CHAPTER II

.

MATERIALS OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Even in the age of printing, and with all the security afforded by that invention, it is not always easy or even possible to exhibit or restore the literary productions of a great mind in their original form. One has but to think of the obscurity in which the works of Shakespeare and their early editions are enveloped, or the questions raised over the Weimar edition of Luther’s works. And even when the author’s original manuscript is still preserved, but the proof-sheets, as is usual, destroyed, we cannot always be certain whether occasional discrepancies between the print and the manuscript are intentional or not. Nay, even when the two agree, there is still the possibility that what the author wrote and allowed to be printed was not what he thought or intended to be read. Did Lessing, _e.g._, mean us to read in _Nathan_ ii. 5, 493, “the great _man_ requires always plenty of room,” or “the great _tree_” does so? Various writers, in speaking of this or that artist’s talents or dexterity, have used the words “haud impigre.” To take them at their word, the object of their praise had no such endowment beyond the common. We may be certain that what they meant to convey was the very opposite of what they actually wrote, viz. “haud pigre” or “impigre.” As a rule, however, the purchaser of a modern classic may rely upon reading it in the form in which the author intended it to be circulated. It is quite different in the case of those works which were composed at a time when their multiplication was only possible by means of copying, and specially so in the case of those that are older by a thousand years than the invention of printing. For then every fresh copy was a fresh source of errors, even when the copyist was as painfully exact as it was possible for him to be. It is simply astonishing, in view of all the perils to which literary works have been exposed, to find how much has been preserved, and, on the whole, how faithfully.

[Sidenote: Autographs.]

The matter is, of course, quite a simple one, when by good fortune the author’s own manuscript, his =autograph=, is extant. The abstract possibility of this being so in the case of the New Testament writings cannot be denied. Thanks to the dryness of the climate of Egypt and the excellence of ancient writing material, we have documents more than twice the age that the New Testament autographs would be to-day did we possess them. Now and again we find a report circulated in the newspapers that such an original document has been found,—of Peter, _e.g._, or some other Apostle. About the year 489 it was asserted that the original copy of Matthew had been discovered in the grave of Barnabas in Cyprus. And to the eyes of the devout there are still exhibited not only the Inscription from the Cross, but works from the artist hand of Luke. In reality, however, we have no longer the autograph of a single New Testament book. Their disappearance is readily understood when we consider that the greater portion of the New Testament, viz. the Epistles, are occasional writings never intended for publication, while others were meant to have only a limited circulation. Even in the early ages of the Christian Church, when there must have been frequent occasion to appeal to them, the autographs were no longer in existence.

Tertullian (_De Praescriptione Haereticorum_, 36) mentions Thessalonica among the cities in which he believed the letters of the Apostles that were addressed there were still read from autograph copies.[18] “Percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae apostolorum suis locis praesident, apud quas ipsae authenticae literae eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem et repraesentantes faciem uniuscuiusque.” But when the same author, in his _De Monogamia_, speaks of “Graecum authenticum,” he refers not to the autograph, but to the original text as distinguished from a version.

On the copy of Matthew’s Gospel found in the grave of Barnabas in Cyprus, _vide_ Theodorus Lector (Migne, 86, 189); Severus of Antioch in Assemani, _Bibliotheca Orientalis_, ii. 81; _Vitae omnium 13 Apostolorum_: Βαρνάβας ὁ καὶ Ἰωσῆς ... οὗτος τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον οἰκειοχείρως γράψας ἐν τῇ τῆς Κύπρου νήσῳ τελειοῦται.[19] In the Imperial Court Chapel the lessons were read from this copy on Holy Thursday of every year. _Vide_ Fabricius, _Evv. Apocr._, 341.

On the supposed autograph of Mark in Venice see Jos. Dobrowsky, _Fragmentum Pragense Ev. S. Marci, vulgo autographi_, Prague, 1778. It is really a fragment of a Latin manuscript of the Vulgate, dating from the seventh century, of which other fragments exist in Prague.

In the _Chronicon Paschale_ there is a note on the reading τρίτη for ἕκτη in John xix. 14, to the following effect:—καθὼς τὰ ἀκριβῆ βιβλία περιέχει _αὐτό τε τὸ ἰδιόχειρον τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ_, ὅπερ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν πεφύλακται χάριτι θεοῦ ἐν τῇ Ἐφεσίων ἁγιωτάτῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν πιστῶν ἐκεῖσε προσκυνεῖται. Bengel himself said on 1 John v. 7:—“Et tamen etiam atque etiam sperare licet, si non autographum Johanneum, at alios vetustissimos codices graecos, qui hanc periocham habeant, in occultis providentiae divinae forulis adhuc latentes, suo tempore productum iri.” (N.T. 420, 602, 770.)

In disproof of an alleged autograph of Peter, see Lagarde, _Aus dem deutschen Gelehrtenleben_, Göttingen, 1880, p. 117 f. On legends of this sort among the Polish Jews, on the autograph copy of the Proverbs that Solomon sent to the Queen of Sheba, and now in the possession of the Queen of England, etc., _vide_ S. Schechter, _Die Hebraica in der Bibliothek des Britischen Museums_, in the _Jüdisches Literatur-Blatt_ for 1888, No. 46.

At the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680-1, which Harnack (_DG._ ii. 408) says might be called the “Council of Antiquaries and Palaeographers”, investigations were instituted in this department with some success.

J. G. Berger, _De Autographis Veterum_, Vitenb., 1723. 4^o.

J. R. Harris, _New Testament Autographs_ (Supplement to the _American Journal of Philology_, No. 12), Baltimore, 1882. With three plates.

In this connection reference might be made to the falsifications of Constantine Simonides: _Facsimiles of certain portions of the Gospel of St. Matthew, and of the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, written on papyrus of the first century_. London, 1862. Fol.

[Sidenote: Manuscripts.]

Seeing, then, that the autographs of the New Testament books have all perished, we have to do as in the case of the Greek and Latin classics, viz. apply to later copies of them, the so-called =manuscripts= of which frequent mention has already been made. But while in the case of most literary products of antiquity these manuscript copies are the _only_ sources whence we may derive our knowledge of them, we are happily more fortunate in regard to the New Testament.

[Sidenote: Versions.]

The new faith very early and very rapidly spread to distant peoples speaking other languages than that in which the Gospel was first preached. Indeed, even in its native land of Palestine, several languages were in use at the same time. Accordingly, at a very early date, as early as the second, and perhaps, in the case of fragments, even in the first century, there arose in the East, and in the South, and in the West, =versions= of the Christian books very soon after their composition. At first only separate portions would be translated, but as time went on versions of the entire New Testament made their appearance. Manifestly, the value for our purpose of these versions depends on their age and accuracy. It is impossible, without further knowledge, to be certain whether a Greek copyist of later centuries followed his original quite faithfully or not. But a Latin version of the New Testament which dates from the second century, _e.g._, will represent with tolerable certainty the second century Greek manuscript from which it is derived, even supposing that our present copy of that version is not earlier than the sixth century or even later. But these versions confer yet another advantage. In the case of most, and certainly of the oldest Greek manuscripts, we do not know in what country they originated. But it is quite certain that a Latin version could not have originated in Egypt, or a Coptic version in Gaul. In this way we may learn from the versions how the text of the Bible read at a particular time and in a particular region. Lastly, if it should happen that several versions originating in quite isolated regions, in the Latin West, and in the Syrian East, and in the Egyptian South, agree, then we may be certain that what is common to them all must go back to the earliest times and to their common original.

[Sidenote: Quotations.]

In addition to the Greek manuscripts and the versions, we have still a third and by no means unimportant class of material that we can employ in reconstructing our text of the New Testament. We possess an uncommonly rich Christian literature, which gathers volume from the second half, or, at all events, from the last quarter of the first century onwards. Now, what an early Church teacher, or, for that matter, what any early writer quotes from the New Testament will have for us its own very peculiar importance, under certain conditions. Because, as a rule, we know precisely where and when he lived. So that by means of these =patristic quotations= we are enabled to locate our ancient manuscripts of the Bible even more exactly, and trace their history further than we are able to do with the help of the versions. Here, of course, we must make sure that our author has quoted accurately and not loosely from memory, and also that the quotations in his book have been accurately preserved and not accommodated to the current text of their time by later copyists or even by editors of printed editions, as has actually been done even in the nineteenth century. We shall now proceed to describe these three classes of auxiliaries.

LITERATURE.—W. Wattenbach, _Anleitung zur griechischen Palaeographie_, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1877; V. Gardthausen, _Griechische Palaeographie_, Leipzig, 1879; Fr. Blass, _Palaeographie, Bücherwesen, und Handschriftenkunde_, in I. v. Müller’s Handbuch der klassischen Alterthumswissenschaft, 2nd ed., vol. i., Munich, 1892; E. M. Thompson, _Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography_, London, 1891; T. Birt, _Das antike Buchwesen_, Berlin, 1882; W. A. Copinger, _The Bible and its Transmission_; F. G. Kenyon, _Our Bible and the ancient Manuscripts_, London, third edition, 1897; F. H. A. Scrivener, _Six Lectures on the Text of the N.T. and the ancient Manuscripts which contain it_, Cambridge and London, 1875; _A Collation of about 20 Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels_, London, 1853; _Adversaria critica sacra_, Cambridge, 1893; Hoskier; _Urt._, pp. 16, 54; O. Weise, _Schrift- und Buchwesen in alter und neuer Zeit_, Leipzig (Teubner), 1899 (with Facsimiles: a popular work); F. G. Kenyon, _The Palaeography of Greek Papyri_, Oxford, 1899 (with 20 Facsimiles and a Table of Alphabets, pp. viii., 160); Ulr. Wilcken, _Tafeln zur älteren griechischen Palaeographie, Nach Originalen des Berliner K. Museums_, Berlin and Leipzig, 1891 (with 20 photographs); G. Vitelli e C. Paoli, _Collezione Fiorentina di facsimili paleografici greci e latini_, Firenze, 1884-1897 (with 50 Greek Plates and 50 Latin, Folio); Charles F. Sitterly, _Praxis in Manuscripts of the Greek Testament; the mechanical and literary processes involved in their writing and preservation_ (with table of Manuscripts and 13 Facsimile Plates), New York and Cincinnati, 1898, second enlarged edition, 1900; F. Carta, C. Cipolla e C. Frati, _Monumenta Palaeographica sacra: Atlante paleografico-artistico composto sui manuscritti_, Turin, 1899; Karl Dziatzko, _Untersuchungen über ausgewählte Kapitel des antiken Buchwesens. Mit Text, Uebersetzung und Erklärung von Plinii Histor. Nat._, lib. xiii. § 68, 69, Leipzig, Teubner, 1900.

1. MANUSCRIPTS.

[Sidenote: Number of manuscripts.]

For no literary production of antiquity is there such a wealth of manuscripts as for the New Testament. Our classical scholars would rejoice were they as fortunate with Homer or Sophocles, Plato or Aristotle, Cicero or Tacitus, as Bible students are with their New Testament. The oldest complete manuscript of Homer that we have dates from the thirteenth century, and only separate papyrus fragments go back to the Alexandrian age. All that is extant of Sophocles we owe to a single manuscript dating from the eighth or ninth century in the Laurentian Library at Florence. But of the New Testament, 3829 manuscripts have been catalogued up till the present. A systematic search in the libraries of Europe might add still more to the list; a search in those of Asia and Egypt would certainly do so. Gregory believes that there are probably some two or three thousand manuscripts which have not yet been collated, and every year additional manuscripts are brought to light. Most of these are, of course, late, and contain only separate portions, some of them mere fragments, of the New Testament.[20] Not a few, however, go much further back than our manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament and most of the Greek and Latin Classics. Only in the case of the Mohammedan sacred books is the condition of things more favourable. These came into existence in the seventh century, and the variations between separate manuscripts are a vanishing quantity, because the text of the Koran was officially fixed at a very early date and regarded as inviolably sacred. Fortunately, one might almost say, it is quite different with the New Testament, which was put together in a totally different way. In its case the very greatest freedom prevailed for at least a century and a half.

The manuscripts of the New Testament being so numerous, it becomes necessary to arrange them. One of the most important considerations hitherto has been that of age, and therefore manuscripts have been divided into =Uncials= (or Majuscules) and =Cursives= (or Minuscules), according to the style of writing in use at earlier or later times.

[Sidenote: Uncial, and Cursive script.]

In early times, as at the present day, inscriptions on monuments and public buildings were engraved in capital letters. This form of writing was also employed for books, especially those containing valuable or sacred writing. The letters were not joined together, but set down side by side.[21] They were called _litterae majusculae_, _capitales_, _unciales_, _i.e._ “inch-high,” as Jerome says with ridicule—_uncialibus ut vulgo aiunt litteris onera magis exarata quam codices_. Alongside of this there arose, even previous to the Christian era, a smaller Cursive form (_Minusculae_), for use in common life, in which the letters were joined.[22] This running hand found its way into manuscripts of the Bible in the course of the ninth century. In some cases, in Codex Λ _e.g._, both styles are found alongside or following each other.[23]

The oldest Cursive manuscript of the New Testament, the exact date of which is known, is 481^{evv.}; it bears the date 835. The great majority of New Testament manuscripts belong to this later date, seeing that out of the 3829 manuscripts there are only 127 Uncials to 3702 Minuscules. Greek copyists not being accustomed to date their manuscripts exactly, it becomes the task of palæography to settle the criteria by which the date and place of a manuscript’s origin may be determined. These are the style of writing—whether angular or round, upright or sloping, the punctuation—whether simple or elaborate, and the different material and form of the book. These distinctions, however, are often very misleading. The following table will show the distribution of the manuscripts according to the centuries in which they were written, as given by Vollert, Scrivener, and von Gebhardt[24]:—

Vollert. Scrivener. v. Gebhardt. IVth Century, 5 ... 2 Vth “ 4 10 15 VIth ” 18 22 24 VIIth “ 6 9 17 VIIIth ” 8 8 19 IXth “ 23 ... 31 Xth ” 4 ... 6

[Sidenote: Papyrus and parchment.]

Manuscripts are distinguished according to the =material= on which they are written, which may be either parchment or paper.

=Parchment= derives its name from Pergamum, where it was introduced in the reign of King Eumenes (197-159 B.C.). But prior to the use of parchment, and to a certain extent alongside of it, =papyrus= was used, especially in Egypt, down to the time of the Mohammedan Conquest. Papyrus books were originally in the form of rolls (_volumina_). Only a few fragments of the New Testament on papyrus remain. The use of parchment gave rise to the book or Codex form. In the case of parchment codices, a further distinction is drawn between those made of vellum manufactured from the skins of very young calves, and those made of common parchment from the skins of sheep, goats, and antelopes.

[Sidenote: Paper.]

As early as the eighth century (not the ninth), the so-called =cotton paper= (_charta bombycina_) was introduced from the East. This, however, never consisted of pure cotton, but rather of flax and hemp. It had been in use for a long time in China and the centre of Eastern Asia, but seems to have been unknown in Syria and Egypt till after the fall of Samarcand in 704. From the thirteenth century onwards, paper made of linen was employed.

In the New Testament, both papyrus and parchment are referred to. In 2 Tim. iv. 13, Paul asks that the φελόνης he had left at Troas might be brought to him, and τὰ βιβλία, but specially τὰς μεμβράνας. Here, φελόνης means cloak rather than satchel; τὰ βιβλία are the papyrus books, possibly his Old Testament, while τὰς μεμβράνας are clean sheets of parchment. In 2 John 12 the word χάρτης is used of papyrus. There, and in 3 John 13, τὸ μέλαν is the ink, and the κάλαμος (_lat._ canna) is the reed pen, still used for writing in the East. The quill pen, strange to say, is not mentioned prior to the time of Theodoric the Ostrogoth in the sixth century. The size of a sheet of writing paper may be inferred from the passages in 2nd and 3rd John alluded to above.

[Sidenote: Scriptio continua.]

In order to economize space, the writing was continuous, with no break between the words (=scriptio continua=), breathings and accents being also omitted. This is a frequent source of ambiguity and misunderstanding. In Matt. ix. 18, _e.g._, ΕΙΣΕΛΘΩΝ may be either εἷς ἐλθὼν or εἰσελθὼν. In Mark x. 40, ΑΛΛΟΙΣΗΤΟΙΜΑΣΤΑΙ was rendered “aliis praeparatum,” ἄλλοις being read instead of ἀλλ’ οἷς. In Matt. xvi. 23, ΑΛΛΑ may be taken either as ἀλλὰ or ἀλλ’ ἃ. In 1 Cor. xii. 28, again, the Ethiopic translator read οὖς instead of οὓς. The Palestinian-Syriac Lectionary translates 1 Tim. iii. 16 as though it were ὁμολογοῦμεν ὡς μέγα ἐστίν. There is something to be said for this, but Naber’s proposed reading of Gal. ii. 11, ὅτι κατέγνωμεν ὃς ἦν, cannot be accepted.

[Sidenote: Columns, Lines.]

Most manuscripts show two =columns= to the page. The Sinaitic, however, has four, while the Vatican has three. Columns vary considerably in width. They may be the width of a few letters only, or of an average hexameter line of sixteen to eighteen syllables or about thirty-six letters. Such a line is called a στίχος, and as the scribe was paid according to the number of στίχοι, we find at the end of several books a note giving the total number of στίχοι contained in them. In carefully written manuscripts, every hundredth, sometimes every fiftieth στίχος is indicated in the margin. These stichometric additions were afterwards adopted for the entire Bible. Their value in many respects will be obvious.

As the church increased in wealth and prestige, New Testament manuscripts acquired a more sumptuous form, either from the luxury of the rich or the pious devotion of kings and churches.

[Sidenote: Palimpsests.]

Parchment, however, grew more and more expensive, and so the practice arose of using an old manuscript a second time. The original writing was erased by means of a sponge or pumice stone or a knife, and the sheets were then employed to receive other matter, or it might even be the same matter over again. And so we have =Codices Rescripti= or =Palimpsesti= as they were called, a term known to Cicero, who says, though of a wax tablet, “quod in palimpsesto, laudo parsimoniam” (_ad Diversos_ vii. 18). Some manuscripts were used as often as three times for distinct works in three different languages _e.g._ Greek, Syriac, and Iberian. Codex I^b is one of these thrice used manuscripts, being written first in Greek and then twice in Syriac.

[Sidenote: Punctuation.]

Marks of =punctuation= are hardly to be found in the earliest times. It was frequently, therefore, a question with church teachers whether a sentence was to be taken interrogatively or indicatively, or how the sentences were to be divided, as in the case of John i. 3 and 4. In the general absence of punctuation, the appearance of quotation marks in some of the oldest manuscripts, like Codex Vaticanus _e.g._, to indicate citations from the Old Testament, is remarkable.

[Sidenote: Size.]

The =size= of a manuscript varies from a large folio, which in the case of a parchment codex must have been very expensive, to a small octavo. In regions inhabited by a mixed population we find =bilingual= manuscripts, Greek-Latin, Greek-Coptic, Greek-Armenian, and such like. If the manuscript was designed for use in church, the two languages were written in parallel columns, the Greek frequently occupying the left column or reverse side of the sheet, being the place of honour. In manuscripts intended for use in schools, the translation was written between the lines. Codex Δ is an example of a manuscript with an interlinear version of this sort.

[Sidenote: Contents.]

Of more importance is the distinction of manuscripts according to their =contents=. Of all our recorded Uncials, only one contains the whole of the New Testament complete. That is the Codex Sinaiticus discovered by Tischendorf in 1859. A few others, like Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, were once complete, but are no longer so. Of the later Minuscules, some twenty-five alone contain the entire New Testament. Of the English Minuscules, five are complete. The fragmentary nature of our manuscripts is intelligible on two grounds. One is that a New Testament codex written in uncial characters is a very bulky and ponderous volume running to about 150 sheets. Comparatively few would be in a position to procure such a costly work all at once. The other reason is that the New Testament itself is not a single book, but a series of different collections, which at first, and even afterwards, were circulated separately. To the same reason is due the great variety in the order of the several parts of the New Testament found in the manuscripts, and still, to a certain extent, in our printed editions. It is not exactly known who it was that first collected and inscribed in one volume the books and the parts that now make up the New Testament. Such a single volume of the entire New Testament was afterwards known as a πανδέκτης, and in Latin, _bibliotheca_. The parts into which the New Testament is divided are—

1. The four Gospels.

2. (_a_) The Acts of the Apostles. (_b_) The so-called Catholic Epistles, _i.e._ those not addressed to any particular church or individual, viz., James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude.

3. The thirteen Pauline Epistles, or, including Hebrews, fourteen.

4. The Apocalypse.

[Sidenote: Lectionaries.]

Among these incomplete manuscripts of the New Testament may be classed the so-called =lectionaries=—_i.e._ manuscripts containing only those portions read at church services. Following the custom of the Synagogue, in which portions of the Law and the Prophets were read at divine service each Sabbath day, the practice was early adopted in the Christian Church of reading passages from the New Testament books at services. A definite selection of such extracts was formed at an early date from the Gospels and Epistles, and the custom arose of arranging these according to the order of Sundays and Holy days, for greater convenience in use. A collection of selected passages from the Gospels was called a Εὐαγγέλιον, and in Latin _Evangeliarium_,[25] in distinction to the books containing the continuous text, which were called Τετραευαγγέλιον, while the selections from the Epistles were known as Ἀπόστολος or Πραξαπόστολος. These lectionaries, though mostly of later origin, are nevertheless important as indicating the official text of the various provinces of the Church. They show, moreover, how sundry slight alterations found their way into the text of the New Testament.

We can easily understand why it is that manuscripts of the Gospels are by far the most numerous, while those of the last book of the New Testament are the fewest. Among the Uncials, 73 contain the Gospels, and only 7 have the Apocalypse. Of these 73 Uncials, again, only 6, viz. א B K M S U, or, if we include Ω, only 7 are quite complete; 9 are almost so; 11 exhibit the greater part of the Gospels, while the remainder contain only fragments. Of the 20 Uncials of the Pauline Epistles, only 1 is entirely complete—viz., א; 2 are nearly complete, D G; 8 have the greater part. It is plain that our resources are not so great, after all, as the number of manuscripts given above would lead us to expect. Here also there are πολλοὶ κλητοί, ὀλίγοι ἐκλεκτοί.

Parchment.

The manufacture of parchment is perhaps older than that of papyrus. It is said to owe both its name and wide circulation as writing material to the encouragement given to its manufacture by Eumenes II. of Pergamum (197-159 B.C.). Pliny’s story,[26] which he gives on the authority of Varro, is that Eumenes wished to found a library which should, as far as possible, excel that of Alexandria. To frustrate this intention Ptolemy Epiphanes prohibited the exportation of papyrus to Asia Minor. (In the list of principal exports of Alexandria, Lumbroso[27] mentions βίβλος and χάρτη in the second place after ὑέλια, and βιβλία in the seventh.) Eumenes was accordingly obliged to prepare parchment at Pergamum, and hence its name, περγαμηνή. The name first occurs in Diocletian’s Price-list,[28] and in Jerome. The word used in earlier times was διφθέραι,[29] or δέρρεις,[30] or μεμβράναι as in 2 Tim. iv. 13, which last was taken from the Latin. At first parchment was less valuable than papyrus, and was used more for domestic and school purposes than for the making of books, as the writing was easier erased from the skin. But it gradually supplanted papyrus, and with its employment came also the change from the roll to the “codex” form of book. If papyrus was the vehicle of Pagan Greek literature, parchment was the means whereby the literature of the new faith became known to mankind, and the remnant of the ancient culture at the same time preserved. Origen’s library, which still consisted for the most part of papyrus rolls, was re-written in parchment volumes (σωμάτιον, _corpus_) by two priests shortly before the time of Jerome. Our principal manuscripts of Philo are derived from one of these codices.[31] When Constantine ordered Eusebius to provide a certain number of Bibles for presentation to the churches of his Empire, he sent him, not rolls, but codices, πεντήκοντα σωμάτια ἐν διφθέραις.

Parchment was prepared from the skins of goats, sheep, calves, asses, swine, and antelopes. Our oldest manuscripts of the Bible exhibit the finest and whitest parchment. The Codex Sinaiticus, _e.g._, displays the very finest prepared antelope skin, and is of such a size that only two sheets could be obtained from one skin. As a rule, four sheets were folded into a quire (quaternio), the separate sheets having been previously ruled on the grain side. They were laid with the flesh side to the flesh side, and the grain side to the grain side, beginning with the flesh side outermost, so that in each quaternio, pages 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 were white and smooth with the lines showing in relief, while the others, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15 were darker and rough, with indented lines.[32]

[Sidenote: Ink.]

For writing on papyrus, ink made of soot was employed. Three parts of lamp-black were mixed with one part of gum and diluted with water. This ink, however, was easily washed off, and did not stick well to parchment, and therefore recourse was had to ink made of gall nuts. Sulphate of iron was afterwards added to it, with the result that the writing material is frequently corroded with the ink. From its having been boiled the mixture was also called ἔγκαυστον, hence our word “ink” (encre). Many old recipes for making ink are still preserved.[33] Even in early Egyptian writing, coloured inks, especially red, were used. One of the most beautiful manuscripts extant is a Syriac Codex in the British Museum, of date 411, in which the red, blue, green, and yellow inks are still quite fresh. Eusebius used cinnabar for numbering the paragraphs, and Jerome makes mention of minium or vermilion. In times of great wealth parchments were dyed purple and inscribed with gold and silver letters.

Papyrus.

Among ancient writers, Pliny gives the fullest description of the preparation of papyrus, in his _Historia Naturalis_, xiii. 11.[34] The sheets were prepared, not from the bark, but from the pith of the plant. This was cut into strips (σχίδας) as thin and broad, and, according to some, as long as possible. These were laid side by side as firmly as might be, to form the first layer (σχέδα). On this a second layer was laid crosswise and fastened to the lower with moisture or gum. The two layers were then compressed to form the writing sheet (σελίς), which was carefully dried and polished with ivory or a smooth shell. The roll (τόμος, κύλινδρος) consisted of a number of σελίδες joined together to make one long strip—sometimes as much as 20 or 40 feet long, or even longer. The upper side, the side used for writing on, was the one in which the fibres ran in a horizontal direction parallel to the edge of the roll.[35] The under or outer side was only used in cases of necessity.[36] The first sheet (πρωτόκολλον) was made stronger than the rest, and its inner edge was glued to a wooden roller (ὄμφαλος), with a knob at the end (κέρας). The margin of the roll, what corresponds to the edge of our books, was frequently glazed and coloured, while the back was protected against worms and moths by being rubbed with cedar oil. The title was inscribed on a separate label of parchment (σίττυβος or σίλλυβος). The separate rolls were enclosed in a leather case (διφθέρα or φαινόλης, see 2 Tim. iv. 13), and a number of them kept in a chest (κιβωτός or κίστη).

On the literature cf. also Paul Krüger, _Ueber die Verwendung von Papyrus und Pergament für die juristische Litteratur der Römer_, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Roman section, viii. pp. 76-85 (1887). Wilcken, _Archiv für Papyrus-Forschung und verwandte Gebiete_, Leipzig, Teubner. F. G. Kenyon, _Palaeography of Greek Papyri_. C. Haeberlin, _Griechische Papyri_, Leipzig, 1897: “Nearly 150 years have fled since 432 complete Rolls and 1806 Papyrus Fragments were discovered in the year 1752 at Herculaneum, in the Villa of L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, the pupil and friend of the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus. Then twenty-five years later the soil of Egypt, that home and nursery of literature, opened for the first time to vouchsafe to us a Greek Papyrus Roll, destined to be the forerunner of a series of discoveries often interrupted but never ceasing altogether. It was, perchance, not the only one of its kind; but out of the fifty rolls accidentally discovered in the year 1778 by Arabian peasants in the neighbourhood of Memphis, it alone had the fortune to come into the possession of Cardinal Stefano Borgia. The rest were burned by their unsuspecting discoverers, who found a peculiar pleasure in the resinous odour that arose from their smoking pyre.”

Paper.

The collection of manuscripts brought from the East by the Archduke Rainer gave a stimulus to the study of the early history of paper-making, and at the same time supplied the materials for a more exact investigation of the subject than had previously been possible. Earlier works, therefore, like that of G. Meerman, _De Chartae vulgaris seu lineae Origine_, ed. J. v. Vaassen, Hagae Comitum, 1767, have been superseded. The manufacture of paper seems to have been introduced into Europe by the Moors in Spain, where it went by the name of _pergameno de panno_ to distinguish it from the _pergameno de cuero_. In the Byzantine Empire it was called ξυλοχάρτιον or ξυλότευκτον, as being a vegetable product. It came afterwards to be known as χάρτης Δαμασκηνός, from its chief place of manufacture. The Arabs introduced it into Sicily, whence it passed into Italy. After 1235, we find paper mentioned as one of the exports of Genoa. European paper is distinguished from that of Eastern manufacture chiefly by the use of water marks, such as ox-heads, _e.g._, which were unknown in the East. Older sorts of paper bear a great resemblance to parchment. The Benedictine monks, who owned the fragments of Mark’s Gospel preserved in Venice, asserted that they were written on bark. Montfaucon declared the material to be papyrus. Massei said it was cotton paper. But the microscope shows it to be parchment. In many manuscripts a mixture of parchment and paper is found. This is so in the Leicester Codex, in which the leaves are regularly arranged in such a way that the outer and inner sheets of a quire are of parchment, while the three intermediate sheets are of paper. See J. R. Harris, _The origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament_, 1887, p. 14 ff.

[Sidenote: Lead.]

Lead was also employed in early times for writing on. Budde sees a reference to this practice in the well-known passage, Job xix. 24. He holds that the lead there mentioned is not to be supposed as run into letters cut out in the rock, which would be a very unlikely thing to do, and a practice for which there is no evidence. He would therefore correct the text so as to read “with an iron pen on lead.” Hesiod’s Ἔργα, _e.g._, was preserved on lead in the temple of the Muses on Helicon.[37] A leaden tablet from Hadrumet contains an incantation showing strong traces of O.T. influence.[38] At Rhodes there was recently discovered a roll of lead inscribed with the 80th Psalm, which was used as a charm to protect a vineyard.[39]

[Sidenote: Clay.]

Clay and brick were also used as writing material, a fact which Strack has omitted to mention in his article on Writing in the _Realencyklopädie_ (see Ezek. iv. 1). So far, however, no traces of N.T. writing have been discovered in the Ostraca literature of which we have now a considerable quantity. We have tiles of this sort dating from a period of over a thousand years from the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus onwards, inscribed with ink and a reed pen. Several of these contain portions of literary works such as those of Euripides.[40]

[Sidenote: Linen.]

Linen was also written on.[41] It was used, _e.g._, for the Sibylline Oracles (lintea texta, carbasus: _Orac. Sib._ ed. Alexandre, ii., 159, 178, 189). But up to the present no N.T. writing has been found on linen.

Paul’s “books.”

On Paul’s “books and parchments,” see Zahn, _Kanon_ ii., 938 ff. I am not aware if J. Joseph takes up this point or not in his La Bibliothèque de l’Apôtre Paul (Chrétien Évang., 1897, v. 224-227). In the _Theol. Tijdschrift_, 1898, p. 217, the view that the μεμβράναι Paul sent for were blank sheets of parchment is called in question. The most natural explanation, certainly, is that they were.

Pen.

The N.T. makes no mention of the metal, wood, or bone stilus. By “the wild beast of the reeds” (Ps. lxviii. 31) the Rabbis understood the reed pen, which in Syriac also is commonly denoted by קנה, and they took it as referring to Rome and the Emperor, who decided the fate of nations with a single stroke of his pen.[42] Luther, moreover, was not without precedent in speaking of “governors with the pen” in Jud. v. 14, as the Syriac version renders it in the same way. In Ps. xlv. 2, the Hebrew עֵט is rendered κάλαμος (LXX), σχοῖνος (Aquila), and γραφεῖον (Symmachus). It is also rendered σχοῖνος by the translator of Jeremiah viii. 8, where Aquila has γραφεῖον. Σχοῖνος must therefore be added to the Bible names for pen. Γραφίς for γραφεῖον, mentioned alongside of ὄνυξ ἀδαμάντινος in Jer. xvii. 1, seems to belong to the Spanish-Greek of the Complutensian, but is really classic, as also its diminutive γραφίδιον. According to the Rabbis, pens were among the things God made in the evening of the last day of the creation. They were also venerated by the Egyptians and the Greeks as an invention of the Deity.[43] According to Antisthenes[44] or Democritus,[45] a young man, in order to enter the school of wisdom, requires to have a βιβλιαρίου καινου (= καὶ νοῦ) καὶ γραφείου καινου καὶ πινακιδίου καινου. In Cyprus, the stilus is called ἀλειπτήριον, and the γραμματοδιδάσκαλος in like manner διφθεράλοιφος.[46] In the recently discovered fragments of Diocletian’s _List of Wares_, the section περὶ πλούμου (goose, swan, and peacock feathers) is followed by that περὶ καλάμων καὶ μελανίου, and then by that περὶ ἐσθῆτος. Ink costs 12 drachmae the quart; Paphian and Alexandrian κάλαμοι[47] cost 4 drachmae; and κάλαμοι δευτ[έρας] φώρ[μης] the same. Baruch, the ἀναγνωστής, purchased ink and a pen in the market of the Gentiles, in order to write his letter to Jeremiah (ἀποστείλας εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν [v. l. διασπορᾶς] τῶν ἐθνῶν ἤνεγκε χάρτην καὶ μέλανα [v. l. μελαν]).[48] Demosthenes was not the only possessor of a silver stilus. Boniface, _e.g._, had one of that sort sent him from England.

[Sidenote: Reading and writing.]

The following is a list of expressions relating to reading and writing taken from the Greek Versions of the O.T. It makes no claim to be complete. The passages will be found in Hatch and Redpath’s _Concordance to the Septuagint_.

ἀκριβόω, ἀναγιγνώσκω, ἀνάγνωσις, ἀναγνωστής, ἀντίγραφον, ἀποκαλύπτειν; βιβλιαφόρος (βιβλιο-), βίβλινος, βιβλιογράφος (Est. iii. 13, Complut.), βιβλιοθήκη, βιβλίον (βυ-), βιβλιοφυλάκιον, βίβλος (βυ-); γαζά, γράμμα, γραμματεία, γραμματεύειν, γραμματεύς, γραμματικός, γραμματοεισαγωγεύς, γραπτόν, γράφειν (ἀνα-, ἀπο-, ἐπι-, κατα-, συν-), γραφεῖον (σιδηροῦν), γραφεὺς (ταχινός), γραφή (ἀνα-, ἀπο-, συν-), γραφικός, γραφίς; διφθέρωμα, διώκειν; εἴλημα, εἰς- or ἐγχαράττειν, ἐπιστολή, ἑρμηνεύω, ἐπιστάμενος γράμματα; θησαυροφύλαξ; κάλαμος (καλαμάριον, _vide_ Field’s _Hexapla_ on Ezek. ix. 2) κάστυ, κεφαλίς; μαχθάμ, μέλαν, μελανοδοχεῖον, μίλτος, μνημόσυνον, μολίβος, μολίβδινος; ξυρός; ὄνυξ ἀδαμάντινος, ὀξυγράφος; πινακίς, πινακίδιον, πτύξ, πτυχή, πυξίον; σελίς, σμίλη, στηλογραφία, σφραγίζειν, σφραγίς, σχοῖνος; τόμος (χαρτοῦ καινοῦ μεγάλου, Isa. viii. 1; also 1 Esdras vi. 23 for τόπος), τεῦχος, τύπος; χάρτης, χαρτίον, χαρτηρία.

Diastole and hyphen.

Ancient Homeric grammarians used to debate whether contiguous letters were to be read as one word or not. To obviate misunderstanding, they employed the ὑποδιαστολή as the mark of division (ὅ, τι, _e.g._), and the ὑφ’ ἕν as the mark of combination (Διό[σκ]ουροι, not Διὸς κοῦροι). Such marks are also found in manuscripts of the Bible, in the Septuagint, _e.g._, in the case of proper names. It goes without saying that the scriptio continua made the reading as well as the copying of manuscripts a matter of some difficulty. Hermas (Visio ii. 1) says of the book given him to copy μετεγραψάμην πάντα πρὸς γράμμα· οὐχ ηὕρισκον γὰρ τὰς συλλαβάς.[49] For two instructive mistakes in the Latin interlinear version of Codex Boernerianus see p. 77.

Breathings and accents.

Breathings and accents were found in various manuscripts of the Bible as early as the time of Epiphanius and Augustine. In our oldest manuscripts they seldom occur before the seventh century. They were inserted by the first hand of the Ambrosian Hexateuch (Swete’s F), which is ascribed to the first half of the fifth century by Ceriani. They seem to have been added to the Codex Vaticanus by the third hand, probably in the twelfth century, and do not always conform to our rules. Augustine, commenting on the rival readings _filiis_ and _porcina_, in Psalm xvi. 14, says: “quod (porcina) alii codices habent et verius habere perhibentur, quia diligentiora exemplaria per accentus notam eiusdem verbi graeci ambiguitatem graeco scribendi more dissolvunt, obscurius est” (ii. 504-5, in Lagarde’s _Probe einer neuen Ausgabe_, p. 40). Similarly, speaking of the difference between ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ and ῥάβδου αὑτοῦ, Gen. xlvii. 31, he says:—“fallit enim eos verbum graecum, quod eisdem literis scribitur sive _eius_ sive _suae_; sed accentus [= spiritus] dispares sunt et ab eis qui ista noverunt, in codicibus non contemnuntur” (iv. 53 ed. Lugd. 1586, cited by Scrivener, i. p. 47).

[Sidenote: Abbreviation.]

The practice of abbreviating words of frequent occurrence like Θ̅Σ̅, Χ̅Σ̅, Χ̅Σ̅, Α̅Ν̅Ο̅Σ̅ goes back to very early times. So, too, does the use of letters as numerals, Ι for 10, etc.

[Sidenote: Divisions.]

In dividing syllables the Greek copyists in general observed the rule of beginning each new line with a consonant. A good many exceptions occur however, especially in the Vaticanus, most of which have been corrected by a later hand. These are indicated in the third volume of Swete’s edition of the LXX. A good instance of this is seen in Jer. xiv. 12, where the Vaticanus and Marchalianus both originally had προσ ενεγκωσιν, which in the former is corrected to προ σενεγκωσιν, and in the latter to προσε νεγκωσιν. For examples from the O.T. portion of the Codex Vaticanus see Nestle’s _Septuagintastudien_, ii. 20.

Stichometry.

Carefully written manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments are provided with a system of stichometry just as occurs in the better manuscripts of the classics, as _e.g._ Herodotus and Demosthenes. In the N.T. it is found specially in those Pauline Epistles that go back to the recension of Euthalius. One of the writers of the Codex Vaticanus has copied, in several of the books of the O.T., the stichometric enumeration which he found in his original, and the numbers show that the manuscript he copied contained almost twice as much matter in a line as the one he himself wrote. See Nestle, _Septuagintastudien_, ii. 20 f.; Lagarde, _Die Stichometrie der syrisch-hexaplarischen Uebersetzung des alten Testaments_ (_Mitteilungen_, iv. 205-208). On the stichometric list in the Codex Claromontanus of the Pauline Epistles (D_{2}), see p. 76.

American scholars have counted the number of words in the Greek N.T. In Matthew the number is 18,222, in Mark 11,158, in Luke 19,209. Unfortunately, I am unable to give the total number in the N.T. See Schaff’s _Companion_, pp. 57, 176.

Graux (_Revue de Philologie_, ii.) has counted not only the words but the letters in the various books. The numbers are given in Zahn’s _Geschichte des N.T. Kanons_, i. 76. They are as follows:—

Letters. Stichoi.

Matthew, 89,295 2480

Mark, 55,550 1543

Luke, 97,714 2714

John, 70,210 1950

Acts, 94,000 2610

3 John, 1,100 31

Apocalypse, 46,500 1292

For Philemon, Zahn 1,567 44 gives

In this last epistle I find that my edition has 1538 letters, or including the title 1550. The lines in my edition happen to coincide as near as may be with the ancient stichoi. 41 stichoi at 36 letters to the stichos would give a total of 1476. Now in the 41 complete lines which my edition gives to Philemon I find 1469 letters, that is, only 7 fewer. In Jude, again, Graux enumerates 71 stichoi, while my edition shows exactly 70 lines or 71 with the title. For stichometric calculations, therefore, this edition will prove very convenient.

For a “Table of Ancient and Modern Divisions of the New Testament,” see Scrivener, i. 68; also Westcott, _Canon_, Appendix D, xix., xx.; _Bible in the Church_, Appendix B, 4.

[Sidenote: Cola and commata.]

The Cola and Commata were quite different from the stichoi. The length of the latter was regulated according to the space (space-lines), that of the former by the sense and structure of the sentence (sense-lines). On cola and commata see Wordsworth and White, _De colis et commatibus codicis Amiatini et editionis nostrae_, in the _Epilogus_ to their edition of the Vulgate, i. pp. 733-736. On the stichometry proper see _Ibid._, p. 736, _De stichorum numeris in euangeliis_.

Manuscripts de luxe.

Solomon perfumed with musk the letter he sent to Bilqis, Queen of Sheba, who herself could both read and write.[50] Mani inscribed characters on white satin in such a way that if a single thread was drawn out the writing became invisible.[51] On gold and silver writing among the Syrians see Zahn, _Tatian, Forschungen_, 108, n. 1; also R. Wessely, _Iconographie_ (_Wiener Studien_, xii. 2, 259-279). The earliest mention of this kind of writing that I know is in the Epistle of Aristeas,[52] σὺν ... ταῖς διαφόροις διφθέραις, ἐν αἷς [ἦν] ἡ νομοθεσία γεγραμμένη χρυσογραφίᾳ τοῖς Ἰουδαϊκοῖς γράμμασι, θαυμασίως εἰργασμένου τοῦ ὑμένος καὶ τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα συμβολῆς ἀνεπαισθήτου κατεσκευασμένης. In Alexander’s copy of the Pentateuch the name of God was written in gold letters.[53]

On the fineness of the parchment and the beauty of the writing see Chrysostom, _Hom. 32 in Joannem_: σπουδῆς περὶ τὴν τῶν ὑμένων λεπτότητα καὶ τὸ τῶν γραμμάτων κάλλος. Ephraem Syrus commended this Christian munificence, as is pointed out in the _Histor. Polit. Blätter_, 84, 2, 104. Gold writing is also mentioned in the Targum on Ps. xlv. 10.

The passage in the Epistle of Theonas to Lucian referring to the use of purple-dyed parchment is thought by Batiffol to be derived from that in Jerome’s Commentary on Job, and he founds on this an argument against the genuineness of the Epistle.[54] In the Martyrium of Qardagh the Persian, particular mention is made of the remarkable beauty and whiteness of the parchment (σωμάτιον) on which he wrote his epistles.[55]

For the preparation of his Bible, Origen procured the services not only of rapid writers (ταχυγράφοι) but also of girls who could write beautifully (καλλιγράφοι). Cassiodorus pleads—qui emendare praesumitis, ut superadjectas literas ita pulcherrimas facere studeatis, ut potius ab _Antiquariis_ scriptae fuisse judicentur.[56] We also find him making proposals for expensive bindings in the _De Inst._, c. 30, a passage which, according to Springer,[57] has been overlooked in the literature on illustrated bindings in modern histories of art.

On various decorated manuscripts see W. Wattenbach, _Ueber die mit Gold auf Purpur geschriebene Evangelien-handschrift der Hamiltonschen Bibliothek_, in the _Berliner Sitz.-Ber._, 7th March 1889, xiii. 143-156. Cf. _Berl. Phil. Wochenschrift_, 1889, 33, 34. This manuscript purported to be a gift to Henry VIII. from Pope Leo X., but was rather from Wolsey. Bishop Wilfrid of Ripon (670-688) had the four Gospels written with the finest gold. Boniface requested his English friends to send him the Epistles of Paul written with gold in order therewith to impress the simple-minded Germans (Ep. 32, p. 99), a fact of which Gustav Freitag makes use in his _Ingo und Ingraban_, p. 476. (See _Die Christliche Welt_, 1888, 22.) _Cf._ also the manuscripts of Theodulf in Paris and Puy (see below, p. 125). The Cistercians forbade the use of gold and silver bindings or clasps (firmacula) and also of different colours.

[Sidenote: Illustration.]

Illustrations must have made their appearance in Greek manuscripts a whole century earlier than has hitherto been supposed if H. Kothe is right in his interpretation of the passage in Diogenes Laertius, ii. 3, 8 (= Clem., _Strom._, i. 78, p. 364, Potter): πρῶτος δὲ Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ βιβλίον ἐξέδωκε σὺν γραφῇ (“with a picture”: formerly read as συγγραφῆς). In addition to the works of Aristotle and the obscene poems of Philainis, illustrated manuscripts were known to exist of the works of the astronomers Eudoxus and Aratus, of the botanist Dioscorides, of the tactician Euangelos, and of the geographer Ptolemy. A description of the earliest illustrated Bibles is given by Victor Schultze in the _Daheim_, 1898, No. 28, 449 ff., with good facsimiles. On the horses in the chariot of Elijah in a Greek manuscript of the ninth century in the Vatican Library, and on the pictures of the horsemen in the codex of Joshua also contained there, see F. aus’m Weerth in the _Jahrbuch des Vereins von Altertums-Freunden im Rheinland_, Heft 78 (1884), Plate VI.

Cassiodorus had a Pandectes Latinus—_i.e._ a manuscript of the Old Latin Bible of large size—which contained pictures of the Tabernacle and the Temple. There is an old work on this subject by P. Zornius entitled _Historia Bibliorum pictorum ex antiquitatibus Ebraeorum et Christianorum illustrata cum figuris_, Lipsiae, 1743, 4to; and by the same author, _Von den Handbibeln der ersten Christen_, Lips. 1738, also _Historia Bibliorum ex Ebraeorum diebus festis et jejuneis illustrata_, Lips., 1741. See also Georg Thiele, _De antiquorum libris pictis capita quattuor_, _Marburg_, 1897.

Palimpsests.

Palimpsests of Bible manuscripts came to be prohibited by the Church. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Trullan, Concilium quinisextum, 680-681), in its 68th canon, Περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἐξεῖναί τινι τῶν ἁπάντων βιβλία τῆς παλαιᾶς καὶ νέας διαθήκης διαφθείρειν, forbids the sale of old manuscripts of the Bible to the βιβλιοκάπηλοι or the μυρεψοί, or to any persons whatever.[58] There was naturally a special aversion to letting such manuscripts fall into the hands of Jews; but yet there were discovered, in the lumber room of the Synagogue of Old Cairo, fragments of a Greek MS. of the Gospels, which had been afterwards employed to receive Jewish writing. Parchments of this sort were at first used only for rough drafts and such like, instead of wax tablets from which the writing could be erased again.

Punctuation.

A good example of the importance of punctuation will be found in Lk. i. 35, on which see p. 201. Compare also Lk. xxi. 8, 1 Tim. ii. 5, where Lachmann punctuates καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος. By a different punctuation in Heb. i. 9, Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort make ὁ Θεός vocative and nominative respectively. In the former case the Messiah is God, in the other God is the one who anoints him. This difference was not observed at first by O. v. Gebhardt. Similarly there is a difference between the text and the margin of Westcott and Hort in verse 8, where by the insertion or omission of the two commas before and after ὁ Θεός the meaning is either that Messiah is God or that God is Messiah’s throne. Considering the importance of such marks of division, the rule laid down by Ephraem Syrus in the year 350, and again emphasized by Bengel and Lagarde, should be carefully attended to in the New Testament: εἰ κέκτησαι βιβλίον, εὐστιχὲς κτῆσαι αὐτό· μήποτε εὑρεθῇ ἐν αὐτῷ πρόσκομμα τῷ ἀναγινώσκοντι ἢ μεταγράφοντι (see Nestle, _Bengel als Gelehrter_, p. 24). Compare also what Chrysostom says regarding punctuation on Mt. viii. 9: τινὲς δὲ καὶ οὕτως ἀναγινώσκουσι τουτὶ τὸ χωρίον· εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπος ὤν, καὶ μεταξὺ στίξαντες ἐπάγουσιν· ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν ἔχων ὑπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ στρατιώτας. See also Victor (or whoever it is) on Mk. xvi. 9. On the change of the sense by means of false emphasis or punctuation see below, pp. 204(7), 276. J. A. Robinson thinks it probable that ὁ Ἀγαπητός is a separate title of the Messiah, and would point ὁ υἱός μου, ὁ Ἀγαπητός in Mk. i. 11, ix. 7 on the authority of the _Ascensio Esaiae_ and the Old Syriac (see Hastings’ _Bible Dictionary_, ii. 501).

Contents.

On the contents of Bible manuscripts see Zahn, _GK._ i. 62 f. According to him Jerome’s Old Testament was in 14 volumes. In addition to some entire Bibles Cassiodorus had the Scriptures written out in 9 codices. Of these vol. VII. comprised the Gospels, VIII. the Epistles, and IX. the Acts and Apocalypse. Leontius speaks of 6 books of the New Testament, of which probably I. was Mt. and Mk., II. Lk. and Jn., III. Acts, IV. Catholic Epistles, V. Pauline Epistles, VI. Apocalypse. As a rule the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles made two codices.

In cod. א we find that the different parts of the New Testament display a different type of text, from which we may conclude that the codex was copied, not from a single manuscript but from several. Similarly, the singular type of text exhibited by cod. Δ in Mark would show that this codex, or that from which it was copied, was transcribed from different rolls or codices, each containing one Gospel. See Zahn, _GK._ i. 63.

Bibliotheca.

On the designation _Bibliotheca_ and _Pandectes_ for Bible manuscripts, see Zahn, _GK._ i. 65. On τεῦχος, _ibid._ 67. He informs us that the earliest mention of a Christian _bibliotheca_ and its _armaria_ is in the heathen protocol of the year 304, in the _Gesta apud Zenophilum_ given in Dupin after Optatus, p. 262. The next earliest notice is in Augustine. The custodians of the bibliothecae were probably the Readers. In Ruinart’s _Acta Saturnini_ a certain Ampelius is mentioned as “custos legis, scripturarumque divinarum fidelissimus conservator.” From Irenaeus, iv. 33, 2 Lessing concluded that at that time the few existing copies of the Scriptures were in the custody of the clergy, and were only to be perused in their presence. (_Zusätze zu einer nötigen Antwort._ Works, ed. Maltzahn, xi. 2, 179.) On this point see Zahn, _GK._ i. 140.

(_a._) UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS.

[Sidenote: א]

א CODEX SINAITICUS, now in St. Petersburg, contains the entire New Testament written in the fourth or more probably at the beginning of the fifth century. The story of its discovery and acquisition is quite romantic. When Tischendorf, under the patronage of his sovereign King Frederick Augustus of Saxony, came to the Convent of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai for the first time in 1844, he rescued from a basket there forty-three old sheets of parchment which, with other rubbish, were destined for the fire. In this way he obtained possession of portions of one of the oldest MSS. of the Old Testament, which he published as the Codex Frederico-Augustanus (F-A) in 1846. At the same time he learned that other portions of the same Codex existed in the Monastery. He could find no trace of these, however, on his second visit in 1853. But on his third visit, undertaken with the patronage of the Emperor of Russia, the steward of the monastery brought him, shortly before his departure on the 4th February 1859, what surpassed all his expectations, the entire remaining portions of the Codex comprising a great part of the Old Testament and the whole of the New, wrapped up in a red cloth. Not only was the New Testament perfect, but in addition to the twenty-seven books, the MS. contained the Epistle of Barnabas and part of the so-called Shepherd of Hermas, two books of the greatest repute in early Christian times, the Greek text of which was only partially extant in Europe. Tischendorf managed to secure the MS. for the Emperor of Russia, at whose expense it was published in four folio volumes in the year 1862 on the thousandth anniversary of the founding of the Russian Empire. In return for the MS. the monastery received a silver shrine for St. Catherine, a gift of 7000 roubles for the library and 2000 for the monastery on Mount Tabor, while several Russian decorations were distributed among the Fathers.

Unfortunately the art of photography was not so far advanced thirty-eight years ago as to permit a perfect facsimile to be made of the MS., and Tischendorf had to be content with a printed copy executed as faithfully as the utmost care and superintendence would admit.

To what date does the manuscript belong? There is still extant a letter of the first Christian Emperor Constantine dating from the year 331, in which he asks Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, to provide him with fifty copies of the Old and New Testament for use in the principal churches of his empire (πεντήκοντα σωμάτια ἐν διφθέραις ἐγκατασκεύοις) and puts two public carriages at the bishop’s disposal for their safe transport. We have also the letter that Eusebius sent along with these Bibles, in which he consigns them ἐν πολυτελῶς ἠσκημένοις τεύχεσι τρισσᾶ καὶ τετρασσᾶ—_i.e._ “in expensively prepared volumes of three and four.” With former scholars Tischendorf understood the expression τρισσᾶ καὶ τετρασσᾶ of the number of sheets in the quires of the manuscripts, as though they had been composed of ternions and quaternions of twelve and sixteen pages respectively. Others took it as referring to the number of columns on the pages, Codex Sinaiticus, which Tischendorf believed to be one of these fifty Bibles, being unique in showing four columns to the page. The most probable explanation of the phrase is, however, that it indicates the number of volumes each Bible comprised, and means that each Bible of three or four parts, as the case might be, was packed in a separate box.[59] Tischendorf, as has been said, saw in Codex Sinaiticus one of these fifty Bibles. He also thought that א was the work of four different scribes, and was confident that one of these, the one who had written only six leaves of the New Testament, was the scribe of Codex Vaticanus. But other authorities bring א down to the beginning of the fifth century.

One can understand how it was that Tischendorf was led to overrate the value of this manuscript at first, and to call it by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet to signify its pre-eminence over all other manuscripts. The claim is so far justified that it is at least one of the oldest manuscripts, and of the oldest the only one that contains the entire New Testament. The order is that of the Gospels, Pauline Epistles (among which Hebrews is found after 2 Thess.), Acts, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, after which come Barnabas and Hermas.[60] This same order is observed in the Old Syriac Bible, and in the first printed Greek New Testament, the Complutensian Polyglot. The fact that Barnabas is still tacitly included in the books of the New Testament may be taken equally as indicating the age of א itself or that of the exemplar from which it was copied.[61] Jerome’s recension of Origen’s Lexicon of Proper Names in the Greek New Testament is still extant, and in it Barnabas is cited like the other books. In the Catalogus Claromontanus, which is a very old list of the books of the New Testament, Barnabas is even found before the Apocalypse, an arrangement which is not found again in the succeeding centuries.

[Transcriber’s Note: In this paragraph, there are two cases of letters separated by a slash, as if describing arithmetic division, like “a/b”. In the original book they are printed with the first item, “a”, raised up, and the second item, “b”, printed below the first. In this e-book, they are represented in this “a/b” form.]

[Sidenote: Canons.]

א is also the oldest MS. that has the so-called =Ammonian Sections= and =Eusebian Canons=. In order to facilitate the study of the Gospels, Ammonius of Alexandria arranged, alongside of Matthew’s Gospel, the parallel passages in Mark, Luke, and John. For this purpose he was obliged of course to dislocate these last.[62] Eusebius, however, simply divided the four Gospels into 1162 sections—viz., 355 in Matthew, 233 in Mark, 342 in Luke, and 232 in John. These he numbered consecutively in each Gospel, and then arranged the numbers in ten Canons or Tables. The first contained those passages which are found in all the four Gospels; the second, third, and fourth those common to any particular combination of three; the fifth to the ninth comprised the passages common to any two, and the tenth those peculiar to each one. The number of its Canon was then set under that of the section in the margin, and the Table inserted at the beginning or end of the manuscript. By this means it was possible to know in the case of each section whether a parallel was to be found in the other Gospels, and where. In the margin opposite John xv. 20, _e.g._, we find the numbers ρλθ/γ, _i.e._ 139/3. This tells us that this 139th section of John is also found in Matthew and Luke. For on referring to Canon 3 we find that it contains the passages common to John, Matthew, and Luke, and that this section numbered 139 in John, is 90 in Matthew and 58 in Luke. And the sections being numbered consecutively in each Gospel, we easily ascertain that the former is Matthew x. 24, and the latter Luke vi. 40. These, or similar numbers, were afterwards inserted in the lower margin of manuscripts, as, _e.g._, in Codex Argenteus of the Version of Ulfilas. They are still printed alongside the text in our larger editions, though, of course, owing to the introduction of our system of chapter and verse division they have lost their main significance.

[Sidenote: Revisions.]

Now, a Codex like א represents to us not one manuscript only, but several at once. It embodies first of all the manuscript from which its text was immediately derived, and then also that or those by which it was revised. That is to say, after the manuscript was written by the scribe, either to dictation or by copying, it was, particularly in the case of a costly manuscript, handed over to a person called the διορθωτής and revised. This might be done several times over; it might be done by a later owner if he were a scholar. But it might happen, as in the case of א _e.g._, that the exemplar by which the manuscript was revised was not the identical one from which it had been copied but a different one, perhaps older, perhaps exhibiting another form of text altogether. Tischendorf distinguished no fewer than seven correctors in א. One of these, belonging, it may be, to the seventh century, adds a note at the end of the book of Ezra to the following effect,—“This codex was compared with a very ancient exemplar which had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus; which exemplar contained at the end the subscription in his own hand: ‘Taken and corrected according to the Hexapla of Origen: Antonius compared it: I, Pamphilus, corrected it.’”[63] A similar note is found appended to the Book of Esther, where it is also pointed out that variants occurred in the case of proper names. Traces are still discoverable in the Psalms which go to prove that the corrector’s Bible agreed with that of Eusebius, while the manuscript itself had been copied from one that was very different.

A considerable number of scholars are of opinion that א was written in the West, perhaps in Rome. (_See Plate I._)

Tischendorf: (1) _Notitia editionis_, 1860; (2) _Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus_, Petropoli, 1862, fol. Vol. I., Prolegomena et Commentaria; Vol. IV., Novum Testamentum. (3) _N. T. Sinaiticum_, Lips. 1863. (_Die Anfechtungen der Sinaibibel_, Lips. 1863; _Waffen der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel_, Lips. 1863.) (4) _N. T. Graece ex Sinaitico Codice omnium antiquissimo_, Lips. 1865. _Collatio textus graeci editionis polyglottae cum Novo Testamento Sinaitico. Appendix editionis Novi Testamenti polyglottae_, Bielefeldiae. Sumptibus Velhagen et Klasing, 1894, large 8vo, pp. iv. 96. (Preface only by Tischendorf.) On Kenyon’s showing, the recent papyrus discoveries give no occasion for abandoning the conclusions formerly come to regarding the age of these parchment manuscripts (_Palaeography_, p. 120). Scrivener, _A full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the N. Testament_, 2nd edition, 1867. Ezra Abbot, “On the comparative antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts of the Greek Bible,” _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, vol. x., i. 1872, pp. 189 ff.

[Sidenote: A.]

A. CODEX ALEXANDRINUS: middle or end of the fifth century: written probably at Alexandria: contains a note in Arabic stating that it was presented to the library of the Patriarch of Alexandria in the year 1098. The Codex was sent by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I. of England in 1628, and was deposited in the library of the British Museum on its foundation in 1753, where it has been ever since. It has been employed in the textual criticism of the New Testament since the time of Walton. It was printed in 1786 by Woide in facsimile from wooden type. The Old Testament portion of it was also published in 1816-1828 by Baber. The entire manuscript was issued in autotype facsimile in 1879 and 1880.

The Codex is defective at the beginning of the New Testament, the first twenty-six leaves down to Matthew xxv. 6 being absent, as also two containing John vi. 50-viii. 52, and three containing 2 Cor. iv. 13-xii. 6. It also contains after the Apocalypse the (first) Epistle of Clement of Rome and a small fragment of the so-called second Epistle, which is really an early sermon. In the Codex these are recognised as parts of the New Testament, inasmuch as in the table of contents prefixed to the entire work they are included with the other books under the title ἡ καινη διαθηκη.[64] After them is given the number of books ὁμου βιβλια, only the figures are now, unfortunately, torn away. The contents indicate that the Psalms of Solomon should have followed, but these have been lost with the rest of the manuscript.

A is distinguished among the oldest manuscripts by the use of capital letters to indicate new sections. But in order to economize room and to obviate spacing the lines, the first letter of the section, if it occurs in the middle of a line, is not written larger, but the one that occurs at the beginning of the next whole line is enlarged and projects into the margin. (_See Plate I. 2._) Later scribes have copied this so slavishly that they have written these letters in capitals even when they occur in the middle of the line in their manuscripts. The Egyptian origin of this Codex is shown by its use of Coptic forms for A and M. In several books A displays a remarkable affinity with Jerome in those very passages where he deviates from the older Latin version.

The books in A follow the order—Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse. (Westcott, _Canon_, Appendix D. xii.; _Bible in the Church_, Appendix B.)

Woide, 1786; eiusdem, _Notitia codicis Alexandrini, Recud. cur. notasque adjecit_ G. L. Spohn, Lipsiae, 1788; Cowper, 1860, Hansell, 1864; Photographic facsimile by Thompson, 1879; and in the Facsimiles of the Palæographical Society, Pl. 106.

The mixed character of the text of A was early observed; see Lagarde, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, p. 94.

C. F. Hoole ascribes the Codex Alexandrinus to the middle of the fourth century (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1891; see _Academy_, July 25, 1891, 73).

[Sidenote: B.]

B. CODEX VATICANUS _par excellence_, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library at Rome, inserted there shortly after its foundation by Pope Nicolas V., and one of its greatest treasures. Like A it once contained the whole of the Old Testament with the exception of the Books of Maccabees. The first 31 leaves, containing Gen. i. 1-xlvi. 28, are now wanting, as well as 20 from the Psalms containing Ps. cv. (cvi.) 27-cxxxvii. (cxxxviii.) 6. The New Testament is complete down to Heb. ix. 14, where it breaks off at καθα[ριει]. 1 and 2 Tim., Titus, Philemon, and the Apocalypse are, therefore, also wanting. Rahlfs supposes that the manuscript may have originally contained the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas as well. Erasmus obtained some account of this manuscript, and Pope Sixtus V. made it the basis of an edition of the Greek Old Testament, which was published in 1586, thereby determining the _textus receptus_ of that portion of the Bible.—Would he had done the same for the New Testament! This task was undertaken afterwards, specially by Bentley and Birch. Professor Hug of Freiburg recognised the value of the Codex when it was removed from Rome to Paris by Napoleon in 1809. Cardinal Angelo Mai printed an edition of it between 1828 and 1838, which, however, did not appear till 1857, three years after his death, and which was most unsatisfactory. After Tischendorf had led the way with the Codex Sinaiticus, Pope Pio Nono gave orders for an edition, which was printed between 1868 and 1872 in five folio volumes. Not till 1881, however, did the last volume of this edition appear containing the indispensable commentary prepared under the supervision of Vercellone, J. Cozza, C. Sergio, and H. Fabiani, with the assistance of U. Ubaldi and A. Rocchi. Then at last the manuscript was photographed, the New Testament in 1889, and the Old Testament, in three volumes, in 1890—a veritable ἡλίου ἀνάθημα. No facsimile now can give any idea of its original beauty, because a hand of the tenth or eleventh century—or as the Roman editors say, a monk called Clement in the fifteenth century—went over the whole manuscript, letter by letter, with fresh ink, restoring the faded characters and at the same time adding accents and breathings in accordance with the pronunciation of his time (ἄμαξα, for example, and ἁλώπηξ, δἒ). The Old Testament is the work of at least two scribes, one of whom wrote down to 1 Sam. ix. 11, and the other to the end of 2 Esdras. Tischendorf’s opinion with regard to the writer of the New Testament has been already noticed. There can be no question that B is more carefully written than א. In the Gospels the Vatican exhibits a peculiar division into 170, 62, 152, and 80 sections respectively, which is found also in Ξ; in the Acts there is a double division into 36 and 69.[65] The enumeration affixed to the Pauline Epistles shows that these were copied from a manuscript in which Hebrews came after Galatians, though in B its position has been changed so as to follow 2 Thessalonians. The copyist has also retained in part of the Old Testament the enumeration of the stichoi which he found in his original. In the New Testament the order of the books is Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles. An increased interest would be lent to this manuscript if, as has been supposed, it represents the recension of the Egyptian Bishop and Martyr Hesychius, of which Jerome makes mention in two places. (Bousset, _Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament_, pp. 74-110, see especially p. 96.) On the Egyptian character of B, see also Burkitt in _Texts and Studies_, v. p. viii. f., and compare below, p. 183 f. (_See Plate IV._)

Hug, _Commentatio de antiquitate codicis Vaticani_, 1810. Vercellone, _Dell’ antichissimo codice Vaticano della Bibbia Greca_, 1859; reprinted in his _Dissertazioni accademiche_, Roma, 1864, 115 ff. First facsimile reproduction, _Bibliorum sacrorum Graecus Codex Vaticanus ... collatis studiis Caroli Vercellone et Josephi Cozza editus_, vol. v., Rome, 1868; vol. vi. (Proleg. Comment. Tab. ed. Henr. Fabiani et Jos. Cozza), 1881; _cf._ _ThLz._, 1882, vi. 9. A. Giovanni, _Della Illustrazione dell’ edizione Romana del Codice Vaticano_, Rome, 1869. Photographic edition, _Novum Testamentum e Codice Vaticano 1209 ... phototypice repraesentatum ... curante Jos. Cozza-Luzi_, Rome, 1889, fol.; see H. C. Hoskier, _The Expositor_, 1889, vol. x. 457 ff.; O. v. Gebhardt, _ThLz._, 1890, 16; Nestle, _Sep.-St._, ii. 16 ff. Alf. Rahlfs, _Alter und Heimat der Vatikanischen Bibelhandschrift_ (Nachrichten der Gesell. der Wiss. zu Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, 1889, Heft i. pp. 72-79). In this article Rahlfs seeks to prove that the number and order of the books in the Old and New Testaments contained in B correspond exactly to the Canon of the Scriptures given by Athanasius in his thirty-ninth Festal Letter of the year 367. In it, Athanasius, after mentioning all the canonical books of the Bible, including those of the N. T., cites the extra-canonical books of the O. T. which are allowed to be read, putting them after the second group, βίβλοι στιχήρεις, because two of these books, Wisdom and Sirach, were to be written στιχηδόν. In the N. T. the Greek and Syriac forms of the Festal Letter put Hebrews expressly between the Epistles to the Churches and the Pastoral Epistles. In the Sahidic version of the Letter, however, Hebrews stands before Galatians. This latter arrangement is evidently the survival of a pre-Athanasian order which has been longer preserved in the Sahidic translation.[66] But if B is the work of Athanasius, it follows that it cannot be one of the Bibles ordered by Constantine. In this case it would rather be written in Egypt, and we should have in it the Recension of Hesychius, as Grabe supposed was the case in the O. T., while Hug held the same view in regard to the N. T. text of this manuscript (see below, c. III.). Against the theory of Rahlfs, see O. v. Gebhardt in the _Theologische Litteraturzeitung_, 1899, n. 20.

[Sidenote: C.]

C. CODEX EPHRAEMI RESCRIPTUS, No. 9 in the National Library at Paris, the most important of the palimpsests. This manuscript receives its name from the fact that in the twelfth century thirty-eight treatises of Ephraem, the Syrian Father (d. 373), were written over the original text. After various attempts had been made at its decipherment by Wettstein and others, Tischendorf in 1843 and 1845 published as much of the New and Old Testaments as he was able to make out after eighteen months’ labour, thereby establishing his reputation as a textual critic.

The manuscript once contained the entire Bible, but the whole of 1 and 2 Thessalonians has been lost, as also some 37 chapters from the Gospels, 10 from the Acts, 42 from the Epistles, and 8 from the Apocalypse. There is no trace of a chapter division in Acts, Epistles, or Apocalypse. This last seems to have been copied from an exemplar consisting of about 120 small leaves, one of which had been displaced by some mistake. The Codex dates from the fifth century, and may possibly have been written in Egypt. Its earliest corrections are important, and were inserted in the sixth century.

A detailed list of the contents of C is given by Scrivener, vol. i. 121. Facsimile, _ibid._, Plate X. p. 121.

Tischendorf, _Th. St. und Kr._, 1841, 126 ff; N. T. edited 1843, O. T. 1845. Lagarde, _Ges. Abhandlungen_, p. 94. The page of the O. T. which Tischendorf issued in facsimile has most unfortunately disappeared, as Martin points out in his _Description technique des manuscrits grecs relatifs au N. T., etc._, Paris, 1884, p. 4. A. Jacob, _Notes sur les MSS. grecs palimpsestes de la Bibliothèque Nationale_, in _Melanges Julien Havet_, 759-770.

The foregoing is what remains of the four great manuscripts which once contained the whole Bible. It will be observed that at the present time they are distributed among the Capitals of the great branches of the Christian Church—viz., St. Petersburg (Greek), Rome and Paris (Roman), and London (Anglican). German scholars have taken a foremost place in the work of their investigation.

[Sidenote: D.]

D. CODEX BEZAE CANTABRIGIENSIS, inferior to the foregoing in age, compass, and repute, but perhaps surpassing all of them in importance, by reason of its unique character. The manuscript was presented to the University of Cambridge in 1581 by Calvin’s friend Theodore Beza, “ut inter vere christianas antiquissimae plurimisque nominibus celeberrimae.” It is not earlier than the beginning of the sixth century, but is of peculiar importance as the oldest of the Greek-Latin manuscripts of the Bible. It now contains, with certain lacunæ, the Gospels (in the order Matthew, John, Luke, Mark), the concluding verses of the Latin text of 3 John, followed immediately by the Acts, showing that in this manuscript the Epistle of Jude either stood somewhere else or was absent altogether. At least nine later hands can be distinguished in it. The first scribe was more familiar with Latin than Greek, and therefore inserts a Roman letter here and there in the middle of a Greek word, and has frequently to use the sponge to wash out the mistakes he makes in writing his manuscript.[67] Innumerable passages occur,

## particularly in Luke and Acts, where the text of D differs in the most

remarkable manner from that of all the Greek manuscripts we are acquainted with. It alone, _e.g._, contains after Luke vi. 4 the incident of the man working in the field on the Sabbath day, to whom Jesus said, “O Man, if thou knowest what thou doest, blessed art thou, but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the Law.” It is the only one also that has the words in Luke xi. 2, “when ye pray, use not vain repetitions as the λοιποί.” In Luke xxiii. 53, it says that the stone before the grave of Jesus was of such a size ὃν μόγις εἴκοσι ἐκύλιον, an addition in which it has the support of only one Latin MS. and the Sahidic Version. Again in Acts xii. 10, it is alone in recording that there were seven steps down from the prison in Jerusalem (κατέβησαν τοὺς ἑπτὰ βαθμούς). Other examples might be given of similar peculiar interpolations for the explanation of which reference must be made to c. III. below.

Its companion Latin text d is not translated directly from its own Greek but from the Greek of the parent manuscript. Seeing that the manuscript was discovered in the Monastery of Irenæus at Lyons, and that its text agrees with the Scripture quotations found in that Father even in the matter of clerical mistakes, it is possible that the Greek text is derived from his copy. The Greek occupies the left-hand page of the open volume, which is the place of honour. (_See Plates II and III._)

Kipling, Facsimile edition, _Codex Th. Bezae Cantabrigiensis_, 1793, 2 vols.; Scrivener, _Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis. An exact copy in ordinary type ... with critical introduction, annotations, and facsimiles_. 4to, pp. lxiv + 453, 1864. Collation of the same by Nestle, _Supplementum_, 1896 (see p. 26). Cambridge University Press, _Photographic facsimile_. _Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis Quattuor Evangelia et Actus Apostolorum continens Graece et Latine._ 2 vols., pp. 830, 1899. 12 guineas. (See _Literature_, 29th April 1899, p. 451 ff.); Dav. Schulz, _Disputatio de Codice D._, 1827; K. A. Credner, _Beiträge zur Einleitung_, vol. i., 1832, pp. 452-518; J. R. Harris, _Codex Bezae. A study of the so-called Western Text of the N. T._ (_Texts and Studies_, vol. ii.) Cambridge, 1891; also _Credner and the Codex Bezae. A Lecture delivered in the Divinity School, Cambridge, 19th Nov. 1892._ (_The Classical Review_, vol. vii. 6, _June 1893_, pp. 237-243); Chase, _The Old Syriac Element in the text of Codex Bezae_, London, 1893; also _The Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels_, London, 1895; Nestle, _Some Observations on the Codex Bezae_ in the _Expositor_, v. 2, 1895, p. 235; H. Trabaud, _Un curieux manuscrit du N. T._ in the _Revue de théologie et de philosophie_, Lausanne, 1896, p. 378; Fr. Blass: 1. _Die zwiefache Textüberlieferung in der Apostelgeschichte_ (_Th. St. Kr._, 1894, p. 86 ff.); 2. _Acta Apostolorum sive Lucae ad Theophilum Liber alter. Editio philologica_, Göttingen, 1895; 3. _Acta Apostolorum ... secundum formam quae videtur Romanam_, Leipzig, 1896; 4. _Ueber die verschiedenen Textformen in den Schriften des Lukas_ (_Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift_, 1895, p. 712); 5. _De duplici forma Actorum Lucae_ (_Hermathena_, Dublin, 1895, p. 121); 6. _De variis formis Evangelii Lucani_ (_Ibid._, Dublin, 1896, p. 291); 7. _Neue Texteszeugen für die Apostelgeschichte_ (_Th. St. Kr._, 1896, p. 436); 8. _Evangelium secundum Lucam sive Lucae ad Theophilum Liber prior. Secundum formam quae videtur Romanam_, Leipzig, 1897; B. Weiss, _Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte. Textkritische Untersuchung_, Leipzig, 1897, (= Texte und Untersuchungen. N. F. Zweiter Band, Heft 1); F. Graefe, _Der Codex Bezae und das Lucasevangelium_, _Th. St. Kr._, 1898, i. 116-140; compare especially, _On the Italian Origin of Codex Bezae. 1. Codex Bezae and cod. 1071_, by the Rev. K. Lake; _2. The Marginal Notes of Lections_, by the Rev. F. E. Brightman in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. 3 (April 1900) pp. 441-454. Codex 1071 is a minuscule on Mt. Athos, in which the text of the Pericope Adulterae (John viii.) is essentially the same as the singular text exhibited by D. It seems to have come from Calabria. The lectionary indicated in the margin of D points to a mixed Greek and Latin population such as that in the South of Italy.

In what follows the manuscripts are grouped according to their contents as copies of the Gospels, Acts and Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, or of the Apocalypse.

[Sidenote: Gospels.]

E. CODEX BASILIENSIS, by some ascribed to the seventh century, but belonging more probably to the eighth: brought to Europe by Cardinal John de Ragusio, who was sent on a mission to the Greeks by the Council of Basel (1431): used by Mill, Bengel, and Wettstein: Luke iii. 4-15 and xxiv. 47-53 wanting: has been in the University Library at Basel since 1559. (Scrivener, i. p. 131, Plate XI. 27.)

F. BOREELIANUS, written in the ninth century: so called as belonging at one time to a Dutchman named John Boreel: now in Utrecht: has many lacunæ, some of which have arisen since Wettstein collated the manuscript in 1730. (Scrivener, i. 131, Plate XI. 28.)

F^a. COISLINIANUS, of the seventh century, though some say the sixth and others the eighth: consists of only 26 verses from Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Col., and Heb., written on the margin of a famous Parisian manuscript of the Octoteuch in Greek containing Gen.-Deut., Josh., Jud., and Ruth. List of contents of F^a in Scrivener, i. 134.

G. SEIDELIANUS, of the tenth century: part of it in the British Museum in London and part in Trinity College, Cambridge: brought from the East by Seidel and presented in 1718 by the Berlin Librarian La Croze to J. Chr. Wolf, a clergyman in Hamburg who cut out half a page to send to Bentley in 1721. (Scrivener, i. 131, Plate XI. 29.)

H. SEIDELIANUS II., of the ninth century, in Hamburg: bequeathed with his library to his native city by Wolf, and rediscovered there in 1838. (Scrivener, i, 134, Plate XII. 31.)

I. TISCHENDORFIANUS II., fragments of seven manuscripts in St. Petersburg found by Tischendorf in the Monastery of Mar Saba, near the Dead Sea: consists of 28 palimpsest leaves with Greek writing of the tenth century containing only 255 verses of the New Testament, of which 190 are from the Gospels: the three oldest leaves are of the fifth century; some of them are perhaps parts of a once complete Bible: detailed list of contents in Scrivener, i. 134 f.

I^b. So indicated by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, formerly known as N^b, of the fourth or more probably the fifth century: a threefold palimpsest written first in Greek and afterwards twice in Syriac: contains 17 verses from John’s Gospel: now in the British Museum: list of verses in Scrivener, i. 141.

K. CYPRIUS, No. 63 in the National Library at Paris: middle of the ninth century: purchased in Cyprus for Colbert in 1673: one of the six, or including Ω seven, complete uncial manuscripts of the Gospels, the others being א BMSU (Ω). Facsimile in Scrivener, i., Plate VII. p. 153.

L. REGIUS, No. 62 in the National Library at Paris: of the eighth century: contains the four Gospels complete with the exception of five lacunæ in Matthew iv. v. and xxviii., Mark x. and xv., and in John xxi.: important as showing the double conclusion of Mark’s Gospel which is exhibited as yet, except in versions, in only three other uncials (ד, ק, and Ψ) and one minuscule (see Plate X.). Facsimile of L, Mark xvi. 8, 9, in Scrivener, i., Plate IX. 21, p. 137. The conclusions, as found in L, ד, ק, and Ψ, are printed and discussed in Swete’s _Gospel according to St. Mark_, pp. xcviii, xcix. See also Westcott and Hort’s Introduction, Appendix, p. 28 ff.; Scrivener, ii. 337; Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. p. 13.

M. CAMPIANUS, 48 in the National Library, Paris: of the ninth century: presented to Louis XIV. by the Abbé François de Camps, 1st January 1706: contains the four Gospels complete: one of the oldest manuscripts, with the exception of D, that exhibit the pericope of the adulteress, John vii. 53 ff. Facsimile in Scrivener, i., Plate XII. p. 134.

N. PURPUREUS, belonging to the end of the sixth century: one of the most lovely manuscripts, consisting of 45 leaves, of which 6 are in the Vatican Library at Rome, 4 in the British Museum, 2 in Vienna, and the remaining 33 in the Monastery of St. John in Patmos, from which, in all probability, the others were carried off. The manuscript is written with silver letters on a purple ground, only the letters are not printed on it with movable type as was formerly supposed in the case of the similar Codex Argenteus of Ulfilas. The contents are given in Scrivener, i. 139 f., and a facsimile at p. 98, Plate V. 182 other leaves belonging to this manuscript were recently acquired in Cappadocia for Russia.

The Vienna fragment is most beautifully printed in facsimile in that superb work, _Die Wiener Genesis_, edited by Wilh. Ritter von Hartel and Franz Wickhoff: Supplement to vols. xv. and xvi. of the _Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses_. Vienna, 1895. Hartel (p. 142) sees no reason why the manuscript should not be ascribed to the fifth century.

The text of Codex N, including the new Russian fragments, has been published with Introduction and Appendix by the Rev. H. S. Cronin in _Texts and Studies_, v. 4, 1899. The Appendix contains a collation of the Gospel of Mark in the Codex Imperatricis Theodorae (Scriv. 473: Hort 81: Tisch. 2^{pe}: Greg. 565; see note on p. 151). See Nestle in the _Zeitschrift für wiss. Theologie_, 42 (1899), pp. 621-623.

Some leaves of another purple manuscript have been acquired in Paris. See H. Omont, _Acad. des Inscr._, Mars-Avril 1900.

O. In Moscow, consists of a few leaves taken from the binding of a book: contains 15 verses from John’s Gospel i. and xx.: written in the ninth century.

O^{a-h}. Psalters, in which are found, after the Psalms among the poetic selections from the Bible, the Magnificat, the Benedictus, and the Nunc Dimittis from the first and second chapters of Luke’s Gospel. O^c is a Greek Psalter of the sixth century written in Latin characters and is at Verona. O^d is a purple Psalter of the seventh century at Zurich. O^e at St. Gall is a Psalter of the ninth century, written partly in Latin and

## partly in Greek.

P and Q. Two palimpsests at Wolfenbüttel, the former belonging to the sixth and the latter to the fifth century. P, it appears, came from Bobbio and was afterwards at Weissenburg, Mayence, and Prague. Q, together with a portion of Ulfilas’s Gothic Bible, has been employed to receive the works of Isidore of Seville. The codices were edited with great care by Tischendorf in 1869.

R. NITRIENSIS, of the sixth century: in the British Museum: consists of 48 leaves containing some 516 verses from Luke’s Gospel, over which and a manuscript of 4000 verses of the Iliad, the Syriac works of Severus of Antioch were written in the ninth century. The palimpsest was brought from the Nitrian Desert in 1847, and deposited in the British Museum. (Scrivener, i. 145, Plate VI, 17.)

S. VATICANUS 354: one of the earliest manuscripts of the Greek New Testament that bears an exact date. At the end is written, ἐγράφη ἡ τιμία δέλτος αὕτη διὰ χειρὸς ἐμοῦ Μιχαὴλ μοναχοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ μηνὶ Μαρτίῳ α’, ἡμέρᾳ έ, ὥρᾳ ϛ’, ἔτους ϛυνζ’, ἰνδικτιῶνος ζ’, _i.e._ at six o’clock on Thursday, 1st March 6457 in the 7th Indiction[68] or 949 A.D.

T^a. Of the fifth century: in the Museum Borgianum at Rome: written probably by a Coptic monk: unfortunately a mere fragment containing only 17 leaves from Luke and John: is written in two columns, that on the left containing a Sahidic version. T^b, similar small fragments of John in St. Petersburg of the sixth century. T^c, also of the sixth century, a fragment of Matthew, formerly in the possession of Bishop Porfiri Uspenski of Kiev, and now at St. Petersburg. T^d, of the seventh century, in Rome, part of a Sahidic-Greek Evangeliarium, containing a few verses from Matthew, Mark, and John. T^e, of the sixth century (?), at Cambridge, consists of four verses, Matthew iii. 13-16. T^h (T^k in _TiGr._ p. 450), three leaves from Matthew xx. and xxii. T^{i-r}, fragments of six Greek-Coptic and three Greek Gospels of the ninth and tenth centuries, but possibly the seventh and eighth, published by Amélineau in vol. xxxiv. of the _Notices et Extraits de la Bibliothèque Nationale_, 1895, 363 ff.; _cf._ v. Dobschütz in the _Lit. Cent.-Blatt._, 1895, 42, 1857. T^l contains the double conclusion of Mark’s Gospel. T^{woi}, similar leaves at Oxford which once belonged to Woide, but by a different hand from T^a.

To these Græco-Coptic fragments there is now to be added two chapters of John’s Gospel (iii. 5-iv. 49), in Greek and Middle Egyptian, written in the sixth century. They are published by W. E. Crum and F. G. Kenyon in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. 3 (April 1900), pp. 415-433. The find contains no remarkable readings. The editors call its text neutral, and think it helps to show that Egypt was the home of such correct and upright texts. (T^w Greg.)

U. NANIANUS, so called from a former possessor: of the end of the ninth or beginning of the tenth century: in Venice: a very beautiful and complete manuscript of the Gospels, with ornamentations in gold. (Scrivener, i. 137, Plate IX. 22.)

V. Formerly at Mount Athos, now in Moscow: of the ninth century: first employed by Bengel and Wettstein through the medium of G. B. Bilfinger.

W. Various small fragments: W^a of the eighth century in Paris: a fragment of Luke. W^b of the eighth century (or the ninth) in Naples: a palimpsest with parts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. W^c of the ninth century at St. Gall: a palimpsest, containing fragments of Mark and Luke, perhaps once bilingual, Greek-Latin. W^d of the ninth century in Cambridge. W^e of the ninth century: part of John, at Mount Athos, Oxford, and Athens. W^f of the ninth century: in Oxford: fragment of Mark. W^g of the ninth century: consisting of 36 palimpsest leaves with 497 verses from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in the British Museum. W^h of the ninth century: in Oxford: part of Mark. W^{i-m} in Paris, of the seventh to the eighth or ninth century: fragments of Mark and Luke, of which W^l and W^k are printed in Omont’s _Catalogue des Manuscrits Grecs, Latins, Français, et Espagnols et des Portulans, recueillis par feu Emmanuel Miller_, Paris, 1897. W^n of the seventh century, in Vienna: fragments of John. W^o of the ninth century, in Milan: 16 mutilated palimpsest leaves, containing portions of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

X. MONACENSIS, written at the end of the ninth or beginning of the tenth century, now in Munich, contains the Gospels, with lacunæ, and a commentary, in the order Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII. 38; for contents see _ibid._, p. 152.

X^b. Fragment containing Luke i. 1-ii. 40, hitherto reckoned among the minuscules and numbered 429; also in Munich.

Y. Belonging to the eighth century, in the Barberini Library at Rome: 6 leaves containing John xvi. 3-xix. 41.

Z. A palimpsest in Dublin of the fifth or sixth century, containing 295 verses of Matthew’s Gospel. Scrivener, i. 153; Plate VII. 18.

The Roman alphabet not being sufficient for the number of uncial manuscripts, recourse was taken to those letters of the Greek and Hebrew which have a distinct form from those already employed. It was proposed by others to reserve the Greek letters for those manuscripts no longer extant, whose text can be reconstructed from a number of kindred manuscripts as their common archetype.

Γ. Of the ninth or tenth century: part in Oxford and part in St. Petersburg, the former having been obtained from Tischendorf in 1855 and the latter in 1859: contains the whole of Luke and John, but Mark is defective from iii. 34 to vi. 20, while Matthew is still more defective. The writing of the manuscript was finished on a certain Thursday, the 27th November, in the eighth year of an indiction. Tischendorf accordingly fixed its date as 844. It was previously assigned by Gardthausen to the year 979. Scrivener, i. 134, Plate XII. 35.

Δ. SANGALLENSIS, written at the end of the ninth or beginning of the tenth century: now at St. Gall, where it was probably transcribed by an Irish monk: has an interlinear Latin version, and was not, therefore, like D, intended for church but for school purposes. The Codex has the four Gospels complete with the exception of John xix. 17-35. In Mark the text shows a closer agreement with CL than in the other Gospels. The manuscript has been copied from one written _scriptione continua_, and in consequence the words are often wrongly divided. See G_{3} below, p. 77.

Θ^{a-d}. Small fragments brought from the East by Tischendorf, of which Θ^a belongs to the seventh century, and Θ^{bcd} to the seventh, sixth, and seventh or eighth century respectively. The first is in Leipzig, the others in St. Petersburg. Θ^{e-h} were formerly in the possession of Bishop Porfiri of Kiev.

Λ. Of the ninth century: contains the Gospels of Luke and John entire: evidently the second part of a minuscule brought to St. Petersburg by Tischendorf, No. 566^{evv} (Greg.)[69]: marginal scholia are affixed to four passages in Matthew—viz. iv. 5, xvi. 17, xviii. 22, xxvi. 74, giving the readings of τὸ Ἰoυδαϊκόν, _i.e._ the lost Gospel according to the Hebrews, and its subscription runs, ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμοις παλαιῶν ἀντιγράφων τῶν ἐν τῷ ὄρει ἁγίῳ ἀποκειμένων· ἐν στίχοις βφιδ’ (2514) κεφαλαῖς τνε’ (345). The manuscript is in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Scrivener, i. 131, Plate XI. 30.

_Cf._ von Dobschütz, _Zwei Bibelhandschriften mit doppelter Schriftart_ (_Th. Lz._, 1889, iii. 74 f.).

Ξ. ZACYNTHIUS, a palimpsest of the eighth century from Zante, now in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society in London: the earliest manuscript with a commentary: has the same system of chapter division as B, and is oftener found supporting B against A than _vice versa_.

Π. Of the ninth century: contains the Gospels almost complete: once the property of a Greek of Smyrna called Parodos: procured by Tischendorf for the Emperor of Russia.

Σ. Of the sixth century: written on purple with gold and silver lettering and 17 miniatures, being the earliest manuscript to contain such: rescued from obscurity in 1879 by Oscar v. Gebhardt and A. Harnack, who discovered it at Rossano in Calabria: hence designated as Codex Rossanensis: is nearly related to N. Scrivener, i. 124, Plate XIV. 43.

O. v. Gebhardt, _Die Evangelien des Matthäus und des Marcus aus dem Codex Purpureus Rossanensis herausgegeben_ (T. und U., i. 4, 1883). A. Haseloff, _Cod. Pur. Rossanensis. Die Miniaturen der griechischen Evangelien-Handschrift in Rossano. Nach photographischen Aufnahmen herausgegeben._ Leipzig, 1898 (contains 14 facsimiles of the text and 15 photographic plates). _Vide_ S. Berger in _Bull. Crit._, 1899, 6: also F. X. v. Funk, _Die Zeit. des Cod. Rossanensis_ in the _Hist. Jahrbuch der Görresgeschellschaft_, xvii. 2, 1896, 331-344.

Φ. CODEX BERATINUS, of the sixth century: at Berat in Albania: like the last a purple Codex with silver writing: contains portions of Matthew and Mark: seen and published by Batiffol. Scrivener, i. 166, Plate XV.

Ψ. Fragments of the eighth or ninth century at Athos: contains Mark ix. 5 to the end, Luke, John, Acts, seven Catholic Epistles, Romans to Philemon, and Hebrews: exhibits after Mark xvi. 8 the same double conclusion as is found in L and one Sinai manuscript. On some readings of Ψ, see Lake in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, No. i. p, 88; ii. pp. 290-292.

Ω. Of the eighth or ninth century: in the Monastery of Dionysius at Athos: contains the Gospels entire.

The last-mentioned codices have not yet been thoroughly collated, some of them having been only recently discovered.

The following are indicated by Hebrew letters.

ב. Of the ninth or tenth century: in the Monastery of St. Andrew at Athos: contains the Gospels with lacunæ.

ג. GREGORIANUS, a purple manuscript from Cappadocia now admitted to be part of N.

ד^{6-13}. Several leaves dating from the fifth to the ninth century, discovered at Sinai by J. R. Harris and published by him (_Biblical fragments from Mount Sinai_, 1890): ד^{12} contains the double conclusion of Mark: ד^{13} is a purple fragment of the seventh century containing a few verses from the first chapter of Luke, perhaps only a quotation.

ק. Swete indicates with this letter the fragment cited above as T^l, which exhibits the double conclusion of Mark’s Gospel. See his _Gospel according to St. Mark_, pp. xcii., xcix.

ר. An Oxyrhynchus fragment of the fifth or sixth century, published by Grenfell and Hunt, _The Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, Part I. with eight Plates, London, 1898: contains only Mark x. 50 f. and xi. 10 f.: cited by Swete. (T^g Greg.)

## Part II. of _The Oxyrhynchus Papyri_ (1899, pp. 1-8) contains a fragment

of John’s Gospel (cc. i. and xx.) from a sheet of a papyrus codex written between 200 and 300 A.D. This is one of the earliest fragments that have been discovered of a papyrus _book_ (not a _roll_). It exhibits already the abbreviations usually found in theological manuscripts, such as Θ̅Σ̅, Ι̅Η̅Σ̅, Χ̅Σ̅, Π̅Ν̅Α̅. The Codex agrees with א in several readings not found elsewhere. (T^x Greg.) See _Addenda_, p. xv.

[Sidenote: Acts and Catholic Epistles.]

The second group is composed of manuscripts of the Acts and Catholic Epistles which are distinguished from those in the first by affixing the exponent _{2} at the bottom of the symbol.

א A B exhibit the Acts and Catholic Epistles complete:

E_{2} D have the Acts all but entire:

K L have the Catholic Epistles complete:

C P have the greater part of them.

For א A B C D F^a (a few verses of the Acts), see above.

E_{2}. LAUDIANUS 35, in Oxford, written at the end of the sixth century: bilingual, Latin-Greek, the Latin occupying the place of honour on the left: breaks off at Acts xxvi. 29: the text very peculiar and somewhat like that of D. The manuscript was formerly in Sardinia, and was probably brought to England by Theodore of Tarsus in 668. It was employed by the Venerable Bede (d. 735) in his _Expositio_ of the Acts and afterwards in his _Expositio Retractata_. Archbishop Laud presented the manuscript with many others to the University of Oxford. Fell and Mill made use of it. Scrivener, i. 121, Plate X. 25.

G_{2}. Of the seventh century, a single leaf in St. Petersburg containing Acts ii. 45-iii. 8, torn from the cover of a Syriac manuscript.

G^b. Of the ninth century, a palimpsest of six leaves in Rome containing portions of Acts xvi. 32-xviii. 20. (Vat. Gr. 2302.)

H_{2}. Ninth century, in Modena, has the Acts with some lacunæ.

I_{2}. Fragments in St. Petersburg of the fifth and seventh centuries: four leaves from three different manuscripts of the Acts.

K_{2}. Of the ninth century: brought to Moscow from Athos: contains the Catholic and Pauline Epistles.

L_{2}. Written at the end of the ninth century: in the Angelica Library at Rome: contains the Acts from c. viii. onwards, the Catholic Epistles, and the Pauline down to Hebrews xiii.

P_{2}. Of the ninth century: formerly in the possession of Bishop Porfiri of Kiev and now at St. Petersburg: published by Tischendorf: contains Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles, and Apocalypse, with several lacunæ.

S_{2}. Of the eighth or ninth century: at Athos: contains Acts, Catholic Epistles, Romans, portions of 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Ephesians.

ב_{2}. A palimpsest of the fifth century: in Rome: rediscovered by Batiffol: consists of fragments of Acts, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews.

[Sidenote: Pauline Epistles.]

The third group is composed of manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles. Of these there is a comparatively large number, which may be taken as indicating the important position ascribed to Paul even in early times. א, however, is the only Codex that contains his Epistles complete; in D L they are almost complete, and A B C E F G K exhibit the greater part of them.

For א A B C, see above.

A is defective in 2 Cor. iv. 13-xii. 6 inclusive.

B breaks off at Hebrews ix. 14, consequently 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon are wanting.

D_{2}. CODEX CLAROMONTANUS: takes its name from Clermont near Beauvais. The manuscript was written in the sixth century, and is bilingual in Greek and Latin, having the Greek on the left-hand page. The Greek is wanting in Rom. i. 1-7, 27-30, and in 1 Cor. xiv. 13-22. In Gal. v. 9 D_{2} reads δολοῖ, and in verse 14 ἐν ὑμῖν, in both places agreeing with Marcion. At least nine hands are distinguishable in the manuscript, one of whom corrected the text in over 2000 places in the ninth or tenth century. Two leaves are palimpsest, their text being written over part of a play of Euripides. Hebrews has evidently been copied into the Codex from a different manuscript by a later scribe. Before it is a list of “versus scribtuarum sanctarum,” one of the oldest stichometric catalogues of the books of the Old and New Testaments, which is derived from an early Greek original. This Catalogus Claromontanus is given in Westcott’s _History of the Canon_, App. D, xx. p. 563, and in his _Bible in the Church_, App. B, p. 309. See also Zahn, _Geschichte des N. T. Kanons_, II. 157-172, 1012; Jülicher, _Einleitung_, § 40. Thirty-five leaves of Codex D_{2} were stolen by John Aymont in 1707, but afterwards restored by their purchasers, some of them in 1720, and the others in 1729. (_See Plates II. and III._)

E_{3}. SANGERMANENSIS, of the ninth century: also Greek-Latin: brought from St. Germain de Près to St. Petersburg during the Revolution: in the Greek merely an incorrect transcript of D_{2}, and may therefore be dismissed. See p. 179 n. 1.

F_{2}. AUGIENSIS, of the ninth century: another Greek-Latin manuscript: defective in Rom. i. 1-iii. 19; 1 Cor. iii. 8-16; vi. 7-14; Col. ii. 1-8; Philemon 21-25: Hebrews from the first only in the Latin. The manuscript was formerly at Reichenau (Augia Dives, hence its name). It was purchased by Bentley in 1718 for 250 Dutch florins, and is now at Cambridge. An edition of it was published by Scrivener in 1859. For F^a, see above, p. 66.

Scrivener, _An exact transcript of the Codex Augiensis ... to which is added a full collation of fifty manuscripts containing various portions of the Greek N. T._, 1859. F. Zimmer, _Der Codex Augiensis eine Abschrift des Boernerianus_ (_ZfwTh._, 1887, i. 76-91).

G_{3}. BOERNERIANUS, of the ninth century, so called from Professor C. F. Boerner of Leipzig, who purchased it in 1705: now in Dresden. It is a Greek-Latin manuscript, the Latin being interlinear. It is manifestly the second part of Δ, and has a close affinity with F_{2}, though the Greek of F was not copied from G, as Zimmer and Hort assert. The fact is rather that both are derived from one and the same original, in which _e.g._ ως γαγγρα ινα νομην εξει, sicut cancer ut serpat, was found in 2 Tim. ii. 17, and ημεθα δε δουλωμενοι, eramus autem servientes, in Gal. iv. 3. This manuscript contains some interesting Irish verses.[70] At the end of Philemon there stands the title προς Λαουδακησας, ad laudicenses, but the Epistle that should have followed has been lost.

P. Corssen, _Epistularum Paulinarum codices graece et latine scriptos Augiensem, Boernerianum, Claromontanum examinavit, inter se comparavit, ad communem originem revocavit. Specimen primum_, 1887. _Alterum_, 1889.

[Sidenote: Euthalian Recension.]

H_{3}. Written in the sixth century, one of the most valuable manuscripts, but unfortunately incomplete. Its leaves were used in 975 and 1218 to cover some manuscripts at Mount Athos. Forty-one of these have been rescued, of which 22 are now in Paris, 8 at Mount Athos, 3 in St. Petersburg, 3 in Moscow, 2 in Turin, and 3 in Kiev. They contain portions of 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews. The value of the manuscript is indicated in the subscription, which runs, “I, Euthalius,[71] wrote this volume of the Apostle Paul as carefully as possible in stichoi, so that it might be read with intelligence: the book was compared with the copy in the library at Cæsarea, written by the hand of Pamphilus the saint.”[72] The subscription may of course have stood in the original of H, and simply been copied into it along with the text, as in the case of the minuscules 15, 83, and 173 of the Acts. But no matter, it serves to locate the text of this manuscript, and it is one of our main witnesses for the so-called =Euthalian Recension= of the Acts and Catholic Epistles.

In or previous to the year 396, a deacon called Euthalius, afterwards known as Bishop of Sulce,[73] published an edition of the Acts and Catholic and Pauline Epistles, in which, following the rules laid down by the Greek schools of oratory, the text was carefully broken up into lines, the length of which depended on the sense (_sense-clauses_), and divided into paragraphs or chapters. Euthalius also provided a system of Church lections, added a summary of contents to the various chapters, and catalogued the quotations from the Old Testament and elsewhere in the separate Epistles and in the entire group. This edition became a sort of model for later times, and seems to have been made use of for the Armenian version among the rest. The comparison of the manuscript with those of Pamphilus, as well as other additions, would seem then to have been made on the occasion of a later revision. Ehrhard, however, thinks that we have the autograph edition of this system in Codex H, but that Evagrius is to be read instead of Euthalius in the place where the name has been erased. This view is combated by Dobschütz, and in part rightly. Working independently of both, Conybeare, from Armenian sources, establishes the year 396 as the date of Euthalius. But in a parchment manuscript of the eleventh century in the library of the Laura at Mount Athos, Wobbermin found a fragment of a dogmatic treatise with the inscription, Εὐθαλίου ἐπισκόπου Σούλκης ὁμολογία περὶ τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως, from which he makes out that Euthalius lived in the second half of the seventh century and that Sulce was in Sardinia. See G. Krüger in the _Lit. Cent. Blatt_ 1899, No. 14.

Omont, _Notice sur un très ancien manuscrit grec en onciales des épîtres de S. Paul_, Paris, 1889. J. A. Robinson, _Euthaliana_, Texts and Studies, iii. 3, 1895. (See S. Berger, _Bull. Crit._, 96, 8.) Th. Zahn, _Euthaliana_, _Theol. Lit. Blatt._, 1895, 593, 601. Ehrhard, _Der codex H ad Epistolas Pauli und Euthalius diaconus, Eine palaeographisch-patrologische Untersuchung_ in the _Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_, 1891, pp. 385-411. E. v. Dobschütz, _Ein Beitrag zur Euthaliusfrage_, in the same magazine, 1893, pp. 49-70; _Euthaliusstudien_ in the ZKG. xix. pp. 107-154 (1898): also, _Euthalius_, in the PRE^3, v. pp. 631-633 (1898). Islinger, _Die Verdienste des Euthalius um den neutestamentlichen Bibeltext_, Hof. 1867 (Prog.). Conybeare, _On the Codex Pamphili and date of Euthalius_, in the _Cambridge Journal of Philology_, xxiii. 241 (1895). R. L. Bensly, _The Harklean Version etc._, pp. 9, 27 (1889). See also J. A. Robinson, _Texts and Studies_, vi. 1; C. Butler, _The Lausiac History of Palladius_, p. 104 ff., and note 2, p. 188 below.

I_{2}, K_{2}, L_{2}, P_{2}: See above, p. 75.

M_{2}. CODEX RUBER, of the ninth century: four leaves written in bright red ink or other colouring matter, two of them in London and the other two in Hamburg.

N_{2}. Of the ninth century, consisting of two leaves with portions of Galatians and Hebrews: in St. Petersburg.

O_{2}. Of the ninth century, two leaves in the same library containing portions of 2 Corinthians.

O^b. Of the sixth century, one leaf with part of Ephesians: in Moscow.

Q_{2}. Of the fifth century, five _papyrus_ leaves with fragments of 1 Corinthians: in St. Petersburg.

R_{2}. Of the seventh century, a single leaf with part of 2 Corinthians: in Grotteferrata.

S_{2}. See above, p. 75.

T^g. A few sentences from 1 Timothy. See _TiGr._, p. 441.

T^s. Two leaves containing 1 Corinthians i. 22-29, written in the ninth or tenth century, and published simultaneously with T^{i-r}. Gregory now designates T^g as T^{a Paul}, and T^s as T^{b Paul}.

ב_{2}. See above, p. 75.

ד^{14}. A fragment of papyrus containing part of 1 Corinthians, cc. i., ii., iii., written in the fifth century.

The first seven verses of the first chapter of Romans have been published in _The Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, Part II. (pp. 8 f., Plate II.). The fragment is probably a schoolboy’s exercise. It is written in a large rude uncial hand, and dates from the first half of the fourth century. In verse 7 it reads Κ̅Υ̅ Χ̅Ρ̅Υ̅ Ι̅Η̅Υ̅.

[Sidenote: Apocalypse.]

There are fewest manuscripts of the Apocalypse. It is found entire only in א A B, while C and P exhibit portions of it. In the Apocalypse, however, it is to be observed that Codex B is not the famous Codex Vaticanus 1209 but a much later manuscript 2066, dating from the end of the eighth century. It would be better, therefore, with some editors, to call it Q or B_{2}.

Altogether the number of Greek manuscripts is as follows[74]:—

UNCIALS: Gospels, 73 Acts and Catholic Epistles, 19 Pauline Epistles, 28 Apocalypse, 7 —- Total, 127 CURSIVES, 3702

[Sidenote: Book-hand and hand of common life.]

In closing our survey of the extant uncials, it is to be borne in mind that we are not at liberty to regard even the oldest of them as presenting the very form of the New Testament autographs. The books of the New Testament, at all events the majority of them, were not originally intended for publication at all, while the others were meant for only a limited circle of readers. Now these recent papyrus discoveries have shown conclusively what a vast difference existed even in those days between the =book-hand= and what we may call the =hand of common life= and business. A glance at Kenyon’s _Palæography of Greek Papyri_ will show how fundamental is the distinction between literary and non-literary papyri. That writer states that in many cases the difference is just as marked as between handwriting and print at the present day, and he instances also the distinction between the book-hand and the charter-hand of the Middle Ages. Of course documents of this or the other class may occasionally be found written in the hand that is not the usual one, a prescription, _e.g._, in book-hand, or conversely a literary text in the hand of common life. The greater part of Aristotle’s work on the _Polity of the Athenians_, for instance, has been preserved in the common hand. This papyrus, which is attributed to the first century of the Christian era, is the work of four scribes. But only one of these writes in a style approximating to the book-hand; the other parts are written in a very cursive style on the back of an old account, probably by one who had borrowed a copy of the work for a short time and transcribed it with the help of two or three friends or slaves. Kenyon quite properly instances this as an illustration of the manner of the origin and propagation of the New Testament books, and suggests that this mode of propagation has to be considered in connection with times of persecution. Our very oldest manuscripts are superb codices, editions de luxe, such as could be prepared only in an age when the Church had attained a position of affluence and power. The distinction referred to above is one that has had but little attention paid to it hitherto, as is shown by the illustration given in Harris’s excellent work on the New Testament autographs. It is manifest at the same time that this consideration is of great importance in trying to understand the origin and dissemination of the various readings that occur in our manuscripts. It is just a pity that Kenyon has not given a sample of this manuscript of Aristotle in his book, seeing that the latter is more accessible to the ordinary student than the complete facsimile edited in 1891 by the Trustees of the British Museum, or the Plate published in the second volume of the work of the Palæographical Society.

[Sidenote: Uncial and minuscule script.]

A further consideration is emphasised by means of these papyrus discoveries—viz. that =no distinction of time= can be drawn between the uncial and cursive hands found in the manuscripts. Even in the very earliest documents the hand of common life displays a very cursive character, and a fairly cursive uncial hand with ligatures is not necessarily later than an uncial hand without ligatures. It is somewhat different in the case of writing on parchment: here the old distinction of uncial and minuscule manuscripts is rightly maintained, only we must guard against supposing that the minuscule hand and the cursive are quite the same thing; nor must we forget that for a considerable time the older uncial and the later minuscule scripts were in use together.[75] The sharp line of demarcation, therefore, which has hitherto been drawn in the textual criticism of the New Testament between these two classes of manuscripts has no real justification in fact. The present account, however, is intended merely as a survey of the position of things up to the present, and the following description of the minuscules is subject to that limitation.

(_b._) SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT MINUSCULES.

[Sidenote: Minuscules.]

When the Greek New Testament began to be printed, the editors had necessarily to be content with indifferent and late minuscules, and even those who followed them, like Bentley and Lachmann, thought they were at liberty to disregard these altogether and to found their text exclusively on the oldest uncials. They forgot that the text of a late manuscript may be derived from a very early and good source through comparatively few intermediaries, and that it is possible to reconstruct a lost original by means of a comparison of several witnesses. Accordingly, in more recent times, English editors like Tregelles, Burgon, Ferrar, Hoskier, and Scrivener have rendered great service in the way of collating manuscripts, and the last-mentioned as well as Gregory in Germany has also catalogued them. At the present moment a systematic investigation in this department is being carried on in Berlin. Most of the minuscules are still written on parchment which began to be mixed with paper in the ninth century, and was ultimately superseded by it. Various minuscules contain commentaries and other additional matter, such as the List of the Seventy Apostles, short Biographies of the Apostles, Summaries of the journeys of St. Paul, or notes as to the date and place of the composition of the different books. When dates are given in the manuscripts, they are still as a rule computed in the Byzantine manner, reckoning from the Creation of the world (5508 B.C.). In only a few cursives is the date reckoned from the Birth of Christ.

Since the time of Wettstein the minuscule manuscripts have been indicated by Arabic numerals, the numbers in each of the four groups beginning with 1, so that one and the same manuscript may have three or four numbers—18^{evv.} _e.g._ being 113^{Acts,} 132^{Paul,} and 51^{Apoc.,} while 209^{evv} is the same as 95^{Acts,} 108^{Paul,} and 46^{Apoc.} It is still more awkward that in the two principal works on the minuscules, that of Scrivener and of Gregory, the recently discovered manuscripts are numbered differently. Our enumeration will follow that of Scrivener.

MINUSCULES OF THE GOSPELS.

1 (Acts 1, Paul 1). Of the tenth century, but according to others of the twelfth or the thirteenth, in Basel, with beautiful miniatures which were stolen prior to 1860. The manuscript was borrowed by Reuchlin and used by Erasmus for his second edition. (Scrivener, i. 137, Plate IX. 23.)

2. Of the twelfth century, though some strangely suppose the fifteenth: also in Basel: formerly purchased for two Rhenish florins: printed by Erasmus.

3. Of the twelfth century, in Vienna, lent to Erasmus for his second edition.

[Sidenote: Ferrar Group.]

4-41 are all in the National Library at Paris. 4-9 and 38 were used by Stephen. The most notable among them is 13, together with 69, 124, 211, 346, 348, 556, 561 (788), 624, and 626, which are remarkable for their very peculiar form of text and their additions.[76] Luke xxii. 43, 44 is found after Matthew xxvi. 39, and John vii. 53—viii. 11 after Luke xxi. 38. The subscriptions, moreover, state that Matthew was written in Hebrew eight years after our Lord’s Ascension, and contained 2522 ρηματα and 2560 stichoi, Mark ρωμαιστι ten years after the Ascension with 1675 ρηματα and 1604 stichoi, Luke ελληνιστι fifteen years after with 3803 (_lege_ 3083) ρηματα and 2750 stichoi, and John thirty-two years after with 1938 ρηματα. These manuscripts were referred to a common archetype by the Irish scholar Ferrar, and were accordingly denominated the Ferrar Group, and indicated by the letter Φ before that symbol was appropriated to the Codex Beratinus. Most of them came from Calabria, and another has lately been added to the number. Their additions, however, as Rendel Harris shows, are rather of Syrian origin. In the first edition I ventured to suggest that these manuscripts might go back to Lucian the Martyr (d. 312) of whom Jerome makes mention, saying that he knew of codices quos a Luciano (et Hesychio) nuncupatos paucorum hominum adserit perversa contentio, quibus ... nec in novo testamento profuit emendasse, cum multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse quae addita (cod. E _edita_) sunt. That, however, is not possible in the event of the so-called Syrian recension being the work of Lucian, which Hort indicates as possible. In any case, these minuscules have preserved to us a very early attempt to restore the text.

16 is noteworthy as being written in four different colours according to the contents. The continuous narrative is written in green, the words of Jesus and the Angels are in red and occasionally in gold, the words of His followers are in blue, while those of the Pharisees, the multitude, and of the devil, are written in black.

28. Contains relics of a very ancient text and bears some resemblance to D.

33. Written about the tenth century: the “queen of the cursives”: its text bears a greater resemblance to that of B, D, L than does that of any other cursive. The manuscript is much damaged, but 34, which is equally old, is still in splendid condition, as though it were fresh from the hand of the artist. (Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII. 39.)

38. Sent by the Emperor Michael Palæologus to St. Louis (d. 1270).

51. At Oxford: text resembles that of the Complutensian.

59. At Cambridge: has many points of connection with D.

61. Of the fourteenth or fifteenth century. This is the notorious Codex Montfortianus, now in Dublin, which derives its name from one of its later possessors. It was this manuscript, “codex apud Anglos repertus,” that decided Erasmus to insert in his third edition of 1522 the passage of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 7, 8. It was probably written by a Franciscan monk of the name of Froy or Roy. Its twin brother, the parchment codex Ravianus (Rau), formerly numbered 110, and now in Berlin, which also contains the passage, proves to be nothing more than a transcript of the text of the Complutensian. Manuscripts, it may be observed, continued to be prepared long after the invention of printing. Melanchthon, _e.g._, wrote out the Epistle to the Romans three times in Greek; and the manuscript in the Zurich Library hitherto cited as 56^{Paul} is nothing else than a copy of Erasmus’s printed edition of 1516 made by Zwingli in the following year.

69. _Cf._ 13 above, and see J. R. Harris, _Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament_, 1887. (Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII. 40.)

77 and 78. Formerly in the fine library of Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary (d. 1490).

90. In this manuscript the Gospels are in the order John, Luke, Matthew, Mark.

106. Would be important, but has been lost sight of since the time of Wettstein.

140. Presented to Pope Innocent VII. by the Queen of Cyprus. This manuscript reads διηρθρώθη in Luke i. 64, therein agreeing with the Complutensian.

146-153. In Rome, came from Heidelberg.

154-156. Once the property of Christina, Queen of Sweden.

157. In Rome: its text is said to bear a considerable resemblance to the quotations found in the early Christian writer Marcion. See below, p. 211.

164. The subscription of this manuscript states that it was compared with certain ancient manuscripts in Jerusalem.

205-215 and 217 are in Venice, being part of the donation of Cardinal Bessarion. 209 contains the whole of the New Testament, and was the Cardinal’s own copy which he had with him at the Council of Florence in 1439.

218-225 are in Vienna.

226-233 are in the Escorial.

237-259 are at Moscow, with the exception of four at Dresden.

263-320 are in Paris, with the exception of 272, which was removed thence to the British Museum.

274 exhibits the shorter conclusion of Mark’s Gospel in the lower margin. (See Plate X.)

405-418 are now in Venice, and, like U, once belonged to the Nani family.

422-430. In Munich.

431. This manuscript is sometimes stated to have perished at Strassburg, in the war of 1870, like 180^{Acts.} This, however, is incorrect.

452. In Parma, one of the most superb codices.

473. Of the ninth and tenth centuries, a purple manuscript with gold lettering, said to have been written by the Empress Theodora. See under N. above, and note, p. 151.

481, dated 7th May 835, is the earliest manuscript of the Greek New Testament bearing an exact date.

531. Written in a microscopic hand.

604. Written in the twelfth century, now in the British Museum, exhibits 2724 variations from the Textus Receptus, and has besides 270 readings peculiar to itself. It is the only witness we know that supports that peculiar form of the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer found in Marcion in the second century, and in Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth, ἐλθέτω τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμά σου ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς καὶ καθαρισάτω ἡμᾶς (Luke xi. 2).[77]

743 has the double conclusion in Mark.

1071. See under D, p. 66.

In his _Gospel according to St. Mark_, Swete cites frequently, in addition to those just mentioned and those of the Ferrar Group, 1, 28, 33, 66, 109, 118, 131, 157, 209, 238, 242, 299, 435, 473, 475, 556, 570, 736.

ACTS.

2 and 4. Used by Erasmus.

7-10. Used by Stephen.

15, 83, 173. These, like א in the Old Testament and H_{3}, were compared with the Codex of Pamphilus—_i.e._ were faithfully copied from such an exemplar.

33. The parent manuscript of Montfortianus. See above, p. 86.

42. Closely related to the Complutensian.

52. Once in the possession of Stunica, the chief editor of the Complutensian. It has now disappeared.

61 has been designated the most important minuscule of the Acts. This, however, is an exaggeration.

137 supplements D E where these are defective.

158. Used by Cardinal Mai to supply the defects of Codex B in the Pauline Epistles.

162. Of the fourteenth or fifteenth century, now in Rome: a bilingual in Latin and Greek: contains the passage 1 John v. 7.

182. Numbered 110 by Hort, who calls it one of the best of the cursives.

220. One of the finest manuscripts of the latter part of the New Testament.

232. An equally superb copy, on which a monk called Andreas bestowed three years’ labour.

246. Written in gold letters for Charlotte, Queen of Cyprus (d. 1487).

419. Written in 800 by the Empress Maria, after being divorced by Constantine VI.

PAULINE EPISTLES.

7. Used by Erasmus.

56 and 66 are quite worthless, being simply copies of Erasmus’s printed text. (See above under 61^{evv}).

67. A valuable manuscript on account of its corrector having evidently made use of an exemplar with a text very closely akin to that of B M.

80 bears a close resemblance to 69^{evv}.

APOCALYPSE.

1. This was the only manuscript at Erasmus’s command for this part of the New Testament. It is defective in the last chapter from verse 16 to the end. For the rest it exhibits a fairly good text. (See p. 3 f.)

36. A text akin to א.

38 has a text resembling that of A C.

68. Resembles A.

95 does so still more. This last has the reputation of being one of the best minuscules of the Apocalypse.

The number of minuscules under each class is, according to Scrivener (Miller), as follows:—

Gospels, 1326

Acts and Catholic 422 Epistles,

Pauline Epistles, 497

Apocalypse, 184

——

2429

A great many New Testament manuscripts are in England. Some are in the possession of private individuals, like those at Parham Park in Sussex belonging to Lord de la Zouche. In 1870-72 the Baroness Burdett Coutts brought with her from Janina in Epirus over one hundred manuscripts, of which sixteen were of the Gospels, one of them belonging to the Ferrar Group, and as many were Evangeliaria. There are 136 manuscripts of the New Testament in the British Museum.

The number in Great 438 Britain is

In the National 298 Library of Paris,

In Germany, 140

In Italy, 644

For the total number of Greek manuscripts arranged according to countries, see Scrivener, i., Indices I., II., pp. 392 ff.

What a vast number of manuscripts are still waiting to be examined is shown by the account given by Dr. von der Goltz. Accompanied by Dr. G. Wobbermin, he made a journey to Athos in the winter of 1897-98, and there in that ancient Monastery, the Laura of St. Athanasius, he found, among about 1800 manuscripts altogether, including Lectionaries, some 250 codices of the New Testament, of which only a very few have been noted by Gregory. And these manuscripts may be of the very utmost importance, as witness the further statement of the same explorer. He was looking through the manuscripts of the Apostolos, to which he and his companion had to give most of their attention, when his eye fell on one written in the tenth or eleventh century, containing the following note before the Pauline Epistles: γεγράφθαι ἀπὸ ἀντιγράφου παλαιοτάτου, οὗ πεῖραν ἐλάβομεν ὡς ἐπιτετευγμένου ἐκ τῶν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλθόντων Ὠριγένους τόμων ἢ ὁμιλιῶν εἰς τὸν ἀπόστολον ... ἐν οἷς οὖν παραλλάττει ῥητοῖς πρὸς τὰ νῦν ἀποστολικά, διπλῆν τὴν λεγομένην παρεθήκαμεν ἔξωθεν, ἵνα μὴ νομισθῇ κατὰ προσθήκην ἢ λεῖψιν ἡμαρτῆσθαι τουτὶ τὸ ἀποστολικόν. And from the subscription at the end of the Pauline Epistles we learn that the manuscript, or, as von der Goltz believes, the exemplar from which it was copied, was written by a monk called Ephraim. See further in von der Goltz, _Eine textkritische Arbeit des zehnten bezw. sechsten Jahrhunderts herausgegeben nach einem Kodex des Athosklosters Lawra. Mit einer Doppeltafel in Lichtdruck._ Leipzig, 1899. (Texte und Untersuchungen, Neue Folge, ii. 4); and compare below, p. 190.

LITERATURE.—On 2^{evv}, see Hoskier, above, p. 5.

On 13, see W. H. Ferrar, _Collation of four important Manuscripts of the Gospels_, edited by T. K. Abbott, Dublin, 1877. J. P. P. Martin, _Quatre manuscrits du N. T., auxquels on peut ajouter un cinquième_, Amiens, 1886. J. R. Harris, _On the Origin of the Ferrar Group_, London, 1894. K. Lake, “Some new members of the Ferrar Group of MSS. of the Gospels,” in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, I. i. pp. 117-120. The well-known manuscript of the pre-Lutheran German Bible, the Codex Teplensis, has the words from John viii. 2, “in the morning he came again into the temple,” after Luke xxi. 38, an arrangement similar to that which is characteristic of the Ferrar Group, in which John vii. 53-viii. 11 is found after Luke xxi. 38. See S. Berger, _Bull. Crit._, 1894, p. 390. See _Addenda_, p. xv.

On 561, Codex Algerinae Peckover, see J. R. Harris in the _Journal of the Exegetical Society_, 1886, 79-96.

On 892^{evv}, see Harris, “An Important Manuscript of the N. T.” in the _Journal of Biblical Literature_, ix., 1890, 31 ff.

On Minuscules of the Apocalypse, see Bousset, _Textkritische Studien_ in _T. und U._, xi. 4.

C. R. Gregory, “Die Kleinhandschriften des N. Testaments” (_Theologische Studien für B. Weiss._, Göttingen, 1897, 274-283).

E. J. Goodspeed, “A Twelfth Century Gospel Manuscript” (_Biblical World_, x. 4).

(_c._) LECTIONARIES.

[Sidenote: Lectionaries.]

Till quite recently the Lectionaries, or Books of Church Pericopae, were even more neglected than the minuscules. And yet they are reliable witnesses to the text of the Bible in the provinces to which they belong, on account of their official character and because their locality can be readily distinguished. The slight alterations of the text occurring at the beginning of the pericopae, and consisting usually in the insertion of the subject of the sentence or of an introductory clause, are easily recognisable as such, and deceive no one. It is not always easy to determine the date of such books, because the uncial hand was employed in this sort of manuscript much longer than in the others. Among the oldest, perhaps, is 135, a palimpsest (of which there is a considerable number among the Lectionaries), assigned by Tischendorf to the seventh century, and 968, written on papyrus and ascribed to the sixth century, which was found in Egypt in the year 1890. When these Lectionaries originated has not yet been clearly made out.[78] Up till the present 980 Evangeliaria—_i.e._ Lessons from the Gospels—have been catalogued, and 268 Apostoli or Praxapostoli—_i.e._ Lessons from the Acts and Epistles. Some of them are magnificently executed; some, alas, have been sadly mutilated. 117, in Florence, is a very beautiful codex; and 162, in Siena, is perhaps “one of the most splendid Service-books in the world.” 235 may have been written in part by the Emperor Alexius Comnenus (1081-1118). 286 is the Golden Evangeliarium on Mount Sinai, dating from the ninth to the eleventh century, though the tradition of the monks says that it was written by no less a personage than the Emperor Theodosius (d. 395). Tischendorf’s 352-360 are now in the National Library at Paris. 355 is printed in Omont’s _Catalogue_ (see above, p. 71). 45^{evl} is a fragment of black parchment inscribed with gold letters preserved at Vienna.[79] 40 is kept in the Escorial along with the reliques of St. Chrysostom, and regarded as his autograph.[80] Bilingual Lectionaries are also found, in Greek and Arabic for example. The arrangement of these Service-books varies with the time and region in which they were composed. Several fragments which were formerly regarded as parts of manuscripts of the Gospels should perhaps be classed among the Evangeliaria—_e.g._ the solitary leaf of a Bible manuscript Württemberg is known to possess, and the Tübingen Fragment, formerly classed among the uncials as R of the Gospels, but now enumerated as 481^{evl}. An important Syriac Lectionary will fall to be considered under the head of the Versions.

For further details, reference must be made to Scrivener, to _TiGr._, and now especially to Gregory, _Textkritik_, i. pp. 327-478.

2. VERSIONS.

[Sidenote: Versions.]

Our second source of material for the reconstruction of the text of the New Testament is the early Versions. The value of their testimony depends on their age and fidelity. When did the first versions originate? This question reminds us of the Inscription on the Cross, a portion of which is still exhibited in Rome. It was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. But we may get further back still. Palestine at the time of Christ was a country where the most diverse languages and dialects came into contact with each other. In the last century B.C. a transformation had occurred, which might be regarded as a counterpart to the supplanting of Norman French by English, or of Low by High German. Aramaic had already taken the place of the old Hebrew, and after the time of Alexander came the intrusion of Greek, and later still of Latin. Some of the disciples of Jesus bore old Hebrew names, like James (Ἰάκωβος) and John (Ἰωάννης); others had names wholly or partly Aramaic, as Cephas (= Peter), the cognomen of Simon, and Bartholomew; while others, again, had Greek names, as Philip (Φίλιππος) and Andrew (Ἀνδρέας). To the question what language Jesus Himself spoke, the most probable answer is that it was Aramaic with a Galilean colouring. “Thou art a Galilean, thy speech bewrayeth thee,” said the Jerusalem girl to Peter. The Galileans, like the Babylonians and the Samaritans, were recognisable by their not distinguishing the gutturals so sharply as the pure Jews did. At the same time, Jesus certainly understood the Hebrew of the Old Testament. But those words of His that have been preserved are Aramaic—_talitha_, _abba_, and so is _sabaqtani_ in Matthew xxvii. 46, and Mark xv. 34, if that is the original form of the text, and not _asabthani_, as a number of manuscripts show.

In what language, however, the first record of the preaching of the Gospel was made, whether it was in the classic Hebrew of the Old Testament or in the Aramaic of the time, is still subject of dispute.[81] But as this question is of moment only for the original sources, and even then for only a certain part of the New Testament—viz. the Gospels—it does not fall to be considered here. We have to do only with those versions that are derived from the Greek, and again with those of them only that are important for the criticism of the text, which are the oldest.

The versions which are of consequence here may be placed under three or four heads.

[Sidenote: East.]

In the East, Antioch, with its semi-Greek, semi-Syrian population, very early became the centre of the new faith, which, indeed, obtained its name there, and must very soon have established itself in Damascus and Mesopotamia. In that region the form of Aramaic now commonly known as Syriac was spoken.

[Sidenote: West, South.]

In the West, Greek was mostly spoken and understood, even in Rome. Paul consequently, and others as well as he, wrote to Rome in Greek. At the same time, the need must have existed, even in the second century, of having the Gospel in the Latin language in parts of Africa, in the north of Italy, and in the South of Gaul. Quite as early, perhaps, the new faith spread to Egypt, which at that time was a kind of centre of religious culture, and so we find in Egypt not one but several versions in various dialects.

The Gothic version of Ulfilas deserves special mention as being the oldest monument of Christianity among the Germanic people, and valuable too in the criticism of the text.

L. J. M. Bebb, _Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic Quotations_, etc., in _Studia Biblica_, ii., Oxford, 1890. Lagarde, _De Novo Testamento ad Versionum Orientalium fidem edendo_. Berlin (1857); with slight alterations in his _Ges. Abhandlungen_, 1886, pp. 84-119. Reprinted 1896. _Urtext_ (see p. 7). Copinger (see p. 6). An earlier bibliographical work is the _Bibliotheca Sacra post ... Jacobi Le Long et C. F. Boerneri iteratas curas ordine disposita, emendata, suppleta, continuata ab A. G. Masch_. Halle, 1778-90, 4to. _Pars I., De editionibus textus originalis. Pars II., De versionibus librorum sacrorum_ (3 Vols.). R. Simon, _Histoire critique des versions du N. T._, 1690. _Nouvelles observations sur le texte et les versions du N. T._, 1695.

(_a._) SYRIAC VERSIONS.

[Sidenote: Peshitto.]

The Bible used in the Syrian Church has long and deservedly borne the honourable appellation of “the Queen of the Versions.” It was first published in 1555 at the expense of the Emperor Ferdinand I. by J. Albert Widmanstadt with the assistance of a Syrian Jacobite called Moses, who came from Mardin as legate to Pope Julius III. The type for this edition was beautifully cut by Caspar Kraft of Ellwangen. All the branches into which the Syrian church was divided in the fifth century have used the same translation of the Scriptures. To this day the Syriac New Testament wants the five so-called Antilegomena—viz. 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse—a sufficient proof that it goes back to a time and a region in which these books were not yet reckoned in the Canon of the New Testament. In place of these it contained in early times an alleged Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, and an Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul (_cf._ below, p. 142). To distinguish it from other Syriac translations, this Version has been called by Syriac scholars, since the tenth century, the Peshiṭto—_i.e._ the “Simple” or perhaps the “Common,” which is sometimes pronounced Peshiṭtå (פְשִׁיטתָא) and spelt simply =Peshitto=.

When and where was this translation made? An ancient Syrian tradition asserts that it was done by the Apostle Thaddaeus, who came on a mission to Abgar Uchama—_i.e._ Abgar the Black—King of Edessa, after the death of Jesus, which mission, they say, arose out of a correspondence that Abgar had previously had with Jesus. Another tradition ascribes it to Aggaeus (Aggai), the disciple of Thaddaeus, and it is even attributed to Mark the Evangelist. It is also said that Luke was by birth a Syrian of Antioch, a tradition which may preserve an element of truth.

The earliest notice of a Syriac Gospel is found in Eusebius’s _Ecclesiastical History_, iv. 22. That historian mentions that Hegesippus (c. 160-180) quotes certain things from the Gospel of the Hebrews—_i.e._ of the Palestinian (?) Jewish Christians, and from the Syriac (_sc._ Gospel), and particularly from the Hebrew dialect, showing that he himself was a convert from the Hebrews (ἔκ τε τοῦ καθ’ Ἑβραίους εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ Συριακοῦ καὶ ἰδίως ἐκ τῆς Ἑβραΐδος διαλέκτου τινὰ τίθησιν, ἐμφαίνων ἐξ Ἑβραίων ἑαυτὸν πεπιστευκέναι). This can hardly be understood otherwise than as implying that a Syriac version was already in existence. Whether it contained all the four Gospels or only one of them, or Tatian’s Harmony of the Gospels, as Michaelis supposed and as Zahn has recently shown some ground for believing, or whether it contained a primitive Gospel, now perished, cannot be established with certainty.

From the middle of the present century manuscripts of this version have found their way into European libraries in great numbers. Some of these are inestimable. At least ten date from the fifth, and thirty from the sixth century. This is somewhat remarkable when we remember how small a remnant of the Greek manuscripts has been preserved. G. H. Gwilliam is at present engaged on an edition of the Syriac Tetraevangelium for the University of Oxford on the basis of forty manuscripts. The task might seem to be an easy one, considering that these Syriac manuscripts display a far greater unanimity in their text than is found in any written in Greek. The difficulty in their case lies in another direction.

[Sidenote: Curetonian.]

In the year 1842 a Syriac manuscript containing considerable portions of the Gospels was brought from Egypt and deposited in the British Museum. It was afterwards published by Dr. Cureton in 1858 with the title “Remains of a very antient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac hitherto unknown in Europe.” Cureton himself thought he had discovered the original of St. Matthew’s Gospel in this version. While this was easily shown to be a mistake, the question as to the relationship between the Curetonian Syriac and the Peshitto, whether the two texts are independent of each other, or if not, which is the earlier and which the recension, is not yet decided.

[Sidenote: Lewis.]

It seemed as if the solution of the problem was in sight when fragments of a Syriac palimpsest were discovered on Mount Sinai in February 1892 by Mrs. Lewis and her sister, Mrs. Gibson. These they perceived to be part of a very old manuscript of the Gospels, and Professor Bensly of Cambridge recognised that their text was closely related to that of the Curetonian. (_See Plate V._) A second expedition was made to Sinai in the spring of 1893, when the fragments were transcribed by Professor Bensly, F. C. Burkitt, and J. R. Harris. As Bensly died three days after their return, the manuscript was published by the others in 1894, with an introduction by Mrs. Lewis. On a third visit to Sinai this lady completed the work of the triumvirate, and also published an English translation of the whole. How, then, is this Sinai-Syriac or Lewis-Syriac, as it is called, related to the Curetonian and to the Peshitto? The problem becomes more complicated still by the introduction of a fourth factor, the most important of them all.

[Sidenote: Tatian.]

From early sources it was known that Tatian,[82] a Syrian and a pupil of Justin Martyr, composed a harmony of the Gospels called the =Diatessaron=—_i.e._ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων εὐαγγέλιον, an expression which may be taken either as referring to the four Gospels or as a musical term equivalent to _harmony_ or _chord_. This Harmony was in use among the Syrians till the fifth century. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, informs us that he destroyed 200 copies of it in his semi-Syriac, semi-Greek diocese.[83] About the same time Bishop Rabbulas of Edessa (407-435) instructed his presbyters and deacons to see that all the churches possessed and read a copy of the Distinct Gospel—_i.e._ not mixed or harmonised. The Lewis-Syriac bears this very title, _Gospel of the Distinct_ or _Divided_, which is found also as the title of Matthew’s Gospel in the Curetonian version. Tatian’s Harmony has not yet been discovered in Syriac, but a Latin Harmony of the Gospels derived from it has long been known, and in 1883 a Harmony in Arabic was published by Ciasca which proves to be a translation from the Syriac made by Ibn et-Tabib (d. 1043) or a recension of it. Again, in 1836 the Armenian version of a Syriac Commentary by Ephraem of Edessa (d. 373) was printed, and translated into Latin in 1876. [_Evangelii concordantis expositio facta a S. Ephraemo doctore Syro. In Latinum translata a J. B. Aucher, ed. G. Moesinger._ Venetiis.] Finally Theodor Zahn discovered in the works of the Syriac writer Aphraates, who wrote between 337 and 345, quotations which must be derived from this Harmony of Tatian; and isolated quotations from Tatian are also found in later Syriac authors. And so the materials are provided for deciding the question whether or not Tatian made use of an earlier Syriac version in the preparation of his Harmony, and how T^{(atian)}, Syr^{cu(reton)}, Syr^{sin} and Syr^{sch(aaf)}[84] are related to each other. The most probable view perhaps is that T is the earliest form in which the Gospel came to Syria, that in Syr^{cu} and Syr^{sin} we have two attempts to exhibit T in the form of a version of the separate Gospels which were not generally accepted, while Syr^{sch} actually succeeded and passed into general use.

The interest attaching to this question may be learned from the form in which the text of Matthew i. 16 is given in these witnesses. Syr^{sch} agrees exactly with our present Greek text, but Syr^{cu} presents a form which, when translated into Latin, reads, _Joseph cui desponsata virgo Maria genuit Jesum Christum_. Now, the only Greek manuscripts that present a form corresponding to this are four minuscules, 346, 556, 624 and 626, which differ in this respect even from the other members of the Ferrar Group to which they belong. In these four manuscripts the verse reads, Ἰωσὴφ ᾧ μνηστευθῆσα (_sic_) παρθένος Μαριὰμ ἐγέννησεν Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν. In the Latin, however, this text is represented by a number of the oldest manuscripts, seven at least, one of which omits the word _virgo_, while two have _peperit_ instead of _genuit_, and τὸν λεγόμενον is omitted. But in Syr^{sin} we find: _Joseph: Joseph autem cui desponsata (erat) virgo Maria genuit Jesum Christum_. The passage is similarly cited in the recently published _Dialogue of Timotheus and Aquila_,[85] along with two other forms, thus:—Ἰακὼβ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστὸς, καὶ Ἰωσὴφ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν.

The exact wording of Tatian can no longer be determined, but it is evident that of these three forms in which the verse is found, only one or none can be the original. If we had no more than our oldest uncials or the great body of our minuscules to go by, no one could have the slightest suspicion that in our Greek text all is not in perfect order. But here, in an old Syriac fragment from the far East, there suddenly appears a reading which is also found in Latin witnesses from the far West, and which is confirmed by four solitary Greek manuscripts, written probably in Calabria at the close of the Middle Ages. How are these facts connected, and how do they stand to the other two readings, that of the common Greek text, and that of the Lewis-Syriac? The history of the text of the New Testament presents many such problems.

[Sidenote: Philoxenus-Polycarp.]

But Syrian scholars were not satisfied with those forms of the New Testament already mentioned. In the year of Alexander 819 (A.D. 508),[86] a new and much more literal version was made from the Greek at the desire of Xenaia (Philoxenus), Bishop of Mabug[87] (488-518), by his rural Bishop Polycarp. Part of this version was published in England by Pococke in 1630—viz. the four Epistles in the Antilegomena not included in the Peshitto, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Unfortunately this edition was prepared from a somewhat inaccurate manuscript, which is now in the Bodleian Library. The later European editions of the Syriac New Testament took the text of these Epistles from Pococke’s edition, which was also the one used for critical editions of the Greek text. In 1886 Isaac H. Hall published a phototype edition of another manuscript of this version (the Williams MS.), the property of a private gentleman in America, and corrected from it the text of the Syriac New Testament issued by the American Bible Society. The other parts of this version have not yet been found, but the same American scholar thought he discovered the Gospels in a ninth century manuscript belonging to the Syrian Protestant College in Beirut, and deposited in the Library of the Union Theological Seminary in New York.[88] Bernstein thought he made the same discovery in 1853 in a manuscript belonging to the Angelica Library in Florence.

[Sidenote: Thomas of Heraclea.]

On the basis of four manuscripts sent from Diarbeker in 1736 to Dr. Gloucester Ridley, Joseph White published, between 1778 and 1803,[89] a version which he designated by the name of _Versio Philoxenia_, and which still passes under this title. But this so-called Philoxenian version is not the identical version made for Philoxenus by Polycarp, but a revision undertaken by Thomas of Heraclea (Charkel), in the year 616-7. This revision was made at Alexandria with the object of making the Syriac text represent the Greek as closely as possible, even to the order of the words and the insertion of the article. The critical symbols used by Homeric commentators, the asterisk and the obelus, as well as numerous marginal notes, were employed to indicate the various readings found in the manuscripts. And it is very remarkable to observe that there were manuscripts in Alexandria at the beginning of the seventh century which were regarded by Thomas of Harkel as particularly well authenticated, but which deviate in a marked degree from the bulk of our present manuscripts, and which, especially in the Acts, agree almost entirely with Codex D, which occupies so singular a position among Greek manuscripts. A new edition of the Syriac text is necessary before any further use can be made of it in the criticism of the New Testament. Mr. Deane set himself to this task, going on the basis of sixteen manuscripts in England alone, but unfortunately he was unable to bring it to a conclusion.

[Sidenote: Apocalypse.]

The Apocalypse was first edited in 1627 by de Dieu at Leyden, from a manuscript that had been in the possession of Scaliger. It is found in a few other manuscripts, in one, _e.g._, that was transcribed about this same time for Archbishop Ussher from a Maronite manuscript at Kenobin on Mount Lebanon. It is not found in the Syriac New Testament, but the later editions insert it from de Dieu. In Apoc. viii. 13, instead of “an eagle in the midst of heaven” (ἐν μεσουρανήματι), the Syriac translator took it as “in the midst with a bloody tail” (μεσος, ουρα, αιμα). Another Syriac version, in which this error is avoided, was discovered in 1892 by J. Gwynn in a Codex belonging to Lord Crawford, and published by him as the first book printed in Syriac at the Dublin University Press. Still more interesting is it to know that in a manuscript, once the property of Julius Mohl, and now in Cambridge, both the so-called Epistles of Clement are found after the Catholic Epistles. This manuscript, part of which was published by Bensly in 1889 (see above, p. 79), contains a note at the end to the effect that it was derived, so far as the Pauline Epistles are concerned, from the copy of Pamphilus.[90]

About the same time and in the same region, Paul of Tella translated one of the best Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament into Syriac almost as literally as Thomas of Harkel, thereby doing immense service in the construction of the Syriac Hexapla, a work of inestimable value for the textual criticism of the Old Testament.

[Sidenote: Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum.]

Mention may be made here of another Syriac version of the New Testament, the so-called _Jerusalem_ or _Palestinian Syriac_ (Syr^{hr} or Syr^{hier}). This version, hitherto known almost solely from an Evangeliarium in the Vatican of the year 1030, was edited by Count Miniscalchi Erizzo at Verona in 1861-4, and an excellent edition was published in 1892 in _Bibliothecae Syriacae a Paulo de Lagarde collectae quae ad philologiam sacram pertinent_. And now not only have two fresh manuscripts of this Evangeliarium been discovered on Mount Sinai by J. R. Harris and Mrs. Lewis, and edited by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson, but fragments of the Acts and Pauline Epistles have also been found and published, as well as portions of the Old Testament and other Church literature.[91] The dialect in which these fragments are written is quite different from ordinary Syriac, and may, perhaps, bear a close resemblance to that in which Jesus spoke to His disciples. At what time and in what region this entire literature took its rise is not yet determined with certainty. The Greek text on which the Evangeliarium is based has many peculiarities. In Matthew xxvii. 17, _e.g._, the robber is called Jesus Barabbas, or, rather, Jesus Barrabbas, a fact known to Origen, but now recorded only in a few Greek minuscules by the first or second hand.

What used to be called the Versio Karkaphensis or Montana is not really a version, but merely the Massoretic work of a monastery school intended to preserve the proper spelling and pronunciation of the text of the Bible.

No other branch of the Church has taken such pains as the Syrian, faithfully to transmit and to circulate the Gospel. From the mountains of Lebanon and Kurdistan, from the plains of Mesopotamia and the coast of Malabar, and even from distant China there have come into the libraries of Europe Syriac manuscripts of the utmost value for the textual criticism of the New Testament.

LITERATURE on the Syriac Versions:—

J. G. Christian Adler, _Novi Testamenti Versiones Syriacae, Simplex, Philoxeniana, et Hierosolymitana. Denuo examinatae et ad fidem codicum manu scriptorum ... novis observationibus atque tabulis aere incisis illustratae._ Hafniae, pp. viii. 206. _With eight Plates._ 1789, 4to. For the complete list of editions up to 1888, see my _Litteratura Syriaca_ (Syr. Gr., 2nd edition, pp. 20 ff.). Appendix thereto in _Urt._, 227 ff.; R. Duval, _La Littérature Syriaque_. Paris, 1899, pp. 42-67; _TiGr._, 813-822; Scrivener, fourth edition, ii. 6-40, with the help of Gwilliam and Deane; _The Printed Editions of the Syriac New Testament_, in the _Church Quarterly Review_, 1888, July, 257-297; G. H. Gwilliam, in the _Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica_ (Oxford), ii. 1890, iii. 1891; F. C. Conybeare, _The growth of the Peshitta Version of the New Testament_, in the _American Journal of Theology_, 1897, iv. 883-912; Burkitt, in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. (July 1900), 569 ff., referring to his forthcoming edition of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, says that he has had to go over the Gospel quotations of St. Ephraem, and closes by saying, “I confess that I am unconvinced that what we call the New Testament Peshitta was in existence in St. Ephraem’s day, and I believe that we owe both its production and victorious reception to the organizing energy of the Great Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa from 411 to 435 A.D.”

1. Till Gwilliam’s edition of the Gospels appears, which has been promised since 1891, the best edition will be the Editio Princeps of Widmanstadt, 1555; then that of Leusden and Schaaf, _Novum Domini nostri Jesu Christi Testamentum Syriacum cum versione latina cura et studio J. Leusden et C. Schaaf editum. Ad omnes editiones diligenter recensitum et variis lectionibus magno labore collectis adornatum._ Lugd. Bat., 1709, 4to. _Acc. Schaaf, Lexicon Syriacum concordantiale._ The text reprinted by Jones at Oxford, 1805; the editions of the London Bible Society, 1816 and 1826, and better still, the Syriac and New-Syriac editions of the American Mission in Urmia, 1846, and of the American Bible Society of New York, 1868, 1874, and frequently (with the Nestorian vocalisation). An edition is promised from the Jesuit Press at Beyruth, _Nouveau Testament Syriaque en petits caractères, d’après plusieurs manuscrits anciens, éd. par le P. L. Cheikho_.

The New Testament part of the Peshitto has been very much neglected in the present century. On the O.T., investigations, chiefly in the form of dissertations on most of the books, have been published, establishing the relation of the Syriac to the Massoretic text, the Septuagint, and the Targum. But almost nothing of this sort has been done for the N.T., at least in Germany, since the time of Michaelis and Löhlein. The question has never once been taken up how many translators’ hands can be distinguished in the N.T.

J. D. Michaelis, _Curae in Versionem Syriacam Act. Apost. cum consectariis criticis de indole, cognationibus et usu versionis Syriacae tabularum Novi Foederis_. Göttingen, 1755. C. L. E. Löhlein, _Syrus Epistolae ad Ephesios interpres in causa critica denuo examinatus_, Erlangen, 1835.

2. Cureton’s _Remains_ (1858) is now out of print. Till Burkitt’s new edition appears its place will be taken by Baethgen’s Retranslation into Greek (_Evangelienfragmente. Der griechische Text des Curetonschen Syrers wiederhergestellt_, Leipzig, 1885); and more especially by Albert Bonus’s _Collatio codicis Lewisiani rescripti evangeliorum Syriacorum cum codice Curetoniano_, Oxford, 1896; and by Carl Holzhey’s _Der neuentdeckte Codex Sinaiticus untersucht. Mit einem vollständigen Verzeichnis der Varianten des Codex Sinaiticus und Codex Curetonianus_, Munich, 1896. See A. Bonus, _The Sinaitic Palimpsest and the Curetonian Syriac_, in the _Expository Times_, May 1895, p. 380 ff. The publications of T. R. Crowfoot, _Fragmenta Evangelica, Pars I., II._, 1870, 1872, and _Observations on the Collations in Greek of Cureton’s Syriac Fragments_, 1872, contain useful material, but there are a good many mistakes.

3. The Editio Princeps of the Lewis text is, of course, that of Bensly, Harris, and Burkitt, _The Four Gospels in Syriac, transcribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest ..._ Cambridge, 1894. To this must be added its complement by Mrs. Lewis, _Some Pages of the Four Gospels retranscribed_ (with or without an English translation), London, 1896; further, _Last Gleanings from the Sinai Palimpsest_, _Expositor_, Aug. 1897, pp. 111-119; also, _An Omission from the Text of the Sinai Palimpsest_, _Expositor_, Dec. 1897, p. 472. On the discovery of the manuscript, see Mrs. Gibson, _How the Codex was found, ..._ Cambridge, 1893, and Mrs. Lewis, _In the shadow of Sinai, ..._ Cambridge, 1898; also Mrs. Bensly, _Our Journey to Sinai, ... With a chapter on the Sinai Palimpsest_. London, 1896. See also Mrs. Lewis, _The Earlier Home of the Sinaitic Palimpsest_, _Expositor_, June 1900, pp. 415-421. The text has been translated into German by Adalbert Merx, who has added a brief but valuable critical discussion. Berlin (Reimer), 1897. The second part, comprising the commentary, has not yet appeared. See also Gwilliam’s notice of the editio princeps in the _Expository Times_, Jan. 1895, p. 157 ff.

4. On Tatian, the latest and best is Zahn, _Evangelienharmonie_, PRE^3, v. (1898), 653 ff.; also his _Forschungen_, i. (1881), _Tatian’s Diatessaron_, ii. p. 286 ff. (1883), iv. (1891); _Gesch. des Kanons_, i. 387-414, ii. 530-556. J. H. Hill, _The earliest Life of Christ ever compiled from the Four Gospels, being the Diatessaron of Tatian_ (c. A.D. 160), _literally translated from the Arabic Version_. Edinburgh, 1893. J. R. Harris, _The Diatessaron of Tatian, a Preliminary Study_. Cambridge, 1890. _The Diatessaron, a Reply_, in the _Contemporary Review_, Aug. 1895, in answer to W. R. Cassels, in the _Nineteenth Century_, April 1895; also by the same writer, _Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus upon the Diatessaron_. London, 1895.... J. H. Hill, _A Dissertation on the Gospel Commentary of S. Ephrem the Syrian ..._ Edinburgh, 1896. J. A. Robinson, _Tatian’s Diatessaron and a Dutch Harmony_, in the _Academy_, 24th March 1894. Hope W. Hogg, _The Diatessaron of Tatian, with introduction and translation_, in the _Ante-Nicene Library. Additional Volume ..._ edited by Allan Menzies. Edinburgh, 1897, pp. 33-138. W. Elliott, _Tatian’s Diatessaron and the Modern Critics_. Plymouth, 1888. I. H. Hall, _A Pair of Citations from the Diatessaron_, in the _Journal of Biblical Literature_, x. 2 (1891), 153-155. J. Goussen, _Pauca Fragmenta genuina Diatessaroniana_, appended to the _Apocalypsis S. Joannis Versio Sahidica_, 1895. See also Bäumer in the _Literarischer Handweiser_, 1890, 153-169; the article _Tatian_ in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, and Hastings’ _Bible Dictionary_, vol. ii. p. 697 f.

5. On the later Syriac versions, see _Urt._, 228, 236 f.; Gwynn, _The older Syriac Version of the four Minor Catholic Epistles_, _Hermathena_, No. xvi. (vol. vii.), 1890, 281-314. Merx, _Die in der Peschito fehlenden Briefe des Neuen Testamentes in arabischer der Philoxeniana entstammender Uebersetzung ..._ _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xii. 240 ff., 348 ff., xiii. 1-28. Bensly, _The Harklean Version of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ..._ Cambridge, 1889. In this edition will be found the subscription mentioned above, connecting the manuscript with that of Pamphilus. See _Addenda_, p. xv.

6. On the Jerusalem Evangeliarium, see _Urt._, 228, 237. Zahn, _Forschungen_, i. 329 ff. Lagarde, _Mitteilungen_, i. 111, iv. 328, 340. A. de Lagarde, _Erinnerungen an P. de Lagarde_, p. 112 ff. Lewis and Gibson, _The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels re-edited from two Sinai MSS. and from P. de Lagarde’s edition of the Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum_, London, 1899. The Lectionary published in the _Studia Sinaitica_, vi., contains, in the N.T., passages from Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Ephes., Philip., Col., 1 Thess., 1 and 2 Tim., Heb., James. See notice in the _Expository Times_, Jan. 1898, p. 190 ff. _The Liturgy of the Nile_, published by G. Margoliouth, 1896 (_Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, Oct. 1896, 677-731, and also published separately), contains Acts xvi. 16-34. See also Woods, _The New Syriac Fragments_ in the _Expository Times_, Nov. 1893.

(_b._) LATIN VERSIONS.

[Sidenote: Jerome.]

The name most closely associated with the Latin Versions of the New Testament is that of =Jerome= (Hieronymus). This scholar was born at Stridon, on the borders of Dalmatia,[92] about the year 345, and educated at Rome. After leading for some time a hermit life in Palestine, Jerome returned to Rome, and it was during his residence there, in the year 382, that he was urged by Pope Damasus to undertake a revision of the Latin version of the New Testament then in use. This he did, and in 383 sent the Pope, who died in the following year, the first instalment of the work, the Four Gospels, accompanied with a letter beginning thus:—“Thou compellest me to make a new work out of an old; after so many copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed throughout the whole world, I am now to occupy the seat of the arbiter, as it were, and seeing they disagree, to decide which of them accords with the truth of the Greek; a pious task, verily, yet a perilous presumption, to pass judgment on others and oneself to be judged by all.” He anticipates that everyone, no matter who, learned or ignorant, that takes up a Bible and finds a discrepancy between it and the usual text will straightway condemn him as an impious falsifier who presumed to add to or alter or correct the ancient Scriptures. But he comforts himself with the reflection that it is the High Pontiff himself that has laid this task upon him, and that the testimony of his jealous opponents themselves proves that discrepancies are an indication of error (verum non esse quod variat, etiam maledicorum testimonio comprobatur); for if they tell us we are to rest our faith on the Latin exemplars, they must first say which, because there are almost as many versions as manuscripts (tot enim sunt exemplaria paene quot codices); if it is to be the majority of these, why not rather go back to the Greek original which has been badly rendered by incompetent translators (a vitiosis interpretibus male edita), made worse instead of better by the presumption of unskilful correctors (a praesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius), and added to or altered by sleepy scribes (a librariis dormitantibus aut addita sunt aut mutata). In a letter to his learned friend Marcella, written in the year 384, he gives instances of what he complains of, citing, _e.g._, Romans xii. 11, where _tempori servientes_ had hitherto been read instead of _domino servientes_ (καιρῷ instead of κυρίῳ), and 1 Tim. v. 19, “against an elder receive not an accusation,” where the qualifying clause, “except before two or three witnesses,” was dropped, and also 1 Tim. i. 15, iii. 1, where _humanus sermo_ was given in place of _fidelis_. In all three instances, our most recent critical editions decide in favour of Jerome, against the Old Latin Version. In the last instance cited, we know of only one Latin-Greek manuscript that has ἀνθρώπινος instead of πιστός, and that only in c. iii. 1, viz. D*. Jerome accordingly issued an improved version of the New Testament, beginning with the Gospels. For this purpose he made a careful comparison of old Greek manuscripts (codicum Graecorum emendata conlatione sed veterum). In his version he was also careful only to make an alteration when a real change of meaning was necessary, retaining in all other cases the familiar Latin wording. The Gospels were in the order which has been the prevailing one since his day—Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.

[Sidenote: Augustine.]

We learn from the great Church Teacher AUGUSTINE, who lived in Africa about the same time (354-430), that there was an endless variety and multitude of translators (latinorum interpretum infinita varietas, interpretum numerositas). He tells us that while it was possible to count the number of those who had translated the Bible—_i.e._ the Old Testament—from Hebrew into Greek, the Latin translators were innumerable; that in the early age of the Christian faith (primis fidei temporibus), no sooner did anyone gain possession of a Greek Codex, and believe himself to have any knowledge of both languages, than he made bold to translate it (ausus est interpretari). [Sidenote: Itala.] The advice he himself gives is to prefer the _Italic_ version to the others, as being the most faithful and intelligible (in ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala praeferatur; nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiae. _De Doctrina Christiana_, ii. 14, 15). [Sidenote: Vulgate.] On the ground of this passage, the pre-Jeromic versions have been comprehended under the title of the =Itala=, as distinguished from Jerome’s own work, which is called the =Vulgate=, seeing that it became the prevailing text in the Church of the Middle Ages. By the Itala, Augustine himself, however, must have referred to a

## particular version, and, according to the usage of that time, the word

cannot mean anything else than a version originating in or prevalent in Italy—_i.e._ the North of Italy, what is called Lombardy. It is not difficult to understand how it came to pass that Augustine used such a version in Africa, seeing that he was a pupil of Ambrose, Bishop of Milan. In recent times Burkitt has revived the opinion that by Itala Augustine means neither more nor less than Jerome’s Revision of the Gospels. He demonstrates that Augustine’s _De Consensu_, written about the year 400, is based on Jerome’s revised text. In this, Zahn[93] agrees with him on grounds that admit of no question so far as this point is concerned. But Wordsworth-White[94] will not admit the inference that Augustine must have meant this Revision when he spoke of Itala in the year 397, seeing that in his letter to Jerome,[95] written in 403, he thanks God for the interpretation of the Gospel, “quasi de opere recenter cognito,” while in his earlier letters to Jerome[96] he makes no mention of it: “quod mirandum esset si in opere ante sex annos publici iuris facto eam collaudasset.”[97]

(1.) LATIN VERSIONS BEFORE JEROME.

[Sidenote: Old Latin Texts.]

Where, when, and by whom was the New Testament, or at least were parts of it, first translated into Latin? From the passage in Augustine quoted above, we learn that it was done by all and sundry in the very earliest times of the Christian faith. Rome used to be regarded as the place where the Latin versions took their rise. But it was observed that Greek was very commonly employed as the written language at Rome, especially among Christians. The first Bishops of Rome have pure Greek names, and even the first representative of the Roman Church with a Latin name, the Clement that wrote the Epistle to the Corinthians about the year 95, even he wrote in Greek. Moreover, when the relics of the Old Latin Bibles began to be examined, it was observed that their language, both in vocabulary and grammar, entirely agreed with that found in African writers of that age, and in some things agreed with these alone. [Sidenote: African Latin.] It is, of course, a fact that the majority of the writers of that age known to us are African. Till quite recently, therefore, it was held to be tolerably well made out that the birthplace of the Latin Bible is to be found in Africa. It was regarded by many as equally certain, that in spite of the statements of Jerome and Augustine, and in spite too of the various forms in which the Old Latin Bible now exists, these all proceed from a common origin, or at most from two sources, so that it was not quite correct to speak of a “multitude of translators” in the very earliest times. The settlement of this question is rendered more difficult by the fact that, while the extant copies of the pre-Jeromic Bible are undoubtedly very early, they are few in number, and for the most part mutilated. The reason of this is not far to seek. For, as time went on and Jerome’s new version came to be more and more exclusively used, manuscripts of the earlier version lost their value, and were the more frequently used for palimpsests and

## book covers. One has also to take into account how liable the text of

both was to be corrupted, either by the copyist of an Old Latin Bible inserting in the margin, or even interpolating in the text, various passages from Jerome’s translation that seemed to him to be a decided improvement, or conversely, by the scribe who should have written the new rendering involuntarily permitting familiar expressions to creep in from the old. It is estimated that we have about 8000 manuscripts of Jerome’s recension, of which 2228 have been catalogued by Gregory. Samuel Berger, the most thorough investigator in this field, examined 800 manuscripts in Paris alone. But on the other hand, only 38 manuscripts of the Old Latin Version of the New Testament are known to exist. The credit of collecting the relics of these pre-Jeromic versions of the Old and New Testament, so far as they were accessible at that time, belongs to Peter Sabatier the Maurist (Rheims, 1743, 3 vols. folio).

In critical editions of the New Testament the manuscripts of the pre-Jeromic versions are indicated by the small letters of the Roman alphabet. They are the following:—

1. GOSPELS.

a. Vercellensis: according to a tradition recorded in a document of the eighth century this manuscript was written by Eusebius, Bishop of Vercelli, who died in the year 370 or 371. Recent scholars, however, date it somewhat later. It is written on purple with silver letters. The order of the Gospels is that found in most of these Old Latin MSS.—viz. Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. The manuscript is defective in several places.

The codex was edited by Irico in 1748, and by Bianchini in 1749 along with some of the others in his Evangeliarium Quadruplex. This latter edition was reprinted, with some inaccuracies, in Migne’s _Patrologia Latina_, vol. xii. The manuscript was again edited by Belsheim; _Codex Vercellensis. Quatuor Evangelia ante Hieronymum latine translata ex reliquiis Codicis Vercellensis, saeculo ut videtur quarto scripti, et ex Editione Iriciana principe denuo ededit_ (sic) _Jo. Belsheim._ Christiania, 1894.

b. Veronensis: of the fourth or fifth century, also written with silver on purple. In this Codex, John vii. 44-viii. 12 has been erased. The manuscript is defective.

Edited by Bianchini (see above). A Spagnolo, _L’Evangeliario Purpureo Veronese_. Nota (Torino, 1899. Estratta dagli Atti dell’ Accademia Reale delle Scienze di Torino).

c. Colbertinus: in Paris, written in the twelfth century, but still containing the Old Latin text in the Gospels, though exhibiting Jerome’s version in other parts.

Edited by Sabatier, and again by Belsheim; _Codex Colbertinus Parisiensis. Quatuor Evangelia ante Hieronymum latine translata post editionem Petri Sabatier cum ipso codice collatam denuo edidit Jo. Belsheim._ Christiania, 1888.

d. The Latin part of Codex D; see p. 64 ff.

e. Palatinus: of the fourth or fifth century, written like a b f i j on purple with gold and silver letters: now in Vienna, with one leaf in Dublin.

Two other fragments were published in 1893 by Hugo Linke from a transcript made for Bianchini in 1762. The entire codex was edited by Belsheim, Christiania, 1896. See von Dobschütz in the _LCbl._, 1896, 28.

f. Brixianus, of the sixth century, in Brescia. In their new edition of the Vulgate, Wordsworth and White printed the text of this manuscript underneath that of Jerome for comparison’s sake as probably containing the text most nearly resembling that on which Jerome based his recension. But see Burkitt’s Note in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, I. i. (Oct. 1899), 129-134, and the note to p. 139 in _Addenda_.

ff_{1}. Corbeiensis I., contains the Gospel according to Matthew alone. The manuscript formerly belonged to the Monastery of Corbey, near Amiens, and with others was transferred to St. Petersburg during the French Revolution.

ff_{2}. Corbeiensis II., written in the sixth century and now in Paris: contains the Gospels with several lacunæ.

On Belsheim’s editions of ff_{1} and ff_{2} (1881 and 1887), see E. Ranke in the _ThLz._, 1887, col. 566, and S. Berger, _Bull. Crit._, 1891, 302 f.

g_{1}. Sangermanensis I., of the ninth century, in Paris, exhibits a mixed text. The manuscript was used by Stephen for his Latin Bible of 1538.

g_{2}. Sangermanensis II., written in an Irish hand of the tenth century, has a mixed text: in Paris (Lat. 13069).

h. Claromontanus, of the fourth or fifth century, now in the Vatican: has the Old Latin text in Matthew only. The manuscript is defective at the beginning down to Matt. iii. 15 and also from Matt. xiv. 33-xviii. 12.

Edited by Mai in his _Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio_, iii. 257-288, and by Belsheim, Christiania, 1892.

i. Vindobonensis, of the seventh century, contains fragments of Luke and Mark written on purple with silver and gold.

Edited by Belsheim, _Codex Vindobonensis membranaceus purpureus ... antiquissimae evangeliorum Lucae et Marci translationis Latinae fragmenta edidit Jo. Belsheim_. Lipsiae, 1885 (cum tabula).

j (z in _TiGr._). Saretianus or Sarzannensis, of the fifth century, contains 292 verses from John written on purple. The manuscript was discovered in 1872 in the Church of Sarezzano, near Tortona, and is not yet completely edited.

Compare G. Amelli, _Un antichissimo codice biblico Latino purpureo conservato nella chiesa di Sarezzano presso Tortona_. Milan, 1872.

k. Bobiensis, of the fifth century, is perhaps the most important of the Old Latin manuscripts, but unfortunately contains only fragments of Matthew and Mark. It is said to have belonged to St. Columban, the founder of the monastery of Bobbio, who died in the year 615. It is now preserved at Turin. See Burkitt on Mark xv. 34 in Codex Bobiensis in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. 2 (Jan. 1900), p. 278 f.

l. Rehdigeranus, in Breslau, purchased in Venice by Thomas von Rehdiger in 1569. Matthew i. 1-ii. 15 and a good deal of John wanting.

Edited by H. Fr. Haase, Breslau, 1865, 1866: _Evangeliorum quattuor vetus latina interpretatio ex codice Rehdigerano nunc primum edita_.

m. Does not represent any particular manuscript and should properly be omitted here. It indicates the _Liber de divinis scripturis sive Speculum_, a work mistakenly ascribed to Augustine, consisting of a collection of proof-passages (testimonia) from the Old and New Testaments. All the books of the latter are made use of except Philemon, Hebrews, and 3 John, but the Epistle to the Laodicæans is cited among the number.

_Fragmenta Novi Testamenti in translatione latina antehieronymiana ex libro qui vocatur Speculum eruit et ordine librorum Novi Testamenti exposuit J. Belsheim._ Christiania, 1899.

n o p. Are fragments at St. Gall: published in the Old Latin Biblical Texts, see below, p. 131 f.

n. Written in the fifth or sixth century, has probably been in the Library at St. Gall since its foundation. It contains portions of Matthew and Mark, with John xix. 13-42.

o. Written in the seventh century, possibly to take the place of the last leaf of n, which is wanting, contains Mark xvi. 14-20.

p. Two leaves of an Irish missal written in the seventh or eighth century.

a_{2}. Is part of the same manuscript as n. It consists of a leaf containing Luke xi. 11-29 and xiii. 16-34. It was found in the Episcopal archives at Chur, and is preserved in the Rhætisches Museum there.

q. Monacensis, written in the sixth or seventh century, came originally from Freising. Published in the Old Latin Biblical Texts.

r or r_{1} and r_{2}. Usserianus I. and II., are both in Dublin. The former is written in an Irish hand of the seventh century, and has several lacunæ. r_{2} belongs to the ninth or tenth century and has an Old Latin text in Matthew resembling that of r_{1}. It shows affinity with Jerome’s text in Mark, Luke, and John, of which, however, only five leaves remain.

Edited by T. K. Abbott, _Evangeliorum versio antehieronymiana ex codice Usseriano (Dublinensi), adjecta collatione codicis Usseriani alterius. Accedit versio Vulgata...._ Dublin, 1884, 2 Parts.

s. Four leaves with portions of Luke, written in the sixth century. The fragments came originally from Bobbio, and are now in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. Published in the Old Latin Biblical Texts.

t. A palimpsest very difficult to decipher, containing portions of the first three chapters of Mark, written in the fifth century, and now at Berne. Published in the Old Latin Biblical Texts.

v. Bound in the cover of a volume at Vienna entitled, _Pactus Legis Ripuariæ_: exhibits John xix. 27-xx. 11. Published in the Old Latin Biblical Texts.

aur. Aureus or Holmiensis, written in the seventh or eighth century, exhibits the Gospels entire, with the exception of Luke xxi. 8-30. An inscription in old English states that the manuscript was purchased from the heathen (the Danes?) by Alfred the Alderman for Christ Church, Canterbury, when Alfred was King and Ethelred Archbishop (871-889). It was afterwards in Madrid, and is now at Stockholm. It is really a Vulgate text with an admixture of Old Latin readings. Published by Belsheim in 1878.

δ. Is the interlinear Latin version of Δ (see p. 72), and is interesting on account of its alternative readings given in almost every verse—e.g. _uxorem vel conjugem_ for γυναῖκα, Matt. i. 20. Compare Harris, _The Codex Sangallensis_, Cambridge, 1891.

On the Prolegomena found in many Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts of the Gospels, see Peter Corssen, _Monarchianische Prologe zu den vier Evangelien_. Leipzig, 1896 (_TU._, xv. 1). This has been supplemented by von Dobschütz’s _Prolog zur Apostelgeschichte_. See also Jülicher in the _GGA._, 1896, xi. 841-851. J. S. in the _Revue Critique_, 1897, vii. 135 f. H. Holtzmann in the _Th. Lz._, 1897, xii. col. 231 ff. A. Hilgenfeld, _Altchristliche Prolegomena zu den Evangelien_ in the _ZfwTh._, 1897, iii. 432-444.

2. ACTS.

d m As for the Gospels.

e. The Latin text of E. See above, p. 75.

g. Gigas Holmiensis, the immense manuscript of the entire Latin Bible preserved at Stockholm. The text is Old Latin only in the Acts and Apocalypse, the rest of the New Testament exhibiting Jerome’s version. The manuscript was brought to Sweden from Prague as a prize of war in 1648, along with the Codex Argenteus.

The Acts and Apocalypse were edited by Belsheim, Christiania, 1879. On this see O. v. Gebhardt in the _ThLz._, 1880, col. 185. A new collation of this manuscript was made for W.-W. by H. Karlsson in 1891.

g_{2}. In Milan, is part of a Lectionary written in the tenth or eleventh century, and contains the pericope for St. Stephen’s day, Acts vi. 8-vii. 2, vii. 51-viii. 4.

Published by Ceriani in his _Monumenta Sacra et Profana_, i. 2, pp. 127, 128. Milan, 1866.

h. Floriacensis, a palimpsest formerly belonging to the Abbey of Fleury on the Loire, and now in Paris, written probably in the seventh century. It contains fragments of the Apocalypse, Acts, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1 John, in this order. (Tischendorf’s reg.: Blass’s f.)

The latest and best edition is that of S. Berger: _Le Palimpseste de Fleury_. Paris, 1889.

p_{2}, written in the thirteenth century, exhibits a text with an admixture of Old Latin readings in the Acts only. The manuscript came originally from Perpignan, and is now in Paris, No. 321. It was used by Blass.

Published by Berger: _Un ancien texte latin des Actes des Apôtres_, etc. Paris, 1895. See von Dobschütz in the _ThLz._, 1896, 4; Haussleiter in the _Th. Lbl._, no. 9; Schmiedel in the _L. Cbl._, no. 33; E. Beurlier, _Bull. Crit._, 1896, 32, p. 623.

s_{2}. Bobiensis, a palimpsest of the fifth or sixth century at Vienna, containing fragments of Acts xxiii., xxv.-xxviii., and of James and 1 Peter.

x_{1}. Written in the seventh or eighth century, contains the Acts with the exception of xiv. 26-xv. 32. The manuscript is preserved at Oxford and is not completely published.

w. Is the symbol given by Blass to a paper manuscript of the New Testament written, it seems, in Bohemia in the fifteenth century, and now at Wernigerode. In the main it exhibits Jerome’s text even to a greater extent than p, but preserves elements of the Old Latin,

## particularly in the latter half of the Acts. The mixture is similar to

that observed in the Provençal New Testament,[98] which is derived from a Latin manuscript of this nature, and to that in the pre-Lutheran German Bible. (See _Urt._, p. 127 f.)

On Acts, see especially P. Corssen, _Der Cyprianische Text der Acta Apostolorum_. Berlin, 1892.

3. CATHOLIC EPISTLES.

h m s. As above.

ff. Corbeiensis, at St. Petersburg, of the tenth century, contains the Epistle of James.

Edited by Belsheim in the _Theologisk Tidsskrift for den evangelisk-lutherske Kirke i Norge_ (N.S. Vol. ix. Part 2); also by J. Wordsworth, _The Corbey St. James_, etc., in _Studia Biblica_, i. pp. 113-150. Oxford, 1885.

q. Written in the seventh century, and preserved at Munich, contains fragments of 1 John, and of 1 and 2 Peter. The text exhibits the passage of the Three Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John v., but verse 7 follows verse 8.

Published by Ziegler in 1877, _Bruchstücke einer vorhieronymianischen Uebersetzung der Petrusbriefe_.

4. PAULINE EPISTLES.

m. As for the Gospels.

d e f g. The Latin versions of the Greek Codices D E F G.

gue. Guelferbytanus, of the sixth century, contains fragments of Romans cc. xi.-xv., found in the Gothic palimpsest at Wolfenbüttel. See p. 69.

Published by Tischendorf in his _Anecdota Sacra et Profana_, 1855, pp. 153-158. See Burkitt, in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. 1 (Oct. 1899), p. 134, and compare the note to p. 139 in the _Addenda_, p. xv.

r. Written in the fifth or sixth century, came originally from Freising, and is now at Munich: contains portions of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, and Hebrews.

Ziegler, _Italafragmente der paulinischen Briefe_. Marburg, 1876. Wölfflin, _Neue Bruchstücke der Freisinger Itala_ (Münchener Sitzungsberichte, 1893, ii. 253-280).

r_{2}. Also at Munich, a single leaf, with part of Phil. iv. and of 1 Thess. i.

r_{3}. In the Benedictine Abbey of Göttweih on the Danube: fragments of Romans v. and vi. and of Galatians iv. and v., written on leaves used as a book cover.

Published by Rönsch in the _ZfwTh._, xxii. (1879), pp. 234-238.

x_{2}. At Oxford, of the ninth century, contains the Pauline Epistles: defective from Heb. xi. 34-xiii. 25.

See also Fr. Zimmer, _Der Galaterbrief im altlateinischen Text, als Grundlage für einen textkritischen Apparat der Vetus Latina_ in the _Theologische Studien und Skizzen aus Ostpreussen_. Königsberg, i. (1887), pp. 1-81.

5. APOCALYPSE.

The only manuscripts are m as for the Gospels, and g and h as for the Acts, h exhibits only fragments of cc. i. and ii., viii. and ix., xi. and xii., and xiv.-xvi.

For the Old Latin Biblical Texts edited by Wordsworth and White, see below, p. 131.

[Sidenote: Latin Fathers.]

On account of the small number of these manuscripts the quotations of the Latin Fathers are valuable, especially those of _Cyprian_ of Carthage,[99] and after them the recently discovered citations in _Priscillian_, who was the first to suffer death as a heretic in the year 385. In the Apocalypse we have the quotations of _Primasius_, Bishop of Hadrumet (ca. 550), who used in his commentary on the Apocalypse not only his own Old Latin Bible but also a revised version the same as that used by the African Donatist _Tyconius_. In attempting to classify these witnesses it was found that the text of certain manuscripts coincided with that of the Bible used by Cyprian—viz., in the Gospels k especially, in Acts h, and in the Apocalypse Primasius and h. This family has accordingly been designated the =African=.

_Tertullian_, a still earlier African Father, undoubtedly refers to the existence of a Latin Version in his time, but the quotations found in his Latin works cannot be taken into account, for this reason, that in citing the New Testament he seems to have made an independent translation from the Greek for his immediate purpose.[100]

As for the quotations in Augustine, they are found to resemble the text of f and q in the Gospels, particularly the former, and that of q, r, and r_{3} in the Epistles. To this group, therefore, the name =Italian= has been given. It has, however, been deemed necessary to regard this Italian family as being itself a revised and smoother form of a still earlier version styled the =European=, which is thought to be represented by g, g_{2}, and s in the Acts, by ff in the Epistles, and by g in the Apocalypse.

[Sidenote: Old Latin Texts.]

As illustrating the way in which the various forms deviate from each other, take the text of Luke xxiv., verses 4, 5, 11, and 13 as exhibited by a b c d e f and the Vulgate (vg).

v. 4.—All the seven agree in the opening words, Et factum est dum; but after that there follows:—

(1) stuperent a c, mente consternatae essent b, vg; mente consternatae sunt e, aporiarentur d, haesitarent f.

(2) de hoc a c f, de facto b, de eo d, de isto e, vg.

(3) ecce a c d f, vg; et ecce b e.

(4) viri duo a f, duo viri b c d e, vg.

(5) adstiterunt a f, astiterunt c, adsisterunt d, steterunt b e, vg.

(6) iuxta illas a f, secus illas b c e, vg; eis d.

(7) in veste fulgenti a f, vg; in veste fulgente b c e, in amictu scoruscanti d.

(8) v. 5: timore autem adprehensae inclinantes faciem ad terram a; cum timerent autem et declinarent vultum in terram b e f, vg; conterritae autem inclinaverunt faciem in terram c; in timore autem factae inclinaverunt vultus suos in terra d.

(9) v. 11: et visa sunt a b c (visae) e f, vg; et paruerunt d.

(10) illis a, ante illos b, vg; apud illos c e, in conspectu eorum d, coram illos f.

(11) tanquam a, sicut b e, vg; quasi c d f.

(12) delira a, deliramentum b e f, vg; (b spells -lirr-, and f -ler-), deliramenta c, derissus d.

(13) v. 13: municipium a, castellum b c d e f, vg.

(14) stadios habentem LX ab hierusalem a, quod aberat stadia sexaginta ab hierusalem b, quod abest ab ierosolymis stadia sexag. c, iter habentis stadios sexag. ab hierus. d, quod est ab hierosolymis stadia septem e, quod aberat spatio stadiorum LX ab hierus. f, quod erat in spatio stadiorum sexaginta ab hierusalem vg.

(15) cui nomen a, nomine b c d e f, vg.

(16) ammaus a, cleopas et ammaus b, emmaus c f, vg; alammaus d, ammaus et cleopas e.

Is not this almost exactly as Jerome said: tot exemplaria, quot codices? And when we take into account that all this variety in the Latin manuscripts is not simply due to a difference in translation, but that a similar diversity exists in the Greek,[101] we can easily understand what a task it is to extricate the original text from out these conflicting witnesses. At the same time, we have evidence of the singular position in which D stands to all the others; while the last example also affords an illustration of the way in which mistakes might arise. The reading ᾗ ὄνομα in verse 13 would preclude any possibility of misunderstanding. But suppose the reader or the translator had before him a manuscript like D, in which the reading was ὀνόματι. What happened, we shall suppose, was this. The phrase, “Emmaus by name,” was taken as referring, not to the village, but to the subject of the sentence; the other name, Cleopas, was then inserted from verse 18, and in time placed even before Emmaus by a later copyist. And accordingly we find, even in Ambrose of Milan, that the two travellers are regularly called Ammaon et Cleopas. It was just as Jerome said: a vitiosis interpretibus male edita, a praesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius, a librariis dormitantibus aut addita aut mutata.

(2.) THE LATIN VERSION OF JEROME.

[Sidenote: Codex Epternacensis.]

It is a comparatively easy task to restore the work of Jerome; first of all because all our present manuscripts are derived from one and only one source, secondly because the number of existing manuscripts is very great, and lastly because some of them at least go back to the sixth century. There is a Codex in Paris which formerly belonged to the Church of St. Willibrord at Echternach, written by an Irish hand of the eighth or ninth century, and containing a subscription copied from its original to the following effect: proemendavi ut potui secundum codicem in bibliotheca Eugipi praespiteri quem ferunt fuisse sci Hieronymi, indictione VI. p(ost) con(sulatum) Bassilii u. c. anno septimo decimo. That must have been in the year 558. [Sidenote: Codex Amiatinus.] Codex Amiatinus, now in Florence, was formerly supposed to belong to the same time, but this turns out to be a mistake, because it has been proved that it was written for Ceolfrid, Abbot of Wearmouth, who died at Langres on the 25th September 716, on his way to Rome, where he intended to present this Codex to the Pope. [Sidenote: Codex Fuldensis.] One of the oldest and most valuable manuscripts of the Vulgate is at Fulda, where it has been preserved, perhaps, from the time of Boniface. This Codex Fuldensis was written between 540 and 546, by order of Bishop Victor of Capua, and corrected by himself. It contains the whole of the New Testament according to Jerome’s version, only in place of the four separate Gospels it has a Harmony composed by Victor, who followed Tatian’s plan, using the Latin text of Jerome. Victor’s Harmony in turn became the basis of the so-called Old German Tatian.

[Sidenote: Wordsworth and White.]

The task of restoring the original text of Jerome’s version has been undertaken in England by the Bishop of Salisbury, who has been at work on all the available material for more than fifteen years. The edition bears the title, _Novum Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi secundum editionem sancti Hieronymi ad codicum manuscriptorum fidem recensuit Johannes Wordsworth in operis societatem adsumpto Henrico Juliano White_. Five parts of the first volume have already appeared, containing the four Gospels with an _Epilogus ad Evangelia_.[102] In France, J. Delisle, the Director of the Paris National Library, has rendered great service by his work upon the manuscripts under his care; while Samuel Berger has constituted himself pre-eminently the historian of the Vulgate by bringing fresh testimony from the early Middle Ages and the remotest provinces of the Church to bear upon the history of the Vulgate and its text as well as on the origin and dissemination of the different forms. In his compendious _Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du moyen âge_ (Paris, 1893), he has, _e.g._, indicated no fewer than 212 different ways in which the books of the Old Testament were arranged in the manuscripts that he examined, and thirty-eight varieties in the order of the New Testament books. In Germany Bengel applied himself to the reconstruction of the Latin text of the Bible in the last century, and in this he was followed by Lachmann in the present century, while Riegler, van Ess, and Kaulen have added to our knowledge of the history of the Vulgate. Dr. Peter Corssen has followed up the labours of Ziegler and Rönsch in the particular field of the pre-Jeromic Bible and its text with a methodical examination of the earlier editions, and E. v. Dobschütz has begun to publish _Studies in the Textual Criticism of the Vulgate_. The valuable researches of Carlo Vercellone (1860-64) were concerned almost exclusively with the Old Testament, and do not seem to have been followed up in Italy. “Utinam Papa Leo XIII.,” says Gregory, “tanta scientia tanta magnanimitate insignis curam in se suscipiat textus sacrosanctorum Bibliorum Latini edendi; cura, opus ecclesia et Papa dignum.” Meanwhile Wordsworth and White appear to have accomplished as much as is possible at present in the field of the Gospels.[103]

[Sidenote: MSS. used by Jerome.]

The principles on which Jerome went in his revision of the text have been already referred to, but what the early Greek manuscripts were that he employed is not yet clearly made out. The relics of the material he used are as scanty as those of his own work. He must, however, have been able to make use of manuscripts that went back to Eusebius, seeing that he adopted the Eusebian Canons in his New Testament. But there are certain readings in Jerome which we have not yet been able to discover in any Greek manuscript that we know. For instance, he gives _docebit vos omnem veritatem_ in John xvi. 13, where our present Greek editions read ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ, so that he would seem to have read διηγήσεται ὑμῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν. As a matter of fact, this reading does occur in two passages of Eusebius and in Cyril of Jerusalem, as well as in the Arabic version of Tatian, but it has not been discovered in any Greek manuscript.[104] In the other parts of the New Testament, the revision of which was perhaps completed by the year 386, Jerome inserted hardly any new readings from the Greek, but contented himself with improving the grammar and diction of the Latin. His work on the Old Testament was much more comprehensive, but does not fall to be discussed here.

[Sidenote: History of the Vulgate.]

It was only by degrees that Jerome’s recension gained ground. In Rome, Gregory the Great (d. 604) for one preferred it to the old, though at the same time he says expressly: sedes apostolica, cui auctore Deo praesideo, utraque utitur. [Sidenote: Alcuin.] Owing to the use of both forms the diversity of copies grew to such an extent that in 797 Charles the Great ordered =Alcuin= to make a uniformly revised text from the best Latin manuscripts for use in the Churches of his Empire. For this purpose Alcuin sent to his native Northumbria for manuscripts, by which he corrected the text of the Bible, and he was able to present the first copy to the Emperor at Christmas 801. A good many of the superb _Carolingian_ manuscripts, as they are called, which are found in our libraries, contain Alcuin’s Revision, as for instance the Bible of Grandval near Basel, which was probably written for Charles the Bald, and which is now in the British Museum (see Plate VII.); the Bible presented to the same monarch by Vivian, Abbot of St. Martin of Tours, which was sent by the Chapter of Metz from the Cathedral treasury there to Colbert in 1675, and is now in Paris (B. N., Lat. 1); another written in the same monastery of St. Martin, and now at Bamberg; and that in the Vallicellian Library of the Church of Sta. Maria in Rome, which is perhaps the best specimen of the Alcuinian Bible.

[Sidenote: Theodulf.]

Another revision was introduced into France by Alcuin’s contemporary =Theodulf=, Bishop of Orleans (787-821). He was a Visigoth, born in the neighbourhood of Narbonne, and the type of text he introduced was taken essentially from Spanish manuscripts. We have his revision in the so-called Theodulfian Bible, which formerly belonged to the Cathedral Church of Orleans, and is now in Paris (Lat. 9380); in its companion volume, formerly in the Cathedral of Puy, and now in the British Museum (24142); and in the Bible of St. Hubert, which came from the monastery of that name in the Ardennes.

[Sidenote: Harding.]

A further revision was made by Stephen =Harding=, third Abbot of Citeaux. About the year 1109 he prepared a standard Bible for his congregation, in which the Latin text of the New Testament was corrected by the Greek. At the same time the Old Testament was revised from the Hebrew with the help of some Jewish scholars. Harding’s copy of the standard Bible, in four volumes, is still preserved in the Public Library at Dijon. A similar work was done for his monastery by William, Abbot of Hirsau.

[Sidenote: Correctoria.]

Attempts were also made to settle the text by means of the so-called =Correctoria Bibliorum=, in which those readings which were supposed to be correct were carefully collected and arranged. The University of Paris in particular did a great deal in this way, and such was its influence, that by the middle of the fifteenth century the Parisian text was the one most commonly followed in manuscripts, and the invention of printing gave it a complete ascendancy over the others.

[Sidenote: Printed text.]

The first fruits of the printing press are understood to be the undated “forty-two line Bible,” usually called the _Mazarin_ Bible, seeing that it was the copy in the library of Cardinal Mazarin that first attracted the attention of bibliographers. The first dated Bible is of the year 1462. Copinger estimates that 124 editions were printed before the close of the fifteenth century, and over 400 during the sixteenth. The first edition in octavo, “for the poor man,” was issued at Basel in 1491 from the Press of Froben, the same printer who prompted Erasmus to prepare the first Greek New Testament. The first edition in Latin with various readings was printed in 1504. In the following year Erasmus published the _Annotationes_ which Laurentius Valla had prepared for the Latin Bible as early as 1444. The year 1528 saw the first really critical edition. It was brought out by Stephen, who used in its preparation three good Paris manuscripts—the Bible of Charles the Bald already referred to, that of St. Denis, and another of the ninth century, the New Testament portion of which has now disappeared. He afterwards published in 1538-40 another edition, for which he employed seventeen manuscripts, and which became the foundation of the present authorised Vulgate. [Sidenote: Henten.] About the same time John =Henten= published a very valuable edition [1547] on the basis of thirty-one manuscripts, in the preparation of which he was assisted by the theologians of Louvain. This was followed in 1573 and 1580 by two further editions containing important annotations by Lucas of Brügge. [Sidenote: Authorised Vulgate.] In the year previous to that in which Henten’s edition appeared, the Council of Trent, in its fourth sitting of the 8th April 1546, decided “ut haec vetus et vulgata editio in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur,” and at the same time ordained “posthac sacra scriptura, potissimum vero haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio quam emendatissime imprimatur.”

[Sidenote: Sixtine.]

The latter part of this decree was carried into effect in the papacy of Sixtus V. His predecessor, Pius V., began the work of revising the text of the Bible, and a “Congregatio pro emendatione Bibliorum” gave twenty-six sittings to it in the year 1569. His successor seems to have allowed the work to lapse, but Sixtus V. appointed a new commission for the purpose under the Presidency of Cardinal Caraffa. The Pope himself revised the result of their labours, which was printed at the Vatican Press that he had founded. This edition, which takes its name from him, was issued under the Bull “Aeternus ille” of the 1st March 1589, and published in the following year. It is the first official edition of the Vulgate. Sixtus died on the 27th August 1590, and was succeeded by four Popes in the space of two years. [Sidenote: Clementine.] His fourth successor in the Chair of Peter, Clement VIII., issued a new edition under the name of the old Pope, accompanied by the Bull “Cum sacrorum” of the 9th November 1592. This edition, containing a preface written by Cardinal Bellarmin, was substituted for the former, and has continued from that day without any alteration as the authorised Bible of the entire Roman Church. The text of this second edition approximated more closely to that of Henten, for which the Commission of Pope Sixtus had also expressed their preference, though their printed edition went rather by that of Stephen. The number of the variations between these two editions has been estimated at 3000. For our purpose both alike are superseded by the edition of Wordsworth and White. It may be added that the first edition to contain the names of both the Popes upon the title page is that of 1604. The title runs: “Sixti V. Pont. Max. iussu recognita et Clementis VIII. auctoritate edita.” Those printed at Rome at the present day are entitled: “Sixti V. et Clementis VIII. Pontt. Maxx. iussu recognita atque edita.” See below, p. 132.

An enumeration of all the manuscripts of the Vulgate mentioned by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, or even of the earliest and most important of them, cannot be attempted. Those, however, mentioned by Gebhardt in his _Adnotatio Critica_ are given here, with the notation adopted by Wordsworth and White.

The best manuscripts, in the judgment of the English editors, are Codex Amiatinus, Codex Fuldensis, and the one in the Ambrosian Library at Milan (C 39 inf.), written in the sixth century. (M in W.-W.; not cited by Tischendorf.)

am. Amiatinus (_vide supra_, p. 122), written ca. 700, is an excellent manuscript, and particularly interesting as containing in the introduction a double catalogue of the Books of the Bible resembling that of the Senator Cassiodorus. See Westcott, _Bible in the Church_, Appendix B; _Canon_, Appendix D. (A in W.-W.) (See Plate VI.)

bodl. Bodleianus, of the seventh century, formerly belonging to the Library of St. Augustine at Canterbury. (O in W.-W.)

demid. Demidovianus, belonging to the thirteenth century, but copied from an earlier exemplar; formerly at Lyons; present locality unknown; not cited in W.-W.

em. Emeram, written in the year 870, in gold uncials with splendid miniatures: at Munich, Cimelie 55: not cited in W.-W.

erl. Erlangen, of the ninth century (Irmischer’s Catalogue, 467): used only indirectly by Tischendorf, and not cited in W.-W.

for. Foroiuliensis, written in the sixth or seventh century, and now at Cividale, Friuli: fragments of it at Venice and Prague. (J in W.-W.)

fos. Of the ninth century: from St. Maur des Fossés, now in Paris. (Lat. 11959.)

fu. Fuldensis (_vide supra_, p. 122), written between 540 and 546: contains the Epistle to the Laodicaeans after Colossians: edited with facsimiles by E. Ranke. (F in W.-W.)

gat. Gatianus, from St. Gatien’s in Tours: written in the eighth or ninth century: stolen from Libri: purchased by Lord Ashburnham and now in Paris: not cited in W.-W.

harl. Harleianus 1775, of the sixth or seventh century: in the British Museum, formerly in Paris 4582: stolen from there by John Aymont in 1707. (Z in W.-W.)

ing. Ingolstadt, of the seventh century, now in the University Library at Munich: defective. (I in W.-W.) See von Dobschütz, _Vulgatastudien_ (with two facsimiles).

mm. Of the tenth or eleventh century, from Marmoutiers, near Tours: in the British Museum, Egerton 609. (E in W.-W.)

mt. Of the eighth or ninth century, from St. Martin’s, and still at Tours: written in gold letters. (M̅, in W.-W.)

pe. A very old purple manuscript of the sixth century at Perugia, containing Luke i. 1-xii. 7. (P in W.-W.)

prag. The fragments cited under _for._ (see above).

reg. Regius, of the seventh or eighth century, a purple manuscript inscribed in gold, containing Matthew and Mark, with lacunæ: at Paris 11955: not cited in W.-W.

rus. The so-called Rushworth Gospels, written by an Irish scribe who died in the year 820: has an interlinear Anglo-Saxon version. (R in W.-W.)

san. At St. Gall, a fragment containing Matthew vi. 21-John xvii. 18, written by a scribe who says that he used two Latin and one Greek manuscripts. In the Epistles san. is a palimpsest at St. Gall containing Ephes. vi. 2 to 1 Tim. ii. 5, the Biblical text being the uppermost.

taur. Of the seventh century, at Turin, contains the Gospels beginning at Matthew xiii. 34: not cited in W.-W.

tol. Written in the eighth century: this manuscript, which was written by a Visigoth, was given by Servandus of Seville to John, Bishop of Cordova, who presented it to the See of Seville in 988: it was afterwards at Toledo, and is now at Madrid. It was collated for the Sixtine Recension by Palomares, but reached Rome too late to be of use. (T in W.-W.)

In addition to the eleven manuscripts mentioned above as cited by Wordsworth and White, twenty-one others are regularly used by them, and a great number are cited occasionally. For these reference must be made to their edition, and for further particulars to Berger’s incomparable work.

On the Latin Versions compare _TiGr._, 948-1108, 1313, and especially Scrivener. The chapter on _The Latin Versions_ in the Fourth Edition of the latter work (c. iii.) was re-written by H. J. White, the collaborateur of Wordsworth. See also _Urt._, 85-118, which deals with the Old Testament as well, and the article on the _Old Latin Versions_ in Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 47-62.

1. G. Riegler, _Kritische Geschichte der Vulgata_, Sulzbach, 1820; Lean. van Ess, _Pragmatisch-kritische Geschichte der Vulgata im Allgemeinen und zunächst in Beziehung auf das Trientische Decret_, Tübingen, 1824; Kaulen, _Geschichte der Vulgata_, Mainz, 1868; Berger, _Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du moyen âge_, Paris, 1893 (List of the chief works dealing with the history of the Vulgate given on p. xxii. ff.).

2. On the subject of the Itala see Ziegler, _Die Lateinischen Bibelübersetzungen vor Hieronymus und die Itala des Augustinus_, Munich, 1879; Zycha, _Bemerkungen zur Italafrage_, in the _Eranos Vindobonensis_, 1893, 177-184; Burkitt, _The Old Latin and the Itala_ (_Texts and Studies_, vol. iv., No. 3, 1896).

3. On the language see Rönsch (d. 1888), _Itala und Vulgata_, 2nd Edition, 1875; also _Die ältesten lateinischen-Bibelübersetzungen nach ihrem Werthe für die lateinische Sprachwissenschaft_, by the same writer in the _Collectanea Philologa_, Bremen, 1891, 1-20; Kaulen, _Handbuch zur Vulgata, Eine systematische Darstellung ihres Sprachcharakters_, Mainz, 1870. Saalfeld, _De Bibliorum S. Vulgatæ Editionis Graecitate_, Quedlinburg, 1891.

4. Editions of the Text:—Among the earlier works the most important is that of Sabatier, which is not yet superseded, in the Old Testament at least, _Bibliorum sacrorum Latinæ Versiones antiquæ, seu Vetus Italica, et cæteræ quæcunque in codicibus MSS. et antiquorum libris reperiri potuerunt, etc., opera et studio D. Petri Sabatier_, 3 vols. folio,[105] Rheims, 1743. Jos. Bianchini (Blanchinus), _Evangeliarium Quadruplex_, 2 vols. folio, Rome, 1749 (copies now cost about £4). After a long interval work in this field has been resumed in the _Old Latin Biblical Texts_, published at the Clarendon Press, Oxford, of which four parts have appeared:—1. _The Gospel according to St. Matthew from the St. Germain MS._ (g_{1}), _now numbered Lat. 11553 in the National Library at Paris, with Introduction and five Appendices, edited by John Wordsworth, D.D._, 1883 (6/-). 2. _Portions of the Gospels according to St. Mark and St. Matthew from the Bobbio MS._ (k), _now numbered G. VII. 15 in the National Library at Turin, together with other fragments of the Gospels from six MSS. in the Libraries of St. Gall, Coire, Milan, and Berne (usually cited as n, o, p, a_{2}, s, and t). Edited, with the aids of Tischendorf’s Transcripts and the printed Texts of Ranke, Ceriani, and Hagen, with two facsimiles, by J. Wordsworth, D.D., ... W. Sanday, D.D., ... and H. J. White, M.A._, 1886 (21/-). 3. _The Four Gospels, from the Munich MS._ (q), _now numbered Lat. 6224 in the Royal Library at Munich, with a Fragment from St. John in the Hof-Bibliothek at Vienna (Cod. Lat. 502). Edited, with the aid of Tischendorf’s Transcript (under the direction of the Bishop of Salisbury), by H. J. White,_ _M.A._, 1888 (12/6). 4. _Portions of the Acts of the Apostles, of the Epistle of St. James, and of the First Epistle of St. Peter from the Bobbio Palimpsest_ (s), _now numbered Cod. 16 in the Imperial Library at Vienna. Edited, with the aid of Tischendorf’s and Belsheim’s printed Texts, by H. J. White, M.A., with a Facsimile_, 1897 (5/-). (See notice in the _Expository Times_, April 1898, p. 320 ff.)

5. Wordsworth and White’s edition of the Vulgate is noticed by Berger in the _Bull. Crit._, 1899, viii. 141-144. It may be added here, as that critic observes, that insufficient regard is paid to the later history of the Latin text in this edition. At least one representative of a recension so important as that of the University of Paris in the thirteenth century might have been collated, and perhaps also the first printed edition, “the forty-two line” Bible.

On the authorised edition of 1590 and 1592, see Eb. Nestle, _Ein Jubiläum der lateinischen Bibel. Zum 9 November 1892_, in _Marginalien und Materialien_, 1893; also printed separately.

An exact reprint of the Latin Vulgate has recently been published by M. Hetzenauer from his Greek-Latin New Testament (see above, p. 25), entitled _Novum Testamentum Vulgatae Editionis. Ex Vaticanis Editionibus earumque Correctorio critice edidit Michael Hetzenauer._ Oeniponte, 1899. As an introduction to this edition reference may be made to the same writer’s _Wesen und Principien der Bibelkritik auf katholischer Grundlage. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der offziellen Vulgataausgabe dargelegt._ Innsbruck, 1900.

(_c._) EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

Next in importance to the Syriac versions from the East and the Latin from the West are the =Egyptian= versions from the South. Here too we find not one early version but several.

[Sidenote: Dialects.]

What used till lately to be called Coptic[106] is merely one of the dialects into which the language of ancient Egypt was divided. And here we must distinguish three main branches—the Bohairic, the Sahidic, and the Middle Egyptian.

[Sidenote: Bohairic.]

(1) =Bohairic=[107] is the name given to the dialect that was spoken in the Bohaira—_i.e._ the district by the sea and therefore Lower Egypt, the neighbourhood of Alexandria. It was the principal dialect, and being that used for ecclesiastical purposes over the whole country, and, moreover, that with which European scholars first became acquainted, the versions written in it were described as the Coptic simply. The term Memphitic, which was preferred for a time, is incorrect, because it was not till the eleventh century that the Patriarchate was transferred to Cairo—_i.e._ the district of Memphis, and in early times a different dialect was spoken there.

[Sidenote: Sahidic.]

(2) =Sahidic= is the name used to describe the dialect of Upper Egypt. It is sometimes and not improperly spoken of as the Thebaic in distinction to the Memphitic.

[Sidenote: Middle Egyptian.]

(3) Under the =Middle Egyptian=[108] we have to distinguish—

(_a_) The _Fayumic_, spoken in the Fayum—_i.e._ the district to the S.W. of the Delta, watered by the Joseph Canal, and separated from the valley of the Nile by a narrow strip of the desert. It was in this district that those recent papyrus discoveries were made which have enriched the libraries and museums of Europe.

(_b_) The _Middle Egyptian proper_, or Lower Sahidic, a dialect which has its home on the site of ancient Memphis.

(_c_) The dialect of _Achmim_, which preserves a more primitive form of early Egyptian than any of those already referred to.

In the eleventh century the Coptic Bishop Athanasius specifies three dialects of the Coptic language—the Bohairic, the Sahidic, and a third which he says was already extinct, and to which he gives the name of Bashmuric; but whether this last is to be identified with the dialects included above under the name of Middle Egyptian, is not quite certain.

(1.) _The Bohairic Version._

[Sidenote: Bohairic.]

This version, formerly designated as the Coptic, was first used for the New Testament by Bishop Fell of Oxford, who was indebted for his knowledge of it to Marshall. It was afterwards employed by Mill for his edition of 1707. It was first published in 1716 by Wilkins (or rather Wilke), a Prussian who had settled in England, with the title, “Novum Testamentum Aegyptium vulgo Copticum.” His edition was accompanied with a Latin translation. In 1734 Bengel obtained a few particulars regarding this version from La Croze, the Berlin Librarian. An edition of the Gospels by Moritz Schwartze appeared in 1846-47, and after his death the Acts and Epistles were published (1852) by Paul Boetticher, afterwards distinguished under his adopted name of de Lagarde. About the same time Tattam prepared a wholly uncritical edition of the entire New Testament, including the Apocalypse which did not originally form part of this version.[109] Steindorff is of opinion that the Bohairic version originated in the Natron Valley during the fourth or fifth century, but others affirm that it is older, or at all events rests on an older foundation. The order of the New Testament books was originally: (1) the Gospels, in which John stood first, followed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, (2) the Pauline Epistles, with Hebrews between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim., (3) the seven Catholic Epistles, and (4) the Acts. More than fifty Bohairic manuscripts are preserved in the libraries of Europe, and from these an edition has been prepared for the Clarendon Press in two volumes, with exhaustive Introduction by G. Horner (1898).

The Greek text on which this version is based is regarded by present critics as particularly pure, and free from so-called Western additions.

(2.) _The Sahidic Version._

[Sidenote: Sahidic.]

It was a long time before this version attracted any attention. In his New Testament, Wilkins mentioned two manuscripts, “lingua plane a reliquis MSS. Copticis diversa,” and Woide in 1778 announced his intention of editing certain fragments of the New Testament “iuxta interpretationem superioris Aegypti quae Thebaidica vocatur,” which were afterwards published by Ford in 1799. At the close of last century and the beginning of this, various other fragments were issued by Tuki, Mingarelli, Münter, Zoega, and Engelbreth, but it was not till more recent times that really important parts of the Old and New Testaments were published by Amélineau, Ciasca (in two vols.), Bouriant, Maspero, Ceugney, and Krall. In 1895 Goussen gave us a large part of the Apocalypse.[110] This version, like the former, contained the entire New Testament, with the exception of the Apocalypse, and originally exhibited the Gospels in the same order—John, Matthew, Mark, Luke. Hebrews, however, stood between 2 Corinthians and Galatians. Its Greek original was quite different from that of the Bohairic version. (See Plate VIII.)

(3.) _The Middle Egyptian Versions._

[Sidenote: Middle Egyptian.]

Of these only fragments are as yet known to exist. Portions of Matthew and John, and of 1 Cor., Ephes., Phil., Thess., and Hebrews in the Fayumic, or, as it used to be called, the Bashmuric dialect, were first published by Zoega in 1809, by Engelbreth in 1811, and especially by Bouriant (1889) and Crum (1893).

Fragments in the Lower Sahidic have been published in the _Mitteilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus des Erzherzogs Rainer_.

In the Achmim dialect, James iv. 12, 13 and Jude 17-20 are the only fragments that have been discovered as yet, and these have been published by Crum. Whether these fragments are really parts of a separate version, or merely dialectical modifications of the Sahidic, is not quite certain.[111]

As to the =date= of these versions we have no definite information. It has been understood from certain passages in the Life of St. Anthony, who was born about the year 250, that in his boyhood he heard the Gospel read in Church in the language of Egypt, but that need not imply the existence of a written version, as the translation may have been made by a reader who interpreted as he read. In the third century, however, versions may have arisen, and it was certainly in the South that the first attempts at translation were made. Our oldest known manuscripts, a Sahidic containing 2 Thess. iii., and one in Middle Egyptian of Jude 17-20, date from the fourth or fifth century. The Sahidic version seems to have been made first, then the Middle Egyptian, and finally the Bohairic. To what extent the one influenced the other is a question requiring further investigation.

A correct edition and a critical application of these Egyptian versions is, next to a fresh examination of the minuscules, the task of most importance at present for the textual criticism of the New Testament. For the Sahidic version in particular represents a type of text found hitherto almost exclusively in the West, and looked upon as the outcome of Western corruption and licence, whereas it may really bear the most resemblance to the original form. In the Acts especially its agreement with the text of Codex D is remarkable. One might instance, _e.g._, the mention of Pentecost in Acts i. 5, the insertion of the Golden Rule in its negative form in xv. 20, 29, the relation of the vision in xvi. 10, and the description of the stone which twenty men could not roll away in Luke xxiii. 53, all of which are now found in a Greek-Sahidic manuscript. The Sahidic version, like the Bohairic, is well represented in European libraries, and the manuscripts are dated as a rule in the Egyptian fashion according to the years of the Martyrs—_i.e._ according to an era reckoned from August or September 284 A.D.

_TiGr._, 859-893. Scrivener^4, ii. 91-144, revised by Horner, with additions by Headlam. H. Hyvernat, _Étude sur les Versions Coptes de la Bible_ (_Revue Biblique_, v. (1896) 427-433, 540-569; vi. 1 (1897) 48-74.) _Urt._, 144-147. Forbes Robinson, _Egyptian Versions_, in Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. i. (1898) 668-673. W. E. Crum, _Coptic Studies_ from the _Egypt Exploration Fund’s Report_ for 1897-1898, 15 pp. 4to. For the Gospels, Horner’s edition eclipses all others. It is entitled, _The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern dialect, otherwise called Memphitic or Bohairic, with Introduction, Critical Apparatus, and literal English Translation. Vol. I. Introduction, Matthew and Mark_, cxlviii. 484. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1898; _Vol. II. Luke and John_, 548 pp., 1898. See notice by Hyvernat in the _Revue Biblique_, 1899, pp. 148-150, and also W. E. Crum, _lib. cit._, where reference is also made to the _Manuscrits Coptes au Musée ... à Leide_, 1897. As Horner’s edition as yet only covers the Gospels, the remaining portions of the New Testament must still be sought in the two parts published by Lagarde after Schwartze’s death, _Acta Apostolorum coptice_ (1852), and _Epistulae Novi Testamenti coptice_ (1852). On Brugsch’s _Recension_ in the _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, vii. (1853) pp. 115-121, see _ibid._, p. 456, and Lagarde, _Aus dem deutschen Gelehrtenleben_, pp. 25-65, 73-77. Tattam’s Bohairic-Arabic edition was published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

The first fragments of the New Testament in Sahidic appeared in Tuki’s _Rudimenta_ in 1778, and Woide’s editio princeps, announced in the same year, was brought out after his death by Ford in 1799. Amélineau’s _Fragments Thébaines inédits du Nouveau Testament_ were published in vols. xxiv.-xxvi. of the _Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache_ (1886-1888). Considerable portions of the Apocalypse were issued in facsimile by Goussen in the first Fasciculus of his _Studia Theologica_ (Lipsiae, 1897). Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical writings have also been discovered in recent times, as, for example, the _Acta Pauli_ in a manuscript of the seventh century, written in Sahidic consonants with Middle Egyptian vocalisation. These are to be published by A. Schmidt. See _Addenda_, p. xv.

See also Amélineau, _Notice des manuscrits coptes de la Bibliothèque Nationale renfermant des textes bilingues du Nouveau Testament_, in the _Athenæum_, No. 3601, p. 599.

The foregoing versions are those of most importance in the criticism of the text. There are, however, one or two others which, though inferior in value, are still interesting. Among these is—

(_d._) THE GOTHIC VERSION.

[Sidenote: Gothic.]

This is the work of =Ulfilas=—_i.e._ Wölflin—a Cappadocian by descent, who in the year 340 succeeded Theophilus, the first Bishop of the Goths.[112] While the tribe was still settled in the Crimea, he is said to have invented an alphabet, and translated both the Old and the New Testament for their use. In the Old Testament Ulfilas followed the Septuagint according to the Recension of Lucian of Antioch (d. 312), which circulated in the diocese of Constantinople. In the New Testament the text is likewise essentially that of Chrysostom. The traces of Latin influence which were supposed to be discernible in the version, and which may either have existed from the first or been introduced at a later time, relate at most, perhaps, to matters of orthography.

(1) The Gothic version first became known through the so-called Codex Argenteus which Ant. Morillon, Granvella’s secretary, and Mercator the geographer saw in the Monastery of Werden in the sixteenth century. It was afterwards seen at Prague by Richard Strein (d. 1601). In 1648 it was brought to Sweden as a prize of war, and presented to Queen Christina, or her librarian, Isaac Voss. It was purchased by Marshall de la Gardie in 1662, bound in silver, and deposited in the library at Upsala, where it has since remained. Ten leaves were stolen from the manuscript between 1821 and 1834, but restored, after many years, by the thief upon his deathbed. This magnificent Codex was written in the fifth or sixth century on purple with gold and silver lettering. It now comprises 187 leaves out of 330, and contains fragments of the four Gospels in the order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. It was published for the first time in 1665, from a transcript made by Derrer ten years before.

(2) Codex Carolinus, the Wolfenbüttel palimpsest already referred to as Q of the Gospels (see p. 69 above) and the Old Latin gue of Paul (see p. 118), contains some forty verses of the Epistle to the Romans. It was first published in 1762.

(3) Fragments of seven palimpsests in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, discovered by Cardinal Mai in 1817. Like Codex Carolinus, they are in all probability from the Monastery of Bobbio. They exhibit part of the Pauline Epistles and fragments of the Gospels. A few quotations from Hebrews are also found in a theological work. No portion of Acts, (Hebrews), Catholic Epistles, or Apocalypse has as yet been discovered. Editions of the Gothic version have been published by Gabelentz and Löbe (1836-1843), Stamm (1858), Heyne ^5(1872) ^9(1896), Bernhardt (Halle, 1875, 1884), and Balg (Milwaukee, 1891). St. Mark was edited by Müller and Höppe in 1881, and by Skeat in 1882.

LITERATURE.—On Ulfilas, see Scott, _Ulfilas, the Apostle of the Goths_, Cambr., 1885. Bradley, _The Goths_, in the “Story of the Nations” Series, 1888. Gwatkin, _Studies of Arianism_, 1882. _Urt._, pp. 119-120, where see literature, to which add Eckstein, _Ulfilas und die gothische Uebersetzung der Bibel_, in Westermann’s _Illustr. Monatshefte_, Dec. 1892, 403-407; Jostes, _Das Todesjahr des Ulfilas und der Uebertritt der Gothen zum Arianismus_ (_Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache_, xxii. i. 158 ff.). Jostes gives 383 as the date of Ulfilas’s death. On the other side, see Kauffmann, _Der Arianismus des Wulfila_ in the _ZfdPhil._, xxx. (1897) 93-113; Luft, _Die arianischen Quellen über Wulfila_ in the _ZfdAltert._, xlii. 4; Vogt, _Zu Wulfilas Bekenntnis und dem Opus imperfectum_, _ibid._ Kauffmann, _Beiträge zur Quellenkritik der gotischen Bibelübersetzung_ in the _ZfdPhil._; (ii.) _das N. T._ (xxx., 1897, 145-183); (iii.) _das gotische Matthäusevangelium und die Itala_; (iv.) _die griechische Vorlage des gotischen Johannesevangeliums_ (xxxi., 1898, 177-198): also by the same author, _Aus der Schule des Wulfila. Auxentii Dorostorensis epistula de Fide, Vita, et Obitu Wulfila im Zusammenhang der Dissertatio Maximini contra Ambrosium herausgegeben._ Strassburg, 1899. P. Batiffol, _De quelques homilies de St. Chrysostome et de la version gothique des écritures_ (_Revue Biblique_, Oct. 1899, pp. 566-572), see also _ThLz._, 1900, No. i.; _LCbl._, 1900, No. 28. On the relation of the Gothic version to the codex Brixianus (f), see Burkitt in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. p. 131 ff., and compare _Addenda_, p. xv.

On the Gothic language and writing, see Douse, _Introduction to the Gothic of Ulfilas_. London, 1886; the grammars of Braune and Skeat, and the dictionaries of Schulze, Heyne, and Bernhardt; see also Luft, _Studien zu den ältesten germanischen Alfabeten_, Gütersloh, 1898, viii. 115, who traces eighteen characters to the Greek alphabet and nine to the Latin and Ulfilas’s own invention. On R. Löwe’s _Reste der Germanen am schwarzen Meer_ (Halle, 1896), see the story told by Melanchthon according to Pirkheimer (_Th. St. und Kr._, 1897, 784 ff.).

To what extent the remaining ancient versions were taken directly from the Greek or influenced by one or other of those already described is still subject of dispute.

(_e._) THE ETHIOPIC VERSION.

According to the tradition of the Abyssinian Church, the Ethiopic version of the New Testament was made from the Greek previous to the fifth century. Dillmann accepts this as correct, but Gildemeister would assign it to the sixth or seventh century, and thinks that traces are discernible of Syrian Monophysitism. Guidi decides for the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century. In addition to the usual twenty-seven books, the Ethiopic New Testament has an Appendix consisting of a work on Canon Law in eight books called the Synodos, so that the Ethiopian Church reckons in all thirty-five books in the New Testament. In later times the version was undoubtedly corrected from Arabic and Coptic texts. The first edition appeared in Rome in 1548-1549, but neither it nor those issued since are of any real critical worth.

At least a hundred Ethiopic manuscripts, mostly of late origin, exist in the libraries of Europe. What is perhaps the oldest is preserved in Paris. It dates from the thirteenth century, and exhibits the Gospels in an unrevised text.

LITERATURE.—See _TiGr._, 894-912. Scrivener, ii. 154 ff. re-written by Margoliouth. _Urt._, 147-150 (F. Praetorius). R. H. Charles, _Ethiopic Version_ in Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 791-793. C. Conti Rossini, _Sulla Versione e sulla Revisione delle Sacre Scritture in Etiopico_, in the _Z. für Assyriologie_, x. 2, 3 (1895). The view of Lagarde (_Ankündigung_, 1882, p. 28; _cf._ also _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, lxi. 113), that this version may have been made from the Arabic or Egyptian in the fourteenth century, is now generally rejected.

(_f._) THE ARMENIAN VERSION.

La Croze, the Berlin Librarian, thought this the “Queen of the Versions.”

Till the fifth century of the Christian era Syrian influence was supreme in Armenia, and the inhabitants of that region first received the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments in the form of a translation from the Syriac. But in the year 433 two pupils of Mesrob, returning from the Synod of Ephesus, are said to have brought back with them from Constantinople a Greek Bible, and having learned Greek in Alexandria, to have translated it into Armenian. According to another account this was done by St. Sahak (390-428) about the year 406. The first edition of the Armenian New Testament was brought out in Amsterdam in the year 1666[113] by Osgan of Eriwan, who had been sent to Europe four years previously by the Armenian Synod. It was edited from a defective manuscript, the missing portions of which Osgan supplied from the Vulgate. A better edition was published in 1789 by Zohrab, who used twenty manuscripts, and especially a Cilician Codex of the year 1310. He was of opinion that the Armenians did not receive the Apocalypse before the eighth century. Zohrab’s text was collated for Tregelles by Rieu, whom Tischendorf seems to have drawn upon in his editions.

The Armenian manuscripts display variations of several sorts. In some John’s Gospel precedes the Synoptists, in others it is followed by the Apocryphal “Rest of St. John.” The Apocalypse was not read in church prior to the twelfth century. In the oldest manuscript of the entire New Testament, at Venice, which dates from the year 1220, the order of the other books is Acts, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, Pauline Epistles, with the Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul. In Moscow there is a manuscript of the year 887, in Venice one dated 902, in Etschmiadzin one written in the year 986 and bound in ivory covers of the third or fourth century. In the last-mentioned Codex the words, “of Ariston the Presbyter,” are found after Mark xvi. 8, as the heading of what follows. (_See Plate IX._) We learn from this, what is evidently correct, viz., that the present conclusion of Mark’s Gospel is due to a certain Ariston, who may perhaps be identified with Aristion, the teacher of Papias in the second century. The earlier Armenian version also contained the two verses Luke xxii. 43, 44, which were omitted in the later.

LITERATURE.—_TiGr._, 912-922. Scrivener, ii. 148-154. F. C. Conybeare, _Armenian Versions of N. T._, in Hastings’ _Bible Dictionary_, i. 153 f. See also J. A. Robinson, _Euthaliana_, c. v.; _The Armenian Version and its supposed relation to Euthalius_, in _Texts and Studies_, vol. iii. (1895). On Aristion see _Expositor_, 1894, p. 241, and below, p. 295.

(_g._) THE GEORGIAN VERSION.

This version, called also the Grusinian or Iberian, is thought to have been made from the Greek in the sixth century, though it may also be derived from the Armenian. It contains the pericope adulteræ (John vii. 53-viii. 11), but places it immediately after ch. vii. 44, which is the more remarkable, seeing that in the Old Latin Codex b, the passage from vii. 44 onwards has been erased. The Georgian version was first printed at Moscow in 1743.

Scrivener, ii. 156-158; re-written by F. C. Conybeare. _TiGr._, 922 f.

(_h._) THE ARABIC VERSIONS.

Some of these were made directly from the Greek, others from the Syriac and the Coptic, while there are also manuscripts exhibiting a recension undertaken at Alexandria in the thirteenth century, The New Testament was even cast into that form of rhymed prose made classic by the Koran. As early as the eighth century we find Mohammedan scholars quoting various passages of the New Testament, particularly the sayings regarding the Paraclete in John xv. 26, 27, xvi. 13, which they understood of Mohammed. He himself, however, knew the Gospel narrative from oral tradition only. The oldest known manuscript is perhaps one at Sinai, written in the ninth century, from which Mrs. Gibson edited the text of Romans, 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., and Ephes. i. 1-ii. 9, in the _Studia Sinaitica_, ii. The four Gospels were published in 1864 by Lagarde from a Vienna manuscript, in which a number of various readings were cited from the Coptic, Syriac, and Latin, this last, _e.g._, being adduced in support of a reading hitherto found only in D, one Old Latin (g), and the Lewis-Syriac: οὔκ εἰσιν δύο ἢ τρεῖς συνηγμένοι ... παρ’ οἷς οὔκ εἰμι ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν (Matthew xviii. 20). The first edition of the Gospels appeared at Rome in 1591. [Sidenote: Other versions.] In common with the remaining versions of the New Testament, _Persic_, _Old High German_, _Anglo-Saxon_, _Bohemian_, and _Slavonic_, these secondary Arabic versions are not only exceedingly interesting from the point of view of the history of language and culture, but they are also valuable here and there for the restoration of the original text. In the present work, however, we cannot enter more fully into them.

LITERATURE.—_TiGr._, 928-947. Scrivener, ii. 161-164. _Urt._, 150-155. F. C. Burkitt, _Arabic Versions_, in Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 136-138, where see literature. Burkitt thinks that the oldest monument of Arabic Christianity is the manuscript formerly belonging to the Convent of Mar Saba, now known as Cod. Vat. Arab. 13, and numbered 101 in _TiGr._, which is generally assigned to the eighth century. It originally contained the Psalter, Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, and is derived from the Syriac. Fragments of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and of the Pauline Epistles, are all that now remain. From the same convent come two manuscripts of the ninth century, containing a version made directly from the Greek, and perhaps ultimately derived from the Greek-Arabic manuscript cited as Θ^h, of which only four leaves have been preserved (see above, p. 72). On a Græco-Arabic MS. connected with the Ferrar Group (211^{ev}), see Lake in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. 117 ff. Most of the Coptic manuscripts are accompanied by an Arabic version. The one contained in Cod. Vat. Copt. 9 of the year 1202 is the best, and forms the basis of our printed editions. The first revision was undertaken in the year 1250, at Alexandria, by Hibat Allâh ibn el-Assâl, and a second towards the end of the thirteenth century, from which the variants in Lagarde’s edition are derived. An Arabic version of the Acts and all seven Catholic Epistles, found in a ninth century manuscript at Sinai, and numbered 154 in Mrs. Gibson’s Catalogue, is published by her in _Studia Sinaitica_, vii. (1899).

For the remaining versions of the N. T., see Scrivener, ii. pp. 158-166 (Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon, Frankish, Persic). These minor versions will be treated in vol. iv. of Hastings’ _Bible Dictionary_, under the general heading of Versions. See also _Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibel_.

3. QUOTATIONS.

Our third source of material for the restoration of the text of the New Testament is =Quotations= found in other books. These are of great value, because they represent, for the most part, definite manuscripts existing in certain places at the time of the writer quoting them, and also because a large number of them belong to a time from which no codices have come down to us. The value of their testimony depends, of course, on the conditions already mentioned (p. 32)—viz., that the author quoted accurately, and the copyist copied faithfully, and the editor edited correctly. Quotations made by _Jewish_ writers as well as by Christian will fall to be considered, only it is doubtful if in their case we have more than one or two uncertain allusions to Matthew v. 17. So, too, will the quotations made by _pagan opponents_ of Christianity,

## particularly those of _Celsus_ in the second century, and of the Emperor

Julian. But here again we are not in possession of their complete works, which can only be restored by a similar process and with more or less uncertainty from the quotations from them found in the writings of the Apologists.[114] The books of those Christian Churches which were isolated from the main church will also be valuable. Even a verse of Scripture carved upon a stone in an old ruin may have something to tell us.

Brief quotations were usually made from memory. It was not so convenient to turn up the passage in an old manuscript as it is now in our handy printed editions.[115] In the case of longer passages and verbal quotations generally, indolent copyists were sometimes content with simply adding καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. In the _Apostolic Constitutions_, ii. 22, for example, where the entire prayer of Manasses was meant to be given, the copyist of a certain manuscript,[116] after writing the opening words from Κύριε down to δικαίου, omitted all the rest, amounting to thirty-one lines of print, substituting simply καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς τῆς εὐχῆς ἃ ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἀγνοεῖτε. (See further, _Apost. Const._, i. 7, Lagarde, p. 8, 23; ii. 14, p. 28, 7. 11; 29, 2). This, however, is not without its parallel in modern times. As late as 1872, an Oxford editor, in bringing out Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, wrote down only the initial and final words of the quotations in his manuscript, and allowed the compositor to set up the rest from a printed edition of the Textus Receptus. Another editor in Vienna, in preparing an edition of Cyprian’s Works, preferred those very manuscripts in which the Scriptural quotations had been accommodated to the current text of later times. Only when a quotation is given by an author several times in exactly the same form is it safe to depend on the actual wording, or when in a Commentary, _e.g._, the context agrees with the quoted text. Collections of Scriptural passages like the _Testimonia_ of Cyprian and the so-called _Speculum_ of Augustine are also taken directly from manuscripts of the Bible.

Francis Lucas of Brügge was the first to explore the writings of the Church Fathers for the express purposes of textual criticism. They are referred to in four notes found in the Complutensian Polyglot. In his edition of 1516, Erasmus cites a whole series of Patristic witnesses—Ambrosius, Athanasius, Augustine, Cyprian, Gregory of Nazianzen, Origen, and Theodoret. Since that time all judicious critics have paid attention to them. Valuable service has been rendered for Tertullian by Rönsch, and for Origen by Griesbach. For Augustine, Lagarde is specially to be mentioned. Most of the Fathers were thus cared for by Burgon, who indexed the New Testament quotations in sixteen large volumes, which were deposited in the British Museum after his death. The only pity is that the works of those very Fathers that are of most importance are not yet satisfactorily edited. All the more welcome, therefore, is the appearance of the Vienna Academy’s _Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum_, of which forty volumes have been issued since 1867, and of the Berlin Academy’s edition of the Ante-Nicene Greek Fathers, of which one volume of Hippolytus and two of Origen have made their appearance.[117]

The earliest Fathers are valuable chiefly for the history of the _Canon_. That is to say, their evidence must be taken simply as showing what New Testament writings they were acquainted with, and here the _argumentum ex silentio_ is to be applied with caution. This is the case with _Barnabas_ and _Clement_[118] in the first century, and _Ignatius_ and _Hermas_ in the first half of the second. Even with the much more extensive writings of _Justin_, there is still considerable dispute—_e.g._, as to what Gospels he made use of.[119] _Irenæus_ of Lyons is valuable on account of his extreme carefulness, and would be

## particularly so if it could be proved that he brought his New Testament

with him from Smyrna[120] and if his writings were extant in Greek, and not, as is the case with most of them, in Latin only. In Egypt _Clement of Alexandria_ holds a prominent place, but by far the most distinguished of all is the great Biblical scholar of antiquity, _Origen_ (d. 248). Already we find these writers appealing to manuscripts, and distinguishing them by such epithets as “good,” “old,” “emended,” “most,” or “few.” In the case of the Ante-Nicene Fathers their locality is an important consideration, whether Antioch, Cæsarea (_Eusebius_), Egypt, Constantinople (_Chrysostom_), or Cappadocia (_Theodore_), etc. Their expositions of Scripture are preserved in the so-called =Catenæ=, or continuous commentaries, in which the interpretations of different Fathers are arranged continuously like the links of a chain. It not unfrequently happens in these Catenæ that the words of one writer are cited under the name of another. The evidence afforded by the writings of the Heretics is no less valuable, if we except those passages, which are not numerous, in which they are understood to have altered the text of the Scriptures. The works of _Marcion_ have been preserved for the most part in Latin by _Tertullian_. They have recently been collected and restored by Zahn. The Latin translator of Irenæus also belongs, in all probability, to the time of Tertullian, and not to the fourth century. This unknown translator seems to have preserved the Scriptural quotations of Irenæus with greater fidelity than the later Church Fathers who cite them in the Greek. Of Latin writers contemporary with or subsequent to Tertullian, those of most importance for the text of the Old Latin Bible are _Cyprian_, _Hilary of Poictiers_, _Ambrose of Milan_, _Augustine_ and his opponent _Pelagius_, and for the Apocalypse, _Tyconius_ and _Primasius_. From the works of Augustine Lagarde collected no fewer than 29540 quotations from the New Testament in addition to 13276 from the Old.

Valuable testimony is also afforded by Syrian and Armenian writers. It is only with their assistance, _e.g._, that it has been possible to restore one of our oldest authorities—the Diatessaron of Tatian—which dates from the second century.

(1) Further examples might be adduced of the unreliable nature of manuscripts and printed editions.

We find, _e.g._, in the voluminous commentary of the so-called Ambrosiaster,[121] the following note on the quotation in 1 Cor. ii. 9:—“Eye hath not seen, etc.”—“hoc est scriptum in Apocalypsi Heliae in apocryphis.” In place of the last five words, two manuscripts and all the printed editions previous to that of St. Maur—_i.e._ prior to the year 1690—have “in Esaia propheta aliis verbis.”

Compare also what Zahn says in his _Einleitung_, ii. 314. “A comparison of the quotations in Matthew with the LXX. is rendered more difficult by the fact that in manuscripts of the latter written by Christians, and especially in Cod. Alexandrinus, the text of the O. T. has been accommodated to the form in which it is cited in the N. T. _Cf._, also, p. 563 on the quotation from Zechariah xii. 10, found in John xix. 37.” The same writer says (p. 465): “In the Chronicle of Georgios Hamartolos (circa 860), all the manuscripts save one assert the peaceful death of John (ἐν εἰρήνῃ ἀνεπαύσατο), but this one says the very opposite, μαρτυρίου κατηξίωται, and goes on to make certain other additions.” On the other hand, we must not forget in this connection the testimony preserved by Eusebius to the scrupulous care taken by Irenæus for the propagation of his writings in the identical form in which he wrote them. According to that historian, he wrote at the end of one of his works the following note:—Ὁρκίζω σε τὸν μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο κατὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, ἧς ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, ἵνα ἀντιβάλλῃς ὃ μετεγράψω καὶ κατορθώσῃς αὐτὸ πρὸς τὸ ἀντίγραφον τοῦτο ὅθεν μετεγράψω ἐπιμελῶς, καὶ τὸν ὅρκον τοῦτον ὁμοίως μεταγράψῃς καὶ θήσεις ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφῳ.[122]

(2) It was Lagarde who most clearly recognised and pointed out the unsatisfactory way in which the Fathers had previously been edited. How much care is necessary in the matter of the text is shown by the discussions connected with the treatment of Scriptural quotations in the new Vienna edition of Augustine (see _Urt._, 76, 94; Preuschen, in the _ThLz._ for 1897, 24, col. 630). Even in the new Berlin edition one cannot absolutely rely on the form of the Scriptural quotations exhibited in the text, but must always verify it by means of an independent examination of the apparatus. A few passages from the first volume of Origen recently published will show this, and prove at the same time how faulty the editions have been hitherto. This first volume of Koetschau’s new edition of Origen opens with the _Exhortation to Martyrdom_ (εἰς μαρτύριον προτρεπτικός), a work which is to be assigned to the year 235. The text of previous editions is grounded solely on a manuscript at Basel written in the sixteenth century (No. 31, A. iii. 9), which is itself a copy, and a not altogether correct copy, of a Parisian manuscript written in the year 1339, not known to the first editors of Origen (P = suppl. grec. 616). Moreover, the Basel manuscript was not transcribed with sufficient accuracy, or the print was not superintended with sufficient care by the scholar who prepared the first printed edition of 1674. With the help of a fresh manuscript (M = Venetus Marc. 45, of the fourteenth century) it is now established that the writer of P arbitrarily altered the text in a great number of passages, and, above all, abridged it mainly by the excision of Scriptural quotations. Where Origen, _e.g._, in citing a passage gives all three Synoptists, P quite calmly drops one of them. The _Panegyric_ of Gregory Thaumaturgus is treated in the same way, this manuscript omitting about 100 out of some 1200 lines of print. And these were the texts to which till the present we were referred for our Patristic quotations! To take an example:

On τοὺς ἐμοὺς λόγους, Luke ix. 26, Tischendorf, who in his seventh edition gave τοὺς ἐμούς (= my followers) as the correct reading, observed that this reading, without λόγους, was supported by Dael Or., i. 298. But he added—and this is a proof of the carefulness with which the quotation from Origen is employed here—sed præcedit ουτε επαισχυντεον αυτον η τους λογους αυτου. But if we turn up this passage in the new edition, we find that it now reads (i. 34, 9 ff.): ουτ’ επαισχυντεον αυτον η τους οικειους αυτου η τους λογους αυτου, and then the three parallel passages are quoted in the order frequently found in Origen—viz., Matthew x. 33 = Luke ix. 26 = Mark viii. 38. Previous editions entirely omitted this last quotation, as well as the words in the context, η τους οικειους αυτου. But now everything is in order. The words ουτ’ επαισχυντεον αυτον refer to οστις δ’ αν απαρνησηται με in Matt. x. 33; η τους οικειους αυτου to ος γαρ αν επαισχυνθη με και τους εμους in Luke ix. 26; and η τους λογους αυτου to ος γαρ αν επαισχυνθη με και τους εμους λογους, in Mark viii. 38. So that whereas, on the ground of previous editions, Tischendorf was obliged to point out a discrepancy between Origen’s context and his peculiar quotation from Luke, the context of the new edition serves to confirm this peculiar quotation, and shows at the same time that we can accept it on the authority of this very passage, as against a former passage (p. 296 = 31, 7), where the verse in Luke is found in the newly-employed manuscript also with the words τους εμους λογους. That the editor should have put λογους in the first passage within brackets, or at least have pointed out the discrepancy between it and the quotation further down, would have been too much to expect, seeing that his manuscripts of Origen gave no manner of ground for doing so; it is the duty of those who investigate the Scriptural quotations in Origen to pay attention to such things. But there are also passages where the editor has actually gone in the face of his manuscripts, and wrongly altered the text of his Scriptural quotations, having evidently allowed himself to be influenced by the printed text of the N. T., and paying too little respect to the manuscripts.

An attentive reader will have observed that the reading in Luke ix. 26, τους εμους = my followers, which is now established for Origen, is at present supported by D alone of the Greek manuscripts and by three Old Latin witnesses. (It is also found in the Curetonian Syriac, but unfortunately the corresponding words in the Sinai-Syriac could not be made out with certainty by Mrs. Lewis; see _Some Pages_, p. 72 = p. 168 in the first edition). Now, look at the passage in Origen’s work, i. 25, 26 ff. (p. 293 in De la Rue’s edition): ο μεν γαρ Ματθαιος ανεγραφε λεγοντα τον κυριον ... ο δε Λουκας ... ο δε Μαρκος· ἀββᾶ ὁ πατὴρ, δυνατά σοι πάντα· παρένεγκε κ.τ.λ. The passage is printed thus by Koetschau, agreeing exactly with the earlier printed editions and our texts of the N. T. in Mark xiv. 36. But in this he is far wrong. Because, as his own apparatus shows us, the Venetian manuscript, which he rightly follows elsewhere, reads the words in the order δυνατὰ πάντα σοί, which is exactly the order of the words (Mark xiv. 36) in D, but again in no other Greek manuscript with the solitary exception of the cursive 473.[123] But there are even passages where Koetschau follows the printed text of the N. T. in the scriptural quotations in despite of both his manuscripts. In i. 29, 13 (i. 295 De la Rue), where Matt. x. 17-23 is quoted, he inserts after πῶς ἢ τί λαλήσητε the clause δοθήσεται γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ τί λαλήσητε from Matt. x. 19, on the supposition that these words may have dropped out of the archetype of M P on account of the homoioteleuton. But they are also omitted in Cod. D of the N. T. And this, moreover, is not the only point of agreement between this manuscript and the text given in this quotation. There is, _e.g._, the omission of δέ in v. 17, the reading παραδώσουσιν in v. 19, which Koetschau has altered to the more grammatical παραδῶσιν, again without sufficient reason and in defiance of both his manuscripts, and the omission of ὑμῶν in v. 20, of which there is no mention in Tischendorf (see the Collation of D in my _Supplementum_). Origen also agrees with D, though not verbally, in reading κἂν ἐκ ταύτης διώκωσιν φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἄλλην further down (v. 23), where again Koetschau seems to me to have unnecessarily inserted τὴν, which is omitted in his principal manuscript and also in D. Compare, also, i. 22, 12, where Origen agrees with D in reading φέρωσιν (Luke xii. 11) instead of εἰσφέρωσιν, read by our critical editions on the authority of א B L X, or προσφέρωσιν by the _textus receptus_ with A Q R, etc. Both concur, also, in the omission of the first ἢ τί in the same verse.

What is here said as to the close affinity of Origen’s Bible with Codex D is corroborated by the testimony of the Athos manuscript discovered by von der Goltz (see above, p. 90). This manuscript confirms what we knew before—viz. that Marcion’s text had χριστὸν and not κύριον or θεὸν in 1 Cor. x. 9. But it also tells us what we did not know—viz. that χριστὸν was the only reading known to Origen, and that κύριον in the _Synodical Epistle_ addressed to Paul of Samosata, published by Turrianus (in Routh’s _Reliquiæ Sacræ_, iii.^2 299), is not the original reading but a later substitute for χριστόν. This is made out by Zahn in the _ThLbl._, 1899, col. 180, who concludes by saying that Clement, _Ecl. Proph._, 49, should not be omitted in a proper apparatus, and that κύριον ought never again to be printed in the text. Our most recent editors, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Weiss, and Baljon, put κύριον in their text without so much as mentioning χριστόν in the margin, or among the Noteworthy Rejected Readings, or in the list of Interchanged Words (Weiss, p. 7). In the Stuttgart edition the text is determined by a consensus of previous editions, and I was obliged to let κύριον stand in the text, but I have put χριστόν in the margin, as Tregelles also did. In this instance the _textus receptus_ is actually better than our critical editions. The rejected reading is again the Western, and Zahn, in commenting on the newly-discovered testimony as to the text of 1 John iv. 3 (see below, p. 327), pertinently remarks that “here again it is perfectly evident, as any discerning person might have known, that many important readings which were wont to be contemptuously dismissed as Western, were long prevalent in the East as well, not only among the Syrians but also among the Alexandrians, and were only discarded by the official recensions of the text that were made subsequent to the time of Origen.” These illustrations will serve to show that not only is the editing of the Patristic texts no easy matter, but also that the employment even of the best editions is not unaccompanied with risks. See Koetschau, _Bibelcitate bei Origenes_, _ZfwTh._, 1900, pp. 321-378.

(3) The Rev. Prebendary Ed. Miller is at present at work on a _Textual Commentary upon the Holy Gospels_, on the ground of Burgon’s Collection and his own researches. A specimen of this work (Matthew v. 44) is given in his _Present State of the Textual Controversy respecting the Holy Gospels_, which was printed for private circulation, and may be had of the author.[124] In this little pamphlet he takes up the question (p. 30) whether Origen in the _De Oratione_ 1 (De la Rue, i. 198; Koetschau, ii. 299, 22) quotes from Luke (vi. 28) or Matthew (v. 44), and decides for the latter. Koetschau is of the opposite opinion, giving “Luke vi. 28 (Matthew v. 44).” In the case of Patristic quotations, it will be seen that matters are frequently very complicated. It must be borne in mind, too, that the various writers did not use the same copy of the Scriptures all their life long. At different times and in different localities they must necessarily have had different copies before them.

(4) It is further to be observed that in the case of controversial writings, such as those of Origen against Celsus, and Augustine against the Manichæans, the question must always be considered whether the Scriptural quotations found in them are quotations made by Origen and Augustine themselves, or taken by them from the writings they assail or refer to; and also whether the quotations have been made directly from a manuscript of the Bible, or from the works of a previous writer. Borrowing from an author without acknowledgment may have been a much more common thing in olden times than it is even at present.

In Clement of Rome (c. 13), in Clement of Alexandria (_Stromata_, ii. p. 476), and partly also in the _Epistle of Polycarp_ (c. 2), we find the following quotation:—“Be ye merciful that ye may obtain mercy: forgive that ye may be forgiven: as ye do, so shall it be done to you: as ye give, so shall it be given to you: as ye judge, so shall ye be judged: as ye are kind, so shall kindness be shown to you: with what measure ye mete, it shall be meted unto you.” We find also in Clement of Rome (c. 46), and in Clement of Alexandria (_Stromata_, iii. p. 561), the quotation: “Woe to that man: it were good for him if he had never been born, rather than that he should offend one of my elect: it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he be drowned in the depth of the sea, than that he should offend one of my little ones.” Neither of these quotations is found literally in our canonical Gospels. Accordingly, Rendel Harris concludes from the testimony of these various witnesses that they must have been taken from an Urevangelium, now perished (_Contemporary Review_, Sept. 1897). This view is combated, it seems to me rightly, by H. T. Andrews in the _Expository Times_ for November 1897, p. 94 f. He thinks it probable that Clement of Alexandria and Polycarp are both dependent on Clement of Rome.[125]

(5) In spite of all these difficulties, a systematic examination of the Patristic quotations remains one of the most important tasks for the textual criticism of the N. T. We have most useful collections, both ancient and modern, of passages from the Fathers to illustrate the history of the Canon, and their use of the Scriptures has been scrutinised in the interests of dogmatic history, but there are not yet, so far as I know, any collections of Patristic quotations to elucidate the history of the text. Two things are specially wanted at present. One is a collection, arranged according to time and locality, of all the passages in which the Fathers appeal to ἀντίγραφα. In the new volumes of Origen, _e.g._, we find two such references—κατά τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου (i. 113), and κατὰ τὰ κοινὰ τῶν ἀντιγράφων (ii. 52).[126] The other desideratum is a collection of all the passages in the biographies of the Saints where mention is made of the writing of Biblical manuscripts. It is said of Evagrius, _e.g._, in the _Historia Lausiaca_ (c. 28 in Preuschen, _Palladius_, p. 111), εὐφυῶς γὰρ ἔγραφε τὸν ὀξύρυγχον χαρακτῆρα, and the preparation of Biblical manuscripts is also referred to in the _Vita Epiphanii_ (ed. Petav. ii.), and in Cassiodorus, _De Institutione Divinarum Literarum_ (see above, p. 50). On the use hitherto made of Patristic testimony see the section _De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis_ in _TiGr._, 1129-1230. An abridged list of those mentioned there will be found in Baljon’s _New Testament_, pp. xv.-xxiii. A catalogue of the names and dates of the Patristic writers most frequently cited in critical editions of the N. T. is given in Scrivener, ii. pp. 172-174.[127] See also _Urt._, p. 22, 56 f., 94. On the Old Latin _Didascalia_, see Ed. Hauler in the _W.S.B._, 1895, vol. cxxxiv. p. 40 ff., and the _Mitteilungen_ of B. G. Teubner, 1897, ii. p. 52.[128] On the Biblical text of Filastrius (_C.S.E._, vol. xxxviii., 1898), see Kroll in the notice of Marx’s edition in the _Berlin. Phil. Wochenschrift_, 1898, 27. On Jovinian, see _TU._, New Series, ii. 1, etc. On the quotations from the Gospels in Novatian (Pseudo-Cyprian) see Harnack in _TU._, xiii. 4.

Footnote 18:

Zahn, _Geschichte des N.T. Kanons_, i. 652; _Einleitung_, i. 153.

Footnote 19:

From the Cod. Monac. 255 and 551, published by Aug. Thenn in the _Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie_ 29 (1887), 453.

Footnote 20:

The most convenient survey of these is given in Vollert’s “Tabellen zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte: mit einer Uebersicht über die Codices in denen die N.T. Schriften bezeugt sind.” Leipzig, 1897. Given in Sitterly (see above, p. 33).

Footnote 21:

See _e.g._ Plate I.

Footnote 22:

See _e.g._ Plate X.

Footnote 23:

See Scrivener, i. p. 160; Rahlfs, _Göttinger gelehrte Nachrichten_, 1898, i. 98-112.

Footnote 24:

_TiGr._, pp. 1233 ff.; Warfield, _Textual Criticism of the N.T._, p. 47.

Footnote 25:

To obviate confusion, it would be well to use the Latin name Evangeliarium. Εὐαγγελιστάριον means a Table of Lections. (See Brightman, in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, 1900, p. 448, and now Gregory, _Textkritik_, i. p. 334 f.)

Footnote 26:

_Nat. Hist._, xiii. 11.

Footnote 27:

_Egitto_, 2nd ed., p. 125.

Footnote 28:

_Vide_ Th. Mommsen, _Das Diokletianische Edikt über die Warenpreise_ (Hermes, xxv. 17-36, 1890); on the fragments recently discovered in Megalopolis, see W. Loring, _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 1890, 299; also, _Revue Archéologique_, Mars-Avril, 1891, 268.

Footnote 29:

Herodotus v. 58. On the connection of _litera_ and διφθέρα, see M. Bréal, _Rev. des Et. grecques_, iii. 10, 1890, 121 ff., and _Rev. Crit._, 1892, 13. In Cyprus the schoolmaster was called the διφθεράλοιφος.

Footnote 30:

_Cf._ Codex D, Mark i. 6.

Footnote 31:

_Cf._ Victor Schultze, _Rolle und Codex_, in the Greifswalder Studien, Gütersloh, 1895, p. 149 ff.

Footnote 32:

_Vide_ C. R. Gregory, _Sur les cahiers des manuscrits grecs_, Académie des Inscriptions, Aug. 1885; Berliner Phil. Wochenschrift, 1886, v. 159 ff.

Footnote 33:

_E.g._ in Cod. Barocc. 1 in the Bodleian, and in several Syriac manuscripts.

Footnote 34:

_Vide_ G. Ebers, _Kaiser Hadrian_: also _The Writing Material of Antiquity_, by Ebers, in the Cosmopolitan Magazine, New York, Nov. 1893; and especially Dziatzko (see above, p. 33). On the papyrus plant (Cyperus papyrus L., Papyrus Antiquorum Willd.), see Bernard de Montfaucon, _Dissertation sur la plante appelée Papyrus, sur le papier d’Égypte_, etc. Memoires de l’Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, T. vi. Paris, 1729, 4to., pp. 592-608; Franz Woenig, _Die Pflanzen im alten Aegypten, ihre Heimat, Geschichte, Kultur_, Leipzig, 1886, pp. 74-129. J. Hoskyns-Abrahall pointed out that it is found in Europe, not only in the neighbourhood of Syracuse in Sicily, but also on the shores of Lake Trasimene: see _The Papyrus in Europe_, in the Academy, 19th Mar. 1887. Lagarde raised a question as to the etymology of the word papyrus (which has not yet been explained), whether it might not be derived from Bura on Lake Menzaleh, where it was first manufactured, _pa_ being the article in Egyptian; see his _Mitteilungen_, ii. 260. If this is so, there is the more reason for pronouncing the _y_ long, as ancient writers did, and not short as the modern fashion is—papýrus, not pápyrus. _Cf._ Juvenal, iv. 24; vii. 101; Mart. iii. 2; viii. 44; x. 97. Catull. xxxv. 2. Ovid, _Met._ xv. 753; _Trist._ iii. 10, 27.

Footnote 35:

See U. Wilcken, _Recto oder Verso_, Hermes, 1887, 487-492.

Footnote 36:

Apoc. v. 1 can no longer be cited in support of this practice, seeing we must take καὶ ὄπισθεν with κατεσφραγισμένον, according to Grotius and Zahn. On ὀπισθόγραφον, _cf._ Lucian, _Vitarum Auctio_, 9; Pliny, 3, 5; _a tergo_ Juvenal, 1, 6; _in aversa charta_, Martial, 8, 22.

Footnote 37:

Pausanias, ix. 31, 4.

Footnote 38:

Deissmann, _Bibelstudien_, 26-54.

Footnote 39:

Hiller von Gaertringen, _Berl. Sitz.-Ber._, 21st July 1898.

Footnote 40:

See Wilcken, _Verein von Alterstumsfreunden im Rheinland_. Heft lxxxvi. p. 234; also the _Berl. Phil. Wochenschrift_, 1889, 26.

Footnote 41:

_Cf._ Livy, B. iv. c. 7; Pliny, xiii. 11, “postea publica monumenta plumbeis voluminibus mox et privata linteis confici coepta sunt.”

Footnote 42:

_Jüdisches Literaturblatt_, 1889, 10.

Footnote 43:

_Cf._ the verses inscribed on a marble tablet discovered in Andros by Ross in 1844:—

ἐγὼ χρυσόθρονος Ἶσις ... ἀφαλέων Ἔρμανος ἀπόκρυφα σύμβολα δέλτων εὑρόμενα γραφίδεσσιν ἅ τ’ ἔξυσε πᾶσι χαράξας φρικαλέον μύσταις ἱερὸν λόγον....

Footnote 44:

See Nestle, _Bengel_, p. 105.

Footnote 45:

_Zeitschrift für das Humanistische Gymnasium_, 1896, p. 27.

Footnote 46:

O. Hoffmann, _Griechische Dialekte_, i. 107.

Footnote 47:

Probably pens of the first quality—μονογόνατοι.

Footnote 48:

Harris, _Last Words of Baruch_, vi. 17, p. 56.

Footnote 49:

_Vide_ Harnack, _T. und U._, ii. 5, p. 68.

Footnote 50:

Socin, _Arabic Grammar_, 2nd ed., p. 55, line 14; p. 56, line 12.

Footnote 51:

_ZdmG._, xliii. 547.

Footnote 52:

Konstantin Oikonomos, περὶ τῶν ό ἑρμηνευτῶν, Bk. iv. p. 975.

Footnote 53:

Hody, 1684, p. 254 ff.

Footnote 54:

_Vide_ Harnack in the _ThLz._, 1885, cols. 321, 324, n. 5.

Footnote 55:

Ed. Feige, p. 53.

Footnote 56:

_Divin. Lect._, c. xv.

Footnote 57:

_Sächs. Sitz.-Ber._ (1889), xi. 4, 369.

Footnote 58:

Balsamon, the Canonist (c. 1200), complains that τινὲς δι’ αἰσχροκέρδειαν βιβλίων τῶν θείων γραφῶν ἐμπορευόμενοι ἀπήλειφον, and he requests σημείωσαι ταῦτα διὰ τοὺς βιβλιοκαπήλους τοὺς ἀπαλείφοντας τῶν θείων γραφῶν.

Footnote 59:

On Constantine’s Bibles, see Westcott, _Canon_, c. ii. p. 426; _Bible in the Church_, c. vi. p. 155 ff.; Zahn, _Geschichte des N. T. Kanons_, i. 64. Zahn combats the supposition that the entire Bible was contained in each Codex, pointing out quite rightly that in that case the latter could not have been εὐμετακόμιστα, and moreover that Constantine speaks of σωμάτια, which does not mean codices but something much more indefinite. Nor does he believe that Eusebius intended to specify the number of sheets in each quire of the Codex or of the columns in which it was written. “The fifty Bibles might and would be distributed in 200 to 400 volumes.” According to the view taken above there would be from 150 to 200 of these. _Cf._ Scrivener, i. p. 118, n. 2.

Footnote 60:

For the order of the books in א, see Westcott, _Bible in the Church_, Appendix B, “Contents of the most ancient MSS. of the Bible (A, B, א, D, Amiat.)”; _Hist. of the Canon_, Appendix D, “Catalogues of Books of the Bible during the first eight Centuries.”

Footnote 61:

Six leaves are now wanting between Barnabas and Hermas. What did these contain, shall we suppose? Perhaps the Didache. Schmiedel makes a different conjecture in the _Literarisches Centralblatt_, 1897, n. 49

Footnote 62:

_Vide_ Wordsworth and White, _Epilogus_, p. 737, _De Sectionibus Ammonianis in Evangeliis_.

Footnote 63:

Ἀντεβλήθη πρὸς παλαιότατον λίαν ἀντίγραφον δεδιορθωμένον χειρὶ τοῦ ἁγίου μάρτυρος Παμφίλου· ὅπερ ἀντίγραφον πρὸς τῷ τέλει ὑποσημείωσίς τις ἰδιόχειρος αὐτοῦ ὑπέκειτο ἔχουσα οὕτως· μετελήμφθη καὶ διορθώθη πρὸς τὰ ἑξαπλᾶ Ὠριγένους· Ἀντωνῖνος ἀντέβαλεν· Πάμφιλος διόρθωσα.

Footnote 64:

This agrees with the last of the so-called Apostolic Canons (85), which includes Κλήμεντος Ἐπιστολαὶ δύο among the Books of the New Testament after the Epistles of James and Jude. See Westcott, _Canon_, Appendix D. iii. a.

Footnote 65:

On the Alexandrian division of the Gospels into 68, 48, 83, and 18 sections respectively, see Kenyon in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. 149.

Footnote 66:

For the Festal Letter, see Westcott, _Canon_, App. D. xiv., p. 554; _Bible in the Church_, p. 159 ff.; Preuschen’s _Analecta_, pp. 144 ff.; Burgess, _Festal Letters of Athanasius translated from the Syriac_, p. 137. Sahidic published by C. Schmidt in the _Nachrichten_ mentioned above, 1898, p. 167 ff. He holds it to be the original form of the Letter.

Footnote 67:

_E.g._ ΑΠΕϹΤΑΛΚΕΝ, 122_b_, 4.

Footnote 68:

An Indiction is a cycle of fifteen years, computed by the Greeks from 1st September 312 A.D. Its introduction was ascribed to Constantine the Great. See Scrivener, i., App. C, p. 380.

Footnote 69:

See Scrivener, 1. p. 160, under Λ. This minuscule seems to be omitted from Scrivener’s list. See below, p. 185.

Footnote 70:

“To Rome to come, to Rome to come, Much of trouble, little of profit, The thing thou seekest here, If thou bring not with thee, thou findest not”; etc., etc.

See Scrivener, i. 180.

Footnote 71:

Or Evagrius. The name is difficult to decipher. See below, pp. 188 ff.

Footnote 72:

Ἔγραψα καὶ ἐξεθέμην κατὰ δύναμιν στειχηρὸν τόδε τὸ τεῦχος Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου πρὸς ἐγγραμμὸν καὶ εὐκατάλημπτον ἀνάγνωσιν ... ἀντεβλήθη δὲ ἡ βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν Καισαρίᾳ ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου χειρὶ γεγραμμένον αὐτοῦ.

Footnote 73:

Perhaps in Sardinia, see below. Cf. Scrivener, i. p. 63 n. 1.

Footnote 74:

See Scrivener (Miller), i. p. 397.

Footnote 75:

Compare the remarks of Grenfell-Hunt on the papyrus (and vellum) books and their respective handwritings in Part II. of the _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, p. 2 f.

Footnote 76:

Facsimiles of 13, 69, 124, 346 are given in Abbott’s _Collation of Four Important Manuscripts_ (Dublin, 1877); see Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII, 40.

Footnote 77:

See Blass’s _Praefatio_ to his edition of Luke, pp. lxix f. (1897), and compare Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. p. 144; Hoskier, above, p. 5; below, p. 211.

Footnote 78:

Zahn asserts that traces of a system of Lections are to be found as early as in Irenaeus, and likewise in Codex D. _Einleitung_, ii. 355, on Luke i. 26.

Footnote 79:

On Luke viii. 15 Tischendorf observes that in 49^{evl} (a Lectionary of the tenth or eleventh century, now in Moscow, presented to the Monastery of the Mother of God τοῦ βροντοχίου by Nicephorus, Metropolitan of Crete, and Antistes of Lacedæmon, in 1312) the lection εἰς τὰς ἔξω ἐκκλησίας ended with this verse (15) and the words attached to it, “And so saying He cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear,” and that the additional verses were not read εἰς τὴν μεγάλην ἐκκλησίαν, but vv. 20, 21-25 followed immediately after the words ἐν ὑπομονῇ (v. 15).

Footnote 80:

On the “Livre d’Évangiles réputé avoir appartenu à S. Jean Chrysostome,” _cf._ Ch. Graux, in the _Revue de Philologie_, Avril 1887.

Footnote 81:

Cf. Eusebius, _Demons. Evan._, iii. 7, 15, βάρβαροι καὶ Ἕλληνες τὰς περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ γραφὰς πατρίοις χαρακτῆρσιν καὶ πατρίῳ φωνῇ μετελάμβανον. Zahn, _GK._ i. 33; Theoph., v. 64; Laud. Const., xvii. 9.

Footnote 82:

The date of Tatian’s birth is uncertain. Zahn decides for the year 110. He was in the prime of manhood by the year 160. See Hastings, _Bible Dictionary_, ii. p. 697.

Footnote 83:

See below, p. 213, n. 3.

Footnote 84:

The Peshitto, so indicated from the principal edition by Schaaf, 1708-9.

Footnote 85:

_The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus, and of Timothy and Aquila._ Edited with Prolegomena and Facsimiles by F. C. Conybeare (Oxford, 1898; _Anecdota Oxoniensia, Classical Series, Part VIII._). See Notice in the _Lit. Cbl._, 1899, No. 5, col. 154 f.

Footnote 86:

Dates are still reckoned in Syria according to the Greek era, counting from the year 312 B.C.

Footnote 87:

Hierapolis, now Membidsch on the Euphrates.

Footnote 88:

I. H. Hall, _Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian Version_, 1883.

Footnote 89:

The Gospels appeared in 1778, the Acts and Catholic Epistles in 1799, and the Pauline Epistles in 1803.

Footnote 90:

In Tischendorf’s critical apparatus these fragments are indicated as Syr^{p(osterior)} or as Syr^{whit(e)}. It would be better to use the symbol Syr^{po(lycarp)} for the first version of 508 made by Polycarp for Philoxenus, and Syr^{tho(mas)} for Thomas of Harkel’s recension of 616. Gebhardt’s notation is as follows:—Syr^a is the Curetonian; Syr^b is the Peshitto; Syr^c is the Harklean, of which again Syr^{ct} is the text, Syr^{cm} the margin, Syr^{c*} sub asterisco; Syr^d is the Jerusalem Syriac; while Syr^{bodl} is the text of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Zahn proposes to indicate the Philoxenian (Tischendorf’s Syr^{bodl}) by Syr^2, and the Harklean by Syr^3; for the Gospels he would employ Syr^c, Syr^s, Syr^h; Syr^1, therefore, is the Peshitto.

Footnote 91:

Land, in the _Anecdota Syriaca_, iv., 1875; Harris, _Biblical Fragments from Mount Sinai_, 1890; Gwilliam, in the _Anecdota Oxoniensia_, Semitic Series, i. 5, 1893; ix. 1896; Lewis-Nestle-Gibson, _Studia Sinaitica_, vi.

Footnote 92:

See F. Bulié, _Wo lag Stridon, die Heimat des h. Hieronymus?_ in the _Festschrift für Otto Benndorf_. Vienna, 1898. Also _La patrie de S. Jerome_ in _Analecta Bollandiana_, xviii. 3.

Footnote 93:

_Einleitung_, ii. 195.

Footnote 94:

_Epilogus ad Evangelia_, p. 656.

Footnote 95:

No. 71; 164 in Jerome’s letters.

Footnote 96:

No. 56 (A.D. 394), 67 (397), 101 (402).

Footnote 97:

Burkitt’s view was expressed more than three-quarters of a century ago by C. A. Breyther, in a dissertation entitled, _De vi quam antiquissimae versiones quae extant latinae in crisin evangeliorum IV. habent_ (Merseburg, 1824). See v. Dobschütz, _ThLz._, 1897, 135.

Footnote 98:

Photolithographed by Clédat from a MS. at Lyons.

Footnote 99:

J. Heidenreich, _Der neutestamentliche Text bei Cyprian verglichen mit dem Vulgatatext. Eine textkritische Untersuchung zu den h. Schriften des Neuen Testamentes._ Bamberg, 1900.

Footnote 100:

This is the view of Zahn. Others, however, have no doubt that Tertullian made use of a Latin version. Hoppe, in his treatise, _De sermone Tertullianeo Quaestiones Selectae_ (1897), p. 6 (_de Graecismis Tertulliani_) says, “Permultas enim (constructiones) T. mutuatus est vel ex scriptoribus graecis, quibus assidue studuit, vel ex librorum sacrorum translatione latina graecismis abundante, qua utebatur.” And to this he adds, “Quam multa vocabula graeca in Tertullianeum sermonem ex Itala quae vocatur translatione redundaverint, discas ex Roenschii libro cum impigritate conscripto, qui inscribitur, _Itala und Vulgata_, ed. sec., p. 238.” The Itala is cited for _sciant quia_ (p. 18), _absque_ (p. 44), and for the use of the superlative for the positive (p. 49). On this last the writer refers to Rönsch, p. 415, and adds, “ex Itala T. hunc usum aliquotiens assumpsisse videtur, quamquam in universum vitat.” _Cf._ Westcott, _Canon_, Part I., c. iii. p. 251 ff.

Footnote 101:

Thus we have, following the numbers given above, in verse 4 (1) απορεισθαι and διαπορεισθαι (or διαπορειν), (2) περι τουτου and περι αυτου, (3) ιδου and και ιδου, (4) ανδρες δυο and δυο ανδρες, (5) επεστησαν and παρειστηκεισαν, (7) εν εσθητι αστραπτουση (or λαμπρα) and εν εσθησεσιν αστραπτουσαις (or λευκαις), (8) εμφοβων (or εν φοβω) δε γενομενων και κλινουσων and ενφοβοι δε γενομεναι εκλειναν, (9) τα προσωπα and το προσωπον (αυτων); in verse 11, (10) ενωπιον αυτων and its omission; in verse 13, (14) εξηκοντα and εκατον εξηκοντα, (15) ᾗ ονομα and ονοματι, (16) Εμμαους and ουλαμμαους. Of these (8), (15), and (16) are found only in D. In the case of (15) the very same variation is found at Tob. vi. 10 in the two recensions represented by _Codex Vaticanus_ and _Codex Sinaiticus_.

Footnote 102:

1889, 91, 93, 95, 98; cited in the sequel as W.-W.

Footnote 103:

On the _Epilogus_ to the first volume of their Oxford edition, see especially S. Berger in the _Revue Critique_, 1889, pp. 141-144; and on the whole, Burkitt, _The Vulgate Gospels and the Codex Brixianus_, in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, I. i. (Oct. 1899) pp. 129-134.

Footnote 104:

Compare E. Maugenot, _Les manuscrits grecs des évangiles employés par Saint Jerôme_, in the _Revue des sciences ecclésiastiques_, January 1900.

Footnote 105:

The New Testament is contained in vol. iii. The copy I use has the date 1743 on the title-pages of three volumes, but there is a note at the end, p. 1115, which says, “E prelo exiit hic tomus anno 1749.” Romæ, 1713-19, in _TiGr._, p. 1350, is a misprint. The imprimaturs of the first volume are dated 1737. The work was reprinted with new title-pages at Paris by Fr. Didot, 1751. Copies now cost from £15 to £25.

Footnote 106:

The word Coptic is not derived from the town in Upper Egypt called Coptos, but is a modification of the Greek word Αἰγύπτιος.

Footnote 107:

The spelling Bahiric is due to a wrong vocalisation of the word.

Footnote 108:

On the Middle Egyptian, see W. E. Crum in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, I. 3 (April 1900), pp. 416 ff.

Footnote 109:

Westcott, _Canon_, Part II.,