part ii

. b c.

_ 931 Ibid._ 681 a = _ibid._ 6 d e.

932 Page 98.

933 Note at the end of Bishop Ellicott’s Commentary on 1 Timothy.

934 Berriman’s MS. Note in the British Museum copy of his _Dissertation_,—p. 154. Another annotated copy is in the Bodleian.

935 “Certe quidem in exemplari Alexandrino nostro, linea illa transversa quam loquor, adeo exilis ac plane evanida est, ut primo intuitu haud dubitarim ipse scriptum _ΟΣ_, quod proinde in variantes lectiones conjeceram.... Verum postea perlustrato attentius loco, lineolæ, quæ primam aciem fugerat, ductus quosdam ac vestigia satis certa deprehendi, præsertim ad partem sinistram, quæ peripheriam literæ pertingit,” &c.—_In loco._

_ 936 Clem. Rom._ ed. Wotton, p. 27.

937 Berriman, pp. 154-5.

_ 938 Ibid._ (_MS. Note._) Berriman adds other important testimony, p. 156.

_ 939 Dissertation_, p. 156. Berriman refers to the fact that some one in recent times, with a view apparently to establish the actual reading of the place, has clumsily thickened the superior stroke with common black ink, and introduced a rude dot into the middle of the θ. There has been no attempt at fraud. Such a line and such a dot could deceive no one.

940 “Quanquam lineola, quæ Θεός compendiose scriptum ab ὅς distinguitur, sublesta videtur nonnullis.”—N. T. p. 710.

941 Griesbach in 1785 makes the same report:—“Manibus hominum inepte curiosorum ea folii pars quæ dictum controversum continet, adeo detrita est, ut nemo mortalium hodie certi quidquam discernere possit ... Non oculos tantum sed digitos etiam adhibuisse videntur, ut primitivam illius loci lectionem eruerent et velut exsculperent.” (_Symb. Crit._ i. p. x.) The MS. was evidently in precisely the same state when the Rev. J. C. Velthusen (_Observations on Various Subjects_, pp. 74-87) inspected it in 1773.

942 As C. F. Matthæi [N. T. m. xi. _Præfat._ pp. lii.-iii.] remarks:—“_cum de Divinitate_ CHRISTI _agitur, ibi profecto sui dissimilior deprehenditur_.” Woide instances it as an example of the force of prejudice, that Wetstein “apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ adscripsisse, _quia eam abesse volebat_.” [_Præfat._ p. xxxi.]

943 “Patet, ut alia mittamus, e consensu Versionum,” &c.—ii. 149.

944 Woide, _ibid._

_ 945 Supra_, p. 100.

_ 946 Introduction_, p. 553.

_ 947 Introd._ p. 553.

948 Any one desirous of understanding this question fully, should (besides Berriman’s admirable _Dissertation_) read Woide’s _Præfatio_ to his edition of Codex A, pp. xxx. to xxxii. (§ 87).—“Erunt fortasse quidam” (he writes in conclusion) “qui suspicabuntur, nonnullos hanc lineolam diametralem in medio Θ vidisse, quoniam eam videre volebant. Nec negari potest præsumptarum opinionum esse vim permagnam. Sed idem, etiam Wetstenio, nec immerito, objici potest, eam apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ adscripsisse, quia eam abesse volebat. Et eruditissimis placere aliquando, quæ vitiosa sunt, scio: sed omnia testimonia, omnemque historicam veritatem in suspicionem adducere non licet: nec mirum est nos ea nunc non discernere, quæ, antequam nos Codicem vidissemus, evanuerant.”

_ 949 Prolegomena_ to his ed. of Cod. C,—pp. 39-42.

950 “Ος habet codex C, ut puto; nam lineola illa tenuis, quæ ex Ο facit Θ, non apparet.” (_In loc._) And so Griesbach, _Symb. Crit._ i. p. viii. (1785).

951 “Quotiescunque locum inspiciebam (inspexi autem per hoc biennium sæpissime) mihi prorsus apparebat.” “Quam [lineolam] miror hucusque omnium oculos fugisse.” [_Prolegg._ p. 41].... Equidem miror sane.

952 Page 75.

953 Pages 64, 69, 71, 75.—Some have pointed out that opposite _ΟΣ_ in F—above _ΟΣ_ in G,—is written “quod.” Yes, but not “_qui_.” The Latin version is independent of the Greek. In S. Mark xi. 8, above ΑΓΡΩΝ is written “_arboribus_;” and in 1 Tim. iv. 10, ΑΓΩΝΙΖΟΜΕΘΑ is translated by F “_maledicimur_,”—by G, “_exprobramur vel maledicimur_.”

_ 954 Introduction to_ Cod. Augiensis, p. xxviij.

_ 955 E.g._ Out of ΟΜΕΝΤΟΙΣΤΕΡΕΟΣ [2 Tim. ii. 19], they both make Ο · μεν · το · ισ · τεραιος. For ὑγιαίνωσιν [Tit. i. 13], both write υγει · ενωσειν:—for καινὴ κτίσις [2 Cor. v. 17] both give και · νηκτισις:—for ἀνέγκλητοι ὄντες [1 Tim. iii. 10], both exhibit ανευ · κλητοιον · εχοντες (“nullum crimen habentes”):—for ὡς γάγγραινα νομὴν ἕξει [2 Tim. ii. 17], both exhibit ως · γανγρα · ινα · (F G) νομηνεξει, (G, who writes above the words “_sicut cancer ut serpat_”).

956 He must be held responsible for ὝΠΟΚΡΙΣΙ in place of ὑποκρίσει [1 Tim. iv. 2]: ΑΣΤΙΖΟΜΕΝΟΣ instead of λογιζόμενος [2 Cor. v. 19]: ΠΡΙΧΟΤΗΤΙ instead of πραότητι [2 Tim. ii. 25]. And he was the author of ΓΕΡΜΑΝΕ in Phil. iv. 3: as well as of Ο δε πνευμα in 1 Tim. iv. 1.

But the scribes of F and G also were curiously innocent of Greek. G suggests that γυναιξειν (in 1 Tim. ii. 10) may be “infinitivus”—(of course from γυναίκω).

_ 957 Introduction_, p. 155.

958 Thirteen times between Rom. i. 7 and xiii. 1.

_ 959 E.g._ Gal. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 55; 2 Cor. vi. 11 (_ο_ς and _ο_). Those who have Matthæi’s reprint of G at hand are invited to refer to the last line of fol. 91: (1 Tim. vi. 20) where Ὦ Τιμόθεε is exhibited thus:—_Ο_ Ὦ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΕ.

960 Col. ii. 22, 23: iii. 2.

961 As 1 Tim. iii. 1: iv. 14: vi. 15. Consider the practice of F in 1 Thess. i. 9 (_Ο_; ΠΟΙΑΝ): in 2 Cor. viii. 11, 14 (_Ο_; ΠΩΣ).

962 Rarest of all are instances of this mark over the Latin “e”: but we meet with “_spē_” (Col. i. 23): “_sē_” (ii. 18): _rēpēntes_ (2 Tim. iii. 6), &c. So, in the Greek, ἡ or ᾗ written _Η_ are most unusual.—A few instances are found of “u” with this appendage, as “_domūs_” (1 Tim. v. 13): “_spiritū_” (1 Cor. iv. 21), &c.

963 This information is obtained from a photograph of the page procured from Dresden through the kindness of the librarian, Counsellor Dr. Forstemann.

964 See Rettig’s _Prolegg._ pp. xxiv.-v.

965 “You will perceive that I have now succeeded in identifying every Evangelium hitherto spoken of as existing in Florence, with the exception of Evan 365 [Act. 145, Paul 181] (Laurent vi. 36), &c., which is said to ‘contain also the Psalms.’ I assure you no such Codex exists in the Laurentian Library; no, nor ever did exist there. Dr. Anziani devoted full an hour to the enquiry, allowing me [for I was very incredulous] to see the process whereby he convinced himself that Scholz is in error. It was just such an intelligent and exhaustive process as Coxe of the Bodleian, or dear old Dr. Bandinel before him, would have gone through under similar circumstances. Pray strike that Codex off your list; and with it ‘Acts 145’ and ‘Paul 181.’ I need hardly say that Bandini’s Catalogue knows nothing of it. It annoys me to be obliged to add that I cannot even find out the history of Scholz’s mistake.”—_Guardian_, August 27, 1873.

966 “_Whose_ word on such matters is entitled to most credit,—the word of the Reviewer, or the word of the most famous manuscript collators of this century?... Those who have had occasion to seek in public libraries for manuscripts which are not famous for antiquity or beauty or completeness (_sic_), know that the answer ‘_non est inventus_’ is no conclusive reason for believing that the object of their quest has not been seen and collated in former years by those who profess to have actually seen and collated it. That 181 ‘is non-existent’ must be considered unproven.”—Bp. Ellicott’s _Pamphlet_, p. 72.

967 The learned Abbé Martin, who has obligingly inspected for me the 18 copies of the “Praxapostolus” in the Paris library, reports as follows concerning “Apost. 12” ( = Reg. 375),—“A very foul MS. of small value, I believe: but a curious specimen of bad Occidental scholarship. It was copied for the monks of S. Denys, and exhibits many Latin words; having been apparently revised on the Latin. The lection is assigned to Σαββάτῳ λ᾽ (not λδ᾽) in this codex.”

968 “_Codices Cryptenses seu Abbatiæ Cryptæ Ferratæ in Tusculano, digesti et illustrati cura et studio_ D. Antonii Rocchi, Hieromonachi Basiliani Bibliothecæ custodis,”—_Tusculani_, fol. 1882.—I have received 424 pages (1 May, 1883).

969 Not a few of the Basilian Codices have been transferred to the Vatican.

970 In an APPENDIX to the present volume, I will give fuller information. I am still (3rd May, 1883) awaiting replies to my troublesome interrogatories addressed to the heads of not a few continental libraries.

971 Rufinus, namely (_fl._ A.D. 395). _Opp._ iv. 465

972 MS. letter to myself, August 11, 1879.

973 MS. letter from the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John’s College, Oxford.

974 See above, page 429.

975 Page 71. And so p. 65 and 69.

976 MS. letter to myself.

977 See above, page 429.

_ 978 Ulfilas. Veteris et Novi Test. Versionis Goth. fragmenta quæ supersunt_, &c. 4to. 1843.

979 “Si tamen Uppström ‘_obscurum_’ dixit, non ‘_incertum_,’ fides illi adhiberi potest, quia diligentissime apices omnes investigabat; me enim præsente in aula codicem tractabat.”—(Private letter to myself.)

Ceriani proceeds,—“Quæris quomodo componatur cum textu 1 Tim. iii. 16, nota 54 _Proleg._ Gabelentz Gothicam versionem legens Θεός. Putarem ex loco Castillionæi in notis ad Philip. ii. 6, locutos fuisse doctos illos Germanos, oblitos illius Routh præcepti ‘_Let me recommend to you the practice of always verifying your references, sir_.’ ”

The reader will be interested to be informed that Castiglione, the former editor of the codex, was in favour of “GOD” in 1835, and of “_soei_” (_quæ_ [ = ὅ], to agree with “_runa_,” _i.e._ “mystery,” which is feminine in Gothic) in 1839. Gabelentz, in 1843, ventured to print “_saei_” = ὅς. “Et ‘saei’ legit etiam diligentissimus Andreas Uppström nuperus codicis Ambrosiani investigator et editor, in opere _Codicis Gothici Ambrosiani sive Epist. Pauli, &c._ Holmiæ et Lipsiæ, 1868.”

980 Stuttgard, 1857.

981 Of the department of Oriental MSS. in the Brit. Mus., who derives his text from “the three Museum MSS. which contain the Arabic Version of the Epistles: viz. _Harl._ 5474 (dated A.D. 1332):—_Oriental_ 1328 (Xth cent.):—_Arundel Orient._ 19 (dated A.D. 1616).”—Walton’s Polyglott, he says, exhibits “a garbled version, quite distinct from the genuine Arabic: viz. ‘_These glories commemorate them in the greatness of the mystery of fair piety. _GOD_ appeared in the flesh_,’ ” &c.

982 See above, pp. 271 to 294.

983 i. 387 a: 551 a: 663 a _bis_.—ii. 430 a: 536 c: 581 c: 594 a, 595 b (these two, of the 2nd pagination): 693 d [ = ii. 265, ed. 1615, from which Tisch. quotes it. The place may be seen in full, _supra_, p. 101.]—iii. 39 b _bis_: 67 a b.—_Ap. Galland._ vi. 518 c: 519 d: 520 b: 526 d: 532 a: 562 b: 566 d: 571 a. All but five of these places, I believe, exhibit ὁ Θεός,—which seems to have been the reading of this Father. The article is seldom seen in MSS. Only four instances of it,—(they will be found distinctly specified below, page 493, _note_ 1),—are known to exist. More places must have been overlooked.

Note, that Griesbach only mentions Gregory of Nyssa (whose name Tregelles omits entirely) to remark that he is not to be cited for Θεός; seeing that, according to him, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is to be read thus:—τὸ μυστήριον ἐν σαρκὶ ἐφανερώθη. Griesbach borrowed that quotation and that blunder from Wetstein; to be blindly followed in turn by Scholz and Alford. And yet, the words in question are _not the words of Gregory Nyss. at all_; but of Apolinaris, against whom Gregory is writing,—as Gregory himself explains. [_Antirrh. adv. Apol._ apud Galland. vi. 522 d.]

_ 984 De Trin._ p. 83. The testimony is express.

985 i. 92: iii. 657.-iv. 19, 23.

986 i. 313:—ii. 263.

987 i. 497 c d e.—viii. 85 e: 86 a.—xi. 605 f: 606 a b d e.—(The first of these places occurs in the Homily _de Beato Philogonio_, which Matthæi in the main [viz. from p. 497, line 20, to the end] edited from an independent source [_Lectt. Mosqq._ 1779]. Gallandius [xiv. _Append._ 141-4] reprints Matthæi’s labours).—Concerning this place of Chrysostom (_vide suprà_, p. 101), Bp. Ellicott says (p. 66),—“The passage which he [the Quarterly Reviewer] does allege, deserves to be placed before our readers in full, as an illustration of the precarious character of patristic evidence. If this passage attests the reading θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16, does it not also attest the reading ὁ θεός in Heb. ii. 16, where no copyist or translator has introduced it?”... I can but say, in reply,—“No, certainly not.” May I be permitted to add, that it is to me simply unintelligible how Bp. Ellicott can show himself so _planè hospes_ in this department of sacred Science as to be capable of gravely asking such a very foolish question?

988 i. 215 a: 685 b. The places may be seen quoted _suprà_, p. 101.

989 The place is quoted in Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 59.

_ 990 Antirrheticus_, ap. Galland. vi. 517-77.

991 The full title was,—Ἀπόδειξις περὶ τῆς θείας σαρκώσεως τῆς καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν ἀνθρώπου. _Ibid._ 518 b, c: 519 a.

992 Apolinaris did not deny that CHRIST was very GOD. His heresy (like that of Arius) turned upon the nature of the conjunction of the Godhead with the Manhood. Hear Theodoret:—Α. Θεὸς Λόγος σαρκὶ ἑνωθεὶς ἄνθρωπον ἀπετέλεσεν Θεόν. Ο. Τοῦτο οὖν λέγεις θείαν ἐμψυχίαν? Α. Καὶ πάνυ. Ο. Ἀντὶ ψυχῆς οὖν ὁ Λόγος? Α. Ναί. _Dial._ vi. _adv. Apol._ (_Opp._ v. 1080 = Athanas. ii. 525 d.)

993 Cramer’s _Cat. in Actus_, iii. 69. It is also met with in the Catena on the Acts which J. C. Wolf published in his _Anecdota Græca_, iii. 137-8. The place is quoted above, p. 102.

994 Cramer’s _Cat. in Rom._ p. 124.

995 P. 67.

996 P. 65.

997 P. 65.

998 See above, p. 429.

999 Bentley, Scholz, Tischendorf, Alford and others adduce “_Euthalius_.”

_ 1000 Concilia_, i. 849-893. The place is quoted below in note 3.

1001 “Verum ex illis verbis illud tantum inferri debet false eam epistolam Dionysio Alexandrino attribui: non autem scriptum non fuisse ab aliquo ex Episcopis qui Synodis adversus Paulum Antiochenum celebratis interfuerant. Innumeris enim exemplis constat indubitatæ antiquitatis Epistolas ex Scriptorum errore falsos titulos præferre.”—(Pagi ad A.D. 264, apud Mansi, _Concil._ i. 1039.)

1002 εἶς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ὁ ῶν ἐν τῷ Πατρι συναΐδιος λόγος, ἕν αὐτοῦ πρόσωπον, ἀόρατος Θεός, καὶ ὁρατὸς γενόμενος; ΘΕῸΣ ΓᾺΡ ἘΦΑΝΕΡΏΘΗ ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός, ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθεὶς ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου—_Concilia_, i. 853 a.

1003 Cap. xi.

_ 1004 Ad Ephes._ c. 19: c. 7. _Ad Magnes._ c. 8.

1005 Cap. xii.

_ 1006 Contra Hæresim Noeti_, c. xvii. (Routh’s _Opuscula_, i. 76.) Read the antecedent chapters.

_ 1007 Dialog._ ii. ’_Inconfusus._’—_Opp._ iv. 132.

1008 Cod. 230,—p. 845, line 40.

1009 vii. 26, _ap. Galland_. iii. 182 a.

1010 iii. 401-2, _Epist._ 261 ( = 65). A quotation from Gal. iv. 4 follows.

1011 μαθήσεται γὰρ ὅτι φύσει μὲν καὶ ἀληθείᾳ Θεός ἐστιν ὁ Ἐμμανουήλ, θεοτόκος δὲ δι᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ ἡ τεκοῦσα παρθένος.—Vol. v. Part ii . 48 e.

1012 καὶ οὔτι που φαμὲν ὅτι καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Θεὸς ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς γεγονώς.—_Opp._ V.