D "/give theft Books' fpi'Mkfavfidikgif aCoUtge, in this Colony" >Y^LIl«¥MI¥IEI&Sinnf« • iLnisiEs^mr • DIVINITY SCHOOL TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. FOURTH SERIES. VOL. XXVI. J3Ieefe'g ferotftutton to the flffo CtatatiKtit. VOL. II. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. MDCCCLXX. PRINTED BT MUEEAT AND GIBB, FOB T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN, JOHN EOBEETSON AND CO. NEW TOEK, SOEIBNEE AND CO. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. BY FRIED RICH BLEEK. EDITED ET JOHANNES FRIEDRICH BLEEK, PFARRER. Cranalatett from tlje ©errnan of the |*>econ& ffi&ttion, BY THE EEV. WILLIAM UEWICK, M.A. VOL. II. EDINBTJEGH: T. & T. CLAEK, 38, GEOEGE STEEET. MDCCCLXX. NOTE BY TRANSLATOR. HE Translator, in completing this second volume, has with sorrow to record the death of the Rev. John Friedrich Bleek, the pious and able editor of this his sainted father's work. The notes hearing his signature, and the numerous insertions in brackets made by him as editor, but faintly indicate the fine scholarship which his friends hoped would have borne fruit — had it pleased God to spare him — in labours worthy of his father's fame. He was taken to his rest, after a lingering illness, on August 3, 1869. CONTENTS OF YOL. II. PART I. THE PAULINE EPISTLES {Continued). PAGE The Epistle to the Galatians (§ 155), ... 1 St. Paul's Life, continued, down to the First Roman Imprisonment (§ 156, 157), .... 5 Chronology of St. Paul's Life (§ 158), . . .11 The Epistle to the Philippians (§ 159, 160), ... 15 The Epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon (§ 161-172)— § 161. Koman or Csesarean Imprisonment, . . 20 § 162, 163. Epistle to the Colossians, ... 22 § 164. Epistle to Philemon, .... 29 § 165. Inquiry, concerning the Imprisonment presupposed in these Epistles, concluded, ... 31 § 166. Genuineness, . . . 33 § 167. Epistle to the Ephesians. Difficulties which it presents as addressed to Ephesus, . . 36 § 168. Genuineness, ..... 38 § 169-171. Conjecture as to the primary Destination of the Letter, ..... 40 § 172. The Composition of these three Epistles in relation to Colossians, ..... 50 CONTENTS. End of St. Paul's Life, and the Pastoral Epistles (§ 173-187)— § 173. Literature of the Controversy concerning the Pastoral Epistles, § 174. Main Considerations against their Genuineness, § 175, 176. St. Paul's Second Roman Imprisonment and Martyrdom, .... § 177-179. Epistle to Titus, § 180. Timothy's Life, .... § 181-183. Second Epistle to Timothy, § 184. First Epistle to Timothy ; Circumstances implied § 185. Personal Reference of these,' § 186. Other Considerations against its Genuineness, § 187. Conclusion arrived at, . Apocryphal Pauline Epistles (§ 188), 51 54 566369 7177 81 84 9091 The Epistle to the Hebrews (§ 189-201) — § 189. Its Title and Language, § 190. Its Epistolary Character, . § 191. The Writer not St. Paul; (a) inferred from Hints in the Epistle itself, § 192. (i) Inferred by Comparison with the Pauline Epistles, .... § 193, 194. (c) Inferred from External Testimony, § 195. Theory of the Pauline Authorship ; of a Forgery, § 196. Conjectures concerning the Writer, § 197. Luke, Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Silas, § 198. Apollos the probable Writer, § 199. Readers, ..... § 200. Occasion, Design, Contents, § 201. Time and Place of Writing, 92 9394 97 103 111113115 118122126130 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES (§ 202-228). § 202. Designation ; Latin Designation, . . .131 The Epistle of St. James (§ 203-208)— § 203-205. James the Lord's Brother and the other Jameses in the N. T., . . . . 135 CONTENTS. PAGE § 206. Readers ; Time of Composition, . , . 144 § 207. Design, Contents, Character, Language, . . 146 § 208. Genuineness, ..... 147 The Epistle of St. Jude (§ 209, 210), . . . .151 The Petrine Epistles (§ 211-222)— § 211, 212. Life of the Apostle Peter, . . .156 § 213-216. First Epistle of St. Peter— § 214. Readers, Contents, Occasion, . . 166 § 215. Language ; Dependence on James and Paul ; Genuineness, . . . 168 § 216. When written, . . . .171 § 217-222. Second Epistle of St. Peter— § 217. Spuriousness. I. Its Relation to Jude, . 172 § 218. II. External Evidence, . . .176 § 219. III. Relation to 1st Peter, . . .179 § 220. IV. Ch. i. 16 sqq. and iii. 15, 16, . . 182 § 221. Supposed Interpolations, . . .183 § 222. Conclusion concerning the Origin of the Epistle ; its Moral Value, . . 184 The Epistles of St. John (§ 223-228)— §223. First Epistle ; Writer, . . . .186 § 224. Epistolary Character ; Relation to the Gospel ; Readers ; Time and Place of Writing, . . 188 § 225. Design and Contents. Polemic against Docetism. Ch. v. 7, 8 considered, . . .190 § 226-228. Second and Third Epistles, . . .192 The Revelation (§ 229-237)— § 229. Various Opinions concerning the Writer ; Time of Composition, ..... 200 § 230. Design, Purport, and Use of the Book, . . 202 § 231-234. Purport and Design of the Book, with an Analysis of its Contents, Parts 1 and 2, . 208 § 235. When written, ..... 226 § 236, 237. Author, ..... 227 CONTENTS. PART II. HISTORY OF THE CANON. PAGE § 238, 239. The Conceptions "Canonical," "Apocryphal," considered, ..... 233 § 240, 241. Down to the End of the Second Century, . 237 § 242-244. State of the Canon at the End of the Second and the Beginning of the Third Century, . 242 § 245. Third Century (Origen and others), . . 249 § 246. Fourth Century (Eusebius and others), . . 253 § 247-249. Final Arrangement and Closing of the Canon in the latter half of the Fourth Century — In the Greek Church, . . . .261 § 250-252. In the Western Church, . . .267 § 253. The Syrian Church, . . . .273 § 254-257. From the Reformation to Modern Times, . 274 § 257. Testimonies of the Protestant Churches concerning the Traditional Canon, . . . 281 § 258-260. Remarks on the Canonicity of the several Books ...... 282 PART III. HISTOEY OF THE TEXT. HISTORY OF THE TEXT IN ITS OUTWARD FORM (§ 261-266). § 261. (1) Uncial and Cursive Writing, . . . 290 § 262. (2) Stichometry, Punctuation, Division of Words, 291 § 263. (3) Accents, Breathings, Iota Sttbscriptum, . 296 §264. (4) Division into Chapters and Verses. Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons, . . 297 § 265. (5) Lectionaries, . 302 § 266. (6) Titles and Postscripts, . , , 303 CONTENTS. INTERNAL HISTORY OF THE TEXT (§ 267-303). § 267. Desire for Autographs, .... I. Manuscript Text (§ 268-296)— Testimonies for the Text (§ 268-291)— A. Greek Manuscripts (§ 268-273) — § 268. 1. Contents of the Manuscripts ; 2. Material ; 3. Outward Form ; 4. Considerations to decide the Origin of a Manuscript ; 5. Codices Pari, Mixti, Bilingues, Grmco- Latini ; 6. Lectionaries ; 7. Designations for the several Manuscripts, § 269. The Oldest and most important Uncial Manu scripts, .... § 270. Codices Grxco-Latini, . § 271. Other old Uncials, § 272. Fragments of Old Manuscripts, . § 273. Manuscripts historically remarkable, B. Old Versions (§ 274-290)— § 274. General Remarks, § 275, 276. Eastern Versions: I. Syriac, § 277. II. -Tal tov vo/jlov), and how strongly they had felt against him when they heard of his teaching the Jews who lived among the Gentiles " to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs." This accusation, as they put it, was probably unfounded; but we may infer from it, that in the Pauline Churches there were many believing Jews living in 8 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. close intimacy with their Gentile brethren, and who, being separated from their countrymen, no longer adhered to the strict observance of the Jewish law, and perhaps ceased for mally to incorporate their new-born children by circumcision into the fellowship of the Jewish people. St. Paul was ad vised to join himself with four Jewish Christians who had taken a Nazarite vow upon them, and to pay for them the charges made in order to release them from their vow, and thus to show that he had no wish to violate the Mosaic law. This advice he followed. But after seven days a tumult was raised against him by certain Jews from Asia, who saw him in the temple, and thought that he had brought with him a Greek, Trophimus the Ephesian, and thus had dese crated the temple. He was hurried out of the temple, and would probably have been killed by the impetuous fury of the mob, if he had not been rescued by the chief captain of the Roman cohort. He ordered him to be bound and taken into the castle, from the steps of which, having obtained his permission, St. Paul spoke to the people in Aramaean. At first they listened attentively to the account he gave of his conversion ; but when he told them how he had seen a vision in the temple, and had been directed to go to the Gentiles, a passionate cry broke forth against him, where upon the chief captain brought him into the military quarters of the cohort. The chief captain was then going to examine him, and find out who and what he was, by scourging, but he forbore when he heard that Paul was a Roman citizen. On the following day he loosed him from his bonds, and had him brought before the Sanhedrim, where, when St. Paul declared that he was persecuted on account of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees in the council. The chief captain, fearing lest Paul should fall a victim to their rage, had him brought again into the castle. A number of Jews now bound themselves by an oath that they would kill Paul whenever he was again brought through the streets to appear before the Sanhedrim. This led the chief captain, who had been informed of the plot hy Paul's sister's son, to send off PAUL'S LIFE CONTINUED. 9 the apostle by night with an escort of soldiers from Jeru salem to Cassarea, to the custody of the Jewish procurator there, (Antonius) Felix, who commanded him to be kept in Herod's palace till his accusers came (Acts xxiii. fin.). After the lapse of five days, the high priest Ananias, with other members of the Sanhedrim, and a Roman advocate named Tertullus, came to make a formal charge against Paul. Felix, however, postponed the decision, and kept Paul in confinement, but unbound, and permitted his friends to mini ster to him and visit him (Acts xxiv. 23). Felix himself often sent for him, and had interviews with him. Indeed, he would have liberated him if Paul had offered him money, and if he had not been afraid of further provoking the Jews, whom he had already alienated by his oppressive acts. Thus, when Porcius Festus succeeded him two years afterwards, he left Paul still a prisoner, and now again in chains (xxiv. 27). Festus having entered upon the duties of his office, the Jews renewed their charges against Paul. After about fourteen days, Festus brought him face to face with his accusers at Csesarea. He asked him if he would go up to Jerusalem — as the Jews before had requested — to be judged there ; but Paul appealed as a Roman citizen to Csesar, — an appeal which Festus at once acquiesced in (xxv. 1-12). St. Paul probably made this ajtpeal because, as we have seen, he had long before wished and planned to go to Rome ; and in a night vision, during his imprisonment in Jerusalem, the Lord had told him that he should go thither. Meanwhile Paul was once more brought forth for trial, when King Agrippa1 came, with his wife Berenice, to Csesarea to greet the new governor. Agrippa wished to see Paul, and Festus was glad to have the opportunity of bringing the matter before Agrippa as a Jew, because he did not distinctly understand upon what charge he should send Paul to the emperor. The speech which Paul made on this occasion did not fail to im press Agrippa, who declared, "This man might have been set 1 Agrippa II., who then held what had been the tetrarchy of Philip, with some districts in Persea and Galilee, together with the supervision of the temple in Jerusalem, and a voice in the election of the high priest. 10 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. at liberty if he had not appealed unto Csesar" (xxv. 13-xxvi. fin.). Paul was then handed over, with other prisoners, to the custody of a captain who was to convey them to Rome. A very beautiful and graphic account of this journey is given in the Acts (xxvii. xxviii.) by a fellow-traveller with the apostle, though not a fellow-prisoner, probably Timothy (§ 125). Aristarchus of Thessalonica was also with him, who had already accompanied him from Macedonia to Jerusalem (xx. 4), and who previously had been with him during his residence in Ephesus, and is described (Acts xix. 29) as one of his companions in travel. Throughout the journey Paul was treated by the captain with great kindness, and was for the most part allowed his freedom, so that he could hold converse with the Christian brethren at the various seaports at which the vessel called. Upon their journey they en countered many mishaps and dangers. They set sail in a ship bound for Asia Minor, and called at Sidon, where Paul visited his Christian friends ; then north of Cyprus, along the coasts of Cilicia and Pamphylia, to Myra in Lycia. There they went on board a ship of Alexandria sailing for Italy. Detained by contrary winds and slow sailing, they at length reached Crete. It was now late in the year, perhaps October (xxvii. 9) ; and sailing being uncertain and danger ous, Paul advised a postponement of the remaining voyage. His counsel was not acted upon, for they hoped to reach a better haven, Phenice, on the south-west coast of Crete. But in this they did not succeed. They were driven about on the high seas by a terrific storm, and the ship became utterly unmanageable. For fourteen days they were driven up and down in the Adriatic, and at length they were shipwrecked on the coast of Malta. All souls on board, 276 in number, were saved. Paul had frequently encouraged them by his hopeful words, and by telling them a vision which had been made to him. At Malta they were hospitably received, especially St. Paul and his friends, the apostle showing his miraculous gifts in shaking the viper from his hand, and healing many who had diseases on the island (xxviii. 1-10). They tarried in Malta three months, until the spring, when CHRONOLOGY OF PAUL'S LIFE. 11 they sailed in a ship of Alexandria, which had wintered in the isle, by way of Syracuse, where they stayed three days, and Rhegium, to Puteoli. There St. Paul found Christian brethren, acceding to whose request he stayed there seven days. Thence he went with his friends to Rome ; and the brethren from thence came to meet him, some to Appii Forum, and some to the Three Taverns (xxviii. 11-15). In Rome, St. Paul was not kept in custody with the other prisoners, but was suffered to dwell by himself in a hired house, with a soldier that kept him, to whom, according to the then prevailing custom, he was chained (Acts xxviii. 16, 20, 30). The book of the Acts then tells how during the first few days he had certain conferences with the Roman Jews, and concludes with the statement that he abode two whole years in his hired dwelling, receiving without let or hin drance all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God, and " teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence." §158. Before proceeding further, I here offer a few remarks upon the chronology of the Apostle Paul's life, as far as this is indicated in the statements of the Acts. The main point of reckoning to be considered is the date of the retirement of Felix from the governorship of Judea, and the coming of a new procurator, Porcius Festus, after Paul had been two years a prisoner at Csesarea. Upon his coming to Rome, Felix was called upon to vindicate himself against the charges of the Jews who came to accuse him from Csesarea, and he owed his acquittal only to the intercession of his brother Pallas in his behalf with Nero (Josephus, Ant. xx. 8. 9). Now, as Pallas was put to death in the year a.d. 62 (Tacitus, Annals, xiii. 2. 14), Felix must have come to Rome before this date, at the latest in the autumn of the year 61 -,1 so that the spring during which St. Paul arrived in Rome would be, at the latest, that of the year 62 a.d. There is another 1 [Lehmann, Stud. u. Krit. 1858, pp. 312 sqq., would put the recall of Felix in the year 58.] 12 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. reason for fixing this as the latest date for St. Paul's arrival, — namely, that in July 64 the great burning in Rome by Nero took place, together with the terrible persecution of the Christians there. Now, if Paul had only arrived in Rome in the spring of A.D. 63, he would have been there only a year before that great persecution, — a persecution wherein he would have been one of the first to suffer ; and he certainly could not in this case have preached two whole years in his hired house, no man forbidding him (Acts xxviii. 30, 31). But the apostle's arrival cannot be placed much earlier than the year 62, if our remarks in § 141 are correct. We have placed St. Paul's first visit to Corinth (Acts xviii. 1 sqq.) in the year a.d. 54, or possibly in 53. Reckoning onwards from this, we have first the residence in Corinth for at least one year and a half ; the residence at Ephesus (ch. xix.) of at least two years and a quarter, i.e. taking both together, about four years, — allowing one year for the journey from Ephesus over Macedonia to Jerusalem (from Pentecost one year to Pentecost in the next) = five years ; from the arrival in Jerusalem to the arrival in Rome, nearly three years, — making eight years. To this we must add some time for the journey (Acts xviii. 18 sqq.) from Corinth to Jerusalem and Antioch, through Galatia and Phrygia, onwards to the arrival at Ephesus, for which, considering the stay made at different places, at least half a year, and perhaps longer, must be allowed. Thus, for the interval between the first coming to Corinth, in Acts xviii. 1, and the arrival in Rome, a period of eight and a half years is required ; and putting the arrival in Corinth in the year 54, we are brought down beyond the year 62, which, as we have seen, is inadmissible. We thus are obliged to put the arrival in Corinth a little earlier, i.e. in the year 53. Many (e.g. Anger, Fritzsche, Wieseler, and others ; see above, § 136) reckon the fourteen years named in Gal. ii. 1 from St. Paul's conversion, and this obliges them to put the arrival in Corinth still earlier. But this way of reckoning the fourteen years is, if we examine the context, almost inadmissible. As St. Paul gives his dates in Gal. ii. simply in years (three and fourteen years), we need not CHRONOLOGY OF PAUL'S LIFE. 13 necessarily suppose that full years are meant in both cases ; possibly both periods together may have amounted to sixteen years, or a little over, so that the second visit to Jerusalem (Gal. ii. ; Acts xv.) may have taken place in a.d. 50, or at least in 51, and the first visit to Corinth in a.d. 53, which would give us nine years between and A.D. 62. But here another possible chronology suggests itself. We have esti mated the interval between St. Paul's seizure and imprison ment in Jerusalem and his arrival in Rome as three years ; and this is the usual term assigned to it, inferred from the statement in Acts xxiv. 27, that Felix after the lapse of two years (i.e. reckoning from the beginning of St. Paul's imprisonment) was succeeded in his office by Festus. It is barely possible that this may be an inexact way of saying that Festus came in the second year, i.e. late in the summer of the year following that during the passover of which St. Paul was seized. In this case we should need a year less for the space between the coming to Corinth and the arrival in Rome, and there would be nothing to hinder our taking the spring of 62 as the date of the arrival in Rome, and 54 as the year of the coming to Corinth ; or placing the coming to Corinth in 53, and dating tire arrival in Rome in the year 61. It is evident from this that a certain degree of uncer tainty must always attach to the chronology of the apostle's life, when we come to fix exact dates for each event and each epistle, — an uncertainty which, with the data we possess, we cannot altogether remove. This is the inference to whicli an unprejudiced consideration of the numerous works treating of the subject, and in particular that of so careful and dili gent a scholar as Wieseler, must lead. There are some other data in the Acts which have been used in chronological calculations concerning the Apostle Paul's life, and which, though they do not really help us, we may enumerate here. Acts xxiii. 2 and xxiv. 1 have been referred to, where, in the accusations of the Jews against Paul, Ananias is named as the high priest. Again, Acts xxi. 38, where, upon Paul's seizure in Jerusalem, the chief captain is represented as imagining that Paul was an Egyptian 14 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. Jew, who, irpo tovtcov tcop rj/jteptov, raised an insurrection (which Josephus also names). Further, Acts xxviii. 16, where in the received text it is stated that, upon their arrival in Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the crTpaTO- TreBapxTji;, i.e. to the prcefectus prcetorio. There were usually two prcefecti prcetorio ; and from the use of the singular here, it has been supposed that just at that time there was but one, viz. Afranius Burrhus, before and after whom there were two. Burrhus died in the first month of the year 62, and it is therefore inferred that Paul could not have arrived in Rome during this year, but must have come during the previous year. vThus Anger, Wieseler, and others argue. But even this is quite uncertain : for, as De Wette, in loc, rightly says, the t&> cTTpaToireha-p^-n does not by any means oblige us to suppose that there was at the time only one prcefectus prcetorio; and moreover these words are wanting in most of the oldest MSS., so that Lachmann expunges them altogether. But even supposing the argument correct, Paul might still have arrived in the year 62, very early in the year, while Burrhus was still living ; for we do not know the exact month and day of the month on which Burrhus died. We may, however, with tolerable certainty conclude that the apostle's arrival in Rome took place in the spring either of 61 or 62 — the latter seems to me the more probable — and his departure from Csesarea in the autumn previous. The dates of the preceding events will arrange themselves accord ingly. The seizure in Jerusalem took place at the passover three (or perhaps only two) years earlier, i.e. a.d. 59 or 60 ; and the journey from Ephesus to Macedonia and Achaia (Acts xx. 1) about Pentecost in the year before (58 or 59), in which same year both the Epistles to the Corinthians were written, from Ephesus and Macedonia, and in the winter the Epistle to the Romans from Corinth, and probably that to the Galatians. The coming to Ephesus (Acts xix. 1) will fall probably in the autumn of 55 or 56, and the first visit to Corinth (Acts xviii. 1) in 53 or 54 ; and during the same or the following year, certainly during the residence in Corinth, 1st and 2d Thessalonians were written. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 15 During St. Paul's imprisonment in Rome, and before the expiration of the two years mentioned in Acts xxviii. 30, 31, the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians were in all probability written. It is tolerably certain that all four were written during this two years' imprisonment, that the three first named were sent off about the same time; and the fourth, the Epistle to the Philippians, at a different time, but whether before or after the other three we cannot with certainty decide. THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. The Church at Philippi was founded by St. Paul (in the manner already described, § 140) upon his second great missionary journey with Silas and Timotheus (Acts xvi.) ; and he visited the Christians there a second time in the course of his subsequent European tour (Acts xx. 1 sqq.), upon his journey to Corinth, staying some time among them, and writing our 2d Corinthians, and upon the return journey spending Easter there. If, as we think at least possible (§ 146), St. Paul's preaching in Illyricum (Rom. xv. 19), to gether with the second visit to Corinth (which 2d Corinthians presupposes), took place during an intermediate European tour not related in the Acts, we may with tolerable certainty conclude that he then visited also the Macedonian churches, and that of Philippi in particular ; for a special intimacy subsisted between this Church and the apostle. The Philip- pian Christians, among whom were some people of substance, had repeatedly supplied the apostle with money when he was at Thessalonica and afterwards (Phil. iv. 15, 16) ; and to them in particular the apostle's observation in 2 Cor. xi. 9 refers, when he says that what was lacking to him at Corinth the brethren from Macedonia supplied. St. Paul accordingly praises the Macedonian Christians, having doubtless in mind those at Philippi in particular, for their very great liberality, even beyond their ability, towards their poorer brethren in Judea (2 Cor. viii. 1 sqq., ix. 4 ; Rom. xv. 26). 16 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. The Church at Philippi, like that at Thessalonica, consisted mainly, though not exclusively, of Gentile Christians, many of whom had before their conversion adopted the Jewish worship. This is evident partly from the account given in the book of the Acts of the first beginnings of the Church there ; and it is still more obvious from ch. iii. 2, 3 of the epistle, which implies that the majority of those whom the apostle had in his eye when writing, were believing Gentiles, and not of the circumcision. There had indeed been among them some Judaizing zealots endeavouring to persuade the Gentile Christians to submit to circumcision, and this from unworthy motives (Phil. iii. 2 sqq., 18, 19). But their efforts seem to have had little or no effect. There were dis sensions among the members (Phil. i. 27, ii. 2 sqq.), especially between two female members, perhaps deaconesses (iv. 2) ; but these differences were probably personal, arising from positiveness, and want of humility and a yielding spirit. Upon the whole, however, St. Paul had great cause for thankfulness and satisfaction with the state of the Church, and the zeal it displayed. It may, I think, with tolerable certainty be inferred from ch. iii. 1, that St. Paul had written a letter to the Philippians previous to the one which has come down to us, and after his last visit. This, indeed, we might naturally suppose to have been the case, when we consider the warm affection subsisting between the apostle and the Church, and their communicating with him in his necessity. This letter has been lost. Some have supposed, and even Meyer is of opinion, that in Polycarp, ad Phil. c. iii.,1 there is a testimony for a plurality of letters to the Philippian Church known to Polycarp. But this is a mistaken inference from the words, for in another place (ch. xi.2) it is clear that only one epistle was known to Polycarp. As to the occasion of the epistle : it appears that the 1 "Of (naSXof) x.u.1 diruu &imv 'iypaipeu in icno\u.;. Cf. Exeg. Vorlesunqen Uber den Phil-Brief : tTiaro'Kxi in the plural was often used among the Greeks with reference to a single letter. 2 Ego autem nihil tale sensi in vobis vol audivi, in quibus laboravit beatus EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 17 Philippians had, after the lapse of some time, again sent a present to the apostle by Epaphroditus, one of the Christian brethren in their midst- (Phil. ii. 25, iv. 10-12, 18). This their messenger was taken very sick and nigh unto death while with the apostle, and the Philippians who had heard of his illness were very anxious about him. Epaphroditus him self also felt a great longing to return home, and St. Paul was unwilling to detain him longer than was necessary for his recovery. His returning was the immediate occasion of our epistle which was sent by him, — a letter quite epistolary in style, and distinguished among the Pauline letters addressed to whole churches for its great affectionateness. It contains a commendation of the Philippians, and thanks for what they had sent, — exhortations to concord and humbleness of mind, and warnings against the machinations of Judaizing teachers, — information concerning the apostle's present condition and circumstances, his fears concerning the end which seemed to threaten him, and his still stronger hopes of a favourable issue ; yet withal his cheerful acquiescence in the will of God, whatever the result might be. In a doctrinal point of view, the passage in ch. ii. 5-11 is of great importance, as presenting the Apostle Paul's view of the person of Christ in the successive states of humiliation and exaltation ; His pre-existence, His humiliation in the incarnation, His obe dience unto death, and His exaltation. Still this great doc trinal statement is introduced only by the way, in the midst of an exhortation to humility, in illustration of which grace he refers to Christ Jesus. §160. Place and time of writing. — When he wrote this epistle, the apostle was in prison, and indeed in chains, " for the de fence of the gospel" (Phil. i. 7, 13, 14, 17). It was not a temporary imprisonment, but had already lasted a consider able time; and while entertaining the hope that he might soon be liberated (ch. i. 25, 26, 27), he still has before him Paulus, qui estis (laudati f) in principio epistolx ejus. De vobis etenim gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis, ete. VOL. II. B 18 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. the possibility that he may have to suffer martyrdom (ch. i. 20, ii. 17). He expects, however, that his liberation, even if it does take place, will be deferred some time; for he expresses his intention, before he himself, as he hoped and longed, could come to them (i. 26, 27, ii. 24), to send Timotheus, who was with him — for he names him in the salutation (ch. i. 1), and the epistle was perhaps dictated to him — to bring back tidings concerning them (ch. ii. 19-23). These circum stances lead to the very probable and generally received con clusion that the epistle was written from Rome ; and this is further confirmed by ch. i. 13 and iv. 22. In ch. i. 13 the apostle says, wore tov<; Secr/iov? ptov (f>avepov<; iv XptaTai yevecdai iv o\a> tw irpaiTwpia, Kal rot? Xonrols Traatv. The word irpatTwptov here is most naturally to be taken as refer ring (according to the ordinary usage of the word) to the permanent quarters or barracks of the Praetorians, or more appropriately to this imperial body-guard itself, the corps of the Praetorians.1 In ch. iv. 22 we have the expression ol i/c tjj? Kalo-apos owa'a?, which denotes the servants, either slaves or freedmen, in the palace of the emperor. This latter passage in particular points to Rome as the place of writing ; and we cannot for a moment entertain the opinion 2 that it was written at Csesarea, or at Corinth,3 during the apostle's residence there (Acts xviii.). Some 4 have divided the epistle into two distinct letters, — the one addressed to the entire Church, and the other to the special friends of the apostle, or (as Paulus thinks) to the 1 Cf. Vorlesungen ub. d. Phil-Br. : " I doubt whether the word is ever used of the barracks of the Praetorian guard. This passage alone would not be quite decisive in favour of Rome as the place of writing, because a reference to Herod's palace at Csesarea (Acts xxiii. 35) would at least be admissible." 2 H. E. G. Paulus, Progr. de tempore script® prions ad Timoth. atque ad Philipp. ep. Pauli, Jena 1799, 4to ; and Heidelb. Jahrbb. 1825, H. 5. Bottger, Beitrage z. Einl. in die Paul. Briefe, ii. (Gbtt. 1837) 47 sqq. 3 G. L. Oeder, in a Programm, Ansbach 1731. See, against his view, Wolf, CurxpMol. iv. 168 sqq. (ed. 2); Bertholdt, vi. 3407 sqq. * Heinrichs, in vol. vii. Part ii. of the Koppisch. N. T. ; and Paulus, Heidelb. Jahrbb. 1812, Part vii. p. 702 sq. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 19 bishops and deacons. Heinrichs and Paulus, who hold this theory, differ in the division they make, and the parts which they assign to each letter ; and as the opinion has been already sufficiently disproved by many, and especially by De Wette (§ 150, a), we need not dwell upon it here. The genuineness of the epistle was universally recognised in the early Church, and has been down to our own time. Of late, however, it has been disputed by Baur (Paulus, pp. 458-475) and Schwegler (ii. 133-135: cf. p. 29, note; i. 168, 169). But the arguments urged by Baur — and Schwegler follows him closely — are partly derived from a perverted interpretation of certain passages in the epistle : they partly rest upon arbitrary historical presuppositions; some of them are really so weak, that we can hardly believe that he could have attached any importance to them himself. As one of the New Testament books, this epistle has not in the slightest degree the aspect of a clever forgery by some falsi fier, who, either with or without an ulterior design, composed it in the name of St. Paul. The whole epistle is artless, the individual outgo of an affectionate heart; and its manner and style can be explained in no other way than as his work whose it pretends to be. We have, moreover, some very early witnesses in its favour ; for Polycarp twice refers to it as St. Paul's (see above, § 159), and Marcion agrees with the orthodox Church in recognising it as Pauline. The genuine ness of the epistle is vindicated not only in several modern commentaries, but also in two monographs, the one by Lune- mann (Pauli ad Phil. ep. contra Baurium defendit, Gott. 1847), and the other by Bruckner (Ep. ad Phil. Paulo auc- tori vindicata contra Baurium, Leipz. 1848). 20 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. THE EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS, PHILEMON, AND EPHESIANS.1 §161. These three epistles were all of them written during a protracted imprisonment, which was already known to those who were primarily addressed (see Col. iv. 3, 18, 10, cf. i. 24 ; Philem. 1, 9, 10, 23 ; Eph. iii. 1, iv. 1, vi. 20) ; and they were all three despatched at the same time in the care of Tychicus and Onesimus, — the two first to Colosse, in the south-west of Phrygia, and the third to a place in the same district. The universal belief in early times was that St. Paul wrote them from Rome; and this is stated in the postscripts of the Greek mss. and versions, which usually name the place of writing. But in modern times the view has been advocated that they were written at Cassarea during St. Paul's imprisonment there.2 The former opinion is in all probability the true one. Rome is not indeed actually named in any of these epistles as the place of imprisonment, and many things stated might be explained with reference to Csesarea as well as Rome. But there is nothing which directly refers us to Csesarea, nor is there anything that favours the supposition of Csesarea as the place of writing more than that of Rome, when we recollect that, though the distance between Csesarea and Phrygia is less than that between Phrygia and Rome, still the intercourse of this province with Rome as the chief city was much more frequent and brisk than with Csesarea or Palestine generally. One thing which is urged in favour of 1 [See Dr. Fiuedrich Bleek's Vorlesungen fiber die Briefe an die Kolosser, den Philemon, und die Ephesier, edited by Lie. Friedrich Nitzsch, Berlin 1865.] 2 So first Dav. Schulz (Stud. u. Krit. 1829, pp. 612-617) ; afterwards Schott, § 66 ; Bottger, Beitr. ii. 47 sqq. ; Wiggers, Stud. u. Krit. 1841, pp. 436-450; Meyer; Reuss [Weiss in Herzog's Realencykl. Supplem. i. 717 sqq.]. De Wette also, from his second edition on wards, was inclined to this view ; so still in the fifth and sixth editions (§ 141, a), though in his Exeg. Handb. (vol. ii. Part iv. 1843, 2ded. 1847) he decidedly inclines to the older view. EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS,. PHILEMON, AND EPHESIANS. 21 Csesarea we reserve for consideration further on (§ 165). I here name the following circumstances which seem decidedly to turn the balance in favour of Rome. a. According to Col. iv. 3, 4, 11, Eph. vi. 19, 20, it would appear that St. Paul, though in imprisonment, was still active in advancing God's kingdom by preaching the gospel. It is clear from Acts xxviii. 16 sqq. that he had this liberty in Rome ; and in ver. 31 it is expressly said that " he preached .the kingdom of God, and taught those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no man forbidding him." But it is very unlikely that he had any such liberty at Csesarea, for it would at once have aroused and called forth the complaint and protestation of the Jews in Jerusalem ; and there is no mention of any such liberty at Csesarea in the Acts, but simply an act of indulgence on the part of Felix in allowing his friends to visit him, and to minister to him when he was in prison. b. During the imprisonment referred to in these epistles, the apostle was in chains. Eph. vi. 20, iv aXvaet ; Col. iv. 3, BeBeptat, ; iv. 8, ptvrjptoveveTe ptov twv Becrptcov ; Philem. 10, ov iytvvrjaa iv rot? Beaptot^. See also Eph. iii. 1, iv. 1, Philem. 1, 9, where he speaks of himself as Biaptto<;. This quite cor responds with what we know of his imprisonment in Rome, where, as we have seen, he lived in a hired house, but with a soldier who kept guard over him, to whom he was chained ; a fact which he expressly refers to in his words recorded in Acts xxviii. 20, where he speaks of the a\vcrt<; in which he then was. In his Epistle to the Philippians, wliich beyond all doubt was written from Rome, he speaks of his bonds, Becrptol (Phil. i. 7, 13, 14, 17), just as in the three epistles now before us. During his imprisonment in Csssarea, on the other hand, while actually in prison, he was, it would appear, unbound (see § 157). He was during the entire time there in a cxtstodia libera. It is at least in the highest degree pro bable that the e%eiv avecnv in Acts xxiv. 23 refers mainly to this fact, though Wieseler (p. 380) will not allow this. It would appear that Felix, upon his retirement from the governorship, bound the apostle for the sake of pleasing the 22 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. Jews (xxiv. 27) ; and he therefore refers to his chain in his address to Agrippa (Acts xxvi. 29). If these epistles are to be dated from Csesarea, we should have to place them at the very end of St. Paul's imprisonment there, after the retirement of Felix. But other considerations prevent our thus placing them. For St. Paul could not certainly then have entertained the hope of a speedy liberation, having appealed unto Csesar ; a hope which he certainly did enter tain when he wrote our epistles, as is clear from Philem. 2, where he instructs Philemon to prepare him a lodging, " for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you." c. It must further be remembered that St. Paul, before his seizure and imprisonment, had planned, when he had con veyed the collection to Jerusalem, to go thence to Rome, and onwards into Spain (Acts xix. 21 ; Rom. xv. 23-25) ; and, moreover, that after his seizure in Jerusalem, he had a night vision, wherein the Lord told him that he should bear witness for Him in Rome (Acts xxiii. 11). We therefore may cer tainly presume that during his Csesarean imprisonment he had before him the prospect (even in case of his liberation) of going to Rome ; and it is improbable that during this time he could have been looking forward mainly to a visit to Phrygia, in the heart of Asia Minor. But in the Epistle to the Philippians (ii. 24) we find that the apostle, when iu Rome, entertained the thought of going after his liberation to Macedonia, and thence he might naturally purpose to pro ceed into Asia Minor and Phrygia. THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. § 162. The city of Colossse (or Colassse, according to Lachmann's reading of ch. i. 2) lay in the south-west of Phrygia, on the river Lycus, near to Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Apamea. At one time it must have been an important city, and ranked even in Strabo's time (the beginning of the first century) side EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 23 by side with Apamea and Laodicea. In the time of Nero it suffered, like Laodicea and Hierapolis, from earthquake ; but we know not in what year or to what extent. According to Eusebius, it was in the tenth (a.d. 64), according to Orosius (vii. 7) in the fourteenth year of Nero ; and according to both accounts, subsequently to the writing of our epistle. But according to Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 27), it is probable, though he mentions Laodicea only, that the earthquake took place in the seventh year of Nero, i.e. a.d. 60, and a few years before the writing of our epistle. Perhaps Colossaa did not suffer so much as Orosius seems to intimate, or it soon revived again, and was restored, as Tacitus tells us was the case with Laodicea. St. Paul had been twice in Phrygia (Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23), but on neither. occasion in the south-west of that country, where Colosse lay, but only in the east and north. It is evident from our epistle (ii. 1) that the Christians at Colosse, like them at Laodicea, were personally unknown to the apostle when he wrote. Some have denied the force of this passage, and some have even used it as an argument that the apostle had been there.1 Theodoret, Schulz, and others, suppose that St. Paul here speaks of the Christians who had not seen his face in the flesh, as distinct from those at Colosse and Laodicea ; and Wiggers takes the Kal before ocroi as = also, so that St. Paul mentions those " who had not seen his face in the flesh" as being certain among those at Colosse and Laodicea. But neither explanation is at all probable if we take into consideration the words of ver. 2 : "va ¦jrapaKk'q- Ocaatv at KapBtat, aiiToiv, k.t.X. This clearly refers, not to some of those mentioned in ver. 1, but to all ; and this is only natural if we take ocroi, k.t.X., not in contrast with those before named, nor as specifying a few among them, but as including all the Christians at Colosse and Laodicea, together with others in the district : " I would not have you ignorant what a conflict (unceasing anxiety) I have for you and them 1 So even Theodoret ; also Lardner, and after him D. Schulz, Schott, Neudecker, Bottger, Wiggers (Stud. u. Krit. 1838, i. pp. 165-188). 24 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. at Laodicea, and as many more in the district as have not seen my face in the flesh." Ch. ii. 5 as little sanctions the notion of the apostle having visited Colosse, though Wiggers lays stress upon it; nor does ch. i. 7, to which he also refers, but which rather implies the contrary. We may with apparent certainty conclude that the Epaphras named in ch. i. 7, and who was himself a Colos- sian (iv. 12), had been the instructor of the Colossians in the truths of Christianity : by his preaching most of them had been converted ; and perhaps those too in Laodicea and Hierapolis (iv. 13) had also first heard the gospel from his lips. St. Paul seems (iv. 10) to have had some communi cation with the Colossians before this epistle, either oral or written, but it was probably a very short time before. Indeed, the epistle generally conveys the impression that the Colos sians had been converted only a little while before, and that St. Paul had only lately heard of the fact (Col. i. 3, 5 sqq., 9, ii. 6, 7). From the description given of them, ch. i. 2, we are led to infer that they were not as yet formed into a Chris tian Church, with bishops or elders and deacons ; and this would not have been the case had St. Paul himself preached the gospel among them some years previously. Epaphras himself had probably been taught the gospel by the apostle, and become acquainted with him somewhere else, perhaps at Ephesus during the long residence of the apostle there ; and so perhaps had others of the Colossians, e.g. Philemon (Philem. 13, 19) and his family. These persons, especially Epaphras, had been very active and devoted, and had been very successful in bringing others around them to the Lord. Epaphras was now with the imprisoned apostle, and through him St. Paul obtained further information concerning the believers at Colosse (ch. i. 7 sqq., iv. 12), to which he refers in his epistle. The believers there seem all of them, or nearly all, to have been Gentiles ; see in particular ch. ii. 13. But certain persons had come among them after their con version, who disturbed and perplexed them in their simple faith ; and this caused great grief and anxiety to St. Paul and to Epaphras. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 25 §163. There has been much difference of opinion as to who these false teachers were. The question first arises, Did they belong to the Christian Church ? Some have denied this, and have supposed them to have been Jews, Essenes, Alexandrine Jews, or the like ; thus, e.g., Eichhorn, Schneckenburger (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1832, 840 sqq.), and others. Some again (especially Hug) suppose them to have been espousers of a Greek or Eastern philosophy. But we cannot doubt, from what is said of them in the epistle, that they outwardly be longed to the Christian community. Otherwise St. Paul could not have spoken concerning them as he does in ch. ii. 19 : ov Kparwv ttjv KetpaXrjv, k.t.X. (i.e. Christ). Nor can we really seriously doubt that they were Jewish Christians of a very strict Judaizing tendency. It is clear from ch. ii. 11, cf. iii. 11, that they insisted upon circumcision as necessary in order to participation in the blessings of God's kingdom ; and still more plain from ii. 16, 17, 20, 21, that they urged obedience to the Jewish laws concerning meats and purifyings, feasts and feast-days, especially the Sabbath or seventh day. With this legalizing tendency there was combined in them a lean ing to asceticism (ii. 23) and to speculative theosophy (ii. 8, 18) ; and they prided themselves upon very profound ideas concerning heavenly beings, and gave to angels a kind of worship (cf. i. 16 sqq.). Tlieir views thus somewhat re sembled those of the Essenes among the Jews who practised a strict asceticism, and busied themselves about the names and genealogies of angels. We cannot tell, however, whether these false guides at Colosse had any real connection with the Essenes (as Ewald and others suppose) ; or that, before embracing Christianity, they had belonged to the Essenes, and had imported into Christianity some of the peculiarities of that sect. Such tendencies were prevalent at the time among many pharisaic Jews who did not belong to that particular sect.1 But we can easily understand how such a tendency would make way among many of the Gentile 1 [Neander finds in these errors precursors and forebodings of the Cerinthian Gnosis, and so does Friedr. Nitzsch in his note to Bleek's 26 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. Christians who would not he attracted by mere Judaism, and would make them more inclined than otherwise they could have been to adopt certain restrictions of the Jewish law — thus drawing them aside from pure evangelical Chris tianity. Hence St. Paul thinks it right in this epistle to warn his readers most emphatically against being led astray Vorles. uber d. Br. pp. 15, 16 : — " That Cerinthus was a Jewish Christian who maintained circumcision and rejected St. Paul's authority, is evident from Epiphanius (Hxr. 28), Iren^us (i. 26), Pseudo-Origines (Philos. vii. 33), and Pseudo-Tertullian (Prescript. 48). These writers unani mously attribute to him an Ebionizing Christology ; and to this must be added as a further sign his strong chiliasm (Caius in Euseb. H. E. iii. 28, cf. vii. 25 ; and Theodoret, Hxr. fab. ii. 3). He must be reckoned among those gnostic Jewish Christians who held an intermediate posi tion, and were passing over by degrees to Gnosticism proper. They did not as yet represent the Jehovah of the Jews as a limited Demiurge in relation to the universal Father, nor Judaism as a narrow religion in comparison of Christianity. Pseudo-Tertullian, indeed, intimates that the God of the Jews was, according to Cerinthus, a mere angel, and Irenseus says that the creative ivuafii; of Cerinthus did not know the highest God until the baptism of Christ; and herein Huther finds a hin drance to the identifying of the Colossian heretics with Cerinthus. But these, perhaps, are characteristics which both narrators (' not troubling themselves with the nicer distinctions of later gnostic writers') have imported from Gnosticism into the views of Cerinthus. They certainly are not in keeping with those of a Jewish Christian. Dr. Lipsius seems to be correct in ascribing to Cerinthus the following view (see his work Gnosticismus, Leipz. 1860, pp. 80, 110, 141) : — ' The world was created by angels (cf. Deut. xxxiii. 24 (LXX.) ; Gal. iii. 19 ; Heb. ii. 2 ; Acts vii. 53 ; Josephus, Antt. xv. 5. 3 ; Philo, de opif. m. i. 46, 48), according to the will of the Supreme God (still regarded as identical with the God of the 0. T.) ; and among these angels one was chief. By command of the universal Father (whom they did not originally know, but to the knowledge of whom they arrived when the world was created), they send Moses and the prophets ; but the true doctrine was ever falsified or mistaken, until at last, through the divine Pneuma (not through the heavenly Christ ; see Lipsius, p. 58), it is revealed to the man Jesus at his baptism, and by him is fully preached.' Thus, according to Lipsius, the view of Cerinthus is presented free from inner contradic tions. If this representation be correct, the affinity between the heretics among the Colossians and Cerinthus is clear at once. We trace it (1) in the Jewish-Christian element which underlies both views, the main tenance of circumcision, the rejection of St. Paul's authority, and the EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 27 by such men, and to exhort them to hold fast to Christ alone, to whom all things in heaven and earth are subject, and not to plunge themselves into speculations concerning things hidden from men, nor to devote themselves to a wor shipping of angels, which drew them away from Christ. He then shows them that the circumcision necessary for the Ebionite Christology. That Jesus was an ordinary man, born of Joseph and Mary, and distinguished above others only for his righteousness and wisdom ; that, hke Moses, he was only an organ of revelation (the mediators of which were the world-creating angels), only a prophet of the true rehgion ; that his sacrifice had no atoning power, and no real significance ; — all these marks of Ebionite Christology are not indeed ex pressly laid to the charge of the Colossian heretics. But when St. Paul insists upon the truth that Christ is the iix.au rot/ ©sou tow otoparov, that ' in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily' (ch. i. 15, 19, ii. 9), and that He made peace and reconciliation ' by the blood of His cross' (i. 20, 22, ii. 14), his reasoning clearly, corresponds to that Ebionite Christology. There is nothing, however, leading us to suppose that the Colossian heretics regarded Jesus or Christ (the later Gnostics distinguish Christ from Jesus of Nazareth) as an angel. Had they reckoned Christ among the angels, He would at least have shared the worship which they held due to them ; and though this would not have satisfied the apostle, he would certainly have spoken differently of them. He would have censured these heretics for not worshipping Christ exclusively, but only in common with the angels, and for regard ing Him merely as an angel or archangel. The fact is, the apostle blames them for not worshipping Christ at all ; for leaving Him out of their system altogether (for He was to them only a prophet), and for worshipping the angels instead of Him, whereas He was both Creator and Redeemer of angels as well as men (ch. i. 20). (2) Still more unmistakeable is the resemblance between the Colossian heretics and Cerinthus in their doctrine of intermediate powers — their doctrine con cerning angels. St. Paul insists that Christ created all things (ch. j. 16), angels as well as men ; that He is before all, and that in Him all have their being (ch. i. 17) ; that He is Head over the angels (ii. 10). He thus argues against the theory that under God the Father the world- creating ~ivya.ft.it; or angels, and not Christ, occupy the highest place in the ranks of being. (3) Another point of resemblance is in their enjoin ing asceticism. Whether the Colossian false teachers sprang from the Essenes among the Jews is another question — I would not at once deny it ; but they probably formed an intermediate sect between the Essenes and the Cerinthians." — Fr. Nitzsch, note in Bleek's Vorlesungen on the Epistle to the Colossians, pp. 15-17.] 28 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. Christian consists in his putting off the old fleshly man, as is prefigured in baptism ; and that to attach importance to outward Jewish enactments was really a resorting to " the rudiments of the world," to which the Christian must have died in his conversion to Christ. The second chapter, which is the main and central part of the epistle, treats of these topics. In ch. i. St. Paul expresses his gratitude to God for the grace imparted by Him to those whom he addresses, and tells them how they had been the subject of his prayers ; and he then passes on to describe the glory and exaltation of Christ, and the greatness and universality of the reconciliation accomplished by Him for them. He further declares with what willingness, and even joy, he, the apostle, would suffer for them. In ch. iii. 1-iv. 6 he gives his readers several exhortations, that being risen with Christ to newness of life, they should walk worthily of their high vocation, according to the position in life they had to fill, whether husbands or wives, parents or children, masters or servants. From ch. iv. 7 to the end we have many personal references, salutations, etc. When St. Paul wrote the epistle, several Christian friends were with him. The following are specially mentioned : — a. Timotheus, whom he names with himself in the greeting at the outset (i. 1), and to whom probably he dictated the letter; b. Aristarchus, ch. iv. 10, who had accompanied him on his voyage from Csesarea to Rome (Acts xxvii. 2), and whom he here names as one of his fellow-prisoners, from which, however, we need not infer that he was actually de prived of his freedom ; c. Mark, who was about soon to visit them (ch. iv. 10) ; d. Jesus Justus, who was also a Jewish Christian ; Luke, Demas, and Epaphras, who belonged to Colosse (iv. 11-14), and of whom Ewald, without sufficient warrant, supposes that he was, like Paul, brought as a pri soner to Rome, and thus detained there. The apostle sends greetings to the brethren at Laodicea, and especially to Nymphas, " and the Church in his house" (iv. 15) ; and he charges his readers to see to it that the epistle is read in the Church of Laodicea, and that they should read " the Epistle EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 29 from Laodicea" (ver. 16), — an expression which can only refer to an Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans. Finally, he tells them to exhort Archippus faithfully to fulfil the ministry entrusted to him in the Lord (ver. 17) ; but we need not re gard him (as in the Const. Apost. vii. 46, and as Michaelis, Storr, Wieseler (p. 452) do) as a Laodicean, but rather as a Colossian, to whom Epaphras had perhaps committed the oversight of the external or internal affairs of the churches there during his absence. The epistle was entrusted to the care of Tychicus of Asia Minor (iv. 7), whom the apostle sent at the same time with their fellow-countryman Onesimus (iv. 9), whose stay with St. Paul, and contemplated journey to Colosse, were the occasion of the Epistle to Philemon. THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. §164. In this letter also St. Paul names Timotheus side by side with himself in the greeting (ver. 1) ; but he did not dictate the letter to him, as was the case with most of his letters, including that to the Colossians (iv. 18). He wrote it with his own hand (ver. 19), doubtless on account of the purely personal and very delicate subject to which he has to refer. Besides Philemon, Appia, Archippus, and "the Church in Philemon's house" are named in the salutation. But in the remainder of the epistle Philemon only is personally ad dressed; the others are mentioned only because they belonged to Philemon's household. Appia was doubtless his wife, and Archippus (who also is named in Col. iv. 17) was perhaps his son or his brother. Philemon was personally known to St. Paul, and was under great obligations to him. By him he had been con verted (vers. 13, 19), probably during the apostle's residence at Ephesus. He had received the believers into his own house, and had exerted himself much for the furtherance of the gospel (vers. 1-7). His slave Onesimus was a fugitive. 30 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. and had made his way to the imprisoned Paul, whom he had before known as a friend of his master's. He was converted to Christianity through the apostle's teaching (ver. 10). The apostle wished him to return of his own accord to his master in the company of Tychicus, who was about to convey the Epistle to the Colossians (Col. iv. 9), and gave him this letter to his master. Here he begs Philemon to forgive Onesimus : he refers to the change which Onesimus had undergone in his conversion, and how on this account he would be far more serviceable to his master than ever he had been before. At the same time, he gives Philemon to under stand how he entertains both the wish and the expectation that he will do for Onesimus much more than he says, that he will treat him no more as his slave, but as his brother in Christ, and give him his freedom. The letter is written throughout with great delicacy of feeling and nicety of expression, and beautifully illustrates the apostle's own exhor tation to the Colossians (iv. 6), " Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt." The letter is throughout penetrated with the purest Christian love. Colossae is usually and rightly regarded as the place of Philemon's home. In Col. iv. 9, Onesimus is described as a Colossian (o? io-Tiv e£ vpttov), which makes it very probable not only that he was born there, but that he had lived there, and consequently that Colossae was the residence of his master. This was the opinion of the ancients; for in the time of Theodoret, Philemon's house was believed to have been at Colossae. Wieseler, on the contrary, will have it that he was a citizen of Laodicea, on the ground that Archippus, according to Col. iv. 17, lived at Laodicea ; and we admit that, as the names are joined together in Philem. 3, they both must have lived at the same place. But as we have already seen (§ 163), Archippus belonged to Colossae. Wieseler also maintains, as some of the ancients do, that our epistle was ttjv e« AaoBiKeias, Col. iv. 16.1 Thiersch also thinks this not improbable. But this is certainly a mistaken notion. 1 Progr. de ep. Laodicena, Gbtt. 1844, and Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalters, pp. 450-455 ; Thiersch, Vers, zur Herstellung, etc., p. 424. EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 31 Even supposing that Philemon lived at Laodicea, we cannot believe that the apostle would refer to a letter so brief and of so private and personal a nature as an epistle written to the Laodiceans, or would direct the Colossians so distinctly to see that it was sent from Laodicea for them to read, without at least telling Philemon that it was his wish the Colossians should see it. The epistle referred to in Col. iv. 16 must certainly have been of a more general and doctrinal character than our Epistle to Philemon. § 165. The circumstances of the apostle when he wrote this epistle (vers. 1, 23, 24) were precisely the same as those described in the Colossians (§ 163). The same companions are named in both epistles, with the single exception of Jesus Justus, who is named only in the Colossians. And the comparison of Col. iv. 7-9 with our epistle leaves no room for doubt that the latter was sent (according to universal belief), at the same time with the former, by Tychicus and Onesimus. But in the personal circumstances in which St. Paul is here repre sented, some of late have found an argument in favour of Csesarea instead of Rome as the place of writing (cf. § 161). They think that the persons named as being with the apostle were more likely to have been with him at Csesarea than in Rome ; that it would be to Csesarea that Onesimus as a fugi tive slave would come ; and that there it is far more likely news of the Asiatic Churches would reach the apostle, than in Rome, which was separated from Asia Minor by a long sea journey, and was so much more distant and difficult to reach. But considering, as we have already observed, the brisk inter course which subsisted between Rome as the capital of the empire, and the various provinces, we can easily understand how the fugitive slave would turn his face thither rather than to Csesarea, if indeed he did not go thither on purpose (as is possible) to find St. Paul. It is, moreover, much easier to suppose that Epaphras came from Colossae to Rome rather than to Csesarea; for the purpose of his journey may not have been simply to bring tidings concerning the spread of 32 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. Christianity at Colossae and in the neighbourhood, but, as Neander suggests, to see friends and transact business of his own ; and this would harmonize with the circumstance that he did not return with these letters, but still remained with the apostle. We have proof, moreover, that the apostle was in constant communication with the Churches in the East, not only in 2d Timothy, but in the Epistle to the Philippians, from which it appears that the Philippians had heard of the illness of their minister, who was with Paul, and that their anxiety on his account had come to St. Paul's knowledge (Phil. ii. 25 sqq.) ; and in that epistle St. Paul expresses his intention to send Timotheus to them, in order to hear how they were (ii. 19). As to the other friends with the apostle, there is no preponderating reason for our supposing their being with him at Csesarea rather than at Rome : indeed, the presumption is decidedly in favour of the latter place. Aristarchus had accompanied Paul to Rome, and so most probably had Timotheus, who was certainly with him when he wrote the Philippian epistle. It is quite natural, therefore, that they should be named in an epistle from Rome, while on the other hand it is very unlikely that they stayed long with the apostle at Csesarea. Mark, indeed, whose home was in Jerusalem, might have been some time with St. Paul at Csesarea, but he is just as likely to have been with him at Rome. When St. Paul (during a second imprisonment) wrote 2d Timothy, Mark was with Timotheus in Asia (ch. iv. 11); but Paul directed Timothy to bring him with him to Rome, for he would " be of service" to him, — an expression which is best explained by supposing that Mark had been with Paul in Rome before, and had proved himself service able to him, perhaps through his knowledge of Latin, as afterwards he was probably useful to Peter as his interpreter (see § 46). As to Luke, if we adopt the usual belief that he accompanied Paul from Csesarea to Rome, the mention of him can cause no difficulty. But apart from this, during the second Roman imprisonment we find him with the apostle (2 Tim. iv. 11), and he may have been there from the time of the first Roman imprisonment, earning his living by his GENUINENESS OF COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON. 33 profession ; but nothing whatever is known of any residence of his at Csesarea. Demas is mentioned in 2 Tim. iv. 10 as having forsaken the apostle, through " love for this present world," and having gone to Thessalonica. He therefore had been in Rome, and had perhaps lived there since the first imprisonment, but not a word is said about his residing at Csesarea. Lastly, Jesus Justus (Col. iv. 11) is not men tioned elsewhere, and no argument can be derived from the occurrence of his name. Putting together these particulars, we are fully warranted in abiding by the old and commonly received belief, that both these epistles were written from Rome after St. Paul had been a prisoner there for a con siderable time. § 166. For the genuineness of both epistles the evidence of anti quity is most conclusive. Marcion gave to both a place in his Canon. The Epistle to the Colossians was regarded as St. Paul's by Irenseus, Clemens Alex., and others, and there are traces of the use of it in Justin Martyr and Theophilus of Antioch.1 The first of the Fathers, indeed, who names the Epistle to Philemon is Tertullian;2 but this is accounted for by the narrow range and private nature of the letter. Tertullian expressly says that it was recognised by the Church before the time of Marcion ; and with reference to both letters we may fully conclude that they were regarded in the Church as the genuine writings of the Apostle Paul before the middle of the second century. In Jerome's time (Procem. comm. in ep. ad Philem.) there 1 Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. c. 84 (p. 310 B, Paris), toV wpuToroxoa rau •jravruv 'soiiifia.ruv ; C. 85 (p. 311 B), vrparoroxov iraan; xrlaus ; c. 100 (p. 326 D), vptoTOTOx-ov fiiv tov &tov xa\ nvpi iravrmi tui> »Ti, Kal Trio-Tots iv XpicrTw 'Ino-ov. With this destination, the epistle itself, as a letter of St. 1 A list of corresponding passages will be found in De Wette, § 146, a. 2 Which Rinck wrongly denies, Stud. u. Krit. 1849, iv. p. 956 sqq. EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 37 Paul from Rome, seems in several respects inconsistent.1 St. Paul had himself lived and laboured in Ephesus, the old metropolis of Ionia, and the chief city of proconsular Asia, for more than two consecutive years, and with considerable success. He must therefore have had many close personal ties and friendships with the members of the Church there, as indeed the account of the farewell he took of the elders on his way from Macedonia to Jerusalem in Acts xx. shows. He sent for the elders of the Church to meet him at Miletus, because had he gone himself to Ephesus he would have found it difficult to get away. The Church there, moreover, con sisted of both Jewish and Gentile Christians (see § 145), the former forming no small proportion of the whole. Now our epistle was probably written about three years after the affectionate farewell taken of the Ephesian elders in Acts xx. ; and we may be sure the apostle would not be wholly ignorant of the changes which had taken place during this interval — developments for good or evil — nor of the personal relations and circumstances of the several members. We may be sure also that he personally knew, and numbered among his friends, many both of the office-bearers and of the private members. We should accordingly expect, in an epistle ad dressed by the apostle to this Church, personal references far fuller and more numerous than, e.g., those in the epistle to the Christians at Colossae. But our epistle presents the very opposite of all this, (a.) It contains hardly any personal references — none, unless we thus regard ch. vi. 21, 22, where St. Paul says that he sends Tychicus to them that they might know how matters were with him, and that he might bring them comfort. But there is not a single greeting to any member of the Church from the apostle, nor to the Church from any of the apostle's friends, who (as we know from Colossians and Philemon) were with him when he wrote, — not even from Timotheus and Aristarchus, who both had been a considerable time at Ephesus with St. Paul (Acts xix. 29 ; 1 Cor. iv. 17), had been his companions on his journey from Macedonia to Jerusalem (Acts xx. 4), and were doubtless 1 RlNCK also disputes this, but on insufficient grounds, pp. 948-958. 38 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. present at the meeting with the Ephesian elders at Miletus. How strange it is, that in an Epistle to the Ephesians St. Paul should have made no allusion to these men ; while in the letter written contemporaneously to the Colossians, who were certainly far less known to them, he sends greeting to the readers from the one (iv. 10), and names the other with himself in the salutation at the outset (i. 1) ! (b.) But apart from individuals whom we should certainly have expected to be named one way or other in the epistle, there is not in the letter a single indication that St. Paul personally knew his readers, still less that they had for the most part been con verted through him, and that he had ever been intimate with them. He speaks to them as to the Colossians, i.e. as to people of whose conversion he had but lately heard, and whom he had never met: see especially ch. i. 15, 16, iii. 2, iv. 21 ; also i. 13, ii. 1} 19. (c.) His language to them shows that he regards them, like the Colossians, as converts from among the Gentiles; indeed, he in some places expressly says this : see ch. ii. 11, 12, 19, iii. 1, 6, iv. 17 ; cf. v. 8. (d.) It is strange that the epistle is addressed not to the Church at Ephesus, but (like the Colossian epistle) " to the saints and faithful in Christ;" and there are no references to any regular church organization, not even in the exhortations given to persons in different ages, relations, and situations in life (v. 22-vi. 9), — none, for example, to elders or deacons of the Church, or to the members in their relations and duties towards these officers. All this we could easily understand, if, in the place which the apostle had in his mind, Christianity had but lately gained a footing, and settled church organiza tion had not yet been established ; but not certainly in so old a Church as that of Ephesus, whose elders had three years before so affectionately taken leave of the apostle at Miletus. § 168. Difficulties like these, which the epistle undeniably pre sents if viewed as written from Rome by the Apostle Paul to the Ephesians, certainly seem somewhat to sanction doubts EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 39 as to its genuineness. The first who advocated these doubts publicly was Usteri (Paulin. Lehrbegr.), who followed the oral teachings of Schleiermacher in his lectures ; and in his published Lectures upon 2V. T. Introduction suggests that the epistle might have been written by a companion of St. Paul, and by his direction (pp. 165 sq., 194). De Wette ques tioned its genuineness still more directly (§ 146), especially in his fourth edition, and in his Exeget. Handbuch to the epistles (1843, 2d ed. 1847). So also Schwegler and Baur.1 Ewald, moreover, seems to regard the epistle as spurious, for he does not treat of it in his Seudschreiben des Ap. Paulus. But this supposition of its spuriousness is rendered very improbable, both by the internal character of the epistle and by its external history. As to the latter, it is certain that the epistle was regarded as a genuine work of the Apostle Paul's from the beginning of the second century downwards. In Ignatius, Ep. ad Ephes. c. 12, we read in the shorter Greek recension, TlavXov avpiptvaTai . . . o? iv vrdar] iiriuToXy pivnpiovevei vptwv iv Xp. 'I. ; and this very probably refers to our epistle, though the expression iv Trday iirio-ToXy is rather indefinite. But we cannot attach much importance to this passage ; for the longer recension differs from it (b? nrdvTOTe iv Tat? Berjcreaiv avTov ptvnpLovevei r^pttav), and it is wholly wanting in the shortest and oldest Syriac recension. In Polycarp, ad Philipp., there are two un- mistakeable references to our epistle : c. 1, Xdpni e'crre crecraapievoi, ovk if; epywv (cf. Eph. ii. 8, 9) ; c. 12, ut his scripturis dictum est : u Irascimini et nolite peccare, et Sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram''' (cf. Eph. iv. 26). Marcion also included this book in his Canon, and we find the clearest proofs of its use as a Pauline epistle by Valentinus and his school : see the passages quoted by Hug, i. pp. 86, 95, 96 (ed. 3), and in the Philo sophumena of Hippolytus, vi. 34 (pp. 193, 53 sqq.), where Valentinus quotes our epistle as "the Scripture." And as the orthodox Fathers in various places, 1 Schwegler in the Theol Jahrbb. 1844, pp. 378-395, reprinted in his Nachapost. Zeitalter, ii. 375-392 ; see ibid. pp. 330-338. Baur in his Paulus, pp. 417-457. 40 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. Irenseus, Clemens Alex., Tertullian, the Fragment in Mura- tori, together with later theologians, agree in the recognition and use of the epistle as undoubtedly St. Paul's, we may cer tainly conclude that he was regarded as such in the Church before the rise of those sects. Schwegler's idea, that it was a product of Montanist movements, is quite inadmissible. We can hardly conceive what motive any later writer could have had in composing such an epistle in St. Paul's name; for no points of doctrine are dwelt upon in it, nor advocated in a manner conformably to the tendencies and needs of a post- apostolic age, such as we might fix upon with any degree of probability as the object of the letter. Least of all does the epistle convey the impression of its having been the work of a servile imitator of the apostle, who compiled it merely for use ; x for it indicates too little care and artificiality in its form and arrangement. The whole style and treatment of topics in the letter is naturally explained only by supposing it to have sprung from the living spontaneous fulness of a heart thoroughly penetrated with the subjects dwelt upon. [See further, concerning the genuineness, in Bleek's Vor- lesungen ueber d. Br. p. 186 sqq.] § 169. Taking for granted, therefore, that the epistle is genuine, what we have already said leads us to suppose that St. Paul addressed it to a different circle of readers from those named in the title and in the salutation, ch. i. 1. And external testimony favours this supposition. In the time of Basil the Great, about the middle of the fourth century, the words iv 'Ecpeacp (i. 1) were wanting in the oldest MSS., and in Tertullian's time they were probably wanting in all the MSS.; so that the prevailing opinion in the Church, that the epistle was written to the Ephesians, rested merely upon the super scriptions in ecclesiastical mss. and ecclesiastical tradition. 1 Ewald dates the epistle between a.d. 75 and 80, and thinks that in it we have the first example of an unknown disciple and friend of the apostle writing and circulating an epistle in his name (Gesch. des V. Isr., 2d ed. vol. vii. 243-253, Gott. 1859). EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 41 (a.) From Tertullian we find that Marcion included the epistle in his Canon, under the title ad Laodicenos. See adv. Marc. v. 11 : Prwtereo hie et de alia epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios prcescriptam habemus, hwretici vero ad Laodi cenos. — C. 17: Ecclesle quidem VERITATE epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos, sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator. Nihil autem de titulis interest, cum ad omnes Apostolus scripserit, clum ad quosdam. Epiphanius, Hcer. xiii. pp. 310, 374, 375, is certainly wrong in stating the matter as if Marcion had quoted ptepn not only from the Epistle to the Ephesians, but also from t^s Trpos AaoBiKeas Xeeo-a> in the epistle itself (i. 1) : either these words were wanting in his Canon, or in their stead he must have read iv AaoBiKeia. Had the latter been the case, Tertullian (from his point of view, and upon his presupposi tion regarding our epistle) would have blamed him not only for " interpolating the title " (as he does in ch. xvii.), but for falsifying the text of the epistle itself. He would, moreover, have blamed Marcion for simply leaving out the words iv 'Ecpio-(p, had they really been in the MSS. of the Church ; for he would have taken for granted (in this case) that Marcion had wilfully expunged those words, and he would not have 1 E?? Kvpiog, fila. irlons, en fixirTtaptit, tl; XjO/cttoV, us ©soj, x.t.Tu Epi- PHANIUS adds: Sui/aSo'*™? fitf t\n irpo; ' E was not in the MS. which Tertullian had, and that it was not in the MSS. of the Church, as far as Tertul lian knew. Some 1 will not admit the force of this argument and inference; but it is certainly a fair one, and is sup ported by other considerations : namely, — (c.) Basil the Great (ob. 379), contra Eunom. ii. 19, says that, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul designates his readers — as those who by knowledge were truly united with the ov or the &v (tw ovti) — with the peculiar expression 6Wa? (= truly existing) in the words : rot? ayloi*; toI^ ovaiv Kal TriaTols iv XpiaTw 'Inaov. This exposition or comment clearly implies that the text ran as Basil gives it ; so that, after rots ovai, neither iv 'Eeo-q> nor any like words fol lowed : otherwise a similar comment or exposition might be given, e.g., to Phil. i. 1. From the words which follow in Basil, it is clear that in his time iv 'Ecf>eo-q> occurred in several MSS., but not in all, not in the oldest ; for he adds : ovtw v dvTvypdipav evprjKapiev. Here he unmistake ably describes the shorter reading, without iv 'E(j)ecra>, as the older, and the general one in earlier times ; and the reading with iv 'Espicra> as one which became general subsequently. (d.) Jerome (Comment, in loc.) gives two explanations : the one identical with that of Basil, that they are called ab eo qui est (Ex. iii. 14), " qui sunt" — " those who really are, who really live ;" and the other, those qui Ephesi sunt sancti et fideles. Jerome seems to have had the iv 'Etfrecra in the mss. before him, though this is not clear from his words ; but the first explanation, which, as he knew, many adopted, — very 1 e.g. Harless, Comm. ub. den Brief P. an die Eph., Erl. 1834, 2d ed., Stuttg. 1858 ; Wiggers, Stud. a. Krit. 1841, p. 428 ; LiiNEMANN, De epistolx, quam Paulus ad Ephes. dedisse perhibetur, authentia, primis lectoribus, argumento summo et consilio, Gott. 1842, p. 37 ; De Wette, § 145, c, note a ; and others. EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 43 probably he had in his mind Origen, in the commentary of his wliich he used,1 — could not have come into vogue, nor have been generally adopted, save without the iv 'Ecpio-q>. (e.) Among the Greek MSS. which have come down to us, the old Codex Vaticanus (B) has not the words iv 'E were in the text originally, we cannot understand how there could arise such conflicting views con cerning the destination of the epistle — how, besides the fact that it was written to the Ephesians, it could be taken as written to the believers in Laodicea. This opinion we find in Marcion ; and Tertullian calls the title which Marcion prefixes to the epistle an interpolation on Marcion's part. Whatever alterations Marcion made in the N. T. text, he made them upon doctrinal grounds ; but here there is nothing discoverable which could with any probability be urged as a doctrinal reason, or any kind of reason, inducing him to give in the title Laodicea as the destination of the epistle, when the epistle itself expressly named Ephesus. We can explain this fact in Marcion's Canon only upon the supposition (1) that Marcion did not know of the words iv 'E.oywu.p,ivov avDig ttcl Ttjv tov xi\pvyp.aTOg iiaxoviav "Koyog i%ii aTtihaoiai to'c aicoaTo'hov, itvTipov "S iirifixvTa, x.t."K. THE SECOND ROMAN IMPRISONMENT. 59 proficiscentis. It is, to say the least, very probable that the writer of this reference, living in Rome, or somewhere in Italy, knew something of the apostle's journey into Spain, and that he supposes the fact to be known in his own neighbour hood. Still more weighty is the passage already quoted from Clement of Rome, where it is said that St. Paul suffered in Rome after he had gone i-rrl to rippia tJ}? Bvaew;. This passage has given much trouble to those who deny St. Paul's liberation from the first Roman imprisonment. Wieseler for eVi would read viro, and thinks that this was the reading of the only codex which contains the Epistle of Clemens Romanus — viz. of the Cod. Alex, of the N. T., where, according to the first printed edition (by Junius), the true reading is doubtful. He would accordingly translate the words, " after he had appeared before the highest power of the West." But later editors of the epistle, who have again examined the codex, read (without any comment) iirl (not only Wotton, Cambridge 1718, but also Jacobson, Oxford 1838) ; so that we must regard it as certain that this is the true reading of the codex.1 But even if this were not the case, there could be no hesitation about supplying iiri instead of vvo, and Wieseler' s rendering of the words based upon it is in the highest degree unuatural. All others are agreed that to Teppta t??? Bvaea><; must be taken in a local sense. Some, however, suppose that Clement refers simply to Rome itself, or to Italy. So De Wette, Schenkel, Baur, Reuss, and others. Baur and Schenkel think that the ex pression is used subjectively with reference to St. Paul, for Rome as the limit of his labours in the West, so that the genitive is to be taken as explicative — " he came to the goal or limit appointed to his labours in the West," i.e. to Rome :2 1 [While in Junius the letters at em are printed in red, Jacobson (in his 4th edition, 1863), i. p. 28, says : qux tamen in MSto adhuc exhibentur. Dr. Petersen has of late again examined the Codex Alex. in the British Museum, and informs us " KAIEniTOTEPMA is beyond a doubt, and without lacunx, the reading here." Cf. Laurent, in the Zeitschr. f. Luther. Theol 1863, p. 416 sqq.] 2 [So also Otto, who takes to1 Tippia to denote the goal of a racecourse: " the goal appointed for the apostle's course in the West."] 60 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. and thus Baur thinks that his apostolic life and labours are likened to the course of the sun ; and that Rome, as the extreme point in the West to which he came, is described as the place of "his going down." But this subjective appli cation of the expression is, if we look at the simple words themselves, iirl to Teppia Trjs Bvaew; (not even t??? Bvaews avTov) iXdd>v, quite unnatural. Others, as e.g. De Wette, think that the relative expression Teppia is rhetorically applied to Rome as the most westerly point of those labours of the apostle which began far east in Jerusalem. But Clement clearly distinguishes between Bvai<;, which is the simpler anti thesis to dvaToXr) and to Teppia t^? Bvaew;, and we must keep in mind the fact that Clement lived and wrote in Rome. A writer living in the far east might perhaps speak thus of Rome or of Italy; but certainly one living in Rome — a Roman bishop — could make use of such an expression only with reference to a point lying far west of Rome : and thus from this very passage we are led necessarily to think of Spain. We may therefore regard it as certain that St. Paul really did labour in the parts referred to ; for Clemens Romanus, who most probably is named in Phil. iv. 3 as the apostle's fellow-labourer, and who was a Roman bishop, in an epistle, the genuineness of which is beyond question — an epistle which was not (as De Wette and Schenkel think) written before the destruction of Jerusalem, but certainly in the course of the first century— mentions it as something known to his readers. This, in my opinion, is a witness sufficiently trustworthy for the historical truth of the fact in question, — a testimony which is confirmed by the passage in Muratori's Fragment. Now, if we may regard it as certain that St. Paul had not visited Spain any more than Rome, or any country west of Rome, previous to his seizure and imprisonment at Jerusalem, we are compelled to assume that he was liberated from his first Roman imprisonment, and, in the interval between this and his second imprisonment there, made a journey into Spain, according to the purpose entertained by him during his residence in Corinth (Rom. xv. 24, 28). THE SECOND ROMAN IMPRISONMENT. 61 This assumption is by no means contradicted by anything that is said in the Acts of the Apostles ; in my judgment, the statements there rather favour it. Baur, indeed (Pas- toralbriefe, p. 92), finds a conclusive argument against this assumption in St. Paul's farewell address to the Ephesian elders at Miletus (Acts xx. 17 sqq.). At ver. 25 the apostle says, " I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preach ing the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more ;" and in ver. 38 we are told that the elders sorrowed " most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more." Now, as Baur proceeds throughout on the pre supposition that the entire discourse is the composition of the writer of the book, who already had before him the subse quent facts, he thinks — and, upon this supposition, with fair ness — that he could not have put these words into St. Paul's mouth, nor have emphatically repeated them, if after all the apostle was in the issue liberated from his Roman imprison ment, and did visit again the Churches in Asia Minor. But the results of our investigations (§ 125, 130) have already led us to the conclusion that the discourse to the Ephesian elders must be looked upon as authentic. And if St. Paul did express himself as we are told in Acts xx., we are not obliged to conclude that he there delivered a prophecy, or spoke by divine revelation or other certain prescience, de claring that the impending imprisonment would end in his death, or that the Christians in these districts would never again see him. He rather expresses himself as if he felt a very strong presentiment of the worst issue. That he could not have meant it as a deliberate prophecy, is clear from the fact that in the epistles which he wrote during the Roman imprisonment, he expresses the hope and confidence that he would again visit the churches of Macedonia and Asia Minor (Phil. ii. 24 ; Philem. 22). No argument, therefore, can be drawn against our assumption from the statement to the Ephesian elders, or the comment of the narrator upon it. Luke, as he usually does in both his treatises, and in the Acts particularly, simply gives the account whicli he has before him without any comment of his own ; and it by no 62 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. means follows that because he does so, he was unaware of the more happy issue of that Roman imprisonment.1 The manner in which the book of the Acts closes (ch. xxviii. 31), viz. with the statement that Paul " abode two whole years in Rome in his own hired house, preaching the kingdom of God to all who came unto him, no man forbidding him," is by no means unimportant as bearing upon our assumption. The composition of the Acts must be placed certainly some years after the second year of the apostle's residence in Rome, and Luke must have concluded thus summarily and abruptly, because at this point an important change took place in the apostle's circumstances ; and it is very improbable, judging from the style and manner of this conclusion, that this change was the trial and martyrdom of the apostle, the final conclu sion of his life and labours. Far more conformable to the words of these last verses is it to suppose that the change which then took place was the liberation of the apostle, when a new series of labours and of visits to other places began, concerning which Luke, when he ended the book of the Acts, intended at a future time to give Theophilus an account. At any rate, we must conclude that the liberation of the apostle took place before the burning of Rome by Nero (a.d. 64, July 19 and onwards), and the persecution of the Christians which followed thereupon ; for after that time he certainly could not have obtained his freedom. This may certainly have been the case, not only on the supposition of St. Paul's arrival in Rome in the year 61, but supposing (as seems to us more probable) that he arrived in the spring of the year 62. In this latter case his liberation must have taken place only a few months before the terrible events referred to, and this is quite possible. 1 [Otto refers to the supposed plan of the book of the Acts (see § 123), and to the express revelation of Christ to the apostle, Acts xxiii. 11, that Paul should bear witness of Him " as far as Rome, and no farther." It reflects (he thinks) upon the apostolic character of St. Paul, to suppose that after that revelation he should have had in mind another goal still farther off than Rome. As if in that passage the apostle's labours were limited to Rome ! — B.] THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 63 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. §177. We know Titus only through the Pauline epistles ; he is not mentioned in the Acts. He is first named in Gal. ii. 3, oil the occasion of St. Paul's second journey to Jerusalem, Acts xv. He accompanied the apostle on this journey, and had probably been before then his assistant at Antioch. He was, according to Gal. ii. 3, an Hellenist, born of Greek parents, and had never been admitted as a member of the Jewish nation by the rite of circumcision. Very probably he had been converted by St. Paul, as the title given him in Tit. i. 4 seems to indicate (Tito) TeKvas). He is next mentioned in 2d Corinthians. The apostle had pro bably sent him (see § 150) from Ephesus to Corinth with a letter, now lost, which had been written between 1st and 2d Corinthians ; and the importance of this mission on such an occasion shows the great confidence which St. Paul re posed in him. The apostle met him afterwards in Mace donia with news from Corinth, and sent him back again with our 2d Corinthians, and to make the collection for the Chris tians in Judea. See 2 Cor. ii. 1 3, where he calls him " Titus, my brother," vii. 6, 13, 14, viii. 6, 16, 17, 23 (koivoovc-s e/^o? Kal els vpia<; avvep yap r)Bn airevBopiai, Kal 6 Katpo<; t^s dvaXvaecbs ptov icfteaTVKev. This, however, must be regarded simply as a presentiment, and not as an assured conviction, as is clear from vers. 17, 18, and still more from the contents of the entire epistle, which show that he did not expect to suffer imme diately. Of his helpers in the gospel, Luke only was with him (iv. 11). He sends greetings from several — of whom we know nothing, save that they were doubtless confessors of the Lord, and probably residents in Rome, without being officially employed in the service of the gospel — Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, " Kal ol dBeXtjiol 7rdvTe<;." Other helpers had been with him during this imprisonment (iv. 10, 12), who had now left, and whose departure he seems keenly to have felt : viz. (a) Demas, of whom he says, " he hath forsaken me, having loved this world, and has gone to Thessalonica." He is named in Col. iv. 14, Philem. 24, where St. Paul sends greetings from him, so that he must then also have been with the apostle. (b) Crescens, who had gone to Galatia, of whom we know nothing more, (c) Titus, who had gone to Dalmatia, where Christianity had probably been preached and planted by the apostle, because Dalmatia belonged to the province of Illyricum (Rom. xv. 19). (d) Tychicus, whom he had sent to Ephesus, and whom we have already had before us as the messenger to whom the Epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians were entrusted, and who probably conveyed the Epistle to Titus to Crete. In ch. i. 15 he speaks of "those who are in Asia" (ol iv 'Aala), who had turned away from him, and among whom were Phygellus and Hermogenes (persons unknown to us). 72 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. He speaks of this as a fact already known to Timothy, though it is not expressly said that they had been with him in Rome. Immediately afterwards he highly commends one Onesiphorus, who had been of great service to him in Ephesus, and who in Rome had evinced great love to him. This Onesiphorus seems- to have been an Ephesian, who during St. Paul's imprisonment in Rome came thither, and apparently was still there ; cf. iv. 19, dairaaai . . . tov 'Ovnaitpopov oikov. Timothy was not himself near to the apostle, but in Asia Minor, probably in Ephesus or the neighbourhood : the comparison of iv. 19 with i. 18 leads us to this conclusion ; so also iv. 14, cf . Acts xix. 33, 34. There also were probably Aquila and Priscilla (iv. 19, dairaaai UplaKav Kal 'AKiiXav), who had formerly resided in Rome, but who were obliged to leave through the edict of Claudius, and had come to Corinth (Acts xviii.), where St. Paul once sojourned with them. With him they had gone to Ephesus, where they remained a long time ; thence they must have removed to Rome, for they were at this .city when the Epistle to the Romans was written. We may with probability assume that they were not at Rome when St. Paul wrote our Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon ; otherwise they would surely have been mentioned, at least in the Colossian epistle. Before St. Paul's first coming to Rome they may have re turned to Asia, and have settled at Ephesus, where we here find them. The apostle's immediate object in the epistle was to urge Timothy to come to him as soon as possible (i. 4, iv. 9, 21, Trpb %eipioovo<;) ; and he commands him to bring Mark with him (iv. 11), who must have been at the time not far from Timothy ; also to bring some things which the apostle had left behind him at Troas on a former visit to those parts (iv. 13, tov eXovnv, "the cloak" or "the bag"). §182. In inquiring the time of writing, we take for granted the genuineness of the epistle ; and we are fully warranted to do this by the numerous personal references occurring in it, SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 73 which are of such a character that it would be almost im possible to explain them on the supposition of the spurious ness of the epistle. Genuineness, indeed, is stamped upon the letter throughout, so clearly and unmistakeably, that we cannot for a moment entertain the idea of its being a for gery. It would be very difficult to discover an object that could have induced any later writer to forge such an epistle in St. Paul's name. The question therefore arises, whether the historical facts and circumstances presented in the letter in any way point to and correspond with that Roman im prisonment which is mentioned in the end of the book of the Acts, and during which the Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, were written. Some of the latest expositors think that they do. Our epistle might have been written either before or after these others, either in the first or last portion of the two years' imprisonment : almost all (except Hug) are agreed in saying that it could not have been among these letters, i.e. after one and before another ; and they certainly are right in this, because in all those four Timothy is represented as with St. Paul, but when this was addressed to him he was far away. Most of those who put this epistle in this imprisonment hold that it was written later than the other four (so Hemsen, Kling, Wieseler) ; but others, e.g. Matthies, before them. The difference in Timothy's circumstances seems to favour this theory, just as that in Mark's relations, who, according to Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24, had been with St. Paul at Rome ; whereas in our epistle (iv. 11) he commands Timothy to bring him with him from Asia Minor. This might be ex plained if the epistle had been written in the beginning of the imprisonment ; for Timothy and Mark might have come to Rome in consequence of this command of the apostle, so that they would have been with him when he wrote Colos sians, Ephesians, and Philemon, and Timothy at least when he wrote Philippians. Our theory, indeed, that Timothy accompanied the apostle from Csesarea to Rome, and wrote the account of that journey given in the Acts (xxvii. xxviii.), would not agree with this supposition. But there are other 74 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. personal references in 2d Timothy which also militate against the opinion : e.g. (a) that Demas had forsaken him (iv. 10), for he was with St. Paul when Colossians (iv. 14) and Philemon (24) were written ; and as he is mentioned in 2d Timothy, it is very improbable that he had so soon come back to him again. It rather implies that 2d Timothy was written later. Again, (b) according to Acts xxvii. 2, Aris- tarchus sailed with St. Paul from Csesarea to Rome ; and he was still with the apostle, Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24, but not with him certainly when our epistle was written (see iv. 11). Aristarchus therefore, like Demas, as he was away from Rome when 2d Timothy was written, must have returned again to the apostle, which is still less probable. Further, (c) Tychicus, who was to convey the Epistles to the Colos sians and Ephesians, had been sent, according to 2 Tim. iv. 12, by the apostle to Ephesus. This also tells in favour of the opinion that 2d Timothy was written after those other epistles, even if it be thought by some that the mission named in 2d Timothy is the same as that in which he was entrusted with the Epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon. In limiting the date of the epistle to one and the same Roman imprisonment, we are thus compelled by overwhelm ing considerations to place it last. Accordingly Timothy and Mark must have left home since the writing of the other four epistles, and have gone to Asia Minor ; and this we may suppose, though it is not without difficulty, (a) It hardly is reconcilable as to time, considering that this imprisonment seems, according to the mention of it in the Acts, to have lasted only two years ; and that of those four earlier epistles sent during this Roman imprisonment, one (Philippians) was written at a different time from the other three, and under different circumstances, and none of them were written during the first half of the period named ; and yet that after wards Timothy was sent by St. Paul to Asia Minor, and a fifth letter written recalling him again to Rome, when he could hardly have reached his destination. It is difficult to conceive of all these epistles, events, and changes being SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 75 crowded into one and the same year. Moreover, (b) there is in 2d Timothy no hint whatever that Timothy had been with the apostle during the imprisonment in which he writes, still less that he had left him only a short time before ; nor is there any hint of the same kind concerning Mark. Still greater difficulty is presented in 2 Tim. iv. 20, against the opinion that the epistle was written during the first Roman imprisonment. This passage is not easily explicable upon such a supposition : "EpaaTo<; epieivev iv KoplvOa, Tpocf>ipiov Be d-rreXtTTOv iv MiXijtu) daOevovvTa. These words, in their natural sense, certainly lead us to suppose that St. Paul him self had been upon a journey, and had left Trophimus behind him at Miletus sick, and that Erastus had parted from him at Corinth. Now, if the epistle were written during the first Roman imprisonment, the reference in these words can only be to the last journey of the apostle recorded in the Acts from Achaia over Macedonia to Jerusalem. As to Erastus, it is not improbable that, as St. Paul had sent him with Timothy from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts xix. 22), and as he was with the apostle in Corinth when the Epistle to the Romans was written, and probably occupied a public position there (Rom. xvi. 23, olKovopio'; ttjs ,n-6Xea><;)) St. Paul may have left him behind when he departed from Corinth ; for he is not mentioned among the companions in travel upon the return journey in Acts xx. 4. But we can hardly understand how, after an interval of three years, St. Paul could thus have to inform Timothy of this fact ; for Timothy was himself in company with St. Paul ou that return journey, and is named as one of the companions in travel (Acts xx. 4). As to Trophimus, he was an Ephesian, and one of the apostle's companions on that journey from Mace donia to Jerusalem (Acts xx. 4) ; but he could not have been left at Miletus, because we find him with the apostle in Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 29) ; nor could he have been left there upon the voyage from Csesarea to Rome, for in the detailed account of that voyage Miletus is not named as one of the seaports at which they called. The way in which Wieseler endeavours to set aside this difficulty is very far-fetched. 76 THE PAULINE EFISTLES. He argues that the ship in which St. Paul embarked at Csesarea was bound for the coasts of Asia Minor (Acts xxvii. 2), so that, if they had remained on board, they would have gone forward to Miletus ; but when the Roman cen turion embarked with his prisoners on board another vessel at Myra in Lycia, Trophimus remained in the first ship, and went on in her to Miletus. But had this been so, St. Paul could hardly have said, " Trophimus / left sick at Miletus," which is 150 miles from Myra. We cannot, moreover, sup pose that the apostle could have had thus to inform Timothy of this circumstance two years after it occurred, when for a considerable part of this time Timothy had been with him in Rome, or especially when, according to our view, Timothy had been with the apostle on that very voyage. Whether this view of ours be adopted or not, the difficulty remains insuperable. If our epistle was really written during the first Roman imprisonment, we should have to give another meaning to this verse, to the effect that Paul had not been to Corinth and Miletus when Erastus and Trophimus re mained behind there, but that he simply had been expecting these friends, and they had not come ; and thus Hug, Matthies, Hemsen, Kling, and others, explain it. Hug takes the direXnTov as the 3d plur. thus : " Trophimus have they left at Miletus sick, i.e. they of Asia, with whom he was to have come to me, as witnesses for my case." Had this been the meaning, we should at least have expected that "they of Asia" (i. 15) would have been mentioned imme diately before. Matthies (p. 588) renders it, " On account of his sickness, I have been obliged to let him remain at Miletus." But any one fairly considering the language used must grant that St. Paul could not have expressed himself as he has, if he did not really mean to intimate that he had been to Miletus, and that Trophimus through sick ness could not accompany him farther. In like manner, if he did not mean that Erastus had parted from him, and stayed behind in Corinth, he could not have said epieivev iv KopivBtp, but would certainly have used some other expres sion ; e.g., " Erastus has not come to me," or the like. FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 77 §183. Assuming, therefore, the indisputable genuineness of this epistle, its contents confirm our belief in the twofold Roman imprisonment of St. Paul. And bearing in mind the data of the Epistle to Titus, and the passage from Clement of Rome, the most probable supposition seems to be, that when St. Paul obtained his freedom at the end of the two years' imprisonment, he went first into Spain, thence with Titus to Crete, thence to Asia Minor and Greece, visiting Troas, Miletus, and Corinth, and that he had not seen Timothy since he was at these last-named places. We have indeed no information as to the manner in which he came to be again a prisoner in Rome. Possibly he went thither voluntarily, in order to visit the brethren, and was appre hended during his residence there, and his imprisonment ended in his martyrdom. At any rate, we must assume (a) that a tolerably long interval elapsed between the end of the first and the beginning of the second Roman impri sonment, probably not less than two years ; (b) that during this interval the burning of Rome, and the first bloody per secution of the Roman Christians by Nero following there upon, took place. If this had not preceded, we can hardly understand how St. Paul could have said, with reference to the Roman authorities (2 Tim. iv. 17), eppvadnv e'« aToptaTos XeovTos. (c) That when the apostle returned to Rome, the first outburst of rage against the Christians had assuaged ; otherwise the proceedings against St. Paul could not have been so protracted as this epistle implies, (d) That the martyrdom of St. Paul could not have taken place before a.d. 8Q, and perhaps somewhat later. This is very probable, and tallies with the date given by Eusebius, viz. a.d. 67. THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. § 184. _ We have seen (§ 173) that criticism was directed against the genuineness of this book long before the two other pas- 78 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. toral epistles, and that amongst others Neander himself con fessed that he was not so fully satisfied about it as about all the other Pauline epistles in our Canon, including Titus and 2d Timothy. Most modern expositors and critics, on the other hand, think that we must form the same judgment concerning this as concerning the other two, and that all three must stand or fall together. It cannot be denied that there is a great similarity between 1st Timothy on the one hand, and 2d Timothy, and especially Titus, on the other, and that the three together stand contrasted in many points with the rest of St. Paul's epistles (see De Wette, § 155 a — c) ; showing apparently that they are the work of one and the same writer, and if not contemporaneous, were at any rate written very near together. My opinion is, that the case of 1st Timothy is very different from that of Titus and 2d Timothy, and that, if viewed as a genuine letter of St. Paul's, it presents far greater difficulties than do those. They who hold all three epistles to be spurious acknowledge this ; for they (e.g. Eichhorn, Baur, De Wette) regard 1st Timothy as written after the other two, and as to some extent dependent upon them, though perhaps by the same writer. Those who hold that all three epistles are genuine cannot allow this ; for, according to them, 1st Timothy must have been written at least before 2d Timothy. There is no question that this epistle, like the others, claims to have been written by St. Paul, who is expressly named as the writer (i. 1), and who is represented as addressing his letter to Timothy, whom he had left behind at Ephesus on his journey to Macedonia,1 and who had since been called upon to combat certain false teachers (i. 3). Directions are here given to Timothy to guide him in refuting these teachers, 1 [Otto, on the contrary, by a very far-fetched and distorted inter pretation of 1 Tim. i. 3, makes out that it is not St. Paul, but Timothy, who is said to have gone to Macedonia, whither St. Paul had sent him (Acts xix. 22). The epistle, he thinks, refers not so much to Church affairs in Macedonia generally, but to the Church at Corinth, whither Timothy had proceeded : it was, he thinks, not a letter sent to Timothy, but a paper of instructions given to him.] FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 79 in his behaviour to various classes of persons in the Church, and in enlarging and completing the organization of the community, until the apostle should himself come thither, as he hoped to do soon, though he might be delayed (iii. 14, 15, cf. iv. 13). It cannot be denied that it is very difficult to find a point in the portion of the apostle's life recorded in the book of the Acts answering to the historical relations implied in this epistle. I make the following remarks : — a. For a journey of St. Paul's from Ephesus to Macedonia we naturally turn our thoughts to that mentioned in Acts xx. 1, and most early expositors1 think that this is the one intended. But considering what we otherwise know of this, it does not correspond with the relations implied in our epistle. According to Acts xix. 22 (as we have seen), before St. Paul took that journey from Ephesus to Macedonia and Achaia, he had sent Timothy with Erastus from Ephesus, and Timothy was with the apostle in Macedonia when he wrote our 2d Corinthians. St. Paul could not then have written a letter wherein he implies that on coming from Ephesus he had left Timothy behind him there. To meet this objection, some expositors suppose that the mission of Timothy to Macedonia recorded in Acts xix. 22 is the same with that to Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10, 11), returning from which, St. Paul was expecting him again in Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 11) : he would therefore be returned again, when the apostle left Ephesus ; and the apostle would leave him behind when he started, and would write the epistle to him either from Macedonia, or on his journey thither. Contrary to expectation, however, Timothy was obliged by unforeseen circumstances to leave Ephesus again and follow the apostle, so that when 2d Corinthians was written, he would be again with St. Paul in Macedonia. This combina tion of circumstances is in more than one particular impro bable. The account in Acts xix. 21, 22 shows plainly that the mission there mentioned of Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia took place only a short time before St. Paul's 1 So Theodoret, Estius, Hammond, Michaelis, Hanlein, Schmidt, Heinrichs, Planck, Curtius, Hug, Anger, and others. 80 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. departure thither, and it is very unlikely that Timothy could have returned to Ephesus before St. Paul started. It is certain that the writer of that account knew nothing of such an occurrence, or of St. Paul's expecting him back, still less receiving him back, before he himself started. If St. Paul had written the letter under these circumstances from Mace donia, we can scarcely think that he could have intended, as 1 Tim. iii. 14 shows, to return very soon again to Ephesus ; for, according to Acts xix. 21 (cf. xx. 16), his purpose was to go on from Macedonia to Achaia, and it appears from 2d Corinthians that he kept to this. b. Matthies has advocated a very singular view. He thinks that St. Paul, upon his journey from Achaia (Acts xx. 1 sqq.), and before he returned over Macedonia to Asia Minor, despatched Timothy with oral instructions to Ephesus, and told him to stay there till he came ; and thus he takes the participle iropevopievos els MaKeBovlav (i. 3) to refer to Timothy. ? But this is hardly admissible on grammatical grounds, for in this case it should have been in the accusa tive. But apart from this, if St. Paul had sent Timothy from Achaia over Macedonia to Ephesus, to stay at this last- named place, he could not have said, " I commanded thee, when thou wentest to Macedonia, to abide still at Ephesus." In Acts xx. 4, moreover, Timothy is named among the apostle's companions on his journey back from Macedonia into Asia, and St. Paul could not have intended upon this journey to spend longer time in Ephesus, as 1st Timothy intimates. c. Other expositors, e.g. Mosheim, Schrader, Wieseler, Reuss, assume, for the sake of this epistle, an earlier journey of the apostle's not mentioned in the Acts, during the three years' residence in Ephesus (Acts xix.). Wieseler thinks that St. Paul made this journey in the last of those three years to Macedonia, Corinth, and Crete, whence he returned to Ephesus; Reuss, on the contrary, conjectures that he went first to Crete, then to Corinth, then to Illyricum, and then over Macedonia back to Ephesus. This last conjecture is the least tenable; for on such a journey as Reuss supposes, FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 81 St. Paul could not have expressed himself as he does (1 Tim. i. 3), that when he departed to Macedonia he told Timothy to abide still at Ephesus. But apart from this, if it be advis able for us to suppose that St. Paul did not spend the whole of these two or three years uninterruptedly in Ephesus, it is quite improbable — according to Acts xix. 10, and particularly St. Paul's own statement (Acts xx. 31) — that he could have made a journey of such length and importance during the Ephesian visit as this conjecture involves. Moreover, the relation of 1st Timothy to the other two Pastoral Epistles (on the supposition of its genuineness) obliges us to fix its date much nearer to these than such a conjecture would allow ; and least of all in relation to 2d Timoth}', if it was written (as we believe) during a second Roman imprisonment. §185. The question assumes another form if we put our 1st Timothy after the liberation of the apostle from his first im prisonment in Rome.1 We must in this case suppose that after his liberation St. Paul went to Ephesus, not long be fore he wrote our epistle, and that, leaving Timothy there, he went on into Macedonia. Considering the results at which we have already arrived (§ 178, 182), we might suppose the course of events to have been as follows : — St. Paul, having on the termination of his first imprisonment visited Spain and Crete, went into Asia Minor, and spent some time there, especially at Ephesus ; that here he left Timothy (who had perhaps been with him ever since he left Rome), while he went himself by Troas to Macedonia ; that when in Macedonia he wrote 1st Timothy and the Epistle to Titus, almost at the same time. He then may have returned to Rome by way of Corinth and Miletus, before he had again 1 So already CEcumenius and Theophylact ; so also Usher, Mill, Pearson, Clericus, Mynster (Kleine theol. Schriften, Copenh. 1825, p. 191 sqq.), Wurm, Wegscheider, Feilmoser, Heydenreich, Guericke, Bohl, Flatt, Mack (Com. uber die Pastoralbr. des Ap. P., Tub. 1836, 2d ed. 1841), Leo (Pauli ep. prima ad Tim. grxce cum comm. perpetuo, Leipz. 1837). [Conybeare and Howson, Alford.] VOL. II. F 82 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. seen Timothy ; and having arrived in the city, he was again imprisoned and wrote 2d Timothy. In this case we must suppose that he did not fulfil his intention, named in our epistle, to go to Ephesus again. Or we may suppose that, after writing our epistle, he did go to Ephesus, and thence came by Miletus and Corinth to Rome. Whichever conjec ture we adopt, it does not affect our epistle. This certainly may have been the case. But when we con template our epistle as written at this time, and under these circumstances, it presents both in its contents and its general bearing very serious difficulties : as a letter of St. Paul, with reference to the affairs of a Church which he had three times visited, spending during one of these visits between two and three years labouring among them, — a Church with whose members and officers he had many strong ties of affection (Acts xx.), among whom he had been a short time before he wrote ; a letter addressed to such a fellow-labourer and friend as Timothy, who had been in his service for many years, partly living with him, and partly fulfilling his com missions to other Churches, who had been in Ephesus with him more than once, and was known there as the most trusty companion of the apostle. That, in a letter written under the circumstances at the time implied, St. Paul should give Timothy so many directions and counsels in reference to the Church, and Timothy's personal position in relation to it, may not seem strange ; and we may suppose that he might write this or that which we are sure Timothy must long before have heard and known : he might intentionally do this, because the epistle was to be communicated to the Church ; and he wished to justify and confirm Timothy in his personal and official relations to the community. But these directions are of a very general character, such as would be as applicable to any other Church as to that at Ephesus ; e.g. iii. 1-13, v. 9 sqq., concerning the qualifica tions necessary in presbyters and deacons, the wives of pres byters and deaconesses. We cannot doubt that, when the epistle was written, these offices had long existed in the Ephesian Church, and were filled by certain individuals (cf. FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 83 Acts xx. 17); but they are spoken of as if they were now for the first time about to be established in a newly formed com munion. It has indeed been supposed that, during the long imprisonments at Caesarea and in Rome, the Churches had been much troubled and disordered by false teachers and disturbers of the peace ; and St. Paul, after his liberation, had stayed at Ephesus only a short time, so that he could not re-arrange matters fully. He had therefore left Timothy behind for this purpose, and thought it advisable to give him all necessary directions in writing. But supposing it was so, we certainly might have expected that these directions would have been expressed differently, and not as we find them. Considering the close intimacy subsisting between St. Paul and the Ephesian Church, we may be sure that he was kept informed, both at Cassarea and Rome, of their state and cir cumstances, and had as frequent intercourse with them as the distance would allow. He could not therefore have been very ignorant of the state of matters among them during the years he was absent. Admitting all this, our epistle inti mates that St. Paul had been again with them ; and whether his stay was long or short, it would be long enough to renew old friendships, and to learn what changes had taken place in the personal circumstances of the community. We are therefore justified in expecting that, in- his directions con cerning Church officers, St. Paul would not be satisfied with an enumeration of the qualifications necessary for the office generally, but would have referred Timothy to certain indi viduals ; for he must himself have known the qualifications of individuals in the Church, and their fitness to fill certain offices. In the Epistle to Titus, indeed, we find the direc tions given regarding the election of elders in a general way only ; but there the case was different. The directions are addressed to one or more Churches lately formed, with which the apostle had spent only a very short time — not long enough to become fully acquainted with personal matters. We can hardly believe that St. Paul would have kept personal matters and references to personal relations so en tirely in the background in other respects also. There are 84 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. no greetings either from St. Paul to the Church, or to par ticular members of the Church ; nor to Timothy on the part of the Macedonian Christians, who had been personally known to him, for he had often been among them, and had had a share in their first conversion. This appears all the more strange, because in his epistles generally St. Paul is wont to give so much prominence to what is personal, whether in the way of praise and comfort, or reproof and warning. Our epistle presents quite a contrast to 2d Timothy and to Titus in this respect ; and I confess that I cannot satisfactorily to myself explain this phenomenon in our epistle, upon the supposition of its genuineness, and that herein there lies for me a very serious ground of doubt.1 §186. Other grounds I regard as secondary; still the epistle presents much that is questionable. I may name the fol lowing : — (a.) The epistle contains much that reminds us of other Pauline Epistles, and much that is akin to the two other Pastoral Epistles. But this relationship is undeniably of such a kind, at least in part, as to be the more easily explained 1 [We cannot fail to be struck with the diffidence and reluctance with which Bleek here states his doubt, nor to perceive the candour with which, having balanced the arguments pro and con, and finding the preponderance in his reckoning on the negative side, he suffers not his religious sympathies and Christian conservatism to override his critical judgment. But while admiring his fairness and impartiality, we cannot estimate as he does the weight of the objection. Indeed, we might refer to some statements of his own, with reference to other epistles, which seem to meet the objections here advanced, (a.) It is admitted even by Baur (see Alpord's Greek Test. iii. Prolegg. 86), that we have in this epistle a reflection and counterpart of what St. Paul declared to the Ephesian elders (Acts xx. 29, 30), in the prospect of his speedy im prisonment and martyrdom (Acts xxi. 13), — a martyrdom which did not then occur, a presentiment which was not yet to be fulfilled. We can not, moreover, read the beautiful words of 1 Tim. i. 11-17, wherein the apostle so touchingly refers to his past history, and to the gracious deal ings of the Lord towards him, and the personal references to Timothy and others which follow (vers. 18-20), without feeling that we have FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 85 upon the supposition that 1st Timothy is the production of a later writer imitating St. Paul, than if we regard it as a genuine work of the apostle. This affinity is striking in 1 Tim. iii. 1-13 as compared with Tit. i. 5-9, where the qualifications necessary in the office-bearers of the Church are enumerated. Here the coincidence is striking, not only in thought, but in language ; but in Titus the Trpeafiinepoi only are named, while in 1st Timothy we have both the m-peafivTepoi as distinct from, and side by side with, the BiaKovoi, yet without any characteristic difference in the qualifications specified, though their functions were very dif ferent. It seems more probable that the latter has come from an imitator of the apostle's words to Titus, than from the same apostle who wrote the Epistle to Titus. We would infer the same from the manner in which " sound doctrine " is spoken of, 1 Tim. i. 10, as compared with passages in the other two epistles. Cf. 2 Tim. iv. 3, 4, i. 13 ; Tit. i. 9, 13, ii. 1, 2, 7, 8. " Sound doctrine " is named in these places as contrasted with what is effeminate, weak, pleasant only to the ear; and thus it is applied in 1 Tim. vi. 3, 4. But in 1 Tim. i. 10, the worst crimes are set in antithesis to it : " murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, whore mongers, them that defile themselves with mankind, men- here the genuine outgo of the apostle's tender, sympathizing, and in tensely human heart (see Howson on the Character of St. Paul). (?).) The facts, moreover, that St. Paul had been at Ephesus so short a time before (i. 3), and that he expected so soon to be there again (iii. 14), may partly account for the absence of greetings, (c.) The letter seems to have been intended as a summary of directions for Timothy's use and guidance, not only at Ephesus, but in other Churches. Timothy may have asked the apostle for such a summary of his oral counsels ; and considering the age of the apostle, and the uncertainty of his life, as well as the growing difficulties and perplexities of Church organization and discipline, it was natural for him to seek from the apostle such a, summary of directions, and natural for the apostle to give it. " These things I write unto thee," he says, iii. 14, 15, "though I hope to come unto thee shortly ; but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God." See the Prolegg. of Alford, the notes of Ellicott, and the article in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. — Tr.] 86 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. stealers, liars," etc. This is so unnatural an application of the term, that we can hardly believe that St. Paul himself used it in such a connection, but rather another writer who imitated the Pauline expression. (b.) In 1 Tim. i. 20, St. Paul says that some had made shipwreck of the faith, among whom were " Hymenseus and Alexander, whom," he says, " I have given over unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." This delivering over unto Satan certainly includes, if it does not simply mean, excommunication — expulsion from the Christian Church. It does not clearly appear whether St. Paul had himself, when at Ephesus, performed this act of discipline — the persons named having behaved in a manner which he regarded as contrary to pure and sound doctrine — or that he now for the first time pronounces the excommunication in this epistle. In either case, the mode of expression is not quite natural. But the main difficulty here arises from a comparison of this verse with 2d Timothy, where a Hymenseus and an Alexander are spoken of in a condemnatory manner, though in different connections. Hymenseus is named 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18 with a certain Philetus as a false teacher in Ephesus, who " believed that the resurrection is past already ; " and the apostle says of them, " they overthrow the faith of some," and " their word will eat as doth a canker." It is very unlikely (as some think) that this Hymenseus is different from the Hymenseus named in 1st Timothy : for if so, there must have been two false teachers at Ephesus of the same name, and this an uncommon name ; and if there were two, an intimation would have been given as to which of them was meant. But if both epistles refer to the same person, it would appear that he was still active in promulgating his views after he had been excommunicated ; and yet no notice is taken in 2d Timothy as to the fact of his previous excommunication, which we should certainly expect if the Church had acted upon the apostle's condemnation, or had neglected it. It is difficult to reconcile the two passages, supposing both epistles genuine. But we can easily understand how a later writer might be induced by the statement in 2d Timothy to men- FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 87 tion Hymenseus, even if he knew nothing more of him, as he is mentioned in 1st Timothy. And so also as to Alexander. An Alexander is named in 2 Tim. iv. 14, who is called " the coppersmith," and who did the apostle " much evil," and who "greatly withstood his words;" of whom Timothy is to beware also. We may therefore suppose that this man was at least then in Ephesus, in the same place with Timothy. An Alexander at Ephesus is named in Acts xix. 33, a Jew, who was put forward by the Jews at the insurrection against the Christians in Ephesus to defend them, lest they should be confounded with the Christians. At that time he cer tainly was not a member of the Christian Church there ; but he may be the same with the Alexander named in 2 Tim. iv. 14, for the mention of him here does not necessarily imply that he belonged to the Church: we are not at least obliged to regard him as a false teacher, as he is represented in 1st Timothy. As the name Alexander was much more common than Hymenseus, we might suppose there were more than one of the name opposed to the apostle in Ephesus. Still the fact that in 2d Timothy he is called %aXKevs does not oblige us to suppose that there were others of the same name who were also hostile to the apostle, and that it was more necessary to warn him than them. But we can easily understand how a later writer who knew 2d Timothy might mistake this Alexander for a false teacher like Hymenseus, and put them both together in the same censure, as we find in 1st Timothy. (c.) The words in 1 Tim. iv. 12 : pinBefc aov ttjs veornTos KaTatppoveiTco. We have here, as the connection shows, a warning to Timothy that, in his behaviour as a teacher, and in his general walk and conversation, he should give no occa sion for any one to despise him on account of his youth. Cf. Tit. ii. 15. The difficulty lies in the t?}? veoTrjTos, supposing the epistle to have been written by St. Paul after the first Roman imprisonment. For though Timothy was not yet an old man, he had already been many years a faithful fellow- worker with the apostle, and had been sent by him upon the most difficult missions. During St. Paul's second missionary 88 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. tour, when the apostle took him with him from Lycaonia, he sent him from Athens to the newly formed Church in Thes salonica, to confirm the believers there in the faith, and to exhort them lest any should waver under trial ; and he calls him his " brother and fellow-labourer with God in the gos pel of Christ " (1 Thess. iii. 2-4) : showing how already on this journey Timothy had approved himself to St. Paul by the ripeness of his Christian knowledge and practical prudence and ability. Now, supposing 1st Timothy to have been written after St. Paul's first imprisonment, a space of at least ten years must have elapsed since this commendation was written; and during those ten years, the Ephesians in particular had ample opportunity of knowing and appre ciating Timothy. St. Paul had sent him from Ephesus with out hesitation to a Church so rent with dissension as was at Corinth ; and this witnesses to the great trust the apostle reposed in him, and to the esteem in which he was held by the Pauline Churches. It therefore certainly does seem very improbable that, in an epistle written at least five years later, the apostle should be anxious lest the Ephesian Chris tians should despise Timothy on account of his youth ; and it seems to me easier to suppose that a later writer altered Tit. ii. 15, and applied it in this inappropriate manner to Timothy.1 (d.) 1 Tim. ii. 7 also contains what is strange, viz. the great emphasis with which St. Paul assures Timothy, who had been his fellow-labourer and friend for so many years : 1 [" Hoc dicit tam aliorum respectu, quam ipsius Timothei." — Calvin, in loc. " There is no difficulty in the term veomg applied to Timothy. It is in a high degree probable (see Acts xvi. 1-3) that Timothy was young when he first joined the apostle (a.d. 50, Wieseler) : if he were then as much as twenty-five, he would not be more than thirty-eight (according to Wieseler's chronology) or forty (according to Pearson's) at the assumed date of this epistle, — a relative vsorn; when contrasted with the functions he had to exercise, and the age of those (ch. v. 1 sq.) he had to overlook." — Ellicott, in loc. So also Alford, Greek Test. iii. Proleg. 97. Davidson, Introduction to the N. T. (1851), iii. 30, follow ing Wieseler, uses the argument from veor/ig in proof of the early composition of the epistle by St. Paul. — Tr.] FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 89 et? b iTeQnv iya> Kr\pv% ical cnroaToXos — dXr)9eiav Xiyco, ov \frevSop.ai — BiBdaKaXos edvwv iv irlaTei Kal dXndela. With out this emphasis, and yet with verbal coincidence, we have the expression in 2 Tim. i. 11 : eh b iredwv iym Krjpvt; Kal artoaToXo'; Kal BiBdaKaXos iBv&v. We find an asseveration in similar language, but in a very different and more appro priate place, in Rom. ix. 1 (aXrfieiav Xeyto iv XptaTw, ov yfrevBoptai), when affirming his great grief on account of the apostasy of his nation. But it is quite inexplicable how, in a letter to Timothy, and in such a connection as in 1st Timothy, the apostle could resort to such asseveration. We may far rather suppose that another writer has here blended together the two passages referred to in an inappropriate manner.1 (e.) In 1 Tim. v. 18 are quoted, as declarations of Scrip ture (Xeyei r\ pdaea>v Btatfiopas optoXoyrjaai av. The epistle is throughout distinguished by accuracy in the position of words, the result, apparently, in very many instances of careful design, and by the regular construction of its sentences. The paragraphs are some times arranged in a regular series of premises and conclu sions, with parentheses, which yet have a connection with the main topic; while the whole is developed in a regular manner, VOL. II. G 98 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. without a single anacolouthon. (See e.g. ii. 2-4, 14, 15, ix. 13, 14, and especially vii. 20-22 and xii. 18-24.) In this respect it presents the greatest possible contrast with the style exhibited in the epistles of Paul, who, when he lays down some leading proposition at the beginning of a para graph, apparently intended to evolve it, does not carry it on smoothly according to strict grammatical rule, but frequently joins one proposition to another ; or if he retains his hold of and resumes the particular one with which he started, seldom does so in such a way as to make the close agree with the commencement, at least in construction. Hence in this apostle we seldom meet with parentheses strictly so called, at any rate of any length. It is true that very often, before he has fully unfolded the principal thought in some main para graph, he adds various intermediate paragraphs ; but then usually he does not return to complete the construction of the main paragraph, or even once connect his continuation with it, so far as the thought is concerned, but rather with the paragraphs which, strictly speaking, are merely subordi nate and secondary. In proof of this, let any compare the passages just cited from the Hebrews with, for example, Rom. v. 12 sqq. Paul's style agrees well with his impe tuous and fiery character, which does not allow him in his epistles to think much of rounding and perfecting his periods with strict grammatical accuracy. Very different is it with the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is a work of far more art, and discovers more of conscious painstaking, and a far more constant use of the file, which indeed the author applies from beginning to end, than is usual with St. Paul, or could in deed be at all expected when we bear in mind that apostle's impulsive character. Nor can these differences be explained, as some have thought, by the date of writing, or by the special circumstances of those to whom the epistle was addressed. As regards the first point, if the epistle was written by Paul, it could hardly have been so much later than the latest of his other ones; and then we could not ex plain the total change in his style, which certainly to a great extent could only have been the result of some revolution EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 99 in his character. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive at all how such a style as we meet with in Paul's genuine epistles could change into that which we see in this Epistle to the Hebrews. Again, the difference of style could not have been caused by any peculiarities in the position and require ments of very different classes of readers. Whatever opinions may be held as to the persons to whom the epistle was ori ginally addressed, it is almost universally allowed that they were Jews by race, and not Greeks. But if so, it is hard to understand why, in a letter to such persons, Paul should have taken far more pains with his style and diction than he did when writing, for example, to Greeks so highly educated as the Corinthians, his epistles to whom do not differ essen tially from those he sent elsewhere, and certainly cannot be brought into the most distant comparison with the Epistle to the Hebrews, while it is in them he himself confesses he is but an iBid)Tr)<; rra Xoya> (2 Cor. xi. 6). Lastly, these differ ences cannot be explained by assuming that Paul dictated this epistle to one who knew Greek far better than those whom he employed in the case of his other epistles. If the idiosyncrasies of those to whom he dictated could have so marked an influence on the whole style of an epistle, we should certainly expect to find illustrations of the fact in his various other epistles, where we know he did not always avail himself of the same help, as well as in this to the Hebrews, especially if we brought into the comparison such as were written by his own hand. This, however, is not the case. For example (according to Rom. xvi. 22), he dictated the Epistle to the Romans to one Tertius, who, judging from his name, was not a Jew, while the Epistle to the Galatians was written by himself ; yet we cannot detect any essential difference of style between the one and the other, at least nothing like that to be found when we compare these two with the Epistle to the Hebrews. b. We are led to the same conclusions by the by no means unimportant difference in many ways between our epistle aud those of Paul, in the citation of Old Testament passages. (a) We shall notice first the relation which the citations bear 100 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. to the Hebrew text and the LXX. In this epistle the Old Testament is regularly quoted (cf. § 189), with the single exception of x. 30, which is from Deut. xxxii. 35 (cf. § 196), according to the LXX., and for the most part with such verbal exactness, especially in the case of the longer passages, as to make it highly probable that the author either turned them up, or had them lying open before him in his codex of the LXX., for the purposes of citation. The words of the LXX. are adhered to, and the argument is to some extent based upon them, though they may differ more or less from the sense of the Hebrew. Even where there are no express citations, but only reminiscences of the Old Testament Scrip tures, and allusions to their contents, it is always the expres sions of the LXX. which the author has before his mind. It cannot be denied that he seems to have derived all his knowledge of the Old Testament from the LXX., and exhibits hardly a trace of any acquaintance with the original Hebrew text. Very different is it with the Apostle Paul. It is true he, too, usually cites the Old Testament from the LXX. ; but he also not unfrequently appeals to the Hebrew text, and either corrects the LXX. by it, or trans lates it himself into Greek, departing from the LXX. especially when that version is inaccurate, and the varia tion has a bearing on his argument, — though sometimes also when this is not quite the case. Moreover, Paul allows himself great freedom in his citations, and generally quotes passages according to the sense rather than according to the letter. The difference exhibited by our epistle on this last point is in harmony with its general character — the greater literary care bestowed throughout upon it. But as to the other point of difference, it is not easily explicable on the hypothesis of identity of authorship. We can see from his epistles that the Apostle Paul knew the O. T. Scriptures quite as well in the original text as in the Alexandrian translation ; and his use of the latter in most cases was due to the very natural supposition, that his Greek and Helle nistic readers would be better acquainted with it than with the Hebrew. In an epistle, however, such as this to the EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 101 Hebrews, written certainly for Jews only, the writer would have no need to keep so much more in the background than is the case in the Pauline Epistles, his knowledge of the original text of the Old Testament. The phenomenon cau only be explained on the supposition of an author different from Paul, less skilled in Hebrew and the original text of the Old Testament than the apostle, who had been brought up in a school of learning at Jerusalem. (See further my Einl. § 79-81, pp. 338-369.) (/3) It is also worth while to notice on this point the differ ence in the formula? by which O. T. citations are introduced. In the Hebrews, by far the most usual practice is to describe these citations as the statements or testimonies of God— 6 @eo? Xeyet, ehrev, elpnKev, XaXei, ptapTvpei, and the like — whether the word God be expressly mentioned or obviously left to be understood from the context. In this way, even such passages are introduced as speak of God in the third person, and where, therefore, He cannot be regarded as directly the speaker (i. 6, 7, 8, iv. 4, vii. 21, x. 30) : we also find twice, to Ilvevpta to dyiov Xeyei — ptapTvpei (iii. 7, x. 15) ; and twice passages are quoted as direct statements of Christ, the Son of God (ii. 11, 13, x. 5, 8 sq.). It is otherwise with St. Paul. To be sure, he several times quotes O. T. passages as the words of God — Xeyei 6 ©ed?, and the like ; but this is only in passages wliich, in their position in the O. T. itself, represent God directly as the speaker, and apply the first person to Him (Rom. ix. 15, 25; 2 Cor. vi. 2, 16, 17 ; Gal. iii. 16), never where this is not the case. Besides, St. Paul very often names the human author as the speaker or writer, especially in his Epistle to the Romans : AaviB Xeyei, Maiiarjs (to?) yiypaiTTai, KaTot to yeypapipievov, KaTa to elprjpiivov, Xe^et fj ypa? TTavXov avTrjv irapaBeBd>Kaaev, that the early writers unanimously regarded Paul as the author of our epistle ; for such a position Origen certainly could not have taken up, especially in respect of the West (vid. infra). Un doubtedly, by ol dpyaioi dvBpes, Origen meant that some early writers in particular regarded and described the epistle as Paul's, and handed down a tradition to this effect, very probably referring it to some of the Alexandrians, as e.g. Pantsenus and Clement. The phrase ol dpyaioi dvBpes is to be taken comparatively, and need not be understood, with Hug, of men who immediately followed the apostles, or with Tholuck, of such as lived at the beginning of the second century. Had there been any older writers expressly testifying to Paul as the author of our epistle, we may be sure they would have been known to Eusebius, who has brought together so much matter of this kind, and would hardly have failed to specify them along with the rest. He 106 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. does not, however, do anything of the kind, (b.) When Origen says, tis d ypdtyas ttjv iiriaToX^v, to piev dXv6e<; 0eo? o'lBev, it is plain, if we bear in mind what he says before, that he means it is uncertain which of Paul's disciples it was who developed his master's ideas in this epistle ; while it is also clear, from the manner in which he sets forth this notion, that he himself was the first to suggest and vindicate it, in order to reconcile the two different views, one of which made Paul, while the other made some other Christian teacher, the author of this epistle, (c.) Hence it is altogether incorrect to understand, with Hug and others, Origen's remark, " The tradition handed down to us teaches that, according to some Clement of Rome, according to others Luke, was the author of our epistle," as simply referring to the person who merely recorded the apostle's ideas on paper. Quite as little could he have meant by them to allude to the translator who ren dered the epistle into Greek from the apostle's Hebrew or Aramsean original ; for of such he certainly would not have said, eypaijre ttjv iiriaToXrjv. The truth seems to be, that, besides the view which attributed the epistle to Paul, Origen found another referring it to Clemens Romanus or Luke. Both views were of early date, for the expression f] Be eh fjptds (pddaaaa- laTopla refers, no doubt, to the second as well as to the first ; and both were probably held in Origen's own part of the world, at least in the Greek Church, just as, in fact, in another place (Ep. ad Africanum, ix.), he expressly speaks of some who denied that the epistle was due to Paul (toov dQeTOWToov ttjv iiriaToXrjv &>? ov IlavXa yeypaptpievnv) : and thus it seems to have occurred to him to attempt to re concile both views in the way above mentioned, as Clemens AI. before him had tried to do, though in a different manner. There can be no doubt that the belief that Paul wrote this epistle was by far the most usual in the Alexandrian Church even in the second half of the second century, and that it became still more general after Origen's time, since we find all the succeeding Alexandrian and Egyptian Fathers gene rally appealing unhesitatingly to it as Paul's (see my Einl. § 32-36). In the other Churches, even after the middle of EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 107 the third century, we nowhere find the epistle quoted and used as an apostolical document written by St. Paul. In the Greek Church, however, at the beginning of the fourth cen tury, it must have been so regarded by all or nearly all, as indeed it always had been in this Church, except so far as most of the Arians were concerned. On the other hand, the phenomena presented by the whole Western, and espe cially by the Roman, Church in relation to this epistle are most unfavourable to St. Paul as the author. " As far as the Churches of Gaul are concerned, our only authority is Irenseus. In his work adversus Hcereses this Father makes use of Paul's epistles (with the exception of that to Philemon), and repeatedly quotes them under his name. But he never quotes a single passage from the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is inexplicable if he had really regarded it as possessed of apostolical authority, since it would have furnished him with much appropriate material in the controversy which, in the work referred to, he carries on with the Valentinians and other Gnostics. It is true that, according to Eusebius (v. 26),1 in another work now lost, fiiftXiov BiaXe^eav Bia- tpopcov, he has mentioned our epistle, and quoted from it. Still, taking Eusebius' own statement, it is highly probable Irenseus did not attribute the passage he quotes to the Apostle Paul. According to an expression of Stephen Gobarus (sixth cent., in Photius, Bibl. cod. 232 ; ed. Bekker, p. 291), Irenseus (as also his disciple Hippolytus) must have denied that our epistle was written by St. Paul,2 — a point on which, however, nothing more definite is known to us. With regard to the Church in proconsular Africa, we have an important witn essfor the period now referred to in Tertullian, for whom the epistle must have had a special interest, inasmuch as part of it (vi. 4-8) seems to furnish the strongest argu ment for the doctrine which, as a Montanist, he held on the 1 B//3?uo!/ ti iia'he^mv iiatyopuv, iv $ rij? ¦jrpog 'F.fSpaiovg in loro'h'/ig xal riti ~htyop.evtig 2o

vXal merely a symbolical designation of Christen dom in general, and no reference at all to a particular nationality. A designation of this kind would be very un natural ; and an expression in the epistle itself, 'ABpahpi 6 •jraTtjp r)piwv, shows plainly that James at least had in view as his readers principally Jews, Jewish Christians. His very position would lead us to expect this. For though it may scarcely have been his intention definitely to exclude Gentile Christians from any concern with his epistle, he might natu rally have thought it would look obtrusion on his part to busy himself expressly with them in the exhortations he gave. Accordingly he only mentions his own countrymen as those for whom his epistle was directly written. As regards the date of the epistle, many learned men2 have 1 Koster, Stud. u. Krit. 1831, iii. pp. 581-588 ; Lucke, ib. 1831, iv. p. 928; Neudecker. 2 As Nosselt (Opusc. ad interpr. Sacr. Script. Fasc. ii. (Halle 1787), EPISTLE OF JAMES. 145 placed it very early, during the first period of the spread of Christianity beyond Judea, and even before the apostolical council of Acts xv. ; so that it would be the earliest of all the New Testament writings. This, however, is certainly wrong. The sort of general designation of the readers in the introductory salutation admits of a natural explanation only if the epistle was written at a time when Christianity had spread in various directions beyond Palestine. This is evident also from ii. 7, which proves that the name Chris tians (koXov ovopia, k.t.X.) was aleady the one by which those who confessed the Lord were chiefly known ; i. 2 sqq., where Christ's followers are spoken of as having had to endure tribulations and persecutions ; ii. 1 sqq., where we see that already even in the public assemblies of Christian people a special honour and regard was openly shown to people of rank and wealth ; lastly, ii. 14 sqq. points to a time when St. Paul's doctrine of justification by faith had spread far and wide by that apostle's personal preaching, and possibly by his epistles also, giving rise to much misunderstanding and practical abuse. Indeed, it is not at all improbable, from the way in which James writes on this topic, that he had in view those epistles of St. Paul in which this doctrine is developed, such as the Galatians and Romans. The date of the epistle, therefore, may probably be placed at a time not long before the death of James (circ. 63-64 a.d.). There can be no doubt, we may add, that it was written at Jeru salem, since this was James' usual place of abode. We are also led to place its composition somewhere in Judea, not only by the description of its readers as iv tjj BiaaTropa, but by particular expressions and figures which are best explained from a Palestinian point of view (vid. on this point, Hug, ii. § 155). Probably James sent the epistle first of all to the neighbouring district of Syria, into which Christianity had made its first entrance after passing beyond Palestine — to the Churches there, with which possibly that at Jerusalem had p. 308 sqq.), Neander, Schneckenburger (Beitr. p. 209 sq. ; Annot. ad Ep. Jac. perpetua, Stuttg. 1832, p. 138), Weiss (Deutsche Zeitschr., etc., 1854, Nos. 51, 52) ; similarly Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, 2d ed. i. 648). VOL. II. K 146 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. more intercourse than with any other of the foreign Churches. Thence the epistle might circulate still further into other countries. § 207. As regards the design of this epistle, there may have been no special circumstance to call it forth. It belongs, as we have seen, to a time when, in the Christian Church and on its behalf, literary activity, and especially, as in St. Paul's case, communications by letter; were not unusual. It is there fore very possible that a man like James, with his position, and the respect he enjoyed in a large part of Christendom even beyond Judea, having zealously at heart the promotion of Christian piety, felt the need of saying something to his fellow-countrymen and fellow-believers who were away from their national home, and writing such instructions and exhor tations as from his knowledge of their circumstances and needs he knew would be for their profit. These instructions and exhortations refer principally : (a) to the distresses threaten ing Christian people, sent as trials to prove them, for the right endurance of which prayer for wisdom from above and a distrust of all transitory earthly possessions were necessary, i. 1-12 : (b) to the disposition to ascribe temptations to evil to God, whereas they arise from our own lusts ; and to the error of supposing it enough to profess Christianity by the mouth, — true fear of God being shown by practical love of those in want, and care to keep oneself unspotted from the world, i. 13-27 : (c) to the mutual relations of rich and poor in the Churches, and to the inclination to show partiality to wards the former, ii. 1-13 : (d) to the abuse of the doctrine especially proclaimed by St. Paul, of free justification by faith alone, without works, ii. 14—26 : (e) to the inclination on the part of so many to assume the office of teachers in the Church, without any true call, wliich gave rise to much bitter contention, disfavour, and division, iii. 1-iv. 12 : (/) to the oppression which the rich practised upon the poor, and the presumption with which in their rash security they spoke of their future undertakings, instead of humbly submitting EPISTLE OF JAMES. 147 their realization to God, iv. 13-v. 6. There are also many other exhortations. Through them all there certainly runs an inner bond of connection ; still they are not as appro priately knit together as are the hortatory parts of St. Paul's epistles. The whole epistle exhibits high moral earnestness, but gives less prominence to the importance and power of faith. The section ii. 14-26 has often given occasion to the assumption that James is there contending against Paul's doctrine of justification by faith, and was himself opposed to Paul's view. On this ground Luther, in particular, could find so little in the epistle, that in the Preface to his New Testament, issued in 1524, he characterizes it as " eine rechte strOherne Epistel die keine evangelische Art in sich hat." At a still later period he spoke no less unfavourably of it, as did also many other Lutheran theologians of the Reformation. Subsequently the epistle obtained a better reception even in the Lutheran Church, and it is now acknowledged that Paul and James agree essentially with one another ; and though James, indeed, had Paul's doctrine in view, he was only arguing against its abuse by carnally-minded men, against whom we find Paul' himself contending, though in a some what different way. There certainly is a marked difference in the cast of mind of these two Christian teachers, but no opposition in doctrine. Style. — The Greek of this epistle is tolerably pure (speak ing comparatively), and the diction sometimes even elegant and poetical. We have already remarked (§ 130) that it is not unlikely James drew up the letter of the apostles given in Acts xv. 23-29, which is also pretty good Greek. §208. In what has been said so far, I have taken for granted the genuineness of this epistle, and I think quite justifiably. This has indeed at various times been assailed from many points, but the reasons alleged are anything but satisfactory. In our own day, Kern in particular was the the first (Tiib. Zeitschr. 1835, ii. pp. 1-132) who, with great acuteness, assailed the genuineness of this epistle, so far as it was attri- 148 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. buted to James the Lord's brother (whom he identified with the Apostle James the Less). Afterwards, however, he re tracted his opinion (Der Br. Jak. untersiicht u. erklart, Tub. 1838), and, convinced especially by Credner's Vindication, declared decidedly in favour of its genuineness. On the other hand, De Wette, who at first spoke hesitatingly, in his 4th ed., after the essay of Kern just referred to, declared decidedly against its genuineness ; so also Baur (Paulus, pp. 677-692, especially p. 688 sq., note), Schwegler (Nachapost. Zeitalter, i. 414 sqq.). In his 5th ed. De Wette speaks more favourably of the epistle ; and though he still hesitates, seems to be more inclined to admit its genuineness. It would cer tainly be decisive against the epistle, if it were true, as De Wette and Baur, and Hug before them, assume, that at ii. 25 the author had the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 31) in view ; for unquestionably that epistle was written after the death of James. There is not, however, the slightest ground for such an assumption.1 A strong argument in favour of the genuineness of the epistle appears to me in the manner in which, at i. 1, James is designated simply " a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ." James might certainly have been quite content to describe himself simply in this way, if at the time when he wrote he was the only one of the name James among the Christian teachers to whom people would think of attributing such a work. But a later fabri cator would certainly not have neglected to describe more particularly the James, as whose work he wished to pass his off, as brother of the Lord and bishop of Jerusalem or apostle, and thus have sought expressly to establish the claim of his work to pre-eminent authority, without which he would hardly have thought himself justified in writing. It is, however, quite otherwise in the epistle, where the writer speaks as a man of distinction and influence, but not as one feeling it necessary to show he is such by pointing out his office, or the like. Moreover, the external history of the 1 See my Einleit. in d. Br. an die Hebr. p. 89 sq., note 91. Zeller (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1863, pp. 93-96) sees a use of the Apocalypse at i. 12 of this epistle. Compare Rev. ii. 10. EPISTLE OF JAMES. 149 epistle in the Church is not unfavourable to its genuineness, if in considering it we only bear in mind, (a) that the epistle, though genuine and authentic, is not strictly the work of an apostle ; and (b) that in its doctrinal contents it exhibits a narrow dogmatic range, comparatively speaking, and in the section ii. 14-26 may easily be regarded as opposed to Paul's doctrine. Under these circumstances, it is conceivable that it may have been long before it obtained recognition in all parts of the Church, and that doubts should be raised whether it was a genuine work of James, especially if he were identified with the apostle of the same name. Nothing, however, really unfavourable to the actual origin of the epistle would follow from all this. Thus Jerome says, de vir. illustr. 2, of James the Lord's brother : unam tantum scripsit epistolam, qua? de septem catholicis est, qua? et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur, licet paulatim tempore procedente obtinuerit auctoritatem. So also Eusebius (H. E. iii. 25 ; vid. § 246) places our epistle among the dvTi- Xeyopievai, and says of it, laTeov Be co? vodeveTai, (ii. 23). In the Western Church we meet with little or no use of the epistle during the first centuries ; but in the Alexandrian and Syrian Churches — that is, those most closely allied with the Church in Palestine — we find it recognised at a very early period. In his Hypotyposes, Clement of Alexandria treated of it among other things, and we have no hint that he ever looked upon it as anything else than a work of James. Origen cites it more than once as a document of authority. But the most important testimony is its early recognition in the Syrian Church, shown by its inclusion in the old Syrian version, while others of our catholic epistles (Jude, 2d Peter, and 2d and 3d John) were excluded. It is therefore evi dent that in this part of the Church it must have been recognised at an early period, and so decisively, that no mis givings were felt as to its public use in the Church, which could not have been had there been any doubt as to its genuineness. This is all the more important, because be tween the Syrian Church and that at Jerusalem, over which James presided, there was a close connection from an early 150 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES period ; and the Jewish Christians there must always have had much to do with James and the apostles at Jerusalem, as is clear from the Acts and the Epistle to the Galatians. Hence it would be hard to explain this early recognition of the epistle in this Church, if it had been the forgery of some later writer, and therefore had come into the possession of the Syrian Church only after James' death. Moreover, it is highly probable Clement of Rome recognised and used our epistle in the same way as he did passages from the Epistles of Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews,1 which he would hardly have done if the work were a later forgery, and above all as one written in opposition to Paul. Also in the Shepherd of Hermas, Mandat. 12, § 5,2 we probably have a reminiscence of Jas. iv. 7. This is also exceedingly likely in the case of several passages in 1st Peter (vid. i. 6, 7, Jas. i. 2, 3 ; iv. 8, Jas. v. 20; v. 5, 6, 9, Jas. iv. 6, 7, 10, etc.). This, which of course assumes the authenticity of 1st Peter, is a decisive argument in favour of the age and authenticity of James. But, in fact, the authenticity of this epistle is vouched for by its entire character and contents, which bring before us a man who, along with stedfast faith in Jesus as the Christ, and a firm hope in His return in glory, had above all at heart the moral side of the gospel, which he treated (unlike Paul, for instance) rather as a new law, the cast of his piety giving more of a legal hue to Christianity. Such a man, judging from all the historical accounts we have of him, we should suppose James the Lord's brother to have been. 1 e.g. C 10 (cf. Jas. ii. 21, 23), 'Afipadpt, o QiXog irpoaayopevOelg, nto-Tog ei/peSvi, iv Tip xvtov inzbixoov yevtaHai To7g phptaai tov Qsov . . . e7rioreva£ ii ' Afipadpo tZ 0£ijj xal i'KoyioSvi a&TQ elg oixaioavvnv ; c. 38 (cf. Jas. iii. 13), '0 aotpig ivieuvvoQo tvv aotplav ainv pt,y) iv \oyoig «AV iv epyoig iyadoig. 2 'Ea» ovv avTieriig oivtov (to» iiajio'Kov) vixyfalg (pev^erat d%o aov xa.Tij- a%vpt.p.ivog. EPISTLE OF JUDE. 151 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. §209. The seventh of the catholic or general epistles professes to have been written by Jude, a " servant of Jesus Christ, and brother gf James." The author would not thus have described himself had not his brother James been a man better known, and occupying a more important position in the Church. Hence we may be certain the James referred to was the well-known brother of the Lord (§ 203 sqq.), and that Jude himself, therefore, was one of the Lord's brothers, and identical with the Judas so spoken of in Matt. xiii. 55 and Mark vi. 3. It follows from this, that during the Lord's earthly life he was not one of His disciples, and still less one of the twelve apostles. He cannot therefore have been the same as 'IovBas 'IaKwftov. Indeed, nowhere in the epistle does he claim to be an apostle. It is true the phrase BovXo<; 'I. Xp. in ver. 1 does not exclude the apostolical dignity, but still less does it describe it; and if Jude was obliged to point himself out by a reference to his better known brother James, we may be pretty sure he would not have neglected to call himself apostle, had he really been one of the twelve. That he was not, is still more definitely proved by ver. 17, ptvrjadrjTe tu)v prjptaTcov twv irpoeipr/pievav virb tcov divoaTO- Xcov tov Kvplov rjpiwv 'Inaoi XpiaTov ; for he would not have thus written had he himself been an apostle. On the other hand, it is very possible that, though really a son of Joseph and Mary, and known in the Church as a brother of the Lord, a certain pious modesty might restrain him, as it did James also, from thus describing himself in his epistle, as Clemens AI., Adumbr., long ago remarked. We know next to nothing with certainty of Jude's personal history in other respects. As we have already intimated (§ 204), he probably became a believer in the divine dignity of Jesus only after the resurrection, and possibly through the influ ence of his brother James. Later legends represent him as having preached in Judea and Galilee, subsequently in 152 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. Samaria and Idumea, and lastly in Arabia, Syria, and other countries (Nicepli. H. E. ii. 40). The legend of the Latin Church takes him even to Persia, where he disputes with the magi and their adherents, preaches the gospel with suc cess, and finally suffers martyrdom. But apart from the fact of their identifying him with the Apostle Jude, these legends belong to too late a time to be of much real his torical value. There is, however, a somewhat interesting notice of Jude given by Hegesippus (Euseb. iii. 20), who de scribes him as tw Kara adpKa Xeyopievov avTov (tov Kvplov) dBeXcpov, and relates that his grandsons were once brought before Domitian, who was afraid of them as descendants of David, but dismissed them again when he saw they were only poor people, husbandmen, who earned their bread by manual labour, and whose expectations of the Lord's second coming were very different from what he had fancied. From this narrative it seems clear that Jude must have been married, which, judging from 1 Cor. ix. 5, was also the case with the Lord's brothers generally. It also seems clear that the anxiety Jude's grandsons gave the Roman emperor, arose from their grandfather's being as near a rela tion of Jesus Christ as we have said. For it would then be; natural for even his grandchildren, though poor and obscure, to receive in the Jewish Christian Churches a consideration which would bring them under the special notice of the Romans. The whole narrative would be less intelligible, if Jude had been more distantly related to Christ. Where, however, these grandsons of his practised their calling is not said, though it is hardly likely to have been out of Palestine, in Judea or Galilee, where also their grandfather had been accustomed to live. At any rate, we have no reason to suppose that Jude, any more than the other brothers of the Lord, ever left these parts of the world. When Paul says of them generally (1 Cor. ix. 5), that they took their wives about with them, we are not at all called upon to suppose that he refers to any journeys they undertook beyond Pales tine. But in what way Jude laboured in the gospel is not more precisely known to us. J. E. Ch. Schmidt thinks EPISTLE OF JUDE. 153 he was not even one of the teachers in the Church, just as his grandsons in Domitian's time were not. This, however, by no means necessarily follows from the fact that he is no where mentioned as such. It seems plain from 1 Cor. ix. 5 and Acts i. 14, that the Lord's brothers generally, during the apostolical age, occupied a special position in the Church next after the apostles. Still it is obvious, on the other hand, that Jude, the author of our epistle, had no such sphere of labour or position as his brother James, with whom he here connects himself. It is very possible that, during James' life, he may simply have adhered to him, without taking up any very decided position of his own. §210. The epistle Jude gives us is an liriaToXrj KaOoXiKij in the strictest sense of the word, for it is addressed to believers generally. Judged by its contents and design, it is purely hortatory, — a work of exhortations and warnings, urging the readers to fight bravely for the faith, and not suffer them selves to be led astray by men who had privily come in among them to the great injury of the Church, and whose impending punishment is pointed out. From the author's description of them, these men would not seem to have been teachers who threatened to corrupt Christian doctrine by mere theoretical errors ; at least the theoretical must with them have been wholly secondary and subordinate.1 They were rather carnally-minded men, who abused to the service of their own lusts the doctrine of the Christian's freedom from the law in the matter of justification, even using the gather ings of Christians, where the love-feasts were celebrated, for an occasion of revelling ; and,, not satisfied with the licence allowed them, and their own station in the world, let out their bad spirit in audacious speeches and railings against 1 Recently Huther (Abth. xii. of Meyer's Commentary) and Ewald (Gesch. Isr. vii. 180 sq.) still hold them to have been Gnostic false teachers. Cf. Dorner, Entwicklungsgesch. d. Lehre Chr. i. 104 ; and still further, Riehm, Ueber die in dem Briefe des Judas Charakterisirten Antinomisten, Stud. u. Krit. 1861. 154 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. dignities, especially against the civil magistracy, and probably chiefly against the emperor, its head. Hence it would seem that there were individual members of the Christian body who were possessed of the same spirit as, for some time during, and especially towards the end of the apostolical age, characterized so many of the Jews in Palestine, and speedily brought down upon their nation utter ruin. It is very probable that these men, against whom our epistle was addressed, were to be found in the author's own neighbour hood in Judea, where it is quite possible many professed adherents of the Christian Church shared in the political excitement and restless movements of the Jews. Hence it would follow that the epistle was written during the political disturbances which preceded the destruction of Jerusalem. That it was so, and not, as Ewald and Credner suppose, some ten years after that event, is evident from the author's silence upon it, whicli certainly would not have been had Jerusalem been already destroyed, since it would exactly have suited his design to refer to such an instance of God's righteous judgment of His people, even of such as were professedly nearest to Him, when they ceased to walk according to His holy will ; just as he refers to the punish ment of the fallen angels and of the rebellious Israelites in the wilderness. On the other hand, that the epistle was not written very long before the destruction of Jerusalem, is clear from the general character of its polemics, and espe cially from ver. 17, where the writer speaks of the words of the apostles as having come to his readers at a much earlier period ; so that we are led to conclude the greater part of the apostles were no longer living when he wrote. It is also very probable that his brother James was also now dead ; otherwise he would hardly have found it necessary to write such an epistle. The epistle has this peculiarity, that more than once, in reference to the ancient history of the Jews, it appeals to their apocryphal writings, especially to the book of Enoch, which it expressly quotes as a prophetical work, and also to an apocryphal history of Moses CAvdXntyis Mcovaecos) ; in the latter instance, for its account of the con- EPISTLE OF JUDE. 155 flict between the archangel Michael and the devil respecting the body of Moses. The authenticity of the epistle has indeed been some times called in question, but without any good ground.1 It nowhere gives us the impression of being a work trying to pass itself off as written by a man from whom it really did not proceed. Had it been so, we should certainly have ex pected greater prominence to be given to Jude's personal relation to the Church and to the Lord Jesus Christ ; that is, that the author should, for instance, have described himself as a brother of the Lord, — a fact more likely to be omitted if he really were so (since his description of himself as brother of James, without adding brother of the Lord, would have been sufficient to enable his first readers to distinguish him from the other Judas the apostle), than if he falsely laid claim to the honour. External testimony is also favourable to its authenticity. Nowhere is Jude's authorship assailed by the Fathers ; and if it is not often directly quoted, this is easily explained partly by the brevity and special contents of the epistle, especially the use it makes of apocryphal writings, partly by the fact that, though genuine and authentic, it yet is not the book of an apostle, properly speaking, though the author is often called such by various Fathers. In the apostolical Fathers and early writers of the Church to the middle of the second century, we find no express references to the epistle, nor even any sure or particularly probable traces of any use of it. This also holds good of Irenseus ; but it was probably known to his contemporaries, Clemens AI.2 1 So by Luther, etc. ; Schwegler, i. 518-522. Schleiermacher also, Neander, and Reuss, seem inclined to the same view. Its authenticity, however, has been thoroughly and learnedly vindicated, especially by Jussien, De authentia Ep. Jud., Leipz. 1821. Its un- authenticity would be conclusively settled if we were to accept of the clever arguments of Volkmar, who places the book of Enoch, referred to in the epistle, in the second century of the Christian era, the time of Barcochba. On these arguments, and the controversy they excited, see Hilgenfeld's Der Kanon u. die Kritik des N. T. pp. 175, 178 sq. 2 Pxdag. iii. p. 239 (Sylburg) ; Strom, iii. p. 431. 156 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. and Tertullian, and also to the author of the list of Mura- tori. The first of these treated of it, in common with the other catholic or general epistles, in his Hypotyposes (vid. Euseb. vi. 14), of which those on this epistle have come down to us in the Latin translation (Advmbratio), where it is unhesitatingly assumed that Jude the Lord's brother wrote the epistle. In his other writings also, Clement often quotes statements from the epistle as Jude's. Tertullian, de habitu Muliebri iii., not only names the author at once as Jude, and even Judas apostolus, but attaches so much importance to the epistle, that from its use of the book of Enoch he argues in favour of some recognition by the Church of that apocryphal document. The epistle does not occur in the Peschito, and it never seems to have obtained canonical recognition in the Syrian Church. From what has been previously said, however, it does not at all follow that an epistle must be unauthentic because we find no re ference to it in the early Church throughout. A special tes timony to the age and consequent authenticity of this epistle is furnished by the relation which the second Epistle of Peter bears to it (vid. § 217). But apart from all external testimonies, its authenticity may be regarded as firmly proved by its whole character. THE PETRINE EPISTLES. §211. The Apostle Peter, brother of Andrew, belonged, like St. John, to a fisherman's family of Bethsaida in Galilee (John i. 45, xii. 21). His father's name was Jonas (Matt. xvi. 17; John i. 43, xxi. 15-17), or John, according to what is pro bably the true reading in the places where the name occurs in St. John's Gospel. His usual home was Capernaum, and probably in the house of his wife's parents (Matt. viii. 14 ; Luke iv. 38). The accounts of the healing of his wife's mother in the Synoptics, and St. Paul's statement in 1 Cor. ix. 5, show that he was married ; and it is clear, from the THE PETEINE EPISTLES. 157 last-named text, that his wife was still living when 1st Corinthians was written (circ. 58-59 a.d.), and was wont to accompany him on his journeys ; so that his example by no means justified those who, claiming his name and authority, and boasting of being his successors, impose celibacy on the ministers of the gospel. This relationship and connection did not interfere with his fulfilling his high spiritual voca tion, and prosecuting his ministry in obedience to the call of his Lord. According to John i. 42, 43, he was, with his brother Andrew, a disciple of John the Baptist. Andrew first brought him to the Saviour ; but he probably returned again to his father's business in Galilee, until, by the command of the Lord, on occasion of the first miraculous draught of fishes, he gave himself wholly to Him as His disciple for life (Matt. iv. 18-20 ; Mark i. 16-18 ; Luke v. 1-11). His real name was Simon, but as an apostle he bore the name of ITeTjOo?, a Greek rendering of the Aramaic N^3, fels, "rock," or " man of rock," — a name which Jesus gave to him when first He saw him (John i. 42), with a prophetic reference to what he would be to the Church in its establishment and spread. St. Paul calls him, in 1st Corinthians and Gala tians, by his Aramsean name, but with a Grsecized termina tion, Krj(pa<;. It was not unusual, however, still to call him by his original name, Simon, in the Church at Jerusalem (Acts xv. 14). As an apostle, Peter belonged to that inner circle of the disciples whom Christ admitted to a special intimacy, and who consisted of the two sons of Zebedee and himself. He was, however, prominent among these, through his forward vivacity, eagerness, and outspokenness. When Jesus was betrayed, he showed a momentary faintheartedness in thrice denying his Lord; and the Redeemer forewarned him of this, and foretold him that he would deny Him, when he boasted so boldly of his faithfulness; but He intimated, at the same time, that he would be restored, and that he would then be called "to strengthen" his brethren (Luke xxii. 32). After the resurrection, the Lord, in the presence of the others, gave him the command, " Feed my sheep" (John xxi. 15-17). In 158 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. the first year after the ascension, Peter appears as the pro minent leader of the Church in Jerusalem, acting as its spokesman and representative. He laboured in Samaria as well as Jerusalem, and there he encountered Simon Magus (Acts viii.). We find him afterwards at Csesarea, where, in receiving Cornelius and his family, he received the first uncircumcised Gentiles into the Christian Church. The narrative in the Acts, however, shows how far he was from occupying any such position as primate in the Church, for he had to vindicate his conduct towards Cornelius before the brethren in Jerusalem. After the martyrdom of James the brother of John by Agrippa I., this prince proceeded to take Peter also ; but he was miraculously liberated, and left Jerusalem (Acts xii.). We are not told where he went to : in ver. 17 we simply read, i%eX6a>v iiropevdri et? eTepov to-ttov, — an expression which does not oblige us to suppose that he left Palestine. He probably soon returned again to Jerusa lem, at least not long after the death of Agrippa I. (a.d. 44). We certainly find him again in Jerusalem, circ. A.D. 50-51, at the interview of Paul and Barnabas with the elders of the Jerusalem Church, concerning the exemption of Gentile Christians from circumcision and the observance of the Jewish law (Acts xv. ; Gal. ii.). The following may be in ferred concerning him from these two accounts : — (a.) Peter, so far from evincing a Judaizing tendency, maintained that circumcision and observance of the whole Jewish law were quite unnecessary in order to participation in the blessings of the kingdom of God. (b.) Peter, John, and James the Lord's brother, were then regarded as the heads of the Jerusalem Church : they were all three esteemed to be pillars, but Peter held no place of superiority over the other two as primate. St. Paul, in speaking of them, does not name Peter first, but James, who was not one of the twelve ; and in the Acts it is James who, in his speech, gives the decisive or casting vote, (c.) According to Gal. ii. 8, Peter's distinctive work was to spread the gospel among the Jews, not only in Judea, but in other parts, as 1 Cor. ix. 5 shows : it would appear that he made repeated journeys for THE PETRINE EPISTLES. 159 this purpose, though the book of the Acts is silent about them, for he is not named there after the council at Jeru salem. It is evident from Gal. ii. 11 sqq. that he spent some time in Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, after that apostolic council, and before St. Paul's second great missionary tour (Acts xv. 36 sqq.). As to the circumstances which then transpired, see § 139. The manner in which St. Paul acted towards him shows plainly that he held no such rank as that of primate. We do not know how long he remained at Antioch, nor how often he visited the brethren there. The early writers of the Church (Eusebius, Chron. ed. 2 Claud. ; Jerome, in Ep. ad Gal. ii. ; Vir. ill. c. 1) erroneously say that he founded the Church at Antioch (see, on the contrary, Acts xi. 19 sqq.), and it is very improbable that he was, as they intimate, seven years bishop of that Church. § 212. Asia Minor, Corinth, and Rome are likewise named by early writers as the scenes of St. Peter's apostolic labours. But it is much questioned whether these accounts are trust worthy. As to Asia Minor, the earliest writers who speak of it, Origen (in Genesin, lib. iii., in Euseb. iii. 1) and Eusebius (iii. 4), plainly tell us that they assume the labours of Peter there only on account of 1 Pet. i. 1. We cannot therefore attach any weight to the statements of later writers — e.g. Epiphanius, Hair. 27, p. 107; Jerome, De viris illustr. 1, and others — who speak of Peter's residence there with great certainty, as a matter of historical fact ; but it is a question for consideration whether 1st Peter itself obliges us to adopt this belief. That Peter taught personally at Corinth is stated by Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170), in a letter to the Romans (in Euseb. ii. 25); and he speaks so confidently, that seeing he was himself bishop of Corinth, we must attach some weight to his evidence, though it is usually regarded merely as an infer ence from 1 Cor. i. 12, cf. iii. 22. Still, when we try to fix this historically, we cannot say when or how long Peter was there, whether before 1st Corinthians was written — so that his presence led to the formation of that party in the Church 160 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. there, which bore his name — or subsequently when a Petrine Church had already been formed. One thing is certain, he could not have been there before St. Paul's first visit. Still greater dubiousness attaches to the statement concerning St. Peter's residence in Rome, and his supposed martyrdom. It is an old tradition that Peter went to Rome, and suffered there as a martyr; and this is adopted by ecclesiastical writers without contradiction from the end of the second century downwards. The Roman Catholic Church down to the present day believes that he was the founder of the first Roman Church, and its first bishop ; and upon this is based the dogma of the supremacy of the Pope as the successor of St. Peter in the Romish episcopate. But even if we grant the trustworthiness and correctness of historical opinions regarding the apostle's life, this dogma has no real ground to rest upon. In the Protestant Church, many at various times — partly on dogmatic and partly on historical grounds — have not only combated the supposed Roman episcopate of the Apostle Peter, but have even denied that he ever was in Rome.1 But an unbiassed consideration of the external evidence will, I think, warrant our regarding it as an his torical fact that Peter was in Rome, and died as a martyr there ;2 and will also lead us to the conclusion that he did 1 Thus, in the early days of the Reformation, *U. Velenus, Liber quo Petrum Romam non venisse asseritur 1520 (Frankf. 1631, 4to), which is perhaps the work which Luther speaks of in a letter to Spalatin, 17th Feb. 1521 (according to De Wette in Luther's Letters, i. 559) : E Bohemia juvenis eruditus ad me dedit libellum, probare conatus, S. Petrum nunquam venisse aut fuisse Romam, 18 conjecturis, sed non evincit. Again, Flacius Illyr. (in a work published 1554, * Historia certami- num, etc.), Salmasius (* Apparatus ad libros de primatu Papx), and particularly * Fr. Spanheim (De ficta profectione Petri ap. in urbem Romam, Leyden 1679 ; also in his Opp. ii. 331 sqq.) ; and in modern times chiefly by Baur (Tub. Zeitschr. fur Theol. 1831, 4to, p. 137 sqq.), Paulus (p. 216 sqq.), and Mayerhoff (Einl. in die Petr. Schriften, pp. 77-95) ; further, Eichhorn, De Wette, Winer (Bibl. Realw.-B.), Neander (edd. 1 and 2 of his Apost. Zeitalters), and the Catholic scholar Ellendorf (Ist Petrus in Rom gewesen t 1841), and Adalb. Maier (Br. an die Rom., Freib. 1847 ; Einl p. 6 sqq.). 2 See my remarks in the Stud. u. Krit. 1 836, iv. pp. 1061-1064. THE PETKINE EPISTLES. 161 not found the Roman Church, and never held the office of bishop there. (a.) We have two very old witnesses that St. Peter suffered martyrdom : — (a) John xsi. 19. Here the writer evidently refers our Lord's declaration in ver. 18 to a martyr's death, which the apostle had already (when John wrote) suffered, and to a special form of martyrdom, viz. crucifixion. (/3) Clement of Rome (ad Cor. v.), who speaks of Peter's martyrdom as a well-known fact (§ 175, note). We may with certainty infer from these two testimonies, both of which fall within the first century, that both in Asia Minor and Rome it was generally known that the Apostle Peter had suffered martyrdom by crucifixion, and where he suffered. (b.) Now, as Rome is unanimously named by later writers in the latter half of the second century as the place of his death, we may assume that the belief of the first century was handed down to them : otherwise there would be vari ance in the statements made ; they would not be so uniform as we find they are. Among these witnesses are Dionysius of Corinth, and Caius, presbyter in Rome (both in Euseb. ii. 25 ; see above, § 175), Tertullian (Proescr. adv. Hair. 36), Origen (in Euseb. iii. 1), Cyprian, Lactantius, and all later writers. (c.) As witnesses for St. Peter's residence in Rome, we have Ignatius, ad Rom. 4 (also in the Syriac recension), ov^ as IleTpos Kal JTaOXo? BiaTaaaopiai iipuv, which very pro bably refers to the personal labours of Peter among the Romans ; also Clemens Alex, (in Euseb. ii. 14), and Irenseus, Hcer. iii. 1, 3, who takes it for granted that St. Peter died in Rome. (d.) With this agrees what Papias tells us upon the authority of the presbyter John, that Mark was the interpreter of St. Peter, i.e. obviously his interpreter in Latin. There could hardly be such agreement and coincidence in all this evi dence, if it had not as its basis the fact that St. Peter had really been in Rome, and had suffered martyrdom there. (e.) There is no sufficient reason to question what Origen and others tell us, that he was crucified, at his own desire, VOL. II. Ii 162 THE CATHOLIC EFISTLES. with his head downwards, though the later testimony for this fact makes it less certain. (/•) We must regard as unhistorical the story told, first by Eusebius, H. E. ii. 14, and in the Clementine Homilies, about St. Peter's meeting Simon Magus in Rome. Justin Martyr, indeed (Apol. ii. 26), Irenseus (i. 23), and others, tell us that Simon Magus was in Rome, had a statue erected to him, and received divine honours. Still this statement, how ever long recognised as true, evidently arises from a mistake of Justin, who misread the inscription on a statue dedicated to Semo Sancus, or Sangus, a Sabine divinity, as one to Simon Magus. Others blindly followed him, and added the legend that he was opposed in Rome by St. Peter, who had humbled him at Samaria. (g.) Not less false is the notion that St. Peter founded the Roman Church. This is connected with the assumption, that after his deliverance from prison in Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17), or having been a short time at Antioch, he went to Rome. Thus Eusebius (Chron. ad a. 2 Claud., cf. H. E. ii. 14), Jerome (De vir. illustr. 1), Isidore of Seville (De vita et obitu sanctorum), represent him as coming to Rome in the second year of Claudius (a.d. 42), and as bishop there for twenty or twenty-five years. Bertholdt and Fr. Win- dischmann (Vindicim Petrinw, Regensb. 1836) maintain this as the date of his first coming to Rome, holding that he also came at a later date under Nero. But when the Epistle to the Romans was written (a.d. 58-59), Peter certainly had not yet been to Rome (cf. § 153), and therefore not before St. Paul arrived there ; hence the gospel must have been received in Rome several years before Peter's coming thither. (h.) We do not know with any certainty when St. Peter came to Rome, nor upon what occasion, nor how long he lived there before his martyrdom. The ancients, e.g. Diony- sius of Corinth, suppose that both the Apostles Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom at the same time. But it is very questionable whether this opinion has any really historical basis, or is merely a conjecture. It is at least certain, that when St. Paul wrote the Epistles to the Philippians, Phile- FITvST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. 163 mon, Colossians, Ephesians, during his first Roman imprison ment, St. Peter was not with him in Rome, and had not been with him. Nor, certainly, was he in Rome when St. Paul wrote 2d Timothy. We may suppose, therefore, either that he came to Rome and suffered martyrdom between the date of those four epistles and 2d Timothy, or that he did not come until after 2d Timothy was written : this last seems the more probable, especially if we maintain the genuineness of 1st Peter. (i.) The notion that St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome is certainly groundless. Jerome (De vir. illustr. 1) is the first who names him as such, and represents him as holding this office twenty-five years, which is quite impossible. The first occasion of Peter's being regarded bishop of Rome was the statement of Eusebius, H. E. iii. 4 : A?vo<; . . . trpwro'; pieTci IleTpov t>5? ' Patpialav iKKXr/alas ttjv iiriaKOirrp) i^Br; •n-porepov KXnpeodeh BeBrjXtoTai (cf. iv. 1). Still the pas sage a little before, to which Eusebius refers, iii. 2, shows what this means (pteTa Tnv JJavXov Kal FLerpov piaprvplav TTjOWTO? KXrjpovTai T-qv erviaKoirrpj Alvos;). The comparison of other passages also proves that Eusebius regarded Linus as the first bishop of Rome (in the strict sense), Anacletus as the second, Clemens Romanus as the third (iii. 4, 13, 14, 21). Compare also Irenaaus, iii. 3 : 6epteXid>aavTe<; ovv o'tKoBopfqaavTes, oi putKapioi diroaToXoi rrjv eKKXnatav, Alva rrjv tj)? iiriaKO'n-fj'i XeiTovpylav ive%elpiaav. Irenseus regards both apostles, Peter and Paul, as having preceded Linus, and as those who had been active in founding the Roman Church ; but Linus he represents as the first bishop.1 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. § 213. _ This epistle describes itself as written by "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ," to "the elect strangers (or pilgrims) cf the dispersion (Biaatropdi), in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, 1 Cf. also Sack, Christl. Polemik, p. 328 sqq. 164 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. Asia, Bithynia." This address, especially the word %iaairopd, obliges us to think mainly of believing Jews ; and almost all ancient and many modern expositors1 regard the epistle as addressed to the Jewish Christians in the provinces of Asia Minor named, or to those who before their conversion had been Jewish proselytes.2 Ch ii. 12 certainly seems to favour this view, but it does not decide the question ; and other passages seem to indicate that the writer is thinking of his readers as those who had been converted from among the Gentiles : so, in particular, eh. ii. 9, 10, iv- 3 ; also i. 14, 18, iii. 6. We cannot suppose that he meant to exclude Jewish Christians in any of the districts from among his readers, for there is no hint of this in the epistle ; but his language implies that the majority of Christians in the districts named were Gentiles, and that he was therefore led to think of them mainly as his readers- A writer belonging himself to the Jewish people might apply the term used in the address (i. 1) to Christians generally in these districts ; for he might regard Palestine as the home and centre of the people of God, under the new covenant as well as under the old. Still we can only imagine a Palestinian writer thus expressing himself, — one who belonged to the Jewish nation, and who wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem ; at a time, more over, when the Jews had still their central home in Judea, and were not scattered abroad ; and thus we may find in this expression a proof of the early date and the genuineness of the letter. The contents of the epistle are for the most part general and hortatory. The apostle exhorts his readers to be diligent and persevering in a holy walk and conversation among the Gentiles, in order thus to put their enemies to shame, and even to win them without words : and he then refers to the duties of various stations and relationships — of subjects to their governors, the powers that be ; of servants to masters ; 1 So Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Augusti (Die kathol. Briefe, Lemgo 1801), Hug, Bertholdt, and very decidedly Weiss, Petrin. Lehrbegriff, Berlin 1855, p. 99 sqq. 2 Benson, Michaelis, Credner, Nludecker, p. 697. FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. 165 of husbands and wives to one another ; of the elders in the Church, and of the youngers. He exhorts them, as true followers of the Lord, to bear with patience the continued misinterpretations and misrepresentations they would be exposed to, and the manifold and heavy afflictions which were impending, so that these might minister to their sancti fication. He thus sets before them the pattern and example of Christ, His merits and sufferings for them, and the near approach of their redemption, and of the time of the glorious second advent of the Lord. We meet with no personal references, save at the close of the epistle, v. 12, 13. It would appear from ver. 12 that the apostle intended to send the letter by Silvanus. This Silvanus (tow iriaTov dSeXevTot Tl.o'kvxap'Kog ev t\ irihuQeiavi npog QikiirTcrniiovg uvtov ypatpri (pepopcev/j elg ievpo, xe%pyTai Tint fiapTvpiaig dico i% WtTpov icpo Tepag eirtarohjjg.] 3 Polycarp, c. i. = 1 Pet. i. 8 ; c. ii. = 1 Pet. i. 21, iii. 9 ; c. v. = 1 Pet. ii. 11 ; c. vii. = 1 Pet. iv. 7 ; c. viii. = 1 Pet. ii. 24 (with the preceding verses) ; c. x. = 1 Pet. ii. 12, v. 5. 172 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. When St. Paul wrote these epistles, Mark was with him in Rome, but was apparently purposing (Col. iv. 10) to go into Asia Minor. Perhaps he then went on to St. Peter in Babylon, and brought a copy or abstract of the Colossian epistle with him, made either in Rome or Asia Minor. St. Peter may already have been many years in Babylon, perhaps from the time when St. Paul was imprisoned in Jerusalem. At that time it is almost certain St. Peter was not in Jeru salem. He did not come to Rome till long after, and then he sealed his faith with his blood. THE SECOND PETRINE EPISTLE. § 217. This epistle describes itself in the salutation, i. 1, as a letter of " Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ," and is addressed to those " who, through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, have obtained like precious faith with us," without any limitation of place ; so that it would appear strictly an eTnaroXf/ KadoXiKrj, even in a higher sense than the first Petrine epistle. But there have been many surmisings and disputes as to its origin ; and in our own day, among the Protestant theologians of Germany, there are very few among those> sanctioning any critical in quiry concerning the origin of the canon of Holy Scripture, who still venture to maintain its genuineness. The objections against it are more thoroughly grounded than those against any other book in the N. T. They are derived partly from the external history of the epistle in the early Church, partly from its internal structure, viewed by itself, arid compared with 1st Peter, and partly from its relation to the Epistle of Jude. I. We begin by considering the last-named point. 2d Peter, like Jude, is directed against certain men who, though within the Church's pale, sought its destruction ; and both epistles present a striking resemblance in their delineation of these persons, and their mode of combating them. The coinci- SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. 173 dences, indeed, are even verbal ; and this is the more strange, as the characters described in the two letters are not the same. The relation between the two epistles is such, that most expositors are agreed that the writer of the one epistle knew the other, and made free use of it. In former times it was customary to regard 2d Peter as the original work;1 but most modern expositors and critics rightly give the priority to Jude.2 The Epistle of Jude is marked by great sim plicity and naturalness in the sequence of thought, and in expression ; but this is far less true of 2d Peter, where there is much far from clear in the connection and in the exposi tion ; and the only natural explanation seems to be, that the writer endeavoured to follow and to imitate the Epistle of Jude, but not very cleverly, as is usually the case in imitations of other works. The following passages are especially to be noted here : — (1.) 2 Pet. ii. 4 sqq. Here we have examples cited of punishments inflicted by God in ancient times upon those who rebelled against Him. The order followed in the instances, especially the last example of Sodom and Gomorrah, is very weak and inappropriate. The reference to earlier judgments in ver. 4 is made thus : " If God spared not the angels who sinned:" and corresponding with this we should naturally expect, " so will He not spare those men who, belonging to the Church of God, make themselves so unworthy of their vocation." But instead of this, the second example — that of the destruction of the old world by the flood — is put as an inappropriate anti-climax ; and still more inappropriate is the instance of Sodom and Gomorrah : we should have expected examples of judgments upon those who had possessed high privileges and been admitted to special favour, and who 1 So Luther; also Mill, Wolf, Semler, Michaelis, Storr (Opusc. Acad. ii. 411 sqq.), Hanlein (Ep. Jud., Erl. 1804), Pott, Dahl (De authentia epp. Petrinx posterioris et Judx, Rostock 1807) ; also Dietlein (Der 2 Br. Petri ausgel, Berlin 1851). 2 So Herder (Briefe zweener Briider Jesu in unserm Kanon, Lemgo 1775), Hug, Eichhorn, and especially Ullmann (Der 2 Petrin. Br. Krit. unters., Heidelb. 1821) ; Jessien, Schott, Credner, Neander, Mayer hoff, De Wette, Guericke, [Wiesinger]. 174 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. nevertheless had proved themselves unworthy. The corre sponding passage in Jude is much more appropriate (Jude 5-9). Here two instances are named — that of the perverse Israelites in the wilderness, and that of the fallen angels ; and hereupon follows the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, serving not as a third example, but in immediate connection with and as an extension of the second : for the sin of the fallen angels is described as similar to that which brought down God's judgments on Sodom and Gomorrah. (2.) 2 Pet. ii. 11. This verse is very indistinct. It speaks of the angels, who bring not a railing judgment against each other. The words can be explained only by a reference to the corresponding place in Jude 9, where a particular case is named — that of the archangel Michael, who did not pro nounce a railing judgment upon Satan. The probability is — seeing that what precedes and follows is in both epistles the same — that the writer of 2d Peter had the passage in Jude before him, and wished to appropriate the thought it contained ; and, omitting the individual reference, he makes it general. (3.) In the following verse (2 Pet. ii. 12) the ovroi Be is quite inappropriate and unnatural as a connection with the foregoing, whereas in the corresponding passage in Jude (ver. 10) it is quite in keeping with what precedes. The contents of the verse present a similar contrast. The words in Jude are clear and intelligible ; but it is not easy to see the meaning and point of the words as they stand in 2d Peter, without a reference to Jude as their original place. (4.) 2 Pet. iii. 2 : Trj<; tow diroaroXaiv fjpicov [or vpioov], ivToXfj'; tov Kvplov Kal acoTrjpo?. Whether we read rjpi&v, or with Lachmann vptuv, the expression is in the highest degree unnatural, and hardly construable : we cannot tell whether the pronoun is to be joined with aTroaToXtov or with tov Kvplov Kal acoTr/po? ; or if we read r)p,u>v, whether it stands in apposi tion with diroaToXtov [as in our English version, " of us the apostles"]. The one construction is as little grammatical as the other. But the corresponding statement in Jude (ver. 17) is simple and clear: t UeTput iv tt? KaOoXiKjj iiriaToXf) • and again, in Matt. torn. i. (in Euseb. vi. 25 ; see below, § 245), in like manner ; and in Joann. torn. v. 3 (Euseb. ib.) he says, UeVpo? . . . pilav eiriaToXrjv opioXoyovpievnv Kara- XeXonrev eaTco Be Kal BevTepav dpitfufiaXXeTai yap. This last statement, however, shows that the epistle was then be ginning to be regarded here and there as Petrine. There are very few clear traces of the use of our epistle in the third century, and still fewer of its recognition as a genuine Petrine letter. Firmilian (bishop of Csesarea in Cappa docia, circ. 250) alone can be named as thus recognising it; and it is probable that he did regard it as Petrine, for in a letter to Cyprian [Cypr. Ep. 75, p. 232, ed. Gersdorf] he says : (Petrus et Paulus) in epistolis suis hcsreticos exsecrati sunt et, ut eos evitemus, monuerunt. Still Eusebius expressly says (iii. 3), ttjv Be (bepoptevnv avTov (TleTpov) BevTepav ovk ivBiddrjKov ptev elvai TrapeiXrjtyapiev. From his statements elsewhere, however, it would appear that the epistle was then generally known and used by many as a useful work side by side with the other N. T. books ; and thus from the fourth century downwards it became more generally recognised as ecclesiastically canonical, and accordingly as a genuine apos tolic work. Still it is undeniable that the external history of the epistle during the first three centuries is in the highest degree unfavourable to its genuineness. §219. III. A comparison of our epistle with the first and genuine Epistle of St. Peter leads us to the same conclusion. The epistles present the greatest contrast both in thought and language.1 The main difference is, that the language of the 1 Early writers recognised this, as we see from Jerome, De vi?-is illust. i. : Scripsit (Petrus) duas Epistolas, qux catholicx nominantur, quorum secunda a plerisque ejus esse negatur propter stili cum priore dissonantiam. Ep. 120, ad Hedibiam, c. 11 : Denique et dux epistolx, quxferuntur Petri, stilo inter se et charactere discrepant strucluraque verborum. 180 THE CATHOLIC EFISTLES. first epistle is somewhat rough and Hebraizing, while that of the second is more elegant and better Greek ; the style of the second is more periodic, while in the first the connection of sentences is simple, and even clumsy [cf. Huther, 2d ed. p. 251]. In particulars also many differences are traceable, and Olshausen was the first carefully to point these out.1 Some have thought that these might be explained by the supposition that St. Peter first wrote his epistles in Aramaic, and that he employed different interpreters to translate them into Greek. Thus Jerome, ad Hedib., after the words just quoted : " ess quo intelligimus, pro necessitate rerum diversis eum ttsum inter pretibusf But this conjecture is as inadmis sible in the case of the second epistle as we have seen it to be in that of the first, on account of its more elegant and periodic style. There is, moreover, a striking difference between the two epistles in the use they respectively make of the O. T. In the first epistle, St. Peter appears as one very familiar with the Jewish Scriptures, continually using and applying them for exhortation, warning, and instruction, in quite a natural and unforced manner. He not only expressly cites Old Testament texts, but very frequently adopts O. T. language as his own, without actually quoting it. In this respect the second epistle presents a marked contrast. No passages of the O. T. are cited ; the writer never uses the words of the O. T. in his exhortations to his readers ; and at the most there are but one or two places of which we may suppose that O. T. texts formed the groundwork — e.g. iii. 8, cf. Ps. xc. 4, and ii. 22, cf. Prov. xxvi. 11 — though even in these it is not very probable that the writer had these O. T. texts in his mind. Still, even if he had, there is a dissimilarity in this respect affecting the entire form of the exhortation, and so marked as to be quite unaccountable, on the supposition that both epistles are the work of one and the same writer. 1 In his two dissertations, De integritate et authentia posterioris Petri epistolx (Kbnigsb. 1822), and in his Opuscul. (Berlin 1834, pp. 38 sqq.). After him Mayerhoff, p. 161 sqq. ; Credner, p. 665 sqq. ; Schott, p. 422 sq. SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. 181 This dissimilarity leads us to the conclusion that the writer of 2d Peter was a man of very different education and cha racter ; and consequently, as 1st Peter is certainly genuine, that 2d Peter must be spurious. 2 Pet. iii. 1 is much more easily explained on this assump tion than on the supposition of its genuineness. Here the writer speaks of this epistle as the second which his readers had received, and the reference plainly is to our 1st Peter. Now St. Peter could not have spoken thus, unless he was addressing the same readers to whom he had before written. But the first epistle is addressed, not to Christians at large, but to the Churches in the provinces of Asia Minor ; while the second is written to Christians in general of like precious faith with the writer, and there is no sign that it was to be sent only to those Churches of Asia Minor for whom 1st Peter was intended. St. Peter could not have expressed himself in this general way about his readers, had he simply meant those of the districts to which his first epistle was sent, and had he their wants only in his mind. There is no sign whatever in 2d Peter of any special and personal relationship between the writer and his supposed first readers. We can hardly suppose that St. Peter could have described a letter so generally addressed to his brethren in the faith as his " second epistle" to them, when the first had been written to a locally defined circle' of readers, and when (considering that 1st Peter was written only a few years before his death) he could hardly suppose that it was as yet circulated throughout that circle. We should rather infer that a later writer, addressing a letter to an undefined circle of readers, or to Christians at large, in the name of an apostle whose epistle was widely spread and valued, and in order to secure a wider confidence, would thus describe his letter as the second epistle of this apostle, ignoring the fact that the first epistle was originally addressed to a circumscribed circle of readers ; 1st Peter being in time regarded as the property of the Church at large, and as an iiriaToXrj KaOoXiKij. 182 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. §220. IV. Of other passages in 2d Peter very difficult of expla nation on the supposition of its genuineness I will mention two, viz. i. 16 sqq. and iii. 15, 16. (a.) Ch. i. 16-18. The writer must evidently mean by " the holy mount" a place known by this name when he wrote. This is very strange, because we see from the Synop tical Gospels which narrate the event, that down to the time when they wrote no special sanctity was attached to the mountain on which the transfiguration took place : it is not mentioned by name, still less thus called " the holy mount" by any evangelist. The passage thus suggests the thought of a post-apostolic age, when a certain locality had come to be regarded traditionally as the place of the transfiguration, and when the designation "holy" had been given to it on account of that event. (b.) Ch. iii. 15, 16. The manner in which St. Paul's epistles are here spoken of is somewhat strange. They are mentioned collectively, not one only, but all, as writings «al of itself also denotes writings whicli were considered specially holy, which were esteemed ecclesiastically canonical; and side by side with these (by the word Xonrds) the Pauline epistles are ranked. Now, though the Pauline and other apostolical epistles were soon circulated in the Church at large, and were highly prized as apostolic, still (as we shall see in the History of the Canon) some time elapsed before they began to be ranked as part of Holy Scripture, and placed side by side with the books of the O. T. as al ypacpal KaT i^oyfpj. The passage therefore leads us with tolerable certainty to think of a time later than the apostolic age iii the strict sense. SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. 183 §221. Seeing that the arguments we have arrayed, when viewed cumulatively, overwhelmingly prove that the epistle is not the work of the Apostle Peter, it follows that, as it claims to be his work, it was written by some later writer in St. Peter's name. Expositors have tried to devise another and inter mediate alternative. (1.) Grotius thinks that the epistle was not originally written as from the pen of St. Peter, but that the author was a Simon or Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, mentioned by Eusebius (//. E. iii. 11, 32, iv. 5), who, accord ing to Hegesippus, had himself seen the Lord, and had suffered crucifixion in extreme old age in Trajan's reign. The words in ch. i. 1, U(.TpoaKovTe<; to the other — as a later interpolation. (4.) Ullmann regarded ch. i. only as a genuine letter of St. Peter's, or rather as a fragment of a Petrine epistle, but ch. ii. iii. as a later interpolation ; but he has given up this view. (5.) Bunsen (Ignatius of Antioch and his Age, Hamb. 1847, p. 175) maintains the first twelve verses [in his Bibel- werk, i. Vorerinnerungen, xliv., the first eight verses] and the concluding doxology as Petrine. But these views are quite untenable, and some of them unnatural; for it is universally acknowledged that the epistle from the first claimed to be Petrine in the form and extent in which it lies before us ; and there are no traces whatever to indicate that in the early Church it was known or acknowledged in a shorter or any way different form. 184 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. §222. But it is much easier thus to come to a decision concern ing the spuriousness of the epistle as a whole, than to arrive at anything positive concerning its true author. As to the writer's design, it was evidently to check the baneful influ ence of certain men upon the Church of his time, to warn Christians generally against them ; and in order to add weight to his admonitions, he couched them in words which would cause them to be regarded as the Apostle Peter's. He thus puts what he has to say of these persons in the form of a prophecy concerning them, though, as we have seen, he does not keep to this form of expression throughout. These seducers were essentially the same in character as those re ferred to in St. Jude, so that the writer could appropriate as his own the description given, and the censures pronounced against them in that epistle ; still (a) they were more theo retic, and vindicated their frivolousness upon principles of their own (cf. § 217), though they had not yet become a distinct sect, (b) Their frivolousness was now manifested chiefly in mocking the believers on account of their confident expectation of the Lord's speedy second advent. We may suppose that these mockers lived in the same locality with the writer, so that he had them before him ; but where this was we cannot tell. The character of the Greek of the epistle leads us to think of a Greek-speaking country, perhaps Alexandria or its neighbourhood, for the epistle seems first to have been known here ; but it certainly was written by a writer whose mother tongue was Greek. Mayerhoff is cer tainly mistaken in supposing the writer to have been a Jewish Christian : we should rather conclude the contrary, consider ing the little use made of O. T. expressions, and the manner in which Jude's references to the later Jewish apocrypha and legends are omitted or altered. Still there is nothing in the epistle at variance with the O. T. revelation, but rather a recognition of its historical truth. As to the time of writing. The epistle cannot be placed very early, because (1) of its relation to Jude, and the man ner in whicli the author uses that epistle, showing that Jude SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. 185 was written long before ; (2) on account of the designation of the mount of transfiguration as " the holy mount," i. 18 ; (3) on account of the manner in which the Pauline Epistles are spoken of, iii. 15, 16, which points to a time when they were placed side by side with the books of the O. T. as Holy Scripture kot e%o%rjv, and as possessing specific canonical dignity. Add to this, (4) that ch. i. 14 probably refers to John xxi. 18, and indicates an affinity with this passage. This, however, is not quite certain. But when we connect with these things the fact that we do not find indications of a knowledge of this epistle in the Church until comparatively late, we may with the highest probability assume that it was not written before the beginning of the second century, per haps not before the middle of it. As to the value of the epistle in a moral point of view, we cannot, of course, approve of the author's conduct in adopt ing such a disguise and counterfeiting another person. Still, in judging fairly of this proceeding, we must not leave out of account the fact that, in the age when it was written, such a disguise and assumption of another name was not uncommon in hortatory writings, and was not considered inadmissible even for men of earnest Christian moral sense. The epistle itself throughout teaches us to regard the writer as such, — a man whose spirit and principles were thoroughly in accord with those of the apostolic writings, and presented nothing unchristian or heretical. Against those who mocked the belief in a speedy second advent of the Lord, on the ground that the course of the world hitherto forbade the expectation of such a catastrophe, he urges, (a) the former great revolu tions and catastrophes which had occurred at the creation and'the deluge; (b) the truth that God's reckoning is alto gether different from ours concerning the near and the dis tant, so that we can never say of Him, He has forgotten His promise, but, He has delayed His appearing, " not willing that any should perish, but that all might come to repentance." Believers, therefore, are to persevere in their faith with holy walk and pious mind, and to give all diligence to be found without spot and blameless in the sight of their Lord. 186 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. §223. Three of the general epistles are attributed to John the apostle and evangelist, none of which name him expressly as the writer. In the second and the third, the writer calls himself 6 TrpeaftvTepo'; in the opening salutation. Still, from the beginning downwards, wherever we find these epistles used in the Church, it has been taken for granted that the writer's name was John ; and differences of view arise only upon the question whether he was the apostle and evangelist, or another John, — the one, for instance, who is named by Papias as the Presbyter John. We may accordingly regard it as certain that these epistles were first put forth and circu lated as the writings of a John, and with the highest pro bability that they were written by a John. The first epistle contains less about its author than the other two. Still from the first, whenever we find this epistle used and expressly cited, we find also the belief that it claimed to be, and really was, a work of St. John the evangelist ; and we may conclude that this was the universal belief. Seeing that the writer never names himself, we cannot explain this unanimity and universality save on the ground that it was true, and that it originated with the very first readers who received the epistle from the writer, and who must have known him, and not from the mere conjecture or invention of later readers. A comparison of this epistle with St. John's Gospel can leave no doubt on the mind that both are by the same writer; the similarity between them is so striking and so thorough, in character, in thought and language, in distinctive represen tations and turns of expression, as to be utterly incompre hensible save on the supposition of identity of authorship.1 Some scholars, however, have attributed the epistle to another writer. S. G. Lange,2 for example, regards the Gospel and 1 See De Wette, § 177, a, notes a, 6. 2 S. G. Lange, Die Schriften Johannis iibers. und erkl (3 parts, 1795- 1797), iiL 4 sqq. Baur, Theol. Jahrbb. 1848, pp. 293-337. Hilgen- FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 187 the Revelation as genuine writings of St. John, but supposes that the first epistle was written a century later by an imi tator who wished to be taken for St. John. Weisse, on the other hand, considers that the epistle is genuine, but the Gospel spurious. Baur, Hilgenfeld, and other theologians of the Baur school hold that both Gospel and epistle are spurious, and attribute them to different writers ; regarding the Gospel (as Baur, Theol. Jahrbb. 1857) or the epistle (as Hilgenfeld) as comparatively the older, and as imitated by the author of the other. But the resemblances between the two are not such as to suggest an artificial imitation: they can be naturally explained only as having proceeded from one and the same writer. See also Grimm, Stud. u. Krit. 1847, i. 171-187. As, therefore, the fourth Gospel is, in our view, unmis takeably the work of the Apostle John, this epistle is with equal certainty the work of the same apostle. Among the ex ternal witnesses for its genuineness may be named Polycarp, ad. Philipp. 7 ; Papias, in Euseb. iii. 39 (see § 89) ; Irenssus (see above, § 215 ; and adv. Hcer. iii. 16. 5, 8) ; Clemens Alex, (see § 218, 226) ; Origen (see § 245) ; Tertullian (adv. Pra.v. 15; Scorpiace, 12). The internal evidence is no less conclusive. The author writes in ch. i. 1-4, iv. 14, as an immediate disciple of the Lord, who bears witness of what he had himself seen and heard. The epistle does not in the remotest degree give one the impression of its being the work of a man falsely endeavouring to make believe that he was an eye-witness. Such a writer would have proceeded more artfully and with greater pains, and would have given greater prominence to the apostolic character and authorship. De Wette, in his Exeg. Handbuch, truly observes that the forger must have proceeded with incredible finesse and subtlety ; for he does not name the apostle, but indicates that St. John is the writer only indirectly, and in the most simple and natural manner.feld, Das Ev. u. die Briefe Joh. nach ihrem Lehrbegr. dargestellt, Halle 1849, 322-355 ; Theol. Jahrbb. 1855. 188 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. §224. As the epistle does not name the writer, so neither does it specify the readers primarily addressed. Michaelis, and others following him, have regarded the work not so much as an epistle, but as an essay or dissertation. This view is, we think, untenable. The fact that in the beginning there is no salutation, nor even a general description of the readers addressed (as we find even in St. Jude), is only in keeping with the circumstance (as in the Epistle to the Hebrews) that the w'riter does not name himself. This mode of address is not essential to the epistolary character of the treatise. Still the apostle addresses his readers throughout in the second person, speaks to them in words of exhortation and admoni tion which could only be used in a hortatory work, and refers to their distinctive needs and experiences, — experiences which could not have been universal and irrespective of place, but which were peculiar to a certain circle of readers. We are therefore fully justified, like all early writers, in regarding the work as an epistle, containing warnings and instructions addressed personally to certain readers. In like manner, I think, we may, with all the earlier writers of the Church, view the epistle as a work complete in itself. It has in modern times been placed in close con nection with the Gospel, as if published with the Gospel, as a prolegomenon to it, or an argumentative or hortatory ap pendix, or as a letter of recommendation 'for the Gospel. In support of this opinion, ch. i. 1-3 is referred to as containing a direct reference to the Gospel. Others at least infer from this that it was written after the Gospel. Thus Liicke (ed. 1 and 2), and De Wette also, who inclines to this opinion. But there is no reference either there or elsewhere in the epistle to the Gospel as a written work, and there is nothing in the comparison of the two to justify the conclusion that the epistle was written last. It may quite as well have been written first, if we only suppose that St. John himself knew the contents of his Gospel, and the views there given of Christ's person and work, and often stated them orally in his teaching before he committed them to writing in his great FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 189 evangelic work. Considering, however, the close affinity be tween the two, it is not improbable that they were written pretty nearly together. Some have supposed that in the epistle they could discover traces of a more advanced age, in the greater latitude and looseness of statement, circumlocu tion and repetition, which it presents in comparison with the Gospel. But this inference is mainly drawn from the epis tolary character of 1st John, and may also be explained as answering to the more modest and unpretentious character of a letter, as distinct from the more concise and dignified style of such a work as the Gospel. As to the readers whom the apostle has in his mind, they were evidently Christians with whom he was personally acquainted ; and as he does not name them, we may sup pose that they were the believers among whom he lived. If we are right in saying that the composition of the epistle was not far removed in point of time from that of the Gospel, we may suppose that the former was written during the apostle's residence in Asia Minor and in Ephesus, but not, as many think, intended for the Ephesian church alone, but for the Christians generally in that district. That it was not written during the apostle's residence in Judea, may be with tolerable certainty inferred from ch. v. 21, TeKvla, cpvXd^aTe iavTovi dirb tcov elBojXojv ; for this implies that those primarily addressed, and immediately before the apostle's mind, were converts from heathenism, and being surrounded still by heathens, were in danger of being seduced again into idolatry. It was a generally received opinion in the Latin Church, that the epistle was primarily addressed to the Parthians. Augustine, indeed (Qucest. Evang. ii. qusest. 39), quotes it as epistola ad Parthos ; and thus we find it described by other Latin writers, and in the superscription of the epistle in many MSS. of the Latin version. How this view came into vogue we cannot tell ; no conjectures about it have much probability in them. But we may with certainty conclude that this was not (as Grotius, Paulus, and others believe) the real destination of the epistle; for we have no proof whatever that St. John ever laboured 190 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. among the Parthians, or had any personal connection with the churches, if such there were, of that country. Neither this title, nor this view of its destination, is traceable in the Greek Church, and there is no hint whatever of it before Augustine. §225. As to the design and contents of the epistle, it is a letter wherein the apostle urges his readers to lay to heart, as the essence of Christianity — and to this he continually recurs — faith in Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh and the Son of God, and love to the brethren, because the one cannot exist without the other ; and he warns them against those who, as antichrists, endeavoured to seduce them. It has been much disputed who these persons were against whose corrupting influence the apostle so strongly admonishes his readers. Some have taken them to be Jewish or Judaizing teachers of the law ; others suggest Cerinthus, others the disciples of the Baptist, others Gnostics, and especially Docetse (see De Wette, § 179, a). Tertullian (de came Christi, c. 24) and Dionysius Alex. (Euseb. vii. 25) supposed that the Docetse were referred to; and this is ex pressly stated in a Greek scholion on ch. iv. 3. Liicke has in modern times espoused this view, and after him Credner ; so also De Wette, Schleiermacher, Neander, Baur, Hilgen feld, Reuss, Huther,1 and others. But this view is, in my opinion, erroneous. Docetism, properly so called, did not make its appearance until after the apostolic and Johannic age. Reference, indeed, is made by Liicke and others to Cerinthus and the Ignatian Epistles in proof that Docetism was known in Asia Minor at this time. But the Cerinthian view of Christ's person was quite different from the Docetic, and cannot here be taken into account. And as to Ignatius, we find many passages in both the Greek recensions of his epistles which are directed against Docetism, viz. in the Epistles to the Churches at Smyrna, Tralles, and Ephesus.2 But pro- 1 Abth. xiv. of Meyer's Comm. 1855, 2d ed. 1861. 2 Ad Smyrn. c. 2 sqq. ; ad Trail, c. 9 ; ad Eph. c. 7. FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 191 bably none of these passages really belong to Ignatius, but to a later interpolator, perhaps in the third century ; for the Syriac recension does not contain the two first of these epistles, and the special passage quoted from the Epistle to the Ephesians is wanting. 1 John iv. 2 and 2 John 7 are also appealed to. Here iv aapKi is considered as used with special reference to Docetism, and accordingly the first- named passage is translated, " Every spirit is of God who confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, and not in a merely shadowy corporeity ;" and in like manner the passage in the second epistle. But if we compare other passages in the epistle where these false teachers are referred to, we shall find it quite improbable that the apostle had this special form of false doctrine with reference to Christ's person in his mind. See, for example, the passages wherein (a) he describes that alone to be antichrist and falsehood which denies that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, because this is to deny the Father, or not to confess Jesus ; and (b) he describes faith in Jesus, the faith that Jesus is the Son of God, or the Christ, to be the truth, the essence of the Christian religion. For the first (a), see ch. ii. 22, 23, and iv. 3, which imme diately follows the supposed anti-Docetic verse, where the words of the received text, eV aapKi iXrpXvdoTa, are certainly spurious. For the second (b), see ch. iv. 15, v. 1, 5, 10. There is therefore the highest probability that the words in ch. iv. 2 must not be taken as in a purposely anti-Docetic sense, but more generally, which is conformable equally to the words themselves and to the context. They may grammatically be rendered thus: "he who confesses that Jesus has come in the flesh," i.e. that He has appeared on earth. For the union of two accusatives with optoXoyeiv, see John ix. 22, Rom. x. 9. The apostle has simply those persons before him who, though previously belonging to the Christian Church, had aposta tized from Christianity (ii. 19), or no longer entertained a full trust in Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God, and who did not fully manifest the fruits of the Christian faith in their life, by brotherly love one towards another. We may notice in a critical point of view the passage in 192 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. v. 7, 8, iv t& ovpavS, . . . iv ttj yfj. This has usually been regarded as a main proof of the Church's doctrine of the Trinity ; but it is certainly spurious, both on internal and especially on external grounds. It is an interpolation be longing to a much later date, and had its origin in the Latin Church, being inserted in the Vulgate, and thence adopted in some other old versions and in some of the later Greek MSS. as a translation from the Latin. We find no trace of these words in any of the Greek writers of the Church before the middle of the fourteenth century, nor in the Latin writers before the fifth century ; and as the words are wanting in almost all Greek mss., so also are they omitted in upwards of fifty mss. of the Vulgate, and these the oldest, and in all other old versions. See Griesbach, Appendix ad IV. T. torn. ii. pp. 1-25. Luther, moreover, regarded the text as spuri ous, and left it untranslated : it occurs in no editions of his translation revised by himself, and among the editions of it in the Lutheran Church the earliest that has it is the folio edition, Frankfort 1593. It is hardly right repeatedly to print it still, when it really belongs neither to the Greek text nor to Luther's version.1 THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. §226. We have already observed that the writer of these two epistles, without giving his name, calls himself 6 irpeafiv- Tepof, and that from the very first the belief prevailed in the Church that the writer's name was John; a circumstance which clearly points to the fact that his name was really John. On this supposition alone can we understand how it was that the knowledge of this as the author's name was circulated with the epistles; for those to whom they were written must have known the writer without any mention of his name, and through them he would come to be known as 1 [It is quite unaccountable why Stier still retains the words in an "amended" translation of the Scriptures. — B.] SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. 193 John among those to whom they showed the letters, and thus the information would spread. But if, on the contrary, the writer's name was not John, the representation that it was could never have become universal in the Church, seeing that the epistles themselves do not give it. Least of all could we believe that a later writer could have composed these letters, so as to get them received as John's. Such a writer would not fail definitely to name John as the author ; because if he did not, he could not expect that any one would think just of Mm. Accordingly, the genuineness of these epistles has seldom been doubted or called in question ; but they have generally been treated as the letters of the Apostle John, the author of the Gospel, and of the first epistle ; or of another John, John the Presbyter, named by Papias (in Euseb. iii. 39). The early Fathers thought of the latter. This is Eusebius' view, who reckons both epistles among the Antilegomena, it being doubtful whether they were written by the evangelist or by another John (H. E. iii. 25 ; see below, § 246). Jerome,1 moreover, says that the usual belief was that the Presbyter John was the author. Still Jerome has expressed himself too strongly and generally as to the opinion in his own time, and earlier. The epistles, even in his time, were certainly attributed to the Apostle John ; and this was the case after Jerome's time, both in the Latin and in the Greek Church, and before Jerome's time likewise. Even Eusebius supposes them to have been the writings of John the apostle (Demonstr. evang. iii. 5). Before the time of Eusebius we find our epistles cited and used, not very frequently — which, considering their contents and , range, is not surprising — yet occasionally ; especially 2d John, and usually as an apostolic letter. Origen, indeed, speaks doubtfully (Euseb. vi. 25 ; see § 245) concerning their 1 [De viris illust. c. 9 : Scripsit autem (Joannes) et unam epistolam . . . qux ab universis ecclesiasticis et eruditis viris probatur. Reliqux autem dux. . . . Joannis presbyteri asseruntur, cujus et hodie alterum sepulchrum apud Ephesum ostenditur. lb. c. 18 : Opinionem, quam a plerisque retu- limus traditam, duas posteriores epistolas Joannis non apostoli esse, sed presbyteri.'} VOL. II. N 194 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. origin, and says that all did not consider them genuine.1 But Dionysius Al.2 seems to recognise them as the letters of the same John who wrote the first epistle and the Gospel, and the same opinion is held by all the subsequent Church writers of Alexandria. Before Origen's time, Clement of Alexandria probably treated of these epistles in his Hypotyposes (see above, § 218) : those on 2d John are in Latin, and he treats the epistle as undoubtedly the Apostle John's. With this agrees what he says of 1st John (Strom, ii. 38), 'Ia)dwr)<; iv Tr} piel&vi iiriaToXf}, — an expression which shows that he must have regarded the smaller epistles as St. John's likewise. Irenseus, Hcer. i. 13 (ed. Grabe), cites 2 John 11 as a de claration of " John the disciple of the Lord," 8 clearly mean ing the apostle. In the Fragment of Muratori (see § 242), the passage concerning the Johannine epistles is corrupt and indistinct ; but mention is certainly made of two epistles of John, as immediately before we have the epistles of John spoken of in the plural, the John referred to being clearly the apostle. The author seems to have known and to have cited 2d John as well as 1st John as a work of the apostle. No use is made of these epistles in the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian ; but at a synod held at Carthage under Cyprian, the Bishop Aurelius of Chullabi gave his vote with the words in 2 John 10, 11, quoting them as the words of the Apostle John. The Peschito does not contain these epistles ; whence it might be surmised that when this translation was made, 1 ["En fiiv yap ralg en usro'h.a'ig aiirov ovii pi vi per, v tsjs oixeiag irpoovi- yopiag iroieiTai, rt irpttrfivTepov eavrov ovop&d^et, oviap&ov ii dirooTOhov, ot»Ss evayyeKioT'/iv.] 2 [In EUSEBIUS, vii. 25 : '0 ii evayyeKiarijg ovii t«j? xaio'hixrig itij- ToXijf irpoeypaii/ev eavTOV to ovopca . . . dhx' ovie iv T>j ievrepa (pepop&ivvi 'ladvvov xal Tphfi, xaiTOi $pa%eiatg ovuatg tirtGTo'ha'tg, 6 'ladvvYig ovopiaaTl irpoxeiTai, «AA' dvtavvpctug 6 Trpeafiiirepog yeypairrat.} 3 ^ladvvvig ii, 6 tow Kvplov piairrriig, iirereive ttjv xaraii'x/iv avrav, p.rfii Xai'peiv aiiroig i/pt.yig, irire yvao-Q'/io-erai Ta Ttpl uv qpero, etpn 6 xvpiog' u"Orav to tij? alo-^vvrig evivpta iraT'/jtare, xal OTav yevrrzat Ta iio ev xal to' appev pt.wd Tt/g Srihetag, oiirt alpp'ev airs HvjKv." Uparov piiv ovv iv Tolg irctpaieiopcevoig kpt-lv TBTTapaiv evayye'hioig ovx e^opiev to pnrov, dXh.' iv tu xar' Alyvir- Ti'dfJ.] COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. 245 or less of what is strange and foreign, and they evidently fail to give us the Gospel history so faithfully and ungarbled as our four. The collection of Gospel writings has ever since been regarded by the Church at large as closed ; and no one has thought of claiming for any other evangelic treatise a like canonical rank. §243. But ,the Christian Canon seems to have been less determi- nately settled at this time with reference to the other books. Still the Church was unanimous in regarding a number of other writings besides the four Gospels as equally canonical and normative as these, — writings which give an authentic account of the labours of the apostles after Christ's ascen sion, and in which the apostles themselves appeared as teachers. These books were called to, dtroaToXiKa (Irenaaus, i. 3. 6, as distinct from tci evayyeXiKa), or ol diroaToXoi (Clement of Alexandria, Strom, v. p. 561, vi. p. 659). The four Gospels collectively were often called to evayyeXiov, evangelium (so Clement of Alex, often ; Irenseus, iii. 11 ; and Tertullian frequently). It has often been stated, as still by Reuss, § 300, that the other books were called 6 diroaToXots, in the singular ; but I doubt whether this is anywhere the case. In the places where 6 diroaToXos occurs in distinction from the Gospels, some one apostle is meant, generally St. Paul : thus e.g. Clement of Alex., Strom, vii, p. 706 ; Ter tullian, de Baptismo, c. xv. Still writings of this kind collectively are called by Tertullian (de pudic. xii.) Apos- tolicum Instrumentum ; and these, with the "Evangelium" (ib.), he calls Novissimum fnstrumentum, or (adv. Praxeam, c. xv.) Novum Testamentum. (Cf. adv. Marc. iv. 1 : alterius fnstrumenti vel, quod magis usui est dicer e, Testamenti. Adv. Praxeam, c. xx. : totum Instrumentum utriusque Testamenti.) Among the apostolic writings which we find generally recognised in this age, were the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Pauline Epistles, 1st John and 1st Peter. (a.) The Acts of the Apostles. Though we do not find traces of the use of this book in the early Church, and 246 HISTORY OF THE CANON. though it seems but seldom quoted afterwards, we may with great probability assume that it was known in the Church side by side with St. Luke's Gospel ; and that when the four Gospels were collected and regarded as distinctively canonical, it occupied the place of an appendix to them, — an authentic account of the history of the Church after Christ's ascension. We find it placed after the Gospels in the Latin list, and also in the Peshito, and often quoted by the three Fathers above named as a canonical work of St. Luke's ; and it has ever since been received in the Church, while all other histories of the apostolic age have been excluded. (b.) The thirteen Pauline Epistles. Besides the ten which Marcion has in his Canon, the three Pastoral Epistles, which had probably been included with the rest by the Church at large before Marcion's time. We find all these in the Peshito, named also in the Latin list, and frequently used by the three Fathers as apostolic and canonical writings, .with the single exception of the Epistle to Philemon, which Clement of Alexandria and Irenseus do not cite in the works of theirs which have come down to us ; but this may doubt less be accounted for by the narrow scope and private refer ence of the letter. (c.) 1st John and 1st Peter. The Peshito has both these epistles, and the Fathers before named frequently use them as apostolic and canonical. The Epistle of St. John is named in the Latin list, but not 1st Peter ; but considering the general esteem in which 1st Peter was held even earlier by the Church, it has reasonably been supposed that its omis sion here is owing to the fragmentary character of the list ; and even the apocryphal Apocalypse of St. Peter seems to be named in it.1 1 See the passage quoted in the next note but one, where the Apoca lypse of Peter is supposed to be meant by Petri tantum, these words being joined to the foregoing, and the word Apocalypses being in the plural. Still there is much to be urged in favour of the opinion, which also Wieseler (Stud. u. Krit. 1856) holds, that et here introduces a new sentence, and that for tantum we should read unam : Et Petri unam (sc. epistolam) recepimus, etc. If this be correct, 1st Peter is of course mentioned here. ANTILEGOMENA AT THE END OF SECOND CENTURY. 247 §244. The other books which we now find in the N. T. were not received in this age as canonical writings, nor regarded as properly ranking among the aTroaToXiKa by all sections of the Church. The position they severally hold with refer ence to the maiu testimonies already named is as follows : — (a.) The Revelation was then received by the greater part of the Church as an apostolic work of canonical rank, and was used as such by Clement of Alexandria, Irenseus, and Tertullian. But it is wanting in the Peshito ; and it is very improbable, though Hug and Thiersch (p. 315) think, that it was originally there : see Guericke, § 34. We may there fore conclude that when this Syriac version was made, the Revelation was not ranked as a canonical work, and was not considered apostolic by the Syrian Church. In the Latin list it is named twice, and in different ways ; still the second mention of it is obscure, and the text here is probably cor rupt. Wieseler's conjecture and explanation seem to me probable (Stud. u. Krit. 1847, p. 846), viz. that the Revela tion is named as a work which (like the Wisdom of Solomon1) was not written by St. John himself, but by another in his name.2 That it was not generally received in the Roman Church at this time as an apostolic work, is evident from the statement of Caius that it was a work by Cerinthus (see §229). (b.) We find the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Peshito ; 1 This refers not, as Wieseler (1856, p. 93) takes it, to our canonical book of Proverbs, but to the apocryphal book of Wisdom. [Still, according to Prov. xxv. 1, the book of Proverbs, which was often called by the ancients the " book of Wisdom," may certainly be meant.] 2 The passage of the Latin manuscript in question runs as follows (according to Hertz) : epistola sane judx et superscrictio (leg. supra- scripti) johannis duas (dux ?) in catholica habentur et sapientia ab amicis salomonis in honorem ipsius scripla apocalypse (apocalypsis, or plural -es ?) etiam johanis (johannis) et petri tantum recepimus quam quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt. Wieseler as we'll as others would read ut sapientia, joining this to what follows, thus : " As we have the book of Wisdom written by Solomon's friends in honour of him, so also have we the Apocalypse of John in the Catholic Church." 248 HISTORY OF THE CANON. but it is placed after the Pauline Epistles, after those of St. Paul's written to individuals. And we may infer from this, that when the Pauline Epistles were gathered into one col lection, it was not regarded as Pauline ; otherwise it would certainly have been placed among his epistles written to Churches collectively. In the Church at Alexandria it was regarded as Pauline ; but the Western Church generally at this time did not regard it as such (see § 193). (c.) Of the remaining General Epistles, the Peshito has only that of James, but none of the four others — Jude, 2d Peter, 2d and 3d John — which had no ecclesiastical esteem in the Syrian Church. The Epistle of James does not seem as yet to have been regarded as canonical beyond the Syrian Church. Clement of Alexandria commented upon it, to gether with the other General Epistles, in his Hypotyposes, and very probably regarded it as a genuine work of James the Lord's brother. Still it does not follow from this, that either he or the Alexandrine Church assigned it apostolic rank. In his extant works, Clement of Alexandria never quotes this epistle, nor do Irenseus and Tertullian ; and the list in Muratori's Fragment does not name it. The Epistle of St. Jude was held in higher esteem (except in the Syrian Church) ; and it is named in the Latin list of the canonical books. Though not used apparently by Irenseus, it is quoted by Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian as of full authority (cf. § 210). As to 2d and 3d John, -we have proofs that 2d John at least was known as an apostolic work, and re garded as canonical; for we find it named in the list in Muratori,1 and referred to by Irenseus and Clemens Al. But as to 3d John, we do not find signs of its being known to those Fathers (§ 226). Neither do we find any trace of 2d Peter being known or recognised in this period as an apostolic work (see § 218). Besides the apostolic books included in the N. T. as we 1 See the extract just given, where by the " two epistles of John" we are (as Bunsen and Credner) to understand not 2d and 3d John, but theirs* and second epistles. To these two the writer also refers, when, quoting 1 John i. 1, he Bpeaks of the Epistolx in the plural. ANTILEGOMENA AT THE END OF SECOND CENTURY. 249 now have it, Clement of Alexandria refers frequently, and in precisely the same manner, to several other writings, without drawing any line of demarcation. According to Eusebius (vi. 14; see § 218), he treated in his Hypotyposes of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter as well as of the General Epistles. He also refers in his extant works1 to the Epistle of Barnabas and that of Clement of Rome just as to apostolic epistles, and speaks of the author whom he quotes as "the apostle;" he also cites the Shep herd of Hermas pretty often as a genuine prophetic work. Irenasus also (Hcer. iv. 3) quotes a saying from this last- named book with the same formula as quotations from the canonical Scriptures — elirev r) ypacp-q; but this occurs in this one place only, and not in any other references to the apostolic Fathers. Tertullian, on the other hand, speaks most strongly (de pudic. c. x. xx.2) against the Shepherd of Hermas, and he makes hardly any use of the writings of the apostolic Fathers. In the list in Muratori the Shepherd is also named almost last, but as a work recently composed, which might be read, but which does not rank among the prophetic and apostolic writings. The last of the writings there named are those of certain Gnostic heretics which are repudiated, just as in what precedes are two apocryphal epistles of Paul — (a) that to the Laodiceans, still extant (see § 188), and that to the Alexandrines, since lost, [by which many suppose that the Epistle to the Hebrews is meant; but see against this, Bleek's Einleitung in d. Br. an die Hebr. p. 43 sqq., 122]. §245. The N. T. Canon remained without any material change during the third century, save that in- the Alexandrine 1 [See the passages named in the indices to his works. Cf. also EUSEB. vi. 13 : Ki%pnrrcti 5' ev avrolg (ro7g 0-Tpupt.ao-i) xal TaUg diro tuv dvTiKeyapievav ypatplsv piaprvplaig, rrig Te \eyapt.ivng ~S.aKopt,uvTog ootpiag xal Tqg'lno-ov tov "Sipdy, xal t% irpog Efipaiovg iiriaTohij:, T'ijff ti Bapvdfia xal %.~hlip.evTog xal 'loviaJ] See also Lardner, i. 394. 2 For the latter passage (c. xx.), see § 193, note. 250 HISTORY OF THE CANON. Church especially full canonical authority was allowed to those epistles only which had been written by apostles. The chief witness for the first half of this century is Okigen, whose judgment upon the N. T. Canon we have summarized in Eusebius, vi. 25. He considered the Gospel Canon closed with our four Gospels.1 He mentions, indeed, two other Gospels, — that of Peter once (see § 120), and that Ka& rE/3paiov<} (see § 45, 41) twice. But he clearly distin guishes these from the canonical Gospels fully recognised by the Church. The Acts of the Apostles he not only de scribes unhesitatingly as a work of Luke's ; but (in Johann. torn. i. c. v.) he places it between the Gospels and the apostolic epistles as a constituent part of the N. T. collec tion, and of equal rank with the other books. In his Pro- cemium to torn. v. in Ev. Joann.2 he mentions Paul, Peter, and John only as the writers of the N. T. epistles. He does not name James and Jude, and we may from this infer that he did not attribute so high a canonical rank to these two epistles as to those of the three first-named apostles,3 though they were known to him, and he more than once quotes both.4 As to the Epistles of St. John, Origen ex pressly distinguishes the first as certainly genuine from the 1 A xal pcovct dvavcipprrra itrriv ev t>5 viro toi/ ovpavov exxTwiaia tov Qeov. Cf. in Joann. torn. i. C. vi. . Tiao-apav Svtov tuv evayyehiav , oiovei OTOixetav rsjf iriareag TJjf ixx~Kwiag, If uv epopieva-~. And in ch. xxxi. he calls this class Ta dvTi- Xeyopteva piev, opico$ B' iv irXelaTai'; eKKX-qalais irapd 7roWots BeBnpioaievpieva. These clearly constitute one and the same class, which he designates further on in the main passage (ch. xxv.) as v66a, — vo8o<; not being here = spurious or forged, but simply denoting a spurium with reference to their canonicity. He means writings which laid claim to canonicity, and were regarded as canonical by many, but whose genuineness was EUSEBIUS. 255 suspected by some, in whose opinion Eusebius coincides, for he says, iv Tot? v66oiepeTai Kal r) 'IovBa' rpre Herrpov BevTepa iiriaToXrj Kal i) ovopiafypievn BevTepa Kal Tpvrn 'Icodvvov eiTe tov evayyeXiaTov Tvy^dvovaai, etVe Kal eTepov op.covvp.ov iKelvw. 'Ev toii voBois KaTaTeTayQco Kal tcov UavXov irpd^ecov 17 ypacpr), 6 Te Xeyopievo<; iroipvrpv, Kal r\ diroKciXirtyi'; HeTpov. Kal Trpb*, tovtoi<; t) cpepopievr] Bap- vdfta iiriaToXr), Kal tcov diroaToXcov al Xeyopievai BiBa^ai' eTi Te, cos ecf>r]V, r) Iwavvov diroKdXirtyls, el cpavelr/, rp> Tive pidXiaTa 'Efipalcov ol tov XpiaTov trapaBe^d- pievoi yaipovai. Tama piev irdvTa tcov dvTiXeyopievwv civ e'lrj. EUSEBIUS. 259 'AvayKalco? Be Kai tovtcov optcos tov KaTaXoyov TreiroiripeBa, BiaKplvavTe<; Ta? Te KaTa ttjv iKKXiqaiaaTiKrjv TrapaBoaiv dXndei? Kal dirXaaTov; Kal dvcopoXoynpevai ypacpd*}, xal tci<; dXXas irapd Taxnai, ovk ivSiadrjKovs piev, dXXa Kal dvTiXeyo- pievas, optco*; Be Trapa TrXelaTon tcov iKKXrjaiaaTiKcov yivcoaKO- ptevar Xv' elBevai e^ptpev aura? Te Taura?, Kal Tas bvbpaTt tcov diroaToXcov irphs tcov alpeTiKcov 7rpocpepopieva<;' ryroi w? Uerpov, Kal ©wpa, Kal Mavrdla, r/ Kal tivcov irapa tovtov; dXXcov evayyeXia irepiej(pvaa? 'AvBpeov, Kal 'Icodvvov, Kal tcov dXXcov diroaToXcov Trpd^ei^ cov ovBev ovBapcoi iv avyypdpipiaTi tcov Kara SiaSo%d<; iKKXrjaiaaTiKcov TiiXeKTCt> iv toi<> acpcov ovtcov KaraKe^rnvTai avyypdpipiaai. Trjv Be cpepoptevnv avTov Bev Tepav ovk ivBid6r}Kov piev elvat irapeCXrjqbapev. "Opco<; Be TroXXoh %prjaip,o<} cpavelaa, peTa tcov dXXcov iaTrovBdadij ypacficov. To ye ptrjV tcov i-n-iKeKXrjpievcov avTov irpd^ecov, Kal to KaT1 avTov wvop.aap.evov evayyeXiov, to Te Xeyopievov avTov Kiqpvypia Kal tijv KaXovpevnv diroKaXv^ftv ovB' o\»? iv KaOoXtKois lapiev irapaBeBopeva, oti pf] Te dpyalcov pf] Te tcov Ka& rjpids Ti? eKKXriaiaaTiKO'i avyypacpev'i Tat? e£ ovtcov avve^prjaaro papTvplais . . . Tov Be UavXov irpoB-nXoi Kal aacpeh at BeKaTeaaape<;. "Oti ye prpj we? rjdeTrjKaai ttjv irpos Eftpalovs, Trpos ttj? 'Pcopatcov iKKXr]ala<; to? pir] UavXov ovaav avTrjv dvTiXeyeaOai cfyrjaavTes, ov BiKaiov dyvoeiv. . . . OvSe pvqv Ta? Xeyopievai ai>Tov wpd^en ev dvapcpiXeKTCp TrapeiXrjcpa. 'Eirel Be o avTOi diroaToXo<; iv Tali em TeXei irpoapiqaeai t»)? irpoi Pcoptaiovi, pvrjpnjv TreirovnTai peTa tcov aXXmv Kal 'Eppd, ov cpaalv vwdp^eiv to tov iroipevot} ftiftXlov, laTcov coi Kal tovto irpbi pev tivcov dvTiXeXeKrai, oV ov? ovk civ iv opoXoyovptevois Te6elr], vcp' erepcov Be avay- 260 HISTORY OF THE CANON. KaioTaTOV oh pdXiaTa Bei aTotyeicoaews eiaaycoyiKrj<;, tceKpirai. "Odev rjBrj Kal iv eKKXrjalais taptev ai)TO SeSnpoaievpievov, Kal tcov iraXaioTaTcov Be avyypacpecov Keyprjptevov; Tiva<; ovtco KaTelXncpa. lb. iii. 24 : Tcov Be 'Icodvvov avyypappaTcov irpbs tw evayyeXiw Kal fj irpoTepa tcov iiriaToXcov, irapa Te Tot? vvv ko\ toIs eV dpyaiov; dvapcplXeKTOs cbpioXoyrjTai, aVTiXeyovrai 8V al Xonral Bvo. T77? S' diroKaXv^ecos ecp' e«a- Tepov eri vvv irapa Toh 7roWo4? irepieXKeTai f] Solja. ' Op,co<; ye prpj e/c Tr]% tcov apyaicov piapTvpla? iv oiKelcp Kaipcp ttjv iirUpiaiv Be^eTai Kal avTij. lb. ii. 23 : Toiama Kal Ta KaTa tov 'laKcofiov, ov r) irpcoTrj tcov bvop.a'Cpp.evcov KaOoXiKcov iiria- toXcov elvat XeyeTai. 'IaTeov Be &>? vodeveTat piev, ov iroXXol yovv tcov ivaXaicov avTrj? ovSe ttJ? Xeyopevni 'IovSa, /aia? Kal avTrp; ovan<; tcov ewrd Xeyopevcov KaOoXiKcov. "Opcos Be la piev Kal TavTaa>v ev- StadrJKcov, and puts them on a par with other writings which we do not now recognise as belonging to the N. T. Canon, with the writings of the apostolic Fathers, and those apocry phal books which were not heretical in their contents. Still in his judgment there seems to be a certain distinction to be drawn among the writings of this second class : he seems to award a higher rank to those five of them which are now in our collection, viz. the five general epistles, than to the works of the apostolic Fathers and others ; though this distinction is not very clearly drawn. §247. It was not long, however, before the Canon of the N. T., with reference to the diroaToXiKa, became as definitely fixed and closed as the evayyeXiKa had for some time been. This took place in the Greek and in the Latin Churches about the same time, i.e. in the latter half of the fourth century, when we find just those writings of the aTroaToXiKa in the N. T. which we now include, recognised as canonical by the Church at large, and all others excluded from it. ' As to the Greek Church, several lists of the canonical books have come down to us in the writings of the Greek Fathers, which may be regarded as the main testimonies as to the state of the Canon at this time. They are as follows : — 1. The Canon of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, A.D. 326—373, in the fragment of an Epistola paschalis. 2. Jivvotyis T77? delas ypacprjs, — a work which is in only one manuscript and one handwriting, where it is described as the work of Athanasius of Alexandria ; and it is accordingly included by many among the works of Athanasius of Alex andria, and attributed to him : but none of the older writers regarded it as the work of Athanasius. In our day it is generally regarded as not his work. Credner, in his History of the Canon, p. 127, thinks that it is by another Athanasius, probably belonging to the tenth century ; but it certainly belongs to an earlier time than this, and has the Canon of Athanasius as the basis of it. 3. Cyeil, bishop of Jeru- 262 HISTORY OF THE CANON. salem, perhaps from a.d. 350, ob. 386, in his Catechesis, iv. Nos. 33-36. 4. Gregory Nazianzen, ob. 389, Carmen de veris Scriptures libris [Opp. ed. Caillau, Paris 1840, folio, ii. 259 sq.]. 5. Iambi ad Seleucum, among the writings of Gregory Nazianzen, supposed by some to be a letter ad dressed to him, and by others to be a letter of his to his contemporary, Bishop Amphilochius of Iconium. 6. Canon 59 of the Concilii Laodiceni, held in Laodicea in Lycia, but at what time is uncertain ; probably about the middle of the fourth century, 360-364. 7. Canones Apostolici (in Cote- lerius, Patrum qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt, etc. ; Opera, vol. i.), which perhaps originated in Asia, and in their present form belong to the fourth century, in the 85th canon. 8. Epiphanius of Palestine, bishop of Salamis in Crete from a.d. 367, ob. circ. 402 ; Hcer. lxxvi. p. 941. 9. I also name here a list which we find at the end of the Chronography of Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople (ob. 828), but which had come down to him, and must there fore have belonged to an earlier period. Credner (Gesch. des Kanons, 95) thinks that it belongs to the fifth century, and that it emanated from the Syrian Church : this last con jecture is, however, very improbable. [Most of these lists will be found in full, and translated, in Lardner's Credibility ; Works, vol. ii. 4to, 1815. In the Iambi ad Seleucum (Gregorii Nazianz., Opp. ed. Caillau, ii. 1102 sq.), after the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and fourteen Pauline Epistles have been named, we read : . . . nve apta xal xaQo'Kixaii eirisTo'hav dvayvavTai xard irpooabiav . . . irpoaira^ag, d\e~h(pi ' ASxvaaie. AMMONIAN CHAPTERS AND EUSEBIAN CANONS. 297 N. T. ; but they are wanting in other very old mss., and they did not come into general use before the tenth century. (b.) The spiritus asper was in ancient Greek written as a distinct letter H (whence the Latin H) : thus we find it on ancient monuments (e.g. HOI = ot), but never in manu scripts. Aristophanes of Byzantium introduced the sign \- for the spiritus asper, and a corresponding sign -j for the spiritus lenis (the two halves of the letter H) ; and from these, which we find in the Codex Vaticanus, the present signs have been developed. But in several of the oldest MSS. we find no accents; and it is very probable that the N. T. writers themselves did not use them, not certainly with any system or constancy. (c.) The iota subscriptum was anciently written as a sepa rate letter following the vowel, e.g. TTXHI, OAfll, and thus it is found in old inscriptions ; but it is often omitted even in the oldest. It gradually fell into disuse, and is not met with in the oldest mss. of the N. T. ; but it again makes its appearance in cursive writing, where it is subscriptum, — this iota subscriptum having become usual only in cursive writing. We have every reason to conclude that the N. T. writers in their autographs used neither the iota postscriptum nor the iota subscriptum. If this be correct, it follows that we cannot decide from manuscripts or other external wit nesses whether, for example, we are to read avTrj, or ainrj, or avTrj ; this must be inferred from the connection.1 §264. 4. The divisions of our N. T. books into chapters and verses were not the work of the first writers, and those we now have are comparatively of late origin. The writers of our Gospels and Epistles certainly did not make any such divisions as our verses, any more than do other prose writers in ancient or modern times divide their writings into short portions. We cannot tell whether any main sections and divisions were marked by beginning a new line, or by a short 1 [See Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T., pp. 38-42.— Tr.] 298 history of the text. interval, or the like ; but it is certain this was not done in such a manner by them, that any special importance was attached to it so as to retain it unchanged. Nor can such divisions be regarded as connected with the integrity of the text : the writers did not certainly designate or reckon such sections with numbers. But it was natural, when these writ ings came to be reverenced in the Church, and to be regu larly read and commented upon, that the several sections of any book should be distinguished and marked off by some special signs. This was probably done as early as the second century. Tertullian often speaks of the chapters of a book, e.g. of the Gospel of St. John, or of 1st Corinthians : see ad uxorem, ii. 2 : numquid, inquam, de illo capitulo sibi blandiuntur primce ad Corinthios, ubi scriptum est : si quis frater infidelem habet uxorem ; again, de pudic. 16 ; de came Christi, 19. Dionysius of Alexandria (in Euseb. vii. 25) says that some had examined the Apocalypse "chapter by chapter" (mz0' eKaaTov KecpdXaiov). Probably these were not, as some think (De Wette, Tregelles), merely fanciful divisions, which each reader made as he liked, but that they had been distinct sections in the manuscripts, and were now made more marked and observable. Still the copyists adopted these in a very loose manner, not considering themselves bound to any divi sion which they found ready to their hand. Fixed divisions are not traceable till later, though we find them long before our division into chapters. The following points, however, are here to be observed : — (a.) A division of the Gospels into small sections or para graphs, called distinctively KecpdXeta, and much smaller than our chapters,1 became very common and widely spread. They are called the Ammonian or Ammonian-Eusebian sections. Ammonius of Alexandria, about the middle of the third cen tury, made a Harmony of the Gospels, — to Bid Teaadpcov evayyeXiov, as Eusebius calls it in a letter to Carpianus. His 1 In Matthew there are 355, in Mark 234, in Luke 342, in John 231 — making in all, 1162. This is the number given by CjESArius (a brother of Gregory Nazianzen), Dial. i. 39, and by Epiphanius, Ancor. 50, p. 54 ; and the mss. which have these sections marked tally with this. AMM0NIAN CHAPTERS AND EUSEBIAN CANONS. 299 plan was this. He took St. Matthew's Gospel as his standard, and placed the corresponding narratives of the other three evangelists side by side with it, probably inserting those which do not occur in Matthew. In order to improve this arrange ment, Eusebius added his ten so-called canons, which gave lists of the several KecpaXaia, corresponding to each other in the several Gospels : in the first canon he gives those chap ters which all four evangelists have in common ; in the second, those in which Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree; in the third, those which Matthew, Luke, and John have, and so on ; in the ninth, those which Luke and Mark only have; and in the tenth, those which occur in one only of the evangelists. The chapters are numbered separately in each Gospel, according to the order in which they occur, i.e. in Matthew from 1 to 355; and so in the other three, from 1 onwards, just as they are placed in each. Whether these numbers are derived from Ammonius — he having introduced them before he completed his Harmony, and made them the basis thereof — or whether Eusebius himself introduced them (as Wetstein, Prolegg. p. 69, thinks), cannot now with certainty be told. In both the Greek and the Latin manuscripts these chapters are marked with their appropriate numbers, and beneath the number of the chapter is written the number of the canon to which it belongs. For example, Matt. i. 19 sqq. is marked thus, — , A being the number of the section (4) of Matthew, and I (ten) the number of the canon, — thus intimating that the section is to be found only in this Gospel. Again, Mark i. 7, 8, is marked -, i.e. the 4th section of Mark belonging A to the first canon, = a section for which we have parallels in the other three Gospels. This plan both of the sections and of the canons is adopted in many old editions of the Greek text, and of the Latin version of the Gospels.1 (b.) At a later date we find, together with these Ammonian- 1 Also in the Greek text of Mattilei's small edition, in Tischen- dorf's ed. 7, crit. maj. ; and for the Vulgate, in Lachmann's larger edition. 300 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. Eusebian sections, another division of the Gospels into larger sections called titXoi, and so called, doubtless, because it was usual to put before each of these larger sections a summary of contents, or titulum. The Latins called these sections breves, and the summaries of contents breviaria. The inventor of these divisions is not known, but they do not seem to have been in use much before the fifth century. We find them used only in Euthymius and Theophylact, and they appear in the manuscripts side by side with the sections. Their number (as Suidas, s.v., tells us, and the mss. of the Gospels agree with his statement) was 68 in St. Matthew, 48 in St. Mark, 83 in St. Luke, 18 in St. John. Thus they are totally different from the KecpdXaia, and more closely resemble our chapters ; but, excepting in St. John, they are much smaller. (c.) As to the other N. T. books, we know that Euthalius prefixed tvv tcov KetpaXalcov eK0eaiv, which he had already met with in the Pauline Epistles, to his stichometric edi tion of the Acts and the Epistles.1 He himself completes this eKdeaiv, i.e. a table of contents of the several KecpdXaia, in the Acts and General Epistles; and thus the KecpdXaia must have been already in use as recognised sections. Still we know not when or by whom they were introduced. In the edition of Euthalius they are numbered with letters. These numbers are (see De Wette, § 30, c, note a) : in the Acts, forty chapters ; Romans, nineteen ; 1st Corinthians, nine ; Galatians, twelve ; 1st John, seven ; 1st Timothy, eighteen. They varied greatly in length in the several books, but were generally smaller than our chapters, and only occa sionally larger. Lists like these, which in Latin are called capitulationes, were afterwards usually put at the end of the manuscripts. Euthalius also speaks of smaller sub-sections (vTroSiaipeaeis) which he had marked with asterisks. (d.) The Apocalypse was divided by Andreas bishop of Csesarea (in Cappadocia) into 24 Xo-yot and 72 KecpdXaia. (e.) Our present division into chapters probably dates from 1 . . . evl tuv aotyuraTuv tivI xal ®iha%pio-TU irarepav i/tpiuv ireirowipievviv. This leads us to think of Theodore of Mopsuestia, but we cannot be certain. OUR DIVISIONS OF CHAPTERS AND VERSES. 301 the thirteenth century, and is due to Cardinal Hugo Carensis (a sancto Caro, St. Cher, ob. 1263). He made this division for both the O. and N. T. (see Einleitung i. A. T. § 334) in his Latin collection of sermons, in order that he might with more readiness refer to the several passages in a Concord ance of the Vulgate. This new division soon obtained a footing in the Western Church, and before the end of the thirteenth century other theologians began to use it in their citations. It was transferred from the Vulgate to the ori ginal text, but not probably before the middle of the fifteenth century (cf. Tregelles, p. 33). We find it in the first printed editions of the N. T., and in all subsequent ones. (/.) Our verse divisions were made by Robert Stephens in 1551. Hugo had, indeed, divided his chapters into sub sections longer than our verses, wliich he marked with Roman capitals — A, B, C, D, E, F, G ; but these were not adopted in the printed editions. Still the need of a more exact sys tem of reference was felt, and smaller sections were adopted. Paginus, in his new Latin version of the Bible in 1528, divided the chapters of the N. T. into verses, which he numbered ; but these were longer than our present verses, which must be traced to Robert Stephens (Etienne), made by him when he was persecuted by the doctors of the Sorbonne in Paris (1550) and fled to Genf. He made them during his journey from Paris to Lyons (inter equitandum). We accordingly find our verses in the fourth edition of Stephens' N. T. 1551; and they soon were generally adopted in the Roman Catholic as well as in the evangelical Churches, in the original Greek text, and in the various versions. Stephens says, in the pre face to that 1551 edition of the N. T., that in this arrange ment he had followed in the main the divisions traceable in the oldest Greek and Latin mss., evidently referring to the old stichoi; but it is clear, from the way in which he expresses himself, that his main purpose in this remark is to meet the objections which might be urged against his scheme on the ground of its novelty. (g.) It is evident from what has now been advanced, that these various divisions of the sacred text cannot be regarded 302 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. as authoritatively binding upon us. They were not made by the original writers of the books, but long afterwards, and by individuals whose method of dividing Scripture into larger and smaller portions was afterwards generally adopted. As Scripture is at present used, these divisions into chapters and verses are very convenient, and it would not be wise to alter them. Still it cannot be denied that, in many instances, they do not correspond with the sense. But though they may not be trusted always in exposition, and though no spe cial weight can be attached to them, it has become general in many editions even of the N. T. to distinguish not only the chapters, but even the verses, by making each a distinct paragraph beginning on a new line. This is quite inappro priate, for the several verses by no means contain, each of them, a distinct thought. Expositors can no more regard these divisions into chapters and verses as of binding autho rity, than they can thus regard the ordinary punctuation. §265. 5. The divisions of the text which we have been describing are different from those defined for the Church's guidance in public reading of the Scriptures, and which have now become the Lessons or TrepiKoirai of the Church. There can be no doubt that comparatively early, when the writings of the N. T. had obtained a settled esteem and authority, they were used side by side with the O. T. books in the public lessons of the Church for edification and instruction. For a long time they were wont to be read before the congregations in sections selected at will. Certain passages were fixed only for the festival days ; e.g. at Easter, the account of the re surrection given in the Gospels, the narratives of the several evangelists being read on successive days. The history of the crucifixion was read only on one day, and then the narra tive of Matthew's Gospel was chosen. During the interval between Easter and Whitsuntide the book of the Acts was read in many places; in the churches of Gaul and Spain the Apocalypse was also read during those weeks. Euthalius himself tells us that, in his stichometric edition, the Acts and CHURCH LESSONS. 303 Epistles were divided into as many sections as there were Sundays in the year, including the main festival days, i.e. into 57 sections; and each of these sections was as long as from three to five of our chapters (see De Wette, § 31, a, note b). Euthalius seems to have himself made this division. About this time it was usual not to divide all the N. T. books into these dvayvcoaei<;, but simply to select portions like the miaBPl among the Jews, which were lessons for reading selected from the prophetical books of the O. T. These portions were selected for every Sunday and festival day, — one from the Gospels, and another from the Epistles. This was the custom in the Western Church even from the middle of the fifth century. Claudius Mamercus prepared a Lectionary of this kind for the Gallic Church in the year 450, and Musseus in 458 for the Church at Marseilles. Similar Lectionaries were used in the Greek Church from the eighth century downwards, from the time of Johannus Damascenus. This was the origin of our TrepiKoiral or Church Lessons, the his tory of which is very obscure, but belongs to the department of practical theology.1 These Church Lessons were collec tively written in separate books — iKXoydSiov, lectionarium ; those containing the selections from the Gospels evangeliarium or evangelistarium, and those from the Epistles epistolare or (especially those from St. Paul's Epistles) diroaToXo^, and those from the Book of the Acts irpa^airoaToXoi;. The be ginnings and endings of these Lessons are marked in some complete manuscripts of the N. T., and in various printed editions of the Greek N. T., e.g. in both of those by Matthai. §266. 6. As to the titles or superscriptions usually prefixed in the manuscripts and printed copies of the N. T. books, we have already spoken of them as far as the Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles to the Hebrews, and the Ephesians are con cerned. As we have seen in the case of these books, so also 1 See especially E. Ranee, Das Kirchliche Perikopensystem, etc., Berlin 1847 ; and his article Perikopen, in Herzog's Eeal-Encyklop. vol. xi. 304 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. do we find it with the rest, viz. that these titles have not come to us from the writers of the books ; and this indeed is clear from the form and character of the titles, e.g. " the First" or "the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians;" "the First, Second, Third Epistle of St. John," etc. They differ likewise in different MSS. in some verbal points, but not materially ; and they correspond with the earliest eccle siastical traditions concerning them. Besides these titles or superscriptions, many manuscripts have postscripts appended to the several books ; but these vary greatly., They some times name the author of the foregoing treatise, or simply say that this is the end of the work, or specify the time and place of writing, as e.g. in the Pauline Epistles, where the person who conveys the epistle is sometimes named. These postscripts, as is universally allowed, are the work of later copyists. They are almost all wanting in the oldest MSS. ; and where they do occur, they are simpler in the older than in the later. The most frequent are those which Euthalius gives in his stichometric edition ; and these are for the most part adopted into the earlier printed editions of the N. T., though they are generally allowed to be erroneous : e.g., the Epistle to the Galatians is described as written from Rome, and 1st Thessalonians from Athens. Modern critical editions of the N. T. rightly omit them. INTERNAL HISTORY- OF THE TEXT. §267. The question which we have here to consider is, whether the text of the N. T. books has been handed down to us from the time when it was first written unfalsified; or whether it has, in the course of time, undergone changes over and above those additions and divisions which we have hitherto considered, and which were in part connected with their authorship — changes that have affected the words, and even the sense. The earliest printed copies of the Greek INTERNAL HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 305 Testament (in the year 1514 et sqq.) present many varia tions, but these are not in general very important or material. The same may be said of subsequent editions, wherein the text gradually became more settled and uniform, until, in the latter part of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth, its form became quite fixed and stereo typed as the textus receptus. This received text was regarded with such reverence, and as possessing such high authority, that any departure from it was considered objectionable and wrong. Indeed, it was by many taken for granted that this textus receptus was the only true one ; and its authority as a standard was extended to the division of words, the punctua tion, the breathings and accents which it presented. After the middle of the seventeenth century, the learned English theologians Walton, Fell, and afterwards Mill (1707), com piled a very copious apparatus criticus, by comparing the received text with Greek MSS. of the N. T. and other witnesses ; but they did not venture to alter or amend the text in their editions of it. Bengel (1734) was the first to publish a text differing in many places from the textus receptus; but even he did not venture to adopt readings which were not found in earlier editions. This was not done until much later, and by the German scholars Gries- bach, Matth^ei, Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf, and others. The several versions of the N. T. text which these scholars give, not only differ more or less from the previous received text, but present many differences when compared with each other. In our day, therefore, there is no such general certainty entertained as formerly with reference to the textus receptus ; the certainty and authority attributed thereto having been merely chimerical and imaginary. With many different editions of the text before him, containing a multitude of various readings that more or less affect the sense, the student of Scripture has now, in the first place, to inquire what is the bearing of these upon each other, and what is the true and original reading in each particular case. The questions therefore arise, How is he to find this out? and what are those original testimonies which he is to appeal VOL. II. u 306 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. to for the N. T. text? It would be a very simple matter if we had the original documents or autographs of the several books, as each came from the pen of its author. But this, as every one knows, is not the case : we have not even a trace in the early centuries of the Church's history that any such originals were extant and acknowledged (cf. De Wette, § 27). Had such originals existed in the time of such Fathers as Tertullian and Origen, these writers would not fail to have appealed to the autograph copies in their controversies with heretics, e.g. with the Marcionites concerning the true text of certain N. T. passages. We may take it as certain that those autographs had already been lost, and no longer were extant at the time when the N. T. Canon was closed. By constant use, and on account of the copies made, the originals must have been worn out and laid aside ; and new, cleaner copies supplanted them even in the places to which they had primarily been sent : for there was not sufficient importance and sanctity attached at the outset to the originals, to lead to their preservation as standards of comparison and appeal by which to test and correct the later mss. The epistles and the other N. T. writings were circulated far and wide by means of copies, and copies of copies, more or less directly connected with the primary autographs. Seeing, then, that we possess no more express and certain witnesses of this primary and autograph text, we must endeavour to find out what the text was, tracing it as far back towards the ori ginals as we can. We must arrive at a conclusion as to the truest text by a consideration of these testimonies. They are : (A) the Greek MSS. which have come down to us ; (B) the ancient versions; and (C) the testimonies of early writers in the Church. A.— GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF THE N. T. §268. There are several mss. of the Greek Testament lying scattered in the libraries of different countries, — in Paris, THE GREEK MSS. OF THE N. T. 307 Spain, Italy (especially in Florence and Rome), and in the cloisters of Turkey in Europe and of Asia. Not reckoning the lectionaries, no fewer than 700 of these have been made use of, or at least are known j1 but these are by no means all alike perfect. Before noticing seriatim the most important of these, I will offer the following more general remarks : — 1. Some manuscripts contain the entire Greek Bible, the books of the O. T. according to the LXX., together with those of the New, and the Apocrypha intervening. Others, again, contain simply the N. T. ; and of these, some have not all the N. T. books, some have but a few. The MSS. of the Gospels are most numerous, those of the Pauline Epistles next. The number containing the General Epistles and the book of the Acts is smaller ; and we have the fewest of the Apocalypse, — a book which, during the early centuries, was received with doubt in the Greek Churches, who hesitated to place it among the canonical books, and which was com paratively little read, even in those Churches fully recognis ing its canonicity, and was therefore less frequently copied. 2. The N. T. writers must certainly have used charta, ¦)(dpTr]<; (2 John 12), a material made from the Egyptian papyrus reed, and of which many varieties were in use at the time, — some of it very strong and stout, as Hieratic paper, appropriated to sacred uses, and some of a thinner texture, as e.g. the Augustine, Livian, or Claudian, — names derived from Augustus, Livia, and Claudius ; and of these the last was stronger than the two others, and held an intermediate place between the Hieratic on the one hand, and the Augus tine and Livian on the other. It was probably upon this material that the first copies of the N. T. books were made ; but no mss. of the N. T. written upon the Egyptian papyrus have come down to us : all that we possess are either on parchment or vellum, or upon the different kinds of paper afterwards used. Vellum was the costliest and most durable material. Constantine the Great had fifty splendid copies of Holy Scripture (not of the Gospels only, as Tregelles says, p. 43) made upon parchment, under the direction of Euse- 1 See Guericke, p. 648 f., note 2. 308 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. bius of Csesarea, for the churches of Constantinople.1 The codices are written partly upon paper made of cotton or of silk (charta bombycina, serica) — which came into use in the eighth century, and quite supplanted the Egyptian paper — and partly upon paper made of linen (charta lintea), which was used from the thirteenth century downwards, though the cotton paper kept its place side by side with it down to the middle of the fourteenth century. 3. As to the outward form or shape of the manuscripts, the ancients used rolls for their writings, upon which the several leaves were rolled together, so that when they were read they had to be unrolled ; and thus doubtless the writers of the N. T. books and the first copyists arranged their manuscripts. This, however, was found to be so inconve nient, especially for reference, that it was soon given up ; and the plan, now universal, of sewing the leaves together was introduced. Thus at least all the MSS. of the N. T. known to us are done, and they consist of sheets folded usually in four, five, six, or eight folds, and in different shapes, for the most part folio or quarto, and some very small, laid side by side, and bound in what we call quarto, octavo, duodecimo, eighteenmo quires. Such is the form, for example, of the copies prepared by Eusebius for Constantine : they are ter- nions and quaternions, i.e. in sheets folded in three or in four. 4. The manuscripts which have come down to us belong to different times, from the fifth, or perhaps the fourth, century downwards to the sixteenth ; and the style of writing greatly varies in them, many (and these the oldest) in uncial characters, and the rest (and these by far the most numerous) in cursive writing, in the scriptio continua, or with division of words, and breaks or pauses, with and without accentuation, punctuation more or less fully marked, and so forth. The different forms of the MSS., the material on which they are written, the manner of writing and spelling, are the main things which help us to decide the date and the country to which they severally belong.2 There are other marks, too, 1 Eusebius, Vita Constant, iv. 36, 37. 2 Bern, de Montfaucon, Palxographia Grxca, Paris 1708, fol. See THE GREEK MSS. OF THE N. T. 309 in the writing, which enable us to decide, — as, for instance, the menologia (pijvoXoyiov) appended, i.e. the tables of saints' days upon which certain portions of Scripture were appointed to be read ; for sometimes we find certain days wanting, or mentioned for the first time, in honour of certain saints who now were dead, or who belonged to the country in which the MS. was written. Sometimes the name of the writer of the codex is given, and even the date ; but there is uncertainty here : for it is doubtful whether the statement refers to the codex before us, or to some earlier one, of which this is a copy, the later copyist mechanically copying the name and date of the earlier one before him. When we do not find these express signs, there is much uncertainty and room for doubt in forming our opinion concerning the date and country of the MS. from other indications, so that opinions differ greatly concerning the age of the various codices ; and we can only decide with certainty which belong to an early and which to a late date, without being able to name even the century to which they severally belong, or anything more definite. In order to be able to form an opinion, a long and painstaking familiarity with the subject, a thorough knowledge of all the facts and circumstances to be taken into account, and a special aptitude and tact, are necessary. 5. The manuscripts which contain the Greek text only are called Codices puri. Many contain also a commentary, scholia, or translation ; and these are called Codices mixti. Manuscripts with a translation are called Codices bilingues ; and when the translation is a Latin one, Codices Grceco- Latini, the Latin being either the Vulgate, or, in the oldest MSS., a version before the time of Jerome. The translation is put in a separate column, or in the margin, or in lines alternating with the Greek (cum versione interlineari). There also the fac-similes of the different mss. , given in vol. i. of Tisohendorf's noble edition of the Codex Sinaiticus, where plates 20 and 21 present fac-similes of MSS. from those of the oldest Greek down to the seventh century. [See also the plates and explanations in Scrivener's Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T., Cambridge 1861.] 310 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. has been much difference of opinion concerning the value of these Codd. Grceco-Latini, especially the oldest of them. Some have supposed that the Greek text has been altered and accommodated to the Latin ; and thus R. Simon, Chr. Ben. Michaelis, and Wetstein. The last-named critic espe cially entertained this suspicion, not only with reference to the G rseco-Latin MSS., but concerning the other MSS. wliich have no Latin translation but were made to harmonize with the Latin standard ; and he therefore calls them Codices Latinizantes. But other scholars, e.g. Semler, Griesbach, Woide, J. D. Michaelis, have vindicated these codices from this suspicion, and it is now generally regarded as un grounded : indeed, in itself it is quite improbable ; for even in the Western Church the exact knowledge and study of the Greek text were kept up, and the Latin versions were not so highly esteemed as to be regarded as of higher autho rity. There are some mss., indeed, in which alterations seem to have been made in the Greek, so as to harmonize it with the Vulgate ; but these are comparatively modern, i.e. about the fifteenth century ; and the changes do not occur through out, but only in certain places. 6. Besides the manuscripts containing the entire N. T., or certain portions or books (codices textus perpetui), there are many which give only the portions selected for reading in the churches, — the dvayvcoaei<; or Pericopoi, codices eccle- siastici, lectionaria. As to the text of this class of MSS., we find slight alterations in the beginnings of the passages given, so as to make them appropriate and complete in them selves, as lessons taken out of their context, — the omission, for example, of connecting particles, or the addition of a few introductory words, " The Lord saith," etc. These altera tions, whether additions or omissions, have often been incor porated subsequently in other manuscripts which contain the text in full, but which were used for reading in the Church, and in which the several lessons are marked. In the study of textual criticism, it is not unimportant to know the be ginnings of the several lessons appointed to be read in the churches. For instance, Luke vii. 31 begins one of these THE OLDEST UNCIAL MSS. 311 lessons ; and the words elirev 6 Kvpio? were prefixed, and made their way into many later MSS. thus : elm Be 6 Kvpio?. Again, in Acts x. 21, after avSpa? the received text has tov<; dveaTaXpievovq diro tov KopvrfXtov 7rpo? ambv, which was inserted at the beginning of a Church lesson, for the purpose of informing the hearer who the men were that are here mentioned, but which are unnecessary for a reader of the entire narrative, to whom this would be obvious from the context. 7. In order to designate the several manuscripts, it has been customary since the time of Wetstein to use for the uncial MSS. the Roman capitals A, B, C, etc., and for the smaller or cursive mss. the Arabic figures 1, 2, 3, and so on ; and in particular, to denote the different portions of the N. T., viz., (1) the Gospels ; (2) the Acts and General Epistles ; (3) the Pauline Epistles ; and (4) the Revelation. Thus the same letters and figures denote different codices, when applied to these different parts of the N. T. ; and often one and the same codex, especially in the cursive MSS., is named for these different portions. This must be regarded as an unfortunate circumstance, though it cannot well be obviated without introducing new perplexities. Notices of the several Manuscripts. §269. The oldest and most important manuscripts of the N. T. are the Codices A, B, and C, to which we must now add N, the Sinaitic MS., all of which originally contained the entire Greek Bible, Old and New Testaments, and which belong to a time when the improvements made by Euthalius, and in particular the stichometric method of writing, had not yet been introduced, or had not at least become general. 1. A, or Alexandrinus, which was sent as a present from Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, to King Charles I. of England, in the year 1628, and which has been deposited in the British Museum, London, since 1753. It 312 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. consists of four folio volumes, the first three containing the O. T. in Greek, and the fourth the N. T. This codex has several lacunce ; the portions wanting in the N. T. being Matt. i. 1-xxv. 6, John vi. 50— viii. 52, 2 Cor. iv. 13— xii. 6. It is on vellum, uncial writing, and in double columns, with out accents or breathings, in the scriptio continua ; but the ends of words, especially of proper names, are indicated by small commas or strokes, and the end of a sentence by a point placed at the top of the preceding letter, and the paragraphs by a break in the line, or by a larger letter at the beginning of the following section. It contains the N. T. books in the following order : 1. The Gospels ; 2. The Acts ; 3. The General Epistles ; 4. The Pauline Epistles, including the Epistle to the Hebrews between 2d Thessalonians and 1st Timothy ; 5. The Revelation. In the Gospels the Ammonian chapters and the Eusebian canons, together with the titXoi, are marked ; but the other books have no divisions into chapters or dvayvcoaeii. Cyril, who had before been Patriarch of Alexandria, brought the codex thence to Constantinople, and hence it was called the Codex Alexandrinus.1 According to another account given by a deacon of Cyril's, he received it from Mount Athos, where he resided a long time before he became Patriarch of Alexandria. But the codex was cer tainly in early times at Alexandria ; and according to a Latin statement inserted in the beginning of the codex, the Alexandrine patriarchate received it as a present in the year 1098. It was most probably written at Alexandria. Opinions vary greatly concerning its age ; and it is variously dated somewhere between the fourth and the tenth century. According to a note in Latin by Cyril, the tradition was, that the work was written by an Egyptian lady of high rank, named Thecla (manu Theclcs, nobilis fcemince uEgyptice), in the fourth century ; and according to a postscript in Arabic, by a female martyr Thecla, who is represented as a disciple 1 Hence it was named Codex A, i.e. Alexandrinus, by Walton. Wetstein retained this designation, and was led thus to call the other uncial codices by the following letters of the alphabet. See Tregelles, p. 151. THE OLDEST UNCIAL MSS. 313 of Paul. But we cannot put any reliance upon these state ments. We may with the highest degree of probability conclude that the codex is very old, and was written in Egypt not later certainly than the middle of the fifth century. Besides the N. T. books, and following them, it contains the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, and the fragment of a supposed second epistle of Clement's. This is the only codex we possess containing these epistles ; and in the list of books prefixed both these epistles are named among the N. T. writings; just in the same manner as the other epistles, and after the Revelation (see Tregelles, p. 154); and this circumstance indicates the great antiquity of the codex, and its Egyptian origin. Its great age is also shown by the absence of the arrangement introduced by Euthalius, especially supposing it to have been written at Alexandria. Woide has published a fac-simile of the portion of this codex containing the N. T., printed with type cast for the purpose ; and thus the codex in its true and original form is presented, London 1786, folio.1 Woide's prolegomena were carefully reprinted by Spohn with some additions, and a collation of the readings in the codex (Woide notitia Cod. Alex, cum var. ejus lectt. cur. Spohn, Leipz. 1788). The text had before been carefully examined by various scholars, especially by Walton, Mill, Wetstein. Wetstein suspected that the codex had been altered into keeping with the Latin version ; but Semler (De cetate Cod. Alex. 1760, 4to), and still more fully Woide, have vindicated its integrity. Indeed, it is very unnatural to suppose that the Alexandrines, or Greeks generally in the East, at so early a date altered their codices of Holy Scripture, for the sake of bringing them into harmony with the Latin versions.2 1 [B. H. Cowper has issued a new and cheaper edition, in ordinary type (London 1860), in which Woide's text is corrected in several places by the original. The lacunx in the codex are supplied by KiiSTER's edition of Mill's N. T. In Cowper's judgment, the mistakes in Woide's edition are repeated and enhanced in Spohn's collation. — B.] 2 A specimen of the writing in the codex, as presented in Woide, is given by Tregelles, p. 157. [See also Scrivener.] 314 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 2. A codex in the Vatican Library in Rome, No. 1209, called par excellence Codex Vaticanus, or Cod. B, contain ing the several portions of the N. T. except the Revelation. This codex also contains the Greek Bible, and the N. T. books in the same order as Codex A. In the O. T. the greater part of Genesis, and some of the Psalms, are wanting. In the N. T., the concluding portion of the Hebrews, from ch. ix. 15 onwards, the Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, and the Revelation, have been lost. These four Pauline epistles are altogether wanting ; but the end of Hebrews and the Reve lation have been supplied by another and a later hand (about the fifteenth century). The codex is written upon the finest vellum, in quarto, three columns on each page, with no intervals between the words, and with but few abbreviations. At the end of the several sentences and paragraphs a small space is left, of the breadth of a letter or half a letter : the original text has no other punctuation. The faint lines of the original writing, on which the ink was faded, have been retraced with new ink by a later hand ; and this later hand has here and there, though but seldom, inserted certain signs of punctuation. The larger letters at the beginning of the paragraphs, together with the accents and breathings, have been added by this reviser; for these are not, it would appear, the work of the first hand, as Birch thinks, but of the second, as Hug and Tregelles (who used a microscope in examining the codex) decide. Divisions of the several books into sections are traceable, which do not appear in any other manuscript : thus in the Gospels, instead of the Ammonian- Eusebian chapters and titXoi, we find Matthew divided into 170 sections, Mark into 62 [according to Mai ; but according to others, 72 or 61], Luke into 152, and John into 80. The Pauline Epistles are in this codex (and in no other) treated as one complete whole ; and it is worthy of note, that though the Epistle to the Hebrews is placed after 2d Thessalonians, the numbers of its sections follow in order those of the Epistle to the Galatians. The Galatian epistle ends with section 59, and the Hebrews begins with section 60, but the Epistle to the Ephesians with section 70 ; and this makes it THE OLDEST UNCIAL MSS. 315 probable that the manuscript is a copy of an older codex containing these divisions, and in which the Epistle to the Hebrews followed that to the Galatians. The divisions which we find in the book of the Acts and in the Pastoral Epistles differ from the Euthalian, which do not occur any where in the codex, and there is nothing indicating the influence of Euthalius ; for even the postscripts of the several books are shorter and simpler than those usually found in MSS. based upon the Euthalian editions. The high antiquity of this codex is also witnessed by the fact that in Eph. i. 1 the words iv 'Ecpeaco do not stand in the text, but only in the margin (cf. § 169). The codex therefore, in all probability, belongs to the fourth century, — at latest to the beginning of the fifth, but more probably to the fourth. This is the opinion of Hug,1 Tischendorf, and Tregelles. It is very probable that this codex likewise (which Wetstein also suspects of being an interpolated accommodation to the Latin) was written in Egypt — in Alexandria. This codex is generally recognised as one of the oldest and most important manuscripts of the N. T. which we possess, if not the oldest and most important of all.2 It is therefore a matter of regret that we have not a fuller knowledge of it in points of detail. There are many collations of it, but none of these is perfect or fully trustworthy ; indeed, they present serious discrepancies when compared together. There is one (a) in the Paris Library, made in 1669, and bearing the feigned name of Julius de St. Anastasia, its real author being Bartolocci, the custos of the Vatican Library. This collation is very incomplete. It was first made use of, but not with any painstaking accuracy, by Scholz, and afterwards by Tischendorf, who gave some readings from it in the Stud. u. 1 De Antiquitate Cod. Vat., Freiburg 1809, 4to, and Einl. i. N. T. Specimens of this codex may here be found ; also in Blanchinus, Evangelarium quadruplex, i. 492 ; TESCHENDORF, Stud. u. Krit. 1847 ; Tregelles, p. 165 ; [Scrivener as before]. 2 See Phil. Buttmann, Theol. u. Krit. 1860, p. 341 sqq. The award of antiquity seems to him to lie between this codex and codex N- It is doubtful which of the two is the oldest. 316 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. Krit. (1847, part i. pp. 237 sqq.), also by Tregelles. (b) The collation which bears Bentley's name, and prepared for his edition of the N. T. mainly by an Italian named Mico (circ. 1720). It is written on the margin of a copy of the Strasburg edition (1524) of the N. T., and was found among Bentley's papers in the Library of Trin. Coll. Cambridge. Woide transcribed it into a copy of the Fellian edition of the year 1675 ; and from this, again, H. Ford published it in his Appendix to Woide's edition of the Codex Alexandrinus (Oxford 1799). In this collation the readings of the Codex Vaticanus, in places where there are corrections by a later hand, are given according to these corrections, and not accord ing to the original text. To remedy this defect, Bentley employed the Abbate Rulotta to compare it with the original, to get the readings of the first hand and the marginal notes ; and the collation which Rulotta made was discovered by Tischendorf among the Bentley manuscripts at Cambridge in 1855. (c) The collation made by Andrew Birch, first published in his edition of the four Gospels at Copenhagen 1788 (folio and 4to), and afterwards with greater care and accuracy in his Varies Lectiones on the Acts and Epistles (1798) and Gospels (1801). He does not seem to have even compared the Gospels of Luke and John, but merely gives the various readings of the Bentleyan collation furnished for him by Woide (see Lachmann, N. T. ed maj., torn, i., praaf. p. xxii.). Indeed, this collation is in no respect accurate. The most complete and trustworthy of these three collations is perhaps the Bentleyan, though even this is not fully to be relied on. Cardinal Mai (ob. 1854) undertook the publication of the entire codex in Rome, and in 1838 he had completed the printing of the Prolegomena, when the permission of the ecclesiastical authorities necessary for the publication was refused, doubtless because the codex did not confirm many readings in the edition of the Vulgate sanctioned by the Roman See. But considering the mode of procedure adopted by Mai (according to general report), it was unlikely that he would give the text in a thoroughly trustworthy man- THE OLDEST UNCIAL MSS. 317 ner.1 The learned jealousy, moreover, of Cardinal Mai, while he lived, excluded the efforts of other scholars who might have furnished a trustworthy collation ; indeed, it was only with much trouble that they could get a sight of the manuscript : and this state of things has continued since the Cardinal's death. Some scholars have examined a few of its readings : e.g. Tischendorf (see Stud. u. Krit. 1847) ; Tregelles, 1845 and 1846 ; and Ed. de Muralt. The last-named scholar states that he was allowed to examine the codex for three successive days, so as to compare it with the collations of Bartolocci (of which he had a copy) and of Birch ; and in the strength of this he published an edition of the N. T. grcece ad fidem codicis principis Vaticani editum, Hamburg 1846, and with apparatus criticus, 1848. But this edition is by no means suited reliably to inform us concerning the text of the closely guarded codex.2' The designation B has, since the time of Wetstein, been commonly used also for a codex of the Apocalypse (which book the Cod. Vaticanus does not contain) in the Vatican Library, No. 2066, — a codex which contains the whole of the Apocalypse among the Homilies of Basil and Gregory of Nyssa. It was collated for Wetstein' s 1 This is sadly confirmed by the edition at length published in 5 vols. 4to, Rome 1857. The editor, Vercellone, states in his preface that the publication of the work had been delayed through Cardinal Mai's own dilatoriness. After his death a commission were entrusted with the revision of the work, and many corrections were made and some sheets reprinted ; but Vercellone himself intimated that many errors remained still uncorrected. In the new 8vo edition, published by Vercellone in 1859, the text is in several places amended. A cheap reprint of the first Roman edition of the N. T. was published simultaneously in Lon don and Leipsic in 1859. Kuenen and Cobet endeavour to give the true text of the Vatican Codex, taking Mai's edition as the basis of their work (Leyden 1860). But they exclude from the text not only the obvious mistakes of Mai, but the distinctive orthography and gramma tical forms of the codex, noting these alterations in the Prolegomena. See the recension, by Alex. Buttmann, in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 151 sqq. Phil. Buttmann's edition (N. T. Grxce ad fidem Cod. Vat. recensuit, Berlin 1862) keeps more closely to the letter of the codex, and it contains a list of the texts in which the readings of the different editions of the codex vary. 2 See Tischendorf, ed. 2, Leipsic, Prolegg. p. xlvii. sqq. 318 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. N. T., but not fully ; but it has been printed in Tischendorf's Monumenla sacra inedita (Leipsic 1846, 4to, pp. 407-432), with a fac-simile : this we find, too, in Blanchinus' Evangel- arium quadruplex. The Apocalypse in Cardinal Mai's edition is printed from this manuscript. [3. Codex n, Sinaiticus, now in St. Petersburg, which Tischendorf discovered on the 4th February 1859, in a monastery on Mount Sinai, having before in 1844 seen some fragments of the O. T. belonging to the same codex, which he published as Cod. Friderico-Augustanas (Leipsic 1846). This codex contains, besides certain portions of the 0. T., the whole of the N. T., arranged as follows : 1. The Gospels ; 2. The Pauline Epistles, with the Epistle to the Hebrews following 2d Thessalonians ; 3. The book of the Acts ; 4. The General Epistles ; 5. The Apocalypse. It also contains the Epistle of Barnabas, now for the first time presented in full in its original Greek, and part of the Pastor of Hermas, which hitherto, if we except the manuscript of Simonides, had been extant in Latin only. Between the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas about six leaves seem to be missing, which perhaps contained another apocry phal book. The latter part of the Shepherd, too, is wanting ; and whether anything further was included in the original manuscript cannot now be told. The codex, according to Tischendorf, was made in the fourth century by four diffe rent but contemporary scribes, and the hands of correctors (probably about the twelfth century) are also traceable. It is written on very fine vellum, without accents or breathings, without any spaces between the words, and without large initial capitals. It is doubtful whether the very simple and rarely occurring punctuation traceable belonged to the ori ginal codex, or is the work of a corrector. It is also uncer tain whether the Ammonian chapters and Eusebian canons are from the pen of a reviser, or (as Tischendorf allows to be possible) belonged to the codex itself. Like Codex B, it wants the divisions and paragraphs of Euthalius. One peculiarity of this manuscript is, that throughout (excepting in the poetical books of the O. T.) it has four columns on THE OLDEST UNCIAL MSS. 319 each page. The end of St. Mark's Gospel (ch. xvi. 9 sqq.) is wanting here, as in Codex B. The words iv 'Etpeaco in Eph. i. 1 are also added by a later hand. This codex is peculiarly valuable on account of its completeness, for none of the other uncial mss. contain the whole of the N. T. without lacunce. A splendid edition of this manuscript was published at St. Petersburg in 1862, entitled Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus . . . ed. Const. Tischendorf, 4 vols. folio ; and this edition presents a faithful copy of the old uncial characters, the columns, the various corrections, etc. Vol. i. contains Prolegomena and a critical commentary on 21 photo-lithographed plates. Vol. iv. contains the N. T., with the Pastor and the Epistle of Barnabas.1 While Tischendorf regards this as the oldest and most valuable of all the- manuscripts of the N. T. now extant, not excepting even the Codex Vaticanus, Buttmann gives his opinion in the following words : " The manuscript is unquestionably of very great antiquity, and of very high critical value. But its worth is somewhat diminished by the circumstance that it is very negligently written, and is not revised as it should have been by the original writers ; and, moreover, it bears throughout too much a Western colouring. This source would therefore be of use rather for the emendation than the basis of the N. T. text."] 4. Codex C, or Ephrcemi, in the Imperial Library of Paris ; a codex rescriptus or palimpsest. The upper writing (belong- 1 [At the same time with this large edition a small one of the N. T. was published with cursive letters, but giving still the four columns, the divisions of lines, etc. This is entitled, N. T. Sinailicum, sive N. T. cum epistola Barnabx et fragmentis Pastoris ex cod. Sinaitico . . . accurate descripsit, Tischendorf, Lipsise 1863, pp. lxxxi. and 296, 4to, with a plate. Concerning the value of this codex, see K. Wieseler in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1864, pp. 399-438 ; Phil. Buttmann, in Hilgen- ' feld's Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol. 1864, p. 637 sqq. ; Scrivener, A full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text, Cambridge 1864. In reply to Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1864, part i.), who assigns the manuscript to the sixth century, inferring this date from the postscript to the book of Esther, which it contains, see Tischendorf, ibid, part ii., and in his edition of the codex in 1865, p. lxii. sq.J 320 history of the text. ing to the thirteenth century) contains the ascetic works of Ephrsem Syrus in Greek ; and the earlier writing underneath is the Greek Bible, O. and N. T. It consists of 209 leaves, 62 of whicli contain portions of the O. T. books (of Job, Proverbs, Eeclesiastes, Solomon's Song, Wisdom, Ecclesias- ticus), — a fac-simile of which Tischendorf published in 1845 ; and the remainder contain the N. T., but with several lacunce, making in all perhaps a third of the N. T., the several books being in the same order as in the Codex Alex andrinus. The text is written without spaces between the words, without accents or breathings, and not in columns ; with the Ammonian sections in the Gospels, but without the Eusebian canons. At the head of Luke and John the titXoi are enumerated, but they are not given in the text ; the other books have no divisions, so that the codex in its original form had nothing which is traceable to Euthalius. The original punctuation was only a small point or dot, occurring frequently in some books and very rarely in others ; but later correctors have inserted a cross as a sign of punc tuation, and have also added accents and breathings. This codex must be reckoned among the oldest mss. extant, be longing probably to the beginning of the fifth century, and thus occupying a middle place between the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Alexandrinus. It was first used for Kiister's edition of Mill's N. T. (1710) : it was afterwards, with greater accuracy, collated by Wetstein ; but on several pages much remained illegible, until a chemical preparation, Gio- berti's tincture, was used in order to bring out to view the older writing ; and Tischendorf edited a splendid edition of the entire codex, with an exact fac-simile.1 5. In the library of Trinity College, Dublin, there is an old codex rescriptus, containing in its old worn-out writing, among other things, several portions of the Gospel by 1 Tauchnitz, Leipsic 1843, fol. Other fac-similes of this codex may be found in Montfaucon, Palxogr. p. 214 ; Scholz, Bibl Krit. Reise, 1823, plate 4 ; and in Fleck's Anecdota in itineribus Italicis et Gallicis collecta, Leipz. 1837, tab. 1. See also Griesbach on this codex, Symb. pp. iii.-liv. ; Fleck, Stud. u. Krit. 1841, pp. 126-152. THE OLDEST UNCIAL MSS. 321 Matthew, upon thirty-two leaves ; and this palimpsest must be reckoned among the oldest mss. extant, dating at latest from the sixth century. Dr. John Barrett, Fellow of Trinity College, who first discovered this MS., published it in fac simile, on 64 copperplates, with preface, critical notes, and appendix.1 Dav. Schulz made use of it in his edition of Griesbach's N. T. (1827), and the codex was named Z. In 1853 Tregelles again examined the MS., and was permitted to apply a chemical preparation, so as to make the original writing clearer. The text is without accents or breathings. The signs of punctuation consist simply of a point, and a small space between paragraphs. The codex has the Ammo- man sections without the Eusebian canons, and the titXoi are marked in the margin. A specimen of its type may be found in Tregelles and in Scrivener. §270. Several Codices Grceco-Latini are of no less value and im portance than the four manuscripts I have named, though they must be assigned to a somewhat later period after the time of Euthalius, when the stichometric method of writing had appeared. They may in general be regarded as having come from the Western Church, where Latin was the pre vailing vernacular ; for it is unlikely that such codices with a Latin version would have been written in Egypt or in the East. Still, as the basis of the Greek text which these codices contain, manuscripts brought from the East to the West were probably used. 6. Codex D of the Gospels and Acts, in the University Library at Cambridge, and therefore called Cantabrigiensis. It was sent thither in 1581, as a present from Theodore Beza (and therefore called Codex Bezce), who himself tells us that he obtained it in 1562, during the French civil war, at Lyons, where it had been found in the Monastery of St. Irenseus. It had been, however, very probably used for 1 Ev. sec. Matth. ex Cod. rescr. in Bibl. Collegii St. Trin. juzta Dublin, 1801. A second edition was afterwards published under the editorship of Dr. Todd. VOL. II. X 322 history of the text. Robert Stephens' edition of the N. T. in 1550, in the margin of which we find the same codex designated as j3. The Greek text is on one page, and the Latin (but not that of Jerome) on the opposite. The Gospels are arranged as we find them only in some of the oldest Latin versions, John immediately following Matthew (see § 18). The codex has many lacunce, especially in the Acts, some of which have been supplied by a later hand ; and there are many correc tions by later hands throughout. Both texts are written stichometrically by one and the same hand, in uncial letters, without accents or breathings, or spaces between words ; and the numbers of the Ammonian sections in the margin are by a later hand. A fine edition of this codex was published under the editorship of Dr. Thomas Kipling, printed in type to imitate the original (Camb. 1793, 2 vols, fol.), and giving the MS. as it now lies, with the alterations of later correctors, and with notes at the end, explaining the various altera tions and erasures. The text of this codex presents much that is striking and peculiar — many strange and apocryphal, though not uninteresting, additions and changes. It had its origin in the West, probably in the south of France,1 where it was written, perhaps before the middle of the sixth century, from a text which came from Alexandria. The Latin text answers to the Greek ; but Wetstein and others, who think that the Greek has been altered to harmonize with the Latin, are mistaken in their opinion. 7. Codex Laudianus, containing the Acts only, and desig nated E for this book. It was presented to the Bodleian Library at Oxford in the year 1636 by Archbishop Laud. It has two columns on each page ; and, contrary to the usual practice, the Greek is on the right, and the Latin occupies the place of honour on the left. The lines are very short, containing only one or two words, and rarely three ; and they correspond to each other in each text. It is written in 1 See Scholz, in the Zeitschr. f. Philos. u. kathol. Theol. v. 1833, p. 83 sqq. Tregelles gives a specimen of both texts. [Scrivener also gives a very full account of this codex, Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T. pp. 96-103.] THE OLDEST UNCIAL MSS. 323 uncials, the Greek without accents or breathings. The codex is defective from ch. xxvi. 29 to xxviii. 26. It was used in the editions of Fell (1675) and Mill (1707). A careful and accurate reprint of this codex was edited by Thomas Hearne, and published at Oxford in 1715 ; but only 120 copies were printed, and the work is seldom met with, being sold in England for £6. A new edition of it is in the appendix to vol. viii. of Tischendorf's Monumenta sacra, Nova collectio, and a specimen of it is given by Tregelles. It was not certainly written in Alexandria, as Hug thinks, but in the West, seeing that the Latin text occupies the most prominent place. An edict of a Sardinian duke, written by a later hand, is ap pended to the codex. Now there were Sardinian governors or duces from the year 534 down to the middle of the eighth century ; and the inference is, that when this edict was made the codex was in Sardinia. Possibly it was written there ; but this is very uncertain. It is very probable, as Wetstein thinks, that the Venerable Bede (ob. 735) adopted certain readings from this manuscript in his Expositio Actuum apos tolorum retractata ; for all the seventy-four readings which he gives are found in it. This points to the conclusion that the MS. had been brought to England, at latest, in the be ginning of the eighth century [see Tregelles, p. 188, and Scrivener, p. 128]. The codex must have been written in the seventh century. Tischendorf thinks it dates before the end of the sixth. The Latin has been made to coincide with the Greek, and not vice versa, as some have supposed. 8. A codex of the Pauline Epistles, now in the Paris Library, No. 107, previously in the possession of Beza, who received it, as he tells us himself, from Clermont, in the diocese of Beauvais, and hence called the Codex Claromon- tanus, and numbered D (by Lachmann A) for the Pauline Epistles. The Greek text is on the left, and the Latin on the right hand page. Both are written stichometrically, in uncials, with accents and breathings, which, however, seem to have been added by a later hand. Rom. i. 1-7 is wanting, and in the Latin the concluding verses of the Hebrews. In the middle there are two leaves (1 Cor. xiv. 13-22) by 324 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. a later though comparatively early hand ; and the codex throughout presents several corrections by various hands, and at various times. The Epistle to the Hebrews stands last ; and following the Epistle to Philemon is a list of the aTi^oi of the several books of the O. and N. T., in which John follows Matthew, and Hebrews is not named. Credner's opinion, that the Hebrews is meant by the name Barnabce epistola occurring in the list before the Revelation and the Acts, is confirmed by the fact that the number of o-t/^oj (850) corresponds exactly with that of the Hebrews, whereas their number in the so-called Epistle of Barnabas (in the Slichom. Niceph.) is 1360. Marsh and others have supposed that the Hebrews was added by a later hand; but Tischendorf (Stud. u. Krit. 1844, p. 486) maintains that it is written by the same hand as the other epistles. Possibly the writer had before him a codex for the other epistles which did not con tain that to the Hebrews, and that codex must certainly have been of Latin origin ; indeed, our codex itself was evidently written in the West, perhaps by a Greek librarian who did not know Latin well. The codex is of great value as a Western witness, and is rightly assigned to the seventh, or the close of the sixth century. It was made use of in the editions of Beza, Curcellaus, Walton, and Mill. Wetstein and Griesbach also collated it, the former twice ; and Tischendorf and Tregelles have edited and published it in full (Leipz. 1852). I mention here, in passing, Codex Sangermanensis (E) of the Pauline Epistles, which takes its name from the Abbey of St. Germain in Paris, where it was first found. It is now in St. Petersburg, whither it was brought during the first French Revolution by Dobrowsky. It is merely a transcript of the Cod. Claromontanus, after this latter had been under the hands of many correctors ; but the copyist separates the original text from the corrections, and so as to present quite meaningless readings in some places. It belongs to the ninth or tenth century, and now has some lacunce. 9. A Codex (G) of the Pauline Epistles, now in the Royal Library of Dresden (Codex Dresdensis), whence it THE OLDEST UNCIAL MSS. 325 came from among the books of the Leipsic theologian, Ch. F. Borner, hence called Codex Boernerianus, who had obtained it from Leyden. The Latin written (versio interlinearis) over the Greek text differs from that of Jerome, and cor responds exactly with the Greek. The MS. is on vellum, the Greek characters being in a hand somewhat between uncial and cursive, and the Latin being in cursive writing, with spaces between the words, but without accents. The aTv^pt are marked not with lines, but with larger initial letters. The codex is defective in some epistles, but the lacunce are not important (Rom i. 1-5, ii. 16-25; 1 Cor. iii. 8-16, vi. 7-14; Col. ii. 1-8; Philem. 21-25). It was used by Kiister for his edition of Mill. Ch. Fr. Matthai edited a very careful and accurate reprint of the codex (xiii. epp. Pauli) — Cod. . . . olim Boernerianus nunc Bibl. Elect. Dresd. 1791 — with a new title and two plates, giving a fac simile, in 1818. It has notes in the margin prima manu, in which Gottschalk, among others, is named, showing that it was not written before his time (about the middle of the ninth century). It cannot, however, have been written much later than then, and this is the opinion also of Tischen dorf and Lachmann (torn. i. p. xx.) ; probably at St. Gall. Lachmann ranks it very high among the MSS. of the West. (See below, No. 11.) 10. Another codex of the Pauline Epistles (Cod. F), called Augiensis, from the Abbey Augia Major, or Reichenau, on an island in the Lake Constance, where it was found. It came into Bentley's hands in 1718, and in 1787 was placed in Trin. Coll. Cambridge, where it now is. The Latin ver sion is in a column parallel with the Greek on the same page, and, unlike the other early Codices Grceco-Latini, it is that of Jerome or the Vulgate. It wants Rom. i. 1 — iii. 18, and the whole of the Epistle to the Hebrews is given in the Latin only. The Greek characters are uncial, without accents, with spaces, and often a small middle point between the words. The Greek text closely resembles that of the Cod. Boernerianus, and both must have been transcribed from one and the same original. Wetstein, indeed, thinks 326 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. that the one is copied from the other; but this opinion is untenable. The codex probably belongs to the ninth cen tury. Besides Wetstein, Bentley very carefully examined and collated this codex, and his MS. is also in the Library of Trin. Coll. Camb. It has been again edited by Tischendorf and Tregelles.1 11. A Codex Grceco-Latinus (the Latin interlinear with the Greek) of the four Gospels in the Library of St. Gall, named, though not collated, first by Scholz, and designated A of the Gospels : John xix. 17-35 alone is wanting. The Greek is in a hand between uncial and cursive, without accents, breathings, or t subscriptum ; the aTlypi are marked by larger initial letters ; the Latin is cursive. A beautiful fac-simile of this whole codex was published by Ritter.2 The Latin is not the Vulgate, nor a version before that of Jerome, but a later version, the work of the Ellenici fratres Notkeri Balbuli,3 made not very skilfully with the help of the Vulgate. This codex very closely resembles the Cod. Boerner., leading to the conclusion that both were written, if not by the same hand, yet about the same time by the monks of St. Gall ; and the two originally formed one and the same codex, written probably by monks born in Ireland or Scot land. See Tregelles, p. 196, and Scrivener, p. 122. The codex dates from the end of the ninth or the beginning of the tenth century. §271. The following are some other uncial codices which may be named as of considerable antiquity, and as possessing great value either in themselves or in their historical bearing : — 1 [Cf. Tischendorf, Anecdota sacra et prof ana, Leipz. 1855 ; ed. 2, 1860, 4to. An exact transcript of this codex was published by Scri vener, 1859, together with " a full collation of fifty mss. containing various portions of the Greek N. T. in the Libraries of Cambridge, Durham, Leicester, Oxford, Lambeth, the British Museum," etc. — B.] 2 Antiquissimus 4 evangg. canon. Cod. Sangallensis, etc., Zurich 1836, 4to. See a specimen of it also by Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836. 3 Notker Balbulus, a monk of St. Gall, ob. 912, is ranked in the calendar among the saints. THE OLDEST UNCIAL MSS. 327 12. Codex K of the four Gospels — the Codex Cyprius — which was brought from Cyprus in 1637, and is now in the Paris Library (No. 63), on vellum, with large uncials; with accents, though these often are wanting ; a dot is used for punctuation, seemingly to show the end of the or/^ot ; with the Ammonian sections, but without the Eusebian canons. R. Simon examined it for Mill, and at the suggestion of Hug — who attached very great, indeed too great, importance to it as bearing upon the history of the N. T. text — by Scholz, who gave a full but not very accurate account of it (De Cod. Cyprio et familia, quam sistit) in his Cures critical in historiam textus evangeliorum, Heidelb. 1820. It has been collated anew both by Tischendorf and Tregelles, independently of each other. It is placed at the end of the eighth, or more probably the beginning of the ninth century. 13. Codex E of the four Gospels, in the Library at Basle, on vellum, in uncials, with accents and breathings, which are often omitted, and with signs of punctuation. In St. Luke's Gospel there are many lacunce, some of which have been supplied by a later hand. It was made use of for the N. T. of Mill (Basil. 1) and of Bengel (Bas. a) ; and examined by Wetstein, and in our day by Tischendorf, Miiller of Basle, and Tregelles. It consists of forty sheets 8vo, and there is a specimen of it in Hug's Einl. ins N. T. Certain marginal notes indicate that it had been in Constantinople, and had been used as a service-book. It was brought to Basle in the middle of the fifteenth century by Cardinal de Ragusio, deputy of the Council of Basle to the Greeks. He bequeathed it to the library of a monastery at Basle,, whence it was afterwards transferred to the public library there. The tables of contents, lists of titXoi, and numbers of the Ammonian sections, are by a later hand, in the ninth century, as Hug thinks ; and the codex itself belongs to the eighth, as Tischendorf also believes. 14. Codex L of the four Gospels, in the Paris Library (No. 62), on vellum, in uncials, with accents and breathings, though sometimes omitted ; in scriptio continua, two columns on a page, punctuated (with a cross or stroke) ; with the 328 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. Ammonian sections, the Eusebian canons, the titXoi, and the Church lessons indicated. There are five unimportant lacuna?. It was examined for R. Stephens' edition in 1550 (where it is called t], i.e. octavus), and afterwards by Wetstein, and more accurately by Griesbach. It is now printed in full in Tischen- dorf's Monumenta sacra inedita, Leipz. 1846, pp. 59-399, with specimens. The text of this codex presents many points of resemblance with Cod. B. Tischendorf puts it in the eighth century ; Griesbach, Hug, Tregelles, in the ninth. §272. Of the remaining uncial mss. I name a few more, of which only fragments have come down to us, but which are important, on account of their age and character.1 (1.) In 1699, a codex rescriptus, or palimpsest, was dis covered in the Library of Wolfenbiittel, first discovered at Bobbio, in Piedmont (see Tregelles, p. 179), the upper writing in which contains the Origines and six letters of Isidore of Spain, written probably in the ninth century ; and the worn-out writing underneath contains, besides some fragments of a Gothic version of the Epistle to the Romans, portions of two Greek mss. of the Gospels : (a) Cod. P of the Gospels, forty-three leaves, consisting of portions of the four Gospels, three from John, and the others from the Synoptics ; (b) Cod. Q of the Gospels, with two portions of John, and several of Luke. Both codices are on vellum, in uncials, with the Ammonian sections, but not the Eusebian canons : they are placed in the sixth century [Cod. Q in the fifth by Tischendorf]. Knittel published as much as he could decipher of them, with the fragments of the Gothic version (Ulphilce vers. Goth, nonnullorum epp. ep. Pauli ad Rom. . . . una cum variis varies litteraturce monimentis, Braunschw. 1762), with fac-similes of each codex.3 1 [In this class may be included six fragments of uncial MSS. belonging to the sixth and seventh (or eighth) centuries, brought by Tischendorf in 1859 from the East to St. Petersburg. See Tischendorf, Notitia editionis Cod. Bibl Sinait., Leipz. I860.] 2 Tischendorf has examined both codices thoroughly, and has de- THE OLDEST UNCIAL MSS. 329 (2.) Codex H of the Pauline Epistles consists of four teen leaves, with fragments of 1st Corinthians, Galatians, 1st Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, and was transferred from the library of Bishop Coislin of Metz (Codex Coislinianus 202) to the Paris Library. It was copied and printed by Mont- faucon, in his Bibliotheca Coislin. ii. 253-263, with a speci men ; and a new edition of this has been published. Two of these leaves were missing after a fire, but are now in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. The codex was origi nally at Mount Athos, and was unwittingly used there as old vellum to bind some other books, in 1218. The writing is in large uncials, stichometric, and with accents. A post script intimates that the codex corresponds with a ms. of Pamphilus, in the library at Csesarea ; but this does not amount to much. Still the codex is certainly old, belonging probably to the sixth or seventh century. (3.) Codex T of the Gospels, thirteen leaves, containing two fragments of St. John's Gospel, from ch. vi.-viii. ; and the Greek text stands face to face with an Egyptio-Thebaic version. It is now in the Library of the Propaganda in Rome, and was previously in the Borgian (Codex Borgianus). Both texts were edited by Aug. Anton. Georgi (Fragm. ev. S. Joh. Grceco-Copto-Thebaicum seculi iv., Rome 1789). Tischendorf puts the ms. in the sixth century. Another equally old fragment of a Grseco-Thebaic codex, containing Luke xii. 15— xiii. 32, is given by Woide in the appendix to the Cod. Alex., Oxf. 1799. Tregelle^ thinks this very similar to Cod. T. There is also in Woide another Grseco-Thebaic fragment, containing John viii. 33-42, which begins where Codex T ends. This has been collated by Tischendorf for the seventh edition of his N. T. ; and he incorporates it under the same title, Cod. T. (4.) Twelve leaves of a codex, written upon purple-coloured vellum, with silver and sometimes gold letters, containing fragments of the Gospels, and assigned to the end of the sixth ciphered them almost throughout. Cod. Q is published in the third volume of the Monumenta inedita, Nova collectio, 1860, pp. 265-290, with specimens of both codices. 330 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. or the beginning of the seventh century, have come down to us. Of these, (a) four are in the British Museum, frag ments of Matthew and John, and called since Wetstein's time Cod. I of the Gospels ; (b) two are in Vienna, fragments of Luke, and called since Wetstein Cod. N of the Gospels ; (c) six are in the Vatican, first collated by Scholz, and called by him and Tischendorf Cod. F. All these have more conveniently been designated by Tischendorf Codex N of the Gospels, and he has published them in his Monumenta sacra, 1846 (Nos. 3, 4, 7, pp. 11-36).1 Tregelles gives a specimen (p. 178). (5.) In Tischendorf's collection there are also fragments of four old mss. of the Gospels, which he collated for the second edition of his N. T. (1849), viz. : (a) Cod. 0, Tischendorfianus I., brought by him from the East, and placed in the Leipsic Library, consisting of four leaves of Matthew, and belonging to the seventh century. In Tischendorf, Nova collectio (vol. ii. 1857, p. 321), there are two fragments of Matthew (xii. 17-19, 23-25), with a fac-simile, which, in Tischendorf's opinion, originally belonged to the same codex of Matthew. (b) Cod. Y, John xvi. 3-xix. 41, used by Scholz, in the Barbarini Library, Rome (before a codex of Theophylact's commentary on the Gospels) ; Tischendorf puts it in the eighth century, (c) Cod. Wa, in the Paris Library, two leaves containing Luke ix. 34-47, x. 12-22, assigned by Tischendorf to the eighth century, and before collated, though inaccurately, by Scholz.2 (d) Cod. Fa, Coislinianus, at Paris, contains twenty fragments of the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles. 1 [One of the fragments mentioned in the last note, and consisting of one leaf, very closely resembles these. It contains Matt. xxi. 19-24, and begins where the Vatican fragment leaves off.] 2 [Concerning a codex rescriptus of fourteen leaves, which (Tischendorf thinks) belong to the same MS. (= Wb), see his N. T. ed. 7, p. clxix. In the Nova collectio, v. 3, 1860, are three leaves from the Library at St. Gall, containing fragments of Mark ii. and Luke i., seemingly the remains of a Codex Grxco-Latinus, but of which only a few columns in Greek remain. Tischendorf has deciphered this, and designates it Cod. W°.— B.] THE OLDEST UNCIAL MSS. 331 (6.) In the Hamburg Library are two leaves of a codex containing the beginning and end of the Epistle to the Hebrews (i. 1-iv. 3, xii. 20— xiii. 25), Codex Vffenbachianus, thus called after its former owner, but reckoned since Wetstein's time with No. 53 of the Pauline Epistles, as if it were a cursive MS. ; but the letters are for the most part uncials, in red ink, two columns on each page ; collated by Bengel and Wetsteiu, then more accurately by Henke, 1800, with a fac-simile, and again by Tregelles and Tischendorf, who calls it M, and publishes it in his Anecdota sacra et profana, with a fac-simile. He assigns it to the ninth, but others to the tenth century. To the same codex probably belong two leaves, with fragments of the Corinthian Epistles (1 Cor. xv. 52-2 Cor. i. 15, and 2 Cor. x. 13-xii. 5), in a Codex Harleianus, 5613, now in the British Museum (in Griesbach designated No. 64 of the Pauline Epistles), which Tischendorf has likewise published. (7.) Among the Syriac mss. found in a Coptic monastery in the Nitrian desert in Egypt, and brought in 1838 and 1847 to the British Museum, there is a codex rescriptus, the upper writing in which contains a Syriac version of the works of Severus bishop of Antioch, and the original writ ing beneath consisting (besides some books of the Iliad de ciphered by Cureton 1851, and a Book of Euclid) of frag ments, on forty-five leaves, of Luke's Gospel (Tischendorf, ed. 7, calls this R), which Tregelles and Tischendorf endea voured to decipher, and which the latter has published in his Monumenta sacra inedita, Nova collectio, ii. pp. 3-92. The writing is uncial, the letters large, with the numbers of the Ammonian sections, but without the Eusebian canons. It is very hard to decipher. Egypt is probably its father land, and its date the sixth century. In another of these Syriac codices in the British Museum, and upon four leaves, are eight fragments of John's Gospel (Tischendorf, ed. 7, calls this Nb) from ch. xiii. and xvi., which Tischendorf places in the fourth or fifth century, and prints in the same work, pp. 311, 312. 332 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. (8.) Among the mss. which Tischendorf brought from the East in 1843 and 1853, is an Armenian codex rescriptus, the under writing of twenty-eight leaves being fragments of the four Gospels, Acts, 1st Corinthians, and Titus. These Tischen dorf has published in his Nova collectio, with six specimens, and a seventh in his Anecdota sacra et profana, tab. iii. : he considers them to be of Egyptian origin, by various scribes in the fifth and seventh centuries, = I. The Collectio Nova also gives (a), pp. 201-206, fragments from an old evangelis- tarium, the older writing being a codex rescriptus at Venice ; and (b), pp. 207-210, two fragments of Matthew and John from an evangelistarium, an old codex rescriptus in the Bar- barini Library. (9.) Cod. Tischendorfianus III. (= A), an uncial codex of 157 leaves, 4to, containing in full the Gospels of Luke and John, with a postscript belonging to Mark, and some scholia ; collated by Tischendorf, who puts it in the eighth century ; now in the Bodleian at Oxford. Also Cod. Tisch. IV. (= T), of 157 leaves, 4to, containing Luke in full, the greater part of Mark (except iii. 35-vi. 20), and fragments of Matthew and John ; 1 collated by Tischendorf, who places it in the ninth century. See Anecdota, pp. 4, 5 ; Tregelles, p. 203.2 1 The portions of Matthew and John that are wanting were brought by Tischendorf to St. Petersburg in 1859, and these include all but 115 verses of Matthew (ch. v.-ix. 21, 22). 2 Fuller lists of the Greek mss., uncial and cursive, and of the Church Lectionaries, will be found in the Prolegg. of the editions of Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, and Tischendorf. Notices of the codices will also be found in the N. T. Introductions of Marsh's Michaelis, Hug, etc., and in the works of Tischendorf and Tregelles [and Scrivener]. Also in Griesbach's Symbolx criticx ad supplendas et corrigendas variorum N. T. lectionum collectiones ; accedit multorum N. T. codicum grxcorum descriptio et examen, Halle 1785, 1793 ; Scholz, Bibl. krit. lieise in France, Switzerland, Italy, Palestine, and the Archipelago, in 1818-21 ; also his Gesch. des Textes N. T., Leipz. 1823 ; Rinck, Lucubratio crit. in Acta App, epp. Paul et Cathol., Basel 1830, Heidelb. 1833 ; Reiche, Codicum MSS. N. T. grxcorum aliquot insigniorum in biblioth. reg. Paris. asservatorum nova descriptio et cum textu vulgo recepto collatio, etc., Gbtt. 1847. THE OLDEST UNCIAL MSS. 333 §273. It remains for us to mention a few MSS. and readings not important in themselves, but historically noteworthy : — (a.) Codex Ravianus or Berolinensis, since 1672 in the Berlin Library; before in the possession of Professor Rave of Upsala, who professed to have bought it in the East for 200 tlialers. It contains the entire N. T., in uncials, without accents. It is celebrated as containing the disputed text 1 John v. 7, and has been often appealed to in the contro versy about this verse. Now, however, it is generally ac knowledged (owing mainly to the thorough investigation of Pappelbaum, Unters. der Ravischen MS. 1785; Codicis MS. Gr. Raviani examen, 1796) to be the work of a forger, merely a copy of the N. T. in the Complutensian Polyglot, and in some parts from the third edition — that of Stephens. Rave himself seems to have committed the forgery. Cf. Michaelis, Einl. pp. 638-642. (b.) Codex Montfortianus or Dublinensis, now in the Library of Trin. Coll., Dublin, previously owned by Thomas Mont- fort, about the middle of the seventeenth century; on paper, 12mo, in cursive writing, containing the entire N. T. (No. 61 in the Gospels, 34 in Acts and General Epistles, 40 in the Pauline Epistles, 92 [Tregelles] in the Revelation). This codex also was highly thought of, as containing 1 John v. 7, and Erasmus inserted the verse in the third edition of the N. T. (1522) on the strength of its authority (e codice Britan- nieo). A collation of it is given in the appendix to Barrett's edition of the Cod. Dublinensis of Matthew (Z). Its three parts are written by three different hands, — the Gospels about the end of the fifteenth century, the Revelation after the middle, and the other part at the beginning of the sixteenth century; so that 1 John v. 7 is beyond a doubt an interpolated translation from the Vulgate. It was made probably in con sequence of the doctrinal discussions about this verse in the fifteenth century, and perhaps because Erasmus had omitted it in his first edition. See Marsh, i. 337 ; Tregelles, pp. 213- 217, where there is a fac-simile of the disputed text; Orlando T. Dobbin (The Codex Montfort.), who endeavours to prove 334 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. that this codex for the Acts and Epistles is a transcript of a codex in Oxford (Lincolniensis 2), and that, as this latter has not the verse, the writer of the Cod. Montfort. interpo lated it from the Vulgate. Scholz drew attention to another modern codex which contains the disputed verse (Bibl. krit. Reise, p. 105) in the Vatican (No. 298), containing the Acts and Epistles. It is quite modern, with a Latin version, and the verse is beyond question an interpolation (see Tregelles, p. 217). (c.) The so-called Codices Barberini, which Pope Urban vin. (1623-44) intended to have collated for a new edition of the N. T. A learned Cretan, J. M. Caryophilus (after wards archbishop in Iconium in partibus, ob.- 1635), at the Pope's command collated the readings of various mss. with the text of the Antwerp Polyglot. His collations were deposited in the library of Cardinal Barberini in Rome. They were afterwards published by the Jesuit Peter Possinus (Poussines) as an addition to the Catena Palrum Grcecorum in Marcum, Rome 1673. Mill adopted these various readings in his N. T. (1707). But observing that they tallied strik ingly with the Vulgate, it occurred to him that the codices collated had been interpolated according to the Latin version, or (as Wetstein thought) that the entire collection was a fraud intended to confirm the Vulgate. But this was not the case. Birch found in the Vatican Library the paper in which Caryophilus asks^ for six Vatican MSS., giving their numbers; and five of these he found in the Vatican, and satisfied himself that Caryophilus had collated them (one of these is No. 1209, Cod. B). The collection, therefore, is not the work of a forger ; but it is of no great value to us, (a) because the codices for this or that reading are not ade quately described ; and (b) because the excerpts are imper fect, and preference is given to those readings which coincide with the Vulgate, those differing from it being often passed by in silence. (d.) With the so-called Velezian Readings the case is somewhat different. The Jesuit J. L. de la Cerda, in his Adversariis sacris, Leyden 1626, gives a great many, nearly ANCIENT VERSIONS. 335 1900 various readings, which the Marquis P. Faxardo of Velez had noted in the margin of his copy of Stephens' N. T. 1550, professedly obtained from sixteen Greek mss. These were inserted in the London Polyglot, and in the editions of Fell, Mill, and Bengel. But they so strikingly corre spond with the Vulgate, that Wetstein and others suspected them ; and these suspicions have been confirmed, in a very diligent, careful, and exact inquiry by Marsh, in the third appendix to his Letters to Travis, where he proves that these readings have been taken neither from Greek nor from Latin MSS., but from Stephens' fourth edition of the Vulgate (1540). Where the texts of both editions differ, the reading of the Latin is translated into Greek, and added as a various reading. The notion that Velez obtained these readings from sixteen Greek MSS. is a pure supposition ; and whether this was given out by Velez or some one else, is not yet known. B.— ANCIENT VERSIONS. §274. The ancient versions serve as witnesses of the form and state of the text at the time when they were made, and in the country to which they belong : strictly speaking, they reflect the Greek manuscript or manuscripts of which they are translations. Accordingly, those versions only are thus available which have been translated directly from the Greek text : those which are translations of translations serve only as witnesses of that version from which they were made. The versions which are direct translations from the Greek are the more valuable and weighty as testimonies, because they are for the most part older than the oldest of our Greek manuscripts : we can more surely tell, moreover, the country in which they were written, and can decide with greater accuracy the state of the text in the different countries in which Christianity was planted. On the other hand, the usefulness and trustworthiness of their testimony is lessened by various circumstances, and in particular by the uncertain 336 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. and unsatisfactory state of their text. The copies of these versions wliich have come down to us present nearly as many variations and discrepancies as the Greek codices ; and only a few of them have been as thoroughly collated as the critical knowledge and apparatus now available render possible. We often find that the text of a version has in process of time undergone ecclesiastical manipulation in the Church in which it was used, either as the result of a comparison of it with the Greek text in vogue at the time, which differed from that from which it was originally made, or in order to har monize it with some other version, e.g. the Vulgate or the Peschito. Interpolations have thus been adopted from the Vulgate or some later Greek text, and incorporated into the old version ; so that the form of the printed editions, and of "some manuscript copies, very indistinctly and untrustworthily presents the original text of the ancient version itself. This is particularly the case in passages where the true reading has been a matter of dispute, in texts having some important bearing upon controverted doctrine, or the import of which has been the subject of ecclesiastical controversy. Great caution is therefore requisite in using the ancient versions as original witnesses for the true N. T. text : we must, as best we can, critically discover the true and original text of these versions, by a careful collation of the oldest copies of them we possess, and by a consideration of their history, so far as it is known. If, for example, a version has been corrected at some time subsequent to its formation, according to the Vulgate, and we possess no available MSS. of it in its original state, and before these emendations were made, we cannot use it as an independent witness in places where it tallies with the Vulgate ; and especially for readings doctrinally important, we can hardly trust it, even where it disagrees with the Vulgate. Generally speaking, versions only serve as witnesses for the Greek text from which they were origi nally made, in the case of readings whose variety might appear in the version itself, not (I mean) in questions of mere orthography or grammatical form which does not affect the sense, — not when the point in question is simply VERSIONS — THE PESCHITO. 337 the grammatical construction, the insertion or omission of the article or minor particles. In order rightly to estimate the authority of a version, and to decide to what extent it may or may not serve as a witness for the Greek text, we must know and fully estimate the character of the language in which it is made, as compared with the language of the original Greek, and likewise the general character of the version, how far it may be considered an exact translation of the words of the original, or merely a free paraphrase. Still the testimony of the ancient versions, used with judgment, is of no little weight in deciding the true form of the original N. T. text, especially when the various versions belonging to different countries coincide, and when we have no reason to suppose that they have been tampered with. ORIENTAL VERSIONS. 1. The Syriac Versions. §275. Christianity was very early planted, and soon spread in Syria, and Antioch soon became the centre of missionary operations to heathen lands. Greek prevailed as a spoken language in Antioch, but in the country around the ver nacular was still the Syriac ; and this language prevailed beyond the Euphrates, in Mesopotamia, where Christianity seems soon to have found a footing, and where, even in the second century, we find a Syriac literature flourishing among the Christians there (cf. Hug, i. § 68). The need, accord ingly, of a Syriac version of the Scriptures would soon be felt ; and hence the oldest Syriac version which has come down to us. 1. The Peschito, which embraces both the Old Testa ment and the New.1 We have no trustworthy evidence 1 Wichelhaus, De N. T. vers. Syriaca antiqua quam Peschito vocant, Halle 1850. The word h]i i0) signifies simplex, simple, exact, true ; and thus the name denotes that the translation is a simple and true VOL. II. T 338 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. concerning its origin ; but it evidently belongs to a very early date, certainly to the second century. It wants four of the General Epistles (2d Peter, 2d and 3d John, Jude), and the Revelation ; and with these omissions it is received and used by the different sects of Syrian Christians — the Nestorians as well as the Monophysites (cf. § 253). This leads us to the probable supposition that the Peschito had already been made, and ecclesiastically recognised, at a time when the five books omitted were not yet generally acknowledged as con stituent parts of the N. T. Canon, and that the other books were translated simultaneously, not as a merely private un dertaking, but at the suggestion of the Syrian Churches or their rulers. Thus only can we account for the fact that the existence and recognition of this translation led to the conclusion that the Canon was thus closed, and was not to be extended by the addition of those other books. Hug is mis taken in supposing that the five books now wanting originally formed part of the Syriac version, and were subsequently suppressed. He appeals to the fact that Ephrsem Syrus (ob. 378), who, as we know on reliable evidence, required an interpreter in his intercourse with the Greek doctors of the Church, nevertheless made use of these books. Still it is possible that, though he could not speak Greek fluently, he understood enough of it to read it ; and it is not im probable that in his time there was a privately undertaken translation into Syriac of these books, though they had not received the explicit sanction of the Syrian Church. But had these books formed part of the authorized Syriac version from the outset down to the time of Ephrsem Syrus and after, we should be utterly unable to explain how it came to pass that they were afterwards excluded, at a time when their authority as canonical was established in the Church at large. These books are wanting in all extant MSS. of the Peschito (concerning the Bodleian MS., see below) ; and though the entire N. T. is divided into lessons, the Gospels one. Bertholdt wrongly explains it as = xoivq, vulgata. The name was not given to it from the first, but was adopted subsequently, to distinguish the work from other Syriac versions. VERSIONS — THE PESCHITO. 339 in one set, and the Acts and Epistles in another, no reference is made to these five books, showing that, when these lec- tionaries were compiled in the Syrian Church, those books possessed no ecclesiastical authority. We know not whether the Peschito was made by one translator or by several ; but from what has been said, we may infer that the N. T. books it contains were all translated about the same time, together with the canonical books of the O. T. As to its character, it is, as its name intimates, a plain and faithful version, but not slavishly literal (cf. De Wette, § 11, d, note a) : there is no violation of the Syriac idiom, for the sake of preserving the mode of expression and phraseology peculiar to the Greek. Its age alone suffices to make it of great value in the criticism of the N. T. text ; but its importance would be still greater had we a critically collated and standard edition, which at present we have not. It first became known in Europe in 1552, through Moses, priest of Mardin, whom the Jacobite Patriarch Ignatius had sent to Pope Julius in. with letters of recommendation, and to superintend the printing of the version ; and the first printed copy which had thus been undertaken by Moses of Mardin was published at Vienna in 1555, at the expense of the Emperor Ferdinand I., under the care of the Chancellor Alb. Widmanstadt. Two mss. were used for it. It contains the N. T. according to the Peschito, in its original compass ; and it wants (a) those five books which the Peschito omits, (b) 1 John v. 7, and John vii. 53— viii. 11, which were also wanting in both the MSS. used. We find the same omissions in subsequent editions, viz. in that of Tremellins (excad. H. Stephan. 1569), that of Trost 1621, and that of the Antwerp Polyglot 1572 ; and in all these the two codices were used. Later editions contain those books and verses which the Peschito originally omits. I observe concerning these as follows : — (a.) A Syriac version of the four Antile gomena among the General Epistles occurs in the Bodleian Codex, which also contains the three other General Epistles and the Acts. This version of the four omitted epistles was first edited by E. Pococke (Leyden 1630), and was incor- 340 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. porated into later editions of the Peschito in the Paris (1645) and the London Polyglots (5 vols. 1655) ; also in the editions of Gutbier (Hamb. 1664), Leusden and Schaaf (Leyden 1708, 2d ed. 1717), and in that published by the British and Foreign Bible Society, 1816. This version is, however, known to be of much later date than the Peschito, and of much less value. The letters are imitated with great care like the Philoxenian version, (b.) A translation of the Revelation was edited by L. de Dieu (Leyden 1627, 4to, reprinted in his Critica sacra, 1693), according to a MS. in the British Museum Library, which formerly belonged to Scaliger -,1 and this version of the Revelation was also incor porated in the Paris and London Polyglots, and into later editions of the Peschito. This codex had been written in Rome 1580, by Caspar von Aden, an Indian by birth. There is a ms. of the same translation at Florence, bearing date 1582, which the copyist describes as a transcript of that written by Thomas Charklensis, 662, who had himself pro bably made the translation, (c.) The section John vii. 53- viii. 11 was first published by L. de Dieu (Animadversiones in 4 evv., Leyden 1633, 4to, and in his Critica sacra, 1693), and afterwards adopted in the London Polyglot, and in many subsequent editions. We find it in two or three mss. of the Philoxenian version, though it does not belong pro perly to this. Bernstein has given this section from a still un- printed version in a Florentine codex (Zeitschr. d. Deutschen morgenl. Gesellsch. 1849). (d.) Tremellius put 1 John v. 7 in a translation of his own, in the margin, and Gutbier and Schaaf have adopted it into the text ; but it has not been put in the Bible Society edition (1816). In this edition, which was edited first by Buchanan, and after his death by Lee, for the use of the Syrian Christians, Schaaf's text is used, together with two Cambridge mss., and collations of 1 See also P. de Lagarde, Die vier Evv. Arabisch., Leipz. 1864, who refers to the following passage in Scaligerana secunda (Amsterdam 1740, p. 200) : " Ecclesia Syriaca hanc [Apocalypsin] non agnoscit, quamvis Scaliger habeat Syriacam, que le Patriarche lui avoit envoye'e, quam Maronitx vertendam curarunt." VERSIONS — THE PHILOXENIAN. 341 two Bodleian ; and the quotations of Ephrasm Syrus and a Sj'riac lectionary were also compared (see Tregelles, p. 262). It contains some critical notes ; and collations of other mss. were promised, but they have not appeared. Another edi tion of the Peschito appeared in England in 1828, by W. Greenfield, in which the Widmanstadt text was adopted as the basis, but with vowels added, and additions from Lee's edition. A thoroughly critical edition, with a full collation of all MSS. at our command, is still a pressing want.1 2. Among the MSS. in the British Museum brought from the Nitrian desert there is one containing a Syriac version (be fore unknown) of the greater part of the Gospels — Matthew, John, Luke, and the four last verses of Mark. Tregelles con siders that these fragments are not contemporary, but are older than the Peschito. Cureton published an edition of this MS. containing the Syriac text, with an English version, and notes (1858). He placed its antiquity and value very high ; but though its testimony is recognised as of great weight, it is not by most scholars considered at all equal to the Peschito. See Scrivener, pp. 236-241. It is called the Curetonian Syriac. ' §276. 3. The Philoxenian version was made for the Monophy- site bishop of Mabug or Hierapolis, Xenaias, or Philoxenus, by the rural bishop Polycarp, who completed it in the year 508. It was revised in the year 616 by Thomas von Harkel (an unknown town iu Palestine ; he calls himself " the poor Thomas ") in the Monastery of the Antonians at Alexandria, and after he had been driven from his bishopric in Mabug, by a Melitinian bishop, Domitian. He' corrected the transla tion according to some Greek MSS., the various readings of which he inserted partly in the margin and partly in the 1 Concerning the Arabic version of the Acts and Epistles, " Arabs Erpenii," made from the Peschito and the Persian version of the Gospels, see De Wette, § 12, a, b ; and concerning the Arabic version of the Gospels from it, see Gildemeister's Programm : De Evangeliis in Arabi- cum e simplici Syriaca translatis, Bonn 1865. 342 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. text, with critical marks attached. Hug thinks that he also corrected the MS. by the Peschito. This Thomas is expressly named as the redactor of the Philoxenian version, in a post script found at the end of the Gospels in all the MSS. except one at Florence, which contains the Gospels only, and was written a.d. 757, at Edessa, probably from an old copy which did not contain the corrections of Thomas.1 This version contains the whole of the N. T., including the four Antilegomena of the General Epistles, but not the Apocalypse. It has been supposed that the version of the Apocalypse given by L. de Dieu is the Philoxenian. But it is more probable — and this is confirmed by the postscript of the Florentine Codex — that this book was first translated into Syriac by Thomas Charklensis, who was prompted to the undertaking by the high reverence entertained for the Apo calypse by the Egyptian Church. The only edition of this version is that of F. White (ob. 1814), — the Gospels, pub lished in 1778 from two mss. ; the Acts and General Epistles, 1799 ; the Pauline Epistles, 1803, from one ms. ; these codices having been placed in the Bodleian from the library of Dr. Gl. Ridley. Wetstein had before (in 1746) spent four teen days in collating one of these mss. for his N. T. In White's edition the version is printed in the form it had received from Thomas of Charkel. After White's edition of the Gospels had appeared, Adler collated anew and pub lished this part, with learned and acute dissertations, in his work, N. T. versiones Syriacce Simplex Philox. et Hieros. denuo examinatce, Copenhagen 1789, 4to. The Syriac ver sion of St. John's Gospel was published by Bernstein in 1853,2 from a Vatican MS. whicli formerly belonged to J. S. Assemani, and which contains the four Gospels, and has neither notes in the margin, nor asterisks or obeli in the text. 1 Bernstein (Ev. Joh. p. 25) says that the Philoxenian translation is to be found unrevised in a codex of the Bibl. Angelica in Rome, wherein that postscript is to be found evidently inserted by a later hand. — B. 2 Cf. Bernstein, De Hharklensi N. T. translatione Syriaca comment. recognita et aucta, Breslau 1854. VERSIONS — THE PHILOXENIAN. 343 As to the character of this version (see De Wette, § 13, a and c), the Peschito evidently forms the basis of it ; but it is excessively literal, so that it is hardly intelligible sometimes without a reference to the original Greek text.1 Still, on this very account it is specially valuable in textual criticism. Considering this feature, it is very unlikely, as some have supposed, that the aim of making it was to supplant the Peschito with another and ecclesiastically sanctioned version, or (as Hug and Eichhorn think; cf. Tischendorf, N. T. ed. 7) for party aims in behalf of the Monophysites. Far more probable is it, as Bertholdt thinks, that its design was critical, like Origen's Hexapla of the LXX., to furnish the Syrian Christians with the means of discovering wherein the Peschito did not literally correspond with the Greek. Thus we may best explain the diacritic signs, asterisks, and obeli met with in the MSS. of this version, and even in the Florentine (though not in the codex of John, edited by Bernstein), which in part at least were the work of Polycarp himself. It is not likely, however, as Hug and Bertholdt think, that he adopted them from the Greek mss. which he used : he probably in troduced them himself, in order to show where his transla tion differed from the Peschito, and where the Peschito differed from the Greek. As to the relation of the Philoxenian version of the four Antilegomena of the General Epistles to that published by Pococke, there is such a striking verbal coincidence between the two, that they cannot have been independent of each other ; and it has been supposed with great probability that the latter is the original text of the Philoxenian version, before its revision by Thomas of Charkel.2 1 E.g., contrary to the spirit of the Syriac language, the Greek article is expressed by a distinct word, the personal pronoun, and compound Greek words are etymologically divided. The same Greek words are rendered by the same Syriac words, even when they stand in different connections, and when the thought intended cannot be expressed in Syriac by the same words. 2 So De Wette, § 11, b ; Tregelles, p. 279 ; Davidson. It has also been compared with one or another Syriac MS. of the Gospels in which the original Philoxenian version is supposed to be preserved. — B. 344 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 4. The Jerusalem Syriac version, or (as Assemani and Hug call it) the Palestinian Syriac. There is an evangelista- rium in this language in the Vatican which Adler discovered and gave specimens of. It is in an Aramaean dialect — the same, according to Adler, in which the Jerusalem Talmud is written, and seemingly spoken in Palestine ; at least, according to certain indications, Matt, xxvii. 27, in a country garrisoned by the Romans. The codex was written (accord ing to a postscript attached to it) in a monastery at Antioch, a.d. 1031. Adler assigns the version to the fifth or sixth century; but it may be a later production, because it is translated from a Greek lectionarium probably of later date. It has evidently been translated direct from the Greek.1 2. A^thiopic Version. §277. Christian Churches were founded in ^Ethiopia or Abys sinia in the fourth century, and in the time of Constantine the Great, by two Tyrians, Frumentius and ^Edesius. The former especially, who was bishop of Axum, laboured with great success for the conversion of the aborigines (see Neander, Church Hist. vol. ii.). The want of a translation of Holy Scripture into the vernacular of the country was soon felt, and the ^Ethiopic version which we now possess was doubtless made about that time.2 Chrysostom speaks of an .ZEthiopic version of St. John (Homil. in Ev. Joann.). It was written in the dialect then prevailing, the so-called Geez language, i.e. the .iEthiopic strictly so called, and was made directly from the Greek,3 the O. T. from the LXX. The 1 Akin to this version are certain palimpsests with fragments of the Gospels brought by Tischendorf in 1853 and 1859 from the East to St. Petersburg, and which he assigns to the fifth or sixth century. See his Anecdota sacra etprof. p. 13, with fac-simile ; also N. T. ed. 7, p. ccxxx.; Notitia ed. Cod. Siuait. p. 49. — B. 2 Gildemeister, on the contrary, assigns it to a much later date. See Tisch. N. T. ed. 7, p. ccxxxv. 3 According to Gildemeister, there are in the Acts, especially ch. jETHIOPIC VERSION. 345 story among the ^Ethiopians, that their version was made from the Arabic, and by one of their first preachers, Abba Salama, is certainly erroneous. The Geez language was in the fourteenth century supplanted by the Amharic as the vernacular, and since then it has been the language only of the learned or of the Church, the ecclesiastical literature of Abyssinia being still written in Geez ; and the Bible is still read in this old version of it, though the people no longer understand it. This version was printed under the superintendence of three .ZEthiopic priests, under Pope Paul in. (in Rome, 1548-49, 2 vols. 4to). As the codex they used had some important lacunce in the Acts, the greater part of this book 1 was translated partly from the Greek, but chiefly from the Vulgate. In the other books the text was not accurately printed. The -ZEthiopic version in the London Polyglot was reprinted from this (1657). But as the copy translated was damaged, some passages are wanting or unreadable. The editors added a Latin translation, which is likewise faulty. A more reliable Latin version of the .ZEthiopic text, as it is printed in the Polyglot, was edited by Chr. A. Bode (ob. 1796), who collated this text with the Greek (the Gospel of Matthew, Halle 1749, with a preface by Ch. B. Michaelis ; the whole N. T., Braunschw. 1753). In the form wherein it lies here, it is of but little value for N. T. criticism. A new edition was prepared, under the direction of the Bible Society, by Thomas Pell Piatt, the Gospels in 1826, and the other books in 1830, for the use of the Abyssinian Christians, and not with any critical design. Several MSS. were collated for the Gospels, but only one for the Epistles, and some notes were added by the editor, but on the Gospels only, and without a complete collation (see Tregelles, p. 317 sqq.). The author of this version was certainly an ^Ethiopian, xvi.-xxiii., clear traces of a revision by comparison with the Arabic ver sion of Erpenius, which itself had been made from the Syriac. — B. 1 Gildemeister informs me that Acts ix. 29-x. 32, and xxvii. 8 to the end of the book, has been Jaken from the Vulgate. The mention of Greek in the editor's statement seems to be a mere boast. — B. 346 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. and not a Greek, for many false renderings and confound- ings of Greek words occur. The translation of the Gospels is the best ; though even in them we often find two readings printed side by side (see Schmidt, § 213 ; Hug, § 98), show ing that the translator used several Greek mss. together, and compared them only partially. The version of the Pauline Epistles is merely a paraphrase. There is a small fragment of an Amharic version — Luke xi. 1-13 — in the Library at Giessen : it has probably been made from the .ZEthiopic version, which it closely resembles. A Latin translation of this is given by J. H. May in Schmidt's Bibl.f. Krit. Exegese u. K- Gesch. i. 307. This Amharic ver sion is not further known to us : nothing seems to be known of an older Amharic version of the N. T., so that it is a question whether there ever was such a version. A transla tion recently made by the English Protestant missionaries hardly can be regarded critically. 3. Egyptian Versions. §278. Greek was widely spread and generally spoken in Egypt from the time of Alexander the Great. The Ptolemies made it the court language. Alexandria became the main centre of Greek literature, and in Lower Egypt Greek prevailed in other towns and among the numerous Jews. Egyptian, how ever, still lingered in the country, especially in Upper Egypt or Thebais. Upon the fall of the Ptolemies, Greek was not wholly suppressed, at least in Alexandria and Lower Egypt ; but it did not make any further way. In the interior, and in Upper Egypt especially, it lost ground before the Egyptian, which again prevailed, but which adopted into it many Greek words. Christianity at first certainly spread among Greek- speaking people, Jews and Gentiles. But it must have found converts at an early period among the Egyptians properly so called, and even in Thebais. A need therefore would be felt of a translation of the Scriptures into the national language, EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. 347 so as to give these Egyptian Christians free access to them. The dialect of Egypt which then prevailed was the Coptic ; and the Egyptians who abode in the country even after its conquest and the incursion of the Mohammedans — they num bered among them about 30,000 Christian families, Mono- physites — were called Copts, a name which is either a cor ruption of AiyvTTTO'i (so Renaudot, Quatremere), or from the celebrated commercial town Koptos in Upper Egypt. Now, and for a long time since, the prevailing language in Egypt is Arabic, and even the Coptic Christians no longer understand Coptic, not even the priests ; still Coptic is retained by them as their ecclesiastical language, and the Coptic N. T. is still read in the public services : the prelec tor, however, repeats it in Arabic (see Niebuhr's Beschr. v. Arabien, p. 86). We have several versions of the books of Scripture in various dialects of the Coptic, but two in particular must be named. 1. The dialect of Lower Egypt is called the Memphitic ; and the version in this dialect is called par excellence the Coptic, for this was for a long 'time the only Egyptian version known. 2. The dialect of Upper Egypt, or the Thebaic, which the Arabians call the Sahidic, ^Sj^a, i.e. that of the hill country, and the version in this dialect is usually called the Sahidic. There are MSS. of the Memphitic version of the O. and N. T. in the libraries of Rome, Paris, Oxford, Berlin, etc. ; but the oldest of these cannot be placed earlier than the tenth century. They were used in textual criticism first by Mill, and with collations of the mss. made by Th. Marshall for an edition of this version, which he projected, but was prevented accomplishing by death. The N. T. in full was afterwards published by David Wilkins (Wilke, a Prussian by birth), Oxford 1716, 4to, in compiling which he used twenty-one MSS. side by side with the Latin version. But he used not the oldest, but the latest and most interpolated MSS. as the basis of his text, so that Marshall's collations in Mill are 348 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. often more valuable and trustworthy than Wilkins' text, wliich blends together the readings of several MSS. very clumsily. A new and critical edition was begun by M. G. Schwartze (ob. 1848), the first part of which, containing the Gospels, appeared in Leipz. 1846-47, 2 vols. 4to. He only used the Berlin mss., which are not the oldest nor the best, in addition to Wilkins' text, and added a collation of them with the Greek text. After his death Paul Botticher com pleted the undertaking: Acta apostolorum Coptice, Halle 1852 ; Epistulce N. T. Copt. 1852 (James, 1st and 2d Peter, 1st, 2d, and 3d John, Jude, the fourteen Pauline Epistles). This edition still leaves much to be desired, much that would be very useful in the criticism of the N. T. text. This per haps does not apply to the edition prepared at Cairo for the Coptic Christians, by R. T. Lieder, with an Arabic version in the margin (Lond. 1847-52, 2 vols. fol.). Of the Sahidic version we only at present know of frag ments of the O. and N. T. — fragments, however, of some importance — at Oxford and in Italy (in the collection of Cardinal Borgia, ob. 1804). One, in particular, contains the whole of the Acts, the Epistles of John, Jude, Philippians, and others, and some of these have been printed since 1779. An old Codex in the Borgian collection is of importance : it contains fragments of John, ch. vi.— viii., in Sahidic, with the Greek text in uncials (Cod. T. of the Gospels; see § 272), published by Georgi, 1789.1 Many other fragments of this version have been found in England, and edited chiefly by Dr. Tattam of Bedford, in his collection. They contain the Pentateuch, the historical books of the O. T., the greater part of the Psalms, the Gospels, and the Epistles. There are other codices in Rome and Naples as yet unexamined. As to the age of these versions, it can be proved from 1 The following scholars have likewise treated of these fragments : Woide, Mingarelli, Munter, J. D. Michaelis, H. Ford (in his App. to Woide's Cod. Alex.), and the Danish scholar Zoega (Catal Codd. Copt. MSS. qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris adservantur, Rome 1810, fol.), and Engelbreth (Fragm. Basmurico-Coptica V. et N. T., Copenhagen 1811, 4to). EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. 349 history that there must have existed Egyptian translations of the Scriptures at the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth century ; for we find traces of them in the his tory of the Egyptian monks Antonius and Pachomius, and others belonging to that period (see Hug, i. § 91). Both the Egyptian versions we have named probably were in exist ence then. The Sahidic is probably the older ; for in Thebes, owing to the narrower and scantier knowledge of Greek, the need of a translation would be more pressingly felt than in Lower Egypt. Its composition, therefore, should probably be assigned to the middle of the third century, and that of the Memphitic version not much later. Whether the Sahidic version was used in the composition of the Memphitic (as Bertholdt thinks, as far as the apostolic writings are con cerned), cannot as yet be fully determined. In the MSS. of the Memphitic version the Epistle to the Hebrews follows 2d Thessalonians, and precedes the epistles written to indi viduals ; in the Thebaic version it is placed between 2d Corinthians and Galatians. Besides these two, there is a third Egyptian version in the Borgian collection.1 Its dialect differs alike from the Sahidic and Memphitic, but holds, it would appear, a middle place between the two, though rather nearer the Thebaic. It cannot with certainty be determined in what part of Egypt this idiom prevailed. Besides the Sahidic and the Kust (i.e. the Memphitic), the Arabians name a third dialect, viz. the Bashmuric ; and hence this third version has been called the Bashmuric, on the supposition that this is its language. But this is questionable. According to Quatremere's Researches? Bashmur was a district in the east of the Delta ; but the 1 Georgi and MUnter (De indole vers. N. T. Sahidicx, etc., Copen hagen 1789, 4to) published fragments of 1st Corinthians simultaneously (1789), yet independently of each other; and in 1810-11, likewise in dependently, Zoega and Engelbreth made known the Borgian frag ments subsequently found of Isaiah, St. John's Gospel, 1st Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians, and Hebrews. Zoega gave the text simply, Engelbreth the text with a translation and notes. 2 Recherches crit. et hist, sur la langue et la litterature de VEgypte, Paris 1808. 350 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. linguistic character of this version points rather to the neigh bourhood of Thebes as its birthplace. Champolion, junior, places it in the district Phajom. Hug doubts whether this version was made directly from the Greek, and independently of any other versions. He rather thinks it was made in directly from the Thebaic ; the Thebaic certainly seems to have been freely used (Hug, § 96). Arabic translations of the Coptic version were in later times made for the Egyptian Christians who no longer knew Coptic ; and there are several mss. of the Coptic version in different libraries, containing an Arabic translation in the margin : e.g. there is one such copy of the four Gospels in the Paris Library (see Hug, i. § 103) ; and in the same place another of the Pauline Epistles, from which Hug re printed the Epistle to Philemon. The Arabic translation of the Apocalypse in Erpenius' Arabic N. T. 1616, is probably another of these, but this is uncertain (see De Wette, § 17). 4. The Armenian Version. . § 279> The origin of this version is better known to us than that of most other old versions, through the account given by one of its compilers, Moses Chorenensis (Histories Armen. lib. iii., published in Armenian, with Latin translation and notes, by W. and G. Whiston, London 1736, 4to). Essentially agree ing with this, though less trustworthy, is a Biography of the Saints in the Paris Library, giving an account of Miesrob, wliich R. Simon had translated into Latin, and used. Christianity was introduced into Armenia in the second century ; and in the latter part of the third century, Diony sius of Alexandria wrote a work, irepl pieTavoias, to the Armenian Christians, under the oversight of Bishop Meru- zanes (Euseb. II. E. vi. 46). Christianity was further spread in the beginning of the fourth century by the labours of Gregory the Enlightener. Towards the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries, Miesrob (first royal THE ARMENIAN VERSION. 351 secretary, and afterwards hermit) laboured for the diffusion of the gospel, and gave his countrymeu an alphabet of thirty-six letters. Before his time, Syriac had been used as a written language, and the Syriac version of the Scriptures read. Miesrob and the Patriarch Isaac were the main for warders of the Armenian translation of the O. and N. T. It was first translated by Isaac from the Peschito into Arme nian, because they had no Greek copies of the Bible. But two pupils of Miesrob, Joseph and Eznak, who had gone to the Council of Ephesus, 431, brought thence a copy of the Greek Scriptures ; whereupon Miesrob and Isaac discon tinued the translation from the Syriac, and began again to translate from the Greek. But their knowledge of Greek being deficient, they sent Joseph and Eznak with Moses Chorenensis to Alexandria, to perfect themselves in the lan guage. Upon their return the work was begun again a third time, and was now brought to completion. It thus appears that the Armenian version is a direct translation from the Greek (in the O. T. from the LXX.) ; but there can be no doubt that the Peschito, whicli before had been used by the Arme nians, influenced and moulded it in no small degree, and especially in those parts which already had been translated from the Syriac. This translation would be retained as the basis, and simply tested and corrected by the Greek ; still it is very doubtful whether these portions belonged to the N. T. There can, however, be no doubt that the Peschito influenced to some extent the Armenian version. Probably the Apocalypse was not translated then — it probably was not in the Ephesian copy of the Greek Testament — but was added afterwards, because the language of the version in this book differs from, and is inferior to, the language of the rest (Scholz, i. 598). It has been supposed that the Armenian version was in the thirteenth century altered so as to harmonize it with the Vulgate. King Haitho or Haithom, who reigned 1224-70, was favourably inclined to the Roman Church, and desired a union between it and the Armenian Christians ; indeed, shortly before his death, he gave up the government to his 352 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. son, and became a Roman monk. It is supposed that he emended the Armenian version by the Vulgate, and added e.g. 1 John v. 7 ; because the Patriarch of Armenia, then living, Gregory bishop of Sis, in a letter to Haitho, quotes this passage to sanction the use of water at the mass, and it was quoted and vindicated at a synod held at Sis in 1307. But the passage could only have found its way into a few MSS.; for it occurs in very few copies of the Armenian version which have come down to us : it is still more unlikely that any thorough revision of the version by comparison with the Vulgate took place then. The Armenian version was first printed in the middle of the seventeenth century. The mss. of the Armenian Bible were costly (a single copy would fetch 500 tlialers) ; and accordingly a synod of Armenian bishops, held in 1662, gave directions to a priest of the monastery of Usci (who has hence been called Uscan, or Bishop Uscan) to go to Europe and superintend the printing of the work. Meeting with difficulties in Rome and in France, he went to Amster dam, where he got the entire Armenian Bible printed in 1666, 4to, and the N. T. by itself in 1668.1 He interpolated, however, certain passages from the Vulgate which were not in his Armenian codex, e.g. 1 John v. 7, John v. 4, and John vii. 53— viii. 11, — a section which is wholly wanting, or is inserted in a different connection in the Armenian MSS. After him a learned Armenian, J. Zohzab, a monk in the monastery on the island of St. Lazaro in Venice, super intended the printing of the Armenian version (a) in 1789, at Venice (and again 1816), collating some Armenian MSS., and adding a few notes. 1 John v. 7 is marked with an asterisk, to show that it does not belong to the version. (b) In 1805 a larger critical edition of the Armenian Bible, for which several MSS. were used, the variations being noted in the margin, and with short scholia in Armenian : here 1 John v. 7 is expunged, not being found in any of the 1 Republished in 1680, small 8vo, and in 1698, 12mo, the entire Bible, according to Uscan's edition, and with the same types, at Constantinople 1705, and at Venice 1733. GEORGIAN AND PERSIC VERSIONS. 353 MSS. It is said that Aucher, with other monks of St. Lazaro, are preparing a new critical edition (see Tregelles, p. 311). 5. The Georgian Version. §280. Christianity was introduced to Georgia, or Grusia, the ancient Iberia, about a.d. 320-330. Subsequently, but not before the end of the sixth century (according to Scholz, i. 504, in the eighth century), the Georgians obtained a trans lation of the whole Bible from the Greek, and according to a copy made in Greece by young scholars who had acquired the necessary knowledge. According to Tregelles, it is doubtful whether this version was made from Armenian or Greek. It was printed at Moscow, 1743, fol. ; but it was revised according to the Slavonian Russian Bible, and greatly altered, so that in this form it is useless for textual criticism. The same is true of the edition published at the cost of the Bible Society at Moscow, 1816. 5. Persic Versions. §281. There are two Persic versions known in Europe ; both are of the Gospels only, and are of no critical value. The one printed in the London Polyglot is an indirect translation from the Peschito, made about the time of Mohammed, printed according to a codex of 1341, in Pococke's possession. Bode published a Latin translation of it (for Matthew and Mark), Helmst. 1751, 4to. The publication of the other was begun by Abraham Wherlocke, and was completed after his death by Pierson, London 1652-57, fol. It seems to have been made direct from the Greek. In printing it, two MSS. in Cambridge were used ; but Pococke's edition was likewise used, and the readings of the two different versions confused, so that this version in its present form is unavailable for VOL. II. Z 354 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. criticism. Its composition falls rather late, perhaps in the fourteenth century. (See De Wette, § 20.) 7. Arabic Versions. §282. There are several Arabic versions of the N. T. books ; but hitherto they have only been of subordinate use in textual criticism ; for they are most of them indirect translations merely, and those which are direct have experienced con siderable alteration from other ecclesiastical versions. The conquest of so many countries in Asia, Africa, and Europe, especially Spain, by the Mohammedans, led to the uprooting and dispersion of many Christian Churches ; but even in places where these still kept their ground, as the Nestorian and Monophysite sects did, Arabic attained such a supre macy, that the old vernacular became an unknown tongue, even to the Christians ; and hence there arose a demand for versions of the Scriptures in Arabic, made from other versions already in circulation in the Church. Arabic translations were made thus from the Peschito and the Coptic versions (§ 275, 278). [An Arabic translation of the O. and N. T. is often mentioned, which was made about the middle of the eighth century, by John bishop of Seville, from the Vulgate, because Latin was no longer understood in Spain, save only by the few. But this version is, according to Gildemeister and De Lagarde,1 a fiction ; and the statements of Spanish writers concerning it arose from a misconception. Juynboll2 is of opinion that an Arabic codex of the Gospel (1610), found at Franeker, belonged to this version ; but Gilde meister regards it as a mere copy of the Roman edition of 1590 (to be mentioned below), the text of which is a direct translation from the Greek.] Still there are also Arabic versions, made directly from 1 Gildemeister, De evang. in Arabicum e Simplici Syriaca translatis, Bonn 1865, p. 44 ; De Lagarde, Die 4 Evang. Arabisch, p. xii. sqq. 2 Letterkundige Bijdragen, ii., Leyden 1838. ARABIC VERSIONS. 355 the Greek at an early date, which were subsequently used by the Coptic and Syrian Christians, but which were altered in order to assimilate them to the ordinary ecclesiastical versions. Of these direct translations the following are known : — 1. A translation of the four Evang. [De Wette, § 2, a ; Gildemeister, p. 42 sqq., note]. This was (a) first printed in Rome 1590-91, fol., in two forms, with or without an interlinear Latin version; republished 1619 under a new title ; the Latin by Antonius Sionita. It is not known from what MS. this was made, (b) It was reprinted with Arabic N. T., edited by Erpenius (Leyden 1616) from a Leyden codex which had been emended by a Copt. The text of Erpenius was reprinted in the Coptic and Arabic edition of the Gospels (1829) by the Loudon Bible Society, (c) In the Paris Polyglot, 1645 [not, as has often been stated since R. Simon, after the second Roman edition, but presenting an independent recension, the same as that found in Cod. Reg. 27, and Coislin 239 (Scholz, Bibl. krit. Reise, pp. 56, 58); cf. Gildemeister, p. 42, and procem. p. v. sqq.]. The version in the London Polyglot is printed from that in the Paris Poly glot.1 These were once regarded as two distinct versions, but Storr (De Evv. Arabicis, Tub. 1775) elaborately endeavoured to show that it is the same version, the form of which varied a little in the different copies made. This might, indeed, easily have been the case, for it was circulated among both the Syrian and the Coptic Christians, who would suggest altera tions in accordance with their respective translations. This version was made direct from the Greek,2 and belongs 1 [To these we must add, (d) the Syriac and Carshunic edition, for the use of the Maronites, by Faustus Nairon, Rome 1703, fol. (Car shunic = Arabic with Syriac characters). The Arabic text is here (according to the preface) borrowed from a ms. which Michael Metoschita brought from Cyprus. (e) From another codex is that published by De Lagarde, Die vier Evv. Arabisch aus der Wiener Handschrift herausgegeben, Leipz. 1864, 8vo.] 3 JurNBOLL thinks that the Roman Editio princeps, as well as the Franeker codex, follows the Vulgate. But this, according to Gilde meister, means really no more than that there are a few Latinizing headings in this edition. 356 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. to a comparatively early period, though nothing certain can be determined concerning its date. Hug thinks that it was made for the use of the Saracens in the east of Palestine, who were converted to Christianity in the second half of the fourth century under Valens. 2. A translation of the apostolic writings — the Acts, the Pauline and General Epistles, and the Apocalypse — in the Paris and London Polyglots, printed from a ms. from Aleppo. This also, judging from its character, is a direct translation, but by a different translator from that of the Gospels.1 These versions, that of the Gospels and that of the apostolic writings, were reprinted (a) in the edition supervised by the Roman Propaganda, Rome 1671, fol., but with emendations borrowed from the printed Vulgate ; (/3) in the edition published by- the English Missionary Society under the care of Salomo Negri, London 1727, 4to, with emendations from the Greek text. See, concerning another Arabic translation of the Gospels found with the Pauline Epistles in a Codex Vaticanus, Scholz, Bibl. krit. Reise, pp. 117-126, and Hug, i. § 107. It differs from the printed versions, and is evidently much inferior and of later date. According to the statement made in a Greek transcript, the authors of this version seem to have been Daniel Philentolos, and his son Gabriel Philokalos of Emisa, now Hems, in Syria. 1 [It has been inferred that this translation was made in Cyrene, from Acts ii. 10, where Cyrene is called \Jj .£ (regio nostra). But we are here to read (as e.g. De Lagarde remarks, De N. T. ad versionum orient, fidem edendo, Berlin 1857, 4to, p. 3) simply \jj .£ (Cyrene). -B.] LATIN VERSIONS. 357 WESTERN VERSIONS. 8. Latin.1 §283. In the Latin-speaking countries of the West, the know ledge of Greek was widely spread, particularly in Rome, and Italy generally, at least in the larger towns. But this was not so much the case in other districts, — as, for example, in proconsular Africa, and in commercial cities generally ; and hence arose a demand for Latin translations of works written in Greek, which had obtained a circulation in the West. Thus a Latin translation of the work of Irenseus (ob. 202), Adversus Hcereses, was soon called for, and made probably in Africa, for we find obvious traces of its being used by Tertullian (ob. 220) in his writings. We can easily under stand, accordingly, how, as Christianity spread in Latin- speaking lands, the want would be felt of a Latin translation of Holy Scripture for general use It is clear from what Ter tullian (De Monogamia, c. 11) says, that in his time there was a Latin version of the N. T. in common use (in usum exiit), which he represents as inconsistent with the Greek original in its rendering of a certain text. It is plain from the connection that Tertullian here means a Latin version which was already generally used, and which must therefore have been made about the middle of the second century, or not long after. Tertullian, we may suppose, commonly used this version for the N. T., and it seems very probable that the old translator of Irenasus also used it (see Lachmann, V. T. tom. i. prtef. p. x.). With still greater probability may we conclude, considering the rough and almost barbaric character of its language, that this version was made in North Africa, and not, as might have been expected, in Italy. But it was soon circulated far and wide from the land of its nativity through other Latin-speaking countries. 1 [See Fritzsche, art. Vulgata u. die Latein. Bibelubersetzungen, in Herzog's Real-Encyclop. xvii. 422 sqq.] 358 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. It is likely, too, that the translation of the N. T. was made simultaneously with that of the O. T. from the LXX., if indeed both portions were not the work of one and the same translator. Some books of the N. T. which were not as yet fully recognised as canonical in the Latin Church — as, for instance, the Epistle to the Hebrews — would probably not be translated simultaneously with the rest ; indeed, there are indications proving that they were done subsequently. It is a much disputed point, however, whether before the time of Jerome there were more than one Latin translation made. It is ordinarily thought that there were, both for the O. and N. T. But many are of opinion that, before Jerome's time, there was but one1 and that this was variously interpolated in various copies, which now present (as far as they have come down to us) many discrepancies. It tells in favour of this opinion, that the citations of texts in the various Latin writers down to the end of the fourth century strikingly coincide, both with one another and with the mss. of the old Latin version, even in peculiarities of expression ; so that we cannot suppose that the copies used came from the pens of different translators : see examples in Eichhorn, Wiseman, Lachmann. On the other hand, we certainly find great differences in the citations of texts which can hardly be accounted for simply by corruptions in the original Latin text introduced by the copyist. Augustine and Jerome, moreover, speak very decidedly and clearly of a plurality of Latin translators both of the O. and N> T. Thus Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, ii. 11, 12, referring to a certain text, speaks of different translators having given different ren derings of it ; see also ib. c. 13, 14, interpretum numerositas. Jerome, too, Prcefat. in Evangg., speaks of vitiosis interpreti- bus of the N. T., and says that there are almost as many exemplaria as there are codices, — meaning not simply many copies of the one translation, but many translations. Still more explicit is the well-known passage of Augustine's, in 1 So Sabatier, Blanchinus, Wetstein (Prolegg.), Semler, Eichhorn (iv. 335), CardinalN. Wiseman (in his Essays on Various Subjects, vol. i. 1853), Tregelles (p. 230), Lachmann, and others. LATIN VERSIONS. 359 his work De Doctrina Christiana, ii. 15, where, having before spoken of the numerositas interpretum, he says with refer ence to Scripture generally, both O. and N. T. : in ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala ceteris prceferatur, nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententice. It is accordingly manifest, (a) that in the time of Augus tine and Jerome there were various forms of the Latin version of the books of Scripture ; and (b) that this variety was so great as really to amount to various versions by different translators, and that the Fathers I have cited regarded them in this light. If the various forms which the Latin text presented simply arose from various corruptions of one and the same version, it is hardly probable that they would be spoken of severally, and so distinctly separated from each other as is implied in the last-named passage, and so that one in particular (Itala) should be set over against the- rest, and designated Itala to distinguish it from the others. It is not certainly in keeping with Augustine's words, when Lachmann and Wiseman explain them as referring only to the MSS. of one and the same version which were written or revised in Italy. (c) At the same time, we have no reason to suppose that these various Latin versions were wholly independent of each other. Much rather must we believe that, when a Latin translation of the Greek Bible had once been com pleted — probably in Africa, and in the second century — it became the permanent basis of the Latin Bible. The changes, however, which it underwent were so various and so great, that these might be regarded as different transla tions, although strictly speaking they might with greater propriety be called different revisions of the same transla tion. These different versions or revisions of the Latin Bible were probably used in different parts of the West, one in one country, another in another ; and the words of Augus tine (c. Faustum, xi. 2), in which he speaks of codicibus aliarum regionum, show that this was the case. Thus the Itala of which Augustine speaks was probably that form of the translation, that version of the Latin Bible, which they 360 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. of Italy had received, which was in circulation there, and which, in Augustine's opinion, was distinguished above the original version that had come from Africa (where it was still in use), by its greater accuracy and clearness, and pro bably by the greater purity of its Latin. The linguistic roughness and barbarisms of the original translation were naturally disliked and objected to in Italy. Efforts were accordingly made to polish the language ; and in doing this the Greek text would be referred to, and the translation revised according to it. Augustine, doubtless, had become familiar with this Italian edition of the Latin Bible in its relation to the original African version, during his residence in Rome and Milan : he thus learned to appreciate its dis tinctive excellences, and he calls the attention of his African fellow-countrymen to it. §284. Many remains of this old Latin version, in its several forms, have come down to us in the Scripture quotations of the Latin Fathers, in the Codices Grceco-Latini, and in distinct manuscripts. All these have been sometimes included under the one title Itala, but this is incorrect ; still we cannot with certainty say which of them belong to the versio Itala, in the sense in which Augustine used the word, and which to other versions or recensions of the Latin Bible. Concerning the Codices Grceco-Latini (Laudianus, Canta- brig., Borner., Claromont.), see § 270. Besides these have been published, (a) by Joh. Martianay, the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle of James, from a Codex Corbeiensis, from the old Abbey Corbey in Picardy, Paris 1694, 12mo. This is the first published codex of the Latin version, (b) More comprehensive is the work of Peter Sabatier (a Bene dictine, ob. 1742), Biblorum S. Latince verss. antiques, etc., 1743 (ed. auct. 1749-51), 3 vols, fol., vol. iii. containing the N. T. The four Gospels are here reprinted from a Codex Colbertinus (now in the Paris Library), perhaps of the eleventh century; the Acts from the Codex Laudianus; the Pauline Epistles, including Hebrews, from the Cod. Claro- LATIN VERSIONS. 361 montanus and Sangermanensis ; the Epistle of James from Martianay's edition of the Cod. Corbeiensis; the other General Epistles from fragmentary quotations in the Fathers ; the Revelation from a codex of the commentary of Primasius. Various readings from other mss. and patristic quotations are also given. It is a very valuable work. (c) Another important work is that of Jos. Blanchinus (Bianchini), Evangeliarium quadruplex Latinos vers, antiquce s. vet. Italicce, etc., Rome 1749, 2 parts in 4 vols. fol. (at the cost of John v. king of Portugal). The four codices of the Gospels here printed are : (1.) Cod. Vercellensis, a very old codex at Vercelli in Piedmont, which was published in 1748 at Milan, by Irici, more accurately than by Blanchinus. It seems to have been written by Eusebius bishop of Vercelli, in the fourth century, but has many lacunce. It is desig nated a by Lachmann, Tischendorf. (2.) Veronensis (b), at Verona, also very old, fourth or fifth century, but with many lacunce. (3.) Brixianus, at Brescia in the Tyrol, which has fewer lacunce, but is less ancient, belonging perhaps to the sixth century (see, concerning it, Lachmann, i. p. xiv. sqq.). (4.) The Cod. Corbeiensis of Matthew, already published by Martian ay. (d) In a purple Codex Palatinus, now at Vienna (brought thither since the beginning of this century, but whence is unknown), there are considerable portions of the Gospels (John and Luke, almost complete, but very little of Mark) in the Old Latin version. These were first mentioned by Kopitar, 1839 ; then by Lachmann, i. p. xvii. ; and are edited in full by Tischendorf, Ev. Palatinum ineditum, etc., Leipz. 1847. The writing is uncial, and the codex belongs probably to the fifth century. (e) Another old codex (Vindobonensis) in Vienna, belong ing probably to the fifth century, containing Latin fragments of Mark and Luke. Blanchinus gave some readings from it, and Alter published it in Paulus' Repert. f. bibl. u. morgenl. Liter, iii. 115-170, and in Paulus' Memorabilien, part vii. pp. 58-96. (/) In an old MS., formerly in the Monastery of Bobbio 362 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. (Cod. Bobbiensis), now at Turin, are fragments of Matthew (circ. sixteen chapters) and Mark (circ. nine chapters), be longing also to the fifth century, which Fleck published -in his Anecdota sacra, Leipz. 1837, but which have been more accurately and fully edited by Tischendorf in the Wiener Jahrbb. 1847 sq. (g) In the Vatican there is an old codex (olim Claromon- tanus) containing a Latin version of the Gospels, — the latter. three from the Vulgate, Matthew (with two lacunce of seven chapters) in an old version before the time of Jerome. Sabatier had already compared it ; but it was published by Mai, Scriptorum vett. Nova collectio e Vaticanis codd. edita, iii. (1828), p. 257 sq. (li) At Breslau, in what was formerly called the Rhediger Library (Cod. Rhedigerianus), is a Latin MS. of the Gospels, probably belonging to the seventh century, with many lacunce (almost the whole of John being wanting), and described by Dav. Schulz, De cod. 4 Evv. Biblioth. Rhedigerianos, etc., Breslau 1814, 4to.1 The manuscripts of the old Latin before the time of Jerome, especially the oldest, are of great importance in the criticism of the N. T. text, because they are tolerably trust worthy witnesses for the form of the Greek text in the second and third centuries, and in the country where the translation was first made, probably in North Africa. §285. A new form was given to the Latin version about the end 1 [In the Monum. sacra et prof, prxsertim bibl. Ambrosianx, operd collegii doctorum ejusdem (vol. i. fasc. 1, ed. A. M. Ceriani, Milan 1861, 4to, pp. 1-8), there is a Latin fragment of Luke (ch. xvii.-xxi.), from a cod. palimps. of the sixth century, the text of which differs from the Old Latin as hitherto known, through the labours of Blanchinus and Sabatier.] Concerning the citations from an old codex, entitled Speculum (of Augustine?), see Tregelles, p. 239 sq. Concerning a Cod. Bobbiensis rescriptus, now at Vienna, belonging perhaps to the fifth century, and containing some fragments of the Acts, see Tischendorf, N. T., ed. 7, p. ccxlv. THE VULGATE. 363 of the fourth century, when Damasus bishop of Rome com missioned Jerome, during his stay in the city, to undertake a revision of it, — a commission which, after some considera tion, he resolved to execute. He began with a revision of the four Gospels, which he prosecuted during the years 383, 384. Jerome himself mentions this in his preface to the four Gospels, addressed to Damasus. He afterwards revised the other N. T. books,1 though we are not told exactly when. Jerome's labour in the case of the N. T. was not a new translation, but a revision of the old one. Adopting the old Latin in the form in which it was used in Italy in the Itala, as the basis of his work, he corrected it, by comparing it with the Greek mss. He set to work with great care and reserve, making alterations very sparingly, and only where the true meaning was not given in the old version, and even leaving many defects unaltered.2 He compared especially the oldest Greek MSS., and those which he found most closely to harmonize with the text of the old Latin version.3 Still he found much to alter in the Gospels, because the text of one Gospel was often confused and mixed up with the text of another. Damasus doubtless expected that this revision, as appointed by him, and performed by the learned Jerome, would at once obtain general recognition and acceptance. But it came into favour only by degrees. Many strenuously opposed Jerome's work as an innovation, leading to confusion and error; others still used the older version and that of Jerome side by side, as in the case of Cassiodorus (circ. 550), who even in his time compared the codices of the old trans lation with that of the new (Prcef. in Institut. div. litt.). Nevertheless Jerome's version found ever-increasing accept ance ; for its greater accuracy and faithfulness could not fail 1 He says himself, De vir. illust. 135, N. Test. Grxcx fidei reddidi ; and Ep. ad Marcellam, 102, he complains of those who preferred the old and faulty version to his new one. 2 Prxf. in Evangg. : Ita calamo temperavimus, ut his tantum, qux sensum videbantur mutare, correctis reliqua manere pateremur utfuerant. 3 Ibid. : Igitur hxc prxsens prxfatiuncula pollicetur quatuor tantum evangelia . . . codicum Grxcarum emendata collatione, sed et veterum, nee qui multum a lectionis Latinx consuetudine discrepant. 364 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. of being felt ; and we may conclude that, together with his translation of the O. T. from the Hebrew text, it was uni versally recognised in the Western Church in the seventh century as distinctively the Vulgate. §286. While it was thus more and more generally received and circulated, it became from time to time variously corrupted, partly through the carelessness of copyists, partly through intentional alterations, supposed emendations, chiefly by a blending of it with the older version, in those passages especially that were used liturgically, and were retained in the liturgical books, according to the older version. Hence there arose in the Church the consciousness of the uncer tainty and corruption of the text of this ecclesiastical version, and the need of vindicating it, and establishing its authority more firmly. Attempts at revision and improvement were made at various times, by suggestions from high quarters, and under more or less express authority. This was done first about the year 802, by Alcuin, at the command of Charlemagne. An effort was made to restore the text of Jerome's version to its original purity, and this was to some extent accomplished. Alcuin's recension was at the time, and afterwards, tolerably widely received.1 But by degrees, through the carelessness of transcribers, it again degenerated, and the necessity to improve it again began to be felt. Thus, in the eleventh century, Lanfrank, Arch bishop of Canterbury, and a Cistercian monk, Stephen Harding, made this attempt. But still, in the twelfth cen tury, Cardinal Nicolaus, at Rome, complains that he found pcene quot codices tot exemplaria. From the thirteenth century downwards, the so-called correctoria were introduced, in order to improve the text of the Latin Bible.2 But none 1 There are several MSS. of the Vulgate which claim to be that of Alcuin. A costly codex of the ninth century, containing both 0. and N. T., which belonged to H. v. Speier-Passavant of Basle, was brought by him to England, and sold for £1500. It is now in the British Museum. 2 Correctorium biblicum is an edition of the Vulgate which has in the THE VULGATE. 365 of these obtained general recognition, and there was still no generally recognised text of the Vulgate down to the fifteenth century, and even later, though this version was now beginning to be printed. Immediately upon the invention of printing, however, the Vulgate began to be very widely spread. The Latin Bible was one of the first and most frequently printed works, and the early editions of it are among the most important speci mens in the history of the art. But they are for the most part simply copies of particular MSS. which were then in circulation. The first editions are without date, probably between 1453-55. Of those which give both the place of publication and the date, the earliest is that of Mayence, in folio, 1462, printed by Johann Fust and Peter Schoiffer. Many others followed; so that before the year 1517, the printed editions of the Vulgate in Italy, France, and Ger many, were 228 in number. Several of these editions gave various readings, though as yet no special pains were taken in the criticism of the text. This is first traceable in the Complutensian Polyglot, 1517, where the text is emended according to MSS. as compared with the ground text then current : the text of this edition was repeated in the Antwerp Polyglot of 1569 sq., but was not much esteemed in the Catholic Church. Among Protestants the text of the Vul gate was frequently printed according to the recension of Andreas Osiander, whose edition appeared first at Nurem berg 1522. Robert Stephens from 1528 onwards gave special attention to the Vulgate text, which he published in eight different editions. The chief of these is that in 4to, 1540, fol., wherein the text is printed almost exactly as in the margin the various readings of the several mss., both Latin and Greek, and likewise of the quotations occurring in the works of the older Fathers, together with notes concerning their critical value, but without the connected text of the Vulgate. These correctoria, which show to us the state of the text at the time, were published in the thirteenth century, and afterwards by various Church corporations : e.g. circ. 1230, one by the theologians of Paris, under the sanction of the Archbishop of Gaul ; and another, circ. 1236, by the Dominicans at the command of their Provincial, Hugo Carensis. 366 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. Mayence edition of 1462 ; but in the margin are given various readings from fifteen of the oldest MSS., and from three of the printed editions. After this he published four successive and different editions. They were all repudiated in 1548 by a decision of the Paris theologians as incorrect and heretical, and were numbered among the proscribed books. § 287. Seeing that there was as yet no really trustworthy and reliable text of the Vulgate, nor even a text recognised as authoritative by the Roman Catholic Church only, the Coun cil of Trent in its fourth sitting (8th April 1546) decreed that this version should of all the Latin versions be regarded as authentic.1 It was at the same time resolved that another and more accurate edition of the Vulgate be prepared.2 This led the Louvain theologians, by one of their number, Johann Hentenius, to put forth an edition of the Vulgate (Louvain 1547) emended with several mss. ; and another edition was published through the efforts of Lucas Brugensis, with a further collation of MSS., at Antwerp in 1573 (3 vols. 8vo and 12mo), with a very rich collection of various readings. This edition was much used and frequently printed, but it never was publicly recognised as authoritative, chiefly on account of the various readings given. The Papacy thought, moreover, that it should reserve to itself the right of exe cuting the decree of the Council of Trent, by preparing an edition of its own. Popes Pius iv. and v. (1559-1572) caused many mss. of the Vulgate to be sought for and com pared in different countries. The undertaking came to a stand-still under Gregory xiii. (1572-85). But his succes sor Sixtus v. (1585-90) resumed it with zeal, and accom plished it. He engaged the services of several scholars : in 1 . . . Ut hxc ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, qux longo tot sxculorum usu ipsa ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, prxdi- cationibus et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur, et ut nemo illam reji- cere quovis prxtextu audeat vel prxsumat. 2 . . . Ut posthac sacra scriptura, potissimum vero hxc ipsa vetus et vulgata editio quam emendissime imprimatur. THE VULGATE. 367 Flaminius Nobilius, Antonio Agelli, Peter Morin, Angelo Rocca, and Carafa. He had a printing-press set up within the Vatican. The Pope reserved to himself the final decision concerning the readings to be adopted, and examined the printed sheets before they were finally struck off. Accord ing to the preface, attention was paid to the readings of the oldest and most accurate mss. which most agreed together ; but the commentaries of the Fathers and the original text, both the Hebrew and the Greek, were likewise consulted, and the version not unfrequently altered in accordance there with. This was not certainly the way to attain what the Pope professes to aim at in the preface, viz. : ut vulgata vetus . . . emendatissima pristinceque sum puritati, QUALIS PRIMUM ab ipsius interpretis manu styloque prodierat restituta impri matur. The printing was completed in 1589, but the work was not published till the next year, 1590, in 3 vols. fol. A papal bull of March 1, 1589, declared the text contained in this edition to be the true, genuine, and authentic text of the Vulgate, which the Council of Trent had referred to, and pronounced an anathema upon all who should venture to alter it, threatening such with the wrath of Almighty God ; commanding, moreover, that all future editions of the Vul gate should adopt and retain this text, and that all earlier editions and manuscripts which contained variations from the text of this edition, and were not emended thereby, should have no authority whatever. Yet in the face of this a num ber of errata and other mistakes were discovered before the publication of the work, and attempts were made to obviate these by erasures or corrections made with the pen, and by leaflets or small pieces of paper pasted over; but this was not done in the same manner in all copies. Sixtus V. died soon after the publication of the work (27th August 1590). His successor Urban vii. lived as Pope only twelve days. He was followed by Gregory xiv., who undertook to edit a new edition of the Vulgate, which was completed under Clement VIII. in 1592. Engaged upon this were Bellarmine, Agelli, Flaminius Nobilius, Peter Morin, and others. Not only were the errata discovered in the Sixtine edition corrected 368 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. (though not fully), but the Sixtine text was variously altered according to certain mss., citations in the Fathers, the older text used in churches, and the edition of Hentenius. Nevertheless at Bellarmine's suggestion it was untruthfully asserted in the preface, that the mistakes of the former edi tion were merely printers' errors, and that Sixtus v. had himself intended to issue an improved edition, but was pre vented by death. This edition was now set up as the only trustworthy and authoritative version, and its text has been generally retained in all subsequent Church editions of the Vulgate. Sixtus v. had directed that the Scripture texts quoted in books appointed for the use of the Church — missals, etc. — should be altered according to the new edition of the Vul gate ; but Clement vin. forbade this in his bull (1604), and expressly pronounces the missals thus altered according to the later Vulgate missalia depravata.1 The variations in the texts of the Sixtine and Clementine editions, both which had been supervised by Popes, and claimed alike to be the only genuine and authentic text of the Vulgate, were col lected, and assailed with bitter scorn as the contradictions of two successive Popes, by Thomas James : Bellum papale s. concordia discors Sixti V. et dementis vin. circa Hierony- mianam editionem, London 1600, 4to, 1678, 8vo. A year after the appearance of his edition, Clement vin. allowed another edition to be prepared, Rome 1593, 4to, which differed much from the preceding, and might be re garded as a new revision of the text. The monk Heinrich von Bukentop pointed out its numerous variations.2 The Vulgate issued from the Vatican press 1598, small 4to, was a reprint of this second Clementine edition, but with several errata (see v. Ess, p. 373). Moret, Plantin's son-in-law, who held a place in Plantin's office at Antwerp, received from 1 See Ess, Gesch. d. Vulgata, p. 842. 2 Lux de luce, libri tres, in quorum prima ambigux lectiones, in secundo varix et dubix lectiones, qux in vulg. lat. s. scr. editione occurrunt, ex origiualibus linguarum textibus illustrantur . . . in tertio agitur de editione Sixti v. facto anno 1590, Brussels 1710, 4to. THE VULGATE. 369 Clement vm. a ten years' monopoly for the printing of the Vulgate out of Italy : his first issue appeared Antw. 1599, 4to and 8vo, and went through nine editions, the last in 1650, 4to. The Papal letter prescribed that this issue should be an exact reprint of the Vatican edition, but it variously differs therefrom, as Bukentop has shown.1 From the account now given, it is evident that these Roman Catholic editions are not calculated to give us the text of Jerome's version in the correctest form, or as closely in the original form of it as is possible. The Clementine does this even less than the Sixtine edition, because in it much was altered into keeping with the received text, and not according to the oldest mss. §288. Much more has been done towards discovering and restor ing the original text from the MSS. in the edition of the Vul gate, in the edition of Jerome's works by Martianay (1693, vol. i.), and by Valtarsi and Maffei (1734, vols. ix. and x.) ; and still more in the present day. We possess some very old and valuable MSS. of this version, two of whicli are spe cially to be noted. (a.) Codex Am.iatim.ts, containing the whole Bible, for merly in the Library of the Cistercian Monastery on Monte Amiatino in Tuscany, now in the Lorenzo Medici Library at 1 For the history of this version, see Leander von Ess, Pragmat.- krit. Gesch. d. Vulg., Tub. 1824. [Also Varix lectiones vulgatx latinx Bibl. editionis quas C. Vercellone digessit, tom. i. and ii., Rome 1860- 62, 4to, where, in the Prolegg., tom. i. pp. xvii.-lxxii., there is a history of the origin of the Clementine Vulgate by Ungarelll] V. Ess also edited a small copy of the Vulgate (part iii. containing the N. T., Tub. 1822, parts i. and ii. the 0. T. 1824). It gives the Clementine text of 1592, with corrections of obvious errata, and with a list of the variations in the edd. of 1590, 1593, 1598. [The latest edition of the Papal Vulgate is that of Vercelloni : Biblia sacra vulgatx editionis Sixti v. et dementis vm. Pontt. max. jussu re- cognita atque edita, Romx, typis S. Congreg. de propag. fide, a. 1861, pp. xxiv. and 839. Here the edition of 1592 forms the basis text ; but this has received corrections from the editions of 1593 and 1598, and the emendations of Angelo Rocca and others. VOL. II. 2 A 370 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. Florence. It belongs to the sixth century, and was written circ. 541 by the Abbot Servandus. The codex was used, among others for the Sixtine edition, but its importance was not sufficiently estimated. Fleck examined it with reference to the N. T., and published its variations from the text of the Clementine edition together with this text, Leipz. 1840 ; but his collation of it is not trustworthy. Tischendorf has more thoroughly collated the N. T. portion, and published it with a fac-simile, Leipz. 1850. Tregelles also has examined it, and adopts it as the basis of the Latin version in his ed. of the N. T. (b.) Codex Fuldensis, in the Abbey of Fulda. It contains the whole N. T., and was written in 546 by command of Bishop Victor of Capua, who himself corrected it with the mss. used. It has been carefully examined by Lachmann and Buttmann, and adopted as the basis of the Vulgate text in their larger edition of the N. T. The Gospels are arranged in a Harmony in this codex, and this portion of it is therefore less valuable than the rest, though even here very important.1 The high antiquity of these mss. of the Vulgate renders it very probable that we have in them the text in its original form, and, upon the whole, pretty much as Jerome left it. This version, accordingly, is to be esteemed as one of the weightiest testimonies for the N. T. text, and in particular, for its form in the MSS. which Jerome used.2 1 [Cf. E. Ranke, Specimen Cod. N. T. Fuldensis, Marburg 1860, 4to.J For lists of other old codices of the Vulgate, see Tischendorf, Prolegg. N. T. ed. 7 ; also the Prolegg. to Vercelloni's Varix Lectiones, et alia. I mention here further, only the Codex Forojuliensis at Friaul (JForum Julii), formerly at Aquileia, containing the Gospels ; published by Blan chinus as an appendix to vol. ii. of his Evangeliarium quadruplex. Mark's Gospel was wanting, but is now found, part of it in Prague, part in Venice, though very much injured by damp. The one portion came to Prague 1354 as a present of the Emperor Charles iv., who had begged it from Aquileia as professedly a Latin autograph of St. Mark ; the other portion he sent to Venice, upon the same supposition, in the year 1420. The part at Prague (Mark xii.-xvi.) was published by Dobrowsky, Prag 1778 ; see Michaelis, Einl. ii. 1074. [Tischendorf's edition of the Vulgate ; see § 302.] 4 The Anglo-Saxon version may be regarded as an offshoot of the Old SLAVONIC AND GOTHIC VERSIONS. 371 9. Slavonic Version. §289. Among the Slavonic tribes which had been under Grecian dominion since the sixth century, Christianity obtained a footing at the end of the eighth century ; and among those beyond Greek dominion, in Moravia and the neighbouring districts, at the end of the ninth century, by means of two brothers, the Greek monks Cyrillus and Methodius. These missionaries gave the Slavonians an alphabet and a version of the Bible in their language in the year 960. This version was made from the Greek, but possibly the Latin version influenced it, because these brothers were afterwards in close communication with the Pope and the Romish Church in behalf of the Slavonic Church ; and by a decree of Pope John viii. in the year 880, the Gospel was to be read in Moravia, first in Latin, and afterwards in Slavonic. This version was critically examined by Dobrowsky in Michaelis' neuer orient, u. exeget. Biblioth. vii. 155, and in a Zeitschrift Slovanca zur Kentniss der Slavischen Literatur, Prag 1815. Griesbach obtained from Dobrowsky readings from many Slavonic MSS. of the N. T. for the second edition of his N. T. Muralt has also collated two mss. of this version for his edi tion of the N. T. according to the Codex Vaticanus, 1848. 10. Gothic Version. §290. The Goths became acquainted with Christianity after their inroads into the East Roman empire, in the beginning of the third century, partly through the instrumentality of Christian captives. Christianity made still further advance among them, but mainly in the form of Arianism, in the latter half of the fourth century, under Valens. Ulfilas (Vulfilas), Latin before Jerome's time. The four Gospels in that version were first printed by Matt. Parker, Lond. 1571, 4to, and frequently since then ; of late by Benj. Thorpe, Lond. 1842, 8vo. 372 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. bishop of the Goths from 348, belonged to a Roman family living among the Goths in Cappadocia (ob. 388). He gave them a translation of the Bible, introducing thus among them a written language, the basis of which was the Ger manic, and which he constructed by using the Greek alpha bet.1 We have testimonies concerning the existence of this version down to the ninth century ; for about this time Walafried Strabo refers to it : we find no mention of it afterwards till the sixteenth century. Down to the beginning of the present century, the only known mss. of it were the Gospels, in the Cod. Argenteus, and fragments of the Epistle to the Romans, in a Wolfenbiittel MS. (a) That of the Gospels is a MS. with lacunce here and there, written in silver and gold letters, on purple vellum. The Gospels are arranged as in the Itala — Matthew, John, Luke, Mark (cf. § 18). It is supposed to be 1000 years old. It was found in the middle of the seventeenth century, in the Abbey of Werden,2 whence it was brought to Prague, and soon after 1648 taken by the Swedes and transferred to Stockholm. After this it was for some time in the possession of Isaac Vossius, and then again was conveyed to Upsala. (b) In a codex rescriptus in the Wolfenbiittel Library (see § 272, No. 1), the washed- out writing underneath contains, among other things, a fragment of the Epistle to the Romans, in this version, with a Latin version on the side. It was deciphered and pub lished first by Knittel, Braunschw. 1762. The Latin version was given by Tischendorf, in his Anecdota, p. 153, ed. 1. It contains portions of Rom. xi.-xv., forty-two verses in all. Both MSS., that of the Gospels and that of the Romans, 1 Waitz, iib. d. Leben u. d. Lehre d. Ulfilas, Hanover 1840 ; Krafft, K. Gesch. d. german. Volker, i. 1, Berlin 1854. 2 From later inquiries, it appears that this MS. had before this been at Prague, where Richard Streinius (ob. 1601) saw it ; see Gabelentz and Lobe's edition, Prolegg. pp. 30, 31, n. It is assigned to the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century. The Gospels in Gothic have been piiblished according to this codex, first by F. Junius and T. Mareschallus, Dortrecht 1665, 4to (Amst. 1684) ; then by Stiernhjelm, Stockh. 1671, 4to ; Lye, Oxford 1750, 4to ; and last by Uppstrom. GOTHIC VERSION. 373 were edited and published by J. Chr. Zahn, Ulfilas Gothische Bibeliibers., etc., Weissenfels 1805, 4to. In the year 1817, Angelo Mai discovered five codices rescriptos in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, the washed- out writing underneath being fragments of the Gothic version, (a) A ms. of the homilies of Gregory the Great upon Ezekiel, under which are the important remains of the Pauline Epistles in Gothic (excepting 2d Thessalonians and Hebrews), side by side with a Gothic calendar, (b) A MS. of Jerome's Commentary on Isaiah, about the ninth century, under which are fragments of the Pauline Epistles in Gothic (omitting Romans, Philemon, and Hebrews), (c) Among some fragments of a Latin version of Matthew, two frag ments of a Gothic version of Matt, xxii.-xxvii. (d) In another codex, some fragments of a Gothic version of the O. T. (Ezra and Nehemiah). (e) A fifth codex (some portions of which have been found in the Vatican as well as in the Ambrosian Library) contains a Gothic exposition of St. John's Gospel = Skeireins (according to Massmann, who edited this with a Latin version and a Gothic-Latin dic tionary, 1834, from the Greek), and a translation of several parts of this Gospel, also quotations from the other Gospels ; also Heb. ix. 13, 14, Num. xix. 2-10. Count Carl Oct. Castiglione (Castillionseus) took interest in these discoveries of Mai's, and together with Mai pub lished a specimen, with further information concerning the discovery ( Ulphilce Partium inedit. specimen, 1819) ; and after Mai's departure to Rome, he undertook the collation of the whole : 2d Corinthians, 1829 ; fragments of Romans, 1st Corinthians, Ephesians, 1834 ; fragments of Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st Thessalonians, 1835 ; fragments of 2d Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1839.1 1 These have been collected in H. C. Gabelentz and J. Lobe's edition of the Gothic version, 2 vols. 1836-46. Vol. i. contains the Gothic text with Latin translation, and vol. ii. a Gothic grammar and lexicon. The editors collated anew the Codex Argenteus, and confirmed Castiglione's opinions concerning the Ambrosian fragments. The reprint of this by Ign. Gaugengigl, Passau 1848, is very slovenly. That of F. L. Stamm, 374 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. Some earlier scholars (see Michaelis, p. 498) have raised a doubt whether this version is not rather Frankish. But Hug, § 134, has demonstrated beyond a doubt that it is Gothic. An old document in this language, found at Naples, decidedly confirms this ; and so does the fragment found in the Milan palimpsest, of a calendar in Gothic, which names in particular Gothic martyrs belonging to the Fatherland. The language in these memorials belongs to the Germanic and Scandinavian stock ; but many Greek and Latin, and even Slavonic words, have been introduced. Several things seem to indicate the influence of the Latin upon this version. There are not a few Latin words ; and the order of the Gospels in the Codex Argenteus corresponds with the Vulgate. Again, the version does not seem, origi nally at least, to have contained the Epistle to the Hebrews. Other circumstances, however, clearly show that it was origi nally made directly from Greek mss. (cf. De Wette, § 22, b, notes d,f; Hug, § 140), and that it has since been interpo lated from Latin mss. by Gothic theologians in Italy ; and this is the opinion of Gabelentz and Lobe. The version is distinguished throughout by great literalness, even greater than the Peschito. The apparent absence of the Epistle to the Hebrews from the early copies cannot have arisen, as some suppose, from the Arian tinge of thought which dis tinguished Ulfilas and the Gothic Christians generally. Ulfilas oder die uns erhaltenen Denkmaler der Goth. Sprache — text, grammar, and lexicon — Paderb. 1858, is better. Massmann, Ulfilas, die hell. Schriften A. u. N. B. in Goth. Sprache, with the Greek and Latin text, notes, lexicon, history of the language, and historical introduction, Stuttg. 1857. Goth, glossary, by Ernst Schulze, with preface by Jac Grimm, Magdeb. 1848, 4to. An accurate reprint of the Cod. Argenteus, collated by Andr. Uppstrom, has been published, Upsala 1854, 4to, with supplement (Decern cod. argentei rediviva folia), 1857 ; and Gabelentz and Lobe have issued a critique of this work, Uppstroms Cod. Argenteus, Lpz. 1860. Uppstrom has also published Fragmenta Goth, selecta ad fidem Codd. Ambros., Carolini, Vaticani, 1861. This contains the fragment from Matt, xxv.-xxvii., the Wolfenb. fragments of Rom. xi.-xv., and the Exposition of St. John's Gospel. See also Ernst Bernhardt, Krit. Untersuchungen iiber die Goth. Bibeliibersetzung, Meiningen 1864. PATRISTIC TESTIMONIES. 375 C— TESTIMONIES OF EARLY WRITERS. §291. The third class of witnesses for the N. T. text are the citations from the Greek N. T., and the statements made by early writers ; I mean Christian writers, for it is only their statements which call for consideration here. Like the old versions and the Greek mss. which have come down to us, they are direct witnesses, not for the original text as it lay in the autographa, but for its condition in their own time and country, and in the mss. which they used and were familiar with ; though also, so far as these MSS. belonged to an earlier age, for the times before them likewise. The testimonies of these ecclesiastical writers have this advantage over the other sources of information to which we have referred, that we know definitely the time to which they severally belong. But in other respects they are of inferior importance, and more uncertain. First of all we discover, not without regret, that early writers for the most part quote from memory, and usually in a very free manner. Thus it is with most of the patristic quotations. To turn up and refer to the actual text for the passages quoted, was in early times a very troublesome work, on account of the form of the mss., which were in rolls. Less importance, moreover, was then attached to the ipsissima verba of a quotation : to give the sense or the thought was all that was aimed at ; and they were not so anxiously scrupulous about the words. In the patristic citations, therefore, we are not always justified in supposing that the words of any passage ran exactly in the ms. as the writer gives them. Very few N. T. citations occur in the earliest of these writings, though there are many references to the contents of the N. T., and especially of the Gospels ; and the accounts of two or more evangelists are often blended into one. This we find, for example, especially in Justin Martyr. But even when direct quota tions occur, they are seldom accurately given ; but words from similar passages elsewhere are interpolated, particularly 376 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. in quotations from the Gospels. Least of all can any stress be laid upon variations in the arrangement of words, con junctions, and forms of transition, as given in these cita tions ; for these are often left out or altered, when the passage is separated from its connection. In order rightly to estimate the testimony of any citation in the Fathers, we must take into account its character, and the general habit of the writer in quoting Scripture. Generally speaking, when a writer quotes a long passage, it is probable that he gives it verbatim — that he has looked out for the passage in the original ms., and has copied it ; and the more so when he is treating of the text exegetically or doctrinally, as in the exegetical works of the Fathers, and in other of their writings in which the N. T. is appealed to directly in support of their doctrinal views, and polemically to controvert their opponents. In these cases we often find various readings in the mss. distinctly specified and vindicated as true, in distinction from others which are pronounced spurious ; and this shows that even then there were various readings in the several mss., and that these mss. were often closely related to each other. Finally, if a writer quotes the same text at different times, arid in different treatises, in the same manner, and with the same characteristic readings, we may conclude that he found it thus in the MSS. of his age ; and still more certain may we be of this, when different writers in different places give a text in exactly the same words. These remarks refer, of course, to Greek writers only. Others, and especially the Syrian and Latin writers generally, quote from the version of the N. T. in use in their own country ; and hence they must be looked upon as witnesses for the text of that version, though also in part for the Greek text, when they specially refer to this, or lay stress upon its readings, as e.g. Jerome often does. Erasmus made use of the quotations of the N. T. in the Fathers for his edition of the N. T., and adopted many readings on the strength of their authority ; and a similar method has been followed by Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. CLASSIFICATION OF WITNESSES. 377 Matthai has expressed himself most strongly and decidedly against the value of this patristic testimony. Still, if used with care, it is always of importance. It is a misfortune that the text of the writings of the Fathers itself is, in the editions we have of them, by no means critically settled and ascertained. It often happens that later transcribers, e.g. of Chrysostom and others, have altered the text of N. T. passages quoted according to the later and more familiar text. When the MSS. and the editions of the Fathers present the greatest differences, we have most reason to suppose that the reading which differs from the later aud more common text of the N. T. is the true one. §292. Comparing these various witnesses for the N. T. text with each other, we find that they present many variations, not indeed for the most part such as seriously affect the sense, but many by no means unimportant variations, — and more numerous far than those presented in the various Hebrew MSS. of the 0. T, when compared together or with the old versions, excepting only the LXX. We find that there was by no means the same amount of anxious care and pains taken in the early Christian Church to preserve and hand on the text of the New Testament books, word for word in its original form, as was taken by the Jewish writers and theo logians with reference to the text of the Old Testament books from the time when these writings were united in the O. T. Canon. This striking difference is in keeping with the contrast between the more strict and legal spirit of Judaism, especially in its later form, and the freer and broader spirit of the gospel. As to the relation to each other of the various witnesses for the N. T. text, they pre sent so great a manifoldness that there are hardly two who thoroughly and throughout agree as to the N. T. text ; nor are there any two Greek manuscripts which perfectly coincide, not even when the one is a transcript of the other, as the Cod. Sangermanensis (E) is of the Codex Claromontanus (D), 378 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. and still less when they do not hold this close relationship to each other ; nor are there any two ancient versions that per fectly agree ; nor a Greek codex which is one with an old version : still less do any two ecclesiastical writers coincide in the text of those N. T. citations which they have in common, nor any one of them with any Greek codex or ancient version. Still we might expect that, among these various witnesses, some stand nearer each other in the text they present than do others ; and that among these, again, some stand in the same relation to one another. This has often been supposed ; and attempts have been made to classify the various witnesses, taking those together that agree in certain readings, and that present, when compared together, the same characteristics and form of text. The first who applied himself to this comparison and classification was Bengel.1 He calls a class of testimonies which present affinities when compared together, a family ; and of these families he names two : (a) the African, the representative of which he takes to be the Codex Alexandrinus, and in which he includes the Latin, the .ZEthiopic, and Coptic ver sions ; and (b) the Asiatic, among which he reckons the more modern mss. Semler 2 adopted the same plan, and was the first who gave to these kindred forms of the N. T. text the name of recensions. Griesbach retained the title, and dealt with the subject with great thoroughness.3 He distin guishes three main recensions, and endeavours to classify the various testimonies accordingly, though he has not kept to this division consistently throughout. His classes are the Alexandrine, the Western, and the Byzantine. (a.) The Alexandrine Recension, which began in Alex andria (and was formed by the collectors of the N. T. Canon) and spread over Egypt and the East. It is distinguished by the circumstance, that in it Hebraisms and other rough- 1 In his N. T. (Introductio in crisin N. T. § 26 sqq., and Fundamenta criseos Apocalypseos, § 9, 12) and in other works. 2 Hermeneut. Vorbereitung, Stuck 3 (1765), Vorrede, p. 4 sqq. ; Stuck 4, p. 2 sqq. 3 Prolegg. in ed. N. T. sec. iii., and in other works. HUG'S SYSTEM. 379 nesses and incorrectnesses in the language of the N. T. are expunged, (b.) The Western Recension, which has left un touched the Hebraistic character of the language, but has admitted many changes serving to explain the text, glosses interpolated, additions from parallel passages, etc., " Gram- maticum egit Alexandrinus censor, interpretem occidentalis" (c.) The Byzantine Recension, which followed the two others, and blended their distinctive features, bringing them more fully into view. To this class belong the Codices Grceco- Latini, the Latin Fathers, the old Latin versions before Jerome, but also the Sahidic and Jerusalem-Syrian versions ; modern mss. in general, and Cod. A for the Gospels. He attributes to some, e.g. to Chrysostom and the Peschito, a text wherein these three different recensions are blended. Griesbach' s system of recensions was highly thought of in its time, but was bitterly opposed, especially by Matthai. It must be allowed that, even if we admit in general different classes or families, Griesbach's division and account of the matter is very improbable. That the Sahidic, for example, and the Jerusalem-Syriac versions should be classed among the Western recensions, while the Peschito, which so closely corresponds to these, and is one of the oldest mss., should belong to another recension ; and that Codex A for the Gospels should belong to the Byzantine, and Codex A for the Pauline Epistles to the Alexandrine recension, — all this is very improbable. § 293. Hug represents the matter somewhat differently. He aims, like Griesbach, at a complete history of the text, derived from the witnesses, direct and indirect, which have come down to us. He distinguishes between a first period, which continues down to the middle of the third century, during which the text was unrevised and there were no recensions, and a second period following thereupon of re censions or revisions. But his system is in several respects untenable, unproveable, or erroneous. He thinks that the text had experienced great changes, and was greatly dete- 380 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. riorated by the middle of the third century, especially in consequence of the endeavours made to bring the idiom of the N. T. books more into harmony with the prevailing Greek idiom, to make what seemed dark and confused intel ligible ; and that during this period no attempt was made by any one properly to revise the text. He calls the text in this deteriorated form Koivrj e/toWt;, vulgata editio, the name which Jerome had used for the unrevised text of the LXX. as distinguished from the Hexapla (Einl. i. A. T. § 344), — a term, moreover, not uncommon among the Alexandrine philologists to denote the old text of Homer in contrast with the form afterwards given it by the BiopOcoat? of Aristarchus, Zenodotus, and others, and which Jerome also used for the earlier text of the Latin version of the Bible. In this confused and deteriorated form the N. T. text continued (according to Hug) down to the middle of the third century, when many in different countries were constrained to make a revision of it : (a) Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop ; (b) Lucian, presbyter of Antioch ; and (c) Origen. The recen sions completed by these scholars were, as Hug thinks, cir culated in various countries, so that the witnesses which have come down to us belong either to one or other of these three recensions, or to the previous unrevised and deteriorated text. For the manner in which Hug divides the several witnesses, and the classes to which he severally assigns them, see De Wette, § 39. Griesbach himself has criticised this theory of Hug's, which Hug had worked out without even mentioning Gries bach, and compares it with his own in his last work, Melete- mata de vetustis textus recensionibus, ii. pp. 41-68 (prefixed to the second part of his Commentarius Criticns in textum Gr. N. T., Jena 1811). I observe (a) that the witnesses which Hug reckons as belonging to the koivt] e/cBoat^ are essentially the same with those ascribed by Griesbach to his Western recensions : both reckon the Codices Grceci-Latini as the main witnesses, together with the old Latin versions and the Sahidic ; Hug adds only the Peschito, Clemens Alex., and Origen. It must be acknowledged that Griesbach's desig- HUG'S SYSTEM. 381 nation of this form of the text as Western is inappropriate, judging even from the description he himself gives of it; and that, viewing it as he represents, it is less conceivable than in Hug's representation, for he includes Eastern as well as Western witnesses — those of Upper Egypt and Syria — in it. This form of the text, according to Hug, was matured not primarily in the West, but in the East ; and in the West only subsequently, when already several recensions for its emendation were begun, (b) As to Hug's system of recen sions, his assumption of one made by Origen is quite un tenable. Origen himself (in Matt. xix. 19) speaks of his critical labours upon the O. T. text (the LXX.). In the Greek text of his works here, it is clear from the connection that he had not undertaken a like labour upon the N. T. ; and in the Latin translation it is expressly added, in exem- plaribus autem N. T. hoc ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non putavi, which, though it may be an addition made by the old translator, nevertheless clearly shows that no work of this kind by Origen was known to this translator, nor indeed to Eusebius, who gives so full an account of Origen's labours, and would not certainly have passed over in silence such a work if he had known of it. Add to this, that the witnesses which Hug cites for this recension are not of such a cha racter as to warrant their being classified by themselves as presenting a special form of the text in contrast with others, — as Griesbach proved, and Hug himself in his second edition tp a certain extent admits, (c) As to Hug's other recensions, the witnesses which he refers to as belonging to the Hesy- chian recension coincide essentially with those of Griesbach's Alexandrine recension ; and those, again, which he classifies for the Lucian recension with those of Griesbach's Byzan tine recension. As to the men whose names Hug has given to these recensions, we know that both of them made recen sions of the LXX. ; and that, according to Jerome (Prcef. in Paralip.), in his time the edition of Hesychius was generally used in Alexandria and Egypt, and that of Lucian from Constantinople to Antioch. Both seem to have prepared recensions of the New Testament text likewise, though 382 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. Scholz (Bibl. Einl. i. 634) and Tregelles will not allow this. But in proof of this, are (a) the statement of Jerome, Prcef. in Evangg., which certainly seems to imply it, where, in re ference to his revision of the Latin version of the N. T. according to the Greek mss., he says that he passes over the codices named after Lucian and Hesychius, quibus utique nee in toto Veteri Instrumento post LXX. interpretes emen- dare quid licuit, nee in Novo profuit emendasse; quum mul- tarum gentium Unguis Scriptura ante translata doceat, falsa esse, quce addita sunt ; and (b) Decretum Gelasii, c. 6, Nos. 14, 15 : Evangelia, quce falsavit Lucianus apocrypha ; Evan- gelia, quce falsavit Hesychius apocrypha. These statements do not suffer us to doubt that both these men prepared special editions of the N. T., at least of the Gospels, which were distinguished above other MSS. by additions, and which were extant in the time of Jerome and Gelasius I. But the statements of these writers lead us further to infer that these editions were circulated in but few copies, easily discernible, that they had but small acceptance in the Church, and were soon rejected. Jerome, in loc. : quos (codices) . . . paucorum hominum asserit perversa contentio ; cf. also De vir. illustr. c. 77 : ut usque nunc qucsdam exemplaria (scripturarum) Lucianea nuneupentur. Hence it is altogether unlikely that the recensions of these men were so widely spread in the Church, and exerted such an influence upon the witnesses that have come down to us, as Hug thinks, and as before him Semler (in Wetstenii libelli ad crisin atque interpr. N. T., etc., pp. 83, 177), and after him Eichhorn (iv. 275-304), sup pose, attributing to both Hesychius and Lucian, and their editions, a far more weighty part in the criticism of the N. T. text than they deserve. §294. Some truth certainly lies at the foundation of both Hug's and Griesbach's theory, but in particulars they are either quite untenable or at least very uncertain. The inquiry con cerning the relation in which the several witnesses stand to each other may now be prosecuted with greater clearness and EARLY CORRUPTIONS OF THE TEXT. 383 certainty, because many of them are now known in their true character. But the inquiry is very tiresome and difficult, and the results arrived at can only lay claim to a certain degree of probability. The opinions which I am led to entertain on the subject from the facts at command, are as follows : — (a.) It cannot be doubted that the text of the N. T. books even in the first centuries, after they had obtained a canonical standing, experienced many changes at the hands of copyists, just as was the case with other ancient writings, so long as they were perpetuated in manuscripts, the several mss. not retaining identity of form. These corruptions or variations of the original text arose for the most part either from in attention and carelessness, from mistakes in writing or in reading — words that were written with similar letters, or which otherwise resemble each other, or are similarly con tracted, being confounded together — or through the omission of single words, or sets of words, which might easily happen in the case of an Homoioteleuton, where the eye of the writer might easily wander from the end of one sentence or line to the similar ending of another. Transpositions, too, of words or sentences might take place in other ways : if, for example, in the copy used, something had been originally omitted and afterwards inserted in the margin, the new copyist might insert it in the text, but in the wrong place. Mistakes like these occur in the manuscripts of the N. T. books more fre quently than in those of other ancient writers, simply because they were so much more frequently copied ; and there were often so many more intermediate links between the ori ginal autograph and the copy, the mistakes of earlier copyists being thus transmitted and retained, while other new ones would creep in. In other cases, again, the corruption of the text- would arise through the well-intentioned effort to im prove and correct the copy which had been received, or to make it more intelligible or clear, e.g. by the rejection of roughnesses, inaccuracies, unclassical expressions, which were numerous in the N. T. books, in the style, grammatical forms and constructions, and forms of words (cf. De Wette, § 36, b, 384 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. note a) ; or by the adoption of glosses which had previously been written perhaps only in the margin, for the sake of explaining difficult expressions, but which were now incor porated into the text by a subsequent copyist, either in place of the original reading, or side by side with it ; or, again, by setting aside and omitting seemingly or really difficult readings, through historical or other considerations, by altera tion or enlargement from parallel passages, e.g. especially in the Synoptics, putting into one Gospel something borrowed from the similar narrative of another, particularly when the two accounts did not seem to harmonize. In this case, the higher the translator's reverence for the book he was trans lating, the more likely would he be to take it for granted that the contradiction must have arisen through the mistake of a transcriber, and that he was justified in emending it in harmony with the other account ; and thus the text of one Gospel would be interpolated according to that of another. Concerning omissions and additions at the beginning of Church Lessons, see § 268, No. 6. It was also the case that the copyist would himself attempt to correct errata in the mss. he used, not only by comparison with other and more accurate MSS., but from mere conjecture of his own, and therefore possibly wrongly. See, for example, how strongly Origen expresses himself regarding the want of uniformity in the text of the Gospels, and the causes of this, in Matt. xix. 19 (tom. xv. c. 14) : Nvvl Be BtjXovoti iroXXr) yeyovev r/ tcov aVTiypdcpcov Biacpopd, e'tTe diro paOvplas tivcov ypacpecov, e'tTe aTrb ToXpr]<; tivcov pio^drjpd'i Trjs BiopOcoaew; tcov ypacpo- pievav, e'tTe Kal diro tcov Ta eavToi<; BoKovvTa iv ry BtopOcoaet TrpoaTiQevTcov r) dcpaipovvTcov. Cf. De Wette, § 35, note a. §295. (b.) We have already seen how, among the heretical sects, Marcion and the Marcionites went to work with reference to the N. T. Canon. We cannot take the case of the Gospels, because they did not profess that their Gospel was that of St. Luke, but they dealt most arbitrarily with the text of the Pauline Epistles. The orthodox doctors of the Church are THE BYZANTINE TEXT. 385 quite free from such arbitrariness, and it cannot be proved with any approach to truth that they ever altered the text of a passage from doctrinal considerations. But when various readings presented themselves, dogmatic considerations were brought in to decide ; and these would in time make one reading more general than another, though it might not at the outset have any greater probability of correctness. Thus it often came to pass that, in passages doctrinally important, the readings adopted by the more eminent Fathers were of special weight; and though before they only existed side by side with others, they gradually became more widespread than otherwise they would have been. What chiefly led the Fathers, however, to give attention to the N. T. text, were the controversies in which they had to engage with heretics ; and we have evidence of this as early as the end of the second century : Irenseus, Hcer. iv. 6, 1 [iv. 14, ed. Grabe] ; Tertul lian, De came Christi, 19. At first this had reference only to single texts in which the reading was thought to be of doctrinal importance : it did not concern the books generally before the third century, and chiefly perhaps in Alexandria. Here was the main centre for the issue of MSS. of the Greek N. T., and from this place they spread into other countries even in the West. Copies were made also in other places ; e.g. Eusebius of Csesarea had fifty copies of the N. T. made by Constantine's direction for the churches in Constantinople (see § 268, No. 2), and these were probably written in Csesarea itself. Stress was therefore laid upon the form of the text in the exegetical and other works of the more eminent Fathers, and iu the manuscripts used by them. Thus the MSS. of Ada- mantius, i.e. of Origen, are mentioned by Jerome ; 1 the refer ence clearly being not to a complete recension of the text by Origen himself, but to MSS. used by him. In the same way, we must understand what Jerome says, ad Matt.xxlv. 36, where he joins the codices Pierii with those of Origen, — Pierius 1 Ad Matt. xxiv. 36 : In quibusdam latinis codicibus additum est " neque films;" quum in grxcis, et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus hoc non habeatur adscriptum. Ad Gal. iii. 1 : Hoc, quia in exemplaribus Adamantii non habetur, omissimus. VOL. II. 2 B 386 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. being a distinguished exegesist of the Alexandrine school about the end of the third century. Reference is also made in Greek mss. to a copy in the library of Pamphilus at Csesarea, from which the text of the N. T. books had been copied. Still the various Greek mss. of the N. T. in various countries have never presented identity of text. We find this more nearly approached in after times in the seventh century, when Egypt was overrun by the Mohammedans, and Con stantinople became the main seat of biblical literature, because then the copies of the Greek N. T. were for the most part made by the librarii of Constantinople. They applied them selves with diligence and care to secure correctness in the text, which in their hands maintained one and the same form, — that, namely, which it had hitherto attained, and that which we have before us in the later Greek codices. §296. (c.) The question now arises, In what relation does this, the Byzantine text, stand to the earlier forms of the text, and to the original text itself ? The earliest witnesses for the text, both in the East and in the West, present many variations ; but in comparison of the later witnesses, i.e. the Byzantine," they may be regarded as forming together ONE class, — the later witnesses being another, or the second class, just as Bengel arranged them. Among modern editors and critics, Matthai and Scholz give the preference to the latter, the second class. Scholz calls all the earlier witnesses Alexandrine ; and in this family he includes the Greek MSS. written in Egypt and in the west of Europe, as well as the ancient versions made in these lands ; and he describes these as in a critical point of view of less, or indeed of no value, because (he says) the text was cor rupted and falsified by the librarii ; whereas in Syria, Asia Minor, and Eastern Europe it received fewer corrections, and is preserved in the more modern MSS., the Byzantine family.1 1 Scholz is a little more careful in his depreciation of the witnesses of the so-called Alexandrine family, in his Einl. in die Bibel, i. 612-643, THE BYZANTINE TEXT. 387 But this is hardly correct. The more modern Byzantine mss. generally present the text in a far more even and regular form than do the earliest witnesses, and they contain fewer manifest errata than they. But it cannot be proved that the text had this even and regular form in Western Asia and Eastern Europe during the earlier centuries. Far rather does it appear that it received this form at the hands of the later grammatically and philosophically cultivated librarii of Constantinople themselves. The text thus re ceived at their hands a smoother, more correct, and at first sight a simpler and more appropriate form, than it has in the oldest documents which have come down to -us, and which we have at command to consult, and than it certainly had when first it came from the hands of the N. T. writers them selves. It is certainly true that the text, as moulded by these librarii, is in some points more correct than we find it in the older MSS., and that the diplomatically oldest readings are occasionally retained therein ; nor do I think it would be right wholly to ignore them in the reconstruction of the N. T. text, as some, and in particular Lachmann, in the present day have done. This relationship, however — which I admit — is the exception, and not the rule ; and there can be no doubt that the oldest witnesses which we have in the Greek uncial MSS., and in the oldest versions, so far as their text is sufficiently certain, as well as in the statements and citations of the older Fathers, have incomparably greater weight as diplomatic authorities, and must form the ground work and basis of any reconstruction of the N. T. text. In the earliest printed editions of the Greek N. T., the text is generally presented in the form which it had in the MSS. current at the time when printing was invented ; and these were the less ancient. They were reprinted in essen tially the same form in subsequent editions ; for though some MSS. were consulted, they were usually the more modern ones, and those who happened to have an old codex at com mand did not venture to make any thorough use of it. Thus than he was in his edition of the N. T. ; but his opinion is still essentially the same. 388 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. the printed text gradually, but in far higher degree than the written text in the hands of the Byzantine librarii, attained a fixed form as the textus receptus, whicli, though constructed by fortuitous circumstances rather than by recognised critical rules, attained in the seventeenth century, and afterwards, so great an authority, that it was the only one generally pre vailing, and was regarded as alone strictly authentic, — any one venturing to differ from it or alter it being in danger of the suspicion and charge of heterodoxy. HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT, OR OF THE EDITIONS OF THE GREEK N. T. §297. We now direct our attention to the form of the text in the several editions or printed copies of the N. T. ; the course of its history, as it gradually became fixed and settled as the textus receptus ; and to the efforts made in recent editions for its emendation and restoration. The art of printing had been invented a considerable time, and the Vulgate had been variously printed for more than half a century, before there appeared a printed copy of the Greek N. T., showing how greatly the study of the Scriptures in the original had fallen into disuse. A few short fragments only, at most only a few chapters,1 were printed in the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century. The appearance of the whole Greek N. T. in a printed form was simultaneous with the beginning of the Reformation, and then it was issued in two editions, wholly independent of each other, viz. in the 1 The songs of Mary and of Zacharias, Luke i. 42-56, were printed at Venice, 1486, as an addendum to the Greek Psalter. John i.-vi. was printed at the Aldine office in Venice, as an addendum to the poems of Gregory Nazianzen, in 1504 ; and the first fourteen verses of St. John's Gospel at Tubingen, 1514. THE COMPLUTENSIAN POLYGLOT. 389 Complutensian Polyglot of Spain, and the edition of Erasmus at Basle. 1. The Complutensian Polyglot, embracing the O. and N. T., in 6 vols, fol., appeared at Alcala, or Complutum, in Spain, under the editorship of Cardinal Francis Ximenes (ob. 1517). The N. T. was printed first, 1514, and the whole was completed in 1517. Permission to publish it was not granted by the Pope until 1520, and it was not issued until 1522. Several scholars, whom the Cardinal himself remunerated, were employed upon it ; and, in particular, Jacob Lopez de Stunica. The Greek text stands opposite to the Vulgate, in a parallel column. In their preface, the editors say that manuscripts which Pope Leo x. had sent form the basis of the Greek text. We have no reason to question this ; but they are in error when they describe these manuscripts as vetustissima simul et emendatissima exempla ; for later and very careful investigations have shown that the text here given is a very recent one, such as is to be found in mss. of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries ; so that if the editors had MSS. of so great value and antiquity at their command, they certainly cannot have made any important use of them. The mss. were doubtless sent back to Rome, and were not (as is commonly told) sold as waste paper about the middle of the eighteenth century, according to a story of Moldenhauer, who, during his sojourn in Spain in 1784, went to Alcala to seek them. The Complutensian edition has the text 1 John v. 7 ; but, as Stunica himself says, it has been borrowed from the Latin version. Wetstein ahd Semler are, however, unwarranted in their assertion that the Greek text is in many places interpolated, so as to har monize it with the Latin. There was a keen dispute between Semler and Gotze of Hamburg (1764-71 ; see Walsh, Neueste Religionsgesch. iv. 425-490) concerning the worth of this edition, and both parties went too far in their assertions. It has no very weighty critical value as an authority for the N. T. text. But it was at one time very highly esteemed ; and the Greek N. T. was often reprinted from it, last in the N. T. Grcsco-Latinum by Gratz, Tub. 1821, 2 vols., 2d ed. 390 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. Mayence 1827. In the Complutensian Polyglot the Greek is printed without accents or breathings. 2. While this edition was being prepared in Spain, Froben, an enterprising printer and publisher at Basle, applied to Erasmus of Rotterdam, who was at the time residing in England, to undertake an edition of the N. T. Erasmus accordingly came forthwith to Basle, and prosecuted the work with such zeal and expedition, that the entire N. T. was printed in eleven months after the proposal had been made (Basel 1516, fol.), and therefore some years before the issue of the Complutensian Polyglot. Erasmus made use of some more modern mss. of inferior value which he found at Basle : for the Gospels he used chiefly Cod. Evang. 2 of the fifteenth century, after he had tested and corrected it ; for the Acts and Epistles another somewhat older codex (for these books, Cod. 2) : and these are both still at Basle. Besides these, he used two other codices, also still at Basle (No. 1 of the tenth century, containing the entire N. T. excepting the Apocalypse ; and for the Acts and Epistles, No. 4 of the fifteenth century). For the Apocalypse he had only one codex, which he had received from Reuchlin (Cod. 1 Apoc.) ; and where this is, is now unknown,1 but the text in it was blended with a commentary, and Erasmus had to separate it. The last six verses, which were wholly wanting, Erasmus himself translated into Greek from the Vulgate. He was assisted in his labour by Gerbel, Capito, and GScolampadius. Much was altered in the Greek text, according to quotations in the Fathers ; much also in conformity with the Vulgate, and some upon mere conjecture. Considering the great hurry in which the entire work was performed — it was really a pub lisher's speculation — the wonder is that it was not done much worse. The Greek text is accompanied with a Latin version, which Erasmus himself had in part at least before made ; and notes are added, in which he comments upon several of the readings. 1 John v. 7 is omitted ; and on this account, 1 [It has been discovered by Delitzsch. See his Handschriftliche Funde, Heft 1, Leipz. and London 1861 ; and Heft 2, 1862, with a dissertation by Tregelles.] THE GREEK N. T. OF ERASMUS. 391 as well as for his Latin version, Erasmus was very much blamed, especially by the Paris theologians and Stunica. For the second edition (Basel 1519) a new codex of the twelfth century was used (No. 3 for the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, now in Vienna) ; and the text of the first edition was, according to Mill, altered in 400 places. Luther trans lated his N. T. from this edition. Both editions are scarce, though there were in all 3300 copies printed. The text of the third (1522) differs from that of the second in 118 places (according to Mill), many of these alterations being made in conformity with the Aldine edition (1518). Erasmus inserted 1 John v. 7 in both these editions from a " Codex Britannicus" (Montfortianus ; see § 273), of which he knew nothing more, and which he thought had been corrected by the Vulgate ; but he had promised to insert the passage if it were found in any Greek codex. The text in question was copied from this edition (in which it stands somewhat vary ing in form from the reading in the Complutensian Polyglot) into subsequent editions. The fourth edition (1527) contains, besides the Latin version of Erasmus, the Vulgate likewise : its text, according to Mill, differs from the former edition in 106 places, chiefly in the Apocalypse, for which the Com plutensian Polyglot had now been used. In the fifth edition (1535, the year of Erasmus' death) the Vulgate was again left out ; but the Greek text differs in hardly any respect from the preceding — in four places only, according to Mill. It is historically important, because it formed (not designedly, but through fortuitous circumstances) the main basis of the textus receptus. The N. T. of Erasmus was reprinted fre quently after his death, chiefly at Basle ; also at Leipsic, Frankfort, and Strasburg; last at Frankfort, 1700. Besides the five editions published during his life, it has since his death gone through twenty editions. As to the relation between the text of Erasmus and that of the Complutensian Polyglot, they were at first quite independent of each other ; still they do not materially differ, because they both give the text as it lay in comparatively recent Greek mss. The Aldine edition of the N. T. appeared a year after 392 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. that of Erasmus, as the third part of the entire Greek Bible. It contained the Greek text only, and was published at Venice in the office of Aldus Manutius, and after his death under the care of his son-in-law Andreas Asulanus. The text of Erasmus forms the basis text, but it is altered in about a hundred places, partly from mss., and particularly in the Apocalypse. The statement of Asulanus in the preface, that ¦multa vetustissima exemplaria were consulted, is a great exaggeration. §298. The edition of Simon Colinseus, father-in-law to Robert Stephens (Paris 1534, 8vo), is not without some critical value : it is neatly printed, and very rare ; it contains simply the Greek text, not even a preface saying in what way the editor proceeded, and what position he assumed with reference to earlier editions. Careful investigation has dis covered that its text is a blending of the Complutensian and Erasmian editions, and that 150 new readings have been adopted probably from three Paris mss. It has several good readings wliich in recent times have been confirmed. The edition was not repeated, and did not therefore greatly influ ence the subsequent form of the N. T. text. The editions of Stephens and of Beza have done this in a far higher degree. 1. That of the Paris publisher, Robert Stephens, ap peared first in two editions large 16mo, Paris 1546 and 1549, which are rare, and are called Mirificce, because the preface begins : 0 mirificarq regis nostri . . . liberalitatem. In this preface he speaks of having consulted MSS. in the Royal Library of Paris, which he describes as ipsa vetustatis specie pene adorandos, and as if he had printed the Greek text according to them, comparing with them the Complutensian ' edition only. But later investigations of Mill and others have shown that Stephens has followed for the most part the Complutensian, and partly the fifth Erasmian editions, and used the MSS. only for thirty-seven readings. In the Apocalypse, he adopts almost throughout the edition of BEZA'S N. T. 393 Erasmus. The second edition, according to Mill, contains sixty-seven variations from the first. But Stephens' main edition was the third, 1550, fol., beautifully printed, and on account of its splendid exterior called Regia. The fifth edition of Erasmus forms the basis of its text, and from that it but seldom differs. In the margin are noted various read ings from the Complutensian edition, and from fifteen MSS. which his son Henry Stephens had collated, and most of which have been discovered ; among them probably was the Cod. Cantabrigiensis (cf. § 270). But the various readings of these MSS. are not fully given ; e.g. a marginal note to 1 John v. 7 informs that in seven of the MSS. the words iv ovpavco were wanting, whereas the entire verse was certainly wanting in them all. The text of this edition is called dis tinctly that of Stephens, and is historically important, because it is essentially the same with the so-called textus receptus. The fourth edition, 1551, large 16mo (according to others, 8vo), place of publication not named, doubtless Geneva, with the Latin version of Erasmus and the Vulgate, is specially celebrated as the first that contains the division of the text (which is the same as in the third edition) into verses. 2. The edition of Theodore Beza was published at Geneva, 1556, fol., and contained a new Latin translation of the N. T. and the Vulgate, with critical and exegetical notes. It went through several editions — 1565, 1576, 1582, 1588, 1598, and, after his death, at Cambridge, 1642, fol. The exegetical notes are very valuable, though of little ser vice in the criticism of the text. He did not for the first edition use twenty-five MSS. examined by himself, though a statement of his in the Dedication to Queen Elizabeth has been thus interpreted, but simply a collection of various readings seemingly inserted by H. Stephens in his copy of the N. T., and gathered from other MSS. partly by his father Robert Stephens, and partly by him after the publication of their third edition. For the edition of 1582 Beza used the Cod. Cantabrigiensis and the Claromontanus, which he had in his possession (see § 270) ; also the Peschito, and the Arabic 394 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. version of the Acts and the Corinthians. The Greek text of this edition is almost identical with that, of Stephens ; but in his translation Beza often differs from it, and in the notes describes the readings as doubtful, giving preference to others. In the text, however, there are only fifty variations from that of Stephens. Hence in the Reformed Church especially these widely circulated editions of Beza — including many smaller editions containing the Greek text with the Latin translation, the first of which appeared in 1565 — con tributed greatly to make the text of the Stephens editions the generally received text in the Calvinistic Churches in England, and especially in Holland and Switzerland. Still more widely spread was this text, and indeed estab lished as the only authoritative one, by the Elzevir edi tions, which issued from the press of the energetic printers the brothers Elzevir at Leyden. The first of these editions, under the supervision of a Dutch scholar now unknown, appeared at Leyden 1624, 16mo. The text is that of Ste phens, differing therefrom, according to Tischendorf, in 145 places, in which Beza's text or opinion is adopted ; and it very seldom varies from both these authorities. The second edition appeared in 1633, 12mo, with substantially the same text. In the preface it is stated : textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus. Hence it became customary to describe the Elzevir text as the textus receptus ; but the confident assertion itself implied, as a matter to be taken for granted, that the text given was really universally received, and must not be tam pered with ; and the elegance and correctness of the Elzevir editions ministered to its popularity and esteem. The second edition was five times repeated, so that in all seven Elzevir editions (the seventh in 1678) were issued, all having the same text. This text also appeared in many other editions^ of which I name only those of Stephen Curcellseus (De Cour- celles), by Daniel Elzevir at Amsterdam, first in 1658, 12mo. The Elzevir text is adopted (quce ad prcecedentes Elzevirianas expressa fuit, nulla prorsus in textu facta mutatione) ; but beneath the text and in an appendix a considerable collection EDITIONS OF WALTON, FELL. 395 of various readings is added from the editions of Stephens and others, from the Cod. Claromontanus, and from some other mss. not before collated. In the second edition all these various readings are placed beneath the text. This edition was afterwards (1696) condemned by the Rostock theologian J. G. Moller, as having been issued with the design of pro moting Socinianism, — an accusation which was currently believed, though other theologians, e.g. Pfaff and Le Clerc, defended the editor from the charge. §299. The Received Text, i.e. the text of the Stephens and Elzevir editions, is found in the works of three English scholars who greatly contributed to textual criticism, especially by the critical apparatus which they prepared, — I mean Walton, Fell, and Mill. (a.) The fifth volume of the large London Polyglot (1657, 6 vols, fol.), edited by Brian Walton, contains the N. T., the Greek being that of the third Stephens edition, with a Latin interlinear version, that of Areas Montanus, and be neath the text various readings of the Cod. Alexandrinus; further, containing the Peschito, the Vulgate, the Arabic version, and in the Gospels the .ZEthiopic version. Vol. vi. also contains, under No. 15, a rich collection of various read ings, partly from earlier editions and partly from sixteen Greek MSS. (the Cod. Cantab., the Cod. Claromontanus, and others which had not before been examined), also the so- called Velesian readings. (b.) In the Greek N. T. of John Fell (Oxford 1675, 8vo) the editor is not named. From the preface we learn that the collection of various readings in the London Polyglot had awakened anxiety and alarm in the minds of many who, contemplating their number without at the same time compar ing them with the text, imagined the variations to be greater than they really were, and that thus the text of the N. T. was rendered uncertain as the rule of faith. In order to calm this fear, Fell undertook this edition, putting the various readings directly under the text, so that every one might see 396 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. for himself how little they affected the sense, and how small was the danger threatening religion. The Elzevir text is adopted. The various readings are taken from the work of Curcellseus and the London Polyglot ; also from twelve MSS. in the Bodleian, four in the Dublin, and three in the Paris Libraries ; from the so-called Barberini readings ; and from Gothic and Coptic versions, whose readings Marshall had given. No readings from the Fathers are given. The statement on the title-page, that the various readings of a hundred MSS. are given, is an exaggeration. Fell's edition was twice reprinted at Leipsic (1697 and 1702), the latter edited by A. H. Francke ; and in a very splendid form at Oxford 1703, fol., with annotations from the Greek Fathers by John Gregory, who died while the work was being printed. (c.) John Mill was urged to his undertaking by Fell, who himself felt the defects of his own edition. Mill de voted thirty years' labour to the work. He used the various readings in Stephens and Walton, together with Fell's mss. ; made excerpts from the chief earlier editions ; examined, or caused to be examined, a large number of Greek MSS. which had not before been fully collated ; and lastly, made a collec tion of various readings from the ancient versions and from the Fathers. His work appeared only fourteen days before his death, Oxford 1707, fol. The Greek text is that of Stephens' third edition. Beneath it are numerous references to parallel passages ; and below these, again, are the various readings, numbering about 30,000, wherein Mill — and this was not done in previous collections, not fully even in Fell — always names the several witnesses for each reading (Greek MSS., Versions, and Fathers). An appendix of 64 pp. contains a supplemental list of variations. Among the mss. here for the first time used, are the Cod. Cyprius of the Gospels, the Cod. Laudianus of the Acts, and many minuscula. Owing to his imperfect knowledge of the lan guages, he had to use the hardly trustworthy Latin trans lations of them in the London Polyglot ; and their readings are often inaccurately given, as has been shown, both with re- MILL'S EDITION. 397 ference to him and to Bengel, by Chr. A. Bode.1 Mill gives his opinion concerning the value of the more important readings in his notes, and especially in his very valuable and comprehensive Prolegomena, full of important matter (see § 8, vol. i. p. 21). But it frequently occurs that the judgment given in the notes does not correspond with that given in the Prolegg., because, as Mill himself intimates, his opinions were variously modified, and in particular with reference to the ancient versions, in the course of his labours, especially by R. Simon's Critical History of the N. T. Mill's critical judgment is in general sound and trustworthy. He takes care not to give the preference to the easier and more accommodating readings of later witnesses, and attaches great importance to the old Latin version. A reprint of Mill's N. T. was published at Amsterdam 1710, fol., by Ludolf Kuster, in which (a) the various read ings and notes in the appendix are inserted beneath the text of the passages referred to, and this is not very accurately done; and (b) the various readings of twelve MSS. mostly in the Paris Library are added, among others from the Cod. C (Ephrsemi), M, and Cod. Bornerianus. This edition of Bolster's was reprinted at Leipsic 1723, fol. : some think it is a new title-page merely. In the Bodleian Library there is a copy of Mill's N. T., with manuscript notes partly of Mill himself and partly of Hearne. Griesbach has printed these additional notes on Matt, i.-xvii. and the Epistles in his Symbolce criticce, i. 241-304. The great service rendered by Mill towards the restoration of the N. T. text was little appreciated by his contemporaries. His undertaking was for the most part stigmatized as en dangering the faith. One of his most earnest opponents was his fellow-countryman D. Whitby, in his Examen variantium lectionum Joh. Millii in N. T, Lond. 1720, fol., who endea vours to vindicate the received text throughout, in opposition to Mill's judgment. 1 Pseudo- Critica Millio-Bengelianu, etc., Halle 1767-69. 2 vols. 398 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. §300. It is much to be regretted that an undertaking projected by Richard Bentley, the friend of Mill, which would have been of still greater moment in textual criticism, was not brought to an accomplishment. At the suggestion of Wetstein, who was then but a young man, Bentley under took to set on foot a critical edition of the N. T. He sent John Walker to Paris and Holland to compare mss. ; he obtained considerable excerpts from Codex B (see § 269), and the loan of the Cod. Borner. from Borner. He first fully divulged his project in two letters to Archbp. Wake. He proposed to publish an edition of the Greek and Latin Testament, in which the Greek text should be given from manuscripts not less than a thousand years old, and the Latin version, as amended by Jerome, from the oldest known mss. These he asserted would be found marvellously to tally ; and in illustration he put forth, in his Proposals, 1720, the last chapter of the Apocalypse. He hoped in this manner to restore the text to the form in which it lay in the Greek mss. used by Jerome (i.e. as he thought, those of Origen). He would construct the text according to these old witnesses, without allowing private judgment or opinion concerning its correctness to interfere. But he subsequently desisted from the undertaking, annoyed and chagrined with the suspicions he had to encounter, and because Parliament refused to grant him the paper for his edition free of duty. He with drew from the task, and devoted his labours to other spheres of learning. Considering what had already been done, and in particu lar Mill's great work, there could hardly fail to arise other scientific theologians who would feel it wrong to suffer the textus receptus to retain the high and authoritative position which it had usurped. It was first dislodged from its hold by the pious and faithful J. A. Bengel (ob. 1752). While still a student at Tubingen, Bengel's mind was troubled and perplexed by the various readings which he found noted in a copy of Fell's N. T. which he had bought. He was thus led to prosecute his inquiries further with all earnestness BENGEL'S EDITION. 399 and zeal. The fruit of his investigations and toil in this de partment was embodied in his edition of the Greek N. T. Tub. 1734, 4to. He derived his critical apparatus mainly from Mill's N. T., but also from Latin and Greek mss. examined by himself, fifteen of which had not been collated before. He often departs from the received text, but limited himself by the rule to adopt no reading that had not already been printed in some former edition : in the Apocalypse alone does he venture sometimes to amend the text by MSS. apart from printed editions. Beneath the text are selected variations, the value of which in his judgment he marks with the Greek letters a, 8, y, S, e — whether they are to be pre ferred to the reading given in the text, or to be put on a par with it, or to be rejected, etc. Appended is an Apparatus criticus, in three parts, the first of which — Introductio in crisin N. T. — treats of the mss. and earlier editions compared, and gives certain rules of criticism ; the second contains a selection of readings from Mill, and from the MSS. collated by Bengel himself, with longer or shorter comments as to their value, and for the Apocalypse some Fundamenta criseos apocalypticce ; in the third, he considers some objections against his critical undertaking as a whole. Bengel was the first who attempted to classify the witnesses for the N. T. text (see § 292), dividing them into two families, the African and the Asiatic, and giving the preference decidedly to the former, and attaching special importance to the harmony subsisting between the Cod. Alex, and the old Latin version as the main witnesses of the African family, so that his critical judgment is substantially at one with that of Mill and Bentley. He holds, moreover, that, as a rule, the more difficult reading is to be preferred to the easier. Bengel's Apparatus criticus was reprinted after his death by Ph. D. Burk, Tub. 1763, 4to, with the additions contained in Bengel's MS. notes, and with a supplement containing four teen other essays of Bengel's upon N. T. criticism, which had been separately printed at different times before. Contem poraneously with his larger edition Bengel had published a smaller one, containing the text, with various readings 400 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. below, and signs indicating their worth, Stuttgard 1734, 8vo; often reprinted, and last as the 5th ed. Tub. 1790, 8vo, under the care of his son Ernst Bengel, in which the opinions concerning the several readings scattered through the work are collected and arranged. When Bengel's N. T. appeared, J. J. Wetstein had already for a long time been preparing a critical edition of the N. T. (Wetstein was born at Basle 1693, travelled as a scholar in France and England, became deacon in the Reformed Church at Basle, but was displaced on account of heterodoxy in 1730 ; in 1733 became Professor of Philo sophy and Church History at Amsterdam, and died 1754.) His N. T. appeared at Amsterdam in 1751—52, 2 vols. fol. Twenty years before he had published anonymously Prole gomena to the N. T. (Amsterdam 1730, 4to), treating of the various witnesses for the text, and the critical rules upon which decisions concerning various readings should be based. These investigations, much enlarged and modified (though not in all respects for the better), were incorporated into his later work, and placed partly at the beginning and partly at the end, where we also find a section upon hermeneutical rules, and one also upon the design and interpretation of the Apocalypse. These inquiries were separately published by Semler : the Prolegomena, Halle 1764, 8vo, with many notes by Semler, and an appendix (De vetustioribus Latinis re- censionibus, quce in variis codicibus sitpersunt) ; and the sup plement of part 2, Halle 1766, 8vo (Wetstenii libelli ad crisin atque inter pretationem N. 71, with notes by Semler, and a critique of Bengel's Introductio in crisin). Wetstein origi nally intended to make the text of the Codex Alexandrinus his basis text. But changing his view of the worth of this codex, he resolved to construct a text e vetustissimis codicibus. Labouring under the suspicion of Socinianism, he could secure the publication of his work only on the condition that it be printed according to the Elzevir received text.1 Hence the title runs, N. T. Grcscum editionis receptee. Still 1 The text, according to Eichhorn, is that of the third Stephens edition. WETSTEIN'S EDITION. 401 he indicated in the text itself, or immediately below, where in his opinion it should be altered. Beneath this, again, there is a copious list of various readings, with the names of the witnesses in which they are to be found, and lengthy com ments upon them here and there. Wetstein had himself examined for this edition forty codices in England, Basle, and France, wliich had not before been collated, or at best only partially, and some had been collated for him by others. He, too, was the first to give excerpts from the Philoxenian version. There is in the collection of various readings a kind of exegetical commentary, consisting for the most part of quotations from Greek and Roman, rabbinical and patristic authors, explanatory of certain words, formulas, or represen tations of the N. T. writers, partly philological and partly practical, to which he but rarely subjoins his own judgment. This citation of parallels and analogies from non-Christian writers confirmed the suspicion of the author's heterodoxy, and there certainly was some ground for it. Nevertheless, Wetstein's N. T. is still very valuable, and indeed indispens able, to the N. T. expositor and critic, on account alike of its exegetical and its critical apparatus. We cannot pronounce so favourable an opinion of Wetstein's views upon textual criticism. He takes a course opposed to that rightly trodden by Mill, Bentley, and Bengel, rejecting the Latin witnesses and the oldest Greek MSS., which, so far as they agree with the old Latin version, he thinks were interpolated therefrom, and, as he calls it, " Latinized." The text therefore, as he would have constructed it, would differ comparatively little from the textus receptus, — excepting the Apocalypse, only in 364 places, and these mostly unimportant. It was issued by a London publisher, W. Bowyer, under the title, N. T. Grcecum ad fidem grcscorum solum codd. MSS. nunc primum expres- sum, adstipulante J. J. Wetstenio, etc., Lond. 1763, 2 vols. 12mo. Vol. ii. contains in a supplement a summary of the critical conjectures of earlier expositors concerning several N. T. passages. This was often reprinted, and was trans lated into German, with addition by J. Ch. F. Schulz, Leipz. 1774-5, 2 vols. 8vo. VOL. II. 2 C 402 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. §301. Following Wetstein, John James Griesbach stands distinguished by the service which he rendered towards the criticism of the text (ob. 1812). His edition of the N. T. first appeared in 3 vols., at Halle 1774-5, — vol. i. containing the three Gospels, synoptically arranged ; vol. ii. the Gospel of St. John and the Acts. But seeing that the synoptical arrangement was not found convenient for ordinary use, the historical books (Gospels and Acts) were newly published' in one volume, Halle 1777, — the Epistles and Apocalypse of 1775 forming the second part, and the synoptical edition being sold as a separate work, which has since gone through several editions. In constructing the text, Griesbach adopted the Elzevir as his basis, altering and amending this when critical evidence justified him in so doing, but putting the rejected Elzevir reading in a space between the text and the notes, together with the readings, in smaller type, which seemed to him trustworthy, but which he would not venture to put in the text. He indicates with certain signs what degree of probability attaches to the reading, whether the Elzevir or the others. In estimating this, he takes his system of recensions as his guide, regarding the collective witnesses of each recension as one ; so that if a reading has all three recensions, or two out of the three, in its favour, especially the Alexandrine and Western recensions, he pronounces it to be genuine, — internal considerations being brought in to decide only when all three recensions differ. This mode of procedure is certainly better suited than that of Wetstein to give a text most nearly approaching the original ; but it has many defects, and is by no means preferable to the method of Mill, Bentley, and Bengel. Beneath this intervening list there is placed a selection of the most important variations, from Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, and other works, as well as from nine Greek mss., which Griesbach had himself com pared in the libraries of England and France (the excerpts which he made are given in full in his Symbolis criticis), from the two Wolfenbiittel codices collated by Knittel, and from a Giessen MS. ; the quotations from the Oriental MATTHAEI'S EDITION. 403 versions are given from Bode, and the readings of the old Latin version from Sabatier and Blanchinus ; references to quotations in the Fathers, Origen in particular, are very numerous. The work was considerably improved and enlarged in the second edition ; but it derived great advantage from other works contributing much to textual criticism which ap peared in the interval, viz. : (1.) That of Ch. F. von Matthai (ob. 1811). We have from his pen first a larger edition, in twelve parts or volumes, 1782-88. It contains, besides the Greek text, the Vulgate according to a Moscow MS. Beneath the text are copious excerpts from above 100 Moscow mss., most of which had never before been used, but few containing the whole N. T. ; with critical notes, various readings from the Fathers, espe cially Chrysostom. At the end of each volume Greek scholia from the MSS. compared are given, here for the first time printed, together with Greek prologues, and tables of con tents at the head of each book of the NT.; plates contain ing fac-similes of MSS. are appended to each part. A second and smaller edition, in three volumes (1803-7), contains the Greek text (without the Vulgate), the Ammonian chapters and Eusebian canons marked, also the titXoi, and in the Apocalypse the divisions of Andreas Cassarensis ; likewise the lessons, as usually read in the Greek Church ; beneath the text, a selection of various readings from the larger edition, and from several more mss. newly compared. The Greek text is the same in both editions, and is constructed by Matthai himself from his own MSS., and independently of other critical apparatus ; but as all these MSS. belong to the later or Byzantine family, it is only a comparatively modern text, differing little from the textus receptus. Little weight is assigned to the Latin witnesses or to Codex D, and little importance attached to the versions or the Fathers : indeed, he attributes to them, and especially to Origen, a pernicious influence in corrupting the text. On this account he assails and abuses Griesbach most coarsely ; so that Michaelis (Einl. ins N. T. i. 839) says : " When Herr 404 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. Matthai names Griesbach, he ceases to be master of him self." Still the materials furnished by Matthai will always be valuable and thankworthy. (2.) That of F. K. Alter (ob. 1804), a Greek Testament, in 2 vols., Vienna 1787. He printed the text, with some alterations of faulty readings, according to a Vienna codex of the 12th-13th century (Cod. Lambeccii, I: for the Gospels, No. 218 ; Acts and General Epistles, 65 ; Pauline Epistles, 57 ; Revelation, 33), which contained the entire Greek Bible, in cursive writing, and which has been brought to Vienna from Constantinople. With this text he com pared twenty-two other Vienna MSS., which had not before been fully, if at all examined : he also added a new collation of the Coptic (Wilkins' edition), and of three mss. of the Slavonic version. These collations are arranged very incon veniently, being made with a hitherto unused text as the standard, — the text of a codex of but comparatively little importance ; and the comparison of each MS. and other witnesses with this is given separately, so that we have quite a succession of separate collations. Treschow (ob. 1833) had before published a more accurate description of several of these MSS., collated by early writers, with some fac-similes : Tentamen descriptionis codd. veterum aliquot Grcecorum N. T. MSS. qui in bibl. Cces. Vindob. asservantur, Copenhagen 1773. (3.) That of Andrew Birch (ob. 1829), who had tra velled with Adler and Moldenhauer, at the cost of the Danish Government, in Germany, Italy, Spain, and France, to examine MSS. which had not before, or only partially, been collated. In Birch's name there appeared at Copenhagen a splendid edition of the four Gospels, 1788, 4to and folio, which may be regarded as an extension of Wetstein's critical apparatus. The text is that of Stephens. Birch himself had examined the most important MSS., among them Codex B, and many in Rome, Vienna, Venice, Florence; Moldenhauer furnished excerpts from the MSS. in the Escurial, Hensler from those in the Copenhagen Library, and Adler from the MSS. of three Syriac versions, especially from the Jerusalem BIRCH'S EDITION. 405 Syriac discovered by him. A description of the mss., and opinions concerning them, are given in the Prolegomena. The rest of the N. T. was to have been published in the same manner ; but this was prevented by a fire in Copen hagen in June 1795, which destroyed a great many copies of the first part, and the MS. preparations for the second. Birch now published the collection of readings for the Acts and Epistles, without the text, Copenhagen 1798, royal 8vo, and for the Apocalypse, 1800, some of the MSS. used having been collated by Engelbreth. The various readings for the Gospels were likewise separately published, 1801 ; and this last work contains the entire apparatus criticus of the quarto edition, together with various readings from other MSS. in Paris, Venice, Sicily, examined by Beytrug, Engelbreth, and Mtinter. The critical apparatus at command having been greatly extended by these works, a second edition of his N. T. was prepared and published by Griesbach at Halle and London, 2 vols., 1796, 1806. He made use of the new material fur nished to his hand, and examined anew the collections of Mill, Bengel, and Wetstein used in the earlier edition. He also multiplied the excerpts from the ancient versions, espe cially the Syriac, the Coptic, and the Old Latin, adding to these quotations from Latin MSS. in Toledo, Prague, Regens- burg, and Vienna. He also gives excerpts from the Arme nian version, furnished by Bredenkamp, and from editions and MSS. of the Slavonic version by Dobrowsky ; the various readings from the Fathers are also increased, especially from Origen and Chrysostom. The text is in several places altered, many readings which had before been given only in the intermediate space being put into the text, and some which had been in the text being put below. Greater care, too, was bestowed on the arrangement of the words, especially the place of the article, and the punctuation ; the begin ning and end of the old Church Lessons were marked with brackets [ ]. The arrangement of the work, however, is the same, and the same critical principles retained. The first volume of the third edition, containing the Gospels, was pre- 406 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. pared by David Schulz, Berlin 1827. In this the critical apparatus of the second edition is only slightly enlarged: e.g. by Bentley's collation of Cod. B; by the readings of Codex Z of the Gospels, edited by Barret, and of some other MSS. of minor importance ; by the readings, too, of the Cod. Rhediger, the Old Latin version, etc. Schulz used the MS. notes of C. B. Michaelis in his copy of Mill's N. T., which refer especially to the readings of the Eastern versions. The readings, moreover, were more conveniently placed — all of them beneath the passages to which they referred. The text of Griesbach's second edition is retained ; but where Schulz thought a different reading was to be preferred, he names it in the notes. As supplements to Griesbach's edition, the two following works may be named : (1.) His Symbolce crit. ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum N. T. lectionum collectiones ; accedit multorum N. T. codicum Grcecorum descriptio et examen, 2 vols., Halle 1785, 1793. (2.) His Commentarius crit. in textum Grcec. N. T., parts i. and ii., Jena 1798, 1811, — the substance of various programmes. It is a critical commen tary extending through the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, in which the author carefully and fully states the arguments for and against the more important various readings (in part ii., accedunt meletemata de vetustis Textus recensionibus). Griesbach himself prepared an abridgment of his larger work, which contains his text and a selection of readings, and well fulfils its design, Leipz. 1805, 2 vols., 2d ed. 1825. A princely edition of the N. T., containing Griesbach's text, with a selection of various readings, appeared at Leipsic 1803-7, 4 vols, small fol. §302. Since Griesbach's time, four indefatigable labourers in this department have specially distinguished themselves — Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles. (1.) J. M. A. Scholz (ob. 1852), JV. T. Greece, etc., Leipz. 1830, 1836, 2 vols. 4to. During his travels, 1818-21, Scholz had the opportunity of visiting most of the European libraries, EDITIONS OF SCHOLZ, LACHMANN. 407 those in the Greek monasteries in Jerusalem, St. Saba, and Patmos, and of seeing a large number of N. T. mss., of which he gave an account in his Biblisch.-kritischen Reise, 1823. These are cited in the Prolegomena side by side with those named by Wetstein and Griesbach, and thus the critical ma terial is much increased, — 219 codices and 121 evangelistaria being cited for the Gospels which had not before been used, 122 for the Pauline Epistles, and 38 for the Apocalypse. Still there is more parade than real value in them. Many of these codices are merely named in the list, without any remark about them, or extract from them : most of them had been examined for a single passage merely, and very few of them fully (see Tregelles, p. 102). The references, moreover, have been made in a very untrustworthy manner, as those who have examined them have found. In the lists of variations, a great deal has been borrowed word for word from Griesbach. As to Scholz's principles of criticism, see § 296. As, like Bengel, he divides the witnesses into two families, the Alexandrine and the Byzantine, he names this distinction in the central space between the text and notes, and almost always gives the preference to the Byzantine reading ; and thus his edition presents — where he exercises an independent judgment, and does not follow Griesbach, and this indeed is often the case — a very modern text, and one much more remote from that of the N. T. writers themselves than is Griesbach's. It is noteworthy that, though a Catholic theologian, he has had the courage to expunge 1 John v. 7, on which account he has been reproached by his own Church. Scholz's edition has met with high esteem and great accept ance in England, on account of its conservatism of the received text, and it was by means of contributions from England that he published his second volume. In vol. i. are added the Synaxaria of some Paris MSS. (2.) Karl Lachmann '(ob. 13th March 1851) sought to resume and carry out Bentley's idea of presenting the N. T. text as it lies in the oldest witnesses, and he stated his purpose in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830. There first appeared a small edition, N. T. grcece e recensione C. Lachm. editio stereotypa, 408 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. Berl. 1831, 12mo, frequently reprinted and revised. Lach mann here aims at giving the text as it lies in the oldest Eastern witnesses, and he takes into account the Latin and African authorities only when the Eastern disagree. The text only is given, and at the end a list of the variations from the textus receptus, placed not very conveniently for reference. Beneath the text variations are noted only when the Eastern witnesses disagree, one reading being placed in the text and the other below. After this, a larger edition, with the assistance of Philip Buttmann, jun., appeared : N. T. Greece et Latine C. Lachm. recensuit, Ph. Buttm. Ph. ftl., grcecce lectionis auctoritate apposuit, 2 vols., Berlin 1842, 1850. This edition contains the Greek text, the Vulgate, Jerome's version, printed according to the oldest mss., the Codex Ful densis (distinguishing the corrections made by the bishop of Capua), and the Codex Amiatinus. Between the Greek text and the Latin, the witnesses for the reading adopted in the text, or for other readings, are given ; and also the deviations from the received text, that of the Elzevir edition of 1624, and marked s.1 As in the smaller edition, so in this, the aim is to give the text as nearly as possible as it was constructed in earliest times, in the second, third, and at latest the fourth century, according to the most trustworthy witnesses at com mand, both Eastern and Western, according to the Greek mss. and other testimonies, no judgment being pronounced upon it ; it being left to further criticism to determine chiefly by internal evidence whether the result be really in every respect the original text as it came from the hands of the N. T. writers themselves. The editors have therefore confined their attention to a comparatively small number of authori ties — to those only which seemed sufficiently old, and in their opinion sufficiently trustworthy to be selected. The follow ing are the Greek MSS. they consult : the Codices Alex., Vatic., Ephr., Cantabr. (Gospels and Acts), Laudian. of the Acts, Claromont., Borner., Coislin. fragm. of the Pauline 1 It is a defect in Griesbach's and other earlier critical editions, that the witnesses for the textus receptus are not cited, but only those which sanction deviations from it. LACHMANN'S EDITION. 409 Epistles, Fragments P and Q of the Gospels, T of John, and Z of Matthew. Of Latin MSS., besides the Vulgate according to the oldest MSS., for the Gospels the Codd. Ver- cell., Veron., Colbert. ; the Latin version in Cod. Cantabr. (Gospels, Acts, and 3d John), in Cod. Laudian. (Acts) ; for the Pauline Epistles in the Claromont., Sangerm., Borner. ; for the Apocalypse, the text of Primasius in his commentary on the book. The Fathers referred to are mainly Irenseus, Origen, Cyprian, Hilarius Pictav., and Lucifer Calaritanus. They passed by many old witnesses because they did not consider them sufficiently trustworthy in the form in which they have come down to us, e.g. the Peschito. This work, being the first accomplished attempt to trace the N. T. text back to the form which it had in the oldest extant witnesses within reach, must be regarded as a decided advance in the criticism of the N. T. text, and as a good foundation upon which further to build. Nevertheless my conviction is, that we cannot remain where Lachmann leaves us, but must go on building still. I observe (a) Lachmann's edition only aims at giving us the relatively oldest text as far as it can be proved to be so, even though this itself might be a decidedly false one, or should present no natural meaning. But he does not proceed logically upon this principle : he often adopts readings supported only by internal considerations, and not by external evidence of their antiquity. But I do not consider the thoroughly logical carrying out of Lachmann's principle to be, after all, the right one — not, at least, for ordi nary editions of the N. T. In the ordinary and habitual use of the N. T. in the original Greek, we do not so much want to have it in the form in which it was in the third or fourth century, but rather in the form which most closely corre sponds with the primary and authentic sense, as far as this can be ascertained upon principles of the highest probability. I think, therefore, that I would venture, in constructing the N. T. text, not always to abide by its relatively oldest form as far as documents show this ; but in cases where internal evidence conclusively shows that this was not the original reading, and where probability is on the side of another read- 410 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. ing, I maintain with Bengel, Griesbach, and others, that it is right to adopt this other reading, though there be not so strong evidence extant of its genuineness. Certainly a read ing should not be adopted which presents either no meaning at all, or a false one, even though it be supported by the oldest witnesses. Cf. Stud. u. Krit. 1855, 175-178. (b) Secondly, I also think that it is not right to limit oneself to so narrow a circle of early witnesses as Lachmann does in his larger edition, because these witnesses themselves, as hitherto exa mined, do not present any very certain evidence, as especially is the case with the important Codex B, of which it is still doubtful in many places what its real reading is. The oldest witnesses at our command are to be used by us not only more accurately, but more fully, than Lachmann has done ; but later mss. also, that of the Byzantine recension and other more modern witnesses, are not to be overlooked : for much that is genuine may have been, and certainly has been, re tained and preserved to us in them. All we can say is, that they are not to be put at the head of the list of witnesses, nor to be ranked first ; but in the second rank they do come in for consideration. (3.) Constantine Tischendorf first made himself known by a small Greek N. T., Leipsic 1841, small 8vo, in which he gives a recension of his own, but follows closely Lach mann's text. Partly in the text, and partly in the intro duction, he notes the distinctive readings of the received text, and of several editions which present a different text, with the main testimonies for the various readings ; and in the margin are references to parallel passages in the O. and N. T. Tischendorf has since made various scientific journeys in Germany, France, Holland, England, Switzerland, and in the East ; and as the fruit of these travels, he has fully edited many of the most important Greek and Latin MSS. already known, and has discovered several ancient codices, which he has published in separate editions, e.g. the Ephr,, Claromont., Amiat., Evang. Palatin. [and above all, the Sinaitic, discovered by him in 1859] ; and in his more general works, the Monumenta sacra inedita, etc., the Nova collectio TISCHENDORF'S EDITIONS. 411 monum. sacr., and the Anecdota sacra et profana.1 He has also published several editions of the N. T.2 The second Leipsic edition was a great improvement upon the first. The arrangement was substantially the same ; but a much fuller critical apparatus was given beneath the text (for the later more than for the earlier books), many witnesses being arrayed for the several readings, — both those adopted into the text, and those otherwise noticeable of the Stephens, the Elzevir, the Griesbachian texts, and those of Scholz and Lachmann. His critical judgment is now freer from Lach mann's influence than it was in the first edition. He endeavours to construct the text by means of the oldest witnesses ; but he gives more attention than Lachmann to the evidence of less ancient witnesses — the Eastern versions, and a great many of the Fathers : and this, too, upon inter nal grounds.3 His N. T. Greece, ed. 7, critica major, 2 vols., Leipz. 1859, with pp. 278 prolegomena, contains a still more copious apparatus criticus. It is called the seventh edition, with reference to three editions which were published in Paris.4 [A short addendum to this was published in 1860, giving an account of the newly discovered Codex Sinaiticus, 1 Tischendorf gives an account of the mss. brought by him from the East to St. Petersburg, in his Notitia editionis cod. Bibl. Sinait. Accedit catalogus codicum nuper ex oriente Petropolin perlatorum, Leipz. 1860, 4to. 2 Tischendorf states his principles of textual criticism succinctly in his article Bibeltext des N. T., in Herzog's Real-Encykl. ii. 158 sqq. 8 A small stereotyped edition, Leipz. 1850, contains the text of the second Leipsic edition, with the variations from the textus receptus [editio stereotypa 2, 1862]. Further : N. T. triglottum, Grxce, Latine, Germanice. Grxcum textum addito lectt. variarum delectu recens., Latinum Hieronymi, notata Clementina lectione, ex auctoritate codd. restituit, Ger- manicum ad pristinam Lutheranx ed. veritatem revocavit, A. F. C. Tischendorf, Leipz. 1854, 2d ed. 1865. The Greek text of this Triglot- turn was separately printed, " editio academical Leipz. 1855, 2d ed. 1857 [4th stereotyped edition, 1864, " prolegomenis emendatis auctisque cum tabula duplici terrx sanctx"~\. N. T. Grxce et Latine . . . ex triglottis, Leipz. 1858. [N. T. Grxce et Germanice . . . ex triglottis, 2 vols., Leipz. 1864 ; N. T. Latine . . . ex triglottis, Leipz. 1864.] * The seventh edition of the Crit. Minor, 1859, contains the same text as this, with an abstract of the apparatus criticus. 412 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. Notitia cod. Sinait. The eighth larger critical edition, which began to be published in 1864, promises to give much addi tional and valuable material, with appropriate reference to the Cod. Sinait.^ (4.) S. P. Tregelles, in 1844, published the Apocalypse in Greek, edited from the ancient authorities, with various readings, and a new English version. In this work he inti mated his intention to prepare a new critical edition of the N. T., for which purpose he zealously began to labour, care fully examining many important witnesses, as we have already seen.1 Of this edition Matthew and Mark were printed in 1857, Luke and John in a second part, 1861 ; [the third part, 1865, containing the Acts and General Epistles.J It is to give the Greek text with the Vulgate, according mainly to the Cod. Amiatinus ; the Greek text according to the more important mss. ; the uncial codices and some others according to the ancient versions before the seventh century ; and the testimonies of the Fathers down to Eusebius. His work is to differ from Lachmann's, by the wider circle of primary witnesses, and a careful testing of authorities ; and from Tischendorf's, by more consistently giving prominence to the old witnesses, and a re-examination of the ancient versions and the Fathers. It promises to be a very important and valuable work. §303. Here we may mention some smaller editions besides those of Griesbach and Tischendorf already named : (1.) G. Ch. Knapp (ob. 1825), Halle 1797, 4th ed. 1829, 5th ed. 1840, substantially the same as Griesbach's text, save that Knapp pays still less attention to the Elzevir text. Beneath the text the most important variations are noted. Much pains has been bestowed upon the order of words, the punctuation, accentuation, etc. (2.) H. A. Schott (ob. 1835), the Greek text, with a new Latin version on the side. In the first 1 See his edition of vol. iv. of Home's Introduction (vid. § 17), and his work entitled An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek N. T. etc., London 1854 ; likewise his edition of the Codex Zacynthius, 1861. EDITIONS OF THE GREEK N. T. 413 edition (Leipz. 1805) the Greek text is Griesbach's ; but in later editions this has been departed from, especially on internal grounds. The fourth edition (1839), with select variations, was prepared, from 2d Corinthians onwards, by Baumgarten-Crusius. (3.) J. A. H. Tittmann (ob. 1831), a stereotyped edition, Leipz. 1820 and 1824, since edited by Aug. Hahn (1840), who subjected the text to a new examination, and added a selection of various readings from Griesbach, Knapp, Scholz, Lachmann, with the readings of the textus receptus, which he too much accommodates to his own text. [A new stereotyped edition of Hahn appeared at Leipz. 1861.] (4.) J. S. Vater (ob. 1826), Halle 1824. The text is a recognition of Griesbach's and Knapp' s, with a selection of variations, exegetical and critical notes, and registers, geographical and historical. (5.) Ad. Goschen, with a preface by Liicke, Leipz. 1832, the Knappian text with a new Latin version, and the distinctive readings of Griesbach and Lachmann. (6.) K. G. W. Theile, stereo typed edition,. Leipz. 1844, as a new edition of Knapp's N. T., 6th ed. 1856, 7th ed. 1858. The text is that of Knapp, with some alterations ; it is printed in double columns, with references ; an annotatio critica (pp. 70), with the various readings of the received text of several editions, and of the oldest mss. [8th ed. 1865, with an Appendix Tischendorfli de cod. Sinaitico.] (7.) Ph. Buttmann, the co-editor of the larger Lachmann's edition, N. T. Greece ad fidem potissimum cod. Vatic. B recens., var. lectiones cod. B, textus rec. editionum Griesb., Laclvm., Tisch., integras adjecit, Leipz. 1856, small 8vo, stereotyped, 2d ed. 1860, [3d ed. 1865.] As a supplement may be named, Recensus omnium locorum, quibus codex Sinait. discrepat a textu editionis N. T, cui est titulus, N. T. Greece, etc., Leipz. 1865, pp. viii. and 123. He has taken the text of Cod. Vat. from the larger edition of Lachmann, and forsakes it only where he con cludes the reading to be false on internal grounds; and here he follows other ancient mss. Where Cod. B is defec tive, he adopts the Cod. Alex. [Still closer to the Cod. Vat. is his edition printed in uncials, N. T. Greece ad fidem cod. 414 HISTORY OF THE TEXT. Vat. recens. Ph. Buttmann, Berlin 1862 (see above, § 269). (8.) N. T. Textus Stephanici, 1550 ; accedunt varies lectiones editionum Bezce, Elzeviri, Lachmanni, Tischendorfli, et Tre- gellesii; F. H. Scrivener, Cambridge 1859. Also, by the same author, may here be named A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T. for the use of Biblical Students, Cam bridge 1861. The fourth volume of Stier and Theile's Polyglotten Bibel zum praktischen Handgebrauch contains the N. T., the Greek text according to the Elzevir edition, with various readings of modern editions, and of some of the uncial mss., the Latin text of the Vulgate, and Luther's German trans lation, with the various readings of some modern German translations. A supplement to the fourth edition of this fourth volume contains the variations of the Cod. Sinait., and is separately published under the title, Collatio textus Grceci edit, polygl. cum N. T. Sinaitico. — B.] [To these may be added, The New Testament; the authorized English version, with introduction, and various readings from the three most celebrated mss. , of the original Greek text, by Constantine Tischendorf ; Tauchnitz edition, volume 1000, Leipzig and London 1869. Also, by the same editor, Novum Testamentum Vaticanum, 1867, containing many cor rections of Mai's edition. Further corrections were supplied by the fac-simile edition of Vercelloni and Cozza, 1868, which are included in the Appendix N. T. Vaticani, 1869. — Tr.] INDEXES. I.— NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS INCIDENTALLY EXPLAINED OR ILLUSTRATED. St. Matthew. xi. 21-24, Vol. i. 278, 287 i. 1-17, Vol. i. 114 xi. 29, i. 295 i. ii., i. 275, 308; see 264 xii. 8, i. 79 i. 25, . ii. 139 xii. 18, 19, i. 295 i. 72, . i. 79 xii. 22-45, i. 276 ii. 20, . i. 77 xii. 43-45, i. 279 iii. 4, . i. 125 xii. 46, ii. 138 iii. 12, . i. 80 xiii. , i. 280 iii. 13-17, . i. 263 xiii. 10 sqq., 55, i. 212, iv. 1-11, . . i. 264 213 iv. 17, . i. 193 xiii. 19, i. 261 iv. 18-22, . i. 275 xiii. 34, . i. 212 iv. 21, 22, i. 155; see 165 xiii. 54-58, i. i !66, 275, v.-vii., i. 280, 288 294, ii. 138 sqq. v. 3-5, 25, . i. 279 xiv. 3-12, . i. 288 v. 17-19, . i. 300 xiv. 22-xvi. 12, i. 288 v. 34, . i. 79 xiv. 22, . i. 222 v. 41, . i. 68 xv. 2, i. 77 vi. 7, 16, . . i. 291 xviii., i. 280 vi. 12, . . i. 74 xix. 16-23, i. 123 vi. 9-13, . i. 279 xx. 15, i. 77 vi. 11, . i. 285 xx. 29-34, i. 279 vii. 11, . . i. 279 xxi. 1, i. 262 viii. ix., i. 294, 295 xxi. 2, i. 279 viii. 2, 3, . i. 260 xxi. 41, . i. 292 viii. 5 sqq. . i. 279 xxii. 16, . i. 262 viii. 16, . i. 260 xxiii. -xxv., i. 280 viii. 28, . i. 279 xxiii. 35, . i. 293 ix. 1, 27 sq q., i. 288, 289 xxiii. 37 sq., i. 195, 287 ix. 9, i. 105, 306 xxiv. 15, 29, i. 293 ix. 18-26, . i. 279 xxvi. 6-13, i. 275 ix. 34, . i. 81 xxvi. 17, 19 sq. , i. 191, x. xi., . i. 280 204 x. 5, 6, . i. 300 xxvii. 6, i. 1. i, ii. 142 x. 32, . i. 79 xxvii. 16, 17, i. 125 x. 35, . i. 77 xxvii. 32, . i. 68 x. 36, . i. 295 xxvii. 46, 47, i. 292 x. 37, . i. 79 xxvii. 56, . i. ] 55, 167, xi. 10, . i. 286 ii. 415 138 sqq. St. Mark. i. 1. . Vol. i. 103, 178 6, . 9-11, 12, i. 16-20, '.. 19 sqq., i. 32 sqq., '.. 40, 9-12, i. 14, iii. 17, 18, iii. 31 sqq 11, 33 iv. 15, 18-22, vi. 1-6, vi. 3, i. 266, ii vi. 27, vi. 37, vi. 45 sqq vii. 11, vii. 22, vii. 32 sqq viii. 12, ix. 38-40, xi. 1, xi. 9, xii. 4, xii. 14, xiv. 3 sqq xiv. 12, 16 xiv. 65, xv. 8 sq., xv. 21, xv. 40, i. 155, 167, ii. 138 xv. 46, i. 125, 266 . i. 263 . i. 264 . i. 275 i. 155, 165 i. 260, 313 i. 261 i. 309 i. 106 i. 156 i. 104 ii. 138 i. 213 i. 262 i. 291 i. 275 138-141 i. 309 i. 309 i. 222 i. 75 i. 77 22, i. 265 i. 80 i. 156 i. 262 i. 309 i. 80 i. 262 i. 275, 309 sq., i. 191 . i. 309 . i. 309 i. 201, 309 i. 201 416 INDEX OF TEXTS. xvi. 1, Vol. ii. 138 sq. xvi. 9-20, . i. 309-314 xvi. 12, . . i. 264 St. Luke. i. 1 sqq. (Preface), i. 46, 135, 141, 146, 281, 351 i. 5 sqq., . . i. 275 i. 15, 65, . . i. 75 i. 17, . i. 150, 265, 304 i. 42, . i. 78, ii. 388 i. 68-79, . i. 296 sq. ii. 7, . . . ii. 139 ii. 15, . . i. 75 ii. 19, 51, . . i. 78 iii. 21, 22, . i. 263 iii. 23 sqq., . i. 301 iv. 1-13, . . i. 264 iv. 16 sqq., i. 141, 148, 153, 275, 290, 298 i. SO, 266 . i. 153 . i. 142 . i. 298 . i. 260 i. 275, 291 i. 155, 165 . i. 261 . i. 288 . i. 105 iv. 22, iv. 31, iv. 34, iv. 38 sq., iv. 40, v. 1-11, v. 9 sqq., v. 12, 13, v. 17-39, v. 27, 28, vi. 15, 16, i. 104, ii. 139 vi. 20 sqq., i. 280, 288 vii. 1-10, . . i. 279 vii. 27, . . i. 286 vii. 29-35, . . i. 141 vii. 31, . . ii. 311 vii. 36-50, . . i. 275 viii. 10, . . i. 213 viii. 12, . . i. 261 viii. 19 sqq., . ii. 138 viii. 21, . . i. 143 viii. 22-ix. 50, . i. 269 viii. 26 sqq., . i. 279 viii. 40 sqq., i. 279, 288 ix., . . . i. 271 ix. 51-xviii. 14, i. 156, 183, 288, 296, 298, 316 ix. 52, x. 1, . . x. 5-xi. 32, x. 8, . x. 7, . x. 13-15, . x. 22, xi. 2-4, 13, xi. 3, xi. 14-32, . xi. 20, 24 aqq., . i. 220 i. 302 i. 150 . i. 304 . ii. 89 i. 278, 287 . i. 213 . i. 279 . i. 285 . i. 276 279 xi. 49, xii. 35, xii. 58, xiii. 28, . xiii. 29-35, xiii. 34 sq., xiv. 18, . xvi. 8, xvi. 16-18, xviii. 6, xviii. 35 sqq., xix. 29, . xix. 30 sqq., xx. 12, xx. 21, xxi. 5, xxi. 20 sqq. , xxi. 25 sqq., xxi. 32, . xxi. 35, xxii. 7 sqq., xxii. 15, . xxii. 17-20, xxii. 30, . xxii. 32, . xxiii. 26, 56 sqq xxiii. 34, 35, xxiii. 50-53, xxiv. 10, . xxiv. 13 sqq., xxiv. 34, . xxiv. 39, . xxiv. 44, . Vol. i. 196 i. 76 i. 68 i. 142 i. 141 195, 287 i. 68 i. 80 142, 280 i. 80 i. 279 i. 262 i. 279 i. 80 i. 262 i. 76 i. 294 i. 294 i. 142 i. 77 i. 190 i. 80 i. 303 i. 302 ii. 157 i. 201 i. 196 i. 196 ii. 138 i. 274 i. 304 i. 124 i. 142 St. John. i. -vi. , i. 1 (Logos), i. 1-14, i. 3, . i. 14, i. 28, i. 32-34, i. 35 sqq. i- 41, i. 42, ii. 12, ii. 13, ii. 19 sqq., iii. 1, iii. 29, iv., . iv. 5, iv. 44 sqq. iv. 47-54, v. 2, . v. 4, v. 8, 9, vi. 7, ii. 388 227 sqq. ii. 388 ii. 292 i. 169 i. 225 i. 263 i. 166 163, 165 . ii. 157 i. 175, ii. 138 i. 166, 316 i. 218 i. 223 i. 80 i. 324 i. 225 i. 175, 329 i. 186, 279 i. 50, 317 i. 334, ii. 352 i. 309 i. 308 vi. 8, vi. 15, vi. 70, vii. 1, vii. 5, vii. 53-viii. 11, , Vol. i. 163 . i. 222 . i. 329 i. 324, ii. 138 ii. 139 viii. 17, . viii. 48, . xi. 18, xi. 47-53, . xi. 51, xii. 3 sqq., xii. 20 sqq., xii. 22, xii. 28 sqq., xii. 32, 33, xiii. 1, 29, xiii. 23, xiii. 25, xiv. 26, xiv. 31, xv. 18, xv. 22, 24, xvii. 7, xviii. 1, xviii. 13, xviii. 15, xviii. 22, 39, xviii. 28, xix. 14, 31 xix. 19, xix. 25, xix. 26, 27, xix. 26, i. 333, ii. 352 i. 223 i. 325 i. 318 i. 326 i. 226 192, 309 i. 232 i. 163 i. 222 i. 218 191, 219 i. 163 i. 238 i. 215, 321 i. 216, 322 i. 191 i. 68 i. 68 i. 318 i. 226 i. 165 i. 309 i. 190 i. 190 i. 68 106, ii. 138, 141 i. 167, ii. 138 i. 163 xix. 35, i. 169, 177, 234 xix. 36, . xix. 37, xix. 41, xx. 2, xx. 14 sqq., xx. 31, i. 208 . i. 244 . i. 318 i. 163, 165 . i. 309 i. 233, 322, 327, 331 xxi., . . i. 233, 333 xxi. 7, 20, . i. 163 xxi. 19, . . ii. 161 xxi. 23, . . i. 164 xxi. 24, . i. 163, 169, 234, 236 The Acts. i. 13, 14, i. 104, ii. 137, 153 i. 21, 22, . . i. 354 "¦ 3, . . . i. 77 u. 24, . i. 373 aq. INDEX OF TEXTS. 417 ii. 33, ii. 46, iv. 13, iv. 17, v. 20, v. 31, v. 34 sqq., Vol. i. 374 . i. 354 . i. 411 . i. 80 . i. 81 . i. 374 i. 3S6 vi.- vii. (Stephen), i. 364, 373 vi. 1, . i. 54, 82 vi. 9, vii. 58, i. viii. 1-3, viii. 5, viii. 14-25 ix. 1-19, ix. 15, ix. 19-26, ix. 20 sqq ix. 27 sqq, ix. 29, ix. 30, x. 21, x. 34, x. 41, xi. 19-26, xi. 25-30, xii., . xii. 3, xii. 12, xii. 17, xii. 25, xiii. xiv. xiii. 1, xiii. 5, xiii. 6-9, xiii. i. 54 366, 385, 386 . i. 367 . i. 103 . i. 157 i. 387 sqq. . i. 80 . i. 390 . i. 370 i. 370, 392 i. 54, 82 i. 385, 393 . ii. 311 . i. 77 . i. 354 . i. 366 i. 393 sq. . i. 363 . i. 80 . i. 127 . ii. 159 i. 127 sq., 361, 370, 394 . i. 396 . i. 136, 361 . i. 128 i. 366 sq. i. 383 xv. 14, xv. 23 sqq, xv. 33, xv. 36 sqq., xv. 39-41, . xvi. 1 sqq., xvi. 6-8, xvi. 9 sqq., xvi. 10, . xvi. 13-19, xvi. 37, 38, xvii., i, xvii. 5, xvii. 28, . xvii. 14 sqq., xvii. 16-34, VOL. II. xiii. 13, xv. 38, i. 128 xiv. 12, . . ii. 117 xv. 1, i. 230, 395-398 . i. 373 i. 48, ii. 147 . i. 362 i. 127, 356 . i. 127 . ii. 69 i. 405, ii. 5 i. 356-359 . i. 357 . i. 358 . i. 383 57, 408, 409 ¦ 366 xviii., Vol. i. 409 sqq., 414, 425, ii. 12 sq. xviii. 3, . . i. 386 xviii. 7, . . ii. 63 xviii. 23, . . ii. 2 xviii. 24, . ii. 118 sq. xviii. 27, . . i. 48 xix. 1, i. 423, ii. 14, 79 xix. 16, . . i. 366 xix. 17, . . i. 80 xix. 21, 22, ii. 79, 80 xix. 22, i. 431, ii. 79 xix. 23, . . ii. 87 xix. 29, . . ii. 198 xx. 1, i. 422, ii. 6 sqq., 80 xx. 3-xxviii../wi., ii. 26 xx. 3, . . ii. 5 xx. 4, i. 359, 405, ii. 75, 198 xx. 5 sqq., . ii. 6 xx. 25, . ii. 7, 61 xx. 35, . . ii. 239 xxi. 8, . . i. 103 xxi. 17 sqq., . ii. 7 xxi. 38, . . ii. 13 xxi. 40 sqq., i. 50, 54 xxii. 2, . i. 50 xxii. 5-16, . i. 387 xxii. 17-21, i. 389, 392 xxii. 25 sqq., . i. 383 xxiii. 6, . . i. 386 xxiv. 11, . . i. 80 xxiv. 16, . . i. 385 xxiv. 23, . . ii- 21 xxiv. 27 (Felix, Festus), i. 392, ii. 13 sq., 21 xxv. 1-12, . ii. 9 xxvi. 12-18, . i. 387 xxvi. 14, . . i. 50 xxvii. xxviii., ii. 10, 64 xxviii. 16, . ii. 14 xxviii. 16 sqq., . ii. 11 xxviii. 30, 31, i. 349 sqq., ii. 15, 62 i. 384 i. 359 i. 380 i. 7, . i. 17, i. 26, ii. 11, ii. 16, iii. 13, Rom aus. . ii. 45 . i. 150 . i. 80 . i. 77 i. 103, 139 . i. 68 vi. 20-22, . . i. 443 vii. 24, . . i. 81 viii. 11, . . i. 150 ix. 1, • i- 443, ii. 89 x. 1-4, . i. 150, 443 xi. 33, Vol. i. 150 xv. xvi., i. 150, 447, 448 xv. 19, . ii. 15 xv. 23-28, . . i. 440 xv. 30 sqq. ¦ . i. 441 xvi. 1 sqq., i. 440 sq. xvi. 21, . . i. 136 xvi. 22, . . ii. 99 xvi. 23, . . ii. 198 xvi. 25, i. 103, 139 1 Corinthians. i. 11, 12, . i. 426 sq. i. 14, . ii. 198 iii. 6, . ii. 119 iii. 22, . i. 428 iv. 17, . i. 430 v. 1-8, . i. 433 v. 7, . . . i. 203 vi. 1, . i. 428 vii. i, . i. 429 vii. 7, . ii. 90 vii. 10, 12, 25, . ii. 285 viii. 1, . i. 429 ix. 1, . i. 389 ix. 5, ii. 138, 152, 165 x. 25, . i. 68 x. 27, . i. 304 xi. 17, . . i. 428 xi. 23, i . 202 sq., 303 xiv. 34, 35 . i. 429 xv. 5, . i. 304 xv. 7, . ii. 143 xv. 8, . i. 389 xv. 32, . i. 422 xv. 33, . i. 384 xvi. 1-3, . i. 440 xvi. 10, 11 , i. 431, 435 xvi. 22, . i. 74 2 Corinthians. i. 1, . . . i. 435 i 8 i 422 i'. 15, 16, 23, i. 423, 437 ii. 1, . . i. 429 ii. 1 sqq., . . i. 432 ii. 3 sq., . i. 432, 434 ii. 12 sqq., . ii. 63 iii. 1, . . i. 426 v. 12, 13, . . i. 435 vii. 6 sqq., 14, . i. 435 vii. 12, . . i. 433 viii. 22, . . i. 438 x. 9 sqq., . . i. 434 xi. 6, . . ii. 99 xi. 16 sqq., . i. 435 xi. 22, . . i. 390 xi. 25, . . i. 425 2 D 418 INDEX OF TEXTS. xi.32,33,Vol.i. 382, 390 xii. 2 sqq. t i. 393 xii. 7, i. 75 xii. 14, i 424 xii. 18, i. 435 xii. 21, . i. 429 xiii. 1, 2, i. 424 Galatiai s. i. 9, . . ii 296 i. 15, 16, . i. 388, 3S9 i. 17 sqq., i. 390 sqq., n 169 i. 19, . ii. 137 i. 21, i. 385, 393 ii., . i. 147, 157 ii. 1 sqq., i. ; S94, 398, ii. 12 ii. 9, i. 230, 364 ii. 11 sqq., i. 403, ii. 2, 4, 159 iii. 13, 23, 25, ii. 3 iv. 13, . i. ' 105, ii. 3 vi. 11, ii. 5 Ephesians. i. 1, . ii. 36, 40 sqq. ii. 2, . . i. 81 iii. 1, . . ii. 21 iv. 1, . . ii. 21 iv. 11, . . i. 103 v. 2, . . i. 80 vi. 9, . . i. 77 vi. 19, 20, . ii. 21 Philippians. i. 7, . . ii. 17, 21 i. 13, . ii. 18, 21 ii. 5-11, . . ii. 17 iii. 5, . i. 382, 386 iv. 22, . ii. 18, 51 Colossians. i. 7, . . . ii. 24 i. 15, i. 229, ii. 27 i. 20, 22, . . ii. 27 ii. 1, 2, 5, . ii. 23 iii. 6, . . i. 81 iii. 25, . . i. 77 iv. 3, 4, . . ii. 21 iv. 6, . ii. 30 iv. 9, 17, . . ii. 30 iv. 11, 18, . ii. 21 iv. 10 sqq., i. 128 sq. iv. 14, i. 57, 135, 137, 357 iv. 15, . . ii. 48 iv. 16, . ii 30, 237 iv. 17, . . ii. 29 1 Thessalonians. ii. 9, . Vol. i. 378 ii. 11 sq., . . i. 408 iii. 1, . i. 409 sq. iii. 2, . i. 359, 408, ii. 70, 88 iv. 3 sqq., . i. 412 iv. 15, . . i. 389 v. 1-11, . . i. 413 v. 5, . . i. 81 v. 19-21, . . i. 412 2 Thessalonians. ii. 1-12, . . i. 417 ii. 2, . . i. 412 ii. 3, . . i. 81 ii. 15, . . i. 414 iii. 17, . . i. 415 iu. 8, . . i. 77 1 Timothy. i. 3, . . . ii. 78 i. 10, . . ii. 85 i. 17, . . i. 73 i. 20, . . ii. 86 ii. 7, . ii. 88, 89 ii. 14, 15, . ii. 89, 90 iii. 1-13, . ii. 82, 85 iii. 14, 15, . ii. 85 iv. 12, . . ii. 87 iv. 13, . . ii. 85 v. 9 sqq., . . ii. 82 v. 18, . . ii. 89 vi. 7-10, . ii. 52, 91 vi. 20, . . ii. 90 2 Timothy. i. 11, . . ii. 89 i. 15 sqq., ii. 71, 76 ii. 8, . i. 103, 139 ii. 17, 18, . . ii. 86 iii. 12, . ii. 64, 66 iv. 6, . . ii. 71 iv. 10 sqq., ii. 33, 71 iv. 11, . i. 129, 137, ii. 33 iv. 13, . . ii. 72 iv. 14, . . ii. 87 iv. 16, . . ii. 58 iv. 17, 18, ii. 77, 86 iv. 19, . . ii. 72 iv. 20, i. 440, ii. 75, 76 Titus. i. 4, . . . ii. 63 i. 5, . . . ii. 64 i. 5, 7, . ii. 69 i. -9, . . ii. 68, 85 i. 12, . Vol. i. 384 ii. 15, . ii. 87, 88 iii. 10, . . ii. 68 iii. 12, 13, ii. 64 sq. Philemon. 1, 2, . ii. 29, 30 9, 10, . . ii. 21 23, 24, i. 128, 137, 357 Hebrews. i. 1, . i. 2, . ii. 3, iii. 7, v. 12, vi. 1-8, ix. 1, ix. 5, x. 30, x. 34, xi 3, xi. 34, xiii. 12, xiii 18, 19, ii. 93, 115 i 73, ii. 93 . ii. 96 . ii. 130 . i 110 . ii. 109 ii. 102 sq. . i 77 . ii 114 . ii. 94 . i 73 i. 77, ii. 95 . ii. 124 ii. 94 sq. xiii. 23, 24, ii. 70, 94, 95 James. i 1, . . ii 144 sqq. i. 12, . . ii. 146 ii. 1, 9, . . i. 77 ii. 7, . . ii. 145 ii. 14 sqq., . ii. 145 ii 25, . . ii. 148 v. 12, . . i. 244 il, i. 6, 7, i. 8, 14, i 11, ii. 12, ii. 18, iv. 8, v. 5,. v. 12, v. 13, 1 Peter. . ii. 163 . ii. 150 . ii. 170 . i 229 . ii. 164 . ii. 230 . ii. 150 . ii. 150 ii. 165, 166 i 127, 128 L • 14,16 sqq., 1 sqq., 4 sqq., H, 12, 22, 1, • 2 sqq., 2 Peter. ii. 172, 183 i 249 ii. 182 ii. 175 ii 173 ii. 174 ii. 180 ii. 181 ii. 174 INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS. 419 iii. 8, . Vol. ii. 180 12, . . Vol. ii. 307 i. 9, Vol. i. 162, ii. 231 iii. 15, 16, ii 104, 1S2, i. 10, . i. 207 238 3 John. i.17, . i. 229 1, • . ii. 198 ii. 1 sqq., . i. 208 1 John. 9, . . ii. 199 ii. 8, . . i. 229 i 1-3, . ii. 187 sq. 10, 14, . ii. 199 vii. 2, . i. 80 ii. 18, . ii. 230 ix. 11, i. 50, ii 215 iv. 2, 3, . . ii. 191 Jude. xi. 14-xxii 21, ii. 215- iv. 3, . ii 230 1, • . ii. 141, 151 221 v. 6,. . i. 169, 447 5-9, . . ii. 174 xii 14, . i. 80 v. 7, ii. 192, 333, 352, 10, . . ii. 174 xiii. 3, . i. 80 389, 390 17, ii. 141, 151, 175 xvi 16, . i. 50 v. 21, . ii. 189 18, . ii. 175 sq. xvii 10, xix. 3, . ii 219 . i 68 2 John. Revelation. xix. 13, . i. 229 1, • . ii. 195-197 i 1-xi 13, ii. 208-215 xx. 9, ii. 222, 225 7, . . ii. 191 i 1, 2, ii. 200, 209, 232 xxi 14, . ii. 232 11, . . ii. 194 i.7, . . ii. 209 • IL— INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS. Abdias, i. 377. Abgarus, i. 43. Accents, ii. 296, 297. Acts, the book of the, i. 347 sqq., ii. 245. Agelli, Ant., ii. 367. Adamantius, his mss. , ii. 385. Alberte, i 71. Alcuin's recension of the Vulgate, ii. 364. Aldine edition, ii 391 sq. Alexander, ii. 86. Alexandrine dialect, i. 63, 83. Alexandrine Jews, their language, i. 64, 65. Alford, Dean, his N. T., i. 95. Alogi, their views of St. John's Gos pel, i 172, 238. Alt, C. J. W., i. 85. Alter, P. K., ii. 404. Alphaeus, i. 106. Amharic version, ii. 346. Ammonian chapters, ii. 298 sq. Ammonius, Grammar of, i. 69. Anabaptists, i. 118. Andrew the apostle, i. 166. Anieetus, i 207. . Annas the high priest, l. lbo. Antichrist, ii 216 sqq. Antwerp Polyglot, ii.365. Apocalypse of Peter, n. 246, 249. Apocryphal, meaning of the term, ii. 235 sq. Apocryphal writings, i. 334 sqq., 376 sqq., 239, ii. 241. Apocryphal Acts, i. 378 sq. Apollinaris, i. 205, 209. Apollos, i. 177, 228, 426, ii. 118 sq. Apostolic writings, how esteemed, ii. 241 sq. ; their canonical rank, ii 285 sqq. ; the name, i. 41. Arabic versions, ii. 350, 354 sqq. Aramsean, i 51. Its influence on N. T. Greek, i. 72 sq. Aretas, i. 390, 391. _ Armenian version, ii. 350-352. Arian controversy, ii. 270. Athanasius, ii 261 sqq. Attic dialect, i. 61. Augustine, ii. 267 sq. Baptist, polemic against his disciples in St. John, i. 332. Barnabas, i. 392 sq., ii. 117, 249, 252. Barnabas, Epistle of, ii. 239. Barbarisms of language in N. T., i. 58. Barabbas, i. 125. Basil the Great, ii. 42. Bashmuric version, ii. 349 sq. 420 INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS. Baur, F. C, i. 33, 120, 144, 195, ete. Bellarmine, ii 367. Bengel, J. A., i.22, ii. 378, 398 sq. Bentley, Richard, ii. 398. Bertholdt, i. 28, 321. Beza, Theodore, ii. 393. Birch, And., ii. 404. Bode, C. A., ii. 397. Bolten, i. 51. Breathings, ii. 297. Bretschneider, i. 87, 232, etc. Brothers of the Lord, ii. 137 sq. Bruder's Concordance, i 85. Bukentop, ii. 368 sq. Buttmann, Phil., ii. 413. Buttmann, Alex., i. 85. Byzantine text, ii 379 sq., 386. Caius on' the Hebrews, ii 108. On the Revelation, ii. 201, 269. Cajetan, i. 15, ii. 277. Calmet, i. 19, 20, 88. Calvin, i. 15, ii. 278. Canon of N. T., ii. 233 sqq. Works on the, ii. 233, note. Meaning of the word, ii. 234. Canones Apostolici, ii. 262. Canonical EpistolsB, ii. 135. Canonicity of N. T. books, ii. 258. Capito, ii. 390. Carafa, ii. 367. Carensis, Hugo, ii 301. Carthage, Council of, ii. 267. Cassiodorus, i. 14, ii. 363. Celsus, i 247. Cerinthus, i. 160, 362, ii 26 ; his views opposed in St. John's Gospel, i. 231. Cerinthus, Gospel of, i. 337. Chalmers, Dr. , on the Romans, i. 95. Chemnitz, ii. 276. Charismata, i. 428. Chronology of St. Paul's life, ii. 11. Chapters, division into, ii. 297. Clement of Alexandria, ii. 115, 149, etc. Clement of Rome, ii. 59, 103, 289. Clement vin., ii. 367 sq. Clementines, the, i 244. Clement, the two epistles of, ii. 266, 313. Codices — A, Alexandrinus, ii 311 sq. X, Sinaiticus, ii. 318 sq. B, Vaticanus, ii. 314 sqq. Vat. of the Revelation, ii. 317. C, Ephrsemi, ii. 319 sq. D, Cantabrigiensis (Gospels and Acts), ii. 321. D, Claromontanus (Pauline Epis tles, by Lachmann, a), ii. 323. E, Basileensis (Gospels), ii. 327. E, Laudianus (the Acts), ii. 322. E, Sangermanensis (Pauline Epis tles), ii. 324. F», Coislinianus (Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles), ii. 329. F", Augiensis (Pauline Epistles), ii. 325. G, Bbrnerianus (Pauline Epistles), ii. 325. H, Coislinianus (Pauline Epistles), ii. 329. Palimpsest (Gospels, Acts, 1st Corinthians, Titus ; I by Tischendorf), ii. 332. K, Cyprius (Gospels), ii. 327. L, Imperial Library, Paris, No. 62 (Gospels), ii. 327. M, Uffenbachianus (Epistle to the Hebrews) and Harleianus, No. 5613 (Epistles to the Corinthians), ii. 331. N, (Earlier I), Gospels, ii. 329. Nb, Palimpsest Fragment of John's Gospel, ii. 331. P and Q, Wolfenbiittel Fragments of Gospels, ii. 328. [R], Nitrian Fragment of Luke, ii. 331. S, Vaticanus (Gospels), ii. 291. T, Grseco-Sahidic Fragment of Gospels, ii. 329. W or W>, W», W°, Fragments of the Gospels, ii. 330. Y, Barberini Fragment of John's Gospel, ii. 334. Z, Dublinensis (Matthew's Gospel), ii 320. Tischendorfianus IV. [r] and Tis chendorf. III. [A] of the Gos pels, ii. 332. A, Sangallensis (the Gospels), ii. 326. 0, Tischendorfianus I. (Matthew), ii. 330. Codex Montfortianus, ii. 333. Ravianus, ii. 333. Vaticanus (No. 298), ii. 334. Barberini, ii. 334. Velezian Readings, ii. 334. Argenteus, ii. 372 sq. Codices of the Itala, ii. 360 sqq. Of the Vulgate, ii. 369 sqq. Puri, mixti, ii 309. Bilingues, ii. 309, 329, 373. INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS. 421 Codices Grseco-Latini, ii. 309, 321 sq., 330, note. Colinseus, Simon, ii. 392. Colossians, Epistle to the, ii. 22. False teachers among the, ii- 27. Complutensian Polyglot, ii. 365, 389 sq. Constitutiones Apostolicse, ii. 25S, 266. Concordances, i. 85, 86. Conybeare and Howson, i. 98. Coptic version, ii. 348, 350. Correctoria, ii. 364 sq. Corinthian Church, i 418, 426. Epistles, i. 423. Corinthians, First Epistle, i. 426 sq. Second Epistle, i. 431 sq. Credner, i 30 sq. Criticism, N. T., justified, i. 25, ii 281 sq. Curcellseus, his edition of N. T., ii. 394 Cursive writing, ii. 291. Cyril of Alexandria, i. 69. Cyril of Jerusalem, ii. 261. Davidson's, Dr. S., Introduction to theN. T., i. 37 sq., 95. Damasus, ii. 363. Day of Christ's crucifixion, i. 198 sqq. De Wette, i 89, 90, etc. Delitzsch, i 119, etc. Dialects in Greek, i. 61 sq. Dionysius of Alexandria, i 13, ii. 190, 201, 252. Division of books, i. 39 sq. Of verses, ii. 297, 302. Of words, ii. 291. Dobrowsky, ii. 370, 371. Docetism, i. 332, ii. 190. Dupin, i. 19. Ebionites, i. 113, ii. 27. Ecclesiastici Libri, ii. 271. Editions printed of the Greek A. 1., ii. 318. Eevntian Gospel, i. 338 sqq. Version, i. 346-350. Eichhorn, i. 27, 256. . Ellicott on the Epistles, l. 98. Elzevir editions, _n. 394 sq. Ephraem Syrus, ii. 273. gSr^le to the, ii. 36 Ethiopian version, ii 344-346. Etymologicum magnum, i. 70. Eusebius, ii. 251 sqq., 253-260. Eusebian Canons, ii. 298 sq. Euthalius, ii. 293. Evangelists, i. 45, 101 sq.', 282 sq. Evangelium Infantisa, i. 178. Evangelistic writings, development of, i 281 sq. Ewald, i. 256 sq., etc. Families of mss., ii. 378, 386. Favorinus, i. 70. Feilmoser, i 37. Fell, J., his edition of the N. T., ii. 395. Forgeries, i. 334, 376, 439. Franke, A. H., ii. 396. Fritzsche, ii. 129 sq. Froben of Basle, ii. 390. Gaius, ii. 198. Galatian Church, ii. 1. Epistle, ii. 3. Gamaliel, i. 376. Gelasius, ii. 268. Georgian version, ii. 353. Gerbel, ii. 390. Gerhard, J., ii. 278. Gieseler, i. 252, etc. Glass, Philol Sacra, i 84. Gospels, the, i. 45. Their relation to each other, i 178 sq. Number of, i 240. Of the Hebrews, i. 123. Gothic version, ii. 371. Grammars of N. T., Greek, i. 84. Grecians, i. 54. Greek language, growth of, i 60 sq. Of N. T.,i 57 sq. Gregory Nazianzen, ii 262. Gregory XIV., ii. 367. Gregory, John, ii. 396. Gregory xiii. , ii. 366. Griesbach, i. 24, 313 sq. His recensions, ii. 402-405. His N. T., ii. 783 sq. Grimm, L. W., i. 87. Grotius, i 17, 83. Guericke, i. 32, 119, etc. Hahn, Aug., i 144, ii. 413. Haab, H, i. 84. Hammond, i. 88. Hanlein, i. 26. Harding, Stephen, ii 364. Harduin, i. 50. 422 INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS. Hebrews, Epistle to the, i. 53, ii. 92 sqq., 275. Hebrews, Gospel of the, i. Ill, 307. Hebraist, i. 58. Hebrew ianguage, its influence on N. T. Greek, i. 51 sq. Hegesippus, i 162. Heidegger, i. 17. Hellenistic Greek, i. 82. Jews, i. 83. Hentenius, J., ii. 366, 368. Herder, ii. 207. Hermas, Pastor of, ii. 249, 252, 257, 267. Heracleon, i. 105. Hesychius, Grammar of, i. 69. Hesychian recension, ii. 381. Hilgenfeld, i. 34, 145, 147, 258, etc. Hippo Regius, Council of, ii. 267. Holtzmann, i 257 sq., 313. Home, T. H., i. 38. Hug, J. L., i. 36, 254. His system of recensions, ii. 379. Hupfeld, i. 8 sq. Hymeneus, ii. 86. James, son of Alphseus, ii. 143. Brother of the Lord, ii 137, 141. Epistle of, ii. 144, 250, 275. T., on the Sixtine Vulgate, ii. 368. Jambi ad Seleucum, ii. 263. Jerome, ii 42, 168, 179, 268, 363 sq. Jesus, no book written by Him, i. 42, 43. His journeys to the feasts, i 179 195. Day of His death, i. 189, 198. His discourses, i. 188, 313. His piophecies, i. 217 sq. His miracles, i. 221. Jews of the dispersion, i 64. Ignatian epistles, i. 158, 248, ii. 252, 267. Innocent I., ii 268. Inspiration, i. 6, 289, ii. 283. Verbal, ii. 337, 383 sq. Origen on, ii. 384. Introduction to N. T., meaning of the term, i. 3, 6. John the apostle, i. 155 sqq. His Gospel, i. 148, 319. His 1st Epistle, ii. 186, 246. 2d and 3d Epistles, ii. 192, 248. Similarity of his Gospel and Epistles with Revelation, ii. 227, 229. Lost epistle of, ii. 199. John, the Presbyter, i. 108, ii. 196. Writer of the Revelation, ii. 201. John the Baptist, i. 125. Iota subscriptum, ii 297. Irenes, i. 13, 160, ii 242. Itala, ii. 359. Jude the brother of the Lord, ii. 151. Epistle of, ii. 153. Jewish Christians, i 112, 398, ii. 123, 241. Junilius, i. 14, ii. 272. , Justin Martyr, i. 243, ii. 242. Karlstadt, ii. 274. Kern, ii. 147. Kirchhofer, i. 36. Knapp, hisN. T., ii. 412. Kiister, L., ii. 397. Kypke, i. 71. Lachmann, i. 24, ii. 407 sq. Lanfrank, Abp. of Canterbury, ii. 364. Lange, J. P., i. 90. Language of N. T. , i. 49 sqq. Language of the Gospels, i 191, 224, 285, 296, 311. Of the Acts, i. 366, 374. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ii. 93, 97, 101, 119. Of the Epistle of James, ii. 147. Of the Epistles of Peter, ii. 166, 179 sq. Of the Revelation, ii. 228. Laodicea, Council of, ii. 267. Laodicean Epistle, ii. 41. Apocryphal, ii 91. Lardner, Nathanael, i. 95. Latinisms in the N. T., i. 68, 311. Latin versions, ii. 321, 357. Lection aries (Church lessons), ii. 302, 310, 344. Leo x., ii. 389. Levi, i. 105. Lexicons of N. T. Greek, i. 36, 86, 87. Librarii of Constantinople, ii. 386, 088. Lightfoot, i. 83. Logos, doctrine of the, i. 228 sqq. Lucian's recension, ii. 381. Liicke, ii. 201, 207. Luke, i 135 sqq., 303 sq., ii. 115. Gospel of, i. 138, 251 sqq., 308. Its relation to Marcion's Gospel, i 142 sqq. INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS. 423 Luther, i 15, ii. 147, 192, 208, 275, 391. On the N. T. Canon, ii. 275. Lutheran Church, ii. 192, 278. Liitzelberger, i. 158, 163, 231. Manuscripts, Greek, ii. 306 sqq. Superiority of the older, ii. 386 sq. Latin, ii. 360 sq., 369 sq. Mai, J. H., i. 20. Maier, Adalb., i. 37. Manichseans, i 116, ii 253. Marcion, i. 139. Knew our canonical Gospels, i. 141 sq., 242, 304 sq. His Gospel, i 141 sq., 149 sq. His treatment of the Epistles, ii. 3S4. Marcionites, i. 154, ii. 241. Mark, i. 126, 165. Knew St. John's Gospel, i. 308 sq. His Gospel, i. 132 sqq., 259 sqq. Marsh, H., i. 23, 256, ii. 335. Martianay, ii. 361, 369. Matthai, i. 24, 70, ii. 377, 403. Matthew the apostle, i. 104. Gospel of, i 53, 395 sq. Hebrew Gospel, i. 111. Mayerhoff, i. 350, 361, ii. 34. Melito of Sardis, i. 247. Menologia, ii. 349. Meyer, H. A. W., i 89, 258 sq. Michaelis, J. D., i. 23, ii. 280. Mill, Dr. John, i 21, ii. 396 sq. Miracles, i 221 sq. Moller, J. G., ii 395. Moldenhauer, ii. 389. Montanists, i. 238. Moret, Plantin's son, ii. 368. Morin, Peter, ii. 367. _ Muratori's Fragment, n. 60, 108, U.*, 194, 269, 291. Name of N. T., i. 41, ii. 245, 252. Nazarenes, i 113 sqq. Neudecker, i. 31. Nicephorus, ii. 263. Nicolaus, Cardinal, ii. ibi. Novatian, ii. 109. Oeder, i. 24, ii. 279 fficolampadius, n. 39U. Olshausen.i. 89, 119, etc. Onesimus, ii. 31. Onesiphorus, ii. 72. Origen, i 123, ii 251 sq., 380, 384 sq. Osiander, Andreas, ii. 365. Pagninus, Santes, i 16. Palestinian Jews, i 55. Papias, i. 107. On Matthew, i. 109. On Mark, i. 131. 1st Peter and 1st John, i. 249. Gospel of John, i. 249, ii. 171. Pasor, G., i 84. Passover controversies, i. 204, 239. Pastoral Epistles, ii. 52 sq. Paul the apostle, i. 48, 56, 381 sqq., ii. 58, 94. Pauline Epistles, i. 150, 381, ii. 182, 246, 256, 271, 286. Pauline style, i. 81. Lost Epistles, i. 429, 432. Apocryphal Epistles, i. 439, ii. 188. Persic version, ii. 353. Peter the apostle, ii. 337 sq., 351. His 1st Epistle, ii. 163 sqq. Petrine 2d Epistle, ii. 172 sq. Peter, apocryphal writings of, i. 336, ii. 249, 253. Gospel of, i. 336. Peschito, ii. 337 sqq., 351. Philastrius, ii. 268. Philemon, Epistle to, ii. 20, 29, 272, 280. Philippian Church, ii. 15. Epistle, ii. 16 sqq. Philoxenian version, ii. 341. Philo, i 67, ii. 120. Photius, i. 70, ii. 279. Phryniehus, i 69. Pilate's vxpi'SoiTis, i. 346. Pius iv., ii. 366. Preface to St. Luke, i. 48. Poole, Matt., i. 88. Polycarp, i. 158 sq., 205, 237. Epistle of, i. 248, ii. 267. Polycrates, i 159, 166, 209, 238. Polyglot, Complutensian, ii. 365, 389. London, ii. 395. Stier and Theile, ii. 414. Postscripts to N. T. books, ii. 304. Pritius, i. 20. Primary Gospel, i. 285 sq. Protevangelium of James, i. 339. Printed editions of the Greek Testa ment, ii. 387 sqq. Prophecy in the N. T., ii. 224, 288. Punctuation of N. T. text, ii. 292 sq. Purists, i 58. Quarto-decimans, i. 205, 240. 424 INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS. Quotations from the LXX., i. 295. From N. T. in the Fathers, ii. 375 sqq. Raphelius, i. 71. Received text, ii. 305, 388, 391, 394 sqq. _ Recensions, ii 378 sq. Reformation, the, ii. 388. Reformed Church, ii. 277. Revelation, the, i 82, 172, ii. 200 sqq., 247, 251,' 257, 263, 267, 269 sq., 275 sqq., 287, 338, 340. Reuss, i. 31, 177, 258. Ritschl, i. 34, 145. Rocca, Angelo, ii. 367. Roman Catholic Church, ii. 277 sq., 281, 364. Theologians, i 16, 36. Romans, Epistle to the, i. 440 sq. Rome, primitive Church at, i. 161, 441. Rufinus, ii. 271. Rump, J. W., i. 21. Sahidic version, ii. 347. Samaritans, i. 302. Schenkel, i. 175, 195, 251. Schleiermacher, i. 32, 144, 221, 255, 297, 360, ii. 53. Schleusner's Lexicon, i 86. Schmid, Ch. F., ii. 280. Schmid, J. E. C, i. 27. Schneckenburger, i 297, 352, 364, 368. Scholz, i 37, ii. 406 sq. Scholten, i 38. Schott, H. A., i. 30, ii. 412. Schottgen, i. 83. Schulz, Dav., i. 118, 144. Schwegler, i. 34 sq., 120, 175, 236, 352, 368. Schweizer, i. 175, 250. Schwanbeck, i. 354, 364. Scripta conlinua, ii. 291. Scrivener, F. H., i. 95, ii. 414. Semler, i. 23 sq., ii. 279, 289. Septuagint, i. 65, 74 sqq. Its influence on N. T. Greek, i. 55, 65, 74. Its use in the N. T., i. 295, ii. 93, 100, 168. Silas, i. 405 sqq., ii. 117, 167. Simon, R., i. 17-19, ii. 279. Sixtus v., ii. 366. Sixtus Senensis, i. 16. Slavonic version, ii. 371. Spiritus asper el lenis, ii. 297. Stephen, i. 385. Stephens, Rob., ii. 365, 392. Style of the N. T. writers, i. 81 sq. Stichometric writing, ii. 292. Strauss, Dav., i. 118, 174, 195, 202. Stier and Theile, ii. ,414. Stunica, Lopez de, ii. 389, 391. Suidas, i. 70. Synopsis Scripturse Sacrse, ii. 263. Synoptical Gospels, i 192 sqq., 251 sqq. . Their authority in relation to St. John, i. 193, ii. 283. Syrian Canon, ii. 273. Versions, ii. 337 sqq. Tarsus, i. 384. Tatian, his Diatessaron, i. 245. Testament, the name, i. 41, ii. 245, 252. Text of N. T. books, ii. 290 sqq. Testimony for, ii. 375 sq. General character of, ii. 377, 383. Tertullian, i. 13, ii. 41, 242. Theophilus of Antioch, i. 246, ii. 241. Thiersch, i. 35, 129. Thessalonians, 1st Epistle to, i. 410 sq. 2d Epistle to, i 414 sq. Timothy, ii. 69 sq. 1st Epistle to, ii. 77 sq. 2d Epistle to, ii. 71 sqq. Titles of N. T. books, their value, i. 103, 306, 347, ii 36, 303. Tischendorf, i. 24, ii 376, 410 sq. Tittmann's N. T., ii. 413. Titus, St. Paul's helper, i. 438, ii. 63. Epistle to, ii. 64. Tobler, i. 177. Tongues, gift of, i. 428. Tregelles, S. P., i 38, ii. 412. Trent, Council of, ii. 281, 366. Trophimus, ii. 75. Tubingen school, i. 33 sq. Ulfilas, ii 371. Uncial writing, ii. 290. Uncial MSS., ii. 311 sqq. Uncanonical Gospels, i. 334. Ungarelli's history of the Vulgate, ii. 369. Urban vn., ii. 367. Valentinians, i. 240 sq. Vater, J. S., his N. T., ii. 413. Variations in N. T text, ii. 377. GREEK WORDS EXPLAINED. 425 Velezian Readings, ii. 334. Vercelloni, his edition of the Vulgate, ii. 369. Vulgate, its various editions, ii. 362 sq. Sixtine edition, ii. 367. Clementine edition, ii. 368. Wahl's Clavis, i. 87. Walther, Michael, i. 17. Walton, Brian, ii. 305, 395. Weiss, i. 257, 313. Weisse, i 174, 251. Weizsacker, i. 177, 257 sq. Westcott, i. 96. Wetstein, i. 22, 71, ii. 400. Winer's N. T. Grammar, i. 84. Wolf's Curse, i 88. Wordsworth, Chr., his N. T., i. 96. Ximenes, Cardinal, ii. 389. Zeller, i 34, 145, 176, 329. Zonaras, i 70. Zwingli, ii 278. III.— GREEK WORDS EXPLAINED. uyyehog, i. 74. aix.pt.a'hUTi^eiv, i. 67. aluv, i. 73. a.xpto'eg, i 125. dxoKovtle'tv, i. 79. dp.%v, i. 75. dvaxeia&ai, i. 67. dva.yivuaxopt.eva, ii. 236, 266. dvaxXtveiv, i 67. avairtiTTeiv, i 67. dvd6ept.a, i. 76. dvaTa^an&at, i. 46. avepioi, i. 75. avrairoxpivetrSai, i. 67. dvTihvTpov, i. 67. dvTtheyopt.eva, ii. 236, 254. dve-^/iig, i. 128. diroxpv2to?, i. 191. pqpta, i. 75. ,