFathers, of which one volume of Hippolytus and two of Origen have made\ntheir appearance.[117]\n\nThe earliest Fathers are valuable chiefly for the history of the\n_Canon_. That is to say, their evidence must be taken simply as showing\nwhat New Testament writings they were acquainted with, and here the\n_argumentum ex silentio_ is to be applied with caution. This is the case\nwith _Barnabas_ and _Clement_[118] in the first century, and _Ignatius_\nand _Hermas_ in the first half of the second. Even with the much more\nextensive writings of _Justin_, there is still considerable\ndispute\u2014_e.g._, as to what Gospels he made use of.[119] _Iren\u00e6us_ of\nLyons is valuable on account of his extreme carefulness, and would be\nparticularly so if it could be proved that he brought his New Testament\nwith him from Smyrna[120] and if his writings were extant in Greek, and\nnot, as is the case with most of them, in Latin only. In Egypt _Clement\nof Alexandria_ holds a prominent place, but by far the most\ndistinguished of all is the great Biblical scholar of antiquity,\n_Origen_ (d. 248). Already we find these writers appealing to\nmanuscripts, and distinguishing them by such epithets as \u201cgood,\u201d \u201cold,\u201d\n\u201cemended,\u201d \u201cmost,\u201d or \u201cfew.\u201d In the case of the Ante-Nicene Fathers\ntheir locality is an important consideration, whether Antioch, C\u00e6sarea\n(_Eusebius_), Egypt, Constantinople (_Chrysostom_), or Cappadocia\n(_Theodore_), etc. Their expositions of Scripture are preserved in the\nso-called =Caten\u00e6=, or continuous commentaries, in which the\ninterpretations of different Fathers are arranged continuously like the\nlinks of a chain. It not unfrequently happens in these Caten\u00e6 that the\nwords of one writer are cited under the name of another. The evidence\nafforded by the writings of the Heretics is no less valuable, if we\nexcept those passages, which are not numerous, in which they are\nunderstood to have altered the text of the Scriptures. The works of\n_Marcion_ have been preserved for the most part in Latin by\n_Tertullian_. They have recently been collected and restored by Zahn.\nThe Latin translator of Iren\u00e6us also belongs, in all probability, to the\ntime of Tertullian, and not to the fourth century. This unknown\ntranslator seems to have preserved the Scriptural quotations of Iren\u00e6us\nwith greater fidelity than the later Church Fathers who cite them in the\nGreek. Of Latin writers contemporary with or subsequent to Tertullian,\nthose of most importance for the text of the Old Latin Bible are\n_Cyprian_, _Hilary of Poictiers_, _Ambrose of Milan_, _Augustine_ and\nhis opponent _Pelagius_, and for the Apocalypse, _Tyconius_ and\n_Primasius_. From the works of Augustine Lagarde collected no fewer than\n29540 quotations from the New Testament in addition to 13276 from the\nOld.\n\nValuable testimony is also afforded by Syrian and Armenian writers. It\nis only with their assistance, _e.g._, that it has been possible to\nrestore one of our oldest authorities\u2014the Diatessaron of Tatian\u2014which\ndates from the second century.\n\n    (1) Further examples might be adduced of the unreliable nature of\n    manuscripts and printed editions.\n\n    We find, _e.g._, in the voluminous commentary of the so-called\n    Ambrosiaster,[121] the following note on the quotation in 1 Cor. ii.\n    9:\u2014\u201cEye hath not seen, etc.\u201d\u2014\u201choc est scriptum in Apocalypsi Heliae\n    in apocryphis.\u201d In place of the last five words, two manuscripts and\n    all the printed editions previous to that of St. Maur\u2014_i.e._ prior\n    to the year 1690\u2014have \u201cin Esaia propheta aliis verbis.\u201d\n\n    Compare also what Zahn says in his _Einleitung_, ii. 314. \u201cA\n    comparison of the quotations in Matthew with the LXX. is rendered\n    more difficult by the fact that in manuscripts of the latter written\n    by Christians, and especially in Cod. Alexandrinus, the text of the\n    O. T. has been accommodated to the form in which it is cited in the\n    N. T. _Cf._, also, p. 563 on the quotation from Zechariah xii. 10,\n    found in John xix. 37.\u201d The same writer says (p. 465): \u201cIn the\n    Chronicle of Georgios Hamartolos (circa 860), all the manuscripts\n    save one assert the peaceful death of John (\u1f10\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u1fc3 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf),\n    but this one says the very opposite, \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, and goes\n    on to make certain other additions.\u201d On the other hand, we must not\n    forget in this connection the testimony preserved by Eusebius to the\n    scrupulous care taken by Iren\u00e6us for the propagation of his writings\n    in the identical form in which he wrote them. According to that\n    historian, he wrote at the end of one of his works the following\n    note:\u2014\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\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n    \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\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 \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n    \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 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03ce\u03c3\u1fc3\u03c2\n    \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, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\n    \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.[122]\n\n    (2) It was Lagarde who most clearly recognised and pointed out the\n    unsatisfactory way in which the Fathers had previously been edited.\n    How much care is necessary in the matter of the text is shown by the\n    discussions connected with the treatment of Scriptural quotations in\n    the new Vienna edition of Augustine (see _Urt._, 76, 94; Preuschen,\n    in the _ThLz._ for 1897, 24, col. 630). Even in the new Berlin\n    edition one cannot absolutely rely on the form of the Scriptural\n    quotations exhibited in the text, but must always verify it by means\n    of an independent examination of the apparatus. A few passages from\n    the first volume of Origen recently published will show this, and\n    prove at the same time how faulty the editions have been hitherto.\n    This first volume of Koetschau\u2019s new edition of Origen opens with\n    the _Exhortation to Martyrdom_ (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2), a work\n    which is to be assigned to the year 235. The text of previous\n    editions is grounded solely on a manuscript at Basel written in the\n    sixteenth century (No. 31, A. iii. 9), which is itself a copy, and a\n    not altogether correct copy, of a Parisian manuscript written in the\n    year 1339, not known to the first editors of Origen (P = suppl.\n    grec. 616). Moreover, the Basel manuscript was not transcribed with\n    sufficient accuracy, or the print was not superintended with\n    sufficient care by the scholar who prepared the first printed\n    edition of 1674. With the help of a fresh manuscript (M = Venetus\n    Marc. 45, of the fourteenth century) it is now established that the\n    writer of P arbitrarily altered the text in a great number of\n    passages, and, above all, abridged it mainly by the excision of\n    Scriptural quotations. Where Origen, _e.g._, in citing a passage\n    gives all three Synoptists, P quite calmly drops one of them. The\n    _Panegyric_ of Gregory Thaumaturgus is treated in the same way, this\n    manuscript omitting about 100 out of some 1200 lines of print. And\n    these were the texts to which till the present we were referred for\n    our Patristic quotations! To take an example:\n\n    On \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, Luke ix. 26, Tischendorf, who in his seventh\n    edition gave \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 (= my followers) as the correct reading,\n    observed that this reading, without \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, was supported by Dael\n    Or., i. 298. But he added\u2014and this is a proof of the carefulness\n    with which the quotation from Origen is employed here\u2014sed pr\u00e6cedit\n    \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5. But if we turn up this\n    passage in the new edition, we find that it now reads (i. 34, 9\n    ff.): \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n    \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, and then the three parallel passages are quoted in the order\n    frequently found in Origen\u2014viz., Matthew x. 33 = Luke ix. 26 = Mark\n    viii. 38. Previous editions entirely omitted this last quotation, as\n    well as the words in the context, \u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5. But now\n    everything is in order. The words \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd refer to\n    \u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5 in Matt. x. 33; \u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 to\n    \u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 in Luke ix. 26; and \u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n    \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 to \u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, in\n    Mark viii. 38. So that whereas, on the ground of previous editions,\n    Tischendorf was obliged to point out a discrepancy between Origen\u2019s\n    context and his peculiar quotation from Luke, the context of the new\n    edition serves to confirm this peculiar quotation, and shows at the\n    same time that we can accept it on the authority of this very\n    passage, as against a former passage (p. 296 = 31, 7), where the\n    verse in Luke is found in the newly-employed manuscript also with\n    the words \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. That the editor should have put \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n    in the first passage within brackets, or at least have pointed out\n    the discrepancy between it and the quotation further down, would\n    have been too much to expect, seeing that his manuscripts of Origen\n    gave no manner of ground for doing so; it is the duty of those who\n    investigate the Scriptural quotations in Origen to pay attention to\n    such things. But there are also passages where the editor has\n    actually gone in the face of his manuscripts, and wrongly altered\n    the text of his Scriptural quotations, having evidently allowed\n    himself to be influenced by the printed text of the N. T., and\n    paying too little respect to the manuscripts.\n\n    An attentive reader will have observed that the reading in Luke ix.\n    26, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 = my followers, which is now established for Origen,\n    is at present supported by D alone of the Greek manuscripts and by\n    three Old Latin witnesses. (It is also found in the Curetonian\n    Syriac, but unfortunately the corresponding words in the\n    Sinai-Syriac could not be made out with certainty by Mrs. Lewis; see\n    _Some Pages_, p. 72 = p. 168 in the first edition). Now, look at the\n    passage in Origen\u2019s work, i. 25, 26 ff. (p. 293 in De la Rue\u2019s\n    edition): \u03bf \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd ... \u03bf \u03b4\u03b5\n    \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u03bf \u03b4\u03b5 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f00\u03b2\u03b2\u1fb6 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1, \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u00b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\n    \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The passage is printed thus by Koetschau, agreeing exactly\n    with the earlier printed editions and our texts of the N. T. in Mark\n    xiv. 36. But in this he is far wrong. Because, as his own apparatus\n    shows us, the Venetian manuscript, which he rightly follows\n    elsewhere, reads the words in the order \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03bf\u03af, which is\n    exactly the order of the words (Mark xiv. 36) in D, but again in no\n    other Greek manuscript with the solitary exception of the cursive\n    473.[123] But there are even passages where Koetschau follows the\n    printed text of the N. T. in the scriptural quotations in despite of\n    both his manuscripts. In i. 29, 13 (i. 295 De la Rue), where Matt.\n    x. 17-23 is quoted, he inserts after \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c4\u03af \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 the clause\n    \u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f65\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03af \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 from Matt. x. 19, on\n    the supposition that these words may have dropped out of the\n    archetype of M P on account of the homoioteleuton. But they are also\n    omitted in Cod. D of the N. T. And this, moreover, is not the only\n    point of agreement between this manuscript and the text given in\n    this quotation. There is, _e.g._, the omission of \u03b4\u03ad in v. 17, the\n    reading \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd in v. 19, which Koetschau has altered to the\n    more grammatical \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, again without sufficient reason and in\n    defiance of both his manuscripts, and the omission of \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd in v. 20,\n    of which there is no mention in Tischendorf (see the Collation of D\n    in my _Supplementum_). Origen also agrees with D, though not\n    verbally, in reading \u03ba\u1f02\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03ba\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\n    further down (v. 23), where again Koetschau seems to me to have\n    unnecessarily inserted \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd, which is omitted in his principal\n    manuscript and also in D. Compare, also, i. 22, 12, where Origen\n    agrees with D in reading \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (Luke xii. 11) instead of\n    \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, read by our critical editions on the authority of \u05d0 B L\n    X, or \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd by the _textus receptus_ with A Q R, etc. Both\n    concur, also, in the omission of the first \u1f22 \u03c4\u03af in the same verse.\n\n    What is here said as to the close affinity of Origen\u2019s Bible with\n    Codex D is corroborated by the testimony of the Athos manuscript\n    discovered by von der Goltz (see above, p. 90). This manuscript\n    confirms what we knew before\u2014viz. that Marcion\u2019s text had \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n    and not \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd or \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd in 1 Cor. x. 9. But it also tells us what we\n    did not know\u2014viz. that \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd was the only reading known to Origen,\n    and that \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd in the _Synodical Epistle_ addressed to Paul of\n    Samosata, published by Turrianus (in Routh\u2019s _Reliqui\u00e6 Sacr\u00e6_,\n    iii.^2 299), is not the original reading but a later substitute for\n    \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. This is made out by Zahn in the _ThLbl._, 1899, col. 180,\n    who concludes by saying that Clement, _Ecl. Proph._, 49, should not\n    be omitted in a proper apparatus, and that \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd ought never again\n    to be printed in the text. Our most recent editors, Tischendorf,\n    Westcott and Hort, Weiss, and Baljon, put \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd in their text\n    without so much as mentioning \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd in the margin, or among the\n    Noteworthy Rejected Readings, or in the list of Interchanged Words\n    (Weiss, p. 7). In the Stuttgart edition the text is determined by a\n    consensus of previous editions, and I was obliged to let \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n    stand in the text, but I have put \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd in the margin, as\n    Tregelles also did. In this instance the _textus receptus_ is\n    actually better than our critical editions. The rejected reading is\n    again the Western, and Zahn, in commenting on the newly-discovered\n    testimony as to the text of 1 John iv. 3 (see below, p. 327),\n    pertinently remarks that \u201chere again it is perfectly evident, as any\n    discerning person might have known, that many important readings\n    which were wont to be contemptuously dismissed as Western, were long\n    prevalent in the East as well, not only among the Syrians but also\n    among the Alexandrians, and were only discarded by the official\n    recensions of the text that were made subsequent to the time of\n    Origen.\u201d These illustrations will serve to show that not only is the\n    editing of the Patristic texts no easy matter, but also that the\n    employment even of the best editions is not unaccompanied with\n    risks. See Koetschau, _Bibelcitate bei Origenes_, _ZfwTh._, 1900,\n    pp. 321-378.\n\n    (3) The Rev. Prebendary Ed. Miller is at present at work on a\n    _Textual Commentary upon the Holy Gospels_, on the ground of\n    Burgon\u2019s Collection and his own researches. A specimen of this work\n    (Matthew v. 44) is given in his _Present State of the Textual\n    Controversy respecting the Holy Gospels_, which was printed for\n    private circulation, and may be had of the author.[124] In this\n    little pamphlet he takes up the question (p. 30) whether Origen in\n    the _De Oratione_ 1 (De la Rue, i. 198; Koetschau, ii. 299, 22)\n    quotes from Luke (vi. 28) or Matthew (v. 44), and decides for the\n    latter. Koetschau is of the opposite opinion, giving \u201cLuke vi. 28\n    (Matthew v. 44).\u201d In the case of Patristic quotations, it will be\n    seen that matters are frequently very complicated. It must be borne\n    in mind, too, that the various writers did not use the same copy of\n    the Scriptures all their life long. At different times and in\n    different localities they must necessarily have had different copies\n    before them.\n\n    (4) It is further to be observed that in the case of controversial\n    writings, such as those of Origen against Celsus, and Augustine\n    against the Manich\u00e6ans, the question must always be considered\n    whether the Scriptural quotations found in them are quotations made\n    by Origen and Augustine themselves, or taken by them from the\n    writings they assail or refer to; and also whether the quotations\n    have been made directly from a manuscript of the Bible, or from the\n    works of a previous writer. Borrowing from an author without\n    acknowledgment may have been a much more common thing in olden times\n    than it is even at present.\n\n    In Clement of Rome (c. 13), in Clement of Alexandria (_Stromata_,\n    ii. p. 476), and partly also in the _Epistle of Polycarp_ (c. 2), we\n    find the following quotation:\u2014\u201cBe ye merciful that ye may obtain\n    mercy: forgive that ye may be forgiven: as ye do, so shall it be\n    done to you: as ye give, so shall it be given to you: as ye judge,\n    so shall ye be judged: as ye are kind, so shall kindness be shown to\n    you: with what measure ye mete, it shall be meted unto you.\u201d We find\n    also in Clement of Rome (c. 46), and in Clement of Alexandria\n    (_Stromata_, iii. p. 561), the quotation: \u201cWoe to that man: it were\n    good for him if he had never been born, rather than that he should\n    offend one of my elect: it were better for him that a millstone were\n    hanged about his neck and he be drowned in the depth of the sea,\n    than that he should offend one of my little ones.\u201d Neither of these\n    quotations is found literally in our canonical Gospels. Accordingly,\n    Rendel Harris concludes from the testimony of these various\n    witnesses that they must have been taken from an Urevangelium, now\n    perished (_Contemporary Review_, Sept. 1897). This view is combated,\n    it seems to me rightly, by H. T. Andrews in the _Expository Times_\n    for November 1897, p. 94 f. He thinks it probable that Clement of\n    Alexandria and Polycarp are both dependent on Clement of Rome.[125]\n\n    (5) In spite of all these difficulties, a systematic examination of\n    the Patristic quotations remains one of the most important tasks for\n    the textual criticism of the N. T. We have most useful collections,\n    both ancient and modern, of passages from the Fathers to illustrate\n    the history of the Canon, and their use of the Scriptures has been\n    scrutinised in the interests of dogmatic history, but there are not\n    yet, so far as I know, any collections of Patristic quotations to\n    elucidate the history of the text. Two things are specially wanted\n    at present. One is a collection, arranged according to time and\n    locality, of all the passages in which the Fathers appeal to\n    \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1. In the new volumes of Origen, _e.g._, we find two such\n    references\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 (i.\n    113), and \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd (ii. 52).[126] The other\n    desideratum is a collection of all the passages in the biographies\n    of the Saints where mention is made of the writing of Biblical\n    manuscripts. It is said of Evagrius, _e.g._, in the _Historia\n    Lausiaca_ (c. 28 in Preuschen, _Palladius_, p. 111), \u03b5\u1f50\u03c6\u03c5\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n    \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f40\u03be\u03cd\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1, and the preparation of Biblical\n    manuscripts is also referred to in the _Vita Epiphanii_ (ed. Petav.\n    ii.), and in Cassiodorus, _De Institutione Divinarum Literarum_ (see\n    above, p. 50). On the use hitherto made of Patristic testimony see\n    the section _De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis_ in _TiGr._, 1129-1230.\n    An abridged list of those mentioned there will be found in Baljon\u2019s\n    _New Testament_, pp. xv.-xxiii. A catalogue of the names and dates\n    of the Patristic writers most frequently cited in critical editions\n    of the N. T. is given in Scrivener, ii. pp. 172-174.[127] See also\n    _Urt._, p. 22, 56 f., 94. On the Old Latin _Didascalia_, see Ed.\n    Hauler in the _W.S.B._, 1895, vol. cxxxiv. p. 40 ff., and the\n    _Mitteilungen_ of B. G. Teubner, 1897, ii. p. 52.[128] On the\n    Biblical text of Filastrius (_C.S.E._, vol. xxxviii., 1898), see\n    Kroll in the notice of Marx\u2019s edition in the _Berlin. Phil.\n    Wochenschrift_, 1898, 27. On Jovinian, see _TU._, New Series, ii. 1,\n    etc. On the quotations from the Gospels in Novatian (Pseudo-Cyprian)\n    see Harnack in _TU._, xiii. 4.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  Zahn, _Geschichte des N.T. Kanons_, i. 652; _Einleitung_, i. 153.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  From the Cod. Monac. 255 and 551, published by Aug. Thenn in the\n  _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr wissenschaftliche Theologie_ 29 (1887), 453.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  The most convenient survey of these is given in Vollert\u2019s \u201cTabellen\n  zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte: mit einer Uebersicht \u00fcber die\n  Codices in denen die N.T. Schriften bezeugt sind.\u201d Leipzig, 1897.\n  Given in Sitterly (see above, p. 33).\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  See _e.g._ Plate I.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  See _e.g._ Plate X.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  See Scrivener, i. p. 160; Rahlfs, _G\u00f6ttinger gelehrte Nachrichten_,\n  1898, i. 98-112.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  _TiGr._, pp. 1233 ff.; Warfield, _Textual Criticism of the N.T._, p.\n  47.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  To obviate confusion, it would be well to use the Latin name\n  Evangeliarium. \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd means a Table of Lections. (See\n  Brightman, in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, 1900, p. 448, and\n  now Gregory, _Textkritik_, i. p. 334 f.)\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  _Nat. Hist._, xiii. 11.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  _Egitto_, 2nd ed., p. 125.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  _Vide_ Th. Mommsen, _Das Diokletianische Edikt \u00fcber die Warenpreise_\n  (Hermes, xxv. 17-36, 1890); on the fragments recently discovered in\n  Megalopolis, see W. Loring, _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 1890, 299;\n  also, _Revue Arch\u00e9ologique_, Mars-Avril, 1891, 268.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  Herodotus v. 58. On the connection of _litera_ and \u03b4\u03b9\u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, see M.\n  Br\u00e9al, _Rev. des Et. grecques_, iii. 10, 1890, 121 ff., and _Rev.\n  Crit._, 1892, 13. In Cyprus the schoolmaster was called the\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  _Cf._ Codex D, Mark i. 6.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  _Cf._ Victor Schultze, _Rolle und Codex_, in the Greifswalder Studien,\n  G\u00fctersloh, 1895, p. 149 ff.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  _Vide_ C. R. Gregory, _Sur les cahiers des manuscrits grecs_, Acad\u00e9mie\n  des Inscriptions, Aug. 1885; Berliner Phil. Wochenschrift, 1886, v.\n  159 ff.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  _E.g._ in Cod. Barocc. 1 in the Bodleian, and in several Syriac\n  manuscripts.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  _Vide_ G. Ebers, _Kaiser Hadrian_: also _The Writing Material of\n  Antiquity_, by Ebers, in the Cosmopolitan Magazine, New York, Nov.\n  1893; and especially Dziatzko (see above, p. 33). On the papyrus plant\n  (Cyperus papyrus L., Papyrus Antiquorum Willd.), see Bernard de\n  Montfaucon, _Dissertation sur la plante appel\u00e9e Papyrus, sur le papier\n  d\u2019\u00c9gypte_, etc. Memoires de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie Royale des Inscriptions et\n  Belles Lettres, T. vi. Paris, 1729, 4to., pp. 592-608; Franz Woenig,\n  _Die Pflanzen im alten Aegypten, ihre Heimat, Geschichte, Kultur_,\n  Leipzig, 1886, pp. 74-129. J. Hoskyns-Abrahall pointed out that it is\n  found in Europe, not only in the neighbourhood of Syracuse in Sicily,\n  but also on the shores of Lake Trasimene: see _The Papyrus in Europe_,\n  in the Academy, 19th Mar. 1887. Lagarde raised a question as to the\n  etymology of the word papyrus (which has not yet been explained),\n  whether it might not be derived from Bura on Lake Menzaleh, where it\n  was first manufactured, _pa_ being the article in Egyptian; see his\n  _Mitteilungen_, ii. 260. If this is so, there is the more reason for\n  pronouncing the _y_ long, as ancient writers did, and not short as the\n  modern fashion is\u2014pap\u00fdrus, not p\u00e1pyrus. _Cf._ Juvenal, iv. 24; vii.\n  101; Mart. iii. 2; viii. 44; x. 97. Catull. xxxv. 2. Ovid, _Met._ xv.\n  753; _Trist._ iii. 10, 27.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  See U. Wilcken, _Recto oder Verso_, Hermes, 1887, 487-492.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  Apoc. v. 1 can no longer be cited in support of this practice, seeing\n  we must take \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f44\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd with \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, according to Grotius\n  and Zahn. On \u1f40\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03cc\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd, _cf._ Lucian, _Vitarum Auctio_, 9; Pliny,\n  3, 5; _a tergo_ Juvenal, 1, 6; _in aversa charta_, Martial, 8, 22.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  Pausanias, ix. 31, 4.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  Deissmann, _Bibelstudien_, 26-54.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  Hiller von Gaertringen, _Berl. Sitz.-Ber._, 21st July 1898.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  See Wilcken, _Verein von Alterstumsfreunden im Rheinland_. Heft\n  lxxxvi. p. 234; also the _Berl. Phil. Wochenschrift_, 1889, 26.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  _Cf._ Livy, B. iv. c. 7; Pliny, xiii. 11, \u201cpostea publica monumenta\n  plumbeis voluminibus mox et privata linteis confici coepta sunt.\u201d\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  _J\u00fcdisches Literaturblatt_, 1889, 10.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  _Cf._ the verses inscribed on a marble tablet discovered in Andros by\n  Ross in 1844:\u2014\n\n                               \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03cc\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f3e\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 ...\n                 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u1f1c\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03b1 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bb\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n                 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f05 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03be\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c2\n                 \u03c6\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd....\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  See Nestle, _Bengel_, p. 105.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr das Humanistische Gymnasium_, 1896, p. 27.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  O. Hoffmann, _Griechische Dialekte_, i. 107.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  Probably pens of the first quality\u2014\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  Harris, _Last Words of Baruch_, vi. 17, p. 56.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  _Vide_ Harnack, _T. und U._, ii. 5, p. 68.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  Socin, _Arabic Grammar_, 2nd ed., p. 55, line 14; p. 56, line 12.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  _ZdmG._, xliii. 547.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  Konstantin Oikonomos, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03cc \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, Bk. iv. p. 975.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  Hody, 1684, p. 254 ff.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  _Vide_ Harnack in the _ThLz._, 1885, cols. 321, 324, n. 5.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  Ed. Feige, p. 53.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  _Divin. Lect._, c. xv.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  _S\u00e4chs. Sitz.-Ber._ (1889), xi. 4, 369.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  Balsamon, the Canonist (c. 1200), complains that \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019\n  \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd, and\n  he requests \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c0\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  On Constantine\u2019s Bibles, see Westcott, _Canon_, c. ii. p. 426; _Bible\n  in the Church_, c. vi. p. 155 ff.; Zahn, _Geschichte des N. T.\n  Kanons_, i. 64. Zahn combats the supposition that the entire Bible was\n  contained in each Codex, pointing out quite rightly that in that case\n  the latter could not have been \u03b5\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1, and moreover that\n  Constantine speaks of \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1, which does not mean codices but\n  something much more indefinite. Nor does he believe that Eusebius\n  intended to specify the number of sheets in each quire of the Codex or\n  of the columns in which it was written. \u201cThe fifty Bibles might and\n  would be distributed in 200 to 400 volumes.\u201d According to the view\n  taken above there would be from 150 to 200 of these. _Cf._ Scrivener,\n  i. p. 118, n. 2.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  For the order of the books in \u05d0, see Westcott, _Bible in the Church_,\n  Appendix B, \u201cContents of the most ancient MSS. of the Bible (A, B, \u05d0,\n  D, Amiat.)\u201d; _Hist. of the Canon_, Appendix D, \u201cCatalogues of Books of\n  the Bible during the first eight Centuries.\u201d\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  Six leaves are now wanting between Barnabas and Hermas. What did these\n  contain, shall we suppose? Perhaps the Didache. Schmiedel makes a\n  different conjecture in the _Literarisches Centralblatt_, 1897, n. 49\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  _Vide_ Wordsworth and White, _Epilogus_, p. 737, _De Sectionibus\n  Ammonianis in Evangeliis_.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03af\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f11\u03be\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u1fb6 \u1f68\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7 \u03a0\u03ac\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  This agrees with the last of the so-called Apostolic Canons (85),\n  which includes \u039a\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf among the Books of the New\n  Testament after the Epistles of James and Jude. See Westcott, _Canon_,\n  Appendix D. iii. a.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  On the Alexandrian division of the Gospels into 68, 48, 83, and 18\n  sections respectively, see Kenyon in the _Journal of Theological\n  Studies_, i. 149.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  For the Festal Letter, see Westcott, _Canon_, App. D. xiv., p. 554;\n  _Bible in the Church_, p. 159 ff.; Preuschen\u2019s _Analecta_, pp. 144\n  ff.; Burgess, _Festal Letters of Athanasius translated from the\n  Syriac_, p. 137. Sahidic published by C. Schmidt in the _Nachrichten_\n  mentioned above, 1898, p. 167 ff. He holds it to be the original form\n  of the Letter.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  _E.g._ \u0391\u03a0\u0395\u03f9\u03a4\u0391\u039b\u039a\u0395\u039d, 122_b_, 4.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  An Indiction is a cycle of fifteen years, computed by the Greeks from\n  1st September 312 A.D. Its introduction was ascribed to Constantine\n  the Great. See Scrivener, i., App. C, p. 380.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  See Scrivener, 1. p. 160, under \u039b. This minuscule seems to be omitted\n  from Scrivener\u2019s list. See below, p. 185.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n          \u201cTo Rome to come, to Rome to come,\n          Much of trouble, little of profit,\n          The thing thou seekest here,\n          If thou bring not with thee, thou findest not\u201d; etc., etc.\n\n          See Scrivener, i. 180.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  Or Evagrius. The name is difficult to decipher. See below, pp. 188 ff.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  \u1f1c\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c7\u03b7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd ... \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72\n  \u1f21 \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n  \u03a0\u03b1\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  Perhaps in Sardinia, see below. Cf. Scrivener, i. p. 63 n. 1.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  See Scrivener (Miller), i. p. 397.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  Compare the remarks of Grenfell-Hunt on the papyrus (and vellum) books\n  and their respective handwritings in Part II. of the _Oxyrhynchus\n  Papyri_, p. 2 f.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  Facsimiles of 13, 69, 124, 346 are given in Abbott\u2019s _Collation of\n  Four Important Manuscripts_ (Dublin, 1877); see Scrivener, i. 343,\n  Plate XIII, 40.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n  See Blass\u2019s _Praefatio_ to his edition of Luke, pp. lxix f. (1897),\n  and compare Hastings\u2019 _Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. p. 144; Hoskier,\n  above, p. 5; below, p. 211.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  Zahn asserts that traces of a system of Lections are to be found as\n  early as in Irenaeus, and likewise in Codex D. _Einleitung_, ii. 355,\n  on Luke i. 26.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  On Luke viii. 15 Tischendorf observes that in 49^{evl} (a Lectionary\n  of the tenth or eleventh century, now in Moscow, presented to the\n  Monastery of the Mother of God \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 by Nicephorus,\n  Metropolitan of Crete, and Antistes of Laced\u00e6mon, in 1312) the lection\n  \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 ended with this verse (15) and the words\n  attached to it, \u201cAnd so saying He cried, He that hath ears to hear,\n  let him hear,\u201d and that the additional verses were not read \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n  \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, but vv. 20, 21-25 followed immediately after the\n  words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1fc7 (v. 15).\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  On the \u201cLivre d\u2019\u00c9vangiles r\u00e9put\u00e9 avoir appartenu \u00e0 S. Jean\n  Chrysostome,\u201d _cf._ Ch. Graux, in the _Revue de Philologie_, Avril\n  1887.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  Cf. Eusebius, _Demons. Evan._, iii. 7, 15, \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n  \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc7\n  \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. Zahn, _GK._ i. 33; Theoph., v. 64; Laud. Const., xvii.\n  9.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  The date of Tatian\u2019s birth is uncertain. Zahn decides for the year\n  110. He was in the prime of manhood by the year 160. See Hastings,\n  _Bible Dictionary_, ii. p. 697.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  See below, p. 213, n. 3.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  The Peshitto, so indicated from the principal edition by Schaaf,\n  1708-9.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  _The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus, and of Timothy and\n  Aquila._ Edited with Prolegomena and Facsimiles by F. C. Conybeare\n  (Oxford, 1898; _Anecdota Oxoniensia, Classical Series, Part VIII._).\n  See Notice in the _Lit. Cbl._, 1899, No. 5, col. 154 f.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n  Dates are still reckoned in Syria according to the Greek era, counting\n  from the year 312 B.C.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n  Hierapolis, now Membidsch on the Euphrates.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n  I. H. Hall, _Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian Version_,\n  1883.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n  The Gospels appeared in 1778, the Acts and Catholic Epistles in 1799,\n  and the Pauline Epistles in 1803.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n  In Tischendorf\u2019s critical apparatus these fragments are indicated as\n  Syr^{p(osterior)} or as Syr^{whit(e)}. It would be better to use the\n  symbol Syr^{po(lycarp)} for the first version of 508 made by Polycarp\n  for Philoxenus, and Syr^{tho(mas)} for Thomas of Harkel\u2019s recension of\n  616. Gebhardt\u2019s notation is as follows:\u2014Syr^a is the Curetonian; Syr^b\n  is the Peshitto; Syr^c is the Harklean, of which again Syr^{ct} is the\n  text, Syr^{cm} the margin, Syr^{c*} sub asterisco; Syr^d is the\n  Jerusalem Syriac; while Syr^{bodl} is the text of 2 Peter, 2 and 3\n  John, and Jude. Zahn proposes to indicate the Philoxenian\n  (Tischendorf\u2019s Syr^{bodl}) by Syr^2, and the Harklean by Syr^3; for\n  the Gospels he would employ Syr^c, Syr^s, Syr^h; Syr^1, therefore, is\n  the Peshitto.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n  Land, in the _Anecdota Syriaca_, iv., 1875; Harris, _Biblical\n  Fragments from Mount Sinai_, 1890; Gwilliam, in the _Anecdota\n  Oxoniensia_, Semitic Series, i. 5, 1893; ix. 1896;\n  Lewis-Nestle-Gibson, _Studia Sinaitica_, vi.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n  See F. Buli\u00e9, _Wo lag Stridon, die Heimat des h. Hieronymus?_ in the\n  _Festschrift f\u00fcr Otto Benndorf_. Vienna, 1898. Also _La patrie de S.\n  Jerome_ in _Analecta Bollandiana_, xviii. 3.\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n  _Einleitung_, ii. 195.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n  _Epilogus ad Evangelia_, p. 656.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n  No. 71; 164 in Jerome\u2019s letters.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n  No. 56 (A.D. 394), 67 (397), 101 (402).\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n  Burkitt\u2019s view was expressed more than three-quarters of a century ago\n  by C. A. Breyther, in a dissertation entitled, _De vi quam\n  antiquissimae versiones quae extant latinae in crisin evangeliorum IV.\n  habent_ (Merseburg, 1824). See v. Dobsch\u00fctz, _ThLz._, 1897, 135.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n  Photolithographed by Cl\u00e9dat from a MS. at Lyons.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n  J. Heidenreich, _Der neutestamentliche Text bei Cyprian verglichen mit\n  dem Vulgatatext. Eine textkritische Untersuchung zu den h. Schriften\n  des Neuen Testamentes._ Bamberg, 1900.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n  This is the view of Zahn. Others, however, have no doubt that\n  Tertullian made use of a Latin version. Hoppe, in his treatise, _De\n  sermone Tertullianeo Quaestiones Selectae_ (1897), p. 6 (_de\n  Graecismis Tertulliani_) says, \u201cPermultas enim (constructiones) T.\n  mutuatus est vel ex scriptoribus graecis, quibus assidue studuit, vel\n  ex librorum sacrorum translatione latina graecismis abundante, qua\n  utebatur.\u201d And to this he adds, \u201cQuam multa vocabula graeca in\n  Tertullianeum sermonem ex Itala quae vocatur translatione\n  redundaverint, discas ex Roenschii libro cum impigritate conscripto,\n  qui inscribitur, _Itala und Vulgata_, ed. sec., p. 238.\u201d The Itala is\n  cited for _sciant quia_ (p. 18), _absque_ (p. 44), and for the use of\n  the superlative for the positive (p. 49). On this last the writer\n  refers to R\u00f6nsch, p. 415, and adds, \u201cex Itala T. hunc usum aliquotiens\n  assumpsisse videtur, quamquam in universum vitat.\u201d _Cf._ Westcott,\n  _Canon_, Part I., c. iii. p. 251 ff.\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n  Thus we have, following the numbers given above, in verse 4 (1)\n  \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 and \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 (or \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd), (2) \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 and \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\n  \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, (3) \u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 and \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5, (4) \u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bf and \u03b4\u03c5\u03bf \u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, (5)\n  \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd and \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, (7) \u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b7 (or \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1)\n  and \u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 (or \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2), (8) \u03b5\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd (or \u03b5\u03bd \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03c9)\n  \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd and \u03b5\u03bd\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd, (9) \u03c4\u03b1\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1 and \u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd (\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd); in verse 11, (10) \u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd and\n  its omission; in verse 13, (14) \u03b5\u03be\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 and \u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03be\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, (15) \u1f97\n  \u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 and \u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, (16) \u0395\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 and \u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. Of these (8), (15),\n  and (16) are found only in D. In the case of (15) the very same\n  variation is found at Tob. vi. 10 in the two recensions represented by\n  _Codex Vaticanus_ and _Codex Sinaiticus_.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n  1889, 91, 93, 95, 98; cited in the sequel as W.-W.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n  On the _Epilogus_ to the first volume of their Oxford edition, see\n  especially S. Berger in the _Revue Critique_, 1889, pp. 141-144; and\n  on the whole, Burkitt, _The Vulgate Gospels and the Codex Brixianus_,\n  in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, I. i. (Oct. 1899) pp.\n  129-134.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n  Compare E. Maugenot, _Les manuscrits grecs des \u00e9vangiles employ\u00e9s par\n  Saint Jer\u00f4me_, in the _Revue des sciences eccl\u00e9siastiques_, January\n  1900.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n  The New Testament is contained in vol. iii. The copy I use has the\n  date 1743 on the title-pages of three volumes, but there is a note at\n  the end, p. 1115, which says, \u201cE prelo exiit hic tomus anno 1749.\u201d\n  Rom\u00e6, 1713-19, in _TiGr._, p. 1350, is a misprint. The imprimaturs of\n  the first volume are dated 1737. The work was reprinted with new\n  title-pages at Paris by Fr. Didot, 1751. Copies now cost from \u00a315 to\n  \u00a325.\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n  The word Coptic is not derived from the town in Upper Egypt called\n  Coptos, but is a modification of the Greek word \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n  The spelling Bahiric is due to a wrong vocalisation of the word.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n  On the Middle Egyptian, see W. E. Crum in the _Journal of Theological\n  Studies_, I. 3 (April 1900), pp. 416 ff.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n  Westcott, _Canon_, Part II., chapter ii., \u00a7 1 _sub finem_.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n  H. Hyvernat, _Un fragment in\u00e9dit de la version sahidique du Nouveau\n  Testament_ (Ephes. i. 6-ii. 8_b_). _Revue Biblique_, April 1900, pp.\n  248-253. The fragment is of the eighth or ninth century.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n  See also the Greek and Middle Egyptian manuscript published by Crum\n  and Kenyon, referred to above, p. 70.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n  The dates of Ulfilas\u2019 birth and death are uncertain. He certainly\n  lived till autumn 381 or 383. The date of his life is variously given\n  as 310-380 or 318-388. According to Kauffmann, the Synod at which\n  Ulfilas was consecrated Bishop was that of Antioch, _De Encaeniis_,\n  341.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n  Or 1115 according to the Armenian reckoning.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n  Celsus\u2019s polemic against Christianity has perished, but considerable\n  fragments are embedded in Origen\u2019s Reply. See _Ante-Nicene Christian\n  Library_, vol. xxiii., (Clark, Edin.).\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n  Clement of Alexandria cites Matt. xviii. 3 in four different ways. He\n  quotes Matt. v. 45 six times, and only once accurately.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n  Petropol. gr. 254, formerly cited as Paris. coisl. 212, written in the\n  year 1111, the oldest manuscript that Lagarde was able to use for his\n  edition of the _Apostolic Constitutions_. Further examples of the\n  untrustworthiness of manuscripts and printed editions will be found in\n  the small print at the end of this section.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n  See extended note (2) at the end of the chapter, p. 149.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n  On the question whether Clement of Rome knew the second Epistle of\n  Paul to the Corinthians, see J. H. Kennedy, _The Second and Third\n  Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians_. London, 1900, p. 142 ff.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n  Westcott, _Canon_, Part I., c. ii. 7.\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n  _Ibid._, Part II., c. i. 1.; c. ii. 4.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n  Ambrosiaster is the name given to the unknown writer of a Commentary\n  on the Pauline Epistles, which till the time of Erasmus was attributed\n  to Ambrose. In recent times Dom G. Morin has raised the question\n  whether the writer may not be one Isaac, who is known to have lived in\n  the papacy of Damasus. He was a Jewish convert to Christianity, and\n  afterwards returned to his former faith. See Dom G. Morin,\n  _L\u2019Ambrosiaster et le juif converti Isaac, contemporain du pape\n  Damase_, in the _Revue d\u2019Histoire et de Litt\u00e9rature religieuses_, iv.\n  2 (1899), 112. This writer informs us that a new edition of the whole\n  of Ambrosiaster will be brought out by A. Amelli on the basis of a\n  very old manuscript from Monte Cassino. Morin believes that the text\n  of this manuscript, in spite of its age, is \u201cfortement retouch\u00e9, dont\n  on a \u00e9limin\u00e9 la plupart des traits vraiment int\u00e9ressants\u201d (_ibid._, p.\n  121).\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n  This reminds us of how Luther used to entreat the printers to let his\n  writings stand as he wrote them.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n  Called 2^{pe} by Tischendorf, and numbered 81 in Westcott and Hort,\n  and 565 in _TiGr._ Mark of this manuscript was edited by Belsheim in\n  1885, with a collation of the other three Gospels. It is a valuable\n  cursive, as appears from what is said of it in W-H: \u201cThe most valuable\n  cursive for the preservation of Western readings in the Gospels is 81,\n  a St. Petersburg manuscript called 2^{pe} by Tischendorf, as standing\n  second in a list of documents collated by Muralt. It has a large\n  ancient element, in great measure Western, and in St. Mark its ancient\n  readings are numerous enough to be of real importance.\u201d See above,\n  under Codex N, p. 68.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n  The First Part has been issued: _A Textual Commentary upon the Holy\n  Gospels_. Part I. St. Matthew, Division I., cc. i.-xiv. (London, Bell,\n  1899). See notice by Gwilliam in _The Critical Review_, May 1900. In\n  this work Origen is also cited for Matt. v. 44.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n  In the _Expository Times_ for October 1897, p. 13 ff., I have called\n  attention to another instance in which a Scriptural quotation (Isaiah\n  lii. 5) is given with remarkable similarity in the _Apostolic\n  Constitutions_, with its original (i. 10, iii. 5, vii. 204), in\n  Ignatius (_Ad Trallianos_, viii.), and in 2nd Clement (c. xiii.).\n  Similar things are to be observed even in the N.T., as, _e.g._, in\n  Mark i. 2, where a quotation from Malachi iii. 1 is inserted between\n  the heading, \u201cIn the prophet Isaiah,\u201d and the words taken from that\n  book. But they are found also in the writings of Paul, which has led\n  to the view that he may possibly have used some sort of dogmatic\n  anthology of the O. T. Clement of Alexandria has a good many\n  quotations from Philo. On his quotations from the Gospels, see P. M.\n  Barnard, _The Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria in the Four\n  Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles_. _Texts and Studies_, v. 5,\n  Cambridge, 1899.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n  See below, Appendix II., \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n  _Vide infra_, Appendix I.\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n  Fasciculus i., edited by Hauler, 1900.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III.\n THEORY AND PRAXIS OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.[129]\n\n\nThere is no special theory of the textual criticism of the New\nTestament. The task and the method are the same for all literary\nproductions. The task is to exhibit what the original writer intended to\ncommunicate to his readers, and the method is simply that of tracing the\nhistory of the document in question back to its beginning, if, and in so\nfar as, we have the means to do so at our command. Diversity of\ntreatment can only arise when the fortunes of one written work have been\nmore chequered and complicated than those of another, or when we have\nmore abundant means at our disposal to help us in the one case than in\nthe other. The task is very simple when we have only one completely\nindependent document to deal with, as in the case of several of the\nrecently discovered papyri, but this occurs very seldom with literary\ntexts. In this case all that we have to do is to see that we read the\nexisting text correctly, and then by means of the so-called internal\ncriticism to determine whether the text so received can be correct.\n[Sidenote: Internal Criticism.] Even when several witnesses are at our\ncommand, we cannot altogether dispense with this internal criticism in\nthe matter of sifting and weighing their testimony, only it would be\nunfortunate were we left with such a subjective criterion alone. For not\nonly in such a case would different scholars come to very different\nconclusions, but even one and the same scholar would not be able to\navoid a certain amount of uncertainty and inconsistency in most cases.\nThe principle laid down in the maxim, _lectio difficilior placet_, or,\nas Bengel more correctly and more cautiously puts it, _proclivi\nscriptioni praestat ardua_, is perfectly sound; that reading is correct,\nis the original reading, from which the origin of another or of several\nothers can be most easily explained. But how seldom can this be\nestablished with certainty! Take an illustration:\u2014\n\n[Sidenote: Conclusion of the Apocalypse.]\n\nHow does the Apocalypse, and the New Testament with it, conclude?\nLeaving out of account additions like \u201cAmen\u201d or \u201cAmen, Amen,\u201d and\nvariations like \u201cThe grace of the Lord Jesus,\u201d and \u201cour Lord Jesus,\u201d and\n\u201cthe Lord Jesus Christ,\u201d and \u201cChrist\u201d simply, we find that the following\nforms are given:\u2014\n\n            (1) \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70   \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd   \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\n            (2) \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70   \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd          \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\n            (3) \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70   \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd                 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd   \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n            (4) \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70   \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n            (5) \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70                          \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd   \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n\nHow are we to decide without external evidence which is the correct\nform? Even supposing we know that the first two are out of the question,\nand why they are so, it is very difficult on internal grounds alone to\ndecide between the other three. Lachmann, who did not know of (5),\ndecided in favour of (4). But so does Tischendorf, Weizs\u00e4cker, and\nWeiss, the latter giving as his reason for doing so that (5), \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd,\nis explanatory of (4), \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, which is manifestly too general, and that\n(3) is the result of a combination of these two. On the other hand,\nTregelles and Westcott and Hort favour (5), without so much as\nmentioning (4) in their margin; while Bousset, the latest expositor of\nthe Apocalypse, regards (3) as the correct reading, and thinks that in\nall probability both (4) and (5) are due to a transcriptional error. Who\nis to decide when doctors disagree? Manifestly one might argue on quite\nas good if not better grounds than those of Weiss to the very opposite\nconclusion\u2014viz. that a later writer who wished the Apocalypse, and with\nit the New Testament, to conclude with as comprehensive a benediction as\npossible, substituted the words \u201cGrace be with all\u201d in place of the\nrestricted and somewhat strange expression \u201cGrace be with the saints.\u201d I\ndid not observe that Bousset still defends the third form when I said in\nthe first edition of this work that this reading does not fall to be\nconsidered at all. But my reason for saying so was not \u201cbecause this\nform proves to be a combination of the other two,\u201d or \u201cbecause the\nauthorities for it are later,\u201d but because it could be shown that its\nsupporters follow a corrected text in other places as well as this; and\nI concluded with observing that the decision between (4) and (5) could\nnot be made to depend solely on internal criteria either, but depended\non the decision come to regarding the general relationship between the\nwitnesses that support each one, in this instance between A, as\nsupporting (4), and \u05d0, as supporting (5).\n\n    (1) It may be stated here, merely by way of comment, that the first\n    form of the benediction, \u201cwith you all,\u201d was clearly translated into\n    Greek by Erasmus from his Latin Bible, without the authority of a\n    single Greek manuscript. But in spite of this, it is still\n    propagated in the _textus receptus_ by the English Bible Society,\n    and even in the last revision of Luther\u2019s German Bible it was\n    allowed to stand without demur. The English Authorised Version had\n    it in this form, but the Revised Version adopts the fifth form \u201cwith\n    the saints,\u201d and puts (4) in the margin, with a note to the effect\n    that \u201ctwo ancient authorities read \u2018with all.\u2019\u201d\n\n    The second form, \u201cwith us all,\u201d which was adopted by Melanchthon in\n    his Greek Bible of 1545, published by Herwag, is just as arbitrary\n    an alteration. The third form, \u201cwith all the saints,\u201d is read by the\n    Complutensian with Q, with more than forty minuscules, and the\n    Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian versions. The fourth, \u201cwith all,\u201d is\n    found in A and Codex Amiatinus, while the fifth, \u201cwith the saints,\u201d\n    is given by \u05d0 and the Old Latin g. In the Syriac version of the\n    Apocalypse, edited by Gwynn in 1897, a sixth form seems to have been\n    brought to light, which Baljon, who himself decides for (5), cites\n    as \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6: Syr^{gwynn}. But the pronoun, which\n    in Syriac is indicated by a suffix only, is employed now and again\n    merely to represent the Greek definite article, so that this new\n    Syriac manuscript does not give us a sixth form but only another\n    witness to the third. On the other hand, Gwynn mentions the omission\n    of the entire verse in Primasius, a fact that neither Tischendorf\n    nor Weiss takes the least notice of, and he adduces lastly that a\n    manuscript of the Vulgate reads \u201ccum omnibus _hominibus_.\u201d One sees\n    from an illustration like this what an amount of pains is required\n    seriously to apply, even in a single point, Bengel\u2019s principle that\n    the smallest particle of gold is gold, but that nothing must be\n    passed as gold that has not been proved to be such (_Introductio in\n    Crisin Novi Testamenti_, \u00a7 1, p. 572).\n\n    (2) LITERATURE.\u2014See especially Gebhardt (_Urt._, p. 16). Ed. Reuss,\n    _Geschichte der h. Schriften des N. T._, Braunschweig, 1887, \u00a7 351\n    ff. S. P. Tregelles, _An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of\n    the N.T._ (= vol. iv. of Horne\u2019s _Introduction_, 1877). F. H. A.\n    Scrivener (see above, p. 6); also _Adversaria Critica Sacra_, edited\n    by Miller, Cambr. 1893. B. F. Westcott, _The New Testament_ in\n    Smith\u2019s _Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. ii., London, 1863. C. E.\n    Hammond, _Outlines of Textual Criticism_, Oxford, 1890.\n    Westcott-Hort, vol. ii. (see p. 21). B. B. Warfield, _Introduction\n    to the Textual Criticism of the N. T._, New York, 1887; London,\n    1893. J. W. Burgon, _Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to\n    St. Mark_, Oxford and London, 1871; also _The Traditional Text of\n    the Holy Gospels vindicated and established_, edited by Miller,\n    London, 1896; also, _The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional\n    Text of the Holy Gospels_, edited by Miller, London and Cambridge,\n    1896. _The Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the N. T. held\n    at New College on May 6, 1897_; with a preface (by Miller)\n    explanatory of the Rival Systems, 1897, pp. xvi. 43. Ed. Miller,\n    _The Present State of the Textual Controversy respecting the Holy\n    Gospels_ (see above, p. 152).\n\n    Martin (Abb\u00e9 J. P.), _Introduction \u00e0 la Critique textuelle du N.T._,\n    in five volumes, with plates and facsimiles: vol. i. pp. xxxvi. 327,\n    Paris, 1884, 25 fr.; vol. ii. pp. ix. 554, 1884, 40 fr.; vol. iii.\n    pp. vi. 512, 1885, 40 fr.; vol. iv. pp. vi. 549, 1886, 40 fr.; vol.\n    v. pp. xi. 248 and 50 pp. of facsimiles, 1886, 20 fr. Also by the\n    same author, _Description technique des manuscrits grecs relatifs au\n    N.T. conserv\u00e9s dans les Biblioth\u00e8ques de Paris_. Supplement to the\n    foregoing, Paris, 1884, pp. xix. 205, with facsimiles, 20 fr.;\n    _Quatre manuscrits importants du N.T. auxquels on peut en ajouter un\n    cinqui\u00e8me_, Paris, 1886, pp. 62, 3 fr.; _Les plus anciens mss. grecs\n    du N.T., leur origine, leur v\u00e9ritable caract\u00e8re_, in the _Revue des\n    Quest. Hist._, 1884, No. 71, pp. 62-109; _Orig\u00e8ne et la Critique\n    textuelle du N.T._, Paris. Reprinted from the _Rev. des Quest.\n    Hist._ for Jan. 1885, No. 73, pp. 5-62.\n\n    Th. Zahn, _Geschichte des N.T. Kanons_: vol. i., _Das N.T. vor\n    Origenes_, Part 1, 1888; Part 2, 1889. Vol. ii., _Urkunden und\n    Belege zum ersten und dritten Band_, Part 1, 1890; Part 2, 1892. The\n    third vol. has not yet appeared. The order of the books of the N.T.\n    is discussed in vol. ii. p. 343 ff., and the conclusion of Mark\u2019s\n    Gospel in the same vol., p. 910 ff.\n\n    Salmon (Geo.), _Some thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the N.T._,\n    London, 1897, pp. xv. 162. Blass, _Philology of the Gospels_,\n    London, 1898, pp. viii. 250. Ada Bryson, _Recent Literature on the\n    text of the N.T._ in the _Expository Times_ for April 1899, pp.\n    294-300. M. Vincent, _History of the Textual Criticism of the N.T._,\n    1900. G. L. Cary, _The Synoptic Gospels, with a chapter on the\n    Textual Criticism of the N.T._, New York, 1900. See also Prof.\n    Jannaris in the _Expositor_, vol. viii. of Series V. There is an\n    article in the _American Journal of Theology_, 1897, iv. p. 927 ff.,\n    entitled _Alexandria and the N.T._, which I have not been able to\n    consult.\n\nIn attempting to restore the text of the New Testament as nearly as\npossible to its original form, it is essential to remember that the New\nTestament, as we have it to-day, is not all of one piece, but consists\nof twenty-seven separate documents now arranged in five groups, and that\nevery several document and every several group has had its own peculiar\nhistory. Of these groups the most complicated, perhaps, is the one with\nwhich the New Testament opens\u2014viz. the Gospels.\n\n[Sidenote: Gospels.]\n\nIt is quite uncertain when our four Gospels were first written together\nin one volume and arranged in the order that is now common. The\nMuratorian Fragment on the Canon[130] is defective at the beginning, but\nseems to imply this arrangement. It was supposed that the Gospels were\nwritten in the following order\u2014viz. Matthew first and John last. The\norder, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, which is found in nearly all the Greek\nand Syriac manuscripts, was made popular by Eusebius and Jerome. The\nformer followed it in his _Canons_, which were afterwards adopted by\nJerome in his Latin Bible. According to Eusebius (_Eccl. Hist._, vi.\n25),[131] Origen knew this order, though he very frequently cites the\nGospels in the order Matthew, Luke, Mark.\n\nThe following arrangements are also found:\u2014\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note: The following list begins with (2).]\n\n(2) Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, in the earlier (Curetonian) Syriac and in\nthe Canon Mommsenianus, a catalogue of the Books of the Bible and of the\nworks of Cyprian, originating in Latin Africa about the year 360, and\nfirst published by Mommsen.[132]\n\n(3) Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, in the so-called Ambrosiaster and in a\nCatalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books.\n\n(4) Matthew, John, Mark, Luke\u2014_i.e._ the two Apostles put before the two\npupils of Apostles, in the Codex Claromontanus.[133] This order occurs\nalso in the Arabic writer Masudi\u2019s _Meadows of Gold_.[134]\n\n(5) Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, in Codd. D and X, in the _Apostolic\nConstitutions_, in Ulfilas, and especially in the Old Latin Manuscripts;\nsee Corssen, _Monarchianische Prologe_, p. 65, in _TU._ xv. 1.[135]\n\n(6) John, Luke, Mark, Matthew, in Codex k.\n\n(7) John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, in the Vocabularies of the Egyptian\nversions.\n\n(8) John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, in Tertullian and cod. 19. See Arthur\nWright, _Some New Testament Problems_, p. 196 ff.[136]\n\nThis very variety shows that for a long time, perhaps till the third\ncentury, at all events much longer than the Pauline Epistles, the\nGospels were propagated singly, perhaps on rolls, and only afterwards\nincorporated in a codex. And this makes it probable that the text of our\nmanuscripts was not taken from a single copy of the first\nTetraevangelium. More than probable we cannot call it, seeing that a\ncopyist may have had any sort of reasons of his own for disarranging the\norder of the books given in his exemplar, as may still be gathered\nluckily from the position occupied by Hebrews in Codex B. The\nprobability is heightened, however, by the fact that our manuscripts\ndisplay a considerably greater amount of textual variation in the\nGospels than in the Pauline Epistles, though not in all to the same\nextent as in D which contains an entirely peculiar recension, especially\nin Luke. One of the most remarkable indications of this is afforded by\nthe discovery made by E. Lippelt, a pupil of Professor Blass. The order\nof the books in D is Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, Acts, where it will be\nseen that the two portions of the book inscribed to Theophilus are\nseparated by Mark. Now Lippelt observed that while the name Johannes is\nregularly spelt with two \u03bd\u2019s (\u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2) in Matthew, John, and Mark, it is\njust as regularly spelt with one (\u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2) in Luke and Acts, sundered\nthough these two books are by Mark, where the other spelling\nprevails.[137] This shows an accuracy of tradition which is surprising,\nbut till now it has only been traced in this one manuscript. The others\nwrite the name throughout with two _\u03bd_\u2019s and B as consistently with one.\nIn this connection the question naturally arises whether certain\nliberties were not taken with the books on the occasion of their\ncollection and arrangement. Resch, _e.g._, thinks that it was then that\nthe second Gospel received the conclusion or appendix which is found in\nmost of our manuscripts, and Rohrbach holds a similar opinion.[138] I\nhave elsewhere expressed the idea that the peculiar opening of Mark is\nto be accounted for in this way.[139] Zahn, however, doubts whether the\nuse of \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae and \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 for \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 and \u1f10\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7, _incipit_ and\n_explicit_, can be established for early times.[140] I have found it in\nGreek Psalters, though not very early, I admit, where \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd\noccurs instead of \u03c9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9 as the superscription of the Hymns at the end of\nthe Psalter.[141] However, there is no need to dwell further on this\npoint. Zahn (p. 174) is quite right in his contention that the usual\ntitles \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03b1\u03b8\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, etc.,[142] imply a collection of the Gospels of\nwhich \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is the general title.\n\nIf, then, for the sake of simplicity, we take as our goal the first\nmanuscript of the Tetraevangelium, one would think it must be possible\nwith the means at our command gradually to work back to it. Even the\nlatest of our manuscripts is surely copied from an earlier one, and that\none from another, and so on always further and further back, so that all\nwe have to do is to establish their genealogy, pretty much as Reuss has\ndone for the printed editions of the New Testament; and seeing we have\nmanuscripts as old as the fourth and fifth century, that means that the\nentire period of a thousand years prior to the invention of printing is\nbridged over at once, so that the task would appear to be simply that of\nthrowing a bridge over the first few centuries of the Christian era. And\nby going on comparing the witnesses and always eliminating those that\nprove unreliable, it must be possible, one would suppose, in this way to\narrive at the original. But a little experience will shortly moderate\nour expectations.\n\nAt the outset it is very much against us that we have no really\nserviceable text for comparison. The text of our present critical\neditions is a patchwork of many colours, more wonderful than the cloak\nof Child Roland of old. In fact it is a text that never really existed\nat all. In the preparation of my _Supplement_, which I undertook with\nthe object of making the text of Codex Bezae easily accessible to every\none, I compared the text of that manuscript with that of\nTischendorf-Gebhardt\u2019s edition, and I saw clearly that my work would\nnecessarily present a very confused appearance indeed. I also issued an\ninterleaved edition of my Stuttgart New Testament with a similar\nobject\u2014viz. to furnish a convenient means of comparing the text of\nmanuscripts and of Patristic quotations, but that, too, labours under\nthe same disadvantage. Whoever intends really to further the textual\ncriticism of the New Testament will have to issue a copy of a single\nmanuscript printed in such a way as will make it practically convenient\nfor the comparison of different texts, something like Tischendorf\u2019s\nedition of Codex Sinaiticus (_Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum_, 1863),\nwhich, however, is of little use for other purposes, or like Schj\u00f8tt\u2019s\nedition of the New Testament (see above, p. 24). But as these are in the\nhands of very few, there is nothing for it at present but to take one of\nour most common texts, always bearing in mind its composite character.\nThis feature of the text appears at the very outset in the title. In \u05d0 B\n(D) it is \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u039c\u03b1\u03b8\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. Codex D is defective at the beginning down to\nc. i. 20, but \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4 \u039c\u03b1\u03b8\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is found regularly as the title at the top of\nthe pages, a fact which Tischendorf has overlooked. Most other\nmanuscripts, C E K M etc., have \u0395\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. If this latter\nis held as incorrect, then all these manuscripts should for the future\nbe dropped out of account and \u05d0 B D alone be regarded as authoritative.\n\nAgain, in verse 2, \u05d0* has \u0399\u03c3\u03b1\u03ba twice, while the others have \u0399\u03c3\u03b1\u03b1\u03ba, so\nthat \u05d0 too would drop out, leaving B standing alone. But then in verse 3\nour editors forthwith reject B, which reads \u0396\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5, and decide in favour\nof the others which have \u0396\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1. Whether this may not be a little\npremature, seeing that there are other places where \u03b5 is found for final\n\u05d7,[143] and that one manuscript, 56, has deliberately corrected \u0396\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\ninto \u0396\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5 in Gen. xxxviii. 30, where a third has \u0396\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5, we do not pause\nto determine. The point is simply this, that in these first three verses\nthere is no manuscript that is always right in the judgment of our\neditors. True, the cases we have been considering are trifling, the\ndifferences being of an orthographical nature merely, and one must not\nbe too particular in such matters, though at the same time the\noft-quoted maxim, _minima non curat praetor_, is nowhere less applicable\nthan in textual criticism. But the same state of things reappears\nimmediately where we have differences involving important matters of\nfact. What is the fact in verse 11? Did Josias beget Jechoniah, or did\nhe beget Joachim and Joachim Jechoniah? Verse 16 has already been\nreferred to: in this case our oldest Greek manuscripts would give no\noccasion to mention the verse. But in verse 25 we have again to ask\nwhich is correct, \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03bd or \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd?\n[Sidenote: Dogmatic influence.] And when we hear Jerome say\u2014Ex hoc loco\nquidam perversissime suspicantur et alios filios habuisse Mariam,\ndicentes primogenitum non dici nisi qui habeat et fratres, we learn\nalready how dogmatic motives may have some influence upon the form of\nthe text. And, moreover, when we call to mind the words of Luke ii. 7,\nwe are made aware of another thing that may exert a disturbing influence\nin the Gospels\u2014viz. the tendency to alter the text in conformity with\nthe parallel passage. [Sidenote: Parallel passages.] Apart from the\nstylistic peculiarities of Codex D, we meet with no materially important\nvariants in our Greek manuscripts of Matthew till we come to the Sermon\non the Mount. The only thing is in iii. 15, where two Latin witnesses\nhave an addition which is evidently taken from a Greek source: et cum\nbaptizaretur, lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut timerent omnes\nqui advenerant (congregati erant). This interpolation, however, does not\nconcern the criticism of the text of the New Testament, seeing that it\nis derived from some source outside the Canon.\n\nOn the other hand, there is a great question as to the order of the\nfirst three Beatitudes in Matthew v. 3-5, whether they are to be read in\nthe order given in the common text, \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u03af ... \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 ... \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n..., or as our recent editors prefer \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u03af ... \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 ...\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.[144] The latter arrangement is attested by only two Greek\nmanuscripts\u2014D and 33. Now, if their evidence is accepted here in spite\nof its apparent weakness, how can we justify the refusal to acknowledge\nthe authority of D in other similar cases? Verse 22, but a short way\ndown, is a case in point. Here D, with most authorities, exhibits the\nsorely-contested \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc7. But our modern critics will have nothing to do\nwith it, going by \u05d0 B, Origen, Jerome, and Athanasius. Merx (_Die vier\nkanonischen Evangelien_, pp. 231-237) has recently come forward as a\nstrong supporter of it, on the ground that Syr^{sin} also has it,[145]\nbut how is its omission, especially by Jerome, to be explained? The\nVulgate itself shows that it was easier to insert it than to omit it,\nbecause out of twenty-four manuscripts collated in W.-W. three have it,\nthough it certainly does not belong to the text of the Vulgate.[146]\n\nIn view of these illustrations, which serve to show the somewhat\nhaphazard way in which the text of our editions hitherto has been\narrived at, the question becomes very important how the original text is\nto be restored in disputed or doubtful cases.\n\n[Sidenote: Conjectural emendation.]\n\nThe first case, or, if we like to call it, the last, but at all events\nthe one most easy of settlement, is when the correct reading is no\nlonger found in any of our witnesses, neither in Greek manuscript,\nversion, nor patristic quotation. Here we must simply have recourse to\n=conjecture=. Not long ago philologists evinced such a fondness for\nconjectural emendation that the question might not unreasonably be asked\nwhy they did not rather themselves write the text that they took in hand\nto explain. At the same time, the aversion to this method of criticism\nwhich till recently prevailed and still to some extent prevails,\nespecially in the matter of the New Testament text, is just as\nunreasonable. Tischendorf, _e.g._, did not admit a single emendation of\nthis nature into his text, while Westcott and Hort consider it to be\nnecessary in only a very few cases, such as Colossians ii. 18, though\nthey also decline to adopt any conjectural readings in their text. For\n\u0391\u0395\u039f\u03a1\u0391\u039a\u0395\u039d\u0395\u039c\u0392\u0391\u03a4\u0395\u03a5\u03a9\u039d in this passage, which Weizs\u00e4cker renders \u201cpluming\nhimself upon his visions,\u201d they would read \u0391\u0395\u03a1\u0391 \u039a\u0395\u039d\u0395\u039c\u0392\u0391\u03a4\u0395\u03a5\u03a9\u039d, which is\nobtained by the omission of a single letter and a different division of\nthe words. In Holland conjectural criticism is freely indulged in,[147]\nthe example of Cobet and his school being followed by such critics as S.\nA. Naber, W. C. van Manen, W. H. van de Sande-Bakhuyzen, van de Becke\nCallenfels, D. Harting, S. S. de Koe, H. Franssen, J. M. S. Baljon, J.\nH. A. Michelsen, and J. Cramer.[148] Baljon has adopted a great number\nof such conjectural emendations in his edition of the text published in\n1898 (see above, p. 24). In place of \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, _e.g._, in James\niii. 1, Lachmann would read \u03c0\u1ff6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, Naber \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, while\nJunius, de Hoop-Scheffer, and Bakhuyzen prefer \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 on the ground\nthat m^{64} has _nolite multiloqui esse_.[149] So far, therefore, this\nlast is not pure conjecture. For \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9 in Col. ii. 16 Lagarde wished\nto read \u03ba\u03b9\u03c1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9, because the verb \u05d3\u05d5\u05d3 found in the Peshitto at this\nplace is elsewhere used to translate \u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd (Matt. xxiv. 6), \u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n(John xiv. 1, 27), \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (Gal. v. 7), and also \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (Eccl.\nvii. 18; xii. 3). My proposal to read \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd in Apoc. xviii. 17, a\nreading adopted by Baljon in his text, instead of \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd or \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bd as given in our manuscripts, was a pure conjecture, but it has\nthe support of _super mare_ in Primasius.[150] There is therefore no\nobjection on principle to the method of conjecture, nor to the adoption\nof conjectural readings in the text, though it is only to be resorted to\nas the _ultima ratio regis_ and with due regard to all the\nconsiderations involved, transcriptional, linguistic, and\notherwise.[151] There is no essential difficulty in supposing, _e.g._,\nthat \u03ba\u03b9\u03c1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 in Col. ii. 16 was first corrupted into \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 and then\ninto \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9. Such a transposition of the liquid is quite common in all\nlanguages.[152] But we must see if \u03ba\u03b9\u03c1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 has the sense required in the\npassage. There is no doubt a reference to drinking here, and so far,\ntherefore, the word seems to suit the context better. It is also true\nthat evidence is not wanting of the metaphorical use of the word\nproposed to be inserted. Passow, _e.g._, gives \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b9\u03c1\u03bd\u1fb6\u03bd from Polybius iv. 21, 3, and \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b9\u03c1\u03bd\u1fb6\u03bd from Aristophanes\ni. 1. In spite of this, however, I have considerable misgivings whether\nthis sense of the word is in harmony with Pauline usage and is suitable\nto the context of the passage. If it is sought to justify a conjectural\nreading on transcriptional grounds, then, as has been observed (p. 82),\na strict account must be taken of the manner of writing prevalent at the\ntime when the corruption is supposed to have originated. Luke\u2019s\nhandwriting must have been very bad indeed if we are to suppose that the\nscribe of D or the parent manuscript mistook \u1f20\u03c1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 for the\nenigmatical \u1f10\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 in Acts iii. 14, though it is quite conceivable\nhow he came to write \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u1fc3 instead of \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1fb7 in v. 31, or conversely wrote\n\u1f10\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf instead of \u1f10\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd in xiii. 48, or that \u039a\u0391\u0399\u03a4\u039f\u03a5\u03a4\u03a9\u03a3\u03a5\u039d\u03a6\u03a9\u039d\u039f\u03a5\u03a3\u0399\u039d\nwas made into \u039a\u0391\u0399\u039f\u03a5\u03a4\u03a9\u03a3\u03a3\u03a5\u039d\u03a6\u03a9\u039d\u0397\u03a3\u039f\u03a5\u03a3\u0399\u039d or _vice versa_.[153] A slight\nexperience in the reading of ancient manuscripts shows how easy it is to\nmake mistakes of this sort. And if we wish to see what mistakes of this\nsort actually do occur in Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus,\nand Ephraemi, we have only to look into Morrish\u2019s _Handy Concordance of\nthe Septuagint_,[154] though of course the examples there are all from\nthe Old Testament. We have, _e.g._, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c9 for \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c9; \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7 for \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7;\n\u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9 for \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9; \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 for \u03b1\u1f34\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, \u03b3\u1fc6; \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 for\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2; \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 and its compounds for \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 and its compounds; \u03bb\u03b1\u03cc\u03c2\nfor \u03bd\u03b1\u03cc\u03c2, etc.\n\n[Sidenote: Eclectic method.]\n\nIt is more difficult to answer the question how the text is to be\nrestored in cases where there is no lack of external evidence. We have\nalready seen that critics have hitherto adopted an =eclectic= mode of\nprocedure. In general, whenever Vaticanus and Sinaiticus agree, editors,\nTischendorf as well as Westcott and Hort, give the preference to their\ntestimony. But if they do not agree, what is to be done? And what if a\nthird reading seems on internal grounds to be better than either? In his\n_Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament_, Salmon very\npungently, but not altogether incorrectly, describes Westcott and Hort\u2019s\nmethod on the lines of an anecdote told of Cato by Cicero: \u201cTo the\nquestion what authorities should be followed, Hort answers, Follow B \u05d0.\nBut if B is not supported by \u05d0? Still follow B, if it has the support of\nany other manuscript. But suppose B stands quite alone? Even then it is\nnot safe to reject B unless it is clearly a clerical error. But suppose\nB is defective? Then follow \u05d0. And what about D? What about killing a\nman!\u201d Lagarde has said that the gag is the modern equivalent of the\nstake. Codex D has not been gagged outright, to be sure, but it has been\nshoved aside, and only now and then with remarkable inconsistency has\nits evidence been accepted as trustworthy. For one must surely call it\ninconsistent to follow one side as a rule and then all at once to take\nsides with that which is diametrically opposed to the first. In his\n_Introduction_, Hort, in the most brilliant manner one must admit, has\nestablished the principle that the restoration of the text must be\ngrounded on the study of its history, and no one has studied that\nhistory as carefully as Hort has done. But the question remains whether\nhe has not interpreted the history wrongly, whether what he calls the\nNeutral text is really the original, and whether that which he rejects\nas a Western Corruption is really to be regarded as such.\n\n[Sidenote: History of transmission.]\n\nI cannot presume to judge; but I have the feeling that the history of\nthe transmission of our New Testament text must be studied in quite\nanother way from that in which it has been done hitherto, and in a\ntwofold direction:\u2014\n\n(1) The manuscripts and their relation to each other must be subjected\nto a still more searching investigation, and\n\n(2) The works of the ecclesiastical writers, especially the Commentaries\nand the Caten\u00e6, must be thoroughly explored for any information they may\nhave to give regarding the history of the text of the New Testament, and\nthese two results must then be set in relation with each other.\n\nWith regard to the former task, it might not be essential to make such a\nminute collation of the manuscripts as Ferrar, Hoskier, and other\ninvestigators deemed necessary, and as is certainly the right thing to\ndo in the case of the oldest documents. With such a mode of procedure,\nthe task could not be accomplished in any conceivable time. But suppose\nthe work was organised the way that Reuss did with the printed editions,\nby selecting say a thousand passages for comparison, it would be\npossible, and in a very short time we should be much better informed\nthan we are at present as to the state of the text in our manuscripts,\nand especially in the minuscules.\n\nSuch a task, moreover, must be preceded by a fresh scientific statement\nof the way in which the text was propagated previous to the invention of\nprinting, on the lines laid down by Hort in the first fourteen\nparagraphs of his _Introduction_.[155] A necessary preliminary to this\nis the study of genealogy, in which we have an excellent guide in\nOttokar Lorenz\u2019s _Lehrbuch der gesamten wissenschaftlichen Genealogie_\n(Berlin, 1898). See especially the first chapter of Part I. on the\ndistinction between Genealogical Tree (Table of genealogy) and Table of\nAncestors, and the third chapter of Part II. on the problem of Loss of\nAncestors.\n\nAll the ideas pertaining to the genealogy of living creatures, such as\ncrossing, heredity, and so forth, fall to be considered also in the\ngenealogy of manuscripts, the only difference being that in the latter\ncase new features make their appearance. It has been asserted somewhere\nthat if an Englishman, a Dutchman, a German, a Frenchman, and an\nAmerican meet in a company, the nationality of each is at once\nrecognisable, but it is impossible to determine their exact genealogical\nrelationships, and that the same impossibility exists in the case of the\nmanuscripts of the New Testament. That is perhaps an exaggeration, but\nit is certainly a surprising fact that so few even of our latest\nmanuscripts can be proved with certainty to be copies of manuscripts\nstill in existence, or at least to be derived from a common original.\n\n[Sidenote: Analogous works.]\n\nIt will be a very great help, particularly to those beginning work in\nthis field, to compare the method and results of investigations pursued\nin similar and perhaps easier departments of study. Apart from the works\nof classical philologists, or works like the new edition of Luther\u2019s\nwritings, a great deal of most valuable research has been carried on of\nlate years in the matter of textual criticism, some of it very\nextensive, some of it less so. Ed. W\u00f6lfflin, _e.g._, devoted his\nattention to the Rule of St. Benedict of Nursia, who died some time\nafter the year 542. [Sidenote: Rule of Benedict.] His Rule, which\nextends only to eighty-five pages of the Teubner size, is extant in\nmanuscripts dating as far back as the seventh and eighth centuries. By a\ncomparison of these, W\u00f6lfflin was convinced that we still possess the\nRule essentially in the identical wording of the original vulgar Latin,\nthat Benedict himself had afterwards made certain alterations and\nadditions, and that we have therefore to distinguish several (fortasse\ntres) editions.[156] W\u00f6lfflin purported to give the text of that\nrecension which he took to be the earliest. But we had no more than time\nto congratulate ourselves on the satisfactory result arrived at by this\nexperienced philologist, when behold, another totally different\nconclusion was announced by a younger worker in the same field. W\u00f6lfflin\nhad done little more than compare the manuscripts, but Lud. Traube\napplied also the external evidence afforded by the history of the text,\nand discovered that certain manuscripts that W\u00f6lfflin had thrown aside\npossessed a greater claim to originality.[157]\n\n[Sidenote: De Viris Illustribus.]\n\nSimilarly, E. C. Richardson gave several years to an examination of all\nthe accessible manuscripts of the _De Viris Illustribus_ of Jerome and\nGennadius, a work not much larger than the Rule of Benedict. These\nmanuscripts, about 120 in number, he grouped, and then framed his text\nin accordance with them.[158] While his work was in the press, an\nedition was published by C. A. Bernoulli, based on some of the\nmanuscripts that Richardson also had used.[159] But from the very first\nsentence onwards, the two editors follow contradictory authorities, so\nthat while one gives _parvam_ as the correct reading, the other reads\n_non parvam_. But more than that, the same Part of _Texte und\nUntersuchungen_ that gave us Richardson\u2019s laborious work contained a\nsecond piece of work on the same material\u2014viz., O. v. Gebhardt\u2019s edition\nof the so-called Greek Sophronius, which is an old version of Jerome\u2019s\nbook. And the last chapter of this version, which is autobiographical,\ncontains indications, according to v. Gebhardt\u2019s Introduction, that\nJerome issued two editions of his book, so that, if this be so, an\nentirely new grouping of the manuscripts becomes necessary.\n\n[Sidenote: Julian\u2019s Letters.]\n\nIn the case of Holl\u2019s researches on the _Sacra Parallela_ of John\nDamascene, published in the same Collection,[160] matters are too\ncomplicated for beginners in textual criticism, but of non-biblical\ntexts mention may be made of the _Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite\ndes lettres de l\u2019Empereur Julien_ by S. Bidez and Fr. Cumont (Brussels,\n1898), as showing how much can be attained by combining the internal and\nexternal history of the transmission of literary texts.[161] [Sidenote:\nLatin New Testament.] In the field of Biblical texts, and particularly\nof the New Testament, the study of Wordsworth and White\u2019s _Epilogus_ to\nthe first volume of their _Novum Testamentum Latine_ is to be specially\nrecommended, particularly c. iv. _De Patria et Indole Codicum\nnostrorum_, c. v. _De Textus Historia_, and c. vi. _De Regulis a nobis\nin Textu constituendo adhibitis_. As was said before, Jerome undertook\nhis revision of the Gospels in the year 383; his work was of an entirely\nuniform texture, apart from a few passages where a correction may have\noccurred even in the original manuscript; and there is a sufficiency of\nmanuscripts extant, some of them going back to the sixth century. One of\nthese, which formerly belonged to the Church of St. Willibrord at\nEchternach, contains a note dated 558, and copied into it from the\nparent manuscript, to the effect: proemendavi ut potui secundum codicem\nin bibliotheca Eugipi presbyteri, quem ferunt fuisse sancti Hieronymi.\n(See above, p. 122.) In these circumstances it must surely be possible,\none would think, to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion. And yet, in\nspite of all this, and in spite of long years of labour, many a problem\nremains to perplex the editor of the Vulgate. To begin with, there is\none striking circumstance. Jerome executed his work at Rome, in\nobedience to the commission of Pope Damasus. One would therefore expect\nto find the best manuscripts in Rome, or at least originating from Rome.\nBut that is by no means the case: \u201cpraeter expectationem accidit ut\npauci vel nulli ex codicibus optimis et antiquissimis originem Romanam\nclare ostendant.\u201d The manuscript that editors consider the best\u2014viz.\nCodex Amiatinus, now at Florence\u2014was certainly at Rome for a long time,\nbut it was sent there as a present from beyond the Alps; indeed, it came\nfrom England. And on the other hand it was not from Rome that the Latin\nBible came to England, or to Canterbury in particular, although\nAugustine was sent thither by Pope Gregory the Great, but from the South\nof Italy; in fact, it was from Naples. Codex Fuldensis, which may have\nbeen brought to Fulda by Boniface, formerly belonged to Bishop Victor of\nCapua; the Echternach manuscript referred to above came from the\nLucullan Monastery at Naples, while the manuscript from which Codex\nAmiatinus was copied was written by Cassiodorus of Vivarium, and\ntherefore came from Calabria. The history of the transmission of the\nLatin Bible reveals many other facts as strange as these in connection\nwith the locality to which manuscripts belong. We must be prepared,\ntherefore, for similar surprises in the case of Greek manuscripts also,\nand need not be astonished to hear that the Greek-Latin Codex Bezae, so\nmuch decried as \u201cWestern,\u201d takes us back to Smyrna or Ephesus by way of\nLyons and by means of Iren\u00e6us.[162]\n\nIt is also very instructive to observe that after long years of the most\nthorough study of their manuscripts, Wordsworth and White refrain from\nconstructing =stemmata= or genealogies of these. All they venture to do\nis to distinguish certain large classes or =families=, and within these\nagain to bring certain manuscripts into somewhat closer relationship\nwith each other. They distinguish two main classes. In the first they\nreckon five, or it may be four, Italian-Northumbrian manuscripts, A \u0394 H*\nS Y, two Canterbury O X, three Italian J M P, the two mentioned already\nfrom Capua-Fulda F and Lucullan-Echternach EP, and the Harleian Z, so\ncalled from a former possessor and now in the British Museum. To the\nsecond class belong five Celtic D E L Q R, three French B BF G, and two\nSpanish C T. After these come the witnesses to the history of the text\nin the stricter sense of the term, the recensions made by Theodulf (H^c\n\u0398) and Alcuin (KV M\u0305), and, for the form which the text assumed in the\nlater manuscripts and in the printed editions, the Salisbury Codex W. We\nshould have great reason to congratulate ourselves, could we arrive at\nlike certain results in the region of the far older and more diversified\nhistory of the transmission of the Greek text, but there too we shall\nencounter the same general features\u2014viz., a form of the text in the\nprinted editions, in the later manuscripts, in the Recensions, the dates\nof which are still to be determined (Lucian, Hesychius?, Pamphilus), and\nin the families, which are only to be classified in a general way.\n\nIt is also instructive to find that in the case of several manuscripts,\nWordsworth and White are obliged to observe that they seem to have been\ncorrected from the Greek, H* (p. 709), M (p. 711), EP* (p. 712), D R L\n(pp. 714, 716), which suggests the possibility of Greek manuscripts also\nhaving been influenced by one of the versions, be it Latin or Syriac.\n\nFinally, when we enquire as to the relationship between Jerome and the\nGreek manuscript or manuscripts used by him, we find that that\nmanuscript must have been most nearly related to the Sinaiticus, while\nit had no sort of connection with Codex D. Whether this result tells in\nfavour of \u05d0 or the reverse, we will not pronounce at present: Jerome\ncertainly avers that he made use of a Graecorum codicum emendata\nconlatione ... sed veterum (p. 108), only _veterum_ is a comparative\nterm, and it might quite well happen that to Jerome that form of text\nappeared to be the best which was most recent or most widely circulated\nin his neighbourhood, and that he would have nothing to do with such a\nsingular form of text as D exhibits, even supposing he was acquainted\nwith it, a point we cannot decide. The intimate connection in various\npassages between his text and that of the cursive 473 (2^{pe}) is\nremarkable, and especially the many points of resemblance between the\nIrish manuscripts (D L R) and the members of the Ferrar Group.\n\nAnd this brings us back from our survey of the history of the Latin text\nto that of the Greek, where we seem to have got at least one fixed point\nto begin with in this perplexing chaos, for that is the first impression\nwe gain on glancing at the mass of Greek manuscripts before us. But here\nagain our too sanguine hopes are likely to be disappointed, and we shall\nlearn only too soon that even this is no Archimedean point from which we\nare able to regulate this world of disorder.\n\n[Sidenote: Ferrar Group.]\n\nIf we find that in a certain number of manuscripts the passage usually\nindicated as John vii. 53-viii. 11 occurs in Luke, and in exactly the\nsame place in each one\u2014viz. after Luke xxi. 38\u2014we must needs conclude\nthat the manuscripts exhibiting this common peculiarity are intimately\nconnected with each other. This is the case with the cursives 13, 69,\n124, 346, 624, 626. Whether the others that are reckoned in this group\nhave this same peculiarity, I am not perfectly sure. Now one would\nnaturally expect that these manuscripts would also coincide in the other\npeculiarities characteristic of this group. [Sidenote: Variation.] But\non the contrary, they part company over the very first and most\nconspicuous of these\u2014viz. Matthew i. 16. Here, unfortunately, 13 and 69\nare defective, but we can compare 124 and 346. And we find that whereas\nthe former has the usual text, the latter, with the support of 556, 624,\n626, exhibits in place of \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 ... \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, the reading already\nmentioned, \u1fa7 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u1f70\u03bc \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. Which of these readings is right, or whether both of them may\nnot be wrong, we need not enquire at present. It is sufficient to point\nout that one and the same mother may give birth to very different\nchildren. The specific difference will be inherited from the other of\nthe two parents, in this case represented by the copyist, and will\ndepend on whether he is painstaking, careless, violent, arbitrary,\nwell-informed, or the reverse. But the mother herself has a great number\nof hereditary or acquired peculiarities which, the latter no less than\nthe former, may be transmitted to the children in a variety of ways.\nThere is perhaps no manuscript in existence which is entirely free from\ncorrections, while, on the other hand, there are many so overlaid with\ncorrections that the original writing is scarcely now recognisable.\nCodex B, on the whole, is in a very good state of preservation, but it\nwas supposed lately (see _ThLz._, 1899, col. 176) that its first hand\nwrote in John viii. 57, \u201cand Abraham saw thee\u201d instead of \u201cand hast thou\nseen Abraham,\u201d as all our editors read in that passage.[163] The\nsupposition proved to be incorrect, but if that could possibly happen\nwith B, what must have happened in the case of manuscripts that are so\nfull of corrections as \u05d0 and D, if they came to be copied in later\ntimes? Suppose that one scribe took the trouble to copy the text of the\nfirst hand, while another thought it his duty to follow the corrections,\nthe result would be two manuscripts whose common origin would be\nscarcely recognisable. And in the course of centuries how often may not\nthis process have been repeated. No wonder, therefore, that so few\nmanuscripts have as yet been clearly made out to be the descendants of\nour oldest codices, so as to permit of their being removed from the\nboard with one sweep, as having no independent testimony to contribute,\nas is the case with E_{3} which is merely a bad copy of D_{2} (p. 77),\nor that scholars cannot agree as to the relationship existing between\ntwo manuscripts like F_{2} and G_{3} (p. 77).[164] Nor need we be\nsurprised to find that some of our most peculiar witnesses seem to have\nremained absolutely childless, while a less valuable race is perpetuated\nin many copies. The words of Homer\u2014\u03bf\u1f35\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03ae, \u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u2014may be applied conversely to the leaves to which we entrust our\nimmortality: habent sua fata libelli. The only unfortunate thing is that\nwe are so little able to follow the course of these fates by means of\nexternal testimony.\n\n[Sidenote: External testimony.]\n\nWhen the Emperor Constantine _e.g._ asks Eusebius to supply him with\nfifty copies of the Scriptures at once, we cannot but suppose that these\nbecame authoritative over a large area. But in which of the classes into\nwhich our manuscripts have hitherto been divided are we to look for\nthese now?[165] And conversely if, in another locality, heathen\npersecution was directed specially against the Bibles of the Christians,\nthis cannot have been without some effect. According to C. H\u00fclsen\n(_Bilder aus der Geschichte des Kapitols_, Rome, 1899), even the Roman\nBishop Marcellinus, with his deacons Strabo and Cassianus, in the year\n304, burned, in front of the temple of Juno Moneta, those Gospels which\nten years later were made the law of Christian Rome by the Emperor\nConstantine. These scattered notices must be much more carefully\ncollected and considered than hitherto, and combined with the results\nobtained from the collation of the manuscripts.\n\n[Sidenote: Recensions.]\n\nMost of our information with respect to the =recensions= of the Bible\ncomes from the Syrian Church, and is concerned rather with the Old\nTestament than with the New; but the recensions of the former may throw\nsome light on those of the latter.\n\n[Sidenote: Lucian.]\n\n(_a_) As the result of their researches, Westcott and Hort have made it\nvery probable, on internal grounds, that a recension of an official\nnature was undertaken in Syria, perhaps at Antioch, about the fourth\ncentury, and that to this recension are due the origin and propagation\nof that form of the text of the New Testament which was widely\ndisseminated in the Byzantine Empire, now represented in our later\nminuscules, and made the _textus receptus_ by means of the first printed\neditions.\n\n=Lucian=, the celebrated founder of the Antiochean school of exegesis,\nsuffered martyrdom in the year 311 or 312, most probably the latter. Of\nall the names that we know, none has a better claim than his to be\nassociated with such a recension, and the conjecture derives some\nsupport from the passage of Jerome cited above (p. 85).[166] It is,\nperhaps, even better supported by what we know of Lucian\u2019s recension of\nthe Old Testament. In his preface to the Chronicles, Jerome wrote:\n\u201cAlexandria et Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem,\nConstantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat,\nmediae inter has provinciae Palaestinae (_v.l._ Palaestinos) codices\nlegunt, quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt;\ntotusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat.\u201d Now it is\ntrue that the words of a man like Jerome must not be pressed too far,\nand what may have been true in his day might be quite different in a\ncomparatively short time\u2014think _e.g._ of the fifty copies of the Bible\nthat Eusebius Pamphili had sent to Constantine, or the Bible or Bibles\nsent by Athanasius to Constans[167]\u2014at the same time it has been\nestablished beyond all doubt by Field and Lagarde, that it is to Lucian\nwe must refer a peculiar recension of the Greek Old Testament preserved\nin a good many manuscripts, the one found in the unfortunately small\nremnant of the Gothic Old Testament and especially in the numerous\nBiblical quotations of the famous theologian John of Antioch, better\nknown as Chrysostom of Constantinople, who was a pupil of Lucian. The\nprobability, therefore, is very great that the same thing will hold good\nof the New Testament portion of the Bible of Ulfilas and Chrysostom. As\nregards the former, Kauffmann has expressed a decided opinion to this\neffect in his work on the Gothic Bible cited above (p. 139). The\nsupposition would be converted into something like certainty if it could\nbe proved on pal\u00e6ographic grounds that this or that New Testament\nmanuscript belongs to this or that Old Testament manuscript of Lucianic\nderivation as part of what was originally one and the same complete\nBible. This is a point which I am not in a position personally to\ninvestigate, and I must therefore content myself with throwing out this\nsuggestion, and with adding in support of it that we have the express\ntestimony of the Menologies for saying that Lucian bequeathed to his\npupils a copy of the Old _and New_ Testaments written in three columns\nwith his own hand.\n\nThere is a statement in the Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis,[168] which\nseems, however, to refer only to the Old Testament portion, to the\neffect that it was discovered in a concealed cupboard (\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2) in the\nhouse of a Jew at Nicomedia in the time of Constantine. Long ago Hug and\nEichhorn attributed the \u201cAsiatic\u201d or \u201cByzantine\u201d recension to Lucian,\nand no decided objection can be established to the view of Hort, which\nGregory also is inclined to accept (_TiGr._, p. 814).[169]\n\n[Sidenote: Hesychius.]\n\n(_b_) It is, on the other hand, somewhat difficult to make out how\nmatters stand with regard to the recension of =Hesychius=. Jerome\ncommends it with that of Lucian for the Old Testament, but\ncontemptuously rejects it for the New; and accordingly, in the decree of\nPope Gelasius, we hear of Gospels \u201cquae falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha,\nevangelia quae falsavit Hesychius, apocrypha\u201d (c. vi. 14, 15).\nConsidering the important position of Alexandria and Egypt, and the vast\nnumber of manuscripts referred with more or less certainty to that\nlocality, it is the more remarkable that so few unmistakable traces have\nas yet been discovered of the recension of which \u201cAlexandria et Aegyptus\n... Hesychium laudat auctorem,\u201d and that till the present moment the\nmost divergent views have been held with regard to it. And this is true\nof the Old Testament no less than of the New. One view, for which a good\ndeal can be said, has already been referred to (p. 61 f.)\u2014viz. that we\nhave the recension of Hesychius in Codex B. [Sidenote: Codex B.] Rahlfs,\nwho was the first to connect B with the Canon of Athanasius, says (_lib.\ncit._, p. 78, note 7); \u201cIf we care to trust ourselves to pure\nhypothesis, we might hazard the conjecture that our superb Codex,\nmanifestly written for one of the principal churches of Egypt, was\nprepared at the instigation of St. Athanasius himself. The locality in\nwhich the manuscript was produced supports this conjecture, while the\ntime is not inconsistent with it.\u201d I am not aware if Rahlfs knew that\nAthanasius had executed \u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd for Constans, and I am\nnot sufficiently acquainted with the minuti\u00e6 of the ecclesiastical\nhistory of that time, and with the life of Athanasius in particular, to\nhazard the assertion that Codex B was prepared by Athanasius for the\nEmperor Constans. It is certainly the case, as every Church History\nrecords, that Constans was Prefect of Illyricum and Italy, and that\nAthanasius fled to Rome to Julius II., which would help to explain how\nCodex B comes to be in that city.[170] I cannot ascertain however from\nthe books at my command, whether any particular resemblance has been\nobserved between the text of this manuscript and the Biblical quotations\nfound in those writings of Athanasius that belong to this period of his\nlife, that is, prior to the year 350. And, besides, one has always to\ntake into consideration how very little reliance can be placed as yet on\nthe text of the Biblical quotations in our editions of the Fathers. In\nthe Book of Judges B certainly exhibits quite a peculiar form of text\nwhich is not used by the earlier Egyptian teachers, Clement and Origen,\nnor even by Didymus (d. 394 or 399), but was employed first by Cyril of\nAlexandria, and which is the basis of the Sahidic version. This fact may\nhave an important bearing on the question as to the text of the New\nTestament as well.[171] As early as 1705 Grabe expressed the opinion\nthat the Sahidic version was the work of Hesychius, but we have very\nlittle information indeed regarding that Church Father, and in\nparticular as to his connection with the lexicographer of that name.\nHere also, the evidence afforded by pal\u00e6ography would need to be\nexamined with a view to ascertaining whether or not any of the\nmanuscripts agreeing with B in the Book of Judges\u2014viz. G (Brit. Mus.,\n20,002), 16, 30, 52, 53, 58, 63, 77, 85, 131, 144, 209, 236, 237, Catena\nNicephori\u2014has a counterpart in some manuscript of the New Testament. On\nCodex G see Rahlfs (p. 35, n. 2), and compare v. Dobsch\u00fctz (_ThLz._,\n1899, 3, 74) on the two New Testament manuscripts \u039b and 566^{evv.}\n(Greg).[172] According to the latter, the difference in size precludes\nthe supposition that \u039b and 566 are the New Testament portion of the\nmanuscript described by Rahlfs (_loc. cit._). But if they are not\nwritten by the same scribe, they both undoubtedly come from the same\nschool of copyists. At most, however, \u039b-566 would only possess\nimportance for the recension of Hesychius if the text they, or rather\nit, follows were different from that with which it was collated. Its\nsubscription shows that it belongs to those exemplars which were\ncollated with the Codex of Pamphilus. This fact has an important bearing\non the Gospel of the Hebrews. See Zahn, _GK._ ii. 648.\n\n[Sidenote: Eusebius-Pamphilus.]\n\n(_c_) We have nearly as little certain information regarding the third,\nand perhaps most important, of the recensions mentioned by Jerome in\nconnection with the Old Testament, that of =Eusebius= and =Pamphilus=,\nwhich goes back to Origen.[173] [Sidenote: Origen.] So far as I know,\nthe references which Origen makes in his extant writings to his own\nlabours in the field of textual criticism, relate only to the Old\nTestament. At the same time his complaint as to the evil condition of\nthe manuscripts of his day refers to the New Testament, and to the\nGospels in particular. \u039d\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9, he says, in his _Commentary on\nMatthew_, Bk. xv. 14, \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, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n\u1fe5\u1fb3\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 \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n\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 \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f22 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.[174] He tells us in the same place how, \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, he found ways and means of remedying the evil by the\nemployment of the critical symbols of Homeric commentators, the obelus\nand asterisk, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f55\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f30\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. According to his own express\ndeclaration, supposing it to have been correctly preserved, for it is\nonly extant in Latin, his work in textual criticism at that time at\nleast was confined to the Old Testament: in exemplaribus autem Novi\nTestamenti hoc ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non putavi. Von\nGebhardt consequently says (_Urt._, 25) that this statement from\nOrigen\u2019s own mouth should have kept anyone from ascribing a formal\nrecension of the New Testament text to him, alluding to Hug\u2019s system of\nrecensions; but at the same time he will not deny that the works of\nOrigen, who was a man of conspicuous critical accuracy, are of the\nhighest importance for the criticism of the text of the New Testament.\nAs a matter of fact, later church teachers appeal chiefly to Origen\u2019s\nmanuscripts of the Old Testament, but several references are also found\nto his New Testament manuscripts. On Gal. iii. 1, Jerome remarks (ii.\n418): legitur in quibusdam codicibus, Quis vos fascinavit non credere\nveritati? Sed hoc (meaning, of course, the last three words only) quia\nin exemplaribus Adamantii non habetur, omisimus. The words are a gloss\ninterpolated from ch. v. 7, but they are also found in Origen, though\nonly in the Latin translation of Rufinus, and they appear, among our\nGreek manuscripts, in C D^c E K L P, and likewise in most codices of the\nVulgate (see Wordsworth and White, p. 659). The same writer says on\nMatthew xxiv. 36 (ii. 199): in quibusdam latinis exemplaribus additum\nest \u201cneque filius,\u201d quum in Graecis et maxime Adamantii et Pierii\nexemplaribus hoc non habeatur additum; sed quia in nonnullis legitur,\ndisserendum videtur (W. and W., p. 658). Pierius is no doubt the\nPresbyter of Alexandria who lived at Rome after the Diocletian\npersecution. He was styled \u201cthe younger Origen\u201d on account of his\nlearning, and was perhaps the teacher of Pamphilus (Jerome, _Viri Ill._,\n76; Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._, vii. 32). Adamantius, like Chalkenteros, is\na surname of honour given to Origen. Here again, it is a strange fact\nthat the words which Jerome says were omitted in Origen\u2019s exemplar are\nfound in a certain passage of his works also extant only in Latin, and\nthere expounded so fully that there cannot be the slightest doubt that\nhe had them in his text, and, moreover, had no conception of their\nomission in other copies. What explanation, if any, can be given of this\nfact we need not pause to enquire. Nor need we take up the question\nwhere Jerome obtained access to the exemplars of Pierius. I suppose it\nwould be in Caesarea, where he also saw the (Bible?) volumes of Origen\ntranscribed by Pamphilus with his own hand, and actually obtained\npossession of his copy of the commentary on the Minor Prophets.[175]\nEven supposing that what is meant by _exemplaria Adamantii_ is not\nreally a recension of the text of the Bible but simply the copy that\nOrigen used most or used last, that copy might have been authoritative\nfor Pamphilus if not for Eusebius, and so far, therefore, it becomes\nnecessary for us to try and discover the Origenic text in the New\nTestament as well as in the Old. At all events a good many of our\nmanuscripts go back to Pamphilus, and particularly H of the Pauline\nEpistles. In addition to a very practical suggestion as to the lending\nof books,[176] and a notice of its preparation and of the original\nwriter, this manuscript has also the following note: \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21\n\u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6). From this subscription Field (_Hexapla_, i.\np. xcix) has concluded that the library of Pamphilus was still in\nexistence in the sixth century, but it is doubtful whether the\nsubscription may not have been found in the original of H and copied\ninto it along with the text, as is the case with a similar note copied\ninto the minuscules 15, 83, 173. [Sidenote: Euthalius.] In any case this\nmanuscript is our principal witness for the recension of Pamphilus, or,\nas it used to be called, the recension of =Euthalius=.[177] I have no\nintention of discussing the question whether it should be Euthalius or\nEvagrius: Von Dobsch\u00fctz (_Euthaliusstudien_, p. 152 n. 1) has promised\nto give us further particulars as to the Syriac texts relating to the\nsubject. I would merely call attention to two facts, viz.\u2014\n\n[Sidenote: Harklean.]\n\n(1) That the subscription testifying to a collation with the exemplar of\nPamphilus is found also at the end of the Harklean Syriac published by\nBensly (see above, pp. 79, 106).\n\n[Sidenote: Evagrius.]\n\n(2) That the name =Evagrius=, which Ehrhard proposes to read in place of\nEuthalius in Codex H, is actually found associated with the library of\nPamphilus in another manuscript of the Old Testament. In his _Notitia\neditionis codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici_ (Lipsi\u00e6, 1860), pp. 73-122,\nTischendorf published \u201cEx Codicibus Insulae Patmi, Ineditum Diodori\nSiculi; Origenis Scholia in Proverbia Salomonis.\u201d The latter he took\nfrom a manuscript which, according to H. O. Coxe\u2019s _Report ... on the\nGreek MSS. yet remaining in the Levant_ (1858, p. 61), professed to\ncontain \u201cOrigenis Hexapla cum Scholiis\u201d after the Philocalia. In reality\nthey are Origen\u2019s Scholia on the Proverbs which Angelo Mai had published\nin a different form from the Vatican Catena 1802, in the _Nova Patrum\nBibliotheca_, 1854. In the Patmos manuscript the scholia proper are\nprefaced by two (or three) explanatory notes on the use of the obelus\nand the asterisk, and on the different arrangement of the chapters in\nthe Hebrew and Greek texts, followed by another explanation of the same\nsort under the title \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.[178] Who they are that are\nreferred to in the scholion as having collated the book (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd) we learn from the subscription, which says:\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u1f67\u03bd \u03b5\u1f55\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f11\u03be\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f76 (_leg._\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b9) \u03a0\u03ac\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf. This subscription, which\nOikonomos published fully fifty years ago from that Patmos\nmanuscript,[179] should be added to those usually cited\u2014viz. those\nappended to Ezra and Esther in \u05d0, to Isaiah and Ezekiel in Codex\nMarchalianus, to 3 and 4 Kings in the Syriac Hexapla, and to Ezekiel in\nCodex Chisianus 88.\n\nWith what has been said the student should compare what Von der Goltz\ntells us of a critical work upon the text of the New Testament belonging\npartly to the tenth and partly to the sixth century.[180] This, too,\ngoes back to Origen, and in a scholion on James ii. 3, the greater part\nof which is unfortunately erased, the work mentions \u201ca manuscript\nwritten by the hand of St. Eusebius.\u201d As Zahn elsewhere shows, the\nwriter of the Athos manuscript did not base his own work on this Codex\nof Eusebius, and in one passage he expressly contrasts it with the text\nof Origen which he follows. In spite of this, however, this Athos\nmanuscript must be taken into account in dealing with the recension of\nPamphilus. Still more so must the Armenian and Syriac texts, according\nto Conybeare and von Dobsch\u00fctz.[181] Even the Latin manuscripts may\ncontain traces of this recension. E. Riggenbach has shown that the table\nof chapters in Hebrews given in Codex Fuldensis and in a manuscript\nindicated as Cod. Vat. Reg. 9, is nothing but a translation of the\ncorresponding part of \u201cEuthalius.\u201d[182] Unfortunately the relics of the\nliterary activity of Pamphilus, that devoted student of the\nScriptures,[183] are exceedingly scanty, and what little is left is\nextant only in a Latin translation. In these circumstances the attempt\nto specify more closely than hitherto his manuscripts of the Bible by\nmeans of his quotations does seem rather hopeless.\n\n[Sidenote: Later revisers.]\n\n(_d_) As we are now dealing with the question how to arrive at the\noldest form of the Greek text, it is unnecessary to take account of the\nlabours of any later individuals in the formation of the Greek New\nTestament. Among these were Emperors and Empresses like Constantine and\nConstans, who exerted themselves in the dissemination of the Scriptures,\nand perhaps even made copies of them with their own hands, but these we\nmay disregard.[184] The work of _Andreas_ and _Arethas_ on the\nApocalypse will be noticed when we come to speak of that book. One\nnaturally turns here to Krumbacher\u2019s _History of Byzantine Literature_,\nbut the index to the first edition of that work contains only two\nreferences to the New Testament, neither of them bearing on our present\nsubject. The matter is one which may be commended to those who have the\ntime and the opportunity and the willingness to investigate it, and\nconsidering the ardour with which the study of Byzantine antiquities is\nbeing prosecuted at present, it may suffice merely to throw out this\nhint.\n\n[Sidenote: Pre-Origenic texts.]\n\n(_e_) So far as we have gone, therefore, it appears that much\nuncertainty prevails regarding the text formations we have already\nconsidered\u2014those of Lucian, Hesychius, Pamphilus, and the Ferrar Group.\nConsidering the amount of evidence at our command\u2014how the external\ntestimony points in the same direction as the manuscripts themselves,\nand, indeed, how probable is the whole nature of the operation in\nquestion\u2014one would expect these to be the most easily distinguishable of\nall. Indeed, even so cautious an enquirer as Zahn speaks without any\nhesitation of \u201cthe official recensions originating subsequent to the\ntime of Origen\u201d (_ThLbl._, 1899, 180). The vagueness of our conclusions\nwith respect to these recensions does not look very promising for the\nresult of our investigation of the text prior to the time of Origen,\nwhen activity in this field was more disconnected and might be said to\nrun wild and unrestrained. And there is this further difficulty that\nsome of the writers who fall to be considered in this period came in\nlater times more or less justly under the imputation of heresy, with the\nconsequence that the results of their labours were less widely\ndisseminated, if not deliberately suppressed. In circumstances like\nthese any attempted revision of the text must have been equally\nmischievous, whether it proceeded from the orthodox side or from the\nopposite. That there were \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03af who were supposed to correct the\ntext in the interests of orthodoxy we have already learned from\nEpiphanius. Indeed, from our point of view the action of the orthodox\ncorrectors must be thought the more regrettable of the two, since the\nbooks without a doubt parted at their hands with many vivid, strange,\nand even fantastic traits of language. Even in the matter of style it\nseems to me incontestable that it was at their hands that the Gospels\nreceived that reserved and solemn tone which we would not now willingly\npart with, and which can be compared to nothing so much as to those\nsolemn pictures of Christ that we see painted on a golden background in\nByzantine churches. For myself, at least, I have not the slightest doubt\nthat the Gospel, and the Gospel particularly, was originally narrated in\na much more vivacious style. Just consider this, for example. In all our\npresent authorities\u2014Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, Syriac,\nEgyptian, and so forth, and in all the Church Fathers without exception,\nso far as I am aware\u2014we read the beautiful words: \u201cyour Father knoweth\nwhat things ye have need of before ye ask Him,\u201d \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd (Matt. vi. 8). Compare with this what we find singly and solely in\nCodex D and the Old Latin h, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1, antequam os\naperiatis, \u201cbefore ever you open your mouth.\u201d To me it is a striking\nindication to what an extent the instinctive sense of originality is\nwanting, that a reading like this is not inserted by Westcott and Hort\namong their Noteworthy Rejected Readings, nor even cited by Baljon in\nhis critical apparatus, and that our commentators have not a single\nsyllable about it, so that our students and preachers know nothing\nwhatever of this form of the words of Jesus. If my edition of the New\nTestament did no more than bring such things to the notice of those who\npreviously were unacquainted with them, I should consider it had done no\nsmall service. But take another illustration from the parable of the\nBarren Fig Tree. \u201cCut it down, why cumbereth it the ground,\u201d\u2014that is how\nour ordinary texts give the commandment of the justly indignant\nhusbandman in Luke xiii. 7: \u1f14\u03ba\u03ba\u03bf\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f31\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03af \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6.\nHere again, the great majority of our witnesses of every sort exhibit no\nvariation worth mentioning, except that a good many (A L T etc.) insert\na very prosy \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd after the imperative, while B 80 read \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd for \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd. And in the answer of the vine-dresser (verse 8), \u201ctill I shall dig\nabout it and dung it,\u201d there is again no various reading in our ordinary\nwitnesses of all kinds except the insignificant interchange of (\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9)\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, \u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, and \u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. What a difference do we find here also in\nthe text of D: \u201cbring the axe,\u201d \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03be\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, adfers securem; and, \u201cI\nwill throw in a basket of dung,\u201d \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, mittam qualum (=\nsqualum) stercoris d, or cophinum stercoris a b c f ff^2 i l q, from\nwhich it was taken into the Codex of Marmoutier, a copy of the Alcuinian\nrecension of the Vulgate written in gold.[185] Here again, our editors\nand commentators for the most part take no notice. \u201cBring the axe\u201d is\nomitted by Weiss, father and son, Westcott-Hort, Tregelles, and also by\nBaljon, while Holtzmann ignores both variants. It stands to reason, of\ncourse, that greater vivacity of style is not of itself an actual proof\nof greater originality. But the whole question is raised as to the\nprinciples by which we are to be guided in estimating the comparative\nvalue of the witnesses. One might be inclined to regard such\npeculiarities as due to the caprice of some scribe by whom D or its\nparent manuscript was written. As a matter of fact, Westcott and Hort,\nand most recent editors with them, do so regard them, seeing they cite\nthe reading of D neither in Matt. vi. 8 nor in Luke xiii. 7. In the\nlatter passage one might be inclined to take that view of the case,\nbecause as yet we have no other testimony to \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03be\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd than D d.\nBut it is not so likely in the case of Matt. vi. 8, seeing that here the\ntestimony of D is supported by that of h. To justify our neglect of\nthese witnesses, we should require to prove either that h is derived\nfrom D or D from h.[186] So far as my knowledge goes, no one has yet\nmaintained the latter view. The derivation of h from D is an\nimpossibility, for this reason alone that h belongs either to the\nfourth, or, what is perhaps more likely, to the fifth century (see p.\n113).[187] The truth is, rather, that we have in h a second and\nindependent witness to the fact that at a very early date the text of\nMatt. vi. 8 read, \u201cbefore you open your mouth.\u201d But it is quite\nimpossible to ignore the evidence of D in Luke xiii. 8 (\u03ba\u03cc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd). Here too, of course, one might take exception and say that as\nD is bilingual, its Greek text might be derived from the Latin.\nFortunately, however, it happens that the Latin of D, that is, d,\ndiffers from all the other eight Latin witnesses in reading not\n_cophinus_ but _qualus_, and it is _cophinus_ that is a loan word from\nthe Greek[188]; so that this objection, actually raised against D in the\ncase of other readings, does not apply to this one. There is this to be\nobserved, moreover\u2014a point not given in Tischendorf, but noticed in\nWestcott and Hort\u2014viz., that Origen also seems to have read \u201cbasket.\u201d\nThe passage is again one that is extant only in the Latin translation of\nRufinus, and Tischendorf cites Or. 3, 452 among the witnesses supporting\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1; but Westcott and Hort expressly mention that Origen\u2019s context\nappears to support the reading \u03ba\u03cc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (\u201cLev. lat. Ruf., 190, apparently\nwith context\u201d).\n\nHere, then, we have these three stages:\u2014\n\n    (1) D d alone, \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03be\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\u2014_i.e._ one solitary Greek manuscript.\n\n    (2) D supported by h, \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u2014_i.e._ the same solitary\n    Greek manuscript with the addition of one representative of a\n    version.\n\n    (3) D supported by eight Latin manuscripts and Origen, \u03ba\u03cc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n    \u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u2014_i.e._ the same solitary Greek manuscript with the addition\n    of eight representatives of one version and one not absolutely\n    certain quotation.\n\nWhat then? Can it be allowable to judge a reading\u2019s claim to be\nmentioned and considered from the number of the witnesses supporting it,\nand like Westcott and Hort and Baljon to mention the third only, and\ntake no notice of the other two? I think not. For just as in certain\ncircumstances the correct reading may no longer appear in any\nmanuscript, but must be determined by conjecture, so in another case the\ntruth may have only one solitary representative left to support it\nagainst a whole world of adversaries (Heb. xii. 3), and this solitary\nwitness either a manuscript, a version, or a quotation. On the other\nhand, it may have a whole cloud of witnesses accompanying it and\nsupporting it. In matters of this kind numbers have nothing to do with\nthe case whatever. To speak of majorities is nonsense. The true man is\nwilling and able to stand alone, and to many a witness of this sort we\nmust apply the words of Socrates: \u1f03 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f03\n\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b1. If we have been able to verify the word of a witness once,\nseveral times, frequently, then we shall be willing to trust him even in\ncases where we cannot check his evidence. Of course we must make\nallowance for human fallibility\u2014quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus; least\nof all in matters of this kind must we look for inerrancy. A manuscript\nwhose testimony was decisive on every point would be even a greater\nmiracle than a book printed without a single error at the time of the\nIncunabula, which the printers of that age would have regarded as an\neighth wonder of the world. But how to estimate the character of such a\nwitness, seeing that the subjective feeling, the instinctive perception\nof what is original, is as little to be trusted as the number of the\nwitnesses\u2014that is the difficulty. And what is the point that our\ndiscussion has brought us to? From the \u201cofficial recensions of the text\u201d\nmade in the later centuries, we sought to get back to similar works of\nearlier times, and we found that the original text may have suffered as\nmuch at the hands of orthodox revisers and correctors, who toned down\nand obscured the fresh colouring of the ancient records, as at the hands\nof heretics who inserted foreign and extraneous elements.[189]\n\nUnfortunately very little definite information has come down to us from\nthose early times, and as that relates more to the history of the canon\nthan of the text, reference must be made here to the monumental work of\nZahn.[190] Two figures, however, emerge from this chaos who have left\ntheir traces on the history of the text as well, =Tatian= and =Marcion=,\nthe former chiefly in connection with the Gospels, the latter with the\nPauline Epistles. Both have been already referred to more than once in\nthe chapter on the \u201cMaterials\u201d (Tatian, p. 97 f.; Marcion, pp. 76, 87),\nand both will require careful consideration here in our treatment of the\nprinciples involved in the reconstruction of the text. How much would be\nachieved could we but restore the original work of Tatian upon the\nGospels, or the _Gospel_ and the _Apostle_ of Marcion!\n\n[Sidenote: Heretics.]\n\n(_f_) Before speaking of their work, however, there are still a few less\nimportant notices to be gleaned from their own and the preceding time.\n\nNearly all the =heretics= were in turn accused of falsifying the\nScriptures. In this sense, also, the Dutch proverb is true, \u201cjedere\nketter heeft zijn letter\u201d (every heretic has his letter, his text of the\nScriptures). In early times Justin charged the Jews with such\nfalsification in the Old Testament, and Lagarde was sometimes inclined\nto suspect that the Massoretic numbers in Genesis had been manipulated\nby the opponents of Christianity. Such complaints were most frequently\nmade against the Gnostics, particularly the Valentinians, and when we\nglance over the long lists of apocryphal and pseudepigraphical\nwritings,[191] it is abundantly evident that at various times there was\na good deal of falsification\u2014_i.e._, a good deal written under false\nnames. At the same time it cannot be denied that alterations were also\nmade on early Christian works and the books of Scripture in the\ninterests of dogma. These alterations are of all sorts, ranging from\nquite harmless changes made in all innocence to supposed corrections,\nand, it may be, even wilful corruptions.[192] But most assuredly the\nheretics are not alone in being chargeable with this offence: Iliacos\nintra muros peccatur et extra.\n\nAs J\u00fclicher (_Einl._, 378) points out, the orthodox Church teachers were\nvery fond of making this charge against the heretics: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1fe5\u1fb3\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\n(ironically), \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9,\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, interpolare, adulterare, violare, corrodere, dissecare,\nauferre, delere, emendare (ironically), eradere, subvertere, extinguere,\nthese are some of the expressions we hear in this connection. Marcion\ngave occasion to the reproach by his edition of the Gospel of Luke and\nthe Epistles of Paul, but against the rest of the Gnostics, especially\nthe Valentinians, against the Artemonites, Novatians, Arians, and\nDonatists, and against the Nestorians, the same accusation is made as\nwas formerly brought against the Jews. Even within the pale of the\nChurch one party attributed such practices to the other. Ambrosiaster,\n_e.g._, believed that in the case of important discrepancies between the\nGreek and Latin manuscripts, the variations were due to the presumption\nof the Greek writers who had interpolated spurious matter. Jerome was\nafraid this would be said of him if he ventured to make the slightest\nalteration: quis doctus pariter vel indoctus non statim erumpat in\nvocem, me falsarium, me, clamans, esse sacrilegum qui audeam aliquid in\nveteribus libris addere, mutare, corrigere! The curse in Apoc. xxii. 18\nf. was also referred to the \u201cfalsifiers,\u201d who thought it more convincing\nand more reverent to observe the rules of grammar and logic than to\nabide by all the peculiar expressions in the Scriptures. At a meeting of\nCyprian bishops, about the year 350, when one of them, in quoting the\nverse John v. 8, substituted for \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 the better Greek word\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, another shouted to him in the hearing of all the multitude,\n\u201cArt thou better than he who said \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 that thou art ashamed to use\nhis words?\u201d[193] And it is a well-known fact that in the time of\nAugustine there was very nearly an uproar in an African congregation\nover Jonah\u2019s \u201cgourd\u201d (cucurbita) or Jonah\u2019s \u201civy\u201d (hedera). A few\nreferences at least may be collected here:\u2014\n\n    (1) On a certain Sunday[194] in the year 170 or thereabouts,\n    Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, wrote a letter to the Church at Rome\n    through their Bishop Soter, of which Eusebius has preserved the\n    following among other passages (_Eccl. Hist._, iv. 23):\u2014\u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2\n    \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03c9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\n    \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9[195] \u03b6\u03b9\u03b6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f03 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f03 \u03b4\u1f72\n    \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. \u039f\u1f37\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.[196] \u039f\u1f50 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1,[197] \u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n    \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1fe5\u1fb3\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f41\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n    \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9. The \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u1f76 are in all\n    likelihood the Gospels (the Syriac renders \u201cthe writings of our\n    Lord\u201d), but may also include the Pauline Epistles and the O.T. If we\n    are to take the words of Dionysius in their strict sense, it would\n    appear that these writings, like his own letters, had been corrupted\n    by means of \u201cadditions\u201d and \u201comissions.\u201d The last sentence, if it is\n    put correctly, and if it has been faithfully transmitted, leads us\n    to infer that in his letter to Corinth Soter had expressed his\n    surprise that the writings of the Lord should have been falsified.\n    To which Dionysius replies that certain letters of his own had been\n    falsified also, and that it was therefore no wonder if they did the\n    same to the writings of the Lord, seeing they tampered also (or,\n    _even_) with those that were inferior to them. The simplest\n    explanation of the words is, undoubtedly, that Dionysius sought to\n    console himself over the fate that had befallen his letters, by\n    reflecting that it was not surprising that they had falsified his\n    letters of less importance, seeing they had presumed to do the same\n    _even_ to the writings of the Lord. On the first interpretation, one\n    would certainly expect Dionysius to use a stronger expression to\n    describe his feelings at the manipulation of the sacred writings\n    than the mere \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. Who are meant by \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2? One most\n    naturally thinks of Marcion. According to a later account, Soter,\n    whom Jerome does not mention among the writers, composed a book\n    against the Montanists.\n\n[Sidenote: Artemonites.]\n\n    (2) In the last chapter of the Fifth Book of his Ecclesiastical\n    History (c. xxviii.), entitled \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f35\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n    \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n    \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bc\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, Eusebius quotes the following\n    complaint from an earlier source, entitled the _Little Labyrinth_ (\u00b1\n    235):\u2014\u0393\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03c9\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03b5\u03c1\u1fb3\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n    \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f20\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9, \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f20\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03af \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\n    \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, but occupying themselves with Logic, Geometry,\n    Euclid, Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Galen, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n    \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 ... \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n    \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, _\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n    \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9_. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9, \u1f41\n    \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. \u0395\u1f30 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n    \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 _\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1_ \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u1f02\u03bd \u03b5\u1f55\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\n    \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. \u1f08\u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f08\u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c0\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7\n    \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n    \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f51\u03c6\u2019 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 _\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1_ \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\n    \u1f20\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1. \u03a0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u1fb4\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9. \u03a4\u1f70 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n    \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1. \u1f1c\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\n    \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd[198] \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\n    \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u1f00\u03c0\u1fb4\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. \u1f4d\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\n    \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f01\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. \u1f2a \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n    \u1f09\u03b3\u03af\u1ff3 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f70\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f22\n    \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f09\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03af\n    \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd; \u039f\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03c1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\n    \u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f41\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f96 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f67\u03bd\n    \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c7\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ac\u03c2\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1,\n    \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u1f1c\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n    \u1f20\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n    \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03c9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n    \u1f44\u03bb\u03b5\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n    The passage is very instructive. We learn that copies of the\n    writings of these heretics were to be found in abundance, because\n    their disciples eagerly inserted their emendations in their texts,\n    \u201ceach one\u2019s emendations, as they style them, but in reality they are\n    corruptions,\u201d as the Syriac has it. At the same time, it is not\n    quite certain that \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 really means corrected manuscripts of\n    the Bible, and not the heretics\u2019 own works\u2014_i.e._, whether we should\n    understand \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd after \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f08\u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c0\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c4\u1f70\n    \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 and not rather \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 or\n    \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1. In the former case we shall have to search for a\n    recension of Asclepiades, of Theodotus, of Hermophilus, and in the\n    case of Apollonides for a double recension, an earlier and a later.\n    This interpretation of the words does certainly receive support from\n    the positive way in which the historian argues from the conduct of\n    these heretics, that they either did not believe in any inspiration\n    of the holy Scriptures, or thought they could write better\n    themselves, and also from his remark that they did not receive \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n    \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ac\u03c2 in that form (\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2) from their (Christian) instructors,\n    and were not able to show any older copies from which their own were\n    transcribed. From the mention of the Law and the Prophets, we may\n    conclude that the reference is mainly to the O. T. Epiphanius\n    mentions the Theodotians as appealing to Deut. xviii. 15, Jer. xvii.\n    9, Isa. liii. 3, Matt. xii. 31, Luke i. 35, John viii. 40, Acts ii.\n    22, 1 Tim. ii. 5; while Hippolytus argues against them on the ground\n    that in John i. 14, it is not \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 but \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf. No\n    sure traces, however, can be discovered in any of these N. T.\n    passages of their supposed trenchant criticism of the text. The most\n    probable instance is Luke i. 35. \u201cIf we may trust the statement of\n    Epiphanius,\u201d says Harnack (_Monarchianismus_, PRE^3, x. 188),\n    \u201cTheodotus wished to separate the second half of the sentence from\n    the first (\u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2\n    \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6),[199] as if the words \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 were wanting, which makes the\n    sentence imply that the divine Sonship of Christ rests on his\n    approving himself. But perhaps Theodotus omitted \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 altogether,\n    just as he seems to have read \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 instead of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n    in order to obviate all ambiguity.\u201d The latter reading is not\n    mentioned in Tischendorf, and the remark of Epiphanius in my opinion\n    amounts to this, that whereas he understood \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd to be the subject\n    of the sentence, Theodotus made it the predicate and separated it\n    from \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.[200]\n\n[Sidenote: Marcosians.]\n\n    (3) Speaking of the Marcosians,[201] Iren\u00e6us says (92):\u2014\u1f1c\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n    \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd ...\n    \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\n    \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f10\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n    \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd. This seems to contain a reference to Matt. xiii.\n    17, but what is complained of is a false interpretation of the words\n    of Scripture rather than an actual alteration of the text\n    itself.[202] The still earlier passage, Polycarp vii. 1, is also to\n    be taken as referring to this practice, \u1f43\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u1fc3 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n    [\u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9], \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6. For the exposition of the\n    passage see Zahn, _GK._ i. 842.\n\n[Sidenote: Basilides.]\n\n    (4) That Basilides[203] altered the text of the Gospels as received\n    by the Church in accordance with his own religious and ethical\n    views, and incorporated them in their altered form in his\n    _Evangelium_, is shown by Zahn on Matt. xix. 10-12 (_GK._ i. 771).\n    He shows also that the form into which Basilides cast the Synoptic\n    narrative may have prepared the way for the belief that Simon the\n    Cyrenian was crucified instead of Jesus, if this was really his\n    doctrine.\n\n[Sidenote: No\u00ebtus.]\n\n    (5) Hippolytus says of No\u00ebtus (Lagarde\u2019s edition, 45, 19): \u1f41\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\n    \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, _\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9_ \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ac\u03c2. He means by\n    this, according to Zahn, that the Noetians garbled their quotations,\n    and made selections of Scriptural sayings without paying regard to\n    the context. But compare _ibid._, line 7 ff., \u03b1\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u1f76\n    \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f02\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039d\u03cc\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fc7\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f30 \u039d\u03cc\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74\n    \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf _\u1f14\u03ba\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9_ \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03af.\n\n[Sidenote: Valentinians.]\n\n    (6) Heracleon,[204] the Valentinian, is said to have read \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\n    instead of \u1f15\u03be in John ii. 20, but whether he made the alteration\n    himself or found the former reading in his exemplar is not clearly\n    made out. There is no notice of the variant in Tischendorf, Baljon,\n    or in our commentaries. It is mentioned by Scrivener, _Introd._, ii.\n    260, n. 3, where reference is made to Lightfoot\u2019s _Colossians_, p.\n    336, n. 1. Origen, commenting on John i. 28, cites Heracleon in\n    support of the reading \u201cBethany,\u201d which, he says, \u201cis found in\n    almost all the manuscripts.\u201d\n\n    In contrast to the Marcionites and their practice of mutilating the\n    Scriptures, Iren\u00e6us says of the Valentinians (iii. 12, 12):\n    scripturas quidem confitentur, interpretationes vero convertunt,\n    quemadmodum ostendimus in primo libro. There we read (i. 3, 6): \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n    \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n    \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1fe5\u1fb3\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n    \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. But in i. 11, 9 he\n    says of them: Illi vero qui sunt a Valentino ... suas conscriptiones\n    proferentes, plura habere gloriantur quam sint ipsa evangelia,\n    siquidem in tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim\n    scriptum est, \u201cveritatis evangelium\u201d titulent, in nihilo conveniens\n    apostolorum evangeliis, ut nec evangelium sit apud eos sine\n    blasphemia. For the continuation and discussion of the passage, see\n    Zahn, _GK._ ii. 748. See also Westcott, _Canon_, p. 298 ff.\n\n    Zahn (_GK._ ii. 755) endeavours to show that they corrected the text\n    of the manuscripts, by the omission of \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, _e.g._, in 1 Cor.\n    xv. 29, and the insertion of \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 in Col. i. 16.\n\n    In i. 8, 1, Iren\u00e6us accuses them of \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\n    \u03b4\u1f74 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f04\u03bc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. The proverb is\n    from Ahikar.\n\n    The well-known charge made by Celsus (_Orig. con. Cels._, 2, 27;\n    Koetschau, i. 156) and the answer of Origen refer partly to the\n    re-writing of manuscripts and partly to their alteration: \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03ac\n    \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd (Celsus) \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bc\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f25\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n    \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 _\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd_ \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n    \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u1fc7, \u1f35\u03bd\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n    \u1f00\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1 \u1f22 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n    \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039f\u1f50\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n    \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5. \u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f14\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n    \u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1fe5\u1fb3\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n    \u1f14\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f22 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f22 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f22\n    \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u2019 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f66\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\n    \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f14\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n    \u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[Sidenote: Gnostics.]\n\n    (7) Clement (_Strom._, iii. 39) complains that the Gnostics\n    corrupted the sense of the Scriptures both by arbitrarily misplacing\n    the emphasis (in oral delivery) and by altering the punctuation (in\n    copying manuscripts?); see Zahn, _GK._ i. 424. On Tertullian\u2019s\n    complaint as to the way in which Marcion construed Luke xx. 35, see\n    below, p. 276.\n\n    (8) Clement (_Strom._, iv. 41) quotes Matt. v. 10_a_, to which he\n    annexes the reason found in verse 9_b_, and then goes on to say, \u1f22\n    \u1f65\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1, \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f31\n    \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9. Zahn\n    (_GK._ i. p. 411) makes the surmise that when Clement spoke of\n    certain persons who \u201ctransposed\u201d or altered the Gospels\u2014_i.e._, took\n    liberties with the text, he may have been thinking of Tatian, whose\n    personal intercourse he may have enjoyed for a length of time, and\n    with whose Greek writings he shows himself to be familiar.\n\n[Sidenote: Simon Magus and the Marcionites.]\n\n    (9) In an Arabic Introduction to a collection of alleged Nicene\n    Canons particular stress is laid upon the falsification of the\n    Scriptures by heretics. The Emperor Constantine is represented as\n    addressing the Fathers at Nic\u00e6a, and enjoining them, in dealing with\n    heretics, to distinguish between those who reject and falsify the\n    holy Scriptures and those who merely interpret them falsely. The\n    arch-heretic Simon Magus already appears as a fabricator of spurious\n    Scripture. His sect possessed an Evangelium in four books, to which\n    they gave the title \u201cLiber quatuor angulorum et cardinum mundi.\u201d The\n    Phocalites (Kukiani) retained the Old Testament, but in place of the\n    Church\u2019s New Testament they had one manufactured by themselves, in\n    which the twelve Apostles bore barbaric names. It is said of the\n    Marcionites: Sacras scripturas quibusdam in locis commutarunt\n    addideruntque Evangelio et Epistolis Pauli apostoli quibusdam in\n    locis, quaedam vero loca mutilarunt. Apostolorum Actus e medio\n    omnino sustulerunt, alium substituentes Actorum librum, qui faveret\n    opinionibus ac dogmatibus, illumque nuncuparunt \u201cLibrum propositi\n    finis.\u201d See Zahn, _GK._ ii. 448, where reference is made to Mansi,\n    _Conc. Coll._, ii. (Flor., 1759), 947-1082; Hefele,\n    _Conciliengeschichte_, 2nd. ed., i. 361-368, 282 f.; Harnack, _Der\n    Ketzer-Katalog des Bischofs Maruta von Maipherkat_, _TU._ (New\n    Series), iv., 1899; _ThLz._, 1899, 2.\n\n[Sidenote: Arians.]\n\n    (10) Ambrose says on John iii. 6 (_De Spiritu_, iii. 10): Quem locum\n    ita expresse, Ariani, testificamini esse de Spiritu, ut eum de\n    vestris codicibus auferatis. Atque utinam de vestris et non etiam de\n    Ecclesiae codicibus tolleretis. Eo enim tempore quo impiae\n    infidelitatis Auxentius Mediolanensem Ecclesiam armis exercituque\n    occupaverat, vel a Valente atque Ursatis nutantibus sacerdotibus\n    suis incursabatur Ecclesia Sirmiensis, falsum hoc et sacrilegium\n    vestrum in Ecclesiasticis codicibus deprehensum est. Et fortasse hoc\n    etiam in oriente fecistis.\n\n[Sidenote: Greeks.]\n\n    (11) Ambrosiaster has the following note on Rom. v. 14 (Migne, xvii.\n    100 f.): Et tamen sic (_i.e._ \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2) praescribitur nobis\n    de graecis codicibus, quasi non ipsi ab invicem discrepent, quod\n    facit studium contentionis. Quia enim propria quis auctoritate uti\n    non potest ad victoriam, verba legis adulterat, ut sensum suis quasi\n    verba legis asserat, ut non ratio sed auctoritas praescribere\n    videatur. Constat autem porro olim quosdam latinos de veteribus\n    graecis translatos (esse) codicibus, quos incorruptos simplicitas\n    temporum servavit et probat: postquam autem a concordia animis\n    discedentibus et haereticis perturbantibus torqueri quaestionibus\n    coeperunt, multa immutata sunt ad sensum humanum, ut hoc\n    contineretur in litteris quod homini videretur, unde etiam ipsi\n    Graeci diversos codices habent. Hoc autem verum arbitror, quando et\n    ratio et historia et auctoritas observatur: nam hodie quae in\n    latinis reprehenduntur codicibus, sic inveniuntur a veteribus\n    posita, Tertulliano, Victorino, et Cypriano. The correction \u201chodie\n    quae\u201d for \u201chodieque\u201d in the last sentence is due to Haussleiter,\n    _Forschungen_, iv. 32. The passage is also interesting as being the\n    earliest instance known to me of the collocation of _ratio_ and\n    _auctoritas_ as the two arbiters in theological disputes. Compare\n    the frequent combination of the two by Luther in his earlier\n    polemics\u2014_e.g._ against Prierias, and also later in his protest at\n    Worms.\n\n    Again, Ambrosiaster says on Gal. ii. 1, with reference to Acts xv.\n    20, 29: Quae sophistae Graecorum non intelligentes, scientes tamen a\n    sanguine abstinendum _adulterant_ scripturam, quartum mandatum\n    addentes \u201cet a suffocatis observandum,\u201d quod puto nec ne Dei nutu\n    intellecturi sunt, quia iam supra dictum est, quod addiderunt.\n\n[Sidenote: Marcion.]\n\n(_g_) =Marcion.=\u2014We have more exact information in regard to Marcion\u2019s\ngreat undertaking than to these slender attempts at textual criticism.\nHere there is a fuller stream of testimony both in the Greek and Latin\nFathers. It must be confessed, however, that hitherto attention has been\ndirected more to his position in the matter of the Canon generally than\nto his work on the text of the New Testament. Here again, the works of\nZahn throw most light upon the subject; in other works, like the PRE\n_e.g._, this side of Marcion\u2019s activity is very superficially treated.\nSeveral points have already been referred to here and there in the\nprevious part of this work, but the question must now be treated as a\nwhole.[205]\n\nIn the opening sentence of his examination of Marcion\u2019s New Testament,\nZahn avers that no church teacher of the second century occupies such an\nimportant position in the history of the ecclesiastical canon as does\nthat early writer. If this is really so, it becomes all the more\nimportant for us to inquire whether traces of his influence may not be\ndiscoverable also in our witnesses to the text of the New Testament.\n\n[Sidenote: His New Testament.]\n\nMarcion\u2019s New Testament, which was at the same time his entire Bible,\nconsisted of two books of moderate compass\u2014viz. a _Gospel-Book_, which\nhe seems to have called \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd simply, and a collection of _ten\nPauline Epistles_ called, probably by himself, \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd (_sc._\n\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd). The Epistles were arranged in an order which was evidently\nthought to correspond to that of their composition\u2014viz., Gal., 1 and 2\nCor., Rom., 1 and 2 Thess., Laodicenos (= Ephes.), Col., Phil., Phm. He\nwas unanimously accused by the Church teachers of having mutilated the\necclesiastical Bible in the manufacture of his own, and also of having\ncorrupted the text here and there by means of interpolations,\nparticularly in the case of Luke, which was the only Gospel he admitted.\nThey complained that he used not the pen but the knife (only he used it\nfor a purpose the opposite of that for which the scissors are employed\nnowadays), and the sponge, and also that he deleted not words merely but\nwhole pages. They compared his work upon the manuscripts to that of a\nmouse.[206] And as for his disciples! Every day they were improving\ntheir Gospel. Seeing that he himself had not gone so far as to erase the\nwritings of Paul altogether, his disciples continued his work, and\nremoved whatever did not concur with their views.[207] But according to\ntestimony extending over a long stretch of time, their text of the\nScriptures seems to have undergone fewer alterations during that period\nthan that of the Catholic Church (Zahn, _GK._ i. 613). In comparing the\ntext of these two collections \u201cit should be clearly understood that the\nChurch\u2019s text, whose treatment by Marcion is in question, is not to be\nidentified with that of our Bible Societies, or of Tischendorf, or of\nEpiphanius, but was such a text as Marcion found in the Catholic Church\nor in the Roman community about the year 150. The text of the\necclesiastical exemplar on which Marcion based his labours can no longer\nbe restored in every word, but sufficient means are at our command to\ngive us a general idea of the form which the text of the Pauline\nEpistles presented in the second century, and at the same time to\nascertain in many separate instances what text Marcion had before him.\nIt turns out in many cases that what seems strange in Marcion\u2019s text to\none who compares it with the _textus receptus_, or with one of our\nmodern critical editions, without knowing much about the history of the\ntext, is by no means peculiar to Marcion, but was pretty common in the\nWest in early times. Now it is quite inconceivable, in view of the\nimplacable hostility of the Church to Marcion, that his text, condemned\nas it was unceasingly as being heretical and spurious, should have\nexerted any positive influence on that of the Church.[208] It follows,\naccordingly, that all those things in Marcion\u2019s Bible that seem to the\nuninitiated to be peculiar to it alone, but which are attested by\nCatholic manuscripts, versions, and Patristic writers, were not invented\nby Marcion, but taken by him from the Church\u2019s Bible of that time, or\nfrom one such Bible at all events, and were only gradually ousted from\nthe text used by the Church.\u201d[209] All this, which is taken word for\nword, with the exception of a slight change in the last sentence, from\nZahn\u2019s dissertation of the year 1889 (p. 636), should even at that time\nhave been self-evident, but, like Zahn\u2019s further statements in the same\nplace, has not yet been sufficiently attended to, especially in our\ncommentaries on Luke and the Pauline Epistles. He points out, _e.g._,\nthat Tertullian, in speaking of the change of the address \u201cad Ephesios\u201d\nto \u201cLaodicenos,\u201d credits Marcion with the intention of being \u201cet in isto\ndiligentissimus explorator,\u201d so that it is possible that he compared\nseveral manuscripts in order to discover the original wording.[210] In\nsuch cases, therefore, the question may be asked whether Marcion may not\nreally have preserved the original text, and whether his text, so far as\nit is corroborated by any independent tradition, should not be estimated\nmuch higher than it is by the textual critics of the present.[211] Zahn\ndeserves all the more credit for giving such careful attention to\nquestions relating to the text, seeing that the subject of his\ninvestigation was merely the history of the canon. He has dealt chiefly\nwith those passages in which Marcion\u2019s intentional alterations have been\npreserved. [Sidenote: His \u201cEmendations.\u201d] Reference may be made, _e.g._,\nto the pages in the first volume of his History, entitled _Minor\nEmendations_, wherein it is shown how Marcion, in his hostility to the\nOld Testament with its God of Righteousness, omitted the quotations from\nthe Old Testament altogether, or dropped the introductory formula of\nquotation in Rom. i. 17, xii. 19, 2 Cor. iv. 13; excluded all the\nreferences to Abraham in Galatians except in iv. 22; altered \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd in Rom. x. 3 to \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd; removed\nthe words \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd from Gal. iv. 4;\nchanged the active construction into the passive in 1 Cor. iii. 17; and\nelsewhere strove after greater condensation, lucidity, and brevity of\nexpression. Marcion, says Zahn, had good grounds for believing that the\ntext of the Scriptures had not remained unchanged during the century\nthat had elapsed since their composition, though that might be said with\nmore truth of the Gospels and the Acts than of the Epistles; but to\nattempt to rid the Apostle\u2019s text of all supposed corruptions with no\nregard to any sort of critical material whatever, but depending simply\nand solely on his own instinctive sense of what was genuinely Christian\nand apostolic, was the undertaking of a giant, as Iren\u00e6us calls Marcion.\nAnd his disciples, in a blind veneration of his authority, seem to have\nexceeded the intention of the master and editor, \u201cjust as many Lutherans\nat the present day look upon Luther\u2019s translation, with all its faults,\nas the very word of God, and hardly capable of improvement.\u201d\n\nIn the Appendices to his second volume Zahn has gone still more\ncarefully into the questions relating to the criticism of the text.[212]\nHis main conclusions will hardly be contested. Among these are the\nfollowing:\u2014\n\n[Sidenote: Marcion and the Western Text.]\n\n1. That Marcion based his Gospel on that of Luke, although his text\ndisplays various elements belonging to Matthew and Mark;\n\n2. That this mixture is found in those passages wherein the\necclesiastical texts, and especially the Western, exhibit the same or\nsimilar features;\n\n3. That Marcion\u2019s text shows[213] none of those small \u201capocryphal\nadditions\u201d which we find combined with the contents of our Gospels in\nJustin and Tatian.\n\nZahn also calls attention frequently to the different manuscripts which\nstill exhibit a text agreeing with that credited to Marcion, and which\nare precisely the Western witnesses, the Old Latin manuscripts, and D of\nthe Greek.[214] Compare, _e.g._, on Luke v. 14, 34, 39; vi. 25 f., 31,\n37; viii. 45; ix. 6, 16, 22; x. 22, 25; xi. 20, 41; xii. 14, 31, 58 f.;\nxviii. 35; xx. 36; xxi. 27, 30; xxiv. 6, 26, 37. But there are also\npassages where Marcion parts company with D and its associates\u2014_e.g._,\nvi. 22, 26, 29; xi. 4. In Paul, too, the number of passages displaying\nagreement between Marcion and D_{2} G_{2} preponderates: Gal. ii. 5;\niii. 14_b_; v. 1, 14, 24; 1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. v. 4; 1 Thess. iv. 16;\nEph. i. 9, 13; iii. 10; iv. 6; v. 28 ff. The agreement between Marcion\u2019s\ntext and that of the minuscule 157 was previously emphasised by\nZahn\u2014_e.g._, in Luke xvi. 12, where the reading \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd instead of \u03c4\u1f78\n\u1f51\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd (\u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd B L) is supported as yet by this Greek manuscript\nalone and three old Latin (e i l), and in xxi. 30, where only one other\nof the minuscules collated by Scrivener supports D 157 in reading\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd.[215] In Luke xxiv. 26, D and Marcion are\nour only witnesses for the reading \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 instead of \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u03af. How is this to\nbe explained? Zahn, _e.g._, holds that it is a mere coincidence that\nMarcion\u2019s reading, \u201cprophetas suos,\u201d[216] in 1 Thess. ii. 15 agrees with\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 read by D_{2} E_{2} K_{2} L_{2}, _i.e._, the\nrepresentatives of the Antiochean recension, with which Marcion\nelsewhere very seldom agrees, seeing he founds throughout upon a Western\ntext. In the great majority of cases the explanation seems to be simple\nenough. Marcion began his career at Rome, so that we may naturally\nexpect him to give us a Western text. So far, therefore, one might be\ntempted simply to ignore that text as hitherto, although a text attested\nby Marcion and the Church in common is surely entitled, even in respect\nof its antiquity, to much more consideration than has been paid to it\nheretofore. The importance, and at the same time the difficulty, of the\nproblem is increased by the fact that we find the same text as his, or\nat all events one of a similar sort, represented in a totally different\nquarter\u2014viz. in Tatian.[217]\n\n[Sidenote: Tatian.]\n\n(_h_) =Tatian=[218] has already been referred to in a general way above\n(p. 97 ff.): we shall now give the testimony of the early church\nregarding him verbatim. If we leave out of account the somewhat doubtful\nreference in Hegesippus (p. 96), and an equally uncertain allusion to\nthe title of his Harmony in Origen,[219] the testimony from purely Greek\nsources is confined to a few sentences in Eusebius,[220] a notice in\nEpiphanius,[221] and a scholion in a manuscript of the Gospels.[222]\n\nFor more exact information we are indebted solely to the Syrian church.\nThe Greek writer Theodoret gives us most details.[223] The notices\ncontained in Syriac and Arabic sources are more numerous than the Greek,\nbut they are shorter and must be omitted here.[224] It becomes\nnecessary, therefore, to consider very carefully whether any vestiges of\nTatian\u2019s work are preserved in our witnesses for the text, and how these\nmay, and indeed must, be used in its criticism. I assume as having been\ndemonstrated by Zahn, that Tatian\u2019s Diatessaron was a Syriac work, and I\ntake it as very probable that the Curetonian Syriac and the Lewis Syriac\npresent us with two works based on, or at least influenced by, that of\nTatian. To what extent the same is true of the Peshitto as well need not\nbe considered here, the main problem being to elucidate the connection\nbetween Tatian and the _Western_ witnesses. And here we are at once\nconfronted with a matter of great uncertainty\u2014viz., whether there might\nnot also have been a _Greek_ Harmony of the Gospels either antecedent to\nthe Diatessaron or contemporary with it, which Tatian himself made or\nemployed. Zahn thinks not, mainly because from the side of the Greek\nChurch we have almost no notice whatever of the existence of anything of\nthis sort, nor of Tatian\u2019s own work either. Harnack seems not to be\nconvinced of the correctness of Zahn\u2019s position.[225] He even declares\nthat Harris\u2019s _Preliminary Study_[226] has only confirmed his\n\u201cconviction that Tatian composed a Greek Harmony of the Gospels.\u201d[227]\nThat treatise is accompanied by a facsimile of the fragment of Mark in\nCodex W^d, \u201cthe contents of which display an affinity with the text of\nthe Diatessaron (with the original text?).\u201d[228] At all events Harnack\nis of opinion that Harris\u2019s conclusions with regard to a Pre-Tatian and\na very early Harmony of the narrative of the Passion are very premature,\nand in his judgment should either not have been put forward at all in a\n_Preliminary Study_ or suggested with more deliberation. G. Kr\u00fcger also\nputs \u201cthis Combined Gospel written in Syriac (Greek?)\u201d in his _History\nof Early Christian Literature_, \u00a7 37. On the other hand, Hogg in \u00a7 12 of\nhis Introduction,[229] _Non-Syriac Texts of the Diatessaron_, says\nnothing of a Greek text, and in \u00a7 19, where he raises the question, \u201cIn\nwhat language was it written?\u201d, he speaks only of the \u201cview favoured by\nan increasing majority of scholars, that it was written in Syriac,\u201d and\nthen asks, on this view, \u201cwas it a translation or simply a compilation?\u201d\nand lastly, which is the main question, \u201cwhat precisely is its relation\nto ... the Western text generally?\u201d\n\nIn his first work, written prior to the publication of the Arabic text,\nZahn very frequently pointed to the fact that the so-called =Western=\nwitnesses\u2014_i.e._, Codex D and the Old Latin manuscripts, agree so often\nwith Tatian.[230] His explanation of this phenomenon is very\nsimple\u2014viz., that Tatian returned from Rome to his old home in Syria\nabout the year 172, and took with him from the West his text, which was\njust the Western text. [Sidenote: Tatian and the Western Text.] This\nview would present no difficulty if it were only the case that the\nDiatessaron shared the peculiarities of the Western text, but is the\nfact not rather the converse of this\u2014viz., that D, the leading\nrepresentative of that text, shares the peculiarities of a Harmony of\nthe Gospels, might we say, in short, of the Diatessaron? Not only are\ncertain readings the same in both texts, but the Western text seems\nactually to exhibit features which can scarcely be regarded otherwise\nthan as the outcome of a Harmony. I have given expression to this\nopinion ere now; it struck me forcibly when I was collating the Codex\nBezae for my _Supplementum Novi Testamenti Graeci_. In order to afford a\nmore convenient survey of the vast number of variants, I followed the\nparagraphing of Westcott and Hort\u2019s edition. Now look at the variants\nthere. Whereas the majority consist of quite separate and disconnected\nreadings, I was obliged at the beginning of the pericop\u00e6 regularly to\ncopy half a line or even a whole line from D, its text differed so much\nfrom that of our present editions at the beginnings of the pericop\u00e6, and\nthere only to the same extent. See, _e.g._, Luke v. 17, 27; vii. 1, 18;\nix. 37; x. 1, 25; xi. 14; xii. 1 to the end; xxiv. 13. It is true this\nphenomenon is most frequently observed in Luke, where I had previously\nexplained its appearance in another way by supposing like Blass that it\nwas due to the author having issued two editions of that Gospel. But\nneither is it altogether absent from the other Gospels. It occurs most\nseldom, as might be expected, in Matthew, but examples may be seen in\nxvii. 22, 24; xx. 29. In Mark see iii. 19; iv. 1; vi. 7. There are other\nfeatures besides this which are difficult of explanation on any other\ngrounds. For these I may briefly refer to the second of the works\nrelating to this part of the subject, _The Syro-Latin Text of the\nGospels_, by F. H. Chase,[231] in which a special chapter is devoted to\nthe question of \u201cHarmonistic Influence\u201d (pp. 76-100). The writer calls\nattention there to three points, viz.:\u2014\n\n1. \u201cThe text of Codex Bezae shows constant indications of harmonistic\ninfluence.\u201d This, however, is nothing new. Jerome, _e.g._, complains of\namalgamations of this sort. But then,\n\n2. \u201cIn such harmonized passages readings occur which we are justified by\nother evidence in considering as Tatianic readings.\u201d\n\n3. \u201cThere are other signs of the influence of Syriac phraseology in, or\nin the neighbourhood of, such readings due to harmonistic influence.\u201d\n\nI waive consideration of this last point, but as regards the second it\nis noteworthy, and bears out what I have said above, that Chase in this\nconnection goes almost entirely by passages from Luke with the exception\nof Matt. xxi. 18; xxiv. 31 f.; xxvi. 59 ff.; and Mark viii. 10; xiii. 2;\nx. 25 ff. From Luke he instances iii. 23-38; iv. 31; v. 10 f., 14 f.;\nvi. 42; viii. 35; xi. 2; xx. 20; xxi. 7; xxiii. 45 ff.; xxiv. 1.\n\nI should like, however, to call attention here to one passage to which\nChase refers in another connection\u2014viz., the extensive interpolation\nafter Matt. xx. 28 (Chase, pp. 9-14). It is true, as Zahn expressly\npoints out,[232] that neither Ephraem nor Aphraates, who were our only\nsources for the Diatessaron prior to 1881, \u201cshows any traces of this\nlong and in part apocryphal interpolation, nor yet of Luke xiv. 7-10,\nfrom which the most of it is taken.\u201d But in the Arabic Tatian,[233] Luke\nxiv. 1-6 and xiv. 7-11, 12-15 are found after Matt. xx. 1-16 at the end\nof \u00a7 29 and the beginning of \u00a7 30 respectively. The verse Matt. xx. 28,\nregarding which Zahn was uncertain whether it was in Tatian or not,\nseeing that neither Ephraem nor Aphraates mentions it, is found in \u00a7 31,\n5 between Mark x. 44 and Luke xiii. 22, while Matt. xx, 29_a_ (+ Mark x.\n46_a_) follows a little further down in \u00a7 31, 25. So far, indeed, this\nresult is not favourable to our theory. But I ask myself in vain how\nelse this interpolation is to be explained except as an attempt at\nharmonising. Now, seeing that its text is found in one Syriac, two\nGreek, and half a dozen Latin witnesses (the particulars are given in\nthe critical note, p. 255), the further question arises, Whence comes\nit? The most ready answer will be, \u201cit comes from the Greek, whence it\npassed to the Latin on the one side and to the Syriac on the other.\u201d As\nfor the Latin, it is certain that the majority, perhaps even all, of the\nLatin forms are derived from the Greek. But are the Syriac as well? Or\nis not rather the converse true, however strange it may seem at the\nfirst glance, that the Greek is a translation of the Syriac? There is\nthe word \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, _e.g._, which strikes me as it did Chase, as\nbeing particularly strange. I admit that I should not care to build a\nhypothesis of this magnitude on this one word and this one passage\nalone. I would merely submit it generally as a question to be kept in\nview in further investigations. And I would supplement it by another\nquestion whether, in the case of the first being negatived, it may not\nbe true after all, _pace_ Zahn, that there was a Greek Harmony alongside\nthe Syriac and probably going back to the same author. May not the close\nresemblances traceable between Tatian and the Western text be also\naccounted for on the supposition that instead of Tatian being influenced\nby the latter, it really goes back to Tatian?\n\nI would ask this question specially in regard to the Western text of the\n_Pauline Epistles_. What is meant by the statement of Eusebius cited\nabove as to Tatian\u2019s treatment of these Epistles? \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 may\ncertainly mean to translate, but then one translates an entire text and\nnot \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 merely, and, moreover, one does not translate \u1f61\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03bd \u201cwith a view to improving\nthe phraseology and syntax.\u201d Do not our Western witnesses present us\nwith a work of this description? I am well aware that such hypotheses\nare like that regarding the author of the _Nibelungenlied_ where there\nwas a great poem without a name and one or two great names without\npoems, and so various combinations were made, for each of which\nsomething could be said, while none of them could be said to be proved.\nThat may be the case here too. But at present I feel disposed to\nattribute a considerable share in this peculiar \u201cWestern\u201d text to\nTatian. [Sidenote: Syro-Latin.] And as this name \u201cWestern,\u201d the\ninappropriateness of which has long been recognised, becomes on this\nsupposition more inappropriate still, I am inclined to recommend the\nfreer adoption of the nomenclature familiarised by the work of Chase, I\nmean that of \u201cSyro-Latin.\u201d In his preface Chase puts in a plea for its\nuse, citing a sentence from the _Dublin Review_ of July 1894, p. 52, in\nwhich H. Lucas says: \u201cThe time is, we hope, not far distant, when the\nterm Western will give place to the term Syro-Latin, the only one which\ntruly represents, in our opinion, the facts of the case.\u201d Just as when\nwe wish to indicate those languages and tribes that extend from the\nIndian to the German and Keltic we say Indo-Germanic, or Indo-Keltic, if\nwe wish to be more exact and avoid wounding the sensibilities of the\nFrench, so the term Syro-Latin would be the best designation for a form\nof text whose characteristics are as distinctly traceable among the\nSyrians in the East as among the Greeks in the centre and the Latins in\nthe West. But be that as it may, one thing is clear, that many problems\nhere await solution. But they will not for ever defy methodical\ninvestigation.\n\n    The foregoing was all written before I saw the analysis given by\n    Zahn in his _Geschichte des Kanons_, i. 383 ff. Reading it, I am\n    surprised that his conclusions have not been followed up by a\n    thorough investigation of the subject long ere now. Personally, I am\n    precluded at this moment from even making an attempt in this\n    direction. Zahn says: \u201cThe quotations of Aphraates frequently\n    presuppose a different Greek text (of the Pauline Epistles) than\n    that lying at the foundation of the Peshitto. The repeated\n    resemblances to Western texts, Claromontanus, Boernerianus (D G),\n    Tertullian, and other Latin witnesses are particularly striking. In\n    the earliest Syriac Gospel the same phenomenon appears even more\n    conspicuously. How is it to be explained? Shall we suppose that this\n    type of text was dispersed equally throughout _all_ parts of the\n    Church during the second century? In that case we should have to\n    regard it as the earliest form at which we can arrive, on the\n    principle laid down by Tertullian: quod apud multos unum invenitur,\n    non est erratum sed traditum. But,\u201d says Zahn, \u201ceven those who\n    venerate the Western tradition of the text\u2014_i.e._ those who, like\n    myself, are of opinion that it does not get nearly its due share of\n    attention from present-day critics\u2014will decline to assent to this\n    proposition. Because the result of this view would be to establish\n    the rule that the so-called Western tradition _invariably_ deserves\n    the preference over those others, even over our oldest Greek\n    manuscripts themselves. Even if we limited it to those elements of\n    the text in which the furthest East agrees with the furthest West,\n    the result would still be a text to which no cautious critic would\n    pin his faith. A more natural explanation of this striking condition\n    of things is required.\u201d Zahn finds this in the supposition that\n    there was formerly a close intimacy between the Syrian Church and\n    Rome. \u201cJust as the Princes of Edessa had much direct intercourse\n    with Rome, so to all appearance had the Church there.\u201d In proof of\n    this, he points to the early intrusion of Marcion\u2019s doctrines and\n    Bible into Mesopotamia, to the participation of the Church of Edessa\n    in the Easter controversy and its agreement in that matter with\n    Victor of Rome, and to the Abgar Legend which connects Edessa with\n    Zephyrinus of Rome (199-216) by way of Antioch, and represents Peter\n    as sending the Epistles of Paul from Rome to Edessa. \u201cConsidering\n    the anachronisms that legends usually exhibit, may we not take this\n    to be the expression of an historical fact, viz. that a text written\n    in the West formed the basis of the earliest Syriac version of the\n    Pauline Epistles? This supposition is confirmed by the earliest\n    history of the Gospel among the Syrians\u2014viz. by the\n    Diatessaron.\u201d[234] After a most thorough discussion of all the\n    questions relating to that book (pp. 387-422), Zahn discovers in\n    this part also (the Gospels) an intimate connection between the text\n    on which it is based, and the form assumed by the text of the\n    Gospels in the West during the second century. And he believes that\n    it will be difficult to find a more feasible explanation of the\n    remarkable agreement evidenced by these two texts in the very matter\n    of their textual corruption and licence than this, that this text\n    came from Rome to Syria. And so the final question arises, \u201cwhether\n    a connection does not exist between the first Gospel and the first\n    text of Paul and the Acts in the Syriac, and whether the _entire_ N.\n    T., as the _Doctrine of Addai_ says, was not a present which Tatian\n    brought with him from Rome to his countrymen, and adapted for their\n    use by means of a free translation and revision?\u201d Zahn thinks that a\n    positive answer cannot be given, but he refers pointedly to what\n    Eusebius says regarding Tatian\u2019s treatment of the Pauline Epistles,\n    and is led to suppose that those changes were introduced on the\n    occasion and in the form of a translation from the Greek into\n    Syriac, and that the reason why Eusebius had such hazy notions\n    regarding it as well as the Diatessaron, is most likely that both\n    the books were in Syriac, and used only in the Syrian Church. A\n    closer investigation of the Pauline Epistles in the Syriac is needed\n    to decide these questions.\n\n    To these propositions of Zahn I have but the one objection stated\n    above, that the expressions used by Eusebius point far too plainly\n    to a revision of the phraseology of the Pauline Epistles, which\n    could have been done only on the original Greek.[235] Zahn himself\n    points out that the words of Eusebius remind us of what is elsewhere\n    said of the Theodotians (_Eccl. Hist._, v. 28, 15. 18; see above, p.\n    200).[236]\n\n[Sidenote: Western Text.]\n\n(_i_) =The Western Text.=\u2014We thus find ourselves face to face with what\nhas been called the only burning question of the textual criticism of\nthe New Testament\u2014the question, namely, of the place to be assigned to\nthe so-called Western text. Our treatment of the external testimony has\nled us back through Lucian, Pamphilus, Hesychius, and Origen, to Marcion\nand Tatian, that is, into the middle of the second century. But the\nquestion is now whether we must stop here, or whether it is not possible\nto ascend with certainty even somewhat higher by means of an\ninvestigation of the material afforded by the manuscripts themselves.\nThe \u201cHigher Criticism,\u201d _e.g._, seeks to get behind the Synoptic Gospels\nto the documents which the authors or editors used in their composition;\nis it not possible for the \u201cLower Criticism\u201d to recover with certainty\nat least the primitive text of the New Testament books? And is that not\nmost readily found in the so-called Western text? We have been obliged\nto make frequent reference to it already; the question for us now is,\n\u201cWhat is the value of Codex Bezae and its associates?\u201d\n\nIt was observed by Theodore Beza himself, the scholar whose name the\nCodex justly bears, that the text of this manuscript differed in so many\nrespects from that of others, especially in Luke and Acts, that he could\ngive no explanation of it satisfactory to himself. He was not led to\nsuppose that the alterations were due to heretics; nevertheless, like a\ncautious man, he thought it more advisable to preserve the Codex than to\npublish it. Eight hundred years before, Bede was similarly impressed by\nthe Codex which we now know by the name of Laudianus, E_{2}. He\nindicated \u201cquaedam quae in Graeco sive aliter seu plus aut minus posita\nvidimus.\u201d He was uncertain \u201cutrum negligentia interpretis omissa vel\naliter dicta, an incuria librariorum sint depravata sive relicta ...\nnamque graecum exemplar fuisse falsatum suspicari non audeo.\u201d When the\nmanuscripts began to be more systematically collated, Bengel declared\nthat the criticism of the text would be much simplified if one were not\nbound to trouble himself with these codices, which, as being written in\nGreek and Latin, he called _vere bilingues_. Old students of the\nMaulbronn College have told me that Ephorus B\u00e4umlein the most\ndistinguished philologist of our Institute in this century, and editor\nof _Disquisitions on the Greek Particles_ and similar works, was always\nreferring to the Codex Cantabrigiensis, though they themselves never\nrightly understood about this Codex, or indeed about such things at all.\nI do not know who it was from whom I myself first heard of it; certainly\nthere was no particular importance attributed to it in my student days\nor at the college where I was. On the other hand, Tischendorf admitted\nits claims in opposition to all the other Greek manuscripts in several\npassages, such as Mark ii. 22; xi. 6; Luke xxiv. 52, 53, etc. In other\nplaces he did so at first, but changed his opinion afterwards\u2014_e.g._, in\nActs xi. 12, while in others again, like Acts xiii. 45, he was inclined\nto accept its testimony, asserting expressly: Ceterum D quantopere\npassim inter omnes testes excellat constat. One of the things for which\nWestcott and Hort deserve credit is the attention they have directed to\nCodex Bezae and its associates. Some of their remarks upon it will be\nfound in the note below.[237]\n\n[Sidenote: Lagarde.]\n\nThat peerless scholar, P. de Lagarde, has even greater claims to\nhonourable mention in this connection, though but little regard was paid\nto his representations during his lifetime. As early as 1857, he said of\nCodex Cantabrigiensis: facile patet, quum similibus libris careamus et\nultra Evangelia et Actus nondum cogitem, totius editionis meae quasi\nfundamentum futurum esse hunc codicem Cantabrigiensem, sed eum eis\nlibrarii vitiis purgatum quae vitia esse agnita fuerint (_Gesam. Abh._,\np. 98). His chief merit, however, lies not in his having estimated\nCantabrigiensis so highly, but in having assigned a lower value to the\nother manuscripts. By comparing D with the earlier versions, and\nparticularly by relying on the testimony of Epiphanius, he recognised in\nit a representative of an \u201ceditio emendatorum orthodoxorum temeritate\ncorrupta\u201d (_ibid._, p. 96). Compare also his _\u00dcbersicht \u00fcber die Bildung\nder Nomina_, p. 213, where he instances \u1f14\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd of the\n\u201cemendati\u201d for \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ae\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd of D.[238]\n\n[Sidenote: Blass.]\n\nGeneral attention was first directed to the question of the Western\ntext, when Blass came forward with his view that it was quite wrong to\npresent the problem in the shape of an alternative between D and A B,\nbecause both groups were right, D and its associates representing a\nfirst edition of the Acts and a second of Luke, and the other group\nconversely. I hailed this solution of the difficulty at once as a\nveritable Columbus Egg, and to this day I am firmly persuaded that\nBlass\u2019s theory is nearer the mark than the previous estimate of the\nWestern text. [Sidenote: Zahn.] Readers may, perhaps, be struck by the\nfact, which Zahn has since made public (_Einl._, ii. 348), that in his\npractical class at Erlangen, in the winter of 1885-6, he set as the\nsubject of the prize essay an \u201cInvestigation of the materially important\npeculiarities of Codex D in the Acts,\u201d and made a note at the time of\nthe result which he hoped to see the investigation arrive at\u2014viz.,\n\u201ceither the author\u2019s first draft before publication or his hand copy\nwith his own marginal notes inserted afterwards.\u201d Zahn himself got no\nfurther, but he was not surprised when Blass came forward with his\nclearly-defined and thoroughly-elaborated hypothesis. In one point,\ncertainly, Zahn does not agree with Blass, and that is in the\napplication of the hypothesis to Luke. He holds that the text which\nBlass restored as the Roman form or second edition of Luke is\nessentially nothing but a bold attempt to restore what is called the\nWestern text; that the question to which such different answers have\nbeen made as to the value of this type of text\u2014for it is not to be\nspoken of as a recension in the proper sense of that term\u2014is by no means\nconfined to the Third Gospel, but touches the others as well and the\nPauline Epistles also; that the reason why the divergence of the Western\ntext from that exhibited in the oldest manuscripts and the great\nmajority of Greek witnesses is more conspicuous in Luke, is simply that\nwe have the additional testimony of Marcion for that Gospel, but the\nquestion is essentially the same in all the cases; that whereas in Acts\nwe have two parallel texts both possessing equal authority, in Luke the\ncase is different, where in determining what the evangelist actually\nwrote, we have to choose one or the other of two mutually exclusive\npropositions; that this verdict on the text of Luke, however, in no way\ninvalidates the conclusion come to as regards the text of the Acts. But\nfurther, Zahn, who even before this had avowed himself an \u201cadmirer of\nthe Western text,\u201d stands up determinedly for the view that this same\nWestern text, which I shall, like Zahn and Blass, indicate henceforward\nas \u03b2, contains much that is original. He says that just as we must\nbeware of a superstitious idolatry of what are styled the best\nmanuscripts,[239] which goes hand in hand with a disparagement of much\nolder tradition (Marcion, Iren\u00e6us), so we have equally to be on our\nguard against a morbid preference for every interesting and fanciful\nexcrescence of the riotous tradition of the second and third centuries.\nSuch a preference would logically imply that the scholars who took in\nhand to revise the text about the beginning of the fourth century simply\ncorrupted it, somewhat after the fashion of those who set themselves to\n\u201cimprove\u201d our Church hymns in the age of Rationalism. More than twenty\nyears ago, when I was a Tutor at T\u00fcbingen, I had the impression to which\nI frequently enough gave utterance in debate with my colleagues, that\nmodern textual criticism is going altogether on the wrong tack. The\ntextual study of the New Testament was out of my province at that time,\nand is really so still, were it not that, as Augustine says, it is\nnecessary for everyone who devotes himself to the holy Scriptures to\ntake up such studies. Nor am I inclined thus far to fall foul of the\nsystem to which Westcott and Hort devoted the labours of a lifetime, and\nin the building up of which they had at their command such an apparatus\nas is far beyond the reach of a German, especially of one who is not\nattached to any University. And as for the results of Zahn\u2019s researches,\nI prefer to look upon myself here as a mere learner and admirer. In the\npresence of such doughty warriors I feel like a spectator upon the\nbattlefield of New Testament textual criticism, and I would beg that\nwhat follows, as well as what has been already said, be regarded as but\nsuggestions, the acceptance or rejection of which by others may\nperchance serve to bring a younger generation nearer to the goal. In\nthis spirit I have in my _Philologica Sacra_ (1-15th March 1896) taken\nas a starting-point the reading in Luke xxii. 52, \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6 = \u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6 = \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6,\nwhich is not mentioned at all by Tischendorf, and have sought by means\nof one or two analogous cases to show \u201chow frequently D preserves the\ncorrect reading.\u201d I have instanced \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1, Luke xviii. 30;\n\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, xxiv. 37; \u03b4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, Mark i. 6 ; \u1f20\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, i. 10,\nwhich might, however, be inserted from Matt. iii. 16, Luke iii. 21 ;\n\u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2, Mark i. 40; \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9, Matt. xxvi. 73.\n\nIn the first sketch of this Introduction, written in the year 1895, I\nreferred to the addition found in Matt. xxvii. 49, which is manifestly\ntaken from John xix. 34, and is read by many authorities, among these\nbeing \u05d0 B C.[240] I said then: \u201cOnly two possibilities are conceivable.\nEither the passage stood here originally, and was removed at an early\ndate on account of its variance with John xix. 34, or it is an\ninterpolation. In the latter case, it must have been inserted at a very\nearly date, and all the witnesses containing it, which elsewhere are so\nfrequently and so widely divergent, must then go back to one and the\nsame exemplar. Because the third possibility\u2014viz. that the same sentence\nwas inserted in different copies in the same place quite independently\nof each other, no one will consider to be at all likely. But if the\nsecond supposition is to be held as correct, then we see just what\namount of importance is to be attached to the concurrence of our oldest\nwitnesses, particularly our chief manuscripts \u05d0 B C L. They are not\nstreams flowing independently from the same fountain of Paradise: they\nflowed together for a good part of their course, and were considerably\npolluted before they parted company.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Salmon.]\n\nTwo years later, when the first edition was issued, I added: \u201cThis too\nmust now be asserted with far greater emphasis, that the concurrence of\nB \u05d0, on which so much stress has been laid hitherto by almost all\ntextual critics, proves nothing at all. In Sirach the common archetype\nof B \u05d0 was younger than the origin of the Latin version, manifestly a\ngood deal younger, because it already contained errors that had not yet\nmade their appearance in our other manuscripts (or in their sources).\nSalmon (p. 52) is of opinion that the text which Westcott and Hort have\nrestored is one that was most in favour in Alexandria in the third\ncentury, and that came there, perhaps, in the century previous. This is\nnot far from Bousset\u2019s view that B perhaps contains the recension of\nHesychius. Salmon calls the results of Westcott and Hort \u2018an elaborate\nlocking of the stable door after the horse has been stolen.\u2019 Burgon\u2019s\nparadox, that the reason why B and \u05d0 have survived is that they were the\nworst, seemed to Salmon at first to be a joke, but he now thinks it not\nimprobable that they were set aside on account of their divergence from\nthe form of text that acquired ascendancy _at a later time_. If that be\nso, then they met the same fate that they themselves prepared for the\nprimitive form they supplanted; and just as they, with the help of\nTischendorf and Westcott and Hort, dislodged the _Textus Receptus_ of\nthe sixteenth and seventeenth centuries from the hands of theologians,\nand made themselves the _Textus Receptus_ of the end of the nineteenth\ncentury, so perchance will Codex D, which the builders despised, become\nthe foundation-stone of a new structure. In _Urtext_, p. 54, Oscar v.\nGebhardt alludes to the objections raised partly against the entire\nmethod of Westcott and Hort, partly against their particular estimate of\nCodex Vaticanus, and partly also against the position they have assigned\nto what they call the Western text, and he too says: \u2018If these\nobjections are valid, then the sure foundation which they seemed at last\nto have secured for the text of the New Testament begins once more to\ntotter.\u2019\u201d\n\nSince this was written, my impressions have been greatly confirmed,\nparticularly by Zahn\u2019s _Einleitung_; only I must admit that I am now\nless in a position than ever to make any definite proposals as to the\nway in which the goal of the textual criticism of the New Testament is\nto be reached. To follow one witness or one group of witnesses through\nthick and thin, which would really be the only consistent course, will\nseemingly not do.[241] And the \u201ceclectic method\u201d to which Bousset was\nled in his work on the Apocalypse as the only possible one, is surely\nthe opposite of the genealogical, which we must acknowledge to be in\ntheory the only correct method. But first of all, a fresh application of\nit would require to be made. And as the task is too great for any single\nworker, might it not be well if, in the exegetical classes of our\nTheological Faculties, the separate witnesses were either examined anew,\nor, conversely, selected passages of the text, quite small passages\u2014a\nsingle chapter, or a single epistle like 2 or 3 John or Philemon\u2014were\ngiven out to different students to examine thoroughly all the witnesses\nfor each passage, and the results then compared with one another?\nFurthermore, the critical apparatus would require at once to be\nlightened of all those manuscripts which are unmistakably recognised to\nbe the representatives of a definite recension, and the Lucianic\nrecension printed separately with or without an apparatus, just as was\ndone by Lagarde himself for half of the Old Testament. Finally, the\nWestern text would require to be much more thoroughly examined than has\nhitherto been the case. It is true that Weiss has given a special part\nof _Texte und Untersuchungen_ to an examination of Codex D in Acts, but\nwithout prejudice one may be quite sure that a solution of the problem\nis not to be found in the way in which Weiss seeks it. No doubt he\nestablishes among other things the fact, that in the Speeches of Peter \u03b2\ndisplays almost no variation, but then he makes no attempt to explain\nthis fact or make any use of it. It is an indication of considerable\nprogress to find Zahn going so carefully into matters of the text in an\nIntroduction to the New Testament, and his appreciation of the Western\ntext is most gratifying. [Sidenote: Luke and Acts in D.] At the same\ntime the reader will naturally ask whether Zahn\u2019s verdict on the \u03b2 text\nin Luke is not fatal to his own conclusions with regard to Acts. Is it\nnot true in this connection that \u201che who says A must also say B\u201d? If you\nadmit that there were two editions of Acts, you must make the same\nadmission in the case of Luke. And conversely, if there was no second\nedition of the Gospel, must you not then look for some other explanation\nof the variations in Acts? For it seems quite certain that the variants\nin Luke xxiv. are most closely related to the text of Acts i. Or how\nelse are the readings in Luke xxiv. 51-53 to be explained? Westcott and\nHort have one way of explaining them. They say that \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd \u201cwas evidently inserted from an assumption that a separation\nfrom the disciples at the close of a Gospel must be the Ascension. The\nAscension apparently did not lie within the proper scope of the Gospels,\nas seen in their genuine texts; its true place was at the head of the\nActs of the Apostles as the preparation for the Day of Pentecost, and\nthus the beginning of the history of the Church.\u201d That is all very well,\nand it may also be the case that \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd in v. 52 is the\nnatural result of the insertion of \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. But\nhow then are we to account for the interchange of \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 and\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 in the next verse, which is found in precisely the same groups\nof witnesses?[242]\n\nIf this explanation then is insufficient on account of verse 53, it may\nbe confidently asserted that the omission of the Ascension and the\nWorship of the Exalted Lord by any later scribe is all but inconceivable\nfrom the moment that Luke was separated from Acts and placed among the\nGospels. If such a thing were possible at all, it would be in the case\nof \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, as there is no express mention in Acts i. of\nthe disciples worshipping. On the other hand, the omission becomes quite\nconceivable as soon as the author added a \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 to the \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\nSo far these variants appear to me to fit in very well with Blass\u2019s\ntheory and with no other. Zahn, as far as I can see, has nowhere\nexpressed any opinion regarding them, certainly he says nothing of the\nvariation between \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 and \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, which is the one of most\nimportance critically, though it is of least consequence materially.\n\nGraefe, following on the lines of Birt and R\u00fcegg, supposes that the\nshorter form was due to want of space, that Luke was glad to get the\nshorter form all into his roll at the foot the first time he wrote it\nout, and sent off the book to Theophilus in that form, hoping to deal\nwith the Ascension in the second of his books. In the second edition he\nhad sufficient space to admit of the insertion of \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd, then of \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, and finally of \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.[243]\nThese additions he made, feeling, rightly enough, that there could be no\nmore fitting conclusion to his Life of Jesus than a brief allusion to\nthe Ascension, which he had already described more particularly in the\nActs. At the same time he substituted \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 for \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2. Graefe\nthinks that all these changes are connected with the alterations made\nalso in the introduction to the Acts, though he omits to say what the\nconnection is.\n\nWeiss, father and son, omit the words \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 as\n\u201ca gloss derived from Acts i.,\u201d and \u201clikewise\u201d the words \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd in verse 52 (is this also a gloss from Acts i.?). Which text they\nhold to be correct in verse 53 they do not say.[244]\n\n\u0391\u1f30\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd[245] is the specifically Lucan word for \u201cto praise,\u201d while\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd in this sense does not occur in Acts at all, and only in the\nfirst two chapters of Luke. Further, as any concordance will show,\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd is the regular equivalent of \u05d4\u05dc\u05dc and \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd of \u05d1\u05e8\u05da, while\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd is rarely used for \u05d1\u05e8\u05da or \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd for \u05d4\u05dc\u05dc. This confirms the\nsupposition that \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, which is preferred by Tischendorf but\nrejected by Westcott and Hort, is the original reading.\n\nIn order to show the full extent of the difficulty of the problem, we\nshall take along with this passage from the end of the Gospel a single\ninstance from the Acts. How does the Apostolic Decree read in ch. xv.?\n\u201cTo judge any matter before knowing the facts of the case is\ninadmissible.\u201d So Hilgenfeld says in his magazine, adding that the\nmatter of the Apostolic Council, as it is called, and the Decree have\nbeen so judged. He himself restores the whole text in this passage to\nthe form that Blass has adopted as the _Forma Romana_\u2014_i.e._, to confine\nourselves to this point of main importance, he omits \u201cthings\nstrangled.\u201d[246] On the other hand, Harnack, in the article to which\nreference will be made below, comes to the conclusion that the Eastern,\n_i.e._ the common, text is the original, and the Western a later\ncorrection made subsequent to the _Didache_, and not earlier than the\nfirst decade of the second century.[247] The same conclusion is reached\nby Zahn in his extremely careful discussion of the question (_Einl._,\nii. 344 ff.): \u201cThe two texts are here mutually exclusive, and therefore\ncannot both be derived from the same author (xv. 20, 29, xxi. 25).\u201d But\nhe immediately adds: \u201cThe fact that Blass, in this important point, as\nin many another of less consequence, declares a certain thing to be an\noriginal element of the text which turns out to be simply an early\ncorruption in no wise detracts from the correctness of his hypothesis.\u201d\nThat is quite true and must be borne in mind in connection with the\nobjection raised by Wendt, that \u201cmanifest clerical errors are found in\nthe actual \u03b2 text.\u201d The passages are also used by Corssen as an argument\nagainst Blass. The remarks of the latter in reply to the strictures of\nCorssen (_Evang. sec. Lucam_, p. xxvi) seem to me to be not without\nreason, but in any case it is strange that alterations should have been\nmade in an official document like the Decree in Acts xv., no matter\nwhether these were due to the writer himself or a later intermediary.\nThat there was some method in the alteration is shown by its recurrence\nin three places. But again I must emphasise the superiority of Codex D.\nWhereas in ch. xv. 20, 29 the shorter text is represented by other\nwitnesses as well, in ch. xxi. 25 it is supported by D with the sole\naddition of Gigas Holmiensis.[248] I have not to decide the question\nhere; I simply commend it to a searching investigation, in which\nattention must be paid to the apparently meaningless differences in the\nuse of particles and synonyms, of simple and compound words, and\nsuch-like seeming minuti\u00e6. I can only repeat how frequently the thought\noccurred to me when I was comparing Scrivener\u2019s edition with that of v.\nGebhardt for my _Supplement_, that here was no alteration of a later\nscribe, and what then? The simplest explanation was that both readings\nwere due to the author himself, who on the one occasion purposely set\ndown the one reading and on the other the other.\n\nThere is another question in connection with the Western text which has\nbeen even more neglected than the former\u2014viz. the amount of importance\nto be attached to it in the case of the Pauline Epistles. What about\nEusebius\u2019s reference to Tatian\u2019s work on these Epistles? I frankly\nconfess that not till the printing of this work was begun did I become\naware, mainly from Zahn\u2019s _Einleitung_, how many problems are here\nwaiting to be solved, and for this reason as well as others I must for\nthe present forbear making any attempt in this direction.\n\nHere I can only indicate a few of the most general rules of textual\ncriticism, and thereafter adduce a number of New Testament passages\nwhich are of interest from a critical point of view.\n\n[Sidenote: Rules of criticism.]\n\n(_k_) =General Rules of Textual Criticism.=\u2014In its essence the task of\nthe textual critic resembles that of the physician, who must first of\nall make a correct diagnosis of the disease before attempting its cure.\nManifestly the first thing to do is to observe the injuries and the\ndangers to which a text transmitted by handwriting is liable to be\nexposed. A correct treatment must be preceded by a correct diagnosis.\n\nThe injuries which a text receives will vary according as it is\nmultiplied by =Dictation= or by =Copying=. The fifty Bibles which\nEusebius prepared at once for Constantine would be written to dictation.\nIn the early times of the Church, copying, as has been already\nmentioned, would doubtless be the more usual method of multiplication.\nHere, however, we must make a single exception in the case of Paul, who\nfor the most part did not write his Epistles with his own hand. He\nevidently dictated them. He certainly did not have them simply written\nout from his own rough draft.\n\n[Sidenote: Illegibility.]\n\n(1) In the case of copying, errors originate first of all, though not\nmost frequently, in a word or group of letters being =illegible=, or in\ntheir being read for some psychological reason otherwise than as they\nwere intended. However attentive the copyist may be, he may still be in\ndoubt as to the way in which a word or passage should be read, and may\ndecide wrongly. Proper names, _e.g._, are often very doubtful.[249] More\nfrequently however the mistake will be due to inattention. The context\nmay lead the copyist to expect a certain word; he sees one like it, and\ninserts the former in its place.\n\n[Sidenote: Homoioteleuton.]\n\n(2) It frequently happens, particularly in copying the old _scriptio\ncontinua_, that the eye of the scribe jumps from one word or group of\nletters to another the same or similar to it, either before or after it.\nIn the former case the intervening words will be repeated, in the latter\nthey will be omitted. Scholars designate these errors as =dittography=\nand =elision= respectively; printers know them under the name of a\nmarriage and a funeral. The former mistake is not so serious, because it\nis at once detected on reading over the copy. A peep into any manuscript\nwill show how frequently this error occurs, the repeated words being\nenclosed in brackets or surmounted with dots.[250] In Codex B such\npassages give us an opportunity of observing the beauty of the original\nwriting, because the painstaking man who retraced the old writing with\nfresh ink in the eighth, or tenth, or eleventh century, or whenever it\nwas, adding at the same time accents and punctuation marks, left these\nuntouched. This kind of mistake very often happens in passages where a\ngroup of characters catches the eye for any reason, such as the\noccurrence of the abbreviation mark, \u0398\u0305\u03a3\u0305, \u0399\u0305\u039b\u0305\u0397\u0305\u039c\u0305, \u0391\u0305\u039d\u0305\u039f\u0305\u03a3\u0305, etc., and\nat the transition to a new page or leaf. The omission of a piece of the\ntext of various length by homoioteleuton is as common, and is more\nserious.[251] Any critical apparatus will show the frequency of its\noccurrence. We often find there the note \u201ca voce alterutra ... ad\nalterutram desunt\u201d or \u201ca voce 1^o ad vocem 2^o (3^o) transilit,\u201d or \u201cvox\n... alterutra et intermedia desunt.\u201d Compare, _e.g._, Codex D, Matt.\nxviii. 18 from \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 to \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2; x. 23; xxiii. 14-16. The result is worst when\nthe mistake is not discovered till afterwards and the two fragments are\npatched together in some way with more or less success. Lacun\u00e6 that have\nnot been doctored are very helpful in determining the relationship\nbetween different texts.[252]\n\n[Sidenote: Confusion.]\n\n(3) As errors of the tongue and the memory[253] rather than of the eye\nmay be reckoned the =Transposition= and =Confusion= of particular\ncombinations of letters or entire words. The former occurs so frequently\nin connection with a liquid, that in some cases it ceases to be a\nmistake. Thus we have on the one hand the confusion of \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 with\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd with Carthago, and on the other, \u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd with\n\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b2\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1 with \u03b2\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1, John i. 28; \u03ba\u03b9\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9 with \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03c9, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\nwith \u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u05d1\u05db\u05e8\u05d9\u05df, _talent_, Matt. xxv. 14-30, with \u05db\u05e8\u05db\u05d9\u05df, _cities_,\nLuke xix. 17, 19. Akin to this is the confusion of vowels with a similar\nsound, to which are to be ascribed all cases of =itacism=, as it is\ncalled\u2014\u1f14\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5 and \u1f14\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, \u2014\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 and \u2014\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 and \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, 2 Cor. xii. 1; \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd and\n\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd and \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, Rom. v. 1; \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03b3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd and \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03b3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd.\nManifestly mistakes of this sort would occur more readily in dictation\nthan in copying.\n\nA third class of errors of a more conscious or semi-conscious\ndescription is due to the =substitution= of words or forms of similar\nmeaning. Thus, for \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 we may have \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5 or \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7 or \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, or the\nsimple form may be replaced by the compound or _vice versa_, or one\npreposition may be substituted for another.[254] Separate words are very\nfrequently transposed without seriously affecting the sense. Thus, in\nActs iv. 12, we find nearly all the possible permutations of the three\nwords \u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd actually represented\u2014viz., in addition to this\n(2) \u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd; (3) \u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd; (4) \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1;\n(5) \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.[255] On Luke xvii. 10, Merx says (_Die vier\nkanonischen Evangelien_, p. 246): \u201cLet it be observed that the position\nof \u1f00\u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 fluctuates between (1) \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03af \u1f10\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd; (2) \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03af \u1f10\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 D, and (3) \u1f00\u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03af \u1f10\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd. Such fluctuations are due to\nthe different arrangement of a word that did not originally belong to\nthe text, but was appended as a note and afterwards incorporated with\nthe text. Such fluctuations point to the interpolation of the\nfluctuating word.\u201d This judgment has to be accepted with caution. For\none thing, it is not at all clear which word it is that fluctuates. In\nthis particular case, one might say that \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 fluctuates as much as\n\u1f00\u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, and the copula still more. Moreover such an interpolation\nbecomes at once an integral part of the text, and its insertion is no\nlonger visible. Only if several copies were made of that exemplar in\nwhich the interpolation was first introduced could fluctuation of this\nsort originate. Such transpositions are much more frequently of a\nharmless order, as each one may perceive for himself. The writer\u2019s\nthoughts fly faster than his pen and anticipate a word that should not\ncome in till later. One of the most frequent cases of transposition is\nthat of \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 and \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 in the Pauline Epistles.\n\n[Sidenote: Additions.]\n\n(4) Akin to this last is a class of mistakes originating in the border\nregion between the unconscious and the conscious or intentional\u2014viz.\nthat of =Additions=. One can readily understand how easy it was to\ninsert a \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 or \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, a \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 after \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 on the lips of\nJesus, the subject at the beginning of a sentence, especially of the\nfirst sentence of a pericope, or the object in the form of a pronoun.\nBengel proposed to omit the name of Jesus in some twenty-five places,\nfor which he was ridiculed by Wettstein, as may be learned from my work\non Bengel, p. 74. Now, everyone admits that Bengel was right. Under the\nhead of \u201cInterpolationes breviores,\u201d Wordsworth and White first give\nexamples \u201cde nomine Jesus,\u201d then of \u201cChristus, Dominus, Deus,\u201d and then\nof \u201cPronomina.\u201d It is evident that in this way the wrong word may be\nsupplied now and again. Perhaps one of the most interesting cases is\nLuke i. 46. All our present Greek witnesses make Mary the composer of\nthe Magnificat, but Elisabeth\u2019s name is attached to it in three Old\nLatin manuscripts, in the Latin version of Iren\u00e6us, according to the\nbest manuscripts, and in some manuscripts known to Origen (or to his\ntranslator, Jerome: the passage, unfortunately, is found as yet only in\nthe Latin).[256]\n\n[Sidenote: Corrections.]\n\n(5) To the category of conscious alterations belong first of all\n=grammatical corrections=, then =assimilations= to parallel passages,\n=liturgical changes= introduced from the Evangeliaria, as, _e.g._, the\naddition at the close of a pericope of the words \u1f41 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u1f66\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\nwhich occurs in all sorts of manuscripts in the most diverse passages,\nor indications of time, such as \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u1ff3 at the beginning of a\npericope,[257] and lastly, alterations made for =dogmatic= reasons, if\nany such can be established. It is impossible to deny that dogmatic\nconceptions had some influence on the propagation of certain readings if\nnot on their origin\u2014as, _e.g._, on the form assumed by the words in\nMatt. xix. 17, \u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd, or on the omission of the words \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 in Mark xiii. 22; compare also above, p. 106. On the whole,\nhowever, there is no real ground for the scepticism that was for a time\nentertained with respect to our texts in this connection. A sober\ncriticism will be able in most cases to restore the correct form. Its\nconditions will be apparent from what has been said in the foregoing.\n\n[Sidenote: Canons of Criticism.]\n\nGerhard von Maestricht laid down forty-three Critical Canons, and\nWettstein set forth in his New Testament his _Animadversiones et\nCautiones ad examen variarum lectionum Novi Testamenti necessariae_\n(vol. ii. 851-874). In 1755 J. D. Michaelis added to his _Curae in\nversionem Syriacam Act. Apost._ his _Consectaria critica de ... usu\nversionis Syriacae tabularum Novi Foederis_.[258] Bengel reduced all the\nrules to a single one. Quite recently Wordsworth and White comprehended\nthe rules they followed in the preparation of the text of their Latin\nNew Testament in four sentences. Of these the first two apply to a\nversion only, and therefore do not concern us here;[259] while the\nfourth (_brevior lectio probabilior_) is but another form of Bengel\u2019s\ncanon. The third alone may be regarded as new and deserving of\nattention\u2014viz., _vera lectio ad finem victoriam reportat_. That is to\nsay, if a phrase is repeated in several passages in the same or similar\nterms, and displays variants in the earlier passages, the reading of the\nlater passage will, as a rule, be the correct one, the reason being that\ncopyists are apt to consider a certain reading to be an error the first\ntime it occurs, and therefore to alter it, but come in the end to admit\nit as correct.\n\nI would once more briefly emphasize the following propositions:\u2014\n\n    (1) The text of our manuscripts must not be regarded as homogeneous,\n    but must be examined separately for each part of the New Testament.\n    A manuscript that exhibits a very good text in one book does not\n    necessarily do the same in the others. The same thing holds good of\n    versions and quotations.\n\n    (2) The text is preserved with less alteration in the versions than\n    in the manuscripts.[260]\n\n    (3) In the Gospels that reading is the more probable which differs\n    from that of the parallel passages.\n\n    (4) The influence of the ecclesiastical use of the Scriptures on the\n    text must be more carefully attended to than heretofore.\n\n    (5) One of the most valuable aids in estimating the importance of\n    the witnesses is the proper names, particularly those of less\n    frequent occurrence.\n\n    (6) \u201cProclivi scriptioni praestat ardua.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Proper names.]\n\nOf these propositions only the last two need be illustrated further,\nparticularly the second last. For it is really remarkable to what extent\nthis consideration has been neglected hitherto. To the best of my\nknowledge there is as yet no monograph in which the =proper names= are\ntreated from a critical point of view. And yet these are for the critic\nfrequently the only points of light in vast regions of darkness. They\nare to him what the lighthouse is to the mariner or the fossil to the\ngeologist. This makes their neglect all the more strange. Had there been\na systematic examination of the proper names of the New Testament,\nLippelt\u2019s important discovery with regard to the spellings \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 and\n\u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 might have been made long ere now (see above, p. 162 f.).\nWeiss\u2019s critical studies in Acts deserve honourable mention in this\nconnection. But Westcott and Hort, who have paid attention to these\nthings with their usual exactitude, were simply on the wrong tack in\nthis case when they asked whether the various persons who bore this name\nmight not have spelt it differently, as in the case of Smith, Smyth,\nSmythe, etc. Similarly the genealogies give rise to a whole host of\nproblems of which no account has been taken hitherto. See above, p. 165,\nfor the reading \u0396\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad exhibited by B in Matt. i. 3; and compare Sela,\ngiven by Syr^{sin} in verses 4 and 5, with \u03a3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac in Luke iii. 32.\nTischendorf omits the testimony in Matt. i. 5, while Baljon passes over\nboth the variants, though they are certainly of more importance than the\nvariation in the spelling of \u0392\u03bf\u03ad\u03c2, \u0392\u03bf\u03cc\u03c2, \u0392\u03bf\u03cc\u03b6. In Luke iii. 27 the word\n\u05e8\u05b5\u05d0\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d0 is converted into a proper name \u1fec\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac. From this fact some very\ninteresting conclusions might be drawn with regard to the sources of\nLuke\u2019s Gospel, but this is a matter lying outside the scope of this\nchapter. On the other hand, the fact that in the fourth Gospel the\ntraitor is called not \u1f38\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, or anything like it, but \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03c5\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\nby \u05d0 in ch. vi. 71, where his name first occurs, and by D in every other\nplace in that Gospel (xii. 4; xiii. 2, 26; xiv. 22), raises a very\nstrong presumption in favour of these two manuscripts and indeed of the\nfourth Gospel. On this see my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 14, and my notes,\nwith Chase\u2019s unconvincing replies, in the _Expository Times_ for\nDecember 1897, and January, February, and March 1898. I am very glad to\nsee that Zahn now inclines to the same view (_Einl._, ii. 561).\nConsiderable weight is given to it by the fact that these two\nmanuscripts seem to be the only ones that have preserved the correct\nreading in the case of other names as well.\n\nWhat is Apollos called in Acts? He is mentioned by D only in ch. xviii.\n24, where he is called \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. \u05d0* calls him \u1f08\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 in xviii. 24 and\nxix. 1. This reading is supported in the former passage by the\nminuscules 15 and 180, and in the latter by 180 alone. Wendt now agrees\nwith Blass in thinking it probable that the original form in Acts was\n\u1f08\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2, which was altered in the main body of manuscripts in conformity\nwith 1 Corinthians, just as \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03c5\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 in John was accommodated to\n\u1f38\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 given by the Synoptics. But what about D? I must ask with\nSalmon. Even Weiss says in this connection (_Codex D_, p. 18): \u201cThe most\nthat can be said for \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 is that this form, differing as it does\nfrom that prevailing in the Pauline Epistles, has the presumption of\noriginality, seeing that there was always a temptation for the scribes\nto accommodate it to the latter.\u201d[261] In his earlier work on the text\n(p. 9) he seems not to have considered this point.\n\nI cannot understand how Weiss could at first explain \u1f38\u03c9\u03bd\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c2, which is\nfound in D (Acts iv. 6) in place of \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd(\u03bd)\u03b7\u03c2 read by the other\nwitnesses, as a \u201cclerical error,\u201d whereas now (_Cod. D_, p. 108) he\ndeems it more natural to suppose that a corrector inserted the name of\nthe son of Annas and the successor of Caiaphas mentioned by Josephus\n(_Antiq._ xviii. 4, 3) in place of that of the entirely unknown John,\nthan that the name of Jonathan, even supposing it was unknown to the\ncopyist, which applies equally to that of Alexander mentioned along with\nhim, was replaced by John, which was a very common name, the name of the\nApostle so frequently mentioned before. It could, therefore, be only a\npurely accidental clerical error. Headlam, in his article on John\n(Hastings\u2019 _Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 676) seems to know nothing of\nall this. But perhaps Weiss sees on the same page of the aforesaid book\nthat the mistake of Johanan and Jonathan occurred elsewhere also, and\nremembering Bengel\u2019s principle, considers that \u1f38\u03c9\u03bd\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c2 is the _scriptio\nardua_, and, therefore, the _praestantior_.[262]\n\nIn 2 Peter ii. 15 the father of Balaam is called \u0392\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03c1, which is quite\npeculiar. Westcott and Hort and Weiss, in their fondness for B, write\n\u0392\u03b5\u03ce\u03c1. But this is most certainly a correction which is combined with the\noriginal to form \u03b2\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03c3\u03cc\u03c1 in \u05d0. The only thorough discussion of the\npassage that I know is in Zahn\u2019s _Einleitung_, ii. 109. The only thing\nthat might be added to his data in the LXX. is that, according to\nHolmes-Parsons, the Georgian version has \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03c1 in Jos. xiii.\n22. \u03a3\u03b5\u03c0\u03c6\u03ce\u03c1, as the name of Beor, has crept into various manuscripts in\nseveral places from Jos. xxiv. 9\u2014_e.g._ into the Armenian in Gen. xxxvi.\n32, Codex 18 in Num. xxii. 5, Codex 53 in Num. xxiv. 15, where Cod. 75\nhas \u03a3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03ce\u03c1, and into Lucian in 1 Chr. i. 43. There seems to me to be a\nconfusion between Gen. xxxvi. 32 (= 1 Chr. i. 43) and the following\nverse, in which Bosra occurs. In Gen. xxxvi. 33 one manuscript observes,\n\u1f21 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c3\u1f78\u03c1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b2\u03cc\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1. Jerome also renders \u201cex\nBosor.\u201d[263] \u0392\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03c1 also occurs as the name of a place in Deut. iv. 43; 1\nSam. xxx. 9; 1 Macc. v. 26. On this last passage see _ZdPV._, 12, 51;\n13, 41. For other interpretations (Hebrew pronunciation of the Aramaic\n\u05e4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4)[264] see Pole\u2019s _Synopsis_ on 2 Peter ii. 15.\n\nIt is worth observing that minuscule 81 displays a close agreement with\nB in other places as well as this.\n\nOn the names in the catalogue of the Apostles, see Zahn, _Einl._, ii.\n263; on \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc and \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1, ii. 310; on Jesus Barabbas, ii. 294;\non Barachias in Matt. xxiii. 35, i. 454, ii. 308. On the confusion\nbetween Isaiah and Asaph in Matt. xiii. 35, and between Jeremiah,\nZechariah, and Isaiah in other passages, compare Ambrosiaster\u2019s note on\n1 Cor. ii. 9 cited above, p. 148.\n\n    \u201cHe who seeks in the wild fir wood, will still find many a cudgel\n       good.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Textus brevior.]\n\nThe rule that the =shorter text= is the more original is a subdivision\nof Bengel\u2019s canon. It is specially the case when two longer forms are\nopposed to it which are mutually exclusive and whose origin can be\nexplained from the shorter. As examples of this Zahn adduces, in\naddition to the double conclusion of Mark\u2019s Gospel, the following:\u2014\n\nJohn vi. 47: \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd, \u05d0 B L T, + \u201cin God,\u201d Syr^{cu. sin}, + \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ad A C\nD \u0393 \u0394 \u039b \u03a0....\n\nJohn vii. 39: \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, \u05d0 K T \u03a0, + \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd L X \u0393 \u0394 \u039b, + \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd it\nvg^{cle}, + \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, D f goth, + \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, B 254\nSyr^{sin. hark}....\n\nJames v. 7: \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03ca\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, B 31, pr. \u1f51\u03b5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd A K L P, pr. \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u05d0 9 ff etc.\n\nIt is equally clear that a reading is incorrect which proves to be a\nmixture of two others (=conflate readings=). The respective claims of\nthese others must be adjudged on other considerations. Thus we have\u2014\n\n         Luke xxiv. 53: \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, D a b e.\n                        \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u05d0 B C* L.\n                        \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, A C^2 X \u0393 \u0394 \u039b \u03a0.\n                        \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, Ethiop.\n         Acts vi. 8:    \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u05d0 A B D.\n                        \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, H P.\n                        \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, E.\n\nIn general that reading will have the best claim to originality which\nstands first in the combination. Further illustrations are unnecessary.\n\nIn order to fulfil the promise of the title of this chapter, the\nforegoing exposition of the Theory of New Testament criticism should be\nsucceeded by a further part dealing with its Praxis. Such a part would\ncontain particular illustrations of the way in which the criticism of\nthe text has been handled by our authorities hitherto and the way in\nwhich it must be treated in accordance with the foregoing principles.\nThe following notes do not and cannot claim to be a complete fulfilment\nof this great task, more especially as in the preceding part we were\nunable to arrive at a finished system of textual criticism. I have\ntherefore contented myself with bringing together a series of passages\nof interest from a critical point of view. In doing so I have freely\ndrawn upon Zahn\u2019s Introduction. For this I feel sure the reader will\nthank me, while at the same time I trust that the author will pardon the\nliberty I have taken. I have made use, as far as possible, of the\nadditional material afforded by editions later than those of Tischendorf\nand Westcott and Hort, particularly of the Sinai-Syriac. This collection\nmay therefore serve in some degree to supplement our commentaries,\nwhich, though their merits in other directions are to be freely\nconceded, still leave much to be desired in the matter of textual\ncriticism. A purely critical commentary on the New Testament is a great\ndesideratum. The following notes are to be regarded not as the\ncommencement of such a work, but simply as a stimulus thereto. I myself\nfelt it to be a defect in the small Stuttgart edition of the New\nTestament that want of space obliged me to omit all references to the\norigin and significance of the various readings selected from\nmanuscripts. For many of these an Annotatio Critica in an Appendix like\nthat in the larger edition of v. Gebhardt would scarcely have been\nsufficient. What information, _e.g._, would it have imparted to a reader\nto have given the numbers of the two minuscules 346, 556 after the\nreading in Matt. i. 16? What he needs is an Apparatus Criticus or a\nCommentarius Criticus such as Bengel appended to his edition, or like\nthat which Burk published separately in his second issue. Ed. Miller has\npromised to give us one for the Gospels, only it will proceed on\nprinciples which very few of us will be able to accept.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n  I could desire no better motto for this third section than the words\n  of Augustine: Codicibus emendandis primitus debet invigilare sollertia\n  eorum qui scripturas nosse desiderant, ut emendatis non emendati\n  cedant (_De Doctrina Christiana_, ii. 14, 21, where the saying about\n  the interpretum numerositas, cited on page 108, is also found). Or if\n  not these words, then those of our Lord himself, \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n  \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b6\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, which Origen applied to the verification of the canon, but\n  which, taken in the sense of 1 Thess. v. 21, are equally applicable to\n  the work of the \u201clower\u201d criticism. Apollos, the pupil of Marcion, also\n  vindicated the right of Biblical criticism with these same words.\n  Epiphanius, _Haeres._, xliv. 2 (Zahn, GK., i. 175).\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n  The fragment was edited by Tregelles with a facsimile in 1867. It is\n  given in Westcott\u2019s _Canon of the N. T._, Appendix C, where also see\n  the section on the Muratorian Canon, Part i. c. ii. It will be found\n  also in Preuschen\u2019s _Analecta, K\u00fcrzere Texte ..._ pp. 129-137 (the\n  eighth number of G. Kr\u00fcger\u2019s _Sammlung ausgew\u00e4hlter kirchen- und\n  dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften_, Freib. and Leipzig, 1893).\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n  Quoted in Westcott, _Canon_, part ii. c. ii. \u00a7 1, and in Zahn\u2019s\n  _Einleitung_, ii. 179.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n  Given in Preuschen. In the manuscripts it is entitled \u201cIndiculum\n  Veteris et Novi Testamenti et Caecili Cipriani.\u201d It was first made\n  known from a MS. at Cheltenham in 1886. As it is mostly assigned to\n  the year 365 (see also J\u00fclicher, _Einleitung_, p. 336) the words of\n  W.-W. may be repeated here: \u201cS. Berger tamen aliter sentit, rationibus\n  commotus quarum una certe nobis satis vera videtur. Concordant enim\n  numeri in Veteri Testamento cum codicibus Hieronymianis, e.g. in\n  libris Regum quattuor, Esaiae, Jeremiae, et duodecim Prophetarum,\n  Tobiae, et Macchabeorum secundo. Indiculus tamen sine dubio antiquus\n  est\u201d (p. 736).\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n  Catalogus Claramontanus given in Westcott, _Canon_, Appendix D, p.\n  563.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n  Translated into French, _Prairies d\u2019or_, i. 123: one volume into\n  English by Sprenger, 1841; Sayous, _J\u00e9sus Christ d\u2019apr\u00e8s Mohammed_, p.\n  34.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n  See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 176; _GK._, ii. 364-375, 1014.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n  See _Addenda_, p. xvi.\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n  The numbers are as follows:\u2014\n\n                                     -\u03bd- -\u03bd\u03bd-\n                          Matthew,     2   24\n                          John,        7   17\n                          Luke,       27    1\n                          Mark,        2   24\n                          Acts,       21    2\n\n  See Blass, _Lucae ad Theophilum liber prior_, p. vi. f., _Philology of\n  the Gospels_, p. 75 f., where three of Lippelt\u2019s numbers are corrected\n  with the help of Harris. See also _Expository Times_, Nov. 1897, p. 92\n  f. I cannot understand why Wendt, in the new edition of his Commentary\n  on the Acts, should take not the slightest notice of this far-reaching\n  discovery. On the spelling in the Latin manuscripts, see W.-W.,\n  _Epilogus_, 776.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n  _Der Schluss des Markus-Evangeliums, der Vier-Evangelien-Kanon, und\n  die kleinasiastischen Presbyter_ (Berlin, 1894).\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n  _Expositor_, Dec. 1894.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n  _Einleitung_, ii. 221.\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n  See Coxe\u2019s _Catalogue of Greek MSS. in the Bodleian Library_, 1854.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n  On _cata_ or _kata_ in the subscriptions, titles, prefaces, etc., of\n  Latin manuscripts, see the index in W.-W., to which add the remarkable\n  phrase _cata tempus_, which codex e gives in John v. 4, in place of\n  _secundum tempus_ in the other manuscripts.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n  See Field, _Hexapla_, i. p. lxxii.\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n  The order, \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 ... \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u03af ... \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, in Baljon is due to a\n  strange oversight which is not corrected in the Addenda et Corrigenda.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n  To the passages which may be adduced in support of the reading, add\n  Clement, _Hom._ \u03b7 32 (Lagarde, 92, 35), \u03b9\u03b1 32 (118, 31).\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n  Codex D and Syr^{sin} also agree in omitting v. 30, but this is\n  probably no more than a remarkable coincidence.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n  See _Urt._, 55 ff., where works on this subject are cited.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n  See also Linwood, _Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as applied to\n  the New Testament_, 1873.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n  On the symbol m, see above, p. 114.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n  The converse occurs in Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._, iv. 15, in the address\n  of Polycarp\u2019s _Martyrium_. There the reading \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03a0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, which is\n  also found in the Syriac, should, according to Harnack\u2019s _Chronologie\n  der altchristl. Lit._, i. 341, be replaced by \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, or\n  rather by \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd which is found in 1 Macc. xii. 4; 2 Macc. xii. 2.\n  Compare also the variation found in the manuscripts in 2 Cor. x. 15\n  between \u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, and \u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, and between \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 in\n  Judith vi. 21. See also Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._, v. 15, 23.\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n  The opposite view is expressed in Scrivener, ii. 244: \u201cIt is now\n  agreed among competent judges that Conjectural Emendation must never\n  be resorted to, even in passages of acknowledged difficulty\u201d; and he\n  quotes from Roberts (_Words of the New Testament_): \u201cconjectural\n  criticism is entirely banished from the field ... simply because there\n  is no need for it.\u201d With this, however, he does not quite agree. He\n  admits that there are passages respecting which we cannot help framing\n  a shrewd suspicion that the original reading differed from any form in\n  which they are now presented to us. He notes as passages for which we\n  should be glad of more light, Acts vii. 46, xiii. 32, xix. 40, xxvi.\n  28; Rom. viii. 2; 1 Cor. xii. 2, where Ephes. ii. 11 might suggest \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad; 1 Tim. vi. 7; 2 Pet. iii. 10, 12; Jude 5, 22, 23. G. Kr\u00fcger\n  expresses himself to the same effect. He would have no conjecture,\n  however well founded, received into the text. See his notice of\n  Koetschau\u2019s Origen in the _L. Cbl._, No. 39, 1899. I find that Swete\n  has had no objection to adopt a conjecture of mine in his second\n  edition of the last volume of the Cambridge Septuagint (Enoch xiv. 3).\n  If such a thing is permissible in the case of Enoch, why should it not\n  be allowable in the New Testament? As clever suggestions maybe noted\n  \u1f10\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd for the hapax legomenon \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, Mark xii. 4 (Linwood,\n  Van de Sande-Bakhuyzen) and \u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 for \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, 1 Tim. v. 13\n  (Hitzig). Lagrange (_Revue Biblique_, 1900, p. 206) cautions us\n  against \u201cpr\u00eater de l\u2019esprit \u00e0 l\u2019Esprit Saint.\u201d\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n  Compare my conjecture of \u05de\u05b4\u05e4\u05b7\u05ea\u05b0\u05e8\u05b9\u05dd for \u05de\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05e8\u05b7\u05e4\u05b5\u05dd, Ps. lxviii. 31, and\n  see below, p. 236.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n  Meyer-Wendt^8, p. 51. For an example of \u03a3 repeated by mistake, _cf._\n  \u0395\u0399\u03a3\u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 in B, Mark xiii. 13. Its erroneous omission is quite common.\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n  Bagster, London, 1887.\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n  See Isaac Taylor\u2019s _History of the Transmission of Ancient Books to\n  Modern Times_ (1827); and compare also the text-books on\n  Hermeneutics, _e.g._ in I. v. M\u00fcller\u2019s _Handbuch der klassischen\n  Altertumswissenschaft_.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n  _Benedicti regula monachorum. Recensuit Ed. W\u00f6lfflin_, Lipsiae,\n  Teubner, 1895, pp. xv. 85, 8vo. See also his article on the Latinity\n  of Benedict in the _Arch. f. Lat. Lexikogr._ ix. 4, 1896, pp. 493-521.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n  _Textgeschichte der Regula S. Benedicti_ (_Abh. d. 3 Cl. d. k. Ak. d.\n  Wiss._, vol. xxi., Munich, 1898). Compare also _The Text of St.\n  Benedict\u2019s Rule_ by Dom C. Butler, O.S.B. Reprinted from the _Downside\n  Review_, December 1899, 12 pp.\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n  _TU._ xiv. 1, 1896.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n  Kr\u00fcger\u2019s _Sammlung_, Heft xi., Freiburg and Leipzig, 1895.\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n  _TU._, New Series, i. 1, 1897.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n  Compare also the differences between the editions of Josephus,\n  published by Niese and Naber.\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n  See, however, the two articles by Lake and Brightman, _On the Italian\n  Origin of Codex Bezae_ in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. 441\n  ff.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n  See below on John viii. 57, p. 289.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n  An instructive discussion of the relationship between D_{2} and E_{3}\n  is given in Hort\u2019s _Introduction_, \u00a7\u00a7 335-337. It is possible that one\n  copyist in Rom. xv. 31-33 took \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f21 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bc ...\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, and the other \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f21 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1 ... \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n  \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u2014_i.e._ two entirely different recensions.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n  Zahn very properly remarks (_Th. Lbl._, 1899, 16, 179): \u201cOne must not,\n  at least as regards the N. T., confound Eusebius with Pamphilus, or,\n  if I might say so, with the firm of Pamphilus and Eusebius. If the\n  fifty Bibles that Eusebius provided at the bidding of the Emperor for\n  the use of the churches of the capital had contained a text of the N.\n  T. prepared on the basis of the previous works and commentaries of\n  Origen, the entire subsequent history of the text of the N. T. in the\n  region of Constantinople, revealing as it does the extensive\n  propagation of the Antiochean text, would be perfectly\n  incomprehensible. As in the matter of the canon so also of the text of\n  the N. T., Eusebius emancipated himself from the school of Origen, and\n  attached himself to that of Antioch, at least in this particular\n  instance fraught with such important consequences for the history of\n  the Bible.\u201d\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n  See Hort, _Introduction_, \u00a7\u00a7 188, 189.\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n  Athanasius, writing to Constans, says in his first Apology: \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1ff7\n  \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1 \u1f22 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n  It is given in Syriac in Abb\u00e9 Martin\u2019s _Introduction \u00e0 la critique\n  textuelle du N. T._, Plate XX. No. 35 (1883), from the MS. de Paris,\n  27, f 88 b, and also in Lagarde\u2019s _Bibliotheca Syriaca_, 259, 22-27.\n  From the Greek \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, which becomes \u05e4\u05e8\u05d3\u05d5\u05e1\u05e7\u05d0 in the Semitic, the\n  Syriac forms another diminutive \u05e4\u05e8\u05d3\u05e1\u05e7\u05d6\u05e0\u05d0, which is still omitted in\n  the _Thesaurus Syriacus_, 3240; _cf._ Bar Bahlul, 1606, 9 (App. p.\n  64). In place of \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u1ff3, Oikonomos would read the genitive \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\n  (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f40 \u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, iv. 500).\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n  Not only does the Old Testament promise to shed some light upon an\n  obscure problem in the New, but the converse may also be true\u2014viz.\n  that the history of the text of the New Testament may contribute to a\n  better understanding of that of the Old. It was long observed that\n  many peculiarities of the Lucianic revision of the Septuagint occur\n  also in the witnesses to the Old Latin version (see especially Driver,\n  _Notes on Samuel_, p. li; _Urt._, 78). No proper explanation of this\n  phenomenon could be given so long as the Old Latin version of the Old\n  Testament was looked upon as homogeneous and of great antiquity. But\n  the New Testament, for which we have far more Old Latin manuscripts\n  than for the Old, shows that the Old Latin pre-Jeromic version had a\n  chequered history, and in particular that at a certain time a revision\n  was undertaken, the result of which is found especially in Codex\n  Brixianus (f, see p. 112), and which \u201cnon solum interpretationem\n  veterem stilo elegantiori emendabat, sed etiam lectiones novas\n  protulit. Notatu certe dignum est, in ista emendatione Itala eminere\n  lectiones quae in maiori parte codicum Graecorum apparent, _quas\n  Recensioni Syrae vel Antiochenae adiudicant Westcott et Hort_.\u201d So say\n  Wordsworth and White, p. 654. If the same thing holds good of the Old\n  Testament, then the relationship between the Old Latin and Lucian at\n  once becomes evident, and the supposition is not so absurd that the\n  marginal glosses of Codex Legionensis (called Codex Gothicus in\n  Hastings\u2019 _Bible Dictionary_, iii. p. 50_b_.) which are particularly\n  striking on this view of the case, may have been translated into Latin\n  from Lucian. These considerations, moreover, may possibly throw fresh\n  light on the question that I have raised elsewhere (_Urt._, p. 78),\n  whether Lucian may not also have used the Peshitto in his recension of\n  the Old Testament. I see that it has been taken up by J. M\u00e9ritan, in\n  his little book, entitled, _La Version grecque des Livres de Samuel,\n  pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9e d\u2019une Introduction sur la critique textuelle_ (Paris, 1898).\n  On pp. 96-113 he discusses the same question\u2014whether Lucian knew and\n  used the Peshitto. He answers the question in the affirmative: \u201cIt is\n  therefore probable that as regards certain passages of the Books of\n  Samuel, in his work of revision, or rather of correction, Lucian did\n  not follow the Hebrew text as his sole and infallible guide, but\n  availed himself of others also, and that one of those principal\n  authorities was the Syriac version.\u201d We often enough find \u1f41 \u03a3\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n  cited as an authority in the Greek Commentaries on the Old Testament.\n  Whether it is also mentioned for the New Testament is a point that\n  seems not yet to be looked into.\n\n  I may add that Bickel concludes his short article in the _Zeitschrift\n  f\u00fcr kath. Theol._, iii. 467-469, entitled, \u201cDie Lucianische\n  Septuagintabearbeitung nachgewiesen,\u201d by saying: \u201cIn establishing the\n  recensions of Lucian and Hesychius for the Septuagint, we may be held\n  as settling the question whether traces of these may not also be found\n  in the New Testament.\u201d\n\n  In his _Einleitung_, ii. 240, Zahn says: \u201cWithout a doubt many\n  readings which had a considerable circulation in the second and third\n  centuries, some of them being of no small importance and extent, were\n  gradually ousted from their place in the text from the fourth century\n  onwards, and some of them dropped out of the later tradition\n  altogether. And it is equally true that many interpolations were\n  current in these later centuries which were unknown in the second. But\n  whatever our judgment be in doubtful cases, we are still always in a\n  position to support it with extant documents.\u201d\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n  Rahlfs cannot, of course, assent to this supposition, seeing that he\n  regards Codex B as depending on the Festal Letter containing the Canon\n  of Athanasius, which was not written till the year 367.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n  See especially Lagarde, _Sept.-Studien_, 1892, and Moore\u2019s _Commentary\n  on Judges_, 1895, p. xlvi.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n  See above under \u039b, p. 72.\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n  There is no need to discuss here the other expressions used by Jerome\n  in his letter of the year 403 to the Gothic priests Sunnia and\n  Fretela, seeing that these relate only to the Old Testament. But the\n  words themselves may be quoted: \u201cBreviter admoneo ut sciatis, aliam\n  esse editionem, quam Origenes et Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque\n  Graeciae tractatores \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03bd, id est communem appellant, atque\n  vulgatam, et a plerisque nunc \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 dicitur, aliam septuaginta\n  interpretum quae in \u1f11\u03be\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 codicibus reperitur, et a nobis in\n  latinum sermonem fideliter versa est, et Jerosolymae atque in orientis\n  ecclesiae (so Lagarde, _Librorum V. T. can. pars prior_, p. xiii. from\n  _Vallarsi_, i. 635?) decantatur ... \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae autem ista, hoc est\n  communis, editio ipsa est quae et septuaginta, sed hoc interest inter\n  utramque quod \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate\n  scriptorum vetus corrupta editio est, ea autem quae habetur in\n  \u1f11\u03be\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris\n  incorrupta et immaculata septuaginta interpretum translatio\n  reservatur\u201d (_ibid._, 637). For \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 Oikonomos (iv. 499) would\n  read \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n  A. D. Loman would emend this passage by reading \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\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\u03cc\u03bb\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n  \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 (_Leiden. Theol. Tijdschr._, vii., 1873, 233).\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n  What he says is (_Viri Illust._, c. 75): Pamphilus presbyter, Eusebii\n  Caesariensis episcopi necessarius, tanto bibliothecae divinae amore\n  flagravit, ut maximam partem Origenis voluminum sua manu descripserit,\n  quae usque hodie in Caesariensi bibliotheca habetur. Sed et in\n  duodecim prophetas vigintiquinque \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd Origenis volumina manu\n  eius (_i.e._ Pamphili) exarata repperi, quae tanto amplector et servo\n  gaudio, ut Croesi opes habere me credam. Si enim laetitia est unam\n  epistulam habere martyris, quanto magis tot milia versuum, quae mihi\n  videntur suis sanguinis signasse vestigiis. The above is Richardson\u2019s\n  text. Bernoulli (Kr\u00fcger\u2019s _Sammlung_, Heft xi. 1895) reads _habentur_,\n  _Sed in_, and _videtur_, and also omits _volumina_.\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n  \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\u00b7 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f04\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3\u03c2\n  \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u00b7 \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u2014\u03bd\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u2014\u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f56 \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f60\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd. The last seven words, which are erased in H, are supplied by\n  the minuscule 93^{paul} and the Armenian version. On \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd =\n  \u201cborrowing-receipt\u201d or \u201cvoucher,\u201d see _ThLz._, 1895, 283, 407. See\n  also Robinson, _Euthaliana_, _Texts and Studies_, iii. 3.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n  To the literature referred to on p. 79 should be added the second\n  section of Bousset\u2019s _Textkritische Studien_ (_TU._ xi. 4, 1894),\n  entitled, _Der Codex Pamphili_, pp. 45-73. Bousset affirms the close\n  connection between the Corrector of Sinaiticus indicated by\n  Tischendorf as ^c and Codex H. I have established the connection of\n  this corrector in the Psalter with Eusebius by means of the latter\u2019s\n  Commentary on the Psalms (see above, p. 58). As yet no one appears to\n  have examined the New Testament quotations in Eusebius. _Cf._ however\n  Bousset, _ThLz._, 1900, 22, 611 ff.\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n  It runs: \u0395\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5, \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f68\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\n  \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u1ff3 \u03a1/\u03a9\u00b7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n  \u1f38\u03ce\u03b2\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03b4\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f22 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5\u03ce\u03bd\n  \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1, \u1f05\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2\n  \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n  \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n  \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f22 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u2019 \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2\n  \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n  \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f40 \u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, iv. 904. Athens, 1844-1849.\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n  _Texte und Untersuchungen_, xvii. (N. F. ii.) 4. See above, p. 90.\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n  _Euthaliusstudien_, pp. 111-115; 115 ff.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n  _Neue Jahrb\u00fccher f\u00fcr deutsche Theologie_, ii. 3, 3 (1894), pp.\n  360-363. Compare also von Dobsch\u00fctz, _lib. cit._, 111.\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n  \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\n  \u03b3\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u1fc7. Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, viii. 11.\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n  See above, p. 87 ff., on Evan. 473, Act. 246, 419, Evl. 286, and\n  compare Zahn, _ThLbl._, 1899, 181: Would that some one with the time\n  and opportunity to work in the Monasteries of Mount Athos applied\n  himself to the Codex written in the year 800 by the unhappy Empress\n  Maria (Lambros 129, S. Pauli 2). Since the above was written the\n  manuscript has been collated by Von der Goltz.\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n  On \u03ba\u03cc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, see Chase, _Syro-Latin Text_, p. 135 f. It may be\n  observed in passing how variously \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6 is rendered in the\n  different Latin manuscripts\u2014viz. by _evacuat_ in b ff^2 l q, by\n  _detinet_ in ff^{2c} i r, by _intricat_ in e, and by _occupat_ in d\n  and the Vulgate.\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n  The evidence of d in this passage cannot be had, unfortunately, as\n  eight leaves (a quaternio) containing the Greek of Matt. vi. 20-ix. 2,\n  and the Latin of vi. 8-viii. 27, have gone amissing.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n  Unfortunately h exhibits only the text of Matthew, otherwise I might\n  simply have referred to the list of variants on p. 120. I am not aware\n  if what Wordsworth and White (vol. i. p. xxxii) say of this manuscript\n  is still true: Codex hodie, ut fertur, in bibliotheca Vaticana\n  inveniri non potest.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n  See Index in Wordsworth and White, p. 751.\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n  At the same time it must be pointed out here that not only in Luke and\n  Acts, but in all the books of the N. T., it is wrong in principle to\n  present the alternative \u201coriginal or later alteration\u201d or even\n  forgery. The dilemma can be wrongly stated. Blass was not the first to\n  express the opinion, \u201cLucam bis edidisse Actus.\u201d De Dieu did so before\n  him, and by an examination of those passages of the Gospels in which\n  the original text has been preserved in purely \u201cWestern\u201d witnesses\n  Hort (\u00a7 241) was led to suppose that the Western and non-Western texts\n  may have \u201cstarted respectively from a first and a second edition of\n  the Gospels, both conceivably apostolic.\u201d Similarly Wordsworth and\n  White are unable to explain the origin and propagation of several\n  readings in the manuscripts of the Vulgate otherwise than by supposing\n  that the primitive document itself contained certain variants\n  (corrections) in the passages in question.\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n  _Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons_ (Erlangen): I. Band, _Das\n  N. T. vor Origenes_, 1 and 2 H\u00e4lfte, 1888-89; II. Band, _Urkunden und\n  Belege zum ersten und dritten Band_, 1890-92. It is to be hoped that\n  the third volume will not be long in making its appearance. Along with\n  this we must take his _Forschungen zur Geschichte des\n  neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur_, of which\n  six volumes have been published (1881-1900). Meanwhile Zahn\u2019s\n  _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_ (Leipzig, I., 1898; II., 1899, 2nd\n  ed., 1900) cannot be too strongly recommended. It contains a great\n  deal of valuable material for the criticism of the text. Needless to\n  say, textual criticism is the basis on which all sound exegesis rests.\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n  A small selection will be found in Preuschen, _Analecta_, pp. 152-157.\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n  Here again, unfortunately, we have no collection of notices referring\n  to the history of the text as distinguished from that of the canon.\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n  J\u00fclicher, _loc. cit._, from Sozomen, _Hist. Eccl._, i. 11. On the\n  Latin form _grabattum_, see W.-W., Index, p. 756, \u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 occurs as\n  early as Clem. Al. _Paed._, 1, 2, 6. In the parallels to Mark ii. 6,\n  Matthew has \u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b7 (ix. 6), and Luke \u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (v. 24). _Cf._ the\n  passage cited by Lagarde (_De Novo Test._, 20 = _Ges. Abh._, 118) from\n  Lucian\u2019s _Philopseudes_, 11; \u1f41 \u039c\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c6\u2019\n  \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf \u1fa4\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n  \u03a4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03b3\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u1f97 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n  \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f23\u03bd \u1f15\u03be\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03b5\u03af \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u039a\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n  _Cf._ Matt. xiii. 27, \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, and also the\n  superscriptions of the N. T. Epistles, particularly those of Paul,\n  where \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 is varied by \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f38. \u03a7.\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n  \u201cis reserved\u201d\u2014Syr.\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n  \u201cbut\u201d\u2014Syr.\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n  This reading is confirmed by the Syriac as against \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 read by\n  Christophorson and Savil.\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n  The passage is a conspicuous example of the importance of punctuation.\n  Bengel punctuates \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, and Westcott and Hort\n  \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. Weiss is accordingly not quite right in\n  citing Bengel along with Bleek and Hoffman as supporting the view of\n  Tertullian (see Bengel\u2019s _Gnomon_). It will be difficult to prove that\n  Tertullian\u2019s construction is impossible \u201con account of the position of\n  \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\u201d Westcott and Hort surely know Greek, and Tertullian knew\n  it better than any of us.\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n  It seems worth while to quote here Harnack\u2019s words on these notices of\n  the earliest attempts at textual criticism. He says (_ibid._, p. 189):\n  \u201cThe charge preferred against the disciples of that erudite Tanner\n  (Theodotus) by the author of the Little Labyrinth is threefold. He\n  complains of their formal and grammatical exegesis of Scripture, of\n  their arbitrary system of textual criticism, and of the extent to\n  which they were engrossed in Logic, Mathematics, and empirical\n  Science. At the first glance, therefore, it would appear that these\n  people had no interest to spare for Theology. But the very opposite is\n  the case. The complainant himself has to confess that they employed\n  the method of grammatical exegesis \u2018with the object of establishing\n  their godless conclusions,\u2019 and textual criticism in order to correct\n  the manuscripts of the holy Scriptures. In place of the allegorical\n  method of exposition, the grammatical is the only right one, and we\n  have here an attempt to discover a text more nearly resembling the\n  original instead of simply accepting the traditional form. How\n  inimitable and charming really are these notices!... These scholars\n  had to be generals without an army, because their grammar and textual\n  criticism and logic might only discredit in the eyes of the churches\n  that christological method which long tradition had invested with\n  admiration and respect.... As \u2018genuine\u2019 scholars\u2014this is an\n  exceedingly characteristic description that is given of them\u2014they also\n  took a jealous care that none of them lost the credit of his\n  conjectures and emendations. No remnants have been preserved of the\n  works of these the first scholarly exegetes of the Christian Church\n  (the Syntagma knows of the existence of such; _cf._ Epiph. lv. c. 1).\u201d\n  So writes Harnack. Nothing, however, is said in the text of Eusebius\n  of a jealous watch over the priority of the conjectures. In the\n  sentence which Harnack renders \u201cfor their disciples have with an\n  ambitious zeal recorded what each one has corrected as they call it,\n  that is corrupted (deleted?),\u201d \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 is to be\n  understood simply of a diligent record of \u201ccorrections\u201d undertaken\n  solely out of an interest in their contents. According to the Syriac\n  \u1f20\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 is not to be rendered by \u201cdeleted,\u201d but as Harnack\n  translates it: _cf._ the various Syriac versions in Matthew vi. verse\n  16 (Syr^p), verses 19 and 20 (Syr^{pc}). On the validity of the charge\n  of inventing false Scriptures, see Zahn, _GK._ 1, 296 f.\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n  Westcott, _Canon_, Pt. I. c. iv. \u00a7 8, p. 308 ff.\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n  Westcott, _Canon_, Pt. I. c. iv. p. 310.\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n  _Ibid._, p. 291.\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n  _Ibid._, p. 303 ff. Cf. _Texts and Studies_, vol. i. 4: _The Fragments\n  of Heracleon_, by A. E. Brooke, M.A.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n  On the literature of the subject, _cf._ Zahn, _GK._ i. 585-718, _Das\n  N. T. Marcions_; ii. 409-529, _Marcions N. T._ All other works are\n  superseded by this, but mention may still be made of A. Hahn, _Das\n  Evangelium Marcions in seiner urspr\u00fcnglichen Gestalt_ (1823); Thilo,\n  _Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti_ (1832: for this work Hahn attempted\n  to restore the text of Marcion, pp. 401-486); A. Ritschl, _Das\n  Evangelium Marcions und das kanonische Evangelium des Lucas_ (1846);\n  Hilgenfeld, in the _Z. f. hist. Theol._, 1855, pp. 426-484; Sanday,\n  _The Gospels in the Second Century_, c. viii.\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n  The proof passages will be found in Zahn, _GK._ i. 620, 626, 663:\n  machaera non stilo: erubescat spongia Marcionis (Tert., v. 4, p. 282.\n  Is it permissible to infer from this that minium was already used in\n  manuscripts of the Bible at that time?\u2014_cf._ Augustine, _Con. Jul._,\n  iii. 13: ipsum libri tui argumentum erubescendo convertatur in\n  minium): non miror si syllabas subtrahit, quum paginas totas plerumque\n  subducet. Quis tam comesor mus Ponticus quam qui evangelia corrosit\n  (_con. Marc._, i. 1): tuum apostoli codicem licet sit undique\n  circumrosus (Adamantius).\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n  See the passage from Tertullian (cotidie reformant illud (_sc._\n  evangelium), prout a nobis cotidie revincuntur), and from Adamantius\n  (_Pseudo-Origenes_, de la Rue, i. 887 = Lat. in _Caspari Anecdota_, i.\n  57) in Zahn, _GK._ i. 613.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n  _Cf._ also _GK._ p. 681.\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n  _Cf._ Westcott, _Canon_, Pt. I. c. iv. \u00a7 9, Marcion: \u201cSome of the\n  omissions can be explained at once by his peculiar doctrines, but\n  others are unlike arbitrary corrections, and must be considered as\n  various readings of the greatest interest, dating as they do to a time\n  anterior to all other authorities in our possession\u201d (p. 315). See\n  also note at the end of the paragraph, where certain readings peculiar\n  to Marcion are cited.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n  _Cf._ also _ibid._, p. 684, and see below, p. 313.\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n  _Cf._ also _ibid._, p. 682: \u201cI repeat that readings which are proved\n  to be earlier than Marcion by their simultaneous occurrence in his\n  text and that of the several Catholic witnesses deserve greater\n  consideration both in the Gospels and Epistles than has generally been\n  accorded them. It is much more important to ascertain whether a\n  certain reading has the support of Marcion than to observe that it\n  occurs in this or that uncial manuscript. In spite of this, however,\n  the critical notes in our commentaries hardly ever refer to Marcion,\n  not to speak of their doing so systematically.\u201d\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n  Pp. 409-449, on the criticism of the sources; pp. 449-529, the\n  restoration of the text. On p. 449 f. he gives his verdict on the\n  earlier works of Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, and van Manen in this direction.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n  Zahn interjects \u201cas yet.\u201d\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n  We have not yet discovered a manuscript containing exactly Marcion\u2019s\n  text. The chances of our still doing so are very small in view of the\n  hatred with which Marcion was pursued. But when the libelli of certain\n  libellatici have been found, and also a great part of the Gospel of\n  Peter, we need not despair of finding other lost works as well. Codex\n  604 is interesting as exhibiting the Marcionite reading, \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f78\n  \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03ac \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, in the Lord\u2019s Prayer, Luke\n  xi. 2. The same manuscript omits \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 in Luke ix. 20, and\n  \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 in verse 35. Compare also J\u00fclicher, _Gleichnisreden Jesu_, ii.\n  5: \u201cMarcion, who perhaps created the Roman text of Luke xxi. 30.\u201d\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n  On this passage W.-W. observe: \u201cD ex Latinis forsan correctus.\u201d\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n  \u201cLicet _suos_ adiectio sit haeretici.\u201d Tertullian.\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n  In the critical notes at the end of this chapter I have cited a number\n  of Marcion\u2019s readings from Zahn\u2019s work, with the hope that these will\n  now earn a fuller recognition in our theological commentaries. See\n  _e.g._ on Luke xviii. 20; xxiii. 2; xxiv. 37; 1 Cor. vi. 20; xiv. 19.\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n  See Literature on p. 105 f., to which add Westcott, _Canon_, Part I.\n  c. iv. \u00a7 10.\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n  Defending the plurality of the canonical Gospels against the\n  Marcionites, he says: \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n  (_Philocalia_, ed. Robinson, 47; Zahn, _GK._ i. 412; PRE^3, v. 654).\n  From what Origen says, _Contra Celsum_, vi. 51, it would seem that he\n  himself heard Tatian.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n  Euseb., _Hist. Eccl._, iv. 29, with reference to the Encratites:\n  \u03a7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u039d\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 (Syriac has\n  \u05d0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05df), \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd ...\n  \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2,\n  \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. \u1f41 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03a4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u2019 \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03a4\u1f78 \u0394\u03b9\u1f70 \u03a4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f43 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\n  \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. \u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n  \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03bd.\n  \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. In the Syriac\n  version it runs: But this Tatian, their first head, collected and\n  combined and framed a (_or_, the) \u05d0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05df and called it \u05d3\u05d9\u05d8\u05e1\u05e8\u05d5\u05df, that\n  is \u201cthe combined,\u201d which is in the possession of many till this day.\n  And it is said of him that he ventured to alter certain phrases of the\n  Apostle (the plural points in the Syriac are to be omitted) as with\n  the object of amending the composition of the phrases. And he has left\n  many writings, etc.\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n  Epiphan., _Haeret._, 46, 1 (Pet. 391): \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n  Minuscule Evan. 72 (Harleianus 5647 of the eleventh century) on Matt.\n  xxvii. 48: \u03c3\u03b7[\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9] \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03b4\u03ce\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \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 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n  Instead of \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03b4\u03ce\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, Harnack-Preuschen (i. 493), read \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03ce\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5,\n  whether rightly or not I do not know. Nothing being known of the\n  historical Gospel of one Diodorus, it is natural enough to conjecture\n  (Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 28) that the reading should be \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b4\u2019, but what\n  becomes then of \u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76? Harnack suggests \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b4\u2019 \u03a3\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6, but\n  see Zahn, _Forsch._, ii. 298. The omission of the article before \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n  \u03b4\u2019 is a difficulty.\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n  In his \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (i. 20; vol. iv. 312), written in\n  the year 453, he says at the end of the chapter on Tatian:\u2014\u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n  \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u0394\u03b1\u03b2\u1f76\u03b4 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\n  \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c0\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n  \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7\n  \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. \u0395\u1f57\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u1f7c \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n  \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n  See Hamlyn Hill, _Earliest Life of Christ_, etc., p. 324; Hope W.\n  Hogg, Ante-Nicene Library, Additional Volume.\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n  See _Die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten_, 1882, pp.\n  196-218, and, on the other side, Zahn, _Forschungen_, ii. 292 ff.\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n  _The Diatessaron of Tatian: a Preliminary Study_, 1890.\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n  See _ThLz._, 1891, col. 356.\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n  It is not clear whether Harnack gives this as his own opinion or not.\n  For a reading of cod. W^d, akin to that of Tatian, see below on Mark\n  vii. 33, p. 264.\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n  Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Additional Volume, p. 38.\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n  See _Forschungen_, i. 130, 140, 216, 228 f., 237, 248, 263.\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n  London, Macmillan, 1895.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n  _Forschungen_, i. 179.\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n  This will be found most conveniently in Hogg\u2019s translation\u2014Ante-Nicene\n  Library, Additional Volume.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n  _Cf._ p. 393: \u201cTo judge from Ephraem\u2019s Commentary, the Diatessaron\n  contains scarcely as much apocryphal matter as Codex Cantabrigiensis\n  of the Gospels and Acts.\u201d\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n  In his _N. T. um 200_, p. 108, Harnack treats Zahn\u2019s interpretation of\n  the words of Eusebius as a bad blunder. The latter defends himself by\n  saying among other things that it is not quite clear whether Eusebius\n  himself was aware of the double meaning of the word _\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9_ which\n  was employed in the tradition (he says _\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9_) reported to him. He\n  thinks that Rufinus might be said to have \u201cparaphrased\u201d certain\n  commentaries of Origen, correcting his thought and phraseology in many\n  places. True, but in Eusebius it is _\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5_, not\n  whole epistles, that Tatian is said to have \u201cmetaphrased.\u201d\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n  On the words of Jerome (_ad Tit. praef._, vii. 686), \u201cSed Tatianus\n  Encratitarum patriarches, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli epistolas\n  repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, hoc est ad Titum, apostoli pronuntiandam\n  credidit, parvipendens Marcionis et aliorum qui cum eo in hac parte\n  consentiunt assertionem,\u201d compare Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 6, _GK._ i. 426.\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n  _Introd._, ii. \u00a7 170, p. 120. On all accounts the Western text claims\n  our attention first. The earliest readings which can be fixed\n  chronologically belong to it. As far as we can judge from extant\n  evidence, it was the most widely-spread text of Ante-Nicene times; and\n  sooner or later every version directly or indirectly felt its\n  influence. But any prepossessions in its favour that might be created\n  by this imposing early ascendancy are for the most part soon\n  dissipated by continuous study of its internal character. The\n  eccentric Whiston\u2019s translation of the Gospels and Acts from the Codex\n  Bezae, and of the Pauline Epistles from the Codex Claromontanus, and\n  Bornemann\u2019s edition of the Acts, in which the Codex Bezae was taken as\n  the standard authority, are probably the only attempts which have ever\n  been made in modern times to set up an exclusively, or even\n  predominantly, Western Greek text as the purest reproduction of what\n  the Apostles wrote. This all but universal rejection is doubtless\n  partly owing to the persistent influence of a whimsical theory of the\n  last century, which, ignoring all non-Latin Western documentary\n  evidence except the handful of extant bilingual uncials, maintained\n  that the Western Greek text owed its peculiarities to translation from\n  the Latin; partly to an imperfect apprehension of the antiquity and\n  extension of the Western text as revealed by Patristic quotations and\n  by versions. Yet even with the aid of a true perception of the facts\n  of Ante-Nicene textual history, it would have been strange if this\n  text, as a whole, had found much favour. A few scattered Western\n  readings have long been approved by good textual critics on\n  transcriptional and to a great extent insufficient grounds; and in\n  Tischendorf\u2019s last edition their number has been augmented, owing to\n  the misinterpreted accession of the Sinai MS. to the attesting\n  documents. To one small and peculiar class of Western readings,\n  exclusively omissions, we shall ourselves have to call attention as\n  having exceptional claims to adoption.\n\n  \u00a7 202 (p. 149). In spite of the prodigious amount of error which D\n  contains, these readings, in which it sustains and is sustained by\n  other documents derived from very ancient texts of other types, render\n  it often invaluable for the secure recovery of the true text; and,\n  apart from this direct applicability, no other single source of\n  evidence, except the quotations of Origen, surpasses it in value on\n  the equally important ground of historical or indirect\n  instructiveness. To what extent its unique readings are due to licence\n  on the part of the scribe rather than to faithful reproduction of an\n  antecedent text now otherwise lost, it is impossible to say; but it is\n  remarkable how frequently the discovery of fresh evidence, especially\n  Old-Latin evidence, supplies a second authority for readings in which\n  D had hitherto stood alone.\n\n  \u00a7 240 (p. 175). On the other hand there remain, as has been before\n  intimated (\u00a7 170), a few other Western readings of similar form, which\n  we cannot doubt to be genuine in spite of the exclusively Western\n  character of their attestation. They are all omissions, or, to speak\n  more correctly, non-interpolations of various length, that is to say,\n  the original record has here, to the best of our belief, suffered\n  interpolation in all the extant non-Western texts.... With a single\n  peculiar exception (Matt. xxvii. 49), in which the extraneous words\n  are omitted by the Syrian as well as by the Western text, the Western\n  non-interpolations are confined to the last three chapters of St.\n  Luke.\n\n  \u00a7 241. These exceptional instances of the preservation of the original\n  text in exclusively Western readings are likely to have had an\n  exceptional origin.\n\n  In the edition of 1896, the surviving editor (Westcott) appends an\n  Additional Note which contains a further exceedingly valuable\n  admission in the same direction. It is as follows:\u2014\n\n  Note to p. 121, \u00a7 170 (p. 328): \u201cThe Essays of Dr. Chase on _The\n  Syriac Element in Codex Bezae_, Cambridge, 1893, and _The Syro-Latin\n  Text of the Gospels_, Cambridge, 1895, are a most important\n  contribution to the solution of a fundamental problem in the history\n  of the text of the N.T. The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. of the Old\n  Syriac raises the question whether the combination of the oldest types\n  of the Syriac and Latin texts can outweigh the combination of the\n  primary Greek texts. A careful examination of the passages in which\n  Syr^{sin} and k are arrayed against \u05d0 B, would point to the\n  conclusion.\u201d [The proper title of Chase\u2019s Essays is The Old Syriac,\n  under which shorter (outside) title Zahn also quotes them (_Einl._,\n  ii. 348).] This statement by Westcott sounds strange after the remark\n  made in the Preface. \u201cFor the rest,\u201d he says there, \u201cI may perhaps be\n  allowed to say that no arguments have been advanced against the\n  general principles maintained in the Introduction and illustrated in\n  the Notes since the publication of the First Edition, which were not\n  fully considered by Dr. Hort and myself in the long course of our\n  work, and in our judgment dealt with accurately.\u2014Auckland Castle,\n  March 27, 1896. B. F. D.\u201d\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n  See my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 3, where I have cited this passage of\n  Lagarde. His book may not be very accessible to textual critics.\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n  \u201cThou shalt worship no manuscripts\u201d was one of the ten commandments\n  that Lehrs gave philologists.\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n  This passage was the subject of a heated discussion between Severus\n  and Macedonius at Constantinople in the year 510. On this occasion the\n  superb copy of Matthew\u2019s Gospel, which had been discovered in the\n  grave of Barnabas in the reign of the Emperor Zeno, was brought upon\n  the scene.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n  Compare what Westcott and Hort say of Whiston and Bornemann, cited\n  above, p. 222, and particularly the section on the twofold recension\n  of the Acts in Zahn\u2019s _Einleitung_, ii. \u00a7 59, pp. 338-359. See also\n  Burkitt\u2019s Introduction to Barnard\u2019s _Biblical Text of Clement of\n  Alexandria_ (_Texts and Studies_, v. 5), especially p. xviii: \u201cLet us\n  come out of the land of Egypt, which speaks, as Clement\u2019s quotations\n  show, with such doubtful authority, and let us see whether the\n  agreement of East and West, of Edessa and Carthage, will not give us a\n  surer basis upon which to establish our text of the Gospels.\u201d\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n  Attention may be directed in passing to the interesting way in which\n  the witnesses are distributed. Thus we have in verse 51, for the\n  omission of \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1. \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4. \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1. \u05d0* D Syr^{sin} a b d e ff l*, Aug.\n  \u00bd; verse 52, omit \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, D Syr^{sin} a b d e ff l, Aug. 1/1;\n  verse 53, \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 for \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 D a b d e ff l r (Aug.);\n  (Syr^{sin} here has \u05de\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d9\u05df, not \u05de\u05e9\u05d1\u05d7\u05d9\u05df which represents \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 in\n  Luke ii. 13, 20, xix. 37, and, therefore, must have read \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n  in this passage). Now I ask, is it right to accept the testimony of D\n  and its associates in verse 52, only to reject it in verse 53? And\n  what amount of weight is added to the testimony of D by the addition\n  of that of \u05d0*? Schiller says in _Tell_: \u201cThe strong is mightiest\n  alone: united e\u2019en the weak are strong\u201d\u2014how far are both these notions\n  true in textual criticism?\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n  So Graefe, but it is not apparent whether the \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 that belongs to this\n  reading is to be supplied before it or after. Evidently he intends to\n  read \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3. with the great majority of witnesses, and not\n  \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd. with the Ethiopic version. See _Th. St. Kr._, 1898, i.\n  136 f. The passage is regarded by Westcott and Hort as a good example\n  of \u201cconflation,\u201d \u00a7 146.\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n  See now _Textkritik der vier Evangelien_, pp. 48, 181.\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n  \u0391\u1f30\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd is not given in Cremer\u2019s _Dictionary_ among the synonyms of\n  \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, and is only cited on p. 610 with the reading \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 from this passage.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n  See Hilgenfeld, _Das Apostel-Concil nach seinem urspr\u00fcnglichen\n  Wortlaute_ in the _ZfwTh._, 42 (1899), 1, 138-149.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n  Harnack, _Das Aposteldecret_ (Acta xv. 29) _und die Blass\u2019sche\n  Hypothese_, Berlin, 1899. From the _Sitzungsberichte der preuss. Akad.\n  der Wiss._ Noticed in the _Expository Times_ for June 1899, p. 395 f.\n  See also the _Berliner philologische Wochenschrift_ of the 13th May\n  1899.\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n  See critical note in the _Expositor\u2019s Greek Testament_ (Knowling), _in\n  loco_.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n  _Cf._ the passage of Hermas cited above, p. 47.\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n  A good example is seen in Ezek. xvi. 3. In the Sixtine edition of 1586\n  a new page (692) occurs in the middle of the sentence \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\n  \u0399\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7 \u0399\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc, with the\n  result that the eight words from the first \u0399\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc to the second\n  are printed twice by a recessive homoioteleuton, while in Codex 62\n  they have dropped out altogether owing to a forward error of the same\n  sort. The former mistake is tacitly corrected in all reprints, but the\n  latter could not be detected from the context alone without other\n  testimony. Compare also Mark ix. 10 in codex T of the Vulgate and ff\n  of the Old Latin. In the former the passage from _resurrexit_ to\n  _resurrexit_ is repeated, in the latter it is omitted.\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n  I had a teacher once who invariably tried to get over any difficulty\n  in the Greek classics by saying that the text was corrupted by\n  homoioteleuton. We did not always agree with him; he was perhaps a\n  little too ready with this way out of a difficulty, but any one with\n  experience knows how very apt this mistake is to occur.\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n  This applies to printed editions as well as to manuscripts. Van Ess\u2019s\n  reprint of the Sixtine Septuagint (1824) is very carefully done, yet\n  five words have dropped out in Joel iii. 9. These are omitted in all\n  the later editions of 1835, 1855 (novis curis correcta), 1868, and\n  1879, and were only supplied by myself in 1887 on the occasion of the\n  third centenary of the Sixtine edition. They are omitted in\n  Tischendorf\u2019s first edition of 1850, and also in the second of 1856.\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n  In ancient times people always read aloud, even when reading by\n  themselves.\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n  Scrivener would explain the \u201cremarkable confusion\u201d of the two\n  prepositions \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf and \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3, when compounded with verbs, which we meet\n  _e.g._ in Matt. xxvi. 39; Mark xiv. 35; Acts xii. 6; xvii. 5, 26; xx.\n  5, 13; xxii. 25, by saying that the symbol [Symbol: an abbreviation\n  made of a rho character written on top of a block with three lines.]\n  is used indifferently for \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf and \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3 in the Herculanean rolls, and\n  here and there in Codex Sinaiticus. Seeing that it has become a bad\n  habit in Hebrew Grammars to speak of Aleph _prostheticum_ instead of\n  _protheticum_, and that the practice is still defended\n  (Gesenius-Kautzsch^{26}, p. 64, n. 3, \u201crightly so\u201d) after my notice of\n  it (_Marginalien_, p. 67), I have given some little attention to this\n  confusion, and could cite dozens of examples. Others, of course, have\n  noticed it as well as myself. In his _N.T._, i. 20, B. Weiss says:\n  \u201cThe compounds with \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf and \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3 are interchanged quite heedlessly,\u201d\n  and he cites in proof of this eight passages from the Acts. He writes\n  similarly in ii. 34. I shall instance only one or two cases in\n  connection with this same word \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. Pitra on _Apost. Const._, 5,\n  17 (p. 325): \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd restituimus cum Vatican. 2, 3, 4, 5, vulgo\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd; Excerpta \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd, ed. R. Schneider (_Programme of\n  Duisburg_, 1895), where the manuscripts deviate in five passages, pp.\n  5, 14. 20; 6, 5; 13, 7. 13, and we read in \u00a7 10, \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, etc., and in \u00a7 11, \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03c2. Both\n  times, of course, it should be \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, as the better manuscripts\n  have it. Wherever mention is made of the \u201cshewbread,\u201d D invariably\n  turns it into \u201cextra bread,\u201d by reading \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 instead of\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. Tischendorf first called attention to this in Luke vi. 4,\n  but it occurs also in Matt. xii. 4. I have no doubt myself that in the\n  case of verbal forms, the \u03c3 was inserted in order to avoid the hiatus\n  before the augment. Compare \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd for \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, Ex. xxiv. 23;\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2, Ps. lxxxix. 8, Symmachus; \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd or \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd,\n  Gal. i. 16. In Wisdom, vii. 27, the first hand of Sinaiticus even\n  writes \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 for prophets. It is disputed whether the title of one\n  of Philo\u2019s books is \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 or \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 [\u03c4\u1f70] \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1. Etc. etc.\n  _Sapienti sat._\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n  We find all the possible permutations of the words \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41\n  \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 in John viii. 12. See my note on Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus\n  (N) in Hilgenfeld\u2019s _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr wissenschaftliche Theologie_, 42\n  (1899), p. 623.\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n  See Harnack, _Das Magnificat der Elisabeth_ (Lukas i. 46-55) in the\n  _Berliner Sitzungsberichte_ of the 17th May 1900, p. 538 ff. A good\n  example of how glosses may creep into the text is afforded by Philo\n  \u201cQuod det.\u201d 11 (Cohn, 1, 266).\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n  On the influence of a system of pericop\u00e6 on the text of Codex D, see\n  Scrivener\u2019s Introduction to his edition of the manuscript, p. li, and\n  Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 355.\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n  See Semler\u2019s edition of _J. J. Wetsteinii libelli ad crisin atque\n  interpretationem N.T._, Halae, 1766.\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n  (1) Lectio quae in veteribus latinis non apparet probabilior est. (2)\n  Codices qui cum graecis \u05d0 B L concordant plerumque textum\n  Hieronymianum ostendunt.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n  In view of the frequency with which the witnesses fluctuate between\n  \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd and \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd and \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, etc., it is impossible to adjust their\n  claims on any mere arithmetical principle. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 61)\n  calls attention to an important consideration in support of the\n  reading \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd in 2 Peter i. 4, which applies to other passages as\n  well\u2014viz., \u201cthat when the New Testament epistles were read at divine\n  service, \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 would very readily and very frequently be substituted\n  for \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, which excluded the reader or preacher.\u201d Compare Acts iv.\n  12: \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u2014, \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 or \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2?\n\n  It might be laid down as a second rule in this connection, that\n  particular importance attaches to those versions in which the\n  distinction of the persons does not depend simply on a single letter\n  but on a separate word (_nobis_: _vobis_, etc.). In versions of this\n  sort the original reading is preserved from the first; in the case of\n  the others, the change could be made at any point of the transmission,\n  especially when it was helped by the nature of the writing, which must\n  also, of course, be taken into account.\n\n  A glance over the verse enumeration in the margin of one of the modern\n  editions of the text will reveal, perhaps, most clearly how strong is\n  the tendency to interpolation. Of the verses into which Stephen\n  divided the Greek N.T. (1551), the Stuttgart edition omits entirely\n  the following from the Synoptic Gospels\u2014viz., Matt. xviii. 11 (xxi.\n  44, Tischen.), xxiii. 14; Mark vii. 16; ix. 44, 46; xi. 26; xv. 28;\n  Luke xvii. 36 (xxi. 18, W-H margin); xxiii. 17 (xxiv. 12, 40, Tisch.).\n  Compare also Matt. xx. 28; xxvii. 35, 38, 49; Mark vi. 11; xiii. 2;\n  Luke vi. 5; ix. 55; xii. 21; xix. 45; xxi. 38; xxii. 19 f., 43 f., 47;\n  xxiii. 2, 5, 34, 48, 53; xxiv. 5, 36, 51, 52. In the case of several\n  verses this or that part had to be omitted. Luke xx. 30, _e.g._, is\n  reduced to the three words, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, with the result that it\n  becomes the shortest verse in the N.T.\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n  The best discussion of the form \u1f08\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 will again be found in Zahn,\n  _Einl._, i. 193.\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n  See my note in the _Expository Times_ for July 1900, p. 478, where I\n  have brought forward a new witness for the reading Jonatha\u2014viz.,\n  Jerome\u2019s _Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum_. He explains the\n  word as \u201c_columba dans_ vel _columba veniens_.\u201d\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n  Volck has an article of four and a half pages on Balaam in the PRE^3,\n  iii. 227 ff., but he says not a syllable about the form \u03b2\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03c1, which\n  is too bad. In Hastings\u2019 _Dictionary of the Bible_ it is at least\n  mentioned though not explained.\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n  \u05d1\u05e2\u05e8 is explained as the Hebrew form of the Aramaic \u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 by C. B.\n  Michaelis (_De Paronomasia_, \u00a7 30); Hiller, _Onomasticum_, 1706, p.\n  536; and Bernardus (in Marck, _In praecipuas quasdam partes\n  Pentateuchi Commentarius_, Leyden, 1713, 366). Marck himself makes it\n  the equivalent of \u05e4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8. M. M. Kalish, _Bible Studies_, i. _The\n  prophecies of Bileam_, London, 1877, contributes nothing to the\n  solution of the question.\n\n\n\n\n        CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n\n                              THE GOSPEL.\n\n\n                                Matthew.\n\n\nWith regard to the title, Westcott and Hort say (_Introduction_, \u00a7\n423, p. 321): \u201cIn prefixing the name \u0395\u03a5\u0391\u0393\u0393\u0395\u039b\u0399\u039f\u039d in the singular to the\nquaternion of \u2018the Gospels,\u2019 we have wished to supply the antecedent\nwhich alone gives an adequate sense to the preposition \u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0391 in the\nseveral titles. The idea, if not the name, of a collective \u2018Gospel\u2019 is\nimplied throughout the well-known passage in the third book of\nIren\u00e6us, who doubtless received it from earlier generations. It\nevidently preceded and produced the commoner usage by which the term\nGospel denotes a single written representation of the one fundamental\nGospel.\u201d Compare Zahn, _GK._, i. 106 ff.; _Einleitung_, ii. 172 ff.,\n178 f.: \u201cOf recent editors, Westcott and Hort have most faithfully\ninterpreted the original idea by setting \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd on the fly-leaf,\nand \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03b1\u03b8\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, etc., over the separate books.\u201d I have followed the\nsame principle in the Table of Contents prefixed to the Stuttgart\nedition of the New Testament. Compare above, pp. 164, 165. On the\nspelling \u039c\u03b1\u03b8\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, instead of \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, compare on the one hand the\nLXX. manuscripts, which exhibit the forms \u039c\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ac, \u039c\u03b1\u03b8\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ac, \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ac;\n\u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u039c\u03b1\u03b8\u03b8\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (see Supplement I. to Hatch and\nRedpath\u2019s _Concordance to the Septuagint_), and on the other, Blass\u2019s\n_Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch_, \u00a7 3, 11 (English Trans.\nby Thackeray, 1898, p. 11).\n\ni. 16. There are three forms of the text here\u2014\n\n(1) \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f10\u03be \u1f27\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2:\nall our Greek uncials and almost all the minuscules.\n\n(2) \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u03ae\u03c6, \u1fa7 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd) \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd: most of the Old Latin (a d g_{1} k q, with b c\nsimilarly), Curetonian Syriac, Armenian, and four minuscules\u2014viz., 346,\n556, 624, 626, with slight divergencies.\n\n(3) \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u03ae\u03c6\u00b7 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u03b4\u1f72, \u1fa7 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 (or \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7?) \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd: the form underlying the\nnewly-discovered Sinai-Syriac.[265]\n\nThese readings are discussed in the \u201cAdditional Note\u201d to _Notes on\nSelect Readings_, Westcott and Hort, _Introduction_ (1896), p. 140 ff.\nReading (2) is dismissed on external grounds as displaying the\ncharacteristic features of the \u201cWestern\u201d type of text. Reading (3) is\nregarded as independent of (2), neither confirming it nor confirmed by\nit. Taken therefore on its own merits, it must yield to the received\ntext (1), as it is easier to suppose that (3) is derived from (1) than\n_vice versa_.\n\nZahn goes fully into these various forms (_Einleitung_, ii. 291-293). He\nbegins by saying that it is impossible, except on a very loose view of\nthe facts, to conclude that the Sinai-Syriac here preserves the original\ntext, which was gradually displaced for dogmatic reasons by the modified\nform presented in (2), and ultimately by that given in (1). On the\ncontrary, the Curetonian-Syriac preserves an early form of text, and one\nthat had a pretty wide circulation, so that it cannot be due to an\northodox alteration of the Sinai-Syriac. \u201cIf it be the case that the\nlatter, like the former, is derived from a Greek original, and that\nthese two earliest versions of the \u2018Distinct\u2019 Gospel are not independent\nof each other but are two recensions of a single version, then it\nfollows that the recension which agrees exactly with a demonstrably old\nGreek text (in this case the Curetonian Syriac) preserves the original\nform of the Syriac version; while, on the other hand, the one which\ndeviates from all the Greek, Latin, and other forms of the transmitted\ntext (in this case the Sinai-Syriac) is derived from the other by a\nprocess of intentional alteration.\u201d There would be nothing to object to\nthis reasoning were it not that, as it seems to me, there is a flaw in\nthe second of the premises stated above, which of course vitiates the\nconclusion. In the main, it is true that the Sinai-Syriac and the\nCuretonian are not independent, but two recensions of a single version,\nbut their common original was, as Zahn himself was the first to suggest,\nTatian\u2019s Diatessaron, which did not contain the first chapter of\nMatthew\u2019s Gospel. So that the Sinai-Syriac may also go back to a Greek\ntext (such as has been discovered in the _Dialogue of Timothy and\nAquila_, see above, p. 99), and be earlier than the Curetonian.\n\nZahn concludes his examination of this passage by saying: \u201cWe may give\nup all hope of finding in early manuscripts and versions any indication\nthat Joseph was regarded as the natural father of Jesus by the writers\nof lost Gospels which may have been employed in the composition of the\ncanonical Matthew and Luke. A writer like Matthew, whose purpose was to\nsilence the calumnies raised against the miraculous birth of the\nMessiah, and who knew how to utilise the smallest details of an\nintractable genealogy to this end, cannot at the same time have accepted\nin his narrative statements directly contradicting his view of that\noccurrence. Any text of Matthew\u2019s Gospel containing such features would\nbe pre-condemned as one that had been tampered with in a manner contrary\nto the conception of the author.\u201d\n\ni. 18. The reading \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is now supported by the newly-discovered\nOxyrhynchus Papyrus. It was adopted in the text by Vignon (Geneva,\n1574). Origen knew no other reading than \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, which is also\nattested by L (Codex D is defective here). Westcott and Hort have\naccordingly given it a place in their Appendix. Weiss explains it as an\nalteration made in conformity with the verbal forms \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5, \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7,\noccurring in the previous part of the chapter. Zahn (_Einleitung_, ii.\n270, 289) thinks it is probably original. The two oldest and the latest\nSyriac have a different word here from that in i. 1. These agree with\nIren\u00e6us in the omission of \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6. Zahn thinks this is probably correct.\n\ni. 25. On \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, see above, p. 166, and the _Oxford Debate_, p. 4\nff.\n\nv. 25. On \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 = \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d0, see Lagarde, _De Novo_, 20 (_Ges.\nAbhdl._, 188); quem Matthaei locum quum imitaretur et rideret Lucianus\nin Navigio 35, \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 non ferebat: \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f41\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\nvi. 1. \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u05d0* B D Syr^{sin}: \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, most authorities:\n\u03b4\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u05d0^a: \u201cyour gifts,\u201d Syr^{cu}. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 311) asks whether\nthese variants may not go back to a time when the Aramaic Gospel was\ninterpreted orally in these different ways? The agreement exhibited\nbetween \u05d0^a and Syr^{cu} is particularly strange.\n\nvi. 13. There is a considerable amount of unanimity now with regard to\nthe doxology which used to be so much discussed. Among the witnesses\nsupporting its insertion are Syr^{cu}, which, however, omits \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, and the Sahidic, which omits \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1. Syr^{sin} is\nunfortunately lost here. In addition to the testimony previously known\nfor the insertion of the Doxology, there is now that of the _Teaching of\nthe Apostles_, one of the earliest Church writings. But the very fact\nthat the _Teaching_ is a Church work reveals the source of the\nDoxology\u2014viz. liturgical use. The Conclusion was early added in Church\nworship from Old Testament analogies; in the First Gospel it is out of\nplace. The Greek manuscripts from which Jerome made his version knew\nnothing of it, and accordingly the Catholic Church omits it to this day.\nLuther also passed it over in his Catechism, in which the exposition of\nthe Conclusion is limited to the word \u201cAmen,\u201d and says, \u201cit is added\nthat I may have the assurance that my prayer will be heard.\u201d In the\nGreek Church the Amen was explained as equivalent to \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf, \u201cso may it\nbe.\u201d\n\nviii. 7. Fritzsche (1826) took this verse as a question of surprise.\nThis view has been renewed by Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 307).\n\nviii. 24. The words \u201cerat enim ventus contrarius eis,\u201d which are found\nin one manuscript of the Vulgate in W-W after \u201cmari,\u201d and in four after\n\u201cfluctibus,\u201d are an interpolation from Mark vi. 48. Tischendorf cites\ntwo Greek minuscules in support of it. Lagarde\u2019s Vienna Arabic\nmanuscript (see p. 143) mentions it as an addition of the \u201cRoman\u201d\nversion.\n\nxi. 19. Schlottman and Lagarde explain the variation between \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 and\n\u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1 as a confusion of the Aramaic \u05e2\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0 (_servant_: \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2) and\n\u05e2\u05b0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05d0 (_work_). See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 311 f., and compare also\nSalmon, _Some Thoughts etc._, p. 121 f. It is still to be shown,\nhowever, that \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1 is ever used as the equivalent of \u05e2\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0.\nHilgenfeld (_ZfwTh._, 42. 4, p. 629) refers to 4 Esdras vii. 64 (134),\nwhere the Latin and the first Arabic version read \u201cquasi suis\n_operibus_,\u201d the Ethiopic \u201cquasi _filiis_ suis,\u201d and the Syriac \u201cquia\n_servi_ eius sumus.\u201d\n\nxii. 36. See on xviii. 7.\n\nxiii. 35. \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u1f28\u03c3\u03b1\u0390\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 is now attested only by \u05d0*, two\nmembers of the Ferrar group, and some other minuscules, but Eusebius and\nJerome found it in several manuscripts, and it was used still earlier by\nPorphyrius as a proof of Matthew\u2019s ignorance. It is certainly,\ntherefore, genuine, although it is omitted by Syr^{sin}, Syr^{cu}, by\nthe \u201caccurate\u201d manuscripts according to Eusebius,[266] and by the\n\u201cvulgata editio\u201d according to Jerome. The conjecture of the latter, that\n\u1f08\u03c3\u03ac\u03c6 was the original reading, which was changed to \u1f28\u03c3\u03b1\u0390\u03bf\u03c5 by some\nunintelligent copyist and then dropped as incorrect, only serves to show\nwhat sort of ideas he had with regard to textual criticism. The\nassertion of the _Breviarium in Psalmos_, p. 59 f., that all the old\nmanuscripts read \u201cin Asaph propheta\u201d is pure fiction. Compare \u1f38\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\nin Matt. xxvii. 9, where one would expect \u0396\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, and where we find\nthat \u1f38\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 is omitted by some witnesses and replaced in others by\n\u0396\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 or \u201cEsaiam.\u201d \u201cEsaiam\u201d has also crept into the Vulgate\nmanuscript rus (W-W\u2019s R). On the insertion, omission, and interchange of\nsuch names, see W-H\u2019s discussion of this passage, and the \u201cSupplementary\nNote\u201d by Burkitt on Syr^{sin} in the edition of 1896, p. 143. For an\ninteresting exchange of names (Jonah and Nahum), see Tobit, xiv. 8.\nAsaph is called \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in 2 Chron. xxix. 30. Compare Zahn, _Einl._,\nii. 313 f. Weiss^9 would omit the word on the ground of insufficient\ntestimony as being simply introduced from iii. 3, iv. 14, viii. 17, and\nxii. 17.\n\nxiv. 3. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 309) thinks it extremely improbable that D\nand certain important Latin witnesses should have removed the (wrong)\nname, Philip, from this passage on the ground of their better knowledge,\nwhile allowing it to stand without exception in Mark vi. 17. He believes\nrather that they have preserved the original text, and that \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 is\nhere an interpolation from the passage in Mark. Weiss^9, on the other\nhand, sees no reason why it should be either bracketed or omitted. The\npossibility of its being inserted is shown by the fact that it also\ncrept into six or seven manuscripts of Jerome, collated by W-W. This is\none of the passages where Tischendorf in his seventh edition frankly\npreferred Codex D to all the other Greek witnesses.\n\nxv. 4_b_. For \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9, Syr^{cu} has \u05e0\u05ea\u05e7\u05d8\u05dc, evidently in\naccordance with Exod. xxi. 17. In the Arabic Diatessaron (\u00a7 20, 23) the\nsecond half of this verse seems to be replaced by Mark vii. 10_b_. After\n\u201cmorte moriatur\u201d in this passage, Ephraem adds \u201cet qui blasphemat Deum\n_crucifigatur_,\u201d which Zahn (_Forsch._, i. 157) thinks he must have\nfound in his original. This apocryphal addition, which has no other\ntestimony than that of Ephraem, does not seem to Zahn like a passage\nthat had been afterwards removed from the text of the New Testament with\ncomplete success (_Forsch._, i. 241). The correct explanation of the\nwords is given by Harris: they are the Peshitto rendering of Deut. xxi.\n23. Compare Driver\u2019s _Deuteronomy_ on the passage, and the reference\nthere made to Lightfoot\u2019s _Galatians_ (Extended Note on iii. 13, ninth\nedition, p. 152 f.). Symmachus also renders the words: \u201cpropter\nblasphemiam Dei suspensus est,\u201d while Onkelos says \u05e2\u05dc \u05d3\u05d7\u05d1 \u05e7\u05e8\u05dd \u05d9\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e6\u05d8\u05dc\u05d9\u05d1,\nand Siphre \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05d2\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e7\u05dc\u05dc \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05dd. This should be noted in connection with\nMatt. xxvi. 65, and still more so with John xix. 7. The only passage\nusually cited there is Levit. xxiv. 16, according to which Jesus should\nhave been _stoned_. Our commentators pass too hastily over the question\nwhy the Jews insisted on crucifixion instead of stoning.\n\nxvi. 18_b_, 19. So far as the criticism of the text is concerned, there\nis no occasion for entering on the discussion whether this passage, like\nthe one resembling it in xviii. 15-18, is original or not. There may,\nhowever, be cases in which one cannot overlook the fact that where the\n\u201clower\u201d criticism ends the \u201chigher\u201d begins. Compare, on the one side,\nZahn, _Forsch._, i. 244 ff., and on the other, Resch, _Logia_, p. 55;\n_Paralleltexte_, ii. 187-196, 441.\n\nxvi. 22. The peculiar reading, \u201ccompatiens,\u201d which is found in the\nArabic Tatian (J. H. Hill, p. 137, \u00a7 23. 42: Zahn, _GK._, ii. 546), and\nwhich Sellin has also traced in Ephraem, is now explained by the\nSyr^{sin} of Mark viii. 32: see my note in Lewis, _Some Pages_, p. xiii.\nThe very same play upon the words \u05d7\u05d5\u05e1, \u201cto pity,\u201d and \u05d7\u05e1, \u201cto be far\nfrom,\u201d is found as late as in the _Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha, de trois\nautres patriarches_, ed. Bedjan, 1895, p. 407, line 14; p. 408, line 4.\nFor a moment I thought of \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 and \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 in Mark i. 41.\n\nxviii. 7. The Dictum Agraphum \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, which, according to the _Clementine Homilies_ (xii. 29), \u1f41 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7, was known also to Ephraem (_cf._ Zahn, _Forsch._,\ni. 241 f. on \u00a7 50. 4). An exact parallel to this \u201charmless expansion of\nthe canonical text\u201d is seen in the form which Matt. xii. 36 assumed in\nCodex C of the Palestinian Syriac Evangeliarium: that \u201cfor every _good_\nword that men do _not_ speak they shall give account\u201d (see Lewis, _In\nthe Shadow of Sinai_ (1898), pp. 256-261; and thereon, _ThLz._, 1899,\ncol. 177).\n\nxviii. 20. On the form in which this saying is found in the Oxyrhynchus\nLogia, compare Ephraem (Moesinger 165), \u201cubi unus est ibi et ego sum.\u201d\nZahn believes that Ephraem found this in his text, but that Aphraates,\nwho also has it, arrived at it by way of a \u201cspiritual interpretation\u201d of\nthe canonical words. After quoting the comments of Aphraates on these\nwords, Zahn says: \u201cIt appears certain, therefore, that Aphraates did not\nfind in his text the apocryphal sentence given in Ephraem, but by way of\ninterpretation reached the same thought that Ephraem found in his text\nas a word of comfort spoken by Jesus to the lonely. (Ephraem introduces\nthe saying with the words: \u2018He comforted them in His saying.\u2019) The\ninterpretation, which may not have been original in Aphraates, became\nfirst a gloss and then part of the text of Tatian\u2019s Harmony.\u201d This\nshould be noticed in connection with the Oxyrhynchus Logion. See Burkitt\nin the Introduction to Barnard\u2019s _Biblical Text of Clement_ (_Texts and\nStudies_, v. 5, p. xiv).\n\nxx. 13. The peculiar form of the householder\u2019s reply given in Syr^{cu},\n\u03bc\u1f74 \u1f00\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5 (Baethgen, \u03bc\u03ae \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03b5) is ignored by Tischendorf.\nOur commentators also err in not taking note of the variant \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 for \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9. Compare the similar variation in John viii. 57;\nalso Luke xviii. 20, \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1, read by the Marcionites instead\nof \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2; and Ephes. v. 14, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c8\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, derived through a\npresupposed reading, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c8\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2. \u03a3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 in Matt.\nxx. 13 is also attested by Syr^{sin}, which agrees with the common text\nin the first member of the verse. It is also found in the\nnewly-discovered purple manuscript in Paris. The Arabic Tatian agrees\nwith the usual text in both members. On the strange mixture of this\nverse and Luke xvi. 25 in Petrus Siculus (\u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6 \u03c3\u03b5\u00b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f06\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5) see Zahn, _GK._, ii.\n445.\n\nxx. 16. The concluding member of this verse is now rightly omitted with\n\u05d0 B L Z and the Egyptian versions. All the Syriac versions have it,\nincluding the newly-discovered Syr^{sin}. It is worth observing that the\nverse with this addition forms the close of a lection in Syr^{hier}.\n\nxx. 28. Westcott and Hort devote one of their \u201cNotes on Select Readings\u201d\nto the addition to this verse, and in the edition of 1896 Burkitt adds\nthat it cannot have stood in Syr^{sin}, because there was not room for\nit on the leaf that is missing between Matt. xx. 24 and xxi. 20.\nAccording to W-H the passage is Western, being attested by D \u03a6 among the\nGreek manuscripts and by the Latin and Syriac versions. \u201cThe first part\nonly, \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\u2014\u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, is preserved in m, ger, and apparently Leo, who\nquotes no more; the second part only, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u2014\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, in ger_{2}\nand apparently Hilary. The first part must come from an independent\nsource, written or oral; the second probably comes from the same, but it\nis in substance identical with Luke xiv. 8-10.\u201d Tischendorf states that\nof the Old Latin, four (f g_{2} l q) omit the section, which, however,\nis found in c d e ff_{1, 2} g_{1} h (m) n, two manuscripts of the\nVulgate (and. emm.), the Old German, and the Saxon. To these W-W add\nalso the Old Latin r, two manuscripts of the Vulgate not usually\nemployed by them, and, of those forming the basis of their edition,\nH^{mg} \u0398 O\u2014_i.e._ the Theodulfian Recension. A hand of the tenth century\nhas written on the margin of O, \u201cmirum unde istud additum: cum Lucas\nparabolam de invitatis ad nuptias et primos accubitus eligentibus decimo\ncanone, ubi M(atthaeu)s sua non communia dicit referat.\u201d This resembles\nthe marginal note attached to the passage by Thomas of Heraclea (not\ngiven by Jos. White, but by Adler, from _Cod. Assem._, 1): Haec quidem\nin exemplis antiquis in Luca tantum leguntur capite 53: inveniuntur\nautem in exemplis graecis[267] hoc loco: quapropter hic etiam a nobis\nadiecta sunt.\n\nThe word \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, which Resch took from this passage into the text\nof his _Logia Jesu_, for \u1f41 \u03c3\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, found in Luke xiv. 9,\nshould itself have provoked investigation. The only Latin witnesses\nwhich render it in a substantive form are d, which has _coenae\ninvitator_ both times, and m, which has _invitator_ the first time. The\nothers give it as a relative clause (_qui vocavit, invitavit_), so that\nthey may have read it in the form in which it stands in our present text\nof Luke.[268] It is impossible not to believe that some connection\nexists between these substantive expressions and the Syriac \u05de\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05d0,\n\u201cmaster of the feast,\u201d which is found in Syr^{cu} and Syr^{sin}, and is\nalso given by Aphraates, for \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd in Luke xiv. 12 (Aphr.\n388, 12-19; Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 85, note). Syr^{cu} has it both times in\nthis passage of Matthew.[269]\n\nBengel, like our modern expositors, says nothing of the interpolation in\nhis _Gnomon_, and his view with respect to it has, therefore, to be\ngathered from his apparatus. \u201cInterjicit cod. Lat. vetustissimus Vos\nautem, etc. ... Vid. Rich. Simon, _Obs. Nouv._, p. 31. Et sic fere Cant.\n(_i.e._, D) cuius lectio passim exstat. Idem vero Codex Graeca sua ad\nLatina haec, quae modo exscripsimus, confecit: Latina autem sua, sub\nmanu, vehementius interpolavit, magno argumento licentiae suae. Eandem\nperiocham legit Juvencus, Hilarius: habentque praeterea codd. Lat.\naliquot, et inde Sax. Ex. Luc. xiv. 8 f., interveniente forsan Evangelio\nNazaraeorum ... Priorem duntaxat partem, \u2018Vos autem ... minui\u2019 habet\nalius cod. Lat. antiquiss. ut si Librarius, cum describere coepisset,\nnon scribendum agnosceret: eandemque Leo M. sic exhibet. Et tamen ...\nporro ab hoc loco ad Luc. xxii. 28, verbum _crescendi_ protulit Cant.\n_coenaeque invitator_ ei dicitur \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1.\u201d\n\nThe truth is, of course, the very opposite of this, as is shown by the\nindicative _quaeritis_ and the imperative of the Syriac, which are both\nderived from the ambiguous \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5. There cannot be the slightest doubt\nof this, seeing that the discovery of Codex Beratinus (\u03a6) has added a\nsecond Greek witness in support of the interpolation. It reads \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n(_cf._ _minor_, c), omits the \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 before \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3 just as m does with\n_et_, has \u1f04\u03b3\u03b5 in place of \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 (_accede_: d, _collige_), and the\ncomparative \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd (_utilius_) for the positive read by D d. The\nword \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 also occurs in \u03a6.[270] It is not found in Bekker\u2019s\n_Pollux_ or in Schmid\u2019s _Hesychius_, and the only instance that ancient\nlexicons are able to cite for its usage is that of Athen\u00e6us, who\nobserves (4. 171 B) that Artemidorus calls the \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 by that name.\nThe note appended in Hase-Dindorf\u2019s _Stephanus_ was not correct at the\ntime of its publication: Quidam codices Matt. xx. 27, Hesych., Wakef.\nEust. _Od._, p. 1413, 3; nor the quotation from Ducange: \u0394. in Lex. MS.\nCyrilli exp. \u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1. In the same work \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is cited from\nEust., _Il._, 766, 58, and as an explanation of \u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd from the\nLex. MS. Cyrilli. The word therefore belongs to the later popular\nlanguage. The question is whether it may not also belong to the\nvocabulary of Tatian. Moreover, it reminds us of the equally rare word\n\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 in Acts iv. 34.\n\nOn the occurrence of the passage in Tatian, see Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 85,\n179. On the questions connected with its interpolation see Chase and p.\n216 above.\n\nxxii. 23. We have in this verse an illustration of the difference caused\nby the insertion or omission of the article. If we read \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 with\n\u05d0^c E F G etc., then the words introduce the creed of the Sadducees\n(\u201cwho say,\u201d Weizs\u00e4cker: \u201cmembers of that sect who deny the\nresurrection,\u201d Stage); if we omit \u03bf\u1f31 with \u05d0* B D and Syr^{sin}, we have\nthen what they actually said to Jesus. But as this would be the only\nplace where Matthew gave an explanation of this sort regarding Jewish\naffairs, the article should be omitted. See note _in loco_, _Expositor\u2019s\nGreek Testament_, and compare the margin of the Revised English Version.\n\nxxiii. 35. \u05d0^1 omits \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, which is replaced in the Gospels of\nthe Hebrews by \u201cfilium Joiadae.\u201d Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 308) refers to the\nview of Hug, adopted by Eichhorn and many others, that the author, or\nredactor, or translator of Matthew made this Zechariah, who is rightly\ncalled the son of Jehoiada in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the son of\nBarachiah in order to identify him with the Zechariah, son of Baruch,\nwho was murdered by the Zealots (Josephus, _Bell._, iv. 5. 4). He points\nout that this would involve a prediction on the part of Jesus, and that,\nmoreover, the scene of the murder is different in the two cases: that\nthe locality in Matt. points to 2 Chron. xxiv. 21, and that Matthew\u2019s\nmistake in calling him the son of Barachiah is due to a confusion with\nthe Zechariah mentioned in Isa. viii. 2, or that in Zech. i. 1. It\nshould be observed, however, that Lucian alone calls the murdered person\nin Chronicles by the name of Zechariah; the LXX calls him Azariah.\n\nxxv. 41. See on Luke xx. 35.\n\nxxvi. 73. \u1f49\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 was formerly attested by D alone, but has now the\nfurther support of Syr^{sin}. The clause \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 has\ncrept into a great number of manuscripts, including even A, in Mark xiv.\n70. There Tischendorf remarks, \u201cOmnino e Mt. fluxit,\u201d in which he is\nquite right. But he is wrong when he says \u201cipsum \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 glossatoris\nest.\u201d Because the glossator must then have been earlier than Tatian\n(Ciasca, p. 87), and the parent of all those manuscripts. The converse\nis the truth\u2014viz., that D alone preserves the original reading, and that\n\u03b4\u1fc6\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6 is the voice of the \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2.\n\nxxvii. 9. The name of the prophet, which was omitted in some\nmanuscripts, according to Augustine, is now omitted only by a b and the\ntwo minuscules 33 and 157. Augustine also observes that Matthew himself\nwould have noticed his mistake or had his attention called to it by\nothers. On this compare my notes on \u1f10\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 in Acts iii. 14, which I\nhave explained by supposing that the author read \u05db\u05d1\u05e8\u05ea\u05dd or \u05db\u05d1\u05d3\u05ea\u05dd instead\nof \u05db\u05e4\u05e8\u05ea\u05dd (_Philologica Sacra_, p. 40; above, p. 170). Origen, Eusebius,\nand Jerome evidently still found \u1f38\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 in all the manuscripts.\n\u0396\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 is supplied only by 22 and _Esaiam_ by 1. See on Matt. xiii.\n35, and compare _Expository Times_, November 1900, p. 62.\n\nxxvii. 16. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 294) points out that Origen also found\n_Jesus_ given as the prenomen of Barabbas \u201cin very ancient manuscripts,\u201d\nbut that in all probability Tatian did not have it, seeing that\nBar-Bahlul cites it expressly as the reading of the \u201cDistinct\u201d (_i.e._,\nnot harmonised) Gospel. Jerome says that in the Gospel of the Hebrews he\nwas called by a name meaning \u201cfilius magistri eorum,\u201d so that he must\nhave been thinking not of _Bar-\u2019abbam_ but of _Bar-rabbam_.\n\nxxvii. 49. See above, p. 227, and compare Burkitt, _Texts and Studies_,\nv. 5, p. xix.\n\nxxviii. 18. Compare Dan. vii. 14_b_ (LXX), \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b4\u03cc\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, and\nalso Dan. vii. 13 (= Matt. xxvi. 64), vii. 14 f. (= Matt. xxviii. 18).\nSee the _English Revised Version with marginal References_ (Oxford,\n1899).\n\nAccording to the subscriptions found in various minuscules, the Hebrew\nMatthew was translated into Greek \u201cby John,\u201d or \u201cby James,\u201d to which\nsome add \u201cthe Brother of the Lord,\u201d or \u201cby Bartholomew, the celebrated\nApostle (\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c6\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5), but as others say by John the Theologian, \u03bf\u1f33 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\u201d See Tischendorf, and Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 267.\n\n\n                                 Mark.\n\n\nAs if to enforce the desire to which I have given expression above (p.\n246), there has come into my hands Blass\u2019s _Textkritische Bemerkungen zu\nMarkus_. If the statements contained in the introductory remarks are\ncorrect, and scarcely any other view is possible in the circumstances\ndescribed, then the textual criticism of the first and second Gospels is\na hopeless matter. \u201cAn evangelist or teacher who obtained possession of\nthe originally anonymous Commentarius could not feel bound to respect\nthe external form, but considered himself justified in correcting it if\nit seemed to him to be defective, and even felt called to correct or\ncomplete its subject matter.\u201d Blass reminds us that we have whole\nclasses of documents, legends of saints _e.g._, which were treated with\nthe utmost possible freedom by the copyists, who in fact were in this\ncase editors and revisers. But he says that no one has treated Mark\nquite so drastically as all this. His summing up of the matter is, that\nthe critic can often do no more than recognise and admit the early\nmultiplicity, and that in such a case it were best to print the text in\nparallel columns. At the same time he is able to distinguish some of the\nvariants as later falsifications or corruptions. Universally trustworthy\nauthorities there are none; here one group is right, there another, and\nwe no sooner give them credence than they mislead us with some fresh\nerror.\n\nWe are far removed, truly, from the confidence displayed by Tischendorf\nin the treatise he published shortly before his death in 1873 in answer\nto the question, \u201cHave we the genuine text of the Evangelical and\nApostolical writings?\u201d All the more urgently, therefore, do we need\nfresh studies in textual criticism, and their appearance in Germany is\nthe more gratifying on that account. The _Markus-Studien_ of Dr. H. P.\nChajes (Berlin, 1899), however, are quite beside the point. They are\npurely imaginary, having neither substance nor method.\n\ni. 1. On the title, see above; Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 220 ff., 235; Swete,\n_in loco_; and on this last, S. D. F. Salmond, in the _Critical Review_,\nApril 1899, 206 f.: \u201cWe do not see, however, why Professor Swete should\nregard the opening verses as probably not a part of the original work.\nOne might say the same of the whole paragraph with which the Gospel\nopens, or, for that matter, the whole chapter. The documentary evidence\nis substantially the same in each case, and the internal considerations\nare much too indeterminate.\u201d It may be pointed out, as remotely\nanalogous to this, that before Matt. i. 18 the margin of harl (Z in W-W)\ncontains a note in a hand of the ninth or tenth century to the effect,\n\u201cgenealogia hucusque: incipit evangelium secundum Matthaeum,\u201d while Y\nhas the words \u201cincipit evangelium secundum Matthaeum\u201d in the text, and\neight manuscripts begin verse 18 with capital or red letters. Compare\nScrivener, I. c. iii., on the divisions of the text in B and other\nmanuscripts.\n\nFor the way in which the opening sentences are to be construed,\nreference must be made to the commentaries. It may be said here,\nhowever, that parallels may be cited from the New Testament for each of\nthe three possible constructions. These are (1) \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 ..., \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 ...\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf; (2) \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 ... \u039a\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 ... \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. \u1f18\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf; (3) \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 ...\n\u039a\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 ... \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf. For (1) and (2) compare Luke iii. 1 ff., and\nfor (3) 1 Tim. i. 1 ff. Origen favours the first construction (_Contra\nCelsum_, ii. 4; vol. i. p. 131). As regards the text it need only be\nsaid that \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 is read before \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf (v. 4) by \u05d0^1, and that \u03b4\u1f72 is found\nafter it, not only in the Coptic, but also in Syr^{hier}.\n\ni. 2. Origen here read \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c and \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 (i. 131). But the former\nshould be omitted with B D etc., and the latter with all the good\nauthorities. It follows that Matt. xi. 10 is not taken from Mark i. 2\n(Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 316, 332). One can see how important the so-called\n\u201clower\u201d criticism may be for the \u201chigher.\u201d\n\ni. 11; ix. 7. See on \u201cPunctuation\u201d above, p. 52.\n\ni. 29. \u201cB here has \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, and D b c e q Pesh. have substantially\nthe same. This is not an improvement, because it excludes Peter and\nAndrew. The reading of Syr^{sin} is peculiar, \u2018and He went out of the\nsynagogue and came into the house of Simon Cephas (Andrew and James and\nJohn were with him), and the mother-in-law etc.\u2019\u201d See Zahn, _Einl._, ii.\n252, and below on ix. 14.\n\ni. 41. The remarkable \u201cWestern reading\u201d \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 is dismissed by Swete\nwith a reference to W-H, who call it \u201ca singular reading, perhaps\nsuggested by v. 43 (\u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2), perhaps derived from an extraneous\nsource.\u201d In my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 26, I have expressed the opinion\nthat it is impossible to suppose a copyist altered \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 to\n\u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2, even though \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 does follow two verses further\ndown.[271] Either \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae, \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 has another meaning in Biblical\nGreek, which is quite possible, or we have here an instance of a\ndifference in translation. The confusion of the gutturals, _e.g._, is\nvery common. Compare Ps. xii. 6, \u05d9\u05e4\u05d9\u05d7, Gr. \u05d9\u05e4\u05d9\u05e2; Ps. xiv. 6, \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9 = liii.\n6, \u05d7\u05e0\u05da; \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05d7 in Isa. xxxix. 2 for \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e2 in 2 Kings xx. 13; Ps. xxii.\n25, \u05e2\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea, where Gr. has \u03b4\u03ad\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 = \u05ea\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea; Ps. xcvii. 11, \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2, Gr.\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd = \u05d6\u05e8\u05d7; and especially Mark ix. 19 in the recently-published\nEvangeliarium Hierosolymitanum of Lewis-Gibson, where Cod. B has \u05de\u05e8\u05d7\u05d9\u05ea\nfor \u05de\u05e8\u05e2\u05ea found in A B. Compare also \u05d7\u05d3, Matt. vii. 11 (p. 68), and \u05e2\u05d3\n(p. 135). A glance at the _Thesaurus Syriacus_ 3953 shows that \u05e8\u05e2\u05dd is\nused, not only for \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u1fb6\u03bd, but also for \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, and\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, while \u05d0\u05ea\u05e8\u05e2\u05dd stands for \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, and\n\u03b3\u03bf\u03b3\u03b3\u03cd\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. Payne-Smith gives no instance of \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. The usual Syriac\nword for it even in Syr^{sin} and Syr^{hier} is \u05e8\u05e0\u05d6 or \u05d0\u05ea\u05d7\u05de\u05ea; both verbs\nare found together in 1 Macc. vi. 59 for the simple \u1f60\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd (\u05d0\u05ea\u05d7\u05de\u05ea\u05d5\n\u05d5\u05e8\u05d2\u05d6\u05d5). It is worth noting that in Col. iii. 13, \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03bd is read by F G,\nwhere D* has \u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd, and the other authorities \u03bc\u03bf\u03bc\u03c6\u03ae\u03bd.\n\nOn the reading in Mark i. 41, see Harris, _Fragments etc._ (1895), p. 6.\nHe shows that Ephraem had \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 in his text alongside of\n\u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2. The Arabic Diatessaron, in which the pericope does not\ncome till \u00a7 22, follows the usual text, and so, too, does Syr^{sin}.\n\nii. 14. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 263) holds that \u201cLevi son of Alphaeus\u201d is the\noriginal reading here and not \u201cJames,\u201d and that it was taken from Mark\ninto the Gospel of Peter. The reading \u201cJacobum\u201d was also taken into the\nfirst hand of the Vulgate manuscript G from D 13, 69, 124, a b c d e\nff_{2} r. In Koetschau\u2019s new edition of Origen, the name is no longer\nspelt \u039b\u03b5\u03b2\u03ae\u03c2 but \u039b\u03b5\u03c5\u03ae\u03c2 (i. 113, 19; Cod. P: \u039b\u03b5\u03c5\u03af\u03c2).\n\niii. 17. Our expositors might tell us where Luther got his \u201cBnehargem,\u201d\nwhich is retained in the German Revised Version. On Daniel ii. 7 Jerome\nhas \u201cBenereem.\u201d I have looked in vain in Lyra, Pole\u2019s _Synopsis_, Calov,\nand Wolf.\n\niii. 31. We have here to choose between \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (\u05d0 B C L etc.),\n\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (D etc.), and \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (A): \u0394 leaves a space. I am inclined\nto think that \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 is the original reading, which was improved by\nthe substitution of the more usual word \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, just as \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c9 was altered to \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in the Delphic Oracle in Herodotus i. 47.\nCompare a similar variation in Heb. xi. 13, where the original reading\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 (\u05d0* P) was thought to be improved by the substitution of\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (\u05d0^c D E K) or \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 (A). Here, too, A stands alone.\nWas it never copied?\n\nvi. 16. There is a discrepancy in the Eusebian Canons in this verse\nwhich has not been explained. Both Tischendorf and Wordsworth and White\nnumber this verse 58/2. But according to the table in _TiGr._, p. 152,\nW-W, p. 10, pericope 58 belongs to the _tenth_ Canon as being one that\nis peculiar to Mark. As a matter of fact it is not so, unless Eusebius\nmeant \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad at the beginning of the verse. It is remarkable that\nEusebius did not make the whole of verses 14-20 one pericope of the\nsecond canon, but numbered 14, 15 as 57/2 and 17-20 as 59/2. He must\ntherefore have found something peculiar in verse 16 to make it 58.\n\nvi. 20. This passage is very instructive from a textual point of view.\nMost authorities read that \u201cHerod had put John in prison, heard him and\ndid much,\u201d or \u201cheard much of what he did,\u201d \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 (\u1f03)\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9. But in place of this last word \u05d0 B L and the Bohairic version\nalone read \u1f20\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9, \u201cwas much perplexed when he heard him.\u201d The great\nmajority of expositors decide at once in favour of the latter reading,\nsetting aside \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 as the _scriptio proclivior_. But in that case\nshould it not have been \u1f20\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf? In classical Greek it should\nundoubtedly, but in Biblical Greek we find \u1f20\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 in _Wisd._ xi. 5, 17,\nfor example, and what is specially worth noting, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 in the\nparallel passage Luke ix. 7, for which D, it is true, has \u1f20\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf. The\npassage may therefore be taken as showing that the correct reading has\nbeen preserved in a very few witnesses. Strict logic, moreover, would\nlead us to infer that not one of our 1300 manuscripts is derived from\nany one of these three, but that \u05d0 B L continued childless. Is that\nlikely? Field, it may be added, decides in favour of \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 (_Otium\nNorvicense_; see _Expository Times_, August 1899, p. 483), and so, too,\ndoes Burkitt (_Texts and Studies_, v. 5, p. xix). In Philo, i. 264, line\n8 (ed. Cohn), the manuscripts vary between \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u2014\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n\u2014\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, and \u2014\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nvii. 33. Codex W^d, published by Harris in facsimile (1896), here\nexhibits a very peculiar reading which Harnack (_ThLz._, 1891, p. 356)\nthinks has affinity with Tatian. It reads: \u1f14\u03c0\u03c4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f66\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c9\u03c6\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f25\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5. This gives us quite another view of the occurrence than most\nof the authorities do. It seems much more natural certainly to moisten\nthe fingers before putting them in the ears than before touching the\ntongue. It reads somewhat similarly in Syr^{sin}, which says that \u201che\nput his fingers and spat in his ears, and touched his tongue.\u201d[272] This\nmanuscript exhibits other noteworthy readings, which will be found most\nconveniently in Swete.\n\nix. 14. The singular, \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd ... \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd, has the support of D, while\nSyr^{sin} takes the side of the plural, \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 ... \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd. Zahn decides\nfor the latter. He explains the plural by saying that the original\nnarrator was evidently one of the three disciples who were with Jesus on\nthe Mount, in all probability Peter, as tradition has it. Peter, of\ncourse, in telling the story, used the first person and the plural\nnumber, \u201cWhen we came down from the mountain we saw, etc.\u201d Mark,\nreporting the words of Peter, turned the first person into the third,\nretaining the plural number. Zahn explains in the same way the somewhat\npeculiar expressions in Mark i. 29. Here Peter said, \u201c_we_ (_i.e._\nJesus, Andrew, and himself) came into _our_ house with James and John.\u201d\nIn reporting Peter\u2019s words Mark paraphrases \u201cwe\u201d and \u201cour,\u201d and says,\n\u201cthey came into the house of Simon and Andrew with James and John.\u201d See\nZahn, _Einl._, ii. 245 f.\n\nx. 30. Neither Tischendorf nor Swete observes that in addition to the\nreadings \u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03b3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd and \u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03b3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd the singular \u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03b3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 is exhibited by D. Has\nthe mysterious reading \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 in Clem. Alex. (_Quis Dives_) anything to\ndo with this? It is worth remarking that the Vienna Arabic manuscript\n(Lagarde: Storr) has a note after \u201cpost persecutionem\u201d to the effect\nthat this is the \u201cRoman\u201d reading.\n\nxiv. 51. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u05d0 B C L; \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, D; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, A E etc. This last is rejected by Zahn on the ground that the\ntext has evidently been accommodated to verse 47, under the false\nimpression that another of the disciples is referred to. It is adopted,\nhowever, by Tischendorf^8, and supported by Brandt, _Die Evangelische\nGeschichte_ etc., Leipzig, 1893, p. 23 ff.\n\nxiv. 65. \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd, \u05d0 A B and most authorities: \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, D G, 1, 13, 69,\n2^{pe}, al^{10}: \u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, H....: \u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, E M U etc. The simplest\nexplanation of this variety of readings is that \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd was first, and\nthat it was changed into the more common aorist \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd, which then\nbecame \u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd or \u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd. The converse is not so likely, viz. that\n\u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd or \u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd became first \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd and then \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, or that \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd\ngave rise directly both to \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd and \u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd or \u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd. On these and\nalso on internal grounds the reading of D G is to be preferred: \u201cthey\nbegan to spit upon him, and continued to buffet him.\u201d\n\nxv. 28. Syr^{sin} is now to be added to the authorities that omit the\ninterpolation. On the interesting names, Zoatham and Chammatha, Dysmas\nand Gestas, Titus and Dumachus (_i.e._ \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2), see Berger in the\nnotice of Wordsworth, and White\u2019s _Epilogus_ mentioned above, and also\nJ. R. Harris in the _Expositor_, March 1900, p. 162 ff., April, p. 304.\n\nxv. 34. It is extraordinary that no reference is made in Swete\u2019s edition\nto the very singular reading of Codex D, \u1f60\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 instead of\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2. In addition to the testimony of the Old Latin manuscripts c\n(exprobrasti me), i (me in opprobrium dedisti), k* (maledixisti: see\nBurkitt in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. p. 278), this\nreading is attested in Greek by Macarius Magnes. No explanation of it\nhas yet been given that is in all respects satisfactory. See _Expository\nTimes_, August 1898, and February, March, and April 1900.\n\nxvi. 9-20. The English Revisers had not the courage to omit the\nconclusion. They print it quite like the rest of the text, only they\nseparate it from the foregoing by a somewhat wider space than usual, and\ngive a note in the margin to the following effect\u2014viz. \u201cThe two oldest\nGreek manuscripts and some other authorities omit from verse 9 to the\nend. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.\u201d The\nGerman Revised Version has no remark to offer, which is easily accounted\nfor on the principles on which that version is made. The most careful\ndiscussion of the passage is now that of Swete, pp. xcvi-cv. See also\nZahn, _Einl._, ii. 227-235, 237, 240, and compare the Appendix in\nChase\u2019s _Old Syriac Element_, pp. 150-157, \u201cNote on Mark xvi. 9-20,\u201d and\nArthur Wright, _The Gospel according to St. Luke_, p. xv.\n\nThe subscription of several minuscules bears that Mark\u2019s Gospel was\nwritten at Rome ten years after the Ascension, and delivered to the\nbrethren there by Peter, the \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 of the Apostles. Others give\nEgypt as the place of origin. It is of more importance to observe that \u039b\n20, 262, 300 contain the note: \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.\nThis refers to the subscription to Matthew found in these manuscripts:\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f44\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd. A similar subscription occurs in 2^{pe}, a\nminuscule of considerable importance for Mark (473 in Scrivener; see\nabove, p. 151, n.).\n\n\n                                 Luke.\n\n\nApart altogether from the question how the numerous and decided\npeculiarities of Codex D are to be explained, we find a great many\nproblems connected with the text of Luke\u2019s Gospel.\n\nOn the supposed title see Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 383.\n\ni. 26. In place of the definite indication of time, Blass follows\ncertain Latin authorities, especially the Latin Iren\u00e6us, in giving: in\nipso (or, eodem) autem tempore, \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff7. Zahn points out\n(_Einl._, ii. 354) that this is the customary formula for the beginning\nof a pericope in the Lectionaries, and that while no doubt in the later\nGreek system the pericope of the Annunciation began with verse 24, 26 is\nthe more appropriate beginning. He adds that in any case the origin of\nthis formula is evident, and that Cod. D, which here parts company with\nthe Latin witnesses, gives other indications besides this of the\ninfluence of a pericope-system. See the Introduction to Scrivener\u2019s\nedition of the Codex, p. li.\n\ni. 46. On the reading _Elisabeth_, see above, p. 238.\n\ni. 63. The \u03b2 text inserted the words \u1f10\u03bb\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f21 \u03b3\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 before \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f10\u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, by way of explaining the astonishment of the people.\nZahn thinks this an absurd misplacement, seeing that the mention of\nZechariah\u2019s speaking does not come till the following verse, and the\npeople could not know that his tongue was loosed till they heard him\nspeak. Syr^{sin} accordingly corrects this by putting the mention of the\nastonishment after that of the speaking, in which it is followed by\nBlass.\n\nii. 4, 5. In the \u03b2 text Blass adopts the reading \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, and transposes\nthe clause \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u0394\u03b1\u03c5\u03b5\u03af\u03b4 to the end of\nverse 5. This arrangement is also exhibited by D. Syr^{sin} reads\n\u201cboth.\u201d One Old Latin manuscript has _essent_, but as it exhibits the\nclause in the usual place, Zahn thinks that _essent_ is manifestly a\nclerical error for _esset_. The Syriac, he points out, is derived from\nTatian. See _Einl._, ii. 355; _Forsch._, i. 118; _GK._, ii. 561; Vetter,\n_Der dritte Korintherbrief_ (1894), 25.\n\nii. 7. One Latin manuscript (e) has _obvolverunt_ and _collocaverunt_,\nwhich may be compared with _essent_ in verse 4. Zahn thinks that the\nplural here is due to the reflection that the mother does not usually\nherself attend to a new-born infant.\n\nii. 14. How does the Christmas song of the angels run exactly? Is it \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, or \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8. \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1? The question belongs more to\nexegesis than textual criticism. The whole matter turns upon a single\nletter, but it divides Western Christendom in two parts. The Latin\nChurch reads it as in _hominibus bonae voluntatis_, \u201camong men of\ngoodwill,\u201d or, as modern critics understand it, \u201camong men of God\u2019s good\npleasure.\u201d The second reading makes it \u201cgoodwill to men.\u201d Which should\nit be? The former reading, the genitive, is supported by \u05d0* A B* D, the\nLatin, and the Gothic, whereas nearly all the other witnesses, including\nthe Bohairic, the three Syriac, and A itself in the Hymns at the end of\nthe Old Testament Psalter, have the nominative. One thing seems to me\ndecisive in favour of the nominative. Scarcely any part of the New\nTestament is so steeped in the Hebrew spirit as the first two chapters\nof Luke\u2019s Gospel. As Field points out in the third part of his _Otium\nNorvicense_, the Greek \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 corresponds to the Hebrew expression\n\u201cson of Adam,\u201d which cannot take another genitive after it\u2014\u201csons of Adam\nof goodwill.\u201d On the other hand, the word _goodwill_ in Hebrew is always\nfollowed by the preposition corresponding to the Greek \u1f10\u03bd. So that, till\nwe have further testimony, I would retain the nominative and the\ntripartite division, notwithstanding the authority of Tischendorf,\nWestcott and Hort, Weizs\u00e4cker, Stage, and Blass, who, by the way,\nmentions no variants in the \u03b2 text.\n\nii. 40. D here reads \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 in place of \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc. The difference is\nslight, but not unimportant from a theological point of view. It is not\naccidental, as is shown by the corresponding change of \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 into \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 in\nch. iii. 22.\n\niii. 22. Zahn regards this as one of the passages wherein D and its\nassociates have preserved the original reading. They exhibit here \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c\n\u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5 in place of \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1. He says, moreover,\nthat \u201cthose who hold the former as original need not lament its\ndisappearance from tradition subsequent to the year 300\u201d (_Einl._, ii.\n240, 356). See Burkitt in Barnard\u2019s _Biblical Text of Clement_, pp.\nxiii. 38.\n\niii. 23 ff. May not the peculiar form of the genealogy in D be explained\nby the Diatessaron, which originally had no genealogy? The index of the\nLatin edition shows that there was none originally, but we find in the\ntext one compiled from Matt. i. 1-16, Luke iii. 34-37, Matt. i. 17. The\nfirst-known manuscript of the Arabic Diatessaron had Matt. i. 1-17 in \u00a7\n2, and Luke iii. 24-38 in \u00a7 9. The better manuscript, discovered later,\nhas no genealogy in the text, but it contains one compiled from Matt.\nand Luke, inserted between the close of the work and the subscription by\nway of appendix. See Zahn, _GK._, ii. 539; J. H. Hill, _Earliest Life of\nChrist_ etc., p. 3 f.\n\niii. 27. The correct explanation of \u1fec\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac is that given by Plummer in his\n_Commentary_ on Luke, and quoted by Bacon in Hastings\u2019 _Dictionary of\nthe Bible_, ii. 140. \u201cRhesa, who appears in Luke, but neither in Matt.\nnor in 1 Chron., is probably not a name at all, but a title which some\nJewish copyist mistook for a name. Zerubbabel Rhesa or Zerubbabel the\nPrince (\u05e8\u05b5\u05d0\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d0) has been made into \u2018Zerubbabel (begat) Rhesa.\u2019\u201d The\ninterpretation of Rhesa as \u201cprince\u201d is, however, not new. See Pole\u2019s\n_Synopsis_: it was not safe to use the proper name Zerubbabel in\nBabylon, seeing that it meant \u201cventilatio Babelis,\u201d and the name\nSheshbazzar was therefore substituted for it. Sic filii eius Meshullam\net Hanania, quia vix ibi tuto aut proprie dici potuerunt Abiud, _i.e._\npatris mei est gloria, et Rhesa princeps (Lightfoot, _Horae Hebraicae_).\nReuchlin (_Rudimenta_, p. 18) gives the explanation \u05e8\u05b6\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e2 (_sic_) qui\ncognominatur Mesollam. This interpretation, however, lends no real\nsupport to Sellin\u2019s theory.\n\niv. 34. The exclamation \u1f14\u03b1, which Zahn (_GK._, i. 682) says is unknown\nin the New Testament, is omitted by D, eleven Old Latin manuscripts, and\nalso by Marcion. It is supported by a considerable number of witnesses\nin Mark i. 24. According to Zahn, these witnesses took it from Luke, but\nof this I am by no means certain. Syr^{sin} omits it in both places. In\nLuke it is also omitted by four manuscripts of the Vulgate mentioned by\nWordsworth and White.\n\niv. 34. Marcion invariably omits \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03ad. There is, however, no other\nauthority for its omission. See Zahn, _GK._, i. 685; ii. 456.\n\niv. 44. \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 is the better attested reading, and on account of the\nimprobability of its being invented, should be regarded as the original.\nSee Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 373.\n\nv. 5. \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1 in the New Testament is peculiar to Luke. In place of it\nD has \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5 here, and \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5 in viii. 24. It retains \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1,\nhowever, in viii. 45, ix. 33, ix. 49, and xvii. 13.\n\nv. 14. The long interpolation at the end of the verse found in D d is\nderived from Mark i. 45 and ii. 1, though there are slight differences.\nIt is introduced here for harmonistic reasons. Was it taken from Tatian?\n\nv. 27. After the name of Levi, D inserts \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03bb\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, which,\naccording to Zahn, is not original. See _Einl._, ii. 263.\n\nv. 39. Marcion agrees with D in the omission of this verse. Syr^{sin}\nand Syr^{cu} are, unfortunately, both defective here. To the authorities\nfor its omission should be added r, which Weiss does not mention. On the\nreasons for the omission of the verse, see Zahn, _GK._, i. 681.\n\nvi. 5. Zahn is of opinion that the narrative of the man working on the\nSabbath is taken from the same source as Mark xvi. 9 ff., and the\npericope adulter\u00e6, John vii. 53-viii. 11\u2014viz. from Papias, and that it\nmay be historically true. See his _Einleitung_, ii. 355. Westcott and\nHort insert it among their \u201cNoteworthy Rejected Readings,\u201d and Resch\nputs it among the \u201cLogia Jesu.\u201d The Sinai-Syriac is defective here. For\na long time it was thought that D and Stephen\u2019s \u03b2 were different\nmanuscripts, and they are here cited by Mill as \u201cduo codices\nvetustissimi.\u201d This was shown to be a mistake by Bengel. Grotius also\nspeaks of \u201cnonnulli codices,\u201d and, according to Mill, thought the words\nwere \u201cadjecta ab aliquo Marcionita.\u201d The narrative seems to have\nremained quite unknown during the thousand years that elapsed between\nits relation by D and its publication by Stephen in 1550. According to\nScrivener\u2019s edition of Codex Bezae, p. 435, none of the ten or twelve\nlater hands that worked upon the manuscript down to the twelfth century\nand even later, seem to have touched the page on which this narrative\nstands (205_b_). It would seem, therefore, that no copy was ever made of\nthis manuscript either. How much would have been lost had it also\ndisappeared entirely?\n\nvi. 10. Whether \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7 is genuine or not is of no material\nconsequence so far as the exposition of the passage is concerned, but it\nis important in connection with the question of the relationship of Luke\nto the other Synoptics. The words are wanting in Mark iii. 5, but occur\nin Matt. xii. 13. See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 420.\n\nvi. 31. Zahn is not sure if Marcion\u2019s text contained the Golden Rule in\nthis passage in the negative form. _GK._, i. 680; ii. 462.\n\nvii. 27. Zahn thinks that \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 should perhaps be omitted here\n(_Einl._, ii. 316).\n\nviii. 43. The words \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03bd are omitted in B\nD. Zahn holds it to be an \u201cunworthy insinuation\u201d to suppose that Luke,\nbeing himself a physician, toned down the expressions used by Mark as\nreflecting on the credit of his profession. The words are more likely to\nbe a gloss from Mark. See _Einleitung_, ii. 437.\n\nix. 1. This verse is written three times over in codex \u039e. This cannot be\na mistake. It might have been written twice by inadvertence, but not\nthree times. The reason lies in the fact related\u2014viz., the conferring of\nthe power over evil spirits.\n\nix. 16. The reading \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 crept into the Vulgate\nmanuscript called G by Wordsworth and White from the Old Latin. It is\nnow attested also by Syr^{sin}. See Lewis, _Some Pages_, _in loco_. Zahn\nthinks it is deserving of special attention (_GK._, i. 682). In this he\nis quite right.\n\nix. 18. Marcion here had \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5. See Zahn, _GK._, i. 686.\n\nix. 52-56. \u201cIt is impossible to suppose that the shorter form of the\ntext is the original, and the longer due to a later interpolation, as\nthis would imply what is incredible\u2014viz., that one of Marcion\u2019s most\nantinomian readings found its way into a large number of Catholic\nmanuscripts (D, the Peshitto, Harklean Syriac, most Latin witnesses,\nChrysostom, etc.). The only probable explanation is that the Catholic\nwriters objected to 54_b_ and 55_b_ on account of the use made of them\nby the Marcionites, and the apparently Marcionitic character of their\ncontents. They were particularly offensive when taken together.\nAccordingly, some manuscripts like e and Syr^{cu} omitted only 54_b_,\nothers, like A C, only 55_b_, while others again, like B L Syr^{sin},\nboldly omitted both.... The words were written by Luke and not invented\nby Marcion.\u201d Zahn, _GK._, i. 681, ii. 468; _Einl._, ii. 357.\n\nx. 1. Instead of 70, B D, Tatian, the Syriac, and the Latin give 72.\nAccording to Zahn, the number has nothing to do with the Jewish\nenumeration of 70 Gentile nations, languages, or angels, nor the 70\nmembers of the Sanhedrim, the 70 translators of the Old Testament, or\nwith any other number 70. These 70 were not sent to the Gentiles, and\nLuke gives no hint of the allegorical significance of their number. Any\nsuch allegorizing was foreign both to himself and Theophilus, neither of\nwhom was a Jew. See _Einl._, ii. 392.\n\nxi. 2. On \u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03af in D, see my _Philologica Sacra_, pp.\n27-36.\n\nxi. 3. There is a certain amount of probability in Zahn\u2019s view that\nMarcion was led to insert \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 after \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 by thinking of John\nvi. 33 f., a passage which suggested itself to Origen also in this\nconnection. See Zahn (_GK._, i. 677, ii. 471), who thinks it probable\nthat Marcion interpreted the words in a spiritual sense (=\n_supersubstantialis_).\n\nxi. 53. The text of D here displays several marked variations, which,\nhowever, do not affect the sense of the passage. Zahn sees in them the\narbitrary alterations of a later time; but Weiss thinks that in some\nparticulars they may preserve the original.\n\nxii. 1. Marcion, seemingly, and Jerome omit \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, which is attested by\nmost of the Old Latin witnesses, with the exception of b. See Zahn,\n_GK._, i. 692, ii. 474.\n\nxii. 14. The words \u1f22 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd were omitted by Marcion (Zahn, _GK._, i.\n682). They are also wanting in the Sinai-Syriac (see Lewis, _Some\nPages_).\n\nxii. 38. The mention of the \u1f11\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 by Marcion and other\nauthorities is due, according to Zahn (_GK._, ii. 683; _Einl._, ii.\n356), to the \u201cmagisterial consideration\u201d that an orderly householder\nwould not come home from the festivities after midnight or in the early\nhours of the morning, but at the latest in the first watch of the night,\nwhich was still called the evening. The reading is also found in\nIren\u00e6us, but not in the Sinai-Syriac.\n\nxii. 51. \u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd (\u05d0\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05de\u05b5\u05d0) is found here in Syr^{sin} in place of \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n(D e Syr^{cu}), mittere (b l), \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 (usual text). This is interesting\nin view of Marcion. See Zahn, _GK._, i. 604, ii. 476. Tertullian seems\nto have been mistaken in thinking that \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd was read in place of\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd in this connection (machaeram quidem scriptum est. Sed\nMarcion emendat, quasi non et separatio opus sit machaerae).\n\nxiii. 8. See above, p. 193 ff. Chase cites this passage as an indication\nof the laxity of transcription of which D was guilty in introducing what\nappears to be a common agricultural phrase. In Columella (_De Re\nRustica_, xi. 3) we find \u201cconfecta bruma stercoratam terram inditam\ncophinis obserat.\u201d Chase also cites from the manuscript notes of Hort\nthe reference to Plutarch, _Vita Pompeii_, 48, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0392\u03cd\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5. Better than any words of\nmine are those of Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 346:\u2014No one with any\nperception of the difference between na\u00efve originality and a regularity\ndue to liturgical, dogmatic, and stylistic considerations can fail to\nassent to the following propositions\u2014viz., (1) as regards contents and\nform of expression \u03b2 (_i.e._ the text of D and its associates) has\npreserved much original matter, which from the very first was peculiarly\nliable to alteration, and which was set aside by the learned revisers\nfrom the end of the third century onwards (Lucian, Hesychius,\nPamphilus), etc.\n\nxvi. 12. While the common text with Syr^{sin} reads \u1f51\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, for which\nB L have \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, Marcion alone supports 157 e i l in reading \u1f10\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd. How\nis this to be explained? Compare above, p. 211, and Zahn, _GK._, i. 682.\n\nxvi. 19. Zahn denominates the introductory words found in D, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd, \u201ca liturgical gloss at the beginning of a\npericope.\u201d Blass, too, omits them from the \u03b2 text.\n\nxvi. 22, 23. \u05d0*, most Old Latin witnesses, and the Vulgate omit \u03ba\u03b1\u03af at\nthe beginning of verse 23, and read \u1f10\u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f85\u03b4\u1fc3. This conjunction of\nthe words is attested by Tatian and Marcion. The Sinai-Syriac\npresupposes the form \u201cwas buried. And being in Hades he lifted up his\neyes.\u201d Attention may be drawn to the detailed notice of the different\nreadings by Wordsworth and White. They say: Asyndeton in Johanne\ntolerabile, in Luca vix ferendum videtur.... Vix dubium est quin Lucas\nipse scripserit \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f85\u03b4\u1fc3, sed \u03ba\u03b1\u03af secundum in\nantiquissimis codicibus ut nunc in \u05d0* casu omissum, ex conjectura tribus\nmodis restitutum videtur, _sc._ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f85\u03b4\u1fc3, et \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f85\u03b4\u1fc3 et \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u1f85\u03b4\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76; quae lectiones omnes in codicibus Latinis referuntur, et\ntertiam ab Hieronymo ex traditione codicum suorum servatam magis quam ex\nratione praelatam credimus. See Zahn, _GK._, i. 682, ii. 480.\n\nxvii. 11. \u201cIn all likelihood \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, without the preposition, as given by\nD, is the original form. This was variously replaced by \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd (Ferrar\nGroup), which is not amiss, by \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 (A X, etc.), which is not so\ngood, and by \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd (\u05d0 B L), which is very bad.\u201d Zahn, _Einleitung_,\nii. 391. Compare, also (for \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd), J\u00fclicher, _Gleichnisreden Jesu_, ii.\n516.\n\nxvii. 21. Marcion inserts \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a before \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6, which Zahn holds to be\noriginal. Syr^{sin} reads \u201chere it is, or there it is,\u201d and therefore\napparently omits the first \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a as well. See Lewis, _Some Pages_.\nWordsworth and White omit Tischendorf\u2019s g^{1. 2} from the authorities\ngiven by him in support of the omission of the second _ecce_.\n\nxviii. 20. On the alterations made on the text here by the followers of\nMarcion, see Zahn, _GK._, i. 616, ii. 484.\n\nxviii. 25. The evidence in support of the readings \u03c4\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\nis very strong (\u05d0 B D L). The choice of the terms \u03c4\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 for \u03c4\u03c1\u03cd\u03c0\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 or\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac, and \u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7 for \u1fe5\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03c2, betrays the language of the physician.\nSee _The Expositor\u2019s Greek Testament_, _Acts of the Apostles_,\nIntroduction, pp. 9-11; Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 427 f., 435 f.\n\nxx. 35. With reference to this verse, Tertullian makes the following\ncharge against the Marcionites: Nacti enim scripturae textum ita in\nlegendo decurrerunt: \u201cquos autem dignatus est deus illius aevi\u201d; \u201cillius\naevi\u201d \u201cdeo\u201d adjungunt ... cum sic legi oporteat, \u201cquos autem dignatus\nest,\u201d ut facta hic distinctione post \u201cdeum\u201d ad sequentia pertineat\n\u201cillius aevi,\u201d etc. Zahn insists, as against Ritschl, Hilgenfeld, and\nVolkmar, that this requires not only the insertion of \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 after\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, but also the active voice instead of the passive, as\nthough the Marcionites had read \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. A similar change of construction\noccurs in Matt. xxv. 41, where it is quite certain that \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f21\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\nis a correction of the stronger expression \u1f43 \u1f21\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5,\nfound in D, 1, 22, ten Old Latin manuscripts, and the earliest Fathers.\n\nxxi. 30. The insertion of \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd may be but a trifling\naddition, intended to facilitate the sense (Zahn, _GK._, i. 682), at the\nsame time it is an interesting question how it comes to be in D, 157,\n572 (see above, p. 211). Wordsworth and White say that D here is \u201cex\nLatinis forsan correctus.\u201d Syr^{sin} agrees with Syr^{cu} in inserting\nthe words.\n\nxxii. 16. For \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7 D reads \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7. On this see my _Philologica\nSacra_, p. 38, where it is suggested that these two readings are due to\nthe confusion of \u05db\u05dc\u05d4 and \u05d0\u05db\u05dc. This occurs several times in the Old\nTestament\u2014_e.g._ 2 Chron. xxx. 22, where \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05d1\u05dc\u05d5 is represented in the\nLXX by \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. But even apart from the question of a Hebrew\nfoundation for the variant, I am inclined to regard \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7 as the\noriginal, and \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7 as the correction.\n\nxxii. 16-21. The narrative of the Last Supper is extant in three forms.\nThere is (1) the common text, (2) that exhibited by the two most\nimportant of the Old Latin witnesses (b, e), in which verse 16 is\nfollowed by 19_a_, after which come 17, 18, 21, so that 19_b_ and 20 are\nwanting altogether. The text of Syr^{sin} and Syr^{cu} resembles this.\nThere is further (3) the form exhibited by D and four Old Latins, which\nhas the same order as (1), but omits verses 19_b_, 20. Zahn decides in\nfavour of (2). See his _Einleitung_, ii. 357 ff. It is to be observed\nthat the last discovered Syriac omits the nominatival clause \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd after \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, which is the only member that\nseems to be derived, not from 1 Cor. xi. 24 f., but from Matthew and\nMark, and that does not agree in construction with the rest. This\nconfirms the supposition that these two verses are not part of the\noriginal text. See Westcott and Hort, _Notes on Select Readings_, p. 63\nf.; Plummer, _Commentary on St. Luke_ in the International Series (T. &\nT. Clark). Compare also the article by the latter in Hastings\u2019\n_Dictionary of the Bible_ (Lord\u2019s Supper).\n\nxxii. 36. On \u1f00\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 Basil the Great (d. 379) remarks: \u1f00\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u00b7\n\u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70_ \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 ... \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. At present D is quite alone in\nexhibiting the reading \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6, which is worth noting in view of \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\nabove.\n\nxxii. 43, 44. These verses, with their mention of the Bloody Sweat and\nthe Strengthening Angel, are omitted in A B R T, one Old Latin (f), the\nBohairic, Sahidic, and Armenian versions, and the Sinai-Syriac. On the\nother hand, they are read by the Curetonian Syriac and the Peshitto, by\nthe first and third hands of \u05d0 (the second hand enclosed them in\nbrackets and cancelled them by means of dots), by D, as also by most of\nthe Old Latin witnesses and the Vulgate. In the Greek Lectionaries they\nare omitted at the place where one would naturally expect them, but are\nfound in the text of Matthew xxvi., together with portions of John\nxiii., in the Liturgy for Holy Thursday. This explains their insertion\nafter Matt. xxvi. 39 in the Ferrar Group, at least in 13, 69, 124. The\nfirst of these, moreover, repeats the first two words of verse 43 (\u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7\n\u03b4\u1f72) in Luke, but no more. The necessary inference is that these verses\nare no part of the original text of Luke. They go back, however, to a\ntime when extra-canonical traditions from the Life and Passion of Jesus\nwere in circulation either orally or in writing. Zahn holds that D here\nhas preserved what Luke wrote.\n\nxxiii. 2. Zahn (_GK._, i. 668) expressly points out that Marcion did not\ninvent the additional words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2,\nbut found them in his exemplar. They occur in eight Old Latin and at\nleast five Vulgate manuscripts, among which are four of the early\ncodices collated by Wordsworth and White. One of them omits _et\nprophetas_, while some others have _nostram_ after _legem_. Weiss takes\nno notice of this addition, nor of the further addition in verse 5 of\nthe words \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1, supported by at least\ntwo Old Latin manuscripts, both of which add _non enim baptizantur sicut\net nos_, while one of them exhibits the still further extension _nec se\nmundant_. If the addition were really made by Marcion, it would be all\nthe more deserving of attention. The omission of the additional words in\nverse 2 is conceivably due to homoioteleuton, the eye of the scribe\npassing from \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 to \u03ba\u03c9\u03bb\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, In the case of verse 5, the mention\nof the women and children is quite consistent with what is said\nelsewhere in the narrative of the Passion, but the reference to baptism\nand purification is not so clear. Codex c has the singular _baptizatur_,\nbut this is merely a clerical error.\n\nxxiii. 34. The case of the First Word from the Cross is remarkable. This\nverse, containing the words, \u201cFather, forgive them, for they know not\nwhat they do,\u201d is bracketed in \u05d0 by an early corrector, and then\nrestored; it is omitted by B without being replaced; it is inserted in D\nby a hand not earlier than the ninth century, and omitted by two Old\nLatin manuscripts, by two Bohairic codices, by the Sahidic version, and\nby the newly-discovered Sinai-Syriac. Is it possible to suppose that a\nChristian would have cancelled these words in a Bible manuscript like \u05d0,\nunless he had valid reasons for doing so in the tradition of the Gospel\ntext? Zahn thinks they were omitted from D by mistake. On the Order of\nthe Seven Words see my note in the _Expository Times_ for June 1900, p.\n423 f.\n\nxxiii. 38. The notice of the three languages in which the Inscription on\nthe Cross was written is taken from the text of John, and is read by all\nthe Latin authorities with the single exception of codex Vercellensis\n(a). Syr^{sin} is now to be added to the witnesses supporting the\nomission of the clause. Its use of the word \u05d1\u05d8\u05e7\u05d0 reveals the ultimate\naffinity of this version with the Curetonian Syriac. The interpolation,\nas Zahn rightly asserts (_GK._, i. 675), points to the estimation in\nwhich John\u2019s Gospel was held at an early date. Its insertion in Luke is\nundoubtedly erroneous.\n\nxxiii. 43. The insertion of \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 in D, as well as the other\nvariants found in this manuscript, viz. \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, which is also read by D\nin Luke xxi. 7, and \u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, which is inserted by others in Luke viii.\n48, is attributed by Zahn (_Einleitung_, ii. 356) to some preacher who\nsought in this way to contrast the penitent thief with his comrade. With\nthe substantival expression \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, compare \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 exhibited by D\nin Matt. xx. 28. On the somewhat rare verb \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, compare the new\nedition of Origen, i. 5,8; also Clement Alex, (ed. Dindorf), i. 186,\n188.\n\nxxiii. 53. After \u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 U, with a few minuscules, reads \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, while three Vulgate\nmanuscripts have a similar addition _et inposito eo inposuit monumento\nlapidem magnum_. On the other hand D, with its Latin, reads \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n(_leg._ \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u1f43\u03bd \u03bc\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. The same thing is found in the Old Latin manuscript c, _et cum\npositus esset in monumento, posuerunt lapidem quem vix viginti\nvolvebant_. The Sahidic and T^i exhibit a similar expansion of the text.\nIn this addition, which Scrivener thought was \u201cconceived somewhat in the\nHomeric spirit,\u201d Harris detects a Latin hexameter which the scribe of\nCodex Bezae \u201cdeliberately incorporated into his text and then turned\ninto Greek.\u201d See his _Study of Codex Bezae_ in _Texts and Studies_, ii.\n1, 47-52. Chase, on the other hand, adduces Josephus, _Bell. Jud._, vi.\n5, 3 (_Syro-Latin Text_, p. 62 ff.). Compare my _Philologica Sacra_, pp.\n39, 58.\n\nxxiv. 6. The reading \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 (D, c, Marcion, etc.) in place of \u1f61\u03c2 is now\nattested also by the Sinai-Syriac.\n\nxxiv. 32. In place of \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 (\u03b1 text) and \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 (D), Blass\ninserts \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 in the \u03b2 text on the authority of the old Syriac\nversions, the Armenian, and the Sahidic. But in the Syriac this last\nreading is due to a transcriptional error of \u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05e8 for \u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05d3 (see Blass\nhimself, p. 120, and compare the variants \u05de\u05d5\u05e7\u05e8 and \u05de\u05d5\u05e7\u05d3 in Rahmani\u2019s\n_Testamentum D. N. Jesu Christi_, p. 112, 6); and as the Armenian is\nderived from the Syriac, the only question becomes whether the Sahidic\nreading is due to the same error. \u039a\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 in D, which has hitherto\nbaffled explanation, is shown to be a purely clerical error by\ncomparison with Heb. xii. 18, where also \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 becomes \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3\nin the Greek of D and in Pseudo-Athan. 57.\n\nxxiv. 34. For \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 D reads \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, which is simply a clerical\nerror arising easily from the influence of the Latin, which would be the\nsame in either case. For the conclusions drawn from this reading by\nResch, see his _Aussercanonische Paralleltexte_, iii. 779 f. Other\nexamples of the same mistake (\u2014\u03b5\u03c2 for \u2014\u03b1\u03c2) occur in Matt. xxii. 16; Acts\nvi. 11, xvi. 35; Rom. vi. 13. It is interesting to observe that Origen\nhad \u03a3\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1 (i. 184, ed. Koetschau).\n\nxxiv. 37. Zahn (_GK._, i. 681) rejects the supposition that the reading\n\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 for \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 was coined by Marcion and taken from a Marcionite\nBible into D. That he is right in doing so appears from Chase, who shows\nthat \u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 here is the same as \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd in Ignatius (_Ad\nSmyrnaeos_, iii. 2). See my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 25. The Semitic\nequivalent of \u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 as well as of \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d0\u05d3, \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d0\u05d3\u05b8\u05d0,[273]\nwhich is used in both the earlier Syriac versions, the Curetonian and\nthe Lewis, to represent \u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 in Matt. xiv. 26 and Mark vi. 49. I\nfind that \u05e9\u05d0\u05d3\u05d0 is used for \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 in the translation of Eusebius\n(_Eccles. Hist._, v. 16, ed. Wright-Maclean, p. 289).\n\nxxiv. 39. All the authorities agree in saying that Marcion omitted the\nwords \u03c8\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, while Tertullian and Epiphanius state\nthat he also omitted \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76. See Zahn, _GK._, ii. 495, who adds that\n\u201cthe longer clause\u2014_i.e._ \u03c8\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u2014is also omitted by D,\nit (with the exception of Colbertinus), vg, but not Syr^{cu}, as\nTischendorf wrongly states.\u201d This however is a misapprehension. The _om_\nin Tischendorf refers only to \u03bc\u03b5 after \u03c8\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5. This is omitted by\nSyr^{cu} as well as by D and also by Syr^{sin}. It would be more exact\nto say, however, that the \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 before \u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 is also omitted by Syr^{cu}.\nMoreover, Syr^{sin} agrees with Syr^{cu} in reading \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2\nafter \u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5.\n\nThe subscription of certain minuscules states that Luke\u2019s Gospel was\nwritten fifteen years after the Ascension. Some say \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd, others \u1f10v \u1fec\u03ce\u03bc\u1fc3, while one says very strangely, \u1f10v \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f08\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u0392\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u201cfor Theophilus, who became bishop after divine baptism.\u201d \u039b,\n262, 300 also contain here the notice of careful collation. The chapter\nenumeration in these manuscripts is not the same, being 342, 349, and\n345 respectively.\n\n\n                                 John.\n\n\nIn this Gospel the attention of textual critics was long confined to the\npassage vii. 53-viii. 11. They failed to observe that in other places\nthere are clauses and whole verses whose omission or interpolation has\nto be investigated in connection with vii. 53 ff., as, for example, iv.\n9, v. 3, 4, and that interesting questions of textual criticism are\nraised in other parts of the book as well.\n\nChapter xxi., which the last two verses of the preceding chapter clearly\nshow to be an Appendix, is equally well attested by all the authorities,\nwhile the omission of xx. 31 by the first hand of G is just one of those\nunaccountable phenomena which make their appearance so frequently in the\ndomain of textual criticism. The same thing is probably to be said of\nthe omission in \u05d0 of the last verse of chapter xxi. Tischendorf was of\nopinion that this last verse in \u05d0, together with the concluding ornament\nand subscription, was not by the same hand (A) as had written the Gospel\nof John, but by another (D) who had acted as corrector, and had written\npart of the Apocrypha and six leaves of the New Testament. Tregelles, on\nthe other hand, who examined the passage in Tischendorf\u2019s presence,\nthought the difference was due simply to the scribe having taken a fresh\ndip of the ink: that at all events the scribe who wrote the Gospel (A)\ndid not intend it to conclude with verse 24, otherwise he would have\nadded a concluding ornament and subscription as in the case of Matthew\nand Luke. The verse is found in all the other manuscripts and versions\nwith which we are acquainted, and the question with regard to \u05d0 is\ninteresting only from the fact that a few manuscripts do contain a\nscholium to the effect that the verse is an addition (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7) inserted\nin the margin (\u1f14\u03be\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd) by one of the scholars (\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd),[274] and afterwards incorporated in the text by another\nwithout the knowledge of the former (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (?) \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u1fb3\n\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd). This entire note, however,\nis evidently no more than an inference drawn from the contents of the\nverse, as the Syriac Commentary of Theodore shows. See further, Zahn,\n_Einleitung_, ii. 495, and the reference to the Commentary of Ishodad in\nSachau\u2019s _Verzeichnis der syrischen Handschriften in Berlin_, p. 307.\n\nWith respect to the pericope adulter\u00e6, on the other hand, we may be\nquite certain that it did not originally stand in the position it now\noccupies (vii. 53-viii. 11), nor indeed in John\u2019s Gospel at all,\nalthough the decision of the Holy Office of the 13th February 1897,\nwhich was confirmed by the Pope two days later, obliges Catholic\nexegetes to hold it as genuine. It is omitted in a great many\nmanuscripts and versions\u2014_e.g._ in \u05d0 B L T. A and C are defective here,\nbut the amount of space shows that they could not have contained it. It\nis omitted in the Syriac and Egyptian versions, in the Armenian and the\nGothic, in some Old Latin codices, and in the earliest of the Greek and\nLatin Fathers. On the other hand it is found in all the manuscripts of\nJerome and in Codex D, which is the only one of the earlier Greek\nmanuscripts to contain it. In some minuscules and later Armenian\nmanuscripts it stands at the end of the fourth Gospel, where now\nWestcott and Hort put it. In minuscule 225, written in the year 1192, it\nfollows vii. 36; in the Georgian version it comes after vii. 44; while\nin the Ferrar Group\u2014_i.e._ in minuscules 13, 69, 124, 346, 556\u2014it is\ninserted after Luke xxi. 38. Its insertion after vii. 36 is probably the\nresult of an accidental error. In the Greek Lectionaries the liturgy for\nWhitsunday begins at verse 37 and extends to verse 52, followed by viii.\n12, so that the pericope was, by mistake, inserted before instead of\nafter this lection. Its position in the Georgian version is the more\nremarkable, seeing that in the Old Latin Codex b, which contained the\npericope by the first hand, the entire passage from vii. 44-viii. 12 has\nbeen _erased_. As a probable explanation of its position in the Ferrar\nGroup after Luke xxi. 38, it has been suggested that the scribe inserted\nit there owing to the resemblance between Luke xxi. 37 and John viii. 1,\nand also between Luke xxi. 38 (\u1f64\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5) and John viii. 2 (\u1f44\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5).\nHarris thinks that its proper place is in John between chapters v. and\nvi., because reference is made in v. 45, 46 to the Mosaic Law, which is\nalso mentioned in viii. 5.\n\nBut the remarkable thing is that here again the text of D differs in a\nconspicuous manner from that of the other witnesses. In viii. 2 the\nwords \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 are wanting: in verse 4 we meet the\nsentence \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,\nwhich does not come till after verse 5 in the other text: for \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 D\nhas \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u1fb3: in verse 5 it reads, \u039c\u03c9\u03c5\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 _\u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd_ \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 _\u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd_, for which the other text has \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u039c\u03c9\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2\n_\u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf_ \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 _\u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9_: in verse 11, D has \u1f55\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\nwhere the other text has \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5. Now, if two persons got such an easy\nsentence as \u201cMoses in the Law commanded to stone such\u201d to translate from\nLatin, Hebrew, or any other language into Greek, one of them might quite\nwell use \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, and the other \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 and\n\u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. And so the question is suggested whether the two forms in\nwhich the text exists were not derived from different sources, that of\nD, _e.g._, from its Latin. But on closer examination the latter\nsupposition is seen to be impossible. For the Latin corresponding to\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 is \u201chaberent accusare eum,\u201d showing that the\nLatin translator read \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd in his original,[275] and for \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd he has \u201cuti omnes exire,\u201d where again the infinitive\nspeaks for the priority of the Greek. On the other hand, it is to be\nobserved that, according to Eusebius (_Eccles. Hist._, iii. c. 39, _sub\nfin._), Papias knew and recorded an incident \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\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 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f23\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9. So that the Gospel according to the Hebrews (_i.e._ the\nPalestinian Jewish Christians) contained a narrative similar to this, we\nmay say quite confidently, contained this narrative. From that Gospel it\nwas taken and inserted in some manuscripts after Luke xxi., in others\nafter John vii. By the time of Augustine it was so widely propagated in\nthe Latin that he thought it had been removed from certain manuscripts\nby people of weak faith, or rather by enemies of the true faith, \u201ccredo\nmetuentes peccandi immunitatem dari mulieribus suis.\u201d The pericope is no\npart of John\u2019s Gospel, though it belongs to the oldest stock of\nevangelic tradition. On the question whether it may not originally have\nstood between Mark xii. 17 and xii. 18, and so between Luke xx. 26 and\nxx. 27, see Holtzmann in the _ThLz._, 1898, col. 536 f. _Vide supra_, p.\n66.\n\ni. 5. Zahn raises the question what word Ephraem found in his copy of\nthe Diatessaron corresponding to \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5, seeing he gives _vicit_. In\nthis connection I might (with the proviso that the reading may be more\neasily explained from the Armenian) point out that the Syriac word \u05ea\u05e9\u05ea\u05dc\u05d8\ncorresponds to \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd in Sirach xxiii. 6. This stands elsewhere\nfor \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9, \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03b6\u03c9, \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9, \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9, \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff6. \u05db\u05d1\u05e9\u05c1 also\nfrequently represents the Greek \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. The Sinai-Syriac for John\ni. 5 is unfortunately lost.\n\ni. 13. The reading \u1f43\u03c2 ... \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 is, so far as is known at present,\nattested by Latin witnesses only, \u201cqui natus est.\u201d But as Zahn is\ncareful to point out (_Einl._, ii. 518), it did not originate on Latin\nsoil, for Justin presupposes it, and, moreover, Iren\u00e6us constantly\napplies the passage to the Incarnation, while the Valentinians, who had\nthe usual text, were accused by Tertullian of falsification. And it is\nnot proved that the two last-mentioned used anything but a Greek Bible.\n\ni. 17. According to early testimony, this verse, so frequently quoted\nsince the time of Ritschl, once ran: \u201cThe Law was given by Moses, but\n_its_ truth came by Jesus.\u201d See Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 121, 248.\n\ni. 18. Zahn agrees with Hort in holding that the originality of the\nreading \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 (without the article) is established. See\nWestcott and Hort, _Notes on Select Readings_; Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii.\n544, 557; Westcott, _Commentary on John_, _in loco_. It may be mentioned\nhere that Codex Monacensis of Origen\u2019s Commentary on the Gospel of John\nhas \u1f41/\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2/\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 with \u1f41 and \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 both written above the line in\na later hand. This gave rise in the Codex Regius to the reading \u1f41\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\n\ni. 28. Is it \u03b2\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac or \u03b2\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3? The former is exhibited by the\nSinai-Syriac, the Curetonian, and the margin of the Harklean, and the\nlatter by the other three Syriac, and the Arabic Diatessaron. With\nregard to the former, is it the case, as is supposed by many, that it is\ndue simply to a conjecture of Origen, and that Syr^{cu} and Syr^{sin}\ntook it from him? According to Zahn (_GK._, i. 406), Hilgenfeld pointed\nin this direction in the _ZfwTh._, 1883, 119. See also Lagrange,\n_Orig\u00e8ne, la critique textuelle et la tradition topographique_ (_Revue\nBiblique_, iv., 1895, pp. 501-524). Origen explains \u03b2\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 as \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c2, and the Syriac as \u201cplace of praise.\u201d Compare on this the\nmuch-discussed passage in the Gospel of Peter (\u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1f74 \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, c. xi.).\n\u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac, on the other hand, he interprets as \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u1fc6\u03c2, so that\nhe must either have spelt it Bethbara, \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0, as in Jud. vii. 24, or\ntaken it as Beth-ha-bara. It is spelt \u03b2\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac in Lagarde\u2019s _Onomastica\nSacra_, 240, 12, and Bethabara in 108, 6 (Bethbaara, Codex B). Jerome\n(see _Onomastica Sacra_) interpreted the name as \u201cdomus humilis (= ?)\nvel vesperae\u201d in Joshua xv. 6, as \u201cdomus multa vel gravis\u201d in xv. 59,\nand as \u1f00\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in xv. 61, following Symmachus. Luther had Betharaba,\nbut in three impressions of the New Testament and in three of the\nPostils he had Bethabara (according to Bindseil-Niemeyer), and in the\nmargin Bethbara, with a note in which reference is rightly made to Jud.\nvii. 24, \u201cut mysterium consonet.\u201d See my German or Greek-German New\nTestament. It may be asked if \u201cAinon\u201d in John iii. 23 has any connection\nwith Bethania. Compare \u05d1\u05b5\u05d9\u05ea \u05e2\u05b0\u05b7\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea in Jos. xv. 59. For \u1f10\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd e has\n_in eremo_ and f has _in deserto_. How is this to be explained? Compare\nZahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 561.\n\ni. 34. For \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u05d0*, Syr^{cu}, Syr^{sin}, and e read \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2. D is here\ndefective. Zahn thinks the latter reading is original, and the former an\nexample of an early and widely current alteration. Westcott and Hort\ninsert \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 among their _Noteworthy Rejected Readings_. The two\nreadings are combined in some manuscripts \u201celectus filius Dei.\u201d See\nZahn, _Einl._, ii. 515, 544, 557.\n\ni. 41. Zahn here decides for the nominative \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Both the disciples\nof John who attached themselves to Jesus found their brother, but Andrew\nwas the first to do so. See _Einleitung_, ii. 477 f.\n\nii. 2. In his Commentary on the Gospels, extant in the Armenian only, we\nfind Ephraem saying, \u201cGraecus scribit _recubuit et defecit vinum_\u201d (\u00a7\n53), which shows that he had a Greek exemplar before him containing the\nitacism \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03b7 for \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7. See Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 62, 127, and compare\nLuke xiv. 8, where Antiochus, _Homil._, iii., has \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u1fc7\u03c2 for \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc7\u03c2.\n\nii. 3. Zahn is perhaps right when he says that no critic need doubt for\na moment that the original reading is the longer, genuinely Semitic text\nexhibited by \u05d0*, the Harklean Syriac, and the best Latin manuscripts. D\nis defective, as also Syr^{cu} and Syr^{sin}.\n\niii. 5. \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd is attested only by \u05d0*, a few minuscules,\nby c m, and certain early Fathers, in place of \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, which\nhas now the support of the Sinai-Syriac. Zahn thinks the former reading\nto be correct (_Einleitung_, ii. 294). If that is so, this will be the\nonly place where the expression is found in the New Testament outside\nthe Gospel according to Matthew, where it occurs some thirty-three or\nthirty-four times. See note on \u201cThe Kingdom of Heaven\u201d in the\n_Expository Times_ for February 1896, p. 236 ff.\n\niii. 24. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 515) thinks that the omission of the article\nbefore \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd shows that there was some uncertainty regarding the fact\nmentioned by John. This, however, is open to question. That the\ninsertion or omission of the article may be of importance is shown by\nsuch examples as John v. 1; Matthew xxii. 23; Acts xvi. 6; James ii. 2.\n\niii. 34. Our knowledge of the text of the Sinai-Syriac here rests solely\non the last reading of Mrs. Lewis: \u201cNot according to his measure gave\n(or, gives) God the Father.\u201d This rendering, as well as the insertion of\n\u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in many Greek texts, is due to the fact that \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 was not taken\nas the subject of the sentence.\n\niv. 1. For \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 Tischendorf reads \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, which is probably\ncorrect. \u1f49 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 is elsewhere found only three times in John\u2014viz., vi.\n23, xi. 2, xx. 20. According to Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 391) the first two\npassages are explanations outside the Gospel narrative interjected by\nthe evangelist, while the words in the last passage are spoken from the\npoint of view of the disciples.\n\niv. 9. The words \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 were retained by\nLachmann and by Tischendorf in his seventh edition, because the only\nauthorities known at that time for their omission were D a b e. But when\nthe first hand of \u05d0 appeared in confirmation of the testimony of these\nwitnesses, the words were dropped by Tischendorf and bracketed by\nWestcott and Hort. Syr^{cu} and Syr^{sin} insert them, and perhaps\nTatian. Zahn is inclined to admit them. \u201cThe classic brevity of the\ninterjected explanation speaks for its genuineness.\u201d See his\n_Einleitung_, ii. 549.\n\nv. 1. \u1f21 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae is supported by \u05d0 C etc., and \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae by A B D etc. On the\nchronology, see Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 516.\n\nv. 3b, 4. After \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd D alone inserts \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, and then adds, with\nA^2 C^3 I \u0393 \u0394 \u039b \u03a0 (this last, however, with asterisks), the clause\n\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. The shorter text is given by \u05d0 A* B\nC* L. The whole of the fourth verse is omitted by \u05d0 B C* D, 33, 157,\n314. In this case D and A change sides. Within the limits of the verse\nthere are a great many variations, which show that it is a very early\naddition. Some of the words are hapax legomena, like \u03b4\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5, \u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03ae,\n\u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1. Zahn thinks the gloss may have been one of the \u201cexpositions\u201d of\nPapias. According to the Commentary of Ishodad, Theodore of Mopsuestia\ndid not consider this verse as part of the Gospel of John (Sachau,\n_Verzeichnis der syrischen Handschriften_, p. 308). See Zahn,\n_Einleitung_, ii. 557. Cyril says the incident occurred at Pentecost.\n\nv. 36. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 557) calls \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd a difficult reading, and one\nthat could not have been invented: \u201cI, as a Greater than John, have the\nwitness of God.\u201d\n\nvii. 8. \u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9 has taken the place of \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba in all the uncials except \u05d0 D K\nM P, a fact which reveals its antiquity. \u039f\u1f50\u03ba is retained also by\nSyr^{cu} and Syr^{sin}. The change was introduced to obviate the\ninconsistency between vii. 8 and vii. 10. Porphyry (apud Jerome, _Contra\nPelagium_, ii. 17) on the ground of \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba, accused Jesus of \u201cinconstantia\net mutatio,\u201d and Schopenhauer (_Grundprobleme der Ethik_, 2nd edition,\np. 225) cited this passage as justifying an occasional falsehood, saying\nthat \u201cJesus Christ himself on one occasion uttered an intentional\nuntruth.\u201d See Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 547.\n\nvii. 15. See _Addenda_, p. xvi.\n\nviii. 57. According to the authority cited in the _ThLz._, 1899, p. 176,\nthe first hand of Codex B is supposed to have written \u03b5\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5: \u201cthe\nfinal \u03b5 has been erased, and the \u03b5 preceding it changed into \u03b1.\u201d I have\nexamined the photograph of B in the Stuttgart Library, and can find no\ntrace of an \u03b5 ever having stood after \u03c3. The blank space of the size of\ntwo letters is meant to divide the sentences. It is the case, however,\nthough neither Tischendorf, Fabiani, nor the pamphlet of 1881 mentions\nit, that the first hand wrote \u03b5\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2, which was then made into \u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2\nby means of a stroke drawn through the \u03bf. The matter is not\ninsignificant in view of what is said in Westcott and Hort\u2019s _Notes on\nOrthography_, Appendix, p. 168. Burkitt supposes that \u03b5\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5 was the\nreading of the ancestor of \u05d0 B (_Texts and Studies_, vol. v. 5. p.\nix).[276]\n\nxii. 7. \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, without \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1, has the support of a comparatively large\nnumber of manuscripts. Peerlkamp and De Koe read \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03af ... \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd;\nZahn (_Einl._, ii. 518) has no doubt that the correct reading is \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 ...\n\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3, and that it was replaced by \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5v (without \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1) on the\nground that this Mary was not among the women who came to the sepulchre\nto anoint the body of Jesus. He says that the true text presupposes that\nMary would like to use the remainder of the ointment to anoint the body\nof Jesus after his death, and that the words of Jesus were intended to\nprevent Mary and the disciples afterwards following the suggestion of\nJudas.\n\nxiii. 2. The change of a single letter here is important from a\nharmonistic point of view. \u05d0* B L read \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, _i.e._,\n\u201cduring supper,\u201d but \u05d0^c A D have \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, which means \u201cafter\nsupper.\u201d Compare Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 520.\n\nxiii. 34. On the form in which this saying was cited by the Marcionites,\nsee Zahn, _GK._ i. 678.\n\nxviii. 12 ff. The Sinai-Syriac, probably following Tatian, gives the\nfollowing arrangement of the verses\u2014viz., 12, 13, 24, 14, 15, 19-23,\n16-18, 25-28. On this see Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 521. Spitta would arrange\nthe verses, 12, 13, 19-23, 24, 14, 15-18, 25_b_, 27, 28. See Zahn,\n_Einl._, ii. 558. It does sometimes happen that a leaf of a manuscript\nis misplaced, but it is hard to account for such transpositions as\nthese. Compare the _Journal of Theological Studies_, October 1900, p.\n141 f.\n\nxix. 5. Though not properly connected with the criticism of the text,\nthe question may be asked here, by way of a contribution to a subject\nmuch discussed of late, whether the expression \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u1f41 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 may not\nbe connected with \u05d1\u05e8 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d0. Compare \u1f41 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 in\nMark ii. 27, 28. In this passage of John, B omits the article before\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, reading \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 simply. See the _Expository Times_,\nNovember 1899, p. 62 ff., \u201cThe Name Son of Man and the Messianic\nConsciousness of Jesus,\u201d where Schmiedel\u2019s article with the same title\nin the _Protestantische Monatshefte_ is noticed.\n\nxix. 37. The quotation, according to Zahn, is made from the Hebrew. The\nLXX has \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u2019 \u1f67\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf. The later Greek\nversions all seem to have kept the first three words as in the LXX but\nto have variously corrected the second clause, for which Aquila gives\n\u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u1fa7 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, Theodotion \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f43\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, Symmachus \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. Compare with this Apoc. i. 7, \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd;\nBarnabas vii. 9, \u1f44\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd ... \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2; Justin, Dial. 32,\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f43\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5. It has accordingly been supposed that\nJohn in the Gospel and Apocalypse followed some unknown Greek version\nwhich exhibited the characteristic forms \u1f44\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (found only in John and\nBarnabas) and \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f43\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd (given by John, Justin, Theodotion, and\npartly by Aquila). But this supposition is simply a proof of\nunwillingness to admit a palpable fact\u2014viz., that in the Gospel and\nApocalypse John gives an independent rendering of the original text of\nZechariah xii. 10, and that Barnabas and Justin follow John. See Zahn,\n_Einleitung_, ii. 563.\n\nThe subscriptions state that the fourth Gospel was written thirty or\nthirty-two years after the Ascension, at Ephesus, in the reign of Nero,\nor, as some say, of Domitian. It is also said to have been published by\nGaius, the host of the Apostles (\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u0393\u03ac\u03ca\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd).\nOthers say that it was dictated to Papias of Hierapolis the disciple of\nthe Apostle. On the alleged autograph (\u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd) preserved at Ephesus,\nsee above, p. 30.\n\n\n                                 ACTS.\n\n\nIt would unduly enlarge the extent of this work were I to go on\nmentioning all the passages in the Acts that are more or less striking\nfrom the textual point of view. This book has already been more\nfrequently referred to than the others. I would again refer the student\nto Zahn\u2019s _Introduction_. I agree with that writer in thinking it\nimpossible in many cases to suppose that a scholiast manufactured the\ntext we now find in Codex D with no other material before him save the\nusual text and his inkhorn. At the same time there is undoubtedly room\nfor much diversity of opinion with respect to many matters of detail. \u0399\nwould instance such a simple narrative as that of Acts iii. 1-5, and ask\nwhat reasonable ground a copyist could have had for altering \u1f43\u03c2 into\n\u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 into \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd into \u1f00\u03c4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd into\n\u1f00\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 or _vice versa_, or for omitting or inserting \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd or\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.[277] Such changes might, however, be introduced by an author who\nwrites a passage twice over. Without himself being fully conscious of\nhis reasons for doing so, he might substitute a final construction for a\nparticiple, introduce or remove an asyndeton, replace one word by its\nsynonym, and make all the striking linguistic changes which a comparison\nof the two texts reveals.\n\nTime will show whether I am right in my conjecture that \u1f10\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 in\niii. 14 is due to an error in translation. In illustration of the\ninterchange of \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6 and \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 in ii. 47, I have cited in _Philologica\nSacra_, p. 39, a number of instances of the confusion of \u05e2\u05dd or \u05e2\u05de\u05d0 with\n\u05e2\u05dc\u05dd or \u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d0, to which I would now add Daniel viii. 19, Sirach xlv. 7;\nxlvii. 4; Matt. i. 21 (in the Curetonian Syriac). Compare also Eusebius,\n_Eccles. Hist._, iv. 15, 26; _History of Mary_, ix. 17; xiv. 11 (ed.\nBudge). Whether the change in the passage in question is really to be\nexplained in this way, or by the supposition of an \u201canti-Judaic\ntendency,\u201d as Corssen prefers (_G\u00f6ttinger gelehrte Anzeigen_, 1896, vi.\n444), may be left an open question for the present. I would just point\nto one thing in favour of my view, and in answer to what Zahn says in\nhis _Einleitung_, ii. 423. He says there: \u201cLinguistic considerations are\nagainst the supposition that a pure Greek like Luke, the physician of\nAntioch, was able to read a Hebrew book. For a thousand Jews (Syrians\nand Copts) who were able at that time to read, write, and speak Greek,\nthere would be at most a single Greek possessed of a corresponding\nknowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic. And I confess that I have hitherto\nsought in vain for this rara avis.\u201d Quite true, but how do we know that\nthe physician of Antioch was a pure Greek? All the Prologues to the\nGospels unanimously call him \u201cnatione Syrus.\u201d I have pointed out in my\n_Philologica Sacra_, p. 13, what is very generally admitted, that in the\nNew Testament \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 denotes simply the \u201cheathen,\u201d whether they speak\nGreek or not.[278] The woman mentioned in Mark vii. 26 was a \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1f76\u03c2\n\u03a3\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf-\u03a6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, and in the same way Luke was a \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd of\nAntioch (Acts xi. 20), but \u03a3\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. He is one of the thousand who\ncould read, write, and speak Greek, though he was not above making such\na mistake in translation when using a Hebrew or Aramaic book as I think\nhe certainly does in Luke xi. 41, and as I am inclined to think he does\nin Acts iii. 14, till I find a better explanation of the reading\n\u1f10\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 than has yet been given.[279] I am glad to see from Zahn that\nmore than seventy years ago, in his dissertation entitled _De Codice\nCantabrigiensi_ (1827), p. 16, Schultz suggested that the text of D may\nperhaps be derived from a Syriac version. According to what I have said\nabove on Tatian, this view must certainly be admitted as possible, and I\nsee that it has been revived by Chase.\n\nA new solution of the textual problem in Acts has been suggested by Aug.\nPott (_Der abendl\u00e4ndische Text der Apostelgeschichte und die\nWir-Quelle_, Leipzig, 1900). He thinks that the original narrative drawn\nup by Luke existed as a separate work for some time after it had been\nworked up into our canonical Acts, and that notes were taken from the\nformer and inserted in the margin of the latter, and in this way came\ninto the text of Codex D and its associates. Against this, however,\nthere is the fact that similar problems emerge in the Gospel of Luke\nwhere this distinction cannot be made.\n\nFor the sake of brevity I append notes to a few passages only of Acts.\n\nBut at the outset I must express my surprise that Wendt, even in his\neighth edition of 1899, repeats the statement that the title of the book\nin D is \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd. Even without the assurance given by Blass in\nhis _Grammatik_, \u00a7 iii. 1, 2, it should be borne in mind that \u201c\u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\nstands equally for both \u03b4\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd and \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\u201d and that accordingly \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03c2\nmay be either \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 or \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03be\u03b9\u03c2. In the case before us it is the former.\nAs illustrations take the following from D in Acts:\u2014\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9, iii. 12, iv.\n7; \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, vi. 7; \u03b9\u03c2, iv. 30; \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, vii. 20; and conversely\n\u03b8\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7, vii. 11; \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, viii. 21; \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 and \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 side\nby side in ii. 22. Compare also Mark vi. 2; vi. 14; xiii. 25; Luke xxi.\n26; Acts viii. 13; (\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; \u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2; \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2). It\nis true that in every case in which the title is written out, which\noccurs only five times altogether, it is \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, but this is to be\nunderstood as plural, like _actus_ in the Latin. It came afterwards to\nbe used as singular in the Syriac (Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 370, 383, 388),\nbut that is nothing strange. We say \u201cthe Times _says_\u201d; and we have an\nanalogy in the use of the word _biblia_ in the Middle Ages when the\nneuter plural _biblia bibliorum_ became _biblia bibliae_ (singular\nfeminine).\n\ni. 23. It is a matter of commentary rather than of textual criticism,\nbut Wendt, in his eighth edition, asserts that nothing further is known\nof this Joseph surnamed Justus. Eusebius, on the authority of Papias,\nmentions \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u1fb6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (_Eccles. Hist._, iii. 39). The name of Aristion is\ninserted in the margin of this passage in Rufinus\u2019s Latin translation of\nEusebius. This marginal gloss acquires a peculiar importance from the\nfact that the name Ariston is inserted in the Etschmiadzin manuscript of\nthe Gospels over Mark xvi. 9-20, apparently ascribing these verses or\ntheir main contents to him. Compare Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 231, and see\nPlate IX.\n\niv. 6. On the reading \u1f38\u03c9\u03bd\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c2 in D for \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, see above, p. 243.\n\niv. 24, and v. 39. See Harris, _Two Important Glosses in the Codex\nBezae_, _Expositor_, November 1900, pp. 394-400.\n\nxi. 27, 28. In his treatise, \u201cOn the Original Text of Acts xi. 27, 28\u201d\n(_Berliner Sitz.-Berichte_, Heft 17), Harnack comes to the conclusion\nthat the Western text here cannot be the original.\n\nxv. 20, 21. On Harnack\u2019s examination of the Apostolic Decree, see Selbie\nin the _Expository Times_ for June 1899, p. 395. Harnack comes to the\nsame results as Zahn, but draws the opposite conclusion from them. See\nabove, p. 232 f.\n\nxvi. 6. The article is omitted before \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd by \u05d0 A B C D\nminuscules. For this Blass, on the authority of p, which reads \u201cGalatie\nregiones,\u201d substitutes \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 = \u201cvicos Galatiae.\u201d On this\nsee Zahn, _Einleitung_, i. 133. The omission of the article does not\nnecessitate taking \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd as an adjective (so Wendt^8); it might\nstill be rendered \u201cthrough Phrygia and Galatian territory.\u201d\n\nxvii. 27. In my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 42, I say that it was easier to\nchange \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd (\u03b2) into \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd (\u03b1) than _vice versa_. To this Wendt\nreplies in his eighth edition, p. 294, by saying, \u201cIn all probability\noffence was taken at the representation of God himself as an object of\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c8\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u1fb6\u03bd.\u201d Yes, there is a considerable difference between Hector\nalive and Hector dead, and of the latter it could be truly said\n(_Iliad_, xxii. 372 f.):\n\n                 \u1f6f\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7\n                 \u1f6a \u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f26 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c6\u03ac\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nBut the \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd of which Paul speaks on the Areopagus is most assuredly no\nmore and no less a _noli me tangere_ than the \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. Among the witnesses\nin support of \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd is Clement of Alexandria. I can only repeat what\nZahn says: \u201cWhoever is careful to bear in mind that our earliest\nmanuscripts are some two hundred years later than Marcion, Tatian, and\nIren\u00e6us, and has any sense of the difference between na\u00efve originality\nand a regularity due to liturgical, dogmatic, and stylistic\nconsiderations,\u201d cannot but judge differently with respect to \u03b2.\n\nxviii. 3. See my article, \u201cThe Handicraft of St. Paul,\u201d in the _American\nJournal of Biblical Literature_, xi. 2, 1892, on _lorarius_ as the\nSyriac rendering of \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 = \u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2,\nleather-cutter, and the notes in the _Expository Times_ for December\n1896, and January and March 1897. Chrysostom calls Paul \u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, and\nin the _Inventio Sanctae Crucis_, it is said, \u201cexercebat artem\nscaenographiam.\u201d This last word I have explained as a confusion with\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, as Professor Ramsay also does. In the _Compendious Syriac\nDictionary_ of J. Payne Smith (which must not be confounded with the\n_Thesaurus_ of her father), _lorarius_ is explained as \u201ca maker of rough\ncloth for tents or horse-cloths.\u201d But there is nothing said about tents\neven by the Syriac scholiasts. The correct meaning will be found in\nBrockelmann. Celsus (Origen, _Contra Celsum_, vi. 33) speaks of \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f22 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f22 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bd\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f22\n_\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2_, \u1f22 \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03be\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f22 \u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2. Paul is evidently referred to\nafter Judas Iscariot, but who are meant by \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03be\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2?\n\nxix. 6. I fail to understand how anyone can dismiss D here with the\nremark, \u201cOn account of Paul\u2019s express declaration as to the desirability\nof the gift of tongues being supplemented by that of interpretation (1\nCor. xiv. 5, 13, 27), this addition seemed to be required in this case\nwhere Paul communicated the gifts of the Spirit\u201d (Meyer-Wendt, eighth\nedition, p. 312).\n\nxx. 4. For \u0394\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 D* has \u0394\u03bf\u03c5\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 or \u0394\u03bf\u03c5\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, and g _doverius_.\nMoreover, D* has \u0392\u03b5\u03c1\u03c5\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, not \u0392\u03b5\u03c1\u03c5\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, as Tischendorf has it.\nValckenaer and Blass insert a comma after \u0393\u03ac\u03ca\u03bf\u03c2, and substitute \u03b4\u1f72 for\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 after \u0394\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, with the result that Gaius becomes a Thessalonian,\nand Timothy a Derbean. For this Zahn sees no necessity. See his\n_Einleitung_, i. 149.\n\nxxviii. 16. On \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2 (\u03b2) which Gigas renders _princeps\nperegrinorum_, see note on xxvii. 1, in Knowling\u2019s _Acts of the\nApostles_, _Expositor\u2019s Greek Testament_, vol. ii. p. 516; article\n\u201cJulius\u201d in Hastings\u2019 _Bible Dictionary_, Ramsay in the _Expositor_,\nNovember 1900; Zahn, _Einleitung_, i. 389 f. Wendt (eighth edition, p.\n420) omits the words in xxviii. 16, on the ground that their omission\neither by mistake or design is very unlikely, but their insertion, on\nthe other hand, quite intelligible. This only shows how little reliance\ncan be placed on subjective criticism.\n\nWe are not yet sufficiently well acquainted with the subscriptions of\nthe minuscules, but it may be cited here that in one of them Luke is\ncalled \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, and in another \u03b8\u03b5\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3.\n\n\n                           PAULINE EPISTLES.\n\n\nIn the arrangement of the books of the New Testament, it has become\ncustomary to follow the order adopted by Tischendorf and Westcott and\nHort, who place the Catholic Epistles before the Pauline. In the\nStuttgart edition of the New Testament, however, I have, in accordance\nwith earlier usage, put the Pauline Epistles after the Gospels and Acts.\nConsidering what is said by Hort himself in \u00a7 422 of his _Introduction_,\nand also what we find in No. 6 of Berger\u2019s List of the various\narrangements of the books of the New Testament (_Histoire de la\nVulgate_, p. 339 f.), it might have been more correct to have put Paul\nimmediately after the Gospels, as in Codex Sinaiticus. But seeing that\nthe Latin and German Bibles at present exhibit the order, Gospels, Acts,\nPauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and that Meyer\u2019s Commentary is also\narranged on this principle, I have retained this arrangement for the\nsake of uniformity.\n\nHere again I must refer the student for matters of detail to larger\nworks, especially to Zahn\u2019s _Einleitung_. A few of the more important\npassages will be considered in the sequel, but previously something may\nbe said here of the origin and circulation of the collective writings of\nPaul.\n\n1. Paul, accompanied by Silvanus and Timothy, came from Philippi to\nThessalonica on his second missionary journey, somewhere about the year\n54, though Harnack puts it as early as 49-50. There he gathered together\na church in the short space of three or four weeks, if we may credit the\naccount given in Acts xvii. 2 in this particular. At all events he was\nnot long there. Disturbances similar to those in Philippi arose, which\ncompelled him to leave the city. He came to Athens. In his anxiety over\nthe internal and external circumstances of the newly-founded church at\nThessalonica, he sent back Timothy from Athens to confirm those he had\nleft behind. When his messenger returned he wrote to the Thessalonian\nChurch, in all probability not from Athens but from Corinth, where he\nhad gone in the interval of Timothy\u2019s absence. This letter we know as\nthe First Epistle to the Thessalonians. It is uncertain whether the\napostle, as in most other cases, dictated the epistle, writing only the\nsalutation and concluding benediction with his own hand (compare 2\nThess. iii. 17: \u1f41 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc7\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9),[280] or whether he wrote it all himself in large\nletters, as he did in the case of the Epistle to the Galatians which he\nwrote \u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 (Gal. vi. 11), either on account of some\naffection of the eyes or because he was a craftsman and had little\npractice in writing. The epistle was intended for the entire church at\nThessalonica, of which Aristarchus, Secundus, and perhaps also Gaius\n(see above, on Acts xx. 4), are known to us by name. It was probably\naddressed to the oldest, or most prominent, or most active member of the\nChristian community. At the close of the epistle, the writer expressly\nadjures them to see that it is read by all the brethren. It would,\ntherefore, be read aloud at the next meeting of the congregation. There\nand then, some poor slave or aged woman would ask to have the letter for\nthe purpose of copying it. What became of the original we do not know.\nIn the very first copy that was made, mistakes and alterations would\nmake their appearance, and these would be multiplied with every fresh\ncopy.\n\n2. At the close of the Epistle to the Colossians (iv. 16), Paul asks\nthat when they have read it, they will see that it is also read in the\nChurch of Laodic\u00e6ans, and that they themselves read the epistle from\nLaodic\u00e6a (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2). From this it has generally been supposed\nthat an epistle of Paul to Laodic\u00e6a has been lost. An epistle with this\ntitle was restored at a very early date, in the second century. It is no\nlonger extant in Greek, but many Latin manuscripts and editions of the\nBible contain it, and it is also found in the pre-Lutheran German\nBibles. But the epistle from Laodic\u00e6a referred to by the Apostle may\nperhaps have been the circular letter which we now know as the Epistle\nto the Ephesians, and which may have been intended to go, among other\nplaces, to Laodic\u00e6a, and from there to Colossae. However that may be, we\nsee that at a very early date there were epistles of Paul to various\nplaces, and that copies of these might be made at each place, and still\nfurther distributed. A parallel case is that of the Koran, the different\nrecensions of which are distinguished according to the cities whence\nthey originated. Even at that time, therefore, the beginnings of a\ncollection of the Pauline Epistles might be made. By the time that the\nSecond Epistle of Peter was written, it was known that \u201cbrother Paul,\naccording to the wisdom given to him, had written many epistles, in\nwhich were some things hard to be understood\u201d (2 Peter iii. 15).\n\n3. When a great man dies, we have usually a collection of the letters he\nreceived in his lifetime, but not of those he himself wrote, and to\ncollect these last is frequently a matter of considerable difficulty. We\nhave therefore reason to congratulate ourselves that we have, within the\ncovers of the New Testament, epistles of Paul addressed to the most\ndiverse regions\u2014to Macedonia (1 and 2 Thess., Philippians), to Achaia (1\nand 2 Corinthians), to Asia Minor (Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians),\nand to Italy (Romans), not to speak of the so-called Pastoral or private\nEpistles\u2014epistles, moreover, the dates of which extend over a period of\nat least eight years.[281] It is, of course, evident that the appearance\nof an epistle in this collection is not in itself a guarantee of Pauline\nauthorship. But on the other hand, the collection must have been made at\na very early date, because we find, almost without exception, not only\nthe same number of Pauline epistles, but also the same order of their\narrangement. There is scarcely any evidence of the circulation of a\nparticular epistle by itself. True, the order now usually adopted, which\nhas been the prevailing order from the fourth century onwards and which\nseems, for the most part, to arrange the epistles according to their\nlength (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, and so on),\nis not the original. In the Muratorian Canon (so called from its\ndiscoverer), which is a very old catalogue of the books of the Bible,\nthe Epistles to the Corinthians stand at the head of the collection and\nthat to the Romans at the end. Tertullian had the same arrangement,\nwhile Marcion, for dogmatic reasons apparently, put Galatians first,\nthen 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans. The present condition of our Epistle\nto the Romans is also supposed to point to its former position at the\nend of Paul\u2019s epistles to the churches. In that epistle the concluding\ndoxology is found at different places, while many look upon chap. xvi.\n1-23 as a separate document, originally intended for Ephesus, which was\nattached to the entire collection at the end. Among other varieties of\narrangement it may be mentioned that Colossians frequently followed 2\nThessalonians. When and where the first collection took its rise, and by\nwhom the second arrangement was introduced, can no longer be determined\nwith certainty. Zahn thinks the first originated at Corinth about the\nyear 85, his reason being that it seems to be presupposed in the Epistle\nto the Corinthians written by Clement of Rome about the year 95. The\nsecond he would date from Alexandria, between 220 and 260. If we might\nsuppose that all our extant manuscripts are derived, not from separate\ncopies of the Epistles, but from a copy of the earliest collection, it\nwould serve to explain how it comes that certain corruptions have found\ntheir way into the text of all our manuscripts\u2014_e.g._ in Colossians ii.\n18. On the other hand, the variations at the end of Romans, _e.g._, are\nof such a sort that their origin seems to be anterior to the formation\nof the collection.\n\nIt is not so difficult to understand how it is that the Epistle to the\nHebrews, which, it is certain, was not written by Paul, varies so much\nwith regard to its position in the collection. In the Syriac Bible, and\nin the majority of later Greek manuscripts, it comes after all the\nPauline epistles, the reason being that the Syrian Church did not\nconsider it to be really of the number of these. (See Westcott, _Bible\nin the Church_, p. 233 f.). In the earlier Greek manuscripts, however,\nit occupies the tenth place, standing between the epistles of Paul to\nthe churches and the Pastoral Epistles. In the early Sahidic version,\nand in the Commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia, it is found between 2\nCorinthians and Galatians; in the parent manuscript of Codex B it stood\nbetween Galatians and Ephesians. In his _Histoire de la Vulgate_, p. 539\nf., Berger gives seventeen different ways in which the Pauline epistles\nare arranged in Latin Bibles\u2014viz., Col., Thess., 1 Tim.; Thess., Col., 1\nTim.; Phil., Laod., Col.; Col., Laod., Thess.; Col., Thess., Laod.;\nThess., Col., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Laod.; Thess., Col., Laod.; Phil., Laod.,\nHeb.; Heb., Laod.; Heb., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Phil.; Apoc., Laod.; Ephes.,\nCol.; Gal., Laod., Ephes.; Ephes., 1, 2, 3 Cor., Laod.; Phil., Thess., 1\nTim.; Apoc., 3 Cor.; Col., Phil.\n\n\n                                Romans.\n\n\nWith regard to the very name and introduction of the Epistle to the\nRomans, it is worth observing, that while the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1fec\u03ce\u03bc\u1fc3 are read in\nverses 7 and 15 by all our manuscripts, with the sole exception of G,\ntheir omission by Origen is attested by the critical work discovered by\nvon der Goltz on Mount Athos (_vide supra_, pp. 90, 190), which says\nthat Origen takes no notice of the words: \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9. The Latin commentary has them, and presupposes them in\nthe exposition. Our editions of Origen have hitherto given them once in\nthe Greek as well (iv. 287), but we must wait for the new edition before\nwe can say with certainty that this is correct. The matter is not devoid\nof importance. If the omission is original, then it is possible to think\nthat Romans, like Hebrews, was originally a circular letter; while on\nthe other hand, if the words are an integral part of the epistle, we may\nsuppose with von der Goltz that they were afterwards dropped when the\nepistle began to be read in church, so as to make it applicable to all\nChristians. See Jacques Simon, _Revue d\u2019Histoire et de Litt\u00e9rature\nreligieuses_, iv. 2 (1899), 177; Zahn, _Einleitung_, i. 278; _ThLbl._,\n1899, 179.\n\ni. 3. On the Syriac reading \u201cof the house of David,\u201d see Vetter, _Der\napokryphe dritte Korintherbrief_, 1894, p. 25, and my Note in the\nLectionary published in _Studia Sinaitica_, vi. (see above, p. 106).\n\ni. 13. For \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9 D* G Ambrosiaster read \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f34\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, which Zahn thinks\nsounds more natural, and quite likely to be replaced by the other\nexpression so common in Paul\u2019s epistles. _Einleitung_, i. 262.\n\ni. 15. For \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd D* reads \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, G \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, g _in vobis_.\n\ni. 16. Marcion was accused of having removed \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd or \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd from\nhis text. This, however, is not so (see Zahn, _GK._, i. 639; ii. 515).\nIt is also omitted in B G, showing, as Zahn thinks, that it was regarded\nas obnoxious at an early date (_Einleitung_, i. 263). Marcion did,\nhowever, drop the quotation from Habakkuk in the next verse.\n\nii. 16. Marcion in all probability wrote \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd without \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5,\nwhich is now omitted only by 37 d*. In the time of Origen and in the\ncenturies following, Marcion\u2019s disciples laid emphasis not on \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, but\non the fact that \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is in the singular number. They charged the\nChurch with having not one Gospel, but several. See Zahn, _Einleitung_,\nii. 171.\n\nv. 1. Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth all follow the mass\nof the uncials in reading \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, and I was therefore obliged to give\nthis as the text of my Stuttgart edition of the New Testament. For\nmyself, however, I hold with Scrivener and Weiss that \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd is\ncertainly the correct reading. The same mis-spelling occurs in several\nmanuscripts in John xix. 7, \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd. For the reason of it,\nsee Schmiedel\u2019s _Winer_, \u00a7 19. According to Zahn, \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd must be\nconsidered the right reading, and \u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03c7\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 (verse 2) taken also as\nsubjunctive. See his _Einleitung_, i. 264.\n\nv. 21. The words \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd were omitted by Erasmus, and,\ntherefore, also by Luther. This is not noticed by Tischendorf, nor by\nBaljon, who follows him.\n\nxi. 13. \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 is read by \u05d0 A B P, for which D G L have \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1. Zahn\nthinks it difficult to say which is right, but that the sense is much\nthe same in either case. _Einleitung_, i. 265 f.\n\nxiii. 3. The conjecture \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u1ff7 is thought by Hort to have a certain\namount of probability (_Notes on Select Readings_, _in loco_). Schmiedel\nalso thinks it deserving of consideration (_Winer_, \u00a7 19).\n\nxiv. 5. On the omission of \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 (B D G), see Zahn, _Einleitung_, i. 266.\n\nxiv. 23. =Conclusion of the Epistle.= The best discussion of the\nConclusion of the epistle will now be found in Zahn\u2019s _Einleitung_, vol.\ni. \u00a7 22, pp. 267-298, _Die Integrit\u00e4t des R\u00f6merbriefs_. Compare also\nRiggenbach, _Kritische Studien \u00fcber den Schluss des R\u00f6merbriefs_: two\ntreatises published in the _Neue Jahrb\u00fccher f\u00fcr deutsche Theologie_,\nErster Band, 1892. Bonn, 1892; _Die Adresse des 16. Kapitels des\nR\u00f6merbriefs_, pp. 498-525; _Die Textgeschichte der Doxologie, R\u00f6m. xvi.\n25-27 im Zusammenhang mit den \u00fcbrigen den Schluss des R\u00f6merbriefs\nbetreffenden textkritischen Fragen er\u00f6rtert_. Also, F. J. A. Hort,\n_Prolegomena to the Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians_, 1895;\nSanday and Headlam, _Commentary on Romans_.\n\nIn certain manuscripts prior to the time of Origen, the =Doxology= was\nfound between xiv. 23 and xv. 1. It now stands after xiv. 23 in A L P\nand about 200 minuscules, while at the same time the epistle is\ncertainly continued to xv. 13. Bengel alone has suggested a reason for\nthis. He supposes that the solemn words in xiv. 23, \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f43 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03ba\n\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd, were felt to form an unsatisfactory close to a\nchurch lection, and that the doxology was accordingly inserted here.\nMoreover, seeing that no part of xvi. 1-25 was included in any lection,\nthis would be an additional reason for attaching the doxology to the end\nof chapter xiv., as otherwise this grand passage might not be read at\nall. It must be confessed, however, that this explanation is not\naltogether satisfactory.\n\nIt is further to be observed that the =Benediction= is found sometimes\nafter xvi. 20, sometimes after xvi. 23, and sometimes in both places. In\nthe last case it is found under three conditions: (1) before the\ndoxology, (2) without it, (3) after it. With regard to the single\nBenediction, it is inserted after verse 20 in \u05d0 A B C, and after verse\n23 in D G. An explanation of these variations has frequently been sought\nin the supposition that chapter xvi. is part of an epistle addressed to\nEphesus, which has in some way been incorporated in the Epistle to the\nRomans. On this supposition the only question is whether the whole of\nchapter xvi. belongs to this Ephesian epistle or only the first twenty\nverses, while verses 21-23 belong to the original Epistle to the Romans.\nImprobable as this may appear at the first glance, it admits of an easy\nexplanation. It may be due to the fact that Romans once stood at the end\nof the collection of Pauline epistles. Or we may suppose that the\ncommendatory epistle for Ph\u0153be addressed to Ephesus and the Epistle to\nthe Romans were written at the same time, and that in sending them off,\nthe sheet containing the former by some mistake slipped in before the\nlast sheet of the Roman epistle. On this view, the first benediction in\nverse 20, \u1f21 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 ... \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, would belong to the Ephesian epistle,\nwhile the second, \u1f21 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 ... \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd to the Roman. The uncial\nL would then be right in retaining both, while D E F G will have omitted\nthe benediction the first time it occurred, and \u05d0 A B C the second time.\n\nAt the same time it cannot be disguised that there are difficulties in\nconnection with the close of chapter xv. Minuscule 48 omits the last\nverse (33). In verse 32, B reads simply \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u1fb7 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u03c9, while the\nother witnesses have \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd, and vary between \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd and\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c8\u03cd\u03be\u03c9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.[282] Zahn thinks that the original position of the\nDoxology is after xiv. 23 and nowhere else. Now the authority for\ninserting the Doxology there only is L and many minuscules, A P and a\nfew minuscules having it in both places. If Zahn is right, should not\nthe testimony of L be accepted in other places as well as this, or at\nleast have more deference paid to it than seems now to be the case. The\ntestimony for the omission of the Doxology there has recently been\nendorsed by that of the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, published in\n_Studia Sinaitica_, vi.\n\nxv., xvi. Zahn points out that we cannot consistently lay stress on the\nsupposed entire absence of these chapters in Marcion, unless we are\nprepared to maintain at the same time that the other passages which he\nfails to mention, such as Gal. iii. 6-9, 15-25, iv. 27-30; Romans i.\n19-ii. 1, iii. 31-iv. 25, ix. 1-33, x. 5-xi. 32; Coloss. i. 15_b_, 16,\nwere unknown to him, and only smuggled into the text afterwards by\nfalsifiers on the Catholic side. Zahn thinks it probable that Marcion\nstruck out the numerous personal references in chapter xvi. as being\nuseless and unedifying for the Church of his day.\n\nxv. 23, 24. Zahn holds that the later Antiochean reading \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 (\u05d0^c Euthal., etc.) is undoubtedly spurious, and the \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 as\ncertainly genuine (_Einleitung_, i. 267).\n\nxvi. 27. Zahn (_Einleitung_, i. 286) is inclined to regard \u1fa7 as the\ncorrect reading here for two reasons: (1) because the incompleteness of\nthe sentence made it liable to correction, and (2) because the\ncorrection is effected in very different ways. In some manuscripts \u1fa7 is\nchanged into \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 (P, Copt., 31, 54), in others it is omitted altogether\n(B F-lat. Syr.), while in others again \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 takes the place of \u1fa7 \u1f21 (55,\n43-scholion).\n\nSubscription: \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1fec\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 simply, \u05d0 A B C D; others, \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n\u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, to which some add \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; others, \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03a4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n\u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03af\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n\n                             1 Corinthians.\n\n\nAll the manuscripts in which the number of the epistle is indicated by a\nword and not by a numeral (\u03b1\u2019) call it \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7, never \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1. Origen,\nhowever, says \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 (ii. 347).\n\ni. 2. The words \u1f21\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 are read immediately after\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 by B D* G. This arrangement is adopted by Weiss, and supported by\nZahn as undoubtedly genuine (_Einleitung_, i. 210). Heinrici is inclined\nto regard it as a transcriptional error which was very apt to occur in\ncopying stichometric manuscripts. But were there stichometric\nmanuscripts antecedent to the time of Codex B?\n\niii. 22. Marcion seems to have dropped the name of Apollos here. Indeed,\nthere is no trace in Marcion of any of the passages where Paul mentions\nhis name. \u201cWhat was Apollos to the Church of the second century?\u201d (Zahn,\n_GK._ i. 649.)\n\nv. 2. For \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 Naber suggests \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5. This is not noticed by\nBaljon, who is elsewhere careful to mention the conjectural emendations\nproposed by his countrymen.\n\nvi. 20. It was doubtless owing to a transcriptional error that Marcion\nread \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 between \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 and \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd. But how it originated, whether\nfrom \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 = \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f74 or by dittography, it is hard to say.\n\nx. 9. In place of \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd we find \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd read by D G K L,\nMarcion, Iren\u00e6us (iv. 27, 3), Clement (_Ecl. Proph._, 49), and the early\nversions. See above, p. 152, and compare Zahn on the reading \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 for\n\u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in Jude 5 (_Einleitung_, ii. 88 f.).\n\nxiv. 19. For \u03bd\u03bf\u0390 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 Marcion read \u201cper legem\u201d \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, which was\narrived at partly by a transcriptional error and partly by conscious\nalteration. This could not have occurred, however, unless the original\nreading was \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, which is still found in a good many\nmanuscripts, and not \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bd\u03bf\u0390 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, the reading preferred by most of our\neditors. The latter is perhaps the result of an assimilation to the\nconstruction of \u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03c3\u1fc3.\n\nxiv. 31-34. These verses are variously punctuated by recent editors, the\nmain difference being with regard to the arrangement of the clause \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd. This clause is referred to verse 31 by\nWestcott and Hort, who place a comma after \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 and bracket the\nintervening words (32, 33_a_) as a parenthesis. Tischendorf and Weiss\nplace a period after \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, and link the \u1f61\u03c2 clause to what follows.\nThis arrangement Westcott and Hort indicate in their margin. For details\nand reasoning, see the Commentaries.\n\nxiv. 34, 35. These two verses follow verse 40 in D E F G 93,\nAmbrosiaster, and Sedulius. In Codex Fuldensis, verses 36-40 are found\nin the margin after verse 33, where they were inserted by Victor of\nCapua (see p. 122), who did not, however, remove them from their place\nfurther down. He must therefore have had before him a manuscript\nexhibiting this arrangement. We must suppose either that all these\nmanuscripts are ultimately derived from one and the same exemplar, in\nwhich this arrangement of the verses occurred, or, as Heinrici suggests,\nthat the original document itself gave occasion to this variety by\nhaving these verses written in its margin. Our modern editors are\nunanimous in following the usual order.\n\nxv. 38. Zahn has shown that in all likelihood the substitution of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\nfor the first \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 was due to certain followers of Marcion. See his\n_GK._ i. 615; also _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Kirchengeschichte_, ix. 198 ff.\n\nxv. 47. On Marcion\u2019s reading, \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6, see Zahn,\n_GK._ i. 638, who suggests that this may have been an early gloss that\nMarcion made use of, seeing that it is in the highest degree improbable\nthat the heretic and some of his most violent opponents should alter the\noriginal text in exactly the same way.\n\nxv. 55. Tertullian found \u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 in Marcion, and he therefore leaves it\nan open question whether the word signifies _victoria tua_ or _contentio\ntua_ (v. 10, p. 306). See Zahn, _GK._ i. 51.\n\nxvi. 22. On \u201cMaranatha,\u201d see Zahn (_Einleitung_, i. 215 ff.), who, while\nadmitting that no objection on the ground of language or grammar can be\nmade to reading the word as \u05de\u05e8\u05df \u05d0\u05ea\u05d0 = \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd (not \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\nor \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9), prefers with Hal\u00e9vy, Bickell, and N\u00f6ldeke, to take it as\n\u05de\u05e8\u05e0\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d0 = \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5 \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5, which corresponds to the Peshitto rendering of\nApoc. xxii. 20, \u05ea\u05d0 \u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05e2 (\u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6). See note by Schmiedel\nin the _Hand-Commentar_ on 1 Cor. xvi. 22, and the article by Thayer in\nHastings\u2019 _Dictionary of the Bible_, _sub voce_. Luther has \u201cMaharam\nMotha,\u201d but whence he derived this I do not know.\n\nSubscription: \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd (\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03a3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03a6\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03ca\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 (\u039a\u03bf\u03c5\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5; _al._ \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03a0\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03a3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2; _al._ \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n\n                             2 Corinthians.\n\n\ni. 12. Recent editors adopt the reading \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 on the authority of \u05d0*\nA B C K M P etc. Zahn, however (_Einleitung_, i. 243), prefers \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\nas given by \u05d0^c D E G etc. Meyer thinks that \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 was substituted\nfor \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 as being the more usual expression. Tischendorf is wrong in\nsaying: de suo add. syr^{sch} _et cum puritate_. The Syriac has \u05d1\u05e4\u05e9\u05d9\u05d8\u05d5\u05ea\u05d0\n\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d8\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d0\u2014_i.e._ \u1f10\u03bd \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3[283] \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9 [\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd.... vii. 2.\nZahn (_GK._ i. 650; ii. 515) thinks perhaps the whole section vii. 2-xi.\n1 was omitted by Marcion: \u201cLet us cleanse ourselves from defilement of\nthe flesh and blood ... for I espoused you as a pure virgin to one\nhusband, (even) Christ.\u201d\n\nSubscription: \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd (+ \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) + \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03a4\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (+\n\u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u1fb6.\n\n\n                               Galatians.\n\n\ni. 8. As illustrating how far the sharpest critic may be led astray by\nhis fondness for conjectural emendation, it may be mentioned here that\nHitzig (_Das Buch Hiob_, 1874, p. 199), suggested that \u0397 \u0391\u0305\u03a7\u0305\u03a3\u0305 formerly\noccupied the place of \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 in this verse, and that this means \u1f22\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2!\n\ni. 18. For \u039a\u03b7\u03c6\u1fb6\u03bd, as given in our critical editions, Zahn (_Einleitung_,\nii. 14) would read \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. He accounts for the remarkable transition\nfrom the name \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 in ii. 7, 8 to \u039a\u03b7\u03c6\u1fb6\u03c2 in ii. 9, 11, 14 very well by\nsaying that Paul in the latter verses is echoing the language used by\nthe Judaizers from Palestine, just as he does in speaking of the Three\nas \u03c3\u03c4\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9. Seeing that Paul persistently employs the name \u039a\u03b7\u03c6\u1fb6\u03c2 in 1\nCorinthians, a scribe might have introduced this name, with which he had\nbecome familiar, into Galatians i. 18 also, just as \u1f38\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 was\ncarried over from the Synoptics into most manuscripts of John\u2019s Gospel,\ndisplacing the title \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03c5\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5. The following table will show the\ndistribution of the Greek manuscripts in support of the readings \u039a\u03b7\u03c6\u1fb6\u03c2\nand \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 in Galatians:\u2014\n\n                    \u039a\u03b7\u03c6\u1fb6\u03c2.               \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n           i. 18,   \u05d0* A B 17, 67**, 71. \u05d0^c D E F G K L P.\n\n           ii. 7,   \u2014\u2014                   omnes.\n\n           ii. 8,   \u2014\u2014                   omnes.\n\n           ii. 9,   \u05d0 B C K L P etc.     D E F G (A omits).\n\n           ii. 11,  \u05d0 A B C H P.         D E F G K L.\n\n           ii. 14,  \u05d0 A B C 10, 17,      D E F G K L P.\n                    67**, 137.\n\nIt will be observed that in ii. 9 K L P take the side of \u05d0 (A) B, while\nin verse 11 P alone does so, and that D E F G are the only witnesses\nthat are consistent.\n\nii. 5. \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 is omitted by D*, by Tertullian, who ascribes the\nnegative to Marcion (_Adv. Marcionem_, v. 3), by certain manuscripts\nknown to Victorinus Afer, who says \u201cin plurimis codicibus et latinis et\ngraecis ista sententia est _Ad horam cessimus subjectioni_,\u201d and by the\nLatin translator of Iren\u00e6us (_Adv. Haereses_, iii. 13, 3). Ambrosiaster\ncalls attention to the discrepancy between the Greek and Latin\nmanuscripts: \u201cGraeci e contra dicunt _Nec ad horam cessimus_,\u201d and\nsimilarly Sedulius. Bengel remarked on the proneness of scribes to\ninsert or omit a negative: \u201cOmnino apud Latinos lubrica sub calamo est\n_non_ particula.... Saepe etiam in graecis aliisque \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba omissum.\u201d See\nHaussleiter, _Forschungen_, iv. 31 ff., who says that the subject is one\ndeserving of special treatment. Bengel refers to the exhaustive\ndiscussion \u201cde negationibus quae Pandectis Florentinis recte male\nadditae vel detractae sunt,\u201d but there might be a good deal said on\nthese theological _Sic et Non_ also.\n\nA single letter or little word more or less, and the sense of a passage\nis completely changed. Did Paul say that in his contention with the\nApostles he gave place \u201cfor an hour,\u201d or \u201c_not_ for an hour,\u201d \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, or \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, or \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd simply? In Gal. v. 8 is it \u1f21\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, or \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03ba? In 1 Cor. v. 6 is it \u201cyour\nglorying is good\u201d or \u201c_not_ good,\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd or \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd? In Rom. iv. 19,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd or \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd. In 2 Peter iii. 10, \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 or \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\n\u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, or are both these wrong? Compare, for example, the reading\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd in Matt. viii. 30, where almost all the Latin witnesses, and\nJerome too, read \u201c_non_ longe\u201d; and John vi. 64, where we have \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f74\n\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, and also \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (\u05d0 G). In this latter passage the\nreading \u201ccredentes\u201d was adopted in the Sixtine edition of the Vulgate,\nbut \u201c_non_ credentes\u201d in the Clementine; Wordsworth and White decide for\nthe latter against the Sixtine text. In John vii. 8, \u05d0 D R etc., read\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba, for which B and the majority of the witnesses have \u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9, but this\nis manifestly a correction. In John ix. 27 we have \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5, where a\nsolitary Greek manuscript (22), which, however, has the support of the\nVulgate and half the Old Latin witnesses, reads \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5: audistis. In\nRomans v. 14 we find both \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 and \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2. In\n1 Cor. iii. 7 A reads \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f41 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9, omitting the negative; in\nix. 8 we have both \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 and \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9; while in xiii. 5 B\nand Clement of Alexandria actually assert that \u201clove seeketh what is\n_not_ her own, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\u201d! Again, in 1 Cor. xv. 51 the position of\nthe negative fluctuates between the first and second member of the\nsentence, so that we have \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 and \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. Similarly, in\nCol. ii. 18 we find \u1f03 \u1f11\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd and \u1f03 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f11\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd; and in Apoc. iv. 11 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd and \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u2014_i.e._ \u201cthey were called out\nof nothingness into existence.\u201d\n\nIn Codex D seven cases of this variation occur in Acts alone\u2014viz. iv.\n20, v. 26, 28, vii. 25, xix. 40, xx. 20, 27. Compare, further, Matt.\nxii. 32, where in place of \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 B* reads \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. In Matt.\nxvii. 25 one Latin manuscript makes Peter say \u201cutique non\u201d in answer to\nthe question, \u201cDoth not your master pay tribute?\u201d We have in Matt. xxi.\n16, \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2; xxi. 32, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 and \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5;\nxxiv. 2, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 and \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5. In Mark viii. 14, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd and \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd;\nxiii. 19, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f74, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f74 and \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50. Luke xi. 48, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5: \u03bc\u1f74\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5; xxi. 21, \u1f10\u03ba\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd: \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. John ii. 12, \u03bf\u1f50\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2: \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2; xv. 19, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f72: \u1f26\u03c4\u03b5; xx. 8, \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd: \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd. Acts xxv. 6, \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2: \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. Rom. iv. 5, \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3:\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 (_Studia Sinaitica_, vi. p. lxvi); x. 3, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd:\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd (_ibid._). 1 Cor i. 19, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd: \u1f00\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd; iv. 6, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74:\n\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1; iv. 19, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd: \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd; vi. 5, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2: \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2; vi. 9,\n\u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd: \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (B* 93) and _vice versa_ in verse\n10. 2 Cor. v. 1, \u1f00\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2: \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (_non manufactam_).\nGal. iv. 14, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5: \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 (\u05d0*). Heb. x. 2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f02\u03bd: \u1f02\u03bd:\n\u03ba\u1f02\u03bd. 2 Pet. i. 12, \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9: \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9: \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9. 1 John v. 17, \u03bf\u1f50\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd: \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. Apoc. iii. 8, \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd: \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd.[284]\n\nii. 20. Tischendorf fails to mention that Marcion read \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n(redemit) in place of \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. The variant is of sufficient\nimportance to justify a reference to Zahn, _GK._ ii. 499. I cannot at\nthis moment recall any instance of a confusion between \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 and\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, though it is not an unlikely mistake to make. In Leviticus\nxxvii. 19, the first hand of B by mistake wrote \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 for \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nv. 9. Epiphanius accused Marcion of having altered \u03b6\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6 to \u03b4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6. See\nZahn, _GK._ i. 639; ii. 503. _Cf._ above, p. 76.\n\n\n                               Ephesians.\n\n\nTertullian says (_Adv. Marcionem_, v. 17): Ecclesiae quidem veritate\nepistulam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos, sed\nMarcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto\ndiligentissimus explorator. Nihil autem de titulis interest, cum ad\nomnes apostolus scripserit, dum ad quosdam.\n\niv. 19. For \u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b3\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 D here reads \u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. A glance at\n\u0391\u03a0\u0397\u039b\u0393\u0397\u039a\u039f\u03a4\u0395\u03f9 and \u0391\u03a0\u0397\u039b\u03a0\u0399\u039a\u039f\u03a4\u0395\u03f9 will show how easy it was to make such a\nmistake in the days of uncial script.\n\nv. 14. The reading \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c8\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 is attested by D*, some Latin\nmanuscripts, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. See above, p. 254.\n\nSubscription: \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1fec\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2: + \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03a4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n\n                              Philippians.\n\n\ni. 3. \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 is read by \u05d0 A B D^c E^2 K L P; and \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd by D* E* F G. Zahn defends the latter in the\n_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr kirchliche Wissenschaft_, 1885, p. 184, and in his\n_Einleitung_, i. 376 calls it the \u201cgenuine text.\u201d Haupt says (Meyer^7,\n1897, p. 3): The reading \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6, which is commonly ignored,\nis, it appears to me, rightly recommended by Zahn and Wohlenberg. But\nHaupt himself ignores the second half of the reading \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd (for\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5), which is far more important from a theological point of\nview, and is content merely to explain at length why Paul should thank\n_his_ God. Weiss, in his _Text-kritik der paulinischen Briefe_ (pp. 6,\n7), mentions \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c, but says nothing about \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd, or the change from \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd to \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5. But you cannot run with the hare and hunt with the\nhounds. If you accept \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6 you cannot reject \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.\nHaupt, moreover, thinks it is far-fetched to suppose with Zahn that \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c\n\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd contains an allusion to something the Philippians had said. But that\nis by no means the case, as we may learn from what Deissmann and Harris\ntell us of the epistolary style of those days (see _A Study in Letter\nWriting_, Expositor, September 1898, p. 161 ff.). But if the Western\ngroup preserves the correct text at the very outset of the epistle, what\nabout it further down?\n\ni. 7. For \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 Ambrosiaster has \u201cgaudii,\u201d so that he must have read\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2. J. Weiss proposes to read \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (_ThLz._, 1899, col. 263). \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2\nand \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac are frequently interchanged\u2014_e.g._ in Tobit vii. 18; Sirach\nxxx. 16. \u03a7\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd is found for \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd in Ps. xxix. (xxx.) 11. The scribes\nfelt a difficulty with \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 in Rom. xii. 13, and still more so in\nEphes. iv. 29. Ephraem found \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 in place of \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd in John v. 14 (see\nabove, p. 293, note 2).\n\ni. 14. Zahn and Haupt omit \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 with D K etc. So does J. Weiss, who\ntakes occasion to make certain important observations on the attempts\nhitherto made to restore the text. See _ThLz._, 1899, col. 263.\n\niii. 14. Till lately Tertullian was our only authority for the reading\n\u201cpalmam incriminationis\u201d in place of \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 (_De\nresurrectione carnis_, 23). It was accordingly supposed that he had read\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 instead of \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. We learn now from the Athos\nmanuscript, discovered by von der Goltz, that Origen also cited the\nreading \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 in his commentary as being \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. Even supposing that \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1 turned out to be no more\nthan a single copy, or even Tertullian\u2019s quotation which Origen had\nbecome acquainted with in some way, his mention of this reading is in\nthe highest degree interesting.\n\nSubscription: \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1fec\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2: + \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f18\u03c0\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5: + \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f18\u03c0\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n\n                              Colossians.\n\n\nii. 16. On the reading \u03ba\u03b9\u03c1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 suggested by the rendering of the\nPeshitto, and the Latin version of Ephraem\u2019s Commentary on the Pauline\nEpistles, see above, p. 168 f. It was advocated by Lagarde in his\n_Prophetae Chaldaice_, p. li. Zahn rejects it on the ground that it\nwould require \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 in place of \u1f10\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, and also that \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\nagrees better with \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd in verse 18.\n\nii. 18. On this difficult passage see above, p. 168. Zahn thinks it\nquite certain that \u03bc\u1f74 is a later insertion even in the Syriac, seeing\nthat Ephraem knows nothing of it. Of the various conjectural\nemendations, he regards that of C. Taylor as the most probable\u2014viz. \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd. This is also the view of Westcott and Hort. See their\n_Introduction_, \u201cNotes on Select Readings,\u201d _in loco_; Zahn,\n_Einleitung_, i. 339.\n\niv. 14. The words \u1f41 \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 were omitted by Marcion. See Zahn,\n_GK._ i. 647; ii. 528. Two minuscules omit the words \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2.\n\nSubscription: \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1fec\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03a4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 (+ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f48\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n\n                            1 Thessalonians.\n\n\nii. 7. One can easily see how doubt should arise as to the correct\nreading here when we observe the form of the words in the uncial script,\n\u0395\u0393\u0395\u039d\u0397\u0398\u0397\u039c\u0395\u039d\u039d\u0397\u03a0\u0399\u039f\u0399. Moreover, we must remember that \u039d at the end of a line\nwas very frequently indicated merely by a stroke above the preceding\nletter, thus: \u0395\u0393\u0395\u039d\u0397\u0398\u0397\u039c\u0395. The same alternative readings are presented in\nHebrews v. 13, and in Clement of Alexandria, i. 140, 7, where Codex F\nexhibits \u1f24\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, and M, which is the most important manuscript, has\n\u03bd\u03ae\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 in the text and \u1f24\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 in the margin.\n\nii. 15. Zahn (_GK._ ii. 521; _cf._ also i. 644) restores Marcion\u2019s text\nhere in the form \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd [\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd] \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. Marcion founds throughout upon a Western text, and the\nfact of his agreement in this instance with the Antiochean Recension\n(D_{2} E_{2} K_{2} L_{2}) is declared by Zahn to be a mere coincidence,\nmore especially as the latter here reads \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2. \u201cHad\nMarcion,\u201d he says, \u201creally written \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, Tertullian would have\ntranslated the passage differently, and would scarcely have applied the\nterm _adjectio_ to a qualifying expression inserted _before_ \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2.\u201d\nWhat Tertullian says is, \u201cdicendo _et prophetas suos_ licet _suos_\nadjectio sit haeretici.\u201d The term \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 is employed so frequently to\nrepresent the pronoun when no particular emphasis is intended to be\nconveyed, that there seems to me no necessity for Tertullian translating\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 _suos prophetas_, or rendering the words in any\nother way than _prophetas suos_. Compare above, p. 211.\n\niii. 3. Lachmann here reads \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 with Reiske and Venema.\nBeza and Bentley suggested \u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, Holwerda \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, Peerlkamp\n\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. Zahn has no hesitation in adopting \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, which\nhe understands in the original (metaphorical) sense of to flatter, to\ntalk over or cajole. See _Einleitung_, i. 158.\n\n\n                               1 Timothy.\n\n\ni. 4. \u039f\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, or \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd, which is attested by Iren\u00e6us and a good\nmany Latin witnesses, and received into his text by Erasmus, is nothing\nbut an early transcriptional error for \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.\n\niii. 1. \u201cThe reading \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 is attested in Greek only by D*,\nbut it was the prevailing reading in the West till the time of Jerome.\nWhen I consider the improbability of its being invented, and its\nliability to alteration in conformity with 1 Tim. i. 15, iv. 9; 2 Tim.\nii. 11; Tit. iii. 8, I am compelled, in spite of the one-sided nature of\nthe testimony, to conclude that it is original. It is a proverbial\nexpression of general application and profane origin\u201d (Zahn,\n_Einleitung_, i. 482). This reading is usually ignored by our editors\nand commentators, and yet the passage is one that plays an important\npart in the ordination of the clergy, and therefore one on the correct\ninterpretation of which a good deal might depend. Westcott and Hort\nmerely mention it in their _Notes on Select Readings_ and insert it in\ntheir _Appendix_. It is not cited by von Gebhardt in his edition. For my\nown part I am not quite convinced of its originality. At the same time\nit is hard to understand how \u03a0\u0399\u03a3\u03a4\u039f\u03a3 by any clerical error could be\ntransformed into \u0391\u0305\u039d\u0305\u0399\u0305\u039d\u039f\u03a3, and so become \u0391\u039d\u0398\u03a1\u03a9\u03a0\u0399\u039d\u039f\u03a3.\n\niii. 16. In his _Forschungen_, vol. iii., Beilage iv. p. 277, \u201cZum Text\nvon 1 Tim. iii. 16,\u201d Zahn published two or three lines from some\nparchment fragments in the Egyptian Museum of the Louvre, which, he\nthinks, belong to the IV-VI century. The last three lines run\u2014\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 ... | \u03c9 \u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b5 ... | \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b4.... He says, \u201cThe \u03c9 in the\nsecond last line is undoubtedly meant for \u1f43. This adds another to the\nGreek witnesses supporting this reading, which has till now been\nattested only by the Latin manuscripts, by other ambiguous or doubtful\nwitnesses, and probably by the first Greek hand of Codex Claromontanus.\nThe \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 in the last line is, so far as I am aware, supported by no other\nevidence.\u201d The reading \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, which was formerly so much discussed, seems\nto be simply an early transcriptional error, \u039f\u03f9 being read as\n\u0398\u0305\u03f9\u0305\u2014_i.e._ \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 with the usual mark of abbreviation. The old dispute\nover the reading of the earliest manuscripts (most of them exhibit a\ncorrection at the place), whether the middle stroke of the \u0398 in the\noldest codices A C is by the first or second hand, or whether in the\ncase of A it may not be simply the tongue of an E shining through from\nthe other side of the parchment, cannot seemingly be decided now in the\npresent state of the manuscripts.[285] Codex A was examined by Scrivener\nboth with and without the aid of a magnifying glass perhaps twenty times\nin as many years. Dean Burgon devotes seventy-seven pages of his\n_Revision Revised_ to a discussion of the reading. The facility with\nwhich a variant of this sort may arise is shown by the perfectly\nanalogous passage, Joshua ii. 11. Here B and F read \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c5\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\n\u039f\u03f9 \u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b1\u03bd\u03c9, while on the other hand A in place of \u039f\u03f9 has \u0398\u0305\u03f9\u0305,\nwhich in this instance is correct. In 1 Tim. iii. 16 the other\nwitnesses\u2014viz. the versions and the Fathers\u2014throw their weight into the\nopposite scale.\n\niv. 3. Isidore asks whether \u03ba\u03c9\u03bb\u03c5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd ... \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd may not be\na \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1 of the scribes for \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, to which Oecumenius replies that\nit is no \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd but good Attic Greek for \u03ba\u03c9\u03bb\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. The explanation of Theophylact, however, is nearer the mark,\nthat \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is to be supplied from \u03ba\u03c9\u03bb\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. Bentley, Toup,\nBakhuyzen, and Bois would supply \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd before \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, while Hort\nsuggests the substitution of \u1f22 \u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 or \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 in place of\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. There seems to be no need of such expedients.\n\nSubscription: \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 + \u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u039a\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 (\u03a0\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2): _al._ \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2: _al._ \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd: _al._\n\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1fec\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 + \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03a4\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n\n                               2 Timothy.\n\n\niv. 19. After \u1f08\u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd two minuscules (46 and 109) insert \u039b\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a3\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd (\u03a3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd 109) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0396\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. The\ninterpolation is derived from the _Acta Pauli_, and is to be connected\nnot with Aquila, but with the \u201chouse of Onesiphorus.\u201d See Zahn,\n_Einleitung_, i. 411.\n\nSubscription: \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2: _al._ \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1fec\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 + \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9 \u039d\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9.\n\n\n                                 Titus.\n\n\ni. 9, 11. Considerable additions are made to the text after both these\nverses by Codex 109. This manuscript is numbered 11 in the Library of\nSt. Mark at Venice, and described by Gregory as \u201chaud malae notae.\u201d It\ncontains both a Latin and an Arabic version, and dates from the\nthirteenth or fourteenth, or, as some suppose, the eleventh, century.\nAfter verse 9 we read: \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03b9\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f05\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. After verse\n11 we find \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03b2\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1.\n\nSubscription: \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a4\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd (+ \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1) \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (missa per Arteman:\n_al._ per Zenam et Apollo).\n\n\n                                Hebrews.\n\n\ni. 3. Instead of \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, the first hand of B wrote \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, which a\nsecond hand altered to \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, while a third restored \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, and wrote\nin the margin \u1f00\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03ad, \u1f04\u03c6\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd [? \u03c4\u1f78] \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd, \u03bc\u1f74\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9. A great deal of material might be collected from the margin\nof old manuscripts, not only for the history of Prayer, as von Dobsch\u00fctz\nrecently observed, but for other interesting departments of the history\nof civilisation.\n\nii. 9. The reading \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 instead of \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 is now found only\nin M and in the second hand of 67. Origen, however, was aware of the\nvarious reading: \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f22 \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. It\nseems to be a primitive transcriptional error.\n\nx. 34. We have here to choose between \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 and \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. The latter\nis manifestly the correct reading. It is attested by A D* and certain\nminuscules, among which are 37**, 67**. This last is a Vienna manuscript\n(Vindob. gr. theol. 302), whose marginal readings exhibit a text closely\nresembling that of the uncials B M, which are defective in Hebrews x.\n\u0394\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 is supported by \u05d0 D^c H K L P, Clem. Alex., Origen (i. 41,\nwhere, however, \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 is omitted by M* P, according to Koetschau\u2019s new\nedition), and by d e (_vinculis eorum_). Zahn (_Einleitung_, ii. 122)\nthinks that the connection of the reading \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 with the tradition\nof the Pauline authorship of the epistle is suspicious. We find the\nreading adopted in those regions where the tradition was accepted. It\nmay, however, have been the means of confirming and spreading the\ntradition, seeing that Clement of Alexandria is actually aware of it.\nPseudo-Euthalius, _e.g._, employs the reading in support of the Pauline\nauthorship (Zacagni 670).\n\nIn this same verse \u05d0 A H have preserved the proper reading \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2.\n\u1f19\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, as given by D E K L, is a would-be correction.\n\nxi. 23. In certain manuscripts (D and three Vulgate codices) an entire\nverse is inserted after verse 23: \u03a0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u039c\u03c9\u03cb\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. Its position\nshows it to be an interpolation.\n\nxiii. 9. The present tense \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 is exhibited only by \u05d0* A D*,\nall the other witnesses having \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. The minority are in the\nright here. A correction is not always an improvement.\n\nxiii. 18. Zahn accepts the \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 before \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. It is found only in D d\nand Chrysostom. This combination of witnesses is very rare.\n\nSubscription: \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 (+ \u1f11\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03ca\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 31) \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5: _al._\n\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd: _al._ \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1fec\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n\n                           CATHOLIC EPISTLES.\n\n\nThe variety in the order of the Catholic Epistles is even more\nsignificant than that of the Pauline. When the Syrian Church of Edessa\nobtained the New Testament, it consisted only of the Gospels, the\nPauline Epistles, and the Acts. It contained neither the Apocalypse nor\nthe Catholic Epistles. This is proved among other things by the fact\nthat not a single quotation from these writings is found in the Homilies\nof Aphraates, the date of which falls between 336 and 345. At a later\ndate the Syrian Church accepted the Epistle of James, 1 Peter, and 1\nJohn, but the four so-called Antilegomena\u2014viz. 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John,\nand Jude\u2014are to this day excluded from their Canon of the New Testament.\nEven in the West, James was not reckoned among the books of the New\nTestament previous to the fourth century. There is no mention made of it\nin Africa about the year 300, although it was cited at Rome and Carthage\nat an earlier date. At Alexandria, however, all the seven Catholic\nEpistles were counted in the New Testament as early as the time of\nClement,[286] and their place in the Canon becomes more and more firmly\nassured from the time of Eusebius onwards.[287] At the same time, the\norder of their arrangement varies very considerably. Indeed, every\npossible variety occurs, except that Jude seems never to have been\nplaced first, nor 2 Peter last. Thus we find James, 2 Peter, 3 John,\nJude; James, Jude, 2 Peter, 3 John; 2 Peter, James, Jude, 3 John; 2\nPeter, 3 John, James, Jude; 2 Peter, 3 John, Jude, James, etc.[288] It\nfollows that in the case of this group of New Testament writings, as\nwell as in that of the preceding, it is necessary and possible to\ndistinguish the three longer from the four shorter epistles in tracing\nthe history of the text. And we see at the same time what justification\nLuther had in drawing a line between these epistles and the principal\nbooks of the New Testament as having been held in quite a different\nestimation in early times.\n\n\n                                1 Peter.\n\n\niii. 22. After \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 the Vulgate inserts _deglutiens mortem ut vitae\naeternae haeredes efficeremur_, \u201capparently from a Greek original which\nhad the aorist participle \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd; _cf._ 1 Cor. xv. 54\u201d (W-H, _Notes_,\n_in loco_). See Vetter, _Der dritte Korintherbrief_.\n\n\n                                2 Peter.\n\n\ni. 1. Zahn considers \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3 the original reading, and \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd a later correction due to taking \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3\ntogether as \u201cfaith in righteousness.\u201d The last two words are to be taken\nwith \u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. _Einleitung_, ii. 59.\n\ni. 2. Zahn agrees with Lachmann and Spitta in holding that \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd is the correct text here\u2014that is to say, he omits \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6. Tischendorf\u2019s Apparatus is very diffuse on this verse,\nand Baljon\u2019s note, which is extracted from it, is accordingly not quite\nsatisfactory.[289] Like all the other editors, he gives \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd in the text, but the only variants he\nmentions are the insertion of \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 after \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6, and the omission of\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. There is no notice of the omission of the words \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\nby any of the witnesses. They are not found in P, the best manuscripts\nof the Vulgate (am fu dem harl), Philoxenian and Harklean Syriac, nor in\nminuscules 69, 137, 163. These last, however, the Syriac and the\nminuscules with m, insert \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 after \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. K\u00fchl believes that\nthe shorter form is probably due to the fact that in the epistle Christ\nis everywhere regarded as the object of \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. But this is really\nvery improbable. For the scribe could not have been aware of this when\nhe began to write the epistle, so that he must have turned back and\ndeleted the words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 afterwards. At the same time it is\na fundamental principle of textual criticism that the _lectio brevior_\nis to be preferred. Reference may be made to the _Epilogus_ of\nWordsworth and White, ch. vi., _De regulis a nobis in textu constituendo\nadhibitis_, where the very title of section 4 implies this principle:\n\u201cCum brevior lectio probabilior sit, codices A F H* M Y plerumque\npraeferendi sunt,\u201d and where the most conspicuous examples of this rule\nare said to be \u201cAdditamenta nominum propriorum, et praecipue\nsanctorum\u2014_e.g._ Jesus, Christus, Dominus, Deus.\u201d It is true that in the\npassage before us we have not simply a case of the insertion of a word\nor words understood; at the same time, here if anywhere the text is more\nlikely to have been extended than abbreviated. It remains to be seen\nwhether P exhibits a good text in other passages of the Catholic\nEpistles as well as this, but so far as the minuscules 69 and 137 are\nconcerned, they justly bear a good reputation. Hort calls 69 one of the\nbetter cursives, and 137 has a text so closely resembling that of\nCodices D E as to be of material assistance when these are defective.\nThe minuscules are too often regarded as mere ciphers; as if a cipher\nmore or less behind a number did not make a vast difference. In the very\nnext verse we find 137 supporting \u05d0 A in reading \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, which is\naccepted by Tischendorf and Weiss, and preferred also by K\u00fchl. In this\ninstance it contradicts P, which omits \u03c4\u1f70 with B C K L.\n\ni. 12. Here \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9 is given by \u05d0 A B C P, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9 by 8 f tol (_non\ndifferam_), and \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9 by K L etc. (\u201cthe Antiochean recension and\nthe Syriac versions,\u201d Zahn). \u201c\u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9, with the present infinitive, can\nhardly be simply a periphrastic future. The idea is rather that the\nwriter will be prepared in the future, as well as in the past and in the\npresent, to remind them of the truths they know, whenever the necessity\narises. As they had no evidence of the fulfilment of this promise, the\ncopyists and translators found a difficulty with this expression, and\nhence the variants.\u201d Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 53 f.\n\ni. 15. The reading \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9, found in \u05d0 31, and the Armenian, is also\nattested by the Philoxenian Syriac, a fact which Zahn regards as\nimportant. \u201cOn transcriptional grounds the reading \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c9, preferred\nby our editors, would appear to be confirmed by the reading \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5,\nexhibited by the Harklean Syriac and a few minuscules. But in reality\nboth these latter readings merely serve to show that a difficulty was\nfelt again in admitting a promise on the part of Peter which he seemed\nnever to have fulfilled.\u201d _Einleitung_, ii. 54. Compare on \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\nabove.\n\ni. 21. It is probable that Theophilus of Antioch (_Ad Autolycum_, ii. 9)\nread (\u03bf\u1f31) \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6) \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, the form exhibited by \u05d0 and A (\u201cthe\nchief representatives of the Antiochean family\u201d), and also by several\nLatin witnesses. See Zahn, _GK._ i. 313; Chase on 2 Peter in Hastings\u2019\n_Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. iii. p. 801.\n\nii. 13. On this passage Zahn remarks (_Einleitung_, ii. 53): \u201cThe\nsimilarity of 2 Peter to the Epistle of Jude was doubtless a source of\ntextual corruption. But it may also aid us in correcting the text.\nBecause, whichever of the two we regard as the original, in any case the\none is our earliest witness to the text of the other. If we accept the\nreading \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 in Jude 12, it follows either (1) that Jude read \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2\nin 2 Peter, and that this is the original reading there, or (2) that\nPeter, supposing he wrote second, altered Jude\u2019s \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 to \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2,\nwhich it is hard to conceive, the former being so unmistakable, and the\nlatter much less suitable to the context. In either case, therefore,\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 would seem to be the correct reading in 2 Peter ii. 13.\u201d No\ndoubt the alteration of \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 to \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 is \u201chard to conceive,\u201d but it\nis not inconceivable. As illustrating how a piece of writing may be\nmisread, it is sufficient to point to Justin\u2019s mistake with regard to\n\u201cSemoni Sanco Deo Fidio.\u201d[290] As regards the particular words before\nus, I may be allowed to cite my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 47, where I have\nreferred to the frequent confusion of \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c9 and \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c9, \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7 and \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\nin manuscripts of the Old Testament. In Ps. lxxviii. 36, for example,\nout of more than one hundred manuscripts that have been collated, not\none has preserved the correct reading \u1f20\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd; all have \u1f20\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. In 2\nChron. xviii. 2 again only one has the correct text \u1f20\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1. From a\npsychological point of view, therefore, it would seem more natural to\nsuppose that \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 is the original reading in the passage under\nconsideration, and \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 the transcriptional error. The authorities\nfor each are distributed as follows:\u2014\n\n                  \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2.                  \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n  2 Peter ii. 13, A^c B m vg, Syr^{phil},   \u05d0 A* C K L P ...\n\n                  Syr^{hark. mg}, Sahid.    Syr^{hark}, Copt., Arm.\n\n  Jude 12,        \u05d0 B K L vg, Sahid.,       A C 44, 56.\n                  Copt.,\n\n                  Syr^{phil}, Syr^{hark},\n                  Arm.\n\nIn the first edition of this work I said it was strange, considering the\nfrequent confusion of \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7 and \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7, that Tischendorf goes by the\nmajority of his witnesses in the case of 2 Peter ii. 13 (Westcott and\nHort in their text, Weiss, Weymouth, and Baljon all do the same),\n\u201cwhereas the same word should be read in both cases, and that \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2.\nOtherwise it would be necessary to suppose that the text was already\ncorrupt when the one writer used the epistle of the other, no matter\nwhether Peter or Jude: quod variat, verum esse non potest.\u201d I cannot\nunderstand an argument like that of K\u00fchl (Meyer^6, on 2 Peter ii. 13, p.\n428): \u201c\u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 is presumably original in one of the passages, most\nlikely in 2 Peter, as \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 goes better with \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd in Jude 12 than with\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd here. B has \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 in both places, and C in the same way \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2,\nwhich is explainable on the supposition that originally the one word\nstood in the one passage and the other in the other. Nearly all recent\nexpositors favour the reading \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 in 2 Peter.\u201d I am glad now to have\nthe powerful support of Zahn in my dissent from that view. Reference may\nbe made to the excellent article on Jude by F. H. Chase in Hastings\u2019\n_Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 799-805. His first paragraph is on the\n\u201cTransmission of the Text,\u201d and the article is a model of what such\nthings should be.[291] On the Philoxenian Syriac see the work of Merx\nmentioned above, p. 106 (5). On the rest of the verse, see Zahn,\n_Einleitung_, ii. 71. He points out that Tischendorf\u2019s apparatus is\nmisleading here, as it fails to notice the omission of \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd by the\nPhiloxenian Syriac, the Sahidic version, the Speculum of\nPseudo-Augustine (m), and by Pseudo-Cyprian. In his opinion it is an\ninterpolation due to the \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u2014 of \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. These pronouns are very\nliable to be interpolated, as is pointed out by Wordsworth and White in\ntheir _Epilogus_, p. 729, where these \u201cadditamenta\u201d come next after\n\u201cProper Names\u201d; see above, p. 238.\n\nii. 15. On \u0392\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03c1, see p. 243 f.\n\nii. 22_b_. In Hippolytus, _Refutatio_, ix. 7, we find: \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03cc\u03c1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf. On the connection of this with 2\nPeter ii. 22, see Zahn, _GK._ i. 316. Wendland tried to make out that it\nis a saying of Heraclitus. Compare also Clement, \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, x.\n96; \u1f55\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u1f25\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c1\u03b2\u03cc\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1ff7 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\niii. 6. The conjectural reading \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f43\u03bd for \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f67\u03bd Schmiedel thinks well\nworthy of consideration. See his _Winer_, \u00a7 19.\n\niii. 10. None of the variants here appears to be the correct reading\n(\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 in various forms: \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9: \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9). What is\nrequired is a passive form of \u1fe5\u03ad\u03c9, or one of its compounds (?\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03c5\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9).\n\niii. 16. The article is inserted before \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 by \u05d0 and K L P (\u201cthe\nAntiochean recension\u201d), but omitted by A B C. Zahn, who would omit it,\npoints out that \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 would imply a complete\ncollection of Paul\u2019s Epistles, and would include all the constituents\nwithout exception, whereas without the article the phrase contrasts one\nepistle known to the readers with those of all kinds that he had\nwritten. See _Einleitung_, ii. 108. Tischendorf admitted the reading now\nfavoured by critics in his seventh edition, but rejected it in the\neighth. This same thing occurs not infrequently. See the article on 2\nPeter by Chase in Hastings\u2019 _Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. iii. p. 810.\n\n\n                                1 John.\n\n\niv. 3. Von der Goltz has shown conclusively what was long a matter of\nconjecture, that Origen not only knew the reading \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, but\nseemingly preferred it; and that Clement also cites the text in this\nform in his work on the Passover, which is all but entirely lost. He has\nalso established anew the reliable nature of the Latin version of\nIren\u00e6us in the matter of Biblical quotations. See Zahn in the _ThLbl._,\n1899, col. 180; _Einleitung_, ii. 574.\n\nv. 7. The \u201ccomma Johanneum\u201d needs no further discussion in an\nIntroduction to the _Greek_ Testament, but its history on Latin soil is\nall the more interesting. The fact that it is still defended even from\nthe Protestant side is interesting only from a pathological point of\nview. On the decision of the Holy Office, confirmed by the Pope on the\n15th January 1897, see Hetzenauer\u2019s edition of the New Testament, and\nthe notice of it by Dobsch\u00fctz in the _ThLz._, 1899, No. 10. On the\nliterature, compare also K\u00f6lling (Breslau, 1893); W. Orme\u2019s _Memoir of\nthe Controversy respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 7_\n(London, 1830), New Edition, with Notes and Appendix by Ezra Abbot (New\nYork, 1866); C. Forster, _A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of\nthe Three Heavenly Witnesses_ (Cambridge, 1867); H. T. Armfield, _The\nThree Witnesses: The disputed Text in St. John_ (London, 1893).\n\n\n                                 James.\n\n\nAn Arabic scholion, attributed to Hippolytus, cites this epistle under\nthe name of Jude. See Zahn, _GK._ i. 320, 2; 323, 3. In two minuscules\ncited by Tischendorf, \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 is followed by \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 or\n\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, and in one of the subscriptions by \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. The\nsubscription in ff reads \u201cexplicit epistola Jacobi filii Zaebedei\n(_sic_).\u201d See Zahn\u2019s _Einleitung_, i. 75.\n\nii. 2. \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd appears without the article in \u05d0* B C and one of\nScrivener\u2019s minuscules. This reading is accepted by Zahn, who sees in it\nan indication that those to whom the epistle is addressed were in\npossession of several synagogues, that is supposing the word to mean\n_meeting-place_, and not simply assembly, as he himself is inclined to\nbelieve. See _Einleitung_, i. 60, 66.\n\n\n                                 Jude.\n\n\n5. This verse exhibits an uncommonly large number of variants. Thus\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 occurs with or without \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 after it; for \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 we find both\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 and \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf; while the position of \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be varies, the word being\nfound before \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9, and \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd. But even that is not all. Most recent\neditors read \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, but we find also \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2: \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2: and\n\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (_textus receptus_). Tischendorf\u2019s apparatus might lead one\nto suppose that the witnesses for \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 and \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 omit \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 altogether,\nbut that is not so. The ambiguity is due to the loose way in which the\nnote is given. Westcott and Hort think it probable that the original\ntext was \u039f\u03a4\u0399\u039f, and that this was read as \u039f\u03a4\u0399\u0399\u0305\u03f9\u0305, and perhaps as\n\u039f\u03a4\u0399\u039a\u0305\u03f9\u0305. K\u00fchl thinks that the easiest explanation of the variants is to\nsuppose that \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 was the original reading, and that \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 and \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\nwere derived from it. But it seems to me that Zahn has better reason on\nhis side when he argues for \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 as the original reading. He first\nof all eliminates \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 as having no great attestation, and as being\nfound alongside of \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in Clement (_dominus deus_). The choice,\ntherefore, lies between \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2. The latter has by far the\nstronger external attestation, it is the _lectio ardua_, and is, on\ninternal grounds, also to be preferred. See _Einleitung_, ii. 88.\n\n22, 23. Zahn has a strong impression that this passage lies at the\nfoundation of _Didache_, ii. 7: \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f67\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03be\u1fc3, \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5. If\nthis is really so, we have here a piece of very early testimony, not\ncertainly to the actual words, but to the thought conveyed. See\n_Einleitung_, ii. 86.\n\nSubscription: At the end of the Armenian Bible of 1698 we find a note to\nthe effect that \u201cthis epistle was written in the year 64 by Judas\nJacobi, who is also called Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus, and who preached the\nGospel to the Armenians and the Persians.\u201d\n\n\n                              APOCALYPSE.\n\n\nApart from particular passages, the last book of the Bible cannot be\nunreservedly recommended to the devout laity for special study, but it\nis peculiarly well adapted as an introduction to the method of textual\ncriticism, and that for two reasons. First of all, because the number of\navailable witnesses to the text is comparatively small, and, secondly,\nbecause these are more easily grouped here than in the other divisions\nof the New Testament. Reference may be made in this connection to the\nfirst part of Bousset\u2019s critical studies on the text of the Apocalypse,\nwhere the distinction drawn by Bengel between the Andreas and Arethas\ngroups of manuscripts is correctly emphasized. At the same time Bousset\nhimself comes to the rather unsatisfactory conclusion that an eclectic\nmode of procedure is all that is possible at present. An attempt has\nbeen made above (p. 157) with the conclusion of the Apocalypse. We shall\nnow try a few further examples.\n\nIn order to ascertain the relationship of the manuscripts we must\nselect passages that exhibit a considerable divergence of meaning with\na small variation of form. Such a passage occurs in the last chapter.\nIn Apoc. xxii. 14, after the words \u201cblessed are they,\u201d we read, in the\none class of witnesses, \u201cthat wash their robes,\u201d in the other, \u201cthat\ndo his commandments.\u201d That is to say, we have in the one case\n\u039f\u0399\u03a0\u039b\u03a5\u039d\u039f\u039d\u03a4\u0395\u03f9\u03a4\u0391\u03f9\u03f9\u03a4\u039f\u039b\u0391\u03f9\u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u03a9\u039d and in the other \u039f\u0399\u03a0\u039f\u0399\u039f\u03a5\u039d\u03a4\u0395\u03f9\u03a4\u0391\u03f9\u0395\u0305\u03a4\u039f\u039b\u0391\u03f9\u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\u03a5.\nThe difference is exceedingly small, especially when we consider that\nin early times \u039f\u0399 was frequently written \u03a5, and \u0395\u039d at the end of a\nline \u0395\u0305. I have no doubt that \u201cwash their robes\u201d is the original\nreading here and that \u201cdo his commandments\u201d is the later alteration,\nthough, of course, others will hold the opposite view. For the former\nwe have the authority of \u05d0 A, for the latter that of Q (_i.e._,\nB^{apoc}; see above, p. 80) with its associates. The question now\nbecomes: Are there any passages where \u05d0 and A part company, and which\nare decisive in favour of \u05d0? It is impossible to say offhand whether \u05d0\nor A has preserved the correct text. \u05d0 contains corrections that A\ndoes not, and _vice versa_. Take another example.\n\nThe author of the Apocalypse follows the Hebrew idiom, according to\nwhich the word or phrase in apposition to an oblique case is put in the\nnominative.[292] Thus we have:\n\nii. 20. \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f38\u03b5\u03b6\u03b1\u03b2\u1f72\u03bb \u1f21 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1. Q makes this \u1f23 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9, and the\ncorrector of \u05d0 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. Similarly, iii. 12, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bc \u1f21\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1, where again Q has \u1f23 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9, and \u05d0^c \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2.\nBut it is not only the later corrector of \u05d0 that does this: the first\nscribe of that manuscript does it himself. For example:\n\nxiv. 12. \u05d0 has \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd instead of \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2; in verse 14 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\ninstead of \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd; in xx. 2, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f44\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd instead of \u1f41 \u1f44\u03c6\u03b9\u03c2, etc. In other\nplaces A, in this last A _alone_, it appears, has preserved the correct\ntext.\n\nThere are other places, again, where the correct reading is preserved,\nperhaps, only in a later manuscript, or in none at all. We may compare\nwith the idiom in the Apocalypse what we find at the beginning of the\nbook in the passage about the seven spirits before the throne of God.\n\ni. 4. \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd ... \u1f10\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. In the space\nindicated by the dots Erasmus has \u1f05 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, Codex 36 has \u1f05 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, Q and C\nhave \u1f03, which is adopted by Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort, \u05d0 and A\nhave \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, which is adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles, and by Westcott and\nHort in their margin, while Codex 80 has nothing at all. All these\nvariants are explainable on the supposition that the original reading\nwas \u03c4\u1f70. Exception being taken to this construction, one copyist made it\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, the other \u1f03, the third supplied the copula, and the fourth dropped\nthe offending word altogether. Similarly, in chap. v. 13, \u05d0 alone has\npreserved the correct reading \u03c4\u1f78, for which the others have \u1f43 or \u1f45\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd. Another case is ii. 13, where the writer wished to say, \u201cin the\ndays of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was slain.\u201d According to the\nidiom mentioned above, while \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c0\u03b1 was in the genitive, \u1f41 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c2 would\nbe in the nominative of apposition. But owing to the influence of this\nnominative, \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c0\u03b1 was made nominative so as to agree with it, and the\nsentence then ran, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 ... \u1f43\u03c2 ... which\ncould not be construed. The consequence was corrections of all sorts.\nThe boldest expedient was simply to drop the \u1f43\u03c2, but other means were\nadopted to relieve the construction. After \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 some inserted \u03b1\u1f37\u03c2 or\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f37\u03c2, Erasmus read \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, \u05d0 has \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, and some Latin witnesses\n_illis_. But read \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c0\u03b1 in the genitive and all is in order.[293]\n\nThe Apocalypse presents quite a number of passages enabling us to\ndistinguish the manuscripts. There is very little difference in form\nbetween \u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 and \u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 (i. 5), \u1f00\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 and \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 (viii. 13), \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\nand \u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (xv. 6), but it makes a great difference whether we read \u201cwho\nredeemed us\u201d or \u201cwho washed us,\u201d an \u201ceagle flying\u201d or \u201can angel flying,\u201d\n\u201cwearing pure linen\u201d or \u201cwearing pure stone.\u201d These variations are the\nresult of _accidental_ errors in transcription. But we meet an instance\nof _intentional_ alteration in xiii. 18, where the number of the beast\nis variously given as 666 and 616.\n\nGrouping the witnesses for the former variants we have\u2014\n\n        i. 5.      \u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9,      \u05d0 A C, Syriac,[294] Armenian.\n\n                   \u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9,     Q P, Vulgate, Coptic,\n                                 Ethiopic.\n\n        viii. 13.  \u1f00\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,        \u05d0 A Q, Vulgate, Syriac,\n                                 Coptic, Ethiopic.\n\n                   \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5,      P, Armenian.\n\nThe two readings are combined not only by certain commentators, but in\nsome manuscripts, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n             xv. 6.   \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd,  A C, am fu demid\n                                      tol.\n\n                      \u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd,  P, Syriac, Armenian,\n                                      Clementine-Vulgate.\n\n                      \u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd  is read by Q, and\n                                      \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 by\n                                      \u05d0.\n\nTregelles and Westcott alone accept the reading \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd; all the other\neditors regard it as an early transcriptional error. Holtzmann refers to\nthe parallel passages i. 13, iv. 4, vii. 9, 13, xvii. 4, xviii. 16, xix.\n8, 14, in support of \u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, but they point rather the other way. For\n\u201cfine linen\u201d Apocalypse has \u03b2\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 five times, but never once \u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\nwhich means only the material, and not the garment made of it. Moreover,\nwe find a parallel in the Old Testament, though in another connection,\nin Ezekiel xxviii. 13, where we read \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, so\nthat \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd here must not be so confidently rejected. \u039b\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd was more\nliable to be changed to \u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd than _vice versa_, as the Vulgate shows,\nin which the authorised printed edition has _linteo_ where the\nmanuscripts read _lapidem_. At the same time one cannot but admit that\nprimitive transcriptional errors do occur. The reading \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 in viii.\n13, to which certain manuscripts prefix \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2, seems to me to be\ncorroborated by _\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd_ \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd in xiv. 6. Or are we to read\n\u1f00\u03b5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd there in the face of all the witnesses?\n\nv. 1. The correct text here is that adopted by Zahn: \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f44\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. Grotius, though mistaken as to the true\ntext, was the first to give the right interpretation of the words by\ntaking \u1f14\u03c3\u03c9 (\u1f14\u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd) with \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, and \u1f14\u03be\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd (\u1f44\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd) with\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. \u201cLocus sic distinguendus \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\u201d This combination of the words (\u201chaec nova\ndistinctio\u201d) was combated for the reason among others that it deprived\nthem of all their force and rendered them superfluous, for who ever saw\na roll that was written on the outside and sealed on the inside. See\nPole\u2019s _Synopsis_, where it is said of Grotius, \u201ctam infelix interpres\nApocalypseos est magnus ille Hugo in rebus minusculis.\u201d Zahn\n(_Einleitung_, ii. 596) improves the text of Grotius, but retains his\nconnection of the words. He holds that \u1f14\u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd and \u1f44\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd are not\ncorrelative terms, and that the idea of a papyrus roll written on both\nsides (\u1f40\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03cc\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd) must be abandoned; compare above, p. 43, n. 2. The\nbook was, in fact, not a roll but a codex. Two things point to this.\nThere is, first, the fact that is said to be \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd. Had it been\na roll it would have been \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1fb7. Moreover, the word used for\nopening the book is \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03be\u03b1\u03b9, and not, as in the case of rolls,\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, or \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. That it was not written on the\noutside is also shown by the fact that it was sealed with seven seals,\nthe purpose of which was to make the reading of the book impossible. Not\ntill the seventh seal is broken is the book open and its contents\ndisplayed. This \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd is quite different from the \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\nmentioned in chapter x. 2, 9. See also E. Huschke, _Das Buch mit 7\nSiegeln_ (1860), to which Zahn refers (_lib. cit._ 597).\n\nix. 17. For \u1f51\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 Primasius has _spineas_ (= \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2), a\nreading which neither Bousset nor Baljon, strange to say, think worth\nrecording. Bousset rightly observes that in the following verse \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1\ncorresponds to \u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, and \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd to \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03ce\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2, so that \u03ba\u03b1\u03c0\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 lets us see\nwhat the writer understood as the colour of hyacinth\u2014viz. the colour of\nsmoke. But the ideas of \u201cthorns\u201d (_spineae_) and \u201csmoke\u201d are even more\nclosely related.\n\nxiii. 18. Iren\u00e6us found 616 given as the number of the beast in some\nmanuscripts, which he could only explain as a transcriptional error:\n\u201choc autem arbitror scriptorum peccatum fuisse ut solet fieri quoniam et\nper literas numeri ponuntur, facile literam Graecam quae sexaginta\nenuntiat numerum in _iota_ Graecorum literam expansam.\u201d In reality,\nhowever, the change from \u03be to \u03b9 would be a contraction rather than an\nexpansion, and the alteration would seem to be intentional, seeing that\n666 in Hebrew characters gives the Greek form Neron Kesar, and 616 the\nLatin Nero Kesar. Iren\u00e6us himself, however, appeals to the fact that the\nnumber 666 was found \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f44\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f11\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (v. 30,\n1-3). The opening words in the Latin translation run, \u201cin omnibus\nantiquis et probatissimis et veteribus scripturis.\u201d The subscription\nwhich he himself appended to his own principal work (see above, p. 149)\nshows how scrupulously exact he was with respect to \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1, so that\nwe may give him credit for having consulted old and reliable manuscripts\nof the Apocalypse. The erroneous reading (616) is now found only in C\nand two minuscules (5 and 11).\n\nxxii. 11. The only authorities cited by Tischendorf in support of the\nreading \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9 (in place of \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9) are the two\nminuscules 38 and 79 and the Clementine Vulgate. But we find the passage\nalluded to in the epistle which the Church of Lyons wrote giving an\naccount of the Martyrdom of the year 177: \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7 \u1f21 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae\u00b7 \u1f41 \u1f04\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 (apud Euseb., _Eccles.\nHist._, v. 1, 58). This lends such support to the reading \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9 in\nApoc. xxii. 11, that Zahn not unnaturally speaks of it as \u201ccertainly the\noriginal text\u201d (_GK._ i. 201). E. A. Abbott places the date of the\nEpistle of the Church of Lyons as early as 155 (see _Expositor_, 1896,\ni. 111-126). Another aspect would be given to the question if the Greek\nform of the Epistle were derived from a Latin, or if, as Resch supposed,\nthe words were a quotation of a saying of Jesus (_Agrapha_, \u00a7 133, p.\n263 ff.).\n\nI take the opportunity of appending to Resch\u2019s work the fine saying\nwhich Zahn cites from Augustine\u2019s _Contra Adversarium Legis et\nProphetarum_ (ed. Bassan. x. 659 ff.) as an otherwise unknown\nApocryphum. The disciples asked Jesus \u201cde Judaeorum prophetis, quid\nsentire deberet, qui de adventu eius aliquid cecinisse in praeteritum\nputantur.\u201d And He, \u201ccommotus talia eos etiam nunc sentire, respondit:\nDimisistis vivum qui ante vos est et de mortuis fabulamini.\u201d A similar\nsaying from the _Acta Petri Vercell._ 10 is cited by Harnack in\nconnection with the third of the Oxyrhynchus Logia: \u201cQui mecum sunt, non\nme intellexerunt.\u201d\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n  See Mrs. Lewis, in the _Expository Times_, November 1900, p. 56 ff.,\n  _What have we gained in the Sinaitic Palimpsest? I. St. Matthew\u2019s\n  Gospel_, where a number of important variants are cited from that\n  manuscript.\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n  Corderius (_Caten. Psal._, ii. 631) substitutes \u201cancient\u201d for\n  \u201caccurate.\u201d\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n  Or \u201cexemplo graeco,\u201d according as the plural points are inserted or\n  not. The passage is printed in Syriac by Cureton, p. xxxvi, who says\n  that it is also found in the margin of the London manuscript of the\n  Peshitto, 14456. He also gives the verses in which Juvencus\n  paraphrases this text.\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n  The other variations of the Latin witnesses are extremely\n  instructive\u2014viz.:\n\n locis eminentioribus      superioribus    g_{2} emm.   honorificis  m\n\n clarior                   dignior         d m g_{2}    honoratior   e\n                                           emm.\n\n deorsum                   inferius        g_{2} emm.   infra        m\n\n inferior                  humilior                     minor\n\n superius                  sursum                       in superiori\n                                                        loco.\n\n utilius                   utile                        gloriam.\n\n  This variety is an indication of the early age at which the text was\n  translated into Latin.\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n  The _Thesaurus Syriacus_ does not contain the word either in col. 1405\n  under \u05d7\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05d0, or in col. 2205 under \u05de\u05e8\u05d0.\n\n  It may also be observed in passing, that the passage is one of those\n  whose sense is entirely changed by the insertion or omission of the\n  negative in this or that witness (see below on Gal. ii. 5). Instead of\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, Syr^{cu} reads \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Moreover, it takes\n  \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 as imperative, a fact that Tischendorf has failed to notice.\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n  I see that Chase, who discusses the passage in pp. 9-14 of his\n  _Syro-Latin Text_, has the same impression: \u201cthe compound Greek word\n  in D, \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, seems intended to represent the Syriac\n  expression \u2018the lord of the supper.\u2019\u201d\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n  The case is quite different in 1 Macc. v. 2, where the first hand of \u05d0\n  wrote \u1f60\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd for \u1f10\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf. Here \u1f60\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 occurs immediately\n  before it.\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n  So given in Merx\u2019s edition, but not in Lewis.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n  See also von Dobsch\u00fctz, _Das Kerygma Petri_, p. 82, where he cites the\n  passage of Origen relating to the _Doctrina Petri_, which is also\n  quoted by Tischendorf on Luke xxiv. 39, and insists rightly that in\n  the LXX \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is never employed to represent \u05d3\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7. Conybeare\u2019s\n  articles on \u201cThe Demonology of the New Testament\u201d in the _Jewish\n  Quarterly Review_ (1896) I have unfortunately been unable to consult.\n  Joh. Weiss never mentions \u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 in his article on _D\u00e4monen und\n  D\u00e4monische_ in the PRE^3, iv.\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n  This description is elsewhere understood as applying to Theodore of\n  Mopsuestia.\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n  The same variation occurs in Luke vi. 7, where \u05d0* B S X read\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 D), while \u05d0^c A E F have \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n  When examining Codex B I took occasion to look at certain other\n  passages, and discovered some strange mistakes in Tischendorf\u2019s\n  statements with regard to that manuscript, as I did previously in the\n  case of Codex D. In 3 John 13 B has \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 for \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019, on which\n  Tischendorf has no note. Westcott and Hort mention the passage in\n  their _Notes on Orthography_, ii. p. 153, but say nothing about B. On\n  Jude 5 we find Tischendorf saying in his Apparatus: \u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 sine \u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2\n  cum A B C^2 ... \u03db (Gb^{oo}) add. \u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 cum \u05d0 K L. But \u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 stands quite\n  plain in B. Had they known this, Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort\n  would certainly have printed their text differently. How far back this\n  false testimony with regard to B extends I am unable to certify. It is\n  found in Tischendorf\u2019s seventh edition of 1859, and in Huther\u2019s\n  Commentary of the same date. I repeat my Ceterum censeo, that two or\n  three sharp eyes should really revise the statements current about B.\n  This one is repeated from Tischendorf by Baljon, Weiss, and all our\n  Commentators. At the same time, Weiss has quite properly inserted \u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2\n  in his text, on the ground that while there was no occasion for its\n  interpolation, its omission is quite conceivable. He will, no doubt,\n  be gratified to see his reasoning confirmed by this weighty testimony\n  afforded by Codex B.\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n  Further instances of changes requiring investigation are:\u2014\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd and\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd; \u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd and \u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9; \u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd; \u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 and \u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd;\n  \u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9; \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd and \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1; \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03b5\u03bd; \u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 and \u03b1\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9;\n  \u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd and \u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd; \u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2; \u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1; \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 and\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u03b7; \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03bf\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2; \u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd; \u03c6\u03b5\u03b3\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 and\n  \u03c6\u03c9\u03c2; active and middle voice, \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, etc.\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n  See, however, Romans i. 14, and compare Zahn, _Einl._, i. 263.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n  I have already (p. 37) referred to the frequency with which mistakes,\n  often quite incredible mistakes, in translation occur. A few\n  additional instances may be cited here.\n\n  There is, for example, that of Ephraem in John ii. 2, mentioned above,\n  p. 287.\n\n  According to Aphraates 41, 16, Jesus promised to the mourners \u05d3\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05df\n  \u05e0\u05ea\u05d1\u05e9\u05e4\u05d5\u05df, _i.e._ that they should be _entreated_. The writer of the\n  text, therefore, that Aphraates used, must have taken \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd here\n  in the sense of \u201cto entreat.\u201d See Zahn, _Forschungen_, i. 78.\n\n  The same writer (383, 16) renders the words in Luke xvi. 25 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f45\u03b4\u03b5\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 in the form \u05d9\u05d5\u05de\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05e0\u05d4, _i.e._ \u201cbut to-day thou\n  _entreatest_ of him\u201d, where \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd is again taken in the sense of\n  \u201cto entreat\u201d, though a different word is used for it. See Zahn,\n  _ibid._\n\n  Again, Aphraates (390, 4) renders \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd) in Luke vi. 24\n  \u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4\u05d9\u05df, \u201ctheir _prayer_, their _request_.\u201d Zahn, _ibid._\n\n  The last clause of John v. 14 is rendered \u201cthat thou mayest have need\n  of nothing else,\u201d where \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 must have been read instead of \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n  Zahn, _Forschungen_, i. 161 f. Compare also the Syriac text of Apoc.\n  ii. 13; viii. 13, etc.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n  On the custom of dictating letters, see Norden, _Die antike\n  Kunstprosa_ (1898), p. 954 ff. On the autograph additions to the\n  letters of the Emperor Julian, see Bidez and Cumont, _Recherches\n  etc._, p. 19 (see above, p. 174).\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n  What an amount of perplexity would have been avoided had Paul been in\n  the way of dating his letters exactly, or had the copyists preserved\n  the dates, supposing they were there originally! One, but only one, of\n  the epistles of Ignatius bears a date\u2014viz. that to the Romans: \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1\n  \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd (x. 3).\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n  On these two verbs compare Exod. xxxi. 17, where the LXX has \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\n  and Aquila \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c8\u03c5\u03be\u03b5; Isa. xxxiv. 14, LXX \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, Aquila \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c8\u03c5\u03be\u03b5;\n  Isa. xxviii. 12, Aquila \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c8\u03c5\u03be\u03b9\u03c2; compare also \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, Matt. xi.\n  29; \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c8\u03cd\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, Acts iii. 20. Weiss, in his Commentary, ignores\n  the reading of B in Rom. xv. 32; in his discussion of the text he\n  supposes that the text was mutilated by a translator, and that D E F G\n  \u201csought to restore it in their own way.\u201d\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n  See 1 Cor. v. 8, where the Syriac has \u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d0\u2014_i.e._ \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u2014for\n  \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n  To these examples, gathered quite incidentally, one might add as many\n  from the Old Testament and other books if one paid any attention to\n  them in reading. Take, for example, Herodotus i. 24. Was the votive\n  offering that Arion set up at Taenarum \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 or \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1? In the\n  _Germania_ xv. 1 did Tacitus say of the Germans \u201c_non multum_\n  venationibus, plus per otium transigunt,\u201d or \u201c_multum_ venationibus,\n  etc.\u201d? In the new edition of Origen (i. 87, 16) Koetschau reads\n  \u1f00\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 where the manuscript and the earlier editions have \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1,\n  and he lets an \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba stand which others omit, etc.\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n  In his _Lucian_ Lagarde gives examples of his being deceived by\n  certain letters shining through from the opposite side\u2014_e.g._ Esther\n  v. 22 and 27. This latter is a most interesting case. The following\n  verse begins with \u03bc\u03b7, and Lagarde thought that the first scribe had\n  added another \u03bc\u03b7 by mistake and afterwards erased it, whereas it\n  turned out that what he took to be \u039c\u0397 was nothing else than \u0397\u039d shining\n  through from the other side.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n  _Cf._ Westcott, _Canon_, Part II. ch. ii. \u00a7 1, p. 354 ff.; _Bible in\n  the Church_, p. 125 f.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n  _Cf._ Westcott, _Bible in the Church_, p. 153 ff.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n  See Article on _The Catholic Epistles_, by Salmond, in Hastings\u2019\n  _Dictionary of the Bible_, i. p. 359 f.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n  It is certainly difficult to construct an Apparatus which shall be\n  concise and yet clear. In Jude 22 Baljon adopts \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b5 in the text,\n  and yet he leaves the apparatus arranged in such a way as to suggest\n  that he intended to read \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 with Tischendorf.\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n  The inscription on a column at Rome dedicated to a Sabine god which\n  Justin read as \u201cSimoni Sancto Deo,\u201d and understood as referring to\n  Simon Magus. See Kurtz, _Church History_ (Macpherson), i. p. 97;\n  Neander, _Church History_ (Bohn), ii. p. 123, note.\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n  Compare also the articles on 1 and 2 Peter by the same writer in vol.\n  iii.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n  See Blass, _Grammar of N. T. Greek_, \u00a7 31, 6, Eng. Tr., p. 80 f.\n  Compare the similar German idiom used in the titles of books, \u201cvon X.\n  Y. ordentlicher Professor.\u201d How naturally this comes to a Hebrew is\n  shown by the fact that Sal. B\u00e4r, in his translation of the Massoretic\n  note at the end of the books of Samuel (Leipzig, Tauchnitz, 1892, p.\n  158), among other lovely things has \u201cad mortem Davidis _rex_\n  Israelis.\u201d\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n  In this (independent) suggestion I am glad to find myself in agreement\n  with Lachmann (_Studien und Kritiken_, 1830, p. 839), and Westcott and\n  Hort (ii., App., 137). I see that Baljon and Zahn too follow it. But\n  Bousset still writes \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f37\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n  Including Gwynn\u2019s Syriac manuscript; see above, p. 102.\n\n\n\n\n                              APPENDIX I.\n\n\nThe following is a list of writers most frequently cited in critical\neditions of the New Testament. They are arranged chronologically, but it\nmust be remembered that the dates are more or less uncertain, and that\nin the case of many writers the period of activity lies in two\ncenturies:\u2014\n\n\n                             FIRST CENTURY.\n\n\n     Greek.                         Latin.\n     Clement of Rome, fl. 95\n     Ignatius, d. 107?\n     Barnabas, ?\n\n\n                            SECOND CENTURY.\n\n\n     _Didache_, ?\n\n     Hermas, 140?\n\n     Marcion (in Epiphanius\n\n     and Tertullian), fl. 145\n\n     Aristides, 139\n\n     Polycarp, d. 155\n\n     Justin Martyr, d. 165\n\n     _Clementine Homilies and\n     Recognitions_, ca. 190\n\n     Papias, fl. 140\n\n     _Gospel of Peter_, ca. 170\n\n     Tatian, fl. 170\n\n     Athenagoras, fl. 177\n\n     Theophilus of Antioch, d. 182\n\n     Celsus (in Origen), ca. 180\n\n     Hegesippus, fl. 180\n\n     Iren\u00e6us (see Latin), d. 202    Tertullian, fl. 200\n\n     Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194 Iren\u00e6i Interpres (according to\n\n                                    Tischendorf and Gregory, but\n\n                                    see below).\n\n\n                             THIRD CENTURY.\n\n\n     Hippolytus, fl. 220\n\n     Julius Africanus, fl. 220\n\n     Gregory Thaumaturgus, d. 265\n\n     Origen, d. 248                 Cyprian, d. 258\n\n     Dionysius of Alexandria, d.    Novatian, fl. 251\n     265\n\n     Porphyry, d. 304               Lactantius, fl. 306\n\n     Pamphilus, d. 308              Arnobius, d. 306\n\n     Methodius, d. 310              Victorinus of Pettau, d. 303\n\n     _Didascalia_, ?\n\n     _Apostolic Constitutions_\n\n     (and fourth century,\n\n     etc.).\n\n\n                            FOURTH CENTURY.\n\n\n     Arius, fl. 325\n\n     Jacobus Nisibenus (Syrian), d. Juvencus, fl. 330\n     338\n\n     Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea, d. 340    Iren\u00e6i Interpres (according\n\n     Aphraates (Syrian), fl. 340    to Westcott and Hort).\n\n     Eustathius, Bishop of\n\n     Antioch, fl. 350               Hilary of Poictiers, d. 368\n\n     Zeno, fl. 350                  Victorinus of Rome, fl. 360\n\n     Athanasius, d. 373             Damasus, Pope, fl. 366\n\n     Ephraem (Syrian), d. 373       Lucifer, d. 371\n\n     Basil the Great, d. 379        Pacianus, fl. 370\n\n     Evagrius of Pontus, d. 380     Optatus, fl. 371\n\n     Cyril of Jerusalem, d. 386     Philastrius, fl. 380\n\n     Amphilochius, fl. 370          Gaudentius, fl. 387\n\n     Macarius Magnes, fl. 373       Rufinus, fl. 397\n\n     Gregory Nazianzen, d. 390      Ambrose, d. 397\n\n     Gregory of Nyssa, d. 394       Ambrosiaster, fl. 390\n\n     Diodorus of Tarsus, d. 394     Chromatius, fl. 390\n\n     Didymus of Alexandria, d. 394  Tyconius, fl. 390\n\n     Theophilus of Alexandria, fl.  Jerome, d. 420\n     388\n\n     Epiphanius, d. 403             Priscillian, ca. fin.\n\n     Chrysostom, fl. 407            Auctor libri _De\n                                    Rebaptismate_.\n\n     Isidore of Pelusium, fl. 412\n\n\n                             FIFTH CENTURY.\n\n\n     Nonnus, fl. 400                Faustus, fl. 400\n\n     Theodore of Mopsuestia, d. 429 Hilary of Arles, d. 429\n\n     Victor of Antioch, d. 430      Augustine, d. 430\n\n     Cyril of Alexandria, d. 444    Prosper of Aquitania, fl. 431\n\n     Theodotus of Ancyra, fl. 431   Sedulius, fl. 431\n\n     Basil of Seleucia, fl. 440     Leo the Great, fl. 440\n\n     Socrates, fl. 440              Petrus Chrysologus, d. 455\n\n     Theodoret, Bishop of           Gennadius, fl. 459\n\n     Cyrus, d. 457                  Vigilius, fl. 484\n\n     Euthalius, d. 458              Auctor libri _De\n                                    Promissionibus_.\n\n     Sozomen, fl. 440\n\n\n                             SIXTH CENTURY.\n\n\n     Candidus Isaurus, fl. 500      Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe,\n                                    d. 533\n\n     Severus of Antioch, fl. 512    Justinian, fl. 530\n\n     Theodorus Lector, fl. 525      C\u00e6sarius of Arles, d. 543\n\n     Andreas, Bishop of             Primasius, fl. 550\n\n     C\u00e6sarea, ca. fin.\n\n     Maxentius, ?                   Victor, Bishop of Tunis, d.\n                                    565\n\n     Cosmas Indicopleustes, fl. 535 Cassiodorus, d. 575\n\n     Eutychius, fl. 553             Gregory the Great, d. 604\n\n     _Chronicon Paschale._\n\n\n                            SEVENTH CENTURY.\n\n\n     Antiochus the Monk, fl. 614    Peter the Deacon, ?\n     Andreas of Crete, fl. 635?\n     Maximus Confessor, d. 662\n     Modestus of Jerusalem, ?\n\n\n                            EIGHTH CENTURY.\n\n\n     Damascenus, Johannes, fl. 730  Bede, d. 735\n     Nicephorus, fl. 787\n     Petrus Siculus, ?\n\n\n                             NINTH CENTURY.\n\n\n     Photius of Constantinople, d.\n     891\n\n\n                             TENTH CENTURY.\n\n\n     Arethas, ?\n\n     Symeon, ?\n\n     \u0152cumenius, ca. 950?\n\n     Suidas the Lexicographer, ca.\n     980\n\n\n                           ELEVENTH CENTURY.\n\n\n     Theophylact, Bishop of\n     Bulgaria, fl. 1077\n\n\n                            TWELFTH CENTURY.\n\n\n     Euthymius Zigabenus, fl. 1116\n     Nicetas of Byzantium, d. 1206\n\n\n\n\n                              APPENDIX II.\n                               \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1.\n\n\nI had intended to give in full those passages of the Fathers known to me\nin which mention is made of manuscripts prepared by themselves or\nothers. In this way I hoped to make a start towards supplying the\ndesideratum spoken of on p. 154 above. But I feel that in order to be\nanything like complete, this would occupy too much space for the present\nwork. Even the passages in which Origen speaks of \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1, though not\n\u201cinnumerable,\u201d as Zahn says with a touch of exaggeration, are yet too\nnumerous to be included here. A considerable number of such passages are\nalready given in full in Tischendorf\u2019s Editio Octava. I have contented\nmyself with giving here, an alphabetic list of these, in order to\nfacilitate a geographical and chronological survey of the relevant\nmatter. Where only one passage is given, it will be found in full in\nTischendorf. Passages in which the word \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd itself or its\nsynonyms (codex, exemplar, etc.) does not occur, but where express\nmention is yet made of readings found in manuscripts, are given in\nbrackets.\n\nSome surprising facts are brought to light by such quotations. Witness\nthe remark made by Basil the Great (ob. 379) on Luke xxii. 36, who tells\nus that in Cappadocia in his time many manuscripts, indeed, if the text\nis correct the majority of manuscripts (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd),\nexhibited a reading now found in only one single manuscript, and that\nthe main representative of the \u201cWestern\u201d text; I refer to Codex Bezae.\nSee above on Luke xxii. 36. I may mention here that a certain \u201cBasilius\ndiaconus\u201d was the possessor of a magnificent Bible, the cover of the\nfirst part of which was used for Codex Syrohexaplaris Ambrosianus. The\ninscription ran: \u2020 \u0392\u0399\u0392\u039b\u039f\u03a3 \u1fb9 \u03a4\u03a9\u039d \u0398\u0395\u0399\u03a9\u039d | \u0393\u03a1\u0391\u03a6\u03a9\u039d \u03a0\u0391\u039b\u0391\u0399\u0391\u03a3 \u039a\u0391\u0399 || \u039d\u0395\u0391\u03a3\n\u0394\u0399\u0391\u0398\u0397\u039a\u0397\u03a3 \u0394\u0399\u0391\u03a6\u0395\u03a1|\u0395\u0399| \u0394\u0395 \u0392\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0395\u0399\u03a9 \u0394\u0399\u0391\u039a\u039f\u039d\u03a9 \u2020|. See the facsimile and\ndescription in Ceriani\u2019s edition, _Monumenta Sacra et Profana_, vol.\nvii., folio.\n\n    Adamantius (_i.e._ Origen), see Hieronymus.\n\n    Ambrosiaster, Rom. v. 14; the quotation should be corrected in\n    accordance with Haussleiter, _Forschungen_, iv. 32; (Rom. xii. 13);\n    1 Cor. v. 3; Gal. ii. 5.\n\n    Ambrose, Luke vii. 35; Gal. iv. 8.\n\n    Anastasius, Matt. xxvii. 18.\n\n    Andreas, Apoc. iii. 7.\n\n    Apollinarius, possibly mentioned in the scholia in Codex\n    Marchalianus (see Swete\u2019s _Septuagint_, iii. p. viii), John vii. 53.\n\n    \u2014\u2014, see Macedonius.\n\n    Apollonides, Eusebius, _Eccles. Hist._, v. 28.\n\n    Arethas, Apoc. i. 2, iii. 7.\n\n    Asclepiades, Eusebius, _Eccles. Hist._, v. 28.\n\n    Athanasius (also Pseudo-Athanasius), Matt. v. 22; 2 Thess. ii. 9;\n    for his mention of the \u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 made for the Emperor Constans, see\n    above, p. 181, note, and p. 184; Zahn\u2019s _Forschungen_, iii. 100,\n    _GK._ i. 73.\n\n    Augustine, Matt. xxvii. 9; Luke iii. 22; Rom. v. 14; (Rom. xiii.\n    14); 1 Cor. xv. 5; Phil. iii. 3.\n\n    Basil (the Great), Luke xxii. 36; Ephes. i. 1; Zahn, _Einleitung_,\n    i. 345.\n\n    Bede, Acts, _passim_.\n\n    Chronicon Paschale, John xix. 14 (see above, p. 30).\n\n    Chrysostom, John i. 28.\n\n    Didymus, 2 Cor. i. 1.\n\n    Epiphanius, Matt. i. 8, ii. 11 (\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ae\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f22 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2,\n    \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd, i. 430, 1085). See Westcott and Hort,\n    \u201cNotes,\u201d _in loco_; Matt. viii. 28; Luke viii. 26, xix. 41, (xxii.\n    43 f.); John i. 28; Ephes. i. 1.\n\n    Eusebius, Matt. xiii. 35, xxvii. 9; Mark i. 2, xvi. 3, 9 ff.; John\n    xix. 14.\n\n    Euthalius, Jude 25.\n\n    Euthymius, (Mark xvi. 9); John vii. 53.\n\n    Gregory of Nyssa (Pseudo-), Mark xvi. 2, 9.\n\n    Hermophilus, Eusebius, _Eccles. Hist._, v. 28.\n\n    Hesychius, Mark xvi. 2, 9.\n\n    Hieronymus (Jerome), Matt. xiii. 35, xxi. 31, xxiv. 17; Mark iii.\n    17, xvi. 9; Luke ii. 33, (xviii. 30), xxii. 43 f.; John vii. 53;\n    Acts xv. 29; 1 Cor. ix. 5; Gal. ii. 5, iii. 1; Ephes. iii. 14; 1\n    Tim. v. 19; Heb. ii. 10.\n\n    Iren\u00e6us, Apoc. xiii. 18 (see above, _in loco_).\n\n    Isidore, Heb. ix. 17.\n\n    Macedonius (see Draeseke, _ThStKr._, 1890, 12), Rom. viii. 11.\n\n    Marcion, see Epiphanius, Ephes. i. 1.\n\n    Maximinus, 1 Cor. xv. 47.\n\n    \u0152cumenius, Acts xiv. 26.\n\n    Origen, Matt. ii. 18, viii. 28, xvi. 20, xviii. 1, (xix. 19), (xxi.\n    15), (xxvii. 9), xxvii. 16 ff. (see above, _in loco_); Mark ii. 14;\n    Luke i. 46; John i. 28; Rom. iv. 3, xvi. 23 (see Zahn, _Einleitung_,\n    i. 276, 285); Col. ii. 15.\n\n    Pierius, see Hieronymus.\n\n    Severus, Mark xvi. 9.\n\n    Socrates, 1 John iv. 3.\n\n    Theodoret, Rom. xvi. 3.\n\n    Theodore of Mopsuestia, Heb. ii. 10.\n\n    Theodotus, Eusebius, _Eccles. Hist._, v. 28.\n\n    Theophylact, 2 Thess. iii. 14; Heb. ii. 10, x. 1.\n\n    Victor, Mark xvi. 9.\n\nMention is made of \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1 in anonymous scholia on Matt. ii. 18, xx.\n28, (xxii. 12); Mark xi. 13; Luke xvi. 19 (giving the name of the Rich\nMan as Ninive, _i.e._, Phinees; see Rendel Harris in the _Expositor_,\nMarch 1900); Luke xxii. 43 f., xxiv. 13; John i. 29, vii. 53, xxi. 25;\nRom. viii. 24.\n\n\n\n\n                                INDEX I.\n                                Subjects\n\n\n Abbot, E., 9, 58.\n\n Abbreviation, 48, 315, 317, 330.\n\n Accentuation, 47, 61.\n\n Achmim, dialect of, 133, 135.\n\n Acts, text of, 224, 294.\n\n Adamantius, 187.\n\n Additions, 238.\n\n Adler, 19, 103.\n\n African Latin, 110, 119.\n\n Aggaeus, 96.\n\n Alcuin, 125, 176.\n\n Aldus, 2.\n\n Ambrose, 109, 205.\n\n Ambrosiaster, 148, 205.\n\n Am\u00e9lineau, 70, 135, 137.\n\n Amelli, 113.\n\n Ammonian sections, 56.\n\n Andreas, 191, 329.\n\n Anselm, 7.\n\n Antilegomena, 12, 95, 321.\n\n Anthony, 135.\n\n Antwerp Polyglot, 10.\n\n Aphraates, 98, 216, 254, 293, 321.\n\n Apocrypha, 26, 137.\n\n Apollonides, 200 f.\n\n Apollos, 242.\n\n Apostolicum of Marcion, 207.\n\n Arabic version, 142.\n\n Aramaic, 93.\n\n Arethas, 191, 329.\n\n Arians, 205.\n\n Arias Montanus, 10.\n\n Aristion, 142, 295.\n\n Armenian version, 141.\n\n Artemonites, 200.\n\n Article, importance of the, 258, 287, 288, 295, 328.\n\n Asclepiades, 200 f.\n\n Asterisks, 101, 186.\n\n Athanasius, 62, 181, 183.\n   Dialogue of A. and Zacchaeus, 99 n.\n\n Athos manuscripts, 90, 152, 190.\n\n Augustine, 108, 120, 147.\n\n Autographs, 29 f., 97.\n\n\n Balg, 139.\n\n Baljon, 24, 168.\n\n Barabbas, prenomen of, 103, 244, 259.\n\n Barnabas, 30, 54 f.\n\n Barnard, 154 n.\n\n Basil the Great, 277, 340.\n\n Basilides, 203.\n\n Bashmuric dialect, 133.\n\n B\u00e4thgen, 105.\n\n Batiffol, 73, 75, 139.\n\n Bebb, 95.\n\n Bede, 75, 221.\n\n Bellarmin, 127.\n\n Belsheim, 112 ff.\n\n Benedict, Rule of, 173.\n\n Bengel, 3, 16, 30, 123, 221, 256.\n\n Bensly, 79, 97, 102, 105.\n\n Bentley, 16, 77, 83.\n\n Berger, J. G., 30.\n\n Berger, S., 111, 116 f., 123, 130.\n\n Bernhardt, 139.\n\n Bernoulli, 174.\n\n Bernstein, 100.\n\n Bertheau, 18.\n\n Bessarion, 87.\n\n Beurlier, 117.\n\n Beza, 9, 64, 221.\n\n Bibliotheca, 39, 53.\n\n Bidez, 174.\n\n Birch, 19.\n\n Bianchini, 111 f., 131.\n\n Blass, 32, 65, 163, 224, 260.\n\n Bohairic version, 133.\n\n Boniface, 46, 122.\n\n Bonnet, 26.\n\n Bonus, 105.\n\n Boetticher, see Lagarde.\n\n Bouriant, 135.\n\n Bousset, 91, 158, 329.\n\n Brandscheid, 26.\n\n Breathings, 47.\n\n Brightman, 66.\n\n British and Foreign Bible Society, 4, 13.\n\n Brugsch, 137.\n\n Burgon, 83, 146, 159.\n\n Burkitt, 97, 104 f., 109, 131, 139, 143, 229.\n\n Byzantine Recension, 21, 180 ff.\n\n\n Canons of Criticism, 16, 234, 239.\n   Eusebian, 56, 263.\n\n Capitals, 34, 59, 261.\n\n Cary, 160.\n\n Caryophilus, 14.\n\n Cassels, 106.\n\n Cassiodorus, 50, 128, 175.\n\n Castle, 12.\n\n Catalogus Claromontanus, 76, 162.\n\n Catenae, 147.\n\n Celsus, 144, 204, 296.\n\n Ceolfrid, 122.\n\n Cephaleus, 7.\n\n Ceriani, 116.\n\n Ceugney, 135.\n\n Chapter division, 8.\n\n Charlemagne, 125.\n\n Charles the Bald, 125.\n\n Charles, R. H., 140.\n\n Chase, 65, 216, 274.\n\n Cheikho, 104.\n\n Chronicon Paschale, 30.\n\n Chrysostom, 92, 181.\n\n Ciasca, 135.\n\n Clay as writing material, 45.\n\n Clement of Rome, 59, 110, 153.\n   of Alexandria, 147, 153, 204.\n\n Clementine Vulgate, 127.\n\n Codex, 41.\n\n Cola and Commata, 49.\n\n Colin\u00e6us, 7.\n\n Columns, 37.\n\n Comma Johanneum, 4, 26, 30, 86, 327.\n\n Complutensian Polyglot, 1.\n\n Conflate readings, 245.\n\n Confusion of vowels and consonants, 168 ff., 236, 262.\n\n Conjectural emendation, 167.\n\n Constans, 181, 183.\n\n Constantine, 54, 205.\n\n Contents of manuscripts, 38, 52.\n\n Conybeare, 79, 99, 142.\n\n Copinger, 6.\n\n Coptic dialect, 132.\n\n Copying, mistakes in, 37, 170, 234 ff., 313, 330.\n\n Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 146.\n\n Corrections, intentional, 192, 209, 239.\n\n\n Corrector (\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2), 57.\n\n Correctoria Bibliorum, 126.\n\n Corruption of the text, Greek and Latin terms for, 198.\n\n Corssen, 116, 123.\n\n Cotton paper, 36, 44.\n\n Courcelles, 14.\n\n Cozza, 60, 62.\n\n Credner, 65.\n\n Criticism, object of textual, 28, 156.\n   subjective, 157.\n\n Cromwell, 12.\n\n Cronin, 68.\n\n Crowfoot, 105.\n\n Crum, 135 f.\n\n Curetonian Syriac, 97, 104, 248.\n\n Cursive script, 35, 81 f.\n\n Cursive manuscripts, see Minuscules.\n\n Cyprian, 117, 119, 147.\n\n Cyril Lucar, 13, 58.\n\n\n Damasus, 107.\n\n Dated manuscripts, 69, 72, 300 n.\n\n Deane, 101, 103.\n\n De Dieu, 101.\n\n \u0394\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, 217, 256.\n\n Delisle, 123.\n\n Delitzsch, 2, 4, 5.\n\n Dialects of Egypt, 132.\n   of Palestine, 93, 103.\n\n Diatessaron, see Tatian.\n\n Dictation, 234, 298.\n\n Didascalia, 155.\n\n Dillmann, 140.\n\n Dionysius of Corinth, 199.\n\n \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, see Corrector.\n\n \u0394\u03b9\u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, 41, 43.\n\n Dobsch\u00fctz, von, 70, 72, 79, 123.\n\n Dogmatic alterations, 166, 197 f., 200 ff., 209, 239.\n\n Dutch school of conjectural criticism, 168.\n\n Dziatzko, 33.\n\n\n Eckstein, 139.\n\n Eclectic method of criticism, 170.\n\n Editio Regia, 7.\n\n Editions, number of, 5.\n   collections of, 5.\n   size of, 7.\n   Catholic, 25.\n\n Egyptian versions, 132 ff.\n\n Ehrhard, 79.\n\n Ellis, 16.\n\n Elzevir, 13.\n\n Engelbreth, 135.\n\n Ephraem, 98, 106, 216, 254.\n\n Erasmus, 3, 146.\n\n Erizzo, 102.\n\n Errors, sources of, 234 ff.\n\n Ess, van, 25.\n\n Ethiopic version, 140.\n\n Etschmiadzin manuscript, 142, 295.\n\n Eugipus, 122.\n\n Eumenes, King of Pergamum, 40.\n\n Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea, 54, 56, 179, 185.\n\n Eusebian Canons, 56, 263.\n\n\n Euthalius, 78 f., 188.\n\n Evagrius, 78 n.\n\n Evangeliaria, 39 f., 91 f., 106.\n\n\n Fabiani, 60, 62.\n\n Families of manuscripts, 17, 119, 176 ff.\n\n Fathers, list of. See Appendix I.\n\n Fayumic dialect, 133, 135.\n\n Falsification of text by heretics, 197 ff.\n\n Fell, 15, 133.\n\n Ferrar Group, 84 f., 99, 177.\n\n Field, 181, 264.\n\n Ford, 134.\n\n Froben, 3, 126.\n\n\n Gabelentz, 139.\n\n Gebhardt, O. von, 7, 22, 73, 174.\n\n Gehringer, 25.\n\n Gelasian Decree, 183.\n\n Genealogical method, 164, 171 ff.\n\n Gennadius, 173.\n\n\n Georgian version, 142.\n\n Gibson, 97, 105, 106, 144.\n\n Gildemeister, 140.\n\n Gnostics, 203 f.\n\n Goltz, von der, 90, 190.\n\n Goodspeed, 91.\n\n Gospels, collection and order of, 161 f.\n   division of, 56, 61.\n   title of, 165, 247.\n\n Gospel-book of Marcion, 207.\n\n Gothic version, 137 ff.\n\n Goussen, 135, 137.\n\n Graefe, 66, 231.\n\n Grandval Bible, 125.\n\n Gratz, 25.\n\n Graux, 48.\n\n Gregory, Pope, 125.\n\n Gregory of Nyssa, 87.\n\n Gregory, C. Ren\u00e9, 6, 7, 20, 83, 91, 111.\n\n Grenfell, 74.\n\n Griesbach, 18.\n\n Guidi, 140.\n\n Gwilliam, 96, 103, 104.\n\n Gwynn, 102, 106.\n\n\n Haase, 114.\n\n H\u00e4berlin, 43.\n\n Hahn, 206 n.\n\n Hall, Isaac H., 6, 8, 100.\n\n Hammond, 159.\n\n Harding, 125.\n\n Harklean Syriac, 79, 100, 106, 189, 255.\n\n Harmony of the Gospels, 16, 98.\n\n Harnack, 155, 202, 232.\n\n Harris, J. R., 30, 44, 65, 74, 86, 91, 97, 102, 105 f., 115, 153, 214.\n\n Haseloff, 73.\n\n Hauler, 155.\n\n Haussleiter, 311.\n\n Hebrew Bible printed, 1.\n\n Hebrews, Gospel of the, 72, 96.\n\n Hegesippus, 96.\n\n Heidenreich, 119 n.\n\n\n Henten, 127, 128.\n\n Heracleon, 203.\n\n Heretics, their falsifications, 197 ff.\n\n Hermas, 47, 54.\n\n Hermophilus, 200 f.\n\n Hesychius, 61, 62, 183 ff.\n\n Hetzenauer, 25, 132.\n\n Heyne, 139.\n\n Hieronymus, see Jerome.\n\n Hilgenfeld, 26, 116. Addenda.\n\n Hill, 105.\n\n Hitzig, 169, 309.\n\n Hogg, 106, 214.\n\n Holtzmann, 6, 116.\n\n Holzhey, 105.\n\n Homer, manuscripts of, 33.\n\n Homoioteleuton, 235 f.\n\n H\u00f6ppe, 139.\n\n Horner, 134, 136.\n\n Hort, 21, 170 f.\n\n Hoskier, 5, 62, 83.\n\n Hug, 61, 182.\n\n Hunt, 74.\n\n Hyvernat, 135, 136.\n\n\n Iberian version, see Georgian.\n\n Ignatius, 146, 300 n.\n\n Illustrated manuscripts, 51.\n\n Indiction, 69.\n\n Indiculus Cheltonianus, 161.\n\n Ink, 42.\n\n Interpolation, 238, 241 n.\n\n Iren\u00e6us, 147, 176, 202 ff.\n\n Irico, 111.\n\n Irish hands in manuscripts, 77, 113, 129.\n\n Iscariot, the variants, 242.\n\n Ishodad, 282.\n\n Islinger, 79.\n\n Itacism, 236, 287.\n\n Itala, 109.\n\n \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, spelling of the name, 162 f.\n\n\n Jacob, 63.\n\n Jannon, 7.\n\n Jaumann, 25.\n\n Jebb, 16.\n\n\n Jerome, 107, 124, 173.\n\n Jerusalem Syriac, 102, 106.\n\n Jostes, 139.\n\n Jovinian, 155.\n\n Julian the Apostate, 144, 174.\n\n J\u00fclicher, 116, 198.\n\n Junius, 10.\n\n\n Karkaphensian version, 103.\n\n Karlsson, 116.\n\n Kauffmann, 139, 181. Addenda.\n\n Kaulen, 123, 130, 131.\n\n Kenyon, 33, 58, 81.\n\n Kipling, 65.\n\n Knapp, 19.\n\n Koetschau, 149 ff.\n\n Krall, 135.\n\n Kroll, 155.\n\n K\u00fcster, 15.\n\n\n La Croze, 66, 134, 141.\n\n Lachmann, 19, 83, 123.\n\n\n Lagarde, Paul de, 30, 60, 95, 102, 106, 137, 140, 143, 223.\n   A. de, 106.\n\n Lake, 66, 73, 91.\n\n Land, 103 n.\n\n Langton, 8.\n\n Laodic\u00e6a, Epistle to, 77, 114, 129, 207, 299, 313.\n\n Latin versions, 107 ff.\n\n Laud, Archbishop, 75.\n\n Lead as writing material, 44.\n\n Lectionaries, 39, 91.\n\n Le Jay, 11.\n\n Le Long, 95.\n\n Leo X., Pope, 2, 3.\n\n Leusden, 104.\n\n Lewis, 97, 102, 105, 106.\n\n Lewis Syriac, see Sinai Syriac.\n\n Linen as writing material, 45.\n\n Lines in manuscripts, 37.\n\n Linke, 112.\n\n Linwood, 168 n.\n\n Lippelt, 162 f.\n\n Liturgical alterations, 91, 239, 267.\n\n Loebe, 139.\n\n London Polyglot, 12.\n\n Louvain Vulgate, see Henten.\n\n L\u00f6hlein, 104.\n\n L\u00f6we, 140.\n\n Lucas Brugensis, 127, 146.\n\n Lucian, 85, 138, 180 ff.\n\n Luft, 139, 140.\n\n Luther, 5, 149 n., 286, 309.\n\n\n Mace, 16.\n\n Maestricht, Gerhard von, 16, 239.\n\n Mai, Cardinal, 60, 113, 139.\n\n\n Manuscripts, age and locality, 35.\n   contents, 38, 52 f.\n   de luxe, 49.\n   material, 36, 40 ff.\n   number, 33, 81, 89, 90, 92.\n   size, 38.\n\n Marcion, 87, 205, 206 ff.\n\n Marcosians, 202.\n\n Margoliouth, 106.\n\n Marshall, 133.\n\n Martin, Abb\u00e9, 160.\n\n Martyrs, era of, 136.\n\n Masch, 95.\n\n Maspero, 135.\n\n Masudi, 162.\n\n Materials for writing, 40 ff.\n\n Matthaei, 19.\n\n \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, spelling of the name, 247.\n\n Mazarin Bible, 126.\n\n Melanchthon, 86, 140, 159.\n\n \u039c\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, 36, 41.\n\n Memphitic dialect, 133.\n\n Mercator, 138.\n\n Merx, 105, 106.\n\n Mesrob, 141.\n\n Michaelis, 104.\n\n Middle Egyptian versions, 133, 135.\n\n Mill, 15.\n\n Miller, 6, 152, 159.\n\n Mingarelli, 135.\n\n\n Minuscules, 34, 82, 83 ff.\n\n Moldenhauer, 19.\n\n Montfortianus, 4, 86.\n\n Morillon, 138.\n\n Morin, 11.\n\n Morrish, 170.\n\n M\u00fcller, 139.\n\n M\u00fcnter, 135.\n\n\n \u03bd abbreviated at the end of a word, 315, 330.\n\n Name of Dives, 342.\n\n\n Names, importance of proper, 241.\n   of the two thieves, 266.\n   of prophets confused, 251, 258.\n\n Negative liable to be omitted, see \u03bf\u1f50.\n\n Nestle, 3, 17, 23, 26, 48, 65, 132.\n\n Noetus, 203.\n\n Northumbrian manuscripts, 125, 176.\n\n Novatian, 155.\n\n Number of words in the N.T., 48.\n   of manuscripts. See Manuscripts.\n   of Greek editions printed, 5.\n   of letters in the N.T., 48.\n\n\n Obelus, 101, 186.\n\n Oikonomos, 49 n., 189.\n\n Old Latin version and manuscripts, 110 ff.\n\n Order of the Gospels, 161 f.\n   of the Catholic Epistles, 321.\n   of the Pauline Epistles, 300 f.\n\n Order of words, variation in the, 237.\n\n Origen, 147, 149 ff., 185 ff.\n\n Orthodox correctors, 192.\n\n Osgan, 141.\n\n\n \u03bf\u1f50, omission and insertion of, 310 ff.\n\n Oxyrhynchus papyri, 74, 80.\n\n\n Pal\u00e6ography, 32 f., 81 f., 181, 184.\n\n Palestinian Syriac, 102.\n\n Palimpsest, 37, 51, 63.\n\n Pamphilus, 57, 78, 185 ff.\n\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, 39, 53.\n\n Paper, 36, 44.\n\n Papyrus, 36, 42.\n\n Parchment, 36, 40.\n\n Paris Polyglot, 11.\n   Correctoria, 126.\n\n Patricius, 25.\n\n Paul\u2019s \u201cBooks,\u201d 45.\n\n Paul of Tella, 102.\n\n Pens, 45.\n\n Pericop\u00e6, 39, 91, 239, 267, 277.\n\n Pericope adulter\u00e6, 68, 84, 112, 142, 177, 282 ff.\n\n Peshitto version, 95, 103 f.\n\n\n Philoxenian Syriac, 100.\n\n Pickering, 7.\n\n Pierius, 187.\n\n Pius V., Pope, 127.\n\n Plantin, 10 f.\n\n Pococke, 100.\n\n Polycarp the Chorepiscopus, 100.\n\n Polyglots, 1, 10 ff.\n\n Pott, his view of Acts, 294.\n\n Praetorius, 140.\n\n Praxapostolos, 40, 92.\n\n Preuschen, 161, n. 1.\n\n Printing of the N.T., earliest, 1, 3.\n\n Primasius, 119, 148.\n\n Priscillian, 119.\n\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf and \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, 237 n.\n\n Prologues in Latin Gospels, 115 f.\n\n Proper names, see Names.\n\n Proven\u00e7al New Testament, 117.\n\n Psalters, 3, 68.\n\n Pseudepigrapha, 26.\n\n Punctuation in manuscripts, 38, 52.\n   importance of, 52, 201, 204, 261, 276, 297.\n\n\n Quaternio, 41.\n\n Quotations, 32, 144 ff.\n\n Quotation, marks of, 38.\n\n\n Rabbulas of Edessa, 98, 104.\n\n Rahlfs, 35 n., 62, 183 ff.\n\n Ranke, 113, 129.\n\n Ravianus, 86.\n\n Reading and writing, Greek terms for, 46.\n\n Reed pen, 45.\n\n Rehdiger, 114.\n\n Reithmayer, 25.\n\n Resch, 26, 280.\n\n Resultant Greek Testament, 22.\n\n Reuss, 6, 11, 159.\n\n Richelieu, 11.\n\n Ridley, 100.\n\n Riegler, 130.\n\n Rieu, 141.\n\n Riggenbach, 190.\n\n Robinson, 79, 106.\n\n Rocchi, 60.\n\n Roll, 36, 41, 43.\n\n R\u00f6nsch, 118, 123, 131, 146.\n\n Rooses, 11.\n\n Rossini, 140.\n\n R\u00fcegg, 231. Addenda.\n\n Rules of textual criticism, 234 ff.\n\n\n Saalfeld, 131.\n\n Sabatier, 111, 131.\n\n Sachau, 282.\n\n Sahak, 141,\n\n Sahidic version, 134.\n\n Salmon, 160, 170, 227.\n\n Saubert, 14.\n\n Schaaf, 104.\n\n Schaff, 6.\n\n Schj\u00f8tt, 24, 165.\n\n Schmidt, 137.\n\n Schmiedel, 56 n., 117.\n\n Scholz, 19.\n\n Schultze, 41 n., 51.\n\n Schulz, 65.\n\n Schwartze, 134.\n\n Scriptio continua, 37, 47, 315, 330.\n\n Script, various kinds of, 34 f., 81 ff.\n\n Scrivener, 6, 8, 33, 58, 65, 77, 83.\n\n Sections, 56, 61 n.\n\n Seidel, 66.\n\n Semler, 18.\n\n Sergio, 60.\n\n Simon of Cyrene, 203.\n\n Simon Magus, 205, 324 n.\n\n Simon, Richard, 15, 95.\n\n\n Sinai Syriac, 97, 105.\n\n Sionita, 11.\n\n Sitterly, 33.\n\n Sixtus V., Pope, 127.\n\n Skeat, 140.\n\n Speculum Augustini, 114.\n\n Steindorff, 134.\n\n Stephen, Henry, 7.\n   Robert, 7, 126.\n\n Stichometry, 37, 48, 49.\n\n Stilus, 45.\n\n Strein, 138.\n\n Stunica, 1.\n\n Stuttgart New Testament, 23.\n\n Subjective criticism, 157.\n\n Subscriptions, 57, 69, 72, 78, 122, 188, 189, 260, etc.\n\n Sulke, see Euthalius.\n\n Swete, 26.\n\n Syllables, division of, 48.\n\n Synodos, 140.\n\n Synonyms, interchange of, 236.\n\n Syriac versions, 95 ff.\n\n Syro-Latin, 216, 218, 223.\n\n \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, 41, 54 f.\n\n\n\n Tatian, 97, 105, 212 ff.\n   his Diatessaron, 98, 105, 212 ff.\n\n Tattam, 134.\n\n \u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03c5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9, 50.\n\n Taylor, Isaac, 172 n.\n\n Tertullian, 29, 119, 146, 147, 276.\n\n \u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, 53.\n\n Textual criticism, literature of, 6, 159.\n\n Textus brevior, 245.\n\n Textus receptus, 13.\n\n Thaddaeus, 96.\n\n Thebaic dialect, 133.\n\n Theile, 19.\n\n Theodore of Tarsus, 75.\n\n Theodoret, 98, 213.\n\n Theodotus, 200 f.\n\n Theodulf, 125.\n\n Thomas of Heraclea, 100.\n\n Thompson, E. M., 33, 59.\n\n Timothy and Aquila, Dialogue of, 99 n.\n\n Tischendorf, 19, 26, 53, 58, 63.\n\n Title of the Gospels, 164, 247.\n\n Tittmann, 19.\n\n Toinard, 15.\n\n Trabaud, 65.\n\n Transcriptional errors, 234 ff.\n\n Transposition of letters and words, 236 f.\n\n Traube, 173.\n\n Tregelles, 6, 20, 83, 141, 159.\n\n Tremellius, 10.\n\n Trent, Council of, 127.\n\n Tuki, 135, 137.\n\n\n Ubaldi, 60.\n\n Ulfilas, 137.\n\n Uncial script, 34, 81 f.\n\n Uncial manuscripts, 53 ff.\n   number of, 81.\n\n\n Valder, 7.\n\n Valentinians, 198, 203.\n\n Valla, Laurentius, 126.\n\n Vercellone, 60 ff., 123.\n\n Verse division, 8.\n\n Versions:\n   Syriac, 95.\n   Latin, 107.\n   Egyptian, 132.\n   Gothic, 137.\n   Ethiopic, 140.\n   Armenian, 141.\n   Georgian, 142.\n   Arabic, 142.\n   other, 143.\n\n Victor of Capua, 122, 308.\n\n Vincent, 160.\n\n Vogt, 139.\n\n Vollert, 34 n., 35.\n\n Voss, 138.\n\n Vulgate, 25, 109, 122 ff., 127, 132.\n\n\n Walton, 12.\n\n Warfield, 159.\n\n Weiss, 22, 229.\n\n Wells, 16.\n\n Westcott and Hort, their N.T., 21.\n   their types of text, 21.\n   their method, 171.\n\n Western text, 211, 214, 221.\n\n Wettstein, 18.\n\n Weymouth, 22.\n\n White, H. J., 131.\n\n White, Joseph, 100.\n\n Widmanstadt, 95.\n\n Wilcken, 33, 43.\n\n Wilkins, 133.\n\n William of Hirsau, 126.\n\n Wobbermin, 90.\n\n Woide, 134.\n\n Wolf, J. Chr., 66 f.\n\n W\u00f6lfflin, 118, 173.\n\n Wordsworth and White, 123, 131, 174, 176.\n\n Wright, Arthur, 26.\n\n Writing, styles of, 34 f., 81 ff.\n   Greek terms for, 46.\n\n\n Xenaia, see Philoxenian-Syriac.\n\n Ximenes, 1.\n\n\n Years, reckoning of, 69 n., 100 n., 141 n.\n\n\n Zahn, 160, 196 n. 2, 208 ff., 218, 224.\n\n Ziegler, 118, 123, 130.\n\n Zimmer, 77, 118.\n\n Zoega, 135.\n\n Zohrab, 141.\n\n Zwingli, 86.\n\n Zycha, 130.\n\n\n\n\n                               INDEX II.\n               Passages of the New Testament referred to.\n\n\nNOTE.\u2014_Passages treated in the Critical Notes are not entered here._\n\n\n    Matthew.\n\n    i. 2,......165\n\n    i. 3,......165\n\n    i. 11,......166\n\n    i. 16,......99\n\n    i. 25,......166\n\n    iii. 15,......166\n\n    v. 3, 4,......166\n\n    v. 10,......204\n\n    v. 22,......167\n\n    vi. 8,......192\n\n    viii. 9,......52\n\n    ix. 18,......37\n\n    x. 33,......150\n\n    xiii. 17,......203\n\n    xvi. 23,......37\n\n    xviii. 20,......143\n\n    xix. 17,......239\n\n    xx. 28 f.,......216\n\n    Mark.\n\n    i. 11,......52\n\n    viii. 38,......150\n\n    ix. 7,......52\n\n    x. 40,......37\n\n    xiii. 22,......239\n\n    xvi. 8,......67, 142\n\n    Luke.\n\n    i. 35,......201\n\n    i. 46-55,......3\n\n    i. 68-79,......3\n\n    ii. 7,......166\n\n    iii. 27,......242\n\n    vi. 4 f.,......64\n\n    ix. 26,......150\n\n    xi. 2,......64, 87\n\n    xiii. 7, 8,......193\n\n    xvi. 12,......211\n\n    xvi. 19,......342\n\n    xvii. 10,......237\n\n    xx. 30,......241\n\n    xxi. 30,......211\n\n    xxii. 52,......226\n\n    xxiii. 53,......64, 136\n\n    xxiv. 4, 5, 11, 13,......120\n\n    xxiv. 26,......211\n\n    xxiv. 51-53,......230, 245\n\n    John.\n\n    i. 14,......201\n\n    i. 28,......203\n\n    ii. 20,......203\n\n    iii. 6,......205\n\n    v. 8,......198\n\n    vi. 47,......245\n\n    vi. 71,......242\n\n    vii. 39,......245\n\n    vii. 53,......142, 177\n\n    xvi. 13,......124\n\n    xix. 14,......30\n\n    xix. 34,......227\n\n    Acts.\n\n    i. 5,......136\n\n    iii. 14,......170\n\n    iv. 6,......243\n\n    iv. 12,......237\n\n    vi. 8,......245\n\n    xii. 10,......64\n\n    xv. 15,......170\n\n    xv. 20, 29,......136, 206, 232\n\n    xvi. 10,......136\n\n    xviii. 24,......242\n\n    xix. 1,......242\n\n    xxi. 25,......232\n\n    xxiii. 25 f.,......9\n\n    xxiv. 19 f.,......9\n\n    Romans.\n\n    v. 14,......205\n\n    xv. 31-33,......179\n\n    1 Corinthians.\n\n    ii. 9,......148\n\n    x. 9,......152\n\n    xii. 28,......37\n\n    xv. 29,......204\n\n    2 Corinthians.\n\n    x. 15,......168 n.\n\n    Galatians.\n\n    ii. 11,......37\n\n    iii. 1,......186\n\n    iv. 3,......77\n\n    Colossians.\n\n    i. 16,......204\n\n    ii. 16,......169\n\n    ii. 18,......168\n\n    1 Thessalonians.\n\n    ii. 15,......211\n\n    1 Timothy.\n\n    ii. 5,......52\n\n    iii. 16,......37\n\n    2 Timothy.\n\n    ii. 17,......77\n\n    iv. 13,......36\n\n    Hebrews.\n\n    i. 9,......52\n\n    James.\n\n    iii. 1,......168\n\n    v. 7,......245\n\n    2 Peter.\n\n    i. 4,......240\n\n    ii. 15,......243\n\n    1 John.\n\n    iv. 3,......152\n\n    v. 7,......4, 86\n\n    2 John.\n\n    12,......36\n\n    3 John.\n\n    13,......36\n\n    Apocalypse.\n\n    v. 1,......43 n.\n\n    viii. 13,......101\n\n    xvii. 4,......4 n.\n\n    xvii. 8,......4 n.\n\n    xviii. 17,......168\n\n    xxii. 21,......157\n\n\u0398\u0395\u03a9 \u0394\u039f\u039e\u0391.\n\nPRINTED BY NEILL AND CO., LTD., EDINBURGH.\n\n\n\n\n                                 Plates\n\n\n                                Plate I.\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE I.: (1) \u05d0 Codex Sinaiticus. (2) A. Codex\nAlexandrinus.]\n\n\n                               Plate II.\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE II: (1) D. Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis. (2) D.\nCodex Claromontanus.]\n\n\n                               Plate III.\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE III: d. Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis. (2) d. Codex\nClaromontanus.]\n\n\n                               Plate IV.\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE IV: B. Codex Vaticanus.]\n\n\n                                Plate V.\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE V: Siniatic Syriac Palimpsest.]\n\n\n                               Plate VI.\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE VI: am. Codex Amiantinus, circa 700 A.D.]\n\n\n                               Plate VII.\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE VII: \u201cBible of Grandval\u201d, of the ninth century.]\n\n\n                              Plate VIII.\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE VIII: Sahidic Manuscript, probably of the fifth\ncentury, in the British Museum.]\n\n\n                               Plate IX.\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE IX: Armenian Manuscript of Etschmiadzin, A.D. 986.]\n\n\n                                Plate X.\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE X: Minuscule Evv. 274 (Par. Nat. Suppl. Gr. 79) of\nthe tenth century.]\n\n\n\n\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n    \u25cb Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n    \u25cb Text in bold print is enclosed by equal signs (=bold=).\n    \u25cb Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are\n      referenced.","title":"Introduction to the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":129650}