7. 
 
 Iffram tl|p Sltbrartf of 
 
 Profp000r Sfttiamtn Irrrktnnbgp Warfif lb 
 
 lfqiteatl|f & bg l|im to 
 
 tl|p ICtbrarg of 
 
 J^rtnr^tnn Slifnbgtral S^tmxmr^ 
 
 Copy i 
 
THE CODEX SANGALLENSIS, 
 
aonlion: C. J. CLAY and SONS, 
 CAMBKIDGE UNIVERSITY PEESS WAREHOUSE, 
 AVE MARIA LANE. 
 
 Cnmbritjgt: DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO. 
 
 1Lfip>iQ: F. A. BROCKHAUS. 
 
 ilicfa Sork: M.\CMILLAN AND CO. 
 
(* JUL 1.0 1922 * 
 
 THE CODEX SANCtALLENS!^«l*^«>"^'^'^"' 
 (A) 
 
 A STUDY IN THE TEXT 
 OF THE OLD LATIN GOSPELS 
 
 J. RENDEL HARRIS, 
 
 FORMERLY FELLOW OF CLARE COLLEGE, CAMRRIDGE, 
 
 AND NOW PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LANGUAGES AND LITERATCUIO IN 
 
 nAVERFORD COLLEGE, PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 C. J. CLAY AND S0N8, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, 
 
 AVE MARIA LANE. 
 
 1891 
 
 [-1// rijihts reserved.] 
 
PRINTED BY C. J. CI.AY, M.A. AND SONS, 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The following pages arc of interest only to a very small circle 
 of readers. They are concerned with the history and the develop- 
 ments of the early Latin translations of the New Testament ; and 
 form an appendix to my recent work on the Codex Bezae. If the 
 results arrived at are somewhat scanty, I do not altogether feel 
 free to withhold them ; for the problems which they touch upon 
 are important. Many people are still standing where Augustine 
 stood when he implied that there had been an infinite number of 
 translators of the Gospels. It is time that this position was 
 abandoned, and a number of associated positions ; and that we 
 formed a right idea of the nature, time and place of production of 
 the primitive Latin text from which all other Western texts 
 are derived. Perhaps this tract may help some student towards 
 the necessary rectification of his ideas. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 On the Latin Text of the Codex Sangallensis of the Gospels 1 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 Some African Forms and Readings in the Codex Sanoallensis . 6 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The Vulgate Hypothesis further tested from Matthew xxv. . 15' 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Further Remarks on the Africanisms in Codex Sangallensis . 19 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 A General View of the Double Translations of the Sangal- 
 lensis 25 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 A General View op the Double Translations of the Sangal- 
 lensis {rontinucd) 33 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Double Readings in the Gospel of Luke .... 40 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Double Readings in the Gospel of John 47 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 A Few Words on the Glosses in the Sangallensis and on the 
 
 Colometry 52 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 ON THE LATIN TEXT OF THE CODEX SANOALLENSIS 
 OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 In my recent dissertation on the great Cambridge bilingual, 
 the Codex Bezae, I have sought to recover the Latin of that 
 famous text from the neglect or contempt into which it has fallen, 
 and to shew to the critical students of the New Testament that 
 this text is of all texts the most important for the recovery of the 
 rude and primitive rendering of the Gospels and the Acts which 
 was current in the early part of the second century. The method 
 which I have adopted is fertile in valuable results beyond what 
 my most sanguine ideas could have hoped. As soon as it is seen 
 that the Latin is rarely, if ever, an accommodation to its conjugate 
 Greek, while on the other hand the Greek is almost always ac- 
 commodated to the Latin, a new light breaks upon the perplexing* 
 question of the genesis of the Western readings in the New 
 Testament: and we are able to shew that the leading versions 
 of the text go back into a common origin, which we designate, as 
 the Great Western Bilingual; a recension which was freely coloured 
 both in Latin and in Greek by the opinions prevailing in the 
 second century, and whose primitive structure was barbarous in 
 speech, being sometimes pleonastic in its renderings and sometimes 
 hideously literal, bristling with vulgarisms of a decidedly African 
 type, and also with some forms of speech for which not even the 
 barbarous African dialect can fairly be held accountable. It is a 
 matter of the highest impcn-tance to collect from the primitive 
 Latin and associated texts the surviving forms of this venerable 
 version. Every old Latin text will help tis somewhat to the re- 
 covery of the lost forms, or to the verification of forms deduced 
 by ci-itical analysis of the various texts and translations: in the 
 
 H. s. IX. 1 
 
2 ox TEE LATDC TEXT 
 
 present discussion we propose the question as to what light is 
 thrown on the studv of the primitive Latin of the Gc^pels bv the 
 text of the Codex SangaUensis. known in the critical apparatus 
 by the sign A, or more exactly by the two signs A and 5 according 
 as we are quoting the Greek or the Latin of the bilingual 
 
 The prospect of obtaining any results from such an examina- 
 tion is not a very hopeful one : we are, in fiict, warned by Dr Hort 
 that the Latin of the leading bilinguals is of no use for the study 
 of the Greek text, inaanuch as it has been accommodated to the 
 Greek : that it is only sporadically of any xise as a testimony to 
 the Old Latin, viz. in those cases where the Latin differs from the 
 Greek : and lastly in the special case which we are going to discuss, 
 the Latin text is simply that of the Tulgate. We repeat, for 
 TerificafcMMi of these statements, some sentences from Dr Hort's 
 lutrodwHon to the Xew Te^amatt. 
 
 pp. 82, 83. "The Gospels alone are extant in a series of 
 tolerably complete Old Latin MSS. For most of the other books 
 we have, strictlv speaking, nothing but frtigmeuts and those 
 covering only a small proportion of verses. The delusive habit 
 of quoting as Old Latin the Latin texts of bilingual MSS. has 
 obscured the real poverty of evidence. These MSS. are in Acts 
 Cod. Bezae (IW as in the Gospels) and Cci. Laudianys (tL?) and 
 in St Paals Epistles Cod. ClarowumtoHus {B^ and Cod. Boer- 
 nerianus (Gj^ : without Hebrews). The origin of the latin text, 
 as cleariy revealed by internal evidence, is precisely similar in all 
 four MSS. A genuine (independent) Old Latin text has been 
 adopted as the basis, but altered throughout into verbal con- 
 formity with the Greek text by the side of which it was intended 
 to stand. Here and there the assimilation has accidentally been 
 incomplete and the scattered discrepant readings thus left are the 
 only direct Old Latin evidence for the Greek text of the New 
 Testament which the bilingual MSS. supply. A large proportion 
 of the Latin texts of these MSS. is. beyond all reasonable doubt, 
 unaltered Old Latin : but where they exactly correspond to the 
 Greek, as they do habituaUy, it is impossible to tell how much of 
 the accordance is original and how much artificial ; so that for the 
 criticism of the Greek text the Latin reading has here no inde- 
 pendent authority. The Latin texts of A of the Gospels and F, of 
 St Paul's Epistles are Vulgate, with a partial adaptation to the 
 Greek." 
 
OF THE CODEX SAXOALLEXSIS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 According to Dr Hort the Latin text of the SangaUensds is 
 merely Vulgate ; but even if it had not been Vulgate, it would 
 simply stand with d, e (of the Acts) and ^ and be condemned as 
 an unreliable authority on accoimt of its assimilation to the Greek, 
 except in rare instances where it shews a textual divergence. As 
 we have said above, the field for study does not seem to°be a very 
 promising one. 
 
 We remember, however, that our study of Dand its companion 
 E in the Acts brought us to quite different conclusions from those 
 stated above, as to the value of the bilingual Latin : and we shall 
 therefore begin our work on the Sangallensis by a suspicion as to 
 whether the case does really stand exactly as it is given in the 
 extract quoted above. Is it true, we ask,' that the Litin text of 
 the St Gall MS. is merely an accommodation of a Vulgate text to 
 a parallel Greek text ? 
 
 We will test the matter by taking a specimen chapter, say 
 the twenty-first chapter of John: it will be unnecessary to discui 
 trivial spellings, nor the order of the words, as it is admitted that 
 in an interlinear text like the St Gall MS. this follows the Greek : 
 we will take a printed Latin Vulgate text and note the diver- 
 gences from it with collateral references to the Cod. Sangallensis 
 (8); Cod. Vercellensis (a): Cod Veronensis {b): Cod. Bezae {d): 
 and the Codex Amiatinus of the Vulgate {am\ The result is as 
 follows: the Sangallensis stands apart from the Vulgate in the 
 following positive variants. 
 
 r. 3 o^etnnt (a) 
 r. 5 didt (a«. ft) 
 r. 6 + ipse xataa 
 
 + paitem(aM) 
 
 naTi3(U) 
 
 (ft) (jrcisaiAj for a primitive retiam which b foond in aft) 
 
 A mnhitiidine {am. tT) 
 didt {flbdamL) 
 itaqiie(ft) 
 
 r. 8 a cahftis (U) 
 r. 10 An ahematiTe readii^ 
 
 oeiKtb (arf) prefidistis ;>k^ : cam oh. : prendidistis vgb) 
 r. 11 tzahit (ft) 
 r. \t nemo aotem 
 
4 ON THE LATIN TEXT 
 
 ■w. 12 discumbentium discipulonim 
 V. 13 venit ergo 
 
 dedit {acl) 
 V. 14 discipulis eius (d) 
 V. 15 An alternative reading 
 
 etiam {dam.v^) utique {ah) 
 v. 16 itenim secundo 
 
 oves meas («f^[6]) 
 v.\l omnia scis {am. hcT) 
 
 til cognoscis 
 
 (2") dicit ei ihs 
 V. 18 te ipsum {ad) 
 
 ducet te {a) 
 
 quo non vis {am.) 
 V. 19 An alternative reading 
 
 qua {hd\g) quali 
 
 et hoc dicens 
 V. 20 conversus autem {d) 
 V. 21 An alternative reading 
 
 cum vidisset {h vg) videns {ad) 
 V. 23 An alternative reading 
 
 venit exiit {abdvg) 
 
 quia non moritur 
 V. 24 om. ille {am. abd) 
 V. 25 om. posse {am. hd) 
 
 scribendos libros 
 
 Here then are thirty-three variants, and five alternative readings 
 to the Vulgate text. Only six of these thirty-three variants are 
 supported by the Codex Araiatinus ; and this shews at once that 
 we are dealing with a text which is far removed from being a 
 genuine Vulgate text : for, if we omit such points as variations of 
 spelling, the Amiatinus does not on a similar calculation shew a 
 third as many variants from the common Vulgate. Moreover the 
 variants are real Old Latin readings: the St Gall text being 
 supported eleven times by a, fifteen times by h and eighteen times 
 hy d. 
 
 Probably this will suffice to shew that the text is not a ti-ue 
 Vulgate, and that it contains an Old Latin element which ought 
 not to be neglected. Moreover, the unique readings of the MS. 
 are very valuable, and some of them furnish us with suggestions 
 as to the primitive Latin rendering. 
 
 For example, in v. 7 look at the curious translation of eVei'SuTT^? 
 by investis : a word for which it is difficult to find support, in the 
 
OF THE CODEX SANGALLENSIS OF THE GOSPELS. 5 
 
 sense which the passage requires. Such a rendering can hardly 
 fail to be early. 
 
 Or look at the combination in v. 12 where the text shews the 
 singular union of two readings, viz. discijjulorum, which is sub- 
 stantially the right reading, with the aberrant Vulgate reading 
 disciimhentiuin. Happily we know enough of the primitive Latin 
 translation to be able to say how this error arose : for it is certain 
 that the old translation read discens where we read discipalus: 
 and this reading was a frequent perplexity to later scribes when 
 they found it surviving in their copies. In our case then dis- 
 cumbentium is a mere conjectural correction for discentinm and 
 discentium is actually preserved in Veronensis ; a similar case will 
 be found in Luke xix. 37 where some Okl Latin texts have cor- 
 rected discentium to descendentium. The cases of literal rendering 
 of the participle in vv. 19 and 21 should also be noticed; for 
 though the Old Latin texts have usually replaced this primitive 
 translation by a more periphrastic manner of speech (usually by 
 the subjunctive wdth ami), yet there are many traces of its sur- 
 vival in good texts ; and in particular we find codd. a and d 
 reading videns in v. 21. Even the seemingly trivial reading 
 iteruiii secundo in v. 16 is not without meaning: we cannot 
 support secundo from a b d or the Vulgate, but that it once stood 
 in the text of Cod. Bezae appears from the fact that on the Greek 
 side iroKiv has been displaced by hevrepov while in A both words 
 are preserved. We suspect then that secundo or rather iterum 
 secundo is the primitive Latin rendering. 
 
 We say then, that Old Latin traces are to be found in the 
 Sangallensis, and that some of its rougher and less supported 
 readings arc archaic. 
 
 But this is not all : for it appears from the collation of this 
 one chapter that the Latin text in the Codex is not a single text 
 at all, but a combination of two texts : so that even if the scribe 
 used one copy to match his Greek he must have consulted another, 
 for there are very many double readings in the Latin, and even a 
 few triple readings, usually separated by the disjunctive word vel. 
 Now it is clear, that even on the hypothesis that the text is 
 substantially vulgate these readings cannot be neglected ; for they 
 constitute a selected body of Old Latin variants. We nnist, there- 
 fore, examine them carefully to sec what light they can throw on 
 the genesis of the successive forms of African and Italian texts. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 SOME AFRICAN FORMS AND READINGS IN THE CODEX 
 SANGALLENSIS. 
 
 We are invited, then, to test the St Gall text for Africanisms 
 by which we here mean the body of forms and readings which con- 
 stitute the primitive tradition of the Latin New Testament. Some 
 of these forms' have been discussed in our study of Codex Bezae 
 though we do not pretend to have done more than touch the 
 outside edge of a great subject. We will see whether any traces 
 of such forms can be found here. 
 
 For instance when the scribe of Sangallensis in Matthew 
 xxvii. 28 writes over the Greek word arecpavov the rendering 
 
 coronamentum vel coronam 
 we know that he found in one MS., probably his principal text, the 
 word coronamentum and that he coupled with it, from some other 
 source, probably another Latin text, for all his readings come from 
 MSS., the alternative coronam. 
 
 Now of these two renderings, there can be no doubt which is 
 the earlier one, or which replaced the other: coronamentum must 
 be the African, or if we prefer it, the vulgar Latin form, and, in 
 fact, we actually find in Tertullian's De Corona the St Gall form. 
 
 Or, again, let us take the case which we discussed in connec- 
 tion with the Codex Bezae, the African reduplicated form of the 
 verb haheo. We shewed how often this curious reduplication 
 occurred, the future habebitis appearing in place of the })resent 
 habetis, and the imperfect turning up in the extravagant habe- 
 bebatis. Paleographical causes being inadequate to explain such 
 frequent phenomena, we resorted to the theory of a vulgar African 
 form, which had held its own in the Bezan text in many places 
 and had drawn the Greek text hito a supposed closer agreement 
 
afri(;an forms and headings in the codex sanoallensis. 7 
 
 with it. Now if the St Gall text has a bona fide Old Latin base, 
 we may expect to find some traces of this peculiar verb-form. 
 Let us see. 
 
 Turn to Matt. v. 46 where the Bezan text reads 
 
 habebetis (= e^erat) 
 and Codd. ab read habebitis, 
 
 and we find the St Gall text out-heroding Herod by reading 
 habebebitis. 
 
 Next turn to Matt. vi. 1 where ab agree with d in reading 
 habebitis (= e^j^ere) 
 and here we find in the St Gall text the same reading. 
 
 It is true that in both cases the Vulgate agrees with the 
 Old Latin reading, but that does not prevent us from calling it an 
 African reading. 
 
 Or suppose we examine some of those passages where the 
 original African rendering had expressed itself by using a super- 
 lative adjective where we should have expected what is given in 
 later recensions of the text — the exact translation of the positive 
 degree. 
 
 There are several of these amongst the readings in the St Gall 
 MS., though they would pass for Vulgate readings on account of 
 their absorption into the Vulgate text. 
 
 For instance in Matt. xii. 45 we have 
 
 TTovqpa = pessimae. 
 This is in the Vulgate, but it is archaic, as its attestation by abd 
 shews. In the same verse prioribus for irpooroiv is more natural 
 and can hardly be called an irregular translation ; here ab have 
 quam j)rio7-a, and d prioribus. 
 
 In Luke x. 42 we have two superlative renderings with 
 alternatives 
 
 wepl TToWd = circa multa vel plurima 
 
 and d^aOrjV fiepiSa rendered alternatively by 
 
 bonani vel optiniam partem. 
 
 In both of these cases the Vulgate takes up the superlative : 
 
 but we suspect them again to be Old Latin renderings : for in the 
 
 second instance we find that ab render by optimam while cd 
 
 have bonam. These alternative readings probably represent a 
 
8 SOME AFRICAN FORMS AND READINGS 
 
 very early textual divergence which has been perpetuated along 
 different lines of manuscripts. It is clear that the readings do 
 not originate either with the Vulgate or the Sangallensis. The 
 last case is perhaps due to a lost African superlative of the form 
 boniis honiis = optimus. 
 
 Turn, in the next place, to the question of pleonasms in the 
 archaic Latin text. It is well known that the African speech 
 was fond of pleonastic renderings ; that it used a substantive with 
 another equivalent substantive in apposition with it, or with an 
 equivalent substantive in the genitive, that it coupled verbs in the 
 same way, and that even the pronouns, adverbs and conjunctions 
 were employed pleonastically. Many traces of this are still extant 
 in the Old Latin copies, and the irregular readings have left a deep 
 mark on the Western text, both in Greek and in Latin. Some- 
 times the MSS. will bifurcate over a pleonastic rendering, one half 
 of the reading going off on one line of transmission and the other 
 on the other. At other times, the Latin text being found to be 
 overweighted as against the Greek, either a new word was added 
 in Greek, or a superfluous word was struck out from the Latin 
 (and not always the right word but often an adjacent one). 
 Instances of all these various corruptions of the Western text will 
 be found at large in our notes on the Bezan text. 
 
 One of these pleonasms, and apparently a favourite one, is the 
 rendering of K\7]povofjbico by possidere and hereditare] and simi- 
 larly with KXTjpovofxia, for which we actually find in the Bezan 
 text (Acts vii. 5) the pleonasm possessionem hereditatis. It is 
 interesting to see how this pleonasm breaks up into two readings 
 in the Old Latin trtidition, and how nearly it is reproduced in the 
 conjunction of alternative readings in the Sangallensis. For 
 example : 
 
 Matt. V. 4. KkrjpovojJD^aovaLv = hcreditabunt vel possidebunt 
 where h reads possidehnnt and d hereditabuni, but a has the original 
 pleonasm hereditate possidebunt \ 
 
 Matt. xix. 29. /cX.7;/)oi/o//,77cret = possidcbit vol heroditabit where 
 ab read possidebit and d hereditabit. 
 
 ' The same pleonasm occurs in Irenaeus v. ix. 4, in quoting this passage, 
 where the context shews it to be the true reading of the transhitor of Irenaeus and 
 not a confiation by scribes: "ipsi haereditate possidebunt terram ; quasi haere- 
 ditatc possideatur terra in regno, undo et substantia carnis est." Moreover in the 
 paragraphs which follow, of which the Greek is fortunately preserved, the 
 translator of Irenaeus gives us the pleonastic rendering no less than eight times. 
 
IX THE CODEX SANOALLENSIS. 9 
 
 Matt. XXV. 34. K\r)povnfi>]aaTe = hercditate vcl piissidcte whore 
 ab i-ead j^os.sidete and d has preserved the primitive pleonasm 
 hereditate possidete where, by the way, hereditate is not a verb as 
 the scribes supposed. 
 
 In Luke x. 25 K\ripovo[xi)a(o = possidebo vel hereditabij where 
 ab have possidebo and d hereditabo. 
 
 Luke xviii. 18. KXrjpuvo/jLrja-o) = possideani vel hereditem where 
 ab have possidebo and d hereditabo. 
 
 These instances will shew how the St Gall text brought the 
 bifurcated readings together again and almost restored the primi- 
 tive pleonasm. 
 
 Another similar case is the use of perficio and consummare 
 in combination. We have reason to believe that the primitive 
 rendering in Luke i. 17 was of this nature, since we find in 
 a populum perfectum 
 b plebem perfectam 
 d plebem consummatam, 
 which looks like an original reading 
 
 plebem perfectam consummatam. 
 Something of the same kind appears in Luke i. 45, where 
 a quod erit consummatio 
 b quoniam perficicntur ea 
 d quia erit consummatio, 
 the original reading being probably 
 
 quia erit perfectio consummationis 
 or something not very different. 
 
 In these two cases the St Gall text does not shew any signs o 
 the use of consummatio : in Luke i. 17 it reads 
 
 plm perfectum, 
 and in i. 45 it gives 
 
 perficicntur vel erunt vel fient perfecta. 
 If however we turn to John xvii, 23, where the Codex Bezae has 
 preserved a primitive pleonasm 
 
 ut sint perfecti consummati 
 and where a has perfecti and b consummati, we find in the St Gall 
 text 
 
 consummati vel perfecti definiti, 
 
10 SOME AFRICAN FORMS AND READINGS 
 
 which almost restores the original iDleonasm as well as introduces 
 a new rendering. 
 
 In this passage the Vulgate preserves consummati, but not in 
 the two places quoted from Luke, 
 
 Another instance may be taken from John v. 2 where the 
 primitive translation rendered 
 
 KoXvfji^rjOpa by natatoria piscina 
 or rather, as I suspect, by natatoria j)iscinae. 
 We find in cod. a 
 est autem Hicrosolymis in inferiorem partem natatoria piscina, 
 and in cod. h 
 
 Hicrosolymis in inferiorem partem natatoriae piscinae 
 where the change to the genitive in h may be due to the form 
 suggested above. The words 
 
 in inferiorem partem 
 are meant to represent 
 
 eVt rfj Trpo/SarLKr}. 
 In cod. d we have 
 
 est autem hicrosolymis in natatoria piscina 
 where the pleonasm has been preserved but at the expense of 
 irpofiaTiKfj whose equivalent has been ejected. 
 
 If any doubt remained in our mind as to the antiquity of the 
 pleonasm, we might set it at rest by turning to Irenaeus (ii. xxiv. 
 4) where avc find 
 
 natatoria piscina quinque habebat portions. 
 
 We are sure then that this reading is archaic ; and Scrivener 
 cannot be right when he says ' that the rendering is a " mere error 
 of the translator Avho unites the two separate words used by the 
 Vulgate for rendering KoXv/x^r/dpa in the places where it is found 
 (v, 2, 4, 7 piscina; ix, 7, 11 natatoria)." The fact is that the 
 existence of the two separate words in the Vulgate is another 
 proof of the original pleonasm : and it is needless to multiply 
 words to prove that the Bezan text is an earlier recension than 
 Jerome's revision. 
 
 Now turn to the St Gall MS. : and it is highly interesting to 
 see that the rendering preserves both words, for it has piscina in 
 V. 2, 7, and natatoria in v, 4, ix. 7, 11, The survival of the primi- 
 
 ^ Cod. Bczae, p, xliv,, note 2. 
 
IN THE CODEX SAXGAI.LEXSIS. 
 
 tive pleonasm is seen to be suggested indepeiKieiitly by the 
 Vulgate and the St Gall text. The whole evidence in the five 
 passages in tjuestion can be seen at a glance as fellows: 
 
 Juhn V. 2 
 
 V. 4 
 
 V. 7 
 
 ix. 7 
 
 ix. 1 1 
 
 natatoria 
 
 piscina vg 8 
 
 natixtoria piscina ahd Iren. 
 
 8ab 
 
 vg 
 
 ygdab 
 
 vg abd 8 
 
 vg8 
 
 It is clear that there is no reason for saying that in the 
 rendering of this Greek word cither d or 8 follow the Vulgate : 
 but we can see from the St Gall text renewed reason for believing 
 in the existence of a primitive double rendering, at least in the 
 fifth chapter of John. 
 
 The next case to which we wish to draw attention is Matt. xx. 
 'S-i, where koL ev6eo3<; dve/3\.€\lrav is rendered alternatively by 
 
 aperti sunt vel viderunt. 
 
 The Greek text follows on with avTwu ol 6(f)daX/jLol with 
 corresponding Latin ; but it is pretty clear that these words are 
 an addition to the text, and if so they are due to the reflex action 
 of the translation or to the influence of a previous verse. The 
 question then arises as to whether the original text did not shew 
 a pleonastic rendering of the word dve^\e->\rav. The Latin texts 
 do not shew as much variation as we should expect ; cod. h reads 
 viderunt and is followed by the Vulgate ; cod. Bezae reads re- 
 spexerunt: cod. q, however, has the other half of the reading as 
 in the Sangallensis. We suspect then that the primitive text 
 contained both expressions and that its common form of trans- 
 lation was " their eyes were opened and they saw." This suppo- 
 sition explains at once a perplexing point in the Old Syriac texts, 
 which constantly give similar conjunctions. In the preceding 
 verse, for example, the Cureton text has " that our eyes may be 
 opened and that we may see Thee " ; and the same account is 
 given in the Tatian Harmony in the form 
 
 Caecus autem dixit ei : Domine mi ct praeceptur, ut aperias 
 oculos meos et videam te. 
 
 And further the Cureton text in Luke xviii. 41 reads for JW 
 dvafi\ky^(o ut aperiantur oculi et videam which shews the very 
 pleonastic rendering of which we were in search. 
 
12 SOME AFIUCAX FORMS AND READINGS 
 
 In my notes on the Tatian Harmony' I have taken pains to 
 shew from the Old Syriac literature the antiquity of this ren- 
 dering ; it appears now that its wide and early distribution in the 
 Syriac may be reasonably referred to a previous pleonasm in the 
 Western bilingual texts. The St Gall text helps us towards such 
 a conclusion both by its Greek and its Latin. 
 
 In Mark ii. 17 we have an alternative reading in the sentence 
 oTi ov ■^peiav e')(OV(Tiv ol la')(yovTe<i larpov aXk" ol KaKco-i e-)(ovT€<;, 
 which is rendered 
 
 quia non necesse habent sani medico sed male habcntibus vel 
 habcntes. 
 
 The reading Juibentibas might conceivably be an attempt to 
 translate the previous exovacv, but I inclhie to believe that it is 
 all that is left of the old translation which ran 
 
 non est nccessarius^ sanis medicus sed male habentibus. 
 
 For Tertullian writing against Marcion quotes the passage 
 Luke v. 31 in the form 
 
 Modicum sanis non esse necessarium 
 (cf. also De Pudic. c. 9, medicus languentibus magis quam sanis 
 necessarius). 
 
 Moreover in Mark xi. 3 the expression %/3etaz/ e%et is rendered 
 by Cod. Bezae in the form 
 
 domino necessarius est, 
 and in the Syriac we have frequent cases of the same form (e.g. 
 Mark xi. 3 in the Peshito is 
 
 and compare the Peshito and Cureton texts in Matt. vi. S; xiv. 16: 
 xxi. 3 ; xxvi. 65 (Pesh.) : Mark xiv. 63 (Pesh.) : Luke v. 31 (Pesh.) ; 
 X. 42 ; XV. 7 ; xix. 31, 34 ; xxii. 71 : John xiii. 29 (Pesh.). 
 
 It will be seen that it is possible to utilize for critical purposes 
 the shreds of the older translations which lie in the variants of 
 the Codex Sangallensis. 
 
 We will conclude this chapter by putting the St Gall text in 
 evidence for a very early Western reading, of considerable critical 
 importance. 
 
 1 The Biatcssaron of Tatian. Cambridge, 1890. 
 
 '■^ Or perhaps non est opus would be more African , as in cod. c . 
 
IN THE CODEX SANGALLEXSIS. 13 
 
 If the reader ^vill turn to the treatise of Irenacus against 
 Heresies, he will find in the second book the passage ' : 
 
 "Aut iternm si quis ob hoc quod dictum sit in Evangelio: 
 Nonne duo passeres asse veneunt ? et unns e,x his non cadet siipei' 
 terrain sine Patns vestri voluntate: enumerare voluerit caj^tos 
 ubique quotidie passeres etc." 
 
 Now in this passage which seems to be taken immediately 
 fiom the Gospel (Matt. x. 29) we have the striking variant 
 
 sine Patris vestri vokmtate, 
 and that it belongs to Irenacus, and not to any translator or 
 commentator, may be seen from the fact that in the fifth book of 
 the same writer ^ we have 
 
 "Deinde quoniam dominatur hominibus, et ei ijDsi Deus, et 
 nolente Fatre nostra qui est in caelis neque passer cadet in terram, 
 illud igitur quod ait etc." 
 
 So that we again suspect the same variant in the New Testa- 
 ment of Irenaeus, perhaps Avith the added clause qui est in caelis. 
 His Greek text must have been avev ti}'? /SoyX?;? tou irarpoq vfim> 
 Tov iv Tot9 ovpavoh. 
 
 The same reading is found over and over in Tertullian; Ronsch 
 has collected the fragments of the New Testament which are 
 embedded in the text of Tertullian, and gives five passages in 
 which the text which we are working on is used. Unfortunately 
 Ronsch omits to notice that in each case the words sine voluntajte 
 form a part of the text and he does not italicize them as he should 
 have done. Correcting Ronsch's extracts for this oversight, we 
 have the following passages from Tertullian : 
 
 " Siquidem wins ex jxisserihus duohus non cadit in terrain sine 
 patris voluntate." Monog. c. 9. 
 
 " Subiungit exemplum quod ex duohus mm cadit alter in 
 terram sine dei voluntate." Resurr. c. 35. 
 
 "Credas utique, si tamen in eum deum credis, .<dne cuius 
 voluntate nee ptasser unius assis cadit in terram." Fug. c. 3. 
 
 "Is, sine cuius voluntate nee passerum alter in terram cadit." 
 Scorp. c. 9. 
 
 "A deo domino sine cuius voluntate noc folium dc ail)()re 
 kibitur nee passer assis unius ad terram cadit." CJast. c. 1. 
 
 ' Ilaer. ii. xxvi. '2. -' Haer. v. xxii. '2. 
 
14 AFRICAN FORMS AND READINGS IN THE CODEX SANGALLENSIS. 
 
 From these five passages we know that Tertiillian's text as 
 well as Irenaeus' contained the word voluntate. It is certainly, 
 then, part of the Old Latin translation. 
 
 We might confirm this by quotations from other early Latin 
 fathers as Cyprian and Hilary, and by the testimony of the Old 
 Latin codices, of which the most important are 
 Cod. ab which both read 
 
 sine voluntate Patris vestri. 
 The Codex Sangallensis reads 
 
 ANfYTGY • npcywcoN 
 and writes over the Greek the words 
 
 sine voluntate patris vestri. 
 
 Now there is no reason to call this a Vulgate reading, it is 
 genuine Old Latin and prae- Vulgate ; and we may be sure that the 
 Codex contains a great deal of the same sort. 
 
 Before leaving the point, we may draw attention to one more 
 result that follows from the study of this reading. We can have 
 no doubt that it is an early second centur}^ reading, from the 
 combination of its attestation in texts and quotations. And it 
 seems equally clear that it is a genuine Western reading, the 
 gloss of the first translating hand, perhaps an African hand. 
 
 It is interesting, then, to observe that the text of Matthew 
 X. 29 in its expanded Latinized form has been carried into the 
 Clementine Homilies \ This is not the place to enter into a 
 complete discussion of the sources of the Evangelical quotations 
 in the Clementines, but the reader is advised to note the coinci- 
 dence between the Clementine and Western text at this point. 
 
 1 Clem. Horn. xii. 31. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE VULGATE HYPOTHESIS FURTHER TESTED FROM 
 MATTHEW XXV. 
 
 We will now examine the text of the Sangallensis with the 
 Vulgate in another chapter, say Matt, xxv., in order to get a 
 clearer idea of the divergence of the two texts. The result is 
 as follows : 
 
 VuLo. Saxgall. 
 
 Matt. xxv. 
 
 1 
 
 simile erit 
 
 similabitur {il) 
 
 
 obviara {aJ)) 
 
 ■ in obviam {d) 
 
 
 sponso {ah) 
 
 sponsi (rtf) 
 
 
 et sponsae {ahd) 
 
 ora. 
 
 2 
 
 fotuae (^>) 
 
 fatuae vel stultae (stultae d) 
 
 3 
 
 sed quinque {b) 
 
 quae erant 
 
 
 acceptis lam[)adibu.s {h + suis) 
 
 accipieiites lampades suas {d) 
 
 
 non sumpserunt {b) 
 
 non sumpserunt vel non acceperunt {d) 
 
 4 
 
 lampadibu.s 
 
 + suis {bd) 
 
 5 
 
 moram faciente ([/>]) 
 
 morante 
 
 
 dormitaverunt {h) 
 
 pausaverunt vel (nihil addidit) 
 
 
 dormierunt {h) 
 
 dormitaverunt 
 
 6 
 
 factus est {bd) 
 
 factus 
 
 
 exite d 
 
 venite vel exite 
 
 
 obviara {bd) 
 
 in obviam 
 
 8 
 
 sapieutibus {bd) 
 
 sapientibus vel prudentibus 
 
 9 
 
 responderunt {b) 
 
 + autem {d) 
 
 10 
 
 dum autem irent 
 
 abeuntibus autem illis (<y) 
 
 
 ad nuptias (f^ 
 
 in {b) vel ad nuptias 
 
 11 
 
 novissime {bd) 
 
 novissime vel iterum 
 
 12 
 
 at ille {b) 
 
 ille 
 
 
 amen {bd) 
 
 vere 
 
 
 nescio {bd) 
 
 nescio vel (?)i 
 
 13 
 
 itaque (6) 
 
 itaque rel ergo {d) 
 
 14 
 
 servos suos {bd) 
 
 servos proprios 
 
 16 
 
 et oiieratus est {abd) 
 
 operatus est vel egit 
 
 
 liicratus est {oaT) 
 
 fecit vel lucratus est 
 
 
 alia quinque {<dj) 
 
 + talenta 
 
 
 ' Rettig could not 
 
 read the alternative word 
 
16 
 
 THE VULGATE HYPOTHESIS 
 
 1 7 lucratus est {ah) 
 
 18 pecuniam {ah) 
 
 19 mixltum temporis (o?>) 
 posiiit rationem {ah) 
 
 20 obtulit {hd) 
 talenta (2°) {ahd) 
 quinque (4") {ah) 
 superlucratus sum {ahd) 
 
 21 ait {ahd) 
 quia {ahd) 
 
 22 accessit {h) 
 acceperat {hd) 
 et ait {h) 
 duo (3°) {h) 
 lucratus sum {h) 
 
 23 quia {hd) 
 super multa {hd) 
 
 24 accedens {ahd) 
 scio 
 
 durus es 
 
 25 abii et {ahd) 
 quod tuum est («6) 
 
 26 male {h) 
 semino {ah) 
 
 27 committere {ah) 
 pecuniam {ah) 
 recepissem {ah) 
 utique {d) 
 
 quod meum est {abd) 
 
 28 itaque {ah) 
 
 ei qui habet {ah) 
 
 29 ei autem qui non habet {<d)) 
 
 31 angeli {ahd) 
 maiestatis {ah) 
 
 32 ante eum {abd) 
 pastor segregat {abd) 
 
 34 his qui a dextris eius orunt (sunt 
 
 ah om. sunt d) 
 possidete {ah) 
 
 a constitutione {ah) 
 
 35 dedistis mihi bibere {a) 
 3G infirmus {h) 
 
 eram {h) 
 37 iusti {hd) 
 
 pavimus te {h) 
 
 et ipse (et ipse lucratus est d) 
 argentum vel pecuniam (argentum d) 
 tempus multum {d) 
 ratiocinatus est rationem 
 obtulit vel attulit 
 
 om. 
 + talenta {d) 
 lucratus sum super ea 
 ait autem 
 
 om. 
 accedens {d) 
 
 om. 
 ait 
 
 + talenta {d) 
 + super ea vel in eis 
 
 om. 
 super multa vel in multis 
 accedens vel accessit 
 + te 
 
 + homo {ad) 
 abiens 
 
 tuum {d quod tuum) 
 nequam vel male (nequa ad) 
 seminavi {d) 
 mittere {d) 
 
 argentum vel pecuniam (argentum d) 
 accepissem {d) 
 
 om. {ah) 
 meum 
 ergo {d) 
 habenti {d) 
 
 ab autem non habentc 
 sancti angeli 
 
 gloriae vel maiestatis (gloriae d) 
 coram eo 
 
 separat vel segregat 
 a dextris sedentibus eius 
 
 hereditate vel possidete (her. possid. 
 
 d) 
 ab originc {d) 
 potastis me {d) 
 infirmus vel infirmatus fui {d inlir- 
 
 matus sum) 
 fui {d) 
 
 om. 
 pavimus {d) 
 
 \ 
 
FURTriER TESTED FROM MATTHEW XXV. 17 
 
 (IfHliiims (pota- 
 
 37 
 
 aut (d) 
 
 om. (b) 
 
 
 dedimus tibi potuin (/>) 
 
 potavimus vel potiuii t 
 vimus d) 
 
 38 
 
 collegimus te (b) 
 
 collegimus (d) 
 
 
 cooperuimus te (/>) 
 
 cooperuimus (d) 
 
 39 
 
 aut quando {((1(1) 
 
 quando autem 
 
 
 aut in (abd) 
 
 in autem 
 
 40 
 
 amen (abd) 
 
 vere 
 
 41 
 
 his qui a sinistris erunt (his qui 
 ad sinistris eius sunt ab), his 
 qui a sinistris (d) 
 
 sinistralibus 
 
 
 discedite (ab) 
 
 ite vel discedite (ite (P) 
 
 
 qui paratus est 
 
 paratum 
 
 43 
 
 eram (ab) 
 
 fui (d) vel eram 
 
 
 infirmus (abd) 
 
 + fui 
 
 44 
 
 ei et ipsi 
 
 et ipsi (abd) 
 
 
 aut in carcerc (ad) 
 
 vel in oarcere (b) 
 
 45 
 
 amen (abd) 
 
 vere 
 
 
 minoribus (b) 
 
 minimis (a) 
 
 Here then are sixty-four variants from the Vulgate and 
 twenty-three alternative readings in the space of the chapter, 
 passing over variations in spelling and in the order of the words. 
 It need scarcely be said that this is far too many for the Vulgate 
 hypothesis to carry : for the text of the Amiatinus itself, which 
 may be taken as the earliest type of a true Vulgate, would not 
 show more than about sixteen such variants as we have recorded, its 
 aberrations being mostly in spelling and in the order of the words. 
 
 We shall say then that the Sangallensis is not to be slighted as to 
 its Latin text, nor to be treated merely as accessory to the evidence 
 of the Vulgate copies. It is true that the Codex Sangallensis 
 has some Vulgate apparatus, such as the letter to Damasus, but 
 this is merely external evidence ; the internal evidence of the text 
 shews a strong non-Vulgate element from at least two quarters. 
 If the scribe used a ground-text in inserting his Latin together 
 with a second copy for reference, both of these copies were full of 
 Old Latin readings. 
 
 The value of the St Gall Latin text is clearly not to be limited 
 to the double readings, though these are of great value, and there 
 are over 200 of them in St Matthew alone. Where it differs from 
 the Vulgate it usually differs in company with a good Old Latin 
 MS.: and where it differs from the best Old Latin texts, it often 
 contains a reading which exceeds them all in antiquity. 
 
 H. s. IX. 2 
 
18 VULGATE HYPOTHESIS FURTHER TESTED FROM MATTHEW XXV. 
 
 For example in the fifth verse of this chapter we note the 
 singular reading pausaverunt : this must be African ; no one would 
 introduce such a reading at a late period in the history of the 
 Latin text, and no trace of it is to be seen in abd. Let us turn 
 to Ronsch Itala und Vulgata and see whether any similar forms 
 can be found in the Old Latin texts or fathers. 
 
 Ronsch does not seem to notice the case in the Sangallensis 
 but he gives the following instances of the verb pausare. 
 
 "Pausare [durch iravai^ von iravecv] 4 Esdr. 2. 24 pausa et 
 quiesce populus mens, Vulg.; Plant. Trin. i. 2. 150; Gael. Aur. 
 Acut. iii. 21. 212; Chron. i. 1. 16, v. 10. 116; Fulgent. Myth. 1. 6; 
 Gruter. 1050. 9 ^idcMtcx pausanti; Keren, Interpr. vocabb. barb. (ap. 
 Goldast, rev. Alain, ii. p. 86), pausent, vesten; paasetur, kirestit sin." 
 
 Ronsch also gives instances of the use of the related words 
 pausa, pausahilis, pausatio, pausatus. The evidence is entirely in 
 flivour of ascribing the word to an African origin. And we say 
 that the Godex Sangallensis at this point has preserved a fragment 
 of the old second century translation. 
 
 That this translation was due to the first hand may I think be 
 suspected from Luke xvi. 23 where the Godex Bezae shews signs 
 of having once had a similar reading. At present the text stands 
 
 KAI AAZApON eN TOO KOAnOO AYTOy ANAnAyOMeNON. 
 
 et lazarum in sinus eius requiescentem. 
 We suspect that this requiescentem is a correction for a primitive 
 pausantem, and that the gloss of the Latin translator ultimately 
 found its way into the Greek in the form avairavoixevov \ 
 
 It is not then an unreasonable thing to maintain that in 
 Matt, XXV. 5 the Sangallensis has preserved a primitive Africanism. 
 
 One other point may be noticed in support of our theory that 
 the ground-text and commentary-text were not true Vulgates. 
 The reader will find that the double readings to which we have 
 drawn attention arc almost nil in the Gospel of Mark. The 
 reason of this is probably to be found in the fact that the scribe 
 was working with Latin texts of which one at least had St Mark 
 in the last place, which is the order of Old Latin copies. He 
 wrote his Latin interlinear gloss in the Western order and grew 
 tired of collating before he reached the end of the Gospels. 
 
 ^ The gloRR in Luke was extant in Tertnllian's time in the form requiescenteu). 
 if we may judge from c M(ircii»K'm iv. Ill pauperis in sinu Aliralunn roqniescentis ; 
 and de Aiihii. D7. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 FURTHER REMARKS ON THE AFRICANISMS IN CODEX 
 SANGALLENSIS. 
 
 The collation of the single chapter which we have given above 
 helps us to a better understanding with regard to the nature of the 
 divergence of the primitive Latin tradition. We see two things 
 pretty clearly, that where the St Gall text and the Vulgate dis- 
 agree the Vulgate usually follows the combined tradition re- 
 presented by ah (what is often called the European Latin), and 
 the St Gall text usually some older form of text such as is 
 supported by what we may call, I suppose, the non-European 
 elements of the Codex Bezae and the great North-Italian copies. 
 Thus the Vulgate appears as an eclectically reformed European 
 text and the St Gall MS. as a text (possibly European) but with 
 very many forms belonging to earlier stages of the textual history.. 
 
 Now it is not our object to write at this place the history of 
 the genesis of the Vulgate text, though it will be probably a 
 simple enough business when once the data are collected ; but 
 with regard to the primitive Latin it is our most earnest wish to 
 recover every fragment, whether from the Vulgate, the St Gall 
 MS. or any other source. For we strongly suspect that this lost 
 version is responsible for the greater part of the existing aberra- 
 tions in copies, versions and fathers. It is, therefore, peculiarly 
 unfortunate that it is lost ; and the only thing to be done is to 
 recover it piecemeal and by critical work from the existing 
 materials. We have already shewn instances of the way this 
 should be done, and we will now collect some more cases. 
 
 For example in Matt. xxv. 41 we have the peculiar reading 
 sinistralibns. Nothing like it occurs in aid. The word is a 
 rare word ; Ronsch only notes it in one author, not having de- 
 
 2—2 
 
20 FURTHER REMARKS ON THE AFRICANISMS 
 
 tectecl it in this text. But it is just because of its very rarity that 
 we feel sure that it is a fragment of the primitive translation ; 
 and there is every reason, from the formation of the word, to 
 regard it as an Africanism, or if we prefer to call it so, a vulgar 
 Latinism. Accordingly we refer it to the first stage of the Latin 
 text, perhaps before the stage of more exact Greek mimicry which 
 we find in his qui a sinistris of Cod. d, which becomes expanded 
 by the addition of sunt in ah and ei'unt in the Vulgate. Here then 
 is one case in which we detect the original rendering. 
 
 The problem is seen to resolve itself into a series of smaller 
 problems, almost all of the cases having to be considered on their 
 own merits. For instance, keeping our mind, for convenience 
 sake, on the same chapter, let us ask, which of the readings in 
 V. 2 is to be regarded as primitive, stultae or fatuae. Note that 
 for the divergent reading the St Gall text has the support of the 
 Bezan text, which is usually early in character, when it diverges 
 from the Italian reading. 
 
 Then turn to Irenaeus (il. xxiv, 4) "sapientes virgines a Domino 
 sunt quinque dictae : et stultae similiter quinque "; and to Tertul- 
 lian De Anima c. 18 "quinque stultae sensus corporales figurave- 
 rint...sapientes autem intellectualium virium notam expresserint," 
 The combination shews that the variant reading stultae is very 
 ancient and in view of its attestation by Cod. Bezae we suspect it 
 to be the original translation at this point. 
 
 The word in question does not occur elsewhere than in 
 Matthew in the four Gospels ; the following table will give some 
 idea of its translation. 
 
 
 stultus 
 
 fatuus 
 
 Matt. V. 22 
 
 
 abd vg 8 k Tert. 
 
 vii. 26 
 
 abvgS 
 
 
 xxiii. 17 
 
 ahd vg S 
 
 
 xxiii. 19 
 
 S 
 
 
 XXV. 2 
 
 db\ Iren. 
 
 bvgS 
 
 XXV. 3 
 
 4 
 
 h\g8 
 
 XXV. 8 
 
 d) Tert. 
 
 bvg8 
 
 I think we may say positively that in six of the seven places 
 where fiQ)p6<i occurs, its original rendering is by stultus. In Matt. 
 V. 22 the evidence is all the other way. We will leave the 
 rendering in this passage an open question; or the reader can 
 prefer fatuus. But this starts another enquiry : what was the 
 
IN CODEX SANGALLENSIS. 21 
 
 oiiginal rendering of the word (f>povifioi in the same chapter? 
 Was it prudentes or sapientesi The passages already quoted from 
 Irenaeus and TertuUian suggest the latter; in v. 8 the St Gall 
 text intimates that there was a divergence in the tradition, for it 
 offers us both sapientibits and prudentibus; and so in Matt. x. 16. 
 Let us tabulate the attestation : 
 
 
 
 sapiens 
 
 prudem 
 
 Matt. vii. 
 
 24 
 
 abvg8 
 
 
 X. 
 
 16 
 
 d8 
 
 ah vg S- 
 
 xxiv. 
 
 , 45 
 
 d 
 
 id)\gb 
 
 XXV. 
 XXV. 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 1l Y'"''- 
 
 hvgb 
 bxgb 
 
 XXV. 
 
 8 
 
 ^1?' Tort. 
 
 b 
 
 XXV. 
 
 9 
 
 db 
 
 6vg 
 
 Luke xii. 
 
 42 
 
 d 
 
 hvgb 
 
 xvi. • 
 
 8 
 
 d 
 
 ah vg b 
 
 An examination of the table shews that the original reading 
 must have been sapiens. In the 25th of Matthew d shews this 
 reading steadily, h has it once, the Vulgate once and 8 twice ; 
 and it has the combination of early Patristic attestation. We 
 therefore, regard it as original : and the fidelity with which this 
 reading is maintained in Cod. Bezac intimates that it is the 
 habitual form in the early translation. 
 
 Let us in the next place consider whether the old translation 
 read sumpserunt or acceperunt in v. 3. 
 
 In the translation of such a common word as Xaix^avw we 
 have no right to expect a uniformity of usage throughout the 
 Gospels ; so we will confine ourselves to the Parable of the Ten 
 Virgins, where it occurs four times : 
 
 sumo accipio 
 
 Matt. XXV. 1 hdvgb 
 
 XXV. 3 bdvgb 
 
 XXV. 3 ft vg S db 
 
 XXV. 4 hd\gb 
 
 The evidence would seem to shew that the original reading 
 was unifornily (Lccipio, in which case the alternative reading 
 is simply introduced to relieve the sentence from the repeated 
 word in v. 3. But it is a point that requires to be confirmed from 
 a further examination of cases. Perhaps as good a pa.ssago by way 
 
22 FURTHER REMARKS ON THE AFRICANISMS 
 
 of parallel as we can find, would be Matt. xvi. 5 — 10 Xa^elv dprov^' 
 Ko<f>(,vov<i iXd^ere etc. Here we find 
 
 Matt. xvi. 5 
 
 
 abdvg 
 
 xvi. 7 
 
 
 ahd vg 
 
 xvi. 8 
 
 
 b 
 
 xvi. 9 
 
 ub vg 8 
 
 d8 
 
 xvi. 10 
 
 ah vg 8 
 
 d 
 
 The same suspicion arises as before, from the constancy of the 
 Bezan text, and the double reading in 8, viz. that the use of sumo 
 in vv, 9, 10 is a refinement on the original rendering. 
 
 If the reader will look now at the collated chapter in verses 36, 
 43, he will twice note the substitution of fid for eram. This may 
 seem a very trivial change of text. But let us turn to Dr Sanday's 
 discussion of the Africanisms in the Old Latin codex k and we shall 
 find a number of similar readings. Dr Sanday says', "It will not 
 be difficult... to set down certain usages as really characteristic of 
 /i;....The use of two co-ordinate verbs for participle and finite verb, 
 of cum with subj....of/ia for ermn, of words like adoratio, adora, 
 claritas, clarifico, of the compounds of eo (especially introeo for 
 intro), of excludo and expello for eicio (in the phrase excludere or 
 expellei^e daemonia), of nequam for vialas, of similitudo for jxirabola, 
 all rest on a very broad basis." 
 
 It will be seen that our single chapter shews some instances of 
 the change of fui to eram mentioned by Sanday amongst the 
 Africanisms of the period of Cyprian ; so that we are working 
 convergently in our search for the primitive rendering. And 
 other coincidences may be noted : we may be sure that neqiiam, of 
 which he speaks, was in the old translation and the corresponding 
 noun neqidtia. The following table will shew it. 
 
 Matt. 
 
 
 
 iic(jiu([m] 
 
 mains 
 
 
 malignus 
 
 V. 
 
 11 
 
 Ic 
 
 bb 
 
 
 d 
 
 V. 
 
 37 
 
 
 id>dk b 
 
 
 
 V. 
 
 39 
 
 k (Lis) 
 
 <d)db 
 
 
 
 v. 
 
 45 
 
 
 abdi'8 
 
 
 
 vi. 
 
 13 
 
 
 abi-8 
 
 
 
 vi. 
 
 23 
 
 cMb 
 
 
 
 
 vii. 
 
 11 
 
 Ic 
 
 abb 
 
 vol 
 
 mall agenies 8 
 
 vii. 
 
 17 
 
 
 abkb 
 
 
 
 ' Old Latin Biblical Texts, p. cxxvi. 
 
IN CODEX SANOALLENSIS. 23 
 
 
 
 )iequa[m] 
 
 ma his 
 
 
 malignus 
 
 Matt. vii. 
 
 18 
 
 
 ubk8 
 
 
 
 ix. 
 
 4 
 
 k 
 
 ahdS 
 
 
 
 xii. 
 
 34 
 
 k 
 
 abd 
 
 t 
 
 iiiali^iii, 8 inalig- 
 iiaiitcs vcl laa- 
 
 xii. 
 
 3D 
 
 k 
 
 abdS 
 
 ligni 
 
 xii. 
 
 45 
 
 ahdkb 
 
 
 
 
 xii. 
 
 45 
 
 k 
 
 abdkd 
 
 
 
 xiii. 
 
 li) 
 
 k 
 
 ab8 
 
 
 '/ iiiali^iiiis 
 
 xiii. 
 xiii. 
 
 38 
 49 
 
 8net|u;uu 
 a (nequitiae) 
 
 k 
 bdkd 
 
 
 b iliiqui, 
 
 d maligiii 
 
 XV. 
 
 19 
 
 
 add 
 
 
 
 xvi. 
 
 4 
 
 
 abd 8 
 
 
 
 xviii. 
 
 ,32 
 
 ahdb 
 
 
 
 
 XX. 
 
 15 
 
 abdb 
 
 
 
 
 xxii. 
 
 10 
 
 
 abd 8 
 
 
 
 XXV. 
 
 2G 
 
 cul8 
 
 b8 
 
 
 
 We need not go further into the other (Jospels, fur it i.s 
 abundantly clear that nequani was the original rendering : all the 
 texts have it at some point, and some have it at many points. The 
 substitutes for it are interesting: in xiii. 88 cod. a corrects the 
 construction to nequitiae ; while d substitutes iiialujni. This shews 
 that d had nequam in v. 11 and in xii. 34 and in xiii. 19, where in 
 fact it is preserved by cod. k. We may then go through the Bezan 
 text and restore nequam for malirjnus. This malignus is evidently 
 the same in origin as the three St Gall readings malignantes, 
 malif/ni cum sitis and mali agentes, and in all these cases nequam 
 may be restored. But it is by this time sufficiently clear that 
 nequam was the original African rendering of Troptjpo'i. 
 
 Dr Sanday's suggestion as to the use of excludo and e.rpellu for 
 eicio is also borne out by the St Gall text. In Matt. ix. 38 the MS. 
 shews the alternative reading expulso vel iecto (sic!). In Matt. x. 
 1 the word is expellerent, and no doubt other cases may be found. 
 
 Similitudo for j)arabola is found in Matt. xxiv. 82; Luke iv. 
 23, vi, 39, viii. 4, xii, IG, xiii. 6, xviii. 1, xix. 11, xxi. 29. 
 
 In Luke v. 36 we have the double rendering, comparationeni 
 vel simiiitudinem ; 
 
 and in xx. 19, parabolam vel simiiitudinem. 
 
 It appears, then, that in the Gospel of Luke there are plenty 
 of signs of an older form ; rather we must say of two variant forms, 
 
24 FURTHER REMARKS ON AFRICANISMS IN CODEX SANGALI.ENSLS. 
 
 probably older, of the word parabola. The Bezan text seems 
 always to have jxwabola, which is a little surprising, if the original 
 reading were siniilitudo or comparatio : for it is seldom that the 
 older form is entirely corrected away. 
 
 Codex h in Luke shews similitudinem in iv. 23, v. 36, vi. 
 39, viii. 4, xii. 16, 41, xiii. 6, xv. 3, xviii. 9. Cod. a has no 
 trace of it in Luke, but has it in Mark, in two passages at least 
 (vii. 17, xiii. 28). 
 
 Of the early diffusion of the reading which is found so ex- 
 tensively in ahkh there can be little doubt. But we will not 
 finally conclude that it was the first reading of all ; the defection 
 of d from contributing anything to the evidence makes us cautious. 
 A reading may be African and early African without being the 
 first translation; and in the present case we have a new variant 
 comparationem suggested by the St Gall text. 
 
 One more example from Matt. xxv. and we will conclude the 
 discussion of this group of readings. What are we to read as the 
 original rendering of KaTa(3o\r} in verse 34? The word occurs 
 four times in the Gospels, always in the same sense: and the 
 Bezan text shews three translations ; we have in fact 
 
 
 initmm 
 
 origo 
 
 constitutio 
 
 Matt. xiii. 35 
 
 d 
 
 ek 
 
 a6vgS 
 
 xxv. 34 
 
 
 dd 
 
 abvg 
 
 Luke xi. 50 
 
 
 a 
 
 hdvgd 
 
 John xvii. 24 
 
 
 
 abd vg S 
 
 The later reading is CQi'toAvXy constitutio: and from the fact 
 that both in Matthew and Luke, we find four out of the six 
 authorities quoted wandering into another text, it seems likely 
 that in these two Gospels at all events, origo was the reading of 
 the first translation. It is not so easy to decide in cases where 
 both words are equally unexceptionable, as it is when one form can 
 be shewn to be archaic or vulgar or African. Still we have shewn 
 that in many cases we can recover the more venerable forms of the 
 translation by a little care and comparison of texts: and if we have 
 also shewn that the St Gall codex contains some valuable critical 
 material in its Latin version, that is what wc began our enquiry 
 with, and the end justifies the beghming. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW OF THE DOUBLE TRANSLATIONS OF THE 
 SANGALLENSIS. 
 
 Now that we have shewn that these double readings are 
 corrections of one MS. from another, and not new translations ; 
 that they often relate to minutiae such as would never suggest 
 themselves to a first translator; and that they are uniformly 
 attested by early copies as true variants, it becomes a matter of 
 interest to tabulate these variants for purpose of reference in the 
 study of the Old Latin version. The major part of them, certainly 
 all the important ones, will be found in the following tables. A 
 few more may also be gathered from the translated titles of the 
 Chapters : e.g. in Matt, we have 
 
 TTfpt rrjs 8i8aaKaXfias = do magistei'ioi vcl doctrina, 
 
 Trepi Tav lad€i'Toiv = de curatis dcbilibus, ^ 
 
 dnl) TToiKiXaiv v6(tcou languidis vel a laiig()ril)us,( 
 
 TTfpi T<ai/ jrapa/io\a)i/ = dG «iiiiilitudiiiibu.s vel coiuparatioiiilms, 
 
 TTfpl Tav fjivadovfj.€va>v (^sic) = dc mcrcciiariis opcratcmbus vcl opcruin, 
 
 where we notice again the alternative rendering for the word 
 irapa^oXr). The following are the most important cases in the 
 text, with the leading factors of the attestation and a few remarks. 
 Trifling errors of spelling are not regarded in the analysis of the 
 attestation. Where we have reason to believe the rendering to be 
 primitive we print in capitals. 
 
 St Matthew. 
 
 i. 20 yvvaiKa UXUUE.M ((//•) couiugcm («/* vg) 
 
 ytvvrjOiv NATUM cst ((^ vg Tcrt.) {k iiatuui fuerit) na.scctur 
 {ab) 
 
 ' Cf. L-en. III. xiv. .3, " Et in magiHtcrio ilUul qnod nd divitcs (lictnin ust." 
 
26 A GENERAL VIEW OF THE D(JUBLE TRANSLATIONS 
 
 23 e^ei concipiet {ab Tert.) habcbit (t/vg) {k pregnaus erit) 
 
 (Cf. Gen. xvi. 11 in Cod. Lugd. praegnans es). 
 ii. 6 i]yf fioa-iv DUCIBUS (k Tert.) principibus (ahd vg read inter 
 principes) 
 If the primitive reading was not diocibus it was something 
 more African ; perhaps ducatoribus. 
 
 10 x^^P"" i^eya\r]v gaudio magno {abdvg) GAUDiUM magnum (k) 
 
 1 1 etSoi/ viderunt (adk) invenerunt {b vg) 
 avTwv eorum suis (k) 
 
 npoa-riveyKav adduxerunt obtulei'unt {abdk vg Tert.) 
 8wpa DONA {k) munera {abdvg) 
 
 12 St' aWrjs oSoO ex alia via per aham viam {abdvg) {k per 
 
 aliam quam) 
 di/e^wp'jo-ai' revcrsi sunt {dk vg) recesserunt- 
 avTwv coram suam {abdk) 
 
 13 (jepQfXs surge (a&^' Vg) surgens (o?) 
 
 f//Tf tf ut quaerat {ab vg) quacrere {d) {k quaesitm-us est) 
 Tov dnoXeaai ut perdat {dk) perderc {ab) 
 15 vTTo Kvpiov a domino {abk) sub domino 
 
 8ia TOV Trpo(f)t]rov ex propheta ad (?) propheta {k prophetam) 
 
 18 avTTjs suos {abk) eius 
 
 20 01 ^rjTovvT fs QUERENTES qui quaerebant {abk vg) qui 
 
 quaei'unt {d) 
 iii. 1 p.eTavodre PENITETE (/■ pcnitemini) penitentiam agite (a6 vg) 
 (cf. Tert. poenitentiam initote) 
 4 aypiov silvestre {abkvg) agreste 
 7 yevvijuara progenies {abkvg) genimina (Tert.) 
 vufbd^fv demonstrabit demonstrauit (o7>vg)- 
 fxeWovo-T]! futura (aX- vg) ventura (Mvg*"") 
 9 eV iavTols inter vos (a) (vg k intra vos) in vobis 
 
 15 Ttpinov ea-Tip oportet {b) decet (ctvg) {d decens est) 
 dcf)ir]aiv sinit dimisit {abdvg) 
 
 iv. 2 i]fiepas DIES (c/) diebus (aM' Vg) 
 
 11 d(jiiT]aiv sinit reHquit (a6 vg) ((/ dimisit) (X; discessit) 
 
 16 o Kadqptvos SEDENS (/■) qui sedebat {d vg) {ab qui scdcbant) 
 
 24 npoa-qveyKav duxei'unt obtulcrunt {abdk vg) 
 
 V. 5 KXrjpopofi^a-ovcn hereditabunt {dk) possidebunt {b vg) {a 
 
 hereditate possidebunt) 
 13 ds ov8ev in NIHILUM ad nihihun {abdvg) {k ad nihil) 
 
 19 TovTodv istis {abk) his (c^vg) 
 
 22 6 opyiCofifvos qui irascitur {abd vg) irasccns (/• qui pascitur) 
 (Is TT]v ytevvav ad gehcnnam in gchcnna {k) {d in 
 
 gehennam) 
 
 34 eV Tw ovpava IN CAELUM {dk) per caelum {ab vg) 
 iv Tjj 73 IN TERR AM (cZ/:) per tcrram {abvg) 
 viroTrobiov SUPPEDANEUM {dk Ircn.) scabellum {abvg) 
 
 39 els rfju IN {abdk) super 
 
OF THE san(;ai,lensis. 27 
 
 (TTpf'^foi/ pnaebc (ab vg) convehtk (dk) (Tcit. o])vci-te) 
 
 Tei-tiillian's reading seems to bo a refinement upon the harsh 
 literalism of concerte 
 
 40 \ntie'iv AcciPERE {(l) tollerc (6 vg) (k aufcrre) 
 
 tI> IfxaTiov VESTIMENTUM (rfX-) pallium (rt 6 Vg Tcit.) 
 
 41 oo-Ttr quicunque (/> vg) quisquis (ac/^- qui) 
 
 /i/Atoi/ millc (aW-vg mille passus) miliarium {d milium) 
 vi. 2 jxY] aaKiria-qTe ne tubiciiies noli tubicinare {dab vg noli 
 
 tuba canerc) {k noli bucinare) 
 
 5 ovK ((Tjj non sitis non eritis {ab vg) {dk non eris) 
 
 6 (cXeiVay Trjp dvpav (tov concliidcns ostium tuum {d cludens) 
 
 rel concluso ostio tuo {ab vg cluso ostio) {k cludentes ostcum) 
 14 86$a maiestas gloria 
 
 Probably these two forms are derived from an original pleonasm, 
 MAIESTAS GLORiAE or MAIESTAS CLAUiTATis ; for Compare Isaiah vi. 
 3 as quoted by the Te Deum in the Old Latin Vei-sion : " pleni 
 sunt coeli et terrae maiestatis gloriae tuae " : where the Lxx. shews 
 only T^s 86^r}s. 
 
 25 ixr) fiepifxvaTe ne soUicit estis (sic !) (vg ne solliciti estis) ne 
 
 COGITATE {ab ne cpgitetis, Tert. nolitc cogitare) 
 The Old Version seems always to have rendered n^ by ne : this 
 appears from the numerous variants where ne occurs on one side 
 and noli on the other : often it is 7ie with the imperative. 
 29 TovTcov ex ipsis {k ex his) ex istis {ab) 
 
 31 p.(pLfjLvi]<rt)Te meditemini {k Tert. nolitc cogitare) solliciti 
 estis («^vg nolitc solliciti esse) 
 Probably the archaic rendering was ne cogitetis ; for compare 
 the forms given in the following verse. 
 34 fif] fj.€ptixvri(rr]Te NE COGITETIS {k uolite cogitare) nolite 
 
 snllieiti esse {abvg) 
 vii. 1 fiTj KpivfTf NE lUDlGATE nolitc iudicarc {abk vg) 
 
 11 novrjpol oi/Tfs cum sitis mali {ab vg) (cuM siTis ne^uam /) 
 vel male agcntes 
 oi'(5nrf nostis {abvg) scitis {k) 
 13 andXfiav interitum (^•) (vg «6 pcrditionem) mortem 
 
 I can find no sup^wrt for the reading mortem : all texts seem to 
 settle finally on perditio : but k translat&s l)y exteuminium in 
 Mark xiv. 4. I suppose this was the original word. 
 16 OTTO a {ab) dc (vg) ex {k) 
 
 23 ipya(6{ifvoi qui opcrati estis {bk qui operamini) operantas 
 {a operarii) 
 
 26 npoa-fnta-au imierunt (vg) {k inpcgcrunt) cccidcrunt {() 
 
 {ab ofiendenint) 
 k^iii. 4 npoa-fveyKf adduc ofi'cv {abk vg Tcri.) {ab ott'crn) 
 9 nopfvdrjTi vade {abk vg) abi 
 TTopfvfTai vadit {abk vg) it 
 aXXo) alii (i-) alio (a/M'g"") 
 
28 A GENERAL VIEW OF THE DOUBLE TRANSLATIONS 
 
 16 TTpouTiveyKav adduxerunt obtiilcrunt (aM-vg) 
 Xoyo) verbo (vg abl:) sermone 
 
 Sermo seems to be the original African rendering, but it must 
 have been very early replaced Ijy verbum { = verhus sometimes in d). 
 
 17 hici 'Haatov cx Es. per Es. {ahk) 
 
 22 a0er sine vel dimitte (vg) {ahk remittc) vel relinque 
 
 25 8e vcro autem 
 
 31 eTTiTpe-^ov mitte (abdk vg) concede 
 
 34 iraa-a omnis tota {dk) 
 
 liera^fi transiret {abd vg) {k transferret) ascenderet 
 
 I suspect an original rendering (agreeable to the circumstances 
 of the history) ascenderet et transfretaret, cf. Matt. ix. 1. 
 ix. 4 Zgwi/ sciens {d) videns {bk vg) {a ciuii vidisset) 
 12 tmev dixit {ak) ait (6 vg) 
 
 Xpeiav exovaii' necesse habent (d) indigent (abk vg non 
 
 est opus) 
 The original reading was probably non est necessarius. 
 l(rxvovT€s fortes (d) sani {(d)k Tert. sanis) vg valcntibus 
 
 18 fXdav veniens (d) {k venitens (sic !)) accedens (ab vg 
 
 accessit) 
 
 20 ^yj/^uTo tetigit (k) tangar (sic !) 
 a-^anai tetigero (ab) tacta sim (?) 
 (r(o6^(rofiai SALVABOR (dk) salva ero {ab vg) 
 
 25 (cf. 33) (^(fi\rjdrf expulsa est {k expulsa esset but in v. 33 ex- 
 clusum esset) electa est {d) {ab vg electa esset) 
 
 35 Bepwrrevav CURANS {abdk vg) sanans 
 
 X. 16 (j)povtfio\ prudentes (a6^- vg) sapientes (<i) 
 IV npofTfXfre attendite {abd) cavete {k) 
 28 jXTj cfio^f'iade ne timete (ne timueritis k) ne terreamini 
 28 dvvdpevov qui potest {abdk\g) potentem 
 31 8ia(f)(pfT€ meliores {b vg mcliores estis) {k pluris estis) prae- 
 cellitis {d sui'erponite, Tert. antistatis) 
 The variety of renderings intimates some primitive misunder- 
 standing : the rendering of d whicli is repeated in xii. 12 is 
 probably the cause of all the trouble. 
 xi. 11 fu yevvijToU IN NATis (X;) inter natos (a6o?vg) 
 
 16 ■n-po(T(f)covov(nv clamantes (vg) {b clamantibus a adclamantibus 
 k qui atclamant) vociferantes {d respondontes) 
 Vociferantes is probably the first translation of (ficovfa and its 
 compounds, for we find it again in Matt. xxvi. V4 as a variant. 
 
 21 p.fTfv6r]a-av peniterent (/•) {d paenituissent) pcnitentiam 
 
 egissent {abvg) 
 xii. 12 8iacf)fpfi praeccllit (a6 vg melior est) diftcrt (/•) {d supcr- 
 ponit) 
 Probably we may take superponit as the original rendering. 
 14 (Tvp^ovkiov consilium {abdkvg) COLLATIONEM 
 
 Tlie alternative word is so much rarer than the common 
 
OF THR SANOALLENSIS. 20 
 
 consilium that one would suppose it miLst l>e the original 
 rendering. 
 25 fitpiade'iaa divi.suni {abcl) {k divisitum) TARTITl'M 
 
 The use of partior as a passive can bo supported by African 
 parallels ; it would surely be corrected away. A trace of it is in /•. 
 
 34 yfvvrmaTa GKNIMINA (?) (r/ generatio) progenies («M- vg) 
 
 42 KnraKpivf'i iudicabit condemnabit {ah\(l'\ vg) {k dani- 
 
 navit) 
 
 43 bUpxfTM ambulat {ah vg) graditur (?) {d circuit) (/• per- 
 
 transit) 
 
 44 (T((TaputpL(vov scopis {h vg SCOPIS MUNDATAM) .scopatani {ad 
 
 mundatam) {k emundatam) 
 The original reading was certainly scopis mnndatam, but this 
 gave two words in Latin for one in Greek : one word was tiien 
 excised ; one part of the tradition erased mundatam, hence the 
 reading scopis, the other part erased scopis. 
 xiii. 13 a-vviovaiv sentiunt intelligunt (vg) {bdk intelligant) 
 
 25 CiCapta zizania {ahdk vg) lolia 
 xiv. 19 Kf\evaai iubcns {ahdvg cum iiississent) confortans 
 
 \a^a>v Toiis Tre'i/re aprqvs acceptis quinque panibus {ab vg) 
 
 ACCIPIENS QUINQUE PANES (accepit d) 
 25 <f>v\aKfj vigilia {ahdvg) CUSTODIA 
 
 Although there seems no support for cnstodia here, yet it must 
 have been the origijial rendering ; for in Luke vi. 48 d which 
 usually renders " a watch in the night " correctly by vigilia has ct 
 si veniet vespertina custodia. 
 
 31 eh Ti IN QUID (rfvg) quare (at) 
 
 The harsh literalism is certainly original. 
 
 35 oXtjj/ universam {abdvg) totam 
 
 XV. 4 TfXfvT('iTa> consummaliitur morietiir (ac? [6 vg]) 
 
 16 da-vveroi sine intellcctu {a vg) NON intellectuales {d 
 
 insipientes) 
 The peculiar non intellectuahs has probably given rise to the 
 other two readings by con-ection. 
 
 32 npo(Tp.fi>ov(riv perscverant {ab vg) {k manente (sic !)) exi^ctant 
 
 {d sustinent) 
 Sustineo is the common African substitute for manco and 
 its compounds ; we can refer not only to the Latin gospels passim, 
 but also to the Acts of Peri)etua c. 4 " Sustineo te " : and many 
 other places in Ronsch. 
 34 dXi'ya T^HMCoa {ahdkvg) modicos 
 
 3G evxapi(TTr)<Tas gradulans (sic !) gratia.s agens {d vg) {ah 
 
 gi-atias egit) 
 xvi. 4 yf ivaxTKfTe noscitis {d scitis) no.stis {ah vg) 
 
 KnToKflnuiv avrovi rclictis illis {ah\g) relictus eos {d relin- 
 qucns eos) 
 The original reading was, T sus])ect, an African accusative 
 
30 A GENERAL VIEW OF THE DOUBLE TRANSLATIONS 
 
 absolute relictos eos : this at once explains the origin of the 
 successive variants, 
 9 eXa^ere sunipsistis {ab vg) ACCEPISTIS ((7) 
 xvii. 2 \(vKa alba (rtf^vg) Candida (b) 
 
 15 TvpoariveyKa attuli {abdvg obtuli) adduxi 
 xix. 7 anoa-Taaiov repudii {abdvg) recessionis 
 
 The original may have been abscessionis : for the closely 
 related word aTroa-Taa-ta is rendered by d in Acts by abscessionem a 
 Moi/sen ; and Irenaeus' translation (iii. xxiii. 2) explains princepa 
 apostasiae by princeps abscessionis. If this was not the form, 
 perhaps recessio. 
 9 yafi^a-T] nupserit duxerit (abdvg) 
 12 o dwdfievos qui potest (abdvg) potens 
 20 veavicTKOi lUVENis (d) adolescens (ab vg) 
 
 e(fiv\a^a^T]v conservavi custodivi (abdvg) 
 25 cT(ji)6r)vai SALVARi (<!) salvus esse (ab vg) 
 
 29 KkrjpovofjLijaei possidebit (ab vg) hereditabit (d) 
 
 The original rendering was hereditate possidebit. 
 XX. 7 vnaytTf VADITE ite (abdvg) 
 
 18 KaraKpivova-iv condemnabunt (abdvg) iudicabunt 
 
 22 ^anTia-dfjvai baptizabimini baptizari 
 
 34 avf^Xf^av aperti sunt viderunt (b vg) (respexerunt d) 
 
 The original translation was pleonastic ; aperti sunt oculi 
 
 ET VIDERUNT. 
 
 xxi. 14 iBepairevafv CURAVIT (c/) sanavit (Z> Vg) 
 
 Curo seems to be the regular African form, in preference to 
 Sano. 
 
 25 biekoy'i^ovTo cogitabant (abvg) disputabant (d altercaban- 
 
 tur) 
 38 <cara(rx«/^f«' habebimus (abvg) habita... (?) 
 44 o neacov qui ceciderit cadens 
 xxii. 18 novTjpiav malitiam (cZ) nequitiam (a6[vg]) 
 
 The prevalence of the form neqaam for malus in the African 
 text has been pointed out. 
 40 oXos tota (d totum i.e. verbum) universa (ab vg) 
 •44 vTTOTTodiov scabellum (a) suppedaneum 
 xxiii. 27 aKadapa-las spurcitia (ab vg) inmunditia (d) 
 xxiv. 3 Kar I8iav secreto (abvg) seorsum (d) 
 
 9 puTovpevoi odibiles (d) (odio ab vg) exosi 
 
 26 fpv/iw ERIMO deserto (abdvg) 
 
 Ereiiius is a good form for the Biblical Latin ; thongli it does 
 not occur here in Cod. Bezae, yet it is found in Acts xxi. 38. And 
 the word itself is found in most of the romance languages. 
 Tertullian has it in a number of places. 
 
 30 So^t;? maiestate (ab vg) gloria (d) 
 
 I'robably another original pleonasm maiestate claritatis. 
 
 31 o-nX TTtyyo? tulia (abdvg) tubicantiono (I) 
 
OF THE SANGALLENSIS. 31 
 
 38 TpciyovTts comedcntes (vg) cibantcs ([aj/x/ manducantes) 
 
 39 napova-ia adventii.s {ahdvg) jxdvciitio 
 
 43 (j)v\aKrj vigilia ((/) vel hora (rti vg) vcl CL'STomA 
 
 Cf. what was said above, Matt. xiv. 25. 
 diopvyfjvai perfodi (r/ perforari) perfodiri (rt?>[vg]) . 
 47 To'is vnapxova-iv bona (ad vg) siihsisteiitia 
 
 2 papal fatuae {b vg) stultae (d) 
 
 3 eXa^nv sumpscnint (/j) acceperunt (r^vg) 
 8 (f)pnvipois hapientibus (f/ftvg) pnidciitibus 
 
 18,27 apyvpiov ARGENTUM (f^) pecuniaiu («6 Vg) 
 20 TvpoarqveyKfv obtulit (hdvg) attulit (rt posuit) 
 32 dt^opicret separat {ah vg separabit) segi-egat {d) 
 34 KXrjpovopija-are hereditate (d) possidete {ah vg) 
 
 The original was hereditate possiuete where hereditate is a 
 
 noun ; Ijut the word passes into d as a verb, and the complete 
 
 reading breaks up. 
 37 inoTiaapev POTAViiius {d) potum dedimus {h vg) 
 41 TTopfveadf ite (r/) discedite («& vg) 
 2 (Is TO (TTavpoodfjvai nt cnicifigatur {abdxg) cnicifigi 
 12 Trpof TO fvra(f)ia(Tai sepeliri ad sepelicndiini {abdxg) 
 
 26 fvxapioTTJa-as (1. fvXoytjaas) benedixit {[a]b vg) {d bencdicens) 
 
 BENEGRATULATDS 
 
 27 evxapta-Tijaas gratias egit {ab vg) gi-atias egens {rl) 
 
 44 dnfXdc^v abiit {abd) abiens 
 
 Xnyov dndv sermonem faciens (a sermonem iterato) sermo- 
 nem dicens {bd\g) 
 47 ^vXoiv fustibus ([«]?>[cZ] vg) lignis 
 
 From the fact that lignis turns up again as a variant in Mark 
 xiv. 43 where the Vulgate has actually preserved it, we infer that 
 it was the first rendering. 
 51 dnea-nacrtu exemit {b vg) {d eiecit) evaginavit 
 
 The form evaginare will be found again in our MS. at John 
 
 xviii. 10 with an alternative ediuvit. It occurs also in Cod. 
 
 Brixiensis in Mark xiv. 47; and in c^vg in Acts xvi. 27. Cf 
 
 Ronsch p. 190. 
 
 65 xP*'"" fxoptv necesse habemus {d opus habennis) egennis 
 
 (Z-vg) 
 71 TTvXatva ianuam {ab\g) portam 
 74 ((pdvYjaev VOCIFERATUS cantavit (rtft Vg) 
 
 Compare what was said about this translation under Matt. xi. 
 16. 
 . 7 $fi>ois peregrinis (fl/xA'g pcregrinonun) hospitil»us 
 
 The Codex Bezae shews liospcs in Matt. xxv. 44 Imt nowhere 
 else in the chapter : the St (Jail text has hospes in Matt. xxv. in 
 all four places where the word occurs, and so witli ab and the 
 Vulgate. 
 
 28 (TT((f>(ivot> ccjRON AMENTUM coronaui {abdvg) 
 
32 DOUBLE TRANSLATIONS OF THE SANOALLKNSIS. 
 
 54 fifT avTov secum cum eo (6c? vg) 
 58 npoaeXdau accessit {abdvg) ACCEDENS 
 60 dnfjXdev di.sccs.sit abiit (abdvg) 
 G6 rjat^oKiaavTo custodienint munierunt (ahdvg) 
 xxviii. 9 dm^vTrjcrfv occurrit {abdwg) obviavit 
 
 The form ohviare though not supported by our quoted authori- 
 ties at this point occurs frequently in the tradition of the Latin 
 Gospels and in other places. 
 10 /xi) 0o/3e(or^e NE TIMETE nolite timere {abdvg) 
 12 dpyvpia Uavd ARGENTUM copiosuM pecuniam copiosam 
 
 (abdvg) 
 15 /xe'xpt TTjs arjiiepov USQUE AD IN HODIERNUM vel usque hodie 
 (abld]) usque in hodiernum 
 
 The pleonastic form is to be preferred, as more African than 
 any of the others. 
 IG ird^aTo constituerat (abdvg) praeccperat 
 19 p.a6rjTev(TaTe docete (a6(/ vg) vel DisciPLiNATE vel discipulos 
 facite 
 Here the last of the three readings is certainly not the original 
 African form, for that has discens for discipidus uniformly : the 
 choice then lies between the first two, and here the second has an 
 African colour which is wanting in the first. We find a number 
 of instances of the word disciplinatus in Ronsch : and Tertullian 
 shews the comparative adjective disciplinatior. We therefore 
 decide this to be the primitive rendering. 
 
 These, then, are the principal double readings in Matthew in 
 the Codex Sangallensis ; and the reader will see how helpful they 
 are in the detection of primitive Africanisms, and in the tracing of 
 the relations between the various lines of descent of the Latin 
 tradition. As we have gone so far with the subject, it would be a 
 pity not to examine the remaining Gospels, for every ray of light 
 on such an obscure subject is helpful ; we will, therefore, give a 
 full selection from the double readings in Mark, Luke and John. 
 Those in Mark, as we have said, are very few and will be easily 
 of. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW OF THE DOUBLE TRANSLATIONS OF THE 
 SANGALLENSIS. 
 
 Passing on, then, to the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John, wc 
 mi;st collect our instances of double translation as before, and 
 endeavour to discriminate bet^yeen them in the matter of antiquity. 
 We must, however, be careful not to generalize too hastily as to 
 the uniformity of a translation from one gospel to another, or even 
 from one part of a gospel to another ; for we have not proved that 
 the first translator was the same person in all four Gospels, nor 
 that he always used the same manner of interpretation in his 
 work. But we shall get light on these points as our enquiry 
 progresses. We turn, then, to the double readings in the Gospel 
 of Mark and note as follows : 
 
 St Mark. 
 
 i. 28 e^ri\6ev processit {d vg) abiit (6 exiit) 
 31 fv6ias (2") statim {hd) denuo 
 35 TTpat deluculo {bd vg) mane {a prima luce) 
 ii. 10 elbrjTe sciatis (ahdvg) videatis 
 
 12 8<)^a^(ip honorificarent {abdvg) glorificarent 
 
 The original reading was probably clarificarent. 
 17 KUKcis txovres male habentcs male habentibu.s (abdvg qui 
 male habent) 
 (Note that the second reading implies an original text neces- 
 
 SARIUS EST MEDICUS.) 
 
 22 v€ov {l") NOVELLUM (f/) novum (afi Vg) 
 
 The French nouveau shews the displacement of novum in the 
 Vulgar Latin, 
 iii. 12 cf)av(pop noiiiaua-iv manifestarent (6f^ vg) manifestjir faccrent (?) 
 (a palam faccrent) 
 The reading which we have given in tlie secoml place is 
 
 H. S. IX. 3 
 
34 A GENERAL VIEW OF THE DOUBLE TRANSLATIONS 
 
 obscure ; it may be manifestarium facerent in which case it is 
 
 probably original, 
 iv. 1 napa ad (abdvg) iuxta 
 
 11 yvavai nosse (vg) scire (vg""') («6f/ cognoscere) 
 13 ravTTjv istam hanc (ahvg) 
 
 18 airftpofifvoi seminantur (c^vg) seminati (6 seminati sunt) 
 
 19 dyanr] deceptio (vg) dilectio 
 
 Here, apparently for the first time in our investigation, we strike 
 a genuine Greek Variant, the well-known nndrr] (as in Matt. xiii. 22) 
 for dyciTrr]. All the texts are in much confusion. Perhaps the original 
 was OBLECTAMENTUM which Cod, I' shews at this point. 
 24 fierpe'iTe MENSURABiTis mensi fueritis (vg) {bd metieritis) 
 
 Our MS. shews the same form mensurare in Matt. vii. 2, without 
 an alternative, 
 vi. 3 TTpoy tJ/xos- nobiscum (ic/vg) ad nos (a aput nos) 
 27 iviyKai adferri (w/vg) adduci (6 auferri) 
 32 dirffkdov ascendentes abierunt (6) (or^ vg ascendentes....abi- 
 erunt) 
 vii. 22 TTovrjpos mains (/;r^ vg) NEQUAM (« nequa) 
 37 dXaXovr non loquentes mutos {a[bd] vg) 
 X. 4 dTTO(TTa<Tiov RECESSioNis repudii (abdl-vg) 
 
 Cf. what was said under the parallel passage Matt. xix. 7. 
 xi. 4 fvpov viderunt invenerunt {abdvg) 
 xii. 14 KTJva-ov censum tributimi (abdvg) 
 xiv. 3 TTKTTiKrjs splcatl (vg) (a optimi) pistici (d) 
 40 wdXiv denuo (vg) iterum 
 43 ^vXoiv fustibus (adJ-) LIGNIS (vg) 
 Cf. Matt. xxvi. 47. 
 XV. 4 l8ov ecce (a) vide {k vg) d vides 
 
 Under Mark ii. 12 we have the double translation of So^d^co 
 by honorifico and glorifico. This is a good place to examine 
 whether the primitive translation shewed any unity on the subject 
 of the rendering of ho^a and So^d^co. The diversity of rendering- 
 has been remarked by Scrivener in the Codex Bezae (p. xxxiii 
 note) " So^d^Q} by clarifico Acts iii. 13. iv. 21. xi. 18. xxi. 20 but 
 no where else. Yet in regard to ho^d^w we meet with just the 
 same variation in the Gospels. In St Matthew it is glorifico four 
 times, never in St Luke, but honorifico five times, honoro three 
 times, in the passive gloriam accipio iv. 15 : in St Mark we have 
 honorifico once : in St John glorifico fourteen times, honmifico six. 
 This precarious argument" (i.e. as to variety of hands in the 
 rendering) " drawn from the use of different words in the several 
 parts of the same work weighs far too much with some critics." 
 No doubt Scrivener is right in entering a warning against pre- 
 
OF THE SANGALLENSIS. 35 
 
 cipitate conclusions in such a complex problem. Let us see 
 whether there are, however, any indications of a primitive uni- 
 formity of rendering, 
 
 clarxfico glorifico honorifico magnifico honnro 
 Matt. V. 16 X- Iren. r?vgS nb 
 
 vi. 2 /• db abvg 
 
 ix. 8 /• Iron. d^gS ah 
 
 XV. 31 /• dh abvg 
 
 Mcark ii. 2 8 ahdxgb 
 
 Luko ii. 20 vgr/ Ircn. d ah 
 
 h vg (rt honorem 
 iv. 15 8 accipiens) (r/glo- 
 
 riam accipicns) 
 ad h vg 
 
 hvg 
 ad b vg 8 
 
 ad b 
 
 a hvg8 d 
 
 a b vg d 
 
 ad b 
 
 John vii. 39 vgS h ad 
 
 h d 
 
 h d 
 
 Act^ 
 
 V. 25 
 
 
 8 
 
 26 
 
 
 8 
 
 vii. 16 
 
 
 s 
 
 xiii. 13 
 
 
 vg8 
 
 xvii. 15 
 
 
 
 xviii. 43 
 
 
 8 
 
 xxiii. 47 
 
 
 VgS 
 
 vii. 39 
 
 
 vg8 
 
 viii. 54 
 
 
 rtvgS 
 
 54 
 
 
 dvg 8 
 
 xi. 4 
 
 b 
 
 dvg 8 
 
 xii. 16 
 
 b 
 
 advg8 
 
 23 
 
 bxg 
 
 f^-g-N 
 
 28 
 
 h vg 8 
 
 d 
 
 28 
 
 bvg8 
 
 d 
 
 28 
 
 bvg8 
 
 d 
 
 xiii. 31 
 
 b vg 8 
 
 d 
 
 31 
 
 b vg 8 
 
 d 
 
 32 
 
 b vg 8 
 
 d 
 
 32 
 
 b vg 8 
 
 d 
 
 32 
 
 vgS 
 
 
 xiv. 13 
 
 
 dvg 8 
 
 XV. 8 
 
 6vg8 
 
 d 
 
 xvi. 14 
 
 b vg 8 
 
 d 
 
 xvii. 1 
 
 h vg 8 
 
 d 
 
 1 
 
 b vg 8 
 
 
 4 
 
 b vg 8 
 
 
 5 
 
 6vg8 Ircii. 
 
 
 10 
 
 bvgd 
 
 d 
 
 xxi. 19 
 
 h vg 8 
 
 
 iii. 13 
 
 d 
 
 vg Ireii 
 
 iv. 21 
 
 dvg 
 
 
 xi. 18 
 
 d 
 
 vg 
 
 xxi. 20 
 
 d 
 
 
 ab 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 ad 
 
 ad 
 
 ad 
 
 a 
 
 ad 
 
 vg 
 
 3—2 
 
36 A GENERAL VIEW OF THE DOUBLE TRANSLATIONS 
 
 Now, I apprehend, no one will scrutinize this table of various 
 renderings without seeing that there is a method in the madness 
 and disorder. Even the Vulgate, where we should expect to trace 
 a reviser's hand accomplishing uniformity at the expense of 
 clearness of genealogical transmission, is seen to be a MS. tradition. 
 It may be doubted whether any of its readings are arbitrary 
 changes, and where they are eclectic, the number of sources is 
 clearly limited. In Matthew and in John the primitive reading 
 must be clarifico ; for in Matthew we have the decided African 
 evidence of k followed by d which makes the trifling modification 
 of hardly more than a letter to glorifico. Where we find glorifico 
 in d, then we may reasonably expect that the primitive was 
 clarifico. This is most decidedly the case in the last chapters of 
 John where the evidence for the primitive clarifico is very strong. 
 In Acts also this seems to be the ruling form. 
 
 In Luke, however, the evidence is much less decided, and is, 
 amongst our quoted authorities, chiefly deducible from the occur- 
 rence of glorifico in the Sangallensis. It is observable that a and 
 d are very nearly related in this Gospel. Note especially the 
 agreement of ad in reading Jionorifico (with its variant honoro) 
 and probably in the correction of honorificatus into 
 
 honorem 
 I'iam 
 
 , . > accipiens. 
 gloi'ia^^" ' ^ 
 
 It is not quite clear, then, whether we ought to restore clarifico 
 uniformly. We will see whether any light is thrown on the 
 matter by the quotations in Tertullian or the translator of 
 Irenaeus. 
 
 In Luke vii. 16 Tertullian uses gloriam referre : in xvii. 15 
 gloriam reddere; and in xviii. 43 gloriam referre. These look 
 like modifications of glorifico but we cannot be sure. 
 
 The evidence of Irenaeus which is inserted in our Table 
 supports twice the reading clarifico in Matt, as in cod k ; and once 
 in John. In two other places it gives glorifico, once in Acts iv. 
 13 where the primitive reading is surely clarifico and once in 
 Luke where the matter is doubtful. On the whole the evidence 
 of Irenaeus favours the form clarifico, but it is best to leave a 
 margin for a possible variation of translation in the Gospel of 
 Luke. 
 
 But we may evidently reinforce the argument by a considera- 
 
OF THE SANGALLEXSIS. 37 
 
 tion of the noun-forms chwitas, gloria, hunos, niajestas ;i.s renderings 
 of 86^a. 
 
 We will make a table as in previous cases. 
 
 claritas gloria honos niajestas 
 
 Matt. iv. 8 /• (ulb h 
 
 vi. 13 fi 8 
 
 29 k ah 8 
 
 xvi. 27 db ah 
 
 xix. 28 d abb 
 
 xxiv. 30 db ahb 
 
 XXV. 31 db ahd 
 
 Mark viii. 38 /• abdb 
 
 X. 37 abdb 
 
 xiii. 26 /• adb 
 
 Luke ii. 9 bb d a 
 
 14 abdb 
 
 32 abdb 
 
 iv. 6 abdb 
 
 ix. 26 a 6* 
 
 31 ac^ 68 
 
 32 ad bb 
 xii. 27 abdb 
 
 xiv. 10 afcf^S 
 
 xvii. 18 db a 
 
 xix. 38 adb 
 
 xxi, 27 o(i? 8 
 
 xxiv. 26 abdb 
 
 John i. 14 ab b 
 
 14 «6S 
 
 ii. 11 ab b 
 
 V. 41 ad b b 
 
 44 c«^ b b 
 
 44 'U^S ^ 
 
 vii. 18 abdb 
 
 18 rt6f?8 
 
 viii. 50 (-id 8 b 
 
 54 adb b 
 
 ix. 24 f^S "& 
 
 xi. 4 6 wc^S 
 
 40 bd b a 
 
 xii. 41 adb b 
 
 43 «<^8 6 
 
 43 ad b b 
 
 xvii. 5 bb ad 
 
 22 ^> b ad 
 
 24 68 «/i 
 
38 A GENERAL VIEW OF THE DOUBLE TRANSLATIONS 
 
 (jloria honos majestas 
 
 Acts 
 
 
 da 
 
 ritas 
 
 V. 31 
 
 
 d 
 
 vii. 2 
 
 
 d 
 
 55 
 
 
 
 xii. 23 
 
 
 d 
 
 xxii. 11 
 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 Now we notice that this tabic is in many ways similar to the 
 one which we had before, as indeed was to be expected in part, 
 for some verses contain both the noun and the verb in question 
 side by side (e.g. "glorify me... with the glory etc."). So that we 
 are not surprised to find that h gives evidence for daritas in the 
 last chapters of John ; nor that k which uses clarifico in Matthew 
 should use daritas in the same Gospel. The evidence is internally 
 harmonious. Moreover we have the new piece of evidence from k 
 in favour of the use of daritas and therefore, presumably, of 
 darifico in Mark. We have also found one case of daritas in the 
 Gospel of Luke. But one thing must, I think, be apparent ; that 
 the grouping of the authorities is much more simply made in the 
 testimony for the noun forms than it is for the verb forms. We 
 have still the four ways of expressing the idea in question, but 
 there is not so much variation in the relation of the attesting 
 groups. Confining our attention, then, for a few moments to the 
 attestation for the noun, we see that in no case when the autho- 
 rities divide, do we find an attestation for both honos and majestas. 
 The authorities divide on glot^ia and majestas, and on gloria and 
 honos, but .not on honos and majestas. These two forms, then, are 
 not alternative, nor did they coexist in a pleonastic translation ; 
 for in that case it is most likely that some codices would preserve 
 the one and some the other. May it not be, however, that they 
 came in separately out of pleonastic renderings of which gloria 
 was the other member ? We have already seen reason from a 
 passage of the Old Latin of Isaiah preserved in the Tc Deum to 
 suspect a pleonastic rendering, 
 
 majestas gloriae. 
 
 And it seems that the primitive Latin texts were coloured with 
 such pleonastic renderings as honos gloriae (or honos daritatis), 
 majestas gloriae; of which later scribes erased one half, keeping 
 the other. This explains most of the peculiar features of the 
 attestation, as for example, why h should in John xi. 40 give 
 
OF THE SANGALLEXSIS. 39 
 
 gloria arid a majestas ; while on the other hand in John xii. 43 
 b should give majestas and a gloria. The common ancestry had 
 both terms. Where the original reading was simply clantas 
 without any addition, it was probably at once altered to glona to 
 which no codex in question shews any special aversion. 
 
 But if this be the right interpretation of the divergence in the 
 attestation, we can turn it back from the nouns to the verbs ; and 
 we suggest that the complicated testimony is due to original 
 pleonasms, which have been variously resolved in the transmission 
 of the text by the scribes. 
 
 Moreover a review of the whole evidence shews a strong case 
 for a primitive claritas with or without other expansions of inter- 
 pretation. The case for claritas is weakest in the Gospel of 
 Luke. 
 
CHAPTEE VII. 
 
 DOUBLE READINGS IN THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 . 6 TTopevofievoi ambulantes (ci) proficiscentes (incedentes b 
 
 Iren.) 
 8 ivavTiov Tov 6eov ANTE DEUM (6 Ircii.) coram Deo (in 
 
 conspectu Dei d) 
 14 dyaWlaa-is exultatio (ah) laetitia (d) 
 
 Cod. d has laetitia again in v. 44. 
 19 ivaiTviov Toil deoii in conspectu Dei (ad) coram Deo {b ante 
 
 Dominum) 
 21 Xaos populus (a) plebs {bd) 
 
 29 1] 8e l8ov<ra quae vero audiens vel quae cum scivisset vel cum 
 vidisset (ab ut vidit) 
 
 29 ovTos ista (vg) haec (d) 
 
 30 flirev ait (b) dixit 
 
 35 dvmnis virtus {abd Tert. Iren.) potestas 
 
 44 els TO. WTO. fxov in auribus meis in meis auribus 
 eV dyaWida-fi in laetitia (d) in gaudio (6) 
 
 45 t) Triarevcraaa quae credidisti («i) QUAE CKEDIDIT (c^ 
 
 oTt ecrrat reXf twcrty quoniam perficientui' (Z;) fl ± r pei'fccta 
 
 (Note that a reads quod erit consummatio 
 „ „ d „ quia erit consummatio.) 
 Perhaps an original quia erit consummatio perfectionis. 
 48 eVi TT]v super (cF) vel in vel ad 
 
 dovXtji ancillae (abd) famulae 
 50 fls yevfds in generatione (in generationes d) in progenies 
 
 {ab in saecula saeculorum) 
 54 ixvTja-drjvai. MEMORARi (&[(/]) recordari 
 
 Certainly the African form : the form Commemorari is also 
 very common. 
 57 eyevvrjatv genuit (b) ' peperit (ad) 
 63 ndvTes universi omncs {abd) 
 
 Probably a pleonasm in the original universi omnes (cf. Sittl, 
 Die lokalen Verschiedenliciten p. 97). 
 66 ot dKovaavTis qui audierint {ahl) nudientes 
 70 bid. (TTOftaTos per {abd) ex 
 
DOUBLE HEADINGS IN THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 41 
 
 ii. 3 IBiap propriam suam {[a]bcr) 
 
 7 ((TTrapyavaa-fp pannavit pannis involvit (abcf) 
 
 8 (f)v\aKas vigilias (ab) CUSTODIAS (f^ 
 
 15 fyva>pi(Tfv innotuit ostcndit {ab) (d dcinoiistravit) 
 18 TTf/jt Tap \a\rj6evTav dc his quae dicta crant {bd [.sunt]) de 
 dictis (rt dc his quae locuti sunt) 
 
 21 e7r\iia6r](Tav consummati sunt (bd) implcti sunt (a) vel ini- 
 
 plercntur 
 A primitive pleonasm is hxtent : cf. John xvii. 23 in Cod. 
 Bezae ui sint pafecti cons^mimati. 
 
 22 avTjyayov tulerunt {b) (Iren. imposuerunt) du.\crunt (a) {d 
 
 adduxerunt) 
 27 fWia-fxivov morem consuetudincm {abd) 
 34 TTTcoo-if casura {b) ruinam {ad Tort. Iren.) 
 
 37 ^fri(T((Tiv obsecrationibus (5 observationibus) deprecationibus 
 
 {ad orationibus) 
 The verb obsecro almost always appears pleonastically with 
 rogo, and it seems that something of the same kind is to be 
 found with the corresponding nouns : cf. v. 33 which suggests the 
 
 form OBSECRATIONIBUS ET DEPRECATIONIBUS. 
 
 49 elirev ait dixit 
 iii. 1 riyetiovias imperii {ab) ducatus {d) (Tert. principatus) 
 
 Certainly ducatus must be the primitive African form ; whether 
 another word should go with it is uncertain, 
 iv. 5 (TTiyfiTJ puncto momeuto {abd) 
 
 14 inri(TTpe-^ev reversus («) {d conversus est) regressus {b 
 
 egi-essus) 
 
 ^ ^ w , .,, ^ , fa honorem] . . . , -x. i . 
 
 15 bo^aConivos glorihcatm-( j , , . pxccipicns) glonhcabatur 
 
 {b magnificabatiu:') 
 
 18 a-vvTerpififjievovs captivos CONTRIBULATOS 
 
 (Probably some confusion in the comparison of the texis upon 
 which the Scribe was working.) 
 
 19 dva0\f\l^iv videre visum {abd) 
 
 23 TiavTus utique {bd) omnino {a forsitam) 
 26 ov8ffjiiav neminem {d) nullam {ab) 
 
 aidavias (cod. aidoivos) Sidoniac {bd) {a Sidonia) Sidonis 
 
 38 (Tvvfxof^^'^ tcnebatur (6) {a detincbatur) ligata {d conprc- 
 
 hensa) 
 V. 2 an-o/Sai/rc? descenderant {b desceiidel)ant) dcscendcntes (a 
 egressi) {d exientes) 
 8 y6va(Tiv ad genua {b) {d ad pedes) gcnibus {a) 
 15 8iijpxfTo peramVjulabat {b) {a divulgabatur) pervcniebat {d 
 
 transiebat) 
 17 SiSao-Kwv scdens docens {ab) {d docente) 
 Probably an original sedens et docens. 
 lao-^ai sanando {ab ad sanandum) sjvnare {d ut sjilvarot) 
 
42 DOUBLE READINGS IN THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 20 d^e'wi/rai remittuiitur (Iren.) (ab rcmissa sunt) demit- 
 
 TUNTUK {d Tcrt. demittentiir) 
 
 25 Trapaxpfjt^a confc«tim (aid) contiimo 
 
 26 Trapddo^a MAGNALiA luirabilia (bd) (a miritica) 
 
 33 8f7](Tfis obsecrationes {b) orationes (a) {d precatione.s) 
 Cf. the renderings in ii. 37. 
 
 36 mipa^oXijv comparationem (ac/pai-abolam) similitudinem (6) 
 
 37 drroXovPTcu pcribunt (abd) perditi sunt 
 39 xPl^'''°'''^f°^ suavius melius 
 
 vi. 1 (TTTopinoiv sata (a) seminata {bd scgetes) 
 
 4 cos quomodo (ab) (Iren. quemadmodum) sicut 
 17 TreSivov campestri (bd) {a campense) pedestri 
 
 The rarer word has the greater claim to be regarded as 
 archaic. 
 
 21 TTfivavTes ESUKIENTES qui esuriunt {bd) {a qui csuritis) 
 2i) aiayova iiiaxillam {abd) genam (Tert.) 
 
 35 xPl^^o^ suavis {ad) benignus (6) 
 42 a(f)fs sine {abd) (Iren. Tcrt. remitte) dimitte (Tert.) 
 (N.B. There is no disjunctive vel between the readings.) 
 
 47 o tpxi/j-evos qui venit {abd) veniexs 
 
 48 TTpoafpprj^fu iUiserunt (?) {bd aUisit) erupit {a imiiuht) 
 
 49 uKoiiaas qui audit {ab) {d qui audivit) audiens 
 
 vii. 6 ov8e ^^laxra non sum dignus non dignum arbitratus (?) 
 
 16 e86^a(ou magnificabant (6) glorificabant {d) 
 
 22 etdfre videtis scitis (?) 
 
 23 <TKav8aXicr6ri offenderit {bd non fuerit scandalizatus) scanda- 
 
 lizaverit (a scandalizabitur) 
 
 39 einev iv eavr^ dixit {ad) ait (6) 
 
 45 KaTa(f)iXov<ra osculari {b) osculans {d) (osculando a) 
 
 47 6X!.yov paucum parvum minus {ab) 
 
 48 d(f>€ovTai DIMITTUNTUR remittuntur (a) (remissa sunt b) 
 viii. 5 napd super SECUS {b) 
 
 8 f(f)(ouei clamabat {abd) vociferabat 
 
 We have already had several instances of oocifero as a render- 
 ing of (fjcovea. We suspect it to have been the first translation. 
 
 24 di/e>^ ventum vento {abd) 
 
 The dative after increpavit is a Graecism. 
 KKvb(x)vi tempestatem tempestati {ab) {d undae) 
 Perhaps an original tempestati aqvae (as in ab). 
 
 25 vbari mari {b) aquae {ad) 
 
 40 iv T« inro<rTpe\lrai cum rediret ihs {[a]d cum rcvcrteretm-) in 
 
 rediendo ihm 
 47 dn-jfyyetXei/ nuutiavit {d adnuntiavit) indicavit {ab) 
 ix. 3 dpyvpiov ARGENTUM pccuniam {abd) 
 21 pr^Sfvi nc cui {ab Tert.) nemini {d) 
 28 TrapaXa^ciu accipicns adsumens {d Tert.) {a adsumptis b 
 
 adsumpsit) 
 
DOUBLE READINGS IN THE GOSPEL ()!• LUKE. 43 
 
 npoiTfv^aaOai lit orarct {ah) ORARE {d) 
 
 33 T)ij.as w8f Nos Hic {ah Tert.) nobis hie {d) 
 42 fpprj^fv cli«it (b) adli«it (a) disipavit 
 
 (rvv€(nrdpa$fv disipavit (6 discipavit) clisit (a cuncaii^it d 
 contiirbabit) 
 There is some difficult word used here by the primitive trans- 
 lator which gives trouble to all the successive transcriljcrs. The 
 word is something Hke tlie form in b : for in the parallel passage in 
 :ilark Cod. I: gives dissupavit. Dr Sanday equates this to dismr/jo, 
 but the existence of the form dkcipavit in h shews that there is 
 something of a dift'erent form latent. 
 47 «7rtXa/So/xews adpraehcndens {d) (« adpuaehenscm inkantem b 
 adpraehendeus pueiiim d adpraehcndens infantem) ad- 
 
 praehendente 
 Probably a confusion due to the appearance of an Accusative 
 Absolute in the text. 
 1 dva bvo simul duo binos {abd) 
 
 Probably an original ana duo. Of. d in Luke ix. 3 ana dicas 
 tunicas. 
 25 KKrjpovoprfo-u) possidebo {ab) liereditabo {d) 
 Original reading was hereditate possidebo. 
 
 30 nepieneaev incidit (abd) decidit 
 
 31 Kara (TvyKvpiav accidit (a fortuito 6 om, o? forte autcm) contcgit 
 
 The original was forte autem accidit or something very like 
 it. 
 
 34 TO 'Ibiov KTTJvos suum iumcutum {ab in suo iumento) suum 
 
 asimim {d super suum pecus) 
 firefi(\tjdr) medelam egit curam egit (b) (ad curam habuit) 
 
 35 fK(:ia\d)v mittens (d eiciens) profcrens {ab protulit) 
 42 jTfpi TToXXci multa plurima 
 
 dya6iiv bonam (d) optimam {ab) 
 
 Probably an original African Superlative bonam bonam. 
 8 dvaards surgere surgens {ad) 
 13 nveipa dyiov spiritum bonum {bd BONUM DATUM) spiritum 
 
 sanctum 
 23 avi/ayeop colligit (b) congregat {d) 
 
 25 a-fcrapafifvou scopis vacantem scopis mundatam (/>) (t^ 
 
 mundatum) 
 The original reading answered to 
 
 crecrapcopevov cr;^o\dfoi'Ta 
 
 and was rendered 
 
 SCOPIS MUNDATAM VACANTEM, 
 
 Some texts erase scopis and some vacantem, and some lo.se 
 both. 
 
 26 irapaKap^avfi adsumit {abd) accipict 
 
 27 eV Tt3 \ty(Lv cum diccret {ab) {d in eo cum dicerct) dicendo 
 
44 DOUBLE READINGS IN THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 28 aKovovTfs qui audiuut (abcl) audieutes 
 
 30 TavTt] isti huic (abd) 
 35 a-Kojrei vide intende 
 
 39 nivoKos catini (ah) {d catilli) disci 
 
 40 a<ppov€s stulti (abd) insipientes 
 
 xii. 2 KpvTTTov absconditum (Tert.) (d absconsuji) occultum {ab) 
 7 bi.a(f)fpeTe praefei'tis {ad differtis) praccellitis {b plures 
 esti.s) 
 
 15 eK Tav vnapxovTcjiP ex his quae possidet (6) ex possessis {a 
 
 de facultate sua d de substantia eius) 
 17 TTov quo (6) ubi (ad) 
 22 ivhv(Tr)(j6e induamini {abd) vestiamini 
 24 rafielov cella vinaria (without a conjunction and probably a 
 
 single reading) {ab cellarium d promptarium) 
 38 (f>v\aKfi CUSTODIA {cl) vigilia (6 Iren.) 
 45 ;!^poi/iXft moratur {d tardat) moram facit (6) 
 50 reXeadrj perficiatur {b) finiatur {d consummetur) 
 Cf. the i-eadings in ii. 21. 
 xiii. 15 TTOTL^fi ADAQUARE (6) {ad adaquat) (Tert. ducit ad potuni) 
 
 potare 
 
 22 dienopevfTo ibat (6) perambulabat {ad circuibat) 
 24 dycoviCeade certate {d CERTAMiNl) contendite {b) 
 
 28 eK^akXop.fvovs expelli {h) expulsandos {a Iren. proici d eici) 
 xiv. 4 laa-aro sanavit {b) {d sanans) curavit (a curatum) 
 
 31 inravrrja-ai occurre (sic !) OBViARE {ab) {d obviari) 
 
 33 Tols eavTov vnapxovaiv possessis suis {a facultatibus b quae 
 possidet d svibstantiae suae) ea quae possidet 
 Cf. the readings in xii. 15. 
 35 exoiv habens qui habet {ad) (qui habent b) 
 XV. 6 TO aTToXcoXof quern perdideram [quae] perierat {abd) 
 17 fXddu vcnieuH {d) reversus (?) (a) conversus 
 28 dpyia-Orj iratus est {ad) indignatus {b vg) 
 28 TTapeKoXfi vocavit rogavit {ab coepit rogare d rogabat) 
 30 Tov l3iov facultatem {a omncm facultatem) substantiam (6) 
 
 {d omnia) 
 xvi. 6 t6 ypdp.p.a (a triple reading) cautionem (a) litteram {bd lit- 
 teras) liniam (1) 
 
 16 6i;ayyeXi^erat BENE NUNTIATUR evangelizatur ([a] b [if]) 
 
 30 p.eTavoi]crov(TLv PENITEBUNT {d paenitebuntur) penitentiaui 
 agent (a) {b persuadebit iUis) 
 xvii. 2 nvXoi oviKus lapis molaris {ab) {d lapidem molae) mola 
 
 ASINARIA 
 
 7 f'l ufiwi/ vestrum (a) ex vobis {d ex vestris) 
 
 11 eV rw nopfvfo-dai avrov dum iret {ab) {d cum iter faccrct) 
 
 ingrediente eo 
 
 12 dnf]VTrja-av occurrerunt OBVIAVERUNT 
 
 23 nfj direXdrfTf NE ITE {d ue ieritis) nolite exire {ab nolite ire) 
 
DOUBLE READINGS IN THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 4..') 
 
 29 (^pt^fv nvp pluit ignem pluit ignis 
 4 ovK 2" non {d) nee {ah) 
 13 iKaaOriri fioi propitius esto (a) {h repropitiai-e) propitiate 
 
 mihi {d miserere niihi) 
 18 K\r)povofi^(Ta possidciim {ab possidebo) hereditcni {d herodi- 
 tabo) 
 
 Original reading hereditatem possidebo. 
 24 fl(Tf\tv(TovTai intrabunt (ab) (d IXTROIBUNT) intrare 
 
 The fondness of the Old Latin for introeo as against hitro has 
 been noted by Dr Sanday. 
 31 napaXa^cdv assumens {d adsumens b adsiimpsit) accipiexs 
 
 {a convocatis) 
 35 npoaairav ruendicans (a) (mendicus bd) jwtens 
 
 4 avKofioptav sycomorum arborem (« arborem sycomori b arlwrcni 
 
 sycomorum d morum) (Probably a single rendering) 
 
 5 dj/aj3Xe\//-ay suspiciens respiciens {a [b]) 
 
 7 fta^X6fv KaraXva-ai introisset solvere (a introisset raanere d 
 introivit manere) divertisset (b devertit) 
 The original rendering may well have been introivit solvere. 
 11 Siaro eo quod («&) propter ((/ propter quod) 
 15 and in 23 apyvpiou pccuniam {abd) argentum 
 18 o dfVTtpos alter (6) {ad alius) secundus 
 21 ava-TTjpos austeris {abd) asper 
 24 apaTf tollite {d) auferte {ab) 
 26 dpdT](T€Tai tolletur {d) auferetur {a) 
 
 28 fp-TTpoadev ante coram 
 
 29 TO KaXovpfvov vocabulo {a qui appellatur) vocatum {d qui 
 
 vocatur) 
 Cf. Luke X. 39 where KaXovpfvTj Mapia is rendered rocabido Maria. 
 
 30 imayere ite {ad) vadite 
 
 9 yempyo'is colonis (a) agricoli.'j {d) 
 
 Colonus seems to be the common rendering, but d has adtori- 
 bus once in Matt., and agricola regularly in Luke. Cod. a has 
 VISITOR regularly in ]\Lark, the last is such a rare w/ird that 
 one would suppose it to be the archaic reading at le,ast for this 
 Gospel. 
 11 TTpoa-fdfTo adposuit (o) addidit (o? misit alium) 
 21 npoaconov personam {ad) faciem 
 26 davfiaa-avTfs mirantes {d) mirati (a) 
 43 vnoTTodtov SUPPEDAXEUM scabellum 
 46 €u Tols 8fiirvois in conviviis in caenis {d) 
 7 magister {ad) praeceptor 
 
 An original pleonasm of the translator ; a numl>cr of i>arallel 
 ca.ses can be found in the Western text as John xx. 17 in 
 Cod. Bezae " rabboni quod dicitur domine magister." The present 
 in.stance magister et praeceptor can also be paralleled from the 
 Arabic Harmony of Tatian in Mark x. 51. 
 
XXll. 
 
 46 DOUBLE READINGS IN THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 12 dyoufvovs ducentes [d ducentur (« ducemini)] tradeutes (a 
 
 tradent vos) 
 
 14 dTro\oyr]6rivai quemadmodum respondeatis (« quomodo ratio- 
 
 nem reddtitis d respondere) disputare 
 
 15 avTfiTrelv resistere («) contradicere (d) 
 
 24 alxiJ-aXa>Ti(Tdi](TovTai CAPTIVENTUR captivi diicentiir {ad) 
 
 29 TvdvTa TO. 8ev8pa omnia ligna omnes arbores (ad) 
 31 yivofjLfva fientia fieri 
 
 33 \6yoL verba {abd) sermones 
 
 33 (fin.) napeKBuicnv transibunt {ad praeteribunt) transient {h) 
 
 36 finrpoadev ante {a) coram {d in conspecto) 
 
 37 f\aicov olivarum oliveti {bd) {a olivetum) 
 2 Xaov plebem {h) populum {ad) 
 4 Tras QUOMODO {d) quemadmodum {ab) 
 
 16 eas oTov donee (a6) usque quo {d) 
 
 17 Siafiepia-are dividite {b) PARTITE (partimini ad) 
 favTo'is inter vos (6) vobis {d) {a in vobis) 
 
 27 6 dpaKfififuos qui recumbit {abd) recumbens 
 31 e^T}Ti](raTo quaerebat {a Tert. postulavit) expetivit {M) 
 37 TfXea-dfjvai impleri {ab) (conpleri d) finiri 
 4 ov8et/ aXriov nil causae {bd nihil causae) nuUani causam (« 
 
 nuUam culpam) 
 
 33 and 39 KaKovpyovs latrones {ab) (but in v. 39 a has malefici) 
 NEQUAM {d malignos) 
 
 As we shewed before, malignus is a correction for nequam. 
 
 50 ^ovKevTri<: decurio {abd) consiliarius 
 53 ov quo {b in quo) ubi {ad) 
 
 13 (iTrexova-av intervallo {a habentem b quod aberat d iter 
 HABENTis) spatio 
 
 14 ap.lXovv loquebantur {a tractabant) pabulabantur {bd) 
 
 18 napoiKeU peregrinus es {ab) {d ad vena) incola 
 20 01 dpxiepfh summi sacerdotes {a pontifices) principes 
 
 sacerdotum {bd) 
 
 30 p.€r avTu>v cum illis {ab) {d cum eis) secum 
 (neblbov dedit {d dabat) porrigebat {ab) 
 
 34 (ivras verc {ad) {b om.) certe 
 43 Xa/3wi/ ACCIPIENS {ad) sumens 
 49 e'^ yy^fovs ex alto {a a siimmo b ab alto d de alto) ex altis 
 
 51 dve^iptTo ferebat ferebatur 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE DOUBLE READINGS IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 This Gospel should have been taken in the second place in 
 dealing with a Western text, the Western order being Matthew, 
 John, Luke, Mark ; a fact Avhich needs always to be kept in mind, 
 since the order of the books has an influence upon the nature of 
 the text. Any one who has worked in the collation of MSS. knows 
 how often we find an early text in Mark following a conventional 
 text in Matthew, and the reason is to be sought in the imperfect 
 correction of copies. Scribes gi'ow tired of making changes and 
 correctors grow tired of making corrections before they reach the 
 end of the volume of the Gospels, and hence it often happens that 
 we have a different text at the end of the Gospels than at the 
 beginning. Thus we may modify Jerome's saying, and maintain that 
 the very order of the hooks is a sacred mystery ! But this by the 
 way: let us now take up some of the double renderings in the 
 Gospel of John, as they have been preserved for us by the hand of 
 the Scribes of the Sangallensis. 
 
 i. 1 Xt'ryos verbum {ah Iren.) sermo (Tert.) 
 2 ourof hoc {ah Ircn.) Hic (Tert.) 
 6 avVw cui {ah) illi 
 9 TO (f>cis TO aXrjdiPov o liix vcra qii.ic {b Tert.) hinien voniui 
 
 quod (a) 
 11 TO "iSia propria (6 sua propria) sua (a) 
 14 Xdyof verbum {ab Tert.) sermo (Tert.) 
 18 ncoTTOTe UNQUAM NISI {ab Iren.) forte (?) 
 
 Of this nisi Harvey notes in Iren. lii. xi. ;') that it is " of no 
 Scriptural authority " ! 
 23 evdvvaTe parate dirigite {ab) 
 
 29, 35 Trj f'navpiov altera die («) {b postera die) crastino 
 37 avTov eum illo {a ilium) 
 
48 THE DOUBLE HEADINGS IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 38 /xeVets manes (a) {b manis) habitas 
 
 40 Tap aKovadpTuv audientibus qui audierant {ab) 
 
 48 ^iKmnov (ficovijcrai Philippum vocantem Philippus vocaret 
 
 {ab Philippus vocarat) 
 
 50 finev dixit ait 
 
 ii. 15 TToitjaas faciens cum fecisset {ab fecit) 
 
 16 aparf auferte toUite {ab) 
 
 iii. 15 fls avTov in eum {ab) ipsum 
 
 26 fiera aov tecum {abd) cum te 
 
 36 direidtav incredulus {a indicto-obaudiens qui non credit 
 
 {bd Tert. Iren.) 
 
 I think this is the only place where the forms indieto-audiens, 
 indicto-obaicdie^is have left a mark on the Latin Gospels : but the 
 words occur frequently in Irenaeus and in the Old Testament, 
 moreover we suspect a not uncommon inobediens to be derived 
 from the same source. 
 
 'iv Judaizans cum sis Judaeus {abd) 
 
 venit {bd) veniet {a venturus est) 
 verbum {abd) sermo (Iren.) 
 I'ogabant {ahd) interrogaverunt 
 audiens cum audisset {abd) 
 futurus erat (a erat moriturus) incipiebat {b) 
 prius {ab prior) primus 
 contingat {ad) fiat {b Iren.) 
 apparens {a inluminans) lucens {bd Tert.) 
 38 \6yov SERMONEM verbum {abd) 
 vi. 22 TTj iiravpiov crastina altera die {ab) 
 
 ea-TrjKcis stabat {ad quae stabant b quae stabat) stans 
 
 23 evxapLcrrria-avTos gratias agente {b quem benedixerat) grati- 
 
 ficante 
 
 27 TTjv aTroWvpLivr)v quae perit {abd) perientem 
 
 Tf)v p.evovtjav quod permanet {ad quae manet b quae permanct) 
 manentem 
 vii. 32 Tox) o-xKov yoyyv^ovTos turbam murmurantem (ao? turbas nuu'- 
 miu-antes) (6 populum mussitantem) turba murmurante 
 
 ^' "EXvl} Gtraeci (a6c^) gentes 
 
 37 rf] icrxaTT} rjp.(pa novissimo die (k/) novissima... (r?) 
 viii. 44 y\rfvbos mendacium {abd Tert.) falsuni 
 
 ix. 8 yi'iTove^ vicini {abd) parcntcs 
 
 Tv^i^os (1. TTpoa-aiTrji) caecus mendicus {abd) 
 npoa-aiTciv adpetens (?) mendicabat {abd) 
 22 o-vvfTedfivro conspiraverant {(t constituerant b consiliati crant 
 d cogitaverant) consenserant 
 
 24 fK devTfpov ex secundo I'ursu {abd iterum) 
 35 fvpciv invenicns cum invcnissot (r^/x/ invcnit) 
 
 x. 2 dvpas ianuam {((b) ostimu {d) 
 
 9 
 
 'lovSato? 
 
 25 
 
 epXfrai 
 
 37 
 
 Xoyos 
 
 40 
 
 T^pWTCiV 
 
 47 
 
 aicov(Tas 
 
 
 ^pfWfv 
 
 4 
 
 TTpu>TOS 
 
 14 
 
 yfPT]Tai 
 
 35 
 
 (paivcov 
 
THE DOUBLE READIXciS IX THE CiOSl'EL OF JolIN. 4fl 
 
 3 KUT ovn^n .secundum nomen (o? ad nomcn) uoiuiiiatini (ah) 
 
 11 rier^aiv ponit (a Tert.) (tradet 6) dat (</) 
 
 13 fi(\fi pcrtinet (o6) curat (</ cura est) 
 
 IG nolfjLvri ovile {abd gvox) pastorale 
 
 17 Xn'/3a) ACCIPIAM (d) suniam (ab) 
 
 18 \al3f'iv ACCIPIENDI (fi? toUere) sumondi («/;) 
 
 21 8atfMovi^ofifvov deuioniaci denioiiium habentcs (uM) 
 25 ftVoi/ LOQUOR (b Tcrt.) dixi (<t) {d dico) 
 xi. 20 inri]in-T](rev occurrit ((^6) <feviAYiT (c/ ()l)iavit) 
 38 rrdXcv itcrum (d) rursum 
 45 01 f\6<'>vT€s qui venerant (abd) venientes 
 xii. 20 "EX\t}V(s Graeci (abd) gentiles 
 xiii. 15 KoBas sicut (ad) qucniadniodiim {b) 
 
 The favourite African form seems to be quomodo, but fi-om the 
 recurrence of the pair of forms we may suspect a primitive pleon.-ism 
 QDOjrono SICUT. 
 2G fidijras to \l/coiiiov intingcns tinctum panem 
 
 This is evidently a compound reading, made up from 
 
 tinctum panem \ dedero 1 
 
 buccellamj porroxeroj 
 
 and intingens panem 1 dedero l 
 
 buccellamj porrexeroj 
 
 Observe a b intinctum panem 
 
 d intincta buccellam. 
 The reading is triply alternative according to the rendering of 
 ■\\rodfxiov, of iiribuxToi which the St Gall text gives alternatively as 
 
 didero porrexero {nbd), 
 and according to the manner of translating the participial con- 
 struction. 
 
 The original rendering of \l/a>^lov clearly contained buccella, in 
 fact the MS. has buccellam in vv. 27, 30, and in v. 30, while ad 
 have panem, h has buccellam. 
 
 Perhaps we may set the original rendering in the form intinc- 
 
 TAM BUCCELLAM PANIS DEDERO. 
 
 38 dnapi^a-t] neges (b) {a abneges d negabis) negaveris 
 
 xiv. 2 TTopevofxai vado {b) abeo {ad eo) 
 
 XV. 13 dyc'nrrjv dilectionem (bd) karitatem (?) («) 
 
 14 (VTiWonai praecipio (ab) mando (d) 
 
 18 fiepia-rjKfv odio habuit (b) odivit {d) {a odiit) 
 
 19 fK ex de (abd) 
 
 xvi. 8 iKdcou VENIENS (d) cum venerit {ab) 
 
 17 f'TToi/ dixerunt {abd) dicebant 
 
 29 iS« vide ecce {abd) 
 
 xvii. 14 ffiL(rr)<rev odio habuit (?>) odivit (r?c/ odit) 
 
 20 TTKTTfv6vTu>v CREDENTIBUS {b qui creduiit) credituris {ad c\ni 
 
 crcditvn-i .sunt) 
 
 n. s. IX. 4 
 
50 THE DOUBLE READINGS IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 23 TfTf^euofifvoi consvimmati (b consiimmati in unum) {d perfecti 
 coNSUMMATi) perfecti definiti (a perfecti in unum) 
 xviii. 2 TToXKaKis MULTOTIES frequenter (ab) 
 3 (TTTf'ipau cohortem (ab) speram 
 eVel illuc (b) ibi (o) 
 Xa/xTTfiStoi' lampadibus (a) facibus (b) 
 6 ^TTio-o) retro (a) retrorsum (b) 
 
 20 oTTov quo (ab) ubi 
 
 21 dKTjKoiras audientes qui audierunt (ah) 
 xix. 12 (K TovTov ex inde (b) ex hoc (o) 
 
 13 XfyoiJLfuov qui dicitur (b) (qui appellatur a) dictum 
 41 ov8fis nemo quisquam (6) 
 XX. 2 rpe;^et cucurrit (ab) (d currit) festi[navit] 
 
 The reading festinavit is pecuharly interesting : it does not 
 belong here, but with the cucurrit of verse 4, where it represents a 
 primitive rendering of npoedpafiev raxfiov, which is preserved in the 
 Tatian Harmony (festinavit et praecessit). 
 f(f>i\fi diligebat (d) amabat (b) 
 19 6vpu>v ianuis (a6c? ostiis) foribus 
 xxi. 10 eTnaa-are cepistis (ad) prendidistis ([b]) 
 
 12 padrjrav discumbentium (a discipuUs) (b discentium) disci- 
 pulorum 
 The primitive reading was discentium. 
 15 vai etiam (d) utique (ab) 
 19 TToi'o) qua ([a]bd) quah 
 21 l8(ov ciun vidisset (b) videns (ad) 
 23 f^fjXdfv venit exiit (a) (bd exivit) 
 
 We will conclude this chapter by an attempt to discover by means 
 of the Codex Sangallensis and associated copies how the primitive 
 translator" rendered the particle av when he found it in connection 
 with a verb in the indicative mood. We know that in spite of 
 occasional freedoms of speech and a few necessary paraphrases 
 the original rendering was slavishly, religiously literal; and it 
 appears that the old translation in the majority of cases attempted 
 an adverbial translation of ai^, either hy forsitan (a favourite word, 
 and usually, I think, in the spelling forsitam) or by utique which 
 may itself be sometimes a substitute for a primitive /o?'5tYawi. The 
 reader will be interested in examining the following table, in 
 which the cases are collected, omitting a double reference where 
 dv occurs in two successive clauses, since it is hardly likely the 
 translator would give the word twice. 
 
 Matt. xi. 21 TToKcu av ptTfvorja-av forsam 1-'^°" 
 
 23 fpfivfv civ forte (ab 8 vg) utique (d) 
 
THE DOUliLK UKADINGS IN THE (JlJSPEL OF JOHN. .'jI 
 
 Xii. 7 OVK av KllTfi^lKCUTaTf 
 
 xxiii. 30 o\)K av ijfjifda Koivavoi 
 
 xxiv. 22 OVK av fcrcodr] 
 
 xxiv. 43 iypriyofirjo-ev av iitique {ah b vg) 
 
 XXV. 27 (KOfjLia-dfXTjv (iv utiquc ((^Vg) 
 
 Mark xiii. 20 ovk av fo-codt] 
 
 Liikc vii. 39 eytVoxr/cff av {abd\g) utiquo 
 
 x. 13 TrnXai av nfrfvorjaav fors {a) 
 
 xii. 39 iypr)y6pr](T(v av (c^ 8 Vg) utiqvic 
 
 xvii. 6 e'Xe'yere av {bd) utiqvic 
 
 xix. 23 avv toku av inpa^a^ir^v litiquc {h 8 vg) 
 
 John iv. 10 av av jiTT)a-as forsitan (c^vg) magis (6) 
 edcoKev av forsan (S) 
 
 V. 46 fmoTevtrf av (6 S Vg) forsitan utiquc (8) 
 
 viii. 19 jjdfiTf av utique (a) (Svg) forsitan 
 
 39 enoi€iTt av for«itan (8) (b) utiquc 
 
 42 iqyanaTe av (jxi {bddxg) utiqUG 
 
 ix. 41 OVK (IV €i;(6Te afiaprlav prufccto 
 
 xi. 21 OVK av (TiQvrjKd 
 
 32 OVK av anedavfv 
 
 xiv. 2 eiTTov av (8) forsitan 
 
 7 fyvcoKeiTf av (8 Vg) utiquc 
 
 28 exaprjTf av (c/vg 8) utique 
 
 XV. 19 Koajioi av ((f)i\(i (8) utiquc 
 
 xviii. 36 vTTTjpfTai av rj-ycoi/ifoiro (Svg [not ion]) utiquc 
 
 The persistent attempts to render the particle in question are 
 evident from these instances. It is rarely found untranslated 
 amongst our whole body of authorities, and these are evidently 
 derived as to their rendering from a primitive form. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 A FEW WORDS ON THE GLOSSES IN THE SANGALLENSIS AND 
 ON THE COLOMETRY. 
 
 Now that we have discussed at length the double readings of 
 the Sangallensis, we will add a few words about a series of oc- 
 casional glosses which we find in the text and which throw some 
 light on the manner of production and propagation of textual errors. 
 At the first reading of the MSS. one naturally supposes that these 
 are merely the expressions of the actual transcriber of the Codex 
 who wishes to explain a hard word or construction to those who 
 come after him. But the more we look into the matter the 
 more sure we shall be that here too we have elements preserved 
 from an earlier stage in the textual history. Our St Gall scribe 
 is an ignorant person, as mechanical as most of his tribe in his 
 own day and not likely to do much by the way of comment, when, 
 as we can easily assure ourselves, the task of dividing his con- 
 tinuous Greek text into words was often too much for him. But 
 let us take an example of the glosses in question. 
 
 In Mark ix. 23 the Greek text is in Cod. A 
 
 Ae • ic • eineN • aytoo • to • ei • Aynh" nANTA.... 
 which the scribe fits with Latin as follows, 
 
 — aute ihs ait illi si potes -i- credere omnia etc., 
 where the sign -i- stands for id est or scilicet: apparently, then, we 
 are to regard credere as a gloss of an explanatory nature : it is 
 definitely excluded from the text by the sign that is placed before 
 it. 
 
 Now was this the scribe's own doing ? Let us turn to some 
 of the old Latin texts and examine. 
 
ON GLOSSES IN THE SAXGALLEXSIS AXD uN THE CuLO.METllY. .'jS 
 
 In Cod. a we find as follows : 
 
 quid est si ciuid potes ^ si i)otes credere. 
 
 Here the original text in the preceding verse was clearly 
 si quid potes = et n Bvvt], 
 but a marginal hand wrote an enquiry as to what this abrupt 
 sentence might mean : and the question with the appropriate 
 answer has found its way into the text. Nor are we surprised to 
 find that Cod. b reads si potes credere and that Cod. d has the same 
 and carries the added credere back into the Greek as Tnarevaai. 
 In Codex k nothing of the kind has been added. We see then 
 that the old Latin tradition started from a Greek text like that 
 printed in Westcott and Hort's text, and ought not to be quoted 
 in support of credere. Now turning back to the St Gall text, can 
 we doubt that we have in its gloss a part of the very same as 
 appears in Cod. a ? It is extremely unlikely, at any rate, that we 
 are here dealing with an emendation due merely to the scribes of 
 the Sangallensis. We ought, then, to watch those places where 
 the scribe introduces a reading with the explanatory sign .|. , and 
 to keep our senses alive to detect any traces of antiquity that may 
 present themselves. For the organic unity of the Latin versions, 
 as well as the primitive form from which they proceed, comes out 
 strongly in just such enquiries as these. 
 
 Next let us turn to Luke iv. 13 where we have the text 
 6 8td^o\o<i inrearrj ciir avrov a^pi- Kaipou. 
 
 The passage is rendered very closely by the Latin, which gives, 
 not as in the English Bible " for a season," but usque ad tenipus, 
 and then the question arises : what time is meant by the Evan- 
 gelist ? The answer is contained in a brief gloss which follows in 
 the St Gall text 
 
 •I- passionis. 
 
 The time meant is, then, the time of the Piussion. We have 
 not succeeded in finding any trace of this explanation in Latin 
 Gospels. But it seems likely that traces of it may be found. 
 Ephrem in his commentary on Tatian's Harmony appeals at fii-st 
 sight to interpret differently, for we find him expounding as 
 follows, 
 
 " Quod dixit: discessit ab eo ad ali([Uod tempus, donee scilicet 
 se praeparat, ut per calunuiiam et invidiam Seribarum victoriam 
 
54 A FEW WORDS ON THE GLOSSES 
 
 Domini impedirct. Sed siciit initio, ita et dcvictus est in fine, 
 quia Dominus morte sua gloriosius de eo triumphavit." 
 
 But one is inclined to ask whether this ad aliquod tempus can 
 really represent Tatian or Ephrem, and whether it does not stand 
 for the same usque ad tempus as we find in the Old Latin and in 
 the Vulgate : and if so, Ephrem's explanation is exactly like that 
 of our glossator, for the time is clearly the time of the Passion, 
 and the two stages of the temptation are marked off by the words 
 " the beginning " and " the ending " in the sentence quoted from 
 Ephrem. 
 
 In any case, the interpretation is an early one, and that being 
 so, it is not necessary to regard the gloss in our text as being of 
 late authorship. 
 
 In Luke v. 33 the MS. translates koI ol rwv ^apcaalivv by 
 et .|. discipuli Pharisaeorum. If we turn to Codex Bezae we 
 shall find the gloss in the form of an actual reading in the Latin 
 and from the Latin transferred to the Greek. 
 
 In Mark vii. 4 the Greek text dir dyopa'i is rendered aforo -y 
 redeiintes. Let us turn to the Codex Bezae and we shall find 
 that a very similar gloss has been added there, the Greek shewing 
 the corresponding additional words otuv eXdwaiv. 
 
 An interesting gloss will be found in Luke xxiv. 24 where the 
 Greek Kal dTrrfkOdv riva rwv avv r/fiiv iirl to /j,v't]fxeLov is explained 
 by a glossed translation of Tiv€<i 
 
 quidam -i- petrus et iohannes. 
 
 Besides these exegetical glosses the MS. contains a number 
 which belong merely to the transcriber or one of his followers; 
 they are merely grammatical explanations of an elementary 
 character; explanations of verb-forms, or distinctions between 
 different words that might be confused by a tyro, e.g. Matt. ii. 11 
 Treo-oj/re? is translated 
 
 procidentes -i- a cado 
 
 to explain the derivation of the verb procido. All of these points 
 may be found noted by Rettig in his account of the MS. 
 
 There is one other direction in which I think the St Gall text 
 deserves a further study : namely, the colometry : it was pointed 
 out by Rettig that the Greek text was derived ultimately from a 
 MS. written in short sentences or cola, and that the traces of such 
 a subdivision were still apparent in the capital letters which form 
 
IN THE SANOALLEXSIS AN'I) OX THE 
 
 ('•M.OMETltV. 
 
 a conspicuous feature on the pages of the St Gall text. And 
 Rettig acutely conjectured that there was some relation between 
 these cola in the St Gall text and the line-division in Cod. Bezae, 
 " Si operae praetium habueris, Cantabrigien.<5em evolverc Kiplingi- 
 anum, consensum hand spernendum reperies. Caeteruni hand 
 constanter stichi ita per totum libruni insigniti sunt." 
 
 The question opened up by Rettig is by no means an un- 
 important one : for many textual phenomena are explained by the 
 circulation of such a conventional form of text as is here spoken 
 of Is the St Gall colometry, then, the same as we call elsewhere 
 the great Western colometry ? We are well prepared to believe it, 
 in view of the strong Old Latin features of the text. 
 
 We have drawn attention in our study of Codex Bezae to this 
 point ; and have there suggested that the same colometry is to be 
 traced in the punctuation of the Old Latin Cod. k, and in the red 
 points of the Curetonian Syriac, which we take to have been made 
 from a Western bilingual. By means of these four forms of 
 colometric text, the Cod. Bezae, the Codex Bobbiensis, the Codex 
 Sangallensis and the Cureton Syriac, we ought to be able to get 
 some conclusive evidence as to whether a single colometry was 
 evolved in the Western bilinguals of the second century. 
 
 As far as our examination of these texts goes, we have as yet 
 found nothing seriously inconsistent with this belief in the existence 
 of a common line-building. It is unfortunate that we have no 
 evidence of the kind forthcoming with regard to the form of the 
 two great North Italian Codices {ah): these were printed by 
 Bianchini independently of the form in which they appear in the 
 MSS.: nor do I think that any hint of a possible common colometry 
 in these two MSS. has ever been given. If there had been any 
 such signs, it would have been well to have preserved them, for 
 the line-division is much more valuable critically in these early 
 texts than in a late text like the St Gall MS. 
 
 It may seem to some that the examination of such a trifling 
 point is almost beneath the dignity of a critic ; but we have found 
 reason to believe that there are certain textual omi.s.sions and 
 certain interpretations which arc immediately explained by the 
 existence of a conventional line-divided text. And, although we 
 are not in a position as yet to speak too positively on the matter, 
 we strongly incline to believe that the columetric text was early, 
 and was widely diffused. 
 
56 A FEW WORDS ON THE GLOSSES. 
 
 In bringing our notes upon this interesting MS. to a con- 
 clusion, I desire to remind my readers that they do not constitute 
 an exhaustive treatment of the text or of any subject connected 
 therewith : I have never seen the MS. itself, and for this reason 
 should be reluctant to speak positively upon any of its palaeo- 
 graphical details. But as the lithographed facsimiles published 
 by Rettig in 1836 afford an admirable representation of the book, 
 I am content, for once, to work on the textual history at second- 
 hand, and to refer for further information to Rettig's own text and 
 prolegomena, which are of permanent value. 
 
 Meanwhile my hope is that some suggestions which have been 
 made in the previous pages with regard to the historical genesis 
 of the Latin text of the Codex Sangallensis may be of use to those 
 who are occupied with the Textual Criticism of the Old Latin 
 Version (I refuse to say Versions) of the Gospels.