B 5 11 
 2. G<o I 
 
 W5& 
 
 HENRY A. B0TT2; DJD. 
 
CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 

 DV^TE DUE 
 
 
 Ofcfrik^ 
 
 l3fiC,\S& 
 
 
 
 10|^J>«^S* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLQRD 
 
 
 
 PRINTEDINU.S.A. 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 BS2661 .B98 
 
 Epistle to the Romans in Greek : in whic 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 029 293 747 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029293747 
 
THE 
 
 Epistle to the Romans 
 
 IN GREEK 
 
 IN WHICH 
 
 THE TEXT OF ROBERT STEPHENS, THIRD EDITION 
 
 IS COMPARED WITH THE 
 
 TEXTS OF THE ELZEVIRS, LACHMANN, ALFORD, TREGELLES, 
 
 TISCHENDORF, AND WESTCOTT, AND WITH THE CHIEF 
 
 UNCIAL AND CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 TOGETHER WITH 
 
 REFERENCES TO THE NEW TESTAMENT GRAMMARS OF WINER 
 
 AND BUTTMANN 
 
 BY 
 
 HENRY A. BUTTZ, D.D. 
 
 PRESIDENT OF DREW THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 
 THIRD EDITION 
 
 NEW YORK: EATON & MAINS 
 CINCINNATI : JENNINGS & PYE 
 

 Entered aeoording to Act of Congress, in the year 1876, by 
 
 NELSON & PHILLIPS, 
 in the Office of the Librarian of Congress at "Washimrton. 
 
 
'Epevvare rag FpcMpdg, 8ti vfietg doKetre kv avralg £avjv al&viov Sx av - 
 itai tKEivai elaiv al fiaprvpovacu nepl i/wv. John v, 39. 
 
 " Make your thirty thousand (various readings) as many more, if numbers of copies 
 can ever reach that sum ; all the better to a knowing and serious reader, who i] 
 thereby more richly furnished, to select what he sees genuine. But even put them 
 into the hands of a knave or a fool, and yet with the most sinistrous and absurd choice 
 he shall not extinguish the light of any one chapter, nor so disguise CI ristianity but 
 that every feature of it will still be the same." — Bentley. 
 
PREFACE, 
 
 1~*HIS little work on the Epistle to the Romans is in- 
 tended as the beginning of an edition of the entire 
 Greek Testament with textual and grammatical refer- 
 ences, on a similar plan, for which I have already made 
 considerable preparation. This purpose will, I hope, jus- 
 tify the length of the explanatory part, as compared with 
 the small part of the Testament here given. It is the re- 
 sult of my own needs as an instructor, and is offered to 
 those interested in the critical study of the New Testa- 
 ment with a threefold object : — 
 
 i. It is hoped that it may serve as an introduction to 
 the study of the textual and grammatical criticism of the 
 New Testament in the original Greek. The materials 
 which are here placed in a condensed form before the 
 student may help to foster a love for this very interesting 
 and important department of study, and lead him to seek 
 for those more voluminous and exhaustive works which 
 are now placed within his reach. 
 
 2. It will enable the pastor who has not the time nor 
 the materials for extensive research, to see at a glance the 
 present state of the text on any passage in this book on 
 which he is about to speak, both as regards the views of 
 
6 Preface. 
 
 the great critics, and the readings of the chief uncial and 
 cursive manuscripts. 
 
 3. It will make accessible to all who may choose to 
 employ them those great repositories of grammatical and 
 philological knowledge, the grammars of Winer and Butt- 
 mann. Although both of these grammars have excellent 
 indexes, they are comparatively little used by the major- 
 ity of even the more studious class of ministers and theo- 
 logical students, on account of the time required in search- 
 ing out the precise point of the references. By looking 
 at the figures in the text of this manual, one may readily 
 see the word on which the grammars have made an exe- 
 getical or grammatical comment, and the page in the 
 grammar where it may be found. It is a little remark- 
 able that while this has been done for the classics, it has 
 never before, so far as I am aware, been attempted for the 
 New Testament. 
 
 With regard to the text criticism in the notes, a few 
 words of explanation are necessary. The text adopted 
 as the basis is that of Stephens, third edition, A. D. 1550, 
 and is printed from the excellent little work of F. H. 
 Scrivener, LL.D. The texts of Alford and of Westcott 
 I have collated, and I believe the text of the latter is 
 here for the first time made accessible, in the form of 
 comparison, to American scholars. The collation is 
 made from Westcott's text as it is found in Dr. C. J. 
 Vaughan's Commentary on the Romans. 
 
 In making the collation I have been guided chiefly 
 by Dr. Scrivener's admirable work, and have employed 
 
Preface. 7 
 
 his references to Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, as 
 guides for myself. I have, however, personally inspected 
 and verified every reference which I have made. 
 
 In the matter of the manuscripts, the most important 
 uncials and cursives have been employed for comparison. 
 I would, however, warn the student against regarding 
 those here mentioned as a sufficient basis for an inde- 
 pendent criticism of the text. They have not been cited 
 as proofs of what the text ought to be, but rather as a 
 gratification to those who want to know what the oldest 
 manuscripts say on the text. In many cases, as will be 
 seen, I have omitted them altogether. These manuscripts 
 I have quoted on the authority of Dr. Tregelles, whose 
 great work I have constantly had before me. His method 
 of distinguishing the variations in the text has been 
 employed in this work, and I desire to render the fullest 
 acknowledgments both to him and to Dr. Scrivener. 
 
 What Dr. Tregelles says in the Introduction to his 
 own well-nigh complete treatise on the text variations of 
 the manuscripts may be applied much more justly by the 
 reader of so unpretentious a compilation as this : — 
 
 " I only add that the knowledge of the names, etc., of 
 manuscripts will do as little toward making a critic, as an 
 acquaintance with the names of colors will do in consti- 
 tuting an artist, or an inventory of tools will do in causing 
 the possessor to be a skilled artisan. Information for use 
 is furnished and nothing more ; if rightly applied, it will 
 cause the facts and principles of criticism to take hold on 
 the mind. I cannot, however, cease to state that it is only 
 
8 Preface. 
 
 a Christian scholar who can use these things rightly in 
 the fullest sense; for he alone knows the full value of 
 Holy Scripture as the record of the Holy Ghost, given to 
 make wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ 
 Jesus; and he only can rightly apprehend what that spirit 
 of prayer is in which all biblical studies should be car- 
 ried on." 
 
 I dare not hope that in so many details I have secured 
 absolute accuracy, and I shall be greatly obliged to those 
 who will kindly point out and forward to me any errors 
 they may detect. My best thanks are due to those 
 friends who have aided me by advice, encouragement, or 
 help in the work. 
 
 If the plan here adopted shall render even a little 
 service in the critical study of the New Testament in 
 the original Greek, I shall be abundantly repaid for my 
 labor. 
 
 Madison, N. J., September 18, 1876. 
 
 PREFATORY NOTE TO THE THIRD EDITION. 
 
 In sending forth a new edition of this little Manual, it is 
 hoped that the Appendix, containing contributions which have 
 already appeared in the Methodist Review, will be found of serv- 
 ice to the student of this epistle. In the preparation of these 
 papers the Epistle to the Romans was largely employed for illus- 
 tration, and hence their appearance in this connection is not out 
 
 of harmony with the purpose of the book. 
 
 Henry A. Buttz. 
 
 Drew Theological Seminary, 
 Madison, N. J., September 9, 1895. 
 
EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS. 
 
 
 EDITORS OF THE GREEK TEXT. 
 
 
 E. 
 
 Elzevirs A. D, 
 
 , 1624. 
 
 L. 
 
 Lachmann " 
 
 1842-1850. 
 
 A. 
 
 Alford " 
 
 1871. 
 
 Tr. 
 
 Tregelles " 
 
 1857-1872. 
 
 T. 
 
 Tischendorf " 
 
 1865-1872. 
 
 W. 
 
 Westcott " 
 
 MANUSCRIPTS. 
 
 1875. 
 
 X, CODEX SinaiticuS. It belongs to the fourth century, and 
 is now in the imperial library at St. Petersburgh. A part of this, 
 manuscript, containing portions of the Septuagint, was discovered, 
 by Tischendorf, at the monastery of St. Catherine, Mount Sinai, 
 in 1844, and was published by him in 1846 under the title Codex 
 Friderico-Augustanus, in honor of his patron, Frederick Augus- 
 tus, king of Saxony. It is in the library of the University of 
 Leipzig. In 1859 Tischendorf found the remainder of this ancient 
 manuscript in the same monastery, and secured it as a present for 
 the emperor of Russia, the patron of the Greek Church. It was- 
 published at St. Petersburg in 1862, under the title Bibliorum Co- 
 dex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. In the nomenclature of Greek manu- 
 scripts the latter is known as a, and is called the Codex Sinaiticus.. 
 Tregelles says of it: "In one respect this manuscript stands alone : 
 it is the only Greek document of the highest antiquity that con- 
 tains the New Testament entire ; its importance, therefore, in the- 
 Pastoral Epistles, the latter part of the Epistle to the Hebrews,, 
 and the book of Revelation, (portions in which the Codex Vati- 
 canus is now defective,) is peculiarly great, and thus full attention 
 ought to be given to its testimony in any critical estimate of what. 
 ,yere the actual words and sentences written by the inspired au- 
 thors of the New Testament." It contains also a part of the Old. 
 Testament, the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, and a large portion* 
 of the Shepherd of Hermas in Greek. 
 
jo Explanation of Abbreviations. 
 
 A, CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. It belongs to the early part of 
 the fifth century, and is now in the library of the British Museum, 
 in London. This manuscript was sent as a present to Charles I 
 of England, in 1628, by Cyrillus Lucaris, Patriarch of Constanti- 
 nople. Little is known of its early history. Its name, Alexan- 
 drinus, was given to it because it had been brought to Constan- 
 tinople from Alexandria by Cyrillus. It contains nearly all the 
 Septuagint version of the Old Testament, and the New Testa- 
 ment, except Matthew's Gospel as far as to chapter xxv, 6 ; John 
 vi, 50 to viii, 52 ; 2 Cor. iv, 13 to xii, 6. It contains the only copy 
 extant until recently of the First Epistle of Clement of Rome to 
 the Corinthians, and a fragment of his so-called Second Epistle. 
 " This was the first manuscript of great importance and antiquity of 
 which any extensive use was made by textual critics." — Tregelles. 
 
 B, Codex VATICANUS. This great manuscript is in the Vati- 
 can Library at Rome, where it has remained, except for a briei 
 period, since the first establishment of the library by Pope Nich- 
 olas V., who died in 1455. The best critics regard it as belonging 
 to the former part of the fourth century. The collations of it by 
 Bartolocci, Bently, Birch, and the examination of many of its read- 
 ings by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and others, have been of 
 great value, and have enabled them to render invaluable service 
 in the settling of the New Testament text, as affected by this 
 manuscript. This manuscript has until recently been almost in- 
 accessible to scholars ; but it has now been published in six vol- 
 umes, after the style of the St. Petersburg edition of Codex Si- 
 naiticus. In the Old Testament the greater part of Genesis and 
 some of the Psalms are wanting ; and in the New Testament, He- 
 brews from chap, ix, 15 to the close of the book, the Pastoral Epis- 
 tles, Philemon, and the Revelation, have also been lost. Tre- 
 gelles says : " In many respects there is no manuscript of equal 
 value in criticism, so that even though we are at times in doubt as 
 to its readings, we are bound to prize highly what we do know." 
 
 C, CODEX Ephraemi. This manuscript is a Palimpsest, {Co- 
 dex Rescriptus) and is now in the Imperial Library of Paris. It 
 is regarded by the most competent authorities as belonging to the 
 fifth century. The upper writing of this manuscript was a por- 
 tion of the Greek works of Ephraem Syrus, hence its name. It 
 contains parts of the Septuagint, and all the New Testament 
 books except Second Thessalonians and Second John. Thia 
 manuscript is very highly esteemed by critics. 
 
Explanation of Abbreviations. i i 
 
 D, (in St. Paul's Epistles,) Codex Claromontanus. It is in 
 the Imperial Library of Paris. It is a Graeco-Latin manuscript, 
 and contains the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, except Rom. i, 1-7. 
 It belongs to the sixth century. Theodore Beza says that he 
 procured it from Clermont, in the diocese of Beauvais, and hence 
 it received the name which he gave it, Claromontanus. The 
 Latin version represents the vetus Latina. It is, in Tregelles's 
 opinion, " one of the most valuable manuscripts extant." 
 
 17, Codex Colbertinus, (33 in the Gospels, 17 in St. Paul's 
 Epistles, 13 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles.) It is in the Im- 
 perial Library of Paris, and belongs to the eleventh century. It 
 is "the most important cursive " manuscript now known. It con- 
 tains part of the prophets, and all the New Testament except 
 the Apocalypse. 
 
 37, Codex Leicestrensis, (69 in the Gospels, 31 in the Acts 
 and Catholic Epistles, 37 in St. Paul's Epistles, 14 in Rev.) This 
 is also a cursive manuscript, and is the property of the town coun- 
 cil of Leicester. Its date is assigned to the fourteenth century. 
 It is defective to the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, and at the 
 present time all is lost after Rev. xix, 10. " It is of far higher 
 value than not only the mass of the recent cursive copies, but 
 also than the greater part of the later uncials." — Tregelles. 
 
 GRAMMARS. 
 
 W, Dr. George Benedict Winer's Grammar of the Idiom of 
 the New Testament, prepared as a Solid Basis for the Interpre- 
 tation of the New Testament. Seventh Edition, Enlarged and 
 Improved. By Dr. Gottlieb Lunemann. The references are to 
 the excellent translation of this work by Rev. J. H. Thayer, D.D., 
 Professor in Andover Theological Seminary. It is published by 
 Warren F. Draper, Andover, 1869. 
 
 B, Alexander Buttmann's Grammar OF THE New Testa- 
 ment Greek. The references are also to Professor Thayer's 
 translation. Warren F. Draper, Andover, 1873. 
 
 MARKS IN THE TEXT AND IN THE NOTES. 
 * denotes the addition of something to the text. 
 f denotes the omission of the reading in the text. 
 % denotes a reference in the notes to a reading different from 
 that in the text. 
 
 " indicate the close of a reading begun by % or -J-. 
 
12 Explanation of Abbreviations. 
 
 ( ), inclosing a reference, show that they are not quoted on 
 either side. 
 
 [ ] indicate a doubtful reading, and also inclose a variation in 
 punctuation mark. 
 
 s after the notation of a manuscript indicates that the reading 
 is gathered from the silence of collators. 
 
 A quotation from the Old Testament is indicated by noting 
 the place whence it is probably taken in the body of the text and 
 immediately after the citation. 
 
 Marg. indicates an alternative reading to the one contained 
 in the body of the text. 
 
 The editors not quoted in favor of the changed readings are 
 to be understood as favoring the text of Stephens. 
 
 " After the notation of a manuscript a * denotes a primd manu f 
 (thus B*,) and then a numeral shows what the reading is of the 
 same manuscript when corrected ; thus B 1 would imply that the 
 correction was made by the original writer ; B 3 by a corrector ; 
 B 3 by a third hand, or second corrector." 
 
 As an example of the textual criticism take chap. 1, vs. 1. 
 We notice that the editors, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and West- 
 cott read Xpiarov 'Irjaov, and also the Codex Vaticanus ; where- 
 as the reading in the text is supported by Tregelles in the mar- 
 gin, Westcott margin, and also by the two editors not mentioned 
 on the other side, namely, Alford and Lachmann. In, this read- 
 ing they follow Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Claromontanus 
 in the Latin, (this passage is not in the Greek of D,) Colbertinus 
 and Leicestrensis. 
 
 The figures in the text refer to the grammatical references, 
 which show the page in Winer's or Buttmann's New Testament 
 grammars where the passage containing the word is quoted. 
 
IIAXAOY TOT AnO^TOAOT 
 
 h npos 
 PHMAI0T2 EniSTOAH. 
 
 HATA02 1 6ovXog % 'Itjaov Xpiarov," KXrjrbg dndoroXog, dspupiopivog 1 
 elg svayyeXtov* Geoi; 3 , ' b TrpoenrjyyeiXaro 6ia tuv irptxjyqTwv avrov 2 
 ev ypafyalg dyiaig, ' nepl tov vlov airov, tov yevopsvov Ik a-rrepfia- 3 
 rog I Aaj3t<$" Kara odpica, ' tov bpiadivrog vlov Qeov iv dvvdfiei, Kara 4 
 Hvevfia dyiuavvrjg, el 4 dvaardaeug VEtcpuv 5 , 'Itjoov Xpiarov tov Kvpiov 
 J\pG>v, ' dt' 6 ov eXd(5ofiev'' %dpiv ml dnooToXrjv elg {manorjv moreug* iv 9 5 
 jTOfft'' rolg edveoiv, vnep w tov dvoparog avrov, ' iv 11 olg lore nal 6 
 vjielg, tcXrp-ol 'Iqaov Xpiarov 12 ' naai Tolg ovaiv kv 13 'Pupy dyairipvig 7 
 Qeov, KXrp-olg dyioig u - xdpig^ vplv icai zlpf\vr\ dirb &eov narpbg ■fjfiwv 
 xal Kvpiov w 'IrjOov Xpiarov. 
 
 UpStrov pev 17 evxapiarG) t<3 9ea> pov ls did 19 'Ir/aov Xpiarov t imp" 8 
 irdvTUV vpuv, on sy ■Kiarig vptiv KarayyekXerai kv 5/lw t<3 Koo/tw' 
 udorvg yap fiov karlv 6 Qeog, a Xarpevu) £v w tg> -nvevpari fiov ev il 9 
 rw evayyeXiu tov vlov airov, ug ddiaXeinrcog pveiav vpuv noiovfiai n 
 
 Textual: Title. A.,T.,-W., IIPOS PftMAIOTS. Codd.N, A,B,C. 
 L j EIIISTOAAI IIATAOr. 
 
 ' j npos pqmaiots. 
 
 I EniSTOAAI nATAOT. 
 Tr. J 
 
 (IIP 2 PftMAIOTS!. 
 
 Chap. I, vs. 1 : Tr.T/W. Xpiarov 'Iqoov, Cod. B ; txt. Tr. marg.W.marg. Codd. H,A.,T)Lat., 
 11,31. Vs. 3 : A.L.Tr.T.W. AaveiS. Vs. 5 : A.L.T.Tr."W. naaiv. Vs. 8 : A.L.Tr.T.W. 
 mpl Codd. K,AB,C,D* 17 ; txt. Codd. D<=,37. 
 
 Grammatical: 1) Vss. 1-7: "W. 565. 2) W. 125. 3) "W. 186. 4) W. 367* 
 5) "W. 123; W. 188*. 6) W. 379. 1) W. 517; B. 131. 8) W. 120; "W. 186. 9) W. 384. 
 10) "W. 383. 11) B. 158. 12) W. 195 ; B. 169. 13) "W. 219. 14) W. 234. 15) "W. 585. 
 16) "W. 124. 17) W. 576*; B. 365.a. 18) B. 115. 19) W. 378. 20) "W. 410 
 21) W. 386... 22) W. 256; B. 193. 
 
14 EIIIZTOAH Ke 0- !* 
 
 10 ' iraVTore inl® tu>v -rrpooevx&v p.ov ds6fiEVog u , smug fj6r] ttote evoduOrj- 
 
 11 oop-ai® iv tw Belriiian tov Qeov, iXdstv npbg iymf Zmno6u> yap 
 Idelv vuag, Iva n fieradu ^aptfffia 26 vfiiv nvEvpunKov, elg % to ori\pt,%- 
 
 12 Orjvai v/tag, ' X tovto Si Ion," X avjjmapaicXrjdTJvai" iv v/uv Sid rfjg iv 
 
 13 dXXrfXoig maTEug vp&v te Kal iji,ov™- ov OeXu Si vfiag dyvoelv, 
 adefojml, on noXXaKig -rrpoedifirfv iXOslv npbg vpag, Kal 23 iKukv8rp> &xpi 
 tov Seupo, Iva X Kapirov nva" ox& nai kv vfuv, Kadug k<m 30 iv TOig Xoi- 
 
 14 noig idveacv. "EXXtjoi te Kal 31 (iapPdpoig, oo(f>olg tb Kal dvorJTOig- 
 
 15 tysiXsTTjg elfir ovto) to KaT' ip,s np60vfiov s * km vplv rolg iv 'Pw/j^ 
 
 16 svayysXioaaOai 33 . Ov yap i'naia^vvop.ai to e.vayyi\iov u ^TOv~XpiOTOv'' r 
 dvvafiig yap Qsov 35 ianv elg ocoTrjptav navrl t& ttlotevovti, 'lovSaicp 
 
 17 re t npwTov" 36 Kal "~&XXr\vt. Sikoioovvt] yap 9eo{) 37 iv avT& dnoKa- 
 XvTTTSTac ek moTBug sZf 38 manv, Kadug yiypwnTai, • 'O Si SiKaiog e« 3 * 
 
 TTlOTEUg ZTJOETai.' flab. 8. 4. 
 
 18 'AnOKAATIITETAI yap 6pyt) Qsov drr' ovpavov inl naoav doi- 
 (isiav Kal ddcKiav dvOpumuv tuv ttjv dXrjdsiav iv dSiKia KaTEXovTUV. ' 
 
 19 3i6n to yvuoTov 40 tov Qsov <f>avspov ionv iv avTOig" 6 X y«p 6eo?" 
 
 20 avToig iQavspwos- to. yap dopaTa 41 avTOV dnb KTiosog® Koafiov 43 Tolg 
 Tioirifiaoi 4 * voov/isva KaQopa/rai 45 , »jf re 46 dtSiog ovtov Svvafug Kal 0bi6- 
 
 21 Tj/f 47 , eig 4 * to slvat avTwg dva-noXoyryrovg. Sion yvovTsg tov Qeov r 
 oi>% &g Qsov kSol-aoav ?/ X evxapiaTTjoav" 49 , X dXX'" ifiaTaiudrjoav iv 
 Tolg SiaXoyia\i6ig avTwv, Kal ioKonadrj fj dovvsrog 50 avTuv mpSia' ' 
 
 „o 4>do~KOVTEg slvat aocj>ol 51 ipMpdvdrjoav, ' Kal rjXXai-av® ttjv Sogav tov 
 dcpddpTov Qeov iv 53 d/wia/ian slxdvog (pdaprov 54 dvdpunov Kal ttetbivuv 
 
 24 Kal TETpandduv Kal ipneruv. dtb t Kal" TtapiduKBv avTOvg 6 Qsbg ev 55 
 Taig imOvfiiaig tuv Kapdtuv avTibv Big m aKadapalav, tov dnfid^EodaL 57 
 
 25 t<z cdjfiaTa avTibv iv X iavTolg"' oinvsg fiBTrjXXa^av tt/v dXrjdstav tov 
 
 Textual: Vs. 12: L. marg. tovtsotiv. | A.T.W. ovvKapa.K.lii8rp><u. Vs. 13: A.L.Tr. 
 T."W. nva Kapwbv, Codd. S,A,B,C,D, 17,37. Vs. 16 : A.L.Tr.T.W. om. tov Xpiorov, Codd. 
 X,A,B,C,D*17; txt. Codd. D',37. | "W. marg. om. wpurov, Cod. B ; [L.Tr. marg. jrpurov] ; 
 tat. Codd. S,A,C,D,17,37. Vs. 19 : A.L.Tr.T:W. *e6f yap, Codd. X,A,B,C,D*,17,37 ; trt. 
 Cod. IX Vs. 21 : A.L.Tr.T.W. yvxapLoTyoav, Codd. N,A,C,(D),17,37 ; txt Cod. B. | Tr.W. 
 a?,Xa, Cod. B; tat. Codd. S,A,C,D. Vs. 24: L.Tr.T.W. om. (tot, Codd. S,A,B,C,17; 
 [A. Kac]- tat. Codd. D,37. | A.L.Tr.T."W. avTOle, Codd. S,A,B,C,D* ; tat. Codd. D°,17 s ,37. 
 
 Grammatical: 23) "W. 376*; B. 336. 24) B. 256. 25) "W. 300. 26) W. 198* 
 27) B. 265. 28) W. 155 ; B. 117. 29) W. 562. 30) "W. 440. 31) "W. 439. 32) "W. 230 
 W. 235. 33) W. 223. 34) W. 221. 35) W. 247*. 36) W. 576. 37) "W. 186*. 
 38) W. 396.a; "W. 419. 39) W. 136*; "W. 513. 40) "W. 235*. 41) "W. 235*. 42) "W. 125. sb . 
 43) "W. 123. 44) W. 216.d. 45) "W. 638. 46) "W. 439. 47) W. 128.2 ; B. 99. 48) B. 265*. 
 49) W. 71.b, B. 34. 50) "W. 624*. 51) "W. 321 ; B. S78. 52) "W. 206. 53) "W. 388*. 
 54)^.524. 55) W. 417*; "W. 387. 56) "W. 213; W. 417*. 57) "W. 263 ; "W. 326 ; B. 26S. 
 
Ke<t>. 1, 2. nP02 PS2MAIOT2. Iff 
 
 9eoii li/ tw ipevfae, Kai kaefidadijaav Kai kXarpevaav t'q kt'ioei napd® 
 rbv KTiaavra, og kanv 19 evXoyrjTbg elg Toi)g al&vag. dfirjv, ' 6ta tovto 2fr 
 TTapeSuKev avrovg 5 Qebg elg nadr/ dnfiLag 60 ' at ts yap OrjXeiai avrcov 
 \ierr\XXa^av rfjv <j>vaiKrjv xPV mv e k T W ?rapa 61 <j>voiv bfioiug X re" 27 
 Kal m ol t dppeveg" dcfievTeg rrjv <f>vetKT}v xpfjaiv T W OrjXeiag, efy.KavQr\aav 
 iv m t§ dpel-et avT&v elg dXXrjXovg, %apoeveg" u ev Xdpaeai" rfjv da%r\- 
 p,oavvr[t> Karepya^onevoi,, Kai rfjv dvnfitadiav rjv edet Trjg nXavr/g avruv 
 kv kavroig aTroXa[i(3dvovTBg. Kai KaOug ovk kdoKifiaoav* 5 tov Qebv 28" 
 e%eiv ev emyvuaei, napeduKev avrovg 6 Qebg elg ddoKifiov vovv, ttoleXv 
 to, (irj KadrJKOVTa 66 , ' nenXripuiisvovg ndarj dSiKia* 1 , t iropveia", X novr/- 29 
 pia, nXeovel-ia, Kania"' fieoTobg® QOovov, <j>6vov m , epidog, doXov, KaKorj- 
 deiag' tliiOvpiordg, icaraXaXovg, OeooTvyeig, vppiardg, vneprjcpdvovg, 30= 
 dXa^ovag, e<pevperdg kokuv, yovevaiv 70 dneiOeig, ' aavverovg, davvde- 31 
 rovg n , doropyovg, t danovdovg'' ', dveXerjuovag' otnveg to dinaicona tov 32: 
 Beov X Imyvovreq'"' 2 , on ol rd™ roiavra npdaaovTeg aS-ioi 1 * 6avdrov 7i 
 elolv, ov fi6vov aiird X noiovaiv", dXXd Kai X avvevdoKovat" rolg ttpdo- 
 aovai. 
 
 AIO dvaTToXoyiyrog el, w avOpame 1 nag 6 Kpivuv 2 - ev 3 w yap Kpivetg 2 
 tov erepov, aeavTov KaTaKpiveig' to, yap avTd npdaaeig 6 icpivuv, 
 oidapev X <5e" on to X Kpl[ia" tov Qeov kan Kara* dXrjdeiav km Toijg rd 2 
 TOtavTa npaaaovTag. Aoyi^rf Se tovto 6 , w dvdpu)TTe' ! 6 Kpivuv Toiiq rd 5 
 Toiavra TtpdaaovTag Kai not&v aiird, 'on ffii 8 eK(f>evi~q T <> Xnplfm" tov 
 Qeov ; rj tov txXovtov Trjg xpTjGTOTrjTog 9 avrov Kai Trjg dvoxrjg Kai Tr\g 4 
 p.aKpoQv\dag KaTO/ppoveig, dyvoGyv on to xP r ) aT ° vl ° T °v Qeov elg fierd- 
 voidv ae dyei ; Kara 11 3e Trjv OKXrjpoTTjTd aov Kai dfieTavoT/TOV Kapdlav 5- 
 Orjaavpi^eig oeavrGt dpyrjv ev u rmepa dpyfjg 13 Kai dnoKaXvipeug diKaio- 
 
 Textijal: Vs. 27: L.Tr. marg. W. (5e, Codd.- A,D*,1T ; W. marg. om. <5f, Cod. C, or re, 
 Codd. N,B,D**",37. | E.A.L.Tr.W. apoevec;, Godd. B,D* ; txt Codd. X,A,0,D C ,17,37. | 
 T. uppevec:, Codd. S* A,C,lt ; txt. Codd. s»,B,D,37. | T. uppeoiv, Codd. S* A,l 7 ; txt. Codd. 
 N",B,C,D,37. Ts. 29 : A.L.Tr.T.W. om. nopveia, Codd. S,A,B,C,17. | L.W. aania, novnpi<f, 
 nXeove&p, Codd. C, 17 ; W. marg. novr/piy, nteovetjia, xaxia, Cod. B, or KaKig., wopvelq., 
 nfaovel-ip, Cod. D*; T. Tcovr/pia, Katdq., ■Kleove&if, Codd. X,A. Vs. 31: A.L.Tr.T.W. om. 
 acmovSovc, Codd. X*,A,B,D*; txt. Codd. S«,C,D' ! ,37. Vs. 32: W.marg. kmytvCxTKovTeg. | 
 L. marg. Tr. marg. tcoiovvtcc . . . avvevSoKovvrec. Chap. 2, vs. 2 : L. marg. Tr. marg. T 
 yap, Codd. $,0,11,31 ; txt. Codd. A,B,D. | T.W. Kpt/ta. Vs. 3 : T.W. Kpljia. 
 
 Grammatical: 58) "W. 404. o . 59) B. 137. 60) W. 237. b ; B. 161. 61) "W. 404.b. 
 62) B. 361*. 63) W. 417. 64) B. 7. 65) "W. 638. 66) "W. 480 ; B. 350. 67) "W. 120 f 
 W. 217 ; B. 164. 68) B. 402. 69) "W. 553 ; "W. 637. 70) B. 89.c. 71) "W. 553 ; W. 637. 
 72) W. 344*. 73) B. 87. 74) W. 206. 75) W. 123. 1) "W. 183.3; B. 140. 2)"W. 135; 
 W. 533; B. 141. 3) "W. 387*. 4) W. 401.». 5) W. 509. 6) W. 161*; B. 105. 
 1)W. 183.s; B. 140. 8) "W. 152; B. 132. 9) "W. 190. 10) W. 235. 11) W. 402.u 
 12) W. 417*. 13) "W. 188*. 
 
16 EniSTOAH K«#. 2 
 
 ? Kptaiag u tov Qeov, ' 8? d-noS6aei l/taarcj koto to, epya avrov. Tolg fdv 
 tad' vitoiiov7jv Ipyov 15 dyaOov d6l-av u Kal Tip/fpi Kal dQdapaiav tyrovoi, 
 
 8 £(07jv aluvtov. Tolg tie iif 17 tpiQelag, Kal dimQwoO* \\kv" t§ dXr\dda, 
 
 9 neiOofievois de t$ dSwia, X 6viJ.bg 19 icai ipyrj", ' X OXtyig" Kal orevoxupia, 
 knl Ttaaav ipvxflv* 1 dvdpwnov tov KaTepya^ofiivov to kokov, 'lov6aiov a 
 
 10 Te 7rpwToi> 22 ml "EXXrjvog' 66i-a 6e Kal tijitj Kal elpfp/r\ navn t<o epyar 
 
 11 fyp-evG) to dyaOov, 'lovdaitjt re •np&TOV Kal "EWjjw ov yap® ion 
 
 12 X TtpooomoXt^ia" napa 2 * t<3 Ge«. 5aoi yap 25 dvo/iug fjfiapTov, dvopcog 
 Kal dnoXovvTai®' Kal 5aoi ev 31 v6fjui) w rjfiapTov, dia w vop.ov KptOrjaovrai, 
 
 18 ' ot> 30 ydp 31 ol aKpoaral \tov" vopov SiKaioi Trapd 33 +t<J)" 6«j>, dXX' ol 
 
 14 iroiTjTal t tov" vojuou (JittatcdOjjoWTtM. ("Orav ydp e0v»7 rd 33 ju^ v6pm> 
 exovra (pvoet, to toii vopov X noty" 3 *, X ovToi" m vopov jtwp exovTeg, kav- 
 
 15 Tolg slot vopog' olnveg ivdeiKVvvTai to epyov tov vopov ypanrbv ev 
 Talg Kapdiaig avr&v, X ovpjiaprvpovoT)g'' avT&v Trjg ovveidrjoeug 37 , Kal 
 peTagv dXXrjXuv t&v Xoyiop&v KaTTjyopovvTUV ^ M Kal dnoXoyovfiivuv.) 
 
 16 ' ev i)pepa X ore" Kpivel 6 Geo? Ta Kptmrd tuv dvOpunruv, Kara i b 
 evayyiXiov fiov, 6id \ 'Itjoov XpiOTOv". 
 
 17 X "Ioe" 39 av 'lovddlog knovofid^q, Kal inavarravy t tw" vdftu, Kal 
 
 18 Kavxdaat 40 ev a Gew 42 , ' Kal ytvumeig® to OeXrjpa, Kal doKtpd^eig to 
 
 19 diacpepovTa, KaTTjxovpevog &k tov vopov nenoiddg te aeavTOV 4 * bSrfyav 
 
 20 elvai TV(f>Xu>v, 0a)?* 5 rav iv OK&rei, ' naidevTrjv dcj>p6vuv, SiSdoKaXov 
 vrpriuv, exovra ttjv fiopc/Mooiv Trjg yvdoeug Kal Tj\g dXrfielag ev r& 
 
 ■21 v6\m~ 6 ovv diddanMV trepov, aeavrbv ov SiddoKeig ; 6 KTjpvoowv /m) 46 
 ■22 kXbtiteiv*', KXenreig® ; ' 6 Xeyuv jj,rj poixeveiv, fioixeveig ; 6 (ideXvooo- 
 
 Textual : Ta. 8 : L.Tr.T.W. om. /ilv, Codd. S*B,D* ; tart. W. marg. Codd. X°,A,D«,1 I 7,37. 
 | A.L.Tr.T.W. bpyri ml &vfi6(, Codd. X,A,B,D*,3T; txt. Codd. D',l1,. Ys. 9: A.L. 
 Tr.W. i9X(V«c- "Vs. 11: A.L.Tr.T.W. ■KpoounolTitn\>la. Ys. 13: A.L.Tr.T.W. om. tov, Codd. 
 N,A,B,D; txt. Codd. 17., 37. | Tr/W. marg. om. Tij, Codd. B,D* ; [L.Tr. marg.] ; txt. Codd. 
 J5,A,D°,17,37. | A.L.Tr.T."W. om. tov, Codd. X : A,B,D* ; txt. Codd. D«,17,37. Ys. 14: 
 A.L.Tr.T."W. iroiaaiv, Codd. X,A,B ; txt. Codd. D°,37. | L. marg. ol towvtoi. Ys. 15 : T.W. 
 •ovvftapTvpouoiic. Ys. 16: A.L.W. marg. %, Cod. A; Tr. marg. iv y yfiepa, Cod. B; txt. 
 €odd. X,D,17,37. | T.Tr. marg. "W. marg. Xpiarov 'Iqoov. Vs. 17: E. 'He; A.L.Tr.T.'W. 
 El ic, Codd. S,A,B,D*; txt. Codd. D«,17,37. | A.L.Tr.T.'W". om. r^j, Codd. N,A,B,D*; 
 txt. Codd. D C ,17,37. 
 
 Grammatical: 14) "W. 125. ]5) ~W. 187*. 16) W. 519. 17) W. 424.d. 18) B. 9. 
 19) B. 384*. 20) W. 156*. 21) W. 552. 22) W. 576*. 23) W. 447. d . 24) "W". 395 
 25) "W. 447.d. 26) B. 64. 27) W. 386*. 28) W. 123. 29) W. 378. 30) Vss. 13-15 
 W. 565*. 31) W. 447.d. 32) W. 186*; B. 188. 33) W. 139*; B. 93. 34) "W. 309 
 35) W. 141 . 2 ; B. 106; B. 282. 36) "W. 483.^; W. 556*. 37) W. 580*. 38) W. 440. 6 . 
 39) W. 569; B. 386. 40) W. 76; B. 42. 41) W. 233. d . 42) W. 122. 43) W. 263. 
 44) W. 321. 45) W. 520. 46) W. 48U; B. 350. 47) W 322*- B. 274. 48) ~W. 508.». 
 
Ks0. 2, 3. HPOS PfiMAIOTS. 17 
 
 fievog to, elduXa, lepoovXelg ; bg iv 43 vdjuw 50 Kavx&oai? 1 , did Ttjg napa- 23 
 fiaaeug tov vdfiov tov Qeov dnud^eig ; l To yap 6vop,a tov Qeov dt' 24 
 ifidg (SXacnpTjuelTai iv rolg fOveai,' Kadibg yeypanrai. iso. ss. 6. TLept- 25 
 to/m) fiev yap &cf>eXei, iav vofiov irpdaayg 52 - kdv 6e napapdrrjg vofiov yg, 
 f) nepiTop.rj oov aKpofivona yeyovev. iav ovv r\ aKpofivona 63 rd SiKai- 26 
 iOfiaTa tov vofiov <f>vXdooxi, J ov%i" r\ aKpofivona avTov 54 elg neptTOfii)v m 
 Xoy lodrjoeTai® I; nal KpiveZ J) e« (jrvoeug dupofivona, tov vofiov re- 27 
 X-ovoa 01 , ae tov (Jta 58 ypdfi/iaTog nal TrepiToiirjg, napa(3aT7p> vofiov : ' oi> 69 28 
 yap 60 6 kv t<3 <pavep& 'lovdalog* 1 konv, ovde t\ kv tQ cpavepu iv aapul 
 ■nepiTop,r)- % dXX'" 6 62 kv t« KpvnT& 'lovdalog, nai nepiTOurj itapdiag 29 
 kv -nvevfian, oil ypdfifian- oi 6 e-muvog ovk ii; dvOpurrrow, t dXX'" sk 
 tov Qeov. 
 
 TV ovv to nepioobv tov 'lovdaiov 1 , rj Tig t\ uxjteXeia rfjg nepiTOfirjg ; 3 
 -rroXv, icaTa ndvTa Tponov. TtpStTov p,ev 2 t yap" 3 on kmoTevdrjoav* t& 2 
 Xoyia 5 tov Qeov. n yap, el ^moTrjodv nveg , (iff r\ dmoTia e avT&v 3 
 ttjv nioTiv tov Qeov naTapyijaet ; ' fifj 7 yevoiro' yiveodu 6e 6 Qebg <i/U/- 4 
 dr^g, nag 6e s avdpumog tpevOTTjg, J nadug" yeypanTai, ' "Oirug av 9 dttcaiu- 
 tiyg kv Tolg X&yoig aov, Kal tvuctfoyg" 10 iv tu> Kpiveadai ae.' Psa. so. e, (5i. •*.) 
 EZ tie rj ddutla ^fiuv Qeov 11 diKaioovvrjv ovvIottjol, t'i ipovfiev ; urj n 5 
 adtKog 6 Qebg 6 kmipepuv Tf]v dpyrjv ; Kara 13 avdpunov Xey<xt u - firj u ye- 6 
 voito- knei le niog KpiveZ 17 6 Qebg tov kog/iov ; ' el { yap" 7) aXrfieia tov 1 
 Qeov iv t& i/iti ipevo[iaTi knepiooevoev elg Tffv doijav avTov, tl £ti 
 Kdyu (bg d/iapTO)Xbg Kpivouai ; Kal fif) icadcog $Xao~tyr\fhov\i,eQa, t nal" 8 
 KaOdg (paoi nveg rfuag Xeyeiv, ' "On noirjoufiev™ Ta nana Iva eXOy 19 Ta 
 dyadd ; ' &v to t Kplfia" evSiKov ion. 
 
 Tt ovv ; npoex6fieda w ; oil®- ndvTUg- Tcpoqnaodiieda yap lovSaiovg 9 
 ^e Kal "tUXXrjvag iravrag® t ixp'"^ a/iapnav 2 * elvai, ' KaOwg yeypanTai, 10 
 
 Textual: Vs. 26: L.Tr.T.'W. marg. oi>x- "Vs. 29: L.Tr.W. Ma; txt. L. marg. | 
 Tr. a?M. Chap. 3, vs. 2 : L.Tr.W. marg. om. yap, Codd. B,D* ; [A.] ; txt. Codd. N,A,D , 
 IT, 37. Vs. 4: Tr.T/W. marg. xaBdnep, Codd. X,B; txt Codd. A,D. | L.marg. Tr.marg. 
 T.W. marg. vinous, Codd. N,A,D,17 ; txt. Codd. B,37. Vs. 7 : T.W. marg. Si. Vs. 8 ; 
 "W.marg. om. Kal; [Tr.marg.] | T.W. icpl/w. Vs. 9: Tr. marg. vnb. % Chap. 2, vs. 26 : 
 
 Grammatical: 49) W. 233.d. 50) "W. 123. 51) B. 42. 52) W. 293.1.. 53) B. 122. 
 
 14) "W. 145 ; B. 106.* 55) W. 228 ; B. 151. 56) W. 259. d ; W. 293. 57) "W. 134. *; 
 W. 343.2*. 58) W. 380* 59) W. 488. 60) "W. 454*. 61) "W. 584*; B. 392*. 
 •62) W. 116. 1) W. 174.1. 2) "W. 575.y; B. 365.d. 3) W. 454. t 4) "W. 260.„*. 
 6) W. 229; B. 190. 6) "W. 638. 7) B. 248. 8) W. 442. 9) "W. 310; B. 234. 
 10) B. 214.3. 11) "W. 122. 12) W. 511; B. 248. 13) "W". 402. 14) W. 563. 
 
 15) "W. 500... 16) W. 480; B. 233; B. 359. 17) W. 279; B. 218. 18) W. 628. d *; 
 B. 245. 19) "W. 287.0. 20) "W. 258* ; W. 264*. 21) W. 554; B. 389. 22) W. 548. 
 23) W. 407.k ; B. 341. 24) "W. 120. 
 
 2 
 
18 EIIISTOAH K-a?.. 3 
 
 11 ' "On ovk eon dkaiog ovde 26 elg' ovk eanv ttf' 26 t owluv" 27 , ovk eanv 
 
 12 t6" X kHgrjTwv" rbv Qeov. -ndvreg kl-enXivav, apa trjXP el ^ T l aav "' °^ le 
 
 13 Ian *noiuv w xprjororTiTa, \ ovk eanv" Hug kvog. rd<pog dveuyfievog & 
 Xdpvyg avruv, ralg yXuaaacg avruv i3oXiovaav w - log domduv imb 3 ** 
 
 15 T " %£<-Xr\ avruv ' Srv rb ar6[ia * dpag nal mKplag ye/iei. dfelg oi 
 
 16 nodeg avruv iK%eai alfw,' avvrpififia nal raXamupia ev ralg bddig av- 
 .„ ruv ' Kal 66bv elprjvrjg ovk eyvuaav. ovk eon (pofiog Qeov sl dtre- 
 
 vavn ruv dcpdaXfubv avruv.' i»»n. is. «, <i4. g )t r>. 10, (5. »>-, 9. as, <io. rniao. 
 
 19 69. 7; Psa. 85. S, (86. 1.) OlddflSV 6t OTl OOd 6 VOUOg XijEl, TOig &V T<3 VO[Mj> 
 
 XaXel' Iva 7rov 33 arofia (ppayq, Kal vnodiKog yevr/rai nag b Koa^iog t« 
 
 20 0e<3. 6wn tf epyuv vofiov ov diKaiudrjoerai TtaoaP oapl; kvumov M av- 
 rov- 8id yap vofiov emyvuaig a/iapriag. 
 
 21 Nvvl 6e %uplg vofiov 6iKatoovvr) Beov 35 ne^avepurai 36 , fiaprvpov- 
 
 22 fievrj vnb rov vofiov Kal ruv npocpTjruv 8iKaioavvr\ 6e m Qeov 6ia ma- 
 reug i'lrjoov" Xpiorov, elg^ ndvrag t Kal knl 39 ndvrag" rovg morev- 
 
 23 ovrag- ov yap eon diaoroXrj' ' ndvreg yap fjuaprov®, Kal varepovvrai 
 
 24 rrjg dofyg* 1 rov Qeov, ' diKaiovi^evot 42 dupeav ry avrov 43 %dpm^, did 4 * 
 
 25 rrjg dnoXvrpuaeug rrjg ev Xpiaru 'Irjaov, ' bv npoedero 6 Qebg iXaarrj- 
 piov m (M 47 1 rrjg" niareug ev tu avrov® 1 alpart, elg 49 evdeigiv rrjg diKai- 
 
 26 oavvrjg avrov, did rfjv ndpeaiv ruv npoyeyovoruv duaprrjpMruv ' ev 
 rig dvo%xj rov Qeov, npbg m * ttvdeit-iv rrjg diKacoavvr/g avrov ev tu vvv 
 Kaipu, elg to elvai, 51 avrov dimiov Kal SiKaiovvra rbv bk mareug 'Itj- 
 
 27 aov. ' Tlov ovv r) K-avxqaig ; k^eKXeiaQt). did nrolov vofiov ; twv 52 ep- 
 
 28 yuv ; ov%t, dXXa 8id vo\wv mareug. Xoyt^6fj.e6a t ovv", | marei 63 diKai- 
 
 29 ovodai" avdpunov, %uplg epyuv vdfMov. r) 'Iovdaluv M 6 Qebg \\i6vov'' : 
 
 Textual: Va. 11: L.Tr. marg. "W. marg. om. 6; [TV.] | L.Tr.W. avviuv. | W. marg. om. 
 6 ; [L.Tr. marg.] | Tr. marg. frruv. Vs. 12 : L. marg. Tr.T. TixP e " s V<"^, Codd. X,A,B* D* ; 
 txt. Codd. B 2 ,D»,17,3'7. | T.W.marg. add 6, Codd. N,D; [Tr.marg.]; txt. Codd. A,B. | 
 W. marg. om. oiik Ibtlv, Cod. B. Vs. 14: W. marg. add avruv, Codd. H,Vl ; [L.] 
 Vs. 22: W.marg. om. 'Irjaav, Cod. B; txt. K,C,D,17,37. | L.Tr.T.W. om. nal km iravrae, 
 Codd.S* A,B,C; [A.]; txt. W. marg. M«,D,lt,37. Vs. 25: A.L-Tr.T.W. om. rift, Codd. 
 N,C*,D*; "W. marg. om. Sia morsus; txt. B,C s D c ,l'i 1 3V. Vs. 26: AL.Tr.T.W. add Tqv, 
 Codd. S,A,B,C,D* ; txt. D°,37. Vs. 28 : A.L.Tr.T.W. -yap, Codd. X,A,D* ; txt. A. marg. 
 Tr. marg. W. marg. Codd. B,G,D',11,31. | AL.Tr.T.W. SiKaiova&ai niarei. Vs. 29. "W. 
 fiovuv ; txt. TV. marg. 
 
 Grammatical: 25) W. 113; B. 121.1. 26) "W. 109; B. 295.e. 21) "W. 81; B. 48. 
 28) B. 312. 29) W. 11; B. 43. 30) "W. 40T. 31) \V. 185A. 32) W. 110A 
 33) W. 171. 34) B. 188. 35) W. 186*. 36) W. 271. 37) "W. 443.b. 38) W. 418.6* 
 39) W. 418*. 40) "W. 274. 41) W. 201. b . 42) W. 352*. 43) B. 116. 44) "W. 216.d. 
 45) "W. 217*. 46) W. 96; "W. 228; W. 527. 6 . 47) "W. 378. 48) B. 116. 49) W. 412. 
 60) "W. 412. 51) B. 265.4. 52) "W. 116. 53) TV. 120. 54) TV. 192*. 
 
Ke4>. 3, 4. nPOS PfiMAIOTS. 19 
 
 ovxl X SI" itai Idv&v ; val Kal idvuv ' X knelnep" 55 elg 6 &eog, bg ducat- 30 
 waet 56 nepiToiJ,fjv m kit irioreug, Kal dKpo^variav dtd 68 rrjg mareug. 
 vopov'® ovv KaTapyovftev did Tr\g niareug ; p) yevono' aXXd voiiov® 31 
 X lor&nev"* 1 . 
 
 TI ovv kpovfiev 'Afipaafi 1 tov X Trarepa" ffli&v X ebprjuevai"* Kara odp- 4 
 Ka ; el yap 'Afipaajj, ef epyuv kdiKaubOr], £^« 8 Ka ^X r ]l Ml ) <^-' ov n P°G * 2 
 t tov" 0e6V. rt yap ■fj ypacpfj Xer/ei ; ' 'EiutTTewe 5 (J£ 6 'Afipaa/j, t<3 6ea>, b 
 «a£ iXoyiaOrf avrui elg ScKatoavvrp^.' e™. is. «. T<3 tie ipya£o\i£vuP 4 
 6 9 fiiodbg ov Xoyi&Tai 10 koto 11 X&piv, aXXd Kara t to" 6(j>elXrnJ,a' rut 5 
 (Je ju^ 13 Ipyafoftevw, 7KOTevovTt 13 6e km tov dmaiovvra tov J aoefirj", 
 Xoyi^erat u jJ moTig avTOV elg diKaioovvqv. naddnep Kal X Aa/3i(5" 6 
 Aeyet tov fiaKapiap,bv tov dvQpumov, u> 6 Be.bg Xoyl^erai dtKaioavvrfv 
 X^plg epyuv, ' ' Ma/captot 15 wv 16 dcped'qoav 1 '' al dvo/dat, Kal uv kmKa- 7 
 Xvtjydrjaav al dfiapriai. fianapiog 1 * avrjp X w" oi> 19 fi?) Xoyiarfrai 20 Kv- 8 
 otof dfiapriav.' Psb. si. i, s, (82. i, s.) '0 fiaKapiaubg 21 ovv ovTog km ttjv 9 
 •vepiTOfirjv®, rj Kal knl 23 Trjv u dfcpoPvoriav ; Xeyofiev yap t 8ti" eXo- 
 yiadrf* tw 'A/3padjit ■!] nlarig elg diKaioovvrjv. nfig ovv kXoylodrj ; Iv 26 10 
 iregiToy,^ ovti, rj ev 27 aKpofivoTia ; oi>k £v rrepiTopJq, dXX' kv dnpofiva- 
 ri<r Kal ar\\ielov eXa[5e X TreptTop}?" 28 , a<ppayida rrjg 8iKaioovvr\g rrjg 11 
 moreug rrjg iv t%j aKpofivoria- elg 21 to elvai avTbv naTepa tt&vtuv twv 
 marevovTUv X di'" so dKpo(3voTiag, elg to Xoyiodrjvai t KaH' aindlg X ttji/' 
 diKacoavvrjv Kal naripa nepiTOfirjg, TOig ovk 31 ka nepiTOfifjg fiovov, dXXd 12 
 Kal TOtg otoi%ovo~i Tolg ixveai 32 Trjg 33 kv t t§" aKpofivoTia nloTeug tov 
 
 Textual : Vs. 29 : A.L.Tr.T.W. om. Si. Vs. 30 : L.Tr. el nep ; A.T."W. elirep. Vs. 31 : 
 A.L.Tr.T.W. lordvofiev. Chap. 4, vs. 1 : A.L.Tr.T.W. npondropa, Codd. X*,A,B,G* ; txt. 
 "W.marg. Codd. X»,C 3 ,D,17,37. | L.Tr.T.W. eipyitivai before 'kfipaup, Codd. SA,C,D; A. 
 Tr.marg. [eipriicevai] ; W. marg. om. ivpyictvai, Cod. B; tzt. Codd. 17,37. Vs. 2 : AL.Tr. 
 T."W. om. tov. Vs. 4: A.L.Tr.T.W. om. to. Vs. 5: T. aaepfiv. Vs. 6: A.L.Tr.T."W. 
 Aaveld. Vs. 8: L. marg. Tr.T.W. oi, Codd. X*,B,D*; txt. W.marg. Codd. H", A,C,I)°,17, 
 37. Vs. 9: Tr.T.W. marg. om. 5tl, Codd. X,B,D* ; [L.] ; txt. Codd. A,C,D 3 . Vs. 11 : 
 W. wepiTo/ir/v, Codd. A,C*,37 marg. corr. ; txt. W.marg. Codd. X,B,C 2 ,D,17,37 marg. | 
 L.Tr. marg. Sia ; txt. L. marg. | Tr.T.W. om. Kal, Codd. N* A,B ; [A] ; txt. W. marg. 
 Codd. X e ,C,D. | L.marg. eig; T. om. ryv. Vs. 12: AL.Tr.T.W. om. ry. 
 
 Grammatical: 55) W. 448. 56) W. 280*. 57) B. 122. 58) W. 411. 59) W. 123*. 
 60) W. 609. 61) W. 87. 1) W. 113. 2) W. 334; W. 508. 3) W. 306.a*. 4) B. 340. 
 5) B. 173.s. 6) W. 453. *. 7) W. 523*; B. 134. 8) W. 35. 9) W. 108.1,; B. 88. 
 10) B. 53. 11) W. 402*. 12) W. 483... 13) B. 174.4. 14) B. 53*. 15) B. 137. 
 16) B. 105. 17) W. 81; B. 48.i. 18) W. 585. 19) B. 136. 20) W. 506; B. 214. 
 21) W. 587*; B. 138; B. 394.b. 22) W. 695. 23) W. 409; W. 420. 24) W. 129. 
 25) W. 321* 26) W. 386. 27) W. 420 ; B. 342. 28) W. 190 ; W. 531. 29) B. 264. 
 »0) W. 380. 31) W. 555*; B. 350. 32) W. 219; B. 184.b. 33) W. 133. 
 
20 EniSTOAH Ke<t>. 4, 5. 
 
 13 narpbg rj/xuv 'APpadpP*. Ov ydp m did vopov™ fj frnayyeXia r& 'Af3pa- 
 ap, rp 7 ™ onepfiari avrov, to Khr\porv6\iov avrbv elvcu 3 * irov" /cdofiov, 
 
 14 dXXd did diKaioovvrjg niareug 99 . el yap 40 ol e« vo/iov 41 KXT)pov6p,oi, 
 
 15 KEKevurai 42 fj mang, km KarijpyijTai i\ inayyeXia- 5 yap 43 vo/iog 44 6p- 
 
 16 yfjv Karepyd^eraf ov Xydp" ovk & eon vofiog, ovde 46 irapafiaoig. did 
 rovro 47 ek, niaTEwg 4 *, lva m Kara %dpiv, elg 10 to elvai (jefiaiav 51 ttjv enay- 
 yeXiav navrl ru> onepfwrri, ov tw in rov vo/mov p,6vov, dXXd nai t<3 Ik 
 
 17 rrioreug 'Afipadp,, og ion nartjp ndvruv r\pM>v, ' (jeadug yeypanrai, 
 ' "On narepa noXX&v kdv&v redeiKa ere,') Gen. «■. s. Karevavn ov m enio- 
 revoe Qeov, tov &onoLOvvrog rovg veKpovg, teal KaXovvrog rd pyf) ovra dig 
 
 18 8vra. "Of -nap 1 eXnida \ kit'" iXttldi sTtiorevoev, elg 53 to yeveoOai av- 
 rbv -narepa ttoXX&v edvuv, Kara to elpr/fievov ' Ovrug M eorai rb 
 
 19 anepfia oov' «en. 16. s. ' Kal fi7j m dodevrjoag r%j niorei, t ov" 66 Karevo- 
 i\oe to kavrov o&fia ^fjSri" veveKputph>ov, kKarovraerrig 3 ' ttov imapx^w 
 
 20 Kal rf)v veupwaiv rijg (iip-pag ILdppag- elg de Trjv enayyeXiav rov Qeov 
 ov dieKpidrj rq ditioria m , \ dXV ivedwapwdr] r%i Trtoret 69 , doiig dot-av rai 
 
 21 0ew, ' t KaX' TrXrjpotpopTjdelg 5ri 8 InrjyyeXrai, Svvarog bsn Kal Ttoirjoai 
 
 23 dib t Kal" iXoyiodrf avrui elg diKaioovvrp>. Ovk eypd\pr] de di' avrbv pA- 
 
 24 vov, on eXoyiodrj avrui- dXXd Kal di' fi/iag, nig fieXXei Xoyi&oOai, rolg 
 
 25 morevovoiv® knl tov eyeipavra 'h/oovv rov Kvpiov tytiv Ik veKpwv®, ' bg 
 iraped6dr\ did rd napanTUfiara fjfi&v, Kal rfyepdr/ did rrjv dimlwoiv fjfi&v. 
 
 5 AIKAIS20ENTE2; ovv Ik niareug, elprjvrjv J e%o\iev" npbg 1 rov Bebv 
 
 2 did 2 rov Kvpiov ^fiwv 'Irjaov Xpiarov, ' oV ov Kal rrjv irpooayur/rfv 
 e.o%r\Ka\iev t r^ iriorei" 3 elg rrjv %dpiv ravTTjv kv $ karTjKa^iev 4 - Kal 
 
 3 Kav%u>ii,eOa erf 5 kXnidi rfig dotyg tov Qeov. ov fiovov 6 <Je, dXXd Kal 
 I Kavx&pzQa" ev 1 raig OXtyeotv, eldoreg on i] X OXixpig" vnopovrjv Karep- 
 
 Textual: Vs. 13: A.L.Tr.T.W. om. tov. Vs. 15: A.L.Tr.T."W. ie, Codd. X*,A,B,C; 
 txt. "W. marg. Codd. S°,D. Vs. 18: L. if. Vs. 19 : L.Tr.T.W. om. ov, Codd. >5,A,B,C; 
 [A.] ; txt. TV. marg. Codd. D,17,37. ] T.W. om. ^Sv/, Cod. B ; [A.L.Tr. marg.] ; tit. W. 
 marg. Codd. S.AC.D.IT.ST. Vs. 20 : Tr.W. &M.h. Vs. 21: "W. marg. om. koj. Vs. 22: 
 W. om. Kal ; [A.L.Tr.] ; txt. W. marg. Chap. 5, vs. 1 : A.L. marg. Tr.T.'W. Ixvyxv, Codd. 
 N*,A,B*,C,B,1'7,3T ; txt. W. marg. Codd. X a ,B 5 . Vs. 2 : AM. marg. om. ry wlarei, Codd, 
 B,D; [L.Tr.]; txt. Codd. X,A,C,1V,37. Vs. 3: A.Tr."W. ^av^evoj, Codd. B,C; txt 
 Tr. marg. ~W. marg. Codd. X,A,D. | A.L.Tr."W. ■dllfif. 
 
 Grammatical: 34) W. 534. 35) W. 4A1*; W. 453*. 36) W. 123. 37) W. 441, 
 38) W. 320. 39) W. 186*. 40) "W. 447. 41) W. 59; W. 109; "W. 123. 42) W. 2T3 j 
 B. 199. 43) "W. 447. 44) W. 123. 45) B. 349. 46) W. 456. 47) B. 392*. 48) W. 598. 
 49) W. 585. 50) B. 265. 51) W. 69. 52) W. 165*; B. 287. 53) B. 264. 54) B. 131* 
 55) W. 486*. 56) B. 355. 57) B. 29. 58) B. 186. 59) W. 215*. 60) "W. 523* ; 
 B. 134. 61) B. 174. 4 . 62) W. 123. 1) W. 186*; TV. 406. 2) "W". 378. 3) W. 136. 
 4) W. 271. 5) "W". 233. 6) W. 583; B. 393.r. 7) W. 233.. 
 
Ke0. 5. nPOS PJ2MAIOT2. 21 
 
 yd&Tai, ' »J de vno/jkovfj doKip.fp>, j} de doKifir) kXnlda, ' ?} 8 de e/Lrrtf ov 5 
 naraioxvvei- bri fj dydnr] rov 6eov 9 kuKexvrai eV 10 ralg napdiaig Jjfiwv 
 did Hvevparog 'Arylov rov doOevrog i\\Civ. % "Eri 11 yap" n Xpiorbg ov- 6 
 tup rjiiuv doOevuv, * Kara naiobv™ imep u doefOov dneOave. fioXig yap 15 7 
 imp dinalov rig drroOavelrai 1 ^ vnep yap 17 rov ls dyaOov rdxa rig Kal 
 roX/ia 19 d-rroOavelv awiarrpji de rrjv kavrov dydnr/v elg i]fw.g 1 6 Qeog", 8 
 bri eri dpapTuX&v Svruv ^fiiov Xpiorbg vnep w ■fjfiuv dneOave. noXXQ 9 
 t ovv" jiaXXov, diKatuOevreg v v v kv t<3 aljmri avrov, owOTioofieOa di' 
 avrov dirb rrjg dpryrjg 21 . el yap kxOpol ovreg® Karr]XXdyr]iiev w tu> Qe& 10 
 did rov Oavdrov tov vlov avrov, ttoXXu fiaXXov KaraXXayevreg auiOrf- 
 aop,e8a kv ry %tiyq avrov- ov fiSvov^ de, dXXa icai Kavx&lievoi® kv rS> 11 
 0eoi did rov Kvplov fjn&v 'Itjoov Xpiorov, dC ov vvv rrjv KaraXXayrjv 
 kXajiofxev. 
 
 Aid tovto wonep 36 di' ivbg dvOpdmov r) d\mpria elg rov koo/iov eh- 13 
 fjXde, nal did rfjg dfiapriag 6 Odvarog. nal ovrwg elg 17 izdvrag dvOpw- 
 novg 1 6 Odvarog" difjXOev, eft 28 £> w ndvreg®* rffiaprov. &xpi yap vo- 18 
 ftov 31 duaprta rjv kv KoofMo 32, d/xapTia de ovk X kXXoyelrai" 23 , (irj u ovrog 
 vop,ov % dXX"' kfiaalXevaev® 6 Odvarog dnb 'Addfi fiexpi X Muoeug" nal 14 
 em 36 rovg t fifj" d\iapTf\oavTag sl eVt 88 ra b\iM<i>\iOTi rfjg trapafidoewg 
 'Addfi, 05 39 eon rvnog rov fieXXovrog. 'AAA,' 40 ox>x &g rb •napdirrui\i,a, 15 
 ovrw 41 Kal rb xdpiofia. el yap ra rov ivbg irapaTTTUfw/ri ol 42 noXXol 
 dtzeOavov, noXX& fj,&XXov r) %apff rov Qeov not i\ doped kv %apm ry 
 rov kvbg avQpumov 'Itjoov Xpiorov elg rovg noXXovg tnepioaevae. nal 16 
 ovx &g di' kvbg dp,aprTJoavTog i3 , to duprjfia - to \iev yap X Kpl\id' ef 44 
 kvbg m elg icardicpiua, to de %dpio~fia sk ttoXX&v napanrujidrov elc i6 di- 
 Kalhifw,. el yap trw tov kvbg" napaTTTafiari 6 Odvarog efiaalXevoe did 17 
 rov kvog, noXXio fi&XXov ol rrjv nepiaaeiav rjjg x<*piTog Kal t rrjg du- 
 
 Teztital: Ts. 6: A. el ye, Cod. B; W. marg. el ye, or el yap; txt. Codd. X,A,C,D*,1T, 
 37. I A.L.Tr.T.W. add in. Vs. 8 : A."W. marg. om. 6 &eog, Cod. B ; txt. W. marg. Codd. N,A, 
 0,17,3?. Vs. 9 : "W. marg. om. ovv. Vs. 12 : W. marg. om. 6 davarog ; [A.] Vs. 13 : L. marg. 
 kXkoyaro. Vs. 14 : ATr.T.W. alia. \ A.L.Tr.T.W. Muw^oif. | W. marg. om. /$. Vs. 16: 
 T.W. Kpljia. Vs. 17: "W.L. marg. hv hi; W. marg. tet., or tv ivbg. | W. marg. om. 1% 
 iupeae, Cod. B ; [L.Tr. marg.] ; tit. Codd. X,AC,D. | Tr. marg. Kptarov 'h)aov. 
 
 Grammatical : 8) W. 107. 9) "W. 185. 10) "W. 413 ; W. 414; B. 329. 11) W. 553 ; 
 B. 389. 12) "W. 447; W. 453*. 13) "W. 124. 14) W. 382; W. 383 15) W. 453*. 
 16) W. 279* ; B. 218*. 17) "W. 447 ; "W. 453*. 18) "W. 117*. 19) W. 613. 20) W. 383. 
 21) W. 197... 22) B. 292. 23) W. 262. 24) "W. 583* ; B. 393.f. 25) W. 351*. 
 26) W. 569*. 27) W. 396... 28) "W. 394. 29) "W. 158*. 30) W. 609. 31) W. 123. 
 32) W. 123. 33) W. 85 ; B. 58. 34) "W". 475. 35) B. 169. 36) "W. 206.,. ; W. 409. 
 37) "W. 82 ; B. 54. 38) W. 394.f. 39) "W. 542.7. 40) "W. 442. 41) W. 541.». 42) W. 110. 
 43) W. 82 ; "W. 340.b* ; B. 54. 44) "W. 368. 45) W. 584*. 46) W. 396.«. 
 
22 EniSTOAH Ketf>. 5, 6. 
 
 peas" 'rfjg Sucaioovvr/g XapfiavovTeg* 1 ', ev £oJfl fiaoiXevoovoi Sia rov kvbg 
 
 18 tlrjoov Xpiarov". "Apa ovv is &g Si' kvbg napanrdfiarog elg navrag 
 dvdp&novg elg KaraKpi/ia- ovru nai® Si' kvbg Simiujiarog elg 6d navrag 
 
 19 dvdpunovg 61 elg Sutaluaiv £<w?fc 52 . uanep yap Sia rfjg napaicofjg rov 
 kvbg dvdp&nov dfiapruXol tcareorddrjoav ol noXXoi m , ovroo Kal Sia u rfjg 
 
 20 vnaicofjg m rov Ivbg Sinaioi Karaoradfjoovrai ol noXXoi. N6fiog m Se 
 napeiofjXOev, iva 67 nXeovdoq rb napdnru/Mi. ov Se knXedvaaev ■fj dfiap- 
 
 21 rla, vnepenepiaoevaev fj %dpig' iva uanep kfiaaiXevaev ?) dp.aprla ev 
 T(3 davdru, ovru /cat 68 ff %apig fiaaiXevaq Sid Sin.aioavvr\g eig® %unjv 
 aluviov, Sid 'Vqaov Xpiarov rov Kvpiov ^/mv. 
 
 6 TI ovv kpovfiev 1 ; \ Inifievovfiev" 2 rfj duapria, Iva ff %aptc nXeovdaxi ; 
 
 2 ' p,fj yevoiro. oinveg^ dneddvofiev* rfj dpapria 5 , nwg en t ^qaofiev" 1 
 
 3 ev 7 avrfj \ V s dyvoeire on Soot e$anrioBr\\iev elg Xpiarov VItjoovv", elg 
 
 4 rov ddvarov avrov kfianrladrjiiev ; avverafyr\\i£V ovv avrut Sid rov (3an- 
 riap,arog elg rov ddvarov iva uanep ^yepdij Xpiarbg etc venpuv Sid rfjg 
 Sb%r\g rov irarpog, ovru Kal fjiielg ev naivdrr/ri &fjg 9 nepinarrjaufiev 10 . 
 
 5 E? yap avu<pvrot yeyovafiev 11 ru> bfioiujian rov Oavdrov avrov, dXXa 12 
 
 6 Kal rfjg dvaardaeug eo6fieda. rovro u yivwaKOvreg, on 6 naXawg 
 •fjuuv 1 * dvdpunog ovvearavp&Qr\, Iva KarapyrjOfj rb au/ia rfjg dfiapriag u , 
 
 7 rov firjKeri SovXeveiv 16 f/fiag rfj dfiapria. 6 yap dnodavuv SeSitcaiarai 
 
 8 dnb rfjg dp,apriag. Ei <5e dneddvofiev ovv 17 Xpiaru, niarevofiev on 
 
 9 Kal t ov%f\ao\Lev" xi avrQ, ' elSoreg on Xpiarbg iyepdelg £k veicpcbv, J ovk 
 
 10 en" d-KoBvr\oK.ef Odvarog 19 avrov %ovk en" Kvpievei. 8 20 yap dnedave, 
 
 11 rfj dpapria 21 dnedavev icpdna^. to" 23 Se £§, ifij tu 6ew M . ' ovru icai 
 vp,elg Xnyifcode iavrovg 25 I venpovg psv elvai" ry dfiapria^, ^uvrag Se 
 
 12 rw 0£ai, iv 27 XpiorSi 'Itjoov f tu Kvpib) fifi&v". M^ 88 ovv (3aoiXevera 
 
 Textual: Chap. 6, vs. 1: A.L.Tr.T.W. im/Uva/iev, Codd. A,B,0,D,1T,37. Vs. 2: 
 L. marg. tyaufiev, Codd. C,17. Ts. 3: TV. marg. om. 'lqaovv. Vs. 8: A.L.Tr.T.'W. ovv. 
 tsioopev. Vs. 9 : E.L.Tr.T.W. ovKiri. \ L.Tr.T."W. ovxen. Vs. 10 : E. 6. Vs. 11 : A.L. 
 W. om. elvai, Codd. A,D,17 ; T.W. marg. elvai veKpovf/iev, Codd. X*,B,C ; TV. [elvai] vek- 
 poif fiiv ; txt. Codd. X°,37. | A.L.Tr.T."W. om. t$ Kvpiy ri/tuv, Codd. A,B,D ; tart. Codd. 
 H,C,17,37. 
 
 Geammatioal: 47) "W. 353. 48) W. 445 ; "W. 558 ; B. 371. 49) "W. 440.5. 50) W. 587* 
 51) B. 394. 52) W. 188./3. 53) W. 110. 54) "W. 421 ; B. 342. 55) W. 638. 56) "W. 123. 
 57) "W. 459. 58) W. 440.S. 59) TV. 397 ; TV. 418*. 1) B. 218. 2) B. 208. 3) TV. 168. 
 4) TV. 428.d. 5) TV. 210; B. 178. 6) TV. 86; TV. 279. 7) TV. 386... 8) "W. 509. 
 9) TV. 236..; B. 162. 10) TV. 288. 11) TV. 292. 12) TV. 442*; TV. 451..; B. 364. 
 18) TV. 161. 14) B. 116. 15) TV. 188. ,8; TV. 615*. 16) "W. 326; TV. 612*; B. 271. 
 17) TV. 391. 18) TV. 86. 19) TV. 538. 20) TV. 227 ; B. 149. 21) B. 178. 22) TV. 422. 
 23) TV. 168. 24) TV. 210. 25) "W. 228; B. 113. 26) TV. 210*. 27) TV. 389 
 28) TV. 602. 
 
Keif). 6, 7. nPOS PQMAI0T2. 23 
 
 f\ dfiapria h to3 dvqru^ vpjuv 9 " oujian, elg rb vnaicoveiv 31 t avry" t iv" 
 'tralg emOvfMiatg avrov-" ' ^<Je 82 napLOTdvere 3 * rd [ikX-r] vp&v onXa 13 
 ddiitiag ry dp-apria' dXXd napaoTrjoare iavrovg 3 * r& 6ew ta>?" e/c ve«- 
 f wi» fwvraj 66 , «at ra jue/l?/ fyiwv 07rAa diKaioovvt\g r(o Qe&. dfiapria^ 14 
 yap vp&v ov itvpievoer® ov yap hare, vtto 38 v6(iov, % dXX'" imb %dpiv. 
 
 Ti ovv ; \ dfiapTrjooiiev"®, on ova kapiv vnb vopov, t dXX'" {mb w %d- 15 
 p iv ; (it) yevoiro. ovk, oldare on <& 41 napiardvere^ kavrovg® dovXovg 16 
 €lg imaicoTJv, dovXoi lore <& M vnaKovere, rjroi® duapriag felg Bdvaroi/', 
 fj vnaKOTJg elg dmaioavvTfv ; %dpig de rS> &e&, on tjts dovXoi rfjg duap- 17 
 riag, {mT/Kovaare de £k is icapdiag elg bv ■Kapedodrjre*' 1 tvttov didaxqg. ' 
 iXevdepwOevTeg® i de" dnb Tfjg duapriag, k.dovXuBr}~e ry diicaioovvq. 18 
 ' 'Avdpwmvov Aeyw did rf/v dodeveiav rr}g aapK.bg vp,G>v. tionep yap 19 
 •napear7\aare ra piXr\ vp,u>v dovXa ry duaOapcia kcu rq® avoaia t elg m 
 ttjv dvoulav", ovro) sl vvv napaaryoare ra jxeXrj v/mov dovXa ry diicaio- 
 avvq elg ayiaofiov. ore yap dovXoi j)Te 62 Tfjg dp,apTLag, eXevdepoi rpe 20 
 rq diitaioavvy m . riva ovv Kapnbv elxererorei," i^'ol^vvveiraiaxv- 21 
 vea6e\;rb * yap reXog kiceivuv, ddvarog. vvvl de eXevOepudevreg 56 dnb 22 
 rfjg dfiapriag, dovXudevreg de t<3 6ew 67 , exere rbv aapnbv ipuv elg 5 * 
 ayiaapov to de reXog, fow/v aluviov. ra yap dijiuvia* 9 rrjg apapriag, 23 
 ddvarog- rb de %dpio\ia tov 6eov, far} aluviog, kv m Xpt<r™ 'hjoov tS> 
 Kvpio) rffitiv. "H dyvoeire, ddeX<poi, (yivuoicovoi yap 1 vop,ov 2 J 
 
 XaXi>y on 6 v6p,og nvpievei tov dvdpumov t-0' baov xpovov ifij ; ' -/J ydp 3 2 
 vnavdpog yvvrj tu ££>vti dvdpl i dederac 5 vo/mo' £dv de dnoddvq e 6 avr)p, 
 KarrjpyrjTai dnb ^tov vofiov'" 1 tov dvdpog*. apa? ovv %u>VTOg tov dv- 3 
 tipbg fioixaXlg xp7]p,aTioei w , idv yevrfTai dvdpl Irepw- edv de dnoddvy 
 6 dvf\p, kXevBepa IotIv dnb tov vdfiov, tov jm) eivat 11 avrfjv fioixaXida, 
 
 Textual : Vs. 12 : A.L.Tr.T.'W. om. airy, Codd. S,A,B,C* ; txt. W. marg. Codd. C 3 , 
 D,(17),37. | A.L.Tr.T."W. om. iv, Codd. S,A,B,C* ; txt. Codd. C 3 ,17,37. | W. marg. om. 
 roif kncdvfiicuc avrov, Cod. D, txt. X,A,B,C,17,37. Ts. 13: A.L.Tr.T.W. uael. Ts. 14 : 
 A.L.Tr.T.W. fate. Vs. 15: A.L.Tr.T.'W. djiapTJiaufiBv, N,A,B,C,D,17,37. | A.L.Tr.T.'W. 
 iXka. Vs. 16: W. marg. om. etf ftdvarov. Vs. 18: "W. marg. om. <!e. Vs. 19: "W 
 marg. om. ek ttjv avo/iiav. Vs. 21 : A.L.T. [;]; "W. om. [,]. | L.T. [•]; A [,]. | A.L 
 W. marg. add juv; Tr. marg. Chap. 1, vs. 2 : E. om. tov vdftov. 
 
 Grammatical: 29) "W. 524. 30) B. 116. 31) B. 265. 32) W. 488. 33) W. 314. 
 34) B. 113. 35) B. 307. 36) W. 120. 37) "W. 279; W. 316*. 38) B. 341. 39) "W. 82 ; 
 W. 279*; B. 54; B. 208. 40) "W. 420. 41) B. 399. 42) W. 266. 43) B. 113. 44) W. 158. 
 45) "W. 440.6. 46) W. 368. 47) W. 261*. 2 ; "W. 164.s.b. 48) "W. 197. 49) "W. 128.„; B. 98. 
 60) "W. 397. 51) B. 9. 52)B.50. 53) "W. 210*; B. 179. 54) W. 158*; "W. 221. 55) W. 141; 
 B. 282. 56) W. 197. 57) B. 179. 58) "W. 417*. 59) "W. 176. 60) TV. 389. 1) "W. 446. 
 2) W. 123. 3) W. 446. 4) W. 209.O. 5) "W. 271*. 6) "W. 293.b. 7) B. 322*. 
 8) W. 188.b. 9) "W. 445 ; W. 558 ; B. 371. 10) W. 280 ; B. 37. 11) W. 324.. ; B. 269.,, 
 
24 EniSTOAH Kef. 7 
 
 yevopevtjv 1 * dvdpl Irepp. wore, ddeX^oi fiov, ml v[ieig kOavaTuOrfre^ 
 t£> v6fiy li did 16 tov owpaTog ~ov ls Xpiarov, elg to yeveadai v vfiag kre- 
 
 5 pw 18 , tw sk veKpStv syepdevn, Iva Kaptro(f>oprfO<^iiev ra 6ea>. ore ydf. 
 rj/iev 19 ev Tfl aapKi, to, nadrjfiaTa tcov dfiapTi&v to 20 did tov vofiov iv 
 T)pyeiTO n ev Tolg p,eXeaiv fjfiuv, elg to mpTrnQoprjoai® ™ BavdTO) 
 
 6 vvvl de KarTjpy7]6rjfiEV dm) 23 tov vofiov, X drcodavovTeg" kv d> KaTei%6fieda, 
 wore dovXeveiv tfjfiag" ev kcuvottjti nvevfiaTog, nal ov u TraXaiOTTfri 
 ypdfj,jj,a,TOg. 
 
 7 Tt ovv kpovfiev ; 6 vofiog dp,apria' & ; (irj yevoiTO' dXXd Tip dfiapTiai- 
 ovk eyvurv™, el pvff did vd/wv vr\v te yap 2 * emOvfiiav ovk jjdeiv, el fiif 
 
 8 6 vofwg eXeyev, " Ovk kmdvnr)aeig" w E»>a. so. 11. d<j>opfir)v de Xafiovaa ff 
 dfiapHa did Tfjg kvToXfjg X KaTeipydoaTo" 30 ev kfiol Ttaoav kmdvfiiav. 
 
 9 %uplg yap vofiov dfiapna veitpd' ' eyo> 81 eftov 31 x u pl? vo/wv nore. kX- 
 
 10 dovar/g de Tfjg kvToXfjg, f\ dfmprla dvetyfaev, ' kyu de dnedavov ml 
 
 11 evpe6rf m fioi fj kvToXfj jj 33 elg $G)fjv, avTTj u elg ddvaTOv. ?} yap d/iapna 36 
 
 cufropfiffv Xafiovaa did Tfjg kvToXfjg k&fndTTfae fte, ml di' avrfjg dmic- 
 
 12 reivev. uare 6 p,ev vopif 36 ayiog, nal ff kvroXfj dyia /mm 37 dimia me 
 
 13 dyadrj. To ovv dyadbv kfiol 3 * Xyeyove" Odvarog ; (iff yevoiro- X dXXa"® 
 fj dfiapTta, Iva (j>avq i0 dfiapna, did tov dyadov fioi naTepya^ofievrf ddv- 
 aTov a , Iva yevrjTai naff vnepj3oXfjv dfiapT(oXbg $ afiapria did rrjg kv- 
 
 14 ToXfjg. Oldafiev X yap" bri 6 vo\iog ■nvev\m,TLK6g konv. kyu de X oapni- 
 
 15 nog"® el/Mi, nsnpafievog vnb® t^v duapTtav. b yap KaTepyd^ofiai, ov 
 yiv&OKW oil 4 * yap 8 deXu, trovro" 45 npdaaw dXX' 8 ftt<roi, tovto 
 
 16 voiG). el de 8 ov deXu, tovto ttoiw, X ovii^tHW-' ™ vofiu ori mXog. 
 
 17 vvvl de X ovk bti" 46 lyw 47 mTepyaZ,o\mi avr6, X dXX'" if XoIkovoo!' fo> e/xol 
 
 18 a/xapTla. Olda yap on ovk oIkbi h> kfioi, X TOVTeanv"® kv t§ oapKi fiov, 
 
 Textual: Ts. 6: B. aKodavbvTos. \ W. marg. om. nf^C, Codd. X.AjO.D.lV.S 1 ? ; [L.Tr.] ; 
 txt. B. Vs. 8 : A.Tr.T.W. KaTT/pydaaro, Codd. B* D ; tet. Codd. »,A,B',C. Ts. 13 : A 
 L.Tr.T.W. eyivero, Codd. N,A,B,C,D; txt. Codd. 11,37. | A.L. aXX. Vs. 14: L.marg. 
 W.marg. Si, Codd. A,D; txt. Codd. X,B,C. | AL.Tr.T.W. adpxivds, Codd. N*,AB,C,D,17; 
 txt. S c ,37. Vs. 15: W. marg. om. tovto. Vs. 16: T. ovvipriiu. Vs. 17: L.Tr.T.W ov- 
 Kkn. | A.L.Tr.T.W. d;Ua. | T."W. marg. hoixovoa, Codd. S,B; txt. Codd. A,C,D. Vs. 18 
 T.W. tovt" Ibtlv. 
 
 Grammatical: 12) W. 343. s . 13) "W. 301. 14) B. 178. 15) W. 381. 16) W. 118. 
 17) B. 265. 18) "W. 210*. 19) B. 50. 20) "W. 133.b. 21) "W. 258 ; B. 193. 22) "W 329; 
 B. 265. 23) B. 322*. 24) B. 349*. 25) B. 124.„. 26) "W. 305. 27) "W. 477.. 
 28) W. 448. 29) W. 316. 30) B. 33. 31) "W. 87 ; B. 59. 32) W. 616*. 33) B 91. 
 34) W. 160; B. 109. 35)^.189. 36) B. 366. 37) W. 520. 38) W. 211.b. 39) W- 41. 
 40) B. 304. 41) "W. 123. 42) "W. 98. 43) W. 407*. 44) B. 348. 45) W 160 4 
 B. 306. 46) "W. 618.10. 47) "W. 152.«. 48) W. 630. 
 
Ke#. 7, 8. HPOS PS2MAIOT2. 25 
 
 dyadov to yap OeXeiv 49 irapaKeiTal poi, to 6e Karepy&C/eoQai to KaXbv 
 X oti%" evptoitu). ov® yap b 0eAw, noiu dyadov 51 t dXX'" 8 ov OeXu m- 19 
 k6v, Tovro m irpdoob). el 6e b ov deXw t eyu", tovto rroiti, t ovk bti" 20 
 eyu Karepyd^oiuu avTO, t dXX'" r) o'tKovoa ev £p,ol dfiapria. Evpiono 21 
 apa tov vopov m ™ OeXovTi ifioi -noie.lv to Kalov, on epai to kclkov napd- 
 KEiTai. ovvrjSofiai yap ra vofiu tov Qeov /cosTd 54 tov law 65 dvdpu- 22 
 770V (iXenu 6e erepov vofiov kv Tolg fieXeol (iov m avriOTparevofievov 23- 
 tu vofiu tov voog nov, nal alxiiaXuTi^ovTd jue*Tw v6fit,i Trjg dfiapHag 
 tw ovti kv Tolg fieXeoi fiov. TaXainupog eyu dvOptonog' Tig p,e pvoe- 24 
 t<m 57 £k 58 tov oufiarog tov davdTov m tovtov ; t ev^a/Marai" 60 t£> 0£a> 25 
 did® 'Irjoov Xpiorov tov Kvpiov rjfi&v. apa 62 ovv avTog £ya> t<3 t p,ev" 
 vol® dovXevu) vofiu Qeov - t%/ 6e oapKi, vo\m dfiapnag. 
 
 Ovdkv apa 1 vvv icaraKpifia Tolg ev 3 XpiOTSt 'Irjoov, t fir) Kara adpna 8, 
 nepinaTovoiv" 3 , t dXXd Kara, nvevfia". 6 yap vofiog tov nvevfiarog Trjg 2 
 %(orjg kv 1 XpioT& 'Irjoov r)Xevdepuoe Xfie" dnb tov vop,ov 5 Trjg dpapriag 
 teal tov 6 OavdTOV. To yap ddvvaTOV 7 tov vopov, kv s w rjodevei Sid 3 
 Trjg oapicog, 6 6ebg tov lavrov vlbv ne/M^ag ev dp,oia>fiaTi oapitbg dpip- 
 riag Kal irspl aftapriag Kareapive Trjv dfiapTiav 9 ev Tfj oapKi, ' Iva to 4 
 ducaiufia tov vofiov nXrjpwdy iv r)fuv } rolg 10 fifj 11 Kara capna nepnra- 
 Tovotv 12 , dXXd 13 koto 14 irvev[ia. 01 ydp ls Kara capita ovTsg, Td rijg 5- 
 oapK.bg Qpovovaiv ol 3e Kara Ttvevp.a, to, tov nvevfiaTog. ~b yap u 
 (ppovrjfia Trjg oapnog, ddvarog' to 6e (ppovrjfia tov nvevfiaTog, far) Kal 
 eiprjvr]. Aion to (frpoviftia Trjg aapK6g, l%Qpa elg 17 Qeov rw ydo vdjuw 7 
 roii Qeov ov% vnoTaaaeTai, ovde yap 3vvaTai ls ' ol rfe 19 kv oapicl ovTeg, 8 
 Bew dpeoai ov dvvaVTai. 'Tfielg de ovk bote ev oapu, t dXX'" ev tvev- 9> 
 uaTi, eirrep 7U>evjua Beov 20 olicel ev vp.lv. el 6£ Tig nvevfia Xpiorov 
 
 Textual: Vs. 18: A.L.Tr.T.W. ov, Codd. S,A,B,C; tet. D.17,37. Vs. 19: A.Tr.T.W. 
 i.lM. Vs. 20 : L.Tr.W. om. iyu, Codd. B,C,D ; [A.Tr. marg.] ; tit. »,A,11,37. | L.Tr.T. 
 "W. ovntTi. | ATr.T.W. dUo. Vs. 23: Tr.T.W. add kv, Codd. 8,B,D,11,31 ; [A. Jj>]; 
 txt. W. marg., Codd. A,C. Vs. 25 : A.L.Tr.T.W. x & P L C- I T - om - !>**• cha P- 8 i vs - 1 ■ 
 AL.Tr.T."W. om. pri nara adpna Kepmarovaiv, Codd. N*,B,C,D*; txt. S l, ,A,D b ,l l ? ) 3 l J. | 
 AL.Tr.T."W. om. aXte Kara irvev/ia, Codd. S*,A,B,C,D* ; tit. » ,D»,1T,3Y. Vs. 2 : L 
 marg. T.Tr. marg. at. Codd. X,B: txt. Codd. A,0,T>,n,31. Vs. 9: ATr-T-W. a%%a. 
 
 Grammatical: 49; W. 320.»; B. 262. 50) B. 349. 51) W. 528.d. 52) W. 160; 
 B. 306. 53) "W. 65T*; B. 388*. 54) W. 401. 55) B. 318. 56) B. 110. 57) "W. 286*. 
 58) "W. 197... 59) "W. 189*; B. 162. 60) W. 601. 61) "W. 378. 62) B. 371. 63) "W. 62.a.b.. 
 1) "W. 445. 2) W. 390. 3) "W. 135. 4) "W. 137.b. 5) "W. 197. 6) "W. 126; B. 100.8. 
 7) "W. 231*; W. 235*; "W. 534.io; W. 574; B. 154*; B. 381. 8) W. 387; B. 33U 
 9)B. 165. 10) W. 134.c; B. 294.b. 11) W. 477.bj W. 482.s. 12) W. 57. 13) B. 391.... 
 14) W. 420. 15) "W. 447.d. 16) W. 453* 17) W. 397. 18) W. 594. 19) W. 452.. r 
 B. 363. 20) W. 122. 
 
26 EIII2T0AH Ketf>. 8 
 
 10 oiik 31 e%ei, ovTog ovk eanv avTOv®. el de XptoTog kv ip.lv, to fiev 
 
 11 atifta vexpbv X dl" a/iapTiav, to dg Trvevfia £urj did diKaioavv^v^. el de 
 to rrvevfia tov eyeipavTocflTjoovv eK veicp&v olicel M iv vp.lv, 6 iyeipag 
 
 XtOv" XplOTOV*kK VeKD&V faOTTOlTJOel Xml" TO, 0VTJTO, OUflCLTa Vfl&V, did 25 
 X TO IVOLKOVV aVTOV TTVeVpM," kv VfllV. 
 
 12 "APA 28 ovv, ddeX<f>oi, dfaiXerai eopev ov t%/ aapKl^, tov Kara capita 
 
 13 $QV Wm el yap Kara, capita ^tjte, p,eXXere wnoQvr\OKeiv el de nvevfiaTi Tag 
 
 14 irpd^eig tov oupuTog OavaTovTe, tjqaeoBe. "Oooi yap irvevuaTi® Oeov 
 
 15 ayovTai, ovtoI X elaiv viol Qeov" 30 ' ov yap eXd[5eTe n -nvevixa X dovXeiag" 
 ■ndXiv elg S2 tpofiov, X dXX'" eXdfieTe nvevpa 33 vlodeaiag, ev u a> Kpd£opev, 
 
 16 ' 'AflSai,' 6 irarrip 35 . Avto to rrvevpa X ovpp,apTvpei" tQ ■Kvevpari fjpMv, 
 
 17 oti iofiev TEKva 6eoi3 36 . el de TeKva, nai KXr/povofior KXrjpovouoi p,ev 
 Qeov, X ovyKXr)povop,oi" de Xpiorov' ehrep X avp.Ttdoxop.ev", IvaP nai 
 
 18 avvdo^aad&pev. Aoyl^opat yap 6Vt 38 ovk d%iaP ra nadrjfiaTa tov vvv 
 
 19 Kaipov npbg w ttjv peXXovaav 41 doi-av ditoKaXvtpdrivai® elg f/pag. 'H 
 yap dnoicapadoKia Trjg KTiaeug Trjv anondXvipiv t&v vluv tov Qeov 
 
 20 atxeKdexerai. t% yap \w,Tai(m\ri ^ KTioig' vireTayr], ov% iz iicovoa, 
 ■21 dXXa did u Tbv vnord^avTa, X eV" kXtridi, ' X oti" Kal avrfj m f) KTiaig 
 
 eXevOepudrjoeTai dirb Trjg X dovXeiag"* 6 Tjjg QOopag* 7 elg tt]v eXevdepiav 
 
 22 Trjg doiflg toiv tbkvcov tov 0eoi). oidapev yap oti ttaaa r\ KTioig® ava- 
 
 23 Tevd^ei n,al avvudlvei axpi tov vvv ov povov <5e 49 , dXXa Kal avToi 50 tt\v 
 dnap%rjv tov TtvevpaTog 61 s^oi/tej 52 , Kal Xfjpeig" avTol® kv kavrolg 5 * orevd- 
 %Ofiev, vloOeoiav d^eKdexSpevoi, ttjv 55 aTtoXvTpuaiv m tov aufw/rog 51 tfii&v. 
 
 ■34 I t§ yap e'Xmdi'® eoudrjiiev. kXmg de fiXeTtoiievif 9 , ovk eotiv eX-rrig' 8 
 25 yap fiXenec Tig, t'l X Kal" m e/Uri'fft 61 ; el de 8 63 nv (iXeKO(iev, eXm^op,ev^, 
 
 Textual: Vs. 10: A.L.Tr.T.W. Sia. Vs. 11: Tr.T.W. add tow, Codd. S*,A,B; [A.]; 
 txt W. marg. Codd. S° 1 C I D,17,3Y. | A.L.Tr.T.'W. om. tov, Codd. N,A,B,C,D; txt. 1T.37. | 
 L. adds ^Irjaovv] ; T. places Xpiarbv '\tiaovv before faimovqati. \ [Tr. marg.] | E.T.W.marg. 
 tov tvoacovvTo; avTov ■Kvevfia.Toi;. Ts. 14: A.L.Tr.T. viol elaiv Qeov; L. marg. Tr. marg. 
 "W. viol Oeov Aolv. Ys. 15 : T. 6ovMag. | A.L.Tr.T.W. alia. Ts. 16: T.W. ovv. Ts. 17: 
 'T/W. mv. | A.T.W. ovv. Ts. 20 : T. if, Ts. 21 : T. oiotl. \ T. iovkloQ. Ts. 23 : L.Tr. 
 j[^/i«f] ; "W. marg. om. ij/jeif. Ts. 24 : L.Tr.W. marg. om. Kal ; [A.] 
 
 Grammatical: 21) "W. 477.= ; B.346. 22) "W. 195.b; B. 163. 23) "W. 120. 24) "W. 292. 
 ■25) "W. 399. 26) W. 445. 27) "W. 209 ; W. 556*: 28) "W. 326 ; B. 268. 29) W. 122, 
 30) "W. 122. 31) W. 521... 32) "W. 397. 33) B. 398.«. 34) W. 387. 35) B. 140. 
 36) W. 122. 37) W. 459. 38) W. 321. 39) W. 550. 40) W. 405*. d ; B. 340. 41) B. 388. 
 42) W. 334. 43) "W. 485. 44) "W. 399*. 45) B. 109. 46) "W. 197 ; "W. 621. 47) "W. 531. 
 48) W. 124. 49) B. 393.f. 50) W. 150.„. 51) "W. 531. 52) "W. 528 ; B. 80. 53) "W. 150... 
 54) "W. 150.»; B. 113. 55) W. 117. 56) B. 400. 57) "W. 187*. 58) W. 216.d. 59)^340.* 
 <>0) TV. 437. 61) "W. 284*. 62) W. 543. 63) W. 292. 
 
 14 
 
K&p. 8. nPOS PQMAIOTS. 27 
 
 ■dt' 64 vnofiovTJg dneicdexoiieOa. 'QaavTug 6"S Kai to nvevfia awavTiXap,- 26 
 Qdverai X ralg dodsveiaig" ?)fi&)v zb m yap ri % ■npooevl;&fiBda" m aadb del, 
 •ovk oldafiev, X dXX'" avTo w to TrvBVfia vnepevrvyxdvet,® t inep ^j/j,uv" 
 orevay\i6ig dXaXr^TOig' 6 6e X epevv&v"® Tag Kapdiag olds tI to Qpovrj- 27 
 na tov -nvevnaTog, oti Kara 70 Qsbv 71 ev-rvyxdvei imep dyiuv. Oida/jiev 28 
 ■tie &ri TOtg dyaituat tov Qeov ndvTa n ovvepyel * slg dya66v } TOig Kara 
 ■npodeoiv KtoiTOig 13 ovotv. oti ovg u TTpoeyvoi 15 , km irpoupiae ov/ifiop- 29 
 ■tf>ovg K rfjg elKOvog 71 tov vlov avTov, elg to slvai™ avTov npuTOTOKOv 
 iv TtoXXolg d8eX<pdig- ' ovg Ss npowptae, Tovrovg ml ImXeos' Kai ovg 30 
 €KaXeae, Tovrovg Kai idiKaiuoev' ovg 6e eSiKaiuoe, Tovrovg Kai kdo- 
 Jjaos n . Ti ovv kpovfiev npbg Tavra ; el 5 Bebg imep m rffi&v, Tig lead' 31 
 rijMJv ; 5g ye 81 tov l6iov n vlov ovk IcpeloaTo, X dXX'" imep rjfMov irdvTUV 32 
 TTapedwKev avTov, nug ov%l Kai ovv avrSi to ndvTa f/filv xapiaerai^ ; 33 
 rig b/KaXeasi Kara** iaXeKTUV® Qeov ; Qebg d 86 &Kat<3i> 87- ' Tig 6 34 
 X KaTaKplvwv" ; XpiGTog * 6 dirodavuv, paXXov 6e t Kai" kyspdelg, * bg 
 t Kai" eotiv ev dst-ia tov Qeov, bg Kai kvTvyxdvsi imep fftiuv. Tig ijfiag 35 
 Xupioei® d-nb Tfjg dydmr)g^ tov XpiOTOv 90 ; XOXtyig", rf 1 OTBVoxupia, 
 jj diary/iog, f) Xifiog, ?) yvpvoTrig, rj KivSwog, 77 [idx al P a > ' «00w? yeypan- 36 
 rat, ' "Ort 92 X eveKa" oov OavaTovfieOa oXrjv -njv rffiepav eXoylaOrjiiev ug 
 ■np6(3aTa a<payfjg.' Psa. 48. (44.) ss. 'A/L/l' £v TOVTOig iraoiv irnepviK&fiev 37 
 61a tov dyaixf\aavTog fiiidg. neneiofiai yap on ovre^ ddvaTog ovtb 38 
 £u>i}, ovtb dyyeXoi ovtb dpxal, X ovtb 3wdfieig", ovtb eveoTUTa ovtb 
 fiiXXovTa, ' ovtb v^jju/xa ovtb padog, ovtb Tig KTiaig irepa SwrjaeTai 39 
 ?J|Uaf x u pi-°~ al & n ° T? /? dydnr/g tov Qeov, Trjg 9i kv XpiOT<Z> 'Itjoov t tw 
 Kvpio/' rifmv. 
 
 Textual : Vs. 26 : A.L.Tr.T/W. rij io&evecp, Codd. X.A.B.O.D.ST ; txt. IT. | W. marg. 
 ■KpoomZofusda, Codd. D,n,37 ; txt. S,A,B,C. | T.Tr."W. a\U. \ A.L.Tr.T.W. om. imp 
 illiuv, Codd. S* A,B,D ; txt. NsC.n.S 17 . Vs. 2T : T.Tr. tpawuv, Cod. X ; txt. A,B,C,D. 
 Vs. 28: L.W. add 6 fled?. Codd. A,B; txt. "W.marg. Codd. S^.D.IT.ST. Vs. 32: AL. 
 Tr.T/W. aUa. Vs. 34 : L. mraKpivuv. \ T."W. marg. add Ir/novc, Codd. N,A,C,1T ; txt 
 B,D,37. I L.Tr.T.'W. om. ml, Codd. S,A,B,C,1T ; txt D,37 ; [A.] | W. adds tn venpuv, 
 Codd. N* A,C,17; txt "W.marg. S=,B,D,37. | T.W.marg. om. Kai, Codd. X* A,C; txt. 
 N«,B,D; [L.] Vs. 35 : AL.Tr.W. MiVv. "Vs. 36 : A.L.Tr.T.W. ivexev. Vs. 38: A.L. 
 Tr.T.W. place ovts dvvdfieic after it&TJhovra. Vs. 39: L. marg. row avplov. 
 
 Grammatical: 64) W. 379 ; "W. 423*.b. 65) "W. 109; B. 97. 66) "W. 299; B. 255 
 67) "W. 112. 68) W. 433. 69) B. 58. 70) "W. 400*.b. 71) "W. 122. 72) B. 193*. 
 73) "W. 534.10. 74) W. 158.b. 75) B. 202. 76) W. 228. 77) W. 195. 78) B. 265.1. 
 79) "W. 277*; "W. 278. 80) W. 382. 81) W. 560. 82) "W. 154; B. 118. 83) W. 90; 
 B.37. 84) W. 180; W. 382; B. 177. 85) W. 234.1. 86) B. 93. 87) W. 513. 88) B. 37. 
 89) W. 197... 90) W. 185. 91) W. 440.*. 92) W. 562. 93) "W. 488.b; B. 367. 
 94) "W. 133.K 
 
28 E1II2T0AH Ketf>. & 
 
 9 'AAH6EIAN 1 Xeyu iv* XpiOTU*, ov* ipEvdop.ai, X ovfifi.apTvpovorif 
 
 2 fioi Trjg ovvEidfjoeug 1 ' fiov iv e TLvevpan 'Ay'iy, ' 6V< Xvttt) fwi karl p,eyd- 
 
 3 Xr\, Kal ddidXeiTTTog ddvvrj ry Kapdia fiov ipyxfo'W'' W * a *™? &Y& 
 dvdOEfia* elvai" dnb 9 tov Xpiarov inkp 10 tuv adeX<pS)v uov, t&v avy- 
 
 4 yev&v fiov Kara adpKa - olnvig elaiv X loparjXiTat,", uv r\ vlodeoia Kal 11 
 fl 66%a, Kal t al diadTJKai" 12 Kal Jj vofiodeala, Kal fj Xarpeia Kal at 
 
 5 k-nayysXlai, ' u>v ol Trarepeg, Kal If iyv 6 XpiOTog to 13 Kara odpKai,& 
 
 6 &v knl ndvruv Qsbg svXoyr)Tbg u slg rovg al&vag. dfirjv. ' Qv% olov K 
 6s oti ekttetttukbv 5 Xoyog tov Bern, ov 16 yap Trdvreg ol If 'loparjX, 
 
 7 ovroi 1 '' 'laparjX. ovd? oti elal ompiia 'Afipadfi, Travrsg Teava, dXX m 
 
 8 ' kv 'loaaK KXi)Qr\azTai 001 oTtipfia? Gen. »i. ia. % Tovteotiv", ov to 
 TEKva Tfjg aapa6g, ravTa 19 tbkvo® tov Qeov- dXXa to, Teuva* 1 rrjg snay- 
 
 9 ysXiag XoyiCprai elg ampfiaF. snayysXiag yap 6 Xoyog oi>Tog, ' Kara 
 
 10 tov Kaipbv tovtov kXevoofiai, Kal sOTai rjjf Sdppa vl6g.' «en. is. so. Oir 
 fiovov de, dXXd Kal 'PejSsffiKa If hog koittjv exovaa, '\aaaK tov narpbg 
 
 11 fjfiuv p,TJnu yap 23 yevvTjOsvTbyv**, utj6b npai-dvruv n dyadbv rf 5 \ Ka- 
 kov", lva w ■fj KaT'M kicXoyfiv X tov Qeov irpodsoig" fiivq, ovk If epywv, 
 
 12 dXX' tK tov KaXovvTog, XkpprjOij"^ airy, "'On 6 fisifav SovXevasi tw 
 
 13 lAaaoovc' 29 «en. 85. as. KaOug ysypanTai, 'Tov 30 'IaKWjS ^ydnrjaa, tov 
 6e X 'B.aav" kfiio'r\oa? Mai. i. s, 8. 
 
 Tt ovv ipovfiev ; p.r) ddiKia napd n tQ Qeu ; ju^ 32 ysvotro. rai t yap 
 Mtofrj;" 33 Xsysi, ' 'EAe^trw &V 34 av IAew, Kal olfCTEiprjou® bv av olKTEipu.' 1 
 
 16 Exod. 88. 19. "Apa 36 OVV Ol) 37 tov fllAovTO? 88 , obSs TOV Tpi%ovTog, dXXa. 
 
 17 tov % sXsovvTog" 39 Qeov. X&yei yap -f} ypaxpfj rai $apaw, ' "On slg 
 ovto tovto k^rfyeipd ce, onug ivtisii-uiiai kv aol ttjv dvvafiiv fiov 40 , Kal 
 
 18 onug SiayysXy 41 to ovo/id fiov kv ndofi ry yy.' Exoa. 9. ie. "Apo ovv bv 
 
 Textual : Chap. 9, vs. 1 : T.W". aw. Vs. 3 : A.L.Tr.T."W. civd-de/ia elvai avrb; eyu. 
 Ys. 4 : T."W. 'lapai]?ie2Tat. | L.Tr. marg. W. marg. fi Sia&jJK7i ; txt. L. marg. Vs. 8 : A.Tr. 
 T.W. tovt 1 iciTiv. Vs. 11 : A.L.Tr.T.W. ipavlov, Oodd. N,A,B,37 ; txt. Codd. D,17. | A. 
 L.Tr.T.W. TTpbBeois tov Oeov. Vs. 12 : A.L.Tr.T/W. hppeBri. Vs. 13 : E.L.T.W. 'Htrou. 
 Vs. 15 : A.L. Muoy yap ; L. marg. 'iS.uael yap ; Tr.T.W. ttavael yap. Vs. 16 : A.L.Tr.T. 
 W. kXeavTOc Vs. 18 : A. marg. W. itep. % Vs. 5 : L.T. [ . ]. 
 
 14 
 15 
 
 Grammatical: 1) W. 53T.a; B. 403.b. 2) W. 390*. 3) W. 248. 4) W. 540.4. 
 5)"W. 562. 6)W. 390. 7) W. TU; "W. 283 ; B. 34; B. 217*. 8) "W. 32. 9) W. 370; 
 B. 322*. 10) W. 382. 11) "W. 520. 12) "W. 177*. 13) W. 230. 14) W. 586*. 
 15) W. 597*; B. 372*. 16) W. I7l.i. 17) "W. 160; B. 306; B. 399. 18) B. 11. 
 19) "W. 160 ; B. 306. 20) W. 110.4; B. 120; B. 125. 21) "W. 514. 22) W. 228; B. 151. 
 23) "W. 562. 24) "W. 589*; B. 133; B. 314. 25) "W. 441. 26) W. 459. 27) "W. 193; 
 W. 425; B. 162. 28) B. 57; B. 393.r. 29) "W. 245. 30) W. 113. 31) W. 395.b. 
 32) "W. 500.„ ; B. 248. 33) "W. 66 ; B. 19. 34) "W. 221. 35) "W. 88 ; B. 64. 36) "W. 445. 
 37) "W. 598*. 38) B. 163. 39) "W. 85 ; B. 57. 40) "W. 143. 41) "W. 82. 42) W. 588. 
 
Ke0. 9. nPOS PflMAIOTS. 29 
 
 teXei® | eXeel"®- bv de OeXoei, OKXijpvvei. 'Epet? 44 X ovv fioi", ' Tt * It* 19 
 fiefuperai ; t<3 t yap" (iovXrffiaTi avrov Tig dvdeoTTjKe 45 ; ' X Mevowye 46 , 30 
 it m avdpcone" 4 *, era) 49 Tig el 6 avranoKpivofievog 5 " tu> 6eu> ; fifj kpel B1 to 
 nXdofia tw -nXdaavTi, ' Tt fie kiroirfaag cwtwc- 52 ; ' *H ovk e%ei e%ov- 21 
 alav 6 Kepa/xevg tov tttjXov®, eK tov m avrov (pvpdfiarog noirjaai w 8 ftev 
 dg m rififjv OKevog, 8 de elg m driftiav ; el de deXav 6 Oebg evSeifrodai 22 
 T?/i> 38 dpyrjv, teal yvupiaai to dvvaTOv® avrov, fjveyKev m ev iroXXq fia- 
 KpoOvfiia anevT} dpyfjg KaTTjpTiofieva elg dnuXeiav t /cat" Iva yvupicq tov 23 
 ttXovtov TTJg 86%r\g avTov em* 1 OKevrf kXeovg, a TrporjTOifiaoev elg 66%av ; 
 cvg koj 62 emXeaev fjfiag ov \iovov e£ 'lovdaiav, dXXd ical ef idvibv &g 24 
 jcal ev 63 t<3 X 'flo^e" Xeyu, ' KaXeau) tov oi) M Xaov fiov, Xaov fiov Kal 25 
 TTjv ovk 65 ■fiyairrifievriv, fiyamjuer^v.'' h m . 8. as. ' Kal eorat 66 , ev to to™ 26 
 ov X epprjOrj" 61 t avrolg", Ov Xa6g fiov ifielg, em KXr\Qr\oovTai m ' viol Qeov 
 £fi>vTog? ho., no. % 'Hoatag" de Kpd£ei vnep m tov 'laparjX, "Edv # 6 27 
 dpidfj.bg tuv vl&v 'laparjX d>g r) afifiog rr)g OaXdaar/g, to t naTaXeififia" 
 ■oudrjoeTar ' Xoyov yap 0-vvtbXwv Kal avvTeuvuv t kv diKaioavvry cm 28 
 Xoyov awTBTfirfpevov'' noirjaet Kvpiog inl Trjg yrjg.' isa. 10. sa. Kal 29 
 Kadug Trpoeipificev X 'Tlaatag", ' El fir) Kvptog Soj3aw0 J eyKaTeXvnev" 
 fjfiiv onspfia, tig 70 SoSofia av eyevr)6rjfiev n , Kal <hg Tofioppa av \ (hfioiu- 
 drffiev n ' i« a . i. ». Tl ovv epovfiev ; oti edvrj r<i 7S fiff diuKOVTa diKaio- 30 
 ovvrjv, KaTeXafle diKaioavvrjv, dMaioo~vvr\v n de 75 tt\v ere moTeug' 
 ^laparjX de dtwrewv vouov dtKaioavvrjg, elg vouov \ diKaioavvrfg" ovk e<f>- 31 
 Qaoe 78 - ' diaTi ; ort ovre ire irioTeug 11 , dXX' ug ei; epyuv t vofiov"' npoa- 32 
 tKoipav iydp" tS> Xidu tov npooKOfifiarog, ' aadug yeyparrrat, "Idov 33 
 
 Textual: Vs. 19: A.L.Tr.T.W. ^ot oiv. | L.W. add oiv; [A.Tr. marg.] ; ~W. marg. om. 
 oiv. Vs. 20 : A.L.Tr.T.W. u uvBpume, fievovvye ■ W.marg. om. pevovvye. Vs. 23 : W. marg. 
 om. Kal ; [Tr. marg.] Vs. 25 : A.Tr.T.W. 'Slayi. Vs. 26: A.L.Tr.T.W. ^pp£0)/. | Tr. om. 
 ovtoIq, Cod. B ; txt. Codd. N,A,D; [L.Tr. marg.] Vs. 21: L. 'Hcafaf. | A.L.Tr.T.W. 
 {nrdXsiftfia, Codd. X*,A,B ; tzt. Codd. X»D. Vs. 28 : L.Tr.T.W. om. kv Jncaioovvy on 
 Ibyov avvTtTfinfiivov, Codd. X*,A,B; txt. Codd. X«,D,17,37; [A.Tr. marg.] Vs. 29: 
 L. 'Hiraiaf. | T. kv. | L. marg. W. i/iotuBti/iev. Vs. 31: A.L.Tr.T.W. om. 6tna.Loavvris, 
 Codd. S*,A,B,D,1T ; txt. Codd. X°,37. Vs. 32: L.Tr.T.W. om. vdftov, Codd. »*, A,B ; 
 txt. Codd. a°,D,l7,3 , 7 ; [A.] | A.L.Tr.T.W. om. yap, Codd. X*A,B,D*; txt. Codd. S e ,D', 
 11,31. 
 
 Grammatical: 43) W. 85. 44) W. 280; B. 218. 45) W. 274*. 46) W. 559; 
 B. 371. 47) W. 183.3. 48) W. 549. 49) B. 388. 50) B. 294.b. 51) W. 511.b 
 52) W. 465. 53) W. 191 ; B. 387. 54) W. 112. 55) B. 260*. 56) W. 397. 57) W. 105 
 58) W. 108.U. 59) W. 235. 60) W. 570. 61) W. 409. 62) W. 528. 63) W. 385. 
 64) W. 476. 65) B. 350; B. 353. 66) B. 278. 67) B. 57. 68) W. 615. 8 . 69) W. 383; 
 B. 335. 70) W. 602 ; B. 177. 71) W. 304.K. 72) B. 34. 73) W. 139. 74) B. 93. 
 U) W. 443. 76) W. 90. 77) W. 617* 
 
30 EIII2T0AH Ketf>. 9, 10 
 
 TiQrjfU kv n Xiuv XiBov npoOKOfifiaTog, km nfrrpav onavdaXov KaV* 
 1 nag" 6 marevuv iir' w avru ov Ka,Taio%w67JoeTai.' i»a. 8. 14; as. ib. 
 10 'AAEA^OI 1 , j} juev 2 evdoitla Tfjg kp,fig KapSiag, nal r/ s derjoig \if f 
 
 2 npbg rdv Qebv imp* t tov 'loparjX" t kanv" elg ooyrrjpiav. \iaprvpGt- 
 
 3 yap avrolg 5 on gqXov 6eov 6 l%ovoiv^ dXX' ov war' 7 kmyvaoiv. dyvo- 
 ovvTsg yap 8 rijv- tov Qeov ducaioavvqv, icai rrjv I3iav 9 idacaioovvrji/'' 
 
 4 tjqrovvTBg orfjocu, rq SiKaioavvq tov 0soi5 10 ov% vnerdyiysav . TeXog 11 
 
 5 yap vbp,ov lz Xpiorbg eig Sikcuoovvtjv navrl tu> mOTevovn. % Muarjg"' 
 yap ypd(pei tt\v 8waioovvr\v ttjv 13 etc t tov" vouov, X ' "Oti" 5 noijjoag 
 
 G taiira" avdpunog, tyjoerai kv tavToig". lev. is. 6. 'H 3k iic moTeug 
 6iKawavvrj ovtu Xeyei, ' MJJ einqg kv t ttj" Kapdia oov, Tig dvaj3rjoeTai- 
 
 7 elg tov ovpavov ; ' tovt' Iotl XpiOTOV Rarayayetv 14 ' ' fj, Tig KaTafirj- 
 oerai elg Trp df}vooov ; ' tovt' ion Xpiorbv kK venp&v dvayayelv. 
 
 8 dXXd ti Xeyet ; ' 'Eyyv? 15 oov to pfjp,d konv, kv to ot6\mltI oov Kal Iv 
 
 TXI KapSta OOV.' Dent. SO. 11-14. TOVT 1 EOTl TO pfjfia TTjg TTlOTEUg 3 KTjpva- 
 
 9 oofiev on lav b\ioXoyr\oyg kv rw OTonan oov \ Kvpiov 'Irjoovv", Kat 
 TTiOTevoyg kv 1B Ty icapSia oov oti 5 Bebg ai)Tov rjyetpev kit vsKpuv, ou- 
 
 10 Orjoxi' Kapdia yap moTeverai 11 elg biKaioovvr/v, oTop,aTi ls 3k dfioXoyel- 
 
 11 rat 19 elg w ouTTjpiav. Aeyei yap f\ ypatjrrj, ' Tlag 6 moTevGW 21 in' avrSy 
 
 12 ov KaTCMo%w0?/<7srat.' isa.ss.i6. Oil ydp ion 6iaOToXfj TovSaiov Ter 
 Kal "^XXr/vog' b yap avrbg Kvpiog ndvT<ov } ttXovt&v elg® trdvTag Tovg- 
 
 13 kniKaXovplvovg avTov. ' Hag yap bg aV 23 kmKaXeorjTai to 6vop,a Kv- 
 
 14 plov, ouQf\oeTai? joei a. 8». Tl&g ovv \ kmKaXeoovTai" u elg^ bv 26 ovk? 1 
 imoTevoav 2 * ; nug 6e t moTSVOovoi-v" oi w ovk rJKOvoav ; nug 3e t aKov- 
 
 Textual : Vb. 33 : A.L.Tr.T.W. om. ndc, Oodd. N,A,B,D ; txt. Codd. 11,51. Chap. 
 10, vs. ] : A.L.Tr.T.W. om. r/. \ A.L.Tr.T.W. avrav, Codd. N.A^.D.ll ; txt. Cod. 37. | 
 A.L.Tr.T."W. om. kanv, Codd. X*,A,B,D; txt. Codd. S«,17,37. Vs. 3: L.Tr.W. om. dual- 
 oaivvv, Codd. A,B,D; txt. Codd. 8,11; [A.] Ts. 5: A.L.Tr.T.W. Mwiiuifc. | A.Tr.T- 
 om. tov, Codd. X,B; txt. Codd. D,17*,37. | L. marg. Tr. marg. T.W. place 8tj immediately 
 after ypufci ; txt. W. marg.|T."W. om. avra ; [L.Tr. marg.] | A.L.Tr.T.W. avry, Codd. X*, 
 A,B,17; txt. Codd. N°,D. Ts. 6: E. om. ry. Vs. 9: L. marg. Tr. marg. W. marg. 4m 
 Kvpiog 'lrjaovs, Cod. B; txt Codd. N,( A )'L\ Vs. 14: A.L.Tr.T.W. kmKaMaavrai, Codd. 
 X,A,B,D; txt. Codd. 17..37. | A.LTr.T.W. iriaTeiauaiv, Codd. S,B,D; txt. Lmarg. Codd. 
 A,17 8 ,37. I A.L.Tr.W. uKovaumv, Codd. X»,A S ,B,17,37 ; T. dKovaovrai, Codd. S*,D. 
 
 Grammatical: 78) B. 329. 79) W. 435. 80) W. 233.d; B.174.5. 1) W. 537.d ; B. 403 
 2) W. 575*; B. 366. 3) W. 133.b. 4) W. 412; W. 383. 5) W. 212,b. 6) W. 185*... 
 7) W. 403*. 8) W. 447.d. 9) B. 117. 10) W. 186*. 11) B. 123. 12) W. 123. 
 13) W. 133.b. 14) B. 261. 15) W. 195; B. 131. 16) B. 182. 17) B. 173. 18) W. 639 
 19) B. 176. 20) W. 120 ; W. 396.0. 21) B. 174. 22) W. 397. 23) W. 307. 24) W. 279*; 
 W. 285*; B. 208. 25) W. 158*. 26) W. 166; B. 105. 27) W. 480.a. 28) B. 174 
 29) W. 158*; W. 199... 
 
Ke0. 10, 11. HPOS PJ2MAIOT2. 31 
 
 oovoi"® x^pk Kijpvaaovrog ; ' nug de t KTipv&voiv", lav prj sl dnoarw- lfj. 
 XStai ; KaO&g ygypaiTTai, ' 'ttg tipaloi ol Tt6$eq n trwv eiiayyeAtfo/jsvuv 
 tlpTJvrjv", r&v evayyeXiZofievuv t Td" dyafld.' i.a. b». 7, Nan. 1. 15. 'AAA' 16- 
 sv 83 ndvTSg vnrJKOvaav to evayyeXiu- J 'Heratof" yap Aeyet, ' Kvpte, 
 rig hriorevoe ry d/coy ■fffiuv ; ' i,„. 5 s. 1. "Apa 34 ?) nioTiq ki- m dicofjg, 77 17 
 6e dKofi did prJiiaTog 36 \Qeov". dXXd X£yu>, MJ7 37 ovk rJKOvaav; jue- 18 
 vovvye® ' elg ndaav rrjv yjjv 39 EijijXdev 6 <pdoyyog ovtwv 40 , «at eig to, 
 Tzepara Tr\g olKovfisvqg rd firjfiaTa avTuv.' p» a . is. <i».) 5. 'AAAd 41 Aeyw, 1& 
 W\ X ovk eyvw 'laparjX® ; npurog 43 t Mwtr^f" Aey«, ' 'Eyw irapatyXuaa 
 v(iag err' 44 01k 45 e0m, t s7r?" £0j/« davviru, napopyiw 46 vfiag.' Deut. 82. si. 
 I 'B.aatag" de a7roToA//a 47 ml Xsyei, ' Evpedrjv® roig sfie [ifj tyrovoiv, 20 
 k(uf>avfjg kyEvo\m\v Tolg l/ie ju?) sTOpwrwat.' i 8a . es. 1. 7rpd? 49 <$£ tov la- 21 
 pai)A Aeyet, ' "OA77V t^v fifiepav e^ETTsraaa rag %elpdg p,ov npbg Xabv 
 ditsidovvra Kal dvTiXeyovTa.'' i Ba . 65. a. 
 
 AErfl oiv, Mr) 1 dnuaaTo 2 6 debg tov Xabv uvtov; fii] 3 ysvoiro- Kal 11 
 yap 4 £yu t 'lapaTjX'iTTig" sl/ii, ek oirspiiaTog 'A;3pad>, <j>vXrjg J Bevianiv". 
 ovk aTruaaTO 6 &sbg tov Xabv avTov, bv Trpoiyvu). 77 ovk olSaTs iv 5 2 
 I 'HAea" t'i Xejei fj ypatjyq ; d)g evTvyxdvsi tw 6eu mTa 6 tov 'laparjX, 
 \Xeyuv", ' l Kvpis, Tovg npocprJTag aov dnsKTBivav, t Kal" to, OvaiaoTrj- a 
 pid aov KaTsoKaipav Kdyio imeXeitpd'qv fiovog, Kal tyyrovoi tt)v ipvxrjv 
 fioy.' 1 KbiBB 19. 10. 'AAAd t'i Xeysi avTG) 6 xPW aTL0 ~l ii °S i ' KuteXittov 4 
 kftavTU tTTTaKiaxfXlovg dvSpag, oiTivEg 7 ovk BKapipav yovv -rjjf BdaA 8 .' 
 1 Kin E s 19. is. OvTug ovv Kal iv tu vvv Kaipu Aeiju//a kot' EKXoy?[v %d- 5 
 piTog ysyovsv. si 9 6s x^? lrl i ov"- & nV> ^1 epycov inel 11 "qxdpig ovk 12 6 
 in yivETat %dpiq. t si de ef epywv, ovk eti eotI %dpig' inel to spyov 
 
 Textual: Vs. 15: A.L.Tr.T.W. mpiZaaiv, Codd. X.A^.DJ 1 ?; tart. Cod. 3T. | L.Tr. 
 T."W. om. tov evajyekifyfiivav ApTivyv, Codd. X*,A,B,C; [Tr. marg.] ; A. [evayyeXi^oftivuv 
 elpfivjiv, tuv]; txt. Codd. SSD,! 1 ?^ 1 ?. | A.L.Tr.W. om. to. Vs. 16: L. Haata;. Vs. 17: 
 A.L.Tr.T.W. Xpiarov, Codd. S*,B,C,D*; txt. "W. marg. Codd. X»,A,D b ,n,3'r ; or W. marg 
 om. Xpiarov. Vs. 19 : A.L.Tr.T."W. 'IcpariX ovk. eyva. | A.L.Tr.T.W. M<jiit%. | Tr.T. 
 in'. Vs. 20 : L. "Htrojof. | W. marg. adds hi ; A.L.Tr. [h>.] \ W. marg. adds hv ; L.Tr. [ev.'J 
 Chap. 11, vs. 1 : L. adds [, Bv wpotyvu.'] \ T.W. '\apca\b,dTriQ. \ A.L.Tr.T."W". ~&cviap.eiv. 
 Vs. 2: A.Tr. 'Kklg., T.W. 'HAtia. | AL.Tr.T.W. om. teyuv. Vs. 3: A.L.Tr.T.W. om. 
 nal. Vs. 6 : L.Tr.T.W. ovketi. | L.Tr.T.W. om. el fii to the end of the verse ; [A. om. 
 ion before x"P l C i] txt - 'W- m ^rg. 
 
 Grammatical: 30) W. 82. 31) W. 477.c. 32) W. 606. 33) W. 171. 34) W. 445; 
 W. 558. 35) W. 367. 36) W. 123. 37) W. 51U; B. 248. 38) W. 559; B. 371. 
 39) W. 111. 40) W. 147. 41) W. 442..,. 42) W. 114. 43) W. 464*.s. 44) W. 393. 
 45) W. 476*; B. 353. 46) B. 37. 47) W. 469*. 48) W. 219.10; B. 187. 49) W. 405. 
 1) W. 511.b. 2) B. 69. 3) B. 248. 4) W. 448. 5) W. 385 ; B. 331*. 6) W. 382. 
 7) B. 115. 8) W. 179. 9) W. 582; B. 392*. 10) W. 618*. 11) W. 283*; B. 35!). 
 12) W.480. 
 
32 EJ2I2T0AH Ke<j&. 11 
 
 7 ovk £Ti iorlv Ipyov 1 '. Tt ovv ; 8 kmgqrei 'laparjX, J tovtov" 13 ovk en£- 
 
 8 Tv%ev, tf de iaXoyrj enervxev ol de Xomol eTropcbOTjoav, ' J KaOug" ye- 
 ypanrai, ' "Eoojkev avToig 6 Oebg nvevfia Karavvt-eug 14 , 6<j>QaXp,ovg tov 
 urj pXeneiv 11 , Kai &>Ta tov fifj dicoveiv,'' »eut. a». 4; i»a. s. »; a». 10. ewf 
 
 9 TJJf oripepov fjuepag. Kai J AaPld" Xeyei, ' rewffl^Tto t) rpdne^a avruv 
 elg K naylda iiai elg Orjpav, Kai elg oKdvdaXov xai elg avTanodofia av- 
 
 10 rotf aitOTtadrJTuaav ol 6(pdaXuol avTuv tov pvrj /3Xerreiv v , Kai tov vw- 
 
 11 tov avTiiv \ditnravTbg" t ovyKap,%j}Ov" .' p 9 a. 68. (69.) 88. Aeyw ow, /u^ 
 eTTTataav, iva ls neouw ; ft^ yevo«TO" dAAo t<5 airaii' 19 napanTufiaTi 
 
 12 »J au>Ti\pla % Tolg eOveoiv, elf 21 to Trapa^qXHiaai avrovg. el de to 
 TrapaTTTUfia avT<ov nXovTog koouov, Kai to TJTTtftia avTuv nXovTog ed- 
 
 13 v&v, noau u&XXov to nXrjpb)fj.a aiiruv ; "Tfuv % yap" Xeryu Tolg edve- 
 oiv e^' 22 baov fiev m slfit, £yb) edvuv^* dnooToXog, ttjv dianoviav uov 
 
 14 do|a£ii>, ' el wcog irapa^rjXuau^ uov ttjv adpua, Kai auaco nvag e£ av- 
 
 15 t5>v. el yap ?? dirofioXff 6 avT&v, KaTaXXaytj Koofiov, Tig*" r\ J -npoa- 
 
 16 Xrppig") el afj ^onj e« veKp&v ; ' el de ?} dnapxfj^ dyia, Kai to <j>vpaua ,m 
 
 17 Kai el r\ f>i£a dyia, Kai ol KXddoi m . el de Tiveg tcov ttXaduv e%eKXdoQr\- 
 ow 81 , ov de dypieXaiog uv kveKevTplodrjg ev 82 avTnlg, Kai \ avyvrnvu- 
 vbg" Trjg pi%Tjg m t Kai" Trjg moTr/Tog Trjg kXatag eyevov, ufj M KaTaKav%& 
 
 18 tuv nXaduv el de KaTaKav%aoai S5 , ov ov ttjv pl^av j3ao~Td&ig, % dXX'" 
 
 19 tj f>l£a as. 'Epetf 36 ovv, ' 'EijeKXaodriaav to!" 37 KXddoi, iva eyw t ey- 
 
 20 KevTpiaOO)'' '.' KaXug' t%j dmoTta m | It-eKXdodrjoav", ov de t^ TrioTet 
 
 21 eoTTjKag. p.fj t v^njXocppovei," 39 , dXXd (pofiov' ' el 40 yap 6 Qebg t£>v 
 KaTa n (pvoiv KXdduv® ovK i3 eQeioaTO, t urjirug" 4 * ovde gov \ (f>eior)Tai" & . 
 
 22 "Ide 46 ovv xp r l aT OTrp-a Kai diroTOulav Qeov' inl fj,ev i7 Tovg TreoovTag, 
 
 Textual: Ts. 1 : A.L.Tr.T.W. tovto. Vs. 8: Tr.T. /catfdmp. Vs. 9: A.L.Tr.T.W. 
 AaveiS. Ts. 10: A.L.Tr.'W. dm 7ravTOf. | T.W. ovv. Ts. 13: A.L.Tr.T.W. ie; txt. W. 
 marg. | A.h.T.W. add ovv ; Tr. [ovv] ; "W. marg. om. fisv ovv. Ts. 15 : A.L.Tr.T.W. 
 irpSaXfifiijiic. Ts. IT : T.W. ovv. \ A.T.W. marg. om. ko.1, Codd. S*,B,C ; [Tr.] ; txt. Codd. 
 H«,A,I)',l'l.,31. Ts. 18: A.Tr.T.W. oUs. Ts. 19: A.L.Tr.T.W. om. ol, Codd. *3,A,C, 
 D**.11,S1; txt. "W. marg. Codd. B,D*. | T.W. ev. Ts. 20: L.Tr. iKMoBnoav, Codd. B. 
 D* ; txt. Codd. X,A,B Mai,C,D b ,l'?,37. | A. marg. L. marg. Tr.T.W. marg. iipqTia <ppo- 
 vet, Codd. S,A,B ; txt. Codd. C,D. Ts. 21 : L. Tr.T.W. om. ^ttuj, Codd. N,A,B,C; [A.]; 
 txt. W.marg. Codd. D,17,3V. [ A.L.Tr.T.W. <j>etoerai, Codd. X,A,B,(Mai, ed. 2,)C.D,17,37. 
 
 Grammatical: 13) W. 200. 14) W. 94. 15) B. 267*. 16) B. 150. 17) B. 271. 
 18) W. 458. 19) B. 116. 20) W. 586; B. 138. 21) B. 264. 22) W. 408.8. 23) B. 370. 
 •24) W. 192. 25) W. 575*; B. 256. 26) W. 521.9. 27) B. 128. 28) W. 584. 29)W.582.b, 
 B. 392. 30) W. 585,b; B. 137. 31) W. 292; W. 637. 32) W. 391*.b. 33) W. 200. 
 34) W. 501.b. 35)B. 42; B. 395.C. 36) W. 280*; B. 218. 37) W. 118. 38) W. 216..J 
 B. 186*. 39)W.313*.b. 40) W. 448. 41) W. 401 ; B. 162. 42) W. 193*. 43)W.478.», 
 B. 346. 44) W. 474*; B. 353. 45) W 504*; W. 598*. 46) W. 49. 47) W. 363. 
 
Ka/>. 11, 12. nPOS PJ2MAIOT2. 33 
 
 t d,TTOTOfilav" iS - k-nl de as, XxPV aT0 ^ rr r a "> &<*v X Bmiteivgg" t§ %pr\arornyn. 
 enei® Kal ov eKaonfjoq. X *<** eiceivoi" 66, kdv fir) % knip^ivioai" Tjjj dmo- 23 
 rips, % kyiceVTpioOijoovTat.". dvvarbg yap eotiv 6 Qebg ndXiv J ly/cev- 
 rpiaat'' avrovg 50 . el yap av e« rrjg Kara (pvaiv ele/con-?/? 51 dypiekaiov, 24 
 Kal -napa <f>voiv evenevrpiodrig 62 elg KaXXisXaiov, noou uaXXov ovtoi ol 
 Kara, (pvoiv, X iyKevrptoOrjoovTai" rq idia® hXaia ; Ov yap OeXa vjiag 25 
 dyvoelv, ddeXQoi, rb [ivorrjpiov tovto, Iva /w) M jjre 55 \ irap 1 " 66 eavrolg 
 ^>povi\ioi, otl mipuoig ano 57 fiepovg t<3 68 'lopafjX 59 yeyovev, axpig 60 ov 
 to nkrjpu)jj,a toiv idvStv eloiXBrf 1 - Kal ovtw trag 'Iopar)X oudrjoerai, tea- 26 
 Bug yeypanrai, ' °H|et Ik Sicov 6 f>v6/j,evog, t Kal" anoarpeipEi. doe[3eiag 
 ditb 'IaK(i>(3' Kal avrr] avrolg t) 62 Trap' ipov® diadrJK7j, brav u dcjteXufiai 27 
 Tag dfiapriag ovtwv.' i»n. 69. 20; at. »; jer.si. s«. Kara 63 uev to evay- 28 
 yeXiov, &x&pol 0*1' v/mg" Kara de rrjv hKkoyf[v, dyatTTfrol did rovg 
 ■naripag. dfierafieXjiTa yap rd %apia\),aTa Kal r) KXrjmg tov &eov. 29 
 "Qcmep yap t Kaif' m X vfielg nore" TjTreiOrjoaTe tS 6e£>, vvv de j)XerjdrjTS 30 
 rg tovtwv dneideia m ' ovtu Kal X ovtoi" vvv fpTsiQr\aav ™ % v/isrepw" 68 31 
 eXhi tvqfi 9 Kal airrol * kXerfiuoi. avveKXeioe yap 6 6sbg Tovg ndv- 32 
 Tag 10 elg dnsideiav Iva rovg ndvTag n iXerjor), X "£2" 72 Qddog -kXovtov™ 3b 
 Kal oofy'iag™ Kal n yvuaeug Qeov. <l)g X dvei-epevvfira" K rd Kpi/JMTa av- 
 rov, Kal dvtfy%vla<5TOi al 63ol avrov. rig ydp iyvu vovv Kvpiov ; rj 34 
 Tig avuQovXog avrov kyevsro ; rj Tig rrpoeSuKev avrw, Kal dvTaTTo6odrj- 35 
 •jerot avTU ; ' oti eg avrov Kal 6C avrov Kal slg 17 abrbv t» ndvTa- ovtw 36 
 »J 78 (Jd|a 79 elg Tovg alSrvag. dfitjv. 
 
 IIAPAKAAi2 avv vfidg, d6eX^>oi } did 1 tG>v o'tKTipn&rv tov Qeov, napa- 12 
 CTrjoafl to auuara v/iuv dvoiav fooav, hylav, X evdpeorov t5 0ec5", 
 rrjv XoyiKr)v Xarpeiav 3 vfiuv Kal fir) X avaxflfiaTi^eade" tu> aluvi tovto>, 2 
 
 Textual: Vs. 22: A.L.Tr.T.W. ImoTOfita. \ A.L.Tr.T.W. xP1g™ttic &eov. | L. raarg. Tr. 
 T.W. marg. km/i£vyg. Ts. 23 : A.L.Tr.T.W. Kaxelvoi. \ Tr.T. imjitvaaiv, Codd. X*,B,D* ; 
 trt. Codd. N«,A,C,D e . | T.W. cv. | T.W. ev. Vs. 24: T.W. ev. Vs. 25: A.Tr.W. marg. 
 iv, Codd. A,B; TV. om. nap'; tat. Tr.marg. Codd. ^5,C,D ) 1'7,37. Vs. 26: A.L.Tr.T.W. 
 om. Kal. Vs. 30 : A.L.Tr.T"W. om. Kal. | L. marg. nore i/iei;. Vs. 31 : B. rt/iCTipa. \ 
 T.W. marg. add vvv; L. [vi!]/.] Vs. 33: A.E.Tr.T."W. <5. | A.Tr.T. avel-epavvTiTa. 
 Chap. 12, vs. 1: T. tu 9eu eidpearov. Vs. 2: A.T."W. ffuw; A.L.Tr. marg. "W. marg. 
 -BXVUaTl&oBat. 
 
 Grammatical: 48) B. 384*. 49) B. 359*. 50) "W. 620*. 51) "W. 429.4. 52) "W. 430. 
 M) "W. 154. 54) "W. 477. 55) W. 287. 56) "W. 387. 57) "W. 423. 8 . 58) B. 86. 
 59) W. 211.^ 60) "W. 42. 61) B. 231. 62) W. 131. a . 63) "W. 193*. 64) W. 308. 
 65) "W. 401. 66) "W. 440. 67) "W. 216.* 68) "W. 153*; B. 157. 69) W. 459*. 
 70) W. 178.5. 71) "W. 610. 72) B. 140. 73) W. 191*; B. 23. 74) B. 154; B. 155*. 
 75) W. 519.,. 76) B. 58. 77) "W. 418*. 78) 'W. 108.b. 79) B. 137. 1) "W. 381.d. 
 2) W. 332. 3) W. 533 ; B. 153. 
 3 
 
34 EniSTOAH Ke<£. 12. 
 
 aXXd \ fierafxnp^ovad^' rjjf avaicaivuoei tow vobg tijuwv", efc 4 to <Jo«i- 
 
 ud£eiv vjuig, t'i to OeXrjfia rov Qeov to dyaObv Kal 5 evdpsarov Kal re- 
 
 8 ?*eiov. Asyu yap did rfjg xdpvrog rrjg dodelorjg (tot, ixavTi t& ovti kv 
 
 vplv, fi7j s vnep(ppovelv nap' 7 8 Sel (ppovelv, dXXd tppovelv elg to awrppo- 
 
 4 vetv 8 , kKaaTu 9 <bg 6 Qebg kpipioe. \ikrpov irioTeug. Kaddnep yap kv tvl 
 adfian X p,£Xr\ noXXd" ^o^ev, to 6e p,eXr) navTa 10 ov tjjv avTr\v e^et 
 
 5 npai-iv ovrug ol n noXXol iv aufid ko/iev kv XptOTU, X 6" o°S X KaOelg" a 
 
 6 aXXyXav \hkXr\. e^ovref 13 6e %apio\MTa Kara, tt\v %apw ttjv dodeloav 
 rjfuv did<f>opa' eIts u npo^recav 15 , Kara ttjv dvaXoylav Tfjg Trioreug' 
 
 7 ' ecTe diaicovcav, kv Ty diaKovia' elre 6 dtddoKuv, kv tt) diSaoKaXia' 
 
 8 ' bits 6 napaicaXuv, kv t^ napaKXrjoer 6 \ieraSidovg, kv dnXoTTjTf b- 
 ■KpolOTdfievog, kv onovdij- 6 kXeuv, kv IXapdTTjn. 
 
 9 'H dydnif 6 dwitoKpiTog. d-nooTvyovvTsg^ to novijpov, KoXX&fievoi tw- 
 
 10 dya6G> m * t% (ptXadeXfaa elg dXXrjXovg <j)iX6oTopyor Tfj Tijttf/ 18 dXXrjXovg 
 
 11 Trporfyovjievof ' Ty onovdq ju^ 19 6icvr]pOL, tS Trvevjian ^eovreg, tw XKaipSt" 
 
 1 2 SovXevovTeg' ' t%j kXm3i w %aipovTeg, Ty OXtyei vnofievovTeg. 177 Trpooev%y\ 
 
 13 TrpooKapTspovvTeg 11 - ' ralg 'xptiaig^ tuv dyluv Koivu>vovvreg, rfjv (j>iXo- 
 
 14 ifeviav 6iuK0VTeg- ' evXoyelTe 23 Tovg duiicovTag iifiag' e-bXoyeiTe, Kal \if^ 
 
 15 KaTapaaOe. X.aipeiv w p,STa %aipovTUv, t Kal" icXaieiv justo 26 kXmovtuv. 
 
 16 to aiiTO elg 27 dXXrjXovg (ppovovvTeg- p,rf* rd inprjXd QpovovvTeg, dXXd 
 Tolg rvmeivolq™ avvaTrayo/xevoi. p,fj ylveode <j)povifioi nap 130 kavTolg. 
 
 17 uTjdevl KaKov dvTi Kaicov dnodidovTeg. vpovoovp.evoi aaXa kv&mov 
 
 18 X ndvTUv dvdpunuv ' el 6vvaTov n , to 32 if ifiuiv, fieTa ndvTuv dvdpu 
 
 19 7rwv slprjvevovTeg. ju») kavTovg knSinovvTeg, ayatrrp-oi, dXXd Sots to- 
 ■kov Tq opyxi' yeypanTai yap, ' 'E|iio? kKdlKrjoig, iyu dvTanoduoo), Xeysi 
 
 20 Kvpiog .' X 'Eav ow" 33 miva u 6 k%Qpbq oov, ilxipc^s 35 avrov kav 
 Siipg, 36 , noTi^e ai)Tov tovto yap noiuv, avdpanag Trupop 37 awpevasig km 
 
 Textual : A.L.Tr. marg. W. marg. fierajiop^ovaBai. \ A.L.Tr.T.W. om. ifiCyv. Vs. 4 : 
 A.L.Tr.T."W. noXKa jielTi. Ta. 5 : A.L.Tr.T.W. to. | A.E.L.Tr.T.W. /toe* dg. Ta. 11 : 
 A.E.L.Tr.T.W. Kvpfy, Codd. X,A,B,D b ,l l 7,3'7; txt. Cod. D*. Vs. 15: AL.Tr.T.W. om. 
 Kal. Vs. IT : L. adds [W™» rov Qeov urn] | L.W. marg. tuv. Vs. 20 : A-L.Tr-T-W. 
 marg aXTM. kav ; W. om. oiv. 
 
 Grammatical: 4) B. 264 5) W. 519.1. 6) "W. 4,81.4. T) W. 433; "W. 404; B. 33*. 
 8) "W. 638; B. 265. 9) W. 550; B. 389. 10) "W. 548. 11) "W. 110. 12) "W. 249. s ; 
 B. 30. 13) "W. 545 ; "W. 5T8*. 14) W. 440.6. 15) "W. 582.b ; B. 392. IS) W. 53T ; 
 W. 585 ; B. 13T. IT) "W. 586*. 18) W. 215... 19) W. 4T6. 20) W. 21T*. 21) W. 433.. 
 22) B. 160. 23) W. 53T. 24) B. 369. 25) W. 316.a; B. 2T2*; B. 386. 26) "W. 3T6.h. 
 2T) W. 397. 28) B. 352. 29) "W. 219.10. 30) "W. 395*. 31) "W. 585. 32) "W. 230; 
 B. 96; B. 152. 33) W. 444... 34) W. 293.b. 35) "W. 313.b. 36) "W. TT. b ; B. 44 
 BT) B. 161. 
 
Ke</>. 12, 13. nPOS PiJMAIOTS. 35 
 
 T?]v KeoaXrjv avTov. pi) viku inb tov kukov^, dXXa vino, ev tw dyaOQ 21 
 
 TO KdK&V. 
 
 HA2A 1 ipvxn* kfrvoiaig inepexovoaig imoraooeoOu. ov yap Lotlv 13 
 ii-ovoia el /it} % and" 3 Qeov*- al 6e ovaai t ei-ovoiai" 5 vnb t tov" Qeov Teray- 
 fievai elaiv. Stars 6 dvrcTaaadfievog 6 ry kijovota, rjj tov Qeov diaTayq 2 
 dvOeo-rriKev 7 . ol 6i dvdeaTTjKOTeg, iavnig 8 t Kplpa" \ Xr^ovrai'. ' ol yap 3 
 apxovTeg ovk elal <t>68og J twv dyaduv 9 epyov", dXXa t&v kuk&v". Be- 
 1-ug 6e (ifj 10 (boBelodai ttjv efrvolav ; to dyadbv noiei 11 , ical t&ig fnatvov 
 el 12 avrfjg- • 6eav 13 yap didicovog karl aoi elg to dya06v. iav 6e to «a- 4 
 nbv iro% u , <pof5ov- ov yap % elKTJ" ttjv pM%aipav <j>opeV Qeov yap didnovog 
 eariv, Eitdiitog elg dpyfjv t& to itaicbv npdaaovrc. 6ib t dvdy/CT]" 15 t vrro- 5 
 rdooeodai" 16 , oil fiovov did ttjv dpyqv, dXXa ml 6ia ttjv avvel6r]oiv. 
 3cd tovto yap icai <j>6povg reAeZre 17- Xetrovpyol yap Qeov eloiv™, elg 6 
 Btn-o 19 tovto TrpooicapTepovvTeg. dnodoTe t ovv" nam Tag dcpeiXdg- 7 
 raj 20 tov <popov > tov tpopov tS> to TeXog, to reXog' t<3 tov <f>6Bov, rbv 
 ff>6Bov t€) rfjv ti\it\v, tt)v Ti\vf\v. MrjSevl 21 fiijdev 6(pelXeTe, el firj to 8 
 dyanpv 22 dXXrjXovg- 6 yap dyarruv tov erepov, vo/zov 23 TreTTXijpuKe 2 *. 
 to 3 " ydp, ' Oi> 26 poixevaeig 21 , ov tpovevoeig, ov KX£ipeig w , t ov tpevdofiap- 9 
 Tvpr\aeig", ovk kmdvfijjoet.g,'' Kal el rig trepa ivroXrf, ev t tovtu tw 
 X6y(>> ' dvane&aXaiovrai, t &v t<3", ' 'Ayanrjoeig tov ttXtjoiov gov ug 
 t lain-ov" 29 . ' 'H dydwrj tgj TrXrjaiov naKov ovk tpyd^erar TrXrjpufia 10 
 ovv vofiov 7} dyd-mj. 
 
 KAI 30 tovto, elddreg tov Kaipov, oti u>pa t rjfiag rjdr]'' i^ 1 xmvov eyep- 11 
 drjvatP- vvv yap lyyvTepov 33 f)u&v u f) aurrjpia, rj ore k-maTevaafiev. 
 r) vv% rrpoeiioipev, r\ Se fifiepa rjyyiKev. dnoduueda ovv rd epya tov 12 
 
 Textual: Chap. 13, vs. 1: A.marg. L.Tr.T.W. vko, Codd. N,A,B,D' ! > 17 ) 37 ; txt. "W. 
 marg. Cod. D*. | A.L.Tr.T.W. om. kfrvoiai. Ootid- X,A,B,D*; txt. Codd. D»,1T,37. | A.L.Tr. 
 T.W. om. tov, Coiid. X*,A,B,D,37 ; txt. "W. marg. Codd. S e ,17.. Ys. 2 : A.E.L.Tr. npi/ia. | 
 A.L.Tr.T.W. MitiijiovTai. Ta. 3: A.L.Tr.T.W. ™ ayaBy £py(fi,aM,a rij> /ca/ctj, Codd. X,A, 
 B,D*; txt. Codd D c ,17,37. Vs. 4: L. ehy. Vs. 5: "W. marg. avayity. \ W. marg. vtto- 
 T&ooeotie; B. rcpoTaaaeadai. Ts. 7: AL.Tr.T.W. om. op, Vs. 8: A.L.Tr.T.W. hXKii- 
 Xove ayaKfv. Vs. 9 : A.L.Tr.T.W. om. oi ipevdo/xapTvpfiaeic, Codd. A,B,D,17 ; txt. Codd 
 X,37. I A.L.Tr.T.W. t^D JU>yu rovrip ; txt. L. marg. | A.L.Tr. \ev to] ; W. marg. om. h 
 TV, Cod. B ; txt. Codd. X,A,b. | A.L.Tr.T.W. aeavrdv. Vs. 11 : L.Tr. rjSn J^af ; A.Tr. 
 marg. T.W. 7j6ri ifuiQ ; W. marg. ?/p.ac, or om. vua;. 
 
 Grammatical : 38) B. 340. 1) W. 537. 2) W. 156*. 3) W. 370; W. 371 ; B. 341*. 
 4) W. 122. 5)W. 582*. 6) W. 429. 7) W. 274; W. 301. 8) W. 212.b. 9) W. 524. 
 10) W. 481.4. 11) W. 313. 12) W. 368. 13) W. 192. 14) W. 293.D. 15) B. 136. 
 16) W. 319. 17) W. 317. 18) W. 631.b. 19) B. 109. 20) W. 590* ; B. 395. 21) W. 209 ; 
 W.499; W. 501*. 22) W. 47.c; W. 323; B. 262. 23) W. 123. 24) W. 273; B. 199. 
 25) W. 109; B. 96 26) W. 502. 27) W. 316. 28) W. 87; B. 53. 29) W. 151. 
 30) W. 565. 31) W. 366*. 32) W. 319 ; W. 585 ; B. 260. 33) W. 239. 34) W. 195. 
 
36 eihstoah k«&. 13, 14. 
 
 13 ok6tov$, t ml evdvotifieOa" ra X 5nXa" rati <f\ur6g. wf 85 iv fffiipa, ev- 
 oxrjfiuvug TrspmaTrjowfiev, p,rj m ledums 31 ml fiedaig, fir) Ko'naig ml daeX- 
 
 14 yeiaig, fir) \ gpidi" ml X ZrjXu"- X dXX'" kv&vaaoOs tov Kvpiov 'Irjaovv 
 XptOTOV, ml Tr)g oapubg npdvoiav fir) noielode elg 38 emdvfiiag. 
 
 14 TON de dodevovvra 1 ry ttIotbl TrpnoXafifidveade, fiff elg s dianpioeig 
 
 2 diaXoyiofiuv. "Of 4 fiev moTevei cj>ayelv 6 ndvra, 6 6 de dodevuv Xdxava 
 
 3 loOiei. 6 koO'Mv, tov fir) 1 iadiovra fir) ei-ovdeveiTW X ««' 6" fir) iadiuv t 
 
 4 tov eaOiovTa fir) icpiveTU- 6 Qebg yap avrbv irpoaeXdfieTO. ov 9 rig el 
 6 Kplvuv 9 dXX&rpiov oIksttjv ; tg5 Mt'w 10 nvpiut orrjicei r) ■n'mrei. OTaOrj- 
 
 5 aerai n &£• X dwarbg yap koTiv" 6 X Qebg" arrjaai avrov. "Of 12 fiev * 
 Kplvei r)u£pav nap ns rjfiepav, bg 3e Kpivei -ndoav r)p,epav. enaorog kv 
 
 6 tw ldiu> u vol TrXrjpcKpopeiodu. 6 <ppovS)v rrjv r)iiepav, Kvpiu 15 (ppovel' 
 ileal 6 fir) (ppovibv rrjv r)fiepav, K.vpiu> ov <j>povel". * 6 koOiuv, ILvpiut 
 kadtei, evxapiOTel yap t£> 0e<3" ml 6 fir) eoOiuv, Kvptu ovie eadiei, ml 
 
 7 evxapiorei tQ 6ew. ovdelg yap rffi&v &avT& 16 #0, mi 11 ovSelg kavrut 
 
 8 aTroOvrjoieei. idv re yap Zfiifiev, t<3 Kvpiu fwjuev edv re X dnoOvr)- 
 OKUfiev"™, to K.vpib> dTTodvrjoKOfiev. hdv re ovv %5>fiev, edv re X drro- 
 
 9 Ovrjoieufiev", tov Kvplov ls iopev. elg tovto w yap Xpiarbg X mi' drre- 
 Oave ml X dveoTrj ml dvefyoev"* 1 . lva w ml veicpuv 93 ml %uvtuv kv- 
 
 10 pievar). Si) 24 de tI npiveig tov ddeXQov aov ; r} m ml ov t'i iijovOevelg 
 tov ddeX(p6v aov ; ndvTeg yap irapaaTTjoofieda tu> f3r)uaTi. tov JXptff- 
 
 11 tov". yiypa-KTai yap, ' Zw kyd, Xeyei Kvpiog- on* iuol tcdfiipet, tov 
 
 12 yovv, ml X rraaa yXuaaa e^ofioXoyrjaeTai" tw 0e5 27 . ita. 45. ss. "Apa i ovv' 
 emoTog r)fiuv nepl iavTov Xoyov X Suaet" tTw 6e5". Mtjksti^ ovv dXXrj- 
 
 Textual: Ts. 12: A.L.Tr.T.W. iv&vadfieda de. \ L. marg. Zpya. Vs. 13: L. marg. 
 Tr.marg. ipwi. \ Tr. marg. fj?Aojf. Ts. 14: A.Tr.T.W. dUc. Chap. 14, vs. 3: A.L.Tr. 
 T.W. ide, Codd. X* A,B,C,D*; txt. Codd. XsD°,17,37. Vs. 4: A.L.Tr.T."W. ivvarel yap, 
 Codd. X,A,B,C,D*; tat. Codd. (D'O.IT.ST. | A.L.Tr.T.W. Kvpios, Codd. N,A,B,C; tart. Codd. 
 T>,n,31. Vs. 5: T.W. marg. add yap, Codd. S* A,C; L.[yap]; tart. Codd. N°,B,D,1'7,3'7. 
 Vs. 6: L.Tr.T.W. om. nal o pj ippovov tt/v r/fiepav, Kvpiu ov <j>povet, Codd. SjAjB.C^D; 
 [A.]; txt. Codd. C 3 ,marg. 17,37. | A.L.Tr.T.W. add Kal, Codd. X,A,B,C,D,17,37. Vs. 8: 
 L.W. marg. anoBvr/aKo/iEV, Codd. A,D; txt. Codd. X,B,37. | L.W. marg. aTrodvi/oKo/iev. 
 Vs. 9 : A.L.Tr.T.W. om. aaX. \ A.L.Tr.T.W. E^ffev. Vs. 10 : A.L.Tr.T.W. Qsov. Vs. 11 : 
 L.Tr.W. marg. i^ofioXoyqaeTai naaa yTiuaaa • tat. Tr. marg. Vs. 12: L.Tr.W. om. ovv; 
 [A.] ; tat. W. marg. | L.Tr.W. airodtioei ; A. [dn-o] ; tat L. marg. Tr. marg. W, mai^,. | 
 W. marg. om. T^i Bey ; [L.] 
 
 » 
 
 Grammatical: 35) B. 308. 36) W. 477. 37) W. 219. 38) W. 397. 1) W. 174, 
 2)W. 476. 3) W. 397. 4) B. 102. 6) W. 322; B. 273. 6) W. 105. 7) W. 482.5. 
 8) W. 152. 9) B. 294.b. 10) W. 154. 11) B. 47. 12) B. 102. 13) W. 404*. 14) W. 154. 
 15) W. 212. b . 16) B. 178. 17) W. 441. 18) W. 295*; B. 223. 19) B. 163. 20) W.161. 
 21) W. 276; B. 58. 22) W. 457.S. 23) W. 206.«; W. 552. 24) B 388. 25) W. 440. 
 26) W. 449; W. 457.d. 27) W 209.f. 28) W. 502. 
 
Ke<t>. 14, 15. eihstoah npos PHMAIOTS. 37 
 
 Xovg Kpivufiev- dXXd tovto® Kpivare fiaXXov, to fit) 30 TtQevai 91 npoa- 13 
 
 KOfifia tw ddsX<p£> rj OKavdaXov. olda Kai neTreiofiat, £v 3a Kvpiio 'Itjoov, 14 
 8ti ovdev koivov 6V X kavrov" mm el firj tu Xoyi^ofievu ri Koivbv elvai, 
 
 kmivuP koivov 35, el X oe" <5ta j3pw/io 6 dSeXtyog aov Ximelrai, X ovk in" 15 
 koto 36 dydmjv TrepnraTelg. nfj t& Ppcop-ari aov eKelvov dndXXve® , vnep 
 
 ov Xpiarbg cmedave. Mi) 38 (iXarKpr^xdoQu ovv vjuwv 39 to dyaOSv. 16 
 
 ov yap koriv f\ (SaaiXeia rov Beov ppuoig 40 Kal irdoig, dXXd diKaioovvt] 17 
 
 Kai elprjvri Kal X°P a ^ v °' Tivevfiari 'Aytu 42- 6 yap iv J Tovroig" dovXev- 18 
 d)v t t<3" XpiorGi, evdpeorog tgj 6eo), «a£ J 6oKip.og" roig dvdpumoig. 
 
 X apa" ovv ra rrjg elpfjvrig X dtWKWjUsv", Kal ra rrjg olKo6ofJ,rjg rfjg & elg 19 
 
 dXXrjXovg. ' Mrj iveKev Bpufiarog KardXve to ipyov rov &eov. ndvTa 20 
 p,ev Kadapd, dXXd u ttanbv tw dvdpumu tu did 45 npoaK6fip,arog kadiovTi. 
 
 KaXbv 46 to p) 47 0aye«' 48 Kpea 49 , jujyde 50 7rtetv otvov, jujj(5£ 51 ev 62 w 6 ddeA- 21 
 
 06? aov TrpooKonrei X r) (TKaveJo^tfeTat ^ daOevel". Sv niariv * e^et? 53 ; 22 
 Kara X aavrbv" e%e evumov rov &eov~ jiaKapiog 6 p,rj u Kplvuv iavrbv 
 
 ev 55 w doKtp,d£ei. 6 6i SiaKpivopevog, kdv (payy 56 , KaTaKEKpirai 57 , on m 23 
 
 ovk Ik Triarecog- tvdv 6e 8 ovk ek Tziareug, dp,apria sarlv. 'OfeiXofiev 10 
 6e fftieZg ol dvvarol rd daOevrmara ruv ddvvdruv j3ao~Ta£eiv, Kal firj 1 
 
 iavTolg 2 apeoKsiv iKaarog X yap" rfiujv t<3 nXTjaiov dpeoKETU elg 3 to 2 
 
 dyaJdbv npbg olKodo\vf\v . mi yap* 6 & Xpiorbg ov% iavTSi Tjpeaev 6 , dXXd, 3 
 KaOojg yeypanrai, ' Ol 6vet8iap,ol t&v oveidi£6vTUV as 7 , t Sneneoov"* en' 
 
 ifie.' psb. 69. io. (69. 9.) "Oaa yap X Ttpoeypdtyr(' , elgrrjv ■fifierepav 9 SidaaKa- 4 
 Xlav X npoeypd<()7]", tva did T?jg {mop,ovrjg Kal * rrjg TtapaKXrjoeug twv 
 
 ypaQuv 10 rrjv kXirlda e^w/tsv. 6 de Qebg rrjg vrrofiovfjg 11 Kal rr\g irapa- 5 
 
 Textual: Vs. 14: L.Tr/W. airov; txt L.-marg. Vs. 15: A.L.Tr.T.W. yap. | L.Tr. 
 T.W. ovkIti. Vs. 18: A.L.Tr.T.W. to-jto, Codd. S*,A,B,C,D*; txt. Oodd.^«,D«,l l ? 8 ,37. 
 | L.W.marg. om. tQ, Codd. A,D*; [Tr.] ; txt. Codd. S,B,C,D'M'7,3'7. | L. marg. dox^oif. 
 Vs. 19: 1. mai^. hpa. \ L. marg. T.Tr. marg. "W. marg. 6i6kojj£v, Codd. X,A,B; txt. Codd. 
 C,T>,1%,31. Vs. 21: T.W. om. ft aK.avdali&Tai. % boBevel; [Tr.marg.] Vs. 22 : L.Tr.T.W 
 add #i>, Codd. X,A,B,C; A. [«i>] ; txt. W-marg. Codd. D,17,3T. | L.Tr.T.W. om. (; ); A. 
 [;]; txt. "W.marg. | A.L.Tr.T."W. aeavrbv. Chap. 15, vs. 2: A.L.Tr.T."W. om. yap, 
 Codd. NjA.B.CjD.njS 1 ?. Vs. 3: A.L.Tr.T.W. birtneoav. Vs. 4: L.marg. fypd<j>q. \ A. 
 L.Tr.T.W. kypcufr. \ A.L.Tr.T."W. add Sim; txt. "W.marg. 
 
 Grammatical: 29) W. 529. 30) B. 349. 31) W. 323.o; B. 263 ; B. 274. 32) W. 390*. 
 33) W. 152. 34) W. 160; B. 306. 35) W. 609. 36) "W. 402. 37) B. 45. 38) "W. 502. 
 39) W. 155. 40) W. 552. 41) "W. 390*. 42) W. 139. 43) W. 133.b. 44) B. 365. 
 45) W. 380. 46) "W. 584. 47) "W. 475*; B. 349. 48) W. 320... 49) W. 65.,; W. 198. 
 50) W. 488..; B. 366. 51) W. 583 ; B. 393. 52) W. 158... 53) W. 508. 54) W. 483... 
 55) W. 159; W. 386. 56) "W. 293. 57) "W. 262; W. 273; B. 199. 58) B. 393. 
 i) W. 476; B.350. 2) B. 113. 3) W. 397. 4) W. 448. 5) W. 118. 6) B 38ft 
 7) W. 222. 8) "W. 74. 9) "W. 153. 10) "W. 189*. 11) "W. 185. 
 
38 EniSTOAH K&p. 15. 
 
 KXr^aeodg <J$»/ la i/uv to avTQ (ppoveiv* 3 kv aXX^Xoig Kara 1 * tXptarbv 
 
 6 Irjaovv"' Iva 6p,oBvp,a6bv iv u kvl oto/mti doi-dtflTS tov Qeov Kal narepa 
 
 7 tov Kvpiov jJjuuv 'Itjoov XpiOTOv. Alb ttpooXafifidveade dXXrjXovg, 
 
 8 Kadug Kal <5 16 Xpiarbg npooeMPero t rilidg", elg 66ljav * 6ew 17 . Xeyu w 
 6s, i 'Itjoovv" Xpiarbv Stditovov X yeyevrjoOat, 19 TrepiTOfifjg vTrep™ dXt\- 
 
 9 deiag Qeov 31 , elg® rb (iefiai&aai rag trtayyeXiag tuv Traripuv^- rd 6e 
 eOvq vnep^ kXeovg 6oijd(rai s rbv Qe6v, KaOug yeypa-nTai, ' Atd tovtq 
 ki-ofLoXoyqoofiai aoi w ev edvem, Kal t<5 bv6\iari aov rpaXw. , Fm.ir.ooi 
 
 10 as. 49.) Kal ndXiv Xeyeij ' 'Ev(j>pdvdTjTe ) eOvr], fierd tov Xaov avTOv.' 
 
 11 Deut. ss. 48. Kal irdXiv, ' Alvetre 27 Jtov Kvpinv irdvTa rd i0vjf\ Kal t knai- 
 
 12 veo~aTe" w avTovndvTeg ol Xaol.' pm-iib-iiCut. io Kal -ndXiv J 'Haalag' 
 Xeyet, ' "Ecrrat ?} pi£,a tov 'leooai, Kal 6 aviaTd\ievog ap%eiv kOvihv®, 
 
 13 stt' 30 avTui eOvr] eX-movo-iv 31 .' u*. n. io. 'O 6e Qebg t% kXnidog 3 * 
 tnXripuoai, ifmg ndoT/g ftapag 13 Kal elprjvrjg'' kv tu> thotevuv, elg 31 to 
 nepiooeveiv ifidg kv -rfj kXnidi., kv m dvvdfiet. Uvev/uiTOg 'Ayiov. 
 
 14 IIEnEISMAI de, &deX(poi (iov, Kal ai/Tog iyco nepi 36 ifiibv, otl Kal 
 avTol fieoTol eots dyaOuovvqg, neTrXr/pufievoi -rrdarjg * ywoffewf 87 , 6wd~ 
 
 15 fievoi Kal dXXrjXovg vovBsteIv. J ToXjirjpoTepov" 39 6s eypa\pa 39 vfilv, 
 t dSeXfyoi", dnb fiepovg, wg kTravap,tiJ,vrjoK(i)v i0 vp,ag, 6id 41 T?p> %dpiv ttjv 
 
 16 6odeiadv fioi tvTrb" tov Qeov, slg 42 to elvai (ie XsiTOvpybv I'Itjoov 
 "XpiOTOv" elg to. eOvr), lepovpyovvra to evayyeXtov 43 tov Qeov, Iva 
 yevrjTai 7} irpoa^opa t&v kOv&v** evnpoa6eKTog, ffyiaoiisvri ev 45 TLvev- 
 
 17 paTi 'Ayiu. e^a) ovv 46 * Kavxr\ow kv XpiorSi 'Itjoov to 47 npbg * Qeov. 
 
 Textual : Vs. 5 : Tr. 'Ij/otw Xpiarov, Codd. X,A,0* 31 ; tet. Codd. B,C2,D,17. Vs. 7 : 
 4..L.Tr.T.W. i/ia;, Codd. X,A,C,D b ,17,3'7; txt. L. marg. Tr. marg. Codd. B,D*. | A.L.Tr.T. 
 W. add tov, Codd. N,A,B,C,D,37 ; txt. Cod. 17.. Vs. 8 : A.L.Tr.T."W. yap. | A.L.Tr.T.W. 
 om. 'Ir/aovv. | L.Tr."W. yeveadai; txt. Tr. marg. "W. marg. Vs. 11: L.W. marg. add teyei ; 
 A.Tr. marg. [Xiyei.'] | A.L.Tr.T.W. navra to Wvi) tov Ktfpjov; txt. I. marg. | A.L.Tr.T. 
 W. kiraiveaaTaaav. Vs. 12: L. 'Hoatac. Vs. 13: L.marg. ■n'faipofyoafioa.i i/i&e hv iruaj 
 \apd Kal elprjvij. Vs. 14: T. adds 1%, Codd. X,B; [A.Tr. marg.] ; txt. Codd. A,C,D. 
 Vs. 15: Tr.W. ToK^riporkp^; txt. Tr. marg. W. marg. | L.Tr.T.W. om. adeTupoi, Codd. 8* 
 A,B,C; [A.]; txt. Codd. S C ,D,17,37. | Tr.T. anb, Codd. S*,B; txt. Codd. K°,A,C,D 
 Vs. 16: A.L.1T.T.W. Xptarov 'Ij/ctoO. Vs. 17: A.L.Tr.T."W. add T77V, Codd. B,C,D,37 ; 
 txt. Codd. S,A,17. I A.L.Tr.T.W. add tov, Oodd. S,A.B,C,D,17,37. 
 
 Gkammatioal: 12) "W. 78. R ; W. 286.5 ; B.46. 13) W. 321. 14) W. 401. 15) W. 388. 
 
 16) W. 118. 17) "W. 122. 18) "W. 153. 19) "W. 334. 20) "W. 383. 21) \V. 122. 
 22) B. 264. 23) W. 185. 24) "W. 383. 25) W. 322*; W. 332*. 26) B. 176. 27) "W. 314 
 
 28) "W. 314. 29) W. 206. 30)W.233.d. 31) W. 175 ; B. 37. 32) "W. 185. 33) "W. 201.b., 
 
 34) B. 264. 35) "W. 410. 36) "W. 373. 37) W. 201. b . 38) "W. 243*. 39) "W. 278. 
 
 40) B. 307. 41) "W. 399*. 42) B. 265; B. 275. 43) W. 223*. 44) "W. 531, 45) "W. 389 
 46) W. 455. e . 47) W. 230. 
 
Kt0. 15. nPOS PQMAIOTS. 39 
 
 •ov yap X toA/mJo-g)" 48 t XaXeZv ri" iv 49 ov 50 Karecpydaaro Xpiorbg 6i' 61 ] <j 
 ifytov, elg itraicoTjv kOvuv, X&yu> 52 Kal epyu, ' kv 6vvdjj£i arjiieiuv mi 19 
 Teparwv 63 , £i> 6vvd\i£i nveviuirog J 9eov" - wots (tie dnb 'lepovoaXrjp. Kal 
 kvkXui \iexjpi rov 'IXXvptKov ne7rXripUK£vai m rb evayyeXiov rov m Xpi- 
 -arov- ovtg) 3k I <j>iXorip,ovuevov" evayyeXl&odat, ov% 66 onov bvopdodrff 20 
 Xpiarog, Iva [irj Ire' dXXorpiov defieXiov olKo3op.ib' dXXd, tcaOwg yeypan- 21 
 rat, t ' Olg ovk dvrjyyeXrj 58 nepl avrov, thpovrai"'Kal ol ova 59 dicrjicdaoi, 
 ovvrjoovoi.'' i>a. 52. is. Atd Kal kveKOTrTouTjv 6 " t rd iroXXd" 61 tov kX~ 22 
 tdeiv 1 ® rrpbg bfiag. vvvl 3k firjKen ffl T07rov e^wv |v Totf KXlfiaai rovroig, 23 
 kmnoOiav 3e e^wv" 4 t tov" eA0etv 65 7rpof v/m? dtrb J noXXS>v" iruv, &g 24 
 I iav" 66 nopevufMai elg rrjv Snaviav, t kXevaouai npbg vfidg"- kXm£w yap 
 ■6iaTwpev6p,Evog m OedoaoOai® vfiag, Kal t v<f>'" fipMV TrponefMJidfjvai e«£{ 69 , 
 ■edv vfici>v n npuTov dnb pxpovg kuTtXr)o8G>. Nw/ 3k ■^opevofiai n elg 'le- 25 
 povoaXrju, (JtaKovaJv' 2 Tot? ayioig. t evSoKTjoav" yap MaKedow'a Kal 26 
 'A^ata KQivuviav nvd iroirjoaodai 13 elg rovg nruxovg ruv ayiuv tow 74 
 h> 'lepovaaXrjfi' evdoKTjoav ydp K , Kal dqbeiXerat t avribv elaiv". si yap 27 
 rolg TrvevfiaTiKolg'' 6 avribv eK0ivuv7]aav n rd eOvtj, 6<f>e[Xovm Kal kv rolg 
 ■aapKiKolg Xeirovpyrjoai aiirolg. rovro ovv eTrireXeoag 7 * Kal o<t>payiad- 28 
 uevog t avrdig" rbv Kapnbv rovrov, dneXevoofjai 6V 79 vfiuiv elg t rffv" 
 Snavlav. 613a 3k on ipx6p,evog npbg ifiag, kv s0 irX7]puuari evXoyiag 29 
 t tov evayyeXiov tov" Xpiarov eXevoenai, UapaKaXu 3k vfidg, t adeX- 30 
 <poi", did 81 rov Kvpiov fj[j£>v 'Ir/aov Xptarov, Kal did rf^g dydTTTjg tov 
 llvevfiarog, ovvayuvloaodai® fioi ev raig npooev%dlg vnep e/Mov irpbg 
 
 Textdal: Vs. 18: L. marg. Tr. marg. W. marg. Tol/tu, Codd. X°,B; tit. Codd. N*,A,C, 
 D. | A.L.Tr.T.W. ti lafalv. Vs. 19: L.Tr.W. marg. dyiov, Codd. A,G,B*,11,31 ; "W. ran. 
 Scov, Cod. B ; A. [aylov] ■ txt Codd. X,D b . Vs. 20 : L.Tr.W. marg. $i7.m i/iov/iai, Codd. 
 B,D*; txt. Tr.marg. Codd. X.A.C.D^.IT.ST. Vs. 21: Tr. marg. W. marg. bipovrai olg 
 ovk avTuyfXri irepl avrov. Vs. 22 : L.Tr. marg. "W. marg. noTJ-Mius, Codd. B,D ; txt. 
 Codd. S,A,C,1T,37. Vs. 23: L. [rov.] | A.Tr.W. Uavav, Codd. B,C,37; txt. Tr.marg. 
 Codd. X,A,D,17. Vs. 24: A.L.Tr.T.W. dv. | A.L.Tr.T."W. om. kheioofiai irpof i/iac, Codd. 
 N*,A,B,C,D; txt. Codd. S°,l7,37. | A.L.W. af; Tr. marg. oiro ; txt. W. marg. Vss. 26 
 and 27: Tr.T. jivSoKijaav; Tr. marg. ev66*.r)otv. Vs. 27: A.L.Tr.T."W. elaiv avruv. 
 Vs. 28 : W. marg. om. airolc. \ A.L.Tr.T."W. om. ryv. Vs. 29 : A.L.Tr.T.W. om. rov evay 
 ye?.Lo>jrov, Codd. S*A,B,C,D; txt. Codd. X°,17,37. Vs. 30: W. om. aieT^oC; [A.]; 
 
 tit. W. marg. 
 
 » 
 
 Grammatical: 48) W. 279. 49) W. 158; W. 166.1,; B. 287. 50) W. 498. 51) W. 217. 
 52) W 216. d ; W. 552. 53) W. 65. 54) W. 334. 55) W. 118. 56) W. 556*. 
 57) W 615. 58) "W 82. 59) B. 349. 60) "W. 268. b ; "W. 604; B. 270. 61) B. 96. 
 62) W 325- B. 268. 63) W. 483./J. 64) B. 294*. 65) W. 324... 66) "W. 308*6. 
 .67) W 321 ' 68) "W. 331... 69) W. 472. 70) W. 198... 71) W. 265. 72) W. 342. fc 
 73 W 256. 74) W. 133.b. 75) W. 448. 76) W. 200.a; W. 209. t . 77) W. 292, 
 •>8) W. 343. 79) W 378*. 80) W. 384. 81) W. 381. 82) W. 332. 
 
40 EIIISTOAH K«p. 15, 16. 
 
 81 tov Qe6v Iva pvadti dtxb tG>v aTreidovvruv^ tv vq 'lov Salp, Kal t Iva" 
 r) t dianovia" uov j} 84 \ elg" 'IepovaaXr)u evnpdodeKTog X yhryrai Tolg dyi' 
 
 82 oig"' Iva lev %apa IXduf' -npbg vuag did deXtjuaTog X Qeov"®, Xnal" 
 33 \ ovvavanavowuai vulv". 6 6s Qebg® Ttjg elpfjVTjg juerd navToxv vuav. 
 
 t durjv". 
 16 STNISTHMI t de" vulv Qoifiriv ttjv ddefapfjv t rju&v", ovoav 1 * 6id- 
 
 2 kovov rrfg EKKXjfolag rfjg 2 kv I KeyxP ea H "' t- va t avrrjv npoade^rjade" ev* 
 Kvpico agiug to>v oytwv 4 , Kal ■napaoTr)Te airy kv s w av s vuwv XPVfy 
 npayfiari' Kal yap 7 t avrrj" 9 TrpooTaTig 3 noXXwv kyevrjOrj, Kal X ayrov 
 
 3 iuov". 'AoTrdoaode X UplaKiXXav" Kal 'AjcvXav rovg ovvepyovg uov iv 10 
 
 4 XpiorSi 'lijoov' olriveg 11 im&p rf/g ipvxw uov rbv kavT&v Tpd\xr\Xov vne- 
 drjKav, olg ovk kyu /j,6vog n svxapiorci), dXXd Kal naoat al kKKXrjoiai rotv 
 
 5 edvuv Kal rrjv Kar' ockov airuv i.KKki\aiav, dandaaaSe X '"EnaiveTOv" 
 rbv dyaTTTjTov uov, bg kariv dnapx'l T ^f t'A^ataf" 13 slg u Xpiarov, 
 
 £ dondoaode X Mapidu" 15 , TjTig 16 noXXd kKomaoev elg X r)uag". doTtdoaode 
 'AvSpoviKov Kal 'lovviav rovg avyyevelg uov 11 Kal avvaixaaXuTOvg uov 
 oiriveg eloiv imarjuot ev rolg dirooToXoig, ol Kal rrpb ls kuov X yeyova- 
 
 8 gw" kv Xpiorfi. dorrdaaods X 'AunXiav" 19 rbv dyanrfTov t uov" iv Kv- 
 
 9 pioy. do-rrdoaode Ovpfiavbv rbv awepybv r)uu>v kv w \ Xpiorco", Kal 
 
 10 Sto%w tov dya-nrpov uov. daizdaaade 'AneXXrjv rbv Sokiuov kv 
 
 11 ~K.pi.OTS). doTrdoaade Toi)g bk tuv 'ApiOToPovXov 21 . dandoaade X 'Hpo- 
 diuva" tov X ovyysvr(' n uov. dorrdaaode Tovg in tu>v TifapKiooov, Toi)g 
 
 12 5vTag kv Kvpiu*. doTrdaaade Tpvcpaivav Kal Tpv(p&oav Tag Komuoag 
 ev 23 Kvplo). X doixdaaode TLepoida ttjv dyaTT7iTrjv f fJTig^ noXXd kKoni- 
 
 Textual: Vs. 31: A.L.Tr.T.W. om. Iva. | L.Tr. marg. "W. marg. dapofopia, Codd. B,D* ; 
 txt. Codd. NACDM^Sf. | L.Tr. marg. W. marg. kv, Codd. B,D*; txt. Codd. X,A,C,D°, 
 17,31. | A.L.Tr.T.W. rolg ayioig yivrirai. Vs. 32 : W.Tr. marg. kv xvp? kWuv; T. kWav 
 h x a P9 ; * x *- V- marg. | L.Tr. marg. TV. marg. nvpiov 'Iqoov, Cod. B ; txt. Codd. X C ,A,C, 
 D°,l1,3l. | Tr. marg. T.W. marg. om. Kal, Codd. S*A,C; txt. S«,(D),1T,37. | L.W. marg. 
 ora. awanavaajiai, i/uv, Cod. B ; txt. Codd. NAiC,!?^ 1 ? ; A. [k<k ovvaisavGOfiaL i^iv.J 
 Vs. 33: [L.Tr.] Chap. 16, vs. 1: W. marg. om. SL \ L. marg. ti/iav. | W. adds Kal; txt. 
 W. marg. | T. Kct. Vs. 2 : A.L.Tr.W. npoade^ade avrijv. | A.L.T.W. airy. | A.L.Tr.T.W. 
 kfiov avrov. Vs. 3 : A.L.Tr.T.W. Hpiaxav. Vs. 5 : T. 'Enaiverbv. | A.L.Tr.T.W. 'Aaiac, 
 Codd. N, AB,C,D* ; txt. Codd. D b ,17,37. Vs. 6 : A.L.Tr.W. Mapiav. | A.L.Tr.T.W. tymf. 
 Vs. 7 : A.L.Tr.T.W. yiyovav. Vs. 8 : L. marg. Tr. ' Kp.^'kia.Tov ; A.T.W. marg. 'A/iirMa- 
 tov; W. 'Apr/lmv. | W. marg. om. /iov. Vs. 9: L.W. marg. Kvpiu, Codd. C,D,37; txt 
 'odd. X,A,B,H. Vs. 11: A.L.Tr.T.W. 'Hpadiuva. \ Tr. ovyyevijv. Vs. 12: [L.] 
 
 Grammatical: 83) W. 234. 84) W. 133.D. 85) W. 122. 86) W. 585. 1) W. 134; 
 W. 343. 2) W. 133.b. 3) W. 390. 4) W. 234.1. 5) W. 159. 6) W. 307. 7) W. 448. 
 8) B. 109. 9) W. 638. 10) W. 136. 11) W. 562; W. 566*. 12) B. 83. 13) W. 185. 
 14) W. 397. 15) B. 176. 16) B. 115. 17) W. 143. 18) W. 372. d . 19) W. 103 ; W. 113, 
 20) W. 136. 21) B. 95. 22) W. 66 ; B. 13. 23) W. 390. 24) B. 115. 
 
Ke0. 16. IIP02 PfiMAIOTS. 41 
 
 aaev h> Kvply". doirdoaode 'Pov<pov rbv inheKTov kv KvpUp, nal rfjv 13. 
 fii]T£pa avrov Kai ifiov^. acmdoaoOe X 'A-OvyicpiTov", QXeyovra, t 'Ep- L4 
 ftav" 26 , Ti.arp6(5av i X 'Eppjv", Kai rovg avv avrotg dSeXtftovg. dandaa- 15> 
 ode QtXoXoyov ml X 'lovXiav, N^pea" Kai rijv ddeXcprjv avrov, Kai 
 'OXvuTrav w , Kai rovg avv avrotg irdvrag dyiovg. dandaaade dXXrjXovg 16' 
 iv (ptXrjuart dyico. dand^ovrat vpdg al eKuXtjaiai * rov^ Xptarov. 
 
 TlapanaXu) Se vfiag, ddeXcpoi, OKOiretv 23 rovg rag 8t%oaraatag Kai to 80 17 
 oitdvdaXa, napa 31 rrjv ddSaxftv r)v iustg kuddere, noiovvrag- Kai J e«- 
 KXivare" 3 * an' avr&v. ol yap rotovrot tw Kvpiu 1\p£>v VItjoov" Xpi- 18 
 otw ov SovXevovaiv, dXXd ry kavruv KOtXlgr Kai did rfjg %pijaroXayiag 
 X Kai evXoyiag" ^anar&ai rag KapSlag r&v dudtiuv. r) yap 33 vuibv* 4 19 
 imaKofj elg -ndvrag ouptKero 35 - X%a.ipu> ovv rb ftp' vp.lv". BeXo) 6e 
 vp,ag ooQovg t uev" elvai slg rb dyaOov, &KEpaiovg tie elg rb KaKov. 6 20' 
 6s Qebg rfjg elprjvrjg X avvrpiipet" 36 rbv Saravav vnb 37 rovg nodag vpuv 
 iv rdxei. jj %dpig rov Kvpiov r]u&v 'Itjoov t Xptarov" ued' vuuv. * 
 X 'Aandfyvrat" vudg TtuoOeog 6 avvepyog uov, Kai AovKiog Kai 'Idauv 21 
 Kai liuainarpog ol ovyyeveig uov. dtrrrd^ouat vudg ^ya) 88 Tiprtog 6 22 
 ypdipag rijv kmoroXrjv £i& 9 Kvpto), aand^erat vudg Td'iog 6 l-evog pov 23 
 Kai X rfjg eKKXrjaiag oXrjg"- doTrd£erai vudg "EpaffTO? 6 ofoovouog rfjg 
 iroXeug, Kai Kovaprog 6 aoeX<p6c,. 
 
 t 'H %dpig rov "Kvpiov r)uw> Itjoov Xptarov uerd ndvruv vuuv". 24 
 ap/fpi. Tw oi dvvapev(o i0 vudg arijpi^at Kara 41 rb evayyeXtov pov Kai rb 25 
 Ktjpvyua 'Ir/aov Xptarov, Kara aTTOKdXwpiv fivarrjpiov xpovotg 42 aluviotg 
 aeatyrjuevoV) ' (pavepcodevrog tie w, did re 43 ypaxft&v npo^riKuv, Kar' 2S 
 kmrayfjv rov aluviov Qeov, elg vnaKofjv moreug** elg 45 ndvra rd sdvrj 
 
 Textual: Vs. 14: T. 'AativKptrov. | A.L.Tr.T.'W. transpose 'Ep/iav and 'Ep^v. 
 Vs. 15: L.marg. 'lovvtav, Nqpiav. Vs. 16: A.L.Tr.T.'W. add maai, Codd. X,A,B,C,37; 
 txt. Codd. 17.,37. Vs. 11: Tr.T.W. marg. ixxAivsTc, Codd. X*,B,C,37; txt. Codd. S«,A, 
 D,1T. Vs. 18: A.L.Tr.T/W. om. 'Iriaov, Codd. NAB,^?; txt. Cod. IT. | W-marg. om.. 
 nal cv\oytas, Codd. D, 17 : txt. Codd. S,A,B,C. Vs. 19: A.L.Tr.T.'W. if v/dv oiv ^a/pu. 
 
 I A.L.Tr.T/W. om. jiev, Codd. B,D ; txt. Codd. X,A,C,17«,37. Vs. 20 : "W. marg. ovvrpifai. 
 
 I T. om. XpicTov, Codd. X,B; [A.Tr.] ; txt Codd. A,C,17,37. | E. adds afiyv. Vs. 21: 
 A.L.Tr.T."W. uoird&Tat, Codd. X ,A,B,0,D*,3 I ? ; txt. Codd. D',17.. Vs. 23: AL.Tr.T.W. 
 bMi rye iKKXvaiac. Vs. 24: L.Tr.T.W. om. vs. 24, Codd. N,A,B,C; [A.] ; txt. W. marg. 
 Codd. D,(17),(37). 
 
 Grammatical: 25) "W. 155; B. 117. 26) W. 103. 27) W. 103. 28) W. 118. 
 
 29) "W. 332. 30) "W. 126; B. 100. 31) "W. 404. 32) W. 314; "W. 429.4. 33) "W. 447. 
 
 34) B. 117. 35) B. 60. 36) W. 280*. 37) W. 621. 38) "W. 521... 39) "W. 390. 
 
 40) W. 567*; B. 293; B. 386. 41) W. 401. 42) "W. 218.,; B. 186. 43) W. 435. 
 44) "W. 186. 45) "W. 396.^ 
 
42 EIIISTOAH nPOS PJ2MAIOTS. Ke</>. 16. 
 
 27 yvwpiodevTog, ' fidvw 46 ao<p& 6e(3, (M 47 'Itjoov Xpiarov, f w" 48 ^ 49 <$6|a° 9 
 eif Tovg aluvag. * dfi^v. 
 
 f Upbg 'Phmaiovg eypd^rj dnb Kopivdov did 4>oi/37/?, TTjg dianovov rr\q 
 sv KeyxpEalg e.KKM\aiaq" . 
 
 Textual: Vs. 27: "W. marg. om. <J, Cod. B. | L.T.W. marg. add tov al&vav. Sub- 
 scription: L.T.W. om. ; A.Tr. IIP02 PQMAI0T2, Codd. k,A,B*,C,D* 
 
 Grammatical: 46) W. 567*. 47) W. 378. 48) W. 168. 49) W. 108.u 50) B. 137. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 I.— ON SOME CONTROVERTED POINTS IN THE 
 EXPOSITION OF THE SEVENTH CHAPTER 
 OF EOMANS. 
 
 II.— THE GNOMIC AORIST IN THE NEW TESTA- 
 MENT. 
 
 III.— SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE GREEK AR- 
 TICLE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 IV.— THE REVISED VERSION OF THE NEW TES- 
 TAMENT. 
 
X— ON SOME CONTROVERTED POINTS IN THE EXPO- 
 SITION OF THE SEVENTH CHAPTER OP ROMANS. 
 
 Thebe are two modes recognized by exegetical scholars of 
 ascertaining the meaning of a passage of Scripture. One is, to 
 take as " the starting-point the understanding of the details, in 
 order to arrive at the understanding of the whole." The other 
 is, " that the whole must be first understood in order to attain 
 ■to the understanding of the individual parts." * The former 
 is the natural method, and one that must commend itself to the 
 student of the holy Scriptures. The context, also, must be 
 carefully studied, so as to secure a clear view of the relations 
 of the passage to what goes before and what follows, and to 
 the main purpose of the writer. 
 
 It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the formu- 
 lated doctrines which may be deduced from this paragraph, 
 but to study some of the separate points on which controversy 
 and wide divergences of opinion have arisen among New Tes- 
 tament scholars. This mode of approach to the meaning is 
 necessarily incomplete, for it is as important to study the parts 
 in the light of the context and of the purpose of the writer as 
 it is to study the context and purpose of the writer in the light 
 of its separate parts. Both methods are necessary to the thor- 
 ough comprehension of the subject under consideration. This 
 paper will be limited chiefly to the former method as a prepa- 
 ration for the latter. 
 
 The seventh chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans, espe- 
 cially the part beginning at the seventh verse and closing with 
 the twenty-fifth, has been the subject of almost endless contro- 
 versy. The diversity of views in the interpretation of this pas- 
 sage affords a clear illustration of the influence of subjective con- 
 siderations over the normal exercise of the critical and logical 
 powers. The early Church, especially the Greek Church, held 
 one view. Augustine, following Methodius, gave emphasis to 
 another exposition. His interpretation arose not so much from 
 a critical study of the passage as from considerations of its ap- 
 plication. Modern commentators have not hesitated to contend 
 
 * Immer's Eermeneutics, Newman's translation, p. 212. 
 
for their particular view on the ground that it is more favor- 
 able to the promotion of a high Christian life than the other. 
 
 While our opinions, environments, and experiences must, in 
 a greater or less degree, affect our interpretation of a written 
 document so intensely personal as this passage, it is nevertheless 
 the duty of the expositor to reduce these influences to the min- 
 imum, and to study the passage as dispassionately as possible. 
 He would not only be a bold but a rash and unscholarly man 
 who should discuss in a dogmatic spirit a passage so profound 
 and difficult, and one on which so many pious thinkers of equal 
 scholarship have differed so widely. It is proposed to touch 
 some of the more salient points on which commentators have 
 differed, in order to make apparent the lines of divergence- 
 We will present these topics in the order in which they will 
 naturally arrest the reader's attention. 
 
 The connection of the passage with the immediately preced- 
 ing context requires mention. The tracing of the connection 
 in Paul's writings is especially difficult. His frequent digres- 
 sions, often without warning to the reader, involve the neces- 
 sity of constant watchfulness to prevent confounding them with 
 his main argument. The connection of this passage is shown 
 by the question which the apostle at once asks : " Is the law 
 sin ? " This is the question an objector would naturally raise,, 
 and from the seventh to the thirteenth verse the apostle an- 
 swers it by showing in his own past experience the blessed 
 purpose of the law, and its blessed consequences as well. " Is 
 the law sin ? " On the contrary, " I had not known sin except 
 through law." " By the law is the knowledge of sin." By its 
 commands it shows the absolute rule of right, and by its rewards, 
 and penalties the attitude of God toward the actions of men. 
 This will appear by reading the fifth verse with verses 7-13. If 
 this stand-point of the apostle is properly interpreted it follows 
 that from the fourteenth to the twenty-fifth verse there is a di- 
 gression which is connected with what has gone before but not 
 necessarily dependent on it. It is clear that this whole period 
 has for its primary, if not exclusive, object the defense of the 
 law against the attacks which the objectors had made upon it ; 
 showing that the law is not of the nature of sin, nor the cause 
 of specific acts of transgression, but that which reveals sin to 
 our apprehension and to our consciousness. We must assent to 
 
the conclusion that the defense of the law is the primary object, 
 of the apostle in this passage : " I was alive without law once," 
 'Eyw de e&v %wplq vofiov tote. The point of time indicated, 
 by 7Tore shows that it was not his state at the time of writing 
 of which he speaks. There was a point in his history when he 
 was alive, but afterward a new factor was introduced, namely, 
 the commandment, at which point of time he died. This sud- 
 denness of the revival of sin, and of his death as a consequence 
 of its revival, is shown by the employment of aorists through- 
 out until the thirteenth verse. He argues the value of the law 
 by showing what it had done for him. The argument of the 
 apostle is certainly remarkable, and at first view seems to prove 
 that the coming of the law was not a benefit but an injury. 
 From a state of life he has been brought into a state of death ;, 
 and yet the state of death was better than the life which he had 
 enjoyed before the coming of the law. What is meant, then,, 
 by being alive ? Dr. Beet says : 
 
 His death was that separation from the life of God which is the 
 immediate result of the sentence already pronounced on the sin- 
 ner; which at once brings spiritual corruption, from which nothing 
 but spiritual resurrection can save, and which otherwise will in- 
 evitably be eternal. It stands in awful contrast to the life which 
 is the believer's present possession, and which will develop into- 
 eternal life. . . . Before Paul entered upon this state of death 
 he was alive. His life was evidently that which he lost by death, 
 . . . Paul says that when the law came he lost it. When was he 
 thus alive? Not in his sinful days. He says expressly (Eph. 
 ii, 1-5) that he was then dead. To say that he was then alive is 
 utterly alien from the thought of Paul, and has no parallel in 
 any of his writings. When was Paul under God's smile and on. 
 the way to eternal life ? In the days of infancy, before the age 
 of responsibility. He had then a life which the death of the body 
 could not touch. To have slain the little one at Tarsus would 
 only have have put him beyond the reach of sin and death. . . . 
 Yet even in those days Paul was a child born in sin. But he 
 knew not right and wrong. Consequently, the sin which lay in 
 his heart was powerless and inactive. The child grew to boy- 
 hood. Through his mother's lips the commandment of God 
 came to him. He learned that God had forbidden him to desire 
 certain objects around. And now awoke to activity the innate 
 but slumbering power of sin. Paul's own depraved nature led 
 him to break the law, and thus made him conscious of the pres- 
 ence and power of sin. His death was the loss of the life he 
 possessed in the days of innocence.* 
 
 * Commentary on Romans, p. 205. 
 
Dr. Beet claims that this is the interpretation of Origen, 
 with which Meyer and Godet concur. He thus joins the 
 ancient and the modern interpreters in the support of his 
 exposition. On the other hand, Dr. Shedd says : 
 
 It is seeming life antithetic to the seeming death of sin in the 
 preceding verse. The enjoyment of sin and the absence of re- 
 morse make up a false and counterfeit life which is the charac- 
 teristic of the unconverted sinner. . . . The life intended here, 
 in e£uv, is the same with that expressed in the second member of 
 the epicure's dictum : dum vivimus, vivamus, or in the common 
 phrases, " high life " and " seeing life." * 
 
 The word "dead," in the preceding verse, he explains as 
 " unconvicted," " without remorse." " Only a seeming death 
 is meant, like the death of sleep. Compare Shakespeare's ' We 
 were dead of sleep ' (Tempest, v, i)." 
 
 These two widely divergent views, by two of the latest and 
 most eminent commentators, show how arduous a task it is 
 to determine or ascertain the exact meaning of the apostle's 
 phrase. 
 
 It is difficult to conceive that Paul should have referred to 
 the period antecedent to responsibility, that is, to his childhood 
 state, without some more definite intimation of it. There is 
 no other instance of such reference on the part of Paul. Be- 
 sides, it is not a state which results in death to which sin 
 brought him, but a state of death. " Sin revived ... I died." 
 The same remark will apply to Dr. Shedd's, " seeming death as 
 •contrasted with seeming life." The whole transaction is too 
 intensely real to justify these interpretations. 
 
 Sin was in Paul's view a terrible reality, from which he had 
 •obtained deliverance through Christ ; and he here adverts to his 
 former state, when the law revealed to him his sinfulness, and 
 became his school-master to bring him to Christ. Is it not 
 better to affirm that by being " alive " the apostle meant to be 
 without a consciousness of sin — in a state of enjoyment ? When 
 he did not understand the true nature of the law he thought 
 himself a keeper of the law. Neither the statement that " his 
 death was the loss of the life he possessed in the days of his 
 innocence," nor that " the life intended here in efwv is that ex- 
 pressed in the second member of the epicure's dictum," meets 
 
 * Shedd's Commentary on Romans, p. 183. 
 
the requirements of Paul's argument. His life, so far as we 
 know it, was an intensely serious life. " I verily thought with 
 myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of 
 Jesus of Nazareth." He affirms the rectitude of his purposes 
 and his consequent satisfaction with his own course. It was 
 not " a false, counterfeit life ;" it was an earnest life, but a mis- 
 taken one, actually enjoying its deeds, until the commandment 
 •came and awakened him to its real character. He himself says 
 of his condition before conversion : " As touching the law, a 
 Pharisee ; concerning zeal, persecuting the Church." On the 
 other hand, by being dead, veicpd, he means consciousness of be- 
 ing a sinner, deserving of the penalty due to those who violate 
 the law of God. 
 
 With this interpretation in mind we may profitably examine 
 the passage more closely. " I was alive without the law once." 
 When was the once — nore — when was he alive? It was the 
 time when he was %wpcV vofiov. The text does not say, without 
 the law — that is, that he had not the law — but apart from the 
 consideration or full comprehension of law, he was alive. 
 
 Meyer on Pom. iii, 28, on x u P l S epyav vopov, explains " with- 
 out the co-operation therein of works of law (ver. 20), which 
 •on the contrary remain apart from all connection with it." It 
 does not mean, then, without the possession of law, but with- 
 out taking law into the account he was alive, but when a clear 
 and full revelation of law came to him he died. Similarly 
 Piele interprets : 
 
 For when the pressure of law is not felt, a man's propensity to 
 ■sin is not felt ; it is even, as it were, dead within him. . . . Yea, I 
 once, because I felt not the full significance and constraining 
 power of law, had spiritual life in me, as I thought. 
 
 His being alive was not in connection with the ante-legal state, 
 as Beet affirms, but with his condition apart from law. In this 
 state he had a life of which he was deprived by the coming of the 
 law in its fullness. When did this sense of the law fully come 
 to him ? Was it not when he was awakened on his way to 
 Damascus ? Then it was that he realized his inability to save 
 himself by law, and surrendered himself to accept the gratuitous 
 salvation provided by Christ. It was when sin deceived him, 
 and through the law slew him, that he cried out for deliver- 
 ance. The coming of the law into his consciousness was the 
 
 4 
 
coming of death, because it revealed to him sin, which results 
 in spiritual and eternal death. 
 
 Another exegetical difficulty has arisen at the fourteenth 
 verse. The former part of the chapter uniformly employs the 
 aorist tense, but at this point the present becomes the tense 
 uniformly employed. How can this change be accounted for? 
 Dr. Whedon's Commentary regards the whole passage (7-25) 
 as a parenthesis, but offers no solution of this change of tense. 
 He regards verses 7-12 as an expansion of verse 5, and verses 
 13-25 as an expansion of 7-12, and remarks that " it is clear 
 that all three passages do describe but one thing : how with the 
 man in the flesh under the law the motions of sin # bring forth 
 death." 
 
 Some explanation, however, is clearly needed, and Dr. Shedd 
 says: 
 
 St. Paul now turns to the experience of the regenerate. The 
 sudden and striking change in verse 14 and continuing through 
 the entire section, from the past to the present tense together 
 with ttotb in verse 9, indicates this.* 
 
 It is the mark, or at least one of the marks, by which Paul 
 reveals the transition from the condition of the unregenerate to 
 that of the regenerate. 
 
 Dr. Beet has also given an explanation, but a very different 
 one. In his commentary on Rom. vii, 14, he says : 
 
 Notice the change from the past to the present. In order to 
 explain the purpose of a bygone event, namely, "sin slew me," 
 Paul describes the abiding state of death in which that event 
 placed him. The event of death is past, the state of death is 
 present. 
 
 Again he says : 
 
 It has been objected to the view here advocated that the 
 change of tense between verses 13 and 14 implies a change of 
 time. But we saw under verse 14 that the past tenses describe 
 the event of death; the present tenses describe the abiding state 
 which followed the event. ... I account therefore for the gram- 
 matical structure of the passage by saying that Paul throws him- 
 self into the past and writes as though it were present. . . . The 
 past and present tenses are distinguished not only in time but as 
 different modes of viewing an action. The past tense looks upon 
 it as already complete; the present, as going on before our eyes. 
 He is at liberty, therefore, to use that tense which enables him 
 * Shedd's Commentary on Bomans, I. c. 
 
to present most vividly the picture before him. This mode of 
 speech is common to all languages: but it is a conspicuous feat- 
 are of the language in which this epistle is written. (See Kueh- 
 ner, Greek Grammar, § 382, 2.) . . . In the narration of past events 
 the present is frequently used, especially in principal sentences, 
 but not infrequently in subordinate sentences, while in the vivid- 
 ness of the presentation the past is looked upon as present. 
 
 In other words, at the fourteenth verse, for greater vividness 
 of expression, or to make the language more pictorial, Paul em- 
 ploys the present tense. Dr. Beet, in common with Dr. Whedon, 
 regards the paragraph as continuous and having no break in the 
 subject. Dr. Shedd divides it into two sections, making the 
 break at this point. But just why the eyo> remains with a com- 
 plete change of reference does not clearly appear. 
 
 Alford explains : 
 
 I believe the true account will be nearly as follows : From 
 verses 7-13, inclusive, is historical, and the eyw there is the his- 
 torical self, under the working of conviction of sin, and showing 
 the work of the law. . . . Then at verse 14 Paul, according to 
 a habit very common to him, keeps hold of the carnal self, and 
 still having it in view, transfers himself into his present position 
 altering the past tense to the present. 
 
 Meyer also regards the paragraph as continuous : 
 
 For the subject is in verses 14-25 necessarily the same — and 
 that, indeed, in its unredeemed condition — as previously gave its 
 psychological history prior to and under the law (hence the pre- 
 terites in verses 7-13), and now depicts its position confronting 
 (6e) the pneumatic nature of the law (hence the presents in verse 
 14, ff). ... It is true the situation which the apostle thus exhibits in 
 his own representative ego, was for himself as an individual one 
 long since past; but he realizes it as present, and places it before 
 their eyes like a picture, in which the stand-point of the happier 
 present in which he now finds himself renders possible the per- 
 spective that lends to every feature of his portrait the light of 
 clearness and truth. 
 
 "Will it not be better to assume that the change of tense is 
 due to the transition from an historical fact in his own experi- 
 ence, antecedent to the revelation of the law to him in its full- 
 ness, to a statement of a universal experience of all men, then 
 and now, of the antagonism between a spiritual law which can 
 only be fulfilled by a spiritual man, and the natural man. What 
 he states in verses 7— 13 is the fact that in his own ease the law 
 was a benediction and not an evil ; that it revealed to him his 
 
sinfulness; while in verses 14-25 he affirms an antagonism be- 
 tween the spiritual law and the natural man, which belongs to 
 all men, and which is true of all men now, as the former fact 
 was to him in his earlier experience. 
 
 The change of tense without notice is not infrequent in 
 Paul's writings. His digressions are made without warning to 
 the reader ; a slight shade of thought passing through his mind, 
 or the mention of a single word, is enough to set him off into 
 a digression which illumines the subject under discussion and 
 places it amid larger environments. 
 
 Who is meant by the eyw running through this section is 
 another of the controverted points to which attention needs to 
 be called. Is it Paul himself, or does he speak in a representa- 
 tive capacity ? 
 
 Augustine, with others, regards the eyu as Paul himself, and 
 this is the most natural meaning to be placed upon the language. 
 Granting that in other places he employs the eyw and fftielg meta- 
 phorically, or, in his own language, 1 Cor. iv, 6, \i£T£a%r\\iATwa, 
 it does not follow that such usage is applicable here. He is 
 writing to the Roman Church, who would not be supposed to 
 know this method of personification of the apostle, and would 
 naturally interpret in a straightforward manner. 
 
 Further, it is inconceivable that he would do so in an epistle 
 so important, and in which he was embodying a system of 
 doctrine for the Church in the capital of the civilized world. 
 The fact also that the iyu is carried throughout the para- 
 graph, with the employment of the plural but twice, would 
 indicate that he uses it in the ordinary sense. The pertinency 
 also of the illustration would be more clear, and its influence 
 greater on his hearers, if at this point he related his own ex- 
 perience in relation to the value of the law. And yet, as 
 Tholuck observes, we require always to keep in view that Paul 
 compresses individual experiences into general propositions and 
 results. 
 
 The reader who takes up this book merely to ascertain its 
 meaning, and looking at this passage as isolated from its con- 
 nection after the manner already indicated as the initial step in 
 the exposition of a passage, would not hesitate to believe that 
 Paul is here using himself as an illustration of the doctrine he is 
 enforcing ; namely, the inability of the law to save the sinner, 
 
and at the same time its excellence in revealing sin and in 
 awakening a sense of sin. 
 
 Nor are we justified in accepting the different uses of <tyw 
 in the passage as claimed by Dr. Shedd.* He remarks, that in 
 order to correct exegesis it is necessary in the outset to notice 
 two senses in which tyo) is used in this section by St. Paul : 
 
 1. Comprehensive ; 2. Limited. The comprehensive eyw de- 
 notes the entire person of the believer, as actuated by both the 
 Holy Spirit and the remainders of the evil principle of sin. The 
 ey« in this sense is complete, and contains a mixture of both the 
 spiritual and the carnal, in which, however, the spiritual predom- 
 inates. The limited eyw, on the other hand, denotes the person 
 of the believer only as actuated by the Holy Spirit, omitting and 
 excluding the workings of remaining sin. The instances of this 
 latter signification are only two, namely: eyo> in verses 17 and 
 20, qualified by ovksti. This limited eya> is also described in 
 verse 22 as 6 eau avdpotnog, and in verses 23 and 25 as 6 vopog 
 tov voog. The comprehensive eyo> includes the limited eyw plus 
 the remnants of the old sinful nature. The limited eyw includes 
 only the new principle of holiness minus these remnants. The 
 former is a complex of grace and sin ; the latter is grace simply 
 and only. 
 
 This analysis is exceedingly clear, and is put in the masterly 
 and analytic style for which Dr. Shedd is so justly admired. 
 Of course, if we assume the stand-point of Dr. Shedd, namely, 
 that Paul is describing in verses 14^25 a regenerate man, some 
 such discrimination in the meaning of eyo> in different parts of 
 this paragraph is necessary ; but if, on the other hand, we look at 
 this passage in its parts as we are now doing, the student would 
 scarcely suspect any such subtle discrimination. It is supposa- 
 ble that he would continue to use the eyw in the same sense 
 throughout the same discussion. 
 
 Looking at this passage in the absence of a theory of inter- 
 pretation, we reach the conclusion that Paul is here speaking 
 of his own experience at some point in his past life or during 
 some condition of it. 
 
 It is important to notice that one of the points made by Dr. 
 Shedd in explanation, if not in proof, of his discrimination be- 
 tween the unlimited and the limited eyo> is, that the comprehen- 
 sive eyw "contains a mixture of both the spiritual and the car- 
 nal, in which, however, the spiritual predominates :" At what 
 *Shedd's Commentary on Romans, p. 191. 
 
point in this chapter does the "spiritual predominate?" This 
 is a question of the utmost importance. It can be answered 
 only by referring to the passage itself. The quotations are 
 from the late Revision : " For we know that the law is spiritual : 
 but I am carnal, sold under sin " (ver. 14) ; " What I hate, that 
 I do " (ver. 15) ; " Tor the good which I would I do not : but 
 the evil which I would not, that I practise " (ver. 19) ; " For I 
 delight in the law of God after the inward man : but I see a 
 different law in my members, warring against the law of my 
 mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which 
 is in my members. O wretched man that I am ! who shall de- 
 liver me out of the body of this death ? " Yers. 22-24. 
 
 This passage, which Dr. Whedon felicitiously calls the battle of 
 the I's, is remarkable for the fact that victory never is with the 
 I of the higher nature, but invariably with the I of the lower 
 nature. It is a conflict between crapf, and vovg, in which the aap% 
 is invariably victor. The bearing of the twenty-fifth verse is 
 simply to summarize the nature of the conflict. The conclusion 
 was interrupted by the thanksgiving of the apostle that in his 
 helplessness he had found deliverance in Jesus Christ. One 
 who is conversant with the style of Paul will see in this verse, 
 in its relation to the previous context, a familiar form of Pauline 
 style. He is describing the conflict with all the fervor of recol- 
 lections which were vivid and fresh ; he reaches the point where 
 the helplessness of the natural man becomes overpowering ; he 
 cries out for deliverance in one of the most impassioned utter- 
 ances to be found in any language, and, full of rapturous joy, 
 bursts into thanksgiving for the prospect of deliverance and for 
 the deliverer. It is the mighty sweep of his great soul, stirred 
 to its very depths, that could not stop until rescued from his state 
 of nature and brought into the state of grace. He then stops, 
 and in a single sentence he recalls the conflict and the parties 
 to it. " So then I myself with the mind serve the law of God ; 
 but with the flesh the law of sin." Yer. 25. 
 
 This brings us to a point of practical importance : is it the 
 regenerate man battling with indwelling sin who is here de- 
 scribed, or is it the natural man in whom the higher and the 
 lower natures are in conflict ? The I myself, in the twenty-fifth 
 verse, has the two parts already indicated ; namely, the vovg and 
 the odpl-. Do these two parts constitute the natural man or the 
 
spiritual man ? We must be careful here in the definition of 
 our terms. If by the natural man it is meant to describe a 
 man who has no spiritual light, no divine voice speaking to him, 
 then it must be conceded that this is a description too high 
 for such a person ; but if we bear in mind that this is one to 
 whom the law has spoken, and who has been awakened by the 
 Spirit of God, then we have a description in harmony with 
 human experience in all ages of the Church. 
 
 The exact point of discussion, however, is, whether the 
 vovg, £<tco dvOpuirog, irvevfia, are here identical. Dr. Shedd says, 
 iau dv6punov is identical with the limited iyib of verses 17 and 
 20, and 6 vbjxog tov vobg in verse 23, and 6 vovg (put for vo\iog 
 tov vobg in verse 25). He quotes Pareus : " Interior homo est 
 novus seu regeneratus, mens illumi/nata, voluntas renovata," 
 with approval. His own statement is most emphatic : 
 
 But St. Paul's description of the eo~G) dvdoumog makes it to be a 
 dominant and controlling principle, able to struggle with and 
 triumph' over the powerful remnants of corruption (vii, 25). It 
 is not a weak and vacillating aspiration, but a strong and abiding 
 disposition. The eau dvdowrrog is the human spirit regenerated 
 and inhabited by the Holy Spirit. It is not the merely human, 
 but the human and divine in synthesis. 
 
 It is not the contention of this paper that it is not the 
 u human and divine in synthesis," for the immanence of the 
 divine in human consciousness is nowhere denied, but that the 
 person here described is not the " human spirit regenerate." It 
 is not a man who is " without God in the world," but one to 
 whom God has come in enlightening and awakening power, but 
 not in regenerating power. 
 
 It is to be noted, first of all, that the word spiritual or spirit 
 does not occur between the fourteenth verse of the seventh 
 chapter and the second verse of the eighth chapter. In chap- 
 ter vii, verse 14, we read : " We knew that the law is spirit- 
 nal : but I am carnal, sold under sin." Hodge and Meyer define 
 •nvevfianicbg as being " the expression of the Holy Spirit, the ab- 
 solute Trvevva." This is more than the mere statement that the 
 law is the embodiment of the Holy Spirit, and is fulfilled, as 
 Tholuck states, " only by those who are actuated by the Holy 
 Spirit." In other words, it is the statement that the spirit- 
 ual man only can be in harmony with the spiritual law. If 
 
be is not spiritual, if he has not become a new creature,, 
 by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, there must be a constant 
 antagonism between him and this spiritual law. That the 
 man here described is not in harmony, but in a state of antago- 
 nism, is shown by the statement, " But I am carnal, sold under 
 sin." It seems strange that one should say that the " word 
 TTETrpafisvog, like adpmvog, is used relati vely." Certainly the figure 
 of slavery is the strongest conceivable. If Paul had deliberately 
 undertaken to build a phrase which should express a state of 
 bondage most completely, he could not have framed one more 
 expressive than that which he here employs. " It recalls 
 the slave market and the master, whose property Paul now 
 legally is." 
 
 The remaining description clearly shows a man in whom the 
 odpi; predominates. Moreover, the absence of nvevfia, and the 
 substitution of vovg and eau avdpuirog, show the nature of the 
 conflict as one which takes place in the man whom Paul de- 
 scribes in the beginning of the contest as " carnal." The effa> 
 avOpuvrog determines nothing in itself as to its precise import 
 in any particular place. It is merely the inner as opposed to 
 the outer, and is to be explained according to the person under 
 consideration. It may mean the mental as opposed to the phys- 
 ical, in a regenerate or in an unregenerate man. The most 
 recent New Testament lexicon (Thayer) defines 6 eou> avdpunog 
 " the internal, inner man, that is, the soul, conscience." 
 
 In 2 Cor. iv, 16, there is a direct contrast between the outer 
 man and the inner man, the former referring to the corporeal, 
 the latter to the intellectual. The meaning, a renewed man, 
 cannot be drawn from the language itself, but must be gained, 
 if at all, from its setting in the sentence. What it means will 
 further appear from the word which in the passage represents 
 it, namely, vovg. Thayer's Lexicon defines this word as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 1. The mind, comprising alike the faculties of perceiving and 
 understanding and those of feeling, judging, determining; hence, 
 a) the intellectual faculty, the understanding, opposed to to nvev- 
 fia, the spirit intensely roused and completely absorbed with di- 
 vine things, but destitute of clear ideas of them; . . . b) reason in 
 the narrower sense, as the capacity for spiritual truth, the higher 
 powers of the soul, the faculty of perceiving divine things, of 
 recognizing goodness and of hating evil. 
 
These are the chief meanings assigned to the word, and it- 
 will be seen that none of them include the element of regen- 
 eration. There is such a thing as the renewal of the mind,. 
 77 dvaicaivuaig tov voog (Rom. xii, 2), but this renewal is the 
 work of the Holy Spirit, which constitutes the essence of the 
 new nature. In Eph. iv, 23, the apostle exhorts to " be renewed 
 in the spirit of your mind," which Thayer* expounds "to be so 
 changed that the spirit which governs the mind is renewed," 
 It is clear that without some words to qualify it, and show 
 that it means a regenerate man, it cannot be so employed with- 
 out violence to the ordinary usage of the word. 
 
 If further proof were needed that this paragraph does not 
 refer to the regenerate Paul, but to Paul under law — con- 
 victed, enlightened, but not saved — it will be found by recur- 
 ring to the point in the apostle's argument where this discus- 
 sion begins, namely, at the sixth verse of this chapter : " Se 
 that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of 
 the letter : " ware dovXeveiv ^jfiag h> KaivoTrp-i nvevfiarog ml ov 
 ■naXaioTqri ypdnfiarog. 
 
 What are we to understand by kuivottiti -nvevfiaTog, and also* 
 by TtaXai6Tr\Ti ypdfifiarog 1 
 
 It weakens the force of the expressions very much to say, that 
 ■nvFvfia here is the " human spirit, enlightened, enlivened, and 
 actuated by the divine; a new spirit in man compared with the 
 previous one." f 
 
 The contrast here does not seem to be between the new 
 spirit and the old letter, but between the new man — the 
 new creature, animated by the Holy Spirit — and the old man, 
 the unregenerate man, dominated by the law. The absence of 
 the article with Trvevfiarog and yvdniiarog does not conflict with 
 this view, for it marks that while each is spoken of in its indi- 
 vidual character, their qualitative aspect floats before the mind 
 of the apostle. In the first part of the verse, having stated that 
 we are free from the law as a basis of justification, the apostle 
 concludes with the result of the freedom ; namely, a service 
 which proceeds from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and 
 not a service under the dominance of the mere letter of the law. 
 Then the -rrveviia drops out of the discussion, until it re-appears- 
 in the eighth chapter, as expressive of the characteristic mark of 
 
 * Lexicon, on vovq. f Sliedd. 
 
a regenerate man : " There is therefore now no condemnation 
 to them that are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit 
 of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin 
 and of death." It is apparent, then, that vovq and ?ffu dvdpunog 
 do not equal nvsvfia, but the condition of Paul antecedent to the 
 entrance of the rrvevfia into his heart. If the phrase sold under 
 sin is to be taken in its full sense, and not "relatively" (the 
 latter — Shedd), what shall be the interpretation of the twenty- 
 second verse, " I delight in the law of God after the inward 
 man," avvrjdofMii yap tw vofia tov deov Kara rbv eaut avdpumav % 
 
 Perhaps there are few passages of Scripture where subject- 
 ive considerations have apparently had more to do with inter- 
 pretation than in the fourteenth and the twenty-third verses of 
 this chapter. Augustine is said to have held the view of the 
 early Greek commentators until, in a controversy, he came to the 
 conclusion that ovvrfinpai represented too high a state for the 
 unregenerate man. Dr. Whedon, who gives full force to 
 " sold under sin," seems to weaken the force of this word. On 
 the other hand, Dr. Shedd, who says ■nmpap.ivoq vnb dfiaprtav is 
 used relatively, affirms of awr\8o\iai, " It denotes a feeling of the 
 heart, positive enjoyment." He quotes as authority Plato's 
 Republic, which says : " When any one of the citizens expe- 
 riences any good or evil, the whole State will make his case 
 their own, and either rejoice (gwrjodrjaerat) or sorrow with 
 him." Beet translates : " I am pleased together with the law," 
 that is, " what pleases the law pleases me." He adds : " The 
 rendering, ' I delight in the law,' is less agreeable to the form 
 of this not uncommon Greek word, and is supported only by 
 one or two passages in the poets." The passage from Plato's 
 .Republic, quoted above, is a prose passage, and in contrast with 
 ■" sorrow," gives a strong sense of delight to this word. But 
 why not let it have its full sense ? Assuming, as is generally 
 •done, that the eyo> is Paul himself, what objection to the state- 
 ment that even in his unregenerate state he delighted in the 
 law of God ? The law had encompassed him from his childhood. 
 It had been the study of his life ; his zeal for it had never 
 ■died. It is true, before his conversion he did not see the depth 
 of its meaning, but it was the law of his God and of his people, 
 nevertheless. The inward man, though, even before regenera- 
 tion, delighted in that law. It was probable that there wap 
 
never an hour in his history when he would not have said with 
 the psalmist, " Thy law is my delight ; " " The law of thy 
 mouth is more precious to me than thousands of gold and of 
 silver." Instead of being surprised that Paul used this expres- 
 sion of himself at that time, would it not be more surprising if 
 he had used any weaker words to express his regard for the 
 law, which had not only been his inheritance, but the subject 
 of his meditations for so many years ? 
 
 But if we go further, and regard Paul as representing here 
 not only himself, but the non-Jewish world, there need be no 
 modification of the full meaning of the language. If by the 
 natural man we mean the natural man to whom the law has 
 come with its grandeur and perfection ; if we assume only the 
 law written in the heart of the pagan, and the enlightenment 
 which God does not withhold from those who desire the truth, 
 it may still be affirmed, without predicating " of the character 
 of the natural man what the Church dogma decidedly denies 
 to it." 
 
 That the pagan world did have some lofty conceptions of a 
 similar conflict to the one represented in this paragraph is 
 shown by quotations made by Dr. Beet, whose views have been 
 already frequently mentioned : 
 
 It has been objected that the language of the section is inap- 
 plicable to men not yet justified. But we find similar language 
 on the lips of Greek and Roman pagans. Compare Seneca's Let- 
 ters, 52 : " What is it that draws us in one direction while striving 
 to go in another, and impels us toward that which we wish to 
 avoid?" . . . Xenophon's Cyropaedia, vi, 1, 41: "I have evident- 
 ly two souls, . . . for if I have only one it would not be at 
 the same time good and bad; nor would it desire at the same 
 time both honorable and dishonorable works; nor would it at the 
 same time both wish and not wish to do the same things. But it 
 is evident that there are two souls, and that when the good one is 
 in power the honorable things are practiced, but when the bad, 
 the dishonorable things are attempted." . . . Euripides, Medea, 
 1078 : "I know what sort of bad things I am going to do, but 
 passion is stronger than my purposes. And this is to mortals a 
 cause of great evils." I do not say that these passages teach the 
 great truth to prove which Paul quotes his own experience. Nor 
 do they mention the law of God. But they prove that in many 
 cases men are carried along against their better judgment to do bad 
 things. . . . And these passages also prove that even in pagans 
 there is an inward man which approves what God's law approves. 
 
If we consult the experiences of Christian men before con- 
 version, we will find many who, even in their sinful state, could 
 say, " I delight in the law of God after the inward man." The 
 awakening of the conscience shows also the beauty of the di- 
 vine law. There are things, beautiful things, whose contem- 
 plation gives delight, but to which we either do not care to 
 come or cannot come. In fact, it is one of the deepest proofs 
 of our depravity that when we see the law, the good, even 
 when we desire it, we do not or cannot grasp it and keep it. 
 How terrible the condition of one dying of thirst with water 
 within reach, who is so under bondage that he will not and 
 cannot stretch forth his hand to take it ! The whole trend of 
 thought of the Epistle to the Romans is not to show that men 
 do not know the good or desire it, but that, appreciating the 
 good, and even desiring it, they do not perform it, and are help- 
 less to save themselves from their condition. Who more likely 
 to cry out, " O wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver 
 me ? " than he who is in the condition above described ? It is 
 the cry of a helpless soul, and is followed by a thanksgiving 
 for deliverance wrought by Jesus Christ. Paul represents the 
 whole creation as groaning for deliverance, and this groaning 
 God has heard. 
 
 The characteristic of the new man is the presence and power 
 of the Holy Spirit, and this new creation of God in the human 
 soul, and giving the victory, is brought to view in the beginning 
 of the eighth chapter. In this chapter we pass to a new stage 
 of man's history, and that stage is marked by the introduction 
 of the key-word of the Christian religion and of the Christian 
 life — the Holy Spirit. 
 
 It has thus been attempted to set forth some of the points, 
 of divergence in the interpretation of this profound study of 
 the great apostle, but not in any formal way to harmonize 
 theological theories. And yet they have a most important bear- 
 ing upon great doctrines and experiences of the Christian life., 
 At another time the doctrinal bearings of this chapter and of 
 its interpretations may be considered. 
 
 Henbt A. Butt?. 
 
II.— THE GNOMIC AORIST IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 The best known and most elaborate New Testament grammar* 
 now extant denies the existence of this form of Greek usage in 
 the New Testament. On the other hand, an authority no less 
 •eminent for Greek grammatical scholarship f admits this mode 
 of expression in the grammar of the New Testament, and gives 
 a few examples of its use. The contradictory views, expressed 
 by grammarians so eminent, allow the inference that the ques- 
 tion is not settled, and that any contribution on such a subject, 
 even viewed as a matter of philological inquiry, is not without 
 value. 
 
 When, however, the usage is one which has its application 
 in some of the life-truths of the New Testament, it becomes 
 not only a scholastic delight, but a duty, to investigate the 
 topic. Neither of the grammarians referred to — Winer or 
 Buttmann — have made any use of it in its bearing on difficult 
 ■exegetical problems. An inquiry into this usage is not out of 
 place, especially if it can be shown to have an application to 
 some interesting and difficult passages of Holy Scripture. 
 
 The accuracy of the Greek language in the expression of 
 the finer shades of meaning is too well known to need special 
 argument. It is this which gave to it such a wonderful adapta- 
 tion to convey to mankind the teachings of Christ and his 
 apostles, and it is one of the recognized providential prepara- 
 tions for the Saviour's advent. It is therefore natural to sup- 
 pose, that although the language at the time of Christ varied 
 largely from Attic purity, it would yet retain those elements 
 of special value for the conveyance of the loftiest thoughts on 
 .spiritual things. 
 
 It is at this point, however, that Winer makes his strong 
 •objection to the existence of the gnomic Aorist in the New 
 Testament. It is in his view a refinement too subtle for the 
 writers of the New Testament. It is well known that some 
 of the finer forms have disappeared. Especially is this the 
 •case in the use of the particles. This laxity in the use of 
 
 * ''A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek," by Dr. G. B. Winer, 
 f "A Grammar of New Testament Greek," by Alexander Buttman. 
 
particles is not confined to New Testament Greek, but is found 
 also in some of the Attic prose writers.* Other variations are 
 frequent and need not be enumerated. "Without claiming for 
 it the character of Attic purity, it is yet a language which, 
 though modified by Hebraisms and other causes, is well calcu- 
 lated to express the rich thoughts which the sacred writers 
 intended to convey. 
 
 The question before us is not whether some of the choice 
 forms of expression had passed away at the time when the 
 New Testament was written, but whether this precise form, the 
 gnomic Aorist, had entirely disappeared. It is not necessary 
 to show that it was frequently employed, but that it is clearly 
 found there. The gnomic Aorist is, as will afterward appear, 
 that form of speech which expresses proverbs or general 
 truths, and is of the nature of a pictorial or vivid presentation 
 of a subject. This is precisely the characteristic which belongs 
 to the New Testament, and is especially characteristic of the 
 writings of the apostle Paul. His style is graphic, and par- 
 takes often rather of the characteristics of the orator face to 
 face with his audience than of the prose writer dispassionately 
 and methodically discussing his subject. And yet in his most 
 rhetorical flights logic and precision of expression are rigidly 
 maintained. 
 
 One of the finest forms of Greek usage is that of conditional 
 sentences. These distinctions are for the most part rigidly 
 maintained. The force of many passages in the writings of 
 Paul is clearly seen by noticing the form of the conditional 
 sentence employed. It is not intended to maintain the exact 
 conformity to classical models, but a general adherence to 
 them. A clear case of this is found in Gal. i, 8-10 : 
 
 'AAAd Kal lav ■fjuelg rj ayyeXog kg ovpavov evayyeXLtypai ifuv nap f 
 b evrjyyeXiadueda vfuv, dvddeua earu. dig npoeipr/Kauev, Kal dpri 
 ndXiv Aeyw, el Tig vuag evayyeXi^erai nap' 8 napehdfieTS, dvddeua 
 iaru. dpri yap dvdpunovg neidu rj tov Qeov; fj £r]Tui dvdpunoig dpeoKeiv - r 
 el yap en dvdpunoig rfpeoicov, Xpiarov dovXog ovk av f\p/f\v. 
 
 Here, within the compass of three verses, three out of the 
 four forms of conditional sentences are employed, with clear 
 discrimination of the meanings of them. If the conditional 
 sentence is so well preserved, why not the gnomic Aorist ? I£ 
 
 * Buttman, p. 71. 
 
a probability can be established that such will be the case, it 
 will help in the investigation of the passages where it is sup- 
 posed to be employed. We propose to give a few illustrations 
 of this usage from classical Greek, taken almost at random from 
 examples in classical grammars in common use, and then to 
 inquire into the biblical usage. That it is a common form in 
 Greek, we can readily see by the following citations : 
 Curtius's Greek Grammar, sec. 494, says : 
 
 The Aorist Indicative is used in statements of experience, im- 
 plying that a thing once happened, but admitting an application 
 to all times : poet. tSi %povo> r\ 3ikt) navrug r\X6' anoTcsafievT], with 
 time avenging justice always came, (and hence always comes;) 
 nai fipadvg evfiovXog slXev t<ixvv dvdpa dtwKwv, even a slow man 
 when well advised overtook (overtakes) by pursuit a quick man. 
 In English we employ the Present in such general assertions, and 
 often add such adverbs as usually, commonly, always, etc.; rag 
 Ttjv <f>ai>kuv avvovaiag oMyog XQovog dieXvaev, a short time usually 
 dissolves the associations of the bad. This Aorist is called the 
 gnomic Aorist, because it is often used in gnomes, proverbs, or 
 maxims. 
 
 Jelf, sec. 402, 1, says : 
 
 As the force of the Aorist may extend over the whole space of 
 past time, without reference to any single definite moment, it is 
 used to express an action which took place repeatedly in past 
 time, or in the statement of some general fact or habitual prac- 
 tice which operated at different indefinite moments of past time. 
 
 Goodwin, " Moods and Tenses," sec. 30, 1, says : 
 
 The Aorist and sometimes the Perfect Indicative are used in 
 animated language to express general truths. These are called 
 the gnomic Aorist and the gnomic Perfect, and are usually trans- 
 lated by our Present. These tenses give a more vivid statement 
 of general truths by employing a distinct case or several distinct 
 cases in past time to represent (as it were) all possible cases, and 
 implying that which has occurred will occur again under similar 
 circumstances. 
 
 These statements, from strictly classical grammars of the 
 Greek language, show how prevalent this usage was among 
 the best authors. 
 
 When we come to the New Testament, Winer objects. His 
 language is : " In no passage of the New Testament does the 
 Aorist express an habitual act." * 
 
 * Thayer's Translation, pp. 201, 202. 
 
In reply to this we quote at length from " Buttman's Gram- 
 mar," already mentioned : 
 
 According to Moller's exposition, this Aorist, used alike by 
 poets and prose writers of every age, can, indeed, express habit- 
 ualness; but just as well, and still more frequently, the necessity 
 or universality of an action or state, which does not, like habit- 
 ualness, permit of exceptions. Since, now, this Aorist was em- 
 ployed for the most part in general propositions deduced from 
 experience — propositions whose contents are valid not only for 
 the past, but also for the present and the future — the title, "Gnomic 
 Aorist," designates more correctly its essential nature. 
 
 Its use in Greek occurs not only in similitudes, propositions 
 involving comparisons, (as so often in Homer,) and ideal pictures, 
 (Plato, Phsedr., p. 246, sq.,) but also in abstract, maxim-like dec- 
 larations, founded in practical observation. (See the examples 
 from Thucyd. and Demosth., given by Moller.) 
 
 When, then, Winer asserts that the Aorist never in the 
 New Testament expresses what is habitual, the assertion is well 
 founded so far forth as the peculiarity of the Aorist in ques- 
 tion is not adequately described by the feature of habitualness ; 
 but the occurrence of the gnomic Aorist, according to the above 
 ■description of it, ought at the same time not to be denied. For 
 the objection that the whole idiom presumes too nice an observ- 
 ance of the laws of classic Greek, and greater familiarity with 
 them than can be supposed in the New Testament authors, may 
 perhaps be decisive for a portion of them, but not for all. On 
 the contrary, the employment of the Aorist, as the most common 
 historic tense, corresponds perfectly to the character of popular 
 «xpression, which so gladly endeavors to break away from the 
 form of abstract presentation, and spontaneously falls into the 
 tone of narration. Observe the form of the Homeric compari- 
 sons, or the description of the shield in the Iliad, where, moreover, 
 Imperfects and Aorists continually alternate in the narrative. 
 
 If, then, it is evident, from the exposition given, that the New 
 Testament writers, so far forth as their writings, philologically 
 viewed, are products of Greek modes of thought, must have been 
 led by the very nature of the popular language to use this Aorist 
 as a matter of course when occasion occurred, (and the cases 
 would certainly be more numerous if the compass of the books 
 were greater, since with the present compass they are already 
 pretty numerous,) etc. 
 
 He sustains this view by the following examples : 
 
 James i, 9, sq.: KavxdoOu 6e 6 ddeXfibg 6 ratreivbg kv ru {hpei avrov. 
 6s -nXovoiog iv rift raneivuoei avrov, on wc avOog %6prov irapeXev- 
 aerai. dveretXe yap 6 rjXiog avv tgj kclvouvi, nai k^qpavs. rbv %6p- 
 tov, nai to dvdog avrov eijetreoe, nai f\ eimpeneia rov npoourrov avrov 
 ■dn&Xero' ovno Kai 6 nkovaiog ev ralg ■nope.iaig avrov fj,apav6rjoerai. 
 
The Eevised translation reads : 
 
 But let the brother of low degree glory in his high estate: and 
 the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the 
 grass he shall pass away. For the sun ariseth with the scorching 
 wind, and loit/iereth the grass; and the flower thereof fulleth, 
 and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth : so also shall the 
 rich man fade away in his goings. 
 
 In the above passage dvereiXe, kt-rjpave, e££moe, and dnwXero are 
 employed as gnomic Aorists, and so recognized by the Revisers. 
 
 Further, James i, 23 : on s'l rig d/cpoaTrjg X&yov earl km. ov 
 TTOirjrrjg, ovTog eoiKev dvdpl Karavoovvri to npooooTrov rrjg yeveascog 
 avrov iv iaoTTrpu' Karsvorjae yap kavTov aal dneXijXvde, tcai evQsug 
 ineXddeTO tmolog T]v, 
 
 Revised translation : 
 
 For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is 
 like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he be- 
 holdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what 
 manner of man he was. 
 
 Here the Aorists are similarly translated. 
 
 Similar to instance in James i, 11, is 1 Peter i, 24 : 6i6ti 
 ' txaoa adp% ug xfyrog, Kal iraaa 86^a dvdpunov <bg avdog x°P T0V - 
 e^rjpdvdi] 6 %6pTog, km to avdog avTOV H-£tteoe' 
 
 For, 
 All flesh is as grass, 
 
 And all the glory thereof as the flower of grass. 
 The grass withereth, and the flower falleth. 
 
 From the same source, namely, the requirements of historic 
 presentation, proceed the Aorists in Paul's doctrinal analysis in 
 Rom. viii, 29 : ovg nposyvu, km npoupiaev . . ovg 6e npoupiaev, tov- 
 rovg Kal ek&Xeoev Kal ovg itcdXsasv, Toxnovg Kal kdiKaluaev ovg <Je 
 idiKaiuaev Tovrovg. Kal kdo^aaev ; hence it is not necessary to assume 
 that the last Aorist (kdot-aoev) differs in force from all the rest. 
 
 Finally, the two Aorists in John xv, 6, may also, in part, at 
 least, be included under the head of the gnomic Aorist, inas- 
 much as the thought contains an experimental truth set forth 
 figuratively, in which the two momentary acts (kj3Xrjdr], ejjrjpdvdif) 
 come into manifest antithesis to the continuous one denoted by 
 the Present, (avvdyovaiv :) lav firj Tig fielvq ev ep,oi, t(3Xridi] e£a) ug 
 to KXfjua, Kal h%r\pdvBr\, Kal avvdyovaiv ai)Td Kal elg nvp (idXXovai, 
 
 km Kaierai. 
 5 
 
Revised translation : 
 
 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is* 
 withered; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and 
 they are burned. 
 
 The above examples are taken from Buttman, but we have 
 introduced the Revised translation to show that our recent 
 revisers understood them in the same way. 
 
 It thus appears from unquestioned grammatical authority 
 that the gnomic Aorist exists in the New Testament. 
 
 It is further to be noticed that the same usage prevails in 
 the Old Testament, affording a further reason why it should 
 be found in the New Testament. It is distinctly recognized 
 by Hebrew grammarians. 
 
 Driver, " Use of Tenses in Hebrew," speaking of the Hebrew 
 Perfect, (preterite,) says : " It is used to express general truths 
 known to have actually occurred, and so proved from experi- 
 ence ; here again the idiomatic rendering in English is by 
 means of the Present." He also remarks, in note under the- 
 Perfect : " Both the Perfect and Aorist (the gnomic Aorist) 
 are similarly used in Greek, that is, to express general truths 
 known to have occurred." 
 
 Job xxviii, 8-11, LXX, is an instance : ital ova indrrjaav ovrbv 
 vloi dha£6vodv, 6vnapif]X-dev en' avrrjg Aewv, sq. 
 
 The Hebrew, of special interest, is from the ninth and tenth, 
 verses : 
 
 : Hy nnso i'p'-Sdi ppa vHte nfnrea : onn Enfera iisn ir rhuf tf'D^na 
 
 I '* T_ *|T 't[ T; — !••• • J - |'T V| • '— T T — T • T— — 
 
 The lion's whelps have not trodden it, nor the fierce lion passed 
 by it. 
 
 He putteth forth his hand upon the rock; he overturneth the 
 mountains by the roots. 
 
 He cutteth out rivers among the rocks; and his eye seeth every 
 precious thing. 
 
 The English translation treats the Greek and Hebrew as. 
 instances of the past, with the gnomic meaning. 
 
 It will be noticed that in this passage the Hebrew verbs are 
 in the preterite tense and the Greek in the Aorist, while the 
 English translation is in the present tense. 
 
 Another instance is found in the first psalm : " Blessed is 
 the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor 
 
Btandeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the 
 scornful." Gesenius* cites this as an instance of the gnomic 
 Aorist. The Hebrew V?n, iny, atsr which are verbs in the He- 
 
 1 — T — T | — T 
 
 brew Preterite, are rendered in the Septuagint by E-rropevdrj, 
 eat?), ticddioev, and in the English by the Present. So, also, the 
 passage already cited, 1 Peter i, 24, is a quotation from the 
 Septuagint of Isaiah, and shows in the Old Testament and in 
 the New the gnomic characteristics. 
 
 Ewald,f also, speaks of the Hebrew Perfect (preterite) as ex- 
 pressing " general truths which are plainly taught, and already 
 fully established by experience," as " the wicked mam,, yxi, de- 
 spises God, and frequently in comparisons and proverbs." 
 
 It thus appears that this form of syntax exists both in Greek 
 and Hebrew.:}: It is found in Homer, as well as in the authors 
 who wrote in the most polished period of Greek literature. 
 It belongs, therefore, to the language of the New Testament 
 by right. "We may fitly claim that it may legitimately enter 
 into the discussion of such passages of the New Testament as 
 may be affected by it. 
 
 If the gnomic Aorist be recognized as a part of the structure 
 of New Testament Greek, it follows that it may be legitimately 
 employed in the exposition of passages which involve doctrinal 
 distinctions as well as in mere historic presentation. 
 
 It may be well to begin with a passage in Galatians, chap. 
 ii, 10 : fiovov n>v ■nr(i>%&v Iva (ivrifiovsvwfJLev, 8 not ea-novdaoa avrb 
 rovro noirjaai. 
 
 The late Revision translates, "Only they would that we should 
 remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do." 
 
 What is the nature of the Aorist icmovdaoa % The apostle, 
 in this part of the epistle, is proving the independence of his 
 apostolic authority, and that although he, with Barnabas, had 
 gone up to Jerusalem, as delegates to the apostolic council, 
 he, nevertheless, had derived no special information from that 
 body which should dictate his teachings. He declares that 
 they had only enjoined upon them the duty of remembering 
 the poor, " which very thing I was also zealous to do." When 
 
 * Mitchell's Edition, sec. 126, 3. 
 
 f " Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament." Translated by 
 Jame3 Kennedy, B.D., p. 6. 
 
 % See also Green's Hebrew Grammar, sec. 262, 3. 
 
was he zealous to do it ? At the point of time when the injunc- 
 tion was delivered, or at a subsequent period ? He evidently 
 means to say that on this point he needed no special counsel, 
 as his zeal in this direction was habitual to him. Alford says, 
 " Then and always : it was my habit " — and refers to Bom. xv, 
 25-27 ; 1 Cor. xvi, 1-4 ; 2 Cor. viii, 4 ; Acts xxiv, 17, as proof 
 of his habitual airovdrj. 
 
 Ellicott finds it difficult to evade the force of Alford's view, 
 and shelters himself behind Winer's denial of this usage in the 
 New Testament. His bent is manifestly towards regarding it 
 as a gnomic Aorist. His language is : " The Aorist is here cor- 
 rectly used, not for the Perfect, (Conybeare,) nor even for the 
 Pluperfect, nor yet exactly as expressing the habit, (compare 
 Alford,) this usage being somewhat doubtful in the New Tes- 
 tament, (see Winer, etc.,) but simply an historical fact which 
 belongs to the past, without its being affirmed or denied that 
 it may or may not continue to the present." This distinguished 
 and very accurate grammatical exegete seems here to feel the 
 force of employing this as a gnomic Aorist, but shrinks from 
 adopting in the exposition a usage not sanctioned by the recog- 
 nized grammatical authority of Winer. The other passages 
 adduced, however, justify the use here, and show that Paul 
 employs the Aorist in this case to assert his habitual zeal in 
 remembering the poor, and hence that the counsel they had 
 received had added nothing to him. 
 
 The passages, however, of the greatest importance in this 
 connection are yet to be considered. 
 
 Rom. iii, 23, is well worthy of attention in regard to its Aorist. 
 It is, rrdvreg yag fjfiaprov, kol varepovvrai T7]g doi-rjg rov &bov. This 
 verse is translated in our late Revision, "For all have sinned, and 
 fall short of the glory of God." That our revisers have felt a 
 difficulty in the employment of this Aorist, in the usual Aoris- 
 tic sense, is clear. It was one of the cardinal laws of the Com- 
 mittee to translate tenses uniformly, and they have adhered to 
 their law in the case of the Aorist with great pertinacity. The 
 difficulty of connecting the ordinary sense of the Aorist with 
 the present tense, in the second clause of the sentence, con- 
 fronted them, and they translate the Aorist by the Perfect. On 
 the other hand, the very same word, in the very same tense, in 
 Rom. v, 12, is translated " sinned," without the " have." If 
 
7Jfj,aprov (Horn, iii, 23) should be translated as a gnomic Aorist, the 
 difficulty would be removed, and a plain and simple proposition 
 would result — " All sin, and fall short of the glory of God." 
 
 Is not this translation of the Aorist demanded by the context? 
 Paul is aiming to convince the self-righteous Jew, not merely 
 of past sinfulness, but of present transgressions which prevent 
 him from procuring salvation by the works of the law, and 
 hence he urges their present condition as a reason for their ac- 
 ceptance of salvation by grace through faith. (See Tholuck on 
 Romans, 1. c.) 
 
 Dr. Shedd ("Commentary" on Romans, 1. c.) declared, that 
 *' the apostle has in mind a particular historical event, the same, 
 namely, with that alluded to in ndvrsg fifiaprov, of chap, v, 12, 
 the sin in Adam," while Tholuck, Meyer, and Phillipi regard 
 the reference of the Aorist to individual transgressions. The 
 force of this Aorist is nowhere, however, more clearly put than 
 by Dr. Whedon, (see "Commentary" on Romans, 1. c.,) who. 
 declares that " the phrase is tantamount to all men sin." The 
 only point on which we insist here is, that it is the expression 
 of the gnomic usage, a general fact which they could not deny,, 
 which the apostle is urging upon their attention. It is not 
 sufficient to claim that their sin is merely that of sinning in 
 Adam, which produced corruption of nature and consequent 
 actual transgressions ; for he has discussed, in the first and 
 second chapters of this same epistle, the present condition of 
 Jews and Gentiles, as actual transgressors, and has shown that 
 they cannot extricate themselves from their condition without 
 gracious interposition. It is their habitual state as sinful and 
 sinning that is before the mind of the apostle. 
 
 Another important passage is found in Rom. v, 12: Ka< 
 ovTwg slg navrag dvdpbmovg 6 ddvarog dirjXdev, i<j? w navreg r/fiap- 
 rov. The late Revision translates: "And so death passed 
 unto all men, for that all sinned." As already noticed, they 
 have here preserved a strict Aoristic sense. But is not this 
 also best rendered, as a gnomic Aorist, " for that all sin ? " 
 
 Having shown that this is a legitimate use of the Aorist in 
 the New Testament, we may well inquire whether it is not the 
 proper and intended use of the Aorist in this particular passage. 
 
 The Revisers' translation carries with it the dogmatic infer- 
 ence that all sinned in Adam, and places death as the penalty 
 
of that single sin. Is that the only sin that receives this pen- 
 alty, or is it the habit of sinning which belongs to man's 
 nature and which is ever working death ? 
 
 This gnomic usage gives a philological basis to that form 
 of interpretation which has been accepted by so many writers 
 on the theological conceptions of Paul. Dr. Whedon, who has 
 in his " Commentary " stated so clearly the train of thought of 
 the apostle, has forcibly presented the force of the Aorist in 
 several of Paul's passages. The fact, then, that so many 
 writers, including De Wette, Stuart, and Whedon, have given 
 a meaning to this clause which is most natural and in harmony 
 with this usage, is a strong proof that the gnomic Aorist is not 
 foreign to the idiom of the New Testament. 
 
 The sixth chapter of Romans is an instance of similar usage 
 of the apostle. We place in connection Pom. vi, 4r-9, in Greek, 
 and in the two latest English versions : 
 
 ^vveTacjyrinev ovv ai}T& did rov PanrioiiaTog elg rov Odvarov, Iva 
 cianep rjyepdf] Xpiordg e/c veicpuv did rr/g 66S,r\g rov rrarpog, ovrcog 
 nal fjfiElg ev KaivoTTjTi &J\g 7rspnraT^ao)fj,ev. el yap ovutyvroi yeyova- 
 fiev t<3 6jj,oMfia,Ti rov Oavdrov ovtov, aXXa irai rijg avaordoeojg eao- 
 fieda, tovto yivuoaovTsg, on 6 iraXai.bg rjuibv dvOponog avveaTavp&d-q, 
 Iva fcarapyrjOy to oufj,a rr\g a^iapnag, rov \m\keti SovXeveiv •rffidg rxj 
 afiapna, 6 yap dnodav&v 6ediK,aiO)Tai and rf/g afiaprlag. el de &Tre6d- 
 vofiev ovv XpiOToi, moTevofiev on ftai ovv{,r]oo\iev avrS>, eldoreg on 
 Xpiordg kyepdelg en veitpuv oviteri dnoOvrjonei, Odvarog avrov ovicen 
 Kvpievei. 
 
 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death : that 
 like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the 
 Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if 
 we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we 
 shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection : Knowing this, 
 that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might 
 be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he 
 that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, 
 we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ 
 being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more 
 dominion over him. — Authorized Version. 
 
 We viere buried therefore with him through baptism into 
 death : that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the 
 glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. 
 For if we have become united with him by the likeness of his 
 death, we shall be also by the likeness of his resurrection; know- 
 ing this, that our old man teas crucified with him, that the body 
 of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be m 
 
bondage to sin; for he that hath died is justified from sin. But if 
 we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him; 
 knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more ; 
 •death no more hath dominion over him. — Revised Version. 
 
 The early English translations, "Wiclif, Tyndale, Rheims, 
 •Geneva, translated these Aorists, namely, avverd^fiev, avvsarav- 
 ■pudrj, etc., in a Perfect sense, apparently assured that it was a 
 general fact or experience which the writer was enforcing. 
 The consensus by so many translators as to the meaning of 
 the apostle may serve as a justification of the view that here 
 also he is employing this Aoristic usage. 
 
 The passage in Romans viii, 29, 30, is an additional text 
 which claims attention here. The Revised translation is : 
 ■" For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be con- 
 formed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn 
 among many brethren: and whom he foreordained, them he 
 also called : and whom he called, them he also justified : 
 and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Allusion has 
 .already been made 'to these verses in the reference to Butt- 
 man's Grammar. The ordinary method of explaining these 
 Aorists is that of Winer : " In Rom. viii, 30, £d6i-aoe is used 
 because he in regard to whom God has accomplished- the 
 "Sikmovv has already obtained from him the Soijd&odal also, 
 though the reception of the doi-a as an actual possession be- 
 longs to the future." 
 
 It is as if God looked upon the doga as already accomplished, 
 and that Paul introduced several Aorists in their ordinary 
 sense, and then the last one on the ground indicated by Winer. 
 Is it not better to assume with Buttman that irpoeyvb), -rrpotipioev, 
 MdXsaev, idiicacuioev, idoi-aoev, are gnomic Aorists, and set forth 
 God's plan of securing the final salvation of his people, which 
 must inevitably bring them to glory ? " For whom he fore- 
 knows, he foreordains : and whom he foreordains, them he also 
 ■calls : and whom he calls, them he also justifies : and whom he 
 justifies, them he also glorifies." 
 
 It would not be wise to make dogmatic considerations the 
 basis of grammatical laws; nor, on the other hand, should 
 grammatical rules override the plain sense of any passage. 
 Our grammars arose out of a careful study of the meanings 
 •of the writings discussed, and not the writings out of the 
 
grammars. Grammar is still a progressive science, and every 
 attempt to add to the meaning of passages through philology 
 cannot be entirely without use. 
 
 When we take into consideration that the gnomic Aorist 
 existed through all the ages of Greek literature, from Homer 
 onward, that it is a recognized usage in Hebrew grammarians,, 
 and is employed clearly in the Septuagint, that it is sup- 
 ported by the best grammatical authority, and that it is clearly 
 stamped on several New Testament passages, it is impossible 
 not to recognize it as a usage of New Testament Greek gram- 
 mar, and to give it a wider application than it has thus far- 
 received. 
 
III.— SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE GREEK ARTICLE 
 IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 The doctrine of the Greek article has attracted the attention 
 of New Testament critics for generations, and is still an unset- 
 tled problem. An inquiry into its nature and the application 
 of it to some disputed points in exegesis is not unworthy of 
 attention. Some of the best grammarians hold that no definite 
 rules can be laid down in relation to it, the exceptions being so- 
 numerous as almost to exclude the idea of a well-defined law. 
 Buttman (" New Testament Grammar ") says : * 
 
 In reference to the definite article the rules and regulations, 
 given in the grammars hold good, so far as in a subject so deli- 
 cate we can talk of rules. For the endeavor to lay down fixed 
 laws respecting the use of the article many a learned and labori- 
 ous inquiry has already come to naught ; and the intention ought 
 at length to be abandoned of forcing the use or the omission of 
 the article under precise regulations which find the proof of their 
 nullity and uselessness in the throng of exceptions which it is 
 necessary to subjoin straightway to almost every rule laid down. 
 
 Such a statement practically excludes the article from any 
 positive service, in disputed cases, to the exegete, by making 
 it a matter of impossibility to show that the writer under con- 
 sideration had any positive reason for its use or omission. 
 
 Language, however, is so subtle and, when employed by the 
 careful writer, so accurate that such a view would be destruc- 
 tive of all satisfactory interpretation of the article. Every 
 body almost involuntarily employs and omits the article, if not 
 with a definite object, yet with a definite result. It is practi- 
 cally impossible that a writer, especially in an argumentative 
 production, should use the article or any other element of 
 speech so loosely as to create embarrassment on the part of the 
 reader as to the true meaning intended to be conveyed. We 
 shall in this discussion consider first what is the distinguishing 
 feature of the employment or omission of the article in the 
 New Testament, and then apply it particularly to some passages 
 which may serve as illustrations. 
 
 It is conceded that it was originally a demonstrative pronoun, 
 and that in the development of the Greek language it natu- 
 
 * Thayer's translation, p. 85. 
 
rally assumed its present form and its distinct meaning. Cur- 
 tius* says : " It seems to set forth an object, either as a single 
 ■one (the individualizing article) or as a class (the generic arti- 
 cle)." Crosbyf says : " The article is prefixed to substantives 
 to mark them as definite." Donaldson^: says : " The chief em- 
 ployment of the definite article is to distinguish the subject 
 from the predicate ; for from the nature of the case the sub- 
 ject is considered to be something definite, of which something 
 general is predicated or denied." Winer's New Testament 
 Grammar§ remarks : " When 6, f\, to is employed as strictly an 
 article before a noun, it marks the object as one definitely con- 
 ceived, whether in consequence of its nature, or the context, 
 or some circle of ideas assumed as known." 
 
 It is clear from all these statements that the definite article 
 has a meaning which cannot be ignored in any accurate exegesis 
 of a Greek author. The grammars of the language abound 
 in rules for its introduction and omission, showing thereby that 
 there must be laws that control its insertion, even though they 
 cannot accurately define what they are. Middleton's great 
 work on the Greek article is a splendid exhibition of fine critical 
 acumen employed on a worthy subject of scholastic and practical 
 inquiry. It is, however, apparent from a study of the exegesis 
 of the New Testament, as exhibited in our best commentaries, 
 that the force of the article is still an unsettled problem. Two 
 of the best of modern commentators, Alford and Ellicott, seem 
 to have no clear conception of its use when employed, or of 
 the significance of its omission. Alford on Komans, and Elli- 
 cott on Galatians, seem to employ the article with v6(iog almost 
 indiscriminately. The late revisers of the New Testament 
 were evidently embarrassed in the same way, and have at times 
 produced confusion in the translation from this very cause. 
 
 In order to make the discussion more specific, it is best to 
 employ a word which gives full scope for variety of opinion 
 and on which diversity of opinion is most marked, namely, 
 v6/j,og. The earliest indication we have of the difficulty of ex- 
 plaining this word is found in the changes of text which have 
 evidently arisen out of the tendency to make vo/iog, whether with 
 or without the article, mean the same thing. Let Rom. ii, 13, 
 
 * Sec. 370, Harper's edition. f Sec - 52 °- 
 
 t Sec. 394. § Thayer's translation, p. 105. 
 
■serve as an example. The Textus Beceptus reads, ov yap ol 
 dicpoaral tov vdfiov diicaioi trapa t<3 6ea5, aXX' ol rroirjTai tov vo\x,ov 
 dLtcaiuOrjoovTai. 
 
 It will be seen that Alford, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischen- 
 dorf , Westcott and Hort, as also our late revisers, omit the 
 article before vofing in both cases. That it should be omitted is 
 manifest from the most cursory examination of the manuscript 
 .authorities. The Sinaitic, the Alexandrian, the Vatican, are 
 unanimous in its omission. The only question is, "Why was it 
 ■ever inserted at a later date, and why was it retained so long, 
 when the evidence against it is so overwhelming ? The readi- 
 est and most satisfactory solution is that 6 v6fj,o<; was regarded as 
 meaning the Mosaic law, and as they supposed that the apostle 
 had in mind that law in this verse, it was necessary to insert 
 the article so as to express it properly. 
 
 The different views of this subject will most clearly appear 
 by quoting from two of the most distinguished of modern 
 ■exegetical scholars, their view of the same passage of Scripture, 
 namely, Gal. ii, 19 : eyw yap did vo\iov vo\m a/ni-^avov Iva 6e<3 C,r\au>. 
 Ellicott translates, " For I truly through the law died to the 
 law," etc. He remarks in exposition : 
 
 (1.) No^oc, in each case has the same meaning. (2.) That 
 meaning, as the context requires, must be the Mosaic law (verse 
 16), no grammatical arguments founded on the absence of the 
 ■article having any real validity. 
 
 On the other hand Lightf oot translates, " I through law died 
 to law." His view is : 
 
 The written law — the Old Testament — is always b vdfiog. At 
 least, it seems never to be quoted otherwise. No^o? without the 
 article is " law," considered as a principle, exemplified no doubt 
 chiefly and signally in the Mosaic law, but very much wider 
 than this in its application. In explaining the passage, therefore, 
 we must seek for some element in the Mosaic law which it had 
 in common with law generally, instead of dwelling on its special 
 characteristics as a prophetic and typical dispensation. 
 
 A difference in interpretation so marked as that just shown 
 -could not exist if there were a grammatical law for the use of 
 the article which had universal acceptance. Such agreement 
 does not now exist, and until it takes place we cannot have a 
 settled exegesis of many passages of Scripture, especially those 
 
in which the article is omitted. The best putting of the use 
 of the Greek article is that of Mr. T. S. Green, in his " Gram- 
 mar of the New Testament," page 6. His language is : 
 
 In that form of language which has been taken as a standard, 
 the article is prefixed to a word, or combination of words, when 
 there is intended to be conveyed thereby, in the particular in- 
 stance, an idea already, in some degree, familiarized to the mind: 
 it points to a previous familiarity, real or presumed. Definiteness 
 attaches to the general idea which is conveyed by a word or 
 combination of words, when the idea is to be identified with one 
 which has either been already impressed upon the mind or is 
 suggested by another that has been so impressed ; and the article, 
 as a sign of this identification, is closely and consequentially, but 
 not primarily, connected with definiteness. 
 
 It will be seen that this definition of the meaning of the 
 article differs materially from that ordinarily given by gram- 
 marians, and that Winer maintains the old idea. The point 
 made by Green, however, can be maintained, as he has done 
 by numerous instances, both in the classics and in the New 
 Testament writings. When b vofiog is employed we understand 
 by it the well-known law, the law of Moses, familiar to those 
 to whom the Scriptures were originally written. 
 
 It does not follow, however, that because the article always 
 means that which is familiar to the speaker or writer, the same 
 is not true sometimes of the employment of the same word 
 without the article. It often occurs that, in ordinary and collo- 
 quial style, the article is omitted even when referring to that 
 which is understood to be well known and familiar. We need 
 not hesitate to admit that, in a number of instances in Paul's 
 epistles, Paul uses the word vofiog without the article for the 
 Mosaic law, but with a breadth of meaning which would be 
 lost if the article were inserted. 
 
 It becomes, then, a matter of considerable moment what is 
 the significance of the absence of the article. This point has 
 not been so carefully treated by grammarians as it deserves. 
 Its absence is explained in various ways, and meanings have 
 been assigned to its omission growing out of the requirements 
 of the passage, but a law of meaning does not appear to have 
 been laid down with precision. In this connection a remark 
 of Kev. 0. J. Vaughan, D.D., in. his notes on the Epistle to the 
 Romans, (ii, 25,) is worthy of attention : " The absence of the 
 
article directs attention to the quality, nature, character, etc., 
 ■of the thing spoken of, not to its mere substance." In further 
 application of it to vofiog, he says : 
 
 The presence of the article would have restricted to the Jewish 
 law, in particular, that which without the article is general in its 
 application, however deeply tinged with Jewish thought and expe- 
 rience. 
 
 "With the conception, then, that the presence of the article 
 indicates that the thing mentioned is well hnoion both to the 
 reader and the writer, and that its absence calls attention to the 
 word with which it is connected in its qualitative aspect, we 
 have a sufficient groundwork to proceed with the inquiry into 
 the usage of the New Testament, especially of Paul's writings, 
 in its relation to vofiog. At least, we have secured a working 
 hypothesis which can be tested by application to a number of 
 passages where this word is employed. 
 
 We will take for consideration some of the passages men- 
 tioned in "Winer's Grammar (Monlton's translation, p. 152) to 
 show that vofiog without the article means the Mosaic law. 
 Let it also be borne in mind that no exception is here taken 
 to the statement that it does sometimes mean the Mosaic law, 
 even without the article ; but it is here maintained that when 
 the article is absent from vo\iog, the Mosaic law is not the ex- 
 clusive or main idea in the writer's mind, and which he desires 
 to convey to his readers. "We will begin by a passage which 
 indicates Paul's stand-point, one in which the vo\iog without 
 the article is referred by him to the Mosaic law — Phil, iii, 6- 
 It is well known that the law of Moses most naturally occurred 
 to Paul's mind, seeing that it formed an essential part of his 
 early training. He was a " Hebrew of the Hebrews ; as touch- 
 ing the law, a Pharisee ; ... as touching the righteousness 
 which is in the law, found blameless." His thought had 
 usually turned to the law in which he had been reared, and 
 this gave color to his modes of expression. "We note that the 
 vo/xog is without the article in both places in the above passage, 
 and yet the revisers translate it the law in both instances. 
 TSllicott, with his tendency to undervalue the force of the arti- 
 cle, says : " No/tog is here the ' Mosaic law ; ' " and he trans- 
 lates, " m respect of the law (of Moses) a Pharisee." Again, in 
 the next clause which employs the word, 6iK.aioovvr\v rr\v kv 
 
vo/mo yevofievog ajiefinro^, he translates, " righteousness that is in 
 the law," and adds, "All limitations of vo/iog, for example, ' spe- 
 cialia instituta,' ' traditionem patrum,' are completely untena- 
 ble." The meaning of the apostle seems rather to be, legally a 
 Pharisee; and, as touching legal righteousness, Nameless. He 
 was not a Pharisee according to the law of Moses, and he proves, 
 sin against all men so far as keeping the law perfectly was con- 
 cerned. He is here speaking of law in its broader aspects, and 
 hence the article is properly omitted. 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans opens a broad field of investiga' 
 tion as to the employment of vdfiog with and without the article. 
 Eom. ii, 12, 13 : " For as many as have sinned without law shall 
 also perish without law ; and as many as sinned under law 
 shall be judged by law ; for not the hearers of the law shall be 
 just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." It 
 will at once be recognized that the late revisers have omitted 
 the article before law, in conformity with the Greek, whereas 
 the Textus Beoeptus inserts the article in every case. It is 
 evident that Paul did not omit the article without reason. 
 The law in the apostle's mind was, no doubt, the Mosaic law ; 
 but if that had been mainly, or solely, in his mind, he could 
 readily have inserted the article, and his meaning would have 
 been clear. By its omission he indicates that the word " law " 
 is applied in its qualitative aspect, such a thing as law, " by the 
 application to this case of the rule laid down for them in any 
 particular revelation under which they live."* He is speaking 
 of any law which they regard as a duty. The Mosaic law was 
 fundamentally the law in connection with which his argument 
 originated ; but his mind here takes a broader range, and he 
 affirms of all law that which he has elsewhere affirmed of obe- 
 dience to the law of Moses. The context demands this broader 
 view. He affirms " wrath and indignation, tribulation and an- 
 guish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew 
 first, and also of the Greek ; but glory and honor and peace 
 to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also 
 to the Greek : for there is no respect of persons with God." 
 He follows it by the great principle, that men shall be judged 
 by the law under which they are placed, and that it is univer- 
 sally true that " not the hearers of a law are just before God, 
 
 * Vaughan, I. c. 
 
but the doers of a law shall be justified." Here clearly the 
 omission of the article indicates this broader application of 
 the word "law." With the article inserted, as it is in the 
 MecepPus, this broader meaning, which was evidently in the 
 .apostle's thought, is excluded from the view of the reader, 
 whereas its absence illumyies the whole reasoning of the 
 apostle. 
 
 The next passage which Winer applies to the Mosaic law 
 without the article is Rom. ii, 23. We insert the Greek from 
 the late revisers' text : og ev vofiui Kavx&oai, did TTJg -naga^daeug- 
 rov vdfiov rdv Bsov aTLfid&ig. The revisers' translation is : " Thou 
 who gloriest in the law, through thy transgression of the law 
 dishonorest thou God ?" It will be seen that the revisers insert 
 the article in the first clause before "law " when it is not in the 
 Greek. They felt, however, the force of its absence, and in the 
 margin, as an alternative rendering in that clause, read a law 
 for the law. This is certainly one of the strongest cases for 
 the use of vdfiog without the article meaning the Mosaic law 
 which can be found in all Paul's writings. Two explanations, 
 of the absence of the article with the first vofiog, and its pres- 
 ence with the second, are possible. One is to give to the first 
 vofiog the broader meaning, law in general, a law, and to regard 
 the second article as inserted to call attention to that law, by 
 way of emphasis : " Those who gloried in a law, by the trans- 
 gression of that law dost thou dishonor God?" (Vaughan's 
 translation.) The other is to regard both as referring to the 
 Mosaic law, but regarding the absence of the article with the 
 first vdfiog as showing its qualitative aspect. " Thou that glo- 
 riest in law," meaning thereby not in the possession of the law, 
 but thou that gloriest in such a thmg as law. Paul, for the 
 moment, allows the Mosaic law to sink from his mind, and calls 
 attention to their legal glorying by the omission of the article. 
 He then returns in the next clause to the Mosaic law, of which 
 he is at this point specially treating. It does not seem possible 
 that Paul should use the same word with and without the article 
 in such close juxtaposition with precisely the same meaning. 
 If, however, the principle with which we started is accepted,, 
 namely, that the presence of the article marks that which is. 
 familiar and well known, and its absence gives a broader and 
 qualitative aspect to the thing with which it is connected, we 
 
have a clear elucidation of these passages without resort to any 
 arbitrary employment of it. 
 
 The next passage cited by Winer in support of his propo- 
 sition is Rom. iii, 31 : vofiov ovv tcarapyovfiev did, rijg moreag; fir) 
 -yevoiTO- aXXd vofiov \otu\izv. Here again the revisers waver as to 
 the article, translating the law in the text, but inserting law in 
 the margin : " Do we then make the law of none effect through 
 faith ? God forbid : nay, we establish the law." Neither vo/iog 
 in this verse has the article, and yet in both cases they insert it 
 in the translation. The reason for it is, no doubt, because both 
 before and immediately following the apostle is writing of the 
 law of Moses; hence, at first view it seems out of harmony to 
 introduce law in general so abruptly. It must not be forgotten, 
 however, that Paul abounds in abrupt transitions, and such a 
 change, from the special to the general, and conversely, ought 
 not to be a matter of surprise. There is no necessity for that 
 explanation here. The verse is introduced by the post-positive 
 particle ovv, which, according to Hadley, ("Grammar," sec. 886,) 
 means " therefore, consequently" stronger than apa. It may 
 fitly be regarded, therefore, as the conclusion of a previous dis- 
 cussion and broader in its application. He means by the omis- 
 sion of the article to say, " Do we, then, by means of the faith 
 which we preach as necessary to salvation, make la/w of no ac- 
 count ? On the contrary, we by this very means establish law." 
 He thus speaks of all law as a revelation of duty, and not exclu- 
 sively of the law of Moses. 
 
 Rom. iv, 13-15, is another passage cited to prove the use of 
 vojxog without the article to mean the Mosaic law : Ov yap did, 
 vouov 7] knayyeXia tgj 'kfipaafi rj t&5 OTrepfian avrov, to tcXr/povofiov 
 ■avrov elvai tcoofiov, dXXd did diKaioavvr/g moreug- el yap oi etc vb\iov 
 KXrjpovofmi, Kenevurai rj marig, nai Karf]pyrjTai r) enayyeXia- 6 yap 
 vdfiog bpyrjv Karepa^erai, etc. Here again the revisers insert the 
 article when it is not in the Greek : " For if they which are of 
 the law be heirs, faith is made void," etc. Suppose, however, we 
 translate literally, " If they which are of law be heirs, faith is 
 made void," how much more expressive the passage becomes. It 
 makes a direct antithesis between law and faith as a ground of 
 heirship. In the apostle's argument there were but two grounds 
 of heirship — works and faith. He is here treating of great fun- 
 damental principles, the antagonism between works and faith 
 
as a basis of salvation, and hence vopog is most properly without 
 the article, and the apostle here has no direct reference to the 
 Mosaic law. The last clause of the fourteenth verse, however, 
 does insert the article with marked significance. The law — the 
 Mosaic law with which you are so familiar — worketh wrath. 
 He proves the general law which he is maintaining by the spe- 
 cific case of the law of Moses. Thus the absence and presence of 
 the article are rich in significance, as is shown in the fifteenth 
 verse, where the article is again omitted : ov 6e ova earc vofiog, 
 ovde TcapdQaaiq. " But where there is no law, neither is there 
 -transgression." A more literal rendering is, " But where a 
 law is not, neither is there transgression." It does not mean 
 where the law of Moses is not there is no transgression, but 
 where law does not exist transgression does not exist. Here 
 again the absence of the article has a clear significance. 
 
 Rom. vii, 1, is also cited as a proof that the absence of the 
 article does not invalidate the use of the vofiog for the Mosaic 
 law : "H dyvoelre, ddeX<f>ol, (yivuaicovTi yap vofiov AaA&i,) on 6 vo\iog 
 jcvpieiei tov dvdpumov e^>' oaov Xpovov $ft. The revisers trans- 
 late : " Or are ye ignorant, brethren (for I speak to men 
 that know the law), how that the law hath dominion over a 
 man for so long time as he liveth." The first vofiog is without 
 the article, but is translated the law, with an alternative ren- 
 dering in the margin, namely, law. How accurately the ab- 
 sence of the article indicates precisely what Paul is intending 
 to say ! He is apparently commending their readiness to un- 
 derstand his argument, and he incidentally remarks, " I am 
 speaking to men conversant with law." They are therefore 
 prepared to comprehend the illustration he is about to use. 
 The absence of the article seems to be as necessary for the 
 "thought of the apostle with the first vofiog as its presence is with 
 the second. He shows the accuracy of his writing in this deli- 
 cate use of the article. 
 
 A passage from First Corinthians will further illustrate that 
 there is a distinction between vopog with and without the 
 article more clearly marked than is admitted by Winer. 1 Cor. 
 ix, 20 : Kal eyevofirjv rolg 'lovdaloig &g 'lovdaiog, 'iva 'lovSaiovg 
 jcepdjjow Tovg imb vofiov d>g imb vo\iov, fir) a>v avrbg imb vopov, Iva 
 rovg vtrb v6fj,ov Kepdrjoua). The revisers translate : " And to the 
 Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews ; to them 
 
that are under the law as under the law, not being myself 
 under the law, that I might gain them that are under the 
 law." It is to be observed here that the article is not em- 
 ployed at all in this verse in connection with vofiog, and yet 
 the revisers have inserted it in every case. It will also be 
 observed that in each instance vdfiog is directly preceded by a 
 preposition. "Middleton on the Greek Article," chap, vi, 
 sec. 1, regards the omission of the article following prepositions 
 as anomalous. His assumption is that following a preposition 
 the noun becomes anarthrous. It is well to examine this, for 
 if it be so, an element of uncertainty is thereby added to the 
 exegesis of important passages. Middleton says, in this same 
 connection : " Hence it is evident that the absence of the ar- 
 ticle in such instances affords no presumption that the nouns 
 are used indefinitely. Their definiteness or indefiniteness, when 
 they are governed by prepositions, must be determined on other 
 grounds." 
 
 This anomaly, if it be one, in linguistic criticism should only 
 be allowed under the pressure of great exegetical necessity, and 
 hence the inquiry may properly be raised whether a more cor- 
 rect explanation will not follow a literal rendering, assuming 
 that the presence and absence of the article are intentional. Let 
 us first look at the passage last mentioned : " And to the Jews 
 I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews." That much of 
 the translation is literal ; that is, it is rdlg 'lovdaioig in the first 
 clause and 'lovdaiovg in the last. He means to say that he be- 
 came to the Jews a Jew, that he might gain Jews. The article 
 indicates that he refers to the well-known Jewish people, and 
 its absence to such as are Jews. The absence indicates the 
 qualitative aspect which is in his mind. 
 
 The view of the revisers' translation seems to be that the 
 next clause is co-ordinate with the first and adds nothing to the 
 thought, for they translate, " To them that are under the law, as 
 under the law," etc. Who were those who regarded themselves 
 as under the Mosaic law but the Jews ? Is it not more in con- 
 sonance with the apostle's meaning to regard the article as not 
 omitted because of the preposition which precedes it, but be- 
 cause he has advanced beyond the thought of the Jews, and is 
 now considering all that are under law, whether they be Jew 
 or Gentile. Was it not the practice of Paul to eat with the 
 
tiles, and thus, by conforming to their customs in things indif- 
 ferent, gain them for Christ ? Stanley (" Notes on Corin- 
 thians," I. c.) regards those under law as " Jewish proselytes, or 
 Jewish converts to Christianity," while Alford (" Commentary," 
 I. o.) takes another view. He says : 
 
 These again are not Jewish converts, nor proselytes, who would 
 not be thus distinguished from other Jews, but are much the 
 same as 'Iov&hcm, only to the number of them the apostle did not 
 belong, not being himself under the law, whereas he was naturally 
 a Jew. 
 
 He affirms that the avofioi are the heathen. Far more rea- 
 sonable are the remarks on the passage in Olshausen's Com- 
 mentary : 
 
 It is best to regard the Jews and the avouoi, that is, Gentiles, 
 as the leading contrasts, and the ol vnd vojjlov, those under law, as 
 a modification of the Gentiles. By the dvojiog cannot be meant, 
 one who acknowledges absolutely no law ; such a one would . be> 
 designated aaefirfg, impious, but merely one to whom the Mosaic; 
 ceremonial was unknown. 
 
 This view gives to the absence of the article a distinct mean- 
 ing, and removes largely the embarrassment in the exegesis of 
 the passage. 
 
 This distinction will appear in connection with vioq in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. Heb. i, 1, the revisers translate as 
 follows : " God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in 
 the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at 
 the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son," etc. The 
 margin reads a Son. The Greek is ev vl&, in a Son. The re- 
 visers again show their uncertainty by placing his Son in the 
 text and a Son in the margin. The insertion of his before 
 Son is entirely gratuitous, for although the personal pronoun 
 may be a proper translation of the definite article, as Acts 
 xvii, 28, tov yap icai yevoq iafiev, " for we are also Ms offspring," 
 it cannot be claimed as the proper translation of its omission. 
 This passage is one where the explanation of the omission of 
 the article as an anomaly will not answer. The importance of 
 this passage, and its bearing on the doctrine of the omission of 
 the Greek article after prepositions, will justify the insertion 
 of Alford's observations, as found in his Commentary, on the 
 phrase kv viu. 
 
The omission (of the article) -would not at any tirae^ surprise 
 us after a preposition; but here, after hv rolg Trpodyfjraig, we 
 should expect as an antithesis, hv tgj vlu>. Hence we must seek 
 a reason beyond that usual idiomatic omission. Emphatic posi- 
 tion will often dispense with the article, and this may be alleged 
 here. But even thus we do not get at the final cause. If the 
 position of vl£>, wherever anarthrous, is emphatic to this extent, it 
 must be for some reason still latent. Some have suggested official 
 denomination, making vlog into a quasi-proper name. But this 
 again is only an introduction to the final reason. Why is such 
 an anarthrous name here used as designatirg our Lord ? Now, 
 then, we come to the word itself, as we must do in all such cases, 
 for an account of the idiom. And that account here seems to be 
 found in the peculiar and exclusive character of that relation to 
 God which vlog expresses. We may say that Jesus is "the Son 
 of God ;" by this is definitely expressed the fact, and the distinc- 
 tion from other sons of God implied : but we may also say that 
 he is "Son of God ;" and we thus give the predicate all fullness 
 of meaning and prominence, and even more emphatically and defi- 
 nitely express the exclusive character of his sonship. 
 
 In Alford's view the breadth of the predication involved in 
 the omission of the article affirms the exclusiveness of Christ's 
 sonship. 
 
 The difficulty in the translation of this phrase is shown by 
 Peile in his Annotations on Hebrews, in a note on this verse. 
 He says : 
 
 'Ev vlti, improperly rendered in our English version " by Sis 
 Son," cannot (although nouns, even when most definite, may be 
 anarthrous after a preposition) have been intended by one who 
 had just before written hv rolg TTQotyrjTaig, to convey by the Son, as- 
 sumed to be known by that name. . . . We understand hv vl£>, 
 ov edrjKe Kkr\gov6\iov ndvruv to express the Eternal God's Personal 
 Revelation of himself, as in man's form and on man's behalf stand- 
 ing in the relation of Son unto himself. 
 
 It is sufficient for our purpose to show from these scholarly 
 authorities that they distinctly recognize, what is apparent on 
 the surface, that it will not do to trust the rule of the frequent 
 omission of the article after prepositions, as laid down by 
 Middleton and Winer, in a crucial case of exposition. The 
 idea of the sonship of Christ runs through the whole passage, 
 a sonship that involves divinity. The writer in this series of 
 wonderful thoughts contrasts the communication of the old 
 covenant by rotg "npofyrpaig, the well-known prophets whom he 
 need not mention, with the new Eevelation made known not 
 
in prophetic messengers, but in " a Son, whom he appointed 
 heir of all things, through whom also he made the world." 
 Here again the absence of the article indicates the qualitative 
 aspect under which the Son is viewed. It is in his character 
 as Son, and not as servant or prophet or apostle, that he speaks 
 to men from God. 
 
 The remarks which have been made have been confined 
 chiefly to the use of the article with vofwg. That word seems 
 to be the most embarrassing. Winer takes pains to give the 
 specific passages in which vofiog without the article is employed 
 for the Mosaic law. We have already indicated that is a dis- 
 puted question, and cannot be disposed of without extensive 
 and careful investigation. Prof. Moulton, in his note to Winer, 
 says : " There is still difference of opinion on the proper inter- 
 pretation of vofiog without the article." It has been shown 
 that the revisers had no rule on this point, but that they often 
 translated it as if it were present when it was not in the Greek, 
 but did not omit it when it was present. They were careful, 
 also, to place the literal meaning in the margin, so that the dif- 
 ficulty might be manifest, and the reader might take his choice. 
 Their translations are cited, not to call in question their high 
 scholarship, which is beyond criticism, but to show that the 
 scholarship of the world is divided on this point, and to raise 
 the question whether there are not rules which govern the ar- 
 ticle as well as other parts of speech. 
 
 There is a necessity for more definiteness in this matter aris- 
 ing out of the very nature of language and the necessity for an 
 accurate understanding of its meaning. Arbitrary or tradi- 
 tional interpretation should, as far as possible, yield to fixed 
 grammatical laws. It is safe to affirm that there is no part of 
 linguistic expression which cannot be reduced to scientific 
 rules, if men have the patience and insight to discover what 
 they are. The laws are there ; it is the work of the student to 
 find them. 
 
 The words of Alford on Heb. i, 2, already referred to, are 
 worthy of consideration in this connection. He refers to the 
 language of Prof. Stuart to refute it : 
 
 So far is this or any other usage of the article from being ar- 
 bitrary, as Stuart here maintains, I will quote his sentence for a 
 caution to tyros : " After all the rules which have been laid down 
 
respecting the insertion or omission of the article in^Greek, and 
 all the theories which have heen advanced, he who investigates 
 for himself, and is guided only by facts, will find not a little that 
 is arbitrary in the actual use of it. The cases are certainly very 
 numerous where Greek writers insert or reject it at pleasure. 
 The direct contrary of this assertion is the fact, and cannot be 
 too much impressed on every Greek Testament student. The 
 rules respecting the article are rigid, and are constantly observed; 
 and there is no case of its omission or insertion in which there 
 was not a distinct reason in the mind of the writer — usually, but 
 not always, discernible by the patient and accurate scholar among 
 ourselves. 
 
 To this view scholarship must come, and out of such inves- 
 tigations are to come some of the most precious thoughts of 
 the iNew Testament. 
 
 It is fitting that we should now turn attention to some con- 
 siderations favoring the view of the article thus far insisted on. 
 As already seen, it gives a clear and consistent explanation to a 
 large number of passages of Scripture which without it are 
 confused and almost contradictory. In order to a harmony of 
 revelation there must also be a harmony of interpretation. This 
 was one of the strong points made for the late revision. They 
 made uniform laws for the guidance of all, and they insisted on 
 giving the same meaning to words and tenses so far as practi- 
 cable. It is interesting to notice how often the necessities of 
 translation led them to discard their own rules, especially in the 
 translation of the tenses and the meaning of prepositions. The 
 rules, however, were necessary, and the influence of them of 
 unspeakable importance in securing an accurate translation. 
 When laws are rigidly followed, and all books are subjected to 
 the same analysis as to language, the harmonies and the dis- 
 crepancies at once appear. 
 
 The accurate translation of the article gives a train of thought 
 more in accord with the breadth of the views of Paul. Who- 
 ever would study Paul carefully must remember that he was 
 the apostle of breadth. He it was that conceived of the Gos- 
 pel most fully in its relations to all mankind. It was as the 
 apostle to the Gentiles that he magnified his office. He regards 
 his call to preach to them a grace. It is natural, therefore, to 
 expect that he would have a broader terminology than some of 
 the others. The word v6fj.og, in its relation to the article, affords 
 one of the best illustrations of this breadth. He employs the 
 
word without the article more frequently thau any of the oth- 
 ers. While the danger to the Jew lay in his dependence 
 upon the Mosaic law for justification, he recognizes the danger 
 of the Gentile in dependence upon his self-righteousness also. 
 He strips the mask from both, and shows the whole world 
 guilty before God. In the first chapter of the Epistle to the 
 Romans he portrays the fearful condition of the heathen 
 world, and in the second the equally wicked condition of the 
 Jewish world, even greater in its guilt, because they were in 
 the possession of the published revelation of God. "What is 
 the conchision which he reaches 1 It is found in Horn, iii, 20 : 
 diori ef epyuv vofiov ov diKaiudrjaerai naoa oapi; ivumov dvrov, dia 
 yap vopov miyvuoig duapriaq : " Because by the works of the 
 law shall no flesh be justified in his sight : for through the law 
 cometh the knowledge of sin." Such is the translation of our 
 late revisers, inserting the article in both cases before " law " 
 where it is not in the Greek. Such has been the uniform usage 
 of our translators, Wiclif and Tyndale and Rheims ; in brief, 
 it has been assumed that Paul meant the Mosaic law only. 
 
 Does not this view do injustice both to the breadth of the 
 apostle's views and to his argument ? What is meant by his 
 strong statement of the iniquities of the Gentile world ? What 
 is meant by his terrible arraignment of Judaism ? Was it not 
 to reach a conclusion vital to his discussion, namely, to show 
 that the whole world was guilty before God ? Now, why does 
 he assume that the whole world is guilty before God ? The 
 verse under consideration is the answer. I use the language of 
 our recent revisers' translation, omitting only the article, which, 
 according to the view here advocated, is inserted without au- 
 thority : " Because by works of law shall no flesh be justified 
 in his sight : for through law cometh the knowledge of sin." 
 The omission of the article in the translation following its 
 omission in Greek gives a clearness and application to the rea- 
 soning which the insertion of it cannot give. How incon- 
 gruous to affirm that the whole world was guilty before God, 
 and then give as a reason that by the deeds of the law of 
 Moses no flesh shall be justified in his sight ! What he de- 
 clares is, that by works of law, either the revealed law or 
 the law written in the heart, no flesh can be justified. It is 
 a universal proposition, Law cannot justify ; its primary and 
 
necessary function in respect to all sinners, is to produce a 
 knowledge of sin. 
 
 The next verse confirms this view. I quote again from the 
 revisers' translation : " But now apart from the law a right- 
 eousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the- 
 law and the prophets." A reference to the Greek will show 
 that the first vdfiog is without the article, while the second vo/io? 
 retains it. The translation, however, inserts it in both cases. 
 The omission of the article makes the meaning clear. " But 
 now ' apart from law,' " in any law whatever, " a righteous- 
 ness of God hath been manifested ; " it is a righteousness- 
 whose essential condition was faith and not works. 
 
 Until one has entered into a comprehension of Paul's accu- 
 rate use of the article, he is to a certain extent hindered in his- 
 comprehension of the world-wideness of the apostle's thought. 
 It gives a revelation of the breadth of his views the more 
 effective because it seems so incidental. 
 
 It would be too much to claim for the general principle here 
 advocated that it will explain all cases. It is safe, however,, 
 to assume that when a law can be found which will explain 
 nine out of ten of the instances, it may well be regarded a& 
 a safe guide. There are elements which enter into the com- 
 position of New Testament Greek, which must not be over- 
 looked in an investigation like this. The old controversy be- 
 tween the purists and Hebraists has passed away, and no one 
 will venture now to claim for the Greek of the New Testament 
 an exact conformity to classic usage. It is an idiom, however, 
 which has assumed a definite form and which has become 
 closely studied, owing to the successful researches of "Winei 
 as seen in his very valuable Grammar. 
 
 The influence of Hebrew on New Testament diction, though 
 not so great as the early Hebraists claimed, is yet considerable; 
 and affected the article as well as the other elements of 
 language. Care must be taken, therefore, to discriminate be- 
 tween a usage which is purely Greek and one which had its 
 origin in Hebrew. In this particular the influence of the Sep- 
 tuagint needs to be carefully traced. The genealogies in the 
 first chapter of Matthew afford an illnstration of its influence. 
 The article is omitted with the subject, and inserted with the 
 object. Matthew i, 2 : 'APpaap kysvvrjoe rdv 'laadic- 'InaaK Sh 
 
kyevvrjoe rbv 'laitufi. This use of the article is found in the 
 genealogy in the Septuagint, to wit, the fifth of Genesis. There 
 are also phrases, idiomatic usages, which are readily recognized 
 in all languages, but which do not come under any general law. 
 It is sufficient if there can be found a general significance to- 
 its presence or absence which may always be recognized by the 
 careful student. 
 
 We have considered thus far the writings of Paul, who was. 
 skilled in classical Greek, as shown by his quotations, and 
 whose style would be formed on Greek rather than on the 
 Hebrew models. The Gospel of John may show us how care- 
 fully the article was employed by a Palestinian Jew whose 
 theology is based upon the Old Testament, who seems to have- 
 known Hebrew, whose language though Greek is strongly 
 tinged with a Hebrew vocabulary and Hebrew modes of ex- 
 pression. (See Plummer on St. John. Introduction, p. 28.) 
 
 The commentator just mentioned calls attention to the sig- 
 nificance of the article as used by John, who would not be 
 supposed to be as accurate in this regard as those more con- 
 versant with classical Greek. John v, 35, has been literally 
 translated by the revisers with added force : " He was the lamp- 
 that burneth and shineth," a great improvement over our au- 
 thorized : " He was a burning and a shining light." John was- 
 the lamp, not the light. He was not merely a lamp, but the 
 lamp, the well known herald of the Messiah, whose lamp was 
 kindled at the true light, which was Christ. How much the 
 rendering of the article adds to the force of the thought ! 
 
 In John vii, 51, notice the force of the article with vopog in 
 calling attention to the special Jewish law with which they were 
 familiar : " Doth our law (6 vo^og) judge a man, except it first 
 hear from himself and know what he doeth ? " The translation 
 of the article by the possessive pronoun gives a good rendering 
 of the force of the article and is material to the argument. 
 Again, John xii, 36 : " "While ye have the light, believe on the 
 light, that ye may become sons of fight." The absence of the 
 article with "light" and " sons" in the last clause is noteworthy. 
 It teaches the close relationship between the light and him who 
 believes on it. It shows the qualitative aspect of the predicate. 
 A similar force is given by the absence of the article in John 
 xvi 21, when " She remembereth no more the anguish, for the 
 
joy that a man is born into the world." A man (avdpomog), 
 such a being as a man, a human being, is born into the world. 
 It is the characteristic of that which is born which is thereby 
 indicated rather than the birth of the individual child. 
 
 There is another realm of New Testament expression which 
 .shows the importance of the proper understanding of the force 
 ■of the article, namely, those which bear upon the names given 
 to our Saviour, especially in his relationship to God. As an 
 example of the presence and absence of the article in close 
 connection take Eph. i, 3 : 'EvXoyrjrdg 6 Qeog km narfip tov nvpiov 
 ■r\\mv 'Irjaov Xpiorov, etc. Revisers' translation : '• Blessed be 
 the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Ellicott trans- 
 lates : " God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." It is 
 unnecessary to discuss the law of the grammarians on the repeti- 
 tion of the article with nouns joined by the conjunction icai, as 
 the object is to show the value of the absence and presence of 
 the article. It is a rule of classic Greek that Qeog with the 
 article means the particular God, but without it divinity in 
 general. Here Paul recognizes by the article with Qeog the per- 
 sonal God. But is the next word the same or a different per- 
 son, and why is the article wanting with the word Father, if 
 it refers to the same person ? Has not the noun narffp a pred- 
 icative force, and makes thereby a strong affirmation concern- 
 ing God, namely, that the relation to our Lord Jesus Christ is 
 that of Father ? The relationship of God to Christ is that of 
 father and son, not that of master and servant. 
 
 Such a rendering is applied by T. S. Green (Grammar, p. 48) 
 to John i, 14- : do^av ug fiovoyevovg napa narpog. 
 
 In this place fiovoyevovg is virtually a substantive ; and it is also 
 •clear that the language might have been tov fiovoyevovg napa tov 
 narpog. Now, there can here be hardly any plea of license, and 
 therefore the absence of the article is designed, and the object is 
 to give the most effective expression of the characteristic circum- 
 stances of the mission of Jesus, standing in unapproachable con- 
 trast to that of all other divine messengers, such, in fact, as is 
 best expressed in the words of the parable, en tva el%ev, vldv 
 ayanrjTOV. . . . (Mark xii, 6), "And we beheld his glory, glory 
 as of an only-begotten one come forth from a father, and, as such, 
 contrasted with a mere servant, like Moses or the prophets." 
 
 If a further example of this mode of interpreting the absence 
 of the article is needed, it will be found in John vii, 45 : " The 
 
officers therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees." 
 Pharisees being without the article shows that the latter in- 
 Tolves some explanation of the former, or involves some pred- 
 ication concerning the chief priests. Plummer (comment on 
 passage) says : " The omission of rovg before Qapioaiovg shows 
 that the chief priests and Pharisees are now regarded as one 
 body." 
 
 At this point we may pause, the object of this paper being 
 to set forth an exposition of the Greek Article in the New 
 Testament, not novel, but which has not yet taken its place 
 •among the accepted theories on that subject. The recognized 
 view is represented by Winer in his incomparable " Gram- 
 mar of the Idiom of the New Testament Greek." It is also 
 proper to add, that the majority of interpreters have not 
 ■explained the force of the omission of the article, especially 
 with vofiog, as here advocated. That so many eminent biblical 
 scholars have employed the more literal mode of rendering it, 
 and that our late revisers have not entirely discarded it, but 
 have shown how often the exact translation gives clearness and 
 force to the argument, may be employed to prove at least that 
 the tendency of modern scholarship is in the direction here in- 
 dicated. Whatever may be the conclusions reached, the care- 
 ful investigation of the minutest forms of expression in the 
 Holy Scriptures must be a matter of permanent interest to all 
 lovers of the truth as it is in Jesus, the Saviour. 
 
 It has thus been attempted "to place before the reader some 
 observations on important passages of Scripture growing out 
 of the laws governing the Greek article. As shown in the 
 beginning, it is a matter which is regarded by some of the 
 best grammarians as beyond the reach of our investigations, 
 and that we must therefore be content with a few general 
 principles. If we must come to that conclusion let it only be 
 after constant application to the study of the word of God. It 
 will be found generally that the nearer we come to literalness 
 in our interpretations, the more we aim to be governed by what 
 the word says, and not by what we think it ought to say, the 
 more consistent will be our interpretations with each other, and 
 the more surely, with the divine guidance, may we attain the 
 "mind of the Spirit." 
 
IV.— THE REVISED VERSION OP THE NEW TESTA- 
 MENT. 
 
 The time has not come for a complete critical estimate of the 
 work of the Revisers of the New Testament, which has so 
 recently made its appearance. The labors of so many eminent 
 Christian scholars for ten and a half years cannot be satisfac- 
 torily examined by any one in a few short months. The best 
 that can at present be done by each individual in reviewing 
 their work is to consider the general character of the revision, 
 and to discuss such passages as he may have time and oppor- 
 tunity to examine. The scholarship of the Revisers is unques- 
 tioned, their integrity undoubted, and every inducement was 
 before them to make this revision of the New Testament what 
 it was expected to be, the representative of the best scholarship 
 of the nineteenth century. No one will venture to charge them 
 with want of fidelity or with unseemly haste. 
 
 It is proper, however, that their work should be subjected to 
 a rigid criticism. The version which this is to succeed has 
 been before the world for two hundred and seventy years; 
 and it is no small proof of its general excellence that it 
 has endured so long. It has deeply impressed itself on the 
 language, literature, and life of all English-speaking people; 
 its choicest passages have been chanted in music and recited in 
 the ritual of the Church ; it has been read in the hearing of 
 the people with the most graceful elocution and with the most 
 wonderful effect; the very form and the order of the words 
 
have fallen on the ears like sweetest music ; so that any change, 
 however slight, jars upon them like some strange discord. 
 
 In our criticism of the Revised Yersion, then, it is not wise 
 to lay too much stress on the rhythm of the Old Version, since 
 the familiar language of that has formed the taste of the pres- 
 ent generation. Its language in many places, no doubt, sounded 
 very strangely to those who first heard it ; and when years 
 have made us familiar with the Ee vision it may be as hard to 
 receive another version as it is now to receive this. Every 
 change in a book so venerable and sacred must win its way by 
 slow processes into the affections and confidence of the people. 
 
 The Revised Version comes to us with presumptions in its 
 favor which cannot be lightly set aside. 
 
 1. It has long been conceded that a revision was needed. 
 
 2. This revision has been instituted by competent authority, 
 and carried through by gentlemen of acknowledged scholarship 
 and fidelity. 
 
 3. The work has not been confined to any denomination of 
 •Christians, but is the result of the united labors of evangelical 
 ■Christendom, so far as our language is concerned. 
 
 4. It is to be presumed that where changes have been made 
 reasons satisfactory to the committee must have been offered, 
 such possibly as may escape the observation of the individual 
 student, however scholarly. 
 
 These presumptions, however, should not free the work 
 from candid criticism, since, however well the work is done, 
 it is but another step in the march toward an absolutely 
 perfect translation. 
 
 All that could properly be demanded of the revisers is that 
 their work should represent the present state of biblical schol- 
 arship. It should be a work of truth, having no regard to 
 sectarian opinions, neither inclined to orthodoxy nor hetero- 
 doxy. As pure scholars, their sole aim must be to give to the 
 people the most accurate translation possible. 
 
 The main points demanding their attention may be com- 
 prised under five general heads. The translation should rep- 
 resent the present state of, 1, Text- Criticism ; 2, Grammatical 
 Knowledge; 3, Lexicography; 4, Archaeology ; 5, The English 
 Language. 
 
 Other matters of interest are mainly connected with these. 
 
The first, second, and fifth of these points will chiefly claim, 
 our attention in this paper. 
 
 I. Changes originating in the criticism of the Greek text. — 
 While it was not the direct aim of the revisers to " construct 
 a continuous and complete Greek text," yet it was necessary 
 that they should substantially do so. At every step the first 
 questions would be, " What did the evangelist or apostle act- 
 ually write 2 " " Are these the exact words of the inspired 
 penman % " Whenever a possible change of text would require 
 a change of translation, it was absolutely essential that the text 
 should be settled as exhaustively as it was possible to do it. 
 This is the part of the work on which we think the greatest 
 stress of the revisers should have been laid. The uncertainty 
 of the text has been so constantly urged by objectors to the 
 Christian religion, that we must be able to say that the text 
 which is here translated is the nearest possible attainment to 
 the autographs of the original writers. This is especially im- 
 portant inasmuch as but few of those who are to read the book 
 are competent to pass judgment on it in this particular. Nor 
 was it desirable that they should be. The number of great 
 textual critics is not large, and this question must, therefore, 
 be decided by the few rather than by the many. ]STor is this 
 statement any disparagement of the scholarship of those who 
 have not made such studies a specialty. It only means that 
 scholarship, in its highest forms, is not universal ; that, for ex- 
 ample, the most capable men in text-revision might not be the 
 most valuable in translating, and vice versa. 
 
 This committee had, however, abundant material ready to 
 their hand. The authorities had been most carefully collated, 
 and were within the reach of all. The latest and best critics 
 have left the results of their labors. Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
 Tregelles, and Alford had each lived long enough to finish edi- 
 tions of the Greek Testament, valuable not only because of the 
 conclusions they reached, but especially for the digest of mate- 
 rials which accompany their texts. Thus, if any members of the 
 committee were not professionals in this particular field, they 
 had ample basis for judgment, and might have been a check on 
 those who were in danger of extreme adherence to technical 
 textual scholarship. In the judgment, therefore, of the whole 
 body we have stronger assurances of a true Greek text than 
 
we should have had in the decision of those alone who were 
 chiefly professional text-critics. 
 
 "We are, therefore, led to the conclusion that the text made 
 by them, so far as it relates to the points on which different, 
 translations may arise, is the best now attainable ; and, while we 
 cannot agree with them in all their conclusions, we can readily 
 accept their work in this regard as of the highest value. 
 
 The most advanced advocates of a purely historical criticism- 
 cannot complain of this text. Lachmann, who first attempted 
 the formation of a text solely on ancient authorities, was not 
 more rigid in his adherence to them than the revisers. In the 
 rigid adherence to the rule that the evidence must be " decid- 
 edly preponderating," meaning thereby the documentary evi- 
 dence, we think they have sometimes erred, but that they have- 
 insisted strongly on the most ancient authorities no one can 
 question. On the wisdom of this we shall speak later. 
 
 Dr. Roberts, (" Companion to the Eevised Yersion,") who- 
 was a member of the committee, gives the authorities chiefly 
 relied upon, namely: A, or the Alexandrian MS., fifth cent- 
 ury ; B, or the Vatican MS., fourth century ; C, or the Codex 
 Ephraem, fifth century ; D, or the Beza MS. ; K, or the Sina- 
 itic MS., fourth century ; of versions, Peshito Syriac, second 
 century ; Old Latin, third century ; Gothic, fourth century ; 
 Coptic, third century ; Armenian, fifth century; Ethiopia, sixth. 
 century. He also mentions Clement of Rome, first century ; 
 Justin Martyr and Irenseus, second century ; Clement of Alex- 
 andria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen, third century. These are 
 the chief witnesses on which they relied, and these must be the 
 main sources of all true study of the New Testament text. 
 
 By observing the results of their labors we can readily see 
 that they have been largely governed by these authorities, giv- 
 ing little weight to later manuscripts, and that they have almost 
 entirely discai-ded subjective criticism. 
 
 Let us notice some of the improvements in which we think 
 nearly all modern scholarship will agree. It was well that they 
 rejected the passage concerning the angel who " troubled the 
 water." John v, 4. The putting of this is true to fact. The 
 marginal note saying, that "Many ancient authorities insert 
 wholly or in part " this verse gives a fair statement of the evi- 
 dence in the case, and while it asserts the preponderance to be 
 
for its omission, there is no attempt to discredit the opinion of 
 those who, like Lachmann, an authority little likely to err on 
 the side of subjective testimony, retain it. They declare by 
 their note that its retention is, in their view, a possible reading, 
 "which is all that any one would now venture to claim for it. 
 
 In Rom. viii, 1, the omission of " who walk not after the 
 flesh, but after the Spirit," is in harmony with the best manu- 
 script authority, and is adopted by the most eminent editors of 
 the text. It is also demanded by the line of argument. In 
 the revised text the verse now stands as a universal proposition, 
 and gives great force to the apostle's reasoning. The intro- 
 duction of the omitted portions can be so readily accounted 
 for that the case seems a very clear one. 
 
 " The heavenly witnesses," 1 John v, 7, 8, are so transpa- 
 rently spurious that their omission caused no surprise on the 
 part of those familiar with the facts, and these verses have 
 long ceased to be appealed to in any doctrinal controversy. 
 The most devoted advocate of the Trinity would not have ap- 
 pealed to this passage for a long while past, so that it is wrong 
 to say, as some Unitarians have done, that the argument for 
 this doctrine is impaired by this omission. This doctrine is so 
 inwoven with the whole New Testament that the removal of 
 no single passage can possibly affect it. 
 
 These are simply specimens of the good work the revisers 
 have done in removing excrescences from the sacred text. 
 There are some passages, however, on which we think their ac- 
 tion has not been so wise. They have left some texts of great 
 importance practically undecided, neither giving them a place 
 as alternative readings nor placing them in the text, but putting 
 them in an abnormal position as a part of the sacred narrative. 
 A crucial case of this kind is Mark xvi, 9-20. We cannot but 
 believe that the mode of its retention is unwise, and that, 
 granting the conclusion at which they arrived, it would have 
 been better to leave it as it was in our Authorized Version, and 
 to accompany it with a marginal explanation. Its removal 
 from close connection with verse 8 in a way to show that it is 
 no part of Mark's Gospel, and yet its retention as gospel, though 
 by another author, is a refinement difficult to comprehend by 
 the ordinary reader, and calculated to mislead many pious but 
 uncritical readers. 
 
It is, we think, by no means proven that this is not a part of 
 Mark's Gospel. A look at any of the critical discussions on this 
 passage will not show such a preponderance of testimony against 
 its genuineness as the committee's action would indicate. 
 
 A brief survey of the state of the evidence on this much- 
 •disputed passage will show that it might safely have been left 
 as in the Authorized Yersion. Against it are the Vatican and 
 Sinaitic manuscripts. The adverse testimony of the Vatican, 
 however, is greatly impaired by the fact that a column is left 
 vacant, as if there were something that needed to be inserted. 
 One MS. of the Itala and two of the ^Ethiopic and the Ar- 
 menian substantially omit it. Of the early Fathers, Eusebius 
 is the only one now conceded to be against it. The statement 
 •of Dr. Roberts, (" Companion," p. 38,) quoted from Tregelles, 
 that " Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Seve- 
 rus of Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers, especially 
 Greeks, testify that these verses were not written by St. Mark, 
 or are not found in the best copies," does not properly present 
 the case. Burgon, in his book on " The Last Twelve Verses 
 of the Gospel According to St. Mark," has shown that these 
 writers quoted from Eusebius, and that, therefore, their inde- 
 pendent testimony is worthless. (See " Hammond's Textual 
 Criticism," p. 110.) 
 
 The internal evidence cited against it arises out of supposed 
 contradictions, namely, that verse 9 disagrees with Matthew 
 xxviii, 1 ; that verses 19 and 20 are in opposition to the Ascen- 
 sion on the fortieth day ; that the style is manifestly not 
 Mark's, since it contains a number of words and phrases not 
 elsewhere used by him. Among the editors Tischendorf and 
 Meyer omit it, while Tregelles, Alford, and "Westcott and Hort 
 inser it after a separation, or in brackets, showing doubts of 
 its genuineness. 
 
 In its favor are almost all the great manuscripts, both un- 
 cial and cursive, including the Alexandrian and the Codex 
 Ephraem of the uncials ; 33, the " Queen of the Cursives ; " 
 and the Old Latin except k., Syriac, Memphitic, Gothic, and 
 Georgian versions. Justin Martyr, Irenseus, and Hippolytus 
 approve its admission. The internal evidence is mainly 
 in its favor. It is not likely that these statements, appar- 
 ently contradictory to the others, would have been inserted 
 7 
 
by any writer who was manufacturing an explanatory addi- 
 tion. The whole section is a unit, and necessary to the com- 
 pletion of the narrative. We cannot conceive of the Gospel 
 of Mark closing with the eighth verse. This passage is de- 
 fended by such critical scholars as Lachmann, Wordsworth, 
 Ebrard, Lange, Scrivener. Scrivener closes his review of the- 
 evidence with these words : "All opposition to the authenticity 
 of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Euse- 
 bius and the testimony of K B. Let us accord to them the- 
 weight which is their due ; but against their verdict we can 
 appeal to the reading of Irenseus and of both the elder Syriac 
 translations in the second century, of nearly all other versions,, 
 and of all extant manuscripts excepting two." The argument 
 against its being Mark's, because of its style, has been urged 
 against too many writings acknowledged to be genuine, to- 
 afford proof for its rejection. Such being the testimony in 
 this passage, we think the committee, in view of the conserv- 
 ative spirit in which they were pledged to act, would not only 
 have been justified in leaving this passage untouched, but were 
 required to do so. No sufficiently strong preponderating evi- 
 dence to warrant a change is here apparent. In separating the 
 passage from the rest of the Gospel they have, in fact, weak- 
 ened its authority. We again assert that the truth would, 
 have been better served by a marginal explanatory note. 
 
 The story of the woman taken in adultery, in John vii, 53, 
 to viii, 11, is differently treated. It is broadly distinguished 
 from the rest, and placed in brackets. Dr. Roberts says that the 
 " right conclusion probably is, that it is no part of St. John's Gos- 
 pel, and yet is a perfectly true narrative which has descended 1 
 to us from the apostolic age." The brackets, then, mean that 
 it does not belong to John's Gospel, but is a true narrative. 
 The conclusion that the passage is not a part of John's Gos- 
 pel is not fully established when such scholars as Mill, Michae- 
 lis, Bengel, Ebrard, Stier, and others retain and defend it as 
 genuine. Even Alford, with whose text the Revisers agree, 
 says : "After all, the most weighty argument against the passage 
 is found in its entire diversity from the style of narrative of 
 our Evangelist." If this is the most weighty argument against 
 it, both he and the Revisers might well have retained it in the 
 text. The requirements of criticism would have been met by 
 
leaving it, as in the authorized version, with an explanatory 
 note stating that '• many believe it to be a true narrative, but 
 not a part of John's Gospel." 
 
 Eomans v, 1, presents a case in which the value of internal 
 evidence has been too entirely overlooked. The Authorized 
 Version reads, " Therefore being justified by faith, we have 
 (efroiiev) peace with God." The Revised Version reads, " Being 
 therefore justified by faith, let us have (e^w^ev) peace with God." 
 
 It is at once admitted that the hortatory form has the sup- 
 port of the chief uncials, cursives, and versions ; so that, if the 
 decision were made solely on external evidence this is the un- 
 doubted reading of the text. Scrivener gives, in favor of the 
 indicative, " K' B' F 6 (in spite of the contrary testimony of 
 f. g., their respective Latin versions,) P, the majority of the 
 cursive manuscripts, Epiphanius, Cyril, and the Slavonic. The 
 later Syriac seems to combine both readings." 
 
 We have in this an acknowledged case for the discussion of 
 the admissibility of internal evidence. While we admit that 
 its employment is exceedingly dangerous, it does not thereby 
 follow that it is to be set aside altogether, and here seems a 
 proper place for its use. Notwithstanding the weight of ex- 
 ternal evidence for the subjunctive, there is, nevertheless, suf- 
 ficient authority in favor of the indicative to prevent a rash 
 rejection of it 
 
 In the first place, cursive manuscripts may, although later in 
 date, represent earlier texts than the most ancient uncials. They 
 may be copies of some that have passed away and of which we 
 have no trace. In the next place, the manuscripts may be 
 valuable for the notes of the corrector. While the corrector, 
 in his attempt to make the meaning more clear, has often 
 changed the text for the worse, it is nevertheless possible that 
 his corrections may represent a removal of errors. With the 
 acknowledged difficulty of copying any manuscript accurately, 
 we may, well pause before we give the sole importance always 
 to the first hand. 
 
 In the text before us both N B have e%o\i£v by the hands of 
 correctors, and this fact, together with the very great difficulty 
 of reconciling the subjunctive with the course of the argu- 
 ment, has led some of the most eminent critics to vary in their 
 conclusions. 
 
Alford, who reads ix^ev, in his note shows the almost 
 overpowering influence of internal evidence in favor of fyoiiev, 
 against which he struggled. His language is : " It is impossible 
 to resist the strong manuscript authority for the reading 1%(x)\iev 
 in this verse. For, indeed, this may well be cited as the crucial 
 instance of overpowering diplomatic authority compelling us 
 to adopt a reading against which our subjective feelings rebel. 
 Every internal consideration tends to impugn it." 
 
 How very near Alford came, however, to the retention of 
 the indicative will appear by quoting from his " Prolegomena to 
 the New Testament," where, after saying that the "consideration 
 of the context is the very last that should be allowed by a critic 
 to be present to his mind as an element of his judgment," he 
 adds : "I do not say that in some extreme cases it may not 
 have to be introduced, as perhaps (but I should now speak 
 doubtfully even in this case) in Rom. v, 1, where there are so 
 many confusing considerations arising from the habits of the 
 manuscripts." 
 
 On the other hand, Meyer, in his " Critical Notes " on this 
 passage, (Moore's Translation,) yields to the internal evidence, 
 and retains the indicative. His capacity, both as a Greek schol- 
 ar and critic, is beyond question, and his conclusion is that of 
 one of the most independent inquirers. After quoting the 
 authorities in favor of the subjunctive, he says : " But this 
 reading, (the subjunctive,) though very strongly attested, yields 
 a sense that is here utterly unsuitable ; because the writer now 
 enters a new and important doctrinal topic, and an exhortation 
 at the very outset, especially regarding a subject not yet ex- 
 pressly spoken of, would at this stage be out of place." 
 
 It is somewhat remarkable that Tischendorf, over whom 
 manuscript authority had such great influence as against in- 
 ternal evidence, favored the indicative until the finding of the 
 Sinaitic manuscript. In his seventh edition we have l%o\itv. 
 Lachmann, too, who is the most uncompromising adherent 
 to early evidence, hesitates to accept the subjunctive, and 
 places e%«|uev in the margin. Westcott retains exofiev as a mar- 
 ginal reading. We maintain, therefore, with Scrivener, that 
 the itacism, w for o, so common in the early manuscripts, may 
 at a very early period have led to the insertion of a, and 
 thus it became incorporated in many of the most ancient of 
 
them ; and that in this case the strong internal evidence must 
 outweigh the preponderance of the external. We do not think 
 the revisers have done justice to the Authorized reading or to 
 its evidence in simply saying in the margin, " Some authorities 
 read we have." We think they should have retained we have, 
 and have said in the margin, " Strong manuscript authority 
 supports let us have" The American Committee (see Appen- 
 dix to the Revised Version) retain the indicative, with a mar- 
 ginal reading similar to the one we have indicated. As the 
 American Committee was full as likely to make changes, where 
 the evidence was " decidedly preponderating," as the English 
 Committee, their conclusion goes to show that the insertion of 
 the subjunctive in the text was not required by the evidence. 
 
 The rule of text criticism, Proclivi lectioni jprcestat ardua, 
 is in danger of being overpressed. In the case before us the 
 indicative is the easier and more natural reading, and while 
 the above rule must be generally accepted, cases may arise in 
 which, as in this one and the one immediately to follow, it is, 
 the wiser course to set it aside. 
 
 In 1 Timothy iii, 16, for the clause, " God was manifest in 
 the flesh," the Revised Version reads, "He who was mani- 
 fested in the flesh." The word dlog, God, in the Authorized 
 Yersion again gives way to the testimony of manuscripts, and! 
 we have bg, translated He who, in its place. Even Scrivener, 
 the most conservative of modern text-critics, surrenders the 
 Authorized Version. If it were granted, as many believe, 
 that the Alexandrian manuscript reads deog, then the internal 
 evidence, arising out of the strange grammatical structure 
 which the introduction of bg gives to the Revised Version, 
 would be a sufficient reason for retaining the text as it was, 
 and inserting a marginal note, stating that, " very strong man- 
 uscript authority reads, who instead of God. If, however, 
 this be accepted, the relative being without any immediate an- 
 tecedent, the implied one is God, and no such doctrinal change 
 is wrought by the substitution of bg as some imagine. 
 
 The Revisers have introduced some changes not called for 
 by their own rule, such as Mark xv, 45, where the new text 
 inserts nrufia for aS>fia, and translates, " he granted the corpse 
 to Joseph." Their rule is, that the question of text should 
 only be raised when the translation would be affected by the 
 
change. Certainly, while the new translation on this text more 
 correctly renders the text which they have adopted, no impor- 
 tant change in meaning is thereby made to the Authorized read- 
 ing. It is better, however, to have the right text than the 
 wrong one, and in this case they have done wisely in stretch- 
 ing to its utmost their own rule. Of the translation itself we 
 shall speak hereafter. 
 
 These are some of the objections which, we think, might be 
 justly raised to the Greek text, but they are so few in com- 
 parison with the great improvements which have been made 
 in this regard, that we believe this text, as revised by the 
 Committee, must now be received as the Textus Receptus for 
 students of the Greek Testament. The Greek text, as accepted 
 by the Revisers, has been published at Oxford, England, after 
 notes made during the progress of revision by Rev. F. H. Scriv- 
 ener, LL.D., under the editorial supervision of the Rev. Arch- 
 deacon Palmer, of Oxford, and is the only Greek text corre- 
 sponding to the Revision of 1881 now accessible. It is to this 
 text reference is made in this paper. All the other Greek 
 Testament texts now before the public are the work of individ- 
 ual editors. This text must take a high rank, as the result of 
 the joint labors of the best modern text-critics with the con- 
 clusions of these scholars before them. 
 
 II. Changes arising out of conformity to the present state 
 of grammatical knowledge. 
 
 Like text-criticism, the advance in the knowledge of New 
 Testament grammar has of late been very great. The great 
 works of "Winer, Buttmann, and Thomas Sheldon Green, have 
 given an impulse to the study which must be felt in both 
 the translation and the interpretation of the New Testament. 
 The grammatical commentaries of Meyer and Ellicott have 
 given a further impulse in the same direction. So far as the 
 translation is concerned this advance has been most manifest in 
 the case of the Greek article and of the tenses. 
 
 The accurate comprehension of the force of the Greek article 
 is not easy, and many passages have been made obscure by the 
 failure of the translator to understand its significance. No com- 
 plete rules on the subject have yet been given, but it has been well 
 observed that its insertion or omission has always a significance. 
 Sometimes the article is omitted where at first view it would 
 
most naturally appear necessary, as in the English phrase, " He 
 has gone to town," meaning some particular town with which 
 we are acquainted. Again, we say, " He has gone to the city," 
 with a similar significance. These differences of expression 
 may arise out of the rhythm of the sentence, or from use. 
 Mr. Thomas Sheldon Green has most thoroughly grasped the 
 idea of the article. His language is, " The article is prefixed 
 to a word, or combination of words, when there is intended to be 
 •conveyed thereby, in the particular instance, an idea in some 
 degree familiarized to the mind ; it points to a previous famil- 
 iarity, real or presumed." He regards the article as a sign of 
 identification, and " closely and consequently, but not primari- 
 ly, connected with definiteness." (Green's Grammar, pp. 6, 9.) 
 This view throws light on many passages otherwise obscure, 
 «,nd shows the necessity for the proper translation of the arti- 
 cle. We place the two translations of the first part of 1 Tim. 
 i, 15 together. Authorized: "This is a faithful saying, and 
 worthy of all acceptation." Revised : " Faithful is the say- 
 ing, and worthy of all acceptation." The article with " say- 
 ing," " the saying," refers to that one "just recorded, touching 
 the mercy and grace so singularly bestowed." The translators 
 have here, by their literalness, added both to the force and 
 to the dignity of the passage, and have given it a connection 
 with the context not apparent in the Authorized Yersion. 
 
 The instances in which the sense has been greatly improved 
 by the translation of the article are too numerous to be recited 
 at length. The rendering of " the Christ " very frequently in 
 the Gospels instead of Christ ; " he looked for the city which 
 hath foundations " instead of a city ; the prophet instead of 
 that prophet. These, among many instances, will occur even to 
 the most cursory reader of the Revised "Version. A good illus- 
 tration is John iii, 10, " Art thou the teacher of Israel, \i. e., the 
 teacher well known,] and understandest not these things ? " in- 
 stead of the Authorized "Art thou a master of Israel, and 
 knowest not these things ?" 
 
 A text which in the Greek clearly shows the force of the 
 ■article is Col. iii, 5, " Mortify therefore your members," etc. 
 In the Authorized Yersion there is no article before any of the 
 words, but in the Greek text the article is employed before the 
 last noun, nXeovexia. The article before this last noun marks 
 
it as a " notorious immorality, especially to be avoided," which,, 
 in the Eevised Version, is expressed by " the which is idol- 
 atry," but which would have been better brought out by " the 
 covetousness which is idolatry." (Winer's Grammar, Thayer's 
 Edition, p. 117.) 
 
 There are, however, some cases of the translation, or omis- 
 sion to translate the article, which are difficult to account for,, 
 and are quite important because of their exegetical significance. 
 
 With the word vopog, in Romans and Galatians, the absence 
 or presence of the article has much to do with the meaning, 
 and their decision in regard to it cannot be received as final. 
 The general rule in regard to vofiog is, that with the article it 
 means the Mosaic law, and without it, law in general, although 
 often inclusive of a reference to the Mosaic law. The revisers 
 have manifestly appreciated the difficulty, as shown by their 
 marginal notes. 
 
 Alford, Ellicott, Meyer, and Conybeare and Howson agree 
 with the revisers, namely, the almost indifferent use of vopog and 
 6 v6y.og, while Lightfoot, Thomas Sheldon Green, Middleton, 
 Yaughan, and others recognize a broad distinction between the 
 two. As the revisers have proposed the translation of the ar- 
 ticle with precision^ a review of their work can only be seen by 
 placing the text which they have translated and the Revision 
 side by side, and then tracing the peculiarities of translation. 
 The passages are selected from Eomans and Galatians. The 
 italics are our own, and are merely used to call attention to the 
 point on which we make our comparison. The word appears 
 with and without the article very frequently. 
 
 Kom. ii, 12-18 ; 28-27. 
 
 "Ogol yap avofiuc TjfiapTov, ai'dfiug teal For as many as have sinned without 
 
 airoAovvTar Kal baot kv vdfi(f) 7jp.apTov } Sta law shall also perish without law : and 
 
 vdfiov KpiBfiaovrai- ov jap ol anpoaral as many as have sinned under law shall 
 
 vdfiov dinaioi Ttapa. tq> Geu, uX/C ol not- be judged by law ; for not the hearers 
 
 TjTal tov vdfiov diKatuQijOovTai' urav of a law are just before God, but the 
 
 yap edvq tu. fir] vofiov c%ovTa 6voei ra doers of a law shall be justified : for 
 
 tov vdfiov ttoc&giv, ovtol vdfiov firf txovTer; when Gentiles which have no law do by 
 
 iavrolc clai vd/iot;' olrwec hdeUvvvrac to nature the things of the law, these, hav- 
 
 epyov tov vdfiov ypanrbv iv Talc napdiai<; ing no law, are a law unto themselves ;. 
 
 clvt&v, avfi/iapTvpovoric avruv rfjc own- in that they shew the work of the law 
 
 dr/oeut;, Kal fiera^v aXkifkwv tuv Xoyto-fiayv written in their hearts, their conscience 
 
 KaTTiyoptriivTuv ff Kal Imolioywifievav, iv bearing witness therewith, and their 
 
 Vfiipa oTt uptvei 6 6coc ra xprnra rCn> thoughts one with another accusing or 
 
 avdpunuv nara to evayyiXidv fiov 6ia else excusing them; in the day when 
 
 Iqoov XpwToii. God shall judge the secrets of men, ac- 
 cording to my gospel, by Jesus Christ. 
 
Ei <5e otii 'lovSalog tirovopaiji, ko.1 ina- 
 vairavy vbpu, Kal Kavx&aai ev Gfcp, /cat 
 yivuoKeic to BsXripa, /cat 6oKipd£ei( to. 
 iiaijiipovTa, Karrixovpevoc ek Toii vbpov. 
 
 "Of Iv vbpa navx&oeu, did Trie irapajid- 
 aeuc tov vbpov tov Oeov aTi/w&ig; to 
 yap bvopa tov Beov 60 vpac ffoaotyripEl- 
 rat iv role iBveai, /cafluf yeypairrat. jre- 
 piTo/ii) jicv yap ixpeXel, edv vbpov irpdaaqc- 
 lav ie napaf3aTTis vbp.au |jf, r/ ireptTopy 
 aov a/cpopuaTia yiyovev. hav ovv v anpo- 
 jivaTia tci dtKatupara tov vbpov Qvhaaoy, 
 ovxi >J aitpoflvoTla aiiTov elc nspiTOfo/v 
 XoyiadqoeTai, Kal Kpivu r) ek (frijaeoc &K- 
 poQvarta tov vbpov Telovaa oe tov Sea 
 ypdpparoc Kal neptTopqg napa/lariiv vb- 
 pov i 
 
 Rom. iii 
 OlSapev <5e otl oca 6 vbpoc T^iyei, role 
 iv tc3 v6p<t> 'KaJ.Ei, Iva irav arbpa <ppay?j, 
 Kal iirb&iKoc yevi/rat nac b Kbopoc rcj 
 Qeu' dtdTi ef epyuv vbpov ov diKaLuBr)- 
 ceTat iruoa aaptj ivdntov avTov - dta yap 
 vbpov iiriyvuaie upapriae. vvvl Si x u pi<: 
 vbpov diKaioaivri Qsov irE<j>avepuTai, pap- 
 Tvpovpevrj vnb tov vbpov Kal tuv npo- 
 
 (bVTUV. 
 
 Gal. iii. 
 Ei yap ek vbpov fi Kkripovojiia, ovketi 
 it; EnayyEXiac. 
 
 But if thou bearest the name of a Jew, 
 and restest upon the law, [marg. a law, j 
 and gloriest in God, and knowest his will, 
 and approvest the things that are excel- 
 lent, being instructed out of the law. 
 
 Thou who gloriest in the law, through 
 thy transgression of the law dishonour- 
 est thou God ? For the name of God is 
 blasphemed among the Gentiles because 
 of you, even as it is written. For cir- 
 cumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a 
 doer of the law : but if thou be a trans- 
 gressor of tlie law, thy circumcision is be- 
 come uncircumcision. If therefore the 
 uncircumcision keep the ordinances of 
 the law, shall not his uncircumcision be 
 reckoned for circumcision? and shall not 
 the uncircumcision which is by nature,. 
 if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who with 
 the letter and circumcision art a trans- 
 gressor of the law ? 
 
 19-21. 
 
 Now we know that what things soever 
 the law saith, it speaketh to them that 
 are under the law ; that every mouth 
 may be stopped, and all the world may 
 be brought under the judgement of God : 
 because by the works of the law shall no 
 flesh be justified in his sight : for through 
 the law cometh the knowledge of sin. 
 But now apart from the law a righteous- 
 ness of God hath been manifested, being 
 witnessed by the law and the prophets. 
 
 18. 
 For if the inheritance is of the law, it 
 is no more of promise. 
 
 Gal. iv, 4, 5. 
 
 'Efan-f aTsikev b Bebc tov vlbvav rov, ye- 
 vbpsvov ek ywaiKbc, yevbpevov virb vbpov, 
 Iva tovc virb vbpov i£ayopdoq, Iva ttjv 
 vlodsciav aTToXafiapEV. 
 
 God sent forth his Son, born of a wom- 
 an, born under the law, that he might re- 
 deem them which were under the law, that 
 ■we might receive the adoption of sons. 
 
 Gal. iv, 21. 
 AiysTE poi, oi im> vbpov BeXovtec slvai, Tell me, ye that desire to be under 
 
 tov vbpov ovk ukoiiete ; the law, do ye not hear the law ? 
 
 Gal. vi, 13. 
 Ovfie yup oi TTEOtTepvbpevoc amol vbpov For not even they who receive cir- 
 
 QvXdaaovaiv cumcision do themselves keep the law. 
 
 The above passages afford ample scope to study the trans- 
 lation of the article in relation to the word law. Our atten- 
 tion is first arrested by the apparent desire of the revisers 
 to translate the article in accordance with the Greek. In 
 Rom. ii, 12, the word vofiog is in the Greek, in every case, 
 without the article, and it is translated accordingly, whereas. 
 
■our Authorized Version reads the law. In verse 13 the first 
 word law in the Greek wants the article, and the second has 
 the article. Yet the revisers translate both words without the 
 .article. The omission of the article in the last clause of that 
 verse, when it is preserved in their own Greek text, seems un- 
 accountable. It is possible that the retention of the second 
 article in the Greek text is an error. The American Commit- 
 tee read " the law " for " a law " in this verse. In the 17th 
 verse there is no article in the text, but they have inserted it, 
 though with a marginal note omitting it. In the 25th verse it 
 is translated the law, although the article is not in the text. 
 The last word of verse 27 is without the article, though it is 
 written the law in the Revision. 
 
 Rom. iii, 20, is a very important passage, rendering its accu- 
 rate translation worthy of careful study. The Revision inserts 
 the article in both cases before law, whereas no article is found 
 in the Greek. Rom. iii, 21 : the first law is without article 
 and the last has it, though both are translated the law. 
 
 All the passages cited from Galatians are translated as if 
 they had the article. In Gal. iv, 21, we find that the translat- 
 ors refuse to recognize any distinction between law and the 
 law, translating both as if having the article. 
 
 This seems to be an anomaly in translation as compared with 
 their own rule of uniformity. It appears reasonable that here 
 as elsewhere the words ought to have been translated uniform- 
 ly, as in the Greek text, with a marginal explanation stating the 
 general facts of the case. 
 
 It does not seem supposable that so careful a writer as Paul 
 would in such a succession of instances use such an important 
 word so indiscriminately. "We can hardly imagine that hear- 
 ers of a lata and doers of a law should be represented, the 
 former without the article and the latter with it. It is hard 
 to believe that v6jj,u> and tcj v6\u*> mean exactly the same thing. 
 If such be the case, would it not be better, as a matter of trans- 
 lation, to give the word after the Greek original in every case, 
 and leave the meaning to be decided by the reader rather than 
 by the translator ? The omission or insertion of the article, as 
 done by the revisers in this case, cannot carry with it full con- 
 viction, however plausible the exegetical reasons may be which 
 seem to require it. 
 
Justice to the Revision requires the statement that the use 
 of v6fj.og, especially in Romans and Galatians, is a vexed ques- 
 tion with grammarians and commentators, but the final result, 
 we think, must uphold the apostle's discriminations. 
 
 Green (" Grammar of New Testament," p. 80) remarks : 
 
 Whenever the word vd/^oc, in the New Testament, has the article 
 prefixed without reference to the context, the term must then be 
 used to signify the Mosaic law. At the same time this is a case 
 in which, as the effect of familiar currency, the article might drop 
 .away, and the anarthrous term itself come to have a conversa- 
 tional meaning, and pass, as it were, into a proper noun. Wheth- 
 er, however, this license is to be recognized in the language of 
 St. Paul is a point well worthy of consideration, and not to be 
 disregarded, because such usage is possible. . . . There are 
 •certain places where, though the word is anarthrous, the Mosaic 
 law, and that alone, evidently was present to the mind of the 
 writer ; but still an effect of the absence of the article is clearly 
 discernible, namely, a greater prominence of the internal force of 
 the word, a suggesting of the attributes of law rather than the 
 law ; and, besides this, by means of the unrestricted term the 
 proposition is given with a broader and more imposing cast. . . . 
 It is reasonable, then, whenever in the Epistles of St. Paul the 
 term vopoq is anarthrous, though the Mosaic law must have been 
 present to the mind of the writer, to recognize a resulting effect, 
 such as has been here exemplified in particular instances, and to 
 attribute it to design. 
 
 It seems clear, in harmony with the main thought of this 
 accurate scholar, that there was in the mind of Paul a distinc- 
 tion, resulting from the absence of the article, which is oblit- 
 erated by its insertion in English. In conformity with this 
 view he translates Gal. ii, 19, "For I through law died to 
 law" omitting the article which the revisers insert in the text, 
 though they also omit it in the margin. 
 
 He makes similar remarks on the distinction as shown in 
 Gal. ii, 16, 21 ; iii, 18 ; and Rom. iii, 28. In these cases the 
 revisers insert the article, irrespBctive of its absence in most of 
 them in the original. 
 
 The translation of the tenses has been greatly improved in 
 the Revision. It is surprising how little discrimination was 
 made in our Authorized Yersion, especially between the aorist 
 and the perfect. The aorist is also frequently translated as a 
 present, greatly to the confusion of the sense. There is no 
 •clearer view of the change which arises out of the more exact 
 
rendering of this tense than is given in Rom. vi, 1-11. The 
 Revisers most accurately render this great passage, and thus 
 throw new and beautiful light upon it. We give their trans- 
 lation entire : 
 
 What shall we say then ? Shall we continue in sin, that grace 
 may abound ? God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we 
 any longer live therein ? Or are ye ignorant that all we who 
 were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death ? 
 We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death : 
 that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory 
 of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if 
 we have become united with him by the likeness of his death, 
 we shall be also by the likeness of his resurrection ; knowing this, 
 that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin 
 might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to^ 
 sin ; for he that hath died is justified from sin. But if we died 
 with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him; knowing 
 that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more ; death no 
 more hath dominion over him. For the death that he died, 
 he died unto sin once : but the life that he liveth, he liveth 
 unto God. 
 
 Here they have translated every verb in its true aoristic 
 sense, whereas the Authorized Version employs the present. 
 Whether the aorist should ever be translated as a present is a 
 question still undecided, although evidently the translators 
 have regarded it as possible, and have acted accordingly. 
 
 Some of these variations of translation of this tense,, 
 however, are somewhat remarkable, and are legitimate sub- 
 jects of criticism. They are, in some instances, of great 
 significance, and cannot be lightly passed over. The aorist 
 fifiapTov is translated sinned in Rom. v, 12, whereas in Rom. 
 ii, 12, and iii, 23, the same word is translated have sinned.. 
 The use of this aorist for the perfect is denied by Winer, the 
 most eminent of New Testament grammarians, and while it is. 
 allowed by Buttmann, is not established with certainty. There 
 are some cases in which, when the term is definitely fixed by 
 the circumstances or context, tenses in all languages are used 
 somewhat indifferently to give variety or force to the expres- 
 sion. In such cases no special complications can arise, and no' 
 criticism is called for. The case of Rom. v, 12, is more im- 
 portant. The Authorized Yersion reads, " Death passed upon 
 all men, for that all have sinned." The Revised Version reads,, 
 
*' Death passed unto all men, for that all sinned." This pas- 
 sage is so similar, both in construction and thought, to Rom. 
 iii, 22, that it is a matter of surprise that the same term and 
 word should in one case be translated have sinned, and in the 
 other sinned. Dr. Whedon (Commentary on Romans) on 
 this passage gives, with great force and clearness, an aoristic 
 sense to it, which is recognized both in classical and in New 
 Testament usage, namely, that in both cases it is a gnomic 
 aorist. His language is : " The aorist or past tense, here used 
 •of the word sinned, does in this epistle often imply a general 
 •certain fact or state of facts. So it is used in Rom. iii, 23 ; 
 ix, 22, 23 ; viii, 29, 30." This force of the aorist is recognized 
 by the revisers in their translation of 1 Pet. i, 25, " The grass 
 withereth, and the flower falleth," where both verbs in the orig- 
 inal are in the aorist tense. 
 
 Inasmuch as the gnomic is an established Greek usage, and 
 the aorist for the perfect is questioned by many grammarians, 
 the better way for the revisers would have been to have trans- 
 lated the aorist with uniform strictness, or to have left the 
 Authorized Yersion unchanged in this respect. The American 
 Committee suggest the marginal reading sinned in Rom. ii, 12, 
 and iii, 23. 
 
 III. Changes arising out of the present state of the English 
 language and of the more exact knowledge of the meaning of 
 the original. 
 
 In this may properly be included both archaeology and lexi- 
 cography. These subjects are so broad that we can do little 
 more than refer to them. 
 
 With regard to the removal of archaisms they have done 
 well, and have ceased at the proper point. In this regard the 
 conservatism of the committee has rendered good service in 
 retaining all the old words which involve no misapprehension 
 of the sense. The quaintness of the style is one of the great 
 beauties of the Old Version, and it should only be removed 
 when necessary to make clear the meaning 
 
 It would be a superfluous task to notice the many improve- 
 ments in translation and in punctuation. Mark ix, 22, 23 is a 
 case in point : " And oft-times it hath cast him both into the 
 fire and into the waters, to destroy him : but if thou canst do 
 any thing, have compassion on us, and help us. And Jesus 
 
said unto him, If thou canst ! All things are possible to him 
 that believeth." 
 
 Again, how richly they have brought out the meaning of 
 2 Cor. ii, 14. The Authorized Version reads, " Now thanks be 
 unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ." The- 
 Revised reads, " But thanks be unto God, which always lead- 
 eth us in triumph in Christ." It is the thanks of the great 
 apostle to Christ, who has subjected him, that is here brought 
 into view. In many, very many passages, the Revised Ver- 
 sion will form a most valuable commentary. 
 
 There are some changes, however, the reasons for which aro 
 not so apparent. In Heb. i, 1, the Revision reads, " God, hav- 
 ing of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by 
 divers portions and in divers manners." The changed mean- 
 ings of the words ILoXv/iEpog ital TLoXvTpoTug, by divers portion? 
 and in dwers manners, are strictly accurate, but the change 
 of the order of the words, placing them out of the position 
 they occupy in the Greek, is neither fortified by Greek 
 usage nor by the antithesis required in the sense. There 
 seems to be a double antithesis, but the chief one, which 
 is that between the divers portions and divers manners of the 
 old revelation and the singleness of the revelation in Christ, is- 
 obscured by the change. The Geneva, the Rheims, and the 
 Authorized all agree in placing these words among the earliest 
 in the sentence, and none of the versions make such a transfer 
 of them as is found in this Revision. 
 
 A very remarkable case of explanatory translation is found 
 in 2 Tim. ii, 26 : kcu avavrfyuoiv ek rrjg rov di,a06kov Trayidog 
 i^oyyprjiiEvoi vt? avrov slg to eke'lvov OeXtj^w,. The Authorized 
 Version reads, " And that they may recover themselves out of 
 the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his 
 will." The Revision has it, "And they may recover them- 
 selves out of the snare of the devil, having been taken cap- 
 tive by the Lord's servant unto the ' will of God." " The 
 Lord's servant " is not in the Greek at all, nor is the word 
 " God " in the Greek, as is admitted in the margin. This 
 is not, therefore, a revised translation, but a paraphrase, which,, 
 whether correct or not, should have no place in an attempt at 
 literal translation. The Authorized Version is more exact as 
 a representation of the Greek, and should have been retained. 
 
In James i, 17, " Neither shadow of turning," in the Be- 
 vised reads, " Neither shadow that is cast by turning." The 
 Greek of which this is a translation is. TQo-nfjs a-rxoaKiaa\m. 
 It is, literally, shadow of turning. The exact nature of th& 
 genitive here may be a question ; but in making it a subjective 
 genitive, and expounding it to mean cast by turning, they have 
 gone beyond the sphere of translators. The same remark is ap- 
 plicable to the clause in the Lord's Prayer, " Deliver as from, 
 the evil one." They have inserted one without authorization,, 
 and, irrespective of what it means, its insertion was unneces- 
 sary. Also, in Hebrews iii, 2, 5, and 6, in which the words- 
 his house occur, they have in each case placed in the margin 
 an explanatory note saying, " that is, God's house." The only 
 explanations called for in the margin were such as were neces- 
 sary to explain the translation. 
 
 The matter of punctuation is very important, and because 
 of the absence of marks of punctuation in the most ancient, 
 manuscripts, required great care on the part of the revisers. 
 An instance in point, showing the difficulty, is found in Eom.. 
 ix, 5. Our Authorized Translation reads : " "Whose are the 
 fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who- 
 is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." 
 
 The Revision reads : " Whose are the fathers, and of whom, 
 is Christ as concerning the flesh, 4 who is over all, God blessed 
 forever. Amen." To which the revisers add in the margin : 
 " 4 Some modern interpreters place a full stop after flesh, and 
 translate, He who is God over all be (is) blessed forever • or, 
 He who is over all is God, blessed forever. Others punctuate,, 
 flesh, who is over all. God be (is) blessed forever." It will 
 at once appear how delicate and difficult is the work of trans- 
 lation when so many ways of punctuation are possible. They 
 have wisely adhered to the old method, and have very good 
 grounds for their preference. This part of the revisers' work 
 has been done with great care, and will be found to throw 
 much light upon the sacred page. The absence of punctua- 
 tion marks in the most ancient manuscripts makes this part of 
 the work of revision partake of the nature of a commentary ; 
 but this is unavoidable, and the concurrent judgment of so 
 many scholars as to what the punctuation ought to be carries, 
 with it great weight. 
 
A point on which the revisers have insisted with much 
 emphasis, is uniformity of translation, that is, the employment 
 of the same English word for the same Greek word, whenever 
 it is exegetically possible to do so. The principle is a good 
 one, and has cleared up many passages to the ordinary reader. 
 That this should be the case with all words where no essential 
 difference in meaning would arise, seems highly proper. It is a 
 rule, however, which requires great care and skill in its exercise. 
 We are scarcely aware how frequently, even in English, we use 
 the same word in close contextual connection, with different 
 shades of meaning which are at once apparent to the reader. 
 The same is true in Greek, and in such cases the skill of the 
 translator is taxed to the utmost. A word that in itself has a dis- 
 tinct meaning has an entirely different meaning in its relations 
 to an entire sentence. This is often seen in the difference be- 
 tween the word given in a translation and the same word as 
 ■employed in the same commentary. Bishop Ellicott, the Chair- 
 man of the English Committee of the New Testament Revis- 
 ion, makes the following remarks in regard to the translations 
 in connection with some of his own commentaries. His lan- 
 guage is, (Preface to Philippians, page ix :) 
 
 I have more than once had my attention called to passages in 
 former commentaries, where the translation in the notes has not 
 appeared in perfect unison with that in the Revised Version. 
 [His own translation accompanying his Commentary.] In 
 most instances these seeming discrepancies have arisen from 
 the fact that the fixed principles on which I venture to revise 
 the Authorized Version do not always admit of exact identity 
 of language in the version and in the note. In a word, the trans- 
 lation in the note jjresents what has been considered the most 
 ■exact rendering of the words taken per se ; the Revised Version 
 preserves that rendering as far as is compatible with the lex 
 operis, the context, the idioms of our language, or, lastly, that 
 grace and archaic tone of our admirable version which, even in 
 a revised form of it, designed only for the closet, it seemed a kind 
 of sacrilege to displace for the possibly more precise, yet often 
 really less expressive, phraseology of modern diction. Needlessly 
 -to divorce the original and that version with which our ears are 
 ;so familiar, and often our highest associations and purest sympa- 
 thies so intimately bound, is an ill-considered course, which, 
 more than any thing else, may tend to foster an unyoked spirit 
 of scriptural study and translation, alike unfilial and presumpt- 
 uous, and to which a modern reviser may hereafter bitterly 
 lepent to have lent his example or his contributions. 
 
This language of this distinguished scholar has in it the spirit 
 of the true translator. 
 
 The Revisers' doctrine of consequence, however, that is, 
 changes in translation, arising out of some former alteration, 
 may easily be carried too far, and in some cases has injured 
 rather than helped the sense. 
 
 There are instances in which they have not made the trans- 
 lation of the same word uniform, even when no confusion 
 could arise out of such uniformity. In Mark xv, 45, they have, 
 in accordance with the best manuscript authority, changed o&fia, 
 to -rmofia, and translated the latter by the English word corpse. 
 This translation occurs with Matt, xiv, 12, and Mark vi, 29. 
 In Matt, xxiv, 28, the same word is translated carcase, and in 
 Rev. xi, 8, dead bodies, with the word carcase in the margin. 
 The Greek word in each case is the same. The Revisers' dis- 
 tinction is between the human body, which they translate 
 corpse, and the body of an animal, which they call both dead 
 body and carcase. Would it not have been as well to give one 
 name for all, and thus have complete uniformity, namely, in 
 every case translate tttm/mi by dead body t 
 
 That this doctrine of consequence may easily lead astray 
 is seen in Matt, xvi, 26, " For what shall a man be profited, 
 if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his life ? or what 
 shall a man give in exchange for his life ?" The margin for life 
 reads soul. The meaning of that passage in the Revision is quite 
 different from the impression made upon us by the Authorized 
 Version : " For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole 
 world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in ex- 
 change for his soul \ " ^v%r\, according to the translation, is not 
 soul, but, as Alford says, " life in the highest sense." Yet they 
 allow a marginal reading, soul. Also they had previously trans- 
 lated the same word by soul. In Matt, x, 28, the Revised trans- 
 lation retains the word soul for ipvxq. It reads : "And be not 
 afraid of them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the 
 soul : but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and 
 body in hell." The comparison of this verse with Matt, xvi, 26, 
 shows that in the latter case, in order to preserve a uniform 
 translation of the same woi-d, they have adopted a reading 
 which weakens the force of the passage, confining to a pure 
 earthly life that which we believe to refer to the spiritual and 
 
 8 
 
immortal nature. The loss of our merely earthly life is not 
 treated of in Scripture as a great calamity. In both of these 
 cases there is no gain, either in sense or force, in the changes 
 made in the Revision. 
 
 The subject of prepositions is extremely important, and has 
 been handled by the revisers with much care. They have, how- 
 ever, contrary to their own doctrine of consequence, made some 
 unnecessary changes in the rendering of the same word. The 
 preposition vrreg is one of frequent use, especially by the Apostle 
 Paul. We do not raise the question of the meaning of the word, 
 but of the uniformity of translation. "Whether in Pauline usage 
 it is equivalent to avn is not pertinent to our present inquiry, 
 iwt'p is employed in Paul's Epistles over one hundred times, 
 while avn is used but seven times. In the Gospels, 1 Corin- 
 thians, Galatians, Romans, it is in almost every case translated 
 for ; whereas in Phil, i, 4, 7, 29 ; Col. i, 7; and many places in 
 2 Corinthians, the same word is translated in behalf of. Why 
 for is employed in Romans, Galatians and 1 Corinthians, and 
 in behalf of in 2 Corinthians and Philippians, does not appear. 
 For is susceptible of two meanings, and may, therefore, prop- 
 erly represent the uncertainty in the minds of many in regard 
 to its exact force in some passages of great doctrinal signifi- 
 cance. Put why change from for to in behalf 'of 'in cases where 
 no interest either of translation or of exegesis seems to require 
 it? Here the doctrine of consequence is apparently violated 
 without any reason for it. This seems to be the case where the 
 rule, the " same word for the same thing," except in cases of 
 decided exegetical necessity, would appear to be strictly in or- 
 der and has been unnecessarily violated. That the word for as 
 equivalent to vttsq in Romans is not out of order in Philip- 
 pians, is shown by the translation of so scholarly a man as 
 Bishop Ellicott, above referred to, a member of the English 
 Committee. He translates imep for in Phil, i, 4, whereas in 
 verse 19 he adheres to the Authorized in behalf of . 
 
 In their translation they should have put the more pro- 
 nounced Hebraisms in modern English, that is, in every case 
 where the sense is affected thereby. A more idiomatic English 
 rendering of Luke xxii, 15, might have increased its force to 
 1 he English reader, "And he said unto them, With desire I 
 have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer." 
 
The phrase, with desire I have desired, is a translation of 
 imdvuia inedvfiTjaa, a recognized Hebraism, corresponding to 
 the infinitive absolute joined to the finite verb, as ninn m'o, 
 {Septuagint, Oavdrio dnndaveiote,) to die, thou shalt die, or thou 
 ■shalt surely die, in Gen. ii, 17. The sense of this verse in 
 Luke is, " I earnestly desired to eat this passover with you 
 before I suffer," a meaning which is not at first apparent to 
 "the reader of either the Authorized or the Revised Version. 
 
 These are some considerations in regard to this great work 
 which have been suggested by a general perusal of parts of its 
 •contents. As we have looked at it more and more the con- 
 viction has gained in force that this is a great advance in the 
 accurate presentation of the meaning of the original, and that 
 in many cases, as already suggested, where no reason for the 
 change appears to us, some reason must have appeared to those 
 to whom the work was intrusted. 
 
 The reverent student of the Bible will not trouble himself 
 too much with the effect this Revision will have on the current 
 theological doctrines. Of one thing we are well assured : no 
 vital doctrine has been affected to its injury by this work. 
 'The Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the atonement, regenera- 
 tion and sanctification by faith, the eternity of rewards and 
 punishments, stand out none the less clearly in the Revision 
 ■of 1881 than in that of 1611. In any case, whatever theology 
 is contained in the Bible must be accepted ; whatever cannot 
 be maintained and proved out of the holy Scriptures is not 
 necessary to salvation. 
 
 In the case of the New Testament the wise men have once 
 again brought their treasures and laid them at the feet of 
 Christ in reverent homage to him as King of kings and Lord 
 of lords ; and in translating to men the revelation of his life 
 -and teachings they have won for themselves the heartfelt 
 thanks of the generations that are to come. Honored, thrice 
 honored, are these Christian scholars, who have thus been per- 
 mitted to share the toil of opening to the millions of the 
 English-speaking world the rich treasures of divine wisdom. 
 
■■:'■ 
 
 . .■■' . • .- •• ' . ,'.. ■: .';..-.■ • ' , ^