OF PRINgE SEP 29 1908. by, ome 4, etre glk CAxo6iey1, sews Division 7 Section * A PLAIN INTRODUCTION TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. | ὍΝ FUT Vai YF Vie § “a ἀν 4 Ἵ 5 “᾿ PRINTED BY ©. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. » οὖ ὁ ᾿ 4 “ a a \ ὡω A adited 5 ‘ 4 ἵ Ε eu . a a SS) i ' ‘ ebtoenmel £ ® φύγω. 4 if: . ay ¥ ΓΝ ἘΣ a} = a κόῴ A PLAIN INTRODUCTION TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT FOR THE USE OF BIBLICAL STUDENTS By Ἔα FREDERICK HENRY SOCRIVENER, M.A, LL.D. OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, RECTOR OF ST GERRANS, CORNWALL. SECOND EDITION, THOROUGHLY REVISED, ENLARGED, AND BROUGHT DOWN TO THE PRESENT DATE. In templo Dei offert unusquisque quod potest: alii aurum, argentum, et lapides pretiosos: alii byssum et purpuram et coccum offerunt et hyacinthum. Nobiscum bene agitur, si obtulerimus pelles et caprarum pilos. Et tamen Apostolus contemtibiliora nostra magis necessaria judicat—H1EronyMiI Prologus Galeatus. CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO. , LONDON: GEORGE BELL AND SONS. 1874. δὺς ἫΝ ῬΑ ΛΒ ΠῚ ΠΗ ἢ ΝΒ ὭΣΤ wey me lel' ) ΙΝ ai Te ve, wei 2 ᾿ ato ἴ Ale Te ee ae > “ ! . : j iy em eR © “ee? > am ” Le | "5 i 1: , aA 6 TC et πο : Nis , id 2 7 TO THE REVEREND AND LEARNED THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, PRINCIPALS OF COLLEGES AND PROFESSORS OF THE Ancient Cnibersity of St Andretos, THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED IN THANKFUL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE ENCOURAGEMENT THEY HAVE AFFORDED TO THE AUTHOR IN THE PROSECUTION OF HIS BIBLICAL STUDIES, BY CONFERRING ON HIM AN HONORARY DEGREE. “— PCH MR ΘΗ ADVERTISEMENT. THE first edition of this work, published in 1861, was received so favourably that the author has felt bound to bestow his utmost care upon a minute and thorough revision of his book, in the hope of bringing up the information it contains to the existing state of knowledge. In this endea- vour he has been assisted as well by Canon Lightfoot, to whom he is indebted for that section of the third chapter which treats of Egyptian versions of the New Testament (pp. 319—357), as also by much unsought for and most welcome help, especially on the part of those scholars who are named in p. 164, note. Without wishing to speak harshly of writers who are not very scrupulous in such matters, he has always thought it became him to borrow from no quarter without making a full and frank avowal of the fact. The author will be much rejoiced if this new edition shall be judged not less worthy than its predecessor to become a text book in Universities and Theological Colleges. S. Gerrans, August, 1874. ~_ \ 7 ᾿ ΕΣ oy me a ca Ἷ 7 ὦ- ~ a ν μων ᾿ Τ{{ aS - τον νι; «= a”) h Fe ee 2S ae. POO ‘ aa =< 4 — - a ae δα : a i Ames aa 7 - . ig ΒΡ seh te - oP od Bell : “ ιἀὐ ἡ wilt ΧΦ ΒΗΝΕΣ ἷ, Ἐνῶ ΟΝ Taw a Ν ᾿ - | + ‘ , ct > A ν ἱ , ᾿ δ. 7 . + aly leat. pr j {5 7 A. ; | ἐμ Cott, δ' ψ 5 ᾧ ἤ ) nd ᾿ pad er Ἢ Ne ae a ἐπὰν fe 6@ » δὰ x \ A ie roa Ἷ Ν > ἂ yy δ᾽ ΤῊΝ &. aa 4. »- εἰ Ps Ca hd AAG Me ἔν» = ων i ~~ ; ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA. Page 14, note, add: 1 Pet. 11. 25; Jude 9. p. 27, note 2, add: Lord Ashburnham too was pleased to send me and other Biblical students in 1868 printed copies of his Italic fragments of the books of Leviticus and Numbers with a facsimile page, also in three columns. This manuscript apparently dates from the beginning of the fifth century. The celebrated Utrecht Psalter, assigned by some to the sixth, by others to the ninth or tenth century, though written in three columns, bears marks of having been transcribed from an archetype which contained only two columns on @ page. p. 38, note, Tischendorf ventures to assign to “about the seventh cen- tury” a palimpsest of Ezekiel, published in Monumenta sacra inedita (Vol. τι. pp. 313—14), as well as Θὲ (see p. 142), although its uncials lean decidedly to the right. p. 52, 1, 30, modify this statement by p. 352, note. p. 65, note 1, 1. 3, add: 3 John 14,15: so also 1 John ii. 13, 14 in some editions. p. 67, note 1,1. 4, for 280 read 380. Ῥ. 68, note 1, 1. 2, for d read a. » 1. 8, for Chap. 11. read Chap. 111. p. 99, 1. 37, for Nimuegen read Nimeguen. p. 107, 1. 1, for five read six. », 1. 2, for three read four. 3, 1.6, for two read three. p. 126, 1. 28, insert Titus before C. xv. p. 129, note 2, 1. 1, read Heusinger. p. 142, 1. 17, insert (Matt. xii. 17—19; 23—25). p. 148, 1. 8. Tischendorf objects (one hardly sees why) that if Theodore had brought Cod. E to England, Bede would have used it before he came to write his Expositio Retractata. p. 153, 1. 21. Used also for the Oxford Ν. T. of 1675. See p. 395. p. 167, 1. 9, add: Mr T. K. Abbott, Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, has carefully discussed the connection between the four Codd. 13. 69. 124. 346 in the second number of the Hermathena (pp. 313—31), and concludes that they represent an uncial whose text stands not lower in value than that of Cod. D, and is much purer. See p. 532 below. p. 176, note 1, fin., add: Compare also Codd. 211, 357. p. 213, note 1, for six read seven. p. 219, 1. 25, Mr Burgon puts this copy as early as [xr]. p- 221, ll. 20, 21. This subscription belongs to B-C 1. 7, not to B-C 1. ὃ. » 1.37, add: The last five pages are in another early hand. x ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA. p. 234, 1. 23, spell Leipzig, or Leipsic. p. 237, 1. 13, for 1187 read 187. To line 15, add: Modena [xu1] ii. A. 13, and [Ixxi] ii. C.4, seen but not ex- amined by Burgon. p. 253, 1. 34, read Treschow, Alter). p. 256, 1. 6, for 90 read 99. p. 260, 1. 38, add: We have given a facsimile in Plate VI. No. 16. p- 261, 1.7. To Evangelistaria collated by Scrivener, add: Trin. Coll. Cambridge, O. 1v. 22, once Dean Gale’s (see p. 175), [x11] fol., ina bold hand, with illuminations, and red musical notes. Daily lessons from Haster to Pentecost, but only σαββατοκυριακαὶ afterwards, with full Saints’ Day Lessons. p. 263, 1.16. After Of the rest insert 5153 [xt or ΧΙ] 4°, 2 volumes, mut. and otherwise in bad condition, has red musical notes, and leaves supplied both on vellum and paper. ΠΡ. 264, 1. 33. Dele Nanian. 16. p. 269. The cursive copies of the Acts amount to 234, of the Evangelistaria to 286, the total of cursive copies to 1605. p. 277, 1.17. This Bodleian manuscript is numbered Orient. 119. See Dean Payne Smith’s Catalogue, pp. 109—112. p. 300, note 1, 1. 3, add: The reading Itala has just found another vigorous advocate in that veteran scholar, Mr John Kenrick, whose paper on the Versio Itala in the Theological Review for July 1874 will well reward perusal. p. 376, 1. 8, for No. 37 read No. 42. p. 429, 1. 6. We might as well have referred for further information about this critic and his labours to ‘‘ Constantine Tischendorf in seiner fiinfundzwan- zigjihrigen schriftstellerischen wirksamkeit. Literar-historische skizze yon Dr Joh. Ernst Volbeding, “ Leipzig, 1862,” whence we learn that he was born at Lengenfield in the kingdom of Saxony, Jan. 18, 1815. p. 479, 1. 6, for the one read in one. < p. 507, 1. 27, add ; Compare especially ch. ττι. 30. p. 531, 1. 20. Cod. 63 must be added to this list, on the evidence of Mr Abbott (Hermathena, p. 313 n). Hence Mill must haye cited Usser 1 in John viii. 2 for the omission of πρὸς αὐτὸν in error for the lost manuscript Usser 2, or Cod. 64, which unquestionably contains the passage. p. 565, note, 1. 6, for explanation read statement. "- Se Pi A : ΠΣ ; CONTENTS. ae Sie = CHAPTER I. PAGE PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 1 Various readings in the text of Holy Scripture might be looked for beforehand, 88 1- 8, pp. 1—3. ‘They actually exist, § 4, p. 8. Sources of ᾿ information on this subject numerous, §5,p.3. Textual criticism usually inapplicable to modern books, § 6, p. 4. Importance of this study, § 7, p- 5. Not difficult, ὃ 8, p. 5. Its results not precarious, nor tending to unsettle Scripture, § 9, p. 6. Various readings classified and their sources traced, 88 10, 11, pp. 7—18. Their extent, § 12, p.18. General divisions of this whole work, § 13, p. 19. CHAPTER II. ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Section I. Their general character . Authorities named, §1, p. 21. Materials for writing, 88 2, 3, pp. 22—24. Palimpsests, § 4, p. 34. Ornaments,§5,p.25. Ink, 8 6, ». 25. Pens,§7, p. 26. Shape of manuscripts, § 8, p. 26. Style of writing: uncial and cursive characters, §9, p.27. Principles for determining the date of writing, illustrated by examples and facsimiles, §§ 10, 11, pp. 29—41. Use of « ascript, or subscript, § 12, p. 41. Breathings and accents in manuscripts, § 13, p. 42. Punctuation, § 14, p.45. Abbreviations, § 15, p.46. Sticho- metry, § 16, p. 48. Correction or revision of manuscripts, § 17, p. 50. Ancient divisions of the New Testament, § 18, p. 51. (1) Vatican, p. 52. (2) Tatian’s, p. 53. (3) Ammonian, Eusebian, p. 54. (4), (5) Huthalian, &e. pp. 58, 59. Subscriptions to the various books, §19, p. 60. Foreign matter inserted in manuscripts of the N. T. § 20, p. 61. Table of divisions, ancient and modern, § 21, pp. 62, 63. Modern divisions, § 22, p. 64. Contents of N. T. manuscripts, § 23, p. 66. Order of the sacred books, § 24, p. 67. Lectionaries or Greek Service-books, § 25, p. 68. Notation and classes of manuscripts, § 26, p. 72. 21 ΧΙ CONTENTS. APPENDIX TO Sect. I. Synaxarion and Menology, or tables of lessons read in the Greek PAGE Church daily throughout the year, ke. . 7T5—82 Section IT. Description of Uncial Manuscripts of the Greek Testament. Codex Sinaiticus, p. 83. Cod. Alexandrinus, p. 89. Cod. Vaticanus, p. 95. Cod. Ephraemi, p. 109. Cod. Beze, p. 112. Of the Gospels: Cod. E. p. 118. Cod. F, p.120, Cod. Ἐπ, p. 121. Codd. G, ΕΓ, p. 121. Cod. I, p. 122. Cod. K, p. 123. Cod. L, p. 124. Cod. M, p. 125. Cod. N, p. 126. Cod. ΝΡ, p.128. Codd. O, 0, ΟΡ, Oc, 04, Oe, Of, pp. 128—9. Codd. P, Q, p. 129. Cod. R, pp. 130—1. Cod. §, p. 132. Cod. T. p. 132. Codd. Ts, T>, Tc, p. 183. Codd. T*, U, V, p. 134, Codd. Ws, W», Ws, W4, p. 135. Codd. We, X, p.1386. Codd. Y, Z, p. 137. Cod. I, p. 189. Cod. A, p. 140. Codd. 6%, 6», p. 142. Codd. 6°, 64, 62, Θὲ, ΘΕ, Θ᾿, A (1) and (2), p. 148. Cod. %,p.145. Cod. II, p. 146. Of the Acts, &e.: Cod. E, p. 147. Codd. G, H, K, L, p. 149. Cod. P, p.150. Of St Paul: Cod. D, p. 150. Cod. E, p. 153. Cod. F, p. 154. Cod. G, p. 156. Cod. H, p. 159. Cod. I, p. 159. Cod. M, p. 160. Cod. Ne, p. 161. Of the Apocalypse: Cod. B, p. 161. Section III. List and brief description of the Cursive Manuscripts of the Greek Testament . : : Section LV. List and brief description of the Lectionaries or Manuscript Ser- vice-books of the Greek Church N.B. Index I. pp. 571—84, has been constructed to facilitate reference to the Manuscripts described in Sections II, III, IV. CHAPTER III. ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES . . . . . Use in criticism and classification of versions, § 1, p. 270. Cautions respecting their employment, § 2,p.271. Syriac versions, $3: (1) Peshito, p. 273. (2) Curetonian, p. 281. (3) Philoxenian, p. 286. (4) Jerusalem, p. 290. (5), (6) Minor Syriae versions, pp. 293—5. Specimens of each, 83 . 164 270 CONTENTS. pp. 296—8, Latin versions, $4: (1) Old Latin, p.299. (2) Vulgate, p. 308. Specimens of each, pp. 316—18. Egyptian versions, § 5, p. 319: (1) Memphitic, p. 327. (2) Thebaic, p. 345. (8) Bashmuric, p. 354. Gothic version, § 6, p. 358. Armenian, ὃ 7, p. 360. Aithiopic, § 8, p. 361. Georgian, § 9, p. 363. Slavonic, § 10, p. 364. Anglo-Saxon, § 11, p. 365. Frankish, 8 12, p. 365. Persic, § 13, p. 365. Arabic, 8 14, p. 366. CHAPTER IV. ON THE CITATIONS FROM THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT MADE BY EARLY ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS Critical use of such quotations, § 1, p. 368. Obstacles to their appli- cation, § 2, p. 369. State of this branch of the subject, § 3, p.370. Dated list of chief ecclesiastical writers, § 4, pp. 371—3. CHAPTER V. ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT First printed portions of N. Τὶ p. 874. Complutensian Polyglott, § 1, p. 374. Erasmus’ editions, ὃ 2, p. 380. Aldus’, &c. § ὃ, p. 385. Robert Stephens’, § 4, p. 386. Beza’s editions, ὃ 5, p. 389. Elzevirs’, § 6, p. 391. The London Polyglott, ὃ 7, p. 392. Curcelleus’ and Bp. Fell’s editions, 8 8, p. 394. Mill’s, $9, p. 395. Kiister’s, p. 399. Mistricht’s N. T. § 10, p. 399. Bentley’s projected edition, p. 400. Mace’s, 8 11, p. 402. Bengel’s edition, p. 402. Wetstein’s, § 12, p. 405. ὃ 18, (1) Matthaei’s, p. 408. (2) Alter’s, p. 411. (8) Birch’s edition, p. 412. Griesbach’s, 8 14, p. 414. Scholz’s, § 15, p. 418. Lachmann’s, § 16, p. 422. Tischen- dorf’s, ὃ 17, p. 426. Tregelles’, ὃ 18, p. 429. Westcott and Hort’s, § 19, p. 431. CHAPTER VI. ON THE LAWS OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE, AND THE LIMITS OF THEIR LEGITIMATE USE Internal evidence distinguished from conjectural emendation, p. 499, Seven Canons discussed, pp. 436—43. In practice often opposed to each other, p. 443. xXill PAGE . 368 . 374 . 433 XIV CONTENTS. CHAPTER VII. PAGE ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT, INCLUDING A DISCUSSION OF RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM . . 445 Fate of the sacred autographs, § 1, p. 445. Heretical corruptions of Scripture, ὃ 2, p. 447. Testimony of Ireneus as to the state of the text, § 3, p. 449. That of Clement of Alexandria and of Origen, § 4, p. 450. The Old Latin text and its corruptions, § 5, p. 451. State of the text in the fourth century—Eusebius, § 6, p. 453. Relation of the Codex Sinai- ticus to Eusebius’ and other ancient texts, § 7, p. 455. Testimony of Jerome, ὃ 8, p. 456. Hug’s theory of Recensions, ὃ 9, Ὁ. 458. Compara- tive Criticism defined : its objects and true process, § 10, p. 460. The text of Scripture should be settled from the use of all available evidence, § 11, p. 463. The value of the less ancient documents estimated, § 12, p. 463. Process of testing the character of manuscripts explained and illustrated, ὃ 13, p. 465. Fallibility of the best witnesses for the sacred text, § 14, p. 468: established by numerous examples, § 15, p. 471. Principle of grouping authorities, and cautions necessary in applying it, § 16, p. 480. Four practical rules stated in conclusion, § 17, p. 484. CHAPTER VIII. ON THE PECULIAR CHARACTER AND GRAMMATICAL FORM OF THE DIALECT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT . ὦ . 485 Origin and character of this dialect, §§ 1—3, pp. 485—-6. The ‘ at- tached’ ν, § 4, p. 486. Orthography of Proper Names, ὃ 5, p. 488. Pe- culiar grammatical forms, § 6, p. 489. Dialectic varieties, § 7, p. 490. Mere barbarisms inadmissible on any evidence, § 8, p. 491. CHAPTER IX. APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS AND PRINCIPLES TO THE CRITICISM OF SELECT PASSAGES OF THE Ν. Τὶ . 493 Explanation, p. 493. (1) Matthewi. 18...p. 493. (2) Matth. vi. 13... p. 495. (3) Matth. xvi. 2, 3...p. 497. (4) Matth. xix. 17...p. 498. (5) Matth. xx. 28...p. 500. (6) Matth. xxi. 28—31...p. 502. (7) Matth. xxvii, 35...p. 504. (8) Mark vi. 20...p. 505. (9) Mark vii. 19...p. 506. (10) Mark xvi. 9—20...p. 507. (11) Luke ii. 14...p. 513. (12) Luke vi. 1... p. 515. (13) Luke x. 41, 42...p. 517. (14) Luke xxii. 17—20..-p. 519. (15) Luke xxii. 43—4...p. 521. (16) Luke xxiii, 34...p. 524. (117) Johni. 18...p. 525. (18) John iii. 13...p.526. (19) Johm ν. 3, 4...p.527. (20) John vii. 8...p. 529. (21) John vii. 53—viii. 11...p. 530. (22) Acts viii. CONTENTS. 37...p. 534, (23) Acts xi. 20...p. 536. (24) Acts xiii, 18...p. 536. (25) Acts xiii, 32...p. 538. (26) Acts xiii, 33...p. 538. (27) Acts xv. 34...p, 538. (28) Acts xvi. 7...p. 539. (29) Acts xx. 28...p. 540. (30) Acts. xxvii. 16...p. 542. (31) Acts xxvii. 37...p. 543. (32) Romans vy. 1...p. 544. (33) 1 Corinth. xi, 24...p. 546. (34) 1 Corinth. xiii. 3...p. 547. (85) Eph. vy. 14...p. 549: (36) Philipp. ii. 1.:.p. 549. (37) Coloss. ii. 2... p. 550. (88) 1 Tim. 111. 16...p. 552. Reading of Cod. Alex. p. 553. τ. (39) James iv. 4...p. 556. (40) Jamesiv. 5...p.556. (41) 1 Peteri. 23... p. 557. (42) 1 Peter iti. 15...p. 557. (43) 2 Peter ii. 13...p. 558. (44) 1 John ii. 23...p. 559. (45) 1 John νυ. 7,8 ..p. 560. (46) 1 Johny. 18... p- 567. (47) Jude 5...p. 567. (48) Apoce. xiii. 10...p. 568. (49) Apoc. xxi. 6...p. 569. Conclusion, p. 570. INDEX I. OF ALL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, ARRANGED ACCORDING TO THE COUNTRIES WHEREIN THEY ARE NOW DEPOSITED . INDEX II. OF THE PRINCIPAL PERSONS AND SUBJECTS REFERRED TO IN THIS VOLUME INDEX IIL. OF THE TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATED OR RE- FERRED TO IN THIS VOLUME Χν PAGE ONL . 585 . 603 ΧΥῚ DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES. DESCRIPTION OF THE CONTENTS OF THE LITHOGRAPHED PLATES. N.B. The dates are given within brackets: thus [v1] means writing of the sixth century of the Christian era. For abridgements in the ancient writing, see p. 46. In later manuscripts Proper names are often distinguished by a horizontal line placed over them, but no such examples occur in these Plates. Puate I, Three alphabets selected from (1) the Rosrrra srone (see p. 29) [z.c. 196], (2) the Cop. Sinarricus [1v], with HN abridged at the end (see p. 85), (3) the Cod, Alexandrinus [v], see p. 30. Prate II. Similar alphabets from (4) the Corron Fracment N (see p. 126), Titus C. xv [vz], and (5) from Cop. Nirrensis R (see p. 131), B. M. Add. 17211. Puate III. Similar alphabets from (6) Cop. Duniinensis Z (see p. 138), (7) Cop. Har.er1an. 5598 [dated Α.Ὁ. 995], see p. 258, (8) Cop. Burney 19 [x], see pp. 40, 211. Above psi in (7) stands the crosslike form of that letter in Apoc. Cod. B. [v1]: 866 Ὁ. 162. Puate TV, (9) Extract from Hyprripes’ Λόγος ἐπιτάφιος (Babington, 1858), dating between B.c. 100 to A.p. 100, on Egyptian papyrus, in a running hand (see p. 39). λυντασ πνα των πολιτων ααικωσ δεοῖμαι ὑμων καὶ ετωιϊκαι αντιβολωι κεΐλευσαι καμε καλεσαιίτους συνερουντασ >: 866 ῬΡ. 41, 47. (10) Extract from PHILODEMUS περὶ κακιῶν (Herculanensium voluminum que supersunt, fol., Tom, m1. Col. xx. 11, 6—15: see pp. 29, 81). οντως πολυμαθεστατον προσ αγορευομενον οιεται πανταϊδυνασθαι ywwoKkew Kat ποιϊειν οὐχ οἷον εαὐτον oo εὐιοισίουδεν τι φωραται κατεχων | Kat ov συνορων ort πολλα δειίται τριβησαν και απο THO αὖ τὴησ γινηται με- θοδου Kabalrep τα τὴσ ποιητικησ μερη και | διοτι περι τουσ πολυμαθεισ᾽. (11 a) Cop, Friperico-Aveust. [10], 2 Sam. vii. 10, 11, Septuagint. ceavrov καθωσ ap|xno και ad ἡμερῶ wv εταξα xpirac| emt τον Naov μου ισὰ και εταπινω σα ἀπαντασ Tous | εχθρουσ σου και | αὐξησω σε και οἱ]: see pp. 29, 83, (11 b) Cop. Βινλιτιοῦβ ἐξ [iv]. Luke xxiv. 33—4; ry wpa ὕπεστρε ψαν εἰσ ἵερουσα Anu και evpov ἡ θροισμενουσ Tova | evdexa και Tous | σὺν αὐτοισ Aeyo|: see pp. 80, 32 note. (11 c) Cop, Sin. 1 Tim. 111. 16, ro ryo evoeBecac | μυστήριον οσ ε With a recent correction : see p. 552. There are no capital letters in this Plate. Prats V. (12) Cop. Auexanprin. A [v] Gen. i. 1—2, Septuagint. These four lines are in bright red, with breathings and accents: sce pp. 42—3, 458 note. Henceforth capital letters begin to appear. ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐπόιησεν ὁ θσ τὸν éu\pavev και τῆν γῆν ἡ δὲ γῇ ἣν αόϊρατοσ κὰι ἀκατασκεύαστοσ- | Kat σκότοσ ἐπάνω DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES. xvi rho αβύσσου.] (13) Ibid. Act. xx. 28, in common ink: see pp. 540, 542. Προσε- χετε εαὐτοισ και παντί τω | ποιμνιω» εν ὦ ὕμασ TO TVA TO | ayLov εθετο επισκοπουσο] ποιμαινειν την εκκλησιανἼτου κυ nv περιεποιήσατο διαΐτου αἰματος του tdtov"| (14) Cop. Corron. Titus C. xv, N of the Gospels [v1], sce pp. 126—7, and for the Ammonian section and Eusebian canon in the margin, p. 58. John xv. 20. του Noyou ou | eyw εἰπον U|uw* οὐκ ἐστιν | δουλοσ pega | Tov κυ avrov. Puate VI, (15) Cop, Burney 21 [dated a.p. 1292], see pp. 40 and note 2, 211. John xxi, 17—8: πρόβατά pour ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι" | ὅτε Go νεώτεροσ, éfuvviier ἑαυτὸν" καὶ περιεπάτησ ὅπου ἠθεϊλεσ᾽ ὅταν δὲ γηράσησ, exreveio| (16) Cop. ΑβύνρΡει, 547, Evangelistar. [1x or x], see pp. 32, 45, 260, The open work indicates stops and musical notes in red. John viii, 13—14: Αὐτω & φαρισάϊι] οἱι- σὺ περὶ ceavrév | μαρτυρεῖσ ἡ μαρ]τυρία cous ὀυκ ἔστιν ddnOyo+dme| (17) Con. Nirriensis, R of the Gospels, a palimpsest [v1]: see pp. 24, 131 and note 2, Luke v. 26. ξαζον τον θν | και exdynoOn|cav φοβου λείγοντεσ οτι]. Puate VII. (18) Cop. Dusiin. Z of the Gospels, a palimpsest [v1] from Barrett; see pp. 137—9. . Matth. xx. 33—4: avaywow οἱ οφθαλ͵μοι nuwyr | Οπλαγχνισθεισ de o ισ | ἡψατο των ομματῶ | αὐτων και ευθεωσ. (29) Cop. Cyprius, K of the Gospels [1x], John vi. 52—3: Ἐμάχοντο ὀῦν προσ ἀλλήλουσ Ot Ἰουδαῖοι Nelyouress πῶσ δύναται ὁῦτοσ ἡμῖν τὴν odp| κα δοῦναι φαγεῖν" ἐΐπεν div ἀυτοῖσ ὁ ie a!. For the margin see p. 124, Puate VIII. (20) Cop. Varicanus, B of the Gospels, Acts and Epistles [xv], 866 Ὁ. 97, taken from Mr Burgon’s photograph of the whole page. Mark xvi. 3—8: piv τὸν λίθον ἐκ THo| θύρασ Tou μνημέϊου | κὰι ἀναβλέψασαι θεω ρδυσιν ὅτι ἀνακεκύϊλισται ὁ λιθοσ ἣν γὰρ | μέγασ σφόδρα κὰι ἐλίθδυσαι ἐισ τὸ μνημέι ον ἐΐδον νεανίσκον | καθήμενον ἐν Toa | δεξιδισ περιβεβλημένον στολὴν λευκὴν | και ἐξεθαμ- βήθησαν | ὁ δὲ λέγει ἀντᾶισ μὴ | ἐκθαμβξισθε ip ζητει | τε τὸν ναζαρηνὸν τὸ" | ἐσταυ- ρωμένον ἠγέρθη ὀυκ ἔστιν ὧδε ἴδε] ὁ τόποσ ὅπου ἔθηκα | ἀυτὸν ἀλλα ὑπάγετε! ἐΐπατε Toc μαθητάισ | ἀυτοῦ κὰι τῶ πέτρω | ὅτι προάγει ὑμᾶσ eo | τὴν γαλιλάιαν ἐκές αὐτὸν ὄψεσθε καθὼσ ἔϊπεν ὕμιν κὰι ἐξελθδυϊσαι ἔφυγον ἀπὸ Tov | μνημέιου ἐῖχεν γὰρ | ἀνυντὰσ τρόμοσ Kau ἔκίστασισ κὰι ὀυδενὶ ὀυϊδὲν ἐϊπον epoBduy|ro γάρ: Here again, as in Plate IV, no capital letters appear, Puate IX. (24) Cop. Erurarmi, C, a palimpsest [v], from Tischendori’s facsimile: see pp. 24, 109, 552, The upper writing [x11?] is τοῦ τὴν πληθῦν τῶν] ἐμῶν ἁμαρτημά || coma olda ὅτι μετὰ | τὴν γνῶσιν ἥμαρτον. translated from St Ephraem the Syrian. The earlier text is 1 Tim. iii, 15—6: wua τησ αληθείασ" | Και ομολογουμενωσ μέγα ἑστιν To Tyo ἐυσεβειασ μυΐ στηριον- θσ ἑφανερωθὴ εν σαρκι "5 νν εδικαιωθη ἑν mvt, For the accents &c. seep. 111. (25) Cop. Laup. 35, E of the Acts [v1], Latin and Greek, see pp. 147—8, in a sort of stichometry (p. 50). Act. xx. 28, regere | ecclesiam | domini || ποιμενειν | τὴν εκκλήσιαν | Tov κυ. Below are specimens of six letters taken from other parts of the manuscript. (37 or 42) Matth, i. 1—3, Greek and Latin, from the Complutensian Poly- glott, a.p. 1514: 866 pp. 374—380, especially p. 376. Puate X, (26) Cop. Basiu., Εἰ of the Gospels [v111 or v1], from a photo- graph given by Mr Burgon, Mark i. 5—6: Προσ αὐτὸν. πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία | ywpa. Kae XVill DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES. οἱ Ἱξροσολυμῖται» | kat ἐβαπτιζοντο παντεσ, | ἐν τὠ topddvn ποταμῶ blr auTov. ἐξομο- λογόυμεϊνοι τὰσ ἁμαρτίασ αὐτῶν" | Hy de ὁ Ἰωάννησ ενδεδυμένοσ. The harmonising references below are explained above, p. 119, the punctuation p. 45. The next two specimens are retraced after Tregelles: see Ὁ. 40, note 1, (27) Cop. Borexut, F of the Gospels [1x or x], see pp. 120—1. Mark x. 13 (Ammonian section only, ps or 106). Καὶ προσἔφερον | αὐτῶ παιδία | ἵν ἅψηται du\rdiv δι δὲ μαθη τὰι ἐπετί- μων]. (28) Cop. Harreran. 5684, G of the Gospels [x], see pp. 121—2. Matth. v. 30—1: βληθη- εἰσ yeer|var τ: τῆσ λε [see Ὁ. 122]. [᾿ Ἔρρηθη δέ Ὅτι do | av ἀπολυση την | γυνάικα ἀυτδυ"] an (ἀρχὴν stands in the margin of the new lesson. (39) Cop. Bopirtran., A of the Gospels [x or rx], in sloping uncials, see pp. 38, note, 143. Luke xviii. 26, 27 and 30. σαντεσ' και Tio, | δύναται σωθῆναι" | ὁ δὲ ic. dimen" || τοῦτω" κὰι ἐν | τῶ ἀιῶνι TG ep|xopévw Cup. Prate XI. (30) Cop, Woxrir B, H of the Gospels [rx], see pp. 121—2. John i. 38—40: τοὺσ ἀκολουθοῦντασ λέγει duTota + τί ζηϊτεῖτε-" ou δε. ἐΐπον ἀυτῶ + ραββεί" ὃ λέγεϊιται ἐρμηνευόμενον διδάσκαλε ποῦ μέϊνεισ - λέγει durota + ἔρχεσθε και ἴδετε -- mr|. Retraced after Tregelles: in the original the dark marks seen in our facsimile are no doubt red musical notes. (31) Cop. Campranus, M of the Gospels [1x], pp. 125—6, from a photograph of Mr Burgon’s. John vii. 53— viii. 2: Kal ἐπορέυθησαν éxaloroo: és τὸν dixov | ἀυτδυ" ισ δὲ ἑἐπορξυϊθη ἐισ τὸ ὄροσ τῶν ἐϊλαιῶν . ὄρθρου δὲ ra|. The asterisk and v (for ὕπαγε) are referred to in p. 531. (41) Cop. Euan. οι. Cantas, Act. 53, Paul. 30 [x11], see pp. 47, 226. This minute and elegant specimen, beginning Rom. y. 21, yv τοῦ κυ ἡμων" and ending vi. 7, δεδικαίωται d, is left to exercise the reader’s skill. (98) Cop. Ruzer, M of St Paul [x], see pp. 160—1. 2 Cor, i. 3—5: παρακλήσεωσ' ὁ mapa- kahwy ἡμᾶσ ἐπὶ πάση Τῆι θλίψει. ἐισ τὸ δύνασθαι judo παρακαλεῖν | rodo ἐν πάση θλίψει διὰ τῆς παϊρακλήσεωσ ἣσ παρεκαλούμεϊθα ἀυτοὶ ὑπὸ τὸν θῦ. ὅτι καθὼσ |. (40) Cop. Βοριεῖαάν., Γ of the Gospels [rx], see pp. 88 note, 189, Mark viii. 33: πιστραφεὶσ kde ἰδὼν Tove μαϊθητὰσ ἀντοῦ: ἐπετίμησεν τῶ | πέτρω λέγων. ὕπαγε ὁπίσω pS |. Puate XII, (32) Panwam. 18 Evangelistarium [dated a.p. 980], see pp. 40 note 3, 260. Luke ix. 34. γοντοσ ἐγένετο νεϊφέλη kde ἐπεσκιασεν | ἀυτοὺσ ἐφοβήθησα!. Annexed are six letters taken from other parts of the manuscript. (33) Cop. Monacensis, X of the Gospels [rx], see pp. 136—7: retraced after Tregelles, Luke vii. 25—6: riow ἠμφιεσμένον" ἴδου ot | ἐν ἵἹματισμώ ἐνδοξω και τρυ φῆ ὑπάρ- χοντεσ ἐν τοισ βασιλεί | oo ἐισὶν" άλλα Te ἐξεληλυθα]. (34) Cop. Rearus 14, or 33 of the Gospels, see pp. 40, 169, from a photograph of Mr Burgon’s. Luke i. 8—11: ἕει τῆς ἐφημερίασ durév ἔναντι rou κυ κατὰ τὸ ἔθοσ τῆς ieparelac. ἔλαχεν τυ θυμιᾶϊσαι εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸν ναὸν Tov κυ. κὰι πᾶν τὸ πλῆθοσ ἣν περ λαδυ προσ- εὐχόμενον ἔξω τῆ | ὥρα τυ θυμιάματοσ. ὠφθη δε ἀυτῷ ἄγγελος κυ ἐστὼσ ἐκδεξιὼν Tov θυσιαστηρίου, τῦυ θυ]. (35) Cop, ΤΙΒΙΟΕΒΥΠΕΝΒΙΒ, 69 of the Gospels, Paul. 37 [xrv], see pp. 23, 26, 41, 176, 552. 1 Tim. iii. 16: τῆς edoeBe(?)las μυστήριον" ὁ 0g ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρϊκί᾽ ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματί" ὥφθη ἀγγέλοις" | ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν" ἐπὶις εὐθη ἐν κόσμω" ἀνελή--- (36) Cop. Burney 22, Evangelistarium [dated Δ.Ὁ, 1319], see pp. 40, 260. The Scripture text is Mark vii. 30: βεβλημέν ov ἐϊπὶ τὴν κλίνην «| τὸ δαιμόνιον ἐξεϊλἠήλυθώῶσ :---ΤῊ 6. subscription which follows is given at / length in p. 41, note 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES. ΧΙΧ ῬΙΑΤΕῈ XIII, Contains specimens of open leaves of the two chief bilingual manuscripts. (19) Cop, Charomonranvs or D of St Paul’s Epistles (1 Cor. xiii. 5—8), pp. 150—3. (57) Cop. Bez or Ὁ of the Gospels and Acts (John xxi. 19—23), pp. 112—8. For the stichometry, see pp. 48—50. On the breathings, &c. of the Pauline facsimile (which we owe to Mr Burgon’s kindness) see p. 153. These codices, so remarkably akin as well in their literary history (see p. 113, note 2), as in their style of writing (pp. 116, 152) and date (v1 or v), will easily be deciphered by the student. PratE XIV. (21) Cop. Reatus 62, L of the Gospels [vit], as also (23) below, are from photographs given by Mr Burgon: see pp. 124—5. In the first column stands Mark xvi. 8 with its proper section (σλγ or 233) and Eusebian canon (8 or 2): Kai ἐξελθουσαι ἐϊῴυγον dro τὌυϊμνημειου - ἐιἰχεν δὲ αὐτας τρο]μοσ καὶ exotacerg+| καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδεν | εἶπον -- ἐφοβουνίτο ydp’+ In the second column, after the strange note transcribed by us (p. 508) εστην δε xa | ταῦτα φεροίμενα μετα To | époBowro | yap+ “Αναστὰσ δὲ mpwilrpwrn caBBars+(ver 9). Xi much resembles that in Plate X, No. 26. (22) Cop, Nanrantus, U of the Gospels, retraced after Tregelles, Mr Burgon (Guardian, Oct. 29, 1873) considers this facsimile unworthy of the original writing, which is ‘even, precise and beau- tiful.” Mark vy. 18: Bdvroo avrov | ἐισ τὸ πλδιὸ | παρεκάλει ἀυϊτὸν ὁ δαιμο! νισθεισ ἵνα. For the margin see p. 134: add that Cop. U has Carp., Eus. t., xed. t., τίτλοι, κεφ., pict., with much gold ornament. (23) Cop. Bastn. of the Gospels [x?], see pp. 40, 165. Lukei.1, 2 (the title: évayyé[\ov] κατὰ λουκᾶν: being under an elegant arcade): επειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι | διή- ynow περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων | ἐν ἡμῖν πραγματων.. καθὼς παρέδοσαν hut | de ἀπαρχῆσ αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρεται γενόμενοι]. The numeral in the margin must indicate the Ammonian section, not the larger κεφάλαιον (see Ὁ. 53). The reader will have observed throughout these specimens that the breathings and accents are usually attached to the first vowel of a diphthong. Postscript. Tischendorf, in his elaborate edition of the Cotton fragment of Genesis (see p. 31, note 1) contained in the second volume of his Monumenta sacra inedita, adds to the notices regarding the shapes of the several letters which we derived from personal inspection (below pp. 32—38), that capitals were already introduced at the date at which it was written (below, p. 47), and that the single stop is set in three different positions, as in Codd. CW®Z (p. 45). In his facsimile of Gen. xviii. 9 also appears the straight line in the room of two dots over iota which we remarked (p. 35) as almost peculiar to the latter leaves of Cod, C. Thus the Cotton fragment is more properly assigned to the fifth than to the fourth century. FPN tai τ λεγε: μα he ΚΗΔΑ ἘΠ Siam με 7 εἴ δῦ peel Se cork qa enka ἐν" ὦ )% OP ie fa eae Ψ ΩΣ, y . Ἢ d ἰῳ a | ) Lbs ee) ΓΙ . > a a > sche ee, h st Poakoles ad ᾿ Η ΕΣ ᾿ς φ as aul : fot a? Φή wa & ᾿ς “aes ~ γί . - Ἂ r i ee | ὁ. ὟΣ . re ' Ὁ me «ΕΝ y " » ea i ios «ὦ .- “- " . ¢ i, ᾿ ιν ° εὐ. Ὰ oe oy — ᾿ ΘΟ ΥΥ . ψ “ς oe « ν Plate Pe ‘oo Ad bao daro0z NNYMICHZIVIGY Estes m MAX HALOIUOFNNYMIOHZ9VIAY | (4) Ὁ Χ bALIGUOENWYAIOHTIVIAY (τ) mtx PAwod L1O &N INVOITOHZ OVA VY nfxdbALoduw03)s NNVMNIOH ZO VAAV © (Ὁ) mee) AX pa.1aodmo€i AN19% 29 awine (8) MAN At ZN ZI V5 fi (2 β β ἈΠ D+ (ad 41.02 WIT Shires Zoe τ (9) “Tl 9 itd Plate IV. (9) RIN TACTINATONTIO XNITONAN wc ASo DIAN YIOWWIN ICN €7 001 RN ANTIRONDI Re DENTON IG ΚΑΛῸΣ TOYCOYN C7 ONT AL (10) ON TWCTTOATMAS® ECTATON τῇ AT OPEYOMGENONOIE TAITANTA AYNACOAITINCWCKEINKAINO) CINOYXOIONGAYTON OCENIOIC OTAEN TIP pA TA] KATEXON KAIOY CY NOPCO NOT ITTOARXAAC) TAITPIRBHCANKAIATIOTHCAY THCIINHTAIMESCOAOY KACA TT EPTATH CTIOIHTIKHCAAEGPH KO} 210 TITTEP ITOY CTTOAY MAS EIC (21 a) CEXY TON ΚΆΘ CeN: XH CKAIASDH M Epco CONETAZAKPITS 29 EMITONAAONMY = GeO [CA KALETATTIN WD mar CAAITANTACTOYe — $0 EXOPOYCCOYKAI © ὡς KMYZSHCWWCEKAIO! 2 OT | ΟἽ (11 5) Ξ () εὐ πὴ ες : er AN €EICLEPOYC AHMKAIEYPONH © POICM EN OY CT: EN AEIKAIXSAIT OY CYNAYT TOI CAE?” Plate V (12) + ™~ t 4 XV 4 NAPX1\ E MOIHCENOOCTON OY PAN ON ΚΑΙ ΤῊ NOHN HAETHH HAO ATOCIKAIA ISATACIKEYAC TOC - KAIC KOTOCE NANWw THCABYCC Oy: (13) av) Ga Ri hea A lex IKAITTAN TIT Ι'Ιμμωημ:- τι ει τ ΟΥ̓ MACTOTATe ἈΓΙΟΝ Ε ΘΕ Οεττ͵ιοιςζοττογο- TOINAINEI IN THIN Gi< XKAHCIAN TOYI HASTY ASH NTL DLA QML 3 μηδ VTC VAITONAO VW μηλ οι Χυνιμ ἀ (62) IMBEWLSIPM NLP _OLVPTITTONM®.LO.LE-RH OOON CISE OINX1IP NLL ) NOOTTH IOTT \% POCDOIONIOM IONE. (81) (SF iS Plate VIIL. (20) MIN TONAIOONEK THe ey PACT OYMNH ME10Y KRIANABAEYACAIOEW poycinOTiANaKeky AICTAIGAIGOCHNIAS MErACC< OAPAKAIEA edcycaié CTOMNHME! ON EIAONNEANTCKON KAOHMENONENTOIC AESZIOICMEsIRERAHME NON C TOAHNAGYIKHN KAIESEOAME HOHCAN GAEAETEIAY TAICMA _ EK OAMREICOEINZHTE! TETGNNAZAPHNONT ECT AY PD MENONA TEP HOY KECTING@AE The GTONOCONOYEOHKA by TON AAA AY TIAre TE EINATETOICMACHTAIS Ay TOy και τῷ NET po Οοτιπροάγειὺ μᾶςεις THN TAAIAAIANE ΚΕΊΛΥ τὸν ὁ: EC OEKAGWCE! NEN MIN kKAIE ZEAG*7 CAIE: Yronano Tey ΜΝΗΣ εἸογέιχεν γὰρ AY TACT OonmocKRIEK 2 CTACIC AIGY AGNI OY Ὁ AEN ξιττον ΟΒΟῪΝ πῇ ἼΟΓΑ: τὺ ‘ «ἘΠῚ Serie — of J *: | Py) of pn pa a cere ee cmatied Plate IX. Ado “AWE, 99. WeIeS, 19, sateqd | |-dowpe.WHL/x3 , Odds, Noy 10H , 53 Φ, flor /30HA NUS, WInw, sepugy, ΠΘΙΒΟΙΚΤΗΡΟ: 12. 1|-Π313 ‘AV YDTNOL,/ AOLAD 2N0dVITOINOL γον, “wep, NUS «20, qo) «shownot, do ϑρηπήβ.8, 30, SON[SSaie CE Qoretg MMF ,Iv, eeiK πὶ ADly * FOO, lop ouriaA3,3v, 1010.9 δι: (ζω ECA, πε), veg}, ὦ ( A, woDol , ἤο ϑοηήή3.3, moodgn fe “BHIQe, MUsPUIwE, (YY, YW “mondgn ἡ AOIN STIADY ,AOIN, NOL A 12, YL, SHOCUB , IgE |g 2 O1dX , NOOHI , 9003 03N3A,, OYE! ‘(dey ‘noquegr soe. dey ‘dowzAAnn3,loiAn, flomeLprr, ὈΙῸΝΣ,Ο 7, IO 19) δεν oo Ad1K0.L InN tMoQg ΝΥ HV3IISSONHLL LOVESS]TOOI 249537 NISDNIINIOLS gpd aire CB Add G Pn ΘΝ ΡΕΙΣΟΣ ΥΩ: recat Ker (74) ; nt ae Sah heer: tf” | a) ae zm a Hong “ Η͂ ἢ ον y Ne cite ES ὩΣ seas a, we ¢ ϊ Ψ ee a = ἼΩΝ ω } Sek eae ἧς ν᾿» γε κὶ τ oe, Ἂν ον er ole, ee ae ΟΊ Ὑ ΡΠ Ne me (26) - NACAH VON AAT Ariane x. WDA It ΟΕ pAaCORyATTal. Daehavecnn TONAN'T Ge, ἐν TIO PAAN HMO TAM WA πάτον. GZ Be OR ae NOVTAGAM AP TIACAY TWN * ‘sor YF ΜΈ Μοῦ τὸς o \ ae 1, a eT [3 κυ 16 ; ON ay’ WITALAIA THA ἬΤΆΙΑΝ TWH AEM tit TALNETIMWN (28) Bb AH +H: Say ak aS 4 H “ἢ « SP - NAN’ re ἡ ζ Ac Θ ΡΗ δηλε ΟὟ AN ANOAYCH THN ΓΎΗ ΔΙ λλγ TOY: ( 39) CAITCC” Karlin 79) YT w " scayent Ay ATA τειν φῦ λι᾽ MAIWNIP WEP IA, FL 2. ETMIC HL " OMEN A: TE, ASHAR ooo me 61.» J ( 40 } = Plate ΧΙ. (30) MOYCAISOAIYE OV TAC Awredyrortétizn TTT Cb AE Lineage: ὃ, ΛΕΓΕ PALS MUN EYOMEN DIA IAA ISAAE πογ νι πεικεζέγαλν τοῖο ἐβχ εὐ εἰκατ AC TERHA (31) Ne Ω 7 Je aririop tytn cation με΄ trot CLOT ON OTICON 2 AY riy Ttageriopey - Ὁ eter δὐξνοτύν ii ," , AALWH> Pe pry rend (41 ) HY τῶν κῦ egy’ πἰολω gevant p- Ger] kp ost τατον ΤῸ wis paw; orre'o?t pdr ὡτπόβμοκεγτῆα, Pa wren ἢ x Wares pip οὐ τὰ Wood γυοζτό ὁ πτίόςοιὲ “αὐντέ ode wt pea piy, “f cop 9 tparcop αὖ τοὺ ἔν ουστεὶ ole we p τυρὶ TD mak pow οὔ ττὸ δὰ, argu vou onset rep ϑάμωσομ' peut lives Ole εἰς LEK οὖν δὲ οὐτα σϑοϑησ τοντορσ,͵ ὄσντωσ ς WAAELG Ep ICMLPOTH Te ονσ wept rere “Μ᾽ Ly p σύμδυ τοι hey ὦ «ἐεμτεοῦνοι οὖ “Μεαυτὶ τουϑαν αὐτουάυτου. Appice) K αλτονὶς Ay ce-ovesea δ᾽, “Go usia: πτούτηγιμώσπομτ ἀτί ὁ woperos ἀμρὸμ ἀμοσ στὰ bee otk ἐν ὦ τε τας yh Θέ τὸ σααλα, THs inp τέ" al. τον alisc GH Sev wAgg pe "μια τὶ ptm πίω ear Se Necace re εὖ 38) π apakanc oe ὃν ἃ Lkarcon ἥϊι ἃς enindcn nefar~bernete Y/Y ALIA HIT ~ UETIMELENT % —™ Ὁ A Dritn ἀν τ' @ .» “νά σθαι Hardcnapakson cin | 7 ee erovt tN πᾶς H faba DAvwend pakanieroe ae ae ε ka ov μα pa avcory TD Tv {γ. στί Κα -θεὺς NOT WALT WN Ὑπλν ἐπέ ney ΤῊΤ' 2B — yrenace "O98 DOr st HQ ND Cte "ADL tty OF 0 Daren, Ε -2δέεόφο “τῷ POD 02+ 2 Parra hte A> R@ 22 (B90 {9} -ἶ» “1.0... ae IMAw D>, 6.9 Moa Ag ary STAM 70 ὦ Oy Ὅς «- t 1968) a 4 we) : στ = Be δύνα “Op-F 8.3 Ξ τς - C: a Ces i. Ὁ a AO Sh «51 12 oe hed x eq ey 0 a a | 7 : me τ x Guy as " τ Ὁ ΄ bY eT Sicee > Ww cs ~~ ὡ on Ξ . 232 0 GE BOA SK Ὁ ἢ ἀν με τς ag - Ὁ» γνῶ re ae. a ζω, Ξ eae 8 weg eee Sa ria ees Se YY & Pipe < a - ἘΣ Ξ < RB Sos 7 Π O =u "Oo a oes Cr ~« ΕΞ τον ες ᾿ ἘΞ πὰ ἘΣ ESS ¢ VREE (σϑνξώ- 225 - ἊΣ « K ΄ : a ye ao a ἡ : ° - ΐ ἑ ae re ae 2163619 2e ty ma ¥o-Meeumgeu-h es Sarco hing. aaimdoo mnoL ἡ σοὶ ἡ ah}a apVgnb ts 2 Ng seam dg 2343 2099 rman τη nays ἀρὰ nour spidey hooys} ain 3 é | EE Ἢ μων. ρῶν rh OYIKACXHM ONE] oe OYZHTEITA GAY THC OVTIAPOZYNE TAI OY AOTIZE TAITOIKAIKON OYNXAIP EVE NITAAAIKIA OY FAXAIPEIAGTHAAHOTA NANTACTEre) NAN TANICTEYEI TTA NTACATIZE] TIANTA YNOMENEI HATANH | OYAENOTEEKNINTEY 7 ‘KAT. ewan, (37) CHMENCONTTIOIDO ANAT CW AOZA CEITONON KAITOY TOE ITM NAEP EIAVYTMAKOAOCYEGEI IMO! EmMCTPAd €icac one TPOCBAETIE TON MAGHT HN ONHTATIA 1HC AK OAOYOOYNTA OCKAIANETIECENENTOWAEGITIN GD EMTOCT HBOCAY TOY KAIE ME NAY TOU ΚΕ Ticec Tn QTIA pPAAIAW NCE ΤΟΥ TONOY NEIAWMNoTETpoCcAere1ay Top 1HY- Ke OY TOCAET!: AETEIAY TWOIHC EANAY TON GGACD MENEIN OY TC EwCcEepKOMAITIMApocce CY MOIMKOAOY GE! EZ HAGE NOY NOYTOCOAOTOCEIC TOY C NO NACY NONQqUp NONIN? NONCOC NONCAL CON CAU OMNN;: OMNTHK OOINNS. OMNIA: CARITAS Numgu SICNIFICANS : EThoaccumdr CONUERSUSA quemdilcel quieTREcub SUPERP ECTY. dME “15 Ὲ 5 hun cERGoU) dmeéE hic au HNEUMVUOLO asqguEeduMm EX1UIT ERGO h | NONAQOND1710 SAEST NON QUAE RITGQUAGS UASUNT NONINRITATUR NONCOCIT\ATANLUM NONCAUdE TsUupEe RINIGUITATEM CONCAU GE TAUTEMUVERITATI OMNASUFFERIT OMNNMACREdIT OMNNMSPERKAT OMNASUS TENET CARITTAS NUuUMGUxM Exc1dEet Jee WhAN_ τα & SICNIFICANS QUAMORT € HONORIF!ICAGITIM EThaccumdwxigser dicrpilli sequEerpemeEe CONUERSUSAUTEMpET RUS UdeE TAI Ccip ulumM quemdiucebaATtihs sequenrem quieTRECUbUITINCENA Superpecruserus erducatrilt- dME quises TqUurrRACId IT TE } huncerGowIdeny perRusaicipAdihm dmehicautrem quid: dicrrllanhs NEUMVUOLlLOVSIC MANERE AUS JUEMCUMUENIOA GuIdAAdTETUMESFEF UERE Ι EXIUITERCOHICUERDUS APUTFRAT RES Plate XII Plate XIV (21) ῷ ΑἹ ΕἼ, EArt CATE * GC THNAG IAL, PONAMOTON 7 TAV TAQ EPO = ΝΗ Με θν 1 *MENAMeTATOZ ΕΝ αὶ, EAN sat “EP OKOYNT a 3 F - n2i7 AP + Ne Mocicattiemachio es ΑΡ 3 NIE 9 β Ν “ἴ ςς ~ ed Toray 4. mi $32 3)/334322222 asa ma mS) δ. τς ὦ Cora pr στῳ οὗ Boe ἡ Ψ 25: “ντσινε σου) τοῖν ween ner dopa pntecey 7 εὐ παν πστομέκωστοσμά Kaen ἐσθ ee sae te 7 yo! VION See OTe wr cu joel Cram pg Vee meres / a INTRODUCTION TO THE CRITICISM OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 1. HEN God was pleased to make known to man his purpose of redeeming us through the death of His Son, He employed for this end the general laws, and worked according to the ordinary course of His Providential government, so far as they were available for the furtherance of His merciful design. A revelation from heaven, in its very notion, implies supernatural interposition; yet neither in the first promulgation, nor in the subsequent propagation of Christ’s religion, can we mark any waste of miracles. So far as they were needed for the assurance of honest seekers after truth, they were freely resorted to: whensoever the principles which move mankind in the affairs of common life were adequate to the exigences of the case, more unusual and (as we might have thought) more powerful means of producing conviction were withheld, as at once superfluous and ineffectual. Those who heard not Moses and the prophets would scarcely be persuaded, though one rose from the dead, 2. As it was with respect to the evidences of our faith, so also with regard to the volume of Scripture. God willed that His Church should enjoy the benefit of His written word, at once as a rule of doctrine and as a guide unto holy living. For Se 1 2 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. this cause He so enlightened the minds of the Apostles and Evangelists by His Spirit, that they recorded what He had imprinted on their hearts or brought to their remembrance, with- out the risk of error in anything essential to the verity of the Gospel. But this main point once secured, the rest was left, in a great measure, to themselves. The style, the tone, the language, perhaps the special occasion of writing, seem to have depended much on the taste and judgment of the several pen- men. Thus in St Paul’s Epistles we note the profound thinker, the great scholar, the consummate orator: St John pours forth the simple utterings of his gentle, untutored, affectionate soul: in St Peter’s speeches and letters may be traced the impetuous earnestness of his noble yet not faultless character. Their indi- vidual tempers and faculties and intellectual habits are clearly discernible, even while they are speaking to us in the power and inspiration of the Holy Ghost. 3. Now this self-same parsimony in the employment of miracles which we observe with reference to Christian evidences and the inspiration of Scripture, we might look for beforehand, from the analogy of divine things, when we proceed to consider the methods by which Scripture has been preserved and handed down to us. God might, if He would, have stamped His revealed will visibly on the heavens, that all should read it there: He might have so completely filled the minds of His servants the Prophets and Evangelists, that they should have become mere passive instruments in the promulgation of His counsel, and the writings they have delivered to us have borne no traces whatever of their individual characters: but for certain causes which we can perceive, and doubtless for others beyond the reach of our capa- cities, He has chosen to do neither the one nor the other. And so again with the subject we propose to discuss in the present work ; namely, the relation our existing text of the New Testa- ment bears to that which originally came from the hands of the sacred penmen. Their autographs might have been preserved in the Church as the perfect standards by which all accidental variations of the numberless copies scattered throughout the world should be corrected to the end of time: but we know that these autographs perished utterly in the very infancy of Chris- tian history. Or if it be too much to expect that the autographs of the inspired writers should escape the fate which has over- PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 3 taken that of every other known relique of ancient literature, God might have so guided the hand or fixed the devout atten- tion of copyists during the long space of fourteen hundred years before the invention of printing, and of compositors and printers of the Bible for the last four centuries, that no jot or tittle should have been changed of all that was written therein. Such a course of Providential arrangement we must confess to be quite possible, but it could have been brought about and main- tained by nothing short of a continuous, unceasing miracle: by making fallible men (nay, many such in every generation) for one purpose absolutely infallible. If the complete identity of all copies of Holy Scripture prove to be a fact, we must of course receive it as such, and refer it to its sole Author: yet we may confidently pronounce beforehand, that such a fact could not have been reasonably anticipated, and is not at all agreeable to the general tenour of God’s dealings with us. 4. No one who has taken the trouble to examine any two editions of the Greek New Testament needs be told that this supposed complete resemblance of various copies of the holy books is not founded in fact. Even several impressions derived from the same standard edition, and professing to exhibit a text positively the same, differ from their archetype and from each other, in errors of the press which no amount of care or diligence has yet been able to get rid of. If we extend our researches to the manuscript copies of Scripture or of its versions which abound in every great library in Christendom, we see in the very best of them variations which we must at once impute to the fault of the scribe, together with many others of a graver and more perplexing nature, regarding which we can form no probable judgment, without calling to our aid the resources of critical learning. ‘The more numerous and venerable the docu- ments within our reach, the more extensive is the view we obtain of the variations (or VARIOUS READINGS as they are called) that prevail in manuscripts. If the number of these vari- ations was rightly computed at thirty thousand in Mill’s time, a century and a half ago, they must at present amount to at least fourfold that quantity. 5. As the New Testament far surpasses all other remains of antiquity in value and interest, so are the copies of it yet exist- ing in manuscript and dating from the fourth century of our 1—-2 4 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. sera downwards, far more numerous than those of the most cele- brated writers of Greece or Rome. Such as have been already discovered and set down in catalogues are hardly fewer than two thousand; and many more must still linger unknown in the monastic libraries of the East. On the other hand, manuscripts of the most illustrious classic poets and philosophers are far rarer and comparatively modern. We have no complete copy of Homer himself prior to the thirteenth century, though some con- siderable fragments have been recently brought to light which may plausibly be assigned to the fifth century: while more than one work of high and deserved repute has been preserved to our times only in a single copy. Now the experience we gain from a critical examination of the few classical manuscripts that sur- vive should make us thankful for the quality and abundance of those of the New Testament. These last present us with a vast and almost inexhaustible supply of materials for tracing the history, and upholding (at least within certain limits) the purity of the sacred text: every copy, if used diligently and with judg- ment, will contribute somewhat to these ends. So far is the copiousness of our stores from causing doubt or-perplexity to the genuine student of Holy Scripture, that it leads him to recognise the more fully its general integrity in the midst of partial varia- tion. What would the thoughtful reader of Aischylus give for the like guidance through the obscurities which vex his patience, and mar his enjoyment of that sublime poet ? 6. In regard to modern works, it is fortunate that the art of printing has well nigh superseded the use of verbal or (as it has been termed) TVertual criticism. When a book once issues from the press, its author’s words are for the most part fixed, beyond all danger of change; graven as with an iron pen upon the rock for ever. Yet even in modern times, as in the case of Barrow’s posthumous works and Lord Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion, it has been occasionally found neces- sary to correct or enlarge the early editions, from the original autographs, where they have been preserved. The text of some of our older English writers (Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays are a notable instance) would doubtless have been much im- proved by the same process, had it been possible; but the criticism of Shakespeare’s dramas is perhaps the most delicate and difficult problem in the whole history of literature, since - PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 9 that great genius was so strangely contemptuous of the praise ~ of posterity, that even of the few plays that were published in his lifetime the text seems but a gathering from the scraps of their respective parts which had been negligently copied out for the use of the actors. 7. The design of the science of TEXTUAS CRITICISM, as applied to the Greek New Testament, will now be readily understood. By collecting and comparing and weighing the variations of the text to which we have access, it aims at bringing back that text, so far as may be, to the condition in which it stood in the sacred autographs; at removing all spurious additions, if such be found in our present printed copies ; at restoring whatsoever may have been lost or corrupted or accidentally changed in the lapse of eighteen hundred years. We need spend no time in proving the value of such a science, if it affords us a fair prospect of appreciable results, resting on grounds of satisfactory evidence. Those who be- lieve the study of the Scriptures to be alike their duty and privilege, will surely grudge no pains when called upon to separate the pure gold of God’s word from the dross which has mingled with it through the accretions of so many centuries. Though the criticism of the sacred volume is inferior to its right interpretation in point of dignity and practical results, yet it must take precedence in order of time: for how can we reason- ably proceed to investigate the sense of holy writ, till we have done our utmost to ascertain its precise language ? 8. The importance of the study of Textual criticism is sometimes freely admitted by those who deem its successful cultivation difficult, or its conclusions precarious ; the rather as Biblical scholars of deserved repute are constantly putting forth their several recensions of the text, differing not a little from each other. Now on this point it is right to speak clearly and decidedly. There is certainly nothing im the nature of critical science which ought to be thought hard or abstruse, or even remarkably dry and repulsive. It is conversant with varied, curious, and interesting researches, which have given a certain serious pleasure to many intelligent minds ; it patiently gathers and arranges those facts of external evidence on which alone it ventures to construct a revised text, and applies them according to rules or canons of internal evidence, whether sug- 6 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. gested by experience, or resting for their proof on the plain dictates of common sense. The more industry is brought to these studies, the greater the store of materials accumulated, so much the more fruitful and trustworthy the results have usually proved ; although beyond question the true application even of the simplest principles calls for discretion, keenness of intellect, innate tact ripened by constant use, a sound and impartial judgment. No man ever attained eminence in this, or any other worthy accomplishment, without much labour and some natural aptitude for the pursuit; but the criticism of the Greek Testa- ment is a field in whose culture the humblest student may contribute a little that shall be really serviceable ; few branches of theology are able to promise even those who seek but a moderate acquaintance with it, so early and abundant reward for their pains. 9. Nor can Textual criticism be reasonably disparaged as tending to precarious conclusions, or helping to unsettle the text of Scripture. Even putting the matter on the lowest ground, critics have not created the variations they have dis- covered in manuscripts or versions. They have only taught us how to look ascertained phenomena in the face, and try to account for them; they would fain lead us to estimate the relative value of various readings, to decide upon their respective worth, and thus at length to eliminate them. While we confess that much remains to be done in this department of Biblical learning, we are yet bound to say that, chiefly by the exertions of scholars of the Jast and present generations, the debateable ground is gradually becoming narrower, not a few strong con- troversies have been decided beyond the possibility of reversal, and while new facts are daily coming to light, critics of very opposite sympathies are learning to agree better as to the right mode of classifying and applying them. But even were the progress of the science less hopeful than we believe it to be, one great truth is admitted on all hands ;—the almost complete freedom of Holy Scripture from the bare suspicion of wilful corruption; the absolute identity of the testimony of every known copy in respect to doctrine, and spirit, and the main drift of every argument and every narrative through the entire volume of Inspiration, On a point of such vital moment I am glad to cite the well-known and powerful statement of the great PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 7 Bentley, at once the profoundest and the most daring of English critics: ‘“‘The real text of the sacred writers does not now (since the originals have been so long lost) lie in any MS. or edition, but is dispersed in them all. "Tis competently exact indeed in the worst MS. now extant; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them; choose as awkwardly as you will, choose the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings.” Or again: “Make your 30,000 [variations] as many more, if numbers of copies can ever reach that sum: all the better to a knowing and a serious reader, who is 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 dis- guise Christianity, but that every feature of it will still be the same’.”. Thus hath God’s Providence kept from harm the treasure of His written word, so far as is needful for the quiet assurance of His church and people. 10. It is now time for us to afford to the uninitiated reader some general notion of the nature and extent of the various readings met with in manuscripts and versions of the Greek Testament. We shall try to reduce them under a few distinct heads, reserving all formal discussion of their respective characters and of the authenticity of the texts we cite for a later portion of this volume (Chapter 1X). (1). To begin with variations of the gravest kind. In two, though happily in only two instances, the genuineness of whole passages of considerable extent, which are read in our printed copies of the New Testament, has been brought into question. These are the weighty and characteristic para- graphs Mark xvi. 9—20 and John vii. 53—viil. 11. We shall hereafter defend these passages, the first without the slightest misgiving, the second with certain reservations, as entitled to be regarded authentic portions of the Gospels in which they stand. (2). Akin to these omissions are several considerable in- terpolations, which though they have never obtained a place 1 ἐς Remarks upon a late Discourse of Free Thinking by Phileleutherus Lip- siensis,’’ Part 1. Section 32. 8 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. in the printed text, nor been approved by any critical editor, are supported by authority too respectable to be set aside with- out some inquiry. One of the longest and best attested of these paragraphs has been appended to Matt. xx. 28, and has been largely borrowed from other passages in the Gospels (see below, class 9). It appears in several forms, slightly varymg from each other, and is represented as follows in a document as old as the fifth century: “But you, seek ye that from little things ye may become great, and not from great things may become little. Whenever ye are invited to the house of a supper, be not sitting down in the honoured place, lest should come he that is more honoured than thou, and to thee the Lord of the supper should say, Come near below, and thou be ashamed in the eyes of the guests. But if thou sit down in the little place, and he that is less than thee should come, and to thee the Lord of the supper shall say, Come near, and come up and sit down, thou also shalt have more glory in the eyes of the guests*.” We subjoin another paragraph, inserted after Luke vi. 4 in only a single copy, the celebrated Codex Beze, now at Cam- bridge: “On the same day he beheld a certain man working on the sabbath, and said unto him, Man, blessed art thou if thou knowest what thou doest; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law.” (3). Again, a shorter passage or mere clause, whether in- serted or not in our printed books, may have appeared originally in the form of a marginal note, and from the margin have crept into the text, through the wrong judgment or mere over- sight of the scribe. Such we have reason to think is the history of 1 John v. 7, the verse relating to the three hea- venly witnesses, once so earnestly maintained, but now gene- rally given up as spurious. Thus too Acts vii. 37 may have been derived from some Church Ordinal: the last clause of Rom. viii 1 (μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα) is much like a gloss on τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ: εἰκῆ in Matt. v. 22 and ἀναξίως in 1 Cor. xi. 29 might have been inserted 1 I cite from the late Canon Cureton’s very literal translation in his ‘ Re- mains of a very antient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac,” in the Preface to which (pp. xxxv—xxxviii) is an elaborate discussion of the evidence for this passage, PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 9 to modify statements that seemed too strong: τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι Gal. 111. 1 is precisely such an addition as would help to round an abrupt sentence. Some critics would account in this way for the adoption of the doxology Matt. vi. 13; of the section relating to the bloody sweat Luke xxii. 43, 44; and of that remarkable verse, John v. 4: but we may well hesitate before we assent to their views, at least in regard to the two passages last mentioned. (4). Ora genuine clause is lost by means of what is tech- nically called Homeeoteleuton (ὁμοιοτέλευτον), when the clause ends in the same word as closed the preceding sentence, and the transcriber’s eye has wandered from the one to the other, to the entire omission of the whole passage lying between them. This source of error (though too freely appealed to by Meyer and some other commentators hardly less eminent than he) is familiar to all who are engaged in copying writing, and is far more serious than might be supposed, prior to experience. In 1 John ii. 23 ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν Kai τὸν πατέρα ἔχει is omitted in many manuscripts, because τὸν πατέρα ἔχει had ended the preceding clause: it is not found in our commonly received Greek text, and even in the Authorised English version is printed in italics. The whole verse Luke xvii. 36, were it less slenderly supported, might possibly have been early lost through the same cause, since vy. 34, 35, 36 all end in ἀφεθήσεται. A safer example is Luke xvii. 39, which a few excellent copies omit for this reason only. Thus perhaps we might defend in Matth. x. 23 the addition after φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἄλλην of κἂν ἐν τῇ ἑτέρᾳ διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς, φεύγετε εἰς THY ἄλλην (ἑτέραν being substituted for the first ἄλλην), the eye having passed from the first φεύγετε εἰς τὴν to the second. The same effect is pro- duced, though less frequently, when two or more sentences begin with the same words, as in Matth. xxi. 14, 15, 16 (each of which commences with οὐαὶ ὑμῖν), one of the verses being lost in some manuscripts. (5). Numerous variations occur in the order of words, the sense being slightly or not at all affected ; on which account this species of various readings was at first much neglected by collators. Examples abound in every page: e.g. τὶ μέρος or μέρος τι Luke xi. 363; ὀνόματι ᾿Ανανίαν or ᾿Ανανίαν ὀνόματι Acts ix. 12; ψυχρὸς οὔτε ζεστὸς or ζεστὸς οὔτε ψυχρὸς Apoc. 10 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS, iii. 16. The order of the sacred names ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς is perpetually changed. (6). Sometimes the scribe has mistaken one word for another, which differs from it only in one or two letters. This happens chiefly in cases when the wnetal or capital letters in which the oldest manuscripts are written resemble each other, except in some fine stroke which may have decayed through age. Hence in Mark v. 14.we find ANHTTEIAAN or ΑΠΗΓ- TEIAAN; in Luke xvi.20 HAKQMENOC or CEIAKOMENOC; so we read Δαυὶδ or Δαβὶδ indifferently, as, in the later or cursive character, 8 and v have nearly the same shape. Akin to these errors of the eye are such transpositions as EAABON for EBAAON or EBAAAON, Mark xiv. 65; omissions or in- ᾿ gertions of the same or similar letters,as EMACCONTO or €MA- CONTO Apoc. xvi. 10: ATAAATACOHNAT or ATAAATA- @HNAI John vy. 35: and the dropping or repetition of the same or a similar syllable, as EXKBAAAONTAAAIMONIA or EKBAAAONTATAAAIMONIA Luke ix. 49; OTAEAEAO- ES ACTAL or OTACAOBACTAI.2: Cor, ii. 10; ATABEEE AE€XETO or AITEREAEXETO 1 Peter iii. 20. Τὺ is easy to see how the ancient practice of writing uncial letters without leaving a space between the words must have increased the risk of such variations as the foregoing. (7). Another source of error is described by some critics as proceeding ex ore dictantis, in consequence of the scribe writing from dictation, without having a copy before him. One is not, however, very willing to believe that manuscripts of the better class were executed on so slovenly and careless a plan. It seems more simple to account for the ztacisms or confusion of certain vowels: and diphthongs having nearly the same sound, which exist more or less in manuscripts of every age, by assuming that a vicious pronunciation gradually led to a loose mode of ortho- graphy adapted to it. Certain it is that itacisms are much more plentiful in the original subscriptions and marginal notes of the writers of medizval books, than in the text which they copied from older documents. Itacisms prevailed the most extensively from the eighth to the twelfth century, but not by any means during that period exclusively. In the most ancient manuscripts the principal changes are between v and es, αὐ and e: in later times ἢ ὁ and ev, ἢ οὐ and v, even o and ὦ, ἡ and ε are used er cae ti a PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 11 almost promiscuously. Hence it arises that a very large portion of the various readings brought together by collators are of this description, and although in the vast majority of instances they serve but to illustrate the character of the manuscripts which exhibit them, or the fashion of the age in which they were written, they sometimes afiect the grammatical form (e.g. ἔγειρε or ἔγειραι Mark 1]. 3: Acts ili. 6; passim: ἴδετε or εἴδετε Phil. 1, 30), or the construction (e.g. ἰάσωμαι or ἰάσομαι Matth. xi. 15: οὐ μὴ τιμήσῃ or ov μὴ τιμήσει Matth. xv. 5: ἵνα καυθήσωμαιν or ἵνα καυθήσομαι 1 Cor. xiii. 8, compare 1 Peter ii. 1), or even the sense (e.g. ἑταίροις or ἑτέροις Matth. xi. 106 ; μετὰ διωγμῶν or, as in a few copies, peta διωγμὸν Mark x. 30; καυχᾶσθαι δὴ οὐ συμφέρει or καυχᾶσθαι Set οὐ συμφέρ. 2 Cor. xii. 1: Cre χρηστὸς ὁ Κύριος or ὅτι χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος 1 Peter ii. 3). To this cause we may refer the perpetual interchange of ἡμεῖς aud ὑμεῖς, with their oblique cases, throughout the whole Greek Testa- ment: e.g. in the single epistle 1 Peter 1. 3; 12; 1. 21 bis; iil. 18; 21; v.10. Hence we must pay the less regard to the reading ἡμέτερον Luke xvi. 12, though found in two or three of our chief authorities: in Acts xvil. 28 τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμῶς, the reading of the great Codex Vaticanus and a few late copies, is plainly absurd. On the other hand, a few cases occur wherein that which at first sight seems a mere ifacism is really the true form, and, when once understood, affords an excellent sense, e.g. καθαρίζων Mark vii. 19. (8). Introductory clauses or Proper Names are frequently interpolated at the commencement of Church-lessons (περικοπαὶ), whether from the margin of ordinary manuscripts of the Greek Testament (where they are usually placed for the convenience of the reader), or from the Lectionaries or proper Service Books, especially those of the Gospels (Evangelistaria). Thus in our English Bock of Common Prayer the name of Jesus is intro- duced into the Gospels for the 14th, 16th, 17th, and 18th Sun- days after Trinity; and whole clauses into those for the 3rd and 4th Sundays after Easter, and the 6th and 24th after Trinity’. To this cause is due the prefix εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος Luke vu. 31; and καὶ στραφεὶς πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς εἶπε Luke x. 22; and such 1 To this list of examples from the Book of Common Prayer, Mr Burgon (“The last twelve verses of St Mark’s Gospel Vindicated” p. 215) adds the Gospels for Quinquagesima, 2nd Sunday after Easter, 9th, 12th, 22nd after Trinity, Whitsunday, Ascension Day, SS. Philip and James, All Saints. 12 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS, appellations as ἀδελφοὶ or τέκνον Τιμόθεε (after od δὲ in 2 Tim. iv. 5) in some copies of the Epistles. Hence the frequent inter- polation (e.g. Matth. iv. 18 ; vil. 5; xiv. 22) or changed position (John i. 44) of ᾿Ιησοῦς. (9). A more extensive and perplexing species of various © readings arises from bringing into the text of one (chiefly of the three earlier) Evangelists expressions or whole sentences which of right belong not to him, but to one or both the others’. This natural tendency to assimilate the several Gospels must have been aggravated by the laudable efforts of Biblical scholars (beginning with Tatian’s Ava τεσσάρων in the second century) to construct a satisfactory Harmony of them all. Some of these variations also may possibly have been mere marginal notes in the first instance. As examples of this class we will name εἰς μετάνοιαν interpolated from Luke v. 32 into Matth. ix. 13; Mark ii. 17: the prophetic citation Matth. xxvil. 35 va πληρωθῇ κ. τ. X. to the end of the verse, unquestionably borrowed from John xix. 24: Mark xiii. 14 τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου, probably taken from Matth. xxiv. 15: Luke v. 38 καὶ ἀμφότεροι συντηροῦνται from Matth. ix. 17 (where ἀμῴφότεροι is the true reading): the whole verse Mark xv. 28 seems spurious, being received from Luke xxii. 37. Evenin the same book we observe an anxiety to harmonise two separate narratives of the same event, as in Acts ix. 5, 6 compared with xxvi. 14, 15. (10). In like manner transcribers sometimes quote passages from the Old Testament more fully than the writers of the New Testament had judged necessary for their purpose. Thus ἐγγέζει μοι..-«τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν καὶ Matth. xv. 8: ἰάσασθαι, τοὺς συντε- τριμμένους τὴν καρδίαν Luke iv. 18: αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε Acts Vii. 37: οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις Rom. xiii. 9: καὶ κατέστησας αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σου Hebr. ii. 7: ἢ βολίδι κατατοξευθήσε- tat Hebr. xii. 20, are all open to suspicion as being genuine portions of the Old Testament text, but not also of the New. In Acts xiii. 33, the Codex Bezie at Cambridge stands almost alone in adding Ps. ii. 8 to that portion of the previous verse which was unquestionably cited by St Paul. (11). Synonymous words are often imterchanged, and so 1 Dean Alford (see his critical notes on Luke ix. 56; xxiii. 17) is reasonably unwilling to admit this source of corruption, where the language of the several Evangelists bears no close resemblance throughout the whole of the parallel passages. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 13 form various readings, the sense undergoing some slight and refined modification, or else being quite unaltered. Thus ἔφη should be preferred to εἶπεν Matth. xxii. 37, where εἶπεν of the common text is supported only by two known manuscripts, that at Leicester, and one used by Erasmus. So also ὀμμάτων is put for ὀφθαλμῶν Matth. ix. 29 by the Codex Beze. In Matth. xxv. 16 the evidence is almost evenly balanced between ἐποίησεν and ἐκέρδησεν (cf. v. 17). Where simple verbs are interchanged with their compounds (e.g. μετρηθήσεται with ἀντιμετρηθήσεται Matth. vii. 2; ἐτέλεσεν with συνετέλεσεν rbid. v.28; καίεται with κατακαίεται xill. 40), or different tenses of the same verb (e.g. εἰληφώς with λαβὼν Acts xvi. 24; ἀνθέστηκε with ἀντέστη 2 Tim. iv. 15) there is usually some internal reason why one should be chosen rather than the other, if the external evidence on the other side does not greatly preponderate. When one of two terms is employed in asense peculiar to the New Testament dialect, the easier synonym may be suspected of having originated in a gloss or marginal interpretation. Hence ceteris paribus we should adopt δικαιοσύνην rather than ἐλεημοσύνην in Matth. vi. 1; ἐσκυλμένοι rather than ἐκλελυμένοι ix. 36; ἀθῶον rather than δίκαιον Xxvil. 4. (12). An irregular, obscure, or incomplete construction will often be explained or supplied in the margin by words that are subsequently brought into the text. Of this character is ἐμέμ- abavto Mark vil. 2; δέξασθαι ἡμᾶς 2 Cor. vill. 4; γράφω xi. 2. More considerable is the change in Acts viii. '7, where the true reading πολλοὶ... φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἐξήρχοντο, if translated with grammatical rigour, affords an almost impossible sense. Or an elegant Greek idiom may be transformed into simpler lan- guage, as in Acts xvi. 3, ἤδεισωαν γὰρ πάντες ὅτι ΄ λλην ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ὑπῆρχεν for ἤδεισαν γὰρ ἅπαντες τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ ὅτι Ἕλλην ὑπῆρχεν : similarly, τυγχάνοντα is omitted by many in Luke x. 30; compare also Acts xvill. 26 fin.; xix. 4, 8, 15 (τὸν μὲν ᾿Ιησοῦν), 34 mit. On the other hand a Hebraism may be softened by transcribers, as in Matth. xxi. 23, where for ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ many copies prefer the easier ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ before προσ- ἦλθεν αὐτῷ διδάσκοντι; and in Matth. xv. 5; Mark vii. 12 (to which perhaps we may add Luke v. 35), where καὶ is dropped in some copies to facilitate the sense. Hence καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι may be upheld before οἱ ποιμένες in Luke 11.15, This per- 14 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. petual correction of harsh, ungrammatical, or Oriental con- structions characterises the printed text of the Apocalypse and the recent manuscripts on which it is founded (e.g. τὴν γυναῖκα ᾿Ἰεζαβὴλ τὴν λέγουσαν ii. 20, for ἡ λέγουσα). (13). Hence too arises the habit of changing ancient dialectic forms into those in vogue in the transcriber’s age. The whole subject will be more fitly discussed at length hereafter (Chapter Vill) ; we will here merely note a few peculiarities of this kind adopted by recent critics from the most venerable manuscripts, but which have gradually though not entirely disappeared in copies of lower date. Thus in recent critical editions Kapapvaovp, Ma @aios, τέσσερες, ἔνατος are substituted for Kavepvaovp, Mart- θαῖος, τέσσαρες, évvatos of the common text; οὕτως (not οὕτω) is used even before a consonant; ἤλθαμεν, ἤλθατε, ἦλθαν, yevapevos are preferred to ἤλθομεν, ἤλθετε, ἦχθον, γενόμενος ; ἐκαθερίσθη, συνζητεῖν, λήμψομαι to ἐκαθαρίσθη, συζητεῖν, λήψομαι; and ν ἐφελκυστικὸν as it is called is appended to the usual third per- sons of verbs, even though a consonant follow. On the other hand the more Attic περιπεπατήκει ought not to be converted into περιεπεπατήκει in Acts xiv. 8. (14). rifling variations in spelling, though very proper to be noted by a faithful collator, are obviously of little conse- quence. Such is the choice between καὶ ἐγὼ and κἀγώ, ἐὰν and ἄν, εὐθέως and εὐθύς, Μωυσῆς and Μωσῆς, or even πράτ- τουσι and πράσσουσι, εὐδόκησα, εὐκαίρουν and ηὐδέκησα, nvKai- ρουν. To this head may be referred the question whether ἀλλὰ", γε, δέ, Te, μετά, Tapa &e. should have their final vowel elided or not when the next word begins with a vowel, (15). A large portion of our various readings arises from the omission or insertion of such words as cause little appreciable difference in the sense. To this class belong the pronouns αὐτοῦ, αὐτῷ, αὐτῶν, αὐτοῖς, the particles οὖν, dé, τε, and the interchange of οὐδὲ and οὔτε, as also of καὶ and δὲ at the opening of a sentence, (16). Manuscripts greatly fluctuate in adding and rejecting the Greek article, and the sense is often seriously influenced by these variations, though they seem so minute. In Mark ii, 1 The best manuscripts seem to elide the final syllable of ἀλλὰ before nouns, but not before verbs: e.g, John vi. 32, 39. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 15 26 ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιάθαρ ἀρχιέρεως “in the time that Abiathar was high priest” would be historically incorrect, while ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιά- θαρ τοῦ ἀρχιέρεως “in the days of Abiathar the high priest” 15 suitable enough. The article will often impart ae and ~t-~ whaoro ite nresence is not indispensable : — τὴν be authentic, as looks oken of in 1 Kings xviii. 44 eton’s monograph (“ Doctrine che Criticism and Illustration . apparently little known to certain of OUT Mos wiyity wove.aed Biblical scholars, even if its philological groundwork be thought a little precarious, must always be regarded as the text-book on this interesting subject, and is a lasting monument of intellectual acuteness and exact learning. (17). Not a few various readings may be imputed to the peculiarities of the style of writing adopted in the oldest manu- scripts. Thus TPOCTETATMENOTCKAIPOTC Acts xvii. 26 may be divided into two words or three; KAITATIANTA «bid. v. 25, by a slight change, has degenerated into κατὰ πάντα. The habitual abridgement of such words as Θεὸς or Κύριος some- times leads to a corruption of the text. Hence probably comes the grave variation OC for ΘΟ 1 Tim. iii. 16, and the singular reading τῷ καιρῷ δουλεύοντες Rom. xii. 11, where the true word Κυρίῳ was first shortened into KPW', and then read as Καὶ Pw, K, being employed to indicate KAI in very early times*. Or a large initial letter, which the scribe usually reserved for a - subsequent revision, may have been altogether neglected: whence we have τί for Ors before στενὴ Matth. vii. 14 Or —, placed over a letter (especially at the end of a line) to denote v, may have been lost sight of; e.g. λίθον μέγα Matth. xxvii. 60 in several copies, for META. The use of the symbol 1 Tischendorf indeed (Nov. Test. 1871) says, ‘‘KYPI@ omnino scribi solet Kq@,” and this no doubt is the usual form, even in manuscripts which have χρω imu, as well as xw w, for χριστῷ inood. Yet the Codex Augiensis (Paul F) has «pv in 1 Cor. ix. 1. 2 Hspecially at the end of a line. Καὶ in καιρὸς is actually thus written in the great Codex Sinaiticus (δ), Matth. xxi. 34; Rom. iti. 26; Heb. xi. 11; Apoc. xi, 18. 16 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. rf, Which in the Herculanean rolls and now and then in Codex Sinaiticus stands for πρὸ and προσ indifferently, may have pro- duced that remarkable confusion of the two prepositions when compounded with verbs which we notice in Matth. xxvi. 39; Mark xiv. 35; Acts xii: 6; xvii. 5, 26; xx. 5,13: xxii. 25,90 will be seen hereafter that as the earliest manuscripts have few marks of punctuation, breathing or accent, these points (often far from indifferent) must be left in a great measure to an editor’s taste and judgment. (18). Slips of the pen, whereby words are manifestly lost or repeated, mis-spelt or half-finished, though of no service to the critic, must yet be noted by a faithful collator, as they will occasionally throw light on the history of some particular copy in connection with others, and always indicate the degree of care or skill employed by the scribe, and consequently the weight due to his general testimony. The great mass of various readings we have hitherto at- tempted to classify (to our first and second heads we will recur presently) are manifestly due to mere inadvertence or human frailty, and certainly cannot be imputed to any deliberate in- tention of transcribers to tamper with the text of Scripture. We must give a different account of a few passages (we are glad they are only a few) which yet remain to be noticed, (19). The copyist may be tempted to forsake his proper function for that of a reviser, or critical corrector. He may simply omit what he does not understand (e.g. δευτεροπρώτῳ Luke vi. 1; τὸ μαρτύριον 1 Tim. ii. 6), or may attempt to get over a difficulty by inversions and other changes. Thus the μυστήριον spoken of by St. Paul 1 Cor. xv. 51, which rightly stands in the received text πάντες μὲν ov κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα was easily varied into πάντες κοιμηθησόμεθα, ov 7. δὲ ἀλ., as if in mere perplexity. From this source must arise the omission in a few manuscripts of υἱοῦ Βαραχίου in Matth. xxiii. 35; of ἹἹερεμίου in Matth. xxvii. 9; the insertion of ἄλλου ἐκ before θυσιαστηρίου in Apoc. xvi. 7; the substi- tution of τοῖς προφήταις for ‘Hoata τῷ προφήτῃ in Mark i. 2; perhaps of οὔπω ἀναβαίνω for οὐκ ἀναβαίνω in John vii. 8, and certainly of τρίτη for ἕκτη John xix. 14. The variations be- tween Tepyeonvav and Tadapnrév Matth. viii. 28, and between Βηθαβαρᾶᾷ and Βηθανίᾳ John i. 28, have been attributed, PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 17 we hope and believe unjustly, to the misplaced conjectures of Origen. Some would impute such readings as ἔχωμεν for ἔχομεν Rom. v.1; φορέσωμεν for φορέσομεν 1 Cor. xv. 49, to a desire on the part of copyists to amprove an assertion into an ethical exhortation, especially in the Apostolical Epistles; but it is at once safer and more simple to regard them with Bishop Chr. Wordsworth (N. T. 1 Cor. xv. 49) as instances of itacism: see class (7) above. (20). Finally, whatever conclusion we arrive at respecting the true reading in the following passages, the discrepancy could hardly have arisen except from doctrinal preconceptions. Matth. xix. 17 Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν ; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς, ὁ θεός" or Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός : John i. 18 6 μονογενὴς υἱὸς or 6 μονογενὴς θεός : Acts xvi. 7 τὸ πνεῦμα with or without the addition of Ἰησοῦ: Acts xx. 28 τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ or τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Kupiov: perhaps also Jude v. 4 δεσπότην with or without Θεόν. I do not mention Mark xiii. 32 οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, as there is hardly any authority for its rejection now extant ; nor Luke 11. 22, where tov καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῆς of the Complutensian Polyglott and most of our common editions is supported by almost no evidence whatever. 11. It is very possible that some scattered readings cannot be reduced to any of the above-named classes, but enough has been said to afford the student some general notion of the nature and extent of the subject’. It may be reasonably thought 1 Dr Tregelles, to whose persevering labours in sacred criticism I am anxious, once for all, to express my deepest obligations, ranges various readings under three general heads:—substitutions; additions; omissions. Myr C. E. Hammond, in his scholarlike little work, “Outlines of Textual Criticism applied to the N. T. 1872,” divides their possible sources into Unconscious or unintentional errors, (1) of sight; (2) of hearing; (3) of memory: and those that are Conscious or intentional, viz. (4) incorporation of marginal glosses; (5) corrections of harsh or unusual forms of words, or expressions; (6) alterations in the text to produce supposed harmony with another passage, to complete a quotation, or to clear up a presumed difficulty ; (7) Liturgical insertions. While he enumerates (8) alterations for dogmatic reasons, he adds that “there appears to be no good ground for the suggestion”’ that any such exist (Hammond, p. 15). My honoured friend Professor Roberts (‘‘ Words of the New Testament” by Drs Mil- ligan and Roberts, 1873) comprehends several of the foregoing divisions under one head; ‘‘ Again and again has a word or phrase been slipped in by the tran- SS D: 18 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. that a portion of these variations, and those among the most considerable, had their origin in a cause which must have operated at least as much in ancient as in modern times, the changes gradually introduced after publication by the authors themselves into the various copies yet within their reach. Such revised copies would circulate independently of those issued previously, and now beyond the writer's control; and thus be- coming the parents of a new family of copies, would originate and keep up diversities from the first edition, without any fault on the part of transcribers’. It is thus perhaps we may best account for the omission or insertion of whole paragraphs or verses in manuscripts of a certain class [see above (1), (2), (3)]; or, in cases where the work was in much request, for those minute touches and trifling improvements in words, in construc- tion, in tone, or in the mere colouring of the style [(5), (11), (12)] which few authors can help attempting, when engaged on revising their favourite compositions. Even in the Old Testa- ment, the song of David in 2 Sam. xxi. is evidently an early draft of the more finished composition, Ps. xvii. Traces of the writer’s cure secundw may possibly be found in John v. 3, 4; vii. 53—viii. 11 (see Chap. 1X.) ; xi. 26; Acts xx.4,15; xxiv. 6—S8. 12. The fullest critical edition of the Greek Testament hitherto published contains but a comparatively small portion of the whole mass of variations already known; as a rule the editors neglect, and rightly neglect, mere errors of transcription. Such things must be recorded for several reasons, but neither they, nor real various readings that are slenderly supported, can produce any effect in the task of amending or restoring the sacred text. Those who wish to see for themselves how far the common printed editions of what is called the “ textus receptus” differ from the judgment of the most recent critics, may refer if they please to the small Greek Testament lately published in seriber which had no existence in his copy, but which was due to the working of his own mind on the subject before him.’’ His examples are ἔρχεται inserted in Matth. xxv. 6; ἰδοῦσα in Luke i, 29; ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν in Rom. viii. 26 (Part 1. Chap. 1. pp. 5, 6). 1 This source of variations, though not easily discriminated from others, must have suggested itself to many minds, and is well touched upon by the late Isaac Taylor in his “ History of the Transmission of Antient Books to modern times,” 1827, p. 24. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 19 the series of “Cambridge Greek and Latin Texts’)? which exhibits in a thicker type all words and clauses wherein Robert Stephens’ edition of 1550 (which is taken as a convenient standard) differs from the other chief modifications of the textus receptus (viz. Beza’s 1565 and Elzevirs’ 1624), as also from the revised texts of Lachmann 1842—50, of Tischendorf 1865—72, and of Tregelles 1857—72. The student will thus be enabled to estimate for bimself the limits within which the text of the Greek Testament may be regarded as still open to discussion, and to take a general survey of the questions on which the theologian is bound to form an intelligent opinion. 13. The work that lies before us naturally divides itself into three distinct parts. J. A description of the sources from which various readings are derived (or of their EXTERNAL EVIDENCE), comprising (a) Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament or of por- tions thereof (Chapter 11). (Ὁ) Ancient versions of the New Testament in various languages (Chapter 111). (c) Citations from the Greek Testament or its versions made by early ecclesiastical writers, especially by the Fathers of the Christian Church (Chapter Iv). (d) Early printed or later critical editions of the Greek Testament (Chapter V). II. A discussion of the principles on which external evidence should be applied to the recension of the sacred volume, embracing (a) The laws of INTERNAL EVIDENCE, and the limits of their legitimate use (Chapter VI). (b) The history of the text and of the principal schemes which have been proposed for restoring it to its primitive state, including recent views of Compa- rative Criticism (Chapter VI1). (c) Considerations derived from the peculiar character and grammatical form of the dialect of the Greek Testament (Chapter VIII). 1 “‘Noyum Testamentum Texttis Stephanici a.p. 1550...curante F. H. Sceri- vener. Cantabr. 1873, Editio auctior et emendatior,” 12mo. οε-- bo 20 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. III. The application of the foregoing materials and princi- ples to the investigation of the true reading in the chief passages of the New Testament, on which authorities are at variance (Chapter Ix). It will be found desirable to read the following pages in the order wherein they stand, although the last two sections of Chap. 11. and some portions elsewhere (indicated by being printed like them in smaller type) are obviously intended chiefly for reference. CHAPTER II. ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. S the extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament supply both the most copious and the purest sources of Textual Criticism, we propose to present to the reader some account of their peculiarities in regard to material, form, style of writing, date and contents, before we enter into details respecting individual copies, under the several subdivisions to which it is usual to refer them. Section I. On the general character of Manuscripts of the Greek Testament. 1. The subject of the present section has been systemati- cally discussed in the “ Palaeographia Graeca” (Paris, 1708, folio) of Bernard de Montfaucon [1655—17417*], the most illus- trious member of the learned Society of the Benedictines of St Maur. This truly great work, although its materials are rather too exclusively drawn from manuscripts deposited in French libraries, and its many illustrative facsimiles somewhat rudely engraved, still remains our best authority on all points relating to Greek Manuscripts, even after more recent discoveries, especially among the papyri of Egypt and Herculaneum, have necessarily modi- fied not a few of its statements. The four splendid volumes of M. J. B. Silvestre’s “ Paléographie Universelle” (Paris, 1839, &e. folio) afford us no less than forty-one coloured specimens of 1 In this manner we propose to indicate the dates of the birth and death of the person whose name immediately precedes. 99 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS the Greek writing of various ages, sumptuously executed; though the accompanying letter-press descriptions, by F. and A. Cham- pollion Fils, seem in this branch of the subject a little dis- appointing; nor are the valuable notes appended to his translation of their work by Sir Frederick Madden (London, 2 vols. 1850, 8vo) sufficiently numerous or elaborate to supply the Champol- lions’ defects. Much, however, may also be learnt from the “Herculanensium voluminum que supersunt” (Naples, 10 tom. 1793—1850, fol.) ; from Mr Babington’s three volumes of papyrus fragments of Hyperides, respectively published in 1850, 1853 and 1858 ; and especially from the Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s editions of the Codices Ephraemi (1843), Friderico-Augustanus (1846), Claromontanus (1852), Sinaiticus (1862), Vaticanus (L867), and those other like publications (e.g. Monumenta sacra inedita 1846—1871, and Anecdota sacra et profana 1855) which have rendered his name the very highest among living scholars in this department of sacred literature. What I have been able to add from my own observation, has been gathered from the study of Biblical manuscripts now in Lngland. 2. Stone, wood, tablets covered with wax, the bark of trees, the dressed skins of animals, the reed papyrus, paper made of cotton or linen, are the chief materials on which writing has been impressed at different periods and stages of civilisation. Common leather also was occasionally used in Egypt and the East, but perhaps not before the tenth cen- tury. The most ancient manuscripts of the New Testament now existing are composed of vellum or parchment (mem- brana), the term vellum being strictly applied to the delicate skins of very young calves, and parchment (which seems to be a corruption of charta pergamena, a name first given to skins prepared by some improved process for Eumenes, king of Pergamus, about B.C. 150) to the integuments of sheep or goats. In judging of the date of a manuscript written on skins, atten- tion must be paid to the quality of the material, the oldest being almost invariably described on the thinnest and whitest vellum that could be procured; while manuscripts of later ages, being usually composed of parchment, are thick, discoloured, and coarsely grained. Thus the Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth century is made of the finest skins of antelopes, the OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. we leaves being so large, that a single animal would furnish only two (Tischendorf, Cod. Frid.-August. Prolegomena, § 1). Its contem- porary, the far-famed Codex Vaticanus, challenges universal ad- miration for the beauty of its vellum: every visitor at the British Museum can observe the excellence of that of the Codex Alexan- drinus of the fifth century: that of the Codex Claromentanus of the sixth century is even more remarkable: the material of those purple-dyed fragments of the Gospels which Tischendorf denomi- nates N, also of the sixth century, is so subtle and delicate, that . some persons have mistaken the leaves preserved in England (Brit. Mus. Cotton, Titus C xv) for Egyptian papyrus. Paper made of cotton (charta bombycina, called also charta Damascena from its place of manufacture) may have been fabricated in the ninth’ or tenth century, and linen paper (charta proper) as early as the twelfth; but they were seldom used for Biblical manu- scripts sooner than the thirteenth, and had not entirely displaced parchment at the zra of the invention of printing, about A.D. 1450. Cotton paper is for the most part easily distinguished from linen by its roughness and coarse fibre; some of the early linen paper, both glazed and unglazed, is of a very fine texture, though perhaps a little too stout and crisp for convenient use. Lost portions of parchment or vellum manuscripts are often supplied in paper by some later hand; and the Codex Leices- trensis of the fourteenth century is unique in this respect, being composed of a mixture of inferior vellum and worse paper, regularly arranged in the proportion of two parchment to three paper leaves, recurring alternately throughout the whole volume. 3. Although parchment was in occasional, if not familiar, use at the period when the New Testament was written (ra βιβλία, μάλιστα Tas μεμβράνας, 2 Tim. iv. 13), yet the cheaper and more perishable papyrus of Egypt was chiefly employed for ordinary purposes, and was probably what is meant by χάρτης in 2 John v. 12, by charta in 2 Esdr. xv. 2; Tobit vii. 14 (Old Latin version). This vegetable production had been long used for literary purposes in the time of Herodotus (B.c. 440), and that 1 Tischendorf (Notitia Codicis Sinaitici, p. 54) carried to St Petersburg a fragment of a Lectionary, which cannot well be assigned to a later date than the ninth century, among whose parchment leaves are inserted two of cotton paper, manifestly written on by the original scribe. 24 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS not only in Egypt (Herod. Hist. 11. 100) but elsewhere, for he expressly states that the Ionians, for lack of byblus’*, had been compelled to have recourse to the skins of goats and sheep (v. 58). We find a minute, if not a very clear, description of the mode of preparing the papyrus for the scribe in the works of the elder Pliny (Hist. Nat. 1. xm. c. 11, 12). Its frail and brittle quality has no doubt caused us the loss of some of: the choicest treasures of ancient literature; the papyri which yet survive in the museums of Europe owe their preservation to the accidental circumstance of having been buried in the tombs of the Thebais, or beneath the wreck of Herculaneum. As we before intimated, no existing manuscript of the New Testament is written on papyrus’, nor can the earliest we possess on vellum be dated higher than the middle of the fourth century. 4. We have some grounds for suspecting that papyrus was not over plentiful even in the best times of the Roman dominion; and it may be readily imagined that vellum (especially that fine sort by praiseworthy custom required for copies of Holy Scripture) could never have been otherwise than scarce and dear. Hence arose, at a very early period of the Christian era, the practice and almost the necessity of erasing ancient writing from skins, in order to make room for works in which the living generation felt more interest. This process of destruction, how- ever, was seldom so fully carried out, but that the strokes of the elder hand might still be traced, more or less completely, under the more modern writing. Such manuscripts are called codices rescripti or palimpsests (παλίμψηστα), and several of the most precious monuments of sacred learning are of this description. The Codex Ephraemi at Paris contains large fragments both of the Old and New Testament under the later Greek works of St Ephraem the Syrian: and the Codex Nitriensis, more recently disinterred from a monastery in the Egyptian desert and brought 1 Herodotus calls the whole plant byblus (11. 92), but Theophrastus (Hist. Plant. rv. 9) papyrus, reserving the term βίβλος for the liber, the inner rind, from which alone the writing material was fabricated. 2 The author of these pages has fully stated in the Christian Remembrancer for July 1863 his reasons for regarding as a manifest forgery the fragments of St Matthew's Gospel written on papyrus and dated in the fifteenth year after the Lord’s Ascension, which were published in facsimile by Constantine Simonides, Ph. D. in 1862, from originals in “ the Egyptian Museum of Joseph Mayer, Esq. of Liverpool.” OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 25 to the British Museum, comprises a portion of St Luke’s Gospel, nearly obliterated, and covered over by a Syriac treatise of Severus of Antioch against Grammaticus, comparatively of no value whatever. It will be easily believed that the collating or transcribing of palimpsests has cost much toil and patience to those whose loving zeal has led them to the attempt: and after all their true readings will be sometimes (not often) rather uncertain, even though chemical mixtures (such as prussiate of potash or the tinctura Giobertina) have recently been applied, with much success, to restore the faded lines and letters of these venerable records, » 5. We need say but little of a practice which St Jerome’ and others speak of as prevalent towards the end of the fourth century, that of dyeing the vellum purple, and of stamping rather than writing the letters in silver and gold. The Cotton frag- ment of the Gospels, mentioned above (p. 23), is one of the few remaining copies of this kind, and it is not unlikely that the great Dublin palimpsest of St Matthew owes its present wretched discolouration to some such dye. But, as Davidson sensibly observes, “the value of a Manuscript does not depend on such things” (Biblical Criticism, vol. τι. p. 264). We care for them only as they serve to indicate the reverence paid to the Scriptures by men of old. The style, however, of the pictures, illustrations, arabesques and initial ornaments that prevail in later copies from the eighth century downwards, whose colours and gilding are sometimes as fresh and bright as if laid on but yesterday, will not only interest the student by tending to throw light on medieval art and habits and modes of thought, but will often fix the date of the books which contain them with a precision otherwise quite beyond our reach. 6. The ink used in the most ancient Manuscripts has unfor- tunately for the most part turned red or brown, or become very pale, or peeled off, or eaten through the vellum; so that in many cases (as in the Codex Vaticanus itself) a later hand has ruth- lessly retraced the letters, and given a false semblance of coarse- ness or carelessness to the original writing. In such instances a few passages will usually remain untouched, just as the first 1 «Habeant qui volunt veteres libros, vel in membranis purpureis auro argentoque descriptos.” Pref. in Job, 26 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS scribe left them, and from the study of these a right notion can be formed of the primitive condition of the rest: see, for example, the two facsimile plates (63, 64) of the Coislin MS. (H) of St Paul’s Episties in Silvestre’s Paléographie Universelle. From the seventh century downwards it is said that the ingre- dients of ink have but little changed. The base has been soot, or lamp-black made of burnt shavings of ivory, mixed with wine lees or gum, and subsequently with sepia or alum. Vitriol and gall-nuts are now added, the mineral serving to fix the vegetable ingredients. In many manuscripts of about the twelfth century (e.g. Gonville and Caius MS., 59 of the Gospels) we observe what seems to be, and very well may be, the Indian ink of commerce, still preserving a beautiful jet black on the inner and smoother side of the parchment, and washed out rather than erased, whenever corrections were desired. This last practice was resorted to even in Codex Bezze. The coloured inks (red, green, blue or purple) are often quite brillant to this day: the four red lines which stand at the head of each column of the first page of the Codex Alexandrinus are far more legible than the portions in black ink below them, yet are undoubtedly written by the same hand. 7. While papyrus (χάρτης) remained in common use, the chief instrument employed was probably a reed (κάλαμος, 3 John v. 13), such as are common in the East at present: a few existing manuscripts (e.g. the Codd. Leicestrensis and Lambeth 1350) appear to have been thus written. Yet the firmness and regularity of the strokes, which often remain impressed on the vellum or paper after the ink has utterly gone, prove that in the great majority of cases a metal pen (stylus) was preferred. We must add to our list of writing materials a bodkin or needle (acus), by means of which and a ruler the blank leaf was care- fully divided into columns and lines, whose regularity much en- hances the beauty of our best copies. The vestiges of such points and marks may yet be seen deeply indented on the sur- face of nearly all manuscripts, those on one side of each leaf being usually sufficiently visible to guide the scribe when he came to write on the reverse. 8. Little needs be said respecting the form of manuscripts, which in this particular much resemble printed books. A few OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. a4 are in large folio; the greater part in small folio or quarto, the prevailing shape being a quarto, whose height but little exceeds its breadth; some are octavo, a not inconsiderable number smaller still. In some copies the sheets have marks in the lower margin of their first or last pages, like the signatures of a modern volume, the folio at intervals of four, the quarto at in- tervals of eight leaves’, as in the Codex Bez of the Gospels aud Acts (D), the Codex Augiensis of St Paul’s Epistles (F). Not to speak at present of those manuscripts which have a Latin translation in a column parallel to the Greek, as the Codex Bezz, the Codex Laudianus of the Acts, and the Codices Claromontanus and Augiensis of St Paul, many copies of every age have two Greek columns on each page; of these the Codex Alexandrinus is the oldest: the Codex Vaticanus has three columns on a page, the Codex Sinaiticus four. The unique ar- rangement” of these last two has been urged as an argument for their higher antiquity, as if they were designed to imitate rolled books, whose several skins or leaves were fastened together lengthwise, so that their contents always appeared in parallel columns ; they were kept in scrolls which were unrolled at one end for reading, and when read rolled up at the other. This fashion prevails in the papyrus fragments yet remaining, and in the most venerated copies of the Old Testament preserved in Jewish synagogues. 9. We now approach a more important question, the style of writing adopted in manuscripts, and the shapes of the several letters. These varied widely in different ages, and form the 1 Husebius sent to Constantine’s new city (Euseb. Vit. Const. Lib. rv.) πεν- THKOVTA σωμάτια ἐν διφθέραις (ὁ. 36)...€v πολυτελῶς ἠσκημένοις τεύχεσι τρισσὰ Kal τετρασσὰ (ὁ. 37): on which last words Valesius notes, ‘‘Codices enim membra- nacei feré per quaterniones digerebantur, hoc est quatuor folia simul compacta, ut terniones tria sunt folia simul compacta. Ht quaterniones quidem sedecim habebant paginas, terniones vero duodenas.”’ 2 The manuscript in four columns is quite unique, but besides the Cod. Vati- canus, the Vatican Dio Cassius and two copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch at Nablous are stated by Tischendorf (Cod. Frid.-Aug. Proleg. § 11) to be arranged in three columns. He has more recently discovered a similar arrangement in two palimpsest leaves of Religious Meditations from which he gives extracts (Not. Cod. Sinait. p. 49); in a Latin fragment of the Pentateuch; in a Greek Evangelistarium of the eighth century; and a Patristic manuscript at Patmos of the ninth (ibid. p. 10); so that the argument drawn from the triple columns must not be pressed too far. t© 28 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS simplest and surest criteria for approximating to the date of the documents themselves. It will prove convenient to abide by the usual division of Greek characters into uncial’ and cursive; uncial manuscripts being written in what have since been regarded as capital letters, formed separately, having no con- nection with each other, and (in the earlier specimens) without any space between the words, the marks of punctuation being few: the cursive or running hand comprising letters more easily and rapidly made, those in the same word being usually joined together, with a complete system of punctuation not widely removed from that of printed books. Speaking generally, and limiting our statement to Greek manuscripts of the New Testa- ment, uncial letters prevailed from the fourth to the tenth, or (in the case of liturgical books) as late as the eleventh century ; cursive letters were employed as early as the ninth or tenth century, and continued in use until the invention of printing superseded the humble labours of the scribe. But besides the broad and palpable distinction between uncial and cursive letters, persons who have had much experience in the study of manuscripts are able to distinguish those of either class from one another in respect of style and character; so that the exact period at which each was written can be determined within certain inconsiderable limits. After the tenth century many manuscripts bear dates, and such become standards to which we can refer others resembling them which are undated, But since the earliest dated Biblical manuscript yet discovered (Vatican. 354 or S of the Gospels) was written A.D. 949; we must resort to other means for estimating the age of more vener- able, and therefore more important, copies. By studying the style and shape of the letters on Greek inscriptions, Montfaucon was led to conclude that the more simple, upright, and regular the form of uncial letters; the less flourish or ornament they exhibit; the nearer their breadth is equal to their height; so much the more ancient they ought to be considered. These results have been signally confirmed by the subsequent discovery of Greek papyri 1 “Uncialibus, ut vulgo aiunt, literis, onera magis exarata, quam codices,” Hieronymi Pref.in Job. From this passage the term uncial seems to be derived, uncia (an inch) referring to the size of the characters. Yet the conjectural read- ing ‘‘initialibus”’ will most approve itself to those who are familiar with the small Latin writing of the middle ages, in which 7 is undotted, and c much like ¢, OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 29 in Egyptian tombs, which vary in age from the third century before the Christian zra to the third century after that epoch ; and yet further from numerous fragments of Philodemus, of Epicurus, and other philosophers, which were buried in the ruins of Herculaneum A.D. 79. The evidence of these papyri, indeed, is even more weighty than that of inscriptions, inasmuch as workers in stone were often compelled to prefer straight lines, as better adapted to the hardness of their material, where writings on papyrus or vellum would naturally flow into curves. 10. While we freely grant that a certain tact, the fruit of study and minute observation, can alone make us capable of forming a trustworthy opinion on the age of manuscripts ; it is worth while to point out the principles on which a true judg- ment must be grounded, and to submit to the reader a few leading facts, which his own research may hereafter enable him to apply and even to extend. The first three plates at the end of this volume represent the Greek alphabet, as found in the seven following monuments: Ἴ τς δι ὁ. (1) The celebrated Rosetta stone, discovered near that place!” ! pg during the French occupation of Egypt in 1799, and now in the > fate ὌΝ British Museum, This most important inscription, which in the” po A. Seen hands of Young and Champollion has proved the key to the mysteries of Egyptian hieroglyphics, records events of no in- trinsic consequence that occurred B.c. 196, in the reign of Ptolemy V. Epiphanes. It is written in the three forms of hieroglyphics, of the demotic or common characters of the country, and of Greek uncials, which last may represent the lapidary style of the second century before our δῖα, The words are undivided, without breathings, accents, or marks of punctuation, and the uncial letters (excepting {4 for Zeta) ap- proach very nearly to our modern capital type. In shape they are simple, perhaps a little rude; rather square than oblong ; and as the carver on this hard black stone was obliged to avoid curve lines whenever he could, the forms of E, & and > differ considerably from the specimens we shall produce from documents described on soft materials. Plate I. No, I. (2) The Codex Friderico-Augustanus of the fourth century, published in lithographed facsimile in 1846, contains on 43 Ι4 lke ͵ 20.21.2 30 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS leaves fragments of the Septuagint version, chiefly from 1 Chronicles and Jeremiah, with Nehemiah and Esther complete, in oblong folio, with four columns on each page. The plates are so carefully executed that the very form of the ancient letters and the colour of the ink are represented to us by Tischendorf, who discovered it in the East. In 1859 the same indefatigable scholar brought to Europe the remainder of this manuscript, which seems as old as the fourth century, anterior (as he thinks) to the Codex Vaticanus itself, and published it in 1862, in fac- simile type cast for the purpose, 4 tom., with twenty pages lithographed or photographed, at the expense of the Emperor of Russia, to whom the original now belongs. This book, which Tischendorf calls Codex Sinaiticus, contains, besides much more of the Septuagint, the whole New Testament with Barnabas’ Epistle and Hermas’ Shepherd annexed. As a kind of avant-courier to his great work he had previously put forth a tract entitled “ Notitia Editionis Codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici Auspiciis Imperatoris Alexandri IL suscepte”’ (Leipsic, 1860). Of this most valuable manuscript a complete account will be given in the opening of the next section of this chapter, under the appellation of Aleph (&), assigned to it by Tischendorf, in the exercise of his right as its discoverer. Plate 1. No. 2. (3) Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth century (A). Plate I. No. 3. (4) Codex Purpureus Cotton: N of the Gospels ἢ oF the (5) Codex Nitriensis Rescriptus, R of the Gospels } sixth (6) Codex Dublinensis Rescriptus, Z of the Gospels OLNEY: (7) Evangelistarium Harleian. 5598, dated A.D. 995. Plate TIT, Plate 11. These manuscripts also will be more fully described in the sue- ceeding sections of the chapter. At present we wish to compare them with each other for the purpose of tracing, as closely as we may, the different styles and fashions of uncial letters which prevailed from the fourth to the tenth or eleventh century of the Christian zra. The varying appearance of cursive manuscripts cannot so well be seen by exhibiting their alphabets, for since each letter is for the most part joimed to the others in the same word, connected passages will alone afford us a correct OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ὉΠ notion of their character and general features. For the moment we are considering the uncials alone. If the Rosetta stone, by its necessary avoiding of curve lines, so far fails to give us a correct notion of the manner adopted in common writing, it resembles our earliest uncials at least in one respect, that the letters, being as broad as they are high, are all capable of being included within circumscribed squares. Indeed, yet earlier inscriptions are found almost totally destitute of curves, even O and © being represented by simple squares, with or without a bisecting horizontal line (see theta, p. 34)’. The Herculanean papyri, however, (a specimen of which we have given in Plate Iv. No. 10), are much better suited than inscriptions can be for comparison with our earliest copies of Scripture*. Nothing can well be conceived more elegant than these simply-formed graceful little letters (somewhat diminished in size perhaps by the effects of heat) running across the volume, 39 lines in a column, without capitals or breaks be- tween the words. There are scarcely any stops, no breathings, accents, or marks of any kind; only that >, < or p are now and then found at the end of a line, to fill up the space, or to join a word or syllable with what follows. A very few abbre- viations occur, such as τῇ in the first line of our specimen, taken from Philodemus περὶ κακιῶν (Hercul. Volum. Tom. 11. Col. xx. ll. 6—15), the very treatise to which Tischendorf compared his Cod. Friderico-Augustanus (Proleg. ὃ 11). The papyri, buried for so many ages from A. D. 79 downwards, may probably be a century older still, simce Philodemus the Epicurean was the contemporary and almost the friend of Cicero®. Hence from three to four hundred years must have elapsed betwixt the date of the Herculanean rolls and of our earliest Biblical manu- 1 The Cotton fragment of the book of Genesis of the fifth century, whose poor shrivelled remains from the fire of 1731 are still preserved in the British Museum, while in common with all other manuscripts it exhibits the round shapes of O and 9, substitutes a lozenge () for the circle in phi, after the older fashion (Φ). Phi often has much the same shape in Codex Beze; e.g. Matth. xiii, 26, Fol. 42 b, 1. 13. 2 Our facsimile is borrowed from the Neapolitan volumes, but Plate 57 in the Paléographie Universelle φιλοδημου περι μουσικὴ has the advantage of colours for giving a lively idea of the present charred appearance of these papyri. 3 Cicero de Finibus, Lib. 11. c. 35. The same person is apparently meant in Orat. in Pisenem, ce, 28, 29. 32 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS scripts; yet the fashion of writing changed but little during the interval, far less in every respect than in the four centuries which next followed; wherein the plain, firm, upright and square uncials were giving place to the compressed, oblong, ornamented or even sloping forms which predominate from the seventh or eighth century downwards. While advising the reader - to exercise his skill on facsimiles of entire passages, especially in contrasting the lines from Philodemus (No. 10) with those from the oldest uncials of the New Testament (Nos. 11—14; 17—20; 24) ; we purpose to examine the several alphabets (Nos. 1—7) letter by letter, pointing out to the student those varia- tions in shape which paleographers have judged the safest criteria of their relative ages. Alpha, delta, theta, αἰ, pt, omega are among the best tests for this purpose. Alpha is not often found in its present familiar shape, except in inscriptions, where the cross line is sometimes broken into an angle with the vertex downwards (/\): even on the Rosetta stone the left limb leans against the upper part of the right limb, but does not form an angle with its extremity, while the cross line, springing not far from the bottom of the left limb, ascends to meet the right about half way down. Modifications of this form may be seen in the Herculanean rolls, only that the cross line more nearly approaches the horizontal, and sometimes is almost entirely so. The Cod. Frid.-August.' does not vary much from this form, but the three generating lines are often somewhat curved. In other books, while the right limb is quite straight, the left and cross line form a kind of loop or curve, as is very observable in the Nitrian fragment R, and often in Codd. Alex., Ephraemi, Bez, and in the Vatican more frequently still, in all which alpha often approximates to the shape of our English a. And this curve may be regarded as a proof of anti- quity; indeed Tischendorf (Proleg. Cod. Sin. p. xxx. 1863) considers it almost peculiar to the papyri and the Coptic character. Cod. N (which is more recent than those named above) makes the two lines on the left form a sharp angle, as do the Cotton fragment of Genesis (see p. 31, note 1) and Cod. Claromontanus No. 19, only that the lines which contain the angle in this last are very fine. In later times, as the letters grew tall and narrow, the modern type of A became more marked, as in the first letter of Arundel 547 (No. 16), of about the J0th century, though the form and thickness seen in the Cod. Claromontanus continued much in vogue to the last. Yet 1 We prefer citing Cod, Frid.-August., because our examples have been actually taken from its exquisitely lithographed pages; but the facsimile of part of a page from Luke xxiv. represented in Tischendorf’s Cod. Sinaiticus, from which we have borrowed six lines (No. 11 b), will be seen to resemble exactly the portion published in 1846, OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 33 alpha even in Cod, Claromontanus and Cotton Genesis occasionally passes from the angle into the loop, though not so often as in Cod. A and its companions. Cod. Borgianus (T), early in the fifth cen- tury, exaggerated this loop into a large ellipse, if Giorgi’s facsimile may be trusted. In Cod. Laudianus E of the Acts and Cureton’s palimpsest Homer too the loop is very decided, the Greek and Latin @ in Laud. (No. 25) being alike. Mark also its form in the papyrus scrawl No. 9 (from one of the orations of Hyperides edited by Mr Babington), which may be as old as the Rosetta stone. The angular shape adopted in Cod. Z (Nos. 6, 18) is unsightly enough, and (I believe) unique. Beta varies less than Adpha. Originally it consisted of a tall perpendicular line, on the right side of which four straight lines are so placed as to form two triangles, whereof the vertical line comprises the bases, while a small portion of that vertical line entirely separates the triangles (Ὁ). This ungraceful figure was modified very early, even in inscriptions. On the Rosetta stone (No. 1) the triangles are rounded off into semicircles, and the lower end of the vertical curved. Yet the shape in manuscripts is not quite so elegant. The lower curve is usually the larger, and the curves rarely touch each other. Such are Codd. ANRZ and the Cotton Genesis, In the Herculanean rolls the letter comes near the common cursive £, in some others its shape is quite like the modern B. When oblong letters became com- mon, the top (e.g. in Cod, Bez) and bottom extremities of the curve ran into straight lines, by way of return into the primitive shape (see No. 32, dated a.p. 980). In the very early papyrus fragment of Hyperides it looks like the English R standing ona base (No. 9, 1. 4). But this specimen rather belongs to the semi-cursive hand of com- mon life, than to that of books. Gamma in its simplest form consists of two lines of equal thick- ness, the shorter so placed upon the longer, which is vertical, as to make one right angle with it on the right side. Thus we find it in the Rosetta stone, the papyrus of Hyperides, the Herculanean rolls, and very often in Cod. A. The next step was to make the hori- zontal line very thin, and to strengthen its extremity by a point, or knob, as in Codd. Ephraemi (No. 24), RZ: or the point was thus strengthened without thinning the line, e.g. Codd. Vatican., N and most later copies, such as Harl. 5598 (No. 7) or its contemporary Par- ham 18 (No. 32). In Cod. Bez (No. 37) gamma much resembles the Latin r. Delta should be closely scrutinized. Hs most ancient shape is an equilateral triangle, the sides being all of the same thickness (A). Cod. Claromontanus, though of the sixth century, is in this instance as simple as any: the Herculanean rolls, Codd. Vatican., Sinait., and the very old copy of the Pentateuch at Paris (Colbert) and Leyden, much resemble it, only that sometimes the Herculanean sides are slightly curved, and the right descending stroke of Cod. Vatican. is thickened. Im Cod. A begins a tendency to prolong the base on one or both sides, and to strengthen the ends by points; we see a little more of this in the palimpsest Homer of the fifth century, S. 3 34 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS published by Cureton. The habit increases and gradually becomes confirmed in Codd. Ephraemi (No. 24), the Vatican Dio Cassius of the 5th or 6th century, in Cod. R, and particularly in N and E of the Acts (Nos. 4, 14, 25). In the oblong later uncials it becomes quite elaborate, e.g. Cod. B of the Apocalypse, or Nos. 7, 21, 32. On the Rosetta stone and in the Cod. Bez the right side is produced beyond the triangle, and is produced and slightly curved in Hyper- ides; curved and strongly pointed in Cod. Ζ. Epsilon has its ordinary angular form on the Rosetta marble and other inscriptions ; in the oldest manuscripts it consists of a semi- circle, from whose centre to the right of it a horizontal radius is drawn to the concave cireumference. Thus it appears in the Hercu- Janeum rolls (only that here the radius is usually broken off before it meets the circle), in Codd. Frid.-August., Vatican., the two Paris Pentateuchs (Coibert-Leyden 4th cent., Coislin. 6th) and the Cotton Genesis. In Cod. Alex. a slight trace is found of the more recent practice of strengthening each of the three extremities with knobs ; the custom increases in Codd. Ephraemi, Bez and still more in Codd. NRZ, wherein the curve becomes greater than a semicircle. In Hyperides (and in a slighter degree in Cod. Claromon, No. 19) the shape almost resembles the Latin 6. The form of this and the other round letters was afterwards much affected in the narrow oblong uncials: see Nos. 7, 16, 32. Zeta on the Rosetta stone maintains its old form (=), which is indeed but the next letter reversed. In manuscripts it receives its usual modern shape (Z), the ends being pointed decidedly, slightly, or not at all, much after the manner described for epsilon. In old copies the lower horizontal line is a trifle curved (Cod. R, No. 5), or even both the extreme lines (Cod. Z, No. 6), and Cod. Augiensis of St Paul. In such late books as Parham 18 (a.p. 980, facsim. No. 32) Zeta is so large as to run far below the line, ending in a kind of tail. Kita does not depart from its normal shape (H) except that in Cod. Ephraemi (No. 24) and some narrow and late uncials (e.g. Nos. 7, 32) the cross line is often more than half way up the letter. Ina few later uncials the cross line passes outside the two perpendiculars, as in the Cod. Augiensis, 26 times on the photographed page of Seri- vener’s edition. Theta deserves close attention. In some early inscriptions it is found as a square, bisected horizontally (Q). On the Rosetta stone and most others (but only in such monuments) it is a circle, with a strong central point. On the Herculanean rolls the central point is spread into a short horizontal line, yet not reaching the cirecum- ference (No. 10,1. 8). Thence in our uncials from the fourth to the sixth century the line becomes a horizontal diameter to a true circle -(Codd. Vatican. Sinait. Codd. ANRZ, Ephraemi, Claromont. and Cureton’s Homer). In the 7th century the diameter began to pass out of the circle on both sides: thence the circle came to be com- pressed into an ellipse (sometimes very narrow) and the ends of the minor axis to be ornamented with knobs, as in Cod. B of the Apoca- ° OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 35 lypse (8th cent.), Cod. Augiensis (9th cent.), LX of the Gospels, after the manner of the 10th century (Nos. 7, 16, 21, 32, 33). Iota would need no remark but for the custom of placing over it and upsilon, when they commence a syllable, either a very short straight line, or one or two dots. After the papyrus rolls, no copy is quite without them, from the Codex Alexandrinus, the Cotton Genesis and Paris-Leyden Pentateuch, to the more recent cursives ; although in some manuscripts they are much rarer than in others. By far the most usual practice is to put two points, but Cod. Eph- raemi, in its Vew Testament portion, stands nearly alone in exhibiting the straight line; Cod. Sinaiticus employs two points or a straight line promiscuously over both vowels, and in Wake 12, a cursive of the eleventh century, the former frequently pass into the latter in writing. Codd. Borgianus (Tf) and Claromont. have but one point; Cod. N has two for iota, one for wpsilon. Kappa deserves notice chiefly because the vertex of the angle formed by the two inclined lines very frequently does not meet the perpendicular line, but falls short of it a little to the right: we observe this in Codd. ANR, Ephraemi, and later books. The copies that have strong points at the end of epsilon &c., (e.g. Codd. NR and AZ partly) have the same at the extremity of the thin, or upper limb of Kappa. In Cod. D a fine horizontal stroke runs a little to the left from the bottom of the vertical line. Compare also the initial letter in Cod. M, No. 29. Lambda much resembles alpha, but is less complicated. All our models (except Harl. 5598, No. 7) from the Rosetta stone downwards, have the right limb longer than the left, which thus leans against its side, but the length of the projection varies even in the same passage (e.g. No 10). In most copies later than the Herculanean rolls and Cod. Sinaiticus the shorter line is much the thinner, and the longer slightly curved. In Cod. Z (Nos. 6, 18) the projection is curved elegantly at the end, as we saw in delta. Mu varies as much as most letters. Its normal shape, resembling the English M, is retained in the Rosetta stone and most inscriptions, but at an early period there was a tendency to make the letter broader and not to bring the re-entering or middle angle so low as in English (e.g. Codd. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). In Cod. Ephraemi this cen- tral angle is sometimes a little rounded: in Codd. Alex. and Parham 18 the lines forming the angle do not always spring from the top of the vertical lines: in Arund. 547 (No. 16) they spring almost from their foot, forming a thick inelegant loop below the line, the letter being rather narrow: Harl. 5598 (No. 7) somewhat resembles this last, only that the loop is higher up. In the Hereulanean rolls (and to a less extent in the Cotton Genesis) the two outer lines cease to be perpendicular, and lean outwards until the letter looks much like an inverted W (No. 10). In the papyrus Hyperides (No. 9) these outer lines are low curves, and the central lines rise in a kind of flourish above them. Jw assumes this shape at the end of a line even in Codd. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The initial letter in the last line of Plate vin. No. 20 (Cod. Vatican.), however, betrays a later hand. 5—2 36 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS This form is so much exaggerated in some examples, that by discard- ing the outer curves we obtain the shape seen in Cod. Z (Nos. 6, 18), and one or two others (e.g. Paul M. in Harl. 5613, No. 38), almost exactly resembling an inverted pi. Nu is easier, the only change (besides the universal transition from the square to the oblong in the later uncials) being that in a few cases the thin cross line does not pass from the top of the left to the bottom of the right vertical line as in English (N), but only half way or two-thirds down in the Cotton Genesis, Cod. A, Harl. 5598 (No. 7), and others; in Codd. sNR Parham 18 it often neither springs from the top of one, nor reaches the foot of the other (Nos. 4, 5, 110, 12, 32); while in Cod. Claromont. (No. 19) it is here and there not far from horizontal. In a few cwrsives (e. g. 440 Evan. at Cambridge, and Tischendorf’s lo or 61 of the Acts), H and N almost interchange their shapes: so in Evan, 66 and Wake 34 at the end of a line only. Xi in the Rosetta stone and Herculanean rolls consists of three parallel straight lines, the middle one being the shortest, as in modern printed Greek: but all our Biblical manuscripts exhibit modifications of the small printed g, which must be closely inspected, but cannot easily be described. Τὰ the Cotton Genesis this Αὐ is narrow and smaller than its fellows, much like an old English Z resting on a horizontal base which curves downwards: while in late uncials, as B of the Apocalypse, Cod. Augiensis (I. 13 Serivener’s photographed page), and especially in Parham 18 (No. 32), the letter and its flourished — finial are continued fax below the line. For the rest we must refer to our facsimile alphabets, ἄς. The figures in Cod. Frid.- August. (Nos. 3, lla, ll. 3,8) look particularly awkward. In Cod. E and Mr Brad- shaw’s fragment W4 ai is the common Z with a large horizontal line over it, strengthened by knobs at each end. Omicron is unchanged, excepting that in the latest uncials (No. 16, 32) the circle is mostly compressed, like theta, into a very eccentric ellipse. Pi requires attevtion. Its original shape was doubtless two ver- tical straight lines joined at top by another horizontal, thinner per- haps but not much shorter than they. Thus we meet with it on the Rosetta stone, Codd. R, Vatican., Sinaiticus, Ephraemi, Claromonta- nus, Laud. of the Acts, the two Pentateuchs, Cureton’s Homer, and sometimes Cod. Atexand. (No. 12). The fine horizontal line is, how- ever, slightly produced on both sides in such early documents as the papyri of Hyperides and Herculaneum, and the Cotton Genesis, as well as in Cod. Alexand. occasionally. Both extremities of this line are fortified by strong points in Cod. N and mostly in Cod. A, but the left side only in Cod. Z, and this in Cod. Bezze oecasionally becomes a sort of hooked curve. The later oblong pi was usually very plain, with thick vertical lines and a very fine horizontal, in Arund. 547 (No. 16) not at all produced; in Harl. 5598 (No. 7) slightly produced on both sides; in Parham 18 (No, 32) only on the left. Rho is otherwise simple, but in all our authorities except inserip- tions is produced below the line of writing, least perhaps in the OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. oY papyri and Cod. Claromont., considerably in Cod. AX (Nos. 12, 33), most in Parham 18 (No. 32): Cod. N and many later copies have the lower extremity boldly bevelled. The form is P rather than P in Codd. SA. In Cod. D a horizontal stroke, longer and thicker than in kappa, runs to the left from the bottom of the vertical line. Sigma retains its angular shape (C or 3) only on inscriptions, as at Rosetta, and that long after the square shapes of omicron and theta were discarded. The semicircular form, however, arose early, and to this letter must be applied all that was said of epsilon as regards terminal points (a knob at the lower extremity occurs even in Cod. δὲ, e.g. Acts ii. 31), and its cramped shape in later ages. Tau in its oldest form consists of two straight lines of like thick- ness, the horizontal being bisected by the lower and vertical one. As early as in Cod, Sinaiticus the horizontal line is made thin, and strengthened on the left side on/y by a point or small knob (Nos, 3, 11): thus we find it in Cod. Laud. of the Acts sometimes. In Cod. Alex. both ends are slightly pointed, in Cod. Ephraem. and others much more. In Cod. Beze the horizontal is curved and flourished; in the late uncials the vertical is very thick, the horizontal fine, and the ends formed into heavy triangles (e.g. No. 16). Upsilon on the Rosetta stone and Hereulanean rolls is like our Y, all the strokes being of equal thickness and not running below the line: nor do they in Hyperides or in Codd XZ and Augiensis, which have the upper lines neatly curved (Nos. 6, 9, 18, 33). The right limb of many of the rest is sometimes, but not always curved; the vertical line in Codd. Vatican. and Sinaiticus dreps slightly beluw the line; in Codd. A’exand., Ephraem., Cotton Genesis, Cureton’s Homer and Laud. of the Acts somewhat more; in others (as Codd. Bez NR) considerably. In later uncials (Nos. 7, 32) it becomes a long or awkward Y, or even degenerates into along V (No. 16); or, in copies written by Latin scribes, into Y reversed. We have described under iota the custom of placing dots ὅθ. over upsilon. Phi is a remarkable letter. In most copies it is the largest in the alphabet, quite disproportionately large in Codd. ZL (Paris 62) and others, and to some extent in Codd. AR, Ephraem. and Claromont. The circle (which in the Cotton Genesis is sometimes still a lozenge, see above, p. 31 note 1), though large and in some copies even too broad (e.g. No. 18), is usually in the line of the other letters, the vertical line being produced far upwards (Cod. Augiens, and Nos. 16, 19), or downwards (No. 10), or both (No. 32). On the Rosetta stone the circle is very small and the straight line short. Chi is a simple transverse cross (X) and never goes above or below the line. The limb that inclines from left to right is for the most part thick, the other thin (with final points according to the practice stated for epsilon), and this limb or both a little curved. Psi is a rare but trying letter. Its oldest form resembled an English V with a straight line running up bisecting its interior angle. On the Rosetta stone it had already changed into its present form (WV), the curve being a small semicircle, the vertical rising and falling a 38 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS little below the line. In the Cotton Genesis ps? is a little taller than the rest, but the vertical line does not rise above the level of the circle. In Codd, ANR the under line is prolonged: in R the two limbs are straight lmes making an angle of about 45° with the vertical, while oftentimes in Hyperides and Cod. Augiensis (Scrivener’s photograph, 11. 18, 23) they curve downwards; the limbs both in N and R being strongly pointed at the ends, and the bottom of the vertical bevelled as usual. In Cod. B of the Apocalypse, in Evan. OW“%Z, and even in Hyperides the limbs (strongly pointed) fall into a straight line, and the figure becomes a large cross (No. 7). In Evan. 66 the vertical is crossed above the semicircle by a minute horizontal line. Omega took the form Ὦ, even when omicron and theta were square; thus it appears on the Rosetta stone, but in the Hyperides and Herculanean rolls is a single curve, much like the w of English writing, only that the central part is sometimes only a low double curve (No. 19, 1. 6). In the Cotton Genesis, Codd. Vatican, Sinaiti- cus, Alex., Ephraem., Bez, Claromont., Nitriens. there is little difference in shape, though sometimes Cod. Vatican. comes near the Herculanean rolls, and Cod. Alex. next to it: elsewhere their strokes (especially those in the centre) are fuller and more laboured. Yet in Cod. N it often is but a plain semicircle, bisected by a perpendicular radius, with the ends of the curve bent inwards (No, 14, 1. 2). In the late uncials (Nos. 7, 16) it almost degenerates into an ungraceful W, while in Cod. Augiensis (photograph, ἰ. 18) the first limb is occa- sionally a complete circle. These details might be indefinitely added to by references to other codices and monuments of antiquity, but we have em- ployed most of the principal copies of the Greek Testament, and have indicated to the student the chief points to which his at- tention should be drawn. Two leading principles have perhaps been sufficiently established by the foregoing examples: First, that the upright square uncials are more ancient than those which are narrow, oblong, or leaning’. Secondly, that the simpler and less elaborate the style of writing, the more remote is its probable date. Copies of a later age occasionally aim at imitating the fashion of an earlier period, or possibly the style of the older book from which their text is drawn. But this anachronism of fashion may be detected, as well by other circumstances we are soon to mention, as from the,air of constraint which pervades the whole manuscript: the rather as the scribe will now and 1 Codd. B. of Apocalypse, O* A (No. 39) of the Gospels, and Silvestre’s No. 68, all of about the 8th century, slope more or less to the right; Cod. I (No. 40) of the 9th century, a very little to the left. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 39 then fall into the more familiar manner of his contemporaries; especially when writing those small letters which our Biblical manuscripts of all dates (even the most venerable) perpetually crowd into the ends of lines, in order to save space. 11. We do not intend to dwell much on the cursive hand- writing. No books of the Greek Scriptures earlier than the tenth century in that style are now extant’, though it was pre- valent long before in the intercourse of business or common life. The papyri of Hyperides (e.g. No. 9) and the Herculanean rolls, in a few places, shew that the process had even then commenced, for the letters of each word are often joined, and their shapes prove that swiftness of execution was more aimed at than distinctness. This is seen even more clearly in a petition to Ptolemy Philometor (B.c. 164) represented in the Paléographie Universelle (No. 56); the same great work contains (No. 66) two really cursive charters of the Emperors Maurice (A.D. 600) and Heraclius (A.D. 616); yet the earliest books known to be written in cursive letters are the Bodleian Euclid (dated Α. Ὁ. 838) and the twenty-four dialogues of Plato in the same Library (dated A.D. 895)”. There is reason to believe, from the compa- ratively unformed character of the writing in them all, that 1 The earliest cursive Biblical manuscript hitherto alleged is Silvestre, No. 78, Paris 70, Wetstein’s 14 of the Gospels, with the subscription ἐγράφη νικηφόρου βασιλεύοντος wd. ζ΄, which could only have been a.p. 964, and the sovereign Nicephorus II: the years neither of the first emperor of that name (802—811)}, nor of the third (1078—81) will suit the indiction. But Mr Burgon informs us (Guardian, Jan. 15, 1873) that ‘the exquisite writing cannot be of nearly the antiquity claimed for it. On examination the manuscript proves to have no inscription whatever. On folio 392, in a comparatively modern hand, is rather uncouthly written ἐγράφθη νικηφόρου βασιλεύοντος A. Z. What the initials A.Z. stand for I do not know.” The claim of priority for Cod. 14 being thus disposed of, we may note that Cod. 429 of the Gospels is dated 978, Cod. 148 of the Acts 984, Cod. 5P° 994. The date (835) assigned to Cod. 461 by Scholz seems quite improbable, though the Indiction (13) is correct. 2 At the end of the Euclid we read eypady χειρι στεφανου κληρικου μηνι σεπτεμ- βριωι wo. ετει κοσμου ς τοῦ εκτησαμὴν αρεθας πατρεὺς τὴν παρουσαν βιβλιον : of the Plato, εγραφὴη xeupe ww καλλιγραφου * ευτυχως αρεθη διακονωι πατρει" vouLoMaTwy Bugavricwy δεκα καὶ τριων " μηνι νοεμβριωι ινδικτιωνος ιδ΄ ετει κοσμου sud βασιλειας Neovros Tov φιλοχυ υἱου βασιλειου του αειμνιστου. It should be stated that these very curious books, both written by monks, and all the dated manuscripts of the Greek Testament we have seen except Canonici 34 in the Bodleian (which reckons from the Christian wra, a.p, 1515—6), calculate from the Greek xra of the 40 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS Burney 19 in the British Museum (from which we have ex- tracted the alphabet No. ὃ, Plate III.), and the minute, beau- tiful and important Codex 1 of the Gospels at Basle (of which see a facsimile No, 23)" are but little later than the Oxford books, and may be referred to the tenth century. Books copied after the cursive hand had become regularly formed, in the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries, are hard to be dis- tinguished by the mere handwriting, though they are often dated, or their age fixed by the material (see p. 23), or the style of their illuminations. Colbert. 2844, or 33 of the Gospels, “the Queen of the cursives,” as it has been called from its eri- tical value (facsim. No. 34), is attributed to the eleventh cen- tury. Our next specimen, Burney 21 (facsimile No. 15) is dated A.D. 1292, and affords a good example of the style usual with the religious persons who were the official scribes (καλλί- γραφοι)" of their respective convents, and copied the Holy Serip- tures for sale. Beta (1. 1 letter 4), when joined to other letters, is barely distinguishable from wpsilon*®; nu is even nearer to mu; the tall forms of eta and epsilon are very graceful, the whole style elegant and, after a little practice, easily read. Burney 22 (facsimile No. 36) is dated about the same time, Creation, September 1, B.c. 5508. To obtain the year a.p., therefore, from January 1 to August 31 in any year, subtract 5508 from the given year; from September 1 to December 31 subtract 5509. The indiction which usually accom- panies this date is a useful check in case of any corruption or want of legibility in the letters employed as numerals, 1 For the facsimiles of Codd. FGHUX we are indebted to the great kind- ness of Dr Tregelles, who permitted an artist to copy them from tracings of one whole page of every manuscript he has collated which he took with his own hand. Those of BEKLM 1, 33 and D Paul are from photographs most liberally presented to me for this purpose by Mr Burgon. 2 The writer of Burney 21 (γ5 1), 6 ramewos Ocodwpos ἁγιωπετριτὴς ταχα και καλλίγραφος as he calls himself (that is, as I had supposed, monk of the Conyent of Sancta Petra at Constantinople, short-hand and fair writer), was the seribe of at least five more copies of Scripture now extant: Birch’s Havn. 1, A.p, 1278 [Scholz Evan. 234]; Wetstein’s Evan. 90, a.p. 1293; q*" a.p. 1295; Scholz’s Evan. 412, A.D.1301; Wetstein’s Evan. 74, undated. To this list Delitasch (Zeitschr. Δ luth. Theol. 1863, 11., Abhandlungen, pp. 217—8) adds from Matthaei, Synaxarion in Mose. Syn. Typograph. xxvr. A.D. 1295, and recognises Hagios Petros, the country of Theodoros, as a town in the Morea, on the borders of Arcadia, from whose school students have attended his own lectures at Erlangen. 3 Hence in the later uncials, some of which must therefore have been copied from earlier cursives, B and T (which might seem to have no resemblance) are confounded: e.g. in Parham 18 (a.p. 980), υ for B, Luke yi, 84; 8 for v, John x. 1. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 41 A,D. 1319, and the four Biblical lines much resemble Burney 21, but the lines below, containing the date (which yet on the whole seem to be primd manu) are so full of flourishes and con- tractions, that they cannot easily be deciphered at a first glance’. In the fourteenth century a careless style came into fashion, of which Cod. Leicestrensis (No. 35) is an exaggerated instance, and during this century and the next our manuscripts, though not devoid of a certain beauty of appearance, are too full of arbitrary and elaborate contractions to be conveniently read. The formidable lists of abbreviations and ligatures repre- sented in Donaldson’s Greek Grammar (p. 20, 2nd ed.) origi- nated at this period in the perverse ingenuity of the Greek emigrants in the West of Europe, who subsisted by their skill as copyists; and these pretty puzzles (for such they now are to many a fair classical scholar), by being introduced into early printed books’, have largely helped to withdraw them from use in modern times. 12. We have now to describe the practice of Biblical manu- scripts as regards the insertion of ὁ forming a diphthong with the long vowels efa and omega, whether by being ascript, i.e. written by their side, or swbscrzpt, 1.6. written under them. In the earliest inscriptions and in the papyri of Thebes ὁ ascript (the zofa not smaller than the other letters) is inva-° riably found. In the petition to Ptolemy Philometor (above, p. 39) it occurs four times in the first line, three times in the third: in the fragments of Hyperides it is perpetually though not always read, even where (especially with verbs) it has no rightful place, e.g. eras καὶ avTiBorws ( facsim. No. 9, ll. 3, 4) for αἰτῶ καὶ ἀντιβολῶ. A little before the Christian era it began to grow obsolete, probably from its being lost in pronunciation. In the Herculanean Philodemus (the possible limits of whose date is from B.C. 50 to A.D, 79) it is often dropped, though more usually written. In Cod. Sinaiticus it is very rare, and from 1 The full signature is ἐτελειώθη τὸ παρὸν ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ τὴν Kf τοῦ ἰαν- νουαρίου μηνὸς τῆς [2] ax ζ ἐγχρονίας. Presuming that s is suppressed before w x ¢ this is 6827 of the Greeks, a.p. 1319. 2 Thus the type cast for the Royal Printing office at Paris, and used by Robert Stephens, is said to have been modelled on the style of the calligrapher Angelus Vergecius, from whose skill arose the expression ‘‘ he writes like an angel.’’ Codd. 296 of the Gospels, 124 of the Acts, 151 of St Paul are in his hand, 42 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS this period it almost disappears from Biblical uncials'; im Cureton’s Homer of the fifth or perhaps of the sixth century ὁ ascript is sometimes neglected, but usually inserted; sometimes also ἐ 15 placed above H or QO, an arrangement neither neat nor convenient. With the cursive character ὁ ascript came in again, as may be seen from the subscriptions in the Bodleian Euclid and Plato (page 39, note 2). The semi-cursive fragment of St Paul’s Epistles in red letters (No. 38), used for the binding of Harleian 5613, contains ὁ ascript twice, but I have tried in vain to verify Griesbach’s statement (Symbol. Crit. 11. p. 166) that it has ¢ subscript “bis tantum aut ter.” I can find no such instance in these leaves. The cursive manuscripts, speaking generally, either entirely omit both forms, or, if they give either, far more often neglect than insert them. Cod. 1 of the Gospels exhibits the ascript 4. Of 43 codices now in England which have been examined with a view to this matter, twelve have no vestige of either fashion, fifteen represent the ascript use, nine the subscript exclusively, while the few that remain have both indifferently. The earliest cursive copy ascertained to ex- hibit ὁ subscript (and that but a few times) is the Cod. Ephesius or Wetstein’s 71, dated A.D. 1160. The subscript « came much in vogue during the 15th century, and thus was adopted in printed books. 13. Breathings and accents present more difficulty, by rea- son of a practice which prevailed about the 7th or 8th centuries of inserting them in older manuscripts, where they were absent prima manu. That such was done in many instances (e.g. in Codd. Vatican. and Coislin. 202 or H of St Paul) appears clearly from the fact that the passages which the scribe who retouched the old letters (p. 25) for any cause left unaltered, are destitute of these marks, though they appear in all other places. The case of Cod. Alexandrinus is less easy. Though the rest of the book has neither spirits (except a few here and there) nor accents, the first four lines of each column of the book of Genesis (see facsimile No. 12), which are written in red, are fully furnished with them. These marks Baber, who edited the Old Testa- 1 Yet Tischendorf (N.T. 1859, Proleg. p. exxxiii) cites ηιδισαν from Cod. Bezw (Mark i. 34), ξυλως (Luke xxiii. 31) from Cod. Cyprius, w: from Cod. U (Matth. xxv. 15) and Cod. A (Luke vii. 4). Add Cod, Bez marpaov Acts xxii. 3, Scrive- ner’s edition, Introd, p. xix. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 43 ment portion of Cod. A, pronounced to be by a second hand (Note, p. 1); Sir Frederick Madden, a more competent judge, declares them the work of the original scribe (Madden’s Sil- vestre, Vol. 1. p. 194 note), and after repeated examination we know not how to dissent from his view. The Cureton palim- psest of Homer also has them, though they are occasionally obli- terated, and some few are evidently inserted by a corrector; the case is nearly so with the Milan Homer edited by Mai; and the same must be stated of the Vienna Dioscorides (Silvestre No. 62), whose date is fixed by internal evidence to about A.p. 500. These facts, and others like these, may make us hesitate to adopt the notion generally received among scholars on the autho- rity of Montfaucon (Palaweogr. Graec. p. 33), that breathings and accents were not introduced primd manu before the 7th or 8th century ; though even at that period, no doubt, they were placed very incorrectly, and often omitted altogether. The breathings are much the more ancient and important of the two, The spiritus lents indeed may be a mere invention of the Alexandrian grammarians of the second or third century before Christ, but the spiritus asper is in fact the substitute for a real letter (H) which appears on the oldest inscriptions; its original shape being the first half of the H (\—), of which the second half was subsequently adopted for the lenis (—). This form is some- times found in manuscripts of about the eleventh century (e.g. Lebanon, B.M. Addit. 11300 or k*", and usually in Lambeth 1178 or d**), but even in the Cod. Alexandrinus the comma and inverted comma are several times substituted to represent the lenis and asper respectively (facsim. No. 12): and at a later period this last was the ordinary, though not quite the invariable mode of expressing the breathings. Aristophanes of Byzantium (Keeper of the famous Library at Alexandria under Ptolemy Kuergetes, about B.c. 240), though probably not the inventor of the Greek accents, was the first to arrange them into a system. Accentuation must have been a welcome aid to those who employed Greek as a learned, though not as their vernacular tongue, and is so convenient and suggestive that no modern scholar can afford to dispense with its familiar use: yet not being, like the rough breathing, an essential portion of the lan- guage, it was but slowly brought into general vogue. It would seem that in Augustine’s age [3854430] the distinction be- 44 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS tween the smooth and rough breathing in manuscripts was just such a point as a careful reader would mark, a hasty one over- look’. Hence it is not surprising that though these marks are entirely absent both from the Theban and Herculanean papyri, a few breathings are apparently by the first hand in Cod. Bor- gianus or T (Tischendorf, N. T. 1859, Proleg. p. exxxi). One rough breathing is just visible in that early palimpsest of St John’s Gospel, 1" or Ν᾽, Such as appear, together with some accents in the Coislin Octateuch of the 6tb or 7th century, may not the less be primd manu because many pages are destitute of them; those of Cod. Claromontanus, which were once deemed original, are now pronounced by its editor Tischen- dorf to be a later addition. Cod. N, the purple fragment so often spoken of already, exhibits primd manu over some vowels a kind of smooth breathing or slight acute accent, sometimes little larger than a point, but on no intelligible principle, so far as we can see, and far oftener omits it entirely: all copies of Scripture which have not been specified, down to the end of the 7th century, are quite destitute of breathings and accents. An important manuscript of the 8th or 9th century, Cod. L or Paris 62 of the Gospels, has them for the most part, but not always ; though often in the wrong place, and at times in utter defiance of all grammatical rules. Cod. B of the Apocalypse, however, though of the same age, has breathings and accents as con- stantly and correctly as most. Codices of the ninth century, with the exception of three written in the West of Europe (Codd. Augiensis or Paul F, Sangallensis or A of the Gospels and Boernerianus or Paul G, which will be particularly described in the next section), are all accompanied with these marks in full, though often set down without any precise rule, so far as our experience has enabled us to observe. The uncial Evange- listaria (e.g. Arundel 547; Parham 18; Harleian 5598), espe- cially, are much addicted to prefixing the spiritus asper impro- perly; chiefly, perhaps, to words beginning with H, so that 1 He is speaking (Question, super Genes, elxii.) of the difference between ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ and ῥάβδου αὑτοῦ, Gen. xlvii. 31. ‘‘ Fallit enim eos verbum Grecum, quod eisdem literis scribitur, sive ejus, sive sue ; sed accentus [he must mean the breathings] dispares sunt, et ab eis, qui ista noverunt, in codicibus non contem- nuntur’’ (Opera, Tom. ry. p. 53, ed. 1586, Lugdun.); adding that ‘‘ sue” might be expressed by ἑαυτοῦ, OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 45 documents of that age are but poor authorities on such points. Of the cursives the general tendency is to be more and more accurate as regards the accentuation, the later the date: but this is only a general rule, as some that are early are as careful, and certain of the latest as negligent as can well be imagined, All of them are partial to placing accents or breathings over both parts of a word compounded with a preposition (e.g. él- συνάξαι), and on the other hand often drop them between a preposition and its case (e.g. ἐπάροτρον). 14. The punctuation in early times was very simple. In the papyri of Hyperides there are no stops at all; in the Herculanean -rolls exceeding few: Codd. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (the latter very rarely by the first hand) have a single point here and there on a level with the top of the letters, and occasionally a very small break in the continuous uncials, with or (as always in Cod. I of the sixth century) without the point, to denote a pause in the sense; Codd. A N have the same point a little oftener; in Codd. C W? (Paris 314) Z the single point stands indiscriminately at the head, middle or foot of the letters, while in E (Basil. A. N. ii. 12) of the Gospels and B of the Apocalypse this change in the position of the point indicates a full-stop, half stop, or comma respectively. In Cod. L of the same date as these two, besides the full point we have the comma (::.) and semicolon (::), with a cross also for a stop. In Codd. Y ©* (of about the eighth century) the single point has its various powers as in Cod. E, &c., but besides this are double, treble, and in Cod. Y quad- ruple, pots with different powers. In late uncials, especially Evangelistaria, the chief stop is a cross, often in red (e.g. Arund. 547); while in Harleian 5598 2 seems to be the note of interrogation’. When the continuous writing came to be broken up into separate words (of which Cod. Augiensis in the ninth century affords one of the earliest examples) the single point was intended to be placed after the last letter of each word, on a level with the middle of the letters. But even in this copy it is often omitted in parts, and in Codd. AG, written on the same plan, more frequently still. Our statements refer only to the Greek portions of these copies; the Latin semicolon (;) 1 In the Gale Evangelistarium (Trin. Coll. Camb, O. 4. 22) the interrogative clause is set between two such marks in red. Henceit seems not so much a stop as a vocal note. 46 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS and the note of interrogation (?) occur in the Latin versions. The Greek interrogation (;) first occurs about the ninth century, and (,) used as a stop alittle later. In the earliest cursives the system of punctuation is much the same as that of printed books: the English colon (:) not bemg much used, but the upper single point in its stead’. Ina few cursives (e.g. Gonville or 59 of the Gospels), this upper point, set in a larger space, stands also for a full stop: indeed () is the only stop found in Tischendorf’s lo“ or 61 of the Acts (Brit. Mus. Add. 20,003): while (;) and () are often confused in 440 of the Gospels (Cantab. Mm. 6. 9). The English comma, placed above a letter, is used for the apostro- phus, which occurs in the very oldest uncials, especially at the end of proper names, or to separate compounds (e.g. az’ ορφανισ- θεντες in Cod. Clarom.), or when the word ends in & or p (e.g. capé in Cod. B, θυγατηρ᾽ in Codd. Sinait. and A, χειρ᾽ in Cod. A, ὥσπερ᾽ Dioscorides, A.D. 500), or even to divide syllables (e.g. cupiy yas in Cod. Frid.-August., woN Xa, KaTeoTpay evn, ἀναγ - γελι In Cod. Sinaiticus). This mark is more rare in Cod. Ephraemi than in some others, but is used more or less by all, and is found after εξ, or ovy, and a few like words, even in the most recent cursives. In Cod. Bezze and others it assumes the shape of > rather than that of a comma. 15. Abbreviated words are perhaps least met with in Cod. Vatican., but even it has @c, xo, wo, yo, mva for θεός, κύριος, ingots, χριστός, πνεῦμα, Kc. and their cases. Besides these Codd. Sinaiticus, Alex., Ephraem. and the rest supply avoc, ουνοσ, Np, HNP; An OF LNAp OF UNM, Mr OF Lor OY MA, bad, and some 9 of them onp for σώτηρ, va for υἱός, παρνος for παρθένος, σρσ for σταυρός : Cod. L has ave’, and Cod. Vatican. in the Old Testament avos and apo occasionally, wr and ἐλὴμ or τὰμ often®. Cod. Bezee always writes at length ἄνθρωπος, μη- 1 Professor Ezra Abbot of Harvard University has found perhaps the earliest known example of the use of two dots like our colon for separating paragraphs in a letter of a certain Dionysius to Ptolemy about B.c. 160, published by the French Institute, 1865, in ‘‘ Papyrus grecs du Musée du Louvre,” &¢. Tom, xvii. 2° ptie, pl. xxxtv., pap. 49 (Journal of American Oriental Society, Vol. x. No. 1, p. 195, 1872). The same double points are also occasionally set in the larger spaces of Codd. Sinaiticus and Bezw, but in the latter copy for the most part in a later hand. 2 Abbot, ubi supra. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 47 Typ. υἷος, σωτὴρ, ovpavos, Saved, ἱερουσαλημ; but abridges the sacred names into ypo, ino! &c. and their cases, as very frequently, but by no means invariably, do the kindred Codd. Augiens., Sangall., and Boerner. A few dots sometimes supply the place of the line denoting abbreviation (e.g. 6c Cotton Genesis, avoc Colbert. Pentateuch). A straight line over the last letter of a line indicates N (or also M in the Latin of Codd. Beze and Claromont.) in all the Biblical uncials, but is placed only over numerals in the Herculanean rolls: eae and less often A. for καί, -ταῖ, -θαι are met with in Cod. Sinaiticus and all later: y for ov chiefly in Codd. L, Augiensis, B of the Apocalypse, and the more recent uncials. Such compendia scribendi as -F in the Herculanean rolls (above p. 29) occur mostly at the end of lines: that form, with ΜΟΥ (No. 118, 1. 4), and a few more even in the Cod. Sinaiticus; in Cureton’s Homer we have II° for πους, Cs for -cas and such like. In later books they are more nu- merous and complicated, particularly in cursive writing: the terminations ° for os, ~ for ν, ‘ for ov,” for ais, ~ for wy or ὦ or ws, * for 4s,” for ov are familiar ; besides others, peculiar to one or a few copies, e.g. ry for rr in Burney 19, and Burdett-Coutts 1.4, ἢ for av, Ὁ for ep, ~ for a, "Ὁ for ap in the Emmanuel College copy of the Epistles (Paul 30, No. 41), and : for a, “for ἂν, ν for as in Parham 17 of the Apocalypse. Other more rare abridge- ments are * for εἰς in Wake 12, ν (Burdett-Coutts 1. 4) or < for ev, for ἐν, 5 for av, > for ots,» for as,7 or * for οἷς, 7 for Te or -τες or THY or Tov," for εἰν, εἰ for ous or ws (Gale O. 4. 29). The mark > is not only met with in the Herculanean rolls, but in the Hyperides (facsim. 9, 1. 6), in Codd. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the two Pentateuchs, Codd. Augiensis, Sangall. and Boerne- rianus, and seems merely designed to fill up vacant space, like the flourishes in a legal instrument. Capital letters of a larger size than the rest at the beginning of clauses, &c. are freely met with in all documents excepting in the oldest papyri, the Herculanean rolls, Codd. Vatican., Sinaiticus, the Colbert Pentateuch and one or two fragments besides*. Their absence 1 Even Codex Sinaiticus has τὴν and w in consecutive lines (Apoce. xxii. 20, 21), and χρυ Rom. vii. 4. 2 “Fragmenta pauca evangelii Johannis palimpsesta Londinensia [Evan. I” or N?] In ceteris hee fere tria: Dionis Cassii fragmenta Vaticana—vix enim qui in his videntur speciem majorum litterarum habere revera differunt—item frag- 48 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS is a proof of high antiquity. Yet even in Codd. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (in the former most frequently in the earlier portions of the Old Testament), the initial letter stands a little outside the line of writing after a break in the sense, whether the preceding line had been quite filled up or not. Such breaks occur more regularly in Codex Bez, as will appear when we come to describe it’. Moreover, all copies of what- ever date are apt to crowd small letters into the end of a line to save room (p. 39), and if these small letters preserve the form of the larger, it is reasonable to conclude that the scribe is writing in a natural hand, not an assumed one, and the argu- ment for the antiquity of such a document, derived from the shape of its letters, thus becomes all the stronger. The con- tinuous form of writing separate words must have prevailed in manuscripts long after it was obsolete in common life: Cod. Claromont., whose text is continuous even in its Latin version, divides the words in the inscriptions and subscriptions to the several books. 16. The stichometry of the sacred books has next to be considered. The term στίχοι, like the Latin versus, originally referring whether to rows of trees, or of the oars in the trireme (Virg. din. v. 119), would naturally come to be applied to lines of poetry, and in this sense it is used by Pindar (ἐπέων στίχες Pyth. wv. 100) and also by Theocritus (γράψον καὶ τόδε γράμμα, τό σοι στίχοισι χαραξω Idyl. xxii. 46), if the common reading be correct. Now not only do Athanasius [d. 373], Gregory Nyssen [d. 396], Epiphanius [d. 403], and Chrysostom [d. 407] inform us that in their time the book of Psalms was already divided into στίχοι, while Jerome [d. 420 7] testifies the same for the prophecies of Isaiah; but Origen also [d. 254] speaks of the second and third Epistles of 8. John as both of them menta palimpsesta [Phaéthontis] Euripidis Claromontana et fragmenta Menandri Porphiriana” (Tischendorf. Cod. Vatic. Proleg. p. xviii. 1867). 1 The English word paragraph is derived from the παραγραφαί, which are often straight lines, placed in the margin to indicate a pause in the sense, Pro- — fessor Abbot, ubi supra, p. 195, alleges not a few instances where these dashes are thus employed. A specimen is given in Scrivener’s Cod. Sinaitieus, fae- simile 3: see his Cod. Sin., Introduction, p. xl. and note. In Cod. Beze I is set in the margin 49 times by a later hand, and must be designed for the same purpose, though the mark sometimes occurs where we should hardly look for it (Scrivener, Cod. Beze, Introduction, p. xxviii. and note), OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 49 not exceeding one hundred στέχοι, of S. Paul’s Epistles as con- sisting of few, S. John’s first Epistle as of very few, (Kuseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 25, cited by Tischendorf, Cod. Sinait., Proleg. p- xxi., note 2, 1863). Even the apocryphal letter of our Lord to Abgarus is described as ὀλυγοστίχου μέν, πολυδυνάμου δὲ ἐπιστο- λῆς (Euseb. H. E. 1. 13): while Eustathius of Antioch in the fourth century reckoned 135 στίχοι between John vii. 59 and x. 41, As regards the Psalms, we may see their arrangement for ourselves in Codd. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus wherein, according to the true principles of Hebrew poetry, the verses do not correspond in metre or quantity of syllables, but in the par- allelism or relationship subsisting between the several mem- bers of the same sentence or stanza’. It seems to have occur- red to Euthalius, a deacon of Alexandria, as it did long after- wards to Bishop Jebb when he wrote his “Sacred Literature,” that a large portion of the New Testament might be divided into στίχοι on the same principles: and that even where that distribution should prove but artificial, it would guide the public reader in the management of his voice, and remove the neces- sity for an elaborate system of punctuation. Such, therefore, we conceive to be the use and design of stichometry, as applied to the Greek Testament by Euthalius, whose edition of St Paul’s Epistles thus divided was published A.D, 458, that of the Acts and Epistles a.p. 490. Who distributed the στίχοι of the Gospels (which are in truth better suited for such a process than the Epistles) does not appear. Although but few manuscripts now exist that are written otovyndoy (a plan that consumed too much vellum to become general), we read in many copies at the end of each of the books of the New Testament, a calculation of the number of στίχοι it contained, sufficiently unlike to shew that the arrangement was not the same in all codices, yet near enough to prove that they were divided on the same principle (for these numbers see below, pp. 63, 64, and note)’. 1 That we have rightly understood Epiphanius’ notion of the στίχοι is evident from his own language respecting Psalm exli. 1, wherein he prefers the addition made by the Septuagint to the second clause, because by so doing its authors ἀχώλωτον ἐποίησαν τὸν στίχον: so that the passage should run “Ὁ Lord, I cry unto Thee, make haste unto me || Give ear to the voice of my request,” τῆς δεήσεως μου to complete the rhythm. This whole subject is admirably worked out in Suicer, Thesaur. Eecles. T. 11. pp. 1025—37. 2 At the end of 2 Thess., in a handwhich Tischendorf states to be very ancient, Ss. 4 59 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS In the few documents written στιχηρῶς that survive, the length of the clauses is very unequal; some (e.g. Cod. Beze, see Sect. ul. of this chapter and the facsimile, No. 37) containing as much ina line as might be conveniently read aloud in a breath, others (e.g. Cod. Laud. of the Acts, Plate ix. No. 25) having only one or two words in aline. The Cod. Claromontanus (facsim. No. 19) in this respect lies between those extremes, and the fourth great example of this class (Cod. Coislin. 202, H of St Paul) of the sixth century, has one of its few surviving pages (of 16 lines each) arranged literatim as follows (1 Cor. x. 22, &c.): ἐσμεν | παντα μοι εἕεστιν | add ov Tavta συμφερει | παντα μοι e€eoTw | αλλ ov παντα οἰκοδομει | μηδεισ To eavTou ζη τειτω (ob necessi- tautem spatii) | adda To του ετερου | παν το εν μακέλλω πω | λου- μενον (ob necessitatem) | ἐσθίετε μηδενα ava | κρινωντεσ δια Typ | συνειδηοινι | Tov yap Kv ἡ Yn καμοπλη | ορωμα avtno (ob neces- sit.) ἐἰδετιοααλθιυμαοιτο. | Other manuscripts written στιχηρῶς are Matthaei’s V of the 8th century, Bengel’s Uffenbach 3 of St John (Wetstein’s 101), Alter’s Forlos. 29 (26 of the Apocalypse), and, as it would seem, the Cod. Sangallensis A. In Cod. Claro- montanus there are scarcely any stops (the middle point being chiefly reserved to follow abridgements or numerals), the sticho- metry being of itself an elaborate scheme of punctuation; but the longer στίχοι of Cod. Beze are often divided by a single point. 17. In using manuscripts of the Greek Testament, we must carefully note whether a reading is primd manu (*) or by some subsequent corrector (**). It will often happen that these last are utterly valueless, having been inserted even from printed copies by a modern owner (like some marginal variations of the Cod. Leicestrensis)*, and such as these really ought not to have been ex- tracted by collators at all; while others by the second hand are almost as weighty, for age and goodness, as the text itself. All these points are explained by critical editors for each document separately; in fact to discriminate the different corrections in but not that of the original scribe, the Codex Sinaiticus has στίχων pr [180; the usual number is 106]: at the end of Rom., 1 Cor., 1 Thess,, and the Catholie Epistles, there is no such note; but in all the other Pauline Epistles the στίχοι are numbered. 1 So the margin of Gale’s Evan. 66 contains readings cited by Mill and his followers, which a hand of the 16th century took, some of them from the Leicester manuscript, others from early editions, OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Bilt regard to their antiquity and importance is often the most diffi- cult portion of such editor’s task (e.g. in Codd. Bezze and Claro- montanus), and one on which he often feels it hard to satisfy his own judgment. Corrections by the original scribe, or by a con- temporary reviser, where they can be satisfactorily distinguished, must be regarded as a portion of the testimony of the manu- script itself, inasmuch as every carefully prepared copy was re- viewed and compared (ἀντεβλήθη), if not by the writer himself, by a skilful person appointed for the task (ὁ διορθῶν, ὁ διορθω- τής), Whose duty it was to amend manifest errors, sometimes also to insert ornamented capitals in places which had been re- served for them; in later times (and as some believe at a very early period) to set in stops, breathings and accents: in copies destined for ecclesiastical use to place the musical notes that were to guide the intonation of the reader. These notices of revision are sometimes met with at the end of the best manu- scripts. Such is the note in Cod. H of St Paul εγραψα καὶ e&e- θεμην προσ to ev Kaicapia ἀντίγραφον tno βιβλιοθηκησ Tov aytov Haudirov, the same library of the Martyr Pamphilus to which the scribe of the Cod. Frid-August. resorted for his mo- del’; and that in Birch’s most valuable Urbino-Vatican. 2 (157 of the Gospels), written for the Emperor John II (1118—1143), wherein at the end of the first Gospel we read κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ τῶν ἐν ἱεροσολύμοις παλαιῶν ἀντιγρά- φων τῶν ἐν ἁγίω ὄρει [Athos] ἀποκειμένων : similar subscriptions are appended to the other Gospels. See also Evan. A. 20, 164, 262, 300, 376; Act. 15, 83, in the third section of this chapter. 18. We have next to give some account of ancient divisions of the text; as found in manuscripts of the New Testament, 1 The following subscription to the book of Ezra (and a very similar one follows Esther) in the Cod. Frid-August. (fol. 13. 1), though in a hand of the seventh century, will show the care bestowed on the most ancient copies even of the Septuagint. ἀντεβληθηὴ προσ παλαιωτατον λιαν αντιγραῴφον δεδιορθωμενον XElpt του αγιου μαρτυροσ Παμφιλου" ὁπερ αντιγραῴφον προσ τω τελει υὑποσημειωσισ τισ ἴδιοχειροσ αὐτου ὕπεκειτο εἐχουσα ouTws* μετελημῴφθη Kat διορθωθὴ προσ τα εἕαπλα ὠὡριγενουσ᾽ Αντωνινοσ αντεβαλεν' Παμῴιλοσ διορθωσα. Tregelles suggests that the work of the διορθωτὴς or corrector was probably of a critical character, the office of the ἀντιβάλλων or comparer being rather to eliminate mere clerical errors (Treg. Horne’s Introd., rv. p. 85). Compare Tischendorf, Cod. Sinait. Proleg. p. xxii. 4—2 i 41 52 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS which must be carefully noted by the student, as few copies are without one or more of them. (1). So far as we know at present, the oldest still extant are those of the Codex Vaticanus. These sections seem to have been formed for the purpose of reference, and a new one always commences where there is some break in the sense. Many, how- ever, at least in the Gospels, consist of but one of our modern verses, and they are so unequal in length as to be rather icon- venient for actual use. In the four Gospels only the marginal numerals are in red, St Matthew containing 170 of these divi- sions, St Mark 62, St Luke 152, St John 80. In the Acts of the Apostles are two sets of sections, 36 longer and in an older hand, 69 smaller and more recent’. Each of these also begins after a break in the sense, but they are quite independent of each other, as a larger section will sometimes commence in the middle of a smaller, the latter being in no wise a subdivision of the former. Thus the greater T opens Acts ii. 1, in the middle of the lesser 8, which extends from Acts i. 15 to 11. 4. The first 42 of the lesser chapters, down to Acts xv. 40, are found also with slight variations in the margin of Codex Sinaiticus, writ- ten by a very old hand. As in most manuscripts, so in Codex Vaticanus, the Catholic Epistles follow the Acts, and in them and in St Paul’s Epistles there are also two sets of sections, only that in the Epistles the older sections are the more numerous. The Pauline Epistles are reckoned throughout as one book in the elder notation, with however this remarkable peculiarity, that though in the Cod. Vatican. itself the Epistle to the Hebrews stands next after the second to the Thessalonians, and on the same leaf with it, the sections are arranged as if it stood between the Epistles to the Galatians and Ephesians, as indeed it does in certain copies of the Thebaic version described by Zoega. For whereas that to the Galatians ends with § 58, that to the Ephesians begins with § 70, and the numbers proceed regularly down to § 93, with which the second to the Thessalonians ends. The Epistle to the Hebrews which then follows opens with ὃ 59; the last section extant (§ 64) begins at Hebr. ix. 11, and the manuscript ends abruptly at καθὰ ver. 14. It plainly appears, 1 «Simile aliquid invenitur in codice Arabico epp. Pauli anno 892, p. Chr., quem ex oriente Petropolin pertulimus.” Tischendorf, Cod, Vat. Proleg. p. xxx. n. 3. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. δ then, that the sections of the Codex Vaticanus must have been copied from some yet older document, in which the Epistle to the Hebrews preceded that to the Ephesians. For a list of the more modern divisions in the Epistles, see the Table in p. 63 below. The Vatican sections of the Gospels have also been discovered by Tregelles in one other copy, the palimpsest Codex Zacynthius of St Luke (2), which he published in 1861. (2). Hardly less ancient, and indeed ascribed by some to Tatian the Harmonist, the disciple of Justin Martyr, is the di- vision of the Gospels into larger chapters (κεφάλαια majora, called in the Latin copies breves), or titles (τέτλοι), which latter name they bear from the circumstance that not only is the sacred narrative distributed by them into sections, but the title, or gene- ral summary of contents, is appended to the numeral, either in a separate table preceding each Gospel, or at the top and bottom of the pages, or (what is usual enough) in both ways in the same manuseript. It is strange that in none of the four Gospels does the first section stand at its commencement. In St Matthew section A begins at chap. 11. verse 1, and has for its title περὶ τῶν μώγων: in St Mark at chap. 1. v. 23, περὶ τοῦ δαιμονιζομέ- νου: in St Luke at ch. 11. v. 1, wept τῆς ἀπογραφῆς : in St John at ch. 11. v. 1, περὶ τοῦ ἐν Kava γάμου. Mill accounts for this circumstance by supposing that in the first copies the titles at the head of each Gospel were reserved till last for more splen- did illumination, and were thus eventually forgotten (Proleg. N. Τ᾿ § 355) ; Griesbach holds, that the general inscriptions of each Gospel, Kata Ματθαῖον, Kata Μάρκον, &c. were regarded as the special titles of the first sections also. On" either suppo- sition, however, it is hard to explain how what was really the second section came to be numbered as the first; and it is worth notice that the same arrangement takes place in the κεφάλαια (though these are of a later date) of all the other books of the New Testament except the Acts, 2 Corinth., Ephes., 1 Thess., Hebrews, James, 1, 2 Peter, 1 John, and the Apocalypse: e.g. the first section of the Epistle to the Romans opens ch. 1. v. 18, Πρῶτον μετὰ τὸ προοίμιον, περὶ κρίσεως τῆς κατὰ ἐθνῶν τῶν οὐ φυλασσόντων τὰ φυσικά. The τέτλοι in St Matthew amount to 68, in St Mark to 48, in St Luke to 83, in St John to 18, This mode οἵ. division, 54 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS although not met with in the Vatican and Sinaitic manu- scripts, is found in the Codices Alexandrinus and Ephraemi of the fifth century, and in the Codex Nitriensis of the sixth, each of which have tables of the tito prefixed to the several Gospels: but the Codices Alexandrinus and Dublinensis of St Matthew, and that portion of the purple Cotton fragment which is in the Vatican, exhibit them in their usual position, at the top and bottom of the pages. Thus it appears that they were too generally diffused in the fifth century not to have originated at an earlier period ; although we must concede that the κεφάλαιον spoken of by Clement of Alexandria (Stro- mat. I.) when quoting Dan. xii. 12, or by Athanasius (c. Arium) on Act. 11, and the Capitulum mentioned by Tertullian (Ad Uxorem 11. 2) in reference to 1 Cor. vii. 12, contain no certain allusions to any specific divisions of the sacred text, but only to the particular paragraphs or passages in which their citations stand. But that the contrary habit has grown inveterate’, it were much to be desired that the term τέτλου should be applied to these longer divisions, at least in the Gospels, and that the name of κεφάλαια should be reserved for the smaller sections (κεφάλαια minora, as they are sometimes called), which we now proceed to explain. (3). The Ammonian sections (to employ for the moment their usual designation), or κεφάλαια proper, were not con- structed, as the Vatican divisions and the τίτλοι, for the pur- pose of easy reference, or distributed like them according to the breaks in the sense, but for a wholly different purpose. So far as we can ascertain, the design of Tatian’s Harmony was simply to present to Christian readers a single connected history of our Lord, by taking from the four Evangelists indif- ferently whatsoever best suited his purpose*. As this plan could scarcely be executed without omitting some portions of the sacred text, it is not surprising that Tatian, possibly with- out any evil intention, should have incurred the grave charge 1 And this too in spite of the lexicographer Suidas: Tiros διαφέρει κεφα- Aalov: καὶ ὁ μὲν Ματθαῖος τίτλους ἔχει En’, κεφάλαια δὲ ve’. 2"O Τατιανός, συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ old’ ὅπως τῶν εὐαγγελίων συνθείς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν᾽ ὃ καὶ παρά τισιν εἰσέτι νῦν φέρεται. Euseb, Hist. Eccl. ry. 29. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 55 of mutilating Holy Scripture’. A more scholar-like and useful attempt was subsequently made by Ammonius of Alexandria, early in the third century [A.D. 220], who, by the side of St Mat- thew’s Gospel, which he selected as his standard, arranged in parallel columns, as it would seem, the corresponding passages of the other three Evangelists, so as to exhibit them all at once to the reader’s eye; St Matthew in his proper order, the rest as the necessity of abiding by St Matthew’s order pre- scribed. This is the account given by the celebrated Eusebius, Bishop of Czsarea, the Church historian, who in the fourth cen- tury, in his letter to Carpianus, described his own most ingenious system of Harmony, as founded on, or at least as suggested by, the labours of Ammonius*. It has been generally thought that the κεφαλαια, of which St Matthew contains 355, St Mark 236, St Luke 342, St John 232, in all 1165, were made by Ammonius for the purpose of his work, and they have commonly received the name of the Ammonian sections: but this opinion was called in question by Bp Lloyd (Nov. Test. Oxon. 1827, Monitum, pp. viii—xi), who strongly urges that, in his Epistle to Carpianus, Eusebius not only refrains from ascribing these numerical divisions to Ammonius (whose Jabours in this particular, like Tatian’s, must in that case be deemed to have perished utterly), but he almost implies that 1 Ambros. in Procm. Lue. seems to aim at Tatian when he says ‘‘ Plerique etiam ex quatuor Evangelii libris in unum ea que venenatis putaverunt asser- tionibus convenientia referserunt.” Eusebius H.E. iv. 29 charges him on report with improving not the Gospels, but the Epistles: τοῦ δὲ ἀποστόλου φασὶ Tor- μῆσαι τινὰς αὐτὸν μεταφράσαι φωνάς, ὡς ἐπιδιορθούμενον αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς φράσεως σύνταξιν. Professor Westcott’s verdict is rather less favourable than might have been anticipated: ‘‘ The heretical character of the Diatessaron was not evident on the surface of it, and consisted rather of faults of defect than of erroneous teaching’ (History of the Canon, p. 354). 2 ᾿Αμμώνιος μὲν ὁ ᾿Αλεξανδρεύς, πολλήν, ws εἰκός, φιλοπονίαν καὶ σπουδὴν εἰσαγ- ηοχώς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν εὐαγγέλιον, τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον τὰς ὁμοφώνους τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστών περικοπὰς παραθείς, ὡς ἐξ ἀνάγκης συμβῆναι τὸν τῆς ἀκολουθίας εἱρμὸν τῶν τριῶν διαφθαρῆναι, ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ ὕφει τῆς ἀναγνώσεως. Ἵνα δὲ σωζομένου καὶ τοῦ τῶν λοιπῶν δι᾽ ὅλου σώματός τε καὶ εἱρμοῦ, εἰδέναι ἔχοις τοὺς οἰκείους ἑκάστου εὐαγγελιστοῦ τόπους. ἐν οἷς κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν φιλαλήθως εἰπεῖν, ἐκ τοῦ πονήματος τοῦ προειρημένου ἀνδρὸς εἰληφὼς ἀφορμάς (‘taking the hint from Ammonius” as Mr Burgon rightly understands the expression), καθ᾽ ἑτέραν μέθοδον κανόνας δέκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν διεχάραξα σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους. Kpist.ad Carpian. initio. I havethankfully availed myself on this subject of Mr Burgon’s elaborate studies in ‘‘The Last Twelve verses of 8S. Mark” pp. 125—132; 295—312. Tashan d ord gi m ; 285 fon Monk he "Πάρις ὙΔΕΣ 56 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS they had their origin at the same time with his own ten cancns, with which they are so intimately connected*. That they were essential to Eusebius’ scheme is plain enough; their place in Ammonius’ parallel Harmony is not easily under- stood, unless indeed (what is nowhere stated, but rather the contrary) he did not set the passages from the other Gospels at full length by the side of St Matthew’s, but only these numerical references to them’. There is, however, one ground for hesitation before we ascribe the sections, as well as the canons, to Eusebius; namely, that not a few ancient manuscripts (e.g. Codd. FHY) contain the former, while they omit the latter. Of palimpsests indeed it might be said with reason, that the rough process which so nearly obliterated the ink of the older writing, would com- pletely remove the coloured paint (κιννάβαρις, vermilion, pre- scribed by Eusebius, thongh blue or green is_ occasionally found) in which the canons were invariably noted; hence we need not wonder at their absence from the Codices Ephraemi, Nitriensis (R), Dublinensis (Z), Codd. IW” of Tischendorf, and the Wolfenbiittel fragments (P Q), in all which the sections are yet legible in ink. The Codex Sinaiticus contains both; but 1 Τ subjoin Eusebius’ own words (Epist. ad Carpian.) from which no one would infer that the sections were not his, as well as the canons. Αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ τῶν ὑποτεταγμένων κανόνων ὑπόθεσις" ἡ δὲ σαφὴς αὐτῶν διήγησις, ἔστιν Hoe. "Ed! ἑκάστῳ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων ἀριθμός τις πρόκειται κατὰ μέρος, ἀρχόμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου, εἶτα δευτέρου, καὶ τρίτου, καὶ καθεξῆς προϊὼν δι’ ὅλου μέχρι τοῦ τέλους τοῦ βιβλίου [the sections]. Καθ’ ἕκαστον δὲ ἀριθμὸν ὑποσημείωσις διὰ κινναβάρεως πρόκειται [the canons], δηλοῦσα ἐν ποίῳ τών δέκα κανόνων κείμενος ὁ ἀριθμὸς τυγχάνει. 2 Something of this kind, however, must be the plan adopted in Codex Τὰ (see Plate x. No. 26) of the Gospels, as described by Tregelles, who himself collated it. ‘‘[It has] the Ammonian sections; but instead of the Husebian canons there is a kind of harmony of the Gospels noted at the foot of each page, by a reference to the parallel sections of the other Evangelists.” Horne’s Introd. Vol, rv. p. 200. Yet the canons also stand in the margin of this copy under the so-called Ammonian sections: only the table of Husebian canons is wanting. The same kind of harmony at the foot of the page appears in Cod. W¢ at Trinity College, Cambridge, but in this latter the sections in the margin are not accom- panied by the canons. ‘Tischendorf states that the same arrangement prevails in the small fragment T> at St Petersburg; Mr Burgon adds to the list Codd. M. 262, 264 at Paris, and conceives that this method of harmonising, which he regards as far simpler than the tedious and cumbersome process of resorting to the Eusebian canons (ubi supra, p. 304), was in principle, though not in details, derived to the Greek Church from early Syriac copies of the Gospels, some of which still survive (p. 306). OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 57 Tischendorf decidedly pronounces them to be in a later hand. In the Codex Bezze too, as well as the Codex Cyprius (K), even the Ammonian sections, without the canons, are by later hands, though the latter has prefixed the list or table of the canons. Of the oldest copies the Codex Alexandrinus, Tisch- endorf’s Codd. W* ©, and the Cotton fragment (N) alone con- tain both the sections and canons. Even in more modern cursive books the latter are often deficient, though the former are present. ‘This peculiarity we have observed in Burney 23, in the British Museum, of the twelfth century, although the Epistle to Carpianus stands at the beginning; in a rather re- markable copy of about the twelfth century, in the Cambridge University Library (Mm. 6. 9, Scholz Evan. 440), in which, however, the table of canons but not the Epistle to Carpianus precedes; in the Gonville and Caius Gospels of the 12th cen- tury (Evan. 59), and in a manuscript of about the thirteenth century at Trinity College, Cambridge (B. x. 17). These facts certainly seem to indicate that in the judgment of critics and transcribers, whatever that judgment may be deemed worth, the Ammonian sections had a previous exist- ence to the Eusebian canons, as well as served for an inde- pendent purpose’. - In his letter to Carpianus, their inventor clearly yet briefly describes the purpose of his canons, ten in number. The first contains a list of 71 places in which all the four Evangelists have a narrative, discourse, or saying in common: the second of 111 places in which the three Matthew, Mark, Luke agree: the third of 22 places common to Matthew, Luke, John: the fourth of 26 passages common to Matthew, Mark, John: the fifth of 82 places in which the two Matthew, Luke coincide: the 1 To this list of manuscripts of the Gospels which have the Ammonian sections without the Eusebian canons add Codd. 38, 54, 60, 68, 117; Brit. Mus. Addit. 16184, 18211, 19389; Milan Ambros. M. 48 swp.; ἘΠ. 63 sup.; Burdett- Coutts τ. 4; 1.18; 267; 11. 9 (all to be described in the third section of this chapter), and probably some others. 2 No doubt they do serve, in the manuscripts which contain them and omit the canons, for marks of reference, like in kind to our modern chapters and verses; but in consequence of their having been constructed for a wholly differ- ent purpose, they are so unequal in length (as Mr Burgon sees very clearly, pp. 297, 303), that they answer that end as ill as any the most arbitrary divisions of the text well could do. : 58 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS sixth of 47 places wherein Matthew, Mark agree: the seventh of 7 places common to Matthew and John: the eighth of 14 places common to Luke and Mark: the ninth of 21 places in which Luke and John agree: the tenth of 62 passages of Matthew, 21 of Mark, 71 of Luke and 97 of John which have no parallels, but are peculiar to a single Evangelist. Under each of the 1165 so-named Ammonian sections, in its proper place in the margin of a manuscript, is put in coloured ink the number of that Eusebian canon to which it refers; on looking for that section in the proper table or canon, there will also be found the parallel place or places in the other Gospels, each indicated by its proper numeral, and so readily searched out. A single example will serve to explain our meaning. In the facsimile of the Cotton fragment (Plate v. No. 14), in the margin of the passage (John xv. 20) we see pi , where ΡΛΘ (139) is the proper section of St John, Τ' (3) the number of the canon, On searching the third Eusebian table we read MT. 4 A. νὴ 10.pr0, and thus we learn that the first clause of John xv. 20 is parallel in sense to the 90th (4) section of St Matthew (x. 24), and to the 58th (vm) of St Luke (vi. 40). The ad- vantage of such a system of parallels to the exact study of the Gospels is too evident to need insisting on. (4). The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles are also divided into chapters (κεφάλαια), in design precisely the same as the τίτλοι of the Gospels, and nearly resembling them in length. Since there is no trace of these chapters in the two great Codices Alexandrinus and Ephraemi, of the fifth century (which yet exhibit the τίτλοι, the sections, and one of them the canons), it seems reasonable to assume that they are of later date. They are sometimes connected with the name of Euthalius, deacon of Alex- andria, and afterwards Bishop of Sulci', whom we have already 1 Sulciin Sardinia is the only Bishop’s see of the name I ean find in Carol. a Sancto Paulo’s Geographia Sacra (1703), or in Bingham’s Antiquities, Bk. rx, Chapp. 1, vit. Horne and even Tregelles speak of Sulca in Egypt, but I have searched in vain for any such town or see. Euthalius is called Bishop of Sulce both in Wake 12 (infra, p. 59, note 3), and in the title to his works as edited by L. A. Zacagni (Collectanea Monument. Veter. Eccles. Gree. ac Latin., Rom, 1698, p. 402). But one of Zacagni’s manuscripts reads ᾿Βούλκης once, and he guesses Ψέλχη near Syene, which appears in no list of Episcopal sees. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 59 spoken of, as the reputed author of Scriptural stichometry (above, p. 49). We learn, however, from Euthalius’ own Prologue to his edition of St Paul’s Epistles (A.D. 458), that the “summary of the chapters,” and consequently the numbers of the chapters themselves, was taken from the work of “one of our wisest and pious fathers’,” i.e. some Bishop that he does not wish to par- ticularise, whom Mill (Proleg. N. T. § 907) conjectures to be Theodore of Mopsuestia, who lay under the censure of the Church. Soon after? the publication of St Paul’s Epistles, on the suggestion of one Athanasius, then a priest and afterwards Patriarch of Alexandria, Euthalius put forth a similar edition of the Acts and Catholic Epistles*, also divided into chapters, with a summary of contents at the head of each chapter, though even these he is thought to have derived (at least in the Acts) from the manuscript of Pamphilus the Martyr [d. A.D. 308], to whom the very same chapters are ascribed in a document published by Montfaucon (Bibhotheca Coislin. p. 78); the rather as Euthalius fairly professes to have compared his book in the Acts and Catholic Epistles “with the copies in the library at Ceesarea” which once belonged to “Eusebius the friend of Pamphilus*.” The Apocalypse still remained to be divided, about the end of the fifth century, by Andreas, Arch- bishop of the Cappadocian Czesarea, into twenty-four para- graphs (λόγοι), corresponding to the number of the elders about the throne (Apoc. iv. 4); each paragraph being subdivided into three chapters (κεφάλαια). The summaries which Andreas wrote of his seventy-two chapters are still reprinted in Mill’s and other large editions of the Greek Testament. (5). To Euthalius has been also referred a division of the Acts into sixteen lessons (avayvecers or avayvécpata) and of the Pauline Epistles into thirty-one (see p. 63); but these lessons are 1 Kad’ ἑκάστην ἐπιστολὴν προτάξομεν τὴν τῶν κεφαλαίων ἔκθεσιν, ἑνὶ τῶν σοφω- τάτων τινὶ καὶ φιλοχρίστων πατέρων ἡμῶν πεπονημένην. 2 Αὐτίκα δῆτα is his own expression. 3 e.g. in Wake 12, of the eleventh century, at Christ Church, the title at the head of the list of chapters in the Acts is as follows: Εὐθαλίου ἐπισκόπου C ουλκῆς ἔκ- θεσις κεφαλαίων τῶν Πράξεων σταλῆσα (- εἶσα) πρὸς ᾿Αθανάσιον ἐπίσκοπον ᾿Αλεξανδρείας. 4 Τῇ Wake 12 certain of the longer κεφάλαια are subdivided into μερικαὶ ὑποδιαιρέσεις in the Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews only. For a similar subdivision in the Gospels, see Evan. 443 in the 111. Section of this Chapter. 60 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS quite different from the much shorter ones adopted by the Greek Church. He is also said to have numbered the quotations from the Old Testament’ in each Epistle of St Paul, which are still noted in many of our manuscripts, and to have been the author of that reckoning of the στίχοι which is annexed in most copies to the Gospels, as well as to the Acts and Epistles. Besides the division of the text into στίχοι or lines (above, p. 49) we find in the Gospels alone another division into ῥήματα or ῥήσεις “sentences,” differing but little from the στίχοι in num- ber. Of these last the precise numbers vary in different copies, though not considerably: whether that variation arose from the circumstance that ancient numbers were represented by letters and so easily became corrupted; or from a different mode of arranging the στίχοι adopted by the various scribes. 19. It is proper to state that the subscriptions (ἑπογραφαὶ) appended to St Paul's Epistles in many manuscripts, and retained even in the Authorized English version of the New Testament, are also said to be the composition of Euthalius. In the best copies they are somewhat shorter in form, but in any shape they do no credit to the care or skill of their author, whoever he may be. “Six of these subscriptions,” writes Paley in that masterpiece of acute reasoning, the Hors Pauline, “are false or improbable ;” that is, they are either absolutely contra- dicted by the contents of the epistle [1 Cor. Galat. 1 Tim.], or are difficult to be reconciled with them [1, 2 Thess. Tit.] (Ch. Xv.). The subscriptions to the Gospels have not, we believe, been assigned to any particular author, and being seldom found in printed copies of the Greek Testament or in modern versions, are little known to the general reader. In the earliest manu- scripts the subscriptions, as well as the titles of the books, were of the simplest character. Kata Μαθθαῖον, κατὰ Μάρκον, &e. is all that the Codd. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have, whether at the beginning or the end. Evayyé\ov κατὰ Ματθαῖον is the subscription to the first Gospel in the Codex Alexandrinus ; 1 Many manuscripts indicate passages of the Old Testament cited in the New by placing > (as in Codd. Vatican. W4, &c., in Sinait. more rarely), or some such mark in the margin before every line. Evan. 348 and others have-X. In Codd. Bez, as will appear hereafter, the words cited are merely thrown a letter or two back, ᾿ OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 61 εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον is placed at the beginning of the second Gospel in the same manuscript, and the self-same words at the end of it by Codices Alex. and Ephraemi: in the Codex Bez (in which St John stands second in order) we merely read εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαθθαῖον ἐτελέσθη, ἄρχεται εὐαγγέλιον Kata ᾿Ιωάννην. The same is the case throughout the New Testament. After a while the titles become more elaborate, and the subscriptions afford more information, the truth of which it would hardly be safe to vouch for. The earliest worth notice are found in the Codex Cyprius (K) of the eighth or ninth century, which, together with those of several other copies, are given in Scholz’s Prolegomena N. T. Vol. 1. pp. xxix, xxx. Ad fin. Matthei: Τὸ κατὰ Mar@aiov εὐαγγέλιον ἐξεδόθη UT αὐτοῦ ἐν ἱεροσολύμοις μετὰ χρόνους ἢ [ὀκτὼ] τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀναλήψεως. Ad fin. Marci: Τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον ἐξεδόθη μετὰ χρόνους δέκα τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀναλήψεως. Those to the other two Gospels exactly resemble St Mark’s, that of St Luke however being dated 15, that of St John 32 years after our Lord’s Ascension, periods in all probability too early to be correct. 20. The foreign matter so often inserted in later manu- scripts has more value for the antiquarian than the critic. That splendid copy of the Gospels Lambeth 1178, of the 10th or 11th century, contains more such than is often found, set off by fine illuminations. At the end of each of the first three Gospels (but not of the fourth) are several pages relating to them extracted from Cosmas Indicopleustes, who made the voyage which procured him his cognomen about A.D. 522; also some iambic verses of no great excellence, as may well be supposed, In golden letters we read: ad fin. Matth. ἰστέον ὅτι TO κατὰ ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτωι γραφὲν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ" ἐν ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐξεδόθη" ἑρμηνεύθη δὲ ὑπὸ ἰωάννου" ἐξηγεῖται δὲ τὴν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον τοῦ χῦ γένεσιν, καί ἐστιν ἀνθρωπόμορφον τοῦτο τὸ εὐαγήϑλιον. ‘The last clause alludes to Αροο. iv. 7, wherein the four living creatures were currently believed to be typical of the four Gospels’. Ad fin. Mare. ἰστέον ὅτι τὸ κατὰ μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον ὑπηγορεύθη ὑπὸ πέτρου ἐν ῥώμηι' ἐποιήσατο 1 The whole mystery is thus unfolded (apparently by Cosmas) in Lamb. 1178, p. 159. Kai yap τὰ Χερουβὶμ τετραπρόσωπα" καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν εἰκόνες τῆς πραγματείας τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ" τὸ γὰρ ὅμοιον λέοντι, τὸ ἕμπρακτον καὶ βασιλικὸν καὶ 62 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS δὲ THY ἀρχὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ προφητικοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἐξ ὕψους ἐπιόντος τοῦ ἡσαΐου τὴν πτερωτικὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου δεικνύς. Ad fin. Luc. ἰστέον τι τὸ κατὰ λουκᾶν εὐαγγέλιον ὑπηγορεύθη ὑπὸ παύλου ἐν ῥώμην ἅτε δὲ ἱερατικοῦ χαρακτῆρος ὑπάρχοντος ἀπὸ ζαχαρίου τοῦ ἱερέως θυμιῶντος ἤρξατο. The reader will desire no more of this. The oldest manuscript known to be accom- panied by a catena (or continuous commentary by different authors) is the palimpsest Codex Zacynthius (& of Tregelles), an uncial of the eighth century. Such books are not very common, but there is a very full commentary in minute letters, surrounding the large text in a noble copy of the Gospels, of the 12th century, which belonged to the late Sir Thomas Phil- lipps (Middle Hill 13975), yet uncollated; another of St Paul's Epistles (No. 27) belongs to the University Library at Cam- bridge (Ff. 1. 30); and the Apocalypse is often attended with the exposition of Andreas (p. 59), or of Arethas, also Archbishop of the Cappadocian Ceesarea in the tenth century, or (what is more usual) with a sort of epitome of them (e.g. Parham No. 17), above, below, and in the margin beside the text, in much smaller characters. In cursive manuscripts only the Subject (ὑποθέσις), especially that written by Gicumenius in the tenth century, sometimes stands as a Prologue before each book, but not so often before the Gospels or Apocalypse as the Acts and Epistles. Before the Acts we occasionally meet with Euthalius’ Chronology of St Paul’s Travels, or another ᾿Αποδημία Παύλου. The Leicester manuscript contains between the Pauline Epistles and the Acts (1) An Exposition of the Creed, and statement of the errors condemned by the seven general Councils, ending with the second at Nice. (2) Lives of the Apostles, followed by an exact description of the limits of the five Patriarchates. The Christ Church copy Wake 12 also has after the Apocalypse some seven or eight pages of a Treatise Περὶ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ οἰκουμενικῶν € συνόδων, including some notice περὶ τοπικῶν συνόδων. Similar treatises may be more frequent in manu- scripts of the Greek Testament than we are at present aware of. 21. We have not thought it needful to insert in this place ἡγεμονικὸν [John 1. 1—3] χαρακτηρίζει" τὸ δὲ ὅμοιον μόσχωι, τὴν lepovpyuhy καὶ ἱερατικὴν [Luke i. 8] ἐμφανίζει" τὸ δὲ ἀνθρωποειδές, τὴν σάρκωσιν [Matth. i. 18] διαγράφει. τὸ δὲ ὅμοιον ἀετῶι, τὴν ἐπιφοίτησιν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος [Mark i. 2] ἐμφανίζει, OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 63 either a list of the τίτλον of the Gospels, or of the κεφάλαια of the rest of the New Testament, or the tables of the Eusebian canons, inasmuch as they are all accessible in such ordinary books as Stephens’ Greek Testament 1550 and Mill’s of 1707, 1710. The Eusebian canons are given in Bishop Lloyd’s Oxford Greek Test. of 1827 &c. and in Tischendorf’s of 1859. We subjoin, however, for the sake of comparison, a tabular view of TABLE OF ANCIENT AND MODERN DIVISIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. | po ee τὰ Vatican MS, | κεφά- ‘ Ve Modern | Modern older later | TAC’ | Agua στίχοι ρήματα | chapters} verses, sections. | sections, | oe} Matthew ...... 170| — | 68 | 355 | 2560 | 2522 | 28 | 1071 | 37% ἈΠΕ 2, 208i: 62. — 48 236 | 1616 | 1675 | 16 678 | #2% ΤΟ 0s 26 152 | — | 83 | 842 | 2740 | 3803 | 24 | 1151 ‘ 1 ποτ! δος 80, — | 18 | 382 2024 1938] 21 | 880) +g— Euthal. ἄνα κεφαλ. ὙΡΘΒΞ τα ες ... DT γβρε βϑ δην 86, 69 | 40 | | | 2524 | 16) 28 | 1007 | 39 τ James ........ Br fr ae Sey ana ΕΞ 5 | 108 1 Peter ......... 8; 8 | 8 |B) 286 eke] 5 | 105 ΕΡΟΈ τις desunt] 2 4 |S Gol 5 eee 3 61 cr. ἡ γοῖναι.., Δ: 16) 25 Ἐς ΕΞ 5 | 105 So = if SRB ἐπὶ 3... 1 2 ae 30 | Sag 1 13 [Ὁ OD | 3 John ......... 1 jdesunt| 1 4 ct 32 — t 15 DMO: Στ snes 2 jdesunt} 4 | =: = 68 | ope} 1 25 Romans ...... τοῦ ἐς ἢ τς | ee] 920) 6)’ Teh aes Ἂ 1 Corinth....... ῳ ὃ ἢ) 19 9/Ge| 870) 5 | 16 | 487 | 27% 2 Corinth....... aac 10 |g | 590} 4 | 13 | 256 Galt, ged. z2a/ 3 | 12 | EE] 293] 2 6. | 149 FE = Ephes, ........- Αγ eats 10 |g 8] 312) 2 6 | 155 Philipp. 4g 2 7.8 | 208 2 4 104 Coloss. ......... Bef S| ΠΡ: 8, 60] 4. Ὁ 1 Thess. ...... Bic d gee ΡΞ ὦ (aa 5 89 2 Thess. ...... ES Se fet brane fe oy 48. a7 ἘΠ ΠΝ 20732. 5 55 εν Ea Go| 18 Ae bi ΡΟ WP] στα 9 | Bm] 172] 1 4 83 ae 6 | = £ |98 97 Vista ee .c -- β | Mill 1 3 46 Philem.......... os) — ΘΝ beep Sol ge MS 1 25 | | 5 46 ag | 22 703 | 8 | 18 | 808 Hebrews ...... ix. 11 8 Apocalypse ... 24 λόγοι, 72 κεφάλαια, 22 405 1800 στίχοι. | 64 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS ancient and modern divisions: the numbers of the ῥήματα and στίχοι in the Gospels are derived from the most approved sources, but a synopsis of the variations of manuscripts in this respect has been drawn up by Scholz, Prolegomena Ν, T. Vol. 1. Cap. V., pp. XXViil, xxix.’ 22. On the divisions into chapters and verses prevailing in our modern Bibles we need not dwell long. For many centuries the Latin Church used the Greek τύτλοι (which they called breves) and the Euthalian κεφάλαια, and some of their copies even retained the calculation by στίχοι: but about A.D. 1248 Car- dinal Hugo de Santo Caro, while preparing a Concordance, or index of declinable words, for the whole Pible, divided it into its present chapters, subdividing them in turn into several parts by placing the letters A, B, C, Ὁ ὅσ. in the margin, at equal distances from each other, as we still see in many old printed books, e.g. Stephens’ N. T. of 1550. Cardinal Hugo’s divisions (unless indeed he merely adopted them from Lanfranc or some other scholar) soon took. possession of copies of the Latin Vul- gate; they gradually obtained a place in later Greek manu- scripts, especially those written in the West of Europe, and are found in the earliest printed and all later editions of the Greek Testament, though still unknown to the Eastern Church. They certainly possess no strong claim on our preference, although they cannot now be superseded. The chapters are inconve- niently and capriciously unequal in length; occasionally too they are distributed with much lack of judgment. Thus Matth. xv. 39 belongs to ch. xvi, and perhaps ch. xix. 30 to ch. xx.; Mark ix. 1 properly appertains to the preceding chapter; Luke xxi, 1—4 had better be united with ch. xx, as in Mark xii. 41— 44; Acts v. might as well commence with Acts iv. 32; Acts vill. 1 (or at least its first clause) should not have been separated from ch. vii; Acts xxi. concludes with strange abruptness. Bp. 1 The numbers of the Gospel στίχοι in our table are taken from the uncial copies Codd. GS and 27 cursives named by Scholz: those of the ῥήματα from Codd. 9, 13, 124 and 7 others. In the ῥήματα he cites no other variation than that Cod. 339 has 2822 for St Matthew: but Mill states that Cod. 48 (Bodl. 7) has 1676 for Mark, 2507 for Luke (Proleg. N.T. § 1429). In Cod. 56 (Lincoln Coll.) the ἀναγνώσματα of St Matthew are 127, of St Mark 74, of St Luke 130 (Mill). In the στίχοι, a few straggling manuscripts fluctuate between 3397? and 1474 for Matthew; 2006 and 1000 for Mark; 3827 and 2000 for Luke; 2300 and 1300 for John, But the great mass of authorities stand as we have represented. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 65 Terrot (on Ernesti’s Institutes, Vol. 11. p. 21) rightly affixes 1 Cor. iv. 1—5 to ch. 11. Add that 1 Cor. xi. 1 belongs to ch. x, 2 Cor. iv. 18 and vi. 18 to ch. v. and ch. vii. respectively: Col. iv. 1 must clearly go with ch. iii. In commendation of the modern verses still less can be said, As they are stated to have been constructed after the model of the ancient στίχοι (called “versus” in the Latin manuscripts) we have placed in the Table the exact number of each for every book in the New Testament. Of the στίχοι we reckon 19241 in all, of the modern verses 7959", so that on the average (for we have seen that the manuscript variations in the number of στέχοι are but inconsiderable) we may calculate about five στέχοι to every two modern verses. The fact is that some such division is simply indispensable to every accurate reader of Scripture; and Cardinal Hugo’s divisions by letters of the alphabet, as well as those adopted by Sanctes Pagninus in his Latin version of the whole Bible (1528), having proved inconveniently large, Robert Stephens, the justly celebrated printer and editor of the Greek Testament, undertook to form a system of verse-divisions, taking for his model the short verses into which the Hebrew Bible had already been divided, as it would seem by Rabbi Nathan, in the preceding century. We are told by Henry Stephens (Pref. -N. T. 1576) that his father Robert executed this design on a journey from Paris to Lyons “inter equitandum’;” that is, we presume, while resting at the inns on the road. Certain it is, that although every such division must be in some measure arbitrary, a very little care would have spared us many of the disadvantages attending that which Robert Stephens first pub- lished at Geneva in his Greek Testament of 1551, from which it was introduced into the Geneva English Testament of 1557, into Beza’s Greek Testament of 1565, and thence into all subsequent editions. It is now too late to correct the errors of the verse-divisions, but they can be neutralised, at least in a great degree, by the plan adopted by modern critics, of banishing both the verses and the chapters into the margin, and 1 Our English version divides 2 Cor. xiii. 12 of the Greek into two, and unites John i. 38, 39 of the Greek. The English and Greek verses begin differ- ently in Acts ix. 28, 29; xi. 25, 26; xiii. 32, 33; xxiv. 2, 3. 2 £67 think it would have been better done on one’s knees in the closet,” is Mr Kelly’s quaint and not unfair comment (Lectures on the Minor Prophets, p. 324). 5. 5 66 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS breaking the text into paragraphs, better suited to the sense. The pericope or sections of Bengel* (whose labours will be described in their proper place) have been received with general approbation, and adopted, with some modification, by several recent editors. 23. We now come to the contents of manuscripts of the Greek Testament, and must distinguish regular copies of the sacred volume or of parts of it, from Lectionaries, or Church-lesson books, containing only extracts, arranged in the order of Divine Service daily throughout the year. The latter we will consider presently: with regard to the former it is right to bear in mind, that comparatively few copies of the whole New Testament remain ; the usual practice being to write the four Gospels in one volume, the Acts and Epistles in another: manuscripts of the Apocalypse, which was little used for public worship, being much rarer than those of the other books. Occasionally the Gospels, Acts and Epistles form a single volume; sometimes the Apocalypse is added to other books; as to the Pauline Epistles in Lambeth 1186, or even to the Gospels, in a later hand (e.g. Cambridge University Libr. Dd. 9.69: Gospels No. 60, dated A.D. 1297). The Apocalypse, being a short work, is often found bound up in volumes containing very miscellaneous matter (e.g. Vatican. 2066 or B; Harleian. 5678, No. 31; and Baroce. 48, No. 28). The Codex Sinaiticus of Tischendorf is the more precious, in that it happily exhibits the whole New Testament complete: so would the Codices Alexandrinus and Ephbraemi, but that they are sadly mutilated: no other uncial copies have this advantage, and very few cursives. In England only four such are known, the great Codex Leicestrensis, which is imperfect at the beginning and end; Butler 2 (Additional 11837), dated A.D, 1357, and Additional 17469, both in the British Museum; and Canonici 34 in the Bodleian, dated A.D. 1515—16. The Apocalypse in the well-known Codex Montfort- ianus at Dublin is usually considered to be by a later hand. Besides these Scholz enumerates only nineteen foreign copies of ' Novum Testamentum Grecum. Edente Jo. Alberto Bergelio. Tubinge 1734, 4to. The practice of the oldest Greek manuscripts in regard to para- graphs has been stated above (p. 48, note), and will be further explained in the next section under our descriptions of Codd. SBD. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 67 the whole New Testament’; making but thirty-one in all out of the vast mass of extant documents. 24. Whether copies contain the whole or a part of the sacred volume, the general order of the books is the following : Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse. A solitary manuscript of the fifteenth century (Venet. 10, Evan. 209) places the Gospels between the Pauline Epistles and the Apocalypse’; in the Codices Sinaiticus, Leicestrensis, Fabri (Evan. 90), and Montfortianus, as in the Bodleian Canonici 34, the copy in the King’s Library Brit. Mus. (Act. 20), and the Complutensian edition (1514), the Pauline Epistles precede the Acts; the Codex Basiliensis (No. 4 of the Epistles), Acts No. 134, Brit. Mus. Addl. 19388, Lambeth 1182, 1183, and Burdett-Coutts tit. 1, have the Pauline Epistles immediately after the Acts and before the Catholic Epistles, as in our present Bibles; Scholz’s Evan. 368 stands thus, St John’s Gospel, Apocalypse, then all the Epistles ; in Havniens. 1 (No. 234 of the Gospels, A.D. 1278) the order appears to be Acts, Paul. Ep., Cath. Ep., Gospels; in Ambros. Z. 34 sup. at Milan, Mr Burgon testifies that the Catholic and Pauline Epistles are followed by the Gospels ; in Basil. B. VI. 27 or Cod. 1, the Gospels now follow the Acts and Epistles ; while in Evan. 175 the Apocalypse stands between the Acts and Catholic Epistles ; in Evan. 51 the binder has set the Gospels last: these, however, are mere accidental exceptions to the pre- vailing rule*. The four Gospels are almost invariably found in 1 Coislin. 199, Evan. 35; Vatic. 2080, Evan. 175; Palat. Vat. 171, Evan. 149; Lambecc. 1 at Vienna, Evan. 218; Vatic. 1160, Evan. 141; Venet. 5, Evan. 205; its alleged duplicate Venet. 10, Evan. 209; Matthaei k, Evan. 241; Moscow Synod. 280, Evan. 242; Paris, Reg. 47, Evan. 18; Reg. 61, Evan. 263; Vatic. 360, Evan. 131; Vat. Ottob. 66, Evan. 386; Vat. Ottob. 381, Evan. 390; Taurin. 302, Evan. 339; Richard. 84, Evan. 368; 5. Saba, 10 and 20, Evan. 462 and 466: perhaps he ought to have added Venet. 6, Evan. 206, which he states to contain the whole New Testament, Proleg. N.T. Vol. τ. p. lxxii. In Evan. 180 all except the Gospels are by a later hand. Add also copies at Arras, Poictiers, Ferrara, and Toledo. 2 I presume that the same order is found in Evan. 393, whereof Scholz states ‘sec. xvi. continet epist. cath. paul. ev.” Proleg. N.T. Vol. τ. p. xe. 3 Hartwell Horne in the second volume of his own Introduction (a very different book from Dr Tregelles’, and not a worse one in its way) tells us that in some of the few manuscripts which contain the whole of the New Testament the books are arranged thus: Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, Pauline Epistles (p. 92, ed. 1834), This statement may be true of some of the ὅ-- -- 68 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS their familiar order, although in the Codex Beze (as we partly saw above, p. 61) they stand Matthew, John, Luke, Mark'; in the Codex Monacensis (X) John, Luke, Mark, Matthew (but two leaves of Matthew also stand before John); in Cod. 90 (Fabri) John, Luke, Matthew, Mark ; in Cod. 399 at Turin John, Luke, Matthew, an arrangement which Mr Hort refers to the Com- mentary of Titus of Bostra which accompanies it; in the Curetonian Syriac version Matthew, Mark, John, Luke. In the Pauline Epistles that to the Hebrews precedes the four Pastoral Epistles and immediately follows the second to the Thessalonians in the four great Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi’: in the copy from which the Cod. Vatican. was taken the Hebrews followed the Galatians (above, p- 52). The Codex Claromontanus, the document next in im- portance to these four, sets the Colossians appropriately enough next to its kindred and contemporaneous Epistle to the Ephe- sians, but postpones that to the Hebrews to Philemon, as in our present Bibles; an arrangement which at first, no doubt, origi- nated in the early scruples prevailing in the western Church, with respect to the authorship and canonical authority of that divine epistle. 25. We must now describe the Lectionaries or Service-books of the Greek Church, in which the portions of Scripture publicly read throughout the year are set down in chronological order, without regard to their actual places in the sacred volume. In length and general arrangement they resemble not so much the foreign MSS. named in p. 67 note 1, but of the English it can refer to none, although Wake 34 at Christ Church commences with the Acts and Catholic Epistles, followed by the Apocalypse beginning on the same page as Jude ends, and the Pauline Epistles on the same page as the Apocalypse ends. The Gospels, which come last, may have been misplaced by an early binder. 1 This is the true western order (Scrivener, Cod. Bezmw, Introd. p. xxx and note), and will be found in the copies of the Old Latin d, e, f to be described in Chap. 1., and in the Gothic version. In Burdett-Coutts 1m. 7, p. 4, also, pre- fixed to the Gospels, we read the following rubric- title to certain verses of Gregory Nazianzen: x0 θαύμαστα" παρὰ ματθαίω Ἰωάννη τὲ καὶ λουκᾶ καὶ μάρκω" K. T. Ne ? Tischendorf cites the following copies in which the Epistle to the Hebrews stands in the same order as in Codd, SABC, “Ἡ [Coislin, 202] 17. 23. 47. 57. 71. 73 aliique.” Add 77. 80. 166. 189. 196. Burdett-Coutts mm. 4. So in Zoega’s Thebaic version. Epiphanius (adv. Her. 1. 42) says: ἄλλα δὲ ἀντί- Ὕραφα ἔχει τὴν πρὸς éBpalous δεκάτην, πρὸ τῶν δύο τῶν πρὸς Τιμόθεον καὶ Τίτον. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 69 Lessons as the Epistles and Gospels in our English Book of Common Prayer, only that every day in the year has its own pro- per portion, and the numerous Saints’ days independent services of their own. These Lectionaries consist either of lessons from the Gospels, and are then called Hvangeliaria or Evangelistaria (εὐαγγελιστάρια) ; or from the Acts and Epistles, termed Praza- postolos (πραξαπόστολοι) ; the general name of Lectionary is often, though incorrectly, confined to the latter class. A few books (called ἀποστολοευαγγέλια in Matthzei’s ξ and Burney 18) have lessons taken both from the Gospels and the Apostolic writings. The peculiar arrangement of Lectionaries renders them very unfit for the hasty, partial, cursory collation which has befallen too many manuscripts of the other class, and this circumstance, joined with the irksomeness of using service-books never familiar to the habits even of scholars in this part of Europe, has caused these documents to be so little consulted, that the contents of the very best and oldest among them have until recently been little known. Matthaei, of whose elaborate and important edition of the Greek Testament (12 tom. Riga 1782—88) we shall give an account hereafter (Chap. v.), has done excellent service in this department ; two of his best copies, the uncials B and H, being Evangelistaria. The present writer also has collated three noble uncials of the same kind, Arundel 547 being of the ninth century, Parham 18 bearing date A.D. 980, Harleian 5598, A.D. 995. Not a few other uncial Lectionaries remain quite neglected, for though none of them perhaps are older than the eighth century, the ancient character was retained for these costly and splendid service-books till about the eleventh century (Montfauc. Paiszogr. Graec. p. 260), before which time the cur- sive hand was generally used in other Biblical manuscripts. There is, of course, no place in a Lectionary for divisions by κεφάλαια, for the so-called Ammonian sections or canons of Eusebius. The division of the New Testament into Church-lessons was, however, of far more remote antiquity than the employment of separate volumes to contain them. Towards the end of the fourth century, that golden age of Patristic theology, Chrysostom recognises some stated order of the lessons as familiar to all his hearers, for he exhorts them to peruse and mark beforehand the passages (περικοπαὶ) of the Gospels which were to be publicly 70 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS read to them the ensuing Sunday or Saturday*. All the infor- mation we can gather favours the notion that there was no great difference between the calendar of Church-lessons in earlier and later ages. Not only do they correspond in all cases where such agreement is natural, as in the proper services for the great feasts and fasts, but in such purely arbitrary arrangements as the reading of the book of Genesis, instead of the Gospels, on the week days of Lent; of the Acts all the time between Easter and Pentecost’; and the selection of St Matthew’s history of the Passion alone at the Liturgy on Good Friday*. The earliest formal Synaxarion, or Table of proper lessons, now ex- tant is prefixed to the Codex Cyprius (K) of the eighth or ninth century ; another is found in the Codex Campensis (M), which is perhaps a little later; they are more frequently found than the contrary in later manuscripts of every kind; while there are comparatively few copies that have not been accommodated to ecclesiastical use either by their original scribe or a later hand, by means of noting the proper days for each lesson (often in red ink) at the top or bottom or in the margin of the several pages. In the text itself are perpetually interpolated, especially in vermilion or red ink, the beginning (ἀρχὴ or ἀρχὴ and end- ing (τέλος or te‘) of each lesson, and the several words to be inserted or substituted in order to suit the purpose of public reading; from which source (as we have stated above, p. 11) various readings have almost unavoidably sprung: e.g. im Acts iii. 11, τοῦ ἰαθέντος χωλοῦ of the Lectionaries ultimately dis- placed αὐτοῦ from the text itself. 1 Chrysost. in Joan. Hom. x κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων ἢ καὶ κατὰ σάββατον. Traces of these Church-lessons occur in manuscripts as early as the fifth and sixth centuries. Thus Cod, Alexandrinus reads Rom. xyi. 25—27 not only in its proper place, but also at the end of ch. xiv. where the Lectionaries place it (see p. 79). Codex Beze prefixes to Luke xvi. 19 εἶπεν δὲ καὶ ἑτέραν παραβολὴν, the proper introduction to the Gospel for the 5th Sunday in St Luke. Even τέλος or τὸ τέλος, Which follows ἀπέχει in Mark xiv. 41 in the same manuscript and other authorities, may have the same origin. 2 See the passages from Augustin Tract. v1. in Joan.; and Chrysost. Hom, vu. ad Antioch.; Hom. tx, xivir. in Act. in Bingham’s Antiquities, Book x1v, Chap. τι. Sect. 8, Chrysostom even calls the arrangement τῶν πατέρων ὁ νόμος. % August. Serm. cxt1m. de Tempore. The few verses Luke xxiii. 39—43, John xix. 31—37 are merely wrought into one narrative with Matth. xxvii., each in its proper place. See p. 79. 4 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 71 We propose to annex to this section a table of lessons throughout the year, according to the use laid down in Synaxa- ria and Lectionaries, as well to enable the student to compare the proper lessons of the Greek Church with our own, as to facilitate reference to the manuscripts themselves, which are now placed almost out of the reach of the inexperienced. On com- paring the manner in which the terms are used by different scribes and authors, we conceive that Synaxarion (συναξάριον) is a general name applied to any catalogue of Church-lessons; that tables of daily lessons are entitled Hclogadia, “ Selections” (ἐκ- λογάδιον τῶν δ᾽ εὐαγγελιστῶν, OY τοῦ ἀποστόλου), and that these have varied but slightly in the course of many ages throughout the whole Eastern Church; that tables of Saints’ day lessons, called Menologia (μηνολόγιον), distributed in order of the months from September (when the new year and the indiction began) to August, differed widely from each other, both in respect to the lessons read and the days kept holy*. While the great feasts remained entirely the same, different generations and provinces and even dioceses had their favourite worthies, whose memory they specially cherished ; so that the character of the menology (which sometimes formed a larger, sometimes but a small por- tion of a Lectionary) will often guide us to the country and district in which the volume itself was written. The Parham Evangelistarium 18 affords us a conspicuous example of this fact: coming from a region of which we know but little (Ciscissa in Cappadocia Prima), its menology in many particulars but little resembles those usually met with*. 1 Thus συναξάριον will include Scholz’s definition ‘indices lectionum ita ex- hibet, ut anni ecclesiastici et uniuscujusque evangelii ratio habeatur” (N.T. Vol. 1. p. 454), as exemplified by his Codex Cyprius (K) &¢.; and also Suicer’s ‘‘ vite sanctorum et martyrum in compendium redacta, et succincta expositio solenni- tatis de qua agitur” (Thes. Ecc, Tom. τι. 1108), as indeed we find the word used in Lambeth 1178, Burney 18 &c, 2 This was naturally even more the case in countries where the Liturgy was not in Greek. Thus in the ‘‘Calendar of the Coptic Church” translated from the Arabic by Mr 5. C. Malan (1873), the only Feast-days identical with those given below (pp. 81, 82) are Sept. 14; Oct. 8; Nov. 8; 13; 14; 17; 25; 30; Dec. 20; 24, 25; 29; Jan. 1; 6 (the Lord’s Baptism); 22; Feb. 2; 24; March 25; April 25; May 2; June 19; 24; 29; July 22; Aug. 6; 25. Elsewhere the day is altered, even if the festival be the same; e.g. St Thomas’ Day is Oct. 6 with the Greeks, Oct. 23 with the Copts; St Luke’s Day (Oct. 18), and the Be- heading of the Baptist (Aug. 29), are kept by the Copts a day later than by the Greeks. 9 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 26. It only remains to say a few words about the notation adopted to indicate the several classes of manuscripts of the Greek Testament. These classes are six in number; that con- taining the Gospels, or the Acts and Catholic Epistles, or the Pauline Epistles, or the Apocalypse, or Lectionaries of the Gospels, or those of the Acts and Epistles. When one manu- script (as often occurs) belongs to more than one of these classes, its distinct parts are numbered separately, so that a copy of the whole New Testament will appear in four lists, and be reckoned four times over. In this way we calculate that there are little short of one thousand manuscripts proper or Lectionaries of the Gospels, and about another thousand of all the other books put together ; whereof those of St Paul are more numerous, those of the Apocalypse fewer than those of the Acts and Catholic Epi- stles. All critics are agreed in distinguishing the documents writ- ten in the uncial character by capital letters; the custom having originated in the accidental circumstance that the Codex Alex- andrinus was designated as Cod. A in the lower margin of Walton’s Polyglott. These uncials are few: in the Gospels indeed they amount to fifty-six, but far the greater part of these are fragments, most of them of inconsiderable length ; in the Acts they are fourteen; in the Catholic Epistles six; in the Pauline Epistles fifteen (many of them fragments); in the Apocalypse only five: Lectionaries in uncial letters are not marked by capitals, but by Arabic numerals, like cursive manuscripts of all classes. Michaelis judges that the use of these numerals, which were first introduced by Wetstein (N. T. 1751—52), is likely to lead to confusion and faults of the press : one can only say in reply that Mill’s mode of citing copies by abridgments of their names (e.g. Alex., Cant., Mont. &c.) is more cumbersome, and has been found just as liable to error. A more serious cause of complaint is the facility with which documents have been admitted to crowd a list, when they have not been subjected to a thorough collation ; many without being examined even cursorily. Such a practice, commenced by Wet- stein, too much countenanced even by Griesbach (N. T. 1796— 1806), conscientious labourer though he was in this field of critical study, was carried to its height by Scholz (N. T. 1830—36), who professes to have collated entire no more than thirteen of the six hundred and sixteen manuscripts which his OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 73 edition added to previous catalogues. On this point we shall enter more into detail hereafter (Chap. v.) ; the result, however, has been to convey to the inexperienced reader a totally false notion of our actual acquaintance with the contents of the cur- sive or later copies. Hence, while we owe a large debt of gratitude to those who have done so much for the uncial manuscripts of the Greek Testament, and freely accord the highest praise to Tischendorf and Tregelles for their indefatiga- ble exertions in making them known to us, we are bound to state that the long list of the cursives is at present but a snare and a delusion; “a splendid wretchedness,” as it has been called by one who knows its nature well. Even the catalogue itself of the later manuscripts is full of mis-statements, of repe- titions and loose descriptions, which we have tried to remedy and supply, so far as our means of information extend. In describing the uncials (as we purpose to do in the next section) our course is tolerably plain; but the lists that comprise the third and fourth sections of this chapter, and which respectively detail the cursive manuscripts and Lectionaries of the Greek Testament, must be regarded only as a kind of first approxima- tion to what such an enumeration ought to be, though much pains and time have been spent upon them: the eomparatively few copies which seem to be sufficiently known are distinguished by an asterisk from their less fortunate kindred. Meanwhile the student is warned against the practice of Scholz, and not of Scholz only, who habitually alleges in defence of readings of the received text for which we know of almost no specific autho- rity whatever, “rec. cum multis recentibus familie constant. codicibus’,” “rec. cum plerisque codicibus,’ and such like ex- pressions, which will be found on enquiry to prove nothing, save 1 The precise words of Scholz in speaking of ὅτι Matth. xviii. 28, for which it is believed that ‘‘Em., Bib. Weeh.” as cited in Walton, Erasmus’ editions, and yt, an Evangelistarium unknown to Scholz, are the only authorities. Tregelles indeed in his N.T. 1857 cites the margin of the Codex Leicestrensis (69); but this, together with many other of its marginal notes, was inserted from a printed book by Wm. Chark, who owned the manuscript in Queen Elizabeth’s reign. The evidence for Θωμᾶ John xx. 29 seems to rest almost entirely on a few manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate and its Clementine edition. There is just as little evidence for εὗρον Matth. ii. 11; τετράμηνον John iv. 35; οἰκοδομίαν 1 Tim. i. 4; καὶ πεισθέντες Heb. xi. 13; γράφω 2 John 5, in all which, and too many other places, Erasmus (1516, &c.) led the common editions wrong, where the Complutensian (1514) is correct. 74 ΟΝ THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. the writer's profound ignorance of what the mass of copies contains. Indeed the whole system of representing and of citing the cursive manuscripts is so radically unsound, that Tischendorf even in his last edition (N. T. 1865—72) has chosen to add nothing to Scholz’s numerical list, preferring to indicate the materials which have lately accrued by some other notation which he judges more convenient ; such as 1°, 2°, &e. for the eleven which Edward de Muralt collated at St Peters- burg for his New Test. 1848; and a**, b**, ὅσο, for those derived from ‘‘A collation of about twenty manuscripts of the Holy Gospels...by F. H. Scrivener, 1853.” His example has been followed in Section IIL of this chapter, wherein no attempt has been made to assign distinctive numbers to the fresh materials which are constantly flowing in upon us. Thus Archbishop Wake’s manuscripts deposited at Christ Church, and those which the Baroness Burdett-Coutts has recently imported from Janina (1870—72), are still marked by the names of their respective owners. APPENDIX TO SYNAXARION SECTION I. AND ECLOGADION OF THE GOSPELS AND APOSTOLIC WRITINGS DAILY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. [Gathered chiefly from Evangelist. Arund. 547, Parham 18, Harl. 5598, Burney 22, Gale O. 4. 22, Christ’s Coll. Camb. F. 1. 8, compared with the Liturgical notes in Wake 12, and those by later hands in Cod. Beze (D).] Ἔκ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην [Arundel, 547] Τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλῃ κυριακῇ τοῦ πάσχα. Easter-day 2nd day of Easter week (τῆς διακινησίμου) 18-28. 12-26. 3rd Luke xxiv. 12-35. 11. 14-21. Ath John i. 35-52, 38-43. 5th ili, 1-15. iii. 1-8. 6th (παρασκευῇ) li. 12-22. ii, 22-36. 7th (caBBarw) iii. 22-88. 1]. 11-16. ᾿Αντίπασχα or ist Sunday after Easter _ xx. 19-31. vy. 12-20. 2nd day of 2nd week Hod. jit. 19-26. 3rd iii. 16-21. iy. 1-10. 4th v. 17-24. 13-22. 5th 24-30. 23-31. 6th (παρασκευῇ) v. 30—vi. 2. v. 1-11. 7th (caBBarw) vi. 14-27. 21-32. Κυριακῇ y or 2nd after Easter Mark xy. 43-xvi. 8. vi. 1-7. 2nd day of 3rd week John iy. 46-54. 8—vii. 60. 3rd vi. 27-33. νυ]1]. 5-17. 4th (6th, Gale) 48-54. 18-25. 5th 40-44, 26-39. 6th (παρασκευῇ)ὴ (4th, Gale) 35-39. 40-ix. 19. 7th (σαββάτῳ) xv. 17-xvi. 1. 19-31. John i. 1-17. Acts i. 1-8. Κυριακῇ 6’ or 3rd Sunday after Easter John y. 1-15, ix. 32-42. 2nd day of 4th week vi. 56-69. χ 16: 3rd Vile lease 21-33. 4th 14-30. xiv. 6—18: 5th viii, 12-20, x. 34-43. 6th (παρασκευῇ) 21-30. 44-xi. 10. 7th (σαββάτῳ) 31-42. xii, 1-11. Κυριακῇ ε΄ or 4th Sunday after Easter iv. 5-42, χὶ. 19-30. 2nd day of 5th week viii. 42-51. xii. 12-17. 3rd 51-59. 25-xiii. 12. 4th vi. 5-14. xili. 13-24. 5th ix, 39-x.9. xiv. 20-27. 6th (παρασκευῇ) x. 17-28. xy. 5-12. 7th (σαββάτῳ) 27-38. 35-41, Κυριακῇ S$’ or 5th Sunday after Easter ix, 1-38. xvi. 16-34, 2nd day of 6th week xi. 47-54. xvii. 1-9. 3rd xii, 19-36. 19-27. 4th 36-47. xviii. 22-28, 5th ᾿Αναλήψεως, Ascension Day Matins, Mark xvi. 9-20. Liturgy, Luke xxiv. 36-53. i, 1-12, 6th (παρασκευῇ) John xiv. 1-10 (11, Gale, Wake 12). xix. 1-8, 7th (σαββάτῳ) 10-21 (om. 18-20, Gale). xx. 7-12, 76 APPENDIX TO SECTION I. Κυριακῇ ζ΄ or 6th Sunday after Easter τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἐν Νικαίᾳ. xvi. 1-13. 16-38. 2nd day of 7th week xiv. 27—xv. 7. xxi. 8-14. 3rd xvi. 2-13. 26-32. 4th 15-23. xxiii. 1-11. 5th 23-33. xxv. 13-19. 6th (παρασκευῇ) xvii. 18-26. xxvii. 1—xxviii.1. 7th (σαββάτῳ) xxi. 14-25. xxviii. 1-31. Κυριακῇ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς Whitsunday Matins, xx. 19-23. Liturgy, vii. 37-vili.124. ii, 1-11. Ἔκ τοῦ κατὰ Ματθαῖον. 2nd day of 1st week Τῇ ἐπαύριον τῆς πεν- τηκοστῆς. Matth. xviii. 10-20. Ephes. v. 8--19. 3rd iv. 25-v. 11. Ath 20-30. 5th 31-41, vii. 9-18. vy. 42-48. Rom. i. 7-12. 6th (παρασκευῇ) 7th (σαββάτῳ) Κυριακῇ a’ τῶν , = ooh Hebr. xi.33- ἁγίων πάντων xix. 27-30. } xil, 2. 2nd day of2nd)_ vi. 31-34; week vii. 9-14. 3rd vii. 15-21. 4th 21-23. 5th Vill. 23-27. 6th (παρασκευῇ) ix. 14-17. 7th (σαββάτῳ) vii. 1-8. Rom. iii, 19-26. Κυριακῇ β' iv. 18-23. Rom. ii. 10-16. 2nd day of 3rd week ix. 36-x. 8. 3rd 9-15. 4th 16-22. 5th 23-31. 6th (παρασκευῇ) 32-36; xi.1. 7th (caBBarw) vii. 24-viii. 4, Rom. 111. 28-iv. 3. Κυριακῇ γὙ vi. 22-23. Rom. v. 1-10. 2nd day of 4th week xi. 2-15. 3rd 16-20. 4th 20-26. 5th 27-30. 6th (παρασκευῇ) πχὶϊ. 1-8. 7th (σαββάτῳ) viii. 14-23 (om. 19-22, Gale). Rom. vi. 11-17. Κυριακῇ δ΄ viii. 5-13. Rom. vi. 18-23. 2nd day of 5th week xi. 9-13. 3rd 14-16; 22-30. 4th 38-45. 5th xii. 46—xiii. 3. 6th (παρασκευῇ) 3-12. 7th (σαββάτῳ) ix. 9-13. Rom. viii, 14-21. Κυριακῇ εἰ vili. 28-ix. 1. Rom. σ. 1-10. 2nd day of 6th week xiii, 10-23. 3rd 24-30. 4th 31-36. 5th 36-43. 44-54, ix, 18-26. Rom. ix. 1-5. ix. 1-8. Rom. xii. 6-14. 6th (παρασκευῇ) 7th (σαββάτῳ) Κυριακῇ ς΄ 2nd day of 7th week xiii, 54-58. 3rd xiv. 1-13. 4th xiv. 35—xv. 11. 5th 12-27" 6th (παρασκευῇ) 29-31. 7th (σαββάτῳ) x. 37-xi. 1. Rom. xii. 1-3. Κυριακῇ ζ΄ ix. 27-35. Rom. xv. 1-7. 2nd day of 8th week xvi. 1-6. 3rd 6-12. 4th 20-24. 5th 24-28. 6th (παρασκευῇ) xvii. 10-18. 7th (σαββάτῳ) xii. 30-37. Rom. xiii. 1-10. Κυριακῇ η΄ xiv. 14-22. 1 Cor. i. 10--18, 2nd day of 9th week xvili. 1-11. 3rd xviii. 18-20; xix. 1-2; 18-15, 4th xx. 1-16, 5th 17-28. 6th (παρασκευῇ) xxi. 12-14; 17-20. 7th (σαββάτῳ) xv. 32-39. Rom, xiv. 6-9. ! The pericope adultere Jo. vii. 53—viii. 11 is omitted in all the copies we know on the feast of Pentecost. Whenever read it was on some Saint’s Day (vid, infra, Ὁ. 81, notes 2, 8). APPENDIX TO SECTION I. a Κυριακῇ 6’ xiv. 22-34, 1 Cor. iii. 9-17. 2nd day of 10th week xxi, 18-22. 8rd 23-27. 4th 28-32. 5th 43-46. 6th (παρασκευῇ) xxii. 23-33. 7th (σαββάτῳ) xvii. 24-xviii. 1. Rom, xv. 30-33. Κυριακῇ ¢ xvii. 14-23. 1 Cor. iv. 9-16. 2nd day of 11th week Xxili, 13-22. 3rd 23-28. 4th 29-39. 5th xxiv. 13 (14, Wake 12; 15 Cod. Beze) —28. 6th (παρασκευῇ) 27-35 ; 42-51. 7th (σαββάτῳ, xix. 3-12. 1 Cor. i. 3-9. Κυριακῇ ια΄ = xviii, 23-35. 1 Cor. ix. 2-12. "Ex τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον. 2nd day of 12th week Mark i. 9-15. 3rd 16-22. - Ath 23-28. 5th 29-35. 6th (παρασκευῇ) ii. 18-22. 7th (σαββάτῳ) Matth. xx. 29-34. 1 Cor. i. 26-29. Κυριακῇ ιβ΄’ Matth. xix. 16-26. 1 Cor. xy. 1-11. 2nd day of 13th week Mark iii. 6-12. 3rd 13-21, Ath 20-27, 5th 28-35, 6th (παρασκευῇ) iv. 1-9. 7th (σαββάτῳ) Matth. xxii, 15-22. 1 Cor, ii. 6-9. Κυριακῇ vy Matth, xxi. 33-42. 1 Cor. xvi. 13-24. 2nd day of 14th week Mark iv. 10-23. 3rd 24-34, 4th 35-41, 5th Vv; 1220: 6th (παρασκευῇ) v. 22-24; 35-vi. 1. 7th (σαββάτῳ) Matth. xxiii. 1-12. 1 Cor. iv. 1-5. Κυριακῇ ιδ΄ Matth. xxii. 2-14. 2 Cor. 1. 21- ἰ1, 4. 2nd day of 15th week Mark v. 24-34, 3rd vi. 1-7. Ath 7-13. 5th 30-45. 6th (παρασκευῇ) 45-53. 7th (σαββάτῳ) Matth. xxiv. 1-13 (om. 10-12, Gale). 1 Cor. iv. 17-y. 5. Κυριακῇ ce’ Matth. xxii. 35-40. 2 Cor. iv. 6-11. 2nd day of 16th week Mark vi. 54-vii, 3. 3rd 5-16. Ath 14-24. 5th 24-30. 6th (παρασκευῇ) viii. 1-10. 7th (σαββάτῳ) Matth. xxiv. 34-37; 42-44, 1 Cor. x. 23-28. [Κυριακῇ 1S’ (16th) Matth. xxv. 14-30 (29, Gale). σαββάτῳ ιζ΄ (17th) Matth. xxv. 1-13. Κυριακῇ ιζ΄ (17th) Matth. xv. 21-28,] ᾿Αρχὴ τῆς lvdixrod τοῦ νέου 5th Luke iv. 16-22. 6th (παρασκευῇ) 17-23. ἔτους, ἤγουν τοῦ evayyeNt- 6th (παρασκευῇ) 22-30. 7th (caBBarw) ν. 17-26. «oh nae ane 547, 7th (σαββάτῳ) 31-36. Κυριακῇ 8’ mut ean 2nd day of 3rd Ἔκ τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶν [Christ’s Κυριακῇ a’ ν. 1-11. week 24-30. Coll. F. 1. 8]. 2nd day of 2nd 3rd 37-45. 2nd day of 1st week iv. 38-44. 4th vi. 46—-vii. 1, week Luke iii. 19-22. ard v. 12-16. 5th vii. 17-30. 3rd 23-iv.1. 4th 33-39. 6th (παρασκευῇ) 31-35. 4th 1-15. 5th vi. 12-16. 7th (σαββάτῳ) ν. 27-32. 78 Κυριακῇ 7 vii. 11-16. 2nd day of 4th week 36-50. 3rd viii. 1-3. 4th 22-25. 5th ix. 7-11. 6th (παρασκευῇ) 12-18. 7th (σαββάτῳ) vi. 1-10. Κυριακῇ 5’ viii. 5-15. 2nd day of 5th week ix. 18-22. 3rd 23-27. 4th 43-50. 5th 49-56. 6th (παρασκευῇ) x. 1-15. 7th (σαββάτῳ vii. 1-10. Κυριακῇ € xvi, 19-31. 2nd day of 6th week x, 22-24, ard xi. 1-9. 4th 9-13. 5th 14-23. 6th (παρασκευῇ) 23-26. 7th (σαββάτῳ) viii. 16-21. Κυριακῇ «΄ viii. 27 (26, Gale) —35 ; 38-39. 2nd day of 7th week xi, 29-33. 3rd 34-41, 4th 42-46. 5th 47-xii. 1. 6th (παρασκευῇ) xii. 2-12. 7th (σαββάτῳ) ix. 1-6. Κυριακῇ ζ΄ viii. 41-56. 2nd day of 8th week xii. 13-15; 22-31. 3rd xii, 42-48, 4th 48-59 5th xiii. 1-9, 6th (παρασκευῇ) 31-35. 7th (caBBdrw) ix. 37-48. Κυριακῇ ἡ x. 25-37. 2nd day of 9th week xiv. 12-15. 3rd 25-35. 4th xv. 1-10. 5th xvi. 1-9. 6th (παρασκευῇ) xvi. 15-18; xvii. 1-4. ix. 57-62. 7th (σαββάτῳ) Κυριακῇ 6 2nd day of 10th week 4th xviii. 15-17; 26-30. 5th 31-34. 6th (παρασκευῇ) xix. 12-28. 7th (σαββάτῳ) x. 19-21. Κυριακῇ ¢ xiii. 10-17. 2nd day of 11th week xix. 37-44. 3rd 45-48. 4th xx. 1-8. 5th 9-18. 6th (παρασκευῇ) 19-26. 7th (σαββάτῳ) xii. 32-40. Κυριακῇ ca’ xiy. 16-24. 2nd day of 12th week xx. 27-44. 3rd xxi. 12-19. 4th xxi.5-8; 10-11; 20-24. 5th xxi, 28-33. 6th (παρασκευῇ) xxi. 37—xxii. 8. 7th (σαββάτῳ) xiii. 19-29. Κυριακῇ ιβ΄ 2nd day of 13th week Mark viii. 11-21. 3rd 22-26. 4th 80-34, xii. 16-21. Xvii. 20-25. 3rd xvii. 26-37; xviii. 18. xvii. 12-19. APPENDIX TO SECTION I. ix. 10-16. 33-41. 5th 6th (παρασκευῇ) 7th (σαββάτῳ) Luke xiy. 1-11. Κυριακῇ vy xviii. 18-27. 2nd day of 14th week Mark ix. 42-x. 1. 3rd x. 22, 4th 11-16, 5th 17-27. 6th (παρασκευῇ) 24-32. 7th (σαββατῳὶ Luke xvi. 10-15. Κυριακῇ ιδ΄ xviii. 35-43. [2nd day of 15th week Mark x. 46-52. 3rd xis 11. 95. 4th 22-26. 5th 27-33. 6th (παρασκευῇ) xii, 1-12. 7th (σαββάτῳ) Luke xvii. 3-10. Κυριακῇ ve xix. 1-10. 2nd day of 16th week Mark xii. 13-17. 3rd 18-27. 4th 28-34. 5th 38-44, 6th (παρασκευῇ) xiii. 1-9. 7th (σαββάτῳ) Luke xviii. 1-8. Κυριακῇ is’ (of the Publican) 9-14.] 2nd day of 17th week Mark xiii. 9-13. 3rd 14-23. 4th 24--31. 5th xiii. 31-xiy, 2. 6th (παρασκευῇ) xiv. 3-9, 7th (σαββάτῳ) Luke xx. 46-xxi. 4. APPENDIX TO SECTION I. 79 Κυριακῇ ιζ΄ (of the Canaanitess) Matth. xy. 21-28. σαββάτῳ πρὸ τῆς ἀποκρέω, Luke xv. 1-10. Κυριακῇ πρὸ τῆς ἀποκρέω (of the Prodigal) Luke xy. 11-32. 1 Thess. v. 14-23. 2nd day of the week of the carnival Mark xi. 1-11. 3rd xiv. 10-42. 4th 43 αν. 1. 5th Vell. 6th (παρασκευῇ) xv. 20; 22; 25; 33-41. 7th (σαββάτῳ) Luke xxi. 8-9; 25-27; 33-36; 1 Cor. vi. 12-20. Matth. xxv. 31-46. Κυριακῇ τῆς ἀποκρέω 1 Cor. viii. 8-ix. 2. 2nd day of the week of the cheese-eater Luke xix. 29-40; xxii. 7-8; 39. 3rd Xxil. 39-—xxiii. 1. 4th ς deest. 5th xxiii. 1-43; 44-56. 6th (παρασκευῇ) deest. 7th (σαββάτῳ) Matth. vi. 1-13. Rom. xiv. 19-23; xvi. 25-27. Κυριακῇ τῆς τυροφάγου Matth. vi. 14-21. Rom. xiii. 11-xiv. 4. Παννυχὶς τῆς ἁγίας νηστείας. Vigil of Lent (Parh., Christ’s) Matth. vii. 7-11. Τῶν νηστειών (Lent). σαββάτῳ a’ Mark ii. 23-iii. 5. Hebr. i. 1-12. Κυριακῇ a = John 1. 44-55. xi. 24. 40. σαββάτῳ β' Mark i. 35-44, iii. 12-14. Κυριακῇ β΄ ii, 1-12. i. 10-ii. 3. σαββάτῳ Ὑ 14-17. x. 32-37. Κυριακῇ y ~—s Vii. 834-ix. 1. ἴν. 14-v. 6. σαββάτῳ δ’ vii. 31-37. vi. 9-12. Κυριακῇ δ΄ ix. 17-31, 13-20. σαββάτῳ ε' viii. 27-31. ix, 24-28. Κυριακῇ εἶ x. 32-45, 11-14, σαββάτῳ ς΄’ (of Lazarus) John xi. 1-45. xii. 28-xiii. 8. Κυριακῇ ς΄ τῶν Batwy, Matth, xxi. 1-11; 15-17 [eis τὴν λιτήν, Mark x. 46-xi. 11, Burney 22]. Liturgy, John xii, 1-18, Phil. iv. 4-9. Τῇ ἁγίᾳ μεγάλῃ (Holy Week). Matins, Matth. xxi. 18-43. . 2ndday Liturgy, xxiv. 3-35. Matins, xxii. 15=xxiv. 2. 3rd Liturgy, xxiv. 36—xxvi. 2. Matins, John (xi, 47-53, 4th Gale) xii. 17-47. Liturgy, Matth. xxvi, 6-16. ( Matins, Luke xxii. 1-36 (39, 5th Gale). ἰ Liturgy, Matth. xxvi. 1-20, Εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ νιπτῆρος, John xiii. 3-10. μετὰ τὸ νίψασθαι 12-,7: Matth. xxvi. 21-39; Luke xxii. 43, 44; Matth. xxvi. 40-xxvii. 2. 1 Cor. xi. 23-32. Εὐαγγέλια τῶν ἁγίων πάθων w xv (Twelve Gospels of the Passions), (1) Jo. xiii, 31-xviii. 1. (2) Jo. xviii. 1-28, (3) Matth. xxvi. 57-75. (4) Jo. xviii. 28-xix. 16. (5) Matth. xxvii. 3-32. (6) Mark xv. 16-32. (7) Matth. xxvii, 33- 54, (8) Luke xxiii, 32-49. (9) Jo. xix, 25-37. (10) Mark xv. 43-47. (11) Jo. xix. 38-42. (12) Matth. xxvii. 62-66. Evayyé\a τῶν ὡρῶν τῆς ἁγίας παραμονῆς (Night-watches of Vigil of Good Friday). Hour (1) Matth. xxvii. 1-56. (3) Mark xv. 1-41. (6) Luke xxii, 66-xxiii. 49, (9) John xix, 16-37. Τῇ ἁγίᾳ παρασκευῇ (Good Friday) εἰς τὴν λειτουργίαν. Matth. xxvii. 1-38; Luke xxiii. 39-43; Matth. xxvii. 39-54; John xix. 31-37; Matth. xxvii. 55-61. 1 Cor, i. 18-ii. 2, Τῷ ἁγίῳ καὶ μεγάλῳ σαββάτῳ (Haster Even). Matins, Matth. xxvii. 62-66. 1 Cor. v. 6-8. Evensong, Matth. xxviii. 1-20, Rom. vi. 3-11. Εὐαγγέλια ἀναστασιμὰ ἑωθινά (vid. Suicer Thes. Eccl. 1. 1229), eleven Gospels, used in turn, one every Sunday at Matins. (1) Matth. xxviii. 16-20. (2) Mark xvi. 1 -8, (3) ib. 9-20, (4) Luke xxiv. 1-12. (5) ib. 12-35. (6) ib. 36-52. (7) John xx. 1-10, (8) ib. 11-18. (9) ib. 19-31, (10) Jo, xxi, 1-14, (11) ib, 15-25. 80 APPENDIX TO SECTION I. We have now traced the daily service of the Greek Church, as derived from the Gospels, throughout the whole year, from Easter Day to Easter Even, only that in Lent the lessons from the 2nd to the 6th days inclusive are taken from the book of Genesis (above, p. 70). The reader will observe that from Easter to Pentecost St John and the Acts are read for seven weeks, or eight Sundays. The first Sunday after Pentecost is the Greek All Saints’ Day; but from the Monday next after the day of Pentecost (Whit-Monday) St Matthew is used continuously every day for eleven weeks and as many Sundays. For six weeks more, St Matthew is appointed for the Saturday and Sunday lessons, St Mark for the other days of the week. But inasmuch as St Luke was to be taken up with the new year, the year of the indiction [Arund. 547], which in this case must be September 24", if all the lessons in Matthew and Mark were not read out by this time (which, unless Easter was very early, would not be the case), they were at once broken off, and (after proper lessons had been employed for the Sunday before and the Saturday and Sunday which followed? the feast of the Elevation of the Cross, Sept. 14) the lessons from St Luke (seventeen weeks and sixteen Sundays in all) were taken up and read on as far as was necessary: only that the 17th Sunday of St Matthew (called from the subject of its Gospel the Canaanitess) was always resumed for the Sunday before the Carnival (πρὸ τῆς ἀποκρέω), which is also named from its Gospel that of the Prodigal, and answers to the Latin Septuagesima. Then follow the Sunday of the Carnival (ἀποκρέω) or Sexagesima, that of the Cheese-eater (rupopdyov) or Quinquagesima, and the six Sundays in Lent. The whole number of Sunday Gospels in the year (even reckoning the two interpolated about Sept. 14) is thus only fifty-two: but in the Menology or Catalogue of immoveable feasts will be found proper lessons for three Saturdays and Sundays about Christmas and Epiphany, which could either be substituted for, or added to the ordinary Gospels for the year, according as the distance from Easter of one year to Easter in the next exceeded or fell short of fifty-two weeks. The system of lessons from the Acts and Epistles is much simpler than that of the Gospels: it exhibits fifty-two Sundays in the year, without any of the complicated arrangements of the other scheme. Since the Epistles from the Saturday of the 16th week after Pentecost to the Sunday of the Prodigal could not be set (like the rest) by the side of their corresponding Gospels, they are given separately in the following table: Κυριακῇ is’ 2 Cor. vi. 1—10. Κυριακῇ xB’ ~—s- Gal, vi. 11—18. σαββάτῳ ιζ' 1 Cor. xiv. 20—25. σαββάτῳ xy’ 2 Cor, viii. 1—5. Κυριακῇ ιζ΄ 2 Cor. vi. 16—viii. 1. Κυριακῇ xy’ Eph. ii. 4—10, σαββάτῳιηη 1 Cor. xv. 39—45. σαββάτῳ xd’ 2 Cor. xi. 1—6. Κυριακῇ ιη΄ 2 Cor. ix. 6—11. Κυριακῇ κδ' Eph. ii, 14—22, σαββάτῳ ιθ΄ 1 Cor. xv. 58—xvi. 8. σαββάτῳ xe’ Gal. i. 3—10. Κυριακῇ 10" 2 Cor. xi. 31—xii. 9. Κυριακῇ xe’ Eph. iv. 1—7. σαββάτῳ x’ 2 Cor. i. 8—11. σαββάτῳ xs’ Gal, iii, 8—12. Κυριακῇ x’ Gal. 1. 11—19. Κυριακῇ xs’ Eph, v. 8—19. σαββάτῳ xa’ 2 Cor, 111. 12—18, σαββάτῳ κ΄ Gal. ν. 22—vi. 2. Κυριακῇ xa’ Gal. ii. 16—20, Κυριακῇ «0 Eph. vi. 10—17. σαββάτῳ xB’ 2 Cor. v. 1—10, σαββάτῳ κη΄ Col, i. 9—18. 1 The more usual indiction, which dates from Sept. 1, is manifestly excluded by the following ru- bric (Burney, 22, p. 191, and in other copies): Δέον γινώσκειν ὅτι ἄρχεται ὃ Λουκᾶς ἀναγινώσκεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς Κυριακῆς μετὰ τὴν ὕψωσιν᾽ τότε yap καὶ ἡ ἰσυμερία (i.e, ἰσημερία] γίνεται, ὃ καλεῖται νέον Eros. Ἢ ὅτι ἀπὸ τὰς [τῆς] κγ΄ τοῦ σεπτεμβρίου ὁ Λουκᾶς ἀναγινώσκεται. 3. The lesson for the Sunday after Sept. 14 is the same as that for the 8rd Sunday in Lent. ΄ APPENDIX TO SECTION I, 81 Κυριακῇ κη΄ 2 Cor. ii, 14—iii. 3, - Κυριακῇ λβ΄ = 1s«* Tim. vi. 11—16, σαββάτῳ κθ΄ Eph. ii, 11---18, σαββάτῳ λγ΄ 1 Tim. ii. 1- 7. Κυριακῇ x0" Col, iii. 4—11, Κυριακῇ Xy’ 88 Kup. λα΄. σαββάτῳ λ’ Eph. ν. 1—8, σαββάτῳλδ΄ 1 Tim. iii, 13—iv. 5, Κυριακῇ λ΄ Col. iii, 12—16, Κυριακῇ λδ΄ 2 Tim. iii, 10—15, oaBBarywra Col. i, 2—6. caBBary re’ 1 Tim. iii. 1—11, Κυριακῇ λα΄ = 2 Tim. i. 3—9. Κυριακῇ Xe’ 2. Tim, ii, 1—10. σαββάτῳ XB’ Col, ii, 8—12, σαββάτῳ rs’ 2 Tim, ii, 11—19. ON THE MENOLOGY, OR CALENDAR OF IMMOVEABLE FESTIVALS AND SAINTS’ DAYS. We cannot in this place enter very fully into this portion of the contents of Lec- tionaries, inasmuch as, for reasons we have assigned above (pp. 70, 71), the investiga- tion would be both tedious and difficult. All the great feast-days, however, as well as the commemorations of the Apostles and of a few other Saints, occur alike in all the books, and ought not to be omitted here. We commence with the month of September (the opening of the year at Constantinople), as do all the Lectionaries and Synaxaria we have seen}, Sept. 1. Simeon Stylites, Luke iv. 16—22; Col. iii. 12—16, ~ 2. John the Faster, Matth. νυ. 14—19 (Wake 12). 8. Birthday of the Virgin, Θεοτόκος, Luke x, 38—42; xi, 27, 28; Phil. ii. 5—11. Κυριακῇ πρὸ τῆς ὑψώσεως, Jo. iii. 18--17; Gal. vi. 11—18. 14. Elevation of the Cross, Jo. xix. 6—235 ; 1 Cor. i. 18—24. \ Jo. viii. 21—30; 1 Cor. i. 26—29. Mark viii. 34—ix. 1; Gal. ii. 16—20, 18. Theodora?, John viii. 3—11 (Parham), 24, Thecla, Matth. xxv. 1—13; 2 Tim. i, 3—9. Oct. 3. Dionysius the Areopagite, Matth. xiii. 45—54; Act. xvii. 16 (19, Cod. Ὁ) - 6. Thomas the Apostle, Jo. xx. 19—31; 1 Cor. iv. 9—16. 8, Pelagia, John viii, 3—11%, σαββάτῳ | μετὰ τὴν Κυριακῇ [ὕψωσιν 9. James son of Alpheus, Matth. x. 1—7; 14; 15. 18. Luke the Evangelist, Luke x. 16— 21; Col. iv. 5—19. 23. James, ὁ ἀδελφόθεος, Mark vi. 1—7. ~ Noy. 8. Michael and Archangels, Luke x, 16—21; Hebr, 1. 2——10: 13. Chrysostom, Jo. x. 9—16; Hebr. vii. 26—vili. 2. 14, Philip the Apostle, Jo. i. 44—55; Act. viii. 26—39. 16. Matthew the Apostle, Matth. ix. 9—13; 1 Cor. iv. 9—16. 17, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Matth. x. 1—10 (Wake 12). 25. Clement of Rome, Jo. xy. 17—xvi. 1; Phil. 111, 20—iv. 3. 80. Andrew the Apostle, John i. 35— 52; 1 Cor. iv. 9—16. Dec. 20. Ignatius, ὁ θεόφορος, Mark ix. 33 —41; Hebr. iv. 14—-v. 6. Saturday before Christmas, Matth. xiii, 31—58 (Luke xiii, 1929, Gale); Gal. iii, 8—12, 1 In the Menology, even Arund. 547 has μηνὶ σεπτεμβρίῳ a* ἀρχὴ THs ἰνδίκτου. So Burn. 22 nearly. 2 Theodosia in Codex Cyprius, with the cognate lesson, Luke vii. 36—50, which lesson is read in Gale for Sept.16, Euphemia. In Burdett-Coutts 11, 7, John viii. 8—11 is used εἰς μετανοοῦντας : B— C. 11. 80 adds καὶ γυναικῶν. 3 So Cod. Cyprius, but the Christ’s Coll. Lvst. removes Pelagia to Aug. 31, and reads Jo. viil. 1—11. 6 §2 APPENDIX TO SECTION I. Sunday before Christmas, Matth, i, 1—25; Hebr. xi. 9—16. 24, Christmas Eve, Luke ii, Hebr. 1. 1—12, 25. Christmas Day, Matth, ii, 1—12; Gal, iv. 4—7. 26. els τὴν σύναξιν τῆς θεοτόκου, Matth, ii, 18.--28, Hebr, ii. 11---18, 27. Stephen!, Matth. xxi, 33—42 (Gale). Saturday after Christmas, Matth, xii, 15—21; 1 Tim, vi. 11—16. Sunday after Christmas, Mark i. 1—8; Gal, i, 11—19. The same Lessons for 29. Innocents (Gale). Saturday πρὸ τῶν φώτων, Matth, iii, 1—6; 1 Tim, iii, 183—iv. 5. Sunday πρὸ τῶν φώτων, Mark i, 1—8; 1 Tim, 111, 13—iv. 5, Jan. 1. Circumcision, Luke ii, 20; 21; 40—52; 1 Cor. xiii, 12—xiv. 5. 5. Vigil of θεοφανία, Luke iii, 1—18; 1 Cor. ix, 19—x. 4. Matins, Mark 6. Ocoparia | j. 9. 11. (Epiphany)) Liturgy, Matt. 111, 13—17, 7. John, ὁ πρόδρομος, John i, 29—34. Saturday μετὰ τὰ φῶτα, Matth, iv. 1—11; Eph. vi. 10—17. Sunday μετὰ τὰ φώτα, Matth, iv. 12— 17; Eph. iv. 7—13. 22. Timothy, Matth. x. 82; 83; 37; 88; xix. 27—30; 2 Tim. i. 3—9. Feb. 2. Presentation of Christ, Luke ii, 22—40; Hebr. vii. 7—17. 8. Simeon ὁ Θεοδύχος and Anna, Luke ii. 25—388; Hebr. ix. 11—14. 23. Polycarp, John xii. 24—36, [πὰ Luke vii. 1—20; Titus ii, 11—14, 24, Tinding of the Head of John the Baptist 18—29. Liturgy, Matth, xi, 5—14; 2 Cor. iv. 6—11, March 24, Vigil of Annunciation, Luke i, 839—56 (Gale), 25. Annunciation, Hebr. 11, 11—18, April 23. St George, Acts xii, 1—11 (Cod, Bez)”, 25. Mark the Evangelist, 7—13., 30. James, son of Zebedee, Matth. x. 1—7; 14; 15. May 2. Athanasius, Matth. y. 14—19; Hebr. iv. 14—v. 6. 8. John, ὁ Θεόλογος, Jo, xix. 25—27; xxi, 24, 25; 1 Jo. i. 1—7. 26. Jude the Apostle, 70. xiv. 21—24, June 11. Bartholomew and Barnabas the Apostles, Mark vi. 7—13; Acts xi. Luke i, 24—88; Mark vi. 19—30. 19. Jude, brother of the Lord, Mark vi. 7—13 or εὐαγγέλιον ἀποστολικόν (Matth, x. 1—8?). 24. Birth of John the Baptist, Luke i. 1—25; 57—80; Rom. xiii. 11—xiy. 4. 20, Peter and Paul the Apostles, Matth, xvi, 183—19; 2 Cor. x. 21—xi 9, 80. The Twelve Apostles, Matth, x, 1—8, July 22. Mary Magdalene, ἡ μυροφόρος, Mark xvi. 9—20; 2 Tim, ii. 1—10. Matins, Luke ix, 29— 36 or Mark ix. 2—9. Liturgy, Matth. xvii, 1—9; 1 Pet, i. 10—19. 15. Assumption of the Virgin, Luke x, 38—42 (Gale, Codex Bez). 20. Thaddeus the Apostle, Matth. x, 16—22; 1 Cor, iv. 9—16. 25. Titus, Matth. v. 14—19 (Gale). 29. Beheading of John the Baptist, Mark vi. 14—30; Acts xiii, 25—82. Els τὰ ἐγκαίνια, Dedication, John x, 22 (17, Gale)—28 (Gale, Cod. Bezw), Aug. 6. Transfi- guration At Cambridge (Uniy. Libr. τι, 28, 8) is a rare volume containing the Greek Gospel Church-Lessons, Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν εὐαγγέλιον, Venice, 1615—24, once belonging to Bp. Hacket: also the Apostolos of a smaller size. Another edition appeared in 1851, also at Venice, For a comparison of the Greek with the Coptic Calendar, see p. 71, note 2, For the Menology in the Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary, see Chap. ru. ὃ 8 (4). 1 The Proto-martyr Stephen is commemorated on August 2 in Evst. 8 (Wheeler 8), 2 The same Saint is commemorated in the fragment of a Golden Evangelistarium seen at Sinai by Mr E. Young in 1864, Section II. Description of the Uncial Manuscripts of the Greek Testament. We proceed to describe in detail the uncial manuscripts of the Greek Testament, arranged separately as copies of the Gospels, of the Acts and Catholic Epistles, of the Pauline Epistles, and of the Apocalypse. .The number extant in each portion of the sacred volume has been stated already (above, p. 72). They are usually indicated by the capital letters of the English and Greek alphabets, and stand on the list not in the order of their relative value or antiquity (as could have been wished), but mainly as they were applied from time to time to the purposes of Textual criticism. Manuscripts of the Gospels. ἃς (Aleph). CopEx SINAITICUS, now at St Petersburg, the justly celebrated copy which has of late years attracted such general attention in the learned world. From Tischendorf’s Notitia Ed. Cod. Sinaitici (pp. 5, 6) we first gained some insight into the history of its discovery. When travelling in 1844 under the patronage of his own sovereign, the King Frederick Augustus of Saxony, he picked out of a basket full of papers destined to light the oven of the Convent of St Catharine on Mount Sinai, the 43 leaves of the Septuagint which he published in 1846 as the Codex Friderico-Augustanus (see p. 29). These, of course, he easily got for the asking, but finding that further portions of the same codex (e.g. the whole of Isaiah and 1, 4 Maccabees) were extant, he rescued them from their probable fate, by enlightening the brotherhood as to their value. He was permitted to copy one leaf of what yet remained, contain- ing the end of Isaiah and the beginning of Jeremiah, which he afterwards published in the 1st volume of his Monumenta Sacra Inedita (1855), p. xxx.; and he departed in the full hope that he should be allowed to purchase the whole: but he had taught the monks a sharp lesson, and neither then, nor on his subsequent visit in 1853, could he gain any tidings of the 6—2 84 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS leaves he had left behind; he even seems to have concluded that they had been carried into Europe by some richer or more fortunate collector. At the beginning of 1859, after the care of the seventh edition of his N. T. was happily over, he went for a third time into the East, under the well-deserved patronage of the Emperor of Russia, the great protector of the Oriental Church ; and the treasure which had been twice withdrawn from him as a private traveller, was now (on the occasion of some chance conversation) spontaneously put into the hands of one sent from the champion and benefactor of the oppressed Church. ‘Tischendorf touchingly describes his surprise, his joy, his midnight studies over the priceless volume (“quippe dormire nefas videbatur”) on that memorable 4th of February, 1859. The rest was easy; he was allowed to copy his prize at Cairo, and ultimately to bring it to Europe, as a tribute of duty and gratitude to the Emperor Alexander IJ. To that monarch’s wise munificence both the larger edition of (1862), and the smaller of the New Testament only (1863), are mainly due. The Codex Sinaiticus is 13} inches in length by 14% inches high and consists of 345} leaves of the same beautiful vellum as the Cod. Friderico-Augustanus which is really a part of it (see p- 30), whereof 199 contain portions of the Septuagint version, 1474 the whole New Testament, Barnabas’ Epistle, and a con- siderable fragment of Hermas’ Shepherd. It has subsequently appeared that the Russian Archimandrite (now Bishop) Porphyry had brought with him from Sinai in 1845 some pieces of Genesis and Numbers v—vii, which had been applied long before to the binding of other books. Each page comprises four columns (see ‘p. 27), with 48 lines in each column, of those continuous, noble, simple uncials (compare Plate IV. 11 ἃ with 11 Ὁ) we have de- scribed so minutely in the preceding section (pp. 82—8). The poetical books of the Old Testament, however, being written in στίχοι, admit of only two columns on a page (above, p. 49). The order of the sacred books is remarkable, though not unprece- dented (p. 67). St Paul’s Epistles precede the Acts, and, among them, that to the Hebrews follows 2 Thess., standing on the same page with it. Although this manuscript has hitherto been inspected by few Englishmen (Tregelles, however, is among the number), yet its general aspect has grown familiar to us by the means of photographs of its most important pages taken for OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 85 the use of private scholars’, as well as from the facsimiles con- tained in Tischendorf’s several editions (p. 32, note). Breathings and accents there are none: the apostrophus (see p. 46), and the single point for punctuation, are entirely absent for pages together, yet occasionally are rather thickly studded, not only in places where a later hand has been unusually busy (e.g. Isaiah i. 1—iu. 2, two pages), but in some others (e.g. in 2 Cor. xl. 20 there are eight stops). Even the words very usually abridged (except 00, Ko, wo, yo, mva which are constant) are here written in full, as πατήρ (but wpa sometimes), daved: the practice varies for vos, ovpavos, av@pwros: we find ἰσραηλ᾽, woX Or IMA: ἱερουσαλημ᾽, ιημ, Aj, UN’, OF υλμ΄. Tischendorf considers the two points over tota and wupsilon (which are sometimes wanting) as seldom from the first hand: the mark > (see p. 47), besides its rather rare marginal use in citations (see p. 60, note), we note in the text oftener in the Old Testament than in the New. Words are divided at the end of a line as capriciously as can be imagined: thus K in OTK is repeatedly separated without need*. Small letters, of the most perfect shape (see p. 48), freely occur in all places, especially at the end of lines, where the — superscript is almost always made to represent N (e.g. 17 times in Mark i. 1—35), The only other compendia scribendt seem to be K, for καὶ, and HN written as in Plate I. No. 2. Numerals are represented by letters, with a 1 Tam indebted to Mr Burgon’s liberality for full-sized photographs of the four pages containing Mark xvi. 2—Luke i. 18; Luke xxii. 20—52 ; John i. 1—39; xxi, 1—25. 2 Abbot, Comparative Antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts, ubi supra, p. 195. This writer adopts in controversy a tone which has happily become obsolete among scholars on our side of the Atlantic; yet by a diligent use of the materials supplied by Vercellone and Cozza’s Roman edition of the Cod. Vaticanus (1868, 69, 70) and of other documents, he has no doubt shaken the arguments by which Mr Burgon seeks to demonstrate that the Sinaitic manuscript is younger than its rival in the Vatican ‘‘ by 50, by 75, or by 100 years” (Last Twelve verses of S. Mark, pp. 291—4). 3 It has been suggested that this strange mode of division originated in the reluctance of scribes to begin a new line with any combination of letters which could not commence a Greek word, and to end a line with any letter which is not a vowel, or a liquid, or o, or y before another consonant, except in the case of Proper Names (Journal of Sacred Literature, April 1863, p. 8). Certainly the general practice in Cod. δὲ bears out the rule thus laid down, though a few instances to the contrary occur here and there (Collation of Cod. Sinaiticus, Introd. p. xiv. note). un 86 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS straight line placed over them, e.g. # Mark 1. 13). Although there are no capitals, the initial letter of a line which begins a sentence generally (not always) stands out from the rank of the rest, as in the Old Testament portion of Cod. Vaticanus, and less frequently in the New, after the fashion of certain earlier pieces on papyrus (see pp. 48, 97). The titles and subscriptions of the several books are as short as possible (see Ρ. 60). The τέτλοι or κεφάλαια majora are absent; the margin contains the so-called Ammonian sections and Eusebian canons, but Tischendorf is positive that neither they nor such notes as στίχων pr (see p. 49, note 2) appended to 2 Thessalonians, are by the original scribe, although they may possibly be due to a contemporary hand. From the number of ὁμοιοτέλευτα (p. 9) and other errors, one cannot affirm that it is very carefully written. Its itacisms (see p. 10) are of the oldest type, and those not constant; chiefly ἐ for εἰ, ἡ and v and oz interchanged. The grammatical forms commonly termed Alexandrian occur, pretty much as in other manuscripts of the earliest date. The whole manuscript is disfigured by corrections, a few by the original scribe, or by the usual comparer (see p. 51); very many by an ancient and elegant hand of the sixth century (δ 4), whose emendations are of great importance; far the greater number by a scholar of the seventh century (N°), who often cancels the changes introduced by &*; others by as many as eight several later writers, whose varying styles Tischendorf has carefully dis- criminated and illustrated by facsimiles. The foregoing considerations were bringing even cautious students to a general conviction that Cod. x, if not, as its enthusi- astic discoverer had announced, “omnium antiquissimus” in the absolute sense of the words, was yet but little lower in date than the Vatican manuscript itself, and a veritable relic of the middle of the fourth century—the presence in its margin of the sections and canons of Kusebius [d. 340], by a hand nearly if not quite contemporaneous, seems to preclude the notion of higher antiquity—when Constantine Simonides, a Greek of Syme, who had just edited a few papyrus fragments of the New Testament alleged to have been written in the first century of the Christian sera (p. 24, note 2), astonished the learned world in 1862 by claiming to be himself the scribe who had penned this manuscript in the monastery of Panteleemon OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 87 on Mount Athos, as recently as the years 1839 and 1840. The writer of these pages must refer to the Introduction to his Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus (pp. Ix—Ixxii, 2nd edition, 1867) for a statement of the reasons which have been uni- versally accepted as conclusive, why the manuscript which Simonides may very well have written under the circumstances he has described neither was nor possibly could be that vener- able document. The discussion of the whole question, however, though- painful enough in some aspects, was the means of directing attention to certain peculiarities of Cod. & which might otherwise have been overlooked. While engaged in demonstrating that it could not have been transcribed from a Moscow-printed Bible, as was “Cod. Simoneidos” (to borrow the designation employed by its author), critics came to perceive. that either this copy or its immediate prototype must have been derived from a papyrus exemplar, and that probably of Egyptian origin (Collation, &c. pp. vill.*; xiv.; lxvill.), a confir- mation of the impression conveyed to the reader by a first glance at the eight narrow columns of each open leaf (p: 27). The claim of Simonides to be the sole writer of a book which must have consisted when complete of about 730 leaves, or 1460 pages of very large size (Collation, &c. p. xxxii.), and that too within the compass of eight or ten months’ (he inscribed on his finished work, as he tells us, the words Σιμωνίδου τὸ ὅλον ἔργον), made it important to scrutinize the grounds of Tischen- dorf’s judgment that four several scribes had been engaged upon it, one of whom, as he afterwards came to persuade him- self, was the writer of its rival, Codex Vaticanus®. Such an investigation can scarcely be carried out satisfactorily without actual examination of the manuscript itself, which is unfortu- nately not easily within the reach of those who could use it independently ; but it is at all events quite plain, as well from 1 He would have written about 20,000 separate uncial letters every day. But this is little to the performance of that veritable Briareus, Nicodemus o ξένος, who transcribed the Old Testament (in cursive characters certainly) now at Ferrara, beginning his task on the 8th of June, and finishing it the 15th of July, a.p. 1334, ‘‘ working very hard”—as he must have done indeed (Burgon, Guardian, Jan. 29, 1873). 2 This opinion, first put forth by Tischendorf in his N. T. Vaticanum 1867, Proleg. pp. xxi.—xxiii., was minutely discussed in the course of a review of that book in the Christian Remembrancer, October 1867, by the writer of these pages. 88 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS internal considerations as from minute peculiarities in the writing, such as the frequent use of the apostrophus and of the mark > (see above, pp. 46, 47) on some sheets and their com- plete absence from others (Collation, &c. pp. Xvi.—xvill.; Xxxil.; xxxvii.), that at least two, and probably more persons have been employed on the several parts of the volume. It is indeed a strange coincidence, although unquestionably it can be nothing more, that Simonides should have brought to the West from Mount Athos some years before one genuine fragment of the Shepherd of Hermas in Greek, and the tran- script of a second (both of which materially aided Tischendorf in editing the remains of that Apostolic Father), when taken in connection with the fact that the worth of Codex Sinaiticus is vastly enhanced by its exhibiting next to the Apocalypse, and on the same page with its conclusion, the only complete extant copy of the Epistle of Barnabas in Greek, followed by a con- siderable portion of this self-same Shepherd of Hermas, much of which, as well as of Barnabas, was previously known to us only in the Old Latin translation. Both these works are included in the list of books of the New Testament contained in the great Codex Claromontanus D, of St. Paul’s Epistles, to be described hereafter, Barnabas standing there in an order sufficiently remarkable ; and their presence, like that of the Epistles of Clement at the end of Codex Alexandrinus (pp. 90, 93), brings us back to a time when the Church had not yet laid aside the primitive custom of reading publicly in the congrega- tion certain venerated writings which had never been regarded exactly in the same light as Holy Scripture itself. Between the end of Barnabas and the opening of the Shepherd are lost the last six leaves of a quaternion (which usually consists of eight) numbered 90 at its head in a fairly ancient hand. The limited space would not suffice for the insertion of Clement’s genuine Epistle, since the head of the next quaternion is numbered 92, but might suit one of the other uncanonical books on the list in Cod. Claromontanus, viz. the Acts of Paul and the Revelation of Peter. With regard to the deeply interesting question as to the critical character of Cod. &, although it strongly supports the Codex Vaticanus in many characteristic readings, yet it cannot be said to give its exclusive adherence to any of the witnesses OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 89 hitherto examined. It so lends its grave authority, now to one and now to another, as to convince us more than ever of the futility of seeking to derive the genuine text of the New Testa- ment from any one copy, however ancient and, on the whole, trustworthy. On this whole subject see Chapter vit. A. CopEx ALEXANDRINUS in the British Museum, where the open volume of the New Testament is publicly shewn in the Manuscript room. It was placed in that Library on its forma- tion in 1753, having previously belonged to the king’s private collection, from the year 1628, when Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople (whose crude attempts to reform the Eastern Church on the model of Geneva provoked the untoward Synod of Bethlehem in 1672), sent this most precious document by our Ambassador in Turkey, Sir Thomas Roe, as a truly royal gift to Charles I. An Arabic inscription, several centuries old, at the back of the Table of Contents on the first leaf of the manuscript, and translated into Latin by another not very modern scribe, states that it was written by the hand of Thecla the Martyr. A recent Latin note on the first page of the first of two fly- leaves declares that it was given to the Patriarchal Chamber in the year of the Martyrs, 814 [A.D. 1098]. Another, and appa- rently the earliest inscription, in an obscure Moorish-Arabic scrawl, set at the foot of the first page of Genesis, was thus translated for Baber, by Professor Nicoll of Oxford, “ Dicatus est Cellz Patriarche in urbe munité Alexandria. Qui eum ex e& extraxerit sit anathematizatus, viavulsus. Athanasius humilis” (Cod. Alex. V. T., Prolegomena, p. xxvi., not. 92). That the book was brought from Alexandria by Cyril (who had previously been Patriarch of that see) need not be disputed, although Wet- stein, on the doubtful authority of Matthew Muttis of Cyprus, Cyril’s deacon, concludes that he procured it from Mount Athos. In the volume itself the Patriarch has written and subscribed the following words: “ Liber iste scripturae sacrae N. et V. Tes- tamenti, prout ex traditione habemus, est scriptus manu The- cle, nobilis foemine Aigyptiz, ante mile (510) et trecentos annos circiter, pauld :post Concilium Nicenum. Nomen Thecle in fine libri erat exaratum, sed extincto Christianismo in Algypto a Mahometanis, et libri und Christianorum in similem sunt reducti conditionem. Extinctum ergo et Thecle nomen et laceratum, 90 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS | sed memoria et traditio recens observat.” Cyril seems to lean wholly on the Arabic inscription on the first leaf of the volume: independent testimony he would appear to have received none. This celebrated manuscript, the earliest of first-rate import- ance applied by scholars to the criticism of the text, and yielding in value to but one or two at the utmost, is now bound in four volumes, whereof three contain the Septuagint version of the Old Testament almost complete’, the fourth volume the New Testament with several lamentable defects. St Matthew’s Gospel is wanting up to ch. xxv. 6 ἐξέρχεσθε, from John vi. 50 iva to vill. 52 λέγεις" two leaves are lost, and three leaves from 2 Cor. iv. 13 ἐπίστευσα to xii. 6 ἐξ ἐμοῦ. All the other books of the New Testament are here entire, the Catholic Epistles following the Acts, that to the Hebrews standing before the Pastoral Epistles (see above, p. 68). After the Apocalypse we find the only extant copy of the first or genuine Epistle of Clement of Rome, and a small fragment of a second of sus- pected authenticity, both in the same hand as the latter part of the New Testament. It would appear also that these two Epistles of Clement were designed to form a part of the volume of Scripture, for in the table of contents exhibited on the first leaf of the manuscript under the head H KAINH ATAOHKH, they are represented as immediately following the Apocalypse : then is given the number of books, OMOT BIBAIA, the nume- rals being now illegible; and after this, as if distinct from Scrip- ture, the 18 Psalms of Solomon. Such uncanonical works (ἰδιωτικοὶ Warpol...axavoricta βιβλία) were forbidden to be ‘read in churches by the 59th canon of the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364?); whose 60th canon enumerates the books of the — N. T,, in the precise order seen in Cod. A, only that the Apo- calypse and Clement’s Epistles do not stand on the list. 1 Not to mention a few casual lacun@ here and there, especially in the early leaves of the manuscript, the lower part of one leaf has been cut out, so that Gen. xiv. 14—17; xv. 1—5; 16—20; xvi. 6—9 are wanting. The leaf contain- ing 1 Sam. xii. 20—xiv. 9, and the nine leaves containing Ps. 1. 20—Ixxx. 10 (Engl.) are lost. 7 2 Yet we may be sure that these two leaves did not contain the Pericope Adultere, Jo. vii. 53—viii. 11, Taking the Elzevir N. Τὶ, ΟΣ 1624, which is printed without breaks for the verses, we count 286 lines of the Elzevir for the two leaves of Cod. A preceding its defect, 288 lines for the two pages which follow it; but 317 lines for the two missing leaves. Deduct the 30 lines contain- ing Jo. vii. 53—viii. 11, and the result for the lost leaves is 287. OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 9] This manuscript is in quarto, about thirteen inches high and ten broad, and consists of 773 leaves (of which 639 contain the Old Testament), each page being divided into two columns of fifty lines each, having about twenty letters or upwards in a line. These letters are written continuously in uncial charac- ters, without any space between the words, the uncials being of an elegant yet simple form, in a firm and uniform hand, though in some places larger than in others. Specimens of both styles may be seen in our facsimiles (Plate V., Nos. 12, 13), the first, Gen. 1. 1, 2, being written in vermilion, the second, Acts xx. 28, in the once black, but now yellowish-brown ink of the body of the Codex. The punctuation merely consists of a point placed at the end of a sentence, usually on a level with the top of the preceding letter, but not always; and a vacant space follows the point at the end of a paragraph, the space being proportioned to the break in the sense. Capital letters of various sizes abound at the beginning of books and sections, not painted as in later copies, but written by the original scribe in common ink. As these capitals stand entirely outside the column in the margin (excepting in such rare cases as Gen. i. 1), if the section begins in the middle of a line, the capital is necessarily postponed till the beginning of the next line, whose first letter is always the capital, even though it be in the mid- dle of a word (see p. 47). Vermilion is freely used in the initial lines of books, and has stood the test of time much better than the black ink: the first four lines of each column on the first page of Genesis are in this colour, accompanied with the only breathings and accents in the manuscript (see above, p. 42). The first line of St Mark, the first three of St Luke, the first verse of St John, the opening of the Acts down to δὲ, and so on for other books, are in vermilion. At the end of each book are neat and unique ornaments in the ink of the first hand: see especially those at the end of St Mark and the Acts. As we have before stated (pp. 54, 57) this codex is the earliest which has the κεφάλαια proper, the so-called Ammonian sections, and the Eusebian canons complete. Lists of the κεφάλαια precede 1 Other facsimiles are given in Woide’s edition of the New Testament from this MS. (1786), and in Baber’s of the Old Test. (1816). Two specimens of the style of the first Epistle of Clement are exhibited in Bishop Jacobson’s Patres Apostolici, Vol. τ, p. 110, 1838; second edition, 1863. 92 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS each Gospel, except the first, where they are lost. Their titles stand or have stood at the top of the pages, but the binder has often ruthlessly cut them short, and committed other yet more serious mutilation at the edges. The places at which they be- gin are indicated throughout, and their numbers are moreover placed in the margin of Luke and John. The sections and Eusebian canons are conspicuous in the margin, and at the beginning of each of these sections a capital letter occurs. The rest of the New Testament has no division into κεφάλαια, as was usual in later times, but paragraphs and capitals as the sense requires. The paleographic reasons for referring this manuscript to the beginning or middle of the fifth century (the date now very generally acquiesced in, though it may be referred even to the end of the fourth century, and is certainly not much later) de- pend in part on the general style of the writing, which is at once firm, elegant and simple; partly on the formation of certain letters, in which respect it holds a middle place between copies of the fourth and sixth centuries. The reader will recall what we have already said (pp. 32—8) as to the shape of alpha, delta, epsilon, pi, sigma, phi and omega in the Codex Alexan- drinus. Woide, who edited the New Testament, believes that two hands were employed in that volume, changing in the page containing 1 Cor. v—vi., the vellum of the latter portion bemg thinner and the ink more thick, so that it has peeled off or eaten through the vellum in many places. This, however, is a point on, which those who know manuscripts best will most hesitate to speak decidedly’. The external arguments for fixing the date are less weighty, but all point to the same conclusion. On the evidence for its being written by St Thecla, indeed, no one has cared to lay much stress, though some have thought that the scribe might belong to some monastery dedicated to that holy martyr’. 1 Notice especially what Tregelles says of the Codex Augiensis (Tregelles’ Horne’s Introd. Vol. rv. p. 198), where the difference of hand in the leaves removed from their proper place is much more striking than any change in Cod. Alexandrinus. Yet even in that case it is likely that one scribe only was engaged. 2 Tischendorf, Septuagint, Proleg. p. Ixv. cites with some approval Grabe’s references (Proleg. Cap. 1. pp. 9—12) to Gregory Nazianzen [d. 389], three of whose Epistles are written to a holy virgin of that name (not the martyr), to OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 93 Tregelles, however, explains the origin of the Arabic inscription, on which Cyril’s statement appears to rest, by remarking that the New Testament in our manuscript at present commences with Matth. xxv. 6, this lesson (Matth. xxv. 1—13) being that appointed by the Greek Church for the festival of St Thecla (see above, Menology, p. 81, Sept. 24). The Egyptian, therefore, who wrote this Arabic note, observing the name of Thecla in the now mutilated upper margin of the Codex, where such rubrical notes are commonly placed by later hands, hastily con- cluded that she wrote the book, and thus has perplexed our Biblical critics. It is hardly too much to say that Tregelles’ shrewd conjecture seems to be certain, almost to demon- stration. Other more trustworthy reasons for assigning Cod. A to the fifth century may be summed up very briefly. The presence of the canons of Eusebius [A.D, 268—3407], and of the epistle to Marcellinus by the great Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria [3002373], before the Psalms, place a limit in one direction, while the absence of the Euthalian divisions of the Acts and Epistles (see above, p. 58), which came into vogue very soon after A.D. 458, and the shortness of the ὑπογραφαὶ (above, p. 60), appear tolerably decisive against a later date than A.D. 450. The insertion of the Epistles of Clement, like the treatises of Barnabas and Hermas in the Cod. Sinaiticus (p. 88), recalls us to a period when the canon of Scripture was in some particulars a little unsettled, that is, about the age of the Councils of Lao- dicea (364) and of Carthage (397). Other arguments have been urged both for an earlier and a later date, but they scarcely deserve discussion. Wetstein’s objection to the title Θεοτόκος as applied to the Blessed Virgin in the title to her song, added to the Psalms, is quite groundless: that appellation was given to her by both the Gregories in the middle of the fourth cen- tury (vid. Suicer, Thesaur. Eccles. 1. p. 1387), as habitually as it was a century after: nor should we insist much on the contrary upon Woide’s or Schulz’s persuasion that the τρισάγιον (ἅγιος ὁ θεός, ὥγιος ἰσχυρός, ἅγιος ἀθάνατος) would have been found in whose παρθενὼν at Seleucia he betook himself, the better to carry out his very sincere nolo episcopari on the death of his father Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus. Πρῶτον μὲν ἦλθον εἰς Σελεύκειαν φυγὰς | Τὸν παρθενῶνα τῆς ἀοιδίμου κόρης | Θέκλας" κιτιλ. De vita sua. 94 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS the ὕμνος ἐωθινὸς after the Psalms, had the manuscript been written as late as the fifth century. Partial and inaccurate collations of the New Testament por- tion of this manuscript were made by Patrick Young, Librarian to Charles I., who first published from it the Epistles of Clement in 1633; then by Alexander Huish, Prebendary of Wells, for Walton’s Polyglott, and by some others’, The Old Testament portion was edited in 1707—20, after a not very happy plan, but with learned Prolegomena and notes, by the Prussian J. E. Grabe, the second and third of his four volumes being posthumous. In 1786, Charles Godfrey Woide, preacher at the Dutch Chapel Royal and Assistant Librarian in the British Museum, a distinguished Coptic scholar [d. 1790], published, by the aid of 456 subscribers, a noble folio edition of the New Testa- ment from this manuscript, with valuable Prolegomena, a copy of the text which, so far as it has been tested, has been found reasonably accurate, together with notes on the changes made in the codex by later hands, and a minute collation of its read- ings with the common text as presented in Kuster’s edition of Mill’s N. T. (1710). In this last point Woide has not been taken as a model by subsequent editors of manuscripts, much to the inconvenience of the student. In 1816—28 the Old Testament portion of the Codex Alexandrinus was published in four folio volumes at the national expense, by the Rev. Henry Hervey Baber, also of the British Museum, the Prolegomena to whose magnificent work are very inferior to Woide’s, but contain some additional information. Both these performances, and many others like them which we shall have to describe, are printed in an uncial type, bearing some general resemblance to that of their respective originals, but which must not be supposed to convey any adequate notion of their actual appear- ance. Such quasi-facsimiles (for they are nothing more), while they add to the cost of the book, seem to answer no useful pur- pose whatever; and, if taken by an incautious reader for more than they profess to be, will seriously mislead him. In 1861 Mr B. H. Cowper put forth an octavo edition of the New Tes- 1 “MS™ Alexand™ accuratissime ipse contuli, A.p. 1716. Rich: Bentleius.” Trin, Coll. Camb, B. xvi. 9, a copy of Fell’s Greek Testament, 1675, which contains his collation. Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. xxviii. OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 95 tament pages in common type, but burdened with modern breathings and accents, the lacwne of the manuscript (p. 90) being unwisely supplied by means of Kuster’s edition of Mill, and the original paragraphs departed from, wheresoever they were judged to be inconvenient. ‘These obvious faults are the more to be regretted, inasmuch as Mr Cowper has not shrunk from the labour of revising Woide’s edition by a comparison with the Codex itself, thus giving to his book a distinctive value of its own. The Codex Alexandrinus has been judged to be carelessly written; many errors of transcription no doubt exist, but not more than in other copies of the highest value (e.g. Cod. δὲ, and possibly even Cod. B). None other than the ordinary abridg- ments are found in it (see p. 46): numerals are not expressed by letters except in Apoc. vil. 4; xxi. 17: ἐ and v have usually the dots over them at the beginning of a syllable. Of itacisms (see p. 10) it may be doubted whether it contains more than others of the same date: the interchange of ὁ and εἰ, and 4, ε and a, are the most frequent; but these mutations are too common to prove anything touching the country of the manu- script. Its external history renders it very likely that it was written at Alexandria, that great manufactory of correct and elegant copies, while Egypt was yet a Christian land: but such forms as λήμψομαι, ἐλάβαμεν, ἦλθαν, ἔνατος, ἐκαθερίσθη, and others named by Woide, are peculiar to no single nation, but are found repeatedly in Greek-Latin codices, which unques- tionably originated in Western Europe. This manuscript is of the very greatest importance to the critic, inasmuch as it exhibits (especially in the Gospels) a text more nearly ap- proaching that found in later copies than is read in others of its high antiquity. This topic, however, will be discussed at length in another place (Chap. Ὑ11.)}, and we shall elsewhere (Chap. 1x.) consider the testimony Codex A bears in the cele- brated passage 1 Tim. 11. 16. B. CopEx VATICANUS 1209 is probably the oldest vellum manuscript in existence, and is the glory of the great Vatican. Library at Rome. 7 this legitimate source of deep interest must be added the almost romantic curiosity which has been excited by the jealous watchfulness of its official guardians, with 96 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS whom an honest zeal for its safe preservation seems to have now degenerated into a species of capricious wilfulness, and who have hitherto shewn a strange incapacity for themselves making the proper use of a treasure they scarcely permit others more than to gaze upon. This book seems to have been brought into the Vatican Library shortly after its establishment by Pope Nicolas V. in 1448, but nothing is known of its previous history. It is entered in the earliest Catalogue of that Library, made in 1475. Since the missing portions at the end of the New Testament are said to have been supplied in the fifteenth cen- tury from a manuscript belonging to Cardinal Bessarion, we may be allowed to conjecture, if we please, that this learned Greek brought the Codex into the west of Europe. Although this book has not even yet been as thoroughly collated, or ren- dered as available as it might be to the critical student, its general character and appearance are sufficiently well known. It is a quarto volume, arranged in quires of five sheets or ten leaves each, not of four or three sheets as Cod. & (p. 88), the ancient, perhaps the original, numbering of the quires being often found in the margin. The New Testament fills 142 out of its 759 thin and delicate vellum leaves: it is bound in red morocco, being ten and a half inches high, ten broad, four and a half thick. It once contained the whole Bible in Greek, the Old Testament of the Septuagint version (a tolerably fair repre- sentation of which was exhibited in the Roman edition as early as 1587’), excepting the first forty-six chapters of Genesis (the manuscript begins at πολιν, Gen. xlvi. 48) and Psalms ey.— CXXxvii.; with the New Testament complete down to Hebr, ix. 14 καθα: the rest of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the four Pastoral Epistles (the Catholic Epistles had followed the Acts, see p. 67), and the Apocalypse being written in the later hand alluded to above. The peculiar arrangement of three columns on a page, or six on the opened leaf of the volume is described by eye- witnesses as very striking (see above, p. 27): in the poetical 1 Both the Epistle of Cardinal Carafa to Sixtus V., and the Preface to the Reader by the actual editor Peter Morinus, both of which Tischendorf reprints in full (Septuagint, Proleg. pp. xxi—xxvii), display an amount of critical skill and discernment quite beyond their age, and in strange contrast with the signal mismanagement in regard to the revision of the Latin Vulgate version under the auspices of the same Pope. OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. ~ 97. books of the Old Testament (since they are written otvynpds) only two columns fill a page. The facsimile copper-plate in Mai’s larger edition of the Codex Vaticanus, and the uncouth tracing by Zacagni in 1704, still repeated both by Horne and Tregelles, have been strongly censured by recent observers : another less unworthy of its subject, taken from the opening of the book of Psalms, is found in Silvestre, Paléogr. Univ. No. 60. Our facsimile (Plate VIII. No. 20) comprises Mark xvi. 3 μὲν τον λιθον to the end of ver. 8, where the Gospel ends abruptly ; both the arabesque ornament and the subscription KATA MAPKON being in a later hand (for M see p. 35). A full-sized photo- graph of the whole page was procured by Mr Burgon in 1871, and by him presented to the author. All who have inspected the Codex are loud in their praises of the fine thin vellum, the clear and elegant hand of the first penman, the simplicity of the whole style of the work: capital letters, so frequent in the Codex Alexandrinus, were totally wanting in this document for some centuries. In several of these particulars our manu- script resembles the Herculanean rolls, and thus asserts a just claim to high antiquity, which the absence of the divisions into κεφάλαια, of the sections and canons, and the substitution in their room of another scheme of chapters of its own (described above, p. 52), beyond question tend very powerfully to confirm. Each column contains forty-two lines, each line from sixteen to eighteen letters, of a size somewhat less than in Cod. A, much less than in Cod. δὲ (though they all vary a little in this respect), with no intervals between the words, a space of the breadth of half a letter being left at the end of a sentence, and a little more at the conclusion of a paragraph; the first letter of the new sentence occasionally standing a little out of the line (see pp. 48, 86). It has been doubted whether any of the stops are primd manu, and (contrary to the judgment of Birch and others) the breathings and accents are now. universally allowed to have been added by a later hand. This hand, apparently of about the eighth century (although Tischendorf assigns it to the tenth or eleventh), retraced, with as much care as such an operation would permit, the faint lines of the original writing (the ink whereof was perhaps never quite black), the remains of which can even now be seen by a keen-sighted reader by the side of the more modern strokes; and anxious at - Ss. ( 98 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS the same time to represent a critical revision of the text, the writer left untouched such words or letters as he wished to reject. In these last places, where no breathings or accents and scarcely any stops’ have ever been detected, we have an oppor- tunity of seeing the manuscript in its primitive condition, before it had been tampered with by the later scribe. There are occasional breaks in the continuity of the writing, every descent in the genealogies of our Lord (Matth.i., Luke iii”), each of the beatitudes (Matth. v.), of the parables in Matth. xiiL., and the salutations of Rom. xvi., forming a separate paragraph > but such a case will oftentimes not occur for several consecutive pages. The writer’s plan was to proceed steadily with a book until it was finished : then to break off from the column he was writing, and to begin the next book on the very next column. Thus only one column perfectly blank is found in the whole volume, that which follows ἐφοβοῦντο yap in Mark xvi. 8: and since Cod. B is the only one yet known, except Cod. &, that actually omits the last twelve verses of that Gospel, by leaving such a space the scribe has intimated that he was fully aware of their existence, or even found them in the copy from which he wrote (see below, Chap. rx.). The capital letters at the beginning of each book are likewise due to the corrector, who sometimes erased, sometimes merely touched slightly, the original initial letter, which (as in the Herculanean rolls) is no larger than any other. The paragraph marks (usually straight lines, but sometimes /, see p. 48, note) are seen quite frequently in some parts; whether from the first hand is very doubtful. The note of citation > (see p. 60, note) is perpetual, not occasional as in Cod. &. Fewer abridgments than usual occur in this venerable copy (see p. 46). The formation of delta, pi, chi; the loop-like curve on the left side of alpha, the absence of 1 Hug says none, but Tischendorf (Cod. Frid.-Aug. Proleg. p. 9) himself detected two in a part that the second scribe had left untouched; and not a very few elsewhere (N. T. Vatican, Proleg. p. xx., xxi., 1867); though a break often occurs with no stop by either hand. * The publication of the Roman edition (1868—70) enables us to add (Abbot, ubi supra, p. 193) that the 22 names of the unclean birds Deut. xiv. 12—18, 25 kings in Josh, xii. 10—22, eleven dukes in 1 Chr. i. 51—54, each stand in a separate line. In Cod. x, especially in the New Testament, this arrangement στιχηρῶς is much more frequent than in Cod. B, although the practice is in some measure common to both. OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 99 points at the extremities of sigma or epsilon, the length and size of rho, upsilon, phi (pp. 82—8), all point to the rourTH century as the date of this manuscript. The smaller letters so often found at the end of lines preserve the same firm and sim- ple character as the rest; of the use of the apostrophus, so frequent in Codd. δῷ A and some others, Tischendorf enumerates ten instances in the New Testament (N. T. Vatican. Proleg. Ῥ. Xx1.), whereof four are represented in the Roman edition of 1870, and two more which Tischendorf considers as simple points (Acts vil. 13, 14). Tischendorf says truly enough that something like a history might be written of the futile attempts to collate Cod. B, and a very unprofitable history it would be. The manuscript is first distinctly heard of (for it does not appear to have been used for the Complutensian Polyglott) by Sepulveda, to whose corre- spondence with Erasmus attention has been seasonably recalled by Tregelles. Writing in 1553, he says, “Est enim Grecum exemplar antiquissimum in Bibliothecé Vaticana, in quo dili- gentissimé et accuratissimé literis majusculis conscriptum utrum- que Testamentum continetur longé diversum a vulgatis exem- plaribus:” and after noticing as a weighty proof of its excel- lence its agreement with the Latin version (multum convenit cum vetere nostra translatione) against the common Greek text (vulgatam Graecorum editionem), he furnishes Erasmus with 365 readings as a convincing argument in support of his statements. It would probably be from this list that in his Annotations to the Acts, published in 1535, Erasmus cites the reading καῦδα, ch. xxvii. 16, from a Greek codex in the Pontifical Library, since for this reading Cod. B is the only known Greek witness, except a corrector of Cod. δὲ, It seems, however, that he had obtained some account of this manuscript from the Papal Libra- rian Paul Bombasius as early as 1521 (see Wetstein’s Proleg. N.T. Vol. 1. p. 23). Lucas Brugensis, who published his Nota- tiones in S. Biblia in 1580, and his Commentary on the Four Gospels (dedicated to Cardinal Bellarmine) in 1606, made known some twenty extracts from Cod. B taken by Werner of Nimuegen ; that most imperfect collection was the only source from which Mill and even Wetstein had any acquaintance with the contents of this first-rate document. More indeed might have been gleaned from the Barberini readings gathered in or 7—2 100 QN THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS about 1625 (of which we shall speak in the next section), but their real value and character were not known in the lifetime of Wetstein. In 1698 Laurence Alexander Zacagni, Librarian of the Vatican, in his Preface to the Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum Eccles., describes Cod. B, and especially its peculiar division into sections, ina passage cited by Mill (Proleg. § 1480). In 1669 indeed the first real collation of the manuscript with the Aldine edition (1518) had been attempted by Bartolocci, then’ Librarian of the Vatican; from some accident, however, it was never published, though a transcript under the feigned name of Giulio di Sta Anastasia yet remains in the Imperial Library of Paris (MSS. Gr. Supplem. 53), where it was first discovered and used by Scholz in 1819, and subsequently by Tischendorf and Muralt, the latter of whom (apparently on but slender grounds) regards it as the best hitherto made; others have declared it to be very imperfect, and quite inferior to those of Bentley and Birch. The collation which bears Bentley's name (Trin. Coll. B. xvi. 3, in Cephalzus’ N. T. 1524) was procured about 1720 by his money and the labour of the Abbate Mico, for the purpose of his projected Greek Testament. When he had found out its defects, by means of an examination of the original by his nephew Thomas Bentley in 1726, our great critic engaged the Abbate Rulotta in 1729 for 40 scudi (Bentley’s Correspondence, p. 706) to revise Mico’s sheets, and especially to note the changes made by the second hand. Rulotta’s papers came to light in 1855 among the Bentley manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (B. xvi. 20), and have lately proved of signal value’; Mico’s were published in 1799 at Oxford, by Henry Ford, Lord Almoner’s Reader in Arabic there (1783—1813), together with some Thebaic frag- ments of the New Testament, in a volume which (since it was chiefly drawn from Woide's posthumous papers) he was pleased to call an Appendix to the Codex Alexandrinus. A fourth col- lation of the Vatican MS. was made about 1780 by Andrew Birch of Copenhagen, and is included in the notes to the first volume of his Greek Testament 1788, or published separately in 1798 and 1800. Birch’s collation does not extend to the Gospels of St Luke and St John, and on the whole is less full 1 Rulotta’s labours are now printed in Bentleii Critica Sacra by Mr A. A. Ellis, 1862, pp. 121—154, OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 101 and exact than Mico’s: possibly, though he travelled under the auspices of the King of Denmark, the system of jealous exclu- sion of strangers from the choicest books there had already com- menced at Rome. Certain it is that since Birch’s day no one not in the confidence of the Papal Court has had fair access to this document. In 1810, however, when, with the other best trea- sures of the Vatican, Codex B was at Paris, the celebrated critic J. L. Hug sent forth his treatise “de Antiquitate Vaticani Codicis Commentatio,” and though even he did not perceive the need of a new and full collation of it, when he examined it in 1809, he has the merit of first placing it in the paramount rank it still holds as one of the oldest and most valuable of extant monuments of sacred antiquity. His conclusion respect- ing its date, that it is not later than the middle of the fourth century, has been acquiesced in with little opposition, though Tischendorf declares rather pithily that he holds this belief “non propter Hugium sed cum Hugio” (Cod. Ephraem. Proleg. p- 19). Some of his reasons, no doubt, are weak enough’; but the strength of his position depends on an accumulation of minute particulars, against which there seems nothing to set up which would suggest a lower period. On its return to Rome, this volume was no longer available for the free use and refer- ence of critics. In 1843 Tischendorf, after long and anxious expectation during a visit to Rome that lasted some months, obtained a sight of it for two days of three hours each*, In 1844 Edward de Muralt was admitted to the higher privilege of three days or nine hours enjoyment of this treasure, and on the strength of the favour published an edition of the New Testament, ad fidem codicis principis Vatican, in 1846. 1 Thus the correspondence of Codex B with what St Basil (6. Eunom. 11. 19) states he found in the middle of the fourth century, ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντι- γράφων, in Eph. i. 1, viz. τοῖς οὖσιν without ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ, though now read only in this and the Sinaitic manuscript primd@ manu, and in one cursive copy (Cod. 67) secundd manu, seems in itself of but little weight. Another point that has been raised is the position of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But this argument can apply only to the elder document from which the Vatican MS. was taken, and wherein this book unquestionably followed that to the Galatians. In Cod. B it always stood in its present place, after 2 Thess., as in the Codices cited p, 68, note 2. 2 Besides the 25 readings Tischendorf observed himself, Cardinal Mai supplied him with 34 more for his N. T. of 1849. His 7th edition of 1859 was enriched by 230 other readings furnished by Albert Dressel in 1855. 102 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS Tregelles, who went to Rome in 1845 for the special purpose of consulting it, was treated even worse. He had forearmed him- self (as he fondly imagined) with recommendatory letters from Cardinal Wiseman’, and was often allowed to see the manu- script, but hindered from transcribing any of its readings’. (We are ashamed to record such childish jealousy, yet thankful to believe that treatment thus illiberal could befal a learned stranger in but one city of πο τω What the Papal authorities would fot entrust to others, they have at least the merit of attempting, and at length accomplishing, themselves. As early as 1836 Bishop Wiseman announced in his Lectures on the Connection between Science and Revelation, Vol. m1. pp. 187—191, that Cardinal Mai, whose services to classical and ecclesiastical literature were renowned throughout Europe, was engaged on an edition of the Codex Vaticanus, commenced under the immediate sanc- tion of Pope Leo XII. (1823—29). As years passed by and no such work appeared, adverse reports and evil surmises began to take the place of hope, although the Cardinal often spoke of his work as already finished, only that he desired to write full Prolegomena before it should appear. In September 1854 he died, honoured and ripe in years; and at length, when no more seemed to be looked for in that quarter, five quarto volumes issued from the Roman press late in 1857, the New Testament comprising the fifth volume, with a slight and meagre preface by the Cardinal, and a letter to the reader by “Carolus Vercellone, Sodalis Barnabites,” which told in a few frank manly words how little accuracy we had to expect ina work, by the publication of which he still persuaded himself he was decorating Mai’s memory “nova usque glorié atque splendidiore coroné” (Tom. I. p. ili.). The cause of that long delay now required no explanation. In fact so long as Mai lived the edition never would have appeared; for though he had not patience or special skill enough to accomplish his task well, he was too good a scholar not to know that he had done 1 Πέμπε δέ μιν Λυκίηνδε, πόρεν δ᾽ ὅγε σήματα λυγρά, Τράψας ἐν πίνακι πτυκτῷ θυμοφθορὰ πολλα, 2 «‘They would not let me open it,” he adds, ‘‘ without searching my pocket; and depriving me of pen, ink, and paper.... If I looked at a passage too long the two prelati would snatch the book out of my hand.” Tregelles, Lecture on the Historic Evidence of the N. T., p. 84. OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 103 it very ill. The text is broken up into paragraphs, the numbers of the modern chapters and verses being placed in the margin; the peculiar divisions of the Codex Vaticanus (see p. 52) some- times omitted, sometimes tampered with. The Greek type employed is not an imitation of the uncial in the manuscript (of which circumstance we do not complain), but has modern stops, breathings, accents, ὁ subscript, &c., as if the venerable document were written yesterday. As regards the ortho- graphy it is partially, and only partially, modernised; clauses or whole passages omitted in the manuscript are supplied from other sources, although the fact is duly notified’; sometimes the readings of the first hand are put in the margin, while those of the second stand in the text, sometimes the contrary : in a word, the plan of the work exhibits all the faults such a performance well can have. Nor is the execution at all less objectionable. Although the five volumes were ten years in printing (1828—38), Mai devoted to their superintendence but his scanty spare hours, and even then worked so carelessly that after cancelling a hundred pages for their incurable want of exactness, he was reduced to the shift of making manual corrections with moveable types, and projected huge tables of errata, which Vercellone has in some measure tried to supply. When once it is stated that the type was set up from the common Elzevir or from some other printed Greek Testament, the readings of the Codex itself being inserted as corrections, and the whole revised by means of an assistant who read the proof- sheets to the Cardinal while he inspected the manuscript ; no one will look for accuracy from a method which could not possibly lead to it. Accordingly, when Mai’s text came to be compared with the collations of Bartolocci, of Mico, of Rulotta and of Birch, or with the scattered readings which had been extracted by others, it was soon discovered that while this edition has added very considerably to our knowledge of the Codex Vaticanus, and often enabled us to form a decision on its readings when the others were at variance; it was in its turn convicted by them of so many errors, oversights, and inconsistencies, that its single evidence could never be used with confidence, especially when it agrees with the commonly re- 1 The great gap in the Pauline Epistles (see p. 96) is filled up from Vatic. 1761 (Act. 158, Paul. 192) of the eleventh century. 104 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS ceived Greek text. Immediately after the appearance of Mai’s expensive quartos, an octavo reprint of the New Testament was struck off at Leipsic for certain London booksellers, which proved but a hasty, slovenly and unscholarlike performance, and was put aside in 1859 by a cheap Roman edition in octavo, prepared like the quarto by Mai, prefaced by another graceful and sensible epistle of Vercellone’. This last edition was undertaken by the Cardinal, after sad experience had taught him the defects of his larger work, and he took good care to avoid some of the worst of them: the readings of the second hand are usually, though not always, banished to the margin, their number on the whole is increased, gross errors are corrected, omissions supplied, and the Vatican chapters are given faithfully and in full. But Mai’s whole procedure in this matter is so truly unfortunate, that in a person whose fame was less solidly grounded, we should impute it to mere help- less incapacity”. Not only did he split up the paragraphs of his quarto into the modern chapters and verses (in itself a most undesirable change, see above, p. 64), but by omitting some things and altering others, he introduced almost as many errors as he removed. When Mr Burgon was permitted to. examine the Codex for an hour and a half in 1860, on con- sulting it for sixteen passages out of hundreds wherein the two are utterly at variance, he discovered that the quarto was right in seven of them, the octavo in nine: as if Mai were determined that neither of his editions should supersede the use of the other. Dean Alford also collated numerous passages in 1861°, and his secretary Mr Cure in 1862, especially 1 Other editions of the Vatican N. T. appeared at Ratisbon; at Leyden (1860) by A. Kuenen and C. ἃ, Cobet, with a masterly Preface by the latter; and at Berlin (1862) by Philip Buttmann, furnished with an Appendix containing the varying results of no less than nine collations, eight of which we have described in the text, the ninth being derived from Lachmann’s Greek Testament (1840, 1850), whose readings were all obtained second-hand. Tischendorf does not much commend the accuracy of Buttmann’s work. 2 « Angelus Mai, quamquam, ut in proverbio est, ἐν τυφλῶν πόλει γλαμυρὸς βασιλεύων, non is erat cui tanta res rect? mandari posset :” Kuenen and Cobet, N. T. Vat. Pref. p.1. Tischendorf too, in his over querulous Responsa ad Calumnias Romanas &c., 1870, p. 11, is not more than just in alleging ‘‘ Ange- lum Maium in editionibus suis Codicis Vaticani alienissimum se prebuisse ab omni subtiliore rei paleographice scientid, ac tantum non ignarum earum legum ad quas is codex in usum criticum edendus esset.”’ % The Dean himself on Feb, 20, 1861, and for four subsequent days, ‘* went - OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 105 with reference to the several correcting hands: “in errorem quidem et ipse haud raro inductus,” is Tischendorf’s verdict on his labours. Thus critics of every shade of opinion be- came unanimous on one point, that a new edition of the Codex Vaticanus was as imperatively needed as ever; one which should preserve with accuracy all that the first hand’ has written (transcriptural errors included), should note in every instance the corrections made by the second hand, and where- ever any one of the previous collators is in error, should ex- pressly state the true reading. It would have been a grievous reproach had no efforts been made to supply so great and acknowledged a want. Early in 1866, Tischendorf again visited Rome, and when admitted into the presence of Pope Pius [X., boldly sought permission to edit at his own cost such an edition of Cod. B as he had already published of Cod. &. The request was denied by his Holiness, who obscurely hinted his intention of carrying out the same design on his own account. Tischendorf, however, obtained permission to use the manuscript so far as to consult it in such parts of the New Testament as presented any special diffi- culty, or respecting which previous collators were at variance. He commenced his task Feb. 28, and in the course of it could not refrain from copying at length sixteen pages of the great Codex. This licence was not unnaturally regarded as a breach of his contract, so that, after he had used the manu- script for eight days, it was abruptly withdrawn from him on March 12. An appeal to the generosity of Vercellone, who had been intrusted with the care of the forthcoming edition, procured for him the sight of this coveted treasure for six days longer between March 20 and 26, the Italian being always present on this latter occasion, and receiving instruction for the preparation of his own work by watching the processes of a master hand. These fourteen days of three hours each, used zealously and skilfully, enabled Tischendorf to put forth an edition of Cod. B far superior to any that preceded it’, twice over the doubtful passages and facsimilised most of the important various readings,” in spite of much opposition from the Librarian, who ‘‘ insisted that our order from Antonelli, although it ran ‘per verificare,’ to verify passages, only extended to seeing the Codex, not to using it.” (Life by his Widow, pp- 310, 315.) 1 ‘Novum Testamentum Vaticanum post Angeli Maii aliorumque imperfectos labores ex ipso codice edidit H. F. C. Tischendorf.” Lipsie, 4to, 1867. 106 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS The Prolegomena are full of matter from which we have drawn freely in the foregoing description, the text is in cursive type, the sixteen pages which cost him so dearly being arranged in their proper lines, the remainder according to columns. Much that ought to have been noted was doubtless passed over by Tischendorf for mere pressure of time; but he takes great pains to distinguish the readings of the original writer or his διορθωτὴς (see p. 51), both of whom supplied words or letters here and there in the margin or between the lines’, from the corrections of a second yet ancient scribe (B*), and those of the person who retraced the faded writing at a later period (B*, see p. 97)*. One notion, taken up by Tischendorf in the course of his collation in 1866, has been received with general incredulity by other scholars. He has pronounced a decided opinion, not only that Codd. & and B are documents of the same age, but that the scribe who wrote the latter is one of the four [D] to whose diligence we owe the former (see p. 87, and note 2). That there should be a general similarity in the style of the two great codices is probable enough, although the letters in Cod. δὲ are about half as large again as those of its fellow, but such as are aware of the difficulty of arriving at a safe conclusion as to identity of penmanship after close and re- peated comparison of one document with another, will hardly attach much weight to the impression of any person, however large his experience, who has nothing but memory to trust to. Tregelles, who has also seen both copies, states that Cod. & looks much the fresher and clearer of the two. The Roman edition, projected by Vercellone and Cozza 1 It must surely be to these, the earliest scribes, that Cobet refers when he uses language that would not be at all applicable to the case of B? or B*: ‘In Vaticano duorum librorum veterum testimonia continentur, et nihilo plus in primé manu quam in secunda inest auctoritatis ac fidei. Utriusque unaqueque lectio ex se ips& spectanda ponderandaque est, et si hoc ages, modo hane modo Ulam animadvertes esse potiorem. Hoc autem in primis firmiter tenendum est, non esse secunde mantis lectiones correctoris alicujus suspiciones aut conjecturas, sive ille sunt acutiores sive leviores, sed quidquid a secundé manu correctum, mutatum, deletum esse Maius referat, id omnes, haud secus atque id quod prior manus dederit, perantiqui cujusdam Codicis fide nixum esse.” (ΝΕ, T. Vat. Pref. p. xxvi.) 2 It may be mere oversight that in Matth. xxvii. 4 he does not say in 1867 of what hand the marginal δικαιον is: in his eighth edition (1865) he adjudges it to ΒΡ, In Matth. xxiv. 23 πιστευητε and ver. 32 εκφύη he gives to Β5 in 1867, what he had assigned to B? in 1865. OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 107 under the auspices of Pius IX., is to consist of five volumes, three containing the Old Testament, one the New, another being assigned to the notes and discrimination of corrections by later hands. The New Testament appeared in 18681, a second volume in 1869, containing the text from Genesis to Joshua: two more have since completed the Old Testament. The learned, genial, and modest Vercellone died early in 1869, so that the later volumes bear on their title-page the mournful inscription “Carolum Vercellone excepit Caie- tanus Sergio Sodalis Barnabites.” Dr Roberts is sanguine enough to say, “Pleasing it is to be able to add that this edition seems to leave nothing more to be desired” (Words of the N. T. p. 37). The present editors fare but ill whether as Biblical critics or as general scholars, under the rough handling of Tischendorf, whom the wiser policy of Vercellone had kept in good humour, but whose powers his successors greatly undervalue. The portion of their work which will best test their capacity—the volume devoted to the discussion of readings by the second and later hands—is yet to come. Mean- while, though we have no great cause, in spite of their adver- sarys minute diligence in fault-finding (Appendix N.T. Vatic. 1869, p. xi. &c.)*, to doubt their general correctness, they persist in placing on the page with the rest of their text, readings which are known or credibly stated to be of decidedly later date, in spite of the uncongruousness of the mixture of what was original with matter plainly adscititious. Thus in the Roman edition αδελῴων μου των Matth. xxv. 40, imputed by Tischendorf to B* and Β΄, stands in the margin just in the same way as o γαμος Matth. xxii. 10, which he refers to the first hand. But this is only one instance of a lack of judgment which deforms 1 «Bibliorum Sacrorum Grecus Codex Vaticanus, Auspice Pio IX. Pontifice Maximo, collatis studiis Caroli Vercellone Sodalis Barnabite, et Josephi Cozza Monachi Basiliani editus. Rome typis et impensis 5, Congregationis de Propa- ganda Fide,” square folio, 1868. Tischendorf tells us, what is patent on the surface, that he sent to Rome type cast from the same moulds as that employed for his own in Codex Sinaiticus, in acknowledgment of the courtesy he had received at the Vatican, and complains woefully of the unskilful use the Roman printers have made of it (Appendix N. T. Vaticani, 1869, p. x.). 2 The feeble rejoinder of the Roman editors was followed up in 1870 by. Tischendorf’s Responsa ad Calumnias Romanas, &c., the tone of which pam- phlet we do not highly praise. He even stoops to complain of the broken type found in their book, as in every other that issues from the press (p. 40). 108 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS every page of their performance: e.g. Matth. xix. 12; xxiii. 26; 37; xxv. 16; xxvii. 12; 13; 45; xxviii. 15; Acts xv. 1: all which places exhibit, undistinguished from emendations of the original scribe or his “corrector” (p. 106, and note 1), readings in the margin or between the lines which Tischendorf asserts to belong mostly to B’, a few to B*. Those who agree the most unreservedly respecting the age of the Codex Vaticanus, vary widely in their estimate of its critical value. By some it has been held in such undue esteem that its readings, if probable in themselves, and supported (or even though not supported) by two or three other copies and versions, have been accepted in preference to the united testimony of all authorities besides: while others have spoken of its text as one of the most vicious extant. Without anticipating what must be discussed hereafter (Chap. VII.) we may say at once, that neither of these views can commend itself to impartial judges: that while we accord to Cod. B at least as much weight as to any single document in existence, we ought never to forget that it is but one out of many, several of them being nearly (and one quite) as old, and in other respects hardly less worthy of con- fidence than itself. One marked feature, characteristic of this copy, is the great number of its omissions, which has induced Dr Dobbin to speak of it as presenting “an abbreviated text of the New Testament:” and certainly the facts he states on this point are startling enough’. He calculates that Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 330 times in Matthew, 365 in Mark, 439 in Luke, 357 in John, 384 in the Acts, 681 in the surviving Epistles; or 2556 times in all. That no small proportion of these are mere oversights of the scribe seems evi- dent from a circumstance that has only come to light of late years, namely, that this same scribe has repeatedly written words and clauses twice over, a class of mistakes which Mai and the collators have seldom thought fit to notice, inasmuch as the false addition has not been retraced by the second hand, but which by no means enhances our estimate of the care employed in copying this venerable record of primitive Christianity*. 1 Dublin University Magazine, Nov. 1859, p. 620, 2 Mr Burgon cites four specimens of such repetitions: Matth. xxi. 4, 5 words written twice over; ib. xxvi. 56—7, 6 words; Luke i. 37, 3 words or one line; John xvii. 18, 6 words. These, however, are but a few out of many, Nor is OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 109 Hug and others have referred the origin of Codex B to Egypt, but (unlike in this respect to Codex A) its history does not con- firm their conjecture, and the argument derived from ortho- graphy or grammatical forms, is now well understood to be but slight and ambiguous. C. Copex Epuraermi, No. 9 in the Royal Library of Paris, is a most valuable palimpsest containing portions of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament on 64 leaves, and frag- ments of every part of the New on 145 leaves, amounting on the whole to less than two-thirds of the volume’. This manuscript seems to have been brought from the East by Andrew John Lascar [d. 1535], a learned Greek patronised by Lorenzo de’ Medici; it once belonged to Cardinal Nicolas Ridolphi of that family, was brought into France by Queen Catherine de’ Medici of evil memory, and so passed into the Royal Library at Paris’. The ancient writing is barely legible, having been almost re- moved about the twelfth century to receive some Greek works of St Ephraem, the great Syrian Father [299—378]; a chemical preparation applied at the instance of Fleck in 1834, though it Tischendorf’s judgment at variance with our own. Speaking of some supposed or possible gross errata of the recent Roman edition, he puts in the significant proviso ‘“‘tamen hee quoque satis cum universaé scripture Vaticane vitiositate conyeniunt” (Appendix N. T. Vaticani, 1869, p. xvii.). 1 As this manuscript is of first-rate importance it is necessary to subjoin a full list of the passages it contains, that it may not be cited e silentio for what it does not exhibit: Matth. i. 2—v. 15; vii. 5— xvii. 26; xviii. 28—xxii. 20; xxiii. 17— xxiv. 10; xxiv. 45—xxv. 30; xxvi. 22—xxvii. 11; xxvii. 47—xxviii. 14; Marki. 17—vi. 31; viii. 5—xii. 29; xiii. 19—xvi. 20; Luke i. 2—ii. 5; 11. 42—iii, 21; iv. 25—vi. 4; vi. 37—vii. 16 or 17; viii. 28—xii. 3; xix. 42—xx. 27; xxi. 21—xxil. 19; xxiii, 25—-xxiv. 7; xxiv. 46—53; John i. 1-41; iii. 33—v. 16; vi. 38—vii.3; vill. 34—ix. 11; xi, S—46; xiii, 8—xiy. 7; xvi. 21—xvill. 36; xx. 26—xxi. 25; Acts i, 2—iv. 3; v. 35—x. 42; xiii. 1—xvi. 36; xx. 10—xxi. 30; xxii. 21—xxiii. 18; xxiv. 15—xxvi. 19; xxvii. 16—xxviii. 4; James i. 1—iv. 2; 1 Pet. i. 2—iv. 6; 2 Pet. 11 Δ Jo. iv. 2; 3 Jo; 3-15; Jud. 32-25; Rom. 1. 1. 1 5; 1π| 20x ΟΣ: 1b— xi, 9 τ. LO==1 Cor: vir, 18; ix 6—xmi. 8; xv..40—2)Cor. x, 8 Gal. i. 20—vi. 18; Ephes. ii. 18—iv. 17; Phil. i. 22—iii, 5; Col. i. 1—1 Thess. ii. 9; Heb. ii. 4—vii. 26; ix. 15—x, 24; xii, 15—-xiii, 25; 1 Tim. iii. 9—v. 20; vi. 21—Philem. 25; Apoc. i, 2—iii. 19; v. 14—vii. 14; vii. 17—viii. 4; ix. 17— x. 10; xi. 3—xvi. 13; xviii. 2—xix. 5. Of all the books only 2 John and 2 Thess. are entirely lost; about 37 chapters of the Gospels, 10 of the Acts, 42 of the Epistles, 8 of the Apocalypse have perished. The order of the books is indi- cated, p. 68. 2 The following Medicean manuscripts seem to have come into the Royal - Library by the same means: Evan. 16. 19. 42. 317. Act. 12. 126. Paul. 164, 110 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS revived much that was before illegible, has defaced the vellum with stains of various colours, from green and blue to black and brown. The older writing was first noticed by Peter Allix nearly two centuries ago; various readings extracted from it were communicated by Boivin to Kuster, who published them (under the notation of Paris 9) in his edition of Mill’s N. T., 1710. A complete collation of the New Testament was first made by Wetstein in 1716, then very young, for Bentley’s projected edition, for which labour (as he records the fact himself) he paid Wetstein £50. This collation Wetstein of course used for his own Greek Testament of 1751—2, and though several persons subsequently examined the manuscript, and so became aware that more might be gathered from it, it was not until 1843 that Tischendorf brought out at Leipsic his full and noble edition of the New Testament portion; the Old Testament he published in 1845. Although Tischendorf complains of the typographical errors made in his absence in the former of these two volumes, and has corrected them in the other, they probably comprise by far the most masterly production of this nature up to that date published; it is said too that none but those who have seen Codex C can appreciate the difficulty of deciphering some parts of it’, in fact, whatever is not patent at first sight. The Prole- gomena are especially valuable; the uncial type does not aim at being an imitation, but the facsimile (from which a few lines have been copied in Plate IX., No. 24, from 1 Tim. iii. 16) faith- fully represents the original, even to the present colour of the ink. In shape Codex C is about the size of Cod. A, but not quite so tall; its vellum is hardly so fine as that of Cod. A and a few others, yet sufficiently good. In this copy there is but one column in a page, which contains from 40 to 46 lines (usually 41), the characters being a little larger than those of either A or B, and somewhat more elaborate. Thus the points at the ends of sigma, epsilon, and especially of the horizontal line of taw, are more de- cided than in Codex A; delta, though not so fully formed as in later books, is less simple than in A, the strokes being of less equal thickness, and the base more ornamented. On the other 1 Bp. Chr. Wordsworth (N. T. Part rv. p. 159) reminds us of Wetstein’s statement (Bentley’s Correspondence, p. 501) that it had cost him two hours to read one page; so that his £50 were not so easily earned, after all. This colla- tion is preserved in Trinity College Library, B. xv. 7, 9. OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT, 11 hand, alpha and pi are nearer the model of Codex B. Jota and upsilon, which in Cod. A and many other copies have two dots over them when they commence a syllable, and are sometimes found with one dot, have here a small straight line in its place (see p. 35). There are no breathings or accents by the first hand: the apostrophus is found but rarely, chiefly with Proper names, as a0. The uncial writing is continuous; the punc- tuation of Cod. C, like that of A and B, ey: only of a single point, mostly but not always put level tia the top of the preceding letter; wherever such a point was employed, a space of one letter νὰ was usually left vacant: these points are most common in the later books of the N.T. The κεφάλαια are not placed in the upper margin of the page as in Cod. A, but a list of their τύτλοι preceded each Gospel: the so-called Ammonian sections stand in the margin, but not at present the Eusebian canons; though since lines of the text written in vermilion have been thoroughly washed out, the canons (for which that colour was commonly employed) may easily have shared the same fate (see p. 56). There is no trace of chapters in the Acts, Epistles or Apocalypse, and both the titles and sub- scriptions to the various books are very simple. Capital letters are used quite as freely as in Cod. A, both at the commencement of the (Ammonian) sections, and in many other places. All these circumstances taken together indicate for Cod. C as early a date as the fifth century, though there is no sufficient cause for deeming it at all older than Cod. A. Alexandria has been assigned as its native country, for the very insufficient reasons stated when we were describing A and B. It is carefully tran- scribed, and of its great critical value.there is no doubt; its text seems to stand nearly midway between A and B, some- what inclining to the latter. Three correctors at least have been very busily at work on Cod. C, greatly to the perplexity of the critical collator: they are respectively indicated by Tischendorf as C*, C**, C***, The earliest may have been of the sixth century: the second perhaps of the ninth, who revised such portions only as were adapted to ecclesiastical use; he in- serted many accents, the rough breathing, and some notes, By him or by the third hand (whose changes are but few) small crosses were interpolated as stops, agreeably to the fashion of their times. Tt ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS D oF THE GosPELS AND AcTs, CopEX Brzam Gr&co- LATINUS, belongs to the University Library at Cambridge, where the open volume is conspicuously exhibited to visitors in the New Building (Nn. τι. 41). It was presented to the University in 1581 by Theodore Beza, for whom and his master Calvin the heads of that learned body then cherished a veneration which already boded ill for the peace of the English Church*, Between the Gospels (whose order was spoken of above, p. 68, and note 1) and the Acts, the Catholic Epistles once stood, of which only a few verses remain in the Latin translation (3 John υ. 11—15) followed by the words “epistule Johannis Il. explicit, incipit actus apostolorum,” as if St Jude’s Epistle were displaced or wanting. There are not a few hiatus both in the Greek and Latin texts, The contents of this remarkable document were partially made known by numerous extracts from it, under the designation of β΄, in the margin of Robert Stephens’ Greek Testament of 1550, whose history of it is that it was collated for him in Italy by his friends (τὸ δὲ β΄ ἐστὶ τὸ ἐν ᾿Ιταλίᾳ ὑπὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἀντιβληθὲν φίλων. Epistle to the Reader)*. 1 Very remarkable is the language of the University in returning thanks for the gift: ‘‘ Nam hoe scito, post unice scripture sacratissimam cognitionem, nullos unquam ex omni memoria temporum scriptores extitisse, qaos memorabili viro Johanni Calvino tibique preeferamus.” Scrivener’s Codex Beze, Introd. p. vi. 2 Matth. i. 1—20; vi. 20—ix. 2; xxvii. 2—12; John i. 16—iii. 26; Acts viii. 29—x. 14; xxi. 2—10; 15—18 (though Ussher, Mill, Wetstein and Dickinson cite several readings from these verses, which must have been extant in their time) ; xxii. 10—20; 29—xxviii. 31 in the Greek: Matth. i. 1—11; vi. 8—viii. 27; xxvi. 65—xxvii. 1; John 1. 1—11i. 16; Acts vii. 20—x. 4; xx. 31—xxi, 2: 7—10; xxii. 2—10; xxii. 20—xxviii. 31 in the Latin. The original writing has perished in the following, which are supplied by a scribe not earlier than the ninth century: Matth. iii. 7—16; Mark xvi. 15—20; John xviii. 14—xx. 13 in the Greek: Matth. ii. 21—iii. 7; Mark xvi. 6—20; John xviii. 2—xx. 1 in the Latin. A fragment, containing a few words of Matth. xxvi. 65—67 (Latin) and xxvii. 2 (Greek), (Fol. 96, Scrivener) was overlooked by Kipling. 3 Tt is surprising that any one should have questioned the identity of Cod. D with Stephens’ β΄. No other manuscript has been discovered which agrees with 6” in the many singular readings and arbitrary additions in support of which it is cited by Stephens. That he omitted so many more than he inserted is no argument against their identity, since we know that he did the same in the case of his a’ (the Complutensian Polyglott) and η΄ (Codex L, Paris 62). The great inaccuracy of Stephens’ margin (the text is much better revised) is so visible from these and other well-ascertained instances that no one ought to wonder if β΄ is alleged occasionally (not often) for readings which D does not contain. On a careful analysis of all the variations imputed to β΄ by Stephens, they will be found to amount to 389 in the parts written in the original hand, whereof 309 OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 113 It is not very easy to reconcile this statement with Beza’s ac- count prefixed to the manuscript and still extant in his own cramped handwriting, wherein he alleges that he obtained the volume in 1562 from the monastery of St Ireneus at Lyons (“oriente 101 civili bello”), where it had long lain buried (“post- quam 101 in pulvere diu jacuisset”). This great city, it must be remembered, was sacked in that very year by the infamous Des Adrets, whom it suited to espouse for a while the cause of the Huguenots; and we can hardly doubt that some one who had shared in the plunder of the abbey* conveyed this portion of it to Beza, whose influence at that juncture was paramount among the French Reformed’, are alleged quite correctly, 47 a little loosely, while in 8 instances corrected readings are regarded in error as from the original scribe. Of the 25 places which remain all but three had been previously discovered in other copies used by Stephens, so that 6’ in their case has been substituted by mistake for some other numeral. One of the three remaining has recently been accounted for by Mr A. A. Vansittart, who has found καὶ περισσευθήσεται added to δοθήσεται αὐτοῦ (Luke viii, 18 from Matth. xiii. 12) in Stephens’ 6’ or Coislin 200 at Paris (No. 38, of the Gospels). I do not find β' cited by Stephens after Acts xx. 24, except indeed in Rom. 111, 10 (with a’), in manifest error, just as in the Apoca- lypse xix. 14 ε' (No. 6 of the Gospels), which does not contain this book, is cited instead of ce’; or as ca’ is quoted in xiii. 4, but not elsewhere in the Apoca- lypse, undoubtedly in the place of is’; or as ws’, which had broken off at xvii. 8, reappears instead of ve’ in xx. 3. In the various places named in the last note, wherein the Greek of Cod. D is lost, β' is cited only at Matth. xxvii. 3, beyond question instead of y; and for part of the reading in Acts ix. 31, 5’ (to which the whole rightly belongs) being alleged for the other part. In John xix. 6, in- deed, where the original Greek is missing, β' is cited, but it is for a reading actually extant in the modern hand which has there supplied Codex D’s defects. 1 «Tis s’emparérent des portes et de tous les lieux forts...non pas sans leur impiétés et barbaries accoutumées envers les choses saintes” (Mézeray, Hist. de France, T. 111. p. 87, 1685). Accordingly travellers are shewn to this day the bones of unclean animals which the Huguenots, in wanton mockery, then mingled with the presumed remains of St Ireneus and the martyrs of Lyons. 2 One cannot understand why Weistein (N.T. Proleg. Vol. 1. 80) should have supposed that Beza prevaricated as to the means whereby he procured his manu- script. He was not the man to be at all ashamed of spoiling the Philistines, and the bare mention of Lyons in connexion with the year 1562 would have been abundantly intelligible scarce twenty years afterwards. It is however remarkable that in the last edition of his Annotations (1598) he nowhere calls it Codex Lugdunensis, but Claromontanus (notes on Luke xix. 26; Acts xx. 3); for though it might be natural that Beza, at eighty years of age and after the lapse of so long a time, should confound the Lyons copy with his own Codex Claromontanus of St Paul’s Epistles (D); yet the only way in which we can account for the Codex Beze being collated in Italy for Stephens, is by adopting 5. 8 114 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS Beza in his editions of the Greek Testament published in 1582, 1589, and 1598, made some occasional references to the readings of his manuscript. Archbishop Whitgift borrowed it from Cambridge in 1583, and caused a poor transcript to be made of its Greek text, which he bequeathed to Trinity College, whereof he had been Master, in whose Library it still remains i. 23). Patrick Young, of whom we have heard in connection with Cod. A (p. 94), sent extracts from Cod. D to the brothers Dupuy at Paris, through whom they reached Morinus and Steph. Cur- celleus. An unusually full collation was made for Walton’s Polyglott (Tom. vi1., Num. xvi., 1657) by pious Archbishop Ussher, who devoted to these studies the doleful leisure of his latter years. Mill collated and Wetstein transcribed (1716) this document for their great editions of the Greek Testament, but they both did their work carelessly, and though Bentley was allowed to keep it at home for seven years, his notices of its readings, as represented by Mr Ellis (Bentlevi Critica Sacra, pp. 2—26), or preserved in Stephens’ N.T. of 1549 (Trin. Coll. B. xvu. 4), were put to no practical use. The best collation by far was made about 1732 by John Dickinson of St John’s College for John Jackson of Leicester, with whose other books it came into Jesus College Library (O. 6. 2), where it has lain neglected. But a manuscript replete as this is with variations from the sacred text beyond all other example could be ade- quately represented only by being published in full; a design entrusted by the University of Cambridge to Dr Thomas Kipling, Senior Wrangler in 1768 and afterwards Dean of Peterborough [d. 1822], whose “Codex Theodori Bezae Can- tabrigiensis” 1793, 2 vol. fol. (in type imitating the original handwriting much more closely than in Codices AC and the rest), is not an unfaithful transcript of the text’, though the Wetstein’s suggestion that it was the actual copy (‘‘antiquissimum codicem Grecum’’) taken to the Council of Trent in 1546 by William a Prato, Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, to confirm the Latin reading in John xxi. 22, ‘sie eum volo,” which D alone may seem to do. Some learned man (ὑπὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων φίλων does not well suit his son Henry) might have sent to Robert Stephens from Trent the readings of a manuscript to which attention had been thus specially directed, 1 Not more than 83 typographical errors have been detected in Kipling throughout his difficult task, whereof 16 are in his Annotations, &c. OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT, 115 Prolegomena too plainly testify to the editor’s pitiable ignorance of sacred criticism, while his habit of placing the readings of the several later hands (very loosely distinguished from each other) in the text, and those of the first hand in the notes (a defect we have also noted in the Roman editions of Cod. B), renders his volumes very inconvenient for use. Let Kipling be praised for the care and exact diligence his work evinces, but Herbert Marsh [1757—1839] was of all Cambridge men of that period the only one known to be competent for such a task. In 1864 the present writer was aided by the Syndics of the Cambridge Press in publishing an edition of Codex Beze in common type, illustrated by a copious Introduction and critical notes, to which work the reader is referred for fuller information respecting this manuscript. The Codex Bez is a quarto volume 10 inches high by 8 broad, with one column on a page, the Greek text and its Latin version being parallel, the Greek on the left, or verso of each leaf, and the Latin on the right, opposite to it, on the recto of the next. Notwithstanding the Alexandrian forms that abound in it as much as in any other copy, and which have been held to prove the Egyptian origin of Codd. ABC, the fact of its having a Latin version sufficiently attests its Western origin. The vellum is not quite equal in fineness to that of a few others. There are thirty-three lines in every page, and these of unequal length, as this manuscript is arranged in στίχοι, being the earliest in date that is so (see p. 50). The Latin is placed in the same line and as nearly as possible in the same order as the corresponding Greek. It has not the larger κεφά- Aaa or Eusebian canons, but the so-called Ammonian sections, often incorrectly placed, and obviously in a later hand of about the ninth century. The original absence of these divisions is no proof that the book was not at first intended for ecclesiastical use (as some have stated), inasmuch as the sections and canons were constructed for a very different purpose (see above, p. 57, and note 2), but is another argument for its being copied in the West, perhaps not far from the place where it rested so long. Other proofs of its Occidental, perhaps of its Gallican origin, especially that derived from the style of the Latin version, are collected in Scrivener’s edition (Introd. pp. xxxi., xl—xlv). The characters are of the same size as in C, larger on the whole than 8—2 116 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS in AB, but betray a later age than any of these, although the Latin as well as the Greek is written continuously, excepting that in the titles and subscriptions of the several books (as in Codd. DH of St Paul) the words are separated. This copy has paragraph divisions of unequal length peculiar to itself’. They are indicated by placing the initial letter out in the margin, that letter being usually of the same size with the rest, though sometimes a little larger (see p. 48). Cod. D appears to be the earliest which exhibits larger letters after a pause in the middle of a line; but these are not very frequent. Instances of each case may be noticed in our facsimile (No. 37), wherein the shapes of kappa, rho and phi, as indicated in Sect. 1. (pp. 31, note 1, 35, 37) are very observable. The Greek and Latin writing on the opposite pages are much like each other in appearance, the Latin letters being round and flowing, not square, as in codices a little earlier in date, such as the Medicean and Vatican fragments of Virgil. This manuscript has been corrected, first by the original penman with a light stroke made by a pen nearly empty; after him by not less than eight or nine different critics, some nearly coeval with the Codex itself, others not many centuries old. The changes they have made, especially when they employed a knife to scrape away the primitive reading, render too many places almost illegible. The first scribe often used a sponge to wash out his error before the ink was well dried in (see p. 26). In addition to the single point, about three-fourths of the height of a letter up, which often subdivides the στίχοι in both languages (facsimile, No. 37, 1. 9), the coarse late hand which inserted the Ammonian sec- tions placed double dots (:) after the numerals, and often in- serted similar points in the text, before or over the first letter of a section. Each member of the genealogy in Luke iti. forms a separate στίχος, as in Cod. B (p. 98): quotations are indicated by throwing the commencement of the lines which contain them, both Greek and Latin, about an inch back or less (e.g. Matth. xxvi. 31; Mark i. 2,3; Act. ii. 34, 35; iv. 25, 26: see 1 In St Luke 136 (143 Lat.): in what remains of St Matthew 583 (590 Lat.), of St Mark 148, of St John 165 (168 Lat.), of the Acts 235. The later rapaypa- gal, indicated by / (see p. 48, note), though 45 out of the 49 are firmly and neatly made, and often resemble in colour the ink of the original scribe, can be shewn to be full four centuries later (Scrivener, Cod. Bez, Introd. p. xxviii.). OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 117 p- 60, note). The first three lines of each book, in both lan- guages, were written in bright red ink, which was also employed in the alternate lines of the subscriptions, and in other slight ornaments. The traces of the scribe’s needle and lines (see Ῥ. 26) are very visible, the margin ample, and the volume on the whole in good keeping, though its first extant page (Latin) is much decayed, and it is stained in parts by some chemical mixture that has been applied to it. The portions supplied by a later hand are of course in the uncial Greek and cursive Latin characters usual at the dates assigned to them. The liturgical notes in the margin of the Saturday and Sunday lessons (ανναγνοσμα is the form often used) are in thick letters, of a yet later date than the Ammonian sections. A few others for the great Feasts and Fast days occur; and, in a hand of about the twelfth century, lessons for the Festivals of St George and St Dionysius, the patron saints of England and France (see pp. 81,.82). The vellum employed for Codex Bezee is arranged in quires of four sheets (or eight leaves) each, the numeral signatures of which are set primd manu so low down in the margin at the foot of the last page of each, that they are mostly. cut off, in whole or partly, by the binder (see p. 27). Assuming that it ended with the Acts of the Apostles, it originally consisted of upwards of 64 (probably of 67) quires, of which the Ist, 44th, and 64th have each lost some leaves, the 34th is entire though containing but six leaves, while those signed Τὶ (9), IA (14), KB (22), ME (45) down to NB (52), NZ (57), and all after ἘΔ (64), are wholly wanting. The result is that out of the 534 leaves it originally contained, only 406 now survive, about twelve of them being more or less mutilated. It is not easy to sur- mise what may have been written on the 67 leaves that inter- vened between MA 5 and ΝΙ 1; the gap ends with 3 John 11 (Greek), but the space is apparently too great for the Catholic Epistles alone, even though we suppose that Jude was inserted (as appears in some catalogues) otherwise than in the last place. The leaves added by later hands are nine in number (see p. 112, note 2). The Greek portion of the supplement to St John (xviii. 14—-xx. 13) much resembles in text the style of the original manuscript, and is often supported by Codd. NAB(C). The Latin is taken from the Vulgate version. 118 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS The internal character of the Codex Beze is a most dif- ficult and indeed an almost inexhaustible theme. No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpola- tions (six hundred, it is said, in the Acts alone), counte- nanced, where they are not absolutely unsupported, chiefly by the Old Latin and some of the Syriac versions: its own parallel Latin translation is too servilely accommodated to the Greek text to be regarded as an independent authority, save where the corresponding Greek is lost. So far as the topic can be discussed in an elementary work, it will be touched upon in Chapter vil. For the present we shall sim- ply say with Davidson that “its singularly corrupt text, in connexion with its great antiquity, is a curious problem, which cannot easily be solved” (Biblical Crit. Vol. τι. p. 288) ; though we are not disposed to imitate the blind policy of Beza, who, alarmed by its wide diversities from other copies, however ancient, suggested that “vitandae quorundam offensioni, asser- vandum potius quam publicandum” (Letter to the University of Cambridge, Scrivener, Introd. p. vi). Of the manuscripts hitherto described, Codd. SABC for their critical value, Cod. D for its numberless and strange deviations from other authorities, and all five for their high antiquity, demanded a full description. Of those which follow many con- tain but a few fragments of the Gospels, and others are so recent in date that they hardly exceed in importance some of the best cursive copies (e.g. FGHS). None of these need detain us long. E. CopeEx BASILrEnsis (B vi. 21, now A. N. 111. 12) contains the four Gospels, excepting Luke iii. 4—15; xxiv. 47—53, and was written about the middle of the eighth century, unless (with Mr Burgon) we refer it to the seventh. Three leaves on which are Luke i. 69—ii. 4; xii. 58—xiii. 12; xv. 5—20 are in a smaller and late hand, above the obliterated fragments of a homily as old as the main body of the manuscript. This copy is one of the best of the second-rate uncials, and might well have been published at length. It was given to a religious house in Basle by Cardinal John de Ragusio, who was sent on a mission to the Greeks by the Council of Basle (1481), and probably brought it from Constantinople. Erasmus overlooked OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 119 it for later books when preparing his Greek Testament at Basle ; indeed it was not brought into the Public Library there before 1559. A collation was sent to Mill by John Battier, Greek Professor at Basle: Mill named it B. 1, and truly declared it to be “ probate fidei et bone note.” Bengel (who obtained a few extracts from it) calls it Basil. a, but its first real collator was Wetstein, whose native town it adorns. Since his time, Tisch- endorf in 1843, Professor Miiller of Basle and Tregelles in 1846, have independently collated it throughout. Judging from the specimen sent to him, Mill (N. T. Proleg. § 1118) thought the hand much like that of Cod. A; the uncial letters (though not so regular or neat) are firm, round and simple: indeed “the penmanship is exceedingly tasteful and delicate throughout. The employment of green, blue, and vermilion in the capitals I do not remember to have met with elsewhere’”’ (Burgon, Guardian, Jan. 29, 1873). There is but one column of about 24 lines on the page; it has breathings and accents pretty uniformly, and not ill placed; otherwise, from the shape of most of the letters (e.g. pr, facsumile No. 26, ll. 1, 3), it might be judged of earlier date: observe, however, the oblong form of omicron where the space is crowded in the last line of the facsimile, whereas the older scribes would have retained the circular shape and made the letter very small (see p. 48, and facsim. No. 11b, 1. 6): delta also and ai (see p. 36) betray a less ancient scribe. The single stop in Cod. E, as was stated above (p. 45), changes its place according to the variation of its power, as in other copies of about the same age. The capitals at the beginning of sections stand out in the margin as in Codd. AC. There are no tables of Eusebian canons prefixed to the Gospels, but lists of the larger κεφάλαια. These, together with the numbers of the sections in the margin and the Eusebian canons beneath them, as well as harmonising references to the other Gospels at the foot of the page, names of Feast days with their Proper lessons, and other liturgical notices, have been inserted (as some think, but erroneously, in Mr Burgon’s judgment) by a later hand. Under the text (Mark i. 5, 6) are placed the harmonising references, in the order (varying in each Gospel) Mark, Luke, John, Matthew. I* (John) allows no parallel on this page. The first section (a) of Μρ (Mark 1. 1, 2) corre- sponds to the 70th (0) of A? (Luke vii. 27), and to the 103rd 120 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS (py) of M® (Matth. xi. 10). Again the second (8) of Mark (i. 3) is parallel to the 7th (ζ) of Luke (iii. 3), and to the 8th (η) of Matth. (111. 3). The passage given in our facsimile is part of the 3rd (vy) of Mark (i. 4-6), and answers to nothing in Luke, but to the 9th (0) of Matth. (111. 4---6). See p. ὅθ, note 2. The value of this codex, as supplying materials for criticism, is considerable. It approaches more nearly than some others of its date to the text now commonly received, and is an excellent witness for it. F. Coprx BoREELI, now in the Public Library at Utrecht, once belonged to John Boreel [d. 1629], Dutch ambassador at the court of King James I. Wetstein obtained some readings from it in 1730, as far as Luke xi, but stated that he knew not where it then was. In 1830 Professor Heringa of Utrecht dis- covered it in private hands at Arnheim, and procured it for his University Library, where in 1850 Tregelles found it, though with some difficulty, the leaves being torn and all loose in a box, and he made a facsimile; Tischendorf had looked through it in 1841. In 1843, after Heringa’s death, H. E. Vinke pub- lished that scholar’s Disputatio de Codice Boreeliano, which includes a full and exact collation of the text. It contains the Four Gospels with many defects, some of which have been caused since the collation was made which Wetstein published : _ hence the codex must still sometimes be cited on his authority as Fv, In fact there are but 204 leaves and a few fragments remaining, written with two columns of about 19 lines each on the page, in a tall, oblong, upright form: it is referred by Tischendorf to the ninth, by Tregelles to the tenth century. In St Luke there are no less than 24 gaps: in Wetstein’s collation it began Matth. vii. 6, but now ix. 1. Other hiatus are Matth. xii. 1—44; xii. 55—xiv. 9; xv. 20—31; xx. 18— xxl. 5; Mark 1. 43—11. 8; 11. 23—i1. 5; xi. 6—26; xiv. 54— xv. 5; xv. 39—xvi. 19; John 111, 5—14; iv. 23—38; v. 18— 38; vi. 39—63; vii. 28—viiil. 10; x. 832—xi. 3; x1. 40—xii. 3; ΧΙ, 14—25: it ends xiii. 34. Few manuscripts have fallen into such unworthy hands. The Eusebian canons are wanting, the sections standing without them in the margin. Thus in Mark x. 13 (see facsimile, No. 27) the section ps (106) has not under it the proper canon β (2). The letters delta, epsilon, theta, omicron, and especially the cross-like psi (see Ὁ. 38), are of the OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 121 most recent uncial form, phi is large and bevelled at both ends; the breathings and accents are fully and not incorrectly given. Ἐπ CoDEx CoISsLIN. I. is that great copy of the Septuagint Octateuch, the glory of the Coislin Library, first made known by Montfaucon (Biblioth. Coislin., 1715), and illustrated by a facsimile in Silvestre’s Paléogr. Univ. No. 65. It contains 227 leaves in two columns, 13 inches by 9: the fine massive uncials of the sixth or seventh century are much like Cod. A’s in general appearance. In the margin primdéd manu Wetstein found Acts ix. 24, 25, and so inserted this as Cod. F in his list of MSS. of the Acts. In 1842 Tischendorf observed 19 other passages of the New Testament, which he published in his Monumenta sacra inedita (1846, p. 400, &c.) with a facsimile. The texts are Matth. y. 48; xi1.48; xxvu. 25; Lukei.42; 1.24; xxui.21; John v. Swede) 655i; Actstver San d4s.xu 155: 15S) ma. 22,1 3Cor Weed ἀπ 29372 Corie VS; ime 7 τὶν 33 pi Galkave Zines Col. 11. 16, 17; Hebr. x. 26. G. Cop. HARLEIAN, 5684 These two copies were brought or WoLFII A, from the East by Andrew Eras- H. Cop. Wotrir B. mus Seidel, purchased by La Croze, and by him presented to J. C. Wolff, who published loose extracts from them both in his Anecdota Greeca (Vol. 111. 1723), and barbarously mutilated them in 1721 in order to send pieces to Bentley, among whose papers in Trinity College Library (B. xvii. 20) Tregelles found the fragments in 1845 (Account of the Printed Text, p.160). Subsequently Cod. G came with the rest of the Harleian collection into the British Museum ; Cod. H, which had long been missing, was brought to light in the Public Library of Hamburgh, through Petersen the Librarian, in 1838. Codd. GH have now been thoroughly collated both by Tischendorf and Tregelles. Cod. G appears to be of the tenth, Cod. H of the ninth century, and is stated to be of higher critical value. Besides the mutilated fragments at Trinity Col- lege (Matth. v. 29—31; 39—43 of Cod. G; Luke 1. 3—6; 13 —15 of Cod. H), many parts of both have perished: viz. in Cod. G 372 verses; Matth. i. 1—vi. 6; vil. 25—vii. 9; vil. 23—ix. 2; xxviii. 18—Mark i. 13; xiv. 19—25; Luke 1. 1— 13; v. 4—-vii. 3; viii. 46—ix. 5; xii. 2751; xxiv. 41—53; 122 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS John xviii. 5—19 ; xix. 4—27 (of which one later hand supplies Matth. xxviii. 18—Mark i. 8; John xviii. 5—19; another Luke xii. 27—51): in Cod. H 679 verses; Matth. i. l—xv. 30; xxv. 33—xxvi. 3; Mark i. 32—i1. 4; xv. 44—xvi. 14; Luke v. 18— 32; vi. 8—22; x. 2—19; John ix. 30—x. 25; xviii. 2—18; xx. 12—25. Cod. G has some Church notes in the margin; Cod. H the sections without the Eusebian canons: G however has both sections and canons; its τίτλον and larger κεφάλαια are in red (those of St John being lost), and the Church notes seem primé manu. Each member of the genealogy in Luke iii. forms a separate line. Both G and H are written in a some- what rude style, with breathings and accents rather irregu- larly placed, as was the fashion of their times; Gin two columns of 22 lines each on a page, H with one column of 23 lines. In each the latest form of the uncial letters is very manifest (e.g. delta, theta), but G is the neater of the two. In G the single point, in H a kind of Maltese cross, are the prevailing marks of punctuation. Our facsimiles (Nos. 28 of G, 30 of H) are due to Tregelles; that of G he took from the fragment at Trinity College. Inasmuch as beside Matth. v. 30, 31 Ap (ἀρχὴ) is conspicuous in the margin, and Té THC Ac (τέλος τῆς λέξεως) stands in the text itself, good scholars may be excused for having mistaken it for a scrap of some Evangelistarium. I. Cop. TiscHenpDorFIAN. II. at St Petersburg, consists of palimpsest fragments found by Tischendorf in 1853 “in the dust of an Eastern library,” and published in his new series of Monumenta sacra inedita, Vol. 1.1855. On 28 vellum leaves (8 of them on 4 double leaves) Georgian writing is above the partially obliterated Greek, which is for the most part very hard to read. They compose portions of no less than seven different manu- scripts; the first two, of the fifth century, are as old as Codd. AC (the first having scarcely any capital letters and those very slightly larger than the rest); the third fragment seems of the sixth century, nearly of the date of Cod. N (p. 127), about as old as Cod. P (see p. 130); the fourth scarcely less ancient: all four, like other palimpsests, have the pseudo-Ammonian sections with- out the Eusebian canons (see p. 56). Of the Gospels we have 190 verses: viz. (Frag. 1) John xi. 50—xii. 9; xv. 12—xvi. 2; xix. 11—24; (Frag. 2) Matth. xiv. 13—16; 19—23; xxiv. 37 OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT, 123 —xxv. 1; xxv. 832—45; xxvi. 31—45; Mark ix. 14—22; xiv. 58—70; (Frag. 3) Matth. xvi. 22—xvii. 3; xviii. 11—19; xix. 5—14; Luke xviii. 14—25; John iv. 52—v. 8; xx. 17— 26; (Frag. 4) Luke vi. 39—49; xxiv. 10—19. The fifth fragment, containing portions of the Acts and St Paul’s Epistles - (1 Cor. xv. 53—xvi. 9; Tit. 1. 1—13; Acts xxviii. 8—17) is as old as the third, if not as the first. The sixth and seventh fragments are of the seventh century: viz. (Mrag. 5, of two leaves) Acts 11. 6—17; xxvi. 7—18; (rag. 7, of one leaf) Acts xii. 39—46. In all seven are 255 verses. All except Frag. 6 are in two columns of from 29 to 18 lines each, and unaccen- tuated; Frag. 6 has but one column on a page, with some accents. The first five fragments, so far as they extend, must be placed in the first rank as critical authorities. The first, as cited in Tischendorf’s eighth edition of his Greek Testament, agrees with Cod. A 34 times, four times with Cod. B, and 23 times with the two united; it stands alone eleven times. The text of the second and third is more mixed, though they in- cline more to favour Codd. NB; not, however, so decidedly as the first does Cod. A. Tischendorf gives us six facsimiles of them in the Monumenta sacra inedita, a seventh in Anecdota sacra et profana, 1855, fel? syee. N° p. 128. ᾿ K. Cod. Cyprius, or No. 63 of the Royal Library at Paris, shares only with Codd. SBMSU the advantage of being a com- plete uncial copy of the Four Gospels. It was brought into the Colbert Library from Cyprus in 1673; Mill inserted its read- ings from Simon; it was re-examined by Scholz, whose inaccu- racies (especially those committed when collating Cod. K for his “Curee Criticee in Historiam textis Evangeliorum,” Heidel- berg. 1820) have been strongly denounced by later editors, and it must be feared with too good reason. The indepen- dent collations of Tischendorf and Tregelles have now done all that can be needed for this copy. It is an oblong 4to, in compressed uncials, of about the middle of the ninth century at the latest, having one column of about 21 lines on each page, but the handwriting is irregular and varies much in size. A single point being often found where the sense does not require it, this codex has been thought to have been copied 124 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS from an older one arranged in στίχοι; the ends of each στίχος may have been indicated in this manner by the scribe. The subscriptions, τέτλοι, the sections, and indices of the κεφάλαια of the last three Gospels are believed to be the work of a later hand : the Eusebian canons are absent (see p. 57). The breathings and accents are primd manu, but often omitted or incorrectly placed. Itacisms and permutations of consonants are very frequent, and the text is of an unusual and interesting cha- racter. Scholz regards the directions for the Church lessons, even the ἀρχαὶ and τέλη in the margin at the beginning and end of lessons, as by the original scribe. He transcribes at length the ἐκλογάδιον τῶν δ΄ εὐαγγελιστῶν and the fragments of a menology prefixed to Cod. K (N. T. Vol. 1. pp. 455—498 ; see above, pp. 70, 75—82), of which tables it affords the ear- liest specimen. The second hand writes at the end προσδέξη ταύτην [τὴν δέλτον] ἡ ayia θεοτόκος καὶ ὁ ἅγιος Εὐτύχιος. The style of this copy will be seen from our facsimile (No. 29) from John vi. 52, 53: the number of the section (' or 66) stands in the margin, but the ordinary place of the Eusebian canon (¢ or 10) under it is filled by a simple flourish. The stop in 1. 1 before λεγοντεσ illustrates the unusual punctuation of this copy, as may that after ὁ ἐσ in L 3. L. Cop. Rearus, No. 62 in the Royal Library at Paris, is by far the most remarkable document of its age and class. It contains the Four Gospels, except the following passages, Matth. iv. 22—v. 14; xxviii. 17—20; Mark x. 16—30; xv. 2— 20; John xxi. 15—25. It was written about the eighth century and consists of 257 leaves 4to, of thick vellum, 9 inches high by 64 broad, with two columns of 25 lines each on a page, regularly marked, as we so often see, by the stylus and ruler (p. 26). This is doubtless Stephens’ η΄, though lie cites it erroneously in Acts xxiv. 7 bis; xxv. 14; xxvil. 1; xxvii. 11: it was even then in the Royal Library, although “Roberto Stephano” is marked in the volume. Wetstein collated Cod. L but loosely ; Griesbach, who set a very high value on it, studied it with peculiar care; Tischendorf published it in full in his Monumenta sacra inedita, 1846. It is but carelessly written, and abounds with errors of the ignorant scribe, who was more probably an Egyptian than a native Greek. The breathings and accents are OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 125 often deficient, often added wrongly, and placed throughout without rule or propriety. The apostrophus also is common, and frequently out of place ; the points are quite irregular, as we have elsewhere stated (p. 45). Capitals occur plentifully, often painted and in questionable taste (see facsimile No. 21, column 2), and there is a tendency throughout to inelegant ornament. This codex is in bad condition through damp, the ink brown or pale, the uncial letters of a debased oblong shape: plu is enormously large and sometimes quite angular (p. 37), other letters are such as might be looked for from its date, and are neither neat nor remarkably clear. The lessons for Sundays, festivals, &c., and the ἀρχαὶ and τέλη are marked everywhere in the margin, especially in St Matthew; there are also many cor- rections and important critical notes (e.g. Mark xvi. 8) in the text or margin, apparently primé manu. Our facsimile is taken from a photograph of its most important page communicated by Mr Burgon, Mark xvi. 8, 9, with part of the note cited at length in Chapter 1x. Before each Gospel are indices of the κεφάλαια, now imperfect: we find also the τύτλοι at the head and occasionally at the foot of the several pages ; the numbers of the κεφάλαια (usually pointed out by the sign of the cross), the sections and Eusebian canons in the inner margin’, often ill put, as if only half understood. The critical weight of this copy may best be discussed hereafter (Chap. vm); it will here suffice barely to mention its strong resemblance to Cod. B (less, however, in St John’s Gospel than elsewhere), to the citations of Origen [186—253], and to the margin of the Phi- loxenian Syriac version [A.D. 616]. Cod. Labounds in what are termed Alexandrian forms, beyond any other copy of its date. M. Cop. Campranus, No. 48 in the Royal Library at Paris, contains the Four Gospels complete in a small 4to form, written in very elegant and minute uncials of the end of the ninth century, with two columns of 24 lines each on a page. The Abbé Francis des Camps gave it to Louis XIV, Jan. 1, 1707. This document is Kuster’s 2 (1710); it was collated by Wetstein, Scholz and Tregelles; transcribed in 1841 by Tisch- 1 In our facsimile (No. 21), over against the beginning of Mark xvi. 8, are set the number of the section (CAT or 233), over the corresponding Kusebian canon (B or 2). 126 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS endorf. Its synaxaria (see p. 70) have been published by Scholz in the same place as those of Cod. K, and obviously with great carelessness. Scholia abound in the margin (Tischendorf thinks them primd manu) in a very small hand, like in style to the Oxford Plato (Clarke 39, above, p. 39): we find too Hippolytus’ Chronology of the Gospels, Eusebius’ letter to Carpianus with his canons, and some Arabic scrawled on the last leaf, of which the name of Jerusalem alone has been read, a note in Slavonic, and others in a contemporaneous cursive hand. Mr Burgon also observed at the foot of the several pages the same kind of harmony as we described for Cod. E (p. 119: see also p. 56 and note 2). It has breathings, accents pretty fairly given, and a musical notation in red, so frequent in Church manuscripts of the age. Its readings are very good; itacisms and ν ἐφελκυ- στικὸν are frequent. Tischendorf compares the form of its uncials to those of Cod. V (below, p. 134); which, judging from the facsimile given by Matthaei, we should deem somewhat less beautiful. From our facsimile (No. 31) it will be seen that the round letters are much narrowed, the later form of delta and theta quite decided, while alpha and pi might look earlier. Our specimen (John vii. 53—viii. 2) represents the celebrated Pericope adultere in one of its earliest forms. Another fac- simile is given by Silvestre, No. 76. N. Coprex Purpureus. Only twelve leaves of this beau- tiful copy were believed till recently to survive, and some former possessor must have divided them in order to obtain a better price from several purchasers than from one; four leaves being now in the British Museum (Cotton, C. xv.), six in the Vatican (No. 3785), two at Vienna (Lambec. 2), at the end of a frag- ment of Genesis in a different hand. The London fragments (Matth. xxvi. 57—65; xxvii, 26—34; John xiv. 2—10; xv. 15—22) were collated by Wetstein on his first visit to England in 1715, and marked in his Greek Testament by the letter J: Scrivener transcribed them in 1845, and announced that they contained 57 various readings, of which Wetstein had given but five. The Vienna fragment (Luke xxiv. 13—21; 39—49) had long been known by the descriptions of Lambeccius: Wetstein had called it N ; Treschow in 1773 and Alter in 1787 had given imperfect collations of it. Scholz first noticed the Vatican OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT, 127 leaves (Matth. xix. 6—13; xx. 6—22; xx. 29—xxi. 19), denoted them by I’, and used some readings extracted by Gaetano Ma- rini. It was reserved for Tischendorf (Monumenta sacra inedita, 1846) to publish them all in full, and to determine by actual inspection that they were portions of the same manuscript, of the date of about the end of the sixth century. Besides these twelve leaves John Sakkelion saw in or about 1864 at the Monastery of St John in Patmos 33 other leaves containing portions of St Mark’s Gospel, whose readings were communicated to Tischendorf, and are included in his eighth edition of the N. T. The others were probably stolen from the same place. This book is written on the thinnest vellum (see pp. 23, 25), dyed purple, and the silver letters (which have turned quite black) were impressed in some way upon it, but are too varied in shape, and at the end of the lines in size, to admit the supposition of moveable type being used; as some have thought to be the case in the Codex Argenteus of the Gothic Gospels. The abridgements ΘΟ, XC, &c. are in gold; and some changes’ have been made by an ancient second hand. The so-called Ammo- nian sections and the Eusebian canons are faithfully given (see Ῥ. 57), and the Vatican portion has the 41st, 46th and 47th τίτλοι of St Matthew at the head of the pages (see p.54). Each page has two columns of 16 lines, and the letters (about 10 or 12 in a line) are firm, uniform, bold, and unornamented, though not quite so much so as in a few older documents; their lower extremities are bevelled. Their size is at least four times that of the letters in Cod. A, the punctuation quite as simple, being a single point (and that usually neglected) level with the top of the letter (see our facsimile, Plate v, No. 14, 1. 3), and there is no space left between words even after stops. A few letters stand out as capitals at the beginning of lines; of the breath- ings and accents, if such they be, we have spoken above (p. 44). Letters diminished at the end of a line do not lose their ancient shape, as in many later books: compendia scribendi are rare, yet + stands for N at the end of a line no less than 29 times in the London leaves alone, but αὶ for az only once. I at the beginning of a syllable has two dots over it, T but one. We have discussed above (pp. 32—38) the shape of the alphabet in N (for by that single letter Tischendorf denotes it), and compared it with others of nearly the same date; alpha, omega, 128 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS lambda look more ancient than delta or a. It exhibits strong Alexandrian forms, e.g. παραλήμψομε, evyooay (the latter con- demned secundd manu), and not a few such itacisms as the changes of ἐ and εἰ, αὐ and ε. N? (I° of Tischendorf’s N.T., eighth edition). Must Bri- TANNIcI (Addit. 17136) is a 16° volume containing the hymns of Severus in Syriac, and is one of the books brought thither from the Nitrian desert. It 15 a palimpsest, with a second Syriac work written below the first, and under both four leaves (117, 118, 127, 128) contain fragments of 16 verses of St John (xi. 16; 17;-19; 20; 23;°24; 263.27; xvi. 7;,83.123 13:15; ΣΝ These ischendorf (and Tregelles about the same time) deci- phered with great difficulty, as every one who has examined the manuscript would anticipate, and published in the second volume of his new collection of Monumenta sacra inedita. Each page contained two columns. We meet with the sections with- out the Eusebian canons, the earliest form of uncial characters, no capital letters, and only the simplest kind of punctuation, but one rough breathing is legible. Tischendorf hesitates whether he shall assign the fragment to the 4th or 5th century. It agrees with Cod. A five or six times, with Cod. B five, with the two together six, and is against them both thrice. O. No less than eight small fragments have borne this mark. O of Wetstein was given by Anselmo Banduri to Mont- faucon, and contains only Luke xviii. 11—14: this Tischen- dorf discards as taken from an Evangelistarium (of the tenth century, as he judges from the writing) chiefly because it wants the number of the section at ver. 14. In its room he puts for Cod. O Moscow Synod. 120 (Matthaei, 15), a few leaves of about the ninth century (containing the 16 verses, John i. 1—4; xx. 10—13; 15—17; 20—24, with some scholia), used for binding a copy of Chrysostom’s Homilies, brought from Mount Athos, and published in Matthaei’s Greek Testament with a facsimile. Further portions of this fragment were seen at Athos in 1864 by Mr Philip Pusey. Tregelles has also appended it to his edition of Cod. & (see p. 145). In this fragment we find the cross-like psi (p. 38), the interrogative ; (Jo. xx. 13), and the comma (tb. ver. 12). The next five comprise N. Τὶ hymns, OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 129 Οὐ. Magnificat and Benedictus in Greek uncials of the Sth or 9th century, in a Latin book at Wolfenbiittel, is published by Tischendorf, Anecdota sacr. et prof. 1855; as is also O°, which contains these two and Nunc Dimittis, of the ninth century, and is at Oxford, Bodleian. Misc. Gr. 5 (Auct. D. 4. 1) foll. 315—4". Οὐ Magnificat in the Verona Psalter of the 6th cen- tury (the Greek being written in Latin letters), published by Bianchini (Vindiciz Canon. Script. 1740). Οὐ, O°, both contain the three hymns, Οὐ in the great purple and silver Turin Psalter of the 7th century; O° of the 9th century at St Gall (Cod. 17), partly written in Greek, partly in Latin. Οὗ, also of the 9th century, is described by Tischendorf*(N.T., 8th edition) once as “ Noroff. Petrop.,” once as “ Mosquensis.” P. CoDEX GUELPHERBYTANUS A.) These are two palimps- LS th TEA ee πντ = ests, discovered by F. A. Knittel, Archdeacon of Wolfenbiittel, in the Ducal Library of that city, which (together with some fragments of Ulphilas’ Gothic version) lie under the more modern writings of Isidore of Seville. He published the whole in 1762’, so far at least as he could read them, though Tregelles believed more might be deciphered, and Tischendorf, with his unconquerable energy, re-edited the Greek portion in Vol. 11. of his Monumenta sacra inedita (1860). The volume (called the Codex Carolinus) seems to have been once at Bobbio, and has been traced from Weissenburg to Mayence and Prague, till it was bought by a Duke of Brunswick in 1689. Codex P contains, on 43 leaves, 31 fragments of 486 verses, taken from all the four Evangelists’ ; Codex Q, on 13 leaves, 12 fragments of 235 verses from Luke and John‘; but all can be traced only with great difficulty. A 1 These songs, with 13 others from the Old Testament and Apocrypha, though partially written in uncial letters, are included in a volume of Psalms and Hymns, whose prevailing character is early cursive. 2 They had been previously described in a tract ‘‘Jac. Frid. Hensinger, de quatuor Evan. Cod. Gree. quem antiqua manu membrana scriptum Guelferby- tana bibliotheca servat.” Guelf. 1752. 3 Codex P contains Matth. i. 11—21; iii. 18. ἵν. 19; x. 7—19; x. 42—xi. 11; sili. 40—50; xiv. 15—xy. 3; xv. 29-39; Mark i. 1—10; iii. 5—17; xiv. 13— 24; 48—61; xv. 12—37; Luke i. 1—138; ii. 9—20; vi. 21—42; vii. 32—viii. 2; Vili. 51. 50: ix. 26—36; x. 36—xi. 4; xii. 34—45; xiv. 14—25; xv. 13—xvi. 22; xviii. 13—39; xx. 21—xxi. 3; xxii. 3—16; xxiii. 20—32; 45—56; xxiv. 14 —37; John i, 29—41; ii. 13—25; xxi. 1—11. 4 Codex Q contains Luke iv. 34—v. 4; vi. 10—26; xii, 6—43; xv. 14—31; Ss. 9 130 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS few portions, once written in vermilion, have quite departed, but Tischendorf has made material additions to Knittel’s labours, both in extent and accuracy. He assigns P to the sixth, Q to the fifth century. Both are written in two columns, the uncials being bold, round or square, those of Q not a little the smaller. The capitals in P are large and frequent, and both have the sections without the canons of Eusebius (see p. 56). The table of τίτλοι found in the volume is written in oblong uncials of a lower date. Itacisms, what are termed Alexandrian forms, and IAHM, ANOC, AAA, M) occur in both copies. From Tisch- endorf’s beautiful facsimiles of Codd. PQ we observe that while delta is far more elaborate in P than Q, the precise con- trary is the case with pz. Epsilon and sigma in P have strong points at all the extremities ; nw in each is of the ancient form exhibited in Codd. NNR (see p. 36) ; while in P alpha resembles in shape that of our alphabet in Plate m. No. 5, eta that in Plate ut. No.7. As regards their text we observe that in the first hundred verses of St Luke which are contained in both copies, wherein P is cited for various readings 216 times, and Q 182 times, P stands alone 14 times, Q not once. P agrees with other manuscripts against AB 21 times, Q 19: P agrees with AB united 50 times, Q also 50: P sides with B against A 29 times, Q 38: but P accords with A against B in 102 places, Q in 75. R. This letter also, like some that precede, has been used to represent different books by various editors, a practice the inconvenience of which is very manifest. (1) R of Griesbach and Scholz is a fragment of two 4to leaves containing John i. 38—50, at Tiibingen (published by Reuss, 1778), which from its thick vellum, want of the sections and Eusebian canons, and the general resemblance of its uncials to those of late service books, Tischendorf pronounces to be an Evangelistarium, and puts in its room (2) in his N. T. of 1849, 12 or 14 leaves of a palimpsest in the Royal Library of Naples (Borbon. τι. C. 15) of the eighth century, under a Yypicum (see Suicer, Thes, xvii. 834—xviii. 15; xviii. 34—xix. 11; xix. 47—xx. 17; xx. 34—xxi. 8; xxii. 27 —46; xxiii. 30—49; John xii. 3—20; xiv. 3—22, OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 191 Kecles. Tom. 11. 1335) or Ritual of the Greek Church of the fourteenth century. These are fragments from the first three Evangelists, in oblong uncials, leaning to the right. Tischendorf, by chemical applications, was able in 1843 to read one page, in two columns of 25 lines each (Mark xiv. 32—39), and saw the sections in the margin; the Eusebian canons he thinks have been washed out (see p. 56): but in 1859 he calls this fragment W”, reserving the letter R for (3) Codex Nitriensis, Brit. Museum, Additional 17211, the very important palimpsest containing on 45 leaves about 516 verses of St Luke in 25 fragments’, under the black, broad Syriac writing, being a treatise of Severus of Antioch against Grammaticus, of the ninth or tenth century. There are two columns of about 25 lines each on a page; for their boldness and simplicity the letters may be referred to the end of the sixth century; we have given a facsimile of the manuscript (which cannot be read in parts but with the utmost difficulty’), and an alphabet collected from it (Nos. 5,17). In size and shape the letters are much like those of Codd. INP, only that they are somewhat*irregular and straggling: the punctuation is effected by a single point almost level with the top of the letters, as in Cod. N. The pseudo-Ammonian sec- tions are there without the Eusebian canons (see Ὁ. 56), and the first two leaves are devoted to the τίτλοι of St Luke. This most important palimpsest is one of the 550 manuscripts brought to England about 1847, from the Syrian convent of S. Mary Deipara, in the Nitrian Desert, 70 miles N. W. -of Cairo. When examined at the British Museum by the late Canon Cureton, then one of the Librarians, he discovered in the same volume, and published in 1851 (with six pages in facsimile), a palimpsest of 4000 lines of Homer’s Iliad, not in the same hand as St Luke, but quite as ancient. The frag- ments of St Luke were independently transcribed, with most laudable patience, both by Tregelles in 1854, and by Tischen- dorf in 1855, who afterwards re-examined the places wherein he 1 Codex R contains Luke i. 1—13; i. 69—ii. 4; 16—27; iv. 38—v. 5; v. 25 —vi. 8; 18—39; vi. 49—vii. 22; viii. 5—15; viii. 25—ix. 1; ix. 12—43; x. 3— 16; xi. 5—27; xii. 4—15; 40—52; xiii. 26—xiv. 1; xiv. 12—xv. 1; xv. 13—xvi. 16; xvii. 21—xviii. 10; xviii, 29. χχ, 20; xx. 33—47; xxi. 12—xxii. 15; 42—56; xxil. 71—xxiii, 11; xxiii. 38—51. A second hand has supplied ch. xv. 19—21. 2 In our facsimile we have not attempted to represent the extreme faintness of the lines, which in parts are only just visible. 9—2 132 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS differs from Tregelles (e.g. ch. vill. 5; xviii. 7, 10), and dis- covered by the aid of Dr Wright a few more fragments of ch. vi—viii. Tischendorf published an edition of Cod. R in his Monumenta sacra inedita Vol. 11. witha facsimile: the amended readings, together with the newly discovered variations in ch. vi. 32—36, 37, 38, are inserted in the eighth edition of his Greek Testament. On the critical character of the readings of this precious fragment we shall make some comments im Chapter VII. S. Coprex VaTIcANuUS 354, contains the four Gospels en- tire, and is the earliest dated manuscript of the Greek Testa- ment (p. 28). This is a folio of 234 leaves, written in large oblong or compressed uncials: the Epistle to Carpianus and Eusebian canons are prefixed, and it contains many later cor- rections (e.g. Luke viii. 15), and marginal notes (e.g. Matth. xxvii. 16, 17). Luke xxu. 43,44; John v.45; vu. 53—viii. 11 are obelized. At the end we read éypades ἡ τιμία δέλτος αὕτη διὰ χειρὸς ἐμοῦ Μιχαὴλ μοναχοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ μηνὶ paptio a* ἡμέρα ε', wpa s’, ἔτους ςυνζ. wd. ζ: 1.6. AD. 949. “Codicem bis diligenter contulimus,” says Birch: but collators in his day (1781—3) seldom noticed orthographical forms or stated where the readings agree with the received text: so that a more thorough examination was still required. Tregelles only in- spected it, but Tischendorf, when at Rome in 1866, carefully re-examined it, and has inserted many of its readings in his eighth edition and its supplementary leaves. He states that Birch’s facsimile (consisting of the obelized John v. 4) is coarsely executed, while Bianchini’s is too elegant; he has made another himself. T. Copex Boretanus [,, now in the Propaganda at Rome (see below, Cod. 180 of the Gospels), contains 13 or more 4to leaves of Luke and John, with a Thebaic or Sahidic version at their side, but on the opposite and left page. Each page consists of two columns; a single point indicates a break in the sense, but there are no other divisions. The fragment contains Luke xxii. 20—xxiii. 20; John vi. 28—67; vil. 6 —vili. 32 (177 verses, since vii. 53—viii. 11 are wanting). The portion containing St John, both in Greek and Egyptian, was carefully edited at Rome in 1789 by A. A. Giorgi, an OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 133 Augustinian Eremite : his facsimile, however (ch. vii. 35), seems somewhat rough, though Tischendorf (who has inspected the codex) says that its uncials look as if written by a Copt, from their resemblance to Coptic letters: the shapes of alpha and tota are specially noticeable. Birch had previously collated the Greek text. Notwithstanding the constant presence of the rough and smooth breathing in this copy (p. 44), Giorgi refers it to the fourth century, Tischendorf to the fifth. The Greek frag- ment of St Luke was first collated by Mr Bradley H. Alford, and inserted by his brother, Dean Alford, in the fourth edition of his Greek Testament, Vol. 1. (1859). Dr Tregelles had drawn Mr Alford’s attention to it, from a hint thrown out by Zoega, in p. 184 of his “Catalogus codd. Copt. MSS. qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris adservantur.” Romae 1810. Τ᾽ or T’ is used by Tischendorf to indicate a few leaves in Greek and Thebaic, which once belonged to Woide, and were published with his other Thebaic fragments in Ford’s Appendix to the Codex Alexandrinus, Oxon. 1799. They contain Luke xii, 15—xiii. 82; John viii. 83—42 (85 verses). From the second fragment it plainly appears (what the similarity of the facsimiles had suggested to 'Tregelles) that T and T®* are parts of the same manuscript, for the page of Τὸ which contains John viii. 33 in Greek exhibits on its reverse the Thebaic version of John viii. 23—32, of which T affords us only the Greek text. This fact was first noted by Tischendorf (N. T. 1859), who adds that the Coptic scribe blundered much over the Greek: e.g. BaBovea Luke xiii. 21; so δεκαι for dexa και, ver. 16. He transcribed T and Το (as well as Τῇ, T°, Τα which we proceed to describe), for publication in the ninth volume of his Monumenta sacra inedita (1870). Τὴ at St Petersburg much resembles the preceding in the Coptic-like style of writing, but is not earlier than the sixth century. It contains on six 8vo. leaves John i. 25—42; 11. 9— iv. 50, spaces left in the text answering the purpose of stops (see p. 45). ΤῈ has a harmony of the Gospels at the foot of the page (see p. 56, note 2). T° is a fragment of about 21 verses between Matth. xiv. 19 and xv. 8, also of the sixth century, and at St Petersburg, in the collection of Bishop Porphyrius. Its text in the 29 places 134 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS cited by Tischendorf in his eighth edition accords with Cod. & 24 times, with Cod. B 20 times, with Codd. C and D 16 times, with Cod. 33 nine times. Cod. A is wanting here. Compared with these primary authorities severally, it agrees with δὲ alone once, with 33 alone twice, with NB united against the rest, 4 times: so that its critical character is very decided. Τὸ is a fragment of a Lectionary, Greek and Sahidic, of about the seventh century, found by Tischendorf in 1866 among the Borgian manuscripts at Rome. It contains Matth. xvi. 15. -90: Mark i. 1—8; xii. 835—37; John xix. 23—27; xx. 30—31 : 21 verses only. U. Coprex NANIANUS L, so called from a former possessor, is now in the Library of St Mark, Venice (I. vi). It con- tains the four Gospels entire, carefully and luxuriously written in two columns of 21 lines each on the 4to page, scarcely be- fore the tenth century, although the “letters are in general an imitation of those used before the introduction of com- pressed uncials; but they do not belong to the age when full and round writing was customary or natural, so that the stiffness and want of ease is manifest” (Tregelles’ Horne, p. 202). Thus while the small o in 1.1 of our facsimile (No. 22) is in the oldest style, the oblong omicrons creep in at the end of lines 2 and 4. Munter sent some extracts from this copy to Birch, who used them for his edition, and states that the book contains the Eusebian canons. Accordingly in Mark y. 18, B (in error for H) stands under the proper section μη (48). Tisch- endorf in 1843 and Tregelles in 1846 collated Cod. U, tho- roughly and independently, and compared their work at Leipsic for the purpose of mutual correction. V. Coprex Mosquensis, of the Holy Synod, is known almost? exclusively from Matthaei’s Greek Testament: he states, no doubt most truly, that he collated it “bis diligentissimé,” and gives a facsimile of it, assigning it to the eighth century. Judging from Matthaei’s plate, it is hard to say why others have 1 I say almost, for Bengel’s description makes it plain that this is the Moscow manuscript from which I. C, Gross sent him the extracts, that Wetstein copied and numbered Evan. 87. Bengel, however, states that the cursive por- tion from John vii. onwards bears the date of 6508 or λ.ν. 1000, Scholz was the first to notice this identity (see Evan. 250). OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 135 dated it in the ninth. It contained in 1779, when first col- lated, the Four Gospels in 8vo with the sections and Eusebian canons, in uncial letters down to John vii. 39, ov7w yap nr, and from that point in cursive letters of the 13th century ; Matth. v. 44—-vi. 12; 1x. 18—x. 1 being lost: when recollated but four years later Matth. xxii. 44—xxii. 35; John xxi. 10— .25 had disappeared. Matthaei tells us that the manuscript is written stichometrically, by a diligent scribe: its resemblance to Cod. M has been already mentioned (p. 110). The cursive portion is Matthaei’s v. Scholz’s Evan. 250. γι. Cop. Rec. Paris 314, consists of but two leaves at the end of another book, containing Luke ix. 34—47; x. 12 —22 (23 verses). Its date is about the eighth century; the uncial letters are firmly written, delta and theta being of the ordinary oblong shape of that period. Accents and breathings are usually put; all the stops are expressed by a single point, whose position makes no difference in its power (see p. 45). This copy was adapted to Church use, but is not an Evan- gelistarium, inasmuch as it exhibits the sections and Eusebian canons’, and τίτλοι twice at the head of the page. This frag- ment was brought to light by Scholz, and published by Tischen- dorf, Monumenta sacra inedita, 1846. He considers the fragment at Naples he had formerly numbered R (2) as another portion of the same copy, and therefore indicates it in his 7th edition of the N. T. (1859) as W” (see p. 131). W? is assigned by Tischendorf to three leaves containing Mark ii. 8—16; Luke i. 20—32; 64—79 (35 verses), which have been washed to make a palimpsest, and the writing erased in parts by a knife. There are also some traces of a Latin version, but all these were used up to bind other books in the library of St Gall. They are of the eighth century, and have appeared in Vol. 11. of Monumenta sacra inedita, with a facsimile, whose style closely resembles that of Cod. A, and its kindred FG of St Paul’s Epistles. W'‘ was discovered in 1862 by Mr H. Bradshaw, now Uni- versity Librarian at Cambridge, in the Library of Trinity Col- 1 Notwithstanding the Eusebian canons have been washed out of W?, a strong confirmation of what was conjectured above, p. 56. 136 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS lege there, its slips (about 27 in number) being worked into the binding of a volume of Gregory Nazianzen: they are now carefully arranged on glass (B. viii. 5). They comprise portions of four leaves, severally containing Mark vii. 3—4; 6—8; 90--- 36; 36—viil. 4; 4—10; 11—16; ix. 2; 7—9, in uncial letters of the ninth century, if not rather earlier, slightly leaning to the right. The sections are set in the margin without the Eusebian canons, with a table of harmony at the foot of each page of 24 lines (see p. ὅθ, note). The τίτλοι are in red at the top and bottom of the pages, their corresponding numerals in the mar- gin. The breathings and accents are often very faint: lessons and musical notes, crosses, &c. are in red, and sometimes cover the original stops. The text much resembles Codd. SBDLA: one reading (Mark vii. 33) appears to be unique. It will shortly be published by Scrivener in a volume of fresh collations of manuscripts and editions. W? is a fragment containing John iv. 9—14, found by Mr G. W. Kitchin, Student of Christ Church, in the College Library, when Tischendorf was at Oxford in 1865. It much resembles O at Moscow (p. 128), and, like it, had a commentary annexed, to which there are numeral references set before each verse. X. Copex MOoNnAceENSIS, in the University Library at Mu- nich (No. 1), is a valuable folio manuscript of the end of the ninth or early in the tenth century, containing the Four Gospels (in the order described above, p. 68), with serious defects’, and a commentary (chiefly from Chrysostom) surrounding and inter- spersed with the text of all but St Mark, in early cursive letters, not unlike (in Tischendorf’s judgment) the celebrated Oxford Plato dated 895 (see p. 39). The very elegant uncials of Cod. X “are small and upright; though some of them are compressed, they seem as if they were partial imitations of those used in very early copies” (Tregelles’ Horne, p. 195). Each page has 1 Codex X contains Matth. vi. 6, 10, 11; vii. 1—ix. 20; ix. 34—xi. 24; xii. 9— xvi. 28; xvii. 14—xviii. 25; xix. 22—xxi. 13; xxi. 28—xxii. 22; xxiii. 27—xxiv. 2: xxiv. 23—35; xxv. 1—30; xxvi. 69—xxvii. 12; Mark vi. 47—Luke i. 37; ii. 19—iii. 38; iv. 21—x. 37; xi. 1—xviii. 43; xx. 46—John ii. 22; vii. 1—xiii. 5; xiii. 20—xv. 25; xvi. 23—xxi. 25. The hiatus in John ii, 22—vii. 1 is supplied on paper in a hand of the twelfth century; Mark xiv. 61—64; xiv. 72—xy. 4; xv. 833—xvi. 6 are illegible in parts, and xvi, 6—8 have perished. Matth, νυ, 45 survives in the commentary. OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 137 two columns of about 45 lines each. There are no divisions by κεφάλαια or sections, nor notes to serve for ecclesiastical use ; the ink has much faded, and its general condition is bad. From a memorandum we find that it came from Rome to Ingoldstadt, as a present from Gerard Vossius [1577—1649] ; from Ingoldstadt it was taken to Landshut in 1803, thence to Munich in 1827. When it was at Ingoldstadt Griesbach ob- tained some extracts from it through Dobrowsky; Scholz first collated it, in his usual unhappy way; Tischendorf also in 1844, Tregelles in 1846. Mr Burgon examined it in 1872, but com- plains that our facsimile No. 33 (the gift of Tregelles, see p. 40, note 1) gives an entirely unworthy notion of the exquisite pre- cision of the style of writing. Y. CopEx BARBERINI 225 at Rome (in the Library founded by Cardinal Barberini in the 17th century) contains on six large leaves the 137 verses John xvi. 3—xix. 41, of about the eighth century. Tischendorf obtained access to it in 1843 for a few hours, after some difficulty with the Prince Barberini, and pub- lished it in his first instalment of Monumenta sacra inedita, 1846. Scholz had first noticed, and loosely collated it. A later hand has coarsely retraced the letters, but the ancient writing is plain and good. Accents and breathings are most often neglected or placed wrongly: κ᾿ θχ τὶ are frequent at the end of lines. For punctuation one, two, three or even four points are employed, the power of the single point varying as in Codd. E (see pp. 45, 119) ©* or B of the Apocalypse. The pseudo-Ammonian sections are without the Eusebian canons: and such forms as λήμψεται xvi. 14, λήμψεσθε ver. 24 occur. These few uncial leaves are prefixed to a cursive copy of the Gospels with Theophylact’s commentary (Evan. 392): the text is mixed, and lies about midway between that of Cod. A and Cod. B. Z. CODEX DUBLINENSIS RESCRIPTUS, one of the chief palim- psests extant, contains 290 verses of St Matthew’s Gospel in 22 fragments’. It was discovered in 1787 by Dr John Barrett, 1 Codex Z contains Matth, i. 17—ii. 6; ii. 13—20; iv. 4—13; v. 45—vi. 15; vii. 16—viii. 6; x. 40—xi. 18; xii. 48 --- ΧΙ], 11; xiii. 57—xiv. 18; xv. 1323; Evil. 9—17; xvii. 26—xviii. 6; xix. 412; 21—28; xx. 7—-xxi. 8; xxi. 23—45; xxii. 16—25; xxii. 37—xxiii, 3; xxiii, 13—23; xxiv. 15—25; xxv. 1—11; xxyi, 21—29; 62—71; 138 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS Senior Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, under some cursive writing of the 10th century or later, consisting of Chrysostom de Sacerdotio, extracts from Epiphanius, &c. In the same volume are portions of Isaiah and of Gregory Nazianzen, in erased uncial letters, but not so ancient as the fragment of St Matthew. All the 32 leaves of this Gospel that remain were engraved in copper-plate facsimile at the expense of Trinity College, and published by Barrett in 1801, furnished with Pro- legomena, and the contents of each facsimile plate in modern Greek characters, on the opposite page. The facsimiles are not very accurate, and the form of the letters is stated to be less free and symmetrical than in the original: yet from these plates (for the want of a better guide) our alphabet (No. 6) and specimen (No. 18) have been taken. The Greek type on the opposite page has not been very well revised, and a comparison with the copper-plate will occasionally convict it of errors, which have been animadverted upon more severely than was quite necessary. The Prolegomena are encumbered with a discussion of our Lord’s genealogies quite foreign to the subject, and the tone of scholar- ship is not very high; but Barrett’s judgment on the manu- script is correct in the main, and his conclusion, that it is as old as the sixth century, has been generally received. Tre- gelles in 1853 was permitted to apply a chemical mixture to the vellum, which was already miserably discoloured, apparently from the purple dye: he was thus enabled to add a little to what Barrett had read long since’, but he found that in most places which that editor had left blank, the vellum had been cut away or lost: it would no doubt have been better for Barrett to have stated, in each particular case, why he had been unable to give the text of the passage. Codex Z, like many others, and for the same orthographical reasons, has been referred to Alex- andria as its native country. It is written in 4to, with a single column on each page of from 21 to 23 lines. The so-named Am- monian sections are given, but not the Eusebian canons: the τίτλοι are written at the top of the pages, their numbers being set in the margin. The writing is continuous, the single point either rarely found or quite washed out (see p. 45): the abbre- 1 Mr Τὸ, H. Hansell prints in red these additional readings brought to light by Tregelles in the Appendix to his ‘‘ Texts of the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament,” Oxford, 1864, OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 139 viations are very few, and there are no breathings or accents. A space, proportionate to the occasion, is usually left when there is a break in the sense, and capitals extend into the margin when a new section begins. The letters are in a plain, steady, beautiful hand, some 18 or 20 in a line. The shape of alpha (which varies a good deal), and especially that of mu, is very peculiar: phi is inordinately large: delta has an upper curve which is not usual: the same curves appear in zeta, lumbda and cht. The characters are less in size than in N, about equal to those in R, much greater than in AB. In re- gard to the text, it agrees much with Codd. $BD: with Cod. A it has only 23 verses in common. I. Coprx TIscHENDORFIAN. IV. was brought by Tischen- dorf from an “eastern monastery” (he usually describes the locality of his manuscripts in such like general terms), and was bought of him for the Bodleian Library (Auct. T. Infra τι. 2) in 1855. It consists of 158 leaves in large quarto, with one column (of 24 not very straight or regular lines) on a page, in uncials of the ninth century, leaning slightly back (see p. 38, note), but otherwise much resembling Cod. K in style (facsim. No. 40). St Luke’s Gospel is complete; the last ten leaves are hurt by damp, though still legible. In St Mark only 105 verses are wanting (111. 35—-vi. 20); about 531 verses of the other Gos- pels survive’. Tischendorf, and Tregelles by his leave, have independently collated this copy, of which Tischendorf gives a facsimile in his Anecdota sacra et profana, 1855. Some of its peculiar readings are very notable, and few uncials of its date deserve that more careful study, which it has hardly yet received. In 1859 Tischendorf, on his return from his third Eastern journey, took to St Petersburg 99 additional leaves of this self-same manuscript, doubtless procured from the same place as he had obtained the Bodleian portion six years before (Notitia Cod. Sinait. p. 53). This copy of the Gospels, though unfortunately in two distant libraries, is now nearly perfect”, and at the end of St John’s Gospel, in the newly-discovered portion, 1 These are Matth. vi. 16—29; vii. 26—viii. 27; xii. 18—xiv. 15; xx. 25— xxi, 19; xxii, 25—xxiii. 18; John vi. 14—viii. 3; xv. 24—xix. 6. 2 In the St Petersburg portion are all the rest of John, and Matth. i. 1—y. 31; ix. 6—xii. 18; xiv. 15—xx, 25; xxiii, 13—xxviii. 20; or all St Matthew except 115 verses. 140 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS we find an inscription which seems to fix the date: ετελειωθὴ ἡ δέλτος αὔτη μηνι νοεμβριω κξ, ινδ. ἢ, ἡμερα ξ, wpa 8. Tischendorf, by the aid of Ant. Pilgrami’s “ Calendarium chronicum medii potissimum evi monumentis accommodatum,” Vienn. 1781, pp. vil, 11, 105, states that the only year between A.D. 800 and 950, on which the Indiction was 8, and Nov. 27 fell on a Thursday, was 844. In the Oxford sheets we find tables of κεφάλαια before the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the τίτλοι at the heading of the pages, their numbers rubro neatly set in the margin ; capitals in red at the commencement of these chap- ters ; the sections and Eusebian canons in their usual places, and some liturgical directions. Over the original breathings and accents some late scrawler has in many places put others, in a very careless fashion. A. CoDEX SANGALLENSIS, was first inspected by Gerbert (1773), named by Scholz (N. T. 1830), and made fully known to us by the admirable edition in lithographed facsimile of every page, by H. Ch. M. Rettig [1799—1836], published at Zurich, 1836*, with copious and satisfactory Prolegomena. It is preserved and was probably transcribed a thousand years since in the great monastery of St Gall in the N.E. of Switzer- land. It is rudely written on 197 leaves of coarse vellum 4to, 10 inches by 8? in size, with from 20 to 26 (usually 21) lines on each page, in a very peculiar hand, with an interlinear Latin version, and contains the four Gospels complete except John xix. 17—35. Before St Matthew’s Gospel are placed Prologues, Latin verses, the Eusebian canons in Roman letters, tables of the κεφάλαια both in Greek and Latin, &e. Rettig thinks he has traced several different scribes and inks employed on it, which might happen easily enough in the Seriptorium of a monastery; but, if so, their style of writing is very nearly the same, and they doubtless copied from the same archetype, about the same time. He has produced more convincing argu- ments to shew that Cod. A is part of the same book as the Codex Boernerianus, G of St Paul’s Epistles. Not only do they exactly resemble each other in their whole arrangement 1 The edition was posthumous, and has prefixed to it a touching “ Life” of two pages in length, by his brother and pupil, dwelling especially on Rettig’s happy change in his later days from rationalism to a higher and spiritual life. OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 141 and appearance, but marginal notes by the first hand are found in each, of precisely the same character. Thus the predestina- rian doctrines of the heretic Godeschalk [d. 866] are pointed out for refutation at the hard texts, Luke xiii. 24; John xii. 40 in A, and six times in α΄. St Mark’s Gospel is stated to represent a text different from that of the other Evangelists, and the Latin version (which is clearly primd manu) seems a mixture of the Vulgate with the older Italic, so altered and accommodated to the Greek as to be of little critical value. The penmen seem to have known but little Greek, and to have copied from a manuscript written continuously, for the divisions between the words are sometimes absurdly wrong. There are scarcely any breathings or accents, except about the opening of St Mark, and once an aspirate to érta; what we find are often falsely placed; and a dot is set in most places regularly at the end of every Greek word. The letters have but little tendency to the oblong shape, but delta and theta are decidedly of the latest uncial type. Here, as in Cod. G, the mark >>> is much used to fill up vacant spaces (see p. 47). The text from which A was copied seems to have been arranged in στίχοι, for almost every line has at least one Greek capital letter, grotesquely ornamental in colours*, We _ transcribe three lines, taken almost at random, from pp. 80—1 (Matth. xx. 18—15), in order to explain our meaning: dixit uni eor amice non ijusto tibi mnne εἰπεν * ovads* αυτων" Etaipe* οὐκ αδικω ‘oe’ Ovyt exdenario convenisti mect {0116 tui et vade Snvapiov cuvepwvncac * wor’ Apov* το σον καὶ ὑπαγε 1 viz. Rom. iii. 5; 1 Cor. ii, 8; 1 Tim. ii. 4; iv. 10; vi. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 15. Equally strong are the notices of Aganon, who is cited 8 times in A, about 16 in G. This personage was Bishop of Chartres, and a severe disciplinarian, who died a.p. 941; a fact which does not hinder our assigning Cod. A to the ninth century, as Rettig states that all notices of him are by alater hand. There is the less need of multiplying proofs of this kind, as Tregelles has observed a circumstance which proves to a certainty the identity of Codd. AandG. When he was at Dresden he found in Cod. G twelve leaves of later writing in precisely the same hand as several that are lithographed by Rettig, because they were attached to Cod. A. ‘‘ Thus,’ he says, ‘‘these MSS. once formed onE Book; and when separated, some of the superfluous leaves with additional writing attached to the former part, and some to the latter” (Tregelles’ Horne’s Introd. Vol. rv. p. 197). 2 The portion of this manuscript contained in Paul. G was divided into στίχοι on the same principle by Hug (Introduction, Vol. 1. p. 283, Wait’s translation). 142 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS volo auté huic novissimo dare sicut et tibi anta non li Θελω δὲ τουτω Tw εσχατω Sovvar wo Kai’ cou’ Ἠ΄ ove εἕ It will be observed that, while in Cod. A a line begins at any place, even in the middle of a word; if the capital letters be assumed to commence the lines, the text divides itself into regular στίχοι. See above, pp. 48—50. There are also the τίτλοι, the sections and canons. The letters N and I, Z and 2, T and 9, P and the Latin R are perpetually confounded. As in the kindred Codd. Augiensis and Boernerianus the Latin f is much like τ. Tregelles has noted ¢ ascript in Cod. A, but this is rare. There is no question that this document was written _ by Latin (most probably by Jrish) monks, in the west of Europe, during the ninth century. See below, Paul. Cod. G. Θ΄. Copex TISCHENDORFIAN. I. was brought from the East by Tischendorf in 1845, published by him in his Monumenta sacra inedita, 1846, with a few supplements in Vol. 11. of his new collection (1857), and deposited in the University Library at Leipsic. It consists of but four leaves (all imperfect) 4to, of very thin vellum, almost too brittle to be touched, so that each leaf is kept separately in glass. It contains about 40 verses; viz. Matth. xiii. 46—55 (in mere shreds) ; xiv. 8—29; xv. 4—14, with the greater κεφάλαια in red; the sections and Eusebian canons in the inner margin. to fill up spaces (p. 47), are more frequent in it than in ἘΝ H. Cop. CoIsLin. 202 is a very precious fragment of 14 leaves, 12 of which are in the Imperial Library at Paris, two having found their way to St Petersburg after the hasty re- moval of the manuscripts from the Abbey of St Germain des Prez, when Cod. E disappeared (above, p. 153). The leaves at Paris contain 1 Cor. x. 22—29; xi.9—16; 1 Tim. iii. 7---18 - Tit.1. 1—3; 1. 1ὅ.--πὶ ὅ i1.13—15; Hebr. ii. 11—16; iii. 13—18 ; iv. 12—15; those at St Petersburg Gal. i. 4—10; ii. J—14; in all 56 verses. They are in 4to, with large square uncials of about 16 lines on a page, and date from the 6th century. Breathings and accents are added by a later hand, which retouched this copy (see Silvestre, Paléogr. Univ. Nos. 63, 64, and above, p. 26). These leaves, which comprise one of our best authorities for stichometrical writing (p. 50), were used in A.D. 1218 to bind another book on Mount Athos, and thence came into the library of Coislin, Bishop of Metz. Montfaucon has published Cod. H in his Bibliotheca Coisliniana, but Tisch- endorf, who has transcribed it, promises a fuller and more accurate edition. The subscriptions, which appear due to Euthalius of Sulci’, written in vermilion, are not retouched, and consequently have neither spirits nor accents. Besides arguments to the Epistles, we copy the following final sub- scription from Tischendorf (N. EASS9; ip. ὌΙΧΕ ΣΙΝ ἔγραψα καὶ ἐξεθέμην κατὰ δύναμιν στειχηρὸν" τόδε τὸ τεύχος παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου πρὸς ἐγγραμμὸν καὶ εὐκατάλημπτον ἀνάγνωσιν. τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμας ἀδελφῶν: παρῶν ἁπάντων τολμὴης συγγνώμην αἰτῶ. εὐχὴ τῆ ὑπὲρ ἐμῶν" τὴν συνπεριφορὰν κομιζόμενος: ἀντε- βλήθη δὲ ἡ βιβλος" πρὸς τὸ ἐν καισαρία ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιο- θήκης τοῦ ἁγίου παμφίλου χειρὶ γεγραμμένου αὐτοῦ (see above, p. 51). T. Cop. TiscHENDORFIAN. II. at St Petersburg (see p. 122). Add also two large leaves of the sixth century, elegantly written, without breathings or accents, containing 1 Cor. 1. 20—ii. 12. Described by Tischendorf, Notitia Cod. Sin, 1 See p. 58, note. 160 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS Append. p. 50, but not cited in his eighth edition of the Naw: K. Cop. MosqueEnsis (see p. 149). L. Cop. ANGELICUS at Rome (see p. 149). M. Coprx RuBER is peculiar for the beautifully bright red colour of the ink’, the elegance of the small uncial characters, and the excellency and critical value of the text. Two folio leaves containing Hebr. i. l—iv. 3; xu. 20—xil. 25, once be- longed to Uffenbach, then to J. C. Wolff, who bequeathed them to the Public Library (Johanneum) of Hamburgh (see Cod. Ἡ of the Gospels, p. 121). To the same manuscript be- long fragments of two leaves used in binding Cod. Harleian. 5613 in the British Museum, and seen at once by Griesbach, who first collated them (Symbol. Crit. Vol. τι. p. 162, &c.), to be portions of the Hamburgh fragment. Each page in both con- tains two columns, of 45 lines each in the Hamburgh, of 38 in the London leaves. The latter comprise 1 Cor. xv. 52— 2 Cor.i.15; 2 Cor. x. 13—xii. 5; reckoning both fragments, 196 verses in all. Tischendorf has since found one leaf more, Henke in 1800 edited the Hamburgh portion, Tregelles col- lated it twice, and Tischendorf in 1855 published the text of both in full in his Anecdota Sacra et Profana. ‘The letters are a little unusual in form, perhaps about the tenth century in date; but though sometimes joined in the same word, can hardly be called semicursive. Our facsimile (Plate XI. No. 38) is from the London fragment: the graceful, though peculiar, shapes both of alpha and mu (see p. 36) closely resemble those in some writing of about the same age, added to the venera- ble Leyden Octateuch, on a page published in facsimile by Tischendorf (Monum. sacr. ined. Vol. 111.). Accents and breath- ings are given pretty correctly and constantly: ota ascript occurs three times (2 Cor.i.1; 4; Hebr. xii. 21)"; only 10 1 Scholz describes Codd. 196, 362, 366 of the Gospels as also written in red ink. See too Evan. 254. 2 Griesbach (Symbol. Critic. Vol. 11. p. 166) says that in the Harleian fragment ‘Tota bis tantum aut ter subscribitur, semel postscribitur, plerumque omit- titur,” overlooking the second postscript. Scrivener repeats this statement about ¢ subseript (Cod. Augiens. Introd. p. Ixxii.), believing he had verified it: but Tisch- endorf cannot see the subscripts, nor can Scrivener on again consulting Harl, 5613 for the purpose. Tregelles too says, ‘‘I haye not seen a subscribed iota in any uncial document” (Printed Text, p. 158, note). OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 161 ttactsms occur and v ἐφελκυστικὸν (as it is called) is rare. The usual stop is the single point in its three positions, with a change in power, as in Cod. E of the Gospels. The interroga- tive (;) occurs once (Hebr. 111, 17), and > is often repeated to fill up space (see p. 47), or, in a smaller shape, to mark quota- tions (see p. 60, note). After the name of each of the Epistles (2 Cor. and Hebr.) in their titles we read exteOevoa ὡς ev πίνακι, which Tischendorf thus explains ; that whereas it was customary to prefix an argument to each epistle, these words, originally employed to introduce the argument, were retained even when the argument was omitted. Henke’s account of the expression looks a little less forced, that this manuscript was set forth os ev πινακι, that is, in vermilion, after the pattern of Imperial letters patent. N°. FRAGMENTA MosQUuENSIA used as early as A.D. 975 in binding a volume of Gregory Nazianzen now at Moscow (5. Synodi 61). Matthaei describes them on Hebr. x. 1: they only contain the 12 verses Hebr. x. 1—3; 3—7; 32—34; 35— 38. These very ancient leaves may possibly be as old as the sixth century, for their letters resemble in shape those in Cod. H which the later hand had so coarsely renewed ; but are more probably a little later. P. Cop. PoRPHYRIANUS (described above, p. 150). Tischendorf has also five or six leaves of St Paul written on papyrus, so that our statement in p. 24 must be slightly modified. From its extreme brittleness only portions of 1 Cor. vi. vii. can be read. Manuscripts of the Apocalypse. ἀξ. Cop. Suvaiticus (described above, pp. 83—89). A. CoD. ALEXANDRINUS (described above, pp. 89—95). B. Cop. VATICcANUS 2066 (formerly 105 in the Library of the Basilian monks in the city) was judiciously substituted by Wetstein for the modern portion of the great Vatican MS., which is yet uncollated, though published in 1868 by Vercel- 5. 1 162 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS lone and Cozza (see p. 90). It is an uncial copy of about the end of the eighth century, and the volume also contains in the same hand Homilies of Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, &e. It was first known from a notice and facsimile in Bianchini’s Evangeliarium Quadruplex (1748), Vol. τι. p. 525: Wetstein was promised a collation of it by Cardinal Quirimi, who seems to have met with unexpected hindrances, as the papers only arrived after the text of the New Testament was printed, and proved very loose and defective. When Tischendorf was at Rome in 1843, though forbidden to collate it afresh (in conse- quence, as we now know, of its having been already printed in Mai’s unpublished volumes of the Codex Vaticanus), he was permitted to make a facsimile of a few verses, and while thus employed he so far contrived to elude the watchful custodian, as to compare the whole manuscript with a modern Greek Testa- ment. The result was given in his Monumenta sacra inedita (1846) pp. 407—432, with a good facsimile ; but (as was natu- ral under the unpromising circumstances—“ arrepta potius quam lecta” is his own confession) Tregelles in 1845 was able to observe several points which he had overlooked, and more have come to light since Mai’s edition has appeared. In 1866, however, Tischendorf was allowed to transcribe this document at leisure, and re-published it in full in his Appendix N. Τὶ Vaticani, 1869, pp. 1—20. This Codex is now known to contain the whole of the Apocalypse, a fact which the poor collation that Wetstein managed to procure had rendered doubtful. It is rather an octavo than a folio or quarto ; the uncials being of a peculiar kind, simple and unornamented, leaning a little to the right (see p. 38, note): they hold a sort of middle place between square and ob- long characters. The shape of beta is peculiar, the two loops to the right nowhere touching each other, and psi has degenerated into the form of a cross (see Plate 111, No. 7): delta, theta, xt are also of the latest uncial fashion. The breathings and ac- cents are primd manu, and pretty correct; the rule of the 1 Tregelles, wishing to reserve the letter B for the great Codex Vaticanus 1209, called this copy first L (N. T. Part rv. p. iii.), and now Q (N. T. Part v1. p. i). Surely Mr Vansittart is right (Journal of Philology, Vol. 1. No. 3, p. 41) in protesting against a change so needless and inconvenient: nor has Tischen- dorf adopted it in his eighth edition of the N. T. OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 163 grammarians respecting the change of power of the single point in punctuation according to its change of position (above, p. 45) is now regularly observed. The scarcity of old copies of the Apocalypse renders this uncial of considerable importance, and it much confirms the readings of the older codices SAC, though on the whole it resembles them less than Cod. P. C. ΟΟΡΕΧ EpHraAemt (described above, pp. 109—111). P. Covex PoRPHYRIANUS (described above, p. 150). 11—2 Section III. On the Cursive Manuscripts of the Greek Testament. The later manuscripts of the Greek Testament, written in cursive characters from the tenth down to the fifteenth century or later, are too numerous to be minutely described in an elementary work like the present. We shall therefore speak of them with all possible brevity, dwelling only on-a few which present points of especial interest, and employing certain abridgements, a list of which we subjoin for the reader’s con- venience’. - Abbreviations used in the following Catalogue. Am. denotes that a manuscript has the so-called Ammonian sections in the margin. Jus. that under them stand the Eusebian canons. Hus. ἐ. that a table of these canons is prefixed to the Gospels, and if the Epistle to Carpianus precede, Carp. stands before Hus. t. κεφ. indicates that the numbers of the κεφάλαια majora stand in the margin. τίτλ. that the τίτλοι are given at the head or foot of the pages. xed. ¢. that tables of the κεφάλαια are prefixed to each book. ect. that the book is adapted for Church-reading by notices of the proper lessons, feasts &c. in the margin, or above, or below, or interspersed with the text. men. that a menology, or calendar of Saints’ Days, isfound at the beginnirg or end of the book. syn. that a synaxarion, or calendar of the daily lessons (more strictly called eclogadion) throughout the year is given. mut. that the copy deseri- bed is mutilated. pict. that it is illuminated with pictures ὅθ, prol. that it contains prologues or ὑποθέσεις before the several books. The books are all written on parchment or vellum, unless chart. (paper) be expressly named. N.B. The numerals within brackets which immediately follow the name of each manuscript represent the date, whether fixed by 1 Very many corrections have been made in the following Catalogue as well from investigations of my own as from information kindly furnished to me by Mr H. Bradshaw, University Librarian at Cambridge, by Messrs. F. J. A. Hort, and A, A. Vansittart, late Fellows of Trinity College there, by Mr W. Kelly, and especially by the Rev. J. W. Burgon, Fellow of Oriel, to whom the present edition is more deeply indebted than it would be possible to acknowledge in detail. His series of Letters addressed to me in the Guardian newspaper (1873) contains but a part of the help he has afforded towards the preparation of this second edition, THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 165 a subscription in the book itself, or approximated to by other means: e.g. [x11] indicates a book of the 13th century. The names within parentheses indicate the collators of each manuscript, and if it has been satisfactorily examined, an asterisk is prefixed to the number by which it is known (see p. 73). If the copy contain other portions of the New Testament, its notation in those portions is always given. (1) Manuscripts of the Gospels. . *], (Act. 1, Paul. 1). Codex Basiliensis A. N. τΥ. 2 (formerly B. vi. 27) at Basle [x, but Mr Burgon thinks x1 or x11] 8’, τίτλ., prol., syn., pict. Among the iluminations were what have been said to be pictures of the Emperor Leo the Wise [886—911] and his son Constantine Porphyrogenitus, but all the beautiful miniatures were stolen prior to 1860—2, except one before St Luke’s Gospel. Its later history is the same as that of Cod. E of the Gospels (see pp. 18—20): it was known to Erasmus, who but little used or valued it: it was borrowed by Reuchlin, a few extracts given by Bengel (Bas. y), collated by Wetstein, and recently by C. L. Roth and Tregelles, who have compared their results. Our facsimile (No. 23), which we owe to Mr Burgon, gives an excellent notion of the elegant and minute style of writing, which is fully furnished with breathings, accents and ὁ ascript: there are 38 lines in each page. The initial letters are gilt, and on the first page of each Gospel the full point is a large gilt ball. In the Gospels the text is very remarkable, adhering pretty closely to the uncials Codd. BL and others of that class. 2. Cod. Basil. A. N. iv. 1 (formerly B vr. 25) [Xv., or earlier] is the inferior manuscript chiefly used by Erasmus for his first edition of the N. T. (1516), with press corrections by his hand, and barba- rously scored with red chalk to suit his pages. The monks at Basle had bought it for two Rhenish florins; and dear eneugh, in Michaelis’ judgment. (Bengel, Bas. 8, Wetstein.) Yet upon consulting it at places where Erasmus went worst wrong (e.g. εὗρον Matth, ii. 11), it is not found to be the copy which misled him. 3. (Act. 3, Paul. 3). Cod. Corsendonck. [x11] 4°, once belonging to a convent at Corsendonck near Turnhout, now in the Imperial Library at Vienna (Forlos. 15, Kollar. 5): syn., Hus. t., prol., pict. Tt was lent to Erasmus for his second edition in 1519, as he testifies on the first leaf (Alter), It had been previously collated by J. Walker for Bentley, when in “the Dominican Library, Brussels.” This collation is unpublished (Trin. Coll. Β, xvu. 34): Ellis, Bentled Critica Sacra, p. xxix. 4. Cod. Regius 84 [x11] 4°, in the Royal Library at Paris (de- signated RI by Tischendorf), was rightly recognised by Lelong as Robert Stephens’ γ΄ (see Chap. v.). Mill notices its affinity to the Latin versions and the Complutensian edition (N. T. Prol. § 1161) ; mut. in Matth. ii. 9—20; John i. 49—iii. 11; 49 verses: it is clumsily written and contains syn. and extracts from some Fathers (Scholz). 166 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS ἢ 5. (Act. 5, Paul. 5). Regius 106 [x11] is Stephens’ δ΄: 4°, prol. Carefully written and full of flourishes (Wetstein, Scholz). 6. (Act. 6, Paul. 6). Regius 112 [x1] is Stephens’ ε΄; in text it much resembles Codd, 4 and 5. 12°, syn. with St Chrysostom’s Liturgy, prol., κεφ. ἐ (Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz), This exquisite manuscript is written in characters so small, that some pages require a glass to read them. 7. Regius 71 [x1] is Stephens’ 5΄, 4°, prol., syn., Carp., Eus. t., pict., τίτλ. with metrical paraphrase, very full /ect. In style not unlike Cod. 4, but neater (Wetst., Scholz). . 8. Regius 49 [x1] fol., proved by Mr Vansittart to be Stephens’ @': beautifully written in two columns on the page. Carp., Hus. t., Am., Eus. syn. (Wetst., Scholz). 9. Regius 83 [dated a.p. 1168, when “ Manuel Porphyrogenitus was ruler of Constantinople, Amauri of Jerusalem, William IT. of Sicily”: this note (from Wetstein) is now nearly obliterated] 4°, is probably Stephens’ ιβ΄. Carp., Hus. t., Am., Eus., prol., syn., mut. (first leaf of S. John). It once belonged to Peter Stella. The style is rather barbarous, and ornamentation peculiar (Kuster’s Paris 3, Scholz). 10. Regius 91, olim = [xur or later] 4°, given in 1439 to a library of Canons Regular at Verona by Dorotheus Archbishop of Mitylene, when he came to the Council of Florence. Scholz tells us that it was ‘‘antea Joannis Huraultii Boistallerii.” Griesbach mistook 2865 . 3 Wetstein’s Cod. 10, but Cod. 285 of Scholz and our own list (Burgon, Guardian, Jan. 15, 1875). Syn., Eus. t. (Griesbach, Scholz). 11. Regius 121—2 [xm or earlier] in two small 8° volumes, neatly written. us. ὁ. It also once belonged to Teller (Kuster’s Paris 4, Scholz). 12. In Wetstein’s notation stands for a medley of readings from the manuscripts noted below as 119, 120, and another un- known: but Scholz’s Cod. 12 is Regius 230 [x1] 4°, syn., Hus. t., prol., pict. with a commentary, that on St Mark being Victor's of Antioch. The next manuscript is the most important since Cod. 1, 13. Regius 50 [χη] 4°, is Kuster’s Paris 6, who says that it supplied him with more various readings than all the rest of his this copy for Reg. 95, olim , which is Kuster’s Paris 1 and 1 Stephens’ margin cites ¢’ 84 times in the Gospels, usually in company with several others, but alone in Mark vi. 20; xiv. 15; Luke i. 37. Since Evan. 18 or Reg. 47 contains the whole N.T., and Stephens’ cites ξ΄ in the Acts once (ch. xvii. 5), in the Catholic Epistles 7 times, in the Pauline 27, in the Apocalypse never; Reg. 47 has been suggested to have been Stephens’ ζ΄, rather than Cod. 8 or Reg. 49. On testing the two with Steph. ¢’ in eight places, Mr Vansittart found that they both agreed with it in five (Matt. xx. 12; Mark yi. 20; x. 52; Luke vi. 37; John vi. 58), but that in the remaining three (Mark xii. 31; Luke 1, 37; John x. 32) Reg. 49 agreed with ξ΄, but Reg. 47 did not, OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 167 Paris manuscripts put together. This, like Codd. 10, 11, once belonged to Teller. It is not correctly written, and still needs careful collation. Syn., mut. in Matth, 1. l—ii. 21; xxvi. 33—53; xxvii. 26—xxviii. 10; Mark i. 2—45; Jo. xxi. 2—25; 181 verses (Kuster, Wetstein, Griesbach, Begtrup in 1797). This manuscript was collated in 1868 by Professor W. H. Ferrar, Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin [d. 1871], who regarded Codd. 13. 69. 124. 346 as transcripts of one archetype, which he proposed to restore by comparing the four copies together, The work is still in the Dublin University Press, 14. Regius 70, 8°, once Cardinal Mazarin’s; was Kuster’s Paris 7. A facsimile of this beautiful copy, with round conjoined minuscule letters, regular breathings and accents, is given in the Paléographie Universelle, No. 78. dZut. Matt. 1. 1—9 ; iii, 16—iv. 9. Κεφ. ¢., pict., Paschal. Canon, Carp., Hus. t. (Kuster, Scholz). Mr Burgon, who has proved that this is not the earliest dated cursive (see p. 39, note 1), assigns it to [Χ11, or rather x11]. 15. Regius 64 [x] 4°, is Kuster’s Paris 8. Hus. t., syn., pict. very superb: the first three pages are written in gold, with exquisite miniatures, four on p. 2, four on p. 3 (Burgon). (Kuster, Scholz.) 16. Regius 54 [x1v] fol., once belonged to the Medici; it has a Latin version in parts; mut. Mark xvi. 6—20. us. t., syn., pict. (Wetstein, Scholz). This gorgeous and “right royal” copy was never quite finished, but is unique in respect of being written in four colours, vermilion, lake, blue and black, according to the character of the contents (Burgon). 17. Regius 55 [xvr] fol., has the Latin Vulgate version: it was neatly written, not by George Hermonymus the Spartan (see Cod. 70), as Wetstein guesses, but by a Western professional scribe (Burgon): it once belonged to Cardinal Bourbon. Syn., pict. very elegant. (Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz.) 18. (Act. 113, Paul. 132, Apoc. 51). Regius 47, bought 1687, but written at Constantinople a.p. 1364. It is one of the few copies of the whole New Testament (see p. 67, note 1), and was given by Nice- phorus Cannabetes to the monastery τοῦ ζωοδότου χριστοῦ ἐν τῷ τοῦ Μυζιθρᾶ (Misitra) τῆς Λακεδαίμονος κάστρῳ. Prol., syn. (two between the Pauline Epistles and the Apocalypse), psalms, hymns (Scholz). 19. Regius 189 [x11] or Wetstein’s 1869, fol., once belonged to the Medici, pict., with Victor’s commentary on St Mark, a catena to St John, and scholia to the other Gospels. In marvellous condition, with much gold ornamentation (Scholz), 20. Regius 188 [x11] a splendid folio, brought from the East in 1669. It is beautifully written, and contains catenze, Victor’s com- mentary on St Mark, and other treatises enumerated by Scholz, who collated most of it. At the end of Mark, Luke and John “ dicitur etiam hoc evangelium ex accuratis codicibus esse exscriptum, nec non collatum” (Scholz). A second (perhaps the original) hand has been busy here to assimilate the text to that of Codd. 215, 300, or to some common model. In Cod. 215, the foregoing subscription is appended to all the Four Gospels, and the other contents correspond exactly 168 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS (Burgon, Last Twelve Verses of S. Mark, p. 119, 279). See on Cod. A, p. 144: also Cod. 428, 21. Regius 68 [x] 4°, pict., with syn. on paper in a later hand (Scholz). 22. Regius 72, once Colbert. 2467 [x1] 4°, very imperfectly known, but contains remarkable readings. J/ut. Matth. i, 1—ii. 2 (v. 25 Griesb.); John xiv. 22—-xvi. 27; 90 verses. ect. added in 16th century (Wetstein, Scholz). This copy calls aloud for a fresh collation. 23. Regius 77, Colbert. 3947 [x1] 4°, with the Latin Vulgate version down to Luke iv. 18. Mut. Matth. i. 1—17: Luke xxiv. 46 —Jo. ii. 20; xxi. 24, 25; 96 verses (Scholz). 24. Regius 178, Colbert. 4112 [x1] fol., with a commentary (Victor’s on St Mark), and also syn. but in a later hand. Mut. Matth. xxvii. 20—Mark iv. 22; 186 verses (Griesb., Scholz). See Burgon, οὐδὲ supra, p. 228. 25. Regius 191, Colbert. 2259 [x] fol., with Victor’s comment- ary on St Mark, and scholia. “ Grandly written,” but very imperfect, wanting about 715 verses, viz, Matth. xxiii. 1—xxv. 42; Marki. 1— vii. 36; Luke viii. 31—41; ix. 44—54; x. 39—xi.4; John xiii 19 ?—xxi, 25 (Griesbach, Scholz). 26. Regius 78, Colbert. 4078 [x1] 4°, neatly and correctly writ- ten by Paul a priest. Comment., Hus. t. (Wetstein, Scholz). 27. Regius 115, Colbert. 6043 [x1] 8°, is Mill’s Colb. 1. That critic procured Larroque’s collation of Codd. 27—33 (a very imperfect one) for his edition of the New Testament. From Jo. xviii. 3 the text is supplied, cotton chart. [xiv]. Syn., pict. Extensively altered by a later hand (Wetstein, Scholz). 28. Regius 379, Colbert. 4705 [x17] 4°, is Mill’s Colb. 2, most carelessly written by an ignorant scribe ; it often resembles Cod. D, but has many unique readings and interpolations. Syn., mut. in 334 verses, viz. Matth. vii. 17—ix. 12; xiv. 33—xvi. 10; xxvi. 70— xxvil. 48; Luke xx. 19—xxii. 46; John xii. 40—xiii. 1; xv. 24— xvi, 12; xviii. 16—28; xx. 20—xxi. 5; 18—25 (Scholz). 29. Regius 89, Colbert. 6066 [x11] 4°, is Mill’s Colb. 3, correctly written by a Latin scribe, with very many peculiar corrections by a later hand. Lost leaves in the three later Gospels are supplied [xv]. Scholia, Zus. t., mut. Matth. i—xv. Mill compares its text with that of Cod. 71 infra (Scholz). 30. Regius 100, Colbert. 4444 [xvr] 4°, chart., is Mill’s Colb. 4, containing all the Gospels, by the writer of Cod. 70. In text it much resembles Cod. 17 (Scholz). 31. Regius 94, Colbert. 6083 [x11] 4°, is also Mill’s Colb, 4, but contains all the Gospels with prayers and pict. This copy has many erasures (Scholz). 32. Regius 116, Colbert 6551 [x11] 8°, Zect., is Mill’s Colb. 5. It begins Matth, x. 22. Mut. Matth. xxiv. 15—30; Luke xxii. 35— OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 169 Jo. iv. 20 (Scholz). Mill misrepresented the contents of Codd. 30— 32, through supposing that they contained no more than the small portions which were collated for his use. *33. (Act. 13, Paul. 17). Regius 14, Colbert. 2844 [xr] fol., is Mill’s Colb. 8, containing some of the Prophets and all the New Testament except the Apocalypse. In text it resembles Codd. BDL more than any other cursive manuscript, and whatever may be thought of the character of its readings, they deserve the utmost attention, After Larroque, Wetstein, Griesbach, Begtrup and Scholz, it was most laboriously collated by Tregelles in 1850. Our facsimile (No. 34) of this manuscript is derived from a photograph supplied by Mr Burgon’s liberality. There are 52 long lines in each page, in a fine round hand, the accents being sometimes neglected, and eta unusually like our English letter h. The ends of the leaves are much damaged, and greatly misplaced by the binder; so that the Gospels now stand last, though on comparing the style of handwriting (which undergoes a gradual change throughout the volume) at their beginning and end with that in the Prophets which stand first, and in the Epistles that should follow them, it is plain that they originally occupied their usual place. The ink too, by reason of the damp, has often left its proper page blank, so that the writing can only be read set off on the opposite page, especially in the Acts. Hence it is no wonder that Tregelles should say that of all the manuscripts he has collated ‘none has ever been so wearisome to the eyes, and ex- haustive of every faculty of attention.” (Account of the Printed Text, p. 162.) . The next eight copies, like Cod. H of St Paul, belonged to that noble collection made by the Chancellor Seguier, and on his death in 1672 bequeathed to Coislin, Bishop of Metz. Montfaucon has de- scribed them in his “ Bibliotheca Coisliniana,” fol. 1715, and all were slightly collated by Wetstein and Scholz, 34. Cod. Coislin. 195 [x1] “ἃ grand folio, splendidly written and in splendid condition” (Burgon), from Mount Athos, has a eatena (Victor’s commentary on St Mark) resembling that of Cod. 194. Prol., pict., fresh as from the artist’s hand. 35. (Act. 14, Paul. 18, Apoc. 17). Coislin. 199 [x1] fol., con- tains the whole New Testament, with many corrections. 36. Coislin. 20 [x1], Hus. ¢., prol., with a commentary (Victor’s on St Mark), from the Jawra [i.e. convent, Suicer, T'hes. Hec. Tom, τι. 205] of St Athanasius in Mount Athos, very sumptuous. 37. Coislin. 21 [x11] fol., with short scholia, Victor’s commentary on St Mark, Hus. t., syn., prol., pict. (Montfaucon). 38. (Act. 19, Apoc. 23). Coislin. 200 [x11] 4°, copied for the Emperor Michael Paleologus [1259—1282], and by him sent to St Louis [d. 1270], containing all the N. T. except St Paul’s Epistles, has been rightly judged by Wetstein to be Stephens’ θ΄, Pict., τίτλ.,, _ 1 Stephens includes his θ΄ among. the copies that αὐτοὶ πανταχόθεν συνηθροί- σαμεν, Which might suit the case of Coislin. 200, as St Louis would have brought 170 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS Am. (not Hus.), mut. 143 verses; Matth. xiv. 15—xv. 30; xx. 14—. xxi, 27; Mark xii. 3—xiii. 4. A facsimile of this beautiful book is given in the Paléographie Univer. No. 84, where it is erroneously called an Evangelistarium. Mr Burgon has also a photograph of it, and notices that it was Ex Bibl. Pattr. Cadomensium [Caen] Soe. Jesu, 1640, 39. Coislin. 25 [xr], large fol., written with many abbreviations εἰς TO πατριαρχεῖον, ἐπὶ Sepylov [11.] τοῦ πατριάρχου, and in 1218, at the convent of St Athanasius on Mount Athos. With a com- mentary (Victor’s on St Mark, from the same original as that in Cod. 34). 40. Coislin. 22 [x1] 4°, once belonged to the monastery of St Nicholas σταυρονικήτας, with a commentary (Victor's on St Mark) and Hus. ὁ. Ends at John xx. 25, 41. Coislin. 24 [x1] 4°, contains 88. Matthew and Mark with a commentary (Victor’s on St Mark). 42. Cod. Medicus exhibits many readings of the same class as Codd. 1. 13. 33, but its authority has the less weight, since it has disappeared under circumstances somewhat suspicious. Bernard communicated to Mill these readings, which he had found in the hand of Peter Pithceus, a former owner, in the margin of Stephens’ N. T. of 1550: they professed to be extracted from an “ exemplar Regium Mediceum” (which may be supposed to mean that portion of the King’s Library which Catherine de Medici brought to France : above, p. 109), and were inserted under the title of J/ed. in Mill’s great work, though he remarked their resemblance to the text of Cod. K (Proleg. N. T. § 1462). The braggart Amelotte [1606—78] pro- fesses to have used the manuscript, about the middle of the seven- teenth century, and states that it was in a college at Troyes; but Scholz could find it neither in that city nor elsewhere. 43, (Act. 54, Paul. 130). Cod. Gree. 4, in the Arsenal of Paris [x1] 4°, in two volumes ; the first containing the Gospels with us. t., the second the Acts and Epistles. Perhaps written at Ephesus; given by P. de Berzi in 1661 to the Oratory of San Maglorian (Amelotte, Simon, Scholz). 44, Brit. Museum, Addit. 4949 [x1] fol., brought from Mount Athos by the celebrated Cesar de Missy [1703—75], George III’s French chaplain, who spent his life in collecting materials for an edition of the N. T. His collation, most imperfectly given by Wet- stein, is still preserved with the manuscript. Syv., men., pict., Am., Lus., but no κεφ. (Bloomfield, 1860). or sent it to France, But how can we account for Stephens citing θ΄ repeat- edly in St Paul (e.g. Gal. iv. 25; Col. i. 14; 2 Thess. iii. 6; 1 Tim. v. 4) which Coisl. 200 does not contain, and never in the Apocalypse, which it does? Mr Vansittart, however, has tested Cod. 38 in Matt. xxvi. 45; Luke viii. 18; xix. 26; James v. 5; 2 Pet. ii. 18, and finds it agree in all with Stephens’ 6’, In Luke viii. 18 that most careless editor misprints 8’ when he means 6’, See above p. 113, note 3 of p. 112. a, —e | OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. Fal ' 45. Cod. Bodleian. Baroce. 31 [xu] 4°, is Mill’s Bodl. 1, a very neat copy, with Hus. ¢., κεφ. t., Am., Hus., pict., subscriptions, and στίχοι numbered in St Luke (Mill, Griesbach). 46. Bodleian Baroce. 29 [x1] 4°, Mill’s Bodl. 2, with τὸ νομικὸν and τὸ κυριακὸν πάσχα, syn., men., Carp., Eus. t., κεφ. ., τίτλοι, pict., subscriptions, στίχοι (Mill, Griesbach). 47. Bodleian. Mise. 9 (Auct. D. 5. 2), [xv] 12°, in a vile hand κεφ. ¢., and much foreign matter, is Mill’s Bod]. 6 and Bodl. 1 of Walton’s Polyglott (Polyglott, Mill). 48. Bodleian. Misc. 1 (Auct. Ὁ. 2. 17), [x1r] 4°, is Mill’s Bodl. 7, having scholia in a later hand, pict., Hus. t., subscriptions with ῥήματα and στίχοι appended (Mill). 49. Bodleian. Roe 1 [x1] 4°, is also Mill’s Roe 1, brought by Sir T. Roe (see p. 89) from Turkey about 1628; it has Hus. t., κεφ. ἐ., Am., Lus., lect. (Mill). 50. Bodleian. Laud. 33 [x1] 4°, is Mill’s Laud. 1 (see p. 148), surrounded by a catena (Victor’s or Cyril’s of Alexandria in St Mark), and attended with other matter. It begins Matth. ix. 35, and endsat Jo. v. 18 ; besides which it is mutilated in Matth. xii. 3— 24; xxv. 20—31; and Mark xiv. 40—xvi. 20 is by a later hand. It contains many unusual readings (Mill, Griesbach). 51. (Act. 32, Paul. 38). Bodleian. Laud. 31 [x11] fol., Mill’s Laud. 2, whose resemblance to the Complutensian text is pointed out by him (Prol. N. T. § 1437), though, judging from his own colla- tion of Cod. 51, his statement ‘per omnia pené respondet” is rather too strong. See below, Chap. v. Syn., κεφ", τίτλοι, Am. (not Lus.), lect., men., prol., and other foreign matter. The present order of the contents (see p. 67) is Act., Paul., Cath., Evangelia. (Mill, Griesbach), but it ought to be collated afresh. 52. Bodleian. Laud. 3 [dated a.p. 1286) an elegant small 4°, written by νικητὰας ὁ pavpwrys, is Mill’s Laud. 5, with κεφ. t., Am, Eus., lect., pict., men., subscriptions (Mill, Griesbach). 53. Bodleian. Selden. 28 [xiv] 4°, is Mill’s Selden 1, who pro- nounces it much like Stephens’ γ΄ (Cod. 4), having κεφ. ¢., κεφ. (not Lus.), and subscriptions (Mill). 54. Bodleian. Selden. 29 [dated a.p. 1338] 4°, Mill’s Seld. 2, syn., lect., κεφ. t., κεφ. Am., but not Lus. (Mill). 55. Bodleian. Selden. 6 [xu] 4°, Mill’s Seld. 3, containing also Judges vi. 1—24 (Grabe, Prol. V. T. Tom. 1. cap. 111. ὃ 6), has syn., men., κεφ. t., κεφ., pict., subscriptions with στίχοι (Mill). 56. Lincoln Coll. Oxon. 18 [xv or xvi] 4°, charé., was presented about 1502, by Edmund Audley, Bishop of Salisbury: xed. ¢., prol. 1 “Textus ipse distinctus est in clausulas majores, seu Paragraphos; ad initium notatos singulos litera majuscula miniata,” Mill N. T. (Proleg. § 1445). Yet since Mr Burgon testifies that its text ‘‘is not broken up into Paragraphs after all,” Mill can only intend to designate in a roundabout way the presence of the larger chapters (p. 53) with their appropriate capitals. 172 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS to SS. Mark and Luke, τίτλοι, and ἀναγνώσματα numbered (see p. 64, note). Walton gives some various readings, but confounds it with Act. 33, Paul. 39, speaking of them as if one “ vetustissimum exem- plar.” It has been recently inspected by Dobbin and Scrivener. (Mill), but so loosely that the late Rev. R. C. Pascoe, Fellow of Exeter College, detected 34 omissions for 31 citations (one of them being an error) in four chapters. 57. (Act. 35, Paul. 41). Magdalen Coll. Oxon., Greek 9 [x11] 4° in a small and beautiful hand. Mut. Mark i. 1—11; Rom.; 1, 2 Cor.; Psalms and Hymns follow the Epistles. It has κεφ. t., titra, lect. Collated twice by Dr Hammond, the great commentator, whose papers seem to have been used for Walton’s Polyglott (Magd. 1): also examined by Dobbin ; (Mill). 58. Nov. Coll. Oxon. 68 [xv or later] 4°, is Walton and Mill’s N. 1. This, like Codd. 56—7, has been accurately examined by Dr Dobbin, for the purpose of his “Collation of the Codex Montfortianus” (London, 1854), with whose readings Codd. 56, 58 have been com- pared in 1922 places. He has undoubtedly proved the close connec- tion subsisting between the three manuscripts (which had been ob- served by Mill, N. T. Proleg. § 1388), though he may not have quite demonstrated that they must be direct transcripts from each other. Syn., κεφ. t., prol., τίτλοι, with scholia. The writing is very careless, and those are in error who follow Walton in stating that it contains the Acts and Epistles (Walton’s Polyglott, Mill, Dobbin). Mr Ὁ. Forster rightly asks for photographs and a thorough re-collation of Codd. 56, 58, 61, ‘‘to throw light upon their direct relationship, or non- relationship to each other” (“A New Plea for the Three Heavenly Witnesses,” 1867, p. 139). *59. Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, 403 [xi] 4°, an important copy, “textu notabili,” as Tischendorf states (much like D. 61. 71), but carelessly written, and exhibiting no less than 81 omissions by ὁμοιοτέλευτον (see Ὁ. 9). It was very poorly examined for Walton’s Polyglott, better though defectively by Mill, seen by Wetstein in 1716, minutely collated by Scrivener in 1860. It once belonged to the House of Friars Minor at Oxford, and was given to Gonville College by Th. Hatcher, M.A. in 1567. It has (what- ever Walton asserts) τίτλοι, κεφ., Am. (but not Hus.), and exhibits many and rare compendia scribendi. The character of the ink was noticed, p. 26. 60. (Apoe. 10). Cambridge University Library 553 or Dd. 9. 69 [a.p. 1297] 4°, but the Apocalypse later, and has a few scholia from Arethas about it. This copy is Mill’s Moore 1’, and is still badly 1 On the death of Dr John Moore, Bishop of Ely (whose honesty as a book- collector is impeached, on no good grounds, by Tew in Bridge’s Northampton- shire, Vol. 11. p. 45, Oxon. 1791), in 1714, George I. was induced to buy his books and manuscripts for the Library at Cambridge, in acknowledgment of the attachment of the University to the House of Hanover. Every one remembers the epigram which this royal gift provoked, OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 173 known. Carp., Eus. t., Am. without Zus., and it is an elegant copy (Mill). The Gospels appear to have been written in the East, the Apocalypse in the West of Europe. *61. (Act. 34, Paul 40, Apoc. 92). Codex Montfortianus at Trinity College, Dublin, G. 97 [xv or xv1] 8°, so celebrated in the con- troversy respecting 1 John v.7. Its last collator, Dr Orlando Dobbin (see on Cod. 58), has discussed in his Introduction every point of in- terest connected with it. It contains the whole New Testament, apparently the work of three or four successive scribes, on 455 paper leaves, only one of them—that on which 1 Jo. v. 7 stands— being glazed’, as if to protect it from harm. This manuscript was first heard of between the publication of Erasmus’ second (1519) and third (1522) editions of his N. T., and after he had publicly declared, in answer to objectors, that if any Greek manuscript could be found containing the passage, he would insert it in his revision of the text; a promise which he fulfilled in 1522. Erasmus de- scribes his authority as ‘ Codex Britannicus,” ‘apud Anglos reper- tus,” and there is the fullest reason to believe that the Cod. Mont- fortianus is the copy referred to (see below, Chap. 1x). Its earliest known owner was Froy, a Franciscan friar, then Thomas Clement [fl. 1569], then William Chark [fl. 1582], then Thomas Montfort, D.D. of Cambridge, from whom it derives its name, then Archbishop Ussher, who caused the collation to be made which appears in Wal- ton’s Polyglott (Matth. i. 1—Act. xxii. 29; Rom. i.), and presented the manuscript to Trinity College. Dr Barrett appended to his edition of Cod. Z (see p. 138) a full collation of the parts left un- touched by his predecessors ; but since the work of Ussher’s friends was known to be very defective, Dobbin has re-collated the whole of that portion which Barrett left unexamined, comparing the readings throughout with Codd. 56, 58 of the Gospels, and Cod. 33 of the Acts. This copy has τίτλοι, Am., and the number of στίχοι noted at the end of each book, besides which the division by the Latin chap- ters is employed, a sure proof—if any were needed—of the modern date of the manuscript. There are many corrections by a more recent hand, erasures by the pen, &c. It has been supposed that the Gospels were first written ; then the Acts and Epistles (transcribed, 1 “We often hear” said a witty and most Reverend Irish Prelate ‘‘ that the text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses is a gloss ; and any one that will go into the College Library may see as much for himself.” It was a little bold in Mr Charles Forster (‘A New Plea, &c.” pp. 119, 120, 139), whose zeal in defence of what he held to be the truth I heartily revere, to urge the authority of Dr Adam Clarke for assigning this manuscript to the thirteenth century, the rather sinee almost in the same breath, he stigmatises the Wesleyan minister for ‘‘a self-taught philomath” (p. 122). Dr Clarke tells us fairly the grounds on which he arrived at his strange conclusion (‘‘Observations on the Text of the Three Divine Witnesses,” Manchester, 1805, pp. 8—10), and marvellously unsound they are. But what avails authority, quum res ipsa per se clamat? The facsimile made for Dr Clarke nearly seventy years ago has been copied in Horne’s Introduction and twenty other books, and leaves no sort of doubt about the date of Codex Mont- fortianus. 174 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS in Dobbin’s judgment, from Cod. 33);"the Apocalypse last ; having been added about 1580, as Tregelles and Dr Dobbin think, from Cod. 69 (see p. 175), when they were both in Chark’s possession. The text, however, of the Apocalypse is not quite the same in the two codices, nor would it be easy, without seeing them together, to verify Dobbin’s conjecture, that the titles to the sacred books, in pale red ink, were added by the same person in both manu- scripts. In the margin of this copy, as of Cod. 69, are inserted many readings in Chark’s handwriting, even the misprint of Erasmus, ἐμαῖς for ἐν ais, Apoe. ii. 13. 62. Cambridge Univ. Lib. 2061 or Kk. 5. 35 [xv] 8°, chart., men., lect., with the Latin chapters’. This is Walton’s Goog.’; it was brought from the East, and once belonged to Dr Henry Googe, Fel- low of Trinity College. The collations of Cod. D. 59. 61. 62 made for the London Polyglott were given to Emmanuel College in 1667, where they yet remain. 63. Cod.. Ussher 1, Trin. Coll. Dublin, A. 1. 8 [x] fol., with a commentary. A few extracts were contributed by Henry Dodwell to Bishop Fell’s N. Τὶ of 1675 ; Richard Bulkeley loosely collated it for Mill, Dr Dobbin in 1855 examined St Matthew, and the Rey. John Twycross, of the Charter House, re-collated the whole manu- script in 1858. The last leaf, containing John xxi. 25, is lost ; but see Scrivener, Cod. Sin. Introd., p. lix. note. 64. Ussher 2 belonged, like the preceding, to the illustrious Pri- mate of Ireland, but has been missing from Trin. Coll. Library in Dublin ever since 1742. It was collated, like Cod. 63, by Dodwell for Fell, by Bulkeley for Mill, and with their reports we must now be content. It once belonged to Dr Thomas Goad, and was very neatly, though incorrectly, written in 8’. As the Emmanuel College copy of the Epistles (Act. 53, Paul. 30) never contained the Gospels, for which it is perpetually cited in Walton’s Polyglott as Hm., the strong re- semblance undoubtedly subsisting between Usser, 2 and Hm., led even Mill to suspect that they were in fact the same copy. Since both codices (if they be two) are lost, we have examined both Walton’s and Mill’s collations with a view to this question. The result is that they are in numberless instances cited together in support of read- ings, in company with other manuscripts ; often with a very few or 1 Such is Walton’s meaning when, to Mill’s sore perplexity (N. T. Proleg. § 1377), he writes “ habet distinctionem ordinariorum κεφαλαίων, sed non eorum que Eusebianis canonibus sunt accommodata.” 2 Goog. was identified with the Cambridge Kk. 5. 35 by Bp. Marsh, who was a little careless in this kind of work. Mr Bradshaw howeyer points out that Kk. 5. 35 is a mere transcript by George Hermonymus from Cod. 70, also in his handwriting, and hastily copied from it, errors of the pen and all. It has no men., lect., as Goog. had, but the ordinary κεφάλαια and Latin chapters, Again, Goog., as Walton says, ‘‘ ex Oriente advectus est,’’ and must have been in England before 1657; whereas Bp. Moore got Kk, 5. 35 from France in 1706, with other books from the collection of J. B. Hantin, the numismatist. Hence we must call it Cod. 62°. OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK, 175 even alone (e.g. Matth. vi. 22; viii. 11; xii. 41; Mark. ii. 2; iv. 1; ix. 10; 25; Luke iv. 32; viii. 27; Jo. i. 21; iv. 24; v. 7; 20; 36; vii. 10; xvi. 19; xxi. 1). That Usser. 2 and Hm. are sometimes alleged separately is easily accounted for by the inveterate want of accuracy exhibited by all early collators. Since Mill had access to the papers from which the Polyglott collations were drawn (N. T. Proleg. § 1505), we need not wonder if he largely adds to Walton’s quotations from Hm. (e.g. Mark viii. 35; xvi. 10; and many other places). A real difficulty would arise if Hm. and Usser. 2 were cited as opposing witnesses; and inasmuch as the only two such cases we have been able to discover (Jo. viii. 2; xix. 31) may fairly be imputed to the error of one of the collators, it can hardly be doubted that the two codices are identical. Marsh’s objections to this conclusion (Wotes to Michaelis, Vol. τι. pp. 800—802 and Ad- denda) seem by no means decisive. 65. Cod. Harleian. 5776, in the British Museum [x1] 4°, is Mill’s Coy. 1, brought from the East in 1677 with four other manuscripts of the Greek Testament by Dr John Covell [1637—1722], once English Chaplain at Constantinople, afterwards Master of Christ’s College, Cambridge. Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am., Hus., στίχοι, subscrip- tions (Mill). This book was presented to Covell in 1674 by Daniel, Bishop of Proconesus. The last verse is supplied by a late hand, the concluding leaf being lost, as in Cod. 63. *66. Cod. Galei Londinensis [x11] 8°, once belonged to Th. Gale [1636—1702], High Master of St Paul’s School, Dean of York (1697), but is now with his other books at Trinity College, Cambridge (O. vur. 3). Syn., Carp. (followed by five vacant leaves for Hus. t.), τίτλ., Am., Hus., pict., lect., with some scholia in the margin by a recent hand, and other changes in the text by one much earlier, Known to (Mill), but for a time lost sight of. Collated by Scrivener, 1862. It was inserted in the great printed Catalogue of Manuscripts, Oxford, 1697. 67. Bodleian. Miscell. 76 [x1] 4°, is Mill’s Hunt. 2, brought from the East by Dr Robert Huntington [d. 1701]. Mut. Jo. vi. 64—xxi, 25. Κεφ. t., Hus. c., pict., lect. (Mill). 68. Lincoln. Coll. Oxon. 17 [x1 or x1t1] 8°, is Mill’s Wheel. 1, brought from Zante in 1676, with two other copies, by George Wheeler, Canon of Durham. Carp., Lus. t., κεφ. t., syn., κεφ. in margin, τίτλ. in gold, Am., but not Lus., lect., with verses at the end of each Gospel. Between the Gospels of SS. Luke and John are small fragments of two leaves of a beautiful Evangelistarium [1x4], with red musical notes. (Mill). The next copy is, after Codd. 1. 33, the most important of all the cursives. *69. (Act. 31, Paul. 37, Apoc. 14). Codex Leicestrensis [xiv] fol., like Codd. 206 and 233, on parchment and paper (see p. 23), apparently with a reed (see p. 26), is now in the library of the Town Council of Leicester. It contains the whole New Testament, except Matth. i. 1—xviii. 15 ; Act. x. 45—xiv. 17 ; Jud. 7—25 ; Apoc. xviii. 7—xxil. 21, but with fragments down to xix. 10. It is written on 212 176 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS complete leaves of 38 lines in a page, in the coarse and strange hand | our facsimile exhibits (No. 35), epsilon being recumbent and almost like alpha, and the whole style of writing resembling a careless scrawl. The words Exe ἱλερμου Xapkov at the top of the first page, in the same beautiful hand that wrote many (f00 many) marginal notes, prove that this codex once belonged to the William Chark, mentioned under Cod. 61 (p. 173). In 1640 (Wetstein states 1669) Thomas Hayne, M.A. of Trussington, in that county, gave the book to the Leicester Library. Mill collated it there, as did John Jackson for Wetstein, and some others. Tregelles re-collated it in 1852 for his edition of the Greek Testament, and Scrivener very minutely in 1855; the latter published his results, with a full description of the book itself, in the Appendix to his ‘‘ Codex Augiensis.” No manu- script of its age has a text so remarkable as this, less however in the Acts than in the Gospels. Though none of the ordinary divisions into sections, and scarcely any liturgical marks occur throughout, there is evidently a close connection between Cod. 69 and the Church service- books, as well in the interpolations of proper names, particles of time, or whole passages (e.g. Luke xxii. 43, 44 placed after Matth. xxvi. 39) which are common to both, as especially in the titles of the Gospels: ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον (sic), &c., being in the very language of the Lectionaries’. Codd. 178, 443 have the same peculiarity. Tables of κεφάλαια stand before the three later Gospels, with very unusual varia- tions ; for which, as well as for the foreign matter inserted and other peculiarities of Cod. 69, see Scrivener’s Cod. Augiensis (Introd. pp. XL—XLYVII). 70. Cambridge Univ. Lib. 2144 or Ll. 2. 13 [xv], (not in Trinity College), was written, like Codd. 30. 62°. 287, by G. Hermonymus the Spartan (who settled at Paris, 1472, and became the Greek teacher of Budzeus and -Reuchlin), for William Bodet; there are marginal corrections by Budzus, from whose letter to Bp. Tonstall we may fix the date about a.p. 1491—4. It once belonged to Bunckle of London, then to Bp. Moore. Like Cod. 62* it has the Latin chapters (Mill). *71. Lambeth 528 [dated a.p. 1160] 265 leaves 4°, is Mill’s Eph. and Scrivener’s g. This elegant copy, which once belonged to an Archbishop of Ephesus, was brought to England in 1675 by Philip Traheron, English Chaplain at Smyrna. Traheron made a careful collation of his manuscript, of which both the rough copy (B. M., Burney 24) and a fair one (Lambeth 528 b) survive. This last Scrivener in 1845 compared with the original, and revised, especially in regard to later corrections, of which there are many. Mill used Traheron’s collation very carelessly. Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλοι, Am., Eus., lect. This copy presents a text full of interest, and much superior to that of the mass of manuscripts of its age. 72, Cod. Harleian. 5647 B, M. [x1] large 4°, an elegant copy with a catena on Matthew, κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ., Am., Hus., pict., various readings in the ample margin. Lent by T’. Johnson to (Wetstein). 1 See the style of the Evangelistaria, as cited above, pp. 75—77; Matthaei’s uncials BH and Birch’s 178 of the Gospels, deseribed below, OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 177 185. Christ-Church Oxford, Wake 26 [x1] 4°, Hus. t., xe. t., Am., Hus., pict. It is marked “ Ex dono Mauri Cordati Principis Hun- garo-Walachie, A°® 1724.” This and Cod. 74 were once Arch- bishop Wake’s, and were collated for Wetstein by (Jo. Walker, Wake MS. 35)’. 74. ἐδ. Wake 20 [xin] 4°, written by Theodore (see p. 40, note 2). Mut. Matth. i. 1—14; v. 29—-vi. 1 ; 32 verses. It came in 1727 from the Monastery of Παντοκράτωρ, on Mount Athos. Syn., Carp., Hus. t., titr., κεφ., Am., Hus., lect. 75. Cod. Genevensis 19 [x1] 4°, prol., Hus. t., pict. In text it much resembles Cod. 6. Seen in 1714 by Wetstein, collated by (Scholz and Cellérier, a Professor at Geneva). _ 76. (Act. 43, Paul. 49). Cod. Ceesar-Vindobonensis, Nessel. 300, Lambec. 28 [x1] 4°, prol., syn., pict. This copy (the only one known to read αὐτῆς with the Complutensian and other editions in Luke ii. 22) is erroneously called uncial by Mill (Gerhard a Mastricht 1690 ; Ashe 1691; F. K. Alter 1786). ΤΊ. Czesar-Vindobon. Nessel. 114, Lambec. 29 [x1] 4°, very neat; with a commentary (Victor’s on St Mark), prol., Hus. t., pict., and (by a later hand) syn. It once belonged to Matthias Corvinus, the great King of Hungary (1458—90). Collated in ‘‘ Tentamen deserip- tionis codicum,” &c. 1773 by (Treschow, and by Alter). 78. Cod. Nicole Jancovich de Vadass, now in Hungary [x11] 4°, Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλοι, κεφ., lect., syn., pict. It was once in the library of King Matthias Corvinus: on the sack of Buda by the Turks in 1527, his noble collection of 50,000 volumes was scattered, and about 1686 this book fell into the hands of 8. B., then of J. G, Carp- zov of Leipsic, at whose sale it was purchased and brought back to its former country. A previous possessor, in the 17th century, was Τεώργιος δεσμοφύλαξ Ναυπλίου. (Collated by C. F. Boerner for Kuster, and “in usum” of Scholz.) 79. Cod. Geor. Douze (from Constantinople), consulted on John viii. by Gomar at Leyden (perhaps 74 in that Library). Mué. with a Latin version. 80. Cod. T. 6. Grevii, then Jo. Van der Hagen’s [x1], is pro- bably still somewhere in Holland: it is said by Wetstein, who saw it in 1739, to have been collated by Byneus in 1691. Prol., τίτλοι, κεφ., subscriptions: the Latin chapters were added [xv]. 81. Greek manuscripts cited in a Correctorium Bibliorum Latino- rum of the xi1ith century’. 1 Of the 183 manuscript volumes bequeathed by William Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury [1657—1737] to Christ-Church (of which he had been a Canon), no less than 28 contain portions of the Greek Testament, not more than seven of which have ever appeared in any printed Catalogue. They are all described in the present and the next section from a comparison of Dean Gaisford’s MS. Catalogue (1837) with the books themselves, to which Bp. Jacobson’s kindness gave me access in 1861. 2 These formal revisions of the Latin Bible were mainly two, one made by 5, 12 178 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS 82. Seven unknown Greek manuscripts of St John, three of St Matthew and (apparently) of the other Gospels, cited in Laurentius Valla’s “‘Annotationes in N.T., ex diversorum utriusque lingue, Greece et Latin, codicum collatione,” written about 1440, edited by Erasmus, Paris 1505. His copies seem modern, and have probably been used by later critics. The whole subject, however, is very care- fully examined in the Rev. A. T. Russell’s ‘‘ Memoirs of the life and works of Bp. Andrewes,” pp. 282—310. 83. Cod. Monacensis 518 [x1] 4°, beautifully written, syz., prol., τίτλ., κεφ., lect., in the Royal Library at Munich, whither it was brought from Augsburg (Bengel’s August. 1, Scholz). The ἀναγνώσ- ματα are numbered, as are the στίχοι at the end of each Gospel. 84. Monacensis 568 [x11] 8°, τίτλ., κεφ., Am. (not Hus.), lect, both in the text and margin, contains SS. Matthew and Mark. Mud. Matth. i. 1—18 ; xiii. 10—27 ; 42—-xiv. 3; xviii. 25—xix. 9; xxi. 33—xxii. 4; Mark vii. 13—xvi. 20 (Bengel’s August. 2, Scholz). 85. Monacensis 569 [x11] very small 4°, xed., Zect. in vermilion, Am. (not Zus.), contains only Matth. viii. 15—ix. 17; xvi. 12—xvii. 20; xxiv. 26—45; xxvi. 25—54; Mark vi. 13—ix. 45; Luke iii. 12—-vi. 44; John ix. ll—xii. 5; xix. 6—24; xx. 23—xxi. 9 (Bengel’s August. 3, Scholz). 86. Cod. Posoniensis Το Aug. [1]. Prol., Hus. ὁ. Once at Buda, but bought in 1183 at Constantinople for the Emperor Alexius IT. Comnenus (Bengel, Endlicher). 87. Cod. Trevirensis [x11] fol. contains St John’s Gospel with a catena, published at length by Cordier at Antwerp. It once belonged to the eminent scholar and mathematician, Cardinal Nico- las of Cuza, on the Moselle, near Tréves [1401—64: see Cod. 129]; previously to the monastery of Petra or the Fore-runner at Con- stantinople’ (Scholz). Wetstein’s 87 is our 250. 88. Codex of the Gospels, 4°, on vellum, cited as ancient and correct by Joachim Camerarius (who collated it) in his Annotations to the New Testament. It resembles in text Codd. 63, 72. 80. *89, Cod. Gottingensis [dated 1006] fol., with corrections. Col- lated by A. G. Gehl in 1739, and by Matthaei (No, 20). 90. (Act, 47, Paul. 14). Cod. Jo. (or Jac.) Fabri, a Dominican the University of Paris with the sanction of the Archbishop of Sens about 1230, and a rival one undertaken by the Mendicant Orders, through Cardinal Hugo de §S. Caro (see above, p. 64), and adopted at their general Chapter held at Paris in 1256. A previous revision had been made by Cardinal Nicolaus and the Cistercian Abbot Stephanus in 1150. A manuscript of that of 1256 was used by Lucas Brugensis and Simon (Wetstein, N. T. Prol. Vol. 1 p. 85). Canon Westcott calls attention to a Correctorium in the British Museum, King’s Library, 1 A. vurt. 1 On fol. 4 we read ἡ βίβλος αὕτη (nde 178) τῆς μονῆς τοῦ Ipodpéuou | τῆς κειμένης ἔγγιστα τῆς Ac[ai]riou | ἀρχαϊκὴ δὲ τῆ μονῆ κλῆσις Πέτρα. Compare Cod. 178 and Montfauc, Palewogr. Greca, pp. 39, 110, 305. See also p. 40, note 2. OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. ~ 179 of Deventer [xv1, but copied from a manuscript written by Theodore (p. 40, note 2) and dated 1293] 4°, chart. 2 vols. The Gospels stand John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, the Pauline Epistles precede the Acts (pp. 67, 69); and Jude is written twice, from different copies. This codex (which has belonged to Abr. Hinckelmann of Hamburg, and to Wolff) was collated by Wetstein. Faber [1472—living in 1515] had also compared it with another “very ancient” vellum manuscript of the Gospels presented by Sixtus 1V. (1471—84) to Jo. Wessel of Groningen, but which was then at Zvolle. As might be expected, this copy much resembles Cod. 74. See Delitzsch, Handschr. Funde, 11. pp. 54—57. 91. Cod. Perronianus [x], of which extracts were sent by Mont- faucon to Mill, had been Cardinal Perron’s, and before him had belonged to “8S. Taurini monasterium Ebroicense” (Evreux). 92. Cod. Feeschii 1 (Act. 49) [xiv, or xv]) The former contains 94. Cod. Feeschii 2 ἘΦ or XVII } Mark with Victor’s commentary on vellum, and scholia on the Catholic Epistles, with the authors’ names, Didymus, Origen, Cyril, &c.; the latter Mark and Luke, with Victor’s commentary on St Mark, that of Titus of Bostra on St Luke, on paper. Both belonged to Andrew Fesch, of Basle, and were collated by Wetstein. Mr Burgon found them both at Basle (O. 11, 27 and ΟἹ. ii. 23). 93. Cod. Greevii of the Gospels, cited by Voss on the Genealogy, Luke iii. 95. Lincoln Coll. Oxon. 16 [x11] 4°, is Mill’s Wheeler 2%. It contains Luke xi, 2—John xx. 30; xxi. 10O—25. With full scholia neatly written in the margin, syn. (Mill, Professor Nicoll). 96. Cod. Bodleian. Misc. 8 (Auct. D. 5. 1) [xv] 12°, is Walton’s and Mill’s 7rit., with many rare readings, containing St John with a commentary, beautifully written by Jo. Trithemius, Abbot of Span- heim [d. 1516]. Received from Abraham Sculter [1] by Geo. Hack- well, 1607 (Walton’s Polyglott, Mill, Griesbach). 97. Cod. Hirsaugiensis [1500, by Nicolas, a monk of Hirschau], 12°, on vellum, containing St John, seems but a copy of 96. It once belonged to Uffenbach, and is now at Giessen (Bengel’, Wetstein, Maius, Schulze). 98. Cod. Bodleian. [x11] 4°, pict., E. D. Clarke 5, by whom it was brought from the East. Κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am. (not Eus.), κεφ., lect. 1 Noted ‘‘Ex libris Georgii Wheleri Westmonasteriensis perigrinatione ejus Constantinopolitana collect. Anno Domini 1676,” See Evan. 68; Evst. 3. 2 Though 97 once belonged to Uffenbach, 101 better suits Bengel’s descrip- tion of Uffen. 3: they are written on different materials, and the description of their respective texts will not let us suspect them to be the same. Wetstein never cites Cod. 101, but the addition of τὸν θεόν at the end of John viii. 27, the reading of the margin of Uffen. 3, is ascribed in the critical editions to 97, not to 101. 12-—-2 180 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS It was collated in a few places for Scholz, who substituted it here for Cod. R (see p. 130) of Griesbach. 99. Cod, Lipsiensis, Bibliothec. Paul. [xv1] 4°, Matthaei’s 18, contains Matth. iv. 8—v. 27; vi. 2—xv. 30; Luke i. 1—133; syn. (Matthaei). Wetstein’s 99 is our 155. 100. Cod. Paul. L. B. de Eubeswald [x] 4°, vellum, mut. Jo. xxi. 25; pict., κεφ. t., Hus. t., and in a later hand many corrections with scholia and syn., chart. J.C. Wagenseil used it in Hungary for Jo. viii. 6. Our description presumes it to be the manuscript now in the University of Pesth, but in the 15th century belonging to Bp. Jo. Pannonius. 101. Cod. Uffenbach. 3 [xvi] 12°, chart., St John στιχήρης (see p. 50). So near the Basle (that is, we suppose, Erasmus’) edition, that Bengel never cites it. With two others (Paul. M. and 52) it was lent by Z. C. Uffenbach, Consul of Frankfort-on-the-Mayn, to Wetstein in 1717, and afterwards to Bengel. 102. Cod. Bibliothecse Medicez, a valuable but unknown manu- script with many rare readings, extracted by Wetstein at Amsterdam for Matth. xxiv—Mark viii.1, from the margin of a copy of Plantin’s N. T. 1591, in the library of J. le Long. Canon B. F. Westcott is convinced that the manuscript from which these readings were de- rived is none other than Cod. B itself. In St Matthew’s Gospel he finds the two authorities agree 70 times and differ only 5 times, always in a manner to be easily accounted for: in St Mark they agree in 84 out of the 85 citations, the remaining one (ch. 11. 22) being hardly an exception. Westcott, New Zest., Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. 103. Regius 196 [x1] fol., once Cardinal Mazarin’s, seems the same manuscript as that from which Emericus Bigot gave extracts to Curcelleus’ N. T. 1658 (Scholz). Mr Burgon supposes some mis- take here, as he finds Reg. 196 to be a copy of Theophylact’s com- mentary on SS. Matthew and Mark, written over an older manuscript [vir or 1x]. 104. Cod, Hieronymi Vignerii [x], from which also Bigot ex- tracted readings, which Wetstein obtained through J. Drieberg in 1744, and published. 105. (Act. 48, Paul. 24). Cod. Ebnerianus, Bodl. Miscell. 136, a beautiful copy [xu] 4°, on 426 leaves of vellum, with 27 lines in each, formerly belonging to Jerome Ebner von Eschenbach of Nu- remberg. Pict., Carp., Eus, t., κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ., Am. (not Hus.), the Nicene Creed, all in gold: syn.; with /ect. throughout and syn., men. prefixed by Joasaph, a calligraphist, A.p. 1391, who also added John viii. 3—11 at the end of the Gospel. Facsimile in Horne’s Intro- duction, and in Tregelles’ Horne, p. 220 (Schoenleben 1738, Rev. H. O. Coxe, by whom the collation was lent before 1845 to the Rey, R. J. F. Thomas, Vicar of Yeovil [d. 1873], together with one of Canon. Greece. 110 of the Acts and Epistles, both of which ought to be published), OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 181 106. Cod. Winchelsea [x], with many important readings, often resembling the Philoxenian Syriac: believed to be still in the Earl of Winchelsea’s Library (Jackson collated it for Wetstein in 1748). 107. Cod. Bodleian. [xrv. and later] 4°, is Εἰ. D. Clarke 6, con- taining the Gospels in different hands: xed. ¢., pict. (Like 98, 111, 112, partially collated for Scholz.) Griesbach’s 107 is also 201. 108. Czesar-Vindobonensis, Kollar. 4, Forlos. 5 [x1] fol., 2 vols. With a commentary (Victor's on St Mark: Burgon “Last Twelve Verses, &e.” p. 288), Hus. t., pict. It seems to have been written at Constantinople, and formerly belonged to Parrhasius, then to the Sehols) of St John de Carbonaria at Naples (Treschow, Alter, Birch, cholz). 109. Brit. Mus. Addit. 5117 [a.p. 1326] 4°, syn., Hus. t., men., lect., τίτλοι, Am. (not Hus., κεφ.), Mead. 1, then Askew (5115 is Act. 22, and 5116 is Paul. 75, these two in the same hand; different from that employed in the Gospels). 110. Cod. Ravianus, Bibl. Reg. Berolinensis [xv1] 4°, 2 vols., on parchment, once belonging to Jo. Rave of Upsal, has been ex- amined by Wetstein, Griesbach, and G. G. Pappelbaum in 1796. It contains the whole New Testament, and has attracted attention because it has the disputed words in 1 Jo. v.7. It is now how- ever admitted by all to be a mere transcript of the N. T. in the Complutensian Polyglott with variations from Erasmus or Stephens, and as such should be expunged from our list. 111. Cod. Bodleian. [x11] 4°, Clarke 7, mut. Jo. xx. 25—xxi. 25: κεφ. t., Am. (not Hus.), and 112. Bodleian. [x1] 12°, Clarke 10, Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am. and Hus., in Matth. i—Mark ii., in the same line (a very rare arrangement ; 866 Codd. 192, 198, 212, and Wake 21 below), lect., syn., men., a very beautiful copy. These two, very partially collated for Scholz, were substituted by him and Tischendorf for collations whose history is not a little curious. 111. (Wetstein). THe ΈΠΕΒΙΑΝ READINGS. The Jesuit de la Cerda inserted in his “ Adversaria Sacra,” cap. ΧΟῚ (Lyons 1626), a collection of various readings, written in vermilion in the margin of a Greek Testament (which from its misprint in 1 Pet. iii. 11 we know to be R. Stephens’ of 1550) by Petro Faxardo, Marquis of Velez, a Spaniard, who had taken them from sixteen manuscripts, eight of which were in the king’s library, in the Escurial. It is never stated what codices or how many support each variation. De la Cerda had received the readings from Mariana, the great Jesuit historian of Spain, then lately dead, and appears to have inadvertently added to Mariana’s account of their origin, that the sixteen manuscripts were in Greek. These Velesian readings, though suspected from the first even by Mariana by reason of their strange resemblance to the Latin Vulgate and the manuscripts of the Old Latin, were repeated as critical 182 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS authorities in Walton’s Polyglott, 1657, and (contrary to his own better judgment) were retained by Mill in 1707. Wetstein, however (N. T. Proleg. Vol. 1. pp. 5961), and after him Michaelis and Bp. Marsh, have abundantly proved that the various readings must have been collected by Velez from Latin manuscripts, and by him trans- lated into Greek, very foolishly perhaps, but not of necessity with a fraudulent design. Certainly, any little weight the Velesian read- ings may have, must be referred to the Latin, not to the Greek text. Among the various proofs of their Latin origin urged by Wetstein and others, the following establish the fact beyond the possibility of doubt : Vulgate various reading. Velesian reading. Greek Text. Vulgate Text. Mark viii. 38. ἐπαισχύνθῃ ΟΠ ΒΒ fuerit | confessus fuerit | ὁμολογήσῃ Hebr. xii. 18. | κεκαυμένῳ accensibilem accessibilem προσίτῳ — xiii. 2. ἔλαθον latuerunt placuerunt ἤρεσαν James v. 6. κατεδικάσατε | addixistis adduxistis ἠγάγετε Apoc. xix. 6. | ὄχλου turbae tubae σάλπιγγος — xxi. 12. | ἀγγέλους angelos angulos γωνίας 112. (Wetstein), Tor BARBERINI READINGS must also be ban- ished from our list of critical authorities, though for a different reason. The collection of various readings from 22 manuscripts (ten of the Gospels, eight of the Acts and Epistles, and four of the Apocalypse), seen by Isaac Vossius in 1642 in the Barberini Library at Rome, was made about 1625, and first published in 1673, by Peter Possinus (Poussines), a Jesuit, at the end of a catena of St Mark. He alleged that the collations were made by John M. Caryophilus [d. 1635], a Cretan, while preparing an edition of the Greek Testament, under the patronage of Paul V. [d. 1621] and Urban VIII. [d. 1644]. As the Barberini readings often favour the Latin version, they fell into the same suspicion as the Velesian: Wetstein, especially (Proleg. Vol. τ. pp. 61, 62), after pressing against them some objections more ingenious than solid, declares “lis hee non aliter quam ipsis libris Rome inventis et productis, guod nunquam credo fiet, solvi potest.” The very papers Wetstein thus called for were discovered by Birch (Barberini Lib. 209) more than thirty years later, and besides them Caryophilus’ petition for the loan of six manuscripts from the Vatican (Codd. BS. 127. 129. 141. 144), which he doubtless obtained and used. The good faith of the collator being thus happily vin- dicated, we have only to identify his thirteen remaining codices, most of them probably being in that very Library, and may then dismiss the Barberini readings as having done their work, and been fairly superseded. 113. Cod. Harleian, 1810 Brit. Mus. [x1] 4°, prol., Carp., Hus. t., pict., lect., κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ., Am., Hus., and (in a later hand) syn. (Griesbach, Bloomfield) : its readings are of more than usual interest, as are those of 114. Harleian. 5540 [x11] 12°, (facsimile in a Greek Testament, OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 183 published in 1837 by Taylor, London), very elegant, with more recent marginal notes and Matth, xxviii. 19—-Mark i. 12 in a later hand. Mut. Matth. xvii. 4—18; xxvi. 59—73 (Griesbach, Bloomfield), Carp., κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ., Am. (not Hus.). See Canon Westcott’s article, New Zest., in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. 115. Harleian. 5559 [x11] 4°, once Bernard Mould’s (Smyrna, 1724), with an unusual text. Mut. Matth. 1. 1—vii. 10; Mark v. 23—36; Luke i. 78—ii. 9; vi. 4—15; John xi. 2—xxi, 25 (Gries- bach, Bloomfield). Α few more words of John xi. survive: τίτλ., ked., Am., and sometimes Hus, * 116. Harleian. 5567 [x11] small 4°, Hus. ¢., κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am, lect., syn., of some value. It belonged in 1649 to Athanasius a Greek monk, then to B. Mould (Griesbach, Bloomfield). 117. (Apost. 6). Harleian. 5731 [xv] 4°, chart., carelessly written, once belonged to the great Bentley. Mut. Matth. i. 1—18: lect., pict., Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am., syn., fragments of a Lec- tionary on the last twenty leaves (Griesbach, Bloomfield). *118. Bodleian. Miscell. 13, Marsh 24 [xu] 4°, an important palimpsest (with the Gospels wppermost) once the property of Arch- bishop Marsh of Armagh [d. 1713]. Am., Hus., κεφ. t., lect. with syn., men., and some of the Psalms on paper. Later hands also supplied Matth. 1. l—vi. 2; Luke xiii, 35—xiv. 20; xviii. 8—xix. 9; John xvi. 25—xxi, 25. Well collated by (Griesbach). 119. Regius 85, olim a , Paris [x11] 4°, formerly Teller’s of Rheims, is Kuster’s Paris 5 (Griesbach). 120. Supplement. Gk. Paris 185 a [x11] 4°, formerly belonged to St Victor’s on the Walls, Paris, and seems to be Stephens’ ιδ΄, whose text (1550) and Colinzeus’ (1534) it closely resembles. St Mark is wanting (Griesbach). 121. An important lost codex, once at St Geneviéve’s, in Paris [dated Sept. 1284, Indiction 12], 4°. Mut. Matth. v. 21—viii. 24 (Griesbach). 122. (Act. 177, Paul. 219). Bibl. Lugdunensis-Batavorum [x11] 4°, once Meermann’s’? 116. Μη. Act. 1, 1—14; xxi, 14—xxu, 28; 1 Jo. iv. 20—Jud. 25; Rom. i. 1—vii. 13; 1 Cor. ii, 7—xiv. 23 (Dermout, Collect. Crit. 1. p. 14). Griesbach’s 122 is also 97. 123. Ceesar-Vindobon. Nessel. 240, Lambec. 30 [x1] 4°, brought 1 In Codd. 115 and 202 Zus. is usually, in Codd. 116, 117 and B. M. Addit. 15581 but rarely, written under Am,: these copies therefore were never quite finished. See p. 57, and note 1. 2 Meermann’s other two manuscripts of the N. T., dispersed at his sale in 1824, are No. 117, or 436 of the Gospels (also set down in error as Evangelistarium 153) now belonging to Mr Burgon of Oriel, and No. 118 at Middle-Hill (Act. 178, Paul. 242, Apoe. 87). 184 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS from Constantinople by Auger Busbeck ; prol., Hus. t., pict., correc- tions by another hand (Treschow, Alter, Birch). *124. Cexsar-Vindobon. Nessel. 188, Lambec. 31 [x11] 4°, Hus. ¢., syn., mut. Luke xxiii. 31—xxiv. 28, an eclectic copy, with corrections by the first hand (Mark ii. 14; Luke iii. 1, &e.). This manuscript (which once belonged to a certain Leo) is considered by Birch the best of the Vienna codices; it resembles the Philoxenian Syriac, Old Latin, Codd. DL. 1 13, and especially 69 (Treschow, Alter, Birch). Recently collated for Professor Ferrar where Alter and Birch disagree. See Cod. 13, p. 167. 125. Czsar-Vindobon. Kollar. 6, Forlos. 16 [x] 4°, with many corrections in the margin and between the lines (Treschow, Alter, Birch). 126. Cod. Guelpherbytanus xvi. 16 [x1] carelessly written. Hus. t., κεφ. t., prol., pict., with lect., syn. in a later hand, and some quite modern corrections. Matth. xxviii. 18—20 is cruciform, capitals often occur in the middle of words, and the text is of an unusual cha- racter. Inspected by (Heusinger 1752, Knittel, Tischendorf). N.B. Codd. 127—181, all at Rome, were inspected, and a few (127. 131. 157) really collated by Birch, when at Rome about 1782. Of 153 Scholz collated the greatest part, and small portions of 138—44; 146—52; 15457; 159—60; 162; 164—71; 173—75; 177—80. 127. Cod. Vatican. 349 [x1] fol., Hus. t., κεφ. t., a neatly written and important copy, with a few later corrections (e.g. Matth, xxvii, 49). 128, Vat. 356 [x1] fol., prol., κεφ. t., and the numbers of the στίχοι. 129. Vat. 358 [x11] fol., with scholia, Victor’s commentary on St Mark, and a note on Jo. vii. 53, such as we read in Cod. 145 and others. Bought at Constantinople in 1438 by Nicolas de Cuza, Eastern Legate to the Council of Ferrara (see Cod. 87). 130. Vat. 359 [x11] fol., chart., a curious copy, with the Greek and Latin in parallel columns, and the Latin chapters. 131. (Act. 70, Paul. 77, Apoc. 66). Vat. 360 [χη] 4°, contains the whole New Testament, with many remarkable variations, and a text somewhat like that of Aldus’ Greek Testament (1518). The manu- script was given to Sixtus V. [1585—90] for the Vatican by “ Aldus Manuccius Paulli F. Aldi.” The Epistle to the Hebrews stands before 1 Tim. Carp., Zus. t., κεφ. t., of an unusual arrangement (viz. Matth. 74, Mark 46, Luke 57; see above, p. 53). This copy contains many itacisms, and corrections primdéd manu. 132. Vat. 361 [x1] 4°, Hus. t., pict. 133. (Act. 71, Paul, 78). Vat, 363 [χι 1] 4°, sy, Euthalian prologues, OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 185 134. Vat. 364 [x1?] 4°, elegant. Zus. t., pict., titles in gold. 135. Vat. 365 [x1?] 4°, κεφ. t., pict. ‘The first 26 of its 174 leaves are later and chart. 136. Vat. 665 [χη] fol., on cotton paper; contains SS. Matthew and Mark with Euthymius’ commentary. 137. Vat. 756 [xr or x11] fol., with a commentary (Victor’s on St Mark). At the end we read xo φραγκισκος axxidas evyevns κολασ- σεὺυς..-«ρωμῃ ἤγαγε To παρον βιβλιον eres aro aday a [a.D. 1583], μῆνι ιουλιῳ, wd. τα. 188, Vat. 757 [x11] fol., with commentary from Origen, &., and that of Victor on St Mark, mixed up with the text, both in a slovenly hand (Burgon). Comp. Cod. 374. 139. Vat. 758 [x11] fol., contains Luke and John with a com- mentary. 140. Vat. 1158 [x11] 4°, beautifully written, and given by the Queen of Cyprus to Innocent VIT. (1404—6). us. t., pict. In Luke i. 64 it supports the Complutensian reading, καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα αὐτοῦ διηρθρώθη. 141. (Act. 75, Paul. 86, Apoc. 40). Vat. 1160 [xm] 4°, 2 vols., contains the whole New Testament, syn., pict. The leaves are ar- ranged in quaternions, but separately numbered for each volume. 142. (Act. 76, Paul. 87). Vat. 1210 [x1] 12°, very neat, con- taining also the Psalms. There are many marginal readings in another ancient hand. 143. Vat. 1229 [x1] fol., with a marginal commentary (Victor’s on St Mark). On the first leaf is read τῆς op@ys πιστεως πιστῳ oLKO- vonw kat φυλακι Παυλῳ τετάρτῳ [1555—59]. 144, Vat. 1254 [x1] 8°, Hus. t., κεφ. {. 145. Vat. 1548 [x11] 4°, contains SS. Luke and John. Mut. Luke iv. 15—v. 36; Jo. 1. 1—26. A later hand has written Luke xvii—xxi, and made many corrections. 146. Palatino-Vatican. 5* [x11] fol., contains SS. Matth. and Mark with a commentary (Victor’s on St Mark 1). 147. Palat.-Vat. 89 [x1] 8°, syn. 148. Palat.-Vat. 136 [x11] 4°, with some scholia and unusual readings. 149. (Act. 77, Paul. 88, Apoc. 25). Palat.-Vat. 171 [xrv] fol., lect., contains the whole New Testament. 150. Palat.-Vat. 189 [x1] 16°, Hus. ¢., syn. 1 A collection presented to Urban VIII. (1623—44) by Maximilian, Elector of Bavaria, from the spoils of the unhappy Elector Palatine, titular King of Bohemia. 186 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS 151. Palat.-Vat. 220 [x1] 4°, Hus. ¢., scholia in the margin, and some rare readings (e.g. Jo. xix. 14). The sheets are in 2] quater- nions. After St Matthew stands ἐκλογὴ ev συντόμὼ εκ των συντεθεν- των ὕπο Βυσεβιου προς Stedavov X. 162. Palat.-Vat. 227 [x11] 4°, prol., pict. 153. Palat.-Vat. 229 [x1] 4°, on cotton paper. Prol., syn. 154. Cod. Alexandrino-Vatican. vel Christine 28 [dated April 14, 1442] 4°, written in Italy on cotton paper, with Theophylact’s commentary. It was given by Christina, Queen of Sweden, to Alex- ander VIII. (1689—91). 155. Alex.-Vat. 79 [x1? Birch, x1v Scholz] 12°, with some lessons from St Paul prefixed. Given by Andrew Rivet to Rutger- sius, Swedish Ambassador to the United Provinces. This copy is Wetstein’s 99, the codex Rutgersii cited by Dan. Heinsius in his Exercitat. sacr. in Evangel. 156. Alex.-Vat. 189 [x11] 12°: “ex bibliothec’ Goldasti” is on the first page. 157. Cod. Urbino-Vat. 2 [x11] 8°, deemed by Birch the most important manuscript of the N. T. in the Vatican, except Cod. B. Among the cursives it stands next in value to Cod. 33. It be- longed to the Ducal Library at Urbino, and was brought to Rome by Clement VII. (1523—34). It is very beautifully written on 325 leaves of vellum (Birch, N. T. 1788, gives a facsimile), with Hus. t., prol., certain chronicles, κεφ., τίτλοι and rich ornaments, pic- tures, &c. in vermilion and gold. On fol. 19 we read underneath: two figures Iwavvys ev χω τω Ow πιστος βασιλεὺυς πορφυρογεννήτος Kat αὐτοκράτωρ ῥωμαιων, ὁ Κομνηνος, and Αλεξιος ev χω Tw Ow πιστος Bacirevs πορφυρογεννητος ὁ Κομνηνος. The Emperor John II. the Handsome succeeded his father, the great Alexius, A.D. 1118. For the subscriptions appended to the Gospels in this copy (which also register the number of στίχοι in each of them), see above, p. 51. In text it is akin to Codd. BDL. 69, 106, and especially to 1. 158. Cod. Pii 11., Vatic. 53 [x1] 4°, with Hus t., κεφ. ¢., and readings in the margin, primd manu. This copy was given to the Library by Pius IT. (1458—64). 159. Cod. Barberinianus 8 [x1] 4°, in the Barberini Palace, at Rome, founded above two centuries since by the Cardinal, Francis IL. of that name. 160. Barberin. 9 [dated 1123] 4°, syn. 161. Barberin. 10 [x] 4°, ending at Jo. xvi. 4. This copy fol- lows the Latin versions both in its text (Jo. iii. 6) and marginal scholia (Jo. vii. 29). Various readings are often thus noted in its margin, 162. Barberin, 11 [dated 13 May, 1153 (sya), Indict. 1] 4°, written by one Manuel: Hus. t., pict. OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK, 187 163. Barberin. 12 [x1] fol., written in Syria. Scholz says it contains only the portions of the Gospels read in Church-lessons, but Birch the four Gospels, with Hus. t., κεφ. ¢., the numbers of ῥήματα and στίχοι to the first three Gospels (see p. 64, note). 164. Barberin. 13 [dated Oct. 1040] 8°, Hus. t., κεφ. t., syn., and the numbers of στίχοι. The subscription states that it was written by Leo, a priest and calligrapher, and bought in 1168 by Bartholomew, who compared it with ancient Jerusalem manuscripts on the sacred mount. 165. Barberin. 14 [dated 1197] fol., with the Latin Vulgate version, Hus. t., κεφ. t., syn. Written for one Archbishop Paul, and given to the Library by Eugenia, daughter of Jo. Pontanus. 166. Barberin. 115 [x11] 4°, containing only SS, Luke ix. 33— xxiv. 24 and John. 167. Barberin. 208 [xi or xtv] 12°, κεφ. ¢., pict., subscriptions numbering the στίχοι. 168. Barberin. 211 [x11] fol., with Theophylact’s commentary. 169. Cod. Vallicellianus B. 133 [x1] 12°, once the property of Achilles Statius, as also was Cod. 171. Prol., syn., pict. This codex and the next three are in the Library of St Maria in Val- licella at Rome, and belong to the Fathers of the Oratory of St Phi- lippo Neri. 170. Vallicell. C. 61 [x11] 4°, syn. The end of St Luke and most of St John is in a later hand. 171. Vallicell. C. 73 [xrv] 8°. Montfaucon ascribes it to [Στ]. 172. Vallicell. F. 90 [x11] 4°, now only contains the Pentateuch, but from Bianchini, Evan. Quadr. Pt. 1. pp. 529—30, we infer that the Gospels were once there. 173. Vatic. 1983, Basil. 22 [x1 or xin] 4°, ending John xiii. 1, seems to have been written in Asia Minor. Lect., syn., Hus. t., the number of ῥήματα and στίχοι being appended to the first three Gos- pels as in Codd, 163; 164; 167. This codex, and the next four, were brought from the Library of the Basilian monks. 174. Vatic. 2002, Basil. 41 [dated 4™ hour of Sept. 2, a.p. 1053] 4°, mut. Matth. i. 1—ii. 1; Jo. i. 1—27; ending Jo. viii. 47. Written by the monk Constantine “tabernis ‘habitante,” ‘cum preesset prefecture Georgilas dux Calabriae” (Scholz). 175. (Act. 41, Paul. 194, Apoc. 20). Vat. 2080, Basil. 119 [x11] 4°, contains the whole New Testament (beginning Matth. iv. 17) with scholia to the Acts, between which and the Catholic Epistles stands the Apocalypse (sce p. 67). There are some marginal cor- rections prima manu (e.g. Luke xxiv. 13). The Pauline Epistles have Euthalius’ subscriptions, Also inspected by Bianchini. _ 188 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS 176. Vat. 2113, Basil. 152 [x111] 4°, lect. Begins Matth. x. 13, ends Jo, ii. 1. 177. Vat.?, Basil. 163 [xr] 8°, mat. Jo. 1. 1—29. 178. Cod. Angelicus A. 1.5 [x11] fol., Hus. ¢., mut. Jo, xxi. 17— 25. Arranged in quaternions, and the titles to the Gospels resem- ble those in Cod. 69. Codd. 178—9 belong to the Angelica convent of Augustinian Eremites at Rome. Montfaucon (Palwogr. Graea, pp. 290—1) describes and gives a facsimile of Cod. 178. It has on the first leaf the same subscription as we gave under Cod. 87: which Birch and Scholz misunderstand. 179. Angelic. A. 4. 11 [x11] 4°, Hus. ἐ., κεφ. t., lect. The last five leaves (214—18) and two others (23, 30) are chart., and in a later hand. 180. (Act. 82, Paul. 92, Apoc. 44) Cod. Bibl. Propagande 250, Borgie 2 [x1] 8°, lect.; the Gospels were written by one Andreas: the rest of the New Testament and some apocryphal books by one John, November 1284. This manuscript, with Cod. T and Evst. 37, belonged to the Velitran Museum of “ Presul Steph. Borgia, Col- legii Urbani de Propaganda Fide a secretis.” 181. Cod. Francisci Xavier, Cardinal. de Zelada [x1] fol., with scholia in the margin. This manuscript (from which Birch took extracts) seems now missing. Birch, Proleg. p. lviti., Burgon “ Last Twelve Verses, &c.” pp. 284, 288. Codd. 182—198, all in that noble Library at Florence, founded by Cosmo de Medici [d. 1464], increased by his grandson Lorenzo [d. 1492], were very slightly examined by Birch, and subsequently by Scholz. Mr Burgon has described his own researches at Florence in the Guardian for August 20 and 27, 1873, from which I have thankfully corrected the statements made in my first edition respect- ing all the manuscripts there. 182. Cod. Laurentianus Plut. νι. 11 [xu] 4°: τίτλ. to St John only. The titles of the Gospels in lake, forming a kind of imitation of ropework. 183. Laurent. vi. 14 [xiv] 8°, pict., Hus. t., also κεφ. t., κεφ. Am., Eus. in gold ; and in a later hand ἀναγνώσματα and men., at the end of which is τέλος σὺν Θεῷ ἁγίῳ Tod μηνολογίου, ἀμήν" avi, 1.6. A.D. 1418. This mode of reckoning is very rare (see p. 39, note 2), and tempted Scholz to read Su of the Greek era, i.e, A.D, 910. 184. Laurent. vi. 15 [x11] 4°, written in two columns. Carp., prol., Am., Hus., mut., unfinished. 185. Laurent. vi. 16 [x11] 4°, prol., κεφ. t., κεφ., ἀναγνώσματα, Am. (not Hus.). Syn. were written by one Basil. 186. Laurent. vi. 18 [x1] fol., prol., fine pict., Hus. t., com- mentary (Victor's on St Mark); written by Leontius, a calligrapher. Burgon cites Bandini’s Catal. i. 130—3, where the elaborate syn, are given in full. OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 189 187. Laurent. vi. 23 [x1] 4°, pict. very rich and numerous. Carp., Eus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am, (not Hus.), allin gold. A peculiar kind of asterisk occurs very frequently in the text and margin, the purpose of which is not clear. 188. Laurent. vi. 25 [xt] 8°, syn., men., full and beautiful. Prol., κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am., Hus. 189. (Act. 141, Paul. 239). Laurent. vi. 27 [xu] 12°, minute and beautifully written, mut. from John xix. 38. Men., τίτλ., ἀναγνώσματα only. 190. Laurent. vi. 28 [dated July 1285, Ind. 13] 8°, pict., prol., . κεφ. t., Am, (not Lus.). 191. Laurent. vr. 29 [χπ|] 8°, prol., with στίχοι numbered : ἀναγνώσματα marked in a more recent hand. 192. Laurent. vi. 30 [x11] 12°, prol., κεφ. t., Am, and Hus. in a line, the latter later (see Cod. 112): ἀρχὴ of lect., never τέλος. 193. Laurent. vi. 32 [x1] 8°, Carp. Hus. t., pict., κεφ., Am. not “us.), avayyvwopara, lect. t H ἰναγνώσματα, J 194. Laurent. vi. 33 [x1] large 4°, pict., and a marginal catena (Victor’s on St Mark) resembling that of Cod. 34: e.g. on Luke xxiv. 13. Ked., Am. (not Hus.). Begins Matth. iii. 7. 195, Laurent. vi. 34 [x1] a superb 4°, once belonged to the Cis- tercian convent of 8. Salvator de Septimo. rol. (the same as in Cod. 186, attributed to Eusebius), syv., and a commentary (Victor's on St Mark). The date of the year is lost, but the month (May) and indiction (8) remain. Κεφ. ¢., κεφ., Am., Hus., syn., men. 196. Laurent. vit. 12 [x11] large 4°, the text in red letters (see p. 159, note 2), pict., with acatenain black. Ked.t.,xep. Given by ason of Cosmo de Medici in 1473 to the Convent of St Mark at Florence. 197. (Act. 90) Laurent. vur. 14 [xr] fol., contains the Epistle of St James with a marginal gloss: and portions of SS. Matthew and Mark, with Chrysostom’s commentary on St Matthew, and Victor’s on St Mark, all imperfect. 198. Laurent. Aldil, 221 [xm] 4°, on cotton paper, Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t.: from the library “ A‘dilium Flor. Ecc.” Here again Am. and Hus, are in the same line (see Cod. 112): the ἀναγνώσματα also are numbered. Codd. 199—203 were inspected, rather than collated, by Birch at Florence before 1788 ; the first two in the Benedictine library of St Maria ; the others in that of St Mark, belonging to the Dominican Friars. Scholz could not find any of them, but 201 is Wetstein’s 107, Scrivener’s m; 202 is now in the British Museum, Addit. 14774. The other two Mr Burgon found in the Laurentian Library, whither they came at the suppression of monasteries in 1810. 199. Laurent. 99, once Cod, 5. Marie, 67 [xu] 4°, Bus. #4, κεφ. t., κεφ., pict., lect., with iambic verses and various scholia. 190 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS The στίχοι are numbered and, besides Am., Hus., there exists in parts a Harmony at the foot of the pages, such as is described in p. 56, note 2. 200. Laurent. 69, once 5, Marie 66 [x] 4°, pict., Carp., Eus. t., κεφ. t., Am., all in gold: Hus. in red, κεῴ., syn., with fragments of Gregory of Nyssa against the Arians. There are many scholia in vermilion scattered throughout the book. Codd. 199, 200 were presented to St Maria’s by Antonio Corbinelli [d. 1423]: the latter from St Justina’s, another Benedictine house. *201. (Act. 91, Paul. 104, Apoc. b*™, or Kelly 94) Cod. Pre- dicator, 5. Marci 701 [dated Oct. 7, 1357, Ind. 11], large fol., on 492 leaves. This splendid copy was purchased for the British Mu- Seum (where it is numbered Butl. 2, or Addit. 11837) from the heirs of Dr Samuel Butler, Bishop of Lichfield. It contains the whole New Testament ; was first cited by Wetstein (107) from notices by Jo. Lamy, in his “de Eruditione Apostolorum,” Florence, 1738; glanced at by Birch, and stated by Scholz (N. T. Vol. τι. pp. x1, XXviII) to have been cursorily collated by himself: how that is pos- sible can hardly be understood, as he elsewhere professes his igno- rance where the manuscript had gone (N. T. Vol. 1. p. Lxxm). Scrivener collated the whole volume. There are many changes by a later hand, also syn., xed. t., Am., Hus., lect., prol., and some foreign matter. 202. Predicat. 5. Marci 705, now Brit. Mus. Addit. 14774 [x11] 4°, syn., κεφ. t. (in red and gold), κεφ. τίτλ. Am. Hus. (often omitted), lect., men., pict. This splendid copy cost the Museum £84 (Bloom- field). 203. Predicat, 8. Marci 707 [xv] 4°, chart., is really in modern Greek. Birch cites it for Jo, vii. 53, but it ought to be expunged from the list. 204. (Act, 92) [x1 or x1] formerly Bononiensis Canonic. Regu- lar. St. Salvador 640, now (since the suppression of the house in 1867) in the Royal Library at Bologna, 2775. Syn., κεφ., ἀναγνώσματα numbered (without Am., Carp.), lect., pict. (Birch, Scholz, corrected by Burgon). Codd. 205—215, 217 in the Ducal palace at Venice, were slightly examined by Birch in 1783, carefully by Burgon in 1872. 205. (Act. 93, Paul. 106, Apoc. 88) Venet. Libr. 8. Marci 5, (86: 4) [xv] large fol., contains both Testaments, with many peculiar readings, It was written for Cardinal Bessarion (apparently by John Rhosen his librarian), the donor of all these books. Κεφ. t., κεφ., with subscriptions to the Gospels. C. F, Rink considers it in the Gospels a copy of Cod. 209 (‘ Lucubratio Critica in Act. Apost. Epp. C. et P.,” Basileae, 1830). Mr Burgon, who fully admits their wonderful similarity in respect to the text, judges that Cod. 205, which is much more modern than Cod. 209, was transcribed from the same wnceial archetype. 206. (Act. 94, Paul. 107) Venet. 6 (also 86: 4) [xv or xvi] large fol., like Codd. 69 and 233, is partly on parchment, partly on OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 191 paper. It contains both Testaments, but is not numbered for the Apocalypse. A mere duplicate of Cod. 205. 207. Venet. 8 (86: 7) [x1 or x11] 4°, Carp., Eus. t., κεφ. t., tird., κεφ., Am. (not Hus.) in gold, syn., mut. in Matth. i, 1—13; Mark i. 1—1], for the sake of the gorgeous illuminations. Written in two columns. Once owned by A. F. R. 208. Venet. 9 (86: 1) [xr or x11] 8°, Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am., Lus., of some value, but far less than the important 209. (Act. 95, Paul. 108, Apoc. 46) Venet. 10 (86: 1) [xz or x11] 8°, of the whole New Testament, once Bessarion’s, who had it with him at the Council of Florence, 1439. There are numerous minute marginal notes in vermilion, obviously prima manu. In its delicate style of writing this copy greatly resembles Cod. 1 (fae- simile, No. 23). Keg. t., τίτλ., κεφ., Am. (not Hus.), also the modern chapters in the margin. rol. to Epistles, Ject., but not much in the Gospels, before each of which stands a blank leaf, as if for pict. A good collation of Codd. 205 and 209 is needed ; Birch did little, En- gelbreth gave him some readings, and Fleck has published part of a collation by Heimbach. In the Gospels they are very like Cod. B. The Apocalypse is in a later hand, somewhat resembling that of Cod. 205, and has prod. For the unusual order of the books, see above, Ρ. 67. 210. Venet. 27 (also 86: 4) [xr or x11] a noble fol., with a catena (Victor’s commentary on St Mark). J/ué. Matth. i. 1—ii. 18 from the same cause as in Cod. 207. Rich blue and gold illumina- tions, and pictures of SS. Mark and Luke. TirA., κεφ., Am., Hus. 211. Venet. 539 (86: 5) [x11] fol., maé. Luke i. 1—ii, 32; John 1. 1—iv. 2, with an Arabic version in the right-hand column of each page. Κεῴ. ¢., Am., Hus. (irregularly inserted), lect., syn. The ῥήματα and στίχοι numbered (see p. 64, note), Burgon cites Zanetti Greca D. Marc. Bibl. Codd. MSS. Venet. 1740, p. 291, for the enumeration of the five Patriarchates (see above, Ῥ. 62), and other curious matter appended to St John. The- heading of the second Gospel is εὐαγγέλιον ἐκ Tod κατὰ Μάρκον: see Ὁ. 176 and note. 212. Venet. 540 (86: 6) [x11] 8°, the first page in gold, with pict. and most elaborate illuminations. Much mwt., twenty leaves being supplied in a modern hand. Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ., lect. Am. with Hus, in a line with them (see Cod. 112), a little later, only to the end of St Mark. 213. Venet. 542 (86: 1) [x1] 8°, mut. John xviii. 40—xxi. 25. Hus. t., tith., κεφ., (Am., Hus. most irregularly inserted), few apyat and τέλη, ἀναγνώσματα numbered (see p. 64, note), heroic verses as colophons to the Gospels. Large full stops are found in impossible places. 214, Venet. 543 (86: 7) [x1v] 8°, chart., syn., κεφ. t., τίτλ., Ked., Am. (not Lus.), ἀναγνώσματα numbered, lect. 192 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS 215. Venet. 544 (86: 5) [x1] fol., Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ.» κεφ., Am., Hus., pict., lect., syn. This copy is a duplicate of Codd. 20, 300, as well in its text as in the subscriptions and commentary, being without any of the later corrections seen in Cod. 20. The commentary on St John is Chrysostom’s, those on the other Gospels the same as in Cod. 300 (Burgon). 216. Codex Canonici, brought by him from Corcyra, in a small character [no date assigned], never was at St Mark’s, as Scholz alleges: Griesbach inserted it in his list through a misunderstanding of Birch’s meaning. It is probably one of those now at Oxford (see p. 215). 217. Venet. S. Marci, Gr. cl. 1. cod. 3 (86: 1), given in 1478 by Peter de Montagnana to the monastery of St John, in Viridario, at Padua (vu. A.) [x11] small 4°, in fine condition. Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ., Am. (not Hus.), full syn., few lect. Codd. 218—225 are in the Imperial Library at Vienna. Alter and Birch collated them about the same time, the latter but cursorily. *218. (Act. 65, Paul. 57, Apoc. 33) Czesar-Vindobon. 23, Lam- bec. 1, Nessel. 23 [xu1r] fol., contains both Testaments. MJ/ut. Apoe. xiii. 5—xiv. 8; xv. 7—xvii. 2; xviii. 10O—xix. 15; ending at xx. 7 λυθήσεται. This important copy, containing many peculiar readings, was described by Treschow, and comprises the text of Alter’s incon- venient, though fairly accurate N. T. 1786—7, to be described in Chap. v. Like Cod. 123 it was brought from Constantinople by Busbeck. 219. Lambec. 32, Nessel. 321 [x11] 8°, prol. 220. Lambec. 33, Nessel. 337 [x1v] 12°, in very small letters. 221. Cesar-Vindobon. Lambec. 38, Nessel 117 [x1] fol., with commentaries (Chrysostom on Matth., John; Victor on Mark, Titus of Bostra on Luke), to which the portions of the text here given are accommodated : it begins Matth. 1, 11. 222. Czxsar-Vindobon. Lambec. 39, Nessel. 180 [xiv] 4°, on cotton paper, mut. Contains portions of the Gospels, with a com- mentary (Victor's on St Mark). 223, Cesar-Vindobon. Lambec. 40, Nessel. 301 [xrv] 4°, con- tains fragments of SS. Matthew, Luke and John, with a catena. Codd. 221—3 must be cited cautiously : Alter appears to have made no use of them. 224. Czsar-Vindob, Kollar. 8, Forlos. 30 [date not given] 4°, only contains St Matthew. This copy came from Naples. 225. Cesar-Vindobon, Kollar. 9, Forlos. 31 [dated sw or A.p. 1192] 8°, more important. Syn., men. Codd. 226—233 are in the Escurial, described by D. G. Mol- denhawer, who collated them about 1783, loosely enough, for Birch’s edition, in a temper which by no means disposed him to exaggerate their value (see below, Chap. v). In 1870 the Librarian, José Fer- OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK, 193 nandez Montana (to correct Haenel’s errors) sent to Mr Wm. Kelly, who obligingly communicated it to me, a complete catalogue of the four copies of the Greek Bible, and of nineteen of the New Testament “neither more nor less,” then at the Escurial, with their present class-marks. I do not recognise either in his list, or in that sub- joined, the ‘‘ Codex Aureus containing the Four Gospels in letters of gold, a work of the early part of the eleventh century,” spoken of in the Globe newspaper of Oct. 3, 1872 on occasion of the fire at the Escurial on Oct. 2, which however did not touch the manuscripts. Perhaps that Codex is in Latin, unless it be Evst. 40. 226. (Act. 108, Paul. 228) Codex Escurialensis x. rv. 17 [x1] 8°, on the finest vellum, richly ornamented, in a small, round, very neat hand. us. t., κεφ. ἐ., lect., pict., τίτλοι, κεφ., Am., Hus. Many corrections were made by a later hand, but the original text is valuable, and the readings sometimes unique. Fairly collated. 227. Escurial. x. m1. 15 [x11] 4°, prol., xed. £., Am., pict. A later hand, which dates 1308, has been very busy in making correc- tions. 228. (Act. 109, Paul. 229) Escurial. y. tv. 12 [x1v: Montana xvi} 8°, chart. Once belonged to Nicolas Nathanael of Crete, then to Andreas Damarius of Epidaurus, a calligrapher. Hus. ¢., syn.’ 229. Escurial. x. 1v. 21 [dated 1140] 8°, written by Basil Argy- ropolus, a notary. JJ/ué. Mark xvi. 15—20; John i. 1—11. Pict, lect.; the latter by a hand of about the 14th century, which re- traced much of the discoloured ink, and corrected in the margin (sinee mutilated by the binder) very many important readings of the first hand, which often resemble those of ADK 1. 72. This copy must be mislaid, as it is not in Montana’s list. 230. Escurial. @ (Montana y). m1. 5 [dated Oct. 29, 1013, with the wrong Indiction, 11 for 12: Montana’s date is 1014, and the error is probably not his: see p. 39, note 2] 4°, written by Luke a monk and priest, with a double syn.*, Carp., xed. t., subscriptions with the number of ῥήματα and στίχοι: see p. 64, note. An in- teresting copy, deemed by Moldenhawer worthy of closer examina- tion. 231. Escurial. @ (Montana y). m1. 6 [x11] 4°, lect., Hus. t. torn, κεφ. t., a picture “ que Marcum mentitur,” subscriptions with στίχοι numbered, syn., men. There are some marginal glosses by a later hand (which obelizes Jo. vii. 53 seg.), and a Latin version over parts of St Matthew. 232. Escurial. ¢ (Montana y). m1. 7 [x11: dated 1292, Montana] 4°, very elegant but otherwise a poor copy. Double syn., τίτλοι in the margin of SS. Matthew and Luke, but elsewhere kept apart. 1 Thus, at least, I understand Moldenhawer’s description, “ Evangeliis et Actis λέξεις subjiciuntur dudum in vulgus note.” 2 By double syn. Moldenhawer may be supposed to mean here and in Cod. 232 both syn. and men. 5. 13 194 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS 233. Escurial. Y. 11. 8 [x1?, Montana x11], like Codd. 69 and 206, is partly of parchment, partly paper, in bad condition, and once be- longed to Matthew Dandolo, a Venetian noble. It has a catena, and through ligatures, &c. (see p. 41) is hard to read. Prol., xed. t., Eus. t. (apart), some iambics, and ῥήματα, στίχοι to the first two Gospels. 234. (Act. 57, Paul. 72) Codex Havniensis 1. [dated 1278] 4°, one of the several copies written by Theodore (see p. 40, note 2). This copy and Cod. 235 are now in the Royal Library at Copen- hagen, but were bought at Venice by F. Rostgaard in 1699. The order of the books in Cod. 234 is described p. 67. Syn., men., lect., with many corrections. (C. G. Hensler, 1784.) 235. Havniens. 2 [dated 1314] 4°, written by the ἱερομοναχος Philotheus, though very incorrectly ; the text agrees much with Codd. DK τ. 33 and the Philoxenian Syriac. Ked. t., lect.; the words are often ill divided and the stops misplaced (Hensler). 236. Readings extracted by Griesbach (Symbole Critice 1. pp. 247—304) from the margin of a copy of Mill’s Greek Testament in the Bodleian, either in his own or Thomas Hearne’s handwriting. Scrivener (Cod. Augiensis, Introd. p. xxxvi) has shewn that they were derived from Evan. 440, which see below. Codd. 237—259 are nearly all Moscow manuscripts, and were thoroughly collated by C. F. Matthaei, for his N. Τὶ to be deseribed in Chapter v. These Russian codices were for the most part brought from the twenty-two monasteries of Mount Athos by the monk Arsenius, on the suggestion of the Patriarch Nico, in the reign of Michael, son of Alexius (1645—76), and placed in the library of the Holy Synod, at Moscow. *237. S. Synod 42 [x] fol., Matthaei’s ἃ, from Philotheus (a monas- tery) pict. with seholia, and Victor’s commentary on St Mark. *238, Syn. 48 (Mt. e) [x1] fol., with a catena and scholia; contains only SS. Matthew and Mark, but is of good quality. This copy. formed the basis of Matthaei’s edition of Victor’s commentary on St Mark, 1775 (Burgon). *239, Syn. 47 (Mt. g) [xt] fol., contains Mark xvi. 2—8 ; Luke; John to xxi. 23, with scholia. *240. Syn. 49 (Mt. i) [xm] fol., once belonging to Philotheus, then to Dionysius (monasteries) on Athos, with the commentary of Kuthymius Zigabenus. Mut, Mark viii. 12-—34; xiv, 17—54; Luke xv. 32-—xvi. 8, *241. (Act. 104, Paul. 120, Apoc. 47) Cod. Dresdensis A. 172 (Tregelles), once Matthaei’s (k) [x1] 4°, syz., the whole N. T., beauti- tifully written, with rare readings. *242. (Act. 105, Paul. 121, Apoe. 48) Syn. 380 (Mt. 1) [x1] 8°, the whole N. T., with Psalms, φδαί, prol., pict., Hus. , OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 195 *243. Cod. Typographei 8. Syn. 13 (Mt. m) [x1v] fol., on cotton paper, from the Iberian monastery on Athos, contains Matthew and Luke with Theophylact’s commentary. *244. Typograph. 1 (Mt. n) [xu] fol., pict. with Euthymius Zigabenus’ commentary. *245. Syn. 265 (Mt. 0) [dated 1199] 4°, from the famous monastery of Batopedion, written by John, a priest. *246, Syn. 261 (Mt. p) [xrv] 4°, τρῶς with marginal various readings. J/ut. Matth. xii. 41—xii. 55; John xvii. 24 xviii. 20. *247, Syn. 373 (Mt. q) [x11] 8°, syn., from Philotheus. *248. Syn. 264 (Mt. τ) [dated 1275] 4°, written by Meletius a Berean for Cyrus Alypius, οἰκόνομος of St George’s monastery, in the reign of Michael Paleologus (1259—82). *249. Syn. 94 (Mt. 5) [x1] fol., from ἸΤαντοκράτωρ monastery (as Cod. 74). Contains St John with a catena. *250. Syn. in a box (Mt. v) [xi] is the cursive portion of Cod. V (see p. 134, and note), John vii. 39—xxi. 25. Itis also Wet- stein’s Cod. 87. #251. Cod. Tabularii Imperial. at Moscow (Mt. x) [x1] 4°, Hus. t., pict. - *252. Cod. Dresdensis A. 145 (Tregelles), once Matthaei’s (z) [x1] 4°, with corrections and double readings (as from another copy), but prima manu. *253. Codex of Nicephorus Archbishop of Cherson, “et Slabi- nii,” (Slaviansk ?) formerly belonged to the monastery of St Michael, at Jerusalem (Mt. 10) [xr] fol., with scholia, Victor’s commentary on St Mark, and rare readings, much resembling those of Cod. 259. *254. Codex belonging to Matthaei (11), now Dresden A. 100 (Tregelles) [xt] fol., from the monastery of St Athanasius. Contains SS. Luke and John with scholia: pict. *255. Syn. 139 (Mt. 12) [x11] fol., once “ Dionysii monachi rhe- toris et amicorum.” Commentaries of Chrysostom and others (ἐξηγη" τικαὶ ἐκλογαὶ), with fragments of the text interspersed. *256. Typogr. Syn. 3 (Mt. 14) [1x 1] fol., scholia on SS. Mark and Luke, with portions of the text. The commentary on St Mark is ascribed. to Victor, but in this copy and the preceding the. scholia are but few in number (Burgon). *257. Syn. 120 (Mt. 15) is Cod. O, described p. 128. *258. Cod. Dresdensis A. 123 (Tregelles), (Mt. 17) [x11] 4°, bar- barously written : pict. *259. Syn. 45 (Mt. a) [xr] fol., from the Iberian monastery, with a commentary (Victor’s on St } Mark), syn., Hus. t, This is one of Matthaei’s best manuscripts. His other twenty-two copies contain portions of Chrysostom, for which see Chapter rv. 13—2 196 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS Codd. 260—469 were added to the list by Scholz (see Chapter v): the very few he professes to have collated thoroughly will be distin- guished by *, 260. Codex Regius 51, Paris [x11] fol., once (like Cod. 309) *domini du Fresne,” correctly written : pict. 261. Reg. 52 [x1v] fol., once at the monastery of the Forerunner at Constantinople (see p. 178, note). Lect., mut. Luke xxiv. 39—53. Matth. i, 1—xi. 1 supplied [x1v] chart. *262. Reg. 53 [x] fol., syn., Zus. t., with rare readings and sub- scriptions like Cod. A (see above, p. 144) and Codd. 300, 376, 428. 263, (Act. 117, Paul. 137, Apoc. 54) Reg. 61 [x1] 4°, Hus. ¢. torn, Am., pict. Probably from Asia Minor. It once belonged to Jo. Hurault Boistaller, as did Codd. 301, 306, 314, 264. Reg. 65 [x11] 4°, with what have been called Coptic-like letters, but brought from the East in 1718 by Paul Lucas. The leaves are misplaced in binding, as are those of Cod. 272. At the foot of every page is a harmony like those in Codd. E, W“. See p. 56, note 2 (Burgon). 265. Reg. 66 [x] 4°, once belonged to Philibert de la Mare. 266. Reg. 67 [x] 4°, syn. 267. Reg. 69 [x] 4°, lect., mut. Matth. i. 1—8; Mark i. 1—7; Luke 1. 1—8; xxiv. 50—John i. 12. 268. Reg. 73 [x11] 4°, Hus. t., syn., pict. 269. Reg. 74 [x1] 4°, pict. 270. Re εἰ 271. Reg. 75* Scholz, but really Supplem. Gree, 75 [x11] 8°, Eus. t., pict, 272. Reg. 76 [x1] 12°, once Melchisedech Thevenot’s. 273. Reg. 79, 4°, on vellum |x1r], but partly on cotton paper [x1v], contains also some scholia, extracts from Severianus’ commen- tary, annals of the Gospels, Hus. ¢., a list of the Gospel parables, parts of syn., with a mixed text. 274. Reg. 795 Scholz, but really Supplem. Grae. 79 [x] 4°, once belonged to Maximus Panagiotes, protocanon of the Church at Calli- polis (there were many places of this name: but see Cod. 346). Pict., Lus. t., syn., men., musical gotation, mut. (but supplied in a later hand, chart.) Mark i. 1—17; vi. 21—54; John i. 1—20; iii, 18—iv. 1; vii. 23—42; ix. 10—27; xviii. 12—29. Mr Burgon has a photograph of this manuscript, which he regards as a specimen of the transition period between uncial and cursive writing. The subscription, resembling that of Cod. L, in the margin of Cod. 274, he judges to look as old as that of L; see Chapter rx, Mark xvi. 9—20, . 75 [x1] 8°, syn., with a mixed text. ’ OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 197 275. Reg. 80 [x1] 8°, antea Memmianus, Zus. ¢., prol., portions of syn. 276. Reg. 81 [x1] 8°, written by Nicephorus of the monastery Meletius: Hus. t., pict. 277. Reg. 81 A [x1] 8°, Zus. ¢., pict.:; some portions supplied by a later hand. 278. Reg. 82 [x1] 8°, once Mazarin’s, with Armenian inscrip- tions, Hus. ¢., pict., syn. Matth. xiii. 43—xvii, 5 is in a later hand. 279. Reg. 86 [x11] 12°, this copy and Cod. 294 were brought from Patmos and given to Louis XIV. in 1686 by Joseph George- irenus, Archbishop of Samos. us. t., syn., pict. 280. Reg. 87 [x11] 8°, parts of syn., prol., mut. Mark vill. 3— xv. 36. 281. Reg. 88 [x11] 8°, Hus. £., pict., mut. Matth. xxviii. 11—20; Luke i. 1—9. Given to the Monastery “ Deipare Hieracis” by the eremite monk Meletius.” 282. Reg. 90 [dated 1176] 12°. 283. Reg. 92 [xiv] 8° 284. Reg. 93 [xu] 8°, Hus. ἐ., pict., syn. Once Teller’s of Rheims and Peter Stella’s. 65 285. Reg. 95, olim = [Σιν] 8°, pict., once Teller’s (58): given by Augustin Justinian to Jo. Maria of Catana. This codex is Kus- ter’s Paris 1 and Wetstein’s 10. See Cod. 10, p. 166. 286. Reg. 96 [dated April 12, 1432, Indiction 10] 8°, by the monk Calistus, with the Paschal canon for the years 1432—1502. 287. Reg. 98 [xv] 8°, chart. Written by Hermonymus (see Cod. 70, p. 176), with a most interesting personal memorandum by its original owner D. Chambellan, and a portrait of his betrothed, 1479. Burgon, Guardian, Jan. 22, 1873. 288. Reg. 99 [xvi] 8°, chart., once German Brixius’: contains St Luke only. 289. Reg. 100 A [dated Feb. 15, 1625] fol., chart., written by Lucas ἀρχιθυτης. 290. Reg. 108a [xr] 4°, on cotton paper; from the Sorbonne: syn. 291. Reg. 113 [x11] 8°, syn.: belonged to one Nicolas. 292. Reg. 114 [x1] 8°, syn., pict, mut. Matth. 1, 1—vii. 14; John xix. 14—xxi. 25. 293. Reg. 117 [dated Nov. 1373] 16°, syn., pict., written by Manuel for Blasius a monk. 294. Reg. 118 [x111] 16°, pict., mut. Matth. 1, 18—xii. 25. See Cod. 279. 198 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS 295, Reg. 120 [x11] 16°, mut. Matth. i. 1—11. 296. Reg. 123 [ev] 16°, written by Angelus Vergecius (see p. 41, note 2). 297. Reg. 140 a [x11] 12°, pict., syn. 298. Reg. 175 a[x11] 8°, from the Jesuits’ public library, Lyons: pict., syn. *299. Reg. 177 [x1] fol., an accurately written copy with a mixed text, Victor’s commentary on St Mark, and scholia which seem to have been written in Syria by a partisan of Theodore of Mopsuestia: prol., Hus. t., pict., and other fragments. *300. Reg. 186 [xr] a noble fol., more roughly written than the sister copy Cod. 20 (see p, 167), “olim fonte-blandensis,” (Fontain- bleau 1) contains the first three Gospels, with subscriptions like that of Cod. 262. Hus. t., syn., a catena, “πάρεργα de locis selectis,” and in the outer margin commentaries in a later hand, Chrysostom’s on St Matthew, Victor’s or Cyril’s of Alexandria on St Mark (Codd. 20, 300 mention both names), and that of Titus of Bostra on St Luke. See Cod. 428, and especially Cod. 21, *301. Reg. 187 [x1] fol., once Boistaller’s, a mixed text ε΄. a catena (Victor on St Mark), 302. Reg. 193 [xvi] fol., chart., once Mazarin’s: contains frag- ments of SS. Matthew and Luke with a commentary. 303. Reg. 194 A [x1] fol., contains vellum fragments of John i—iv ; and on cotton paper, dated 1255, Theophylact’s commentary and some iambic verses written by Nicander, a monk. 304. Reg. 194 [x11] fol., once Teller’s : contains SS. Matthew and Mark with a catena, that of St Mark possibly a modification of Victor’s (Burgon). 305. Reg. 195 [x11] fol., on cotton paper, once Mazarin’s. Bur- gon states that this copy contains nothing but the commentary of Euthymius Zigabenus, 306. Reg. 197 [x1] fol., once Boistaller’s, contains SS. Matthew and John with Theophylact’ g comments ary. 307. Reg. 199 [x1] a grand fol., mué., contains only Chrysostom’s Homilies on SS. Matthew and John (Burgon). 308. Reg. 200 [x11] fol., once Mazarin’s: mut., contains the same as Cod. 307. 309. Reg. 201 [xm] small fol., “very peculiar in its style and beautifully written,” pict., once du Fresne’s, has Matthew and John with Chrysostom’s commentary, Luke with that of Titus of Bostra, Mark with Victor’s. See Burgon, “Last Twelve Verses of St Mark,” p. 287. “This is not properly a text of the Gospel: but parts of the text (κείμενον) interwoven with the commentary (épyyvea),” ibid, p. 282. - OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 199 - $10. Reg. 202 [x1] fol., has St Matthew with a catena, once Col- bert’s (as also were Codd. 267, 273, 279, 281—3, 286—8, 291, 294, 296, 315, 318—9). Given to St Saba’s monastery by its Provost Arsenius. 311. Reg. 203 [x11] fol., once Mazarin’s: also has St Matthew with a catena. DAS, Reg. 206 [dated a.p. 1308] small fol., Victor’s commentary without the text, like that in Cod. 20, which (and Cod. 300) it closely resembles (Burgon, ibid. p. 279, note). 313. Reg. 208 [xiv] fol., chart., mut., once Mazarin’s, contains St Luke with a catena. 314. Reg. 209 [x11] fol., once Boistaller’s, contains St John with a remarkable catena (quite different from that published by Cramer), with the names of the several authors (Burgon). _ 315. Reg. 210 [xm] fol., has the same contents as Cod. 314. Mut. John xiv. 25—xy. 16; xxi. 22—25, 316. Reg. 211 [x11] fol., on cotton paper, brought from Con- stantinople. Contains SS. John and Luke with a commentary. Mut. 317. Reg. 212 [xu] fol., “olim Medicus” (see p. 109, note 2), contains John x. 9—xxi, 25 with a catena. 318, Reg. 213 [xrv] fol., has John vii, 1—xxi. 25 with a com- mentary. 319, Reg. 231 [x1] 4°, with a commentary, mut. 320. Reg. 232 [x1] 4°, has St Luke with a commentary. 321. Reg. 303 [x11] is rather Evst. 101 (Burgon). 322. Reg. 315 [xv] is rather Evst. 14 (Burgon). 323. Reg. 118 a [xvi] 4°, contains Matth. vi. vii. and a Greek version of some Arabic fubles. 324. (Evst. 97, Apost. 32) Reg. 376 [xi] 4°, once Mazarin’s, together with some lessons from the Acts, Epistles and Gospels, contains also the Gospels complete, Zws. t., syn. (on cotton paper), and a chronological list of Emperors from Constantine to Manuel Porphyrogennetus (A.D. 1143). 325. Reg. 377 [x] 4°, is rather Evst. 98 (Burgon). 326. Reg. 378 [xiv] 4°, contains commentaries (ἑρμήνεια) on cer- tain ecclesiastical lessons or texts (τὸ κείμενον). This is not a manu- script of the Gospels, properly so called. 327. Reg. 380 [xv] 4°, is rather Evst. 99 (Burgon). 328. Reg. 381 [xvi] 4°, is rather Evst. 100 (Burgon). 329. Coislin. 19 [xr] large fol., with a commentary (Victor’s on St Mark). Described (as is also Cod. 331) by Montfaucon., 200 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS 330, (Act. 132, Paul. 131) Coislin. 196 [xr] 85, from Athos. Eust. t., prol. This manuscript has disappeared from the Paris Library (Burgon). 331. Coislin. 197 [x1] 4°, once Hector D’Aill’s, Bishop of Toul: syn. 332. Codex Taurinensis xx. Ὁ. rv. 20 (C. ii. 4, Burgon) [x1] fol., at Turin, prol., pict. with a commentary (Victor’s on St Mark). Bur- gon cites Pasinus’ Catalogue, P. i. p. 91. 333. Taurin. Ὁ. rv. 4 (B. 1. 9, Burgon) [x1] fol., on cotton paper, once belonged to Arsenius, Archb. of Monembasia, in the Morea, then to Gabriel, metropolitan of Philadelphia: contains SS. Matthew and John with Nicetas’ catena. 334. Taurin. 43, Ὁ. v.23 (B.iii.8, Burgon) [xiv] fol. SS. Matthew and Mark with a commentary : prol. 335. Taurin. 44, b. v. 24 (B. iii. 2, Burgon) [xvi] fol., chart, prol. 336. Taurin. 101, ο. 1v. 17 (B. ii. 17, Burgon) [xvi] fol., chart., St Luke with a catena. 337. Taurin. 52, Ὁ. v. 32 (B. iii. 25, Burgon) [x11] fol., parts of St Matthew with a commentary. : 888. Taurin. 335, Ὁ. τ. 3 (Β. vii. 33, Burgon) [xm] 12°, Hus. ¢., pict. 339. (Act. 135, Paul. 170, Apoc. 83) Taurin. 302, ο. τι. 5 (B. v. 8, Burgon) [xu] 4°, prol., Hus. t., syn., and other matter’. 340. Taurin. 344, Ὁ. 1. 13 (B. vii. 6, Burgon) [x1]?, with many later corrections. 341. Taurin. 350, b. τ. 21 (B. vii. 14, Burgon) [dated 1296] 4°, written by Nicetas Mauron, a reader: syn. 342. Taurin. 149, Ὁ. τι. 3 (B. v. 4, Burgon) [x11] 4°, Zus. ¢. 343. Codex Ambrosianus H. 13 sup. [xu] 12°, at Milan, Ject., Eus. t., pict. Written by Antony, a priest, on Sunday, Sept. 1, of the third Indiction, which in the twelfth century, if that be its date, might be a.p. 1140 or 1185. Seen by Burgon. 344. Ambros. G. 16 sup. [x11] 12°, syn., mut. John xxi. 12—25, But Luke xiii. 21—xvi. 23; xxi. 12[1]; xxii. 12—23; xxiii. 45— John xxi. 25 are [xiv] chart. Burgon states that the first page of 1 Mr Hort informs me that on examining this copy he found it written in three several and minute hands. A contributes the Gospels, the Epistle of Pilate and its Answer, and a treatise on the genealogy of the Virgin. B then follows with the Apocalypse and a Synaxarion, Next C has the Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles (the Hebrews last) and Lives of the Apostles, followed on the same page by the Psalter in B’s hand, so that the Apocalypse and syn. pro- bably once stood last. OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK, 201 St Matthew, and several of the early pages of St Luke, have been re-written over the original text, which had become almost obli- terated. 345. Ambros. 17 [x1] 12°, syn., mut. Matth. i. 1—11. *346. Ambros. 8S. 23 sup. [κι] 4°, carelessly written, with very unusual readings’. Mut. John iii. 26—vii. 52. Bought in 1606 at Gallipoli in Calabria, Collated by Ceriani for Professor Ferrar (see Cod. 13, p. 167), by Messrs Burgon and W. F. Rose from Luke xxi. 37 to the end of that Gospel. 347. Ambros. 35 [xu] 8°, prol., lect., correctly written by Con- stantine Chrysographus. 348. Ambros. B. 56 [dated 29 December, 1023] 8°, once “ J. V. Pinelli,” syn., Hus. ¢. Citations from the O. T. are marked by the asterisk. Mr Burgon has a photograph of this copy. 349. Ambros. F. 61 sup. [dated 1322] 8°, chart., bought at Corfu in 1322, syn., pict. 350. Ambros. Β. 62 [x1] 8°, piet., syn. The first four leaves [xvi] chart. Mut. John xxi. 9—25, 351. Ambros. B, 70 sup. [xt] 4°, with a Latin version [xv] here and there written over the text “school-boy fashion.” Burgon. 352. Ambros. Β. 93 [x11] 4°, brought from Calabria, 1607 ; mud. Matth. 1. 1—17; Mark i. 1—15; xvi. 13—20; Luke i. 1—7; xxiv. 43—53; John i. 1—10; xxi. 3—25. Lesson-marks were placed in the margin, and the faded ink retouched [xiv]. 353. Ambros. M. 93 [xm] 4°, with the same commentary as Cod. 181. Mut..John xxi. 24, 25. 354, Venet. 29 (86: 6) [x1] 4°, at Venice, St Matthew with Theophylact’s commentary ; ch. xxviii. is wanting. It is written in a very large hand, and was bought at Constantinople in 1419 (Burgon, Guardian, Oct. 29, 1873). 355. ‘Venet. 541 (86: 6) [x1?] 8°, Carp., Eus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ, Am., Eus., lect., pict., syn. (later), a sumptuous and peculiar copy. 356. Venet. 545 (86: 6) [xvi] 4°, chart., contains Titus of Bostra’s catena on St Luke, the text of which is occasionally cited. A note runs thus: ᾿Αντωνίου τοῦ ᾿Αγγελίου καὶ χρήσει καὶ κτήσει, pro quo solvit librario qui descripserat HS. cxxvi. 1. Δ΄. 3. 357. Venet. 28 (86: 5) [xt] fol., SS. Luke and John with a catena. Ked., lect., but xed. ὁ. rather later. The titles resemble those of Cod. 69. 358. Mutinensis [1x] τι. A. 9 [xrv] 8°, at Modena, in a small hand with rude illuminations. Κεῴ., τίτλ., Am., Lus., lect. 1 This manuscript appears to be the only Greek witness for the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac variation Matt. 1, 16 twond 6 μνηστευθῆσα παρθένος μαριὰμ ἐγέννησεν ιν τὸν λεγόμενον xv. But then it was written in Italy, as Ceriani judges, 202 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS 359. Mutin. [242] m1. Β. 16 [xiv] 4°, with slight decorations, on brownish paper, with the scribe’s name on the last page. Carp., Hus. t., prol., xep., τίτλ., Am., Hus. 360. Cod. De Rossi 1, 2319: ii viii, 169 at Parma [x1] 4°, with an unusual text, in double columns, collated by De Rossi, who once possessed this codex and 361. De Rossi 2, 1821: ii. xi. 143 [x11] 12°, faded. Mut. Luke viii. 14—xi. 20. Fully described (as also Cod. 360) in De Rossi's printed Catalogue. 362. At Florence, Laurent. 176, formerly Cod. Biblioth. 8. Maria No. 74 [xi] fol., Luke vi. 29—xii. 10 with a catena very different from Cramer’s and much fuller, citing the names of all the great Greek expositors. Text written in vermilion, commentary in black (Burgon). This copy is cited, like Codd. 201, 370, by Jo, Lamy, “ De eruditione Apostolorum,” Florent. 1738, p. 239. 363. (Act. 144, Paul. 180) Laurent. vi. 13 [x1] a beautiful small 4°, κεφ. t, ἀναγνώσματα (but no other divisions) numbered, as are the στίχοι at the end of each Gospel. 804. Laurent. vi. 24 [x11] 8°, the style of the characters rather peculiar, without the usual breaks between the Gospels: some leaves at the beginning and end [xiv]. Syn., κεφ., ἀναγνώσματα numbered, Am. but Hus. only in St Matthew. 365. (Act. 145, Paul. 181) Laurent. vi. 36 [xi] 4°, contains also the Psalms. Thus Scholz, who says that he collated it in select passages. They must have been very select, for the present Li- brarian, Dr Anziani, convinced Mr Burgon that no such manuscript had ever been there. 366. Laurent. 171, from 5. Maria’s No. 20 [xi] a grand fol. St Matthew written in vermilion with a very full catena in black, Mut. ch. 1. 1—ii. 16, with many later marginal notes. Entirely dissimilar in style from Cod, 362. It has rirA., xep., and references to parallel κεφ. in SS. Mark and Luke (Burgon). 367. (Act. 146, Paul. 182) Laurent. 53, also from St Maria’s: No. 6 [dated 26 Decembr. 1332] 4°, chart., written by one Mark, syn., men., prol., κεφ. t., κεφ., Am, (not Hus.). Scholz says “N. T. continet,” and rightly, though he neglects to number it for the Apocalypse. Bought in 1482 for 3 aurei by the Benedictines of St Maria (Burgon). 368. (Act. 150, Paul. 230, Apoc. 84, Apost. 37) Cod. Ric- cardian. 84, in the Libreria Riccardi also at Florence, “ olim Cosme Oricellarii et amicorum” (see Cod, 255) [xv] 8°, chart., contains St John’s Gospel, the Apocalypse, the Epistles and lessons from them, with Plato's Epistles, carelessly written. 369. Riccard. 90 [x11] 4°, contains Mark vi, 25—ix. 45: x. 17— xvi. 9, with part of a Greek Grammar and “Avieni Fabule.” The text is much rubricated. Ked., Am., Lus. _ OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK: 203 _ 570, Riccard. 5, formerly Plut. K. 1. n. xi. [x1v] fol., chart., with Theophylact’s commentary, mut. Matth. i. 1—vii. 13 ; John xvi. 29—xxi. 25. Described by Lamy (see Cod. 362) p. 232. 371. Vatican. 1159 [x] 4°, Hus. t., pict. 372. Vat. 1161 [xv] 4°, ends John iii. 1. Beautifully written. © 373. Vat. 1423 [xv] fol., chart., “olim Cardinalis Sirleti,’ with a catena, mut. in fine. 374. Vat. 1445 [xr] fol, with a commentary ascribed to Peter of Laodicea, who is also named on the fly-leaf of Cod. 138, Burgon however says “This is simply a mistake. No such work exists: and the commentary on the second Evangelist is that of Victor” ubi supra p. 286. In 1221 one John procured it from Theodosiopolis ; there were at least five cities of that name, three of them in Asia Minor. 375. Vat. 1533 [x11] 8°, Hus. ¢. 376. Vat. 1539 [x1] 16°, given by Francis Accidas. With sub- seriptions resembling those of Codd. A, 262, 300. 377. Vat. 1618 [xv] fol., chart., St Matthew with a catena, the other Gospels with questions and answers. 378. Vat. 1658 [χτν] fol., portions from St Matthew with Chry- sostom’s Homilies, and from the prophets. 379. Vat. 1769 [xv] fol., chart., with a commentary. 380. Vat. 2139 [xv] 4°, chart., Lus. t. 381. Palatino-Vat. 20 [xrv] fol., chart., St Luke with a catena, 382. Vat. 2070 [xu] 4°, “olim Basil.,” carelessly written, frag- ments of John and Luke are placed by the binder before Matthew and Mark. Much is lost. 383, 384, 385, are all Collegii Romani [xvi] 4°, chart., with a commentary. 386. (Act. 151, Paul. 199, Apoc. 70) Vat. Ottobon. 66 [xv] fol., syn., once “Jo. Angeli ducis ab Altamps,” as also Codd. 388, 389, 390, Paul. 202. 387. Vat. Ottobon. 204 [x1r] 4°. 388, Vat. Ottobon. 212 [x11] 4°, pict., once belonged to Alexius and Theodora. 389. Vat. Ottobon. 297 [x1] 89. 390. (Act. 164, Paul. 203, Apoc. 71) Vat. Ottobon. 381 [dated 1252] 4°, with scholia, syn., Hus. t., was in a Church at Scio a.p. 1359. 391. Vat. Ottobon. 432 [x1, dated 13 April, Indiction 8] 4°, prol., with a commentary. Given to Benedict XIII. (1724—30) by Abachum Andriani, an abbot of Athos. Matth. i. 1—8 ; Lukei. ;. Jo. vii. 53—viii. 11 were written [xv]. 204 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS 392. Barberin. 225 is the cursive portion of Cod. Y [x1] fol., with Theophylact’s commentary. See above, p. 137. 393. (Act. 167, Paul. 185) Vallicell. E. 22 [xvi] 4°, chart. 394. (Act. 170, Paul. 186) Vallicell. F. 17 [dated 4 July, 1330, Indict. 13] 4°, chart., written by Michael, a priest. 395. Cod. Biblioth. S. Marie supra Minervam, seu Casana- tensis A. R. V. 33 [x11] 4°, at Rome, pict., with marginal corrections, bought about 1765. 396. Cod. Ghigianus, at Rome, R. tv. 6 [x1] 4°, begins Matth. xxiii, 27. 397. Wallicell. C. 4 [xv] fol., chart., St John with a catena (de- scribed by Bianchini), 398. Taurin. 92. 6. tv. 6 (C. ii. 5, Burgon) [xi11, or xvi. Pa- sinus’ Catalogue]? select passages with a catena. 399. Tanrin. 109. 6. τν. 29 (C. ii, 14, Burgon) [xv, or XvI, Pas. Cat.] chart., commentary, sometimes without the text. Found by Mr Hort to contain John, Luke (with Titus of Bostra’s com- mentary), Matthew, hoc ordine. See p. 68. 400. (Act. 181, Paul. 200) Cod. Biblio. Berolinensis, ‘ olim Diezii” [xv] 12°, mué., damaged by fire and water, contains Matth. xii. 29—xiii. 2; and the Acts and Epistles, except Act. 1. 11—il 11 ; Rom. 1. 1—27; 1 Cor. xiv. 12. σν. 46; 2 Cor. 1 1 ὅν 4—19; 1 Tim. iv. 1—Hebr. i. 9. This copy belonged to Henry Benzil, Archbishop of Upsal, then to Laurence Benzelstierna, Bishop of Arosen: it was described by C. Aurivill (1802), collated by G. T. Pappelbaum (1815). 401. Cod. Neapolit. 1. C. 24 [xi] 4°, contains Matthew, Mark vi. 1—xvi. 20, Luke, John i. 1—xii. 1 402. Neapolit. 1. C. 28 [xv] 8°, prol., pict. 403. Neapolit. 1. C. 29 [x11] 8°, on cotton paper, syn. Contains Matth. xii. 23—xix. 12; 28—xxviii. 20 (?); Mark, Luke i. 1—-v. 21; 36—xxiv. 53 (1); John i. 1—xviii, 36. 404. Cod. “ Abbatis Scotti” of Naples [x1] 8°, prol. The manuscripts once belonging to the Nani family, which include Cod. U (see p. 134), were catalogued by J. A. Mingarelli (‘‘Greeci co- dices manu scripti apud Nanios Patricios Venetos asservati” Bononie 1784), and being now at St Mark’s, were inspected by Mr Burgon. 405. Venetian. Bibl. Cl. τ. x (86: 1) [x1] 4°, “olim Nanian. 3, antea monasterii SS. Cosme et Damiani urbis Prusiensis,” i.e, Brusa. Burgon says Broussa, the ancient Halicarnassus. Carp., Eus. t., κεφ. t., tith., wep, Am., Hus., lect., the leaves utterly dis- arranged by the binder. (Wiedmann and J, αν, J. Braun collated portions of 405—417 for Scholz). 406. Venet. 1. x1 (86: 6), Nanian. 4 [x1] 8°, κεφ. t., κεφ.» Am. (not Lus.), few lect., mut. Mark iv. 41—v. 14; Luke 111. 16—iv. 4. OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK, 205 407. Venet. 1. x11 (86: 6), Nanian. 5 [x1] 8°, contains Luke v. 30—Johnix. 2. Κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am., lect., pict., στίχοι Bo at the end of St Luke. 408. Venet. τ. xtv (86: 6), Nanian. 7 [xm] 4°, once belonged to St John Chrysostom’s monastery, by the Jordan, as stated in a note of the original scribe. Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am., Hus., few lect., στίχοι numbered, full stops very numerous in the text. Matth. 1. 1—13 and syn. later. 409. Venet. τ. xv (86: 1), Nanian. 8 [x11] 4°, the writing and pict. very rough, the stops being mostly red crosses. Carp., us. t., κεφ. t., titr., κεφ., Am. (not Hus.), lect., syn., foreign matter by Cosmas, &ec. (see p. 61). 410, Venet. τ. xvit (86: 6), Nanian. 10 [xr or xiv] 4°, written by one Joasaph a monk, on cotton paper, but Carp., Hus, t. [x11] on parchment, κεφ. t. on paper. Ked., Am. (not Hus.), lect., prot. 411, Venet. 1. xvi (86: 6), Nanian. 11 [x1] 8°, very beauti- fully written in upright characters. Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ., Am., Hus., lect., syn., prol., matter by Cosmas (see p. 61). Pret. torn out. 412. Venet. τ. x1x (86: 6), Nanian. 12 [dated 1301] 4°, written by Theodore (see p. 40, note 2). Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ.» Am., Eus., lect., syn., men., prol., στίχοι numbered. In text it much resembles Scrivener’s q and r by the same hand, without being identical with either. 413, Venet. τ. xx (86: 6), Nanian. 13 [dated 1302, Indiction 15] 4°, once belonged to St Catherine’s monastery on Sinai, where Cod. & was found, and is elegantly written by one Theodosius ῥακενδύτης. Carp., Eus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ., Am., Hus., rude pict., syn., lect., prol., στίχοι numbered. 414, Venet. τ. χχι (86: 6), Nanian. 14 [xiv] 4°, dm. (not Hus.), lect., subscriptions to the Gospels, syn., written by Philip, a monk. 415, Venet. τ. xxir (86: 6), Nanian. 15 [dated January 1356] 8°, syn., lect., rude pict., κεφ. t., κεφ., ἀναγνώσματα. 416. Venet. τ. xxiv (86: 1), Nanian. 17 [xrv] 4°, very roughly written, begins Matth, xxv. 36, ends John xviii. 7: mut. Matth. xxvi. 17—xxvii. 17; 35—Mark ii. 27. Am, Fus., lect., with changes by different hands, 417. Venet. 1. xxv (86: 6), Nanian. 18 [x11] 4°, begins Matth. v. 44, ends Luke vi. 9. Κεφ. #., τίτλ., Am., and occasionally Hus., lect. 418. Venet, 1. xxvim (86: 1), Nanian, 21 [xv] 8°, chart., contains SS. Matthew and Mark, down to ch. xiii. 32, unfinished, in two columns. Κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am. (not Lus,), lect., many red crosses for stops. 419. Venet. 1. ux (86: 1), formerly at St Michael’s, Venice, “prope Murianum,” 241, [x1?] 4°, ends John xxi, 7 (described by 206 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS J. B. Mittarelli, Venice 1779). Mu. John viii. 44—xi. 32, supplied by a later hand. Κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ., Am. (not Hus.), lect., with musical notes, 420. (Schulz’s 237) Cod. Messanensis 1 [xiv] 4°, by different hands, with readings from other copies (inspected by Munter, as was Cod. 421). 421. (Act. 176, Paul. 218) Cod. Syracusanus [x11]?, once Lan- dolini’s ; prol., Hus. t., is Schulz’s 238. 422, Reg. Monacensis 210, at Munich [x1 or later] 4°, Carp., τίτλ., κεφ., Am., Hus. (partially), lect., prol., syn., roughly written in two columns by the monk Joseph, but St John in a somewhat more recent hand: described by Ignatius Hardt and Mr Burgon. It abounds with itacisms and strange blunders, and other tokens of great ignorance on the part of the scribe. 423, Monacensis 36 [dated 1556] fol., chart., contains St Matthew with Nicetas’ catena. Marked Τόμος A and superbly bound, as is Cod. 432. The same scribe wrote Codd. 424, 425, 432 (Burgon). 424. Monacensis 83 [xvi] fol., chart., contains St Luke with the commentary of Titus of Bostra and others. 425. Monacensis 37 [xvi] fol., chart., contains St John with a very full catena of Nicetas. Marked Τόμος B. 426. Monacensis 473, once Augsburg 9 [xiv] 4°, on cotton paper, contains Luke vi. 17—xi. 26 with Nicetas’ catena, the second of four volumes (δεύτερον τῶν τεσσάρων τεῦχος τῶν εἰς TO κατὰ Λουκᾶν ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ συναγωγὴν ἐξηγήσεων). 427. Monacensis 465, Augsburg 10 [χα 1] 4°, written by one Maurus, contains SS. Luke and Mark with Theophylact’s (and Victor’s 1) commentary. 428. Monacensis 381, Augsburg 11 [xi] large 4to, on cotton paper, with rude pictures of the Evangelists on a vellum leaf. Its subscriptions are like those of Codd. 262, ἄς. The commentary is Theophylact’s. 429. Monacensis 208 [x11 or x111] a superb 4°, written by John a priest and “ἔκδικος magne ecclesiz,” contains Luke i. 1—ii. 39 with a catena, questions and answers from SS. Matthew and Jobn, with the text. Mr Burgon declares that the date June 20, a.p. 978, Indiction 6, which we took from Scholz (see above, p. 39, note 1), is that of the manuscript this was copied from, not of Cod, 429 itself. Thus we have another early dated cursive the less. 430. Monacensis 437 [x1] 4°, contains John i—viii. with the catena of Nicetas, metropolitan of Heraclia Serrarum (in Macedonia, now Xevosna). Martin Crusius of Tubingen procured it from Leon- tius, a Cyprian monk, in 1590, and sent it to the library at Augs- burg. 431. (Act. 180, Paul. 238). Cod. Molsheimensis [x11] 12°, prol., Hus, t., with many unusual readings, was brought to Strasburg ° OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 207 from the Jesuits’ College at Molsheim in Alsace, extracts made -by the Jesuit Hermann Goldhagen (N. Τὶ Mogunt. 1753), and col- lated by Arendt, 1833. 432. Monacensis 99 [xvi] fol., chart., contains St Mark with the commentary of Victor of Antioch, being the same copy as Pel- tanus used for his Latin edition of that work, Ingoldstad 1580. 433. Cod. Bibl. Berolinensis is Schulz’s 239 [x11] 4°, brought from the East by W. Ern. de Knobelsdorf, with a mixed text and many errors. It contains Matth. i. 1—21; vi. 12—32; xxi. 25— xxvii. 20; Mark i, l—v. 29; ix. 21—xi. 12; Luke viii. 27— John ix. 21; xx..15—xxi, 25. (G. T. Pappelbaum, 1824.) 434. Cesar. Vindobon. 71, Lambec. 42 [xiv] fol., contains St Luke withacatena. Like Codd. 218, &c. bought at Constantinople by Busbeck. 435. Cod. Gronovii 131, at Leyden, is Sehulz’s 245 [1] 4°, me. Matth. i. 20—ii. 13; xxii. 4—9 (John x. 14—xxi, 25 in a rather later hand), has 2 somewhat unusual text (collated, as also Cod. 122, by J. Dermout, Collectanea Critica in N. T, 1825). 436. Cod. Meermann. 117 [dated a.p. 1322] traced to some English bookseller in 1824. See above, p. 183, note 2. Mr Burgon now possesses and has collated it, and has sent me a photograph. He states that the text resembles that of Imn**. (p. 211), with pecu- liarities of its own. Κεφ. ¢., κεφ.; ἀναγνώσματα and στίχοι numbered, lect., syn., men. 437. Cod. Petropolit. [x1], like Cod. E. of the Epistles, one leaf of the Colbert Pentateuch, and some other manuscripts, has found its way from the Coislin library and the Abbey of St Germain des Prez near Paris, to St Petersburg. It was written by Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and noticed by Matthaei (N. T. 11. p. 99, 2nd ed.). ~ 438. Cod. Mus. Brit. 5111—2. (Askew 621) [x1] 4°, two vols. (Bloomfield). 439. Mus. Brit. 5107 (Askew 622) [dated April 1159, Ind. 7] fol., written by the monk Nepho, at Athos. Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., prct., τίτλ., κεφ., Am., Hus. (Bloomfield). 440. (Act. 111, Paul. 221) University Library, Cambridge, 2423 (Mm. 6. 9) is the copy from which Griesbach’s readings in Cod. 236 were derived. Described below under Scrivener’s v. 441, 442, at Cambridge, must be removed from Scholz’s list ; they are printed editions with manuscript notes. Cod. 441 is Act. 110, Paul. 222; Cod. 442 is Act. 152, Paul. 223. 443, Cambridge University Libr., 2512 (Nn. 2. 36), once Askew 624, [xr or xu] 4°, Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., tith., Am, Hus., syn, 1 Scholz has a great deal to answer for in the way of negligence, but he does not deserve the imputation brought against him in the Catalogue of the Cam- 208 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS prol. The κεφάλαια proper are subdivided in this copy, e.g. the 19th of St Matthew, in no less than 13 parts (see p. 59, note 4). For the titles of the Gospels, see Cod. 69, p. 176. 444. (Act. 153, Paul. 240) Cod. Harleian. 5796 [xv] 4°, neatly written, syn., sold in 1537 “aspris 500:'” bought at Smyrna in 1722 by Bernard Mould. 445. Harleian. 5736 [dated 1506] chart., in the hand ‘ Antonii cujusdam eparchi,” once (like Apoc. 31) in the Jesuits’ College, Agen, on the Garonne. 446. Harl. 5777 [xv] 4°, syn. Mut. Matth. i. 1—17; Mark i. 7—9; Luke i. 1—18; John i. 1—22 bya person who mischievously cut out the ornaments. It is clearly but unskilfully written, and Covell states on the outer leaf that it seems a copy from his manu- script, noted above as Cod. 65. This copy is Cov. 5 (Bloomfield). 447. Harl. 5784 [xv] Zus. t., men., well written, and much like 448. Harl. 5790 [dated Rome, 25 April, 1478] fol., pict., ele- gantly written by John a priest for Francis Cardinal of 8. Maria nova. 449. Mus. Brit. 4950—1 [x11] 12°, 2 vol., clearly and carefully written : once Cesar de Missy’s (see Cod. 44). Prol., κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am., Hus., men., syn. 450. Codex 1 in the great Greek Monastery at Jerusalem [dated 1 July 1043] 8°, syn., Hus. t., neatly written by the reader Euphemius, contains the first three Gospels with an Arabic version. This is Mr Coxe’s No. 6, but he calls it 4°, and speaks of it as containing only St Luke’s Gospel. 451. Jerusalem 2 [x11] 8°. 452. Jerus. 3 [xrv] 8° 453. Jerus. 4 [xiv] 8°. 454. Jerus. 5 [xiv] 8° 455. Jerus. 6 [xiv] 4°, with a commentary. 456. Jerus. 7 [xr] 4°, St Matthew is neatly written with a com- mentary, in golden wncial letters (Coxe, No. 43, who dates it [x1]).? 457, (Act. 186, Paul. 234) Codex 2 in the Monastery of St Saba (a few miles from Jerusalem, near the Dead Sea) [x11] 4°, syn., men. bridge Manuscripts (Vol. ur. p. 310), of guessing Askew to be a College there, Cod. 443 was bought for the University Library in 1775 for £20, at the cele- brated book-sale of Anthony Askew [1722—74], the learned physician who pro- jected an edition of ZEschylus. See Marsh on Michaelis, Vol. 11. pp. 661—2, 1 The asper or asprum was a medieval Greek silver coin (derived from ἄσπρος, albus): we may infer its value from a passage cited by Ducange from Vincentius Bellovac. xxx. 75 “ quindecim drachmas seu asperos.” 2 Mr Coxe (‘Report to Her Majesty’s Government of the Greek Manuseripts yet remaining in the Libraries of the Levant” 1858) saw fourteen copies of the Gospels in this Monastery: as I can identify but two of them with Scholz’s Codd. 450—456, they must be described below, p. 217, only that we may be sure that Scholz’s 451—5 are included somewhere in Mr Coxe’s list, OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 209 - 458, St Saba 3 [dated 1272, Indict. 15] 16°. 459. St Saba 7 [x1] 8°. 460. St Saba 8 [x11] 8°. 461. St Saba 9 [dated, si qua fides Scholzio, May 7, a.v. 835, Indict. 13] 8°, neatly written by Nicolas, a monk. Mr Coxe also notifies to me the existence of a copy of the Gospels here, written about A.D. 900. See p. 39, note 1. 462. (Act. 187, Paul. 235, Apoc. 86) St Saba 10 [x1v] 4°. 463. St Saba 11 [χιν] 4°, char. 464, St Saba 12 [x1] 4°, chart. 465. St Saba 19 [xr] 85. 466. (Act. 189, Paul. 237, Apoc. 86’ or 89) St Saba’ 20 [xm] 8°. 467. Codex of a monastery at Patmos [x1] 4°. 468. Another at Patmos [xi] 8°, with a commentary. 469. Another at Patmos [x1v] 45. Out of this whole list of 210 manuscripts, Scholz collated five entire (262. 299. 300. 301. 346), eleven in the greatest part (260. 270. 271. 277. 284, 285. 298. 324. 353, 382. 428), many in a few places, and not a few seem to have been left untouched. The following additions must be made to the above list: we have adopted the notation employed by Tischendorf, N. T. 8th edition. Edward de Muralt in his N. T. “ad fidem codicis principis Vati- cani,’ 1848 (see p. 101), inserts a collation of eleven manuscripts (five of them being Lectionaries), chiefly at St Petersburg. He also de- scribes them in his Catalogue of Greek Manuscripts in the Imperial Library there. 106. (Petropol. 1v. 13) some fragments of Evangelistaria. [1x]. 2P¢, (Petrop. vi. 470), the Gospels [1x], a very important copy, especially in St Mark. 3°, Lectionary [x], of the Gospels (Petr. vit. 179) and Praxa- postolos (Petr. vir. 80). 4r°, The Gospels at Moscow, (Mich. Petridee Pogodini 472) [ΧΙ or xii]. 1 At Mar Saba Mr Coxe found no less than twenty copies of the Gospels, four of them being of the 10th century (Report p. 12), with a noble palimpsest of the Orestes and Phenisse. Here again I must repeat his list (below p. 217), as I cannot satisfactorily reconcile his account with Scholz’s. 2 At Patmos Coxe saw but five copies of the Gospels: No. 6 [x] 4°, syn., probably Scholz’s 467 ; No. 2 [xir] 4°, with scholia, perhaps Scholz’s 468; and No. 21 [xu] fol., which may be Scholz’s 469, 5, , 14 210 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS 5°, Psalter (Petr. rx. 1) with the hymns Luke i. 46—55 ; 68— 79; ii, 29—32 [dated 994]. See p. 39, note 1. 6°, Evangelistarium (Petr. x. 180) [dated Salernum, 1022]. 7”, (Petr. 1x. 3. 471) the Gospels, a valuable copy [dated 1062], with Victor’s commentary on St Mark. Sr, (Petr. x1. 1. 2. 330) Gospels, Acts and Epistles [x1]. gr, (Petr. x1. 3, 181) fragments of an Evangelistarium [xu]. 10°, An Evangelistarium of Paleologus, Panticapsense [of Kertch 1], collated at Odessa. 11", Gospels (Q. v. 1, 15.) [xv]. F. H. Scrivener has published the following in his “ Collation of Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels 1853,” and “Codex Augi- ensis” (Appendix) 1859. a’, Archiepiscopal Library, Lambeth 1175 [x1] 4°, κεφ. #., lect., κεφ., Am., Eus., mut. Matth. i. 1—13; once at Constantinople, but brought (together with the next five) from the Greek Archipelago by J. D. Carlyle, Professor of Arabic at Cambridge [d. 1804]. b**, Lamb. 1176 [xm] small 4°, very elegant: Carp., Hus. t., pict., lect., κεφ. t. (these last chart.), τίτλοι, Am., Hus., syn. A copy “‘eximie note,” but with many corrections by a later hand, and some foreign matter. et, Lamb. 1177 [xu] 4°, for valuable readings by far the most important at Lambeth, shamefully ill written, torn and much muti- lated’: perhaps not all by the same hand. Keg. ¢ (a fragment), tithot, Am., lect., portions of syn. ds", Lamb. 1178 [x1] large 4°, in a fine hand, splendidly il- luminated, and with much curious matter in the subscriptions (see p. 61). Mut. Matth. 1. 1—8, Syn., men., κεφ. t., and the other usual divisions. A noble-looking copy. ον Lamb. 1179 [x] 4°, neatly written but in wretched condition, beginning Matth. xiii. 53, ending John xiii. 8. Also mut. Matth. xvi. 28—xvii. 18; xxiv. 39—xxv. 9; xxvi. 71—xxvii. 14; Mark viii, 32—ix. 9; John xi. 8—30. Carlyle brought it from Trinity Monastery, Chalké, Κεφ. t., lect., τίτλοι, Am., Lus. fr, Lamb. 1192 [x11] large 4°, from Syria, beautifully written, but tampered with by a later hand. A/ut. John xvi. 8—22, and a later hand [xv] has supplied Mark iii. 6—21; Luke xii. 48—xii. 2; John xviii, 27—xxi. 25. Κεφ. t., τίτλοι, Am., Hus., lect., pict.; at the beginning stand some texts, περὶ ἀνεξικακίας. (Re-examined by Bloomfield.) About Luke xix., xx. its readings become very im- portant, agreeing much with Cod, A, and even with the best uncials, 1 Matth. iv. 1—vii. 6; xx. 21—xxi. 12; Luke iv. 29—v. 1; 17—33; xvi. 24 —xvii. 13; xx. 19—41; John vi. 51—viii. 2; xii, 20—40; xiv. 27—xv. 13; xvii, 6—xviii, 2; xviii, 37—xix, 14, OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 211 οἷον is Lamb. 528 and Cod. 71, described above (p. 176). h*", Cod. Arundel 524 in the British Museum, [x1] 4°, was brought to England (with x** and many others) by the great Earl of Arundel in 1646. Syn., men., Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. ἐ., τίτλοι, Ama, Hus., lect. is*, Cod. Trin. Coll. Cantab. B. x. 17 [xi] 4°, from Athos, bequeathed to Trinity College by Bentley. Keg. ἐ., τίτλοι, ked., Am. (not Lus.), lect., and (on paper) are ὑπόθεσις to St Matthew and syn. γ᾿ See above Cod. N (p. 126). k**, Cod. Lebanon, Mus. Brit. 11300 [xr] 4°, most elegantly and correctly written, purchased in 1838, and said to come from Cesarea Philippi at the foot of Lebanon. Contains scholia, lect., no syn., but all other matter as in Cod. h: the text is broken up into paragraphs. (Re-examined by Bloomfield.) Isr, (Act. and Paul. gt) Cod. Wordsworth [x11] 4°, was bought in 1837 by Dr Christopher Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, and bears a stamp “Bibliotheca Suchtelen.” Ked. ¢., τίτλοι, Am., lect., syn., men., prol, or ὑποθέσεις are prefixed to the Epistles, and scholia of Chrysostom, &c. set in the margin. m**, See above Cod. 201 p. 189. (Re-examined by Bloomfield.) ns", (Paul. 155) Brit. Mus., Burney 18 (purchased in 1818, with many other manuscripts, from the heirs of Dr Charles Burney), con- tains the Gospels and two leaves of St Paul (Hebr. xii. 17—xiii. 25), written by one Joasaph a.p. 1366, fol., very superb, Ject., κεφ. ¢. {but not τίτλοι), Am., Hus., some foreign matter, αποστολοευαγγε- dua, and syn. or men., both terms being used. Codd. 1mn agree pretty closely. o*, Brit. Mus. Burney 19 [x] 4°: (see p. 40, and Plate 1, No. 8), in the Escurial as late as 1809, singularly void of the usual apparatus. p. Burney 20 [dated a.p. 1285, Indict. 13, altered into 985, whose indiction is the same] 4°, written by a monk Theophilus: pict., Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλοι, Am., Lus., lect., syn., men., the last in a later hand, which has made many corrections: this copy is quite equal in value to Cod. c*", and often agrees closely with w*™. qs. (Act. and Paul. 5) Codex Theodori, from the name of the ' scribe (see p. 40, note 2) [dated 1295] 8°, passed from Cesar de Missy into the Duke of Sussex’s library: in 1845 it belonged to the late Wm. Pickering, the much-respected bookseller. Syn., Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., κεφ., Am., lect., ὑποθέσεις or prol., and syn. before Act. and all Epp., Euthalius περὶ χρόνων, men. after St Jude; it has many later changes made in the text. rt, Burney 21, by the same scribe [dated 1292] fol., on cotton paper in a beautiful but formed hand (see p. 40, and Plate γι, No. 15), syn., prol. to each Gospel, κεφ. t., men. Codd. qr differ only in 183 places. 14—2 . 212 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS s*t, Burney 23 [xu] 4°, boldly but carelessly written, ends John vill. 14: mut. Luke v, 22—ix. 32; xi. 31—xiii. 25; xvii. 24—-xviii. 4. Syn., Carp., κεφ. t., pict., Am. (not Hus.), τίτλοι, with many later changes and weighty readings. ἐδ Lambeth 1350 [xiv] St John on paper, written with a reed (see p. 26), appended to a copy of John Damascene “De Fide Orthodoxa:” has ὑπόθεσις or prol., κεφ., and a few rubrical diree- tions; carelessly written, and inscribed “1, Wagstaffe ex dono D. Barthol. Cassano e sacerdotibus ecclesiz Greece, Oct. 20, 1732.” u®", ©. 4 of Archdeacon Todd’s Lambeth Catalogue, was a copy of the Gospels, in the Carlyle collection, restored with six others in 1817 to the Patriarch of Jerusalem at Constantinople’. The collation of SS. Matthew and Mark by the Rev. G. Bennet is at Lambeth (1255, No, 25). vt, Lambeth 1180 [xiv] chart., τίτλοι, Am., Lus., lect., with important variations : restored like Cod. τι, but previously collated by Dr Charles Burney in Mark i, l—iv. 16; John vii. 53—viii 11 (Lambeth 1223), v*, or cant*", of Tischendorf. (Evan. 440, Act. 111, Paul. 221 of Scholz; Evan. 236, Act. and Paul. 61 of Griesbach; Act. and Paul. οὔτ) is Mm, 6, 9 of the Cambridge University Library [x11] 4°, in a minute hand, with many unusual readings, especially in the Epistles (see above Cod. 236), from Bp. Moore’s Library. us. t., syn. (later), τίτλοι, Am. (not Lus.), lect., ὑποθέσεις to most of the Epistles ; beautifully written with many contractions. w*", (Act.and Paul. k**) Trin. Coll. Cantab. B. x. 16 [dated a.v, 1316] 4°, chart., was elegantly written by a monk James ‘on Mount Sinai. Κεφ. ἐ., Am., HLus., κεφ., lect., prol. and ὑποθέσεις to the Epistles, syn., men., and much extraneous matter. See Cod, p*", p. 211 -~ . The following, among many other manuscripts of the Gospels, as yet entirely uncollated, may be added to the catalogue. tisch’. Cod. Tischendorfianus Iv in the University Library at Leipsic [x], described in his Anecdota sacra et profana, pp, 20—29, tisch*. at St Petersburgh [xu] 4°, mut., Notitia Cod. Sinait. p- 60. tisch’, ibid. p. 64, [x11] 4°, only 19 leaves, containing Mark viii, 3—ix. 50, also at St Petersburg. 1 In Mr Coxe’s Report to Her Majesty’s Government, we find an account (which illness compelled him to give at second hand) of several copies of the - Gospels and one palimpsest Evangelistarium, all dated [x1], still remaining in this Prelate’s Library. Here doubtless all the restored Carlyle books might be found, and their examination would well employ the leisure of some scholar attached to our embassy at Constantinople. OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. bs 18} Middle-Hili 13975, once Lord Strangford’s, then Sir Th. Phil- lipps’ [x11] fol., a noble copy, the text surrounded with a full com- mentary in very minute letters. See p. 62. To G. Haenel (Catal. Librorum MSS. Lips. 1830) we owe our knowledge of Codex Atrebatensis of the whole New Testament at Arras [xv] 8°, of another at Poictiers fol., chart. ; another he states to be at Carpentras, in uncial letters [vr!] 4°, which Tischendorf dis- covered to be the Evangelistarium he designates as carp®. [1x]. Haenel has also made known to us most of the following: a vellum copy of St John in the Royal Institute at Paris; two copies of the Gospels [x1], in the Hunterian Museum at Glasgow, marked Q. 122, 123, and once Cesar de Missy’s*; another of St John (with other matter) at the same place 8. 8, 141 [xv], all 4°; a copy of the Gospels αὖ Toledo [xiv] 4°; and another in the University Library at Edinburgh [x1] 8°, xed. ¢., pict., in bad condition, brought from the East, and presented in 1650 by Sir John Chiesley. Scholz also copies from Jo. Lamy’s “ Delicie eruditorum,” Flo- rence 1743, the class-marks of seven manuscripts from some unknown library (vaguely conjectured to be at Trinity Monastery, Chalké, an island ten miles from Constantinople, whence Lambeth 1179 or e®* came), whereof one (207) contains the Gospels, Acts and Epistles, another (201) very ancient, SS. Matthew and Mark with a catena, five (202—206) the Gospels alone. Dr Millingen, however, has recently printed a catalogue of the Library at Chalké, which contains eight copies of the Gospels (1—6; 19; 20), four being bound in silver. Lamy’s may possibly be recognised by his minute descriptions of the character of their binding. Tischendorf (N. T. 7th edn. Proleg. p. cexxiv. note 1) names a copy of the Gospels dated 1254, at St Geneviéve’s in Paris, 4. A. 84, This, however, seems to be Cod. 121, which Scholz reported as missing : though the date is a little different (see p. 183). Of the seven Cambridge manuscripts, enumerated by Scholz (N. Τὶ Vol. 1. p. exix), we find that c)=Evan., 60, e)= Evan. 62, f)=Evan. 70: g) seems No. 2154, a Latin version of St John with a gloss: d) No. 1673 is Hh. 6, 12, the four Gospels only [xv] 4°, chart., κεφ. t., prol. For a)b) Lowes, formerly Askew, memb. 4°, Marsh on Michaelis, Vol. τι. p. 662, states that they were sold to Mr Lowes, the book- seller, at Askew’s sale (see p. 207, note 1), and are now lost sight οἱ", 1 Professor Dickson, of Glasgow, has been obliging enough to verify for me the existence of the six Hunterian manuscripts of the Greek Testament now in the Museum there: those of the Gospels bear at present the class marks Q. 7. 9. and Q. 7. 10. 2 We have now traced from Askew’s sale Codd. 109, 438, 439, 443 of the Gospels, and the two volumes in the same hand Act. 22, Paul. 75. But besides the two missing Lowes copies, the priced sale catalogue mentions another manu~ script of the Gospels, 2 vol. 12mo, No. 619, bought for £5. 10s. by Dr Farmer, who usually purchased for the Cambridge University Library, which does not appear to haye been deposited there. 214 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS The priced sale catalogue, however, shews that they were Evangel- istaria, not copies of the Gospels proper. In addition to Codd. 73, 74 (see p. 177) Gaisford in 1837 cata- logued, and Scrivener in 1861 inspected the following fourteen copies of the Gospels in the collection of Archbishop Wake, now at Christ Church, Oxford. They were brought from Constantinople about 1731. *No. 12 (Apoc. 26) Codex Dionysii (who wrote it) [xt] large folio, was also noted by Scholz, on Gaisford’s information, Evangelistarium 181, Apostol. 57: but this is an error, as the Gospels are contained at full length and in their proper order, with unusually full liturgical matter, rubro: Carp., Lus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ., Am., Eus., prol., pict. The Acts, Catholic, and Pauline Epistles (Gicumenius’ prol., κεφ. scholia) follow them, and last of all comes the Apocalypse. JZut. Acts i. 1—vii. 49; x. 19—xiv. 10; xv. 15—xvi.11; xviii. 1—xxi. 25; xxiii. 18—James iii. 17; 1 Cor. xii. 11—xv. 12; xvi. 13—15; Gal. v. 16—vi. 18 (partly); the illuminations also being often wantonly cut out. This copy contains much foreign matter (sce p. 62): its contents were carefully tabulated by J. Walker (p. 215); it was thoroughly collated by Scrivener in 1864. No. 21 [x1] fol., brought from Παντοκράτωρ on Athos, 1727. Prol., Carp. (later); but prima manu, Eus. t., κεφ. t., lect., τίτλ., κεφ.; Am., Hus., the last written in the same line with Am., not beneath them as usual (compare Cod. 112). The scribe’s name, Abraham Teudatus, a Patrician (Montf. Paleo, Gr. p. 46), is written cruciform after Hus. t. No. 22 [x11?] small fol., in a wretched hand and bad condition, begins Matth. i. 23, ends John xix. 31. Keg. 4, Am. (not Lus.), lect., but partly in a later hand. No. 24 [x1] fol., from Παντοκράτωρ in 1727. Lus. t., prol., κεφ. t., pict., titr., κεφ., Am., Hus. in gold. One leaf (John xix. 13—29), and another containing John xxi. 24, 25, are in duplicate at the beginning, primd manu. This copy (as Wake remarks) is in the same style, but less free than No. 25 [x or x1] 4°, pict. (in red ink, nearly faded), κεφ. t., κεφ.» lect., syn., With ἀναγνώσματα of the Gospels (see p. 63.) No. 27, chart., 8°. Matth. xviii. 9—Mark xiv. 13; Luke vii. 4— John xxi. 13 are [xu], the rest supplied [xv]. Lect., κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ., Am. (not Hus.). No, 28 [xiv] 4°, κεφ. ¢., τίτλ., κεφ. (not Am., Hus.), syn., lect., much of this rubro. Subscribed Θῦ τὸ dwpov και ypyyoptov πονος. No. 29 [dated sx'O or A.D, 1131, Indict. 9] 4°. After some later fragments (Matth. i, 12—yv. 3, and other matter) on paper, the older copy begins Matth, ν. 29. Κεφ. ¢., τίτλ., Am., Lus., lect. ' The letter x is quite illegible, but the Indiction 9 belongs only to A.p, 831, 1131, 1431, and the style of the manuscript leayes no doubt which to choose, OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK, 215 No. 30 [xm] 4°, ending John xx. 18, neatly written, but in ill condition. Ked. ¢., Carp., Hus. t., titr., Am., Eus., lect., in red, almost obliterated from damp. No. 31 [x1] 4° small, in a very elegant and minute hand. Pict., κεφ. t., τίτλ. (in gold), κεφ., Am. (not Hus.), lect. full, and in red. No. 32 [x or x1] 4° small, elegant, and with much gold ornament. Carp., κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ., Am. Hus., pict., prol., long subscriptions, syn., men. No. 36 [xu] 4°. Κεφ. é. in part, τέτλ., Am (not Lus.), lect., pict. No. 39 [x1] very small 4°, a poor copy, in several hands. TizA., κεφ. Only, No. 40 [x1?] 16°, a beautiful little copy. Syn., xed. #., lect. in the faintest red, but no other divisions. *No. 34 [xr or xm] large 4°, 201 leaves. This remarkable copy begins with the ὑποθέσις to 2 Peter, the second leaf contains Acts xvii. 24—xvui. 13 misplaced, then follow the 5 later Catholic Epistles (mut. 1 John iii. 19—iv. 9) with ὑποθέσεις : then the Apoca- lypse on the same page as Jude ends, and the ὑποθέσις to the Romans on the same page as the Apocalypse ends, and then the Pauline Epistles (mut. Heb. vii. 26—ix. 28). All the Epistles have prol., κεφ. ¢., and CGicumenius, smaller (not the Euthalian) κεφ., with much lect. primd manu, and syn. later. Last, but seemingly misplaced by an early binder, follow the Gospels (mut. Luke 11. 15—47), ending Luke vi. 42: see p. 67, note 8. Here are τίτλ, lect. in the margin by xed., Am. (not Hus.). This copy is Scholz’s Act. 190, Paul. 244, Apoe. 27, but unnumbered in the Gospels. Collated fully by Scrive- ner in 1863. Of these manuscripts Thomas Mangey [1684—1755], the editor of Philo, states on the fly-leaves that he collated Nos. 1%, 25, 28, 34 in 1749. Caspar Wetstein collated the Apocalypse in Nos. 12 and 34 for his relative’s great edition; while in the margin of No. 35, a 4° Greek Testament printed at Geneva (1620), is inserted a most laborious collation (preceded by a full description) of eight of the Wake manuscripts with Wetstein’s N. T. of 1711, having this title prefixed to them, ‘‘Hz Vari lectiones ex MSS. notate sunt manu et opera Johannis Walkeri, A. 1732:” John Walker (most of whose labours seem never yet to have been used) was Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, where so many of his critical materials accumu- lated for the illustrious Bentley are deposited. Of his eight codices, we find on investigation that Walker’s C is Wake 26; Walker’s 1 is Wake 20 (collations of these two, sent by Walker to Wetstein, com- prise Codd. 73, 74, described above) ; Walker’s Bis Wake 21; Walker’s D is Wake 24, both of Gospels; Walker's E is Wake 18, his Η is Wake 19, both Evangelistaria; Walker’s q is Wake 12, of which Caspar Wetstein afterwards examined the Apocalypse (Cod. 26); Walker's W is Wake 38 of the Acts and Epistles, or Scholz’s Act. 191, Paul. 245. To this list we must add the five following copies from the collec- tion of the Abbot M. L. Canonici, purchased at Venice in 1817 for 216 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS the Bodleian Library, by the late Dr Bandinel, who secured 2045 out of the total number of 3550 manuscripts. Canon. Gk. 33 [xv] fol., chart., St Matthew, with the Latin chap- ters only, once belonged to Anthony Dizomeeus. Ibid. 34 [dated a.v. 1515, 1516: see p. 39, note 2] 4°, chart., written by Michael Damascenus the Cretan for John Francis Picus of Miran- dola, contains the whole N. T., the Apocalypse alone being yet col- lated (k*"): mut. Apoc. ii. 11—23. It has Gicumenius’ and Eutha- lius’ prol. Ibid. 36 [x1] 4°, Gospels: olim Georg. Phleburis: pict., xep. t., syn., men. Ibid. 112 [xu] 4°, Gospels well written: Carp., pict., κεφ. t., lect., syn. Ibid. 122 Cod. Illyricus [dated a.p. 1429] 4°, Gospels in Illyrian with a Greek version later, written in Moldavia by Gabriel, a monk. Prol., pict., κεφ. t., syn., men. The Parham copies of the Gospels are described in a “ Catalogue of materials for writing, early writings on tablets and stones, rolled and other Manuscripts and Oriental Manuscript books in the library of Robert Curzon [Lord de la Zouche of Haryngworth, 1870—73] at Parham,” fol. 1849, and were slightly inspected by Scrivener in 1855. They are eight. Greek, vellum, No. 6. Gospels, Acts and all the Epistles [xr] 8°, from Caracalla on Athos, with arabesques in red. No. 7. Gospels [1x or x] small 4°, piet., from St Saba. No. 8. Gospels [x1] 4°, with a marginal paraphrase and other matter, from tov ἕενοφου on Athos. No. 9. Gospels [x1] 4°, with faded red ara- besques, from Caracalla. No. 10. Gospels [x1] 8°, pict., from Cara- calla. No. 11. Gospels [x11] 8°, from St Saba, as are the next two. No. 12. Gospels [x11] 8°, with red arabesques. No. 13. Gospels [dated s.p. #272] 12°, of which the Catalogue contains a facsimile. Mr Bradshaw points out that in the “Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature,” Vol. 11. p. 355, two copies of the Gospels [x] and [x1] are stated to belong to the Earl of Leicester, and will be described with facsimiles in the Catalogue of the Library at Holkham, The five following also are in the Bodleian and uncollated: Baroce. 59. 1 [xv] 4°, chart., has six leaves [x1] containing Luke xxiii. 388—xxiv. 53, and κεφ. ¢. of John. Cromwell 15 [x1] 4°, Gospels well written: this and the next copy were brought from Παντοκράτωρ on Athos, 1727. Carp., Zus. t., prol., κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ., mut. at end. Cromwell 16 [x1] 4°, Gospels (followed by the Proper Lessons for the Holy Week), pict., κεφ. t., Hus. t., Am., Lus., syn. Miscell. 17, Auct. D. Infr. 2. 21 [x1] 4°, Gospels, prol., κεφ. t., Am., Hus., syn. in text said to resemble Cod. 71, was presented by 8. Smallbrooke in 1800. Miscell. 141, Rawl. Auct, G. 3 [x1] 4°, Gospels and other matter ; κεφ. {. ° OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. yA Le The Rev. H. O. Coxe, now Bodley’s Librarian, though quite unable to purchase any of the literary treasures he was commissioned to inspect in 1857’, has added considerably to our knowledge of manuscripts in the East: those of the Gospels in Greek are the fifty- one following: (a2) In the Library of the Patriarch of Alexandria at Cairo; Shelf 1, No. 2 [xm] 4°; No. 15 [xt] 4°, mut.; No. 16 [xr] 4°, syn., beautifully written; No. 17 [x1] 4°; Shelf 5, No. 68 [x] 4°: and at the Cairo μετοικία of St Catherine’s on Sinai, No. 7, the Gospels and Psalter [xvi] fol., chart. (8) At the great Greek Monastery of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, besides Scholz’s Cod. 450 (No. 6) and Cod. 456 (No. 43), are No. 2 [x] 4°, beautifully written; No. 5 [x] 4°; No. 14 [x11]large 4°, with scholia; No. 17 [x1] 4°, with a few scholia; No. 31 [x1] 4°, very beautiful; No. 32 [x1] 4°; No. 33 [xu] 4°; No. 40 [xm] 4°, a fine copy of the Gospels, Acts, and all the Epistles; No. 41 [x1] 4°, “a beautiful copy; No, 44 [xiv] fol.; No. 45 [xr] 4°, the Gospels and all the Hpistles, but only λέξεις τῶν πράξεων. No. 46 [xr] small 4°: and at the College of the Holy Cross there, No. 3 [x1] 4°, syn., κεφ. (y) At St Saba (see p. 209, note 1) No. 27 [xr] fol.; Nos. 52, 53 [x1] 4°, two copies of the Gospels and all the Epistles, No. 52 having syn.; No. 54 contains the same [x11] 4°; No. 56 [x] 4° small, Gospels only; as have also Nos. 57—60 [x or xt]; No. 61, five copies of the Gospels [x1] 4°; No. 62, five other copies [x11] 4°. In a kind of lumber-room called the Tower Library, in wretched keeping, are No. 45 [x1] 4°; No. 46 [xm] 4°; No. 47 [x1] small 4°, all of the Gospels. (6) Three copies (Nos. 2, 6, 21) at the convent of St John at Patmos* seem to be Scholz’s Codd. 467—9 (see p. 209, note 2), and must not be reckoned again: there are besides No. 59 [x] 4°; No. 77 [x1] 4°. (ec) At Larnaka in Cyprus the Bishop of Citium has one copy [x11] 4°, syn. 1 Those who venerate the Greek Church for what she has been, or look forward to her future with hope, may well take comfort from the spirit in which Mr Coxe’s fair offers of purchase were invariably met. Of the rulers of the Convent of the Holy Sepulchre he writes (Report to Her Majesty’s Government, p. 10), ‘‘ They would not entertain the idea fora moment, They had now, they said, become aware of the value of what they possessed, although they admitted that a few years since it was far otherwise, and that a collector would have found little difficulty in obtaining anything he wished for barely more than the asking.”’ 2 Mr Coxe found the Librarian of the Bodleian peculiarly unpopular at St John’s Convent, Patmos; from whose Library HE. 1). Clarke [1769--1822] had obtained the early dated copy of Plato’s Dialogues (now Clarke 39) described above p. 39 and note 3. ‘‘The authorities were well acquainted with, and all deplored the loss they had sustained in their Plato, and knew perfectly well where it is now deposited. No money would tempt them to part with their Job.” [γ11. or yuit.] (Report to Her Majesty’s Government, p. 27.) 218 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS (¢) In the island of Milo, in private hands, one copy neatly written A.D. 1305 by a Cyprian.. To all this valuable information Mr Coxe adds, that Le Barbier, an eminent French archeologist, has been making a tour of the Monastic libraries at Athos, with the view of publishing a full account of the manuscript treasures still remaining there. Dr 5. T. Bloomfield published in 1860, as a Supplement to the ninth edition of his Greek Testament, ‘Critical Annotations on the Sacred Text,” as an opus supremum et ultimum, the last effort of a prolonged, arduous, and honourable literary career. It professes to be grounded on the examination of no less than 70 manuscripts, 23 at Lambeth, the rest in the British Museum; but in the absence of all formal description of his documents, or definite explanation, we may infer that they were not so much collated throughout, as consulted on the very numerous passages discussed in his work. We have already acknowledged his labours with regard to manuscripts included in the preceding catalogue: but his list embraces also the following codices (making in all 30 of the Gospels), which he has been the first to render available, and which we have examined with his results before us. Brit. Mus. Addit. 7141 [x11] 4°, bought 1825, and once Claudius James Rich’s. Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t, Am., Hus., lect. in red. No τίτλ., κεφ. B. M. Addit. 11836, this and the next two are from Bishop Butler’s collection: [xr], small 4°, contains Evan. Act. Cath. Paul. Psalms, ἄς. Mut. Mark i. 1—28; Acts i. 1—23; vii. 8—39; Ps. 1. 1—3. Pict., Hus. t. (i.e. a blank space is left for them), τίτλ., Am. (not Zus.), no prol., κεφ. in Epistles. Akin to Cod. 440 in St Paul (Vansittart). B. M. Addit. 11838 [dated a.p. 1326, Ind. 9] fol., from Sinai, most beautifully written by Constantine, a monk. Syv., xed. t., pict., lect., all in a later hand, τίτλοι. B, M. Addit. 11839 [xv] 4°, chart., ill-written, with later marginal notes, and uo chapter-divisions. Jecé.; but Matth. iv. 13—xi. 27; Mark i. 1—vi. 1, are later. B. M. Addit. 15581 [χη] 12° neat, κεφ. ἐ., Am., Hus. (mostly omitted), once Melch. Thevenot’s. See above, Cod. 272. Liturgical notes are added by a second hand, and the Latin chapters later still. B. M. Addit. 16183 [xu] 4°, in a minute hand, bought of Capt. Macdonald in 1846. B. M. Addit. 16184 [xrv] small 4°, the whole New Testament, except the Apocalypse, in the usual Greek order (p. 07). Prol., κεφ. t., κεφ., τίτλ., Am. (not Hus.), lect., syn. ἀπο. on vellum, and some later on paper, in very small writing. B. M. Addit. 16943 [x1], in a very small hand, Hus. t., pict., from the collection made by the Hon. F’, North for the University of Corfu. OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK, 219 B, M. Addit. 17469 [xrv] small fol., syz., with a hiatus about 1 Tim, iii. 16. This copy is j** in the Apocalypse. B. M. Addit. 17741 [x1] 4°, pict., begins Matth. xii. 21, ends John xvii. 13: purchased in 1849. B. M. Addit. 17982 [x11] 4°, ending John xix. 38 (eight leaves being lost), and believed to contain important readings. B. M. Addit. 18211 [xi] 4°, with 12 leaves chart. [xv] to supply hiatus: xed. ¢., τίτλ., Am. (not Hus.), lect., came from Patmos. F. V. J. Arundell, British Chaplain at Smyrna (1834), describes this copy, given him by Mr Borrell, and a Lectionary sold to him at the same time, in his Discoveries in Asia Minor, Vol. τι. p. 268. He there compares it with the beautiful Cod. Ebnerianus (Evan. 105), which it very slightly resembles, being larger and far less elegant. B. M. Addit. 19387 [xu, or xiv in the Museum Catalogue] 4°, written by one Leo, begins Matth. viii. 12, and was purchased in 1853 from the well-known Constantine Simonides, as was B. M. Addit. 19389 [x11] 12°, St John’s Gospel only, elegantly written by the monk Cosmas: τίτλ., Am. (not Hus.), lect. Another copy, B. M. Addit. 17470 [dated A.p. 1034], purchased of H. Rodd in 1848, does not appear to have been collated by Dr Bloomfield. _ Harl. 5538, described in the Harleian Catalogue as an Evange- listarium, and numbered by Scholz Evst. 149, I find to be a copy of the Gospels [x1v] 12°, dect., with no κεφ., Am., Hus. There is also a fine fragment of the Gospels [xiv] at Sion College, London. Two copies of the Gospels were offered for private sale in London early in 1871. They were described as :— (1) Evangelia IV. Grece cum Canone 8S. Eusebii, vellum, beautifully illuminated by a Byzantine Scribe [x11], square 8°, price £50. (2) Evangelia IV. Grece, vellum, in oak boards covered with red velvet. Folio [xiv], price £40. The past and present owners of these manuscripts are not known. Mr Burgon, in Letters to the present writer, inserted in the Guardian newspaper of Jan. 29 and Feb. 5, 1873, adds the following twenty Italian manuscripts to our previous lists of the Gospels. At Ferrara, in the Municipal Library, (1) No. 119, NA. 4 [xiv], τίτλ. (2) No. 187, NA. 7 (Vol. 111) [xiv], 8°, containing the whole ‘“‘New Testament:” the only divisions recognised are those of the modern chapters in vermilion. At Parma, in the National or Palatine Library: (1) No. 5, 4°, once belonging to the Bonvisi family, then transferred to the Public Library at Lucca. As superb a copy as any known, the illumina- tions gorgeous, the first page of the Gospel and other portions in 220 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS gold, with a “luxurious prodigality” of miniatures. Carp., Hus. t., tith., Am. (ELus.), prol. (2) “H. H. x. 64” No. 65 [x1, or older] 8°, very tastefully decorated. Mut. Matth. 1. 1—20. ect. and marginal corrections by the first hand in vermilion. At Modena: (1) No. [1] ii. A. 1 [xm] a beautiful copy, 8°. Syn. at beginning and end, xed., τίτλ., Am., Lus., superb pict., with slight marginal corrections of the text. (2) No. [5] ii, A. 5 [x1v] small and neat, without pict. or iluminations. Syn., τίτλ., κεφ., ἀναγνώσματα (see p. 63). At Milan in the great Ambrosian Library : (1) Ambros. M. 48 sup., 4°, beautifully written, pict. almost obliterated. Am. (not Zus.). The last leaf more recent. (2) Ambros. E. 63 sup. [dated May, 1321, Indiction 4] 45. Mut. Luke xxiv. 5—John i. 8, and the early part of Johny. Am. (not Hus.), lect., pict. 3) Ambros. D. 161 inf. [xvi] transcribed from an original in the Vatican, fol., chart. St Mark’s Gospel with Victor of Antioch’s commentary. (4) Ambros. D. 282 inf, transcribed by John Sancta Maura, a one-eyed Cyprian, aged 74, June 9, 1612: chart., with a catena. (5) Ambros. D. 298 inf, transcribed by the same, fol., chart. These two codices have library titles quite misleading. (6) Ambros. Z. 34 sup. [xt or xiv] small 4°, chart., with pict. on vellum not belonging to it. On the order of its contents (Catholic Epp., Pauline Epp., syn., Gospels) see p. 67. At Venice in St Mark’s Library: (1) Venet. τ. tvim (86: 7) [xm or ΧΠῚ 1] wrongly called an Evangelistarium in the Supplementary Catalogue, contains only Mark i. 44—Luke xxiv. 53; John 1. 1ὅ--- xi. 13: much lect. (2) Venet. 1. χχχιν (86: 7), Nanian 27, fol., written in two columns, with a full commentary (that of Victor on St Mark being expressly named), the text seldom given at length. (3) Venet. 1. 1x (86 : 6) [χπὶ 1] 8°, with very remarkable read- ings. Mr Burgon collated sixteen chapters in the several Gospels. (4) Venet. 1. tvit (86: 7) [ΧΙ or xu] fol., ends Mark xii. 18, with Theophylact’s commentary. (5) Venet. 494 (91: 4)[xv]large fol., full of various Patristic - matter. (6) Venet. 495 (91: 4) [xv or xvi] large fol., described by Zanetti p. 259 (sce above, p. 191), with a commentary (Victor's on St Mark), syn., τίτλ. We do not include Venet. 1. Lx1 (86: 7) which is a mere catena on Matth. i—ix., or Venet. M. 1, an uncial copy of the Old Testa- ment [1x?], at the end of which are found Carp., Lus. t. of unique fulness, as if the Gospels were to follow. But OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. yey | 7) Venet. 1. tyr (86: 5) [xv 1] fol., chart., wrongly set down by Scholz as Evst. 143, contains the Gospels, beginning Matth. v. 44, It was once “8. Michaelis Venet. prope Murianum,” and is described in Mittarelli’s Catalogue of that Library, p. 1099 (566 above, p. 205). Lastly, in the Armenian convent at Venice, No. 1531 [x1] 4°, is a fragment of the Gospels containing Matth. 1. 22—Luke xxiii. 15; 33—48, with lect., τίτλ., ἀναγνώσματα, στίχοι numbered at the end, but none other of the usual apparatus. The Baroness Burdett-Coutts imported in 1870—2 from Janina in Epirus upwards of one hundred manuscripts, chiefly Greek and theological, among which are sixteen copies of the Gospels or parts of them, three of the Acts, two of the Catholic, and three of St Paul’s Epistles, one of the Apocalypse, fourteen Evangelistaria and three Praxapostoli. They are now being collated, and the results will be published as soon as possible. Those marked I. and II. are deposited in the Library of Sir Roger Cholmely’s School, Highgate ; those marked III. are in the Baroness’s possession. The copies of the Gospels are :— B-C. I. 3 [xi] 4°, mut. John x. 1—xii. 10; xv. 24—xxi. 2. Carp., Lus. t., κεφ. ἐ. ἢ τίτλ., κεφ., Am., Hus., pict., lect., verses. After the subscription to St John follow the numerals € θ @ z. B-C. 1. 4 [xu] 4°, a fine copy. J/ué. Matth. τ. 1—ix. 13, with gilded illuminations, Syn., κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am. (not Hus.), lect., iambic verses. ΒΟ. I. 7 [xm] 4°, chart., mut. Luke i. 26—42. Syn., κεφ. ¢., τίτλ., lect. (not Am. Hus.), pict. It has on the cover a curious metal tablet adorned with figures and a superscription. B-C. I. 9 [xi] small 4°, St Matthew and St Mark only. Mut. Matth. xi, 28—xili. 34; xviii. 13—xxi. 15; 33—xxi. 10; xxiv. 46 —xxv. 21; Mark iii. 11—v. 31; ix. 18—xii. 6; 34—44; ends πανταχοῦ Mark xvi. 20. Syn., lect., κεφ., τίτλ., Am., Hus, BC. II. 7 [x11] 12°, a very curious volume in ancient binding with two metal plates on the covers much resembling that of B-C. 1. 7, contains the Four Gospels and the Acts, breaking off at ch. xxvi. 24 μαίνη παῦλε; the writing being unusually full of abbreviations, and the margin gradually contracting, as if vellum was becoming scarce. Seven pages containing Gregory Nazianzen’s heroic verses on the Lord’s genealogy, and others on His miracles and parables, partly in red, precede κεφ. ¢. to St Matthew; other such verses of Gregory precede SS. Mark and Luke, and follow St John, and κεφ. t. stand before SS. Luke and John. There are τίτλ., κεφ. (no lect., and Am., Hus., only in the open leaf containing Luke xii.) : in the Gospels there is a prol., and no chapter divisions in the Acts, but a few capitals in red. Pretty illuminations precede each book. B-C. II. 13 [x11] 4°, with poor arabesque ornamentation, com- plete. Lect., a few τίτλ. by a later hand, as is also much of Am., Eus., which are only partially inserted, 932 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS ΒΟ, II. 16 [x11] 4°, mut. Matth. 1, 1—17; Luke 1. 1—17; John i. 1—46. Lect., κεφ. t. (defective), τίτλ., κεφ., Am., Lus., pict. B-C, ΤΙ. 18 [x11] 12°, very neat. The first leaf forms part of a Lectionary : on the second the Gospels begin with Matth. xiii. 7. Mut. John i. 1—15, Κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ., Am. (not Hus.), men., at the end, lect. in abundance, pict. of St Mark washed out: arabesques at the head of each book. B-C. II. 26’ and 26° are two fragments of the Gospels, whereof 26* comprises 22 leaves of St Mark covered with vile modern scrib- bling (ch. 111. 21—xii. 32) [xu], small 4°, neat with τίτλ., Am., Lus., and 26° consists of 44 large 4° leaves [x11 or xiv], containing Matth. xvill. 32—-xxviii. 20; Mark i. 16—xiv. 67, with κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am. (not Lus.), lect. ; B-C, III. 4 [Χπ|] small neat 4°, prol., κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ., Am, Eus., lect., pict. of the four Evangelists, syn. complete at the end. B-C, ITI. 5 [x11] fol., /ect., syn. at the end. B-C. III. 9 [χππ]|, 12°, κεφ. ἐ., τίτλ,, κεφ.» Am. (not Lus.), pict. of SS Matthew, Mark and John. This copy is remarkably free from lect. . B-C. III. 10 [xiv] chart., pict. of the four Evangelists and others. Carp., Eus. t., κεφ. t., Am., Hus., lect. The leaves are much mis- placed in binding. Β-Ο ITI. 41 [xm or xm] small, maé. at beginning and end and about Matth. xii. 16. Κεφ. ¢., pict., in a bad condition. Add to the above B-C. I. 1, a very small vellum Psalter [x11] containing the cit Psalms of the Septuagint version, the Hallelujah of Haggai and Zechariah, and the Hymns of Moses (Ex. xv), of Hannah (1 Sam. ii), of Habakkuk (ch. iii), Isaiah (ch. xxvi), Jonah (ch. ii), that of the Three Holy Children, the Magnificat and Bene- dictus, After deducting 42 duplicates, &c., we have enumerated 629 cursive copies of the Gospels. : (2). Manuscripts of the Acts and Catholic Epistles. a, {= Byan,'T). 2. (Paul. 2) Cod. Basil. A. N. 1v. 4 (formerly B, rx. 38) [xi or xiv Burgon] 8°, with short Introductions to the books, once belonged to the Preaching Friars, then to Amerbach, a printer of Basle. It was the copy on which Erasmus grounded the text of his first edition (1516), and he calls it “exemplar miré castigatum.” It is Mill’s Β, 2. (Battier, Wetstein.) 3. (=Evan. 3). 4, (Paul, 4) Basil. A. N. rv. 5 (formerly B. x. 20) [xv] 8°, Mill’s B. 3, badly written by several hands, and is full of contractions: the Pauline Epistles preceding the Catholic (see p. 67). Erasmus made OF THE ACTS AND CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 935 some use of this copy and of its marginal readings (e.g. Acts viii, 37; xv. 34; xxiv. 6—8) for forming his text (Battier, Wetstein). 5, (= Evan. 5). 6. (= Evan. 6). 7. (Paul. 9) Paris Reg. 102 [x] 8°, pro/., seems to be Stephens’ ’, although ¢ is cited in error Luke v. 19; John ii. 17: it nearly resembles Cod. 5 and the Latin version. Of this copy, and of Paul. H. 12. 17. 20. 137, Mr Vansittart re-collated the beginning of the Hebrews. 8. (Paul. 10) Stephens’ ια΄, now missing, cited about 400 times by that editor, in 276 of which it supports the Latin versions (Mill, N. T. Proleg. § 1171). Stephens cites ια΄ (apparently in error) four times in the Gospels, once in the Apocalypse (Matth. x. 8; 10; xii. 32; John ii. 17; Αροο. xiii. 4). 9. (Paul. 11) Cod. Vatabli, now in the University Library at Cambridge, 2068 or Kk. 6. 4 [x1]. Bp. Marsh has fully proved that this copy, which once belonged to Stephens’ friend Vatablus, Pro- fessor of Hebrew at Paris, is his ιγ΄. This copy also is twice quoted by Stephens in the Gospels (Matth. xxvii. 64; John 11. 17), through mere oversight. 10. (Paul. 12, Apoc, 2) Reg. 237, Stephens’ ιε΄ [x] 4°, neatly written, with prol., scholia and other matter. Lelong identified this, and about five other of Stephens’ manuscripts: its value in the Apo- calypse is considerable (Wetstein, Scholz). . 11. (Paul, 140) Reg. 103 [x] 8°, with scholia, mué. Act. il. 20—31. 12. (Paul. 16, Apoc. 4) Reg. 219 [x1] 4°, neat, with Arethas’ commentary on the Apocalypse, and Cicumenius’ on the other books. Like Evan. 16. 19. 317, it once belonged to the Medici; in 1518 it was given by the Greek Janus Lascar “ Petro Masieli” of Constance, and was used by Donatus of Verona for an edition of CEcumenius (Wetstein, Scholz). *13, (Ξ Evan. 33). 14. (=Evan. 35). 15. Coislin, 25 [x1] 4°, described by Montfaucon (as were also Codd. 16—18), compared with Pamphilus’ revision (see p. 51), prol., and a commentary digested by Andreas, a priest (Wetstein). 16. (Paul. 19) Coislin. 26 [x1] fol., with a commentary much like @icumenius’, and a catena of various Fathers: also a life of St Longinus on two leaves [1x]. It once belonged to the monastery of St Athanasius on Athos, βίβλιον τῆς τετάρτης θέσεως (Wetstein). 17. (Paul. 21, Apoc. 19) Coisl. 205 [written by Anthony, a monk, A.D. 1079. Indict. 2] fol., prol., syn., mut. 1 Cor. xvi. 17—2 Cor. i. 7 ; Hebr. xiii. 15—25 ; with Apoc. i. 1—ii. 5 in a recent hand (Wetstein). 18. (Paul. 22, Apoe. 18) Coislin. 202, 2 [foll. 1—26 xr on vellum, the rest XIII on cotton paper], with scholia to the Acts and Catholic Epistles, Andreas’ commentary to the Apocalypse, pro/. to St Paul’s Epistles (Wetstein). 19. (=Evan. 38). 224 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 20. (Paul. 25) 4°, Brit. Mus. King’s Library, I. B. I, once West- minster 935 [xiv] chart., prol., mut., and in bad condition, almost illegible in parts (Wetstein). The Pauline Epistles precede the Acts and Catholic Epistles: see p. 67. Casley notices one leaf lost in the Hebrews. 21. (Paul. 26) Cambridge University Libr. Dd. x1. 90 [x1] 12°, once Jo, Luke’s: mut. Act. i—xi; xiv. 23—xv. 10; Rom. xv. 14—16 ; 24—26; xvi. 4—20; 1 Cor. 1. 15—iii. 12; 2 Tim. 1. 1—iL 4; Tit. i 9—ii. 15; ending Philem. 2. Pro/. to Pauline Epistles only. This copy is Mill’s Zu., but he forgot to name it in his Prole- gomena. It was re-discovered and collated by (Wetstein), and is probably Bentley’s Q. (Ellis, Bentleti Critica Sacra, p. xxix). 22. (Paul. 75 is in the same hand) Brit. Mus. Addit. 5115, once Askew’s [x11] 4°, κεφ. ¢., prol., ending with κεφ. to the Romans: mut. Act. 1. 1—11: lect. is later (Act. i—xx. collated by Paulus for Gries- bach, Bloomfield); Scholz’s date [1x] is an error. 23. (Paul, 28, Apoc. 6) Bodleian. Baroce. 3 [x1] small 4°, a beau- tiful little book, written at Ephesus, beginning Act. xi. 13, ending Apoc. xx. 1: mut. 1 Pet. iii. 7—23: the opening chapters are supplied in a late hand. Tregelles calls this ‘‘a very obscure manuscript.” With the Euthalian pro/. and scholia on the Epistles, and a full and unique commentary on the Apocalypse, edited by J. A. Cramer, 1840 (Mill, Caspar Wetstein, Griesbach), τ 24, - (Paul. 29) Christ’s Coll. Cambridge F. 1. 13 [xu] 4, mut. Act. i, 1—11; xviii. 20—xx. 14; James v. 14—1 Pet.i. 4, and some leaves of this fine copy are torn or decayed: there are also many changes by a later hand (Mill’s Cant. 2, Scrivener’s 1): unpublished collations were made by Bentley (Trin. Coll. Camb. B. xvi. 10, 11), and Jo. Wigley for Jackson (Jesus Coll. Camb. O. Θ. 1). 25, (Paul. 31, Apoc. 7) Harleian 5537, or Covell. 2 [dated Pente- cost, 1087, Indict. 10] 4°, an important copy, from the neighbourhood of the AXgean, with the στίχοι numbered, and a lexicon: mut. 1 John v. 14—2 John 6 (Mill, Griesbach, Bloomfield, Scrivener’s 1 in Apoc.)." 26. (Paul. 32) Harl. 5557, Covell. 3 [x11] 4°, mué. Act. i. I—11; 1 Cor. xi. 7—xv. 56; syn., lect., prol., στίχοι. This copy and the next bear Covell’s emblem “Zuceo,” and the date Constantinople, 1675, but he got Cod. 27 from Adrianople, (Mill, Paulus in Act. i— iii. Bloomfield.) 27. (Paul. 33) Harl. 5620 [xv] 4°, chart., or Covell. 4 is of some weight: there are no chapter-divisions p. m.; the writing is small, and abbreviated (Mill, Griesbach, Bloomfield). 1 Mr Ellis (Bentleii Critica Sacra, pp. xxviii, xxix) represents, among facts which I am better able to verify, that Act. and Epp. 25, 26, and Epp. 15, were collated by Wetstein, and his labours preserved at Trin, Coll. Cambridge (B. xvir, 10,11). The manuscripts he indicates so ambiguously must be Paul, 25, 26 and Act. 15, since Wetstein is not known to have worked at Act. 25, 26, or Paul, 15. OF THE ACTS AND CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 225 *28. (Paul. 34, Αροο. 8) Harl. 5778, is Covell’s δ᾽ or Sinai manu- script [x11] 4°, in wretched condition, and often illegible. Mu#. Act. i. 1—20; Apoc. vi. 14—viii. 1; xxii. 19—21, perhaps elsewhere (Mill, Bloomfield for Act. Paul., Scrivener’s d for Apoc.). 29. (Paul. 35) Genevensis 20 [xr or xir] 12°, brought from Greece, beautifully but carelessly written, without subscriptions; in text much like Cod. 27 (readings sent to Mill, Scholz). 30. (Paul. 36, Apoc. 9) Bodleian Misc. 74 [x1] 4°, brought from the East by Dr Robert Huntington (see p. 175), beginning Act. xv. 19, ked., prol., 3 John, Jude, the Apocalypse and St Paul’s Epistles, which stand last, are in a somewhat earlier hand than the rest (Mill’s Hunt. 1). *31. (=Evan. 69). 32. (=Evan. 51) mut. 2 Pet. iii. 2—18. 33. (Paul. 39). Lincoln Coll. Oxford 82 (olim 15) [x1 or x11] 4°, pre- sented in 1483 by Robert Flemmyng, Dean of Lincoln, a beautiful and interesting codex, with pict., prol., lect., syn., men., and the numbers of the στίχοι noted in the subscriptions. ut. 2 Pet.i. 1—15; Rom. i, 1—20 (Walton’s Polyglott, Mill, Dobbin Cod. Montfort., who regards it as the manuscript from which this portion of the latter was mainly copied). 'The Epistle of Jude stands between James and 1 Peter (seep. 117). Vansittart notes its affinity in text with Cod. 13, *34. (=Evan. 61). 35. (= Evan. 57). 36. New College, Oxford 58 [xm] 4°, with a catena of Fathers, enumerated by Mill (N. T. Prol. § 1390), and edited by Cramer, Oxford, 1838: with a valuable text, prol., and τίτλοι κεφαλαίων (Wal- ton’s Polyglott, Mill). 37. (Paul. 43) New Coll. Oxford 59 [xim] a little later than Cod. 36, 4°, erroneously described by Walton, and after him by Wetstein, as part of Evan. 58, a much later manuscript. Heb. xii. 21—25, is supplied in a recent hand. It is a beautiful copy, prol., τίτλ., with marginal glosses (Walton’s Polyglott, Mill, Dobbin). *38. (Paul. 44) Lugduno-Batay. 77, Mill’s Petay. 1 [xm] 4°, once Petavius’, a Councillor of Paris, given by Queen Christina to Is, Vossius (Mill, Wetstein, Dermout 1825). 39. (Paul. 45, Apoc. 11) Petavii 2, age and present locality not stated. Mut. Act. 1. 1—xviii. 22; James i. 1—y. 17; 3 John 9— Jude 25; 1 Cor. iii. 16—x. 13 (Extracts in Mill; J. Gachon). 40. (Paul. 46, Apoc. 12) Alexandrino-Vat. 179, Petavii 3 [x1] 4°, with a mixed text and the end of Titus (from 111. 3), Philemon and the Apocalypse in a later hand. This copy, given by Christina to Alexander VITI. (1689—91), is of considerable importance, and as containing all Euthalius’ labours on the Acts and the Epistles (see pp. 58, 59), was largely used by Laur. Zacagni for his edition of the Pro- 1 Covell once marked this codex 5, but afterwards gave it the name of the Sinai ΜΆ. (little anticipating a worthier claimant for that appellation), reserving 5 for Harl, 5777 or Hyan. 446, s. 15 226 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS logues, &c., of Euthalius. (Extracts in Mill, Zacagni, Birch; Griesbach adds, “Gagnzeus eundem sub Dionysiani nomine laudasse creditur.”) 41. (=Evan. 175). *42. (Paul. 48, Apoc. 13. Evst.—Lect. 56). In the Gymnasium at. Frankfort on the Oder, once Seidel’s [x1] 4°, carelessly written, with some rare readings: prol., mut. Act. ii, 3—34 (xxvii. 19—34 is in a later hand); 2 Pet. i. 1, 2; 1 John v. 11—21; Apoc. xviii. 3—13 (N. Westermann, H. Middeldorp). One leaf of a Lectionary is added, containing Matth. xvii. 16—23; 1 Cor. ix. 2—12. This copy often agrees closely with the Complutensian text and Laud. 31 (Evan. 51) jointly. 43, (=Evan. 76). 44, (Like Evan. 82, Paul. 15, Apoc. 5) certain manuscripts cited by Laurentius Valla. 45. (Paul. 52, Apoc. 16) Uffenbach 1 or 2 [xv] 4°, charé., in two hands, is stated by Tischendorf to be now at Hamburg: with its companion Cod. M of St Paul’s Epistles (see p. 160), it was lent to Wetstein in 1717 and to Bengel, by Z. C. Uffenbach. It once belonged to Jo. Ciampini at Rome, is carelessly written, but from a good text; “plura genuina omittens, quam aliena admiscens:” Bengel. 46. (Paul. 55) Monacensis 575 [x1] fol., is Bengel’s Augustan. 6, with Gicumenius’ Commentary and some rare readings (Bengel, Mat- thaei, Scholz). 47. (=Evan. 90). 48, (=Evan. 105). 49. (=Evan. 92). 50. (Paul. 8) Stephens’ ζ΄ is unknown, though it was once in the Royal Library at Paris; that is if Evan. 8, Reg. 49, is Stephens’ £ in the Gospels, which Mr Vansittart seems to have proved. Stephens seldom cites ζ΄, or (as Mill puts the case) “textus ipsius fere universus absorptus est in hac Editione” (N. T., Proleg. § 1167). See Evan. 8, p. 166, note. 51. (Paul. 133, Apoc. 52) Paris Reg. 56, once Mazarin’s [x1] 4°, prol., mut., Apoc. xxii. 17—21. 52. (Paul. 50) Cod. Rhodiensis, some of whose readings Stunica, the chief of the Complutensian editors (see Chapter v.), cites in con- troversy with Erasmus: it may have been his own property, and cannot now be identified. Whatever Mill states (on 1 John iii. 16), it is not now at Alcala. *53. (Paul. 30) Emman. College, Cambr. 1. 4. 35 [x11] 16°, only 43 inches square, the writing being among the minutest and most elegant extant. It is Mill’s Cant. 3, Scrivener’s n (a facsimile is given Plate x1. No. 41), and is in bad condition, in parts almost illegible. It begins 2 Pet. ii. 4, and there is a hiatus from 1 John iii. 20 to the middle of Gicumenius’ Prologue to the Romans: mut. also 1 Cor, xi. 7—xy. 56, and ends Hebr. xi. 27. From 1 Tim. vi, 5 another and far less careful hand begins: but the manuscript exhibits throughout many abbreviations. Prol., κεφ. t., τίτλοι, κεφ.» and some marginal notes primd manu. Given to the College “in Testimonium grati animi” by Sam. Wright 1598, OF THE ACTS AND CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 227 54. (=Evan. 43). 55. Readings of a second copy of Jude contained in Cod. 47. Tischendorf, in his eighth edition, cites this copy in Acts xvi. 6, apparently by mistake, 56. (Paul. 59, Apoc. 23.) This number was assigned by Wet- stein and Griesbach to certain readings of four Medicean manuscripts (only one in the Acts), which, like No. 102 of the Gospels, were found by Wetstein in the margin of Rapheleng’s Plantin Greek Testament (1591). As Birch considers these identical with Codd, 84, 87—3, Scholz substitutes (Paul. 227) Cod. Bodleian., Clarke 4 [x11] 4°, prol., κεφ., syn., lect. (extracts ὅσο, by Dean Gaisford). 57. (=Evan. 234). 58 of Wetstein is the same codex as 22; Scholz substitutes (Paul. 224) Bodl., Clarke 9 [x11] 8°, lect., mut. Hebr. xiii. 7—25 (Gaisford). 59, (Paul. 62) Harleian. 5588 [x11] 4°, cotton paper, prol., full Ject., κεφ. On the first leaf we read ‘liber hospitalis de Cusa treviren- cis dioc. R™.” See Cod. Evan. 87 (Griesbach, Bloomfield). 60. (Paul. 63, Apoc. 29) Harl. 5613 [dated May 1407, Indict. 15] 4° chart., mut. Apoc. xxii, 2—18. (Griesbach 55 chapters of Acts and Epp., Griesbach and Scrivener’s e in Apocalypse). *61. (Paul. 61) comprised extracts made by Griesbach from the margin of a copy of Mill’s N. T. in the Bodleian (see Evan. 236), where certain readings are cited under the notation Hal. These are now known to be taken from Evan. 440, Acts 111, Paul 221 (p. 207), or Scrivener’s v of the Gospels, ο of the Acts and Epistles. Hence Tischendorf and Tregelles employ this number to indicate B. M. Addit. 20003, the most important cursive copy of the Acts, formerly called lo“ (p*"), discovered by Tischendorf in Egypt in 1853, and sold to the Trustees of the British Museum in 1854. It is dated April 20, 1044, Indict. 12, and was written by one John a monk, in small 4°, with no κεφ. (though the κεφ. t. for St James ends the volume), or divisions in the text, but rubrical marks added in a later hand. Mut. ch. iv. 8—vii. 17; xvii. 28—xxiii. 9; 297 verses. Independent collations have been made by Tischendorf (Anecd. sacra et prof. pp. 7,8; 130—46), by Tregelles, and by Scrivener (Cod. Augiens. Introd. pp. lxviii—txx). Its value is shewn not so much by the readings in which it stands alone, as by its agreement with the oldest uncial copies, where their testimonies coincide. 62. (Paul. 65) Reg. 60, once Colbert’s [xiv] fol., on cotton paper, with scholia, prol., syn. (Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz). 63. (Paul. 68). Czesar-Vindobon. Nessel. 313, Lambec. 35 [xtv] 8°, with scholia and prol. (Treschow, Alter, Birch). 64. (Paul. 69) C. Vind. Nessel. 303, Lambec. 36 [x11] 8°, care- fully written by one John, prol., syn., brought by Auger Busbecke from Constantinople, like Cod. 67 and many others of this collection (Treschow, Alter, Birch), 15—2 228 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS *65. (=Evan. 218). 66. (Paul. 67, Apoc. 34) C. Vind. Nessel. 302, Lambec. 34 [x1] 4°, with scholia, syn., and other matter: three several hands — have made corrections, which Griesbach regarded as far more valuable than the text (cited by him 66**). Mut. Apoc. xv. 6—xvii. ὃ; xviii. 10—xix. 9; xx. 8—xxii. 21. It once belonged to Arsenius Archbishop of Monembasia (see Evan. 333, Evst. 113), then to Se- bastian Tengnagel and Jo. Sambuc (A. C. Hwiid 1785 for the Acts, Treschow, Alter, Birch). 67. (Paul. 70) C. Vind. Nessel. 221, Lambec. 37 [written by one Leo at Constantinople, December 1331, Indict. 14] 4°, elegant but inaccurate, pro/., syn. (Treschow, Alter, Birch). 68. (Paul. 73) Upsal., Sparwenfeld 42, is in fact two separate manuscripts, bound together, both of high value. The first part [xm] contains the Acts (commencing ch. viii. 14), Rom., 1 Cor. to ch. xv. 38: the second [x1] begins 1 Cor. xiii. 6, and extends through the Pauline and Catholic Epistles, which follow them (see p. 67). There is a ca- tena annexed, and the portion in duplicate (1 Cor. xiii. 6—xv. 38) has contradictory readings (P. F. Aurivill [Orville?] 1686). 69. (Paul. 74, Apoc. 30) Guelpherbytanus xvi. 7 at Wolfen- biittel, August. 7, 4°, chart., also in two hands: the first (Acts and Epistles) [x11] written by George a monk, the Apocalypse [xiv]. It exhibits a remarkable text, and has many marginal readings and prol. (Knittel, Matthaei). 70. (=Evan. 131). 71. (=Evan. 133). 72. (Paul. 79, Apoc. 37) Vatic. 366 [xin] 4°, chart. (This and all from 70 to 96 were slightly collated by Birch, and all except 81, 93—7 by Scholz also). 73. (Paul. 80) Vat. 367 [x1] 4°, an excellent manuscript used by Caryophilus (866 p. 182, Evan. 112). 74. Vat. 760 [x11] 4°, contains only the Acts with a catena. 75. (=Evan. 141). 76. (=Evan 142). 77. (=Evan, 149). 78. (Paul. 89). Alexandrino-Vat. 29 [xm] 4°, a good copy, but mut. 2 Cor. xi. 15—xii. 1; Ephes. i. 9—Hebr. xiii. 25. 79. (Paul. 90) Urbino-Vat. 3 [x1] 8°. 80. (Paul. 91, Apoc. 42) Pio-Vat. 50 [xm] 8°. 81. Barberin. 377 [x1] fol., with a commentary (Birch). Scholz could not find this copy, which has remarkable readings: it contains but one chapter of the Acts and the Catholic Epistles. 82. (= Evan. 180). 83. (Paul. 93) Bibl. Borbon. Reg. at Naples 1 B. 12 [x] 4°, written by Evagrius and compared with Pamphilus’ copy at Czesarea (see p. 51 and Cod, 15): the numbers of the στίχοι are sometimes noted in the margin. See below, Cod. 173. 84, (Paul. 94) Laurent. rv. 1, at Florence [x] fol., has Chryso- ‘OF THE ACTS AND CATHOLIC EPISTLES, 299 stom’s commentary on the Acts, that of Nicetas of Heraclea on all the Epistles. 85, (Paul. 95) Laurent. rv. 5 [x11] fol., on cotton paper, contains the Acts and Pauline Epistles with. Theophylact’s commentary. 86. (Paul. 96, Apoc. 75) Laurent. rv. 20 [x1] 8°, with a com- mentary. Tregelles states that this is the same copy as Cod. 147, the press-mark 20 being put by Birch in error for 30. Yet Scholz makes them separate manuscripts, says that he has examined both, and assigns to them different dates, 87. (Paul. 97) Laurent. rv. 29 [x] 4°, with scholia, prol., and a modern interlinear Latin version in the Epistles, for beginners. 88. (Paul. 98) Laurent. rv. 31 [x1] 8°, prol., mut. in fine Titi. 89. (Paul. 99, Apoc. 45) Laurent. rv. 32, 12°, written by John Tzutzuna, priest and monk, December 1093, Indict. 1, in the reign of Alexius Comnenus, Nicolas being Patriarch of Constantinople. Prol., syn., and a treatise of Dorotheus Bishop of Tyre in Julian’s reign on the 7( disciples and 12 Apostles, which is found also in Codd. 10, 179, Burdett-Coutts τι. 4and Erasmus’ N. Τὶ (1516), and Stephens’ of 1550 in part. 90. (=Evan. 197). 91. (=Evan. 201). 92. (=Evan. 204). *93, (=Evan. 205). *94. (=Evan. 206). *95. (=Evan. 209). *96. (Paul. 109) Venet. 11 [x1] 4°, an important copy, often re- sembling Cod. 142, from the monastery of St Michael de Troyna in Sicily. It has both a Latin and Arabic version. Mut. Act. i. 1—12; xxv. 21—xxvi. 18; Philemon. Codd. 93—96 of the Acts, 106—112 of St Paul, were collated by G. F. Rink, “Lucubratio Critica in Act. Apost. Epp. Cath. et Paul.” Basilae 1830. 97. (Paul. 241) Biblioth. Guelpherbyt. Gud. gr. 104. 2 [xm] 8°; once belonging to Langer, librarian at Wolfenbiittel, who sent a collation to Griesbach. Mut. Act. xvi. 39—xvii. 18, with marginal scholia from Chrysostom and Cicumenius, prayers and dialogues subjoined. Deposited by one Theodoret in the Catechumens’ library of the Laura (monastery) of St Athanasius on Athos. Codd. 98—107 were accurately collated by Matthaei for his N. T. *98. (Paul. 113) Codex Mosquensis (Mt. a) [x1], once belonged to Jeremias the patriarch of the monastery of Stauronicetas on Athos. Matthaei professes that he chietly followed this manuscript, which is divided into three parts: viz. a, Church-lessons from the Acts, so arranged that no verse is lost, with various readings and scholia in the margin: a, (or simply a) the text with marginal various readings and scholia: a, Church-lessons from the Acts and Epistles. *99, (Paul. 114) Mosq. Synod. 5 (Mt. 9) [dated April 1445] fol., chart., from the Iberian monastery on Athos, carelessly written by Theognostus, Metropolitan of Perga and Attalia: prol., syn., and some Patristic writings. *100. (Paul. 115) Synod. 334 (Mt. d) [x1] 4°, with a catena and scholia. 230 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS #101. (Paul. 116) Synod. 333 (Mt. f) [x11] 4°, on cotton paper, carefully written, with scholia to the Acts and prol. *102. This is Cod. Κ of the Catholic and Pauline Epistles, cited according to Matthaei’s notation. See p. 149. #103. (Paul. 118) Synod. 193 (Mt. h) [x11] fol., from the Tberian monastery on Athos, is a volume of scholia, with the entire text im its margin for Act. i, 1—ix. 12; elsewhere only in fragments after the usual manner of scholia. *104. (= Evan. 241). *105. (= Evan. 242). *106. (Paul. 122) Synod. 328 (Mt. m) [x1] 4°, carefully written, from the Batopedion monastery on Athos, has prol., syn., and the Psalms annexed. 107. Cod. Dresdensis, A. 104 [x?]. Tregelles, who examined it, states that the writing much resembles Paul. M (facsimile, No. 38), and calls for a collation of the manuscript, which he found to contain the Acts and all the Epistles liturgically arranged. 108. (= Evan. 226). 109. (=Evan. 228). Codd. 110—192 were first added to the list by Scholz, who states that he collated entire 115, 133, 160; in the greater part 120—3, 126, 127, 131, 137, 161—8, 174; the rest slightly or not at all. 110. (=Evan. 441) should be erased from the Catalogue. *111. (=Ev. 440). This is Scrivener’s o Act. and Paul. 112. Cantabrig. 2068 erase: it is the same as Cod. 9, 5118. (=Evan. 18). Codd. 113, 114, 117, being 132, 134, 137, of St Paul, and 54 Apoc. respectively, together with Act. 127 and Paul. 139, 140, 153, have been collated by J. G. Reiche, in his “* Co dicum aliquot Grecorum N. T. Parisiensium nova descriptio: pre- missis quibusdam de neglecti MSS. N. T. studii causa.” Gott. 1847. *114. (Paul. 134) Reg. 57 [xu] 4°, a valuable copy, with prol., syn., some portions of the Septuagint version, and prayers for the Greek service. . *115. (Paul. 135) Reg. 58, once Colbert’s, (as were 118, 121, 122, 124, 128, 129) [xu] 4°, begins Act. xiv. 27 ends with 2 Tim. ; there are no liturgical notes. 116. (Paul. 136, Apoc. 53) Reg. 59, once Teller’s [xvi] 4°, chart., prol., and scholia to the Catholic Epistles, *117. (=Evan. 263) of some value. 118. (Paul. 138, Apoc. 55) Reg. 101 [x11] fol., on cotton paper, with prol., scholia, and other matter. dwt. Act. xix. 18—xxii, 17. 119. (Paul. 139, Apoc, 56) Reg. 102 A. [x, but Apoe, xm] fol., prol., syn., mut. 2 Cor, 1. 8—ii. 4, The Catholic Epistles follow the Pauline, as would seem to be the case in Cod, 120. See p. 67. 120. (Paul. 141) Reg. 103 A. [x1] fol., pro/., much mutilated, beginning Act. xxi, 20 (although v. 38—vi, 7; vii. 6—16; 32—x, 25 are supplied [x11] on cotton paper), mut, Act. xxviii. 23—Rom. ii. a ie ie OF THE ACTS AND CATHOLIC EPISTLES, 231 26; Phil. i. 5—1 Thess. iv. 1; v. 26—2 Thess. i. 11; 1 John ii, 11 —iil. 3; 24—v. 14; 2 John; ending 3 John 11. 121, (Paul. 142) Reg. 104 [x1] fol., on cotton paper, was. August. de Thou’s before Colbert's : lect.,. syn. 122. (Paul. 143) Reg. 105 [x1] 4°, correctly written, but a mere: collection of disarranged fragments, containing Act. xiii. 48—xv. 22. 29—xvi. 36; xvii. 4—xviii. 26; xx. 16—xxviii. 17; 1 Pet. ii, 20— ni. 2; 17—1 John iii. 5; 21—v. 9; 2 John 8—3 John 10; Jude 7 —Rom. iv. 16; 24—vii. 9: 18—1 Cor. i. 28; ἢ. 13—viii 1; ix. 6 —xiv. 2; 10—Gal. 1. 10; ii, 4—Eph. 1. 18; 1 Tim. 1. 14—v. 5. 123. (Paul. 144) Reg. 106 A. [x1v] 8°, on cotton paper, with prol., scholia and Church-hymns: mut. 1 Pet. i, 9—1ii. 7. 124. (Paul. 149, Apoc. 57) Reg. 124 [xvi] 16°, beautifully writ- ten by Angelus Vergecius (p. 41, note 2). 125. (Paul. 150) Reg. 125 [xiv] 12°, from Constantinople. 126. (Paul. 153) Reg. 216, from the Medici collection [x] fol., probably written at Constantinople, with prol., and a catena from Chrysostom, Ammonius, Origen, &c., sometimes in uncial letters, occasionally, especially in Hebr., as late as [xvi]. *127. (Paul. 154) Reg. 217 [x1] fol., carelessly written (Van- sittart), one of the important manuscripts collated by Reiche. It has a catena in the Acts, scholia in the Catholic, Theodovet’s commentary on the Pauline Epistles. 128. (Paul. 155) Reg. 218 [xt] fol., with a catena. 129. (Paul. 156) Reg. 220 [xr] fol., a commentary, the text being sometimes suppressed. 130. Reg. 221 [x11] fol., from the East, with a catena: mut. Act, xx. 38—xxii. 3; 2 Pet. 1. 14—iii. 18; 1 John iv. 11—Jude 8. 131. (Paul. 158) Reg. 223, once Boistaller’s, contains the Pauline Epistles with prol. and a catena, written a.p. 1045 by Theopemptus, reader and calligrapher, followed by the Acts and Cath. Ep. [x11] fol. 132. (= Evan. 330). 133. (Paul. 166) Taurinens. 285 c. τ. 40, at Turin [x11] chart., pict., prol., in a clear large hand; Mr Hort noticed good readings in the Catholic Epistles. The Epistle to the Hebrews precedes 1 Timo- thy, as Pasinus notes in his Catalogue. 134. (Paul. 167) Taurin. 315 (now 19) ο. 1. 17 [x1] prol., mut. Act. 1. ii Pasinus notes that the Pauline precede the Catholie Epistles, See p. 67. 135. (=Evan, 339). 136. (Paul. 169) Taurin. 328 (now 1) ὁ. τι. 31 [xi], met. in Hebr. 137. (Paul. 176) Ambros. E. 97 sup., at Milan [x1] 4°, lect., prol., bought at Corfu: so like Codd. DEc* and the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac in the Acts, as to assist us when DE are muti- won ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS lated ; especially in additions: e.g. Acts xxvii. 5; xxviii. 16; 19 (bis). ‘See Scrivener’s Cod. Bez, Introd. p. lix, note. 138. (Paul. 173) Ambros. E. 102 sup. [xiv] 4°, chart., once J. V. Pinelli’s; it contains the Epistles only. 139. (Paul. 174) Ambros. H. 104 sup. [written March 20, 1434, Tndict. 12, by one Athanasius] fol., chart., bought at Padua, 1603. 140. (Paul. 215, Apoc. 74) πεν 546 [partly x1 on vellum, partly x11 chart.| 45. The Epistles have a catena, the Apocalypse a commentary. 141. (=Evan. 189). 142. (Paul. 178) Mutinensis [cexlii] 1 B. 17, at Modena Fo 12°; valuable, but with many errors; but see Cod. 96. 143. Laurent. vi. 5, contains ths Catholic Epistles and commen- taries on portions of the "Gospels, but not the Acts. Scholz errone- ously states that this copy = Evan. 362. 144, (= Evan. 363). 145. (=Evan. 365). 146. (=Evan. 367). 147. (Paul. 183, Apoc. 76) Laurent. rv. 30, at Florence [x11] 8°, prol. See Cod. 86, p. 229. 148, (Paul. 184) Laurent. 2574 [arabes A.D. 984, Indict. 12, by Theophylact, priest and doctor of law], fol., pro/., once belonged to the Benedictine Library of St Mary. See p. 89, note 1. 149. Laurent. 176 [x11] 8°, contains the Catholic Epistles, with a Latin version. 150. (=Evan. 368). 151. (= Evan. 386). 152. (=Evan. 442), erase. 153. (= Evan. 444), 154. (Paul. 187) Vatican. 1270 [xv] 4°, contains the Acts, Catholic Epistles, Rom., 1 Cor., with a commentary. 155. (Paul. 188) Vat. 1430 [xm] fol., with a commentary in another hand. It does not contain the Acts, but all the Epistles. 156, (Paul. 190) Vat. 1650 [dated Jan. 1073], fol., written for Nicolas Archbishop of Calabria by the cleric Theodore. The Pau- line Epistles have a commentary: it begins Act. v. 4. 157. (Paul. 191) Vat. 1714 [x11] 4°, is a heap of disarranged fragments, containing Act. xviii. 14—xix. 9; xxiv. 11—xxvi. 23; James iii. 1—vy. 20; “8 John with κεφ. and Sr Gbeeni to Jude; Rom. vi, 22—viii. 32; xi. "31—xv. 23; 1 Cor. i. l—ii. 12. 158. (Paul, 192) Vat. 1761 [x1] 4°, pro’. From this copy Mai supplied the lacune of Cod. B in the Pauline Epistles (see p. 103, note). 159. Vat. 1968, Basil. 7 [x1] 8°, contains the Acts, James and 1 Peter, with scholia, whose authors’ names are given: mut. Act. i. 1 —v. 29; vi. 14—vii. 11. 160. (Paul. 193, Apoc. 24) Vat. 2062, Basil. 101 [x1] 4°, with scholia accompanied by the authors’ names; it begins Act. xxviii. 19, ends Hebr. ii, 1, OF THE ACTS AND CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 233 161, (Paul. 198, Apoc. 69) Vat. Ottob. 258 [xi] 4°, chart., with a Latin version: it begins Act. 11, 27, and the last chapters of the Apocalypse are lost. The latter part was written later [x1v]. 162. (Paul. 200) Vat. Ottob. 298 [xv] small 4° or 8°, with the Latin Vulgate version (with which Scholz states that the Greek has been in many places made to harmonise), contains many transposi- tions of words, and unusual readings introduced by a later hand’. 163. (Paul. 201) Vat. Ottob. 325 [x1v] 8°, chart., mut. Act. iv. 19—-yv. 1. 164. (= Evan. 390). 165. Vat. Ottob. 417 [xrv] 8°, chart., contains the Catholic Epistles, works of St Ephraem and others. 166. (Paul. 204, Apoc. 22) Vallicellian. B. 86 [x11] 12°, written by George, son of Elias, and Joachim a monk. 167. (= Evan. 393). 168. (Paul. 205) Vallicell. F. 13 [x1v] 4°, chart. 169. (Paul. 206) Ghigian. R. v. 29, at Rome [dated June 12, 1994] fol., written by Joasaph at Constantinople in the monastery τῶν ὁδηγῶν. See Evangelistarium 86. 170. (= Evan. 394). 171, 172 (Paul. 209, 210) are both Collegii Romani [xvz] fol., chart. 179. (Paul. 211) Bibl. Borbon. Reg., at Naples, with no press mark [x1] 4°, prol., syn., indices of στίχοι (see p. 60) and μαρτυρίαι cited from Scripture and profane writers. This codex has 1 John v. 7 in the margin, by a recent hand, Tregelles suggests that this is proba- bly the same copy as Cod. 83, the readings ascribed to it being extracted from the margin of that manuscript. 174. (Paul. 212) Neapol. 1 C. 26 [xv] 8°, chart. 175. (Paul. 216) Messanensis IT [x1] 4°, at St Basil’s monastery. 176. (= Evan. 421). 177. (= Evan. 122). 1 Cod. 162 has attracted much attention from the circumstance that it is the only unsuspected witness among the Greek manuscripts for the celebrated text 1 John v. 7, whose authenticity will be discussed in Chap. 1x. A facsimile of the passage in question was traced in 1829 by Cardinal Wiseman for Bishop Burgess, and published by Horne in several editions of his Introduction, as also by Tregelles (Horne, Vol. tv. p. 217). If the facsimile is at all faithful, this is as rudely and indistinctly written as any manuscript in existence; but the illegible scrawl between the Latin column in the post of honour on the left, and the Greek column on the right, has been ascertained by Mr Β. H. Alford (who examined the codex at Tregelles’ request) to be merely a consequence of the accidental shifting of the tracing paper, too servilely copied by the engraver. 2 Scholz says 1344, and Tischendorf corrects but few of his gross errors in these Catalogues: but a.m. 6902, which he cites from the manuscript, is A.D. 1394, 234 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 178. (Paul. 242, Apoc. 87 or m**") Meermann. 118 [ΧΙ or x11] 8°, bought at his sale in 1824 by the late Sir Τὶ Phillipps, Bart. of Middle Hill, Worcestershire: it is numbered 1461 in his Catalogue of manuscripts, and, with his other books, is now at Cheltenham. The Pauline Epistles are written smaller than the rest, but in the same clear hand. Lect., κεφ. t., prol., κεφ. (but not in the Apocalypse), flourished rubric capitals. Scrivener in 1856 fully collated Apoe. (whose text is valuable), the rest slightly. It is sadly mutilated ; it begins Act. iv. 24; mut. Act. v. 2—16; vi. 2—vii. 2; 16—-viii. 10; 38—ix. 13; 26—39; x. 9—22; 43—xili. 1; xxii. 32— xxiv. 24; xxviii. 23—Jamesi.5; iii. 6—iv. 16; 2 Pet. πὶ. 10O— 1 Johni. 1; iii. 13—iv. 2; Jude 16—25; Rom. xiv. (xvi. 25 there. placed)—xv. 14; 1 Cor. 11. 15—xv. 23; 2 Cor. x. 14—xi. 19; xiii. 5—13; Eph. i. 1—uiu. 14; v. 29—vi. 24; Col. 1. 24—26; it, 4-7; 2 Thess. 1. 1—iii. 5; Hebr. ix. 3—x. 29; Apoc. xiv. 4—14: ending Apoc. xxi. 12. The ὑποθέσεις and tables of xed. before each Epistle. have suffered in like manner. 179. (Paul. 128, Apoc. 82) Monacens. 211, once the Bohemian Zomozerab’s [x1] 4°, lect., prol., ὑπογραφαί, Dorotheus’ treatise (see Cod. 89), fragments of Hus. ἐ., and (in a later hand) marginal scholia to St Paul. The text is very near that commonly received. The portion of this manuscript which contains the Apocalypse is de- scribed by Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde, Leipsig, 1862, pp. 45—8, with a facsimile of Apoc. viii. 12, 13. 180. (= Evan. 431), important. 181. (= Evan. 400). 182. (Paul. 243) Bibl. of St John’s monastery at Patmos [xu] 8°, also another [x11] 8% 183. (Paul. 231) Bibl. of the great Greek monastery at Jeru- salem 8 [x1v] 8°. This must be Coxe’s No. 7 [x] 4°, beginning Act. xii. 6. See p. 236. 184, (Paul. 232, Apoc. 85) Jerusalem 9 [x1r] 4°, with a com- mentary. ‘This is evidently Coxe’s No. 15, though he dates it at the end of [x]. 185. (Paul. 233) St Saba, Greek monastery, 1 [xr] 12°. 186. (= Evan. 457). 187. (= Evan. 462). 188. (Paul. 236) St Saba 15 [x1] 4°. 189. (= Evan. 466). 190. (Paul. 244, Apoc. 27) Christ Church, Oxford, Wake 34 [x1] 4°, is described above, p. 215. 191. (Paul. 245) Christ Church, Wake 38 [x1] 4°, in small and neat characters, from St Saba (brought to England with the other Wake manuscripts in 1731), contains a catena, and at the end the date 1312 (ἐτελείωθη τὸ παρὸν ἐν ἔτει swx’) in a later hand. Syn., prol., full lect., mut. Act. i. 1—11. (Walker: see above, p. 215.) 192. (Paul. 246) Christ Church, Wake 37 [x1] 4°, mut. Act. xii. 4—xxili. 52, The last leaf is a palimpsest (see p. 147), and some later leaves are in paper. OF THE ACTS AND CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 235 The following codices also are described by Scrivener, Cod. Augiens. Introd. pp. Iv—lxiv, and their collations given in the Appendix. a** (Paul. a) Lambeth 1182 [x11] 4°, chart., brought (as were also bede) by Carlyle from a Greek island, A later hand [xrv] supplied Act. 1. l—xii. 3: xiii, 5—15; 2, 3 John, Jude. In this copy and b'* the Pauline Epistles precede the Catholic (see p. 67). Lect., pict., κεφ., prol., syn., ἀποδημίαι παύλου, ἀντίφωνα for Easter, and other foreign matter. The various readings are interesting, and strongly resemble those of Cod. 69 of the Acts, and Cod. 61 hardly less, espe- cially in Acts xiii,—xvil. bs? (Paul. b) Lambeth 1183 [dated 1358] 4°, chart., mut. 1 Cor. xi, 7—27; 1 Tim. iv. l—v. ὃ. Syn., prol., κεφ. t., τίτλοι, κεφ., lect., in a beautiful hand, with many later corrections. e* (Paul. c) Lambeth 1184 [xv] 4°, charé., mut. Act. vii. 52— vill. 25. Having been restored in 1817 (see p. 212, Cod. u), its read- ings (which, especially in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, are very im- portant) are taken from an excellent collation (Lamb. 1255, 10—14) made for Carlyle about 1804 by the Rev. W. Sanderson of Morpeth. The text much resembles that of Cod. 61, and isalmost identical with that of Cod. 137. ας (Paul. d) Lamb. 1185 [x1v?] 4°, chart., miserably mutilated and ill-written. It must be regarded as a collection of fragments in at least four different hands, pieced together by the most recent scribe. Mut. Act. 11. 36—ili. 8; vii. 3—59; xii. 7—25; xiv. 8—27; xviii, 20—xix. 12; xxii. 7—xxiii.11; 1 Cor. viii, 12—ix. 18; 2 Cor. i. 1—10; Eph. iii. 2—Phil. i. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 12—Tit. i. 6; Hebr. vii. 19—ix. 12. We have 1 Cor. v. 11, 12; 2 Cor. x. 8—15, written by two different persons. Lect., prol., κεφ. t., syn., in wretched disorder. e** seems to have been Lambeth 1181 [xiv] 4° of the Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles (as we learn from the Lambeth Cata- logue), but having been returned (see p. 212), we have access only to a tolerable collation of Act. 1. 1—xxvii. 12, made by the Rev. John Fenton for Carlyle (Lamb. 1255, 27—33). In its text it much resembles Cod. E (see p. 147). fer (= Evan. ae): ee ἘΞ Evan. je), h** (= Evan. 201, Act. 91). 7 Brit. Mus. Burney 48 [x1v] fol., chart., prol., κεφ. ¢., contains the Catholic Epistles (except that of St Jude), with some uncommon variations. This elegant copy begins fol. 221 of Vol. τ᾿. of Chrysos- tom’s Homilies on Galat.—Hebrews. k** (= Evan. w*”). Recently at Middle Hill (see Cod. 178), 7681 is a copy of the Acts and all the Epistles from the Hon. F. North’s Collection, dated 1107. Cod. Boecleri (Paul. 248) [age not stated], on vellum, containing the Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles, the last arranged as one 236 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS book, with a Prologue. It belonged to J. H. Boecler, Professor of History at Strasburg, and is alleged to have been destroyed in the siege of 1870. Brought ‘‘a Grecis” by Steph. Gerlach, when in the suite of Baron Ungnad, Imperial Embassador to the Porte. In Haenel’s ‘‘Catalogus Libr. MSS.” (see p. 213) we find the fol- lowing: Basil. B. v1. 29, fol., contains the Acts, Catholic and twelve Pauline Epistles with short prologues; Basil. B. 11. 5, 8°, of the Acts and all the Epistles; six Escurial codices of the Acts: besides two containing the whole N. T. (p. 213). But Mr Burgon discovered at Basle that B. νι. 29 is only printer’s copy of the critical apparatus to the second volume of Wetstein’s N. T., and that B. ii. 5 does indeed contain the Epistles with a gloss, the Acts and Apocalypse: but then it isin Latin. Of the Escurial codices Montana (see p. 192) sent to Mr Kelly a list not of six but eight, exclusive of Acts 108, 109, viz. p. ἴτι, 4 [xu]; τ. τη, 12 [xm]; x. τῆι. 3 [xm]; x. τῆι. 10 [xm]; x. IV. 2 [xiv]; y. τα. 6 [xr]; y. ur 18 [x]; ὦ. rv. 22 [xv]. Add also Lamy’s 207 (p. 213), Muralt’s 8"° (p. 209) and the Parham copies (p. 216). Including No. 6, which has been described above, these last are four; viz. No. 14 [dated a.p. 1009] 4°, from St Saba; a Sucsimile given in the Catalogue: No. 15 [x1] 4°, from Caracalla, with a marginal paraphrase: No. 16 [1] fol., from Simo Petra on Athos, These three contain the Acts and all the Epistles. In the Canonici collection at Oxford, besides No. 34 described above (p. 216), is Canon. Gk. 110 [x] 4°, pict., a beautiful copy of the Acts and all the Epistles, with Euthalius’ prol., κεφ., &c., one leaf from Cyril’s Homilies, and two other later (Rev. H. O. Coxe, see Evan. 105, p. 180). Add also Bodleian. Miscell. 118, Auct. F. 6. 24 [x111] 4°, mat., also containing the Acts and all the Epistles: (ect., syn., men., and St Paul furnished with Euthalius’ matter. The following fourteen copies were seen by Mr Coxe in the East (above, p. 217). (2) In the Patriarch’s Library at Cairo, Shelf 1, No. 8, all the Epistles [x1v] 4°, chart. Shelf 4, No. 59, Acts and all the Epistles [x1] 4°. Shelf 5, No. 88, the same, with the Psalter [x1] fol. (8) At the Greek Monastery at Jerusalem besides Nos. 7, 15, which can be none other than Scholz’s 183—4, we must add Nos. 40, 45 from p. 217. (y) At St Saba Scholz found five copies, 185—9, and Coxe no larger number; although it is not easy to reconcile their statements. Coxe’s No. 20, of the Acts, all the Epistles and Apocalypse [x1] small 4°, a palimpsest on uncials [vi], will ill suit Scholz’s 187 or 189. Coxe’s No. 35, Acts and all the Epistles [x1] 4°, may be either Scholz’s 185 or 188. Coxe’s other three contain the Gospels and all the Epistles: No. 52 [x1] small 4°, syn.; No. 53 [x1] 4°; No 54 [x11] 4°. See Scholz’s 186. (8) At Patmos both Scholz and Coxe observed two copies (Cod. 182), of the Acts and all the Epistles; Coxe’s No. 27 [x11] fol., with marginal glosses, and No, 31 [1x] fol. OF ST PAUL'S EPISTLES. 237 Τὸ will be remarked that Coxe’s dates are almost always earlier than Scholz’s. Dr Bloomfield collated eleven copies of the Acts in the British Museum. Six have been named in the foregoing list (Codd. 22; 25 —8; 59). The others are Addit. 11836, 16184, 17469 described under the head of the Gospels (p. 219), Addit. 11837 or Act. 91, and Addit. 19388 (not 19389, for which see p. 219) Catholic Epistles preceded by Pauline [x11 or x1v| small 4°, very neat, bought of Simo- nides in 1853. Contains 2 Cor. xi. 25—1 Pet. 11. 15 only. Prol., κεφ., lect. On sale in 1871 (see p. 219) Acts and Epistles [xiv], small 4°, fine manuscript on vellum, in oak boards. Price £60. At Ferrara, No. 1187 NA. 7 vol. 11. (see p. 219). At Milan Ambros. Z. 34 sup., (see p. 220). The Baroness Burdett-Coutts has three copies of the Acts, two of the Catholic Epistles, viz. : B-C. τι. 7 containing also the Gospels (see p. 221). B-C. τη. 1, Acts and all the Epistles, the Pauline preceding the Catholic (see p. 67) [x1 or x11] large 4°, on fine vellum, with broad margins. This is one of the most superb copies extant of the latter part of the N. T., on which so much cost was seldom bestowed as on the Gospels. The illuminations before each book and golden titles, subscriptions, and capitals, are very rich and fresh: the rubrical directions are in bright red at the top and bottom of the pages. The preliminary matter consists of syn. of the Apostolos, ὑπόθεσις to the Acts: Εὐθαλίου διακόνου περὶ τῶν χρόνων τοῦ κηρύγματος τοῦ ἁγίου παύλου: κεφ. t. of the Acts, in all 20 pages. There are no other tables of κεφάλαια, but their τίτλοι and xed. are given through- out the manuscript. To each Epistle is prefixed the ordinary vzo- Geos or prol. and to eight of them Theodoret’s also. Three leaves at the beginning of Epistles (containing portions of pro/. and 2 Cor. i. 1—3; Eph. i. 1—4; Heb. i. 1—6), have been shamefully cut out for the sake of the illuminations. A complete menology of 18 pp. closes the volume. B-C. 111. 37 [xm] thick 12°, contains the Acts, Catholic, and Pauline Epistles complete, ect. Deducting 18 duplicates, &c., our list contains 232 cursive manu- scripts of the Acts and Catholic Epistles, (9). Manuscripts of St Pauls Epistles. =i «= Byvan: 1): 2,. (= Act. 2). 3. (= Evan. 3). 4, (=Act. 4). 5. (=Evan. 5). 6. (= Evan. 6). 7. Basil. AN. ur. 11 (formerly B. νι. 17) 4°, prol., with notes and a finely written marginal commentary, ends Hebr. xii. 18. But 238 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS Rom. 1, 2 Corinth. are in a different hand. It is plain that Erasmus must have used this copy: ef. Rom. y. 21; vi. 19; viii. 35; xv. 91; ἘΠῚ 22: 1 Cor. xi. 15; 2 Cor. ix. 8; 12;,Gal. i. 6; ii. 275 Eee i. 9; Col. i. 6; iii. 17; 1 Thess. 1. 7; Tit. τ, 8; Philem, 15; Hehe v. 4; vii. 5, in all which places it countenances peculiar readings of his first edition (Wetstein). 8. (= Act. 50). Ὁ. (= Acta): 10. (=Act. 8). ΠῚ (=Act. 9). 12. (=Act. 10). See Act. 7. 13. Certain readings cited by J. le Fevre d’Etaples, in his com- mentary on St Paul’s Epistles, Paris, 1512. 14. (=Evan. 90). 15. A manuscript cited by Erasmus, belonging to Amandus of Louvain. 16. (=Act. 12). *17. (=EHvan. 33). See Act. 7. 18, (=Evan. 35). 19... (= Act.. 16). 20. Coislin. 27, described (as is Cod. 23) by Montfaucon [x] fol., in bad condition, with pro/. and a catena, from Athos (Wetstein). See Act. 7. Bist (= Acto17). 22. (=Act. 18). 23. Coislin. 28 from Athos [x1] fol., prol., and a commentary (Wetstein, Scholz). 24. (Evan. 105). 25. (= Act. 20). 26. (= Act. 21). 27. Cambridge Univ. Libr. 1152, Ff. τ. 30 [x1; or, according to Simonides, an excellent judge, x11 and x11] fol., with Gicumenius’ commentary: Rom. and 1, 2 Cor. are wanting (Wetstein, 1716). Mr Bradshaw finds this manuscript, which came to Cambridge in 1574, only the second part of Cod. 42, the last quire of the latter being numbered xa’, while the first in Cod. 27 is Kf’. 28. (=Act. 23). S20. (= Act, 24): *30. (=Act. 53). 31. (=Act. 25). 32. (= Act. 26). 33. (=Act. 27). *34. (=Act. 28). 35. (=Act. 29). 36. (=Act. 30). *37. (=Evan. 69). 38. (= Evan. 51). 39. (=Act. 33). *40,. (=Evan. 61). 41. (=Evan. 57). 42. Magdalen College, Oxford, Greek 7 [x1] fol., contains Rom. 1, 2 Cor. surrounded by CEcumenius’ commentary, prol., ἄς. (Wal- ton’s Polyglott, Mill). See above, Cod. 27. 43, (= Act. 37). *44, (= Act. 38). 45, (=Act. 39). 46. (=Act. 40). 47. Bodleian. Roe 16, Mill’s Roe 2 [xr or x11] fol., with a Patristic catena, in a small and beautiful hand, and a text much resembling that of Cod. A: its history is the same as that of Evan. 49. The Epistle to the Hebrews precedes 1 Tim.: see p. 68, note 2. (Mill, Tregelles for his edition of the N. T.: inspected by Mr Van- sittart). *48, (= Act. 42). 49, (= Evan. 76). 50. (= Act. 52). 51. (=Evan, 82, Act, 44, Apoe. 5), 52, ( OF ST PAUL'S EPISTLES. 239 53 of Wetstein is now Paul. Cod. M, the portion containing the Hebrews, or Bengel’s Uffenbach 2 or 1 (see p. 160). 54. Monacensis 412 [x11] fol., is Bengel’s August. 5, containing Rom. vii. 7—xvi. 24, with a catena from twenty Greek authors (see Cod. 127), stated by Bengel to resemble that in the Bodleian described by Mill (N. T. Proleg. § 1448). 55. (=Act. 46). 56. Tigurinus, in the Public Library at Zurich, written in 1516, in the hand of the well-known Ulrich Zwingle. This is quite worthless if Wetstein is correct in calling it a transcript of Hrasmus’ first edition, then just published. *57. (= Evan. 218). 58. Vat. 165, “olim Cryptoferratensis,” of the Monastery of Crypta Ferrata, near Tusculum | x11] (Zacagni). 59 of Wetstein and Griesbach comprises readings of two Medi- cean manuscripts of the Ephes. and Philipp., derived from the same source as Evan. 102, Act. 56, Apoc. 23: Scholz silently substitutes Coislin. 204 [x1] fol., with a catena. 60. Codices cited in the Correctorium Bibliorum Latinorum (see p. 177, note 2). ool. (— Act.-61). 62. (= Act. 59). 63. (= Act. 60). 64 of Griesbach is the portion of Cod. M now in the British Museum (see p. 160). 65. (= Act. 62). 66. Various readings extracted by Griesbach from the margin of Harl. 5552, 4°, which itself he thinks but a transcript of Erasmus’ first edition (Symb. Crit. p. 166). 67. (= Act. 66). 67** resembles Cod. B. 68. * (= Act. 63). 69. (= Act. 64). 70. G Act. 0): 71. Cesar-Vindobon. Forlos. 19, Kollar. 10 [xir] 4°, mut. Rom. i. 1—9; Titus; Philem., with Hebrews before 1 Tim. (see p- 68, note 2). There is a commentary and catechetical lectures of St Cyril of Jerusalem (Alter, Birch). 72. (= Evan. 234). 73. (= Act. 68). 74, (= Act. 69). 75. (Addit. 5116, see Act. 22). *76. Biblioth. Pauline Lipsiensis (Mt. 5) [xu] fol., contains Rom., 1 Cor., Gal. and part of Eph., with Theophylact’s commentary (Matthaei). Codd. 77—112 were cursorily collated by Birch, and nearly all by Scholz. 77. (= Evan. 131). 78. (= Evan, 133). 79. (=Act, 72): 80. (Ξ Δοίς 79}. 1 Birch shews the connexion οἵ Caryophilus with this important copy (which much resembles the Leicester manuscript, Evan. Cod. 69) from James v. 5, and especially from 3 John 5 μισθὸν for πιστὸν, a lectio singularis. Seep. 157, In this codex, as in the others cited p. 68, note 2, Hebr. stands before 1 Tim, — 240 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 81. Vat. 761 [x11] fol., with Gicumenius’ Commentary. The Ep. to the Hebrews is wanting. 82. Vat. 762 [x1] fol., contains Rom., 1, 2 Cor., with a catena. 83, Vat. 765 [x1] fol., with a commentary. 84. Vat. 766 [xu] fol., with a commentary. 85. (Apoc. 39) Vat. 1136 [χη] fol., contains first the Apocalypse (beginning ch. iii. 8) with a Latin version, then St Paul’s Epistles, ending | Tim. vi. 5, with many unusual readings. 86. (= Evan. 141). 87. (= Evan. 142). 88. (= Evan. 149). 89. ᾿Ξ Act. 7s): 90. (= Act. 79). 91. CG Act. 80). 92. (= Evan. 180)’. 93. (= Act. 83). 94, (= Act. 84). 95. (= Act. 85). 96. (= Act. 86). The same copy as Cod. 189. 97. (= Act. 87). 98. (= Act.:88). 99, . (= Act. 69) 100. Laurent. x. 4[x1r] fol., with a commentary, and additional scholia [x1v], from the Cistercian monastery of 8S. Salvator de Sep- timo, in the diocese of Florence. 101. Laurent. x. 6 [x1] fol., with pro/. and a catena supplying the authors’ names. 102. Laurent. x. 7 [x1] fol., syn., a life of St Paul, and catena with such names as Theodoret, Chrysostom, Cicumenius, Severia- nus, ὅσο. 103. Laurent. x. 19 [x11] fol., with syn. and a catena, At the end is a date “a.p. 1318, Ind. 1, Timotheus.” *104. (= Evan. 201). 105. (= Evan. 204). Mr Burgon’s note leads him to believe that Evan. 204 does not contain the Pauline Epistles. 106, (= Evan. 205). 107. (= Evan. 206). 108. (= Evan. 209). *109. (= Act. 96). *110. Venet. 33 [x1] fol., with a catena, much being taken from | (Ecumenius (Rink, as also 111, 112: see Act. 96). *111. Venet. 34 [x1] fol. with prol. and a commentary. *112. Venet. 35 [x1] fol., with a commentary, a fragment begin- ning 2 Cor, 1, 20, ending Heb. x. 25; mut. 1 Thess. iv. 13—2 Thess, 11, 14, Codd. 113—124 were collated by Matthaei. #113, (= Act. 98). *114. (= Act. 99). #115. (= Act. 100). #116. (= Act. 101). *117. (= Act. 102). *118. (= Act. 103). 1 The proper date of the later hand in this copy seems to be A.p, 1274 (see p. 188). It is written ψτψπβ, according to Engelberth, which must stand for A.M. 0782, OF ST PAUL’S EPISTLES. - 241 ἦς *119. Mosq. Synod. 292 (Mt. i) [x11] 4°, from the monastery of Pantocrator on Athos, contains 1, 2 Corinth. with Theophylact’s commentary. *120. (= Evan. 241). *121. (= Evan. 242). =ia2.. (= Act. 106). *123. Synod. 99 (Mt. n) [x1] fol., with scholia, from St Athana- sius’ monastery on Athos. *124, Synod. 250 (Mt. q) [xiv] 8°, on cotton paper, from the monastery of Batopedion on Athos, contains Rom. 1—xiil, with Theophylact’s commentary and other writings. Codd. 125—246 were first catalogued by Scholz, who professes to have collated entire 177—179, in the greater part 157, the rest slightly or not at all. 125. Monacensis 504 at Munich, Reisser 5, once August. 8 [dated 1 Feb. 1387, Indict. 10] 8°, on cotton paper, with Theophy- lact’s commentary in black ink, and the text (akin to it) in red. Bought by Nicetas “primicerius sceuophylactus” for eight golden ducats of Rhodes’. Mut. Philemon. 126. Monacens. 455, Reisser 19, Hoeschel 35, once August. 13, is either a copy of Cod. ‘125, or derived from the same manuscript [dated Feb. 17, Indict. 12, ’ probably 1389] fol., chart., also mué. Philem.; with Theophylact’s commentary, and some homilies of Chrysostom, 127. Monacens. 110 [xvi] fol. charé., once at the Jesuits’ Col- lege, Munich, contains Rom. vii. 7—ix. 21, with a catena. It was found by Scholz to be, what indeed it professes, a mere copy of part of Cod. 54. a6, (=Act 179). 129. Monacens. 35 [xvi] fol., chart., with a catena. 130. ‘(= Evan. 43). 131. (= Evan. 330). *132, (= Evan. 18: see Act. 113). ὁ 133, (= Act. 51). 5184, (= Act. 114). 135%. {Ξ Ach. 115). 136. (= Act. 116). 157, (= Evan. 263). See Act. 7. 198. (Ξ Act. 118). *139. (= Act. 119) Reiche, as also 7140, (= Act. 11). 141, (= Act. 120). 142, (= Act. 121), 143. (= Act. 122). 144. (= Act. 123). 145. Reg. 108, once Colbert’s, as were 146—8 [xvi] 8°, contains from Philipp. to Timothy, with prol. 146. Reg. 109 [xvr] 8°, contains Rom. with pro/., and the ὑπό- θεσις to 1 Corinth. 147. Reg. 110 [dated 1511] 8°, contains 1, 2 Corinth. 1 The gold ducat coined for the Military order of St John at Rhodes (see Ducange) was worth 9s, 6d. English money, ἘΠ 16. 242 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 148. Reg. 111 [xvz], contains Titus, Philem., Hebrews. Codd. 145—8 are surely the divided portions of the same manuscript. 149. (= Act. 124). 150. (= Act. 125). 151. Reg. 126 [xvi] 12°, written (like 149) by Angelus Ver- gecius (see p. 41, note 2). 152. (Apoc. 60) Reg. 136° [ 1] 8°, contains the Hebrews, Apoe., and a life of St Alexius. #153, (= Act. 126) Reiche. 154. (= Act. 127). 155. (= Act. 128). 156. (= Act. 129). 157. Reg. 222, once Colbert’s [x1] fol., brought from Constan- tinople 1676, with pro/. and a commentary. J/uét. Rom. i. 1—11 ; 21—29 ; iii. 26—iv. 8; ix. 11—22; 1 Cor. xv. 22—43 ; Col. 1. 1—16. 158. (= Act. 131). 159. (Apoc. 64) Reg. 224 [x1] fol., very elegant. The Pauline Epistles have pro/. and a catena, the Apocalypse Arethas’ com- mentary. 160. Reg. 225 [xv1] fol., chart., a fragment of St Paul with Theophylact’s commentary. 161. Reg. 226 [xvi] fol. charé., contains the Romans with a commentary. 162. Reg. 227, once Bigot’s [xvi] fol., chart., only contains a catena on 1 Cor. xvi. 163. Reg. 238 [x111] 8°, from Adrianople, contains Hebr. i—viii. with a catena. 164. Reg. 849, once a Medicean manuscript (see p. 109, note 2) [xv1]| fol., contains Theodoret’s commentary with the text in the margin. 165. Taurinens. 284, ο. 1. 39, at Turin [xvi] chart., contains from 1 Thess. to Hebrews. 166. (= Act. 133). _ 167. ( Act. 134). 168. Taurin. 325, c, τι. 38 [x11] fol., with pro/., and a comment- ary: it begins Rom. iii. 19. 109. (=Act.136). 170. (= Evan. 339). 171. Ambros. B. 6 inf., at Milan [x11] fol., with a commentary: it ends Heb. iv. 7, and Rom. i. 1—2 Cor. y. 19 are later, on cotton paper. 172. Ambros. 15 (suspected by Burgon to be A. 51 sup.) [x11] fol., with an abridgment of Chrysostom’s commentary: bought at Reggio in Calabria, 1606. 173. (= Act. 138). 174. (= Act. 139). 175. Ambros. F. 125 sup. [xv] fol., chart., with a continuous commentary : it was brought from Thessaly, 176. (= Act, 137). “177. Mutinens. 14 (Ms, τι. A, 14), at Modena [xv] 16% *178. (= Act. 142). OF ST PAUL'S EPISTLES. 943 *179 is Cod. H. of Act.: see p. 149. The Pauline Epistles with a commentary are [x11]. 180. (= Evan. 363). 181. (= Evan. 365). 182. (= Evan. 367). 183, (= Act. 147). Same copy as Cod. 96. 184, (= Act. 148). 185. (= Evan. 393). 186. (= Evan. 394). 187. (= Act. 154). 188, (= Act. 155). 189. Vat. 1649 [xr] fol., with Theodoret’s commentary : Hebr. precedes 1 Tim. (p. 68, note 2). 190. (Act. 156). 191. (= Act. 157). 192, (= Act. 158). 193. (= Act. 160). 194, (= Evan. 175). 195. Vat. Ottob. 31 [x] fol., mué Rom. and most of 1 Cor. ; with a continuous commentary, and such names as Cicumenius, Theodoret, Methodius, occasionally mentioned. 196. Vat. Ottob. 61 [xv] 8°, chart., with a commentary: here as in Cod. 189 the Epistle to the Hebrews precedes 1 Tim. So perhaps Cod. 217. 197. (Apoc. 78) Vat. Ottob. 176 [xv] 8°, chart. 198. (= Act. 161). 199. (= Evan. 386). 200. (= Act. 162). 201. (= Act. 163). 202. Vat. Ottob. 356 [xv] 4°, chart. “olim Aug. ducis ab Al- tamps,” contains Rom. with a catena. 203. (= Evan. 390). 204, (= Act. 166). 205. (= Act. 168). 206. (= Act. 169). 207. Ghigian. R. v. 32, at Rome [xv] 4°, chart., with a com- mentary. 208. Ghigian. vit1. 55 [x1] fol., with Theodoret’s commentary. eve “ΕΞ Act. ἘΠῚ): 210. (= Act. 172). 211. + (= Act. 173). 212. (Ξ Act. 174). 218, Barberin. 29 [dated 1338] prol., scholia. From the reading τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς τοῦ χριστοῦ Col, ii. 2 (see below, Chapter ix.), this must be one of the Barberini manuscripts described under Evan. 112, p. 182. 214. Czsar-Vindobon. theol. 167, Lambec. 46 [xv] 4°, on cotton paper, contains Rom. with a catena, 1 Corinth. with Chrysostom’s and Theodoret’s commentaries, which influence the readings of the text. 215. (= Act. 140). 216. (=Act. 175). 217. Bibl. Reg. Panormi (Palermo) [x11] 4°, begins 2 Cor. iv. 18; mut. ἃ Tim. i. 8—ii. 14; ends Hebr. ii. 9. 218. (= Evan. 421). 219. (= Evan. 122). 220. (= Evan. 400). *221. (= Evan, 440) is οἷ, 222, 223 (= Evan. 441, 442) must be erased. 16—2 244 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 224, (= Act. 58). 225. (= Act. 112), erase: it is the same as Cod. 11, 226, erase : it is the same as Cod. 27. 227. (= Act. 56 of Scholz). 228, (= Evan. 226). 229, (= Evan. 228), 230. (= Evan. 368). 231. (= Act. 183). 232. (= Act. 184). 933. (= Act, 185). 234. (= Evan. 457). 235. (= Evan. 462). 236. (= Act. 188). 237. (= Evan, 466). - 238. (= Evan. 431). 239. (= Evan. 189). 240. (= Evan. 444). 241. (= Act. 97). 242. (= Act. 178). 243, (= Act, 182), two codices. 244, (= Act. 190). 245, (= Act. 191). 246. (Act. 192). Tischendorf adds to Scholz’s list 247, Library of St Geneviéve at Paris, 4°, A. 35 [xiv] all the Pauline Epistles. 248, Cod. Boecleri described under Act. p. 235. To this list we must add the following collated in Scrivener’s Cod. Augiensis, Appendix: a** (= Act. a). b*™(= Act. b). ας (= Act. c), ἀπ (= Act. 4). οἰ (Apoc. 93) Lambeth 1186 [xr] 4° (see the facsimile in the Catalogue of Manuscripts at Lambeth, 1812), begins Rom. xvi. 15, ends Apoc. xix. 4; mut. 1 Cor. iv, 19—vi. 1; x. 1—21; Hebr. iii. 14—ix. 19; Apoc. xiv. 16—xv.7. Lect. The Epistles have prol., τίτλοι, κεῴ., and a few marginal notes, f* (= Evan. 4“). μ΄" (= Evan. 15). δ (= Evan. 201). j** (Ξ Evan. n=), .k*uG iEvan, ww, )- Haenel adds in error the two Basle codices described under the Acts (see p. 236); and four at the Escurial, besides the two containing the whole N. T. (p. 213). Montana recognises only one Ψ. 111. 2 [xv], but Paul 228, 229 may be included by Haenel. There remain Lamy 207 (p. 213); the four Parham copies enumerated above, p. 236 ; three copies at Oxford (see p. 236); five seen by Mr Coxe (p. 236) more than by Scholz.; to which we must add Coxe’s Patmos, No. 24 [xu] 4°, Rom., 1, 2 Cor. with scholia; and Muralt’s 805 as in the Acts (see p. 210). Also Acts 107 as settled by Tregelles, the copy on sale in 1871 (see p. 237), and Hebr. ix. 14—xiii, 25 [xv] in Apoe, 91. Dr Bloomfield collated nine copies of the Epistles at the British Museum ; viz. the four Covell copies (Paul. 31—34) ; Addit. 11837 or Paul. 104; Addit. 11836 described p. 218, and Addit. 5540, 5742, 19389. But I cannot recognise 5540, 5472 either as Harleian or Additional, and 19389 seems an error for 19388 (see p. 237). He does not seem to have touched Addit. 17469 of the whole N. T., save in the Gospels and Acts. There is also at the British Museum, apparently quite uncallated : Addit.7142 [x11] 4°, the Pauline Epistles OF THE APOCALYPSE. 245 -with marginal scholia, and a life of St Paul prefixed, prol., κεφ. t., τίτλοι, mut., lect., the last mostly s.m. Ὁ Mr Burgon enables us to add the Ferrara N. T. (p. 219), and Milan Ambros. Ζ. 34 sup. (p. 220); also at Florence, Libreria Riccardi 85, rather modern, 8°, “ Marsilii Ficini Florentini.” The Baroness Burdett-Coutts has three copies of St Paul’s Epistles, viz. B-C. 11. 1 and m1. 37 (see p. 237), and a beautiful fragment B-C. 11. 4 [x or x1], 4°. The 67 leaves of fine vellum now remaining contain the ten Pauline Epistles from the Ephesians onwards (that to the Hebrews preceding 1 Tim.) and the Apocalypse complete. Jluminations, small but neat, are at the head of each book : τίτλ., κεφ. in red in the Epistles, but no divisions in the Apocalypse. At the end stands as an ἐπίγραμμα on three pages (imperfect) of Dorotheus, bishop of Tyre (see Act. 89), on the Seventy and the Twelve. Citations from the O. T. are marked, and there are some marginal corrections, apparently by the first hand. Deducting 22 duplicates &c., we find 283 cursive manuscripts of St Paul’s Epistles, (4) Manuscripts of the Apocalypse. 1. Codex Johannis Reuchlini* [x11], the only one used in 1516 by Erasmus (who calls it “exemplar vetustissimum”’) and long lost, con- tains the commentary of Andreas of Czesarea, in which the text is so completely imbedded, that great care is needed to separate the one from the other. Mut. ch. xxii. 16—21, ending with τοῦ dad. This manuscript was happily re-discovered in 1861 by Professor F. De- litzsch in the library of the Prince of Oettingen-Wallerstein, and a critical account of it published by him (illustrated by a facsimile) in the first part of his Handschriftliche Funde (1861). Tregelles also in the second part of the same work, published an independent collation of his own (with valuable “ Notes” prefixed), which he had made at Erlangen in 1862. See below, Chapter v. ὃ 2. The identity of Cod, 1 with the recovered copy is manifest from such monstra as ἐβάπτισας ch. ii. 3 which is found in both; from the reading συνάγει ch. xiii. 10 (see below, Chap. 1x.); and from the clauses put wrong by Erasmus, as being lost in the commentary, e.g. ch. 11. 17; iii, 5, 12, 15; vi. 11 10: 2. (= Act. 10, Stephens’ re’). 3. Codex Stephani is’, unknown; cited only 77 times throughout the Apocalypse in Stephens’ edition of 1550, and that very irregu- larly ; only once (ch. xx. 3) after ch. xvii. 8. It was not one of the copies in the King’s library, and the four citations noticed by Mill «N. T. Proleg. § 1176) from Luke xxii. 30; 67; 2 Cor. xii. 11; 1 Tim. 111, 3 are probably mere errors of Stephens’ press. 1 «Heregius ille trilinguis eruditionis Phoenix,” whose death in 1522 his loving friend Erasmus bewailed in the Colloquy entitled Apotheosis Capnionis, Capnio being Reuchlin’s literary name, after the fanciful humour of that age. 246 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 4,, 4= Act. 12). 5. Codices Laurentii Valle (see Evan. 82) ; ; the readings of which Erasmus used. 6. (= Act. 23). *7, (= Act. 25, I). *8, (= Act. 28, 455). 9. (= Act. 30). 10. (= Evan. 60). 11. (= Act. 39). 12. (= Act. 40). *13, (= Act. 42). *14, (= Evan. 69, 15 )2, 15. Fragments of ch. ili, iv. annexed to Cod, E Evan. (see Ῥ. 118), in a later hand. 10: © Act. 45): 17. (= Evan. 35). 18. (= Act. 18). TS, ΛΟ 20. (=Evan. 175), a few extracts made by Bianchini: so Cod. 24. 21, 22 of Wetstein were two unknown French codices, cited by Bentley in his specimen of Apoe. xxii., and his 23 (= Act. 56). Scholz, discarding these three as doubtful, substitutes Cod. 21 Cod. Vallicell. D. 20 [xrv] fol., chart., with Andreas’ comment.: Cod. 22. (= Act. 166): Cod. 23. (= Evan. 38), which he says he collated cursorily. But whatever readings he cites under these three numbers, are simply copied from Wetstein! (Kelly’s “Revelation”, Introd. p. xi, note.) 24. (= Act. 160). 25. (= Evan. 149). *26. Wake 12 [x1] see above, p. 214. Codd. 6, 26, 27, 28 were rather loosely collated for Wetstein by his kinsman Caspar Wetstein, chaplain to Frederick, Prince of Wales. *27. (= Act. 190), Wake 34. This copy is fully described above, p. 215. *28. Cod. Barocc. 48 in the Bodleian, contains mixed matter by several hands (see p. 66), and is n°" of the Apocalypse [xv] 4°, chart., mut. ch, xvii. 5—xxii. 21: τίτλοι, κεφ. (Vv. 1 i i volume in a different hand). This is an important copy. a2, (= Act, 60,6), 30. (= Act. 69). *31. Cod. Harleian. 5678 is c*", but ch. i—viii. had been loosely collated for Griesbach by Paulus [xv] 4°, chart. Like Cod. 445 Evan., it once belonged to the Jesuits’ College at Agen, and is important for its readings. As in Codd, 28, 32, 35, 38, 43, 49, 50, 58, 60, 65, 68, 81, there is much miscellaneous matter in this volume. 1 Mr B. W. Newton has superintended the publication of Tregelles’ last part of his Greek New Testament under cireumstances which disarm criticism, but Tregelles could hardly have meant that in the Apocalypse ‘“‘much of Cod, 14 (Leicestrensis) has been supplied by a later hand from the Codex Montfor- tianus, Apoc. 92” (Introductory Notice, p. 1). The original hand remains unchanged in the Leicester copy even on the last torn leaf containing portions of Apoc. x1x., but the converse supposition is very maintainable, though not quite certain (sce above p. 174), that the Apocalypse in Cod, 92 was transcribed from Cod, 14, OF THE APOCALYPSE. 247 32. Codex Dresdensis A. 95 (Tregelles), ante Loescheri, deinde Briihlii (see Evst. 57) [x Griesb., xv Scholz] 4°, collated by Dassdorf and Matthaei (Mt. t), seems important. In consists of only 16 leaves. The close resemblance in the text of Codd. 29—32 is somewhat over- stated by Griesbach. *33. (= Evan. 218). 34. (= Act. 66). 35. Cesar-Vindobon. Lambec. 248 [xiv] 4°, with Andreas’ commentary : brought from Constantinople by Busbeck (Alter). De- scribed by Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde (Part 11.) p. 41, (1862). 36. Czsar-Vindobon. Forlos. 29, Kollar. 26 [xiv] 8°, ends ch, xix. 20, with Andreas: the text is in στίχοι (Alter). 37. (= Act. 72). *38. Vatic. 579 [x11] 8°, cotton paper, in the midst of foreign matter. The text (together with some marginal readings prima manu) closely resembles that of Codd. AC, and was collated by Birch, inspected by Scholz and Tregelles, and subsequently recollated by B. H. Alford at the request of Tregelles (see on Cod. T, p. 133). 39. (= Paul. 85). 40. (= Evan. 141). 41. Alexandrino-Vat. 68 [xiv] chart., with extracts from Cicu- menius and Andreas’ commentary (Birch, Scholz: so Cod. 43). 42. (= Act. 80). 43. Barberini 23 [xv] 4°, contains eh. xiv. 17—xviii. 20, with a commentary, together with portions of the Septuagint. 44, (= Evan. 180). 45. (= Act. 89). 46. (= Evan. 209). *47, (= Evan. 241). *48, (= Evan. 242). *49, Moscow. Synod. 67 (Mt. 0) [xv] fol., chart., with Andreas’ commentary, and Gregory Nazianzen’s Homilies. *50. Synod. 206 (Mt. p) [xu] fol., like Evan. 69, 206, 233, is partly of parchment, partly paper, from the Iberian monastery on Athos ; it also contains lives of the Saints. *50*. Also from the Iberian monastery [x] is Matthaei’s r. Codd. 51—88 were added to the list by Scholz, of which he pro- fesses to have collated Cod. 51 entirely, as Reiche has done after him ; Codd. 68, 69, 82 nearly entire ; twenty-one others cursorily, the rest (apparently) not at all. Cod. 87 is Scrivener’s m, collated in the Apocalypse only. *51. (=Evan. 18). 52. (=Act. 51). 53. (=Act. 116). 54, (=Evan. 263). 55. (=Act. 118). 56. (=Act, 119). BT. (=Act. 124). 58. Paris, Reg. 19, once Colbert’s [xv1] fol., chart., with “ Hiob et Justini cohort. ad Gree.” Scholz. 59. Reg. 995 [xvr] chart., with a commentary, Once Giles de Noailles’. 60. (= Paul. 152). 248 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 61. Reg. 491, once Colbert’s [x1] 4°, on cotton paper, mut, with pieces from Basil, &e. 62. Reg. 239—40 [xvi] 4°, chart., with Andreas’ commentary. 63. Reg. 241, once De Thou’s, then Colbert’s [xvr] 4°, chart., with Andreas’ commentary. 64. (= Paul. 159). 65. University Library at Moscow, 25 (once Coislin’s 229) [1] contains ch. xvi. 20—xxii. 21. 66. (= Evan. 131). 67. Vat. 1743 [dated 5 Decembr. 1302], with Andreas’ com- mentary. 68. Vat. 1904 [x1] 4°, contains ch. vii. 17—viit. 12; xx. 1— xxii. 21, with Arethas’ commentary, and much foreign matter. This fragment (as also Cod. 72 according to Scholz, who however never cites it) agrees much with Cod. A, 69. (=Act. 161). 70. (=Evan. 386). 71. (=Evan. 390). 72. Cod. Ghigianus R. iv. 8 [xvi] 8°, charé., with Andreas’ com- mentary. The same description suits 73, in the Corsini Library 838, 74, (=Act. 140). 75. (=Act. 86). 76. (Ξ Δοὐ. 147). Codd. 75, 76 are but one copy : see pp. 229, 232. 77. Cod. Laurent. vii. 9 at Florence [xv] 4°, chart., with Arethas’ commentary. 78. (=Paul. 197): 79. Cod. Monacensis 248, at Munich ; once Sirlet’s, the Apos- tolic chief notary (see Evst. 132) [xvi] 4°, charé., with Andreas’ commentary, whose text it follows. That excellent and modest scholar Fred. Sylburg collated it for his edition of Andreas, 1596, one of the last labours of his diligent life. 80. Monacens. 544 (Bengel’s Augustan. 7) [x1 Sylburg, x1v Scholz, who adds that it once belonged ‘to the Emperor Manuel, who died a.p. 1180*] 4°, on cotton paper, ; with Andreas? commentary. 81. Monacensis 23 [xvi] fol., chart., with works of Gregory Nyssen, and Andreas’ commentary, used by Theod. Peltanus for his edition of Andreas, Ingoldstadt 1547. Peltanus’ marginal notes from this copy were seen by Scholz. 82. (=Act. 179). 83. (= Evan. 339): much like Cod. B and other common-place copies, as Mr Hort reports, who collated five chapters in 1864, and sent his papers to Tregelles, 84. (= Evan. 368). 85. (=Act. 184). 86. (=Evan. 462), thrice cited ineunte libro (Tischend.). 80", (= Evan. 466). *87. (Act. 178), τῆ 88. (= Evan. 205). 89. Tischend. = 86’ Scholz. 90. Tischend. = 50° Scholz (Mt. r). 91, Mico’s collation of the modern supplement [xv] to the great 1 Unless indeed he means Manuel II., the son of Palwologus, who visited [England in 1400, the guest and suppliant of Henry IV, OF THE APOCALYPSE. 249 Cod. B, published in Ford’s “Appendix” to the Codex Alexandrinus 1799. The whole supplement from Heb. ix. 14 pret τὴν συνείδησιν including the Apocalypse (but not the Pastoral Epistles) is printed at full length in Vercellone and Cozza’s edition of Cod. Vaticanus (1868): see p. 107. 92. (=Evan. 61) published by Dr Barrett 1801 in his Appen- dix to Cod. Z, but suspected to be a later addition. See Cod. 14, p- 246, note. Wm. Kelly, “The Revelation of John edited in Greek with a new English Version” 1860, thus numbers Scrivener’s recent collations of six copies not included in the foregoing catalogue : 95. (eau ἘΠῚ) a. 94. (=Evan, 201) ὅτ: *95. Cod. Parham 17, g** [x11 or x11] 4°, brought by the late Lord de la Zouche in 1837 from Caracalla on Athos: it contains an epitome of the commentary of Arethas, in a cramped hand much less distinct than the text, which ends at ch. xx. 11. There are no divi- sions into chapters. This “special treasure” as Tregelles calls it, is regarded by him and Alford as one of the best cursive manuscripts of the Apocalypse. *96. Cod. Parham 2, h** [xiv] 4°, κεῴ., on glazed paper, very neat, also from Caracalla, complete and in excellent preservation, with very short scholia here and there. These two manuscripts were col- lated by Scrivener 1855, under the hospitable roof of their owner. 97, 98 both contain the whole New Testament, without com- mentaries, but have hitherto been collated only for this book. 97. Brit. Mus. Addit. 17469, 15 [xiv] fol. (see p. 219) is full of interesting variations. 98. Canonici 34 in the Bodleian, k** [dated in the Apocalypse July 18, 1516] 4°, chart.: see above, Ὁ. 216. The Pauline Epistles (dated Oct. 11, 1515) precede the Acts (see p. 67). This copy much resembles Cod. 30, and is of considerable value. Haenel adds one copy from the Escurial (recognized by Montana as y. τι1. 17 [x11], ‘con commentarios Cl. Pablo”: see pp. 192—3), and the two at Arras and Poictiers (p. 213): Mr Burgon the Ferrara copy of the whole N. T. (p. 219). Evan. 206, Act. 94, Paul. 107, con- tains the Apocalypse, but is a copy of Cod. 46 (p. 247). Evan. 367 should also be numbered for this book. Mr Coxe saw but two codices of the Apocalypse in the East (Jerusalem No. 15; St. Saba No. 20), though Scholz speaks of one more at St Saba, and no doubt correctly. Dr Bloomfield states that he collated four in the British Museum, but does not name them: they are probably included in our catalogue. For B-C. τι, 4 see above p. 245. We cannot identify Bentley’s R. (Regis Gallie 1872): ef. Ellis Bentleci Critica Sacra. Introd. p. xxix. _ Deducting one duplicate we have enumerated 105 cursive manu- scripts of the Apocalypse. Section IV. On the Lectionaries, or Manuscript Service-books of the Greek Church. HoweEVER grievously the great mass of cursive manuscripts of the New Testament has been neglected by Biblical critics, the Lectionaries of the Greek Church, partly for causes pre- viously stated (p. 69), have received even less attention at their hands. Yet no sound reason can be alleged for regard- ing the testimony of these Service-books as of slighter value than that of other witnesses of the same date and character. The necessary changes interpolated in the text at the com- mencement and sometimes at the end of lessons are so sim- ple and obvious that the least experienced student can make allowance for them: and if the same passage is often given in a different form when repeated in the same Lectionary, although the fact ought to be recorded and borne in mind, this occasional inconsistency must no more militate against the reception of the general evidence of the copy that ex- hibits it, than it excludes from our roll of critical authori- ties the works of Origen and other Fathers, in which the selfsame variation is even more the rule than the exception. Dividing, therefore, the Lectionaries that have been hitherto catalogued (which form indeed but a small portion of those known to exist in Eastern monasteries and Western libraries) into Evangelistaria containing the Gospels, and Praxapostoli or Apostoli comprising extracts from the Acts and Epistles, (see p. 69); we purpose to mark with an asterisk the few that have been really collated, including them in the same list with the majority which have been examined super- ficially, or not at all. Uncial copies (some as late as the eleventh century: see p. 28) will be distinguished by Ἢ. The uncial codices of the Gospels amount to 61, those of the Acts and Epistles only to six or perhaps seven, for Cod. 40 is doubtful. Lectionaries are nearly always (yet see below Codd. 111. 142. Venet. 1. 11, B-C τι. 23) written with two columns on a page, like the Codex Alexandrinus (see p. 27), FGI (1—6, 7) LMN*’PQRTUXO"A. 8. 184. 207. 360. 418. 422. a" (sic). Venet. Nanian 27 of the Gospels, and Cod. M of St Paul’s Epistles. ON THE LECTIONARIES, &c. 25] (1) vangelistaria or Evangeliaria, containing the Gospels. +1. Regius 278 Paris, once Colbert’s [vi11?] fol., mut. (Wetstein, Scholz). +2. Reg. 280, once Colbert's [1x] fol., mat. (Wetstein, Scholz). +3. Wheeler 3, Lincoln College, Oxford No. 15 [x] 4°, with coloured and gilt iiluminations and capitals, red musical notes, and red crosses for stops: three leaves are lost near the end (Mill). 4. Cambridge Univ. Lib. Dd. 8. 49, or Moore 2 [x1] 4°, syn., men., cursive (Mill). +5. Bodleian. Barocc. 202, or Mill’s Bodl. 3 [x?, but undated] mut., initio et fine (Mill, Wetstein). *+6, (Apostol. 1). Lugduno-Batav. 243, once Scaliger’s [x1], chart., with an Arabic version, contains the Praxapostolos, Psalms, and but a few Lessons from the Gospels (Wetstein, Dermout). 7. Reg. 301, once Colbert’s, as were 8—12; 14—17 [written by George, a priest, in 1205] fol. (Codd. 7—12; 14—17 were slightly collated by Wetstein, Scholz). 8. Reg. 312 or 302 teste Tischendorf. [x1v] fol., written by Cos- mas, ὃ monk. 9. Reg. 307 [x11] fol. 10. Reg. 287 [x1] fol., mut. 11. Reg. 309 [xii] fol., mae. 12. Reg. 310 [xu] fol., mat. +13. Coislin. 31 [x] fol., most beautifully written, the first seven pages in gold, the next fifteen in vermilion, the rest in black ink, pict., described by Montfaucon (Scholz), Wetstein’s 13 (Colbert. 1241 or Reg. 1982) contains no Evangelistarium. 14, Reg. 315 [xv] fol., chart. Wrongly set down as Evan, 322. 15. Reg. 302 [xt] fol., mut. 16. Reg. 297 [x11] fol., much mu. 17. Reg. 279 [x11] fol., mut. (Tischendorf seems to have con- founded 13 and 17 in his N. T. Proleg. p. ccxvi. 7th edition). 18. Bodl. Laud. Gk. 32, or Laud. D. 121, Mill’s Bodl. 4[x1] fol., much mut., beginning John iv. 53. Codd, 18—22 were partially examined by Griesbach after Mill. 19. (Apost. Paul. 3, Griesbach). Bodl. 3048, or Misc. 10, Auct. D. Infr. 2. 12; Mill’s Bodl. 5 [x] fol., mzé., with musical notes, rubro: given in 1661, by Parthenius, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Heneage Finch, Earl of Winchelsea, our Ambassador there. This and Cod. 18 are said by Mill to be much like Stephens’ s’, Evan. 7. 20. Bodl. Laud. 34, Mill’s Laud. 4 [written by Onesimus, April 1047, Indiction 15] 4°, mut.’ 1 Land. Gk. 36, which in the Bodleian Catalogue is described as an Evangelis- tarium, is a collection of Church Lessons from the Septuagint read in Lent and the Holy Week, such as we described above, pp. 70, 80. 10 has red musical notes, and seems once to have borne the date A. Ὁ. 1028, 252 ON THE LECTIONARIES, OR MANUSCRIPT 21. Bodl. 3386, or Selden 49, Mill’s Selden 4 [x1v] 4°, coarsely written ; a mere fragment, as is also 22. Bodl. 3384, or Seld. 47, Seld. 5 of Mill [xiv] 4°, mut., with Patristic homilies [x1[. +23. Mead’s, then Askew’s, then D’Eon’s, by whom it was sent to France. Wetstein merely saw it. 124. Monacensis 383 (August. 4 of Bengel) [x] fol., the lessons for Saturdays and Sundays (σα β βατοκυριακαὶ) and a menology, mut. (Bengel, Scholz). Is this the Cod. Radzivil, with slightly sloping uncials, [vi], of which Silvestre gives a facsimile (Paléogr. Univ. No. 68) ? 25. Mus. Brit. Harleian. 5650 [xm] 4°, a palimpsest, whose later writing is by Nicephorus the reader. The older writing, now illegi- ble, was partly uncial, mu. 25” represents a few Lessons in the same codex by a later, yet contemporary hand (Bloomfield). Codd. 25—30 were very partially collated by Griesbach. 26. (Apost. 28). Bodleian. 5990, 5614. 1, or Mill’s Seld. 2 [xr] 4°, mut. a palimpsest, but the earlier uncial writing is illegible, and the codex in a wretched state, by several hands. 127. Bodl. 3391, Seld. 2, or Mill’s Seld. 3, a palimpsest [rx uncial, xtv later writing] 4°, muf., in large ill-formed characters. Codd. 26, 27 were collated by Mangey, 1749 (see p. 215), but his papers appear to be lost. 28. Bodl. Mise. 11, Auct. D Infra 2. 14, Marsh 22 [xm] 4°, mut., in two careless hands. - 29. Bodl. Misc. 12, Auct. D Infra 2. 15, Marsh 23 [xm] 4° mut. Elegantly written but much worn. 30. (Apost. Paul. 5, Griesbach), Bod]. 296, now Cromwell 11 [the whole written in 1225 by Michael, a χωρικὸς καλλιγράφος] 4°, containing Prayers and some Lessons from the Gospels (including εὐαγγέλια ἀναστασιμά: 866 p. 79) and Epistles (Griesbach). 31. Cod. Norimberg. [x1] 4°, (Doederlein). Its readings are stated by Michaelis to resemble those of Codd. D (e.g. Luke xxii. 4) L. 1. 69. *39. Cod. Gothanus, in the Library of the Duke of Saxe Gotha [xir] fol., carelessly written, but. with important readings: see Luke xxii. 17, &e., below Chapter 1x. Edited by Matthaei, 1791. +33. Codd Cardinalis Alex. Albani [x1] 4°, a menology edited by Steph. Ant. Morcelli, Rome 1788. +34. Monacens. 329, from Mannheim [x] 4°, in massive uncials, the last three out of four volumes, the menology suiting the custom of a monastery on Athos (Rink, Scholz). Mr Burgon refers to Hardt’s Catalogue, iii, 314 seq. Codd, 35—39 were inspected or collated by Birch, 40—43 by Moldenhawer. SERVICE-BOOKS OF THE GREEK CHURCH. 253 35.’ VWatic. 351 [x or x1] fol., contains only the lessons for holi- days. *+36. Vat. 1067 [x1] fol., a valuable copy, completely collated. 37. (Apost. 7). real a 287, Borgia 3 [x1] 4°, contains only 13 lessons from the Gospels. 38. Laurent. Florent. 1, and 39. Florent. 2, formerly in the Grand Duke’s Palace, and neatly written, are only once cited by Birch. Scholz numbered these two over again as Evst. 117, 118, which see below (Burgon). . 740. Escurial I. [x] 4°, kept with the reliques there as an auto- graph of St Chrysostom. It was given by Queen Maria of Hungary (who obtained it from Jo. Diassorin) to Philip II. Moldenhawer, who relates its history in a scofling spirit, was only allowed to see it for a few hours, and collated 15 lessons. The text is of the common type, but in the oblong shape of the letters, false breathings and accents, the red musical notes, &c., it resembles Evst. 1, though its date is somewhat lower. Omitted by Montana, but see above, p. 193. 141. Escurial χ. ITI. 12 [x, or xt with Montana] 4°, very elegant: the menology (as also that of Cod. 43) suited to the use of a Byzan- tine church. 142. Escurial x. IIT. 13 [1x, or xt with Montana] 4°, mwé. at the beginning. Two hands appear, the earlier leaning a little to the right. Montana, however, describes it as containing the Four Gospels. 43. Evscurial x. TIT. 16 [ΧΙ, or x11 with Montana] 4°, mué. at the beginning, in large cursive letters, with full men. 44, (Apost. 8). Havniens. 3 [xv] mut., and much in a still later hand. Its history resembles that of Evan. 234—5 (Hensler). +45. Czsar-Vindobon. Lambec. 15, Nessel 5 [x] fol., six leaves from the binding of a law-book: the. letters resemble the Tubingen fragment, Griesbach’s R (see p. 190) or Wetstein’s 98 (Alter), +46. Czsar-Vindobon. Forlos. 23, Kollar.7 [1x], on purple vellum with gold and silver letters. There isa Latin version (Bianchini, Tres- Alter). Silvestre has a facsimile, Paléogr. Univ. No. 69. *t47, Moscow, 8. Synod. 43 (Matthaei B) [vir] fol., “a barbaro scriptus est, sed ex preestantissimo exemplari,” Matthaei, whose codi- ces extend down to 57. *48, Synod. 44 (Mt. c) [written by Peter, a monk, a.pv. 1056] fol., from the Iberian monastery on Athos, In 1312 it belonged to ‘Nicephorus, Metropolitan of Crete. *49. Typograph. Synod. 11 (Mt. f) [x and later] fol., pict. Superior in text to Cod. 48, but much in a later hand. *+50, Typograph. Synod. 12 (Mt. H) [vim 1] fol.. A very valu- able copy, whose date Matthaei placed unreasonably high. 1 1 follow Birch’s description. Scholz (whom Horne and Tischendorf merely copy) has given to this Cod. Vat. 351 the date and es 5 τὸ which belong to Cod. Vat, 354, or § of the Gospels. 254 ON THE LECTIONARIES, OR MANUSCRIPT *51. Typograph. Syn. 9 (Mt. t) [xvi] 4°, chart. *52. (Apost. 16) Synod. 266 (Mt. €) [xrv] 4°, contains an Eu- chology and ἀποστολοευαγγέλια (866 p. 69), as also do 53, 54, 55. *53. (Apost. 17). Synod. 267 (Mt. x) [xiv or xv] 4°, chart, from the monastery of Simenus on Athos. *54. (Apost. 18). Synod. 268 (Mt. ψ) [written a. p. 1470, by Dometius, a monk] 4°, chart., from Batopedion monastery on Athos. *55. (Apost. 19). Typogr. Syn. 47 (Mt. w) [the Apost. copied at Venice 1602] 4°, chart., wretchedly written. *56. (Apost. 20). Typogr. Syn. 9 (Mt. 16) [xv or xvi] 16°, chart., fragments of little value. *57. Dresdensis 232 (Mt. 19) [xv] 8°, chart., came from Italy, and like Apoc. 32, once belonged to Loescher, then to the Count de Briihl. It is a Euchology on 344 leaves, described in Matthaei, Ap- pendix to St John’s Gospel, p. 378. Codd. 58—181 were added to the list by Scholz, who professes to have collated entire Cod. 60; in the greater part 81, 86. 58. Paris Reg. 50 a [xv] 4°, chart., brought from some church in Greece. 59. Reg. 100 A [xvu1] fol., chart. This is Evang. 289, repeated in error (Burgon). *60, (Apost. 12). Reg. 375, once Colbert’s, formerly de Thou’s [written A.D. 1022 by Helias, a priest and monk, “in castro de Colo- nia,” for the use of the French monastery of St Denys] 8°; it con- tains many valuable readings (akin to those of Codd. ADE), but numerous errors. 101, Reg. 182 [x] 4°, a fragment. 62. Reg. 194 A [x1] fol. This is Evan. 303, repeated in error (Burgon). +63. Reg. 277 [1x] fol., mut. at the beginning and end. +64, Reg. 281 [1x] fol., from Constantinople ; many leaves are torn. +65. Reg. 282 [1x] fol.,a palimpsest, with a Church-service in later writing [x11]. +66. Reg. 283 [1x] fol., also a palimpsest, with the older writing of course misplaced ; the later ( ηυμέ. in fine) a Church-service [x11]. +67. Reg. 284 [x1] fol., “ optime note,” with musical marks, &e, 68. Reg. 285, once Colbert’s [x1] fol., mut., initio et fine. 69. Reg. 286 [x1] fol., mué. in fine. 70, Reg. 288 [x1] fol., brought from the East in 1669. = Evet. 37). 8. (=Evst. 44). 9. (Evst. 84). 10. (Hvst. 85). 11, Paris, Reg. 1045 [x11] 8°, well written in some monastery of Palestine : with marginal notes in Arabic. *12. (=Evst. 60). *+13. Moscow, 8. Synod. 4 (Mt. b) [x] fol., important : it would seem to be an uncial, once belonging to the Iberian monastery ; renovated by Joakim, a monk, A.p, 1525, *14, 5. Synod. 291 (Mt. e) [xm] 4°, well written, from the monastery Tov ἐσφιγμένου on Athos. *15, Topogr. Syn. 31 (Mt. tz) [dated 1116]. “10 (= Hyst. 52) *17. (= Evst. 53). *18. (= Evst. 54). *19, (= Evst. 55). *20. (= Evst. 56), Codd. 21—58 comprise Scholz’s additions to the list, of which he describes none as collated entire or in the greater part. He seems, however, to have collated Cod. 12. 21. (=Evst. 83). 22. Reg. 304 [x11] fol., brought from Constantinople: mué. in fine. 23. Reg. 306 [x11] fol., mz. initio et fine. 24, Reg. 308 [x11] fol., contains a few lessons from the New Testament, more from the Old: muwdé. 25. Reg. 319, once Colbert’s [x1] fol., ill written, with a Latin version over some portions of the text. 26. Reg. 320 [x11] fol., mut. 27. Reg. 321, once Colbert’s [x11] fol., mué., and illegible in parts. 28. (=Evst. 26). 29. (=Evst. 94). 30. Reg. 373 [x11] 4°, mud. initio et fine: with some cotton- paper leaves at the end. 31. (= Evst. 82). 32. (=Evan., 324, Evst. 97), 33. Reg. 382, once Colbert’s [x11] 4°. 268 ON THE LECTIONARIES, OR MANUSCRIPT 34. Reg. 383, once Colbert’s [xv] 4°, chart. In readings it is much with Apost. 12, and the best copies. 35. (= Evst. 92). 36. (= Evst. 93). 37. (=Evan. 368, Act. 150, Paul. 230, Apoc. 84). 38. Vat. 1528 [xv] 4°, chart., written by the monk Eucholius. 39. (=Evst. 133). _ 40, Barberini 18 [x] 4°, a palimpsest (probably uncial, though not so stated by Scholz), correctly written, but mostly become illegible. The later writing [x1v] contains lessons from the Old Testament, with a few from the Catholic Epistles at the end. 41. Barb. 1 [xr] 4°, mut. 42, WVallicell. C. 46 [xv1] 4°, chart., with other matter. 43. Richard. 2742 at Florence: seems to be the same as Cod. 48 below, and is not (as Scholz states) Evst. 139. We must erase both (Burgon). 44,45. Hunterian Mus, Glasgow, Q. 3. 4 and P. 2. 9 (see Ὁ». 213, note 1), having been bought by Hunter at Cesar de Missy’s sale (BB and CC of de Missy, but Nos. 1633—4 of his sale Catalogue): 44 also contains lessons from the Gospels ; 45 is dated a.p. 1199. 46. Ambros. C. 63 sup. [xiv] 4°, bought (like Evst. 103) in 1606, “‘ Corneliani in Iapygia.” 47, (=Evst. 104). 48. (=Evst. 112). Erase. 49. §. Saba 16 [xrv] 4°, chart. 50. §. Saba 18 [xv] 8° 51. Κ.. Saba 26 [Σιν] fol. 52, (= Evst: 171). 53, (=Evst. 160). 54. 8. Saba (unnumbered) [x11] 4°. *+55, (= Evst. 179). 56. (=Act. 42, Paul. 48, Apoc. 13 and Evst. —) contains only 1 Cor. ix. 2—12. 57. (=Apoc. 26) Wake 12, inserted in error: see Ὁ. 214. 58. Wake 33, at Christ Church, Oxford [dated 1172] fol., 265 leaves, the ink quite gone in parts. zt, (see p. 261) contains four lessons from the Epistles. Ed. de Muralt’s Evst. 3" (p. 209) is also a Praxapostolos. Additional copies are : *+tisch"* Bibl. Univers. Lipsiens. 6. F. (Tischend. v) [1x or x], containing Heb. i. 3—12, published in Anecd. saer. et prof., p. 73, &e. *+Petrop., one leaf of a double palimpsest, now at St Peters- burg, the oldest writing [1x] containing Act. xiii. 10; 2 Cor. xi, 21 —23, cited by Tischendorf (WV. 7. Prol. p. ecxxvi, 7th edition). +Tischendorf’s new uncial Lectionary at St Petersburg (see p. 260) also contains lessons from all parts of the New Testament. Scholz SERVICE-BOOKS OF THE GREEK CHURCH. 269 seems to state the same of Eyst. 161, “continet lect. et pericop.,” and Coxe of Evst. Cairo 18. At Lambeth, Codd. 1190 [xm] (Archn. Todd’s Catalogue p. 50 is wrong), 1191 [xi] 4°, mué. initio et fine, 1194, 1195, 1196, all [x1ir] 4°, mut. are Lectionaries of the Praxapostolos, which Dr 8. T. Bloomfield has collated. Add the copy written over the palimpsest Cod. P. of the Acts, &e. (p. 150). Bentley’s Q “Parchment Lectionary containing Acts and Epistles, which belonged to Clagget, Bishop of 5. David’s, at least 700 years old” [x1] (Ellis, Bentlet Crit. Sacr. Introd. p. xxx) seems to be lost. Mr Burgon enables us to add Modena Mutin. [cr] ii. D. 3. The Baroness Burdett-Coutts possesses BC, III. 24 [x1 or x11] 4°: besides III. 29 [x1v] chart., I. 10, which contain Lessons from the Gospels also (see p. 266). Deducting three duplicates, we reckon 74 copies of the Praxapo- stolos. We find Latin versions in 8 uncial and 10 cursive codices; an Arabic version in Evan. 211; 450; Eust. 6 ; Coxe’s Evst. at St Saba, No. 40; Latin and Arabic in Act. 96. The total number of manuscripts we have recorded in the pre- ceding catalogues are 56 uncial and 623 cursive of the Gospels; 14 uncial and 232 cursive of the Acts and Catholic Epistles; 15 uncial and 283 cursive of St Paul; 5 uncial and 105 cursive of the Apoca- lypse ; 61 uncial and 285 cursive Evangelistaria ; and 7 uncial, 74 cursive Lectionaries of the Praxapostolos. In calculating this total of 158 uncials and 1602 cursives we have deducted 99 duplicates, and must bear in mind that a few of the codices, whose present locality is unknown, may have reappeared under other heads. Ὁ μὲν θερισμὸς πολύς, οἱ δὲ ἐργάται ὀλίγοι. CHAPTER III. ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. if HE facts stated in the preceding chapter have led us to believe that no extant manuscript of the Greek Tes- tament yet discovered is older than the fourth century, and that those written as early as the sixth century are both few in number, and (with one notable exception) contain but portions, for the most part very small portions, of the sacred volume. When to these considerations we add the well-known circumstance that the most ancient codices vary widely and perpetually from the commonly received text and from each other, it becomes desirable for us to obtain, if possible, some evidence as to the character of those copies of the New Tes- tament which were used by the primitive Christians in times anterior to the date of the most venerable now preserved. Such sources of information, though of a more indirect and precarious kind than manuscripts of the original can supply, are open to us in the versions of Holy Scripture, made at the remotest period in the history of the Church, for the use of believers whose native tongue was not Greek. ‘Transla- tions, certainly of the New and probably of the Old Testa- ment, were executed not later than the second century in the Syriac and Latin tongues, and, so far as their present state enables us to judge of the documents from which they were rendered, they represent to us a modification of the inspired text which existed within a century of the death of the Apo- stles. Even as the case stands, and although the testimony of versions is peculiarly liable to doubt and error, the Pe- shito Syriac and Old Latin translations of the Greek Testa- ment stand with a few of the most ancient manuscripts of the NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 271 original in the very first rank as authorities and aids for the critical revision of the text. In a class apart from and next below the Peshito Syriac and Old Latin we may group together the Egyptian, the Cure- tonian Syriac, the Latin Vulgate, the Gothic, the Armenian and Aithiopic versions, which we name in what seems to be their order in respect to value. Of these the Curetonian will be discussed more fitly hereafter (pp. 281—6); the Egyptian translations may have been formed, partly in the third, partly in the fourth century, and their value has of late years greatly increased in the estimation of Biblical scholars; the Latin Vulgate and the Gothie belong to the fourth century, the Armenian and possibly the Aithiopic to the fifth. The Philoxe- nian Syriac too, although not brought into its present condi- tion before the beginning of the seventh century, would appear, for reasons that will be detailed hereafter, to hold a place in this class not much lower than the Latin Vulgate. The third rank must be assigned to the several minor Syriac (so far as their character has been ascertained), to the Georgian and Slavonic, some Arabic, and one of the Persie versions: these are either too recent or uncertain in date, or their text too mixed and corrupt, to merit very particular atten- tion. The other Persic (and perhaps one Arabic) version being derived from the Peshito Syriac, and the Anglo-Saxon from the Latin Vulgate, can be applied only to the correction of their respective primary translations. 2.. The weight and consideration due to versions of Scrip- ture, considered as materials for critical use, depend but little on their merits as competent representations of the original’. A very wretched translation, such as the Philoxenian Syriac, may happen to have high critical value; while an excellent one, like our English Bible, shall possess just none at all. And, in general, the testimony of versions as witnesses to the state of the text is rendered much less considerable than that of manuscripts of the same date, by defects which, though they cleave to some of them far more than to others, are too inherent in their very nature to be absolutely eliminated from 1 Canon Westcott (“‘Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible”: Vulgate) puts the case very neatly: ‘‘ Versions supply authority for the text, and opinion only for the rendering.”’ 272. ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE any. These defects are so obvious as to need no more than a bare statement, and render a various reading, supported by versions alone, of very slight consideration. (1). It may be found as difficult to arrive at the primitive text of a version, as of the Greek original itself; the varia- tions in its different copies are often quite as considerable, and suspicions of subsequent correction, whether from the Greek or from some other version, are as plausible to raise and as hard to refute. This is preeminently the case in re- gard to the Latin version, especially in its older form; but the Peshito Syriac, the Armenian, the Georgian and almost every other have been brought into discredit, on grounds more or less reasonable, by those whose purpose it has served to disparage their importance. (2). Although several of the ancient versions, and parti- cularly the Latin, are rendered more closely to the original than would be thought necessary or indeed tolerable in modern times, yet it is often by no means easy to ascer- tain the precise Greek words which the translator had in his copy. While versions are always of weight in determining the authenticity of sentences or clauses inserted or omitted by Greek manuscripts’, and in most instances may be em- ployed even for arranging the order of words, yet every lan- guage differs so widely in spirit from every other, and the genius of one version is so much at variance with that of others, that too great caution cannot be used in applying this kind of testimony to the criticism of the Greek*, The Aramean idiom, for example, delights in a graceful redun- dancy of pronouns, which sometimes affects the style of the Greek Testament itself (e.g. Matth. viii. 1; 5): so that the 1 This use of versions was seen by Jerome (Prefatio ad Damasum) ‘Cum multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante translata, doceat falsa esse que addita sunt,” It is even now the principal service they can perform for the critic. * A good example of the precariousness of the testimony of versions may be seen in Acts χιχ, 8, where Tregelles, and indeed Tischendorf with some reserve, alleges the Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, Armenian and Aithiopic versions to support the omission of τὰ before περὶ in Codd. Β Ὁ and one Greek lectionary (12). Yet in ch, 1, 3; xxuz. 11, 15, where no Greek authority omits the article, the form adopted by the Vulgate, Peshito and Coptic, probably also by the rest, is precisely the same as in ch. xrx. 8. Compare also Acts vit. 12; xxv. 28. On the other hand, observe the inference to be drawn from yersions in James ry, 5 (Chap. rx), NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. ΘᾺ Syriac should have no influence in deciding a point of this kind, as the translator would naturally follow the usage of his own language, rather than regard the precise wording of his original. (3). Hence it follows that no one can form a trustworthy judgment respecting the evidence afforded by any version, who is not master of the language in which it is written. In a past generation, critics contented themselves with using Latin versions of the Egyptian, Aithiopic, &c., to their own and their readers’ cost. The insertion or absence of whole clauses, indeed, are patent facts which cannot be mistaken, but beyond such matters the unskilled enquirer ought not to venture. The immediate result of this restriction may be to confine the student to the full use of the Syriac and Latin versions; a few Biblical scholars, as Bishop Ellicott, Canon Lightfoot and especially the Rev. 8. C. Malan, have made some progress in the ancient Egyptian; the rest of us must remain satisfied with a confession of ignorance, or apply our best dili- gence to remedy it. From this rapid glance over the whole subject of versions, we pass on to consider them severally in detail; not aiming at a full literary history of any of them, which would be un- suitable to our limits and present design, but rather seeking to put the learner in possession of materials for forming an inde- pendent estimate of their relative value, and of the internal character of the chief among them. 3. Syriac Versions. (1). Zhe Peshito. The Aramzan or Syriac (preserved to this day as their sacred tongue by several Eastern Churches) is an important branch of the great Semitic family of languages, and as early as Jacob’s age existed distinct from the Hebrew (Gen. xxxi. 47). As we now find it in books, it was spoken in the north of Syria and in Upper Mesopotamia, the native region of the patriarch Abra- ham, about Edessa. It is a more copious, flexible and ele- gant language than the Hebrew (which ceased to be vernacular at the Babylonish captivity) had ever the means of becoming, and is so intimately akin to the Chaldee as spoken at Baby- lon, and subsequently throughout Palestine, that the latter was 8. 18 974. ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE popularly known by its name (2 Kings xviii. 26; Isai. xxxvi. 11; Dan. 11. 4). As the Gospel took firm root at Antioch within a few years after the Lord’s Ascension (Acts xi, 19—27; xiii. 1, &.), we might deem it probable that its tidings soon spread from the Greek capital into the native interior, even though we utterly rejected the venerable tradition of Thaddeus’ mission to Abgarus, toparch of Edessa, as well as the fable of that monarch’s intercourse with Christ while yet on earth (Euse- bius, Eccl. Hist. 1. 13.; τι. 1). At all events we are sure that Christianity flourished in these regions at a very early period ; it is even possible that the Syriac Scriptures were seen by Hegesippus in the second century (Kuseb. Eccl. Hist. rv. 22) ; they were familiarly used and claimed as his national version by Ephraem of Edessa (see p. 109) in the fourth. Thus the universal belief of later ages, and the very nature of the case, seem to render it unquestionable that the Syrian Church was possessed of a translation, both of the Old and New Testament, which it used habitually, and for public worship exclusively, from the second century of our era downwards: as early as A.D. 170 ὁ Σύρος is cited by Melito on Genes. xxii. 13 (Mill, Proleg. § 1239). And the sad history of that distracted Church can leave no room to doubt what that version was. In the middle of the fifth century, the third and fourth general Councils at Ephesus and Chalcedon proved the immediate occa- sions of dividing the Syrian Christians into three, and eventu- ally into yet more, hostile communions. These grievous divi- sions have now subsisted for fourteen hundred years, and though the bitterness of controversy has abated, the estrangement of the rival Churches is as complete and hopeless as ever’. Yet the same translation of Holy Scripture is read alike in the public assemblies of the Nestorians among the fastnesses of Coordistan, of the Monophysites who are scattered over the plains of Syria, of the Christians of St Thomas along the coast 1 All modern accounts of the unorthodox sects of the East confirm Walton’s gracious language two hundred years ago: “ΕΠ δὶ verd, olim in hwreses miserd prolapsi, se a reliquis Ecclesia Catholics membris separarint, unde justo Dei judicio sub Infidelium jugo oppressi serviunt, qui ipsis dominantur, ex continuis tamen calamitatibus edocti et sapientiores redditi (est enim Schola Crucis Schola Lucis) tandem eorum misertus Misericordiarum Pater eos ad rectam sanamque mentem, rejectis antiquis erroribus, reduxit” (Walton, Prolegomena, Wrang- ham, Tom, τι. p. 500). NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 275 of Malabar, and of the Maronites on the mountain-terraces of Lebanon. Even though these last acknowledged the supremacy of Rome in the twelfth century, and certain Nestorians of Chaldza in the eighteenth, both societies claimed at the time, and enjoy to this day, the free use of their Syriac translation of Holy Scripture. Manuscripts too, obtained from each of these rival communions, have flowed from time to time into the libraries of the West, yet they all exhibit a text in every im- portant respect the same; all are without the Apocalypse and four of the Catholic Epistles, which latter we know to have been wanting in the Syriac in the sixth century (Cosmas Indico- pleustes apud Montfaucon., “Collectio Nova Patrum et Script. Gree.” Tom. I. p. 292), a defect, we may observe in passing, which alone is no slight proof of the high antiquity of the ver- sion that omits them; all correspond with whatever we know from other sources of that translation which, in contrast with one more recent, was termed “old” ((So-©) by Thomas of Harkel A.D. 616, and “ Peshito” (Thies) the “Simple,” by the great Monophysite doctor, Gregory Bar-Hebreeus [1226- 86]. Literary history can hardly afford a more powerful case than has been established for the identity of the version of the Syriac now called the Peshito with that used by the Eastern Church, long before the great schism had its beginning in the native land of the blessed Gospel. The first printed edition of this most venerable monument of the Christian faith was published in quarto at Vienna in the year 1555 (some copies are re-dated 1562), at the expense of the Emperor Ferdinand I., on the recommendation and with the active aid of his Chancellor, Albert Widmanstadt, an accom- plished person, whose travelling name in Italy was John Lucre- tius. It was undertaken at the instance of Moses of Mardin, legate from the Monophysite Patriarch Ignatius to Pope Julius III. (1550—55), who seems to have brought with him a manuscript, the text whereof was of the Jacobite family, although written at Mosul, for publication in the West: Widmanstadt contributed a second manuscript of his own, though it does not appear whe- ther either or both contained the whole New Testament. This beautiful book, the different portions of which have separate dedications, was edited by Widmanstadt, by Moses, and by 18—2 276 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE W. Postell jointly, in an elegant type of the modern Syriae character, the vowel and diacritic points, especially the linea occultans, being frequently dropped, with subscriptions and titles indicating the Jacobite Church lessons in the older, or Estran- gelo, letter. It omits, as was natural and right, those books which the Peshito does not contain: viz. the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, that of Jude and the Apocalypse, together with the disputed passage John vii. 53— vii. 11, and the doubtful, or more than doubtful, clauses in Matt. xxvil. 35; Acts vill. 37; xv. 34; xxviii. 29; 1 John v. 7. For Luke xxii. 17, 18 see Chap. ix. on the passage. This editio princeps of the Peshito New Testament, though now become very scarce (one half of its thousand copies having been sent into Syria), is held in high and deserved repute, as its text is apparently based on manuscript authority alone. Immanuel Tremellius [1510—80], a converted Jew (the proselyte, first of Cardinal Pole, then of Peter Martyr), and Pro- fessor of Divinity at Heidelberg, published the second edition in folio in 1569, containing the New Testament in Hebrew type, with a literal Latin version, accompanied by the Greek text and Beza’s translation of it, having a Chaldee and Syriac grammar annexed. Tremellius used several manuscripts, especially one at Heidelberg, and made from them and his own conjecture many changes, that were not always improvements, in the text ; besides admitting some grammatical forms which are Chaldee rather than Syriac. His Latin version has been used as their basis by later editors, down to the time of Schaaf. Tremellius’ and Beza’s Latin versions were reprinted together in London, without their respective originals, in 1592. Subsequent editions of the Peshito New Testament were those of the folio Antwerp or Royal Spanish Polyglott of Plantin (1569—72), in Hebrew and Syriac type, revised from a copy dated A.D. 1188, which Postell had brought from the East: two other editions of Plantin in Hebrew type without points (1574, 8°; 1575, 24°), the second containing various readings extracted by Francis Rapheleng from a Cologne manuscript for his own reprints of 1575 and subse- quently of 1583: the smaller Paris edition, also in unpointed Hebrew letters, 1584, 4°, by Guy Le Fevre, who prepared the Syriac portion of the Antwerp Polyglott: that of Elias Hutter, in two folio volumes (Nuremberg 1599—1600), in Hebrew NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES, 277 characters; this editor venturing to supply in Syriac of his own making the single passages wanting in the editio princeps (p. 276), and the spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans. Martin Trost’s edition (Anhalt-Cothen, 1621, 4°), in Syriac characters, with vowel-points and a list of various readings, is much su- perior to Hutter’s. The magnificent Paris Polyglott (fol. 1645) is the first which gives us the Old Testament portion of the Peshito, though in an incomplete state. The Maronite Gabriel Sionita, who super- intended this portion of the Polyglott, made several changes in the system of vowel punctuation, possibly from analogy rather than from manuscript authority, but certainly for the better. His judgment however was much at fault when he in- serted as integral portions of the Peshito the version of the four missing Catholic Epistles, which had been published in 1630 by our illustrious oriental scholar, Edward Pococke, from some manuscript in the Bodleian’: and another of the Apocalypse, edited at Leyden in 1627 by Louis de Dieu, from an unpromis- ing and recent manuscript, lately examined by Tregelles, in the University Library there (Scaliger MS. 18). Of the two, the version of the Catholic Epistles seems decidedly the older, and both bear much resemblance to the later Syriac or Philoxenian translation, but neither have the smallest claim to be regarded as portions of the Peshito, to which, however, they have unhap- pily been appended ever since. Bp. Walton’s, or the London Polyglott (fol. 1654—7), af- fords us little more than a reprint of Sionita’s Syriac text, with Trost’s various readings appended, but interpolates the text yet further by inserting John vii. 53—viii. 11 from a manuscript (now lost) once belonging to Archbishop Ussher, by whom it had been sent to De Dieu before 1631. As this passage is not in the true Philoxenian’, we are left to conjecture as to its real date and character, only that De Dieu assures us that the Ussher manuscript contained the whole New Testament, which no other copy of the Peshito or other Syriac version 1 In the great Cambridge manuscript (Oo. 1. 1, 2, see Ὁ. 280) the Epistles of 2 Pet., 2 and 3 John, and Jude follow 1 John, but are continued on the same quire, as Mr Bradshaw reports. 2 In the Cod. Barsalibei (sce p. 289, note) this addition is attributed to Maras, A.D. 622, but in a Paris manuscript cited by Adler to Abbas Mar Paul. 278 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE yet known has been found to do. Ussher himself (Todd’s Life of Walton, Vol. τ. p. 196, citing the evidence of Parr, 1686) spoke of his own manuscript as distinct from, and superior to, that of De Dieu. Giles Gutbier published at Hamburg (8°, 1664) an edition containing all the interpolated matter, and 1 Joh. v. 7 in addi- tion, from Tremellius’ own version, which he inserted in his margin. Gutbter used two manuscripts, by one of which, belonging to Constantine L’Empereur, he corrected Sionita’s system of punctuation. A glossary, notes, and various readings are annexed. The Salzburg edition 12°, 1684, seems a mere reprint of Plantin’s; nor does that published at Rome in 1703 for the use of the Maronites, though grounded upon manuscript authority, appear to have much critical value. A collation of the various readings in all the preceding editions, excepting those of 1684 and 1703, is affixed to the Syriac Ν, T. of J. Leusden and Ch. Schaaf (4°, Leyden, 1709: with a new title-page 1717). It extends over one hundred pages, and, though most of the changes noted are very insignificant, is tolerably accurate and of considerable value. This edition con- tains the Latin version of Tremellius not too thoroughly re- vised, and is usually accompanied with an admirable Syriac Lexicon (it might almost be ealled a Concordance) of the Peshito New Testament. Its worth, however, is considerably lessened by a fancy of Leusden for pointing the vowels ac- cording to the rules of Chaldee rather than of Syriac grammar: after his death, indeed, and from Luke xviii. 27 onwards, this grave mistake was corrected by Schaaf. Of modern edi- tions the most convenient, or certainly the most accessible to English students, are the Ν. Τὶ which Professor Lee prepared in 1816 for the British and Foreign Bible Society with the Eastern Church-lessons noted in Syriac, and that .of Wm. Greenfield [d. 1831], both in Bagster’s Polyglott of 1828, and in a small and separate form; the latter editor aims at representing Wid- manstadt’s text distinct from the subsequent additions derived from other sources. lLee’s edition was grounded on a colla- tion of three fresh manuscripts, besides the application of other matter previously available to the revision of the text; but the materials on which he founded his conclusions have never been printed, although their learned collector once intended to NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES, 279 do so, and many years afterwards consented to lend them to Scrivener for that purpose ; a promise which his death in 1848 ultimately hindered him from redeeming. An edition printed in 1829 by the British and Foreign Bible Society for the Nes- torian Christians was based on a single ἸΒΒΕΙΘΡΘΗΘΕ ΠΟΘ ΘῊΡ from Mosul by Dr Wolff. From the foregoing statement it will plainly appear that the Peshito Syriac has not yet received that critical care on the part of editors that its antiquity and importance so urgently demand ; such a work in fact is one of the few great tasks yet open to the enterprise of scholars. Nor have we any cause to regret the scantiness of the means at our disposal for its accomplishment. In the Vatican, “ditissimo illo omnium dis- ciplinarum promptuario,” as Wiseman calls it in his honest pride (“Hore Syriace,” p. 151), the master-hand of the Dane Adler [1755—1805] has been engaged on several codices of the Peshito*, one dated as early as A.D. 548; many more must linger unexamined in the recesses of continental libraries, especially at Paris and Florence. Our own Museum, even be- fore it was enriched from ‘the monasteries of Egypt, possessed several copies of venerable age, one of which has been collated by Tregelles and other¥ (Rich. 7157”) ; and if “the general result is, that though some materials are certainly thus afforded for the critical revision of the text, by far the greater part of the changes relate to grammatical forms, and particulars of that kind” (Tregelles’ Horne, p. 264), yet here we have access to the kind of text current among the Nestorians in the eighth century, long before their copies could have been corrupted by intercourse with the Latins. At Cambridge too are deposited two manuscripts, both used by Lee, one of them containing the Old Testament also and the Clementine Homilies, but not the 1 Novi Testamenti Versiones Syriace#, Simplex, Philoxeniana, et Hierosoly- mitana...a J. G. Ch. Adler, Hafnie, 1789, 4°. 2 Of this copy the late Professor Rosen, in the Preface to the Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, 1838, thus writes: ‘‘Inter quos ante alios omnes memorabile est N. T. exemplar Nestorianum, liber et antiquitate sua, quum seculo octavo scriptus est, et summa scripture diligentia atque elegantia, inter omnia quotquot nobis innotuerunt Syriaca N. T. exemplaria, eximiaé laude dignus. Htenim remotioris etiam etatis codices Syriacos extare comperimus qui- dem; sed de nullo nos vel audire vel legere meminimus, qui omnes quos Nes- toriani agnoscunt N. T. libros amplecteretur.” 280 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE Apocalypse (Univ. Libr. Οο. τ. 1, 2: see p.277, note 1), thought by some to be written about the seventh century (but Mr Bensly notes that a figure of Joshua in armour of the time of the Crusades reduces its date to the eleventh or twelfth), and brought from the Malabar coast in 1806 by Buchanan. In the Bodleian are at least those two whose readings were published by Jones in 1805. With such full means of information within our reach it will not be to our credit if a good critical edition of the Peshito be much longer unattempted. It is not easy to determine why the name of Peshito, “the Simple,” should have been given to the oldest Syriac version of Scripture, to distinguish it from others that were subsequently made’. The term would seem to signify “ faithful” rather than “literal ;” for in comparison with the Philoxenian it is the very reverse of a close rendering of the original. We shall presently submit to the reader a few extracts from it, contrasted with the same passages in other Syriac versions (below, pp. 295—8); for the present we can but assent to the ripe judgment of Michaelis, who after thirty years’ study of its contents, declared that he could consult no translation with so much confidence im cases of difficulty and doubt. In regard to the criticism of the text, its connexion in many places with Cod. D and the Latin versions has been often dwelt upon. For its style, composed in the purest dialect of a perspicuous and elegant, if not a very copious lan- guage, no version can well be more exempt from the besetting faults of translators, constraint and stiffness of expression: yet while remarkable for its ease and freedom, it very seldom becomes loose or paraphrastic. Though a word or two may occasionally be inserted to unravel some involved construction (Acts x, 38; Eph. iii. 1; Col. 11. 14; 1 John i. 1), or to elucidate what else might be obscure (Luke ix. 34; xvi. 8; Acts 1.19; 11. 14; 24; v. 4; xii. 15; Rom. xu. 16; xiv. 1, &c.); yet seldom would its liberty in this particular offend any but the most servile adherent to the letter of the Greek. The Peshito has well been called “the Queen of versions” of Holy Writ, for it is at once the oldest and one of the most excellent of 1 Tregelles in “ Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible” thinks that the term was originally applied to the Syriac version of the Old Testament, in order to dis- criminate between it and the Greek Hexapla, or the translation derived from it, with their apparatus of obeli and asterisks, NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES, 281 those whereby God’s Providence has blessed and edified the Church. (2). Zhe Curetonian Syriac. Dean Alford was bold enough to call this fragment “ per- haps the earliest and most important of: all the versions” (N. T, Proleg. p. 114); and though this estimate may be deemed a little unreasonable, we cannot doubt that its discovery is the most valuable of the many services rendered to sacred and pro- fane literature by the late Canon Cureton [d. 1864], whose energy and practised sagacity, displayed in his researches among Syriac manuscripts, were aided by that good fortune which does not always fail those who deserve her smile. The volume which contained these portions of the Gospels (and no other copy of the translation has yet been found) had been brought by Arch- deacon Tattam in 1842 from the same monastery as the palim- psest Cod. R described in the last chapter (p. 131). The eighty- two leaves and a half on which what remains of the version is written (although two of them did not reach England till 1847) were picked out by Dr Cureton, then one of the officers in the Manuscript department of the British Museum, from a mass of other matter which had been bound up with them by unlearned possessors, and comprise the Additional MS. 14,451* of the Library they adorn. They are in quarto, with two columns on a page, in a bold hand and the Estrangelo or old Syriac character, on vellum originally very white, the single points for stops, some titles, &c. being in red ink: there are no marks of Church-lessons by the first hand, which Cureton (a most competent judge) assigned to the middle of the fifth cen- tury. The fragments contain Matth. i, l—viii. 22; x. 32—xxiii. 25; Mark xvi. 17—20; John i. 1—42; 111. 6—vu. 37; xiv. 10— 16—18; 19—23; 26—29; Luke ii. 48—i1. 16; vil. 33—xv 1; xvil. 24—xxiv. 44, or 1786 verses, so arranged that St Wark’s Gospel is immediately followed by St John’s (see p. 68). The Syriac text was printed in fine Estrangelo type in 1848, and freely imparted to such scholars as might need its help; it was not till 1858 that the work was published’, with a very » 1 «Remains of avery antient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac, hitherto nnknown in Europe, discovered, edited, and translated by William Cureton, D.D, ...Canon of Westminster,” 4°, London, 1858. More leayes of this version, 282 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE literal translation into rather bald English (see above, p. 8), ἃ beautiful and exact fac-simile by Mrs Cureton, and a Preface (pp. xev), full of interesting or startling matter, which has been criticised in no friendly tone. Indeed, the difficult but un- avoidable investigation into the relation his new version bears to the Peshito was further complicated by Dr Cureton’s per- suasion that he had discovered in these Syriac fragments a text of St Matthew’s Gospel that “to a great extent, has retained the identical terms and expressions which the Apostle himself employed; and that we have here, in our Lord’s discourses, to a great extent the very same words as the Divine Author of our holy religion himself uttered in proclaiming the glad tidings of salvation in the Hebrew dialect...” (p. xciii): that here in fact we have to a great extent the original of that Hebrew Gospel of St Matthew of which the canonical Greek Gospel is but a trans- lation. It is beside our present purpose to examine in detail the arguments of Dr Cureton on this head’, and it would be the less necessary in any case, since they seem to have convinced no one save himself: but the place his version occupies with reference to the Peshito is a question that cannot be quite passed over, even in an elementary treatise like the present. Any one who shall compare the verses we have cited from them in parallel columns (pp. 296, 298) will readily admit that the two translations have a common origin, whatever they may be; many other passages, though not perhaps of equal length, might be named where the resemblance is closer still; where for twenty words together the Peshito and the Curetonian shall perhaps portions of the same manuscript, are said to have been found in 1871 by Dr Brugsch at Cairo or Alexandria, 1 Less able writers than Dr Cureton have made out a strong, though not a convincing case, for the Hebrew origin of St Matthew’s Gospel, and thus far his argument is plausible enough. To demonstrate that the version he has discovered is based upon that Hebrew original, at least so far as to be a modifica- tion of it and nota translation from the Greek, he has but a single plea that will bear examination, viz. that out of the many readings of the Hebrew or Nazarene Gospel with which we are acquainted (the reader will see three, two of them pre- viously unknown, above p. 144), his manuscript agrees with it in the one parti- cular of inserting the three kings, ch. i. 8, though even here the number of fourteen generations retained in ver. 17 shews them to be an interpolation. Such cases as Juda, ch. ii. 1; Ramtha, ver.18; 2 for ὅτε or the relative, ch. xiii. 16, can prove nothing, as they are common to the Curetonian with the Peshito, from which version they may very well be derived, NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 283 be positively identical, although the Syriac idiom would admit other words and another order just as naturally as that actually employed. Nor will this conclusion be shaken by the not less manifest fact that, throughout many passages the diversity is so great that no one, with those places alone before him, would be led to suspect any connection between the two versions; for resemblances in such a case furnish a positive proof, not to be weakened by the mere negative presumption supplied by diver- gencies. Add to this the consideration that the Greek manu- scripts from which either version was made or corrected (as the case may prove) were materially different in their character; the Peshito for the most part favouring Cod. A’, the Curetonian taking part with Cod. D, or with the Old Latin, or often standing quite alone, unsupported by any critical authority whatever; and the reader is then in possession of the whole case, from whose perplexities we have to unravel our decision, which of these two recensions best exhibits the text of the Holy Gospels as received from the second century downwards by the Syrian Church, (1). Now it is obvious to remark, in the first place, that the Peshito has the advantage of possession, and that too of fourteen centuries standing. The mere fact that the Syriac manuscripts of the rival sects, whether modern or as old as the seventh century, agree with each other and with the cita- tions from Aphraates in most important points (see p. 285, note), seems to bring the Peshito text, substantially in the same state as we have it at present, up to the fourth century of our era. Of this version, again, there are many codices, of different ages and widely diffused; of the Curetonian but one, of the fifth cen- tury, indeed, so far as the verdict of a most accomplished judge can determine so delicate a question; yet surely not to be much preferred, in respect to antiquity, to Adler’s copy of the Peshito in the Vatican, dated A.p.548. From the Peshito, as the autho- rised version of the Oriental Church, there are many quotations in Syriac books from the fourth century downwards; Dr Cureton, perhaps the profoundest Syriac scholar of his day in England, failed to allege any second citation from the Gospels by a native 1 ΚΗ nous devons en croire Scrivener, la version syriaque dite Peshito s’accorde bien plus avee Jui [Cod, A.] qu’avec (B).”’ (‘Les Livres Saints,” &c., Pau et Vevey, 1872, Préface, p. 111). The fact is notoriously true, and ει course rests not on Scrivener’s evidence, but on universal consent. 284 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE writer which corresponds with the newly discovered version better than with the old, and which might serve to keep in counte- nance the statement of Dionysius Barsalibi, late in the twelfth century, that “ there is found occasionally a Syriac copy made out of the Hebrew, which inserts the three kings in the genealogy” (Matth. i. 8). With every wish to give to this respectable old writer, and to others who bear testimony to the same reading, the consideration that is fairly their due, we can hardly fail to see that the weight of evidence enormously preponderates in the opposite scale. (2). It will probably be admitted that in external proof Dr Cureton’s theory is not strong, while yet the internal cha- racter of the version may be deemed by many powerfully to favour his view. And herein, perhaps, he has been a little helped (if he had needed or cared for such aid) by those hostile critics who have thought to annihilate the critical influence of his version, when they had shewn it to be, as a translation, loose, careless, paraphrastic, full of interpolations, for which no authority, or only very bad authority, can be found elsewhere. Not that we quite assent to Tregelles’ quaint remark, “ unfor- tunately it has been criticised by those who do not understand the subject, and who have actually regarded its merits as de- fects” (Introd. Notice to Part II. of N. T., p. 111); negligent or licentious renderings (and the Curetonian Syriac is pretty full of them) cannot but lessen a version’s usefulness as an instru- ment of criticism, by increasing our difficulty of reproducing the precise words of the original which the translator had be- fore him; but in another point of view these very faults may still form the main strength of Dr Cureton’s case. It is, no doubt, a grave suggestion, that the more polished, accurate, faithful, and grammatical of the two versions—and the Peshito richly deserves all this praise—is more likely to have been pro- duced by a careful and gradual revision of one much its inferior in these respects, than the worse to have originated in the mere corruption of the better (Cureton, Pref. p. lxxxi). A priori, we readily confess that probability inclines this way; but it is a probability which needs the confirmation of facts, and by ad- verse facts may be utterly set aside. If, for instance, he had 1 Cureton, Preface, pp. xi. xciii. NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 285 demonstrated at length, instead of hinting incidentally and almost by chance, that “upon the comparison of several of the oldest copies now in the British Museum of that very text of the Gospels which has been generally received as the Peshito, the more antient the manuscripts be, the more nearly do they correspond with the text of these Syriac fragments” (Pref. p. 1xxiii) in respect to dialectic peculiarities; more especially if he could have extended his statement to matters more important than bare language or grammar, as he very possibly might have done’; it could not be said of Dr Cureton, as now it must be said, that on the most serious plea in his whole argument, he allowed judgment to pass against him by default. Meanwhile we ought not to dissemble our conviction that many passages in which the Peshito differs from the Cureto- nian version bear strong traces of being corruptions on the part of the latter of readings already correctly given by the former; and thus form a class of facts very adverse to the higher authority claimed for the newly discovered translation. Such, for example, is Luke xxiv. 32, where all existing manu- scripts (except Cod. D, which has a different reading altoge- ther, κεκωλυμμένη) have ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν καιομένη ἦν, “our heart was burning,” which the Peshito rightly translates by Joon Ses, Br , while the Curetonian, by the slight change of the Estrangelo dolath J into rish 5, for Oo “burning,” presents us with Os “heavy;” a variation supported only by those precarious allies the Thebaic and (apparently) the Armenian versions. Had the passage occurred 1 Dr P. N. Land, of the National Reformed Communion in Holland, who reviewed Cureton’s work in the Journal of Sacred Literature, October 1858, very pertinently states that in the Edessene codex of A. p. 548 in the Vatican, as col- lated by Adler in his Versiones Syriace, ‘‘thirty-nine variations from Schaaf’s Péshitt6 occur within the first seven chapters; and among these thirty-nine, twenty-one are literally, and of some others traces are found in Dr Cureton’s text” (p. 153). Professor Wright, on the other hand, has recently (1869) had occasion to notice the citations from the Gospels met with in the twenty-two Syriac Homilies of Aphraates the Persian sage, written a.p, 337—45, who was somewhat senior to Ephraem, and whose works have hitherto been ascribed to James of Nisibis. They are very loose, and bear some occasional resemblance to the Curetonian, but on the whole come much nearer to the text of the Peshito version. This subject obviously demands, and would assuredly reward, more thorough and systematic investigation. 286 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE in St Matthew’s Gospel, Dr Cureton would of course have thrown the error upon the Greek translator, as having misread his Aramaic original; as the matter stands, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that in this and not a few other passages the careless transcriber of the Curetonian mistook or corrupted the Peshito, rather than that the Peshito amended the defects, real or supposed, of the other, But on this head we can dwell no longer. On the whole, then, fully admitting the critical value of this newly-discovered document, and feeling much perplexed when we try to account for its origin, we yet see no reason whatever to doubt its decided inferiority in every respect to the primitive version still read throughout the Churches of the East’. (3). Zhe Philoxenian or Harclean Syriac. Of the history of the Philoxenian Syriac version, which embraces the whole New Testament except the Apocalypse, we possess rather exact information, though some points of difficulty may still remain unsolved. Moses of Aghel in Mesopotamia, who translated into Syriac certain works of the Alexandrian Cyril about A.D. 550, describes a version of the “New Testament and Psalter made in Syriac by Polycarp, Rural-Bishop? (rest his soul!) for Xenaias of Mabug,” ὅσο. This Xenaias or Philoxenus, from whom the translation takes its name, was Monophysite Bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis) in Kast- ern Syria (488—518), and doubtless wished to provide for his countrymen a more literal translation from the Greek than the Peshito aims at being. His scheme may perhaps have been 1 Christian Hermansen in his valuable Disputatio de Cod. Evangeliorum Syriaco a Curetono typis descripto (Hauniae, 4°, 1859), appeals to a work I have not been able to see (J. Wichelhaus, De N. T. versione Syrd antiqua, Halis, 1850), as advocating the same opinion in regard to the two versions which we have contended for. Hermansen himself, while he rejects Cureton’s idea respecting St Matthew's Gospel (p. 282), feels bound to regard his version as the more ancient one, inasmuch as it is rougher, less elegant, and less like the received text than the Peshito. Mr Crowfoot’s recent attempt to translate the Curetonian Syriac back into Greek, so as to arrive at a second century Greek text, can give satisfaction to no one, as may appear by a single instance, Matth. vi. 11, which he renders ἄρτον ἐνδελεχῆ τῆς ἡμέρας : yet here, at any rate, the Curetonian rendering is really preferable to that of the Peshito. * On the order, functions and decay of the Χωρεπίσκοποι, see Bingham’s Antiquities, Book 11., Chapter xrv, NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 287 injudicious, but it is a poor token of the presence of that quality which “thinketh no evil,’ to assert, without the slightest grounds for the suspicion, “ More probable it is that his object was of a less commendable character; and that he meant the version in some way to subserve the savenceuten of his party*.” Dr Davidson will have learnt by this time, that one may lie under the imputation of heresy, without being of necessity a bigot or a dunce. ὧι ἔννουν οί... 1 Our next account of the work is even more definite. Αὐ the end of the manuscripts of the Gospels from which the printed text is derived, we read a subscription by the first hand, importing that “this book of the four holy Gospels was translated out of the Greek into Syriac with great diligence and labour...first in the city of Mabug, in the year of Alexander of Macedon 819 (A.D. 508), in the days of the pious Mar Phi- loxenus, confessor, Bishop of that city. Afterwards it was col- lated with much diligence by me, the poor Thomas, by the help. of two [or three] approved and accurate Greek Manuscripts in Antonia, of the great city of Alexandria, in the holy monastery of the Antonians. It was again written out and collated in the aforesaid place in the year of the same Alexander 927 (A.D. 616), Indiction tv. How much toil I spent upon it and its companions, the Lord alone knoweth...&c.” It is plain that by “its companions” the other parts of the N. T. are meant, for though but one manuscript of the Acts and Epistles in this version survives, a similar subscription (specifying but one manu- script) is annexed to the Catholic Epistles; those of St Paul are defective from Hebr. xi. 27, but two manuscripts are cited in the margin. That the labour of Thomas (surnamed from Harkel, his native place, and like Philoxenus, subsequently Monophysite bishop of Mabug) was confined to the collation of the manu- scripts he names, and whose various readings, usually in Greek characters, with occasional exegetical notes, stand in the margin of all copies but one at Florence, is not a probable opinion. It is likely that he added the asterisks and obeli which abound in the version, and G. H. Bernstein (“ De Charklensi N. T. transl. Syriac. Commentatio,” Breslau, 1837) believes that he so modified the text itself, that it only remains in the state 1 Davidson, Bibl. Crit, Vol. 11. p. 186, first edition, 288 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE in which Polycarp left it in one codex now at Rome, which he collated for a few chapters of St John. From this and other copies yet uncollated, as well as from quotations met with in Syriac writers, it may possibly appear that the difference be- tween the state of the version before and after the recension of Thomas of Harkel is more considerable than from his own ex- pressions we might have anticipated. We are reminded by Tregelles, who is always ready to give every one his due, that our own Pococke in 1630, in the Preface to his edition of the Catholic Epistles wanting in the Peshito (see p. 277), both quotes an extract from Dionysius Barsalibi, Bishop of Amida (Diarbekr), in the twelfth century (see p. 284), which mentions this version, and even shews some acquaintance with its peculiar character. Although again brought to notice in the comprehensive “Bibliotheca Orientalis” (1719— 28), of the elder J. S. Assemani [1687—1768], the Philoxenian attracted no attention until 1730, in which year Samuel Palmer sent from Diarbekr to Dr Gloucester Ridley four Syriac manu-. scripts, two of which proved to belong to this translation, both containing the Gospels, one of them being the only extant copy οἵ the Acts and all the Epistles. Fortunately Ridley [1702— 1774] was a man of some learning and acuteness, or these pre- cious codices might have lain disregarded as other copies of the same version had long done in Italy ; so that though he did not choose, in spite of his fair preferment in the Church, to incur the risk of publishing them in full, he communicated his dis- covery to Wetstein, who came to England once more, in 1746, for the purpose of collating them for his edition of the N. T,, then soon to appear: he could spare, however, but fourteen days for the task, which was far too short a time, and the more so as their Estrangelo character was new to him. In 1761 Ridley produced his tract, “De Syriacarum N. F. Versionum Indole atque Usu Dissertatio,” and on his death his manuseripts went to New College, of which society he had been a Fellow. The care of publishing them was then undertaken by the Delegates of the Oxford Press, who selected for their editor Joseph White [1746—1814], then Fellow of Wadham College, and Professor of Arabic, afterwards Canon of Christ Church, who, though now, I fear, chiefly remembered for the most foolish action of his life, was an industrious, able, and genuine scholar, NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 289 Under his care the Gospels appeared in 2 vol. 4°, 1788’, with a Latin version and satisfactory Prolegomena; the Acts and Catholic Epp. in 1799, the Pauline in 1803. Meanwhile Storr (“ Observat. super N. T. vers. Syr.” 1772) and Adler (“N. T. Ver- sion. Syr.” 1789) had examined and described seven or eight continental codices of the Gospels in this version, some of which are thought superior to White’s. The characteristic feature of the Philoxenian is its excessive closeness to the original: it is probably the most servile version of Scripture ever made. Specimens of it will appear on pp. 296 —298, by the side of those from other translations, which will abundantly justify this statement. The Peshito is beyond doubt taken as its basis, and is violently changed in order to force it into rigorous conformity with the very letter of the Greek. In the twenty verses of Matth. xxviii we note 76 such altera- tions: three of them seem to concern various readings (vv. 2; 18; and 5 marg.); six are inversions in the order; about five are substitutions of words for others that may have grown obsolete: the rest are of the most frivolous description, the definite state of nouns being placed for the absolute, or wice vers; the Greek article represented by the Syriac pronoun ; the inseparable pronominal affixes (that delicate peculiarity of the Aramean dialects) retrenched or discarded; the most un- meaning changes made in the tenses of verbs, and the lesser par- ticles. Its very defects, however, as a version give it weight asa textual authority (see p. 271): there can be no hesitation about the readings of the copies from which such a book was made. While those employed for the version itself in the sixth century re- sembled more nearly our modern printed editions, the three or more codices used by Thomas at Alexandria must have been nearly akin to Cod. D (especially in the Acts), and next to D, support BL 1. 33. 69. 1 «Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana, ex Codd. MSS. Ridleianis in Bibliotheca Novi Collegii Oxon. repositis; nune primum edita, cum Interpretatione Latina et Annotationibus Josephi White. Oxonii e Typo- grapheo Clarendoniano”, 1778. 2 tom. 4°. And so for the two later volumes, Ridley named that one of his manuscripts which contains only the Gospels Codex Barsalibxi, as notes of revision by that writer are found in it (e.g. John vii. 53—-viii. 11). G. H. Bernstein has also published St John’s Gospel (Leipzig, 1853) from manuscripts in the Vatican: see p. 287--8. 5. 19 290 - ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE The asterisks (4) +:) and obeli (3 -- of this version will be observed in our specimens (pp. 296—8), and seem to be due to Thomas of Harkel. Like the similar marks in Origen’s Hexapla (from which they were doubtless borrowed), they have been miserably displaced by copyists; so that their real pur- pose is a little uncertain. Wetstein, and after him even Storr and Adler, refer them to changes made in the Philoxenian from the Peshito: White more plausibly considers the asterisk to intimate an addition to the text, the obelus to recommend a removal from it. ee (4). The Jerusalem Syriac. Of this version but one manuscript has been discovered, and that virtually by Adler, who collated, described, and copied a portion of it (Matth. xxvii. 3—32) for that great work in a small compass, his “N. T. Versiones Syriac”: S. E. Assemani the nephew had merely inserted it in his Vatican Catalogue (1756). It is a partial Lectionary of the Gospels in the Vatican (MS. Syr. 19), on 196 quarto thick vellum leaves, written in two columns in a rude hand (F being expressed by 2, P by B), with rubric notes of Church-lessons in the Carshunic, i.e. bad Arabic in Syriac letters. From a subscription we learn that the scribe was Elias, a presbyter of Abydos, who wrote it in the Monastery of the Abbot Moses at Antioch, in the year of Alexander 1341, or A.D, 1030. Adler gives a poor fac- simile (Matth. xxvii. 12—22): the character is peculiar, and all diacritic points (even that distinguishing dolath from rish), as well as many other changes, are thought to be by a later hand. ‘Tregelles confirms Assemani’s statement, which Adler had disputed, that the first six leaves, shewing traces of Greek writing buried beneath the Syriac, proceeded from another scribe. The remarkable point, however, about this version (which seems to be made from the Greek, and is quite indepen- dent of the Peshito) is the peculiar dialect it exhibits, and which has suggested its name. Its grammatical forms are far less Syriac than Chaldee, which latter it resembles even in that characteristic particular, the prefixing of yud, not nun, to the third person masculine of the future of verbs’; the 1 Thus also the termination of the definite state plural of nouns is made in ig for Ὶ : the third person affix to plural nouns in 0 for +2010. NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 291 most ordinary words it employs can be illustrated only from the Chaldee portions of the Old Testament, from the Jerusalem Targum, or the Talmud*, Adler’s account of the translation and its copyist 1s not very flattering, “satis constat dialectum esse incultam et inconcinnam...... orthographiam autem vagam, inconstantem, arbitrariam, et ab imperito librario rescribendo et corrigendo denue impeditam” (“Vers. Syr.” p. 149). As it is mentioned by no Syriac writer, it was probably used but in a few remete churches of Lebanon or Galilee: but though (to employ the words of Porter) “in elegance far surpassed by the Peshito; in closeness of adherence to the original by the Philexenian” (“Principles of Textual Criticism”, Belfast, 1848, p. 356); it has its value, and that not inconsiderable, as a witness to the state of the text at the time it was turned into Syriac; whether, with Adler, we regard it as derived from a complete version of the Gospels made not later than the sixth century, or with Tischendorf refer it to the fifth. Tre- gelles (who examined the eodex at Rome) wrongly judged it a mere translation of some Greek Evangelistarium of a more recent date. Of all the Syriac books, this copy and Barsalibi’s recension of the Philoxenian (see p. 277, note 2) alone contain John vil. 53—vii. 11; the Lectionary giving it as the Proper Lesson for Oct. 8, St Pelagia’s day (see above, p. 81). In general its readings much resemble these ef Codd. BD, siding with B 85 times, with D 79, in the portions published by Adler; but with D alone 11 times, with B alone but 3. The information afforded by Adler respecting this remark- able document gave rise to a natural wish that the whole manu- seript should be carefully edited by some competent scholar. This has now been done by Count Francis Miniscalchi Erezzo, who in 1861—4 published at Verona in two quarto volumes “Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum ex Codice Vaticano Palzs- 1 Thus in the compass of the six verses we have cited from Adler (below, Ὁ. 297) occur not only the Greek words Leno; Ὁ (kaipds) υ. 3, and [ooo (ναὸς) v. 5, which are common enough in all Syriac books, but such Chaldaisms as «49 for —?) δὲ (vv. 4, 6, 7) ; - 59. v. 3, ‘* when;” lo, v. 3, ‘*repented;”’ [soo] for [S09, (vv. 4, 6,8), “blood ;” OLLANS, ». 4, “to us ;” Wong υῦ, “himself?” oo), v. 6, “price” (Pesh. has «οὐδὸν ὁ, Philox. Box, τιμὴ): ental v.8, ‘therefore ;” olor, v. 8, “this,” made up of Syr. οσι and Chald. Ἰσι. 10--- 292. ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE tino deprompsit, edidit, Latiné vertit, Prolegomenis ac Glossario - adornavit Comes F. M. E.” This elaborate work ends with a list of those chapters and verses of the Gospels (according to the notation of the Latin Vulgate), which the manuseript con- tains in full. Tischendorf, in the eighth edition of his Greek Testament, has enriched his notes with the various readings these Church Lessons exhibit; their critical character being much the same as Adler’s slight specimen had given us reason to expect. The Lectionary closely resembles that of the Greek Church as described above pp. 75—80, the slight differences in the beginnings and endings of the lessons scarcely exceeding those subsisting between different Greek copies, as noticed in our Synaxarion. It contains the Sunday and week-day Gospels for the first eight weeks beginning at Easter (with a few verses lost in two places of Week vii1); the Saturday and Sunday Gospels only for the rest of the year; the lessons for the Holy Week, complete as detailed on p. 79, with two or three slight excep- tions; and the eleven Gospels of the Resurrection (ibid.). In the Menology or Calendar of Immoveable Feasts, there is a greater amount of variation in regard to the Saints’ Days kept, as indeed we might have looked for beforehand (p. 71). We subjoin a list of those whose Gospels are given at length in the manuscript, together with the portions of Scripture appointed for each day, in order that this curious Syriac service book may be compared with that of the Greeks (pp. 81, 82). September 1. Simaan Stylites, as p. 81. 8. Commemoratio patris nostri Antioma, John x. 7—16. 4. Babul et sanctorum qui cum eo, Luke x. 1—12. 5. Zacharias, father of the Baptist, Matth. xxiii, 29—39. 6. Eudoxio, Mark xii. 28—37. 8, Birthday of the Virgin, Matins, Luke i. 39—56. Ad Missam as p, 81. Sunday before Elevation of the Cross, as p. 81. 14. Elevation of the Cross, John xi, 53; xix. 6—35. 15. Nikita, Matth. x. 16—22. 16. Eufemia, p. 81, note 2. 20, Eustatios et sociorum ejus, Luke xxi. 12—19, 21, Jonah the Prophet, Luke xi, 29—33. 80, Gregory the Armenian!, Matth. xxiv. 42—51, October 3. Dionysius the Bishop, (p. 81) Matth. xiii, 45—54,. Blagia, (p. 81, note 3) John viii. 1—11, 18. Luke, as p. 81, 21. Patris nostri Ilarion, Luke yi. 17—23. 25. SS, Scriptorum Marciano et Martoro, Luke xii. 2—12, 26. Demetrios et commemoratio terre motus, Matth. viii, 23—27. November 1. SS. T{hJaumaturgorum Kezmaet Damian, Matth, x. 1—8. December 4, Barbara, Mark vy, 24—34, 20, Ignatios, as p. 81. 22. 1 See the “Life and Times of Gregory the Illuminator, the Founder and Patron Saint of the Armenian Church,” translated by the Rev. 8. ©. Malan, London, 1868, NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES, 293 Anastasia, Mark xii. 28—44, ‘‘Dominica ante Nativitatem, et patrum sanc- torum,”’ Matth. i. 1—17. 24. Ad mat. Nativitatis, Matth. i. 18—25 (compare -p. 82). In nocte Nativitatis, as p. 82. 25. Christmas Day, as p. 82. 26. Commemoratio dominz Mart. Mariam, as p. 82. 28. Jacob, frater Domini’, Mark vi. 1—4 (p. 81). January 1. Circumcision, as p. 82. 3.—Matth. iii. 1,5—11. Saturday and Sunday ‘“‘ante missam aque,” as Ὁ. 82. 5. Nocte misse aque, Ὁ. 82. 6. Missa aque (both lessons), as p. 82. 7. Commemoration of John the Baptist, as p. 82. Saturday and Sunday post missam aque, as p. 82. 8.—Luke iii, 19—22. 10.—John x. 39—42. 11.—Luke xx. 1—8. Theodosis, Luke vi. 17—23. 15. Juhanna Tentorii, Matth. iv. 25; v.1—12. 28. Patris nostri Efrem, Matth. vy. 14—19. February 2. Ingressus Domini Jesu Christi in templum, as Ὁ. 82. 24. Finding of the Head of John the Baptist, ad Mat. as p. 82: ad Missam, Matth. xi. 2—15. March 9. Martyrii xl martyrum Sebaite, Matth. xx. 1—16. 25. Annuntia- tionis Deipare, ad Missam, as p. 82. April 1. Mariam Hgyptiace, Luke vii. 36—50 (compare p. 81, note 2). May 8. Evan. Juhanna fil. Zebdiai?, as p. 82. June 14. Proph. Elisciaa, Luke iv. 22—30%. 24. Birth of John the Baptist, as p. 82. 29. Peter, as p. 82. 30. The Twelve Apostles, Matth. ix. 36—x. 8. July 22. Mariam Magdalaitha, Luke viii. 1—3. August 1, Amkabian Ascemonit, et filiorum suorum, Matth. x. 16—22. 6. Apparitio Domini nostri Jesu Christi in Monte Thabur, Luke ix. 28—36; Matth. xvii. 1—9; 10—22. 29. Beheading of John the Baptist, as p. 82. Appendix. Sancte Christiane, Matth. xxv. 1—13 (see Sept. 24, p. 81). Justorum, Matth. xi. 27—30. Dominica xi, Matth. xv. 21—28. This last (of the Canaanites, p. 79) had been omitted in its usual place, and two lessons inserted about the same place, which are not in the Greek, viz. “Jejunio sancto Bansciva fer. 4, vesp. Mark xi. 22—25,” and ‘‘fer. 6, vesp. John xy. 1—12.” ᾿ The foregoing list contains those Saints’ Days only whose lessons are given at full length in the Jerusalem Syriac, and will sufficiently indicate to the reader what portions of the Gospels are contained in that most interesting and weighty manuscript. (5). Akin to this Jerusalem version, as Tischendorf suspects, and certainly resembling it in the shape of its letters, is a pa- limpsest fragment brought by him “from the East” (see p. 139), and now at St Petersburg, briefly described in his “Anecdota sacra et profana,” p. 13, and there illustrated by a facsimile. He assigns its date to the fifth century, “but it yet remains to be collated. 1 Kept by the Greeks Oct. 23. Gale O. 4. 22 and other Greek Evangelistaria commemorate this holiday. 2 Dec. 27 in the Western Calendar. 3 So Gale O. 4, 22, with the same lesson, 294 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE (6). The Karkaphensian Syriac. Assemani (“Biblioth. Orient.” Tom. 1. p. 283), on the at- thority of Gregory Bar-Hebrzeus (above p. 275), mentions a Syriac version of the N.T., other than the Peshito and Philoxenian, which was named “Karkaphensian” (1Δ.. 5.0), whether be~ cause it was used by Syrians of the mountains, or from Carcuf, a city of Mesopotamia. Adler (“Vers. Syr.” p. 33) was inclined to believe that Bar-Hebraeus meant rather a revised manuscript than a separate translation, but Cardinal Wiseman, in the course of those youthful studies which gave such seemly, precocious, deceitful promise (“Hore Syriacz,” Rom. 1828), discovered in the Vatican (MS. Syr. 153) a Syriac translation of both Testa- ments, with the several portions of the New standing im the fol- lowing order ; Acts, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, the fourteen Epistles of St Paul, and then the Gospels (see p. 67), these being the only books contained in the Peshito (see p. 275). On bemg compared with that venerable translation, the Vat. 153 was found to resemble it much (though the Peshite is somewhat less literal), only that in Proper Names and Greek words it follows the more exact Philoxenian. In the margin also are placed by the first hand many readings indicated by the notation eZ, which turns out to mean the Peshito. The codex is on thick yellow vellum, in large folio, with the two columns so usual in Syriac writing; the ink, especially the points m ver- milion, has often grown pale, and it has been carefully re- touched by a later hand; the original document being all the work of one scribe: some of the marginal notes refer to various readings. There are several long and tedious subscriptions in the volume, whereof one states that the copy was written “in the year of the Greeks 1291 (A.D. 980) in the [Monophy- site] monastery of Aaron on [mount] Sigara, in the jurisdiction of Calisura, in the days of the Patriarchs John and Menna, by David a deacon of Urin in the jurisdiction of Gera” [Téppa, near Bercea or Aleppo]. It may be remarked that Assemani has inserted a letter-in the “ Bibliotheea Orientalis” from John the Monophysite Patriarch [of Antioch] to his brother Patriarch, Menna of Alexandria, This manuscript, of which Wiseman gives a rather rude facsimile, is deemed by him of great im- portance in tracing the history of the Syriac vowel-points. He names other manuscripts (e.g. Barberini 101) which seem to NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 295 belong to this version, reserving a full collation for that more convenient season which in his tumultuous life was never to come [d. 1865]. We subjoin Matth. 1. 19 in four versions, wherein the close connexion of the Karkaphensian with the Peshito is very manifest. The vowel points of the Karkaphen- sian are irregularly put, and deserve notice. PESHITO. KARKAPHENSIAN. Lilo aSs5 4) amos LS oXs5 ὦ) oma, (La; 235 155 lo Jon (1.00; 249 lo, Ho «lon Ciiped Δα DS) w52]o | lads, Jon = sil}o CURETONIAN. PHILOXENIAN. Loy dso ὦ) ma, on ool on? ama. lon [Ean D blo joo}: lon «σιοΔ.] blo» aX. nm wSillo SasSo\ σιν; 5.1»; oii ay lon [con Lo oy de Δι] στο» joo | .cupas Lealo aar2) Marg. παραδειγματίσαιυ. We have now traced the history of the several Syriac versions, so far at least as to afford the reader some general idea of their relative importance as materials for the correction of the sacred text. On pp. 296—8 are given parallel versions of Matth. xii, 1—4; Mark xvi. 17—20 from the Peshito, the Curetonian, and the Philoxenian, the only versions known in full; for Matth. xxvii. 3—8, in the room of the Curetonian, which is here lost, we have substituted the Jerusalem Syriac ; and have retained throughout Thomas’ marginal notes to the Philoxenian, its asterisks and obeli. We have been compelled to employ the common Syriac type, though every manuscript of respectable antiquity is written in the Estrangelo character. Even from these slight specimens the servile strictness of the Philoxenian, and some leading characteristics of the other ver- sions, will readily be apprehended by an attentive student (e.g. the Curetonian in Matth. xii. 1; 4; Mark xvi. 18; 20). τ τροο σὸς NH IO} Lore i ἐσστοττο φοθοίιροσα, “Bx0K τ , LOO ᾿οϑαῦ τ στ -τοἰτιοον" πλοίου sono: ΟΠ ἰ Sot evr ol το THIS) Of εἰσστστονῦ FH [Qi LT ἐῇ my τοῦτο ἔστι oe cic, CLOT ἑἐτστιο : (F) [TTT] S108 | try σττὶ τοῦ tor! Sos! σου) (ὃ 100 ἐπὸ [oF qsere sole too σῇ ἐῃ στοῦ i> οἱ «ἰο στο τιο: Lo| στε τὸ ea oles (Ὁ δ’ TWO clo im cote: “son Seo) στ' στ ls} (1) σιοο lot, : aLoy* Loo} ote *“NVINGDXOTIHd Yer (στ is sono [ἢ ὃ Sot τς πριν τὴν τσ γε HH olsy στὴ ττος ole ὑππῖο (ἢ [orl τὰ cid ot vo! to cl co eset soot (0) ἰστ' τιοῦ ἢ om] SAO Kari σίος oy (Ὁ) Gleeto [ro sites] [ost sto" «τί ostc o{“n100} ο᾽ σατο» ογισττίοιοσ GUTO" orto “FUN Croy| ory les" (I) oGico Ist, σοι 168] ᾿ΝΥΙΝΟΙΠΈ ΠΡ ‘F—T ΙΧ MABLIVIL id ὃ Sper, yore Gol yo SA ott I ἐφγοειο tote] [EV t 120 ἐῃ Sh TM ταῦ NL! ose of oe ols ἔσστιο - (ἡ) [ror] Ses ot ot] set kot Sore! στοῦ (ὃ too > ἰστ' TSS Fel oles team i> i fo [ED Jot πιο TT SST οἱσττϑθ (Ὁ at 7 CSOHLO* 4 ι9 4 =) τς = ον OLo™ GUTto : ol ime) sf re ao πα = sy νς μτν (I) Gloo ἰστὶ : omoys wool “OLIHSdd *smannday g eaoangdon , *o1nzhhny » ‘lipo, “dompo , “BIBI Doser] ἐέσῃ Hox, STOTT’ Lo¢| \7or- LOO Poros} LOO : Sty Toes ElSwT =] (8) HV Were omed Perm teri |nyerod (1) GEE σττοὶ POTD: στ ODES YP? ATY TAL KOH} Sowa] [στο : ἢ VTE Sorovre (9) «στο crore] E> σ' «στο [FO erm olly, we +o τ" (ὃ oct ete [ro τῦτσσὶ CLT] : 4 στο σττὶ SOP FV TAL etry eso fal ler oro cor, οτσστοὶ Οἡ σ' ἰσ': fost wos? TAP Swe] τους {sono ἐϊγίσττο : σ᾽ [770m Το ci cei] τιοοῖ! Loo *NVINGXOTIHG [‘sojou το ‘06% ‘dd 9997] | tle coy, [ἐστ τ' στ oor, 8) Yo [Ot FEL σιοϑ Fou ἐστὶ FOOT S| im oes (στττοὶ oy οἰστο My, tide toy ἐϊέστί () PTD “-τῦ ἰτσὴ myo σστεστὶ " ἐσιοττῇ ἐπα root CWS] olos'o ἢ στοσσὶ ofl, HFS May ᾧ 9) em] STH [7 TAL (ἡ OFF σασσὶ ἰὲος Siro ἡ Lord Em στο σῇ οσσττσί' (7) οἱστ' [σον ἐστον ogre γευτ tows] Sire] itor] τιοοΐσσ' Costs" τγιο C7 ore τιοὶ] () oryio orton] Go ci eras] OVIEAS ΝαΤΥΒΩΊΠΙ *8— “TIAXX “HVT ἐδ Bag ΠῚ | wor, [zoim Dore] too: σεν! Soy ose oer ©) AT ORE]! olgro cro Pyeano tev ay Tm ἰσὶ be ὦ gree ἜΝ horas, Soy Pe, i> eoxpion Sowa! clove” ἢ oli, cri rome’ 9) ST CHT (¢) oetniom Gare] σιοταῖὶ OFT so SoS ἰδν τ i στὸν ἰσὴ ἰστὶ΄ wo EO ey col ose) oles seer [ost τος TOTP ewe] SST ἀπ tlyeerr eps U77o7 οἰ δ (Ὁ tS Feel] oreo τ’ ‘OLIHSad Ge [γογὶ wore trae | Loo} : ct ost] ors bool OSTIT VL E's i> ct συ [clo Sty éocy| : στὴ OTT HHO + CaP TOO [BYSS Ferre] os Be tos, το aye (02) toro FOrOsO : οὐαὶ Ὑ L000 ᾧ (61) LOO ot ι τὸ sol [“ οὐ" = σσσῃ! (ὦ σισττγι! στος HY (a) σα τ] Σ᾽ ττοογὶ FOTO roo στοτὶ τῷ. ray emer: FO το ἐπὶ (21) [797| ἐπ Store’ Coptoroy *“NVINUXOTINd ee me - oFst L00| σἼ7οτὶ iscim Loco > στ τῦτιοο Sty’ οσττγιοο i> rau o|ctlo Gedy ioc]: ct OTS OF τστττί OH IO|" (02) Loro’ Tee ce eee ΟΝ στ sys FOTTOWD | e100} oryers στον (61) στὰ i> own iso rey ἢ τοὶ [Os sy Siro| Srr1co of oylos σσσῃ oyo7| eZ] πῦον" (81) “ττογὶ γσστ' Somaya (τοὶ roo Covet (ΠΥ ἐστι στη Gr LOE “NVINOLOYN9 Ὅσ ΔΙ. “TAX BEV L000" const oT size7| ἐστσῖτὸ i οστ στχῖς ἴροὶ τοὶ : (02) Lor &> FEUD οἱσίο σαν CLO OS OP co TT] HH IO| o> ore tox, τσποῦ Sor] oryeryoyO (01) “τον E> στὸ : orined roo SSD στοῦ! ey τος. ἰγθ" (81) oreve7| ἔστ of σσσῃ εἸξὶ τοῦθ ἐστ TH τ τὶ NTO COLO LOL στο" SFOS ti 477k AS. ἀπὸ “OLIHSAd ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS, &c. 299 4, Tue Latin Versions. (1). The Old Latin, previous to Jerome’s revision. ; Since we know that a branch of the Christian Church existed at Rome “many years” before St Paul’s first visit to that city (Rom. xv. 23), and already flourished there towards the end of the first century, it seems reasonable to conjecture that the earliest Latin version of Holy Scripture was made for the use of believers in the capital, or at all events in other parts of Italy (Heb. xiii. 24). There are, moreover, passages in the works of the two great Western Fathers of the fourth century, Jerome [3845?2—420] and Augustine [854—430], whose obvi- ous and literal meaning might lead us to conclude that there existed in their time many Latin translations, quite independent in their origin, and used almost indifferently by the faithful. Their statements are very well known, but must needs be cited anew, as bearing directly on the point now at issue. When Jerome, in that Preface to the Gospels which he addressed to Pope Damasus (366—84), anticipates but too surely the unpo- pularity of his revision of them among the people of his own generation, he consoles himself by the reflection that the varia- tions of previous versions prove the unfaithfulness of them all: “verum non esse quod variat, etiam maledicorum testimonio comprobatur.” Then follows his celebrated assertion: “Si - enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant quibus: tot enim sunt exemplaria pené quot codices.” The testimony of Augustine seems even more explicit, and at first sight conclusive. In his treatise De Doctrind Christiana (Lib. I1. capp. 11—15), when speaking of “Latinorum interpretum in- finita varietas,” and “interpretum numerositas,” as not with- out their benefit to an attentive reader, he uses these strong expressions: “Qui enim Scripturas ex Hebrea lingudé in Greecam verterunt, numerari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nullo modo, Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex Grecus, et aliquantulum facultatis 5101 utri- usque lingue habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari” (c. 11); and he soon after specifies a particular version as preferable 300 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE to the rest : “In ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala’ ceteris preeferatur. Nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sen- tentiz” (c. 14—15). And, indeed, the variations subsisting between the several extant manuscripts of the Old Latin are so wide and so perpetual, as in the judgment of no less eminent a critic than Ernesti (Jnstit. Interpretis, Pt. m1. Chap. tv. ὃ 11, Terrots translation) “to prove an original diversity of ver- sions.” Such is, no doubt, the primd facie view of the whole case. When, however, the several codices of the version or ver- sions antecedent to Jerome’s revision came to be studied by Sabatier and Bianchini, and through their labours to be placed within the reach of all scholars’, it was soon perceived, that with many points of difference between them, there were evident traces of a common source from which all originally sprung: and on a question of this kind occasional divergency, how- ever extensive, cannot weaken the impression produced by re- semblance, if it be too close or too constant to be attributed to chance (see above, p. 283). A single example out of thou- sands, taken almost at random, will best illustrate our meaning (Matth. xx. 1, 2). “Simile est enim...[regnJum caelorum homini patri familias, qui exiit primo mane conducere opera- rios in vineam suam. Conventione autem facta cum operariis ex denario diurno, misit eos in vineam suam.” Thus stand the verses in the Vercelli manuscript, the oldest and probably the best monument of the Latin before Jerome. In the other copies there is pretty much variation; five or six omit enim, one reads autem in its room: one (ff*) spells coelorwm*; in one pater is in- | serted before exiit; two have exivit; one reads primd mane; one (Tischendorf’s Codex Palatinus) begins ver. 2 more idiomatically, 1 For Itala Bentley boldly conjectured et illa, changing the following nam into que (Bentleii Critica Sacra, pp. 157—9); Potter more plausibly suggests usitata for Itala: but alteration is quite needless. * “Bibliorum Sacrorum Latine Versiones Antique, seu Vetus Italica, οὗ. ceter quecunque in Codicibus MSS. et Antiquorum Libri reperiri potuerunt ... Opera et studio Ὁ, Petri Sabatier.” Romae 1713—49, fol., 3 tom., and the far superior work, ‘“‘Evangeliarium Quadruplex Latinw Versionis Antique, seu Veteris Italice, editum ex Codicibus Manuscriptis...a Josepho Blanchino.” Rome 1749, fol., 2 tom. % This is probably a mere error of the editor, Martianay. Caelwm is in- variably the form in Latin manuscripts of every age and kind, NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. Sur “et convenit illi cum operariis denario diurno et misit...”; one adds operart after misit eos. The general form of the construc- tion, however, is the same in all; all (except the Latin of Cod. D, which hardly belongs to this class of documents: see p. 115) retain the characteristic “denario diwrno”: so that the result of the whole, and of innumerable like instances, is a conviction that they are all but offshoots from one parent stock, modifi- cations more or less accidental of one single primitive version. Now when, this fact fairly established, we look back again to the language employed by Jerome and Augustine, we can easily see that, with some allowance for his habit of rhetorical exag- geration, the former may mean no more than that the scattered copies (exemplaria) of the one Old Latin translation vary widely from each other; and though the assertions of Augustine are too positive to be thus disposed of, yet he is here speaking, not from his personal knowledge so much as from vague conjecture ; of what had been done not in his own time, but “in the first ages of our faith;” and the illustrious Bishop of Hippo, with all his earnest godliness, his spiritual discernment, and mighty strength of reasoning, must yield place as a Biblical critic and an investigator of Christian history to many (Eusebius or Jerome for example) who were far his inferiors in intellectual power. On one point, however, Augustine must be received as a competent and most sufficient witness. We cannot hesitate to believe that one of the several translations or recensions current towards the end of the fourth century was distinguished from the rest by the name of Jtala, and in his judgment deserved praise for its clearness and fidelity. It was long regarded as certain that in Augustine’s Jtalic we might find the Old Latin version in its purest form, and that it had obtained that appel- lation from Italy, the native country of the Latin language and literature, where Walton thinks it likely that it had been used from the very beginning of the Church, “cum Ecclesia Latina sine versione Latin&é esse non potuerit” (Proleg. x. 1). Mill, indeed, who bestowed great pains on the subject, reminds us that the first Christians at Rome were composed to so great an extent of Jewish and other foreigners whose vernacular tongue was Greek, that the need of a Latin translation of Scripture would not at first be felt; yet even he could not place its date 302 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE ὁ later than the Pontificate of Pius I. (142—57), the first Bishop of Rome after Clement that bears a Latin name (Mill. Proleg. § 377). It was not until attention had been specially directed to the style of the Old Latin version that scholars began to suspect its AFRICAN origin, of which no hint had been given by early ecclesiastical writers, and which possesses in itself no great inherent probability. This opinion, which had obtained favour with Eichhorn and some others before him, may be con- sidered as demonstrated by Cardinal Wiseman, in a brief and fugitive pamphlet entitled “ 7'wo letters on some parts of the con- troversy concerning 1 John v. 7,” Rome, 1835, since republished in his Essays on various subjects, Vol. τ. 1853. So far as his argument rests on the exclusively Greek character of the pri- mitive Roman Church, a fact which Mill seems to have insisted on quite enough, it may not bring conviction to the reflecting reader. Even though the early Bishops of Rome were of foreign origin, though Clement towards the end of the first, Caius the presbyter late in the second century, who are proved by their names to be Latins, yet chose to write in Greek ; it does not at all follow that the Church contained not many humbler members, both Romans and Italians, ignorant of any language except Latin, for whose instruction a Latin version would still be urgently required. On the ground of internal evidence, however, Wiseman has made out a case which all who have followed him, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson, Tre- gelles, accept as irresistible: indeed it is not easy to draw any other conclusion from his elaborate comparison of the words, the phrases, and grammatical constructions of the Latin version of Holy Scripture, with the parallel instances by which they can be illustrated from African writers, and from them only (Essays, Vol. 1. pp. 46—66). It is impossible to exhibit any adequate abridgement of an investigation which owes all its cogency to the number and variety of minute particulars, each one weak enough by itself, the whole comprising a mass of evidence which cannot be gainsayed. As the earliest citations from the Old Latin are found in the ancient translation of Irenzeus, and the African fathers Tertullian [150?—220?7] and Cyprian [d. 258]; so from the study of Tertullian and other Latin authors natives of North Africa, especially of the Roman proconsular province of that name, we may understand the genius and character of NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES, 303 the peculiar dialect in which it is composed; such writers are Appuleius in the second century, Arnobius, Lactantius and Augustine of the fourth. In their works as in the Old Latin version, are preserved a multitude of words which occur in no Italian author so late as Cicero: constructions (e.g. domi- nantur eorwm Luke xxii. 25; faciam vos fiert Matth. iv. 19) or forms of verbs (sive consolamur...sive exhortamur 2 Cor. 1. 6) abound, which at Rome had long been obsolete; while the palpable lack of classic polish is not ill atoned for by a certain terseness and vigour which characterise this whole class of writers, but never degenerate into vulgarity or absolute bar- barism. Besides the vestiges of the Old Latin translation detected by Sabatier and others in the Latin Fathers and Apologists from Tertullian down to Augustine, the following manuscripts of the version are extant, and have been cited by critics since the appearance of Lachmann’s edition (1842—50) by the small italic letters of the alphabet. Old Latin Manuscripts of the Gospels. a. CopEXx VERCELLENSIS [Iv] at Vercelli, said to have been written by Eusebius Bishop of Vercelle and Martyr. Bianchini, when Canon of Verona, heard of this great treasure in 1726, and collated it in the next year. Wut. in many letters and words throughout, and entirely wanting in Matth. xxv. 1—16; Mark i. 22—34; iv, 17—24; xv. 15—xvi. 7 (xvi. 7—20 in a later hand from Jerome’s Vulgate); Luke i, 1—12; xi. 12—25; xii. 38—59. Published by J. A. Ivici (‘“ Sacro- sanctus Evangeliorum Codex 8. Eusebii Magni”), Milan 1748, and by Bianchini on the left-hand page of his “ Evangeliarium Quadruplex” ; the latter gives a fucsimile, but Tregelles states that [1010] represents the mutilated fragments the more accurately. In Codd. aef, as in d and its Greek, the Gospels stand in the usual western order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. See p. 68 and note 1, ὃ. Cop. VERONENSIS [IV or v] at Verona, also in Bianchini’s “ Kvangeliarium Quadruplex”, on the right-hand page. Mut. Matth. 1. 1—11; xv. 12—23; xxiii. 18—27; Mark xiii. 9—19; 24—-xiv. 20; Luke xix. 26—xxi. 29; also John vii. 44—viii. 12 is erased. c. Cop. Coxsert. [x1] at Paris, very important though so late; edited in full by Sabatier (see p. 300 note 2), but beyond the Gospels the version is Jerome’s, and in a later hand. d. Copvrx Brza, its Latin version: see pp. 112—118, and for its mut, Ὁ. 112, note 2, 304 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE e. Cop. Paatinus [rv or vy] at Vienna, on purple vellum, with gold and silver letters, as are Codd. abfij, edited by Tischendorf (“Evangelium Palatinum ineditum”), Leipsic, 1847. Only the follow- ing portions are extant: Matth. xii. 49—xiii. 13; 24—-xiv. 11 (with breaks); 22—xxiv. 49; xxviii. 2—John xviii. 12; 25—Luke viii. 30; 48—xi. 4; 24—-xxiv. 53; Marki. 20—iv. 8; 19—vi. 9; xii. 37—40; xii, 2, 3; 2427; 3336: 1.6. 2627 verses, including all John but 13 verses, all Luke but 38. . - Cop. Brrx1anvs [v1] at Brescia, edited by Bianchini beneath Cod. 6. Mut. Mark xii. 5—xiii. 32; xiv. 70—xvi. 20. I’, 75, Copp. CorBerensEs, very ancient, once at the Abbey of Corbey in Picardy. Of ff’ T. Martianay edited St Matthew and St James (“Vulgata Antiqua Latina et Itala versio ev. Matth. et ep. Jacobi”... Paris 1695), the first of any portion of the Old Latin, and Bianchini repeated it underneath Cod. a, giving in its place the text of 7. in the other Gospels: but Sabatier cites 7} in Mark i. 1—v. 18 and #” in all parts except Matth. i—xi, and a few other places, wherein it is mut. Mr Burgon found #’, a beautiful copy, in the Royal Library at Paris, Lat. 17225’. Tischendorf (WV. 7’. 8th edition) tells us that #*, which had been missing, is now safe at St Peters- burg (see p. 153). gg. Copp. SANGERMANENSES, like Paul. E (p. 153) and others, once at the Abbey of St Germain des Prez, near Paris; very ancient. Bianchini repeated the readings of these from Martianay in the mar- gin of Cod. 77.) of St Matthew, but Sabatier gave the variations of both throughout the Gospels: g? is not often cited by him, and seems mut. Canon Westcott gives a remarkable inscription found in οἷ (“Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible”, Latin Versions). h, Cop. Craromontanus [iv or v] bought for the Vatican by Pius VI. (1774—99), contains only St Matthew in the Old Latin, the other Gospels in Jerome’s revision. fut. Matth. i. 1—iii. 15; xiv. $3—xviii. 12. Sabatier gave extracts, and Mai published St Matthew in full in his “Script. Vet. nova collectio Vaticana,” Tom. ii. p. 257, Rom. 1828. i. Cop. Vinpoponensis [Vv or v1] brought from Naples to Vienna, contains Luke x. 6—xxiii. 10 (“evangel. secundum Lucanum” it is termed); Mark ii. 17— iii. 29; iv. 4—x. 1; 33—xiv. 36; xv. 33— 40. This valuable codex has been published by Alter and Paulus in Germany in such a form that Tregelles has been obliged to resort to Bianchini’s and Griesbach’s extracts, though Tischendorf has used Alter’s publication’. j. Cop. Sarzannensis [v] was discovered in 1872 in the Church of Sarezzano near Tortona. It consists of eight quires written on 1 Is this the copy seen at Corbey by A. Calmet (Wetstein, N.T. Tom. 1, p. 548) with the Gospels in the same order as in a. e. f? * His citation is from Alter, ‘‘N. Repert. ἃ, bibl. u. morgen]. Literatur,” ΠῚ, 115—170, and from Paulus’ Memorabilia, vir. p. 58—96 (Tischend. N.7'. Prol. p. 244, 7th edn.), NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES, 305 purple vellum in silver letters, and contains (much mutilated) 292 verses of St John, viz. ch. 1. 38—iii. 23; iii, 33—v. 20; vi. 29—49; 49—67; 68—vii. 32; viii. 6—ix. 21, with two columns on a page. The text is peculiar, and much with abde. Guerrino Amelli, sub- librarian of the Ambrosian Library, published at Milan the same year “‘ Dissertazione Critico-Storica con note illustrative” 18 pp., with a lithographed facsimile, whose characters much resemble the round and flowing shape of those in ajf. A photograph kindly sent me by Mr Burgon was lost in travelling through the post. Amelli displays a good spirit of criticism, but ought to have published the entire text. k. Cop. Bossrensis [iv or v] brought with a vast number of others from Bobbio to Turin (G. vit. 15); it was once St Columban’s copy, and is beautifully written. The text is very important, much resembling that of Codd. & B. It contains Mark vii. 19—xvi. 8, followed by Matth. i. 1—iii. 10; iv. 2—xiv. 17; xv. 20—xvi. 1; 5—7. It was most wretchedly edited by F. F. Fleck in 1837, and not very well by Tischendorf in the “Wiener Jahrbiicher” 1847, but he promised a separate and more correct publication. 7. Cop, RHEpIGERIANUS [vi] at St Elizabeth’s church, Breslau ; mut., especially in St John. J. E. Scheibel in 1763 published Mat- thew and Mark, far from correctly: D. Schulz wrote a Dissertation on it in 1814, and inserted his collation of it in his edition of Gries- bach’s N. T., Vol. 1. 1827. m. This letter indicates the readings extracted by Mai (‘‘Spicile- gium Romanum,” 1843, Tom. rx. pp. 61—86) from a “Speculum” [v1 or vit] which has been ascribed to Augustine (entitled at its close Liber Testimoniorum), and is unique for containing extracts from the whole N. T. except St Mark, 3 John, Hebrews, and Philemon. It is in the Monastery of Santa Croce, or Bibliotheca Sessoriana (No. 58)at Rome’. Wiseman drew attention to it in his celebrated “Two Letters,” 1835 (see p. 302), because it contains 1 John v. 7 in two different places. Both he and Mai furnish facsimiles. This “Speculum” (published in full by Mai, ‘“‘Patrum Nova Collectio,” Vol. τ. pt. 2, 1852) consists of extracts from both Testaments, arranged in chapters under various heads or topics. See also Forster’s ‘‘New Plea for the Three Heavenly Witnesses” (1867) pp. 145—6. For the next four we are indebted to Tischendorf, who inserted them in his 7th edition (N. T. Proleg. p. 245), and purposed to edit them in full. nm. Cop. SANGALLENSIS [Vv or Iv] at St Gall (see p. 140). It con- tains Matth. xvii. 1—5; 14—18; xvii. 19——xvili. 20; xix. 21—xx. 7; 7—23 (defective); 23—xxi. 3; xxvi. 56—60; 69—74; xxvii. 3; 62—64; 66—xxviii. 2; 8—20; Mark vii. 13—31; vii. 32—ix. 9; xiii. 2—20; xv. 22—xvi. 13: 199 verses. o, p are other fragments at St Gall: o [vi1?] contains Mark xvi. 14—20 in a hand of the Merovingian period; p [vir or virt] contains 1 In the fiy-sheet prefixed to the eighth edition of his N. Τί (1865) Tischen- dorf cites it as “πὰ, Vatic.” Ss. 20 900 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE John xi, 14—44; it seems part of a lectionary in a Scottish (i.e. Irish) hand, and from a specimen Tischendorf gives would appear to be very loose and paraphrastic. q. Cov. Monacensts [v1] at Munich. Mut, Matth. iii. 15—iv. 25; v. 25—vi. 4; 28—vii. 8; John x. 11—xii. 39; Luke xxiii. 22 —36; xxiv. 11—39; Mark i. 7—22; xv. 5—36: an important copy. s. Cop. Mepronay. [vi or v] at Milan, four palimpsest leaves containing in uncials Luke xvii. 3—29; xviii. 39—xix. 47; xx. 46— xxi. 22 mutilated, and in confused order. Published in 1861 by Ceriani in Monuwmenta Sacra et Profana, ex Codd. presertim Biblio- thece Ambrosiane. Add to this list Cod. δ, the interlinear Latin of Cod. A (see p. 141), whatever be its value. Also at Milan, Ambros. I. 61 sup., the Latin Gospels “Liber Sancti Columbani de Bobio,” exhibiting a peculiar text, unlike the Vulgate, shewn to Burgon by Ceriani. Is this s, which we have described above? In the Acts we have Codd. dm as in the Gospels: 6 the Latin ver- sion of Cod. Εἰ of the Acts (see above p. 147), and s Cop. Bonsrensis, now at Vienna [v?], containing palimpsest fragments of Acts xxiii, xxvii, xxviii: edited by Tischendorf and Eichenfeld (‘‘ Wiener Jahr- biicher,” 1847). Mr Vansittart (Journal of Philology, Vol. τι. No. 4, pp. 240—6) describes a palimpsest of 18 leaves (10 containing the Acts, 2 the Apocalypse), cited by Sabatier (Tom. m1. p. 507) as Reg. 5367, but now Lat. 6400 G. Τῷ is in a graceful semi-uncial character [v or vi at latest], with 23 long lines on a page, now very hard to decipher. In the Catholic Epistles are ff (Martianay) of St James, and m as in the Gospels; s as in the Acts, containing James 1. 1—5; iii, 13— 18; iv. 1; 2; v.19; 20; 1 Pet. i. 1—12. In the Pauline Epistles we have m as in the Gospels. Codd. d, 6, f, g ave the Latin versions of Codd. DEFG of St Paul, described above, Cod. Ὁ, p. 151; Cod. E, p. 153; Cod. F, p. 154; Cod. G, p. 156. Sabatier had given extracts from de, though not very carefully: 7 (if we except the interlinear Latin, see Ὁ. 156) rather belongs to Je- rome’s recension. gue. Cop, GUELFERBYTANUS [v1], fragments of Rom. xi. 33—xii. 5; 17—xiii. 1; xiv. 9—20; xv. 3—13 (33 verses), found in the great Gothic palimpsest at Wolfenbiittel (see p. 129), and published with the other matter by Knittel in 1762, and more fully by Tischendorf, ** Anecdota sacra et profana,” p. 153, &e. γι Cop, FrisincEnsis [vi or v] on the covers of some books at Munich. ‘Three precious fragments (1 Cor, 1. 1—27; 28—iil. 5; xv. 14—43; xvi. 12—24; 2 Cor. 1. 1—10; iti. 17—v.1; ix. 10—xi. 21; Phil. iv. 11—23; 1 Thess. i. 1—10: 179 verses) were discovered by J. A. Schmeller, were read and intended for publication by Tischendorf, In the Apocalypse we have only m of the Gospels. Also two leaves of the Apocalypse from the palimpsest Paris Lat. 6400 G, ete ea NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 307 described above, whereof the three pages which are legible, contain- ing Rey. i. 1—ii. 1; στ, 7—ix. 2 (much mutilated), are edited by Mr Vansittart (Journal of Philology, Vol. tv. No. 8, pp. 219—22). Add to these large extracts in the Commentary of Primasius, an African writer of the sixth century, which were first edited by Sabatier. These thirty-two (or, counting the same copy more than once, forty) codices, compared with what extracts we obtain from the Latin Fathers, comprise all we know of the version before Jerome. Codd. abc and the fragments of 7 have been deemed to represent the Old Latin in its primitive form, as it originated in Africa, and agree remarkably with Cod. D and the Curetonian Syriac, in regard to interpolations, and im- probable or ill-supported readings: so far as they represent a text as old as the second century, they prove that some manu- scripts of that early date had already been largely corrupted. Cod. e, also, though the specimens we shall give below (pp. 316— 18) shew extensive divergency from the rest, often bears a striking resemblance to Cod. d and its parallel Greek. There are, however, copies (Cod. f for instance) of which Lachmann speaks, which “ab Afra sua origine mirum quantum discrepent, et cum inimicissimis quasi colludant” (N. T. Proleg. Vol. 1. Ῥ. xiii); and since these best agree with the quotations of Augustine, who commended the /talic version (see p. 300), and counselled that “emendatis non emendati cedant”’ (De Doct. Christ. Lib. τι. c. 14), and that “Latinis quibuslibet emendandis, Greeci adhibeantur” (2b. c. 15); it has been inferred, not im- probably, though on somewhat precarious grounds, that such codices are of the Italic recension, formed perhaps in the North of Italy, by correcting the elder African from Greek manu- scripts of a more approved class. It is obvious, however, that little dependence can be placed on a theory thus slenderly sup- ported’, nor would the critical value of the Jtalic be diminished 1 1 do not perceive the cogency of what Lachmann says that ‘‘Wisemanus egregie demonstravit” (N.T. Proleg. Vol. 1. p. xiii) on this head from Augustine's argument against Faustus, the African Manichean (Advers, Faust. Lib. xt. 6. 2). That heretic adopted the principle we are so familiar with now, of accept- ing just so much of Scripture as suited his purpose, and no more: ‘‘ Inde probo hoc illius esse, illud non esse, quia hoc pro me sonat, illud contra me.” Augustine, of course, insists in reply on the evidence of ‘‘exemplaria veriora, vel plurium codicum yel antiquorum vel lingue precedentis” [i.e. the Greek],...“‘ vel ex aliarum regionum codicibus, unde ipsa doctrina commeavit.” How all this 20—2 308 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE were we certain that it had sprung from a revision made by the aid of such Greek codices as were the most highly esteemed in the third or fourth century. Of the remaining copies, Codd. hm?n, each with many peculiarities of its own, are assigned to the African family, / and g (which Tischendorf praises highly) to the Italic, though & has been amended from “a Greek text more Alexandrian than that which had been the original basis of the Latin version”’ (Tregelles’ Horne, p. 239), and is other- wise very remarkable, especially for a habit of abridging whole passages. Cod. ὦ is said to possess a mixed text, and ff’, g’, οὗ to be of but little use, so far as they have been cited. It is evident that much of this division is arbitrary, and that the whole subject needs renewed and close investigation. (2). Jerome's revised Latin Version, commonly called the Vulgate. The extensive variations then existing between different copies of the Old Latin version, and the obvious corruptions which had crept into some of them, prompted Damasus, Bishop of Rome, in A.D. 382, to commit the important task of a formal revision of the New, and probably of the Old Testament, to Jerome, a presbyter born at Stridon on the confines of Dalmatia - and Pannonia, probably a little earlier than A.D. 345. This learned, fervent and holy man had just returned to Rome, where he had been educated, from his hermitage in Bethlehem, and in the early ripeness of his high reputation undertook a work for which he was specially qualified, and whose delicate nature he well understood’. Whatever prudence and moderation could do (although these were not the peculiar excellences of his character) to remove objections or relieve the scruples of the simple, were not neglected by Jerome, who not only made as tends to prove that Faustus used African, Augustine Italic manuscripts, is not easily understood. 1 “ Novum opus me facere cogis ex veteri: ut post exemplaria Scripturarum toto orbe dispersa, quasi quidam arbiter sedeam: et quia inter se variant, que sint illa que cum Grwca consentiant veritate, decernam. Pius labor, sed periculosa prmsumptio, judicare de ceteris, ipsum ab omnibus judicandum; senis mutare linguam, et canescentem jam mundum ad initia retrahere paryu- loram,” Pref, ad Damasum, —Se eee eee ee —_— NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 309 few changes as possible in the Old Latin when correcting its text by the help of “ancient” Greek manuscripts’, but left untouched many words and forms of expression, and not a few grammatical irregularities, which in a new translation (as his own subsequent version of the Hebrew Scriptures makes clear) he would most certainly have avoided. The four Gospels, as they stand in the Greek rather than the Latin order (see p. 303), revised but not re-translated on this wise prin- ciple, appeared in A.D. 384, accompanied with his celebrated Preface to Damasus (‘‘summus sacerdos”), who died that same year. Notwithstanding his other literary engagements, it is probable enough that his recension of the whole New Testament for public use was completed A.D. 385, though the proof alleged by Mill (N. T. Proleg. § 862), and by others after his example, hardly meets the case. In the next year (A. D. 386), in his Commentary on Galat., Ephes., Titus and Philem., he indulges in more freedom of alteration as a translator than he had previously deemed advisable; while his new version of the Old Testament from the Hebrew (completed about A.p. 405) is not founded at all on the Old Latin, which was made from the Greek Septuagint; the Psalter excepted, which he executed at Rome at the same date, and in the same spirit, as the Gospels. The boldness of his attempt in regard to the Old Testament is that por- tion of his labours which alone Augustine disapproved? (Au- gust. ad Hieron. Ep. x. Tom. m1. p. 18, Lugd. 1586, A.D. 403), and indeed it was never received entire by the Western Church, which long preferred his slight revision of the Old Latin, made at. some earlier period of his hfe. Gradually, however, Jerome’s recension of the whole Bible gained ground, as well through the growing influence of the Church of Rome, as from its own intrinsic merits: so that when in course of 1 «TEvangelia] Codicum Grecorum emendata collatione, sed veterum, qua ne multum a lectionis Latine consuetudine discreparent, ita calamo tempera- vimus, ut his tantum que sensum videbantur mutare correctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant.” Jbid. For a signal instance ste below, Chap. 1x., note on Matth. xxi. 31. 2 To his well-known censure of Jerome’s rendering of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, Augustine adds, “ Proinde non parvas Deo gratias agimus de opere tuo, quod Evangelium ex Greco interpretatus es: quia pene in omnibus nulla offensio est, cum Scripturam Grecam contulerimus,” 310 ; ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE time it came to take the place of the older version, it also took its name of the Vulgate, or common translation. Cassiodorus indeed, in the middle of the sixth century, is said to have compared the new and old Latin (of the New, perhaps of both Testaments) in parallel columns, which thus became partially mixed in not a few codices: but Gregory the Great (590—604), while confessmg that his Church used both (“quia sedes Apostolica, cui auctore Deo presideo, utraque utitur,” Epist. Dedic. ad Leandrum, c. 5) awarded so decided a preference to Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew, that this form of his Old Testament version, not without some mix- ture with his translation from the Septuagint (Walton, Prol. X. pp. 242—244, Wrangham), and his Psalter and New Tes- tament as revised from the Old Latin, came at length to comprise the Vulgate Bible, the only shape in which Holy Scripture was accessible in Western Europe (except to a few scattered scholars) during the long night of the Middle Ages. ΤῸ guard it from accidental or wilful corruption, Char- lemagne (A.D. 797) caused our countryman Alcuin to review and correct certain copies by the best Latin manuscripts, without reference to the original Greek: more than one of these are supposed by some even yet to survive (e.g. one in the British Museum’, another described by Bianchini, in the “Bibliotheca Vallicellensis” at Rome, which belongs to the Fathers of the Oratory of S. Philip Neri). Our Primate and benefactor, the Lombard Lanfranc (1069—89) attempted a similar task (Mill, N. T. Proleg. ὃ 1058); the aim too of the several subsequent “Correctoria Bibliorum” (see above, p. 177, note 2) was directed to the same good end. These remedies, as applied to written copies, were of course but partial and temporary; yet they were all that seemed pos- sible before the invention of printing. The firstfruits of the press, as it was very right they should be, were Latin Bibles; the earliest (of which some eighteen copies remain) a splendid and beautiful volume, published at Mentz by Gut- enberg and Fust, in or about 1452. Of the many editions which followed, that in the Complutensian Polyglott (1514, 1 The noble volume called Charlemagne’s Bible, now in the British Museum (Addit. 10546), as also one in the Royal Library at Paris, are more probably referred to the time of Cherles the Bald (a.p. 843-77). NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 811 &c.: see Chapter v.) may be named as very elegant; but in none of these does much attention seem to have been paid to the purity of the text. Hence when the Council of Trent in 1546 had declared that “hc ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, que longo tot seculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est,” should be chosen “ex omnibus Latinis editionibus que circum- feruntur sacrorum librorum,” and “in publicis lectionibus, dis- putationibus, preedicationibus, et expositionibus pro authenticd habeatur” (Sess. Iv. Can. 2); after assigning the lowest sense possible to that ambiguous term “ authentic’,” it became the manifest duty of the Church of Rome to provide for its members the most correct recension of the Vulgate that skill and dili- gence could produce: in fact the Council went on to direct that *“‘posthac Scriptura sacra, potissimum verd hec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quam emendatissimé imprimatur.” Yet it was not until the Latin Bible had been left upwards of fifty years longer to the enterprise of private persons (e.g. R. Stephens in 1540, who gave various readings from twenty manuscripts ; Jo. Hentenius in the Louvain Bible of 1547; F. Lucas Brugen- sis In 1573, 1584, &c.), that Sixtus V. (1585—90), apparently after personally bestowing much laudable pains on the work, which had been in preparation during the time of his three imme- diate predecessors, sent forth what we might term his Autho- rised Edition in 1590; not only commanding in the Bull pre- fixed to the volume that it should be taken as the standard of all future reprints, but even that all copies should be corrected by it; and that all things contrary thereto in any manuscript 1 I must confess I see nothing unreasonable in the statements of the Roman doctors cited by Walton, Proleg. x. Wrangham, Tom. 1. pp. 249—262. Westcott, after Van Ess, quotes Bellarmine De Verbo Dei x, which is more moderate than any thing taken by Walton from the same great authority: “Nec enim Patres [Tridentini] fontium wllam mentionem fecerunt. Sed solum ex tot Latinis versionibus, que nune circumferuntur, unam delegerant, quam ceteris anteponerent.” Modern writers speak far more rigidly. Peter Dens, for instance, in his ‘‘Theologia” Vol. τι. p. 106 (Dublin, 1862), in answer to the enquiry “Quanta est auctoritas vulgate editionis Latine?” replies boldly enough, ‘‘ Summa est et infallibilis, quia decreto Concilii Tridentalis Sess. 1v. recepta est, et approbata, ac declarata authentica, ac adeo quod sit certa et infallibilis fidei nostre regula, quod in e& nihil contineatur fidei aut moribus adversum, nec ulla sententia falsa vel erronea.” Dens then goes on to make concessions both in regard to matter and diction, destructive of his whole ease. For this last citation, and other kindly criticism on the first edition of the present work, I am indebted to the late Sir Henry Martin, Bart. 818 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE or printed book, which for its elegance might still be pre- served, be of no weight or authority. Yet this edition (which in places had itself received manual corrections by pen or by paper pasted over it) was soon found so faulty that it was called in to make room for another but two years afterwards (1592) published by Clement VIII. (1592—1605), from which it differs in many places. The high tone adopted by both these Popes, and especially by Sixtus, who had yet to learn that “there is no papal road to criticism” (Tregelles’ Horne, Vol. Iv. p. 251), afforded a rare opportunity to their enemies for up- braiding them on the palpable failure of at least one of them. Thomas James, in his “ Bellum Papale sive Concordia Discors ” (London 1600), gives a long and curious list of the differences of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles, very humorous per- haps as a kind of argumentum ad homines, but not a little unbecoming when the subject is remembered to be an earnest attempt to improve the accuracy of a great and widely-spread version of Holy Scripture. One thing, however, is certain, that neither the Sixtine nor Clementine editions (the latter of which retains its place of paramount authority in the Roman Church) was prepared on any intelligent principles of criti- cism, or furnishes us with such a text as the best manuscripts of Jerome’s Vulgate supply to our hands. It was easy for us to enumerate all known codices of the Latin before Jerome (pp. 303—7) : those of his own version in the libra- ries of Western Europe are absolutely countless: they probably much exceed in number those of the Greek Testament, certainly those of any other work whatsoever. By the aid of the oldest and best of them Bentley proposed, Lachmann and Tregelles to some extent have accomplished, the arduous task of reducing the Vulgate from its Clementine form to the condition in which Jerome left it’. A very few of the best documents that have been hitherto employed are all that need to be described here. am. CopEx AMIATINUS, brought into the Laurentian Library at Florence from the Cistercian Monastery of Monte Amiatino, in Tus- eany. It contains both Testaments, nearly perfect, in a fine hand, stichometrically written by the Abbot Servandus, about A.p. 541. 1 The great though unfinished work of Vercellone, the editor of Cod, Vaticanus (p. 107), Varia Lectiones Vulg. Lat. Bibl, (Tom. 1. 1860; Tom. τι. P. 1, 1862), makes us regret all the more keenly the death of one whom Christian learning could ill afford to lose. νῶι NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 313 A. M. Bandini first particularly noticed it (though from a memoran- dum appended to it we find it had been looked at—hardly much used—in 1587-90, for the Sixtine edition); the New Testament was wretchedly edited by the unlucky Εἰ. F. Fleck in 1840; collated by Tischendorf 1843, and by Tregelles 1846 (del Furia re-collating the codex in the places at which the two differed); published by Tis- chendorf 1850, and again 1854. The Old Testament is yet in a great measure unexamined. The Latin text of Tregelles’ N. T. (see Chap- ter V.) is based on this, doubtless the best manuscript of the Vulgate. Fuld. or fu. Copex Fuipensis, of about the same age, is in the Abbey of Fulda in Hesse Cassel. 1t contains the New Testament, all in the same hand, written by order of Victor, Bishop of Capua, who himself corrected it, and subscribed to the Acts the date, a.p. 546. The Gospels are arranged in a kind of Harmony which diminishes their critical value. It was described by Schannat 1723 (“Vindemiz Literariz Collectio,” pp. 218—221), collated by Lachmann and _ his coadjutor Ph. Buttmann in 1839 for the Latin portion of his N. T. (see Chapter v.), and edited by Ern. Ranke in 1868, who directs attention to a peculiar system of capitulation prefixed in it to the Epistle to the Romans, differing from that which in common with all other manuscripts of the Vulgate it exhibits in the text, which latter the Vulgate seems to have inherited from the Old Latin (Lightfoot, Journal of Philology, Vol. 111. No. 6, pp. 202—3). tol. CopEx Toxeranus, at Toledo [vi11, Westcott] of both Testa- ments, in Gothic letters. Collated in 1588 for Sixtus’ Bible by Christ. Palomares, whose papers were published by Bianchini, “ Vindicie Canonicarum Scripturarum,” 1740. Jor. Copex Forosutiensis [ v1] at Friuli. Bianchini (“ Evangeliari- um Quadruplex,” Appendix) published three of the Gospels (mut. John xix, 29—40; xx. 19—xxi. 25). St Mark’s Gospel is partly at Venice in a wretched plight, partly (xu. 21—xvi. 20) at Prague. This last portion (prag.) was edited by Dobrowsky, 1778. Mr Vansittart found at Paris (Lat. 17726) an uncial manuscript, containing apparently little of St Mark, (but the first two Gospels are mixed up together,) resembling for. in the passage quoted below, pp. 317—8. It was bound by Bozerian Jeune, which looks as if it had arrived at Paris early in this century (Journal of Philology, Vol. τι. No. 4, p. 245). per. Fragments of St Luke (1. 26—ii. 46; iii. 4—16; iv. 9—22; 28—v. 36; viii. 11—x1i. 7) at Perugia, somewhat carelessly edited by Bianchini, “ Evangeliarium Quadruplex,” Appendix. harl. Cop. Harueran. 1775 [vir] the Gospels partially collated by Griesbach, “ Symbole Critice” Vol. τ. pp. 305—26, for critical merit much valued by Canon Westcott, who gives a facsimile of it in “Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible,” Vulgate version. The Rev. G. Willams, B.D., late Senior Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge, hopes some day to publish his complete collation of this important manuscript with Bodl. 857, Harl. 1772 (both named below), B. M. Addit. 5463, King’s Library, 1 B. vir and 1 E. vi [x], all compared with the great copy 314 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE alleged to have been sent by Pope Gregory to Augustine [v1 or vu], now at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (cclxxxvi. Evan. ). Tregelles cites for the Gospels (N. T. 1857, 1860) no more than the above-named : the following, derived from Tischendorf’s list (N.T. Prol. pp. 248—51) and elsewhere, are less known, or else of slighter value. and. Gospels at St Andrew’s, Avignon: in Martianay 1695, Calmet 1726. bod. Bodleian 857 [v1] fragments of N. T. inspected by Mill and Tisch. cav. From the Trinity Monastery di Cava, near Naples [vi] N. T.: used by Tisch. for 1 John v. 7, and by the Abb. de Rozan, 1822. corb.* (Tischendorf, N. T., 8th edition, 2 Pet. iii. 9, 13). demid. Of the whole Bible [x11], from old sources, edited by Matthaei (N. T.) in the Act. Epp. Apoc.: it belonged to Paul Demidov. em. from St Emmeram’s, Ratisbon; now at Munich [dated 870]. Collated by P. C. Sanftl, 1786. Contains the Gospels, as does also erl., at Erlangen, used by Sanftl. flor. Floriacensis, a Lectionary in Sabatier. 7208. Fossatensis of the Gospels [vu1?], used at St Germain’s by Sabatier. gat. Gospels at 8. Gatien’s, Tours [vir] in Calmet, Sabatier, Bianchini. gue lect., A Wolfenbiittel palimpsest Mt seen by Tisch. Aarl. Harleian. 1772 [vi], a text much mixed with the Old Latin, contains all the Epistles except 3 John and Jude (but Jude [x1] of a different text) and Apoce. (mut. xiv. 16—fin.). Collated by Griesbach, Symb. Crit. Vol. 1. pp. 326—82. jac. St James, Gospels Ix] used by Sanftl. ing. Gospels brought from Ingoldstadt to Munich Hah begins Matth. xxii. 39; mut. elsewhere. Seemiller 1784, Tisch. 1844. laud. Oxford, Bodl. Laud. Lat. 108 (E. 67) [ix]. Ze. Brug. Readings extracted by Lucas Brugensis (see p. 177, note 2) from Cor- rectoria Bibliorum Latinorum, and used by Sabatier. These readings are reprinted at length from the Antwerp Polyglott 1569-72 in Walton’s Polyglott, Tom. vi. xvii. p. 30. lips. 4,5, 6. Three Leipsic copies of Apoc., collated in Matthaei’s N. T.1785. Juxx. Luxoviensis, a Lectionary; Mabillon 1729, Sabatier. mar. Czesar Vindob. 287 {dated 1079] written by Mariana the Scot (i.e. Irishman). St Paul’s Epistles, collated in Alter’s N. T. Vol. π΄. pp. 1040—80. mich. (Tischendorf, N. T., 8th edition) is, like mar, a Lectionary. mm. ““Majoris Monasterii (Marmoutier 87)” [x] Gospels collated by Calmet, Sabatier, Bianchini. mé. Gospels at St Martin’s, Tours [v1], Sabatier used it for all the Gospels but St Matthew. reg. Several copies of the Gospels examined by Sabatier at Paris, one fragment in purple and gold from St Germains [vu] by Tischendorf. san. Fragments at St Gall of Gospels and St Paul, the latter palimpsests [v1], a very pure text, brought to light by Tisch. 1857, who states that some leaves of the Gospels are at Zurich. tawr. Gospels at Turin [vu], Tischendorf, Anecd, sacr. et prof. p. 160; used by himin St Mark. theo. or theotise. (Tischendorf, N. T., 8th edition, Matt. xx. 28). trevir, Gospels at Tréves, mentioned by Sanftl. ¢trin. Trinity Coll. Cambridge, B. x. 5. [1x] begins 1 Cor. vii. 32, ends about 1 Thess. Readings sent by the Rev. F. J. A. Hort to Tregelles. There are later copies there also, B. v. 2 [x1 or xt]; B. vi. 1 [xm]. vat. “S, Mich., Breviar, Moz., Vat. olim regine Suec. 11” cited in Magnificat and Benedictus, Luke i, by Tischendorf after Sabatier. Canon Westcott has recently found at St John’s College, Oxford, = NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES, 815 a manuscript [xiv] which in the Acts curiously resembles the import- ant Cod. Harl. 1775 (see p. 313). He also gives in “Smith’s Diction- ary of the Bible,” a description and facsimile of Cambr. Univ. Library, Kk. i. 24 [vir], written in the Irish character. He notices moreover Brit. Mus. Reg. 1. 18 and ‘Addit. 11852 [1x]. Dr Dobbin also cites a “really ancient” copy in the British Museum from St Gall, “(known in literature usually as the Ulm MS.” (Cod. Montfort. Introd. p. 44), purchased at Frankfort by Bp. Butler. Add to these Milan, Ambros. C. 39 inf, nearly resembling am., with the sections and canons in very old small Greek uncials, shewn by Ceriani to Mr Burgon. For the honour of Irish scholars the book of Armagh, at Trinity College, Dublin, ought to be added to our catalogue. It is the only complete Irish copy of the Latin New Testament, the Pauline Epistles following the Gospels, then the Catholic Epistles, the Apocalypse, and lastly the Acts: tothe Colossians the Epistle to the Laodiceans is subjoined (see Cod. G, p. 158. It dates about 807. The Gospels seem to stand in the usual Greek order. Add too Cambridge Univ. Libr. Ke. 1. 9 [xr], and Ff, 4. 10 [x11] from Christ Church Library, at Canterbury : Brit. Mus. Addit. 28107 [dated 1097 “ipso eodem anno quo versus hierusa- lem fuerat gentium plurimarum profectio”| from St Remacle’s at Stavelot near Liege (Lightfoot, Jowrnal of Philology, Vol. 11. No. 6, pp. 197, &.). On the whole it will probably be found that both as a translation and as an aid to the criticism of the Greek text of the New Testament, the Vulgate is far superior to the Old Latin, which was either formed from manuscripts early inter- polated, or (what is perhaps more likely) was corrupted at a later period. Jerome would probably allow great influence to the revised Greek codices of Origen, of Pierius and Pamphilus, to which he occasionally refers with approbation’; and since his copies were of a character that Augustine also viewed with favour’, we have no right to doubt that, so far as Jerome deemed it prudent or necessary to correct the current Latin text, he followed the Greek manuscripts most highly esteemed, at least in the West, at the end of the fourth century. The connection between the several forms of the Latin, before and after Jerome’s recension, may be better seen by the following specimens. In the diction of these several codices, notwithstanding 1 The passages are cited at length in that curious medley of exact learning and bad reasoning, Dr Nolan’s Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, 1815, pp. 171, 100, 85, &ce, The principal are Com. in Matth. xxiv. [v. 36], Hier. Tom. vi. p. 54, and Cat. Script. Eccl., Pamphilus, Tom. 1. p. 128, 2 To the words quoted, p. 309, note 2, Augustine immediately adds: ‘‘ Unde, si quispiam veteri falsitati contentiosius faverit, prolatis collatisque codicibus vel docetur facillimé, vel refellitur.”’ 316 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE many individual peculiarities, there is enough to convince us (as we saw above, p. 300) that they all had the same remote origin. On the whole f comes nearest to Jerome’s version, and ἃ nearer than bce, which have much in common, though 6 is farthest removed from the Vulgate, being the loosest and least grammatical of them all: d seldom agrees with any. a. CopEx VERCELLENSIS (Mare. ii. r—s). (1) Et cum introisset ite- rum in Capharnaum post dies, cognitum est quod in domo esset ; (2) et protinus convenerunt multi, in tan- tum ut jam non posset capere usque ad januam, et loque- batur illis verbum. veniunt ad eum, adferentes paralyticum, qui tollebatur aquatuor. (4) Et cum non possent accedere propter tur- bam, ascendentes, denudave- runt tectum, ubi erat Jesus; et dimiserunt grabattum ubi paralyticus decumbebat. (5) Cum vidisset autem Jesus fidem illorum, ait paralytico, Fili, remittuntur tibi peccata tua. e. CopEx Pa.aTINvs. (1) Et venit iterum in capharnaum post dies’ et au- ditum est quoniam domi est (2) et continuo collecti sunt multi ita ut nd caperet do- mus et loquebatur illis ver- bum. (3) Et venerunt ad illum portantes in grabatto paralyticum (4) et cum non possent accedere prae Tur- bam denudaverunt tectum ubi erat ihs et summiserunt grabattum in quo paralyticus jacebat’ (5) et cum vidisset ihs fidem illorum dixit para- lytico filiremittatur tibi pec- cata. (3) Et | ὃ. CopEXx VERONENSIS. (1) Et iterum benit Ca- pharnaum post dies: et au- ditum est quodin domoesset; (2) et convenerunt multi, ita ut jam nec ad januam cape- ret, et loquebatur ad eos ver- bum. (3) Et veniunt ad il- lum, ferentes paralyticum in grabatto. (4) Et, cum acce- dere non possent prae multi- tudine, detexerunt tectum, ubi erat; et summiserunt grabbatum, in quo paralyti- cus jacebat. (5) Cum vidis- set autem Jesus fidem illo- rum, ait paralytico: Fili, re- missa sunt tibi peccata. 7. CopEx Brrxiensis. (1) Etiterum intrayit Ca- pharnaum post dies: et audi- tum est quod in domo esset. (2) et confestim convenerunt multi. ita ut non caperet us- que ad januam. et loquebatur eisverbum. (3) Et venerunt ad eum portantes in grabato paralyticum inter quatuor, (4) Et cum offerre eum non possent prae turba, nudave- runt tectum ubi erat jesus. et patefacientes.submiserunt grabatum. in quo paralyticus jacebat. (5) Cum vidisset au- tem Jesus fidem illorum. ait paralytico Pili dimissa sunt tibi peccata tua. c. Coprx CoLBERTINUS. (1) Et cum venisset Ca- pharnaum post dies, auditum est quod in domo esset, (2) et confestim conyenerunt ad eum multi, ita ut non caperet eosintroitus januae, etloque- batur ad eos verbum. (3) Venerunt autem.ad eum por- tantes in lecto paralyticum, (4) Et cum non possent ac- cedere prae turba, denuda- verunt tecta ubi erat Jesus: et summiserunt grabaturm in quo paralyticus jacebat. (5) Cum vidisset autem Jesus fidem illorum, ait paralytico, Fili remittuntur tibi peccata tua. am. Coprx AMIATINUS (Vulg.). (1) Et iterum intravit Ca- pharnaum post dies ; et audi- tum est quod in domo esset, (2) et convenerunt multi, ita ut non caperet neque ad ja- nuam, et loquebatur eis yer- bum. (3) Et venerunt feren- tes ad eum paralyticum qui a quattuor portabatur. (4) Et cum non possent offerre eum illi prae turba, nudave- runt tectum ubi erat, et pate- facientes summiserunt gra- batum in quo paralyticus jacebat. (5) Cum vyidisset autem Jesus fidem illorum, ait paralytico Filii [lege ἘΠῚ cum editis] dimittuntur tibi peccata, NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. N.B. The Clementine Vulgate reads ver. 3, ad eum ferentes. ib. tibi peccata tua. vidisset. 317 ver. 5, autem The criticism of the text would lead us to much the same conclusion. In ver. 1 fam. read πάλιν εἰσῆλθεν, ὃ (apparently) πάλιν ἦλθεν, ὁ ἐλθὼν (omitting πάλιν), 6 ἦλθε πάλιν, a εἰσελ- θὼν πάλιν: in ver. 8 αἰρόμενον ὑπὸ τεσσάρων is read only in af am., and that with some variation: cef insert ἐν κραβάτῳ (-tr@ 6) before παραλυτικόν, b after it; in a am. it is quite absent: in ver. 5 cot ai ἁμαρτίαι σου is given fully in acf and the Clementine Vulgate, cov is omitted in the other three. careful reader. Other instances will readily present themselves to a We will now transcribe John vii. 58—viii. 11 from ce am., with the variations of for. in the last. omitted in af, and has been erased from ὦ. c. Coprx CoLBERTINUS. (53) Et reversi sunt unus- quisque in domum suam. (viii. 1) Jesus autem ascendit in montem oliveti. (2) Ht mane cum factum esset, ite- rum venit in templo, et uni- versus populus conveniebat ad eum, et cum consedisset, docebat eos. (3) Scribae au- tem et Pharisaei adduxerunt adeum mulieremin adulterio deprehensam, quam cum sta- tuissent in medio (4) dix- erunt ad Jesum Magister haec mulier deprehensa est in adulterio. (5) In lege au- tem praecepit nobis Moyses, ut quiin adulterio deprehen- ditur, lapidetur. Tu autem quid dicis de ea? (6) Haec ideo dicebant tentantes eum, ut haberent causam accu- sandieum. Jesus autem, in- clinato capite, digito scribe- bat in terra (7) Cum autem perseverarent interrogantes eum, erexit se, et dicit eis: ὃ. CopEx PALATINvs. (53) Et abierunt singuli ad domos suas. (viii. 1) Ths autem abiit in montem oli- veti. (2) deluculo autem re- versus est in templo et omnis plebs veniebat ad eum et sedens docebat eos. (3) et ad- duxerunt autem scribae et farisaei mulierem in adulte- rio depraehensam: et cum sta- tuissent eam in medio (4) dixerunt Illi magister haec mulier depraehensa est spon- te maecata. (5) in lege auté nobis moyses mandavit hu- jusmodi lapidare tu ergo quid dicis. (6) hoc enim dicebant temptantes eum ut haberent quo modo eum accusarent. Ths autem inclinato capite digito supra terram scribebat (7) eum ergo perseverarent interrogantes eum adlebavit capud et dixit illis: si quis vestrum sine peccato est ipse prior super illa iniciat lapi- dem. (8) Et iterum inclinato The passage is wholly am. for. Copp. ἅνταν. ForoJULiEnsIs. (53) Et reversi sunt unus- quisque in domum suam- (vii. 1) Jesus autem perrexit in montem oliveti: (2) et di- luculo iterum venit in tem- plum, et omnis populus venit ad eum, et sedens docebat eos. (3) Adducunt autem scribae et Pharisaeimulierem in adulterio deprehensam et statuerunt eam in medio (4) et dixerunt ei Magister, haec mulier modo deprehensa est in adulterio. (5) In lege au- tem Moses (Moyses for.) mandavit nobis hujusmodi lapidare: tu ergo quid dicis? (6) Haec autem dicebant tem- tantes (temptantes for.) eum, ut possent accusare eum, Jesus autem inclinans se deorsum digito scribebat in terra. (7) Cum autem perseverarent interrogantes eum, erexit se et dixit eis, Qui sine peccato est vestrum primus in illam lapidem mit- 318 Quisine peccato est vestrum, primus in illam lapidem ja- οἷαι. (8) Et iterum se incli- nans, scribebat in terra. (9) ΤΙ igitur cum audissent, paulatim secedebant singuli, incipientes a senioribus om- nes recesserunt: et relictus est solus: et ecce mulier illa in medio erat stans. (10) Cumque se erexisset Jesus, dixitadmulierem: Ubisunt? nemo te condemnavit? (11) Quae dixit, Nemo Domine. Dixit autem illi Jesus: Nec ego te condemnabo: Vade, et ex hoc jam noli peccare. capite supra terram scribe- bat. (9) Illi autem cum au- dissent unus post unum ex- iebant, incipientes a seniori- bus et relictus est ihs solus et mulier in medio. (10) Cum adlevasset autem capud ihs dixit ei. mulier ubi sunt nemo te judicayit. (τι) Dix- it et illa nemo dne. dixit autem—ihs ad illam nec ego te judico. i et amplius noli peccare. ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE tat. (8) Et iterum se ineli- nans scribebat in terra. (9) Audientes autem unus post unum exiebant, incipientes (incipiens Am., p.m.) a senio- ribus, et remansit solus et mulier in medio stans. (10) Erigens autem se Jesus dixit ei Mulier, ubi sunt? (+ qui te accusant? for.) nemo te condemnavit ? (11) Quae dixit Nemo domine. Dixit autem Jesus (— Dixit autem Jesus for.) Nec ego te con- demnabo: vade et amplius jam noli peccare. N. B. The Clementine Vulgate reads ver. 7, ergo (pro autem) ; ver. 9, exibant ;+ Jesus (post solus); ver. 10, ubi sunt qui te accusabant; ver. 11 jam amplius, The critical worth of the Egyptian versions has only very recently been appreciated as it deserves, and the reader is in- debted for the following account of them to the liberal kindness of one of the few English scholars acquainted with the lan- guages in which they are written, the Rev. J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., Canon of St Paul’s, and Hulsean Professor of Divinity at Cambridge; who, in the midst of varied and pressing occupa- tions, has found time to comply with my urgent, though some- what unreasonable, request for his invaluable aid in this par- ticular. The result of his investigations seems to place the date of the Memphitic and Thebaic versions somewhat earlier than has been hitherto supposed (see p. 271). fas NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 319 δ. Tur EGyptTiAn orn Coptic VERSIONS. Most ancient authors, from Herodotus downwards, referring to the heathen period of Egyptian history, mention two distinct modes of writing, the sacred and the common. In place of the former however Clement of Alexandria (Strom. v. 4, p. 657), who has left the most precise account of Egyptian writing, substitutes two modes, which he designates hieroglyphic and hieratic (or priestly) respectively; but since the hieratic is only a cursive adaptation of the hieroglyphic, the two are treated as one by other writers under the common designation of ‘sacred’ (ἱερά). Both these forms of the sacred writing are abundantly represented in extant monuments, the one chiefly in sculptured stone, the other on papyrus rolls, as we might have anticipated. The common writing is designated by various names. It is sometimes the ‘demotic’ or ‘vulgar’ (δημοτικά Herod. τι. 36, δημώδη Diod. 11. 3); sometimes the ‘native’ or ‘enchorial’ (éyywpia in the bilingual inscriptions of Rosetta and Phile) ; sometimes ‘epistolographic’ or letter-writer’s character (Clem. Alex. 1. 9.); and in a bilingual inscription recently (1866) dis- covered at Tanis (Reinisch u. Roesler Die Zweisprachige In- schrift von Tanis, Wien 1866, p. 55) it is called ‘Egyptian’ simply (ἱεροῖς γράμμασιν καὶ Αἰγυπτίοις καὶ “EXXnvixois). This last designation, as Lepsius remarks (Zeitsch. f. Aegyptische Sprache Iv. p. 30, 1866), shows how completely the common writing had outstripped the two forms of sacred character at the time of this inscription, the 9th year of Ptolemy Euergetes I. This demotic character also is represented in a large number of extant papyri of various ages. These two modes of writing however—the sacred and the vulgar—besides the difference in external character exhibit also two different languages, or rather (to speak more correctly) two different forms of the same language. Of ancient writers in- deed the Egyptian Manetho alone mentions the existence of two such forms (Joseph. c. Ap. i. 14), saying that in the word Hyksos the first syllable is taken from ‘the sacred tongue’ (τὴν ἱερὰν γλῶσσαν), the second from the ‘common dialect’ (τὴν κοινὴν διάλεκτον): but this solitary and incidental notice 320 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE is fully borne out by the extant monuments. The sacred cha- racter, whether hieroglyphic or hieratic, presents a much more archaic type of the Egyptian language than the demotic, differ- ing from it very considerably, though the two are used concur- rently. The connexion of the two may be illustrated by the relation of the Latin and the Italian, as the ecclesiastical and vulgar tongues respectively of medieval Italy. The sacred language had originally been the ordinary speech of Egypt; but having become antiquated in common conversation it sur- vived for sacred uses alone. Unlike the Latin however, it retained its archaic written character along with its archaic grammatical forms. (See Brugsch De Natura et Indole Lingue Popularis AZgyptiorum, Berlin 1850, p. 1 sq.). The earliest example of this demotic or enchorial or vulgar writing belongs to the age of Psammetichus (the latter part of the seventh century B.C.); while the latest example of which I have found a notice must be referred to some time between the years A.D. 165—169, as the titles (Armeniacus, Parthicus, etc.) given to the joint sovereigns M. Aurelius and L. Verus show’. During the whole of this period, comprising more than eight centuries, the sacred dialect and character are used concurrently with the demotic. The term Coptic is applied to the Egyptian language as spoken and written by Christian people and in Christian times. It is derived from the earliest Arabic conquerors of Egypt, who speak of their native Christian subjects as Copts. No instance of this appellation is found in native Coptic writers, with one very late and doubtful exception (Zoega Catal. p. 648). Whence they obtained this designation, has been a subject of much discussion. Several theories which have been broached 1 My authority for these facts is Brugsch, Grammaire Démotique p. 4, but what does he mean by the words which I have underlined? ‘Au nombre des auteurs les plus récents qui nous aient donné des témoignages sur l’existence du démotique il faut citer St Clément, prétre de l'église chrétienne ἃ Alexandrie, et qui vivait vers l’an 190 de notre ére, ou environ le temps ot régnait l’empereur Sévere. Mais les monuments nous prouvent que cette date n'est pas la derniére ; il se trouve encore des inscriptions d’une époque plus rapprochée; telle est par exemple une inscription démotique que M. de Saulcy avait copiée en Kgypte et qu'il eut la complaisance de me communiquer pendant mon séjour a Paris ; elle date du régne en commun d’Aurelius et de Vérus, ce qui prouve que dans la premiere moitié du troisieme siecle le démotique était encore connu et en usage,’ L. Verus died a.p, 169. NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 321 to explain the word will be found in J. 5. Assemani Della Nazione dei Copti ete. p. 172 (printed in Mai Script. Vet. Coll. Y. P. 2), and in Quatremére Recherches Critiques et Historiques sur la Langue et la Littérature de l Egypte, Paris 1808, p. 30 sq. A very obvious and commonly adopted derivation is that which connects it with the town Coptos in Upper Egypt; but as this place was not at that time prominent or representative, and did not lie directly across the path of the Arab invaders, no suffi- cient reason appears why it should have been singled out as a designation of the whole country’. More probably the Arabic word is a modification of the Greek Αἴγυπτος (Schwartze Das alte Aegypten τ. p. 956). From this account it will appear that the Coptic, as a lan- guage, cannot differ materially from the demotic. As a matter of fact the two are found on examination to represent two suc- cessive stages of the same language—a result which history would lead us to anticipate. But while the language is essen- tially the same, the character of the writing is wholly different. The demotic character was derived ultimately from the hiero- glyphic. Tence it represents the same medley of signs. Only a small number are truly alphabetic, ie. denote each a single sound. Others represent syllables. Others again, and these a very large number, are not phonetic at all, but pictorial. Of these pictorial or ideographic signs again there are several kinds ; some represent the thing itself directly; others recal it by a symbol; others again are determinative, i.e. exhibit the class or type, to which the object or action belongs. It is strange that this very confused, cumberous, and uncertain mode of writing should have held its ground for so many centuries, while all the nations around employed strictly phonetic alpha- bets; but Egypt was proverbially a land of the past, and some sudden shock was necessary to break up a time-honoured usage like this and to effect a literary revolution. This moral earth- quake came at length in Christianity. Coincidently with the evangelization of Egypt and the intreduction of a Christian literature, we meet with a new and strictly phonetic alphabet. 1 In favour of this derivation is the fact that Strabo (xvir. Ὁ. 815) calls Coptos πόλιν κοινὴν Αἰγυπτίων τε καὶ ᾿Αράβων, and that he elsewhere (xvi. p. 781) mentions it as a station of Egyptian traffic with Arabia and India. This how- ever refers to a much earlier date, when it was a more important place. Ss. 21 322 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE This new Egyptian or Coptic alphabet comprises thirty letters, of which twenty-four are adopted from the Greek alphabet, while the remaining six, of which five represent sounds peculiar to the Egyptian language and the sixth is an aspirate, are signs borrowed from the existing Egyptian writing. If there is no direct historical evidence that this alphabet was directly due to Christianity, yet the coincidence of time and historic probability generally point to this. The Christians indeed had a very powerful reason for changing the character, besides literary con- venience. The demotic writing was interspersed with figures of the Egyptian deities, used as symbolic or alphabetical signs. It must have been a suggestion of propriety, if not a dictate of conscience, in translating and transcribing the Scriptures to exclude these profane and incongruous elements from the sacred text. The date at which this important change was introduced into Egyptian writing has been a matter of much dispute. If it is correctly attributed to Christian influences, the new alphabet must have been coeval with the birth of a native Christian litera- ture in Egypt. The earliest extant remains of such a literature, to which we can fix a date with any certainty, are the Epistles of St Antony (who was born about the middle of the third century) to Athanasius and Theodore ; but, as we shall see presently, one or both of the two principal Egyptian versions must have been already in common use at this time. Indeed, if the date as- signed to a recently discovered writing be correct, the introduc- tion of the new character was much earlier than this. On the back of a papyrus in the British Museum, containing the Funeral Oration of Hyperides, is a horoscope in Greek and Egyptian, the latter written in Greek characters with the additional six letters almost, though not quite, identical with the forms in the ordinary Coptic alphabet. Mr C. W. Goodwin, who describes this important document in Chabas JMélanges Eqyptologiques 2me série, p. 294 sq., and in the Zeitschrift fir Aegyptische Sprache vi. p. 18 sq., February 1868, calculates (though he does not speak confidently) that it is the horoscope of a person born A.D. 154, Any account of the Coptic dialects must start from the well- known passage in the Copto-Arabic grammar of Athanasius, bishop of Kos in the Thebaid, who flourished in the 11th cen- NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 323 tury. ‘The Coptic language,’ he writes, ‘is divided into three dialects; that is to say, the Coptic dialect of Misr, which is the same as the Sahidic; the Bahiric, which gets its name from the province of Bahirah; and the Lashmuric in use in the region of Bashmur. At the present time only the Bahiric and Sahidic continue to be used. These different dialects are derived from one and the same language’ (quoted in Quatremére Sur la Langue, ete. p. 20 sq.). For the present I will dismiss the _ Bashmuric, as it will require further investigation hereafter. The remaining two, the Bahiric and Sahidic, were the principal dialects of the language, being spoken in Lower and Upper Kgypt respectively; and are largely represented in extant re- mains of biblical and ecclesiastical literature. Sahid and Ba- Jhirah are the Arabic names for these two districts of Egypt. But in place of these Arabic names the terms Thebaic and Memphitic have been commonly adopted as a more convenient nomenclature, being derived from the Egyptian cities which were the ancient capitals of the two kingdoms of Egypt. Owing to the accident that the Memphitic dialect was the form of Coptic best known and earliest studied in Western Europe, the term Coptic has been sometimes confined to the Bahiric or Memphitic dialect, as distinguished from the Sahidic or Thebaie, and so it is still used by Tischendorf and others; but this usage is erroneous and misleading. The Thebaic and Memphitic dialects are well-defined and separate from each other. Among other distinctive features the Thebaic delights in the multiplication of vowels as com- pared with the Memphitic; thus it has eAeoode for adroas, ~ sutnuse for sucus, oadaarte for oadats, wedcet for τπελετ, etc, Again the Thebaic has smooth-breathings where the Mem- phitic has aspirates, e.g. nave for ovr ‘heavens, tay for enos ‘wind’; and it substitutes the simple aspirate for the stronger guttural, e.g. wng for wnd ‘life? mag for gas ‘rend.’ Besides these more general distinctions, the two dialects have special peculiarities, not only in their grammatical forms, but even in their ordinary vocabulary; thus Theb. fwr for Memph. + ‘to go, Theb. ge for Memph. pr} ‘manner, Theb. gag for -Memph. muy ‘a multitude’ ‘many,’ and so forth. Indeed the relations of the Thebaic and Memphitic dialects to each other may be fairly illustrated, as will have appeared from 21-~2 824 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE these facts, by the relation of the Ionic and Attic, though the differences in the Egyptian dialects are greater than in the Greek. Like the Attic, the Memphitic is the more literary and cultivated dialect of the two. The demotic writing does not give the slightest indication that there were different dialects of the spoken language (see Brugsch Grammaire Démotique p. 10). In the Coptie, 1. 8. Christian, literature we learn this fact for the first time; and yet in the earliest age of this literature the dialects are found to be fully developed. Brugsch however has shown (de Natura etc. p. 10) that transcriptions of several Egyptian words into Greek in the age of the Ptolemies oceur in two different forms, which correspond fairly to the two dialects; and indeed it would seem probable that the separation of the Memphitic and The- baic should be ascribed to the more remote time, when these regions formed separate kingdoms. The older Egyptian writing, whether sacred or demotic, would obscure the distinction of dialects, partly from a conservative fondness for time-honoured modes of representation, but chiefly owing to the nature of the character itself. Thus this character makes no provision for the nicer distinction of the vowel-sounds, while the dialectic differ- ences depend very largely on the divergent vocalisation. Thus again it sometimes represents allied consonants, such as ὦ and 7, by the same sign; while one of the most striking peculiarities of dialect is the common substitution of ὦ in the Bashmurie for r in the Thebaic and Memphitic, as e.g. nAm for spn ‘wine, Aasuy for poss ‘year, Asau for pias ‘weeping, and the like. Of the time, when the Scriptures were translated into the two principal dialects of Egypt, no direct record is preserved. Judging however from the analogy of the Latin and Syriac and other early versions, and indeed from the exigencies of the case, we may safely infer that as soon as the Gospel began to spread among the native Egyptians who were unacquainted with Greek, the New Testament, or at all events some parts of it, would be translated without delay. Thus we should probably not be exaggerating, if we placed one or both of the principal Egyptian versions, the Memphitic and the Thebaic, or at least parts of them, before the close of the second century’, Ὁ Schwartze, whose opinion will not be suspected of any theological bias, infers from the historical notices that ‘the greatest part of the New Testament NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES, 925 There are, so far as I am aware, no phenomena whether of text or of interpretation in either, which are inconsistent with this early date. Somewhat later than this we meet with notices which certainly presuppose the common use of a native version or ver- sions of the Scriptures. Quatremére (Sur la Langue ete. p. 9 sq.) and Schwartze (Das alte Aegypten p. 956 sq.) have collected a number of such notices, from which we may gather that it was the exception and not the rule, when a native Egyptian bishop or monk in the early centuries could speak the Greek language besides his own. Thus for instance St Antony, who was born about the year 250, could only speak his native tongue, and in conversing with Greeks was obliged to use an interpreter (Athan. Vit. Ant. 74, Hieron. Vit. ilar. 30, Pallad. Hist. Laus. 26). His own letters, of which fragments are extant, were written in Egyptian. Yet he was a son of Christian parents, and as a boy listened constantly to the reading of the Scriptures (Athan. 1. ο. 81). When only 18 or 20 years old, we are told, he was powerfully influenced by hearing the Gospel read in church (§ 2, 3); and throughout his life he was a diligent reader and expositor of the Scriptures. Indeed it is quite plain from repeated notices, that the Scriptures in the Egyptian tongue were widely circulated and easily accessible at this time (see esp. § 16 ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς [i.e. τοῖς μοναχοῖς] τῇ Αὐγυπτιακῇ φωνῇ ταῦτα τὰς μὲν γραφὰς ἱκανὰς εἶναι πρὸς διδασκαλίαν κ.τ.λ.). Again his contemporary Theodore, a famous abbot to whom one of his letters is addressed, was equally ignorant of any language but his own, and had to use an interpreter in speaking with strangers and Alexandrians (Sahid. MS clxxvii in Zoega Catal. p-371). The notices of Theodore’s master Pachomius, the founder of Egyptian monasteries, point in the same direction. This famous person, who was converted as a young man in the early years of the 4th century, was till late in life unacquainted with any language but his own. Receiving a visit from an Alexan- drian, another Theodore, he assigned to him as his companion and interpreter a monk who could speak Greek. After some time he himself applied himself to the study of this language that he might be able to converse with his new friend (Zoega p. 77sq., writings, if not all, and a part of the Old Testament, especially the Psalms, had been already translated in the 2nd century into the Egyptian language, and jnlead into that of Lower as well as into that of Upper Egypt’ (p. 963), 326 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE and references in Quatremére Sur Ja Langue etc.p.12). Pachomius drew up rules for the guidance of his monastery in the Egyptian language. These rules, which are extant in Greek and Latin translations (Migne Patrol. Grec. xu. p. 947, Hieron. Op. τι. Ῥ. ὅ8 54.), demand a very diligent study of the Scriptures from the brethren, even from novices before admission into the order. Again and again directions are given relating to the use of manuscripts. These notices indeed refer chiefly to the Thebaid, which was the great seat of the Egyptian monasteries ; but the first part of St Antony’s life was spent in the monasteries of Alexandria, and it was only later that he retired to the Thebaid (Athan. Vit. Ant. 49). Though probably more common in Lower than in Upper Egypt, the knowledge of Greek was even there an accomplishment denied to a large number of native Christians. Thus for instance, when Palladius visited John of Lycopolis, an abbot of the Nitrian desert, he found his knowledge of Greek so slight that he could only converse through an interpreter (Hist. Laus. 43). These, it will be remembered, are the most prominent names among the Egyptian Christians; and from such examples it must be plain that the ordinary monk would be wholly dependent on a native version for his knowledge of the Scriptures. Yet the monks swarmed both in Upper and Lower Egypt at this time. -Palladius reckons as many as 7000 brethren under Pachomius in the Tabennitic monastery (/vst. Laus. 38; comp. Hieron. Pref. in Reg. Pach. 2, τι. p. 54), while Jerome states that close upon 50,000 would assemble together at the chief monastery of the order to celebrate the anniversary of the Lord’s Passion (ib.§ 7). After all allowance made for exag- geration, the numbers must have been very great. Even at a much later date the heads of the Egyptian Church were often wholly dependent on their native tongue. At the Robber’s Synod of Ephesus (A.D. 449) Calosirius, bishop of Arsinoe, spoke and signed through his deacon, who acted as interpreter (Labb. Cone. Iv. p. 1119, 1179, 1188, ed. Colet.). And again two years later, when Dioscorus of Alexandria started for the Council of Chalcedon, he was accompanied by one Macarius, bishop of Tkou, a man of some note in his day, who could not be made to understand a word of Greek (Memph. MS liv, in Zoega Cutal. p. 99). NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 327 (1). The Bahirie or Memphitic Version. The Memphitic Version was not included in the Polyglotts, though others much later in date and inferior in quality found a place there. The first use of it is found in Bp. Fell’s Oxford N. T. (1675), to which many readings were contributed by the Oxford Oriental scholar, T. Marshall, Rector of Lincoln College. It was afterwards employed by Mill, who recognised its im- portance and gave various readings from it in the notes and appendix to his edition of the Greek Testament (1707). These readings he obtained partly from the papers of Marshall, who had contemplated an edition of the Coptic Gospels but was prevented by death from accomplishing his design, and partly from the communications of a foreign scholar Lud. Piques. The MSS which supplied the former belonged at one time to Marshall himself and are now in the Bodleian; the latter were taken from MSS in the Royal Library at Paris (see Mill’s Prol. pp. clii, elx, elxvii). The editio princeps of the Memphitic version appeared a. few years later with the title Novum Testamentum dfgyptium vulgo Copticum ex MSS Bodleianis descripsit, cum Vaticanis et Parisiensibus contulit, et in Latinum sermonem convertit David Wilkins Ecclesie Anglicane Presbyter, Oxon.1716. The editor Wilkins was a Prussian by birth, but an Oxonian by adoption. In his preface he gives an account of the MSS which he used, and which will be described below. The materials at his dis- posal were ample, if he had only known how to use them; but unfortunately his knowledge of the language was not thoroughly accurate, nor had he the critical capacity required for such a task, His work was very severely criticized at the time by two eminent Egyptian scholars Jablonsky and La Croze, whose verdict has been echoed by most subsequent writers ; and no doubt it is disfigured by many inaccuracies. But he may fairly claim the indulgence granted to pioneers in un- trodden fields of learning, and he has laid Biblical scholars under a debt of gratitude which even greater errors of detail could not efface. With some meagre exceptions this was the first work which had appeared in the Egyptian tongue; and 328 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE under these circumstances much may be forgiven in an editor. The defects which render caution necessary in using it for critical purposes are twofold. rst. The text itself is not con- structed on any consistent or trustworthy principles. It is taken capriciously from one or other of the sources at his dis- posal; no information is given respecting the authority for the printed text in any particular passage; and, as a rule, no various readings are added. In the prolegomena indeed (p. xi sq.) notices of two or three variations are given, but even here we have no specification of the MSS from which they are taken. Secondly. The translation cannot be trusted. The extent of this inaccuracy may be seen from the examples in Woide A ppend. Cod. Alex. p. 16 sq.,and Schwartze Evang. Memph. Preef. p. xxii. One instance will suffice. In 1 Cor. xiii. 3 Wilkins gives the rendering ‘ut comburar,’ corresponding to. the common reading ἵνα καυθήσωμαι; though the Memphitic has hta worugjos Manos Ξε ἵνα καυχήσωμαι. Yet Wilkins’ error has been so contagious that Tattam in his Lexicon gives καΐειν ‘incendere’ as a sense of usovusoy, referring to this passage as an example, though its universal meaning is ‘to praise,’ ‘ to glorify.’ In 1829 the British and Foreign Bible Society published an edition of the Four Gospels in Coptic (Memphitic) and Arabic. It is a handsomely printed 4to, intended for the use of the native Christians of Egypt. In the Coptic portion, which was edited by Tattam, the text of Wilkins was followed for the most part, but it was corrected here and there from a recent MS which will be described below, Evang. 11. This edition has no critical value. Between the edition of Wilkins and those of Schwartze and Boetticher more than a century and a quarter elapsed ; but no important step was taken during this period towards a more critical use of the Memphitic Version, Wetstein ap- pears to have been satisfied with the information obtainable from Mill and Wilkins. Bengel was furnished with a few various readings from the Berlin MSS by La Croze; and Woide again in his preface p. [13] gave a collation of Mark i. from the Berlin MS of this Gospel. Griesbach seems not to have gone beyond published sources of information; and this has been the case with later editors of the Greek Tes- tament, NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 329 The title of Schwartze’s edition is Quatuor Evangelia in dialecto lingue Coptice Memphitica perscripta ad Codd. MS. Copticorum in Regia Bibliotheca Berolinensi adservatorum nec non libri a Wilkinsio emisst fidem edidit, emendamt, adnota- tionibus criticis et grammaticis, variantibus lectionibus expositis atque textu Coptico cum Greco comparato instruait ἢ. G. Schwartze. St Matthew and St Mark appeared in 1846, St Luke and St John in the following year. The title of the work fully explaims its aim. The editor was an exact Egyptian scholar, and so far it is thoroughly trustworthy. The defects of this edition however for purposes of textual criticism are not inconsiderable. (1) Schwartze’s materials were wholly inade- quate. Though the libraries of England, Paris, and Rome con- tain a large number of MSS of different ages and qualities, not one of these was consulted; but the editor confined himself to one good MS and one indifferent transcript, both in the Berlin library. These will be described below. The text of the Memphitic Gospels therefore still remains in a very unsatis- factory state. (2) His collation with the Greek text is at once superfluous and defective. This arises from his capricious choice of standards of comparison, the Codex Ephraem and the printed texts of Lachmann and Tischendorf (1843). If he had given an accurate Latin translation of the whole, and had supplemented this with a distinet statement of the reading of the Memphitic Version where variations are known to exist in other authorities and where at the same time a Latin version could not be made sufficiently explicit, the result would have been at once more simple, more complete, and more available. As it is, he has contented himself with translating particular sen- tences (more especially those which are mistranslated in Wilkins), while his method of comparison necessarily overlooks many variations. With all its defects however this edition has a far higher value than its predecessor for critical purposes. Not the least useful part of Schwartze’s notes is the collation of the published portions of the Thebaic Version, where he has cor- rected errors in the edition of Woide and Ford (see below, p. 347 sq.). Schwartze only lived to complete the four Gospels. He had however made some collations for the Acts and Epistles during his last visit to England; and after his death they were 330 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE placed in the hands of Ῥ, Boetticher, who continued the work. The titles of Boetticher’s editions are Acta Apostolorum Coptice, and Epistule Novi Testamenti Coptice, both dated Hale 1852. His plan however differs wholly from Schwartze’s. He substi- tutes an 8vo size for the 4to of his predecessor; and he gives no translation or collation with the Greek, but contents himself with noting the variations of his MSS in Coptic at the foot of the page. Thus his book is absolutely useless to any one who is un- acquainted with the language. Moreover his materials, though less scanty than Schwartze’s, are far from adequate. For the Acts and for the Catholic Epistles he employed Schwartze’s collations of two English MSS, which he calls tattamianus and curetonianus, and himself collated or obtained collations of two others in the Paris Library, (p), (m); while for the Pauline Epistles he again used Schwartze’s collations of the same two English MSS, together with another Paris MS (p), and the Berlin MSS, which will be described below. The account, which he gives in his preface, of the MSS employed by him is so meagre, that in some cases they are with difficulty iden- tified. Nor again are the collations used for this edition nearly complete. I have pointed out below the defects in Schwartze’s collation of one of the English MSS, which I have partially examined; and Brugsch in an article in the Zettschr. der Deutschen Morgenl. Gresellsch. vu. p. 115 sq. (1853) has given a full collation of the Berlin MS of the Epistle to the Romans, showing how small a proportion of the actual variations in this MS is recorded by Boetticher. In this same article Brugsch has pointed out other errors which detract from the value of this edition. The Apocalypse has never appeared. About the same time a magnificent edition of the whole of the New Testament in Coptic (Memphitic) and Arabic was pub- lished under the auspices of the Society for Promoting Chris- tian Knowledge. The first part, which is entitled mr sw su & fwueraccedron evovah, ‘The Book of the Four Holy Gospels, bears the date 1847; the second, comprising the re- maining books including the Apocalypse, is called mr som magh ite Fasaonnn Aheps, ‘The Second Book of the New Testament,’ and appeared in 1852, We are informed in a Coptic colophon at the end, that the book was edited by ‘Henry Tattam the presbyter of the Anglican Church for the Holy Patriarch and NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES, sol the Church of Christ in Egypt’ The type is large and bold, and the volumes are very handsome in all respects, being de- signed especially for Church use. The editor's eminent services to Coptic literature are well known, but the titles and colophon do not suggest any high expectations of the value of this edition to the scholar. The basis of the text in this edition was a copy belonging to the Coptic Patriarch; but the editor collated it with MSS in his own possession and with others belonging to the Hon. R. Curzon, adopting from these such variations as seemed to him to agree with the best readings of the Greek MSS. As no various readings are recorded, this edition is quite useless for critical purposes: nor indeed was the aim which the editor set before him consistent with the reproduction of the Memphitic New Testament in its authentic form. The interpolated passeges for instance are printed without any indi- cation that their authority is at all doubtful. The following account of the Memphitic MSS existing in Eu- ropean libraries, though probably very imperfect, will yet be found much fuller than any which has hitherto been given, Indeed the list in le Long (Libl. Sacr. 1. p. 140 sq.) is the only one which aims at completeness; and the date of this work (1723) would alone disqualify it, as a guide on such a subject at the present time. Those manuscripts which I de- scribe from personal inspection are marked with an asterisk, In other cases my authorities are given. A. The Gospels. In the Bodleian Library at Oxford are; (1)* Hunt. 17, Fol. paper, Copt. Arab., a very fine and highly important MS. Among other illuminations are seated figures of the four Evangelists prefixed to the several Gospels. The date is given at the close of St John as the year 890 (of the martyrs), i.e. A.D. 11741. Wilkins (p. vi), though giving the Coptic numerals correctly Wy, interprets them 790, i.e. A.D. 1074. This will serve as an example of his inaccuracy; and in future I shall not con- sider it necessary to point out his errors, which are very numerous, unless there is some special reason for doing so. The scribe’s name, John a monk, appears in a colophon at the end of St Mark. The importance of this MS consists in a great measure in its marginal additions, which are very frequent. The text seems to give the original 1 T have always added 284 to the year of the Martyrs for the year a.p.; but this will not give the date accurately in every case, as the Diocletian year began in August or September; see Clinton Fast, Rom, τι. Ὁ. 210. Sou ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE Memphitic Version in a very pure form; while the margin supplies all or nearly all the passages which in fewer or greater numbers have crept into the text of other Memphitic MSS, and which (so far as regards the Mem- phitic Version itself) must be regarded as interpolations', whatever sanction they may have in Greek MSS or other ancient authorities. Among these marginal additions I have noted Matt. vi. 13 (the doxology); Mark vi. 11 ἀμὴν λέγω «.t.d., Vii. 16 εἴ τις ἔχει wra κιτιλ., Xiii. 14 τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου, XV. 38 καὶ ἐπληρώθη κιτιλ.; Luke i. 28 εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυ- ναιξίν (in this case however not in the margin, but in the text in a smaller hand); xxii. 43, 44 (the agony); xxiii. 17 ἀνάγκην δὲ εἶχεν κιτιλ.; XXxiii. 34; John vii. 53—viii. 11. On the other hand the descent of the angel, John ν, 3, 4, which is wanting in many Memphitic MSS and can hardly have been part of the original Memphitic Version, stands in the text here. At the end of St Mark the margin gives in an ancient hand (whether coeval with the MS or not, I am unable to say) the alternative ending of this Gospel substantially as it is found in L and other authorities. This marginal note runs as follows; ovoo NH τηροῦν ETaqgonoen Maog [UmMwWor ἢ] HiHET ATI MEeMenca MetTpoc oro9 Sen οσωπο chord arvcaar MMWOT OFOO MEIENCA Mar AC OM δίοσωπο Epwor xe τῆς SCREM πελάτας ire bp Wa NEYMAMQWTH OFOQ AYOTWpPMOT € gr wennoregs coovah HATMOTHK ἅτε Trond ENED SMALL MAF OM MOWOT EFHHY MWTOTOT OFOO λιεπεποὰ Mar EyeTAQwoT [evtagwor?] ἀπε] oanujooptep mem ganooxoen οτορ AMitorxe OAL πολι itcasr mavepoy cap me, ‘And all those things he commanded to those that went after Peter, and they told them openly, and after these things again also (δὲ) Jesus appeared to them from the rising of the sun unto the setting thereof, and sent them to preach the holy and imperishable gospel of eternal life. Amen. These again are reckoned (added) to them; And after these things troubles and afflictions possess them, and they said not a word to any man, for they were afraid.” I have translated the emendations suggested in brackets, for without them it is hardly possible to make sense. But, even when thus corrected, the passage is not free from confusion. The alternative ending, as here given, most closely resembles the form in the Aithiopic MSS. (2)* Hunt. 20, Fol. paper. The titles, initials, ete. are illuminated. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked, besides two other capitulations, This MS omits the additions in Matt. xviii. 11, Luke xxii. 43, 44, Joh. v. 3, 4, vii. 53—viii. 11, but contains those of Matt. xxiii. 13 (after ver. 14), Luke xxiii. 17, 34. The catalogue ascribes this MS, which is undated, to the 13th century; but this is probably much too early. (3)* Bodl. 171 (Marshall 3), Fol. paper. The titles, initials, etc. illumi- nated. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked. This MS is very like the last in general appearance. It is dated, as I read it, A. Mart. 1234, i.e, A.p, 1518. In the catalogue the date is given as A, ‘ I have observed Luke xxiii, 17 in at least three wholly distinct forms in different Memphitic MSS. NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES, 999 Mart. 1214. It contains the additions Luke xxii. 43, 44, xxiii. 17, 34, Joh. v. 3, 4, vii. 53—viii. 11, but omits Matt. xviii. 11. (4)* Bodl. 166 (Marshall 6), Fol. paper. The last few pages are sup- plied by a later hand. I have no note of the date; but the catalogue gives the year of the original MS as A. Mart. 1036, and that of the later addition as A. Mart. 1357. This MS omits the additions of Luke xxii. 48, 44, xxiii. 17, Joh. ν. 3, 4, vii. 53—viii. 11. (5)* Bodl. 16 (Marshall 99), small 8vo, paper, containing the Gospel of St John only. A comparatively recent MS. It omits John vy. 3, 4, vii. 53—viii. 11. In the British Museum ; (6)* Oriental 425, 4to, paper, Copt. Arab. Fol. 2a—¢b contain the Eusebian tables, after which originally followed the four Gospels in the common order, ending fol. 116 b. The whole of St Luke however, and the whole of St John except xix. 6—xx. 13 and xxi. 13—25, are wanting ewing to the mutilation of the MS. The original paging shows that they once formed part of the volume. The subsequent matter is not Biblical. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are given throughout. A colophon at the end of St John gives the name of the scribe John, and the date 1024 of the Martyrs, i.e. A.D. 1308. This MS was purchased at Archdeacon Tattam’s sale. The addition in Matt. xviii. 11 is wanting. (7)* Oriental 426, 4to, paper, Copt. Arab. The Gospel of St John, of which the beginning as far as i. 13 is wanting. After this Gospel follow some extraets from the New Testament, Ephes. iv. 1—13, Matt. xvi. 13—19, Luke xix. 1—16, with other matter. Like the last MS, this was bought at Tattam’s sale. It has not the additions Jch. v. 3, 4, vii. 53—viii. 11. (8)* Oriental 1001, large 8vo, paper, with illuminations, Copt. Arab., ‘bought of N. Nassif, 21 May, 1869.’ The four Gospels complete. Each Gospel is preceded by introductory matter, table of contents, etc. The first few leaves of the book are supplied by a later hand. A note (fol. 77 b) written by Athanasius, Bishop of Apotheke or Abutig, states that the original date of the MS was A. Mart. 908 (=a.p. 1192). This date is also repeated fol. 264 b. It may possibly be correct, though the MS does not appear so old. On fol. 125 Ὁ this same Athanasius records that he presented the book to the convent of St Antony, A. Mart. 1508 (= A.D. 1792). It contains Luke xxiii. 34, and the pericope John vii. 53—viii. 11; but omits the additions Luke xxii. 43, 44, John v. 3, 4. (9)* Additional 5995, Folio, paper, Copt. Arab. ‘brought from Egypt by Major-General Turner, August 1801.’ The four Gospels complete. The few first leaves of St Matthew and the last leaf of St John, besides some others in the middle of the volume, are added in a later hand. In an Arabic colophon (fol. 233 b) it is stated that the book was repaired A. Mart. 1492 (i.e. A.D, 1776) by one Ibrahim son of Simeon, but that its original date was more than 400 years earlier. This is perhaps an exaggeration. The same colophon says that it was written for the convent of Baramus in the 334 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE desert of Scete. It has the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons written in a cursive hand. It has not Luke xxii. 43, 44, xxiii. 17, nor the pericope Joh. vii. 53—viii. 11; but contains Luke xxiii. 34, and the interpolation in Joh. v. 3, 4. (10)* Additional 14,7404. A folio volume in which various Mem- phitic and a few Armenian fragments are bound up together, of various sizes and ages, some on vellum, some on paper. The following fragments of the Memphitic New Testament on vellum are important on account of their antiquity ; (i) Luke viii. 2—7, S—10, 13—18. (ii) 2 Cor. iv. 2—yv. 4. (iii) Ephes. ii. 10—19, ii. 21—iii. 11. (iv) 1 Thess. iii. 3—6, iii, 1l—iy. 1, The fragment from the Ephesians, the most ancient of them all, appears from the handwriting to rival in antiquity the oldest Thebaic fragments. They are all more or less mutilated. This volume also contains several paper fragments of the Memphitic New Testament, belonging chiefly (it would appear) to lectionaries, but these are not worth enumerating. In the British and Foreign Bible Society’s Library ; (11)* The Four Gospels, 8vo size (5 leaves in a quire), paper, Copt. Arab. The volume begins with the letter to Carpianus and the tables. Introdue- tions are prefixed to the Gospels. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked. This volume is a copy made from one in the posses- sion of the Patriarch of Cairo for the Bible Society, and bears the date A.D. 1816 (in a colophon at the end of St Luke). It was partially used for the Society’s edition of the Coptic Gospels (see above p. 328). It contains Luke xxii. 43, 44, xxiii. 17, 34, Joh. ν. 3, 4, vii. 53—viii. 11, and seems to represent the common Coptic text of the present day. In private Libraries in England’; (12) The Library of the Earl of Crareford and Balcarres. Folio. The four Gospels. It was written (see colophon at the end of St Luke) by a scribe, Simon of Tampet, aD. 1484. Several leaves however in different parts of the volume were added much later, A. Mart. 1540 (i.e. A.D. 1824), by one George, a monk. It is illustrated and has the Ammonian Canons throughout. There is a tendency to Sahidic forms. For these particulars my thanks are due to Mr Rodwell who kindly allowed me to see his catalogue of Lord Crawford’s collection. Through inadvertence I omitted to inspect the MS itself. (13)* Parham 116, 117, 118 (nos. 9,10, 11 in the printed Catalogue, p. 29), in Lord Zouche’s Library at Parham in Sussex. Folio, paper, Copt. 1 My sincere thanks are due to the Earl of Crawford and Balearres, and to Lord Zouche, for their kindness in allowing me free access to their valuable collections of Egyptian MSS, and in facilitating my investigations in many ways, NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 990 Arab. These three MSS, which contain respectively the Gospels of St Matthew, St Luke, and St John, must originally have formed part of the same volume, which St Mark is wanted to complete. The last leaf of St Luke is numbered τας, the first of St John ταῦ, Several pages at the beginning and end of St Matthew are supplied by a later hand. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked. These volumes are written in a large hand, and have illuminations. They contain the additions Luke xxiii. 34, Joh. vii. 53—viii. 11, but not Luke xxii. 48, 44, xxiii. 17, nor Joh. v. 3, 4. (14)* Parham 122 (no. 14, p. 29, in the printed Catalogue), 12mo, paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels in a small neat hand, smaller than I remember to have seen in any Coptic MS. Introductions and tables of contents are prefixed to each Gospel. This MS has the additions Luke xxiii 34, Joh. vii. 53—viii. 11, but not Luke xxii. 43, 44, xxiii. 17, nor Joh. v. 3, 4, just as was the case with the MS last described, no, 18, 1 The volume, * Parham 102, described in the printed Catalogue (no. 1, vellum, p. 27) as a MS of the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark, is really a selection of pas- sages taken in order from the four Gospels with a patristic catena attached to each. The leaves however are much displaced in the binding, and many are wanting. The title to the first Gospelis (epmnnra ἅτε mevaccedAron ceorah KaTa Maceon choAorTet OAMMHU cas ovo HebwctHp ὅτε F eKRAHCIa, etc. ‘ The interpretation of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew from numerous doctors and luminaries of the Church.’ Among the fathers quoted I observed Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Clement, the two Cyrils (of Jerusalem and of Alexandria), Didymus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Evagrius, the three Gregories (Thaumaturgus, Nazianzen, and Nyssen), Hippolytus, Ireneus, Severianus of Gabala, Severus of Antioch (often styled simply the Patriarch), Symeon Stylites, Timotheus, and Titus. In the account of this MS in the Catalogue it is stated that ‘ the name of the seribe who wrote it is Sapita Leporos, a monk of the monastery, or monastic rule, of Laura under the sway of the great abbot Macarius,’ and the inference is thence drawn that it must have been written before 395, when Macarius died. This early date however is at once set aside by the fact that writers who lived in the sixth century are quoted. Prof. Wright (Journal of Sacred Literature vit. p. 218), observing the name of Severus in the facsimile, points out the error of date, and suggests as an explanation that the colophon (which he had not seen) does not speak of the great Macarius, but of ‘an abbot Macarius.’ The fact is, that though the great Macarius is certainly meant, there is nothing which implies that he was then living. The scribe describes himself as anion Sa mr TAAEcMWpoc eTagqeSays, ‘I the unhappy one (rada:twpes) who wrote it’ (which has been wrongly read and interpreted as a proper name Sapita Leporos). He then gives his name ecox norerps (Theodorus of Busiris?) and adds, WaTMIiga MMonagxoe ὅτε TAavpa coorah fire mmuupy abba Makaps, ‘the unworthy monk of the holy laura of the great abbot Macarius.’ He was merely an inmate of the monastery of St Macarius; see the expression quoted from the Vat. MS 1x1 in Tattam’s Lexicon p. 842. This magnificent MS would well repay careful inspection; but its value may not be very great for the Memphitic Version, as itis perhaps translated from the Greek. The *Parham MS 106 (no. 5, p. 28) is wrongly described as containing the Gospel of St John. The error is doubtless to be explained by the fact that the 336 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE In the Paris National Library ; (15)* Cod. Copt. 13, Folio, vellum. The four Gospels. A very fine manuscript, elaborately illuminated, with pictures of the principal scenes in the Gospel history. It has the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons in the margin, with the tables at the end of the Gospels. The writer, Michacl, bishop of Damietta, gives his name in a colophon at the end of St Mark. The date at the end of St Matthew is 894 (or Α.Ρ. 1178); of the other Gospels 896 (or A.D. 1180). This MS is erroneously dated 1173 in the Catalogue, and 1164 in le Long. The additions Luke xxiii. 17, 34 and John vii. 53—viii. 11, are part of the original text. Also Luke xxii. 43, 44, is written prima manu and in the text, but in smaller cha- racters so as to make a distinction. On the other hand the interpolation John y. 3, 4, is wanting. (16)* Cod. Copt. 14, Folio, paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels. It has the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons, and two other capitula- tions besides. It contains Luke xxiii. 34, but has not the additions Luke xxii. 43, 44, xxiii. 17, Joh. v. 3, 4, vii. 53—-viii. 11. It is referred in the Catalogue to 13th century, which is probably about its date. (17)* Cod. Copt. 15 (Colbert 2913, Reg. 330. 3), 4to. The scribe Victor gives his name in a colophon at the end. It belongs to the more ancient Coptic MSS, though no date is given. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are given. The passages Luke xxii. 43, 44, xxiii. 17, 34, Joh. vy. 3, 4, are added in the margin, but form no part of the original text. On the other hand Joh. vii. 53—viii. 11, now forms part of the text, but the leaf containing it and several which follow have been supplied by a much later hand. This is the case also with the beginning of St Matthew and the end of St John. (18)* Cod. Copt. 16 (De la Mare 579, Reg. 330. 2), 4to, Copt. Arab., paper. Owing to the Calendar at the end it is assigned to the 13th cen- tury. It has the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons and (like Cod. Copt. 14) two other capitulations besides. It contains Luke xxii. 43, 44, xxiii. 17, 34, but not Joh. v. 3, 4, nor Joh. vii. 53—viii. 11. (19)* Cod. Copt. 59 (St German. 25), ‘Ex Bibl. Coisl. olim Seguer.’ Folio, paper. The four Gospels. It has the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons, and two other capitulations besides. The date at the end is given as 841 (i.e. A.D. 1125). It does not contain the additions Luke xxii, 43, 44, xxiii. 17, 34. The earlier part of St John containing the test passages is wanting. (20)* Cod. Copt. 60, Folie, paper, a late MS. The four Gospels. On name τω ΠΟΥ occurs at the bottom of one of the pages; but the manuscript is not Biblical. Another MS (no. 13, p, 29) is described as ‘St Matthew with an Arabic translation, very large folio: a modern MS copied at Cairo from an antient one in the library of the Coptic Patriarch.’ I was not able to find this, when throngh the courtesy of Lord Zouche I had access to the Parham col- lection, NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES, 337 a fly leaf is written ‘Quatuor evangelia Coptice Venetiis emta per me Fr. Bernardum de Montfaucon anno 1698, die 11 Augusti’ It has not the Ammonian Sections. The additions Luke xxii. 43, 44, xxiii. 17, Joh. v. 3, 4, are wanting ; but Luke xxiii. 34, Joh. vii. 53—viii. 11, stand as part of the text. (21)* Cod. Copt. 61, 8vo, paper. St John’s Gospel. A late MS. The leaves are bound up in the wrong order, and some are wanting. It con- tains Joh. vii. 53—viii. 11. (22)* Cod. Copt. 62, 4to, paper. St John’s Gospel. Arabic words are written interlinearly in the earlier part, but not throughout. It has not v. 3, 4, nor vii. 53—vili. 11. It appears to be of fair antiquity. In the Berlin Royal Library ; (23) MS Orient. Diez. A. Fol. 40, described by Schwartze (Preef. xiii sq.), who collated it for his edition. He says (p. xx), ‘decimum szeculum non superat, dummodo zequet.’ The great body of this MS is written by. two different scribes ; the two first and two last leaves are supplied by a third and more recent hand. Of the two earlier scribes the second was not contemporary with the first, as the similarity of the paper and ink might suggest, but the MS was already mutilated when it came into his hands, and he supplied the missing leaves. There is a tendency to Sahidic forms, more especially in the parts supplied by the second scribe. This MS is generally free from the interpolated additions, e.g. Luke xxii. 43, 44, xxiii. 17, 34, Joh. v. 3, 4, vii. 53—-viii. 11, and seems to be of high value. (24) MS Orient. Quart. 165, 166, 167, 168, four transcripts by Petrzeus, also collated by Schwartze (see Praf. p. ix). The first (165) has the lessons for Sundays and Festivals from the four Gospels; the other three (166, 167, 168) contain the Gospels of St Matthew, St Mark, and St Luke respectively, with the exception of the parts included in the ecclesiastical lessons. These transcripts were made in the year 1662, from a MS (or MSS?) which Petraeus describes as ‘vetustum’ and ‘vetustissimum. This MS is unknown, but judging from the readings, it does not appear to have had any high value. In the Vatican Library at Rome ; (25) Copt. 8, Folio, paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels. Some leaves at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end have been supplied more recently. The scribe of these later leaves was one Arcadius son of John, who gives the date 1303 (i.e. A.D. 1587). The body of the MS is ascribed by Assemani to the 14th century. For further particulars see Mai Coll. Vet. Script. v. 2, p. 120 sq. From the collection of I. B. Raymund (no. i), left by will to the Vatican Library. (26) Copt. 9 (Raymund iv), Folio, paper, Copt. Arab., with fine illu- minations. The four Gospels, preceded by the letter of Eusebius to Car- pianus and the Eusebian tables. It was given to the monastery of St Antony in the Arabian desert, A. Mart. 986 (=A.D. 1270), by one Michael Abu-Gelica, as recorded in a colophon written by Gabriel who was 5, 22 338 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE patriarch of Alexandria at the time. Assemani states that this Michael was also the writer of the MS, and probably this was the case; but the colophon as given by him does not directly state it. After the plunder of the monastery by the Arabs, the MS came into the possession of two other patriarchs of the Copts, John (4.D. 1506) and Gabriel (A.D. 1526), and was afterwards placed (4.p. 1537) in the Church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus at Alexandria. These facts are stated in other colophons. See Mai lc. p. 122 sq. (27) Copt.10(Raymund vi), 4to, paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels ; ascribed to the 14th century by Assemani. See Mail. c. p. 125. (28) Copt. 11 (Petri de Valle vi), Folio, paper, Copt. Arab. The Gospel of St John. It bears the date 1062 (i.e. a.D. 1346). See Mail. c. p- 125. B. The Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles and Acts. In the Bodleian Library at Oxford are; (1)* Hunt. 43, Folio, paper, Copt. Arab., containing Paul. Ep., Cath. Ep., Acts, and Apocalypse. The paging ceases at the end of the Acts, and between the Acts and Apocalypse are some blank pages. I did not however notice any difference in the handwriting of the two parts. The date given at the end of the Acts is 1398 (i.e. A.D. 1682). (2)* Hunt. 203, 4to, paper. The Pauline Epistles. The beginning Rom. i. 1—ii. 26, and the end 2 Tim. iv. 4—Tit. ii. 6, are in a later hand. This later transcriber ends abruptly in the middle of a page with eopor, Tit. ii. 6. Thus the end of Titus and the whole of Philemon are wanting. There are several lacunze in the body of the work owing to lost leaves. The description in Wilkins is most inaccurate. (3)* Hunt. 122, 4to, paper, illuminated. The Pauline Epistles. The beginning and end are wanting. The MS begins with Rom. viii. 29, and ends with 2 Tim. i. 2. The date is given at the end of 2 Corinthians as 1002 of the Diocletian era, i.e. A.D. 1286. The scribe gives his name as ‘moAcqass the son of the bishop.’ In the British Museum ; (4)* Orient. 424, 4to, paper, Copt. Arab., containing Paul. Ep., Cath. Ep., Acts. At the end of the Pauline Epistles, and at the end of the Acts are two important Arabic colophons, in which the pedigree of the MS is given. From these we learn that both portions of this MS were written A. Mart. 1024 (=A.p. 1308) by one Abu Said. They were copied however from a previous MS in the handwriting of the patriarch Abba Gabriel and bearing the date A. Mart. 966 (=A.p. 1250). This Abba Gabriel stated that ‘he took great pains to copy it accurately and correct it, both as to the Coptic and Arabic texts, to the best of human ability.’ This MS of Abba Gabriel again was copied from two earlier MSS, that of the Pauline Epistles in the handwriting of Abba Yuhanna, bishop of Sam- NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 999 manud, that of the Catholic Epistles and Acts in the handwriting of ‘Jurja ibn Saksik (?) the famous scribe’ This MS belonged to Archdeacon Tattam, and was purchased for the British Museum at the sale of his books. It is the MS designated ‘tattamianus’ in the edition of Boet- ticher, who made use of a collation obtained by Schwartze. The correc- tions in this MS (designated t* in Boetticher) are written in red ink. In private collections in England ; (5)* Parham 120 (no. 12, p. 29, in the printed Catalogue), Folio, paper, Copt. Arab. Paul. Ep., Cath. Ep., Acts. There are several blank leaves at the end of the Pauline Epistles, and the numbering of the leaves begins afresh with the Catholic Epistles, so that this MS is two volumes bound together. They are however companion volumes and in the same handwriting. This is doubtless the MS of which Schwartze’s collation was used by Boetticher (see above p. 330), and which he calls ‘curetonianus.’ I am informed that it is designated simply cur. by Schwartze himself. It, certainly never belonged to Cureton, but was brought with the other Parham MSS by the Hon. R. Curzon (afterwards Lord Zouche) from the East, and ever afterwards belonged to his library. Boetticher’s designa- tion therefore is probably to be explained by a confusion of names. I gather moreover from private correspondence which I have seen, that some of Mr Curzon’s Coptic MSS were in the keeping of Cureton at the British Museum about the time when Schwartze’s collation was made, and this may have been one. If so, the mistake is doubly explained. I infer the identity of this MS with the curetonianus of Boetticher for the following reasons: (1) Having made all enquiries, I cannot find that Dr Cureton ever possessed a Coptic MS of the whole or part of the New Testament ; (2) The MS in question must have been in England, and no other English MS satisfies the conditions. My first impression was that the MS next described, Parham 121, would prove to be the curetonianus, for I found between the leaves an envelope addressed to Mr Cureton at the British Museum, and bearing the post mark, January 1849; this fact indicating that it had been in Mr Cureton’s hands about the time when Schwartze’s collation was made. Buta comparison of the readings soon showed that this identification must be abandoned. (3) The cipher which Boetticher gives for the date is also found in this MS in two places, after the Pauline Epistles and again after the Acts. This coincidence is the more remark- able, as the cipher is not very intelligible. (4) The readings of our MS, Parham 120, where I compared them, agree with those of Boetticher’s curetonianus, with an occasional exception which may be accounted for by the inaccuracy of the collation. This is the case with crucial readings, as for instance the marginal alternative in Acts vii. 39 At the same time Schwartze’s collation, if Boetticher has given its readings fully, must have been very imperfect. Inashort passage which I collated I found more variations omitted than there were verses. (6)* Parham 121 (no. 13, p. 29, printed Catalogue), small 4to, paper, in a very neat hand, with illuminations, Copt. Arab. It contains the Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts. The Epistle to the Hebrews 22—2 340 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE stands after Philemon as in no. (15), and not before the Pastoral Epistles according to the usual Memphitic order. In the National Library at Paris ; (7)* Copt. 17, Folio, paper, Copt. Arab., described in the Catalogue as ‘antiquus et elegantissime scriptus.’ It contains the 14 Pauline Epistles. Is this the MS collated by Boetticher for these Epistles and designated p by him? (8)* Copt. 63, small folio, paper, ‘emta per me Bernardum de Mont- faucon Venetiis anno 1698, 11 Augusti’ It contains the 14 Pauline Epis- tles, and is dated at the end ator, i.e. 1376=A.D. 1660. (9;* Copt. 64, Folio, paper, Copt. Arab. ‘Manuscrit de la Bibliotheque de Saumaise acquis par l’abbé Sallier pour le B. R. en 1752” It contains the 14 Pauline Epistles. (10)* Copt. 66, 4to, paper, with occasional Arabic notes in the margin. It belonged to the Coislin library, and previously to the Seguerian. It contains the Catholic Epistles and Acts. The date of its completion is given at the end as 1325, i.e. A.p. 1609. A collation of this MS was used by Boetticher for his edition, and is designated p by him. (11)* Copt. 65, Folio, paper. ‘Emta Venetiis per me Fr. I. Bernardum de Montfaucon anno 1698, 2 Augusti.’ This volume contains the Apo- calypse, Catholic Epistles, and Acts. It consists of two parts, fol. 1—32 containing the Apocalypse, and fol. 33—102 containing the Catholic Epis- tles, and Acts, The two parts are written on different paper, and appa- rently in different hands. At the end of the Apocalypse the date is given 1376 = αν. 1660, At the end of the Acts also the same date 1376 is given, and the scribe there mentions his name rmanimmpechstepoc. Boetticher collated this MS for his edition and designates it m. In the Royal Library at Berlin ; (12) Orient. 115, Folio, Copt. Arab., containing the Epistles to the Colossians, Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews, Timothy, Titus. (13) Orient. 116, Folio, Copt. Arab., containing the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians, (14) Orient. 169, 4to, A transcript of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Philippians in Coptic made by Petrzeus at Leyden in 1660. These three were collated by Boetticher, from whom I have extracted this meagre account, which is all that he gives. He designates them ὃ. In the Vatican ; (15) Copt. 12 (1. B. Raymund ii), Folio, paper, Copt. Arab. The Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts ; ascribed by Assemani to the 14th century. In this MS the Epistle to the Hebrews stands after the Kpistle to Philemon, thus departing from the usual Memphitic order, as above no. (6). See Mai Coll. Vet. Script. y. 2, p. 125 sq. NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 341 (16) Copt.13 (I. B. Raymund iii), Folio, paper, Copt. Arab., ascribed by Assemani to the 13th century. The fourteen Pauline Epistles. See Mai I. ο. p. 127 sq. (17) Copt. 14 (1. B. Raymund vy), 4to, paper, Copt. Arab., contain- ing the Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts. It was written by Michael the monk of the city of Bembge in the year 1074 (i.e. A.D. 1358), except the last leaf which was supplied in 1220 (i. 6. A.D. 1504). See Mai lc. p. 128 sq. C. The Apocalypse. In England ; (1)* Bodleian. Hunt. 43, already described under Epistles (1). (2)* Library of Lord Crawford and Balcarres. A very small folio, paper, with illuminations, Copt. Arab. ἴαποκδλιψτς F WTE τωλππης. The Apocalypse itself is followed by ‘The Benediction which is read before the Holy Apocalypse.’ The date 1091 (i.e. A.D. 1375) is given at the end of the Apocalypse, where also the scribe mentions his name Peter. On a later page he describes himself as a monk and presbyter. There are cor- rections in the margin of the Apocalypse, some in red, others in black ink. Some of these contain various readings, e.g. x. 11 mexWwor λέγουσι for nexag λέγε. This MS once belonged to Tattam. (3)* Parham 123 (no. 15, p. 29 in the printed Catalogue). Small folio, paper, rudely written in a recent hand. Copt. Arab. It contains the Apocalypse, followed by the ‘Book of the Holy Benediction, etc.’ The scribe, who has evidently a very indifferent knowledge of Coptic, gives his name as Matthew the son of Abraham, and states that the work was finished Sew}fpommmtuyjopemmuanaptypocess. This ought to be the year 1105 of the Martyrs (= A.p. 1389); but the MS must be later than this date. The colophon itself is perhaps copied from an earlier MS. (4)* Parham 124 (no. 16, p. 29 in the printed Catalogue). A large 12mo, paper. Copt. Arab. It contains about 15 lines in a page, and about 11 letters in a line. Two or three pages towards the beginning are in a later hand. The date is given at the end, A. Mart. 1037 = a.p. 1321. This Apocalypse is not Sahidic, as described in the printed Catalogue, but Memphitic. At Paris; (5)* Copt. 65, already described under Epistles (11). (6)* Copt. 91, 8vo, paper, Copt. Arab., containing the Apocalypse alone, tanonadranbic πτε τωλππτης merce rcTHe, It is dated at the end 1117 (? = .D. 1401). In the printed Catalogue *Copé. 34 (Delamare 581, Reg. 342. 3) is also stated to contain ‘Apocalypsis e Greeca lingua in Copticam conversa,’ but, there seems to be some mistake about this. 342 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE At Rome; ΟΣ Angelican Library ©. i. 9. The Apocalypse in Copt. Arab, Janonarmpre ὅτε THa TIETATTEAICTHE OFOO ἁποοτολος, etc., said to belong to the 15th century. (8) Library of the Propaganda, large 800, paper, in a modern hand. Copt. Arab. The Apocalypse somewhat mutilated. It contains i. 12—ii, 26, and iii. 9—xxii. 12. It is briefly described among the Borgian MSS by Zoega, p. 3. (9) Vatican Copt. 15, Folio, paper, Copt. Arab. The Apocalypse fol- lowed by Ordo dominice palmarum (fol. 59). Referred by Assemani to the 14th century. See Mai Col/. Vet. Script. v. 2, p. 130. (10) Vatican Copt. 16 (I. B. Raymund, no. xi), Quarto, paper, Copt. Arab. The Apocalypse, followed by a Benedictio. It was written by one John son of Abul-Menna in 1061 (i.e. A.p. 1345). The scribe prays ‘omnes amicos suos sinceros...... ut castigent atque corrigant errata illius pro sua prudentia, quoniam ausus sum fungi munere mihi ignoto” See Mai lc, p. 130 sq.? Beside these MSS of different parts of the New Testament there is also a considerable number of Memphitic Lectionaries in the different libraries of Europe. From this account of the MSS it appears that, with the single exception of the Apocalypse, the Memphitic New Testa- ment, as far back as we can trace its history, contained all the books of our present Canon. Nor have I noticed any pheno- mena in the language of the several books, which point to any want of uniformity or separation of date; though it is possible that a more thorough investigation and a more com- plete mastery of the language might reveal such. It seems clear however that the Apocalypse had not a place among the Canonical books. In the majority of cases it is contained in a separate MS. In the exceptions which I have investigated, where it is bound up with other books (the MSS numbered 1, 11, of the Epistles and Acts), it is distinguished from them in some marked way; and probably this will be found to be the case with any which have not yet been examined. In short there is not a single authenticated case of a MS in which it is treated as of equal authority with the other Canonical books. 1 My inspection of the several MSS in tho above list was far too cursory; but I hope that I have avoided serious errors; and, if my account is found very imperfect, it may nevertheless serve as the basis of some more complete catalogue hereafter. NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 343 Moreover in Copto-Arabic vocabularies it is omitted from its proper place at the end of the New Testament, all the other books being taken in order. This depreciation of the Apoca- lypse may perhaps be taken as indicating the date of the completion or codification of the Memphitic Version. The earlier Alexandrian writers, Clement and Origen, in the first decades of the third century, quote the Apocalypse without hesitation as the work of St John. The later Alexandrian Church also from the close of the third century onward seems to have had no doubt about its Apostolic authority (see West- cott, Canon p. 321). But about the middle of the third century doubts were entertained respecting its authorship, to which expression was given by Dionysius of Alexandria (flor. A.D. 233 —265), though even Dionysius did not deny its canonicity. The difficulty however may have been powerful enough to cause its exclusion from the Egyptian Canon. The order of the several parts of the New Testament in the MSS is (1) Gospels, (2) Pauline Epistles, (3) Catholic Epistles, (4) Acts. The Gospels occur in their common order. It is remarkable however that in the vocabularies St John fre- quently stands first, so that we get the order John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, which (with the doubtful exception of the Thebaic) is unique. Of this however there is no trace in the MSS; and, as some of these must carry the tradition further back than the vocabularies, the arrangement is perhaps to be explained in some other way. The Pauline Epistles include the Hebrews, which is placed after 1, 2 Thessalonians and before 1, 2 Timothy’, as in the Greek MSS NABC ete. (see p. 68). This accords with the general opinion of the Alexandrian school, which regarded this Epistle as the work of St Paul (see Westcott, Canon p. 323 sq.). In other respects the familiar order is observed in the Pauline Epistles, as is also the case with the Catholic Epistles”. The Memphitic Version is for the most part a faithful rendering of the original, and the Egyptian language which by this time had borrowed largely from the Greek vocabulary is fairly adequate for the purpose. This version therefore may generally be consulted even for minute variations in the text. 1 The MSS 6 and 15 are exceptions. 2 No weight can be given to the abnormal order in no. 12, until we know something more of this MS, which is perhaps a late transcript. 944 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE The connecting particles are commonly observed ; and as the language has both definite and indefinite articles, it may be employed, though with some caution, by the textual critic where other versions fail him. In one point however it is quite useless) When the question lies between a participle and a finite verb in the construction of a sentence, the loose- ness of the Egyptian syntax will seldom afford any clue to the reading which the translator had before him. Perhaps the weakest point in the language is the absence of a passive voice, for which the third person plural active, used impersonally, acts as a substitute. This produces strange awkwardnesses of ex- pression. Thus Joh. i. 6 ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ is rendered ‘whom they sent from God,’ ὃ avovopngy ehodgrren Yt, and i. 17 ὃ νόμος διὰ Μωυσέως ἔδοθη ‘The law they gave it by Moses,’ mx nomoc avtuig ehodorre λιωσοης, Another grave defect is the want of a word corresponding to the simple mean- ing of ἔχειν, which has to be rendered by various expedients according to the context. To the adoption of Greek words there seems to be hardly any limit, but the caprice of the translator. Already in the demotic writing we find a few of these foreign intruders natu- ralized ; but in the Coptic, as used for ecclesiastical purposes, they occur in the greatest profusion. Very frequently their adoption cannot be explained by any exigencies of translation. Thus for instance the translator will: sometimes render one Greek word by another, e.g. Joh. xiii. 5, νιπτὴρ by λακάνη or λεκάνη; Acts xix. 40, ἐγκαλεῖν by κατηγορεῖν; xxvill. 17, ἔθος by συνήθεια. Thus again he will diversify the rendering in the same passage, using indifferently the Greek and the Egyptian word for the same original, e.g. ¢wwr and mspazsm (πειράξει), Matt. iv. 1, 3; xpox and cnepma Joh. vill. 33, 37; ποῦρο and necap (Καῖσαρ), Joh. xix. 12,15; τοῦ and aemwn (δαιμόνιον) Matt. viii. 16, 28, 33. And again and again Greek words are used, where common Egyptian equivalents were ready to hand. The conjunctions adda, δέ, yap, οὖν, were doubtless needed to supply a want in the Egyptian language, which, like the Hebrew and Aramaic, was singularly deficient in connecting particles; but we should hardly have looked for such combinations as ὅμως μέντοι, πόσῳ μᾶλλον, μήτι, οὐ γάρ, οὐχ ὅτι, OTL μὲν γάρ, καί γε, καίτοι, οὐ μόνον δέ, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον, πῶς οὗν, ἵνα κἄν, ἵνα μήπως, μενοῦνγε, and NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 345 the like. Nor should we expect to find Greek terms introduced with such reckless prodigality as in the following sentences : John xviii. 3, mem gamanoc mem gam Aasutac MEM gar eondon; Acts xxill. 8, Mmom amactacrc orae arredoc οὐδε nnevaa; Acts xxvil. 12, natanvan € hong € ep mapagcrma- Zi Sen ov AvaAK ; Rom. vi. 13, meten meAoc m φολπου tte ἢ ADIRIA. Of all the versions, the Memphitic is perhaps the most important for the textual critic. In point of antiquity it must yield the palm to the Old Syriac and the Old Latin; but, unlike them, it preserves the best text as current among the Alexandrian fathers, free from the corruptions which prevailed so widely in the copies of the second century. (2). The Sahidic or Thebaice Version. The Thebaic Version did not attract attention till a com- paratively late date. When Wilkins published his Memphitic New Testament, he mentioned having found among the Oxford manuscripts two which he described as ‘lingua plane a reliquis MSS Copticis, quee unquam vidi, diversa’ (Preef. p. vii). These are written in the Thebaic or Sahidic dialect, of which, as we may infer from his language, he did not even know the existence. After no long time however we find La Croze and Jablonski, with other Egyptian scholars, turning their attention to the dialect of Upper Egypt: and at length in 1778, C. G. Woide issued a prospectus in which he announced his in- tention of publishing from Oxford MSS the fragments of the New Testament ‘juxta interpretationem dialecti Superioris Agypti, que Thebaidica seu Sahidica appellatur.” In the same year he gave to the world some various readings of this version in J. A. Cramer’s Beytrdge zur Beforderung theologischer und andrer wichtigen Kenntnisse, Pt. iii, Kiel u. Hamburg, 1778. But before Woide’s work appeared he was partially anticipated by other labourers in the same field. In the same year 1778 appeared a grammar of the two Egyptian dialects by R. Tuki, Roman Bishop of Arsinoe, with the title Rudimenta Lingue Copte sive Aigyptiace ad usum Collegii Urbani de Propaganda Fide, Rome. It contains 346 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE profuse quotations from the Thebaic Version of the Old and New Testaments. This work, which preserves a large number of passages not to be found elsewhere, has been strangely neglected by textual critics’. Caution however must be observed in the use of it, as the passages are apparently obtained, at least in many instances, not directly from MSS of the version itself, but through the medium of Arabo-Egyptian grammars and vocabularies; nor is Tuki’s work generally at all accurate or critical’, In 1785, J. A. Mingarelli published two fasciculi of an account of the Egyptian MSS in the Nanian Library under the title Agyptiorwm codicum reliquie Venetiis in Bibliotheca Naniana asservate, Bononie. In these he printed at length two portions of the Thebaic New Testament, Matt. xviii. 27— xxi. 15,and John ix. 17—xm. 1. In 1789, A. A. Giorgi (Georgius), an Augustinian eremite, brought out a work entitled Fragmentum Hvangelia S. Joannis Greco-Copto-Thebaicum Secult tv etc. Rome. This volume contains John vi. 21—58, and vi. 68—viii. 23, introduced by an elaborate preface and followed by other matter. The MS from which they are taken belonged to the Borgian collection at Velletri, and has been described already among the Greek MSS, p- 132 sq. It is ascribed to the fourth or fifth century. In the same year 1789, additional fragments of this version from other Borgian MSS were published by M. F. Miinter in a volume bearing the title Commentatio de Indole Versionis Now Testamenti Sahidice. Accedunt Fragmenta Epistolarum Pauli ad Timotheum ex membranis Sahidicis Musei Borgiani Velitris. Hafniw. The fragments referred to are 1 Tim. i. 14 — ill. 16, vi. 4—21, 2 Tim. i. 1—16. Miinter gives also some various readings of this version in different parts of the four Gospels, taken likewise from the Borgian MSS. Lastly; in 1790 Mingarelli published a third fasciculus of 1 Τὸ is used in the Apocalypse by Tregelles, and apparently also by Tisch- endorf in his 8th Edition; and in the Rey. 8. C. Malan’s Gospel according to S. John translated from the Eleven Oldest Versions except the Latin, London 1862, all Tuki’s Thebaic fragments of this Evangelist are included. ? See Miinter de Indole ete. Pref. p.iv. Schwartze (Quat. Evang. p. xx) says, ‘Preterquam quod sicut omnes Tukii libri scatent vitiis, etiam angustioris sunt fidei Rudimenta, Sahidicis locis partim e versione Arabica a Tukio concin- natis.’ I do not know on what grounds Schwartze makes this last statement. NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 347 his work on the Egyptian MSS in the Nanian Library, and in it he printed another important fragment of this version, Mark ΧΙ. 29—xyv. 32. This third part is very rarely met with, and I have not seen a copy. Meanwhile Woide was ical engaged on his edition, and had already advanced far when his labours were interrupted by death in May 1790. His papers were placed in the hands of H. Ford, Professor of Arabic at Oxford, who after several years completed the work. It was published with the title Appendix ad Editionem Novi Testamenti Grecit e Codice MS Alexandrino a C. G. Woide descripti, in qua continentur Frag- menta Novi Testamenti jucta interpretationem Dialecti Supe- rioris Atgyptt que Thebaidica vel Sahidica appellatur, ete. Oxonie 1799. Woide’s materials were: (1) Several MSS of the Huntington collection in the Bodleian. These consist of (a) Two folio lectionaries on paper (Hunt. 3, Hunt. 5); (Ὁ) A folio likewise on paper, containing fragments of St John’s Gospel (Hunt. 4); (c) An 8vo containing fragments of the Acts and Catholic Epistles (Hunt. 394). Woide ones as the date A. Mart. 1041, and a.p. 1315, ‘si recte con- jicio, but the two are not reconcileable; (d) A 4to on paper (Hunt. 393) written A. Mart. 1109 (i.e. A.D. 1393) and containing De Mysterio literarum Grecarum Discursus Gnostici, the work of one Seba an anchorite (see Ford’s Pref. p. vi. sq., and p. [21], note a).. (2) sce 167 48n7...) Evan. M...125—6 WD ὙΠ Evan. '8...4.24 166 BO. tas Hivan, τῷ τς 166 50a ...Evst. 58 ...... 254 Bias Evan, 260...... 196 Saas: Evan. 261.....: 196 BOR. oe: Evan. 262...... 196 54.:3... Hive ει ἘΝ 167 ΣΟ HVAT LY eee 167 ΠΣ Ἀσέα tavern 226 57 Acts 204 ses 230 Tey ance Aci eee 230 59.0... Ach, 2G. anes 230 Gorese: Act. 62% ecm 227 6m: Evan. 263...... 196 Galea: Evan.L....124—5, 483, 525 ; Cares, Evan. K....123—4 δά: 9 Hive), ἼΞ eee 167 OSs δι Evan, 264 ...196 Gon: Evan. 265 ...196 GSC Evan, 266 ...196 68:5. ἡ Evan, απο 168 Ggists cs Evan. 267...... 196 WON... Evan. 14 «2.00 167 ‘Coe ee Evan. 3 τυ 166 wares. Evan. 22 ...... 168 “Esser Evan. 268...... 196 Wig Ba: Evan. 269...... 196 FS tec Bvan. 270...... 196 75% ... HVA. 27 Lovee. 196 SOND < Evan. 272... 196 iE nee Evan, 23... 168 eee Evan, 26 ...... 168 ΚΥΝῚ Evan, 273 ...196 79a ...Evan. 274 ...196 Bove: Evan. 275 ...197 Sips: Evan. 276 ...197 81a ...Evan. 277 ...197 82. hes: Evan. 278 ...197 ee eae Evan. Ὁ... τευ ταὶ 166 Sait ς: Εν aes 165 85......Bvan. 119 ...183 Bork. Evan. 279 ...197 Byars Evan, 280 ...197 S859. 54 Evan, 28r...... 197 PAGE PAGE Reg. 89...... Evan. 29 ...... 168 Reg. 185 a...Hvan. 120...... 183 ΘΟ ε..: Evan. 282 107 εϑότιν... Evan. 300...... 198 QU τον..: Evan, 10 ...... 166 LS 7 .e: Evan, 391...... 198 Bes Evan. 283...... 197 188:ε... Evan. 20 ...... 167 yeas Evan. 284...... 197 18905... Evan, IQ ...... 167 ee Evan. 31 ...... 168 LON ax: Evan, 25 ...... 168 Q5 το. Evan, 285...... 197 TQ 21: .-.: Kvan. 302...... 198 OO! ex. Evan. 286...... 197 LO 4 ies: Evan. 304...... 198 QB seen Evan. 287...... 197 194 &...Evan, 303...... 198 80--.... Evan. 288...... 197 195.----- Evan. 305...... 198 gga ...Apoc. 59 ...... 247 UG) ten one Evan, 103...... 180 10:3... Evan. 30 ...... 168 PORE ke: Evan, 306...... 198 1ooa ...Hvan. 289 197 ΤΟ 0::-..}. Evan. 307...... 198 LOU a. I NCissa ites τ τ το. 230 200ees Evan, 308...... 198 TOM ΛΟ 5.7, ptasse<- 223 IO es Kvan. 309...... 198 τοῦ... AChs ταρῖν..... 230 σοῦ τ. Evan. 310...... 199 TOSts..<. ἈΠ A Bsr τ. 223 FOG ον τος Evan. 31T...... 199 ΣΟ. οὐ F208 "--.:- 230 20623... Evan, 312...... 199 ΤΟΙ... ἌΟΡ τατον τὸν 231 το = Hvan: 3£3)...0-- 199 104 ...Apost. II ...... 267 200k: Hivan. 314...... 199 FOGt 2 ix AGiRT22NGl.... 231 210......HVaM. 315...... 199 Tees .. HAVEN. 5 Jee. 6 166 @Ubredds Hivany 2τό-.---. 199 1O08"...Ach: 123% .--.... 231 22 Evan, 317...... 199 RO Paul.D...150—153 DT 3a. Evan, 318...... 199 τοϑὲι...: Paul, 945/42... 241 26: ἃ... Actigta6.. ---.: 231 108a ...Hivan. 290...... 197 Pa ty ereaee UNG tp 7?) ...- 231 LOOQhe. «52 Pauli 14 6ree.5 241 ἄχ18..1... AGH R28) ....:: 231 WIOs.- << Romy Tayo... 241 Leese. « ACh. ΧΙ see ee see 22 noms... Bow 148°. τὺ 242 BIOs dss! Act tO) ---Ὁ 231 Bye: 1 BvaN Ge sak 166 BP Macnes AGU LEO a 20025 231 BAYS 2: Evan. 291...... 197 DOT iene Pawlepra 7 πππ 242 Liste: Evan. 292...... 197 PDE nec ἈΘΕΤΕΙ͂ toners 231 Bye... Byem.o%7 τκήξι: 168 2345.05. AUL TSG) aa Evan. 192...189 Wis Sle .caree Evst. 116 ...256 W193 2sceccenee Evan. 193...189 Visas 38 nes Evan. 194...189 VEN ΔΑ ΣΡ ΙΝ Evan. 195 ...189 γι; ϑ3ιθ εν. εν sees Evan. 3065...202 UO shnka; Apoc. 77 ...248 Fas. 285 Evan. 196...189 VALS Aes 01 Evan. 197...189 ye Er oT Paul. 100 ...240 Ke UO ΥΠ γε; Paul. tor ...240 0 ed eee Paul. 102 ...240 Ko Oi eeay ees Paul. 103 ...240 Laurent, Libreria Riecardi. (Messina) 1 PAGE AVR Ὁ Apost. 4...... 267 ΓΕ Evan. 367 ...202 9 AR Evan. 200 ...190 OO s-scrcnse Evan. 199 ...189 1th ee Evan. 366...202 τες τα Eyan. 362 ...202 iy [sn Ronae Act. 140Rae- 232 ΌΤΙ cece oe Evan. 198 ...189 DART scwdses Evst. 118 ...257 RATES. aseese Evst. 117 ...257 BVA Sconnac Act. 148...... 232 8. Mare. 706...Evst. ...264 Ἐξ- δε ΤΣ: Evan. 370...203 co) en Raa Evan. 368... 202 Okie. ἘΠΕ Patil ἐπ 245 OOaee ce. Evan. 369 ...202 Bee ce ee Evan. 420...206 ΣΤΥ ES <3" Act. 175. 2.283 (Milan) Ambrosian Library. 36 MSS. . 51 sup. or 15...Paul. 172 ...242 πὴ ΠΣ Hvst. .........264 6 inf. -νιῖοι ες ΒΑ πο ΠΣ ΠΥ ΡΗΣ Evan. 348...201 Ὅν κι ΝΣ εἷς Evan, 350...20% FD SUD amen cks ease Evan. 351...208 Ὁ Δ 4: ΔΕ ΣΥΝ Evan. 352...201 δ: 1: Apost. 46 ...268 QUBUDtrvacunecas Evst. 106 ...256 TOO) 8th wes soe Ἐϊγβ τον: 264 ἰδ θα ον τς Evst. 103 ...256 . 72 SUP. ..0....-LIVBt. 104 ...250 STOBISUas ee ere ivst-pare eee 264 Re CLOT Opes): Eivan, ἐς: δι 220 ΠΥ ΤῊΣ ivan; τ 220 S20 Ca faueseb teens Hivan, , ...0.. 220 ΡΟΣ ΣΟ ἀρ πο 220 ΠΟΘ θυ ϑοροο σσΡ»Ρ» G7 BEB ansutess Act. 137...23%, 479 0, 482 n, ἯΙ 102 WUps suyse en Act, 138 ...232 ἘΠ ΟΡ ONS, Evan. 340...201 Ἐς δ δ; πίσσα Paul. 175 ...242 G. 16 sup. ......... yan. 344...200 H; τὰ ϑυβευν δι ne Kyan. 343...200 ἘΠ. το δι υ τ ϑέιι ε.) Act. 139 ...232 Li. 7Q 8UPs oceserens Bvst. .........264 ΝΜ «8. Stipbetittones VAD, Ὁ 220 ἍΜ ST οι. νοῦν. see Evst. 105 ...256 INDEX I (GREEK MANUSCRIPTS). 579 PAGE DEO er onrcasse Evan. 353...201 PIP ARSUPS coc cay ace JBN ΑΕ Ἐς 264 DOR SUMS ἐνοινονον Evan. 346...201 DuOMSUP «τ τνυνυς Eyst. 102 ...256 ZRMSARSUP A ca τοις ΒΝ ΒΗ {εὐνὰς 220 ΤΙ ΒΗ τ οἰ: ) HBhivPele foci { Hivst...........264 Way) osevcisciee celenas one Evan. 345...201 Bon ΤΑ ΟΣ Α βονίονοννς Evan. 347...201 (Modena) rr MSS. [AISA γον νος. (BVA, | 5.1 220 [yest An Roo. oc ivaniey τ. 220 ΠΣ ALTO Vin ae Kyan. 358...201 [xtir.] ii, A. 13 ...Act....Addenda [x1v.] ii. A. 14 [ExxrnCs4 ᾿ς Actor see ae 1 77, τ .242 Addenda [uxxu1.] ii. C. 6...HKvst. rrr ...256 [cara d: Dies... Apost. ...... 269 fexeye | iG. 3 ...Act. EET... 149 [ecxutt. ]ii1.B.16...Hvan. 359...202 [cexn11.]iii. B.17...Act.142 ...232 (Naples) 9 MSS. ἘΣ MD ees 1: AGI SS ince ons 228 PBs Waa. ec: Evst. 138 ...257 Je Oita Rear Evan. 401...204 real OMG 0) meena ΑΠΌ τοῦ 233 170: (Orcas ces Evan. 402...204 Os “OO Bes oacabe Evan. 403...204 2C. 15...Hvan. W® or RB... 130, 135 Scotti....:.... Evan. 404...204 No mark πος INCE Nit 2393 (Palermo) Bibl. Reg....Paul. 217 ...243 (Parma) 5 MSS. National Library 14...Evst. ...264 De Rossi i =....... Evan. 360 ...202 Dewees Evan. 361 ...202 Bonvisi 5 ......... Kvan. ...... 210 ἘΠΕ B bape cc) ep Hiya. τ. 220 (Rome) r50 MSS. Vatican (110) Cod. Vatic, 165 ...... Paul. 58 By lo eaone Ἤν ἢ: Ὑ27.-ἰ.. 184 ΝΥ EVISU 35 τὸς, 253 Bie bann abc Evan. 8. 132 ΕΟ τ: πες Evan. 128...... 184 PAGE Cod. Vatic. 358...... Evan, 129...... 184 BEC) a ene Evan. 130...... 184 δὅοι-:-- Hivaier3)...... 184 BON a. Hyan. 132...... 184 363 Kyan. 133...... 184 SO πῆς Evan. 134...... 185 ΠΕ Hvan. 135...... 185 ΘΟ ΘΙ Ἀριτ Σε sees 228 ΘΟ ΕΞ Αστιν 228 ΒΟ... ἴτ2:- Apoc. 38 ...... 247 (0s apomee Evan. 136......185 ΠΕ Seana Evans £37..... 185 τω Evan. 138...... 185 PS Sretiac. Hvan. 139...... 185 WOO esac ACHE HAW.) 228 ΠΟΙ Σὲ: ῬΑ ΘΙ ἡ Ὁ: 240 FAO onsen Pauls82 cc... 240 POG ie sae ῬΆΠ]|. 85. τ΄ 240 πδᾶ.....: Ῥῃθ θη τὰς 240 1067 ...... Evst. 36 ...... 253 166.25, Pauless est. 240 τὐδβττο Evst. 119 ...... 257 ETON wens Byst. 120...... 257 RUS πο» Hvst. 121 ...... 257 DES ϑέν δον ἘΆΝ ΨἈῸΌΣ Ὁ τς 185 CUETO pene Evan. 371...... 203 PEDO cenavs Evan, 141...... 185 TOW sees Biyan372... 0. 203 Apoe. 9t...95— Tog, 248, 470—8o, 508 ἢ, 537 ἢ. 2 Ὁ 1η.9) ἫΝ ΒΒ ACHE ΜΕ eee 232 U7. a Kyan. 373...... 203 1430)... 0. Acte ἰδ 5... τις 232 AY 5. vce. Evan. 374...... 203 7 ἔοι Hivsts1123......: 257 E528. Apost. 38 ...... 268 D3 S Pins Evan. 375 ...203 M5 30 psces: Evan. 376...... 203 TY σης ee Evan, 145...... 185 TOUS. yarns 7) cere 203 £640 .....- Paul. 189 ...... 243 1650...... Acts 156) τ Ὁ t So Scholz’s index, and we may suppose correctly, but in his Catalogue of Evangelistaria he numbers it 1256. 37—2 olim Basil. Alexand. Vat.12..... Vat. Ottobon. 2 Palatino-V INDEX I (GREEK MANUSCRIPTS). PAGE 1658 ......Evan. 378 ...... 203 AGA te ACENERY | sons 232 M749 200. A POC. 07s arse 248 Oe: ΛΟ ΚΕΡ ss) οὐ ν 35 232 1769 ......12Van. 379...... 203 1904 <..-.-ApOCi68 -...-- 248 τοῦθ. Ὁ AGtANRO)| κεν 232 1983 ...... ivan. .173...... 187 1988 ...... vst. 124 ...... 257 2002 ...:..evan. 174...... 187 BOW 3.Ὁ.. ἘΣΘ Σ Ἔ 25) τς... 257 ΔοΑ Το ν. ΒΟΌΣ 126 -...... 257 ΘΟ 1... Δου πἰδο -..,.: 232 200317..-..LivSts 727, 4..... 257 2066 ......Apoc. B ....161—3 2070......HVan. 382...... 203 2080 τ.... AVERT WB on 2: 187 WG hee to BAVA Ones eee 188 Dae e eee LIMA b MeL 2S eee: 257 2130 -----Β|γ8)...386....,- 203 3785 ......Hivan.N ....126—8 105... HAVANNEY 725.20 188 -Evst. 129 ...... 257 28). 0.6: HVA. E54. 6000. 186 BPS. 20 ACE ZBL. τος 228 OSes APOC an boc. 247 7Q\...-.-livan, ΕΒ ... 186 ἀπο νν ACH: π:.:...ς- 225 189 ......Hivan. ¥56...... 186 ΤΙΜΗ͂Ι 1246) «τ. τς 257 ΘΕ ΒΕ SO “-.... 243 ὅτ . Paul. 166. 27... 243 66......Hivan. 386...... 203 Ὁ 8.- ἐς ΣΕ ΕΌ ΚΑδ 5. sere 257 96s. ..cF BULIOy sive 243 204......4:van, 387...... 203 212) .2.ciVan; 388)... 203 258. ἸΛΟΙ, el ONe se. os en. 233 297....-.4uvan, 389...... 203 BOB eres ACh AN OF Gerace 233 Beet eos Act.:163 Ὁ... 233 BG he Evst. 132 ...... 257 356:- 24. baulezozie, 243 38r......Evan, 390...... 203 HIG 70s. Ἐϊγθ να ἀντ. 57 407......Act. 168 233 49232. Ιγοαι, 50 Χ 1.» 203 aby ἐΟΥος δ Εύγοῖι, ἐχ6 525... 185 20-2... A VAN> 385 42-0, 203 δου ΘΟ Αι ccc. s 185 PAGE Palatino-Vat. 136....Evan. 148...... 185 ΕΙΣ, sa. Evan. 149...... 185 190..}... Hyan. 450... -<. 185 5.20... τὰν Hiyan. ets ne. ee 186 {0 BRA Evan. 152...... 186 DAG enact Evan, 153..--.--- 186 Pio-Vat, 50...... Act, δον. τον ΕΒ. Β31...ὅ.- VAN, ἀπο 186 Urbino-Vat. 42...... Evan. 157..186,498 ξένος AGH 70 - 228 Angelica Convent. AS Tie Share Evan. 178...... 188 U NAD Nf ie ποτ πτ Act.clitauaeees 149 Alea ete Evan. 179...... 188 Barberini 8............ Evan. 159...... 186 δι ARN Evan. 160...... 186 Mo rtcotarsa: Evan. 161...... 186 ΤῊ Sie verso Evan. 162...... 186 Reese aectaace Evan. 163...... 187 PS o inasevoee Evan. 164...... 187 LAs Evan, 165...... 187 ΠΡΟΣ too Evst. 134 πος 257 OBS alae σον Hyst. 135,136..257 DOaescanccass Apost. 40 ...... 268 2B es Ἐς: Αθοῦ, 247 Poet none Paul, 2135. 243 UB SP ewan ce Evan. 166...... 187 ROSMen. sues Evan, 167...... 187 DiDiesete ecco Kyvan. 168...... 187 225...Hvan. Y and 392...137, 204 iy ee ee ene Act. Si νιν sre. 228 No mark ...Apost. 41 ...... 268 Borgia (now Propaganda), τ ἢ Evan. T & T4...133—4 50 sat Wivan, 180.....¢....08 188 Del τας Eivst. 37. 28a 253 Casanatensis. A. R. V. 33...Evan. 395...... 204 Collegit Romani. (3) Evan. 383, 384, 385 ......203 (2) Act. αὐτὸ 172 ..qecern eee Corsint 838... ......60 Apoc. 73 ...... 248 Ghigian. R. iv. 6 .,.Evan, 396...... 204 KR. iv.8...:Apoe: 9a) sian 248 INDEX I (GREEK MANUSCRIPTS). PAGE Ghigian. R. v. 29 ...Act. τόρ ......233 RitVa 32's. Bult 207" ...... 243 Wilt ΠΕ ΤΟ Palle 208) 5... 243 Malatestian, xxvii.4...Evst.144 ...... 258 xxix, 2...Hyst.145 ...... 258 Vallicell. B. 86 ...... Nets 166) 2-8. 233 B.. 133 .--Hivan. 169...... 187 CLAIR 080% Evan. 397......204 CRO hus. Apost. 42 ...... 268 COL ccs 5 Evan. 170...... 187 (275 5:3. Evan. 171...... 187 ΠΡ ΣΟΥ Sse Apoe. 2m τς πες 246 (missing) D. 41 (or 4. 1) Evst. 156 ...259 τόσ τ ῬΠΥΒΙΣ τ 81...» 257 WOE eds Evan: 393......204 ἘΠ νει ING τύϑ τὸν 233 ἘΠΤΣ ος Hvan. 394...... 204 (Siena) Bibliot. Commun...Evst......264 (Syracuse) ............ Evan, 421......206 (Turin) 19 MSS. Psalter ...Hvan. 04 ...129; 514 Ἐν τ Ὅτ. ὲ ivtlge....... Evan. 3323... 200 Ο. ii. 4 or xx. b. iv. 20,.Hvan. 332...200 B. 111. 8 or 43. b. v. 23...Hvan. 334...200 B. ii. 2 or 44. Ὁ. v. 24 ...Hivan. 335...200 B, ili. 25 or Ὁ. v.32 Ἐν. 337...200 C.ii. 5 or 92. c.iv.6 ...Evan. 398...204 B.ii. 17 0r τοῦ: 0. iv. τῆς... Εν: 336...200 C. 11. 14 or 109. 6. iv. 29.... Ev. 399...204 ον τ £49. De iis 3) οὐὖς. Ev. 342...200 284; €. 1. 39 ...... ῬΠ πόθ. 512 MS5siCvle 40) hse Act. 133...231 Bey anSOL 302. 6.11. δὲ. 2... Ky. 339...200 (now 19) 315.¢.i.17...... ACh 134...231 Yona 99. τ2.1:- Pl. 168...242 (now 1) 328. δι 11. 31 ...... Act. 136...231 B. vii. 33 or 335.b. 1.3 ...Ev. 338...200 B. vii. 6 or 344. b. 1. 13... HV. 340...200 B. vii. 14 or 350. b. i, 21... Hv. 341...200 (Venice) 67 MSS. Ducal Palace. St Mark 5 (86: 4)...... Evan. 205...100 690 2) eee Eyan. 206...190 δ᾽ 86 ΕΣ Hyan. 207...101 ὁ. (8653: π)τετεν: Evan. 208...191 EON GOW CU) ances Evan. 209...191 Wie cece esos ste Act. 96...... 229 12 (86: 2) ......Hivst, 139 ...258 581 ᾿ PAGE StMark27 (86: 4)...... Evan. 210...101 28.(861:.}}Ξ. 83. Evan, 357...201 26) (86(3:6)) «085: Evan. 355...201 BRET ΟΣ caves Paul. 110...240 Bile Seaamamseeee Paul. 111...240 DB aa ettioch eee Paul. 112...240 494 (91: 4): Evan. ...... 220 495 (01 : 4)...... dn Gnas | Gorge 220 530) (SO ce5) πες. Evan, 211...191 540 (86 : 6) ...... Evan, 212...191 Bani (8: δ), sca ce: Evan. 355...201 542) (90 9 τὴ .-τ᾿- Evan, 213...191 BASS Oush7)) capes Evan. 214...191 544 (86: 5) ...... Evan, 215...192 545 (86: 6) ...... Evan, 356...204 BAGS ποθι νι δονρθοις Act. 140 ...232 546i (ϑύ 212) ------ Evst. 107 ...256 549 (86:°5) ...... Eyst. 108 ...256 550 (86: 7) ...... Evst. τος ...256 551-(86.:.3) i... Evst. 110...256 Nanian, 1 (1. viii.). ...Evan. U. ...134 ΑΓΕ ΡΟ aes Kvst. 141... 258 ΞΕ τ: Evan. 405...204 4 (1. xi.) Evan. 406...204 5 (1. Xi1.)......Hvan. 407...205 7 (z. xiv.) ...Hvan. 408...205 Siva) eae: Evan. 409...205 IO (t. XVL) ...Hivan, 410...205 1 (1. XViiL)...Hvan. 4T1...205 12 (1. xix.) ...Hvan. 412...205 T SHAS SRS ΒΕΠις- Evan. 413...205 14 (1. xxi.) ...Hivan. 414...205 15 (1. xxii.) ... Mvan. 415...205 τό (1. Xxiii.) ... vst. 142...258 17 (1. xxiv.)...Hvan. 416...205 18 (i. xxv.) ...Hvan. 417...205 21 (1. XXViil.).. van. 418...205 47 (1. Xxxiv.)...Hvan. 220 £64) (1. xlv.)- ...Bivst. π᾿ 264 165-(1. xlvi.) ...Hivst. ...... 204 166 (τ. xlvil.)...Evst. ...... 264 169 (τ. xlviii.)...Evst. (νους 264 P74 (ΤΣ HK) GE GVOHEY... Re. 260 χϑὴ (τονε Εἰ 265 222 (La lis)imes.cck Blysto 24-5: 265 2.35 Ale dile) τς τς Hivsts νος 205 Venet. Gr. 1. ili, (86: 1).-Hvan. 217..192 τ. iv. (86:6) not Nan. τό... Bivst. ee 204 1. lvi. (86: Ἐ) ΕΘΝ ΤΣ 582 PAGE Venet. Gr. 1. lvii. (86:7) ...Evan. ...220 1. lviii. (86:7) ...Hvan. ...... 220 1. lix. (86 :6) ...Evan. ...... 220 1. lx. (86:1) ...Hvan. 419..205 Treasury of St Mark's Church. (3) Venet. Thesaur. 1. 53, 54) 55--- Evst. ...... 265 Church of 5. Giorgio di Greco, three... Evst. ...... 265 Armenian convent, No.1531..Evan...221 (Verona) Psalter ...... Evan, O°..129 Russia 81 MSS. (Moscow) S. Syn 4...... ADOBE: Ti9/teasbes cee earns 267 Ὧν δεν Nal, OO s.28ees ἐρδυξε, 229 Aainpets VOLES eT fee ong Babee 194 AB: T3688 Bivstst4iy! « του, ες 253 Peer Be νύ, 45... τ: νιν; 253 7 a ee EVAN). 250). a5. -c-ec-n css 195 Dis os HEV AN 2 Ob e tee 5. τᾶ τόνων 194 Gop cckbs VEN 58. ποτ 0: 194 Wid: tise απ 2 .16.. Ὁ πεντε νος 104 ὅΣ:. 2.5: Paul ΠΡ ΝΟ τ 161 .:. 8: OR. στ koa 247 γῆ sates IVAN. 240) .ktachdewes «2s 195 OB. tre: Act, K and 102...149, 230 QQ:. 20 Paml) wisi BL ee ns: 241 12.» 11. Evan. O and 257..128, 195 PAG .ckas Wyant 5’... 5: 5.5.5... 195 τῷ. wars BORATOS resentodeutes.. 230 406, τεῖς ADOC: SOmb cxtetetecc.-- 247 ΑΒ. «τᾶ: Baul. Peg ἀρλυς νει. 241 460: οἷαι PV ADAH Oss. 508 lanes οι 195 204..a5u9 TVET OS 605 cic csdse anes 195 ἀδ8..ὄ Κὰ ἴσασι 56... τον 195 266...... ΘΝ ΡΠ. 254 A EP πνεῖ; Gis 2c. istais ace 254 408... 008 BYV BLS aly) κὸν tes cxtesen ee 254 491.78 PTIOBCC TM) acc τ este rae 267 2922..%5. PAUL. TVG) i. t.ce5 te eee 241 BAB, cates ROE; τοῦ if. tS hese cs 230 “EE py Ah, TOM. Svinte caves vas 230 Ch, Ser! UTS Uo. i OAR A 229 αι Oy MIVA Oo ies ovece ΡΥ 195 B80. εἴα VAN Aa Bre sssneysscnes 194 Cista...Evan, V. and 250...134—5, 195 INDEX I (GREEK MANUSCRIPTS). PAGE Typ.S. Syn.1...Hvan. 244 ........000 195 Ry sHVan, 2560. do. ssensee 195 (2) 9g...Evst. 51 and 56 ...254 11..,J0VBt, 40. ΡΣ ἘΝ 253 ἐν ἘΝῚ τ, τ. 253 18. VAN: 243 s.dscdeuneet 195 ἄχ, :Aipost., 15% ἐτῶν 267 7 ΝΒ, S58. ἘΣ πο 234 University 25......... Apoe. 65 ...248 Tabul.. Imp.......... Evan. 251 ...195 Matth. a......... AGh {G8 σῶς 229 Matth. r (Syn.?)...Apoc. 50? or go... 247, 248 Cod. Pogodini, 472...Hvan. 4P@ ...209 (Odessa). .vs.vpsencehsescs Evst. roP@ ...210 (St Petersburg) Codex Sinaiticus...... Cod. & ...83—9, 455—6, 475—6, 508 n, 521 5.1 Cod. eParoditsc.s.10-5. Evan. II...146—7 Cod. Porphyrianus,.. Act. P.....150, 477 2. 2 Cod. Sangerman...... Paul. E....153—4 Tischendorf. 1, ...Evan. I...122—3, 159 Noroff, ας, εἰ διε στο τοῦς Evan, Of...... 129 Pomphyrs νι ιδι σε Evan. ΤΡ, T¢..133 Codd. Evan, 9», 6°, 64, 62, Of, 63, Ob... 142—3 Aots Givin. BAoie 325, 326, 371, 526, 541, 546 Athos, Mount...88, 89, 177, 194, 216, 218, 229—30, 252, 409 ΓΟ ΣΕ ΡΠ κυ. 361 Audley, Edmund, Bp. ........0-0e00e "71 AUGEA θϑυδϑ..: 1: εεονι ξεν, δε θεν ΣῪ 154 Augustine, ΒΡ. ...44. 2, 79 nn. 2 and 3, 299, 301, 305, 307 and n, 309 and Nn. 2, 315 and n. 2, 453, 467, 474 0. I, 500, 510, 514, 518, 534, 535, 541» 549) 558, 563 ArmlUs Gellius ...........ὁν νοο νον οὖς 450 ἢ. 2 AUPIOU, Pe Piccc evade ene eee 228 OD Fas tice en os cd eee ea 204 Autographs of the N. T. ...2, 450, 451 INDEX II. 587 PAGE PAGE ARUENUS Tas ceee ons satovewdeonoe muiesaaet 202 and ἢ, 249, 266 n. 2, 269, 300 0. 1, MINOT, εἶν πὶ ycgtjewsns enka 152 401 DN, 402 ἢ. 1, 555 and ἢ. Bentley, Richard...7, 941, 100, 110, B and T confounded ............ 40. 3 121, 154, 156 and n.1, 183, 211, 246, Baber, iH. Hos. 42, 89, QI D, 94, 514 Babington, Churchill, papyri...... 22, 490 0. Bahiric or Memphitic dialect...323— 45, 483, 506, 508 —__—_—_———- editions and genius of version of N. T.......327—45, 395 list of its 55 extant AM ANUSCLUPUS'. 4.0 369, 384, 385, 387, 388 and n. 1, 390, 496, 504, 535; 539) 5480, 549, 551, 563, 565 n., 569 ----------- Νὶ T. reviewed...374—80 manuscripts used for... 378 Comiuto;, Prince, τς τα 77. τιν Ὁ: 145 Conflict of internal evidence......... 443 Confusion of uncial letters...10, 442.1 of certain yowels and diph- Conjectural emendation inadmissible..- 425, 433 and n, 434 and n, 538 Continuous writing ..... 10, 15, 45, 48 Coptic (or Egyptian) language and its dialects...319— 24, 343—5, 352, 356 : — alphabet: τ Ἐς ΕΝ ee 221--2 origin Οὗ MAME) ᾿ς... 321 Coptic church lessons ...... 7EN. 2; 82 Corbeienses, Codd. Lat. (1, 073, cord.) 304, 314 Corbinellts: Anite 3... -<55..40deseakaeeeee 190 ΟΟΥ̓Ο ΕΙΣ 5s... ἐν τ eek spate eee 178 Coronation oath, French ............ 364 Correctorium, Bibl. Lat....177 and n. 2, 239, 310, 314 Correctors (διορθωταὶ)...5ο---τ and n, 86, τού, 153, 450. 2, 451 ἢ, 458 Corruptions of text in second century... 449—53 Cosmas Indicopleustes...61 and n, 205, 275, 515 Cotton fragment of Genesis ...25, 31 Nn. I, 32—38, 447, description. of plates xix. Cotton paper (bombycina) ............ 23 Covell, Jo....175, 208, 224—5 and n, 244, 258 Cowper, B. H. .:..........94, §53 and τις Coxe, H. O....180, 208 and n. 2, 209 and nn, 212 n, 217 and nn, 218, 234, 236, 244, 249, 262, 269 Cozza, Joseph..,....107 and nn, 162, 249 590 PAGE | Cramer, J. A. ...199, 202, 224, 225, (345), 373» 555 Crawford and Balcarres, Earl of...334, 341, 350, 351, 352 Critical revision a source of various MOAAINGS7....c CI ate cee seen 16 Crito Cantabrigiensis (Turton, T., Bp.) 560 n, 566 Gna σοῖς ΤΟΣ τ τυ ΝΣ 286 Π.1 Curcellaus, 5., N. T. 114, 180, 394 and n. 1 CUO MY Mao poten wens coat eas ace cone dane 104 Cureton, W., Canon...42, 131, 281, 339 Curetonian Syriac version...8 n, 271, 281—6, 307, 452, 483, 495, 499 —500, 518, 529 Cursive letters ......... 28, 39—4I, 144 Cursive manuscripts, list of...165—-269 —— theircritical value estimated Curzon, Hon. R. (Lord de la Zouche)... 216, 236, 244, 249, 260, 263, 331, 334» 339 Cuza, Nic. de, Cardinal...... 178, 184, (227) Cyprian...302, 424, 448 1, 453, 535, 538, 547) 555, δύο, 564 Cyril and Methodius, Apostles of the Slavonians Cyril of Alexandria, Bp...... 146, 179, 198, 236, 335 0, 371, 472, 474 and N. I, 515, 518, 522, 527, 529, 537» 540, 541, 548, 546, 555, 560 — of Jerusalem ...239, 335 ἢ, 515, 560 Damascene, Jo....212, 372 and n, 518, 524, 547, 555 Damasus, Pope ...........0++ 299, 308—9 DGC Oy Me ΙΝ crenata soem 194 ΤΑΝ Wen. vos bes 283 ἢ, 441 Ὦ, 542 Darmarvis, ANAT. .......s0cssene 447 0.1 Dated mauuscripts...28, 39 and nn, 40 ἂν ὧ 4Υ Ὡς, 155; 125). 166, “107, 188, 234, 240, 249, 279, 283, 331 —42 Davidson, S. cited...25, 118, 287, 302, 441, 444, 523, 541, 554 De Dieu, L., Apocal. &e. De Lagarde, P. see 277, 533 INDEX II, PAGE Delitzsch, F....40N. 2, 179, 234, 245, 247, 386 τ. Demidovian, Cod. Lat. (demid.)...314, 410 Demosthenesa tay < nce 451 0, 486 Demotie writing ...%.nsseies. τὰ 319—20 Dens; Peter ax... ernst tees seseeee 311 0. Dermout, J., his collations, 207,225,251 Derr cris. % .oiice age oe ᾿ς... 360 τρις. 202 τ, ΠΥ. 113 Designed alterations alleged in text ... 17, 441, 447, 498, 530 De Wette {We Mes ΣΝ 443 Dialectic forms .......... --+--I4, 490—I Dickinson, John .........+4. 112 0. 2, 114 Dickson, W.,.P:,, Proky....scsecem 213 2.1 Dictation, writing by ............ 10, 544 Didymus......... 179, 540, 541, 555, 568 ΠΡ ΤῊΝ. 562 Dio Cassius, the Vatican...27 nN. 2, 34 &e., 47 0. 2 Diocletian’s persecution............... 454 Diodorus sche nh eee 319 Dionysius of Alexandria...343,527, 555 the Areopagite ...... 522 n. 2 —— ΒΡ. ΟΣ Cormth ts..01e 447 Dioscorides, the Vienna ............... 43 Dwwisions Of Ni. Lissccce connate eee 51—66 in the Vatican manuscript... 52—3, 63, 97, 145 Dobbin, Orlando...108, 172, 173, 1745 225, 315; 394 Dobrows ky siJexes. acct vee ve 137, 313, 365 Dodie se. aiiavaeveecatte tee 1745 395 νον. 252 Donaldson, J. W. ... 41, 402 ἢ, 2, 486, 487 Ὁ. 3 Dortems in Nib ΩΣ eae 491 Dorotheus, Archp. of Mitylene .... 166 Bp. of Tyre...229, 234, 245, 384, 389 Do 2AM δ," τ ρει τεσ aden 177 Dressel, “Albi τος ξεν κι νν πεν τὴ ΙΟΙ ἢ. 2 Ducas, Demetrius ......... 375, 376 0. 2 Ducat of Rhodes «...5..50...0..40 241 N. Dapuy C.,F.5 and Po ssc ΠΩΣ I5I—2 BHbiontie Gospel τ τιν πον εκ eee 453 BONE; δέγοηιθ,ι. vaccuvsiucssdes eevee 180 INDEX II. 591 PAGE PAGE Ecclesiastical writers, dated list of ... | Humenes, King of Pergamus.......... 22 372—3 | Euripidis fragmenta...47 0. 2, 209 N. I Eclogadion defined ......... 71, 124, 164 | Eusebius, Pamphili, Bp. ...27 n. 1, 49, list throughout the year ... 54 2.2, 55 and nn.1 and 2, 56n. 1, 75—81 274, 301, 371, 394 0. 2, 429, 431, 447 Edinburgh Review .......«νννν νος 402 D. 1 and n.1, 4480, 449, 4500. 2, 454, Editions, primitive, or cure secunde, of books of N. T....18, 482 and n. 2, 498, 529, 530—1 Egyptian versions of N. T. 271, 318 mood ἘΠ ΟΠ ΡΠ cand cas levatenee soley + sso wee 306 SEDC ROTI Cl Ἐς τον τοις 302, 458, 459 Elders of Moses, their number...474 0.1 Elearchian dialect (see Bashmuric) 355 Ellicott, C. J., Bp....273, 358 un. 2, 362 N. 3, 441, 462 D. 1, 550, 553 and n, 554 Ellis, A. A. (see Bentleii Crit. Sacra) Elzevir editions of N. T. ...19, 391—2 Emendation and recension distinguish- COUR ΤΕ ΡΥ προ 425, 434 Emmeram, St., Cod. Lat. (em.) ...... 314 PETC ROT 5. ΤΠ Dass. aus cieeescasetenes 259 Engelbreth, W. F. (Bashmuric) ... 191, 349; 355, 356 Aiphesus, Council ΟΥ̓. ςτὸν τον στον 360 Ephraem Syrus...109, 233, 274, 285 n, 547: 559 Epiphanius, Bp. ...48, 49 n. 1, 68 n. 2, 138, 448, 453, 458 and n, 474 n. 1, BIO, 515, 517, 522 N. 2, 523 and n, 525) 527, 529, 541, 545, 555 Erasmus, Desid. ... 73 1, 99, 118, 165, E73, -178, 222, 220, 229;,,238, 230; 245, 305 0, 369, 370 0, 379, 380 and n, 384 and n, 386, 387, 389, 453, 506, 535 and n. 3, §39, 5480, 549, 561, 565 and n, 569 his N. T. reviewed ... 380—5 Erezzo, F. M., Count ............ 291---2 Erlangen, Cod. Lat. (erl.) ............ 314 Ernesti, J. A....... 300, 390 0, 408, 446 Erpenius, T., Arabic vers....367 and n. ἘΠῚ GMACOTUM ...... Ὁ... 66 ὁεο νον νοι 105; 202 ἜΠΟΣ ΟΡ ΤΙΝ 3.51.6 ςν «ερρυξῳΣ ἐοοσυασυνε 364 Evangelistaria ......... II, 68, 251, 364 SEVEN OUOGUL. oxcisseniat σα δε oeet 254, 255 Euclid, dated manuscript of, in the Bodlevan ἀν τος τον ἐν ουνενέτε 39 and n, 2 455 and n, 457, 474.1, 481, 495, 511, 512, 513, 515, 526, 527, 534s 536, 560 Eusebian canons ... 55—58, 63, 86, 91, 93, 111, 127, 132, 134, 135, 140, 142; 143, 144, 147, 164 &¢., 332—7, 350, 384, 454, 455 D, 457, passim ——_____——. their critical use... 4410, 482 0.2, 498, 521, 522 and nN. 1, 524 Eusebius, Bp. of Vercelle............ 303 Eustathius of Antioch.................. 49 Euthalius, Bp. and his Chapters ... 49, 58 and n, 59, 60, 62, 63, 93, 148, 159, 184, 187, 211, 216, 225, 236, 237, 376, 389, 547, 560 Euthymius Zigabenus ... 185, 194, 195; 198, 474: 497 D, 511, 528, 534 ΓΟ πΠΠ τ Ππ:᾿ 458 Extent of various readings...... 18, 395 ΤΠ ΖΔ SERRE CE rE ORCS eaCCCE: a ais Es 360 GOERS SONU ft sreetens τς ΤΩ ΔΩ 178—9 PG CUNGUS. > νον δον τας Ὁ ΠΕ et erie 564 ἘΒΟΝ cAM aria: τον αξ ας ἐδ ἐν πο εν ἊΣ 179 Families of manuscripts ... 403—4 and N, 415—7, 420—2 Fathers, their silence of little weight, 496 Hausiie,, ΘΕ ΘΕΟΣ τς τρεῖς Το 2077. Fayyumiyeh version ........02.0..000. 367 Fel, 0.: BPs... xsci.lsc ene nameeee 394, 396 ΤΟΝ: τύπτε: 174, 327, 360, 369, 394-5) 402, 407 n. JE ROS COS Bopbac soscodcnpapocaccconoonc 235 Ferdinand of Valladolid (Pintianus)... 375 Ferrar, W. H. ...... 167, 184, 201, 473 RGU GH as ass aaah akan een eee 496, 507 “ Five Clergymen,” the, cited ...... 545 Fleck, F. F. ... 109, 149, 191, 305, 313 Floriacensis, Cod. Lat. ( flor.) ...... 314 Ford, Henry ... 100, 133, 249, 329, 347 —49, 350 592 “INDEX II. PAGE PAGE Foreign matter in manuscripts...61—2, | Goodwin, C. W. ....c..cceceseeeseneeees 322 1gI G09 OF ρο[ρὦἽἋὋιυνἅοτ eee Eee 174. Form of manuscripts...26, 27 and ἢ, 1, | Gospels, ancient divisions of .... 52—8, 455 Ὁ. 63, 145 ‘Forojuliensis, Cod. Lat. (for.)...... 313, | Gothic version of N.T....129, 271, 358 447 0. I —60, 395 Forster, C. ... 172, 173 0, 305, 546—4, | Grabe, J. Ei. τ. τι τος, 92 0. 2, 94, 171 560 n, 563 0. 1, 565 n, 566 Gr@vius; ΠΟ πο ΣΕ 177. 179 Fossatensis, Cod. Lat. ( fos.)......... 314 | Grafton, A. τις ἘΞ ΕΣ 562 Francius, Peter .....0...ccccccceeseeeee 156 | Grammatical forms, peculiar...379—8o, Frankish ‘Version: ....0.....cel.sc.ceees 365 489 BOY Mer nec ecto ts ctses nttotetohees 406n.1 | Greek era employed in dated manu- Friderico-Augustanus, Cod. .... 22, 29, ΒΟΥΙΡΟΒ. οτος εν τι ρενες ἐπε Ως 20/1. 2, ox 32 0, 32—38, 51 andn, 83 Green; DLS sterner. 438, 516 0. I, 551 Frisingensis, Cod. Lat. (r.) ......... 306 | Greenfield, W., Peshito N. T....... 278 IID ETENS 5 cose ΠΝ 381, 383, 384 | Gregory Bar-Hebreus ......... 275, 204 Foi; AP TANCISCAN.!.....<.scantece+--0 173 | Gregory, the Illuminator ......... 292 n. IBY UMUC TUGUUIS seein nieces ce seieoeictee eeeivinrsare 362 | Gregory Nazianzen... 68: γι. 1, 92 Nn. 2, Fuldensis, Cod. Lat. ( fuld.)...313, 424 136, 138, 161, 221, 247, 515, 523 IQ CTUGL a. Sense fest ott oh eee υλοουθαϑὶ 541 | Gregory Nyssen.. ... 48, 162, 190, 248, χε yh aes Sere ne aS te δν 313 497 1, 525, 555 Gregory Thawmaturgus .........++ 555 n. Gabelentz, H. C. de, Ulfilas ......... 359 | Gregory ΤΡ ΟΡΘΕ 25.0 ΤΠ τ} ΟΟΟΠΟΊ Sic ἘΣΣΙ στη νι ΩΣ: τὰς 225, 395 | Griesbach, J. J....42, 53, 72, 124, 130, Gaisford, Th., Dean...177 nN, 214, 227 137, 153, 160 and ἢ. 2, passim Gale, Th., Dean ...... 175, addenda x. his N. T. and collations ... Gd, ΒΕ wacweesaascncncareorercte 140, 156 414—8 Gatien, St, Cod. Lat. (gat.) ......... 314 | Gross, 15. ΟΣ PPE RSA SS τ 134 τὸ GQOOCTILUUS, ΤΟΎΣ λον 475 | Grotius, Hu. .......ἀ6ν νυν νον νον ονο σον 523 0. Gelagitis; POPC... s-secesaseh se 459 and n, | Grouping of authorities ......... 480—4 Brn Bae i ss ee 178 | Guelferbytani, Codd. Lat. (gue.)... 306, ΟΜΝ, 11.200 2 πιο τ Ὁ 522 Ὥ. 2 314 Geography at fault .................... 473 ———— of Chrysostom...371 n, Georgian Version............ 271, 363-—-4 428 Gerhard ἃ Miistricht, N. T....177, 394 | Gwizot, P,P. («0 νον νννννν νον κεν εν νον 427 Nn. 1, 399—400, 436 n, 443 and n. 1 Gutbier, Giles, Peshito N. T. ...... 278, Germain, St, des Prez...153,159, 207,304 535, 539 Germanus, Patriarch ............... 547 | Gutierrez, José.............+ 378 and n. 1 Gibbon, Edw....... 358 and n. 1, 560 n, 565 Hacket, J0:; "Bp. 0..<..ssantas 0en tween 82 Cildementen a2) sssamereercs 362, 363 | Haenel, G..... 193, 213, 236, 244, 249, Giorgi, A. A. .....2+5 132, 346, 348, 354 260 Gidhe, ia ee 193 | Haitho, King of Armenia ........... 361 Glosses, marginal ... 438 and n. 2, 539, | Hammond, C. E....... 17 1, 150, 369 n, 566 465 D, 4931, 4990, 524, 544, 553 0. Goda, “ERs sivct sxe ctaxtesver crecepwevsces 174 Hammond, ΕἾ. .......cesecsseccoeee 172, 394 Godeschalk, heretic ............ 141, 158 | Hansell, Εἰς He ... 1.100. 0see 138 n, 148 Goeze on Complut. Bible ... 379 and n, | Hardt, Ign., Catalogue ...... 206, 252 Goldhagen, Herm., N. T. ....2..006 207 | Harkel, Thomas of ... 278, 287—8, 289, GOMTDD «oo cua τεῳ ψεκο τρυ να σεν ἐν ν Ἐνπ δον 177 290, 295 INDEX II. 593 PAGE PAGE Harleian, Codd. Lat. 1775, 1772 (harl.) | Hippolytus...... 126, 510, 522, 527, 555 313, 314 | Homer and his manuscripts...4, 33, 34, Harley, R., Earl of Oxford... 152, 258 Harmonies of the Gospel History ...12, 54, 56 τ. 2, 119, 126, 136, 190, 196, 202, 313, 428, 472, 512 ἘΠ OTe YO tore bocca peicccot PCS Meine 172 UE CY MOE NUS .ace.janca cacacqonatantacceutts 176 EDC OTIC: ΠΕ ἐπ, = cctsesaephta tS 148, 194 Hebrew idioms softened ............... 13 EL CUR EMNUNTUAG ONY) sais τς τς τ τοῦδε τς ττθος ees 556 Hebrew (or Jewish) Gospel ... 144, 282 and n, 534 Hebrew Bible divided into chapters...65 EFC OCSUD DU Simm tanec en esac hes 274, 524 ἜΡΟΟΥΤΩΣ HNO ase ase. eas nabs |e 260, 366 EITM « a caide sg τος, denoted vers IQI ML CUREDUS SS LUM ac occ 2ecin sls's alee eRe 186 Hellenistic dialect ............... 485—6 JERS TOG 1G ROD LEM OR RA Le 161 MONSTER ACS (Gra: κι. sensi πο ξῶητι 194, 253 Hentenius, Jo. (Louvain Lat. Bible)... 311, 393 Herculanean papyri ...22, 29, 31, 32— . 38, 41, 44, 45, 47) 97 Heringa, Professor ............c60ceee 120 Hermansen, Christian............ 286 n. 1 FLCTMGS:....0040c00% 30, 84, 88, 93, 151 ἢ. Hermathene .........0.000. addenda ix. x. Hermonymus, G., of Sparta ...167, 174 n. 2, 176, .197 HL PTOMOAR ss asacataadaasauissss Seca ἘΣ 473 Herodotus ...23, 24 0. 1, 319, 354, 439, 506 Hesychius of Egypt... 456, 459 and n. Heusinger, J.. FB. ........ 129 n. 2, 184 Eserate WEUIDE, foc λιυ σον δες ες ἢ 310 Hieroglyphic writing ............ 319—20 Hieronymus or Jzrome ... 25 and n, 28 n, 48, 144, 272 DN. I, 299, 301, 308 and n, 309 and n.1, 315 and ἢ. 1, 325, 326, 356, 361, 376, 443, 446 n. 2, 454, 456—8, 459, 481, 498, 500, 504 and n.2, 511, 512, 516 n. 2, 518, 529, 5342 535 541, 5425 547, 549) 558» 557» 559 563 D. 2, 568 Hilary cited... 424, 453. 457, 474 0. 1; 504 and N. 2, 514, 523, 524, 527, 538, 550, 555, 560 Hinckelmann, ΡΨ 179 S. 36, 37, 42, 43, 47, 102 0. 1, 131, 490 and n, Homeoteleuton...9,86, 397; 439,559,568 Hook, W. F., Dean 148 THOP ACE: ..κυωυος ον ϑυτεν ρον τὴν ἘΒ.Ὶ Τε shee 475 Horne, T. H., Introduction and Tre- gelles’ edition...51 ἢ, 56 ἢ. 2, 58 n, 67 πὶ 3, 92 Net, OF}, 136," τὴν τις ἢν 180, 233 Π. I, 2531, 279, 308, 348, 359) 390 1, 430 and n, 450 n. 2, 553 Ὦ, 555 Horoscope, Egyptian ................0 322 THOT, Hide A ee. 68, 158 n. 2, 164 0, 200 ἢ, 204, 231, 248, 314, 431---2, 433 Ὁ, passim rr Hortatory forms of expression ...... τ 441, 545 UG So Levene: 98 ἢ. 1, ΙΟΙ, 141 ἢ, 2, 420, 460 and n. his system of recensions 458—6o Huish, Ale... ἀπαλ π το το, τος: 94; 553 N. ΗΠ LON 5 Lian. ea ΝΟΣ 175, 225 Hutter, Elias, Peshito N. T....276, 535, 539 ΟΝ Hwiids Ae iG ΟΝ ΝΣ ἘΠ eee 228) Hyperides, papyrus fragments of ... 22, 33—38, 39) 41, 445 45, 322 ΤΡαδι. ΑΙ ἐπε τες ΠΈΔΟΝ ΜῊΝ 541 Tbersan version τἰς το νυ ιδι τ ene ok 363—4 Ignatius ......... 445 and ἢ. 2, 541, 555 Thre, Jo:; Gothie N. ΤῸ ποσίν 360 Indiction...39 nn. 1 and 2, 80 n.1, 81 N. 1, 140, 193, 200, 206, 214 N, 257 Ingoldstadt, Cod. Lat. (ing.)......... 314 Ink, ancient, its composition ...... 25 — red........... 26, 160 and nu, 7, 202 Inspiration of Scripture, its nature...2 Internal evidence considered. ..433—440 — exemplified 493, &e. 500 ἢ, 526, 536 Interpolations, various readings arising ATOM ποτ, ΣΝ τ naasosenhe 7, 452, 501 Tonisms ann. ΠΡ as. ἘΠ ΕΣ 401 Iota, ascript and subscript ...... 4I—2 and n, 160 and n. 2,380, 383—4 Treneus ...369 0, 370 D, 394 0. 2, 423, 4450.1, 449—50 and n. 2, 451 n, 98 594 INDEX II. PAGE PAGE 453, 455, 4640, 466, 474 0.1, 494— | Kipling, T., Dean, ... 112 n. 2, 114—5 5, S00, 510,513, 514) 5223, 8555. S41 | BtehingG. WW... cs., scepeeseouae 136 DECEIT DS SiGe noses cao ΒΡ ΜΕ ΟΝ 303 | Knappe,.G. ΟΝ ἘΞ ate 4340s Trish monks at St Gall...142, 156, 157 | Knittel, F. A. ...... 129, 130, 184, 228, and ἢ, 305—6 306, 359 : Irregular constructions softened ... 13 | Knolleke, Mr .............s.ceeeeeeeeees 145 ἸϑΊΘΟΥ ΟἹ BOVUO ..., κε τοῦτον spesences 129 | Kuenen, A. (see Cobet, C. G.), Vat. Itacisms, ...... 10, 17, 86, 95, 124, 126, ΒΕ τ στεγεεν., «οὐ. 104 DN, I, 2 130, 379, 441, 475, 478, 506, 545, | Kuster, L....94, 125, 156, 166, 167, 399 548 and n, 556 ———— his manuscripts............ 399 Itala ...300 and n, 1, 301, addenda x. Italics of English version......... 9,559 | Labbat Conciline τ τ εν πο τς 326 Lachmann, C. ... 19, 302, 303, 307 and SGBIONSRY 5.0 .00220.c acdsee 324, 345 N, 312, 313, 371, 434) 436, 4429 4445 Jackson, John ...... 114. 176, 181, 224 463, 465, 487, 502—3, 504.1, 517, Jacobi, St, Cod. Lat. (jac.) ......... 314 523, 530, 546, 548 and ἢ, Jacobson, W., Bp.......... gin, 177n.1 | ———— his N. T. and system re- James, St., his asyndeta ............ 439 VACWO...s002+ncniosenaceus mer ὅν 422—6 James, T., Bellum Papale............ 312 | La Croze ...... 121, 327, 328, 345, 361 SOOO εἰν, ΠΤ. asrcatae fuiee sas sacle ese oi atone AQ. ἡ Eacctantiis So ox.<.:scoses ΤΣ 303, 453 Jerusalem copies of N. T.... 51, 1440, | Lambeth library............ 210, 212, 366 187, 509—I0 Lamy, John... 190, 202, 203, 213, 236, Jerusalem Syriae version...290—3, 533 244 Jewish sacred books ............ 394 n. 2 | Land, P. N., on Curetonian Syriac ... John, Bp. of Seville, Arabic version... 285 n. 366—7 | Lanfranc, Archp..........se0sceee 64, 310 AOWMUBONs Lea ns ΕΕΣ 176) |) DeQMNG OF S.0s00.cac..n08Secce se ecee pee 229 JONES, ‘Rew buierzeinevess odes tees 280, 520n.1 | Laodicea, Council of............... 90, 93 JOSEP ῬΑ ΘΠ 528. «-.... orenscrejenceneebe 360 | Laodiceans, Epistle to ......... 158, 277 OSEDICUB) Serintts cy τις tetra 350, 473; 543: |) Lardner ΝΕ τυ. cv avesesecane 445 ἢ. 2 Journal of Philology ... 147, 158 D. 2, | Larroque .....cccccescsssessesseoree 168, 169 162 N, 306, 307, 313, 315, 405 D. Liascar, A. δὲ... νοι 109 Journal of Sacred Literature ... 85 0. 3 TORUS . 50 o0Sudedscnpas eens 223 Jude, St., followed 2 Pet.......... 558—9 and n, 1 DURUIS Hiss, canoes τε εδνύονερξιο γος 360, 393 SSS TE ere oan coe 156 Justin Marty? ...... 53, 453 and n, 500, 510, 520, 522, 538 Justinian, ΕἸΧΟΡΘΥΟΥ. ........,..ψ..ὃὄὍὉ.ὁ«ἀτ νος 148 συ ΠΝ. ς, tauesstodeasatiees wovesoeuas 485 ΕΗ ΙΔ .1νδοῖλβες tins neig semen απ ινυκων 453 001}, Le Waid « αν τισι: 366—7 Ἰωάννης, orthography of... 489 and n, 1 Karkaphensian Syriac version...294—5 Kaye, Fay BD sxenes 446 ἢ. 3, 453 ἢ, 564 Kelly, W....65 0, 2, 164, 193, 236, 246, 249, 512 N. 2, 568, 569 Kenrick, Jon Ua. τ τ τε τς addenda x. Latinising, charges of ... 147, 358, 360 —I, 379) 407, 483 Τίνας We eATCD ps, ἐμὶν ee osnves 148, 171 (laud.) Bodleian Cod, Lat. ......... 314 Laurenee, R., Archp.......... 417 and n, Laurentian Library at Florence ... 188 Le Barbier 75% ck οὐδοῦ οἷς ἘΦ ΠΤ 218 Leeclere 0.5.1 δ. «δὲς στα atesmtede 406 Le Fevre, Guy, Peshito Ν, T....... 276 J. CU Btaples:. .ic.ceseseee 238 Leaning uncial letters...38 and n, 142, 143, 150, 162 Lectionaries of N. T.... 11, 66, 68—71, 164, 250, 290—3, 438, 510—1, 516, 522, 523 — of Old Testament...... 70, 80, 251 ἢ, 255, 262, 268 INDEX II. 595 PAGE PAGE Lee, Edw., Archp. ...... ἡ τς Ὁ. Οὐ 384 | Malan, 5. C....71 0. 2, 273, 202 Ὦ, 346 Lee, Sam., Peshito N. T....... 278, 279, 367 1, 505, 520 N. I, 540, 562 Le Long, J....165, 180, 223, 331, 336, 388—9 Leo the Wise, Emperor ............ 165 Leo X, Pope...... 375, 377 and nn, 381 Lepsius 319 Liddon, H. P., Canon...4400. 1, 553 ἢ. Lightfoot, J, B., Canon...158 n. 2, 273, 313, 315, 318, 357, 496, 521 n. 2, 524 Ὁ, 528 N. 2, 533 ἢ. 2, 547 Linen Paper (charta) .................. 23 aga Codd. Latt. (lips. 4, 5, 6)... 314 Lancode W. ... 433 Ὁ, 434 ἢ, 442 0. 1, 450 ἢ. 2, 505 and ἢ. ἘΠ 1655 EVIMIIVE).....0.scc-e γε τον 547 Lloyd, C., Bp. (N. T. Oxon.)...... 55, 63 AQUCT Laci erer sch cokes ecko Geet 548 0. COU Pies OLHIRE...s..cocccesenes+e- 359 EH CSOILET MAR ata tnc Scie te Pekeene Secescoees 254 MEOVCUSS DUALCY. 358}. Ἰξεοῖξος τοις τς 263 LLiiAtin, (Cis τρούορ δ νου έμε aS PER PEE rene 470 NOLEN Anyeoe cee cere cn sicartnae eco 407 WEG, Sei terts tessa τ ee? 169 PERU OE ors ness NN 4252S AUER 151 Lucar, Cyril, Patriarch......89, 367 n. Lucas, F., Brugensis...... 99, 177 0. 2, 311, 314, 393 MUCTOM Coe eee 506 nD, 543 0. Lucian of Antioch...... 456, 459 and n. Lucifer of Cagliari ............ 424, 541 Luxoviensis, Cod. Lat. (lux.) ...... 314 PP CODUPON Are success tocteevtvcasets 489 1. 3 Wey Eas COURIC Ne Te. cil. cece 360 NUGOUULOT ns neeet aes ΣΥΝ scent ere eee SAS GCA, Gieliserevstntecersce toners 145 Mace D:-or W., his’ Nok. τον 402 Macedonius, Patriarch ............... 555 Madden, Sir F............. 22, 43, 458. UMUAERU ten ccsesasconmecace see eotenee 544 ον Vs, ATCUP. csccscevseve sarees 440 Mai, Angelo, Cardinal...43, 97, ΤΟΙ n. 2, 102—5, 162, 232, 304; 305, 321, 337; 338, 340—2, 350, 373» 544, 550 WAGRTUOTIROUCR a c'sg yu cren vogue Ἀν δ τ νος ἈΤῸΣ 519 N. I, 358n. 2, 360, 362 n. 3, 364, 365, 367, 476, 525 and n, 530 n. MGTICT ROM dace neteas se esaterdccn τιον τ: τς 319 MGMG Cis ee. erat tace sachets 215, 252 Manuel, Emperor ............ 248 and n. MGNGS AD Petts tetee can eaneeceereee sees 533 Marcion, heretic.............-- 448 and n. Mariane, Cod. Lat. (mar.) ......... 314 Marine: Gebers sisa eee tiaeeene cess 127 Marsh, Herbert, Bp. ...115, 174 0. 2, 175, 182, 207 N, 213, 223, 379, 388 and n. 1, 560 n, 566 NAT Chips te Ste o,f tee 183 Marshall, Th. ...327, 360, 365, 395, 50% ΠΥ. Bites ΘΝ ΓΤ αν 450 ἢ. 2 Martianay, T....300 0. 3, 304, 306, 314 Martin, St, Tours, Cod. Lat. (mt.) 314 Martins BEE TEAS. wi. cisnn. cet ΤΣ αὖτ ΤΣ Martyrs, era οὗ... 89, 331 0, 331—42, 347, 367 Massmann, H. F., Ulphilas ......... 359 Materials for writing ............s 22—5 Ματθαῖος, orthography of............ 488 Matthaei, Ch. F. ... 69, 126, 128, 134, 149, 153, 156 andn.1, 161, 176 n, 180, 194—5, 226, 228, 229—30, 239, © 240, 247, 252, 253—4, 267, 314, 371, 373, 414, 417, 552 his N. T. and collations... 408 —II Matthias Corvinus, King ............ 177 Mauris Cordatus .......c..cccceserees 177 Mazarin, Card. .... 167, 180, 197, 198, 199, 256 Medicean manuscripts at Paris... 109 and n. 2, 167, 170, 199, 223, 231, 242 Meermann’s manuscripts ... 2, 207, 234, 258 FUE UO Se 5p DER SCREC ER CER coon erc eS 274 Memphitie version of N. T. (see Ba- 183 and n. ΠΟ Vie Scape beaou0 SEEPOO NOOB ας τυ 367 Menandri fragmenta .........068 47 ἢ. 2 Menology defined......71, 164, 256, 533 passim : list of throughout the year ... 81—2 Metaphor, reasoning in............... 469 MVE CEROCUUS® oer neers wes oleeets 243, 453 38—2 596 INDEX I. PAGE PAGE FC) ps a. BO ΤΣ ΡΝ 9, 443, 548 | Moses, Chorenensis ............00002 360 IU ARIE ΣΕ πές 1130.1 | Moveable type, supposed cases of... ATECTL NOON ΤΙΝ. Tn'.>0nopkers capmeenes 314 127, 358 Michaelis, J. D...72, 165, 182, 252, 280, || Mould, Στ, τ τὰ 183, 208 379, 390 ἢ, 408, 410, 493, 535 5.1 Mico, Abbate............... 100, 103, 248 Maddeldonp, TE. <.wctessencees νοι see 226 Middleton, T. F., Bp....... 15, 381 0. 1, 408, 493, 501 0. 2, 542 C1 CTT Io Dee (Of ack SEs Te SR eee 154 Migne, Patrologia ..........0csscesc000 326 Miesrob, Armenian............... 360, 364 Mill, J., .... 53, 59, 63, 72, 100, 112 ἢ. 2, 114) 110, 123, 148, 152, 153, 165, 171}, 172, 175, 222—7, 238—9, 245, 251—2, 258, 266, 274, 301, 309, 310, 314, 327, 328, 360, 361, 363, 365, 366, 369—70, 378 and n. 2, 379, 385, 386 and n, 387, 388 and n.1, 390 ἢ, 392; 394, 395—-6, 400, 414, 436, 523 N, 539, 5605 his N. Py .............-.395—399 ——— list of his manuscripts ... 398 Milligan, Wm..... 17 D, 443 1. 2, 518, 524, 527, 529 ΠΟΙ͂ Dea so adds Perec cow ee 278 Mingarelli, J. A. ... 204, 346, 348, 350 Miracles sparingly resorted to...... I—2 Missy, Cesar de... 170, 208, 211, 213, 267, 268 ἘΠΕ ΤῊ; εἰς (Biot ace eee ἀπ. hee σοὶ 206, 221 Mixed uncial and cursive letters ... 129 n. I Moldenhawer, 1). G. ...... 102, 252—3, 378 πὶ I, 412, 413, 417 Monacensis, Cod. Lat. (q.)... ........306 Monk id). eB Dx: & vee . ib eam Pere er re ht Pe 17, 498 ὩΣ ΓΟ ars Gace 472 10... censdacadanseenensbeese 451 τὰ ΡΤ τ 286 n. I DA. va daeannteese 450 1. 3 1 RCE 9. 332, 364, 467, 2: 0 Uo MRE PERCE OSL 30 470 0. 3 495—7 τς ΘΝ ἐν 8, 452 D, 453, 500 QF wees κε ama ttee ace tus 472 RSL EL, ..0y eae eee 488 |e SR ORM oe Sm a eee 13 BZ: .cepapseoseetts cannes ΤΕ 13 ἐξ :8:».. ἀράξεεερδιος et 455}. ε 28—31....0000. 437) 457, 502 We tee cfete nielojaiciasti te oislale sieiatat tote 15 RLS Zia wens bovaesehes=sepeicesene 13 ἘΠ ΡΥ 13 FRE τὰ — 16 oasis. guesses oocadd es 9 δα οι CCC ORME CERISE Goer 272 ΕΠ 16, 261 D, 439, 455 ΓΈ τ πος 12, 272 Beye ΝΠ seen 12 ΡΥ Se ee, 16 536. sasaki eee ae 457 TRY, TS τον στ tat eee eee 12 3S) - .cdiacie sem seen 437 το core Ὲ τα ες; 12 BRYA O's ccna snd eener ΕΣ δα 17 1. 20 \apssesp dena sbeeeee tere 13 16s: aden teen 13 207 tin See wey a te cas 13 ARVs ZO, de sodexites Sse 388 Be Pe graranguses sees τον ss 489 Ἔτη τ τι cc 16, 519 Ἄν τὸς, oe ae ποθ ee 9 2 Ὁ 5... 13, 106 n. 2, 4τ6 n. ab (ΣῊ 27) sites. 379 CM rc, rere δἰ Ὁ 16 Xie TO ein taboade Measaries 11, 478 ἜΣΤΕ ΠΡ Το 425, 472 ἘΠῚ Up πον II ἘΠ 12, 276, 504 BB osbassnades Meret tens 455 0. AQ\aro fot stots shee oaks 472, 480 Po were τὰν dcorcrcctritr 13 ΟΡ ΠΤ τ ἠδ᾽: 15 604 INDEX III. PAGE PAGE Matthew xxviii, 1 ...........0c00008 5110 ΤκΘ 685. λιν beeen 332 ΠΥ 472 RO <02dh econ audeeaeneeeree 170. Wa ΚύΙ Ἄ πεν ceceeensteceesence 16 Gas seasdevas Ree 185, 378 Bosh πὴ 488 Πρ πὶ 5 434. Qilieeecacesneasnessonsaness 488 ἘΠ δι... 513 ΡΣ aned soaatoc Ot 7 482 ΗΕ 1... 13 ὙΑ 470 D. 3 OD! Ὁ ΠΟ sine 17, 177, 390 ΕἸΣΙ εξ απ ΣΝ ccacegacaass 12 By έέέέρέΕσοὅὁΕονη[οι teenie 488 DOkrrch cat ΤΉ 438 n.1 i A YE eee 453 and n. DR caiearitieiPovas ese’ 505 ἢ ἂν, αὖ πο εν Ν 488 AUS OC Ey Ore σαι τος 14 TS i504 ssn sabes cones eee 12 11 θεν τ τνου ες δ δι οςς ρει ονρυς II σέο... 12 τα WO yachts ἀπε νος σεῖς 472 CL ree er 13 DOM tis cadeestes.semncotes 489 Ποὺ, eee 12 BO via οθευτάτου ἐγεδι: addenda x. ΡΠ. 16, 515 Ὁ ΠΡ ΤΡ Ὦ Ιο A. aisdgaessvseaseesenmeen eee 8 36 ἘΠ ὉΠ eben at ῦ 506 43) iced Edda dcdeeee ... 473 ΕΟ Τ᾿ 491 Wile 3D ceva ved cnet tax II Whi, somuded es baths Seige 473 PK, ΒΟ δ, ποτ ee 457 DL xeiooersslgcacsaaeeaeeee ees 332 AQ’ crocs esi cde Io ἜΣ ΠΥ» 433 Ὦ, 505 ᾿Ξ 9) - 474 D2 νυνασευ πεν tet ccieseche tah 473 ΗΜ seen cout tecnesten II WL Bure wen ceesd eases verte. ἧς 13 ἜΝ ΡΠ. 13 ean Anecone RAE ASD FA 470 0. 3 41, 42 ...438, 482 1. 2, 517 TPAivceosccde ert 6. 13 Σῖ EF SPER ΕΝ 467 I Oven uscatnn dees caaei ete 332 ΡΠ ΠΠΠΠ..Ὑ 0 τ. 472 EQ trsstacliosrrcie Il, 4710, 506 Ὁ. 9 BL ταν ἐκξπεῖροι,. ἀδλι τος οτος 473 Xi, CHG eis eeca oeeeneee eee 15 ΡΟΝ, ΠΡ 136 5111 cthanwrntewate eens 489 ἢ. 2 gi ae Tee ce ore 470 1. 3 Pah ek eee cr 474 AW 8 Be ilds cas Noakes epaae ete 473 SID ass . 5ΟΙ σον εσξους, ον ester 441 0, EV. 21 ......ἱν ι νυ δον τε 475 PSE) eee ON eR cee ce 506 ΣΎ, 12. 2c eee II, 475 Nhe seer eoconch mos On LCT ec 498 ΟΡ estes nen ς- 10 FO τος υξεξες, ες ἘΞ ἘΚ ἘΣ 11 2B ode sinsaia pias Shee eae 491 > ce Oy Pere eee es, 506 NV. GO) «το νος δον δι de eee 9 MALS) διε δ, ἐπε τ; 125 332 KVLLL TQ. τονινύυ τον ΝΥΝ 408 DOW vedshet meee tenet means 17 JQ) scsiccceveve nets sear 9 ΤΟ 473 XIE: AU, ΔΝ 523 and ἢ. PUG ΡΣ τς ΤΠ 401 REL. 24) ccdeceua gy ΕΣ 475) 401 Wibdddovddedescetetenets 470 N, 3 BUS al icrevesacereee 532—3 ΤΥ ΡΝ tae ele 16 EX 27, US 2.2. ἐπι ἐν τ 276, 519 Gavcrd taeA TRL Pees 10 TQ, 20 ..seeeeee 482 n. 2, 519 ἘΝ BOis sth έε τες, etenscvrt 12, 332 37 Meee 12 XVi. 9Q—20...7, 98, 147, 332, 364, 431 44 πες 9, 132) 332—7s 4551457, 507—13 457, 521 Litto: ἃ, i=—ngeaeszeen ein dss 485 ἢ. 49. sevcrsrecrecvcescnevenes 40: ΠΡ ΡΤ ΓΑ 522 ο ὦ ΑἸ Το τι. 332—7 18. OO NOP “τ ρει νι τες 480 ΠῚ 475 ΓΟ Peres raters 17 n, Ziavaiientcasaeeete 332—7, 524 INDEX III. PAGE Luke xxiv. 3, 6, 9, 12, 36, 40, 42, 51... 482 n. 2 TS oes ΡΟ 455 0. ΣΧ συν συ δενυ οςς 285 OL M ΤΠ Geos... τοῦ σεν ΡΟΝ 17, 525 ΡΠ ἐς Ἐν eck Boe 16, 4640 INE Boopenonebor οὐ ΣΟΙ oudece 12 Dig Bi heen... coe eeeh ἀξ δες αὐ ΒΒ 475 UU eg de NERS Sargeeras τ τ απο τὺ: 526 FOTO! 55 hagas dias cshes sr 526 MO sencccscchcdbess«sives 525 0. NASA Seenetree 9, 18, 132, 146, 332—7) 527 BRE cones ate ucheeenasieys 10 ὙΠ SOs SO hs wcsnoteretmateen= a 14 0 “ya Rete) ee aa ae Oe ae 16, 529 ἘΠῚ cist « cisopeconaeane aad 5330.1 ΘΟ oaiiceiume tigen 33% 436, 476 Vil. 53—Vili. 11...7, 18, 761, 81 and nn. 2, 3, go Nn. 2, 126, 132, 147, 276, 317 —8, 332—-7) 457, 530 —4, addenda x. VOD τον λον τᾶ νοέονς ὡς 179 0. 2 COREE RBOOOOUO: COOORE 434 0. BRUM oT ch nwinn laine van agne ses 476 KMD ΣΝ τ oe cavesiecvacseenssr 476 ἌΝ 0 eis. nct geese: gone RUNDE Oe 2,0 ᾽ν ς teeter «(35s 18, 480 WUE Oo. c gas προσ νς 384 n, 548 ἢ. ΡΤ νος τον τας scelacanicn sien’ 548 WiDr το λει Stas σας 567 ἐφ λυ ΓΟ πα 476 BEIT AD en sens teas: 16, 447 0.1 Ὁ... ι΄ 12, 504 BOilescn ccc tas ees 546 Tithe FOALS, RPM οι 2τς- 530 Acts i. 35 Vill. 12; =xiit. 11, 15; EXVill, 23 -ς. τος 272 0, 2 Ἴ 55. τοῖν πεν gaara ccteeoe ses 430 Tle epee τ τέο ον ο τ σις, ἐσ κνονεο τὰς 489 Ovex ΤΩΣ, ama τ αν, τοῦδ II ἵν EG pete, voi atop ovine cane 439 DEL gas corer τε ιοοο είν τὸς 477 oud ΝΕ ΚΕΡῚ ΡΤ ΠΤ 401 Wl is Τρ διὸ oagcasentiens ter 485, 536 ALi faccttnsnusmeetemeeme Coates 485 ἢ ΡΤ ὙΠ ὦ 442 0, I 217: eiutsueeskennan semen ΕΚ 12 AD δου. ace ΠΌΝΤΟΣ 477 Acts viii. ix. ἘΠῚ. xiii. ΧΥΪ. Xvil. xvii. xix xx. PAGE ΡΠ 8 13 QR eed dads asa boos? 452 D. 37 --- 8, 276,438, 453, 4640, 493: 534 By On(REVite Pde FS). ons on 12, 384, 438, 439 Προ“ 9 PAO ς πεύταςς ΚΟΤΕ τ ττοτα 530 34. ccocccvcesscest σοῦ 403 ἢ. ΤῊΣ vencaspueec tees τ οτος Τα 507 IQ veccsccsesccccccccscncce 477 DO) sccacucrasrcterettis= 441 1. Bb vcereeceetee seeeeeee 442 Me I το --279. MBSR... os 2.0 eee 274 ΟΝ, τορι EC OPEC SUGE AEE CREE 536 ΕΟ ΤΣ acre ciel 401 Gis) ΧΥΙ͂, Ἐν, OOS ata EX, ΔΕ Ως .udests ae 16 HERS OPREE Cher Sane 477 18. τος τευ θεν το νει 536 5: Ἀττοννύνε νει. ὑτ δας α τὸς 538 BNE) edodanogtoc 12, 464 n, 538 8 ap eachc anus ΤΠ cone 14 17} 1 8. τ ΤΕ ααμ ΣΌΝ 482 20,20. τος ραν ββευς 434 2 ΕΣ ΤΡ ΓΟ ὉΠ ΤΣ 276, 538 Bi assess vsernsgege actos stsees 13 | RPE RORCICLEE ESOT 17, 539 DAS venwin ashe tom@ agen τε τες 13 28. 20... πα δ ον 15 28) keer τον οπθ0. II, 478 26; xix. 4, 5,15, 34 --- 13 4O ..c0e saccsdaaccest « Pia \ sa Dik, AUR, fe eens τον, 439 Ses cco tedavepoates 272 Nn, 2 ΠΡ 452 ἢ Ag YS) «τος ν ξυς Σψ.τεννν 18 TO) 306... ρον δδν τ τες 478 DAL ἀεοικος σωρ τε ρο ε 5..." 482 PRS OrOO OCC 17. 440, 455, 540 Ee Boo ic 4520 G8 οτος ες ρων οὐδ tenets 18 ΕΒ ΝΘ ΥΤΙ τν 478 ὩΣ i sbss vn sabe sinensue 439 EG tees ἢ asasntes ἔχετον 480 Cle) τ ποοςς κητες 433 D, 439 BQ esnsecey save τος ΣΝ 439 ΠΡ ΤΕΥ ΡΠ: 491 ΓΕ ΨΡΕ gate 482}.1 606 INDEX IIt. ; PAGE | WR Gts REVEL AG τος: ξεν ΝΣ 99; 542 os CRE eae a 543 es SMOe saad Ssnceice dos 480, 544 αν 15. Stores ἐπα τς τεῦς 479 τό τεσ Σ 482 0. 1 IQ” Laensbleene ες ἀ Ύν,: 276 PRG: ABR, BT ἽΝ. 2} WoO han 439 ΠΕ πος τ 556 Bi vceasstan once 272 nN. 2, 556 a Pets 0.3592 ho acvseseseeceeeeeeee II ᾿ -.- 480, 557 1. 53 το ΤῊΝ TI OT δὲδ ΠΣ II ry eee 439 ΣΡ τ Ὸ addenda ix. rot ΕΑ το τ τ ὁ TI, 548 n. EB gsvisthesthe ΟΣ 557 TOS OST Οὐ II σι... Ιο νυ oi Uevsbeiess 00 decseanenene 480 τς που αὶ Udo eee 11, 480 @ Pete. n25 11 τειν 433 0. ΡΣ Pen sen eeepc 558 τ TEL. το Ἀν 558 ἢ. ΟΕ τι seseeaee 9; 559 29; lil. 9; iv. 73 Vel, 4...5607 τ... 475 ΣΤ νει con ccereeaeueas 480 ἢ. EVs By ΤΟ secssipasr ene 480, 494 ΤΡ ΧΡ τροχούς. 526 v. 7,8... 8, 173, 181, 233 0. Ty 2 John 3 John 276, 305, 314, 361, 364, 379) 384, 438, 440 Π. 2, 453, 455» 560—6 tomer μετ στὸ 471 0, 480, 567 Te MOREE EEP EEO 3) 548 ἢ, τ ιν τι 23, 480 ΕΠ 230 Ὦ. 15 ΟΝ 26 INDEX IIL. 607 PAGE PAGE MUGS Bis onvasinass eeSinnneagues 17, 440 ADOGS RAE LZ vennavacea τον πε: 494 BRS 22 218... Ὁ 433 0, 567 MLN Operaenk shiasiccsdeses sees τ, BOS Dinas cemeteries addenda ix. Πρ See ces Masten eee 449 15, cast osieoass Soseeeeps ose 558 τ Mew) ΣῈ τὸ ἤροντο cae 16 i) ae a aa a eer oe 365 ἡ. FO, "aweganmasenges tan senees Ιο DO Weiss οωυι δε στους τρὶς ἐ εν οτος 14 po. Bil Mey cere) τ το τος 569 BLS OMS sn aia ταις gene πεῖ: g—I0 EXIM. 106 —20.2.2.0-eetenee- 382 n. 2 ITS ἘΠ τ τς, τε τν dneceaecincconh ocr 548 Ἐθυ αν τ πη ς 394 0. 2, 530 THE END. CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J, CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, he ee at ie ade : Ε ἊΣ ᾿ Wie, ΕΑ eR 4% jie ἣ oe . Se Pe ἐΥΝΕ, aia a ths oe Oe } 7 ee Pye) το “fens 9 Maks κενόν ye a ἽΝ ἘΞ σον δ πὶ εἴ 7 OE wc reeccreee te cer ern κέκννα OE Mee a ΠΥ y οὖς". asi fs 8 Pek steer repr eteee 0 Be 95 be fine days vepurtv sey) ἐὺ Re χ Ce ΧΗ͂Ν τ τιρτιἶξ δὲ ἐκ | of --@ Gaol danas GEA εν nak jag oowhennel ge “ez 7 i ee oe Ocoee ἘΠῚ ὌΝ ᾿ a > Saal Pgs > ee , “a pi Νὰ WARS, Wt T- pivti< P ae GAYLORD το, ΟΣ, » pe ed ΟΣ ων yg