QassX). Book n!jl AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT OF ME ■-• "" GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ; ^'"t WIIH REMAEKS ON ITS REVISION UPON CRITICAL PRINCIPLES. TOGEXnEE TTITH A COLLATION OF THE CRITICAL TEXTS OF GRIESBACH, SCHOLZ, LACHMANN, AND TISCHENDORF, WITH THAT IN COMMON USE. SAMUEL PRIDEAUX TREGELLES, LL.D. " Ita didici, fidem religionem constantiam in nnllo negotio posse adhiberi nimiam : neque ia his libris, quorum nullam litteram neglegi oportere sentio, velim quicquam meo arbitratu meoque iudicio definire, sed per omnia auctores sequi et antiquissimoa et probatissimos." — Lachmann. N. T. Frcef. ix. LONDON: SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS, PATERNOSTER ROW. M.DCCC.LIV. LC Control Number tmp96 031084 TO THE UNIVEESITY OF ST. ANDKEWS, IN GRATEFUL RECOGNITION OF ENCOURAGEMENT BESTOWED ON BIBLICAL STUDIES, THIS HISTORY OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT AS PRINTED, DESIGNED AS AN AID FOR THE MORE ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM, IS, WITH PERMISSION, RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED. •I PREFACE This Account of tlie Printed Text of the Greek New Testament is intended to give a correct statement of facts and principles, brought down to the present time, for the use of Christian biblical students. It is of great importance for such to be thoroughly and funda- mentally instructed in subjects of criticism, for this is a depart- ment of biblical learning which can never be safely neglected ; and if Holy Scripture is valued as being the revelation of God concerning his way of salvation through faith in the atonement of Christ, then whatever is needed for wisely maintaining its au- thority, even though at first sight it may seem only to bear on the subject indirectly, will be felt to be of real importance. Forms of antagonism to the authority of Scripture have indeed varied. There have been those who, with tortuous ingenuity, charged the inspired writers with deception and dishonesty, and who first devised the term " Bibliolatry," as a contemptuous designation for those who maintained that it was indeed given forth by the Holy Ghost : these opponents might well have been VI PREFACE. confuted by the contrast presented between what they were, and the uprightness and holiness inculcated by those writers of the Bible whom they despised. There have been argumentative sceptics, — men who could ingeniously reason on the Zodiac of Denderah, and other ancient monuments, as if they disproved the facts of Scripture : God has seen fit that such men should be answered by continuous discoveries, such as that of Dr. Young, by which the hieroglyphics of Denderah were read^ so that the supposed argument only showed the vain confidence of those who had alleged it. The Rationalistic theory has endeavoured to re- solve all the Scripture narrations into honest but blind enthusiasm, and extreme credulity. The jMythic hypothesis has sought to nullify all real objective facts, and thus to leave the mind in a state of absolute Pyrrhonism, — in certainty as to nothing, except in the rejection of the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and of all that testifies to Him as the jMessiah. And yet more recently. Spiritualism has advanced its claims, borrowing much from pre- ceding systems of doubt and negation, and taking its name and, in many points, its avowed principles, from those very Scriptures whose claims it will not admit. It would have a Cliristianity without Christ ; it would bring man to God, but without blood of atonement ; it would present man mth divine teaching and guidance, while it denies the true divine teacher, the Holy Ghost, who, wdicn He works* on the heart, ever does it by glorifying Jesus ; it would adopt ethics from revelation, without admitting that they have been revealed ; and it would demand holiness, and that without the knowledge of God's love, from which alone it can spring, without the apprehension of those hopes by which it can be sustained, and without owning that power from above by which alone it can have a reality. Such have been successive, or in part rival and mutually antagonistic, rulers of the Olympus of scepticism and infidelity ; — systems which profess to be neiv^ and PREFACE. Vll which seek to establish this claim by recklessly rejecting the basis of all known and long-cherished truth. j/c'oi yap olaKovofioi Kparova 'OXu/ATTOV peoxfi-ois de drj vofxois Zevs aOeroiS Kparvvw TO. 7rp\v Se TTfXwpta vvv d'ia-Toi. JEsch. Prom. Vinct. 153 (Blomf.) And even now, perhaps, that boasted cry of "progress," so often heard, without regard to holiness and truth, and which is reiterated by those who seek to conceal, even from themselves, their own superficial pretensions, and to hinder others from knowing their utter want of principle, — may have raised up some yet newer claimant to dethrone preceding systems, in the vain thought of maintaining a triumphant rule. veov veoL KpariiTe^ km boKeire drj vaUiv drrfpdrj nepyafi. ovk e/c rail's' iyco dicrcrovs rvpduvovs eKTreaovras rjcr66fiT]v ; rpiTOP de TOP pvp KoipopovPT e7r6\frofiai aicrxioTa kol Taxia-ra. — u^Esch. Prom. Vinct. 991. In one thing, and one only, have these forms of opposition been agreed : they have all of them re-echoed the serpent's first whisper of doubt and lying, — "Yea, hath God said?" It behoves those who value the revelation of God in his word, both for their own sakes and on account of others, to be really grounded in biblical study : that which is merely superficial will not suffice ; it would only be enough to enable the sharpness of the edge of sceptical objections to be felt, causing, perhaps, serious injury, without giving the ability needed to turn the weapon aside : while, on the other hand, fundamental acquaintance with the subject may, through God's grace, enable us so to hold fast the VIU PREFACE. Scripture as a revelation of objective truth, as to be a safeguard both to ourselves and to others. The truth of God is as a rock assailed by waves ; each in suc- cession may seem to overwhelm it, but the force of each is in measure spent on that which has preceded it, and modified by that which follows. Each wave may make wild havoc amongst the detached pebbles at its base, wliile the rock itself is unmoved and uninjured. It is as thus knowing our grounds of certainty, that we have to maintain the Scripture as God's revealed truth. Some have, indeed, looked at critical studies as though they were a comparatively unimportant part of biblical learning. This must have arisen from not seeing the connection between things which are essentially conjoined. These studies contain the elements of that which has to be used practically for the most important purposes. They are the basis on which the visible edifice must rest. The more we rightly regard Holy Scripture as the charter of that inheritance to which we look forward, and which we know as given at the price of the Saviour's blood, the more shall we be able to estimate the importance of Textual Criticism, by which we know, on grounds of ascertained certainty, the actual words and sentences of that charter in the true statement of its privileges, and in the terms in which the Holy Ghost gave it. S. P. T. Plymouth, April 25, 1854. %* To prevent all possible misconception wluch could arise from what is said of Laclimann in page 111, the reader is requested to observe distinctly, that no conjec- tures were introduced into his text ; and those which he suggested in the preface to his second volume had to do with places into which he thought that transcriptural error had found its way, anterior to all existing documents. CONTENTS § 1 -THE COMPLUTENSIAN EDITION The Jirst printed Gr. Test., 1514. Neglect of Greek at the time of tlie invention of printing, 1. — The Latin Yulgate the only SS. of Western Europe, 2. — Preparations of Card. Ximenes for his edition, 2. — Mrst printed portions of the Gr. Text, 2 note. — University of Alcala, 3. — Delay of publication, and death of Ximenes (1517), 3.— Publication authorised by Leo X. (1520), 3.— The editors' account of their MSS., from the Vatican, 4.— Moldenhawer's search for Greek MSS. at Alcala; report that they were sold and burned, 5. — The late Dr. J. Thomson's* investigations— no MSS. sold ; all those of Ximenes still in the collection, 6. — No reason to doubt that the Greek MSS. were reaUy sent from Eome, 7. —Whether by Leo X. ? Bishop Marsh's doubts, 7. — Character of the Complutensian Text, 8. — Unskilfulness of the editors, 8. — Their high estimate of the Latin Yulgate, 9. — 1 John v. 7, supplied from the Latin, 9. — Peculiarity of the accentuation, 10; and types, 11. APPENDIX TO SECTION 1. The critical sources of the Complutensian Polyglot, 11, 12. — Dr. James Thomson's letter to the Biblical Eeview, 12. — Extracts from Marsh's Michaelis, 14; from Dr. (now Sir John) Bowring, 14, 15. — Catalogue of the Alcala MSS. (now at Ma- drid), 15. § 2.- THE EDITIONS OF ERASMUS 19. Proposal made to Erasmus (Apr. 17, 1515), 19. — Gr. Test, appears (Mar. 1, 1516), 20. — The MSS. used : defective in the Apocalypse, 21. — Non-insertion of 1 John v. 7, 21. — Attacks of Lee and Stunica, 21. — Vulgate sometimes used to amend the Greek, 23. — Aldine LXX. and Gr. Test. (1518), 24. — Erasmus's second edition (1519), 24. * While these sheets were in the press, Dr. James Thomson's death occurred, Feb. 20th, 1854. X CONTENTS. — Number of copies in Erasmus's two first editions, 25, — Erasmus's Latin Version reprehended, 25, and note. — His third edition (1522), 25. — 1 John v. 7, inserted from the Codex Britannicus, 2G, and note. — The fourth edition (1527), 27. — The fifth edition (1535), 28. — Ancient testimony relied on. Acts xiii. 33, . . 28. § S.-THE EDITIONS OF STEPHENS, BEZA, AND THE ELZEVIRS .30. MS. authorities commonly neglected ; edition of Colineeus, 30. — Stephens' editions of 154(j and '49, . . 30.— His large edition (1550), with various readings, 30. — Censured by the Sorbonne, 31. — Discussions on 1 John v. 7, ..32. — The only Greek MSS. which contain it, 32 7iote. — Stephens's /owrZ/i edition (1551), 32. — Verse divisions^ S3 note. — Beza's editions and MSS., 33. — Beza's opinion of the spuriousness of John viii. 1-12, . . 34. — Elzevir editions, 34, 35. — " Textus Eeceptus," 35. § 4.-EARLIER COLLECTIONS OP CRITICAL MATERIALS : -WAL- TON'S POLYGLOT; BISHOP FELL'S GREEK TESTAMENT . 36. Various readings in Scripture, 37. — Collection in Walton's Polyglot, 38. — Velezian readings, 38. — Curcelloeus's edition (1658), 39. — Bp. Fell's edition (1675), 40.~Bar- berini readings, 40. § 5.-MILL'S GREEK TESTAMENT 41. Dr. Bernard's suggestion to Mill, 42, — Bp. Fell's encouragement, 42. — Printing stopped in 1686 by Bishop Fell's death, 42. — Mill's critical judgment, 43. — Kiister's reprint of Mill's edition, 45. — Mill's plan of publishing the text of MSS,, 45. — Wella's revised Greek Test,, 46. — Whitby's attack on Mill, 47. — Collins's use of ^\^litby'3 arguments, 48. — Bentley's reply to Collins, 48. APPENDIX TO SECTION 5. Extract from Bentley's reply to Collins, 49, — Mill's labours objected to by Wliitby, 50, — Use of various readings, 50, 51, — Comparison of pi'ofane authors, — Velleius Paterculus, Hcsychius, Terence, 51. — Tibullus, Plautus, Manilius, 52, — Stephens's Gr. Test., 53. — Reading of Acts xxvii. 14, .. 53. — The wind JEuro-aguilo, 54. — Texts not rendered precarious by various readings, 56, — Text not preserved by miracle, 57. § 6. -BENTLEY'S PROPOSED EDITION 57. Hare's appeal to Bentley, 58. — Wetsteiu's communication, 58, — Bentley's letter to Abp. Wake, 5'J. — " Comparative criticism," 59 note. — Testimony of Greek and Latin MSS., 5'J, — Greek and Latin texts as edited, 60, — Bentley's plan, 60. — Frus- trated, 61,-1 John V. 7, , . 61,— Walker ecnt to Paris, 61. — Bentley's Proposals, 61, 62. — MiddU^tou's attack and Bentley's reply, 63. — Patristic citations, 64. — Collation of the Vatican MS., 65. — Mace's Gr, and Eng. Test,, 65. — Bentley's death, 66.— The non-appearance of his edition a loss, 67. — All account of it omitted in Marsh's ilichaclid, 68 note. CONTENTS. XI § 7.— BENGEL'S GREEK TESTAMENT Bengel's early studies and questioniugs, 69. — Procures collations, 70. — His Gr. Test, published, 1734, and its plan, 70. — Families of MSS., 71. — Misrepresentations and opposition, 71. § 8.— WETSTEIN'S GREEK TESTAMENT .... 73. Commencement of his critical studies, 73.— Visits Paris and England, 72, 73.— Proposal to publish various readings, 74. — A critical text suggested, 74. — Quarrel with Frey, 74.— Wetstein leaves Basle, 75. — His Prolegomena appear in 1730, . . 75. —His changes of plan, 75. — Publication of his edition, 1751-2, . . 76. — Character of his edition, 77. — His own labours, 77. — His theories, 77, 78. — All ancient Gr. MSS. charged with. Latinising, 78. — Animadversiones et cautiones, 79, 80. — Semler's re- print of Wetstein's Prolegomena, 81. — Lotze's proposed new edition, 81, 82. § 9.-THE EDITIONS OF GRIESBACH, AND CONTEMPORARY LABOURS 83. New Testament criticism as left by Wetstein, 83. — Griesbach's first edition, (1774-7,) 83. — Theory of recensions, 84. — His value for ancient evidence, 85. — Mat- thsei's editions, 85, 86. — Alter's edition, 86. — Collations of Birch, etc., 86, 87.— Texts of MSS. printed, 87. — Griesbach's second edition (1796-1806), 88. — His prin- ciples of criticism, 88, 89.— His manual edition, 89. — Hug's system of recensions, 90. — Importance of Griesbach's labours, 91. § 10.-SCHOLZ'S GREEK TESTAMENT 92. Two-fold division of MSS., etc., 92, 93. — His travels and collations, 94. — His reli- ance on numbers, 95. — Uniformity of later Greek MSS., 95. — Not correct in fact, 96. § ll.-LACHMANN'S EDITIONS 97. His first edition, 1831, 97. — His brief statement of its plan, 98. — Long misunder- stood, 98, — Plan of Lachmann's first edition: authority relied on, and the received text wholly cast aside, 99. — Things wanting to complete Lachmann's plan, 100.— His larger edition, vol. i., 1842, 100. — Points of resemblance to Bentley, 101. — Old Latin version, 102. — Lachmann's estimate of degrees of evidence, 103. — Authorities admitted, 104. — Mode of dealing with ancient errors, 104. — Lachmann's principles might have been extended, 105. — Misrepresentations as to his range of authorities, 105. — Reading discussed of Matt.xxi. 28-31, . . 106, — Rev. xviii, 3, . . 108, — Acts xiii. 33, . , 109. — Delay as to Lachmann's second volume. 111. — His conjectures. 111. — Acts xiii. 32, . . 112. — Attacks on Laehmann, 113. — Lachmann's Latin Text, 114.— Punctuation, 114. Reasons for giving a clear account of LachnamCs edition. Unscrupulous mode in tohich Tie was assailed. lEven-Jianded justice. Quotation from Bentley. Gram- matical reviewers : subjunctive futures. LachmaniUs own claims, 115 seq.note. Xll CONTENTS. § 12.-TISCHEND0RFS EDITIONS . . ... 116. Uis first edition (1841), 116. — Paris editions of 1812, 118, — His second Leipsic edition, 1849, 118. — Selection of various readings, 119. — Adoption of ancient evi- dence, 119. — Eai'l}' variations, Eev. xiii. 18, . . 120. — Critical rules, 120. — Examples, 121. — Mark ii. 22, . . 121. — Matt. xxv. 16, . . 122. — Matt, xxiii. 4, . . 123. — Matt. xxiv. 38, . . 124. — Mar. viii. 26, . . 124. — Alexandrian forms, 125. — airoO and avroO, 126.— Recensions, 127. — Tischendorfs collations, 128. APPENDIX TO SECTION 12. The Greek MSS., of which the text has been published, 129. — Those prior to Tischendorf, 129. — Those edited by Tischendorf, 130. — His continued research for MSS., 131. § 13.- ON AN ESTIMATE OF MS. AUTHORITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMPARATIVE CRITICISM . . 132. "Comparative Criticism" defined, 132. — Preliminary list of MSS., 132. — Readings of Matt. xix. 17, . . 133. — Mr. Scrivener's remarks, 134, 135. — Observations on them, 136. — Source of the common reading of this passage, 137. — Value of MSS. in spite of incorrect readings (D), 137 note. — Small comparative value of the mass of MSS., 138. — Matt. XV. 8, . . 139.- Matt. xx. 22, . . 140. — Matt, xviii. 35, Mar. iii. 29, . . 141. — Mar. iv. 12, 24, x. 21, xii. 4, 23, xiii. 14, Luke viii. 9, 20, 28, 54, ix. 7, 54, xi. 2, . . 142. — Luke xi. 29 {bis), 44, xii. 31, xiii. 24, John iv. 43, v. 16, vi. 22, . . 143. — John vi. 39, 40, 51, 69, viii. 59, ix. 8, 11 {bis), 25, 26, x. 12, 13, 14, . . 144. — John x. 26, 33, xi. 41, Acts i. 14, 15, ii. 7, 23, 30, 31, 47, etc., iii. 22, xv. 24, 33, Rom. i. 16, . . 145. — Rom. iii 22, V. 1, vi. 12, viii. 1, x. 15, xi. 6, xiv. 6, 9, xv. 24, 29, xvi. 5, 25-27, . . 146.-1 Cor ii. 4, iii. 4, vi. 20, vii. 5, Gal. iii. 1, Eph. iii. 14, . . 147. — Results of Comparative Criticism, 148. —Value of the most ancient MSS., 149. APPENDIX TO SECTION 13. -THE COLLATIONS AND CRITICAL STUDIES OF S. P. TREGELLES. Authorities as cited by Gricsbach and Scholz, 151. — Scholz's -4^e.ra«(Zrmw read- ings, 152. — Witnesses against his text, 152. — Edition proposed, to rest wholly on authorities, 152. — Specimen prepared (1838) Col. ii., 153.— Gr. and Eng. Rev. (1844), 154. — Plan of Collations, 155. — F (Epp.), 155. — Disappointment as to Codex Vati- canus, 156. — B (Apoc), 156. — Codex Passionei, 157. — Codex Amiatinus, 157. — Codex Mutinensis, 158.— U (Evv.), 158, Poslscribed Iota, 158 note.—X (Evv.), 158.— E (Evv.), 159.-1 (Evv.), 159.-G(Evv.), ] 59. — Fragments of G and H, 159,160.— Eng. Revelation published (1818), 160.— Curotonian Syriac version, 160. — D. (Epp.), 161. — Bartolocci's collation of E, 161. — K (Evv.), 161.-33 (Evv.), 161, 162. — M (Kvv.), 162. -D (Epp.), 162. — H (Evv.), 163. — Ulfcnbach fragment, 163. — Lach- niann'a Latin collations, 164. — Collations compared with Tischendorfs, 164. — 0)i readings in D (Epp.), 164 note. — G (Epp.), 165. — Heading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, 165 note. Fragments P and Q, 165. — F (Evv.), 166, — Cod. Lciccst., 166. — Dublin palimpsest Z, und its cliymicul restoration, 166-169. — MSS. rccomparcd at Basle, Munich, and CONTENTS. XUl Tenice, 169. — Cod. Amiatinus and Tischendorf 's edition, 169, 170. — Correction of mistakes, 170 note. — The ancient versions, 170. — Mr. Eieu's collation of the Arme- nian, and Mr. Prevost's of the -^thiopic, 171.— Ancient MSS. published and unpub- lished, 172. — Eesults, 173. § M.-EEMAEKS ON PEINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CEITICISM, 174. Object, and opposite modes of seeking to attain it, 174. — Numbers against autho- rity, 175. — Proofs that readings are ancient, 175, 176. — Character of all the most ancient documents, 177. — Analogy of ancient and modern Latin MSS., 179. — Non- accordance of the later Greek MSS., 180. — The later copyists, 182. — Charges of innovation, 183. — Porson on interpolations, 184 note. — An ancient text of the LXX. displaces the Aldine, 185. — Judgment on evidence, — prayer, 186. — Express early statements as to readings ; Matt. xix. 17, . . 187. — Matt. v. 4, 5, . . 187. — Matt. i. 18, . . 188. — Matt. xxiv. 36, . . 190. — 1 Cor. xv. 51, . . 191. — 1 Cor. xiii. 3, . . 191.— Matt. viii. 28, Mar. v. 1, and Luke viii. 26, . . 192.— Matt, xxvii. 16, 17, . . 194.-2 Tim. iv. 1, . . 196. — Luke xiv. 5, . . 197. — Conjecture in the JEdin. Rev., 199 note. — New- theory of Latinising, 201. — Mar. xi. 8, Mar. i. 41, . . 203, — 1 Cor. xi. 29, . . 203. — Col. ii. 18, . . 204. — ^Aids as to ancient evidence, Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons, 205.— Luke xxii. 43, 44, Matt. xvi. 2, 3, . . 205.— Proved errata in MSS. Matt, xxvii. 28, . . 205.— Heb. xi. 35, . . 206.— Matt, xxvii. 49, . . 206, 207.— Proper names, 207.— David, Amos, 207. — Asaph, Siloam, Capharnaum, Nazareth, 208. — Mafldaios, 209. — vv e xvi. 2,3 . 205 xi. 2 . 85, 142 xix. 17 . 133 29 143 xviii. 35 141 ,, 1) XX. 22 . . . 140 44 • n xxi. 28-31 106 xii. 31 • • « xxiii. 4 . 123 xiii . 24 » xxiv. 36 190 xiv 5 197 38 . 124 xxii. 43,44 205 XXV 16 122 xxvii. 16, 17 194 JOHN. 28 205 i. 18 234 49 . . . 206 iv. 43 . . . 143 V. 3,4 243 seq. MARK. 16 . 143 i. 41 . 203 vi. 22 51 ii. 22 . 121 39 . 144 iii. 29 141 40 iv. 12 . 142 51 . 24 « 69 M V. 1 . 192 vii. 53 -viii. 12 . 34, 236 seq. viiL 26 124 viii 59 144 X. 21 . 142 ix. 8 . xi. 8 203 11 xii. 4 . 142 23 n 25 « xiii. 14 . 142 26 . xvi. LUKE. 9-20 216 seq. X. 12 13 . 14 n n viii. 9 . 142 26 . . . 145 17 223 33 20 . 142 xi. 41 . M XVI INDEX. ACTS. PAGE 1 CORINTHIANS. PAGE i. 14 . . 145 vi. 20 . 147 15 „ vii. 5 . . 147,222 ii. 7 . „ xi. 29 203 23 « xiii. 3 . 191 30 . . „ XV. 51 »i 31 1) 47 seq. . « OALATIANS. iii. 22 jj iii. 1 . . 147 viii 37 . . . 23, 269 ix. 5 23 EPHESIANS. 31 . . 269 iii. 14 . . » X. 20 222 xiii 19, 20 . 269 COLOSSIANS. 32 112 ii. 18 . 20 33 . . . 28, 109 XV. 22 225 1 TIMOTHY. 24 . . 145 iii. 16 . . . 227 seq. 33 „ 165 note. XX. 28 . 231 seq. xxvii. 14 53 2 TIMOTHY. iv. 1 . . 196 ROMANS. i. 16 . . 145 HEBREWS. iii. 22 . . 146 xi. 35 . . 206 V. 1 . . » vi. 12 »» 1 PETER. vui . 1 . » iii. 7 . 211 X. 15 . . « 15 . . 235 xi. 6 . . » xii. 13 . . 222 1 JOHN. xiv . 6 . 9 . . 146 • 11 V. 7 . 9 26 note. XV. 24 . . 29 • n • >» 33 note 226 xvi . 5 . 25-27 . 13 . . . REVELATION. . 270 1 CORINTHIANS. xiii. 18 120 ii. 4 . 147 xvii. 8 . 270 iii 4 . . • » xviii. 3 . 108 ADDENDA. Codex Amiatinus. In p. 170, note^ I have given a list of the places in which Tischendorf has not followed my collation of this MS., but in which I find, from Signor del Furia, that my collation really is right. As Tischendorf has re-issued his impression of the Codex Amiatinus with a list of a few errata, noticed since it first appeared, they are here specified for the information of the reader. Mat. XX. 4, dele meam. xxiv. 15, lege Danihelo- Mar. xiv. 40, lege iNgravati. Luke viii. 12, hi deest^ a prima manu. Acts viii. 17, lege iNponebant. xiii. 46, lege reppulistis. xviii. 12, lege Achaiae. 1 Cor. iii. 12, lege superaedificat supra. xiv. 18, dele meo. 2 Cor. iv. 4, lege quae est. Eph. iv. 25, lege in invicem. vi. 13, delejn (2o). 1 Pet. iii. 6, ?e^e ~oboedivit. 1 Joh. ii. 4, lege non {pro "nos"). Rev. viii. 5, dele magnus. These passages could not be inserted in the former list, as Tischendorf had not marked them amongst the places in which he had not followed my colla- tion : they are simply errata in his edition. He also corrects in the canons and Ammonian Sections at Mat. iv. 21 (22,2) ; Mat. x. 42 (100,6) ; Luke xiii. 14 (165,2). Also, he says, that Abbate del Furia informs him, that at John xviii. 37, the MS. has (by mis- take, he considers) the notation (180,4). In the Epistle to the Hebrews, sec- tion 4 begins at ii. 11. Tischendore's MSS., p. 131. The MSS. described in the letter addressed to me are now in the hands of Messrs. Williams and Norgate, Henrietta-street, Covent-garden, for sale, for Prof. Tischendorf. The Palimpsest fragments possess, even if it were only on account of their antiquity, a real value in textual criticism. The two other uncial MSS. of part of the Gospels belong- probably to about the age assigned them by Tischendorf. I have examined the whole collection ; and I shall be permitted to collate them for critical pur- poses. In one of them I found very soon four occurrences of Iota pos^scribed : so rare in Bi))liofil INISS. in Uncial ]^etters (see p. 158). It should be added, that TischcMidorf has announced that the Palimpsest fragments will be in- cluded in a new volume of Monumenta Sacra now in the press. To the MSS. examined by me (mentioned p. 155 — 168), I may now add the Palimpsest fragments of St. Luke amongst the Nitrian MSS. in the British IVIuseum. They consist of forty-five leaves (of the sixth century, as seems to [me), in which Severus of Antioch against Grammaticus has been written in Syriac over the Greek. The older writing is in parts very difficult to read ; but by pains I can in a strong light discern almost every letter : this is, however, a groat strain on the eye of a collator. Besides these precious leaves, there is also in the same collection a very ancient Palimpsest fragment of St. John's Gospel, and a few morsels of other parts of the New Testament. P. 171. Mr. Prevost's comparison of the ^Ethiopic would have been more exactly described as a collation of the text in Walton's Polyglot, from which Bodc's Latin version was made, with Mr. Piatt's text. To the note, p. 165, might be added, that '■^perhaps the line in question was used in 1 Tim. iii. 16, and some other places, simply to ^U up the Latm text which lies over the Greek." In p. 248, note, Hesychius of Jerusalem is called the contemporary of Gre- gory of Nyssa. This has been done advisedly ; for if these homilies do be- long to such a Hesychius, there are good reasons for not regarding him as the Bishop of Jerusalem of that name in the sixth century, but as an earlier Presbyter. Cave, I think, says that it would need an oracle to distinguish the persons bearing the name of Hesychius of Jerusalem. Let me request any who may wish to understand the principles of textual criticism which I believe to be true, to read what I have stated in the section, On an estimate of MS. authorities in accordance ivith " comparative criticism''' ; so that they may not repeat the assertion that I regard the accidental age of a MS., irrespective of its character, and apart from the evidence of ancient versions and early citations. It ought to be needless for me to have to repeat again and again, that the testimony of very ancient MSS. is proved to be good on grounds of evidence (not mere assertion) ; and that the distinction is not between ancient MSS. on the one hand, and all other witnesses on the other, — but between the united evidence of the most ancient documents — MSS., versions, and early citations — together with that of the few more recent copies that accord with them, on the one hand, and the mass of modern MSS. on the other. To which class shall we look as including within itself the readings which have the best claim on our attention as those which really belong to the holy word of God ? July 25, 1854. AN ACCOUNT OV THE PRINTED TEXT OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT, AND OF ITS EEYISION BY CEITICAL EDITORS. § 1.— THE COMPLUTENSIAN EDITION. The first printed edition of the Greek New Testament was tliat wliicli formed a part of the Complutensian Polyglot ; the volume in which the New Testament in Greek and Latin is contained was completed Jan. 10, 1514. It may seem a cause for surprise, that while the sacred Hebrew originals of the Old Testament had been multiplied much earlier by means of the press, the case was so different with regard to the Scriptures of the New Testament in the original tongue. For this difference many reasons may be assigned. The Jews applied the invention of printing at a comparatively early period to the multiplication of the Old Testament in Hebrew : they were a numerous and prosperous body in many parts of Europe, and thus they were able to command both the skill and the pecuniary means needed to that end ; besides this, there was a demand amongst them for Hebrew books. The case with regard to the Greeks was wholly different. The capture of Constantinople by the Turkish Sultan (1453), and the bondage or exile of the Greek population, was an event which was almost synchronous with the invention of printing ; and thus, although the dispersion of the Greeks led to the knowledge of their language and literature being acquired by many in Western Europe, yet it effectually hindered efforts on their own part to 2 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT print, and thus to multiply, copies of their Scriptures. Indeed, so many Greeks earned in their exile a scanty living by copying books in their own tongue, that they had a positive interest in not using the newly-invented art of printing. Besides, the early attempts at printing Greek were so awkward and unpleasant to the eye, that few books were multiplied through the press in that tongue until greater skill had been manifested in the formation of the type. And so habituated were Greek scho- lars in that day to read Greek abounding with contractions, many of which were deemed by copyists to be feats of calligraphy, that the endeavours to print Greek with separate types were despised and undervalued. In Western Europe, the Latin Vulgate was the form in which Holy Scripture was known and received : so that even on the part of theologians there was no desire for the original text ; indeed, the feeling was rather that every departure from the version of Jerome, such as it was after it had suiTered from the hands of transcribers for more than a thousand years, would be a rash and dangerous innovation. The Old Testament in Hebrew was regarded as a book for the Jews simply, and no part of Holy Scripture was thought to be suitable for the edification of Chris- tians in any tongue except the Latin. The preparations made by the celebrated Spanish cardinal, Francis* Ximenes de Cisneros, Archbishop of Toledo, for the publication of the first Polyglot Bible, commenced in the year 1502;! the w^ork was intended to celebrate the birth of the heir to the throne of Castile, afterwards the Emperor Charles V. * The baptismal name of this remarkable man was Qonzalo : this lie exchanged for Frandsco^ when he entered the Franciscan order. Cardinal Ximenes was arch- bishop of Toledo, regent of Castile, and a Spanish general, while also executing other functions. t It should be observed, that the Complutensian New Testament was not the first portion of original Greek which was printed. " The first part of the Greek Testa- ment which was printed consisted of the thanksgiving hymns of Mary and Zacharias (Luke i. 42-56, 68-80), appended to a Greek Psalter published in 1486. Tlie next con- sisted of the first six chapters of the Gospel by Jolm, edited by Aldus Manutius, at Venice, 1504, Mo''— Dr. Bavkhon's ''Biblical Criiicism" ii. ■}?. 106. ""The fourteen first verses of the Gospel of John. Tiibingen 1514: in the Library at Stuttgart, an edition which has been incon'cctly stated to be the whole Gospel of St. John, in Masch's Le Long, 3. iii. 624, and Marsh's remarks on Michaelis, i. p. 415." [Eng. ed. ii. 845. J l£ichhoriis Sinleilunf/, v. 249. 1 OF THE GRE^K NEW TESTAMENT. 6 It receives its name, the Complutensian Polyglot^ from COM- PLUTUM, the Latin name of Algal A, in Spain, where it was printed, and where the cardinal had founded an university. The editors of the part containing the New Testament were jEHus Antonius Nebrissensis, Demetrius Cretensis, Ferdinandus Pitia- nus, and especially Lopez de Stunica : in fact, this last-mentioned editor seems to have been the person who undertook the respon- sibility of preparing the Greek text under the cardinal's direction, and at his expense. Although the fifth volume of the Polyglot, which contains the New Testament in Greek and Latin, was completed (as has been said) Jan. 10, 1514, the Old Testament was as yet unfinished; for the subscription to the fourth volume is dated July 10, 1517.* The publication of the work, however, was delayed. There can be but little doubt, that some at least felt alarm at the inno- vation which would be introduced from the church taking for its instructor in Holy Scripture any language except the Latin : it is however worthy of remark, that the whole of this Polyglot edition was finished in the same year in which Martin Luther gave a stern shock to the corrupt theology which was then held and taught, by fixing to the door of the electoral chapel at Wit- tenberg his theses against the Eomish doctrine of indulgences. Before the publication of this work, on which the labour of so many years had been bestowed. Cardinal Ximenes had died ;t and Pope Leo X., to whom it was dedicated, sent an authorization for its publication to his executors : this document is dated March 22, 1520. There was, however, some delay even after this; so that the work did not get into general circulation before the year 1522. As this was the first printed Greek New Testament (although not the first published), it is natural that inquiry should have been * Cardinal Ximeues says, in his dedication to Pope Leo X., that the New Testa- ment was finished first. " Imprimis Novum Testamentum Grseco Latinoque sermone excudendum curavimus simul cum Lexico Grsecarum omnium dictionum : quae pos- sunt in eo legentibus occurrere : ut his quoque qui non integram linguee cognitionem adepti sunt pro viribus consuleremus. Deinde vero antequam Yetus Testamentum aggrederemur : dictionarium prsemisimus Hebraicorum Chaldaicorumque totius Ye- teris Instrumenti vocabulorum." t Cardinal Ximenes did not survive its completion more than a few months. He died Nov. 8, 1517, at the age of eighty-one, in the twenty-third year of his primacy. 4 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT made for the !MSS. on wliicli the text is based. It need excite no surprise, that the editors have not themselves described the MSS. which they used: such a proceeding was not then customary; indeed, until some attention had been paid to textual criticism, few editors of works, whether biblical, classical, or patristic, seem to have thought of mentioning what copies they followed, any more than this would have been done by the transcriber of such a work, before printing had been invented : the archetype might be mentioned, or it might not; just as in the case of an edition of Milton or Bunyan, it is not common to state, in a reprint, lohat edition has been followed. The Complutensian editors, however, though they do not de- scribe their MSS., give us some information with regard to them. In their preface to the New Testament, they say, that " ordinary copies were not the archetypes for this impression, but very an- cient and correct- ones ; and of such antiquity, that it would be utterly wrong not to own their authority ; which the supreme pontiff Leo X., our most holy father in Christ and lord, desiring to favour this undertaking, sent from the apostolical library to the most reverend lord the cardinal of Spain, by whose authority and commandment we have had this work prmted."* In this we may distinguish the fact which the editors record, from the opinion which they express. They must have known whether or not they used ]\ISS. from the Vatican, and they were fully competent to record the fact ; as to the antiquity of the ]\ISS. or their value, they could not be supposed to give any judgment which lay beyond the horizon of their critical know- ledge. Cardinal Ximenes also bears a similar testimony as to the place from which he obtained the Greek MSS. He says, in his dedica- tion to Pope Leo X., after mentioning the pains which he had taken to procure Latin, Greek, and Hebrew MSS., " For Greek copies indeed we are indebted to your Holiness, who sent us most * " Non qufevis exemplaria impressioni huic archetypa fuisse : sed antiquissima cmcndatissimaque : ac tant® pra;terea vetustatis ut fidem eis abrogare ncfas vidcatur. Qua; sanctissimus in Christo pater et dominus noster Leo decimus pontifcx maximus liuic inetituto favere cupiens ex apostolioa bibliotheca educta naisit ad rcverendissi- mum doininum Cardinalem Hispanise ; de cujus authoritate et mandato hoc opus impriini fccimus." OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. D kindly from the apostolic library very ancient codices, both of the Old and the New Testament; which have aided ns very much in this undertaking."* When critical attention was paid to the text of the Greek New Testament, and to the MSS. from which the first printed edition was supposed to be derived, it was too hastily concluded from the editors' having mentioned that they had the use of very ancient MSS. from the papal library, that the celebrated Codex Yaticanus was amongst the number ; and as the actual readings of that valuable document were then almost entirely unknown, the Complutensian text was relied on by some, as if it could be taken as the representative of the Codex Vaticanus. Afterwards, when Greek MSS. were more extensively investi- gated, it was thought that those of the Complutensian Greek New Testament were probably still preserved at Alcala; and thus when the Danish professor Moldenhawer was in Spain for the purpose of examining Greek MSS., he visited Alcalk in 1784, in hopes of finding them in the university library. He could find none there of the Greek New Testament; and he imagined that, for some reason of suspicion, they were kept secret from him. At last he was told that, about the year 1749, they had been sold to a rocket-maker, as useless parchments. Michaelis, in mention- ing the result of these inquiries, says, "This prodigy of oarbarism I would not venture to relate, till Professor Tychsen, who accom- panied Moldenhawer, had given me fresh assurances of its truth." This account was for many years repeated and beheved, until, in 1821, Dr. Bowring cast some doubt on it: he did not however fully clear up the story, or explain how it originated. But we can now go farther, and say that the inquiry of Moldenhawer, and the reply which it received, were alike grounded on mistake. Dr. James Thomson made careful inquiries as to the MSS. be- longing to the university of Alcala, and the result (including an * " Atque ex ipsis quidem Grseca Sanctitati tuse debemus : qui ex ista apostolica bibliotlieca antiquissimos turn Yeteris turn Novi Testamenti codices perquam humane ad nos misisti : qui nobis in hoc negocio maximo fuerunt adjumento." The editors also say the same thing, in their preface to the reader, as to the OreeTc MSS. They add however, " Quibus etiam adjunximus aha non pauca: quorum parte ex Bessariords eastigatissimo codice summa diligentia transcriptam illustris Veneto- rum senatus ad nos misit," etc. 6 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT account of tlie investigation made several years before by Dr. Bowring) was published in tlie Biblical Keview for March, 1847.* Thus we can regard as an ascertained fact, that all the MSS. which were formerly known as belonging to Cardinal Ximenes, and which were preserved in the library at Alcala, are now, with the rest of that library, at j\Iadrid; that the catalogue made in 1745 correctly describes the MSS. which still exist; that at the time of the alleged sale to the rocket-maker, the library of Alcala was under the care of a really learned and careful librarian, who caused all the books of the library to be rebound. It remains, however, a fact, that a sale to a rocket-maker did take place at the time mentioned; but it could not have been of MSS. belonging to the library; so that there can be but little doubt, that the "useless parchments" thus disposed of, were the old covers of the books in the library, compacted of vellum and folded paper. Don Jose Gutierrez, the librarian at Madrid, furnished Dr. J. Thomson with a catalogue of the Complutensian MSS. ;t and from this it appears, that the principal ones used in the Polyglot are all safely preserved: the Greek New Testament is, however, contained in none of them ; also the one containing the LXX. does not include the Pentateuch. And thus we can only suppose that, when Moldenhawer was inquiring at Alcala for what that library never had possessed, and when he thought that the MSS. were concealed from him, the librarians, to remove the suspicion, and to satisfy his inquiries in some manner, referred to the sale of "useless parchments" in 1749, as if it set the question at rest. Neither the Danish pro- fessor nor yet the Spanish librarians seem to have thought of the previous question, " Were any such MSS. emr in the library at Alcal^i?" As, then, the other MSS. used by the Complutensian editors are still in existence, and as the collection contains none of that part of the LXX. which comprises the Pentateuch or of the Greek New Testament, we have only an additional reason for believing * See the Appendix to this section, where Dr. Thomson's communication to the Biblif-al Review is subjoined. + See the j\pi)cndii to this pcotion. I OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 7 (what indeed never need have been doubted),* that the account given by the cardinal and the editors was a simple fact, that Greek MSS., both of the Old and the New Testament, were furnished from the Vatican hbrarj ; and to that library they were no doubt returned, when the object was accomplished for which they had been lent. Stunica, in his controversies with Erasmus, mentions a MS. which he calls Codex Rhodiensis, and which seems to have been his own; he cites it occasionally as an authority, but nothing more is known about it, nor did Stunica ever so describe it as to make its identification possible. It has been alleged, that if the date in the subscription to the Complutensian New Testament be true, it is impossible that it could have been edited from Greek MSS. sent by Pope Leo X. Bp. Marsh says (Notes to Michaelis, ii. 846), " Now Leo X. was elected pope March 11, 1513 ;t and yet the subscription at the end of the Revelation bears date Jan. 10, 1514. If therefore the MSS. were sent by Leo X., they must have arrived when at least three parts of the Greek Testament were already printed ; and yet the editors, in the preface at least, mention no other MSS." It does not appear on what data Bp. Marsh forms his conclusion, as to when the printing commenced. As the first edition of Eras- mus was completed in a far shorter time (see the following sec- tion) and as he was at that time overburdened with other editorial cares, which he had to sustain alone, there appears to be no suf- ficient reason for judging that the editors of the Complutensian text, who were several, and not distracted by other labours, could not have accomplished this work in the manner in which they say that they did. In fact, this argument only appears to be one of the many cases in which supposed improbabihties are brought forward to set aside direct testimonies.^ ^ The doubt seems to have been diffused, if it did not originate, thi-ough a remark of Wetstein on the subject: "Neque dubito, quin, si accuratior inquisitio fieret,iidem illi codices, quibus usi sunt editores, adhuc hodie Compluti reperirentur, argumento ducto ex Melchioris de la Cerda Apparatu Latini Sermonis, Bibliothecse Hispanicse, p. 61." Wets. Proleg. in K T., p. 118. t Precision is needed here, as it is a question of time. Leo was elected on the 28th of Feb. 1513, and crowned on the 11th of March. X There se.ems to be no ground for questioning the date in the subscription to the volume of this book which contains the Kew Testament. We have the testimony of Cardinal Ximenes himself, that this volume (the fifth in order) was printed the first, 8 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT One reason "wliy it was important to ascertain, if possible, on what MSS. the Complutensian edition was based, is, that, as being one of the primary texts, it is desirable to know what its authority may be, and how far readings which may have emanated from it are riglitly retained in other editions. But as the MSS. used by the editors are wholly unknown, we can only form a judgment as to their antiquity and value from the text itself; and this we are able to do very decidedly. Bishop Marsh observes (" Lectures on the Criticism of the Bible," page 96), " Wherever modern Greek MSS., — MSS. written in the thirteenth, fourteenth, or fifteenth cen- turies, — differ from the most ancient Greek MSS., and from the quotations of the early Greek fathers, in such characteristic read- ings the Complutensian Greek Testament almost invariably agrees with the modern, in opposition to the ancient ]\ISS. There cannot be a doubt, therefore, that the Complutensian text was formed from modern MSS. alone." Although doubts may be felt as to the erudition of the Com- plutensian editors, it need not be questioned that they really regarded the MSS. which they used as being ancient and valu- able. Such subjects were then but little investigated; and the work of editing the Greek New Testament was altogether new. That they were not very skilful in their work, may be seen from the circumstance that, in Heb. vii. 3, they have blended the title of the section of the epistle with the words of the text thus, fievet i€p€v<; eh TO 8L7)V6Ke<;, iv a) otl Kai tov ^AjSpaa/ii Trpoerc/jL-qOr]. Oeto- pecre k. t. A,.* It also need not be questioned, that the editors fully intended to use their MSS. fairly ; although, from their reverence for the Latin, they would certainly have regarded any Greek reading as being defective, if it did not accord with their —that then the Lexicons, etc., were prepared ; but the volume containing this appa- ratus, and the four which comprise the Old Testament, were all five printed and finished by July 10, 1517. This leaves but little more than eight months for each volume, to say nothing of the time occupied in preparing the Lexicons, etc. If the date Jan. 10, 1514, be doubted, as being too early, it makes the expedition used in printing the other volumes only the greater. But, really, the fact that the other five parts were printed in so few months each, is an argument that the New Testament volume was not long in the press. * It may, indeed, be said that this was an oversight on tlie part of Stunica and his coadjutors, which must not be judged too severely, as reflecting on their scholarship : in illustration of which reference may be made to the edition of the Latin and Greek Codex Laudianus of tlie Acts, published by Hearne in 1715, who in Acts v. 24 (in the OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 9 valued translation. That tliey must in general have followed their Greek MS. (or MSS.) simply, is plain, from the passages being but few in which such an accusation could be made, as that of alteration to suit the Latin. Their estimate of the Latin Yulgate is shown by the astonish- ing comparison which they use, in connection with the arrange- ment of the Old Testament; where that version occupies the central column, with the original Hebrew on the one side, and the Greek LXX. on the other : this they compare to the position of Christ as crucified between two thieves^ — the unbelieving syna- gogue of the Jews, and the schismatical Greek church.* With this feeling of veneration, it can cause no surprise, that in 1 John v. 7, 8 they should have supplied in the Greek the tes- timony of the heavenly witnesses ; and also that they should have omitted the concluding clausule of the eighth verse. In both these changes they evidently thought that they were doing right ; for in the controversy between Stunica and Erasmus, the latter inquired by what authority the Complutensian editors had in- serted 1 John V. 7, and whether they really had MSS. so different from any that Erasmus himself had seen : to this the answer was given by Stunica, " You must know that the copies of the Greeks MS. folio 38 b.), inserted a Latin word in the ftreek column as two G-reek words ; reading tlius : Kai CTTpaTTJYOS Tou lepou Kai ot apxiepets MENTE KM SiyjTTopow, and in a note ne reflects on the inaccuracy of Mill, who had cited the various reading without M€VT6. The word really belongs to the Latin column, which precedes the Greek: thus, MIEAEI COEPERUNT E0AYMAZON ET CONFUNDEBANTUE MENTE KAI MHnOPOYN, where the length of the Latin line causes it to run on into the Greek column. * " Mediam autem inter has Latinam beati Hieronymi translationem, velut inter synagogam et Orientalem Ecclesiam posuimus ; tanquam duos hinc et inde latrones, medium autem Jesum, hoc est Eomanam sive Latinam ecclesiam collocantes. Hsec enim sola supra firmam petram sedificata (reliquis a recta Scripturse intelligentia quandoquidem deyiantibus) immobilis semper in veritate permansit." Profound, however, as was their reverence for the Eomish church, they knew nothing of those dogmas which were authorised at Trent, thirty years afterwards, for canonising the Apocrypha. " At vero libri extra canonem^ quos ecclesia potius ad sedificationem populi, quam ad autoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirman- dum recipit : Grgecam tantum habent scripturam," etc. 10 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT are corrupted; tliat OURS, however, contain tlie very truth."* Tliis was quite enough for them; and this passac/e, in this edition, demands particular attention, because it is in this one place that the Greek Testaments in common use have been affected by the Complutcnsian text. In omitting the final words of ver. 8, koX ol Tp6l<^ eh to ev elacv, S tunica and his coadjutors were guided by what they considered to be the judgment of the Lateran council, and the authority of Thomas Aquinas; for they justify the non-insertion by a note in their margin; this being one of the veri/ few annotations which they have subjoined. On the same grounds as they assign for the omission in the Greek, these words are left out in Latin MSS. subsequent to the year 1215. Besides this passage, however, there are very few places in which the charge of conforming the Greek to the Latin has been suggested ; although the variations of the two must have been prominently brought before the attention of the editors, because they affix a letter of reference to each word, and they use the same letter again in the Latin column, to connect the two texts verbally, where that is practicable. It should be added, that the Latin Vulgate is given by the Complutcnsian editors with more accuracy than had previously been shown in printing it. Stunica and his fellow-editors have not given the Greek text with the common accents; but they have marked every word of two or more syllables with an acute accent on the tone-syllable. In their preface, the editors refer to the peculiar manner in which they had printed the Greek; and they defend it on the ground that accents, breathings (which they omit, except in the case of T), etc., are no parts of the genuine text, and that they are omitted in the more ancient copies, and consequently they wished to leave the sacred text with " its majesty and beauty untouched " : they add, however, that they have marked the tone-syllable of each word with a simple apex, " not as the Greek accent, but as a mark and sign for the guidance of the reader." So that, if the " grace and majesty of the text" depended on its not being printed with any grammatical additions, it would be as much * "Sciendum est, Gi'aecorum codices esse corruptos ; uostros vcro ipsam veritatem routincre." OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 11 marred by tlie Complutensian editors as if they had used the common accents. The Greek type, in the New Testament, is large and peculiar : in the LXX., however, they used such characters as were then common. The New Testament appeared with the brief title, " Nouum testamentum grece et latine in academia complutensi nouiter im- pressum" ; this is in the lower part of a page, above which (as in the other volumes) appear the arms of the cardinal. The Complutensian text never came into general use : before it was published, another edition had pre-occupied the ground ; it was, however, followed by several impressions at a later period, especially from the press of Plantin at Antwerp, and at Geneva. There are passages in which the readings of this edition may well be compared with those of Erasmus ; some in which the Latin and Greek texts differ will be noticed in speaking of the Erasmian text. APPENDIX TO SECTION 1. The remarks on the Complutensian MSS. by Dr. James Thomson, and the catalogue furnished to him by Don Jose Gutierrez, the librarian at Madrid, were communicated to the Biblical Eeview : from that work they were trans- ferred to the pages of at least one other periodical ; and it has been thought well to insert them in this place because of their importance as bearing on the history of the Complutensian text ; and also in order to bring them before some who might be unacquainted with them, as appearing only in periodical publications. On the catalogue, it may be remarked, that the Greek MS. of part of the LXX. is in all probability the copy of the MS. of Bessarion, which was transmitted from Venice to the cardinal ; and that the Pentateuch and the New Testament were probably those parts of the Scripture, for Greek copies of which the editors were indebted to the papal library. 12 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT THE CRITICAL SOURCES OF THE COMPLUTENSIAN POLYGLOT.^' EEPEINTED FEOM TUE BIBLICAL EEVIEW, NO. XV. {To tie Editors of The Biblical Revieio.) London^ February Uh^ 1847. Dear Sirs, — I take the liberty of forwarding to you a communication analogous, as I conceive, to the objects of your Review, and I shall feel obliged by your giving it a place in your periodical at your earliest con- venience. The first edition of the Greek New Testament ever printed, it is well known, is that contained in the Complutensian Polyglot. It was printed in 1514, but was not issued to the public till 1522. In the meantime Erasmus printed his edition in 1516, and reprinted it again in 1519 and 1522. The editions following these, and which were printed in 1527 and 1535, were in several places affected by the readings in the Complutensian. Stephens's edition afterwards, and also the Elzevir, were in like manner affected by the Complutensian, and hence our Textus Receptus. From these circumstances, and in consideration that the Complutensian Bible was the first Polyglot, and published by a cardinal, it became an object of no little interest to know what were the manuscripts used in the formation of this edition of the Bible. In the earlier editions of the valuable work of the Rev. T. Hartwell Home, in his " Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scrip- tures," there are some notices given respecting these manuscripts, on the authority of IMichaelis, but of a very discouraging nature. It is said that when they were sought for, information was given, that they had for a long time disappeared, having been sold, as waste materials, to be made into sky- rockets. Soon after I returned from South America, in 1825, I became acquainted with several Spanish refugees then in London, and among these was a learned Spanish priest, whose name is, I believe, pretty well known in this country, — I mean Don Lorenzo Villanueva. I remember particularly having men- tioned the opinion current respecting these manuscripts to this gentleman, intimating that it would be desirable that a new search should be made for them, as probably what had been reported concerning their fate might not be true. Mr. Villanueva discredited the common report about these manuscripts, • We are indebted for the following paper to Dr. James Thomson, a highly respected agent of the Bible Society ; and we feel it due to that gentleman to express oiir gratitude for so valu- able a communication. OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 13 and expressed his belief of their existence still in Alcala, where they had been deposited, and mentioned some circumstances in favour of his entertaining that opinion on the subject. On my return from Mexico, in 1844, I had thoughts of going into Spain on the part of the Bible Society, and wished to obtain all the information I could respecting that country. I had then the pleasure of becoming ac- quainted with Don Pedro Gomez de la Serna, who had been one of the Secre- taries of State during the regency of Espartero, and who came over to this country with the ex-regent. This gentleman held for some time the situation of Eector of the University of Madrid, which is the same establishment that was formerly at Alcala, it having been some time ago removed from the latter to the former place. I had thus a favourable opportunity of extending my inquiries about these manuscripts. Mr. La Serna expressed his view as coincid- ing with Mr. Villanueva's, which I had mentioned to him, and indeed expressed his confident belief as to the existence of the manuscripts entire at the present day in the archives of that University, the same as they were left there by Cardinal Ximenes. He had heard the report that was current about the van- dalic destruction of these manuscripts, and felt grieved that his country in this matter should have been thus maligned. In conversing further on this subject, it was agreed that he should write to the present Rector of the Uni- versity, who is his particular friend, in order to make the proper inquiries. We soon heard from this gentleman, who stated that all the manuscripts were there, and in good preservation. Subsequently the rector was written to by his friend here, begging that a catalogue of the manuscripts might be sent ; for it was desirable to know, not only their existence, but also what was the nature of them, as bearing on the great subject of Biblical criticism. This catalogue was sent, and is now in my hands. On mentioning the circum- stances here noticed to Mr. Hartwell Home, and inquiring of him what perio- dical would be the most suitable for giving to the public this definite knowledge of these interesting manuscripts, he mentioned yours. It is to be understood, that the manuscripts in this catalogue are those which belonged to the cardinal himself. There were others used besides in the formation of his Polyglot, which were said to have been sent him from Rome, and returned after the work was completed. Of these Roman manu- scripts nothing is yet known, as to their number or value. The last edition of Mr. Hartwell Home's work, published last year, came into my hands soon after its issue, and on looking into it in regard to this sub- ject, I found that the common and evil report respecting these manuscripts had been changed, by a communication from Dr. Bowring, and I afterwards learned that the two preceding editions contained the same notices. I in- formed my friend La Serna of this more favourable view, and he was greatly relieved by it. It appears to me that it would be suitable to bring forward here all that has been said against and for these manuscripts, that the whole subject might be viewed together, many perhaps being little acquainted with the particulars of 14 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT the case, I therefore give you, first, what is found in Marsh's Michaelis, and then the notices of Dr. Bo-\vring, after which will follow the catalogue. Before I close, I would beg leave to express my confident belief, arising from the intercourse held with the parties concerned, that the freest access will be given to any one, both to see, and also to examine with every minute- ness, these manuscripts. I remain. Gentlemen, Respectfully and faithfully yours, James Thomson. See Marsh's Michaelis on the New Testament, vol. ii. part i. pp. 440, 441 : — 1793. After speaking of the arguments for and against the Complutensian Polyglot, he says — "In this situation it was natural for every friend to criticism to wish that the manuscripts used in this edition, which might be supposed to have been preserved at Alcala, should be collated anew. But the inconceivable ignorance and stupidity of a hbrarian at Alcala, about the year 1749, has rendered it impossible that these wishes should ever be gratified. Professor Moldenhawer, who was in Spain in 1784, went to Alcala for the very purpose of discovering those manuscripts ; and being able to find none, suspected that they were designedly kept secret from him, though contrary to the generous treatment which he had at other times experienced in that country. At last he discovered that a very illiterate librarian, about thii'ty-five years before, who wanted room for some new books, sold the ancient vellum manuscripts to one Toryo, who dealt in fireworks, as materials for making rockets." In a note to this statement he says as follows : — " The account which he gives is the following : — 'As the University of Alcala has a very considerable library, and has existed many centuries, it was reasonable to sup- pose, that it contained many manuscripts. Gromez declares that they cost 4000 aurei, and that among them were seven of the Hebrew Bible. In this library it is highly probable that the Greek manuscripts were deposited which were used for the Com- plutensian edition, and of which the German literati have so long wished to have some intelligence. But all these manuscripts were sold in a lump, about thirty-five years ago, to a rocket-maker of the name of Toryo, and were put down in the libra- rian's account como memhranas iniitiles.^ Martinez, a man of learning, and particu- larly skilled in the Greek language, heard of it soon after they were sold, and hastened to save these treasures fi'om destruction ; but it was too late, for tliey were already destroyed, except a few scattered leaves, which are now pi-eserved in the library. That the number of manuscripts was very considerable, appears from the following circumstance. One Eodan assured Bayer, that he had seen the receipt which was given to the purchaser, from which it appeared that the money was paid at two dif- ferent payments.'" See Monthly Repository, vol. xiv. p. 596, note. Dr. Bowring says, on visiting Alcala, in 1819 — " I inquired for the manuscripts of Ximenes Cisneros : they had been cut up for sky-rockets, to celebrate the arrival of some worthless grandee." • As useless parchmenta. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 15 In the Monthly Repository, vol. xvi. p. 203, Dr. Bowring writes — "Hackney, March 29th, 1821 : — Having been instrumental in the circulation of a misstatement, originally, but certainly unintentionally, made by Michaelis, I beg you will allow me to correct it. That misstatement regarded the destruction of the manuscripts at Alcala, from which Ximenes' Polyglot was made. " Those manuscripts never were employed, though the story has been frequently repeated, for the purpose of making rockets. The oldest catalogue which exists of the books at the Alcala University, is of the date of 1745. There is a prologue to it, complaining of damage done to other manuscripts of less value, but no reference to any loss of these scriptural documents. In the middle of the last century a famous firework manufacturer (called Torija) lived at Alcala, but he was a man of letters, with whom the most eminent of the professors were accustomed to associate ; it is impossible he should have been instrumental in such an act of barbarism. But what demonstrates the falsity of the supposition is that Alvaro Gomez, who, in the 16th century, published his work ' De rebus gestis Cardinalis Francisci Ximenes de Cis- neros,' there affirms that the number of Hebrew manuscripts in the University was only seven, and seven is the number that now remains. " The period in which these manuscripts are said to have been so indignantly treated, was one when the library was under the judicious care of a man of considerable emi- nence, and when the whole of the manuscripts, amounting to 160, were handsomely bound. There are at Alcala, indeed, no Greek manuscripts of the whole Bible ; but we are told by Gomez, that Leo the X. lent to Ximenes those he required from the Vatican, which were returned as soon as the Polyglot was completed. These were probably taken charge of by Demetrius, the Greek, who was sent into Spain at this period by the Pope. It must not be forgotten that Ximenes' character was one of a strange affisction for economy, of which everything at Alcala bears proofs. That which he could borrow he would not buy. His ambition, proud as it was, was minis- tered to by his avarice as well as his vanity.— John Bowking-." " Catdlogo de los Codices mamiscrltos que se tuvieron presentes a la formacion de la Bihlia Complutense,Jlelmenfe sacado del iiidice de la JBiblioteca de la Universidad de Alcala, hoy de esta carte, por Don Jose Gutierrez, ojlcial de la misma.* Manuscritos Latinos.f Biblia Latina maximse molis charactere Gothico antiquissimo exarata, cui Complu- tenses in prologo ad Biblia plus octingentos annos antiquitatis tribuebant, quod etiam ab illis scriptum legitur ad calcem annotationum in Liram de dilFerentiis Vet. Testam. ubi sic habent et notandum quod intelligimus quosdam vetus- tissimos Codices Gothicis characteribus propter nimiam antiquitatem scriptos, quos constat esse a temporibus destructionis Hispanise fueruntque reperti in civitate Toletana et deinde in Libraria CoUegii Complutensis collocati: totum Vetus et Novum Testamentum comprehendit. Sed sunt ibi alia Biblia Latina ejusdem folii et characteris, ut ab eadem manu conscripta videri possint, nisi quia horum charac- ter paulo rotundior est : Codex est ejusdem molis ac prsecedens prseter crassitud. ineipiens ab ultimis verbis cap. 7, Proverb, et terminat in Apocalypsi, Principio et * Catalogue of the Manuscripts wMcli were used in the formation of the Complutensian Poly- glot, faithfully copied from the list in the Library of the University of Alcala [Complutum] , now of Madrid, by Don Jose Gutierrez, Librarian. t Latin Manuscripts. 16 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT line caret, estque ejusdem omnino notae cum precedent!. Utrumque Vol. mem- branaceum. — Dos tomos, en pasta. [Two volumes, hound.} Biblia Latina duobus voluminibus maximae molis compreliensa : continentur hsec et hoc ordine : Grenesis initio carens ad cap. 12. Exodus, 4 Eegum defectivus : Isaias, Hiercmia} Prophctia : Baruch : cetera Hieremise (cujus Lamentatioues iterum scri- buntui' ad marginem cum notis musicis, quod in aliis quoque libris fit,) Ezeqmel, Prophetaj minores, Job, Psalmi, Proverbia, Paraboloe, Ecclesiastes, Cantica, Sapi- entia, Ecclesiastici qusedam, varia particularium dierum Evangelia : totum Novum Testamentum suo ordine. — Apocalypsis liber defectivus est a cap. 25. Codices membranacei quorum character crassus est, et quadratus cum frequentibus ad marginem notis, licet minutiore charactere et alterius recentioris nonnunquam de horum antiquitate sic Complutenses ad Liram ubi supra : sunt etiam ibi in Biblio- theca Complutensis Collegii alii codices licet non tarn antiqui, sed tamen cum illis antiquissimis mirum in modum concordantes : vident-or sseculi XII. — Dos tomos, 6)1 pasta. Psalterium et Cantica cum glossa, acephalos et ateles. Codex Latinus membrana- ceus, charactere rotundo eodem cum eo qui est in glossa ad epistolas Pauli ut idem calamus videtur. — Tin tomo, en pasta. [One volume, hound.'] Commentaria in Apocalypsim Sancti Joannis. Codex membranaceus, charactere quadrato descriptus : de auctore nil constat, aut de tempore ; videtur tamen esse satis antiquus. — Un tamo, en pasta. Pauli Apostoli (S.) Epistolae: cum glossa seu expositione marginali et interlineali characteris minutioris. Codex membranaceis foliis affabre perpolitis exaratus, cujus literse initiales miniaturis, et flosculis ornantm'. Nil legitur de tempore, sed est valde antiquus. — Un tomo, en pasta. Expositio sive Commentaria Historica in Lib. Numerorum a cap. 1, usque ad XIX. inclusive. Codex papyraceus charactere cursivo veteri exaratus, in quo nihil de ejus Auct. et vetustate legitur. — TJn tomo, en pasta. Novum Testamentum a DD. Complutensibus annotatum, quorum annotationes post nium seorsim collectse reperiuntm' : Codex papyraceus cujus character illius tem- poris est, quo Biblia Compluteusia elaborabantur. Item : adjuuguntur Laurentii Valla) Aduotationes apprime utiles in Latinam Novi Testamenti interpretationem, ex collatione Grajcorum exemplarium Parisiis prselo excussae typis Ascensianis Anno 1505, cum prologo Desiderii Erasmi Eoterdami. Item : aliud opusculum itidem praelo excussum sine loco et anno cui titulus ; Interpretationes Hebi'seorum, Chaldeorum, Grsecorumque nominum Novi Testamenti. — Un tomo, en pasta. Scriptura3 Sacrse Yocabulorum Acceptiones, sive significationes varise, qua5 in diversis sacra) paginse locis jacent incognitse. Codex membranaceus innominati auctoris, charactere quadrato antiquo exaratus, in quo nil de tempore constat. — TJn tomo, en pasta. Expositio sive Commentaria Latina in Psalmos, innominati auctoris. Prsecedit pro- logus, qui quidem videtur esse epistola Divi Ilieronimi. Codex membranaceus, charactere quadrato minuto exaratus anno D.N.I. 1269, ut patet ex nota quad, in primo fol. — Un tomo, en pasta. Sanctoralc maxima) molis in tria volumina divisum, sanctorum vitas per ordinem dierum anui contincns : Prinium incipit a D. Stephano (nam acephalon est,) et dcsinit in vitam S. Pontii Martyris V. id. Mali: Secundum a D. Marcellino, et Pcfro, die mensis Julii secunda, et explicit in translatione S. Nicolai fine mensis Augusti : Tcrtium incipit a D. Antonio, cui pra)cedit vita) alterius (forte Divi jEgydii Abbatis) fragmentum, et finit in translatione S. Isidoi'i die 25 Decembris ; litcra est initialis, qualis in libris Chori, Ecclesia)que usui dcscrvit ; littera; initiales qua) plane maxima) sunt, auro, minioque, et aliis coloribus mirifice variegatse exor- nantur, (piarum non pauco) avulsa) sunt propter incuriam, ut nonnullai quae in ipso OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 17 opens ordine in Codicibus deesse deprehenduntur ; nam codices imperfecti sunt initio, et calce, prgeter tertium cui in fine nil deest.—Tres tomos, en pasta. {Three volumes^ bound.] Manuscritos Selreos y Griegos?^ Bibliorum volumen Grgecum incipiens a Lib. Judicum, et expliciens lib. Macba- beorum : Codex membranaceus, charactere cursivo exaratus. Yidetur esse unum ex transcriptis qu£e ex Bessarionis Codice a Yenetorum senatu Em™"- Cardinali Ximenio ad Bibliorum editionem missae ; memoratur in Prol. ad Lectorem Biblio- rum Complutensium. — Tin tomo, en pasta. Bibliorum volumina duo Chaldaica cum Latina interpretatione e regione apposita, quorum primum continet Propbetas : secundum ad Esther, ad Cantica Canticorum cum notis manu Alpbonsi de Zamora ad marginem appositis : opus ab AA. Com- plutensibus elaboratum, sed in suis Bibliis omissum ; editum autem a Benedict© Aria Montano in Bibliis Eegiis in regione inferiore, qua de causa vide ibi in eorum prologo. Codices 2 membranaeei anno 1517 exarati, ut videre est in notis ad calcem ipsorum appositis. — Bos tomos., en pasta. Bibliorum volumen Hebraicum continens Pentateuchum a cap. 9. Geneseos cum Parapbrasi Chaldaica et Eabbinica ad margines : sequuntur varia Yeteris Testa- menti capitula cum eadem Parapbrasi : ultimum caput ex Ezecbiele desumitur nee finitur, caret enim fine. Codex membranaceus, charactere grandiori, elegante et quadrato exaratus cum Massora recensione quod ex atramenti diversitate coUiqui- tur. De ejus antiquitate nil inibi legitur, est tamen valde vetus. — Un tomo, en pasta. Biblia Hebraica charactere quadrato elegantissimo conscripta, ad cujus finem notam oblongam charactere itidem Hebraico, rudioris tamen formse exhibet in qua legitur nobilissimos B. Isaac et E,. Abraham medicos, honorabilis B. Maimonidis filios, sacrum hoc volumen sibi pretio comparasse Toleti anno mundi 5040 (Christi 1280). Codex est membranaceus omnes Yeteris Testamenti Libros in Canone Judseorum receptos, continens, auro aliisque coloribus in initialibus venuste ornatus. Ad margines invenitur Massora parva et magna diversi, ut videtur, atramenti, Uteris minutissimis hinc inde in varias figuras et flosculos artificiosissime redactis et con- tortis, ut fert Judseorum consuetudo. Id vero maxime reddit hunc codicem com- mendatione dignum, antiquitatem adeo miram redolere, ut saltern cum antiquioribus etiam Pentateucho Dominicano Bononiensimerito contendere possit. — Un tomo^ en pasta. Al final de esta Biblia se lee la siguiente : — ''Nota: Babbi Joseph Erasmo Moyses Judio convertido a nuestra santa fee catholica dixo al ver esta BibHa el ano 1756. ' Que no tenia semejante, que no habia otra ; que no habia precio a su digna estimacion: que sus notas al margin la hacian tan singular que a cogerlas los Judios las pusieran entre diamantes.' — Ponela de antiguedad como de 1800 anos. Es hombre muy erudito en Hebreo y Biblias. Mui conocido en especial en Salamanca, donde enseilo. Estuvo aqui el ano de 1756.' — Tiene este libro trescientas trienta y ocho fojas utiles.f Biblia item Hebraica alia integra nitidissimo quoque charactere exarata cum Mas- sora, et aureis literis in Librorum initiis, ad cujus calcem hsec nota Hebraico idio- * Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts. t At the end of this Bible there is the following: — ' JSfoie : Eabbi Joseph Erasmus Moses, a Jew converted to our holy CathoHc faith, said, on seeing this Bible in the year 1756, * that there was none like it, or at all equal to it, that it was above all price, that the notes in the margin made it so singular, that the Jews, could they obtain it, would enclose it with diamonds.' He gave to it an antiquity of 1800 years. This individual was very learned in the Hebrew language, and skilled in regard to Bibles. He was well known, especially in Salamanca, where he gave in- structions. He was in Madrid in 1756.'— This Book contains 338 leaves, in good condition. 3 18 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT mate legitur: Ego Jom tov* filius sapientis Eabbi Isahac sat, Amarilio scripsi hunc libnim, qui vocattir Sauctuarium Domini et perfeci ilium in mense Thebeth anni crcationis generis nostri 242 sexti millenarii in Tarasonah.— C/» tomo^ en pasta. Zamora (Alphonsi de) Intcrpretationes Chaldeorum, Hebrseorum atque Grsecorum nominum in tota serie Latini Canonis, tarn Veter. quam Novi Testamenti conten- torum. Codex autograpbus. — Un tomo, en pasta. Zamora (Alpbousi de) Interpretatio Latina ex Hebraico Veteris Testamenti ad ver- bum interlinealis tribus codicibus, quorum primus continet Genesim, secundus Exodum, tertius Propbetas majores : Codices papyrac. autograpbi. — Tres tomos, en pasta. Pentateuchum Cbaldaicum cum Targ. Codex membranaceus alicubi in papyro a Zamora suppletus : antiquitas ejus non claret, nam initio et fine carebat nisi & Zamora perficeretm". — Un tomo, en pasta. Abrabam (Rabbi Aben Ezrse) Peruse, in Genesim et Exodum : Codex papyraceus cum membranis interjectis, cbaractere Eabbinico exaratus, antiquus, sed nil est certum. — Un tomo, en pasta. Kimcbi (Rabbi David) Perus. Sepber Jiesbaian, sive expositio libri Isaise. Codex papyraceus elegans, cbaractere Rabbinico exaratus ; ad medium ejus legitur nota scribse quae sic babet : Ego Salomon Ben Abrabam scripsi banc exposi- tionem, et conclusi illam in anno 206, minor, supput, Cbristi 1446. In fine defectivus est, et in principio ab Alpbonso de Zamora quod deerat, suppletus. — Un tomo, en pasta. Cbaiim (Rabbi Ben Samuelis) forte Toletanus ille, de quo Bartol. part. 2, folio 837, cod. 541). Parapbrasis in Esaiam, Hebraico Idiomate. Codex papyraceus cum pauculis membranis interjectis, cbaractere Rabbinico exaratus, et alicubi ab Al- pbonso de Zamora suppletus, cujus est nota ad calcem ubi dicit se bujus libri defec- tus supplevisse anno Cbristi 1532 : buic alia antecedit nota, ubi dicitur librum esse Rabbi Cbaiim Ben Samuelis, et scriptum fuisse anno mundi 5291, Cbristi 1241. Hujus notse calamus idem est, qui totum librum exaravit. — Un tomo, en pasta. Pentateucbum Hebraicum in initio et fine ab Alpbonso de Zamora suppletus in papyro : membranaceus codex, cbaractere quadrato eleganti exaratus sine temporis nota. — Uti tomo, en pasta. Psalterium Grsecum : Codex papyraceus incipiens ab ultimo versu primi psalmi (nam caitera desunt) antiquus, ut ex cbaractere patet, sed ibi nil certum legitur.— Z7n tomo, en pasta. Los trienta volumenes qtie espresa este catalogo se Italian todos hoy dia de la fecha en la Biblioteca de la Universidad Literaria de esta Corte. — Madrid seis de Mayo de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis. — Ul ojicial de Biblioteca, Jose GuTiEEEEz."t * The two words (Jom to^) are copied exactly from the manuscript. t The thirty volumes which this Catalogue contains, are all at the present time in the Library of the University of Literature in this city. — Madrid, 6th May, 1846. Jose Gutiebhez, Librarian. [This catalogue appears to be verbally incorrect in a few places; it is here simply reprinted : it supplies more positive information as to the other parts of the Compliitensian edition, than as to the New Testament.] OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 19 § 2.— THE EDITIONS OF ERASMUS. Although Cardinal Ximenes had caused tlie first Greek New Testament to be printed, yet from his deferring its publication until the whole of his Polyglot should be finished, the first puh- lislied Greek Testament was given to the world by others. The enterprise of Feoben, the printer of Basle, and the editorial care of Erasmus, anticipated the work prepared under the patronage of Ximenes. The first edition of Erasmus had found its way to Spain while Cardinal Ximenes was yet living : and although he saw that his own edition was anticipated, he had the nobility of spirit to repress the remarks by which Stunica sought to depreciate the work which a rival scholar had edited. *' I would (he said) that all might thus prophesy (referring to Num. xi. 29); produce what is better, if thou canst ; do not condemn the industry of another r It appears that Froben, the printer of Basle, wished to anticipate the edition of the Greek Testament which was (as he heard) in preparation in Spain. He, therefore, knowing that Erasmus had paid attention to the Greek MSS. of the sacred volume, caused application to be made to him, through a friend, proposing that ic should be immediately undertaken at his office. This was on April 17, 1515. It seems as if Erasmus had before this made some preparations for such a work, as to the revised Latin translation, which accompanied his Greek Testa- ment, and the annotations which were subjoined. All these parts had, however, yet to be brought into a suitable form for publica- tion. Erasmus was in England when the proposition of Froben was sent to him ; tl^is was reiterated ; and not only did this energetic printer ask him to undertake the New Testament, but he also made application to him for his editorial care for various other works. He seems to have reached Basle in the course of the summer of 1515; but on Sept. 11, it was as yet undetermined whether the Latin translation should stand by the side of the Greek in a parallel column, or should appear in a separate volume; 20 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT for on that day Gcrbclius wrote to Erasmus on tlie subject, strongly advising tliat the Greek text should be separate, for convenience of use and portability. A few days after this, CEcolampadius joined Erasmus at Basle to assist him in correcting the proof sheets; for he was at this same time over-occupied in editing the works of Jerome, as well as other literary labours. In less than six months from the commencement of the print- ing, the whole volume was completed.* The date on the back of the title page is " Sexto Calendas Martias, anno M.D.XVI"; that at the end of the dedication to Pope Leo X. is "M.D.XVI. Calendis Februariis"; at the end of the whole volume, is " Mense Februario, anno M.D.XVI."; while at the end of the annotations the date is given " M.D.XVI. Kalendis Martij." The publication appears to have taken place immediately. Erasmus mentions in his letters, that copies were at once sent to various persons besides Pope Leo, to whom it was dedicated. As the first publication in print of the original text of the Christian Scriptures, its appearance was an event of no small importance. We may, indeed, regard it as a mark of the overruling of God's providence that just before the Reformation was about to burst forth, leading so many to inquire into the Scripture doctrine of justification through faith in the sacrifice of Christ, it was so ordered that the Scripture in the original language should appear, so as to lead inquirers to study it in the tongue in which it was given forth by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The first edition of Erasmus was thus printed and published in extreme haste.f The ]\ISS. used for it are still, for the most part, preserved in the library at Basle, so that we arc not left to mere conjecture as to their value and antiquity. Erasmus seems * Nouum instrumcntum omne, diligcnler ab Erasmo Roterodamo rccognitum et emendatum, non solum ad GraDcam ucritatcm ucrum etiara ad multorura utriusq; lingua) codicum corumq; uetcrum simul et emendatorum fidcm, postremo ad pro- bat iesimorum autorum citationcin, cmcndationem et interprctationem, prcecipue, Origenis, Chrysostomi, CjTilli, Vulgarij, Ilicronymi, Cypriaui, Ambrosij, Hilarij, Augustini, una cum annotationibus, quae lectorem doceant, quid qua rationc muta- tum sit. t Wetsteiu indeed asks, "At quomodo ipsam fostinationcm exousavit, aut quis ipsum eo adfi/it ut festinaret ?" The fact of the case, however, was tliat Erasmus was in Frobcn's hands, who would leave no stone unturned to get his edition into the hands of the public before that which was already finished at Alcala. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 21 in general to have used them as diligently as the extreme speed that was needed, allowed. For the Apocalypse he had but one mutilated MS., borrowed from Reuchlin, in which the text and commentary were intermixed almost unintelligibly. And thus he used here and there the Latin Vulgate for his guide, retrans- lating into Greek as well as he -could. This was the case with regard to the last six verses, which from the mutilated condition of his MS. were wholly wanting. In other places, also, he used the Latin Yulgate to supply what he supposed to be deficient in his MSS., in the same manner in which the Complutensian editors had done, only with greater frequency. The publication of Erasmus's first edition excited great atten- tion amongst scholars and theologians. There were many who hailed its appearance, while others condemned it on every pos- sible ground. If he had been content with publishing the Greek text, or if he had only subjoined the Latin Vulgate, as then in common use, all might have been well ; but his own revised Latin version was regarded as such an innovation, that every variation from what had been commonly read, was regarded as presumption or even as heresy. In fact the outcry with which Jerome had once been assailed was now renewed against Erasmus. The anno- tations also by which he justified what were regarded as his in- novations were fresh causes of displeasure to many amongst the monkish theologians of the day. He did not insert the testimony of the heavenly witnesses, 1 John V. 7, and this was a ground of suspicion on the part of many. It was in vain for him to say that it was not his place, as an editor, to add to the Greek text which was before him ; he was treated (as other critics have since been) as though it had been his duty to have invented evidence when he did not find it. The controversies in which Erasmus was involved, in consequence of the publication of his Greek Testament, are not without instruc- tion to us ; for we thus see what were the opinions on critical subjects which were current in that day. He was attacked by Edward Lee, afterwards Archbishop of York, and also by Stunica, the Complutensian editor. The ignorance and presumption of the former, are such as might seem almost incredible. If Erasmus's 22 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT MSS. did not contain what Lee said ought to have been there, he should have condemned and rejected them as worthless! Stunica was an antagonist of a different stamp ; * and he had the tact to point out the marks of overhaste in the edition of Eras- mus, and to object to those things which really required correc- tion. Especially did Lee and Stunica complain of the omission of 1 John V. 7 ; and it was in vain for Erasmus to answer that this was a case not of omission^ but simply of non-addition. He showed that even some Latin copies did not contain the verse ; and that Cyril of Alexandria, in his "Thesaurus," so cited the context of the passage as to show that he knew nothing of the words in question. All this availed nothing in a dispute with dogmatic reasoners. At length Erasmus promised that if a Greek MS. were produced which contained the words, he would insert them. It was some time, however, before such a MS. made its appearance. In the course of the discussions on this passage, the authority of the Codex Vaticanus was appealed to for the first time in a point of criticism. Erasmus requested his friend, Paulus Bombasius, at Kome, to examine the Codex Vaticanus for him as to this passage; and accordingly, in a letter, dated Rome, June 18, 1521, he sent him a transcript of the introductory verses of both the 4th and the 5th chapters of St. John's 1st Epistle. In the course of these discussions Erasmus expressed an opinion, that Greek MSS. which contained any such passages must have been altered from the Latin subsequently to the council of Florence, in the fifteenth century. This was apparently suggested to have been a secret agreement of that council. Much has been made of this hint of Erasmus by later writers, as if the alteration of Greek * The manner in which the Complutensian editors speak of the Apocr)T)hal books has been noticed above. It is rather curious to observe that Erasmus in his reply to Lee (Ad notationes novas XXV.), alludes to them with much greater veneration, as being received fully by the church. It is probable from this that in different countries, before the council of Trent, they were regarded in very different ways, and that their canonisation by that council arose (as has been thought) rather from mistake, than from any other cause. Erasmus speaks of the Apocryphal books of Esdras famongBt the rest), "qua nunc Ecclesia sine discrimine legit;"— both of which books were rejected at Trent. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 23 MSS. to make them suit the Latin version had been a thing practised in early ages.* In proof that Erasmus at times used the Vulgate to amend his Greek MSS., where he thought them defective, we need only turn to his annotations for proof. Thus, Acts ix. 5, 6, we find in the annotations : "Durum est tibi.) In grsecis codicibus id non additur hoc loco, cum mox sequatur. Surge; sed aliquanto inferius, cum narratur hsec res." And yet in his text there is the full passage, answering to the Latin, crKXrjpov aoi 7rpo<; Kevrpa Xa/cr/fetv TpifMcov T€ Kol 6a/jL^(bv eliTev, Kvpte rt [xe OeXec^ Trotrja-ac, koX 6 KvpLo<; irpo^ avToVj avdo-rrjOc, instead of the simple reading aXka avaarTrjOc. Again, on Acts viii. 37, the note is, " Dixit autem Philippus, Si credis &c.) et usque ad eum locum. Et jussit stare currum, non reperi in Graaco codice, quanquam arbitror omissum librariorum incuria. Nam et hac in quodam codice grseco asscripta reperi sed in margine." And this verse, little as is its claim to be considered part of Holy Scripture, was inserted by Erasmus, as being sup- posed to have been incorrectly omitted in his MSS.; and from his edition, this and similar passages have been perpetuated, just as if they were undoubtedly genuine. In such cases, we repeatedly find the Complutensian editors, in spite of their reverence for the Vulgate, give the Greek as they found it in their copies ; although from their mode of editing they must have been very well aware of the difference between it and the Latin by the side; where, in fact, they fill up the Greek column in such a manner as to make the variation conspicuous. In such places, if the Complutensian text had ever acquired a place in common use, the many who now uphold what they read, traditionally, just because they are ac- customed to it, would have been as strenuous in repudiating words as spurious, as they now are in defending them as genuine. But let us make whatever deductions are needful, still Erasmus is entitled to our thanks for the labour which he undertook and * Some of Stunica's criticisms on Erasmus are singularly amusing. The Complu- tensian text had spelled Spain in Eom. xv., lT(o is expressly stated to be the reading by Origen, and that it is found in the Codex Bezse (D). Tertullian also (Adv. Marc. lib. iv. 22) cites the passage as from the first psalm. 30 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT § 3.— THE EDITIONS OF STEPHENS, BEZA, AND THE ELZEVIRS. From the time that Erasmus's editions had obtained their place in public use, it was long before any real attention was paid to LIS. authorities. The edition of Colinaeus (Paris, 1534) deserves mention because it was in some places based on MSS. which the editor had examined : it was not, however, by any means a critical edition ; that is, one in which the text was throughout examined with MSS; and thus, in the end of the Apocalypse, there are Erasmian readings retained. Colin^us did not insert the text I John v. 7. This edition seems to have had no influence whatever on those which succeeded. In the years 1546 and 1549, Robert Stephens printed at Paris two beautiful small editions of the Greek Testament ; and in 1550 appeared his folio edition, in the margin of which were given various readings from MSS. which had been collated by his son Henry Stephens. The editions of 1546 and 1549 had contained a text blended from the Complutensian and Erasmian ; in the folio, Erasmus was almost exclusively followed. The collation of MSS. had probably been made with Erasmus's fifth edition, and thus Stephens in his principal edition used it as the basis of his text. The various read- ings in the margin are from the Complutensian printed edition, and from fifteen MSS. It was supposed by some, that in this edition, Robert Stephens followed MS. authority always; attention to the book itself would soon have shown that this could not be the case; for not unfrequently the margin quotes a reading differing from the text, in which all the cited MSS. agree. Critical collation was then but a new subject ; and thus we cannot be surprised that Stephens should have merely given a kind oi selection from what the MSS. contained. Mill says, "We find in this edition more than seven hundred Complutensian readings omitted ; that is a considerably greater number than those which arc given ; for they do not amount to more than five OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 31 hundred and ninety-eiglit. And it is not very credible that the other copies were examined with more care than the Spanish edition." Besides this, it may be said, that as the Complutensian text is often incorrectly cited in Stephens's margin, we may con- clude that the same thing is true of the MSS. which were collated; for it would be remarkable if manuscripts were examined with greater accuracy than a printed book. In fact, the various readings in the margin of Stephens's folio edition seem rather to be appended as an ornament to the text, than as giving it any real and fundamental utility. This was the first collection of various readings of any extent; and it was at least suggestive of what might be done by means of MSS. in emending the text of the Greek Testament. Eobert Stephens, ten years before, in editing the Latin Vulgate, had made pretty extensive use of MSS.; and in giving the work of Greek collation into the hands of his son Henry, then aged only eighteen, he might have had some thoughts of similarly applying criticism to the Greek text. Circumstances may have led to his change of purpose; and thus he only gave the variations in the margin instead of using them himself. He was much harassed by the doctors of the Sorbonne, even at this time, because of his corrected Latin editions ; and he may have feared to provoke those severe censors more by publishing an emended Greek text. The various readings in the margin did not however pass without remark. The learned theological examiners, like their monkish predecessors, stuck to the adage, " Grsecum est, legi non potest"; and as they could make nothing out of what they found in Stephens's margin, they prohibited the edition, because of the annotations; Stephens told them that there were none^ but various readings : they then desired him to produce the MS. copy from which the variations were taken ; they had again to be informed that the MSS. were many, not one merely, and that the library of the king of France was the place from which they had (mostly) been taken, and to which they had since been returned. Much inquiry has been made as to wliat MSS. were used by Henry Stephens for his collations ; several have been identified (mostly in the French Koyal Library), and the MS. which is marked /8 by Stephens, and which is described as having been i 32 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT collated in Italy, is eitlier the Codex Bezse, or else a document so precisely resembling it, as to be an undoubted transcript. The discussions connected with the passage 1 John v. 7, rendered it a matter of interest to critics to inquire whether Stephens's MSS. could be identified; for in that edition, there is the mark of omission preceding iv rco ovpavS, after which words is a semi- circle, indicating that the omission extends thus far; the margin contains a reference to seven MSS. as being the authorities for this omission ; these seven being the only MSS. which were collated for that part. Hence some thought that these seven were witnesses for the whole passage (those three words excepted) which the Complutensian editors had introduced by translating it from the Latin, and which Erasmus had, after some years, inserted from the Codex Montfortianus. But no such MSS. were ever found in the Koyal Library at Paris, or any where else ; and thus it was supposed by more intelligent critics that the semicircle in Stephens's edition had been misplaced, and that it really belonged after iv rfj yfj, ver. 8 ; thus including in the omission all the words not found in the Greek MSS. The absolute ascertainment of some of the MSS. in question has proved this to be a fact, so certainly, that it is vain for any argument to be based on this note of reference in Stephens's edition. Allusions to this passage are of necessity in inquiries as to the history of the Greek New Testament as printed ; because con- troversies connected with it have led to extensive examinations of MSS., and to a more accurate apprehension of the channels by which Holy Scripture, like all other ancient books, has " been transmitted to us.* Robert Stephens soon after the publication of his folio edition made his escape from the censors at Paris, and betook himself to Geneva, where he published a fourth edition containing just the * It may here be mentioned that the only MSS. containing this text in any form^ which liavc been produced or discovered, are the Codex Montfortianus at Dublin, brouglit forward as an authority to compel Ei-asmus to insert the words ; the Codex Ravianiis at Berlin, a transcript from the Complutensian Polyglot, imitating its very misprints ; a MS. at Naples, where a ''ccent hand has added it in the margin ; and the Codex Oltobonianus, 298, in the Vatican, a Greek and Latin MS. of the fifteenth century, in which the Greek is a mere accompaniment of the Latin and in which the words are quite peculiar {a.iro toO ovpavov, etc.). OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 33 same text as the third ; but with this remarkable peculiarity, that this is the first impression divided into our modern verses. Ste- phens formed his plan of these divisions for convenience of refer- ence in a Concordance which he projected.* This fourth edition contains two Latin versions, the Yulgate and that of Erasmus, one on each side of the Greek text. Theodore Beza succeeded Kobert Stephens as an editor of the Greek Testament: he published five editions — in 1565, 1576, 1582, 1589, and 1598. He mostly followed the text of Stephens; and he not unfrequently mentions various readings, and he occa- sionally introduces changes into his text on MS. authority. Two ancient and valuable MSS. were for many years in Beza's possession; one, of the Gospels and Acts in Greek and Latin, which he afterwards sent to the University of Cambridge, where it still remains; this is commonly known as the Codex Bezse or Cantabrigiensis : the other contains the Epistles of St. Paul, also in Greek and Latin. This MS., which is called the Codex Claro- montanus (from Clermont, whence it is said that it was brought), is now in the Bibliotheque du Koi, at Paris. Besides these MSS. Beza had the use of the collations made by Henry Stephens for his father, and to which he seems to have afterwards added the results of farther examinations of MSS. Beza, however, was not much of a textual critic ; he valued readings more in proportion to their theological importance in his eyes than to the testimony by which they are upheld. Indeed, if the places in which he difiers from Stephens's third edition are examined, there will be found but little reason for the changes. All his five editions are accompanied by his Latin translation (which had previously appeared in 1556), and by the Latin Vulgate ; ample annotations are subjoined. Beza's text was during his life in very general use amongst Protestants ; they seemed to feel that enough had been done to establish it, and they relied on it as giving them a firm basis. * Henry Stephens, the elder, the father of Eobert, had introduced verse numbering in the Psalterium Quincuplex which he published in 1509. That is, he affixed nvmhers to the verse divisions which exist in the Old Testament. Pagninus, in 1528, used such a notation in the whole Bible; in the New Testament, however, his verses differ totally from Stephens's; they are often considerable paragraphs. 4 34 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT The Romanists, with whom they so often engaged in controversy, understood, as yet, no principles of criticism, which could be brought to bear on the position which the Protestants had thus taken. The same was true of those with whom the Protestants were engaged in so many discussions relative to the Trinity and the Godhead of Christ. Beza could argue on 1 John v. 7, as if the true position of Stephens's semicircle were an undoubted proof that seven MSS. at least contained the verse, and his adver- saries, understanding the bearing of the case with as little of correct apprehension as himself, were not able to controvert him. But Theodore Beza did not suppose that a text ought to be traditionally adopted, and then, as it were, stereotyped: his notes gave him the opportunity for expressing his opinions ; and he thus proved that if his attention were properly directed to ancient evi- dence on a passage, he so weighed it as to consider that it ought to prevail. Thus the passage in John viii. 1 — 12, the omission of which by critical editors has seemed to some such a proof of temerity, or of want of reverence for Holy Scripture, was dif- ferently regarded by Beza : he states the manner in which various ancient writers knew nothing about it, and the great variation in MSS. ; he then concludes thus : — " As far as I am concerned, I do not conceal that I justly regard as suspected what the ancients with such consent either rejected or did not know of. Also such a variety in the reading causes me to doubt the fidelity of the whole of that narration." * And yet the plan of using a kind of stereotyped text of the Greek New Testament was practically adopted by Beza in his first edition, 1565 ; and this, by a kind of tacit consent was admitted as a principle, when the Elzevirs, printers at Leyden, published their small and convenient editions. The first of these appeared in 1624.t The editor, if any, is wholly unknown ; it is probable that the printers took the third edition of Robert Ste- * Ad me quidem quod attinet, non dissimulo mihi luerito suspectum esse quod vcteres illi tanto consensu vel rejecerunt vel ignoraruut. . . . Tanta denique lectionis varietas facit ut de totius istius naiTationis fide dubitera. t '11 Kaivrj AiaOriKr}. Novum Testamentum. Ex Regijs alijsquc optimis editionibus cum cura expressum. By the JSditio JRegia, the third edition of Stephens was in- tended, printed with the types of the French Royal printing-office. OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 35 phens as their basis, introducing merely a few changes, which they considered to be corrections, and using for this purpose a copy of one of Beza's editions. The text thus formed accords in some respects with Stephens, and in some with Beza ; while sometimes, whether by accident or design is uncertain, it varies from both. The Elzevir edition was soon reprinted in an extremely small form; and in 1633 the publishers themselves brought out their own second edition, which is considered as their best.* The first edition had the notation of verses placed in the margin ; in this they were distinguished by the breaks in the text. The preface speaks of the acceptance which this text had received, and of the care which had been taken in purging it from typographical errors. A high ground is assumed as to the text which is thus presented. The reader is told, " Thou hast the text now received by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupted." f From this expression in the preface has arisen the phrase, " Textus Keceptus," as applied to the text of the Greek Testa- ments in common use, in the supposition that they were accurate reprints of the Elzevir editions. Stephens's text was that followed in the Greek New Testament in Walton's Polyglot, 1657 ; it was also edited without intentional variation by Mill in 1707: and since that period Mill's text has been commonly reprinted in this country, having thus become our current text: in foreign countries the Elzevir edition has been regarded as '*the received text"; although, in point of fact, in many of those places in which the Stephanie text differs from that of the Elzevirs (comparatively few as such varia- tions are) the editions pubHshed on the Continent as " the received text," follow such Stephanie readings; and sometimes (as in 1 Pet. iii. 7) they follow neither. After the appearance of the texts of Stephens and Beza, many Protestants ceased from all inquiry into the authorities on which the text of the Greek Testament in their hands was based ; * On the title page is said, "Ex Eegiis aliisque optimis editionibus, hac nova expressum: cui quid accesserit, Praefatio docebit." The Preface, however, gives no account of what the critical principles or authorities were, which tie editors followed. t " Textrnn^ ergo habes» nunc ah omnihm receptwn; in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damns." 36 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT they received with a kind of traditional submission what the publishers presented to them ; although they might have well known that the same care and attention are demanded as to the text of God's Holy Word, as are bestowed upon ancient works of a value infinitely less. But so it was; and those who justly condemned the proceedings of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, in 1545, in declaring the Latin Yulgate version authentic, and who showed the ignorance and weakness of the Papal decrees by which in 1590 and 1592 diverse editions of the Vulgate were declared to be exclusively genuine, — were, in fact, following a Greek text which they had tacitly adopted as authentic ; and they did this with as little intelligence as did the Romanists in their use of the Clementine Vulgate.* § 4. — THE EARLIER COLLECTIONS OF CRITICAL MATERIALS: — WALTON'S POLYGLOT; BISHOP FELL'S GREEK TESTAMENT. As soon as the Greek Testament was printed, various readings began to be observed. And thus, little as was then really thought about true principles of textual criticism, or of their uniform applica- tion, something of the kind was practised whenever any variation in copies was noticed, and a choice had to be made between such differences. All ancient writings whatever, which have come down to us in several copies, contain various readings ; that is, places in which one copy differs more or less from another. The causes of such * We need not wonder that Bentley should have spoken of " the Protestant Pope Stephens." The following citation from Hottinger is given by Wetstein; — "Satis- fecit Stephani et Bczcc industria Ecclesiis Reformatis hactenus omnibus. Quotquot cnim vel in Belgio vel Germania vel Gallia N. T. novas procurarunt editiones, mag- norum illorum virorum codices rehgiosc sunt secuti; Casaubonus etiam et Heinsius, quorum tamen in crisi et antiquitatis studiis magnum est nomen, in illis acquieve- runt." OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 37 various readings are many : but they all bear tbe same relation to MSS., wbicli errata and variations made by compositors and press correctors do to printed books. It is impossible (unless human infirmity were overruled by a miracle) for a writing to be copied again and again without the introduction of some errors of transcription. Hence has arisen the necessity of comparing and considering the various readings of copies to obtain thereby a correct text. This is what is meant by textual criticism. This labour of comparison has to be applied to all ancient works, if we seek to ascertain what was actually written by their authors. Had the inspired autographs of the apostles and evangelists been in existence, there would have been no room, as well as no necessity, for textual criticism. If we compare the earliest editions of any important classic with those in common use in the present day, we discover a remarkable difference : we find other readings adopted, and many passages convey a much clearer sense. Whence, then, does this difference arise ? Simply from editors having in the succeeding centuries used a greater range of critical authorities, — from their having laboriously examined MSS. so as to discover those on which most reliance ought to be placed, — and their having used the critical data so obtained, as their authority for a more exact and accurate text. No one acquainted with the subject would have recourse to an early edition of a classical writer (Cicero, for instance), based upon slender and imperfect authority, in preference to a text of the same author based upon the collations of MSS., and a careful examination of authorities. Such too should be the case with regard to the New Testament. If God had so pleased, he could have preserved its text from all the casualties of transcriptural error : but the text has not been so pre- served; it is therefore no reflection on the divine wisdom, no want of reverence for God's inspired word, to admit the fact. God did not see fit to multiply the copies of his Scripture for the use of mankind by miracle; and just as He left it to the hands of men to copy His Word in the same manner as other books, so was it left exposed to the same changes, from want of skill in copyists, from careless- ness or misapprehension, as affect all other ancient writings. To this, however, it should be added (even though it be by anticipa- 38 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT tion), that the providence of God has transmitted to us far more ample materials for the restoration of the text of the New Testament, than we have in the case of any other work of similar antiquity. The sources for textual criticism are MSS., versions, and early citations, all of which may be used as illustrating and confirming or correcting one another. Of these materials the original editors possessed but few. They had some recent Greek MSS. ; as to ver- sions they had the Latin Vulgate only; and of early citations some use, but only on a limited scale, was made by Erasmus. The various readings printed in the margin of Stephens's folio (mentioned in the preceding section) form the first collection of critical materials presented to the eye of the reader. To these Beza added a few more in his notes ; and a little was done from time to time just as MSS. or ancient versions were brought under the notice of scholars. The Syriac version (of which Tremellius had published a Latin translation) was used occasionally by Beza. The publication of various ancient versions, and of more correct editions of the fathers, increased greatly the amount of critical materials ready for use. The first important collection of various readings, drawn from MSS., is that contained in the sixth volume of Walton's Polyglot, 1657. In the fifth volume the readings of the Codex Alexandri- nus had been given under the Greek text ; and the collection in the sixth volume formed a valuable Apparatus Criticus. Of this one of the most important parts is a collation of sixteen MSS. made by the direction of the learned Irish Primate, Archbishop Usher. Besides these, there are the Stephanie collection, and others which had been made by various individuals; and also a collection (the history of which formerly led to much discussion), which has been commonly called "the Velezian Readings." They were first printed in 1626, by De la Cerda, in his Adversaria Sacra. He says that the Greek Testament, in the margin of which they were written, had passed into his hands from Mariana, the Spanish historian. Mariana says that he did not know how the copy had come into his possession ; but he found in it the various readings of sixteen Greek MSS. inserted by a former owner, Don Pedro Faxardo, Marquis of Velez. The marquis seems to have stated that eight out of the sixteen MSS. which he used, had come from OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 39 the Library of the King of Spain. Mariana was surprised to find that the cited readings bore a strong resemblance to the Vulgate, so that he thought that there might be some imposture in the matter. In fact, but httle doubt was soon felt that the readings in question were not derived from any Greek MSS. whatever ; so that the empty boast of having used sixteen MSS. passed for what it was worth, and the readings themselves have long ceased to be cited.* Walton, however, is not to be blamed for inserting these readings in his collection. Critical studies were not then sufl&ciently advanced to authorise the selection of materials : all that was pre- sented required to be brought together ; the quality and value of the material so obtained might be for after consideration. In speaking of Walton's Polyglot, reference must be made to the versions contained in the 5 th volume ; which are a valuable storehouse of materials in that department of criticism. The Pro- legomena also contain information of great value. In 1658, one year after the appearance of Walton's Polyglot, the Greek Testament of Curcelbeus appeared with various readings in the margin. The authorities for the readings were not given ; and those drawn from MSS. were intermingled with mere con- lectures. And as these conjectures bore on points of dogmatic theology, this edition of Curcellseus (which was three times reprinted) had the effect of deterring many from the study of criticism even as then understood, because it was thought that it was directed against the authority and integrity of Scripture, and that it might undermine the most important doctrines. The right course would have been to meet the false criticism of Curcellaeus by that which is true. It is probable that much of the alarm expressed in connection with the critical apparatus of Walton's Polyglot, arose from the almost simultaneous appearance of Cur- cellseus's edition. It is certain that alarm was expressed ; and that the appearance of the various readings collected by Usher * Although the Latin origin of these readings was sufficiently plain, yet still there were points of difficulty. These were cleared up by Bishop Marsh in his letters to Archdeacon Travis : he showed that the Velezian readings were fabricated to support not the Latin Yulgate in general, but that version as it stood in the edition of Ste- phens, 1539-,40. Bishop Marsh's process of induction is so curious and interesting that it is well worth the attention of the critical inquirer. 40 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT and others was lamented, as if in some way Holy Scripture were impugned. To allay this feeling, and if possible to diffuse juster notions on the subject. Dr. John Fell, Bishop of Oxford, published in 1675 a small edition with the various readings at the foot of the page, with the authorities by which they were supported ; those taken from Curcellaeus of course had only the abbreviation of his name as their authority. Besides MSS., the margin contains citations from the Coptic (Memphitic) and Gothic versions. Bishop Fell gave the readings of some MSS. previously uncoUated; and in his appendix he added what has been called the Barberini collection of various readings from twenty MSS. This collation was found by Poussin in the Barberini Library at Kome, and he published it at the end of a Catena on St. Mark, in 1673. In it the MSS. are not cited separately; but merely so many as agreeing in any particular reading. The collation had been made by Caryophilus of Crete, about fifty years before. Wetstein suspected that the whole was a forgery ; but Birch found the manuscript collation of Caryophilus in the Barberini Library ; he also found the permis- sion of Pope Paul V. to use MSS. in the Vatican, including the celebrated Codex Vaticanus, for the purpose of the intended edition of Caryophilus. It seems as if the plan was frustrated from the want of patronage on the part of Urban YIIL, who succeeded to the papal chair soon after the death of Paul Y. ; the short pontificate of Gregory XV. alone intervening. Caryophilus's plan was to have formed a Greek text on the united testimony of Greek MSS. and the Vulgate: when any of his MSS. accorded with the reading of the Latin, he would have adopted it in his text. Bishop Fell did not give extracts from the fathers, or cite them as authorities ; because he undervalued their testimony, not apprehending how they may, by the union of their evidence with that of MSS. and versions, be of the greatest use : they may often show what the reading is in whose favour the evidence prepon- derates. This edition of Bishop Fell, and the encouragement which he gave to the more extensive critical labours of Dr. John Mill, were of very great importance in furthering sacred criticism. Richard Simon, one of the fathers of the Oratoire (or Con- OF THE GKEEK NEW TESTAMENT. 41 gregation of St. Philip Neri) at Paris, in his Histoire Critique du Nouveau Testament, enlarged much the knowledge of MSS. and versions. Though Simon did not himself conduct the student to anything satisfactory in the way of result, yet he caused the character of the MSS. to be better understood, and furnished much information for those who were desirous of inquiring into the subject. § 5.— MILL'S GREEK TESTAMENT. In the year 1707, the edition of Dr. John Mill appeared; a work on which that critic had been engaged for thirty years, and which was completed only a fortnight before his death. Like Cardinal Ximenes, Mill Hved but just to see the labour on which he had been so long interested brought to its conclusion. Mill's edition has been said to commence the age of manhood in the criticism of the Greek Testament. There is some truth in the remark ; it might rather, perhaps, be termed a promise^ the full accomplishment of which was delayed and deferred through many circumstances. It appears as if Mill's earnest and anxious endeavour had been to bring together all the critical materials which were accessible; so that every aid might be presented to the biblical student for forming a correct judgment as to the text of the Greek Testa- ment. He gathered together the various readings which had been previously noticed; he collated such Greek MSS. as were accessible to himself, and he procured collations of others to be made by his friends; and he first used the ancient versions in general and habitually, as well as the writings of the early fathers, as evidences of the ancient text. Much may have been done by later editors in collating MSS. with more correctness, and in exa- mining valuable documents wholly unknown to Mill; they may have done more in obtaining the variations of the ancient versions with exactitude, and in collecting the citations scattered through the writings of the fathers ; but the real value and importance of 42 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT these sources of criticism were properly estimated by Mill, and to the best of his opportunities he acted on them. Dr. Edward Bernard, Savilian professor of mathematics at Ox- ford, was the first who directed Mill's mind to the importance of New Testament criticism. Of this he gives a very interesting account in his Prolegomena. After he saw the extended scale on which authorities should be consulted and brought together, he made all the collections that he could, without at the time con- sidering what the result might be. Dr. John Fell, Bishop of Oxford (editor of the Greek Testament of 1675), saw Mill's col- lections, and earnestly pressed on him to publish an edition, according to the plan and extent which he and Dr. Bernard con- sidered to be necessary for the purpose of completeness. This Mill undertook; and the latter part of his Prolegomena is occupied with a detail of his literary labours : it shows how the work grew beneath his hands ; what were the encouragements, what the hindrances, until it reached its completion. Bishop Fell promised to defray the expenses of the edition ; and he desired that it should be so printed as to excel even Stephens's third edition in beauty. It was easier to exceed that impression in the size of the type, however, than in the real beauty of the characters. Dr. Fell was very anxious for the printing to commence; and at length the beginning of St. Matthew's Gospel was set in type, as a specimen. But, as it proceeded. Mill found point after point which required re-examination; and the time which he devoted to the patristic citations was rather irksome to his patron, who did not apprehend with the same acumen as did Bernard and Mill, the real value of those citations as critical subsidia. Sheet after sheet was printed off, but slowly enough, as it seems. At length, when the 24th of Matthew was in the press, the death of Bishop Fell put a stop for a time to the progress of the work. This shows that it must have commenced before 1686, for in that year it was that the bishop died. Mill was retarded by the cessation of the pecuniary aid which he had received from Bishop Fell: indeed, he appears to have found difficulty in continuing his work. After many years, the text and readings of the New Testament were completed ; but the various materials which had reached his hands too late to take OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 43 their proper place, had to be arranged in an appendix. Before the whole was then ready for publication, Mill had to prepare his Prolegomena, which contain an historical account of the text; — and of the principal editions, — of the versions, etc. ; each being described in connection with the time of its publication; while the notices of MSS. are distributed throughout the Prolegomena according as each was mentioned when speaking of its collator or owner. Of Mill's editorial labours it may be said, in the words of Wet- stein, "This learned man alone did more, in the labour of thirty years, than all those who had preceded him."* In stating the various readings. Mill frequently expressed his opinions as to their value: in his Prolegomena, however, when the whole work was completed, he often corrected his previous judgment ; so that it is in that part of his edition that we have to seek for his matured and deliberate opinion. He thus showed his true critical apprehension, that Truth is the great object to be sought, and not the maintenance of a particular opinion be- cause it was once expressed. Evidence must always modify critical opinions, when that evidence affects the data on which such opinions were formed ; it must be so, at least, on the part of those who really desire to be guided on any definite principles. Mill did not desire or attempt to form a new text; he simply used that of Stephens's third edition, correcting the errata, but not making other intentional changes. When he departs from the Stephanie text, it seems to have been from not being aware that the Elzevir editions differed from it in several places : he supposed such varia- tions to amount to but twelve. It is singular that " Mill's text''^ has been, in this country, assumed to be a kind of standard; and thus it has been imagined, that he had formed a critical text ; and this is what we commonly use ; and thus Mill's supposed authority has been sometimes quoted against what he maintained to be the true readings of passages. But though Mill laid down the plan of a critical edition, and showed what the sources are from which to obtain a well-supported text, there were many points in which the execution of his work * " Hie vir CI. uuus labore triginta annorum plus prsestitit, quam omnes quiipsum setate prsecesserunt." 44 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT was of necessity incomplete. These things may be freely men- tioned, not to detract from the real merits of that critic, but as showing what remained for others to complete. The collation of Greek ]MSS. was in that age somewhat rudely performed; it was not felt to be needful to notice all minute variations, such, for instance, as those which relate to the order of words; it was not then customary (nor, indeed, was it till of late years) so to collate a MS. as to leave no doubt as to what readings it supports, and what it opposes; and yet, unless this is done, it is impossible to form a correct judgment as to the balance of evidence. Mill was •unable himself to consult the greater part of the ancient versions, and as he had no critical assistant for this part of his work, he had to depend entirely on the Latin translations of the versions in Walton's Polyglot; and thus, whenever they are inadequate or inexact, he was betrayed into error. The patristic citations which ;Mill gave, were often less complete than they might be made by a closer attention to this part of the subject: it should be added, that this labour has been much facilitated, since the time of Mill, by the editions of some of the fathers which have since been pubHshed. In speaking of these defects of Mill's edition, it is not necessary to rest upon his not having classified the MSS. the readings of which he gave : for he had to collect the materials ; and until this should be done, no principles of arrangement could be laid down. He does however often show in his Prolegomena what his opinion is of MSS. which have a kind of relationship among themselves, or with any particular ancient version : he often showed true critical acumen in his estimate of readings, not in accordance with what might seem at first sight to be correct. Michaelis says (Marsh's Introd., ii. 457), " His critical judgment prevented him from adopting a reading as genuine, because it was smooth and easy; and, in this respect, he has introduced among the critics a taste which is perfectly just, but contrary to that which prevailed at the revival of learning." And this judgment was in a great measure formed during the progress of his work; for at first he valued the evidence of numbers in his MSS. more than other things; but as he became more alive to the value of the united testimony of authorities of different kinds, he ceased to be swayed OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 45 by the consideration of numerical preponderance. TMs may be seen clearly from his Prolegomena. In 1710 a second edition of Mill's Greek Testament was pub- lished at Rotterdam, under the editorial care of Ludolph KUster, a Westphalian, who had resided for some years in England. KUster inserted the greater part of Mill's appendix in its proper places under the Greek text; he made the mode of reference to the various readings more clear ; and he added readings from twelve MSS., which are described in his preface. Some of these MSS. were ancient and valuable; and it was in this manner that public attention was first called to them. Some copies of Klister's were re-issued with a new title-page in 1723, and others again in 1746 : this was only part of the unsold stock. It has been already mentioned that Mill only survived the com- pletion and publication of his edition one fortnight. It was thus impossible for him to fulfil his intention of publishing the literal text of some of the most ancient MSS.; and it was many a year before any others were found fuUy to undertake that service to sacred criticism. Dr. Bentley, in his " Epistola ad Johannem Millium" (first printed in 1691), refers to the publication of these texts as part of the plan which Mill had proposed to himself After mentioning the Alexandrian MS., the Codex Bezse, the Codex Laudianus of the Acts of the Apostles at Oxford, and the Codex Claromontanus at Paris, and lamenting the chances of destruction to which they were exposed, he goes on to speak of Mill's plan for publishing them at the same time as his Greek Testament. The edition of the ancient texts* was at each opening to exhibit the Codex Alexandrinus, and the Codex Bezge in the Gospels; in the Acts, * " Tu vero, Milli doctissime, qui omnium mortalium maxime in eo studio versatus 63, non patieris hunc laudem tibi prseripi ; sed maturabis veneranda ilia pignora et monumenta vetustatis a situ et interitu vindicare. Scimus enim te horum omnium editionem instituere, quae una pagina et in uno conspectu codicem Alex, qui familiam ducet, et Cantabrigiensem cum versione sua, atque ubi hie deficit, Oxoniensem [i. e. Laudianum] atque Gallicum [i. e. Claromontanum] reprsesentet : quae singidas literas atque apices exemplarium, etiam ubi a librariis peccatum est, accurate et religiose subsequatur. Nihil illi purpurse assuetur discolor aut diversum; nullse interpunc- tiones, nullse notse accentuum, quorum omnis hodie ratio prgepostera est atque per- versa: adeo ut qui tuam editionem sibi comparaverit. ipsa ilia propemodum archetypa versare manibus atque oculis usurpare videatur. Ea res, olim. ut certum est augu- rium, et Britannise nostrse splendori erit, et Ecclesise prsesidio : tuos vero utique 46 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT the Codex Laudianus was also to be introduced, and in St. Paul's Epistles tliere would be the Codices Alexandrinus and Claro- montanus. Everything was to be given as left by the copyists, without any corrections or changes. It was not long after the publication of Mill's Greek Testament that an attempt was made to apply results of criticism, both to the emendation of the Greek text, and also to a revised EngHsh ver- sion. This was done by Dr. Edward Wells, whose Greek Testament, with an English translation, notes, and paraphrase, appeared at Oxford, in separate parts, from 1709 to 1719. This edition of Wells deserves mention, as being the first attempt to present a critically-revised Greek text: as such, it is a very respec- table work. Its appearance is a proof that textual criticism was not decried by all in this country, and that the labours of Mill were deemed to be of real value. It might have been expected that thirty years of toil which Mill had expended, and the means which were thus afforded to the biblical scholar to form his own judgment, in cases of various reading, would have been appreciated highly by all who professed to value Holy Scripture. But it was not so. " The great dili- gence which he displayed in collecting so many thousand readings exposed him to the attacks of many writers, both in England and Germany, who formed not only an unfavourable, but unjust opi- nion of his work. Not only the clergy in general, but even professors in the universities, who had no knowledge of criticism, considered his vast collection of various readings as a work of evil tendency, and inimical to the Christian religion." — {Marsh's Mi- chaelis, ii. 458.) labores amplissimis prsemiis atque imraortali gloria compensabit. Macte ista pietate et diligentia esto. In te omnes ora atque oculos convertimus, te unum in hoc curri- culum vocamus : ipsi codices celerem tuam opem implorant et flagitant : quid cessas per medias laudes et faventium plausus secundo rumore ingredi ? Tu vero, ut poUi- ceri de te possum, facies id sedulo; simulatque exibit Novum tuum Testamentum jam fere ad umbilicum usque perductum."— J?p. ad Millium (p. 362, ed. Dyce) The first of the ancient MSS. which Mill thus intended to publish, which actually appeared in a printed edition, was the Codex Laudianus, edited by Hearne, in 1715 ; the Codex Alexandrinus was printed by Woide in 178G; Kipling's edition of the Codex Bezffi was published in 1793; while the Codex Claromontanus did not thus appear till 1852, when Tischendorf edited it, from his own transcripts and collations and those of Tregelles. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 47 The principal opponent of Mill's edition was Dr. Whitby, whose attack appeared in 1710: it may be well that Mill, who was thus aspersed for his long-continued labours, had been removed from the scenes in which such unjust and ignorant attacks can be felt. They worked much mischief, however, amongst the living, who were led to believe, through clamour, that textual criticism is dangerous in the extreme.* It is scarcely possible to conceive that Whitby could have attempted thus to defend the common text, had he really been conscious how it originated. And yet some will always be found to listen and applaud, when writers like Whitby charge honest and reverential criticism with rendering the word of God uncer- tain, and with being hostile to Christianity. It was easy for Whitby to say that, in all cases of important variation, the Ste- phanie reading may he defended; for it is a rare thing for there to be a paradox, however glaring, which does not find some one to maintain it. But if it be asked by what arguments would Whitby do this, we come to a very different point; for boldness of asser- tion and invective against an opponent can avail only up to a certain point. We might in fact seem to be discussing over again the attacks of Lee upon Erasmus, grounded on his departures from the Latin readings. Whitby's appendix contains *' Millius iavrov nixcdpovfievo^" in in which he attacks the changes of opinion on Mill's part, as to the value of various readings, which introduce a kind of contra- diction between Mill's margin and his Prolegomena. Now this accusation is a manifest proof how little Whitby was capable of apprehending the subject on which he was writing, and how little he understood what it was to carry on critical labours such as those of Mill. No doubt that critic had changed his mind, in the * The title of Whitby's work was— "Examen variantium lectionum Johannis Millii, S.T.P., ubi ostenditur, " 1. Lectionum harum fundamenta incerta plane esse, et ad lectionum textus hodi- erni convellendam protinus inidonea. "2. Lectiones variantes, quae sunt momenti alicujus, aut sensum textus mutant, paucissimos esse, atque in iis omnibus lectionem textus defendi posse. "3. Lectiones variantes levioris momenti, quas toties expendimus, tales esse, in quibus a lectione recepta rarissime recedendum est. "4. Millium in hisce variantibus lectionibus colligendis ssepius arte non ingenua usum esse, falsis citationibus abundare, et sibimet ipsi multoties contradicens." 48 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT course of his work, as to many readings : he gives the results of his latest consideration in his Prolegomena; and for this he was thus to be blamed ! It is possible that no amount of evidence would have been sufficient to convince Whitby of a point to which he was opposed; but it was not so with Mill. ^Whitby seems to have valued the evidence of numbers as counterbalancing all other considerations, except when numbers preponderate against the common text. If Mill could be thus charged with making the text of Scrip- ture precarious, by those who professed to reverence its authority, simply because he presented to their view thirty thousand various readings, it is no cause for surprise that enemies of revelation, who knew (what others might have known or remembered) that Mill did not make the variations, but only stated the previously existing fact, should have taken up the assertion, and declared that the text of Scripture is precarious on this very ground. They used the ignorance of those who wished to uphold Scripture and to condemn Mill, against themselves; so that, on their principles, they could hardly answer the enemies of revelation. And thus in 1713 Anthony Collins, in his "Discourse of Free Thinking," was able to use the arguments of Whitby to some purpose, in defence of his own rejection of the authority of Scrip- ture. This part of Collins's book ought to be a warning to those who raise outcries on subjects of criticism. If Mill had not been blamed for his endeavours to state existing facts relative to MSS. of the Greek Testament, and if it had not been said that thirty thousand various readings are an alarming amount, this line of argument could not have been put into Collins's hands. In consequence, however, of Collins's book. Dr. Bentley published his reply, under the name of Phileleutlierus Lipsiensis; and while he fully exposed the pretensions of Collins in his gene- ral argument, using himself tlie assumed disguise of a Leipsic doctor, and professing to regard all that was passing in England from a foreign point of view, he so took up the subject of the various readings of the Greek Testament, as to place the argu- ment in its true light; and while, on the one hand, he vindicated the sacred records from material or essential corruption, he showed the importance of paying proper attention to critical studies. OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 49 Bentley had to steer clear between two points, — between those who wished to represent the text of the New Testament as altogether uncertain because of the variations of copies, and those who used this fact of differences to depreciate critical inquiries, and to de- fend th^ text as commonly printed against all evidence whatever. In the section which Bentley devoted to the subject, he showed that the attention which he had paid to sacred criticism before he wrote his Epistola ad Millium, twenty-two years previously, still continued; and that, when soon after this time he issued his pro- posals for an edition of the Testament in Greek and Latin, he was not seeking to occupy a field to which he was a stranger. APPENDIX TO SECTION 5. The 32nd section of the 1st part of Bentley's "Remarks upon a late Dis- course of Free Thinking, in a Letter to F. H., D.D., by Phileleutherus Lip- siensis," is often partially quoted, when various readings are discussed ; and references to it are not unfrequently made. As the principles laid down in it are of the utmost value, and as the force of the argument can be but dimly apprehended from mere partial quotation, the greater part of the section is here appended : this forms in fact an integral part of the history of the appli- cation of criticism to the text of the Greek New Testament. In the preceding section Bentley had referred to Collins's accusations of the English clergy ; amongst others, Dr. INiill had been charged vrith " rendering the Canon of the Scripture uncertain." Collins's object in bringing forward such points was, that he might allege, that until believers in Revelation were perfectly agreed, others need not trouble themselves to inquire into its claims. Dr. Bentley disposes of this charge against Mill in a few remarks, showing that the Canon of Scripture could not have been complete before all the books were written, and that this was simply what Mill and others had stated. He then speaks of the use which Collins had chosen to make of Mill's labours. " Yes ! but poor Dr. Mill has still more to answer for ; and meets with a sorry recompense for his long labour of xxx. years. For, if we are to believe 50 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT not only this wise author, but a wiser doctor* of your own, he was labouring all that while to prove the text of the Scripture precarious ; having scraped together such an immense collection of various readings, as amount in the whole, by a late author's computation, to above thirty thousand. Now this is a matter of some consequence, and will well deserve a few reflections. "I am forced to confess with grief, that several well-meaning priests,f of greater zeal than knowledge, have often, by their own false alarms and panic^ both frighted others of their ovra side, and given advantage to their enemies. What an uproar once was there, as if all were ruined and undone, when Capellus wrote one book against the antiquity of the Hebrew points, and another for various lections in the Hebrew text itself 1 And yet time and experience has cured them of those imaginary fears ; and the great author in his grave has now that honour universally, which the few only of his own age paid him when alive. " The case is and will be the same with your learned friend Dr. Mill ; whose friendship (while I staid at Oxford) and memory will be ever dear to me. For what is it that your Whitbyus so inveighs and exclaims at ? The doctor's labours, says he, make the whole text precarious, and expose both the Reformation to the papists, and religion itself to the atheists. God forbid ! we'll still hope better things. For surely those various readings existed before in the several exemplars ; Dr. Mill did not make and coin them, he only exhibited them to our view. If religion, therefore, was true before, though such various readings were in being, it will be as true, and conse- quently as safe still, though everybody sees them. Depend on't, no truth, no matter of fact fairly laid open, can ever subvert true religion. "The 30,000 various lections are allowed, then, and confessed : and if more copies yet are collated, the sum will still mount higher. And what's the inference from this ? Why, one Gregory, here quoted, infers that no profane author whatever has suffered so much by the hand of time as the New I'esta- ment has done. Now if this shall be found utterly false ; and if the scriptural text has no more variations than what must necessarily have happened from the nature of things, and what are common and in equal proportion in all classics whatever ; I hope this panic will be removed, and the text be thought as firm as before. " If there had been but one manuscript of the Greek Testament, at the restoration of learning about two centuries agfo, then we had had no various read- ings at all. And would the text be in a better condition then, than now we have 30,000 ? So far from that, that in the best single copy extant we should have had some hundreds of faults, and some omissions irreparable. Besides that the suspicions of fraud and foul play would have been increased immensely. " It is good, therefore, you'll allow, to have more anchors than one ; and * Bentley of course intends Wliitby by this reference. t Beutley frequently used CoUinss phrascolopy, in bis remarks. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 51 another MS. to join with the first would give more authority, as well as security. Now choose that second where you will, there shall still be a thousand variations from the first ; and yet half or more of the faults shall still remain in them both. " A third therefore, and so a fourth, and still on, are desirable, that by a joint and mutual help all the faults may be mended ; some copy preserving the true reading in one place, and some in another. And yet the more copies you call to assistance, the more do the various readings multiply upon you ; every copy having its peculiar slips, though in a principal passage or two it do singular service. And this is fact not only in the New Testament, but in all ancient books whatever. " 'Tis a good providence and a great blessing, that so many manuscripts of the New Testament are still amongst us ; some procured from Egypt, others from Asia, others found in the Western churches. For the very distances of places, as well as numbers of the books, demonstrate, that there could be no collusion, no altering nor interpolating one copy by another, nor all by any of them. " In profane authors, (as they are called), whereof one manuscript only had the luck to be preserved, as Velleius Paterculus amongst the Latins, and Hesychius among the Greeks, the faults of the scribes are found so numerous, and the defects so beyond all redress, that, notwithstanding the pains of the learnedest and acutest critics for two whole centuries, these books still are, and are like to continue, a mere heap of errors. On the contrary, where the copies of any author are numerous, though the various readings always increase in proportion, there the text, by an accurate collation of them made by skilful and judicious hands, is ever the more correct, and comes nearer to the true words of the author. " Were the very originals of ancient books still in being, those alone would supersede the use of all other copies ; but since that was impossible /rom the nature of things^ since time and casualties must consume and devour all, the subsidiary help is from the various transcripts conveyed down to us, when examined and compared together. " Terence is now in one of the best conditions of any of the classic writers; the oldest and best copy of him is now in the Vatican Library, which comes nearest to the poet's own hand ; but even that has hundreds of errors, most of which may be mended out of other exemplars, that are otherwise more recent and of inferior value. I myself have collated several ; and do affirm that I have seen 20,000 various lections in that little author, not near so big as the whole New Testament ; and am morally sure, that if half the number of manuscripts were collated for Terence with that niceness and minuteness which has been used in twice as many for the New Testament^ the number of the variations would amount to above 50,000. " In the manuscripts of the New Testament the variations have been noted with a religious, not to say superstitious, exactness. Every difference, in spelling, in the smallest particle or article of speech, in the very order or 52 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT collocation of words without real change,* has been studiously registered. Nor has the text only been ransacked, but all the ancient versions, the Latin Vulgate, Italic,! Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Saxon ; nor these only, but all the dispersed citations of the Greek and Latin fathers, in the course of 500 years. What wonder then, if, with all this scrupulous search in every hole and corner, the varieties rise to 30,000 ? when in all ancient books of the same bulk, whereof the MSS. are numerous, the variations are as many or more, and yet no versions to swell the reckoning. " The editors of profane authors do not use to trouble their readers, or risk their own reputation, by an useless list of every small slip committed by a lazy or ignorant scribe. What is thought commendable in an edition of Scripture, and has the name of fairness and fidelity, would in them be deemed impertinence and trifling. Hence the reader not versed in ancient MSS. is deceived into an opinion, that there were no more variations in the copies than what the editor has communicated. Whereas, if the like scrupulousness was observed in registering the smallest changes in profane authors, as is allowed, nay required, in sacred, the now formidable number of 30,000 would appear a very trifle. " 'Tis manifest that books in verse are not near so obnoxious to variations as those in prose ; the transcriber, if he is not wholly ignorant and stupid, being guided by the measures, and hindered from such alterations as do not fall in with the laws of numbers. And yet even in poets the variations are so very many as can hardly be conceived without use and experience. In the late edition of Tibullus by the learned writer Mr. Broukhuise [1708], you have a register of various lections in the close of that book, where you may see, at the first view, that they are as many as the lines. The same is visible in Plautus, set out by Pareus. I myself, during my travels, have had the opportunity to examine several MSS. of the poet Manilius ; and can assure you that the variations I have met with are twice as many as all the lines of the book. Our Discourser \ here has quoted nine verses out of it, p. 151 ; in which, though one of the easiest places, I can show him xiv. various lections. Add likewise that the MSS. here used were few in comparison : and then do you imagine what the lections would amount to, if ten times as many (the case of Dr. ]\Iill) were accurately examined. And yet in these and all other books the text is not made more precarious on that account, but more certain and authentic. So that, if I may advise 3'ou, when you hear more of this ^ When Bentley began to examine Greek MSS. of the New Testament for himself, he learned that many of these points had been neglectedhy collators. t The Italic version was a phrase which Bentley afterwards thoroughly rejected. The "Itala" is once mentioned by Augustine, and this word Bentley considered to be a transcriptural en'or. There is no occasion for such suspicions ; the word, however, does not apply to the Ante-hieronymian Latin texts in general, but (as is clear from the passage in Augustine) to a particular revision of the Old Latin which was cun*ent in Upper Italy. t i e. Collins, against whom Bentley was writing, although discussing at the same time the theories and charges of Whitby. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 53 scarecrow of 30,000, be neither astonished at the sum, nor in any pain for the text. " 'Tis plain to me that your learned Whitbyus, in his invective against my dead friend, was suddenly surprised with a panic ; and under his deep con- cern for the text, did not reflect at all what that word really means. The present text was first settled almost 200 years ago out of several MSS. by Eobert Stephens, a printer and bookseller at Paris ; whose beautiful and (generally speaking) accurate edition has been ever since counted the standard, and followed by all the rest.* Now this specific tea^t, in your doctor's notion, seems taken for the sacred original in every word and syllable ; and if the conceit is but spread and propagated, within a few years that printer's infalli- bility will be as zealously maintained as an evangelists or apostle's. " Dr. Mill, were he alive, would confess to your doctor, that this text fixed by a printer is sometimes by the various readings rendered uncertain, nay, is proved certainly wrong. But then he would subjoin, that the real text of the sacred writers does not now (since the originals have been so long lost) lie in any single MS. or edition, but is dispersed in them all. 'Tis competently exact indeed even in the worst MS. now extant ; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them ; choose as awkwardly as you can, choose the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings. But the lesser matters of diction, and among several synonymous expressions the very words of the vrriter, must be found out by the same industry and sagacity that is used in other books ; must not be risked upon the credit of any particular MS. or edition, but be sought, acknowledged, and challenged, wherever they are met with. " Stephens followed what he found in the King of France's copies. Acts xxvii. 14, auefxos Tv^atviKos, 6 koKovixcvos EYPOKAYAQN ; and he is followed by your translators, there arose against it a tempestuous wind called EU- ROCLYDON. This reading, perhaps, your learned doctor would not have now be made precarious : but if that printer had had the use of your Alexandrian MS., which exhibits here EYPAKYAQN, it's very likely he would have given it the preference in his text ; and then the doctor, upon his own principle, must have stickled for this. " The wind euroclydon was never heard of but here ; it's compounded of evpos Kkvbcov, the wind and the waves ; and it seems plain a priori from the disparity of those two ideas, that they could not be joined in one compound ; nor is there any other example of the like composition. " But evpaKvXav, or, as the Vulgar Latin here has it, euro-aquilo (approved by Grotius and others) is so apposite to the context, and to all the circum- stances of the place, that it may fairly challenge admittance as the word of * This is said according to what was then the commonjoproion relative to Stephens's text ; when it was thought that it was edited from MSS., instead of following almost absolutely Erasmus's fifth edition : the only use made of MSS. was to take various readings from them to place in the margin. 54 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT St. Luke.* 'Tis true, according to Vitruvius, Seneca, and Pliny, who make eurus to blow from the winter solstice, and aquilo between the summer solstice and the north point, there can be no such wind or word as euro-aquiloy because the solanus or apheliotes from the cardinal point of east comes between them. But eurus is here to be taken, as Gellius, ii. 22, and the Latin poets use it, for the middle equinoctial east, the same as solanus ; and then in the table of the xii. winds according to the ancients, between the two cardinal winds septentrio and eurus, there are two at stated distances, aquilo and KaiKias. The Latins had no known name for KatKLas : Quern ah oriente solstitiali excitatum Grceci KaiKiav vocant, apud nos sine nomine est, says Seneca, Nat. Qucest. v. 16. KaiKtay, therefore, blowing between aquilo and eurus, the Roman seamen (for want of a specific word) might express the same wind by the compound name euro-aquilo, in the same analogy as the Greeks call evpouoros the middle wind between eurus and notu^, and as you say now south-east and north-east. Since therefore we have now found that euro-aquilo was the Eoman mariners' word for the Greek KatKias, there will soon appear a just reason why St. Luke calls it avefios TvcjyoiviKos, a tempestuous wind, vorticosus, a whirling wind ; for that's the peculiar character of KaiKias in those climates ; as appears from several authors, and from that known proverbial verse, ''E\kcov ecjf)' avTov wy 6 KaiKias vecf^r]. So that, with submission, I think our Luther's and the Danish version have done more right than your English to the sacred text, by translating it nord- osT, north-east ; though, according to the present compass, divided into xxxii., euro-aquilo answers nearest to ost-nord-ost, east-noiih-east ; which is the very wind that would directly drive a ship from Crete to the African Syrtis according to the pilot's fears, in the 17th verse, " The Alexandrian copy, then, though it has vastly increased the number of readings, as you see in your Polyglot and Dr. Mill's edition, has been of excellent use here ; and so in many other places ; retrieving to us the true original, where other copies failed. And what damage if all the other copies of near the same antiquity, which Mr. Montfaucon has discovered, and Dr. Mill never saw, were sometime collated as exactly, and all the varieties pub- lished, let the thousands grow never so many ? " When the doctor is so alarmed at the vast sum of 30,000 he seems to take it for granted, that within that number the very original is every where found ; and the only complaint is, that true are so blended with false, that they can hardly be discovered. If that were the only difficulty, some abler heads than ours would soon find a remedy : in the mean time I can assure him, that if that be the case, the New Testament has suffered less injurij hy the hand of time than any profane author, there being not one ancient book besides it in the world, that, with all the help of various lections (be they 50,000, if you * It has since been found that this is the reading of the Codex Vuticanus a prima manii. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 55 will) does not stand in further want of emendation by true critic ;* nor is one good edition of any that has not inserted into the text (though every reader knows it not) what no manuscript vouches. " 'Tis plain indeed that if emendations are true, they must have once been in some manuscripts, at least in the author's original ; but it does not follow, that because no manuscript now exhibits them, none more ancient ever did. Slips and errors (while the art of printing was unknown) grew presently and apace, even while the author was alive. Martial tells us himself, how one of his admirers was so curious, that he sent a copy of his poems, which he had bought, to be emended by his own hand. (Martial vii. 11.) And we certainly know from Gellius (i. 21 ; ix. 14), that even so early as Hadrian's time, and before, the common copies of Yirgil had several mistakes. " Not frighted, therefore, with the present 30,000, I, for my part, and (as I believe) many others, would not lament, if out of the old manuscripts yet untouched 10,000 more were faithfully collected : some of which without question would render the text more beautiful, just, and exact, though of no consequence to the main of religion ; nay, perhaps wholly synonymous in the view of common readers, and quite insensible in any modern version.f . *' But to return to our Discourser, and to close up this long remark : it is fact undeniable, that the sacred books have suffered no more alterations than com- * The word "critic" is used by Bentley and some of his contemporaries (e. g. Bp. Hare) for Ars Critlca, after the analogy of Logic, Music, Rhetoric, Arithmetic. It seems to have fallen into disuse from the inconvenience that the same word stands in English for him who exercises the art or excels in it, Criticus. And thus Criticism has been adopted as the current term, and not Critic, to express the art. Of late an endeavour has been made to force upon the English tongue the words Patristih, Symbotih, DogmatiTc, by some of those translators from the German, who, even if they are skilled in the language which they seek to transfuse, are at least.un- aware of the proprieties of that into which they profess to translate. Some of these have sought to revive the word Critic in the sense in which it has gone out of use. The analogies observed in the formation of Pneumatics, or Criticism, would be far better to be followed, if new technical terms must be introduced : although it maybe observed that new technical terms, if not tvell explained, are commonly a veil for indefiniteness of thought and absolute mysticism. t Bentley here gives specimens of conjectural criticism as applied to the text of the New Testament. He soon, however, rejected the notion of introducing any con- jectural emendations into the text, and was satisfied that the joint testimony of MSS. versions and early citations present us with such materials for critical application as we have not for any profane work whatever. The conjectures inserted in Wetstein's Greek Testament as those which Bentley communicated to his friends, are such as few will probably think to have really pro- ceeded from that Critic. There seems to have been some mistake or misapprehension on Wetstein's part. In the first edition of his Prolegomena in 1730, Wetstein inserted these conjectures without giving any name in connection with them: he seems to have failed in memory, when twenty-two years afterwards he ascribed them all to Bentley. 56 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT mon and classic authors ; it has been the common sense of men of letters, that numbers of manuscripts do not make a text precarious, but are useful, nay, necessary to its establishment and certainty. And as Scaliger, Casaubon, Heinsius, &c., when they designed to publish a correct edition of an author, first laboured to procure all the manuscripts they could hear of, as the only means that promised laudable success ; so Stephanus, Junius,* Curcellaeus, Walton, Fell, and Mill proceeded in the same method. All these, except Stephens the printer, were christian priests ; and what, pray, were they doing with all this pains and labour ? Why, according to our wise author, they were confounding their own scheme. Very magisterial and decisive ! And yet the comfort is, that in his courteous distribution of all mankind into knaves and fools, he can neither accuse the clergy here as playing their priestcraft, nor, without involving vsdth them the most learned of the laity, turn them over to the second row of crackhrained and idiots. " The result of the whole is, that either a posteriori all ancient books, as well as the sacred, must now be laid aside as uncertain and precarious ; or else to say a priori, that all the transcripts of sacred books should have been privileged against the common fate, and exempted from all slips and errors whatever. Which of these our vsrriter and his new sect will close with I cannot foresee : there's in each of them such a gust of the paradox and per- verse, that they equally suit with a modern free-thinker's palate ; and there- fore I shall here bestow a short reflection on both. " If all the old authors are abandoned by him, there is one compendious answer to this Discourse of Free-thinking. For what becomes of the boasted passages out of Cicero, Plutarch, and his long list of ancient free-thinkers, if the text of each is precarious ? those passages, as they came from the author's hands, might he for superstition, which are now cited against it. Thus our writer will be found /eZo de se; unless the coroner, to save his effects, favours him with his own titles of fool and madman. "But I have too much value for the ancients to play booty about their works, for the sake of a short answer to a fool according to his folly. All those passages, and all the rest of their remains, are sufficiently pure and genuine to make us sure of the writer's design. K a corrupt line or dubious reading chances to intervene, it does not darken the whole context, nor make an author's opinion or his i^wc^ose precarious. Terence, for instance, has as many variations as any book whatever, in proportion to its bulk ; and yet, with all its interpolations, omissions, additions, or glosses, (choose the worst of them on purpose), you cannot deface the contrivance and plot of one play ; no, not of one single scene ; but its sense, design, and subserviency to the last issue and conclusion, shall be visible and plain thorow all the mist of various lections. And so it is with the Sacred Text: make your 30,000 as many more, if numbers of copies can ever reach that sum : all the better to a * i. e. Patrick Young, librarian to King Charles I., the earliest collator of the Cod. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 57 knowing and serious reader, who is thereby more richly furnished to select what he sees genuine. But even put them into the hands of a knave or a fool, and yet with the most sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not extin- guish the light of any one chapter, nor so disguise Christianity but that every feature of it will still be the same. "And this has already prevented the last shift and objection, that sacred books, at least, books imposed upon the world as divine laws and revelations, should have been exempted from the injuries of time, and sacred from the least change. For what need of that perpetual miracle, if, with all the present changes, the whole Scripture is perfect and sufficient to all the great ends and purposes of its first writing ? AVhat a scheme would these men make ! What worthy rules would they prescribe to Providence ! That in millions of copies transcribed in so many ages and nations, all the notaries and writers, who made it their trade and livelihood, should be infallible and impeccable ? That their pens should spontaneously vrrite true, or be supernaturally guided, though the scribes were nodding or dreaming ? Would not this exceed all the miracles of both Old and New Testament ? And, pray, to what great use or design ? To give satisfaction to a few obstinate and untractable wretches ; to those who are not convinced by Moses and the prophets, but want one from the dead to come and convert them. Such men mistake the methods of Providence, and the very fundamentals of religion ; which draws its votaries by the cords of a man, by rational, ingenuous, and moral motives ; not by conviction mathematical; not by new evidence miraculous, to silence every doubt and whim that impiety and folly can suggest. And yet all this would have no effect upon such spirits and dispositions : if they now believe not Christ and his apostles, neither would they believe if their own schemes were complied with." — Bentleys Works^ Dyce's edition, iij. 347-361. § 6.— BENTLEY'S PROPOSED EDITION. Mention has been already made of tlie early attention which Bentley paid to the subject of New Testament criticism; this pos- session of accurate knowledge of the facts which bear upon it enabled him to meet the scepticism of Collins, by which he had sought to cast a veil of uncertainty upon those records which 58 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT Christians liave ever regarded as the foundations of their hopes. It is not surprising that he should have sought to take up the subject at the place where Mill had left it, and to go onward with the attempt to present a settled text of the sacred volume. The public manner in which he had shown the causelessness of the outcry which was occasioned by the fact that various read- ings exist, directed attention to himself as the person who was especially suited to undertake and execute such an edition. Dr. (afterwards Bishop) Hare in his "Clergyman's Thanks to Phile- leutherus,"* publicly called on Bentley to carry out a work for which his scholarship rendered him so pecuKarly competent. In the beginning of 1716, Wetstein, then a young man, came to England, and showed Bentley the collations which he had made of MSS. at Paris. Wetstein appears to have been wholly unaware of the attention which Bentley had previously paid to sacred criticism, for he says that this was the first time that he contem- plated such a scheme. So far from this being the case, he had already himself collated the whole of the Alexandrian MS.; and the interest which he felt in the extracts which Wetstein had made from the Codex Ephraemi, seems to have arisen from finding how very often they confirmed the readings of that MS. Indeed Bentley knew what MSS. of great antiquity had come to light since the collations made by Mill and his friends, so that he was competent at this time to have instructed Wetstein on the whole subject. In 1723, Conyers Middleton complained that Bentley had detained MSS. from the public library at Cambridge, some for eleven years, some eight, and some for shorter periods; these MSS. appear to have been connected with his Greek Testament collations. Amongst other MSS. was the Codex Bezae; which, after having kept it for seven years, Bentley returned in 1722. Thus it is clear that Bentley did not commence his preparations suhsequenthj to Wetstein's visit, in 1716. When Bentley saw the collections which Wetstein had made, he pressed him to publish them, oflcring his assistance. Wetstein, * The date of Hare's pamphlet is March, 1713; this may very probably mean 1714, accordiuK to our present reckoning; the 2')\\\ of March was then commonly counted the beginning of the year in this country, until tlic adoption of the New Style in 1752. OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT. 59 however, preferred to transfer these extracts to Bentley, who pur- chased his services for a time, and sent him to Paris to make a more complete collation of the Codex Ephraemi. Bentley unfolded his plan of proceeding in a letter to Dr. Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, April 16, 1716, while Wetstein was still in England. In this letter he refers to the alarm which had been needlessly raised on the subject of various readings ; and he expresses his satisfaction that he hears that what he wrote on the subject in answer to Collins, had "made several good men more easy in that matter than they had been before." He then gives some account of his studies in (what may be called) comparative criticism* He found (he says) a wonderful resemblance and agreement between the oldest Latin and Greek MSS. ; and by means of this agree- ment he was able (he believed) to restore the text of the New Testament to what it had been at the time of the Council of Nice in the best copies then current. He even says enthusiastically, "so that there shall not be 20 words, or even particles, difference." He had found (he says) in collating one or two of St. Paul's Epistles in the Codex Alexandrinus, that the transpositions of words, etc., had not been noticed by Mill and other collators; this led him to recollate the entire MS. He then refers to the Codex Ephraemi, and to the confirmation which the readings extracted by Wetstein often gave to the Alexandrian copy. He then speaks of the history of Jerome's translation; which (he considers) must at first have accurately represented in Latin the best Greek MSS. then obtainable. But finding how different the modern Clementine Vulgate is from the oldest Greek readings, he examined the oldest MSS. which he could see of that version, and then was well pleased to discover that there was often a precise accordance between the Latin and the Greek. . Bentley next speaks briefly of the formation of the common * The introduction of such a term as tins scarcely demands an apology. Tew secular writers of antiquity admit of comparative criticism of the text, for they have in general come down to us in MSS. of one. language only. Not so the New Testa- ment ; for there a new element of textual criticism must be considered; and it is our ability to use comparative criticism that enables us to form a more correct judgment of the absolute and relative value of different MSS. and versions. 60 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT text of the Greek Testament. These sentences, both as to the current Greek and Latin copies, are well worthy of attention : — '*The New Testament has been under a hard fate since the invention of printing. " After the Complutenses and Erasmus, who had but very ordinary ]\ISS., it became the property of booksellers. Robert Stephens's edition, set out and regulated by himself alone, is now become the standard. That text stands, as if an apostle was his compositor. "No heathen author has had such ill fortune. Terence, Ovid, etc., for the first century after printing, went about with 20,000 errors in them. But when learned men undertook them, and from the oldest MSS. set out correct editions, those errors fell and vanished. But if they had kept to the first published text, and set the various lections only in the margin, those classic authors would be as clogged with variations as Dr. Mill's Testament is. "Popes Sixtus and Clement, at a vast expense, had an assembly of learned divines to recense and adjust the Latin Vulgate, and then enacted their new edition authentic : but I find, though I have not discovered anything done dolo malo^ they were quite unequal to the afiair. They were mere theologi, had no experience in MSS., nor made use of good Greek copies, and followed books of 500 years before those of double age. Nay, I believe, they took these new ones for the older of the two; for it is not everybody knows the age of a manuscript. " * * * To conclude: in a word, I find that by taking 2000 errors out of the Pope's Vulgate, and as many out of the Protes- tant Pope Stephens's, I can set out an edition of each in columns, without using any book under 900 years old, that shall so exactly agree word for word, and, what at first amazed me, order for order, that no two tallies, nor two indentures, can agree better. "I affirm that these so placed will prove each other to a demonstration ; for I alter not a letter of my own head, with the authority of these old witnesses," Earnestly for a time did Bentley prosecute his design; great pains were taken to procure accurate collations of the oldest Greek and Latin MSS. It is to be lamented that the proposed edition never appeared. The delays which arose from the strange conten- OP THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT. 61 tions in which Bentley was involved, and the outcry which was raised by well-meaning prejudice, so far prevailed as to delay the work, until it was impossible for Bentley himself to superintend its publication. And thus all that was accomplished was the acquire- ment of a mass of materials. It was very soon reported that Bentley was engaged in such an edition ; and before the end of the year in which he had informed Archbishop Wake what he had in hand, some took alarm in the belief that he would not insert 1 John v. 7. This was made the subject of a kind of an anonymous argumentative remonstrance to Bentley; who replied (Jan. 1, 1716-17) that the decision as to that verse must depend on ancient evidence, the same as all other passages. In the following 1st of May, Bentley, who was little accustomed to withhold his opinions, delivered his probationary lecture as candidate for the Regius Professorship of Divinity ; in this lecture he gave his decided judgment for the rejection of the verse in question. In such a case boldness is prudence; if the verse is not owned as part of Holy Writ by competent authorities, it is needful to speak out, even though the equanimity of subjec- tive dogmatists be ruffled, and though they may raise an antici- pative feeling of condemnation against the honest critic. Amongst other steps taken by Bentley, was that of sending John Walker, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, to Paris to collate MSS. for him. On his return, in 1720, Bentley issued his Proposals for his Greek and Latin New Testament, accom- panied by the last chapter of the Revelation, as a specimen. The whole of Bentley's Proposals were comprised in eight paragraphs : the first spoke of the actual condition of the printed Greek Text and the Latin Vulgate, and the importance of the service of revising both, on the authority of MSS. of more than a thousand years old. The second related to the view which Bentley took of certain passages in St. Jerome ** where he declares, that (without making a new version) he adjusted and reformed the whole Latin Vulgate to the best Greek exemplars; that is to say, to those of the famous Origen," and also of the passage containing Jerome's statement that the order even of the words is important in translations of Holy Scripture. From these passages he concluded that the oldest Greek and 62 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT Latin copies ouglit to agree botli in words and in tKeir order, "and upon making tKe essay (he says) he has succeeded in his conjecture beyond his expectation or even his hopes." In the third paragraph he states his belief that the mass of various read- ings may, from his collations, be so reduced in number as to leave only about two hundred places in which the true text of a passage can be a matter of doubt. In ihQ fourth^ he says, that he uses as subsidiary, in order to confirm the readings which he adopts, " the old versions, Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, and j3^thiopic, and of all the fathers, Greeks and Latins, within the first five centuries; and he gives in his notes all the various readings (now known) within the said five centuries. So that the reader has under one view what the first ages of the Church knew of the text; and what has crept into any copies since is of no value or authority." In the fifth paragraph, Bentley disclaims the use of conjecture altogether in the text itself of the sacred volume ; the notes are to contain all the evidence on which every word rests ; and also the common readings of Ste- phens's Greek and Clement the Vlllth's Latin are to be plainly exhibited. In the sixths the reader is told that any conjectures of the editor will be given, as such, in the Prolegomena, in which also there was promised a full account of the MSS., etc., used. The seventh paragraph informed the reader of the terms of sub- scription ; the price charged being rendered needful by the great expense incurred : " the lowest subscription for smaller paper must be three guineas, one advanced in present; and for the great paper five guineas, two advanced." The concluding paragraph promised that the edition should be put to press as soon as a sufficient sum was contributed by subscribers. John Walker was to be the superintendent of the impression, and the profit or loss was to be equally shaded by him and Dr. Bentley. The specimen was so arranged as to exhibit the general plan of the edition. As the collations were by no means complete or brought into order, the MSS. were not cited by name, but " An- glici duo," " Gallici trcs,"* etc., were inserted in that part of the * It is rather curious that Wctstein, who had liad good opportunities for knowing .Bentlcy's plan, and how he had himself explained these references, took them for OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 63 page, as sliowing how the authorities would be cited, rather than as giving references to actual MSS. Almost as soon as Bentley's proposals and specimen appeared, they were severely attacked in an anonymous pamphlet, written by Conyers Middleton. This was replied to in a tone of great severity in a pamphlet also anonymous, but which has been com- monly attributed to Bentley, and which was undoubtedly, in part at least, his. In this reply, however, Bentley is always referred to in the third person, and remarks on Dr. Mill and his edition are introduced, such as apparently Bentley would not have made; this was probably a mere device. In general learning, and in acquaint- ance with textual criticism in particular, Middleton was no match for Bentley ; he repeats the merest assertions, such as might have proceeded from Whitby, to exalt the early editors, to decry cri- ticism, and yet to applaud the labours of Mill, in order to depre- ciate those of Bentley. One thing is deeply to be regretted, that such a subject was discussed in such a manner on both sides :* for the solemn reverence due to God's holy word was utterly forgot- ten, and the question of the text of the New Testament was made a mere point of intellectual gladiatorship. Middleton did not in general understand the really weak points of Bentley's plan, and he spent his strength in assailing what was well-established. Bentley gives important information on the subject before him, and he well defends those true principles of criticism which Mid- dleton had assailed. And yet the spirit of such advocacy was utterly unsuited to the cause, f *'Non tali auxilio." actual existing MSS ; and thus in his Prolegomena to the Apocalypse he inserts in his HstofMSS.— " 20 et 21, Duo Codices Gallicani^ qui citantur in specimine Capitis ultimi Apo- calypseos a R. Bentlejo edito." From Wetstein these supposed MSS. were transferred to Griesbach's list. Scholz, however, not doubting that these MSS. were amongst the others at Paris which he had seen, excludes them from his list, and substitutes for them two Codices YaUicel- liani, D. 20 and B. 86 : however, he has never cited these Yalhcellian MSS.; the only places in which 20 or 21 occur in his notes are taken from "Wetstein. Why Wetstein should have referred to Bentley for iwo MSS. only from France does not appear. Bentley sometimes cites " Gallici ires" "Gallici quatuorP * Bentley seems to have thought that Middleton's pamphlet had proceeded from Dr. John Colbatch, Professor of Casuistry at Cambridge, with whom he had at this time a fierce feud. Much of his reply is based on this supposition. t " It is painful to narrate the animosity and virulence which displayed themselves 64 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PKINTED TEXT Bentley mentions, in reply to a remark of his opponent on the manner in which the citations of authorities stand in his specimen, what the kind of notation was that he had adopted; — that of distinguishing the MSS. by letters, A, B, C, etc., and a, /3, y: this is, in fact, the system which was adopted by Wetstein, and which has still continued in use. He showed good discrimination in his use of patristic citations, receiving them for as much as they were worth, remembering that they, too, might have suiFered from the hands of copyists ; and thus in many instances they possess but little value in evi- dence. The case is wholly different when a father cites words expressly, or where a peculiar reading is found in the quotation which also accords with other ancient authorities. In small and unimportant points the citations of "fathers" have been indubi- tably modernized by transcribers, who adapted what they copied to what was familiar to their own ears; while in readings of marked peculiarity they could not do this, because the verbal diSerence was so much greater. Bentley might well be annoyed at being attacked in such a manner by anticipation; and if he had replied in a different tone and temper, all candid readers would have felt that he was the aggrieved party. We can easily understand how Bentley should conclude his answer thus : — "If they will need attack an edition before it's begun, let them put their names to their work. If they do not, they shall have no answer ; and if they do, they will need none." However frequently the former of these sentences may be applied, few could be Bentleian enough to use the latter. Conyers Middleton replied to Bentley 's answer in a much longer and abler pamphlet than his former; its whole character, in fact, was very superior to his previous attack. But still it did not really bear on the critical points at issue ; and one unhappy con- sequence was, that the feeling was increased in this country that it is unsafe to apply criticism to the text of the New Testament ; that it is often better to retain readings traditionally, without evidence, than to revise them in accordance with good and suffi- cient testimony. on such a subject as a new edition of the Gospel of Peace."— Bishop Monk's Life of 13eutley, ii. 130. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 65 Other publications attacked Bentley's proposed edition; and it is certain that the scheme was retarded, — that the expected per- mission to obtain the paper free from duty was not granted, — and that it was commonly believed that such an alarm had been ex- cited as frustrated the edition. Bentley's time and thoughts were unhappily much engaged by the feuds in which he had involved himself at Cambridge ; and yet, in spite of these hindrances, and the great opposition raised, he continued to collect materials for his work, and to receive subscriptions : the sum thus paid him in advance was two thousand guineas. The most important critical authority of which Bentley obtained a collation for his intended edition is the Codex Vaticanus: of this most important document he procured first a collation made for him by an Italian named Mico, and he afterwards (as appears by his published correspondence) obtained a more accurate comparison of some parts of the MS. from his nephew Dr. Thomas Bentley, and then from the Abbate Rulotta a collation of the corrections found in the MS. This was sent him in 1729 ; so that up to that time he had his Greek Testament still in hand. While Bentley was prosecuting this design, discussions were carried on as to the genuineness of the verse 1 John v. 7, as if all criticism of Scripture must be directed to that one point, as if no principles of evidence could be good unless they established its authenticity, and as if none could be holders of the Christian faith on the subject of the Trinity, unless this verse were maintained to be part of divine Scripture. These discussions, conducted in such a manner, could not really further Biblical studies : it is in vain to determine a priori what must be received as God's Word, and then to condemn all the evidence which would contradict such pre-devised conclusions. All this, however, made many feel that a critical text of the New Testament would be a very dangerous book. The maintainers of orthodox truth who decried criticism, were punished for the line of conduct which they pursued; for in 1729 Daniel Mace published his Greek Testament, with an English translation, in which he boldly and arbitrarily changed passages, with evidence or without it, in accordance with his own subjec- 66 AN ACCOUNT OF THE FEINTED TEXT live notions. He was a man apparently of some ingenuity, of no real or accurate scholarship, and possessed of but little principle; he so contrived to use remarks in Mill's Prolegomena, as to have apparently the sanction of the name of that critic for his mode of editing passages. In 1732 he wslb ansivered by Dr. Leonard Twells, whose work met with great approbation at the time : a fact which does not speak highly for the knowledge of criticism then commonly possessed. After the year 1729, we do not find any further notices of Bentley's continued labour for the publication of his Greek Tes- tament. Hofmann, in his edition of Pritius's Introduction, in 1737, says that it was an understood thing that Bentley had pre- pared the edition, but that he had left it to be published after his death.* In 1742, when that event occurred, Bentley left his books, etc., to his nephew, of the same name as himself: " probably expecting that he would give to the world his edition of the New Testament, and others of his unpublished lucubra- tions. But that gentleman never edited any posthumous works of his uncle, and returned the money of the subscribers to the New Testament."! After the death of Bentley's nephew, many of his collec- tions for his projected edition found their way to the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, where they are still preserved. There appears to be much more completed towards giving a revised text of the Latin Vulgate than of the original Greek. The most precious of the collations, that of the Codex Yaticanus, was tran- scribed for publication by Woide; and after his death was edited by Ford, in 1799. It is the most exact and complete collation of that MS. which is accessible to biblical scholars. This proposed edition, although never published, is of no small importance in the history of the text of the New Testament. For the time had arrived when it was possible to use some discrimina- tion in the choice and the application of Greek MSS. to purposes * " Tandem ipse Clar. Bentlcius, futura forsitan adversa prudenter pi'aosagiens, pro- missam Novi Testamenti editionem vivus cdcre recusat, laborem hunc filio unico eiqun doctissimo relictui'us" (p. 406). Probably, in this description of Bentley's sow, Hofmann confounded liim with his nepheio Thomas Bentley, or with Richard Bent- ley, to whom he left his books. t Bishop Monk's Life of Bentley, ii. 415. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 67 of criticism. Bentley saw that the ancient MSS. are the witnesses to the ancient text; and after this had been proved from the gene- ral accordance of such documents with the ancient versions, and the early citations, he was ready to discard from consideration, on a question of evidence, the whole mass of the modern copies. This limited the field of inquiry, and reduced it within tangible and practicable bounds. It is on many accounts to be regretted that the edition itself never appeared, for it would have given the readings of all the ancient MSS. then known, — those of many ancient versions, toge- ther with early citations ; and as to the Latin Vulgate, it would have presented a body of critical materials, such as have never been brought together. The Greek text would probably (or cer- tainly) have been that of the Greek MSS. which resemble the oldest copies of the Yulgate ; but this, though an ancient text, would noth.2iYQ been sufficient to meet the requirements of criti- cism. It would have been the text, not of the whole body of Christian readers in the third and fourth centuries, but rather that only which was current in the West. Bentley formed two hasty conclusions : first, that Jerome revised the Latin versions pre- viously current by the Greek MSS. of Origen; whereas the work of Jerome, having been executed at Rome^ was adapted rather to such MSS. as were current there in ancient times; and also Jerome himself says that he did not emend all that might have been corrected, and in his Commentaries he appeals to MSS. against what he had adopted at Kome. The second of Bentley's hasty conclusions was that, prior to the time of Jerome, there had not existed one known and received Latin version, which having been variously altered and revised, produced the confusion which that father sought to remedy. In spite of these drawbacks, Bentley's edition would have been a valuable contribution towards the establishment of a settled text : it would at least have shaken the foundations of the traditional " textus receptus"; and it might well have formed the basis of further labours. After Bentley's time, it was long before New Testament critics adopted the principle of selecting from amongst the mass of mate- rials those which are really valuable, and worthy of adoption: 68 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT many indeed still shrink from tMs, as though it were an arbitrary proceeding, instead of being, as it really is, a principle based upon the soundest induction. The labours of Bentley in this field have been long compara- tively little known or understood in his own country;* and thus attention has often been paid to topics of comparatively little moment in the liistory of criticism, while those of such import- ance have been overlooked. With Bentley 's death the period closes, in which the textual criticism of the New Testament "peculiarly belonged to scholars in this country. The names of Usher, Walton, Fell, Mill, and Bentley, are a list of those that had continued such studies amongst us for more than a century ; so that the field might well be esteemed especially ours. From the time of Bentley 's death well nigh a century had passed away, before attempts were again made to revive the textual criticism of the New Testament in this its former abode. § 7.— BENGEL'S GREEK TESTAMENT. While Bentley was delaying the completion and publication of his projected edition, there were two others occupied in similar pursuits, — Bengel and Wetstein. * Micliaelis gave a considerable account of Bentley's labours, which was wholly omitted by Bishop Marsh in his translation, who inserted instead the following note, for the information of Bentley's countrymen:— "Here follows in the German original a long account of Bentley's intended edition of the Greek Testament, and of the controversy which was conducted between him and Middleton on that occasion. But as the subject itself is of little importance, because Bentley's plan was never put into execution ; and as those whose curiosity may lead them to inquire into tho history of Bentley's proposals, and the opposition with which they met from Middle- ton, may derive better information from the publications of the time, than can be expected from the work of a foreigner, I have taken the liberty to omit the whole description. Those who wish to see a short account of this intended edition may consult Wetstein's Prolegomena, p. 153." — Marsh's Michaelis, ii. 877. The translation of tlie Introduction of Michaelis was long the storehouse of mate- rials for all who in this country studied subjects of this kind. Tlie omission of all that related to Bentley's edition has caused it to be but little known, except to those into whose hands the pamphlets of a Imndrcd and thirty years ago have fallen. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 69 Of these Bengel was the first to publish the edition which he had prepared: it appeared at Tubingen in 1734. It is always refreshing to see that critical studies, in connection with God's word, have been carried on by those who themselves knew the real spiritual value of that sacred volume on which they were engaged ; and this gives an especial interest to Bengel's labours. John Albert Bengel was born in Wurtemberg in 1687 : during his period of study at Tubingen, 1703-7, the various readings in the Greek New Testament interested him much ; for, having learned to value the New Testament as being the declaration of God's revealed will, he was anxious to be satisfied that he could know the precise form and terms in which it has been given forth. Could it be true, that God had not guarded his own inspired word from material error? One cause of Bengel's difficulty was, that prior to the appearance of Mill's edition, there were only such partial collections of various readings, as raised in his mind the feeling of anxious doubt. At length, however, patient study led him to the conclusion that the various readings are less nume- rous than might have been expected^ and that they do not shake any article of the Evangelic doctrine. Thus Bengel was gra- dually led to see the need of a Greek text, based on really sound principles of criticism applied to exact and complete collations. It is well that, at this time, those in Germany who maintained orthodox and Evangelic truth were not opposed to the application of criticism to the sacred text.* At first Bengel gathered materials wholly for his own use, but others encouraged him to go on and complete his work for public benefit, t He thus made application in many quarters for collations, * In 1702 the celebrated Augustus Herman IVancke, of Halle, had re-edited Bishop Fell's Greek Testament of 1675. t In Burk's Memoir of Bengel, (Walker's translation, p. 227,) it is stated that Whitby and Le Clerc were amongst the number of those " who sent him repeated exhortations to proceed." If this be correct as to Whithy^ he could have but little understood what Bengel had in hand; for Bengel's labours were as much opposed to Whitby's opinions, as were those of Mill ; — nay, they were more opposed; for Bengel intended to revise the text itself. Le Clerc would probably have encouraged any one to undertake a work which might oppose the projected edition of Bentley, whom he dishked much, in consequence of the manner in which that great critic had exposed his pretensions in those departments of learning in which he knew less than nothing. 70 AN ACCOUNT OP THE PRINTED TEXT and he met with a response so far as to issue, in 1725, his *' Pro- dromus Novi Testamenti Grseci recte cauteque adornandi," in which he gave a general notion of the edition which he after- wards published. This work itself made its appearance in 1734: the Text^ except in the Revelation, never departs from that which had previously been given in the same printed edition ; in the margin, however, he placed those readings which he accepted as genuine, with a mark by which he indicated their value; he also gave in the same part of his page other readings, the value of which he considered to be sufficiently great for him to draw particular attention to them. The various readings and critical remarks upon them were separately given in the Apparatus Criticus at the end of the volume. He did not profess to give all the readings of the collated MSS., but only those which he judged to be of some importance ; but one part of his plan, which was long neglected by more recent editors, was of great value ; he gave the evidence for as well as AGAINST each reading^ clearly stated. The great principle of distinction between various readings was expressed by Bengel according to his own judgment, in four words, Proclivi scrlptioni prcBstat ardua^ — a principle then little understood, and which has been practically opposed by many who have discussed such sub- jects in later times. But surely in cases of equal evidence, the more difficult reading, — the reading which a copyist would not be likely to introduce, — stands on a higher ground, as to evidence, than one which presents something altogether easy. In the adoption of this rule, Bengel carried out an idea which is often to be found in Mill's Prolegomena : he likewise agreed with Mill in attaching a high value to the Latin versions as witnesses of the true text. It is to be regretted that Bengel was not better furnished with accurate collations of ancient Greek MSS; for with his critical principles they would have led him much further than he ever went towards forming a text resting simply on authority. He must himself have desired such aids; for it was the hope of re- ceiving them that delayed him some years from publishing. In 1726, Bengel wrote thus with regard to his Greek Testament. " It is already in such forwardness, that if other circumstances shall OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 71 permit, I may soon send it to the press. What principally holds me back is the delay of Bentley's promised edition of the Greek Testament, a specimen of which was given many months since in the English * Library.' Bentley possesses invaluable advantages ; but he has prepossessions of his own, which may prove very detrimental to the received Text. All danger, however, of this kind, I hope I have the means of obviating."* Thus there was some delay in waiting for Bentley's announced edition ; and when this was hopeless, the publication of the first edition of Wetstein's Prolegomena in 1730 led Bengel to see the necessity of re- examining both authorities and principles, before he put his edition to press. Thus the delay from 1725 to 1734 may be well accounted for. Bengel clearly observed the difference existing in MSS. and versions, so that he saw that in a general manner they belonged to two different families. The one embraces the most ancient documents whether MSS. or versions, the other comprises the greater part of those that are more recent. It was thus that the ground plan of a division into Alexandrian and Byzantine families was laid down: these were termed by him, African and Asiatic.f This critic, like his predecessors, had to pass through misrepre- sentation on account of his work : his own orthodoxy and god- liness were unquestionable; but the Greek Testament, with the text revised in some measure, and with further corrections in the margin, was considered dangerous. One of his opposers, Kohlreif, "pubhcly challenged him to a most uncritical measure; namely, to hush the enemies of criticism by admitting that even the various lections were given by inspiration, in order to meet the necessities of various readers "If Wetstein was the most able of Bengel's opponents; he imme- diately reviewed the new edition with much severity; he endea- voured to disparage the critical principles on which Bengel formed his choice of readings, by plainly asserting that we ought to adopt * Letter to MartMus of Presburg. Walker's translation of Burk's Memoir of Bengel, p. 437. t The former of these would in most respects coincide with those MSS. which Bentley most highly valued, to the rejection of others in general. t Walker's translation of Burk's Memoir, p. 245. 72 AN ACCOUNT OP THE PRINTED TEXT those wliich are supported by tKe greatest number of MSS. Tbe attacks on Bengel continued till his death in 1752: one of the latest proceeded from Wetstein, who inserted new remarks on the subject in the Prolegomena which accompanied the first volume of his Greek Testament in 1751. This, however, Bengel never saw. It was well that some valued the labours of this critic : amongst others was Count Zinzendorf, who used Bengel's text as the basis of the German translation of the New Testament that he exe- cuted. The pains taken by Bengel to regulate the punctuation of the New Testament, and to divide it into paragraphs, were appre- ciated by some ; and in these respects he was followed by John Gambold in the edition of Mill's text, which appeared at Oxford in 1742 ; and these divisions have been very frequently adopted in this country, as for instance, in the Greek Testament, edited by Bishop Lloyd, in 1828, at Oxford, and frequently reprinted. In 1745, the king of Denmark caused the authorised Danish version to be revised; and the text of Bengel was used as the standard for that purpose. Bengel felt that the attacks to which he was exposed were not made so much against himself personally, as against the genuine text of the New Testament; he thus bore the violent language with which he was assailed, with much equanimity, while he replied firmly and temperately to those who attacked him. In one of his repHes (in 1747) he said, *' Oh that this may be the last occasion of my standing in the gap to vindicate the precious original text of the New Testament ! The children of peace cannot love contention ; it is wearying and painful to them to be obliged to contend even for the truth itself." Bengel's text was repeatedly reprinted ; and he continued up to the time of his death to augment and correct his Apparatus Criti- cus; the enlarged edition of which was published in 1763, under the care of Philip David Burk.* It is cheering to the mind of every Christian to observe the * This is not the place to speak of Bengel's other works; it should, however, be borne in mind, that the revision of the sacred text was only one part of the labour of this critic. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 73 spirit in wliicli Bengel acts and speaks in connection witK his cri- tical labours. The revision of the text of the word of God was with him no mere affair of learning or literary skill; but, knowing the preciousness of that volume on which he was engaged, he felt that he had to act in the consciousness of solemn responsibility before God in editing His word : — and he knew that God could give the needed intelligence and diligence, and thus he looked to Him that the work on which he was engaged might be to the glory of Christ. § 8.— WETSTEIN'S GREEK TESTAMENT. The Greek Testament edited by Wetstein, in 1751-2, greatly enlarged the boundaries of the critical horizon by the accession of new materials, from which more accurate judgments might be formed on many points. He commenced his critical studies when quite young. He was related to the senior partner in the firm of Wetstein and Smith, publishers and printers at Amsterdam; who, in the year 1711, had brought out an edition of the Greek Testament, in which a selection of the various readings given by Mill and Kuster were repeated, and at the end an attempt was made to repudiate the greater part of them as not worthy of notice, by means of the application of certain canons of Gerard von Maestricht, the editor. Wetstein's relation to this publisher was intimately connected with his becoming the editor of a Greek Testament. In 1713, Wetstein, then just twenty, defended a dissertation at Basle, which he had written on the various readings of the Greek Testament. His relative, J. L. Frey, who presided on the occa- sion, encouraged him after this to examine MSS. in different libraries with more accuracy than had been previously done. And thus, after a while, he went to Paris, and made extracts 74 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT from MSS. in the library there; he then came to England in the beginning of 1716, where he showed his collations to Bentley, who for a while employed him to compare MSS. at Paris, and to whom he sold his collations. In 1719, Wetstein was requested by his relatives, the publishers at Amsterdam, who had heard before this of Bentley 's proposed edition, to transmit to them without delay ^ for publication, the va- rious readings which he had collected : it was, however, at length agreed between the relatives that they should be reserved for a second edition of the Greek Testament of Gerard von Maestricht, which they had published in 1711. About 1724, Frey requested Wetstein to make a selection of those various readings which he judged the more important; he accordingly wrote such readings as he judged preferable to the common text in the margin of a Greek Testament. Frey pressed on him to undertake the publication of the text so revised. This appears to be the first time that it occurred to Wetstein to do more than edit the various readings which he had collected. He hesitated for some time; but in 1728, his brother Peter Wetstein being at Amsterdam, the subject was mentioned to the publishers there, and they pressed for a specimen of the edition, with Prole- gomena. It was desired (Hug says) to anticipate the forthcoming edition of Bengel. With this request Wetstein complied; and at once he obtained from Frey copies of the fathers, out of which he gathered various readings ; then he examined the early editions, and began to bring the mass of various readings which he had himself collected into some order. In the beginning of 1729, Wetstein says that Frey's whole con- duct towards him was altered ; and from that time he did nothing but oppose both him and the work on which he was engaged. On the 17 th of September in that year, a petition was presented to the town-council of Basle, from the theological faculty in the university, and the parochial clergy, that J. J. Wetstein, deacon of St. Leonard's, be prohibited from publishing his criticisms on the Greek Testament, as it was a useless, needless, and dangerous work. The town-council did not grant the petition ; but the opposition of Frey and others continued unabated. The real reason of this alarm, though it can hardly be gathered from Wet- II OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 75 stein's ex parte statement, was tlie certainty that this critic had adopted Avian sentiments, and that he was endeavouring covertly to introduce them in his public preaching and academical lectures. On these accounts disciplinary proceedings commenced against him, which led to his leaving Basle, and taking up his abode at Amsterdam, in 1733. He says, however, that the opposition of the Basle theologians prevented the publication of his Greek Tes- tament for nearly twenty years more. In 1730, the Prolegomena which he had transmitted from Basle were published anonymously at Amsterdam : they gave an outline of his proposed edition, and an account of the critical authorities which he had consulted. On many grounds, it is to be regretted that Wetstein did not then publish his edition ; because the criti- cal principles which he afterwards adopted rendered him less able to form a fair judgment of the value of the oldest authorities. He was, however, constantly accumulating more materials ; so that, in each year, the work grew and extended under his hands. In 1735, he wrote the Preface to a new edition of Gerard von Maestricht's Greek Testament, which was published by Wetstein and Smith : in this he referred to the edition of Bengel ; and, indeed, the labours of that critic had no small effect on Wetstein ; for opposition to him led him to repudiate many of the critical principles which he had previously held. Originally Wetstein had thought of using the text of the Codex Alexandrinus as his basis, all other authorities being compared with it: he afterwards judged that it would be best to give a text, such as was supported by what was (in his opinion) the best evi- dence; but at length he determined to retain the common text, and to place immediately below it, in a distinct manner, the read- ings which he thought to be true.* But, in fact, the changes which he thus proposed were not many, and not very important. Twenty years before, he would have applied critical authorities much more steadily and uniformly. In 1763, Bowyer published * This plan of not changing the text itself, was adopted, it is said (Marsh's Michae- lis, ii. 475), at the request of the E,emonstrants (Arminians), whom Wetstein had joined on quitting Basle. He succeeded Le Clerc as rector of the Eemonstrants' High School at Amsterdam. Le Clerc's latitudinarian sentiments on Scripture inspi- ration, on the G-odhead of Christ, and other subjects, are well known. In all these points, Wetstein seems to have been his disciple. 76 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT an edition of the Greek Testament in London, in which Wet- stein's suggested i-eadings were adopted in the text itself; and a list of these (with the exception of those in the Kevelation, where they are numerous) is given at the end, the number of them being three hundred and thirty-five only: of these not a few relate to very minute points. After such long preparations, and so many hindrances, Wet- stein's edition appeared at Amsterdam in two volumes folio; the former in 1751, the latter in the following year. The upper part of each page contains the text itself; below this stand those varia- tions from it (if any) approved of by Wetstein ; then the various readings are placed; and as he had examined so many documents which no one had previously collated, the part of the page which these fill is often considerable. The lower part of the page is occupied with a mass of passages from classical authors (both Greek and Latin), Talmudical and Rabbinical extracts, etc., which in Wetstein's opinion illustrate some passage in the sacred text, or elucidate the use of some word, or present instances of a similar grammatical construction. The greatest variety is found in this collection; while some parts are useful, others are such as only excite surprise at their being found on the same page as the text of the New Testament. Occasional remarks show that Wetstein was not at all concerned to conceal his non-acceptance of the doc- trine of the proper Godhead of Christ. In the arrangement of the books, the Acts is placed after St. Paul's Epistles ; this is done that it may accompany the Catholic Epistles, with which it is found in many MSS. Ample Prolegomena precede the first volume ; in these, various subjects are discussed which relate to the work in general ; and the MSS., etc., are described which are cited as critical authorities in the four Gospels. Brief Prolegomena introduce the other three parts of the work, — the PauHne Epistles, — the Acts and Catholic Epistles, — and the Apocalypse. The notation of MSS. is that which is still in common use : the ancient MSS. (those in uncial letters) are distinguished by Roman capitals, A, B, C, etc.; the other MSS. by Arabic nume- rals. The notation recommences in each of the four parts; and this is an inconvenience in two ways ; for the same mark may OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 77 mean a valuable MS. in one part, and one of small importance in another; and also tlie same MS. is cited with one reference in one part, and with another reference in another : much confusion has arisen from both these causes, especially from the latter. Bishop Marsh says of Wetstein, what that critic had said of Mill, that he accomplished more than all his predecessors put together. If this character be too high, it is but little more than the truth; and this must be borne in mind in considering the edition; because otherwise it might seem as if a work, which has been so often and so severely scrutinised, could hardly possess that importance in sacred criticism which is admitted to belong to this. Never before had there been so methodical an account presented to the biblical student, of the MSS. versions and fathers, by whose aid the text of the New Testament may be revised, as that which is contained in the Prolegomena. The description of the early editions has also a far more scholar-like completeness than any which had preceded it. Wetstein's own labours had been considerable in the collation of MSS. ; they have indeed been often overstated by those who took every MS. in his list as an authority which he had himself examined : the actual number of the MSS. of the Gospels which he had AzwzseZf collated in the course of thirty-five years was about twenty, and about an equal number in the other parts of the New Testament. Besides this, he had, with great industry, collected the collations of Mill and others, and had re-examined not a few of the versions and fathers. And thus his notes present the general storehouse of critical collations and examinations up to the time of the publication of his edition. To say that this part of his work might not have been much improved, would be to exhibit a want of apprehension on the whole subject; but none who understands the difficulties con- nected with such a work, can do other than render a tribute to Wetstein's patient industry. The Prolegomena contain, however, besides what is valuable, some strange theories. It had been long noticed that some of the Greek MSS. which have a Latin version written with them, pre- sent a remarkable resemblance to the readings of the Latin Testa- ment. Hence arose a suspicion that in such MSS. the Greek 78 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT text liad been adapted to the Latin, and tlius the name Codices Latiiiizantes arose. Also a suspicion had been thrown out by Erasmus that, at the council of Florence in 1439, it had been agreed that the Greeks who then united with the church of Kome, should alter or correct their copies to suit the Vulgate ; the term Foedus cum Grcccis was applied to this supposed compact ; and if any MSS. much resembled the Latin in their readings, it was thought that this supposed compact might explain it : to this it would have been a sufficient answer that the MSS. charged with Latinising are ancient; whereas Erasmus only applied the notion to any which might have been posterior to the Florentine council. Wetstein, however, carried his charge of Latinising much farther than had been done by others ; for he applied it to every one of the more ancient MSS. Bentley had valued highly the MSS. which may agree with the old copies of the version of Jerome ; and on such he had especially employed Wetstein's labours ; indeed the collation which he made of the Codex Ephraemi at Paris, was not only the work of the greatest toil and patience of any part of his edition, but it was also about the most important. After the cessation of Bentley 's intimacy with Wetstein, the latter, who seems to have expected a continuance of employment, looked upon MSS. of that class with a less favourable eye than before. But it was not until the publication of Bengel's Greek Testament, when public atten- tion was particularly called to the high value which he set on the Latin versions and the oldest Greek MSS., that Wetstein, who involved himself in critical controversies with him, formed a less and less favourable opinion of the oldest MSS. ; every thing which agreed with the Latin was now affirmed to be interpola- tion from that version. This, if true, would affect not only these MSS., but also the greater part of the ancient versions as well. It might well be asked, how or when did Latin versions come into existence? and how could Latin streams thus universally affect Greek sources ? And again, how could early (jicok fathers have followed the readings adopted from the Latin in subsequent times ? To see the effect of a theory, it is only needful to compare the first edition of Wetstein's Prolegomena, with that which actually OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 79 accompanied his Greek Testament twenty-one years later : in the one he speaks of these ancient documents in a very different tone from that which he afterwards adopted. It is almost incredible that the same person who formed such a harsh estimate of the Codex Alexandrinus in the enlarged Prolegomena, could ever have thought of using it as the basis of his text. This low value for the most ancient MSS. seems to have hindered Wetstein from taking any particular pains to obtain the use of the collation of the Codex Yaticanus which had been made for Bentley. Wetstein seems almost to wonder at the result of his own theory ; when he expresses his lamentation that all the most ancient monuments should be interpolated from the Latin, and that we have to descend several centuries from the date of the oldest copies before we find any which, on his principles, could be used for establishing a pure text. He observed certain phe- nomena very accurately; but he accounted for them with as little accuracy as the inventors of some of the old systems of astronomy explained the motions of the heavenly bodies. Many parts of Wetstein's Prolegomena are encumbered with his attacks on others, and by the details of his contentions with Frey and Iselin. These portions are so mixed up by him with the details of the history of his edition, that they cannot be passed by without notice ; although, even by Wetstein's own showing, they leave an unpleasant impression as regards himself No one who values Holy Scripture, and who desires rightly to appreciate sound learning applied to the revision of its text, can do other than desire not to find the New Testament accompanied by re- marks in such a tone as many of those of Wetstein.* Certain Animadversiones et Cautiones on the subject of the text of the New Testament, and the examination of various read- ings, were subjoined to Wetstein's second volume. He laid down, that the New Testament should be edited as correctly as possible ; that all critical aids should be employed to that end ; that the prescription of the common text should have no authority whatever; that editors must form their own judg- * " Doctrinam ei concede, et literas, et diligentiam, et multiplicem lectionem: sed mansuetudinem, humanitatem, candorem in Prolegomenis ejus desidero." Woide, quoted approvingly by Bp. Marsh. Trans, of Michaelis, ii. 873. 80 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT ment as to accents, breathings, punctuation, and orthography ; that conjectural emendations are never to be hastily admitted or rejected; that the distinction of readings into those more and those less weighty is useless ; between two readings, the one which is better sounding, or more clear, or better Greek, is not to be at once chosen, but more often the contrary ; a reading which exhibits an unusual expression, but which is in other respects suitable to the matter in hand, is preferable to another, which, although equally suitable, has expressions such as are not peculiar; of two readings the fuller and more ample is not at once to be accepted, but rather the contrary ; if of two readings one is found in the same words elsewhere, and the other is not, the former is by no means to be preferred to the latter ; a reading altogether conformable to the style of each writer, ceteris paribus^ is to be preferred ; of two various readings, that which seems the more orthodox is not to be forthwith preferred ; of two various read- ings in Greek copies, that which accords with the ancient versions is not easily to be looked on as the worse ; patristic testimonies have very great weight in proving the true reading in the New Testament ; the silence of the fathers as to readings of importance in the controversies of their own times makes such readings suspected ; great care must be taken in not adopting the errata of collectors of various readings or of printers ; the reading which is proved to be the more ancient, ccsteris paribus, must be pre- ferred; the reading of the majority of MSS., ceteris paribus, must be preferred; there is no reason why we should not receive a reading into the text, not only if it is suitably attested, but even when it is doubtful which reading is preferable. Wetstein illustrates his axioms by pretty copious remarks and examples : it is evident that he did not consider that any classifi- cation of authorities could form a part of his system, and that thus they were all before him as one labyrinth, through which there was no definite guiding clue. Many of these axioms are such as all critics must approve, and some pretty nearly accord with Bengel's rule, Proclivi scriptioni prcBstat ardua; while others, such as that which sanctions the introduction of conjecture in the text, and that which attributes so great a value to numbers, are of a different kind. Had Wetstein applied his own rules to the OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 81 recension of the text, he would have done much more than he actually performed in that department. But, while he stigma- tised the oldest Greek MSS. because of their often agreeing with the Latin versions, and supposed that this accordance was the result of interpolation, he was hardly consistent in maintaining that the agreement of MSS. and versions was an important testi- mony to the true reading ; and so, too, it was not easy to uphold the authority of the most ancient readings, when the evidence of the most ancient MSS. had been thus set aside. Some of Wet- stein's remarks on the citations found in the writings of the fathers, as edited, are excellent : he was fully aware how habitually these quotations have been modernised by copyists and editors : so that he fully agreed with Bentley, that these citations must be exa- mined first, and then a judgment formed as to what the cited reading actually was. *' The consent of the editions of the fathers with the common text of the New Testament is often deservedly suspected; and, as often as some ancient MS. accords with the reading of a father, diflfering from the common editions, and from himself as edited, this is to be taken for the genuine reading of that father (and, so far, for that of the sacred writer), and is to be preferred to that commonly edited." "Wetstein's Prolegomena were reprinted by Semler in 1764, who added his own notes and remarks : he also edited the supplemen- tary observations of Wetstein with large additions in 1766. The theories of Wetstein on the subject of what were called Latinising MSS., as well as on other points, found in Semler a critic well able to discuss them, and often to show their fallacy. It was, however, long before some of these theories lost their hold on the minds of biblical students. The edition of Wetstein received far more attention than did the critical principles which he laid down, which might have modified much of what preceded. The notes of Semler brought forward much that was of import- ance — much that has been almost essential to the biblical student. A new edition of Wetstein's Greek Testament was undertaken, about a quarter of a century ago, by J. A. Lotze of Amsterdam : the first part, containing the Prolegomena castigated^ and the 82 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT supplementary remarks on critical principles, was published at Kotterdam in 1831. Lotze retained the greater part of the notes of Semler, to which he added others of his own. Those parts of Wetstein's Prolegomena which relate to his own contentions with Frey and Iselin, or which speak severely of Ben- gel and his critical labours, were wholly omitted by Lotze. On some accounts none would regret their absence, but for one reason they are almost necessary; because it is only in these parts that the history of Wetstein's own edition can be found. This may be taken as a sample of the judgment exercised by Lotze in the pre- paration for this edition : no other portion appeared, as the decease of the new editor hindered the text from being reprinted ; and, however much it may be desired that students should have access to Wetstein's edition at a more moderate cost, it is no cause for regret, from the specimen afforded by the Prolegomena, that it was not re-edited by Lotze. The misprints, false references from one part to another, oversights and errors in judgment manifest in the reprinted Prolegomena, fully justify this opinion.* Succeeding editors have selected from Wetstein : Griesbach did this avowedly, adding also other readings; and Scholz, following Griesbach, used what he had extracted as the basis of his own additions ; but the critical materials found in Wetstein, have never, as a whole, been reprinted. * Semler's editorial care in republishing Wetstein's Prolegomena is not to be com- mended. He added good notes, but all the rest seems to have been left to his printer; hence remarkable mistakes have required correction in the preface, in which, however, Semler speaks as if he had revised the proof-sheets himself. This is scarcely possible. Some of the errata noticed by Wetstein are not con'ected ; nor are they in Lotze's edition, who even uses one of them as the basis of an annotation. The fact stands thus : — Wetstein, in his account of different editions, mentions that published by his relatives at Amsterdam in 1711, and speaks of what was done in connection with it " a D. Georgia a Mastricht Syndico Bremensi" (Prol. p. 177) ; among the errata (p. 967) the word " Georgio " is corrected to "G-erardo" (as it might be from the following page) ; but Lotze retains " Georgio," and gives a note on Gei*ard von Maestricht's edition, as if it had been wholly neglected by Wetstein ; and yet the very next page of Wetstein might have set Lotze right. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 83 § 9.— THE EDITIONS OF GRIESBACH, AND CONTEMPORARY LABOURS. "Wetstein left New Testament criticism with, a vast mass of materials accumulated ; with many MSS. and versions examined partially; and with a kind of idea of indefinite vastness thrown over the whole subject. The hints on the classification of MSS., which had been given by Bentley and Bengel, were no longer heeded ; and in many minds there was a kind of fear lest any material variation from the common text would prove eventually to rest upon fallacious grounds. Wetstein had so widened the field for study, that it was some time before the authorities and various readings which he had amassed were eo understood and appreciated, that an independent judgment could be formed. And besides, there were certain received opinions amongst the critics which were now rudely overturned : the high value which, from the time of Usher and Walton to that of Bentley and Bengel, had been ascribed to the Alexandrian and other most ancient MSS. was denied ; and they were peremptorily con- demned as " Latinising." It was, therefore, of importance that the true character of the most ancient MSS. should be shown, — ^that authorities should (if possible) be arranged in an intelligible order, and that they should be steadily, consistently, and critically used in the emendation of the text. The scholar who undertook this task was Griesbach. "With him, in fact, texts which might be called really critical begin ; so that if any one wishes to give the results of critical inquiries as applied to the common text, he would begin with that formed by Griesbach. The first edition published by that scholar was one commenced in 1774, in which the Gospels were brought into a kind of synopsis : this part of the work was reprinted in the common order three years later, and that volume, with the pre- viously printed Epistles, &c. (1775), forms what is called Gries- bach's^rs^ edition. For this the critical materials were in great part selected from those of Wetstein ; they were not, however, 84 AN ACCOUNT OF THP: PKINTED TEXT confined to wliat had been found in that edition ; for Griesbach during liis travels had examined many MSS. and collated a few. He had also made extensive use of the old Latin Texts published by Blanchini and by Sabatier, and he had collected the citations found in the writings of Origen with much care. He differed entirely from the judgment of Wetstein against the most ancient Greek MSS. ; and on this subject accorded in opinion with Bentley, Bengel, and Semler : he also approved of the judgment of Bengel as to a twofold division of the Greek MSS. into families, — one African and one Byzantine ; but, like Semler, he divided the former into two parts ; so as in fact to maintain that there are three classes of text — two ancient, and one more recent. These three classes would respectively correspond to the three sources from which Bentley speaks of MSS. having come to us — from Egypt, from the West, and from Asia. The names assigned by Griesbach to the three classes of text which he sought thus to establish, were Western, Alexandrian, and Con- stantinopolitan. The first of these contained (he considered) the text which in the early periods had been in circulation, and which, through the errors of copyists, required much correction ; the Alexandrian was, in his opinion, an attempt to revise the old corrupt text, and the Constantinopolitan flowed (in his opinion) from the other two. Thus, although the second only was an actual revision, the term recension was applied to each of the three, and under that name they are commonly discussed. The origin of the Western and Alexandrian recensions was differently explained, — only, on this theory, both existed as distinct in the latter part of the second century. The critical authorities were ranged by Griesbach under his three recensions ; and each was valued, not so much for its absolute evidence as for contributing its testimony as to what the reading is of the recension to which it belongs. Thus, in forming his text he placed more reliance upon union of recensions in attesting a reading, than upon other external evidences. In liis first edition of the New Testament, many readings were given in the margin with marks to indicate the recension^ or the mixture of recensions to which he considered them to belong. Although his later critical edition is more complete, and in all OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 85 respects more valuable, yet if liis system of recensions in its appli- cation is the subject of examination, tbis first edition is necessary. Griesbach sbowed great apprehension of the value of absolute evidence to tlie antiquity of readings ; and thus he was able to form a judgment of the character of MSS. which had previously been condemned (as by Wetstein), or had attracted but little notice. In the form in which the Lord's Prayer occurs in Luke xi., Griesbach, in his first edition, followed the evidence of the distinct statements of Origen, confirmed by some of the ancient versions, although he could then show no ancient MS. as authority for some of the omissions. His judgment was remarkably con- firmed a few years afterwards, when the readings of the most ancient of our MSS., the Codex Vaticanus, were published ; for it was found that all these omissions are confirmed by that docu- ment. This is an illustration of the independent channels through which the antiquity (and often the genuineness) of a reading, may become a matter of demonstration. Had not Griesbach been fet- tered by his recension-theory, he would in all his editions have adhered far more closely than he did to ancient evidence. As it is, in all his editions there is a correction of the text in many places ; suggested corrections in others, placed in the margin, or noted (in the case of omissions) in the text itself He did not put forth an edition resting simply on authority. Soon after the appearance of Griesbach's first edition, other collations were instituted. C. F. Matth^i published at Riga, in twelve volumes, 1782-88, the New Testament in Greek and Latin. The Greek was based on ]\ISS. which he had himself collated at Moscow, where he was a Professor for some years. Having access to MSS. which had not been previously collated, he was induced to take up a work for which he had no peculiar fitness on the ground of previous studies. The toge and manner in which he expresses himself are very unpleasant, especially towards Griesbach ; and the want of acquaintance with the labours of previous collators, wHch he manifests, often leads him into great mistakes. In his earher volumes he speaks of Wetstein's edition very contemptuously ; but after he had seen the book itself, and found that the opinions (or prejudices) of that editor 86 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT led him to estimate very lightly tlie most ancient MSS. whicli Griesbacli most highly valued, he changed his tone, and upheld Wetstein to depreciate Griesbach. Matthsei appears to have col- lated the Moscow MSS. with much diligence, so that the reader is rarely in doubt as to the evidence of a MS. for or against any particular lection. The Latin Vulgate is given in this edition from a MS. (the Codex Demidovianus) with which Matthaei met in Eussia. All ideas of systems of recension or classification were wholly rejected by Matthaei ; and he never loses an opportunity of pour- ing ridicule on Griesbach and his critical principles. In doing this he applies the most offensive epithets to all the most ancient MSS., and he endeavours to decry the citations given in the writings of the fathers, as if they were worth nothing. He even imagined that MSS. had been habitually corrupted by having their text altered and adapted to what was found in certain fathers. All MSS. which did not fall in a general way into a kind of accordance with those in common use in later times, were utterly condemned by Matthsei. All of those from which he edited his Greek Testament belonged to Griesbach's Constantinopolitan family. Matthaei published a second edition, without the critical autho- rities, in three volumes, 1803-7. It is painful and wearisome to see so much learning and patience as Matthaei had, combined with so offensive a mode of speaking of those to whom he was opposed. This will always make his dis- cursive notes unpleasant to the student ; and this long hindered scholars in general from paying much attention to his arguments against Griesbach's system of recensions. It should be observed tliat the tone and manner in which Griesbach speaks of Matthaei is always courteous, and devoid of a spirit of retaliation. In 1786-7, Alter published the text of a MS. in the imperial library at Vienna : this was accompanied with the collations of other MSS. in the same depository. The Danish Professors Birch, Adler, and Moldenhauer, for several years, were occupied in collating MSS. principally in OF THE GKEEK NEW TESTAMENT. 87 Italy and Spain, at the expense of the King of Denmark. The results of their labours appeared, as far as the four Gospels are concerned, in 1788, under the editorial care of Birch. The read- ings of the Codex Yaticanus were now for the first time published ; in part irom Birch's collation, and in the Gospels of Luke and John from that made for Bentley.* A fire in the royal printing- house at Copenhagen having prevented the completion of this edition, Birch published the various readings collected from the Acts and Epistles in 1798; those for the Apocalypse in 1800; and in 1801, those which had accompanied the text of the edition of the Gospels were reprinted separately in the same form as the rest. Thus, in the course of a few years, there was a new body of critical materials published, which was far larger than that which had been collected by "Wetstein from his own labours and those of his predecessors ; and, besides this, many of the newly-exa- mined documents were collated with more accuracy than had hitherto been customary. And besides the new collations of MSS., the text of some few of the more important documents was printed : Hearne had thus edited the Greek and Latin Codex Laudianus (E) of the Acts in 1715 ; and, in the period now under consideration, Woide edited the New Testament part of the Codex Alexandrinus (A) in 1786, and the Codex Bezae (D) of the Gospels and Acts was similarly published by Kipling in 1793 ; also the Greek and Latin Codex Boernerianus (G) of St. Paul's Epistles was edited by Matthaei in 1791.t Montfaucon, in his Bibliotheca Coisliniana, had given the text of the fi-agments of an ancient MS. of St. Paul's Epistles (H) and to the list of edited fragments had since been added two Wolfenbiittel palimpsests (P and Q), containing parts of the Gospels, published by Knittel in 1763, and the very ancient Greek and Thebaic Borgian fragments (T) of part of St. John's Gospel which appeared at Rome in 1789. And thus it was that in the twenty years which elapsed between the first edition of Griesbach and the first volume of his second, * The whole of Bentley's collation of this MS. was published at Oxford in 1799. t This is sometimes said to have been reprinted in 1818 ; but there was only one impression : a new title-page was prefixed to the unsold copies with this false date. 88 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT the materials liad increased to double the quantity previously known.* From these accumulations it was the place of a wise critic judiciously to select what was worthy of especial consider- ation. The first volume of Griesbach's second edition appeared in 1796. The preface is valuable, as giving not only his own prin- ciples of criticism, but also an account of much which bears on the history of the text. The general plan of this edition resem- bles that of the first, amplified, corrected, and improved; various degrees o^ probability as to various readings are indicated as before; but no attempt is made to enter minutely into the refinements of theory as to the additions and peculiarities of the recensions. One of Griesbach's principles was, that if a reading were sup- ported by two out of the three recensions, the evidence in its favour was exceedingly great. This might be almost the same as saying, if the most ancient MSS. agree (for these MSS. make up his Alexandrian and Western recensions), their evidence is pre- ponderating; if they disagree, then if the later MSS. (Constanti- nopolitan) agree with one of these classes, their combination must prevail. This, however, would not always hold good, even on Griesbach's principles; for he considered that no document con- tained one recension pure and unmixed ; and thus those of the most ancient classes, when their readings are in accordance with the more recent, may often in such places possess no independent testimony. The following is a brief synopsis of some of the general princi- ples of criticism laid down by Griesbach: — No reading must be considered preferable, unless it has the support of at least some ancient testimonies.f As to readings, looked at in themselves, a shorter is to be preferred before one that is more verbose ;t so also is that which is more difficult and obscure, — that which is more * Birch probably did more than any other scholar in the collation of MSS. of the Greek Testament. t " Opus uon erit, ut sacpe socpius repetamus, lectiones, quas in ee spectatas potiores esse judicamus, turn dcmum csetcris esse pracferendas, si nonnulloi'um saltim testium vetustorum suffragiis commendentur." (Proleg., p. Ixi., note.) X It can hardly be too habitually remembered, in criticism, that copyists were always more accustomed to add than to omit. Those who know notlung of criticism or of ancient books, biblical or classical, often imagine the contrary ; but such is not the fact. Of course careless transcribers may omit ; but, in general, texts, like enow- balls, grow iu course of transmission. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 89 harsh, — that which contains something unusual, — that which is less emphatic (unless emphasis may be expected) ; in all these cases, however, and others which are laid down, such as those favouring " monkish piety," seeming glosses, etc., weight of evi- dence may cause the apparently less preferable reading to be accepted as genuine. Griesbach gives many remarks on the weight of evidence to be attributed to different testimonies; and, as might be expected, he treats at considerable length on the value of his different recen- sions, and the manner in which their evidence should be estimated. These considerations are such as would necessarily modify consi- derably the critical principles of general application which he had before laid down, and they therefore would affect the text which he formed. Some of these considerations, however, apart from all theories of recensions, are useful in forming an estimate of any individual document ; for if it has peculiarities, such as a tendency to omit, or to insert, or to bring parallel passages into close verbal agreement, or anything else of the kind, then, in such cases ^ its evidence is of far less weight than it would have had, if it had not been characterised by such peculiarities. In the places in which Griesbach differs from the common text, he generally gives a reading which is better attested, though in many cases not the best supported. That he improved the text is unquestionable ; that he led the way for the same thing to be done by others is equally certain ; and yet his own theoretical system had very little to do with the benefit which resulted from his labours. The concluding volume of Griesbach's second critical edition was published in 1806, after having been for several years in the press. In the preceding year he published a manual edition^ con- taining the text and the more important various readings, but without any statement of the authorities.* This edition contains, * Griesbach's manual edition lias been reprinted, but without care as to accuracy ; the edition of Leipsic, 1805, is the only one which can be trusted as giving Ms text ; besides a short list of errata, the volume ought to be accompanied by a longer list, relating mostly to the Revelation. In 1827, Dr. David Schulz published a new and much-improved edition of the first volume of Griesbach's critical text and various readings. Its value is considerably greater than the original work. 90 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT generally speaking, the most matured judgment of Griesbacli as to tlie formation of the text ; and thus in the places in which it differs from his critical edition, it is entitled to general preference, as giving his critical judgment. The system of recensions laid down by Griesbach occasioned much discussion ; and while some opposed it altogether, others embraced and defended it, and others modified it, or made it the starting-point of theories of their own. Of those who thus formed new systems, the Roman-Catholic Professor HuG, of Frei- burg, was the one entitled, as a biblical scholar, to the greatest attention. He considered that the text was, in the early periods, left without revision ; and that its then state, with various corrup- tions, is that found in the Codex Bezae : to this he gave the name of KOLvr] eK.hoaL<; : this old text, replete with errors of transcribers, was (he supposed) revised about the same time by Origen in Palestine, by Hesychius in Eg3rpt, and by Lucian at Antioch. To these recensions he ascribed the MSS. which have come down to us. The only basis for the supposed fact of these three revi- sions is, that some ancient writers mention the copies of Origen, of Hesychius, and of Lucian : they say, however, not one word about systematic revision, and they do not hint (what Hug as- sumed) that the recension of Hesychius was adopted in Egypt, as the text of the New Testament, and that of Lucian in Asia. There is some ground for supposing that they did something with regard to the Septuagint, which was adopted in those countries; but although certain MSS. of the Gospels were called after those two men, they seem to have been only received and used by a few, and they could not have been revisions of the kolvt) €K8oai,<;, if (as seems from Jerome) they contained various additions from parallel places.* It was easier for Hug to show the weak points of Griesbach's theory, than for him to establish another on its ruins: indeed, if Griesbach erred in assuming certain points as facts, Hug did the same to a far greater degree. The untenable * " Prffitermitto cos codices quos a Luciano et Hcsychio nuncupatos paucorum hominum adserit perversa contcntio : quibus utique nee in veteri instrumcnto post septuaginta interpretes emendare quid licuit, ncc in novo profuit emendasse, cum muitarum gentium Unguis scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse qusD addita sunt." —Jlieron. ad Damasvm. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 91 point of Griesbach's system, even supposing that it had some historic basis, was the impossibility of drawing an actual line of distinction between his Alexandrian and Western recensions : together they might be clearly seen to stand in opposition to the mass of Byzantine documents ; amongst themselves there are cer- tain differences (especially in St. Paul's Epistles) ; but the precise distinction, so as to afford a warrant for exact classification, is not to be found. Indeed, Griesbach himself virtually gave up his system as to this point, in the last work which he lived to publish. In the second part of his Commentarius Criticus, in 1811 (the year before his death), he showed that the readings of Origen do not accord at all precisely with the Alexandrian recension to which he had attributed them, and that thus the boundary-line between Alexandrian and Western authority was not definable. Soon after Griesbach's death. Archbishop Laurence took up the subject in his Remarks on Griesbach's systematic classification of MSS. ; and he very fully demonstrated, that the final judgment of that critic had been the correct one. And yet the influence which Griesbach's labours exercised upon criticism was most important. There are many who, when they hear that his system of recensions has been thoroughly de- molished, think that all reference to his labours may be cast aside as being now unworthy of attention. This procedure savours both of ignorance and temerity. Even though facts have been ac- counted for wrongly, they still remain facts. Astronomical ob- servations by a Ptolemagan may be highly valued, as good and useful, by those who know the truth of the Copernican system. Facts in chemistry stand good, even though the first observers of those facts explained them on systems now obsolete and exploded. Th.Q facts to which Griesbach gave a prominence should thus be distinguished from the theories which he deduced from them. Griesbach's critical studies commenced at a time when Wet- stein's influence had cast discredit on all the most ancient MSS., and when every document which accorded with the most ancient authorities was deemed unworthy of a voice in criticism. Against this peremptory and arbitrary procedure Griesbach protested. He sought in some measure to restore the ancient documents to 92 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT the consideration wliicli they had received from Bentley and from Bengel. He showed that the MSS. charged with Latinising were such as contained the readings cited by Origen ; and all this was labour well bestowed, even though he went too far in drawing distinctions amongst the documents themselves whose text is ancient. Within a few years after the time when Griesbach en- deavoured to vindicate the character of the most ancient MSS., and to show their true value, documents were collated or came to light which marvellously confirmed his judgment. A collation of the Codex Vaticanus was published for the first time, and it was remarkable to find that it accorded so much with the charac- teristics of the class of MSS. which Griesbach had styled. Alexan- drian ; so too the text of the Borgian fragment (T) of St. John, published by Georgi ; and when the Dublin palimpsest of St. Matthew came to light, it was a text of just the same character. Thus were the facts confirmed, which Griesbach had previously deduced from such data as he could obtain : the result, apart from all theories of recensions, is, the value attaching to the ancient documents as the witnesses of the ancient text. § 10.— SCHOLZ'S GREEK TESTAMENT. The late Professor J. M. A. ScHOLZ, of Bonn, who had been a pupil of Hug, after spending several years in the collation and examination of MSS., and several more in arranging his materials, published his critical edition in two volumes in 1830-36. He had formerly been the proposer of a recension-theory according to which all documents were divided into Jive families ; two African (Alexandrian and Western), one Asiatic, one Byzantine, and one Cyprian. This theory he afterwards rejected ; and, in its stead, he reverted to the two families, as they had been defined OF THE GREEK NEAV TESTAMENT. 93 a century before by Bengel. Instead, however, of deeming the Alexandrian documents the more important, Scholz took exactly the opposite view : he maintained that the true text should be sought mainly amongst the Constantinopolitan documents. These principles were defended with a certain degree of ingenuity. Scholz alleged that his favourite family of MSS. always presented one uniform text, — a text, which, having been preserved in general purity before Constantinople received its imperial supremacy, still preserved it (in spite of some Alexan- drian intermixture in the fourth century) ; and thus, in the patri- archate of Constantinople, this text was (he supposed) retained and transmitted. In support of this theory, he referred to the known discrepan- cies of the MSS. and versions of the Alexandrian family from one another ; and in contrast he maintained the general unity of the Constantinopolitan MSS. as to the text which they present. It is true that there was a difficulty arising from the fact that none of the most ancient MSS. belong to the Constantinopolitan class ; but this Scholz sought to obviate by pointing out that MSS., which were approved and kept in constant use, would necessarily be worn out. It might, however, be asked, how it happens that several documents of the Alexandrian family remain, and none of the oldest class of any other, not even in fragments ? Scholz endeavoured to strengthen his cause by pressing into his service some of the ancient versions ; but they only serve his purpose in places where they happen to differ from the Alexandrian text ; an examination of their divergencies from the Constantinopolitan documents would show that they accord far less with it. The older fathers do Scholz but little service ; so that he is forced to descend to about the fifth century before he finds those who use the text which he prefers. The result of Scholz's classification is, that he calls Alexandrian the most ancient MSS., the old Latin version, and the Vulgate of Jerome, the two Egyptian versions, and the JEthiopic. This class of text was also used by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, as well as later writers. He considers the later MSS. in general to be Constantinopolitan, together with the old Syriac version (in part), the later Syriac, 94 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT the Gothic, Georgian, and Sclavonic versions, as well as certain fathers from the fourth century and onward. (He cites indeed some earlier fathers, whose evidence really proves nothing.) Now taking his own classification (which as to the old Syriac is not very correct), it comes to this, that the witnesses against his favoured family of authorities are formidable both from num- bers and character; for all the oldest MSS. extant, and most of the more ancient versions, are opposed to his conclusions. It is a rather significant fact to see the later of the versions ranging them- selves unequivocally on the same side as the later MSS. One part of Scholz's labours must be definitely stated before further considering his principles. He examined many MSS. in the course of his travels, and he collated some ; he described the places in which many are preserved, which were previously un- known to critics ; so that the list of MSS. which he gives is nearly double in number that which had accompanied the edition of Griesbach. He has thus been an exploring traveller ; and the general report which he brings back of the regions in which he has journeyed, is one highly favourable to the Constantinopolitan views which he had imbibed. But it sometimes happens that an exploring collector is by no means the most competent person to classify and catalogue the objects which he brings home with him : his own estimate of their value may be far higher than that of an experienced man of science, whose time has been occupied rather with studjdng than with wandering. And so it has been with Scholz ; his estimate of the number of MSS. which he has seen, as containing the true text, is far higher than sober criticism can admit. And further, the readings which Scholz gives from the MSS. wliich he has collated are (in the cases in which others have tested them) hy no means accurate; his Greek Testament abounds in errata, and these of an extraordinary kind ; so that even if his collations, as made by himself, were exact, his readers have not the benefit of their accuracy ; for, as 'printed they can be depended on but little. Scholz is entitled to the respect due to a laborious scholar, devoted for years to one object : he has rendered no small service in pointing out wliere MSS. are preserved ; and those who come after him may find from his list some documents worthy of their OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 95 attention wHch were previously unnoticed. It must be observed that the greater part of the documents which none had consulted before Scholz, have a place in the list which he gives, but no readings are cited from them in his collection of various lections : he calls the greater number of them Constantinopolitan (as doubt- less they are), and rests on the supposed uniformity of text as giving the weight of numbers in favour of what he advocated. And thus in many discussed passages in which Griesbach had varied from the common text in following ancient authorities, Scholz, relying on numbers, followed the more recent documents, and thus adhered to the received text or to readings not differing from it greatly. And hence the text of Scholz was highly valued by many who feared innovation : they were willing to believe that a deep truth lay at the basis of the system ; and they acquiesced in his estimate of authorities. Others, too, who were themselves dissatisfied with Griesbach's system of recensions, or who knew that competent scholars had raised objections with regard to it, were willing to assent to the twofold division of MSS., etc., proposed by Scholz ; and this was often the case without inquiry and accurate investi- gation into the correctness of his arrangement of documents and authorities under the respective classes. Scholz's twofold division was supposed by some tc( be a new discovery of his own : they overlooked Bengel's distribution of documents into families, and the entirely different estimate which he had formed of their respective authority. In this manner the critical principles of Scholz found many advocates in this country : not so much amongst those who had really studied the subject, as amongst the very numerous class who deprecate all application of criticism to the sacred text. When Scholz relied on the great uniformity of text found (as he said) in the Greek documents written during the last nine centuries within the limits of the patriarchate of Constantinople, as though this uniformity guaranteed its genuineness, appeal was made to the Latin MSS., in which uniformity was far more manifest in those of a comparatively modern date, than in any class of Greek copies ; and yet it was a notorious fact, that the later Latin MSS. accord in readings repudiated by the more 96 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT ancient, and wliich are totally different from what that version was as it left the hands of Jerome. So that by analogy the uni- formity of later Greek copies proved nothing whatever. Also the mass of these Greek MSS. were written at Constantinople or on Mount Athos ; so that it would not be very remarkable if they followed a few exemplars closely resembling one another. There was a difficulty always, however, to be reconciled, if possible, to Scholz's theory, that the Constantinopolitan text was preserved and maintained by a kind of Church authority ; and this difficulty was the fact that some manifestly Alexandrian MSS. were written for Church use in Constantinople in the later period : this is a good disproof of the existence of a received text in the eastern imperial capital. But the alleged uniformity of the later documents of Scholz's approved family is not quite a fact ; * so that the argiunent, if it be worth anything, drawn from the supposed agreement, fails utterly and entirely. Many amongst them may be generally alike, but there is no settled and established standard to which the copies as a matter of course conform. Thus beyond the point of the twofold division of classes, Scholz cannot be safely followed ; for he substituted theories for proofs ; and in advancing forward with his Constantinopolitan forces, he seems to have forgotten how he had left the Alexandrian authori- ties behind him, holding a sort of quiet possession of the text of the first four centuries. In the text itself, Scholz seems often to depart from his own principles : this arises partly from the extensive use which he made of the previous labours of Griesbach, and partly from the difficulty of always combatting a mass of evidence sufficient to rebut his hypothesis. He does not follow Griesbach in adopting any signs of greater or less probability, so that all stands on the same ground of acceptance. In the margin he gave not only the readings of the common text which he had changed, but he also placed there a mass of readings which he terms Alexandrian ; many of which are the * In full proof of this, see Mr. Scrivener's recently-published collation of the Gospels. There is great want of unifoi'mity in very many MSS., Church Lectionaries and others, of the Constantinopolitan class. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 97 best attested of all by ancient evidence. He also gives tbere those Constantinopolitan readings wMcli be does not accept. It must be owned, however, that both these terms are used in this margin in a manner rather arbitrary, and that Scholz's text is not nearly as Constantinopolitan as might have been expected from his prin- ciples : this is particularly observable in the second volume. It is rather singular that a Roman Catholic should adopt a critical system peculiarly opposed to the text of the Latin Yulgate ; — a, system in fact which would stigmatise that version, even when fresh from the hand of Jerome, as following incorrect or even corrupted copies of the Greek text. Scholz's edition was received with greater approbation in this country than elsewhere ; indeed the publication of the second volume was aided considerably, even if the whole cost was not defrayed, by subscriptions in England. This evidently sprung from a feeling that Scholz's labours were on the side of conserva- tive criticism ; whereas such criticism, if rightly understood and applied to the word of God, will seek to uphold what the Apostles and Evangehsts actually wrote, in their own words, and not as their writings are found in the later copies. If Scholz's text is compared with that of Griesbach, it will be seen that it is a retrograde step in the application of criticism ; and thus though he maintained a truer system of families than Gries- bach did, yet his results are even less satisfactory, because he applied a theory to the classification of authorities by which their respective value was precisely reversed. § 11.— LACHMANN'S EDITIONS. In 1831 a small edition appeared with this title, — " Novum Tes- tamentum Grsece. Ex recensione Caroli Lachmann." There was no Preface ; and the only indication of the critical principles on which it was edited (besides what could be gathered from the text 98 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT itself), was a brief notice at the end, preceding a list of the places in which it differed from the common text. This notice stated, that the plan of the edition had been ex- plained in a German periodical of the preceding year ; and that it was sufficient there to say that the editor had never followed his own judgment, but the custom of the most ancient oriental churches. That when this was not uniform, he had preferred what (as far as could be ascertained) was supported by African and Italian consent : that where there was great uncertainty, this was indicated in part by enclosing words within brackets, and in part by placing a different reading in the margin ; — the so-called textus receptus being allowed no place.* It need be no cause for surprise that Lachmann's edition was long but little comprehended in this country. The exposition of his principles in a foreign periodical rendered it out of the question for many (or indeed for most) of those into whose hands the edition might come, to be in possession of the information which would enable them to appreciate it. And as, in his brief notice to the reader, he divided all the MSS. of which he spoke into eastern and western^ and as others had used the terms oriental or Asiatic, as denoting the mass of the more recent MSS., such as contained the text which had, perhaps, originally come into use in the regions from Antioch to Constantinople, the mistake was made of imagining Lachmann to be an adherent of the general principle of Scholz. Of course, if the text of the edition had been studied, the mistake would never have been made ; but few, indeed, there were who were inclined to form a judgment in this laborious manner ; considering that they were not informed on what MSS. the edition was based, or on what principles they were applied. It is to be regretted that Lachmann had not, by giving a few * The following is the tvTiole of this notice in Lachmann's own words :— "De ratione et consilio huius editionis loco commodiore expositum est (theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1830, p. 817—845). hie satis crit dixisse, editorem nusquam iudicium suum, sed consuetudinem antiquissimarum orientis ecclesiarum secutum esse, hanc quoties minus constant em fuisse animadvertit, quantum fieri potuit ea quae Italorum et Afrorum consensu comprobarentur pra?tulit : ubi pervagatam omnium auctorum discrepantiam deprehendit, partim uncis partim in margiuibus indicavit. quo factum est ut vulgata; et his proximis duobus ea^culis receptcB lectionis ratio haberi non posset, huius diversitalis hie in fine libri adiecta est, quoniam ea res doctis iudicibus neccssaria esse vidcbatur." OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 99 explanatory remarks, obviated the possibility of sucb mistakes ; for be would tbus have caused bis labours to be appreciated at an earlier period by tbose wbose studies would have led tliem to value tbem tbe most. This small edition was actually tbe result of very close labour and study, carried on during five years. Lacbmann determined to cast aside tbe received text altogether, and to edit in such a manner as if it had never existed. His object was to give the Greek Testament in that form in which the most ancient docu- ments have transmitted it, according as these documents are known : his plan was, in fact, this — such and such evidence ought to lead to such and such results. And thus he professed implicitly to follow ancient copies so far as then existing collations rendered them accessible ; the oldest Greek MSS. are the basis, compared with the citations of Origen ; the readings of the old Latin (as found in unrevised MSS.) and the citations of Latin fathers were his subsidiary aids : and thus the text was formed ; not giving what he would necessarily consider to be the true text, but the transmitted text of about the fourth century. This he considered would be a basis for criticism, delivering it in fact from the read- ings of the sixteenth century, and bringing us to a period a thou- sand years and more nearer to the time when the sacred books were written. Where the principal authorities agree in an error^ a certain unquestionable error ^ still Lacbmann would follow them in editing ; not as supposing, however, that such errors proceeded from the writers themselves, but as regarding such errors to have been parts of the textus traditus of the fourth century. Let Lachmann's critical principles be approved or not, still to him must be conceded this, that he led the way in casting aside the so-called textus receptus, and boldly placing the New Testa- ment wholly and entirely on the basis of actual authority. It would have been well if he had made his object intelligible to those around him ; for, even in Germany, this was but little un- derstood, and thus reviewers misstate.d his plan and purpose, and described his edition in such a manner as to show that they did not comprehend what he had intended, or what he had performed. Even De Wette supposed that Lachmann's time and labour had been wasted, and this was to him a cause of deep trial. 100 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT Two things were needful, besides a full exposition of Lach- mann's views, before it could be considered tliat the text was really placed on the basis of the fourth century : care ought to have been taken to procure collations of the ancient MSS. as accurately as possible; and also the Latin versions were not suffi- cient as subsidiary Avitnesses. A wider scope of ancient evidence should have been taken. As Lachmann's object was gradually better apprehended, a wish was expressed by many that he would formally undertake an edition with a full statement of the authorities on which he relied in forming his text. At length, in 1837, Lachmann ob- tained the aid of Philip Buttmann the younger, whose part of the labour was to arrange the authorities for the Greek text only. On this he was occupied for seven years ; part of which time was after the appearance of the first volume of Lachmann's larger edition. In 1839, Lachmann and Buttmann went together to Fulda, that they might unitedly copy and examine the very ancient Latin Codex Fuldensis for the use of the forthcoming edition. Li this MS. the Gospels are thrown into a sort of combined narrative : the object kept in view being not to omit any part of any of the four histories : the consequence of this procedure is that a Diatessaron is formed, always tautological, and often (from the sentences not combining) quite contradictory. The Codex Ful- densis has, however, a peculiar value as an authority for the Latin text. In collating this MS. Buttmann read aloud, while Lach- mann noted the various readings in a copy of the Latin Yulgate. In the year 1842, the first volume of Lachmann's larger edition appeared. The variations in the text from the small edition of 1831 are not many ; and as they have sometimes been made a ground of unintelligent remark, it will be well in a few words to explain the characteristic difference between the two. The text of the small edition is wliolly based on the sources which were (in Lachmann's sense of the word) oriental; and, where these differ among themselves, the readings were adopted " quaj Italorum et Afrorum consensu comprobarentur." In the larger edition, Lach- mann used the combined evidence (in his sense) of eastern and western authorities. The upper part of each page of the larger edition contains OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 101 Laciimann's recension of the Greek text; in tliis, brackets are used, as before, to indicate words of doubtful authority ; and immediately below the text readings are sometimes placed, as to which the authorities fluctuate. The middle part of the page contains the authorities, — the Greek arranged by Buttmann, the Latin by Lachmann himself; in this part the reference to the text is merely by lines, and the want of distinctness in the arrangement is a sore hindrance to the usefulness of the work ; it is probable that these notes were perfectly clear to those who arranged them, because they had the subject and the authorities altogether fami- liar to their minds ; but it is not so with regard to others ; and thus it has been to some a study to understand how the balance of authorities is denoted in this edition. Lachmann's own arrange- ment of the Latin readings derived from difierent sources, in his own hand-writing, were as clear and comprehensible as could pos- sibly be wished. The lower part of the page is occupied with the Latin version of Jerome, edited mostly on the authority of the Codices Ful- densis and Amiatinus ; this latter MS. is one of great antiquity and value, now preserved in the Laurentian library at Florence.* In this edition, then, much was accomplished of that which Bentley had purposed co long before : there are certain differences of plan between that which each of these critics designed, and yet there is a general resemblance. Both maintained that the oldest authorities are to be relied on as the witnesses to the genuine ancient text ; and both relied on the combined evidence of Greek and Latin readings. There was this difference between the materials with which they were fur- nished, — that while Bentley had taken all practicable measures for obtaining the accurate collation of the oldest Greek MSS. (and as to one — the Codex Vaticanus — he was more successful than any one since has been), his Latin authorities were limited to the ancient MSS. of Jerome's translation ; whereas, the publication of the texts of that Latin version, which in its various forms was in * The Codex Amiatinus is of the sixth century, as also is the Fuldensis. Lachmann was only able to use the very imperfect and inaccurate collation of the Codex Amia- tinus which had been published by Fleck. The text of this MS. has been edited by Professor Tischendorf (Leipsic, 1851), from his own and S. P. Tregelles's transcripts and collations.. 102 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT circulation before the time of Jerome, has fumislied a new body of evidence ; and on those Latin texts which appeared to him to be the most unaltered, Lachmann relied as being a valuable class of witnesses. Bentley can hardly be blamed for not having under- stood their value ; for, while they remained buried in Hbraries to which (in some cases) access was almost denied, it was impossible for a true judgment to be formed of their contents ; nor could it as yet have been demonstrated that the Ante-hieron3ntnian Latin was one version subsequently altered and revised : the notion was prevalent that the many forms of Latin text were so many sepa- rate versions ; and this notion was by no means corrected by those who used the term Itala, and the one passage in Augustine in which it occurs, as though the one original Latin version was thereby denoted. In Lachmann's preface there is much that is valuable on the subject of the Latin texts, and the mode in which alterations had been introduced. He accedes to the opinion of Cardinal Wiseman, which had been held long before by Wetstein and others, that the old Latin was a version made in northern Africa.* He shows how the text had been modernised into the form in which some MSS. (such as the Codex Brixianus) exhibit it ; — a form far more resembling the later Greek MSS., than that did in which this Latin version had previously existed. He, therefore, rejects alto- gether from his consideration as witnesses those texts of the old Latin, in which the version has thus been changed. One class of Latin text does not come forward in Lachmann*s consideration at all ; — that in which the readings are introduced which agree with the Alexandrian family (in Griesbach's classi- fication) far more than the old Latin did originally. Of this class there were then only fragments published ; so that Lachmann was unable so to take them into consideration as to form a judgment on their nature. The Latin texts, then, which have been transmitted to us con- sist of, i. the old Latin version (as found in the Codices Vercellen- sis, Vcroncnsis, and Colbertinus) ; ij. the same version revised with what may be called a Byzantine tendency; (the Codex Brixianus, * Wetstein says (in speaking of Mill), "Italicfc versioni, h. e, indoctis, nescio qui- bu8 Interpretibus, certe Idiotls Jfris plus tribucret," etc. Proleg. 176. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 103 etc.) ; iij. the old Latin made more Alexandrine (Codex Bobbia- nus, etc.), and, iv. tlie version or revision of Jerome. Other MSS. contain some admixture of this last with readings from what had preceded it. The mode in which Lachmann states the various degrees of weight which attach to different readings is the following : (i.) nothing is better attested than that in which all authorities accord : (ij.) the agreement has rather less moment, if part of the authorities are silent or defective : (iij.) the evidence for a reading when it is that of witnesses of different regions, is greater than that of witnesses of some particular locality differing either from negli- gence or from set purpose : (iv.) but the testimonies must be con- sidered to be doubtfully balanced when witnesses from regions wide apart stand opposed to others equally separated in locality : (v.) readings are uncertain which are in one form in one region, and differently in another region with great uniformity : (vi.) lastly, readings are of weak authority, as to which not even the same region presents an uniform testimony. To discuss the subject fully ^ it would be needful to examine these principles in all their bearings, and also to inquire how they were practically applied by Lachmann himself A few remarks, however, must here suffice. There are general truths, which ought to be admitted by all who examine the subject, enunciated in these principles ; while at the same time they are connected with points questionable in themselves, and still more so in their application. For the value of particular witnesses, as learned from the general character of their testimony, ought to have a greater weight assigned to it, than these principles admit ; and thus, in difficult places, certain authorities of weight may be safely followed, even though it be true that others of different regions present a different testimony : this is especially the case with regard to such readings as were liable to alteration from the hands of transcribers from the nature of the case. Lachmann does not take these into consideration, because such points do not fall witliin his plan of giving the text as transmitted and simply as resting on authority: it may, however, be well said, that his plan might have been suitably extended, so as to embrace these 104 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT additional considerations ; and tlius in cases of uncertainty from tlie variety of reading, he miglit have relied upon such grounds in forming his selection. He says, indeed, that upon his prin- ciples, choice is excluded ; this may be true to a certain degree, while absolutely it is hardly possible : for at times a certain degree of judgment must almost necessarily be exercised ; and therefore it would have been an extension of his plan, not a departure from it, to have brought into view those grounds of judgment which might give a determining value to the evidence on some one side in doubtful cases. As it is, Lachmann's plan was to place in his text whatever reading was the highest in the scale according to his scheme of numerical value ; and to indicate uncertainty by inclosing words in the text within brackets, or by giving another reading in the margin. The authorities which Lachmann admitted were very few in number: thus in the Gospels he used the collations of but four Greek MSS., and four fragments, and two of these MSS. were considerably mutilated. The only version admitted (as has been said) was the Latin, in its twofold form, — as prior to the time of Jerome, and as revised by him : the only fathers whose writings were employed were Irenaeus and Origen, and the Latins, Cyprian, Hilary of Poictiers, and Lucifer. In consequence of this restric- tion there are passages in which two MSS. or perhaps only one contain the sacred text; and thus an error in such a copy or copies is assumed to be the wide-spread reading of the fourth century. But in connection with such passages it must always be borne in mind that Lachmann did not profess to give a perfect text ; and thus if a certain unquestionable error was attested by his authori- ties, they were to be followed in editing ; not as supposing that such error proceeded from the sacred authors, but on the groimd that it belonged to the traditive text of the fourth century. An instance of this is seen in Ephes. i. 15, where the common text reads, aKovaa<^ Trjv KaO^ u/xa? ttlo-tlv iv tw Kvpiw ^Irjaov, Kal rrjv cvydirrjv ttjv eh 7rdvTa<; tol'9 drfiov^ : here Lachmann omits the words rrjv tuyu7rr]v^ as not being found in the Alexandrian MS-, and (apparently) not in the Vatican. But he gives this, not as the true passage, as written by St. Paul, but as being (he thinks) OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 105 an early mistake, — an hiatus, in fact, of early copyists. He says (Prolog., vol. ii., p. xii.) that it is manifest that a^dirr]v has dropped from the text, but whether it be that word alone, or more, it is impossible to say ; comparing the passage with Col. i. 4, where in the clause koX rrjv ar/aTrrjv fjv ex'^re, the words rjv e^ere are not uniformly read in all the more ancient authorities. Now here the reason for not giving either ar/aTrrjv, or else rrjv arydirrjv, in the text, on the authority of the Codices Claromontanus and Boerne- rianus (two of Lachmann's admitted witnesses), supported by the more recent copies in general, and the other ancient versions, as well as the Latin,* can only be the supposition that it had been filled in as a correction in the copies in which it is found. And yet, when the word certainly belongs to the text as an original part of it, and when the versions vouch for it, and that without any other addition, it can hardly be deemed an exercise of mere choice for it to receive a place in the text, in spite of its omission in certain ancient and valuable documents. Thus far, then, Lachmann's principles (to say nothing at present of his range of authorities) might be safely extended, without at all trenching upon his plan of presenting the traditive text of the early centuries. It was, however, a great and grievous mistake, on the part of those who criticised Lachmann's edition, when they lighted on such passages as Eph. i. 15, as if he had there given what he believed to be the genuine and original text. Lach- mann's censors (such for instance as Tholuck) who did not appre- hend his plan, or had not truly investigated the facts of the case, copied from one another, in representing Lachmann's range of Greek authorities as more confined than it really was, especially in his larger edition. Hence the following judgment of Tholuck is far from correct : — " Since there are so few codices which are written in uncial characters, and are preserved entire, Lachmann has been obliged sometimes to adopt readings which are autho- rised only by a single codex. Thus he has given the whole text, from the fourth to the twelfth chapter of 2 Corinthians, according * This case would come apparently under tlie fourth head in Lachmann's state- ment of weight of evidence ; for the documents of the Western region stand opposed to those considered peculiarly Alexandrian ; and thus it seems that, even on those principles, the reading is only doubtful. 106 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT to no other authority than that of the Codex B, and the whole text from Hebrews ix. 14 to the end, on the basis of Codex A merely." Such statements have misled students; for it has been supposed that they would not have been advanced, except on grounds of competent knowledge. But how do the facts stand? In the passage in 2 Corinthians, the whole, up to chap. x. 8, is contained in C (Cod. Ephraemi), and the whole of the chapters, said to rest on B only, are contained in D (Cod. Claromontanus) and G (Cod. Boernerianus) : in the latter part of the Hebrews, the hiatus in C is from x. 24 to xii. 15, and in D there is there no defect at all. It is important to state these things explicitly, because the incorrect assertions have misled, and will still mislead, those who are unacquainted with critical details. Wliile maintaining that a critical basis should be laid broad enough for us not to be obliged to follow certain authorities into known error, it is of great importance not to put down an attested reading to be an error without full inquiry and examination. It may be very natural thus to condemn a reading which differs from what we are accustomed to see; but we must look well to it, lest, in stigmatising a reading as devoid of meaning, we only show that ice have not understood it. This is wholly diiFerent from cases of known and certain mistake in MSS. Matt. xxi. 28-31 aSbrds an illustration of the importance of not hastily condemning a reading as unintelligible. In the para- ble of the two sons bidden by their father to work in his vineyard, Lachmann retains the common order of the answers and actions, that is, the Jirst son refuses to work, but afterwards repents and goes; the second son says that he will go, but does not : but in the answer of the Jews to the inquiry of Christ, '* Which did the will of his father?" — the answer in Lachmann's text is 6 var6po<;, instead of the 6 Trpooro? of the common text. This was deemed by De Wctte to deprive the passage of all meaning ;* and Tis- chendorf, who adopted it in the first edition which he published, afterwards turned to the common reading. In examining the authorities in this passage, considerable discrepancies will be found; several have var€po<; (or an equivalent) in the latter part, while * lie asks, "Was soil der Exeget rait dem blosscu Laclimannschen Tcxte anfangcn ill Sicllcn, wo cr siniiloa ist, wic Matt. xxi. 28-31 ?^^—Einleitung his N. T., ed. 5, p. 80. OP THE GKEEK NEW TESTAMENT. 107 they avoid all difficulty by inverting the order of tlie answers, etc., of tlie two sons. Origen,* however, is an explicit witness, that in the early part of the third century, the answers and actions were in the same order in which we now have them, — ^the second son professing a willingness and not going, the first refusing and afterwards going. Hippolytus, an elder contemporary of Origen, is an equally explicit witness, that the answer of the Jews to our Lord was the latter, not the former.^ Now, I fully believe that Lachmann gives the true reading of the passage, and that in some documents the order of the answers has been changed so as to avoid a supposed difficulty, and that, in others, the word Trpwro? has been introduced instead of vo-repo?, for a similar reason. Transcribers felt persuaded, that the answer of the Jews must have been that the son who really went into the vineyard was he who did the father's will; when, however, documents avoid a difficulty in different paths, they give a very plain hint as to the true state of the case as a matter of evidence. Jerome appears to have translated ^^novissimus,^^ a rendering which elsewhere answers to va-repo^ : this, too, had been the Latin reading prior to the time of Jerome (as shown in the Codices Vercellensis, Yeronen- sis, Corbeiensis, and the Evangelium Palatinum, published by Tischendorf ) ; the best copies of Jerome's translation (such as the Codices Amiatinus, Fuldensis, and Forojuliensis) also retain it. Jerome, in his Commentary, seems to have felt the difficulty, and he appeals to other copies which read ^^ primus" (such as the revised text contained in the Codex Brixianus) : he seems, how- ever, to have had but little confidence in the copies that read differently; for he tries to explain his own reading, novissimus, by attributing this answer to the obstinacy of the Jews. But what is to be said to this seemingly contradictory reading ? The youngest son professed his readiness to obey, and then does not act according to his father's will, and yet the answer is 6 varepo^f. I believe that 6 va-Tepo<; refers not to the order in which the two sons have been mentioned, but to the previous expression about * Ed. De la Eue, iij. 770. T ilie words of Hippolytus are, koL iv tco tvayyeXCw rhwoLrja-avTa to eiXriixa rov naTphi elTfevb eVxaros. (Ed. Fabric, torn, ij., p. 30.) eVxaros is the equivalent for vVrepos in some MSS. of this passage. 108 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT the elder son, varepov Be fjuerafjueXTjOeU airijiXOev, ''^afterwards he repented and went." " Which of the two did his father's will?" 6vcFTepo<;. //rinrero toj TrptoTu. Kai, iv Ttti? npa^ecri Sk tCju aTToaToXinv to, Yto? mow ei crv, eyw r} ktA. JliU. Clc la IvUe, )J., 5o7 8. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. Ill about a year before the death of tbe editor. Two reasons occa- sioned this delay: it had been Lachmann's intention to have written pretty full remarks on various passages, and on the appli- cation of criticism (i. e. the exercise of a critical judgment, not a mere adherence to authorities) for their correction ; and this intention (though never carried out) caused delay : but the great obstacle in Lachmann's mind was the want of apprehension which his friend De Wette showed as to his object and design : it was this, in fact, that hindered him from giving the second volume to the public so long as De Wette lived. That scholar seems, indeed, not to have at all apprehended what Lachmann meant ; and thus, although more fitted mentally than most scholars of Germany for understanding Lachmann's edition, it was always so described by him as to lead to misapprehension on the part of others. De Wette would always have used exegetic clearness, as though it had a primary importance in forming a judgment of the true text ; and he was in so many respects a true pupil of Griesbach, that he shrunk from an entire revertence to the really oldest authorities. Although Lachmann never wrote the full remarks on passages which he had once intended to have done, he prefixed to his second volume a few notes on readings which had called forth the observations of De Wette and others. In these notes he gives occasionally his own conjectures as to the true readings of passages, using the traditive reading of the oldest documents as his basis of argument. These in general call for no further notice here ; for they belong, not to Lachmann's principles as an editor, but to his own personal opinions ; and though it may be freely admitted that all ancient books may contain errors of copyists, so old as to precede all documentary means of their restoration, yet when we have such united witnesses as we possess to the text of the New Testament, it would be useless and rash in the extreme to depart from what has been transmitted, in search of something which we may suppose or imagine. But in the midst of Lachmann's con- jectures, there are good and valuable remarks introduced : thus, on Acts xiii. 32, he speaks of those who prefer to see the text " skinned over and plaistered," rather than with the wounds visible : that is, that some would prefer the text as it has passed through the hands of copyists and non-critical editors, with the 112 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT wounds (if sucli tliere be) of the earliest copies and versions con- cealed by a sort of artificial vail, to that which gives the text as transmitted, a text which may be the basis of true exposition, and from which what is genuine may be gatliered on grounds of evidence, which never can be the case if the concealment of modi- fied and modernised phraseology be adopted and canonised. The reading which led to these remarks is Kal ^JyLtet? t'/xa? evar/yeXt^o- fieOa rrjv 7r/309 tov<; 7raT€pa<^ iirayyeXLav yevo/jLevrjv, ore ravryv 6 6ebapi(TaioL vnoKpLrai' om. Vulg. (and some copies of the Old Latin), the Curetonian Syriac, Memph., Arm., also Marcion and Augustine, with B C L, 1, 33, and a few others, (xxij.) Luke xii. 31. rijv /SacriXetav rov Oeov common text; but r. /3a(r. avTov Old Latin in some copies, Memph., Theb., -^th., with BD*L. (xxiij.) Luke xiii. 24. Sid tjJs o-rei^s Ovpat Old Latin, Peshito and Jerus. Syr., Memph., Theb., Arm., with B D L X, 1. (xxxv.) John ix. 25. Kat cTttcv om. some Latin copies, Thebaic, Goth., Harclean Syr.; also Cyril; with A B D L, 1, 33 (and a few other copies), (xxxvj.) John ix. 26. TraXtv om. Old Latin, Vulg., Memph., Theb., with B D. (xxxvij.) John x. 12. a-KopTTL^ei ra Trpo^ara common text ; but om. TO. Trpo/Sara here Memph., Theb., Arm., .iiEth., Jerus. Syr., with B D L, 1, 33 (and a few other copies), (xxxviij.) John x. 13. 6 Se /xio-^wros cftevyct om. by just the same au- thorities. (xxxix.) John x. 14. Common text ytvoja-Ko/xat vtto tCjv kfxuiv, but jLvwaKova-L p,c to. efxd is the reading of the Old Latin, the Vulg., Memph., Theb., Goth., ^th. ; also of Epiphanius and Cyril, with B D L. or THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 145 (xl.) John X. 26. Ka^ws elTrov vfuv om. Old Latin in some copies, Vulg., Memph., Theb., Arm., and some fathers, with B K LM*, 33, and a few other copies. (xlj.) John X. 33. Xiyovres om. Old Latin, Vulg., Peshito and Hare- lean Syriac, Memph., Theb., Goth., Arm., with A B K L M X, 1, 33, 69 (and a few other copies). (xlij.) John xi. 41. ov ^v 6 reOvrjKibs k€Iijl€vo ^Tret to epyov ovkctl la-rivtpyov om. Vulg., Memph., Theb., Arm., ^th. ; with A C D E F G, 17 (ut vid.), and one other. (Ix.) Rom. xiv. 6. koX 6 fxr] <^povcov rrjv ^fxepav Kvptio ov ^povct- om. Vulg., Memph., -^th. ; with A B C^' D E F G, and a few others. (Ixj.) Rom. xiv. 9. Common text, Xpicrros kol airiOav^ koI avicrTq koI avi^rja-ev' but om. koI dviorTTj Vulg. MS., Harcl. Syr., Memph., -^th.. Arm. ; also Dionysius of Alex., and other fathers ; with A B C. Also for av€t,rjcr€v the reading etprjacv in the same authorities, also the Peshito Syr., and D E J, 17, 37, and some other copies. (Ixij.) Rom. XV. 24. Ik^va-ofxai irpo'i vfxapaTr)v." I will freely allow that Tischendorf 's eyes are better as to strength than mine are noio ; in 1845, however, I saw both clearly and easily ; and, as to this passage, mistake was excluded by my having made a facsimile tracing. (t.iya • K^ ej3Aa(r^7j^i}(rav hi avot to ovofia tot) 6v tow exovTOse^ovcrCav inX ras tAtj ya^ravTOLS . kol ovixeTev6r)?tis was a word in which the iota mioht or should bo added. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 159 Codex, — one on which he felt sure that nothing could be read. In this MS., the order of the Gospels now is, John, Luke, Mark, MattJiew ; but before the beginning of John there stand two injured leaves, to one of which I have just alluded. Tischendorf, in his description of this MS., seems to have entirely overlooked them. They contain part of Matthew, commencing ch. vi. 3 (in fragments of lines at first), and ending at verse 10. Also in the Commentary/ Matt. V. 45 is found. The statement of Schol7., that this MS. is defective up to Matt. V. 40, is not quite correct, though more so than that of Tischendorf, who overlooked these earlier fragments. In connexion with this MS., I may express my obligation to Dr. Scholz for the aid which he gave me, during his visit to England, previous to my going on the continent, by informing me where different MSS. (and this one in particular) are now to be found. At Basle, I collated the Codex Basileensis B vi. 21 (E of the Gospels). Besides comparing my collation with that of Wetstein, and verifying all dis- crepancies, I had, through the kindness of Professor Muller, of Basle, the opportunity of using a collation which he had himself made of this same M S. I also collated that part of the MS. B vi. 27, which contains the Gospels (1). This MS., though written in cursive letters, is, in the Gospels, of great importance, from the character of the text which it contains. To the late Professor De Wette I am under great obligation, for the kindness with which he procured me the use of these MSS. out of the library. I returned to England in 1846, disappointed indeed as to the Vatican MS., but well satisfied that the time had not been wasted, which I had devoted to the re-collation of other documents ; for I thus learned how often I should merely have repeated the errors of others, if I had not re-examined the docu- ments for myself. In 1847, I collated (G of the Gospels) the Codex Harleianus 5684 in the British Museum. Of this same MS. there exists a fragment in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, which I met with in 1845, while examining Bentley's books and papers. In that marked B. 17, 20, there are two frag- ments of vellum with a part of the Gospels on them, written in uncial letters, placed loosely in some pieces of more modern Greek MS. in cursive characters. The Rev. John Wordsworth (who took great pains in describing, etc.. Bent- ley's papers) says in the catalogue, " The two loose scraps are copies of some other MS." It appeared, however, plain that they were really ancient frag- ments. Accordingly, I made a facsimile of each. One of them struck me as certainly in the same handwriting as G, which I had inspected several years before. On re-examining my facsimile with G, this persuasion amounted to a certainty ; the writing was identical with that of the former part of G ; and in calculating the lines in a page, etc., this fragment would form half a leaf (the outer column being gone). It contains part of Matt, v., ver. 29-31 and 39-43. This MS. was one of the two Codices Seidelii, both which after- wards were in the possession of Wolf, of Hamburg. Wolf says, in his description of this MS., that it commenced at Matt. vi. 6 (as it does now), so 160 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT that this fragment must have been separated previously. The other MS. of the Gospels, which Wolf possessed, is denoted H, and at the time when I found these fragments, its present location was unknown ; but, as I had identified the one fragment with G, the other was (I had no doubt) part of H. This second fragment contains part of Luke i., — ver. 3, 6eoTap4a.p Treaetrat ; if there were no varia- tions in the MSS., there would be nothing here but what might be expected. The two animals, 'the ass' and 'the ox,' are continually coupled together in the Old Testament, and therefore may be naturally expected in connection with one another here. But how to account for the extraordinary variation of the older Grreek MSS.? With two exceptions [this is not quite correct : see above'] the uncial codices all have the reading nVos vjawi' uibs ij /SoCs els ^p4ap nea-elTaL ; ' Which of you shall have a Son or an ox fall into a pit?' — a reading which is obviously an absurd one, but which is sanctioned not only by a large number of uncial MSS., but by some versions and ecclesiastical writers. Of the two exceptions, the one is the Vatican Codex [this is an erroneous statement ; the Alexandrian MS. probably is meant, but that is not alonej which has 6 vlbs (a reading which would witness against itself by the article, even if there were nothing suspicious about uibs) ; and the other the Codex Bezse, which furnishes a clue to the whole difficulty. That MS. has nVos e| viJ.Siv npopaTov fi jSov? eis )7roT£ (col Panri^eTai ; Theodoi'ct. t auTwi', instead ol rwt' ve/cptoi/ of the common text, is tlie ancient reading. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 217 secured to us tlirougli Clirist's precious blood. If the dead rise not, baptism would be vain ; for, as tlie Apostle bad said just before, tliey wbo are fallen asleep in Christ would have perished. If punctuation, according to the mode in which this passage was understood by early writers, be adopted, then the expression "baptized for the dead" may be safely excluded from our theo- logical vocabulary, as not being a thing mentioned in Scripture ; except as a thing which could not exist, unless the Christian doc- trine of the resurrection of our mortal bodies be first set aside. Baptism for the dead, in that sense, might be the confession that our sins have merited death, God's denounced penalty ; but with- out the knowledge that the redemption of Christ has thus met death, and that his resurrection declares the value of his propi- tiatory sacrifice to every believing sinner. The proper placing of parenthesis marks has much to do with the intelligibility of a sentence ; for it is thus that words which are connected with what has gone before, but which, as to loca- tion, wait till the end of the sentence, can have their construction made plain to the reader's eye. Thus, in 1 Pet. iii. 21, our English version rightly marks a clause as parenthetic ; o koX r)fjLd<; avri- TVTTOV, vvv aa)^€L /SdiTTLafia, (ov (7apKo<^ aTrodeai^^ pvirov oKXa (jvveiZrj(Te(i)<^ a totto), eco? ov rj/xepa Biavydar] Kal (f)a)(T(f>6po<; dvareiXr}^, iv rat? Kaphlat^ vjuLcov. " The prophetic word, whereunto ye do well to take heed, (as unto a light shining in a dark place, until the day have dawned, 218 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT and the morning-star arisen), in your hearts." What the meaning of the latter words may be, according to the common punctuation, I do not see ; for the day does not dawn in the heart of one idready quickened by God's Spirit to believe in Christ, nor does the morning-star arise there; but the Prophetic Word is to instruct us, not till something is wrought in us, or some spiritual light re- ceived by us, but until the shining of the day of God, the coming of Him who has said, "I am the bright and morning star." No objection can rightly be raised as to this connection being forced ; for what is more frequent than the occurrence of dependent words which relate to a more distant verb or participle, and not to the nearer ? In Rom. viii, 20, I would introduce a similar kind of paren- thesis, with a construction of the same sort : rfj yap /jLaracorrjTL rj KTLcn<; VTrerdyrj {ou'^ i/covcra aWa Bta rov VTrord^apra) eir ikTrlSc, oTi KoX avTT) 7) KTLcrc^ i\€v66pco67]a€TaL, kt\. " For the creation was subjected to vanity (not willingly, but in consequence of him who hath subjected it) in expectancy, because the creation itself also shall be delivered," etc., so as to connect iir eXTr/St with vTrerdyr}, and not with virord^avra* At the beginning of Kom. ix. is a passage in which many have found a difficulty, which would, I believe, be obviated, if part of the words were read as parenthetic, thus : ^AXijOeiav Xeyco iv ')(^pi(TT(p, ov -yfrevSo/iiai, (rvfJi/JLapTVpovar)<; /jlol T'fj<; avveiBijaeco'^ fiov eV * Thus, too, the words are connected by Mr. Alford in his Greek Testament, but without the introduction of the parenthesis by which this would be indicated. He says in his note, " en' eXniSi must not be joined Avith vnord^avTa, because then the eATris be- comes the hope of the vnord^a^, — but with VTrerdyij, being the hope of the virorayela-a." ]\rr. Alford, in his Greek Testament, has shown himself in a great measure an ad- lierent of the principle of recun-ing to the ancient authorities. This, in his first vol., he did avowedly as a kind of provisional measure ; in his second vol. (Acts to 2 Cor. inclusive) he has discarded the notion of a pi'ovisionul text, and has introduced what he considers to be the best readings. Eut in doing this he often departs widely from the ancient authorities, and exercises a great deal of choice. In his digest of various readings (wliicli occupy the part of tlie page between the text and the notes), he continually endeavours to account for the variations found in MSS., especially when he does not follow those best attested by ancient evidence : but this habitual pragma- tism really belongs to the realms of pure conjecture ; for we might just as well discuss philosophically the mistakes made through inadvertence by modern compositors, as trace the mental phajnomena of a large portion of those made by their predecessors, the ancient copyists: some we can classify and explain, as having to do with common causes of error, but there are many about which nothing further can be defined beyond elating the fact. And it is utterly unsafe to use a pragmatic argument in opposition i<) absolute e\ idcncc. OF THE GREElv NEW TESTAMENT. 219 irvevfjuarv ayicp^ on Xvttt] /jlol iariv [JLeyaXrj kol aZiaXeLTTTo^ oBvvrj TJ] KapBla fjLoi,, (r}v')(piJb7}v jap avdOefia elvao avrb^i iycb airo tov ')(^pi(TTOv)^ virep Tcov aSek^MV /jlov tcov avyyevcov JjLov Kara crdpKa' in this manner joining virep rcov dS. fiov^ with Xvirrj . . . koX dhudX. oBvvT) Tjj K. /JLOV instead of with. dvdOefia. " I have great heavi- ness and continual sorrow in my heart (for I myself did wish to be anathema from Christ), for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh." Paul felt full sympathy for his own nation still remaining in unbelief, for he had once been in their condition, thinking in himself that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth, and doing them : the desire of his heart had then run in full opposition to Him whom he now knew as the Christ, so that his wish had been to stand in no other rela- tion to that person, than in one which he now knew to be ana- thema. The preceding chapter has ended with the most absolute statement of the impossibility of his being separated from Christ his Saviour. " I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." How, after this strong and full assertion, can we imagine the Apostle, immediately in the most solemn manner, calling on Christ and the Holy Ghost as witnesses to a loish on his part to be anathema from Christ for his brethren? This is incom- prehensible to me ; nor can I suppose that the New Testament can on its own principles sanction such an idea, even hypotheti- cally, as that any could be the substitute for others, except Christ himself He who knows the love of Christ in his heart cannot indulge in such an awful thought ; and what could be said to the Holy Ghost being the witness with the Apostle's conscience (if he had admitted such a sentiment), and this being left by the Spirit on record for our instruction? When once the position has been definitively taken, that the ancient evidence is that which we must especially regard, other considerations affecting various readings must have their place, in order to judge between the ancient authorities, when they differ among themselves. 220 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT If tlie diflference is found in so few MSS. as to bear but a small proportion both as to authority and number, and if it is not sup- ported by witnesses of tlie other classes (versions and citations), then it may be looked on as an accidental variation, and one which does not materially disturb the united evidence of the other wit- nesses. But, where there is real conflict of evidence, — a real and decided variation amongst the older documents, then, in forming a judgment, the common causes of various readings, and the kind of errors to wliich copyists were liable, must be considered ; and thus a decided judgment may often be formed. As copyists were always more addicted to amplification than the contrary, as a general rule it must be said, that less evidence is sufficient (other things being equal) in favour of an omission than of an insertion ; especially if the insertion is one wdiich might naturally be suggested. Thus, in Mark vi. 36, some authorities read, Xva a'iTe\66vT€<^ eU tov<; kvkKw a6ri) . Chrysostom has been cited in favour of 0e6s ; but I have had occasion to point out that though the word so stands in the editions, yet the citation of the same passage of Chrysostom in the Catena on 1 Tim., published by Cramer (p. 31), shows plainly that €ts eVepov avdyet, to npayfia' on. e^avepaiOr) ev trapKl, haS been transformed intO els erepov avayei, to irpayfia, \4yo>v debs e^avepdiOrj ev aapKi, I 228 AN ACCOUNT OP THE PRINTED TEXT and C at a remote period. Such a change was effected by altering OC into ec by introducing two little strokes, and then there was the contraction com- monly found for deos. The ink in which this has been done in A is suffi- ciently modern and black to declare its recent application, but it has been said that the trace of an original transverse line may be seen besides the modern black dot in the middle, decisive that the first letter is not O but 9. Wetstein attributed this stroke, which in some lights is visible at one side of the O, to a part of the transverse line of the letter 6 on the back of the leaf. He says that it was only visible when he held it in such a position that he could see some light through the leaf. This was denied by Woide, who said (trusting to the eyes of others rather than his own) that the 6 was so placed that no part of it could be seen directly opposite to the O. Now I can state positively that Wetstein was right and Woide was wrong : for I have repeatedly looked at the place, sometimes alone, sometimes with others ; sometimes with the un- assisted eye, sometimes with the aid of a powerful lens : and as to the position of these two letters, by holding the leaf up to the light, it is seen that the 6 does slightly intersect the O, so that part of the transverse line may be seen on one side of that letter. As to the reading of the palimpsest C, before the writing had been chyrai- cally restored, it was shown by Griesbach and others that the line denoting the contraction was not like the writing of the original copyist ; and since the ancient letters have been revivified, it is abundantly manifest that both this stroke and the transverse line (previously invisible) forming the 9 are additions of a later corrector : Tischendorf states this explicitly in the Prolegomena to his edition of the text of this MS. ; and I can abundantly confirm, from my own repeated inspection of the passage, and from comparing these strokes with the other corrections, that this is the fact. With regard to F and G it is a mistake,* that either or both of them read ©C ; they read oy, and G has no correction in the place, as if it had ever read o. It must be remembered that F and G are both of them copies of some one more ancient MS., and thus they are but one witness. The versions which support a relative, are 1 the Old Latin, 2 the Vulgate, 3 Peshito and 4 Harclean Syriac, 5 Memphitic, 6 Thebaic, 7 Gothic, 8 ArmC" nian, 9 ^thiopic : that is, all the versions older than the seventh century. (Also a MS. Arabic version in the Vatican.) This united testimony that 6e6s did not belong to the passages in the days when those versions were made, is peculiarly strong; and when it is remembered that no version of simi- lar antiquity can be brought forward to counterbalance these witnesses of every region of Christendom, the preponderance of testimony is overwhelming. It may now be stated that some of these versions cannot show whether they support OS or o, from the want of genders in the relative ; while others (such as the Vulgate), which mark the neuter, have given, not improbably, what was considered to be consiructio ad sensum, by taking fivarrjpiov as a personal * See above p. 1C5, note. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 229 designation for the antecedent. The two Syriac versions (the Harclean as to the text at least), the Armenian and the JEthiopic, are wholly doubtful as to this point : the Old Latin and the Vulg. have the neut. quod : the Gothic has the masc. relative, and so too the Memph. and Theb. ; but, in the case of these two latter versions, it is said that the word by which fiva-r^piov is translated is also masc, and so the masc. relative in itself proves nothing. Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Cyril Alex., Epiphanius, read os, while the Latin fathers in general (e. g. Hilary, Augustine, etc.) have quod. The silence of the fathers as to this passage in the fourth century, when, if they had known the reading Beos, it would have maintained an important part in arguments^ must not be forgotten, for such silence expresses much. In addition to the evidence of MSS., versions, and early citations, there is a narrative which relates to this passage. According to this narrative, Mace- donius, Patriarch of Constantinople, was deprived by the Emperor Anastasius, anno 506, for having corrupted the Scriptures (called in the account " evan- gelia," as a general term), especially in this passage, by changing one letter so as to make OC into ec. "Hoc tempore Macedonius Constantinopolitanus episcopus ab imperatore Anastatio dicitur expulsus, tamquam evangelia falsasset, et maxime illud apos- toli dictum, qui apparuit in came^ justijicatus est in Spiritu. Hunc enim im- mutasse, ubi habet 02, id est, qui, monosyllabum Grascum ; litera mutata O in vertisse, et fecisse 02, id est, ut esset, Deus apparuit per carnem. Tamquam Nestorianus ergo culpatus expellitur per Severum Monachum." Such is the testimony of Liberatus Diaconus,* rather less than fifty years after the event took place. It has, indeed, been thought that the reading 6eos could not have been introduced by one who was imbued with Nestorianism ; for it has been said that this reading would contradict the distinction which that form of doctrine made between the natures of Christ, as though they were * Breviarium, cap. xix. I take the citation from Bentley (Dyce's edition, iij. 366), who adds, "The editions of Liberatus, instead of © and ©2, have fi and nS; but it appears fromBaronius, that the manuscript had no Greek letters here at all, and that they were supplied by the first editor. I have not scrupled, therefore, to correct the place, as the Latin clearly requires : for DEUS answers to ©E02, and the Greek monosyllable 02 is in opposition to that dissyllable. And so Hincmarus in his Opus- culum, chap, xviij., where he cites the same story (without doubt out of Liberatus), has it plainly, as I have put it, Oin® vertit et fecit ©2." It is important to remember this fact out of Baronius, that the MS. of Liberatus had no Greek letters ; for it has been eited again and again, as if it had been said that Macedonius changed os into ws, and this has even been put in opposition to the testimony of Hincmar. " The first editor," whoever he may have been, had probably some notion how a short O might be interchanged with a long one, and hence the mistake ; — one which might have been avoided, if he had noticed the Latin qui and Deus ; but probably he did not understand that ©2 would be the common contraction for 0e6i. The same transaction regarding Macedonius and the corruption of Scripture is referred to in the Chronicon of Victor. " Messalla V. C. Coss. Constantinopoli, jubente Anastasio imperatore, sancta evangelia tamquam ab idiotis evangelistis com- posita, reprehenduntur et emendantur." 230 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT not joined in unity of person. But it must be remembered that Cyril was the orthodox authority then with the strong anti-Nestorian party, and he read OS ecpavepoidt] : also the reading Oebs decidedly favoured the conception then formed of the doctrine of Nestorius ; as if it had taught that God was mani- fest in or by the flesh of him who was born of Mary, whereas the reading os strongly asserts unity of person. This narration shows that in the early part of the sixth century the readings OS and 6ebs were both known ; even if it be doubted whether this was the origin (as it may have been) of the latter. If it did so spring up,* and if it was thus propagated, the versions made previously are witnesses against the addition : " cum multarum gentium Unguis scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse quae addita sunt," says Jerome {ad Damasum) of similar cases. It is thus seen that for reading a relative pronoun in this place, there are the MSS. A C D F G, 17, and two others, nine ancient versions, and some fathers certainly. For reading the substantive ^eos, there are J K (two of the later uncial MSS.), and the cursive copies in general ; no version prior to the seventh cen- tury ; and of the fathers of the earlier centuries there are only some doubt- fully. Codex B does not contain this epistle. Thus the evidence in favour of a relative preponderates greatly ; for it is not to be supposed that the independent more ancient versions could agree fortui- tously in ignoring the substantive God^ if they had it in their copies ; and if none of them had it, then the Greek copies must have agreed in reading a relative. The advocates for 6eos^ as being the reading supported by the numerical array of copies, are accustomed to divide the evidence into three heads, 1 ^eor, 2 OS, 3 o : and then, by giving the ancient versions in general to o, they seem to make 6s rest on weak grounds : but upon such a question the testimony of versions must not be separated thus minutely ; for the primary question between the substantive and the relative must first be settled, just as in all preliminary inquiries, cognate readings must be taken as presenting united evidence, when contrasted with something wholly opposite. A relative is then by far the best attested reading. The next inquiry is, v:hat relative, 6s or o. This must be decided by Greek authorities, for most of the versions are doubtful. 6s then has in its favour A C F G, 17, and two others, with Cyril and other Greek fathers, while 6 is only supported by D a prima manu. Thus 6s is by far the best supported reading. It is also the reading from which the others might most easily have sprung from supposed correction ; while the change from 6 or O^os into 6s would in such a sentence be most unlikely. And further, 6s is the more difficult read- ing; for the inquiry immediately arises as to the structure and translation of * If so, the occurrence of ^fo? in an)' earlier citations must be occasioned by copyists or editors assimilating, pro more, the Biblical citations to the text which they were accustomed to read. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 231 the sentence : Does 6s go back to deov ^covtos for an antecedent ? or are we to take ixva-Trjpiov os for a constructio ad sensum ? or is the antecedent under- stood, that being the nominative to the verb of the next clause ibiKaLadr], " he who was manifested in the flesh, was justified," etc. ? I do not think that either of these solutions is precisely the true one ; os appears to me to relate to the person indicated, with something of the same kind of indejinite emphasis (if I may use the term) as is found in the mode in which avros occurs in 1 John, *' Confessedly great is the mystery of godliness : He who was manifested in flesh, (he who) was justified in spirit, (he who) was seen by angels, (he who) was preached among Gentiles, (he who) was believed on in the world, (he who) was received up in glory." The passage thus sets before us the whole dignity of Christ's person ; and it has been well asked, If He were not essentially superhuman, how could the Apostle have emphatically declared that he was manifested in flesh f I now pass on to Acts xx. 28, noifiaiueiv ttjv iKKKrjaiav . . . .^v nepieTroirjoraTO 8ia Tov alixaros tov 18lov. After eKKXrjaiav there are three readings which are entitled to be considered as to their claims to fill up the place which I have left blank. 1 . Trjv €KK\.r)(T!.ap tov 6eov, the Church of God. 2. Trjv eKKXrja-iav tov Kvpiov, the Church of the Lord. 3. Trju eKKkrjo-iav tov Kvplov kol 6eov, the Church of the Lord and God. There are also three readings which have to be mentioned simply with the evidence for them ; none of which has a claim requiring much attention : (i.) T. eKK. TOV Kvpiov 6iov in one or two later MSS., and the Arabic of the Poly- glot, a version of no critical importance ; (ii.) r. ckk. tov Biov koI Kvpiov, in one cursive copy ; (iii.) r. €kk. tov ;(pto-rou as found in the Peshito Syriac (and of course in the Erpenian Arabic made from it) ; Origen so reads once ; and this lection is found in three copies of Athanasius, and in Theodoret twice. It has no MS. authority, and it might easily have sprung from the connection, in which the Church is mentioned as being his who redeemed it with his own blood. To revert, then, to the readings with regard to which there is some amount of evidence. 1. Tov deov. This is found in B, and about twenty cursive copies :* and in the following versions (1) the Vulg. in the most ancient MSS., as well as in the common Clementine (but not, however, in the Complutensian edition). * As doubt haa been cast on the reading of B, I state explicitly that this is the reading of that MS. The late Mr. Edgar Taylor procured a tracing of rather more than three lines in this passage from the custode of the Vatican library : and it ap- peared in the editorial Monitum prefixed to the second London reprint of Griesbach's Greek Testament (1818). But it was soon suggested that though the MS. noto reads ©Y, it might formerly have had ky : I therefore, when at Eome, directed my attention particularly to that point, and I can state positively that the © stands without any erasure, or trace of there having been originally a K, This was Contrary to what I had expected ; for I had quite anticipated that I should have found that it had at first the same reading as A C. 232 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT (2) the Harclean Syriac (text.), and a Syriac lectionary in the Vatican of the eleventh century. Epiphanius and some later Greek writers have this reading, as also have Ambrose and other Latins. Athanasius in some MSS. has this reading, and Chrysostom has been cited for it ; however, he certainly himself has Kvpiov, and the reading 6eov has been taken from the Homilies on the Acts which bear his name ; but even there the reading is doubtful.* Cyril of Alexandria reads dcov twice^ in a treatise on the name deoroKos, as applied to the Virgin Mary, edited by Cardinal Mai (Scriptorum Collectio Vaticana, viij. part 2, pp. 125, 126). It is necessary to notice this explicitly, because it has been remarked that this reading is 7iot found in Cyril, and the supposed silence of this anti-Nestorian writer has been made the basis of argument. The genuineness of this treatise is supported by its being cited in the Emperor Justinian's epistle to the Alexandrian monks (p. 306), edited by Mai in vol. vii. of the same collection. This treatise is likewise thoroughly Cyrillian in tone and style, f 2. Tov Kvplov is the reading of A C D E, 13 (with thirteen other cursive MSS.), of (1) the Old Latin, as found in D and E, (2) the Memphitic, (3) the Thebaic, (4) the Armenian, and (5) the margin of the later Syriac. Irengeus (or his contemporary Latin interpreter), Eusebius, the Apostolic Constitutions, Didymus, Ammonius, Athanasius in one MS., Chrysostom (on Eph. iv. 12), and at a later date Theophylact (three times), have this reading; as also, among the Latins, Lucifer, Jerome, Augustine, and others. 3. Tov Kvpiov Koi 6eov : this is the common reading of MSS., being found in G H, (also C a tertia manu) and in more than a hundred cursive copies, also in six lectionaries. As to versions, it is found in the Sclavonic alone,| which is of the ninth century, and has no voice in criticism. Theophylact has this * In expressing my opinion that the Homilies on the Acts are not really Chrysos- tom's, I shall not be accused of rashness by those who understand the real state of the question : a statement which I once made that I thought they were not reaUy his, was met by such remarks as if this was some new opinion of my own, previously maintained by no one. In reading those HomiHes, I felt often astonished at their contents and style being so un-ChrysostomliTce ; and this was when I had for some weeks read hardly anything except his works, so that my perceptions were fully alive as to such points. On examination I found that, from Erasmus onwards, scholars had doubted or denied that this work is genuine. This was no small confirmation of my previously formed judgment. t Some of the other worVs published by Mai in the same place as Cyril's, are cer- tainly not his (in one of these, p. 56, KvpLov is cited in this passage) ; they contain abun- dant proof that they were subsequent to the Eutychian controversy ; and not only do tliey combat heresy of later date than Cyril's time, but they express sentiments by no means Cyrillian. X It is instructive to see how repeatedly, when the mass of modem MSS. oppose the ancient, they are supported by no versions except those later than the seventh century. In speaking of the Sclavonic as belonging to the ninth century, I do not discuss whe- ther or not the other books were translated about the same time as the Gospels. We know when this version was began, but as to its completion we have no evidence : the oldest existing MS. of the whole Sclavonic Bible is of a.d, 1499, (Davidson's Biblical Criticism, ii. p. 238.) OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 233 reading once, so that when he has tov Kvplov simply, he may probably abbre- viate the reading to which he was accustomed. This reading is found in the Complutensian edition, and as it is that supported by numbers, it would of course have been defended by many if it had been in the common text. The Latin in the Complutensian differs from other copies of the Vulgate in having " diii (i. e. Domini) et dei." In this conspectus of authorities, the JEthiopic version has not been cited for any of the readings : it is doubtful whether the Roman text of this version should be quoted for 6eov or Kvpiov, and the edition of Mr. Piatt has xpio"Tov. All that can be said is, that, like the Peshito Syriac, it opposes the compound reading rov Kvplov Ka\ Qeov. The whole question must lie between tov Kvplov and rov 6eov ; for the read- ing that combines both fails as to ancient MS. authority (showing plainly that the mass of copies must not be valued on the ground of numbers), as to ver- sions, and as to early citations : if this had not been sufficient, it might be added that it is the longer reading, and as such would require preponderating evidence before it could be received. Tov Beov has good witnesses in B (the other MSS. are unimportant) and the Vulgate ; but rov Kvpiov has preponderating testimony; for B alone could not on such a point outweigh A C D E ; and as to versions and fathers, rov Kvpiov stands on stronger ground ; and therefore it should be accepted, even while all that can be said in favour of rov deov is fully admitted. Either of these read- ings might easily have sprung from the other, as the change is but one letter (KY and GY) ; and, while deov might claim the preference as being, in connection with "blood," the more difficult reading, 17 eKKXrja-ia tov Kvplov is a reading found nowhere else in the New Testament ; so that a copyist would naturally alter it to €KK. Toi) deov, as is found 1 Cor. i. 2 ; x. 32 ; xi. 22 ; xv. 9 ; 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Gal. i. 13 ; 1 Tim. iii. 5, 15. This whole passage may also be compared with 1 Pet. v. 2, iToifxdvaTe to ev vjxiv noifiviov tov deov enio-KOTrovvTes, which might aid in suggesting tov 6eov in Acts xx. 28, irpoaexeTe . . . . roJ Trotfxvia, ev a Vfias TO nva to ayiov eOcTO eTrto-KOTTOV? Troifialvetv ttjv eKKKija-iav tov Kvpiov. Thus the introduction of 6eov, instead of Kvpiov would be natural^ though the contrary would not be so ; and even if the evidence for ckk. tov Kvpiov had not been so strong, it would have been confirmed by its peculiarity, and by the immense probability of the familiar phrase being substituted for it. But although this passage with the reading Kvplov gives no direct testimony to the Godhead of the Lord Jesus Christ, it is of very great doctrinal value ; for it brings out in full view the true sacrificial character of his death on the cross : " Feed the Church of the Lord, which He hath purchased with his own bloody Thus, even if the dignity of his person were not here stated, the preciousness of his blood is emphatically declared, as being that which was adequate to meet the infinite holiness of God and His wrath against sin, and to secure the Church unto Christ as His own, as that which He has thus appro- priated at so costly a price. If this work of propitiation is rightly considered, and its value as thus declared as applied in result, how much does it show that 234 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT the dignity of this Redeemer exceeds that of a mere man. His blood was so unspeakably precious that it was capable of outweighing, even before God, the sins of all his people ; and this it is that shows how exalted must be the per- son of whom such things could be spoken. If this passage, as rightly read, does not declare our Lord's Godhead, it still states, in clearest words, his re- demption and Lordship. Many have shrunk from the results of criticism because of these three pas- sages : they were accustomed to them as setting forth theological verities ; and they have desired to cling to them ; although they might have known that in argument they are worthless, because opposers are full well aware how groundless or uncertain are those readings of these passages which some have called ortliodox. The consequence unhappily has been, that the most essential and fundamental truths of Christian doctrine have been supposed by some to rest on uncertain grounds. Now, the same criticism which shows that particular readings are not genuine, proves incontestably that others are unquestionable ; and thus no point of orthodox truth is weakened, even though supports, which some have thought sustained it, are found to differ from such supposed use and bearing. There are undoubted passages enough (such as Matt. i. 23 ; John i. 1 ; xx. 28 ; Rom. ix. 5 ; Phil. ii. 6 ; Heb. i. 8) which speak of the proper Godhead of Christ, without our wishing to press into the same cause others for which we have no sufficient evidence, and which were not required to establish that necessary truth in the early controversies. Criticism, however, need not be at all feared ; if it takes away on the one hand readings which were thought to have some dogmatic value, it will give on the other quite as much. Listances of this will be seen in two passages, John i. 18, and 1 Pet. iii. 15. John i. 18, 6ebv ot/Set? ecopaKcv rroiTTOTe' 6 [xouoyevfjs vlbs 6 (hv els rbv koXttov Tov TTarpos, eKeluos €^r]yrjaaTO. Here, instead of ^.ovoyevrjs v toy of the common text, great authorities sup- port ixovoyevrjs deos. This is the reading of BC*L, 33. (As to B, this reading is given in Bartolocci's MS. collation at Paris, and I myself saw it in the MS. at Rome ; in C it was chymically brought to light.) This is sup- ported by the following versions, the Peshito Syriac and the marg. of the Harclean ; the Memphitic {sic) and the iEthiopic : and as to fathers, the reading may almost be called general, for it is that of Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Lucian, Basil, Gregory of Nazian- zum, Gregory of Nussa, Didymus, Basil of Seleucia, Isidore of Pelusium, Cyril of Alexandria, Titus of Bostra; as also of Theodotus (in the second century), Arius, Marcellus, Eunomius, etc. ; and amongst the Latins, Hilary, Fulgentius, Gaudentius, Ferrandus, Phoebadius, Vigilius, Alcuin, etc. The reading of the common text, vios, is found in A and the MSS. in general : of these A alone belongs to the most ancient class ; D is here defective. It is that of the Old Latin, of the Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac, the text of OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 235 the Harclean Syriac, and the Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary, and the Arme- nian. It is found twice in Origen, in Eusebius, Basil, and Irenaeus (though all these writers have also the other reading, and in general they so speak of Bebi in the passage, that vlos must have proceeded from the copyists) : — the Latin writers in general agree with the Latin versions in reading ^Zm*. In forming a judgment between these two readings, it must be remembered that fiovoyevfis would naturally suggest vlos as the word which should follow it, whereas 6e6s strikes the ear as something peculiar, and not elsewhere occurring in Scripture; the change, being but of one letter (YC for GC), might be most inadvertently made ; and though the evidence of the Latin versions and the Curetonian Syriac is not of small weight, yet the same chance of change would, in a case of this kind, affect the copyists of a version (or indeed the translators) just as much as the transcribers of Greek MSS. Qeos, as the more difficult reading, is entitled to especial attention ; and, confirmed as it is by MSS. of the highest character, by good versions, and by the general consent of early Greek vvrriters (even when, like Arius, they were opposed to the dogma taught), it is necessary, on grounds of combined evidence, to receive it in pre- ference to the easier and more natural reading vlos. No critical edition hitherto published has given debs in the text ; it is placed, however, in Lachmann's inner margin, as a reading between which and that in the text the evidence stands in doubt : he gave it that place on the combined testimony of Origen and Irenseus, but he did not know (for then it was not ascertained) that this read- ing is that of B and C, two of the principal witnesses that he admitted.* 1 Pet. iii. 15, Kvpiov 8e tov Oeov dyida-are^ so the common text ; but instead of 6e6v the reading xpf-^^Tov is supported by most preponderating evidence; for it is the reading of A B C, 13, and some other cursive MSS. ; of the Vulg. the Peshito and Harclean Syr., the Memph. Theb. Arm. (the .^thiopic has neither word) ; it is also cited by Clement and others : the reading dsbv is supported by the evidence of no MS. older than G and J (at Moscow) of the ninth century, and it is found in no version older than the Arabic in the Poly- glot. Thus the reading xri-o'top may be relied on confidently. This occurs in a citation by the Apostle from Isa. viii. 12, 13. In the Prophet the words are, "Neither fear ye their fear nor be afraid ; sanctify the Lord of hosts himself." The citation of the Apostle exactly agrees with this, except in the concluding words, in which, in the corrected text, we have KvpLov Se rov xpi-(^t6v dyida-aTe, " Sanctify the Lord Christ" : this shows that the expression l^i^ ni^^ny Tm) " Jehovah of hosts Himself" in the prophet, finds its New Testament expo- sition as an equivalent in Kvpiov rov xpi'(J'Tdv, " the Lord Christ," thus marking the divine glory of our Lord in the most emphatic manner. And this is in thorough accordance with the Apostle's train of thought ; for the following * When Lachmann really knew from me the MS. authority in favour of de6?, he at once admitted the claim of that word to stand in the text instead of vl6?. Indeed, his principal witness for giving the preference to the latter word was B, which had been supposed to read thus. 236 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT words of the prophet, in which he says that Jehovah of Hosts should become *' a stone of stumbling and rock of offence," had been previously applied by him (eh. ii. 7, 8) to the Lord Jesus. The LXX., which so often has in- fluenced cop^asts to bring passages in the New Testament into verbal confor- mity with it, has not caused the introduction of the word deov ; for the passage there runs tov Se (po^op alrov ov fxrj (Po^rjdrjre ovde firj Tapa)(BriTf' Kvpiov avrbv ayidaare. In this citation the Apostle shows how independent the New Tes- tament writers can be of the LXX. when needful ; indeed, in some part of the passage the LXX. so reads as utterly to contradict both the Hebrew text and the New Testament use of the facts previously revealed. To the LXX. trans- lators it was incomprehensible that the Lord could become a stone of stum- bling and rock of offence to Israel; and thus, in ver. 14, a negative is intro- duced, Koi ovx a)S y^idov npoaKOjXfxaTL (Tvvavrqa-ccrde, ovde as Trerpas Trrdifxari. On such points, and all that relate to the Godhead of Christ, and in doctrinal statements, the LXX. is continually at variance with both the New Testament and the Hebrew text. § 16.— NOTES ON JOHN VII. 53— VIII. 11 ; JOHN V. 3, 4^ AND MAEK XVI. 9—20. In tlie application of criticism to some of tlie longer passages which are found in some copies, but omitted in others, it is neces- sary to state the evidence fully and distinctly, so as to obviate, if practicable, all possible misconception as to its value and bear- ing. A few such passages will now be considered ; in doing wliich, it is only needful to premise that the principle of following the evidence which Divine Providence has caused to be transmit- ted to us, must in these cases, as well as in all that are similar, be strictly maintained. St. John vii. 53 — viii. 11, is a passage which has held its place in the text by a very doubtful tenure, as is familiar to all who are acquainted with the simplest facts relative to biblical criticism ; and even in the copies which contain these twelve verses there are peculiarities of a singular kind. This narrative is found in some form or other in tlie following authorities: D F G II IC U, and more tlian 300 cursive copies, OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 237 Without any note of doubt or distinction, as also in a few lection- aries. In E it is marked with asterisks in the margin; so, too, in sixteen cursive copies (two of which thus note only from viii. 3). In M there is an asterisk at vii. 53, and at viii. 3. In S, it is noted with obeli, and so, too, in more than forty cursive codices. This narrative is placed at the end of the Gospel, by itself, in ten cursive copies ;* four others similarly place viii. 3 — 1 1 . Four MS S. (of which Cod. Leicestrensis, 69, is one) place this passage at the end of Luke xxi., and one copy has it after John vii. 36. As to versions^ it is found (i.) in Cod. Colbertinus and some others of the Old Latin (Cod. Veronensis is here defective); (ii.) the Vulgate, (iii.) -^thiopic, and (iv.) Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary. (As to the other versions, see below.) It is mentioned by Jerome as being found in many copies, by Ambrose, Augustine, and other writers since the fourth century. But, though cited from the time of Augustine and onward, that father was well aware that the passage was far from universally read in the copies then extant ; and he endeavoured to account for the fact by a conjecture : " nonnulli modicas, vel potius inimici veras fidei, CREDO, metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieri- bus suis, illud, quod de adulterae indulgentia dominus fecit, aufer- rent de codicibus suis, quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit, qui dixit, Deinceps noli peccare." (De Adult. Conj., ii. 6, 7.) But this supposition of Augustine would not account for the fact of the omission of this passage having been so general, as it will be shown to be when the testimony of the versions against it is stated. * One of these is the excellent Basle MS., Cod. 1. On the last leaf this passage is added, with this prefatory note : to nepi t^? jw,otxaXi5os Ke<^aXaiov. Iv rS> Kara, iuidvvriv evay- yeKita • w? ev rots nkeCoatv (sic) avTiypa<{>oi,i ' fxi] Ktifj-evov ' fit) Se napa tiSv Oemv irpuv • tiSp ep/arj- vevaavTiov (jLvqixovevOev • <|)rjju,t, Stj iwavTOv tov x- tfe KvpCWov aAefavSpe/: ovSe /arji/ iitto 6eoSu>: /mwv/^ow- e^r»js « t^S yaXiAaias • ovk eyetpsTai. This note has been printed commonly (as taken from Wetstein) with mistakes such as TrAeio-Toi? for TrXetoo-ii', an alteration which has been so rested on in argument as to affect the sense. The 86th section (tt?'), to which this note refers, commences at John vii. 45, and extends to the end of viii. 18. Now whatever may be the antiquity of this prefatory note, it appears to have belonged to a more ancient copy than Cod. 1. For, as it quotes vii. 52, ova iyeCperai, it can hardly have originated with this MS., which has in the text OVK iyeCyeprai, [*tcj (though commonly quoted for iyeiperat, as given by Wet- stein, who must have followed the note at the end, instead of the text itself of the MS.). ryctpcTtti is the best-supported reading (B D T A, 33, etc.). 238 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT This passage is omitted by A B C T (MSS. of the oldest class*), by L X A,t by Cod. 33, and more than fifty other cursive copies, by more than thirty lectionaries, in some of which, if not all, this passage is omitted where it would occur in the middle of a section. In connection with MSS. which omit this section, reference must be made to those mentioned above, which mark it as doubtful, or transfer it to the end of the Gospel, or place it elsewhere ; for all these are so far witnesses against its insertion. The versions to which this section does not belong are (i.) the Old Latin (as found in Cod. Vercellensis, the revised Cod. Brixia- nus, and some others), (ii.) the Peshito and (iii.) the Harclean Syriac, (iv.) the IMemphitic, in the MSS. of value and authority, (v.) the Thebaic, (vi.) the Gothic, (vii.) the Armenian. It is true that, in some of the editions of the Peshito Syriac, subsequent to that in Walton's Polyglot, this section is found; but it does not belong to that version: and so, too, such MSS. of the later Syriac as are cited as exhibiting it at all, mention that it is an addition. As to the Armenian, six old codices of those used by Zohrab omit the whole passage, as also do the MS. lectionaries; nineteen MSS. have the section separately, at the end of the Gospel, while only Jive (and those the most recent) place it here. One proof that it is a later addition, and not an original part of this version, is found in the great variety of forms in which it exists in those Armenian copies which contain it at all ; some of these are quite peculiar, and resemble none of the Greek copies. It is thus rejected, as not a genuine part of that version. (For this precise statement I am indebted to Mr. Charles Kieu.) Though the mere silence of ecclesiastical writers is no proof that they were unacquainted with a particular section, yet that silence becomes significant when they wrote expressly on the subject to which it relates, and when they wrote in such a way as to show * A and C are defective in this part of St. John's Gospel ; but it is certain, from the exactitude with which the quantity in each page of these MSS. can be calculated, that they could not have contained these twelve verses. t In L and A there is a blank space left, but not sufficient to contain the passage : the copyists seem to have had a notion that something was here inserted in some exemplars ; but this was clearly not the case with regard to those from which they were transcribing. In A, the first words of viii. 12 were at first written directly after vii. 52, and then a line was drawn through the words. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 239 tliat they could Kardly by possibility liave been acquainted with it. So, too, with regard to such ecclesiastical writers as wrote Commentaries. Thus it may be held for certain, that Tertullian* and Cyprian knew nothing of the passage ; while Origen and Chrysostom show in their Commentaries, that they were not aware of its existence. It has been indeed objected that nothing is proved by Origen's silence; because he often passes by portions of St. John's Gospel, and he had no occasion to mention this narrative : but, in reading his Commentary on this part of the Gospel, it is difficult (if not impossible) to imagine that he knew of anything between vii. 52 and viii. 12 : for he cites and comments on every verse from vii. 40 to 52, and then at once continues from viii. 12 in the same manner (iv. p. 299, ed. De la Rue). The silence of Chrysostom on the subject, as well as that of Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, was long ago noticed. The omission of this section by Nonnus, in his metrical Para- phrase of this Gospel, is worthy of notice ; for though he does pass by parts, yet no narrative portion of certain genuineness, and of such length as this, is unnoticed. * Granville Penn, in his " Annotations to the Book of the New Covenant," states well the argument which may be drawn from TertuUian's silence : he says, "That the passage was wholly unknown to Tertullian, at the end of the second century, is mani- fest in his book De Pudicifid. The Bishop of Rome had issued an edict, granting pardon to the crime of adultery, pn repentance. This new assumption of power fired the indignation of Tertullian, who thus apostrophised him : ' Audio [etiam] edictum esse propositum, et guidem peremptorium, ^''Pontifex scUicet Maximus [quod est] episcopus episcoporum, dicit [edicit] : "Ego et mcecJiicB et fornicationis delicta, poenitentid functis dimitto" ' (c. 1). He then breaks out in terms of the highest reprobation against that invasion of the divine prerogative ; and (c. 6) thus challenges: " Si ostendas de quibus patrociniis exemplorum praeceptorumque ccelestium, soli moe- chice, et in ea fornicationi quoque, januam poenitentiae expandas, ad hane jam lineam dimicabit nostra congressio.' ' If thou canst show me by what authority of heavenly examples or precepts thou openest a door for penitence to adultery alone, and therein to fornication, our controversy shall be disputed on that ground^ And he concludes with asserting, ' Queecunque auctoritas, qusecunque ratio moecho et fornicatori pacem ecclesiasticam reddit, eadem debebit et homicidse et idololatria? poenitentibus subve- nire.' — ^'Whatever authority, whatever consideration, restores the peace of the church to the adulterer and fornicator, ought to come to the relief of those who repent of murder or idolatry^ It is manifest, therefore, that the copies of St. John with which Tertullian was acquainted did not contain the ' exemplum cceleste, — the divine exam- ple^ devised in the story of the Uooman taJcen in adultery'' " (pp. 267, 268). Was this edict that of Callistus, referred to in the recently-discovered Philoaophoumena (of Hippolytus), ix. 12, pp. 290, 291 ? 240 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT It thus appears tliat the oldest MS. authority for this narration is D, and that the only important versions in its favour are the Vulgate, and such copies of the Old Latin as contain it. The Vulgate resolves itself into the testimony of Jerome, who men- tions that copies existed of both kinds, — those which contained it and those which did not. I have put together the authorities which contain this narration^ because, in fact, those in which it is found give it in such a variety of phraseology, as exceeds the difference commonly understood by the term various readings. In D, the oldest MS. which contains it, it is utterly unlike the other copies ; and they, too, abound in extraordinary variations. This circumstance would weaken the testimony of the authorities which contain this narration, even if there had been a less con- clusive array of witnesses (all the oldest MSS. except D, most versions, and decided testimony of fathers) on the other side. In the fourth century, this section seems to have obtained a place in some copies (first perhaps in the West, where it was first mentioned), but even then it is spoken of doubtfully; it gra- dually was received into most MSS., but still with expressions of uncertainty, and with notes of its doubtful authenticity; and thus, even though it was adopted as a part of the printed text by the first editors, yet its genuineness was not believed by Erasmus himself: the same opinion was held in that century by Calvin, Beza, and other biblical scholars.* If the last three hundred years have removed all feeling of question from many, it has not been from better grounds of certainty having been discovered, but from that kind of traditional inertness of mind, which has rendered many unconscious of what have been deemed the most manifest facts of criticism. We can no more canonise this passage, if it were not genuine Scripture from the beginning, than we can the books of the Apo- crypha, or any other writings. If the best MSS., versions, and fathers, know nothing of such a portion of Holy Scripture, it behoves all who value God's word not to adopt, as part of it, what is not only unsupported by sufficient evidence, but which is op- posed by that which could hardly be surmounted. The ancient * See Beza's note on the passage, above, page .34. OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 241 translators in general could not liave agreed, in so many countries, to pass by so considerable a portion of tbis Gospel, if they knew it, or bad it in tbeir Greek copies. I do not rest at all on tbe internal difficulties connected with tbis passage, on tbe supposition tbat it is genuine Scripture ; be- cause, if it bad been sufficiently attested, tbey would not present anything insurmountable. Tbe peculiarities of tbe language are indeed remarkable, and very unlike anything else in St. John's Gospel ; but to tbis it might be said, tbat tbe copies differ so much that it is almost impossible to judge what tbe true phraseology is. Perhaps the difficulties in tbe passage have been over-estimated: at least we have no reason to conjecture that any omitted it on account of such difficulties, any more than we have to think that any expunged it on doctrinal grounds, as suggested by Augustine. It may be felt by some to be a serious thing to conclude, that twelve whole verses which they have been accustomed to read are no part of Holy Scripture ; and yet if tbey are only in possession of a moderate share of information, tbey must know well that they are and have always been regarded as of unproved genuine- ness : I would also ask such, if it is not a very serious thing to accept, as part of the word of God, what (as tbey have tbe full opportunity of knowing) rests on precarious grounds, and is con- tradicted by tbe best testimonies? Would it not render all Scrip- ture doubtful, and go far to undermine all true thoughts of its authority, if all that rests on utterly insufficient evidence, and all that is supported by unquestionable testimonies, were placed on tbe same ground ? It is impossible to give real and sufficient sanction to tbat which is not attested to be a geniiine part of a book of Scripture, and thus, while it is in vain to attempt to raise it to the place of authority, the only consequence will be to de- press tbe true Scripture to the low and unsatisfactory level of such unattested additions. Though I am fully satisfied that this narration is not a genuine part of St. John's Gospel, and though I regard tbe endeavours to make tbe evidence appear satisfactory to be such as would involve all Holy Scripture in a mist of uncertainty, I see no reason for doubting that it contains a true narration. There is nothing unworthy of the acting of tbe Lord Jesus detailed in this history. 242 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT And thus I accept the narrative as true^ although its form and phraseology are wholly uncertain, and although I do not believe it to be a divine record. No doubt, that there were many narrations current in the early church of some of the many unrecorded ac- tions of our Lord, and the only wonder is that more have not been transmitted to us. This^ from the variety of its forms, seems to have been handed down through more than one channel. Perhaps some one added it at the end of John's Gospel, as one of the *' many things which Jesus did which are not written in this book," and others afterwards placed it where it seemed to them to belong. We learn from Eusebius, that Papias transmitted an account of a woman who was accused before our Lord, iKTeOetrat, Be Kal oXXtjv laropiav irepl yvvaiKo^^, iirl TroXXat? afxapTLaL<^ BLajBXrjOeL- 9 irapa [xev roS MarOalo) " oyfre aa^^drcov^^ (palverat eyr)yepfievo<^ 6 acoTrjp, irapa he rm MdpKO) '* Trpay'l'Tfj fjbia rwv aa/S^d- TuyvT * He thus commences his solution of the difficulty : tovtov Blttt} av eiTj r) XvaL<;' 6 fzev yap to Kecj^dXacov avro rrjv tovto (f)dep€crdai rot? dvTtypd(j)Oi<; rov Kara Mdp/cov evayyekiov, ra y ovv aKpu^rj twv avnypdipcov to reXo? Trepiypdcfyet, T?7? KaTci Tov MdpKOv laTopia<^ ev toZ<^ \6yoL<^ tov 6(^6evT0^ veavl- aicov Tah yvvai^l Kal elprjKOTO^; avTal^^ " fir] (po^elade, ^Irjaovv ^rjTeiTe tov Na^apr)v6v'^^ Kal tol<; ej^?, oU eTTikiyec, ^^ Kal aKov- aacraie^vyov, Kal ovSevl ovSev elirov, icj^o/SovvTo ydp." ev tovto) yap cr^eSov ev aTracn Tot9 dvTLypd(f>oc<^ tov KaTa MdpKOv evayyeXtov irepuyeypaiTTaL to Te\o<;' tcl he e^? cnTaviw<; ev Tiauv dXS! ovK ev iraai (pepo/iieva irepLTTa av etrj, Kal fidXtcrTa eiirep eypiev dvTiKoylav Trj twv Xocttcov evayyeXtaTcov /jtapTvpla' TavTa jjuev ovv eliTOi av tl^ 'TTapaLTOVfievo6vy€LV, ovTft)? dvayvcoo-o/jLcda, " dva(TTa0L<; ov/c rjv he TavTa tcl i'7rL(f>ep6/jb6va ev rw KaTa MdpKov evar/yeXlw' co? v66a yap evofXLaav avTd TLveoPovvTo yap, xvi. 8. II. That the remaining twelve verses, by whomsoever written, have a full claim to be received as an authentic part of the second Gospel, and that the full reception of early testimony on this question does not in the least involve their rejection as not being a part of Canonical Scripture.* It may, indeed, be said that they might have been written by St. Mark at a later period; but, even on this supposition, the attested * The conclusions at wliich Mr. Alford arrives in the note in his Greek Testament arc very similar to tlicse. OF THE GEEEK NEW TESTAMENT. 259 fact tliat the book once ended at ver. 8 would remain tKe same, and the assumption that the same Evangelist had added the con- clusion would involve new difficulties, instead of removing any. There is in some minds a kind of timidity with regard to Holy Scripture, as if all our notions of its authority depended on our knowing who was the writer of each particular portion; instead of simply seeing and owning that it was given forth from God, and that it is as much his as were the commandments of the Law written by his own finger on the tables of stone. As to many books of Scripture, we know not who the writers may have been ; and yet this is no reason for questioning their authority in the slightest degree. If we try to be certain as to points of which there is no proof, we really shall find ourselves to be substituting con- jecture in the place of evidence. Thus some of the early Church received the Epistle to the Hebrews as Holy Scripture ; who, instead of absolutely dogmatising that it was written by St. Paul — a point of which they had no proof — were content to say that " God only knoweth the real writer": and yet to many in the present day, though they have not one whit more evidence on the subject, it seems, that to doubt or disbelieve that Epistle to have been written by St. Paul himself, and to doubt or disbelieve its cano- nical authority, is one and the same thing. But this mode of treating Scripture is very different from what ought to be found amongst those who own it as the word of God. I thus look on this section as an authentic anonymous addi- tion to what Mark himself wrote down from the narration of St. Peter (as we learn from the testimony of their contemporary, John the Presbyter) ; and that it ought as much to be received as part of our second Gospel, as the last chapter of Deuteronomy (unknown as the writer is) is received as the right and proper conclusion of the books of Moses. I cannot but believe that many upholders of orthodox and evangelical truth practically narrow their field of vision as to Scripture by treating it (perhaps unconsciously) as though we had to consider the thoughts, mind, and measure of apprehension pos- sessed personally by each individual writer through whom the Holy Ghost gave it forth. This is a practical hindrance to our receiving it, in the full sense, as from God ; that is, as being really 260 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT inspired: for, if inspired, tlie true and potential author was God, and not the individual writer, known or anonymous.* We know from John the Presbyter just enough of the origin of St. Mark's Gospel to be aware that it sprang from the oral narra- tions of the Apostle Peter ; and we have the testimony of that long-surviving immediate disciple of Christ when on earth (in recording this fact) that Mark erred in nothing. But even with this information, if we thought of mere human authorship, how many questions might be started : but if we receive inspiration as Si fact, then inquiries as to the relation of human authors become a matter of secondary importance. It has its value to know that Apostles bore testimony to what they had seen of Christ's actions, and that they were inspired to write as eye and ear witnesses of his deeds and teaching. So it is of importance to know that in this Gospel we have the testimony of Peter confirmed by John the Presbyter ; but the real essential value of the record for the con- tinuous instruction of believers, is that inspiration of the Holy Ghost which constitutes certain writings to be Holy Scripture.f ^ " If one knew a person to have compiled a book out of memoirs, which he received from another, of vastly superior knowledge in the subject of it, especially if it were a book of great intricacies and difficulties ; it would in no wise follow, that one knew the whole meaning of the book, from knowing the whole meaning of the compiler : for the original memoirs, i. e. the author of them, might have, and there would be no degree of presumption, in many cases, against supposing him to have, some further meaning than the compiler saw. To say, tlien, that the Scriptures, and the things contained in them, can have no other or further meaning than those persons thought or had, who first recited or wrote them, is evidently saying, that those persons were the original, proper, and sole authors of those books, i. e. that they are not inspired." Butler's Analogy, pt. II. ch. vii. § 3, (Dr. Fitzgerald's edition, p. 267.) " On the aUoAvance of a real inspiration, it was God, and not the writer, who was the proper author of the Prophecy." Warburton's Divine Legation, book vi. sect. vi. (cited by Dr. Fitzgerald.) t Kac TovO' 6 TrpeajSvTepo? eA€7e' Map/cos /^ev ep/XT/veimj? Uerpov yevoiMevo?, oVa efimmovevcrev, o»cpt|3a>s eypa\}i€U. ov fiiv rot rafei to. vivo toC xpKnov r) Kex^ema r) npaxOduTa- ovre yap T^KOvae toO KvpCov ouT€ napriKo\ov6r](Tev avT(^' vcrrepov Se, oj? t4'^ft neVpo), 6s Trpbs ras ;i^peia5 cTroietTO to.? Sifiao-KaXca?, dA\' ovx wo'Tep cruVrafii' T(oi> Kvpicuiixii' noiovufvoi Xoywi/, uia-re ovSe;* rifxaprt M a p K o ;, ovTws euLa ypdxf/aq d)S ajreixirqfjLovevcTfv. ei'b? yap eTroiijcraTO npoi/oiav, rov fiijSec wi/ T^KOvcre TTapakineiv, r] xpeva-aaOat Tt ev avTOt?. (Euscb. H. F. iij. 39). We can hardly over-estimate the importance of this testimony of John the Pres- byter—a witness who had seen the actions of Christ when He was on earth, and had heard his teaching ; and who lived thus to attest the work of one who had not written from personal knowledge. Much has been said on the meaning of epMii'eviT;? neVpow, but it seems to be here used as indicating that Mark wrote for others the narrations which Peter had orally declared. The Presbyter says that Mark wrote ov rd^ei and ovx (o Ln. 'O^lav X 'O^eiav Ln. 'O^t'as X 'O^ei'a? Ln, 'E^eKiav X ^^C^K-etav Ln. 'E^eKt'as X 'ECeKf/a? Ln. ^AfjLav X 'A/xwy &w Ln. Tf. ^laxriav X 'laxreiav Ln. 'Icoo-ias X 'iMcreiaff Ln, Mar^az/ X Maddav bis Ln. 'lr;o-oi;, om. Tf. [Gb. -^3. yewrjaLS Cst. X yeveais Gb. Ln. Tf. U?^.] [Eec. Gb. ~]. ■yap, o»i. Ln. 7rapa8eiyfiaTLaai X ^eiyfxa- TLcraL Ln. Tf. [Gb.~]. Mapia/JL X Maplav Tf. rou Kvpiov^ om. tov Ln. Tf. [Gb.-*]. [^Zrc.] 6 Geos, o?ft. 6 Ln. buyepOhsiiyepOiis Ln.C^Za?] roi/ Ktoi/ avTrjs tov TrpcoTO- roKoz/Xuioi/Ln. Tf. [o?7i.avr. roz/ npcoT. Alx.} Chap. II. I. 'l€po(r6Xv[ia X 'lepovcraXrjiJ, Alx. 3. *Hpa)Sr;s 6 /SacrtXevy X o jSao". 'Hpa)S?7? Ln. Tf. [^Za^.] 8. aKpi^cos e^eTao-are X e^er. a.Kpi^a>s Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] 9. eaiveTai X ^atV. Kar oV. Ln. Tf. Alx. 21. ^X^ez/ X da-TJXdev Ln. Tf. 22. eTTt, om.Ln. [Gb.-»]. — 'Hpa)Sov roO iraTpos avTov X rov TvaTp. avT. '^HpcoS. Ln. 23. NaCapeT X Na^ape^ Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] Chap. III. I. Se Gb. -». lorn. Alx.} — Koi Xeycov, om. Koi Ln. Tf. 3. VTTO I 8ia Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 4. avTOV r^v X ^v avTOv Ln, Tf. 6. e^aTTTi^ovTO, add. [navTesl Ln. — 'lopSaPT/, acZcZ. TTOTafia Ln. Tf, [^Za;.] ' 7. auroO, om. Ln. Tf. 8. KapTTOvs a^iovs X Kapirbv a^iov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 10. ^'§7 Se Kai, o?ra. KOI Ln. Tf, [Gb. -]. \_Alx.-] 11. jSaTrrt^o) vpa? X vpay /3a7r- Ti(a> Ln. Tf. — Kat TTvpi Gb. -». [oTO. Cs^.] 12. avTOV Gb. -*. — dTToOrjKTjv^ add. avTov Ln. 14. ^IcodwTjs, om. Ln. Tf. i^. npos avTov X avrw Ln. Tf. 16. KOL ^aTrTL(j6e\s\^anTi(T6iis he Ln.Tf. — dve(3r] €v6vs X eu^y? dvejSrj Ln. Tf [^Za;.] — dveaxdi]crav X rjveaxOrjcrav Ln. ; aurM [Ln.]. — Kal ipxdfjievov, om. Koi Ln.Tf. 24, Chap. IV. 6 Ir^o-Qi)?, om. 6 Tf. avTa, om. Tf. [^Za;.] eiTTfV, fl^ZcZ. atiro) Ln. Tf. iAlx.'] avdpooTTOS X avOpcoTTOS Ln. Tf. [Gb.~]. ^Za;. eVt ttuvtI X eV Trai/ri Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. 'L(TTrj(Ttv X €(TTr]cr€v Ln. [Gb. ~]. ^Za?. Xeyet X ewrei' Ln. Xeyet X f iTrev Ln. [^Za?.] Trdi^ra o-oiXo-oi7ravr.Tf.[^Za;.] "Ynaye, add. onia-co fxov Gb. -* Sch. [Ln.] Tf. 6 'iT/fToCiff, om. Tf. [Gb. ^2. Alx. 'NaCaperXNaCaped Tf.[^Za;.] ; TSla^apdd Ln, Karrepvaovp, X Kacfiapvaovp, Ln. Tf, [Gb. fa] Sic semper. Alx. (TKorei eiSe ^coy X ctkotlo. (pas ddev Ln. Tf. 6'lr](rovs, om.Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. avTo7s, add. 6 ^Irjaovs [Ln.]. oXtjv TTjv TaXiXaiav 6 'l?y- (Tovs X o 'It^o-oOs' 0X77 r^^ TaXiXaiq Ln. ; eV 0X77 r^ FaXiXaiaTf. lom.6^Ir]aovsl. KOL datp-ovL^oixevovs, om. Koi Ln. Tf, Chap. V. I, avra, om. Ln, 4 & 5. Trans. Ln, (text) Tf. 9. aiirot [Ln.]. II. prjfxa, om. Ln. Tf. — KaO" vpajv, ante ndv nov. Tf. — 'v|/"ei;Sopei/oi,om.Ln.Tf.[Gb.^]. 13, jSXrjdrjvai e^o) Kal X ^Xr]6ev Ln, Tf. 21, eppedr) X ^pprjdr] Ln. Tf. (ei sic deinceps). 22. etK^, om. Ln. Tf. 25, eV TTJ oSw per' avroO X p-^T avTov iv TTj 6S« Ln. Tf. 20 26. ere TrapaSoJ, om. Ln, 27. TOiff dpxatoi9, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 28. aiiT^ff X avTTiv Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. c^]. — avTov X eavTOv Ln. 30. ^Xrjdfj els yeevvav X f ^^ y^'- ewai/ aTTiXdi] Ln. Tf. [^te.] 31. OTi, om. Ln. Tf. [^/.r.] 32. OS av cLTToXvcrrj \ rras 6 mro- XvodV Ln. [Gb. ~]. lAlx.} — [xoLxacrdaLX fJ-OLX^vOrivai Ln. Tf. [Alx.l — OS iav oTToX. ya^Tjar] X o drroXeX. yaixrjcras Ln. 36. ^ ixeKaLvav noirjcrai X ttoi^- crai rj fieXaivav Ln. Tf, 37. eVrci) X eVrai Ln. Tf. 39. paTTLO-ei eVt X pa-iriC^t (Is Ln. — (Tov o-iayoj/a X criayova crou Ln. Tf. 42. Si'fiou X 5o's Ln. Tf. 44. euXoyelre Tovs naTapcapevovs vpds, KoXcos TTOLelre tovs pLKTOvvras vpas., om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J] [roty picrovcriv Gb. Sch.]. — fTrrjpfa^ouTcov vpas, kol, om. Ln.Tf. [Gb.-]. 46. ro avTo X o^rcos Ln. Tf. 47. d8iX(povs X cfii-Xovs Gb. ~. — reXcoi/ai X i6viKo\ Gb. Ln. Tf. [^te.] [Rec. Gb.~]. — ourco X TO avTO Ln. Tf. [./ite.] 45. o)(nr€p X «? Ln. Tf. [Alx.] — ev To7s ovpavols X ovpdvios Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. Alx. Chap. VI. I. npoaex^TC, culd. be Tf. [^?a;.] — eXer}poavvr)v X diKatocrvJ/rjv Gb. Ln. Tf. [^te.] 4. auroy, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -►]. [Alx.] — ev r6> (pavepcp, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.'=:]. ^te. S- npoaevxo X 7Tpo(X€vxr]a6e ovK. eaeaOe Ln. Tf. [^te.] — oiCTTTep X paTa avriov, om. Tf. [Gb. =5]. coanep X cos Ln. Tf. avTcov X eavToov Ln. on a7reYOuo"i, om. on Ln. Tf. rot? dvOpoiuois vrjareiKov X i/7;oT. roiy dv6p. Ln. KpvTTTa X Kpvv Tf. ^te. Chap. VIII. 1. 'KaTa^dvTi be avra X 'fo' KaTajidvTos avTov Ln. ; [xa- TajSdvTos avTov Alx.] 2. eXOcbv X TTpoaeXdcov Ln. Tf. [Gb. cv-]. 3. 6 'It/o-ovs-, om. Ln. Tf. [ylte.] 4. TTpocreveyKe X npoaeveyKov Ln. Tf. — Mcoo-jjy X Mcoilo-^y Ln. Tf. {semper) [Gb. -'^]. 5. 'El(TeX66vTL be TO) 'ir/aoC X etcreX. be avTa Gb. Sch, Tf. ; elcreXdovTOs be avTov Ln. [Alx.] 7. Kai Xeyet avTW 6 ^Irjaovs X Aeyei avTco Ln. Tf. 8. Kai dTTOKpidels X diroKpid. be Ln. — Xdyoi/ X Xdyo) Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf, 9. e^ovaUiVyadd.Taaaopevos Ln. 10. dKoXovdovaiv, add. avra i^n. — ovbe ev ro) ^laparjX Tocrav- TTjv irlaTLV X Trap' ovbevX Tocr. TTiaTiv ev to) 'lapaTjX Ln. Tf. 13. eKaT0VTdpx

v xolpoiv.^ om. Gb. Ln. \,Alx.'\ . avvavrrjcriv X vnavrrjcnv Ln. OTTcos X iJ^ct Ln. Chap. IX. TO, om. Ln. Tf [Gb. -»]. ^Zar. Trpoa-ecfiepov X npocrcpepov- (TiP Ln. d(f>e(ovTai X d^ievraL Ln. o^ot at dfiapriai crov X crou at d/zap. Ln. Tf [Gb.~3. ^te. eiTTOV X f iVai/ Ln. lba>v X €iSa)s Ln. [Gb. ^=3. Vfxeis, om. Ln. Tf. d(f)ea>VTai X d]. 10. pdjSdou X pd^8ovs Sch. Tf ^[Gb. ^]. [Ln. mg.] — ea-TCVf om. Ln. Tf. [^?a?.] 12. ad fin. add. Xeyovres., 'Etprjvt] Tft) oiKG) TOVTG) ^Za;. 13. eX'Bero) "X eXBaro) Tf. 14. edu X ai/ Ln. Tf. — e^epxdfievoi, add. e^co Ln. Tf. — Kovioprovj add. €K Ln. 15. Tofioppcov X Tofioppas Tf. [Gb. f«]. .4Za;. 19. 7rapa8c86i)(riv X Trapadaxriv Ln. Tf ; napaddxTOvaiv Alx. — 8o6rj(reTat yap vplv iv iKiivrj T^ &pa tI XaXrjcreTej Gb. -♦. [Ln.] 23. aXXrjv X irepav Gb. Ln. ; add, Ik&v ev rfi erepa, diaKcoariv vfids, (fievyere els ttjv dX- Xr]v2 Ln. ; add. eadem^ sed eK TavTTjs Gb. -*. — yap Gb. -» ; om. [Alx.} — Tov, om. Ln. Tf. - dv, om. Tf. 25. TOV olKodeo-iroTTjv X ro) oIko- decTTTOTTj Ln. - eKaXecrav X eneKaXeaav Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - rows oIkiukovs X Totff ot/cia- Koiff Ln. 28. (}io^rje^T€ X <})o^e7(r6e Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — aTTOKreti/dz/rci)!' X aTroKrer- vovTcov Ln. Tf. ; aTTO/CTewi'- Tcov Gb. Sch. - /cat '^vxrjv., [/fat] Ln. 29. eVt Tr)v yrjv, Gb. ^. 31. (Po^T]BfJTe X ffio^elo-Be Ln. Tf [^Za7.] 33, ovpavois X '■ots oyp. Ln. Tf. 33. S'di/ X 8e Ln. Tf — avTov Kayoi X /cdyoj avTov Ln. Tf. - ovpavois X '"ots ovp. Ln. Tf. 38. OS ov Xap^dvei X os dv prj dpTj Ln. mg. - oKoXov^eT X dKoXovBrja-T] Ln. mg. 42. edv X av Ln. Chap. XI. 2. Suo X 8id Ln. Tf. [Gb. fv]. Alx. 5. Kot ;;^a>Xot, IkoI} Ln. — Kai Kox^ot, [/cat] Ln. - i/e/fpoi,prce??2,./fatTf[Ln.]^Za:. — Kat 7rr£o;;^ot, IkuI} Ln. 6. edv X ai/ Ln. 7. 8, 9. e^rjXBeTeX e^rjXBaTe Ln. Tf [Alx.] 8. tfjLaTLOts, om. Tf. [Ln.] ~ /SacrtXecoi/ X j^aaiXeicov Sch. ^[Gb. cv]. 9. iSeti/ ; 7rpo(f)rjTr]v X rrpocj). Ide2v Tf. 10. ydp [Ln.] — eyo) [Ln.] - OS X Kat lin. Tf, ri. avTOv eaTLv\i(TTiv avTOv Tf. 13. 7rpO((pT}T€VCraV X (1TpO(f)T]T. Ln. Tf. 15. aKoveLV, om. Tf. 16. TratSapt'oisXTratSioty Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — eV ciyopaT? KaBrjpevoLS X '^a^* eV dyopa Ln. [Gb. f*^]. Alx. ; Kad. iv dyopals Tf. — KOL TTpoacpoivovai Tois irai- pois avTOiV, 17. Ka\ \eyov- (Tiv X « 7rpoa-(li(ovovvTa rols eraipois (irepois) Xeyovaiv Ln. (Tf.) Gb. f^. [Alx.] — vp.lv, om. Ln. Tf. lAIx.] 2T. XopaCiv X Xopa^f tv Tf. — BrjOadibav X BrjOadida Ln. [Gb. ~]. ^Z^. 23. Tj e(os X /^'7 ft^y Ln. [^te.] — roO, o??i. Ln. Tf. — yyl/codela-a X vy\rco6r]s Tf. [Gb. p=>]. ./iZo;. ; vy\roi6r](rri Ln. [Cs'f.] — KaTa^L(Baa6r]ar] X Karaj^r)- ar) Ln. Tf. — syevouToXiyevqdrja-av'Ln.Tf. — yevop-evai iv croiy €p,eLvav X eV ao\ yev. e'jxeLvev Ln. Tf. 2g. dneKpyylras X e/cpu'\|/'as'Ln.Tf. 26. eyevero €vdov X p-elC^v Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb.H. 7."EXeoi/ X eXeoff Ln. Tf. 8. /cat, o?n. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 10. rjv TTjv., om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 11. earai.) om. Tf. — e-yfpei X ey^t-pfi. Ln. 12. ad(:iliacn X cra/^/Sdroi? Ln. 13. r;]!' X^V" '''^^ ^ ^°^ '^'^'^ ^ftpa Ln. Tf. — dTTOKUTeaTddr) )[ direicaTcaT. Sch. Ln. Tf. 14. Oi 8e ^apioralot crv p.(iov\LOv €Xa(3ov KciT avTOv i^ikdov- Tfs X e^fX^. fie oI 6s X 8atp.ovi(6p.evov rv- (pXov Koi Kaxpdv Ln. — Tov TV(f)X6v, om. Ln. Tf. — Koi Xakelu, om. KaX Ln. Tf. 25. 6 'iT/crovy, offi. Ln. Tf. 27. vpLcbv eaouraL Kpirai X Kptr. ecrovT. vp.wv Ln. Tf. 28. eyo) ey nvev/zari 0eov X ^v Uv. eeou eyo) Gb. Sch.Ln.Tf. 29. btapTrdaaL \ apTTdcrai Ln. Tf. — dtapTrdcreL X dpTrdoret Ln. Tf. 31. Tots' dvOpcoTTOLS 2°, om. Ln. 32. av X fdj^ Ln. Tf. — ovK d(ji€dr]creTai X ow p.T) dcpedfj Ln. — rourco TO) X T'S i^i'^' Sch. [Gb.'~]. ' 35. tt}? KapdiaSy om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Ta, om. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ->]. 36. edy, om. Ln. Tf. — XaX.T^crcoo-ii' X XaXT^crotiorti/ Tf. 38. dTreKpidijo-dv, add. avTa> Ln. Tf. iAhc.l — KOL ^apicraicov, om. Ln, 42. 2 oXop.c5 zeros' X ^oXop.oi)Vos bis Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 44. ^Emv ovpaviov, Gb. -♦. 14. eV, ow. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. a>0"i, acZJ. [at'Tcoi/] Ln, crvvCicn X crvvicbcnv Sch. Tf. JGb. ~]. ldcra)p.oi X ldcrop.ai Ln, Tf. [Gb.~]. [^te.] vptoVy om. Ln. oKovei X aKououo-tv Ln. Tf, [^te.] ei'Soi/ X ei^av Ln. aTreipovTOs X (XireLpavros Ln. Tf. TovTOf, o?ra. Ln. Tf. yi}!/ T^yv koXtjv X xaXrjv yijv Ln. Tf. crvviav X crvvuls Ln, Tf. (TTTeipovTi X (rneipavTi Ln. Tf. [^te.3 eaneipe X eTreaTreipav Ln. Tf. TO, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. fioyXoi, om. Tf. etVoi/ auTw X air« Xeyovo-ti/ Ln. Tf. e<^j; X (prjatv Ln. Tf. /ie'xpt X f^. ^. eavXav Ln. Tf. 9, eXvTrrjdt] 6 jSacriXevs, bia 8e revs X XuTTjy^eiS' 6 /3av, Koi X o Xaos o5ro? Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.l 12. aiirou, om. Ln. Tf. lAlx.] — eiTTOV X Xeyovo-iy Ln.Tf. ^te. 14. odrjyoL elcri TVj. ovnco X ov Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] 22. eKpavyacrev X eKpa^ev Ln. (txt.) ; eKpa^ev Ln. mg. — avTw., om. Ln. Tf. — vie X ^'o? Ln. Tf. 23. rjponTOiV X rjpo>TOVV Ln. Tf. 25. TrpocreKvvet X TTpocreKvvqaev Gb. f«. Ln. mg. 26. eVri KciKov \ e^ecmv Ln. Tf. 30. TVCfiXoVSf Ka>v 6 'irjaovs rj\j/aTO avToiv, Koi X TrpoarjkOcv 6 ^Itjct. Kol dyj/dfievos avT(ov Ln. aTTO X eK Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf duaarrj X ^y^P^fj Ln- Tf. awrou, cwi. Ln. 'iT/o-ouff, om. Ln. Tf [Gb. =J]. AIx. auTols, om. Ln. Tf. npaTov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =^]. aXX' X aXXa Tf. eXdoPTODV avTa>v X iXOoV' Tcov Ln. ; eX^cbi/ Tf. avra X airoj/ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Trdax^i- X f X^* ■''-'^• eVo/xat jLie^' vpcavXp-fO* vfi. ecrop.. Ln. Tf [^te.] '1770-01}?, om. Ln. Tf [^te.] eiVei/ X Xeyet Ln. Tf. dma-Tiav X oXiyoTrtcrrtai' Ln. [^Zcc.] MeTdf^rjOi ivrevOevJ^ perd^a €v6ev Ln. Tf dua(TTp€ ovpava, om. ra bis Ln. Tf 19. ndXtv X a/XT^i/ Ln. ; add. dprjv Gb. ^. [Alx. & Cs«.] — vpa>V (TVpVrj(T(ii(JLv\(TVp- (ficov. e^ vpcovJjn.Tf.; {avp- (fioivrjaovaip Tf.) 21. auro) 6 Uerpos eirre X o Ile- Tpoy eirrev avrw Ln. Tf. 22. dXX' X aXXa Ln. Tf 24. Trpoa-rjvexQrj X'^poo-fjx^^ Ln. Tf 25. Kvpios avTOv., om. avT. Tf. — etxf X f'xft Ln. Tf 26. Kvpie, om. Ln. Tf. — COL, post dnobaxroi Ln. [^/«r.] ; 0771. Tf 27. eKeluov, om. Ln. 28. eKelvos, om. Ln. — /xoi, 077Z. Ln. Tf [Gb.=5]. ^te. — 6 tl\ e'i Ti Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 29. €is Tovf TTobas avTovy om. Gb. Ln. Tf [Alx.] — epol X epe Ln. Tf — 7rai/ra, om, Sch. Tf [Ln.] Gb. -]. 30. dXX* X n^^" Ln. Tf — ov, om. Ln. Tf 31. 5e ot o-vj'SouXoi avTOv X out' avTOv ol avvd. Ln. — avTOiv X eavTcou Ln. Tf. 33. /fai eyo) X Acdycb Ln. Tf. 34. ov, om. Ln. — avT(o, om. Ln. Tf. 35. enovpdvios X ovpdvios Ln, Tf. [Gb. ^]. ^?a^. — ra TTapaTTTOipara avrcov, om. Gb. Ln. Tf [Alx.] Chap. XIX. I. TTjs TaXiXalas., om. rrjs Elz. 3. 01 ^apiaaloi, om. oi Ln. Tf. — aurw, o??i. Ln. Tf [Gb. ^]. ^Z;». — dvOpama, om. Ln. Tf. 4. aurotj, OTO. Ln. Tf. [Alx.} i."EveKev X eve/ca Ln. Tf. — 7rpoaKoWrjdr)aeTaL X koXXt;- <977o-. Sch. Ln. Tf [Gb. ~]. ij. Mcoarjs X Mcovarjs Ln. Tf {et sic deinceps). — avTTjv, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.l 9. on, o»i. Ln. Tf. — el prj eVt nopveia X fi^ fVl TTopvela Gb. Tf [Cs/;.] ; Trap, t/croy Xdyou iropveias Ln. [^Za;.]. 10. avrou, om. Tf. 11. ToCroi', 0771. Tf. [Ln.] 13. Trpocrrjvex^V X Trpoo-Tjvexdr]" aav Ln. Tf. [^te.] 14. eineVy add. avrols Alx. 1$. avTo7s rds x^^P<^^ X t^s X^^ft' avT. Ln. Tf 16. elnev avra X avra elir. Ln. Tf — dyaOe, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. Alx. — ex(o X c^*^ Ln, Tf [^^^771' aid). KXi]povopT](TCi> Ln. mg.] 17. Ti /if Xeyei? dya^df ; ov8e\s dyados, el pfj els, 6 Qeos X Ti pe epcaras irepX tov dya- 60V ; els euTLV 6 dyaOos Gb. Ln. Tf [Rec. Gb, <^-], Alx. — elcreXdelv els ttjv ^(orju X ^'■S Tqv C^Tjv elaeX. Ln. Tf. — Trjprjaov X rrjpei Ln. Tf. 18. AeyeL X ecprj Ln. — ov (poveixreis' ov poLxevcreis X ov poix- ov (f)ov. Ln. mg. 19. TTOTepa aov^ om. crov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 20. TrdvTa Tavra X Tavr. Trdvr. Ln. [Alx.'] — ecfivXa^uprjv X e(f)v\d^a Ln. Tf [Alx.} 20. €< VCOTtJTOS [XOVy OM. Ln. Tf. Gb. -*. 21. ecf)T] X XcyeL Ln. — TTTcoxols^ prcem. toIs Ln, Tf. — ovpava X ovpavoLS Tf. Ln. mg. 22. roi/ Xoyoj/, om.Tf. ; addvvr]S X 'looai'. Trpoff vp.. Ln. Tf. — ovX ovde Ln. Tf. Alx. 33. TLS, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — e^edoTO X i^edeTO Tf. 38. KaTdcrxoop-ev X (J'X^H-^^ ^^^ Tf [Gb. ~]. Alx. 41. eKboaeTaL X eK^axreTai Gb. Ln. Tf [Eec. Gb. f^]. 44. Kal 6 Tvecrcov em tov XiBov TOVTOV crvv6Xaa6ri(T€Taf ecf)' ov 6' av rriar], XiKp.rjaec av- TOW ver. 44, o)n. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.-]. 46. TOVS o)(Xovs X TOU O)(\0V Lll. mg. — eTTii^f) X fVci Tf. Alx. — «s X etV Ln. Tf. [Gb. :^]. Alx. Chaf. XXII. I. avTois iv napa^oXais X cV TrapajS. avrols Ln. Tf. 4. f)TOi.fiaara X TjTOLfiaKa Ln. Tf. 5. 6 /Mej/ X Off /ieV Ln. Tf. [Alx.] — 6 5e X oy Se Ln. Tf. Ute.] — ety TJ7V X ^'tti ttjv Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. >j. ^AKovaas 5e 6 /SacrtXevs X o Se iSao-iX. QK. Ln. Tf. [Gb. t^]. Alx. ; Kai a/c. 6 /3acr. Sch.; aTr] Kul fieyciXr) X V /^ify- Ka\ TrpoiTq Ln. Tf. (sjc sine t) Gb. tv). yfir. 39. (TfavTou X eauroi/ [Gb. <^]. 40. Ka\ ol npcxPiiTai Kpep-avrai X Kpep-arai mi 01 7rpo(j). Ln. Tf. [ylte.] MATTHEW. 43. Kvpiov avTov KoXel X f«XeT avrbv Kvp. Ln. Tf. — avTOLS, add. 6 'lijcrovs Alx. 44. 6 Kvpioy, cwi. 6 Ln. Tf. — vTTcnrodcov X VTvoKorai Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 46. atro) UTVoKpiOrivai X airoKp. avTW Ln. Tf. [^te.] Chap. XXIII. 3. TTjpelv., om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -♦]. — T^pelre Koi 7roL€7T€ X ttoltj- aare Ka\ -n/pfireLn.Tf. [^?a?. sic s. TTOtetre]. 4. yap X Se Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. — Koi dva^do-raKTa., om. Tf. [Gb. ->]. , ^ ^ ^ — TO) SeX airol 5e ro) Ln.[^?a;.] 5. nXaTVPova-i Se X TrXar. yap Ln. Tf. [Gb. v IpaTiaiV avTcov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -*]. 6. re X 5e Ln. Tf. [Ala;.] 1. pa/3/3i, f5a^/3t' X /5a/3/3/ Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. 8. 6 KaQrjyrjTrjs X o StSacr/caXoy Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. — 6 Xpicrrds', o?w. Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 9. 6 narrip vjiav \ vfxau 6 na- TT)p Ln. — eV rois ovpavots X ovpdvios Ln. Tf. 10. eiff ydp vp.a)V icmv 6 Kadij- yrjTTjs X oTi Ka6T]yT)Tr]S vp.a)V icTTLV eis Ln. Tf. [Gb. t^]. Alx. 13. Ouat {i/iti/, ypapparels Ka\ ^apKTaloi., VTTOKpiTal.) OTl KarecrdieTe ras oiKias rcov Xr^puiv, Ka\ 7rpo(f)d(Tec fxaKpa. Trpocrevxbpevot • did tovto Xrj'^eade irepicrcroTepov Kpi- /Lia, om. Ln.Tf. [Gb.^] Alx.; ver. 13 post ver. 14 Elz. ; {.con- tra Sch. C;.'^) 17. Tis X Ti Ln. — pei^cov X pilC^iv Ln. — dytd^coz/ X dytdo-aff Ln. Tf. 18. edu X ai/ Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 19. p-copol Ka\, om. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. -». 21. KaroiKouiTi X KaToiKTjaavTi Gb. Sell. Tf. 23. roj/ eXeoy X to eXeoy Ln. Tf. [Alx.] ~ Tuvray add. 8e Ln. Tf. [Gb.-]. Alx. 23. dc^teVat X affielvai Ln. Tf. 24. oi, offi. Ln. 25. e^, om. Ln. — aKpaaias [Alx.] X dStxias Gb. Sch. [Rec. Gb.~]. Cst. 26. Ka\ TTjs 7rapo\//'i8oy, ow. Tf. [Gb. =J]. — avTwv X airou Ln. Tf. [Gb. f«*]. Alx. 27. Trapofioid^ereXofJiotd^eTeLn. 28. fxe(TTOL €(TT€ X eVre /xecrroi 1 Ln. Tf. [^te.] I 30. rjfjievbis X ^'/xe^a Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — KOlVCOVol aVTCOV X O.^T' KOIV. Ln. Tf. 34. Koi i^ 1°, o»i. Koi Ln. Tf. 35. eKxyvopLevov X e/c;^vwd/xej'oi/.l Ln. Tf. I 36. rj^ei, prcem. on Gb. -» & Sch. — raOra ndin-a X ndvTa ravra Ln. Tf. 37. aTvoKTelvova-aXdiTOKTivovcra Gb. c^. 1 — enLcrvvdyei opvis X opi'. eVt- | o-uj/. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] — iavTTJ^., om. Ln. Tf. TTTepvyas, add. avT^s [Ln.] Tf. 38. epTjuoSf om. Ln. Chap. XXIV. 1. €7ropev€TO drrb tov Upov X 0770 TOV lep. eTTopeveTO Tf. (sic.) sed €K Ln.) [Alx.] 2. ^lr](Tovs X drroKpiOeXs Ln. Tf. [^te.] — Ol; i°, Gb. ^ ; 0?n. ^Za:. — Trdira Tavra X raOra 7rdi/ra Ln. Tf. — pr] KaTaXv6r]creTaL.) om. /u) Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 3. padrjTai, add. [avTov] Ln. — Trjs avvTcXeias, om. Trjs Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 6. Tvavra., om. Ln. [Gb. -»]. Alx. 7. Ka\ Xoipol, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 9. Tcoi/ eBvoiiVy om. tcov Elz. 15. eaTcos X (TTOS St. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 16. eVi X fty Ln. 17. KaTal3aiv€TO X KUTa^dTco Ln. [Jte.] — ri X rd Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 18. rd IpdTia X '''d t/xdrtoj/ Ln. [Gb. c^]. ylte. 20. eV aa^^aTO), om. eV Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 23. 7n(TTevaT]T€ X TTLCTTeveTe Ln. 24. nXavijcraL X 7rXamo"^a6 Ln. mg. 27. KOi, a??i. Sch, Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 28. yap, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -»]. .^te. 30. rw ovpavco, om. ra Ln. Tf. 32. eK(l)vr] X €K(pvrj Ln. [Gb. f^]. 34. ou jLij), prcem. on Ln. [^Za?.] — Travra ravra X ravra 7rdi/ra 35. TrapeXevarovTai X TrapeXev- o-erai Gb. Ln. Tf. [^te.] 36. T^y (S/jay, otw. t^s Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. . — ovpavS)v, add. ovde 6 vtosLn. '[Alx.'\ — fxov, om. Gb. Ln. lAlx.'\ 37. Ka\ T) Trapovcrla, om. Ka\ Ln. Tf. 38. axTTrep X 00s Ln. Tf. — rjfiepaLS, add. eKelvais Ln. — rals npo, om. Tf. [Gb. — ]. — eKyajXL^ovTes X yajiia-Kovres Ln. 39. Kat 77 Trapovaia, om. Ka\ Ln. Tf. 40. Svo €(TOVTac X eVoy. Svo Ln. — 6, om. 6is Ln. Tf. [Gb.^]. Alx. 41. p.vXa)vc X /ivXo) Ln. Tf. 42. copa X '7/^fpa Ln. Tf. [^te.] 44. (Spa ou doKelreXov 80K. &pa Ln.Tf. 45. Kvpios avTov, om. avTov Ln. Tf. [^te.] — OepaTreias X ol<€Teias Ln. Tf. — StSoj/ai X Soumi Gb. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. --v]. Alx. 46. TToiovvra ovras X ovrco? Trot. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 48. 6 KVpiOS flOV X jl-tOU O KVpiOS Ln. Tf. [^Z.r.] — i\6elv, om. Ln. 49. crui'SouXous-, add. avTov Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. — eadUiv Se Ka\ ntveiv X ea-Qlrj be Koi nivTj Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Chap. XXV. 1. avTav X iavTav Ln. Tf. — ajravrriaLV X vttclvt. Ln. Tf. 2. ^o-av e^ avTcov X ^| auro)?/ ^o-av Ln. Tf. lAlx.] — (j)p6vip.oi X p-(^pai Ln. Tf. [^te.] — at Trivre, om. al Elz. Gb. Ln. Tf. ; 7ia6en< Sch. [Gb. ~.] — p-copal X v Ln. Tf. — avToov 2° X eavrcou Ln. 6. epx^rai, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. [^Za?.] — aurou, om. Tf. 7. aurcov X eavrav Ln. Tf. 8. eiVoz/ X eiVai/ Tf. 9. ovK X ov fir] Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. — Se fxaWov, om. Se Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. II. Kal, o?rt. Ln. 13. iv J] 6 vlos Tov dvdpaTTOV epx^rai, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. 16. de [Ln.] — enolr]crev X eKepbrjcrev Ln. [Gb. ~]. — roKavra, om. Ln. [Gb. -*]. 17. axravrais Ka\ X tutT-. [xai] Ln. — Ka\ avTos, om. Ln. Tf, [Gb. -»]. ^te. 18. ei/, (kZ(^. raXaiToi/ Ln. — iv Trj yfi XyrjV Tf. — dneKpy-^e X eKpvyjfev Ln. Tf [^Z:c.] 19. XPOVOV TToXvV X TToXvV XP^~ vov Ln. Tf. [^?a;.] — /Lier' avTcou Xoyov X Xd-yov p.er avT. Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] 20. err avTols, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -*]. Alx. 2i."E(Pt] 8e, om. Se Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 22. XaSav, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -»]. Alx. — en avTols, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. ^ ^ 26. TTOirqpe SovXe X SoCXe ttoi/. Ln. 27. oZv ere X 0-6 o^v Tf. 29. diro de rev fxfj X tov be p.rj Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 30. en^aXXere X eic/SaXere Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 31. aytOL, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. lAlx.} 32. ]. ^te. 4. KpaTr](ra>at boXcoXboX.Kpar. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf! 7. dXd^acTTpov fxvpov exovaaX ex- aXa/3. p.vpov Ln. [^Za;.] — ^apvTip.ov X TroXvTLfJLov Ln. [^te.] — TT^v Ker.] — enxwopevov X eKxvvv6[xevov Ln. Tf. [^IZa;.] 29. oTt, om-. Ln, [Alx.] — yevvrjfjLaTOs X yevrjixaTos Ln. Tf. [^Zx.] — /i€^' vp.u)V Kaivov X Kati/oz/ 31. biacTKopTncrBrjaeTai X ^t<^- , add. be Gb. ■*. 35. dTrapvr)(Top.aL X dTrapvrja-oi- p,aL Cst. — 'Ofioiois, add. be Sch. Gb. t'. 36. Ve6ar)iJ.avi] X Teda-Tjfxavei Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. — p,a6r}Taii, add. avTOV Ln. [^Za;.] 36 42 ov X ov av, Ln. ; av Tf. ; om. • Trpocrev^cofJuiL CKel X f '^f ' TTpoaev^. Ln. Tf. [J?a;.] . aLTots-, a<7rf. 6 'l7;o-o€s Sch. [Gb. 't^]. . 7rpo€\6u>v X npocrekdiov Sch. [Gb. ~]. • /iof , om. Tf. • napeXdeTO) XTrapeX^arcoLn. Tf. [Alx.] . TO TTOTTJpLOV, OM. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^l [AIx.l • an epov, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. ^]. [^te.] ^ ^ ^ . €Vpl(TK€l aVTOVS TToXlV X TTO- Xlv evpev avrovs Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. . dneXdcov ndXiv X naXiv drr- eXd. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] eK rpiTov, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. -]. ^ , avTov.) om. Ln. Tf. AIx. TO XotTTOV, om. TO Tf. [Alx.] .ecji v ev TaL X ^"^'• avTov Sch. ^ai/arcocrcoo-ti' X davaTUtaov- aiv Ln. Tf. /(«1 TroXXwi/, 07n. /cat Gb. Ln. Tf. lAlx.'] yj/fv^opapTvpoiv npnaeXdui'- TOiv X npoaeXd. yj/evdopcip. Ln. Tf. Alx. [Gb. - ttoXX. yj/evb. npoatXd.] M A T T H E W. 6o. ovx ivpov.) om. Gb. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. — \}/€v8opdpTvpes,om.Tf.[Alx.] 6i. avTOu, om. Tf. ; ante oIko8. Ln. mg. 63. aTTO/cpt^eiy, om. Alx. e^.^OTL, om.'Ln.Tf. [Alx.'i — avTov., om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. -»]. 67. eppdmcrav X epdmcrav Ln. Tf. [^te.] 69. e^co lK.d6rjTO X e/ca^. e^co Ln. Tf. 70. epTrpocrdev, add. avTwv [Gb. -*]. Sch. 71. i^eXdovTa be avTov X e^eX- 66vTa 5e, s. i^eXdovTOs 8e ayrot) ^7.a?. — aOroi/, 1° [Ln.] — rots' e/cerXavrotj e/c. Sch. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 72. /ie(9' X M^™ Ln. Tf. 74. KUTavadepaTL^eLV X KaToOe- paTiCeiv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 75. rou 'It/o-oC, ow. tov Ln. Tf. [Gb.=J]. ^?a:. — avTW, om. Tf. [Ln.] Jte. Chap. XXVII. 2. TrapedoiKav avTov, om. avTov Ln. Tf. [Alx.1 — UovTicp, om. Tf. [Alx.'] 3. TTapaddovs X napabovs Ln. — aTTecTTpeyfAe X ea-Tpeyf/^ev Tf. — rot? irpea-^vTipois., om. toIs Ln. Tf. [^Z:r.] 4. dScoov X biKaiou Gb. ~. — o\/^et X o\/^?7 Sch. Ln. Tf. 5. ef Toi i/ao) X f^y ''"oi' I'aoi/ 6. (LTTov X etVai/ Ln. Tf. — KoplBavdv X Kop^dv Ln. mg. II. eVr?/ X earddrj Ln. Tf. 16. Bnpa/^/3ai/, jjrce?». ^Irjcrovv Tf. 17. Bapa(3f3dv.) 2^r(cm.^lrjaovv Tf. 22. avrw, o;?t. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. 23. Tj-yepcov., om. Tf. 24. aTTevavTL \ KUTevavTi Ln. — ToO dtKaiov, om. Tf. [Gb. -]. [Ln.] 250sf rourou. 28. e/c5r;(rai/Tey X eubvaavTesl^n. — TvepudrjKav avTw xXapvba KOKKLirqv X 'xXcipvba kokkI- vrjv Tr(pu6rjK. avTw Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 29. TTju K€(fidXT)P X T^J KecjiciXrjs Tf. 10 29. (Vt TTju de^idu X cV T7 8e^ia Ln. Tf. [^ir.] [Gb.^]. — Iverrai^ov X eveirai^av Alx. — 6 ^acrtXfvs X /Sao-tXeu Ln. 33. OS- X o Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Alx.'] — Xeyopevos Kpaviov Tonos X Kpav. TOTT. Xey. Ln. Tf [Alx.] [Gb. -♦ Xeyopevosl. s. om. Xeyopevos Alx. 34- o^os X orj/oi/ Ln. Tf. [Gb. f«]. Alx. [Rec. Ln. mg.] — ^'^eXe X TjdeXrjo-ev Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 3$. ^dXXovres X ^aXoures Ln. Tf. — iva TrXripaiQfi to prjdev vno TOV 7rpos Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Alx. — 677* avTov X fts avTou Ln. (txt.) Tf. 11. eV « X fV O'ot Ln. (txt.) Tf. [Gb. cv]. ^te, 12. ev^i/y X ev&£cos Ln. 13. e/cet, 07n. Gb. Ln. Tf. ^Za?. — TJixepas Tecro-apaKovra X Tf (T. Tjpep. Ln. mg. .^Zar. ; add. Kai Tecrcr. vvktus Alx. 14. Mera Se X f«i H-^tu Ln. Tf. — TOi', om. Ala;. — TTJs jSao-iXeias-, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. :S]. Alx. li. Koi Xeycdv, om.Koi Tf. [Gb.::^]. Cst. 16. IlepnraTav be X /^^ai irapa- ycov Ln. Tf. [Gb. t^]. ^te. — avTov\Tov Sipcoz/os- Ln. [Gb. f^]. ^to. ; avTov TOV 2ip.a)Vos Sch. Cst.; 2l[xcovos Tf. — ^akXovTas X dp,(pi^aX\ov- Tas Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. — dfMCpi^XrjcrTpoVj om. Tf. 18. avTcop, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 19. eKe^deVj om. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. =J. — biKTva, add. avroov Alx. 20. evdecds X fv^i'S' Tf Alx. 21. ela-eXdcbv, om. Tf. [Gb. =5]. — eiy rj)i/ (Tvvaycoyrjv, e'S/Sa- o-/ce X f^y TTjv away, edt- bacTKev Tf. ; om. ttjv EIz. 22. ypaixixarels, add. [auroji/] Ln. 23. Kat, add. evdvs Tf. -4te. 24. "Ea, om. Ln. Tf [Gb. ->]. .<4te. — oi'Sa X o'ldap-ev Tf. 26. Kpd^au X (ponvrjcrav Tf. — e^ X ott' Ln. [Gb. ~]. ^?a;. 27. TvdvTes X anavTes Tf. — avTovs X eavTOvs Ln. Tf. — Xeyovras., T/ eort toOto ; Tiff 17 di8axrj rj Kaivrj avTT], OTi X XeyovTCS' tls r) 81- daxrj f] Kaivr] ; Gb. ~. — ri? T) 8i8axr] rj Kaivrj avrq, OTi X bihaxr] naivrj Ln. Tf. Alx. 28. 'E|^X^e 8e X i^a\ ^^rfkOev Ln. Tf. ^Zar. 11 28. evdvs, TravTaxovj s. evdvs TzavTaxov Alx. 29. evdecos X evdvs Ln. Tf. ^?a7. — i^eXdovTes, rfXdov X e^fX- 6^v rjXdev Ln. [Gb. ~]. 30. evdecds X fi'^ys' Ln. Tf. Alx. 31. avTris, om. Ln. Tf. — ev^ecoy, o»i. Alx. 32. eSu X edvaeu Ln. Tf. 33. 77 TToXty oXrj eincrvvqypivq rjv X ^J^ oXrj T] TToXis eTTio: Ln. Tf. 34. avTOP, add. XpicTTOV eluat Alx. 3i. evwxov X evvvxa. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. — KOKeT X f«i ^'ff t Ln. 36. 6 2ipa)V, om. 6 Tf. 37. evpovTCS avTovX evpov avTov Ka\ Tf. — ^rjTovai ere X o"^ ^rjTOvai Sch. Ln. 38.''Aya)per, a(7(?. dXXaxov Tf. — /fa/cei X fat eKei Gb. Sch. — e^eXrjXvda X eXrjXvBa Gb. !v; i^rjXdov Tf. 39. ef rats' crwa-ycoyats' X ft? ras o-uz/aycoyay Gb. Ln. Tf. Alx. 40. fcat yovvneTcov avTOV, om. Ln. Tf. — Ka\ Xeyav, om. Kai Tf. — "Oti X Kupte Ln. mg. Alx. ; s. om. OTI Alx. 41. 'O Se 'l7/cro{!sXKa' I^^- (txt.) Tf. — rjylraTO avTOv X avTov rj^aTO Ln. Tf. 42. elnovTOS avTov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -»]. ^Za7. — evdecos X e^^i*? Tf. 43. evdecos X e^^vy Ln. Tf. 44. jj-rjbev, om. Ln. ^Za;. — uXX' X aXXa Ln. Tf. 44- Mcoarris X Maivcrrjs Ln. Tf. 45. dXX' X aWa Lu. Tf. — 61/ X ^TT Tf. — ^v [Ln.] — TravTa-)(66ev X TraM-o^cv Sch. Ln. Tf. Chap. II. 1. ttoKlv clcrr]\6ev X ^IcrrjkQev ttoKlv Sell. Ln. ; el(rek6u>v TToXiv Tf. — Kal TjKovcrOrj^ om. Ka\ Tf. [Ln.] Alx. — els oTkov X ^v OLKCd Ln. 2. evdeojs [Ln.] o??z. .^4te. 3. TrapaXvTLKov (fiipovTesX't^^P- TrapaX. Ln. 4. €^' a X OTTOU Ln. (txt.) Tf. [Gb! ~]. 5. iSobi/ de X fai tSwy Tf. Alx. — dapi(rarot X TaJi/ <['a- pKTiuoiV Ln. mg. yl/x. ; add. [kul] Ln. yf/.r. — avTov icrOiovTa X on iadUi Ln. ^ir. MARK. 16. TeXfflvoJi/ Koi apapTOiXa)V X npap. Koi reX. Ln. Tf. — Tt, om. Tf. — TfXwvcoi' Kai apapTOiXcov 2° X dpap. Koi rav reX. Ln. (txt.) Tf. — Koi TTtVei ; [Ln.] !>]. ovK rjXdovX ov yap TJXd. Ln. mg. — els perdvoLaUf om. Gb. Sch. La. Tf. 18. ol Tcov ^aptaaicov X ol a- pLO-aiot Gb. Sch.Ln.Tf. [Rec. Gb. cv]. — Kai ol, add. padrjrai Tf. 19. ocTOP ;j^pwoj/ y:ie^' eavTwv exovcTL TOV vvpvL ovopa X ovopa Tut ^Ip. Tf. Ln. mg. ^te. [7. Boat-epyey X Boavijpyes Ln. Tf. [8. KavavLTT]v X Kai/ai/aioj/ Ln. Tf. ^/a;. [9. 'lcrKapi6)TT]vX ^IcTKapicod Ln. Tf. J /a:. 20. o^Xos, prceni. 6 Ln. Tf. — prjTe X PV^^ I^"- Tf. 25. 8ui/arai X 5vz/)7o-erai Tf. Ln. mg. 2^. (TTaBrjvaL t] oIklu €K€Lvq X ^ oIk. €Keiur] (rrad. Ln. (txt.) Tf. — crradrjvac X CTTTJvai Tf. Alx. 26. (TTadrjvaL X crTr}vai Tf. 27. ov dvvarai ovdels X oi^Seis dvuaraL Gb. Sch. Ln. ; dW ou Si^var. ovS. Tf. — diapTrdaei X ^lapTvacrr] Cat. 28. ra aixapTTjfxara rols vlo7s Tcov dvBpanrav X toT? tiiots r. aj/^p. ra ap,apT. Grb. Ln. Tf. ^Za^. — j3\a(r. Sch. — ai/ X ^dv Tf. 29. ety Tov o.la>va Gb. ->. — dXX' X ak\a Ln. Tf. — Kpiaeas X dpaprrjpaTOS Ln. Tf. [Gb.f^]. JZa;. {s.dpaoTLas) SL^Epx^ovTai ovv X Kott epxov- rat Ln. Tf. ^Za?. — ot dSeXc^oi Koi rj prjrrjp av- rov X V M"^' "^■'"' '^"' ^' dSeX. aur. Gb. Sch. Ln. [Rec. Tf sed ddeXcf). avr.] — iarcores X o-tt]TT](Tav X TjpwTcov Ln. Tf. ; ^Zc, s. e7Tr]pa>TT]i- Tf. eTTLTeBfi X Te^^^ Ln. Tf. ^Za;. rt, OTO. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. -». ^Za?. 65 om. Ln. Tf. ^Za;. [Gb. ~, s. el pr} tva]. (pavepcodfjy prcem. iva Ln. els (pavepov eXOrj X eX^. els cpavepov Tf. 13 34. Kat TrpocTTeUtiaeTai vpiv., om. Gb. — ToT? aKovovcriv, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. 25. az/ e;j;i7 X e^ft Ln. Tf 26. e'ai/, ow. Tf. Alx. 27. KaBevbrj Ka\ eyetprjTaiXnaO' evbei KOL eyelperai Cst. — j3Xaa-Tdvrj X ^Xaara Ln. Tf. 38. yap, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. — nX-qpt] alTov X irX-qp-qs ctItos Ln. Tf Alx. 29. TTapaba> X 7rapabo7 Ln. Tf — evdecos X ey^vs Tf. JZa;. 30. TtVt X TTcos Tf. Ln, mg. [Gb. f«ii]. Alx. — ev TTOta Trapa^oXfj 7rapa/3d- Xcopev avTTjV X ev tIvl avrrjv irapa^oXfj Outpev Ln. txt. Tf. Alx. 31. KOKKa X KOKKOV Gb. Sch. Ln. — piKporepos X piKporepov Ln. Tf [Gb. cv.] ; fifZcZ. 6j/ Ln. IT. — ecrrl, om. Ln. Tf. — Ta>v ewl TTJs yrjs [Ln.] 32. pel^cov, ante ndvrcov Ln. Tf. Alx. lpe7^ov Ln. mg. Gb. ~]. S3. TToXXa^s, Gb. -♦. — TjbvvavTO X ebvvavTO Ln. Tf. 34. paBrjTals avTOv X IbioLS pad. Tf. 36. be, om. Ln. — irXoidpia X TrXoia Gb. Ln. Tf. Alx. 37. dvepov peydXrjXpeydXrj dv€~ pov Ln. Tf — Td be X «^i- TO Ln. Tf. ^Za^. — auTO rjbr] yepi^eaOaL \ rjbr) yep. TO ttXoIov Ln. Tf [Gb. 1^]. Alx. 38. em 1° X fV Gb. Ln. Tf. Alx. [Rec. Gb. ~]. — bieyeipova-LV X eyelpovcnv Tf. 40. ourco ; ttcoj ouk e^^fTe X ou- TTO) e';^er6 Ln. [Gb. «^] Alx. ; ourcos' ovTTio Gb. ~. 41. viraKOvovo'iv avra X auro) VTraKovei Tf. [^Zo;.] Chap. V. 1. ^X^oi/ X V^Bev Gb. ~. — Tabaprjvav X Tepacrrjvaiv Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 2. e^eXOovTL avra X e^eXBovros avTOv Ln. ^Zjc. — evBecos, om. Ln. ; funis' Tf. — dnr]VTr]aev X VTrrjVTTjaev Ln. ^Za;. 3. ^vTjjxciois X fJivrjixacTLP Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ovT€ X ovbe Ln. Tf. — aXva-ecriv X dXvaci Ln. txt. Tf. Alv. — ovdels T]dvvaTO X oxjkItl ov- dels edvu, Ln.Tf. Alx. 4. avTov icrxv^ X Icrxvev avTov Ln. Tf. <,. iv roii oji€cn kol iv roiy fiin]fia(TLV X ei* Tols jj-vrjixa- aiv Koi iv TOLS opecn Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 6. 'iSoJi/ 5e X KOI i6c!)i' Tf. ^Za;. — (ITTO, Gb. -». 7. eiTre X Xeyft Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. Alx. 8. e/c X '^'^^ Ln. mg. 9. iirqpoiTa X enrjpoiTTjcrev Ln. — crot ouofia X ovofia croi Ln. Tf. ^te. — dTreKpidr), Xeycov X Xeyet au- ra Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. Eec. ~]. — Aeyecbi/X Aeytcbv Ln. Tf. Alx. — p.01^ add. €(TTLv Ln. [o. TrapeKoXei X napeKoXovv Ln. mg. — avTovs aTTOCTTelXrj X ottoot. aur. Ln. mg. [I. eKelrrpos to. opt] dyeXrj ;^ot- pav fxeyaXr] jBoarKopevr]' 12 Koi napeKoXecrav X f'^ft dyeXr} ^oipcov p-eydXr] ^ocr- KOfievoiv npos ra oper Koi TTapeKoKovv Ln. mg. ; [/xe- ydXr] Gb. -♦]. — TO. op-q X Tw opeL Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -» Trpo? T. op.] !2. Trdm-ff, ow. Gb. Sch. [Ln.] Tf. Alx. — ol baipoves, oin.Ti. [G:h.^'].Alx. 3. (vdecos 6 'irjcrovs [Ln.] ; oin. Alx. ; 6 'I?/. Gb. =i. — 70-ai/ 6e, offi. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. =J. 4. Oi 8e X '^o' o' J^u- 1'f- ■^^^• — Tovs x^^po^^ X avTovs Gb. Sell. Ln. Tf. — duTjyyeiXau X czTrr/yyeiXai' Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — c^fjXBov X rjXdov Ln.Tf. [Gb. t-]. Alx. 5. K«i iparicrpevovy cm. kol Ln. Tf [Gb. -]. Alx. — Ttiv eax^jKOTa tov Xeyecova Gb. ^ ; Acyia)j/a Ln. Tf, MARK. 18. efx^dvTos X ip-^alvovTos Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. Alx. — rj per avTOv X H-^t^ ci^t- V Ln. Tf. Alx. 19. 6 5e 'iT/o-ouff X 'fcti Gb. Sch. (Ln.) Tf. ; Ln. ClT]aovs]. — amyyeiXoj/X aTTciyye tXoj/Ln. txt. Tf. — aot 6 KvpiosXo Kvp.aoLTf. — eTTolrjcre X TreTToirjKev Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 23. I80V, on. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. ^. Alx. — ovopuTi ^Ideipos Gb. -*. 23. TrapcKaXet X napaKaXei Tf. — aiir^ TO? x^'P"^ X TO? x^'" pay aur^ Ln. Tf. — oTTcos o-codf] Ka\ ^rjcreTai X iva (Tcodfj KOL CWH ^"- Tf. .^?a;. ; [koi ^rjcrerac Ln. mg.] — OTTCi)? X ii'a Gb. f^. 25. TLs, om. Ln. [Gb. ^]. Alx. 26. iavTrjs X auTTyff Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 28. Kav Tcov IpaTLCOv avTov a\lra>- pat X edu dyjrcxipaL Kav tcov IpaT. avTOv Tf. 29. evdecos X ev^vs Tf. .<4te. 30. €vd€(os X ev^uy Tf. 33- fV, OTO. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. 34. 6 fie, ofZcZ. *Ir)(rovs Ln. .^4?^. — OvyaTep X OvyuT-qp Ln. Tf. 36. ev^ecwy, ow.Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.-]. JZa;. — aKova-as X TrapaKovcras Tf. 37. auTO) X /^fi"' avTov Tf. ^te. — o-vvaKoXovdrjcraL X a/coXov^. Ln. — Uerpov, prcem. tov Tf. — 'loKco/Sof X clvtov Gb. ~. 38. epx^TUi X epxovTai Ln. Tf. — dopvjBov, add. Koi Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 40. 6 fie X auro? fie Ln. /fte. — drravTas X Trdvray Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — duuKeipevov, om. Gb. [Ln.] Tf. Alx. 41. KoC/ii X Kovp Tf. — eyfLpat X iyeipe Gb. Sch.Ln. Tf. 42. evdeois X eu^uf Tf. — €^€aTT](rav, add. evdvs Tf. 43. yj/o) X yo' Ln. Tf. Alx. ClIAP. VI. I. ^X^ei/ X epx^'''^'- 'i'f' 14 2. iv TTJ avvaycoyrj fitSdo-/c6ii/ X fitfi. iv Tj] away. Tf. — TToXXoX., -proem, ol Tf. [Gb, <^r:']. — aVTCd X TOVTCO Tf. — ort, ow. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — dvvdpeis ToiavTai X at 8vv. at TOiavT. Tf. 3. Mapi'ay, prcem. ttjs Tf. Alx. — ddeXcjios fie X f«t d8eX(f)os Ln. Tf. [Gb. cv]. ^Zx. — ^Icoafj X 'icocrjjros' Ln. Tf. Alx. 4. eXeye fie X '^^i eXeyev Ln. txt. Tf. Alx. — crvyyevicri, add. avrov [Ln.] Tf. Alx. 5. TjbvvaTO X efiuj/. Tf. — ov8epiav dvvapiv Troirjcrai X TTOt. oufi. fiui/. Ln. Tf. 8. nripaVf pr) dpTOV X apTOV prj irrjpav Tf. 9. dXX' X dXXd Ln. Tf. — ivSvcrrjaOe X ivdvaaadai Elz, Ln. mg. 10. Kai eXeyei/ X '^a* Xe'yei Ln. mg. — idv XavLn. Tf, 11. oo-ot av prj de^covTa X o? a** TOTTOS prj de^rjTai Tf. .<4te. — dprjv Xeyco vplv, dveKTOTC- pov ecTTaL '2o86pois r] Fo- poppois iv Tjpipa KpicrecoSj 7] Trj TToXet iKcivrj, om. Gb. [Ln'.] Tf. Alx. 12. iKT]pv(T(TOV X iKTjpv^av Tf. — peTavoTjorcocri X peTavoaxrLV Tf. 14. eXeyei/ X eXeyoi/ Ln. txt. [Gb. 4Za:. 17. ry cjivXaKT], om. ttj Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 19. fjdeXev X H^TCi Ln. 21. ore X o T€ Ln, 32. eiroUiXeTroiTja-ev "Ln.Tf. Alx. avTJJs rrjs X avrov s. ttjs Alx. Koi dpccrdcrrjs X rjpeaev Ln. txt. Tf. Alx. €L7r€U 6 ^aaiXevs X f iVei' Se 6 jSacr. Ln. ; 6 fie /3acr. et- Trei/ Tf. ^Za;. fie Gb. -. 'H 5e X Kol Tf. alTTjaofxaL X alTrj(ra>nai Ln. Tf. ^te. ^aTTTLO-TOV X jBaTTTL^OVTOS Tf. evdecos X eu^v? Ln. Tf. UZa;. s. OTO.) [Gb. —]. juoi Sa)s e^ aires' X e^avTrjs da)s fxoi Ln. Tf. cra>pev. 38. virayere Kal, om. Kal Tf. .^iZa-. [Ln.] Gb. =;. — Xeyovcri, add. lavrco] Ln. 39. ai^aKXiz/at X dvaKXLOrjvai Ln. 40. dv€TT€(rov X dveTreaav Tf. — am~di/a, Jzs Kara Ln. Tf. 41. avrov, om. Tf. — Tvapadcoaiv X TraparidaxTLV Tf 43. Ko(})[vovs TrXrjpeis X Ko(})[va>v 7rXr]poi)p,ara Tf. 44. ebo-ei, om. Gb. Sch. Ln, Tf. 45. evdeas X fi'^t'S' Tf — aTvoXva-j] X dn"oXvei Ln. Tf. 48. etSej/ X l^(^v Ln. Tf. — Kal Trepl, om. Koi Ln. Tf Jo. Ka4 evOioiS X '««' et'^i'S' Ln. txt. Tf. ; 6 fie et'^vs' Ln. mg. 51. Xiay Gb. -*. — Kal iOavpa^ov, om. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. =J. JZa7. 52. rjv yap X dXX' ^v Alx. — T] Kapb'ia avrav X avrcov rj Kap8. Sch. Ln. Tf. S4. evdecos X evSvs Tf ^Zar. — eniyvovres, add. [ol civdpes Tov roTTOv eKCLVOv} Ln. $i. TTcpiBpapovres oX. r. Trepi- XT]r. Ln. Tf. ^Za?. — Ovros 6 Xabs X o Xao? ovr. Ln. 8. ydp, om. Ln. Tf — 0a7rrta-povs ^ea-ru)V Kal tto- rqpicov, Kal aXXa napopoia roiavra noXXd Trotelre, oni. Tf Alx. 9. rqprjarjre X crrrjarjre Gb. f^. 12. Kal ovKeri, om. kol Ln. Alx. — T(p narpl avrov rj rfj ptjrpl avrov, om. avrov bis Ln. Tf. Alx. 14. TrdvraXndXiv Ln. Tf [Gb. t^]. Alx. — 'A/covere X dKova-are Ln. Tf. — avviere X crvvere Ln. Tf. 15. eKTTopevopeva drz avrov\ e/c ToO dvdpanov eKnopevop,. Ln. Tf. ^Za;. 16. ems eT^ei &ra oKoveiJ', aKov- erct), om. Tf. ^iZa?. 17. rrepl rrjs napa^oXijs X '''V^ irapa^oXrjV Ln. Tf. [Gb. <^]. Alx. 19. Kadapi^ov X Kadapc^tov Ln. Tf ^Za^. 21. poLxelai, 7Topve7ai, (f)6voi, KXoTra'i X TTopvelai, KXoTrai, (povoi, poLxel.ai Tf. 24. Kai eKeWev X eKeWev fie Tf. — pedopia X opta Ln. ^Zar. — Kai 2tSaJz/os, o?ra. Tf. [Gb. -^]. — rrjv olKiav, om. rrjv Sch. Ln. Tf [Gb. ^]. 25. dKovcraaa yap \ dXX' ev^vy d/foro". Tf. ^Za;. 26. rjv fie 77 yvz/j) \ fj be yvvrj -qv Ln. Tf — '2vpo(f)OLVio-cra X '2vpoot- VLKLO-aa Tf [Gb.] — eK^dXXr] X e'K/3dX77 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — eK Gb. =J ; om. Alx. 25. 6 fie ^Irja-ovs X *««* I^i- Tf — elnevX eXeyev Ln. Tf. — KaXbv eo-ri X eorii' KoXbv Ln. Tf. JZa:. — ^aXelv rols Kvvapiois X ^ois Kvv. /SaXeii/ Tf. 28. yap [Ln.] om. Alx. — icrOUl X ia-6iov(jLV Ln. Tf. Alx. 29. TO baip.6vL0V €K rrjs dvya- Tpos aov X fA: ttjs dvy. crov TO daifx. Tf. 30. TO daifjLOULOV e^eXrfKvdos, Koi TT)v OvyaTcpa ^€^\r)fi€vrjv iirX Trjs k\lvt]s X t^^ Traidlov jie^Xrjjxevov iirX ttjv kXlvtjv Koi TO 8aiix6vLov e^eXrjXv- 66s Ln. txt. Tf. Alx. 3r.fcat 2t8coi/oy, rjXde X ^Xde dm 2ida)V0s Ln. Tf [Gb. ~]. Alx. — npos X et? Gb. Ln. Tf. Alx. 32. Koxpov, add. koX Ln. [Gb. t^^]. — IxoyiXaXov \ jxoyyikaXov Tf. [Gb. cv]. Alx. 2,i. evOeoos, om. Tf Alx. [Ln.] — dLTjvoL^drjcrav X rjvoiyqaav Ln. Tf 36. eiTTWcrii/ X XeyaxTiv Tf. — avTos.) om. Ln. Tf. Alx. — fj-aXXov, prcem. avTol Ln. Tf. Alx. 37. Tovs dXaXovSi om. tovs Tt. Chap. VIII. 1. TrajxnoXXov X ttoKlv ttoXXov Ln. Tf. [Gb. e^]. Alx. — 6 'lr](T0vs, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf Alx. — avTOv, om. Tf. Alx. 2. Tjfxepas X Tjixepai Gb. Sch.Ln. Tf. — p.oc, om. Ln. Tf. 3. Tivks yap X Kai Tii/fs- Ln. Tf. Alx. — paKpodev, prcBm. drro Tf — ^Kaai X rjKova-L Elz. ; eZcrt'i/ Tf Alx. s. rJKaai. 4. Ilodcu, prcum. otl Tf 5. eTTTjpooTa X rjpatTa Tf — ftTToi/ X f tVai/ Tf 6. naprjyyeiXe X napayyeXXeL Ln. 'if — cipTovs, add. [kol] Ln. — napadcocn fnapaTiBcoaiv Ti^. Alx. 7. €t;^oj/ X ft'x"!' Ln. Tf — (vXoyrjcras., jiraim. TovTa Ln. pvftm. s. add. avTO. Alx. — TTupaddvac X Traparfdrjuai Ln. — Koi avTu. Gb. -♦. S. ecfiayov de X '«"'' e'cficiyov Ln. 29. MARK. (T7rvpi8as X cr^yptSay Ln. 01 (payovTes, om. Tf [Gb.=t]. evdecos X fi^^i'S Ln. Tf €/xj3ay, orfrf. [oOros] Ln. ; a?z]. Alx. nXrjpeis KXacrp-dTOiv X icXacr. TrXrjp. Ln. Tf. ^Zx. "Ot? de X Kai OTe Ln. mg. eTTTa, afZfi. [apTour] Ln. Ot Se ftVoi/ X /fai XeyovcTLV avTW Tf. yfZa?. Ilcoy, om. Tf. ou X ouTTco Ln. txt. Tf. Alx. s. 7ra)S ovTrco, s. ttcos ovv ovTrco epX^rai X epx^vrai, Ln. Tf. [Gb. H. Alx. Brj6aa'iMv\ Brjddviav Gb. ~. i^rjyayev X c^rjveyKCv Tf. /3XeVei X ^Xeneis Tf. eXeye X eiVei/ Ln. mg. OTt ms 8ev8pa 6pa> X wy Sev- Spa Elz. Gb. Sch. [St. Gb. v Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ypaixfiaTecov, proem. t5)V Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 32. avTov 6 IleTpos X o Iler. az;T. Ln. Tf. 33. T&) neVpo), om. Tc5 Ln. Tf. — Xeycov X Kai Xe'yei Tf. 34. ''Oo-Tis X f'l "S" Ln. [Gb. ^j. Alx. — iXdelv X aKoXov^eri/ Gb. Sch. Tf. Cst. [Rec. Alx.] 35. av X eaz/ Tf — dnoXecrr) X dnoXeaei, Tf. — TJ^z/ yj/vx^jv avTOV X tt^i' eau- Tov x|^ux'7'^ ^t>. Sch. Tf. [Gb. -]. — ot^TOs, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Alx. 36. u>cf)eXr)aei X w(^eXf t Ln. mg. Tf. — audpconov, prcem. tov Ln. Tf. ; avdpoiTTOS Gb. fv. ^Za?. c< Cs*. s. ^Za;. TOV civOpcoTrov. — idv K€p8r]ar] X Kepdrjarat Tf, — Cr}p.La}6fj X lr]p.icodrivai, Tf. 37. ^ Tt Scofret avdpoiTTOS X ''"4 yap Tf 38. aj/ X idv Ln. Tf. Chap. IX. 1. Tcov a)Se X ^Se Ta>v Tf. 2. /X6^' X p-erd Ln. Tf — Toi/ 'lcfL>dvvr)V, om. tov Gb.| Sch. Ln. Tf Cst. 3. iyeveTO X eyevovTO Ln. Tf. — ws X''^''' om. Tf. [Gb. =t]. .^Za?.] — dvvaTai, add. ovTco Tf. Gb. * ^Za;. ^. o-KTjvds Tpels X Tpfif aKTjvds Ln. Tf. .^Za;. 6. XaXT]aT] X XaXr)(T€i Gb. f«. C^Z. ; aTTOKpidrj Tf ^Za:. — ^o-ai/ yap €Kcf)o^ot X e'c^o- /3ot yap eyevovTO Ln. Tf. [Gb. r.^]. ^Z.r. 7. 7X^6 X eyev€TO Alx. — Xkyovva., om. Gb. Sch. Tf Alx. — avTov aKovcTe X «kou. avrj Ln. txt. Tf 8. dXXd X ft y^T Ln. .<4Za?. 8. ciSoj', dWa rov ^IrjcrovP jio- vov fied' iavTwv X ^ t'^' [Jf-^Ta iavr. el fir] tov 'irjcr. fiopov Ln. rag. g. KaTa^aivovrav Be X Koi Ka- ra^. Ln. Alx. — OTTO X ^K Ln. — dirjyrjcraivTai a ddov X a etS. dirjy. Ln. txt. Tf. Alx. to. TO, CK V€KpS)V dvacTTrjvat X orav CK veKpcJv dvaarfj Gb. 11. €7rT]po)Tcov X iTrqpa)Tr]uav Ln. mg. — Xeyovmv, add. ol ^apicrdloi Koi [Ln.] 12. drroKpiOelsj eirrev X e<^7 Tf. [Gb. ->]. — fiev, om. Tf. — aTroKaOLCTTa X OTTOKa^tcrra- I'ei Ln. Tf. Alx. s. dnoKa- a-rfjaei. e^ovdevadrj^e^ovbevrjdfjlin. Tf. 13. rjdeXrjaav X rjOckov Tf. 14. auToZs' X Trpoy avrovs Alx. i^ eii^fcoff X evOvs Tf. JZa?. — tScbj/X ihovres Ln. Tf. [Gb.c^]. — iiedafx^^dr} X i^e6ap.^ri6rj- a-av Ln. Tf. [Gb. c^]. ^Za;. 16. roil? ypajJifxareTs X clvtovs Gb. Ln. txt. Tf. ^te. [Rec. Gb. ^]. 17. drroKpidels X drreKpiSr) avrS Ln. Tf. — etVe, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx. drre- Kpidr] eJs €K TOV ox^ov s. dlTOKpiQeis €K TOV ox^ov els enrev avro).] 18. av X iav Ln. ff. avTov, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. ^]. Alx. 19. aiiTO) X CLVTols Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.'[Gb. =5]. 20. evdeois TO nvevjxa X ro Tn'eu- /Ma evdvs Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. — ia-TTapa^ev X crvveaTrdpa^ev Ln. 21. Traidiodev, prcem. etc Ln. Tf. 22. auTov Koi els nvp X 'f«' fts TTtip avTov Tf ; (a*Z. to ante TTvp Sch. Gb. <*>). — hvvacrai X Sui',^ Ln. Tf. Alx. 23. BvvaaaiX dvvjj Ln. Tf. TTio-Tevaai, om. Tf. [Gb. -*]. 26, MARK. . Kat evdecos, om. Koi Tf. [Ln.] [e^^uff Tf.] ■ )Liera duKpvcov, om. Ln. Tf • Kvpie, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf . TTVevpa TO aXaXov Ka\ Kco- (jiov X dX. Ka\ Koxpov TTvev- p.a Ln. Tf Alx. • aoi, eTTiTacraa) X eTTLTacrora) croi Tf • e^ X OTJ"' Ln. Kpd^av.) Kal TToXXd (rirapd- ^av X Kpd^as Ka\ ttoX. arira- pd^as Gb. Ln. Tf Alx. avTOU, om. Tf [Ln.] Alx. TToXXovs X Tovs TToXXovs Ln. Tf avTov TTJs x^i-pos X TTJs x^t- poy avTOv Ln. ^Za;. cioreX^dyT-a auToz/ X eio-eX- 06vTOS avTov Ln. ^Za;. e7rr]pT(ov avTov kut Ibiav X Acar Ibiav iirqp. avTov Ln. Tf. Alx. OTi X Sia Ti Alx. Kal vqcTTeia, om. Tf. Kat eKeWev X KaKeWev Ln. Tf. TrapeTTopevovToX iiropevovTO Ln. txt. tya Tis X '■*? "'« Elz. yv(o X yi'ot' Ln. Tf, Tjj TpiTT] Tifiepa X p-eTci Tpels riixepas Ln. Tf [Gb. f^]. Alx. rjXBev X rjXeov Ln. Tf. TT/JOff eavTovSf om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. Alx. ev Trj 6S« [Ln.] edv X ai/Vis Ln. Tf Alx. be^rjTaL X bexqTai Tf. Ln. mg. 'AweKpldr] be X e^^j; Tf ^Za;. ; [5e] Ln. 6 'Icociwi^s, om. 6 Gb. Sch.Ln. r(5 ovojxaTi^ •promi. ev Elz.Ln. ff Alx. OS ovK uKoXovdel rjpHv, om. Gb. Alx. eKcoXv(Tap.ev X eK(oXvop.ev Tf OTt OVK dKoXovdel rjfjuv, om. Tf [Gb. =J]. vfjLci)V^ VTvep vp,a>v X Jy/^wf, VTrep ^/iwi/ Elz. Tf. eV TO) 6v6p,aTL fiov X fV oi^o- /zart Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf v/iii/, add. OTt Tf [Ln.] .^Za;. aTToXearj \ aTToXecreL Ln. Tf. fjiiKpStv, add. TOVToav Ln. JZa?. 17 43. Tria-TevovTCiv els ifxe \ rrl' (TTIV exdvTCdv Tf. — Xidos p,vXik6s X /ivXoff ovc- Kos Ln. Tf [Gb. cv]. Alx. 43. (TKavbaXi^ij X o-KavbaXicTTj Ln. mg. — (Toi cVri X eVrtV o-e Ln, Tf, Alx. — KvXXov els Tr]v ^oirjv ela-eX' 6elv X K^vX. elcreXOelv els T. ^(orjv Ln. Tf Alx. — els TO rrvp to da^eaTov Gb. 44. ver. 44, om. Tf. Gb. -». Alx, 45. KaXbVf add. lydp] Ln. — eVri aoi X ecTTiv (re Sch. Ln. Tf. — els TO nvp TO dar^ecTTOV^ om. Tf [Ln.] [Gb. =;]. Alx. 46. ver. 46, om. Tf [Gb. -]. Alx. 47. (rot eoTt X eoTtV ae Tf. — Tr]V yeevvav, om. ttjv Tf. — TOV nvpos, om. Ln.Tf. [Gb.-»]. Alx. 50. dXas X dXa Ln. Tf ^Za?. ^ Chap. X. 1. KaKe7dev X '^"^ eKeWev Ln. Tf. JZa;. — §ia roO TTepav X Kat nepav Ln. Tf. JZa?. 2. ot ^apicraioi, om. ol Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf, — eTT-qpoiTrja-av X e7rr]pd)To>v'Lxi. Tf JZa7. 4. eiTTOi' X f wraz/ Ln. Tf. — Mcoarrjs eneTpeyfre X erreTpe- yjrev M. Ln. Tf Aix. s. M. eVerei'Xaro. 5. Kal dTTOKpiOels 6 ^Irjcrovs X 6 Se 'iT^croSy Tf JZa?. — vfuv^ om. Alx. 6. 6 Qeos, om. Tf [Ln.] >]. Kal 7Tpo(TKoXXrj6r)(TeTai npos TTjv yvvoLKa auroO, om. Tf. — Trpos TTju yvvoLKa X ffj yw- vaiKi Ln. ^Za;. 8. fjLia (rdp^ X crap^ /xia Alx. 10. ei/ T^ oiKia X fiS' T'^i' oIkIuv Ln.' Tf [Gb. p^]. — auroO, om. Tf [Ln.] — roi) avTovXrovTov Ln.Tf. Alx. — eTrnpaTncrav X eTrnpaToav Tf, > \ Y * T [I. eav X CIV Ln, [2. yvvr) dTToXvcrrj X a^Tij aTTO- Xva-aora Tf. — yafir]6^ dXX(o X yanrjcrr] dX~ Xov Ln. Tf !4Za?. 21 13. a;//-. avT. X o^t. dyjr. Alx. — eTrerificov to2s Trpoa(f)epov- (Tiv X €7r€TLfJia)v avTois Ln. mg. 14. Koi fxfj KcoXvere, om. Koi Gb. Sch. Tf. 15. iav X ai/ Ln. Alx. 16. r]v\6y€i X ei'^^oyei Sch. Ln. ; aura koi €v\. ante ridels Tf. 19. M77 p.OLxevo'Tjs • fxri (povev- (TTjs X M ^ov. prj fioiX' Ln. txt. ifiT] (pov. Gb. -►). — firjTepa., add. crov Ln. — p.T] a.7ro(TT€pr)(rr]s, om. Alx. 20. ravra Trdvra )( ndv. rav. Ln. txt. — i(pv\a^ap,i]v X ec^vXa^a Ln. — rfor. /i,ou, ofZtZ. ri eVi vcrrc- poj ; Alx. 21. eiVev avrS., add. el OcXeis reXeios eivai Alx. — a-oi X o-e Tf. — Tots TTTCOXOl?, 0»i. ToTff Ln. Tf. Gb. =i. Alx. — cipas TOP crravpov [Ln.] [Gb. ^] ; om. ^te. 24. TeKfa X TCKvla Ln. — roT? xprjpacTLv, om. rots Ln. Tf. [Gb. =i]. C7s«. 2^. r^y rpvpoKids rrjSf om. rrjs bis Ln. [Gb. -*]. Cst. — eldekdelv 1° Os^. X ^ifX^ew Gb. Sell. Elz. Ln. txt. Tf. Ul(TeXBe7v Gb. c^]. 27. Se, OOT. Tf. — dvdpaTTOLS^ add. [rovro] Ln, — ro) Gew, om. ra5 Tf. [Gb. -]. — TTovra yap dvvard eari napd T(o Geo) Gb. -♦. 28. Kat rfp^aro, om. Kal Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Xeyeiu, ante 6 Her. Tf. — TjKoXovdT](Tap€U X rjKoXovdrj- Kap.€v Ln. Tf. 29. 'ATTOKpt^eif Se 6 'l770-oCs et- nev X f (/>^ o ^lr]cr. Tf. ; om. 6e Gb. Ln. ; Kal drroKp. Sch. — ^ Trarepa, r; prjrepa X ^ /^J^t. 7) Trar. Ln. txt. Tf. — fj yvvalKa, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. — ifiov Kal., add. eucKfU Gb. Sch. [Ln.] Tf. — firjTepas X p-rjrepa Ln. Alx. 31. 0? 'ddXciTOL., om. ol Gb. Ln. Alx. 33. roTs ypap.fJUiTevcrt, om. rah Ln. [Gb. =?]. MARK. 34. Kal fxacTTiyooaovaLV avrov., Kal epnTvcrovaiv avra X Kp\ epTTTVcr. avTco Kal p.a- (jTiyoKj. avrov Ln. Tf. Alx. — anoKrevovcriv avrov., [avrot'] Ln. — rfj rpirrj ^ fie pa X pera rpels Tjpepas Ln. Tf. [Gb. H- Alx. S$. ol viol, om. ol Tf. — Xeyovres, add. avra Tf. [Ln]. Alx. — atrrj(TO)pev, add. ae Ln. Tf. Alx. 36. TTOiTJcrat pe X fif Troi^crai Tf. ; 7roLrj(r(o Ln. [Gb. t^]. Alx. 37. elnov X elnav Ln. Tf. — eK de^iav aov X crou ck de^. Tf. — evodvvpcov crov X dpiarepwv Tf. ; [o-ou] Ln. 38. Acai ro (Bdrrriaa X ^ to jBdw. Ln. Tf. [Gb. c^]. Alx. 39 eiTTOi/ X f wrai/ Ln. Tf. — pev, om. Tf. 40. Kai €^ evoivvpcov X J; e^ f t*- coi/. Ln. Tf. Jte. — /Ltou, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 42. 6 Se 'lr]crovs iTpoa-KaXead- pevos avrovs X k^<^i- Trpoa- KaX. avr. 6 'irjaovs Ln. Tf. Alx. 43. eVrat X earLV Ln. Tf. Alx. — eav X at* Ln. — yevecrQai peyas X peyas ye- vecrOai Ln. mg. Alx. — diaKovos vpcov X vpa>v Sia- Koi/os- Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 44. av X eav Gb. Tf. — u/xojy X ^t^ vplv Ln. .4?.r. — yeveadai X eti'at Ln. Alx. 46. epxovrai X epx^Tai Ln. txt. — OTTO 'lfpi;^cb X eKeWev Gb. ~. — vio? X o uios Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. Alx. — 6 rvcfiXos, om. 6 Ln. Tf. Alx. — irpocralroiv X7rpoaairr]s,2^ost rvcjiXos Tf. 47. Na^copaTo? X Na^apjyi/oy Ln. Tf. Alx. — 'O vlos X '^'■^ I^'J- 49. avrov (pdiVTqOrjvaL \ cficovr']- crare avrov Tf. Alx. — eyeipai X eyeipe Gb. Ln. Tf. Alx. 50. az/aora? X dva7rr]8r](ras Ln. Tf. yite. ji. Xeyei avro) 6 ^hjaovs X <^^t. 6 'l»/cr. 6i7rei/ Tf. Alx. 18 gi. Tt SeXets TTOirjao) (TOi X T"* o-ot 6eX. noirjcrai Alx. ', -'Pa^^oul X 'Pa/3/3ovj/t Gb. j Sch. Ln. Tf. I ^2. evdecDS X evdvs Tf. ' — ra> 'lr]crov X at'ra) Gb. Ln. i Tf. ^te. Chap. XI. 'lepova-aXrjp X 'lepoaoXvpa Ln. Tf. ^Za7. 61? Brjdcjyayr) Kal Br)6aviav X Kai eiy Brjdav. Ln. [Gb. ~]. oTroo-reXXei X aTrecrretXev Ln. evdecos X ei^^us Tf. ovSei?, acM. ovnoa Ln. -4Zar. Xucrai'res avrov X Xvcrare ai5r6i/ Kal Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. Alx. dydyere X (pepere Tf. [Gb. Tt TTOtfire roOro X Tt Xvere roi/ TTCciXov Ln. mg. ''On, om. Ln. Tf. evOecos X f^^i'S' Ln. Tf. aTTOO-reXei X aTrocrreXXet Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 'ATrrjX&ov de X Kcii dTrrjXdov Ln. Tf. rov TTcoXov, om. rov Gb. Sch, Ln. Tf. rrfv Bvpav, om. rrjv Tf. everelXaro X eiwev Ln. txt, "jJ Tf. [Gb. f^]. i fjyayov X (pepovcriv Tf. [Gb, \| ene^aXov X eTn^aXXova-iv I Gb, Ln. Tf. ^Za;, I aurw X auroV Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. J Alx. I TToXXot 8e X KOI TToXXol Tf. I ets rj^y 686v X f'^ '".^ oS<5 Ln. mg. Alx. aroi[3d8as X o-ri/3a5as Ln. Tf. yiZa;. eKonrov X K6y\ravres Tf. devbpcov X dypa)V Tf. KOI earpoovvvov els rrjv oBdv om. Tf. Xeyo^/re?, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. ->]. yfZx. eV oi^o'pari Kvpiov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 6 ^Irjaovs, Kal, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. yfZa;. Kai 61?, 0711. Kal Ln. Tf. ^Za?. paKpoOev, prcem. dnb Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. 13- 13. cvprjorei Ti X Ti €vp. Ln. Tf. Alx. — (pvWa, add. liioval Ln. — Kaipbs, prceni. 6 Ln. ; [6 yap Kaipbs ovK rjv Tf.] 14. o 'iT^croCy, om. Gb. Sch, Ln. Tf. — e/c aov els tov ala>va X ^'^ Toi/ ala>va eK crov Ln. Tf. — [xr]8e\s X oiSeis Elz. i^. 6 'lr;a-ous', o?». Gb. Ln. Tf. Alx. — dyopd^ovras, prcem. rovs Ln. Tf. II]. Xeyoov X KOil eXeyev Tf. ^Za;. — avTols.) om. Tf. [Ln.] — "On, om. Ln. — inoLTjaaTe avrbv X ovrov inoirjaaTe Ln. mg. ; Trenoi- rjKaTC OUT. Tf. 18. ypafifxaTeis Koi ol apxi^p^'is X ap^;^. /cat ot ypap,. Ln. Tf. ■»- dnoXecrovcnv X aTToXeVcocrw/ Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alec. — avTov 2° [Ln.] — ort Tras X "^ds yap Tf. ..4Za?. 19. ore X oral/ Tf. Alx. — i^erropeveTO X i^^TTOpevovro Ln. ^te. 30. Trpcot TrapaTTOpevofievoi X irapanopevop.euoL Trpcol Ln. Tf. ^Za?. 22. 6 'ij^o-oOff, o?». 6 St. & Elz, [Gb. ~]. 33. yap, o?re. Ln. Tf. Alx. — 7n(TTei)(Tr] X Trio-revr] Tf. — A X o Tf. — Xeyet X XaX^T Tf. — 6 iav e'lTTTj, om. Tf. [Gb. =J]. 24. ai/, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. ^Za?. — Trpocrevxoixevoi, X Trpocrev- X^a-de KOL Ln. txt. Tf. ^to. — Xafi^duere X iXd^ere Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 25. arrjKrjTe X (TTrjKeTe Ln. Tf. 26. om. ver. Tf. — roTff ovpavols, om. rols Ln. 28. Xeyovcnv X eXeyov Tf. ^Za?. — Kai rt? X ^ Tis Tf. Alx. — Trjv i^ovcriav ravTrjv ebcoKev X edooKev ttju i^ovcriav rav- TTjv Ln. Alx. 29. diTOKpidels, om. Tf. ./iZa;. — vp.ds Kayo) X Kayco iip.ds Ln. ; om. Koyo) Tf. 30. ^IcodvvoVy prcem. to Ln. Tf. Alx. MARK. 31. iXoyi^ovTO X fiteXoyi^oi/ro Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. — ovv, om. Ln. Tf. Alx. 32. aXX' eai/ X «XXa Sch. Ln. Tf. ^[Gb. c^L — €(j)o^ovvToX4>(^^ovp.e3a Alx. — anavTes X Trdvres Ln. — ort ovT(os X ovTcos ore Tf. ^Za?. (s. om. ovTcos). 33. Xeyovai ra ^lijcrov X to) 'It^- o-oO Xey. Ln. mg. Tf. ^Za?. — 6 'ItjotoOs' diroKpiOeh X [otto- KpiOels] 6 'irjcr. Ln. .^Za;. ; om. diTOKp. Tf. .^Za;. Chap. XII. Xeyeiv X XaXcii/ Ln. Tf. ./4Za7. €(f)VTevo-ev avOpcoTTOs X «i'^- e^ur. Tf. i^eboTO X e^edero Tf. roO Kaprrov X tcoj/ Kaprrav Tf. ot Se X fat I^n- txt. Tf. Xido^oXrjo-avres^ om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. :?]. .^Za?. a7re(rreiXai/ r]Tificop.evov X rjTifirjaav Ln. Tf. ./4Za7. TraXiv, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. Alx. Tovs, bis ovs Ln. Tf. Alx. diroKTeivovTes X dnoKriv' vovTes Gb. Ln. Tf. ovv, om. Tf. [Ln.] vioi/ exoiv X e'x'"^ ^^o^ ^'^^ 5 eix'^v vlbv Tf. avroi), om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^. ^Za;. Ka\ avrbv.) om. KaX Tf. [Ln.] Tvpbs avTovs ecrxarov X '^o'X- Trpbs avT. Ln. Tf. eirrov X etVai/ Ln. Tf. ; post Trpbs iavTOVs Tf. avrbv direKreivav X direKT. avr. Tf. e^e/3aXoj/, ofZcZ. avrbv Ln. Tf. .^Za?. oyv, om. Tf. 01 8e X fat Ln. txt. Tf. dtddcTKeis, add. etVe ovv ^/zii' Ln. Krivcrov Kala-api dovvai X 8ovvai Krjvo-QV Kaiaapi Ln. etScb? X l8o)v Gb. ~. Ot 5e X [ot 5e] Ln. eiTTOj/ X ewrai/ Ln. txt. Tf. ; Xeyovaiv Ln. mg. Kai dTTOKpiOeis 6 X de Ln. Tf. avroiy, om. Tf. 19 26, 30. 'ATToSore rot Kalcrapos X ^a KatV. aTTodore Tf. eBavp^aaav X edavfia^ov Ln. Tf. iTTTjpairrjaravX inr] par cov Jan. txt. Tf. . rcKva X reKvov, post d(j)fj Tf. yvvalKa avrov, om. avrov Tf. ^Za;. eTrra, ckZcZ. ovj/ Elz. ^o-av, ad!fZ. Trap' rjpdv Alx. Kal otiSe avrbs ds X 7ra>s Tf. 6 Geoff 'lo-aaK, Kal 6 Geoff, om. 6 &is Ln. Tf. 6 Geoff, om, 6 Ln. Tf. Geoff ^(avroiv, om. Geoff Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. up.etff oyv, om. Tf, etScoff X tScbi/ Ln, Alx. s. Kai I8a>v. avrols aTreKpidrj X dircKp. avr. Tf. Alx. 7raaa>v X Trai/rcoi' Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. ; (ivroXr) wpcarr] irdv- rcov Tf. Ln. mg.) 'O 8e ^Irjarovs dTreKpiBr} X direKp. 6 ^Irjcr. Tf. Ln. mg. avrS, om. Tf, 7raaa>v X Trdvrcov Gb. Sch. Ln. Cst. ra>v, om. Gb. ivroXa)v\ [ivroXr] iariv} Ln.; (ort 7rpa>rr) iariv, "Akov€) Tf. [Gb. p^] ; lirdvrcov 7rpa>rrf Gb, ~]. Kal e^ oX?;ff r^ff diavoias aov, om. Tf. 37- 38. 30. avTT) Trparq ivroXr], om. Tf. 31. Koi bevrepa, om. Koi Tf. [Ln.] — ojxoia, om. Tf. 33. Geo?, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 33. Koi e^ o\t]s TTJs "^vx^js, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. — Tcov Ovatoiu, om. tcdv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 35. icTTL Aa/3iS X A- ^o-Ti Alx. 36. yap, om. Tf. [Ln.] — TO) YlvevpaTL ro), om. rca his Gb. Sch. — divev 2° X ^e'y" ^^- ^cli' [Rec. Gb. ToiV X eTrrjpcuTa Tf. 4. EtVe X eiVoy Ln. Tf Alx. — TTuuTa ravra X ravra Travra Ln. ; raora (jvvt. ttclvt. Tf 5. dTTO/c^jt^eiS", om. Tf. .^te. (s. A:ai aiTOKp. 6 'lr;cr.] — avTol^ fjp^ciTO XeyeLU X ^y/-'^- Xcy. avT. Ln. Tf 6. y^p, om. Tf. 7. uKovcrr]T€ X a/covere Tf. — yap, o;«. Tf. 8. K(u eanvrai, om. K(i\ Tf Alx. — Kai €(TOVT(Uy om. Kai Tf — Koi T(Lpa)((Uy om. Ln. Tf [Gb. -]. Alx. MARK. 9. yap, om. Tf. 10. fiel 7rpa>T0v X Trpcoroi/ SeiLn. Tf 11. oray fie X /^ct' orav Ln. Tf. Alx. — cxynywcrij/ X ayaxriv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — p,r]8e peXerare, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. [Gb. =?]. — 6 eau X o av Ln. 12. TrapaScocret fie X fat TTopaS. Ln. Tf. ^Z.r. 14. TO prjOeu VTTO AavLrjX tov TTpo(f)riTOV, om. Gb. [Ln.] Tf. Alx. — iaros X icrrrjuos Ln. Tf. ; icTTUiS Elz. 15. fie, om. Ln. — etff r7)v oiKLav [Ln.] — elaeXderoi X eicreX^aro) Ln. Tf ^?a;. — apai TL X Ti apat Tf. 16. a)j/, o?tt. Ln. Tf. 18. 77 (Pvyrj v/xcoVj oni. Ln. Tf. JGb.=J]. 19. ^y €KTiar€v X ^i' e'er. Ln. Tf. 20. Kupios e/coXd/Scocre X iv X Tos X^'P' ^'^' f^^Tov Ln. ; Tas X^*P" "^Tca Tf. Alo;. Tis, om. Ln. Tf. Alx. — oiTiov X coTapiou Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. — i^^Xdere X e^rjXdaTc Ln. Tf 49. iKpaTTjcraTe X eKpuTelTe Tf. 50. Trdi'Te? ecpvyov X '^(l>vyov TvdvTes Tf. 51. ets- Tis veavifTKOs X PeaviaKOs Tis Ln. ^te. •- rjKoXovdei X ]2. eK 86VT€pov, prcem-evOvslun.; prcem. evdecos Sch. [Gb. '+']. — TOV prjfjiaTOS ov X ^6 prjjxa as Ln. Tf. ; TO p^z-ia 6 Sch. [Gb. f^]. — cjicovrjo-ai bis X bis (fxov. Ln. Tf. — dTrapvrjar] jxe Tpis X TptV p.e dirapv. Ln. Tf. Chap. XV. 1. evdecDS X et'^v? Tf, — €771 TO, om. Ln. — Ta TLiXaTCp, om. Tea Ln. Tf. Alx. 2. enrjpaiTrjo-cv X eTrrjpaTa Ln. mg. — fiVej/ auTO) X atiTO) Xeyet Tf 4. iirrjpdiTricrev X irajpoira Tf. — KaTafiapTvpovcnp X KaTrjyo- povaiv Ln. Tf. .<4te. 7. (jvcTTaaiaaTaiV X aTacnacr- Tcbv Ln. Tf. ^Za;. 8. dva^or]cras X dva^ds Ln. Tf. 10. TTapabeboDKeicrav X TTapeba- Kav Alx. 12. aTTOKpt^eiy TrdXti/ X ttoXiv diroKp. Ln. Tf. — etTTCj/ X f Xeyei/ Tf. — deXere, om. Alx. — ov Xeyere., om. Ln. ^te. — /3ao-tXea, prcem. tov Ln. Tf. 13. €Kpa^av, add. XeyovTes Ln. 14. KaKov enoLTjaev X eVoi. ko- /coV Tf. — irepLaaoTepcos X 7repia(rQ)S Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — €Kpa^av X €Kpa^ov Ln. ^Za?. I), evdvovaiv X evbibvcTKOvaiv Ln. Tf ^?a;. 30. /3ao-tXeC X o /SacrtXevy Gb. Sch. Tf. TO. Xbia X ci^Tov Ln. [Gb. -]. e^dyovaiv X a.yov(riv Ln. crraupcBcrcocrii'X oraupcocrou- o-ti' Ln. Tf. ^?ir. UTT X OTTO Ln. Tf. eVi, o(Z? 'Icoo-^roff Ln. Tf. — Tiderai X redeirai Ln. Tf. [Gb. cv]. ^te. ^ Chap. XVI. 1. TOV 'la/ca)/3ov, Gb. -» tov 2. rijy /itas X /^t? to)!/ Ln. 3. e/c X dno Ln. ^Za?. 4. dn-o/ce/cvXiarai X dfo/ce/cuXt- o-rat Tf. i. elcreXdovaai X iXdovaai Tf. 7. aXX' X dXXd Ln. Tf. 8. Taxv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — 5e X yap Ln. — ovbev, om. Ln. (? erratum.) 9. ver. 9 ad fin. om. Tf. [Gb. =J]. — d0' X Trap' Ln. 10. eKelurj, add. be Ln. 14. vcTTepov, add. be Ln. — €yr]yepix€POV, add. e/c veKpav Ln. 17. ravra 7rapaKoXov6r](Tei\Tra' paKoXov6r](T€i TavTa Ln. 18. /3Xd^/^etX/3Xd^/AJ; Gb. Sch. Ln. 19. Kvptoy, add. ^Irjcrovs Ln. Jte. 20. ^Ajxrjv, om. Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Chap. I. 5. /cat Tj yvvrj avTOV X 'fcti yvvf) avTO) Ln. txt. Tf. Alx. 6. ivaiinov X evdvTiov Tf. 7. J7 'EXta-df3er ^y X ^i' 'EXt- CT-d/3er Ln. ; rjv tj 'EXl(t. Tf. ALx. 8. evavTt X evavTLOV Gb. <^^. yi?x. 10. ToC XaoC ^i' X '7^' ToC Xaov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 14. yevvTjo-et X yej/eVei Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. i^.roO Kupt'ou, om. rou Gb. Alx. 20. TrXrjpcodqa-ovTai X nXTjadfj- (Tovrai Gb. ~. 22. TjbvvaTO X ebvvuTO Ln. Tf. 25. 6 Kuptoy, om. 6 Ln. 26. VTTO X OTTO Tf. - Na^apeV X Na^ape^ Ln. Tf. 27. p.fp.UT](rT€Vp.€l/rjvX ffJiVr](TT€V- fjLevT]v Ln. Tf. 28. 6 (iyyfXos, om. Tf. LUKE. 38. evXoyrjiievT] av eV yvvai^iv^ om. Tf. [Gb. -]. 29. tSovo-a, om. Gb. Tf. .^?a;. — bierapaxdrj eVt ra> Xdyo) au- Tov X eVt TO) Xdyo) bieTap. Gb. Tf. ^te. ; dieTapdxdr] Gb. t^ ; [tSoCaa buTapd^dr) Gb. cv]. 30. aur^ X Trpoff avTrjv Ln. mg. 34. e'aTai, add. p-oi Alx. 35. yevvoi)p.evov, add. e'/c croO [Ln.] [Gb. '+']. 36. avyyevrjs X crvyyevls Ln. Tf. — yr}pa X y'7Pf t Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 37. T(o Geo) X ToO GeoO Ln. mg. Tf. 39. Maptdp. X Mapi'a Ln. mg. 41. ^ 'EXtcrd/3er tov dcnvaapiov TTfs Mapias X toJ' oo-tt. r. Map. ^ 'EXto-. Ln. Tf. Alx. 42. (pavfj X /cpauy^.Tf. 44. eV ayaXXido-ei to ^pecjios X 22 TO ^pe(j). iv ayaXX. Gb. Sch. 49. /ieyaXeia X /ixfydXa Ln. 50. yeveav \ /cat yej/edy Tf. [Gb. ~] ; [f ts yevedv /cai yevedv Gb. ^0. 55. ety TOV alcova X fi^s alcovos Gb. Sch. [Rec. Gb. ~]. 56. ebaet X t^s Ln. 59. dySd?; rjpepa X ^f- t,^ oyS. Ln. Tf. [Gb. c^]. Alx. 6t. eiTTOV X ftTTOf Tf. — eV Tjj avyyeveia. X ^''^ t^s (Tuyyei/eias' Ln. Tf. [Gb. <>>>]. Alx. 62. avTov X avTO Ln. Tf. 66. Kat ;^eip X '«ai ydp ;)(eip Ln. Tf. Alx. 67. 7rpo€(f)r)T€Vcr€ X eTrpocfirjTeV' a-ev Ln. Tf. 69. TO) oi/co), o?/t. To> Ln. Tf. Alx. - ToO Tratfioy, o?m. toO Ln. Tf. Jo. Twv ttTT aicovos, om, Tcov Tf. Alx. 74. t5>v e)(6pa)V, mn. Tciv Ln. Tf. — rjficov [Ln.] om. Tf. 55. Tracray raj rjfjLepas X Tracrais rals T]fM€pais Ln. mg. — tt}? ^o)^?, ora. Grb. Sch. Ln.Tf. 56. Kai o-i', acZd. 5e Tf. Also. Chap. II.^ 2. T] aiToypaCJirj, om. rj Ln. — Kvprjvlov X Kvptvov Ln. 3. iSt'ai/ X cauTOu Ln. 4. Na^aper X Na^apa^ Ln. ; Na^ape^ Tf. g. anoypa^acrdai X oTToypd- (peadai Ln. — lx€p.vr](TT€vp.evrj X ip.vr](TT€Vjx. Ln. Tf J?a;. — yuj/atKt, o?n. Ln. Tf. ^tr. 5. r^ (pdrvT]^ om. ttj Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. ^Za;. 9. Kvpiov 2° Gb. -♦. 12. ia7vapyava)[ievov.) add. koX [Ln.] ^Zx. — r^ (pdrvrj, om. Tjj Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. ' 14. evtoKia X cvdoKias Ln. 15. Acai oi avBpaTTOL [Ln.] ; om. — eiTTOi/ X eXaXoui' Ln. mg. 16. dvevpov X dvevpav Tf. ; eii- poj/ s. evpav Alx. 17. buyvaipi(jav\iyv6}pio-avJjQ.. Alx. 19. MapidfJL X Mapta Ln. 20. eirecrTpeyJAav X vnecTTpe-^av Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 21. TO TraLdiov X clvtov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — /cat eKkr]6r], om. Koi Alx. 22. avTcbv X ct^T^S' Elz. ; auTOU Gb. ~. 23. i/d/io), prccm. rw Ln. 24. vofxco, prcem. ra Ln. Tf. — veoaa-ovs X vo. Sch. Ln. Tf. 28. avTOV^ om. Tf [Ln.] 33. ^IaKrr](f) X o ^l(oar)

>pov, om. rrjv Ln. Tf. Alx. 4. \eyovTOS^ om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.^]. Alx. i. evdsiav X eiidetas Ln. Tf. 7. ouy X be Alx. 9. KoXov [Ln.] 10. TTOLTjaopev X noirjo-cop.ev Sch. Ln. Tf [Gb. ~]. 11. Xeyei X eXey^i' Ln. Tf. Alx. 12. eiTTOV X etTrai/ Ln. — 7roLT]aop.€V X 7iroir}craT](f) ovTOS Tf. Ln. mg. Alx.; {ov)(\ Ln. txt.) cV Trj Kanepvaovp X f'S' K.. Gb. Ln. Tf. AUc. (s. iv). [Rec. Gb. cv], eVi cVt;, owi. eVi Ln. IdpeTTTa X 2ape(fiOa Tf. .(4te. 2iSa)i/oy X SiSwi/i'ay Ln. Tf. [Gb. -v]. Alx. em ^E\i(TcraLov rov npocfyf)- TOV ev Ta> ^IcTparjX X ei' tw 'icrp. cVi 'EXtcr. rov npocf). Ln. Tf. Alx. ; CEXtaaiov Ln.) LUKE. 27. Nee/iar^XNai/iat'Ln. Tf. ./4/ic. 29. r^y ocPpvos, om.TTis Gb, Sch. Tf — avTcov coKoboprjTO X (OKobofi. avTcov Tf. — €is TO X ioare Gb.Ln. Tf. Alx. 34. Xeycov., om. Tf. 3<. e| X a7r' Ln. Tf. [Gb.~]. Alx. — TO peaov., om. to Gb. Cst. 38. eK X OTTO Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. — ^ nevdepd, om. rj Gb, Sch. Ln. Tf. 39. rrapaxprjpa be X koX irapa- XpvpaJun.mg. 40. eniaels X ^niTiOeXs Ln. txt. Tf. Alv. 41. Kpd^ovTa X Kpavyd^ovTa Ln. Tf. .^te. — 6 XpcaTos, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. 42. e^r]TOvvX eiTe^r]T0vv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 43. /xf bel X SeT />ie Ln. — els TOVTO X eVi tovto Ln. Tf. ^te. — aTreaTaXpai. X aTreo-raX?;!/ Ln. Tf. Alx. 44. eV raly crfraycoyaty X f'$' Ta? crui/aycoyas Tf. Alx. — Tris TaXiXaias X t^? 'Iou- Chap. V. I. TOV cLKoveiv X fa I a/cou. Tf. Ln. mg. Alx. 2.bvo nXoXa X TrXoiapia bvo Ln. mg. ; Si;o irXoidpia Tf. — a7rO;Safres ott' avTcov X ott' OL^r. a7ro/3. Tf. Alx. — dnenXwav X enXwov Ln. Tf. ; errXwav Gb. ~. .^?a:. 3. ToO 2ip(ovos, om. tov Ln. Tf. — Kal KadlaasX nadiaas be Tf. Ln. mg. 5. 6 2ipa)v, om. 6 Tf. — r^y WKTOf, o?ft. T^y Ln. Tf. Alx. — TO biKTVov X TCI biKTva Ln. mg. 6. Ixdvcov TrXrjBos X TrX^^oy Ix^vayv Gb. Sch. — biepprjyvvTO be to biKTVOv X bLeppTjcreTO be to. biKTva Ln. mg. ; biepTjaeTC be to blKTVOV Tf. 7. rots' eV, om. toIs Tf. [Ln.] 24 8. TOV *1t)(tov., om. TOV Ln, Tf. 10. 6 'irjaovsj om. 6 Tf. 11. anavTa X 7rai/ra Ln. 13. elncov X Xeycov Ln. .<4Zjr. 15. vtt' aurov, o;«. Ln. Tf, [Gb. =t]. ^te. 17. ^apLcraloi, prcem. 01 Ln. — eXr}Xv66T€s X o-vj/eX7;Xi'^o- rey Ln. txt. Alx. 19. Sta TToias, om. bia Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 20. avro), o?ra. Gb. Ln. Tf. Alx. (s. TO) TrapaXvTiKO)). 21. d^levai dpaprias X dpap- Tias dcpelvai Ln.txt.Tf. ^te. — pLOvos X fif •^'•^• 22. dnoKpideh., om. Ln. 23."Eyetpat X ^y^ipe Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 24, e^ovaiav e^^ft 6 vtos rov dv- dpanov X o vlos tov dv6p. e^ovaiav ex^t Tf. Ln. mg. — napaXeXvpevco X napaXvTi' K6) Ln. [Gb. f^]. Alx. — eyeipai X eyetpe Gb. Sch.Ln. Tf. 2^ e(j) w X e(i>' o Tf. [Gb. ^ Alx. 26. KoX eKCTTacris eXa^ev dnav Tos Kal ebo^a^ov tov Qeov, om. Alx. 27. ededauTO X eibev Ln. mg, 28. dnavTa X TrdvTa Ln. .<4te. — TjKoXovdTjaevX^KoXovdeiLn. txt. Tf. 29. 6 Aevi?, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln, Tf. Alx. — TeXoivoJv noXvs X ttoXvs re- Xciovcov Ln, ^te, 30. ot ypappaTets avTcov Kal ol ^apicraloi X 01 ^ap. Koi ol ypap. avTwv Ln. Tf. Alx. — peTci, add. tcov Gb. Sch.Ln.Tf. — Koi c'tpapTcoXcbv., om. Tf. 3i.aXXa X aXX' Ln. Tf. 33. einov X elirav Ln. Tf. — Atart, om. Tf. ^te. 34. 6 6e, a<^W. 'iT^croCy Alx. — VTjaTeveLU, om. Alx. 3$. Kal OTav X [Kal] Ln. 36. eTTL^Xrjpa., add. dno [Ln.] Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. — KaLvov, add. trp^icras Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. — crx'iC^i. X crxiVei Ln. txt. Tf. Alx. ~ crvpcPcovel X avp(f>cov^(Tei Ln. Tf. ^to. 36. em^Xrjfia, om. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Cst. ; prcem. to Alx. 37- P'?!" X p^(yo-€L Ln. mg. — 6 veos' oivos X o oiVoff 6 vios Ln. Tf. ^Zx. 38. Ka\ dficporepoL avvTqpovv- Tai, om. Tf. [Gb. -]. ^te. — evdecos, om. Tf. ^Za;. Chap. VI. 1. devTepo7rpa)Ta>, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. — roil/ (r7ropip.(av, om. rcov Ln. Tf. — X^P<^h '^f^- avTcov [Ln.] 2. aiTOiy, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.-]. Alx. — Tvoielv eV, om. Ln. Tf. Alx. 3. Trpoff avTOvs eiTvev 6 Irjaovs X 6 'Irjcr. eiTreu Trpbs avrovs Ln. Alx. — OTTore X oT€ Ln. Alx. — oz/res-, om. Ln. ^Zs:. 4. ©s, om. Tf. [^Za;.] ; ttSs Ln. txt. [Alx.'] — eXa/Se, koX Gb. -, [o?ra. ^Za?.] ; Xa^cbv Ln. [^Za;.] — Koi TOtff, o?/i. Kai Ln. Tf. Alx. 6. Kol €V, om. Koi Ln. Alx. — efcei avOpcoTTOS X aV^p. e/cei Tf. ^Zo;. 7. TrapeTrjpovv X TzaperrjpovvTO Ln. Tf. [Gb. e^]. ^Za:. — avTov, om. Sch. Ln. [Gb. =J]. — OepanevcreL X depanevei av- TOV Alx. 8. Kai etTre X ewrei' be Tf. Ln. mg. ^Za:. — rco dvdpanrcp X tm dvbpl Tf. [Gb. ^]. ^zk -"EyeipaL X eyetpe Gb.Ln.Tf. .4Za;. — 'O Se X fcii I^n. Tf. ^Za:. 9. ouj/ X Se Ln- Tf. Alx. — 'EyrepcoTT^cra) X ^TrepcoTU) Tf. ^Za?. — Ti X et Ln. Tf. — To79 ad^^aa-iv X tw a-aj8- /3ara) Ln. txt. Tf. — aTToXeVai X aTTOKreti/at Gb. Sch. [Rec. Gb. t^]. 10. T(o dvdpayrrco X avrat Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Kec. Gb. ~]. — iTToirjcrcv X iieretve Gb. o^. Alx. — ourco, o??i. Gb. Cst. — drroKaTeaTddr) X aTreKare- (rrddr) Gb. Ln. Tf. Alx. LUKE. , uyijyy, o?rt. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. a>s T) oXXt], om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. t*^]. Alx. , TTOirjo-eiav X TTOirjcraiev Ln. ^Za;. , i^ffkdev X e^eXdelv avrbv Tf. [Gb. f^]. ^Za:. , 'laKa)/3oi/, prcem. Koi Ln. Tf. ^Zx. ^iXlttttov, prcem. Kal Ln. Tf. ^Za:. Mar^atoj/j prcem. Koi Ln. Tf. ^Za;. roi' rou, om. Tf. Alx. ^iovdav, pi'cem. kol Ln.Tf. Alx. ^IcTKapLoonjv X ^laicapiood Ln. Tf. OS /cat, OOT. Kal Ln. Tf. 6xXovp.€voi X evoxkovfievoi Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^Za;. VTTO X aTTO Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Kal idepanevovTO^ om. Koi Ln. Tf. Alx. e^r]T€C X e^TjTOVv Tf. Ln. mg. jjLLarja-aKnvX fiio-rjcroiicnv Ln. mg. ej/e/ca X evsKev Ln, Xaipere X X'^PV'^ ^^- S<^^' Ln. Tf. ravra X to atira Ln. txt. Tf. Alx. ; ravTCL Ln. mg. [Gb. «^]. ep.7r€7r\rj(riJ.euoL, add. vvv Alx. vfuv, ol yeXcovres X vp-^v, om. Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. vpTiv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. TTavres, om. Gb. Sch. ravra X to. avrd Ln. txt. Tf, Alx.; Tavrd Ln.mg. [Gb. c^j]. 'AXX' X oXXa Ln. Tf. vp.lv X vp-ds Gb. Sch. Ln. txt. Kal npocrevx^o-de, om. Kal Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. VTrep X nepl Tf. Se Ta [Ln.] ; om. Se Alx. Kal u/xet? [Ln.] ;(apt? ecTTL X eVrti' X"P^^ I^^- bavei^TjTe X bavela-Tjre Ln. txt. ; fiai'e/^ere Tf. Ln. mg. [Gb. <^], drroXajBelv X Xa/3eti/ Tf. yap, om. Tf. Oi, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ::^]. Alx. dTreXTTL^opTes X d(peXTri^ov- res Ln. noXvSf add. iv Tols ovpavols [Ln.] roO vy\rLaT0v, om. rod Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf, 25 36. oyj/, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. ^Za;. — Ka6a>s Kal, om. Kal Tf. [Ln.] Alx. 37. Aral Oil firj X ti'a /i?) Ln. txt. — p.r} KaraSt/ca^ere, ^cem. Kal Tf. ^Za;. 38. Kai aecaXevpievov Kal om. Kal bis Ln. Tf. — V7repeKxvv6p.evov X virepeK- Xwvopevov Ln. Tf, •- rm yap olto) perpcp a X a yap jxerpo} Ln. txt. .^Za?. — dvTip,€TpT]6T)(reTaL X P-^^PV drjaerai Ln. mg. 39. EtVe Se, add. Kal Ln. Tf. ^Za:. — TrecroCj/raiXf'P'^fO'owraiLn. txt. Tf. .^Za;. 40. dibda-KaXov avroVf om. avrov Ln. Tf. Alx. 42. ^ TTcoj, om. ^ Tf. — e/c/3aXeTi/, ^osf rou dbeXcfiov (TOV Tf. 43. ovde, o^cZ. TraXtv [Ln.] Tf. Alx. 44. rpvyaai aracjivXrjv X (rracp. rpvy, Tf. Alx. 45. avdpanros 2°, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. =?]. ^Za;. — 6-qa-avpov TTjS Kapbias av- rov 2°, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb, =t]. Alx. — TOV 7repta-a-evp,aTos rrjs, om. TOV et TTJs Ln. Tf. Alx. — XaXet TO arop-a avTOv X ''"o aropa avr. XaXei Ln. [av- rov Gb. ->]. 48. redepeXicoTO yap enl rrju Trerpav X bid to KaXas ol- Kobojieladai avrrju Tf. Alv. 49. olKobop-TjaavTiX oiKobop.ovv- ri Ln. — evOeois X ^v6vs Tf. — eireae X crvveTvecrev Tf. Alx. Chap. YII. I, 'Errei Se X eVetSj) Ln. Tf, 4. napcKoXovv X rjp<^Ta>v Alx. — Xeyovres, add. avTw Alx. — Trape^ei X '^ctp^^U L"- ^f, Alx. 6. 6 eKarovrapxos (piXovsX^^^- Xovs 6 eKarovT. Tf, Ln. mg, Alx. — elp.L LKavbs X iKavos elpu Tf. Ln. mg. — VTTO rrjv crreyrjv p.ov X pov VTTO r. (TTey. Alx. 7. laOrjcreTai X laO^jro) Tf. 9. ovBe X ovT€ Cst. 10. oi 7refjL(f)6evT€s els tov oTkov X els TOV gIkov ol Trefxcf). Lu. Alx. — dadevovvra, om. Ln. \_Alx.'\ 11. T^ e^rjs X T^ e^^s Ln. mg. [Gb. <^]. at ' — iKavol [Ln.] [Gb. -]; om.AIx. 12. Te6vT]KU)s [Ln.] — utoy fjLOvoyevTjs )[ fiovoy. vlus Tf. Ln. mg. — avrr}^ add. rjv St. Ln. Alx. — Ikovos rjv., om. rjV St. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. Cst. 1$. dveKadiaev X eKcidcaev Ln. mg. — edcoKev X aTreSco/cei/ Ln. mg. i6. dnavras X Travras Gb. Sch. — iyrj-yepraL X VJ^P^^ ^^- 1^- 17. eV Tracr?; X f^* [Ln.] 19. ^lr]crovv X Kvpioj/ Tf. Ln. mg. 20. elirov X etVat' Ln. Tf. — dXKov X erepov Alx. 21. 'El* avr^ X ^v eKeivT] Tf. Ln. mg. Alx. — be^mi. Ln. Tf. — TO iSXeVeiy, ow. TO Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. Cd. 32. 6 'iT/croOy, 07?i. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. — OTL ru^Xot, om. on Ln. ^te. 24. 7rp6? Tovy o;^Xoi;s X Tot? 0;^- Xoi? C'i-^. — e^eXrjXvdare X e^rjXdare Ln. ^[Gb.-]. 25. e^eXrjXvOare X e^rjXdare Jun. [Gb. ~]. ^te. 26. e^eXijXvdare X e^rjXdare Ln. [Gb.ro]. J?^. 27. eyo), om. Ln. Tf ./4Za;. 28. Ae'yo) yap, om. yap Tf. ; dfjLrjv Xeyo), s. Xe'yo) 6e, s. Xeyco — TTpocpTjrqs^ om. Ln. [Gb. -»]. — TOV BaTrrtoTToO, otn. Tf. [Gb. -]. yite. SI. eine 8e 6 Kvpios., om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 32. Koi Xeyovaiv )[ Xeyovres Tf. Alx. — v/xti/ 2°, om. Alx. 33. dpTov eadicov X eadcov lip- Tov Ln. Tf ; [upTOV Gb. -* ; o;rt. yfte.] — oii/oi/ nivoiv X TTivuiV olvov Ln. Tf ; [0^1/01/ Gb. - ; otn. Alx.} LUKE. 34. ecrdicov X eaOcov Tf. — TcXcdvcov (pCXos X (jiiXos T€- Xoovcov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 35. Tcov TeKvav avrrjs ndvTOiv X Traz/rcoi' r. re/c. aCr. Ln. Tf ; {.TTavTcov Gb. -♦ ; om. Alx.] 36. TT]v oiKiav X Toy otKoi/ Ln. Tf Alx. — dueKXidr] X KareKXiBr] Ln. Tf. 37. eV r^ TToXet, jJ't'i? rjv X '7^15' ^1/ eV T^ TToXci Ln. txt. Tf. — €7riyvovaa, prcem. koX Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. — dvaKeirai X KaraKetTai Ln. Tf. ^te. 38. Tvapa Tovs irodas avrov ottl- aco X oTTLcra) napd tovs no- das avTOv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — To7s daKpvcn, ante ijp^aTO Lu. Tf. Alx. — i^ep.a(T(re \ e^epa^e Alx. 40. (pr]cri, AiddanaXe, eiVe X AtS. eiVe, cf)r]ai.v Tf 41. xP^(^^^i^^To.i X X/^fo^^*^^'" rat Ln. Tf. 42. 5e, om. Tf. [Lu.] Gb. r>. ^/a^. — fiVe, om- Ln. [Gb. -»]. Alx. — avTov dya7rr]o-€L X ayaTTTjcrfi avTov Ln. Tf. ./i^^. 43- Se 1°, om. Tf [Ln.] Alx. 44. eVt Tou? TTodas fxov X /^o* eVi 7r68as Tf — r^s- KeCJiaXrjs, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 45. elarjXdov X darjXdev Gb. ^5. — /xou rot's TrdSa? X tovs nod. fiov Gb. Ln. [Gb. -]. 46. /iou TOVS nodas X Touy tto'S. p.ov Ln. Tf 47. ai ap-apTLai avTtjs X aur^ ai dpap. Ln. 49. ovrds' fo-rii' X eaTiv ovtos Ln. ^te. Cii.^p. VIII. 3. auroj X avTols Sch. Tf [Gb. -].' — dno X e< Ln. Tf. [Gb.~]. Alx. 5. avTOv X eauroO C'a<. 6. eneaev X KaTeneaev Tf. 8. eVt X et? Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 9. Xeyoi/rey, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -♦]. Alx. li.ad fin. add. ravTa, Xeycov ec^covet, 'O e\(ov a>ra d/cou- ftj/, u/coueVo) Cat. 16. Xu^i^iay X TJ^i/ Xv^i'iaj/ y(i.c 2G 16. iniTidrjaLV X Tidi]aiv Ln. Tf. 17. oy yva>aOr](T€TaL X ov ^17 yvoiaOfj Ln. 18. yap ai^ X az/ yap Tf. 20. Ka\ dnrjyyeXr] X dirqyyeXr) de Ln. Tf. ^te. — Xcydt-rcoi', om. Ln. ^Zo:. 21. Trpos avTovs X ci^toIs Ln. txt. — avTOV, otn. Gb. Ln. Tf. ^Za-. 22. Kat iyeveTO X eykveTO he Ln. Tf. ^te. — eVf3?7 X ai^e/377 Tf. 23. dvep.ov, post Xip.vr]V Ln. mg. 24. eyep6e\s \ bieyep6e\s Tf. Alx. 2i. ecTTLV, om. Ln. Tf. Alx. 26. Ta8apr)va)v X Tepacnjvcov Ln. Tf. [Gb. 0^]. ^te. (s. Tcpye- arjvoiv). — dvTinepav X dvTinepa Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 27. e/c xpovoiv LKavwv X ^at XP^'" I/O) tKaj/o) ^Za?. 28. /cat az/aKpd^aff, om. /cat Lu. Tf. Alx. — 'l7;cro{) Gb. -• — Tov Qeov Gb. -♦. 29. IlapT^yyetXe X naprjyyeXXev Ln. Tf Alx. — ibea-pelTO X eheap-eveTO Tf — dLappT]cr(rvXdiapT]cr. Ln. Tf. — daip-ovos X baip^ovLov Ln. txt. 30. Xeycuv, om. Ln. — eVriy ovop.a X ovop.d icTTiv Ln. ^Za;. — baipovia noXXd elarjXdev X elcrrjXd. daip., noX. Ln. Tf 31. Trape/cdXet XnapeKoXovv Ln. [Gb. c=^]. ^Za;. 32. l3ocrKop.eva>v X ^oaKopLevq Ln. txt. ylZar. — napeKaXovv X napeKaXeaav Ln. Tf ^Za;. 33. elcrrjXOev X elarjXBov Sch. Ln. Tf [Gb. c^]. 34. yeyevrjp.evov X yeyovos Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — aTreX^dyrey, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 35. Kadrjpevov tov dvdpanov X rdi/ dvOptonov Kadrjp.evov Ln. mg. ^ ^ ^ 36. Kal 01 Idovres, om. Kal Ln. [Gb. =:]. ALT. — 6 bcup-oviaOeis Gb. =J. 37. T]pdiTr](rav X rjpa)Tr](r€v Ln. 37- Tabaprjvav X Tepacrrjvav Ln. Tf. Alx. is. Tepye(rr)va)v). — TO TvKoiov, om. TO Ln. Tf. Alx. 38. ideeTO X edee^TO Ln. — e^eXrjXvdei to. baipovia X to. daifi. e£eX. Ln. mg. ^to. — 6 'Irjaovs, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. =J]. ^to. 39. eTTOLTjaeu aoi X o-ot eVoi. Ln. Tf Alx. 40. eyevcTO Se ev ro X ^'^ Se ro) Alx. — v7ro(TTp€-\j/'ai X vrroaTp€(f)€Lv Ln. mg. 41. avTos X oiiros Ln. txt. ^te. 42. 0)? X wf^ft .^Z*. — 'Ev Se T(5 virdyeiv X 'cai e'ye- j/ero eV rw TTopevea-dai Ln. Tf. ^Z». — avverrviyov X (rvvedXi^ov Alx. 43. etff larpovs X lorpots Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — /Si'oi/, a(M. avrjjs Ln. — w X an Ln. Tf. 45. p,€T avTov X o"'^^' avroj Gb. Ln. Tf Alx. — Koi Xeyeis, Ti's 6 dyj/dfjievos fxov ; Gb. -» ; om. Alx. 46. 'ljycro£!s Gb. =J. — e^eXdova-ap X e^eXrjXvdv^av Tf. 47. avTo), o?/i. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 48. Qdpo-ci, om. Ln. Tf [Gb. -*]. Alx. — OvyaTep X dvydTtjp Tf. 49. Trapa X avro Ln. — aiTO), 07?i. Tf. Alx. — fxr) X p-rjKeTL Ln. io. Xiyoav, om. Ln. Tf. Alx. — TTLO-Teve X mo-Teva-ov Tf. SI. EtVeX^o)!/ X A^o)?' Gb. Sch. Ln. — ovbeva X Tiva avv avra Ln. Tf lAlx.'] — ^ldK(oj3ov Koi 'l(odvvr]v X 'l«- a:/. /cai 'lax. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 32. ovK X ou yap Ln. txt. Tf. Alx. — dnedavev^ add. to Kopdaiov Alx. i4. cK^aXmu e^o) ndvTas, Koi, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -»]. Alx. — iyelpov X eyeipe Ln. Tf. Alx. Chap. IX. I. jxadrjTas avTOV, om. Gb. Tf. Alx. (s. aTTOOToXovs). LUKE. 2. daBevovvTas X acr^eveis' Ln. Tf [Gb. ^3. ^te. 3. pd^dovs X pd^bov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 5. 8e^a)VTat X de^avTai Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. ^te. — Kai roi/, OOT. Koi Tf. [Ln.] ^te. 7. ycvofieva X yeuopeva Ln. mg. — vtt' avTov, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. =?]. ^Za;. — eyrjyepTai X VY^P^^ ^''^- T^- 8. eis X Tt? Tf. Alx. ; (s. om. eJs). 9. Kai ewrej/ X ewrei/ 8e Ln. Tf. ~ 6 'HpcoS?;?, ow. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 10. TOTTOV eprjiJLov TToXecos KoXov- pevrjs X TToXiv KaXovpevrjv Tf [Gb. ~] lAlx.'i ; [els TO- TTOV ep. Gb. c=^]. [Alx.] 11. be^dpevos X dTTobe^dpevos Ln. Tf. Alx. 13. aTreX^oVres' X TTopevOevTes Gb. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. . — /ca^' rjpepav, om. Sch. Ln. [Gb. =J]. 24. ai/ X fcti' Csi- 37. Q)Se X avTOv Tf. — eaTTjKOTCaV X ^(TTOiTCOV Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — yevcrovTai X ycixrcovTUi Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 27 38. Kai TrapaXa^av X [Kat] Ln. — rov IleTpov^ om. top Gb. Sch, Ln. Tf. — ^ladvvrjv kcu 'laK&)/3oi/X 'laK. Kat 'Icodi'. Tf [^Za;.] 31. eXeyov., add. [be] Ln. 33. 6 nerpoy, o?re. 6 Cst. — (TKrjvcis Tpe7s X Tpels (TKqvas Alx. — Mcoo"f t piav X /Miaz/ Mcoucrei [Gb. Sch.] Ln. Tf 34. eTreaKLacrev X eTrecTKia^ev Tf. Ln. mg. — eKelvovs elcreXdelv X elaeXd. avTovs Tf. 33. aya7r?7ros' X eKXeXeypevos Tf. [Ln. mg.] [Gb. ~]. [Alx.] 36. 6 'It^ctoCs, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. [Alx.] — ecopdKaaLv X ecopaKav Tf. 37. ej/ T^, om. ev Tf. 38. dve^6r]a€ X e^orjcrev Ln. Tf. — €7r ilSXeyj/op X ini^XeyJAaLGh. Sch. Tf. — eoTi ^01 X A^oi ecrrtt' Ln. Tf. [JZ*.] 39. Kpd^ei, add. Koi prj(r(T€i Alx. 40. eK^dXXaaiv X eK^dXaxriv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 41. Ka\ dve^opai\e(t)STr6Te dve^. Alx. — a)Se roz/ vlov (tov X toj' vtoy aov hbe Gb. Sch. ; [hbe Gb. -].^ 43. eiroLrjcrev X eTrotet Gb.Ln.Tf. [^Za;-.] — 6 'Ij^o-oOs, o?n.. Tf [Gb. =J]. [^Za;.] 45. epcoTTJa-ai X enepcoTrjcraL Ln. [JZa?.] 47. tScbz/ X eiScbs Cs^. 48. eai' X O.V Ln. — eo-rat X ^o'tiv Ln. txt.Tf [Gb. f^]. Alx. 49. 6 'Icoaw?;?, om. 6 Ln. Tf. — em X f'** ^Za;. — Ta baipovia, om. to. Sch. Ln. Tf [Gb. =*]. — eKcoXva-apeu X eKcoXvopev Ln. mg. 50. Kai eiTre X etVei/ be Ln. txt. Tf. ^Za?. — KcciXveTe, add. avTov Alx. — T]pa>v, vnep rjpa>v X vpoov VTTep vpcou Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Jr. avTov [Ln.] ; eavTOv Cst. — eaTTjpi^e X iaTrjpia-ev Tf. 53. &(rT€ X toy Ln. mg. 54. fiTTov X fiVai/ Tf. — (iTTo X f < Ln- — a)ff Kat 'H\tay eTTolijae, om. Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. ii. KCLL emev, Ovk otdare otov TTvevixaros eare vfiels ; 56. 6 yap vlos Tov dudpcoirov ovk fjXde ■v//'i;;(as dvdpa>Trcov OTro- Xecrai, aXXa aaxjai, om, Ln.Tf. ; [56. 6 yap . . . o-w- (rat^ om. Gb. Scli., ccntera Gb. =J ; om. Alx. et Cst.} $>}. 'Eyeuero Se X xal Tf. [Gb. f*j]. Alx. — av X ^au Ln. Tf. [Alx.} — KvpL€^ om. Ln.Tf. [Gb.->]. Alx. 59. aTviKdovTi TTponTov X npcoTov dneXdelv Ln. 60. 6 'ij/o-oOy, oy?i. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. -]. 6a. Trpos avTov, om. Tf. ; ^Woi 6 'It/o-. Ln. [CsL] — em^aXcbv X e7n(3dXXcov Ln. — eiy T?)i/ [BaaiXeiav X t",^ i^a- o-iXem Ln. Tf. [Alx.] ' Chap. X. 1. €^8op.r]KouTay add. [Svo] Ln. [Alx.} — efieXXev X rjfxeXXeu Ln. Tf. — epxeaOai X elaepx^ecrdaL Ln. mg. 2. ow X Se Ln- Tf. [Gb. ~]. [Alx.} — iKlUciXXj] epydras X ^pydras eKJSdXXrj Tf. ; eK^dXr] epy. Gb. Sch. Ln. 3. iyoi, om. Ln. Tf. 4. ^aXdvTiov X ^aXXdvTLOv Ln. Tf. 5. olKiav flaepxr](rOe X oIkluv cl(feXdr)T€ Ln. [Gb.~J. ^te. ; el(TeX6rjT€ oiKiav Tf. 6. y^ei/, o»t. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ^7 eVei X f 'ff t .^ l-'i^- "i©- — 6 uiof, o;rt. 6 St. Gb. Sell. Ln. Tf. 7. eadiovres X ecrOovTes Ln. Tf. — eoTi, o/.'i. Ln. Tf. [Alx.} 8. ^1/ S' at' X ^i' "'^ '-"• t^-'l'- ^ '^• 10. (hrepx^qaOe X (laeXdrjTe Ln. Tf [Gb. "]. [/ffx.] ii.vp.(ou., add. els rovs nodas Ln. [Alx.} ; [.•.'zc, «A/. T]p,cop ?V , — e(/)' v/xuf, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. LUKE. 13. Xeyo) 5e, ow. 5e Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.] 13. Xopa^iz/XXopa^eiV Tf. [Jte.] — BT]d(TdLdd X B7/ScraiSa Ln. mg. — iyevovTO X eyevrjOrjorav Ln. Tf. [^/.r.] — Kadfjjxevai X Kadfjfxevoi Ln. Tf. [^te.] i^. J7 ecoy X M"? ^''^ff Ln. txt. Tf. [^te.] — v\j/a>6€7aa X l'^//■c^)^/}o"7; ; Ln. txt. Tf. [^Ite.] — rou ovpavov, om. tov Ln. — abov, pixem. rov Tf. 16. 'O duovoiv vp.S)v X o vp,. UK. Ln. mg. 17. i^bop,r]K.ovra, add. [dvo] Ln. [^te.] 19. St'ScojLit X SeSco/ca Tf. Ln. mg. Ute.] — ddiKrja-rj X aStKT^crei Elz. Ln. Tf. 20. TTuevp-ara X 8aip,6vLa Alx. — pdXXou., om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — eypdcjirj X eyyeypanTUL Tf. [^Za;.] 21. TTvevpiaTi, add. rw dyiai Ln. [JZx.] ; [2>»"<:e??i. eV ^Z.r.] — 6 'It^ctovs', o?rt. Ln. Tf. [Alx.} — eyevcTO evdoKiaXevdoK. eye- I'STO Ln. Tf. [^Zx.] 22. Kai (TTpacfiels irpos rovs p-a- drjTas eiVe, om. Elz. Gb. [Alx.} — rrapebodr] p.01 X poi rrapedo- 6q Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — idv X dv Ln. Tf. [ylZj?.] 24. eldou X et'Sav Tf [JZar.] 25. KOI Xeycov, om. Kal Tf. 27. e^ 0X77? T^? yjrvxrjs crov, Ka\ e^ oXrjs TTJs la)(vos aov, KOL e^ 0X779 Tris diauolas CrOV \€V oXrj Trj '^Vxfj (TOV, Kal Iv oXt] TJ] liTX^i- (TOV.) Koi iu oXt] TTJ diavoia aov Ln. txt. 29. dtKaiovi' X StKatcocrai Ln. Tf [Alx.} 30. edvaavTCS X e^edv(Tav Cst. — rvyxdvovra, om. Ln. Alx. 2,2. y^vopeuos, om. Alx. — iXd^u Gb. ->. [Alx.} — iSoJV, add. avTov Ln. 33. avTou 2° om. Tf. [Ln.] 34. enifSifdacras di X 'f"' eyrt/S.Ln. 35. i^eXduiVy om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =;]. [^Zx.] 28 3 J. awro), (wi. Tf. [Ln.] [Alx.} 36. ovi/, o?«. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. — Sofcei crot ttXtjctiov X ttXt;- cri'oj/ §0X61 (TOi Gb. Sch. Tf. 37. oui* X Se Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.} [Gb.-.]. 38. eyeveTO be iv tco X eV Se rw ^Za;. — Kal avTos X ['^ai] Ln. 39. TrapaKadlcraaa X rrapaKade- adela-a Tf. [^Zx.] — Trapa X Trpo? Tf. Ln. mg. Alx. — 'It/ctou X Kvpiov Ln. txt. Tf. Alx. 40. etTre X (Ittov Tf. 41. 'It^o-ovs- X KvpLOS Tf. Ln. mg. ; [6 'lr](Tovs eineu OLVTrj, ••>■. f i- 7r€V avTjj Kvpios Alx.} — Tvp(3d(r] X Bopv^d^T] Ln. 42. eVos 5e ecTTi XP^'" X oXt'yo)^ Se eVrt XP^^^ 1 ^^^^ ^^^* — dyr' aur?;? X [dn} Ln. ; [om. COT Alx.} Chap. XI. 2. 7rpo(Tevxr]ade X Trpoaevx^- ade Alx. — i^pcoy 6 ez/ roTv ovpavoli, om. Gb. Tf. [^Zx.] — 77 ^acriXeia (tov\(tov t] j3a(r. Gb. — yevTjdrjTci) TO 6eXr]p,d aov^ (OS eu ovpauo), koI errl Trjs yj)?, o??t. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Alx.} ; [&)? eV ovip. Kai eTTi yrjs} Ln. 4. d}. avTMU TO. 8LavoT]p.aTa X to. diav. avT. Ln. 19. ol viol., om. ol Ln. — KpiTcu vpa)V avTol X ayTol vpa>v KpiraX Ln. Tf. Alx. 20. eKjSaXXo), prcem. eyo) ^Za?. 22. 6 laxyporepos^ om. 6 Ln. 24. OTav^ add. de Alx. — XeyeLj prcem. Irore'] Ln. [^Za;.] 25. evpia-Kei, add. axoXd^ovra Alx. 26. eTrra erepa Trvev para Trovrj- porepa eavrov X e'r. ttv. Tvovqp. iavT. eTrra Tf. — elaeX66vTa X eXdovra Tf. [Gb. ~]. (7s«. 27. yui';) (pcovrjv X 4*covrjv yvvr] Ln. Tf. 28. avroi/, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. iAlx.l 29. avTT;, add. yevea Ln. Tf. [v4i[,r.] — emCrjTel XC^rel Tf. — Tov 7rpoy I^n. [^Zo;.] 34. ocpdaXpoSi add: ]. J?a;. — Kai oXoy, om. Kai Ln. — eariv X earat Alx. — (TKoreivov, add. ecrrai Alx. 36. ri pepos X /^f'po? rt Ln. Tf. lAlx.'] 37. XaXTjorat, acZcZ. avrbv Ln. — rjponTa X epcoTO. Ln. Tf. — Tiy, 07/^. Tf. [^Za;.] 40. e^u)6ev K.a\ to eo'oodevXeo'O}- kp Koi TO e^iodev Ln. mg. LUKE. 41. ecrrLV X ecTTat ^Za?. 42. aXX' X aXXa Tf. — ravra, add. [Se] Ln. [Gb. ■■^J. Alx. — eSei X bel Ln. mg. — d(pLepaL X TTapeivai Ln. Tf. 43. dyopat?, ofZfZ. [Kai ra? irpcc- TOKXiaias ev rots deLTrvoisI Ln. 44. ypapparels kol ^apiaaloi^ vnoKpiTol, om. Gb. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. — ol TvepLTTarovpTes, om. ol Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 48. papTvpelre X pdprvpes eare Tf. — avTcop TO. pprjpela, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. ^]. Alx. 50. eKxvpopepop X eKxypvopepop Ln. Tf. 51. roO a'lp.aTos 1°, om. tov Ln. Tf. [^Za?.] — TOV otpaTOS 2°, o??i. rot) Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] — elarjXdere X elo-i]XdaTe Gb. Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] 53. AeyoPTOs de avTov ravTa Trpoy avTovs X K.aKeWep e^~ eXOovTOS avTOv Tf. ; Kai Gb. 54. evedpevoPTes avTOv Gb. =J. — Ka\ ^rjTovPTes, om. 'JT. ; om. Kai Gb. Sch. Ln. ; i^r^TOVPres Gb. =J]. — Ipa KaTrjyopjjcrcocrip avTov, om. Tf. [Gb. =;]. Chap. XII. 4. aTTOKTeipoPTcop X aTTO/crei'- i/oVrcoy Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — TvepLcraoTepop X Trepicrcrop Ln. 5. e^ovcTLap exoPTU \ exoPTa e^ova-. Ln. Tf. [Ala.'] 6. TTtoXeirat X noaXovprai Tf. 7. oui/, o?ra. Tf. [Ln.] — 8ia(pepeTe, add. vpels Alx. g. evooTTLOP 1° X eprrpocrdep Ln. 10. ^Xacrp, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.=i]. ^Za?. crdipaTC, add. Ivpav} Ln. [Gb. ~]. Alx. ov X ovre Tf. oySe X ot'Ve Tf. pepippcop.) om. Tf. Trpoa-Oelvai enl ttjp TjXtKLap avTov X eVt rj^z/ j^Xt/c. air. Trpocrdelpat Tf. ei/a, OTO. Tf. o0re X ovbi Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] av^dpef ov Korna, ovde ptj' dei'X ovre prjdet ovre ixpal- pet Tf. ov8e, prcsm. [ort] Ln. \_Alx.'] TOP x^pTOP ep TO) dypo). X ep aypo) TOP xopTOP o-qpepop Tf. ; r. X'^P' (^VH- ^^ "7P^ Ln. dp(f)ieppv(Ti X dp({)u^eL Tf. ; ap.^ia^et Ln. ^ rt X /^ai rt Tf. eTn(r)Tel X eTnC^TodaiP Tf. [^Za;.] roO GeoO X avrou Ln. (txt.) Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. irdpTa, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. ^]. ^aXdpTia X ^aXXdpTLa Ln. Tf. [^Za:.] vpwp al ocrfpves X 01 Qa(}>ves vpcop Ln. at'aXycrei X dpaXvarj Ln. Tf. ot 5o{}Xot, 0771. Tf. [Gb. -»]. CLP 2° 07?Z. Tf. diopvyrjpai X diopvxOrjPaL Tf. GUI', o??^. Ln. Tf. [^Za:.] ai-ra), o??i. Ln. Tf. [Alx.2 eiire de X kol elnep Alx. Kai (ppoptpos X o (ppop. Ln. txt. Tf. [Gb. f^]. TOV StSoj/at, om. tov Ln. Tf. [Alx.} to (TiToperpLOP, om. to Tf. aurdi' X avTw Ln. mg. 47- iavTOv X avTOv Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 49. els X ^'■""1 Ln. [Gb. f«]. [Alx.] go. ov X OTOV Ln. Tf. [Gb. t^]. $2. OLK(o iv\ X et't oi/CQ) Ln. txt. — TpKTL. is.dLafi€piadTja-€TaLj_ rpialv 53. bLapepiadrjcrovTai Ln. Tf. Ute.] £3. #' X fVt Tf. — OvyarpX X dvyarepa Ln. ; sic prcem. rrju Tf. [.4?a;.] — prjTpi X "n^y prjTepa Ln. Tf. U/.r.] — avrJJy 2°, om. Tf. ^4. TT^y vecPeXrjv, om. Trjv Ln. U7a:.] — Xeyere, arf(Z. ort Tf. [Ln.] [Alx.] 56. T^y yT^ff Kol Tov ovpavov \ Tov ovpavov Kol Ti]s yrjs Alx. — ov doKLpd^€T€ X ovK oiSare boKLpd^eiu Alx. 58. napada X 7Tapa8o>a€C Ln. Tf. — ^ciWrj X iSaXeT Ln. Tf. ; /3a- Xt; Gb. Scb. 59- ro' X roi/ Tf. Chap. XIII. 3. 6 'l7;cro{}f, 0771. Tf. [Ln.] 3. peravoriTe X p€TavoT]crT]T€ Ijn. txt. Tf. [^/x.] — cbo-auro)? X opoioos Ln. [Jte.] 4. Kat oKTCo X [fai] Ln. ; om. Alx. — ovToi X civTol Ln. Tf. [^?a;.] — dvdpwTTOVs., prcem. tovs Ln. Tf. iAlx.l — eV, 0771. Tf. [Alx.] 5. peravoiiTeX p^Tavor](TT]T€ Ln. Tf. [/i?A\] — opoicos X wcravraiff Tf. [^?a;.] 6. eV T(u cipTTiXoyvL avTov we- cj)vT€vp€vr)v X necfivT. iv rw d/aTT. aur. Ln. Tf. {Alx.'] — Kapnov ^rjTOiv X C^twv Kap- TTov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 7. €Tr], add. dcp* ov Alx. — eKKoyj/ov, add. ovv Ln. [Alx.] 8. KOTTpiav X Konpia Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 9. el Se /A'J'yf ft? TO peWou X eif TO /ieXXoi/, et Se /^J^yf ir.TJu 1°, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] — /cat OKTO) X [licu] Ln. 12 T^f dcr^evf tnf, pircm. inro Ln. 13. dv(jipdu}6r}\dvop6u)6rj Ln.Tf. LUKE. 14. o;^X&), «^pa Gb. ~. [Alx.] 32. eTTiTekw X dTToreXco Ln. Tf. — TpiTT], add. [r]pepa] Ln. 34. TJ71/ eaur^y voaaiav X Ta eavr. vocrcria Ln. txt. 35. ep-qpos^ om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — dpr^v be Xeyco X Xeyo) be Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ort [Ln.] — /Me iSj;re X iSj^xe /ze Ln. Tf. — av., om. Tf. Chap. XIV. 3. \eya>v [Ln.] — Et, 0771. Tf. [Alx.] — depaneveLvXOepaTrevaaLJjn. Tf. [Alx.] ; culd. Tj ov Tf. [Ln.] 5. Kat aTTOKpcOels Trpbs avrovs eiVe X '<"'' etVei/ Trpoy av- rovs Ln. ; [dTTOKpt^eis- Gb. =; ; 0771. Alx.] — oWXi'tos Sch. Ln.Tf. [Gb.^^]. — epTreaelrai Xnea-elTai Ln.Tf. — ev [Ln.] ; o?7i. Alx. 6. ai/ra>, 077i. Tf. 9. per X perd Ln. Tf. 10. avdireaov X avdneae Sch. Ln. Tf. ; avd-neaai Gb. — etTTT; X f'pf ' '^ f- — evaJTTiov., add. irdvTwv Ln. [^te.] 12. pr)be TOVS crvyyevels a-ov Gb. — ere di/rtKaXeVoxTt X dirt/caX. o-e Ln. txt. Tf. [^te.] SO 12. (TOt dtraTrdSojMa X avTairo- bopd croi Tf. 13. dvair-qpovs X dvaireipovs Ln. 15. oy X oo-riy ^te. — (ipTOV X (ipiarov Gb. tv. [C^^] 16. enoLTjae X enolei. Tf. — /ie'ya X /xeyai/ Ln. Tf. 17. Trni/ra [Ln.] 18. TrapaiTelaOai navres X Trdv- Tes napaLTeladai Ln. [^te.] — 6 TTpcoro?, p^'cem. [Ka\] Ln. — e;;((B dvdyKi]vX dvdyK. e)(a> Ln. — Kat iSeti/, 077J. Kat Tf. 21. eKelvos, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. — dvaTTTjpovs X dvaivelpovs Ln. — p^coXous KOI Tvcjykovs X TV^. Kat x&J^- Ln. Tf. 22. cos X o Alx. 23. 6 oIkOS pOV X POV 6 OLKOS Tf. 24. ad fin. add. TroXXot ydp elaiv kXtjtoI, okiyoL be eKkeKToi. Cst. 26. eavTOv X avTov Ln. Tf. — en be X f ti re Ln. txt. Tf. — pov padrjrqs elvai X ^^vat pov paO. Tf. 27. avTov X eavTOv Ln. Tf. — pov eivai padrjrrjs X fiVat pov pad. Tf. Ln. mg. 28. deXcov., prcem. 6 Cst. — ra irpos X Ta els Ln. [Gb. ~] ; els Gb. Sch. Tf. 29. epnai^eiv avrS X avTap. Ln. Tf. 4. ej/ e'^ avToiV X ^$ avrcov ev Tf. [Alx.] 7. eVrat eV rw ovpava X ^v ra> ovp. eWai Tf. i\ 9. (TvyKakelTat X (TvyKoXci Tf. — Tas yeLTOvas, om. ras Ln. Tf. lo. x^P^ yiverai X ytVerat x^P^ Tf. 12. Kol BielXev X o Se SietX. Ln. Tf. 13. drravra X Tra^ra Ln. 14. l(Txvpos X lo'xvpa Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. ^Za7. 15. ye/xicrai, ttjv KoiKiav avTOv CLTTO X xopTao-^^i/at e/c ^Za;. 17. eiTre X e^J? Tf. — nepicraevovcrLV X TrepLcraev- ovrai Tf. — eycb Se, afZcZ. wSe Gb. Sch. Tf. [;?os^ Xt/xco Ln.] 19. Kai ovKeri, om. icai Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 20. iavTOv X avTov Ln. [^Za?.] 21. ayrw 6 vioy X o uios aurw Tf.' — Koi ovKCTi, om. Koi Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J] ; ad fin. add. TToir]- (Tov fie cos €va rav p.Lcr6iaiV v, prcem. tcov Ln. Tf. ~ fxocrxov TOP cnrevTOu X tov air. p6]. [ALv.] KoL audpcoTTOV ovKXovbe av6. Ln. VTrcoTTid^r] X vnoind^r} Gb. <^. TTOirjcreL X TVOU]crrj Ln. Tf. Trpoj avTov X atircu Tf. fiaKpo3vp.cov X paKpodvixel Ln. Tf [^Z^.] EtVe Se /cat X [^ai] Ln. [Gb. -] ; [om. Cst.^ 6 eiy, o?tt. 6 Ln. Tf Trpoff eavTov rai/Ta X ravra Trpoff iavTov Ln. mg. [^te.J cocTTTcp X coy Ln. oi'TOS' 6 TfXoiurjs X o reX. oi/r. Ln. mg. Kal 6 reXavrjs X o be reX. Ln. mg. els Tov ovpavov eircipai X eir- apai els tov ovpavov Tf. [Ln. mg. j els TO a-TTjBnSi om. els Ln.Tf. [Gb. =t]. [Alx.] vplv.) add. loTi] Ln. r) eKelvos X Trap' eKelvov Ln. ; Tj yap eKelvos Gb. Sell. Tf. 6 be X Oeoi X Trapa TGJ 060) ecrrti/ Tf , [om. ro) Ln. txt.] ; eoTii/ napa Qea Ln. mg. 28. 6 IleVpos, om. 6 Tf [Cst.] — d(pT)icap€v ndvTa., kol X d(p- evTes TO. 'Ibia Ln. Tf. [Gb. t^]. 29. TJ yove2s, rj dbeX({)ovs, ^ yv- vatKa X rj yvv. rj dbeXcf). rj yovels Tf. 30. ov X ovxi. Tf. — aTToXd^r) X Xa/37/ Ln. txt. 31. 'lepocroXvpa X 'lepovcraXrjfi Tf. 35. 7rpoaaLTa)V X eiraLTcov Ln. Tf 36. ri, a(Z(Z. [ai/] Ln. [.^Za;.] 39. npodyovTes X napdyovTes Ln. mg. — atdinrjcrrj X f^f-yWV ^^^ Tf- 41. Xeycor, o?ft. Tf. [^te.] Chap. XIX. 2. ovTOs X avTos Ln. — ^y 2° [Ln.] 3. 7rpobpap.a)v X npoabpafxcov Cst. 4. crvKop.a)pai.av X crvKopapeav Ln. Tf ; avKopopeav Gb. [Rec. Gb. f^]. — fit', o?re. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 7. awavTes X Travres' Ln. Tf. 8. T]pi(TT] X Tjpia-ea Ln. ; ly/x/- o-eta Tf — Tu)!/ VTrapxdvTcov pLOV X ftoti rail' vnapx- Tf — bibuipi TOlS TTT(x>XOLs\'nT(ii-)(^. bib. Tf ; [roiy ttt. St'fi. ^/.r.] II. avrov eivai 'lepovaaXrjp X eiVat avTOV ^lep. Ln. ; eiVat 'lep. avTov Tf 13. €&)$■ X fV "i^ Ln. Tf. [Gb. t^]. [yiZx.J 15. eSa)KeXfif^iou to apy. Ln. Tf [Alx.] — TTjv TpdneCav.^ om. ttjv Ln. Tl f. [Gb. :j]. — Kol eyoi X Kayo) Ln. Tf. ~ enpa^a avro X avTO eirpa^a Ln. Tf 25. eiVoz^ X eiVai/ Ln. Tf. 26. yap, o?w. Tf. [Ln.] — diT avTOv, om. Tf [Ln.] 27. eKeivovs X tovtovs Tf [^Za?.] — KaTa(x<^d^aTe^ add. avTOvs Tf. 29. avTOv, om. Tf. 30. eliTOiv X Xeyatv Ln. [^Zcc] — Xvo-afTey, pixem. Kol Tf. 31. avTft) [Ln.] ; [om. ^Za;.] 33. eiirov X etVai/ Ln. Tf. 34. eiTTov X ewrai/ Ln. Tf. ; addA OTi Ln. Tf [Alx.] I 35. enippLyj/avTes X e7rtpi'\//'aj/T6ff| Ln. Tf. I — eavTcbv X avTMV Ln. 37. Traaoov X ttoi'Tcoi' Ln. 38. elprjVT] ev ovpava X eV oup. eip^i/j; Tf 39. eiTTov X ftVai/ Ln. Tf. 40. avTols., om. Tf. — CTL(x>TTr](T(0(rLV X ClCdTTTjaOVaLV Ln. Tf — KeKpd^ovTat. X Kpd^ovaiv Tf 41. CTJ-' avT^ X fV avTT)v Ln. Tf. [^Za:.] ' 42. /cat ye [Ln.] — aov 1°, om. Ln. [JZa;.] — aov 2", [Ln.] Gb. -. 43. TTepL^aXovaiv X napep^a- Xovaiv Ln. mg. 44. eV aot Xidov enl Xidoy X Xi- 60V enl Xidco ev croi Ln. Tf. 45. eV atiTO) Koi dyopd^ovTas, om. Tf [Gb.=:] ; [om. ev avT. Alx.] 46. FeypaTTTat, culd. on Ln. txt. [yUx.] — O otKoy pov oiKOS TrpocreV" X>is ecTTtv X Koi earai 6 oik, pov OIK. npoa. Tf. Ln. mg. [Alx.] 48. evpiaKov X TjvpiaKov Ln. Chap. XX. I. eKflvcov, om. Ln. Tf [Gb. =5]. [yiZa-.] 1. apxtepels X lapels Tf. [Gb.~.] Wst] 2. elrrov X (tnav Tf. -1 Trpos avTOV, Xeyovres X ^t" yoires tt/jos avrov Ln, ; o?«. Xeyoj/rey Tf. — EiVe X ftTJ-oi/ Tf. 3. em, OTO. Ln. Tf. [Gb. :$]. [^Za;.] ^. (TvvekoyicravTo X (Tvvekoyi- ^ovTO Ln. — epe?, a(M. T^/iri/ Ln. — ovv, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. -»]. 6. Tray 6 \abs X o Xaos oTras Tf. Ln. mg. 9. Trpos Tov Xaov \iyeiv \ Xey. irp. T. \a6u Ln. Tf. — "AvdpcoTTos Tis e(f)vTeva€v ap-TTekoiva X dpneX. i(pvT. av6p. Ln. — rts-, o??i. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — i^edoTO X e^edero Tf. 10. cV, ojft. Ln. Tf. — baxriv X ^axrovcriv Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] ir. jrepyfrai erepovXerepov irep- ^at Ln. Tf. 12. TrepyjraL Tpirov X Tplrov Trep- yl^ai Ln. Tf. — KOI TOVTOV X K.aKa.vov Ln. — tSdi/reff, ow. Ln. [Gb.=?]. [^te.] 14. hiekoyi^ovTO X SieXoyiVai/ro Ln. — eavTovsXahCkrjkovs Tf. [Jte.] — SeCre, o?«. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -*']. — yevijrat X eVrat Ln. mg. 16. ^AKOvcravTCS Se X 01 Se okou. Ln. txt. — eiTTOj/ X eirrav Ln. Tf. 19. €^r]Tr]crav X i^rjTOVv Ln. txt. — ot apxtepels Koi 01 ypappa- rels X ot ypap. kol ol dpx- Ln. Tf. [JZa?.] — TOV Xaov, om. Cst. — TTjv 7rapaj3oXr]V ravTrjv eine X dnev TTjv 7rapaj3. ravr. Ln. Tf. lAlx.1 20. eis- TO X wore Ln. Tf. 22. rip7v X ^/-tay Tf. lAlx.} 23. Ti pe Treipa^ere, o»i. Tf. [Gb. =J]. [^ifa?.] 24. eTTtSe/^are X Set^are Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — drjvdpiov, add. [01 de edei- ^av KOL eiTrei/] Ln. iAlx.} — eiTVOv X elnav Tf. 25. avTo7s X Trpos avTovs Tf. 25. LUKE. 'ATToSore toLvvv X rolwv dnobore Tf. Kaiaapi, prcem. tm Tf. dj/rtXeyoj/res X Xeyovres Ln. mg. [^Za;.] aTToOavr] X ^ JI^Ji- txt. [^te.] eXa^ev, om. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Tj)!/ yvi/arKa, fcat ouros' oTre- ^ai/ei/ areKvoSj om. Tf. [Gb. ~].^ avTTjv^ add. [ajcravroos] Ln. [Osf.] Kul ov, om. Kat, St. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. de, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. [Alx.2 navTcov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -»]. [JZa:.] dnedave kol tj yvvrj X Kai 7y yvvr) diredavev Tf. [^te.] ylveTai X eaTUi Alx. iv Tfj ovv X j) yvf?) ov// iv Tjj Tf. diroKpidels, om. Ln. Tf. [JZa;.] eKyapio-KovTai X yapiaKov- Tai Ln. Tf. eKyapicTKovTai X yapi^ovrai Ln. Tf. oure X ovSe Ln. Tf. roO GeoO, om. rou Tf. rov Qeov 2°, om. tov Ln. Tf. TOV Qeov 3°, om. tov Ln. Tf. etrroi/ X elirav Ln. Tf. fieXyapTf.^ vtov AajSiS etVat X eiVat A. vlov Tf. ; [eii/ai Gb. -»]. 42. KOI avTos X avTOS yap Alx. — yf/^aXpS)V, prcem. Totv Ln. — 6 Kvpios, om. 6 Ln. Tf. 44. KVpiOV aVTOV X OVTOV Kvpiov Tf. [^Za;.] — vto? avTOv X avroi! vioy Tf. roiff padr]Tais avTOv X TTpos avTovs Tf. TTepirraTeiv iv crToXaXs X fZ' OToXaiy TcepnraTeiv Alx. o\ KaTea-6iovaiv X o* Kare- adiovTes Ln. TrpoaevxovTai X Trpocrevxo- pevoL Ln. Chap. XXL ra dcopa avratv els to ya^o- (fivXaKiov X ft? TO yct^o0. ra Swpa aur. Tf. [^Za;.] Kai Tti'a X Ttva Kai Tf. [Csi.l ; Kai [Ln.] [Gb. -*]. [Alx.] dvo XeTTTo. X XeTTTO, dvo Ln. mg. lAlx.'] 32 34- . ^ TTTOixh ovrq X oi'Tt; 17 TTrw- ;^7) Ln. txt. [^Za;.] ■ TrXet'oi' X TrXeio) Ln. Tf. , arravTes X Traires Ln. TOV Qeov, om. Tf. lAlx.'] diravTa X TrdvTa Ln. e^aXe, add. TavTa Xeyav e(f}a>vei^ *0 e^^cov wra d/cov- eti/, d/fovero) CsZ. dvaOrjpacn X dvaOepacnv Ln. d(f)€drja'eTai^ add. code Alx. Xida, add. ade Ln. [.4Za?.] "Ort [Ln.] owi/, om. Ln. Tf. [AIx.2 TavTa yeveadai X yeV. raiJra Ln. eVt e^voy X ^tt' e^roy Ln. Tf. KaTo. TOTTOVS Ka\ X /"^at KaTO. TOTTOVS Tf. XipOl KOI XotpOl X Xoipol Ka\ Xipol Ln. Tf. 6rjvai\TTXricr6rivai Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ouat Se, om. de Ln. Tf. iAlx.l iv TM Xao), om. iv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. TvavTa TO. edvT] X 7"" ^'^^ Trdira Ln. txt. Tf. axpi X "XP*^ °^ ^"- tTf.] [^Za;.] eorai X 'io-ovTai Ln. Tf. rjxova-qs X rJX"^^^ Gr^- 1^^* Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. [^Za;.] veCJieXr] X vep Ln. Tf. [^te.] — Kalaapi (jiopovs X TT]ar€P X r]pa>TT]vvp.cov Alx. , 6 5e 'lr](T0vs eXeye, Ilarep, a(j6es avTols' ov yap o'ldacri Ti TTOLOvai [Ln.] Kkrjpov X Kkrjpovs Tf. Ln. mg. [^te.] , Acal oi apxovTes, om. Kal Ln. ; prcem. avrov Alx. (Tvv avTols, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. -»]. .4te. 6 roO Geoi) e/cXe/cros X o e/c- XeKTOff roO Geou Ln. mg. ; TOV Qeov 6 cKkeKTOS Tf. ^Everrai^ov X evenai^av Tf. Acat o^os, om. Ka\ Tf. [Ln.] ^Zar. Et ai) X [ft] Ln- yeypap.p,evr} X emyeypap,- fievrj Ln. [^Za;.] ; ojw. Tf. [^Za;.] ypdp,p,aariv 'eXXt/wkoTs /cai 'Pco/ia'iKoiy Kai 'EjBpa'iKo^s, om. Tf. [Ln.] [^Za;.] Oi»ros eoTti/ 6 jSacriXei*? twi/ 'louSaio)!/ X o /Sao-. T. 'lov5. [ovToy] Ln. txt. Tf. ; lovrds ea-Tiv] Ln. mg. Xeycov, om. Tf. El av X oux* (TV Tf. Ln. mg. eVeri/xa avroj, \eya>v X eVt- ri/zo)!/ avTO) ec^?; Tf. [^Za;.] TO) 'li^aov, Offi. T« Tf. I LUKE. 42. Mvr)(r6r)Ti fxov, post [Kvpie] Ln. mg. — Kvpte, om. Tf. [Ln.] [^Za;.] — ev Tjj jSaa-iXei'a X f^S' ^^^ ^aa-Ckeiav Ln. mg. 43. 6 'l7;(ro{iy, om. Tf. — Xeyo) o-ot X o"ot Xeyo) Tf. 44. '^Hi' be X Ka\ rjv rjbrj Ln. txt. Tf. lAlx.l 46. TrapaOrjaopiaL X 7rapaTi6ep,ai Ln. Tf [Gb. ~]. [^Za;.] — Kai raC'ra X ^at roCiTO Ln. txt. ; TovTO de Tf. Ln.mg. 4l7. eho^aae X ebo^a^ev Ln. txt. Tf. 48. BetopovvTes X BeayprjcravTes Ln. txt. Tf [^Za;.] -- eaVTav, om. Tf [Gb.^]. [^Za;.] 49. avrov X avro) Ln. Tf. lAlx.J ; odfcZ. OTTO Ln. ^i. o-vyKaTaredeip-evos X o-vy- KaTaTi6ep.evos Ln. mg. [^Za;.] — OS Kal TTpocrebixeTO Ka\ av- Tos TT]v X OS npocrebex^TO TTjv Ln. Tf. [Gb. f«]. lAlx.] is- avTO 1°, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] — avTO 3° X avTov Ln. txt. Tf — ovbeTTco ovbels X ovSety ov- TTCt) Ln. Tf. [.4Zar. s. ovbels ovbenco]. 54. Kai T}p,epa^ koX Gb. =t. — napaaKevrjXTrapao-KevTJs'Lii. — Kai crd^^arov, om. Kal Tf. [^Za;.] ^5. Kai yvva^Kes, om. Kal Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. [at yui^aT/ceff Ln. Alx.] Chap. XXIV. I. /Sa^eos- X ^aOecos Ln. Tf — Kai rives avv avrals^ om. Ln. Tf [Gb. -]. lAlx.] 3. Kal elcreXQovaai X etaeX^ov- o-at Se Ln. Tf [^Za?.] — TOV KvpLov 'irjaov, om. Tf. 4. biaTTOpelcrQai \ dnopela-dai Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] — Svo dvdpes X dvbpes bvo Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — eadrjaecTLV daTpaTTTovaaisX eaOrJTi da-rpauTOvarj Ln. 5. TO TrpdcrcoTrovX to. TrpocrcoTra Tf. lAlx.] — emov X cLTrav Ln. Tf. 6. aXX' X dX\d Tf. — o)? X oo-« T,n. mg. >]. del TOV vlov TOV dvOpitTrov X TOV vibv TOV dv6. on del Tf. 35 10. rjo-av beXrjv be Sch. [Gb. ~] ; [om. rjaav be Gb. <^]. — 'laKa)/3ou, prcem. t] Ln. Tf. [Alx.] — at, om. Ln. [Gb. =J]. 11. pr)p.aTa avroiiv X prjp^ Tavra Ln. [i4Za;.] 12. ver. 12, om. Tf [Ln.] 15. 6 'Ij/ctoCs-, om. 6 Tf. 17. /cat eVre, om. Tf. 18. 6 ets, om. 6 Ln.Tf. [Alx.]; add. [e^ avTcov] Ln. — (0 ovop.a X 6v6p.aTL Ln. mg. — ev, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Gb. ~, els]. 19. Na^copaiov X Na^aprjvov Ln. mg. — Xoyo), prcem. [ev] Ln. 20. napebcoKav avTov X civTov napebcoKav Ln. 21. dXkd ye, add. Kal Ln.Tf. 22. opdpiat X opdpival Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 24. Kadoos Kal, om. Kal Ln. 27. birjpp,rjvevev X biepp.r}vev€V Ln. Tf. — eavTOv X avTOv Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 28. TrpocreTroielro X TrpocrenoL' TjcraTO Ln. txt. [Gb. tv]. [Alx:] — rroppcoTepco X noppoiTepov Ln. Tf 29. KeKXiKev, add. ^'brj Tf. [Ln.] [Alx.] 30. evkoyrjore X rjvKoyqcrev Ln. 32. elivov X ^lirav Tf. — KaX o>s, om. Kal Ln. Tf. Z3- (Tvvr]6poiap.evovs X rj^poi- a-p.evovs Ln, Tf. 34. Tjyepdr] 6 Kvpios ovTcos X ovTdS rjyepdr] 6 KvpLOS Ln. [Gb. c^]. [Alx.] 36. 6 'irjaovs, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.]^ — Kal Xe'yei avTo7s, Eipjji/?; vp,7v, om. Tf. ; add. [eyo) elpn p,r) (po^ela-de] Ln. 38. Start X TL Tf. — raty Kapbiais X tu Kapbia Ln. txt. Tf. 39. avTOs eyco elp,i X ^y^ ^^P-t avTos Ln. txt. Tf. 40. ver. 40, om. Tf. — enebei^ev X ebet^ev Ln. [Alx.] 41. OTTO TTJs x^pds Kal 6avp.a- ^ovToiv X i^oX 6avpL. dno ttjs X^pas Ln. 42. Koi dno fieXLcraiov KrjpLOV, om. Ln. [Gb. -]. [Alx.] 44. avTois X Trpos avrovs Ln. mg. Tf. - Xoyoi^add.fjLOV Tf.[Ln.]U?x.] 46. Acat ourcof eSet, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. -]. [J?a-.] 47. dp^ajxevov X dp^afxevoi Tf. JOHN. [y4te.] ; dp^ap.€va>v Ln. mg. 48. Se ecTTe, aw. Tf. 49. dTTOcrreXXa) X ^^anoaTeXKco Tf. — 'lepovaaXrjp., om. Gb. Ln. Tf. - bvvapiv e| {'\/rovs X e^ v\//'ovy bvvap.iv Tf. go. e^o) [Ln.] Gb. -». C^Za;.] — eiy 'Qr^BavLav X TTpo? Brjda- vlav Ln. txt. 51. /cai dve({>€peTO els tov ovpa- vov, om. Tf. [Gb. -»]. 52. TrpoaKwrjaavTes avTov, om. Tf. [Gb. -]. 53. 'A/iJ]:/, 07?i. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.] JOHN Chap. I. 4o.'HX^oi/ X n^Oav Tf. ; a?«. 6 Ln. Tf. 52. dir (ipTiy om. Ln.Tf. [Gb. ^]. i- 36. rov 9eoO, o^/f?. [6 a'iputv ttjv [^te.] apapriav tov Koapov] Ln. 10. 38. arTpa X ^y^ ovk el/A Ln. txt. 31. indvoi ndvTcov eVrt, 32. Koi Gb. ^ ; [om. .i4?x.] 32. Kai 6 idypuKe, [Km] Ln. — TovTO Gb. :5. [^Za;.] 34- o Geo?, ow. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.^]. Ulx.] 3^. yueVet X /xem Gb, "v. Chap. IV. I. Kvpios X 'Ij/ctovs ^te. a. 'louSaiav, ck^cZ. y^i/ .^to, 3. TrdXiv Gb. -*. [Cs^.] ^. Su^dp X Si^dp Elz. — 6 edoxev X o^ edcoKev Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 6. a)crei X wy Ln. Tf. lAlx.] *]. nielv X TTti/ Tf. 9. TTietf X TTtv Ln. Tf, — ovarjs yvvacKos '2a[iapeLrL- dos X yt^*'- 'Stajxap. ovarjs Ln. Tf. [^Zar.] 10. TTuTv X TTII/ Tf. 13. 6 'li^crou?, om, 6 Gb, Sch. Ln. Tf. 14. ov jXYj bv\fr)(Tr] els Tov alatva' dXka TO vdap 6 daxrco av- ra [Ln.] ; {bi^\tr](TeL Ln. Tf. iAlx. et o eyo) Alx.}) 16. o 'It^o-oOs, om. Tf. ; wra. 6 Ln. ; ['ij^crouy] Ln. — TOV avbpa crov X ^-ov tov avbpa Tf. 17. elrrev, add. [avTco] Ln. [Csi^.] — ovk €X(o avBpa X avdpa ovk €\a> Alx. ~ exco X e'x^'S- Ln. mg. 20. rouro) r« opet X ™ opei tovtco Gb. Sch. Ln. txt. Tf. — 8el Trpoa-Kwelv X TrpocrKvveiv bel Ln. Tf. {Alx.} 21. Fui/at, ^osi iiOL Tf. Ln. mg. [Gb. f^]. [Alx.-\ — nlcFTevaov X TTiaTcve Ln. Tf [Gb. c^]. [^te.] 23. dXX' X dXXd Ln. Tf 27. iOavfjiaa-av \ idavp,a^ov Gb. Sch, Ln, Tf. JOHN. 29, oo-a X a Tf. 30, ^'E^rjkOov, prcem. [kcuI Ln. — ow, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 31, 'Ey fie, om. 5e Tf. [Ln.] Alx. [Gb. ^]. 34. 7ro{«S X 7roLr](rv, om. koi Gb. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. — Kol 6 (TTreipcov, om. Koi Tf. [Alx.] S). 6 dXrjdLvos^ 6 Gb. -♦. [Alx.] 39. oara X a Tf, [Alx.] 42.''OTi [Ln.] — 6 XpicTTOs, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. [^Za;.] 43. /cai aTr^X^ev, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. -*]. Alx. 44. 6 'It^o-oOs', om. d Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 45. d X oara Ln. Tf. C^Za;.] 46. d 'iT^troCff, o??i. Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] ; (jx)s^ TrdXci' Sch.) 47. avTOV 2°, om. Tf [Ln.] ^te. — to X oy Ln. [Alx.] ^o. Kal eiria-Tevcrev, om. Kol Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. -]. — d 'It^o-oCs 2°, om. 6 Elz. St. Gb. [Gb. ~]. [Alx.] ii. dTTr]VTr)crav X virrjvTrjcrav Ln. Tf [^te.] — nais (TOV X Trats avTov Ln. ; vto? avroO Alx. 52. Trap' avTcov ttjv aypav X '"'71' Qjp. Trap' avT. Ln. Tf. [y4te.] — KoX elTTOV X etVoi' GUI' Tf. — Xdes X e'x^^^ ^^- Tf- [Gb.^]. ^3.'''0rt, om. Ln. [^to.] Chap. V. 1. eopTj), prmm. rj Tf. — d 'ijyo-oiiy, om. d Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. ^te. 2. Br]de(rbdXBr]d(ra'ida Ln. mg. 3.77oXu, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. =J]. — eK8exop.€Vcov Tr}v tov vduTOs Kivrj(TLV. 4. ayyikosyap KaTO. Kaipov KUTe^aivev iv Trj ko- XvpjSrjdpa, KOL eTapaacre TO v8cOp' 6 OVV TTpCOTOS € fl- eets [xeTO. TTjv TapaxTjV tov v8aTOS, vyirjs iylveTO, a dr]7roT€ KaTeix^TO voarjp-aTt, 37 ad Jin. ver. 4, om. Tf. [Gb. ={]. 4. dyyeXos ydp, add. [Kvplov] Ln. [Alx.] — iTapaaa-e to X eTapd(r(r€TO TO Ln. mg. [Cst.] 5. TpiaKOVTaOKTOt X rpidKOVTU Koi OKTcb Gb. Sch. Tf. (Ln. [Koi] ). — da-6eveia, add. avTOv Tf. [Ln.] Alx. 7. i3dXX77 X ^d\r] Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 8."Eyeipai X eyeipe Sch, Ln, Tf, ; a7rcre aKTjKoaTe Ln. [^Zx.] 38. pevovTa iv vpiv X f»' '^M'^ pevovTa Tf Ln. mg. [^Za?.] 42. dXX' X dXXd Ln. Tf. 44. Qeov [Ln.] Chap. VI. 3. Koi T)Ko\ovdei X T]Ko\ovd€l de Ln. Tf. [Alx.] — edipoiv X eOeoipovv Ln. lAIa:! — avrou, offi. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 3. 6 'iT/o-oOy, OOT. 6 Ln. Tf. 5. 6 'iT/fToC? revs' ocpOaXpovs X Tovff o(^^. 6 'It/o-ovs Ln. Tf. — TOV ^tXlTTTTOl', 0??l. TOV Ln. Tf. — dyopdcrofxev X dyopdo-copev Sch. Ln. Tf. 6. e/ieXXe X ^fieXXe ^Za:. 7. avTcov, om. Ln. Tf. [^te.] — rt [Ln.] 9. Iv, ow. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.-]. [Alx.'] — 6 X 09 Ln. Tf. [Gb. >^]. [Alx.] 10. Se, o?«. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. =t]. — XdpTOS TTOKVS X TToXvS X°P" Tos Ln. mg. — dveTTfcrov X dvenecrau Ln. Tf. — 0^1/ [Gb. ^]. [Csf.] — 01 dv8pes, om. ol Alx. 11. Se X ovv Ln. Tf. [^7^.] — rot? padr]Tdls, ol de padrj- rai, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. ^/ar. 13. iTrepicraevas X eVeptVcrei;- o-aj/ Ln, Tf. 14. 6 iTToiricre crrjpelov X a eVoi- 7/crei/ (Tiipiia Ln. mg. — 6 'iT^croCy, OJft. Tf. 15. avTOV 2°, o/re. Ln. Tf. iCst.'] — ndXiv, om. Tf. [Gb. =t]. [Cs^.] 17. OVK X ov'tto) Ln. txt. [Alx.] 18. bL-qyelpeTO X dteyeipero Tf. 19. 0)9 X &J Scocro), om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. [Alx.] 52. Trpoy oXXt^Xov? ol 'lovSaiot X ot 'lou5. Trpbs aXX. Ln. txt. — TT^v adpKa, acid. avTov Ln. 54. Kat eyo) X Kayo) Ln. Tf. [Alx.] — Tjj icrxdrrj, prcem. iv Sch. Tf. [Ln.] ' 55. d\r]du)S X a\r]dr]S his Ln. Tf. [Gb. p^]. Alx. 57. ^^creTOL X C'70-61 Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^•]. Alx. £8. fK TOi) X f'l Ln. Tf. [^/x.] — vpcov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =;]. Alx. — TO pdvva, om. Gb. Tf. — Cr)CTeTat. X C^^creL Tf. [Gb. --O. 60. ovTos 6 Xoyoj X o XD'yof ovroj Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 63. XaXo) X XeXaXT^Aca Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. r«]. 64. aXX' X aXXa Tf. 65. pov, om. Ln.Tf. [Gb. ::]• -^^a?- 66. aTTT^X^oi/, ^os< avTOv Ln. [^?x.] — roiv paOrjTiov, prcem. e'fc [Ln.] 68. ovv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 69. 6 'KpiCTTOs 6 vlos X o dyios Gb. Ln. Tf. [Kec. Gb. ~]. [AJx.] — TOV ^covTos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln, Tf. 70. 6 'Irjcrovs, om. Tf. [Gb. =J]. 71. ^laKaptoiTrjv X 'icTAcapicoTOu Ln. Tf. [^te.] — rjpeWev X (peWev Ln. Tf. [^Jte.] — avTov napadtdovat X Trapa- StSoz/ai avTov Alx. — &>v, om. Ln. [Gb. =?]. Chap. Vn. _ I. KOI, om. Alx. ^* — /Ltera ravra, anfe nepwirdTei Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 3. decoprjcrcoai X OecopT)crovaiv Tf. — ra epya (tou X O'ov ^a epya Ln. 4. eV KpvTTTca Ti noiel X Tt cV KpvTTTa TTOiel Ln. — avTos X aiTO Ln. 6. ovi/, Gb. =1. 8. TavTTjv, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =;]. — ouTTO) 1° X OVK Gb. Sch. Tf. — 6 Kaipos 6 ipos X o f/^^^ '^^'■' pos Ln. Tf. [^Za:.] 9. 6e, o?«. Gb. Sch. Tf. — avTo7s X avTos Tf. [Gb. ~]. 10. ety Trjv iopTrjv, ante t6t€ Ln. [Alx.] — aXX' X aXXa Ln. Tf. 12. TToXvy TTfpt avroO rjv X TTfpl avTOv rjv ttoXvs Ln. Tf. — 8e, o??i. Gb. Sch. Tf. 14. 6 'It^ctovs", om. 6 Ln. Tf, 15. Kol idavpa^ov X iOavpM^ov ovv Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 16. 'AneKpidTj, add. ovv Sch. Ln, Tf. [Gb. cv]. 19. 8e8ci)Kev X e8(0K€v Ln. 20. /cat f tTTf, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 21. 6 'l7;crov9, wn. 6 Tf. [Gb. -], 22. iv cralB^dTa, [iv] Ln. 24. KplvaTe X Kpivere Ln. 26. Kai 1° Gb. -. — dXr)6a>s, om. Gb. Sell. Ln. Tf. 29. iyoi 8e, am. 8e Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. 4°. io- iire^aXiv X ejSaXev Ln. mg. rioXXoi de cK Tov ox^-ov X €K TOV ox^ov Se TToXXoi Ln. Tf. iAlx.] ^Ori, om. Ln. [Alx.] firjTi X M ^^- Tf. [Grb. . Ln. Tf. [^Zx.] ' — eyrjyepTai X ^yelperat Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] 53. . . viii. II, om. Ln.Tf. [Gb. 3]. Chap. Vni. 3. Trpoy avTov, om. Sch. — eV X ^Ti Sch. g. XiOo^oXdaOaL X Xt^ci^eii/ Sch. — Xeyety, g^<^. irepX avTrjs Sch. 6. Karqyopfiv X KaTTjyopiav KUT Sch. 9. ia-Taxra X owcra Sch. 10. 'H yvf?) X y^i'at Sch. 12. 6 'l7;cro{iy aurol? eXaXj^cre X avTOis iXdXrjaev 6 lijaovs Ln. Tf. [JZ;p.] — e/xol X poi Ln. — nepiTraTTjcret X TTcptTraT^crr} Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] 14. dX?;^?)? eVrti' ^ papTvpia pov X J7 papTvpia pov dXr]- Brjs i Ln. Tf. [Gb.<^]. Alx. 28. avTols, om. Ln. — ftov, 07ra. Ln. lAlx."] 29. 6 TraTTjp, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. .<4Za?. 33. avra X 7i"poff avroj/ Ln. Tf. lAlx.} 34. 6 'It/ctous-, om. 6 Ln. — r^y dpapTias Gb. =?. 38. eycb 6 X a cyva Gb. -♦. (TV, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. bo^d^d) X Bo^do-Q) Ln. txt. Tf. v/icoj/ X Tjpcov Sch. Tf. [Gb. f^]. Koi edv X fay Ln. vpcov X iV'^ ^^• aXX' X a^Xa Ln. Tf. 6 'irjaovs, om. 6 Tf. SieX^cbi/ 8id peaov avTcov Kal TTaprjyev ovTtos, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. Chap. IX. 3. 6 'It/o-oOs, om. 6 Gb. Sjh. Ln. Tf. 4. epe X J^/iOff Alx. 6. enexpto-e, add. avrov Ln.Tf. lAlx.} — rov Tv(})Xov, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. -]. 7. z/[\//-at [Ln.] 8. Tvcf)X6s X Trpoa-airrjs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 9. Se, om. Tf. [Ln.] ; add. eXe- yov [ou^laXX'] Ln.Tf.[^Za;.] ; tX^yov \otC\ Ln. mg. \_Alx^ — 'EKeTi/os-, add. Be Ln. ro. IIcos, add. ovv Tf. [Ln.] ^Za;. — dvecox^'qcrdv \ rjvecpx^rjcrdv Ln^Tf. {Alx.} — (Tou X o-oi Elz. Ln. mg. [I. Xeyopevos, lyrcem. 6 Alx. — Kol elirev, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. }\ . fioL, add. on Tf. vnaye, add. vi-^at, Alx. Tr}V Ko\vfx^T]6pav TOV X TOV Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.-] Se X ovv Ln. Tf. UIx.] Kol vLyj/dfjLevoSy om. Koi Tf. , 'Elttov X (irrav Ln. Tf. ovv^ om. Ln. Tf. ; [Alx. s. kol ewroi/.] . ore X fV ^ ^/iepa Ln.Tf. [Alx.l . eVi T0V9 6(fida\ixovs fJLov X ynou eVt Tous' o(j5^. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. , OvTos 6 avdpcoiTOs ovK eari Tvapa TOV Qeov X ovk eariv OVTOS napa Qeov 6 avdpco- TTOs Ln. txt. Tf. ; [Ln. mg. et Alx. om. tov.} oAXot, add. Se Alx. Aeyovai, add. ovv Ln. [Alx.l rjvoi^e X Tjveco^ev, s. aveoi^e Alx. TVXa)v 6 Qeos X o Geoy up.apTv p.€V€i X at [051^] d/xapriat v/xojj/ /xe- youcrt Alx. Chap. X. . KaXet X 0coz/ei Ln. Tf. [Gb. c^]. [Alx.] . Ka\ oTaVf om. Koi Tf. [Gb.^]. • Trpo^uTa X ndvTa Ln. Tf. [Alx.] . dKoXov6r]aoi(riv X dKoXovBrj- aovaiv Ln. Tf. [^te.] . TxdXiv avToXs X ovTols TToXlV Ln. ; OTra. avTols Tf. ■ ort, o?re. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. . npo efiov rjXOov X fjXOov irpb ifxov Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] ; o??i. Trpo e/AoO C's#, . etcrti/ X ecrrtj' Ln. Tf. [.iZa;.] ■ TO. npo^aTa, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. . 6 he fxiaOciiTos (pevyei, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. =i]. Alx. . yivcoaKOfxat, vtto twv epwv X yivoio-Kovcri jxe to, ep,d Ln. Tf. [Alx.] , p,e Set X hel fie Ln. Tf. [Alx.] yevrjaerai X yevrjcrovTai Alx. . 6 TraTTjp fie X ixe 6 TruTrjp Ln. Tf. [Alx.] . ovv, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. . dvoiyeiv X dvol^ai Tf. [Alx.] . To2s 'lepoaoXvfxois, roiy Gb. =J [^te.] KOI ;j(ei,ua)i/, ow. /cat Tf. [Gb. ->]. Alx. , Tou "^oXofxcovTos X SoXo/ico- Wff Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. . tlXX' X aXXa Ln. Tf. ov yap ecTTe X on ov/c eVre Ln. nig. [Alx.] Kadojs eiTTov vp.1v [Ln.] [Gb. -♦] ; om. Alx. uKovei X dKovovaiv Alx. ovx apTrdcreL X ov prj up- Trdau Alx. pel^iov ndvTcov X rravTcov pei^oiv Tf. p.ov 2°, om. Tf. ndXiv, om. Alx. KaXci epya X epya KoXd Ln. [Alx.] 4Q 32. /xov, om. Tf. [Ln.] — Xidd^ere p.e X /^f Xi^a^ere Tf. Ln. mg. 33. XeyovTeSt om. Ln.Tf. [Gb. :4]. 34. 'Eyo) ewra X on e'ycl) erTTOi/ Ln. ; on eyo) etrra Tf. [Jte.] 38. TTia-Teva-aTe X Trto-reuere Ln. [JZ«.] — TnaTevarjTe X yivwaKrjTe Ln. Tf. [^te.] — aurm X T^ TvaTpi Ln. txt. Tf. [Gb. ?. p.a6r]Tals, add. avTov [Ln.] ^Za:. 9. 6 'Ir/crovs-, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — elcriv hpai X a)pat eicrii' Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 13. ol [xadr]Tal avTOv X a^Liro) ol padrjTal Ln.[Alx.] ; at/TO) Tf. 14. ovv [Ln.] 15. aXX' X aXXa Ln. Tf. 17. 'EX^coi/ X rjXQev Ln. — evpev, prcem. Ka\ Ln. — r)pepas rjbr) X '7^'; rjpepas Ln. mg. ; om. ^'67; Tf. 19. fcat TToXXoi X TToXXot de Ln. Tf. [Alx.] — TCLS irepl X TTjV Ln, — Mapiav X Mapta^i Ln. Tf. — avTcov, om. Tf. [Alx.] 20. 6 'iT^crouy, 07n. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 21. j; Mfip^a, om. rj Gb. Ln. [C«Z.] — 6 u8€Xcf)6s pov OVK tiv ere- BvrjKei X oiiK av direQavev 6 ddeX(l)6s pov Ln. [Alx.] ; oi/K fij/ 6 aSeX. pou eTeOvx]- Ket Tf ; [eTedvrjKet X diveda- vev Gb. f^]. 22. aXXa [Ln.]; om. JZa:. 24. Map^a, prcem. rj Ln. Tf. [^jx.] 28. TavTU X roOro Tf. — Mapiav X Mapccip Ln. Tf. 46, 4r , eKeivrj, add. 8e Aloe. eyeiperai X vy^P^V ^^^ epx^Tai X VPX^"^^ ^^- ^S- rjv, add. eVi Ln. lAlx.'] Mapiav X Mapiafji Ln. Tf. XeyovT€s X ^6^avT€s Gb. f^. lAlx.} Mapia X Mapiafx Tf. 6 'It/o-ous, 07?j. 6 Ln. Tf. [Alx.] els Tovs TTodas avTov X o.v- Tov els Toi/s TTodas Gb. Tf. ; avTOv npos rovs nodas Alx. avTco, om. Alx. aireOavev p,ov X f^ov direda- vev Tf. iAlx.li YjhvvaTO X edvvaro Ln. ep,^ptfip.evos X efx^pifxrja-d- p,evos Ln. mg. 6 'iT/crovs, ow. 6 Ln. TedvrjKOTOs X reXei;r?;KOTOS Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. ^Za?. o^j/'ei X ox//-?; Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. Alx. ov rju 6 Tedvr]KCi>s Keijxevos, om. Gb. Sell. Ln. Tf. 6(})daXp.ovs, add. avTOv, s. eavTov Alx. Kat e^rjKOev^ om. Ka\ Gb. Tf. iAlx.1 avTols 6 ^Irjo-ovs X ^^rjcrovs avTols Tf. ac^ere, add. avrov Tf. [Alx.'] Mapiav X Mapiap. Ln. Tf. a eTTOLrjaeu X o eTroirjcr. Alx. 6 'Irjaovs., om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. a eTTolrjaev X o eTToirjcrev Ln. txt. [^Za;.] 6 'ir^fTouy, om. 6 Ln. Tf. (rrjpela TTOiel \ TTOiel crr]p,e7a Ln.Tf. lAlx.} TTLo-Tevcrovaiv X TTiCTTevaco- atv Alx. Ka\ TOV TOTTOV, om. Koi Alx. diaXoyi^eade X Xoyi^eade Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. Alx. 7rpoe(p^revaev X e7rpo(pr}- Tevaev Ln. Tf. lAlx.] e/jLeXkeu X ^'p-eXkev Ln, Tf. [Jte.] 6 'lr]a-ovs, om. 6 Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] crvve^ovkevo-avTo X e^ovkev- aavTO Ln. [^Za?.] 'ijycroiiy ow X o ouv 'lr}(rovs Alx. Sterpij3e X e/*etj/ez' .^Za?. JOHN. 54. auroO, 07re, Tf. [JZa:.] 56. ev Tw tepw ecTTTjKOTes X ^(r- TTjKOTes iv ra lepa Alx. 57. /fai 1° om. Ln. Tf. — evToXfjv X evToXas Tf. Chap. XII. I. o reduijKcos, om. Tf. [Ln.] — e/c veKpa>v, add. 6 'irjaovs Ln. Jf. [^Za;.] 2.rjv, add. eK Tf. — (TwavaKeifxevoiv X dvaKeifke- vcdv aiiv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 4. odv X 5e Tf. — els eK Tav p,a6r]Ta)v avTov, 'louSas 'Sifxavos 'lo-zcaptco- r?/? X o 'laKapiaTTjs els e/c TOZ/ fxadrjToov avrov Tf. 6. eix^» '^"' X eX<»J' Tf. [^Za?.] 7. avTrjV' add. tua Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^Za;. — TerrjprjKev X TVPWV ^"'^ "T^- [Gb. ~]. ^Za;. 12. epx^rai, post ^Irjtrovs Ln.mg. [Alx.] — 6 'It^o-ov?, om. 6 Gb. Ln. Tf. 13. eKpa^ov X eKpavya^ov Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] ; add. Xeyovres [Ln.] ^Za;. — 6 epxofievos, 6 Gb. =$. — 6 ^acriXevSi om. 6 Tf. [Gb. :^]. (7s*. ; [proem. Ka\ Alx.] Ovyarep \ dvydrrjp Ln. Tf. [Alx.] Se, om. Tf. [Ln]. [JZa?.] 6 Ir)crovs, om. 6 Tf. [^Za;.] ore X oVi Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [ore Gb. cv]. Cst. fjKovae X rJKOva-av Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. KocrpLos, add. o\os Alx. TLves "'EXK.r]ves X ''^X\-qves rives Ln. txt. Tf. [Alx.] Trpoo-Kvvrjcraxnv X TrpocrKv- v^crovcriv Ln. Tf. ^iXtTTTToy, prcem. 6 Tf. Acat TTfiXw/ X epx^rat Ln. Tf. r^z^.] Xey overt, praim. Ka\ Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] diaKovfj ris X 7"tS' diaKovfj Ln. Tf. [JfZa;.] Kai eai/ riff, om. Ka\ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ro ovopa X toj/ vlov Alx. ovv [Ln.] earcos X ecrrr}Ka)s Ln. [^Za;.] 6 'Ij^crovy, om. 6 Tf. [.<4Za;.] 41 26. 30, avrj; ^ (jxovr] X ^ ^o)?^ out?; Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 31. Tovrou Gb. =?. [JZa;.] 34. dTreKpidrj, add. ovv Tf. — o-v \eyeLs X Xeyeis (rii Tf. -"On Gb. =r. [(7s«.] 35. />i€^' ii/iwi/ X eV ii/itv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — eats X eya> X eyo) XaXio Ln. [^Za;.] Chap. XIII. 1. eX^Xvdev X n^^^^ Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. Alx. 2. yevopevov X yivop.€vov Tf. — 'louSa '2ip,ci>vos 'la-Kaptwrov, om. Tf. ; posi rrapadol av- rov^ habet 'lovSas ^Ip-oovos 'l(TKapLa>rr]S Tf. [Ln. mg.] JZa;. [Gb. c^]. — avrov TTapadat X Trapadol av- rov Ln. Tf. ; [Kap^iav iva Tvapabol avrov ^lovbas 2t- pLoavos 'la-Kapi>vr]aT] Ln. Tf. [^te.] — dTTapvTj(rri \ dpyrjcrr] Ln. txt. Tf. r^te.] Chap. XIV. 2. TTopevopai, prcem. OTi Ln. Tf. • [Alx.] 3. Kal iToipdao), om, Kal Ln. [Alx.] — vplv roTTov X ronov vpiv Alx. 4. eyo) [Ln.] ; om. Alx. — o'ldare, Kal ttjv 686v o'ldare X oiSare rfjv 686v Tf. [Ln.] Alx. 5. Kot TTco?, om. Kal Ln. txt. — bvvdpeOa ttjv obov ddevai X o'ibapev rrjv obov Ln. txt.Tf. [Gb. ~]. 6. iyva)K€iT€ av X ^i' ^beire Alx. >]. Kal drr apri., [Kal] Ln. — ioopaKare avrov, [avrbv] Ln. 9. TocrovTov xpdfov X ro(rovT6) Xpdvat Ln. [Jte.] — Kat TToJ?, 0777. Kai Ln. 10. XaXco X Xeyo) Tf. [.^te.] — 6 eV e/iot, 0777. 6 Tf. [Ln.] — avTos post TO. epya Tf. — rd epya, add. [avrov] Ln. [Abc.]^ 11. ei/ epoi, odcZ iariv Elz. — /xot, 0777. Tf [Gb. -»]. ^Za?. 12. Tov narepa pov, om. fiov Ln. Tf [Gb. =;]. Alx. 14. alTr]ar]Te, add. [/xe] Ln. — eyo) TTOiTjO'co X rouro Trotrjaco Ln. mg. [Alx.] 16. Kat eyo) X foyw Ln. Tf. [JZa:.] — /xevj; /Lte^' vpcov els tov al- cova X p(0^ vpatv els tov alcbva Tj Ln. ; [r) peS vpcov Tf Alx.] !>]. yivwaKei avTo, [avTo] Ln. — vpels Se, om. be Tf. [Ln.] — errrat X eVrti/ Ln. 19. (r]a-e(jde X f'7"'ere Tf 20. yvioa-ecrOe vpels X [^/^f i?] yvo)(rea6e Ln. [y/Za:.] 21. Kni fycb X Kflyw Ln. 'j'f [Alx.] 22. Kupie, ckZv Ln. [yite.] 7. edv yap, add. iyoi Sch. Ln. [Gb. , om. Ln. [^?a;.] To€ro TL earip X ^t fO'rtJ/ TOVTO Ln. ovi/, om. Gb. Tf. {Alx.} vfiels be, om. 8e Ln. [Gb. ^5]. dXX' X aXXa Tf. \vTnf]v jx€v vvv X I'l'j/ /xei/ Xu- irqv Ln. ^Za;. e^ere X e|fTe Ln. txt. [^te.] aipei X "P^t I^^- ^^*'* ort, 07n. Tf. [Ln.] ^Za?. oa-a av X ai' Tt Ln. txt. Tf. [Alx.l ; [o rt aj/ Ln. mg.] iv tS ovofiari fxov, ddxrei vfxiv X ficocrct i»/xii/ eV rat ovofiari fiov Tf. [JZa;.] aXX', om. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.] dvayyikS) X dTrayyeXai Ln. Tf. lAlx.} Tov Qeov, om. rev Ln. ; rev irarpos Tf [Alx.} irapa X e/f Ln. txt. Tf. [^Za;.] aur<5, 0771. Tf. [Ln.] Trapf)T](ria, prcE.771. iv Ln. Tf. 6 'iT/o-ovff, om. 6 Tf. j/Ci/, om. Ln. Tf [Gb. ^]. .^Za?. KoX e'jLie X '««f'^ Tf. e^ere X e'xere St. Tf. Gb. Sch. Alx. Chap. XVII. eTrrjpe X irrdpas Ln. txt. [^Za;.] Kal ewre, o?re. /cat Ln. txt. [Alx.] KOL 6 vlos., 0771. Kcd Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. lAlx.] crou, om. Tf. yivaxricoiai X yivaxjKOval Tf. eTeXelooo-a X reXeitoo-as Ln. [^Za;.] SeScofcds- X eScoKas Ln. [^Za;.] Kai e/MOi X KdjLioi Tf SeScoKas X edcoKas Ln. TeTrjpr]KaTT]o-e X e7rJ?p. avTOVs Ln. Tf [^Za;.] 8. dTreKpidr], add. avTo7s Alx. ~ 6 'Irjaovs, om. 6 Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 10. wriov X oordpiov Tf. [^Za;.] 11. crou, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 13. d7r?7yayoi/ X fjyayov Ln. — avTov, 0771. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. 14. dnokeo-Qai X dnodavelu Ln. [Gb. f^]. ^Za;. 15. 6 d'XXoy, om. o Ln. [Gb. :^]. 43 34 36. 37. ^1/ yvaxxrhs X "yi^cocrros ^p Ln. mg. OS- ^v X o Tf. TO) dpxiepel X rou dpxiepecos Tf. [^Za?.] 77 naidiaKT] tj dvpcopos too neVpw X TGJ XleV. 17 naiS. rj 6vp. Ln. txt. Tf [Alx.] . p.€T avTcov 6 Jlerpos X kol 6 Iler. jJLeT avT. Ln.txt. [Alx.] . avTa [Ln.] • eXdXr/cra X XeXdXrjKa Ln. Tf. [JZa;.] ■ TTJ a-vvaycoyfj, om. ttj Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ■ ndvTOTe X iravTes Gb. Ln. [Alx.] ; TrdvToOev Elz. ; [Trdv- rore Gb. i^ CsZ.] , errepcoTas X ^pcoTas Ln. Tf. [JZa?.] iirepatrrja-ov X ipwTTjcrou Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] , rail/ VTT-qpeTOiv TrapeaTrjKas X 7rapeaTr]Ka>s twv virrjpeTcou Ln. txt. ; TO)!/ TVapeCTTOiTOiU VTTrjpeTMV Ln. mg. o 'ij^o-ouy, om. o Ln. Tf. 'AneaTeiXev, add. ovv Elz. Ln. . rjpvrjcraTO, add. ovv Cst. 6 ^Herpos.) om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. ovv Gb. =?. npcota X Trpco? Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] dXX' iva X dXXd Ln. [^Za;.] TTpos avTOVSf prcejn. e^co Ln. [Alx.] fiTre X ^770-ii/ Tf [Alx.] eirrov X eiVai/ Ln. Tf. KaKOTTOlbs X KaKOV TTOICOV Tf. Ln. mg. owj/ [Ln.] o ntXaroy, om. o Tf. ovv, 0771. Ln. Tf. eis TO TrpaLTMpiov ndXtv X TrdXii/ ds TO rrpaiT. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] avTco 6, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] ^Kcji iavTov X dTTo (reavTov Ln. 6 'It^o-oGs-, om. 6 Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] av ol ipo\ rjyovi^ovTO X ot e/x. ^yoj/. Gj/ Alx. 6 'Irjcrovs, 0771. 6 Tf. eycb 2° [Ln.] JZa;. aiTiav €vpi(TKO) iv avTm X €vpi(TK(t} iv avTa alriav Ln. Tf. 39. vfiiv drroXvaa) X "ttoXwctco vfuv Ln. [Alx.] — vjXLV dnoXvcra) X aTToKva-co v/xiv Ln. [^Alx.] 40. Trdvres, om. Alx. Chap. XIX. 2. T^ K€(paXTJ X CTTt r?)^ K€(f)a- Xjjv Ln. mg. — 7T€puj3a\ov avTOV^ add. Koi fjpXOVTO npbs avTOV Ln. Tf. Ulx.} 3. ibibovv X ediSocrau Ln. Tf. 4. ^E^rjXdev ovu X ']. rjp,a>v, om. Ln. — iavTQV vlov Tov Qeov X vi-ov Qeov iavTOV Ln. Tf. ; [om. TOV St.] 10. ow, om. Tf. [Gb. :?]. ^Za;. — (TTavpcocraL ere, kol i^ovalav i'x<^ cLTroXvo-aL ae X drroX. ae K. i^ovcr. ej^o) a-ravp. ae Ln. Tf 11. ^ATreKpWr]., add. avTco [Ln.] Alx. — 6 ^irjiTovs, om. 6 Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.-\ — nvSepiav Kar ipov \ Kar ipov ovbepiav Ln.Tf. [Alx.] — aoL dedopivov X 5eSo/i. croi Ln. — TrapaSiSov? X napa^ovs Ln. 12. i^TjTei 6 nikdros Xo HtX. i^rjTet Ln. — eKpa^ov X is Ln. Tf [Gb. fo]. ^te. — cktt; X TpiTTj Gb. <-J. 15. Ot 6c iKpavyacrav X ixpav- ya(T. ovv iKelvoi Tf. Ln. mg. JOHN. 16. napeXa/3oj/ Se roj/ 'It/ctoCj/ Kol drrriyayov., Gb. -♦. — 6e X ovv Ln. Tf [Jte.] — Koi dTTTjyayov, om. Ln. Tf. ; Koi fjyayov Gb. Sch. [Alx.} 17. roi/ (TTavpbv ovtov X avro) Toi/ (TTavpov Ln. Tf. — OS X o Ln. Tf. 20. TTjS TVoXeoaS 6 TOTTOS X O TO- TToy T^s TrdXecos Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — 'EXXTyz/ta-Tt/PojLiaVo-ri'X'Pw- /LiaiVri/EXXTyi/io-ri Tf [JZa;.] 23. appa(})os X apa(f)os Tf. 24. 61V01/ X etVai/ Tf. — 37 Xeyovcra, om. Ln. 26. avTOV [Ln.] — tSov X tSe Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] [Rec. Gb. tv]. 27. 'iSou X tSe Ln. Tf [^te.] — avrrjv 6 padrjTrjs X o pad. avT. Gb. Sch. 28. eldois 6 'It](tovs X iS. 38. Se, om. Tf. [Gb. =J]. Cs<. — 6 ^Icoarjcf), om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. ^te. — o arro, o?ra. 6 Ln. [Gb.-»]. [Alx.] — TOV 'Irjaov 2° X avTOv Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 39. rot' ^Irjaovv X avTov Ln. Tf [yfZa;.] — wcrei X o)? Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 40. ddoviois., iJrccTO. iv Gb. Sch. Tf [Gb. =;]. Chap. XX. 4. /cat 6 liWos X o 6e «XX. Ln. 5. Keipeva tu uOovta X Tct 0^0- wa Keipeva Ln. txt. 10. cavroi/ff X avTovs Tf 41 II. TO pvr)pe7ov X t<5 pvrjpeito Gb. Ln. Tf [JZx.]' — e^o), om. Ln. ; anie /cXatoucra Tf [Alx.] , 14. Kat TavTa., om. Kal Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — 6 'ijyo-oOy, om. 6 Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 15. 6 'It^o-ovj, oto. 6 Ln. Tf. — avTov WrjKas X 'idi]Kas av- Tov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 16. 6 'l^o-oCy, o??i. 6 Ln. Tf. — Map la X Maptdp Tf — avTw, add. 'E/3pato-ri Sch. Tf '[Ln.] [Gb. cv]. 17. 6 'It/ctouj, o?n. 6 Ln. Tf. — TtaTepa p.ov 1°, om. pov Ln. Tf 18. Mapia X Maptdp Tf — aTray-yeXXouaa X dyyiX- Xovcra Ln. Tf. — icopaKe X io)paKa Ln. mg. [^te.] 19. ra)!/ (ra/3j3arviov [Ln.] Jte. Chap. XXI. I. 6 'ir/o-oCy, 0771. Tf. — padrjTals.) add. avTov Alx. 3. ^E^TJXdov., prcon. Kal [Ln.] — dvej^rjaav X ivi^rjaav Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf evdvs, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. Alx. ycvofxevrjs X ytvofxeurjs Tf. 6 ^Irjcrovs, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Alx.} els X eVi Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Mx. 6 'irjaovs [Ln.] icr;^u(7ai' X 'ifrxvov Ln. Tf. [^te.] aXX X a^Xa Tf. ^XeTTOvaiv X f tSai/ Ln. mg. ^Ave^T], add. ovv Tf. eVi r^? yrjs X eis T'71' y^i' Ln.Tf. iAlx.'] IxOvcov [xeyakcDV X fJ-eyaXav Ix^ixov Ln. txt. [^te.] Se, ow. Tf. ouf, OOT. Gb. Ln. Tf. lAlx.] ACTS. 13. o 'Ij^ctovs, oto. o Ln. Tf." 14. 6 'iTjcrovff, om. 6 Ln. Tf. — avTov, om. Ln. Tf. [^Za?.] 1$. 'Icova X 'Icoai/ou Ln. lAlx.} ; 'Icofiwou Tf. [^?:c.] — Trkelov X Trkiov Ln. Tf. 16. Aeyei avrS irakiv X TTciXtj/ Xeyet atiro) Ln. mg. — 'Icom X 'icodfou Ln. ; 'Icoai'- yov Tf. 17. 'icom X'lwaj'ov Ln. ; 'Icocii/- i/ou Tf. — KOI etTTCJ', [Kai] Ln. ; Xeyet Ln. mg. — (TV Trdvra X Travra (tv Ln. Tf. — 6 'Ij/o-ovy, o?w. 6 Ln. Tf, 17. TTpo^ara X Trpo^dria Tf. 18. o'iarei, add. ae [Ln.] 20. ^Emo-rpacfyels 5e, ow. fie Ln, Tf. [^te.] 21. ToOroi/, ac7(Z. ovv Ln. 22. aKoXovdei fxot X jiioi okoXou- <9et Ln. Tf. lAlx.} 23. o \6yos ovTos X o^ros 6 Xo- yo? Ln. - Kai ovK elirep X o^/^ ewrei/ 8e Ln. mg. 24. ypdyl/-as, prcem. 6 Ln. — eVrtJ' 17 fxapTvpia avrov X avroO J7 fxapTvpla icrrtv Tf. 25. ocra X « Ln- — ovde avTOV X ouS' avrov Ln. - *Afir]v, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Chap. I. I. 6 It^o'oCs', 07/1. 6 Ln. Tf. 4. Traprjyy^ikev avTo7s X avTois TTapfjyyeiXev Tf. 5. ^aTTTiadrja-ea-de iv ILvev- PLOT I X fV TTVevp. ^UTTT. Ln. 6. e7rr)pa>Ta)V X rjparcov Ln. 8. jLtoi X fio^ I'll- Tf. [^te.] — eV rrdcrrj, om. iv Ln. Tf. [JZa;.] 10. icrOrjTi XevKT] X eo-drjaecn XevKa7s Ln. Tf. [^Za?.] 11. etTToy X ftTrav Ln. Tf. 13. dve^rjcrav els ro vnepaov X els TO vnepSov dve'^rjcrav Ln. Tf. — 'laKcojSos Kat 'icoaw?;? X 'ifw- ai/i/j^y Kat 'laKw/Sos Ln. Tf. lAlx.] 14. /cat Trj derjaei, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] — Mapla X Mapiap Tf — criu/ ToT? dSeX^oty, om. (rvi/ Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. [^?a;.] 15. paOrjToiv X dbeXcpMV Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^iar. 16. ravTTjv, om. Ln. Tf [Gb. -*]. — Tov 'irjcrovv, om. tov Ln. Tf. 17. o-w X iv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — r^piv X t'/^tii' Tf. 18. TOV pia-Qov, om. tov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 19. ^ AKeXdapdX' AKeXdapdx Ln. Tf. ACTS. 20. Xd^oiXXaiSeVo) Ln.Tf. [JZar.] 21. eV ]. — TTjV rjpepav, om. rrjv Ln. Tf. 21. ai/ X ^'^J' Tf. 22. aTTO rov Geov aTrobedeiype- vov X aTToSeSety. aTro tov Geov Tf Ln. mg. lAlx.l — Ka6a)S /cat, om. Koi Ln, Tf. [Gb. ^]. lAlx.J 23. eK^oTov Xa^ovres, did x^'" paiz/ X eK^OTOV fitd ;j(etp6? Ln. Tf. [Gb. «^]. ^te. — di^e/XeTe X di/eiXaTe Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 24. Savdrov X adov Gb. t^. 2g. TrpooipcDprjv^TTpoopaiprjvl^n. Tf. 26. evCJipdvOr] X t)v(f)pdv6r] Ln. Tf [^?:c.] — 77 Kapdia pov X ftov ^ /cap- dia Tf. — eV eXiridi X f<^' iXTTidi Ln. 27. aSov X afi'^i' Ln, Tf [Gb. H- ^Alx. 30. TO /coTtt adpKa dvacrrrjaeiv TOP XptcTToi/, om. Gb. Ln.Tf. UJx.l 30. eVl Tov 6p6vov X fTTl TOV Opovov Ln. Tf. 31. ou KareXeicfidr] X ovre ey- KareXeicpdr) Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. — ^ ■^i'X'7 ct^TOv, o?«. Gb. Ln. Tf. [ALv.] — afiou X "St;!/ Tf. — 'ov8e X oure Ln. Tf. [Gb. H. Alx. 3$. TOV 'Ayiov nvevjjLaTOS X "^^^ Uv. TOV ay lav Ln. Tf. — vvv, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. iAlx."] — /SXeVere, p?Ye??i. kol Tf. 36. otKOf, prcEm. 6 Ln. — KvpLOv^ prcern. koX St. Ln. Tf. — Ka\ XpiaTcv avTov X avTov KOL Xpiarov Ln. Tf. — 6 Geo? eTVOLrjo-e X fVot. 6 Geo? Tf. 37. TTJ Kapdia X T)7I/ Kapbiav'Ln. Tf. — 7roiTjcrop.€v X TTOLrjcrcopev Tf. 38. 6(^7;, o?«. Ln. Tf. — eVt ro) ovopaTL X eV tw of d- /iari Ln. — apapTicov X "J"*^^ apapTiSiV vpwv Ln. 39. oaovs X ou? Ln. 40. diepapTvpeTO X hupapTvpa- TO Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. ^te. — napeKoXei, add. avTOvs Ln. ^'<^in. 6 Ln. Tf. 13. 'lo"aa/(: /cat 'la/cco/S X Geo? 'lo-aoK, /cat Geo? 'la/ccb/3 Ln. [^Zx.] — I'/Lteiy, afZcZ. /xei/ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — avTov^ om. Ln. [Gb. -»]. ^Za:. 18. avTov TxaOelv tov XpiarovX TraOelv TOV XptaTov avTov Ln. Tf. [Gb. H. ^Z^. 20. TvpoKeKrjpvypevov X TvpoK^- X^ipLapevov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — 'It;o-ow XpiaTov X XpiaTov ^Irjcrovv Ln. txt. Tf. 21. Trdi/Tcoi' 2°XTa)v Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ; [Trdvroot' tcoj' Gb. ^^]. — avTOv irpocprjTav an alcovos X air alcovos avTov Trpo(f). Ln. Tf. ; [dir alcovos Gb. =;]. 22. yap, om,. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — npos Tovs TiaTepaSf om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. zJ]. Alx. 22,-a.v X idv Tf. — e^oXodpev6r}a€Tai X e'^oXe- ^pei;(9. Ln. Tf. 24. TTpoKaTT]yyeiXav X KaTr]yyei- Xav Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 25. vtoi, prmn. ol Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -] — hu6eTO 6 Qeos X o Gedy dUdeTO Ln. — 37/xa)i/ X ti/iii/ Tf. — Tco (TTreppaTi, p>r(em. ev Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 26. 6 Geo? dvacTTrjcras X aJ'CE- arrjaas 6 Geo? Tf. — 'It/o-ouv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — vpcov X avTcbv Ln. Chap. IV. 2. rj7i/ e'/c X Tcoi' Gb. i^. [Cst.] 3. e^etro, o/ZfZ. avTOVS Alx. 4. 6 uptdpos., om. 6 Ln. — (uo-et X wf [Ln.] Tf. 5. 7rpea[3vT€povs, prmm. tovs Ln. Tf. — ypappaTels, praim. tovs Ln. 'If. — eif X eV Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^']. Alx. G.^Avvav TOV dpxtepea /cat Ka- 4G 'id(}iav /cat ^Icodvvr]v Ka\ ' AXe'- ^avdpov X'-Avvas 6 dpx- Kal Ka'idcpas Kal ^Icodvvrjs Kal ^AXe^avdpos Ln. 7. TO) pecrcp, om. tw Gb. Sch. Tf. 8. TOV ^laparjX, om. Ln. 11. olKo^opovvTcdv X olKo86pa)V Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. ^Za:. 12. /cat ovK eariv iv aXX(o ov- devl T) acoTrjpia Gb. -». — ovTe X ovde Ln. Tf. [Alx."} 14. roj^ 6e X TOV re Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. Alx. 15. avvejBaXov X (TVvi^aXXov Ln. Tf. 16. TTOLTjcropev X TroLrja-copev Tf. [JZa;.] — dpvrja-aadaL X apvelaOaL Ln. 17. dnetXTJ., om. Ln. [JZa;.] 18. avTols TO, om. Ln. ; om. av- TOt? Tf. [Gb. ^]. [^Zo^.] 19. Trpos avTovs dnov X eirrcj/ Trpd? avTOvs Ln. Tf. [^Za:.] 20. e'ldopev X e'idapev Ln. Tf. 21. KoXdacovTai X /coXczcroi/r. Csf. 22. e'-yeyoj/et X yeyoVei Ln. Tf. 23. etTTOj/ X eiVai' Ln. Tf. 24. eiVoi' X etVav Ln. Tf. — 6 Geof, om. Ln. Tf. 25. 6 5ta crro'/Ltaros- X o tov na- Tpos rjpcov 8id ILvevpoTOS 'Ayiov aTopaTOS Ln. — TOV Tvaibbs, om. tov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 27. itv dXTjdeias, add. iv ttj tto- Xei TavTT} Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Ulx.-] [Gb. -]. 28. (TOV 2°, om. Ln. 29. eVtSe X e(j6tSe Ln. Tf. 30. X^^^P*^ ^°^i ^"^- ^^'^ Ln. — ere, o?«. Tf. 31. ni/ev/jtarof * Ay t'ou XtoC dyt- ov TTvevpaTOS Ln. Tf. 32. Tj Kapdia, om. rj Ln. — T] ■yj/vx''], om. rj Ln. — cnravTa X ndvTa Ln. 33. peydXrj dvvdpei X ^vvdpci peydXrj Ln.Tf. — TTJs dvaa-Tdcreois, ante x^P'-^ re Ln. -^ 'ir/o-ou, add. XpiCTTov [Ln.] ^Za;. 34. VTTTjpxev X ^i' Ln. 35. diedidoTO X fiteSt'Sero Ln. Tf. 36. 'Icoo-^f X 'la>crf](p Ln. Tf. [Gb. cv-]. JZ^. — UTTO X OTTO Ln. Tf. 15- Chap. V. | ^Kvavlas ovofxari X ovoiiari ^Avavias Ln. "SaTTcbeipr] X 2a7r(/)€ipa Ln. (Tvveidvias X o-vveidvirjs Ln. Tf. avroi), o?ra. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. Alx. IleVpoff, prcem. 6 Ln. Tf. voa-ipicrao-dac, add. ere Tf. ^Avaviasi proem. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -»]. rai}ra, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. 8e, om. Tf. aur^^ X Trpos avrrjv Ln. Tf. 6 TlerpoSt om. 6 Ln. eiTre, om. Ln. Tf. TTopa X Trpos Ln. Tf. eyevero X iyiv^ro Elz. Ln. Tf. ef ri]. Alx. i. avT(0 ?)ovvai X dovvai avra Ln. Tf. ; [Sowvat a{ir;7i/ els KardaX' avra Alx. >]. iav X O.V Ln. — dovXevcrcocTLV X SouXcvcrov- crtv Ln. [Alx.] — el-rrev 6 Qeos X o ©^o? eiVev Ln. 8. 6 'icraa/f, o?w. 6 Ln. — 6 'laKcl)/3, om. 6 Ln. 10. e^etXero X e'^eiXaro Gb. Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] — oXoj/, prcem. icf)' Alx. ii.yrjv AlyvTTTOV X AiyvTrroi' Ln. [Gb. f^]. Alx. — evpiCTKOV X T]VpL(rKOV Tf. 12. crtra X o'""ta Ln.Tf. [Gb. e^]. Alx. — iv AlyvTTTco X ^Is AtyvTTTOV Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. 13. rov ^la)crr}(f), om. tov Ln. Tf. ; [avTOv Alx."] 14. rov Trarepa avrov 'IokcojS X 47 31. 35 loKco/S rov narepa avrov Ln. Tf. [^Z:r.] ; ['icuj^iS Gb. -]. ^ avrov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Kare^T] 8e X fai Kare^rj Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] eiff AtyvTrrov, o?n. Tf. 6 X 9 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ''Ep.p.bp X '^p-p-^p Ln, Tf. [^Za?.] rov 'S.vxep' X tov eV '2vxep- Ln. a>p.ocrev X a>p,oX6yr]a€v Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^Zar. erepos, add. eV A'lyvTrrov Ln. [^Za;.] narepas r]p.Q)V, om. rjp,c!>v Ln. Tf. eKdera ra ^pecfit] X ra jSpe- ^77 eKBera Ln. Tf. aurov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. cKreOevra 8e avrov X e^re- devros fie avrov Ln. [^Za:.] ai/ei'Xcro X az/etXaro Gb. Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] nda-rj oro^ia, prcem. eV Tf. lAlx.] Ka\ iv, om. iv Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. ^Za;. epyois, add. avrov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. avrov, om. Tf. auroTy acorrjpLav X crcorrjpLav avrols Ln. Tf. re X Se Elz. Gb. Sch. ; [re Gb. '^. Alx."] a-vvr)Xacr€v X crvvrjXXacraev Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. vp-els, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. ^Za;. ^pa? X i7pa»i/ Ln. Tf. ^Za;. X^ey X ex^es- Ln. Tf. Kvplov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -»]. Alx. (pXoyl TTvpos X TTvpi (pXoyos Tf. [Gb. c^]. ^Za^. ^ edavp,ao-€ X idavp-a^ev Gb. Sch. Tf. Trpos avrov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. ^Za;. 6 Geo?, 6is, anfe 'lo^aaK et ante ^laKca^, om. Ln. Tf. iv ^ Ln. cpKodofirjo-ev X oIkoBoixtjct. Tf. vaoTy, ojw. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. TaCra 7rdj/ra X navra ravra Tf. T^ Kapbia X Kapbiais Ln. Ute.] ws X fa^wy Ln. yeyevrjcrde X eyevecrde Ln. Tf. [JZj7.] dv€(oyp.euovs X ^ir^voiyyiivovs Ln! [J?a:.] avTwv, om. Tf. 7T71' ap.apTiav Tavrrjv X rau- TT]v TTjv cLfxapTiav Ln. Tf. Chap. VIII. 1. re X Se Ln. Tf. [^te.] 2. eTTOtrjcravTO X iirolrjcrav Ln. 5. TToXti/, prcBm. rrjv Ln. 6. re X Se Ln. Tf. [Jte.] 7. TToXXcOl/ X TToXXoi Ln. [yiZx.] — neydXrj (pcovfj X ^cof^^ /ie- ydX?/ Ln. Tf. ~ ^^hpX^'^^ X €^f}pxovTO Ln. 'Jf. [/Ite.] 8. Kal eyeuero X eyevero 5e Ln. 'i'f. [yite.] — X^P" fxeydXr] X ttoWt] ;^apd Ln. Tf. 9. e^L(TTQ>uX f^icTTcivciiv Ln. Tf. 10. TTavTes, om. Tf. [Gb. -•]. — GfoO J7, add. KciKovfXfi>rj Gb. Sell. Ln. Tf. ACTS. 13. ra TTfpi, om. ra Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. Jte. — Tov 'It/ct-ou, om. Tov Gb. Scb. Ln. Tf. 13. (Tr]p,€7a Kol 8vvdp.ets fieyd- Xas yiVop.€vas X ^vvdji^is KOL arjpiela ytvopieva Tf. ; 8vv. Koi (Trip., pLeydXa yivo- p.€va Gb. Sch. ; [peydXa Gb. ^]. 14. rbv UeTpov^ om. tov Ln. Tf. [Alx.l 16. ovTTO) X ovbeTtUi Ln. Tf. [Gb. pa]. ^Za;. 17. iiT^Tidovv X eTTeTidecrav Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] 18. Geacrd/zcws' X 'S'^i' Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — TO dyiov, om. Tf. 19. dv X €01/ Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 21. ivoamov X evavTL Gb. Ln. Tf. [Jte.] 22. eeoO X Kvptou Ln. Tf. [Gb. f=i]. Alx. 25. vnecTTpeylrav X VTreVrpe^oi/ Ln. Tf. — 'lepovaraXrjp. X 'JepocroXviia Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] — evriyyeXiaavTO X (vijyyeXi- ^ovTo Ln. Tf. [JZa:.] 26. TTopevov X TTopevQrjTi Ln. 27. r^y ^acLkicra-rjs.) om. Trjs Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. Jte. — Off iXrjXvdei., om. os Ln. 28. Kai Ka6r)p.€vos, om. koX Tf. — KOi dveyivoiaKe X dvey'ivco- aKev re Ln. ; di/ayii/axTKcoj^ Tf. 30. TOV 7rpo(pT]Trjv'li(raLavXiio'- TOV 7rpo(j). Ln. Tf. 32. KeipovTos X K€ipavT0S Tf. [.^te.] 33. avTov 1°, om. Ln. — T77V 5e, om. Se Ln. 37. EiVe 6e 6 'PIXlttttos, Et tti- crreuft? e^ 0X77? r^f Acap- fitar, e^ecTTtv. ^AnoKpideli de etire, nio-TCuo) tov vlov TOV Qeov eivat tov Irjaovv 'KptaTov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ClIAP. IX. 3. KOL €^aLcf)vT]s X €^aLu Ln! Tf. — ovdeva X ouSei/ Ln. Tf. _ 10. 6 Kvpios iv opdfxaTi X eV ■' dpd/Li. 6 Kvp. Ln. Tf. [Alx.Ji ■ 11. 'Ai'aorrds X dvdaTa Ln. 12. eV opd/MiTi, om. Ln. Tf. — dv6p.aTL ^Avavlav X 'Avavtav ovopaTL Ln. Tf. — X^ 'P'^ X Tas x^^^p(^s Ln. [..^^Za:.] 13. 6 'Avai/tay, 02ra. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — dKTjKoa X rJKOvcra Ln. Tf. — €7roir](r€ to7s dyiois crov X T. dy. crov eTroirjaev Ln. Tf. 1$. p.0L iaTiv ovTos X ia-Tiv fioi ovTos Ln. Tf. — edvav.) prcem. to)v Ln. ; add. re Ln. Tf. [Alx.} 17. 'lJ7cro{i$' Gb. =?. 18. aTreTrecrov X direnecrav Ln. Tf. — avTOv, ante drrb Ln. Tf. — cbo"ei X ^y Ln. — TTapaxprjp-a, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. ^[^?.r.J 19. 6 SaOXoff, ow. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 20. roi/ XpLCTTOV X Toy 'Itjctovv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 21. iXrjXvdeL X eXrjXvdev Tf. 24. TrapcTTjpovv X TrapeTrjpovvTO Ln. Tf. [yv aya- 6a>v Ln. Tf. 37. VTTepwM, prcem. r« Ln. 38. fiuo avhpas Gb. -♦. - ^97 oKV^crat SieX^eTv ecos au- rcoj' X p^ 6K.vr](Tr]S ^leXdelv eas rjpojv Ln. Tf. {Alx.'i 40. 6e\s, prcem,. KoX Ln. [-4Z«.] 42. TToXXot kivicrTCva-av X ^tti- (rrevrr. ttoXXoi Ln. Tf. [JZa;.] 43. rjpepas iKavas p-dvai avrovX avTov rjp-epas Ikuvcls pLelvai Ln. Chap. X. i.fjv, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] [Rec. Gb. ~]. 2. re, om. Ln. [Gb. -»]. ^Za;. 3. tt»pav, jjrcem. nepl Ln. [^te.] 4. ivooTTLOv X epTTpoadev Ln. Tf. 5. eiy 'loTTTT-qv av8pas X avdpas els 'loTTTrrjv Ln. Tf. - 2iju,o)i/a, acM.TtvaLn.Tf.[^Za;.] - 6? eTTiKaXelraL Uerpos X Tor eiriKaXovpevov Jlerpov Gb. ~. [CTsf.] 6. otiro? XaXrjaei croi ri ere Set TTOiely, o??i. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 7. TO) Kopvr]Xiv Gb. f^. [^Za?.] 10. eKelvcov X avrcov Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. ^Za;. — en en e (rev X eyevero Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. ^Za?. 11. err' avrbv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — dedep,evov Ka\,om.ljn.Tf. [Gb. :*]. ^Za?. 12. r^s y^s Gb. -». — Kol TO. 6r]pia, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. rt]. JZa;. — Koi TO. ipnera, ante rrjs yrjs [om. to] Ln. Tf. [Alx.^i — ra nereiva, om. ra Ln. Tf. 14. ^ CLKaOapTov X i^ox dicdd. Ln. Tf. [Alx.l 16. TraXii/ X evdvs Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. ^Za?. 17. Kat i§ov, om. Koi Ln. [^Za:.] — ^ip,covos, prcem. rod Ln. Tf. 19. ev6vp.ovp,evov X dievdvpLOV- pJvov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — avTM TO Ilvevp^a X to nv. avra Ln. Tf. — Tpels, om. Tf. [Gb. =J]. 20. §tdrt X OTi Gb. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. Alx. 21. Tovs dnearaXpievovs dno rov KopvrjXLOV npos avrov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 22. einov X einav Ln. Tf. 23. 6 Uerpos X at'acrras' Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — TTJs ^lonnrjs, om. ttjs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 34. KOL rfj X rri he Ln. Tf. iAlx.'] — elcrrj\6ov X darikdev Ln. Tf. 2^. elaeXdelv, prcem. rod Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 26. avTOV rjyeipe X rjyeipev av- rbv Ln. Tf. [Alx.'] 28. Kai efioi X ndpioi Ln. Tf. — 6 Qeos ebei^e X eSet^ez/ 6 Geo? Tf. 30. vrjcrrevcov^ Koi, om. Ln. [^Za;.] — copav, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. Alx. 32. 6? napayev6p.evos XaXr}cret aroi., om. Ln. [Gb. -♦]. 33. rov Qeov X croi) Gb. tv. — vno X dno Ln. Tf. — Geou X Kvpiov Ln. [Gb. f^]. Alx. 49 34. aropia, adcl. avrov Alx. 36. oi/, OTO. Ln. lAlx."] 37. dp^dp.evov X dp^dpLevos Ln. mg. [^Za?.] ; arfrf. [yap] Ln. 38. Na^aper X Na^ape^ Ln. Tf. [^Z«.3 39. ea-fiev, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ei/ 'lepova-aXrjp., om. ev Tf. ^[Ln.] — dvelXov X Kai dmXai/ [Gb. Sch.] Ln. Tf. iAlx.] 42. avTos X oi^ros Ln. txt. [Gb. t^]. Alx. 44. eneneo-e X '^Ttecrev Ln. 4^. oVoi X oi I>n. — roG 'Ayt'ou TlvevpLaros X tou TTZ/. rov ay. Ln. 46. 6 Uerpos, om. 6 Ln. 47. KcoXva-ai bvvarai X bvvarac KooXvcral Ln. — Ka6a>s X t^S" Ln. 48. ^anriadrjvai, post ev r. oro/M. rou Xp. Ln, — rov Kvptov X 'li^crov XpL~ crrov Ln. [Gb. c^]. Jix. Chap. XL 2. Kai ore X ore Se Ln. Tf. {Alx.'i — 'lepoa6Xvp,a X 'lepovcrdXrjp, Ln. Tf. 3. elcrTJXdes, ante npbs av8pas Ln. Tf. ; [Alx. s. elarjXde Ka\ crvveipaye']. 4. 6 Xlerpof, OTO. 6 Ln. 7. rJKOvcTa be, add. Ka\, s. Kal fjKovcra — (pa)vrjs, prcem. kcil Ln. Tf. 8. ndv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 9. jLioT, ora. Ln. Tf. 10. TraXiv dvecrndcrdt] X at'eo'Tra- o"^?; TraXti/ Ln. Tf. [Alx.'i 11. jyp.jyi' X ^p^v Ln. 12. juoi rb nvevp.a X to nvevp.d p.01 Ln. Tf. — pLTjbev biaKpivop^evov X p-rjbev diaKpLvavra Ln. ; o??^. Tf. [Gb. -]. 13. re X Se Ln. [Alx.] — avbpas, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 16. Kvpiov, proem, rov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 17. he, om. Ln. [Gb. -*]. ^Za?. 18. eho^a^ov X ebo^acrav Ln. — ye, om. Ln. — ebcuKev els C'^rjv X ety {ooj^f ebooKev Ln. 19. '2re^; [(VZ. j)05f ye'yp. Alx.] dio X StoTi Ln. Tovs TraTepas, om. tovs EIz, Kai diro, om. Kai Ln. rw vo'/xo), om. r« Ln. Tf. e'0 vpdsi om. Ln. e'yo) epyd^op-ai X ipyd^opai eyo) Ln. Tf. epyov 2° Gb. ->. 6) X o Sch. Ln. Tf, [Gb. 'E^ioi-rcoy 5e e'/c ttJs avua- yooy^? rwv 'louSatcoi/, nap- €KdXovu Ta eOvq X i^LOvroiV he avToou napeKoXovv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. TavTa Gb. -*. avTols, om. Sch. Tf. [Gb. ^]. inipeveLv X rrpoap-iveiv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf, Se X re Gb. Sell. Tf. epxopeuco X e^opevoi Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. '[Rec. Gb. <^]. GeoO X Kvpiov Ln. Tf. [Gb. TOV IlavXov, om. tov Ln. Xeyopievois X XaXovpcuois Ln. [.-ite.] di/riXe'yoi/res Ka», O/??. Ln. [Gb. -]. Alx. de X re Ln. Tf. [y iv ra 6v6p.aTi rod Kvpiov 'Irjcrov XpicTTOV Ln. lAlx.l fjXXero X 17X0x0 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. de X re Ln. Tf. 6 HavXos, om. 6 Ln. Tf. jMei/, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. 6 8eXo re Ln. Tf. avrav, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ^'deXe X rjQeXov Alx. ela-eirrjdrja-au X e^eTTrjBrjaav Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. eV/xej/ r/Ltii' X ^F^*' €v Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. ^Za:. ]7fiti/ X ^'/^i^ Grb. Sch. Ln. ; om. Tf. [Gb. ^]. ^/xSi; X vficov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 'Ett^X^oi^ X iTvrjXdav Ln. Tf. ; lAlx. hiarpi^ovTaiV avrcov KoX 8tdd(TK.a)V eTrrjXdov OTro]. eavpov X eavpav Tf. vopLLcravTes X vopLi^ovres Ln. reOvdvai X redurjicevai Ln. [^te.] avTOV t5>v p.adr]Ta>v X tcoz/ /xa^. avTodV Ln. Tf. evayyeXicrdixevol X euayye- Xi^op-evoL Ln. Tf. 'iKOf lov, prcem. eis Ln. [^te.] 'Az/rio;;^etai', prcem. els Ln. [^Za:.] npea^VTepovs kut eKKXrj- ACTS. (riav X '^c't' e'/c/cX. rrpea^. Ln. Tf. [^Zo;.] 24. na/x(^uXiaz/, prcem. rfjv Tf. 27. d?/?)yyetXaz'X"^'7yyfXXoj'Ln. Tf. 28. e/cei, ora. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Chajp. XV. 1. Tre pLr€fjLi'r]a6e X TrepiTfxrjOrj- re Ln. Tf. [Gb. c^]. JZar. — T(5 e^ei, afZd. roj Ln. 2. ouy X Se Tf. [^te.] — (ju^r^TT^crecos' X Cv'W^'^^ ^rb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ; [kqi ^rjrrjcrecos Gb. =?]. 3. ^oivLKrjv., prcem. re Ln. Tf. 4. d7re8exOT]crav X Trapedex^V' crav Ln. — r/TTO X "TTO Tf. 6. Se X re Tf. ^ 7. 6 Geos-jpos^ e^eXe^aro Ln.Tf. — eu T]piv X f'i' ^/^tt' Ln. Tf. 8. avTols 2°, om. Tf. 9. otiSev X ovBev Tf. II. Kvpiov, prcem. tov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Xptarov, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. 14. eVi, OTO. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. ^Za;. 17. 6 TTOioiv, o?«. 6 Ln, — Travra, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 18. TvcoaTo. X yj'coo-roj' Ln. — eari ra Qea rravra to. epya avTOV, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. ; rw Kvpia TO epyov avTov Ln. 20. OTTO, om. Ln. Gb. ->. — Kai roC TTVLKTov, om. tov Ln. 23. eTTiKaXovfxevovX KaXovp^evov Ln. Tf [^Zrc.] — Bapcra^dv X BapaajBIBdv Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] 23. rdSe, om. Ln. Tf. — Koi at, om. Ln. [Gb. -*]. Alx. 24. Xeyoyre? nepLTep-veadai koi Tqpelv TOV v6p,ov, om. Ln. Tf [Gb.^]. Alx. 2g. eKXe^ap.evovs X eKXe^afie- vois Ln. [Gb. t^]. JZa;. 28. Twv iivdyayKes tovtu)v\tov- Tiov Tccv errdvayK. Ln. [Alx.l ; om. TOVTCov Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. 29. Kat TTVLKTOv, Gb. -* ; /cat ttw- Kr(Si/ Ln. Tf. — rrpd^ere X Ttpd^aTe Alx. 30. ^X^oi/ X KarrjXdov Ln. [Gb. ^]. ^Zar. 32. be X re St. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — eTrecTTTjpi^av X eTreaTrjpKrav Tf. 51 33. aTTOa-ToXovs X aTTOcrretXaj/- ras avTovs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. Eec. cv]. 34- eSo|e Se rw 2iXa eTTifxe^vai avTov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. Alx. 36. IlauXo? Trpoy Bapvd^av X Trpos Bapy. rtaCXo? Ln. Tf. — Tip-av, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Trdcrav noXiv X ttoXlv irdcrav Ln. Tf. 37. ej3ovXevaaTO X e(3ovXeTO Ln. [Gb. f«]. ^Za?. — TOV 'Icodvvrjv X Kat 'loodvvrjv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ; Clcodvvrjv Gb.~]. 38. (Tvp,7rapaXaj3e7v X (Tvp-Trapa- Xafi^dveLV Ln. Tf. 39. ow X §e Ln. Tf. 40. Geov X Kvpiov Ln. Tf [Gb. ~]. yiZa?. 41. KiXiKiav, prcem. ttjv Ln. Chap. XVI. I. els Aep^rjv, prcem. koi Ln. \:Aix.:i — Avcrrpav, prcem. els Ln. — rivoy, o??^. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 3. dnavTes \ ndvTes Ln. — TOV TTUTepa avTOV, otl EX- Xrjv X ort "EXXtjv 6 iraTtjp avTOv Ln. [^Za?.] 4. Trapedidovv X Trapebibocrav Ln. Tf. — T^i/ Trpea^VTepcov., om. Ta>v Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] — 'lepovcraXrjp^X'^^poo-oXvpois Ln. Tf. 6. AieXdovTes X ^irjXdov Ln. [^Za;.] — r?7i/ TaXariKj;!', om. ri^y Ln. Tf. [Alx.} 7. e'X^oi'res', acZcZ. Se Ln. [Alx.1 — Kara 2° X fts' Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — 7ropevea6ai\Ttopev6rjvaLljn. Tf. — TTvevfia, add. 'Itjctou Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 9. r^s vvKTOs, om. rrjs Ln. — a>']• Alx. ii.ovvl de Tf. — TTjs TpcouSo?, om. T7]S Ln. — Tjj T€ X TU Se Ln. I a. eKfldev re X faKet^ez/ Ln. — Ttjs fiepldos Gb. -». — Tj}?, o?«. Ln. [Gb. :i]. Alx. — KoKcovia X Kokcaveia Tf. — ravTT] X aiT^ Tf. 13. TToXeo)? X 7Tv\t]s Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. Jlx. — €VOfXL^€TO X ^VOflL^OfieP Ln. — irpocrevxr} X Trpoaevxrjv Ln. 14. rJKOVfv X TjKOvaeu Alx. 1$. fielvare X /xeWre Ln. 16. TTpoaevxrjv, 2)rcem. rrjv Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. J?a7. — IIi/^coz/os' X Ilv^coi/a Ln. Tf. [Gb. cv]. Alx. — aTravTTJcrac X vnavrricrai Tf. 17. J7/iti' X vp-'i-v Elz. Ln. Tf. 18. rco oi/o/iaTt, o»i. tco Ln. Tf. 19. Tov ^iXav., om. tov Tf. 20. fiTTOvX eLTrau Ln. Tf. 22. nepipp-q^avres X rrepLprj^av- T€s Ln. Tf. 24. €lXr](f)(bs X Xal^^v Ln. [Gb. — avTwv rjcr(f>a\La-aTO X ^o"yrj, om. r) Ln. [Alx.] 2. SteXeytro X ^teXe^aro Ln. ; [^te. s. 8ieXexdT]]. 3. 6 XpiOToy, o??i. 6 Ln. 4. 'EXXjyycov, prcem. Ka\ Ln. — TToXv TrX^^oy X ttXtjOos ttoXv Ln. Tf. [^te.] 5. ^T^Xcocravrf? fie ol dnetdovv- res 'lowSaloi, koi irpoaXa- ^6p.€voi Tcou dyopalcov X TTpoaXa^opevoi 6e 01 'lov- fiaiot ol d7rei6ovvT(s roav dyopaioiu Sch. Tf. ; npocr- Xai36p.evoi de 01 'lovdaioi Gb. — oTret^oGi'rej', om. Gb. Ln. — Timy (ivBpas., om. Gb. ; az/- 8pas riuds Ln. Tf. [^te.] — eTnardvres re X 'f"' eniaT. Ln. [.^?a?.] — aya-yeij/ X Tvpoayayflv Ln. 6. eavpov X eavpav Tf. — rot' 'lao-ova, o??i. roy Ln. 7. Trparrof (Tt X Trpacrcroucrit' Ln. Tf. [^te.] — Xeyoi/rej erepov X ^Tepov Xe'- y Glares' Ln. 10. Tt)? rUKTO?, OTO. TTJs Ln. — rcoz/ 'loufiaicoi/ dirrjeaav X aTTTjea-au twv 'IouS. Tf. 11. TO Ka^', OCT. TO Ln. [Alx.] 13. craXeiSoi/rey, orW. Koi rapdcr- (TOUTes Ln. [yite.] 14. cos X ^'(^^ Ln. ; [Alx. s. om. — vnepivov X vnepeii'eul.n.Tf. ; [.4te. s. vnepinvav]. — Se X -re Ln. Tf. 1 5. KciOiaTcovTfs X KadicTTdvop- T€s Ln. Tf. — avroi- 1° o??i. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. 16. dfcopovvTi X deoopovuTOs Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^te. iS. Tives 5e, «(Zrf. Kat Sch. Ln.Tf. [Gb. ~]. — Tcou '2Tco'iK(ov^ om. twv Ln. 'If. [2ro'iKa)V Ln. Tf.] 52 18. oTt rbv^h](TOvv Ka\ rrjv dud- aracriv avTols evTjyyeXi^ero Gb. -. — avTOLS evTjyyeXi^eTo X eirrjyy. avTols Ln. ; om. avTols Tf. — T] VTTO., om. Tj Ln. 20. ri ay ^e'Xot X Tiva deXoi Gb. ~ [Alx.] ; rtVa ^e'Xet Ln. 21. evKaipovv X r^vKalpovv Ln. Tf. [^te.] — fcat QKoveiv X ^ aKoveiv Ln. Tf. ; 0f^?fZ. ri Ln. 23. 6 IlavXoSi <""• o Ln. 23. buX o Ln. Tf. — roCroj/ X TOVTO Ln. Tf. 24. Kvptos vndpxcov X virdpxoH'f Kvpios Ln. Tf. 25. av^pcoTTcoj' X dv6pa)nlva>v Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. Alx. — Kara X Koi rd Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 26. alfxaTos, om. Ln, [Gb. -*]. Alx. — Ttdv TO TrpocrcoTTOV X irdvTOS TrpoatOTTOv Ln. Tf. [Alx.] — 7rpoTeTayp.€vovs X Trpoare- m Tayfxevovs Gb. Sch. (Ln.) J Tf. ; [npos T€Tay. Ln.] [Gb. Rec. ~]. 27. Kvpiov X 0^bv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ; [Rec. Gb. f^]. — Koi evpOLev X ^ evpoiev Ln. [Alx.] — KaiToiye X Kotye Ln.Tf. [Gb. f^]. Alx. 28. TTOirjToiv Gb. -►. 30. irdcri X rrdvTas Ln. Tf. [Gb. 1^]. Alx. 31. oioTi X KaOoTt Ln. Tf. [Gb. <^]. Alx. 32. cirrov X ^^'irciv Tf. — rraXiv irepX tovtov X Jrepl TOVTOV Kcii ndXiv Ln. Tf. ; [Alx. .9. ojn. Kal]. 33. Kal ovTcos, om. kol Ln. Tf. — 6 ApeoTrayLTTjs, om. 6 Ln. Chap. XVIII. 1. Se, om. Ln. — o HauXof, o?«. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 2. e/c X dno Ln. Tf. [/4te.] 3. et/)ya^ero X rjpyd^eTO Ln. Tf. — T](rav yap VKt^voTTOun ttjv T€X^^ Gb. -♦. — TTjU T^XVqV X Tfl "^^X^V ^'^^ 'I'f. [Alx.] i. 7rv(i)p.ari X X6ya> Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. $. 'louSatoi?5 CKid. elvai Ln. [Gb. ~]. Alx. >]. ^\6eu X eicTTJXdev Ln. [Alx.] g. 8i opdfxaTOs iv vvktl X eV vvktI 8l opafxaTos Ln. 11. re X 8e Ln. [Alx.] 12. dvdvnarevovTos X d.v6v7rd- Tov ovTOs Ln. [Gb. ~]. ^te. 13. OVTOS dvaTTeidei X dvaneidei OVTOS Ln. Tf. 14. oyj/, om. Ln. [Gb. -»]. ^te. — r]vecrxdp.r]v X dvecrxdnrjv Ln. 15. t^rrjixd X Cv^T}fj.aTd Ln. Tf. [Gb. ttf Ln. Tf. ; i^^cSj^ Gb. e^. [^ZiC.] cr;(eS6v, prcem. kol Ln. [y^Z^e.] 'Apre/xiSo? lepov X tepoj/ 'Apre'p.. Tf. [^Za?.] oiySev X oi'^ei/ Ln. Tf. Xoyia-Srjvai X XoyicrdrjcreTaL Ln. [^Za;.] [xeXXeiv X fieXXet Ln. riyi* p,€yaX€i6TrjTa X tj^s /ac- yaXetoT?yros Ln. [/4Za?.] oXt/, o?«. Ln. Tf. (ruyp^vo-ecoy, prcem. rrjs Gb. Sch. Tf. [Gb. -]. 53 29. rov Uai^Xou, om. tov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 30. TOV de TlavXov X UavXov de Ln. 32. €V€K€V X eW/ca Ln. 33. 7rpoj3aXX6vTa>u X Trpo^aXov- TCOV Alx. - TTpoe^L^aa-av X crvi^€J3ij3a- aav Ln. [^Z«.] 34. eTTiyvovTcov X iiTLyvovTes Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 35. avdpccTvos X dvdpo)7ra)V Ln. Tf. [^Z«.] - ^eas-, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 36. npaTTetv X Trpda-aeiv Ln.Tf. 37. TTjV 6edv X TJ^i/ ^eoy Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - vficov X r]pS>v Ln. [Gb. f«]. Alx. 38. Trpos Tit'a Xoyov exovaiv X exovcr. irpos Tiva Xoyov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 39- Trepi cTepoov X TrepaLTepo) Ln. 40. ou, acZfZ. ou Gb. cv. [^Z«.] - drrodovvat. X dovvai Tf. [Gb. - Xoyoi', cwZcZ. nepl Ln. [^Za;.] Chap. XX. I. TrpoaKaXea-dfxevos X P'^ra-' TT€pi^\fdp.evos Alx. - Tovs p.adr)Tds, add. napaKa- Xecras Ln. [Alx.] - 7rop€vdrjvaiX7Topevea0acLn. - ri^v Ma/ceSoz/tai', o?ra. ttjv Ln. 3. auria eTn^ovXrjs X iiri^ov- Xrfs avTa Ln. 4. SfflTrarpoy, acZcZ. Uvppov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 5. ovToi^ add. di Ln. [^Za;.] 7. rffit* p.adrjTa>v tov X Jy/xai/ Gb. ^Sch. Ln. Tf. 8. ^o-av X ^/^ez' Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 9. Kadrjpevos X Ka6e^6p.euos Ln. Tf. [^Za:.] II. apTOV, prcem. tov Ln. Tf. [Gb. (^']. ^Za;. 13. els X eVi Ln. Tf. - Tjv bieTeTaypihos X Starer. ^v Ln. 14. crvve^(iXev\crvvi^aXXev'Ln. li. Ka\ p.£LvavTes ev TpcoyvX- Xt«, r^ ixop^evT] X '"^7 ^^ exo}.Levrj Ln. [Gb. f^] ^Za?. ; [TpooyuXto) Tf.] 16. eKpive X KeKpiKei Gb. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb.cv^]. ^Za^. ~ rjv X e't'? Ln. [^Za?.] 1 8. Trpos avTOP, add. ofxov ovrcov avTcov Ln. 19. TToWcdv, om. Gb. Sell. Ln. Tf. 21. TTjV els TOP, om.TrjV Ln. {Alx.'\ ; 07)1. TOP Tf. - Xpiarou, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.} 22. eycb bede/xeuos X SeSe/x. eyo) Gb. Ln. Tf. - (ruvavTrj(TOVTa X crvvavTr}- cravra s. crvix^-qijojxeva Alx. 23. hiafxapTvpeTai., add. pat Gb. Sell. Ln. Tf. - pe Ka\ OXi-^eis X xal dXlyjr. pe Ln. Tf. [Alx.1 24. TTOiovpai, ov8e €x_co X ^X*" oi/Se TTOiovpai Ln. ^te. ; om. ovbe e)(^co Tf. - ■^vx^v pov, om. pov Ln. Tf. [Gb. =5]. ^ - /xera x<^P^^i '^^^ I^^- ^f- [Gb. 25. rov GeoO, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. Alx. 26. eycy X ft/xt Ln. [Alx.] 27. u/iti', j)osf Oeov Ln. txt. 28. oyj' [Ln.] ; om. Alx. - Qeov X Kvpiov Gb. Ln. Tf [Ree. Gb. ~] ; Kvplov Ka\ 6eov Cst. iAlx.] - Ib'iov alparos X oipaTOS tov Iblov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. 39. yap, om,. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^i]. Alx. - TOVTO, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. 32. aSeX]. 24. yi/cocrt X ypoicroprat Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf [Kcc. Gb. c^]. — TOP popop P€i X Trpoacpcapel Tf. 3. p.ei', om. Ln. [Gb. :=*]. ^Za:. 7. eTrecrdi' X ^'Trecrd Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 8. jue X ^P^ Ln. 9. Kol eps X crrd- aecos yeuopevrjs Ln. evKa^rjdels X fpo^rjdels Ln. [Gb. cv], ^?:^^. KaralBdv X nara^qvat, koL Cst. IlauXe, o?n. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Tiv£s Ta>v 'louSaicdi/ avarpo- p.dTcop X ^topdcopd- Tcov Ln. [Gb. t^]. ^te. 5. orayti' X crTao-ets Ln. [Gb. f«i]. Alx. 6. KOi Kara roz/ rjpeTepov vopov rideXrjaapev KpiveLV. 7. Tvap- ikdcov be Avcrias 6 ;(iXtap- Xos perd ttoWtjs ^las e/c TCOV x^i-P^^-^ r}poov diTT]yaye, 8. KeXev(ras tovs KaTi]y6- povs avTOV epx^o-Qai eVt ere, 0H2. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. ^Za;. 9. ^vvedevToXo'vveTredevTO Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 10. Se X Tf Ln- Tf. [Alx.] — ev6vp6T€pov X evOvpca Ln. Tf. [Gb. c^]. Alx. 11. yvcovcu X €7nyvcovaL Ln. Tf. [^te.] — ?) deKabvo, om. rj Gb. Sch. Tf ; dcoSe/ca Ln. [^to.] — cv X ets- Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 55 12. i7n(Tv(TTa(nv X ema-raaii/ Ln. [Gb. Ln. Tf. 22. 'AKovaas Se ratira 6 ^rfki^ dve^dXeTO avTOVs i dvejBd- XeTO 8e avTOVs 6 ^rjXi^ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf [Sec. Gb. <-]. — elnav X etTra? Ln. Tf. 23. re, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. — TOV UavXov X avTov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — 77 npoaepx^crdai, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb, ^]. Alx. 24. rjpepas Tivds X rivds rjpipas Ln. — yvvaiicL avTOv X Ibla yvvaLKi Ln. ; ywat.'Ci Gb. Sch. Tf. — 'KptaTov^ add. 'irjaovv Sch. Ln. 2^. KpipUTOS TOV peXXoVTOS X peXXovTOs KpipuTos Gb. !^. Alx. — ecreadat, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. 26. dpa Se, om. Se Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — OTTcos Xvaj] avToVy om. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 27. xdptras X X^-P''^^ Ln. [Alx.] Chap. XXV. 2. Se X re Ln. Tf. — 6 apx'^'^^'^^ X ol dpxi^pus Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. [Alx.] L 4. iv Kaicrapeia X els Kaiaa- pdav Ln. Tf. [Gb.c^]. Alx. i. hwaroi iv vfilv, (pijal X eV vfuv, (prjaiv, dvvarol Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.} — TOVTCp X ciTOTTOV Ln. [Alx.] ; om. Gb. 6. TrXeiovs X o^ TrXdovs oktco Gb.Sch.Ln.Tf.[.4te.]; TrXet- OVS OKTOi Gb. ~]. 7. nepieaTTjcrav, add. avrbv Ln. [Gb. ~]. .^te. — aiTicLfxaTa X alTia>fj,ara Gb. Sell. Ln. Tf. — (pepovres Kara rod HavXov X KaracfiepovTes Ln. Tf. [Gb. 8. aTToXoyovpevov avTOv X toG na^^Xof dTToXoyovp-epov Ln. Tf. [^te.] 9. Tols 'lovdaiois 6kX(x)v \ 6k- \(x>v ToTy 'louS. Ln.Tf [^te.] — KpLveadai X Kpidrjvai Ln. Tf. [^te.] I], yap X GUI' Ln, Tf. [Gb. H- Alx. 15. diKTjv X Kara^Lfsp Ln. [Gb. i6. rti^a X TivL Gb. rv. ^to. — els drroyXeiav, om. Gb.Ln. Tf. Alx. 17. avTcou, om. Tf. 18. eTrecpepov X etpepov Ln. Tf [Gb. e^]. .4?«. — vnevoovv eyco X f'y'^^ vrrevo- ovv Ln. ; afM. Trovqpav Ln. [Gb. tv]. ^Za:. 20. TOVTOV X rojJro)!' Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. Alx. — *lepovcraXr]p X 'lepocroXv/xa Ln. Tf. 21. 7re/x\//-(0 X dvanepL-^o) Ln. Tf [Jte.] 22. 60?;, OOT. Ln. Tf. — 'O 8e, o??i. Ln. Tf. 23. roTy p^iXtapp^oif, o»i. to7s Ln. Tf [/i^a:.] — ova-i, om. Ln. Tf [Gb. ^]. 24. Trai/ X anav Ln. Tf [yite.] — €7nfdoa>vT€s X f^ocovTes Ln. — ^^1/ avTov X CLVTov ^fjv Ln. Ute.] s^. KaraXaftop-evos X KareXafSo- fiTjv Ln. [/ite.] — Bavarov avrov X avrou 6a- vdrov Ln. Tf [/l?a;.] — Acal avToi), om. koi Ln. [yf/x.] ACTS. 25. aCrw, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^3]. Alx. 26. ypdyJAai 2° X ypdyJAoi Ln. Tf. [Gb. c^]. ^te. Chap. XXVI. I. vnep X nep\ Ln. Tf [Gb. H. Alx. — dncXoyciTO, post X^^P^ ^°- [Alx.] — p-eXXoiv dTToXoyeicrdaL em aov arjpepovX fVi croO jueX. o-jy/o,, ttTToXoy. Gb. Sch. Ln. ; eVl crou )ueX. dTroXoy. arjp,. Tf 3. o-ou, om. Ln. Tf [Gb. =?]. Alx. 4. T?7V CK veoTTjTOS., om. Tr)v Tf — 'l€po(7oXvp.oLS, prce,m. re Ln. Tf [^te.] — ol 'lovdaioc, om. ol Ln. Tf. 6. npos X ds Ln. Tf [Gb. f^]. Alx. — narepas, add. rjp.cov Scb. Ln. [Gb. f^]. 7. (3aaiXev 'AypiTnra, om. Tf. (Ln.) ; [^aaiXev post 'lov- dalccv Ln.] ; CAypinira Gb. =i ; 0771. Alx.} — Ta>v 'louSatcov, om. tcov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 10. TToXXovs, add. re Ln. Tf. [Gb. '^j. Alx. — (pvXaKois, prai7n. ev Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf [Gb. ->]. 12. iv ols Ka\, 0771. Koi Ln. [Gb. ^]. ^te. — Tijs napa, om. Ln. [Gb. -►]. 14. fie X re Ln. Tf [Alx.] — XaXovcrav X Xiyovcrav Ln. Gb. -^. [^te.] — /cat Xeyovaav., om. Ln. 15. eiVoz/ X etVa Ln. Tf — 'O fie, o(?(L /cuptos- Ln, Tf [Alx.} 17. raji/ i6vcov, prcti77i. in Ln. — j/Oi/ X iy<^ Gb. Ln. Tf Alx. [Rec. Gb. <-]. — ere diTocrTeXXa) X ayroo-r. ere Ln. 20. Trpwroi/, ofZc?. re Ln. Tf. — 'lepocToXvpoLS, 2)7-icm. iv Ln. — etf Trdcrdv, 0171. els Ln. — aTrayyeXXcoy X a7r77yyeXXot' Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. 'JT. 22. Trapa X dno Ln. Tf [.<4te.] — papTvpovp.evos X p-aprvpo- pevos Ln. Tf [/Ite.J fi6 23. ry a^iov Ln. 32. idvvaTO X rjdvvaTO Ln. — i7reKeKXr]T0 X iTTiKeKXrjTO Ln. Tf Chap. XXVII. 2. p,eXXovTes X peXXovTi Ln. Tf [Gb.c^]. ^Za;. — TrXeTi', odcZ. eis Ln. [J/a;.] 3. cpiXovs, p>rcem. revs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — TTOpevdevra X iropevBevTi Ln, [Jte.] 5. Mopa X Mvppa Ln, 6. eKarovTapxos X eKarovrdp- XV^ Ln. Tf, 8. Aaaaia X ''AXao-cra Ln. 10. (poprov X (popriov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf II. eKarovTapxos X eKarovrdp- Xqs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf, — i7rei6eTO p.a.XXov X paXXoi' eVet'^ero Ln. — roO XlauXov, o?n, roo Ln, 12. nXeiovs X nXeioves Ln. Tf. — KdiceWev X iKeldev Sch. Ln. 14. 'EvpoKXv^cov X EvpaKvXcov Ln. ; EvpvKXv8a>v Gb. 16. KXaofir;!' X KaCfia Ln, — poXi? l(rxvaap,ev X 'O'p^- po- Xi? Ln. Tf 18. fie X re Ln. 19. ippiyj/apev X eppi-^av Gb. Ln. ^te. [Rec. Gb. ~]. 20. TTcio-a e'Xuiy X eXTriy vrao-a Ln. Tf 31. fie X re Ln.Tf 23. ri} i^uKri ravTr) X Tavrr] rrj vvKTL Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — ayyeXof, jwsi Xarpevut Ln, Tf [yl/.r.] — etptj add. iyto Ln. [.,4te.] 32 33 '2>]. eyevero X eVeyeVero Tf. 29. fXTjiTcos X }Ji-r]Trov Tf. [Gb. c^]. — els X Kara Ln. Tf. Alx. [Gb. — eKTrecrcocriv X eKTreacofxev Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — r]v)(ovTO X ev^ovro Tf. 30. Trpoopas X 7rp(ppr]s Ln. — /tieXXovrcoz/ dyKvpas X oy^- /xeX. Ln, ot aTparicorai dTreKoyjrav X d7reKo\l/av ol arpaTiaTaL Ln. Tf. efxeXXsv r)p,€pa X ^'ytieX. v7jLie- pa Tf. ; rjpepa rjixeXXev Ln. ixrjdev X p-rjdiu Ln. Tf. 7rpoaXa$6fj,€voi X TrpocrXap,- ^auofxevoi Ln. TrpoaXa^elv X p-eToXa^slv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ovdevos X ovOevbs Ln. e/« X aTTO Ln. Tf. — TrecreLTai X OTroXetrat Gb, Sch. Ln. Tf. 35. EtTTcbv X eiTras- Ln. Tf. 37. ^ju.ej/ X 'qp-^&CL Ln. Tf. — eV TO) TrXoL(p, post yjrvxat Ln. Tf 'UZ^.] ' 39. e^ovXevcravTO X e^ovXev- ovTO'lin. lAlx.} Gb. ~. — dvvaivTO X Bwarbu Tf. .4to. [Gb. ~]. 40. dpT€[xopa X dpreixcova Ln. Tf 41. inaiKeiXav X eTreKciXav Ln. Tf. — rwi' Kvixdrcov, om. Ln. Tf. 34. I- ROMANS. 42. dia(f)vyot X diafpvyrj Gb, Sch. Ln. Tf. 43. iKaTourapxos X eKaTovrdp- Xqs Ln. Tf. Chap. XXVIII. 1. €7reyva>crav X eireyucofxev Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] 2. Se X re Ln. Tf [^te.] — Trapel^op X Trapelxav Ln. Tf. — az/d-v//-ai/res )( d-^avres Ln. 3. (ppvydvcov, add. ri Ln. Tf. ^te. [Gb. ~]. — eK X OTTO Ln. Tf. ^?a?. [Gb. ~]. — i^eX6ov(ra X Sie^eX^oiicra Sch. Tf. [Gb. ~]. — Kadrj-^e X Kadrj-^aro Gb. ~. [Cs^.] 4. eXeyov, post dXXrjXovs Ln. Tf. 5. dTTOTtm^as X dTToriva^dp^e- vos Sch. Tf 6. ^eoj/ avTov elvac X avrov et- j/at ^eoi/ Ln. 8. dvaevTepia X 8v(T€VTepi(p Ln. Tf 9. ow X 6e Ln. Tf [^Z^.] — exovTes dadeveias^post vrjaco Ln. Tf. 10. Tjyj/ XP^''^^ X ras XP^ '"^ I^"- Tf [JZa;.] 12. Tjfiepas rpels X rjpepais rpi- (TLV Ln. 14. eV X i"«p' Ln, — fis rJ7i' 'Va>p.r]V rjXdopev X eis tt)!/ 'Pa>[xr]V rjXdapiev Tf. Ln. fjX6ap.€V els 'Pcu/Aj;^ 15. e^rjXOov X rjXdou Ln. 16. TJXdopev X elarjXOofxev Ln. — eis 'Paip,r)v, 6 eKarovrapxos TrapedooKe revs deafxiovs rc5 o-rparoTredapxi]' rw Se Ilax;- X&) eneTpaTT-q X f ts' 'Fooprjv, eTTerpaTTT] ra UavXat Ln. [Jte.] [Gb. H. 17. roz/ IlauXoi/ X avrov Gb, Sch. Ln. Tf — eyo), anfe avdpes Ln.Tf [.^te.] 19. KaTTjyoprjaai X Kar-qyopelv Ln. 21. etTTOZ/ X eiTrai/ Ln. Tf. — Trepi croO ede^dpeda X eSe- ^dpeda nepl a-ov Ln. 22. ecrrtj/ j^ptj' X W^^ ecTTtv Ln. [^Za;.] 23. rjKov\ rjXOov Ln. [^te.] [Gb. pa]. — rd 7rep\, om. rd Ln. Tf. [Gb. 25. Tjpcov X t'poiv Ln. Tf. 26. Xiyov X Xeyav Tf. — eiVe X f iVoj' Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 27. IdcrcopaL X ldaop,aL Tf. [Gb. 28. TO acoTTjpLov, prcmi. rovro Ln. Tf 29. Kai ravra avrov elirovroSy dTTtjiXOov ol 'louSaToi, TToX- Xt]!/ e^^oj^re? eu eavrols av- ^rjrrjcriv, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =i]. 30. 6 IlaCiXo?, ow. Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. ROMANS. Chap. I. I. 'Iiyaou Xpccrrov X Xp. 'It/ct. Tf 8. VTrep X Trepi Ln. Tf. [Gb. =v]. Alx. 12. roCro Se ecrrt )( rovrecrriv Ln. mg. 13. ou ^eXo) X oi"f oi^ai Alx. — KapTTOV Tiva X Ttm Kapnov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 16. Tov Xpttrrou, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Cst.] - TrpS)Tov [Ln.] 19. 6 yap Qeos X o ^^os yap Ln. Tf 21. evxapiarrjaav X rjvxapiarr]- arav Ln. Tf 24. dto Kat, offi. Kol Ln. [Gb. ^]. - eavTols X avrols Ln.Tf [Alx.'] 27. re X Se Ln. [Gb. f^]. Alx. - dppeves X dpaeves Ln, Tf, lAlx.] 29. TTOpvela, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. [^ZiT.] ' - KaKia, aH«e irovqpia Ln. 57 31. acTTTwSous-, o?jj. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. 32. TTOioCicrti' X ''■otoGz/res- Ln. mg. — (xvvevboKovcjL X crvyevdo- Kovvres Ln. mg. Chap. II. 2. o'ibap.ev he X o'ibap.ev yap Ln. mg. g. a7roKaX^-v//'eQ)y, flfZ(^. /cat Gb.~. 8. pel', om. Ln. \_Alx.1 - 6vp,bs Kal opyrj X opyfj Ka\ 6vp.6s Gb. Ln, Tf [Alx.} 13. Tov voyLOV 1°, om. tqv Ln. Tf. [Gb. =;]. Alx. — TU) 0ec5, [tc5] Lu. — TOV vofjLOV 2*^5 om. TOV Ln. Tf. 14. TTOifj X TTOiuxjiv Ln. Tf. iAlx. s. TTOiovai.v'H. — ovTOL \ ol ToiovTOt Ln. mg. 16. ore X ?7 Ln. i7.''lSe X €(■ Se Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — TO) v6}xio, om. Tco Ln. Tf [Gb. 26. oirp^i X ovx Ln. 29. aX\' 6 X aXXa Tf. [Ln. mg.] Chap. III. 2. yap, om. Ln. [Gb. — ]. Alx. 4. vtKTjo-rjS X vi-Krja-eis Lu. mg. 7. yap X Sf ^te. 9. Trpo7]Tiao-dfX€da X ^JTiacra- /xe^a ^te. II. 6 (tvvlQ)V^ om. 6 Ln. [Gb. -]. Alx. — 6 eK^rjToov, [6] Ln. 13. T]xpeioidT]a-av X r)XP^(^dT](rav Ln. mg. 14. TO (TTOfia, add. [avTcov] Ln. 22. KOL errl nduTas, om. Ln. [Gb. ^]. .^te. 25. T^y nLaTeoas, om. ttjs Ln.Tf. [Gb. =5]. Alx. 26. eVSeilii/, x>r(Bm. ttjv Ln. Tf. — 'l7;o-oD, o?7i. Tf. [Gb. -]. 28. ovu X yV ^^- ^^^^- -L"- — TTiaTeL biKaiovcrOai X SiKat- ovaBai TTi'trrei Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 29. [JLOVOV X p-ovcov Tf. — ou;^! 6e, o??i. de Gb. Sch. Ln, Tf. 30. eTreiVep X ^i TTfp Ln. Tf [Gb. cv], Alx. 31. l(TTO)pev X urrai/op.ei/ Ln. Tf [Gb. -■-]. Chap. IV.^ i.'A,'3paa/x TOi/ irarepa rjpcov cvprjKevai X (vprjKkvca 'A/3p. Toj/ TTpOTTiiTopa r]jX(ov Ln. [Gb. f^]. ^te. 3. roi/ Gfdi/, o?rt. TOI/ Ln. Tf. 4. TO o(f)eiXT]fxa, om. to Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 8. a ov fif] X ov oxj pf) Ln. mg. 9. oTi iXoyicrdrj, [oti] Ln. II. TTfpiTop^s X TrepiTOpfjv Alx. ROMANS. 11. 81 iiKpo^vcTTias X ^t« a/fpo- [Sua-Tia? Ln. txt. Tf. — r?;!/ bLKaiO(jvvr]v\ els diKaio- crvuTju Lu. mg. 12. TTJ aKpo^va-Tia, om. ttj Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] ' — TTt'crrews' X T^y ttiVt. crnZe Tjjs iv TTJ cLKp. Sch. [Gb. t^^]. Cst. 13. roC Kocrpov., om.Tov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 15. yap X 5e Ln.^ [Gb. -]. 17. eTTLCTTevcre X eVtcrrevcras' ^te. 18. eV X e'^' Ln. 19. TTiaTet, 2^^'<^>^^- ^^ ■^^^• — ou, om. Ln. [Gb. =t]. ^?x. — 77S7;, ow. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. 21. /cat 1°, om. Tf. [^te.] 22. bib Ka\ X /^a't [Lu.] Gb. -^ ; Chap. Y. 1. e^opev X ^xcopev Sch. Ln. mg. [Tf. ed. I.] 2. TJ7 TTLCTTeL, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. -]. ^?^. 6. Kara Kaipbv, prcem. eTL Lu. [Gb. ->. ^Za;. 8. els Tjpas 6 Qebs X o ^^ os eij J7juas Tf. Alx. 9. ow, om. ^Zx. 11. Se, GcZfZ. Touro ^Za;. 12. 6 ^uj/aros 2°, 07?j.Tf. [Gb. ->]. ^Za?. 13. eXXoyeirat X eWoyaTO Ln. rag. 14. aXX' X a^'^va Tf. — prj Gb. ->. 16. dpapTTjcraPTOS X dpapTTjpa- Tos Gb. --N). [^Za;.] — yap, OTO. .4Za?. 17. TO) TOV ivbs X f'^ fi't Tf. Ln. mg. [Gb. ~]. ^Za:. — 1-^9 dcopeds [Lu.] Gb. -►. Chap. VI. 1. iinpevovpev X iinpevoipev Gb. Ln. Tf. [^Zx.] [Rec. Gb. ~]. 2. OLTives, odd. yap Alx. ~ i^rjo-opev X Cw^y-^^ Ln. mg. 3. Iqcrovv., om. Alx. 8. awro) X '''<« XpiaT^ Alx. XI. eluai., om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — TO) Kvplco T)p(ov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ' 12. avTT] eV, o?n. Gb. Ln. Tf. — Ta7s intOvplats ayrov, om. Gb. Sch. 13. o)s X uxrii Ln. [yv Alx. — OS Ka\, [koi} Ln. [Gb. -»]. Alx. 36. ei/em X ^veKCV Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 37. Tov ayaTTr](TavTos\Tov aya- TTT^aravTa Alx. 38. ayyeXoi X ayyeXo? Alx. — ovT€ dvvdfxeis, post [xeXXovTa Gb. Sell. Ln. Tf. 39. ris, oni. .4te. — rw Kvpt]. ^Zar. 17. Geou X XptCTTOv Ln. ; [^Za;. s. om. Beov]. 19. otiK eyvco 'lcrpar]XX'l(Tp. ovK eyvco Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 20. drroToXpa Ka\, 07n. Alx. — 'Evpedrjv, add. [eV] Ln. — eyevoprjv, add. [eV] Ln. Chap. XL 1. TOV Xaov avTOv, add. lov Trpo- eyvco] Ln. lAlx.l — Bev'iaplv X BevLapeiv Ln. 2. Xiyaiv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 3. /cat ra dvaiacTTrjpid, om. Ka\ Ln. Tf. [Gb. :3]. ^Za;. 6. et Se e'l epytov, ovk eTi epev X dnoOvr]- aKopev Ln. [/Ite.] — aTTodfrjaKoipev X dnoOvrj- (TKopei/ Ln. [y^te.] 9. /cat drredave, om. Kcii Ln. Tf. [Gb. r;]. ^te. — dvecrrr] kol dve^rjcrev X ^'C^- o-fu Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 10. dbe\(f)6v (TOV, add. iv tw py-j tadleiv Alx. — XpKTTov X deov Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. 110 MANS. II. Trao-a yXajtrcra, post e^opo- XoyijaeraL Ln. [Alx.] [2. ouf, om. Ln. [Alx.] — baxret X aTToScocrfi Ln. txt. [^te.] — Tw 0e(w [Ln.] ; o??2. Alx. 14. 81' eavTov X 8t' avTOv Gb. Sch. Ln. txt. Tf. [5. Se X y«p Ln.Tf. [Gb.~]. Alx. [6. vpoiv X T)pwv Alx. 18. TOVTOis X TOVTO) Gb. Ln. Tf. [Jte.] [Rec. Gb. -^]. — roi Xptcrrw, c>??i. rto Ln. — boKipos X boKipois Ln. mg. [9. apa X opct Ln. mg. — bi(x)Kcopev X biuxopev Ln. mg. — aXXryXof y, Offd. (pvXd^oipev Alx. 21. ?) aKavbaXiCeraL t] dadevet, om. Tf. [Gb. ->]. ^Za'. 22. TTLariu, add. rjv Ln. [^Za;.] — cravTOv X (reavrov Ln. Tf. 23. dpaprla eVrtV, add. cap. xvi. 25-27. Gb. Cs«. Chap. XV. 2. yap, o?«. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 3. eneiTea-ov )( eTreireaav Ln. Tf. [JZo;.] 4. 7rpoeypd(f)T] i" X ^ypd4>r] Ln. mg. ; [^Za:. Tvpocreypdcpr] s. eypd(f>rj TrdvTo]. — TTpoeypd<^r) 2° X ^ypdcf)r] Ln. Tf. [Gb. <^]. JZa;. — rrj? 7rapaKkr](reo3s., j^rcem. bui Sch. Ln. [Gb. ^l Alx. >]. rjpds X vpds Gb. Sch. Ln. txt. Tf. — Qeov, proim. rov Ln. Tf. lAlx.-] 8. Xeyo) Se, 'iTjo-oiii' Xpicrrbv X Xeyo) yap XpLcrrou Ln. Tf. [Gb. --]. ^Za:. — yeyevrjcrOai X yeveaOai Ln. [/iZa;.] [I. TrdXii/, arZrZ. Xeyei Ln. [^Z.r.] — TOV Kvptov, post edvi] Ln. txt. Tf. [Alx.] — eTraiuecrare X eiraiveaaTOi- crav Ln. Tf. 3. 7rXr)pa>(TaL vpds 7rd(TT]9 x"~ pas Kal elprjvrjs X TrXrjpo- (poprjarai vpds ev Trdcrrj X'^'^pd Ka\ elpTjVTj Ln. mg. — ev TU) TTiarTeveiv, om. Alx. — iv Trj eXnlbi, om. ev Alx. 4. Kal avTol, om. Alx. 00 dXXrjXovs X iiXXovs Gb. ~. [Cst.] dbeX(l>ol, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 'Itjctou XpicrroO X Xpiarov "irjaov Ln. Tf. KavxTjO-LV^ prcem. rrjv Ln. Tf. [Alx.] Qeov, jyroim. rov Gb. Sch.Ln. Tf. ToXprjcra> X ToXpco Ln. mg. XaXeli/ rt X "J"* XaXett' Ln. Tf. [Alx. s. Ti elrrelv]. KareipydaaTO X KarTjpyd- aaro Tf. bvvdpei, add. avrov Alx. Qeov X dyiov Gb. Sch. Ln. [^Za:.J ; 07n. Tf. [Gb. 3]. coare pe dno 'lepovaaXrjp KQL KVkXw pexpt TOV 'IX- XvpiKov TrenXrjpcoKevai to evayyeXiov \ (hare TreTrXrj- pSio-Bai dno 'lepovtr. pexpt TOV 'iXXup. Kal kvkXco to evayy. Alx. (piXoTipovpevov X (f>(-XoTi- povpai Ln. [Alx.] TO. TToXXd X TToXXoKlS Ln. [Alx.] Tov eXOelv, [tov] Ln. 7roXXo)v X LKavcov Tf. cos eciv X COS dv Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] TTopevcopaL X nopevopat Alx. eXevaopai Trpos vpds, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. ydp, om. Gb. Sch. vcf) X d(^' Ln. Tf. [Alx.] evboKrjcrav ydp Kai, om. Alx. avTcov elcTLv X fiVii/ avTa>v Ln. Tf. [JZa7.] rj)^ iTvaviav, om. ttjv Ln. Tf. [Alx.] TrXrjpdopaTi X TrXrjpociiop'ui Alx. TOV evayyeXiov tov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. dbeXcjjol, om. Tf. npoaevxo.'is, add. vpoiv Alx. Iva 2°, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =:]. ^Za:. biaKovia X boopocjiopLa Ln. [/(Za;.] fif X e'i' Ln. yevrjTai toIs dyiois X Toty dyiois yevTjTai Ln. [^Za:.] 0eoO X Kvpiou 'It^ctou Ln. [XptOToC 'l/;o-ou ^Za:.] Kat crvvavaTravcroipai vplv, om. Ln. [Gb. ->]. 33- elprjvqs, add. fJT(o Alx. — aixr]v [Ln.] Gb. -*. Chap. XVI. 1. Se Gb. ->. iAlx.-] — fjfxwv X vfxa>v Ln. mg. [Alx.1 2. avTTjv 7rpoade^r]a6e X Trpocr- Sef air. Ln. Tf. UZa;.] — avTOv eyLOv\iiiov avrov Ln. Tf. 3. HpidKLWav X npLO-Kav Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 5. 'A;;^atas' X 'Atria? Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. — els Xpiarov X ^'^ XptcrTcp Alx. 6. Mapiap X MaptW Ln. — !7^ns' X ^'fias Ln. [Gb. f^] ; [Alx. s. iv vpA.v']. 7. OL KOL irpo ipov yeyovacnv X Tois TTpo ipov [Alx.} — yeyovaaiv X y^yovav Ln. Tf. 1 COEINTHIANS 8. ^AfXTrXiav X 'AjUTrXtaroi/ Ln. mg. [^Za;.] 9. Xpiara X Kvpico Ln. [^Zrr.] 12. acrndcracrQe TLepa-lba rrju ayaTrrjTrjv, -^ris noXka eKO- TTiacrev iv Kvpico [Ln.] 14. 'EppdvX'Epprjv Ln.Tf [Alx.] — 'Epprjv X 'Eppdv Ln. Tf. [^te.] 15. 'lotiXtai/, Nrjpea X 'loui/iaj/, T^rjpeav Ln. mg. 16. €KKkr]crLai, add. Trdcrai Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf ; [Alx. ? o?ra. ao". V/X. ai €Kk\. T. XpLCTTOV Alx.} 17. (jKoirelv X dacf)aXS)s ctko- Trelre Alx. — epadere.) add. Xeyovras r] Alx. 18. 'It/ctou, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — 'KptcFT^., ante rjpcov Gb. f^\ — Kal evXoyiaSf om. Alx. — diXco 8e X Koi deXco Alx. 19. xaipci) ovv TO icf)' vplv X i(f>' vplv ovv xaipo) Ln. Tf. ; [to Gb. -]. Alx. ig. fxev, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. --X}. Alx. 20. ^ X^P*^ • • • ff^' vpcoVj om. Alx. — peB^ vpcov, add. dprjv. Elz. 21. 'AcTTTa^oz/rai X ^AaTrdC^Tai Ln. Tf. [Alx.} — arvyyevels pov, add. Koi al €KKkr]o-iai Trdcrai tov Xpi- (TTOV Alx. 23. TT]s €K.K\r](Tias o\t]s X okrjs tt)? €KK\r](TLas Ln. Tf. [Alx.} 24. 'H X<^P'^ Toi' Kf ptou 77jLtwi/ ^lijcrov XpicTTOv perd rrdv- Tcov vp5)V. dprjv, om. Ln. 25. ad Jin. Gb. ;f?'5. ^osZ xiv. 23. — re, o??z. ^Za^. 27. aioivay, atM. rwi/ alcovcov Ln. IIpo? 'Pcopaiovs iypdcfir] dno Kopivdov bid ^OL^rjs r?j? SiaxoVou TJ]S ev Keyxp^cus eKKkrjaias^ om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 1 CORINTHIANS. Chap. I. I. KkrjTOS [Ln.] Gb. ->. [Alx.} — 'It/o-ou XpicTTov X Xpiarov ^lr](T0v Ln. Tf. 3. r^ oi;'cr?7 ei' K.opivdco, post Xpi. 'ir](TOv Ln. Tf. [Alx-1 — re, o)H. Ln. 8. Tjpepa X Tvapovcria Alx. 13. {'Trep X Ti'fp' Ln. txt. Tf. 14. ro) 06(5, o?«. ./4Za:. s. rco deed pov. — e^dTrTia-aXi^aTTTicrdrjTe liTi. Tf. [Alx.} 17. Xpiaros X [o] Xpiarrds Ln. — dXX' X aX/Va Tf. 20. TOVTOV, om. Ln.Tf. [Gh.^}. Alx. 22. arjpelnv X crrjpeia Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 23."EXX770-t X ^'Ovecri Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 26. 7ap X ovv Alx. 27. tva rous (ro(f)ovs Karaicxyvrj X tVa Karaicrx- T. ao(pQvs [Ln.] Tf [JZa;.] — Koi rd daOevrj tov Kocrpov e^eXe^aro 6 Geo? [Ln.] 28. Kai ra pr]., om. Kai Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. I?]. 29. avTov X Tov 6eov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 30. riplv (ro(pLa X (Tocpia rfplv Ln. Tf. [Alx.} Chap. II. 1 . paprvpiov X pvar-qpiov Gb. <^\ [^Za;.] 2. TOV eldevai ti X Ti etSeVat Gb. Sch. Ln. txt. Tf. ; eldevai Ti Ln. mg. 3. Kai eyo) X Kayo) Ln. [^Zx.] — eV (p6^(o^ om. iv Alx. 4. 7r€i6o7s X Treidol. Gb. <^. — dvdpcoTTLvrjs, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 7. cro]. Alx. 13. TrCp, add. avTO Ln. Tf. [J/x.] 14. erraKodofXTjae X CTroiKoSo/x. Tf! 17. roOroj' X 0.VT0V Ln. [Gb. ^]. 19. TM 0e(5, o?«. ro) Ln. Tf. [Alx.-] ' 23. eariv, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. :5]. Chap. IV. I. GfoG. 2. 6 Se X ^eoO d)§e. Ln. [Alx.} 6.0X0. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] — (fypovelv, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.l 9. ort, o??i. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. ^Za?. 11. yvfxvTjTevofiev X yvfiviT. Ln. Tf. 13. j3Xa(T(prj[xovijL€voL X 8vacf)T)- fj.oviJ.evoL Tf. [Gb. ^]. Jte. 14. vovOeTco X vovdercov Gb. i^. [^Zx.] 17. Tf-KVOV llOV X /iOV TSKVOV Ln. Tf. [^te.] -- XptoTco, ofZfZ. IrycroO Ln. ; [^Zar. s. Kvpico s. Kvpico 'irj- crov]. 21. TTpaoTTjTOs X TrpavTTjTos Ln. Tf. Chap. V. 1. oi/o/*d^erat, o??i. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 2. i^apOfi X «p^,^ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — TTOLTjaas X "TTpd^as Tf. [Gb. r^]. ^Z.r. 3. cos, om. Ln. [Gb. =;]. Alx. 4. J7pcoi/ 1^ [Ln.] — Xpia-Tox) 1°, om. Ln.Tf. {.Alx.} — Tjuwu 2° [Ln.] — Xpio-Tov 2°, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] J. 'l/ytrou, om. Tf. ; [T]p.cov ^Irj- aov Xpi(TTOv] Ln. [yiZa:.] 6. ^vp-oT. X 60X01 Gb. <^. •J. ovu, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 7. t^Trep Tjp.5)Vi om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. rj]. Alx. — eridrj \ eOvdrj Elz. 8. €opTd^(i)p,ev\iopTa.^oixev Ln. mg. 10. KOI ou Trdi-Tco?, o?n. Koi Ln. Tf. [Gb. =i]. Alx. — 77 apna^iv X '^"'^ dpTT. Ln. Tf. [Gb. cv^]. Alx. — ocpelXeTeX o)(peikeT€ Ln.txt. Tf. [Alx.-] 11. t'l'z/i X vvv Ln. txt. 12. /cat rovs", om. Kat Ln. [JZa:.] 13. Koi, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. — i^apiiTe X i^dpuTe Gb. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. Alx. Chap. VL 2. ovK X J? ouK Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 5. Xeyo) X XaXco Ln. — eo-riz/ X eVt Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — aocj^os ovde els X ov8els ao- v] Ln. — 'Ij^crou, add. XpLarov Ln. 14. J7pas X vpds Elz. — e^eyepel X e^eyeipei Ln.txt. 16. T^r, om. Tf. [^Za;.] — cfirjcrlv [Ln.] 19. TO aw pa X TO ad}p.aTa Tf. [Gb. ~]. 06«. 20. Kai eV T&> 7Tvevp.arL vpiojv, arivd ecTTL tov Qeov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Chap. VII. I. p,ot, om. Tf. 3. oCJ^eiKopevrjv evvoiavX d(l)et~ Xrjv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ;^e [Ln.] 4. dXX' his X dXXd Ln. Tf. g. axoXd^Tjre X o-p^oXdorjyrc Gb. Sell. Ln. Tf. — TTJ vqcrrela Koi, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. 'If. — avvepx^Tjdcre X ^^f Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 7. yap X 8e Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^Za;, C2 aXX' X a>^>^a Tf. XapLo-p-a ex^L \ e'xn X"/5t- cr/xa Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 05 ^ ' . OS X o . . . 6 Ln. Tf. [Alx.] icTTiv, om,. Gb. Sell. Ln. Tf. idv, add. [ovtccs] Ln. upeicraov X Kpelrrov Ln. txt. yap.rjo-ai X ycipelv Gb. ~. [Alx.] uXX' X ak\d Ln. Tf. Xcopicrdrji'at X X'^P'-C^^^^'- Ln. [^Za;.] eyw Xeyco X Xeyco eyo) Ln. Tf. avTos X ovTos Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. Alx. avTov X TOV civhpa Ln. Tf. [Gb. t^]. Alx. yvvaiKi, add. rfj TTiar^ Alx. dvbpi X dSeX^O) Ln. Tf. [Alx.] rjpds X yP'ds Tf. 6 Geoy, . . ■. 6 KvpioSj trs. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. biaTdaaopLai X dibdaKco Alx. ris eKXrjdr) X KeKXrjral, tis Ln. Tf. Ka\, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] Tcp Geo), om. rw Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. yr]p.rjS X yap.rjar]s Ln. Tf. ; [Alx. s. Xd^rjs yvvalKa]. T) napdevos, [r]] Ln. d8€X(f>o\, add. OTi Elz. TO XoLTTOV icTTLV X iix6v, varepovp.e6a X oure eav pi) pev varepovfieda Ln. [Alx.] ; ouVe eai/ p?) (fidy. vaTepovjxeda, ovre edv c/)a- yoipeu, 7T€pi(T(jevoixev Tf 9. aa^eTOucrti/ X dadeveaiv Ln. Tf [Gb. ^]. Alx. 10. o"e [Ln.] Alx. 11. Kai aTToXetrat X oTroXXurat yap Ln. Tf [^te.] — aSeXc^oy, om.liic Ln.Tf. [^Za;.] — eVt X eV Ln. Tf [Gb. ~]. Alx. ~ yi/axjei, add. 6 d8€X(p6s Ln. Tf [Alx.] 13. p,ou, o?«. Alx. Chap. IX.^ I. aTToOTToXos ; ovk etpt eXeu- 1 CORINTHIANS, 6epos; trs. aTToa-T.et eXevd. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Eec.Gb.~J. 1. XpLCTTOV, om. Ln. Tf. 2. T^S e'p^? OTTOCrToX?}? X f^ov rrjs dTToaToXrjs Ln. Tf. 3. auTjy eVri X icrriv avrrj Ln. 6. rou pj7, om. tov Ln. [Alx.] >]. €< TOV KapiTOV X TOV KapTTOV Ln. Tf [Gb. cv]. Alx. — eadlei, add. /cat Tri'fet ^te. — 77 rt?, om. ^ Ln. Tf. [^ite.] 8. XaXo) X Xeyoj ^Za?. — ovx^L Kal 6 vopos TavTaXxcu 6 vopos TavTa ov Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. 9. €i> yap TO) M CO ere CO? vopco ye- ypanTat X y^ypanTat. yap Alx. — (ptpaiorets X KTjpaaeis Alx. Twv pocov, pi-wm. Trept .^Za:. eV eXTTtSi 6 X Kepdduco Tovs Ln. Tf [Gb. ~]. Alx. dvopovs, prcem. tovs Ln. Tf. WS-, om. Tf [Ln.] 22. ra, om. Ln. Tf [Gb. -]. Alx. — TrdvTcos Tivds X ndvTas Alx. 23. ro€ro X ndvTa Ln. Tf. [Gb. '^J. Alx. 27. VTTCOTTtd^CO X VTTOTrid^Oti Gb. ~. [^Za;.] — SofXaycoyco X SovXayayco St. Chap. X. 1. Se X yap Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 2. €J3a7TTiaavTO X e^anTiadr]- crav Ln. [^Za;.] 3. ^p5)pa TTvevpariKov etpayov X TTvevp. €cf). I3p. Ln. 4. no pa TTvevpaTLKOv eirtov X TTV. eV. TTopa Ln. Tf. — 8e TTeTpa X TTSTpa de Ln. txt. Tf. g. evdoicrjaev X rjvdoK. Ln. Tf. 7. o)? X co(T7rep Ln. Tf. [Gb. <^]. 8. enopvevaav X e^enopvevo'av Alx. — eirearov X '^^reaav Ln. Tf. [^Za:.] 9. XpiaTOV X Kvpiov Ln. [Gb. t^]. ^Za?. — Kai rtj/e?, o»z. /cat Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. ^Za?. — eTreipaa-avXe^eneipacrav JjXI. mg. [^Za;.] 10. yoyyv^eTeXyoyyv^copev Alx. — /cat riz^es', om. kol Ln. Tf. [Gb. 15]. Alx. 11. Trdvra, o?ra. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. — avvelSaivov X (Twe^aivev Alx. — TVTCOl X TVTTiKUyS Ln. [Alx.] — KarrjvrqaevX K.aTr]VTr]Kev Ln. Tf. 13. edo-et X dp.a avrris, om.Gb.Sch. Ln. Tf. , 8e, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ylvea-Be Ka\ 'lovdaiois X kol 'lov5. ylv. Ln. Tf. [^?a.-.] crvp.(f)epov X o-vp-rfiopop Ln. Tf. Chap. XI. aSeXc^oi, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 77apaSoo-eif, ads vrj- TTLOS eCppOVOVV., COS VTjTriOS e\oyi^6p.r]v ]{ eX. cos vrjTT., €(f)p. COS Pr]TT., e\oy. as vrjir. Ln. Tf. - be, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 12. ydp Gb. -*. [Alx.] - d'pri, add. cos Alx. Chap. XIV. 1. yXcocrar; X yXcoo-o-aif Alx. 2. TO) Geo), o?n. tco Ln. [^Za;.] 5. yap X ^e Ln. Tf. 6. Nf j/i X ''^^v Ln. 7. rots' (pdoyyois X "ToC (})doy yov Ln. txt. - §0) X SiSw Tf. [Gb. cv]. Alx. 10. eVrti/ X elalv Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] - ciuTcov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. 11. eiSco X '^boo s. yivcocTKco Alx. - eV, o«i. ^Za-. 13. bioTTep X fiio Ln. [^iZ.y.] 14. ydp [Ln.] 15. TTpoa-ev^np.aL his X Trpoaeu' ^oip.ai Ln. mg. [^iZ.r.] - npna-ev^opai be, om. be Tf. - rw t'oi' 2°, om. tw Elz. - yj/aXco be, om. be Ln. Tf. [Gb. -;]. r6. evXoyrja-Tjs X euXoy^y Ln. [.Ite.] 25- 31- T(o TTvevfiaTi, om. r>a\co Ln. Tf [Alx.] aXX' X aWa Ln. Tf. Sta rov voos X tw Wj^Ln. [Gb. ~]. Alx. erepois X irepoiv Ln. [^Za;.] (TVveXdr] X f X^// Ln. txt. 7rdvT€s yXoiaaaLS XaXcoatv X Travr. XaX. -yXcocr. Ln. ; XaX. yXcixr. ndvT. Tf. Kai ouro), o?/i. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 6 ©eoff ovToos X oWcoff 6 ^eoy Ln. Tf [Alx.} Vfxwv, om. Ln. yXcocra-av e^^t, aTroKaXvyj/iv e'xei X dnoK. e-)(ei, ykaar. e^. Ln. Tf. [Alx.1 yeviaOoi \ yivecrOai Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. diepfj.TjvevTTjsXepiirjvevTrjs'Ln. ol, om. Alx. Se, om. Alx. 7raz/rey, af?rZ, Ka^' eva Alx. TTuevpara X Trvevp-a Gb. ~. [J/a;.] dXX' X aXXa Ln. Tf. dylodv, add. StSacrKO) ^Za?. vss. 34, 35 post vs. 40 ^Za?. vfjLcov, om. Ln. [Gb. -*]. ^Za;. eTriTerpaTTTai X imTpeTreTat, Ln. Tf. [Gb. c^']. ^Za-. aXX' X aWd Ln. Tf vTrordaaea-dai X vTroraaae- crOoicrav Ln. [^Z.r.3 yvvai^lv X yvi'ai/fi Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^Za?. ei/ eKKkr](Tl.a XaXelv X XaXeii/ eV €KKXr]cria Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] To€ KvpioVf om. tov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. dalv X eo-TiV Ln. Tf. [Alx.l evToXai X evroXr) Ln. [^Za?.] ; OTO. Tf [.4Za;.] dyvoeLTco X ayi/oeTrat Ln. ddeXcjiol, add. [p.ov] Ln. [^Za;.] yXoxTcratS' p.rj KcoXvere X jM?) KcoX. iu yXoiaaais Ln. Tf ; [eV] Ln. Traira, ofZcZ. Se Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb, -3. Alx. ^ Chap. XV. ea-TTjKare X crrrjK€T€ Alx. 1 CO RINTHI ANS 2. 6t KaT£X^T€ X 0(l)€lXer€ KUT- — be Kal, om. Koi Ln. 4. r^ Tpi'r?; rjpepa X VH-^P'} "''V rpirrj Ln.Tf. 5. efra X eneiTa s. Koi p-erd TavTa Alx. — dcodeKa X eubcKa Alx. 6. TrXeiovs X rrXeio'^es Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] — Kat, om. ^Za?. '7. etra roiy X fTretra Tf. [Ln. mg.] ^Zar. 10. 7^ els, om. Alx. — dXV X dXXd Ln. Tf. — 37 crvi/, ow. 77 Ln. [Alx.} 11. ow X be Alx. 12. ort €K veKpwv eyrjyepTai X e/c feKp* OTL eyrjyeprai. Tf. — Tti/es iv vplv X eV {ifiti/ rives Ln. Tf. 14. TO, prcem. kol Sch. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. ^. — be Kot, om. be Ln. [Gb. =J]. Alx. 15. fiTTfp apa veKpdl ovk eyei- povrai, om. Alx. 17. vpcov, add. [iariv'] Ln. [Alx.] 19. TjXTTLKores ia-pev iv Xpiarco X eV Xp. tjXttk. ecrpev Ln. Tf [^Za;.] 20. eyevero., om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 31. o BdvaTos, om. 6 Ln. [Alx.] 23. XptOTOu, prcem. tov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 24. Tvapaba X TrapaStSot Ln. txt. Tf ; TTapabibw Ln. mg. [Gb. <^]. Alx. 2i. dv, om. Ln. Tf [Gb. =J]. — e^Opovs, add. [avrov] Ln. [Alx.] 2']. on [Ln.] 28. Kal [Ln.] [^Za?.] — Qebs rd, om. rd Ln. 29. TO)!/ veKpoiv 2° X avTav Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 31. vperepavX rjperepav St. [Gb. ~]. ^Za;. — KavxTJctVy add. aSeX^oi Ln. [^Za?.] 33. XPW^' X XPW^^ Crb. Sch. Tf. 34. Xeyco X XaXw Ln. txt. Tf. [Alx.] 36. d(})povXa(f)pa>v Ln. Tf [^Zx.] 38. aurcB Si'Soocrt X ^tS- at'T. Ln. Tf' 65 38. rd ibiovj om. rd Ln. [Gb. ::?]. Alx. 39. crap^ dvdpMTTCov, om. crdp^ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — crdp^ KT-qvmv, crdp^ Gb. -♦ ; om. Alx. — oXXt] be IxdvcdV, dXXrj be TrnjvCiv X dXXr] be adp^ nnjvcov, dXXr) be IxOvcovLin. Tf Alx. ; iadp^ [Ln.] ). 40. aXX' X «XXa Ln. Tf. 44. ean, prcem. el Ln. Tf [Alx.] — Koi ean X fcrrt kol Ln. Tf. — crwpa 4°, o??i. Ln. Tf. [Gb.->]. Alx. 45. avdponTTOS [Ln.] 4^ 6 Kupio?, o??i. Ln.Tf. [Gb.rJ]. Alx. 49. cf)opecropev X cjiopea-copev Ln. [JZa?.] 50. KXr]povope7 X KXrjpovopTjcret Ln. [^Za;.] 51. /iei/, o??i. Tf. [Ln.] — ot» KoiprjOr^cropeBa- Travres X KoiprjQ, ov Tvdvres Ln. [Gb. c^] ; ^Zar. s. Traires pev dva~ orqcropeda, ov Travres be. 52. pnrfj X poTT^^ Ln. mg. [Alx.] — eyepdrjcrovTcu X dvaar-qcrov- rai Ln. [^Za".] ii.rd Kevrpov X to I'tKoy Ln. txt. [Alx.] — abr] X 6dvare Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] — rd vIkos X TO Kevrpov Ln. txt. [^Zx.] Chap. XVI. 2. aajS^drcov X cra^jSdrov Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. JZx. — euoScorat X evobfodfj Alx. 3. eai/ X "I' Ln. 4. 77 a^toy X «^toi' ^ Ln. 7. be X ydp Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — eTTLrpeTTT] X eTrirpeyjrrj Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^-]. JZx. 10. KOL eyoa X Kayco Ln. Tf. ; [Alx. s. om. Ka\]. 11. ovv, om. Alx. — pe X ^P-^ Ln. 12. dbeX(f)ov, add. br]Xa> vpiv on Alx. 13. Kparaiovade, prcem. [kcli] Ln. [Alx.] li. '2re(fiavd, add. ^oprovvdrov s. Kal ^oprovvdrov Kal 'A- XaiKOV Alx. 17. ^ovprovvdrov X ^oprovvd- rov Ln. Tf. 24 i>]. Vjxcov X vixinpov Ln. Tf. [Alx.-] — otroi X avTol Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 18. TO ifiov, pram. Koi Alx. 19. acnra^ovrai 2° X arrTrd^fTat Tf. [Ln. nig.] 2 CORINTHIANS. 19. iKKkrjCTLa^ add. Trap ols Ka\ ^evi^ofxai Alx. 23. ^Irjrrovu XpLCTTov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. Alx. 23. Xptarov, om. Tf. 24. Kvpiov, add. T)p.S)V Alx. 24. a/xryi/. om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. rt]. npoj Kopiudiovs npdoTr] iypd- cpr] dno ^iXiTTTTcoi/ 5ia Sre- . TTJs ivepyovp.€vqi eu vTTOfxovrj tS)V avTcov TTadrjjidToiv oov Ka\ ■fjp.e'li ndcrxoiJ-ev, post eiVf TTUpaKaX., irrep rrjs v/x. TrapaKX. Gb. [Alx.] - €ire TrapaKaXovp-eda, virep T^f vpCav Trapaickrjcreais Ka\ (rcoTrjp'ias' Ka\ rj eXnis rjpcov ^e(3aia vnep vp-wv \ Ka\ tj (Xrrls Tjpcov ^ejBaLU virep vpav, e'lre TrapaKaXovp.(6a vtrep Tris vp.a>v napaKXr]- s Ka\ aa>TT]pLas Scb.Ln. Tf. [Gb. cv], . cocTTrep X «? Ln. Tf. [Alx.} 1. VTrep X T^epl Ln. [Gb. ~]. Alx. - rjpiv^ om. Ln. [Gb. =t]. Alx. - elSaprjdripev vnep bvvapiv X VTrep bvvap.iv elBaprjd. Ln, [Alx.] . dXXd X dXX^ Ln. 1. Ka\ pveraL X 'f^i pvacrai Tf, [^Zo-.] ; (sic [Ln.]) - OTL [Ln.] ; (ort Ka\ pvaerai Ln. mg.) . OTrXoTT/rt X oytor/^rt Ln. Tf. [Alx.] ■ Qeov 1°, prcp/n. roC Ln. Tf. [^Zx.] . aX\' [Ln] - n a, om. rj Alx. ■ T) Kal fTTiyivcixrKfTe., Alx. s. om. Ka\. ■ Ka\ €U)S, om. Kal Ln. Gb. ^. [Alx.] . Kvpl.ov,a/l]. l3ovXev6p.evos X ^ovX6p.evos Sch. Ln. [Gb. ~]. 18. iyevcTO X icmv Sch. Ln. Tf, [Gb. e^]. 19. 6 yap TOV Qeov X o tov 6eov yap Ln. Tf. [Alx.] — 'It^ctovs XpiCTTos X Xp. 'l?/(r. Tf. 20. Kal iv avT(o X 5io Kai St' av- Tov Ln. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 22. 6 Krti, o/re. o ^Za:. — dppa^oova X dpa^oava Ln. Chap. II. 1. iX6(Xv iv XvTTT] TTpos vpds X eV Xuttt; Trpoy upa? iXOelv Gb. Sch. Ln. ; cv Xvnr] eXd. npbs vp.. Tf. 2. eVrtz/, ow. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -*]. 3. vp7v^ om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. — XvTTTjv^ add. €7ri Xvnrjv Alx. — e'xQ) X o-xw Tf. 5. aXX' X uXXci Ln. Tf. 10. Kal eyd) X 'fnyco Ln.Tf. — e't rt KcxapLap-ai, co k^x^P*-- a-p-at X o Kf;(. el' n Kf;(. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 16. ddvaTov, prcem. (K Ln. Tf. [.Ux.] — C^rjs., prcem,. ck Ln. Tf. 17. TToXXot X XotTTOt Gb.~. [Alx.] — /carfvcoTTtoi/ X KarevavTi Ln. [Gb. r-^J. ^te. — TOV 0fo{}, OTO. row Ln. [Gb. ^]. Alx. CG I Chap. III. I. avvLO-Tdveiv X avvca-Tdv Ln. — et X ^ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ^]. — CO?, add. [TTfp] Ln. — crvoTTaTiKcov^ om. Ln.Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. 3. dXXci X dXX' Ln. Tf. — Kapdlas X Kapdiais Ln. 5. d(^' kavTcov Xoyiaaadai ti X Xoyt^eadai tl d(fi iavTa>u Ln. [/iZa:-.] ; Xoylaaadai ri d(^' eavr. Tf, — eavTcov 2° X avTcJv Ln. Tf. 6. dnoKTeivec X drroKTaiveL Ln. ; aTTOKTevvei Tf. ; dTroKTe^el [Gb. c^], 7. ypap-p-aaiv X ypdp.p.aTi Ln, txt. Tf. [^Za:.] — eV Xidois, om. iv Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. ^Zx. 9. 77 diaKovia Xttj diaKovia Ln. txt. [^Za:.] — fid^a, rtaVZ. eVrti/ Alx. — iv bo^T], om. iv Ln. Tf. xo. ovbi X ov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Eec. Gb. cv]. 1 — ev€K€v X e'iveKev Ln. txt. Tf, f 13. eauroG X avTov Ln. Tf. 14. arjpepov, add. t) pi pas Sch, | Ln. Tf. [Gb. '^■]. ' tg. nvLKa, add. av Ln. [^Zo.-.] * — avayivcoa-KeTaL X avayivoo- } (TKr]Tai Ln. [Alx.] \ i). iKel, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. Alx. t Chap. IV. I 1 . iKKaKovpev X iyKaKovp.(v Ln . * Tf. [Alx.] 1 2. dXX' X dXXd Ln. Tf. * — o-vvio-TO)VT€s X o-uj'iOTdi/rer Ln. Tf. [Alx.] -. 4. avydtrat X KaTavydaai Ln. mg. ; [./4Za:. s. 8iavydaai]. 4. aurotff, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. $. XpicTTOv ^Irjcrovv X 'Itjctovv XpiaTov Ln. — dia 'irjorovv X Sict 'It^o-ov Ln. mg. 6. Xd/x\^ai X y^afiyjrei Ln. txt. Ute.] — oy, om. ^to. — Tou Qeov X avrou Ln. [Gb. f«]. Alx. — 'Ij^ctov, offi. Ln. Tf. lAlx."! [o. Kvplov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — crco/xari, od<^. i7/>t(i)i' ^to. [2, /xei/, 07«. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf [4. dia 'Ir/aov X (^yv ^hjcrov Ln. Tf. [Gb. cv]. Alx. iKKaKovfievX eyKaKOVfiev Ln. Tf [Alx.] ecroodev X ^Vo) j^/icoi/ Ln. [^Za:.] TrapavTiKa, add. rrpoa-Kaipov Koi Alx. 16, Chap. V. I. olKobop.T)v, add. on, Alx. $. ye X nep Ln. lAlx.] — ev8vcrdp.€voi X iK^vcrdixevoi Gb. ~. [^z.T.3 4. aKTjvei, add. tovtco Alx. — ineidr) X €0' « Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. i. Koi, om. Ln. Tf [Gb. :5]. Alx. 6. Kvpiov X Oeov Alx. 8. 6e Gb. - ; ovi/ ^Zor. 10. Sta X tSia Ln. mg. — KaKov X (pavXov Tf. [Gb. ~]. 13. yap, om. Ln. [Gb. ^]. Alx. — fjpcov X v/xcoi' Ln. mg. — ou X f"7 f'l' Ln. [Alx.] 14. Xpiarov X ^fov .4te. — €t, o/n. Ln. [Gb. -^3. Alx. 16. 5e, a??i. Ln. [Alx.] — yLva)aKop.€v, add. Kara crdp- Ka Alx. 17. TO. Trdvra, om. Ln. [Gb. -^]. Alx. 18. 'It^ctoO, oto. Ln. Tf. [Gb. zi]. Alx. 19. T]p.lv, add. Tov evayyeXiov Alx. 20. vTrep Xpiarov ovv X ov vnep Xp. Alx. — KaTuXkdyr)T€ X KaraXXayrj- vat Alx. 31. yap^ om. Ln. Tf [Gb. ->]. Alx. — yivcopeOa X yevaneda Ln. Tf [Alx.] CORINTHIANS Chap. VI. 1. 7rapaKaXovp.ep X napaKa- XovvT€s Alx. 3. diaKOvla, add. r^pLWu Alx. 4. crvvi(JTa>VTes X (rwicrravres' Ln. Tf [Alx.] 9. 7raidev6p.€voi X netpa^ofiei^L Alx. 14. Tts- 5e X ^ Tts Ln. Tf [Gb. «^]. Alx. 15. Xpto-TG) X Xpicrrov Ln. Tf — BeXi'ap' X BeXi'aX Elz. Ln. 16. vp.e'is X ^p^^s Ln. txt. [^Za;.] — iare X icrp.€V Ln. txt. [^Za;.] — /xot X l^f^'^J I'll. — Kada>s elirev X Xeyei yap JZa:. 17. eieXOere X e^eXdare Ln.Tf ^Za7. Chap. YII. 3. ou Trpos Kardicptaiv X Trpo? Kurdicp. ov Ln. ^. eaxrjKev X eV^fV Ln. txt. 8. yap [Ln.] 10. Karepyd^cTat. X ipyd^erai Ln. [^Za?.] 11. v/ias-, o?re. Ln. [Gb. -»]. ^Zo;. — L'/iti', prcem. [eV] Ln. [^Za:.] — aXX' X aXXd Ln. Tf. — tV, ojw. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. -. [Alx.] 12. elveKev fer X eveKcv Ln. — v/xojy [/4Za:.] X '7/^'-wi' Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. mg. — r)pa)U [Alx.] X vp-S>v Elz. Gb. Sch. 13. eVt, «(?(?. Se Ln. Tf. [^Za:.] — vpa>v X 57fi]. ^Za:. — vjuwr X f]H-a>v Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf [Rec. Gb. ~]. 21. 7rpovoovp.€voL X npovoovpev Sch. Ln. [Gb. ~] ; add. yap Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 24. ivdei^aaOe X iv8€iKvvp.€V0i Ln. Tf. [Alx.] — Ka\y om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Chap. IX. 3. e^, o??z. Ln. [JZx.] 4. Xeycop-ev X Xeyco JZar. — r^y fcaux^aeo)?, 07». Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 5. els X T^pos Ln. [Alx.] — TrpoKarriyyeXpevTjv X npoeir- ■qyyeXp.evrjv Ln. Tf [Gb. (^]. Alx. — coanep X its Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 6. eV evXoyiais 1° X ^'i' evXo- yta .(4Za?. 5. Trpoaipelrai J Trpo^p-qrac Ln. [^Za;.] 8. ^vvaros X St'^'aTei Ln. 10. cnvepp.a X o-uopov Ln. [^Za:.] — x^PVyW'^'' '^"'' TrXrjQvvai . . av^r]o-at. X X^PVyW^h '^^t^ TrX-qdvvel . . . av^T]crei Gb, Sch. Ln. Tf. — yevvripLara X yeinjfxaTa Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 11. J7/x•; o)?i. Alx. 8. VTrep, pram. [Kal] Ln. 9. /xov, o?w. Ln.Tf. [Gb. -»]. ^Za;. — TcXeiourai X TiX^irai Ln.Tf. [Alx.] 11. Kavxoop-euos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 12. €V arjixetois, om. iv Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 13. TjTTTjdrjTe X TjaacoOrire Ln. ; [^Z^. s. eXarrco^jjrf]. 14. TpiTov, add. TOVTO Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 14. vfiav 1°, owi. Ln. Tf. ; [Alx. s. vpds]. — aXX' X "XXd Ln. Tf. 15. Kat, om. Ln. [Alx.] — fjTTOV X f)(raov Ln. 16. aXX' X dXXd Ln. Tf. 19. naXti/ X ndXat Ln. Tf. [^iZa;.] — KaTevcoTTLov X KarevavTi Ln. Tf. [Gb. H. ^Za;. — TOV, om. Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] 20. epeis, ^TjXot X epif , t^Xoy Ln. Tf. [^Za-.] 21. eXdoura /xe X iXdoPTOs jiov Ln. Tf. [^Zx.] — Taireivooa-T] X Taneiucoaei. Ln. (txt.) Tf. ; o(Z(Z. /Lte Sch. Chap. XIII. 1. Tp'iTOv, pi'cem. I'Sou Alx. 2. TrpoeLprjKaj add. yap Alx. — ypdcfxD, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 4. ft [Ln.] ; om. Alx. — rjiJ-els, prcem. Koi Elz. — ev X avv Ln. mg. [.dlZa;.] — ^T]a6ixe6a X Charopiev Ln. Tf. [^Za:.] 5. 'It/o-ous Xpia-Tos X Xpi. 'liyo". Tf. Ln. mg. — eoTtz/, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. 7. evxcp-ai X evxdp-eda Ln. 'JT. [Gb. «^]. JZx. 8. aXX' X dXXd Tf. 9. rovro Se, ojn. di Ln. Tf. [Gb. -*]. Alx. 10. edcoKe poi 6 Kvpios X o Ki'p. €§. p.ot Ln. 12. dyt'cp (pLXrjiJLaTi X (piX^ixarc dyi'o) Ln. mg. [^Za;.] 13. ap/jv. npo? KoptvBiovs Seu- repa eypdcprj dno ^tXLTnrcov rrjs MaKedovias, dm Titov Kal AouKa, oin. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Chap. L 4. vnep X Trepl Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. , — TOV ivecTTWTos aloivos X tov aloivos TOV fvearcoTOi Ln. 6. XpifTTOv Gb. •. 8. (vayyeXi^qrai X (vayycXl- (TTjTaL Ln. mg. JO. y]. Alx. Chap. IV. 6. utot, «(?(?. ^6o{} Alx. — vp&iv X jjfitoi' Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. [Rec. Gb. ^-v]. <]. aXV X aXXa Ln. Tf. — Qeov dia Xpicrrov X ^i-ci 6eov Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3] ; ^te. s. dia deou. 8. prj (fivaei X 4*vaei prj Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. cv]. Alx. 13. Se, om. ^te. 14. pov rov X v/iwy Ln. [Gb. £^]. Alx. ; OTO. pov Gb. <^. — aXX' X aX\a Ln. Tf. 15. ris X TToC Ln. [JZ^.] — Tjv, om. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =5]. — ay, om. Ln.Tf.; [Alx. s. Kcii]. 16. ^T/XoCre, f«?rf. ^rfXovre di ra Kpeirrco x'^plo-pt^TU Alx. 17. vpas X 17/^5? Elz. 18. ro, om. Ln. [^?a;.] 19. r€Kvia X re'fci/a Ln. txt. 21. cLKovere X fxi'ayit'axj/cere Ln. mg. [Alx.] 23. /x€z/ [Ln.] — bta rrjs X ^t' -^Ix. 24. at, o???. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 35. ynp X S^ Ln. mg. [.4te.] — "Ayap, om. Ln. txt. [Gb. -^]. — Se X yap Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ava-roLxe'L de X V o-vcrroi,- Xovaa Alx. 26. ndvrcov, om. Gb, Sch. Tf. [Ln,] 28. 'Hpels X vpeh Ln. Tf [Alx.1 — icrpev \ eVre Ln. Tf [Alx.] 30. KXrjpopoprjar] X i]. dveKoyp-e X eveKo-^ev Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 10. eyo), add. [Se] Ln. [^Za;.] 11. en, o??i. ^Za?. — (rraupou, add. rov Xpicrrov Alx. 13. Sta rrjs dydmjs X ttj dydnr] rov TTvevparos Alx. 14. vopos, add. iv vplv Alx. — TrXrjpovrai X TreTrXTjpoyrai Ln.Tf. [Alx.] — ev T«, om. ^Za:. — iavrov \ creavrov Gb. Sch, Ln. I^. VTTO X ^71"' Ln. i^.be X yap Ln. [Alx.l — dvriKeirai dXXr)Xois X dXXrj- Xois dvrUeirai Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — dv X [edv] Ln. 19. poix^ia, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 20. ep€is, Cv^oi X fpt?! C^Xoff Ln. Tf. 21. (jiovoi, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. — KOL [Ln.] ; om. Alx. — npoe^TTOv X TTpoe'ip-qKa Alx. 23. irpaorrjs X npavrrjs Ln. Tf. — iyKpdreia, add. ay vela Alx. 24. Xpicrrov, add. 'irjaov [Ln.] Tf [Alx.} 26. aXXj^Xois X dXXrjXovs Ln. txt. Chap. VI. 1. TrpcxorrjTos X Trpavrrjros Tf. 2. dvairXripcocrare X dvaTrXrjpdi- aere Ln. txt. [^Za;.] 3. eavTov cjypevaTrara X (fipeva- Trara iavrov Ln. Tf. 7. e'ai' X dv Ln. 8. o-ap/cof, acZrf. avrov Alx. 9. eKKUKcopev X eyicaKaipev Ln, Tf [^Za:.] 12. p,)), fmZe Stco/c. Ln. Tf. [Alx.} — 8id>Koovrai X dionKOvrai Ln. mg. Tf. ^ 13. Tvepirepvopevoi X rrepirerp- rjpevoi Sch. Ln. txt. [Gb. -]. — OeXovcriv X fiovXovrai Alx. 14. Kavxaa-Bat X Kavxr)(racrdai Ln. mg. — TO) KocrixcOf om. ra Ln. [Gb. :^]. Ala;. ' ij. eu yap Xptcrro) 'It/ctov ourc EP HESI ANS. X ovre yap Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx, [J. lax^^t X fCTTii' Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. 1 6. a'ToixrjO'ovcnv X (ttoixovctiv Ln. mg. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 1 6. GeoO X Kvpiov Alx. I?. Kupiou, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. - Alx. Upbs TaXdras typacpr) dire 'Pco/ij;?, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tt Chap. I. I. 'Ij;(rou Xpiarov X Xptorov 'I7;o-o0 Ln. txt. Tf. — eV 'E^eVo) [Tf.] 3. ej/, owi. St. 6. 61/ f) X ^y Ln. [Gb. c^^]. Alx. — r)ya7rr][j,evco, add. via avTov Alx. 7. Tov Trkovrov X to ttXovtos Ln. Tf. 10. re, OTO. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ev Tois ovpavoLS X ^t^i- "^oi^^ ovpavols Ln. txt. lAlx."] 11. €KkT]pd>dr]ix€V X eKXrjOrjfxev Ln. [Gb. ~]. JZa:. — npodeaiv, add. tov 6eov Alx. 13. r^? Sd^T^s, o?». t;)? Sch. Ln. Tf [Gb. =t]. — avTou, om. Alx. 13. Kal 2°, om. Alx. 14. 69 X o Ln. lAlx.l 15. rj)i/ dyd7rr]v, om. Ln. [^Za?.] 16. vjxuiV, om, Ln. [^te.] 18. Stai'otas' X K^OLpblas Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Ka\ Tif, om. Kai Ln. iAlx.] ^[Gb.zj].^ 19. 17/xas' X t'/xaf ^Za?. 30. evrjpyrjcrev X evrjpyrjKfv Ln. — iv, om. t(ov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ; dyloov Gb. -*. — eV, om. Ln. — TOV . . . ttXcvtov X to . . ttXovtos Ln. Tf [Alx.] 9. Trdi/ra? [Ln.] — KOLvcovia X olKovofxia Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — 5ia 'It^o-ou XpiCTTOv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 11. Xpicrro), proem. tS Ln. 12. ri7i/ Trpoa-ayayrjv, om.Trjv Ln. 13. eKKUKflv X iyKaKilv Ln. Tf — 8d^a vpSiV X fid^a TjpoiV Alx. 14. roi") Kupi'ou rjpojv 'l»;rroi) 70 Xpicrrov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =;]. ^te. 16. dcorj X 5w Ln. [Jte.] — TOV ttKovtov X TO ttXovtos Ln. Tf. [^te.] 18. ^ddos Ka\ vyjros X v\//-os Ka\ ^dOos Ln. [^te.] 20. VTrep, om. ./4te. 21. eKKXijaia, add. Ka\ Ln. [^/x.] -" TOV aloovos Gb. ->. Chap. IY. 2. TrpaoTTiTos X TrpavrrjTOS Tf. 6. vp.It', om. Ln. Tf. [.^Zx.] ; (j^ftiv Sch. Gb. ^). 7. j) X"P'^» ''"*• '7 L'^- 5 f^^^- '• rj x<^P''^ avTT]]. 8. jixpakcoTevaev X alxp-aXoi- T€vaas Gb. ~. — Kal edaxe, om. Ka\ Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. Alx. 9. Trpcoroi/, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ;xep?7, 07n. Tf. [Gb. ::J]. ^?x. 01 Travrey, om. 01 -4Zx. 6 Xpia-Tos, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. ^te. pepovs X piXovs Gb.~. [^Za;.] XotTTCt, om. Ln. [Gb. =J]. ^Za;. idKOTicrpevoi X ia-KOTCipevoi Ln. di/ai/eoOor^at X dvai/eoOacf Ln. mg. fie [Ln.] evdvaraaOai X ivbvaraadi Ln. mg. r^f dXrjdeias X *<«* dXrjdeia Alx. Tco Tvapopyia-pw, om. r&) Ln. pjrf X /^'?5e Sch. Ln. Tf. TO dyaOov tois x^P^'-^X'f'o^'^^ l^iais X'^P^^^v "f^^ dyaOov Ln. [Alx.] dXX' X dWa Ln. txt. Xpeias X 7TiaT€a>s Gb. ~. [ylZa;.] fif, om. Ln. vplvj rjplv Ln. [Gb. ~.] [/1/x.] Chap. V. -^juas X ^H-o.s Tf. - f)H(bv X v^av Tf. '3. ndaa aKadapaia X aKadap. '"■ Tiacra Ln. Tf. 4. KOL X ') Ln. — Kai X ^ Ln. — TO. ovK dvfjKovra X « oi"^ durJK€V Ln. [^Za:.] 5. eVre X lore Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — OS X Ln. [Alx.] 9. TTvevpaTos X (pooTos Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 10. Kvplw X ^f6) -<4Zar. i4."Eyeipai X ey^P^ ^^- '^^^• Ln. Tf. 17. crvvuvTesXcrvvUre Ln. [^?a:.] — Kvplov X ^€0v Ln. mg. [Alx.} 19. eavrots-, «f/(Z. [eV] Ln. [Alx.] — nvevpariKOLS [Ln.] — T§ Kapdia X TaTs Kapbiais Ln. [Gb. ~]. ^?a;. SI. GeoG X XptCT-ToC Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 22. VTrordcrcreade, om. Tf. [Gb. =5] ; vnoTaa-aeaOcocrav Ln. 23. 6 dv77p, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. K_ — Km avTos ecTTt, om. kol Gb. B Sch. Ln. Tf ; om. icTTL Ln. ^'' Tf. [Gb. =J]. ^?a:. 24. aXA' X aXXa Ln. txt. — axTTrep X ^f Ln. Tf. — iSi'oiy, o??i. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. PHILIPPI ANS. 25. eavrav, om. Ln. Tf. JZa?. 27. avTTjv X auros' Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 28. ocfxiXovaiv ol avdpes X '^O' ot a'j/Sp. 6]. ^te. 11. Trpos X ft? ^?.^. 12. rjplv X vpty Ln. txt. [Alx.] — TOV ala>vos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 16. eVi X iv Ln. txt. — Ta Trenvpcopeva, om. to. Ln. [Alx.] 17. de^aade Gb. -» ; [o?)i. Alx.s. de^aadat]. 18. rovTO, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. — dypvnvovvTes, add. TrdvTOTe Alx. — npocTKapTeprjaeL Koi, om. Alx. ~ nepl X VTrep Alx. 19. dodeij] X dodfj Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — TOV evayyeXlov [Ln.] 21. eldriTe Kal vpels X Xf^i- vpels eldrjTe Ln. [Alx.] ; ['idrjTe Ln. mg.] — vplv yva>p[(rei X yvcop. vp. Ln. [Alx.] 24. djUT^i'. 'n.p6s''Ecf>€crL0vs eypd (prj diTO 'P(apT]s did Tv^i-- Kov. om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. PHILIPPIANS Chap. I. I. 'Ij/CTOU UplCTTOV X 'S.piCTTOV 'It/q-ov Ln. txt. Tf. S.prcem. eyo) peu Alx. — Qem pov X Kvptco rjpcou Alx. 5. OTTO, add. Trjs Ln. 6. 'It/o-oO Xpicrroi) X ^pLcrTov 'iTycroC Ln. txt. Tf. >j. TTj diTokoyia., prmm. iv Sch. [Ln] Tf [Gb. ^]. 8. pov X poi Alx. ~ iariv, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. ->]. Alx. - ^Irjuov XpiaTOv X XptcrTov 'Irja-ov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 9. Trepi-acTevr} XnepLcrcrevcrr) Ln. txt. II. KapjTcov 8iKaiO(rvvr]s tg)v X KapTTOV biKaioa-vvqs tov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ; {tov [Ln.]) 13. €1/ Xptcrr<5 yeveaOai X 7^^* eV Xp. Alx. 14. Xoyoz/, ficZtZ. row Oeov Ln. [^Za;.] 16, 17. e| epiOelas .... Ketpat X f'l dyaTTTj's .... Kelpai- ol de e| ipiOelas . . . roTs deapols pov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 16. roi/ [Ln.] 71 16. e7ri,(f)€peLV X eyelpeiv Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^?:r. 18. irXrjv, add. oTi Ln. [JZa;.] 21. Xpicrros' X XPW^*^^ ^^' ~- 23. yap X f^e Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — TToXXo), «(?(?. yap Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =]. 24. iv TTJ aapicl, iv Gb.:3. [Alx.] 2^. avpTrapapeva X Tcapapevoi Ln. [Gb. '^].'aIx. 27. dKovaco X dfouco Ln. txt. 28. avrols piv iaTiv X icrrlv av- To7s Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - vplv X vpa>v Ln. [Gb. -^l. Alx. 30. iScre X fti'i'eTf Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. <^] ; pvcem. Koi Alx. ClIAP. II. TL X TIS Gb. ~. Tti/a X TLi Gb. Sch. Ln. [Rec. Gb. cv]. tv X avTO Alx. rj X yLrjhi Kara Ln. Tf. [^Za:.] eKaaros i" X ^] ; om. Tov Ln. [^te.] — Trapa^ovKevcrdpevosX'n'a.pa- ^oXevadpevos Gb. Sch. Ln. [Rec. Gb. cv]. Chap. III. 3. eea> X Beov Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 4. Ka\, om. Alx. 5. Beviaplv X Bcviapelv Ln. 6. C^Xov X C^Xos- Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 7. 'AXX' X [aXXa] Ln, ; om. Alx. — rjv pot. X poL rjv Ln. txt. 8. pevovjrye X p^i' ovv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Xpicrrou, proim. tov Ln. — /iou X '7/^wt' Ln. mg. [Alx.] — eivai, om. Ln. [Alx.] 10. r;)!' KOLVcoviaVf om. ttju Ln. — avppoppr]s 81 'ETTa^poSirov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. COLOSSIANS. Chap. I. i.^Irjaov XpLaTOv X XpiaTov ^lr]aov Ln. Tf. 3. KoXao-o-als X KoXocro^ai? Elz. Gb. Sch. ; [KoXao-. Gb. f^]. — XpLaTOv, add.^Irja. Ln. [Alx.] — Ka\ Kvpluv ^Irjaov XpioToO, 07«. Gb. Sch. Tf [Ln.] 3. Kcl Trarpt, om. /cat Ln. Tf [Gb. -] ; Alx. [s. TO)]. — Trepi X VTrep Ln. [Gb. t^]. yf /x. 4. Trjv X »)*' ^'x^''"* ^'"- ^^- ^^'^' 6. Kcii eaTL, om. klu Ln. [Gb.=?]. Alx. — Kap7ro(f)opovp€vov,, add. Kai av^avopevov Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf 7. Kadcos Kal, om. Kal Sch. Ln. If [Gb. zi]. — vpcou X ^p(ov Elz. Ln. txt. [Gb. ~]. Alx, 10. vpiis, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. — eis TTjv eTTiyucocLV X tj) ern- yvcoaei Gb. Sch. Ln. [Rec. Gb. H. ! T2. Trarpi toj, [prmn. tm u(fo i * 7^ ' Kai y/te.] ; add. KaXeaavTi Kal Ln. [Alx.] 14. fiai ToG atpaTOS avTOv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 16. Ta eV, ow. TO. Ln. [Jte.] — ra eVi, [ra] Ln. ; ow. Alx. 19. evd6KT](re X TjvdoKrjafv Ln. mg. [^/a;.] 20. §4' avroO, OTTe.. Ln. [Gb.-O- -^^Zx. 21. clnoKaTrjXXa^epX diroKaTrjX- XdyrjTf Ln. ; [Alx. s. otto- KaraXXnyeWfy]. 23. davaTov, add. [aiiTOv] Ln. 1 THESSALONIANS. 33. T7, om. Ln. Tf. LAlx.] 34, vuv, prcem. 6j Alx. — /uov, OTO. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — o\hs Ln. mg. [^Zo;.] 26. j/uj/i X vvv Ln. txt. 37. TLs 6 X r/ TO Ln. Tf. iAlx.1 — bsX o Ln. txt. [Alx.] 38. 7rdj/ra cwdpcoirov 2° Gb. -> ; o?re. Alx. ~- 'Irja-ov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Chap. II. TT€p\ X vnep Ln. [JZx.] icopo-Kaai X ^oi)pci. -». [^Za:.] o-vve^QiOTToiTjcre, add. vpas j Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. v X vp5)v Ln. mg. [Gb <^]. Alx. 5. vpwv, om. Tf [^Z.r.] 6. di a X Sto Ln. mg. lAlx.] — 7] opyrj, [17] Ln. — 6771 Tovs vlovs Tijs aTreidelas, om. Tf. [Ln.] 7. avToiff X TOUTOts Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. Alx. 11. eVt, arffl!. (ipaev kol drjXv Alx. — 2Kvdr]s, prcem. Koi Alx. — eXeiidepos, prcEm. KoX Ln. iAlx.1 — TO. Gb. -♦ ; om. Alx. 12. TOV Qeov, om. tov Ln. [Alx.] — olKTLppa>v X oiKTLppov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — TrpaoTrjTaX'n'pavTTjTa Ln. Tf 13. XpLaros X K-vpios Ln. [^Za;.] — vpels, add. noielTe Alx. 14. r]Tis X o Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. 15. GeoO X Xpto-ToO Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 16. KOL vpvoLs Koi, om. Koi bis Ln. Tf. Alx. [1° Gb. Sch.] — x^pi-Th prcem. Trj Ln. Tf lAlx.] — T^ Kapdia X Tats- Kapbiais Gb. Sch. Ln. — Kvpico X ^f<» Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. 17. o Ti, om. Alx. -av\ iav Ln. txt. Tf, — Kvplov ^Itjctov X ^Irjaov Xpi- CTTOv Ln. ; {.Kvplov Gb. =t] ; owi. Alx. — Kal TraTpX, c/m. Ka\ Ln. Tf. [Gb. ->]. Alx. 18. iSi'ots, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 19. yvvaiKas, add. vpavLn. lAlx.] 20. eaTiv evdpeaTou X evapeaTov ecTTtv Ln. [Alx.] - T<5 Kup/o) X eV Kvp/o) Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf lAlx.} 21. epeOi^eTeXTrapopyi^eTe Sch. Ln. [Gb. ~]. 22. 6cat Trtaro) ^Za;. - yvcopiovo-iXyvcopiaovaivluii. [Alx.} 11. (rui/epyot, afZ<:Z. pov eiatv Alx. 12. Xpto-Tov, add. 'irjaov Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] - 7T€nXr]pa)pivoi X 7renXr]p0' (poprjpevoi Ln. Tf. [Gb. <^]. .(4Zar. 13- C^^OI/ TToXvV X TTOXVV TTOVOV Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 15. avTov X CUTIS' Ln. ; [.<4Za;. .?, avT coi/]. 18. aprjv. Upos KoXacraae^s iypd(f)T] diro 'FatpTjs 81a. Tv- XtKoi) Kal OvT](TLpov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 1 THESSALONIANS. Chap. I. 1. OTTO Qeov TraToos fjpav Ka\ Kvpiov ^Ir](TOV XpiCTOV., om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. -]. Ala:. 2. vpmv 2°, om. Ln. [Alx.'i 3. v/iwr, post TTto-Teco? Alx. 4. Qeov, prcem. tov Alx. i. els X Trpos Ln. [Gb. ~]. Alx. — iv vplv, om. ev Alx. 7. TVTTOVS X TVTTOV Ln. txt. Tf [Gb. ^]. Alx. n 7. MaKehoviq Ka\ add. iv Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. '^]. 8. 'A;(aia, prcem. iv Tjj Sch. Ln. [Gb. -]. - fiXXa Ka\ X dXX' Ln. Tf [Gb. ^]. Alx. 2 THESSALONIANS 7. rjfxas ex^iv X fX^*" VH-^^ Sch. Ln. Tf. 9. exoixev X tcrxofxev Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 10. V€Kpu)V, prcem. Twv Sch. Ln. Tf. Chap. II. 3. aSXa Koi, om. Koi Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 3. ovT^ iv X ouSe iv Ln. [^te.] 4. T« ©ew, o?n. T<5 Tf. [Ln.] Alx. *]. tJttloi X vrjTnoi Ln. [yi?a;.] — av X ^civ Ln. Tf. 8. l[X€Lp6iJ.evoL X 6ix€ip6p.evot Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — yeyevrjade X iy^vrjOr^T^ Sch. Ln. Tf [Gb. ^]. 9. yap, o??i. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 12. TrepLTrarrjaaL X TrepLTraTelv Sch. Ln. Tf. ^Z.r. 13. 8ta, prcem. kol Ln. Tf. 14. TavTCL X Tct aura Gb. Sch. Ln. txt. Tf ij. Ihiovs, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — vp-as X ^po.s Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 16. e(pdav, on. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 3. v/xa?, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.-]. .^te. — nepl X vTTf/J Sch. Lu. Tf. [Gb. tv]. Alx. 3. rw X TO I'll. Tf. [^?a;.] — firjBeva craiveadai X ftJ^Sej/ da-aiveadat Ln. 7. ^Xi\//-et Kat dvdyKT] X amy. Kai 6\i\l/€i Sell. Ln. Tf 11. XpLCTTOSf om. Ln. Tf [^Za;.] 12. 6 Kupto? Gb. -♦ ; [6 ^eos s. 6 KxjpLos ^Irjaovs Alx.] 13. XpicTTov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. ^te. — auroC, add. [a/X7yi/] Lu. [^?a:.] Chap. IV. I. To, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — ovv, om. Alx. — Ka6ais, prcBm. 'iva Ln. [Gb. ~]. Alx. — 9ew, add. Ka6a>s Ka\ nepi- narelre Ln. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 3. 6€\rjp.a., pircm. [to] Ln. 4. eKaarov X (Kaaros Ln. mg. 6. 6 Kuptoy, om. 6 Ln. Tf. — 7rpo€l7rap.€vX TrpoeiTropev Gb. Sch. [Rec. Gb. ~]. ^ aXA' X aAXa Tf. 8. /cai, o?«. Ln. [Alx.] — 86vra X 8id6vTa Ln. txt. [^Zo;.] — TO IIv€vp.a avTov X ai^T. to 7rv(vp,a Ln. — T^pas X vpds Sch. Ln, Tf. JGb. -].^^ 9. exfTe X €)(op,€V Ln. [Gb. H- 10. ddeXcfjovs Tovs^ om. rovs Ln. 11. Idlais, om. Ln.Tf [Gb.^]. Alx. a ^eXo) X de'Kop.ev Gb. Si Tf. K€Koip.rjpivaiV X Koipap. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^/ar. XuTT^cr^e X XuTrela^e Ln, m] TVpoiTOV X TTpWTOl Alx. _ dndvTrjo-Lv X viravT-qa-iv Alx. TOV Kvpiov X ''■Xoyt nvpos Sch. Ln. txt. [Gb. ~]. — Xptcrroi), owi. Tf [Ln.] ^Z.r. (). oXfdpnv X oXfdpiov Ln. txt. 10. TTlCTTeVOVCnV X TTiaTflXTUaiV Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 12. Xpia-Tov, om. Tf [Ln.] /fZ^-. Chap. II. 2. voof, ofZfZ. vpcdv Alx. — pTjT€ dpoelaBai X /^J/S^ ^p. Ln. Tf — XpiaTov X Kvpiov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 3. dpLapTtas X dvopias Alx. 4. wf Geoiv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf — dnodeiKvvuTa X OTroSeiyi/i;- oi/ra Ln. mg. s. KvpLos, (uld. 'Jrjaovs Gb. Sch. Ln. [Gb. -]. 71 8. di/oXcocTft X di'fA^ft Ln. [Gb. c^']. Alx. 10. TTJs ddLKias, om. Trjs Ln. Tf. [Gb. ■-]. Alx. - iv Tols, om. iv Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 1 1 . nipyj/ei X Trip.nei Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 12. ndvTcs X drravTes Tf. Ln mg. — iv [Ln.] Gb. — ; [0771. Alx.] 13. elXcTO X e'tXaTO Ln.Tf. [Al.v.] Rec. Gb. r.]. 33. c dpxi]S X dnapxfjv Ln. 34 .ji Ix.} ~ fids X ^pds Ln. J 6. XptOTOS, prmm. 6 Ln. «- o Geoy, [6] Ln. Gb. -♦. 7 lAlx.l !- Kal Trarrjp X 6 vrar. Ln. txt. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 17. v/idy, om. Sch. Ln, Tf. [Gb. — Xo'yo) /cat e/ayw X ^'py

'- '^^'- I^^' W^-] [Gb. -]. 13. tovXto Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^Za;. — ovra, arfd. jue Ln. - aXX' X aXXa Ln. Tf. 16. ^Irjaovs Xpiaros X Xpiaros 'l-qaovs Ln. Tf. — Trdaav X uTraaav Ln. Tf 17. (ro(pa, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf Chap. II. 3. yap, om. Ln. 6. TO paprvpiov, om. Ln. 7. eV XpioTw, ow. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 8. StaXoyio-fioC X SiaXoyta-pcov Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^te. 9. aa-avTas Kal, om. Kal Ln. - Tos yvfaiKar, om. rds Ln. Tf. - Koapico X Koo-picos Alx. - rj XP^^V X '«ai XP- I^^- T^- — xp^^^ X xp^^'V ■'^"• 12. yvi/atKi Se SiSacrKeii' X SiSd- o-Keii' fie ywatKi Ln. lAlx.] — dXX' X dXXd Ln. 14. dnaTrjOela-a X i^anaTrjOeicra Ln. Tf. [J?«.] Chap. III. 2. vT](j)dX€OP X vr)(fidXtov Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 3. juj) alaxpoKepdrj, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — dXX' X dXXd Ln. 7. avTou, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. 11. vr](f>aXeovs X i^(pdXLOvs Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 14. rd;^toi/ X f'l' Ta';^et Ln. lAlx.2 16. Geos- X OS Gb. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 6 ~] ; Beds Cst. Chap. IV. I. TrXdpois X TrXavTjs Gb. f^. [Csf.] 6. ^Ir](Tov Xpicrrov X XpicrroC 'iT^a-ov Ln. Tf. [Alx.] — Trapr]KoXovdT]Kas X TraprjKo- Xovdrjaas Ln. mg. 8. eTrayyeXlav X inayyeXias Alx. 10. Acai KOTTcapev, om. Kal Ln. [Gb. ->]. ^Zar. — oveibi^dpeda X dycow^ope^a Ln. [Gb. ~]. ^Zo;. 12, eV TTvevpaTif om. Gb. Sch.Ln. Tf. 15. iv Trda-iVy om. iv Ln.Tf. [Alx.1 [Gb. =t]. 75 Chap. V. 4. KaXoi/ /cat, ow. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 5. TOP Qeov, Itov] Ln. 8. Tcov 2°, ow. Ln. II. KaraaTpr]uida-(ocn X fara- o^Tpr]vid(Tovcnv Tf. Ln. mg. 15. Tives e^erpaTTTja-av X e^erpd- nrjadu Tipes Ln. txt. 16. nia-Tos T], om. Ln. [Gb. ->]. ^Za;. - €TrapKel,Tco X iivapKua-doa Ln. txt. 18. Boui/ dXo©i/Ta ou (pipcocreis X ou (pipaaeis ^ovp dXo- oipra Ln. [^Za;.] 20. Toi/ff, add. he Ln. 21. Kvpiov, om. Sch. Ln.Tf. [Gb. - ^Irjaov Xpia-Tov X XptaroC 'Irjaov Sch. Ln. Tf. - TTpoaKXiaip X TTpoa-KX-qaip Ln. [^Za;.] 23. dXX' X a^^« Ln. Tf. — ardpaxdp aov,, om. crov Ln. iAlx.'\ 25. cbcrai;ro)y, add. 8e Ln. Tf. - rd KaXd epya X rd epya rd KaXd Ln. Tf. [Alx.l — eVrt, o??i. Ln. Tf. — dvparai X hvpapxai Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] Chap. VI. g. napabtarpi^al X hiairapa- rpi^al Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. [^iZa:.] — d(f)i(rTa(T0 otto r«i/ toiov- rcov, oin. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] [Gb. ^]. 7. S^Xoj/, om. Ln. lAIa:.'] [Gb. -*]. II. Tov Qeov, om. tov Ln. — TTpaoTTjTa ^TTpavTTudeLav Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. 13. Koi €k\t}6t]s, om. Koi Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 13. ^ojoTTotoC'in-os' X C^oyovovv- TOS Ln. Tf. [^^.] [Gb. ^]. 2 TIMOTHY. 17. iu T(5 vCf aicoi'i X TOV j'G;' — €V 2° X fVi Ln. iAIx.] — rco ^coi'Ti, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] [Gb. -]. ^ — TrXoucrtcos' Trai/ra X Trai^ra nXovaLcos Gb. Sch. Tf. ; to. TrdvTa ttX. Ln. 19. alcoviov X oWaj? Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ao. irapaKaTaOrjKrjv X TrapaGrj' KTjv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rcc. Gb. -v]. 31. pera aov X /^f^' v/xcoj/ j^n. — dprjv. Upos Tipodeov Trp/o- TTj €ypdcf)rj diro x\ao5t/cftaf, TjTLS earl prjTpOTrokis pv- -ytay T7J9 naKartaj/j)f, o/rt. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Chap. I. x.^.lijcrov XpiOTOV X "K-piG-Tov 'lT]aov Tf. [Alx.] i. Xa/ix/3az/Ci)i/XXa/3a)i' Ln. [^/x.] [Gb. ~]. — 'EvueiKTj X EwtKj; Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 9. Kar' X f^ra Ln. 10. lT]aOV X-pLO-TOV X Xpi-(TTOV 'irjcrov Ln. txt. 12. TrapadrjKrjv X TTapaKaraBrj- Krjv Elz. 14. TrapaKaTaOrjKriv X napaOrj- KT}v Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 15. $uyeXXoy X ^vyeXoy Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 16. e7rr](Txi>v6ri X €7raL(j)(vvdT) Ln. 'Jf. [y^te.] 17. cnrovdaioTepov X (TTrouSat'coy Ln. [.4te.] Chap. II. 3. (ru ow KaKOTrddrjaovX crvy- KaKoirdOrjaov Ln. Tf. [^te.] ^[Gb.--]. — ^Irjcrov Xpiarov X Xpicrrov 'Ir/crov Sch. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] I.alo Ln. Tf. [^te.] — 8o)Tj X StwcTft Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 9. aXX' X dWa Ln. Tf. 12. dpuovpedaXdpjrqaopeda Ln. Tf. 13. dpvrja-nadai, add. yap Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 14. KvplovJ^ 6eov Ln.mg. [Alx.] 2 TIMOTHY. i^.\oyopa)(€lv\\oyopd)(ei Ln. [^te.] — fiy ovbiv X fV ouSeV Ln. ; [Alx. s. iiT ovdevl yap]. 19. Xpiarov X Kvpiov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 21. Koi €vxpr]a-TOV, om. Ka\ Ln. Tf. [Alx.] [Gb. =:]. 22. pera, add. ndvTcov Ln. [Jte.J 24. ciXX' X aXXa Ln. Tf. 25. npaoTTjTi X TTpavTTjTi Ln. Tf. [ite.] — So) X Sw?/ Ln. Tf. [^te.] Chap. III. I. yivcoaKe X yivcoa-Kcre Ln, txt. 6. alxpaXo>T€vovT€s X alxpo.- XcoTt^ovres Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ra yui^at/ccxpia, om. ra Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 10. TTaprjKoXovdrjKas X rraprjKO- Xovdrjcrds Ln. [Alx.] 11. (ppvaaro X epvaciTO Ln. txt. 14. TiVo? X TiVo)!' Ln. [^/Z.r.] i^. TO ifpa, [ra] Ln. ; [o??i. ^te.] 16. eXcyxov X ^Xeypou Ln. Chap. IV. I. ouj/ eyoj, o?rt. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — TOV Kvpiov, om. Gb. Sell. Ln. Tf. — ^Irjaov XptCTTOv X Xpiarov 'lr]aov Ln. Tf. — Kpiveiv X Kpluai Alx. — Kara X Kal Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] [Rec. Gb. eX6urjv Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. aTToScpr; XoTToScocrei Sch.Ln. [Gb.'^]. du6earr)Ke X dvrearT] Ln. [.4te.] avprrapeyevero X napeyeufro Ln. [^te.] aKovai] X dKovaaaiu Ln. Tf. U/.r.] [Gb. -].^ — eppvaQ-qv \ ipva6t]u Ln. 18. /cai pvaerai, om. Kal Ln. Tf. [^te.] [Gb.-]. 22. 'It/o-ous Xpiaros, oin. Tf. ; o?«. Xptaros Ln. — 17 X"P'^ /^^^' 'L'M'^i' Gb. -•. — a/i)]!'. ITpoy Tipodfov dev repa^ r^f 'E^fo-j'toi/ skkXt]- crta? TTpwrou frriaKOTrov ;^et- poTovrjOeura, eypdcj)r] otto 'Pco/M7/f, ore fV dfvrepov TTapearrj HavXos t(o Kai- aapi 'NipoovLj om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. HEBREWS. TITUS Chap. I. 1 . 1t](T0V XplCTTOV X XpiO-TOV *1t]cfipovL^(ov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 9. 18lols deanoraLs X ^fCTrd- rais iStots Ln. txt. iAlx.'] 10. TTiaTiv ndaav X ndaav ttl- (TTiv Ln. [^to.] — dibacTKaXiap., add. ttjv Sch. Ln. [Gb. ~]. — J7/zaii' X vpS>u St. 11. J7 aaTTjpios, om. r] Ln. ; [Jte. s. Tov aoiTrjpos rjp,a)p]. Chap. III. I. Koi e^ovaeas^ om. koI Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. AIx. 2. TrpaoTTjTa X npavTrjra Ln. Tf. 5. wi/ X a Ln. [^Za;.] — Tou avTOV eXeov X to ai^rov eXeos- Ln. Tf. [Alx.} 6. TTVCvp-aros, prcmi. did Alx. 7. yeva)p,eda X yevr)6a)p,ep Ln. Tf. [Jte.] 8. TO) ©e]. ^ 10. Kai dcvrepav vovdealav X vovOeaiav koX Sevr. Tf. i^. a/Lij^j/, on*. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.] TLpbs Il'ltqv^ ti]S Kpr]Ta)U €K- KXrjaias irpcoTov eTria-Konou X(tpoTOvr}BevTa,iypd(pr] dno 'NiKOTToXeas rrjs Ma/ce- dovlasi om, Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. P a. dyaTTTjT^ X abeXffirj Ln. [Gb. (^]. Alx. i. Trpos X f 'y I^n- [^Za;.] 6. roi), om. Ln. — u/Ati/ X w"^^ G^b- Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. — 'iTyo-oCi/, om. Ln. [^i/a:.] 7. X^P*-^ X X^P"'' ^^^- ^'^^ S^'*^' Ln. ; [^apti' Gb. <^]. — exop,(v X ^'(Txov Ln. [Gb. ~] .<4Za;. ; [ttoXXj]!/ eaxov Ln.] PHILEMON. 9. 'Ir/crov Xpio-Tov X XpiaroC 'It/ctoC Ln. Tf. 10. /iou, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. :5]. 12. du€Trep,yl/a • cru Se X "''f'- nep-ylrd crot Ln.[ JZa'.] ; eVeju,- \//-a (TOL Gb. ~. [^Za;.] — 7rpo(rXa^ov, om. Ln. Tf. 13. dianovfj p,oi X P'Ot diaKoi'fj Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 17. ep-e X jMf Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf, 18. eXXoyei X iXXoya Ln. Tf. ; [eVXdya Alx.] 20. Kupio) X XpLara Gb. Sch. Ln, Tf. 21. a X o Ln. [Alx.] 23, 'Ao-7rd^oj/rat'X"0'7''d^eratGb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 25. a/i.771/. Ilpoy ^iXrjp.ova eypd- cfitj OTTO Pd)p.r}s dia ^Ovqa-'i- p.ov olKeroVy om. Gb. Sch, Ln. Tf, HEBREWS Chap. I. ,1. eaxdroivX icrxf^Tov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 2. Tovs alaivas iiroirjaev X eVot- r)aev tovs alwvas Ln. Tf. r^Za;.] 3. Si' iavTOv., om. Ln. Tf, [Alx.] 3. TTOirjcrapLevos tcov ap-apTLoav X ra)t' dp-apricbv 7roiT]adp.€- vos Ln. [^Za;.] — rip,a)V., om. Ln.Tf. [Gb.^J]. Alx. 8. pd/35oy X Kat pd^dos Ttjs Ln, [JZa:.] - J/ pandas, om. 17 Ln. 77 9. dvopiav X abiKiav Alx. 12. avTOtis-, aiiiv\ napapvMfx^u Ln. Tf. 6. Ti ecTTiv \ TLS i(TTLV Ln. mg. 7. Koi KaT€(TTr]cras avrbv eVt ra e/jya rcav ;(eipcoj/ (rov, Offi. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.] 8. 'Ei/ yap rw X f^* i"iY(o-e- SeV, om. Tf. [Gb. ->]. .4/ar. 22. ToaovTov X roo-ovro Ln. Tf. [^te.]^ 23. yeyoj/orey tepeiyX iepety ye- yo7/o'res' Ln. [Alx.] 26. J^plt', acM. Ka\ Sch. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. ~. Chap. VIII. 2. /cat ov/(, o»i. /cat Ln. Tf. [Gb. ->]. ^te. 4. yap X ovv Sch. Ln. — raji/ iepe(ov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. ^te. — roi/ vopov, om. tov Ln. Tf. 5. TTOirjcrrjS X noi-qaeis Sch. Ln. Tf. 6. ta;!/! X ^^^ Ln. — rereu;^e X t^tvx^v Ln. Tf. [^^/^^.] 8. axjTols X avTOVs Ln. [ylte.] 10. diadrjKT], add. [pov] Ln. 11. Tt\-qa'Lov X noKiTrjv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — pLKpov avTav, om. avTcov Ln. [^te.] [Gb. ->]. 12. >cat rail' dvopicov avTcov, om. Tf. [^te.] Chap. IX. 1. o-Krjvr}, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 2. dyta X ayta. dyicoi/. (sic) Ln. ; [Alx. s. Ttt dyia]. 5. Xepou/3tp X X^po^/^fti' Ln- ; afW. r^? Sch. g. ov X ^i' Sch. Ln. [Gb. f^]. Alx. 10. jSaTTTta-pols., Koi, om. Koi Gb, Sch. Ln. — Si/catwpacrt X BiKaiwpaTa Sell. Ln. [Gb. r^]. 1 1 . peXXdi/rcoi/ X y^vopevcov Ln 13. ravpcov koI Tpdycav X Tp( ■ yu)V Kcd Tavpojv Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 14. lipcovX r'jpcov Ln. Tf. [Gb. (^J. Alx. — ^covri, arZrZ. Koi dXr^Oivw Ln. 18. OL/S' X oiiSe Ln. Tf. 19. vopov, proim. tov Ln. [Alx.] — r/)dya)v, prccm. tcov Ln. Tf. — eppdvTiae X fpdvTicrev Ln. Tf. [Jte.] 21. eppavTio-eX epa.VTicrev'Lii.Tl. 24. 6 Xpia-Tos^ om. 6 Ln. [Alx.] 26. vvu X '^''t Ln. Tf. — ayv X T^i' Staroiai/ Ln. [.<4Za;.] i>j. fxvr]a6a> X p-vr]crdr](rop,ai Ln. Tf [^te.] 33. ippavTi(Tp.€voi X pepavTicrp-e- VOL Ln. Tf. 30. Xeyet Kvpios, om. Tf. [Gb. =5]. — Kvptoy Kpivei X Kpivel ku- pio? Ln. Tf 34. beo-p-ols p.ov X bea-fxioLS Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — eV, 0771. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — KpeiTTova X Kpuaaova Ln. — eV ovpavolsy om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 35. p.LcrdaTTobocriav p.€yaXrjv X p,€ya.\r]i> pLaSaTTodoalav Ln. 38. bUaios, add. p.ov Ln. Tf Chap. XL ' . ra ^Xerrop-eva X to /3Xe7ro- /xei/oi/ Ln. Tf [Gb. ~]. Jlx. 4. TOV 0€o{}Xt? Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 13. Xa/3oj/r6? X Trpoade^dpLfuoi Ln. — Kat ireia-QivTes, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 1 5- i^r^Xdov X ^^^^rjcrav Ln. Tf. [^Zx.] 16. i/uz/i X i'Sj/ Ln. Tf 19. eyeipSLV dvvaTOS X ^ye'ipcu bvvaTat Ln. 20. Trepi, prcem. Koi Ln. Tf. [Alx.] — £vX6yr]a€V X TjvXoyrjcrev Ln. Tf 21. €vX6yr]a€ X rjvXoyrjcrev Ln. Tf 23. Stdrayjua X So'-y/ua Ln. 26. eV Alyv7TTa> X Ai-yuTrrov Gb. Sch. Tf [Rec. Gb. cv=] ; iv AlyvTTTOv Ln. 28. oXodpevav \ oXeBpevcov Ln. Tf 29. ^rjpas, add.yrjs Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 30. eneae X eneaav Ln. Tf [^Zx.] 32. -yap fie X 1^-^ yap Ln. — BapuK re, ow. re Ln. — Kal 'le(jidde, om. Kot Ln. 34. p.axaipas X p^aX'^^PV^ ^^• — ivehvvapa>6rjcrav X idwapLco- Orjcav Ln. 35. "yvi/aiKe? X yvvaiKas Ln. 37. paxaipas X pax(iLpr]s Ln. 38. eV ip-qpulais X ^'^^ ^'p'?/-'" I^^^- 39. rTji/ iirayyiXlav X tos' iTvay- yeXias Ln. Chap. XII. 2. iKaQia-ev^KeKaOiKevGib. Sch. Ln. Tf 3. avrbv X iavTov Ln. 4. dvTiKaT€(rTr)T€ X ai'reK. Tf 7. El X fZs Ln. [^Za;.] — eaTiv, om. Ln. Tf. 8. eVre xai ou^ viot X '^"'^ ov;^ viot eVre Ln. 9. TToXXw X TToXv Ln. Tf. 1$. dia TavTTjs X ^t* avTTJs Ln. Tf — TroXXol, prcem. ol Ln. Tf. 16. aTre'fioro X OTreSero Ln. Tf. — avTOv X ^avTov Ln. Tf. 18. opet, om. Ln. [^Za;.] — (T/cdro) X (ofpca Ln. Tf [Gb. t^]. Alx. 30. ^ ^oXldi KaTaTO^evdrjaeraif om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 23. iv ovpavols dnoyeypap.pe-' vcov X dTToyeypap.p.iv(X)v iv ovpavoXs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 24. KpeiTTOva X KpeiTTOV Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — TOV X TO Gb. ~. 25. €(f)uyov X e^e(pvyov Ln. Tf. — roz/ cTTi r^s -yjj? X ^'tti y^s Ln. Tf. ; om. Trjs Gb. Sch. — xPVI^^'^^C'^^'^aj prcean. tov Ln. Tf — TToXXa X TToXv Ln. Tf. 26. creici) X (T€Laa> Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 27. Toiv craXevop.€uaiv ttjv X T')'' Tcov aaX. Ln. 28. Xarpevcop-ev X XaTevop.ev Gb. ~. [CaZ.] — jitera aiSoCy fcai evXa^eias X /Liera evXa^eias koX deovs Ln. Tf [Gb. ^']. ^Zar. Chap. XIII. 4. 6e X yap Ln. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 6. Kal ov, [Kal] Ln. 8. x^f ? X f'x^^s- Ln. Tf 9. irepKpepeade X 7rapav Ln. [Alx.} 2$, dp.Tjv Gb. ->. Tlpos 'E^palovs eypd(f)r) aTTO Trjs 'iraXt'as Sta Tip.o$€OV, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf JAMES Chap. 1. 3- TTJs nicTTecos, om. Tf. 12. 6 Kvpiof, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.-*]. 1^. Tov Geoj}, om. rov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 19. "Go-re X'LO-re Ln.Tf. [Gb. c-]. Jlx. - eo-rco, add. Se Ln. Tf. 20. ov Karepyd^eraL X ovK ipya- ^€Tai Ln. Alx. 32. fiovov aKpoaTOL X aKpoarai fiovov Ln. Tf. 3^. ovTos, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ->]. *6. €1, afZf?. Se Ln. - ev vpiu, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. cv]. - aXV X dXXa Ln. Tf. - Kapbiav avTOv X napb- cav- Tov Ln. 37. dpTjo-Ksia, add. yap s. 8e Alx. - rco 06(5, om. Tco Tf. [Gb. =J]. Chap. II. TT]v crvvaycoyrju, om. rrjv Ln. Ka\ cTTi^Xeyp-rjTe X cVt/SXe- ■v/rTyre fie Tf. [^te.] avT(o, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 038(1 om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. ^te. Kal oil, om. KOL Ln. Tf. [Gb. roO KocTfj-ov X TM Koaixa Ln. Tf. rovTov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Tqprjcrei X TVPWIJ ^"- Tf. nraiaei X TTTaLaj] Ln. Tf. fjiOiX^vaeLS, (povevaeis X /^ot- ;^evet?, ; tis X ^tJ ^^c'y?? ^"* eau 6e, Se Gb. =i ; o;». -<4te. wfft, 07n. Tf. TO, om. Ln. f'pya '4xxi X f'x?/ *^P7" Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. fK X X<"P'^ G*^- '^'^'^- ^''"- ''^• (TOV., om. Ln.Tf. [Gb. ::J]. .^te. tt'kttlv /X.OV, om. /xou Tf. [Gb. 6 Geo? etf eVri X f^f ((ttIv 19. 6 ^eos Ln. ; etj ^eos" eVni/ Tf. 20. vcKpci X apy?? Ln, Tf. 24. Toivvv^ om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 25. Spoicos fie, om. fie ^te. Chap. III. 3. 'iSou X ft fie Ln. Tf. [Gb. =^0 ; ifie Gb. Sch. — Trpos X f ty Ln. Tf. — avToiis Tjp7i^ X VH-^^ avTOvs Tf. Alx. 4. aKXrjpSiV avepcov X dvepcov (TKXrjpcou Ln. Tf. ^te. 5. yLieyaXavxf' X fifyaXa avxel Ln. — oXi'yoi/ X ^XiKOV Ln. Tf. 6. ourcoy, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. 8. bvvaTai dvdpoiTrcov dapdaai X BapdcraL dvvarat dvBpco- 770)1/ Ln. — aKarao-xeroi/ X a'cardorraroi' Ln. ']Y. 9. Geoj/ X KvpLov Ln. Tf. [Gb. <^]. Alx. 12. ouTcay, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. — ovdepla Trqyr] dXvKov Ka\ yXvKv X ovT€ aXvKov yXvKV Gb. Ln. Tf. lAlx.] 17. Acat dvvTTOKpiTos., om. Kai Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. ^te. 18. r^y diKaLoarvvrjSj om. rrjs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Chap. IV. 1. Ka\, add. nodev Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 2. OVK e^eTe fie, om. fie Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ; Kal ovK e^ere Gb. 4. Moixoi Ka\, om. Ln. Tf. — av X eau Ln. 5. KaTCOKT](jeV X KaTWKl(T€V Ln. 7. uuTUTTTjTf, (ukl. fie Ln. [^fte.] 10. ToG Kf/jt'ou, 0J71. roi; Ln. Tf. [Gb. =;]. Alx. 11. KQi X V Ln. Tf. [Gb. pi6aXnop€Vij6p.<: ')a Elz. Ln. Tf. — noLTjo-oopep X TTOLTJO-OpCV Elz. Ln. Tf. — e^a, om. Ln. — cpTTopevatopiBa X fpnopfv- a opt 6 a Gb. Ln. Tf. — KepdrjiTwuev X Kepbrjaopev Elz. T.n. Tf. 14. TO T^j ;, It T^j Ln. — ydp, o?/(. .. . . [Alx.] — eariv X eo-r>. Lu. Tf. ; earai Gb. ~. ICsL] — fie X /fai Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 15. ^rjcrcopev X ^rja-opev Ln. Tf. — TTOLTjcrcopev X TTOCTjcropev Elz. Sch. Ln. Tf. Chap. V. 4. elacXrjXvdacnv X eio-eXj^Xv- ^ai/ Ln. Tf. ^. a)f, om. Ln. Tf. 7. ni/, om. Tf. — verov, om. Ln. Tf. ; [Alx. 8. om. Kapivov]. 9. Kar aXXrfKoyv.1 ddeXcfjol X a- fieXc/)ot /car' dXXT^Xcoi/ Ln.Tf. — KaTaKpiBrJTe X KpidrjTe Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — 6 KpiTTjs., cm. 6 St. Elz. 10. r^? KaKonadeLas, dfieX^ot ■ povXddeXcfiol, TTjs KaKona- I <9etay Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ■ — TO) oi^o'/xart, proim. eV Ln, ^['^te.] 11. vTTopevovTas X vrropeipavTas m Ln. [Gb. --]. yfte. f — e'ldere X i'fiere Tf. — TroXv(T7rXayxv6i X TroXuev- aTrXny^Oi' Gb. f>^. [Alx.] — 6 Kvptos, om. Tf. [Gb. =;]. Cst. [2. et? VTTUKpLiJLV [siC Cst.] \ VTTO Kpia-iv Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 4. TOV Kupt'ou, 0)n. TOV Ln. Tf. 6. 'E£o/xoXoyeio-^e,a(W. oui/Ln. [Alx.] — TO. TTapaTTTUipaTaXjas apap- 1 TLas Ln. [Alx.] \ — (vxeade X npoa-fvxfcrde Ln. 8. verov efioKe X efico/ce ver. Ln. 9. dbeXcpoi, add. pov Ln. [.,4te.] !o. y^rvx^v, add. avTOV Ln. [.<4ix.J 1 PETER. Chap. I. 3. Tjixas X VfJ-as Elz. 4. fj^as X vfJi^as Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 6. ewTt, o??i. Tf. — "XvTrrjdevTes X '^VTrrjSevras Cst. 7. TToXu TlfXia>T€pOV X TToXnTt- fxoTepov Gt). Sch. Ln. Tf. — Tt/x]7i/ Kot do^av X 86^av Koi TifMrjV Ln. Tf. [^te.] 8. eiSo'resXtSoVres Ln.Tf. [Alx.] 9. v/i«z/, om. Tf. 12. rjfXLvXvfiiu Gb. Sch. Ln. [Eec. Gb. ~]. — eV, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ->]. Mx. 16. yevecrde X ecrecr^e Ln. Tf. [Gb. cv]. Jte. — ftjLit, om. Ln. Tf. lAlx.'\ 20. io-xarcov X icrx^TOV Ln. Tf. [Gb. cv]. ^Zo;. — v/xaff X i7/'ias' JZa?. 21. mcTTevovTas X tticttovs Ln. Tf. 22. Sia Uvevnaros, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. ^Za;. — KaQapas, om. Ln. Tf. 23. etff roi' atcova, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 24. ms x^pTO^, om. cos Ln. — dvdpoiTTOv X CLVTTJs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. — avTov, om. Ln. [Gb. =?]. ^Za?. 25. rov Kvp'iov, om. tov Ln. Chap. II. 2. av^rjdrJTe, add. els crcorrjpiav Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 3. eirrep X et Ln. — XPW^^^ X '^piCTTOS Cst. 5. tepar6i;/Aa,pr£eTO.ets'Ln.[^Za;]. — r« Geo), om. r« Ln.Tf. [^Za;.] 6. Abb Kol X Sion Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — eV TT] ypa^fj \ f] ypa^T^ Ln. lAlx.l ; eV ypa^TJ Tf. [^Za;.] 7. Xi'^oj/ )( Xidos Ln. 11. aTTexecrOat X arrix'^crBe Tf. ; atZcZ. {i/May Ln. 12. eTTonrevcravTes X eTTOTrrev- ovTcs Ln. Tf. 13. ow, om. Ln. [Gb. 3]. .4Za;. 14. fiev, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 16. bov\oi Qeov X 6eov bovkoi Tf. 17. ayarrare X ayanrja-aTe Cst. 20. roCiTO, add. yap Ln. Tf. 21. T}pa>v X tijLiGJz/ Elz. Gb. Ln. ; lT]pMV Gb. f^]. — rjplv X v/iij/ Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 24. avTov, om. Ln. [Gb. -»]. Alx. 25. liKavap.cvaXTrK.avoap.evoi'La. Tf. Chap. III. I. at, o?w. Ln. — Kepdrjdrjacovrai X Kep8r]$r}- aovrai Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^a;-. 3. rpixoiiv, om. Ln. — KOI Trepidearecos X ^ Tvepideo: Ln. 4. Trpaeos kol rjcrvxiov X 570"^- ;(iou Kai Trpaeos Ln. 5. eVi roi/ 0e6i/ X f^s ^eov Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 6. v7rrjKova-€V X vTrrjKovev Ln. 7. crvyKkrjpovopoi X (rvyKkrjpo- vofxois Tf. [Gb. i:^] ; acZci. ttoi- kiXj;? ^Za?. — iKKOTTTeadat X iyKorvreadai Gb. Sch. Ln. 8. (l)Lk6(ppoves\raTreiv6<:l>poves Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 9. eiSorey, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^3]. Alx. 10. avTov 1°, om. Ln. Tf [^Za;.] — atirou 2°, om. Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] 11. eKKkivdrcOf add. de Ln. Tf lAlx.] — dyaOov ^rjTria-dro), om. St. per sphalma. 12. ot, om. Sch. Ln. Tf. 13. p.Lpr]Ta\ X ^77Xcorat Ln. [Gb. ^]. Alx. 15. Geoi/ X XpioTTov Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. — 8e, om. Ln. [Alx.] — eXTTtSos-, ofZfZ. dXXa Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] 16. KaraXaXwaiv X KaraXaXou- o-iv Ln. lAlx.1 ; KaraXaXct- a-^6 Tf. ; KaTokakova-iv Gb. <^. — vpwv as KaKOTTOLoJv, om. Tf, 17. ^eXet X ^f'^^ot Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 18. enade X diredavev Ln. [Gb. ~]. lAlx.-] — T«, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 81 20. aira^ i^ehix'^TO X dne^ehe- X^TO Gb, Sch. Ln. Tf, — okiyai X oXtyoi Ln, Tf. 21. to X o St. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — rjpds X v/^as Ln. Tf. Chap. IV. I. VTTep Tjpaiv, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. — eV, om. Ln. [Gb. 3]. Alx. 3. rjplv, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -»]. ^Za?. — roii ^lov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. zt]. Alx. — TO Oe'Xrjpa X ^ovkrjpa Ln.Tf, [Gb. ^]. Alx. — Karepyda-aadai X Kareipyd-' adai Ln. Tf. 7. raff Trpoo-evxds, om. rds Ln. Tf. 8. rj ayaTTJy, om. ^ St. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. — KaXv-^ei X KaXvTTTei Ln. Tf. [Gb. (^]. ^Za;, 9. yoyyvcrpS>vXyoyyv(rfxov Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^j. Alx. 13. Ka^o X Ka6a)s Elz. 14. 86^r]s,add.Kal dvvdp.€cos Sch. Ln. [Gb. ~]. — Kara pevavTOvs ^Xaacfirjpe'i- Tai, Kara de vpds do^d^e- rat, 0771. Ln.Tf. [Gb. =J]. Alx. 1$, aXXoTpioeTTiaKOTros X aXXo- rpieiria-KOTros Ln. 16. /xepet X ovopari Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. Alx. 19. ©$•, om, Ln. [Alx."] — eavTccv X avrav Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Csf. — aya^oTToda X dyaBonouais Ln. Tf. Chap. V. 1. rovs X ovv Ln. [.4Za;.] 2. eTTia-KonovvTes^ om. Tf. — eKovcricos, add. Kara 6e6v Ln. [JZa:.] — prjU X /ii7 Tf. i. VTTOTaacropevoiy om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. 6. Kaipa, add. eTna-KOTrrjs Ln. [^Za;.] 7. einppiy\ravTes X eiripiy^f. Ln. 8. or£, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — KaraTrirj X KaTanulv Ln. txt. [Cs^.] 25 10. TjfjLas X vfLas Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. - KarapTiaai X KarapTtaa, Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^0. Alx. - vfjLas., om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. - (rrqpl^ai^ adeuaxrai, X o-^^- 1 JOHN. pi^ei, crdeucicrei Gb. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. 10. depeXidxrat, om. Ln. ; Bepe- Xioiaec Tf. ; sic Gb. =t. 11. Tj 86^a Kiily om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 11. rS)v aia)va>v^ om. Tf. 12. TOV TTKTTOV^ Om. TOV Ln. — eaTrjKare X crr^re Ln. 14. 'Irjaovj om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. - a/Lt7yi/, OOT. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Chap. I. 1. '2vp€(ov X St/xcoi' Ln. — rjpwv 2°, om. Ln. 3. dia do^rjs Kal apeTrjs X 'Si'a So^7; Kal dperfj Ln. Tf. [Gb. <^]. Alx. 4. peyicrra r]plv Kol ripia X peyicrra koL ripia rjplv Ln. ; Ti'juia Kat piyiara rjplv Tf ; ri'/xia T]p. Koi peyiara Cst. — Kocrpcp, prcem. rco Ln. [Alx.'] 5. avrb TOVTO X avToi Ln. [^/a;.] 8. VTrdpxovra X napovra Ln. 9. apapTLcovX dpaprrjpdTcov Gb. Sch. Tf [Rec. Gb. cv]. 10. o-TTouSdcrare, af7(Z. tW dLci Twv KoXav vp5)V ipycbv Ln. — •noulcrOai X Troteicr^e Ln. J 2. ovK dpiK.T](T(xi\pcXkr](Ta) Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. — vpdi de\ X aet v/ias Gb. Sch. Tf. 21. TTore 7rpo(j}r]T€ia X irpoc^r}- Tiia TTore Tf. — ol ayioi X tiTTo Tf ; ayioi rov Ln. ; om. 01 Gb. Sch. Chap.^ II. 2. aTTCoXeiaiy X daiKyclais Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 3. wa-rd^d X vva-rd^ei Cst. 4. creipals X cripols Ln. — Tfrqprjpevovs X KoXa^ope- 2 PETER. i^ouff TTjpeTv Ln. ; Trjpovpi- vovs Gb. Sch. Tf. 5. aXV X aXXa Tf. 6. KaTaaTpo(f)fj, om. Alx. 8. 6 Si'/cator, otw. 6 Ln, 11. Trapa Kvpico, om. Ln.Tf [Gb. 12. (jivaiKa. yeyevvTjpeva X 7^- yevvrjpeva (pvaiKd Ln. Tf. ; (pvcTLKd yey€vrjpeva St. Sch. — KaTa(^6apr](xovTaL\Ka\ cpda- prjcrovTai Ln. Tf. [J/a:.] 13. aTrdraty X dydTrais Ln. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 14. dKaraTravoToi;? X (XKaraTrd- crrovs Ln. ; d/cara7ravcrrou Gb. ~. Cst. — nXeove^iaia X TrXeovc^las Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. i^. Tr)v evdelav, om. ttjv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. I"]. vecfieXai X Kcii oplxXat Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — els alcova, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 18. daeXyelais X ^^ daeXyeiaLS Elz. ; dcreXycias Tf. [.<4te.] ; dcreXyetats' Gb. '^. — ovTOis X dXiyoys Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — d7ro(f>vy6vTas X dTro(f)€vyov- Tas Ln. Tf. [Gb. - ]. ^te. 20. Kupi'ov, ovia Se, om. de Alx. 4. v/xTi/ X '7/^f If [Gb. f^]. ^te. — vpa)V X '7/'i&)V St. Ln. 1 JOHN. 5. avTr; eaTiv X eCTTti/ auT?; Tf lAlx.] — enayyeXia X dyyfXta Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. <^]. 7. XpiaTOV, om. Ln. Tf. 8. OL^K fVTti' ev Tjpiu X <" "J" 8^ juij/ ou/c eo-Tii/ Sch. Ln. Tf Chap. II. 2. IXaa-pos can X cVtii/ iXa- crpos Ln. 4. 6 Xt'yo)!/, add. [on] Ln. [^te.] « ovTCds, om. Ln. [Alx.} ddeXtpoi X dyaTrrjTol Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. iAlx.:i diT dpxr]Sf om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. Alx. vixiv X ^/Aii' Grb. ~. iv avra ovk ea-TLV X o^i^ ecrriv iv avra Ln. ypd(p(o X eypayjra Ln.Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. narpos X ^foG Alx. d\X X a^^^a Tf. avToii Gb. ->. 6 «vTi_;(picrTO$', om. 6 Ln. Tf. i^JjXdov X e$ri\Bav Ln. Tf. ^o'ai' e^ i7/>tcoy X ^'^ 17/^001' TJa-av Tf. e';!(€t, acZ(Z. 6 opoXoyav tov vlbu KoX TOV Tvaripa ex^i Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ovv, om. Ln. Tf [Gb. =5]. Alx. Koi €v, om. iv Ln, iv vpiv fxevei X [xevei iv vp-tv Ln. Tf. iAlx.-\ avTO X avTov Tf. [Gb. ~]. /xej/eire X pivere Ln. [Gb. ~]. 0x01* )( eav Ln. lAlx.] e^o/iei' X (TX^P^v Ln. Tf. Chap. III. I. Kkr]6a>p€V, add. kol iapev Ln. [^Za?.] 3. o'idapev Se, o»i. §e Ln. Tf. [Gb. =1]. ^Za;. 4. T] dpaprla, om. 17 Ln. $. f}pa>v, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. 2 JOHN. 10. TTOtcov diKaioavvrjv X «'>*' ^t- Kaios Ln. 11. dyyeXta X iirayyeKla Alx. 13. /xou, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. 14. roi/ dbeKfpov^ om. Ln. Tf. [^^07.3 15. auro) X iavrS Ln. 16. Tidivai X ^€tt/at Ln. Tf. [^Za;.] 18. juou, o»i. Ln. Tf [Gb. ^'\. Alx. — y\a>acrr), prcem. rfj Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf! — 'ipyc^-i prcem. iv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.' 19. Kai iv TOVTCO^ om. Koi Ln. iAlx.-\ — yLvaKTKopevXyvaxTopeda'Ln. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 21. Tjpcov., om. Ln. 22. Trap' X «7r' Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 23. TTiu-Tevcroipev )( Tricrrevcopev Ln. [Gb. ~]. ^Za;. — iJfiTi/, o»i. Tf. Chap. IV. 2. yivaxTKCTe X yivai]. Alx. 13. Toty TTiaTevovcrtv els to ovo- pa tov vlov TOV ©eoO, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - e'xeTe alotviovX alaviov e^f € Gb. Sch. ~ Kal Lva TTiaTevrjTe X 01 nc- o-T€vovTes Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 14. OTi idv Tt X o Ti av Ln. 15. idv X ai' Ln. - ay X eai/ Tf. - Trap' X arr Ln. Tf. 16. l8t] X ftS^ Ln. 18. dXX' X dXXa Tf. 20. o'ldap.ev be X koi o'ldapev Gb. Sch. Ln. - uXtjOlvov, add. deov Alx. - 'Ij/o'oG XpicTa Gb. -^. - T) ^coj), om. 17 Ln. Tf [Gb. -]. Alx. 21. iavTovs X eavTo Ln. - dpTjv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 2 JOHN 3. i7jLia»v X vpa>v Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - Kvpiov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. ^Za:. g. ivToXrjV ypdi77i/, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. REVELATION. 4. aXrjdeia, prcem. rjj Ln. Tf. i. epyd}. TOVTOIS TpOTTOvXTpOTTOP TOV- TOts Ln. Tf [Alx.:i 9. 6 6e X ore Ln. — ore X Tore Ln. — aXV X aXXa Ln. Tf 12, eio-ii', adrf. oi Ln. Tf [Gb. ~]. Alx. — Treptcjiepupevai X 7rapa(j)ep6- fievai Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 13. TOP alcova, am. tov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 14. 'n.pO€cf)rjTev(T£ X eTTpocf)r)T€V- o-ev Tf — pvpidaiv dyiais X dyiais jjlv- pida-LV Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf i^. e|eXey£ai X eXey^ai Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. — avTu>v, am. Ln. [Gb. ^3]. — dae^elas Gb. -♦. 17. prjixdrcov t5)V 7rpo€iprjp.€va)V X 7rpo€Lprjp.ev(X)V prjp,dT(ov Ln. 18. oVt 2°, cm. Ln. — eV e(r;(aro) xpdv(o X fTr' eV- ;^arou tov xpdvov Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. — eaovTai X eXevaovTai Gb. ~. [^te.] 19. aTTodiopL^ovTCS, add. iavTovs Elz. Gb. Sch. [Gb. =t] ; [Csi. cm.'] 20. T77 dyLcoTdrrj vpcou nio-Tei iTroiKobop.ovvTes eavTovs X irroiKod. eavT. ttj dyicor. t^/i. TTiO-Tet. Ln. Tf. 22. iXeelTe 8iaKpiv6[X€VOL' 23. ov? 5e eV (j)6^a> (xcb^erf, ex roO TTVpos ap7rd(ovT€s X f Xey- ;)^erf dtaKptvofjievovs^ ovs de aoj^ere eK irvpos dpTrd^ov- rep, ouj fie eXedrc iv (f)6j3cd Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^] ^Za:. ; e'/c ttu- pos dpTrd^ere, diaKpLvojxe- vovs 6e eXeetre Gb. ~. 24. avTOVs X v/xas- Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. ; [airovf Gb. ~]. Alx. 25. ao(Pa), cm. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ' — rjpcov,, add. did ^Irjcrox) Xpi- aTov TOV Kvpiov f]}xu)V Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ho^a Ka\.) cm. Ka\ Ln. Tf [Gb. =5]. Alx. — i^ovaia, add. irpo navros TOV alcovos Sch. Ln. Tf [Gb. E E y E L A T I N. CnAr. I. 2. re, o?n. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 4. OTTO rov, am. tov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — ea-Tiv, cm. Ln. Tf [Gb. ^J]. J. eV, am. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — dyaTTTjcrnvTi, X ayaTrcoi/ri Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — XovaavTiX XvaavTL Ln. {Alx.} — OTTO X f< L"- [^to.] 6. Tjpds X '7/xwi' Ln. ; riplu Alx. — fSaaiXeTs Ka\ X ^acriXeiav Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — TA)pLOi\ Kvpio^ 6 deosGh. Sell. Ln. Tf 84 9. Ka\ ddeXcjyos, cm. Ka\ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — o-vyKoLvo)v6s X Koivcovos Gb. -. [Cst.-\ — iv Tfi ^aa-iXeia, om. iu rrj Gb.'sch. Ln. Tf — 'It^o-ou XptaTOv X eV ^lrj(rov Ln. [Alx.] ; eu Xpio-Tco 'It;- aov Tf [Gb. t^] ; eV XpiarM Gb. ~. [/fto.] 9- Sia rrjv, om. 8ia Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. Xpiarov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. Alx. 10. OTTicrco fiov (p]. — "leCajSrjX X 'le^a^iX Gb. Sch. Tf. ; Tr)V 'le^a/SeX Ln. — TTjv Xeyovaav X ^7 Xeyovo-a Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — dihdcTKeiv Kal TrXavdadai X Kal di8da-Kec Kal nXava Toiis Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — eldcoXodvTa (payelv X (jiay. eldcoX. Gb. Sch. Ln, Tf. [Kec. Gb. ~]. 21. e/c TTJs TTopveias avrrjs^ Kal ov p,€Tev6r]a-ev X Kal ov 6i- Xet p.eTavorjo-ai iK ttjs Tvop- veias avTrjs Gb. Sch.Ln. Tf.; [ovK TjdeXrjaev Ln. mg.] 22. eyo), om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — avToov X avTTJs Gb. Scb. Ln. [txt.] Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. 23. ipevvcov X ipavvoov Ln. 24. Kal XoiTTOtS X ToTs XoiTT. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Kal olTives, om. Kal Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ISddrj X ^adea Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — jSaXw X jSdXXo Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 27. avvTpi^eTai X awTpi^rjae- Tai Gb. ~. iCst.1 Chap. III. 1. eTrrd, om. St. — TO ovop.af om. to Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 2. a-Tr}pL^ov\crTr]pLO'Ov Q\). Sch, Ln. Tf, — p-iXXei X ejueXXoi/ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — p-iXXei diTodaveiv )( e/xeXXes UTTO^dXXetv Gb. ~. — rd epya, om. rd Ln. 3. 9eov, add. jxov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 3. Kol fJKOvaaSj koi Trjpei Gb.:5. — 6771 (re, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ->]. 4."Exeis oXiya X aWa oXiya ^x^i-s Tf. ; dXXa e^^is oXiya Gb. Sch. Ln. — Koi iu 'Edpdeaiv, om. Koi Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — a X ot Tf. 5. OVTOS X OVTCOS Ln. — i^oiioXoyr]crojxaL X ofioXoyrj- crca Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 7. /cXelSa X KXelv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Tov Aa/3iS, ow. rou Ln. — kXcUl X KXeiaei Ln. Tf. — Kai AcXeiet X [^ai] KXeicov Ln. txt. — dvolyet X dvoi^ei Tf. 8. Kai ovSeis X ^i' o^^' Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 9. Si'Sco/xi X StSw Ln. — fj^coai X rj^ovcTiv Ln, Tf. [Gb. — 7rpo(TKvvr](rcoaiv X TrpocrKwrj- aovo-LV Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^Zo;. — eyo) Gb. ^. 11. 'iSov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 12. j/aw X Xao) Elz. — Tj Kara^aLVOvaa X i) Kara- ^aivei Elz. 14. €KKXr]a!.as AaoBiKecov X f*' AaodLKsia c/ckXj^ cr tay Gb, Sch. Ln. Tf. ig. e'irjs X ^y Grb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 16. -^vxpos ovT€ ^earbs X C^" (TTos ovre \JAvxpbs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 17. ''On TrXoucTioy, on Gb. -►. — ovdepos X ovSej; Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. — eXeeij/6y, j^Ycm. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 18. nap' ipov XP^(^^^^ X XP^~ criov nap' ipov Tf. — KoXXoVpLOV X KoXXvplOV Tf. — f'yxpio-ovX ey^YpTo-ai Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 19. ^TjXcoaov X C'?^^^^ I-'"- Tf. [Gb. ro]. ^te. 20. (la-fXfvcropai, prcem. Ka\ Sch. Tf. [Gb. 'v]. Chap. IV. I. Tjveaypeirq X dvewypivr} Gb. Sch. Ln. — Xiyovcra X Xeyoiu Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. REVELATION. I. 'Ai/a/3a X dvdjSrjdi Ln. — a X oc" Ln- [Gb. =:]. — TOV 6p6vov X roj/ 6p6vov Ln. Tf. [JZa;.] 3. Kai 6 Kadrjpevos [Gb. ::5]. — ^z^, o??i. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — aapbiptp X crapbioi Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.' — opoios X op,oia Elz. ; opolcos Gb. ~. 4. 6p6voi X Opovovs Ln. — /cai Teaaapes, om. Ka\ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ciSoi/, o?ra. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Ka\ reaaapas, om. Ka\ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — €v, om. Ln. — eaxov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 5. jSpovral KOL (fiavai X (pooval Ka\ ^povrai Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — 6p6uov, add. avTov Sch. [Gb. — ai' eiai X « f o'ni' Ln. — TO. Gb. -». 6. ddXaaaa, prcem. cos Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 7. wy, om. Gb. Sch. [Rec. Gb. ~]. — civdpoonos X dv6p(anov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — nercopepcp X nerofieixo Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 8. Teaaapa, prcem. ra Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — iavTo X ^v avTcop Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ; [avrcov Gb. ->]. — elxov X ^'x^^ Gb. Sch. Ln. ; k'xcov Tf. — yefiovra X yepovcriv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Xeyovra X Xeyoi/rcs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 9. 5d)o"oucrt X^f^f^i- Gb. <^). [Osi.] — TOV 6p6vov X TO) Opovco Ln. 10. Kal Tecrcrapes, om. Kal Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — npocTKvvovcn X npocrKvvr)- crovcTLV Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. — (iciXXovcn X ^aXoixTiv Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 11. Kvpte X o Kvpios Kin 6 deos rjpoiV Ln. Tf. — riyi/ dvvafuv., om. rfju Ln. — etVi X ^o-ai/ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ClIAP. V. I. (jni.cr6fv\ e^a)^fi/Sch.[Gb.'N]. 86 2. (f)a)VTJ., prcom. iv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ccrnt', om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. 3. ovpava, culd. civo) Sch. [Gb. -]. — ovde /3Xe7re«/ X oi'Tf /3X. Ln. 4. TToXXa X TToXv Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Cst. — Kal duayvcovai, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 5. ibv., om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — dvol^ai X 6 dvoiycov Tf. [Gb. — Xvcrai, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 6. Ka\ Idov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — e'xov X e'xcov Tf. -olid Tf. [Gb. cv]. Csf. — enrdf om. Ln. — TOV Qcov nvevpara \ nvev- puTa TOV 6eov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Tu. dneaTaXpeva X dnoo'TeX'- Xopeva Tf. [Gb.«^] Cst. ; dne- (TToXpivoi Ln. 7. TO ^ijSXiov^ om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 8. eneaov X enecrav Ln. Tf. — KiBdpas X Kiddpav Ln. Tf. 9. 77/xay, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -►]. 10. ^/ias X avTovs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — TO) Gew rjpcou., om. Tf. — ^ao-iXels X ^aatXeiau Ln. Tf. [Gb. cv]. Jte. — ^ao-iXevaopev X ^aaiXcvov- criv Ln. Tf. ; ^ao-iXevaovaiv Gb. Sch. 11. (payvrjv, prcmi. wy Csf. — KVKXodev X kvkXco Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — npeo-jSvTepav add. kol rjv 6 dpidpos avTcov pvpiddes pv- piddcov Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 12. TrXoCiroi/, jyrcem. tov Cat. 13. fVn^, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =;]. — eV T^ yfj X cVi TTyy y^y Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — a, om. Ln. Tf. — ndvTU X ndvTas Tf. [Gb. -^j. — Xeyoi/ras' \X(yovTa Ln. [Gb. c-]. Cst. — rod Opovov X Tw 6p6vio Ln. Tf. 14. 'ApT)v, prcem. to Tf. — elKocriTecrarapes, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [4. C^VTi els Tovs almvas ra>v almvcov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Chap. VI. I. ore X OTL Cst. — Tcov^ add. eTTTa Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — (jxovrjs X vr] Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Koi /SXeVe, om. Ln. Tf. ; Koi i'de Gb. Sch. [Gb. -]. 3. Kai eidov Gb. =J. Os#. — avTO) X avTOi/ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 3. devrepav a(f)paylba X crpa- y28a TTjv TpiTTjv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — KOI /3Xe7re, ow. Ln. Tf. ; Kat iSe Gb. Sch. [Gb. -]. — Km eiSoz/ [Gb. 35]. — eV aur« X fTi"' avrbv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.' 6. cjxovqu, prcem. as Ln. — KpiOrjs X Kpidcou Ln. Tf. 7. cfxovqv, om. Gb. Tf. [Cs<.] — Xeyovcrav X Xeyoj/ros Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Kai /SXeVf, am. Ln. Tf. ; Kat I'Se Gb. Sch. [Gb. -]. 8. Kai eldov [Gb. ^J]. — ciKoXovdeT X TjKoXovdei Gb. Sch. Ln. — /xer' auToi) X avra Gb. ~. [p«.] — avTols X aura) Gb. Sch. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. ' — airoKTeivai inl to reraprov Tr]S yrjs X fTTi to TerapTov Tr}s yrjs anoKT. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 9. bia TTjV^ om. dia Ln. o. e6a>(nv Ln. [Gb. ~]. [Cst] — diroKTeiveaOai X dnoKTepve- aOai Gb. sSch. Ln. Tf. 12. tSov, o??i. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — i-ieyas iyiveTO X eyevero fxe- yas Tf. — eyeveTo fieXas X p-^Xas eye- I'ero Gb. Sch. — (reXrjvrj, add. oXrj Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 13. /3aXXet X ^aXova-a Tf. [Gb. — /MeyaXou dvip,ov X dvepLOV jjieydXov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 14. 6 ovpauoSf om. 6 St. Elz. — elXi(ra6p,evov X iXiaaofiepou Ln. Tf. 15. nXovaioL Ka\ 01 x'-^^f^PX^'- X XtXiapxot Kai OL nXova-ioi Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Suyarot X Icrxvpol Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — fray, GOT. Ln. Tf. [Gb. :?]. 16. Ilecrere X TreaaTe Ln. Tf. — Tov Opovov X TO) 6p6v(o Tf. Chap. VII. 1. Kai, om. Ln. — TaCra X tovto Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. — ndv X rt Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 2. dvajBduTa X dva^aivovTa Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — dvoToXris X araroXwi/ Ln. — eKpa^€u X '^Kpa^cv Tf. 3. oi!, OTO. Ln. Tf. — acf)payL(a>p.€V X (Tj. aifiaTi, prcem. iv Gb. Sch.Ln. Tf. — Tr]V yriv^ add. Kai to Tpirov TTJs yrjs KareKciT] Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 8. TTVpl Gb. :t. 9. TU>U iv TTJ, TCOV Gb. =J. — die(f)ddpr) Xdtecfiddprjcrav 1,11. Tf. [Gb. e^]. Cat. 10. rau v^droiv, 07n. tcou St. Elz. II.''A^//■l^/^os•, prcenn. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — yiverai X eyevero Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Cst. — TpLTOVi add. Ta>v vddrcov Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — dvdpa>Tra)V, prcmi. twv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 12. (paivTj X <^«^?7 I'll- Tf. [Gb. p^] ; Ito rpiTov avTrjs (s. av- Tcov) pr) (fidvT] T] rjpepa Gb. <^ Cd.:\ 13. dyyeXov X derov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — TTenopevov X neropevov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — rots KaroLKOvcTLV X toils' kut- oiKovvras Gb. ~. [Cst.} Chap. IX. 2. Kai rjvoL^e to (ppeap Trjs d^vacrov Gb. — . — peydXrjs X Kaiopevrjs Gb. t^. [Cs«.] — eaKOTiadrj X icTKOTOdOr} Ln. Tf. 4. dSiK)7cra)o-iXaSifCJ70-ovcrtJ/Ln. Tf. — /idwu?, o?«. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Tov Geou Gb. -». — avrojv., om. Ln. [Gb. -»]. 5. auraTj- X avTols Ln. — ^acravicrdaxn X ^aa-avicrBrj- aovTai Ln. Tf. 6. o^x X o^ /X77 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — evprjaovaiv X evpa>aiv Ln. Tf. — (p€V^€TaL X 0evyft Ln. Tf. — 6 OdvClTOS UTT aVTUtV X "TT* avT. 6 6dv. Gb. Sch. 7. opoLOL XP^o"^ X XP^o-ot Gb. Sch. [Kec. Gb. cv]. 8. ft'^oi/ X ei'xai' Ln. 10. ^1/ iv Tali oupaii avTcov Kal X Kiu iv Toii ovp(us avTcov Sell. Ln. Tf. ; iv Tcils ovp. cwT. f] Gb. t^"'. — ddiKTJ(T(Uf prccm. tov Sch. REVELATION. 11. Kal expva-LV^ om. Ka\ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ; 'ixovaai Gb. Sch. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. — e^' avTcov ^aatkea X ^auL- Xe'a eV avTcov Tf. ; eV au- rcov /Sacr. Ln. — TOV, om. Tf. — Ka\ iv X eV de Tf. [Gb. <^]. 12. epxovrai X ^'px^Tai Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^;^. 13. Teaadpcov, om. Ln. 14. Xiyovcrav X Xeyoi/ra Ln. Tf. ; Xey OTTOS' Gb. cnj. J?a7. — OS ei'^e X o e)(v Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — e/c 1° X aTTO Gb. [Cst.] — Kal e/c bis, om. Gb. Sch, Ln. Tf. 19. at yap i^ovcriai avTcov iv tw (TTopaTi avTcov elai X rj yap i^ova-'ia Tcbv 'Ittttcov iv tm aT. avT. icTTL koI iv Tals ovpals avTwv Gb. Sch.Ln. Tf. 20. ovTe X ov Gb. Sch. Tf. — Trpoa-Kwrjo-axTL X irpocrKvvr]- crovaiv Ln. Tf. — etScoXa, prcem. to. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — dvvuTai X ^vvavTai Ln. Tf. Chap. X. 1. aWov Gb. -►. — ipis, prcem. tj Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Tr]s KecfiaXrjs X t^v KecpaXrjv Ln. Tf. ; add. avTOv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 2. et^eyX f'x'^i' Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. — (BtfSXapidLov X l3i^\i8dpiov Tf. ; (3ij3\iov Gb. ~. — dvecoypivovX rjvecoypivov Ln. Tf.' — T)7Z/ ^aXaoro^aj/ X t^S' ^aXao"- a-7/9 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — TTjv yrjv X Tr]s y^y Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 4. ray (pavcis iavTcav, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 4. epeXXov X rjpeWov Ln. Tf. — /Liot, o?n. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — raura X avra Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^]. Cst. 5. avTov, add. ttjv de^iav Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 6. iv r].- 6. Trao"?;, proem, iv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Chap. XII. — 6(TaKLS iav OeXrjaaicn, post 2. e;^oyo-a, add. Kal Ln. Trjv yrjv Gb. Sch. - Kpd^et X ^'xpa^^v Sch. Ln. ; 7. TToXsfjiov fier avTa>v X /^f"' eKpa^ev Gb. ~. avTcbv TToXefiov Gb. Sch. Ln. 3. p,eyas TTvppbs X Trvppos pe- Tf. yas Ln. Tf. ; TTvpos peyas 8. TO. TTTcouaTa X TO TTra>fxa Gb. Alx. Sch. Ln. Tf. - dcadrjpara iirrd \ eTrra Sta- — TrdAecos-, prmm. ttjs Ln. Tf. d;7/Liara Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - T]ixa>v X avTOiV Gb. Sch. Ln. g. appepa X apaev Ln. Tf. — roj^ Opovov., prmm. npos Gb. 9. ^XeyJAOvariu X ^Xenovaiv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Sch. Ln. Tf. 6. e^ei, a(Z(Z. €Ket Gb. Sch. Tf. — ra TTToaixaTa X to nrcofia Gb. - Tpecficoaiv X eKvpecpcoa-iv Tf. Sch. Ln. Tf. JC6^^.] - KOI yfjLiav, om. Koi Tf. 7. 6, ad(Z. re Ln. — dcl)r](rovai X d(f)i.ovcriv Ln. — irroXeprjo-av X toC TroXeprj- Tf. a-ai Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — /jLvrjixara X jJ-vrifia Gb. Sch. - Kara X /xera Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Ln. Tf. 8. 'ia-xva-av \ tcrxvcrev Gb. Sch. 10. xapovo-iv X X^'^P^^^''^ ^^• - ovre X ovde Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Sch. Ln. Tf. — avTcov X avroj Gb. <^. lAlx.} — €vd€LpovTas X ^lacpdei- cv]. Jte. pavras Ln. 19. ei/ r<5, prcem. 6 Ln. Chap. XTTT. - auroO i°Xtov Kvpiov Gb. Sch. I. ii€ 6r]picd Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - drjpico, add. Kal Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. - dvvarai X ^vvutos Gb. <^. [Cs«.3 g. ^Xaacfirjpias % ^Xaa^r^piav Tf. [Gb. ~] Cs«. ; ^XddCpT]- pa Ln. [Gb. ~]. — TTOLrjcrai Gb, =? ; prcem. no- Xepov Elz. — Svo, prcem. Kal Ln. 6. ^Xaacjirjpiav X ^Xaacprjpias Ln. Tf. — KOI rouy, om. Kat Ln. [^?a;,] Gb. =J. 7. Kat iboOr} avrco TToXepov TTOirjcrai perd tS)v dytcor, Kat viKrjcrai avTovs., om. Ln. — TToXepov TTQirjcrai X TTOLrjaat noXepov Tf. — cj)vXr]V, add. Kal Xabv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 8. auTG) X auroi/ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - oovX ov Ln. Tf. — Ta ovopara X ro ovopa Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ; add. avrov Ln. Tf. - TJ] /3i/3Xaj X ra /3t/3Xi(» Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — iacjiaypevov, prcem. rov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 0. alxpaXcocriav cvvdyei X ^h alxpaXcoalav Ln. Tf. ; alx arrdyei Gb. ~. — et? alxpaXcocriav VTrdyei, om. Ln. - paxalpa X paxaiprj Ln. Tf. . aTTOKrej/et X dnoKTaivcL Ln.; om. Tf. fxaxaLpa X M^X^'P?? ^"- Tf- . TTOtei X iiToUi Tf. KaroiKovi^as' eV aur^ X ^v avTjj KoroiKovvras Gb. Sch. Tf.' TTpoa-Kwrjo-coa-t X Trpoo-Kvvr)- (Tovaiu Ln. Tf. , iva Kat TTvp X /cat Tri'p ti'a Gb. Sch. Kara^alveiv €K tov ovpavov X ex ToC ovpavov KaralBai- veLV [Gb. Sch.] Ln. Tf.; Ka- ra^fj Gb. ; KaTajBaipr} Sch. elKova X (LKovav Ln. 6 X oy Ln. Tf. e^et X fi'x^ *^^- ~- ^•*^* fxaxaipas X jJiaxaiprjs Ln.Tf. avro) X avTTJ Ln. TTOiTjar], add. Lva Ln. ai/ X fav Ln. Tf. TT]v cIkovu X "T^ elKon Gb. Sch. ti/a, am. Ln. 8a)o-T) X S&jtnv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ; ddiaovcnv Gb. ~. Xapaypa X X^P^JP-'^''''^ ^^• Twi' p.€Ta)7ra)V X to percoTTOP Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Kat ti/a, o»i. Kal Ln. [Gb. =5]. bvvrjrai \ dvuarat Tf. ^, GOT. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. TO ovop,a X TOV 6v6p.aTos Ln. Tou vovp, om. TOP Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. X^s X ^^aKoaioi e^rjKOVTa e^ Ln. txt. ; e^aKocTLOt de- Kae^ Ln. mg. Chap. XIV. apviov, 7;;-fEra. to Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. iaTTjKos X ecrrcbs- Tf. ; iaTos Ln. oVo/AO, af?(Z. auToG *cai to oj/o/ia Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. . cf)o)Pr]V ^Kova-a X t] (})a>pf) r]p jJKOvcra u)S Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. . (uf, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. TjdvpaTo X edvpGTO Ln. Tf. . fio"ti/ oi d/foXou^outTf ?, om. clo-ip Ln. Tf. [Gb. -•]• av X f"*' Tf. • imdyT] X vrrnyd Ln. . 8dXof X ^cvdos Gb. Sch. La Tf. REVELATION. 5. yap, om. Ln. [Gb. -♦]. — eva>Tnop rov 6p6vov tov Geou, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 6. ciXXop Gb. ::?. — TTCTcopepop X rreTop-epov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — euay-yeXtcrat, add. eVi Ln. Tf. [^?a;.] — KUTOiKovPTas X KadrjjjLepovs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Trar, prami. enl Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 7. Xeyoi/ra eV X Xeycoi' Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Geoi/ X Kvpiop Gb. <^. [Csf.] — ^aXacrcai/, jjroE?«. TTyi/Gb.Sch. Tf. 8. {iWos, add. bevTepos Ln. Tf. Alx. — errea-ep, om. Alx. — T] TToXi?, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — OTt X J? Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. — TOV 6vp.ov Gb. -*. — e^i^, 2jrcem. to. Ln. Tf. 9. Kat, flJf/. aXXoff Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Tpiros ayyfXos- X «yyfXo? TpLTOs Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf.; [rpt- TOff Gb. -]. — TO drjpiop Trpoa-KvpelX'n'pocr- Kvpel TO Orjpiop Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [o. Tcoi/, om. Ln. — dyt'coi/, o?n. Tf. [Gb. — ] ; j^^^t ayyeX. Ln. [I. dva^aipei eh alo)va^ aloivcov X (Is alcopas alcopcop dva- I3aivei Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [2. vTTopoPTj^ pram, rj Ln. Tf. — w5f, o?/i. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [3. jLiot, ow. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — dva7rav(TcovTai X dpanaTjaop- Toi Ln. Tf. — 8eJ yap Ln. [Gb. cv]. Alx. [4. Ka6i]^evos op.otus X Kadrjfxe- pop op.oiov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — TTjs Ke]• — c'x'^''? pncm. 6 Ln. Tf. 90 17. Kpavyfj X ^(oi/t; Ln. — jBoTpvas, add. Trjs dpineXov Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — rJKixacrap al aTacfivXai X ^'k- paaep 17 aTacpvXf} Tf. [Gb. f^]. Cst. — avTTJs X TTJs yi]S Tf. [Gb. ^J. Cst. 19. TT^i/ p.€ydXr]p X Toy p-eyap Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 20. e£ci) X '^^oaBep Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Chap. XV. 2. e'/c TOV x"-pdypciTos avTov., om. Gb. Sch, Ln. Tf. 3. SovXov, prcem. tov Ln. — dyt'coi' X ^dputp Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ; al(OPpr}s Sch. Ln. Tf. — ex TOV i/aov, om. Tf. [Gb. =t]. — /cat €Kx^aT€., om. Kal Tf. [Gb. — ] ; Kal eKX^STC Ln. — (jiidXas, pram. iivTa Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 2. eVi X cts- Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. — eh X fVi Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. — TTf cIkopc aVTOV TTpOaKVPOVV- Tas X irpo(TKVP. Tji (Ikopi avToi) Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 3. d'yyeXor, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. — C^^o'a, om. Sch. ; ^oo^y Gb. Ln. Tf [Gb. -*]. — drreBapev., add. to Ln. Tf. 4. d'yyeXoy, om. Gb. Sch. La. Tf. — els tos, om. eh Ln. 4. iyevero X eyevovTO Ln. 5. Kvpte, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Koi 6 o(Tios, om. Koi Gb. Sch. ; om. Koi 6 Ln. Tf. lAlx.} ; Kol 6 ecrofJLevos Elz. 6. edcoKas TTieiv X ^^dcoKas tuv Ln. — yap, OJH-. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 7. aXXou eV, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 8. (iyyikos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 9. e^Xa(r(f)r}fj.r]aav, add. ol civ- dpcdTTOi Sch. Tf. [Gb. ~]. — e^ovcriap, proem, ttjv Ln. Tf. 10. ayyeXos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ifxaaaajn-o X i{iaaa>VTO Ln. Tf. 12. ayyeXos^ om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Tov Evcppdrrjv, om. top Gb. Sch. — dvaroXcou X dvaroXrjs Gb. c^. 13. o/iota ^arpdxois X <»y /3a- rpaxoi Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 14. baijxovcov X ^aipLOVLwv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — eKiropevecrdat X « eKiropev- €Tai Gb. Sch. Tf. [Gb. ->] ; stc si/ie a Ln. — TTJs yrjs Koi^ om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — TToXeixov, prcem. rbv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ~ f]p.€pas iKe[vT]s ti]s p-eydXrjs X ixeydXrjs rjfiepas cKeivrjs Gb. -»; p.ey, rjfxep. Ln. 16. *Apfiayyed8(i)v X 'A-pfiaye- 8d>u Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ; Ma- yeScoz/ Gb. ~. 17. ayyeXos, om. Gb. Sch.Ln.Tf. — eh X eVt Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. — fLeydXr), om. Ln. [Gb. -*]. — aTTO X ^K Ln. [Gb. cvi]. — TOV ovpavovj om. Ln.Tf. [Gb. ^]. ^ ^ 18. (jycoval Koi ^povToi Koi dcTT- paTToi X do-TpaTTal kol (pco- va\ Koi ^povToX Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — iyeveTO Gb. -». — OL auOpcoTTOi eyevovTO X av- dpcoTTOS iyevero Ln. Tf. 79. eTrecrov X eTreaav Ln. Tf. Chap. XYII. I. /iot, OTO. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — rav vbuTcov tcov ttoXXwv X vduTcov TToXXcov Ln. [Gb. cv]. REVELATION. 2. e/c Toi) o'lvov ttjs nopveias avTTJs ol KoroiKovvTes ttjv yrju X oi kotolk. ttjv yrju e/c TOV o'lvov Trjs TTopvelas av- Trjs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 3. eldov X elda Ln. Tf. — yep,ov X yefiOVTU (seq. 6v6- p-ara) Ln. — ovop-drcnv X Ta ovofxaTa Tf. 4. 17 TvepL^e^Xrjp.evT} X ^z' Trept- /3ei3. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — TTOpCJivpa Koi KOKKLVCO X WOp- CJiVpOVV Koi KOKKLVOV Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Acai, om. Tf. Ln. Tf. — XP'^O'OVV TTOTTjpLOV X TTOTT]- pLOV xpvo-ovv Sch. Ln. Tf. — aKaddprrjTOs X Tot aKadapTU TTJs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — avr^s X T^s y^y Tf. [Gb. t^]. Cst. 6. eldov X fi"Sa Ln. Tf. 7. croi epS) X ^/3« o"ot Ln. Tf. [Csf.] 8. OrjpLOVj prcem. to Gb. Sch.Ln. Tf. — VTrdyeiv X vrrdyeL Ln. Tf. — eVt T^s yrjs X ''■171' y^^ Cs^. — 6avp.daoPTai X OavjxaadTj' a-ovrat Ln. Tf. — Oil yeypanrai X ovk iyeypa- Ttro Ln. — ra 6v6p,aTa X to ovofxa Sch. Ln. Tf. — TO ^ljSXlov X TOV ^i^Xlov Cst. — ^XeTTOvres X ^Xeirovrau Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ro drjpLOV OTL r]v\ on. rju TO drjp. Cst. — Kairvep icTTLV X fai udpeaTai Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 9. op?; eto-ti/ eTTra X evrra oprj elarlu Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 10. KOL 6 els, om. kol Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 12. OVTTCO X O^*^ I^H' — dXX' X aXAa Ln. 13. yv(i)p,i]v exovcri X e;!(ova-ti/ yvaip.r)v Gb. Sch. Tf. — Tjyy e^ovcriav, om. ttjv Ln. Tf. — eavTMV X avT&v Ln, Tf. [Gb. ~]. Cs«. — Sta8tSft)0-oi»o-iv X StSoacrti/ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 15. Xeyei X ftVev Ln. 91 16. em X fat Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 17. KOL TTOirjaai p.Lavyvd>p.r]v, om. Ln. — p-iav yva>p.r]v X yva)p,r}V fxlau Gb. Sch. Tf. — TeXeaBfi X TeXecrdrja-ovTai Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ; TeXea-doi- p.ovX KLvvdficop.ov ILn. Tf. ; ac?(Z. KOt ap,(op.ov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 14. rr]s enidvixias t^s "^^XV^ crov X 0^0^ T^s eTTiO. t^s yjrvxrjS Ln. Tf. — dnriXdev 2" X dnooXeTO Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ov fiT] €vpr](Ti]S avrd X avra ov firj evpTjs Tf. ; [evprjs Gb. <^ Cat.]; avTO. ov [xr] evprj- (TOVCTLV Ln. 16. Kol \eyovT€S^ om. Koi Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. rt]. — (3va(nuov X kokklvov Ln. — KOKKIVOV X ^vacTLvou Ln. — eV, 0771. Ln. [Gb. =?]. — XP'^^^} X XP^^'^V ^^- Sc^- 1^^- Tf. — p.apyapiTaLsXp.apyap'iTr^'Ln. I), enl Ta)V nXoicov 6 opaXos X 6 eTTt Tonop TrXecov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 18. €Kpa(ov X eKpa^av Ln. — o/jcoi/Te? X iSXeVoires- Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — TToXet, «r7(Z. Tavrrj Ln. 19. e(3aXov X e^aXav Ln. ; eTre- ^aXoI/ Tf. — eKpa^ov X eKpa^au Ln. — Xeyoi/res-, pram, kol Gb. ^\ — TrXota, 2i7'cem. to. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 20. avTr)v X avT^ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ayioi, add. Koi ol Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 21. p.v\ov X fivKivov Ln. 23. (^ai/^ ei/, om. ej/ Ln. — ot epLTTopoi, om. ol Ln. 24. ai/^a X alfiara Gb. Sch. Tf. Chap. XIX. 1. Kai /iera, o??i. /cat Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — (})ciivrjv, x>rce,in. 6€ip€ X ^lecfideipe Gb. <-^. rJ^f X^'Pos") 0'«- '■^f v, add. re Sch. Tf. [Gb. 19. avTwv X auTou Ln. - TToXepiov, p7-cem. tov Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. c.]. 20. pera toutou 6 X M^r' atiroO 6 Ln. ; 6 per' airoi) Gb. Sch. Tf. - Tr]V Kaiop.evr]v X Trjs Kaiop.e- VT}s Ln. - TO) ^f/o), om. TO) Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.' 21. eKnopevo/jievr} X e^eXdovaij Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Chap. XX. 1. /cXeiSa X kXc^v Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 2. Toi/ o^ti/ Toi/ dpxalou X o o^ty 6 ap^ntoff Ln. Tf. - 'Saravas., ^jrcem. 6 Ln. Tf. 3. e/cXeia-ei/ avTov, om. avTov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - TrXavrjarj X TrXam Tf. - ra eduT] €ti X f Tt ra edprj Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - /cat pcTO, OTO. /cat Ln. Tf. [Gb. - avTou Xvdrjvat X Xv^jjvai au- Tov Ln. Tf. 4. TO) drjpLCO X TO drjpiov Gb. Sch. Ln.' Tf. - cure X ovbe Ln. Tf. - Trj cIkovl X TJ^i' iiKova St. Ln. Tf. [Gb. '^]. Cst. - i^ieTcoTTOv avrau, om. avTwv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - XptcTToO, prmm. tov Elz, Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - Ta xt'Xta, om. to. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 5. Se, 0771. Ln. Tf. - dve^T](rav X ^^Cw^^ Grb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - ecoy X "Xpi Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 6. OdvuTOs 6 dfVTepos X SfU- Tepos BdvaTOS Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - pcT* atroO X p-ffd TavTa Gb. -. [C6<.] 7. oral/ TeXiaOr] X /xcto Gb. i^. [Cs^.] 8. TO J/ Maycay, om. tov Ln. I \ 8. TToKcfiov, prcmi. Tov Scb. Ln. Tf. [Gb. cs.]. - dpidnos, add. avTcov Gb, Sch. Ln. Tf. 9. €KvK\a>aravX e/cu/cXf vcrav Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]..Csf. — dwo TOV Qeov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -»] ; post ovpavov Gb. Sch. 10. OTTOU, add. KoX Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 11. XevKov fj-eyap X p^^yav Xeu- Kov Gb. Sch, Ln. Tf - avTov X avTov Gb. Sch. Tf. — Tvpotjayrrov, prami. rov Ln. 12. [XLKpoiis Ka\ p-eyaXovs X tovs /xeyaXous Kal rov? [xiKpovs Ln. Tf. - Qeov X Bpovov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - rjveaxdr](Tav X r]V0ix6r]crav Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - ^i^Xiov aXXo X aXXo /3t/3- Xioz/ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf — rjvecpx^n X T}voLxOr} Ln. Tf. 13. ef avT^ veKpovs X veKpovs Tovs iv avrfi Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — ebcoKav X edcoKev Ln. — eV avrois veKpovs X veKpovs TOVS ev avTols Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 14. eoTti/ 6 bevrepos Bavaros X 6 ^av. 6 Sevr. eorii/ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ; add. f] Xip-vrj TOV TTvpos Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. i^ TTJ jBl^Xa X ra /3t/3Xta) Gb. f^. ICst.J Chap. XXI. 1. TraprjXOe X dirrjXOav Ln. Tf. ; arrriXOov Gb. Sch. 2. iycb 'icodvj/rjs, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - eidov, post KaLvfjV Gb. Sch.Ln. Tf. — OTTO TOV Qeov eK tov ovpa- vov X cK TOV ovpavov dwo TOV 6eov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 3. ovpavov X Bpovov Ln. Tf. - Xaol X Xaos Gb. Sch. Tf [Rec. Gb. ~]. — ecTTai p.eT avTav X P-^t au- Ta>v eorat Gb. Sch. Ln. — Qebs avTwv X avTwu Beds Ln. [Gb. =?]. 4. 6 Gfoy, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf - (1770 )( CK Ln. REVELATION. 4. ort, o?n. Ln. - dTrrjXBov X aTT^X^az/ Ln. Tf. $. TOV Bpovov X T« Bpovco Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - jjioi, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. - TToyra TTOto) X TTOiS) TrdvTa Ln.Tf. - jLioi, OTO. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - dXr]BLvo\ Ka\ TTtaTOi X TTtorot Kat dXrjBivoi Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 6. Teyove \yeyovav Ln. Tf [Gb. ^] ; yeyova Gb. ~ ; [om. eyco ei/ii]. [Csi.] - AX"AX(/)aLn. Tf. - Scocro), ckZc?. avr« Sch.Tf. [Gb, ~]. [Cs^.] 7. irdvTa X ravra Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - 6 tiioy, om. 6 Ln. Tf. 8. SeiXoTy 8e X TOiy Se SeiXots Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - dnia-Tois, add. Ka\ afxapTco- Xols Sch. [Gb. ~]. - (papp-aKevcTL X (f>app,aKo7s Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf 8. bevrepos BdvaTOS X o Bdv. 6 devT. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 9. Trpos- p.e, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - €1?, add. eK Sch. Ln. Tf [Gb. ~3. - Tas yefiovcras, om. tcls Tf. ; ToiiV yepLOVTcav Ln. - Ta)V eTrra, om. tcov Tf. [Gb. -]. ^ - T^I/ VVp,(fir]V TOV dpVLOV TT]V yvvalKO^T-qv yvv. ttjv vvp,deKa, om. Ln. - eVri, add. to. ovop^aTa Ln. ; add. 6v6p.aTa Tf. - rmy vl5>v., om. t5>v Ln. Tf. 3. 'Att' ai/aroX^y X "tto dvaTO- Xa)v Tf. ; a7r6 dvaToXrjs Gb. Sch. Ln. 93 13. aTTO, 2»YBJW, Kat fer Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. cv]. 14. ev avTols 6v6p.aTa X eV av- Tav ha>heKa 6v6p,aTa Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. i^. elx^, add. p,eTpov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 16, ToaovTov ea-Tiv, om,. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - Kal TO TrXaTOs 1°, Kal Gb. =r. - (TTadioiv X a-Tadiovs Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - doideKa X deKadvo Tf. 18. ^v, o??^. Ln. - 6/ioia X op.oiov Ln. Tf [Gb. 19. Ka\ ol Bep,eXioi^ om. Koi Ln. Tf [Gb. -*]. - XaXKTjdav X X^pi^V^^^ Grb. C\!. 20. craphovv^ X crapdtovv^ Ln. - (rdpdios X cdpdiov Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Cs«. - xP'^O'drrpaa-os X XP'^^^^P^' (TOV Ln. 21. 8La(f)avr}s X Siauy?)? Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 22. i/aoy, prcem. 6 Ln. 23. eV ayr^, om. eV Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - T] yap X yap rj Gb. 00. [Cst.} 24. ra e^j/?; tS>v aco^op,eva)v ev r(5 <^a)ri avTrjs TrepnraTr]- (Tova-i, \7repnraTr](rovaiv to. eBvj] 8ia TOV (f)a)T6s avTrjs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - Ka\ Trjv Ti.p.r]v, o?ra. Ln.Tf [Gb. 2^. Koivovv X Koivbv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - TVOLOVV X O TTOtoiv Tf ; TTOlSjV Ln. [Gb. ~]. Cs«. Chap. XXII. 1. KaBapov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 2. ivTevBev X eKelBev Ln. Tf. [Gb. t^]. - /xTyz/a X p-rjvav Ln. - eVa, o?ra. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. - eKao'TOv dirobibovv \ dno- dtdoiis eKaa-Tov Tf. iCst.} ; drrodLdovs eKaa-Tos Gb, f^ [Cst.} ; aTToSiSovs' eKacrTa Gb. ~. 3. KaTavdBep,a X KaTdBep.a Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf - en X f'/^fi Gr^' ~- ICst.'] eK€7 X eTt Gb. Sell. Ln, ; om. Tf. [Gb. zi]. Xpeiav ovK e'xovai X "^X e^ovaiv -x^pciav Ln. [Gb. ^] Alx. ; ou xpf '« Gb. Sch. Tf. \v)(yov^ prcem. (pcoTos Ln. ^[Gb. ~]. 17X101;, om. Tf. (pcoTi^ei X <^ci)Tiet eV Gb. Sch. Tf. ; (ptoTiaet err Ln. [eV Gb. -]. efrre X Aeyei Gb. ~. iCsf] Kvpios, prcem. 6 Ln. dyicou X TTvevfidrcov tcop Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 'iSou, prcem. kol Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. Kat eyo) X Ln. Tf. ^X€7ra>v Tavra kol aKOvcov X aKovo)!/ Koi jSXeVcoi/ raura Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. e^Xe\lra X ore eJdov Tf. [Gb. ~]. Csf. erreaa X eireaov Elz. Gb. Sch. yap, ow. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. OTi, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Kaipbs., add. yap Ln. [Gb. pvnSiv pvTraadra X pvrrapos pvTrapevOrjTOi Gb. Sch. [Ln.] Tf. ; [pvTrav6rjT(0 Ln.] REVELATION. 11. 8tKaia>6fjTco X dLKaioavuTjv TTOirjaaTco Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 12. Kat iSou, o?rt. Ka\ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — avTOv earaL X fOTti/ avTOv Ln. Tf. ; [eVri Gb. -»]. 13. et/xi, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — AX''AX(^aLn. Tf. — dpxrj Ka\ reXos, 6 TrpaJroy Kat 6 eo-xctToy X Trpwroy kui eaxaros, t) apxr) Ka\ to re- Xoy [Gb. Sch.] Ln. Tf ; [6 7rp. K. 6 eo-;^, Gb. Sch.] 14. ol 7rOLOVVT€S TCIS ivToXciS ttV- Tov X ol nXvvovTes rds (tto- Xds avTcou Ln. [Gb. ~]. ; Tf. ed. 1° lAlx.] 15. Se, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — 6 (piXcop., om. 6 Ln.Tf. [Gb. =J]. 16. eVt, owi. Tf. ; ev Ln. [Gb. -^]. — Tov Aa/3tS, o?«. roO Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — /cat, om. Sch. Tf. — opOpivos X o Ttpoiivos Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 17. 'EX^e his X €/JX°^ ^^ G^- S<^^- Ln. Tf. — eXderco X ipx^o-dco Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. — Kat 6 2°, om. Kat Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 94 .us: Xap-^aveTOi to X Xa^era Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 'S.vfip.apTVpovpiaL yap X /xap- Tvpco ey« Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. aKovovTL., prcem. tco Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. imTLdfj X inidfj Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Trpo? ravTa X fV aird Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. /3t/3Xta), prmm. Ta Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. df^iaipf] X aeXr] Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. /3i/3Xoi; 1° X rov ^i^Xlov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. d(paipr]a-€i X acpeXel Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. /3t/3Xou X rov ^vXov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. eK, om. Ln. Ka\ rav, om. Ka\ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. /3t/3Xia), jprcBOT. T« Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Nat, 0}n. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. rjixcov^ om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. XptaTOV, om. Ln. Tf. vp.a>v. ^AiXT]v, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -»] ; rw;/ dyiau Gb. Sch. IN THE PRESS, THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, EDITED FROM ANCIENT AUTHOEITIES, WITH THE VAEIOUS EEADINGS OF ALL THE ANCIENT MSS., OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS, AND OF THE EARLTES, ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS (to EUSEBIUS inclusiye). TOGETHER "WITH THE LATIN YERSION OF JEEOME, From the Codex Amiatinus of the sixth century. BY S. P. TREGELLES, LL.D. This edition is the result of the labour and study of many years, devoted to the object of setting forth the Text of the Greek 'New Testament, in accord- ance with the best authorities, so as to give it as exactly as possible in the very vi^ords of the inspired writers. To this end the editor has himself collated every accessible ancient document, and has compared every early citation; so that he hopes, by the blessing of God, that the forthcoming edition may possess distinctive value for the Biblical student. One volume, quarto, price ^68. 3s. Prospectuses and Specimen Pages may be obtained on application to the Editor, Portland Square, Plymouth ; or to Messrs. Bagster coid Sons, 15, Paternoster Ron), London. THE CODEX MONTFORTIANUS : A COLLATION OF THIS CELEBEATED MS., IN THE LIBRAEY OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN, THROUGHOUT THE GOSPELS AND ACTS, WITH THE GREEK TEXT OF WETSTEIN, AND WITH CERTAIN MSS. IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. BY OKLANDO T. DOBBIN, LL.D., T.C.D., M.R.LA. ONE VOLUME, OCTAVO. The Manuscript collated in this volume has obtained an unusual degree of notoriety, from its being the oldest MS. containing the disputed verse of 1 John v. 7 : " There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these three are one." The history of the introduction of that verse into the third edition of the Grf^eli Testament by Erasmus has always awakened the liveliest interest in the critical world, as a mere enumeration of the names of the chief writers upon it will show ; and Erasmus never pleaded any authority save that of this MS. for its insertion. Known to him as the Codex Britannicus in the early part of the sixteenth century, it was imperfectly collated in the middle of the seventeenth, for the magnificent Polyglot of Bishop Walton, as the Codex Montfortii; and eventually became the property of Trinity College, Dublin, along with the books of the learned Ai'chbishop Ussher, where it still bears the same designation. From the Epistle to the Romans to the end of the Apocalypse, this remarkable Codex was most carefully and minutely collated, at the beginning of the present century, by the extraordinary labour of the Kev. Dr. Jolm Barrett, Yice-Provost of the Dublin University, in an Appendix at the close of his quarto volume on the Palimpsest Gospel of MattheAV, so that upon this portion of the MS. nothing more was to be desired ; but the collation of the earlier part for the Polyglot was so defective, as to loudly call for a renewed examination of the Gospels and Acts, to which purpose the present volume is devoted. Fifteen hundred readuigs more than those communicated to Walton by Ussher are adduced in it, all tending to exhibit the pe- culiar character of the document, and to confirm Dr. Adam Clarke's assertion concerning the original sci-ibe, that he was " by no means sparing of his own conjectural emendations." But a further declaration of that distinguished divine has been falsified by the investiga- tions of the present editor. In Dr. Clarke's Essay on 1 John v. 7, he says of the Codex Montfortii, " how far the •writer has in any place faithfully copied the text of any ancient MS. is more than can be determined." Not\vitlistanding which, the exact amount of the writer's debt to existing MSS. has been ascertained in the present volume, through the discovery, at Oxford, of the original documents from which it was copied. The results are given in the shape of careful com- parison in this publication, which, to those who appreciate works of textual criticism, ought to be one of great interest and value. It goes far to consummate the controversy conducted during the last three centuries by Erasmus, Lee, Stunica, Colinxus, Stephens, Beza, Luther, Simon, Buniet, Smith, Kettner, Howe, Hammond, Mill, Emlyn, Martin, Le Long, Calamy, Smallbrooke, Bentley, Mace, Bengel, Wetstein, De Missy, Newton, Benson, Gibbon, Travis, Porson, 3Iichaelis, tlie Bishop of Peterborough, Semler, Wagner, Knittel, Bowring, Bishop of Salisbury, Bishop of Ely, Dr. J. Pye Smith, Griesbach, Nolan, Oxlee, Scholz, Black, author of I'alaeoromaica, Huyshe, Home, etc., etc. I'lie labours of Dr. Barrett and Dr. Dobbin together form a more full and minute colla- tion of this particular MS., than that which any other US. in existence perhaps lias re- ceived at the hands of its critics, and disposes for ever of the learned Semler's wonder .— " Mi- rum eat viros doctos ejus insula; nondum in clariori luce collocasse hujus codicis historiam." y ' IBD78