vets 5 Sap iestien sasha) ae SO Gi * srihe ti ie a se eran : nytt hy aii) Nei i ten ts us) i ae i ( SIN \ Oe A a sist a PAs tts i ( Bi Leh (etal a Gj ih erste oh > | i Bares ay as a f COs ; U a ‘ A} Ss *S aah an (3 RN ; i fs NN A ‘ AA aN SON SEMAN + wh) H Library ot the Church Divinity School of the Pacific No. 15325 Class FF S434 FES J _ Lincoln Librarp of the Church Divinity School of the Pacific NoAS3IS. clas 22S heroes S#I4 Wh. 2 Ex Dotior.. J 1.0. Lincolea SeiGencinad Canute ID hy he eee 6 2 1937 Bea eee ERE eae : — ; s ' 1 ‘ i ’ ‘ 1 - / F . “ 4 “, h- - = ’ / ~ rs A PLAIN INTRODUCTION TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT + b we : i _ iy : ] " . < a | Py & : } : r So ' < i ' : [ =¥ =] . f t a y Orford ii @ no: HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY ) fe + / - ae A PLAIN INTRODUCTION TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT FOR THE USE OF BIBLICAL STUDENTS BY THE LATE FREDERICK HENRY AMBROSE SCRIVENER M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. PREBENDARY OF EXETER, VICAR OF HENDON FOURTH EDITION, EDITED BY THE REV. EDWARD MILLER| M.A. PACIEc FORMERLY FELLOW AND TUTOR OF NEW COLLEGE, OXRORD ‘\ \\ t. a as, ZBondon GEORGE BELL & SONS, YorK STREET, COVENT GARDEN AND NEW YORK: 66 FIFTH AVENUE CAMBRIDGE; DEIGHTON BELL & Co, 1894 - 5 Ki - In templo Dei offert unusquisque quod potest: alii aurum, argentum, et lapides ” Z byssum et purpuram et coccum offerunt et hyacinthum. Nobiscum bene agitur, pa pelles et caprarum pilos. Et tamen Apostolus contemtibiliora nostra magis nece HIERoNyMI Prol ' *< ‘s i ‘ ' < ‘ cr] t ' : uO - : 4 i ) { : , a i) : ' 7 ae | ‘ 6 + oo. ‘ ‘ ‘ shih st OG “ 7 ae tt CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. ANCIENT VERSIONS ; ; : : - : : : P nae CHAPTER II. SYRIAC VERSIONS . : : : ‘ : : : : a i 1. The Peshitto. 2. The Curetonian. 8. The Harkleian or Philox- enian. 4. The Palestinian or Jerusalem. 5. The Karkaphensian or Syriac Massorah. Parallel Renderings. CHAPTER III. LATIN VERSIONS . . : 5 . ° - : ° 7 41 1. Old Latin—Old Latin Manuscripts. 2. Vulgate—Vulgate Manu- scripts. CHAPTER IV. EGYPTIAN OR COPTIC VERSIONS . c . . os ‘ ‘ 91 ' 1. Coptic Versions and Dialects. 2. Bohairiec Version—Manuscripts, 3. Sahidic (or, Thebaic) Version—Manuscripts, 4. Fayoumic. 5, Middle- Egyptian or Lower Sahidic. 6. Akhmimic. CHAPTER V. THE OTHER VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT . js . « 145 1. Gothic. 2. Armenian. 8. Ethiopic. 4. Georgian. 5. Slavonic. 6. Arabic. 7. Anglo-Saxon. 8. Frankish. 9. Persie. CHAPTER VI. as QUOTATIONS FROM THE FATHERS . : : : : : 5s 167 Value of Patristic testimony ; list of Keclesiastical writers. CHAPTER VII. EARLY PRINTED EDITIONS . . . . : . I - 175 1. Complutensian Polyglott, 2. Erasmus. 3. Aldus. 4. Stephen. 5. Beza. 6, Elzevir. vl CONTENTS. CHAPTER VII (continued). CRITICAL EDITIONS 1. Stephen. 2 Courcelles. 8. Fell. 4. Mill 5. G. D.T.M. D. (Gerhard yon Masstricht). 6. Bentley. 7. Mace. 8. Bengel. 9. J. J. Wetstein. 10. Matthaei—Alter. 11. Birch. 12. Griesbach. 13. Scholz. 14. Lachmann. 15. Tischendorf. 16. Tregelles. 17. Westcott and Hort. 18. Revisers’ text. CHAPTER VIII. INTERNAL EVIDENCE Seven Canons. CHAPTER IX. HISTORY OF THE TEXT . ° . . . . ° Second, third, fourth, and fifth centuries ; theories of Recensions. CHAPTER X. RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM, . Nature of comparative criticism; School of Lachmann unsound ; Hort’s theory examined and condemned ; true principles. APPENDIX. Illustrative passages CHAPTER XI. CHARACTER OF THE DIALECT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT CHAPTER XII. APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES TO SELECT PASSAGES: First Series. GOSPELS . Second Series. ACTS Third Series. St. PAUL Fourth Series, CATHOLIC EPISTLES Fifth Series, APOCALYPSE APPENDIX A. SYRIAC LECTIONARIES ° ° . a3 B. ADDITIONAL BOHAIRIC MANUSCRIPTS INDEX I. OF PASSAGES TREATED . 5 . . INDEX II. OF SUBJECTS ri 7 . : . . . . PAGE 196 244 257 274 302 312 ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA. P: Page 167, 1.16. Iam convinced that it is only just measure to a book, which from a strong prejudice is not known nearly as much amongst Textualists as its great merit deserves, to draw more attention to ‘The Revision Revised’ by the late Dean Burgon. Those who have really studied it, to whichever school they belong, know how it teems with suggestion all through its striking pages, The present book owes a vast debt to him. -P. 248, Il. 8, 9 from bottom, for Sir Edmund Beckett read Lord Grimthorpe. - Some remains upon sacred Greek MSS. by Dr. Scrivener have been just ublished under the name of ‘ Adversaria Critica Sacra,’ Cambridge: Uni- ty Press. Reference has been made in this edition to some of the proof- eets which were sent to the Editor. Vol. I. Appendix A. / j | INTRODUCTION TO meee CRITICISM OF THE TEXT OF mike NEW, TESTAMENT, CHAPTER I. ANCIENT VERSIONS. My fo facts stated in the preceding volume have led us to believe that no extant manuscript of the Greek Testament yet discovered is older than the fourth century, and that those written as early as the sixth century are both few in number, and (with one notable exception) contain but incomplete por- tions, for the most part very small portions, of the sacred volume. When to these considerations we add the well- known circumstance that the most ancient codices vary widely and perpetually from the commonly received text and from each other, it becomes desirable for us to obtain, if possible, some evidence as to the character of those copies of the New Tes- tament which were used by the primitive Christians in times anterior to the date of the most venerable now preserved. - Such sources of information, though of a more indirect and precarious kind than manuscripts of the original can supply, are open to us in the Versions of Holy Scripture, made at the remotest period in the history of the Church, for the use of VOL. IL. B 2 ANCIENT VERSIONS. believers whose native tongue was not Greek. After the com- position of the writings of the New Testament, it is evident that the Church was in possession of Sacred Books which were of the utmost value, both to those who were already members, and in the conversion of such as had not yet come to the real knowledge of the Faith. The nearness of Syria to Judea, and the growth of the Church at Antioch and Damascus in the earliest days, must have produced a demand for a rendering into the Syriac languages; and the bilingual condition of most of the Roman Empire must have entailed a constant desire amongst vast multitudes to read in their own tongue a veri- fication of the truths taught them. Accordingly translations, certainly of the New and probably also of the Old Testament, were executed not later than the second century in the Syriac and Latin languages, and, so far as their present state enables us to judge of the documents from which they were rendered, they represent to us a modification of the inspired text which existed within a century of the death of the Apostles. Later on, the influence of Alexandria opened the districts to the south and gave birth to the Coptic versions. And about the time of the acceptance of the Christian Religion by the Empire a further impetus was given, and the Vulgate and the Gothic and Ethiopic versions were soon made, followed by others according as the demand arose. Indeed, the fact that versions as a class go much further back than MSS., constitutes one of the chiefest points of their impor- — tance in Textual Criticism; since the range of the ancient versions may be roughly estimated as reaching from the second to the tenth century, whereas the period of extant MSS. did not com- mence till the fourth century was well advanced, and were con- tinued into the sixteenth. Their respective ages, too, are actually known, and do not rest upon probabilities, as in the first kind of evidence. They are also generally authorized translations, made either by a body of men, or by one eminent authority whose work was adopted amongst the people for whose use the Holy Scriptures had been translated. And they probably repre- sented, either many MSS., or a small body of accepted MSS. On the other hand, versions as evidence are not without their special drawbacks. It may be found as difficult to arrive at the primitive text of a version, as of the Greek original itself; ANCIENT VERSIONS. 3 whether from variations in the different copies, or from suspi- cions of subsequent correction. Besides this, some are secondary versions, being derived not from the Greek, but from some ver- sion of the Greek. Again, some are ‘ sense-translations',’ rather than word-renderings, and it is in many cases difficult to infer their real verdict. Of course, none but an expert, such as Dr. S. C. Malan, or the several revisers of the succeeding chapters of this edition, can pronounce upon the character of the verdict of a version in question. It will be seen then that versions by themselves cannot be taken to establish any reading, because manuscripts are necessarily first authorities, and there is no lack of abundance in such testimony. Yet they confirm, or help to decide, the con- clusions or the leanings of manuscriptal evidence: and taken in connexion with other witnesses, they have much independent force, varying of course according to the character of the version or versions, and the nature and extent of their agreement. In this respect they possess great importance. The experience of recent years has shown that it is mis- leading to construct classes of versions in regard to their relative importance. Fuller knowledge casts aside, and often with contumely, such adventitious helps. Readers are there- fore referred for information upon each version to the chapter or section which is devoted to it, and are recommended to gather their apprehensions of the several values of those versions from the facts recorded therein, and from use of them in the various passages of Holy Scripture where they are cited. But the following is a list of the chief versions of the New Testament which were made before the introduction of printing, and a few handposts are inserted here and there for elementary guidance in the study of them :— I. Peshitto Syriac (cent. ii), called ‘the Queen of Ver- sions’ (Hort, cent. ili). II. Latin version or versions? (ii, or ii-iv). Remarkable for age. 1 See Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, ii. ‘Evidence of Early Versions and Patristic Quotations, &c.,’ by the Rev. Ll. J. M. Bebb, M.A., p. 211. In this chapter, which from press reasons has been curtailed, I am glad to refer to Mr. Bebb’s careful and thoughtful essay. 2 IT cannot help expressing my strong opinion that there were a great many B 2 4 ANCIENT VERSIONS. III. Bohairic (or Memphitic) (iii? Stern, iv or v), best of the Egyptian versions. IV. Sahidic (or Thebaic) (iii 2), second Egyptian version. V. Middle-Egyptian (iii ?). VI. Fayoumic (ii or iii 2). VII. Curetonian (iv), corrupt,—(Hort, ii). VIII. Vulgate (iv), made by Jerome from the various Latin texts in vogue at the time. IX. Gothic (iv). X. Armenian (iv). XI. Jerusalem (v 2). XII. Ethiopic (v—vi). A large number of MSS. exist. XIII. Georgian (v, vi ?). XIV. Philoxenian (a. D. 508), corrected by Thomas of Harkel, Harkleian (a.D. 616); very literal. XV. Arabie versions (ix—xvii), made from Greek, Syriac, Egyptian, &c. XVI. Anglo-Saxon (x) of the Gospels, made from the Vulgate. ' XVII. Frankish (ix). XVIII. Two Persic, from the Peshitto (xiii), and from the Greek (xiv). The last four, being secondary, are worth but little as critical helps. distinct Latin versions, and that they had a great many sources of origin :— briefly speaking, (a) Because of the testimony of Augustine and Jerome ; (b) Because Latin translations from the first must have been wanted everywhere, and must have been constantly supplied. On the one hand the bilingualism prevalent in the Roman Empire would ensure a large number of translators: and on the other the want of accurate Greek scholarship would account for the numerous errors found in and propagated by the old Latin manuscripts. Copies of one translation could not in those days have been supplied in every place adequately to the want ; (c) Because of the multitude of synonyms to be found in Old Latin MSS. ; (ad) Because on almost all disputed passages Old Latin evidence can be quoted on both sides ; (e) Because the various MSS. differ so thoroughly that each MS. is quoted as resting upon its own authority, and no one standard has been reached or is in view, the utmost that has been done in this respect being to group them. But see next chapter: this is an undecided question.—Eb. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 5 It may be added, that from the literary activity of the last ten years in the closer examination of ancient records, and through discoveries in Egypt and elsewhere, a great deal has been added to the knowledge previously existing upon this part of the sub- ject of this book. Therefore in the succeeding chapters much alteration has been found necessary both in the way of correc- tion, because some theories have been exploded under the ’ increased light of wider information, and by the insertion of additions from the results of investigation and of study. The editor has been readily and generously assisted by several accom- plished scholars who are experts in their respective departments ; and the names cf the various writers who have contributed to the four succeeding chapters will form a sufficient guarantee for the soundness and completeness of the information therein supplied. CHAPTER II. SYRIAC VERSIONS. [= the following account of the earlier Syriac versions, the Editor has received the most valuable help from the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D., Fellow of Hertford College, who is editing the Peshitto Gospels for the University of Oxford. And upon the Harkleian version, he is indebted for important assistance to the Rev. H. Deane, late Fellow of St. John’s College, whose labours have been unfortunately stopped by failure in eyesight. 1. The Peshitto. The Aramaean or Syriac (preserved to this day as their sacred tongue by several Eastern Churches) is an important branch of the great Semitic family of languages, and as early as Jacob's age existed distinct from the Hebrew (Gen. xxxi. 47). As we now find it in books, it was spoken in the north of Syria and in Upper Mesopotamia about Edessa, and survives to this day in the vernacular of the plateau to the north of Mardin and Nisibis’. It is a more copious, flexible, and elegant language than the old Hebrew (which ceased to be vernacular at the Babylonish captivity) had ever the means of becoming, and is so intimately akin to the Chaldee as spoken at Babylon, and throughout Syria, that the latter was popularly known by its name (2 Kings xviii. 26; Isa. xxxvi. 11; Dan. ii. 4)*. As the Gospel took firm root at Antioch within a few years after the Lord’s Ascension (Acts xi. 19-27; xiii. 1, &.), we might deem it probable that its tidings soon spread from the Greek capital into the native interior, even though we utterly rejected the vener- 1 Duval, Grammaire Syriaque, p. xi. 2 Dr. Neubauer in Studia Biblica, vol. i. (Clarendon Press), ‘The Dialects of Palestine in the time of Christ,’ distinguishes between (1) Babylonian Aramaic, (2) Galilaean Aramaic, (3) the purer Aramaic spoken at Jerusalem, and (4) modernized Hebrew also used at Jerusalem. PESHITTO. 7 able tradition of Thaddaeus’ mission to Abgarus, toparch of Edessa, as well as the fable of that monarch’s intercourse with Christ while yet on earth (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist.,i.18; ii 1). At all events we are sure that Christianity flourished in these regions at a very early period; it is even possible that the Syriac Scriptures were seen by Hegesippus in the second cen- _tury (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv. 22); they were familiarly used and claimed as his national version by the eminent Ephraem of Edessa in the fourth. Thus the universal belief of later ages, and the very nature of the case, seem to render it unquestionable that the Syrian Church was possessed of a translation, both of the Old and New Testament, which it used habitually, and for public worship exclusively, from the second century of our era downwards: as early as A.D. 170 6 Svpos is cited by Melito on Gen. xxii. 13 (Mill, Proleg. § 1239)1. And the sad history of that distracted Church can leave no room to doubt what that version was. In the middle of the fifth century, the third and fourth general Councils at Ephesus and Chalcedon proved the immediate occasions of dividing the Syrian Christians into three, and eventually into yet more, hostile communions. These grievous divisions have now subsisted for fourteen hundred years, and though the bitter- ness of controversy has abated, the estrangement of the rival Churches is as complete and hopeless as ever*. Yet the same translation of Holy Scripture is read alike in the public assemblies of the Nestorians among the fastnesses of Koordistan, of the Monophysites who are scattered over the plains of Syria, of the Christians of St. Thomas along the coast of Malabar, and of the 1 IT cannot agree with Dr. Field (Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Proleg, Ixxyvii, 1874) that the Peshitto is not the Syriac version here quoted by Melito ; but, while he admits a frequent resemblance between it and the renderings imputed to ‘the Syrian,’ he certainly produces not a few instances of diversity between the two. Besides Theodoret, who often opposes 6 Svpos to 6 Efpaios (Thren. 1. 15 and passim), Field notes the following writers as citing the former, — Didymus, Diodorus, Eusebius of Emesa, Polychronius, Apollinarius, Chrysostom, Procopius (ibid. p. lxvii). 2 All modern accounts of the unorthodox sects of the East confirm Walton’s gracious language two hundred years ago: ‘ Etsi verd, olim in haereses miseré prolapsi, se a reliquis Ecclesiae Catholicae membris separarint, unde justo Dei judicio sub Infidelium jugo oppressi serviunt, qui ipsis dominantur, ex continuis tamen calamitatibus edocti et sapientiores redditi (est enim Schola Crucis Schola Lucis) tandem eorum misertus Misericordiarum Pater eos ad rectam sanamque mentem, rejectis antiquis erroribus, reduxit (Walton, Prolegomena, Wrangham, Tom. ii. p. 500). 8 SYRIAC VERSIONS. Maronites on the mountain-terraces of Lebanon. Even though these last acknowledged the supremacy of Rome in the twelfth century, and certain Nestorians of Chaldaea in the- eighteenth, both societies claimed at the time, and enjoy to this day, the free use of their Syriac translation of Holy Scripture. Manuscripts too, obtained from each of these rival communions, have flowed from time to time into the libraries of the West, yet they all exhibit a text in every important respect the same; all are without the Apocalypse and four of the Catholic Epistles, which latter we know to have been wanting in the Syriac in the sixth century (Cosmas Indicopleustes apud Montfaucon, ‘ Collectio Nova Patrum et Script. Graec., Tom. ii. p. 292), a defect, we may observe in passing, which alone is no slight proof of the high antiquity of the version that omits them; all correspond with whatever we know from other sources of that translation which, in contrast with one more recent, was termed ‘old’ (\x.9) by Thomas of Harkel a.p. 616, and ‘ Peshitto’ (JM.ag) the ‘Simple, by the great Monophysite doctor, Gregory Bar-Hebraeus [1226- 86]. Literary history can hardly afford a more powerful case _ than has been established for the identity of the version of the Syriac now called the Peshitto with that used by the Eastern Church, long before the great schism had its beginning in the native land of the blessed Gospel. The first printed edition of this most venerable monument of the Christian faith was published in quarto at Vienna in the year 1555 (some copies are re-dated 1562), at the expense of the Emperor Ferdinand I, on the recommendation and with the active aid of his Chancellor, Albert Widmanstadt, an accomplished person, whose travelling name in Italy was John Lucretius. It was undertaken at the instance of Moses of Mardin, legate from the Monophysite Patriarch Ignatius to Pope Julius III (1550- 55), who seems to have brought with him a manuscript, the text whereof was of the Jacobite family, although written at Mosul, for publication in the West. Widmanstadt contributed a second manuscript of his own, though it does not appear whether either or both contained the whole New Testament. This beau- tiful book, the different portions of which have separate dedica- tions, was edited by Widmanstadt, by Moses, and by W. Postell jointly, in an elegant type of the modern Syriac character, the vowel and diacritic points, especially the linea occultans, being PESHITTO. 9 frequently dropped, with subscriptions and titles indicating the . Jacobite Church Lessons in the older, or Estrangelo, letter. It omits, a8 was natural and right, those books which the Peshitto does not contain: viz. the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, that of Jude and the Apocalypse, together with the disputed passage John vii. 53—viii. 11, and the doubt- ful, or more than doubtful, clauses in Matt. xxvii. 85; Acts vili. , B73 xv. 34; xxviii. 29; 1 John v. 7, 8. It omits Luke xxii. 17, 18, see Chap. XII on the passage. This editio princeps of the Peshitto New Testament, though now become very scarce (one half of its thousand copies having been sent into Syria), is held in high and deserved repute, as its text is apparently based on manuscript authority alone. Immanuel Tremellius [1510-80], a converted Jew (the prose- lyte, first of Cardinal Pole, then of Peter Martyr), and Professor of Divinity at Heidelberg, published the second edition in folio in 1569, containing the New Testament in Hebrew type, with a literal Latin version, accompanied by the Greek text and Beza’s translation of it, having a Chaldee and Syriac grammar annexed. Tremellius used several manuscripts, especially one at Heidelberg, and made from them and his own conjecture many changes, that were not always improvements, in the text ; besides admitting some grammatical forms which are Chaldee rather than Syriac. His Latin version has been used as their basis by later editors, down to the time of Schaaf. Tremellius’ and Beza’s Latin versions were reprinted together in London, without their respective originals, in 1592. Subsequent editions of the Peshitto New Testament were those of the folio Antwerp or Royal Spanish Polyglott of Plantin (1571-73), in Hebrew and Syriac type, revised from a copy written about A.D. 1200, which Postell had brought from the East: two other editions of Plantin in Hebrew type without points (1574, 8vo; 1575, 18mo), the second containing various readings extracted by Francis Rapheleng from a Cologne manuscript for his own reprints of 1575 and subsequently of 1583: the smaller Paris edition, also in unpointed Hebrew letters, 1584, 4to, by Guy Le Fevre de la Boderie, who prepared the Syriac portion of the Antwerp Poly- glott in 1571: that of Elias Hutter, in two folio volumes (Nurem- berg, 1599-1600), in Hebrew characters ; this editor venturing to supply in Syriac of his own making the single passages wanting Io SYRIAC VERSIONS. in the editio princeps of Widmanstadt, and the spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans. Martin Trost’s edition (Anhalt-Cothen, 1621, 4to), in Syriac characters, with vowel-points, a list of various readings, and a Latin translation, is superior to Hutter’s. The magnificent Paris Polyglott (fol. 1645) is the first which gives us the Old Testament portion of the Peshitto, though in an incomplete state. The Maronite Gabriel Sionita, who superin- tended this part of the Polyglott, made several changes in the system of vowel punctuation, possibly from analogy rather than from manuscript authority, but certainly for the better. He inserted as integral portions of the Peshitto the version of the four missing Catholic Epistles, which had been published in 1680 by our illustrious oriental scholar, Edward Pococke, from a manuscript in the Bodleian (Orient. 119)1: and another of the Apocalypse, edited at Leyden in 1627 by Louis De Dieu, from a manuscript, since examined by Tregelles, in the University Library there (Scaliger MS. 18), and from one sent him by Arch- bishop Ussher, which is now in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin (B. 5. 16). Of the two, the version of the Catholic Epistles seems decidedly the older, ard both bear much resem- blance to the later Syriac or Harkleian translation, but neither have claim to be regarded as portions of the original Peshitto, to which, however, they have been appended ever since. Bp. Walton’s, or the London Polyglott (fol. 1654—7), affords us little more than a reprint of Sionita’s Syriac text, with Trost’s various readings appended, but interpolates the text yet further by inserting John vil. 53—viii. 11. This passage, which is the ‘Pericope de adultera, is found in Archbishop Ussher’s copy, dated A.D. 1627, and made from a Maronite MS. of much esteem at Kenobin under Mt. Lebanon; also in Brit. Mus. 14,470, in Cod. Barsalibaei at New College, Oxford, and in the Paris Nat. Library xxii, of which the two last copies are Harkleian, and the one in the British Museum is Peshitto*, We are left to conjecture as to the real date and origin of these translations, except that as far 1 Dean Payne Smith’s Catalogue, pp. 109-112. In the great Cambridge manuscript (Oo. I. 1, 2) the Epistles of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude follow t John, and are continued on the same quire, as Mr. Bradshaw reports. 2 See an admirable paper by Dr. Gwynn in ‘ Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy,’ xxvii. 8, ‘On a Syriac MS. belonging to Archbishop Ussher.’ This MS. was procured for Ussher in 1626 by T. Davies, lent to De Dieu, who used it in 1631, and is now in Trinity College Library, Dublin. PESHITTO. It as the Harkleian is concerned, Dr. Gwynn has shown that according to the Paris and Brit. Mus. MSS. they are claimed for Paul, a contemporary of Thomas of Harkel. Giles Gutbier published at Hamburg (8vo, 1664) an edition containing all the interpolated matter, and 1 John v. 7, 8 in addition, from Tremellius’ own version, which he inserted in his margin. Gutbier used two manuscripts, by one of which, belong- ing to Constantine L’Empereur, he corrected Sionita’s system of punctuation. A glossary, notes, and various readings are annexed. The Sulzbach edition 12mo, 1684, seems a mere reprint of Plantin’s; nor does that published in Rome in 1713 for the use of the Maronites, though grounded upon manuscript authority, appear to have much critical value. A collation of the various readings in all the preceding editions, excepting those of 1684 and 17138, is affixed to the Syriac N.T. of J. Leusden and Ch. Schaaf (4to, Leyden, 1708-9: with a new title-page 1717). It extends over one hundred pages, and, though most of the changes noted are very insigni- ficant, is tolerably accurate and of considerable value. This edition contains the Latin version of Tremellius not too thoroughly revised, and is usually accompanied with an admir- able ‘Lexicon Syriacum Concordantiale’ of the Peshitto New Testament. Its worth, however, is considerably lessened by a fancy of Leusden for pointing the vowels according to the rules of Chaldee rather than of Syriac grammar: after his death, indeed, and from; Luke xviii. 27 onwards, this grave mistake was corrected by Schaaf!. Of modern editions the most con- venient, or certainly the most accessible to English students, are the N. T. which Professor Lee prepared in 1816 for the British and Foreign Bible Society with the Eastern Church Lessons noted in Syriac, and that of Wm. Greenfield [d. 1831], both in Bagster’s Polyglott of 1828, and in a small and separate form; the latter editor aims at representing Widmanstadt’s text distinct from the subsequent additions derived from other sources. Lee’s edition was grounded on a collation of three fresh manuscripts, besides the application of other matter previously available for the 1 Yet, besides his error of judgement in bringing into the Peshitto text such passages as we have just enumerated, Schaaf follows the Paris and London Polyglotts when interpolating tay cw(opévay Apoc. xxi. 24, although the words had been omitted by De Dieu (1627) and Gutbier (1664). I2 SYRIAC VERSIONS. revision of the text; but the materials on which he founded his conclusions have never been printed, although their learned collector once intended to do so, and many years afterwards consented to lend them to Scrivener for that purpose ; a promise which his death in 1848 ultimately hindered him from redeem- ing. An edition of the Gospels printed in 1829 by the British and Foreign Bible Society for the Nestorian Christians was based on a single manuscript brought from Mosul by Dr. Wolff. Besides these, two editions have been published by the American Bible Society, at Oroomia, Persia, in 1846, and at New York (a reprint of the former) in 18781. From the foregoing statement it will plainly appear that no edition of the Peshitto Syriac has yet been published with that critical care on the part of editors which its antiquity and importance so urgently demand. It is therefore a matter of deep satisfaction that the work commenced by the late Philip Pusey has been brought near conclusion by the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, for the University of Oxford. Mr. Gwilliam has informed the editor that the Peshitto ‘Tetraevangelium ’ will be the first part published, and will exhibit in its apparatus criticus readings taken from forty manuscripts, some of which have been collated throughout, others in parts. From the account given in the third volume of ‘Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica,’ we learn that the authorities on which he bases his text in this elaborate edition are as follows :— 1. Brit. Mus, Add. 14,479 [a. p. 534], the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, Hebrews being always included by the Syrians. 2. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,459 [a.p. 530, last letter illegible], SS. Luke and John. Possibly older than the last. 3. Rome, Vatican [A.p. 548]. A Tetraevangelium, written at Edessa. 4. Florence, Laurentian Library [a.p. 586]. 5. Brit. Mus. 14,460 [a.p. 600]. A Nestorian Estrangelo, written in the district of Naarda, near Bagdad. 6. Brit. Mus. 14,471 [a.p. 615]. Another Nestorian MS. of the Gospels, written at Nisibis. 7. Cod. Guelpherbytanus [a.p. 634]. Written in the convent of Beth Chela, near Damascus. 8. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,448 [a. p. 699-700]. A Nestorian MS. Whole of New Testament as received in the Syrian Church. 9. Brit. Mus. Add, 7157 [a.p. 768]. Written at Beth Kuka. 1 Compare the Printed Editions of the Syriac New Testament, Church Quarterly Review, vol. xxvi, no. lii, 1888, and a Bibliographical Appendix by Prof. Isaac H. Hall to Dr. Murdock’s Translation of the Peshitto. PESHITTO-; 13 10. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,459 [about a.p. 450], SS. Matthew and Mark. 11. Brit. Mus. Add. 17,117 [about a. p. 450], 12. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,470 [v-vi]. Whole of Peshitto New Testa- ment. The Pericope de Adultera has been added as stated above, p. 10. 13. Brit, Mus. Add, 14,453 [v—vi]. A Tetraevangelium. 14. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,476 |v-vil. Paul. 15. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,480 ca Paul. 16. Cod. Crawfordianus I [vi]. A very handsome Tetraevangelium, » and in excellent preservation. 17. Codd. Dawkinsiani III, X XVII, in the Bodleian Library. 18. Partial collations of many other MSS. in the British Museum. 19. The editions published by the American Bible Society, which were, at least to some extent, revised on the authority of ancient Nes- torian copies. 20. The evidence of the Syriac Massorah of both the Nestorian and the Jacobite (Karkaphensian) recensions. It is necessary to mention briefly this remarkable wealth of evidence, probably’ to be largely increased by future investi- gations, in which the Peshitto presents no inconsiderable parallel to the vast amount of authorities on which the Greek Text of the New Testament depends, because people are apt to underrate the grand position of the Peshitto version, when comparing it with the Curetonian Syriac, of which the sole evidence consists only of two codices, if the newly-discovered one turns out to be what was anticipated. It is not easy to determine why the name of Peshztto, ‘Simple,’ ‘Common,’ should have been given to the oldest Syriac version of Scripture, to distinguish it from others that were subsequently made!. In comparison with the Harkleian it is the very reverse of a close rendering of the original. Perhaps the title refers to its common and popular use*. We shall presently submit to the reader a few extracts from it, contrasted with the same passages in other Syriac versions; for the present we can but assent to the ripe judgement of Michaelis, who, after thirty 1 Tregelles in ‘Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible’ thinks that the term was originally applied to the Syriac version of the Hebrew Old Testament, in order to discriminate between it and the Greek Hexapla, or the Syro-hexaplar transla- tion derived from it, with their apparatus of obeli and asterisks. To this view Dr. Field adds his weighty authority (Origenis Hexapla, Proleg. p. ix, note 1), adding that for this reason the pure Septuagint version also is called dmovv (x Kings vii. 18 ; xii. 22), to distinguish its rendering from what is given év 7d éfamAG. The epithet which was proper to the Old Testament in course of time attached itself to the New. z JNAveo JNadso, versio vulgata, popularis, Thes. Syr. 3319. 14 SYRIAC VERSIONS. years’ study of its contents, declared that he could consult no translation with so much confidence in cases of difficulty and doubt 7. 2. The Curetonian Syriac. The volume which contained the greater part of the Curetonian portions of the Gospels was brought by Archdeacon Tattam in 1842 from the Monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian Desert (p. 140), Eighty leaves and a half were picked out by Dr. Cureton, then one of the officers in the Manuscript de- partment of the British Museum, from a mass of other matter which had been bound up with them by unlearned possessors, and comprise the Additional MS. 14,451* of the Library they adorn, and two more reached England in 1847. They are in quarto, with two columns on a page, in a bold hand and the Estrangelo or old Syriac character, on vellum originally very white, the single points for stops, some titles, &c. being in red ink ; there are no marks of Church Lessons by the first hand, which Cureton (a most competent judge) assigned to the middle of the fifth century. The fragments contain Matt. i. 1—viii. 22; x. 82—xxlil, 25; Mark xvi. 17-20; John i. 1-42; iii. 5—vii. 37; (but many words in iii. 6—iv. 6 are illegible); xiv. 10- 12; 15-19; 21-23; 26-29; Luke ii. 48—iii. 16 ; vii. 33—xv. 21; Xvii. 23—xxiv. 44, or 1786 verses, so arranged that St. Mark’s Gospel is here immediately followed by St. John’s. Three more leaves of this version (part, perhaps, of the same MS.) were found among the Syriac MSS. procured by Dr. Sachau, and now at Berlin (Royal Libr. Orient. quart. 528). They contain Luke xv. 22—xvi.12; xvii. 1-23; John vii. 37-52 ; viii. 12-19. They were published by Roediger (Monatsbericht, Berlin Royal Academy of Sciences, July, 1872), and were privately printed by the late Professor Wright to range with Cureton’s volume. Within the last year the discovery has been announced of another Curetonian MS., which was found in the Library of the Convent on Mount Sinai by Mrs. Lewis. An edition of it is now in progress, but will not be published soon enough for notice in this work. The Syriac text of the London MS. was printed in fine Estrangelo type in 1848, and freely imparted to such scholars 1 A full list of editions of all the Syriac versions is given in the Syriac Grammar of Nestle (tr. Kennedy), Litteratura, pp. 17-30. CURETONIAN. 15 as might need its help; but it was not till 1858 that the work was published’, with a very literal translation into rather bald English, a beautiful and exact facsimile (Luke xv. 11-18; 16-19) by Mrs. Cureton, and a Preface (pp. xcv), full of interesting and indeed startling matter. Dr. Cureton went so far as to persuade himself that he had discovered in these Syriac fragments a text of St. Matthew's Gospel that ‘to a great extent, has retained the identical terms and expressions which the Apostle himself employed ; and that we have here, in our Lord’s discourses, to a great extent the very same words as the Divine Author of our holy religion Himself uttered in proclaiming the glad tidings of salvation in the Hebrew dialect. ..’ (p. xciii) : that here in fact we have to a great extent the original of that Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew of which the canonical Greek Gospel is but a translation. It is beside our present purpose to examine in detail the arguments of Dr. Cureton on this head ?, and it would be the less necessary in any case, since they seem to have convinced no one save himself: but the place his version occupies with reference to the Peshitto is a question upon which there has been and still prevails a controversy which largely concerns the issue between contending schools of textual critics °. 1 «Remains of a very ancient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac, hitherto unknown in Europe, discovered, edited, and translated by William Cureton, D.D. ... Canon of Westminster,’ 4to, London, 1858. See also Wright's description of the MSS. in.Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, vol. i. pp. 73-5. 2 Less able writers than Dr. Cureton have made out a strong, though not a convincing case, for the Hebrew origin of St. Matthew’s Gospel, and thus far his argument is plausible enough. To demonstrate that the version he has discovered is based upon that Hebrew original, at least so far as to be a modifica- tion of it and not a translation from the Greek, he has but asingle plea that will bear examination, viz. that out of the many readings of the Hebrew or Nazarene Gospel with which we are acquainted, his manuscript agrees with it in the one particular of inserting the three kings, ch. i. 8, though even here the number of Sourteen generations retained in ver. 17 shows them to be an interpolation. Such cases as Juda, ch. ii. 1; Ramtha, ver. 18; 9 for é7 or the relative, ch. xiii. 16, can prove nothing, as they are common to the Curetonian with the Peshitto, from which version they may very well have been derived. 3 The title to St. Matthew is remarkable ; for while (in the subscription) we read, ‘Gospel of Markos,’ and ‘Gospel of Juchanan’ occurs, as in other Syriac MSS., to St. Matthew is prefixed the title ‘vangeliom dampharsa Mattai.’ The meaning of the second word is doubtful in this application. The root means divide, distinguish, separate—cf. Daniel y. 28. Cureton (Pref. vi) says (1) that the ‘great authority Bernstein suggested ‘ Evangelium per anni circulum dispositum,’ This is inapplicable, because the copy is not set out in Church Lessons, although 16 SYRIAC VERSIONS. Any one who shall compare the verses we have cited from them in parallel columns (pp. 38-40) will readily admit that the translations have a common origin, whatever that may be; many other passages, though not perhaps of equal length, might be named where the resemblance is closer still; where for twenty words together the Peshitto and the Curetonian shall be positively identical, although the Syriac idiom would admit other words and another order just as naturally as that actually employed. Nor will this conclusion be shaken by the not less manifest fact that throughout many passages the diversity is so great that no one, with those places alone before him, would be led to suspect any connexion between the two versions; for resemblances in such a case furnish a positive proof, not to be weakened by the mere negative presumption supplied by divergencies. Add to this the consideration that the Greek manuscripts from which either version was made or corrected (as the case may prove) were materially different in their character; the Peshitto for the most part favouring Cod. A}, the Curetonian taking part with Cod. D, or with the Old Latin, or often standing quite alone, unsupported by any critical authority whatever ; and the reader is then in possession of the whole case, from whose perplexities we have to unravel our decision, which of these two recensions some are noted by a much later hand in the margins. (2) Cureton himself, noticing a defect in the vellum before es, would read eX», and render ‘The distinct Gospel of Matthew.’ This he understood to indicate that the translation of Matthew had a different origin from the other books, and was ‘built upon the original Aramaic text, which was the work of the Apostle himself.’ But there is nothing to justify the insertion of a 9, which is required to connect the title with the following name. The title belongs to the whole work, ‘Evangeliom dampharsa—Mattai’ [Catalogue Brit. Mus. l.c.}; the other names being preceded by ‘Evangeliom’ only. (8) ‘Dampharsa’ has been rendered ‘explained’ [see the review in ‘Journal of Sacred Literature,’ 1858], viz. from the text of the Peshitto; and this, as we shall see presently, agrees with the character of the Curetonian, for it abounds in deliberate alterations. But (4) from the quotations and references in the ‘Thesaurus Syriacus’ (R. Payne Smith), col. 3804, it seems almost certain that the epithet means ‘ separated,’ as opposed to ‘united in a Harmony.’ Such, of course, the Codex Curetonianus is, but further evidence is required to justify the inference that the Curetonian was the offspring of Tatian’s Harmony, and became the parent of the Peshitto, an opinion in large measure contradicted by the character of the translation. 1 Si nous devons en croire Scrivener, la version syriaque dite Peshitto s'accorde bien plus avec lui [Cod. A] qu’avec (B).’ (Les Livres Saints, &c., Pau et Vevey, 1872, Préface, p. iii.) The fact is notoriously true, and of course rests not on Scrivener’s evidence, but on universal consent. CURETONIAN. LF best exhibits the text of the Holy Gospels as received from the second century downwards by the Syrian Church. We must not dissemble the fact that Cureton’s view of the superior antiquity of the Curetonian to the Peshitto has been adopted by many eminent scholars. So for example Dr. Hort, who was obliged to account for the relation of the two by a baseless supposition of an imaginary recension at Edessa or Nisibis when the Peshitto was drawn up as a Syrian ‘ Vulgate’ (The New Testament in Greek, pp. 135-7). So with more strength of argument Dr. Nestle in ‘Real Encyclopedie fir protestanche Theologie en Kirche". 1. Now it is obvious to remark, in the first place, that the Peshitto has the advantage of possession, and that too of fourteen centuries standing. The mere fact that the Syriac manuscripts of the rival sects, whether modern or as old as the seventh century, agree with each other in the most important points, and at least to a large extent with the citations from Ephraem and Aphraates, as will be shown, seems to bring the Peshitto text, substantially in the same state as we have it at present, up to the fourth century of our era. Of this version, again, there are many codices, of different ages and widely diffused; of the Curetonian there is indeed one, of the fifth century, so far as the verdict of a most accomplished judge can determine so delicate a question: yet surely this is not to be much preferred, in respect to antiquity, to those ancient copies of the Peshitto which we have enumerated on pp. 10, 11, and which include a MS. of the fifth century, several others nearly as ancient, and two which are dated in the sixth century, the Florentine of A.D. 586, and the Vatican of A.D. 548. Another ‘Curetonian’ MS., lately dis- covered, is still under examination, and we have, as yet, no ade- quate account of it. From the Peshitto, as the authorized version of the Oriental Church, there are many quotations in Syriac books from the fourth century downwards; Dr. Cureton, perhaps the profoundest Syriac scholar of his day in England, failed to allege any second citation from the Gospels by a native writer which 1 The student may also consult :—Evangelienfragmente, F. Baethgen, 1885. Disputatio de cod. Evangg. Syr. Curetoniano, Hermansen, 1859. Lehir’s Etude, Paris, 1859. Dr. Harman in Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature, Boston, 1885. Zeitschrift des Morgenlindische Gesellschaft, 1859, p.472,. Dr. Wildeboer in De Waarde der Syrische Evangelién (Leiden, 1880) gives three pages of the literature of the question. VOL. II. Cc 18 SYRIAC VERSIONS. might serve to keep in countenance the statement of Dionysius Barsalibi, late in the twelfth century, that ‘there is found occasionally a Syriac copy made out of the Hebrew, which inserts the three kings in the genealogy’ (Matt. i. 8)4. With every wish to give to this respectable old writer, and to others who bear testimony to the same reading, the consideration that is fairly their due, we can hardly fail to see that the weight of evidence enormously preponderates in the opposite scale. 2. It will probably be admitted that in external proof Cureton’s theory is not strong, while yet the internal character of the ver- sion may be deemed by many powerfully to favour his view. Negligent or licentious renderings (and the Curetonian Syriac is pretty full of them) cannot but lessen a version’s usefulness as an instrument of criticism, by increasing our difficulty of reproducing the precise words of the original which the trans- lator had before him; but in another point of view these very — faults may still form the main strength of Dr. Cureton’s case. It is, no doubt, a grave suggestion, that the more polished, accurate, faithful, and grammatical of the two versions—and the Peshitto richly deserves all this praise—is more likely to have been produced by a careful and gradual revision of one much its ‘inferior in these respects, than the worse to have originated in the mere corruption of the better (Cureton, Pref. p. lxxxi). A priori, we readily confess that probability inclines this way ; but it is a probability which needs the confirmation of facts, and by adverse facts may be utterly set aside. Cureton’s remark that ‘upon the comparison of several of the oldest copies now in ° the British Museum of that very text of the Gospels which has been generally received as the Peshitto, the more ancient the manuscripts be, the more nearly do they correspond with the text of these Syriac fragments (Pref. p. lxxiii), is confirmed by other, and subsequent, labourers in the same field.. The received text of the Peshitto was printed from MSS. of a late type. It was the opinion of P. E. Pusey (whose name has already been mentioned in these pages) that a revision of the Peshitto text was made in the eighth century. The oldest Syriac Massoretic MS. which we possess is dated A. GR. 1210=a.D. 899%, but a copy of the Gospels (Add. 14,448), the date of which appears to 1 Cureton, Preface, pp. xi, xciii. 2 Brit. Mus. Add. 12,138 —see p. 86. CURETONIAN. I9 be A. H. 80=A. D. 699-700, contains a text which approximates to the type of the printed Peshitto, but exhibits marginal notes in a later hand, referring, however, chiefly to pronunciation and accentuation. There is no evidence that any formal revision took place; but it would appear certain that as questions of orthography, of grammar, and of pronunciation were fixed by the decisions of _ the Massoretes and grammarians, the faults (as they were deemed) of the older readings were emended by scribes. Hence it is, that if we open a codex of the Peshitto Gospels of about the date of the Codex Curetonianus, we find many resemblances of the kind indicated by Cureton, between the fifth century Peshitto text and the Curetonian text, because both belong to an early, and perhaps less accurate era of transcription ?. But the resemblances only extend to matters of grammar and spelling. In more important readings, the fifth century form of the Peshitto does not approximate to the Curetonian text. This was clearly seen by Pusey, as a result of the collation of a large number of Peshitto MSS. He found that the text of the oldest of them was substantially the same as that which is printed in the Polyglotts. The grammar may have been improved, but the translation was not revised. This argument has been elaborated in two volumes of the Oxford ‘Studia Biblica, in part by the use of Philip Pusey’s materials, in part by independent researches. In vol. i, paper viii, ‘A Syriac Biblical MS. of the fifth century,’ the read, ings which appear to be peculiar to that MS. (about seventy in number, for it only contains SS. Matthew and Mark) are set out?. Of these twenty-two can be compared with the Curetonian ; and it is found that only three approximate more nearly than the printed Peshitto to the text which, it is contended, is older than the Peshitto. Further on* a stronger argument is adduced ; for it is shown that in eleven passages, where the fifth century codex has a different reading from the printed Peshitto, the Curetonian, instead of agreeing with the ancient text (as ex hypothesi it ought) approximates to the printed Peshitto, and sometimes agrees with it. In vol. ii, paper iii, ‘The materials for the criticism of the Peshitto New Testament,’ other evidence is adduced in support of the same conclusions. St. Matt. v. 31-48 1 So Roediger in Z.M.D.G., b. 16, p. 550, instances ela M ; but it proves nothing, for the form occurs also in old Peshitto MSS. 2 Pages 164-5. 3 Pages 171-2. C2 20 . SYRIAC VERSIONS. is given, with varr. lectt. derived from twenty distinct authori- ties, so as to place before the reader the Peshitto in its best and most ancient form. The same passage is set out in the Cure- tonian form. The various readings in the Peshitto in the eighteen verses amount to at least thirty-one; but the majority are the merest minutiae of spelling and pronunciation. Only one deserves serious attention ; and even that, more for accuracy than in relation to the sense of the context; so little has the Syriae New Testament been altered, or corrupted, in the course of ages _of transcription. Again, when comparison is made with the Curetonian, while twenty-eight variations from the best form of the Peshitto oceur in the above passage, only four find any support in an old Peshitto MS., and but one of the four is of any interest. In addition to these there is one place where the Curetonian agrees with the oldest Peshitto MSS., against the printed Peshitto text. It is plain then that, as far as the enquiry has yet been pursued, the peculiar readings of the Curetonian cannot be traced backwards through the form of text in the oldest Peshitto MSS. If such a revision of the Peshitto, as Dr. Hort’s theory postulates, ever took place, it must have been made at a very remote period in the history of Syriac Christian literature; and the new text must have been substituted for the old by measures so drastic that the old (as far as we know) survives only in one Nitrian and (as we are told) in one Sinaitic MS. But this is not only improbable in itself, but is contrary to the analogy supplied by the Latin versions. Those who contend for the superior antiquity of the Cure- tonian rely in great part on the character of the quotations in the two great Syriac writers, Aphraates and Mar-Ephraem, who flourished in the century preceding the era in which our oldest Peshitto MSS. were transcribed’. Both writers abound in quotations from the New Testament, but many of them are very free, or mere adaptations. A large number in St. Ephraem are certainly from the Peshitto. Wright, in his edition of Aphraates, was inclined to attribute that writer’s quotations to the same source. This has been traversed by others, who contend that the quotations in Aphraates more nearly resemble the Cure- _tonian, or the text of Tatian’s Diatessaron, as far as we know it. 1’ Some of the Homilies of Aphraates were composed between 337 and 345. Ephraem died a.p. 373. Bickell, Conspectus, p. 18. CURETONIAN. 2I The question of the source of St. Ephraem’s quotations has been fully discussed in ‘Studia Biblica,’ iii, paper iv, by Rev. F. H. Woods, who has also taken' some notice of those in Aphraates. Mr. Woods holds, as do others (though, as we think, on insuffi- cient evidence) that the text of the Peshitto was not fully settled in the days of Aphraates and Ephraem. His conclusion is that it is quite clear, that Ephraem, in the main, used the Peshitto text (op. cit., p. 107), but as regards Aphraates, he holds that the quotations approximate more closely to the Curetonian. Yet Dr. Zahn, and many others, think that Aphraates used the Diatessaron. The statement of these differences of opinion is enough in itself to show that the source of quotations in these ancient Syriac books is not always easy to determine. Hence it follows that arguments based on the writings of Aphraates and Ephraem are precarious. Moreover, a variation from the Peshitto does not necessarily indicate the employment of another version. The variation might be derived from a Greek text; for there was constant intercourse between Greek and Syrian Christians, and many of the latter were well acquainted with Greek. While we seek in vain amongst the readings of MSS., and the writings of Syriac authors, for any a tectory explanation of the origin of the Curetonian, the work itself may perhaps reveal something of its nature, if not of its history. We have already seen ! that in the opinion of certain textual critics the history of the Latin Vulgate must have its counterpart in the history of the Bible of Edessa. The origin of Jerome’s translation is well known. It is supposed that the Peshitto grew in like manner out of an earlier translation. It is contended that the Ur- Peshitto is represented to us by the text of the Curetonian; and the two texts have been compared in order to establish this relation. In so doing, no sufficient account has been taken of the phenomena presented by the differences between the Peshitto and the Curetonian. When it is argued that in some of those differences the Peshitto text bears marks of emendation, of the improving touch of a later hand, we answer®, that in others there are as evident marks in the Curetonian of alteration and 1 Page 14. 2 In the following paragraphs we quote from a MS. exhibiting the results of investigations made by the Rev. Dr. Waller, Principal of St. John’s Hall, Highbury, who has most generously permitted us to make use of his labours. ~~ 22 SYRIAC VERSIONS. corruption. Indeed, to so large an extent do these prevail, that there are good grounds for the suspicion which has been enter- tained that the Curetonian (at least as exhibited by the editor from his MS.) is itself the later version. In order to give effect to this argument, it would be necessary to show the entire extant Curetonian text, side by side with the corresponding portions of the Peshitto; otherwise it is scarcely possible to realize (i) how manifestly the Curetonian is an attempt to improve upon the Peshitto text; and (ii) how frequently (as a later composition) it demands an acquaintance with the Gospels on the part of the reader; and (iii) how it is pervaded by views of Gospel history, which belong to the Church rather than to the sacred text. But even the short passages, which we have printed as specimens, afford illustrations of the argu- ment. 1. In St. Matthew xii. 1-4, where the Peshitto exhibits the Textus Receptus, saying that the disciples were hungry, and began to pluck ears of corn and to eat, the Curetonian improves upon the Peshitto thus:—‘and the disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears of corn, and break them im their hands, and eat ’—introducing words borrowed from St. Luke?. 2. (a) But in the next verse of the passage, where the words ‘on the sabbath’ are absolutely required in order to make the Pharisees’ question intelligible to the first readers of St. Matthew, the Curetonian must needs draw on the common knowledge of educated readers by exhibiting the question thus :—‘ Why are thy disciples doing what is not lawful to do?’ Of course the Peshitto is here an ‘improvement’ on the Curetonian, in reading the words ‘on the Sabbath’; but that does not affect our argu- ment. Would a primitive version, intended for first converts, have left the reader ignorant what the action objected to might be? whether to pluck ears in another man’s field, or to rub out grain on the Sabbath? But a later editor, who revised the text for some purpose (it matters not, at present, for what purpose), might consider the explanatory words superfluous. (8) In like manner in ver. 4, ‘the bread of the table of the Lord,’ a simple phrase, which every one could understand, has become in the Curetonian ‘face-bread, an expression which ? For other like cases see Mat. iv. 11, 21; v. 12, 47, in the Curetonian. CURETONIAN. 23 demands knowledge of the earlier Scriptures on the part of the reader, and displays the erudition of the editor, as do his emendations in the list of names in the first chapter of St. Matthew 4. 8. The other passage which we print (St. Mark xvi. 17-29) will illustrate our third criticism. The Curetonian is, ‘Our Lord Jesus then, after He had commanded His disciples, was . exalted to heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” The simpler Peshitto phrase runs thus, ‘Jesus our Lord then, after He had spoken with them, ascended to heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.’ The two slight touches of improvement in the Curetonian are evident, and belong to that aspect of the record which finds expression in the Creeds, and in the obedience of the Church. A similar touch appears in the Curetonian addition to ver. 17—them that believe on me. Again in Matt. v. 82 we read (with all authorities), ‘Whoso- ever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornica- tion, &¢.; so the Peshitto; but the Curetonian substitutes adultery, and thereby sanctions, not the precept delivered by our Lord, but the interpretation almost universally placed upon it. Now either the Curetonian has alone preserved the true text, or the Curetonian is an emended version, The first sup- position is unreasonable ; the latter is alone suitable to this and to many other passages. Not less curious is the addition in ver. 41, ‘ Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him two others. The Cure- tonian (with D and some Latin copies) make our Lord say, ‘Go three miles. If we cannot admit that this is the true text, then it is an emendation ; for it is no accidental change. But there is a distinct group of emendations which vividly illustrates our contention, that the Curetonian form of Syriac text is pervaded by views of Gospel history which belong rather to the Church than to the sacred records. While fully accepting the Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin, we must grant that it is in the nature of a pious opinion, which Christian sentiment recognized as true, but which is not explicitly stated in the New Testament. Hence we view with grave suspicion a class of emendations which are obviously 1 The forms in which 0. T. quotations appear in the Curetonian demand atten- tion, as they seem to suggest similar inferences, 24. SYRIAC VERSIONS. framed to confute the heresy of the Helvidians. Such a class is found in St. Matt. i. In ver. 16, Pesh., ‘Joseph the husband of Mary ;’ Cur., ‘Joseph to whom was espoused Mary the Virgin. Ver. 19, Pesh., ‘Joseph her husband, being a just man ;’ Cur., ‘ Joseph, because he was a righteous man.’ Ver. 20, Pesh., ‘ Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife ;’ Cur.,‘ Mary thy espoused.’ Ver. 24, Pesh., ‘Joseph... . took unto him his wife;’ Cur., ‘took Mary. The Curetonian translator, for dogmatic purposes, makes four distinct and separate omissions, in three of which he stands unsupported—of the word husband in two places, of the word wife in two others. These are emendations of a deliberate and peculiar kind. We cannot account for all these vagaries by remarking that the Curetonian has often the support of the so-called Western family of text?. We must face the question whether the MS. of an ancient version, which exhibits such singular phenomena on its first page, is worthy to be set above that version, which is the common heritage of the whole Syriac Church, and which appears to be the basis of the Curetonian itself. To determine the place of a document in our Apparatus Criticus, we must know something of its history. Of the history of the Curetonian version we know nothing. Its internal char- acter inspires grave doubts of its trustworthiness. We note its peculiarities with interest; but we do not yet see our way to yield much deference to its authority. The Peshitto bears wit- ness to that form of text, which was received in very ancient times in the Syriac Church. The Curetonian, like the Pales- tinian, is interesting as showing what readings were accepted locally, or by individual editors ?. 1 E.g. in the transposition of the Beatitudes in St. Matt. v, 4, 5. ? Since the discovery of the Curetonian version in Syriac by Archdeacon Tattam in 1842 and Canon Cureton, some Textualists have maintained that it was older than the Peshitto on these main grounds :— 1. Internal evidence proves that the Peshitto cannot have been the original text. 2. The Curetonian is just such a text as may have been so, and would have demanded revision. 3. The parallels of the Latin texts which were revised in the Vulgate suggests an authoritative revision between A.D. 250 and 350. These arguments depend upon a supposed historical parallel, and internal evidence. The parallel upon examination turns out to be illusory :— 1. There was a definite recorded revision of the Latin Texts, but none of the Syrian. If there had been, it must have left a trace in history, HARKLEIAN. 25 3. The Harkleian or Philoxenian Syriac. Of the history of the Harkleian Syriac version, which embraces the whole New Testament except the Apocalypse, we possess more exact information, though some points of difficulty may still remain unsolved. Moses of Aghel in Mesopotamia, who translated into Syriac certain works of the Alexandrian Cyril about A.D. 550, describes a version of the ‘New Testament and Psalter made in Syriac by Polyearp, Rural-Bishop! (rest his soul !), for Xenaias of Mabug, &c. This Xenaias or Philoxenus, from whom the original translation takes its name, was Mono- physite Bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis) in Eastern Syria (488-518), and doubtless wished to provide for his countrymen a more literal translation from the Greek than the Peshitto aims at being. His scheme may perhaps have been injudicious, but it is a poor token of the presence of that quality which ‘thinketh no evil,’ to assert, without the slightest grounds for the suspicion, ‘More probable it is that his object was of a less commendable character ; and that he meant the version in some way to subserve the advancement of his party?’ Dr. Davidson will have learnt by this time, that one may lie under the imputation of heresy, without being of necessity a bigot or a dunce. 2. There was an ‘infinita varietas’ (August. De Doctr. Christ., ii. 11) of dis- cordant Latin texts, but only one Syriac, so far as is known. 3. Badness in Latin texts is just what we should expect amongst people who were poor Greek scholars, and lived at a distance. The Syrians on the contrary were close to Judea, and Greek had been known among them for centuries. It was not likely that within reach of the Apostles and almost within their lifetime a version should be made so bad as to require to be thrown off afterwards. As to internal evidence, the opinion of some experts is balanced by the opinion of other experts (see Abbé Martin, Des Versions Syrionnes, Fasc. 4). The position of the Peshitto as universally received by Syrian Christians, and believed to date back to the earliest times, is not to be moved by mere con- jecture, and a single copy of another version [or indeed by two copies]. Textual Guide, Miller, 1885, p. 74, note 1. 1 Qn the order, functions, and decay of the Xopemicxona, sce Bingham’s 6 Antiquities,’ book ii, chap. xiv. 2 Davidson, Bibl. Crit., vol. ii. p. 186, first edition, The Abbé Martin (sce p. 823 note), after stating that this version was never used by any Syrian sect save the Monophysites or Jacobites, goes on to ask ‘ Est-ce & dire que cette ver- sion soit entachée de monophysisme ? Nous ne le pensons pas ; pour l’affirmer, il faudra V’examiner trds minutieusement; car l’hérésie monophysite est, a quelques points de vue, une des plus subtiles qui aient jamais paru’ (Des Ver- sions Syriennes, p. 162). 26 SYRIAC VERSIONS. Our next account of the work is even more definite. At the end of the manuscripts of the Gospels from which the printed text is derived, we read a subscription by the first hand, import- ing that ‘this book of the four holy Gospels was translated out of the Greek into Syriac with great diligence and labour .. . first in the city of Mabug, in the year of Alexander of Macedon 819 (A.D. 508), in the days of the pious Mar Philoxenus, confessor, Bishop of that city. Afterwards it was collated with much diligence by me, the poor Thomas, by the help of two [or three] approved and accurate Greek Manuscripts in Antonia, of the great city of Alexandria, in the holy monastery of the Antonians. It was again written out and collated in the aforesaid place in the year of the same Alexander 927 (A.D. 616), Indiction Iv. How much toil I spent upon it and its companions the Lord alone knoweth ... &.’ It is plain that by ‘its companions’ the other parts of the N. T. are meant, for a similar subscription (specify- ing but one manuscript) is annexed to the Catholic Epistles. That the labour of Thomas (surnamed from Harkel, his native place, and like Philoxenus, subsequently Monophysite Bishop of Mabug) was confined to the collation of the manuscripts he names, and whose various readings, usually in Greek characters, with occasional exegetical notes, stand in the margin of all copies but one at Florence, is not a probable opinion. It is likely that he added the asterisks and obeli which abound in the version?, and G. H. Bernstein (De Charklensi N. T. transl. Syriac. Commentatio, Breslau, 1837) believes that he so modified the text itself, that it remains in the state in which Polycarp left it only in one codex now at Rome, which he collated for a few chapters of St. John. We have been reminded by Tregelles, who was always ready to give every one his due, that our own Pococke in 1680, in the Preface to his edition of the Catholic Epistles not included in the Peshitto, both quotes an extract from Dionysius Barsalibi, Bishop of Amida (Diarbekr), who flourished in the twelfth ? The asterisks (S) 4) and obeli (3 ~) of this version will be observed in our specimens given below. Like the similar marks in Origen’s Hexapla (from which they were doubtless borrowed), they have been miserably displaced by copyists ; so that their real purpose is a little uncertain. Wetstein, and after him even Storr and Adler, refer them to changes made in the Harkleian from the Peshitto : White more plausibly considers the asterisk to intimate an addition to the text, the obelus to recommend a removal from it. HARKLEIAN. 27 century, which mentions this version, and even shows some acquaintance with its peculiar character. Although again brought to notice in the comprehensive ‘ Bibliotheca Orientalis’ (1719-28) of the elder J. S. Assemani [1687-1768], the Harkleian attracted no attention until 1730, in which year Samuel Palmer sent from Diarbekr to Dr. Gloucester Ridley four Syriac manu- seripts, two of which proved to belong to this translation, both containing the Gospels, one of them being the only extant copy of the Acts and all the Epistles. Fortunately Ridley [1702- 1774] was a man of some learning and acuteness, or these pre- cious codices might have lain disregarded as other copies of the same version had long done in Italy; so that though he did not choose to incur the risk of publishing them in full, he com- municated his discovery to Wetstein, who came to England once more, in 1746, for the purpose of collating them for his edition of the N.T., then soon to appear: he could spare, however, but fourteen days for the task, which was far too short a time, the rather as the Estrangelo character, in which the manuscripts were written, was new to him. In 1761 Ridley produced his very careful and valuable tract, De Syriacarum N. F. Versionum Indole atque Usu Dissertatio, and on his death his manuscripts went to New College, of which society he had been a Fellow. The care of publishing them was then undertaken by the Delegates of the Oxford Press, who selected for their editor Joseph White [1746-1814], then Fellow of Wadham College and Professor of Arabic, afterwards Canon of Christ Church; who, though now, I fear, chiefly remembered for the most foolish action of his life, was an industrious, able, and genuine scholar. Under his care the Gospels appeared in two vols. 4to, 1778 1, with 1«Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana, ex Codd. MSS. Ridleianis in Bibliotheca Novi Collegii Oxon. repositis; nunc primum edita, cum Interpretatione Latina et Annotationibus Josephi White. Oxonii e Typo- grapheo Clarendoniano,’ 1778, 2 tom. 4to. And so for the two later volumes. Ridley named that one of his manuscripts which contains only the Gospels Codex Barsalibaei, as notes of revision by that writer are found in it (e.g. John vii. 58—viii. 11). G. H. Bernstein has also published St. John’s Gospel (Leipzig, 1853) from ‘manuscripts in the Vatican. In or about 1877 Professor Isaac H. Hall, an American missionary, discovered at Beerat a manuscript in the Estrangelo character, much mutilated (of which he kindly sent me a photo- graphed page containing the end of St. Luke and the beginning of St. John), which in the Gospels follows the Harkleian version, although the text differs much from White’s, but the rest of the N.T. is from the Peshitto. Dr. Hall has drawn up a list of over 300 readings differing from White’s. 28 SYRIAC VERSIONS. a Latin version and satisfactory Prolegomena; the Acts and ~ Catholic Epp. in 1799, the Pauline in 1803. Meanwhile Storr (Observat. super N. T. vers. Syr., 1772) and Adler (N. T. Version. Syr., 1789) had examined and described seven or eight con- tinental codices of the Gospels in this version, some of which are thought superior to White’s!. The characteristic feature of the Harkleian is its excessive closeness to the original: it is probably the most servile version of Scripture ever made. Specimens of it will appear on pp. 38- 40, by the side of those from other translations, which will abundantly justify this statement. The Peshitto is beyond doubt taken as its basis, and is violently changed in order to force it into rigorous conformity with the very letter of the Greek. In the twenty verses of Matt. xxviii we note seventy-six such alterations: three of them seem to concern various readings (vers. 2-18; and5 marg.); six are inversions in the order; about five are substitutions of words for others that may have grown obsolete: the rest are of the most frivolous description, the definite state of nouns being placed for the absolute, or vice versa; the Greek article represented by the Syriac pronoun; the inseparable pronominal affixes (that delicate peculiarity of the Aramaean dialects) retrenched or discarded ; the most unmeaning changes made in the tenses of verbs, and the lesser particles. Its very defects, however, as being servilely accurate, give it weight as a textual authority: there can be no hesitation about the readings of the copies from which such a book was made. While those employed for the version itself in the sixth century resembled more nearly our modern printed editions, the three or more codices used by Thomas at Alexandria must have been nearly akin to Cod. D (especially in the Acts), and, next to D, support BL, 1, 33, 69. ‘Taken altogether, is Dr. Hort’s comment, ‘this is one of the most confused texts preserved: but it may be rendered more intelligible by fresh collations and better editing, even if they should fail to distinguish the work of Thomas of Harkel from that of his predecessor Polycarpus’ (Introd., p- 156). The number of MSS. of this Harkleian version is far greater * Martin names as useful for the study of a version as yet too little known, the Lectionaries Bodleian 48 ; Brit. Mus. Addit. 7170, 7171, 7172, 14,490, 14,689, 18,714 ; Paris 51 and 52; Rome, Vatic. 86 and Barberini vi. 82. . HARKLEIAN. 29 than it was supposed to have been. The important discovery of the Moh] MS., now in the possession of the Cambridge University Library, brings down the Epistle to the Hebrews to the con- clusion, so that we now possess the Pauline Epistles complete in this revision. The following account of the MSS. of the Harkleian, consists in his own words of what Mr. Deane has seen himself, many _ of which he has collated. The letters are those by which he intended to have designated these MSS. had his sight enabled him to complete his revision. A. Cod. Mus. Brit. Add. 14,469. Saec. x (Wright’s Catalogue cxx). Very important. B. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7163. Saec. ix. x (Forshall’s Catalogue xix). Very important. C. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. ‘Cod. Or. 130.’ Saec. xii. D. Cod. Bibl. Coll. Nov. Oxon. 333. Perhaps not so important as R. F. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Dawk. 50. G. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7164. Saec. xii (Forshall’s Catalogue xx). H. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7165. Saec. xiii (Forshall’s Catalogue xxi), In this MS. the two first lines of each page are for the most part obliter- ated by damp. K. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7166. Saec. xv. xvi (Forshall’s Catalogue xxii). ‘4 Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7167. Saec. xv. xvi. Q. Cod. Mus. Brit. Add. 17,124. Saec. xiii (No. 65 Wright’s Catalogue). R. Cod. Bibl. Coll. Nov. Oxon. 334. S. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Orient. 361. Saec. xiv. T,. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Poc. 316. U. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7167. Saec. xv. xvi. Fragments on St. Matthew only. V. Cod. Mohl. Cambridge University Library. Saec. xii. The last of these would probably be the text from which any new edition would be printed, It is a most remarkable MS., ex- ecuted with great care, and by a good Syrian scholar. Students should observe especially the curious diacritic point by which he designates the Nom. pendens. ‘I have not seen,’ Mr. Deane adds, ‘that elsewhere, though doubtless it exists!’ 1 See also Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian version, Acts and Epp. of the Peshitto version . . . by the Monk John. Presented to the Syrian Protestant College, &c., described with phototyped fascimiles by Prof. Isaac H. Hall [viii-ix], ff. 219+a fragment at end. Mut. at beg. and end, &c. Written in old Jacobite characters. Sent courteously to the Editor. 30 SYRIAC VERSIONS. 4. The Palestinian or Jerusalem Syriac. There are extant several scattered fragments of the Old and New Testaments, in a form of Syriac entirely distinct from the versions already described. These fragments are all in one dialect, and are apparently parts of a single version. The most considerable portion is an Evangelistarium which was discovered virtually by Adler, who collated, described, and copied a portion of it (Matt. xxvii. 8-32) for that great work in a small compass, his ‘N. T. Versiones Syriacae’ (1789): S. E. Assemani the nephew had merely inserted it in his Vatican Catalogue (1756). It is a partial Lectionary of the Gospels in the Vatican (MS. Syr. 19), on 196 quarto thick vellum leaves, written in two columns in a rude hand, the rubric notes of Church Lessons in Carshwnie, i.e. Arabic in Syriac letters, with many mistakes. From a sub- scription, we learn that the scribe was Elias, a presbyter of Abydos, who wrote it in the Monastery of the Abbat Moses at Antioch, in the year of Alexander 1341, or A.D. 1030. Adler gives a poor facsimile (Matt. xxvii. 12-22): the character is peculiar, and all diacritic points (even that distinguishing dolath from rish), as well as many other changes, are thought to be by a later hand. Tregelles confirms Assemani’s statement, which Adler had dis- puted, that the first six leaves, showing traces of Greek writing buried beneath the Syriac, proceeded from another scribe. The remarkable point, however, about this version (which seems to be made from the Greek, and is quite independent of the Peshitto) is the peculiar dialect its exhibits, and which has suggested its name. Its grammatical forms are far less Syriac than Chaldee, which latter it resembles even in that characteristic particular, the prefixing of yud, not nun, to the third person masculine of the future of verbs’; and many of the words it employs can be illustrated only from the Chaldee portions of the Old Testament, or from the Jerusalem, or Palestinian, Targum and Talmud ?. Adler’s 1 Thus also the termination of the definite state plural of nouns is made in LL for ( : the third person affix to plural nouns in 69 for eo, In the compass of the six verses we have cited (below, p. 89) occur not only the Greek words OO (seaupds), v. 8, and haoas (vaés), v. 5, which are common enough in all Syriac books, but such Palestinian words and forms as +? for «2, d€ (vv. 4, 6, 7) ; eS, v. 8, ‘when ;’ Joh, v. 8, ‘repented ;’ lsoo? for hsoy (vv. 4, 6, 8), ‘blood ;’ LOX, v. 4, ‘to us;’ laoin, v. 5, himself; e9, v. 6, ‘price’ (Pesh. has wong, Hark. 024 (pl.), 717); GOS, ©. 8, ‘therefore ;’ Of, o. 8, ‘ this.’ ? Hence the name by which this version is distinguished. For the recensions of Targum and Talmud, see Etheridge’s ‘Hebrew Literature,’ pp. 145-6, 195-7. PALESTINIAN. 31 account of the translation and its copyist is not very flattering, ‘satis constat dialectum esse incultam et inconcinnam .. . ortho- graphiam autem vagam, inconstantem, arbitrariam, et ab imperito librario rescribendo et corrigendo denuo impeditam’ (Vers. Syr., p- 149). As it is mentioned by no Syriac writer, it was probably used but in a few remote churches of Lebanon or Galilee: but though (to employ the words of Porter) ‘in elegance far surpassed - by the Peshitto ; in closeness of adherence to the original by the Philoxenian’ (Principles of Textual Criticism, Belfast, 1848, p. 356); it has its value, and that not inconsiderable, as a witness to the state of the text at the time it was turned into Syriac; whether, with Adler, we regard it as derived from a complete version of the Gospels made not later than the sixth century, or with Tischendorf refer it to the fifth’. Tregelles (who examined the codex at Rome) wrongly judged it a mere translation of some Greek Evangelistarium of a more recent date. Of all the Syriac books, this copy and Barsalibi’s recension of the Hark- leian alone contain John vii. 53—viii. 11; the Lectionary giving it as the Proper Lesson for Oct. 8, St. Pelagia’s day. In general its readings much resemble those of Codd. BD, siding with B eighty-five times, with D seventy-nine, in the portions published by Adler; but with D alone eleven times, with B alone but three. The information afforded by Adler respecting this remarkable document gave rise to a natural wish that the whole manuscript should be carefully edited by some respectable scholar. This has now been done by Count Francis Miniscalchi Erizzo, who in 1861-4 published at Verona in two quarto volumes ‘ Evan- geliarium MHierosolymitanum ex Codice Vaticano Palaestino deprompsit, edidit, Latiné vertit, Prolegomenis ac Glossario adornavit Comes F. M. E.” This elaborate work, for such it is, although its execution fails on the whole to satisfy critics of the calibre of Land and the Abbé Martin, ends with a list of those chapters and verses of the Gospels (according to the notation of the Latin Vulgate), which the manuscript contains 1 Dr. Hort’s not very explicit judgement should now be added: ‘ The Jeru- salem Syriac Lectionary has an entirely different text [from the Harkleian], probably not altogether unaffected by the Syriac Vulgate [meaning thereby the Peshitto], but more closely related to the Old Syriac [meaning the Curetonian]. Mixture with one or more Greek texts containing elements of every great type, but especially the more ancient, has however given the whole a strikingly composite character’ (Introd., p. 157). 32 SSYRIAC VERSIONS. in full. Tischendorf, in the eighth edition of his Greek Testa- ment, enriched his notes with the various readings these Church Lessons exhibit ; their critical character being much the same as Adler’s slight specimen had given us reason to expect’. The Lectionary closely resemnbles that of the Greek Church, the slight differences in the beginnings and endings of the Lessons scarcely exceeding those subsisting between different Greek copies, as noticed in our Synaxarion. It contains the Sunday and week-day Gospels for the first eight weeks beginning at Easter (with a few verses lost in two places of Week vri1); the Saturday and Sunday Gospels only for the rest of the year; the Lessons for the Holy Week, complete as detailed in Vol. I. 85, with two or three slight exceptions; and the eleven Gospels of the Resurrection. In the Menology or Calendar of Immove- able Feasts, there is a greater amount of variation in regard to the Saints’ Days kept, as indeed we might have looked for beforehand. We subjoin a list of those whose Gospels are given at length in the manuscript, together with the portions of Scripture appointed for each day, in order that this curious Syriac service-book may be compared with that of the Greeks. September 1. Simaan Alepinus Stylites. 3. Commemoratio patris nostri Anthioma, John x. 7-16. 4. Babul et puerorum et sanctorum qui cum eo, Luke x. 1-12. 5. Zacharias, father of the Baptist, Matt. xxiii. 29-39. 6. Eudoxio, Mark xii. 28-37. 8. Birthday of the Virgin, M/atins, Luke i. 39-56. Ad Missam,as p. 87. Sunday before Elevation of the Cross, as p. 87. 14. Elevation of the Cross, John xi. 53; xix. 6-35. 15. Nikita, Matt. x. 16-22. 16. Eufemia, p. 87, note 2. 20. Eustathios et sociorum ejus, Luke xxi. 12-19. 21. Jonah the Prophet, Luke xi. 29-33. 30. Gregory the Armenian”, Matt. xxiv. 42-51. : October 3. Dionosios the Bishop, Matt. xiii. 45-54. Blagia (p. 87, note 3), John vii. 1-11. 18. Luke, as p. 87. 21. Patris nostri Tlarion, Luke vi. 17-23. 25. SS. Scriptorum Marciano et Martorio, Luke xii. 2-12. 26. Demetrius et commemoratio terrae motus, Matt. vill. 23-27. November 1. 8S. T[h]aumaturgorum Kezma et Damian, Matt. x. 1-8. December 4. Barbara, Mark v. 24-34. 20. Ignathios, as p. 88. 22. Anastasia, Mark xii. 28-44. ‘Dominica ante Nativitatem, et patrum (compare p. 88). In nocte Nativitatis,as p. 88. 25. Christmas Day, sanctorum,’ Matt. i. 1-17. 24. Ad mat. Nativitatis, Matt. i. 18-25 1 On these readings, and those of the MSS. mentioned below (p. 34), see ‘The New Syriac Fragments’ (F. H. Woods), in the Expository Times, Nov., 1898. ? See the ‘Life and Times of Gregory the Illuminator, the Founder and Patron Saint of the Armenian Church,’ translated by the Rey. S. C. Malan, London, 1868. PALESTINIAN. 33 as p. 88. 26. Commemoratio dominae Mart. Mariam, as p. 88. 28. Jacob, frater Domini*, Mark vi. 1-5 (p. 88). January 1. Circumcision, as p. 88. 3. Matt. iii. 1, 5-11. Saturday and Sunday ‘ante missam aquae,’ as p. 88. 5. Nocte missae aquae, p- 88. 6. Missa aquae (both Lessons), as p. 88. 7. Commemoration of John the Baptist, as p. 88. Saturday and Sunday post missam aquae, as p. 88. 8. Luke iii. 19-22. 10. John x. 39-42. 11. Luke xx. 1-8. Theodosis, Luke vi. 17-23. 15. Juhanna Tentorii, Matt. iv. 25; v. 1-12. 28. Patris nostri Efrem, Matt. v. 14-19. February 2. Ingressus Domini Jesu Christi in templum, as p. 88. 24. Finding of the Head of John the Baptist, ad Mat. as p. 88: ad Missam, Matt. xi. 2-15. March 9. Martyrii xl martyrum Sebastis, Matt. xx. 1-16. 25. Annun- tiationis Deiparae, ad Missam, as p. 88. April 1. Mariam Aegyptiacae, Luke vii. 36-50 (compare p. 88, note 2). May 8. Evan. Juhanna fil. Zebdiai’, as p. 88. June 14, Proph. Elisha, Luke iv. 22-30%, 24. Birth of John the Baptist, asp.88. 29. Peter, asp.88. 30. The Twelve Apostles, Matt. ix. 36—x. 8. July 22. Mariam Magdalanis, Luke viii. 1-3. August 1. Amkabian Ascemonith, et filiorum suorum, Matt. x. 16-22. 6. Apparitio Domini nostri Jesu Christi in Monte Thabur, Luke ix. 28-36; Matt. xvii. 1-9; 10-22. 29. Beheading of John the Baptist, as p. 88. Appendix. Sanctae Christianae, Matt. xxv. 1-13 (see Sept. 24, p. 88). Justorum, Matt. xi. 27-30. Dominica xi, Matt. xv. 21-28. This last (of the Canaanites, p. 88) had been omitted in its usual place, and two lessons inserted about the same place, which are not in the Greek, viz. ‘Jejunio sancto Banscira fer. 4, vesp. Mark xi. 22-25, and ‘ fer. 6, vesp. John xv. 1-12. A new edition of Adler’s Evangelistarium was projected by the late Dr. P. A. de Lagarde, who made a fresh collation of the MS. shortly before his death. The results have been pub- lished in a posthumous work entitled ‘Bibliothecae Syriacae a Paulo de Lagarde collectae,” 1892. The latter part contains the Evangelistarium, with the text set out in the order of the Gospels, instead of that of the Church Lessons, and notes are added on the readings of the MS. and its correctors, and on the edition of Miniscalchi Erizzo. Another edition has been announced by Mrs. Lewis‘, the text to be taken from two Lectionaries, which she has recently discovered in the Library of the Convent on Mount Sinai, with a collation of the readings of the Vatican MS. Some fragments of other MSS. of the same Evangelistarium are pre- served in the British Museum (Add. 14,450, fol. 14, and 14,664, foll. 17, 1 Kept by the Greeks Oct. 23. Gale O. 4. 22 and other Greek Evangelistaria commemorate this holiday. ? Dec. 27 in the Western Calendar. * So Gale O, 4. 22, with the same Lesson. * See Athenaeum, Oct. 28, 1893. VOL. II. D — 34 SYRIAC VERSIONS. 29, 21), and in the Imperial Library, St. Petersburg. They have been published by Professor Land in ‘ Anecdota Syriaca,’ tom. iv, 1875, with a fragment of Acts (xiv. 6-13), in the St. Petersburg Library. Mr. J. Rendel Harris has published in ‘ Biblical Fragments from Mount Sinai’ a leaf containing Gal. ii. 8-5, 12-14; 111.17, 18, 24-28. The same library is said to contain other remains of Palestinian literature, patristic translations as well as biblical fragments. In the Bodleian Library are four fragments, Col. iv. 12-18; 1 Thess. i. 1-8; iv. 8-15; 2 Tim. 1.10—ii. 7; Titus i. 11—ii. 5, an edition of which has been accomplished by the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam?. 5. ‘The Karkaphensian’ or Syriac Massorah. Assemani (Biblioth. Orient., tom. ii. p. 283), on the authority of Gregory Bar-Hebraeus, mentions what has been supposed to have been a Syriac ‘version’ of the N. T., other than the Peshitto and Harkleian, which was named ‘ Karkaphensian ’ (JN.S0+5), whether, as he thought, because it was used by Syrians of the mountains, or from Carcuf, a city of Mesopo- tamia. Adler (Vers. Syr., p. 33) was inclined to believe that Bar-Hebraeus meant rather a revised manuscript than a separate translation. Cardinal Wiseman, in the course of those youthful studies which gave such seemly, precocious, deceitful promise (Horae Syriacae, Rom. 1828), discovered in the Vatican (MS. Syr. 152) a Syriac manuscript of readings from both Testaments, with the several portions of the New standing in the following order; Acts, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, the four- teen Epistles of St. Paul, and then the Gospels, these being the . only books contained in the true Peshitto. In the margin also are placed by the first hand many readings indicated by the abbreviation J, the title of some scribe or teacher*. The codex is on thick yellow vellum, in large folio, with the two columns so usual in Syriac writing ; the ink, especially the points in vermilion, has often grown pale, and it has been carefully retouched by a later hand; the original document being all the work of one scribe: some of the marginal notes refer to various readings. There are several long and tedious subscriptions in * Anecdota Oxoniensia, ‘The Palestinian Version of the Holy Scripture ;’ edited by G. H. Gwilliam, B.D.: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1898. ? The full form (lisag blessed) occurs in the scholion to Rom. viii. 15; Wiseman thought it meant the Peshitto ; but see ‘Studia Biblica,’ iii. 60 and note. KARKAPHENSIAN OR MASSORAH. 35 the volume, whereof one states that the copy was written ‘in the year of the Greeks 1291 (a.D. 980) in the [Monophysite] monastery of Aaron on [mount] Sigara, in the jurisdiction of Calisura, in the days of the Patriarchs John and Menna, by David a deacon of Urin in the jurisdiction of Gera’ [T¢ppa, near Beroea or Aleppo]. It may be remarked that Assemani has inserted a letter in the ‘Bibliotheca Orientalis’ from John the _Monophysite Patriarch [of Antioch] to his brother Patriarch, Menna of Alexandria. This manuscript, of which Wiseman gives a rather rude facsimile, is deemed by him of great importance in tracing the history of the Syriac vowel-points. Other Karka- phensian manuscripts have been examined since Wiseman’s time; and all, whether containing more, or less, of the actual text, agree in the parts which are common, with, however, some independent readings. We subjoin Matt. i. 19 in four texts, wherein the close connexion of the Karkaphensian and the Nestorian recension with the Peshitto is very manifest. CURETONIAN. Harxieran—from White. Joo Jenn? Spo qe? Awa Jujos oe? JPRS eo ce? amc Persod onc 22QU9 Joo b>, WY bobo omdid1 Joos, Yo Joo cooks? god o Kullass Joo wrsshifo ens Jrwatcy aah? * Marg. mapaderyparioat Nestor1an Massorau. JacopiTr Massorau (‘KARKAPHENSIAN’), Cod. Add. Brit. Mus. 12,138. Cod. Add. Brit. Mus. 12,178. Joo Ble oSs5 w? CS Joo biks oS>5 a Boa, (sic) aarshlo 2 Opa.00 229 ho, Ws Joo ESSIS oem 9 hs, Wo © Ope ems bikegsr Joo © Ope sad Maks Prsuirro Texr—from the MSS. Ka bagses Joo USGS ond iS0d key Io Joo bls aSs5 GF Qaar ¢ Ope pd The reader must not be misled by this specimen to infer that the Karkaphensian always coincides with the Peshitto. It is not a continuous text, but only those verses or passages are quoted where some word or words occur concerning which some annotation is required in reference to orthography or pronun- ciation. Whole verses or parts of verses are often omitted?. Very recently, since the last illness of Dr. Scrivener had com- 1 Our specimens show the use in MSS. of rucaca and kushaia, here printed with fine points. The dots and dashes of the Nestorian Massorah are also shown. D 2 36 SYRIAC VERSIONS. menced, the results of a wider examination of Syriac MSS. in different Libraries have been made more generally known by Mr. Gwilliam’s Essay in the third volume of ‘ Studia Biblica 1.’ According to the investigations of the leading Syriac scholars, it appears that the Karkaphensian is not a distinct version, but a kind of Massorah—the attempt to preserve the best traditions of the orthography and pronunciation of the more important or difficult words of the Syriac Vernacular Bible. This Massoretic teaching differs from the Hebrew Massorah, in that whilst the latter supplies us with all that we know of the form of the Jewish Scriptures?, the Syriac Massorah is younger than our oldest copies of the Syriac Bible. The following are Syriac Massoretic MSS. :— 1. Cod. Add. B. M. 12,138, a Nestorian work, written A.D. 899 at Harran. 2. Cod. Vaticanus 152, a. p. 980 (Wiseman, as above). 3. Cod. Add. B. M. 12,178, a Jacobite work of the ninth or tenth century. 4. Cod. Barberinus, described by Bianchini in ‘ Evangeliarium Quad- ruplex,’ 1748, and afterwards by Wiseman, A.D. 1089 or 1093. 5. Cod. Add. B. M. 7183, also a Jacobite Massoretic work of the early part of the twelfth century. 6. In the Bibliothéque Nationale of Paris, a Massoretic MS. 7. M. Abbé Martin mentions another, a. p. 1015, in the Cathedral of Mosul. Thus the Massorah is extant in two forms, corresponding to the two branches of the Syrian Church. But only one MS. is Nesto- rian (Cod. Add. 12,138), whilst all except that one are Jacobite. The name Karkaphensian is connected with the Jacobite Massorah, and signifies the kind of text which was favoured in the Scriptorium of the Skull Convent’. Allusions to the Skull Convent are found; the adjective itself occurs in St. Matt. xxvii. 33, and the parallel passages, as a translation of kpaviov. It is known that grammatical and philological studies were pursued by Jacob of Edessa (d. A. D. 710), probably by Joseph Huzita, rector of the school at Nisibis (vi) ; and a tract attached to Add. 12,178 suggests a connexion between these criticisms and the labours of one ‘ Thomas the Deacon 4.’ * Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, iii. 56. * The Codex Babylonicus, a. p. 916, is the oldest Old_Testament MS. known at present. Dr. Neubauer, Stud. Bibl. et Eecl., iii. 27. 5 Karkaphta=skull. See also ‘Thes. Syr.,’ col. 3762. * Mr. Gwilliam suggests that this may haye been the well-known Thomas KARKAPHENSIAN OR MASSORAH. 37 We have now traced the history of the several Syriac ver- sions, so far at least as to afford the reader some general idea of their relative importance as materials for the correction of the sacred text. We will next give parallel renderings of Matt. xii. 1-4; Mark xvi. 17-20 from the Peshitto, the Curetonian, and the Harkleian, the only versions known in full; for Matt. xxvii. 38-8, in the room of the Curetonian, which is here lost, we have substituted the Jerusalem Syriac, and have retained throughout Thomas’ marginal notes to the Harkleian, its asterisks and obeli. We have been compelled to employ the common Syriac type, though every manuscript of respectable antiquity is written in the Estrangelo character. Even from these slight specimens the servile strictness of the Harkleian, and some leading characteristics of the other versions, will readily be apprehended by an attentive student (e. g. of the Cure- tonian in Matt. xii. 1; 4; Mark xvi. 18; 20). We hoped to include in this account some description of the MS. lately discovered by Mrs. Lewis in the Monastery of St. Catherine, at Mount Sinai, and brought in copy last spring to Cambridge. It is now undergoing the careful and skilful examination which the character of the accomplished assistants of Mrs. Lewis ensures, and it is impossible at present to anticipate the verdict upon it which those scholars may recom- mend, and which may be finally adopted by the learned world at large. The photographic illustration of a page, which has been made public1, does not suggest that the MS. possesses any very remarkable) antiquity. But it is due to our argument upon the mutual relations of the Peshitto and the Curetonian to remark, that the Curetonian will even then rest upon only two MSS., one of them being a palimpsest, in face of the numerous supports of the Peshitto, and that even if the Curetonian be proved, as seems improbable, to date from somewhat further back than we have supposed, the claim of the Peshitto to pro- duction in the early part of the second century, and to a superior antiquity, will not thereby be removed. Heracleensis. M. Abbé Martin (Tradition Karkaphienne, ou la Massore chez les Syriens), who carefully studied the subject twenty years ago, suggests Thomas of Edessa, teacher of Mar Abbas. See Mr. Gwilliam’s Essay in ‘Stud. Bibl. et Eecl.,’ iii. pp. 56-65. 1 ‘How the Codex was found’ (Lewis and Gibson), 1893. SYRIAC VERSIONS. 38 woo od Eet: ero 6 GooreR™? smaoligodu ‘Sie , oO “O8IeyT 1 oxo irooY & peaess = it See Toh ©of TH TUYLEQ OF gb OYORDT SKY JEQs ww? on NS STING tN OS co oo own ico. (Fp) erry <100)* i stnyoy TY a hed Kwesi evel? (g) 69 69 fort qari sete wo orf ig HOS i? ot yo (sto be | Ease acs rasan a TUEriows iP CSTO. OFITOD STON SOTN( ST STN ENT" (1) eo IsTy: oton ©o/ ‘NVIGDIMUVH CODE its (eee lal bf Ne ~o8h #9, TRITR RENO HNO OJ TQ od (b) [oT] SN oto’ ary oot jo oF ost Sorcets (g) Jost weed 4 <9 pooch od if wor$ Jos) Stew] Jot Ser ory c{riwoY ojoqy?* (Z) oF wI0 CETO! OvtTD SY vq osto? SOTA Coa Si ei Sees (1) esto (sty oon ol WON ST eee é wwe: ‘NVINOLTYUNO ‘b-l ‘TIX MAHLLVN SQW & oF ff w irre lito 6 =| 60 tf TIN S9[ NO SSIS. SRT PSR aes 6) JST FX NE UNL: rest igtigtt carey aka ace tol <> Wo er \ 1 (See an 2 a as it SS SES Sree ee SOS Ses eee ees (2) eiorptties Seg ep ig ogres oie ESN TET o}eS? STN Saale sl ieee (t) Sesh i=rie oes? eck ce “OLLIHSAd 39 PARALLEL RENDERINGS. ‘smaniodan , *anangdow , tounzhuuo , "lipo, ‘aompn, “Savy PSOEOY bimy ~Fory Kroorty + Wil Jyetn wo JSveay wo. SEN ose, bjewry (8) wy ISTO xTeoY (Suge iswtry JrNre0) (1) e609 KT PwSOs ~y poogsyryys FY, iPro] bor] Qowsy Jstos gf Word costae (9) sre cory 2 oF CSTD jrvy oT ofi\ AYE + Ko SOC (g) oct wie iro’ NUP S] corcy. Pe) (esto" Ty xe IN orang (3 TEN Tory bor] for]: ero cory omeerey (fF) oF Joxts (2h OP INP ows] wie ieee bere. pena aes | :ceol|-ee o (1797 ‘ “NVIDTMUVA ‘20ST ‘1OF POD “FI8 “d ‘opavseTy ‘py wT”, [bor] <7 ow fy, Voi 4 (oer se (8) Ke prota Pos fo SwOY POO owt! Cores in oes (ars) 228 "UW ‘3) O[ETD WRQ {06 iY ised (2) ross wON ict], rye covicty+ cory in rorcd cw oj orto i CTO OY Of Qore Store « (9) erry, SNTe (TTS? (G) ow'[ owe, Mew ‘ut 8) rey jo (sto oy (TOWN, boreorty, jid New 6 (Jéos (écor~y{ ‘ul ‘s) oowrey* (Ff) oft OES ANP bows] Stee], cory MOSER RWI YO byrS YOL > (g) OSvY® ortoay, coy cs wor] “OVIUAS WHTVYSNUaL '8-€ ‘ITAXX MUHLLVI diel . SoS SS7 oe Sicreeay Sore rere: (9) se gee OR pate te nna aliioriny fos Re Sega ae HOSEN bes] ior? ers’ 49 Jerto Sor ONDE TI (F) ofets why LS OS? ISP? tees] UIE “Tf HITE ES Sas ee (2) 849 re9if eeSeT]: ‘OLLIHSAd SYRIAC VERSIONS. 40 wWo(s 4 J797/ er? irey? wore oF axtey orgie 00/ ONT OH bP GF FSOD JotIo CTY soon] + a eveTy iS(o (02) err) EETQNOO) JOY NT THY ono > WOTY, Kt] THORENS rovers), ofe{ry ress’ s (61) 6 ea a Ba et a of = eae] © ararhye] avid re-yoY (81) + oe{rq] © we9yf eos’: reoe SRT] Syl eNO WLP cogs ower ig ir 9/ (21) 197] 6? OPO’ iostoraT *‘NVIDTHUVH ort ©0/ <{707/ i XEKAAC eqyena NAC THPOT: U9 TUK NTRLET PERK BLRLZ0° IRN TCOPIA : RAN MCOOTH RUD TF - MOH ETEMLEVH ANAT NE, EM ILTUMOCF * AU OEM ATGENAECT OT NE NEYO IAT: 422 TAp METE &cqIRKI EM ONT KKLILOC Mel ETNA ce BinTY ERor: fe Mize Me TE ACCT MHY MAE XIMAXIM - TE Niee We TE AIA MHY Majapen;nt- SATAAEYTOVIA MHY » XE NTHPY Ot ERorA sranac ne- aww eRoragitTsa ATY ACW ECNAKATOT EAL ¢ Mug Me MEeoos Nad NIENS, DARLHIT. VERSIONS. SAHIDIC. TAI Te OH MMAI 9woT TENov- EAT pat mag, Te eneT HIM - XEKAC O,WOT EVENS NAT SLUMICWC & MNOVTE ETI OFCOM MIRL EXOCN COT SLATATHAOS,TE - XEKAC Eqyené NAC THPOT W NIKE NT ARUNT PAK BLLO ALM Tcodida &2TW TICOOTN ALMMOCTE MEE ETE NNEVEMRrewT Ney oan ACW ETE Nie wveqent pATOT INEqe,1oove MIAL TAp MENTAYEIRLE EM ONT *KUTXKOEIC MAI ETNA cae eraty e8or H Ni2ge Te NTAqMwie Nag Mpeg XI WOXNe - H NIee Me NTAEIpe MA Majoprt TApey TOCEIO Nag - xe MTHpy germ ERorA se2e0q ne- avw e8orgitro OTY ATW ECTNAKOTOT Epog - Muse Me Meooe WA MEMES, SARRHIL Specimens of this version may be found in— 1. Mémoires de l'Institut égyptien, II. ii, edited by Bouriant. 2. Mittheilungen, ii. p. 69. 3. Coptic MSS. brought from the Fayoum by W. M. Flinders Petrie, Esq., D.C.L., edited by W. E. Crum, p. 1. 4. It is also said to be contained in some Graeco-Coptic fragments recently acquired by the British Museum. The lines between this dialect and version and that of the AKHMIM DIALECT. 143 Fayoum are not, however, clearly defined, and further research may make it necessary to rearrange the different specimens mentioned in this and the preceding sections. Textually the version is of equal value with that of the Fayoum, that is, it represents another tradition of the version of Upper Egypt, of which Sahidic was the most important representative. (6) The Akhmim Dialect. It would have probably been more scientific to have begun our discussion of the versions of Upper Egypt with a description of the Akhmim dialect. It certainly represents the language in an older form than any other dialect we have examined; unfortu- nately such a very small fragment of the New Testament version exists that its importance at present can hardly be estimated. The Akhmtfm dialect is known to us by a series of Apocryphal and Biblical fragments published by M. Bouriant (Mémoires, i. p. 243), and has the following characteristics. In its vowels its affinities are nearest to the Middle Egyptian; it has & for 0, 4% for OO%, and € for &. It does not use A for p. Like the Sahidic it has double vowel-endings, and the weak final e, but not 6, 6, X for I1g,, TE,, KE,. It also has some Bohairic forms, such as NOT, Ape, Aq. In the vowels it has the following peculiarities: & for € (Sah.), AQ OTN, 29,pPHI, Apa, &ar; I or €f for H, pI (sun), CALEI, TQ,E1; OV for uw, Kow, xov, CRO; O for AT, MO, CIO. But its most ‘distinguishing feature is an entirely new letter, 2: this may represent W of other dialects; 9, for Ew (to know), €g, for Auj; or X as TY,MO for xM0; or D: g,, as wig, for WNH; cg,er for cHAats. The textual affinities can hardly be worked out with the small amount of material we possess, but there seems to be little doubt that it represents in a very early form the same version that we are acquainted with in Sahidic. Further discoveries in this dialect may do much to make us acquainted with the early history of the version of Upper Egypt. Only two short fragments of this version are known, which have been edited by Mr. W. E. Crum in his edition of the Coptic 144 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. MSS. brought from the Fayoum by W. M. Flinders Petrie (p. 2). They are contained in a parchment MS. of very great antiquity (Mr. Crum suggests the fourth century, but this is certainly too early), and contain St. James iv. 12-18, St. Jude 17-20. The following comparison of it with the Sahidic will show both the similarity of the versions and the differences of the dialect. AXKHMIMIC. Jude MTMajexe RLTIMXAEIC IC m5cc Nel eta meqatmoctToAoc xoov ext Hg ap aBar- xe ATAOOC XE ON TEE! Nihovaeiy ovN Qenpeyxpxpe NH ECRLAAD.E KATA NEN OCALILA MMOCRENT QEeqrT- Mnei meTMWwpx 2kara epen Weqcikoc ME EARMTES NHS BRAVO TT WT MEAE NARLPpE- TE QWNE ETET IN KWT QL2LWT- Ne ON TeTHIMICTIC ETOCAA RE ALMGYA ETETNYAHA DIR TMA eTowsake SAHIDIC. IINNY&XKE RLTLEMXOEIC IC MenCe NAINTS MEqamlocTorAoc xoo XIN Mayopm: Eoa 1XE 2CXOOC XE ON OAH TNEOvOEIYY OTN Y,EnpecxXHp NHT ECRLOOWE KATA Mel! OCRLIA MMECRUMTYAYTE - Mar meTHwpx EeRoA Eg, ert Uexcikon Me EReNTow MHA ZLILLG ONTWT il AE NARLEPS- TECTETN KWT QRIWTEM-... It has only been possible in the above account to give a rough outline of more recent discovery. Further investigation is necessary, and the lines which divide the different dialects, especially those between Fayoumic and Middle Egyptian, require to be more accurately defined. Much may be hoped also from the results of future discovery. The rubbish heaps of the monasteries, the concealed libraries, the graves, have yielded up some of their treasures, but all has not yet been brought to light. Enough has been written to suggest that discoveries of great interest for the life and character of early Egyptian Christianity have been made, and that much still remains to be found, which may indirectly throw a flood of light on the early history of Christianity as a whole?.] } The writer must express his regret that, owing to the haste with which the additions to this article had to be written, much must have been passed over. CHAPTER V. THE OTHER VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ieee remaining Versions are of less importance in the ascertain- ment of the sacred text. But some of them have recently received more attention in the general widening of research, and in becoming better known have strengthened their claims to recognition and value. Three of them, at all events, date from the period of the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament now known to be in existence. And the presence amongst us of eminent scholars acquainted with them renders reference to them more easy than it was a few years ago. Nevertheless, some are of slight service to the critic, being secondary versions, and as such becoming handmaids, not of the Greek, but of some other version translated from the Greek. In the account of these versions, the Editor of this edition is indebted for most valuable assistance to Mr. F. C. Conybeare, late Fellow of University College, Oxford, who has re-written the sections on the Armenian and Georgian versions ; to Professor Margoliouth, who has also re-written those on the Ethiopie and Arabic; to the Rev. Llewellyn J. M. Bebb, Fellow of Brasenose College, who has re-written the account of the Slavonic; and to Dr. James W. Bright, Assistant-Professor of English Philology in the John Hopkins University, who has contributed what is known on the Anglo-Saxon Version. (1) Tae Gornic Version (Goth.). The history of the Goths, who from the wilds of Scandinavia overran the fairest regions of Europe, has been traced by the master-hand of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, Chapters x, xxvi, xxxi, &c.), and needs not here be repeated. While the nation was yet seated in Moesia, Ulphilas or Wulfilas [318-388], VOL. II. L 146 OTHER VERSIONS. a Cappadocian, who succeeded their first Bishop Theophilus in A.D. 348, though himself an Arian and a teacher of that subtil heresy to his adopted countrymen, became their benefactor, by translating both the Old! and New Testament into the Gothie, a dialect of the great Teutonic stock of languages, having previously invented or adapted an alphabet expressly for their use. There can be no question, from internal evidence, that the Old Testament was rendered from the Septuagint, the New from the Greek original*: but the existing manuscripts testify to some corruption from Latin sources, very naturally arising during the occupation of Italy by the Goths in the fifth century. These venerable documents are principally three, or rather may be treated under two MSS. and one group. 1, CopEex ARGENTEUS, the most precious treasure of the University of Upsal, in the mother-country of the Gothic tribes. It appears to be the same copy as Ant. Morillon saw at Werden in Westphalia towards the end of the sixteenth century, and was taken by the Swedes at the siege of Prague in 1648. Queen Christina gave it to her librarian, Isaac Vossius, and from him it was very rightly purchased about 1662 by the Swedish nation and deposited at Upsal. This superb codex con- tains fragments of the Gospels (in the Western order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark) on 187 leaves, 4to (out of 330), of purple vellum ; the bold, uncial, Gothic letters being in silver, sometimes in gold, of course much faded, and so regular that some have imagined, though erroneously, that they were impressed with a stamp. The date assigned to it is the fifth or early in the sixth century, although the several words are divided, and some various readings stand in the margin prim@ manu. 2. Coprx Carotinus, described above for Codd. PQ, and for the Old Latin gue, contains in Gothic about forty verses of the Epistle to the Romans, first published by Knittel, 1762. 3. Copices AMBROSIANI, or palimpsest fragments of five manuscripts, apparently like Cod. Carolinus, from Bobbio, and of about the same date, discovered by Mai in 1817 in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, and pub- lished by him and Count C. O. Castiglione (Ulphile Partium Ineditarum .. . Specimen, in five parts, Milan, 1819, 1820, 1834, 1835,1839). The last- named manuscripts are minutely described and illustrated by a rude fac- simile in Horne’s ‘Introduction,’ and after him in Tregelles’ ‘Horne,’ vol.iv. 1 ‘But he prudently suppressed the four books of Kings, as they might tend to irritate the fierce and sanguinary spirit of the barbarians ;’ Gibbon, ch. xxxvii. 2 ¢A faithful, a stern and noble Teutonic rendering of the Greek,’ is the ver- dict of Prebendary S. C. Malan (St. John’s Gospel, translated from the Eleven Oldest Versions except the Latin, &., 4to, 1872, Preface, p. viii). Bishop Elli- cott also praises this version as usually faithful and accurate, yet marks an Arian tinge in the rendering of Phil. ii. 6-8. GOTHIC. 147 pp. 304-7. They consist of (1) a portion of St. Paul’s Epistles, under Homilies of Gregory the Great (viii); (2) portions of St. Paul, under Jerome on Isaiah (viii or ix); (3) parts of the Old Testament, under Plautus and part of Seneca; (4) under four pages of St. John in Latin part of St. Matt. xxvi, xxvii. The fifth fragment consists of Acts of the Council of Chalcedon with no extracts from the Bible. Mai refers some of the Gothic writing to the sixth century and some as far back as the fourth or beginning of the fifth, Unlike the Codex Argenteus (at least if we trust Dr. HK. D. Clarke’s facsimile of the latter), the words in Mai’s palimpsests are continuous: they contain parts of Esther, Nehemiah (apparently no portion of the books of Kings), a few passages of the Gospels, and much of St. Paul’. H. F. Massmann (Ulfilas, Stuttgart, 1855-57) also added from an exposition’a few verses of St. John, and there are fragments at Vienna and Rome?, These fragments (for such they still must be called), in spite of the influence of the Latin, approach nearer to the received text, in respect of their readings, than the Egyptian or one or two other versions of about the same age; and from their similarity in language to the Teutonic have been much studied in Germany. The fullest and best edition of the whole collected, with a grammar and lexicon, is by H. C. von der Gabelentz and J. Loebe (Ulfilas Vet. et N. Testamenti versionis Gothicae fragmenta quae supersunt, Leipsic, 1836-46, viz. vol. i. Text, 1836 ; Pars ii. Glossarium, 1848 ; Pars ii. Grammatik, 1846), and of the Codex Argenteus singly that of And. Uppstrom (with a good facsimile), Upsal, 1854, This scholar published separately in 1857 ten leaves of the manuscript which had been stolen between 1821 and 1834, and were restored through him by the penitent thief on his death-bed. The Gothic Gospels, however, had been cited as early as 1675 in Fell’s N. T., and more fully in Mill's, through Francis Junius’ edition (with Marshall’s critical notes), which was printed at Dort in 1665, from Derrer’s accurate - 1 Goth. Version. Paul. Epist. quae supersunt, C. 0. Castiglione, Milan, 1834. ? Skeat, St. Mark, 1882. $ Matt. iii. 11; v.8; 15—vi. 82; vii. 12—x.1; 23—xi. 25; xxv. 38—xxvi. 3; 65—xxvii. 19; 42-66; Marki.1; vi. 30; 58—xii. 88; xiii. 16-29; xiv. 4-16; 41—xvi. 12; Luke i. 1—x. 30; xiv. 9—xvi. 24; xvii. 3—xx. 46; John i. 29 ; iii. 8-5 ; 28-26 ; 29-82; v. 21-23; 35-38; 45—xi. 47; xii. 1-49 ; xiii. 11—xix. 18; Rom. vi. 23 ; vii. 1—viii. 10; 34—xi. 1; 11—xii. 5 ; 8—xiv. 5; 9-20; xv. 3-13; xvi. 21-24 ; x Cor. i. 12-25 ; iv. 2-12; v.3—vi.1; vii. 5-28 ; viii. 9—ix.9; 19— x. 4; 15—xi. 6; 21-31; xii. 10-22; xiii. 1-12; xiv. 20-27; xv. 1-85; 46—Gal. i. 7; 20—iii. 6; 27—Eph. v. 11; 17-29 ; vi. 8-24; Phil. i. 14—ii.8 ; 22—iv.17; Col. i. 6-29; ii. 11—iv.19; 1 Thess. ii. 10—2 Thess. ii. 4; 15—1 Tim. v. 14; 16—2 Tim. iv. 16; Tit. i. 1—ii. 1; Philem. 1-23; but no portion of the Acts, Hebrews, Catholic Epistles, or Apocalypse. L 2 ~ 148 OTHER VERSIONS. transcript of the Upsal manuscript, made in or about 1655, when it was in Isaac Vossius’ possession. Other editions of the Codex Argenteus were published by G. Stiernhielm in 1671 for the College of Antiquaries at Stockholm ; by E. Lye at the Clarendon Press in 1750 from the revision of Erie Benzel, Archbishop of Upsal; and (with the addition of the fragments in the Codex Carolinus) by Jo. Ihre in 1763, and by J. C. Zahn in 1805. And also the Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in parallel columns with the Versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale, London, 1865, and Ulfila, oder die Gotische Bibel (N. T.), E. Bernhardt, Halle, 1875, and St. Mark with a grammatical commentary, R, Miller and H. Hoeppe, 1881, and Skeat, Gospel of St. Mark in Gothic, Clarendon Press, 1882. (2) THe ARMENIAN VERSION. The existing Armenian version is a recension made shortly after the Council of Ephesus of a still earlier version, which was based in part upon a Syriac, in part upon a Greek original. This latest recension was made according to ‘accurate and reliable copies’ of the Greek Bible, which, along with the Canons of the Council of Ephesus, were brought from Constantinople about the year 433. One would naturally wish for more details than the above brief statement contains; yet it is all that one can definitely infer from the history of the version as related by three nearly contemporary writers, whose accounts we now sub- join, namely, Koriun, Lazar of Pharpi, and Moses Khorenatzi. Koriun ? in his life of St. Mesrop (written between 441 and 452 A.D.) relates as follows :— In the fifth year of the reign of Vramshapho [i.e. about 397 a.D.], St. Mesrop was first in Edessa, then in Amid, lastly in Samosata, busy all the time about his discovery of the Armenian characters”. In Samosata, where he was received with great respect by the clergy and bishop, Mesrop met with a Greek scribe, Hrofanos (? Rufinus), in conjunction with whom, and 1 See p. 10 of the Armenian edition ; Venice, 1833. The French translation of this in the ‘Collection des Historiens de ]’Arménie,’ Paris, 1869, is untrust- worthy in all ways, and especially because the translator both adds to and omits from the Armenian text at random. ? The true history of which we cannot now make out, for, as given by his contemporaries, it is already obscured by legend and miracle, ARMENIAN. 149 with the help of two pupils named John and Joseph, he undertook a translation of the Bible. They began—and this is noteworthy—with the book of the Proverbs of Solomon; Hrofanos or Rufinus writing down the translation with his own hand. Mesrop next visited the Bishop of the Syrians, who congratulated him on his work. He then returned to Nor Chalach, or new city, as Valarshapat was called by the Romans, in the sixth year of Vramshapho’s reign, A.D. 898. At a later time, Koriun, the writer, was himself sent with Eznik to Constantinople, apparently in quest of books to translate; for they returned with a swre copy of the Scriptures, with works of the Fathers, and with the canons of the Councils of Nice and Ephesus. ‘Now St. Sahak had long before translated the collection of Church books from Greek into Armenian, as well as much true wisdom of the holy Patriarchs. But he now resumed, and taking with the help of Eznik the former translations made hurriedly and offhand, he confirmed them by the help of the true copies now brought, and they translated much commentary on the books.’ The above is the gist of what Koriun has to tell us, though he mentions that scholars were sent to Edessa to translate and bring back the works of the Fathers. Why Mesrop began with the Book of Proverbs, whether he translated more than that, and from which language, we do not learn from Koriun. Lazar of Pharpi?, who wrote in the last half of the sixth century, is our next authority. He states that up to the last decade of the fourth century, the offices of religion were still read in Greater Armenia in Syriac, a language which the people did not understand. The edicts of the kings of Armenia were also written out in Syriac or Greek characters. But as soon as the Armenian alphabet was discovered, St. Sahak—who was patriarch 390-428 a.p. and an expert in Greek—set himself, in response to the patriotic exhortations of St. Mesrop, of Vram- shapho the king, and of the clergy and nobles, to translate the Holy Scriptures. He states that St. Sahak’s version comprised the whole of the Old and New Testaments, and was made from Greek. Moses of Chorene, bk. iii. ch. 836 ff, copies, confuses, and adds to Koriun’s account. A little before 370 A.D. the Persians 1 The translation of this writer in Langlois’ second volume is reliable. I50 OTHER VERSIONS. overran Armenia, and Meroujah, their leader, burned all the books he could find in the country, proscribed the study of the Greek language, and enacted penalties against any who should speak it or translate from it. At that time, adds Moses, the offices of the church were performed in Greek, because the Armenian alphabet did not yet exist. On the death of Theodo- sius (Jan. 395 A.D.) there was a partition of Armenia between his successor Arcadius and the king of Persia, by which the latter took undisputed possession of the eastern provinces, including the basin of Ararat, in which lay the new religious centre Valarshapat or Edschmiadzin, the véa méAts of the Romans. The new Mesropic alphabet was at first used only in Persian Armenia; for, says Moses, in the parts dependent on the Greeks, all writing had to be in Greek characters, Syriac being forbidden. As soon as Mesrop had elaborated his alphabet with the aid of Hrophanos, he betook himself to the work of translation ; and with the aid of his pupils John and Joseph, translated the entire twenty-two authentic books along with the New Testament, taking care to begin with the Book of Proverbs. About the year 406 he returned to Armenia, and found St. Sahak ‘engaged in translating the Syriac Bible. He hints that Sahak would have preferred a Greek original, if Meroujah had not burned all the Greek books nearly thirty years before. This perhaps implies that the version, on which Mesrop had been engaged in Samosata, was made from Greek. Nor is that unlikely; for Rufinus, who helped him, was a Greek, and we learn from Koriun that there were Armenians in Edessa studying both Greek and Syriac. We read in bk. iii. ch. 60 of the History of Moses, about missions sent to Edessa and Byzantium in order to the transla- tion of the works of the Fathers, but we hear nothing more expressly touching the Version of the Bible, save this, that after the Council of Ephesus, Sahak and Mesrop, then in Ash- tishat in Taron, received from Byzantium, as aforesaid, the canons of the council recently held, along with accurate copies of the Greek Bible. On receipt of these, Sahak and Mesrop translated afresh what had already been translated, and were zealous in recasting the text. But they were not, it seems, after all, satisfied with their work, and sent Moses to Alexandria to Jearn the ‘beautiful tongue’ (i. e. Greek), with a view to a more accurate articulation and division (of the Armenian scriptures). ARMENIAN. I51 The above summary exhausts the evidence of Moses of Kho- rene’. It would appear therefrom that the Bible was translated twice into Armenian before the end of the fourth century; by Mesrop from Greek, and by Sahak from Syriac. The circum- stance that Mesrop in Samosata began with the Proverbs of Solomon raises a suspicion that the earlier books had already been rendered, when and by whom is unknown. Certainly the reasons given by Koriun and by Moses for Mesrop beginning with Proverbs are insufficient. Moses again in stating that Sahak rendered the entire Bible from Syriac contradicts both Koriun and Lazar. Are we to infer that Sahak and Mesrop after 430 A.D. retranslated according to the Constantinople Bibles what they had already translated from Syriac, and also it would seem from a presumably less perfect Greek text? Anyhow it is unlikely that they would wholly sacrifice their own work, and we should therefore expect to find in the Armenian version a mixture of texts, namely of some old Syriac text, which must have been in vogue as late as 380, of some older Greek text supplied in Edessa or Samosata, and of the Constantinopolitan texts; which last may well have been among the fifty splendid copies which had been prepared under the order of Constantine by Eusebius a century before. If, and how far, these different elements enter into the Version can only be determined by a careful analysis of its readings. It may be that in some MSS, there lurks more of the unrevised text than in others*. The entire history is an apt illustration of that political see-saw between the Roman and the Persian powers which went on in Armenia during the fourth and fifth centuries, and out of which the patriotic vigour and devotion of St. Mesrop and St. Sahak carved at last a truly national Armenian Church, with an independent life and literature of its own. The Armenian Version was collated for Robert Holmes’ edition of the Septuagint, though not with desirable accuracy nor from the oldest MSS. For example, the Codex Arm. 3 of the Penta- teuch, which Holmes declares, teste Adlero, to be of the year 1063, 1 Some critics bring down the date of Moses as late as the seventh or eighth century. 2 Dr, Baronean thinks that the varieties of readings in the oldest Armenian MSS. is due to the fact that more than one swre copy was brought from Constan- tinople on which to base the final revision. 152 OTHER VERSIONS. is but an eighteenth century codex. The collation of the New Testament in the eighth edition of Tischendorf’s N. T. is accurate so far as it goes, but is far from being exhaustive or based on a con- sensus of the oldest MSS. Old codices of the Armenian Gospels are very common, and the present writer knows of as many as eight, none of them later than the year a.p. 1000; of four of these he has complete collations. The rest of the N. T. is only found in codices of the whole Bible, which are rare and always written in minuscules, never in uncials as are the Gospels. He knows of no copies of the whole Bible older than the twelfth century. Two further questions call for brief answer :—1. Have we the Armenian version as it left the hands of the fifth century trans- lators? 2. Did the fifth century version comprise the whole of the Old and New Testament ? In regard to the first question, it must be admitted as probable that changes were subsequently made, at least in the New Testament, in the way both of omission and addition; e.g. in St. Luke xxii. 44, out of four very early uncial codices col- lated by the writer, the words: éyevero 8& 6 idpds adrod aoel OpouBor atyatos KataBatvovtes emt THY yjv, are found only in one, and that one the earliest, being dated 902 A.p. The words which precede én 5—érpoondyxero are omitted in all four of them. We may infer that ver. 44 was in the original version, and was omitted from the three codices for doctrinal reasons. The additions made to the text after the fifth century are easier to detect ; because they only come in some MSS. and not in others, and also because there is so much discrepancy of readings between those codices which add them, that they are at once seen to be lacunas supplied by different hands. This is the case, for example, with the end of St. Mark’s Gospel, which only comes in one of the four codices mentioned, namely in the oldest Edschmiadzin Codex, under the heading ‘of the Elder Ariston,’ which may refer to Aristion, teacher of Papias, or to Ariston of Pella. The case is the same with the episode of the woman taken in adultery. For the settlement of such points there is wanted a careful collation of the oldest codices. In answer to the other question we may state, without enter- ing into the proof of it, that the fifth century version included all the books of the Old and New Testament save the third book ARMENIAN. 153 of Ezra, Esther, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, and perhaps the Maccabees. For as we read in Elisaeus that Vartan Mami- konean in the middle of the fifth century inspired his troops to deeds of valour against the Persians by reading to them the Book of Maccabees, we may fairly infer that that also was already then rendered. It may be added that the Psalms were rendered for church use prior to the rest of the Bible, and were translated afresh by Mesrop and his disciples; also that the Book of Revelations was translated twice. The double transla- tion of both these books is a fact which can be traced in various MSS. One other point must be noticed. From the history of Moses of Chorene, it is not clear what were the imperfections of the Armenian version, to remedy which Moses was sent to Alexandria. We cannot suppose that Mesrop and Sahak and Eznik, and the other doctors who had already translated the Greek codices brought from Byzantium, were incompetent Greek scholars. The object therefore of Moses’ voyage to Alexandria was probably that he might add to the Armenian text the Sections of Ammo- nius, and also the asterisks and obeli of Origen’s Hexaplaric copy’. The Ammonian Sections are found in all Armenian New Testaments, and in some copies of the Bible the Origenian marks as well; for instance, in Codex 3270 of the Bibliotheca Vindo- bonensis. There is no evidence that the Armenians ever used a version of Tatian’s Diatessaron. The following is a list—not exhaustive—of the oldest known codices of the Armenian Gospels, or ‘ Avetaran ’:— 1. In the Library of the Lazareffski Institute in Moscow, written in large uncials on parchment, dated in the year 336 of the Armenian era = A.D. 887. Size, 37-75 x 28 cent. ; 229 folios. 2. In the Library of the bettas in the island of San Lazaro, in Venice, an uncial codex, on parchment, written in the year 351 of the Armenian era = A. D. 902. 3. In the same Library, on parchment, in large uncials, dated 1006. 4. In the same Library, in large uncials, on parchment, undated, but evidently older than No. 2. 5. In the Patriarchal Library of Edschmiadzin in Russian Armenia, No. 222 of the printed catalogue of Jacob Kareneantz (Tiflis, 1863). 1 This is the conclusion at which P. P. Carékin arrives. See his ‘ Catalogue of Ancient Armenian Translations,’ Venice, 1889, p. 228. 154 OTHER VERSIONS. This book is bound in ivory covers, carved, as it would seem, in the Ravennese style in the fifth or sixth century. In large uncials, on parchment, written A.D. 989. 6. In the same Library is No. 223, an uncially written parchment codex. The earliest of the colophons dates from A.D. 1260 and is in majuscule, but the codex itself seems to be at least two centuries and a half earlier. 7. In the same Library, No. 229, written in minuscule, on parchment, A.D. 1035. 8, 9. In the same Library, Nos. 224, 225, in large uncials, on parch- ment, presumably as old as the eleventh century, but undated. 10. In Tiflis, in an Armenian church. In large uncials, on parchment. Undated, but certainly prior to A.p. 1000. 11. In the Library of the British Museum, in large uncials, on parch- ment, undated. Probably of the ninth century, but not after the tenth, according to Dr. Baronean, author of the British Museum Catalogue. 12. In Karin or Erzeroum, in large uncials, on parchment. Dated A.D. 986. 13. In the Library of the Fathers of St. Anthony, in Constantinople. Dated a.p. 960. 14. In the island monastery of Sevan, on the lake of that name in Russian Armenia. In large uncials, on parchment. Written during primacy of Vahan, czrea a.p, 966. 15. In uncials, on parchment; written in Macedonia, under the Emperor Basil, a.p. 1011. (Carékin, Catalogue des Traductions, omits to specify in what library.) 16. Bibliothéque Nationale in Paris. Codex Armenus VII contains the Four Gospels. Codex Bombye. litteris uncialibus scriptus, 17. In the same Library, Cod. Arm. VIII. Membranaceus, litteris uncialibus scriptus. (3) Tue Erutoric Version (Eth.). The Ethiopic translation of the Bible is assigned by Guidi to the end of the fifth, or beginning of the sixth century, the time at which Christianity became the dominant religion in Abyssinia. That religion after a period of decadence began to flourish again in the twelfth century, but in dependence on the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The two principal classes of Ethiopie Biblical MSS. are connected with these periods respectively; the first class being derived from the Greek text before, and the latter after the Alexandrian recension. The corrections, however, vary in different copies, and appear to be the result of desultory rather ETHIOPIC. 155 than of systematic alteration. The MSS. of the Ethiopic N. T. are rarely complete; ordinarily the Gospels, the Epistles of St. Paul, and the Catholic Epistles with the Acts and the Apocalypse constitute separate volumes. The oldest copy of the Gospels would seem to be no. 32 of the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, written in the reign of Yekino Amlak; whereas MS. 33 of. the same collection represents the later text. Examples of the different recensions are given by Guidi, Atti della R. Academia dei Lincei: Classe di scienze morali &e., iv. 1888, from whom most of the above statements are taken. Copies of the N. T., especially of the Gospels, are to be found in most collections of Ethiopic MSS.; see especially Wright, Ethiopic MSS. of the British Museum, pp. 23-39, and Zotenberg, Catalogue des MSS. Ethiopiens de la Bibliothéque Nationale (nos. 32-48; in the preface to this latter work a list of other collections are given) ; also Dillmann, Abessinische Handschriften der Koniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin (no. 20, the four Gospels ; 21, the Gospel of St. John); D’Abbadie, Catalogue Raisonné de MSS. Ethiopiens (Paris, 1859; nos. 2, 47, 82, 95, 112, 173, the four Gospels; no. 119, St. Paul’s Epistles; no. 164, Catholic Epp., Apoc., and Acts); Dillmann, Catalogus MSS. Aethiop. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, nos. 10-15; Fr. Miller, Aethiop. Hand- schriften der K.K. Hofbibliothek in Wien (Z.D.M.G., xvi. p: 554, no. v, the Gospels; no. vi, St. John’s Gospel); ‘ Bulletin Scientifique de S. Pétersbourg,’ ii. 302 (account of a MS. of the Gospels in the Asiatic Institute at St. Petersburg), iii. 148 (account of a MS. of the four Gospels, bearing the date 78=1426 a.D., in the Public Library at St. Petersburg, and another of St. John’s Gospel). The Ethiopic N.T. was first printed in Rome, 1548, cum epistola Pauli ad Hebraeos tantum, cum concordantiis Evangeli- starum Eusebii et numeratione omnium verborum eorundem. Quae omnia curavit Fr. Petrus Ethyops auxilio priorum sedente Paulo iii. Pont. Max. et Claudio illius regni imperatore (edition of Tasfa Sion). The remaining thirteen Epistles of St. Paul were printed in 1549. This edition was reproduced in the London Polyglott. Another was issued by T. P. Platt (for the Bible Society) in 1830, reprinted 1844 and 1874. These editions are based on MSS. containing mixed recensions, and are therefore of no critical value. 156 OTHER VERSIONS. (4) Tun Grorcian VERSION (Georg.). The Church of the Iberians was founded during the reign of Constantine according to tradition ; though, if we consider how intimate and frequent had been from a much earlier period their intercourse with the Greeks, we may safely infer that the seeds of Christianity had been long before sown among them. There is no certain evidence of the date at which they translated the Scriptures; but it is probable that their version of the New Testament was made in the fifth and sixth centuries; and that it was made from a Greek text the most perfunctory examination suffices to prove. According to Armenian historians of the fifth century, St. Mesrop, at the same time that he invented the Armenian characters and made the Armenian version for his own countrymen, fulfilled the same service for the Georgians also. In this tradition, however, the Georgians do not concur; and, no doubt, rightly, seeing that their ancient alphabet and their version are alike independent of the Armenian. Itis said by some native Georgian scholars that before the tenth century a revision was made of their version, in order to make it more complete. The present writer knows of no manuscript of the entire Bible in Europe except at Mount Athos, where there is one reputed to be of the tenth century. Others are preserved in the Conyents of the Holy Cross at Jerusalem, and of Mount Sinai. In the Vatican Library there is a codex of the New Testament, neatly written on parchment in majuscule, parts of which the present writer has collated with the printed text. This codex is at least as old as the thirteenth century, and in the collations below is referred to as a, Beside this codex the writer has examined in the Georgian Library at Tiflis three very ancient codices of the Gospels, written in uncials on parchment. These books were smaller in size than are, as a rule, the copies of the Gospels used in Eastern Churches. Of the accompanying collations, nos. i-iy are made from them, and the passages collated were photographed by the present writer. These photographs, which represent the originals on a reduced scale, have been deposited by him in the Bodleian Library for the inspection of the curious. The text referred to as b is probably of the tenth century or earlier; the one referred GEORGIAN. 157 to as c cannot be much later than the eleventh, while that indicated by d must belong to the twelfth, and is the most beautifully written of them. The Bible was not printed in Georgian until the year 1743 at Moscow in large folio. It is a rare volume, and has never been reprinted. The character is that called ecclesiastical or priestly majuscule, which differs wholly from the civil characters and can, as a rule, be read by the priests only. The New Testament and Psalms have been reprinted at various times from this original edition, both in priestly and civil characters, and of the latter kind very good and cheap copies can be obtained at the British and Foreign Bible Society, printed, however, at Tiflis. It is said that the edition of 1743 was conformed to the Slavonic version of the Bible; and if this were true, it would, of course, impair its value for critical purposes. Of this statement, however, the writer's collations, so far as they go, afford no proof. Such variations as there are between the printed edition and the manuscript texts are notified in these collations. The point, however, could easily be settled by a thorough comparison of the printed text with the Slavonic. The MSS. of Tiflis include the last verses of Mark, and the Vatican MS. contains the narrative of the woman taken in adultery, but places it after ver. 44, instead of after ver. 52 of the seventh chapter of John. The printed edition places it after ver. 52, and this uncertainty as to where to insert the narrative, in itself indicates that it is a later interpolation. The printed text also contains the text about the three witnesses ; but it is pieced into the context in an awkward and ungrammatical way; and whether it is in any MS. the writer cannot say. The following all too brief collations prove that the printed text fairly represents the MSS.; from which, indeed, it differs very little except in its more modern orthography. It is certain, however, that the most ancient MSS. of this version must be collated and a critical text of it prepared, before it can be quite reliably used as anearly witness to the Greek text in regard to any particular points. Where the earliest Greek authorities waver as to the particles by which the parts of the narrative shall be connected —some, e.g. giving xaf, others 6¢, others odv—the Georgian constantly passes abruptly to the new matter without any connecting particle at all—and this, although as a language 158 OTHER VERSIONS. Georgian is richer in such connecting particles than is Greek. This peculiarity of the version, which is also shared by the old Armenian version, seems to prove that it was made from a primitive text, in which editors had not yet begun to smooth away the sudden transitions. (5) Tur Siavonic VERSION (Slav.’). This version of the Bible is ascribed to Cyril and Methodius, who lived at the end of the ninth century. It is uncertain, however, how much of the New Testament was translated at that date, and how much was the work of a later time. The manuscripts of the version exist in two characters called Glago- litie and Cyrillic: of these it is now generally agreed that the former is the earlier. In considering the version from the point of view of the textual criticism of the New Testament, we need not deal with its later history except in so far as that throws light on its original form. The chief points to which reference will be made will be (i) the different Manuscripts in which the version exists, with their distinctive characteristics, and the evidence they afford as to the earliest form—the Urteat—of the version, and (ii) the Greek text presupposed by the version in the form in which we have it. It will be convenient to divide the New Testament into three component parts, (i) the Gospels, (ii) the Acts and Epistles, or the Ayostol as it is called in Slavonic, (iii) the Apocalypse. There can be little doubt that the Gospels were the earliest part to be translated or that this translation was made for liturgical purposes. This last point explains the great preponderance of 1 Among the chief authorities on the Slavonic version are the following :— (i) Toperitt m Hesocrpyens, onucanie clapaucKuxh pykonuceit Mockosenoit Cunonampuoit Bu6sioreru. Mocrpa, 1855. (ii) Acradpesn, Onzirs ueropin Gubzin BL Poccim BB cBA3H Cb UpocBbueHiem’S m Hpapamu. C. Herepoyprs, 1892. (ii) Voskresenski, XapaxrepucrmyueckKian Yeprbl TaBHEIXL peqakuiit claBaH- cKaro mepepogza Epanremia. (iv) Voskresenski, J[pepuili ciapauenili mepesoxp Amocrota m ero cyqbOEI qo xv Bbra. (v) Oblak, Die Kirchenslavische Uebersetzung der Apocalypse [in the ‘ Archiv fiir Slavische Philologie,’ xiii. pp. 321-861]. (vi) Prolegomena to the editions of the Codex Marianus and the Codex Zographensis, &c., by Jagié. (vii) Kaluzniacki, Monumenta Linguae Palaeoslavonicae, vol. i, SLAVONIC. 159 MSS. of the version in which the Gospels are arranged in the form of a lectionary !. Amongst the earliest manuscripts of the Gospels are the Codex Zographensis, Codex Marianus, and the Codex Asse- manicus. The two first Jagi¢ ascribes to the tenth or eleventh century. All these are written for the most part in the Glagolitic character. Besides these, mention must be made of the Ostromir Codex, written in Cyrillic characters, by Gregory, a deacon at Novgorod, and dating from the year 1056-7. In considering the distinctive characteristics of these manu- seripts of the version, the first point to notice is that they each preserve certain dialectical forms and expressions by which their place of origin and to some extent their date can be determined. Thus Miklosich regards the Codex Zographensis and Codex Assemanicus as preserving Bulgarico-Slovenish forms, the Ostromir Codex as representative of Russo-Slovenish, and so on. It is mainly in these particulars that the manuscripts differ, though there are also other differences by means of which it has been determined that some Codices, especially those in the Glagolitic character, preserve the version in a more original form than others, as for example the Ostromir Codex. These differences consist *, (i)in orthography, (ii) in the fact that the later forms of the version translate Greek words left untranslated in the older forms, (iii) in the substitution of later and easier words for archaisms. It may also be noted that alterations are more numerous, as might be expected, in copies of the Gospels made for liturgical purposes than in other copies. The same remarks would be true of the second part of the Bible, the Apostol. This is pointed out by Voskresenski in the book to which reference has been made, but which is known to the writer of these lines only from a review. A very careful examination of the text of the ‘Apostol, based on the manu- scripts of the Synodal Library, is made by Gorski and Nevostruiev in the work referred to above, pp. 292 ff. Oblak has examined the Slavonic version of the Apocalypse, of which the manuscripts are fewer and later. The earliest 1 In the Synodal Library at Moscow this proportion is as nine to two, and in another library as twelve to one. See Onmcanie craBAHCKUXb pyKonuceli u 1. 7. (as above), p. 299. 2 Kaluzniacki, lc. p. xlv, gives instances, 160 OTHER VERSIONS. manuscript is ascribed to the thirteenth century, but the textual corruption which it exhibits in comparison with other manuscripts requires that the version which it embodies should be referred at least to the twelfth century. We do indeed find a quotation of the Apocalypse (ix. 14) as early as the Isbornik of Sviatoslav of the year 1073, but in a form so different from the MSS. of the version now extant, that we must regard it as a quotation from memory. The MSS. have many small variations, sometimes merely dialectical, sometimes based on a different Greek text, They also show marks in places of having been corrected with the help of the Latin. But in spite of all their variations Oblak believes that all the manuscripts are to be referred to one common translation made from a Greek text of the Constantinopolitan type, which has been here and there corrupted by Western influence. It may be noted in conclusion that the earliest dated complete manuscript of the Gospels is dated 1144, the earliest manuscript of the whole Bible, A.D. 1499, and that the earliest printed edition is the famous Ostrog Bible of 1581. It remains to say something of the Greek text underlying the Slavonic version, for this is the special point of view from which the versions are being here considered. The instances will all be taken from the Gospels, though others might have been added from those collected by Gorski. In the first place it is necessary to draw attention to the fact that for critical purposes a modern edition of the version will be found insufficient. The following are cases! where the edition published by the British and Foreign 3ible Society, probably based on the Textus Receptus, is mis- leading as to the real original reading of the version. In St. Matt, xi. 2 Codd. Assem., Zograph., Ostrom., all imply the reading é:a, the modern edition dvo: in St. John i. 28 the MSS. have Bethany, the edition Bethabara; in St. John vii. 39 the MSS. insert, the edition omits, dedouévov; in St. Matt. xxv. 2 the MSS. put pwpaé before pdvipor, the edition inverts the order. The Ostromir Codex presents a later form of the version, and so we find instances where the other two MSS., just referred to, preserve what is probably a better reading. Thus in St. Luke ii. 3 they have otf yoveis adrod, the Ostromir lwo) > cal } pajrnp adrod; in See Jagi¢, Codex Zographensis, pp. xxvii ff, ARABIC. 161 St. John ix. 8 they have mpocairns, it has rufAds ; in St. John xix. 14 they have rpirn, it reads &krn; in St. John xxi. 15 they have dpvia, it has mpdBara. Again there are cases where one MS. of the version stands alone. Thus Codex Zogr. stands alone, as against Assem. and Ostrom., in omitting St. Luke xiv. 24, and inserting devreporpsrm in St. Luke vi. 1. Again in the choice of Slavonic words for the same Greek original, Cod. Zogr. will agree with Codex Assem. against Codex Ostrom., though where the Codex Assemanicus is freer in its rendering, the Ostromir Codex and Codex Zographensis agree. Sometimes again the Codex Zogra- phensis is alone in curious readings which seem to be conflations of the texts found in the other two manuscripts, or based on a conflate Greek text. This version and the various manuscripts which contain it have received most attention from Slavonic philologists engaged in examining the earliest monuments of their language; but the readings which have been given will be enough to show that it does not deserve to be dismissed, as summarily as has been sometimes the case, from the number of those versions which have a value for purposes of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. (6) Tux Arapic Version (Arab.). Arabic versions (Arab.) are many, though of the slightest possible critical importance; their literary history, therefore, need not be traced with much minuteness. A notice is quoted from Bar-hebraeus (Assemani, Bibl. Or., ii. 335) to the effect that John, Patriarch of the Monophysites from 631-640, translated the ‘Gospel’ from Syriac into Arabic; and some scholars have believed in the existence of a pre-Mohammedan version of parts at least of the New Testament on other grounds; from such a version (written in the ‘Hebrew’ character) in the opinion of Sprenger (Das Leben und die Lehre Muhammads, i. 131) come the verses of St. John’s Gospel (xv. 23-27, xvi. 1), cited by Ibn Ishaq (ob. 768) in his ‘Life of Mohammed’ (ed. Wiistenfeld, i. 150)1. These verses are evidently translated from the (Jeru- salem ?) Syriac; but the translation of the Gospel, from the Syriac 1 The statement that John Bishop of Seville translated the Bible into Arabic in A.D. 719 is disproved by Lagarde (Die vier Evangelien Arabisch, p. xy). VOL. II. M 162 OTHER VERSIONS. into Arabic, existing in a Leipzig MS. brought by Tischendorf from the East and described at length by Gildemeister (De evangeliis in Arabicum e simplici Syriaco translatis, Bonn, 1865) is shown by internal evidence to be posterior to Islam (pp. 30 sq.). The Arabic versions of the Gospel existing in MS. are divided by Guidi (Atti della R. Academia dei Lincei, classe di scienze morali &c., 1888, 1-30) into five sorts: (1) those made directly from the Greek; (2) made directly or corrected from the Peshitto ; (3) made directly or corrected from the Coptic; (4) MSS. of two distinct eclectic recensions made in the Alex- andrian Patriarchate in the thirteenth century; (5) MSS. (chiefly derived from the Syriac) which are distinguished by their style ; being in rhymed prose or elegant Arabic. MSS. of the first sort can all, he says, be traced to the convent of St. Saba near Jerusalem, and are preceded by the lives of its founders, St. Eutimius and St. Saba; the version they contain is to be ascribed to the time of the Caliph Mamun (ninth century). Of the MSS. of class 4, one set represents a recension made by Ibn — El-Assal, cire. 1250 ; while another represents a less elaborate recension made shortly afterwards, in which the passages omitted in the other were restored, while marginal notes recorded their omission in other versions. Versions of the fifth class were made in the tenth, fourteenth, and seventeenth centuries. A list of MSS. containing the different recensions of all these classes is given by Guidi, /. c., pp. 30-33. The printed texts all represent varieties of the second eclectic recension of class 4, of which five editions are enumerated by Gildemeister(/.c., pp. 42, 3,andiv). 1. Roman edition of the Gos- pels from the Medicean Press, 1591 (ar.t), edited by J. Baptista Raymundi, some copies having a Latin translation by Antonius Sionita. The MS. on which this edition was based is unknown. 2. Edition of Thomas Erpenius (1584-1624, Leyden, 1616, con- taining the whole New Testament (ar.*). This edition was based on the Leyden MS., Scaliger 217, written in Egypt in the year of the Martyrs 1059 (A.D. 1842-3); two other manuscripts also employed by Erpenius for the Gospels are now in the Cambridge University Library (G. 5. 33, and G. 5. 27, written A.D. 1285). A third MS. employed for this edition was in the Carshunic character. The Acts and Pauline Epistles, the Epistles of St. James, St. Peter 1 and St. John 1 in this edition are trans- ARABIC. 163 lated from the Peshitto; the remaining Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse are from some other source; the latter shows some remarkable agreement with the Memphitic (Hug, Einleitung in das N.T., pp. 483-5). 8. Edition of the whole N.T. in the Paris Polyglott (ar.’), 1645, reprinted with little alteration in the London Polyglott (1657). Gildemeister, /. c., proves against Lagarde (/.c., xi) that this recension in the Gospels is not an interpolated reprint of the Roman edition, but is based on a MS, similar to Paris Anc. f. 27 (of A.D. 1619) and Coisl. 239 (new Suppl. Ar. 27) described by Scholz, ‘Bibl. Krit. Reise,’ pp. 56, 58. The Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse follow the Greek, but are by another translator. 4. Edition of the whole N. T. in the Carshunic character (Rome, 1703), edited by Faustus Naironus, for the use of the Maronites, from a MS. brought from Cyprus, reprinted Paris, 1827; the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse repre- sent the same version as that of Erpenius, but in a different recension. 5. Edition of the four Gospels from a Vienna MS. (previously described by S. C. Storr, Dissertatio inauguralis critica de evangeliis Arabicis, Tiibingen, 1875, p. 17 sq.), by P. de Lagarde (Die vier Evangelien Arabisch, Leipzig, 1864). The MS. contains various readings from the Coptic, Syriac, and Latin (according to Lagarde, Gildemeister more naturally renders ruimé by Greek). The editor has prefixed a table of variants between his text and that of Erpenius, but regards the relation of the former to the original as involving questions too complicated for immediate discussion (p. xxxi). Extracts from MSS. of Arabic versions in French and Italian libraries are given by J. M. A. Scholz, Biblisch-Kritische Reise, Leipzig and Sorau, 1823 ; a description of several others, some of great antiquity, is to be found in Tischendorf’s ‘ Anecdota Sacra et Profana,’ pp. 70-73 (2nd ed.); and Professor Rendel Harris, in ‘ Biblical Fragments from Sinai’ (Cambridge, 1890) has pub- lished a facsimile of a fragment of an Arabic version from a bilingual MS. of the ninth century ; the version whence it is derived agrees with none of those that have been published, and was probably older than any of them. The repeated revision and correction which these translations have undergone (Gildemeister, /. c., 1-3), while they give evidence of the industry and zeal of the Arabic-speaking Christians, have made scholars despair of employing them for critical purposes ; M 2 164 OTHER VERSIONS. ‘they rather serve,’ says Gildemeister, ‘to illustrate the history of biblical and Christian studies.’ (7) Taz AnaLo-Saxon VERSION (Sax.). There is but one known version of the four Gospels (the only portion of the N. T. that was translated into A.-S.); this version was made, probably in the South-West of England at or near Bath, in the last quarter of the tenth century. It is preserved in four MSS.: (Corp.) Corpus Christi Coll. Camb. MS. 140; (B) Bodleian Lib. MS. 441; (C) Cotton MS. Otho C. I (seriously injured by fire), and (A) Camb. Univ. Lib. MS. Ti. 2. 11. Of these the first three may be dated, in round number, about the year 1000 ; the fourth (A) belongs to the following half-century. The Bodl. Lib. has also recently acquired a fragment of four leaves of St. John’s Gospel, which agrees closely with A. [Published by Napier in ‘Archiv f. n. Sprachen,’ vol. lxxxvii. p- 255 f.] It may also be mentioned that there are in the Brit. Mus. two additional copies. of this version (Bibl. Reg. MS. I. A. xiv, and Hatton MS. 38). These belong to a period after the Conquest and have no critical value, for the first is copied from B, and the second is copied from the first. This version is based upon a type of the Vulgate MSS. that has not yet been definitely determined. Old Latin readings make it certain that the original MS. was of the mixed type. Next in importance to this version are the two following Latin MSS. of the four Gospels, with an interlinear Anglo-Saxon gloss. (1) MS. Nero D. 4 (the Lindisfarne MS., also known as the Durham Book). The Latin was written by Eadfrith, bishop of Lindisfarne 698-721; the interlinear gloss being about two and a half centuries later, made near Durham about the year 950. (2) The Rushworth MS. (Bodl. Lib. Auct. D. ii. 19). The Latin was written by the scribe Macregol, probably in the eighth century. The gloss, by the scribes Farman and Owun, is referred to the latter half of the tenth century. These two Latin texts differ but slightly ; they are also of the Vulgate types. All the MSS. that have now been mentioned are published in one volume (of four parts) by Professor W. W. Skeat: ‘The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian FRANKISH ; PERSIC. 165 Versions, synoptically arranged, with collations exhibiting all the readings of all the MSS.; together with the Early Latin Version as contained in the Lindisfarne MS.; collated with the Latin Version in the Rushworth MS. Cambridge: University Press, 1871-1887. Dr. James W. Bright has published an edition of St. Luke’s Gospel of the A.-S. Version, Oxford, 1892, and has in preparation a critical edition of the entire Version [ which has been published recently]. The earlier editions of the Anglo-Saxon Gospels are by Archbishop Parker, 1571; Dr. Marshall (rector of Lincoln College), 1665; Benjamin Thorpe, 1842; Dr. Joseph Bosworth, 1865. (8) THe FrankisH Version (Fr.). A Frankish version of St. Matthew, from a manuscript of the ninth century at St. Gall, in the Frankish dialect of the Teutonic, was published by J. A. Schmeller in 1827. Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. 225) thinks it worthy of examination, but does not state whether it was translated from the Greek or Latin: the latter supposition is the more probable. (9) Perstc Versions (Pers.). Persie versions of the Gospels only, in print, are two: (1) one in Walton’s Polyglott (pers.?) with a Latin version by Samuel Clarke (which C. A. Bode thought it worth his while to reconstruct, Helmstedt, 1750-51, with a learned Preface), obviously made from the Peshitto Syriac, which the Persians had long used (‘yet often so paraphrastic as to claim a character of its own, Malan, whi supra, p. xi), ‘interprete Symone F. Joseph Taurinensi, and taken from a single manu- script belonging to E. Pocock}, probably dated a. D. 13841. This version may prove of some use in restoring the text of the Peshitto. (2) The second, though apparently modern [xiv ?] was made from the Greek (pers.”). Its publication was com- menced in 1652 by Abraham Wheelocke, Professor of Arabic and Anglo-Saxon and University Librarian at Cambridge, at the expense of Sir Th. Adams, the generous and loyal alderman 1 Edward Pocock, Professor of Hebrew at Oxford (1648-91) and a great Oriental scholar, should be distinguished from Richard Pococke, an Eastern traveller and Bishop of Meath, who died in 1765, 166 OTHER VERSIONS. of London. The basis (as appears from the volume itself) was an Oxford codex (probably Laud. A. 96 of the old notation), which Wheelocke, in his elaborate notes at the end of each chapter, compared with Pocock’s and with a third manuscript at Cambridge (Gg. v. 26), dated 1014 of the Hegira (a. D. 1607). On Wheelocke’s death in 1653 only 108 pages (to Matt. xviii. 6) were printed, but his whole text and Latin version being found ready for the press, the book was published with a second title-page, dated London, 1657, and a short Preface by an anonymous editor (said to be one Pierson), who in lieu of Wheelocke’s notes, which break off after Matt. xvii., appended a simple collation of the Pocock manuscript from that place. The Persians have older versions, parts of both Testaments, still unpublished. There is another copy of the Persian Gospels at Cambridge, which once belonged to Archbishop Bancroft, and was brought from Lambeth in 1646, but was not restored in 1662 with the other books belonging to the Lambeth Library. . CHAPTER VI. ON THE CITATIONS FROM THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT OR ITS VERSIONS MADE BY EARLY ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS, ESPECIALLY BY THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. i: WE might at first sight be inclined to suppose that the numerous quotations from the New Testament contained in the remains of the Fathers of the Church and other Christian writers from the first century of our era downwards, would be more useful even than the early versions, for enabling us to determine the character of the text of Scripture current in those primitive times, from which no manuscripts of the original have come down to us!. Unquestionably the testimony afforded by these venerable writings will be free from some of the objections that so much diminish the value of translations for critical purposes which have been stated at the commencement of this volume: and the use made of it by Dean Burgon in his remark- able volume entitled the ‘ Revision Revised *, has shown scholars how vast a body of valuable illustrations has received inadequate attention. But not to insist on the fact that many important passages of the New Testament have not been cited at all in any very ancient work now extant, this species of evidence labours under difficulties peculiarly its own. Not only is this kind of testimony fragmentary and not (like that of versions) continuous, so that it often fails us where we should most wish for informa- tion: but the Fathers were better theologians than critics; they 1 Thave been obliged to alter the first paragraph in this chapter because of Dr. Serivener’s private confession to myself of the great value of Dean Burgon’s services in this province of Sacred Textual Criticism. JI am convinced that he could not have continued to maintain an opinion so adverse to the value of early citations as that which he formed when people were not sufficiently aware of the wealth of illustrative evidence that lay ready to their hands. As Editor I owe very much in this chapter, both to the express teaching in Dean Burgon’s great book, and to his method of argument in respect to patristic citations. The Dean did not leave this province at all as he found it. *°The Revision Revised, by John William Burgon, B.D., Dean of Chichester. John Murray, 1883. 168 ON THE PATRISTIC CITATIONS sometimes quoted loosely, or from memory, often no more of a passage than their immediate purpose required ; and what they actually wrote has been found liable to change on the part of copyists and unskilful editors. But when all is considered, the Fathers must be at least held under due limitations to be wit- nesses to the readings found in the codices which they used. If theirs is secondary evidence, it is nevertheless in many cases virtually older than any that can be had from MSS. of the entire text. The fewness of early MSS. adds importance to other early testimony. And the strength of this kind of evidence is found at the highest, when the issue is of a somewhat broader character than usual, and when a large number of quotations are found to corroborate testimony from MSS. and the testimony of Versions. In fact the strength of their evidence is to be seen especially in three aspects: First, they supply us with numerous codices, though at second hand, at a very early date; secondly, there is no doubt whatever that the date of the codices used by them is not later than when they wrote, and their own date is usually a matter of no question; and thirdly, they help us to assign the locality to remarkable readings!. In other words, the unknown MS. derives life and character from the Father who uses it*, On the other hand, the same author perpetually cites the selfsame text under two or more various forms; in the Gospels it is often impossible to determine to which of the three earlier ones reference is made; and, on the whole, where Scriptural quotations from ecclesiastical writers are single and unsupported, they may safely be disregarded altogether. An express citation, however, by a really careful Father of the first four or five centuries (as Origen, for example), if supported by manuscript authority, and countenanced by the best versions, claims our respectful attention, and powerfully vindicates the reading which it favours®. In fact, like Versions, Patristic citations 1 See some very thoughtful and cautious remarks by the Rey. Ll. J. M. Bebb in the second volume of the Oxford ‘Studia Biblica (et Ecclesiastica),” Mr. Bebb’s entire Article on ‘The Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic Quotations on the Text of the Books of the New Testament’ is well worth careful study. 2 ‘Dated codices, in fact they are, to all intents and purposes.’ Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 292. ‘Every Father is seen to be a dated witness and an independent authority,’ p. 297. % Iam glad to be able to coincide thus far with the judgement of Mr. Ham- mond, who says: ‘The value of even the most definite Patristie citation is only corroborative. Standing by itself, any such citation might mean no more FROM THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 169 cannot be taken primarily to establish any reading. But they are often invaluable in supplying support to manuscriptal authority, whether by proving a primitive antiquity, or in demonstrating by an overwhelming body of testimony that the passage or reading was accepted in all ages and in many provinces of the earlier church. Frequently also, they are of unquestionable use, when they bear witness in a less striking manner, or in smaller number. 2. The practice of illustrating the various readings of Scripture from the reliques of Christian antiquity is so obvious and reason- able, that all who have written critical annotations on the sacred text have resorted to it, from Erasmus downwards: the Greek or Latin commentators are appealed to in four out of the five marginal notes found in the Complutensian N.T. When Bishop Fell, however, came to prepare the first edition of the Greek Testament attended with any considerable apparatus for improving the text, he expressly rejected ‘S. Textus loca ab antiquis Patribus aliter quam pro recepto more laudata, from which the toil of such a task did not so much deter him, ‘quam cogitatio quod minus utile esset futurum iisdem __insistere.’ (N. T. 1675, Praef.). ‘Venerandi enim illi scriptores,’ he adds, ‘de verborum apicibus non multum soliciti, ex memoria quae ad institutum suum factura videbantur passim allegabant; unde factum ut de priscd lectione ex illorum scriptis nil feré certi potuerit hauriri.’ It is certainly to the credit of Mill’s sagacity that he did not follow his patron’s example by setting aside Patristic testimony in so curt and compendious a manner’. Nevertheless, no one can study Mill’s ‘Prolegomena’ without being conscious of the fact, that the portion of them relating to the history of the text, as gathered from ecclesiastical writers, and the accumulation of that mass of quotations from the Fathers which stands below his Scripture text, must have been, what he asserts, the result of some years’ labour (N.'T. Proleg. § 1513): yet these than that the writer found the passage in his own copy, or in those examined by him, in the form in which he quotes it. The moment, however, it is found to be supported by other good evidence, the writer’s authority may become of immense importance’ (Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 66, 2nd edition). His illustration is the statement of Irenaeus in Matt. i. 18, which is discussed below, Chap. XI. (Third Edition.) 1 He speaks (N. T., Proleg., § 1478) of Bp. Fell’s ‘praepropera opinio ;’ he merely stated as universally true what for the most part certainly is so. I790 ON THE PATRISTIC CITATIONS are just the parts of his celebrated work that have given the least satisfaction. The field indeed is too vast to be occupied by one man. ) xiii. 19:5 1 Cor. 1. 29; vy. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15; Phil. ii. 5: r Tim. iii. 2, 11 (yet not Tit. ii. 2); Philem.7; 1 Pet. i. 3; iii. 7. All these deliberate variations are found in Von Mastricht’s edition of 1735, which seems to have been used by Wetstein as the basis of his text; and in all of them (except Matt. xxi. 41; Luke xi. 12, and Phil. iii. 5) Fell’s text agrees with Wetstein’s. In Matt. xiii. 15; Mark xiv. 54; 1 Cor. i. 29; v.11; xii. 23; xiv. 15; Phil. iii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 7, the Elzevir editions vary. (American Additions and Corrections, p. 51.) He spells va(apér uniformly, except in John i. 46, 47, Reuss (p. 183) adds nine changes made by Wetstein in the text for critica] reasons: Matt. viii. 28; Luke xi. 2; John vii. 58—viii. 11; Acts v. 36; xx. 28; r Tim, iii. 16 (6); Apoe. iii. 2; x. 4; xviii. 17. 216 CRITICAL EDITIONS. families ; indeed he can hardly be said to have rejected a scheme which he scorned to investigate with patience. On the other hand no portion of his labours is more valuable than the ‘ Animadversiones et Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum N. T. necessariae’ (N. T., Tom. ii. pp. 851-74). In this tract his natural good sense and extensive knowledge of authorities of every class have gone far to correct that impetuous tempera- ment which was ever too ready to substitute plausible conjecture in the room of ascertained facts. During the twenty years immediately ensuing on the pub- lication of Wetstein’s volumes, little was attempted in the way of enlarging or improving the domain he had secured for Biblical science. In England the attention of students was directed, and on the whole successfully, to the criticism of the Hebrew Seriptures ; in Germany, the younger (J. D.) Michaelis [1717-91] reigned supreme, and he seems to have deemed it the highest effort of scholarship to sit in judgement on the labours of others. In process of time, however, the researches of John James Griesbach [1745-1812], a native of Hesse Darmstadt and a pupil of Semler, and J. A. Ernesti [1707-81] (whose manual, ‘Institutio Interpretis N. T.,’ 1761, has not long been superseded), began to attract general notice. Like Wetstein, he made a literary tour in Eng- land early in life (1769), and with far more profit ; returning to Halle as a Professor, he published before he was thirty (1774-5) his first edition of the N. T., which contained the well-defined embryo of his future and more elaborate speculations. It will be convenient to reserve the examination of his views until we have described the investigations of several collators who unknowingly (and in one instance, no doubt unwillingly) were busy in gathering stores which he was to turn to his own use. 10. Christian Frederick Matthaci, a Thuringian [1744-1811], was appointed, on the recommendation of his tutor Ernesti, to the Professorship of Classical Literature at Moscow: so far as philology is concerned, he probably merited Bp. Middleton’s praise, as ‘the most accurate scholar who ever edited the N. T’ (Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 244, 3rd edition.) At Moscow he found a large number of Greek manuscripts, both Biblical and Patristic, originally brought from Athos, quite uncollated, MATTHAEI. 217 and almost entirely unknown in the west of Europe. With laudable resolution he set himself to examine them, and gradually formed the scheme of publishing an edition of the New Testament by the aid of materials so precious and abundant. All authors that deserve that honourable name may _be presumed to learn not a little, even on the subject they know best, while preparing an important work for the public eye; but Matthaei was as yet ignorant of the first principles of the critical art ; and beginning thus late, there was much, and that of a very elementary character, which he never understood at all. When he commenced writing he had not seen the volumes of Mill or Wetstein; and to this significant fact we must impute that inability which clave to him to the last, of discriminating the relative age and value of his own or others’ codices. The palaeographical portion of the science, indeed, he gradually acquired from the study of his documents, and through the many facsimiles of them he represents in his edition; but what can be thought of his judgement, when he persisted in asserting the intrinsic superiority of Cod. 69 of the Acts to the great uncials AC (N. T., Tom. xii. p. 222)12? Hence it results that Matthaei’s text, which of course he moulded on his own views, must be held in slight esteem: his services as a collator com- prehend his whole claim (and that no trifling one) to our thankful regard. To him solely we are indebted for Evan. V ; 237-259; Act. 98-107 ; Paul, 113-124; Apoc. 47-50? (i.e. r); Evst. 47-57; Apost. 13-20 ; nearly all at Moscow: the whole seventy *, together 1 One other specimen of Matthaei’s critical skill will suffice: he is speaking of his Cod. H, which is our Evst. 50. ‘Hic Codex scriptus est literis quadratis, estque eorum omnium, qui adhuc in Europa innotuerunt et vetustissimus et praestantissimus. Insanus quidem fuerit, qui cum hoe aut Cod. V [p. 144] comparare, aut aequiparare voluerit Codd. Alexandr. Clar. Germ. Boern. Cant. [Evan. AD, Paul. ADEG], qui sine ullo dubio pessimé ex scholiis et Versione Latina Vulgata interpolati sunt’ (N. T., Tom. ix. p. 254), * In using Matthaei’s N. T. the following index of manuscripts first collated by him will be found useful: a = Evan. 259, Act. 98 (a 1), Paul. 118 (a or a 2), Apost. 82 (a 8): B= Evst. 47: b= Apost. 13: c = Act. 99, Paul. 114, Evst. 48: d= Evan. 237, Act. 100, Paul. 115: e = Evan. 238, Apost. 14:.f=Act. 101, Paul. 116, Evst. 49: g = Evan. 239, Act. 102, Paul. 117: H = Evst. 50: h = Act. 108, Paul. 118: i = Evan. 240, Paul. 119: k = Evan. 241, Act. 104, Paul. 120, Apoce. 47: 1= Evan. 242, Act. 105, Paul. 121, Apoc. 48: m = Evan. 243, Act. 106, Paul, 122: n = Evan. 244, Paul. 123: o = Evan. 245, Apoc. 49: p = Evan. 246, Apoe. 50: q = Evan. 247, Paul. 124: r = Evan. 248, also Apoc. 50’, Apoc. 90: s=Evan, 249, Paul. 76:'t = Apoc. 32, Evst. 51: tz = Apost. 15: V=V: v = Evan. 250, Apost. 5: x=Evan. 251, Act. 69, Paul. 74, Apoc. 80 (from Knittel) ; z=Evan. 218 CRITICAL EDITIONS. with the citations of Scripture in thirty-four manuscripts of Chrysostom1, being so fully and accurately collated, that the reader need not be at a loss whether any particular copy supports or opposes the reading in the common text. Mat- thaei’s further services in connexion with Cod. G Paul. and a few others (Act. 69, &c.) have been noticed in their proper places. To his Greek text was annexed the Latin Vulgate (the only version, in its present state, he professes to regard, Tom. xi. p. xii) from the Cod. Demidovianus, The first volume of this edition appeared in 1782, after it had been already eight years in preparation: this comprised the Catholic Epistles. The rest of the work was published at intervals during the next six years, in eleven more thin parts 8vo, the whole series being closed by SS. Matthew and Mark in 1788. Each volume has a Preface, much descriptive matter, and fac- similes of manuscripts (twenty-nine in all), the whole being in complete and almost hopeless disorder, and the general title-page absurdly long. Hence his critical principles (if such they may be termed) must be picked up piecemeal; and it is not very pleasant to observe the sort of influence which hostile controversy exercised over his mind and temper. While yet fresh at his task (1782), anticipating the fair fame his most profitable researches had so well earned, Matthaei is frank, calm, and rational: even at a later period J. D. Michaelis is, in his estimation, the keenest of living judges of codices, and he says so the rather ‘quod ille vir doctissimus multis modis me, quad de causd ipse ignore, partim jocosé, partim serid, vexavit’ (Tom. 11, 1788, p. xxxi). Bengel, whose sentiments were very dissimilar from those of the Moscow Professor, ‘pro acumine, diligentia et religione sud,’ would have arrived at other conclusions, had his Augsburg codices been better (¢bid., p. xxx). But for Griesbach and his recension-theory no terms of insult are strong enough ; 252: 10=Evan. 253: 11=Evan. 254: 12=Evan. 255: 14=Evan. 256: 15=0, 16 = Evst. 56, Apost. 20: 17 = Evan. 258: 18 = Evan. 99: 19 = Evst. 57: 20 = Evan. 89: ¢ = Evst. 52, Apost. 16: x = Evst. 53, Apost. 17: y = Evst. 54, Apost. 18: w = Eyst. 55, Apost. 19: Frag. Vet. = part of H: Grav. It should be noted, that in several of these cases different MSS. are included under one letter: e.g. c = Evst. 48 is a different MS. from c = Act. 99. 1 The copies of Chysostom’s homilies on the Gospels freshly collated by this editor are noted 1, 2, 8, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, a, B, 7, 5, €, ¢, 9, 0, A, HB ™ PrP: those on St. Paul’s Epistles are noted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, a, B. MATTHAEI. 219 ‘risum vel adeo pueris debet ille Halensis criticus, who never saw, ‘ut credibile est, a manuscript even of the tenth century (ibid., p. xxiii), yet presumes to dictate to those who have collated seventy. The unhappy consequence was, that one who had taken up this employment in an earnest and candid spirit, possessed with the simple desire to promote the study of sacred literature, could devise no fitter commencement for his latest Preface than this: ‘ Laborem igitur molestum invidiosum et infamem, inter convicia ranarum et latratus canum, aut ferred patientia aut invicta pertinacid his quindecim annis vel sustinui, vel utcunque potui perfeci, vel denique et fastidio et taedio, ut fortasse non nulli opinantur, deposui et abjeci’ (Tom. i, Praef. p- 1): he could find no purer cause for thankfulness, than (what we might have imagined but a very slight mercy) that he had never been commended by those ‘of whom to be dispraised is no small praise ;’ or (to use his own more vigorous language) ‘quod nemo scurra ... nemo denique de grege novorum theologorum, hane qualemcunque operam meam ausus est ore impuro suo, laudeque contumeliosi comprobare.’ Matthaei’s second edition in three volumes (destitute of the Latin version and most of the critical notes) bears date 1803-71. For some cause, now not easy to understand, he hardly gave to this second edition the advantages of his studies during the fifteen years which had elapsed since he completed his first. We saw his labours bestowed on the Zittau N. T. in 1801-2 (Evan. 605). On the last leaf of the third volume of his second edition, writing from Moscow in May, 1805, he speaks of a book containing collations of no less than twenty-four manuscripts, partly fresh, partly corrected, which, when he returned into Russia, he delivered to Augustus Schumann, a bookseller at Ronneburg (in Saxe Alten- burg), to be published in close connexion with his second edition against the Easter Fair at Leipzig in 1805. Another book contained extracts from St. Chrysostom with a commentary and index, to be published at the same time, and both at Schumann’s - risk. ‘ Utrum isti libri jam prodierint necne,’ our author adds pathetically, ‘nondum factus sum certior. Certe id vehementer opto. But in 1805 evil times were hastening upon Germany, 1 Reuss (p. 207) calculates that, besides misprints, Matthaei’s second and very inferior edition differs in text from his first in but twenty-four places, none of them being in the Gospels. 220 CRITICAL EDITIONS. and so unfortunately for the poor man and for textual students these collections have disappeared and left no trace behind. 10° The next, and a far less considerable contribution to our knowledge of manuscripts of the N. T., was made by Francis Karl Alter [1749-1804], a Jesuit, born in Silesia, and Professor of Greek at Vienna. His plan was novel, and, to those who are compelled to use his edition (N. T. Graecum, ad Codicem Vin- dobonensem Graecé expressum, 8vo, Vienna, 2 tom., 1786-7), inconvenient to the last degree. Adopting for his standard a valuable, but not very ancient or remarkable, manuscript in the Imperial Library (Evan. 218, Act. 65, Paul. 57, Apoe. 83), he prints this copy at full length, retaining even the vy épedxvotixdy when it is found in his model, but not (as it would seem) all the itacisms or errors of the scribe, conforming in such cases to Stephen’s edition of 1546. With this text he collates in separate Appendices twenty-one other manuscripts of the same great Library, comprising twelve copies of the Gospels (Codd. N, a fragment, 3, 76, 77, 108, 123, 124, 125, 219, 220, 224, 225); six of the Acts, &c. (3, 43, 63, 64, 66, 67); seven of St. Paul (3, 49, 67-71); three of the Apocalypse (34, 35, 36), and two Evangelistaria (45, 46). He also gives readings from Wilkins’ Coptic version, four Slavonic codices and one Old Latin (7). In employing this ill-digested mass, it is necessary to turn to a different place for every manuscript to be consulted, and Alter’s silence in any passages must be understood to indi- cate resemblance to his standard, Evan. 218, and not to the common text. As this silence is very often clearly due to the collator’s mere oversight, Griesbach set the example of citing these manuscripts in such cases within marks of parenthesis : thus ‘218 (108, 220)’ indicates that the reading in question is certainly found in Cod. 218, and (so far as we may infer ew Acterz silentio) not improbably in the other two. Most of these Vienna codices were about the same time examined rather slightly by Andrew Birch. ll. This eminent person, who afterwards bore successively the titles of Bishop of Lolland, Falster, and Aarhuus, in the Lutheran communion established in Denmark, was one of a com- pany of learned men sent by the liberal care of Christian VII to examine Biblical manuscripts in various countries. Adler ALTER, BIRCH. 221 pursued his Oriental studies at Rome and elsewhere; D. G. Moldenhawer and O. G. Tychsen (the famous Orientalist of Rostock) were sent into Spain in 1783-4; Birch travelled on the same good errand in 1781-3 through Italy and Germany. ‘The combined results of their investigations were arranged and published by Birch, whose folio edition of the Four Gospels (also in 4to) with Stephen’s text of 15501, and the various readings contributed by himself and his associates, full descriptive Pro- legomena and facsimiles of seven manuscripts (Codd. S, 157 Evan.; and five in Syriac), appeared at Copenhagen in 1788. Seven years afterwards (1795) a fire destroyed the Royal Printing-house, the type, paper, and unsold stock of the first volume, the collations of the rest of the N. T. having very nearly shared the same fate. These poor fragments were collected by Birch into two small 8vo volumes, those relating to the Acts and Epistles in 1798, to the Apocalypse (with facsimiles of Codd. 37, 42) in 1800. In 1801 he revised and re-edited the various readings of the Gospels, in a form to correspond with those of the rest of the N. T. Nothing can be better calculated to win respect and confidence than the whole tone of Birch’s several Prolegomena: he displays at once a proper sense of the diffi- culties of his task, and a consciousness that he had done his utmost to conquer them”. It is indeed much to be regretted that, for some cause he does not wish to explain, he accomplished but little for Cod. B; many of the manuscripts on his long list were beyond question examined but very superficially ; yet he was almost the first to open to us the literary treasures of the Vatican, of Florence, and of Venice. He more or less inspected the uncials Cod. B, Codd. ST of the Gospels, Cod. L of the Acts and Epistles. His catalogue of cursives com- prises Codd. 127-225 of the Gospels; Codd. 63-7, 70-96 of the Acts ; Codd. 67-71, 77-112 of St. Paul; Codd. 33-4, 37-46 1 ¢Textui ad Millianum expresso’ says Reuss (p. 151), which is not quite the same thing: see p. 203, note 2. 2 ‘Conscius sum mihi, me omnem et diligentiam et intentionem adhibuisse, ut haec editio quam emendatissima in manus eruditorum peryeniret, utque in hoe opere, in quo ingenio non fuit locus, curae testimonium promererem ; nulla tamen mihi est fiducia, me omnia, quae exigi possint, peregisse. Vix enim potest esse ulla tam perpetua legentis intentio, quae non obtutu continuo fatige- tur, praesertim in tali genere, quod tam multis, saepe parvis, observationibus constat.’ (Lecturis Editor, p. v. 1788.) Well could I testify to the truth of these last words ! 222 CRITICAL EDITIONS. of the Apocalypse ; Evangelistaria 35-39; Apostolos 7, 8: in all 191 copies, a few of which were thoroughly collated (e.g. Evan. 8, 127, 131, 157, Evst. 36). Of Adler’s labours we have spoken already; they too are incorporated in Birch’s work, and pre- faced with a short notice (Birch, Proleg. p. Ixxxv) by their author, a real and modest scholar. Moldenhawer’s portion of the common task was discharged in another spirit. Received at the Escurial with courtesy and good-will, his colleague Tyschen and he spent four whole months in turning over a collection of 760 Greek manuscripts, of which only twenty related to the Greek Testament. They lacked neither leisure, nor opportunity, nor competent knowledge; but they were full of dislike for Spain and its religion, of overweening conceit, and of implicit trust in Griesbach and his recensions. The whole paper contributed by Moldenhawer to Birch’s Prolegomena (pp. lxi-lxxxiv) is in sub- stance very disappointing, while its arrogance is almost intolerable. What he effected for other portions of the N. T.. I have not been able to trace (226, 228 Evan., which also contain the Acts and Epistles, are but nominally on Scholz’s list for those books); the fire at Copenhagen may probably have destroyed his notes. Of the Gospels he collated eight codices (226-233), and four Evangelistaria (40-43), most of them being dismissed, after a cursory review, with some expression of hearty contempt. To Evann. 226, 229, 230 alone was he disposed to pay any attention; of the rest, whether ‘he soon restored them to their primitive obscurity’ (p. Ixxi), or ‘bade them sweet and holy rest among the reliques of Saints and Martyrs’ (p. Ixvii), he may be understood to say, once for all, ‘Omnino nemo, qui horum librorum rationem ac indolem ... perspectam habet, ex iis lectionis varietatem operose eruere aggredietur, nec, si quam inde conquisiverit, operae pretium fecisse a peritis arbitris existimabitur’ (p. lxxiv). It was not thus that Matthaei dealt with the manuscripts at Moscow. 12. Such were the materials ready for Griesbach’s use when he projected his second and principal edition of the Greek Testa- ment (vol. i. 1796, vol. ii. 1806). Not that he was backward in adding to the store of various readings by means of his own diligence. His ‘Symbolae Criticae?’ (vol. i. 1785, vol. ii, 1798) 1 «Symbolae Criticae ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum N. T. lectionum Collectiones. Accedit multorum N, T.Codicum Graecorum descriptio et examen.’ BIRCH, GRIESBACH. 223 contained, together with the readings extracted from Origen, collations, in whole or part, of many copies of various portions of the N. T., Latin as well as Greek. Besides inspecting Codd. AD (Evann.), and carefully examining Cod. C', he consulted no less than twenty-six codices (including GL) of the Gospels, ten (including E) of the Acts, &c., fifteen (including DEH) of St. Paul, one of the Apocalypse (Cod. 29) twelve Lection- aries of the Gospels, and two of the Apostolos, far the greater part of them being deposited in England. It was not, how- ever, his purpose to exhibit in his N.T. (designed, as it was, for general use) all the readings he had himself recorded elsewhere, much less the whole mass accumulated by the pains of Mill or Wetstein, Matthaei or Birch. The distinctive end at which he aims is to form such a selection from the matter their works contain, as to enable the theological student to decide for himself on the genuineness or corruption of any given reading, by the aid of principles which he devotes his best efforts to establish. Between the text (in which departures from the Elzevir edition of 1624 are generally indicated by being printed in smaller type’) and the critical notes at the foot of each page, intervenes a narrow space or inner margin, to receive those portions of the common text which Griesbach has rejected, and such variations of his authorities as he judges to be of equal weight with the received readings which he retains, or but little inferior to them. These decisions he intimates by several symbols, not quite so simple as those employed by Bengel, but conceived in a similar spirit; and he has carried his system somewhat further in his small or manual edition, pub- lished at Leipzig in 1805, which may be conceived to represent his last thoughts with regard to the recension of the Greek text of the N.T. But though we may trace some slight discrepancies of opinion between his earliest * and his latest works *, as might 1 Yet Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. xcvii, 7th ed.) states that he only added two readings (Mark vi. 2, 4) to those given by Wetstein for Cod. C. From Cod. D too he seems to have taken only one reading, and that erroneously, ennyerpay, Acts xiv. 2. 2 In the London edition of 1809 aA is printed for the first ob70/, Mark iv. 18. Griesbach also omits xai in 2 Pet. i. 15: no manuscript except Cod. 182 (ase) is known to do so. 3 «Dissertatio critica de Codicibus quatuor Evangeliorum Origenianis,’ Halae, 1771: ‘Curae in historiam textis Graeci epistolarum Paulinarum,’ Jenae, 1777. * ¢‘Commentarius Criticus in textum Gr. N.T.,’ Part i. 1798; Part ii. 1811, 224 CRITICAL EDITIONS. well be looked for in a literary career of forty years, yet the theory of his youth was maintained, and defended, and temper- ' ately applied by Griesbach even to the last. From Bengel and Semler he had taken up the belief that manuscripts, versions, and ecclesiastical writers divide themselves, with respect to the character of their testimony, into races or families. This principle he strove to reduce to practice by marshalling all his authorities under their respective heads, and then regarding the evidence, not of individuals, but of the classes to which they belong. The advantage of some such arrangement is sufficiently manifest, if only it could be made to rest on grounds in them- selves certain, or, at all events, fairly probable. We should then possess some better guide in our choice between conflicting - readings, than the very rough and unsatisfactory process of counting the number of witnesses produced on either side. It is not that such a mode of conducting critical enquiries would not be very convenient, that Griesbach’s theory is universally aban- doned by modern scholars, but because there is no valid reason for believing it to be true. At the onset of his labours, indeed, this acute and candid enquirer was disposed to divide all extant materials into five or six different families; he afterwards limited them to three, the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Byzantine recensions. The standard of the Alexandrian text he conceived to be Origen; who, although his works were written in Palestine, was assumed to have brought with him into exile copies of Scripture, similar to those used in his native city. To this family would belong a few manuscripts of the earliest date, and confessedly of the Iffghest character, Codd. ABC, Cod. L of the Gospels, the Egyptian and some lesser versions. ‘The Western recension would survive in Cod. D of the Gospels and Acts, in the other ancient copies which contain a Latin translation, in the Old Latin and Vulgate versions, and in the Latin Fathers. The vast majority of manuscripts (comprising perhaps nineteen-twentieths of the whole), together with the larger proportion of versions and Patristic writings, were grouped into the Byzantine class, as having prevailed generally in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. To this last class Griesbach hardly professed to accord as much weight as to either of the others, nor, if he had done so, would the result have been materially different. The joint testimony GRIESBACH. 225 of two classes was, ceteris paribus, always to prevail; and since the very few documents which comprise the Alexandrian and Western recensions seldom agree with the Byzantine even when at variance with each other, the numerous codices which make up the third family would thus have about as much share in fixing the text of Scripture, as the poor citizens whose host was included in one of Servius Tullius’ lower classes possessed towards counterbalancing the votes of the wealthy few that composed his first or second}. Inasmuch as the manuscripts on which our received text was based must, beyond question, be referred to his Byzantine family, wide as were the variations of Griesbach’s revised text from that of Elzevir *, had his theory been pushed to its legitimate conse- quences, the changes it required would have been greater still. The very plan of his work, however, seemed to reserve a slight _ preference for the received text as such, in cases of doubt and difficulty ; and this editor, with a calmness and sagacity which may well be called judicial, was usually disposed to relax his stern mechanical law when persuaded by reasons founded on internal probabilities, which (as we cheerfully admit) few men have been found able to estimate with so much patience and discrimination. The plain fact is, that while disciples like Moldenhawer and persons who knew even less than he were ‘regarding Griesbach’s system as self-evidently true, their wiser master must have had many a misgiving as to the safety of that imposing structure his rare ingenuity had built upon the sand. The very essence of his theory consisted in there being not two 1 The following specimen of a reading, possessing no internal excellence, preferred or favoured by Griesbach on the slightest evidence, will serve to illustrate the dangerous tendency of his system, had it been consistently acted upon through- out. In Matt. xxvii. 4 for d@@ov he indicates the mere gloss Sixaov as equal or preferable (though in his later manual edition of 1805 he marks it as an inferior reading), on the authority of the later margin of Cod. B, of Cod. L, the Sahidic Armenian, and Latin versions and Fathers, and Origen in four places (d@@ov once). He adds the Syriac, but this is an error as regards the Peshitto or Harkleian ; the Jerusalem may countenance him ; though in such a case the testimony of versions is precarious on either side. Here, however, Griesbach defends dixaov against all likelihood, because BL and Origen are Alexandrian, the Latin versions Western. 2 Reuss (p. 198) calculates that in his second edition out of Reuss’ thousand chosen passages Griesbach stands with the Elzevir text in 648, sides with other editions in 293, has fifty-nine peculiar to himself, The second differs from the first edition (1774-5) in about fifty places only. VOL, II. Q 226 CRITICAL EDITIONS. distinct families, but three; the majority deciding in all cases of dispute. Yet he hardly attempted, certainly neither he nor any one after him succeeded in the attempt, to separate the Alexandrian from the Western family, without resorting to arguments which would prove that there are as many classes as there are manuscripts of early date. The supposed accordance of the readings of Origen, so elaborately scrutinized for this purpose by Griesbach, with Cod. A, on which our editor lays the greatest stress, has been shown by Archbishop Laurence (Remarks on Griesbach’s Systematic Classification, 1814) to be in a high degree imaginary}. It must have been in anticipation of some such researches, and in a partial know- ledge of their sure results, that Griesbach was driven to that violent and most unlikely hypothesis, that Cod. A follows the Byzantine class of authorities in the Gospels, the Western in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, and the Alexandrian in St. Paul. It seems needless to dwell longer on speculations which, however attractive and once widely received, will scarcely again find an advocate. Griesbach’s text can no longer be regarded as satisfactory, though it is far less objectionable than such a system as his would have made it in rash or unskilful hands. His industry, his moderation, his fairness to opponents, who (like Matthaei) had shown him little forbearance, we may all imitate to our profit. His logical acuteness and keen intellectual per- ception fall to the lot of few; and though they may have helped to lead him into error, and have even kept him from retracing his steps, yet on the whole they were worthily exercised in the good cause of promoting a knowledge of God’s truth, and of keeping alive, in an evil and unbelieving age, an enlightened interest in Holy Scripture, and the studies which it serves to consecrate. 18. Of a widely different order of mind was John Martin _ Augustine Scholz [d. 1852], Roman Catholic Dean of Theology in the mixed University of Bonn. It would have been well for the progress of sacred learning and for his own reputation had ' Laurence, in the Appendix to his ‘Remarks,’ shows that while Cod. A agrees with Origen against the received text in 154 places, and disagrees with the two united in 140, it sides with the received text against Origen in no less than 444 passages, SCHOLZ. 227 the accuracy and ability of this editor borne some proportion to his zeal and obvious anxiety to be useful. His first essay was his ‘ Curae Criticae in historiam textfis Evangeliorum, in two dissertations, Heidelberg, 4to, 1820, containing notices of forty- eight Paris manuscripts (nine of them hitherto unknown) of which he had fully collated seventeen: the second Dissertation is devoted to Cod. K of the Gospels. In 1823 appeared his ‘ Biblisch-Kritische Reise, Leipsic, 8vo, Biblio-Critical Travels in France, Switzerland, Italy, Palestine and the Archipelago, which Schulz laid under contribution for his improved edition of Griesbach’s first volume?. Scholz’s ‘N. T. Graece,’ 4to, was published at Leipsic, vol. i, 1830 (Gospels); vol. ui, 1836. The accession of fresh materials made known in these works is almost marvellous: Scholz was the first to indicate Codd. 260 —469 of the Gospels; 110-192 of the Acts, &c.; 125-246 of St. Paul; 51-89 of the Apocalypse; 51-181 Evangelistaria ; 21-58 Lectionaries of the Apostolos; in all 616 cursive codices. His additions to the list of the uncials comprise only the three fragments of the Gospels W* Y and the Vatican leaves of N. Of those examined previously by others he paid most attention to Evan. KX (M also for its synaxaria), and G (now L) Act., Paul.; he moreover inspected slightly eighty-two cursive codices of the Gospels after Wetstein, Birch, and the rest ; collated entire five (Codd. 4, 19, 25, 28, 83), and twelve in the greater part, adding much to our knowledge of the important Cod. 22. In the Acts, &c., he inspected twenty-seven of those known before, partially collated two; in St. Paul he collated partially two, slightly twenty-nine; in the Apocalypse sixteen, cursorily enough it would seem (see Codd. 21-3): of the Lectionaries he touched more or less thirteen of the Gospels, four of the Apostolos. On turning to the 616 codices Scholz placed on the list for the first time, we find that he collated entire but thirteen (viz. five of the Gospels, three of the Acts, &c., three of St. Paul, one each of the Apocalypse and Evangelistaria): a few of the rest he examined throughout the greater part; many in only a few chapters; while some were set down from printed 1 David Schulz published at Berlin, 1827, 8vo, a third and much improved edition of his N. T., vol. i (Gospels), containing also collations of certain additional manuscripts, unknown to Grieshach. Q 2 228 CRITICAL EDITIONS. Catalogues, whose plenteous errors we have used our best endeavours to correct in the present volume, so far as the means were within our reach. Yet, after making a large deduction from our frst impressions of the amount of fear performed by Scholz, enough and more than enough would remain to entitle him to our lasting grati- tude, if it were possible to place any tolerable reliance on the correctness of his results. Those who are, however superficially, acquainted with the nature of such pursuits, will readily believe that faultless accuracy in representing myriads of minute details is not to be looked for from the most diligent and careful critic. Oversights will mar the perfection of the most highly finished of human efforts; but if adequate care and pains shall have been bestowed on detecting them, such blemishes as still linger unremoyed are no real subject of reproach, and do not greatly lessen the value of the work which contains them. But in the case of Scholz’s Greek Testament the fair indulgence we must all hope for is abused beyond the bounds of reason or moderation. The student who has had much experience of his volumes, especially if he has ever compared the collations there given with the original manuscripts, will never dream of resorting to them for information he can expect to gain elsewhere, or rest with confidence on a statement of fact merely because Scholz asserts it. J. Scott Porter (Principles of Textual Criticism, Belfast, 1848, pp. 263-66) and Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg. e—cii, 7th edition) have dwelt upon his strange blunders, his blind inconsistencies, and his habitual practice of copying from his predecessors without investigation and without acknowledge- ment; so that it is needless for us to repeat or dwell on that ungracious task1; but it is our duty to put the student once for 1 One of Porter’s examples is almost amusing. It was Scholz’s constant habit to copy Griesbach’s lists of critical authorities (errors, misprints, and all) without giving the reader any warning that they were not the fruit of his own labours. The note he borrowed from Griesbach on 1 Tim. iii. 16, contains the words ‘uti docuimus in Symbolis Criticis :’ this too Scholz appropriates (Tom. li. p. 334, col. 2) so as to claim the ‘Symbolae Criticae’ of the Halle Professor as his own! See also p. 217, Evan. 365; p. 258, Act. 86, and Tischendorf’s notes on Acts xix. 25; 2 Pet. i. 15 (N. T., eighth edition). His very text must have been set up by Griesbach’s. Thus, since the latter, by a mere press error, omitted pe in 2 Cor. ii. 18, Scholz not only follows him in the omission, but cites in his note a few cursives in which he had met with pe, a word really absent from no known copy. In Heb. ix. 5 again, both editors in error prefix 77s to ddéns. Scholz’s SCHOLZ. 229 all on his guard against what could not fail to mislead him, and to express our sorrow that twelve years and more of hard and persevering toil should, through mere heedlessness, have been nearly thrown away. As was natural in a pupil of J. L. Hug of Freyburg (see vol. i. -p. 111), who had himself tried to build a theory of recensions on very slender grounds, Dr. Scholz attempted to settle the text of the N. T. upon principles which must be regarded as a modifica- tion of those of Griesbach. In his earliest work, like that great critic, he had been disposed to divide all extant authorities into five separate classes; but he soon reduced them to two, the Alexandrian and the Constantinopolitan. In the Alexandrian family he included the whole of Griesbach’s Western recension, from which indeed it seems vain to distinguish it by any broad line of demarcation: to the other family he referred the great mass of more recent documents which compose Griesbach’s third or Byzantine class; and to this family he was inclined to give the preference over the other, as well from the internal excellency of its readings, as because it represents the uniform text which had become traditional throughout the Greek Church. That such a standard, public, and authorized text existed he seems to have taken for granted without much enquiry. ‘Codices qui hoe nomen [Constantinopolitanum] habent,’ he writes, ‘parum inter se dissentiunt. Conferas, quaeso, longé plerosque quos huic classi adhaerere dixi, atque lectiones diversas viginti trigintave in totidem capitibus vix reperies, unde conjicias eos esse accura- tissimé descriptos, eorumque antigrapha parum inter se discre- passe’ (N. T., Proleg., vol. i.§ 55). It might have occurred to one who had spent so many years in studying Greek manu- scripts, that this marvellous concord between the different Byzantine witnesses (which is striking enough, no doubt, as we turn over the pages of his Greek Testament) is after all due to inaccuracy in the description of manuscripts which he must have had before him when he was writing is most wearisome to those who have had to trace his steps, and to verify, or rather to falsify, his statements. He has half filled our catalogues with duplicates and codices whith are not Greek or are not Biblical at all. After correcting not a few of his misrepresentations of books in the libraries at Florence, Burgon breaks out at last: ‘What else but calamitous is it to any branch of study that it should have been prosecuted by such an incor- rigible blunderer, a man so abominably careless as this?’ (Guardian, Aug. 27, 1878.) 230 CRITICAL EDITIONS. nothing so much as to the haste and carelessness of collators. The more closely the cursive copies of Scripture are examined, the more does the individual character of each of them become developed. With certain points of general resemblance, whereby they are distinguished from the older documents of the Alexan- drian class, they abound with mutual variations so numerous and perpetual as to vouch for the independent origin of nearly all of them, and their exact study has ‘swept away at once and for ever’ (Tregelles’ ‘ Account of Printed Text, p. 180) the fancy of a standard Constantinopolitan text, and every inference that had been grounded upon its presumed existence. If (as we firmly believe) the less ancient codices ought to have their proper weight and appreciable influence in fixing the true text of Scripture, our favourable estimate of them must rest on other arguments than Scholz has urged in their behalf. Since this editor’s system of recensions differed thus widely from Griesbach’s, in suppressing altogether one of his three classes, and in yielding to the third, which the other slighted, a decided preference over its survivmg rival, it might have been imagined that the consequences of such discrepancy in theory would have been strongly marked in their effects on his text. That such is not the case, at least to any considerable extent (especially in his second volume), must be imputed in part to Griesbach’s prudent reserve in carrying out his principles to extremity, but yet more to Scholz’s vacillation and evident weakness of judgement. In fact, on his last visit to England in 1845, he distributed among Biblical students here a ‘Commen- tatio de virtutibus et vitiis utriusque codicum N. T. familiae,’ that he had just delivered on the occasion of some Encaenia at Bonn, in which (after various statements that display either ignorance or inattention respecting the ordinary phenomena of manuscripts which in a veteran collator is really unaccountable?) he declares his purpose, chiefly it would seem from considerations of internal evidence, that if ever it should be his lot to prepare another edition of the New Testament, ‘se plerasque codicum Alexandrinorum lectiones illas quas in margine interiore textui editionis suae Alexandrinas dixit, in textum recepturum’ (p. 14). 1 Some of these statements are discussed in Serivener’s ‘ Collation of the Greek Moenuscripts of the Holy Gospels,’ Introd. pp. ]xix-Ixxi. LACHMANN. 231 The text which its constructor distrusted, can have but small claim on the faith of others. 14. ‘Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, Carolus Lach- mannus recensuit, Philippus Buttmannus Ph. F. Graecae lectionis _auctoritates apposuit’ is the simple title-page of a work, by one of the most eminent philologists of his time, the first volume of which (containing the Gospels) appeared at Berlin (8vo), 1842, the second and concluding one in 1850, whose boldness and origin- ality have procured it, as well for good as for ill, a prominent place in the history of the sacred text. Lachmann had published as early as 1831 a small edition containing only the text of the New Testament, with a list of the readings wherein he differs from that of Elzevir, preceded by a notice of his plan not exceeding a few lines in length, itself so obscurely worded that even to those who happened to understand his meaning it must have read like a riddle whose solution they had been told beforehand; and referring us for fuller information to what he strangely considered ‘a more convenient place,’ a German periodical of the preceding year’s date’. Authors who take so little pains to explain their fundamental principles of criticism, especially if (as in the present case) these are novel and unexpected, can hardly wonder when their drift and purpose are imperfectly apprehended ; so that a little volume, which we now learn had cost Lachmann five years of thought and labour, was confounded, even by the learned, with the mass of common, 1 The following is the whole of this notice, which we reprint after Tregelles’ example: ‘ De ratione et consilio hujus editionis loco commodiore expositum est (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1830, pp. 817-845). Hic satis erit dixisse, editorem nusquam judicium suum, sed consuetudinem antiquissimarum orientis ecclesiarum secutum esse. Hane quoties minus constantem fuisse animadvertit, quantum fieri potuit quae Italorum et Afrorum consensu comprobarentur prae- tulit: ubi pervagatam omnium auctorum discrepantiam deprehendit, partim uncis partim in marginibus indicavit. Quo factum est ut vulgatae et his proxi- mis duobus saeculis receptae lectionis ratio haberi non posset. Haec diversi- tas hic in fine libri adjecta est, quoniam ea res doctis judicibus necessaria esse videbatur.’ Here we have one of Lachmann’s leading peculiarities—his abso- lute disregard of the received readings—hinted at in an incidental manner ; the influence he was disposed to accord to the Latin versions when his chief authorities were at variance is pretty clearly indicated : but no one would guess that by the ‘custom of the oldest Churches of the Hast’ he intends the few very ancient codices comprising Griesbach’s Alexandrian class, and not the great mass of authorities, gathered from the Churches of Syria, Asia Minor, and Constantinople, of which that critic’s Byzantine family was made up. 232 CRITICAL EDITIONS. hasty, and superficial reprints. Nor was the difficulty much removed on the publication of the first volume of his larger book. It was then seen, indeed, how clean a sweep he had made of the great majority of Greek manuscripts usually cited in critical editions :—in fact he rejects all in a heap excepting Codd. ABC, the fragments PQTZ (and for some purposes D) of the Gospels ; DE of the Acts only; DGH of St. Paul. Yet even now he treats the scheme of his work as if it were already familiarly known, and spends his time in discursive controversy with his opponents and reviewers, whom he chastises with a heartiness which in this country we imputed to downright malice, till Tregelles was so good as to instruct us that in Lach- mann it was but ‘a tone of pleasantry,’ the horseplay of coarse German wit (Account of Printed Text, p. 112). The supplemen- tary Prolegomena which preface his second volume of 1850 are certainly more explicit: both from what they teach and from the practical examples they contain, they have probably helped others, as well as myself, in gaining a nearer insight into his whole design. It seems, then, to have been Tahoe purpose, discarding the slightest regard for the textus receptus as such, to ondeaye to bring the sacred text back to the condition in which it existed during the fourth century, and this in the first instance by documentary aid alone, without regarding for the moment whether the sense produced were probable or improbable, good or bad; but looking solely to his authorities, and following them implicitly wheresoever the numerical majority might carry him. For accomplishing this purpose he possessed but one Greek copy written as early as the fourth century, Cod. B; and of that he not only knew less than has since come to light (and even this is not quite sufficient), but he did not avail himself of Bartolocci’s papers on Cod. B, to which Scholz had already drawn attention. His other codices were not of the fourth century at all, but varying in date from the fifth (ACT) to the ninth (G); and of these few (of C more especially) his assistant or colleague Buttmann’s representation was loose, care- less, and unsatisfactory. Of the Greek Fathers, the scanty Greek remains of Irenaeus and the works of Origen are all that are employed; but considerable weight is given to the readings of the Latin version. The Vulgate is printed at length as LACHMANN. 233 revised, after a fashion, by Lachmann himself, from the Codices Fuldensis and Amiatinus: the Old Latin manuscripts abe, together with the Latin versions accompanying the Greek copies which he receives!, are treated as primary authorities: of the Western Fathers he quotes Cyprian, Hilary of Poictiers, Lucifer .. of Cagliari, and in the Apocalypse Primasius also. The Syriac and Egyptian translations he considers himself excused from ‘attending to, by reason of his ignorance of their respective languages. The consequence of this voluntary poverty where our manu- script treasures are so abundant, of this deliberate rejection of the testimony of many hundreds of documents, of various countries, dates, and characters, may be told in a few words. Lachmann’s text seldom rests on more than four Greek codices, very often on three, not unfrequently on two; in Matt. vi. 20— vill. 5, and in 165 out of the 405 verses of the Apocalypse, on but one. It would have been a grievous thing indeed if we really had no better means of ascertaining the true readings of the New Testament than are contained in this editor’s scanty roll; and he who, for the sake of some private theory, shall presume to shut out from his mind the great mass of information God’s Providence has preserved for our use, will hardly be thought to have chosen the most hopeful method for bringing himself or others to the knowledge of the truth. But supposing, for the sake of argument, that Lachmann had availed himself to the utmost of the materials he has selected, and that they were adequate for the purpose of leading him up to the state of the text as it existed in the fourth century, would he have made any real advance in the criticism of the sacred volume? Is it not quite evident, even from the authorities con- tained in his notes, that copies in that age varied as widely— nay even more widely—than they did in later times? that the main corruptions and interpolations which perplex the student in Cod. Bezae and its Latin allies, crept in at a period anterior to the age of Constantine? From the Preface to his second — volume (1850) it plainly appears (what might, perhaps, have been gathered by an esoteric pupil from the Preface to his first, 1 These are d for Cod. Bezae, e for Cod. Laud. 35, f being Lachmann’s nota- tion for Paul. Cod. D, as ff is for Paul. Cod. E (whose Latin translation is cited independently), g for Paul. Cod. G. 234 CRITICAL EDITIONS. pp. Vv, Xxxili), that he regarded this fourth century text, founded as it is on documentary evidence alone, as purely provisional ; as mere subject-matter on which individual conjecture might advantageously operate (Praef. 1850, p. v). Of the many examples wherewith he illustrates his principle we must be content with producing one, as an ample specimen both of Lachmann’s plan and of his judgement in reducing it to practice. In Matt. xxvii. 28 for éxddcavtes, which gives a perfectly good sense, and seems absolutely required by ra iudria adrod in ver. 31, BDabe read éviticavtes, a variation either borrowed from Mark xv. 17, or more probably a mere error of the pen. Had the whole range of manuscripts, versions, and Fathers been searched, no other testimony in favour of évdvcavres could have been found save Cod. 157, ff? and q of the Old Latin, the Latin version of Origen, and a few codices of Chrysostom!. Against these we might set a vast company of witnesses, exceeding those on the opposite side by full a hundred to one; yet because Cod. A and the Latin Vulgate alone are on Lachmann’s list, he is compelled by his system to place évdvcavres in the text as the reading of his authorities, reserving to himself the privilege of removing it on the ground of its palpable impropriety: and all this because he wishes to keep the ‘recensio’ of the text distinct from the ‘emendatio’ of the sense (Praef. 1850, p. vi). Surely it were a far more reasonable, as well as a more convenient process, to have reviewed from the first the entire case on both sides, and if the documentary evidence were not unevenly balanced, or internal evidence strongly preponderated in one scale, to place in the text once for all the reading which upon the whole should appear best suited to the passage, and most sufficiently established by authority. But while we cannot accord to Lachmann the praise of wisdom in his design, or of over-much industry and care in the execution of it (see Tischendorf, N. T., Proleg. pp. evii-cxii), yet we would not dissemble or extenuate the power his edition has exerted over candid and enquiring minds. Earnest, single- * We must now except the seventh century corrector of Cod. & called by Tischendorf C*, who actually changes the original reading «xd. into «v5., to be himself set right by a later hand C». This is one out of many proofs of some- thing more than an accidental connexion between Codd. 8 and B at a remote period. See vol. i. p. 96, and note. TISCHENDORF. 235 hearted, a true scholar both in spirit and accomplishments, he has had the merit of restoring the Latin versions to their proper rank in the criticism of the New Testament, which since the failure of Bentley's schemes they seem to have partially lost. No one will hereafter claim for the received text any further _weight than it is entitled to as the representative of the manu- scripts on which it was constructed: and the principle of recurring exclusively to a few ancient documents in preference to the many (so engaging from its very simplicity), which may be said to have virtually originated with him, has not been without influence with some who condemn the most strongly his hasty and one-sided, though consistent, application of it. Lach- mann died in 1851. 15. ‘Novum Testamentum Graece. Ad antiquos testes denuo recensuit, apparatum criticum omni studio perfectum apposuit, commentationem isagogicam praetexuit Aenoth. Frid. Const. Tischendorf, editio octava:’ Lipsiae, 1865-1872. This is beyond question the most full and comprehensive edition of the Greek Testament existing; it contains the results of the latest colia- tions and discoveries, and as copious a body of various readings as is compatible with the design of adapting it for general use: though Tischendorf’s notes are not sufficiently minute (as regards the cursive manuscripts) to supersede the need of perpetually consulting the labours of preceding critics. His earliest enter- prise + in connexion with Biblical studies was a small edition of the New Testament (12mo, 1841), completed at Leipzig in 1840, which, although greatly inferior to his subsequent works, merited the encouragement which it procured for him, and the praises of D. Schulz, which he very gratefully acknowledged. Soon after- wards he set out on his first literary journey: ‘quod quidem tam pauper suscepi, he ingenuously declares, ‘ut pro paenula quam portabam solvere non possem;’ and, while busily engaged on Cod. C, prepared three other editions of the New Testament, which appeared in 1843 at Paris, all of them being booksellers’ speculations on which, perhaps, he set no high value; one inscribed to Guizot, the Protestant statesman, a second (having 1 In dedicating the third volume of his ‘ Monumenta sacra inedita’ in 1860 to the Theological Faculty at Leyden, Tischendorf states that he took to these studies twenty-three years before, that is, at about twenty-two years of age. 236 CRITICAL EDITIONS. the Greek text placed in a parallel column with the Latin Vulgate, and somewhat altered to suit it) dedicated to Denys Affre, the Archbishop of Paris who fell so nobly at the barricades in June, 1848. His third edition of that year contained the Greek text of the second edition, without the Latin Vulgate. It is needless to enlarge upon the history of his travels, sufficiently described by Tischendorf in the Preface to his seventh edition (1859) ; it will be enough to state that he was in Italy in 1843 and 1866; four times he visited England (1842, 1849, 1855, 1865); and thrice went into the East, where his chief discovery —that of the Cod. Sinaiticus—was ultimately made. In 1849 came forth his second Leipzig or fifth edition of the New Testament, showing a very considerable advance upon that of 1841, though, in its earlier pages more especially, still very defective, and even as a manual scarce worthy of his rapidly growing fame. The sixth edition was one stereotyped for Tauchnitz in 1850 (he put forth another stereotyped edition in 1862), representing the text of 1849 slightly revised: the seventh, and up to that date by far the most important, was issued in thirteen parts at Leipsiec during the four years 1856-9. It is indeed a monument of persevering industry which the world has not often seen sur- passed: yet it was soon to be thrown into the shade by his eighth and latest edition, issued in eleven parts, between 1864 and 1872, the text of which is complete, but the Prolegomena, to our great loss, were never written, by reason of his illness and death (Dec. 7, 1874) 1. Yet it may truly be asserted that the reputation of Tischendorf as a Biblical scholar rests less on his critical editions of the N. T., than on the texts of the chief uncial authorities which in rapid succession he has given to the world. In 1843 was published the New Testament, in 1845 the Old Testament portion of ‘Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (Cod. C), 2 vols. 4to, in uncial type, with elaborate Prolegomena, notes, and facsimiles. In 1846 appeared ‘Monumenta sacra inedita,’ 4to, containing transcripts of Codd. F*LNW*Y©+ of the Gospels, and B of the Apocalypse ; ? Tischendorf left almost no papers behind him. Hence the task of writing Prolegomena to his eighth edition, gallantly undertaken by two American scholars, Dr. Caspar René Gregory of Leipzig, and Dr. Ezra Abbot of Cambridge, U.S., but for their own independent researches, might seem to resemble that of making bricks without straw. TISCHENDORF. 237 the plan and apparatus of this volume and of nearly all that follow are the same as in the Codex Ephraemi. In 1846 he also published the Codex Friderico-Augustanus in lithographed fac- simile throughout, containing the results of his first discovery at Mount Sinai: in 1847 the Evangelium Palatinum ineditum of the Old Latin: in 1850 and again in 1854 less splendid but good and useful editions of the Codex Amiatinus of the Latin Vulgate. His edition of Codex Claromontanus (D of St. Paul), 1852, was of precisely the same nature as his editions of Cod. Ephraemi, &c., but his book entitled ‘ Anecdota sacra et profana,’ 1855 (second and enlarged edition in 1861), exhibits a more miscellaneous character, comprising (together with other matter) transcripts of O* of the Gospels, M of St. Paul; a collation of Cod. 61 of the Acts being the only cursive copy he seems to have examined ; notices and facsimiles of Codd. ITA tisch.! or Evan. 478 of the Gospels, and of the lectionaries tisch.°Y (Evst. 190) and tisch.*: * (Apost. 71). Next was commenced a new series of ‘ Monumenta sacra inedita’ (projected to consist of nine volumes), on the same plan as the book of 1846. Much of this series is devoted to codices of the Septuagint version, to which Tischendorf paid great attention, and whereof he published four editions (the latest in 1869) hardly worthy of him; but vol. i (1855) contains transcripts of Codd. I, vent’. (Evst. 175); vol. ii (1857) of Codd. NPRO*; vol. iii (1860) of Codd. QW*, all of the Gospels ; vol. iv (1869) was given up to the Septuagint, as vol. vii would have been to the Wolfenbiittel manuscript of Chrysostom, of the sixth century!; but Cod. P of the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse comprises a portion of vols. v (1865) and of vi (1869) ; while vol. viii was to have been devoted to palimpsest fragments of both Testaments, such as we have described amongst the Uncials: the Appendix or vol. ix (1870) contains Cod. E of the Acts, &c. An improved edition of his system of Gospel Harmony (Synopsis Evangelica, 1851) appeared in 1864, with some fresh critical matter, a better one in 1871, and the fifth in 1884. His achievements in regard to Codd. 8 and B we have spoken of in 1 Through his haste to publish Cod. E of the Acts, in which design he feared to be forestalled by a certain Englishman, Tischendorf postponed to it vols. vii and viii, which he did not live to resume. Oscar von Gebhardt, now of Berlin, will complete vol. vii; Caspar René Gregory hopes to do what is possible for vol. viii. 238 CRITICAL EDITIONS. their proper places. He published his ‘ Notitia Cod. Sinaitici’ in 1860, his great edition of that manuscript in 1862, with full notes and Prolegomena; smaller editions of the New Testament only in 1863 and 1865; ‘an Appendix Codd. celeberrimorum Sinaitici, Vaticani, Alexandrini with facsimiles’ in 1867. His marvellous yet unsatisfactory edition of Cod. Vaticanus, prepared under the disadvantages we have described, appeared in 1867 ; its ‘ Appendix’ (including Cod. B of the Apocalypse) in 1869; his unhappy ‘ Responsa ad calumnias Romanas’ in 1870. To this long and varied catalogue must yet be added exact collations of Codd. EGHKMUX Gospels, EGHL Acts, FHL of St. Paul, and more, all made for his editions of the N. T. A poor issue of the Authorized English Version of the N. T. was put forth in his name in 1869, being the thousandth volume of Tauchnitz’s series. The consideration of the text of Tischendorf’s several editions will be touched upon in Chapter X. To the general accuracy of his collations every one who has followed him over a portion of his vast field can bear and is bound to bear cheerful testi- mony. For practical purposes his correctness is quite sufficient, even though one or two who have accomplished very much less may have excelled in this respect some at least of his later works. For the unflinching exertions and persevering toil of full thirty years Tischendorf was called upon in 1878 to pay the natural penalty in a stroke of paralysis, which prostrated his strong frame, and put a sudden end to his most fruitful studies. He was born at Lengenfeld in the kingdom of Saxony in 1815 and died in 1874, having nearly completed his sixtieth year }. 16. ‘The Greek New Testament, edited from ancient autho- rities; with the various readings of all the ancient MSS, the ancient versions, and other ecclesiastical writers (to Eusebius inclusive); together with the Latin version of Jerome, from the Codex Amiatinus of the sixth century. By Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, LL.D.’ 4to, 1857-1872, pp. 1017. [Appendix by Dr. Hort, 1879, pp. i-xxxii; 1018-1069. | 1 For further information respecting this indefatigable scholar and _his labours we may refer to a work published at Leipzig in 1862, ‘ Constantin Tischendorf in seiner fiinfundzwanzigjihrigen schriftstellerischen wirksamkeit. Literar-historische skizze von Dr. Joh. Ernst Volbeding.’ I have also seen, by Dr. Ezra Abbot’s courtesy, his paper in the Uniturian Review, March, 1875. TREGELLES,. 239 The esteemed editor of the work of which the above is the full title, first became generally known as the author of ‘The Book of Revelation in Greek, edited from ancient authorities ; with a new English Version,’ 1844: and, in spite of some obvious blemishes and defects, his attempt was received in the English Church with the gratitude and respect to which his thorough earnestness and independent views justly entitled him. He had arranged in his own mind as early as 1838 the plan of a Greek Testament, which he announced on the publication of the Apocalypse, and now set himself vigorously to accomplish. His fruitless endeavour to collate Cod. B has already been mentioned, but when he was on the continent in 1845-6, and again in 1849-50, also in 1862, he thoroughly examined all the manuscripts he could meet with, that fell within the compass of his design. In 1854 he published a volume full of valuable information, and intended as a formal exposition of his critical principles, intituled ‘An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament.’ In 1856 he re-wrote, rather than re-edited, that portion of the Rev. T. Hartwell Horne’s well-known ‘ Introduction to the Criti- cal Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures’ which relates to the New Testament, under the title of ‘ An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, &c.! In 1857 appeared, for the use of subscribers only, the Gospels of SS. Matthew and Mark, as the first part of his ‘ Greek New Testament’ (pp. 1-216); early in 1861 the second part, containing SS. Luke and John (pp. 217-488), with but a few pages of ‘Introductory Notice’ in each. In that year, paralysis, mercurialium pestis virorwm, for a while suspended our editor’s too assiduous labours: but he recovered health sufficient to publish the Acts and Catholic Epistles in 1865, the Epistles of St. Paul down to 2 Thess. in 1869. Early in 1870, while in the act of revising the concluding t A pamphlet of thirty-six pages appeared late in 1860, ‘Additions to the Fourth Volume of the Introduction to the Holy Scriptures,’ &c.,by S.P.T. Most of this industrious writer’s other publications are not sufficiently connected with the subject of the present volume to be noticed here, but as throwing light upon the literary history of Scripture we may mention his edition of the ‘ Canon Muratori- anus,’ liberally printed for him in 1867 by the Delegates of the Oxford University Press. Burgon, however, on comparing Tregelles’ book with the document itself at Milan, cannot overmuch laud his minute correctness (Guardian, Feb. 5, 1873). Isaac H. Hall made the same comparison at Milan and confirms Burgon’s judge- ment. The custodian of the Ambrosian Library at Milan, the famous Ceriani, had nothing to do with the work or with the lithograph facsimile. 240 CRITICAL EDITIONS. chapters of the Apocalypse, he was visited by a second and very severe stroke of his fell disease. The remaining portion of the Pauline Epistles was sent out in 1870 as he had himself prepared it; the Revelation (alas! without the long-desired Prolegomena) in 1872, as well as the state of Tregelles’ papers would enable his friends 8. J. B. Bloxsidge and B. W. Newton to perform their office. The revered author could contribute nothing save a message to his subscribers, full of devout thankfulness and calm reliance on the Divine wisdom. The text of the Apocalypse differs from that which he arranged in 1844 in about 229 places. Except Codd. OZ, which were published in 1861 (see under those MSS.), this critic has not edited in full the text of any document, but his renewed collations of manuscripts are very extensive: viz. Codd. EGHKMN?’RUXZPA 1, 33, 69 of the Gospels; HL 13, 31, 61 of the Acts; DFL 1, 17, 37 of St. Paul, 1, 14 of the Apocalypse, Am. of the Vulgate. Having followed Tregelles through the whole of Cod. 69 (Act. 31, Paul. 37, Apoc. 14), I am able to speak positively of his scrupulous exact- ness, and in regard to other manuseripts now in England it will be found that where Tischendorf and Tregelles differ, the latter is seldom in the wrong. To the versions and Fathers (especially to Origen and Eusebius) he has devoted great attention. His volume is a beautiful specimen of typography 4, and its arrangement is very convenient, particularly his happy expedient for showing at every open leaf the precise authorities that are extant at that place. _ The peculiarity of Tregelles’ system is intimated, rather than stated, in the title-page of his Greek N. T. It consists in resorting to ‘ancient authorities’ alone in the construction of his revised text, and in refusing not only to the received text, but to the great mass of manuscripts also, all voice in deter- mining the true readings. This scheme, although from the history he gives of his work (An Account of Printed Text, pp: 153, &e.), it was apparently devised independently of Lachmann, is in fact essentially that great scholar’s plan, after those parts of it are withdrawn which are manifestly indefen- * As a whole it may be pronounced very accurate as well as beautiful, with the conspicuous drawback that the Greek accents are so ill represented as to show either strange ignorance or utter indifference about them on the part of the person who revised the sheets for the press. TREGELLES. 241 sible. Tregelles’ ‘ancient authorities’ are thus reduced to those manuscripts which, not being Lectionaries, happen to be written in uncial characters, with the remarkable exceptions of Codd. 1, 33, 69 of the Gospels, 61 of the Acts, which he admits because they ‘preserve an ancient text. We shall hereafter enquire (Chap. X) whether the text of the N.T. can safely be grounded on a basis so narrow as that of Tregelles. This truly eminent person, born at Falmouth of a Quaker family January 30, 1813, received what education he ever got at Falmouth Classical School (of which I was Master twenty years later), from 1825 to 1828. At an early age he left the communion in which he was bred, to join a body called the Plymouth Brethren, among whom he met with much disquietude and some mild persecution: his last years were more happily spent as a humble lay member of the Church of England, a fact he very earnestly begged me to keep in mind!. The critical studies he took up as early as 1838, when he was only twenty- five years old, were the main occupation of his life. The inconvenient and costly form in which he published his Greek Testament, brought upon him pecuniary loss, and even trenched upon the moderate fortune of his true and loving wife. After several years of deep retirement he died at Plymouth, April 24, 1875: and whereas his widow, who has since followed him to the other world, was anxious that his great work should be as far as possible completed, Dr. Hort has manifested his veneration for an honoured memory by publishing in 1879 an ‘ Appendix’ to the Greek New Testament, embracing what materials for Prolego- mena Tregelles’ published writings supplied, and supplementary corrections to every page of the main work, compiled by the Rev. A. W. Streane, Fellow of C. C. C., Cambridge, which comprise a wonderful monument of minute diligence and devotion. Of Tischendorf and Tregelles, that duumvirate of Biblical critics, [ may be allowed to repeat a few words, extracted from the Preface to the Greek Testament of 1876, in the series of ‘Cambridge Texts:’ ‘ Kheu quos viros! natu feré aequales, indole et fama satis dispares, ambo semper in adversum nitentes, ambo piis laboribus infractos, intra paucos menses mors abripuit immatura.’ ' Tle gave the same assurance to A. Earle, D.D., Bishop of Marlborough, assigning as his reason the results of the study of the Greek N. T. VOL, If, R 242 CRITICAL EDITIONS. 17. ‘The New Testament in the original Greek. The text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D. [Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge], and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. [Hulsean Professor of Divinity there]. Vol. L Cambridge and London, 1881, ‘Introduction and Appendix, in a separate volume, by Dr. Hort only, 1881. This important and comprehensive work, the joint labour of two of the best scholars of this age, toiling, now separately, now in counsel, for five and twenty years, was published, the text a few days earlier than the Revised English Version (May 17, 1881), the Introduction about four months later. The text, or one almost identical with it, had been submitted to the Revisers of the N. T., and to a few other Biblical students, several years before, so that the general tenor and spirit of our authors’ judgement was known to many: the second edition of my present work was enriched by the free permission granted by them to announce their con- clusions regarding passages which come up for discussion in Chapter XII, and elsewhere. Drs. Westcott and Hort depart more widely from the teatus receptus than any previous editor had thought necessary; nor can they be blamed for carrying out their deliberate convictions, if the reasons they allege shall prove sufficient to justify them. Those reasons are given at length by Dr. Hort in his ‘Introduction, a treatise whose merits may be frankly acknowledged by persons the least disposed to accept his arguments: never was a cause, good or bad in itself, set off with higher ability and persuasive power. On the validity of his theory we shall have much to say in Chapters X and XII, to which we here refer once for all. The elegant volume which exhibits the Greek text contains in its margin many alternative readings, chiefly recorded in passages wherein a difference of opinion existed between the two illustrious editors. Words or passages supposed to be of doubtful authority are included in brackets ({]), those judged to be probably or certainly spurious —and their number is ominously large—in double brackets ([ J). Mark xvi. 9-20; John vii. 53—viii. 11 are banished to the end of their respective Gospels, as if they did not belong to them. Finally, quotations from and even slight allusions to the Old Testament, in great but judicious plenty, are printed in a kind of uncial letter, to the great benefit of the student. This notice cannot be left without an expression of deep WESTCOTT AND HORT, REVISERS. 243 regret upon the loss of Dr. Hort at a comparatively early age. Much as the author of this work and the editor of this edition has differed from the views of that distinguished man, the services which he has rendered in many ways to the cause of sacred textual criticism cannot here be forgotten or unrecognized. -His assiduity and thoroughness are a pattern to all who come after him. 18. The text constructed by the English Revisers in pre- paration for their Revised Translation was published in two forms at Oxford and Cambridge respectively in 1881. The Oxford edition, under the care of Archdeacon Palmer, incor- porated in the text the readings adopted by the Revisers with the variations at the foot of the Authorized edition of 1611, of Stephanus’ third edition published in 1550, and of the margin of the Revised Version. The Cambridge edition, under the care of Dr. Scrivener, gave the Authorized text with the variations of the Revisers mentioned at the foot. Both editions are admir- ably edited. The number of variations adopted by the Revisers, which are generally based upon the principles advocated by Westcott and Hort, has been estimated by Dr. Scrivener at 5,837 (Burgon’s ‘ Revision Revised,’ p. 405). The titles in full of these two editions are :— 1. The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version. Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., L.L.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881. 2. ‘H KAINH AIA@HKH. The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version. Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1881. [Preface by the Editor, Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] CHAPTER IRE INTERNAL EVIDENCE. E have now described, in some detail, the several species of external testimony available for the textual criticism of the New Testament, whether comprising manuscripts of the original Greek, or ancient translations from it, or citations from Scripture made by ecclesiastical writers. We have, moreover, indicated the chief editions wherein all these materials are recorded for our use, and the principles that have guided their several editors in applying them to the revision of the text. One source of information, formerly deemed quite legitimate, has been designedly passed by. It is now agreed among competent judges that Comyectural Emendation must never be resorted to, even in passages of acknowledged difficulty 1; the absence of proof that a reading proposed to be substituted for the common one is actually supported by some trustworthy document being of itself a fatal objection to our receiving it” Those that have 1 Dr. Hort (Introd. p. 277) hardly goes so far as this: ‘Those,’ he says, ‘ who propose remedies which cannot possibly avail are not thereby shown to have been wrong in the supposition that remedies were needed ; and a few have been perhaps too quickly forgotten.’ * I hope that the change made in the wording of the above sentence from what stood in the first edition will satisfy my learned and acute critic, Mr. Lin- wood (Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as applied to the New Testament, 1873, p. 9, note) ; although I fear that the difference between us is in substance as wide as ever. At the same time I would hardly rest the main stress of the argument where Dr. Roberts does when he says that ‘conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field, &c., simply because all sober critics feel that there is no need for it’ (Words of the N. T., p. 24). There are texts, no doubt, some of those for example which Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort have branded with a marginal + in their edition ; e.g. Acts vii. 46; xiii. 32; xix. 40; xxvi, 28; Rom. viii. 2; 1 Cor. xii. 2 (where Eph. ii. 11 might suggest 67 moré); 1 Tim. vi. 7, and especially in the kindred Epistles, 2 Pet. iii. 10; 12; Jude 5; 22, 28, wherein, whether from internal difficulties or from the actual state of the external TEXTUAL CANONS. 245 been hazarded aforetime by celebrated scholars, when but few codices were known or actually collated, have seldom, very seldom, been confirmed by subsequent researches: and the time has now fully come when, in the possession of abundant stores of variations collected from memorials of almost every age and -country, we are fully authorized in believing that the reading to which no manuscript, or old version, or primitive Father has borne witness, however plausible and (for some purposes) convenient, cannot safely be accepted as genuine or even as probable ; even though there may still remain a few passages respecting which we cannot help framing a shrewd suspicion that the original reading differed from any form in which they are now presented to us}. In no wise less dangerous than bare conjecture destitute of external evidence, is the device of Lachmann for unsettling by means of emendation (emendando), without reference to the balance of conflicting testimony, the very text he had previously fixed by revision (recensendo) through the means of critical authorities: in fact the earlier process is but so much trouble misemployed, if its results are liable to be put aside by evidence, we should be very glad of more light than our existing authorities will lend us. What I most urge is the plain fact, that the conjectures, even of able and accomplished men, have never been such as to approve themselves to any but their authors, much less to commend themselves to the judgement of scholars as intuitively true. 1 Bentley, the last great critic who paid much regard to conjectural emenda- tions, promised in his Prospectus of 1720 that ‘If the author has anything to suggest towards a change of the text, not supported by any copies now extant, he will offer it separate in his Prolegomena.’ It is really worth while to turn over Wm. Bowyer’s ‘Critical Conjectures and Observations on the N.T.,’ or the summary of them contained in Knappe’s N.T. of 1797, if only to see the utter fruitlessness of the attempt to illustrate Scripture by ingenious exercise of the imagination. The best (¢.g. cvvadiCopévas Acts i. 4 ; nopkelas for mopvetas ibid. xv. 20, 29), no less than the most tasteless and stupid (e.g. vnveulay for ynoreiav Acts xxvii. 9), in the whole collection, are hopelessly condemned by the deep silence of a host of authorities which have since come to light. Nor are Mr. Linwood’s additions to the over-copious list likely to fare much better. Who but himself will think mpwrn in Luke ii. 2 corrupted through the intermediate mpwre from mpwrw érer (ubi supra p. 5); or that 7a ToAAG in Rom. xy. 22 ought to be érn woAAa (p. 18)? Add to this, that he gives up existing readings much too easily, even where his emendations are more plausible than the foregoing, as when he would adopt ds dy for éray in John viii. 44 (p. 6) ; and this is perhaps his best attempt. His worst surely is OC for @C (@cés) Rom. ix. 5, which could not be endured unless éor followed 3s, as it does in the very passage (Rom. i. 25) which he cites in illustration (p. 18). 246 INTERNAL EVIDENCE, abstract judgement or individual prejudices. Not that the most sober and cautious critic would disparage the fair use of internal evidence, or withhold their proper influence from those reason- able considerations which in practice cannot, and in speculation should not, be shut out from every subject on which the mind seeks to form an intelligent opinion. Whether we will or not, we unconsciously and almost instinctively adopt that one of two opposite statements, in themselves pretty equally attested to, which we judge the better suited to recognized phenomena, and to the common course of things. I know of no person who has affected to construct a text of the N.'T. on diplomatic grounds exclusively, without paying some regard to the character of the sense produced; nor, were the experiment tried, would any one find it easy to dispense with discretion and the dictates of good sense: nature would prove too strong for the dogmas of a wayward theory. ‘It is difficult not to indulge in sulyectiveness, at least in some measure, writes Dr. Tregelles (Account of Printed Text, p. 109): and, thus qualified, we may add that it is one of those difficulties a’sane man would not wish to overcome. The foregoing remarks may tend to explain the broad dis- tinction between mere conjectural emendation, which must be utterly discarded, and that just use of internal testimony which he is the best critic who most judiciously employs. They so far resemble each other, as they are both products of the reasoning faculty exercising itself on the sacred words of Serip- ture: they differ in this essential feature, that the one proceeds in ignorance or disregard of evidence from without, while the office of the other has no place unless where external evidence is evenly, or at any rate not very unevenly, balanced. What degree of preponderance in favour of one out of several readings, all of them affording some tolerable sense, shall entitle it to reception as a matter of right ; to what extent canons of sub- jective criticism may be allowed to eke out the scantiness of documentary authority ; are points that cannot well be defined with strict accuracy. Men’s decisions respecting them will always vary according to their temperament and intellectual habits; the judgement of the same person (the rather if he be by constitution a little unstable) will fluctuate from time to time as to the samo evidence brought to bear on the self-same TEXTUAL CANONS. 247 passage. Though the canons or rules of internal testimony be themselves grounded either on principles of common sense, or on certain peculiarities which all may mark in the documents from which our direct proofs are derived ; yet has it been found by experience (what indeed we might have looked for before- hand), that in spite, perhaps in consequence, of their extreme simplicity, the application of these canons has proved a searching test of the tact, the sagacity, and the judicial acumen of all that handle them. For the other functions of an editor accuracy and learning, diligence and zeal are sufficient : but the delicate adjustment of conflicting probabilities calls for no mean exercise of a critical genius. This innate faculty we lack in Wetstein, and notably in Scholz; it was highly developed in Mill and Bengel, and still more in Griesbach. His well-known power in this respect is the main cause of our deep regret for the failure of Bentley’s projected work, with all its faults whether of plan or execution. Nearly all the following rules of internal evidence, being founded in the nature of things, are alike applicable to all sub- jects of literary investigation, though their general principles may need some modification in the particular instance of the Greek Testament. I. ProcLivi SCRIPTIONI PRAESTAT ARDUA: the more difficult the reading the more likely it is to be genuine. It would seem more probable that the copyist tried to explain an obscure passage, or to relieve a hard construction, than to make that perplexed which before was easy: thus in John vii. 39, Lachmann’s addition of dedouévoy to otro hv mvetpa dyov is very improbable, though countenanced by Cod. B and (of course) by several of the chief versions. We have here Bengel’s prime canon, and although Wetstein questioned it (N. T., vol. i. Proleg. p- 157), he was himself ultimately obliged to lay down something nearly to the same effect!. Yet this excellent rule may easily 1 *v1z. Inter duas variantes lectiones, si quae est ebpwrvdrepos aut planior aut Graecantior, alteri non protinus praeferenda est, sed contra saepius. vio. Lectio exhibens locutionem minus usitatam, sed alioqui subjectae materiae convenien- tem, praeferenda est alteri, quae, cum aeque conveniens sit, tamen phrasim habet minus insolentem, usuque magis tritam.’ Wetstein’s whole tract, ‘Animad- versiones ct Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum N.'T’, necessariae’ (N.T., 248 INTERNAL EVIDENCE. be applied on a wrong occasion, and is only true ceteris paribus, where manuscripts or versions lend strong support to the harder form. ‘To force readings into the text merely because they are difficult, is to adulterate the divine text with human alloy ; it is to obtrude upon the reader of Scripture the solecisms of faltering copyists, in the place of the word of God’ (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, N. T., vol. i. Preface, p. xii). See Chap. XII on Matt. xxi. 28-31. Compare also above, Vol. I. i. § 11. II. That reading out of several is preferable, from which all the rest may have been derived, although it could not be derived from any of them. Tischendorf (N.T., Proleg. p. xli. 7th edition) might well say that this would be ‘omnium regularum principium,’ if its application were less precarious. Of his own two examples the former is too weakly vouched for to be listened to, save by way of illustration. In Matt. xxiv. 38 he? and Alford would simply read év rats *pyépas rod Kara- kAvo.0d on the very feeble evidence of Cod. L, one uncial Evst. (13), a e ff, the Sahidic version, aud Origen (in two places) ; because the copyists, knowing that the eating and drinking and marrying took place not in the days of the flood, but before them (kal odk éyvwcay ws AOev 6 Katakdvopds ver. 39), would strive to evade the difficulty, such as it was, by adopting one of the several forms found in our copies: jépars mpd Tod KarakA., vol. ii. pp. 851-874) deserves attentive study. See also the 43 Canones Critici and their Confirmatio in N.T. of G. D. T. M. D. * So even Dr. Roberts, whose sympathies on the whole would not be the same as the Bishop of Lincoln’s: ‘Of course occasions might oceur on which, from carelessness or oversight, a transcriber would render a sentence obscure or ungrammatical which was clear and correct in his exemplar; but it is manifest that, so far as intentional alteration was concerned, the temptation all lay in the opposite direction’ (‘ Words of the New Testament,’ p. 7). So again speaks E. G. Punchard on James iii. 8 in Bp. Ellicott’s Commentary, ‘The supporters of such curious corrections argue that the less likely is the more so ; and thus every slip of a copyist, either in grammar or spelling, becomes more sacred in their eyes than is the Received text with believers in verbal inspiration.’ Sir Edmund Beckett (‘Should the Revised New Testament be Authorised ?’ 1882) writes in so scornful a spirit as to neutralize the effects on a reader’s mind of his native acuteness and common sense, but he deals well with the argument ‘that an improbable reading is more likely right, because nobody would have invented it.’ ‘I suppose,’ he rejoins, ‘an accidental piece of carelessness can produce an improbable and absurd error in copying as well as a probable one.’ (p. 7+) 2 In his seventh edition, not in his eighth. TEXTUAL CANONS. 249 or myépars tals mpd Tod KatakA., or Hucpats exelvars mpd Tod KaTaKA., OF Huepats exelvats Tals mpd Tod KaTaKA., Or even iuépats tod vde. In his second example Tischendorf is more fortunate, unless indeed we choose to refer it rather to Bengel’s canon. James ili. 12 certainly ought to run ph dvvarar, ddeApol pov, cvKA alas Troujoat, 7) duredos odKa 3 ovre (vel ovde) GAvKdY yAUKY TOLHoaL ddwp, as in Codd. SABO, in not less than six good cursives, the Vulgate and other versions. To soften the ruggedness of this construction, some copies prefixed ofrws to ore or ovdé, while others inserted the whole clause otrws ovdeuia ny ddvKdv Kat before yAvkd mojoa tdwp. Other fair instances may be seen in Chap. XII, notes on Luke x. 41, 42 ; Col. ii. 21. In the Septuagint also the reading of 8 ovvewweAOdvtas 1 Mace. xii. 48 appears to be the origin both of ocvveAOdvras with A, the uncial 23, and four cursives at least, and of eiceAOdvtas of the Roman edition and the mass of cursives. III. ‘Brevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium auctoritate penitus destituatur, praeferenda est verbosiori. Li- brarii enim multd proniores ad addendum fuerunt, quam ad omittendum’ (Griesbach, N.T., Proleg. p. lxiv. vol. i). This canon bears an influential part in the system of Griesbach and his successors, and by the aid of Cod. B and a few others, has brought great changes into the text as approved by some critics. Dr. Green too (Course of Developed Criticism on Text of N. T.) sometimes carries it to exeess in his desire to remove what he considers accretions. It is so far true, that scribes were no doubt prone to receive marginal notes into the text which they were originally designed only to explain or enforce (e.g. 1 One other example to illustrate this rule, so difficult in its practical use, may be added from Alford on Mark ii. 22, where the reading xa? 6 olvos amédaAvutat Kal of doxot (whether the verse end or not in these words) appears to have been the original form, since ‘it fully explains all the others, either as emendations of construction, or corrections from parallel places.’ The reader may apply this canon, if he pleases, to Aristotle, Ethic. iv. 9, in selecting between the three different readings éxynpol or vwOpol or voepol to close the sentence od piv 7ALO.0t ye of ToLodTOL Sonoda elven, GAAA padAdrov ... having careful reference to the context in which it stands: or to the easier case of Kairovye and its variations in Acts xvii. 27: or to Rom. viii. 24, where the first hand of B and the margin of Cod. 47 (very expressly), by omitting ri ai, appear to present the original text. 250 INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 1 John v. 7, 8)!; or sought to amplify a brief account from a fuller narrative of the same event found elsewhere, whether in the same book (e.g. Act. ix. 5 compared with ch. xxvi. 14), or in the parallel passage of one of the other synoptical Gospels. In quotations, also, from the Old Testament the shorter form is always the more probably correct (cbid.). _Circumstancées too will be supplied which were deemed essential for the preservation of historical truth (e.g. Act. viii. 37), or names of persons and places may be inserted from the Lectionaries: and to this head we must refer the graver and more deliberate interpolations so frequently met with in Cod. D and a few other documents. Yet it is just as true that words and clauses are sometimes wilfully omitted for the sake of removing apparent difficulties (e. g. viod Bapaxtov, Matt. xxiii. 35 in Cod. 8 and a few others), and that the negligent loss of whole passages through dovorédevrov is common to manuscripts of every age and character. On the whole, therefore, the indiscriminate rejection of portions of the text regarded as supplementary, on the evidence of but a few authorities, must be viewed with considerable distrust and suspicion. IV. That reading of a passage is preferable which best suits the peculiar style, manner, and habits of thought of an author; it being the tendency of copyists to overlook the idiosynerasies of the writer. For example, the abrupt energy of St. James’ asyndeta (e.g. ch. i. 27), of which we have just seen a marked instance, is much concealed by the particles inserted by the common text (e. g. ch. ii. 4,13; iii. 17; iv. 2; v. 6): St. Luke in the Acts is fond of omitting ‘said’ or ‘saith’ after the word indicating the speaker, though they are duly supplied by recent seribes (e.g. ch. ii. 88; ix. 5; xix. 2; xxv. 22; xxv.20ngan Thus again, in editing Herodotus, an Ionic form is more eligible than an Attic one equally well attested, while in the Greek Testament an Alexandrian termination should be chosen under similar circumstances. Yet even this canon has a double edge: habit or the love of critical correction will sometimes lead 1 ‘Though the theory of explanatory interpolations of marginal glosses into the text of the N. T. has been sometimes carried too far (e.g. by Wassenberg in f ‘*Valeken.” Schol. in N. T., Tom. i), yet probably this has been the most fertile source of error in some MSS. of the Sacred Volume.’ (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, Nat. on. 2 Cor: iil. 3.) Yes, in some MSS. TEXTUAL CANONS. 251 the scribe to change the text to his author's more usual style, as well as to depart from it through inadvertence (see Acts iv. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 24): so that we may securely apply the rule only where the external evidence is not unequally balanced. V. Attention must be paid to the genius and usage of each several authority, in assigning the weight due to it in a parti- cular instance. Thus the testimony of Cod. B is of the less influence in omissions, that of Cod. D (Bezae) in additions, inas- much as the tendency of the former is to abridge, that of the latter to amplify the sacred text. The value of versions and ecclesiastical writers also much depends on the degree of care and critical skill which they display. Every one of the foregoing rules might be applied mutatis mutandis to the emendation of the text of any author whose works have suffered alteration since they left his hands: the next (so far as it is true) is peculiar to the case of Holy Scripture. VI. ‘Inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspecta merito habetur, quae orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifesté prae ceteris favet’ (Griesbach, N.T., Proleg., p. Ixvi. vol. i). I cite this canon from Griesbach for the sake of annexing Archbishop Magee’s - very pertinent corollary : ‘from which, at least, it is reasonable to infer, that whatever readings, in favour of the Orthodox opinion, may have had his sanction, have not been preferred by him from any bias in behalf of Orthodoxy’ (Discourses on Atonement and Sacrifice, vol. ii. p. 212). Alford says that the rule, ‘sound in the main, does not hold good, when, ‘whichever reading is adopted, the orthodox meaning is legitimate, but the adoption of the stronger orthodox reading is absolutely incompatible with the heretical meaning,—then it is probable that swch stronger orthodox reading was the original’ (N.T., Proleg., vol. i. p. 83, note 6, 4th edition): instancing Act. xx. 28, where the weaker reading rijv éxxAnolay Tod xupiov would quite satisfy the orthodox, while the alternative reading rod «0d ‘would have been certain to be altered by the heretics.’ But in truth there seems no good ground for believing that the rule is ‘sound in the main, though two or three such instances as 252 INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 1 Tim. iii. 161 and the insertion of dedv in Jude, ver. 4, might seem to countenance it. We dissent altogether from Griesbach’s statement, ‘Scimus enim, lectiones quascunque, etiam manifesto falsas, dummodo orthodoxorum placitis patrocinarentur, inde a tertii seculi initiis mordicus defensas seduloque propagatas, ceteras autem ejusdem loci lectiones, quae dogmati ecclesiastico nil praesidii afferrent, haereticorum perfidiae attributas temere fuisse’ (Griesb. ubi supra), if he means that the orthodox forged those great texts, which, believing them to be authentic, it was surely innocent and even incumbent on them to employ *. The Church of Christ ‘inde a tertii seculi initiis’ has had her faults, many and grievous, but she never did nor shall fail in her duty as a faithful ‘witness and keeper of Holy Writ. But while vindicating the copyists of Scripture from all wilful tampering with the text, we need not deny that they, like others of their craft, preferred that one out of several extant readings that seemed to give the fullest and most emphatic sense : hence Davidson would fain account for the addition ék ris gapkés avto} Kal ex tév dotéwy advtod (which, however, is not unlikely to be genuine?) in Eph. v. 30. Since the mediaeval scribes belonged almost universally to the monastic orders, we will not dispute the truth of Griesbach’s rule, ‘ Lectio prae aliis sensum pietati (praesertim monasticae) alendae aptum fundens, suspecta est, though its scope is doubtless very limited*. Their ? On this passage Canon Liddon justly says, ‘The question may still perhaps be asked ... whether here, as elsewhere, the presumption that copyists were always anxious to alter the text of the New Testament in theological interests, is not pressed somewhat excessively’ (Bampton Lectures, 1866, p. 467, note). 2 Griesbach’s ‘etiam manifesto falsas’ can allude only to rt John v. 7, 8; yet it isa strong point against the authenticity of that passage that it is not cited by Greek writers, who did not find it in their copies, but only by the Latins who did. ’ The clause might haye been derived from Gen. ii. 28, yet the evidence against it is strong and varied (NAB, 17, 67**, Bohair., &c.). * Alford’s only definite example (and that derived from Wotsterm: Nok wes, ii. p. 11) is found but in a single cursive (4) in Rom. xiv. 17, ob yap éorw 9 Bor vele TOU cot Bpwos nal moors, dAAA Sikaootvn Kal doxnots xal eipnyyn. Tregelles (An Account of Printed Text, p. 222) adds 1 Cor. vii. 5; Act. x. 30; Rom. xii. 13 (!) More to their purpose, perhaps, if we desired to help them on, would be the suspected addition of «al vnoretg in Mark ix. 29, and of the whole verse in the parallel place Matt. xvii. 21; the former being brought into doubt on the very insufficient authority of Codd. 8 (by the first hand) B, of the beautiful Latin copy k from Bobbio, and by reason of the silence of Clement of Alex- andria: the latter on the evidence of the same Greek manuscripts (k being TEXTUAL CANONS. 253 habit of composing and transcribing Homilies has also been supposed to have led them to give a hortatory form to positive commands or dogmatic statements (see Vol. I. p. 17), but there is much weight in Wordsworth’s remark, that ‘such suppositions as these have a tendency to destroy the credit of the ancient MSS. ; and if such surmises were true, those MSS. would hardly be worth the pains of collating them’ (note on 1 Cor. xv. 49). VII. ‘Apparent probabilities of erroneous transcription, permutation of letters, itacism and so forth, have been designated by Bp. Ellicott ‘ paradiplomatic evidence’ (Preface to the Galatians, p. xvii, first edition), as distinguished from the ‘diplomatic’ testimony of codices, versions, &c. This species of evidence, which can hardly be deemed internal, must have con- siderable influence in numerous cases, and will be used the most skilfully by such as have considerable practical acquaintance with the rough materials of criticism. We have anticipated what can be laid before inexperienced readers on this topic in the first chapter of our first volume, when discussing the sources of various readings!: in fact, so far as canons of internal defective) with Cod. 38, both (?) Egyptian, the Curetonian and Jerusalem Syriac, the Latin e ff1, some forms of the Ethiopic version, and from the absence of the Eusebian canon, which ought to have referred us to the parallel place in St. Mark, whereas that verse is assigned to the tenth canon. In the face of such readings of NB it is hard to understand the grounds of Mr. Darby’s vague suspicion that they ‘bear the marks of having been in ecclesiastical hands.’ (N.T., Preface, p. 3.) ' See (6), (7), (17), (18). The uncial characters most liable to be confounded by scribes (p. 10) are AAA, €C, OO, NII, and less probably TIT. An article in a foreign classical periodical, written by Professor Cobet, the co-editor of the Leyden reprint of the N.T. portion of Cod. B, unless regarded as a mere jeu @esprit, would serve to prove that the race of conjectural emendators is not so completely extinct as (before Mr. Linwood’s pamphlet) I had supposed. By a dexterous interchange of letters of nearly the same form (A for A, € for C, I for T, C for €, K for IC, T for I) this modern Bentley—and he well deserves the name—suggests for ACTEIOC 7@ eG Act. vii. 20 [compare Heb. xi. 23] the common-place A€KTOC 7 66, from Act. x. 35. Each one of the sia necessary changes Cobet profusely illustrates by examples, and even the reverse substitu- tion of dexrds for doreios from Alciphron: but in the absence of all manuscript authority for the very smallest of these several permutations in Act. vii. 20, he excites in us no other feeling than a sort of grudging admiration of his misplaced ingenuity. In the same spirit he suggests HACIONA for IA€IONA, Heb. xi. 4; while in 1 Cor. ii. 4 for év metOo0is copias Adyous he simply reads év me:Oot codias, the o which begins cogias having become accidentally doubled and Adéyas subsequently added to explain 7e:ois, which he holds to be no Greek word at all: it seems indeed to be met with nowhere else. Dr. Hort’s comment on this learned 254 INTERNAL EVIDENCE, or of paradiplomatic evidence are at all trustworthy, they instruct us in the reverse process to that aimed at in Vol. I. Chap. 1; the latter showing by what means the pure text of the inspired writings was brought into its present state of partial corruption, the former promising us some guidance while we seek to retrace its once downward course back to the fountain-head of primeval truth?. To what has been previously stated in regard to paradiplomatic testimony it may possibly be worth while to add Griesbach’s caution ‘lectiones RHYTHMI fallacid facillimé explicandae nullius sunt pretii’ (N.T., Proleg. p. Ixvi), a fact whereof 2 Cor. iii. 3 affords a memorable example. Here what once seemed the wholly unnatural reading év mdaél xapdlars capkivas, being disparaged by dint of the rhyming termination, is received by Lachmann in the place of xapdias, on the authority of Codd. AB (sic) CDEGLP, perhaps a majority of cursive copies (seven out of Scrivener’s twelve, and Wake 12 or Paul. 277); to which add Cod. 8 unknown to Lachmann, and that abject slave of manuscripts, the Harkleian Syriac.’ Codd. FK have xapdias, with all the other versions. If we attempt to interpret xapdiais, we must either render with Alford, in spite of the order of the Greek, ‘on fleshy tables, [your] hearts:’ or with the Revisers of 1881 ‘in tables that are hearts of flesh ;’ yet surely capkivats as well as AOivars must agree with mdragi. Dr. Hort in mere despair would almost reject the second zdaégi (Introd., Notes, p. 119). It has been said that ‘when the cause of a various reading is known, the variation usually disappears”. This language may seem extravagant, yet it hardly exaggerates what may be effected by internal evidence, when it is clear, simple, and unambiguous. It is, therefore, much to be lamented that this is seldom the case in practice. Readings that we should uphold in virtue of one canon, are very frequently (perhaps in a majority of really doubtful passages) brought into suspicion by means of trifling is instructive: ‘Though it cannot be said that recent attempts in Holland to revive conjectural criticism for the N.T. have shown much felicity of suggestion, they cannot be justly condemned on the ground of principle’ (introd., p. 277). 1 Thus Canon I of this chapter includes (12), (19): Canon III ineludes (2), (8), (4), (8), (9), (10) ; while (13) comes under Canon IV ; (20) under Canon VI. 2 “Canon Criticus’ xxiv, N.T., by G. D. T. M. D., p. 12, 17385. TEXTUAL CANONS. ; 255 another; yet they shall each of them be perfectly sound and reasonable in their proper sphere. An instance in point is Matt. v. 22, where the external evidence is divided. Codd. 8B (in A secundd manu), 48, 198, 583, 587, Origen twice, the Ethiopic and Vulgate, omit «ix after was 6 dpyi(duevos To adeApo adrod, Jerome fairly stating that it is ‘in quibusdam codicibus,’ not ‘in veris,’ which may be supposed to be Origen’s MSS., and therefore removing it from his revised Latin version. It is found, however, in all other extant copies (including SDEKLMSUVA (prima manu) TI, most cursives, all the Syriac (the Peshitto inserting, not a Syriac equivalent, but the Greek word lx) and Old Latin copies, the Bohairie, Armenian, and Gothic versions), in Eusebius, in many Greek Fathers, in the Latin Fathers from Irenaeus downwards?, and even in the Old Latin Version of Origen himself; the later authorities uniting with Codd. }D and their associates against the two oldest manuscripts extant. Under such circum- stances the suggestions of internal evidence would be precious indeed, were not that just as equivocal as diplomatic proof. ‘Griesbach and Meyer,’ says Dean Alford, ‘hold it to have been expunged from motives of moral rigorism :—De Wette to have been inserted to soften the apparent rigour of the precept 2’ Our sixth Canon is here opposed to our first ®. The important yet precarious and strictly auxiliary nature of rules of internal evidence will not now escape the attentive student; he may find them exemplified very slightly and imperfectly in the twelfth Chapter of this volume, but more fully by recent critical editors of the Greek Testament; except perhaps by Tregelles, who usually passes them by in silence, though to 1 Dean Burgon cites (Revision Revised, pp. 359, 360) ‘no less than thirty ancient witnesses.’ 2 ‘The precept, if we omit the phrase, is in striking harmony with the at first sight sharp, extreme, almost paradoxical character of various other pre- cepts of the ‘Sermon on the Mount.’ Milligan, Words of the N. T., p. 111. % Very similar in point of moral feeling is the variation between dAvyomoriay, the gentler, intrinsically perhaps the more probable, and dmoriav, the more emphatic term, in Matt. xvii. 20. Both must have been current in the second century, the former having the support of Codd. NB, 138, 22, 33, 124, 346 [hiat 69}, the Curetonian Syriac (and that too against Cod. D), both Hgyptian, the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, Origen, Chrysostom (very expressly, although his manuscripts vary), John Damascene, but of the Latins Hilary alone. All the rest, including Codd. CD, the Peshitto Syriac, and the Latins among first class witnesses, maintain dmoriay of the common text. 256 INTERNAL EVIDENCE. some extent they influence his decisions; by Lachmann, in the formation of whose provisional text they have had no share; and by Dean Burgon, who held that ‘we must resolutely maintain, that External Evidence must after all be our best, our only safe guide’ (The Revision Revised, p. 19)’. We will close this investigation by citing a few of those crisp little periods (con- ceived in the same spirit as our own remarks) wherewith Davidson is wont to inform and sometimes perhaps to amuse his admirers : ‘Readings must be judged on internal grounds. One can hardly avoid doing so. It is natural and almost unavoidable. It must be admitted indeed that the choice of readings on internal evidence is liable to abuse. Arbitrary caprice may characterize it. It may degenerate into simple subjectivity. But though the temptation to misapply it be great, it must not be laid aside. . . . While allowing superior weight to the external sources of evidence, we feel the pressing necessity of the subjective. Here, as in other instances, the objective and subjective should accompany and modify one another. They cannot be rightly separated.’ (Biblical Criticism, vol. ii. p. 374, 1852.) 1 Perhaps I may refer to my ‘Textual Guide,’ p. 120. The utmost caution should be employed in the use of this kind of evidence: perhaps nowhere else do authorities differ so much.—Eb. CHAPTER IX. HISTORY OF THE TEXT. ae adequate discussion of the subject of the present chapter would need a treatise by itself, and has been the single theme of several elaborate works. We shall here limit ourselves to the examination of those more prominent topics, a clear understanding of which is essential for the establishment of trustworthy principles in the application of external evidence to the correction of the text of the New Testament. 1. It was stated at the commencement of this volume that the autographs of the sacred writers ‘perished utterly in the very infancy of Christian history:’ nor can any other conclusion be safely drawn from the general silence of the earliest Fathers, and from their constant habit of appealing to ‘ancient and approved copies!,’ when a reference to the originals, if extant, would have put an end to all controversy on the subject of various readings. Dismissing one passage in the genuine Epistles of Ignatius (d. 107), which has no real connexion with the matter”, the only allusion to the autographs of Scripture met with in the primitive ages is the well-known declaration of 1 BE. g. Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, v. 30.1, for which see below, p. 261: the early date renders this testimony most weighty. 2 In deference to Lardner and others, who have supposed that Ignatius refers to the sacred autographs, we subjoin the sentence in dispute. “Enel jxovod tivwy Aeydvrav, bri édv pr) év Tots dpxaios cipw, ev TO ebayyedw od moTEVw* Kal éyorTbs pou avrots, br yéypamta, amexplOnody por, Ste mpdkerra. Epyol 5& dpxeld eorw ‘Inoods Xpiords x. 7. A. (Ad Philadelph. c. 8.) On account of dpxeta in the suc- ceeding clause, dpyelos has been suggested as a substitute for the manuscript reading dpyaios, and so the interpolators of the genuine Epistle have actually written. But without denying that a play on the words was designed between apxatos and dpxeia, both copies of the Old Latin version maintain the distinction made in the Medicean Greek (‘si non in veteribus invenio’ and ‘Mihi autem principium est Jesus Christus’), and any difficulty as to the sense lies not in VOL. II. iS) 258 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. Tertullian (fi. 200): ‘Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident, apud quas ipsae Authenticae Literae eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem, et repraesentantes faciem uniuscujusque. Proximé est tibi Achaia, habes Corinthum. Sinon longé es a Macedonia, habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes in Asiam tendere, habes Ephesum. Si autem Italiae adjaces, habes Romam... (De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 36.) Attempts have been made, indeed, and that by eminent writers, to reduce the term ‘ Authen- ticae Literae’ so as to mean nothing more than ‘genuine, unadulterated Epistles, or even the authentic Greek as opposed to the Latin translation’. It seems enough to reply with Ernesti, that any such non-natural sense is absolutely excluded by the word ‘ ipsae,’ which would be utterly absurd, if ‘genuine’ only were intended (Institutes, Pt. iii, Ch. ii. 3)?: yet the African Tertullian was too little likely to be well informed on this subject, to entitle his rhetorical statement to any real attention ®. We need not try to explain away his obvious meaning, but we may fairly demur to the evidence of this honest, but impetuous and wrong-headed man. We have no faith in the continued existence of autographs which are vouched dpxaios but in mpdrera. Chevallier’s translation of the passage is perfectly intelligible, ‘Because I have heard some say, Unless I find it in the ancient writings, I will not believe in the Gospel. And when [I said to them, ‘‘ It is written [in the Gospel],” they answered me, ‘‘ It is found written before [in the Law].”’ Gainsayers set the first covenant in opposition to the second and better one. 1 Thus Dr. Westcott understands the term, citing from Tertullian, De Mono- gamia, xi: ‘sciamus plané non sic esse in Graeco authentico. Dean Burgon refers us to Routh’s ‘ Opuscula,’ vol. i. pp. 151 and 206. ? Compare too Jerome’s expression ‘ipsa authentica’ (Comment. in Epist. ad Titum), when speaking of the autographs of Origen’s Hexapla: below, p. 263, 3 The view I take is Coleridge’s (Table Talk, p. 89, 2nd ed.). ‘I beg Tertullian’s pardon; but among his many bravuras, he says something about St. Paul’s autograph. Origen expressly declares the reverse ;’ referring, I sup- pose, to the passage cited below, p. 263. Bp. Kaye, the very excellence of whose character almost unfitted him for entering into the spirit of Tertullian, observes : ‘Since the whole passage is evidently nothing more than a declamatory mode of stating the weight which he attached to the authority of the Apostolic Churches ; to infer from it that the very chairs in which the Apostles sat, or that the very Epistles which they wrote, then actually existed at Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, &c., would be only to betray a total ignorance of Tertullian’s style ’ (Kaye’s ‘ Eeclesias- tical History ... illustrated from the writings of Tertullian,’ p. 818, 2nd ed.). Just so: the autographs were no more in those cities than the chairs were: but it suited the purpose of the moment to suppose that they were extant ; and, knowing nothing to the contrary, he boldly sends the reader in search of them. THE SACRED AUTOGRAPHS. 259 for on no better authority than the real or apparent exigency of his argument |. 2. Besides the undesigned and, to a great extent, unavoidable differences subsisting between manuscripts of the New Testa- ment within a century of its being written, the wilful corruptions introduced by heretics soon became a cause of loud complaint in the primitive ages of the Church’. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, addressing the Church of Rome and Soter its Bishop (a. D. 168- 176), complains that even his own letters had been tampered with: kat ravras of rod duaBdAov andoroXor CiCavlwv yeyeuikay, & pev eLatpobytes, & 5% mpooriOévres* ofs Td oval keirar: adding, however, the far graver offence, ov davpacrov dpa «i Kal TOv Kupiakdyv padioup- ynoat twes éemiBéBAnvrar ypapdv (Kuseb., Eccl. Hist., iv. 28), where ai xvupiaxal ypapai can be none other than the Holy Scriptures. Nor was the evil new in the age of Dionysius. Not to mention Asclepiades, or Theodotus, or Hermophylus, or Apol- lonides, who all under the excuse of correcting the sacred text corrupted it %, or the Gnostics Basilides (A.D. 130?) and Valentinus (A.D. 150%) who published additions to the sacred text which were avowedly of their own composition, Marcion of Pontus, the 1 TI do not observe, as some have thought, that Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. v. 10) intimates that the copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel in Hebrew letters, left by St. Bartholomew in India, was the Evangelist’s autograph ; and the fancy that St. Mark wrote with his own hand the Latin fragments now at Venice (/or.) is worthy of serious notice. The statement twice made in the ‘Chronicon Paschale,’ of Alexandria, compiled in the seventh century, but full of ancient ~ fragments, that woet rpiri) was the true reading of John xix. 14 ‘xadds ra dxpiBR ' BiBAla mepiéxet, adTd Te TO ididxelpoy ToD edayyedkioTOD STEp péxpe TOD Viv mepvrAakTat xdpiTt Oeod ev TH eperiwv ayiwraTyn éxKkArAnolg Kat tnd Tov moray éxetoe mpooxuveirar’ (Dindorf, Chron. Pasch., pp. 11 and 411), is simply in- credible. Isaac Casaubon, however, a most unimpeachable witness, says that this passage, and another which he cites, were found by himself in a fine frag- ment of the Paschal treatise of ‘ Peter Bp. of Alexandria and martyr’ [d. 311], which he got from Andrew Damarius, a Greek merchant or calligrapher (Patti- son, Life of Is. Casaubon, p. 38). Casaubon adds to the assertion of Peter ‘Hec ille. Ego non ignoro quid adversus hane sententiam possit disputari: de quo judicium esto eruditorum’ ( Exercit. in Annal. Hccles. pp. 464, 670, London, 1614). 2 ‘T have no doubt,’ says Tischendorf, ‘that in the very earliest ages after our Holy Scriptures were written, and before the authority of the Church pro- tected them, wilful alterations, and especially additions, were made in them,’ English N. T., 1869, Introd. p. xv. * Caius (175-200) in Routh’s ‘ Reliquiae,’ ii. 125, quoted in Burgon’s ‘ Revision Revised,’ p. 323. 8 2 260 HISTORY OF DHE iE. arch-heretic of that period, coming to Rome on the death of its Bishop Hyginus (4. D. 142), brought with him that mutilated and falsified copy of the New Testament, against which the Fathers of the second century and later exerted all their powers, and whose general contents are known to us chiefly through the writings of Tertullian and subsequently of Epiphanius. It can hardly be said that Marcion deserves very particular mention in relating the history of the sacred text”. Some of the variations from the common readings which his opponents detected were doubtless taken from manuscripts in circulation at the time, and, being adopted through no private preferences of his own, are justly available for critical purposes. Thus in 1 Thess. ii. 15, Tertullian, who saw only rots mpo¢yjras in his own copies, objects to Marcion’s reading rovs idiovs mpodyjras (‘licet swos adjectio sit haeretici’), although ?dfovs stands in the received text, in Evann. KL (DE in later hands) and all cursives except eight, in the Gothic and both (?) Syriac versions, in Chrysostom, Theodoret, and John Damascenus. Here the heretic’s testimony is useful in showing the high antiquity of idfovs, even though NABDEFGP, eight cursives, Origen thrice, the Vulgate, Armenian, Ethiopic, and all three Egyptian versions, join with Lachmann, Tischen- dorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort in rejecting it, some of them | perhaps in compliance with Tertullian’s decision. In similar instances the evidence of Marcion, as to matters of fact to which he could attach no kind of importance, is well worth recording *: but where on the contrary the dogmas of his own miserable system are touched, or no codices or other witnesses countenance his changes (as is perpetually the case in his edition of St. Luke, the only Gospel—and that maimed or interpolated from the others—he seems to have acknowledged at all), his blasphemous extravagance may very well be forgotten. In such cases he 1 «Necdum quoque Marcion Ponticus de Ponto emersisset, cujus magister Cerdon sub Hygino tune episcopo, qui in Urbe nonus fuit, Romam venit: quem Marcion secutus. ..’ Cyprian., Epist. 74. Cf. Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv. 10, 11. ? Dean Burgon attributes more importance to Marcion’s mutilations. Seee. g. ‘The Revision Revised,’ pp. 34-35. 3 In 1 Cor. x. 9 Marcion seems to uphold the true reading against the judgement of Epiphanius: 6 8& papxtwy dv7l 70d kV XV enolnoe. Consult also Bp. Lightfoot’s note (Epistle to the Colossians, p. 336, n. 1) on Heracleon’s variation of révre for & in John ii. 20. ‘There is no reason to think,’ he says, ‘that Heracleon falsified the text here; he appears to have found this various reading already in his copy.’ EARLY CORRUPTION. 261 does not so much as profess to follow anything more respectable than the capricious devices of his misguided fancy. 3. Nothing throws so strong a light on the real state of the text in the latter half of the second century as the single notice of Irenaeus (fl. 178) on Apoc. xiii. 18. This eminent person, the glory of the Western Church in his own age, whose five books against Heresies (though chiefly extant but in a bald old Latin version) are among the most precious reliques of Christian antiquity, had been privileged in his youth to enjoy the friendly intercourse of his master Polycarp, who himself had conversed familiarly with St. John and others that had seen the Lord (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., v. 20). Yet even Irenaeus, though removed but by one stage from the very Apostles, possessed (if we except a bare tradition) no other means of settling discordant readings than are now open to ourselves ; namely, to search out the best copies and exercise the judgement on their contents. His locus classicus must needs be cited in full, the Latin through- out, the Greek in such portions as survive. The question is whether St. John wrote x&$" (666), or x.$" (616). ‘ Hic autem sic se habentibus, et in omnibus antiquis et probatissimis et veteribus scripturis numero hoc posito, et testimonium perhibentibus his qui facie ad faciem Johannem viderunt (rodrev b€ otras éxdvTav, kai év mao. S€ Tots omovdaiors Kal apyators dvteypddpots Tov apiO.od TovToU Ketpévou, Kal paprupovyvT@y aiTav éxelvoy Tov Kat bw Toy “lwdvyny éwpakdtay, kal ToD Aédyou SuddokovTos Has dre 6 apiOpnds Tod dvdpatos Tod Onpiov Kara THv Tov “EdAnvav Wihov dia ray €v ait@ ypappdarev [eupaiverar]), et ratione docente nos quo- niam numerus nominis bestiae, secundum Graecorum computationem, per literas quae in eo sunt sexcentos habebit et sexaginta et sex: ignoro quomodo erraverunt quidam sequentes idiotismum et medium frustrantes numerum nominis, quinquaginta numeros deducentes, pro sex decadis unam decadem volentes esse (ov oiSa mas éeopddnody twes emuxohovdnoartes iStaricpe Kal Tov pécov nOérnoav apiOpdov tod dyduatos, v WHpirpa vpeddvtes kat dyti rav €& Sexddav play Sexdda Bovddpevor eivac). Hoc autem arbitror scriptorum peccatum fuisse, ut solet fieri, quoniam et per literas numeri ponuntur, facilé literam Graecam quae sexaginta enuntiat numerum, in iota Graecorum literam expansam. . . . Sed his quidem qui simpliciter et sine malitia hoc fecerunt, arbitramur veniam dari a Deo,’ (Contra -Haeres. y. 30. 1: Harvey, vol. ii. pp. 406-7.) Here we obtain at once the authority of Irenaeus for receiving the Apocalypse as the work of St. John; we discern the living interest its contents had for the Christians of the second century, even up to the traditional preservation of its minutest readings ; 262 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. we recognize the fact that numbers were then represented by letters!; and the far more important one that the original auto- graph of the Apocalypse was already so completely lost, that a thought of it never entered the mind of the writer, though the book had not been composed one hundred years, perhaps not more than seventy ”. 4, Clement of Alexandria is the next writer who claims our attention (fl. 194). Though his works abound with citations from Scripture, on the whole not too carefully made (‘ in addu- cendis N. T. locis creber est et castus, is rather too high praise, Mill, Proleg. § 627), the most has not yet been made of the information he supplies. He too complains of those who tamper with (or metaphrase) the Gospels for their own sinister ends, and affords us one specimen of their evil diligence®. His pupil Origen’s [185-253] is the highest name among the critics and expositors of the early Church; he is perpetually engaged in the discussion of various readings of the New Testament, and employs language in describing the then existing state of the text, which would be deemed strong if applied even to its present 1 See Chap. XI on Acts xxvii. 37. 2 Trenaeus’ anxiety that his own works should be kept free from corruption, and the value attached by him to the labours of the corrector, are plainly seen in a remarkable subscription preserved by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. v. 20), which illustrates what has been said above, ‘“Opsi{w ce Tov petaypadpevoy TO BiBdLrov TovTO, KATA TOD Kuplov HuaY inood xpLoTOdD, Kal Kata THs évddgov mapovcias avTod, Hs épxetat Kpivar (@vtas Kal vexpous, iva dvTiBdddns 5 pereypdiyw, nab KaTopOwons avTd mpos 70 ayTiypapoy TovTo, Oey pereypayw emipedras, Kal tov Spkov TodTOY dpolws petaypayns, Kal Onces ev TH dytiypad>w. Here the copyist (6 weraypapdpevos) is assumed to be the same person as the reviser or corrector. Mr. Linwood also (ubi supra, p. 11) illustrates from Martial (Lib. vii. Epigram. x) the reader’s natural wish to possess an author’s original manuscript rather than a less perfect copy: Qui vis archetypas habere nugas. of the fifth or sixth century, and the whole flood-tide of Greek manuscripts from the eighth century downwards, including even L, 33, with Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus in the eleventh and twelfth. Perhaps it is not very wise ‘quaerere quae habere non possumus, yet those who are persuaded, from the well- ascertained affinities subsisting between them, that ACP, or at least two out of the three, would have preserved a reading sanc- tioned by the Peshitto, by Codd. fk, by Chrysostom, and by nearly all the later documents, may be excused for regarding the indictment against the last clause of the Lord’s Prayer as hitherto unproven, in Dr. Scrivener’s judgement passed upon much less than the evidence in favour adduced above; and for supposing the genuineness of the clause to be proved when the additional evidence is taken into consideration. 3. Mart. xi. 19. The change of réxvwy of the Received text into épywr, as made by Tischendorf, Tregelles (who retains réxvav in his margin), by Hort and Westcott, is quite destructive to the sense, so far as we can perceive, for Jerome’s exposition (‘ Sapi- entia quippe non quaerit vocis testimonium, sed operum’) could 1 Why should Gregory Nyssen (871) be classed among the opponents of the clause, whereas Griesbach honestly states, ‘suam expositionem his quidem verbis concludit: [dd rod movnpod rod év TO Knécpw TovTw THY ioxdy KEKTNMEVOU, OD puodeinuer | xapite [70d] xprorod, bre adrod % Sivas Kal 4 Sdga Gua TO marpl Kal TO aylw mvedpari, viv nal del nat eis Tors ai@vas T&v alwvwy, dunv’? Griesbach adds indeed, ‘sed pro parte sacri textis neutiquam haec habuisse videtur;’ and justly : they were rather a loose paraphrase of the sentence before him. See Textual Guide, Edward Miller, App. V. 2? Canon Cook (Revised Version, p. 57) alleges as a probable cause of the general omission of the doxology in early Latin Versions and Fathers, that in all the Western liturgies it is separated from the petitions preceding by an intercalated Embolismus. More weighty is his observation that all the Greek Fathers, from Chrysostom onwards, who deal with the interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer, ‘agree with that great expositor in maintaining the important bearings [of the doxology] upon the preceding petitions.’ 326 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. hardly satisfy any one but himself. The reading épywy is sup- ported by NB* (with réxvwy in the margin by the hand B’, 124, the Peshitto Syriac (apparently; for all the older editions we know punctuate o3;as ‘doers, no 65,4» ‘works’), the Hark- leian text (but not its margin), the Bohairic, some copies known to Jerome, Armenian manuscripts, the Ethiopic (one MS. con- tains both forms), and (after the Peshitto Syriac) the Persie of the Polyglott and its codices. We can hardly question that the origin of the variation arose from the difficulty on the part of translators and copyists to understand the Hellenistic use of réxvwy in this place, and modern editors have been tempted to accept it from a false suspicion that the present passage has been assimilated to Luke vii. 35, where indeed Cod. ® and St. Ambrose have amd mavtov tév épywv airns. As we have alleged that Jerome’s explanation is unsatisfactory in St. Matthew’s Gospel, we subjoin that of Ambrose, which is certainly no less obscure, on the parallel place of St. Luke: ‘ Bene ab omnibus quia circa omnes justitia servatur, ut susceptio fiat fidelium, rejectio perfidorum. Unde plerique Graeci sic habent: justificata est sapientia ab omnibus operibus suis, quod opus justitiae sit, circa uniuscujusque meritum servare mensuram.’ In the face of the language of these two great Latin Fathers it is remarkable that all other Latin authorities agree with the Curetonian Syriac and the mass of Greek manuscripts in upholding réxvwr, which is undoubtedly the only true reading. 4. Marr. xvi. 2, 3. The whole passage from ’Owias ver. 2 to the end of ver. 3 is set within brackets by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, within double brackets by Westcott and Hort, who holds (Notes, p. 13) that ‘ both documentary evidence and the impossibility of accounting for omission prove these words to be no part of the text of Mt’ Yet it might seem impossible for any one possessed of the slightest tincture of critical instinct to read them thoughtfully without feeling assured that they were actually spoken by the Lord on the occasion related in the Received text, and were omitted by copyists whose climate the natural phenomena described did not very well suit, the rather as they do not occur in the parallel text, ch. xii. 38, 39. Under these circumstances, the internal evidence in favour of the passage being thus clear and irresistible, the witnesses against it are GOSPELS. MATT. XI. 19; XVI. 2, 39; XIX. I7- 327 more likely to damage their own authority than to impair our confidence in its genuineness. These witnesses are NBVXI’, 2, 18, 34, 39, 44, 84, 124 promd manu, 157, 180, 194, 258, 301, 511,575. Cod. 482 has the words, but only in a later hand at the foot of the page (Nicholson). Of these cursive codices 157 -alone is of the first class for importance, and the verses are explained in the scholia of X (for ver. 3) and of 39. E and 606 have them with an asterisk; but they are wanting in the Curetonian Syriac, the Bohairic according to Mill (but not so other Coptic manuscripts and editions), and the Armenian, as unaltered from the Latin. Origen passes them over in his commentary, and Jerome, in his sweeping way, declares ‘hoc in plerisque codicibus non habetur. They are recognized in the Eusebian canons (Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text, p- 205). The united testimony of 8B and the Curetonian version suffices to show that the omission was current as early as the second century, while the accordance of CD, of all the Latins and the Peshitto, with the mass of later codices assures us that the words were extant at the same early date. If any one shall deem this a case best explained by the existence of two separate recensions of the same work, one containing the disputed sentences, the other derived from copies in which they had not yet been inserted, he may find much encouragement for his conjecture by considering -certain passages in the latter part of St. Luke’s Gospel, where the same sort of omissions, supported by a class of authorities quite different from, those we have to deal with here, occur too often to be merely accidental. 5. Marv. xix.17. For Ti pe dA€yers dyaddv; ovdels ayabds, «i pay «ts, 6 ©eds, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort read Ti we épwrds wepl rod ayabod; «fs éotly 6 dyadés. The self-same words as in the Received text occur in the parallel places Mark x. 18, Luke xviii. 19 with no variation worth speaking of ; a fact which (so far as it goes) certainly lends some support to the supposition that St. Matthew’s autograph contained the other reading [?]. Add to this that any change made from St. Matthew, supposing the common reading to be true, must have been wilfully introduced by one who was offended at the doctrine of the Divine Son’s inferiority to the 328 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. Father which it seemed to assert or imply. Internal evidence, therefore, would be a little in favour of the alteration approved by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and the rest; and in discussing external authority, their opponents are much hampered by the accident that A is defective in this place, while & has recently been added to the list of its supporters [though more recently ® and > have come into the opposite balance]. Under these circumstances we might have been excused from noticing this passage at all, as we are no longer able to uphold the Received text with the same confidence as before, but that it seemed dis- honest to suppress a case on which Tregelles (An Account of the Printed Text, pp. 133-8) has laid great stress, and which, when the drift of the internal evidence is duly allowed for, tells more in his favour than any other he has alleged, or is likely to be met with elsewhere 1. The alternative reading Ti pe épwrds mept rod dyabod x. T. A. occurs in NBD (omitting rod and 6) L, 1 (omitting 6), 22, 604. In 251 both readings are given, the Received one first, in ver. 17, the other interpolated after wofas ver. 18, prefaced by 6 dé inoods eimev adit@. Excepting these seven, all other extant codices reject it, CEFGHKMSUVIA (I° omits ri pe A€éyers dyaddy; A omits déyeis, II is defective here), even Codd. 33, 69. The versions are more seriously divided. The Peshitto Syriac, the Harkleian text, the Sahidic (Oxford fragments), the Old Latin fq, the Arabic, &c., make for the common reading; Cureton’s and the Jerusalem Syriac, the Old Latin abcef'/, the Vulgate (the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish, of course), Bohairic and Armenian, for that of Lachmann and his followers. Several present a mixed form: ri pe epwrds Tept rod dya0d ; oddels dyabds ef yr eis: viz. the margin of the Harkleian, the Ethiopic, and g'hm of the Old Latin. A few (Cureton’s Syriac, bc ff}? g'h lm, Jerome and the Vulgate) add 6 6eds, as in the common text; but this is unim- portant. Tregelles presses us hard with the testimony of Origen in favour of the reading he adopts: 6 pév ody Maréaios, os rept aya0od épyou épwrndévtos Tod cwrhpos ev TO, Ti dyabdv Tomjoe ; dvéypawev. ‘O d& Mdpxos cat Aovkas fact tov owthpa eipnxevar, Ti pe A€yers dyaddy ; oddels dyabds, el ph els, 6 Ocds (Tom. iil. p. 644 ad). ‘The reading which is opposed to the common text, Tregelles «Quite a test-passage’ Mr. Hammond calls it (Outlines of Text. Crit., p. 76). GOSPELS. MATT. XIX. 17. 329 writes, ‘has the express testimony of Origen in its favour’ (p. 184); ‘might I not well ask for some proof that the other reading existed, in the time of Origen, in copies of St. Matthew’s Gospel?’ (p.137). I may say in answer, that the testimony of Origen applies indeed to the former part of the variation which Tregelles maintains (ri pe epwras mepl tod dyadod), but not at all to the latter («fs éorw 6 dyads), and that the Peshitto Syriac version of the second, as also the Sahidic of the third century, uphold the common text, without any variation in the manuscripts of the former, that we know of. Or if he asks for the evidence of Fathers to counterbalance that of a Father, we have Justin Martyr: zpocedOdrvt0s ait twos Kal elmdvtos (words which show, as Tischendorf observes, that St. Matthew’s is the only Gospel that can be referred to) Avddoxade dyadé, drexpivato déywr, Ovdeis dyabos «i pH pdvos 6 Ocds 6 Toncas Ta wadyra, citing loosely, as is usual with him, but not ambiguously. Or if half the variation will satisfy, as it was made to do for Origen, Tregelles’ own note refers us to Irenaeus 92 for ri pe A€yers dyabdv; eis early dyadds, and to Eusebius for the other half in the form above quoted from the Ethiopic, &c. Moreover, since he cites the last five words of the subjoined extract as belonging to St. Matthew,Tregelles entitles us to employ for our purpose the whole passage, Marcos. apud Tren. 92, which we might not otherwise have ventured todo; kai 7@ eindvtt aire Aiddokare dyadé, Tov dAnOds dyabdr Gedy Opmodroynkevat, eindvta Ti pe A€yets dyabov; ets eat dyads, 6 maThp ev Tots ovpavois. Jerome and Augustine (for the first clause only, though very expressly : de/Consensu Evan. ii. 63) are with the Latin Vulgate, Hilary with the common Greek text, as are also Optatus, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and the main body of later Fathers. Thus the great mass of manuscripts, headed by C [followed by ® and >], is well supported by versions, and even better by ecclesiastical writers ; yet, in virtue of the weight of internal evidence [?], we dare not hold out unreservedly against the reading of BDL, &c., now that Cod. 8 is found to agree with them, even though subsequent investigations have brought to light so close a relation between 8 and B as to render it impossible, in our opinion, to regard them as independent witnesses !. 1 Turrp Eprrion. I would fain side in this instance with my revered friend and Revision colleague Dr. David Brown of Aberdeen, and all my prepossessions are strongly in favour of the textus receptus here. He is quite right in perceiving 330 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. 6. Marr. xx. 28. The extensive interpolation which follows this verse in some very ancient documents has been given above (1.8), in the form represented in the Curetonian Syriac version. It bears the internal marks of evident spuriousness, the first sentence consisting of a rhetorical antithesis as unsuitable as can be imagined to the majestic simplicity of our Lord’s usual tone, while the sentiment of the rest is manifestly borrowed from Luke xiv. 8-10, although there is little or no resemblance in the words. The only extant Greek for the passage is in Codd. ® and D, of which D gives the fullest text, as follows: vues de (yretre « Ex perKpov avénaat kat ex perCovos eAatrov evar Erepxopevor O€ Kat mapakAnbevtes SeiTVNTAL+ pn avakArEweoOat evs Tos eFeXoVTas TOTOUS Mn mote evdokorepos cov emeAOn Kat TpoceADwvy o SertvoKAnTMp ELT GOL ETL KATH YwpEL + KaL KaTaLTxvVOnon Eav Se avameons’ €ls TOV NTTOva TOTOY Kat ETEAON Tov nTTwWY EpEL Go O SELTVOKANTWP" TUVAYE ETL ava Kat eoTar vor Tovto xpnoyov. The codices of the Old Latin version (abceffi#?hn and and. em. of the Vulgate’) mostly support the same addition, though with many variations: d, as usual, agrees with none; g? has not the first clause down to eivat, while g1 m have nothing else. Besides the Curetonian Syriac, the margin of the Harkleian contains it in a shape much like d, noting that the paragraph is ‘found in Greek copies in this place, but in ancient copies only in St. Luke, xep.s53’ [ch. xiv. 8, &e.]: Cureton has also seen it in one manuscript of the Peshitto (Brit. Mus. 14,456), but there too in the margin. Marshall states that it is contained in four codices of the Anglo- Saxon version, which proves its wide reception in the West. Of the Fathers, Hilary recognizes it, as apparently do Juvencus and Pope Leo the Great (A.D. 440-461). It must have been (Christian Opinion and Revisionist, p. 435) that the key of his position lies in the authenticity of dya0é ver. 16, which is undoubtedly found in Mark x. 17; Luke xviii. 18. If that word had abided unquestioned here, the form of reply adopted in the other two Gospels would have inevitably followed. As the case stands, there is not considerably less evidence for omitting dya0é (NBDL, 1, 22, 479, Evst. 5 [not ‘five Evangelistaria’], aef', Eth., Origen twice, Hilary) than for Ti pe épwrds «.7.A., although Cureton’s and the Jerusalem Syriac, the Bohairie, and the Vulgate with some other Latin copies, change sides here. It is upon these recreant versions that Dr. Brown must fix the charge of inconsistency. If aya0é be an interpolation, surely ri dya0dv roujow is pertinently answered by Ti pe Epwrds rept Tod ayabod. * Canon Westcott (Smith’s ‘Dictionary of the Bible,’ Vulgate Version) adds Bodl. 857; Brit. Mus. Reg. 1 B. vii, and Reg. 1. A. xviii in part, also Addit, 24,142 by the second hand. Tischendorf also cites theotisc. GOSPELS. MATT. XX. 28; XxI. 28-31. eee rejected by Jerome, being entirely absent from the great mass of Vulgate codices, nor is it in the Old Latin flq. No other Greek codex, or version, or ecclesiastical writer, has any knowledge of the passage: while the whole language of the Greek of Cod. D, especially in such words as deimvoxdijrwp, é&€xovtas, HrTwv, - xpnowos, is so foreign to the style of St. Matthew’s Gospel, that it seems rather to have been rendered from the Latin?, although in the midst of so much variation it is hard to say from what copy. Cureton too testifies that the Syriac of the version named from him must have been made quite independently of that in the margins of the Harkleian and Peshitto. No one has hitherto ventured to regard this paragraph as genuine, however perplexing it may be to decide at what period or even in what language it originated. The wide divergences between the witnesses must always dismiss it from serious consideration. Its chief critical use must be to show that the united testimony of the Old Latin, of the Curetonian Syriac, and of Cod. D, are quite insufficient in themselves to prove any more than that the reading they exhibit is ancient: certainly as ancient as the second century. 7. Matr. xxi. 28-31. This passage, so transparently clear in the common text, stands thus in the edition of Tregelles: (78) Te d& dyiv doKxet; dvOpwmos elyev téxva dvo, Kal mpocedOav TO TpOTH eitev, Téxvoy, Umaye onpepov epyadov ev TO apTEdGrt. (7°) 6 8& dmoxpiOels etmev, Od O€Aw* HoreEpov dé peTapednOcls dmHdAOEv. (°°) mpocehOoy 5& To devtépw eimev Goatrws. 6 dé droKpibels eizev, Ey, Kvpie Kal ov« dnjOev. (*1) ris €x Tov d00 Enolnoey TO OéAnua tod matpds; héyovowy, ‘O torepos. The above is indeed a brilliant exemplification of Bengel’s Canon, ‘ Proclivi orationi praestat ardua. Lachmann in 1842 had given the same reading, with a few slight and unimportant exceptions. The question is pro- 1 No passage more favours Bp. Middleton’s deliberate conclusion respecting the history of the Codex Bezae: ‘I believe that no fraud was intended: but only that the critical possessor of the basis filled its margin with glosses and readings chiefly from the Latin, being a Christian of the Western Church ; and that the whole collection of Latin passages was translated into Greek, and sub- stituted in the text by some one who had a high opinion of their value, and who was, as Wetstein describes him, ‘*aAdAvypapias quam vel Graecae vel Latinae linguae peritior.’ (Doctrine of the Greek Article, Appendix I. p. 485, 38rd edition.) 332 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. posed which of the two sons did their father’s will; the reply is 6 torepos, the one that promised and then failed! Lachmann in 1850 (N.T., vol. ii. Praef. p. 5) remarks that had he been sure that mpdros (ver. 31) was the reading of Cod. C, he should have honoured it, the only word that makes sense, with a place in his margin: ‘Nihilo minus,’ he naively adds, ‘id quod nunc solum edidi...6 totepos veri similius est altero, quod facile aliquis correctori adscribat, illud non item;’ and we must fairly confess that no copyist would have sought to introduce a plain absurdity into so beautiful and simple a parable. ‘ Quid vero,’ he goes on to plead, ‘si id quod veri similius esse dixi ne intellegi quidem potest?’ (a pertinent question certainly) ‘ CORRIGETUR, SI MODO NECESSE ERIT:’ critical conjecture, as usual, is his panacea. Conjecture, however, is justly held inadmissible by Tregelles, whose mode of interpretation is a curiosity in its way. ‘I believe,’ he says, ‘that 6 torepos refers not to the order in which the two sons have been mentioned, but to the previous expression about the elder son, borepov dé perapednbels amnrOer, afterwards he repented and went.’ ‘Which of the two did his father’s will! 6 torepos. He who afterwards [repented and went]. This answers the charge that the reading of Lachmann is void of sense’ (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 107). I entertain sincere veneration for the character and services of Dr. Tregelles, but it is only right to assert at once that what stands in his text is impossible Greek. Even granting that instead of the plain answer ‘the first,’ our Lord’s adversaries resorted to the harsh and equivocal reply ‘he who after- wards, they would not have said 6 torepos, but 6 torepov, or (the better to point out their reference to torepoy in ver. 29) 6 70 Uorepov. Why then prefer nonsense, for the mere purpose of carrying out Bengel’s canon to the extremity? The passage, precisely as it stands in Tregelles’ N. T., 2s sanctioned by no critical authority whatsoever. Cod. B indeed has torepos (which is here followed by Westcott and Hort), Cod. 4 dedrepos, Codd. 138, 69, 124, 346 (Abbott’s four), and 238, 262, 556, 604, perhaps others, éoxaros, one or other of which is in the Jerusalem Syriac and Bohairic, the Ethiopic (two manuscripts), the Armenian and two chief Arabic versions; but all these authorities (with tol. of the Vulgate secwndd manu, as also Isidore, the Pseudo-Athanasius, GOSPELS. MATT. XXI. 28-31. 333 and John Damascene), transpose the order of the two sons in vv. 29, 30, so that the result produces just the same sense as in the Received text. The suggestion that the clauses were transferred in order to reconcile torepos or éoyaros with the context may be met by the counter-statement that tcrepos was just as likely to _ be substituted for mpéros to suit the inversion of the clauses. Against such inversion (which we do not pretend to recommend, though Westcott and Hort adopt it) Origen is an early witness, so that Cod. B and its allies are no doubt wrong: yet as that Father does not notice any difficulty in ver. 31, the necessary inference ought to be that he read apéros'. Hippolytus testifies to €cxaros in ver. 31, but his evidence cannot be used, since he gives no indication in what order he took the clauses in vv. 29, 30. The indefensible part of Tregelles’ arrangement is that, allowing the answers of the two sons to stand as in our common Bibles, he receives torepos in the room of mpéros on evidence that really tells against him. The only true supporters of his general view are Cod. D aiyaros (i.e. éoyaros), the Old Latin copies abe ff! gi hl, the best codices of the Vulgate (am. Fuld. for. san. tol. harl.*),the Anglo-Saxon version, and Augustine, though not the Clementine edition of the Vulgate. Hilary perplexes himself by trying to explain the same reading; and Jerome, although he says ‘ Sciendum est in veris exemplaribus non haberi novissimum sed primum, has an expedient to account for the former word ”, which, however (if am. fuld., &e. may be trusted), he did not venture to reject when revising the Old Latin. On no true principles can Cod. D and its Latin allies * I see no reasonable ground for imagining with Lachmann that Origen who, as he truly observes, ‘non solet difficilia praeterire, did not find in his copy anything between marpés ; and ’Ayny in ver. 31. On the supposition that he read mp@ros there was no difficulty to slur over. Moreover, there is not a vestige of evidence for omitting Aéyeu adrots 6 inaods, the existence of which words Lach- mann clearly perceived to be fatal to his ingenious guess, although Dr. Hort will only allow that it ‘weakens his suggestion,’ adding in his quiet way ‘This phrase might easily seem otiose if it followed immediately on words of Christ, and might thus be thought to imply the intervention of words spoken by others’ (Notes, p. 17). 2 Jerome conceives that the Jews ‘intellegere quidem veritatem, sed tergiver- sari, et nolle dicere quod sentiunt ;’ and so Canon G. F. Goddard, Rector of Southfleet, believed that their wantonly false answer brought on them the Lord’s stern rebuke. Hilary’s idea is even more far-fetched: viz. that though the second son disobeyed, it was because he could not execute the command. ‘Non ait noluisse sed non abisse. Res extra culpam infidelitatis est, quia in facti erat difficultate ne fieret.’ 334 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. avail against such a mass of opposing proof, whereof Codd. NC@PSLX lead the van. Even the Curetonian Syriac, which so often favours Cod. D and the Old Latin, is with the teatus receptus here. 8. Marr. xxvii. 85. After Baddovtes xkAjpov the Received text, but not the Complutensian edition, has tva tAnpwOn 7d pnOev tind Tod mpopyrov, Ateuepioavto Ta tyudrid pov éavtots Kal ent rov ivatiopov pov €Badrov KAjpov. Internal evidence may be about equal for the omission of the clause by homoeoteleuton of kAjpor, and for its interpolation from John xix. 24, ‘ with just the phrase 76 pndev bro (or and) Tod Tpopirov assimilated to Matthew’s usual form of citation’ (Alford, ad loc.), External evidence, however, places the spuriousness of the addition beyond doubt. It is first heard of in citations of Eusebius, and is read in the Old Latin codices abcg? (not g'!)hq, the Clementine (not the Sixtine) Vulgate and even in am. lua., Harl. 2826, dind., in King’s Libr. 1. D. ix and the margin of 1. E. vi (but not in fuld. for. tol.* em. ing. jac. san. nor in f ff 1:7 g1 1), the Armenian (whose resem- blance to the Vulgate is so suspicious), the Frankish and Anglo- Saxon, and as a matter of course in the Roman edition of the Arabic, and in the Persie of the Polyglott. The clause seems to be found in no manuscript of the Peshitto Syriac, and is consequently absent from Widmanstadt’s edition and the Antwerp, Paris, and London Polyglotts. Tremellius first turned the Greek words into Syriac and placed them in the margin of his book, whence they were most unwisely admitted into the text of several later editions (but not into Lee’s), without the slightest authority. They also appear in the text of the Harkleian, but the marginal note states that ‘this passage from the prophet is not in two [‘three’ Codd. Assemani] Greek copies, nor in the ancient Syriac.’ All other versions and Fathers (except Eusebius and the Pseudo-Athanasius), and all Greek manuscripts reject the clause, except A, 1, 17, 58 (marg.), 69, 118, 124, 262, 300, 503, 550, Evst. 55: Scholz adds ‘aliis multis, which (judging from my own experience) I must take leave to doubt. Besides other slight changes (avrois A, KAnpovs 69 secundd manu) Codd. A, 61, 69, 503 and Eusebius read 6a | for ind. The present case is one out of many that show an intimate connexion subsisting between Codd. 61 and 69. GOSPELS. MATT. XXVII. 35; MARK VI. 20. 335 9. Mark vi. 20. kal dxovoas atrod moAAG emote, Kal Hdéws avrod jKove. ‘“ Did many things” Engl. vers. I think it must have occurred to many readers that this is, to say the least, a very singular expression.’ So writes Mr. Linwood, very truly, for nothing can well be more tame or unmeaning. His remedy we can say little for. ‘I think that for modAd érofe. we should read mod)od érole:, i.e. magni faciebat. It is true that classical usage would require the middle voice, sc. toAAod émoretro. But this rule is not always observed by the N. T. writers!’ (Linwood, p. 11). If, instead of resorting to conjecture, he had opened Tischendorf’s eighth edition, he would have found there a reading, adopted as well by that editor as by Westcott and Hort, whose felicity, had it been nothing more than a happy conjecture, he might well have admired. Codd. NBL for woddd émofer? have ToAa Hmdper ‘was much perplexed, which the Bohairic confirms, only that, in translating, it joins woAAd with dxotcas. This close resemblance between the Bohairic version and Codd. &B(especially Cod. B) is very apparent throughout the N. T.; a single example being their united omission of icyxupdv in Matt. xiv. 30 in company with but one other authority, the great cursive Cod. 33. Hence we do not hesitate to receive a variation supported by only a few first-rate authorities, where internal evidence (Canon II, p: 248) pleads so powerfully in its favour. Although the middle voice is found elsewhere in the N.T., yet the active in this precise sense may be supported by good examples, even when used absolutely, as here: e.g. dAdos of dmopéovtt breOjxato Herod. 1.191: 68 dmopav, ds act, ports Katevdnoe Ti Tpdcxwow TabTnY tod “AyeAwou Thue. ii. 102. Another less considerable but interesting variation, occurring just before, in chap. v. 36, wapaxovcas ‘ overhearing’ instead of axovoas, may be deemed probable on the evidence of N*BLA and the Latin e, which must have had the reading, though it is mistranslated neglexit®. We gladly credit the same group (NBCLA, 473, Evst. 150, 259) with another rare compound, katevAdyer in ch. x. 16, whose intensive force is very excellent. 1 His sole example is 650y rorety Mark ii. 23, which seems not at all parallel, The phrase may as well signify to ‘ clear away’ as ‘make their way.’ 2 rodAa & éroie is the reading of Abbott’s four and of Codd. 28, 122, 541, 561, 572, Evst. 196. 8 Which is certainly its meaning in Lucian, Tom. ii. p. 705 (Salmur. 1619) ; I know no example like that in St. Mark. 336 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. In ch. xii. 17 a similar compound éfeOavpafov is too feebly vouched for by NB alone. [THIRD Eprtion. It is only fair to retain unchanged the note on Mark vi. 20, inasmuch as the ‘Two Members of the N. T. Company’ have exercised their right of claiming my assent to the change of ézoles into j7épe. I must, however, retract that opinion, for the former reading now appears to me to afford an excellent sense. Herod gladly heard the Baptist, and did many things at his exhortation; every thing in fact save the one great sacrifice which he could not persuade himself to make. | 10. MARK vii. 19. The substitution of xadapi¢wv for xabapicoy, so far from being the unmeaning itacism it might seem at first sight, is a happy restoration of the true sense of a passage long obscured by the false reading. For the long vowel there is the overwhelming evidence of NAB (hiat C) EFGH LSXA, 1, 13, 28, 48, 50, 53, 58, 59 (me teste), 61**, 64, 65, 69, 122*, 124, 229, 235, 244, 251, 282, 346, 435, 473, 492, 508, 515, 570, 622, Evst. 49, 259, and Erasmus’ first edition: his second reads éxxadapiCwy, his third xa@apifov of DY KMUVITI, 547, 558, and perhaps a majority of the cursives. The reading of D xadapige: (kabapicew 61 primd manu), as also kal kabaplCer of Evst. 222 and the Latin 27, seem to favour the termination -ov: purgans of abc(enen d)fff?g'?l2nq and the Vulgate, is of course neutral. The Peshitto [to{»3 (qui purgat) refers in gender to the noun immediately preceding, and would require xadapiCovra. Will any one undertake to say what is meant by the last clause of the verse as it stands in the Authorized English version, and as it must stand, so long as xa@api(ov is read? If, on the other hand, we follow Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, we must take the Lord’s words to end with exmopeverar, and regard kadapi(oy mdvra ta Bpdwara as the Evan- gelist’s comment upon them: ‘ This he said, to make all things clean.’ Compare Acts x. 15, This, and none other, seems to have -been the meaning assigned to the passage by the Greek Fathers. It is indeed most simply expressed by Chrysostom (Hom. II. in Matt. p. 526 A): ‘O 8% Mdpxos dnoty, dt kabaplwv ra Bpdpara, taidta é\eyev, where Dr. Field’s elaborate note should be con- GOSPELS. MARK VII. Ig; XVI. 9-20. 337 sulted. He rightly judges that Chrysostom was treading in the steps of Origen: kal pddwora evel kata Tov Mdpxov édeye Tatra 6 Lornp, kabapiCov mavta ta Bpduata. Hence Gregory Thaumaturgus designates the Lord as 6 cwrip 6 mdvta Kadapi(wy Ta Bpdpara. I know not how Tischendorf came to overlook the passage from Chrysostom: Tregelles very seldom uses him. It is obvious how well the elliptical form of the expression suits this Evan- gelist’s style, which is often singularly concise and abrupt, yet never obscure. 1]. Mark xvi. 9-20. In Vol. I. Chap. I, we engaged to de- fend the authenticity of this long and important passage, and that without the slightest misgiving (p. 7). Dean Burgon’s brilliant monograph, ‘The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark vindicated against recent objectors and established’ (Oxford and London, 1871), has thrown a stream of light upon the controversy, nor does the joyous tone of his book misbecome one who is conscious of having triumphantly maintained a cause which is very precious to him. We may fairly say that his conclusions have in no essential point been shaken by the elaborate and very able counter-plea of Dr. Hort (Notes, pp. 28-51). This whole paragraph is set apart by itself in the critical editions of Tischendorf and Tregelles. Besides this, it is placed within double brackets by Westcott and Hort, and followed by the wretched supplement derived from Cod. L (vide infra), annexed as an alternative reading (a\Awc). Out of all the great manuscripts, the two oldest (NB) stand alone in omitting vers. 9-20 altogether’. Cod. B, however, betrays consciousness on the scribe’s part that something is left out, inasmuch as after époBotvro yap ver. 8, a whole column is left perfectly blank (the only blank one in the whole volume?), as well as the rest of the column containing ver. 8, which is usual 1 [ have ventured but slowly to vouch for Tischendorf’s notion, that six leaves of Cod. &, that containing Mark xvi. 2—Luke i. 56 being one of them, were written by the scribe of Cod. B. On mere identity of handwriting and the peculiar shape of certain letters who shall insist? Yet there are parts of the case which I know not how to answer, and which have persuaded even Dr. Hort. Having now arrived at this conclusion our inference is simple and direct, that at least in these leaves, Codd. SB make but one witness, not two. ? The cases of Nehemiah, Tobit, and Daniel, in the Old Testament portion of Cod. B, are obviously in no wise parallel in regard to their blank columns. VOL. II. Z 338 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. in Cod. B at the end of every other book of Scripture. No such peculiarity attaches to Cod. 8. The testimony of L, that close companion of B, is very suggestive. Immediately after ver. 8 the copyist breaks off; then in the same hand (for all corrections in this manuscript seem prima manw : see p. 188), at the top of the next column we read... hepere mov kat TavTat... mdvta d€ Ta TapnyyeApeva Tots TEept Tov TeTPOV cvVTOMME eknyytAaV+ peta dé tadra Kal adros 6 wc, do dvatoAno Kal dypt dvcewo eLaTeoTi- Aev dt dutwy to iépov Kal apOaprov knpvypattyno aldviov cwrnpiac+ ...€oTnv d€ Kat Tadra pepopeva peta To EpoBovvtTo yapt... Avactac d& mpwi mpwrn caBBars+«.7.r., ver. 9, ad fin. capit. (Burgon’s facsimile, facing his p. 113: our facsemile No. 21): as if vv. 9- 20 were just as little to be regarded as the trifling apocryphal supplement! which precedes them. Besides these, the twelve verses are omitted in none but some old Armenian codices? and two of the Ethiopic, & of the Old Latin, and an Arabie Lectionary [ix] No. 18, examined by Scholzin the Vatican. The Old Latin Codex k puts in their room a corrupt and careless version of the subscription in L ending with owrnpias (k adding amen): the same subscription being appended to the end of the Gospel in the two Ethiopic manuscripts, and (with dujv) in the margin of 274 and the Harkleian. Not unlike is the marginal note in Hunt. 17 or Cod. 1 of the Bohairic, translated by Bp. Lightfoot above. Of cursive Greek manuscripts 137, 138, which Birch had hastily reported as marking the passage with an asterisk, each contains the marginal annotation given below, which claims the passage as genuine, 138 with no asterisk at all, 137 (like 36 and others) with an ordinary mark of reference from the text to the note, where (of course) it is repeated °. Other manuscripts contain marginal scholia respecting it, of which the following is 1 Of which supplement Dr. Hort says unexpectedly enough, ‘In style it is unlike the ordinary narratives of the Evangelists, but comparable to the four introductory verses of St. Luke’s Gospel’ (Introduction, p. 298). 2 We ought to add that some Armenian codices which contain the paragraph | have the subscription ‘Gospel after Mark’ at the end of ver. 8 as well as of ver. 20, as though their scribes, like Cod. L’s, knew of a double ending to the Gospel. 5 Burgon (Guardian, July 12, 1882) speaks of seven manuscripts (Codd. 538, 539 being among them) wherein these last twelve verses begin on the right hand of the page. This would be more significant if a space were left, as is not stated, at the foot of the preceding page. In Cod. 550 the first letter a is small, but covers an abnormally large space GOSPELS. MARK XVI. 9-20. 339 the substance. Cod. 199 has réAos! after éhoBotvro ydp and before ’Avaoras 5¢é, and in the same hand as réAos we read, éy Tiot TOY avTiypdpwv ov keirar Tabra, GAN evtadda Katamaver. The kindred Codd. 20, 215, 300 (but after ver. 15, not ver. 8) mark the omission in some (r10/) copies, adding éy Sé rots dpyatous mdvTu ‘amapadenta Keirar, and these had been corrected from Jerusalem copies (see pp. 161 and note, 193). Cod. 573 has for a subscrip- tion éypady kal dvreBAHOn duoiws ex Tov eomovdacpevay Kepadators odh¢€: where Burgon, going back to St. Matthew’s Gospel (see p. 161, note) infers that the old Jerusalem copies must have contained our twelve verses. Codd. 15, 22 conclude at époBotvro yap, then add in red ink that in some copies the Evangelist ends here, év moAdois dé kal radra éperat, affixing vers.9-20. In Codd. 1, 205 (in its duplicate 206 also), 209 is the same notice, ddAos standing for roAAo?s in 206, with the additional assertion that Eusebius ‘canonized’ no further than ver. 8, a statement which is confirmed by the absence of the Ammonian and Eusebian numerals beyond that verse in NALSU and at least eleven cursives, with am. fuld. ing. of the Vulgate. It would be no marvel if Eusebius, the author of this harmonizing system, had consistently acted upon his own rash opinion respecting the paragraph, an opinion which we shall have to notice presently, and such action on his part would have added nothing to the strength of the adverse case. But it does not seem that he really did so. These numerals appear in most manuscripts, and in all parts of them, with a good deal of variation which we can easily account for. In the present instance they are annexed to ver. 9 and the rest of the passage in Codd. CEKVII, and (with some changes) in GHMITAA and many others: in Cod. 566 the concluding sections are there (odd ver. 11, ode ver. 12, ods ver. 14) without the canons. In their respective margins the annotated codices 12 (of Scholz), 24, 36, 37, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, 222, 237, 288, 255, 259, 299, 329, 374 (twenty-four in all), present in substance” the same 1 Of course no notice is to be taken of réAcs after époBodyTo yap, as the end of the ecclesiastical lesson is al] that is intimated. The grievous misstatements of preceding critics from Wetstein and Scholz down to Tischendorf, have been corrected throughout by means of Burgon’s laborious researches (Burgon, pp. 114-123). 2 The minute variations between these several codices are given by Burgon (Appendix E, pp. 288-90). Cod. 255 contains a scholion imputed to Eusebius, Z2 340 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. weighty testimony in favour of the passage: mapa mAelorows avtu- ypdpous ov xetras (thus far also Cod. 119, adding only ratra, adn’ evtad0a katamavet) ev TO TapdvTt evayyedio, as vdba vouloarres adTa elvar' GdXa jets && dxpiBSv avtiypddwv év mrelorows edpdvtes adra Kal kurta 70 Tlakauorivatoy ebayyédvov Mdpxov, os éxet 7) GAnOeLa, ovvTEbet- Kapev kal THY ev ait emipepopévny deororikyy avactacw. Now this is none other than an extract from Victor of Antioch’s [v] com- mentary on St. Mark, which they all annex in full to the sacred text, and which is expressly assigned to that Father in Codd. 12, 37,41. Yet these very twenty-four manuscripts have been cited by critical editors as adverse to the authenticity of a paragraph which their scribes never dreamt of calling into question, but had simply copied Victor’s decided judgement in its favour. His appeal to the famous Palestine codices which had belonged to Origen and Pamphilus (see p. 55 and note), is found in twenty-one of them, possibly these documents are akin to the Jerusalem copies mentioned in Codd. Evan. A, 20, 164, 262, 3800, &e. All other codices, e.g. ACD (which is defective from ver. 15, prima manu) EF“™GH (begins ver. 14) KMSUVXTATI, 33, 69, the Peshitto, Jerusalem and Curetonian Syriac (which last, by a singular happiness, contains vv. 17-20, though no other part of St. Mark), the Harkleian text, the Sahidic (only ver. 20 is preserved), the Bohairic and Ethiopic (with the exceptions already named), the Gothic (to ver. 12), the Vulgate, all extant Old Latins except k (though a primd manw and b are defective), the Georgian, the printed Armenian, its later manuscripts, and all the lesser versions (Arabic, &c.), agree in maintaining the paragraph. It is cited, possibly by Papias, unquestionably by Irenaeus (both in Greek and Latin), by Tertullian, and by Justin Martyr! as early as the second from which Griesbach had drawn inferences which Burgon (Last Twelve Verses, &c., Postscript, pp. 319-23) has shown to be unwarranted by the circumstances of the case. 1 Dr. C. Taylor, Master of St. John’s College, Cambridge, in The Expositor for July, 1898, quotes more evidence from Justin Martyr—hinting that some also remains behind—proving that that Father was familiar with these verses. Also he cites several passages from the Epistle of Barnabas in which traces of them oceur, and from the Quartodeciman controversy, and from Clement of Rome. The value of the evidence which Dr. Taylor’s acute vision has discovered consists chiefly in its cumulative force. From familiarity with the passage numerous traces of it arose ; or as Dr. Taylor takes the case reversely, from the fact of the GOSPELS. MARK XVI. 9-20. 341 century ; by Hippolytus (see Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text, p. 252), by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage, by the Acta Pilati, the Apostolic Constitutions, and apparently by Celsus in the third; by Aphraates (in a Syriac Homily dated a. D. 337), the Syriac Table of Canons, Eusebius, Macarius Magnes, Didymus, the Syriac Acts of the Apostles, Leontius, Ps.-Ephraem, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem!, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, in the fourth; by Leo, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch, Patricius, Marius Mercator, in the fifth; by Hesychius, Gregentius, Prosper, John, abp. of Thessalonica, and Modestus, in the fifth and sixth ?. Add to this, what has been so forcibly stated by Burgon (ubi supra, p. 205), that in the Calendar of Greek Church lessons, which existed certainly in the fourth century, very probably much earlier, the disputed verses were honoured by being read as a special matins service for Ascension Day (see p. 81), and as the Gospel for St. Mary Magdalene’s Day, July 22 (p. 89); as well as by forming the third of the eleven evayyéAta dvacrdoiwa éEwbiva, the preceding part of the chapter forming the second (p. 85): so little were they suspected as of even doubtful authenticity °. The earliest objector to vers. 9-20 we know of was Eusebius (Quaest. ad Marin.), who tells that they were not éy dmacu rots avtiypapo.s, but after époBodvro ydp that ra éfjs are found ozaviws év Tiow, yet not in ra dxpiBn: language which Jerome twice echoes and almost exaggerates by saying ‘in raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Graeciae libris paene hoc capitulum fine non habenti- occurrence of numerous traces evident to a close observer, it is manifest that there pre-existed in the minds of the writers a familiarity with the language of the verses in question. 1 It is surprising that Dr. Hort, who lays very undue stress upon the silence of certain early Christian writers that had no occasion for quoting the twelve verses in their extant works, should say of Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived about A.D. 349, that his ‘negative evidence is peculiarly cogent’ (Notes, p. 37). To our mind it is not at all negative. Preaching on a Sunday, he reminds his hearers of a sermon he had delivered the day before, and which he would have them keep in their thoughts. One of the topics he briefly recalls is the article of the Creed roy xabicayvra éx defiav Tov matpds. He must inevitably have used Mark xvi. 19 in his Saturday’s discourse. 2 Several of these references are derived from ‘The Revision Revised,’ p. 428. ’ Nor were these verses used in the Greek Church only. Vers. 9-20 comprised the Gospel for Easter Monday in the old Spanish or Mozarabic Liturgy, for Easter Tuesday among the Syrian Jacobites, for Ascension Day among the Arme- nians. Vers. 12-20 was the Gospel for Ascension Day in the Coptic Liturgy (Malan, Original Documents, iv. p. 68): vers. 16-20 in the old Latin Comes. 342 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. bus.’ A second cause with Eusebius for rejecting them is waAvora elrep €xovev Gvtidoylav Ti TG No_TGv edbayyeioTSv paprupia). The language of Eusebius has been minutely examined by Dean Burgon, who proves to demonstration that all the subsequent evidence which has been alleged against the passage, whether of Severus, or Hesychius, or any other writer down to Euthymius Zigabenus in the twelfth century, is a mere echo of the doubts and difficulties of Eusebius, if indeed he is not retailing to us at second-hand one of the fanciful Biblical speculations of Origen. Jerome’s recklessness in statement has been already noticed (Vol. IL. p. 269); besides that, he is a witness on the other side, both in his own quotations of the passage and in the Vulgate, for how could he have inserted the verses there, if he had judged them to be spurious ? With regard to the argument against these twelve verses arising from their alleged difference in style from the rest of the Gospel, I must say that the same process might be applied— and has been applied—to prove that St. Paul was not the writer of the Pastoral Epistles (to say nothing of that to the Hebrews), St. John of the Apocalypse, Isaiah and Zechariah of portions of those prophecies that bear their names. Every one used to literary composition may detect, if he will, such minute varia- tions as have been made so much of in this case”, either in his own writings, or in those of the authors he is most familiar with. Persons who, like Eusebius, devoted themselves to the pious 1 To get rid of one apparent dvtipavia, that arising from the expression mpwt 77 pug Tod caBBarov (sic), ver. 9, compared with dye caBBarwy Matt. xxviii. 1, Euse- bius proposes the plan of setting a stop between ’Avaords dé and pat, so little was he satisfied with rudely expunging the whole clause. Hence Cod. E puts a red cross after 5€: Codd. 20, 22, 34, 72, 193, 196, 199, 271, 345, 405, 411, 456, have a colon: Codd. 332, 339, 340, 439, a comma (Burgon, Guardian, Aug. 20, 1873). 2 The following peculiarities have been noticed in these verses ; éxeivos used absolutely, vers. 10, 11, 18; mopevdopa vers. 10, 12, 15; Tots per’ adrod yevopuévous ver. 10 ; Oedoua vers, 11, 14; dmoréw vers. 11, 16; pera radra ver. 12 ; €repos ver. 12; mapaxoAovdew ver. 17 ; év T@ dvdpart ver. 17 ; xvpios for the Saviour, vers. 19, 20; mavraxov, ovvepyovvrTos, BeBaidw, émaxodovdéw ver. 20, all of them as not found elsewhere in St. Mark. A very able and really conclusive plea for the genuine- ness of the paragraph, as coming from that Evangelist’s pen, appeared in the Baptist Quarterly, Philadelphia, July, 1869, bearing the signature of Professor J. A. Broadus, of South Carolina. Unfortunately, from the nature of the case, it does not admit of abridgement. Burgon’s ninth chapter (pp. 186-190) enters into full details, and amply justifies his conclusion that the supposed adverse argument from phraseology ‘ breaks down hopelessly under severe analysis.’ GOSPELS. MARK XVI. 9-20. 343 task of constructing harmonies of the Gospels, would soon perceive the difficulty of adjusting the events recorded in vers. 9-20 to the narratives of the other Evangelists. Alford regards this incon- sistency (more apparent than real, we believe) as ‘a valuable testimony to the antiquity of the fragment’ (N. T. ad loc.): we would go further, and claim for the harder reading the benefit of any critical doubt as to its genuineness (Canon I. Vol. Il. p. 247). The difficulty was both felt and avowed by Eusebius, and was recited after him by Severus of Antioch or whoever wrote the scholion attributed to him. Whatever Jerome and the rest may have done, these assigned the dvtiAoy/a, the évavriwois they thought they perceived, as a reason (not the first, nor perhaps the chief, but still as a reason) for supposing that the Gospel ended with é¢oBodvro yap. Yet in the balance of probabilities, can anything be more unlikely than that St. Mark broke off so abruptly as this hypothesis would imply, while no ancient writer has noticed or seemed conscious of any such abruptness!? This facet has driven those who reject the con- cluding verses to the strangest fancies ;—namely, that, like Thucydides, the Evangelist was cut off before his work was completed, or even that the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away. We emphatically deny that such wild surmises? are called 1 ¢Can any one, who knows the character of the Lord and of His ministry, conceive for an instant that we should be left with nothing but a message baulked through the alarm of women’ (Kelly, Lectures Introductory to the Gospels, p. 258). , Even Dr. Hort can say ‘It is incredible that the Evangelist deliberately concluded either a paragraph with époBodvro yap, or the Gospel with a petty detail of a secondary event, leaving his narrative hanging in the air’ (Notes, p. 46). 2 When Burgon ventures upon a surmise, one which is probability itself by the side of those we have been speaking of, Professor Abbot (ubi supra, p. 197) remarks upon it that ‘With Mr. Burgon a conjecture seems to be a demonstra- tion.’ We will not be deterred by dread of any such reproach from mentioning his method of accounting for the absence of these verses from some very early copies, commending it to the reader for what it may seem worth, After a learned and exhaustive proof that the Church lessons, as we now have them, existed from very early times (Twelve Verses, pp. 191-211), and noting that - an important lesson ended with Mark xvi. 8 (see Calendar of Lessons); he supposes that 7éAos, which would stand at the end of sucha lesson, misled some scribe who had before him an exemplur of the Gospels whose last leaf (containing Mark xvi. 9-20, or according to Codd. 20, 215, 300 only vers. 16-20) was lost, as it might easily be in those older manuscripts wherein St. Mark stood last. 344 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. for by the state of the evidence in this case. All opposition to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allega- tions of Eusebius and the testimony of 8B. Let us accord to these the weight which is their due: but against their verdict we can appeal to a vast body of ecclesiastical evidence reaching back to the earlier part of the second century’; to nearly all the versions ; and to all extant manuscripts excepting two, of which one is doubtful. So powerfully is it vouched for, that many of those who are reluctant to recognize St. Mark as its author, are content to regard it notwithstanding as an integral portion of the inspired record originally delivered to the Church *. 12. Luxe ii. 14. If there be one case more prominent than another in the criticism of the New Testament, wherein solid reason and pure taste revolt against the iron yoke of ancient authorities, it is that of the Angelic Hymn sung at the Nativity. In the common text all is transparently clear: AoZA EN yyicToIc ew, Glory to God in the highest, KAI €TTl THC €IDHNH* And on earth peace: EN aNnOpwrroic eydoKid, Good will amongst men. The blessed words are distributed, after the Hebrew fashion, into a stanza consisting of three members. In the first and second lines heaven and earth are contrasted ; the third refers to both those preceding, and alleges the efficient cause which has brought God glory and earth peace. By the addition of a single letter to the end of the last line, by merely reading eddoxias for evdoxia, the rhythmical arrangement is utterly marred *, and the simple shepherds are sent away with a message, the diction of 1 The Codex lately discovered by Mrs. Lewis is said to omit the verses. But what is that against a host of other codices? And when the other MS. of the Curetonian includes the verses? Positive testimony is worth more than negative. 2 Dr. Hort, however, while he admits the possibility of the leaf containing vers. 9-20 having been lost in some very early copy, which thus would become the parent of transcripts having a mutilated text (Notes, p. 49), rather incon- sistently arrives at the conclusion that the passage in question ‘manifestly eannot claim any apostolic authority; but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the apostolic age’ (bid. p. 51). 8 Dr. Hort will hardly find many friends for his division (Notes, p. 56), Adéa év iiioros 0€@ Kal ent yijs, Eipnyn év avOpwros eddoxias. GOSPELS. LUKE Il. 14. 345 which no scholar has yet construed to his own mind’. Yet such is the conclusion of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, although Tregelles and the Cambridge fellow-workers allow evdoxia a place in their margins. Of the five great uncials C is unfortunately defective, but 8*AB*D, and ‘no other Greek manuscript whatever, read eddoxias: yet A is so inconstant in this matter that in the primitive 14th or Morning Hymn, a cento of Scripture texts, annexed to the Book of Psalms, its reading is evdoxela (Baber, Cod. Alex., p. 569), and such was no doubt the form used in Divine service, as appears from the great Ziirich Psalter O4 The rest of the uncials extant (X°CBSEGHKLMPSUVITAAE, &c.), and all the cursives follow the common text, which is upheld by the Bohairic, by the three extant Syriac (the Peshitto most emphatically, the Jerusa- ler, and the Harkleian both in the text and Greek margin), by the Armenian and Ethiopic versions. The Vulgate, as is well known, renders ‘in hominibus bonae voluntatis, and thus did all the forms of the Old Latin, and after it the Gothic. Hence it follows, as a matter of course, that the Latin Fathers, such as Hilary and Augustine, and the Latin interpreters of Irenaeus (who seems really to have omitted év, as do D and a few cursives) and of the false Athanasius, adopted the reading of their own Bibles. Origen also, in a passage not now extant in the Greek, is made in Jerome’s translation of it manifestly to choose the same form. We can only say that in so doing he is the only Greek who favours evdoxias, and his own text has evdox‘a in three several places, though no special stress is laid by him upon it. But here comes in the evidence of the Greek Fathers—their virtually unanimous evidence—with an authority from which there is, or ought to be, no appeal. Dean Burgon (The Revision Revised, pp. 42-46) affords us a list of forty-seven, all speaking in a manner too plain for doubt, most of them several times over, twenty-two of them having flourished before the end of the 1 Tam loth to sully with a semblance of unseasonable levity a page which is devoted to the vindication of the true form of the Angelic Hymn, and must ask the student to refer for himself to the 470th number of the Spectator, where what we will venture to call a precisely parallel case exercises the delicate humour of Addison. ‘So many ancient manuscripts,’ he tells us, coneur in this last reading, ‘that I am very much in doubt whether it ought not to take place. There are but two reasons which incline me to the reading as I have published it : first, because the rhyme, and secondly, because the sense, is preserved by it.’ 346 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. fifth century, and who must have used codices at least as old and pure as N or B. They are Irenaeus, of the second century; the Apostolical Constitutions and Origen three times in the third; Eusebius, Aphraates the Persian, Titus of Bostra, Didymus, Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril of Jerusalem (who has been quoted in error on the wrong side), Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa four times, Ephraem Syrus, Philo of Carpasus, a nameless preacher at Antioch, and Chrysostom (nine times over, interpreting also eddokia by karadAayy)) in the fourth; Cyril of Alexandria on fourteen occasions, Theodoret on four, Theodotus of Ancyra, the Patriarch Proclus, Paulus of Emesa, the Eastern Bishops at Ephesus in 43], and Basil of Seleucia in the fifth; Cosmas Indicopleustes, Anastasius Sinaita, and Eulogius of Alexandria in the sixth; Andreas of Crete in the seventh ; with Cosmas of Maiuma, John Damascene, and Germanus, Archbishop of Con- stantinople, in the eighth’. Such testimony, supported by all later manuscripts, together with the Bohairic and Syriac versions, cannot but overpower the transcriptional blunder of some early scribe, who cannot, howeVer, have lived later than the second century. To those with whom the evidence of NBD and of the Latins united appears too mighty to resist, we would fain prefer one request, that in their efforts to extract some tolerable sense out of eddoxias, they will not allow themselves to be driven to ren- derings which the Greek language will not endure. To spoil the metrical arrangement by forcing the second and third mem- bers of the stanza into one, is in itself a sore injury to the poetical symmetry of the passage, but from their point of view it cannot be helped. When they shall come to translate, it will be their endeavour to be faithful, if grammatical faithfulness be possible in a case so desperate. ‘Peace on earth for those that will have it,’ as Dean Alford truly says, is untenable in Greek, as well as in theology: ‘among men of good pleasure’ is unin- telligible to most minds. Professor Milligan (Words of the New Testament, p. 194) praises as an interesting form ‘among men of his good pleasure, which, not at all unnecessarily, he expounds to signify ‘among men whom He hath loved.’ Again, ‘among men in whom He is well pleased’ (compare chap. iii. 22) can 1 This torrent of testimony includes ninety-two places, of which ‘Tischendorf knew of only eleven, Tregelles adduces only six’ (R. R., p. 45, note), GOSPELS, “LUKE Ils 14> Vii. 1. 347 be arrived at only through some process which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator might like to put upon it. The construction adopted by Origen as rendered by Jerome, pax enim quam non dat Dominus non est pax bonae voluntatis, eddoxias being joined with elpjvy, is regarded by Dr. Hort ‘to deserve serious attention, if no better interpretation were available’ and for the trajection he compares ch. xix. 38 ; Heb. xii. 11 (Notes, p. 56). Dr. Westcott holds that since ‘avOperois eddoxias is undoubtedly a difficult phrase, and the antithesis of ys and dvOpdéros agrees with Rom. viii. 22, eddoxla claims a place in the margin’ (2bid.): no very great concession, when the general state of the evidence is borne in mind!. 13. LUKE vi. 1. ’Eyé&ero 8% év caBBdto Sdevtepotpdty. Here again Codd. 8B coincide in a reading which cannot be approved, omitting devrepompdta by way of getting rid of a difficulty, as do both of them in Mark xvi. 9-20, and 8 in Matt. xxiii. 35. The very obscurity of the expréssion, which does not occur in the parallel Gospels or elsewhere, attests strongly to its genuineness, if there be any truth at all in canons of internal evidence*: not to mention that the expression év érépw caBBdrw ver. 6 favours the notion that the previous sabbath 1 Every word uttered by such a scholar as Dr. Field (d. 1885) is so valuable that no apology can be needed for citing the following critique from his charming ‘Otium Norvicense,’ Part iii. p. 36, on the reading evddoxias and the rendering ‘among men in whom he is well pleased.’ ‘To which it may be briefly objected (1) that it ruins the stichometry; (2) that it separates é& from edédoxia, the word with which it is normally construed ; (3) that ‘‘ men of good pleasure” (is WIN ) would be, according to Graeco-biblical usage, not dv@pwioi evdoxias, but dvdpes eddoxias ; (4) that the turn of the sentence, éy dvOpwnras cvdoxia, very much resembles the second clause of Prov. xiv. 9: iy ow jai, rendered by Symmachus «al dvapéoor eb0éwr eddoxia.’ But this is almost slaying the slain. ? Kupiaxny Sevreporpwtn is cited by Sophocles in his Lexicon from ‘Eustr. 2381 B’ in the sense of low Sunday (McClellan, N.T., p. 690). Canon Cook conjectures that it may mean the first sabbath in the second month (Iyar), precisely the time when wheat would be fully ripe (Revised Version, p. 69). [More probably it is ‘the first sabbath after the second day of the Passover.’ ] On the other hand, ‘If the word be a reality and originally in the text, its meaning, since in that case it must have been borrowed from something in the Jewish calendar, would have been traditionally known from the first.’ (Green, Course of Developed Criticism, p. 56.) But why would it ? The fancy that devreporpwrw had its origin in numerals of reference (B A) set in the margin will most commend itself to such scholars as are under the self- imposed necessity of upholding Codd. NB united against all other evidence, of whatever kind. 348 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. had been definitely indicated. Besides NB, devrepotparm is absent from L, 1, 22, 33, 69 (where it is inserted in the margin by W. Chark, and should not be noticed, see above), 118, 157, 209. A few (RI, 18, 117, 124 primd manu, 235) prefer devrépa mpétw, which, as the student will perceive, differs from the common reading only by a familiar itacism. As this verse commences a Church lesson (that for the seventh day or Sabbath of the third week of the new year, see Calendar), Evangelistaria leave out, as usual, the notes of time ; in Evst. 150, 222, 234, 257, 259 (and no doubt in other such books, certainly in the Jerusalem Syriac), the section thus begins, ’Ezopevero 6 "Incods rots caBBacw: this however is not, properly speaking, a various reading at all. Nor ought we to wonder if versions pass over altogether what their translators could not understand 1, so that we may easily account for the silence of the Peshitto Syriac, Bohairic, and Ethiopic, of the Old Latin bcl qf (secunddé manu) q,and (if they were worth notice) of the Persic and the Polyglott Arabic, though both the Roman and Erpenius’ Arabic have devrepw, and so too the Ethiopic according to Scholz,» ¢ ‘sabbato mane,’ f ‘sabbato a primo:’ the Harkleian Syriac, which renders the word, notes in the margin its absence from some copies. Against this list of authorities, few in number, and doubtful as many of them are, we have to place the Old Latin a /* ff? g', all copies of the Vulgate, its ally the Armenian, the Gothic and Harkleian Syriac translations, the uncial codices ACDEHKMRSUVXIAATI, all cursives except the seven cited above, and the Fathers or scholiasts who have tried, with whatever success, to explain the term : viz. Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Isidore of Pelusium, Pseudo- Caesarius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Jerome *, Ambrose (all very expressly, as may be seen in Tischendort’s note, and in Dean Burgon’s ‘The Revision Revised, pp. 73-4), Clement of Alexandria probably, and later writers. Lachmann and Alford 1 Just as Jerome, speaking of the latter part of 1 Cor. vii. 85, says, ‘In Lat. Codd. 0B TRANSLATIONIS DIFFICULTATEM hoe penitus non invenitur.’ (Vallars. ii. 261, as Burgon points out.) ? Dr. Hort and the Quarterly Reviewer (October, 1881, p. 848) almost simul- taneously called attention to the question put by Jerome to his teacher Gregory of Nazianzus as to the meaning of this word. ‘*Docebo te super hac re in ecclesia’ was the only reply he obtained; on which Jerome’s. comment is, Eleganter lusit (Hier. ad Nepotianum, Ep. 52). Neither of these great Fathers could explain a term which neither doubted to be written by the Evangelist. GOSPELS. LUKE VI. I; X. 41, 42. 349 place devrepompérw within brackets, Tregelles rejects it, as does Tischendorf in his earlier editions, but restores it in his seventh and eighth, in the latter contrary to Cod. 8. Westcott and Hort banish it to the margin, intimating (if I understand their notation aright) that it seems to contain distinctive and fresh matter, without deserving a place in the text even as well as ‘Inood in Matt. i. 18. On reviewing the whole mass of evidence, internal and external, we submit the present as a clear instance in which the two oldest copies conspire in a false or highly improbable reading, and of a signal exemplification of the Canon, Proclivi orationi praestat ardua. 14. Luke x. 41, 42. ‘“Evds 0€ é@ort xpefa. This solemn speech of our Divine Master has shaken many a pulpit, and sanctified many a life. We might be almost content to estimate Cod. B’s claim to paramount consideration as a primary authority by the treatment this passage receives from the hand of its scribe, at least if the judgement were to rest with those who are willing to admit that a small minority, whereof B happens to form one of the members, is not necessarily in the right. West- cott and Hort in the margin of their published edition (1881) reduce the whole sentence between Mdpéa ver. 41 and Mapia ver. 42 to the single word dopv8dt, the truer reading in the place of rupBd¢): in their privately circulated issue dated ten years earlier they had gone further, placing within double brackets pepyvas cat and from wept moAAa downwards. They could hardly do less on the principles they have adopted, while yet they feel constrained to concede that, though not belonging to the original Gospel, the excluded words do not, on the other hand, read like the invention of a paraphrast. They do not indeed: and it is when abstract theories such as modern critics have devised are subjected to so violent a strain, that we can best discern their intrinsic weakness, of which indeed these editors have here shown their consciousness by a change of mind not at all usual with them. For the grave omission indicated above we have but one class of authorities, that of the D, abe ff? zl, and Ambrose, the Latins omitting OopyBd¢n too: while évds d¢ éott xpefa is not found in c also, and does not appear in Clement. The succeeding ydp or d€ is of course left out by all these, and by 262, the Vulgate, Curetonian Syriac, Armenian, 350 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. and Jerome. This testimony, almost purely Western, is confirmed or weakened as the case may be, by the systematic omissions of clauses towards the end of the Gospel in the same books, of which we spoke in Chap. X (see p. 299, note). We confess that we had rather see this grand passage expunged altogether from the pages of the Gospel than diluted after the wretched fashion adopted by 8 and B: éAlywy be xpela eotiv 7 évds’ the first hand of & omitting xpeia in its usual blundering way. This travestie of a speech which seems to have shocked the timorous by its uncompromising exclusiveness, much as we saw in the case of Matt. v. 22, is further supported (with some variation in the order) by L, by the very ancient second hand of C, by 1, 33, the Bohairic, Ethiopic, the margin of the Harkleian, by Basil, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria in the Syriac translation of his commentary 1, and by Origen as cited in a catena: éAlywv d¢ éort xpela is found in 38, the Jerusalem Syriac, and in the Armenian (éd¢ being inserted before éorw). This latter reading is less incredible than that of NBL, notwithstanding the ingenuity of Basil’s comment, drAlywr pev SndAdvdti TOV Tpds TapacrKeuny, Evds sé tod oxo7od. In this instance, as in some others, the force of internal evidence suffices to convince the unprejudiced reader (it has almost convinced Drs. Westcott and Hort, who have no | note on the passage), that the Received text should here remain unchanged, vouched for as it is by AC*YEFGHKMPSUVIAATL (X and & being defective), by every cursive except three, by the Peshitto and Cureton’s Syriac (the latter so often met with in the company of D), by the Harkleian text, by fg! g??q of the Old Latin, and by the Vulgate. Chrysostom, Augustine (twice), John Damascene and one or two others complete the list : even Basil so cites the passage once, so that his comment may not be intended for anything more than a gloss. No nobler sermon was ever preached on this fertile text than that of Augustine, De verbis Domini, in Evan. Luc. xxvii. His Old Latin copies, at any rate, contained the words ‘Circa multa es oceupata: porro unum est necessarium. Jam hoe sibi Maria legit. ‘Transit labor multitudinis, et remanet caritas unitatis’ is his emphatic comment. 1 Cyril applies the whole passage to enforce the duty of exercising with frugality the Christian duty of entertaining strangers : ‘And this He did for our benefit, that He might fix a limit to hospitality’ (Dean Payne Smith’s Translation, pp. 817-20). GOSPELS. LUKE X. 41, 42; XXII. 17-20. 351 15. Luke xxii. 17-20. This passage has been made the subject of a most instructive discussion by Dean Blakesley? (d. 1885), whose notion respecting it deserves more consideration than it would seem to have received, though it must no doubt be ultimately set aside through the overpowering weight of hostile authority. He is perplexed by two difficulties lying on the surface, the fact that the Lord twice took a cup, before and after the breaking of the bread; and the close resemblance borne by vy. 19 and 20 to the parallel passage of St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. The common mode of accounting for the latter phenomenon seems very reasonable, namely, that the Evangelist, Paul’s almost constant companion in travel, copied into his Gospel the very language of the Apostle, so far as it suited his design. In speaking of the two cups St. Luke stands alone, and much trouble has been taken to illustrate the use of the Paschal cup from Maimonides [d. 1206] and other Jewish doctors, all too modern to be implicitly depended on. Dean Alford indeed (N.T. ad loc.) hails ‘this most important addition to our narrative,’ which ‘amounts, I believe, to a solemn declaration of the fulfilment of the Passover rite, in both its usual divisions—the eating of the lamb, and drinking the cup of thanksgiving. Thus regarded, the old rite would be concluded and abrogated in vv. 17, 18; the new rite instituted in vv. 19, 20. To Dean Blakesley all this appears wholly unsatisfactory, and he resorts for help to our critical authorities. He first gets rid of the words of ver. 19 after odud pov, and of all ver. 20, and so far his course is sanctioned by Westcott and Hort, who place the whole passage within their double brackets, and pronounce it a perverse in- terpolation from 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. This much accomplished, the cup is now mentioned but once, but with this awkward peculiarity, that it precedes the bread in the order of taking and blessing, which is a downright contradiction of St. Matthew (xxvi. 26-29) and of St. Mark (xiv. 22-25), as well as of St. Paul. Here Westcott and Hort refuse to be carried further, -and thus leave the remedy worse than the disease’, if indeed 1 Praelectio in Scholis Cantabrigiensibus habita Februarii die decimo quarto, mpcocL, qua... Lucae pericopam (xxii. 17-20) multis ante saeculis conturbatam vetustissimorum ope codicum in pristinam formam restituebat, Cathedram Theologicam ambiens, J. W. Blakesley, 8. T. B., Coll. SS. Trinitatis nuper Socius (Cambridge, 1850). 2 ‘Yntrinsically both readings are difficult, but in unequal degrees, The 352 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. there be any disease to remedy. Dean Blakesley boldly places Luke xxii. 19 (ending at céud pov) before ver. 17, and his work is done: the paragraph thus remodelled is self-consistent, but it is robbed of everything which has hitherto made it a distinctive narrative, supplementing as well as confirming those of the other two Evangelists. Now for the last step in Dean Blakesley’s process of emenda- tion, the transposition of ver. 19 before ver. 17, there is no other authority save be of the Old Latin and Cureton’s Syriac, the last with this grave objection in his eyes, that it exhibits the whole of ver. 19, including that rotro moveire els Thy eunv avayrow which he would regard as specially belonging of right, and as most suitable for, St. Paul’s narrative (Praelectio, p. 16), although Justin Martyr cites the expression with the prelude of yap amdoToAo éy Tots yevopevots bm aitGv ATourvnmovevpacw, & KadEiTaL evayyéhia. The later portion of ver. 19 and the whole of ver. 20, as included in the double brackets of Westcott and Hort, are absent from Cod. D, and of the Latins from a be ff7 J, as is ver. 20 from the Curetonian Syriac also: authorities for the most part the same as we had to deal with in our Chap. X. p. 299, note. Another, and yet more violent remedy, to provide against the double mention of the cup, is found in the utter’ omission of vers. 17, 18 in Evst. 382 and the editio princeps of the Peshitto Syriac, countenanced by many manuscripts of the same 1. Thus both the chief Syriac translations found a difficulty here, though they remedied it in different ways ”. The scheme of Dean Blakesley is put forth with rare inge- nuity *,and maintained with a boldness which is best engendered difficulty of the shorter reading [that of pure omission in vers. 19, 20] consists exclusively in the change of order, as to the Bread and the Cup, which is illustrated by many phenomena of the relation between the narratives of the third and of the first two Gospels, and which finds an exact parallel in the change of orderin St. Luke’s account of the Temptation’ (iv. 5-8 ; 9-12). Hort, Notes, p. 64. 1 Adler says ‘in omnibus codicibus,’ and guelph. heidelb. Dawkins iii and Xvii in Jones, and cod. Rich are specified. Lee sets the verses in a parenthesis, But the Curetonian has them after ver. 19 in words but little differing from his or Schaaf’s. 2 ¢Si fides habenda A. F. Gorio ‘‘in Conspectu Quattuor Codicum Evangeli- orum Syriacorum mirae aetatis” apud Blanchini Evangelium Quadruplex p. pDxt, et hi quattuor Codices cuin Veronensi [6] faciunt.’ Blakesley, Schema facing Praelectio, p. 20. * Especially mark his mode of dealing with é«xuvydpevoy ver. 20, which by GOSPELS. LUKE XXII. 17-20; XXII. 43, 44. 353 and nourished by closing the eyes to the strength of the adverse case. We have carefully enumerated the authorities of every kind which make for him, a slender roll indeed. When it is stated that the Received text (with only slight and ordinary variations) is upheld by Codd. SABCEFGHKLM (hiant PR) SUXVIT'AATI, by all cursives and versions, except those already accounted for, it will be seen that his view of the passage can never pass beyond the region of speculation, until the whole system of Biblical Criticism is revolutionized by means of new discoveries which it seems at present vain to look for. 16. LUKE xxii. 43, 44. &6n d€ atte ayyedos am’ oipavod ev- taxvov aitév. Kal yevduevos ev dywvla, exteveotepoy TmpoonvyxeTOo’ eyévero dé 6 tdpas adrod aoet OpduBor alparos KataBatvovtes emt tiv ynv. It is a positive relief to know that any lingering doubt which may have hung over the authenticity of these verses, whose sacred words the devout reader of Scripture could so ill spare, is completely dissipated by their being contained in Cod. NX}. The two verses are omitted in ABRT, 124, 561 (in 13 only &f6n dé is primd manu), in f of the Old Latin, in at least ten manu- scripts of the Bohairic 2, with some Sahidic and Armenian codices. A, however, whose inconsistency we had to note when consider- ing ch. ii. 14, affixes to the latter part of ver. 42 (Ajv), ‘to a little violence (not quite unprecedented) is made to refer to ro7jpiov instead of to aipare : ‘Ex Matthaeo vel Marco accessit clausula ista 70 tmép tpav éxxuvyd- pevov, fraude tamen ita pid accessit, ut potius grammaticis legibus vim facere, quam yel literulam demutare maluerit interpolator. Ita fit ut vel hodie male assutus pannus centonem prodat. Postulat enim sermonis ratio, ut cuivis patet, 7@ imétp ipOy éxxvvopévw, non 7d imép bpav éxxvvopevoy, quod tamen in Matthaeo Marcoque optime Graece dicebatur, cum subjectum de quo praedica- batur non #4 d&aéjen verum 70 aipva esset’ (Praelectio, p. 22). 1 Very undue stress has been laid on Tischendorf’s statement, ‘Hos versus A corrector uncis inclusit, partim etiam punctis notavit; C vero puncta et uncos delevit,’ and &* has sometimes been spoken of as only a little less weighty than N itself. I had the satisfaction, through Dean Burgon’s kindness, of showing some of our critics, Dr. Hort included, a fine photograph of the whole page. The points are nearly, if not quite, invisible, the unci are rude slight curves at the beginning and end of the passage only, looking as likely to have been scrawled fifty years since as fourteen hundred. Yet even now Dr. Hort maintains that Tischendorf’s decision is probably right, strangely _ adding, ‘but the point is of little consequence’ (Notes, p. 65). 2 Bp. Lightfoot’s Codd. 2, 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 22, 26 omit them altogether: they are in the margin of 1,20. They stand in the text of 3, 14,21, and so in 18 prima manu, but in smaller characters. VOL, Il. Aa 354 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. which they cannot belong’ (Tregelles), the proper Ammonian and Eusebian numerals for vv. 43-4 (. and thus shows that its scribe was acquainted with the passage’: some Armenian codices leave out only ver. 44, as apparently does Evan. 559. In Codd. T, 128, 844, 512, 569, (440 secwundd manu in ver. 43) the verses are obelized, and are marked by asterisks in ESVAII, 24, 36, 161, 166, 274, 408: these, however, may very well be, and in some copies doubtless are, lesson-marks for the guidance of such as read the divine service (cf. seguent.). A scholion in Cod. 34 [xi] speaks of its absence from some copies”. In all known Evangelistaria and in their cognate Cod. 69* and its three fellows, the two verses, omitted in this place, follow Matt. xxvi. 39, as a regular part of the lesson for the Thursday in Holy Week: in the same place the margin of C (tertid manu) contains the passage, C being defective in Luke xxii from ver. 19. In Cod. 547 the two verses stand (in redder ink, with a scholion) not only after Matt. xxvi. 39, but also in their proper place in St. Luke*. Thus too Cod. 346, and the margin of Cod. 13. Codd. LQ place the Ammonian sections and the number of the Eusebian canons differently from the rest (but this kind of irregularity very often occurs in manuscripts), and the Phi- loxenian margin in one of Adler’s manuscripts (Assem. 2) states that it is not found ‘in Evangeliis apud Alexandrinos, prop- tereaque [non?] posuit eam S. Cyrillus in homilia ...:’ the fact being that the verses are not found in Cyril’s ‘Homilies on Luke,’ published in Syriac at Oxford by Dean Payne Smith, 1 Yet Dr. Hort contends that ‘The testimony of A is not affected by the presence of Eusebian numerals, of necessity misplaced, which manifestly pre- suppose the inclusion of vy. 43, 44: the discrepance merely shows that the Biblical text and the Eusebian notation were taken by the scribe from different sources, as they doubtless were throughout’ (Notes, p. 65). It is just this readiness to devise expedients to meet emergencies as they arise which is at once the strength and the weakness of Dr. Hort’s position as a textual critic. These sections and canons illustrate the criticism of the text in some other places: e.g. Matt. xvi. 2, 3; xvii. 21; ch. xxiii. 84; hardly in Luke Bo.chig, Ie 2 "loréov OT TA rept TOY OpduBov Twa TOy dvTvypapor od ~xovow : adding that the clause is cited by Dionysius the Areopagite, Gennadius, Epiphanius, and other holy Fathers. ° Thus in Evst. 258 we find John xiii. 3-17 inserted wno tenore between Matt. xxvi. 20 and 21, as also Luke xxii. 48, 44 between vers. 89 and 40, with no break whatever. So again in the same manuscript with the mixed lessons for Good Friday. GOSPELS. LUKE XXII. 43, 44. 355 nor does Athanasius ever allude to them. They are read, however, in Codd. SNDFGHKLMQUXA, 1, and all other known cursives, without any marks of suspicion, in the Peshitto, Curetonian (omitting dz’ odpavod), Harkleian and Jerusalem Syriac (this last obelized in the margin), the Ethiopic, in some Sahidic, Bohairic, and Armenian manuscripts and editions, in the Old Latin abce ff? gil q, and the Vulgate. The effect of this great preponderance is enhanced by the early and express testimony of Fathers. Justin Martyr (Trypho, 103) cites idipas cel OpduBor. as contained év tots drouvnuoveduaow & pynur bmd TOV anooTéhwy adtod kal Tov éxelvors TapaxoAovdnodvrwv (see Luke i. 8, Alford) cvvrerdyda. Irenaeus (iii. 222) declares that the Lord iSpwoe OpduBovs atyaros in the second century. In the third, Hippolytus twice, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Pseudo- Tatian; in the fourth, Arius, Eusebius, Athanasius, Ephraem Syrus, Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita; in the fifth, Julian the heretic, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Paulus of Emesa, Gennadius, Theodoret, Bishops at Ephesus in 431; and later writers such as Pseudo-Caesarius, Theodosius of Alex- andria, John Damascene, Maximus, Theodore the heretic, Leontius of Byzantium, Anastasius Sinaita, Photius, as well as Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, Cassian, Paulinus, Facundus +. Hilary, on the other hand, declares that the passage is not found ‘in Graecis et in Latinis codicibus compluribus ’ (p. 1062 a, Benedictine edition, 1693), a statement which Jerome, who leans much on others in such matters, repeats to the echo. LEpiphanius, however, in a passage we have before alluded to (p. 270, note), charges ‘the orthodox’ with removing ékAavoe in ch. xix. 41, though Irenaeus had used it against the Docetae, ¢oBndévtes kal pr vonoavres adtod TO TéAos Kal 7d ioxupdraroy, Kal yevdpuevos ev aywvia {pwce, cal éyévero 6 tSpads adrod ds OpduBor aluaros, Kal Spby, dyyeAos évicxtwv adtdv: Epiphan. Ancor. xxxi*. Davidson states 1 ‘Upwards of forty famous personages from every part of ancient Christendom recognize these verses as part of the Gospel; fourteen of them being as old, some of them being a great deal older, than our oldest manuscripts’ (The Revision Revised, p. 81). 2 The reader will see that I have understood this passage, with Grotius, as applying to an orthodox tampering with Luke xix. 41, not with xxii. 43, 44. As the text of Epiphanius stands I cannot well do otherwise, since Mill’s mode of punctuation (N.T., Proleg. § 797), which wholly separates kat yevdpevos from the Aa 2 356 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. that ‘the Syrians are censured by Photius, the Armenians by Nicon [x], Isaac the Catholic, and others, for expunging the passage’ (Bibl. Critic. ii. p. 438). Of all recent editors, before Westcott and Hort set them within their double brackets, Lachmann alone had doubted the authen- ticity of the verses, and enclosed them within brackets: but for the accidental presence of the fragment Cod. Q his hard rule —‘ mathematica recensendi ratio, as Tischendorf terms it— would have forced him to expunge them, unless indeed he judged (which is probably true) that Cod. A makes as much in their favour as against them. So far as the language of Epiphanius is concerned, it does not appear that this passage was rejected by the orthodox as repugnant to their notions of the Lord’s Divine character, and such may not have been at all the origin of the variation. We have far more just cause for tracing the removal of the paragraph from its proper place in St. Luke to the prac- tice of the Lectionaries, whose principal lessons (such as those of the Holy Week would be) were certainly settled in the Greek Church as early as the fourth century (see above, Vol. I. pp. 74-7, and notes). I remark with lively thankfulness that my friend Professor Milligan does not disturb these precious verses in his ‘Words of the New Testament :’ and Mr. Hammond con- cludes that ‘on the whole there is no reasonable doubt upon the passage. Thus Canon Cook is surely justified in his strong asseveration that ‘supporting the whole passage we have an array of authorities which, whether we regard their antiquity or their character for sound judgement, veracity, and accuracy, are scarcely paralleled on any occasion’ (Revised Version, p. 103). 17. Luke xxii, 34. We soon light upon another passage wherein the Procrustean laws of certain eminent editors are irreconcileably at variance with their own Christian feeling and critical instinct. No holy passage has been brought into dis- repute on much slighter grounds than this speech of the Lord upon the cross: the words from ‘O 8 "Incods down to zo.odoww are set within brackets by Lachmann, within double brackets by Westcott and Hort. They are omitted by only BD*, 38, 435, words immediately preceding, cannot be endured, and leaves xal 70 ioyupdrarov unaccounted for. Yet I confess that there is no trace of any meddling with éxAavoe by any one, and I know not where Irenaeus cites it. GOSPELS. LUKE XXII. 43, 443; XXIII. 34. 357 among the manuscripts: by E they are marked with an asterisk (comp. Matt. xvi. 2,3; ch. xxii. 43, 44) ; of 8 Tischendorf speaks more cautiously than in the case of ch. xxii. 43, 44, ‘A [a reviser] (ut videtur) uncos apposuit, sed rursus deleti sunt,’ and we saw there how little cause there was for assigning the previous omission to 8*. In D the clause is inserted, with the proper (Ammonian) section (r« or 320), in a hand which cannot be earlier than the ninth century (see Scrivener’s Codex Bezae, facsimile 11, and Introd. p. xxvii). To this scanty list of authorities for the omission we can only add ab of the Old Latin, the Latin of Cod. D, the Sahidic version, two copies of the Bohairic 1, and a passage in Arethas of the sixth century. Eusebius assigned the section to his tenth table or canon, as it has no parallel in the other three Gospels. The passage is contained with- out a vestige of suspicion in NACFGHK (even L) M (Azat P) QSUVIAATI, all other cursives (including 1, 33, 69), cef ff? J, the Vulgate, all four Syriac versions, all Bohairic codices except the aforenamed two, the Armenian and Ethiopic. The Patristic authorities for it are (as might be anticipated) express, varied, and numerous :—such as Irenaeus and Origen in their Latin versions, the dying words of St. James the Just as cited in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., lib. 1. cap. 23, after Hegesippus, él ris mpdérns tév atoot6- ov yevouevos diadoxns (Eus.), Hippolytus, the Apostolic Consti- tutions twice, the Clementine Homilies, Ps.-Tatian, Archelaus with Manes, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodorus of Heraclea, Basil, Ephraem Syrus, Ps.-Ephraem, Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita, Acta Pilati, Syriac Acts of the Apostles, Ps.-Ignatius, Ps.-Justin, Cyril of Alexandria, Eutherius, Anastasius Sinaita, Hesychius, Antiochus Monachus, Andreas of Crete, Ps.-Chrysos- tom, Ps.-Amphilochius, Opus Imperfectum, Chrysostom often (sometimes loosely enough more suo), Hilary, Ambrose eleven times, Jerome twelve times, Augustine more than sixty times, Theodoret, and John Damascene. Tischendorf adds—valeant quantum—(but only a fraction of this evidence was known to Tischendorf), the apocryphal Acta Pilati”. Itis almost incredible 1 Lightfoot’s Codd. 22, 26. The clause stands in the margin of 1, 20, in the text of 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23. 2 Dean Burgon (Revision Revised, p. 88), who refers to upwards of forty Fathers and more than 150 passages (sce also Miller’s Textual Guide, App. II), burns with indignation as he sums up his results: ‘And what (we ask the question with sincere simplicity), what amount of evidence is calculated to 358 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. that acute and learned men should be able to set aside such a szlva of witness of every kind, chiefly because D is considered especially weighty in its omissions, and B has to be held up, in practice if not in profession, as virtually almost impeccable. Vain indeed is the apology, ‘ Few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the truth of what they record than this first of the Words from the Cross; but it need not therefore have belonged originally to the book in which it is now included. We cannot doubt that it comes from an extraneous source’ (Hort, Notes, p. 68. Nor can we on our part doubt that the system which entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned. 18. JOHN i. 18. 6 povoyerijs vids, 6 dv eis Tov KdATOV Tod matpés... This passage exhibits in a few ancient documents of high consideration the remarkable variation 6eds for vids, which however, according to the form of writing universal in the oldest codices (see Vol. I. pp. 15, 50), would require but the change of a single letter, TC or OC. In behalf of OC stand Codd. NBC prima manu, and L (all wanting the article before povoyerys, and 8 omitting the 6 dy that follows), 33 alone among cursive manu- scripts (but prefixing 6 to povoyerys, as does a later hand of N), of the versions the Peshitto (not often found in such com-— pany), and the margin of the Harkleian (whose affinity with Cod. L is very decided), the Ethiopic, and a host of Fathers, some expressly (e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Didymus ‘de Trinitate,’ Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, &c.), others by apparent reference (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa). The Egyptian versions may have read either Oeds or eo, more probably the latter, as Prebendary Malan translates for the Bohairic1, the inspire undoubted confidence in any given reading, if not such a concurrence of authorities as this? We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not be enlarged upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from internal evidence. Let this verse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient external testimony, or is clearly forsaken thereby.’ 1 * Gospel according to St. John from eleven versions,’ 1872, p. 8. Dr. Malan also translates in the same way the Peshitto ‘the only Son of God’ and its satellite the Persie of the Polyglott as ‘the only one of God.’ With much deference to a profound scholar, I do not see how such a rendering is possible in the Peshitto : it is precisely that which he gives in ch. iii. 18, where the Syriae inserts 9 o%>. Bp. Lightfoot judges @eds the more likely rendering of the Bohairic, though @¢o0 is possible. GOSPELS. JOHN I. 18. 359 Sahidic being here lost. Their testimonies are elaborately set forth by Tregelles, who strenuously maintains Oedés as the true reading, and thinks it much that Arius, though ‘opposed to the dogma taught,’ upholds povoyerts deds. It may be that the term suits that heretic’s system. better than it does the Catholic doc- trine: it certainly does not confute it. For the received reading vids we can allege AC (terted manu) EFGHKMSUVXAAII (D and the other uncials being defective), every cursive manuscript except 33 (including Tregelles’ allies 1, 69), all the Latin versions, the Curetonian, Harkleian, and Jerusalem Syriac, the Georgian and Slavonic, the Armenian and Platt’s Ethiopic, the Anglo- Saxon and Arabic. The array of Fathers is less imposing, but includes Athanasius (often), Chrysostom, and the Latin writers down from Tertullian. Origen, Eusebius, and some others have both readings. Cyril of Jerusalem quotes without vids or Oeds,— dv avOpaTay pev ovdels Edpaxev* 6 povoyerns d5€ pdvos eEnynoato. C. 7, 1. 27, p. 107, ed. Oxon., Pereira. Tregelles, who seldom notices internal probabilities in his critical notes, here pleads that an dma€ Aeyouevov like povoyevns 6 or coS, ‘about 76’ or ‘276. Surely it is more likely that » was inserted than omitted. In ver. 39 the first hand of B, this time favoured by C, and supported by the Bohairic, Armenian, and (in Tregelles) the } Witness too Lucian’s dmeppeyéOn vadv nat mépa rod pérpov, play trav dn’ Aiydmrov eis IraXiav ovrayeryav (Navig. seu Vota, c. 1) which was driven out of its course to the Piraeus. Mr. Smith, of Jordan Hill, cannot bring its dimensions under 1,300 tons. ; ACTS XXVII. 37. ST. PAUL. ROM. V. I. 379 Ethiopic versions, has another curious variation, also promoted into the text by Westcott and Hort, éxcdca for the common e€do0a1, which they banish into the margin. This change also is very minute, being simply the resolution of a into the two consonants for which it stands, and the reading very ingenious, unless indeed it be regarded as a mistake made ex ore dictuntis (see p. 10), which with Madvig as cited by Mr. Hammond (Outlines of Textual Criticism, first edition, p. 18, note) we regard as a slovenly plan, such as one would be loth to impute hastily to the scribes of so noble a copy as Cod. B. Here, however, as ever, internal evidence being equiponderant, we must decide by the weight of documentary proof, and adopt éf6oa. with NAHLP, all cursives (including 61), the Latin and Syriac versions. Third Series. St. Paul. 83. Rom. v. 1. AcxawwOévtes ody ex amlotews elpyuny exopev mpos tov @edv. Here, as in 2 Cor. iii. 8, we find the chief uncials supporting a reading which is manifestly unsuitable to the context, although, since it does not absolutely destroy the sense, it does not (nor indeed does that other passage) lack strenuous defenders. Codd. 8B for éyouev have primd manw éxapev, and though some doubt has been thrown on the primitive reading of B, yet Mai and Tregelles (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 156) are eyewitnesses to the fact, which is now settled: Tischendorf in 1866 referred gxouey to the third hand of B, Codd, ACDEKL, not less than thirty cursives, including 104, 244 ? 257 and the remarkable copies 17, 37, also read éxapev, as do defg, the Vulgate (‘habeamus’), the Peshitto Syriac (hsaNa ¢& Jsoy), Bohairic, Ethiopic (in both forms), and Arabic. Chrysostom too supports this view, and so apparently Tertullian (‘ monet justificatos ex fide Christi... pacem ad Deum habere’). The case for éxouev is much weaker in itself: Codd. 8*B°FG (in spite of the contrary testimony of fg, their respective Latin versions) P, perhaps the majority of the cursive manuscripts (29, 30, 47, 221, 260, 265, &c.), Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril (once), and the Slavonic. The later Syriac might seem to combine both readings (Jima JoS? LoS G& Mi/ Joo): White translates ‘habemus, but has no note on the passage’. Had the scales 1 Dr. Field, however, says that ‘this is a mistake.’ The Syriac is €xwpev . 380 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. been equally poised, no one would hesitate to prefer éyouer, for the closer the context is examined the clearer it will appear that inference not exhortation is the Apostle’s purpose: hence those who most regard ‘ancient evidence’ (Tischendorf and Tregelles, Westcott and Hort; Lachmann could not make up his mind) have struggled long before they would admit éywyev into the text. The ‘Five Clergymen’ who in or about 1858 benefited the English Church by revising its Authorized version of this Epistle, even though they render ‘let ws have peace with God, are constrained to say, ‘An overwhelming weight of authority has necessitated a change, which at the first sight seems to impair the logical force of the Apostle’s argument. No con- sideration, however, of this kind can be allowed to interfere with the faithful exhibition of the true text, as far as it can be ascertained; and no doubt the real Word of God, thus faithfully exhibited, will vindicate its own meaning, and need no help from man’s shortsighted preference’ (Preface, p. vii). Every one must honour the reverential temper in which these eminent men approached their delicate task; yet, if their sentiments be true, where is the place for internal evidence at all? A more ‘overwhelming weight’ of manuscript authority upholds kxapdiars in 2 Cor. iii. 8: shall we place it in the text, ‘leaving the real Word of God to vindicate its own meaning’ ? Ought we to assume that the reading found in the few most ancient codices—not, in the case of Rom. vy. 1, in the majority of the whole collection—must of necessity be the ‘real Word of God, faithfully exhibited’? I see no cause to reply in the affirmative, nor do Meyer and Dr. Field?. We conclude, therefore, that this is a case for the application of the paradiplomatical canon (VII): that the itacism o for o, $0 familiar to all collators of Greek manuscripts *, crept into and nothing else, For €xouer this version (and all others) would put co Ku: but ‘when the word is in the subjunctive mood, since La? is indeclinable, it is a peculiarity of the Harkleian to prefix the corresponding mood of Joo, here Joow? (Otium Norvicense, iii. p. 98). For this strange phrase he cites Rom. i. 13 ; 2 Cor. v. 12, and to such an authority I have but dare manus. 1 It is simply inapossible to translate with Jos. Agar Beet, in the [Wesleyan] London Quarterly, April, 1878, either ‘Let us then, justified by faith, have peace with God,’ or ‘Let us then be justified by faith and have peace with God.’ Acts xv. 36 will help him little: the other places he cites (Matt. ii, 18, &.) not at all. ? Dr. Vaughan (Epistle to the Romans) has éxwpev in his text, and compares ST. PAUL. ROM. V. I; I COR. XI. 24. 381 some very early copy, from which it was propagated among our most venerable codices, even those from which the earliest versions were made:—that this is one out of a small number of well-ascertained cases in which the united testimonies of the best authorities conspire in giving a worse reading than that preserved by later and, on the whole, quite inferior copies. 34. 1 Cor. xi. 24. I am as unwilling as Mr. C. Forster could have been to strike out from the Received text ‘a word which (if genuine) THE Lorp GoD HAD SPOKEN!’ (A new Plea for the Three Heavenly Witnesses, Preface, p. xvii), but I cannot censure Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, or Westcott and Hort, or Dean Blakesley for deciding on the state of the evidence, as now generally taken, that it is not genuine. Yet it is with great satisfaction that I find Bp. Chr. Wordsworth able to retain kA@puevov, and to save the solemn clause 76 drép tudv from being ‘bald and impressive without the participle.’ Mr. Forster’s argument in behalf of kAduevoy, that it refers to ch. x. 16, rov dprov dv khéyuev, has a double edge, and might be employed to indicate the source from which the word crept in here. It is more to the purpose to urge with Bp. Wordsworth that early seribes were offended by the apparent inconsistency of the term with John xix. 36, and because there is nothing like it in the narratives of the three earlier Evangelists. If we decide to retain kA@pevov, it must be in opposition to the four chief manuscripts NABC, though NC insert it by the third hand of each. Cod. D, like its namesake of the Gospels and Acts, is Heb. xii. 28, éxwpev xdpiv, ‘where there is the same variety of reading.’ B is lost in this last place, but ¢xouey, which is quite inadmissible, is found in Codd. NKP, the Latin of D, 31 and many other cursives, the printed Vulgate, and its best manuscripts. In Rom. xiv. 19 even Dr. Hort is driven by the versions and the sense to adopt in his text d.w«xwpev of CD and the mass of cursives, rather than didopey with NABFGLP, &. The like confusion between o and w appears in the text we shall examine next but one (1 Cor. xiii. 3) and in the subjoined note (p. 384). See also popécower and popéowpey, 1 Cor. xv. 49. We must confess, however, that in some of our oldest extant MSS. the interchange of oandw is but rare. In Cod. Sarravianus it is found in but twenty-three places out of 1224 in which itacisms occur, 830 of them being the mutation of e. and t. On the other hand, o stands for w and vice versié very frequently in that papyrus fragment of the Psalms in the British Museum which Tischendorf, perhaps a little hastily, judged to be older than any existing writing on vellum. 382 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. somewhat inclined to paraphrases, and has Opumréuevov? by the first hand, kAdépevov by the second. Only two cursives here side with the great uncials (17, and the valuable second hand of 67), as do Zohrab’s Armenian, Cyril of Alexandria and Fulgentius in the fifth century, and Theodoret’s report of Athanasius. The word kAémevoy is found in EFGKLP, all other cursives, the Latin versions of DE (quod frangitur), with Ambrosiaster : G and the interlinear Latin of F, which, as has been already shown under that MS., is taken from G, prefer quod frangetur, with both Syriac, the Gothic, and the Armenian of Uscan. The Latin Vulgate has trudetur (but traditur in harl.2, even in the parallel column of F and against its Greek, and so Cyprian: the Bohairic renders traditur ; but the Sahidie and Ethiopic datur, after the duddnevov of Zacagni’s Euthalius, derived from Luke xxii. 19. Theodoret himself knew of both forms. The main strength of kAdpevov rests on Patristic evidence. Mr. Forster has added to our previous store the ‘conclusive testimony’ of Basil (Forster, p. xxvi) and of Athanasius himself (2bid. p. xvii), which is better than Theodoret’s report at second hand ; and thus too Chrysostom in three places, one manuscript of Euthalius, John Damascene, the Patriarch Germanus (A. D. 715, x.), so far strengthen the case of NAC. The Received text is found in (apparently) the great mass of cursives, in D (tertid manu), EKL, the Hark- leian Syriac (but the kat after watpés marked with one of Harkel’s asterisks, Theodoret, John Damascene and others. The minor sacramentum est), and would almost call for the article before xporod. In meaning it would be equivalent to D*, &e., 8 éorw xo. ST. PAUL. COL. II. 2; I THESS. II. 7. 389 variations, Tod Oeod év xpior of Clement and Ambrosiaster, rod €08 Tod év xpiord of 17, uphold D*, as may the Ethiopic (‘ domini quod de Christo’): to the reading of Cod. 17 Zohrab’s or the Venice Armenian (A.D. 1789) simply adds ‘Jesu. We also find ‘dei Christi Jesu patris et domini’ in f¢ol., ‘dei patris et domini nostri Christi’ in demid., ‘dei patris in Christo Jesu’ in Uscan’s Armenian; but these deserve not attention. Theodore of Mopsuestia (Swete, vol. i. p. 283), has mysterii Det Patris et Christi, which need not imply the omission of kai before rarpdés. On reviewing the whole mass of conflicting evidence, we may unhesitatingly reject the shortest form rod deod, some of whose maintainers do not usually found their text on cursive manu- scripts almost exclusively. We would gladly adopt rod ded xptorod, so powerfully do internal considerations plead in its favour, were it but a little better supported: the important doc- trine which it declares, Scriptural and Catholic as that is, will naturally make us only the more cautious in receiving it unre- servedly. Yet the more we think over this reading, the more it grows upon us, as the source from which all the rest are derived. At present, perhaps, tod Oeod marpés rod xpiotod may be looked upon as the most strongly attested, but in the presence of so many opposing probabilities, a very small weight might suffice to turn the critical scale. 40. 1 TuEss. ii. 7. We have here a various reading, con- sisting of the prefix of a single letter, which seems to introduce into a simple yerse what is little short of an absurdity. Instead of #mo. of the Received text, of Tischendorf and Tregelles, we find vijm101 adopted by Lachmann as a consequence of his own stringent rules, and by Westcott and Hort of their own free will, unless indeed it be said that they also are working in chains of their own forging. How St. Paul can compare himself to a babe in one clause of the verse and to its nurse in the other would be quite unintelligible if Origen, who read vou, had not instructed us that the nurse is playing at baby for the babe’s amusement (eyévero vamos Kal maparAjovos Tpope Oadnovan 70 éavtis matdlov Kal Aadovon Adyouvs Gs Tadiov b1a TO TaLdloy, ill. 662). It needs but the exercise of common sense to brush away such a fancy as this, and the state of the evidence will show us how the best authori- ties are sometimes hopelessly in the wrong; for vimo. is the 390 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. form favoured by N*BC*D*FG, 5, 23, 26, 31*, 37, 39**, 74, 87, 109**, 114, 115, 187, 219*, 252, and is easily accounted for by the accidental reduplication of the letter after N in HMENHIIOI (see p. 10). The Vulgate and the Latin versions accompanying DEFG (e testifying against its own Greek) have parvuli, and so the Bohairic, Ethiopic, Clement of Alexandria (jos oty 6 vynmwos), Ambrosiaster, Jerome, and Augustine very expressly. On the other hand jos is vouched for by N**AC**D**EKLP, 17, 47, 61, 260, and by all cursives not named above, by both Syriac versions, by the Sahidic and by its follower the Bashmuric, by the Armenian, by Clement and Origen elsewhere (but their inconsistency means nothing but carelessness), Basil, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia !, Theodoret, Euthalius, dicumenius, John Damascene and the catenae. Theophylact knew of and expounds both readings. It is almost pathetic to mark Dr. Hort’s brave struggle to maintain a cause which in this instance is simply hopeless. ‘The second v might be inserted or omitted with equal facility ; but the change from the bold image to the tame and facile adjective is characteristic of the difference between St. Paul and the Syrian revisers (ef. 1 Cor. ili. 1, 2; ix. 20, &e.). It is not of harshness that St. Paul here declares himself innocent, but of flattery and the rhetorical arts by which gain or repute is procured, his adversaries having doubtless put this malicious interpretation upon his language among the Thessalonians’ (Notes, p. 128). For his alleged Syrian revision, see above, p. 287. 41. 1 TIM. ili. 16. Ocds efavepddn ev capxi. This text has proved the crua criticorum. The Vatican has now failed us, but all manuscripts (D tertid manu, KLP, 300 cursives) read ©cdés with the common text, except N*A*? C*? FG, 17, 73, which have és, D* which (after the Latin versions) has 6: the Leicester codex, 37, gives 6 0s (see facsimile No. 40, 1. 1), as if to combine two of the variations*. In the abridged form of writing usual in all manuscripts, even the oldest, the difference between OC and OC consists only in the presence or absence of 1 In Dr. Swete’s edition, vol. ii. p. 11, Theodore expounds thus in the old Latin version : sed facti swmus quieti in medio vestro, hoe est, ‘omni mediocritate et humilitate sumus abusi, nolentes graves aliquibus videri.’ 2 A like combination is seen in Cod. 87 in 1 Tim. vi. 19 ris alwviov dvras Cans. EP. PAULL I, THESS. Il) 7.5) D/TIM.. 111.. 16. 391 two horizontal strokes; hence it is rather to be regretted than wondered at that the true reading of each of the uncial authori- ties for the former is more or less open to question. Respecting Cod. 8 we have the statement of Tischendorf, a most consummate judge in such matters: ‘corrector aliquis, qui omnium ultimus teatum attigit, saeculi feré duodecimi, | pro os primae mands] reposurt Oeos, sed hoc tam cautée ut antiquissimam scriptwram intactam relinqueret’ (Notitia Cod. Sinait. p. 20), which is unequivocal enough : see facsimile No. 13 in Scrivener’s ‘ Colla- tion of Cod. Sin., and Introd., p. xxv: also Plate iv, facsimile No. lle of this volume, wherein the twelfth century 6¢ above the line, the new accent over OC, and the triple points to denote insertion, are very conspicuous. Nor is there any real doubt respecting the kindred codices FG. From the photographed title-page of the published ‘Cod. Augiensis’ (F) 1. 9, and Matthaei’s facsimile of G (N. T., vol. i. p. 4) 1, it will be seen that while there is not the least trace of the horizontal line within the circle of omicron, the line above the circle in both (OC) is not horizontal, but rises a little towards the right: such a line not unfrequently in F, oftener in G, is used (as here) to indicate the rough breathing: it sometimes stands even for the lenis (e. g. (dv0v 1 Cor. vi. 18; vii. 4; 375; toca Phil. ii. 6). Those who never saw Cod. C must depend on Tischendorfs Excursus (Cod. Ephraemi, pp. 39-42) and his facsimile, imitated in our Plate x. No. 24. His decision is that the primitive reading was OC, but he was the first to discern a cross line within O (facsimile, 1. 3, éighth letter); which, however, from the colour (‘subvigra’) he judges to belong to the second or third hand, rising upwards (a tendency rather exaggerated than otherwise in our Plate) ; while the coarse line above, and the musical notes (denoting a word of two syllables) below, are plainly of the third hand. This verdict, especially delivered by such a man, we know not how to gainsay, and merely point to the fact that the cross line in ©, the ninth letter further on, which is certainly promd manu, also ascends towards the right. Cod. A, however, I have examined at least twenty times within as many years, and yet am not quite able to assent to the conclusion of Mr. Cowper when he says‘we hope that no one will think it possible, 1 Dean Burgon has just presented me with the photographed page in Cod. G, respecting whose evidence there can be no remaining doubt. 392 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. either with or without a lens, to ascertain the truth of the matter by any inspection of the Codex’ (Cod. Alex., Introd. p. xviii). On the contrary, seeing (as every one must see for himself) with my own eyes, I have always felt convinced with Berriman and the earlier collators that Cod. A read OC, and, so far as I am shaken in my conviction at all, it is less by the adverse opinion even of Bp. Ellicott}, than by the more recently discovered fact that OC (which is adopted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson, Tregelles, Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Hort and Westcott), was read in & as early as the fourth century. The secondary witnesses, versions, and certain of the Fathers, also powerfully incline this way, and they deserve peculiar attention in a case like the present. The Peshitto (9) and Harkleian (text and oc» in margin) Syriac have a relative (whether és or 6); so have the Armenian, the Roman Ethiopie, and Erpenius’ Arabic. The Gothic supports és; the Sahidic, Bohairic, and Platt’'s Ethiopic favour és or 6: all Latin versions 1 The true reading of the Codex Alexandrinus in 1 Tim. iii. 16 has long been an interesting puzzle with Biblical students. The manuscript, and especially the leaf containing this verse (fol. 145), now very thin and falling into holes, must have been in a widely different condition from the present when it first , came to England. At that period Young, Huish, and the rest who collated or referred to it, believed that ©C was written by the first hand. Mill (N. T. ad loc.) declares that he had first supposed the primitive reading to be OC, seeing clearly that the line over the letters had not been entirely made, but only thickened, by a later hand, probably the same that traced the coarse, rude, recent, horizontal diameter now running through the circle. On looking more closely, however, he detected ‘ductus quosdam et vestigia satis certa... praesertim ad partem sinistram, qua peripheriam literae pertingit,’ evidently belonging to an earlier diameter, which the thicker and later one had almost defaced. This old line was afterwards seen by John Berriman and four other persons with him (Gloucester Ridley, Gibson, Hewett, and Pilkington) by means of a glass in the bright sunshine, when he was preparing his Lady Moyer’s Lecture for 1787-8 (Critical Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16, p. 156). Wetstein admitted the existence of such a transverse line, but referred it to the tongue or sagitia of € on the reverse of the leaf, an explanation rejected by Woide, but admitted by Tregelles, who states in opposition to Woide that ‘Part of the € on the other side of the leaf does intersect the O, as we have seen again and again, and which others with us have seen also’ (Horne, iv. p. 156). This last assertion may be received as quite true, and yet not relevant to the point at issue. In an Excursus appended to 1 Timothy in his edition of ‘The Pastoral Epistles’ (p. 100, 1856), Bp. Ellicott declares, as the result of ‘minute personal inspection,’ that the original reading was ‘indisputably’ OC. But the fact is, that the page is much too far gone to admit of any present judgement which would weigh against past judgements, as any one who examines the passage can see for himself. Woide could see the line in 1765, but not in 1785. SiS PAUL. ~£° SIM, 111. “16, 393 (even fg whose Greek is OC) read ‘quod,’ while deds appears only in the Slavonic (which usually resembles KL and the later copies) and the Polyglott Arabic. Of ecclesiastical writers the best witness for the Received text is Ignatius, Ocod avOpwzrivws avepovevov (‘Ephes.’ 19), both in the Greek and Old Latin, although the Syriac abbreviator seems to have r0é viod: the later interpolator expanded the clause thus: Ocod ws dvOpdmov patvo- Mévov, Kal avOpaérov ws O<08 évepyobvtos. Hippolytus (Adv. Not. 17: fl. 220) makes a ‘free reference’ to it in the words Otros mpocdOav eis Koopor, Oeds ev oopati épavepsbn, and elsewhere with 6 before mpocAOdv. The testimony of Dionysius of Alexandria (265) can no longer be upheld (Tregelles, Horne, iv. p. 339), that of Chrysostom to the same effect is by some deemed precarious, since his manuscripts fluctuate, and Cramer’s catena on 1 Tim. p.31 is adverse’. The evidence borne for deds by Didymus (de Trin.) and Gregory Nyssen? is beyond all doubt; that of later writers, Theodoret, John Damascene, Theophylact, @icumenius (as might be looked for) is clear and express. The chief Latins, Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, &c., exhibit either guz or quod: Cyril of Alexandria (for so we must conclude both from manuscripts and his context)°, Epiphanius (twice), Theodore of Mopsuestia (in Latin) +, and others of less weight, or whose language is less 1 Yet how can it be precarious in the face of such testimony as the following (Quarterly Review, Oct. 1881, p. 868)? Td 5& Gedy dvta dvOpwmov DedAjoa yevéoOat Kal dvacxécOa: KataBjvar tocodtoy...Todrd éort TO exmAn~ews yéuov. “O di Kat TladAos Oavpd (wy édeye kal Gpodroyoupéevws péya earl 7d THs evoeBeElas pvoTHpiov* motov péya ; Oeds epavepwOn ev capki: Kal madw dGAdraxod: od ydp ayyéAwy émAapBavera 6 6eds (Chrysostom, i. 497). It is necessary to study the context well before we can understand the strength or weakness of Patristic evidence. 2 Twenty-three times in all, as Ward (see p. 394, note) observes, adding that ‘nothing can be more express and unquestionable than his reading.’ The Quarterly Reviewer speaks very well (ubi supra), ‘A single quotation is better than many references. Among a multitude of proofs that Christ is God, Gre- gory says: Tipodéw 5é diappndnv Bog br 6 eds epavepwOn ev capKi, edikaiwOn ev mvEv- part’ (ii. 698). 3 Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 67, ‘=yéAra Photii MSS. (Bib. Pub. Cant.) ad loc. 6 év dylous Kipiddos év TO iB Kepadraiw trav cxoriwy pnoiv, ds epavepwOn ev capki.’ Photius also quoted Gregory Thaumaturgus (or Apollinarius) for eds. * Dr. Swete, in his masterly edition of the Latin translation of Theodore’s commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles, after citing the Latin text as qui manifestatus est in carne, adds ‘Both our MSS. read qui, here and [15 lines] below and use the masculine consistently throughout the context. . . . Thus the present transla- tion goes to confirm the inference already drawn from the Greek fragment of Theodore, de Incarn. xiii (Migne, P. G. 66, 987), that he read és épavepw6n’ 394 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. direct, are cited in critical editions of the N. T. in support of a relative; add to which that 0eds is not quoted by Fathers (e.g. Cyprian, p. 85; Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 67) in many places where it might fairly be looked for; though this argu- ment must not be pushed too far. The idle tale, propagated by Liberatus the Deacon of Carthage, and from him repeated by Hinentar and Victor, that Macedonius Patriarch of Constan- tinople (A. D. 506) was expelled by the Emperor Anastasius for corrupting O or OC into OC, although lightly credited by Dr. Tregelles (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 229) and even by Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 183), is sufficiently refuted by Bp. Pearson (On the Creed, Art. ii, p. 128, 3rd edition). On a review of the whole mass of external proof, bearing in mind too that OC (from which 6 of D* is an evident corruption) is grammatically much the harder reading after pvornpiov (Canon I), and that it might easily pass into OC, we must consider it probable (indeed, if we were sure of the testimony of the first- rate uncials, we might regard it as certain) that the second of our rules of Comparative Criticism must here be applied, and Oeds of the more recent many yield place to és of the ancient few. Yet even then the force of the Patristic testimony remains untouched. Were we to concede to Dr. Hort’s unproved hypo-— thesis that Didymus, de Trinitate, abounds in what he calls Syrian readings, and that they are not rare with Gregory Nyssen (Notes, p. 133), the clear references of Ignatius and (vol. ii. p. 185 n.): pertinently observing that if Theodore used és, he was in harmony with the Syriac versions, 1 The Quarterly Reviewer (Oct. 1881, p. 865), in his trenchant style, goes a good way beyond this: ‘”Os is in truth so grossly improbable—rather, so impossible— a reading, that under any circumstances we must have anxiously inquired whether no escape from it was discoverable: whether there exists no other way of explaining how so patent an absurdity as this may have arisen? ... We shall be landed in a bathos indeed if we allow gross improbability to become a con- straining motive with us in revising the sacred Text.’ 2 ¢Conspectum lectionis hujus loci optime dedit in sermone vernaculo William H. Ward, V. D. M. in Bibliothecé Sacra Americana, anni 1865,’ Tregelles N. T. ad loc, For a copy of this work I am indebted to the kindness of A. W. Tyler of New York. Mr. Ward wonders that neither Tregelles nor I have noticed a certain pinhole in Cod. A, which was pointed out to Sir F. Madden by J. Scott Porter, made by some person at the extremity of the sagitta of the € on the opposite page, and falling exactly on the supposed transverse line of the 0, I cannot perceive the pinhole, but the vellum is fast crumbling away from the effects of time, certainly through no lack of care on the part of those who keep the manuscript, Sie PAUL, “Is TIMA 1s 16; Vi. 7. 395 Hippolytus are not thus to be disposed of. I dare not pronounce eds a corruption. This decision of Dr, Scrivener would probably have been considerably strengthened in favour of deds, if the above passage had been written after, instead of before, the composition and appearance of Dean Burgon’s elaborate and patient examination of all the evidence, which occupies seventy-seven pages in his ‘Revision Revised ’ (pp. 424-501). Dean Burgon shows at length that after about 1770 the passage in A became so worn that it has been since that time increasingly difficult to see it; he casts much doubt upon the witness of C for 6s, which Mr. Hoskier (Cod. 604, Appendix J), after a long examination of the MS., not only confirms, but actually removes in the opposite direction by claiming C as a witness for deds; he maintains with reason that the transverse line in F and G is the sign of contraction; he exhibits the consentient testimony of the cursives; he claims upon the testimony of the scholar who was editing the Harkleian that version, as also the Georgian and Slavonic; and he adds to the Fathers enumerated above, besides doubtful testimonies, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, Diodorus of Tarsus, Euthalius, Macedonius, Epiphanius of Catana, Theodorus Studita, Kuthymius, some scholia, the author of [epi elas capxécews, and an anonymous author,—making some fifty testimonies in all. 42. 1 Tim. vi. 7. By omitting dfAov of the Received text, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, produce a Greek sentence as inconsequential as the most thorough votaries of the ‘harder reading’ can wish for: ‘ For we brought nothing into the world, because neither can we carry anything out.’ Dr. Hort sees, of course, that St. Paul could not reason in this fashion, and says that ‘The text [i.e. his text, without d7Aov] is manifestly the parent of all the other readings, which are futile attempts to smooth away its difficulty. A primitive corruption must lurk somewhere, —and then ventures on the awkward suggestion that OTI arose from the transcriptional repetition of the last syllable of koopov (ON being read as OTI), a guess which we observe that Dr. Westcott does not care to vouch for (Notes, p. 134). But why create a difficulty at all? Cod. B, which ends in Heb. ix. 14, is now lost to us, and of the rest 57Aov is omitted in N*AFG and 396 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. its Latin version g with copies of the Vulgate referred to by Lachmann, the Bohairic («ai for ri), Sahidic; the Armenian and both Ethiopic varying with the Bohairic. Instead of dAor D*, m, fuld., Cyprian and the Gothic have dAnéés, and the printed Vulgate with its codices (even f) and Ambrosiaster haud dubiwm, which will suit 64Aov well enough, as will \x.3.6 (et notwm est) of the Syriac versions. For d7Aov itself stand 8**D** (hiat E) KLP, all the cursives save one, and of the Fathers Basil, Macarius, Chrysostom, Euthalius, Theodoret, and John Damascene, evidence which we should have liked to see a little stronger. _ 43, PuitemM. 12. For dv dvéneuya’ od 58 adrdy, rouréots Ta Cua omdayxva, tpocdaBod of the Received text, the critics, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles (but not his margin), Bp. Lightfoot, West- cott and Hort read dv dvéreua oon, adrdv, tovréoti Ta Cua omrayxva, omitting mpooAaBov, which they judge to have been interpolated from ver. 17. Tregelles and Bp. Lightfoot, moreover, put a full stop after oor, so that airéy is regarded as an ‘accusative sus- pended; the sentence changes its form and loses itself in a number of dependent clauses; and the main point is not resumed till ver. 17 xpocdaBod airov ws éué, the grammar having been meanwhile dislocated. So Lightfoot, who’ vindicates the emphatic place he has assigned to airéy by the not very close parallels John ix. 21, 23; Eph. i. 22. Manuscripts, of course, will not help us much in punctuation, but Codd. 8*A, 17 are very good witnesses for co. in the room of ov dé and for the omission of mpocAaBod, a simple, although somewhat rude, construction well worthy of attention. For co, with or without ot dé following, we have the additional support of C*DE,d ¢ and g against its own Greek, the Clementine Vulgate and such Vulgate codices as demid. harl.2**, the Peshitto Syriac, Bohairic, Armenian, Ethiopic, &c. For the omission of tpocAaBot, which is of course the chief variation, besides N*A, 17 are cited F and G in the Greek but not in their Latin versions, 37 and others setting it before avrév. It is found in all the rest, D**E**KLP, all other cur- sives, and (as might have been anticipated) the versions, as well Latin as Syriac, Bohairic (which reads as Cod. 37), Gothic, and Ethiopic: g, the Armenian and Theodoret put it after atrdv. CATH. EPISTLES. JAMES IV. 4; 5; I PET. I. 23. 3097 Fourth Series. Catholic Epistles. 44, JAMES iv. 4. Movyxol caf should be omitted before pouyarides on the testimony of N*AB, 18. The Peshitto, Bohairic, Latin, Armenian, and both Ethiopic versions have ‘adulterers’ (forni- catores ff) only, but since no Greek copy thus reads, we must suppose that their translators were startled by the bold imagery so familiar to the Hebrew prophets (Isa. liv. 5; Jer. ii. 2; Ezek. Xvi. 32 are cited from a host of similar passages by Wordsworth) and endeavoured to dilute it in this way. Tischendorf would join poyadides with damavnonre ver. 3, alleging the point or stop placed after it in Cod. B: but this point is not found in Vercellone’s edition, although he leaves a small space before ovx. The full form Mozxol kat poryadides of N°KLP, the later Syriac, and all other known copies, is evidently a correction of early scribes. 45. JAMES iv. 5. The variation between kargkioev and xaro- knoev is plainly to be attributed to a mere itacism, whichsoever is to be regarded as the true form. We finds in NAB, 101, 104 only, nor is it quite accurate to say with Tischendorf that colla- tors are apt to overlook such points. In KLP, and apparently in all other manuscripts of every class, 7 is read, and so the catenas, with Theophylact and Cicumenius, understand this difficult passage. That all the versions (Latin, Syriac, Egyp- tian, &c.) thus render seems decisive in favour of ». The combination of SAB, however strong, has repeatedly been seen not to be irresistible ; and while. it must be confessed that in our existing Greek copies the interchange of « and 7 (though found in Cod. A) is not an itacism of the very oldest type (p. 10), yet here the testimony of the versions refers it back to the second century. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, combine in reading kxard«uev. 46. 1 Per. i. 23. Here we have a remarkable example to illustrate what we saw in the cases of Rom. viii. 20; 2 Cor. 111.3, Phil. ii. 1, that the chief uncials sometimes conspire in readings which are unquestionably false, and can hardly have arisen independently of each other. For omopis POaprns Codd. NAC have 0opas POapris, the scribe’s eye wandering in writing 398 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. onopas to the beginning of the next word: Cod. B is free from this vile corruption. When Mill records the variation for Cod. A, he adds (as well he might), ‘dormitante scrib4:’ but that the same gross error should be found in three out of the four oldest codices, and in no other, is very suggestive, and not a little perplexing to false theorists. 47, 1 Per. iii. 15. Kupiov 8& tov Oedv ayiaoare ev rats Kapdiats tpav. For Oedv we find xpiordv (a change of considerable doc- trinal importance)! in RABC, 7, 8 (Stephen’s 1a’), 13, 33 (margin), 69, 187, 182, 184 (but not 221: see p. 310, note 2), Apost. 1 (w xv nyov) with its Arabic translation. Thus too read both Syriac versions, the Sahidic, Bohairic, Armenian (rév atrov kal xpioror), Erpenius’ Arabic, the Vulgate, Clement of Alexandria, Fulgentius, and Bede. Jerome has ‘Jesum Christum :’ the Ethiopic and one other (Auctor de promiss., fourth century) omit both words. Against this very strong case we can set up for the common text only the more recent uncials KLP (not more than seven uncials contain this Epistle), the ‘mass of later cursives (ten out of Scrivener’s twelve, also Wake 12, or Cod. 193), the Polyglott Arabic, Slavonic, Theophylact, and Gicumenius, authorities of the ninth century and downwards. It is a real pleasure to me in this instance to express my cordial agreement with Tregelles (and so read Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort), when he says, ‘Thus the reading ypiotdv may be relied on confidently’ (An Account of the Printed Text, p.285). I would further allege this text as one out of many proofs that the great uncials seldom or never conspire in exhibiting a really valuable departure from the later codices, unless supported by some of the best of the cursives themselves. See, however, Acts xiii. 32. 48. 2 Pet. ii.13. The resemblance between the second epistle of St. Peter and that of St. Jude is too close to be unobserved by the most careless reader, and the supposition that the elder 1 As the Apostle here applies to Christ language which in the Old Testament is made use of with reference to Jehovah (see Isa. viii. 18), he clearly suggests the supreme godhead of our Redeemer,’ as Dr. Roberts puts the matter (Words of the New Testament, p. 170). Not, of course, that our critical judgement should be swayed one way or the other by individual prepossessions ; but that those who in the course of these researches have sacrificed to truth much that they have hitherto held dear, need not suppress their satisfaction when truth is gain, ; Gate, EPISTLES. I PET.Iil. 155) 2° PET. I. 13. 399 Apostle’s letter was in Jude’s hands when he wrote his own is. that which best meets the circumstances of the case. The omiror of the present verse, for example, looks like the origin of omAddes in Jude 12, where the latter word is employed in a signification almost unprecedented in classical Greek, though the Orphic poems have been cited for its bearing the sense of ‘spots,’ which all the ancient versions rightly agree with our Authorized Bible in attributing to it. Bearing in mind the same verse of St. Jude, it seems plain that dmaras of the Received text cannot be accepted as true, as well because it affords so poor a meaning in connexion with évtrpypdvtes and cvvevwyovpevor, as because the later writer must have seen dydmais in his model, when he paraphrased it by of év rats dydmas tudv omdAddes cvvevwxovpevor. For this change of two letters we have the support of Cod. A (as corrected by the first hand) and B alone of the manuscripts, but of the versions, the Latin Speculum m which in these later epistles is strangely loose, yet cannot be misunderstood in the present place, the Vulgate, the Sahidic version, the Ethiopic, the Syriac printed with the Peshitto1, and the margin of the Harkleian version. Add to these Ephraem and the Latin author of the tract ‘de singularitate clericorum, both of the fourth century. The little group of cursives 27, 29, and the second hand of 66 read ayvoias ; but dadrais, nescio quo sensu *, still 1 This translation of 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, and Jude, printed by Pococke from Bodl. Orient. 119, well deserves careful study, being totally different in style and character both from the Peshitto and the Harkleian, somewhat free and periphrastic, yet, in our paucity of good authorities just here, of great interest and full of valuable readings. Thus, in this very verse it reads décovpevor (‘being wronged as the hire of their wrong-doing’) with N*BP and the Arme- nian, difficult as it may seem to receive that word as genuine: in ver. 17 it omits eis Tov ai@va with NB and some other versions: in ch. iii. 10 it sides with the Sahidic alone in receiving ody ebpeOqoera (apparently correctly) instead of evpeOnoerar of NBKP, of the excellent cursives 27, 29, 66 secundd manu, of the Armenian and Harkleian margin, where the Received text follows the obvious karaxanoera of AL and the rest, and C hits upon dpavc@qjoovrm in pure despair. 2 Bp. Chr. Wordsworth speaks as though there were a paronomasia, a play on the words dyann and amarn, comparing (after Windischmann) 2 Thess. ii. 10. ‘The false teachers called their meetings dydama, love feasts, but they were mere andra, deceits. Their table was a snare’ (Ps. lxix. 22). This view might be tenable if St. Peter, with whom the paronomasia must have taken its rise, were not the earlier writer of the two, as the Bishop of Lincoln believes he was, as firmly as we do. Perhaps Dr. Westcott’s notion that 2 Peter is a translation, not an original, at least in ch. ii, will best account for the textual variations between it and St. Jude, 400 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. cleaves to the text of Tischendorf and of Westcott and Hort, and to the margin of Tregelles, who in the text prefers dydmais with Lachmann and Westcott and Hort’s margin. Oodd. SA (in its original form) CKLP, all other cursives, the catenas (Cod. 36, &e.), the Bohairic, Armenian, and Harkleian versions also have anaras, and so Theophylact and Gicumenius, but hardly Jerome as cited by Tischendorf. 49. 1 JOHN ii. 23. The English reader will have observed that the latter clause of this verse, ‘but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also, is printed in italics in our Authorized version, this being the only instance in the New Testament wherein variety of reading is thus denoted by the translators, who derived both the words and this method of indicating their doubtful authenticity from the ‘Great Bible’ of 15391. The corresponding Greek 6 duodoyév tov vidy Kal tov tmatépa exer (which appears to have been lost out of some copies by Homoeoteleuton), was first inserted in Beza’s Greek Testament in 15822, it is approved by all modern editors (Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort), and, though still absent from the teatws receptus, is unquestionably genuine. This is just such a point as versions are best capable of attesting. The ‘Great Bible’ had no doubt taken the clause from the Latin Vulgate, in whose printed editions and chief manuscripts it is found (e.g. in am. fuld. demid. tol. harl.), as also in both Syriac, both Egyptian (the Sahidic not for certain), the Armenian, Ethiopic, and Erpenius’ (not the Polyglott) Arabic version. Of manuscripts the great uncials SABC (with P) contain the clause, the later KL omit it. Of the cursives only two of Scrivener’s (182, 225) have it, and another (183) secundd manw: from twelve or more of them it is absent, as also from seven of Matthaei’s: but of the other cursives it is present in at least thirty, whereof 3, 5, 13, 66** (marg.), 68, 69, 98 are valuable. It is also acknowledged by Clement, Origen (thrice), Eusebius, both Cyrils, Theophylact, and the Western Fathers. The younger Cyril, possibly Euthalius, and one or 1 See the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. xxxv, xxxvii. 2 ‘Restitui in Grecis hoe membrum ex quatuor manuser. codicum, veteris Latini et Syri interpretis auctoritate. sic etiam assueto Johanne istis opposi- tionibus contrariorum uti quam saepissimé.’ Beza, N.T., 1582. : CATH. EPISTLES. I JOHN Il. 23; v. 7, 8. 401 two others have dodoyei for the final éyer: the Old Latin m, Cyprian, and Hilary repeat rév vidv kcal before rév marépa éxeu. The critical skill of Beza must not be estimated very highly, yet in this instance he might well have been imitated by the Elzevir editors. 50. 1 JoHN v. 7, 8. “Oru tpets elow of paptupodvres [ev To ovpave, 6 Ilaryp, 6 Adyos, kat 76 “Ay.ov TIvedpa* Kat obror of rpets &v elov. kal rpets elow of aprupovvtes ev TH yn], TO mvEdua, Kal Td Bdwp, kal 76 alua* Kal of tpeis els 7d ev elow. The authenticity of the words within brackets will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by any one whose judgement ought to have weight ; but this result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which helped to keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical studies, and led to investi- gations into collateral points of the highest importance, such as the sources of the Received text, the manuscripts employed by R. Stephen, the origin and value of the Velesian readings, and other points. A critical réswmé of the whole discussion might be profitably undertaken by some competent scholar; we can at present touch only upon the chief heads of this great debate *. The two verses appear in the early editions, with the follow- ing notable variations from the common text, C standing for the Complutensian, Er. for one or more of Erasmus’ five editions. Ver. 7. —év 7 odpavd usque ad tH yn ver. 8, Er. 1, 2.—6 prim. et 1 Horne (Introduction, vol. ii. pt. ii. ch. iii. sect. 4), and after his example Tregelles (Horne, iv. pp. 384-8), give a curious list of more than fifty volumes, pamphlets, or critical notices on this question. The following are the most worthy of perusal: Letters to Edward Gibbon, Esq., by G. Travis, Archdeacon of Chester, 1785, 2nd edit.; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Richard Porson, 1790 ; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Herbert Marsh [after- wards Bp. of Peterborough], 1795; A Vindication of the Literary Character of Professor Porson, by Crito Cantabrigiensis [Thomas Turton, afterwards Bp. of Ely], 1827 ; Two Letters on some parts of the Controversy concerning 1 John y. 7, by Nicolas Wiseman, 1835, for which see Index. For Dr. Adam Clarke’s ‘Observations,’ &c., 1805, see Evan. 61. Add F. A. Knittel on 1 John vy. 7. Professor Ezra Abbot’s edition of ‘Orme’s Memoir of the Controversy on t John v. 7,’ New York, 1866, has not fallen in my way. As elaborate works, on the verses are ‘A new plea for the authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, or Porson’s Letters to Travis eclectically examined,’ Cambridge, 1867, - being the performance of a literary veteran, the late Rev. Charles Forster, whose arguments in vindication of the Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, published in 1838, modern Biblical writers have found it easier to pass by than to refute ; and ‘The Three Witnesses, the disputed text in St. John, considera- tions new and old,’ by the Rev. H. T. Armfield, Bagster, 1883. VOU. II: pd 402 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES, secund. Er. 3. [non C. Er. 4, 5].4+xar (post marnp) C.—7é Er. 3. nvedua &yiov Er, 8, 4, 5.—obro. C.+ es ro (ante ev) C. Ver. 8, ext ts yns C. —16 ter Er. 3, 4,5 [habent CO. Er. 1, 2]. —xal of rpets ad jin. vers. C. They are found, including the clause from év ro otpav@ to éy tn yf in no more than three Greek manuscripts, and those of very late date, one of them (Cod. Ravianus, Evan. 110) being a mere worthless copy from printed books; and in the margin of a fourth, in a hand as late as the sixteenth century. The real witnesses are the Codex Montfortianus, Evan. 61, Act. 84, whose history was described above, p. 1871; Cod. Vat.- Ottob. 298 (Act. 162), and, for the margin, a Naples manuscript (Act. 83 or 173, q. v.). On comparing these slight and scanty authorities with the Received text we find that they present the following variations: ver. 7. amd Tod otpavod (pro év T@ ovtpave) 162. —6 prim. et secund. 84, 162. — rd 84, 162. ava yoy 34, 162. — otro. 162.+®, &c.), though not the printed editions. Andreas knew of the variation without adopting it: Haymo and Bede also mention both readings. Cod. S reads xa@apods Afvous with the Bohairic, and so helped to keep Tischendorf right: Tregelles sets this form in his margin. For Atvoy or Awot'y or Anv- we have all the other manuscripts and other authorities, including BP, that excellent cursive Cod. 95, Primasius. Between the two forms with v we should probably choose Aivodv of B, [7], 14, 18, 92, 97, as Avov seems to belong to the raw material in a rough state. The later Syriac has \iX3 (xi7éva), which admits of no ambiguity. 55. Apoc. xvili. 8. For mémwxe of the Received text, or ménwxay of Lachmann and Tischendorf, Tregelles (whose margin has memréxacw), Westcott and Hort in their text (not margin) have mémrwxav. Dr. Hort has no note on this place, but treats it in his index of ‘ Quotations from the Old Testament’ as a reference to Isa. li. 17, 22 (% miotca ro Totipiov ths mrdcews) and to Jer. xxv. 27 (nlere kal peOUoOnre... Kal recciobe), with the notion of stumbling through drink. What is required to com- plete the parallel in some passage in the Septuagint wherein mentwkay stands alone, whether rod ofvov be in the text or not, and, in the absence of such parallel, sémtwxav must be regarded as incredible on any evidence. Yet mwémrwxay or the virtually identical mentdxacw is found in NAC, in B, 7,8, 14, 25, 27, 29, 91, 92, 94, 95 (méxtwor prima manu), the Bohairie and Ethiopic. ’ The alternative reading mérwxay or reTékaow (wéTwKe 96) occurs in P, 1, 18, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 47, 48, 49, 50, 79, 87, 90, 93, 97, 98, the Latin and later Syriac. Thus the very versions are divided in a case where the omission of a single letter produces so great a change in the sense. 412 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. 56. Apoc. xxi.6. Kal efmé pou, Téyove. eyod elys 7d A kal 76 Here the true reading T'éyovay ‘They are done’ (adopted, with or without elu after éyé, by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Kelly, Archdeacon Lee in the ‘Speaker’s Commentary, Westcott and Hort) is preserved by Cod. A, whose excellency is very conspicuous in the Apocalypse: its compeer C is defective here. The very valuable Apoc. 38 confirms it (yeyévacw), as did 8°, but the whole word was afterwards erased: the interpreter of Irenaeus renders facta swnt, and this is all the support A has. The first hand of 8 with BP, 1,7, 8,11, 12, 13, 26, 27, 31, 82, 33, 35, 47, 48, 79, 87, 89, 91, 92 (heat 14), 93, 96, 97, 98, the Armenian, Origen (quod mireris), Andreas, Arethas, with the Compluten- sian, read yéyova, most of them omitting either the éyé or the éydé ejut which follows. Erasmus was too good a scholar to adopt from Apoc. 1 a meaning for yiyvoua: which it cannot possibly bear, and seems to have got his own reading Téyove (though he recognizes that of Apoc. 1 in his Annotations) from the Vulgate factum est, which is confirmed by Primasius : it probably has no Greek authority whatsoever. ‘The Syriac printed with the Peshitto (commonly assigned to the sixth century) appears, like the hand which followed &°, to omit yéyova, as do the Bohairic — and Ethiopie versions, with lua. of the Vulgate. Those which read yéyova yet retain the following éyé (SBP, 7 and some others) obviously differ from the true reading yéyovay by the single stroke which in uncial manuscripts was set over a letter to represent nu, especially at the end of a line, and so avoid the monstrous rendering necessarily implied in 1, 8, 93, 96, 97, 98, ‘I have become alpha and omega, the first and the last.’ P accordingly puts the proper stop after yéyova. God grant that if these studies shall have made any of us better instructed in the letter of His Holy Word, we may find grace to grow, in like measure, in that knowledge which tendeth | to salvation, through faith in His mercy by Christ Jesus. APPENDIX A. ON SYRIAC LECTIONARIES. A very interesting group of Syriac manuscripts is found in the collec- tions of Syriac MS. Lectionaries which have descended to us. That the number of them is large may be inferred from the fact that thirty-five may be found in the British Museum alone (Catalogue, i. pp. 146-203). Syriac Lectionaries are of two classes, (i) those according to the Greek Use, and (ii) those according to the native Syriac Use. The former, or Malkite Lectionaries, may be dismissed from the present enquiry. They are only Greek works in a Syriac dress, and their value is historical rather than critical }. The true Syriac Lectionaries, whether Jacobite or Nestorian, follow as to their main features the Greek Lectionaries which have been described in our first volume, coming under two main classes, Evangelistaries and Apostolos?. But they present one important contrast. In both families of Syriac descent, the Ecclesiastical year begins with Advent, and not, as in Greek Lectionaries, with Easter ; and in general the arrangement is similar in both, so that the system must at least be of considerably greater antiquity than the days of the schism. In some of the Jacobite copies the text of the Harkleian revision has been substituted for the ancient Peshitto. Some include Lessons from the Old Testament. Some contain a Menology.- In a few instances the Lessons for special festivals form a separate volume. The majority of the Syriac MS. Lectionaries are comparatively late, but others possess an antiquity which, in the case of some MSS., would be considered remarkable. The British Museum copies, Add. 14,485 and 14,486, are each dated a. Gr. 1135=a.p. 824. Others must be referred to the same century. Add. 14,528, foll. 152-228 (an Index), and the leaf in Add. 17,217, appear to be three centuries older. Another sixth century MS., Add. 14,455 (the Four Gospels), contains many Rubrics, a pr. m. in the text, besides those in the margins by later hands, such as occur in MSS. of all ages. When to these facts we add the consideration already mentioned, that the same system was in use in 1 For a very full and clear account of a MS. of this class, the reader may con- sult an article by Prof. Isaac H. Hall in the ‘Journal of the American Oriental Society,’ vol. xi, No. 2, 1885. 2 It is not meant that these terms occur as titles. Apostolos (hanna) as applied to a book means the fourteen Epp. of St. Paul. ZEvangeliom, in the sense of Evan- gelistary in a title, is quoted in ‘Thesaurus Syriacus.’ But many liturgical terms were borrowed from the Greeks, especially by the Maronites. For a succinct account of Greek and Latin Service Books, see Pelliccia’s ‘Polity’ (tr. Bellett, 1883), pp. 183-8: for the Syriac system, see Etheridge’s ‘Syrian Churches,’ pp. 112-6. 414 APPENDIX B. both branches of the Syrian Church, we see the importance of the testimony of works of this class. They are very ancient ecclesiastical records from the unchangeable East. Like Greek Lectionaries, they are difficult to use, because of their arrangement of Lessons in the succession ordered by the calendar: they are of course public documents, and in consequence possess an importance above that of copies which were in many cases the property of private persons, and may have been care- lessly and cheaply prepared. Yet it would not be right to claim for copies of a version a position quite as important as that held by the Greek service-books, since the evidence of versions, as well as of quota- tions in ancient writers, is only subsidiary. Nevertheless, in the fact that the number of ancient Greek copies of the New Testament is rela- tively small as compared with the early copies of the Peshitto version, we are warned not to underrate Syriac Lectionaries, though they are of less value for the Syriac, on account of the large number of very ancient and well-written copies which have come down to us, such as those which have been enumerated in our account of the materials for ascertaining the text of the Peshitto. APPENDIX B. ADDITIONAL BOHAIRIC MANUSCRIPTS IN EGYPT (1898). Catro 1 [1184] attributed and possible date, fol., chart., ff. 290, 27 x 18-6 (23), xep., Copt. Gr. Am., Hus., pict. Evann. , Copt., restored under patronage of "Athanasius, Bp. of Abutij, 1794, whose statement gives date 900 of the martyrs. Dedication to monastery of St. Antony in the eastern desert ; now in the library of the Patriarch in Cairo, numbered 12 and 14. Ancient writing begins St. Matt. v. 25, continues to St. Luke x. 2. ‘5 begins St. Luke x. 27, * continues to St. Luke xxii. 52. 3 begins St. Luke xxii. 66, + continues to St. Luke xxiv. 53. - begins St. John i. 31, x continues to St. Jchn xix. 24. Cairo 2 [1291], fol., chart., ff. 409, 26-9 x 18 (24, 25), xep., Copt. Gr., Am., Lus., pict. (pictures of SS. Mark, Luke, and John). Evann. Copt. Arab. Written by Deacon Barsuma, mended by Michael of Akhmim, monk of monastery of Siryani (Nitrian), under patronage of Cyril, 112th Patriarch, 1878. Dedication to monastery of St. Persutia, called Al Shahran, 1329; now in the library of the Patriarch in Cairo, numbered 12 and 14. Quires numbered in Syriac. Same text as Paris 15. APPENDIX B. 415 Cairo 3 [xviii], fol., chart., ff. 342, 22-813 (29), Carp. and Lus. t. at end of St. Mark, proll., cep. t., cep., Copt. Gr., Am., Hus., pict. Evann. Copt. Arab. Written by Michael Pilatos, who gives his name in the duplicate book at Alexandria, and who wrote the Epistles and Acts below in 1714. In the library of the Patriarch in Cairo. Text same as Curzon 126. Cairo 4 [1327], fol., chart., ff. 395, 27-5 x 17-8 (27), xed., Copt., Am., Lus., pict. Evann. Copt. Written by Thomas. Dedication to the Church of St. Mercurius in old Cairo, where it now rests. Text of St. Matt. is same as Brit. Mus. 3381. Cairo 5 [1257], fol. chart., ff. 382, 26-419 (25), prol. St. Luke, Capp. Copt. Am., Zus., pict., mut. Evann. Copt. Arab, Mut. St. Matt. i—iv. 5, St. Mark i. 1-7, St. John i. 1-21; a few leaves restored. Written by monk and priest Gabriel, who wrote in the house of Ibn *Assal ; now in the Church of Al Moallagah in old Cairo. Text similar to manuscript of Gottingen. Cairo 6 [1272], fol., chart., ff. 328, 24.917 and 25-7x 18. Epilogue to St. Matt. Kedp., Copt., Am., Hus., pict., mut. Evann. Copt. St. Matt. by more recent writer. SS. Mark, Luke, and John written by original scribe, Simon Ibn Abu Nasr. Text of St. Matt. similar to Bodl. vii, In the Patriarchal Library in Cairo. Cairo 7 [xiv], 4to, St. Luke, restored under Bp. Athanasius of Abutij. Text unimportant. Besides several which are too late to have any critical importance. APOCALYPSE. 1. [xix], folio. Aurxanpri 1 [xviii], fol., paper, duplicate of Cairo 3, by same writer. Evann. 2. [xix], SS. Matt. and Mark. 3. [1861], St. John, Copt. Dayr At Monarrag, nr. Manfalfit on the Nile (station and telegraph Nasali Gantb). 1. [1345], fol., chart., 22-5 x 14-2 (27), Carp.at end. Mut., but fairly perfect, pict., and richly glossed. Text unimportant. Evann. Copt. Arab. St. Pavut, Cars., Acts. 1. [xii?], probably of same date as Evann., Cairo 1, fol., chart., ff. 432, 25:6 x 18-2 (24), xep., Copt. Gr. Thess., Heb., Tim., pect., Copt.: restored Rom. and 1 Cor. i—xvi. 12, copious glosses in Arabic. 2. [xiv], fol., chart., 26x 18-5 (25), ««., Copt. Gr., pect. Philemon, Hebr., Copt. INDEX I. TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATED IN THIS TREATISE, St. Matruew. PAGE fo Ute ae II. 321-3 NAMES osc) vasce Reeeska \v. Tt ee II. 298 _ 22...8; II. 255, 281 RAEELME eefolsicisiele:iie eve .sis cies 13 Shoosoc eee eEeee 302 1S)" hee Oop ll1270 323-5 ARE cccii ceo 302 Wik, @.ccboneseeee eee 13 WAM e cise os0 655 ssi 16 OMe asc ssce soe ses 13 With, Baie 12 SMC Ne icesses ese 17 BEML E etc a .eesssseccnee 12 BOM cciiesesess. 13 SOME coh ccs deen 1 SAE sco es cobs. 9 RIBUOM Ss csccsceesebe II EQRescces sa II. 325-6 Ld, UG soncee ee II 62) 50000 SEES 13 SNe O22) ceccas eee eee 12 OM Selene vss sae II, 14 <2 050006 (NO EREEEEREEEE I Pave 203 ce,,..L1. 326-7 _ 2D SARC II. 302 “vith: Asl eat apeeee II. 255 ” 520.6, a1 ane 175 L1. 281, 327- x20)... Saul, 33° I xis 23 5) OC RSEBOROSEEEES 7903 11. 331- 7 Xxii. a COSC ORCODEECLE EES ra ROARS LO) 55 50s-ssse0s0o. 9 _ 0 17 RIVERS EE iesccgeaes'seaa sis 12 530) eedesoae II. 269 n EEN ALO cccccrscsseseosl 3 VOL. Ir. n indicates note.) XXVi. XXvil. XXVili. PAGE Bi hocdhagaredadooser: 16 AM seacecteres setae 13 Sissi sseitateneres 17 28 IT. 234, 302 BpOeACCOOG adie nabeic I2 AQ scceerers II. 303 Is Bnecdeoud ABO LitON 16 HRN Sodoadbod IT. 303 Sr. Marx 2) BECP ORCA CODKOG0 17 Pe deedOGGOr LU rei Li] Covsemecsccs tee 12 i Robonadoo0nd IT. 299 scapusutaaesaesane II ae LO eect II. 303 LILO apcocdbonsossooc: II 19 opbopoeabeccaccen Io AO na dieon sas II. 318 Braet rere 303 Da laccaectwere: 1M, Byex EY Vaneraacteer 13, 14 1g ...11; II. 336-7 Le boeGu0CORE II. 303 Blobrerentencn eas II DAmear te seater: 12 Baan calor vers sales 17 Boker nest eer IL 303 Hl ASndoatedonr II. 318 3 Ra daoeaaasen see sns 16 2D encase teers ys 12 9-20 ...7; II. 269, Sr. Luxe. TGA nacre II. 344-9 DRG, Stoteatics tives 14 Py esac rahe Aan ORere 17 AVALOS hae stehssceee Aaa Ee (Where the page is given alone, the reference is to the first volume. PAGE EVE: 44 sscaciemees II. 304 Ve B2...cecceccccseenes I2 Alsip codebicnOOcre 12 Wie Tbcassicoeeece een 17 Aopacotogaraceyesoéoc 8 | OBossadnonssec IT. 304 ViPS Utica saeco cceeee: 12 WILLS AOS ueeetoeces TI. 304 IX AQP Hehe Io eT eesees II. 304 22. .ccccecessssrcces 12 EB iekiconeasanchobecacr 14 , 41, 42...IT. 349-50 ios onaaanoce II. 279-81 (BO seessesesereeneees 9 2s EY 6 oop asoonnacnttitc 15 xiv, i Sotiosoododion II. 305 KVioe a Meets II. 305 Kyle L2sss0-. 11; IT. 305 ZO, .ccccsecrcccccess Io KVUS "SO Le eoueeeeseatees: B MVILL1 3) cece ateec ace oseces xxi) 24)... 21. 300; ao XK 37) oeeeee ees 12 43, 44...9; II. 269, 353-6 AW wedeaseone II. 319 XRTg soe eee TI. 306 BY. Mbaodes II. 356-8 EXLV 0 35 O51 Ok 2530540) 42,51...11.299 Sr. Jonn. i, 18,..17; IL. 358-60 28), Saaecersaseneecn 1th sceeeceeves 12 ii. My iatevete seat II. 306 TSE Tae sera II. 360-1 pigs Y Sanoe ganna . LL. 306 vii. PAGE BG? boront 9, 19; Il 361-3. ba gcbnnogueenogsns 10 8 ...17; II. 363-4 BOuocteeesens IL. 306 53—Vili. IT... vii, 19; Il. 364-8 AA Rees ha LETS ALM tetesses II. 307 BOW teat ch II. 307 any 20.tse cen cnzt at 19 BS Mele tteGia'sts dele II. 307 G8 a aeoaits feet I2 DA sor tvmrerde sie 17 Acts On. Se ecaeeise cs Il BBS ivcdwaceae II. 307 Dies ceacnescaas IL. 318 Diy sise satea ets unisieane I AOU macese ces Ta 37...8; IL. 368- a bey 6 (xxvi. 14, 15) pe HEY Scnaccoonaecobens Ke Oe nences sw IL. 308 X1o2O=27's Stl. 3 LS DOs peas II. 370-1 MASS scchece cee II. 308 SAU S Seances TI. 371-2 Bsapocbabe TI. 372-3 BO rrevssseucs Sass 13 XIV On rcrerans eters 14 IN ce ca dotio OS gEGN05 2) VCMT onl Goes ecie II. 299 Nee? eorecces II. 373-4 KV ac eauencwerereeet 14 faORED 7dr 74' KVL 207 ae Be IUGR oKe) SAP PAO) dab 7ily SHE Sa anceaet ee: 14 KS LS cnscomearee ses 19 TOM ese s.cr IT. 309 Ddeece ener eae II. 299 17; I. 374-7 SOM etn II. 309 RXLV NOx Sucre caer I 50-4050) If Se esc aSGn IT. 309 RVI Se nceeea es II. 318 Beaten: IT. 298 n LOs yc ceeree ns E377 SU tarsceonh. IT. 378-9 LVM lS veceersceoes IL. 309 INDEX I, PAGE SCKVIL el Ole eee seen IL. 298 peas Vv. ann fs UI 379 81 Pr aed. I. 310 VII. 2O signee setae iL 319 Barat II. 311 » BBN ar aocobanode boa I5 EKViey Sisco voce ace II. 310 I CoRINTHIANS Vil 2 eenetaer: 118 n KI 24. vce: II. 381-2 20 labicsateevssucntaes 8 29018 Be} cndadomaugdootocs I XUB 3) veseeet II. 382-4 I pososcécane WE oe XV elias Le eye 2 CORINTHIANS, MMB TOj ssc sscecoarar 10 VWiowl Bivciciasssdecee eens 14 WALLS A eisoeleninesicnwc es mais 13 2-0 AGS 8 GainppooeenohCCaade It MULTE“ tasthaecuceuers te 13 BT WM eco tacwas cs II GALATIANS, DU Lenseeceet Ou Liste Wa Yicsogdcecccboncoanaaad 9 EPHESIANS. NOS Bnpsocnion II. 386-7 PHILIPPIANS LS OR eae socaseecer II DD eK saisienctoess II. 387-9 COLOSSIANS. Al. L.Oinesecorens I. 3112 1VelT Gon scceconees II, 310 THESSALONIANS. le teeta est IL. 389-90 TO sc ccusessitenscnsct 12 AIL gLiGusdarsceaveneee 12 Vatduccncnsoaines II. 310 2 THESSALONIANS. berasty 07) 1 TimorHy, PAGE Ly Op oreeeehnesanns 17 ii, 16s; Le. "390- 5 vi. 7 ...13; IL. 395-6 2 TimorHy, IV.. Bi cceanstaesas acess 12 V5 icecevtucensaress 13 PHILEMON. 12 (17).,.13; 11.396 HEBREWS. Ti, Yee ponad 13 Vi. T6;cp eee 14 Vil. Tc yeeneeeets II. 310 XI 20,,eegeee eet tte 13 JAMES 1s (1 7iseaeaeneeene II. 310 IV. 4. cca eeantdenee II. 397 5 vsaxeeenenes II. 397 I PErer. I. 3) D2gcpeesecce cere II 23. ceeneees IT. 397-8 ll. 3 scsseeomestaenee II BTL. sanneteeaeeen sons bibs ULSD i seetstaiteseieniisests It 18... cagimeeseneetecs II 20\.. ssicueaions one O) 21 J. crameeoaneete It IV. 5 onceneaieeen II. 311 V. LO). sccmeeneneeeeae II 13......L1. 398-400 I JOHN. ii. 23 ...9; IL 400-1 iil. Sip geeeee II. 311 n v. 7, 8...8; II. 401-7 TS iieeers II. 407-8 JUDE. A ssdasweeandeeenaee I 5, iwniswwstettouets TI. 409 APOCALYPSE: Il, , 20. Sneeneeteae 14 lil.” 16 scape eeee xill. TOM eee II. 409-10 Vs One Il. 410-1 KVL. 7. westoatawe teens 17 LO; sncosaepageaeeaes Io Xvill. 9 eee II. 411 ZnIGOM, LD. 412 417* APPENDIX C. Additional information, and corrections discovered, since the previous sheets were printed off, P. 4, XVIII. Slavonic (ix). XIX. Two Persie, &e. P. 17, 1. 10, read Encyklopidie fiir Protestantische Theologie und Kirche. Note for des read der P. 29, 1. 6, after Harkleian insert as existing in the North of Europe. dele L, Cod. . . . 7167, &e. On Cod. Mohl. add at end The late Prof. Bensly from this MS. edited Heb. xi. 28—xlii. 25, with a collation with White’s edition, Cambridge, Univ. Press, 1889. P. 30, 1. 26, it exhibits, which P. 45, b. Evangeliarium. Mark xiii, 9-18. c, [xili] P. 47, go. 166 leaves. P. 48, 1. Cod. Rehdigeranus—Rehdiger,. P. 51, a. Raetisches. Gottingische P. 52, h. See also Corssen, Der Cyprianische Text der Acta Apost. Berlin, 1892, P. 62, 11. 12, 18, in which he made, &. This may be questioned. P. 65, n, 2, add See also L. Van Ess, Biblia Sacra, Vulg, ed., substratis lectionibus ex bibliis a, 1590, 3 vol. Tiibingen, 1822-24. P. 68, 9. 38,5617. P. 74, 48. omit written by... Winithar. 53. [xili] P. 75, 57. add This is a Bible, not N. T. P. 76, 66. Canterbury, St, Augustine’s College, Cotton, &c. dele and possibly seis 110, 76). P. 77, 76. dele Bentley’s C. P. 79, 91. [vii or viii]. P. 81, 105. Evangeliarium, i. e. Evst. P. 82, 115. for Royal L. read Univ. Library, Gospels. add at end, See Dobschiitz, Studien zur Texkritik der Vulgata, 1894, P. 87, 164. omit. P. 100, 1. 7 from bottom, was, P. 121, 16. dele as above, no. 6. P. 122, 7. Angelican. P. 147, 1. 14, Rome and Turin. Note 3, Mark i. 1—vi. 30 ;—Gal. i. 7 (except 2 Cor. xiii. 14) ;—Philem. 11-23. P. 152, 1, 23, 5’—émpoontxero. P. 153, Revelation P. 155, no. 22 of the Bibliothéque N. P. 156, at Mount Athos, i. e. at Iveron (Bible Society, 1830, pp. 33-6, Letter from Nicephorus ; Curzon’s Monasteries of Levant, pp. 355-6, 1851; Athelstan Riley, Athos, p. 14). for the collations below read in the writer’s collations (1. 27), and for the accompanying collations read those collations (1. 33) P, 157, ll. 29, 30, for The following read These P. 172, Alcimus, fl. 500. Anastasius, Abbot, fl. 741. Note, dele Here we . .. contains. P. 173, Macarius Magnes, third century (Migne), the fourth (Duchesne, De Macario Magnete, et scriptis ejus, Paris, 1877). Macarius Magnus, see especially Migne, Patrol. 34, and Gallandius Biblioth. Patrum, vii. Mercator... 418. VOL. Ii. 418* APPENDIX C. P. 174, Victor of Tunis, i.e. Victor Tununensis, more correctly Tunnensis, and probably Tunis. See Perez in Migne, 88. Isidore de Viris Illust. c. 38. Zeno... 863. add (1) to the list of Writers :—Apollinarius, fl. 380 ; Apollonius, fl. 210; Barhebraeus, 1286; Basilides, fl. 125; Celsus (in Origen), fl. 178; Diognetus, end of second century; Eucherius, fl. 440; Faustinus, fl. 380 ; Heracleon (in Clem. Alex.), fl. 170; Melito, fl. 170; Priscillian, fourth century; Victor of Capua, fl. 548. (2) to anonymous works :—Speculwm (see p. 48) ; Possinus’ Catena. P. 176, 1. 4, 1504, in an edition of the poems of Gregory Nazianzen. 1. 5, at Tiibingen, first in 1495 in Const. Lascaris’ Erotemata, and afterwards in 1512. P. 186, last line of text, The present writer, i.e. Dr. Scrivener (Mr. Hoskier has supplied this comparison very efficiently. Evan. 604, App. B.) P. 187, n. 6, See however Hoskier, Evan. 604, App. B, p. 2, as to the servility to Erasmus, which he considers very much exaggerated. P. 192, bottom, and 1611 (published after his death). P. 193, note from last page, add See also Hoskier’s Evan. 604, App. B. P. 195, 1. 6, dele iv. 51; for note 1. See Hoskier’s exhaustive collations, Evan. 604, App. C, p. 18. He makes the edition of 1624 more accurate than that of 1633, by 161 times against 58 (19 places being unclassed, i.e. that ‘1633 is less correct than 1624 three times over,’ in breathings, iota subscript, accents and punctuation; in typographical errors, 86 (1633) against 21 (1624); having 14 various readings, including Luke xix. 4; John iv. 14; vii. 42; Acts xvii. 18; Rom. vi. 4; Col. i. 7, and omitting 2 Tim, iv. 51. Note 3, add See Hoskier, Evan. 604, App. B. P. 236, 1. 12, second Leipzig or fourth edition. Dr. Scrivener was mistaken. The dates of the critical editions of Tischendorf’s Greek Testament were (I) 1840 (1), Leipzig, (II) 1842, (III) 1842 (8), both at Paris, (IV) 1848 (9), Leipzig as also the rest, (V) 1855, (VI) 1858, (VII) 1859, (VIII) 1869-72. The valuable ones are I, IV, VII, and VIII. There were other prints, making sixteen in all. P. 338, ll. 1-2, dele No such. ... Cod. &. ‘See Dr. Gwynn’s note I. 94: époBovvro yap is close to the top of the second column of the four, and the rest of the column is left blank.’ (Mr. Hoskier in a letter ; he has a photograph of the passage.) P. 350, 1. 14, after Jerome insert , and in the Book of Mulling, and the Life of St. Pol. de Léon (Berger). 1. 27, dele? P. 362, 1. 5, It is in most of the Vulgate copies, but in fourteen different forms. Armagh, CCCC, 197, Wurtzbourg f. 67, omit it. P. 366, 1. 29, Luke xxi (so also Codex Teplensis (in German) transfers a few words to Luke xvi. 38). P. 367, 1. 32, for g read g” P. 377, 31. cav., Theodulphe, arm., s., have Claude, and Paris Nat Gr. 321 has Claudia. P. 878, 1. 15, There may be a confusion between @ and the numeral for 2. P. 402, 1. 12, dele 88 or P. 404, 1. 9, and one from Priscillian a. p. 385 (Berger). | 1, 20, and in r and a palimpsest of Léon in the seventh century, as also in Cod. Fuldensis in the sixth (Berger). 1, 21, West, such as in Spain under eighty different forms (Berger). P. 412, 1. 22, dele of the Vulgate. P. 422, Ferrar, W. H., the F Group, see (Eyann. 18, 69, 124, 346, 556, 561), 348, 624, 788. INDEX II. OF SUBJECTS. (N.B.—For Greek manuscripts of the N.T. consult Vol. I. Index I. For separate Fathers, see Vol. II. pp. 172-4, and for present owners of MSS., Vol. I. Index I. n indicates note.) &, see Sinaitic. Abbot, Ezra, II. 236, 343 1, 360n. Abbott, T. K., 154-5, 166; IL. 46, 50. Abbott’s group, see Ferrar. Abbreviations in manuscripts, &c., 49- 51, 92, 144, &c. Accents employed in manuscripts, &c., 45-8, Loo. Accretions, II. 249, 291, 362, 369, 374. Acts and Cath. Epist. (Act., Cath.), 63-5, 78. Acus employed by scribes, 27, 129. Adamantius, see Origen. Adler, J. G. C., II. 30, 222, &. &e. African form of Old Latin version, see Versions. Alcuin’s Latin manuscripts, II, 59. Aldus, N.T., II. 187-8. Alexander II of Russia, 32, 91. Alexandrian MS. (A), 97-105; history, 97-98 ; description, 98-101 ; age, 103; written by one hand or more, IoI ; collations and editions, 103-4; charac- ter, 104-105, and passim. Alexandrianisms, 141; II. 224-6, 312, 316-8. Alford, B. H., 147. Alford, H., Dean, 12”, 114 and n; II. 2527 4, 340, 351, and frequently. GAG, when to be edited, 147. Alphabet, Gothic, invented, IT. 146. Alphabet, so Armenian, II. 150. Alter, F. K., N.T. and manuscripts, II. 220, &e. Amanuensis, influence of, IT. 319 1. Amélineau, M., IT. 133-4. Amelli, Guer., IT. 48. Amiatinus, Cod. Lat. (am.), II. 71. Ammonian Oasis and dialect, II, ror. Ammonian sections, 59-63; without Eusebian Canons, 62, 68, 189, and passim. *Avayvacets, 189, 64. *Avayvaopata, 189, 68-9, 75 mI, 139, &e. &. *Avactacipa evayyéAta, 85, Evst. 30, 240; Mark vi. 9-20 read in them, II. 341. Ancient authorities, II. 276-8; often divided, tbid.; see also 240, 359, 300- ii Andreas, Abp., paragraphs, chapters, and summaries of the Apocalypse, 64, 67, Evann. 18, &e. Andreas, priest, Evann. 15, 232, &e. Angelus Vergecius, 44” I. Anglo-Saxon version, see Versions. Antiochene, (supposed) revision of text, II. 287-8. Antony, St., IT. 98-9. Apbhraates, IJ. 20-21, &e. Apocalypse (Apoc.), 78, character of text, 14; wanting in Peshitto, 8; in Bohairic, II. 123; in Sahidic, II. 132 Apocrypha, II. 177. Apocryphal insertions, 8; II. See Western Interpolations. *"AtmootohoevayyéAta, 74. Apostolos or Praxapostolos (Apost.), 74- 27I Nn. 5. Apostrophus, 49, 138, 175; II. 270n. Aquila, II. 272. Arabic versions, II. 161-4; in other MSS., Evan. 211, 240n, Act. 96, Evst. 6, 328; II. 113-23. Aramaean, II. 2, 28, 312-3, 3207. Arethas, Abp., on Apocalypse, 67. Argenteus, Cod, Gothicus, LI. 146. Aristophanes of Byzantium, 46. Ee2 ss 420 ’Apxy and tédos, 76. Armagh, book of (arm.), IT. 74. Armenian version, see Versions. Armfield, H. T., II. 401 n. Article, Coptic, II. 124. Article, Greek, fluctuating use of, 15. Ascetic temper alleged to be traced in manuscripts, II. 2524, 255, 349. Asiatic family of text, II. 212. Asper, value of, 239n. Assemani, J. S., II. 27, 34. Assemani, S.E., II. 30. Assembly of Divines, 10371. Asterisks, 133; IT. 37, 354, 361, 365. Athanasius, Bp. of Kos, II. 96, 100, 102. Athos, Mount, Evann. 905, &c., passim. Augustine, Bp. II. 42-3, 4n, and passim. Aureus, Cod., II. 51. Autographs of the N.T., 2; II. 257-09, 262-3. Available evidence to be used in full, II. 275, &c., 300-1. B and ¥ confounded, 43 ” 2. Baber, H. H., 104. Babington, Churchill, papyri, 22. Balance (nice) of evidence, II. 371-2. Barbarous readings inadmissible, II. 319 nl. Barnabas, St., Epistle of, 96; his apocryphal drodyuia, Evan. 239. Barrett, John, 153-4. Barsalibi, Dion., Bp., II. 18, 27 n, 31. Bashmuric dialect, II. 96, 100; really Middle Egyptian or Middle Coptic, 103. See Versions. Batiffol, P., 166; IT. 51. Bebb, Rey. Ll. J. M., II. 3 1, 145, 158- 61, 1681. Bede, the Venerable, IT. 369. Belsheim, J., Evann. 613-7; II. 46, 48, Bibs eX Bengel, II. 210-13; his paragraphs (mepixonat), 211, I. 2713; families, IL. 211-2; character, 212; Canon, 247, and passim. Bensly, R. S., Prof., IT. 46. Bentley, Richard, II. 204-9 ; his career, 204-5 ; projected edition of N.T., 205- 6; his papers and MSS., 206-9 ; causes of failure, 209; I. 110, 285; II. 65-6, 89, 245 nT, and passim. Bentley, Thomas, 110, 177; II. 207. Berger, M. Sam., II. 66 n, 46. Bernard, Edward, II. 200. Berriman, J., II. 392 n. Bessarion, Jo., Cardinal, 105. Beza, Theod., his N.T., II. 192-3. Bezae, Cod. (D), 124-30; same as Stephen’s B’, 124 3; history, 124-5 ; collations and editions, 126-7, 130; character, 130. INDEX II. Bianchini, Jos., see Index of Facsimiles, Vol. I. Bible, English, margin of Authorized, Il. 3471-2. Bible, Great, II. 400. Bible, Hebrew, first printed, II. 175. Bible, Latin, first printed, II. 61, 175- : Bilingual MSS., see Cod. Bezae (D), Evan. A, Act. E, Paul. D, Paul. F, Paul. G. Binding, manuscripts used for, gI, 151, 159, 171, 183. Birch, Andr., II. 220-2; r1o-111, &c. Birks, T. R., Canon, II. 282 n 2. Blakesley, J. W., Dean, IT. 351, 352. Bloomfield, S. T., see Index II, Vol. I. Bobbio, II. 146. Bodleian Euclid, 42. Boetticher, P. (Lagarde), II. 283 n. Bottiger, 180. Bohairic or Memphitic dialect, see Versions (Coptic). Bosworth, Dr. J., Anglo-Saxon Gospels, II. 165. Bowyer, W., II. 245 n. Bradshaw, H., 151, 189 x. Breathings in manuscripts, 45-8, 100, &e. Breves, sce TitAo.. Bright, J. W., Dr., 145, 164-5. Broadus, J. A., II. 342. Brown, D., II. 329n. Bruce, Ja., the traveller, II. 129. Brugsch, 917; II. 97. Burgess, Bp., IT. 407. Burgon, J. W., Dean, his enlargement of the study, 78-9; his letters to the Guardian, 189”; II. 338; use of quotations from the Fathers, II. 167— 71; his great book on ‘The Revision Revised, 167; also I. 120 2, 240-1 (his enlargement of the list in ed. 3), 251; 252, 255, 256; II. 2821, 301, 327, 341, 343% 2, 345, 357 2 2, 303 2 I, 368 n 3, 395, and passim. Buttmann, Phil., II. 231-3. Byzantine revision of text (?), II. 224, 229. 109, Caesarea, library of, II. 266-9. Calendar, Greek, 80-9. Cambridge Texts, Greek Testament, 19. Canonici, M. L., library of, 246. Canons of Comparative Criticism, see Comparative Criticism. Canons of Internal Evidence, see In- ternal Evidence. Capernaum, its orthography, IT. 315. Capitals, 29, 51-2, and passim, and description of plates. OF SUBJECTS. Caro, Hugo de 8., Cardinal, 69. Carolinus, Cod. Gothicus, II. 146. Carpianus, Epistle to, &c., 60-3, 189, and passim, Carshunic characters, II. 30. Casley, II. 65, 89. Catena, 67, and passim. ome Ante 120 nay Ll. RO, 2: Ce Chapters, see Sections. Chapters, Latin or modern, 69-71, 68. Charles the Great, Emperor, II. 59. Christian VII of Denmark, II. 220. Church, the, the Keeper of Holy Writ, II. 252, 296 1. Church Lessons, Apostolos. Cilicisms, II. 317. Citation of O.T., marks of, 64 », &c. Classes, six, of manuscripts, 77-8. Clement of Alexandria, II. 262-3. Clement of Rome, Epistles, gg. Clement VIII, his Vulgate, II. 64-5. Cobet, C.G., 11372; IL. 253 n, 263 ”1. Codex Britannicus, Evan. 61. Codex Friderico-Augustanus, 31 &c., O. Erriaos, 28. Coislin, Bp., his Library, Evan. H. Coislin, his Octateuch, Evan. F*. Colbert, Pentateuch, &., LX X (Paris), same MS. as Cod. Sarravianus, which see. Coleridge, S. T., II. 25873. Colinaeus, S., his N.T.; II. 188. Columns in manuscripts, 28, and passim. Comes, Latin Church Lessons, II. 341 N 3. Commentary (épyjvea), (a) of Andreas or Arethas, 67, 64, (b) Chrysostom, 242, &., (ec) Theophylact, 242, &c. Comparative Criticism, II. 274-301 ; its nature, 274-5; completeness of comparison essential, 275-6; cannot be contined to a few authorities, 276-8 ; even to the oldest, 278-81; Band N not infallible, 281-4; Westcott and Hort’s theory unsound, 284-97, being on explanation (285-90), destitute of historical foundation (290-2), of critical groundwork (292-3), of Ante-Nicene authority (293-5), of internal pro- bability (295-6), and of confirmation when applied to passages (302-11) ; true view, 297-301, Complete copies of N.T., 72. Complutensian Polyglott, II. 176- 181; deviser of, 176; character, 177- 8; MSS. used for, 178-180; text, 180- 181, and passim. Conflate readings (so-called), II. 292-3. Confusion of certain vowels and diph- thongs, 10. see Evangelistaria, 421 Confusion of uncial letters, Io. Conjectural emendation inadmissible, II. 244-7. Constantine, Emperor, 118 n 2. Contents of MSS., 71-72. Conybeare, F. C., II. 145, 148-54, 156-8. Cook, F. C., Canon, II. 2837, 325, 356. Coptic (or Egyptian) language, its dia- lects and versions, II. 91-144. See Versions. _ Copying, mistakes in, 10; additions in, 13. Corrector (d:0pAw77s), 54-5. Correctoria, II. 60. Correctorium, Bibl. Lat., Evan. 81. Corruptions of text in second century, II. 259-65. Corssen, Dr., 182; II. 51, 66. Cotton fragment of Genesis, 32-40. Cotton paper (bombycina), 23. Courcelles, Stephen, II. 198. Cowper, B. H., 104; II. 391. Coxe, H. O., 240, 297 n, 3247, &e. Cozza-Luzi, Joseph, 116-19. Cramer, J. A., II. 128. Cranbrook, Karl of, II. 171. Crawford, Karl of, his Library, IT. 114, 121, 132. Critical editions, 196-243. Critical revision a source of various readings, 16-17. Crito Cantabrigiensis (Turton, T., Bp.), Il. 401 n, 403 n. Crowding of letters, 41, 51, 132, &c. Crum, W. E,, IT. 143-4. Cureton, W., Canon, 8. See Versions. Curetonian, see Versions. Cureton’s Homer, 44. Cursive letters, described, 29, 30; earliest cursive biblical MS., 411; earlier MSS. still, 42. Cursive manuscripts, their critical value, Il. 277, 297-301. Curzon, Hon. R. (Lord de la Zouche), and his Parham MSS., 240, 252; II. 114-5 ; 119, 122. Cyril Lucar, see Lucar. Damasus, Pope, II. 56-7. Dated manuscripts, 41-2. See Indiction. Davidson, §S., ll. 292. Deane, Rev. H., II. 6, 29. De Dieu, L., Il. ro. Delitzsch, F., II. 1801, 18471. Demotic writing, II. 92, 97. Designed alterations alleged in text, 17 ; II. 259, 327, 363. Dialectic forms, II. 312-20; grounded on tle Hellenistic dialect, 312-3; effect of Hebrew Aramaic, 313; v épeAxv- omikov, 314-5; harsher forms in older 422 INDEX II. MSS., 315-6 ; variations in grammatical forms, 316-8; other dialectic forms, 318-20; I. 14. Dickinson, John, 126. Dictation, 10; Il. 319 n. Dio Cassius, the Vatican MS., 28 n 2. Diocletian’s persecution, II. 266, 104 v1. Dionysius, Bp. of Corinth, IT. 259. Dioscorides, the Vienna MS., 46, 164. Divisions of N.T., see Sections. Divisions,Slavonic, IT.158. See Versions. Dobbin, Orlando, 120, Evann. 58, 61. Doctrinal corruption, 17; II. 327, 407. Donaldson, J. W., II. 2103, 314, 315 2. Dorisms in N.T., II. 310, 318. Duchesne, Prof., 166. Ecclesiastical writers, see Fathers. Eclogadion, 77; list throughout the year, 77, 80-7. See Synaxarion. ‘Edinburgh Review’ (Tregelles in), IT. 2I0nt. Egyptian versions of N.T., see Versions. Ellicott, C. J., Bp., II. 253, 384, 392. Ellis, A. A. (Bentleii Crit. Sacra), IT. 206, 207, 209. Elzevir editions of N.T., II. 193-5. Embolismus, IT. 325 7 2. Emendation and recension distinguish- ed, II. 245-6. Engelbreth, W. F. (Bashmuric), IT. 131. Ephraem Syrus, II. 20-1. Ephraemi, Cod. (C), 121-24; palim- psest, 121; history, 121-2; described, 122-4. Epiphanius, Bp., II. 270. Erasmus, Desid., II. 182-7; first editions of Gr. Test., 182-5; other editions, 185; their character, 185-7, &c. &c. Erizzo, F. M., Count, IT. 31. Ernesti, J. A., II. 216. Erpenius, T., Arabic version, II. 162-3. Estrangelo character, IJ. 9, 14, 37. Ethiopic version, see Versions. Euchology, 75, 80. Euclid, dated manuscript of, in the Bodleian, 42. Eumenes, king of Pergamus, 24. Eusebius, 120; IT. 266-7, &c. ; letter to Carpianus, 60-3, 189. *‘Eusebian’ canons, 59-63; 189, and passim. ‘ Eusebian ’ canons, tables of, omitted in many MSS., 62. Eustathius of Antioch, 53. Euthalius, Bp., 63-4, 53, 190, and passim. See Sections. . Evangelia (Evan.), 78. Evangelistaria (Evst.), the term used in modern Greek catalogues; 11, 74- 5» 327, &e. Fabiani, H., Canon, 118. Facsimiles of MSS., 104. Families of MSS., Bengel’s theory, IT. 211-12; Griesbach’s, 224-6; Hug’s theory of recensions, II. 270-2; Scholz’ theory, 229-30. Fathers, value of citations from, II. 167-71: drawbacks, 168; list of, with dates, 171-4. Fayoumic version, IT. 140. See Versions. Fell, John, Bp., II. 199-200, 106, 169. Ferrar, W. H., the F. group, see (Evann. 13, 69, 124, 346, 556, 561) 192, 255, 624. Field, Dr., Il. 71, 347 1. Fleck, F. F., 121. Folio, see Form. Forbes, G., 50. Ford, Henry, II. 131. Foreign matter in manuscripts, 66-7, passim under MSS. Form of manuscripts, 28. Forster, C., 129”; II. 401-7. Frankish version, II. 165. Friderico-Augustanus, 90-1, 33-9. Froben, J., Il. 182-5. Gabelentz, H. C. de, and J. Loebe, II. 147. Gale, Th., Dean, 48. Gebhart, Oscar von, 164. Genevan N.T., 71. Georgian version, II.156-8. See Versions. Gildemeister, II. 162-4. Giorgi, A. A., II. 128. | Glosses, marginal, &c., II. 249-50. Gold, used in writing, 27. Golden Evangelistarium, 88 n 2. Gospels, divisions of, see Sections. Gothic version, II. 145-8. See Versions. Goulburn, Dean, 171. Grammatical forms, peculiar, II. 312- 20, 181. Greek era in dated manuscripts, 42 n 2. Green, T. S., II. 249. Gregory, Dr. Caspar René, 79, 241-2, 272-83, 303-5, 317-9, 325-6, 350-65, 373-6, 384-9, App. A; II. 3207, and passim, especially under Cursive MSS. Griesbach, J. J., II. 222-226; 170, 196, 216, 249, 251; his N.T., 223; theory of families and recensions, 224— 6; character, 226; 272 n, 285, 290. Grimthorpe, Lord, II. 248 n 2, Grouping of authorities, II. 297-300, 279-80, Guidi, II. 154. Gutbier, Giles, Peshitto N.T., II. 10. Gwilliam, Rev. G. H., II. 6, 12, 13, 34, 36. Gwynn, J., Dean, 94; II. to. Haddan and Stubbs, IT. 50. a eg OF SUBJECTS. Hagen, H., II. 51. Hall, Dr. Isaac H., II. 27 n, 175 n, 193 n, 196. Hammond, C. H., 181; II. 379. Hands of MSS. changed, 96, 101n1, 337- Hansell, E. H., 170. Harkel, Thomas of, II. 25. Harley, R., Earl of Oxford, 175. Harmonies of the Gospel History, 67 7 4, 190. See Eusebian Canons. Harnack, A., 164. Harris, J. Rendel, 130, I51, 203, 255, Appendix D; II. 34, 51, 163, 172, 306 n 2, &c. Hartel, IT. 54. Headlam, Rey. A. C., II. 91-144. Hearne, Th., 170. Hebrew Bible first printed, II. 175. Hebrew (or Jewish) Gospel, 161; II. 152, 259n1. Hebrews, Ep. of, place in N.T., 74, 57, 99. Hellenistic dialect, II. 312-20. Hentenius, John (Louvain Lat. Bible), II. 62-4. Herculanean papyri, 21, 22, 33, 42, 44, 47, 108. Hermas, 66, 67. Hesychius of Egypt, IT. 268, 270-1. Hieratic writing, II. g1-2. Hieroglyphic writing, II. 91-2. Hieronymus, see Jerome. Homer and his manuscripts, 4, 44, 45, 59, 145- Homoeoteleuton, 9. Horne, T. H., Introduction and Tre- gelles’ edition, II. 485, and passim. Hort, #. J. A., Il. 242-3; I. 182; II. 244, 313 n 2, 3331, 3371, and passim, Hort, Westcott and, II. 284-97; their views explained, 285-90; compared with those of Griesbach, 290-1 ; desti- tute of historical foundation, 291 ; examination of the three reasons of the two Revisers, 293-4; these views un- sound, 296-7 ; 242-3, 273. Hoskier, H. C., 191, 251. Hug, J. L., 107, 111, 120; his system of recensions, II. 229, 270-2. Hutter, Elias, Peshitto N.T., I. 10. Hyperides, papyrus fragments of, 22, 34-41, 45, &e. Iberian version, IT. 156-8. See Georgian. Ignatius, St., 257. Indiction, I. Append. C; 42 n 2, 156. Ink, 26-7, black and coloured, ibid. Insertion of glosses, 13. Internal evidence, Il. 244-56; not solely conjectural, 244-7; textual canons, 247-50. 423 Interpolations, various readings arising from, 7-9; II. 249. Interpolations for liturgical use, 327. Tota, ascript and subscript, 44-5. Irenaeus, St., II. 261. Irish monks at St. Gall, 158, 180. Isaiah, Dublin MS., 154. Itacism, 10-II, 17. Itala, 44, 55-6; IT. 42. Italics of English Bible, 9, 400. Jablonsky, IT. 100, 119. Jackson, John, 126. Jebb, R. C., II. 209n. Jerome, II. 268-70; recklessness in statement, 355. See Vulgate, and passim. Jerusalem, Convent of Cross at, 240. Jerusalem, Palestinian or J, II. 30-4. See Versions. Jude, St., followed 2 Pet., II. 398-9. Junius, Fr., II. 147. Twdwvys, orthography of, IT. 316. Kai abridged, 15, 16 and n. Karkaphensian, 35-6. See Versions. Kaye, Bp., Il. 2587 3. Kelly, W., 702, 343 1. Kennedy, B. H., Canon, II. 300n. Kedddata, see Sections. Kipling, T., Dean, 126. Kitchin, G. W., Dean, 152. Koriun, IT. 148 n, &c. Kuenen, A., see Cobet, C. G. Kuster, L., 122; II. 203-4. La Croze, II. 100, 119. Lachmann, C., II. 231-5, 245, 285 ; his system, 231-2; unsoundness of it, 232-4, 273, 276, &c.; his character, 234-5 ; 170, 256, and passim. Lagarde, P., see Boetticher. Lanfranc, Abp., II. 60. Latinizing, 130,182; IT. 180, 215. Laud, W., Abp., 170. Laurence, R., Abp., IT. 226. Leaning uncial letters, 41, 144, 151, 155, &c. Lectionaries of N.T., 74-7; system, age of, 75 and » 2, 190, See Evange- listaria, Apostolos. Lectionaries, Syriac, II. Append. A. Lectionaries of Old Testament, 76, 329 n, &e. Lee, Edw., Abp., II. 186. Lee, Sam., Peshitto, II. 11. Le Long, J., II. 104, 191. Lent, Lessons for, 84-5. Leusden and Schaaf’s Peshitto N.T., 1H 3G & Lewis, Mrs., discovery of an old Syriac MS,, IT. 14, 17, 37. Liddon, H. P., D.U., IT. 2521. 424 Lightfoot, J. B., Bp., on the Coptic versions, II. 91-139, &c. Line set over Proper Names, Evan. 530. Linen Paper (charta), 23, 189. Linwood, W., II. 245 n 2. Liturgical notes, sce dvayvwopara, Lect., apxn and rédos, 189-90, &c. &c., 11-12. Lloyd, C., Bp. (N.T., Oxon.), 60, 67-8. Adyot, 68. Louvain Vulgate, see Hentenius. Luear, Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, and afterwards of Constantinople, 97-8. Mabug, IT. 25. Mace, W., his N.T., II. 210. Madden, Sir F., 21, 44. Magee, W., Abp., II. 251. Mahaffy, J. P., 166. Mai, Angelo, Cardinal, 111 m 2, 112-15. Malan, 8.C., D.D., 772; II. 3, 322, 1201, 146n 2, &c. Manuscripts— (1) Greek. See Index I, Vol. I: con- taining the whole Greek Testament, 72 and m 1; containing the four Gospels complete, 136. (2) Syriac, II. 12-13, 29. (3) Latin. (a) Old Latin (a, b, ec, d, &e.), II. 45-54. (b) Vulgate, II. 67-90; various notations (Tischendorf, am., and., bodl., cav., &c.), 89-90. (4) Coptic. (a) Bohairic, II. 110-23. (6) Sahidic, II. 132-6. (5) Gothic (Argenteus, Ambrosiani), II. 146-7. (6) Armenian, II. 153-4. Marcion, heretic, II. 259-60. Margoliouth, Prof. D.G., II. 145, 154-5, 161-4. Marsh, Herbert, Bp., 127; II. 401 n, 407. Marshall, Th., II. 106, 147. Martianay, D. J., II. 46, 47. Martin, Abbé, 242, 269-72, 302, 317, Append. A; IT. 281. Maprupta, II. 192, 194. Martyrs, era of, 98, 10o4nt. Mary Deipara, St., convent of, 145. Materials for writing, 22-6. Matthaei, Ch. F., II. 216-20; I. 75, 172; his accuracy, II. 216; his colla- tions, 217-8; mode of controversy, 218-9. Marfatos, orthography of, II. 316. Mazarin Bible, Il. 61, 175. McClellan, J. B., 347 ” 2. Memphitic version (see Bohairic), Menology, 76-7; list of, throughout the year, 87-9. Mesrop, St., II. 148-53, 156. Carolinus, IgI, INDEX II. Michaelis, J. D., II. 13, 180, 216, 321. Mico, Abbate, 110-11, Middleton, T. F., Bp., 15; II. 182 2, 321, 331 2. Mill, Dr. J., II. 200-3; his career, 200-1; character of his services, 201-2; his MSS., 202-3; his Prolegomena, 203. See also I. 122; II. 106, 169, and passim. : Miller, Edward, II. 32, 24” 2, 256n, 325 22. Miller, Emmanuel, 222, 273, I. Index II, &c. Milligan, Wm., II. 346. Mingarelli, J. A., II. 128, 129. Moldenhawer, D. G., II. 221, 222, &c. Monasteries, Egyptian, II. 99. Montfaucon, Bernard de, 21, 134, and passim. Morning hymn, Greek, II. 345. Moses of Chorene, II. 149, &e. Moulton, W. F., II. 319-20. Moveable type, supposed cases of, 140 ; II. 146. Mozarabie Church Lessons, II. 341” 3. Minter, M. F., II. 129. Muralt, Edw. de, edition of B, IIo, 244. Musical or vocal notes in red, passim under Evst. N, abridged form of, 50. v ébeAkvotiKdv or attached, 139; II. 181, 185, 314-5, &c. Nablous, copy of Samaritan Pentateuch at, 282. WNazarenes, Gospel of, 161. Nazareth, its orthography, II. 315. Neubauer, Dr., II. 320 n. Nicholson, E. B., 245, 341 ; Il. 322” 2, Bai. N ee Prof. of Hebrew, Oxford, 98. Nitrian desert, manuscripts from, 145. Nolan, Dr., II. 267. Northumbria, MSS. written in, IT. 59. Notation of manuscripts of N.T., 77-8. Obeli, II. 26 1, 323, 365-6, &c. Oblak, II. 159. Oecumenii imodéces to N.T., &., 67, also under the MSS. Old Latin Biblical Texts, IT. 48, 49, 50. . Old Latin version, see Versions, Omissions, 7, 15. Order of books in N.T., 72-4; Western order, 73 2, Evan. 461. Order of words, variations in, 9. Origen, fanciful biblical speculations, II. 262-3, 266, 269-70, 271. Origen, his Hexapla, II. 266. Orme’s memoir of 1 John vy. 4, IL. 401 n. ‘ OF SUBJECTS. Orthodox readings, not improbable, IT. 251-2. Orthography of manuscripts of N.T., II. 312-20. Ostromir Gospels, IT. 159. Palaeographical Society, I. App. B. Palestinian, see Versions. Palimpsest described, 25; double, 141. Palmer, E., Archdn., 1193; II. 208, 243. Pamphilus, Martyr, and his library, II. 266-7. Paper, cotton and linen, 23. Papyrus, 23-4; MSS. on, 33; of Hyperides, 41, 44, 48. See Hercula- nean Rolls. Paradiplomatic evidence, II. 253-4. Paragraph, 128. See Sections. Parchment, 23-6; dyed purple, 26. Paronomasia, IT. 399 2. Particles omitted or interchanged, 14. Patriarchates, the five, 67, Evan. 211. Paul, Acts of, 97. Pauline Hpistles (Paul.), ancient divi- sions of, 64-6, 78. Penn, Granville, 151. Pens, different instruments used for, 27. Pericopae of Church Lessons, 11, 75. See Bengel. Pericope adulterae, 81 n, 99 m 2. Persic versions of N.T., II. 165-6. See Versions. Peshitto, II. 6-14. Sce Versions. Petrie, Dr. Flinders, IT. 143. Philodemus epi cama@v, 30, 33, 44. Philoxenian Syriac, II. 25-9. See Versions, Harkleian, Philoxenus or Xenaias, Bp., IT. 25. Pictures in MSS., 190, and passim. Pierius, II. 269. Pius IV, IT. 63. Plantin, Greek N.T., II. 181; Peshitto N.T., IT. 9. Plato, dated manuscript of, in the Bodleian, 42. Pocock, Edw., IT. 165. Pocock, Rev. Nicholas, 182. Pococke, Richard, IJ. 26. Polyglott, Antwerp (Plantin), II. 9. Polyglott, Bagster’s, II. 11. Polyglott, Complutensian (see Complu- tensian), II. 176-81. Polyglott, London (see Walton), II. 163. Polyglott, Paris, IT. 10. Porson, R., IT. 406. Porter, J. Scott, II. 31, 228. Praxapostolos, see Apostolos. Printing, invention of, II. 61, 175. TIpoypappara, Evan. 597. Prologues, 67, 68, 190, and passim. ¢ Psalms of Solomon,’ 99. 425 Psalters, Greek, first printed, IT. 175. Psalters, MS. on papyrus, 46. Punchard, EH. G., Il. 248 n 2. Punctuation, 48-9, and passim. Purple and gold or silver manuscripts, 24. Pusey, Philip E., IT. 12, 18, 19. Quarto, see Form. Quaternion, see orm. Quatremére, see Coptic. Quotations from Fathers, II. 167-74. See Fathers. Quotations from Old Test. in New, 12-13. Received Text, Il. 264; founded on what editions, II. 195 3, 193” 1. Recension, false, 16-17; recensions, see Families. Reed used for writing, 27. Reiche, J. G., II. 283 n. ‘Prpara or pyres, 65, 68-9, App. D. Rettig, H. C. M., 157. Reuchlin, J., ton. Reuss, Ed., II. 175 », 181, &c. Revised Text, II. 243. Revisers, the two, II. 292-6. Rhythm, cause of various readings, IT. 254. Ridley, Gloucester, IT. 27. Roberts, Alex., 181; II. 248 NI, 3200. Rolled manuscripts, 28-9. Rénsch, H., IT. 54. Rosetta stone, 31, &c. Rulotta, Abbate, 110. 244 0 2, =, the weak, II. 315. Sabatier, P., II. 42. MSS. ZaBBaroxupraxatl, 328, &c. Sahak, St., 148, &e. Sahidic or Thebaic dialect and version, II. 119-39. See Versions. Sakkelion, A. I., 272. Sanday, Dr., II. 48, 127, 293. Sarravianus, Cod. LXX, 49, 51; II. 378. Part of the Colbert Pentateuch. Schaaf, Ch., and Leusden, J., Peshitto ND lee LOM Loss Schmeller, J. A., Frankish version, IT. 165. Scholz, J. M. A., 240; II. 226-30; labours, 227; character, 228; theory of families, 229-30, and passim. Schulz, D., II. 48, 228. Schwartze, M. G., Bohairic N.T., &c., II. tor-3. Scott, C. B., D.D., IT. 198. Scribes, chiefly clergy or monks, IT. 252. Beiceher: F. H. A., his Collations, sce See under Lat, 426 Vol. I. Index II ; edition of D, 127, &c.; of Cod. Augiensis, 177-8; of Revised Gr. Text, II. 243; of ‘ Adver- saria et Critica Sacra,’ I. App. I, I. 252. See also IL. 79, 195 ” 3, 243, and passim. Sections, (1) in B, 56-7; (2) greater, 57-8; (3) ‘Ammonian,’ 59-63; (4) Euthalian, 63-4; (5) other, 64-5. Semicursive letters, Evan. M, 274. Semler, J. S., I]. 211, 215. Signatures of sheets, 28, 164. Silver, used in writing, 27. Silvestre, M. J. B., Paléographie Uni- verselle, 21, &c., App. C. Simonides, Constantine, 94-7. Sinaitic MS. (N), 90-7; discovery of, go-1; description, 91-3; age, 94-53 derived from a papyrus, 95; imposture of Simonides, 95-7; character of, 97 ; II. 267-8. Sionita, Gabriel, Peshitto N.T., &c., II. to. Sixtus V, Pope, his Latin Bible, II. 63-5. Skeat, W. W., IT. 148, 164. Slavonic, II. 158-61. See Versions. Slips of the pen, a source of various readings, 16. Smith, R. Payne, Dean, II. 354. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, II. 103. Specimens of four Syriac versions of N.T., Il. 38-40. Specimens of the Coptic, II. 128, 139. 142, 144. ‘Spectator,’ No. 470, II. 345 ». Spelling, variations in, 14. Standish, II. 186. Stephen, Henry, 7o. Stephen, Robert, II. 188-92; 124-6, 137; II. 61-2, 196. Stephen, Robert, editions, II. 188-9 ; MSS. used by him, I. 124 n 3, 191, 192, 196, Act. 8, Act. 50, Apoc. 2. Stichometry, 52-4, 65, 68-70, 137, J. App. D, and passim. Stilus, 27, 137. Zrixor, see Stichometry. Stops, their power varies with their position, 48, 137. Storr, G. C., II. 163. Streane, A. W., II. 241. Stunica, J., Lopez de, II. 405. Style, change of, no decisive proof of spuriousness, II. 342. Subjunctive future, IT. 384. Subscriptions, 55, 65-6, passim under MSS. Suicer, J. C., 531, 144. Sulci or Sulca, 63. Swete, Dr., II. 286, 3934. I. 7o-1, 184, 186, Igo, and INDEX II. Synaxarion, 77 and 71; list of Lessons throughout the year, 80-7. Synonyms interchanged, 13. Syriac Evangelistaries, II. 32, App. A. Syriac language and dialects, II. 6-8, 312-3. Syrian Christians, sects of, II. 6-33. Syro-hexaplar version, II. 13 1. Tatham, Edw., II. 402 n 2. Tatian’s Diatessaron, 12, 57, 59, &e. Tattam, H., Archd., II. r1o. Taylor, Isaac, 18 7 2. Tentative process 264-5. Tertullian, IT. 257. Textual Canons, IT. 247-56. Textual criticism and its results, 4-7 ; IT. 257-301. Textus receptus, see Received Text. Thebaic, see Sahidic. Thecla, St., 101-2. Theodora, or Theodosia, St., 87 and n 2. Theodulphus, Bp., II. 59. Theophylact, see Commentary. Thompson, EH. Maunde, 22, 102, 104, 147», App. C. Thorpe, Benj., Anglo-Saxon Gospels, II. 165. Tischendorf, II. 235-8; his a edi- tions, 235-6; texts, 236-8; I. 115-7, 122, 155-6, 159- 60, 163; IL. 89, 163, 248, 282; collations, see Vol. I. Index II, and passim, Titles of the books, 65. Titdor, 57-9, 68, 190, passim MSS. Todd, H. J., Archd., Catalogue of ~ Lambeth MSS., 249. Traditores, II. 266. Transcription, see Copying. Transposition of sentences, 12. Transposition of words, &e., g-10 Travis, G., Archd., II. 401 n, 406 and DA Tregelles, S. P., 18 m1, 1113; IT. 238- 41; bis books, 239; texts and colla- tions, 240; his system, 240-1; life, 241; 170, 231-2, 246, 255, )27a.mees 328, and passim. See also for Colla- tions, Vol. I. Index II. Tremellius, Im., Peshitto N.T., II. 9. Trent, Council of, II. 63. Tprodyvov, 103. Trost, Martin, Peshitto N.T., IT. 10. Tiibingen edition of John i-yi, II. 176. Tuki, R., Bp., IT. 128. Two Revisers, IT. 292-6. Tychsen, O. G., II. 221, 222. Tyler, A. W., IL. 383. Tyndale, W., II. 1861. Typicum defined, 144, Evan, 608. commended, II. under OF SUBJECTS. Ulphilas or Ulfilas, Bp., IT. 145. Uncial letters, described, 29-30; mis- takes in, 10; how distinguished as to age, 31-40; compressed uncials, 137 ; mixed with cursives, 1421. Uncial MSS., list of, 90-188, 3; Evst., 328. “rroSiatpemets peptcal (subdivisions of chapters), 64 ” 2, Ussher, James, Abp., II. 10, 197-8. Utrecht Psalter, the, 28 1 2. Valla, Laurentius, 205. Vansittart, A. A., 152, 278 n. Various readings defined, 3; different classes, 7-17. Vatican MS. (B), 105-121, sections of, 56-7, 68; history, 105; description, 105-9; collations and editions, 109-19 ; age, 105, 118223; character, II. 268. Vaughan, C. J., Dean, II. 2971. Vellum, manufacture of, 22-5. Vercellone, C., 56, 112, 113, 116-18. Vermilion paint («vvdBapis), 61. Verses, Greek or Latin in MSS., 192, passim under MSS, Verses, modern in N.T., 68, 70-1. Versions, 1-5; use and defects, II. 2-3; various early, 3-4. 1. Syriac : (1) Peshitto, IT. 6-14; dates prob- ably from the second century, II. 4, 264; printed edd., II. 8-12; new one by P. E, Pusey and G. H. Gwilliam, Peshitto MSS., II. 12-13; why so called, II. 13% (2) Curetonian, IT. 14-24 ; first dis- covery, II. 14; second, II. 14; publication by Cureton, 11; com- mon origin of Peshitto and Cureto- nian, IJ. 16; Peshitto the older, Il. 17-24. (3) Harkleian or Philoxenian, II. 25-9 ; made first by Xenaias, or Philoxenus, 25; next, collated by Thomas of Harkel, edd. of, 26- 8; character, 28; MSS. of, 29; Mr. Deane’s work, 29. (4) Palestinian or Jerusalem, II. 30-4 ; fragments, esp. of an Evst., 30; description, 30; Erizzi’s edi- tion, 31; menology, 32-3; Lagarde, Harris, and Gwilliam, 34: (5) Karkaphensian or Massorah, IT. 34-6; discovered by Wiseman, 34; description, 34-6; a Massorah, 6 30. 2. Latin, II. 41-90: (1) Old Latin, 41-56 ; many versions (3 2) (Jerome, Augustine), 41-2 ; probably one, 42-3—but cf. 32; 427 ‘Ttala,’ arose in Africa, 43-4 ; age, 264; Old Latin MSS. of the Gospels, 45-51; Act. and Cath., 51-3; Paul. 53-4; Apoc., 54; Latin Fathers, 54; African family, 55; European, 55; Italian, 55-6. (2) Vulgate, II. 56-90 ; history, 56- 65; text often incorrect, 58-9; revisions, 59; correctoria, 60-1 ; printing, 63 ; authorized recension, 63-5 3 editions, 65-6; MSS., 66— 89; Bibles, 67-74; New Testa- ments, 74-5; Gospels, 75-85 ; Acts, Epistles, Apoc., 85-9 ; nota- tions, 89-90. 8. Egyptian or Coptic versions, gI- 145; history and description, g1- 106; sacred and demotic writing, 91-3; Coptic, 92-6; dialects, 96- 106; at least five instead of three, 103-6: (1) Bohairic (Coptic or Memphitic), 106-27 ; editions, 106-10; MSS., Gospels, 110-18,— Paul., Cath., and Act., 118-21, Apoc. 121-3; all except Apoc. in the Canon ; order of books, 124; character, _ 124-53 date, 125-7. (2) Sahidic or Thebaic, 127-39; editions, 127-32; MSS., 132-6; order of books, 137-8 ; character, 138-9. (3) Fayoumic or Bashmuric, 140-1. (4) Middle Egyptian or Middle Coptic, or Lower Sahidic, 141-3. (5) Akhmimic, 143-4. 4. Other old versions, 145-66: (1) Gothic, history, 145 ; MSS., 146- 7; editions, 147-8. (2) Armenian, history, 148-51; colla- tion, 151-2; character of text, 152-3; MSS., 153-4. (3) Ethiopic, date and MSS., 154-5 ; editions, 155. (4) Georgian, history and MSS., 156; editions, 157; character, 157-8. (5) Slavonic, history and divisions, 158; MSS., 159-60; character, 160-1. (6) Arabic, history and MSS., 161- 2; editions, 162-3; character, 163-4. (7) Anglo-Saxon, history, MSS., and editions, 164-5. (8) Frankish, 165. (y) Persie, versions 165-6. Vossius, Isaac, II. 146. Vulgate version, IT. 56-96. See Versions. and MSS., Wake, Wm., Abp., his MSS., 204 n, 246-8. 428 Walker, John, II. 206-9; I. 248 7; II. 65, 89. Waller, Rev. Dr., II. 21 7 2. Walton, Brian, Bp., II. 10, 165 (Persic), 197-8. Ward, W. H., II. 39472. : Westcott, B. F., D.D., Bp., 592; II. 242, 2581, &c. See Hort. Western text, II. 264, 138, 224-6, 229- 30, 231 n, 264-5, 272 n, 286-73; interpolations, 130; II. 264, 330. See Apocryphal insertions. Wetstein, J. J., II. 213-16; I. 78n, 122, 209, 210, 247, and passim. Wheelocke, Abr., IT. 165. White, E., 151. : White, H.J., Rev., II. 41-90, 66, 69, 71, 80, 85. White, Joseph, IT. 27. Widmanstadt, Albert, Peshitto N.T., II. 8-9. Wilkins, D., Coptic N.T., II. 106-7. Winer, G. B., II. 284 n. Wiseman, N., Card., 112; II. 34, 42, 406 7 2. INDEX II. Woide, C. G., 103 ; II. 129-31, 215, &e. Woods, F. H., Rev., II. 21. Wordsworth, C., Rev., 69. Wordsworth, Chr., Bp., D.D., 17; II. 381-2, &e. &e. : Wordsworth, J., Bp., D.D., 41-90, 66, go. Wright, W., Dr., II. 155. Writing, style of, 15; slips of the pen, 16. Xenaias or Philoxenus, see Versions. Ximenes, Fr. de Cisneros, Card., II. 176-81, 184. Year, Greek ecclesiastical, 80-9. Young, Patrick, 103, 123. Zacagni, L. A., IIo. Zacynthius, Cod., II. 365 n 2. Zahn, Dr., II. 21. Zabn, J. C., Gothic N. T., II. 147. Zoega, G., Cat. Codd. Copt., II. 131-2. Zouche, de la, Lord, see Curzon. Zurich Psalter, 16 7. END OF VOL, II. + -_ d ’ é ; : ! i f i * ; ; 4 ‘ = _ < ° oy) x ; / 7 , v ¢ = —- ‘ F : fl a 4 ; - : \ ¥ *- Ps, aL, | Sle a Bais aa, ; 7 - ef , ‘ DATE DUE APR 30 998 SUN 4 QQ5 MAR 29 Aah GAYLORD PRINTED IN U.S.A. ‘3 GTU Library 2400 Ridge Road Berkeley, CA 94709 For renewals call (510) 649-2500 All items are subject to recall. WC CX A \ ‘ {vin H KH ES MASAO NDSPAL ST HAO DROESATL Sg SKGNHeVOSEA DR My < ‘ AN Sa wh x \\ “K \\ Hh vy wi it i \ \\ x \\ \ ca i i ah het \ MN a bevy \ i} OCHA ROM OC RA aH ‘\ \ ON ; ah aN ‘in \ ‘ i i DOSHUAKSER HAREM BANANA R RD RONSON \\ ‘\ ‘\ SS SS \ Se \ \ x ESA aN A Pa Nk HICK) ity Huy, i IN \ ‘ NSN \ i \ nh it Ht \ hs \ nue i iis ents Mh HR My aN SRE Bh sh) \, RRMA a yt ) i \ \ ‘ \\ oe hh A a A x \ A \ oh i \\ NS SHH SMTA PNT eh Wik iyi , ae a ‘ii Co Ww A CA SHANKAR stat i iia SSR is hh i BH a i SOAR iy Nha NORHAM isi} HANAN ; ROOK aan AMR TNA iSaata NAC SDNS TOMA Rea DSSS AR iN \ uh PSU mh RNA SOU PH ahseS ANAC GMO rpH Sahat SASH SCNT HHA it NS aN it Sa Mt A vas ake RK NN i A a) nM \\\ Rah CE it i a ~ es oh A uA ine ae aN ' a Co SAN AN HN a aa ; Ot Hn Sa at a ih Cae aR \ aaa i a ONWARD ANY wh nh ai nhs ) a Nt ‘ a ARNG ci iy a AY ‘ \ ui i Nee wh a ah CC GRMN SCN HO OSTREAM RTM shat lity RR sein La HENNA Pas HBR MRRH SN Ss HAN) ‘ fi) SUNG Sh i x aa ty bat nie an i DOR RRS RO a Mi SiO i) iS ny aa Sa NG mi ah ants AS a sh Sh ah Bi ih shit RH mi Hs SURES RRS GRTONNIR Si bannn Hi aN at ERASE ay ia AN RRS NRH IM aN ie sii sts teh as me SC Da SNE iN \ i \ ~ aN ny “\ a " ay ae ae at si ¥ s UHR With? rs ots 4 5, MN ain ish any Nii ARIANA APN nih sh iis Hy) A rientatesesa aa wt a SEROUS _ iN SON i ‘i vit USSATSaNtbb hs ai COG ih oe sh ath oh ‘} Ss i A " St HI RNVLONTU REA RSC SHO RS nh Be ti d a CC Ath LENA ‘ \ \ \ \ SO \ Rae a i TON wo OC CO Ny HU i i UR i Tae aha sie ih Ay \ i vi A na a a) _ Sa At ‘ih ny i i rah isa xh Nish anche Sy \ i i SON he ‘ \ vi Hy it \ vn \ vat _ ~~ HANAN SRE HSN i an at A La vis co i ae ik as HH a \ \\ aU ANN age at seni na x ! si as Bh si a a an oe Ny Ls ; a AN oi he SMALL \ AV COs i Hy) vin sty i ah aaah a iat mi a _ ae nh sant i \ ! aS A ~~ \ \ ty pe Hit Dat , a Ky ayy yh irish, HM Thine Wcaray Banh an Lainie Han op a a a an cM) 1b 4 ! iat ek _ \\ Sh HON o ~ ‘ a Mai a it \ _ i 4 Ki vi ot LH oe ts ms a Hi ae \\ ih GNA ONS Th tH ( DUN NM a Nie yt AANA i sini iy RHR ie NH RHACHL it Aah — in - ie Pre ihe NG a ot Sat oe ee i Sa i ai Poa is SON Hy Dea Hi an ob Se ———= ee == = =a =< SH oo va K K _ OC i . bi —— SS anti mG ith ‘ ana is a“ Hil an ‘i t aan q ash . - i oF Ht KW ci iat ui Ha a. ~ iat ri ii ia _ .