»t""lf
m.'/m
^^ •% ^^- ^
^-m:- t:
p"m
#.,..^.
if'
*-^t^t
JU/. (2^^^<-^^^ /2^^/^^^^^€i2^ ,
/^
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CRITICISM
GREEK NEW TESTAMENT,
CatrArfils^ '
PRINTED B\- C. J. CLAY, M.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CRITICISM
GREEK NEW TESTAMENT,
THE INTRODUCTION TO AN EDITION OF THE
CODEX AUGIENSIS AND FIFTY
OTHER MANUSCRIPTS.
REV. FREDERICK HENRY SCRIVENER, M.A.
PERPETUAL CURATE OF PENWERRIS, FALMOUTH.
CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO. LONDON: BELL AND DALDY.
1859.
CHAPTER I,
ON THE PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.
The term ''Comparative Criticism" has been happily applied to that delicate and important process of investigation whereby we seek to trace the relative value and mutual connexion of the authorities upon which the Greek Text of the New Testament is based, whether they be manuscripts of the original, early versions, or citations by the Christian Fathers. Our accurate acquaintance with these authorities is very limited, much that we know about them being due to the exertions of scholars yet living: but we are sufficiently aware of the extent of the subject^, and the minute and perplexing inquiries which beset the Biblical student at every step, not to seize with hearty welcome any clue that may pro- mise to guide us through a labyi'inth thus dark and doubtful. To this natural feeling, far more than to any external evidence or internal probability of the theories themselves, I would ascribe the favour extended to the schemes of recension promulgated by Griesbach and his imitators in the last generation. Men wislied such compendious methods of settling the sacred text to he true, and as demonstrated truths they accordingly accepted them. These systems, bold, ingenious, imposing, but utterly groundless, I have elsewhere discussed at length (Collation of the Holy Gospels, Introd. Chap, i.); it were needless to revert to them, for I believe that no one at the present day seriously entertains any one of them.
As Griesbach's scheme and its subsequent modifications were gradually aban- doned by critics, a more simple, but (I am persuaded) a no less mistaken theory grew up in its place, which, under the seemly profession of recurring to ancient authorities alone for the remodelling of the text, deliberately refuses so much as to hearken to the testimony of the vast majority of documents that freely offer themselves to the researches of patient industry. This certainly appears a short and easy road to Scriptural science, but, like some other short routes, it may
1 I can hardly estimate the number of copies containing the Gospels alone (including Evangelis- taria) to be much under a thousand, nineteen-
twentieths of which arc for critical purposes as good as uncoUated,
Is PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.
prove the longest in tlie end: yet it is recommended to us by names I cannot mention Avitliout deference and respect. The countenance which Dr Davidson lends to this principle is neither unreserved, nor supported by arguments he can well deem conclusive. Tischendorf practically adopted it in his earlier works, but even then made concessions amounting to nearly all a discreet adversary Mould be disposed to claim: in Dr Tregelles, however, it finds an advocate learned, able, imcompromising\ In my endeavour to refute what I conceive to be erroneous in his views on this subject, I trust I shall not be betrayed into one expression that may give him pain. I honour the devotion and singleness of purpose he has brought to bear on these divine pursuits ; I am sure that his edition of the New Testament hy reason of the large accession it vnll maize to our existing store of critical materials, and of its great accuracy so far as it has yet been tested, will possess, when completed^, what he modestly hopes for it, " dis- tinctive value to the Biblical student:" I am not the less earnest in hailing the fruits of his long and persevering toil, because I fear that, as a clergyman of the English Church, I differ from him on matters of even more consideration than systems of Comparative Criticism.
I. For Dr Davidson a short notice will suffice. In his chapter (an excellent one on the whole) entitled " General Observations on MSS." he tells us that " The first thing is to collate the oldest thoroughly and accurately, publishing the text in fiicsimile or otherwise, so that they need not be re-examined. All the rest, or the great mass of juniors, may be dispensed with. They are scarcely needed, because the uncials are numerous. At present they do nothing but hinder the advancement of critical science, by drawing oflT to them time and attention which might be better devoted to older documents" (Davidson, p. 328, &c.) He then states (I am not concerned to say how truly) that Scholz, from attempting too much, accomplished little, and adds, " Critics have discovered a better way than Scholz's diffuse perfunctory method." No profound discovery surely: that it is better to do a little well than much carelessly is an axiom tolerably familiar to most^of us. Yet why must what is well done be of necessity but little?
Dr Davidson's judgment with regard to the order in which the work should be executed must be assented to by every reasonable person. Of course there is a presumption beforehand that the older MSS. written in uncial characters will prove of more weight than comparatively modern copies in cursive letters : the
^ I refer to Davidson's "Treatise on Biblical Criticism," Vol. Ii. 1852; Tischendorf s Prolego- mena to liis manual Greek Testament, Lips. 1849; and Tregelles' "Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament," 1854. These three works I shall cite throughout the present chap-
ter, names
simply by the page affixed to their authors'
^ At present (July 1S58) but one part of this laborious work has issued from the press, for the use of Subscribers only. It contains the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark.
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 3
rule of common sense is to examine first what promises the most richly to reward om- pains. Yet has not tJiis been done ? Which of the uncial codices of the Greek Testament not previously published in full, has escaped the unwearied zeal of Tischendorf on the continent, of Tregelles at home ? I really know of none, except those printed in my present and former volume, and four Evango- listaria in England (Barocc. 202, Canonici Grseci, 85 and 92 in the Bodleian, and Wheeler 3 at Lincoln College), and perhaps a few abroad. Now respecting Evangelistaria and Lectionaries, Dr Davidson holds that *' till the ancient codices are collated and applied, it were better not to meddle with them. They must have been oftcner copied, and therefore are more liable to errors of transcription." I may question alike his fact, his inference and his conclusion on this point, yet at any rate we have here a reason, satisfactory to himself, why the whole process of collation should not be suspended till a few Evangelistaria shall be examined, hardly any of which date higher than the tenth century.
But the mass of juniors, he tells us, are scarcely needed, '^because the uncials art numerous." On a first perusal I was fairly at a loss to account for such a statement from so well-informed a source. At length I came to recollect that "numerous," like some others, is only a relative term, conveying to different minds widely difi^erent ideas. One person will think it a " long distance" from London to Lancashire ; another uses the same expression when speaking of the space between this earth and 61 Cycni, some sixty- three billions of miles. We shall therefore best see Dr Davidson's meaning when we come to simple numbers. In the Apocalypse the uncial MSS. are three: one of first-rate consequence, com- plete and well-known (A) ; another very ancient and well-known, but a mere heaii of fragments (C) ; the third of late date, hastily collated, and now virtually inac- cessible (B). These, I conceive, are not so " numerous" as to tempt us to dispense Avith further information, when we fortunately have it within our reach. In the case of the Acts and Epistles matters are not much better. In the Acts, three MSS. are very old (ABC) ; the last of them a fragment : two incomplete (DE) exceedingly precious, but not so early; one (F^) a fragment containing just seven verses; one (I) of 42 verses: two (GH) imperfect copies of the ninth cen- tury ; in all nine. In the Catholic Epistles we find four entire MSS., one frag- ment. The list for the Pauline Epistles is nominally thirteen ; from which deduct E a mere transcript of D, make allowance for the intimate connexion subsisting between F and G (see below. Chap. ii. 1,) and reckon several as mere fragments, three of but a few passages (F^IL): not one of the thirteen is complete.
Dr Davidson will probably tell us that he used the term "numerous" with reference to the uncial MSS. of the Gospels ; if so the fact should be stated, lest we be induced to throw aside the cursive copies of other parts of the New Testament as if they might be " dispensed with," Yet I I'eally know not that his case is materially strengthened even in the Gospels. True, the list of
B2
4 PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.
uncials is formidable enough at a rapid glance. Tischendorf s catalogue (N. T. 7th edition, 1856) extends to thirty-two: let us briefly analyse its contents. In the first place Ave notice ten which consist of only a few leaves, some of but a few verses (F*JXOR'TWYi0A) : they are beyond all price as specimens of the state of the text at periods varying from the sixth to the tenth century, yet I doubt whether all put together contain as much matter as St Luke's Gospel. PQZ exhibit larger fragments, Z indeed a considerable portion of the single Gospel of St Matthew : these three may contain about as much as the sum of the other ten. The Nitrian palimpsest R consists of fragmehts of St Luke on 45 leaves : the two Bodleian MSS. r and A are considerable, and between them contain about as much matter as one complete copy (see Tischendorf. Anecdota Sacra et Profana, pp. 4 — G). Then we must in fairness deduct six, which, being not earlier and some of them decidedly later than the tenth century (GHMSUX), are entitled to no more weight than many "junior copies" of the same age. This observation applies, though with diminished force to five (FKVrA) ascribed to the ninth, and even to three (ELA) of about the eighth century. There will then remain but the four primary authorities ABCD, of which B alone is complete, A and C being seriously mutilated. I cannot imagine that many will judge this apparatus criticus so comprehensive, as to render further investigation super- fluous.
Notwithstanding the sentiments on which I have commented, it were wrong to regard Dr Davidson as a wilUng advocate for the suppression of all manuscript evidence not written in uncial letters. I shall presently have occasion to confirm my own argument by statements of his respecting the importance of the cursive or later codices, quite as full as anything I could hope to say. The fact is that Davidson, himself no mean example of the dignity of intellectual toil, despairs of a thorough collation of all existing materials from the languid students of our age. "It is sufficient for one man to collate well several important documents, whether they be versions, MSS., or patristic citations. It exhausts his patience and enei'gy" (Davidson, p. 105). So discouraging a representation of energy and patience exhausted by a few slight efforts cannot, must not, be true of the younger school of Biblical critics in our two great Universities ; I will leave Dr Dobbin, the editor of the Codex Montfortianus, to speak for that of Dublin. These men will not surely much longer suffer the manusci'ipt treasures of their public libraries to lie neglected or unapplied. The very repulsiveness of this task, at its first aspect, is to the earnest student only one reason the more for prosecuting it with ever-growing interest ;
Et non seutitur sedulitate labor.
II. The reputation of Tischendorf is so firmly grounded on his editions of the famous Codices Ephraemi and Claromontanus, on his Monumenta Sacra Inedita and other learned works, that his opinion on the great questions of
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 4>
sacred criticism cannot fail to be regarded with considerable interest. In his manual edition of the N. T. 18-i9 his practice must be regarded on the whole as adverse to me. His list of authorities in the Gospels is limited to the uncial MSS., and to a few of the cursive whose variations from the common standard text are most conspicuous (e.g. 1, 13, 33, G9, 102, 131). Occasionally indeed he estimates (very roughly of course) the number of later copies supposed to countenance a reading of his uncials, yet I nowhere perceive that he gives much weight to such testimony in the arrangement of his text. The edition of 1849, however, must be considered as quite superseded by another (which, reckoning several little known in England, Tischendorf calls his seventh), now issuing in parts from the Leipsic Press. This, the latest fruits of his persevering toil, is far more comprehensive in plan and (experto crecUte) more accurate in execution than its predecessor. In compiling it he has freely availed himself of the labours of others in this field of Biblical research, has cited the cursive MSS, as much perhaps as is expedient in a volume intended for general use, and in exercising his judgment on the materials he has brought together, has produced a text (as Dr Wordsworth has observed before me) much more closely resembling the textus receptus than that he had formed before^ I cannot help believing this gradual and (as it would appear) almost unconscious approximation to the views I am advocating, into which more exact study and larger experience have led so eminent a scholar, to be no slight assurance that those views are founded in reasonableness and truth^.
1 Thus, for example, Tischendorf s 7th edition, in St Matthew alone, returns to the received read- ings he had rejected in 1849 J° ^'^ ^^^^ ^^^^ '^7 passages. The instances in which he abided by the common text in 1 849, but subsequently deserts it, are 56 in St Matthew's Gospel, but about nine-tenths of them consistof Alexandrine forms (e. g. etdap, etirav, T^\dav &c.) which he now prefers to the common ones.
2 It has been said indeed ("Journal of Philolo- gy, Vol. IV. March 1858, p. 207") that "the im- pression that Tischendorf is now beginning to entertain some respect for the textus receptus is quite unfounded. Many of his present readings accidentally coincide with the 'received' readings, but that is all. It is not that he prefers the bulk of late evidence to the weight of early evidence : but that he makes the worst or at least very bad evidence, if supported by a canon of probability, outweigh the best evidence standing alone." On a point of this kind there is nothing like coming to the test of facts. I select the third chapter of St Matthew partly for its brevity, partly because the loss of cod. A (the first-rate authority which most resembles the later text) in this chapter, will so far
assist the learned reviewer's case. Exclusive of his constant use of v ectteKKvariKov and oirws (v. 15), Tischendorf in his edition of 1 849 departs from the textus receptus 13 times : in his seventh edition he returns to it seven times out of the thirteen. Now one of these seven instances I think favourable to the reviewer : certainly there is considerable, per- haps even preponderating evidence (for versions can be relied on in such a variation) for adding voTd/jicp to 'lopSavT) in v. 6 ; Tischendorf now re- jects it, as if it were borrowed from Marc. i. 5. The other six passages seem fatal to the notion that internal evidence, not diplomatic authority, is the operating cause which is bringing Tischendoif's text so much nearer what we believe to be the true one. These passages are v. 2 Kal restored before X^7w;' ; v. 7 avrou restored after pdirTia/jLa ; v. 14 'I(j}dvvris restored ; v. 15 irpbs avrbv of the common text replaces avT(^ ; v. 16 koI ^airTiadeis replaces ^avTicrdeh ')i; v. 16 Kal is restored before ipx/jfJ-evov. In each of these texts Tischendorf in 1849 rejected the common reading on the slender testimony of a single uncial B, countenanced by one or more of the Egyptian and Latin versions or Fathers, and
6
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.
Yet even in the Prolegomena to his edition of 184!) (no critical Introduction to his 7th edition has yet appeared) I find little from which I should withhold my assent. " Text us" he observes "petendus est unice ex antiquis testibus, et potissimum quidem e graccis codicibus, sed interpretationum patrumque testi- moniis minimc neglectis" (Proleg. p. xii). The drift of this self-evident proposition appears from the next sentence: "Itaque omnis textus nostri confirmatio ab ipsis testibus proficisci dcbebat, non a recepta quam dicunt editione." Very true: I for one see nothing in the history or sources of the received text to entitle it, of itself, to peculiar deference. I esteem it so far as it represents the readings best supported by documentary evidence, and no further: if in my judgment the Elzevir text approaches nearer on the whole to the sacred autographs than that formed by Tischendorf, it is only because I beUeve that it is better attested to by the very Avitnesses to whom Tischendorf himself appeals ; the MSS., the versions, the Primitive Fathers. I enquire not whether this general purity (for it is but general) arises from chance, or editorial skill, or (as some have piously thought) from Providential arrangement : I am content to deal with it as a fact. Perhaps Dean Alford's plan is preferable (iV. T. Proleg. p. C9, Vol. I. 1st edition), who, in difficult cases, where testimony seems evenly balanced, would give " the benefit of the doubt" to the Textus Receptus ; but the practical difference between the two principles will be found, I imagine, very slight indeed.
And now recurs the question what we shall understand by "antiqui testes" in the case of Greek Manuscripts ? In the first rank Tischendorf justly places those dating from the fourth to the ninth century ; and among them, to the oldest he attributes the highest authority. "Haec auctoritas ut magnopere augetur si interpretationum ac patrum accedunt testimonia, ita non superatur dissensione plurimorum vel etiam omnium codicum recentiorum, i.e. eorum qui a decimo sajculo usque ad decimum sextum exarati sunt" (p. xii). If this canon is to extend only to cases wherein the most ancient witnesses in competent numbers unanimously support a variation from the common text, I do not conceive that any judicious critic would object to its temperate application : though he may reasonably suspect that where the earliest available evidence is thus overwhelming, a portion of the later manuscripts will always be found to accord with it. What we do resist is a scheme, which, however guardedly proposed, shall exclude the cursive MSS. from all real influence in determining the sacred text. This is Dr Tregelles' avowed principle : that it is not Tischendorf's (however much he may have once seemed to countenance it by his practice) plainly appears from his own distinct assertions : " codices post octavum vel nonum soeculum scriptos
by a very few cursive MSS., sometimes by none at all ! Surely it is because he has seen the insufficiency of such evidence, that he has judiciously retraced
his steps, rather than from "an increasing ten- dency to set private canons above the authority of manuscripts, versions, and Fathers."
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 7
ncgHgendos aiit parvi acstiniandos non esse recentiorum codicum lectiones
quas easdem antiquissimi interpretes ac patres tcstimonio suo confirment, antiqui- tatis commendatione minime destitufas esse" (Proteg. p. xiii). On this grdund he praises the design of Reich, " prsestantissimis codicibus minusculis denuo exami- nandis," declaring of it " ea perquam utilia fore arbitror et ad historiam et ad
EMENDATIOXEM TEXTUS (p. XXXIII. not.).
III. I am unfeignedly anxious to present to the reader a clear and even forcible statement of the principles of textual criticism maintained in Dr Tregelles' " Account of the Printed Text of the Greek Testament :" I assure him I do not criticise his book unread^, or reject his theory without patient examina- tion. I presume he would wish it to be enunciated in such terms as the following : I
The genuine text of the Greek New Testament must be sought exclusively from the most ancient authorities, especially from the earliest uncial copies of the Greek. The paramount weight and importance of the last arises not from the accidental circumstance of their age, but from their agreement with the other independent and most ancient authorities still extant, viz. the oldest versions and citations by the fathers of the first four centuries.
To which proposition must^e appended this corollary as a direct and neces- sary consequence :
"The mass of recent documents [i.e. those written in cursive characters from the tenth century downwards] possess no determining voice, in a question as to what we should receive as genuine readings. We are able to take the few docu- ments whose evidence is proved to be trustworthy, and safely discard from present consideration the eighty-nine ninetieths, or whatever else the numerical proportion may be" (Tregelles, p. 1.38).
In the ordinary' concerns of social life, one would form no favourable estimate of the impartiality of a judge (and such surely is the real position of a critical editor) who deemed it safe to discard unheard eighty-nine witnesses out of ninety that are tendered to him, unless indeed it were perfectly certain that the eighty- nine had no means of information, except what they derived from the ninetieth : on that supposition, but on that supposition alone, could the judge's reputation for wisdom or fairness be upheld. That mere numbers should decide a question of sacred criticism never ought to have been asserted by any one ; never has been asserted by a respectable scholar. Tischendorf himself (Proleg. p. xii.) cannot condemn such a dogma more emphatically than the upholders of the general integrity of the Elzevir text. But I must say that the counter-proposition, that
1 "Let me request any one who may -wish to I &c" (Tregelles, Addenda, p. 2). A moderate re- iinderstand the principles of textual criticism which quest certainly, but I should hope it was hardly I believe to be true, to recul what I have stated, I needed.
8 PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.
numbers have " no determining voice," is to my mind full as unreasonable, and rather more startling. I agree with Dr Davidson (p. 333) in holding it to be "an obvious and natural rule" that the reading of the majority is so far preferable. Not that a bare majority shall always prevail, but that numerical preponderance, especially where it is marked and constant, is an important element in tlio investigation of the genuine readings of Holy Scripture. For on what grounds shall we justify ourselves in putting this consideration wholly aside? Is the judge convinced to a moral certainty that the evidence of the eighty-nine is drawn exclusively from that of the ninetieth ? It has never I think been affirmed by any one (Dr Tregelles would not be sorry to affirm it, if he could with truth) that the mass of cursive documents are corrupt copies of the uncials still extant: the fact has scarcely been suspected in a single instance, and certainly never proved. I will again avail myself of Davidson's words, not only because they admirably express my meaning, but because his general bias is not quite in favour of the views I am advocating. " Cceteris paribus," he observes, "the reading of an ancient copy is more likely to be authentic than that of a modern one. But the reading of a more modern copy may be more ancient than the reading of an ancient one. A modern copy itself may have been derived not from an extant one more ancient, but from one still more ancient no longer in existence. And this was probably the case in not a feiv instances'" (p. 101). No one can carefully examine the readings of cursive documents, as represented in any tolerable collation, with- out perceiving the high probability that Davidson's account of them is true. But it is not essential to our argument that the fact of their being derived from ancient sources now lost should be established, though internal evidence points strongly to their being so derived : it is enough that such an origin is possible, to make it at once unreasonable and unjust to shut them out from a "determining voice" (of course jointly with others) on questions of doubtful reading. I confess that Tregelles is only following up his premises to their legitimate conclusion in manfully declaring his purpose in this respect; but we are bound to scutinize with the utmost jealousy and distrust a principle which involves consequences so extensive, and he must forgive me if I add, so " perilous."
It is agreed then on all hands that the antiquity of a document is only a pre- sumption, a prima facie ground for expectation, that it will prove of great critical importance. "The oldest MSS." writes Dr Davidson again, "bear traces of revision by arbitrary and injudicious critics. Good readings make good aianu- SCRIPTS" (p. 101). " It ought to be needless for me to have to repeat again and again," insists Dr Tregelles, whose reviewers I suppose were Sva^iadta-repoi, " that the testimony of very ancient MSS. is proved to be good on grounds of evidence (not mere assertion); and that the distinction is not between the ancient MSS. on the one hand, and all other witnesses on the other, — but between the united evidence of the most ancient documents — MSS., versions, and early citations —
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 9
together witli that of the few more recent copies that accord with them, on the one hand, and the mass of modern MSS. on the other" (Tregellcs, Addenda, p. 2). Very well : this immeasurable superiority claimed for the early uncials over all later authorities (so that the former shall be every thing in criticism, the latter absolutely nothing) rests not on an axiom intuitively true ; it has to be j)roved by an induction of scattered facts ; and we are bound to watch the process of proof with the greater care, from our previous knowledge that when once esta- blished it will inevitably lead us to conclusions which seem hardly consistent ■with even dealing towards a whole legion of honest and reputable witnesses.
Now Dr Tregelles produces no less than seventv-two passages from various parts of the New Testament (pp. 133 — 147), as a kind of sample of some two or three thousand which he reckons to exist there, wherein " the more valuable ancient versions (or some of them) agree in a particular reading, or in which such a reading has distinct patristic testimony, and the mass of MSS. stand in opposition to such a lection, [while] there are certain copies wliich hahituallij uphold the older reading" (Tregelles, p. 148). Of course I cannot follow him step by step through this long and laboured catalogue; an adequate specimen taken icithout unfair selection will amply suffice to shew my opponent's drift and purpose. I will therefore transcribe all the j)laces he cites from the Gospel of St Mark (they amount to seven), making choice of that Gospel partly for its shortness, partly because I wish, in justice to Dr Tregelles, to discuss in pre- ference those texts which remain unmutilated in the four uncial codices of the first class (see above, vide supra, p. vi.); in the following list they all are complete, except C in Mark xiii. 14 alone. As Tregelles "for the sake of brevity" has laid before us these passages " without any attempt to state the balance of evidence" (p. 148), I have ventured to supply within brackets an omission which I cannot help considering a little unfortunate.
(I). " Mar. iii. 29. Common text, aloaviov Kpiaems. Vulg. has, however, ^ reus erit wterni delicti;' so too the Old Latin [a, 6. c. e.ff^. g^. I. Tregelles N. T., 1857], the Memph., Goth., Arm. ; and this is the reading of Cyprian [bis, Treg. N. T.], Augustine, and Athanasius. Corresponding with this BLA, 33 (and one other MS. [28; add 2P^j), read alcoviov ay^aprrifxaTos, and C* (ut videtur), D, G9 (and two others [13. 346]), have alcovlov dfiaprias, a perfectly cognate reading." (p. 141).
[But Kplaecos is found in AC** (whose primitive reading seems quite doubtful) EFGHKMSUVr^ being all the other uncials that contain the jiassage. Of the
^ Of the uncials cited for these texts B (Tre- gelles' favourite) is least accurately known. ACD LA have been edited in full ; EFGHKMSUXr have been so repeatedly collated (recently by Tischendorf or Tregelles or both) that when they are not cited as supporting variations so marked
as those under discussion, their testimony even sub silcntio in behalf of the received text may be fully relied on. In these seven texts, how- ever, they are expressly cited by Tischendoi-fs seventh edition for the readings here ascribed to them.
10 PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.
cursive copies nil go with the received text, except the six named above, and three which have Ko\a(7ecos. The Pcshito Syriac reads U~»? jndicii: thus also the Har- clean Syriac of the 7th century, the ilithiopic (" in condemnatione"), the Codex Brixianus /. of the Italic (or Old Latin), the Codex Toletanus of the Vulgate, and any Fathers not named by Tregellcs, many of whom must have cited this remarkable passage.]
(2). "Mar. iv. 12. to dixapTiJuara of the common text is omitted by Origen twice; by one MS. of the Old Latin [two b. i. in Trog. N. T.], the Memph., and Arm., with BCL, 1 (and some other MSS.)" [i.e. "22. 118. 209. 251. 340^- al" Scholz : ra irapanTaaara Theophyl. and eight MSS.],
\ra nfxnpWjfiiiTn is read in ADEFGHKMSUVA (Jdaf. T), all cursives not named above, Syrr. both Pcsh. and Hare, iEthiopic, Gothic, Vulg., all Italic MSS. except two].
(3). "Mar, iv. 24. roTj aKovova-iv omitted by the Old Latin, Vulg., Memph., Mth., with BCDLA, and some other copies." [credentibus/. Goth., Treg. N. T.].
[Tischendorf, even in his seventh edition, adds G (Harl. 5684), but on refer- ence to the MS., I find he is wrong. Griesbach adds "item 13. 69 semel," yet 69 in this verse reads toIs dicovovcriv, as do AEFGHKMSUV {Jiiat. F), all other cursive MSS., both Syrr.].
(4). "Mar. x. 21. apn^ rhv a-ravpov Omitted by the Old Latin in most copies [b.c.f.ff.g'' 1:1 Treg. N. T.], Vulg., Memph. [by Schwartze], (so too Clem. Alex, and Hi).), with BCDA." [L is here defective, and so for the first time deserts its allies : add to the list Scholz's 406].
[(ipas Tov tjTavphv is read in AEFHKMSUVXF, the whole mass of cursive copies, the Harclean Syriac, Wilkins' Memphitic and the Gothic. The words are placed before beiipo in G 1. 13. 69. 118. 124 and four other cursives; in Peshito Syr., ^Eth., Arm., the Vercelli MS. a. of the Old Latin, and Irenaeus].
(5). "Mar. xii. 4. Xieol^oX^a-avres omitted by Old Latin, Vulg., Memph , [Theb., Treg. N. T.]. Arm., with BDLA, 1, 33 and four other copies." [i.e. 28. 91. 118, 299.]
[But Xido^.Aja-avTfs is found in ACEFGHKMSUVXF, all other cursive copies, both Syrr., Goth,, M(h.].
(3). "Mar. xii. 23. orav avaa-Taa-iv om. some copies of Old Latin [h (ut vid ). ((•). (A). Treg. N. T.], Memph., Syr., [i. e. Peshito; Treg. N. T. adds Theb. yEth.] with BCDLA, 33.'
[orav dvacTTwcTiv is read in AEFGHKMSUVXF, all cursives but one (13. 69. 346 alio ordine), Vulg., a.ff.g"^. i. of Old Latin, Harclean Syr., Goth., Arm.].
(7). " Mar. xiii. 14. to prjdeu viro AavtrjX rov TTpocpjrov om. most copies of Old Latin [a. Jf. fj\ only in Treg. N. T., where he adds Theb.], Vulg., Memph , Arm , also Au- gustine expressly, with BDL." [Scholz adds " nee attingunt Victor et Theophylact."]
[The words are read in AEFGHKMSUVXFA, all cursives (with some varia- tion in my y and eight others), both Syrr., IPAh., c. Jc. of Old Latin].
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.
11
I do not think the render will desire more than these specimens, transcribed as they ure consecutively from Dr Tregelles' list loithout the iJOSsibiUtij of undue selection: I fully believe him that tliey may be increased twenty-fold. It is time to offer a few renjarks on the facts that have been alleged by each of us. Meanwhile I must beg that the design of my learned opponent in producing his examples be carefully borne in mind. He does not so much aim at shewing that the read- ings of Codex B and its adherents are prefer;ible to those of the received text (though this lie imjilies throughout), as at demonstrating that the united testi- monies of early uncials, primitive versions, and ecclesiastical authors of the first four centuries form together such a mass of evidence as will overbear the voice of the vast majority of witnesses of all ages and countries. We may grant that his favourite documents are entitled to great weight in the process of critical investigation, and this I admit fully and without reserve : we might even prefer many of their readings to those of the received text, which on the whole I am not quite disposed to do : and yet we must demur as firmly as ever to the claim of paramount and exclusive authority he sets up for them. With these preliminary observations I pass on to an analysis of the state of evidence in the passages Dr Tregelles has brought to our notice.
(1). First then it is obvious that the uncial documents, even the earliest of them, are much divided in every place he has cited. I hardly know why the Alexandrine MS. (A) has come to be considered a little younger than the Codex Vaticanus (B); we have free access to and minute knowledge of the one; through the jealousy of the Papal librarians our acquaintance with the other is still very imperfect^; much doubt hangs over many of its readings; it seems barely certain
1 Since writing the above I have examined Cardinal Mai's long-expected edition of the Va- ticanus (5 Tom. Romse 1857) t^® text of which was ten years passing through the press (1828 — 38), and was then kept back from publication till within the last few months. I regret that I can- not even now modify my statement of the pre- cariousness of our knowledge of this great docu- ment : I must needs add my voice to the loud chorus of disappointment this work has called forth throughout Europe. It is impossible to study Vercellone's letter to the reader, prefixed to the first volume, without seeing the strange incompetency both of Mai and of himself, for the task they had undertaken : in fact, Vercellone's frank admission of the great Cardinal's inaccuracy would be amusing if it were not most vexatious. Finding his sheets full of errors and misrepresen- tations of the Codex Vaticanus (some of them inserted from printed books !), Mai tries to get rid of them as well as ho can, sometimes by can-
celling a few leaves, sometimes by manual cor- rections made in each copy ; while he reserves the mass for a table of errata, to be placed at the end of each volume. In this unpromising state was the work found by Vercellone after Mai's death in 1S54, when, anxious to decorate the Car- dinal's memory "novd usque gloria atque splen- didiore corona" (Tom. I. p. in), he drew up the tables of errata projected by his predecessor, and at length submitted this deplorable performance to the judgment of Biblical scholars. His lists of errata are obviously most imperfect ; as regards oithography he only professes to give us "selec- tiora," for Mai, it seems, did not care much about such points ; at any rate it was not worth while to delay publication on their account : and so "reliqua quae supererunt eruditis castiganda permit- timus ; immo ut summa aKpi^eiq, castigentur opta- mus" (ib. p. xiii). Add to all this that the lacunae throughout the MS. are supplied from later sources ; that even accidental omissions and errors of the C2
12
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVK CRITICISM.
whether its accents and breathings are prima or secundd manuK We will adopt however the usual opinion about them: no competent critic places A later than the fifth, or B earlier than the fourth century^ Noiv in each of these seven places A sides with the Eherir text against B. Is it an argument in favour of B that its readings are ancient ? The same plea might be entered for those of A. And their divergencies, it will be noted, are not merely accidental exceptions to a general coincidence, but perpetual, almost systematic. While I confess freely the great importance of B, I see not why its testimony ought, in the nature of things, to be received in preference to that of A. I cannot frame a reason why the one should be listened to more deferentially than the other.
(2). In the next rank, yet decidedly below A or B, stand the palimpsest frag- ment C (Codex Ephrsemi) and the Codex Bezae or D. This latter is generally considered much the least weighty of the four great MSS. of the Gospels (see for instance Alford, N.T. Proleg. on D.) : and that not so much on account of its later date (perhaps about the middle of the sixth century), as from the violent corrections and strange interpolations wherewith it abounds. " Its singularly corrupt text," observes Davidson, " in connexion with its great antiquity, is a curious problem, which cannot easily be solved" (p. 288)^ Now in the seven passages under consideration C accords with B in four cases, with A once ; once its reading is doubtful, once its text has perished. Codex D agrees with B five times, much resembles it once, and once sides with A, Thus these documents of the second class favour B rather than A, C however less decidedly than D,
pen are corrected in the text, though noted in the margin ; that the breathings, accents, and t subscriptum are accommodated to the modern fashion ; and that a slight Preface of a few pages by Mai supplies the place of the full Prolegomena once promised and so urgently required.
1 On this point however Vercellone's testimony should be heard. After correcting Birch's state- ment that the breathings and accents are primd manu, he adds, "etenim amanuensis ille, qui cunctas totius codicis litteras, vetustate palles- centes, atramento satis venuste, servat^ vetere forraS,, renovavit, idem accentus etiam spiritusque imposuit, qui nulli fuerant a primfi manu ; ut illse codicis particulse ostendunt, quas certis de causis (id est vel quia repetitas in codice vel ab eo impro- Latas) non attigit. Eei hujus veritatem codicis spectatores ipsi per se deprehendent." (Cod. Vati- can. Tom. V. p. 499.) I presume it is for this reason that while the facsimile of one column, Mark i. r — 9, prefixed to Tom. v. of Mai's edition con- tains no breathings or accents, they are represented in the splendid plate of the three columns of the
first surviving page (commencing Gen. xlvi. iS TToXiv) prefixed to Tom. I.
2 I find no traces in Mai's Codex Vaticanus of the absurd opinion once imputed to him, that this MS. dates as far back as the second century ; Ver- cellone acquiesces in the date usually assigned to it, that of the fourth or early in the fifth century, but refers to Hug for the proof.
^ Dr Tregelles, indeed, in partial reference to Codex D, is good enough to say, " Some people rest much on some one incorrect reading of a MS., and then express a great deal of wonder that such a MS. could be highly valued by critics. The expo- sure of such excessive ignorance as this might be well dealt with by one who knows Greek MSS. as well as Mr Scrivener" (p. 137 note). Thus appealed to I will reply, that, putting aside the case of mere errors of the scribe, I do think that the admitted corruptions and deliberate interpolations which we all recognize in the Codex Bezse, have a natural tendency to detract from the credibility of its testi- mony in more doubtful cases.
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.
13
(3). When we descend to uncials of the third rank, from the eighth century downwards, the case is entirely reversed. One of them indeed (L of the eighth or ninth century) edited by Tischendorf (Monumenia sacr. ined. pp. 57 — 399) is here and elsewhere constantly with B: A also (Codex Sangallensis of the ninth century, which will be spoken of in Chapter ii.) supports B five times, A only twice^ ; while all the rest extant (EFGHKMSU and X where it is unmutilated) unani- mously support A. Some of these are as ancient as L, several quite as valuable as A.
(4). On coming down from uncial to cursive MSS. the preponderance is enor- mous, Dr Tregelles does not object to the rough estimate of ninety to one; and those few copies which often maintain the readings of BL are by no means stedfast in their allegiance. Yet even here the resemblance to A or B or to each other is but general. The materials accumulated in the present volume and elsewhere shew isolated readings of the most recent codices, even of those which approach nearest to the Elzevir edition, for which no ancient authority can be produced except the Codex Vaticanus. No one who has at all studied the cursive MSS. can fail to be struck with the individual character impressed on almost every one of them. It is rare that we can find grounds for saying of one manuscript that it is a transcript of some other now remaining. The fancy which was once taken up, that there existed a standard Constantinopolitan text, to which all copies written within the limits of that Patriarchate were conformed, has been "swept away at once and for ever" (Tregelles, p. 180) by a closer examination of the copies themselves. Surely then it ill becomes us absolutely to reject as unworthy of serious discussion, the evidence of witnesses (whose mutual variations vouch for their independence and integrity) because their tendency on the whole is to uphold the authority of one out of the two most ancient documents against the other.
(5). One of the arguments on which Dr Tregelles lays most stress is the accordance of the oldest versions with Codex B rather than with A. So far as the Latin versions are concerned the passages he has alleged must be admitted to prove the correctness of his assertion. The Vulgate agrees Avith A but twice, with B five times. The Old Latin translations (for the term Italic it seems is obsolete), though in six instances some of them countenance A, give a clear majority for B. I do not like to speak of the Coptic or Armenian translations, as I am totally ignorant of the languages wherein they are written : Tregelles, I perceive, labours under the same disadvantage (p. 17 1), and will be as reluctant
^ Observe, however, that "The text of St Mark's Gospel is that which especially gives this MS. a claim to be distinguished from the mass of the later uncial copies." (Introductory Notice to Tregelles' N. T., 1857, p. iv.); which intimates that our
selection of the passages in St Mark's Gospel is peculiarly favourable to Dr Tregelles, so far as A is concerned. Elsewhere its readings are much nearer the teodus receptus.
14 PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.
as I am to dogmatise about matters on wliich we are both disqualified from pro- nouncing a trustworthy opinion. Certainly these versions incline powerfully to the Latin, if we may rely on the common representation of them, and one of the editors of the Armenian (Zohrah) denies the correctness of the suspicion revived by Tischendorf, *' yEtate multo seriori [than its origin in the fourth or fifth cen- tury] armcnos codices passim ad latinam versionem correctos esse, virorum doctorum opinio fert" (^Proleg. p. LXXViii).
It is time to turn to the Queen of the primitive versions, the graceful and perspicuous Peshito Syriac. Here, at any rate, there is no ambiguity as to the preference bestowed on Codex A: it is supported by the Syriac in six cases out of the seven. Nor is this the result of mere accident in the Gospel of St Mark : no one who has studied its i-eadings will question that a like proportion is steadily maintained throughout the New Testament. Here then is a venerable transla- tion, assigned by eminent scholars to the first century of our ajra, undoubtedly not later than the second, which habitually upholds the readings of one of the two oldest uncial copies, of the later uncials, and of the vast majority in cursive characters. Our conclusion shall now be drawn, mutatis mutandis, in the words of Tregelles, when lie sums up the results of his induction of the seventy-two passages I have so often alluded to. " Here then is a sample of very many passages, in which, by the testimony of the most ancient "version, that such a reading was current in very early times, the fact is proved indubitably; so that even if no existing MS. supported such readings, they would possess a strong claim on our attention : and such facts might have made us doubt, whether the old translators were not in possession of better copies than those that have been transmitted to us. Such facts so proved might lead to the inquiry, whether there are not some MSS. which accord with these ancient readings; and when examination shews that such copies actually exist (nay that they are the many in contrast to the few), it may be regarded as a demonstrated point that such MSS. deserve peculiar attention" (Tregelles, p. 147) .... But here I pause ; it is enough that I claim for Codex A and its numerous companions "peculiar atten- tion" by reason of their striking conformity with the Peshito Syriac. I ask not, I have no right to ask, that Codex B and its scanty roll of allies, strengthened as they are by the Latin, perhaps by other versions, should be overlooked in forming an estimate of the merits of conflicting readings. I am content to lay myself open to the poet's humorous reproof,
VTjTTioi, oiibe la-aacu oa(o vrXfov ijfiKTV Trairof.
How is this divergency of the Peshito version from the text of Codex B explained by Tregelles ? He feels of coarse the pressure of the argument against him, and meets it, if not successfully, with even more than his wonted boldness. The translation degenerates in his hands into "the version commonly printed as the Peshito" (p. 170). Now let us mark the precise nature of the demand here
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.
15
made on our faith by Dr Tregclles. He would persuade us that the whole Eastern Church, distracted as it has been and split into hostile sections for the space of 1400 years, Orthodox and Jacobite, Nestorian and Maronite alike, those that could agree about nothing else, have laid aside their bitter jealousies in order to substitute in their monastic libraries and liturgical services another and a spurious version in the room of the Peshito, that sole surviving monument of the first ages of the Gospel in Syria! Nay more, that this wretched forgery has deceived Orientalists profound as Michaelis and Lowth, has passed without suspicion through the ordeal of searching criticism, to which e\ery branch of sacred literature has been subjected during the last half-century ! We will require solid reasons indeed before we surrender ourselves to an hypothesis as novel as it appears violently improbable.
And what is the foundation on which our opponent rests his startling con- jecture ? The reader is aware that besides the Peshito, several other Syriac versions, some grounded upon it, and therefore implying its previous existence and popularity (e.g. the Philoxenian, executed A.D. 508, and Cardinal Wiseman's Karkaphensian), others seemingly independent of it (e.g. Adler's Jerusalem Syriac, and a palimpsest fragment lately discovered by Tischendorf) have been more or less applied to the criticism of the New Testament. About the year 1847 Canon Cureton, in his most fruitful researches among the MSS. purchased for the British Museum from the Nitrian monasteries, met with extensive fragments of the Gospels, which Tregelles has collated, and found to contain "altogether ancient readings," and thus to be "an important witness to the ancient text" (p. 161). As this MS., assigned to the fifth century, is still unpublished, we can only say at present that it affords us "an hitherto unknown version;" certainly not "tJie version commonly printed as the Peshito" with mere various readings^ To this version has been given the appellation of the
^ As this sheet is going to press (July i8,s8) Dr Cureton's " Kemiiins of a very antient recen- sion of the four Gospels in Syriac, hitherto un- known in Europe," has at length appeared. The Syriac text had been printed in 1S48, but was doubtless withheld by the learned editor in the hope of finding leisure to write Prolegomena more full, and possibly containing more definite conclusions, than those with which he has favoured us. It would ill become me to express a hasty judgment respecting theories on which so eminent a scholar has bestowed thought and time and much labour. He will naturally expect Biblical critics to hesitate before they implicitly admit, for instance, the persuasion which he hardly likes to embody in words, that we have in these precious Syriac frag- ments, at least to a great extent (Preface, p. xciii),
the very Hebrew original of St Matthew's Gosj^el, so long supposed to have been lost, that even its existence has been questioned. P)ut topics like this are sure to be warmly debated by abler pens than mine : I will confine myself to those points that concern my argument, the relation these frag- ments bear to the Peshito. And here I would say in all humble deference (for my knowledge of Syriac, though of long standing, is not extensive) that my own hurried comparison of the Curetonian and Peshito texts would have led me to take them so far for quite separate versions. Even Dr Tre- gelle.s, who, through the editor's kindness, has been enabled to use the text for years, and whose bias is very strong, can only venture to say "the dif- ferences are great ; and yet it happens not un- frequently that such coincidences of words and
16
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.
Curetonian Syriac, and long may it bear that honoured name : but for regarding- it as the true Peshito, in the room of that commonly so known, I perceive at present no cause whatever except the strong exigency of Dr Tregelles' case.
Yet has not the Peshito Syriac been suspected by previous writers of exhibit- ing a corrupt or modernised text ? Undoubtedly the reconciliation of the Maronites with the see of Rome, and the channels through which its earlier editions were conveyed to us, induced certain critics to hazard a conjecture that this version^ like the Armenian, had been tampered with, in order to bring it into closer con- formity with the Latin Vulgate. This, however, is a change in precisely the opposite direction to that ivhich Tregelles hypothesis demands: his complaint against the Peshito is not its accordance with the Latin, but its consent with Codex A and the junior MSS. against it. I vouch not for the correctness of this surmise as regards the Armenian ; its injustice towards the Peshito is demonstrated by the evidence of that old MS. Rich 7157 in the British Museum, of the eighth century, a period long anterior to that when a "foedus cum Syris" was possible on the part of the admirers of the Vulgate. This precious document has been collated throughout by Tregelles; together with several others of high antiquity in the Museum, it has been carefully examined by Dr Cureton, by Mr Ellis, and two German scholars (Bloomfield, Preface to N. T., ninth edition, p. viii, note). The reports of all concur to the same effect: these venerable MSS. exhibit a text, singularly resembling that of the printed editions ; which last were consequently drawn from purer and more ancient sources than, reasoning from the analogy of the Greek text, the warmest advocates of the Peshito had been led to anticipate.
(6). We have little to say about citations from the Fathers. That the Latin ecclesiastical writers should accord with the Latin versions is nothing strange : perhaps some of them could not read, none of them used familiarly the Greek original. As witnesses for the readings of the Italic or Vulgate they are of course valuable : unless in the very rare instances where they expressly appeal to the Greek, their influence upon it is but indirect and precarious. As regards the Greek Fathers I am bound to state, that no branch of Biblical criticism has been
renderings are found (and that too, at times, through a great part of a passage) as to shew that they can hardly be whoUij independent" (Tregelles, Home's Introcl. p. 268). To the same effect also Dr Cureton speaks: "It seems to be scarcely possible that the Syriac text published by Wid- manstad, which, throughout these pages, I have called the Peshito, could be altogether a different version from this. It would take up too much space to institute here a comparison of passages to establish this fact, which, indeed, any one may easily do for himself" (Preface, p. Ixx). I heartily
I wish that Dr Cureton had fully investigated the subject ; he might have removed the diflBculties at least of those who love truth, and are ready to em- brace it wherever they shall find it. As it is, we can but say with Tregelles, " Such a point as this cau only be properly investigated after the publi- cation of this version shall have given sufficient time to scholars to pursue a thorough investigation" (Tregelles, uhi supra). In the mean while neither he nor I are at liberty to assume the truth of that hypothesis which may happen to harmonise best with our preconceived opinions.
PIlI^■ClPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 17
SO utterly neglected as the application of their citations to the discussion of various readings ; indeed I know almost nothing that has been seriously attempted with respect to it, except Griesbach's examination of the quotations of Origen in his Symholce Criticce. The whole question, however, is so replete with difficulties, that Bishop Fell {N. T. Oxon. 1675) thought the bare allusion to them sufficient to absolve him from entering upon it at all. The ancient Fathers were better theologians than critics ; they often quoted loosely, often from memory ; what they actually wrote has been found peculiarly liable to change on the part of copyists : their testimony therefore can be implicitly trusted, even as to the MSS. which lay before them, only in the comparatively few places where the course of their argument, or the current of their exposition, renders it manifest what reading they support. At present we have many intimations in our critical editions that this or that ecclesiastical author countenances a variation from the Textus Receptus, but few cases, very few indeed, are recorded in which they agree with it: the latter point being confessedly no less essential to our accurate acquaintance with the state of the evidence than the former. Any enlarged discussion on this head of our argument must at any rate be postponed till we possess more reliable information on the facts it involves : most thankful should I be to any student who has leisure and disposition to enter upon this wide yet almost unoccupied field. Meantime I am constrained to admit that many examples have been established by Griesbach and his successors, wherein Origen agrees with Codices BL against Codex A and the received text, one or both. I will not dissemble, I strive not to evade, the force of such early testimony where it is unambiguous and express : let such readings be received with " peculiar attention," let them never be rejected without grave and sufficient reason. Yet the support given to B or L by Origen is very far from being uniform or ''habitual." While I can well understand the importance of his confirmation where he countenances the readings they exhibit, I fail altogether in apprehending what service he can do them, where he is either silent or positively hostile ^
Those who have followed me through this prolonged investigation (which I knew not how to abridge without sacrificing perspicuity to conciseness) will readily anticipate my reply to Dr Tregelles' "statement of his case," comprehended in the following emphatic words: "It is claimed that the united testimony of versions, fathers, and the oldest MSS. should be preferred to that of the mass of modern
^ e.g. Origen sides with the received text or with A against B, Matth. xxi. 29 cited by Tregelles (p. 107), and in the course of the next few chapters in XXV. 27 ; 29; xxvi. 48 ; 53 ; xxvii. 3 ; 11 ; 54 lis; xxviii. 15 ; 18. I could multiply references
Icctoris ad fastidium. It may tend to shew the precariousness of patristic testimony if I add that in five of the above-named passages Origen's au- thority may be cited on hoth sides.
18
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.
copies; and farther, that the character of the few ancient MSS. which agree M'ith versions and fathers, must be such (from that very circumstance) as to make their general evidence the more trustworthy" (p. 141). Unquestionably, I rejoin, your claim is reasonable, it is irresistible. If you shew us all, or nearly all, the uncials you prize so deservedly, maintaining a variation from the common text which is recommended by all the best versions and most ancient Fathers, depend upon it we will not lu-ge against such overwhelming testimony the mere number of the cursive copies, be they ever so unanimous on the other side. But are we not discussing a purely abstract proposition ? Do we ever find the "united" testimony of the ancients drawing us one way, that of the juniors another? I will not assert that such instances may not occur, though at this moment 1 can hardly remember one : it is enough to say that principles broad as those laid down by Tregelles must be designed to meet the rule, not the exception. In the seven texts we have been reviewing, in the sixty-five that remain on his list, in the yet more numerous cases he tells us he has passed over, the uncial MSS. are not unequally divided ; or where there is a preponderance, it is not often in our adversary's favour. The elder authorities being thus at variance, common sense seems to dictate an appeal to those later authorities, respecting which one thing is clear, that they were not copied immediately from the uncials still extant. Such later codices thus become the representatives of others that have perished, as old, and (to borrow Davidson's suggestion, p. viii) not improbably more old than any now remaining. These views appear so reasonable and sober, that they have approved themselves to the judgment even of Dr Tregelles : for he does not by any means disdain the aid of the few cursive copies {e.g. 1. 33. 69. &c.) which "preserve an ancient text," whereby of course is implied one coinciding with his preconceived opinion of what an ancient text ought to be^
Perhaps I shall be expected to say a few words respecting the scheme devised by Bentley for settling the sacred text on a firmer basis, since both Tregelles and his precursor Lachmann (iV. T. Proleg. Vol. i. p. xxx) have sheltered their practice of recurring exclusively to the most ancient extant docu- ments beneath the shadow of that great name. We shall all agree on one point, that no authority, however imposing, can supply the place of argument in enquiries of this kind ; nor do I scruple to confess that were I disposed to swear allegiance to any earthly teacher, it would be to that illustrious scholar.
1 Dean Alford had constructed the text of his first volume of the Greek Testament (ist edition) on nearly the same plan as Tregelles would, and thoroughly was he dissatisfied with the result. "The adoption of that text," he writes with ad-
mirable frankness, "was, I do not hesitate to confess, a great mistahe. It proceeded on altogether too high an estimate of the most ancient existing MSS., and too low an one of the importance of internal evidence." {N. T. Vol. ii. PrcAaj. p. 58.)
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 10
whose learning and genius shed a bright ray across the darkness of his evil generation. It is painful to say of the most highly gifted man that ever devoted himself to the study of Biblical criticism, that his leading principle was taken lip hastily and on precai'ious grounds ; yet if the fact be so, why need we hesitate to avow it ? Bentley's theory, as most of my readers will remember, was built on the idea, that the oldest MSS. of the Greek original and of Jerome's Latin version, resemble each other so marvellously, even in the very order of the words, that by means of this agreement he could restore the text as it stood in the fourth century, " so that there shall not be twenty words, or even particles, difference!" "By taking two thousand errors out of the Pope's [Clementine] Vulgate, and as many out of the Protestant Pope Stephens's [1550], I can set out an edition of each in columns, without using any book under nine hundred years old, that shall so exactly agree word for word, and, what at first amazed me, order for order, that no two tallies, nor two indentures, can agree better." Thus wrote Bentley to Archbishop Wake in 1716: the tone of his " Proposals," in 1720, after considerable progress had been made in the work of collation, is not materially less confident. Yet to those who have calmly examined the subject, the wonder is not the closeness of agreement between the Greek and Latin Codices, but that a man of so vast erudition and ability should have imagined that he perceived it, to any thing approaching the extent the lowest sense of his words demands. Accordingly when his collations came to be examined, and compared,, and weighed, keen indeed must have been the disappointment of our English Aristarchus. With characteristic fearlessness he had been at no trouble to select his materials (at least I trace no indication of such choice in his surviving papers), and thus the truth would burst upon him all the sooner, that the theory on which he had staked a noble reputation, in the face of watchful enemies, must either be abandoned or extensively modified. We can well understand the struggle which silently agitated that proud spirit. Had the subject of his labours been Terence or Milton, it were easy to conjectm-e the course he would have adopted : if MSS. refused to support his system, they must have been forced to yield to it. But Bentley, with all his faults of temper, was an honest and a pious man; he dared not make the text of Holy Scripture the victim of his sportive ingenuity ; and so, soon after the year 1721, we come to hear less and less of his projected Greek Testament. Though he lived till 1742, it does, not appear that he ever made serious progress in arranging the stores collected by himself and his coadjutors. As I have turned over his papers in the Library of Trinity College, with a heart saddened by the spectacle of so much labour lost, I could not persuade myself that the wretched dissensions which embittered his declining days had, of them- selves, power enough over Bentley's mind to break off in the midst a work that he had once regarded as his best passport to undying fame.
J ) 2
20 PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.
From the facts we have been discussing I feel entitled to draw two or three practical inferences.
(a). That the true readings of the Greek New Testament cannot safely be derived from any one set of authorities, whether MSS., versions, or Fathers, but ought to be the result of a patient comparison and careful estimate of the evidence given by them all.
(6). That where there is a real agreement between all the documents prior to the tenth century, the testimony of later MSS., though not to be rejected unheard, is to be regarded with much suspicion, and, unless supported by strong internal evidence ^ can hardly be adopted.
(c). That in the far more numerous cases where the most ancient docu- ments are at variance with each other, the later or cursive copies are of great importance, as the surviving representatives of other codices, very probably as early, possibly even earlier, than any now extant^.
I do not lay down these propositions as any new discovery of my own, but as being (even the second of them) the principles on which all reasonable defenders of the Textus Beceptus have upheld its general integrity.
IV. I have a good hope that the foregoing investigation of the laws of Comparative Criticism will have convinced an impartial reader, that the cursive or junior copies of the Greek New Testament have, in their proper place and due subordination, a real and appreciable influence in questions relating to doubtful readings. If I have succeeded thus far, it results that the time and pains I have bestowed on studying them have not been wasted: the collations I have accumulated cannot fail to be of some service to the Biblical critic, even though he may think I have a little exaggerated their value and importance. I am not so sanguine as to the degree of popular acceptance my views may obtain, nor (without affecting absolute indifference on the subject) am I by any means so anxious on this head. I have always thought that the researches and labours of the scholar — of the theological scholar above all others — are
^ If I have liitherto said nothing on the im- portant head of internal evidence, it is from no wish to disparage its temperate and legitimate use. Yet how difficult it is to hinder its degenerating,
strained into a summary neglect of more recent witnesses, as necessarily offering nothing worthy of notice :" finely adding, "The critic should not suffer himself to be encumbered by prepossessions
skilful hands, into vague and arbitrary | or assumptions, nor bind himself to the routine of
conjecture !
^ Even Mr Green, from whom I fear I differ widely on some of the topics discussed in this chapter, does not shrink from saying, "In a re- view of authorities special regard will reasonably be paid to antiquity ; but this must not be over-
a mechanical method of procedure. If he allows himself to be thus warped and trammelled, instead of ever maintaining the free employment of a watchful, calm, and unfettered mind, he abandons his duty and mars his work" (Course of DevelojKcl Criticism, Introduction, p. x.).
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 21
thcii' own highest and purest reward^. Let me plead guilty to having read with sensations akin to scorn, the manuscript note appended by Caesar de Missy (a person who might have known better) to the copy of Hearne's scarce edition of the Codex Laudianus (published in 1715), now preserved in the British Museum. To Hearne's miserable list of just forty-one subscribers to his book, De Missy subjoins the sarcastic comment "Apres cela, Docteur, va pdlir sur la Bible !" Yet why should he not have grown pale in the study of God's Word ? Why not have handed down to happier times a treasure of sacred learning which the princes and prelates of George the First's reign (that nadir-point of public virtue and intellectual cultivation in England) were too slothful to ap- preciate, too negligent even to despise? The pin-suits of Scriptural criticism are so quiet, so laborious, that they can have few charms for the votary of fame, or the courtier of preferment: they always have been, perhaps they always must be, the choice employment mainly of those, who, feeling conscious (it may be) of having but one talent committed to their keeping, seek nothing so earnestly as to use that one talent well.
^ I should have wished to add some noble senti- { face, p. xx.) on this point, but that I trust they are ments of Dr Dobbin {Codex Monffortianus, Pre- \ known to my readers, as thej' well deserve to be.
CHAPTEE IL
DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS COLLATED BY F. H. SCRIVENER.
The following contributions to the criticism of the Greek Testament are now submitted to the Biblical student.
I. A transcript of the uncial Codex Augiensis GRiECO-LATiNus of St Paul's Epistles, The importance of this venerable document, no less than its countless variations from the printed text in both languages, seems to make a full publica- tion of its contents very advisable. No pains or diligence has been spared to render the copy here exhibited a faithful representation of the original manu- script.
IL A full and exact collation of eight manuscripts of the Gospels (three being Evangelistaria in uncial letters), of fifteen containing the Acts and Catholic Epistles, of fifteen copies of St Paul's Epistles, and thirteen of the Apocalypse, few of which have been previously used for critical purposes.
I have set down the variations of these fifty-one documents from the standard text (Elzevir, 1624) with a minuteness not before deemed necessary by others, or indeed by myself in my " Collation of Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels." Not only have I noted the various readings strictly so called, but every peculiarity of gi-ammatical inflexion or breathing, every erasure or error of the pen, every remarTcahle change, whether of accent or punctuation, will be found recorded in these pages. In adopting this plan, I have acted not so much on my own judgment, as the earnest desire of several scholars, who have wished my labours to present them with as true an image as possible of the original codices. Un- doubtedly the real value of our materials, the degree of care exercised by the respective scribes, together with many interesting and significant peculiarities of each document, may thus be preserved for the curious inquirer: nor in consulting a book of reference like the present can any one be seriously incommoded by what he may think an error of excess on my part. A portion of my task whose usefulness is less open to dispute is my anxiety to state, in the case of every important variation, not only which of my authorities differ from the received text, but which of them agree with it,
I proceed to lay before the reader, as clearly and briefly as I may, some account of the manuscripts I have collated, beginning with that whose transcript covers so many of the following pages.
DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS, &C.
23
I. The Codex Augiensis is a Greek and Latin Manuscript of St Paul's Epistles, written in uncial letters, probably of the ninth century, deposited in the Librai-y of Trinity College, Cambridge (b, 17. 1), to the Master and P'ellows of Mhich society I am deeply indebted, as well for the munificent aid they have afforded me in the publication of this volume, as for their liberal permission to use this and other precious documents at my own residence. The Codex Augiensis is written on 136 quarto leaves of fine vellum, 9 inches long by 7^ broad, and has a rude binding in wood, such as was common in Germany and the Low Countries some centuries ago: on the leathern back are stamped the initials of one of its late owners (G. M. W.). Each page contains 28 lines and is divided into two columns, wherein the Ijatin version is set alongside of the Greek text, the Latin column being always placed outside. This copy com- mences, Rom. iii. 19, fia Xeyet, and the Greek ends, Philem, v. 20, ev xp(o. There also occur the following hiatus in the Greek; 1 Corinth, iii. 8 to v. 16, ot/cei ev vixiv. ibid. vi. 7 to the end of v. 14: and Coloss. ii. 1, after \ao8tKta to v. 8, Koa-fiov^. In all these places after Rom. iii. 19, the Latin version is complete, being carried on to the end of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; but the very same hiatus are found in the Greek text and Latin version of the Codex Boernerianus {JSIatthcei, 1791), although this latter document contains portions of the Epistle to the Romans before the place where the Codex Augiensis begins.
The recent history of our manuscript may be traced by means of the inscrip- tions and notes at its beginning and end, which I have copied below, p. 272, and need not here repeat. It Avas first the property of the monastery whence it derives its name, that of Augia Major, or Augia Dives, Reichenau [rich meadow) on a fertile island in the lower part of Lake Constance in Baden ; not Augia Rheni, Rheinau {meadow of the Rhine) on an island near the cataract of SchafF- hausen, as Michaelis and others state (Reeves' edition of Adamnan's " Life of St Columba," Pref. p. xxii) : Bentley's note " Monasterium Augiae, in Belgis, ubi institutus est Goddeschalchus" seems to point to Orbais in the diocese of Soissons and modern Department of the Marne, some thirty miles east of Paris. If Wet- stein be right in supplying " Concilii" after *' Basiliensis" [a.d. 1431] in the earliest inscription, p. 272, the book must have belonged to that monastery in the fifteenth century; whence it came into the possession of G. M. Wepfer, of Schaff'hausen, and then of L. Ch. Mieg, who permitted Wetstein to examine it. Wetstein induced Bentley to purchase this Codex at Heidelberg in 1718, the German bookseller parting with it at cost price (250 Dutch florins) in considera- tion for the fame and learning of the prince of English scholars^. Bentley, as
^ Eight leaves of the Codex Augiensis, which ought to follow fol. 55, have been placed by the binder after fol. 102.
2 Or rather perhaps as Bentley states the case when writing to Wetstein at the time {Bentley Cor- respondence, p. 541), "ob beneficia a uie partim
24 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
will be seen from his manuscript notes, formed a high estimate of the Codex Augicnsis, and used it for his projected edition of the Greek Testament. I have compared his colhition (consisting of the Greek text only) with my own tran- script, and extracted {infra, p. 284) the few notes interspersed with it from the margin of his copy of the Oxford Greek Testament 1G75, now preserved with his other papers and books in Trinity College Library (b. 17. 8). The first published collation of our manuscript was that of Wetstein, in whose notation it is marked F of the Pauline Epistles ; but as this was easily seen to be very imperfect, it was again examined by Tischendorf in 1842, and by Dr Tregelles in 1845, for their editions of the Greek Testament. The result of Tischendorf's labours appears in his manual N. T. of 1849, but it is obviously impossible in so small a volume to do anything like justice to such a document as this : indeed I may fairly apply to his case the language of Matthaei respecting the kindred Codex Boerneri- anus: " Etenim nee Kusterus nee Wetstenius satis accurate omnia hujus Codicis singularia notaverant, nee vero etiam, nisi totum transcribere voluissent, potuerant. Plura enim pi'orsus singularia nuUus inter Codices N. T. habet, nisi fortasse Evangeliorum et Actuum Bezae seu Cantabrigiensis" [Prcef. Cod. Boern. p. iii.)^ I should add that Tischendorf was the first to pay attention to the Latin trans- lation in F (denoted by f), remarkable and in some measure perplexing as it is. " Primus contuli et passim citavi " is his statement {^Nov. Test. Proleg. Pi Lxxxii.) ; yet his citations are comparatively few (no less than eight varia- tions being omitted in liom. viii.), and convey no adequate representation of its peculiar charactei'. I have reason to know that this defect will be supplied in his seventh edition.
In estimating the age and country of this manuscript we are scarcely left to conjecture. The style of writing both in its Latin and Greek columns, its manifest connexion with the Codex Boernerianus, and consequently with the Codex Sangallensis of the Gospels (A) published in lithograph facsimile by Rettig (Turici, 1836) ; no less than the extraneous matter it contains, written in the same hand as the sacred text, all seem to point distinctly to the West of Europe, and the middle of the ninth century.
This foreign matter consists of a Latin Prologue to the Epistle to the Hebrews (infra, p. 252), the only Argument in the Codex Augiensis, and a kind of Epilogue to the same Epistle (pp. 2G8 — 272), having however but little reference to it. Both the Prologue and Epilogue are found in the works of Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mayence, who died a.d. 856, and is justly termed by Dean Waddington (History of the Church, p. 259, first edition)
acceptH,partim adhuc sperata:" yet who would not i tinet commemorare." This was in 1 791, yet the
gladly impute their courtesy to the higher motive ? j Cod. Augiensis was then at Trinity College, having
1 "Nam de Augiensi," Matthaei strangely been placed there in 1787, after the death of
adds, "quia ubi nunc lateat, ignoratur, uon at- ! Richard Bentley the nephew.
OF THE GREKK TESTAMENT. 25
" the most profound theologian of the age." The Proh)gue is prefixed to that prelate's Commentary on the Hebrews (Migne, Patrologia, Tom. 112, Paris, 18-51 ; liabani Opera, Tom. vi. p. 711); the Epilogue is annexed to llabanus' Treatise " De Modo Poenitentice," comprising the twenty-third and concluding chapter of that work, with the title " Dicta Abbatis Pinopiii" (Migne, Patrologia, Tom. 112, p. 1329); yet, as in the case of the Codex Augiensis, it has no special connection with the preceding matter, only that it was manifestly familiar to Rabanus, who has employed its sentiments, and sometimes its very words, throughout his own Treatise^ Now when we consider that both the Prologue and Epilogue are found in the volumes of Rabanus, it need not materially modify our estimate of the date of the Codex Augiensis were we to learn that one or both of them has been traced scparateJi/ to an earlier source. The Prologue is read almost verbatim, in the Codex Amiatinus edited by Tischendorf (1850, 1854), the most venerable existing MS. of the Latin Vulgate, whose date is the sixth century: while a marginal note has been affixed by a modern hand to the Epilogue in our MS. (fol. 139, p. 2)^ directing our attention to Cumianus, an Irish writer of the middle of the seventh century. On comparing the passage cited (BibliotJieca Patrum Maxima, Lugduni 1677, Tom. xii. p. 42) with our Postscript, the resem- blance between them appears so slight an(J general that it is hard to believe that the writer of the note could have ever read both pieces throughout: in the few opening sentences alone is there any real similarity. There seems, therefore, at present no reason for distui'bing the general opinion which has assigned the date of our Manuscript to the next generation after Charlemagne.
We are led to much the same conclusion when we regard the Codex Augiensis in connexion with the Codices Sangallensis and Boernerianus : I name them together, for no one that has read Rettig's elaborate Prolegomena to the former (Cap. IV. pp. 18 — 23) will hesitate to consider them as portions of one and the same document. The close affinity subsisting between the Codices Augiensis
^ The Codex Augiensis should be used for cor- | remit Origenes Homil. ii. in Levit." A later
recting the text of Rabanus : thus, both it and the , scribe adds, "imo potius conveniunt iis quse Cu-
Cod. Amiatinus supply an important sentence in | mianus habet in 1. de Poenitentiarura niensura"
the Argument to the Hebrews, and it confirms [ qui auctor vixit an 640. et iis quse extant B. Patr.
Migne's conjecture "elemosinai-um/'fol. 140, p. i, 1 T. xii. p. 42." For habct in Tischendorf reads
col. I, 1. 6. Aft«r "jam non recordabor," fol. 141, 1 Rabani, for hahet Mr Hort (in Tregelles' Home,
p. I, col. 2, I. I, there is no resemblance between i p. 198 note) reads Fata or Fota, and obligingly
our MS. and the "Dicta Pinophi," either in the points out to me that "Fota" or "the Long"
words or sense. For this Abbot Pinophus I have ■ was the sobriquet of Cumianus or Co;nmin (nat.
searched in vain every index of mediasval litera- | A.D. 592; Cave, Histor. Literar. Tom. i. p. 584,
ture I could meet with. I must k-ave him to j O.Kon. 1740). I believe, however, that when he
some one who may be more foi-tuuate. ; shall next consult the MS., he will find my read-
'■^ I subjoin the whole note, the cramped hand- j ing of the word con-ect. I have placed an ;is-
writing of which has perplexed more readers than j terisk on p. 268, at the pLice whoic this ra.-.r-
one: "respondent stec [sequential] quadantonus | ginal note begins, variis illis rcmittcudi peccata modis. quorum me- I
26
DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
and Boernerianus has indeed no parallel in this branch of literature, for the Codex Sangcrmancnsis of St Paul's Epistles (E) is nothing but a bad copy of the great Codex Claromontanus (D), and having as such no critical value whatever, ought long since to have been expunged from the list of authorities. No suspicion of this kind can be reasonably entertained in the present case. The Latin versions in the two copies are essentiaUij different, and though the circum- stance that the same hiatus are met with in the Greek text of each, and their intimate correspondence even in errors of the scribe, abundantly prove that they are derived from the same Greek prototype'(" ejusdem veteris exemplaris apo- graph©," as Bentley expresses it, ivfra, p. 284), yet the supposition that the one was immediately derived from the other, will be found quite irreconcileable with ascertained phenomena. I have made an accurate collation of the Codex Augi- ensis with INIatthaji's edition of the Codex Boernerianus, which was lately ascer- tained by Bottiger to be very exact, and have placed its results at the foot of each page in my transci-ipt in the following pages. Hence it appears that the two documents vary from each other in 1984 places; whereof 579 are mere blunders of the pen; 968 itacisms, or changes of one vowel into another^; 166 relate to a similar interchange of consonants; 71 to grammatical or ortho- graphical forms; while the real various readings amount to 200, of which 32 arise li"om the omission or insertion of the article. Elsewhere the Greek texts of these manuscripts are identical, coinciding in the minutest points.
, The 166 instances of interchange of consonants are chiefly corrections in the Codex Boernerianus of anomalies found in the Codex Augiensis; yet many remain common to both, from which might be drawn up a catalogue to the full as curious as that of Rettig in his Prolegomena to the Codex Sangallensis, and much of the same character. A few examples loill suffice for a thousand, and it is quite evident that the scribe who adopted them had a most imperfect acquaintance with Greek. Thus A and e are perpetually confused in F; e.g. avbpaiTos, Gal. iii. 15; v. 3; Eph. vi. 6; Phil. ii. 7; Col. iii. 22: but adeXKpos Phil. ii. 25; iii. 1; 13; 17; iv. 1 ; 21; Coloss. i. 1 ; 2; 1 Thess. iv. 10, bis; 13 ; V. 1 p.m.; 4 p.m.; 12 p.m.; 1 Tim. iv. 6 p.m.; v. 1; 2; aXrjbuiv, 1 Tim. iv. 3
jy.m.: aycoviCofieSu, ibid. v. 10 pm.; irapa^iKriv, 2 Tim. i. 12: \vbabrjv (pro avOahri), Tit.
i. 7. So N and n, rovnavTiov, Gal. ii. 7: avvvveKpi-B-qa-av, ibid. V. 13: \vveiTai, Ephcs. iv. 30: Trpfvei, V. 3: Treptvarire, ibid. V. 8: especially kovos (pro koitos), 2 Cor. x. 15; xi. 23 ; 27, passim. Thus also T and e are interchanged, evfixea-rai, 2 Cor. xi. 4: anoXoyovpeTa, xii. 19 p.m.: KadapTiCfo-dai, xiii. 11: avdea-TTjv, Gal. ii. 11. Similarly with C and I, Rom. vii. 11 has fCrjTraTrja-ev both in F and G; but Phil. iii. 8 f^TjpticvBrjv: see also F in Col. i. 29; iii. 13; 1 Thess. v. 3 ; 2 Thess. i. 3;
^ In both MSS. the vowels are interchanged as much as in any copy I know, none perhaps so frequently as o and w : yet I would not quite
assert with Tregelles (Home, p. 198), that the writer of F " used them without discrimination. The interchange of e and t] is nearly as frequent.
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 27
1 Tim. i. 6 ; Tit. i. 2 ; ii. 9. H and N are constantly interchanged in G, and some- times in F, e.g. Eph. i. 17; iii. 8; 2 Tim. iii. 13. The confusion of fi and v, noted by Matthaei in G, is also found in F, e.g. Kom. xv. 2G ; 1 Cor. i. 9 ; as is the more natural error of A for A (1 Cor. iii. 19), A for A (Tit. i. 7), A for A (2 Cor. xii. G). The decided Latinism n for P (e.g. 1 Tim. ii. 1) and vice versa is very frequent: o-pfpua, Rom. ix. 7: napapTafiaTt, xi. 11: ayaprjroi, 1 Cor. X. 14: p.m.: but Tr\T]Tro(fiopf<Tov, 2 Tim. iv. 5. Mutations of tt and /3 (1 Tim. iv. 14), of k and x (especially in eKdpos and eKdpa, e.g. Rom. v. 10; viii. 7; xii. 20), of ^ and x (Rom. xi. 14, G; 1 Cor. vi. 2, F; 2 Cor. iii. 18, F; 1 Tim. i. 15) of vx for yx {(nr\avxva, Philem. vv. 7; 12) constantly occur, and need not here be further cited.
There are no signs of the ordinary breathings and accents in this manuscript. Codex F occasionally, and G more often places a straight line nearly horizontal over the initial vowel of a word, which may be designed for the aspirate, but is found in some few places where the vowel takes the lenis (i8lov, 1 Cor. vi. 18; vii. 4; 37; Lo-a-a, Phil. ii. 6; see also 1 Tim. iv. 15). This mark is of some im- portance from the circumstance that both in F and G it is placed over OC in 1 Tim. iii. 16, for which various reading in the place of eC these codices are well known to be the chief, I had almost said the only unequivocal witnesses. Yet I do not believe that the line was intended to denote that OC was the familiar abbreviation for deos, for not only is there not the faintest trace of such a line ivithin the O as shall make it become O', but the line is placed over too many initial and aspirated omicrons to render it probable that anything more was intended here (1 Thess. i. 9 F G ; 1 Tim. iii. 1 G; iv. 14 G; 15 FG ; vi. 15 his FG). Another pecuharity of these codices is the strange and sometimes indeed the absurd manner in which the words are separated from each other. The continuous mode of wiiting, with no space or division between the words, which prevailed in the elder Greek uncial copies, was by this time laid aside, and the scribe of the Codex Augiensis seems to have intended to place a middle point or stop (•) after the last letter of each word he wrote. These points I have faithfully retained in my transcript, and though the penman neglects them in some passages (about fol. 12 and elsewhere they almost disappear for a while), yet on the whole they are found pretty uniformly in all parts of the MS. Parts of the same word, originally separated, are often linked {p.m. as it would seem) by a curve („), the point once between them being partially or wholly erased. In the Codex Boernerianus few such stops are found, but an interval is left between the several words much in the fashion of modern writing. Now the point I would draw attention to is this : that while the mode in which the words
^ Of course I speak of the Codex Augiensis from close and repeated examination, and the reader will judge for himself by the photogr.apli
contained in this volume. The facsimile of this passage from the Codex Boernerianus is given in Matthici's Greek Tcstnment, Vol. i. p. 4.
e2
28
DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
arc divided in each copy displays much ignorance on the part of the penman, there is no striking resemblance in the actual blunders : the two documents therefore were derived separately from some early codex, in which there was probably no interval between the words ; and consequently in those places where F and G agree, they must not be estimated as two distinct authorities, but as one; the surviving representatives of a manuscript now lost, perhaps a century or two older than themselves.
This is true as regards the Greek text : their respective Latin versions are quite independent and even more interesting than the Greek to a Biblical critic. " Codex Augiensis latinam interpretationem eamque veterem vulgatam adscriptam habet, Boernerianus vero grascis superscriptam eamque veterem italam," is Tischendorf's decision (Proleg. N. T. p. lxxiii). Tregelles again terms the Latin version of F a very good copy of that of Jerome, "far superior to that generally current" (Tregelles' Home, p. 198). I am not sure whether Dr Davidson has closely examined this subject, as his description of this copy is not quite free from error, 3'et I conceive his view of the version to be more correct, w hen he regards it as " patched and mended so as to be a mixture of the Old Latin and Jerome's" {Treatise on Biblical Criticism, Vol. 11.). But in fact the internal history of the Latin Vulgate translation, and its relation to the Italic or old Latin, under the various forms wherein the latter has been pi'cserved to us, remain yet to be investigated, nor is this the place to venture on so large a field of inquiry. The Latin portion of the Codex Augiensis (called f by Tisehendorf) will I believe prove very useful to the scholar who shall undertake the thorough examination of this question: for the present it shall suffice to offer a few general remarks.
Our version then will be found to approximate much nearer to the Clementine Vulgate, or to the best MSS. of Jerome's version, such as the Codices Amiatinus and Fuldensis, in those parts of the manuscript where the Greek is lost : indeed to differ from one or more of them only in affbrding some good various readings. There is wider divergency in other places, yet even there it very much consists of readings assimilated to those of the Greek text in the parallel columns, or of changes in the order of words, Avhich are thus made to approach to that of the original, a tendency too natural under the circumstances to excite surpi-ise. Sometimes, when the variation in order is more extensive than usual, marks are placed over the Greek words, referring them to the corresponding Latin (e.g. Rom. xi. 22). In some parts of this MS. (e.g. 1 Cor. x.) the divergences of the Latin version in our copy from the Vulgate are considerable : its renderings approaching nearer to those of the Italic MSS. In many passages, however, the Latin reading agrees with the printed Vulgate against the Greek (e.g. Rom. xii. 11; 1 Cor. xi. 2; 24; xiv. 18; xv. 51; 2 Cor. i. 20; iii. 13; v. 3; 19; xi. 23; Gal. i. 6 p.m.; v. 25 ; Ephes. vi. 19 ; Phil. ii. 11 ; iii. 8 ; 17 ; 20 ; 2 Tim. i. 9 ; iv. 22) : while in some instances it departs from the Greek and present Vulgate text jointly (e. g.
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT.
29
Rom. ix. 4 ; 1 Cor. x. 1; 29 ; xv. 23 ; Eph. iii. 11 ; Phil. iii. 7; 1 Tim. v. 1 ; 2 Tim. i. IT) bis); and often sides with the Greek against the Vulgate (e.g. 1 Cor. vi. 20; ix. 24; X. 2; 19; Gal. v. 22; et passim).
Throughout the whole MS. many Latin words -will be seen placed o^ er the Greek, probably by a later', certainly by an ancient hand, a large portion of which, viz. 86 cases out of the whole 106, are derived from the interlinear version of the Codex Boernerianus-: of the remainder, one rendering " ivaltet" 1 Cor. vii. 4 is in German, which was doubtless the native language of this scribe. Either therefore a later hand must have corrected the Cod. Augiensis by its kindred copy (which from other improvements in the Greelc may be deemed not impossible), or the interlinear Latin in both documents was taken from their common prototype, which in that case must have exhibited the old Italic and not Jerome's revised translation. The Latin version in F is somewhat carelessly written, at least in parts (e.g. foil. 49, 50). I have thought it my duty to retain in my copy all the original errors of the pen.
I would not positively assert that the Codex Augiensis is the work of a single scribe: certainly when the misplaced leaves 56 — 63 are seen in the later part of the MS. after fol. 102, the contrast in style of writing is rather striking. Yet those who are most conversant with palaeography will often feel the most diffident in pronouncing judgment on this point, so greatly does the hand change in the course of a long task ; and so much is it influenced by the prospect of an abund- ance or scarcity of vellum or paper. Yet in a case like that before us, where the same document was faithfully copied at the same time and place, the question respecting the identity of the copyist is hardly worth discussing^
Wetstein, I believe, was the first to speak of the Anglo-Saxon form of the Latin characters (N. T. Proleg. Tom. ii. 8), but I perceive no real difference between the style of this MS, and of many of the same date which abound in public libraries (e.g. Bodleian, Douce, 322). Hence I would rather acquiesce in the statement of the late accomplished John Wordsworth (infra, p. 272) : " This MS. is not written in Anglo-Saxon characters, as has been described, but in the renovated minuscule of the Caroline period." While the Greek portion is executed in a neat but rather rude uncial character, the Latin is in a cursive hand, the intervals between the words well marked, and the whole ap^Dearance one of singular elegance and clearness. The reader will observe from my copy
^ pota ilium, Rom. xii. 20, and perhaps some other words, are clearly p. m.
2 From which, I presume, h was inserted be- fore vrroKpiaei, Fol. 118, p. 2, 1. 18.
3 I am quite willing to acquiesce in Dr Tre- geUes' statement, in his edition of Home's IrUro- duction, Vol. II. p. 189 : " If different parts of the Code.x Augiensis are compared, it may seem as if
it had been -written by several hands from the variety in the character of the Greek ; but if the leaves are looked at consecutively (and not in the order in which some of them are now transposed) [vid. supra, j). xxiii, note i.], it will be seen that the clianges are so gradual as to indicate the same hand having become more practised (or more wearied) in tracing Greek letters."
30
DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
that prepositions, &c. are often joined closely with the following Avord. Here again a few of the consonants are repeatedly interchanged, b with p\ d with t, c with s, X with ch (1 Cor. xii. 31), and p with r in xps or xpc, both which forms perpetually occur, the latter perhaps the more frequently. The letter r has often the shape of f, and twice (Rom. ix. 19; 2 Tim. iii. 17) r is used where P is plainly meant. On the other hand, a few Latin letters and forms have crept into the Greek text, as in Gal. v. 24; 1 Tim. iv. 2; 2 Tim. iii. 4 p.m.; iv. 1. Indeed v, u and y are much confounded: the genitive t for ov occurs 2 Cor. ii. 15; v. 10; 1 Tim. iv. 6; Philem. 9 p.m.: i for the pi. nom. oi, 1 Cor. ix. o; xv. 48; 2 Thess. iii. 8: t? for ois, 1 Cor. xvi. IG : k is read in karissimus, but not (I think) elsewhere.
The abbreviations or contractions in the Greek text ai-e confined to the words, deos, Kvpioi, iTjo-ovs, xptfTor, rraTTjp, Trvevfia, and their oblique cases ; these are common to most uncial copies. The Codex Augiensis however (thus resem- bling the Cod. Boernerianus) is peculiar in reading irjv, irjv, xpv> XP"- although the more usual forms iv, iv, ^f, x^ ^^'^ often met with. It also sometimes reads s for ov. All these peculiarities I have, of course, studiously retained.
The Latin version has many more contractions, though these are so unequally distributed that on many pages (especially near the beginning) there are scarce any. The page Ave represent in photograph exhibits an average num- ber. Most of them will be found in other MSS. of about the same date, but since I have not exhibited them in my transcript except for special reasons, I have been the more careful to draw up the following complete list of them.
Both in the middle and end of a word — over a letter denotes m: over m it stands for en (e. g. am), over t or v for er (e. g. talit), over the last written
1 Since Reichenau, like St Gall and other neighbouring foundations, was much frequented in the ninth century by Irish monks and pilgrims, the Codex Augiensis has been thought to have been written by a scribe of that nation. I note however a considerable difference both in style of writing and in neatness between the Latin of this MS., and the rude coarse hand of the Codices Sangallensis and Boernerianus, which strikingly resemble the interlined copy of the Lord's Prayer appended to the Reichenau MS. of the Life of St Columba, founder of Hy [Icolmkill] by Adamnan, and pub- lished with it in 1857 for the Irish Archaeological Society by Dr Reeves, the Celtic scholar, to whom we were indebted ten years ago for the interpreta- tion of the Irish stanzas at the foot of fol. 23 of the Codex Boernerianus. The learned editor has also laboriously collected from this MS. of Adam- nan (which he assigns to the eighth century), from the Book of Armagh (a.D. 807) and other kindred
sources, those orthographical peculiarities which he considers to characterise Irish MSS. of about the ninth century (Preface, p. xvi). I believe that his list would have been more useful had he excluded mere errors of the pen, and made it rather more select : some of his forms, e. g. -is for -es, c and t interchanged, adinpletus for adimpletus, are common to all ages and MSS. Yet not a few of his ex- amples occur in the Codex Augiensis, e. g. h for p ; p for 6 (prespiter) ; f for ph; t for d ; habunde ; cclesia ; ohoedientia ; and especially the coherence of the preposition to the word it governs, so con- stant in our MS. Dr Reeves (Preface, pp. xx. xxi.) incidentally states that the capricious sub-division of words, of which we see so much in the Greek of the Codex Augiensis, is a marked peculiarity of old Irish writing. But in our Latin version (f) we find nothing of this kind, nor am I on the whole inclined to impute it to an Irish scribe.
or THE GREEK TESTAMENT
31
letter of a verb for the terminations it, at, or unt. The mark z above the last written letter of a verb is for ur; the termination us is often represented by an apostrophe (e.g. man'), rarely by u (Hebr. xiii. 4), u« or u', or even by s for the apostrophe. The mark x seen on 11. 18 and 27 of the photographed page is for the ending urn of the genitive plural; b is for the termination bis; h; b' or b; for bus final. A comma uridei- e (1. 17 photograph) is for ae diph- thong, and though it is often found under e in cdum, yet that word when written in full is always spelt ccelum not ccelum: so also penitentia, pp. 268, 269. What is meant by the comma over e (which I retain whenever it is found) I know not. A kind of flourished tail appended to h, m, or n stands fori Te e- h )• ns, nt are often written ]N , IS ; a is sometimes written small below the line and connected with the other letters by a species of flourish as a^ h for as, ha\
In the subjoined hst of abuidged words the aiopcnded reference shews that the form occurs only in the passages cited :
aetu (Hebr. vii. 21) (sternum.
aliqd aliquid or aliquod.
ajjls, apsis apostolus.
au, aut (au& Ephes. vi. 21) autem.
c, 3 con prepos.
dns (d 1 Cor. iv. 5), dni &c Dominus ^c
ds, di, do, dm Deus S^t.
eccla, eclsae, eclani ecclesia Sjc.
H (Hebr. xii. 20 ; xiii. 17) enim.
eplis epistolis.
epm (Tit. i. 7) episcopum.
g° •• ergo.
e or -^ est.
ee, eet, cent esse, esset, essent.
& (even joined with other lettei's), or 7 et.
evang (Eph. vi. 19) evangelii.
fr, frt, frem, fres, fribus f rater Sjc.
gla, glae gloria &;c.
gra, grae, gram, gras gratia S<;c.
hierlm (Hebr. vii. 22) hierusalem.
ihc or ihs (ih 2 Thess. ii. 8), ihu.ihra. J^e«i«* S^c.
Tmentu (1 Cor. iii. 7) incrementum.
ibis terve "*•
^^■^^'•1 IsraheL
kmi (Eph. V. 1; Phil. ii. 12) carissimi.
micda, miserda, miae, miam . . . misericordia S^-c.
ms (Hebr. x. 38) „j^„^_
^ non (ne p. 270, I. 27?)
m-, nra, nrm, nrorum, mis nosier S^c.
nurnqd or numqd numquid.
nc~(Hebr. ix. 24) nunc.
obsecral (Eph. vi. 18) obsecratione.
omis, oms, ome, omi, oma omnis &c.
P per.
p' (only in Hebr. and Postscript) post.
p (even joined with other letters) . . . prce or pre.
pbros (once in Postscript) presbyteros.
p' mu (Eph. iv. 9) primum.
p (1. 20 photograph) pro.
qd, qd or q'd, qu'd quid,
quid quidem.
q quce.
q^ quce or quam.
qui^or q*a quia.
q", q's or qu's, q", q* qui, quis, quo, qua.
^ E. g. puynas, i Tim. vi. 4 ; halitam, ib. 16; fiabcam, 1 Tim. i. 3 ; hahllavlt, ib. 5 ; crliaiaatores, iii. 3.
32
DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
qd or qu°d quod.
quo, qm, quom quon'mm.
q' q; q' que.
sclin, sacla (scl gen. 1 Cor. ii. 6) &c. seeculum S^c
scs, sea, scm, see, seorum, seis &ic..snnctus S;c.
scdm or secdm secundum.
r, or 3d sed.
sic sicut.
simil (1 Cor. vii. 4) similiter.
.sps, spin, spu spiritus &;(:
8 sunt.
V vd.
v° ( h 1 Cor. xi. 15) vero.
_ o
vr, vestr, vrae, vrum, vrs &c vester S^c.
xpc or xps, xpi, xpo, xpm Christus S^r.
The liturgical matter, numbers of Ke({)akaia, marginal annotations, &e. of the Codex Boernerianus are totally wanting in the Codex Augiensis, which contains, however, a few marks at the foot of the second pages of folios 95, 111, 119, 127, and of the first page of 1132. The stops in F are the full point (•) between the Greek words, and a note of interrogation ? often employed in the Latin, where the colon also prevails. The other chief marks are the horizontal line discussed above (p. xxvii.), double or single points or commas over i and v, a larr/e comma, and a kind of circumflex ^ sometimes placed over a Greek vowel or diphthong (usually ^ or ei), on no regular principle that I can make out. The sign 7 or 7 7, which perplexed Matthaei in the Codex -Boernerianus, is rarely found in F, nor can I throw any light upon it. The titles and initial lines of each epistle, as also the first letter of each Kecj^aKaiov, are in rubric and s^cundd manu, though many of the last are still wanting, letters being placed in the margin (often p.m.) to guide the rubrician, and a few are placed erro- neously, e.g. 1 Thess. iv. 1; 13; 2 Thess. ii. 1; iii. 1. No trace exists in F of that strange announcement with which G concludes, llpos \aov8aKr]cras apxeTcu eirtaroXT), which raises our curiosity as if only to baulk it. Some writers have observed that F resembles the Codex Bezas in adopting the abbreviations Xps, ~i^, &c. instead of the more usual forms x^j 'f» ^c. But, as I intimated above, the latter occur in this manuscript scarcely less often than in the former: see 1 Cor. viii. 6 and many other places. Both in the Greek and Latin texts I have often hesitated whether a letter somewhat larger than the rest should be printed as a capital; and on this minute point my judgment has probably been sometimes at f\\ult.
I had purposed to lay before the student a selection from the remarkable readin"-s and extraordinary grammatical inflexions which abound in this Codex, but in plain truth they are innumerable, and, at the same time, of such
1 Matthffii Cod. Boerner. p. loi, describes a similar abbreviation in that MS. as t for aut : yet both in the Cod. Augiensis (e. g. fol. I02, p. 1) and in his own facsimile of the Cod. Boerner. I Tim. i. 3, the letter is clearly I for vel.
2 I do not under.stand pa on fol. 113, or on fol.
1 27 repetit. The numerals ly on fol. 95, tS ou fol. Ill, te on fol. 119, and tr on fol. 127, occur at in- tervals of eight leaves, and shew that the MS. consisted originally of 143 leaves, of which 8 are misplaced after fol. 102, and the first seven (pro- bably including a title-leaf) lost.
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 33
a character that they will be sure to arrest the interest and reward the best attention of every one into whose hands this volume is likely to fall.
As the Codex Augiensis exhibits throughout many traces of erasures and corrections, the reader will please, while using it, to make constant reference to the Annotatioxes Editoris {infra, pp. 273—284), in which these alterations are carefully recorded. I only hope my notes may prove serviceable to others, in some proportion to the pains and anxiety I have expended on them. But no one versed in these studies is ignorant how much doubt and uncertainty often exists, as to whether a change has been introduced by the first penman, or by some later hand^ I have arranged these corrections into three classes, those prima manu, those secundd manu, and those again recenti manu, accord- ing as I conceive them to have been made by the original scribe, by a second yet ancient corrector (and to him i impute the great mass of these changes), or by a recent critic, whose judgment should have no weight whatever. Alterations of the last kind are easily detected, but for the others I am sensible that another eye will often decide differently from mine. I have taken no notice of a mala seges of Latin annotations scribbled over the earlier leaves of this Codex by some one who must have been profoundly unconscious of its value ; from the similarity of handwriting I fear the culprit is Mieg, one of the former possessors of this priceless treasure. Several places are also disfigured by grotesque sketches in ink, such as often offend the reverential student of Biblical MSS. I am inclined to think, however, that they are least frequently found in copies of the Holy Gospels^.
My transcript of Cod. F has been compared with the original six times, before it was submitted to the reader. For the photograph copy of the page containing the important variation in 1 Tim. iii. 16, I am indebted to the skill and Christian kindness of my friend and neighbour, the Rev. R. F. B. Rickards, Vicar of Constantine.
II. 1. I proceed to describe the eight copies of the Gospels which have been collated for this volume.
(i) Trin. Coll. Cantab. B. x. 17. This manuscript and the next but one belong to the Library of Trinity College, and although they are not in the list of Bentley MSS., since they never passed into the younger Richard Bentley's posses- sion, are said in the general catalogue to have been " brought from Mount Athos,
^ " Passim difficile dictu est utrum emendatio ad ipsum auctorem an manum ejus sequalera, an ad correctorem posteriorem sit referenda," is Tisehen- dorf's admission as regards the Codex Aniiatinus (Proleg. p. xxxir. 1850).
2 One of the lea-st repulsive examples of this
evil habit I have met with occurs in the Bodleian MS. Canonici Graeci no of the Acts and Epistles, wherein a poor priest is portrayed in a humor- ous and triumphant attitude, pointing to i Tim. v. 19, a text which had doubtless proved of some use to him when in difficulties.
34 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
purchased by Dr Bentley, and bequeathed by him to the College." Unques- tionably they are both paged and the modern chapters noted by his hand. My attention was first drawn to them by Mr Field, the editor of Chrysostom's Homilies, and I have found them both well worthy of the labour bestowed upon them. This copy is on vellum, quarto, on 317 leaves (exclusive of G leaves of paper at the beginning) with 20 lines in a page, written in a neat set style, and in good condition, though the ink has faded in parts. I should assign it to the 13th century. The binder has happily lettered it " Hymni in dies festos." The paper leaves contain Liturgical matter and an vnodfais to St Matthew (the other Gospels have none) in a good hand, though somewhat more recent than that of the MS. itself. Here also, and on the last page of vellum we have an illegible scrawl in modern Greek, seemingly about the owner, one Sylvester. The vellum MS. contains KfcpaXaia majora before each
Gospel, and (foil. 311 — 317) the ordinary yvaa-is tov evayyeX. tov 6\ov eviavrov,
including the Saints' Days. On the ample margin of this fine copy are found the numbers of the Ammonian sections and capitals to each (but no Eusebian Canons, or Epistola ad Carpianum or Eusebian tables) ; apxr), reXos constantly in the text; the titles of the KftpaXma majora and beginnings of lessons at the top and foot of each page : all these in bright red.
As Codex i presents us with a pretty fair specimen of the character of such itacisms as prevail in MSS. of this date, I have formed a list of them, stating how often each occurs. We meet with a for o, 109 times; o for w, 105; et for J/, 81; rj for ei, 78; i for ei, 35; ei for i, 36; e for m, 41; m for e, 35; e for t], 11; ;; for e, but twice^ j? for (, 84 times (with ttio-tj]! always); t for rj, 76; ei for oi, 4; oi for et, once; t for v, 5 times; v for i, 4; v for oi, 4; ot for u, once; v for t], 14 times; rj for u, 3; ft for v, once; v for a, 4 times; oi for t, 7; i for oi, twice; ot for rj, 5 times; rj for ot, twice; o for ot, once; a for ov, 4 times; ov for «, 4 : total in the four Gospels 759 itacisms. The v fcjjfXKva-riKov is read 171 times (chiefly with enrev), but is SO unequally distributed that there are only nine after Luke viii. 29. No I ascript is met with, but t subscript is as often inserted as omitted (28 times in Matth. i — iv.), not rarely where it has no place, e. g. /xfyaX??, Matth. vii. 27, Ke(t>aXr], ibid. xiv. 11, and in 15 other passages.
The breathings in i are a little irregular, though much less so than in some other copies : we often find oxXos, oXiyos, o'i8a, 68ovTav, ocrreav, atVeo), &c. and verbs whose initial letter is tj improperly aspirated: on the other hand, dpna^cn, trepos, eracpos, oXos, elaTrjKei. &c. The accents are somewhat inaccurate, and occasionally neglected, especially in 8ia or npos before articles and nouns ; yet vei'bs compounded with prepositions frequently have both parts of the compound accented. I have noted ten cases where the circumflex is thrown upon the ante-penultima, e.g. ofSnTf, Matth. XXV. 13. Of grammatical and orthographical pecuharities this MS. has no great number ; the following list is I beheve pretty complete: oTrocrTaXfifvovs
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 35
Matth. xxiii. 37 ; Luc. xiii. 34 ; XeXaftf, Marc. iv. 37 ; napeXdrjvai, vi. 48 ; (itiCo} (for
-0)1') ix. 34; xii. 31; TrapedaKtjcrav, XV. 10; (finpoade, Luc. V. 19 p.m.; fo-Kanovv, vi. 9;
Siaufpta-fitpoi, xii. 52 ; icoirpiav (with some editions), xiii, 8 ; dvyarepav, ibid. 16 ; 6vpa {acCUS.) ibid. 25 his; a-apti, XV. 8; apoTpiowra, xvii. 7; eKaOepiadriaav, ibid. 14; x'?pa (accus.), xviii. 5 ; fiaa-dot, xxiii. 29; yaXXiXata, xxiii. quinquies ; Kpifiav, xxiv. 20; ttoXXos, Johan. vii. 12; bo^audrj, xv. 8. In the two earher Gospels we usually find payi^i, ^apa^as. We mostly read dhe, always I think ujSpaap, ovtms, ijXiay, ovx- Other forms
which frequently occur are iopoKa, diarovro, Kariblav, hiairavTos, apa (for apa), i^evav-
vpav, coaavTds, or av, err' av. A few proper names in T are followed by the apo- strophe, e.g. vaCapfT, eKia-ajBeT : v is occasionally rejected so as to generate the hiatus, e.g. Johan. xiii. 26, and 6 other places.
Of various readings Codex i supplies a large variety, and is somewhat partial to glosses: it will occasionally be found to accord with the received text, in passages where few MSS. support it. Though not negligently written, it exhibits at least 16 omissions from the opoiorfXevrov. j]pf is and vp.fis are confounded in about 25 places. A reviser's hand has been somewhat busy with this document, and a few corrections are very late. The rubric portions are not quite contem- porary with the MS,, for some letters are erased that they may be rewritten in red ink. On the last page of the vellum, after the Synaxarion, or table of lessons, we read the following rubro:
TOV CaKTvXoi? ypU-y^aVTU, TOV K€KTT],a€VOU
Tov avayivwaKovTa ixbt evXajSein^ (puXarre tov<s Tpei'S r} Tpia-i TpKToXjSiMS.
I subjoin a list of a few principal readings of Cod. i. which will be seen to be in frequent agreement with the Codex Leicestrensis, to be described hereafter, and with Codd. cgpy and sometimes 1 of my " Collations of the Gospels," Matth. vii. 14 p.m. {Ehev.y, x, 36; xiii, 10; 14 (c); 15; 17 (y); xix, 28; xx. 23; xxvii. 6; Marc, iv, 21; 29; 38; v, 9; 15; vi, 29; vii, 4; 8; 13 ; 15 ; 20 ; xii. 29; xiv. 33 ; 44 (cy); Luc, i, 23; 59; iii. 23 {stops); v, 6; 36; vi. 7 (Elzev.); vii. 4 (g) ; 42 ; viii. 50; x. 2; 22; 36 (Ehev.); xvii. 26; 27 (g); xix. 8 (g); 21; xxii. 10; 65; Johan. i. 27; v, 12; 16; vi. 1; xvii. 11; 13 (p); xviii. 5 (y); 40(g); xix. 21; 41 (y); XX. 26(c); 31.
(v)^ Cantab, Mm, 6, 9 is a copy of the whole Greek Testament except the Apocalypse, and belongs to the University of Cambridge ; it was lent me for collation from the Public Library through the kind offices of the Vice- Chancellor for the years 1856 — 8, the Rev, Dr Philpott, Master of St Catharine's College,
^ As I have elsewhere designated by v the readings of one of the Lambeth MSS, (ti8o) in Marc. i. i — Iv. i6 ; Johan. vii. 53 — viii, 11 ; I have
in these places distinguished the Cambridge MS. by the notation v.
f2
36 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
It Avas doubtless once the property of Dr More, Bisbop of Ely, for it was pre- sented to the University by George I. in 1715, with the other books of that prelate; a royal gift which provoked one of the wittiest epigrams in our language. It is.written on 294 leaves of vellum (foil. 233, 234, and 235, 236 being misplaced by the binder) in small quarto (7 inches by 51), each page containing 28 lines in a minute, clear, neat and regular hand, of the 12th or 13th century. This copy is numbered by Scholz, 440 in the Gospels, 111 in the Acts, 221 in St Paul, but he collated only six chapters, and those so hastily, that out of 101 various readings they contain, he has neglected 34 and misstated 4.
While engaged on the Epistles I soon detected the identity of this MS. with Gl of Griesbach, the unknown English copy indicated by Hal, whose readings that critic transcribed from the margin of Mill's own copy of his Greek Testa- ment preserved in the Bodleian, and published for the first 17 chapters of St Matthew and all the Epistles in his Symholce Criticce, Tom. i. pp. 247 — 304. Whether these readings had been collected by Mill or Hearne, they must not be regarded as a complete collation, since full three variations out of every four are passed by unnoticed. On comparing the result of my own labours with the readings exhibited by Griesbach, and consulting the original MS. wherever we differed, I find that Hal. or 61 agrees with Cantab. Mm. 6. 9 in about a thousand passages, and (excluding a few obvious misprints in the Symboke Criticce) differs from it only in 24^, most of which may be fairly imputed to the circuitous route by which the extracts from Hal. have come round to us. No one will question that the two authorities are identical who shall weigh the many strange readings wherein they stand quite alone, or compare them at Matth. xii. 32 ; 1 Cor. vii. 35 (where a is mistaken by the collator for ev); 1 Tim, i. 10. These instances (to which many might be added) ai'e quite decisive.
The Eusebian canons in rubric cover the first nine pages, but the Epistola ad Carpianum is wanting. Three pages which follow and eight others throughout the MS., originally left blank, are scribbled over with tables of Church lessons in a recent hand. There are no tables of Ke4>a\aia majora before the several books, but each KefpaXaiov and its contents are written in bright red at the head of their proper pages. In the Gospels the Ammonian sections (but no references to the Eusebian Canons) are placed in the margin in red, and throughout the MS. the beginnings, endings and initial words of the Church lessons are fully given rubro, sometimes indeed the initial words have crept into the body of the text in black ink: to each lesson is prefixed a rubric capital. There is no preliminary matter except iiTTodfaeis to the Catholic and first eight Pauline Epistles; after the Acts,
' I subjoin a list of these texts, that 6i may no xvii. 25 ; Eom. vii. 23 ; i Cor. vii. 35 ; 2 Cor. i. 6; iii.
longer be falsely cited for readings it does not con- 6; 7; Gal. i. 21 ; Eph. v. 19 ; Phil. iv. 12 ; 1 Thess.
tain ; in each case the true reading is given in the i. 9 ; i Tim. i. 8 ; vi. 4 ; 2 Tim. ii. i ; Heb. ii. 8 ;
following pages : Matth. i. 4 ; ii. 3 ; v. 28 ; vii. 22 ; 9 [•] > vi. 9 ; vii. 2 ; xi. 8 ; i Johan. v. 20; Jud. v. 1.
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 37
1 and 2 Peter, 3 John and before the Romans large hlarik squares are ruled in red, apparently to I'eceive subscriptions. The hands of two separate correctors can be traced both in the text and margin; the one being the original scribe or else the person who wrote the rubric portions, the other much later: a few changes were made by the recent hand which wrote the ecclesiastical tables : the modern chapters are noted and the leaves numbered b}' a yet later writer, whom I believe to be Bentley. Not fewer than 28 instances of omission by ofioioTekfVTov occur, some of them extensive ; on the whole the accents and breathings are accurately represented: only that there is a tendency to throw them somewhat out of place. We find t suhscriptum twice in Matth. v. 39: t ascriptum Luc. ii. 25 ; Johan. xii, 12 : nowhere else. N fcfxXKva-TiKov occurs before a consonant 98 times : but is wanting before a vowel 30 times. The itacisms are not particularly numerous ; I count 445 in all, chiefly of the ordinary character ; e.g. o interchanged with w, rj with et and t, e with at. A large portion of these is met with in the last 22 leaves (comprising 2 Thess. to Hebrews) the text of which is quite different from that of other parts of the volume, either because the scribe had grown careless, or was copying from a different exemplar. On these leaves are found several remarkable readings, for which there exists no other authority than Griesbach's 61 Act. and Paul: e.g. 1 Tim. iii. 9; 16; Hebr. iv. 8; ix. 9?; 28?; x. 3: see also 1 Cor. xv. 11; Eph. iii. 8. The mixed character of its text attracted Scholz's attention, as he observes that in the Gospels it is " ex familia utraque confiatum." In fact, without exhibiting such perpetual and conspicuous variations as are found in the Cod. Leicestrensis and a few others, it abounds in readings either peculiar to itself or attested only by a few of the most ancient documents: this is especially true for St Luke's Gospel, the Acts and the last six Pauline Epistles. In Johan. vii. 53 — viii. 11, and some other places it closely resembles the MS. I shall presently denote w : it often supports the Cod. Leices- trensis, and eg of my previous collations. Throughout the Acts and Epistles it is very much with our b (Lambeth 1183) in passages where they stand quite alone. Few unusual forms, either of orthography or inflexion, are met with in this document: we read however xeipa", Matth. xii. 10; Biav, Act. xiv. 12; eavpav, ibid. v. 19 ; yj^vxci, 2 Cor. xi. 27. The reduplication is sometimes lost, Johan. xi. 52; Act. xi. 11 ; Hebr. ix. 6; xi. 5 : sometimes the augment, Luc. iii. 18; vii. 32 ; 1 Tim. vi. 7- 12 ; 17 ; 2 Tim. i. 16. The punctuation often differs from that of the printed books, but the scribe has been too negligent in this respect to deserve much attention where he is unsupported (e. g. ; and • are frequently put for each other) : I have noted such peculiarities as seemed of any importance. This MS., though a beauti- ful specimen of caligraphy, contains an unusual proportion of contractions, some of them rather uncommon ; yet all may be read with certainty after a little practice : T) and V almost interchange their shapes. The colophon merely "consists of the words acoaov /Lie kj 6 ds fiov • (toxtov [xe ks ruhro on the last page. Far in the margin
38 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
on fol. 151, p, 2, we read, ayios 6 6s in a later hand. Occasionally, though not often, citations from Scripture &c. are indicated by rubric marks in the margin, Tlie last few leaves are dirty and somewhat damaged. Here, as elsewhere, we
meet with dlBpaofi, ovtus ITniformly, ta-rr], rjXias, dpafia, 6pi(ov, opKOS, wpa, ara mostly, but
orav, £o5e more frequently than dde, St av. We see p.rj, but only joined with ov or used interrogatively ; sometimes 6 p(v, 6 8e, re, t^', eV, ou^'. No one who shall attentively examine the readings of this MS. will hesitate to regard it as one of the most important of its date, and to deem it well worthy of the minute examination to which I have subjected it.
(w). Trin. Coll, Cantab. B. x. 1G, the remaining manuscript of Bentley's collection, contains, like the last, the whole New Testament, with the ordinary exception of the Apocalypse, the Catholic Epistles as usual following the Acts. It is written on thick oriental paper, in small quarto, on 363 leaves, containing 28 lines on a page. Its date is fixed by a note at the end of St John's Gospel : airr]
r'l /3i/3Xoy riyovv to ayiov evayyfkiov, opoicos km 6 airocrToXos eypaiprjaav ev tw opci tco ayico aiva, eu6a pavarjs oi8ev [si'c] tt]V dyiav j3aTov KUi fde^uTO top vopov' €ypa(f)T)aav
Se 61/ eTT] twkS, 8m x"P°f ^1^°'" apaproAov laKon^ov Upopovaxov {ccbtera eracluntw). Though written so late as a. d. 1316 [6824 of the Greek sera], it was doubtless copied from one of those more antient volumes, wherewith the region of Mount Sinai abounded, as it is rich in various readings of high value. Mr Field, in an obliging communication, notices its frequent resemblance to the Codex Cyprius (K of the Gospels), on which Scholz, and more recently Tischendorf and Tregelles, have bestowed so much pains: but in the other parts of the N. T. also, it will be found in company' with the best authorities, and with the Lambeth MSS. acd. The Liturgical matter in this document is pretty copious. The table of Eusebian canons, the vnodea-is and Kf(f)aXaia majora to St Matthew seem to be lost, for the margin of every page in the Gospels contains the numbers of the Eu- sebian canons, in their proper place under the Ammonian sections : while the three later Gospels have the larger KicjiaXaia prefixed to them in rubric, and references are made to them in the margin throughout. The beginnings, endings and proper days for the Church lessons are given at the top and foot of each page in rubric. This copy is in fair condition, being only a little torn about Hebr. xi. 18; 32, 33, and portions of the first six leaves of the Acts being restored in a late hand, which I have indicated by 1c; see especially Acts vii. 48 — 60. Otherwise the whole MS. seems written by one scribe (in no very elegant style), only that in the Acts and Epistles the words are much abridged, I suppose because paper was running short {vid. supra, p. xxix). A second hand has been busy throughout the volume ; the erasures are numerous, and many curious glosses are found in the margin, together with some variations otherwise well vouched for ; so that it is clear the corrector derived them from a good source. The itacisms of this MS. are much fewer than those of Cod, i, the instances of v t^ikKvarLKov far more
OP THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 39
frequent (in einev almost uniform) in the Gospels, but much more rare afterwards. In the Gospels t ascript occurs 67 times (mostly with the article), i subscript but thrice in the whole MS. A remarkable feature of w is the capricious, or at least unusual arrangement of its breathings, in this respect much resembling the Parham Evangelistarium (P) hereafter to be described : the irregularities of i being nothing in comparison. The penman seems to aspirate all initial etas with verbs, most omicrons and omegas : e. g. 771/ (imperf.) often, rjXdov, riKovaa, i^KoXovdei :
so 6(pda\fios, eviavTOS, (ov, a'lyiaXos, aiTea), alria, i]8t], alyvmos, o^etXw, avpiov, inaivos, oktw, OTTicrw, Sx^os, ovofia, Syjre, oylroixai^, &C. but mostly wSe, flcTTTjuei, ivfKev, olrives. When
a word begins with p, he puts the aspirate over the first vowel, as p^para : he reads a^paap, laaaK, TjXtas, the last two not uniformly. As in Cod. i, the accents are not very correct; sometimes they are placed over each part of a compound word, some- times the preposition and noun are treated as one word. We often have i8ov, iiiav, ovTcas (for ovTU)) : in Matth. ix. 3.5 v and /3 are confounded [depanf^oov) : so Acts iv. 36 sec. man. &c. The hiatus is not rare, e.g. Matth. xvii. 23, and 14 other places. Grammatical peculiarities are not many : such are (inav, Matth. xvi. 14 ; Johan. vii. 20; 52: avraXayfia, Matth. xvi. 26; Marc, viii. 37 : awKaetjufvos, Marc. xiv. 54:
enpofCpTiTeviTev, LuC. i. 67 : apidp-qvrai, xii. 7 : Tr}V 6vpa, Johan. Xviii. 16 : evpoiav, Act.
xvii. 27 ; avadoa-avTes, xxiii. 33 : ijpepa [accus.), xxvi. 7 : fiTTa, ibid. 15 ; Hebr, iii. 10 : ■jravTode, Hebr. ix. 4 : ai/reKareo-rjjre, xii. 4. The augment is omitted in Act. xiii. 14 ; XV. 14; xxiii. 14; 1 Pet. i. 10. This copy contains its share of SpoioreXevTa, of which I have noted 14 examples : for peculiarities in punctuation see (among others) Matth. x. 42 ; Act. v. 39 ; xvi. 12 ; Jac. v. 3 ; Jud. v. 20 ; Rom. vi. 10 ; xiii. 4; 1 Cor. v. 1; Gal. iii. 6; iv. 10; 16; Eph. vi. 6; 19; Phil. i. 4; ii. 28; 1 Thess. V. 25 ; Hebr. iii. 10. The celebrated passage Johan. v. 4 is marked with an obelus in the margin ruhro, as in dk among my "Collations," the uncials S A &c. Besides much foreign matter of an ordinary character before the three later Gospels (Hsts of Ke(pa\aia majora, prefaces of Cosmas Indicopleustes, rude
iambic verses &;C.), foil. 161 175 contain eKkoyadiv tcov 8 €vayyeXicrTO}v...6poioiS Kai
Tov anoa-ToXov, including avva^apiov tov oXov iviavrov (fol. 166). The Acts have no preface, but on fol. 219 is irpoXoyos tcov KodoXiKcov eTnaToXcou, each of which and all the Pauline Epistles have inodeaecs prefixed. Fol. 333, p. 2 to fol. 363 consist of supplementary matter. (1) Lives of the Apostles, pp. 5. (2) Another eKXoyaSiv
TCOV 8' ivayyfXi(rTcov...TeXeiovv ev tco prjvoXoyico pp. 14. (3) crvva^apcov aw 6co ap^op-evov
ano prfvos creivTip^piov pp. 7. (4) The Omitted or lost preliminary matter to St Matthew, Ke(f)aXaia majora, iambic lines, preface of Cosmas &c. (5) On the same leaf 350, a Life of St James, Bishop of Jerusalem, liturgical tables, canonical questions, virodeais ttjs ^i^Xov Tcav wpa^ecov (fol. 355), prayers and miscellaneous
1 In Matth. xxiii. ■21, 2^, we find opLvvei, but I that it is vain to look for consistency: thus in d/xocra's, though opoaas had been given in v. 20, so | Luc. vi. 41, ocpdaXpu and dcpdaXpu both occur.
40 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
pieces, to fol. 3G3, where the MS. concludes abruptly, being mutilated at the
end.
In tlie following passages Cod. w will often be found to agree not only with the
Codex Cyprius (K), but with several of the best of the MSS, I have before collated,
in their most singular readings, e. g. cegy and especially op. Matth. ix. 4 (D) ; xv.
32 (K) ; xviii. 35 (BDKL) ; xxiii. 25 seinel cum de, semelcum BDh. Elzev.; xxvii. 34
(BDK) ; Marc. v. 10 ; xii. 22 (c) ; xv. 47 (ABCDo) ; xvi. 2 (D); 19 p. m. (CK) ; Luc. i.
2 p. m. (Ko); 39 (AKo) ; 65 (AKo); ii. 42 (ABKc) ; vii. 25 (DKp) ; viii. 24 (Kp) ; x.
16 (AKp) ; xxiv. 43 (K) ; Johan. ii. 12 (Kp) ; v. 4 (K) ; 25 (K) ; vi. 5 ; ix. 8 ; xi. 12
(Kop) ; xii. 15 ; xvii. 4 (ABC) ; 8 (p) ; xix. 17 (z) ; xx. 16 (BDL) ; xxi. 11 (ABCp).
In the Acts and Epistles it often resembles acd : unusual readings are Act. iii. 26 ;
iv. 16 ; 22 ; 31 ; V. 5 (ABD) ; 30 ; 36 (DE) ; 37 (E) ; vi. 2 ; 15 ; xii. 25 (B) ; xiii. 16;
xiv. 19; xvii. 16 (ABEa) ; 34; xviii. 6 ; xx. 7 (ABEa) ; 8; xxi. 2 (a) ; xxii. 23 ;
xxiii. 23 ; xxv. 11 ; 13 (c) ; Jac. iii. 8 ; iv. 5 ; 1 Pet. i. 22 ; 24 ; ii. 24 ; iii. 8 ; 2 Pet.
ii. 22; iii. 5 (h); Jud. vv. 12; 23; 24; 25 (ABC); Rom. vii. 16; viii. 23; 27;
ix. 31 ; xii. 3 ; xiii. 3 ; xv. 29 ; 30 ; 1 Cor. vii. 28 ; x. 19 ; xi. 25 ; xiv. 35 ; xv. 8 ; 2 Cor. iii. 9 (D) ; 16 ; iv. 14 ; v. 5 ; 21 ; xi. 26 ; xii. 20 ; xiii. 13 secund. man. ; Gal. iii. 14 (DFG) ; Eph. ii. 11 ; iii. 4; iv. 32 ; Phil. ii. 23; Coloss. i. 26 ; 1 Thess. iv. 5
{Syriac) ; 2 Thess. ii. 15 ; iii. 1 (FG) ; 1 Tim. i. 2 ; ii. 2 ; iii. 1 : 2 Tim. iii. 3 ; iv. 17
(FG); Tit. i. 6; 12; ii. 10; Philem. v. 6; Hebr. vi. 14; ix. 14; 15 (1); 19; 25; x.
1; 10 (cum Elzev.); xi. 29; xiii. 11; 12: not a few of which are found in no
other document, so far as I know.
(L). Codex Leicestrensis. This famous and most valuable document is the property of the Corporation of Leicester, which kindly allowed me to remove it from the Public Library for full examination at my own house, where for several months I bestowed upon it the labour its weight and interest imperatively required. It is one of the very few Codices which contain the whole New Tes- tament (the others in England being the great Codex Alexandrinus, two "Addi- tional MSS.," 11837 and 17469 in the British Museum, and Canonici Graeci 34 in the Bodleian), in large folio, 14f inches long by 10 broad, on 212 complete leaves, followed by one fragment, besides which the margins of foil. 77 ; 86, and the upper corner of fol. 201, are cut and mutilated. This copy is written on 91 leaves of vellum, and 122 of coarse paper, not " temere permixtis" as Wetstein states, but arranged pretty regularly in series of two vellum followed by three paper leaves, evidently from previous calculation how far the more costly material would hold out. The paper is so bad that four of the leaves would bear the writing only on one side. There are 38 lines on every page; the instrument employed seems to have been a reed rather than a pen, and the style of writing is very singular, yet certainly neither elegant nor remarkably perspicuous. The smooth and rough breathings are often very hard to distinguish, and e is usually placed in a recumbent posture, so much resembling a that it is hot easy to say at
1 J
. » i'i x-i ii ■
H:t^^
■0 »
If
f
I
4
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT, 41
all times which was meant ^ An eminent mediaeval scholar to whom I shewed tlie MS., remarked that the letters were formed much like the earliest Greek tyjie used in Italy towards the end of the loth century. No one who has inspected the Codex Leicestrensis has estimated its age as earlier than the 14th century, but in this, as in so many other instances, the antiquity of the actual volume has nothing to do with its critical importance. It commences Matth. xviii. 15, a-ov km avTov fxovov : after Acts x. 4:-5, ttiotoi, we read in the same line, with ab^lutely no break, ovpavodev, xiv. 17, the intervening matter, upwards of three chapters, being wholly omitted : the mutilation on fol. 201 has destroyed portions of 2 Johan. vv. 1 — 5; 3 Johan. vv. 5 — 10; after Jud. v. 7, koi al, one leaf is lost, containing the rest of St Jude, and perhaps a preface to the Apocalypse. Mill and Wetstcin state that the ]\IS. ended Apoc, xx. 15, nai irvpos, and give its various i-eadings up to that point, which I have copied and digested. There must then have been 214 leaves, the last of which is quite gone, but about one third of fol. 213 is yet legible, and its variations have been recorded in my collation : the last complete leaf (212) ends with earprjviaa-ev, Apoc. xviii. 1 ; the fragment, fol. 213, terminates
with KOI Tcov a8s\(j)a)u aov t<ov ex°^ ibid. xix. 10.
At the top of the first page this Codex exhibits in a beautiful hand the words €ifii Wfpfiov XapKov, then in a later hand " Thomas Hayne." Th.e book is now well bound, and on the cover in very recent gold letters we read, *' Town Library, Leicester, the gift of Mr Thomas Hayne, 1640," under the Town arms. WiUiam Chark was one of the former owners of the celebrated Codex Montfortianus, and is supposed to have lived in the reign of Elizabeth (see Dobbin's Codex Montfortianus, Introduction, p. 7); some of the later changes in the Cod. Leices- trensis were made by him, chiefly however in the margin : I suppose he obtained the book from one of the dissolved monasteries. Wetstein, I believe on John Jackson's authority, states that Thomas Hayne, M. A. of Trussington in Leicester- shire, gave the volume to the Leicester Library in 1660. A collation of the MS. was first published by Mill; Caesar de Missy in 1748 lent to Wetstein a much more accurate one made by John Jackson and William Tiffin, which he used for his great edition of the Greek Testament; since that period nothing further has been published on the subject which has not been servilely borrowed from Mill and Wetstein. Yet nothing can be more unsatisfactory than their representation of this important document. Not to mention instances in which the various read- ings exhibited in Cod. Leicestrensis are passed over by both these editors (for they are innumerable), I have made out a list of more than 300 places in which the actual reading is falsely cited by Mill alone, by Wetstein alone, and very
1 Thus, for instance, this MS. is cited as read- I Matth. xxvi. 51 ; where I must think a was meant ing ix'^fivai, Marc. vi. 27, by Dobbin and Tregelles, by the scribe : see also Marc. xiii. 9 ; xiv. 15 ; Liic. and by Tregelles airiKTeivev, ihirJ.xn. 5; iiricriraae \ xvii. ^4: .Tohan. i. 28; vi. 70; xi. 56.
42
DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
often by both. When Matthaii met with some siieh instances in another MS., he breaks forth aji^ainst these ilhistrious critics in the exclamation, "Quae diligentia? quaj fides?" (Cod. Boerner. p. 107): I must be allowed to rejoin to him, Eheu! quam temere in nosmet leyem sancimus iniqnam! The task of a collator calls for vigilance so perpetual, powers of observation so minute and unflagging, that although I have the fullest confidence both in the " diligentia" and " fides" of Matthaii, f doubt not he will be found as peccable as the rest of us, whenever his work shall come to be tested. I have avoided therefore, as much as possible, such invidious annotations as "male Mlllius," ^'falso Wetsteinivs," requesting the reader once for all to bear in mind, that I have anxiously verified all passages wherein I differ from my predecessors: occasionally however, chiefly when this copy agrees with the received text against the testimony of the editors, 1 have expressly notified the fact.
Unpublished collations of this MS. are (1) one by Carte, which I am in- formed^ used to be kept at Leicester with the Codex, but has now disappeared ; at least it could not be found when I was there. If two leaves of the MS. have been destroyed within a century, we need not be surprised at any other loss : but their treasure is noiv valued by the Corporation, which is justly proad of possess- ing it : (2) a collation of Jo. Jackson (not identical, it would seem, with that lent to Wetstein) contained in his cop}' of Mill's N.T., now in Jcsus College Library, Cambridge. The kindness of the Rev. Dr Corrie, the Master of that College, gave me access to this collation, which I compared with those of Mill and Wetstein in that part of the Apocalypse which, though extant in Jackson's time, is now lost (see the result at the end of this volume) : (3) another by Dr Tregelles for his N.T., the fruits of which are not yet fully published ; I did not know that he had collated the book, till I had publickly pledged myself to undertake the task: nor can he possibly in an edition of the N.T. lay before the reader all the characteristic variations of such a document as this^: (4) a selection of some thotisands of readings made by Dr Dobbin when arrang- ing his edition of the " Codex Montfortianus," which that gentleman most con- siderately put at my disposal. His extracts enabled me severely to test my own accuracy, and as our judgment sometimes differs respecting the actual reading, I have in such cases set down his testimony as well as my own. He will be pleased to learn that Dr Barrett's statement, to which he alludes [Introd. p. 23) without vouching for it, " In Apocalypsi tarn fideliter [Codex Montfortianus] in textu exprimit Leicestrensem, ut vix unquam discrepent" is too strongly asserted :
^ In 1845, by Mr Corabe, the bookseller there.
2 I have now (1858) compared Dr Tregelles' collation of this MS. wdth my own, so far as he has published it (Matth. xviii. 15 — Mark xvi. ■20). Although mine is of necessity much the fuller, I
most cheerfully bear testimony to his great accu- racy. I have noted a few places in which we differ as to what the scribe intended to write, and have corrected two or three of his looser citations by simjily inserting (sic).
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 43
e. g. there are seven variations between the two MSS. in Cap, i,, fourteen in Cap. vjii.i
The Codex Leicestrensis contains the list of KfcfiaXata majora (without coric- spoiiding numerals in the margin of the text) before the three later Gospe!s, but with so extensive variations that I have adopted the unusual course of presenting them to the curious reader {infra, p. xlvi) ; besides these there is no Liturgii al matter whatever, no divisions into sections, or Eusebian canons, or notes about Lessons, except a marginal mark or two, as at Mark vii. 6, and a few words, which are often illegible, scribbled at the foot of the first page of each leaf. The Pauline Epistles immediately follow the fourth Gospel, and have no inodea-fis except the HpoAoyoy to the Hebrews, 77 Se npos ilBpaiovs K.T.X. (Kuster's Mill, p. 519, col. 2, vid. infra, p. xlvii). Between the Hebrews and Acts of the Apostles are five pages of foreign matter. (1) An exposition of the Creed and statement of the errors condemned by the seven general Councils, ending with, the second of Nice : (2 ' the ordinary Lives of the Apostles, followed by an exact description of the limits of the Five Patriarchates. The opening chapters of the Acts have rubric capitals and breaks of line at the beginning of each KecpaXaiov, but these disappear after Cap. vi. and there is nothing like them elsewhere. The remarkable titles of the Gospels attracted Mill's notice (Proleg. 67); those of the other books are short and simple. As I never saw the Cod. Montfortianus, I cannot confirm Dr Dobbin's opinion, " The titles to the sacred books, in pale red ink, are by the same person who added those of the Codex Montfortii, none of these portions of either MS. being by the transcribers of the text" (Jntrod. p. 24). Such a notion would not have occurred to me on viewing the Cod. Leicestrensis only; but I distrust myself on a point like this.
We cannot praise the care of the scribe in copying this MS. Many words occur which are only begun, broken off perhaps after the first syllable, and I have counted the large number of 74 omissions from ofioiorekevTov and the like causes. Yet the accents are represented with much accuracy, and the breathings (if indistinct at times) are regular; we have i^paan, coSe, ovrm often; yet some- times atpo), axjpiov and opapa ouce : the acute accent is much used where the grave is commonly written by others. The vowels i and v have mostly a single dot over them ; other peculiarities of this Codex are tc sometimes, lovba^, biarovro,
dirdpTi, anapx^s, KaTi8iav (^fere), i^evcovvpav, apa^wv, /xeXXft (p?'0 peXei : SO epeXXfv Acts Xviii. 17), cf)iXi^ semper, ovdev, prjdev, rjvboKrjcra, avSpooTronapeaKOi, KfVTTjpicou
(Mark xv. ter), yiyvopai in the Acts, eyKOKetp Qjro (KKUKeiv), noieiv {pro ttkip). The u €(pe\Kva-TiKov is much used with emfu and ea-np, and in cases where emphasis is
^ So that we can hardly resort to the Cod. 1 Cod. Leicestrensis in those parts of the Apocalypse Montfort., as Tregelles suggests (Home's Intro- which are defective in the latter MS.
duction, Vol. 11. p. 2i6>, for the readings of the
a 2
44 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
meant or where there is a pause in tlie sense. Yet in Johan. ix. 30 and IG other places an hiatus arises from the absence of v. Respecting i ascript 1 cannot speak decidedly : in seven places I have noted what may be t, but is more probably a rude stop (e. g. Acts v. 25) ; i subscript is clearly read in six places (e.g. Matth. xxvii. 28), two of them being with verbs (Rom. ii. 3); else- where it is not found. This copy is remarkable for always writing irja-ovs at full length up to Joban. xxi. 15, where we meet with n, and in 41 other places 19 of which are in the Acts: thus too UpovcruXr^ix is usually unabridged. Of itacisms I count 1129 throughout the Codex, viz. o pro w, 190; « pro o, 126; T) pro (I, 93; ei pro rj, 104; i jjro ei, 77; et pro i, 02; rj pro t, 87; t pro t], 40; f pro ai, 73; at pro e, 72; c pro r], 24; t] pro e, 20; v pro t) (rare elsewhere), 27; t) pro V, 28; ov pro a, 13; « pro ov, 16; oi pro t, 3; i pro ot, 3; ov pro rj. Act. vii. 59; tj pro fv, Luc. xii. 10; i; pro i, 15; i pro v, 14; w j^^'o i] 6; pro e, 1; pro oi, 4; pro fi, 3; 01 pro v, 4; pro >?, 9; o pro ov, 3; t) pro oi, 3; a pro rj, Apoc. xiii. 17 : which hst may be compared with the analysis of Cod. i, sxipra, p. xxxiv. We have also 6 for t. Marc. x. 40; Luc, xi. 7. The following are the unusual grammatical forms : rfKdare Matth. xxv. 36; emav ibid. xxvi. 35; Luc. xx. 2; f^rjXdaTe Matth. xxvi. 55; Marc. xiv. 48; Luc. vii. 24; 25; 26; xxii. 52; fiarjXdarf ibid.
xi. 52; aveneaav Johan. vi. 10; eireTteaav Rom. XV. 3; eirecrav 1 Cor. X. 8; cireaa Act. xxii. 7; f^eCkaro Act. vii. 10; firaOaTe Gal. iii. 4; napayevafievos Luc. xiv. 21;
Hebr. ix. 11; evpafifvos Hebr. ix. 12; yemneprjs Act. ii. 6. So accusatives in -ap for -a, vvKTav Luc, ii. 37; dvyarepav xiii. 16; x^/Ja" Johan. vii. 30; a-uKpav Eph. vi. 12; dvareipau Apoc. i. 11; (c/l ii. 18, 24). The gender is sometimes altered: thus Xcfios fern. Luc. iv. 25; ocfipvs masc. ibid. 29; voo-os masc. ibid. 40. Verbs in aa or 0(0 are formed as those in -ew, (nrjpcorow Luc. iii. 10; xx. 27; fTreTipow xviii. 15; fTo\(iovv XX. 40; TjpcoTovv Johau. iv. 31; fp.^ptpovpevos xi. 38; Kivei Marc. vii. 20; 23; crapti Luc. XV. 8; fxaariyei Hebr. xii. 6; and the contrary, ayavaKTavrfs Marc. xiv. 4. Irregularities in verbs in -pi are a^iouo-i Marc. iv. 36; ndav x. 16; wepiTiSova-iv
XV. 17; (TvviTidovTO Johan. ix. 22; eniTide 1 Tim. v. 22; emndeivai Act. XV. 10; ano8co-
a-Tji Luc. xii. 59; 8i8oa(rii> Apoc. xvii. 13. I note also ptya masc. Matth. xxvii. 60; p.eyav tieut. Luc. xiv. 16; peyaXr) accus. Act. ii. .20; exaprjv 3rd pers. Johan. viii. 56;
fjKia-tv Marc. viii. 3; eKKexap-qruiaav Luc. Xxi. 21; fKaOtpLo-e Act. X. 15; KaraaKevaa-pfVov
Luc. i. 17; Hebr. ix. 6; a-vyyevevai Marc. vi. 4; Luc. ii. 44 (v); Bpayxpas xv. 8; epirpoa-de Johan. i. 30. In the Apocalypse we always read i8ov except in xvii. 3;
f(f)L8ev Luc. i. 25. I add avjjyye'Kav Act. xiv. 27 ; irapnyyiKfiv Act. XV, 5 {sic V. 27 ; xvi. 17; 21); cnrayyiKkw fllt. Hebr. ii. 12; avr^yyeWr] 1 Pet, i. 12; e^ex^drjv Tit. iii. 6;
aveTrikrjpTTTov 1 Tim. ill. 2. The augment is omitted Luc, x. 34 and 22 other passages; but we have a double augment in rjTTTjvTrjaav Johan. iv, 51; avTeKarea-TrjTe Hebr. xii, 4,
The wide variations of this document from the received editions are well known, and it is a favouiite authority with those who wish to base the sacred
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 45
text upon Avhat Scholtz •nould have us call the Alexandrine family of MSS. Mill (who did not particularly value it) first observed its striking affinity with the Codex Bezae; perhaps the result of my collation is to diminish that resemblance, though not materially. Wetstein compares it with Paris 6 (13), Hensler with Havn. 3 (44 Evst.) of the Gospels: add too the uncial U, and note how much it coincides with the great cursive 1 (e. g. in the space of a few verses. Marc, xiii. 14; 19; 20; 32; 34; xiv, 1, &c.). In the Acts and Epistles it aj)proaches much nearer to the received text : in parts quite as much as our Cod. k for examjile, which (as well as ad) it is much like. Though totally destitute of Liturgical matter, many of its various readings may easily be seen to have arisen from EvangeHstaria and Lectionaries : the particles of time are often omitted in L when they are necessarily wanting in such books, iiiitio pericopce, and clauses are perpetually inserted from the same somce. I cite a very few in- stances out of many : Marc. iv. 10; v. 1; Johan. xii. 1; xiii. 3 ; xvii. 1; xviii. 28; xx. 11; 19; xxi. 1; Act. xxviii. 1; 1 Tim. ii. 1; 2 Tim. iii. 10; iv. 5. This copy has always been noted for two capital innovations ; the pericope adulterae (Joh.vii. 53 — viii. 11) is wholly wanting in its proper place, but is found after Luc. xxi.; that position being suggested I suppose by comparing to opos to Ka\ovfifvoi> fXaimv Luc. xxi. 37 with Johan. viii. 1 ; and (opdpiCe Luc. xxi. 38 with opdpov Johan. viii. 2. The other transfer is that of Luc. xxii. 43, 44 (which verses too are wanting in their place) to Matth. xxvi. where they follow v. 39, as if they belonged to St Mat- thew's narrative. This arrangement also is derived from EvangeHstaria, in several of which it is still read (e. g. our Pz sem.); just as in P (to be described below) Johan. xix. 31 — 37 is put after Matth. xxvii. 54, after which v. 55 follows, as if nothing foreign had been inserted.
Many of the changes met with in this MS. arise from inversion of order, the substitution of simple for compound words, and vice versa. The accusative is often found for the dative; Marc. vi. 36; ix. 7; Luc. vi. 28; viii. 32; xiv. 29; xvii. 7; xviii. 5; 43; xxiii. 36; 40; 1 Tim. i. 18: and the contrary, Matth. xxv. 42; 43; Marc. i. 43; x. 49; xii. 43; xiv. 7; Luc. v. 14; vi. 29; x. 35; xix. 44 sec. man. ; xxii. 47 ; xxiii. 11 ; 39; Act. x. 8. Thus dative for genitive, Marc. iii. 10 ; XV. 3; Johan. i. 37, and accusative for genitive, Luc. xxii. 47; Act. xviii] 26. In the celebrated passage 1 Tim. iii. 16 this MS. has 6 ds, seemingly a mixture of the common reading and that of the Cod. Claromontanus (D). In about 50 instances the Codex Leicestrensis supports the Elzevir text against the general mass of copies: see particularly Matth. xxiii. 13, 14; 21; 25; Marc. iii. 32; vi. 33; 52; xii. 33; Luc. v. 8; vi. 7; 9; xxiv. 18; Johan. iii. 25; iv. 5.
A corrector's hand has been busy throughout this copy, whom Dr Dobbin considers to have been the original scribe; I have deemed the changes to be secundd manu, but nearly as old as the first. There are catch words at the foot of many pages. The familiar form u for /3 occurs Luc. ix. 3; xviii. 30 (where
46 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
Mill is strangely perplexed) ; Johan. i. 39. The stop ; is rarely found. The Latin chapters and many various readings (e.g. Johan. xv. 10; xvii. 5; 9; xviii. 16; 20; xix. 39) are noted by a recent hand (seemingly Chark's), and there are two or three very modern marginal notes, which miglit easily be dispensed with.
Suhjicitur collatio KecpaXaicov mnjorum in Coclice Leicestrenai cum Kusferi editione Novi Testamenti Milliani (1723) : {hiat S. Matthcei Euangdium usque ad Cap. xviii, v. 15).
S. Marci : ck tov Kara jmapKou ayiou evayyeXiou tu Ke<paXaia. g" . —tou prim. 0' . ire pi tj?? 7rapa(3o\r]<; tou airopou. la . -nepL tou e^^ocTos tov Xeyeojua. tj3'. apy/rjcrui'ayojyoij. ly'. aiiuopoouarj^. ig" . —Kai toov ouo lyQuiov. S. (poi- vimarfi. k. fioyyiXaXou. k3'. fxaKupia {pro Kuicrapeui). k€ . —tov irjaou. Kg-'. aeXli'ia^oixevou. k^'. nei^ou. Krj\ k9'. Desunt omnia ah twv kt] usque ad TTfpi TOU, k9' {€7repcoTr]aavT09 auTov TrXovaiou). Xa . —tou. Xe . ypaixfxaT€WV (pro TrpecrfiuTepwi'). Xg-'. fin. -irTrapafioXr)^. X^'. eKKaOeTwv {pro eirepwTrj- aavTwv TOV kv). kuvuov. Xt/. tjaoounauov. X9 . tu)»' ypafx/xaTcwv. fia . -jBaXoucrm. fJ^f^'- +T>ys {a7lte auvTeXeia^). fx^'. fxvpou. /xg-'. TrpofpriTeia?. M^'- +rr]? {ante apvrjaew^).
•
♦S*. Lucce : ck tou kutu XouKay ayiou euayyeXiou tu KefpaXaia. y . — tou.
e'. +Toi^ {ante iwawtjv). ^'. crpo- {pro -^u). 9'. -tou. i. ttoikiXov vocrov. ig"'. hiuTayr]^. kS'. irepi tov e-)(^ovTo^ tov Xeyewva. /ce . apyrjauvayioyou. k9'. Tivif /ixa9t]fiaTwi' {pro tou kv)- X^'. ava^t^ay^9evT(vv {-e(^co,uriK0UTa). fx'. €V T(x) o)(X<i). ipcoi'rj's. fxa. arjixeicov. ju(3'. irjaouv {pro kp). fxg" • ov ( Mill:). ecpwpiaev. v. ei {pro o'l). va . tov enrovTos tov iijctov. rip vy . TrpioTonXrjcria^. vS'. ev tw denrvu). ve . Trepi TrapafioXijq oiKoooixr]^ Trvpyou. rg-' . nepi 7rapa(ioXr]K €KaTOv 7rpol3aTa)v. i'9'. -tov bis. ^/3'. -tou secund. ^y. tov ir}(xovv irXouCLOV. ^g"'- —€avT(t). ^^'. tou XafiovTa. ^r/ . ttuXou. f9'. }jpMTr}cravT(vv. o'l apyiepei^ /cat o\ irpecrpuTepoi. oa . Deest. op . aaoou- Kuiwv : deinde post spatium Trepi Trj^ tou kv eTrepwTijaews. oy ■ -tov. -eaTw. fin. 6 j^t {sic). o^'. -j3a\ovar]<;. oe. —Tr}<s. -epwTrjai'i. oy\ . e^cTaaew^. — Kat apvt^aews ireTpov. o9' . '£^ov9ev(i)ais i^pwoov { — Trepi). irp . Trepi aiTrjaeu)^ TOU KvpiuKov awfxuTo^. iry . —tov.
S. Johnnnis : e/c tou kutu iwavurjv evayyeXiov Ta Ke(paXaia. y. —kui irjcrov. ^'. ^ijTrjai? irepi Ka9apaov {Ka9apianovJj**). e'. dfxapTidos {pro aafxapeiTi^oi). g"'. KaOapia/uov kui {pro v\ov), ^'. eTiov. fin. +avTov. rj'.
TOV (VOOV.
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 47
— Kai TMv cvo i-^Bvwv. t. —CK yeverm' la- —rtjg eyepaeio^. t/3'. fxupov. ly . toovcas- lo . too {pro t/^s). le . —kui epwTitivTwv rov (biXiirirov.
Desunt omn'mo iyi L literce numerales Evangeliorum KecpaXaio^ prceponi solitce: nee leginitur K€(pa\aia in reliquis S. Foederis libris.
Collatio viTo9e(T6w<; in Hehrceos apud Cod. Leicestrensem cum Millii N. T. editions Kusteriand, p. 519, col. 2,
Y\poKoyn<s }]tovv v(prjyt]ai9 t>/§ tt^cos ejSpaiou^ eiria-ToXrj^. Init. 'H ^e ttoo?. Toi? aWai<s {pro aWats tok). tw Xeyeiv. —tov {ante XaXeiaOai). vtto ruu ku Cta {Hebr. II. 3). Tepaaiv. —ovv. rjXa-^Oai. XeXcKTai. 6 o'l. avrov {pro TovTov). —Kai {ante acol^ei). ov-)^ lovcaiwu. eocoK€i>. XotTrots {pro toi^ ante arroaT.). ypacpeiu {pro Trpoypatpeiv). /uaprvpei. ei' rots cea/nois {Hebr. X. 31). Tre ptaaoT€pa)<; eu-^eaOai. Deest Kai ck tov Xeyeiv ywuxTKeTc usque ad eTrayyeXXerai. eivai {pro rvy^aveiv). Stoa^ei.
The next four copies on my list are Evangelistaria, two of them (P and PJ belonging to the princely collection of Manuscripts at Parham Park, Sussex, brought from the East by the Hon. Robert Curzon, jun. They are best known to the general reader by the notices of them scattered throughout that gentle- man's lively and most interesting " Visits to Monasteries in the Levant," A more formal yet succinct account of them will be found in his " Catalogue of materials for writing, early writings on tablets and stones, rolled and other MSS. and Oriental MSS. books in the Library of Robert Curzon at Parham," fol. 1849 : a scarce work, of which a copy is in the British Museum. For the privilege of collating these Evangelistaria (both of them in uncial letters) and two copies of the Apocalypse to be described in their place, I am indebted to Mr Curzon's kindness and liberality, for which I am bound to tender him my earnest thanks. Twelve other manuscripts of the Greek Testament remain unexamined at Parham, several of which (especially a very early copy of the Gospel in cursive characters, and a splendid Evangelistarium which belonged to the Emperor Alexius Comnenus) are of considerable critical value. Before Ave describe the Parham books we will first speak of
(H) Harleian, 5o98. in the British Museum, being Scholz's Evangelistarium, 150. Its splendour has been admired by many; facsimiles of its penmanship have been published by Woide in his edition of the Cod. Alcxandrinus (Prajf. p. xv.), by Home in his Introduction, and by Scott Porter in his " Principles of Textual Criticism" (Belfast, 18-18); in the Catalogue of the Harleian MSS., published as far back as 1808, it l^ad been most justly described as " collatione diguissimum,"
48
DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
yet up to this time its readings have not been available to the critic. This copy consists of 748 pages on vellum in large folio, and usually contains 21 lines in each of the two columns on a page, the characters being bold yet elegant uncial letters, while fortunately the date is iixed by a colophon on p. 748, in the hand
V V r) — _
of the original scribe : eypacpr] 8ia x^'^P'^^ KUiva-ravriv Trp(or^vT€p, fj. fxaico k(, ii'b. rj, fzovs
7^: i.e. in the year of the Greek aern, Ga03, or a. d. 995. I believe that but two older dated MSS. of the Greek Testament are extant, nor can I account on any reasonable principle, for the neglect this volume has met with. It is at least as early as several of the uncial copies of the Gospels in their proper order; and when allowance is made lor the necessary liturgical changes at the beginnings of the Church lessons (an allowance which the veriest tiro in these studies could make with ease) I can not even conjecture why an EvangeUstarium should be thought of less value than another MS. of the same age^
This is one of the Jive copies of the Greek Testament (the others are Har- leian 5537, 5557, 5620, 5778: I have used two of them in the Apocalypse) brought from the East in 1077 by Dr John Covell, for seven years Chaplain to the British Embassy at Constantinople; then Chaplain to the Princess Mary at the Hague, from which office he was summarily dismissed by her churlish hus- band; and from 1688 till his death in 1722 (aet. 85) Master of Christ's College, Cambridge. He seems to have been an unpopular, perhaps an unamiable person, but his services rendered to Biblical criticism entitle his memory to respect. This MS. was paged and the lessons diligently noted in the margin by his hand : between pp. 726 and 727 are bound up ten paper leaves, comprising useful indices of the Church lessons contained in the book, and certain notes, chiefly on the various readings he had observed in a cursory perusal, a few of them referring to the Epistles, and therefore extracted from some of his other MSS.^
This magnificent codex contains all the Church lessons daily throughout the year, the services of the Holy Week, the proper lessons for the Great Feasts and Saint days, followed by the Gospels set apart for special occasions, fis
eyKaivia vaov, fis yvvaiKOi, fi? KoiyL-qdevTas, fts avojx^piav, and SUch like. There is an
> It is pleasant to be able to confirm one's own judgment, however decided, by such authority as Tischendorf' s. I believe he has individually done nothing in this field of labour, yet he does not shrink from confessing " Evangelistariorum co- dices Uteris uncialibus script], nondum sic ut decet, in usum criticum conversi sunt." {ProJeg. N. T. Prcefat. p. Ixviii. ed. 1849.)
2 This year (1858) I find the MS. newly bound and Dr Covell's papers placed at the end of the volume. On the initial fly-leaf is written in pencil, " Sc'lavonice, vid. 5684, 5787, Rev. Mr. Woide and H. G." Below this are two old scraps pasted
on the leaf, in different hands. The one runs, "Observandum est in hisce Pericopis, multa ex uno Evangelio in lectionem sumptam et alio trans- ferri, ad illustrandam et augendam Historiam. Inde in ipsis Evangeliis oritur mira aliquando varietas lectionis, eorum quas in ipsum textum irrepserunt." The other, which seems somewhat more recent, runs, ' ' Manuscriptum to trapov vide-
Slavonicis tur seculi novi : literse autem cum Russicis prorsus conveniunt." The writer had not observed that the MS. is dated.
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 49
apparent hiatus after p. G39, which ends abruptly with ra a-cofiaTa ev Johan. xix. 31, but the missing verses are taken up a few pages later, so that nothing is lost. There is a slight illumination on the first page (on which all the letters are gilded) and elsewhere throughout the volume at the commencements of its several parts; each lesson also begins with a large flourished capital, gaudily colored : in other respects the book is destitute of ornament, which indeed it can well spare, when we consider its intrinsic value.
The text of Harl. 5598 is much more widely removed from the textus receptus than either the Arundel (X) or Parham (P) Evangelistaria, though it is of a somewhat later date. It approximates rather closely to that of the cursive Lectionary I shall hereafter describe as Zj though in parts they are not at all alike. The Pericope Adulterce is not found in this MS., for it is not only absent here, as in all other Service Books I know, from the Greek lesson for the Pentecost (Johan. vii, 37 — ^viii. 12), but it is not read among the Saints' Day lessons, as in P and z. Many documents contain more instances of itacism than Codex H : I have counted 528 in the whole MS., quite of the ordinary character. The breathings, however, have given me great trouble, as they are very irregular, and in a copy of such importance I thought it right to represent them all. We read ov, ovk, ovSeis, pretty constantly; al, ol (the articles), dyios, dpTiaCco, dXieis, fcos,
eh gen. epos, eKaaros, eoprr), erepos, eTotjjios, ovk, coSe, and On the contrary, oXiyos, Sniaa,
o^os, &c. Once we have the form avrav (Matth. xxiii. 30) so rare in MSS. of the Greek Testament. The accents are so ill placed that to note their peculiarities would be to transcribe the whole volume. We meet with no t subscript, or ascript., and V e(Pe\KvaTtKov, at least prima manu, not frequently (yet enrev always), but a later hand has taken the trouble to insert it often where it was originally absent : yet above nine instances remain where it is wanting before a vowel. Two correctors have been employed on this book ; one quite recent and so of little weight, the other (who writes a few marginal notes^ in a small uncial hand) nearly as early as the scribe Constantino himself, though I do not agree with Dr Covell that the colophon containing the date is by this second hand 2. Not more than six ei-rors by SfioLOTeXevrov occur in this MS. and x^i-pav Matth. xii. 10, avTokaypa Marc. viii. 37, and va^aped semper, are the only Alexandrian forms I notice. Yet there are frequent interchanges of the cases after verbs : e. g. dative for accusative. Marc. vi. 48; xiv. 7; Luc. ix. 2 ; 18 ; xi. 46; Johan. xviii, 7: accusative for dative, Matth. xxvii. 44; Marc. iv. 2; v. 13; vi. 37; xv. 23; Luc.
^ Wherever this early uncial hand is used, I have stated that the correction is antiqud manu. I have noted twenty-three such cases.
^ Such I suppose is Covell's meaning when he wi-ites (Harl. 5598, p. 748), "vid. p. 403, ubi in margine scribuntur hujusmodi charactcres [sc. Kai
fiera rpeis 7],aepas avaaTTjvai, Marc. viii. 31], unde manifesto collig|o j)e?/ec|tum esse hoc anno" (o pcrfec is barely legible). Pei-haps, however, he means that the writer of the small uncials is the original scribe when correcting his cojiy, which may possibly be the fact. H
50 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
vi. 34; ix. 55; xvi. 9; xxii. 19; 29; xxiii. 9; Johan. xix. 3: accusative for genitive. Marc. iii. 2; xv. 3; Luc. xxiii. 2. In the present copy, as in most other Lec- tionaries, many marks are found, which seem to be musical notes, designed for guiding the reader's voice : I seems often interrogative. This is beyond question a most important document.
(P) Parham Evangelistarium unciale, No. 18, is a noble folio, written on 222 leaves of delicately white vellum, each page containing two columns of 27 or 22 lines each \ written in clear and elegant uncial characters. Like Arundel, 547, this volume contains the lessons for every day between Easter and Pente- cost, with the Saturday and Sunday lessons only for the rest of the year : the full service for the Holy Week, with lessons for Saints' Days somewhat different to those in our other Evangelistaria, for many of the minor festivals were more or less specially observed at diffei'ent periods and in different regions. The age and country of this copy appears from an inscriiDtion on the last page (of which Mr Curzon's catalogue contains a fac-simile) evidently prima manu : ^ypafprf to
Tifxiov KOI dyiov evayyeKiov eiri (TTecjiavov tov 6eo(pikov eTria-Konov Kia-Kia-arjs' fxrjvi lovvKo- iv8.
rj' (Tovs s-vTrrj- ypaffxv 8ia x^ipos vik. x^ ^ [sic). The year s-vivr] is A.M. 6488 of the Greek aera, or a. d. 980. This copy, therefore, with the single exception of Vatican 354 (S of the Gospels), collated by Birch, and written a. d. 949, is the oldest dated MS. of any portion of the Greek Testament. Ciscissa, where no doubt the document was written, was a small town and Bishop's See in Cappadocia Prima, some thirty-five miles E. S. E. of Ca^sarea, its capital and metropolitan see (BingJiam, Antiquit. Vol. iir. p. 93; see also, p. 191). Its country is further established by a kind of colophon scrawled on the fly-leaf (fol. 222) under a rude arcade, with other irrelevant and almost illegible matter: avenaiviaBr) to Tifxiov kcu
ayiov evayyektov ejn viKi]Ta tov dyiwTaTov ema-KOTTOv kktkkkttjs tov . . . 8ia x^ipos fiixarjX vorapiov i^ai dvov (?) avTov erovs r(j)v^, p.r)vi. fiapT a- lv8. (S** em KcovaTavrivov fj.ovop.a)(ov fwjyj Kat 6eo8o)pas Tcav deoa-eTTTav fiacrCkiuiv p-ix^rjX tov dyLcoraTov km oiKovp. .... narpiapxav KrjpovXKov (rrvXiavov TOV dyicoraTOV fxrjrpoTroXiTov Kaiaapeias Ka7nra8oKias km [ccetera VtX legibilia?[. This colo-
phon bears date a. d. 1049 [a. m. 6557] and was written, I presume, by the person who made the numerous changes secundd manu, both in small uncial and cursive characters, which abound throughout the MS. : to him also we may be indebted for the two lessons in cursive letters on the margin of the book (foil. 14G, 147) which I have indicated by P (Luc. xi. 47 — 52; Johan. x. 9 — 16). As a notary, or official scribe {vid. Suicer, Thesaur. Ecclesiast. Tom. ii. p. 431), he takes care to apprise us of the names of the three joint-sovereigns of the Eastern Empire (one of whom, I fear, little deserved the epithet deoa-eTTTrjv), of the Patriarch of Constantinople, of the Metropolitan of Caisarea, and of the Bishop of Ciscissa. This volume is now superbly bound in purple velvet, with the original clasp and
1 Observe that foil. 140, 141, and 142, 143, are misplaced by the binder.
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 61
five golden bosses ; it was disinterred by Mr Curzon in 1837 (together with both copies of the Apocalypse described below) from the Library of Caracalla, a monastery on Mount Athos.
Both this MS. and Armidel 547, which I consider to be older, approximate much more closely to the received text than others of a later date and less promising appearance : from which fact I leave the reader to draw his own inference. Yet the collation of this copy cost me much labour, through my desire to exhibit all its peculiarities whether of breathing or orthography. The accents indeed, like those of Arundel 547, seem to be put almost at random, and I have not noticed them except in special cases : the system of breathings, such as it is, is tolerably uniform. Thus Codex P always gives ^v or i]p for the imper- fect of eifxi, rjXdov or i]\6ov (as our w), ovv, oiiK, e|', oxXor, ovo^a : in fact all verbs beginning with tj and many words whose initial vowel is o, seem to take the aspi- rate as a matter of course : 'i often has no breathing. In accentuation iSoO, aKT]6ijs, ovbe'is, fi^ interrogative, vvv, 6t av, eav, inav, are pretty constant: but the circumflex and grave accent are repeatedly interchanged. After proper names such as a^aayi, SaS, 'ikrjfi, we often sec the apostrophe ' even before consonants. N e^eX- KvdTiicov may be said to be almost universal, but I noticed no example of t ascript or subscript. This codex is not much illuminated ; there are sHght ornaments on the first page and at foil. 112, 144, p. 2, besides the initial letters of each lesson: the rubrical and musical notes are in red ink, and the form of the mark of breath- ing square (h h). Though written in uncial letters the mutation of ^ for v occurs, Johan. X. 1 sem., and of v for /3 Luc. vi. 34 : but this is found even in the Arundel 547. Itacisms are not so numerous as in some documents of this period, yet still plentiful (v pro oi scepe) : I have represented them all.
I now pass on to grammatical inflexions. We have the 3rd declension accu- sative in -av, vvKTav, Luc. ii. 37 p.m. ; Bvyarepav, xiii. 16 sem.', x^'P""? Marc. iii. 1 ; Luc. XV. 22 ; on the other hand, fiaxaipa, Matth. xxvi. 52 ; Kaia<j)a, ib. 57 sem. ; accusatives: aaSevriv Matth. xxv. 39; 44 sem.; [xeiCov fem. Johan. xix. 11 sem. : in verbs eKreXeare Matth. vii. 13; rjXdaTe xxv. 36 sem. {^Xeare sem.); r]\6afj,fv ibid. 39 sem.; irapiXearo XXvi. 39; e^rjXdare ibid. 55; Trpotrenea-au vii. 25; aveneaav Johan. vi. 10;
fiTTov ix. 28; yevafxevrji Matth. xxvi. 20: of verbs in p.i, BwopLevr) Luc. xiii. 11 sem.; napabiSovvTa Johan. xiii. 11; a<puipfjv xiv. 27 sem.: note also eapow Johan, vi. 2; eXeyovv xix. 21 scm. ; iapaKav Luc. ix. 36; enaeepiadri Marc. i. 42; SO Luc. xvii. 14; but iKaOcpfiaer) Luc. iv. 27; (4>o^r^er]v Johan. xix. 8; r^bvvr)6rjv Marc. vii. 24 (3rd person);
7Tpo(TKvp.ylras Luc. xxiv. 12 p.m.; avraXayiia Marc. viii. 37. We often see yaXXiXaia, fivrjpLiov, TTfpia-evpa, 8iopvcra), SiayyeXco, Kareros, KariBiap, Korovap, KaTovofxa. The accusative
is put for the dative Matth. xx. 4; xxi. 2 p.m.; xxvi. 15 sem.; xxvii. 31 sem.; 44 bis; xxviii. 9; 17; Marc. i. 43; ii. 4; vi. 19^; x. 34 bis in versu; xv. 19; Luc. xvii. 7;
1 evr}X^v avTQV : on j). 327 of our collation read avrov {pro ai'ry) Pz : avTcv is a
II 2
52 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
xxiii. 2G; xxiv. 42; Johan. vi. 8; vii. 2G : the dative for accusative, Matth. xxvi. 71; Luc. iv. 31; x. 35; xvii. 14; xxiv. 51: the accusative for the genitive, Marc, i. 41. The pericope adulters is once omitted in the middle of a lesson, but Johan. viii. 3 — 11, and Luc. vii. 36, &c. comprise the proper service for the feast TTjs dytas deobapas OH Sept. 18. Theodora's strange story is told in the great Acta Sanctorum (Antwerp, 17G5), September, Tom. iii. p. 789: she lived in the fifth century.
This document contains as many as 32 examples of o/xoioreXfvroi/, e, g. Johan. xiv. 3; 12; but on the whole is accurately written. Glosses (Matth. xvii. 20; xix. 12; Johan. vi. 11; viii. 44; xix. 11 sent.), itacisms (Matth. xxvi. GO; xxvii. 2 rubro: 41), or rare variations (Luc. xxiii. 35; Johan. x. 3G; xx. 12), are often introduced by later hands, of which probably more than one was engaged in making alterations and erasures. This MS. rarely departs from the received text as widely as in Marc. vii. 25, 26; Luc. ix. 28 — 36; yet the following passages deserve notice: Matth. v. 32; vii. 2 {^cum Elzev.); 14; viii, 30; ix. 18; xxiii. 10; xxv. 20; 26; 4:5 p.m.; Luc. vi. 4; vii. 39 jp.m. ; 44; viii. 17; 31; xxi. 8; xxiii. 1; 15 (D Leicest.); 28; 33; xxiv. 7 ; Johan. vii. 8 (ov Kara^iaiva,) ; x. 28 seJn.; xxi. 3 (Elzev.) p. m.
(PJ Parham Evangelistarium UNCIA1.E, No. 1. This volume contains many specimens of early writing on papyrus, vellum and other materials, in Coptic and other languages, which are minutely described in the Parham Catalogue. The only Biblical fragment in Greek among them consists of three "eaves of an Evan- gelistarium in large uncial characters, removed from the binding of a MS. of the twelfth century, found at the Monastery of Docheirou on Mount Atlios. Mr Curzon obtained them for asking. The Evangelistarium must have been of about the ninth century, and much resembles in style the fragment I have called X (2), at the end of Arundel 547 {Collation of the Holy Gospels, Introd. p. Ix.); indeed as both fragments have two columns of nineteen lines each on each page, they are very possibly parts of the same book. This Codex contains Matth. i. 1—11; 11—22; vii. 7, 8; Marc. ix. 41; xi. 22—26; Luc. xi. 1—4: the vellum has been so hacked as to cut away much of the margin and many letters of the text; the leaves seem to belong to that portion of an Evangelistarium Avhich relates to the Feasts; before Marc. xi. 22 we read <jenr. k!3. Xt^i/^j^s ttjs dyias avvTjs. There are but few variations from the received text in these three leaves, but the breathings and accents are as irregular as in Arund. 547, my remarks on which exactly apply to P^. Some corrections are made in small uncials, seem- ingly by a later hand (Matth. i, 14; 22). Marc. ix. 41 is perhaps unique.
(z) Christi Coll. Cantab. F. 1, 8, is a fine Evangelistarium on vellum, con- sisting of 218 thick folio leaves, with tvi^o columns on a page: a modern hand has numbered the columns (871) : there are about 30 lines in a column, in a clear bold style, and good preservation, only that the ink is somewhat faded and a few
^t-:
• T .:.hi
^.^^ i .3 < *^4 If.; 1^5 J^^
4
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT.
53
leaves are lost^ On a paper fly-leaf we read, " E dono Francisci Tayleri, in Theologia Licenciati olim CoUegii Christi apud Cantabrigienses alumni, nunc vero verbi divini in ^de Christi apud Cantuarienses concionatoris : data Julij 24, 16-54:." As Mill overlooked this document when he collated the copy of the Acts and Epistles in the same library (to be described below), it has never been inserted in Catalogues of Greek Testament MSS. ; I am indebted for my know- ledge of its existence to the truly learned Dr Kaye, late Bishop of Lincoln, who had been Master of the College. The present Master and Fellows of the Society granted me permission to collate both their MSS. at my own house, with a courtesy and readiness for which I cannot be too grateful. At the foot of col. 871 we find prima manu, 8o^a tco \oya rat hovn Tekoi' ayi-qv, and on the second page of this last leaf (218), much illegible scrawl in later hands, among which occurs
the following : eTrovXddr] t6 napav evayyeXeicov kol rjyapua-dr] irapa a6a\ya\(Tiov rov rdyKpt
dnb Tov [illegibilia] ypad . ae^rep^pi ~8 to eros r^o • tfS"" S. This date is 6770
or A.D. 1261, and since it is considerably more recent than the Evangelistarium, we may fairly place the latter as early as the eleventh or twelfth century. There are a few poor illuminations on the first page and elsewhere, the initial letter of each lesson is colored and flourished, and the rubrical notes are partly in red. The hand which paged the columns and noted the modern chapters in the margin seems less recent than that which wrote on the paper fly-leaves at the end of the volume a convenient table of references to the lessons taken from the three first Gospels: a similar table is met with in Harleian. 5598; Dr Covell perhaps compiled both.
This Evangelistarium contains no example of i ascript, except perhaps rjideire, Luc. ii. 49, and only 17 of t subscript, almost always with the article. In the earlier pages v ecpeXKvariKov is quite rare, but as we proceed it gets more common, imtil with eiTrev it is quite the rule. The hiatus, however, takes place for want of
V in Matth. vii. 9 sec. man.; xxi. 30; Luc. xv. 27; Johan. xx. 5, The itacisms are about the same in amount as in Cod. i, but somewhat differently distributed: thus 7] for ei occurs 159 times; ei for r], 92; w for o, 104; o for «, 105; rj for t, 52; t for t], S2 ; 6 for ai, 32 ; ai for e, 40 ; ov for a, 10; <u for ov, 8; v for oi, 4; 01 for V, 3;
V for t, 1; I for v, 2; v for rj, 2; r) for v, 1; c for et, 28; ei for t, 16; e for rj, 12; r] for e, 7; et for oi, 1; oi for «, 2: in all 713: i^peis and vfins are confounded, Matth. vii. 11; 15, sem.; Luc. ix. 49; xxii. 31, sem.; xxiii. 30, sem,; xxiv. 20; Johan. xi. 11; xvi. 17, sem.; xix. 35, p.m. sem.
Of grammatical inflexions &c. we mark the following: of nouns, 6vpa, Matth. vi. 6; x'?p«> Luc. xviii. 5, accus.; but x^'P""? Marc. vii. 32; Luc. vi. 8; wktup, ii. 37;
1 About eight leaves are wanting which gave the lessons from the Saturday for the fourth week after Easter to the Tuesday of the sixth, col. 56,
Johan. xii. 24, p,ovos /xevti: also about five leaves between the 1 2th Saturday of Luke, c. xiii. 24, Xeyo) v/Mv, col. 438, to the X5th Sunday, xix. 4, ave^-q.
54 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
Bvyartpavt xiii. IG: tfpotr, Matth, xii. 4; iieyicTTavois, Marc. vi. 21; so /ififcoi/, riCMf. p?. Johan. i. 51, sem.: actus, sing. v. 3G; ttoWw, ibid. G; of verbs, npoa-ewecrav, Matth.
vii. 25; eKf^aXare, xxii. 13; f^eXdare, Xxiv. 2G, SCm. ; T^X^are, XXV. 3G, Sem.; (^r,\6aTf,
Lue. vii. 25; emav, xx. IG; eiSare, Johan. xiii. 17, sem.; Tidwrjerji', 3 pers. Marc. vii. 24: and v rejected in antaraXr], Matth. xv. 24; eMov, Johan. xix. 3; note also, napa-
StSouj/ra, Johan. xiii. 11 sem.; KareyeXow, Matth. ix. 24; uwrfKav, Marc. vi. 52; aTrJjyacri,
Johan. xviii. 13 ; and in orthography observe bibpajfiara, Matt. xvii. 24 ; o-KvXetj-, Marc. V. 35; oTnaeev, Matt. xv. 23; ffnrpoade, Johan. i. 15; 27. We read also dfiar, and eSfiCTev for brjarj and 6S7;(7-fi' (quite a peculiarity of this copy), kvXos, yteva constantly. In the following places the reduplication of verbs is omitted, Matth. ix. 3G ; Marc. v. 4; Johan. iii. 21 ; vi. 42. The preposition receives the augment in (irpocjjrjTeva-apev, Matt. vii. 22 ; Tj^piaraTo, Luc. ii. 37. The augment is lost in Matth. xi. 17; xiii. 24; xiv. G : xviii. 23 ; xxii. 2; 7; xxv. 1; xxvii. 44 sem.; Marc. XV. 44 sem. ; Luc. ii. 38 ; vi. 14 ; vii. 32 ; xiii. 13 ; xxii. G sem.; Johan. xii. 42, sem. The breathings and accents are very regular, though (as in most of the copies I have examined) the accent of an enclitic is not often thrown back when the preceding word is properispomenon. We have, however, p-^be, prjbepia, &c. p.^KeTi,
otSare, TrcoTTore and Other SUch anomalies, Trapuxprjpa, vnoKara, ovS" els, iuv, enav (but oTuv), ovx\ ^8f, alpa, Karidiav, Karovap, SiaTrairof, btarovTO, ovKfTi, pp not pp.
Besides the Gospels in full, several portions of which are always written more than once in an Evangelistarium (see Collation of the Holy Gospels, Introd. p. Ixiii.), this copy is remarkable for containing among the services for the Holy Week, four passages from the Septuagint version, Isaiah iii. 9 — 13; Hi. 13 — liv. 1; Jerem. xi. 18 — xii. 15; Zechar. xi. 10 — 14; and four from the Pauline Epistles, Rom. V. 6—10; Gal. vi. 14—18; 1 Tim. vi. 11— IG; Hebr. x. 19—31. The various readings of these last are recorded in their proper places and noted z.
This MS. is carefully written, though it contains 23 omissions by opoioTfkevTov : a second hand has sometimes made alterations, but these are not many: it introduces an itacism Marc. iv. 29, and scrawled a rubrical note over coll, IGl, 2. In noticing peculiarities of punctuation we must bear in mind that ; is often equivalent to a comma; this may perhaps apply to Johan. i. 43; v. 45; viii. 13; and is also true in Cod. i. For stops see Matth. xii. 28; xx. 12; Marc. viii. 18; xiv. 31.
Few copies of the Gospels contain more numerous and interesting yet minute variations from the printed text than Cod. z, which much resembles in that respect iL of my present, and cegop and especially y of my previous collations ; but in very many places it stands almost, often quite alone. Thus the patient student will find it a document of singular importance, well meriting his best consideration. Matth. xxiii. 35 omits the perplexing vlov ^apaxiov ; in xxvii. 9, iepepiov is wanting in one place, but read in another ; the genealogy in Luc. iii. abounds w ith variations ; Luc. xxii. 43, 44 is wanting in its place, but once placed
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 55
after Matth. xxvi. 39 ; Johan. vii. 53— viii. 11 is wanting in its place (Whitsunday), but Johan. viii. 1—11 is given on August 31 (the last day of the ecclesiastical
year) eis rrjv ioprrjv ireXayiov km eis Xonras dyias. This MS. haS SOmC SOlcclsmS and
many changes of case : e.g. genitive for dative, Luc. ix. 23 ; 57 ; and vice versa, Matth. xxvi. 62: dative for accusative, Matth. vii. 24; 2G; 29; xviii. 32; xxvii. 1; Marc. V. 24 and 14 other texts: accusative for dative, Matth. xi. 1; xiv. 7; xvi. 22; xxii, 16 sem.; Marc. iv. 2; x. 21, and 25 others.
The following readings, selected from a very large number, may serve to shew the choice character of this Evangelistarium. Matth. i. 8 ; ii. 9 (o); 13; iii. 5 (b) ; 7 ; 8 (Eh.) ; 9 (r) ; iv. 2 (our P*) ; 24(g) ; v. 11 ; 12 (D) ; 31 ; 38 ; vii. 18 ; viii. 4 (s); ix. 15 (Dg); x. 4 sem. (BCD); 10; xii. 8 ; 12 ; 39; 40; 50; xvi. 10 (c) ; 11; 12; xxiii. 26; Marc. i. 22 (Ccv) ; 27; 33; iii. 11; 28 (ABCD) ; iv. 4 (Elz.) ; 5(D); 7(CDc); 9 (Eh.); U (y) ; 14; 16; 19 (our L) ; 22 ; vi. 3 ; 4 ; 9 ; 45(Dc)i 49 (Be) ; 55; Luc. i. 26 ; 30 (C) ; iv. 4 (gloss) ; vi. 17 sem.; 49 (By) ; vii. 32 ; xi. 13, sem. ; 20 ; xvi. 26 ; xvii. 36 (Eh.) ; xx. 10 (Cy) ; 27 ; xxii. 19, sem. ; 32 ; xxiii. 50; 5Q (s) ; xxiv. 10; Johan. i. 26 sem. (c); 41; 51 sem. (B); ii. 5; 10 (B); 15; 17 (Elz.); iii. 2 ; 11; 23 ; 24 ; 25 (Elz.); v. 19 ; 22 ; 25 (BD) ; 32; vi. 1 ; 2 (ABD) ; 17 ; 19 ; vii. 13 ; 17 ; xii. 26, &c.
II. 2. As our list of MSS. for the Acts and Catholic Epistles is with four exceptions the same as that for the Epistles of St Paul, it will be convenient to describe both series under the same head.
The Lambeth MSS. of the Carlyle collection comprise the first six on our catalogue (abed, e of Acts, e of St Paul) : of these I have elsewhere given a suffi- cient general account^ When I collated them, now twelve years ago, by the permission of the late Archbishop Howley (who was pleased to countenance my exei-tions in this department of sacred learning), they had merely been inspected so far as to ascertain that none of them contained the disputed passage, 1 John v. 7, 8. Dr Bloomfield has since used four of them and some lectionaries in the same collection to enrich his critical notes in the ninth edition of his Greek Testament: he kindly permitted me to verify my references in many places while they continued in his possession. I proceed to describe them in detail.
(a). Lambeth, 1182. This copy is in quarto, of 793 pages, on paper, and must date from the 12th century at the earliest. Professor Carlyle marked it I 8, thus indicating that he procured it from one of the Greek Islands. The MS. itself is written in a bold round hand, but as many leaves are lost, they have been supplied in a more careless style by a scribe full two centuries later : the passages so supplied are Acts i. 1 — xii. 3 (68 pages; the more ancient writing commencing at Trpoai6eTo); Acts xiii. 5, o-vraywyats to V. 15 Kai tcov (pp. 75, 76); 2 and 3 John
Coll
lation of the Holy Gospels. Introduction, pp. xxiv — vi.
5Q DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
and Jude (pp. 755—793)'. The books arc arranged in a very unusual order, the Pauline Epistles following the Acts, and preceding the Catholic Epistles, as in our modern Bibles. The older part of this MS. is much damaged, in fact most of the leaves are remounted. Before the Acts in the later hand are Liturgical avncpcova for Easter (vid. Suicer, Thes. Ecc. Tom. i. p. 387), anobrjfjuai TravXov, an inoBeffis to the Acts, and an arrangement of the contents in order, the Catholic Epistles being here made to follow the Acts. After the Acts, prima manu, follow npa^ns rav dyiav airoaToXoiv 5 pp., as their sequel. Each Epistle has an inodeais, and at the end, in the later hand, are a Synaxarion of the Upn^anoaToXos throughout the year, and lessons from Phil. ii. 5-11; Hebr. ix. 1—7; 1 Thoss. iv. 13-17 (marked a? in this collation). This volume contains a few coarse illuminations, ruhro; Ke4>a\aia numbered in the margin, with capitals commencing each ; ap^ai, TfXrj of the lessons noted, their proper days at the top of the page, and such initial supplements as aSeX^oi, &c. all in red.
The breathings and accents of Cod. a are very regular ; we have only a few
such forms as aXowv, ivearaxrav, idpaicofia, but ajBpaap., wSe, Kad' o, Kar ivcomov, Kadrjpepau, Toiyapovv, and in orthography, fcarayyeXw, evaros, ovrcos {ovra Only four times) cf)i\r]^ nine times; o(})6a\pojbovkeia, TaireKppocrvvr] (Col. ii. 23; iii. 12), vri(paXeos. The V ((pe^KvaTiKov
occurs only Hebr. vii. 2; xi. 8. We never read t ascript, but t subscript 67 times, often with relatives. Itacisms are rare, though somewhat thicker in the more recent portion of the MS. : they are even inserted secundd manu, e.g. Act. iii. 22; iv. 13; of grammatical forms we find TjXKaTo, Act. xiv. 10; ea-vpav, xvii. 6; ij^wptfei/, Gal. ii. 12; tiwa, Hebr. iii. 10; evpapfvos {cum midtis) ix. 12. There are 27 instances of opoiorekevTov, and the writing is in some places injured by damp and the ink faded. On the top of p. 384 is some faded writing, now illegible. The corrections are in two hands, one ancient (perhaps prima manu'), the other more recent, and some are in vermilion. Ae and re, Upoa-okvpa and Upov- (ToKrjp (Act. xvi. 4; xx. 16; xxi, 14; 15) are often confounded: there are many transpositions in the order of words (sometimes noted a, /3 secundd manu), and the copy is so liturgical as often to omit particles of time initio pericopes. The more modern hand (Acts i. — xii. 3, &c.) agrees closely with Cod. h, to be described below, and has some good readings: e.g. Acts ii. 13 (ABC); 24: but the older hand represents a very interesting and valuable text, and is full of rare variations, especially in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, being there found in harmony with cdh (described below), with the most ancient MSS., and very conspicuously with that most precious document, designated below as p (consult, for instance, Acts xiii. — xvii. throughout). It has kv for Sv, Acts xx. 28, with ACDE, and very few cursive copies. Compare also Act. xiv. 19; xv. 4; 18; 20 (69); 1 Pet. ii. 8;
1 The binder has misplaced pp. 371-2 and | 463-4, 461-2 and 459-60 ; 473-4 and 471-2 ; 477-8 369-70 ; 375-6 and 373-4 ; 457-8, 455-6 and 453-4; I and 475-6.
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 67
11 (ambobus locis cum 51**, 69); 12; 19 (C. 69); iii. 12 (57. 69); iv. 14 (57**. G9. c); 2 Pet. i. 10 (A.c, 69); 1 Cor. xii. 13 (74); xv. 8 (rw) ; 2 Cor. iii. 9 (ACD*, 74); iv. 4 (74) ; v. 17 ; Eph. ii. IG, p.m.; iii. 19 (A 74) ; Col. ii. 23; iii. 10 (74); 1 Thess. ii. 2 ; 7 (CD* 74); iv. 5 (74); v. 8 (74); 24 (74); 2 Tim. i. 15; ii. 11 ; Hebr. vii. 26 (74) ; xii. 9; xiii. 22 (D) ; 24 (74). The close resemblance to Knittel's Guftlpherbyt. xvi. 7 (69 Acts, 74 Paul) is very remarkable.
(b). Lambeth 1183, Carlyle I 9, like the preceding, contains the Acts and all the Epistles in their modern order, on paper, pp. 472 quarto, with 27 lines on each
page. On the last page is read eypacjir] ev erei ra^r • iv ■ la ■ 6v TO dcopov Kai novos : 6s dyios:
after which
yovv /xev ^ev^as koi inroKkivas Kapav
Xeipas eKTeiuas npos ray 6eias rerpaSas
eKTTenXrjp CO Ka ttjv deoadoTov SeXrov. firjv pa'ios Ky rou Co (?) fi'ixarjX crvvabav tov opoXoyrjrov [siC^. fip,€pa 8^. nai oi TijBe ttj ypa(f)T] (VTVx^avovTes \J>iCj to ks avy^coprjaov Kai eXej^crov tov ypacfiea tov ■napovTos ^i^Xiov Xeyerf, tf
OTTO)? /cat vfias aXXoi iraXtv p.vri(rda)(n : all this p.m.: the date is A.D. 1358. This copy is written in a noble and beautiful hand, and is in pretty good preservation, except that the binder has cut off the tops of many pages^. The MS. contains the following hiatus: 1 Cor. xi. 7, KaTaKaXvTTTea-dai ttjv to v. 27 evoxos (one leaf); 1 Tim. iv. 1, irpoaexovTes to V. 8, voei ttjv mcTTip (one leaf). The first pages contain fragments of a synaxarion, chants, &c. Before the Acts and all the Epistles are inoSeaeis and tables of Kf(f}uXaia : their titles are repeated at the top and bottom of each page of the MS., the number of each Ke(})aXaiov, the apxai, TeXrj and proper day for each lesson, and the initial capitals, are all in the margin in red. The accents and breathings are very accurate (yet we have oaptjv, 2 Cor. ii. 14; d(j)r]s, Eph. iv. 16 p.m.', so Col. ii. 19); i ascript or subscript nowhere occurs, and v efpeXKva-TiKov only at 1 Cor. i. 18; 25; xv. 58; Hebr. iii. 18; vii. 14. Racisms are very rare, onl}^ one being met with in the first twelve chapters of the Acts (dvyaTepms, ii. 17), and nearly all with proper names (e.g. Acts xiii. 1 ; xvi. 12 ; xx. 15 ; xxiii. 24 ; 26; xxvii. 6; xxviii. 11 bis). They are introduced sec. man. Act. xxvii. 2 ; 40 ; and in Brjpavres, xvi. 37, &c.: there are not above 14 more in the whole MS. Of
peculiar forms I note only ^XXuto, Act. xiv. 10, KUTiBiav, d^paap., Kaffrjpepav, evaros, aTTapxrjS,
(not in 1 Johan.) ; ovtcos always except in Act. xiii. 47 ; xx. 13 sec. man. ; 1 Thess. iv. 14; 17. Notice also a-apcovav, Act. ix. 35, p.m.; ea-vpav, xiv. 19; xvii. 6; « Tvxn, 1 Cor. xiv. 10; peya, ace. mas. Hebr. iv. 14, p.m.
In critical value Cod. b may be somewhat inferior to cd and several others in this collection. Yet it has not a few rare and observable readings, of which I
1 A festival of the Apparition of St Michael is and i6i-2 ; 207-8 and 205-6 ; 243-4 and 241-2 ; set down in the Calendar for May 8, not May 4 - 247-8 and 245-6 ; 253-4 and 251-2 ; 431—44 and 01-23. 41.=;— 30; 467-8 and 465-6; 149-5013 bound up
^ He has also misplaced pages 165-6, 163-4 ' after 304.
I
58 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN Mx\NUSCRIPTS
subjoin a specimen, though on the whole it does not depart from the common text in many important places ; in the following list it is almost always found in company with Cantab. Mm. G, 9, which is o of the Acts and Epistles (.swpra, pp. XXXV— vi), i.e. with Gl of Griesbach: Act. iv. 14 (o); xiii. 23; xiv. 19; xv. 20 (Do); xxiii. 15; xxiv. 8; xxv. 8; xxvi. 5 (o) ; Jac. iii. 7 (o) ; v. 15 (o) ; 1 Pet. V. 2 (o); 2 Pet. i. 14 (o) ; ii. 14; 1 Johan. i. 7 (o) ; Rom. viii. 10(o); 23; xi. 4 p.m. (o) ; xiv. 13 p.m. (o) ; 1 Cor. i. 29 (o) ; xi. 4 (o) ; xiv. 33 (FG.o) ; 40 (o) ; xvi. 3; 2 Cor. xii. 12 (o) ; Eph. ii. 12 (o) ; v. 11 (o) ; Phil. ii. 11, p.m. (o) ; Col. ii. 2, p.m. (o) ; 2 Thess. i. 5. Ae and re are often interchanged, and the subscriptions to St Paul's Epistles are a little unusual : these are in red, and apparently prima manu. This MS. has only nine examples of Sfj.oioTf'KfvTou, a proof that the scribe exercised some care; in many places where the old writing has become faded, it has been restored, I think by the same person who made the numerous alterations secundd manu.
(c). L.UIBETII 1184, Carlylc I[slandsJ 10, of the Acts and Epistles, having been returned with five other MSS. of this collection to the Patriarch of Jeru- salem in 1817S I am indebted for a knowledge of its contents to some papers in a case (Lambeth 1255, 10 — 14), which contains (with other matter) a scholar- like and seemingly accurate collation of it with the Greek text of Mill, made by the Rev. W. Sanderson of Morpeth, in or about the year 1804. In Archdeacon Todd's Lambeth Catalogue of MSS. Codex 1184 is described as "Codex char- taceus, in quarto, Saic. xv.: Acta Apostolorum, Epp. Cathohcas et PauH omnes complectitur . . . In initio mutilus. Incipit Act. vi. 10, rij (roc^na. A divers^ manu duo folia, codicem claudentia, exarata sunt. I. 10." Now Sanderson's collation shews no such defect as the Catalogue mentions, yet he so often cites his copy as I 10, that it is hard to suppose they are speaking of different books. If we were able to form any estimate of the age of a document from the readings it exhibits, we should certainly assign to it a much earlier date than the fifteenth century. In the Acts it is one of our best authorities, being full of weighty and probable variations from the common herd, and we cannot but be too thankful for the diligence which has recorded them for om- use ; in the Catholic Epistles it is scarcely less valuable, but in the Epistles of St Paul it presents us with little worthy of particular notice. There is an hiatus from Act. vii. o'2 v}j.av to viii. 25 eif. At the end of his collation Sanderson adds " In antecedenti collatione differentia in p paragogico (i. e. v addito verbis desinentibus ab e vel t, proximu dictione a vocali exorsa) cum a varia lectione profiuit, non notatur; ex more enim ,///." Of other peculiarities in regard to the writing he says nothing ; but shews
^ See Archdeacon Todd's "Account of Gret'k I gi-eater part of wliii-li are now deposited in the Manuscripts, chiefly Biblical, which had been in | Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth Palace." Loa- the possession of tlie late Profe.ssor Carlyle, the j don, Svo. [iSi8].
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 59
his ignorance of the fact that v is only another form for /3 (c. g. 2 Johan, 8 ; Gal. iv. 5) ; an error into which Fenton, who collated Cod. e of the Acts, and other novices in these studies, have constantly fallen. Sanderson takes laudable care to notice those places where his manuscript was doubtful or illegible, and his performance indicates that he was a diligent student, of whose labours we may avail ourselves with some degree of conKdence. He does not state what reprint of Mill's New Testament he used : from the wretched blunders whereof he subjoins a list, it must have been a very bad one^ This circum- stance sometimes renders his notes unintelligible; in which case I have simply transcribed them with the warning "sic." There are pretty many itacisms in this MS., especially w for o ; tXjj/i and UpotroKvua are much interchanged ; e. g. Acts viii. 25; xx. 16; xxi. 17; xxv. 20; xxviii. 17. We read oire Act. xix. 37; 6vpa accus. xii. 13 ; fUKOTrrfa-Om 1 Pet. iii. 7 ; avrjyyeXXrj Rom. XV. 21 ; enra Hebr. iii. 10 ; (niXavdavaade ibid. xiii. 16 : besides which the following unusual readings may give the reader some notion of the genius of Cod. c. Act. i. 12 ; ii. 33 (B); 36; 43; iii. 9 (B); 11 (ABCE) ; iv. 15; 16 (ABD) ; v. 42; vi. 1 ; 15 ; vii. 35 (ADE); viii. 28; ix. 6 ; 30 ; 39 ; x. 6 ; 9; 11 {sic MS. 13); 31; xi. 8; 20 (AD*); xii. 22; xviii. 9; xx. 19 (C) ; xxi. 34; xxiv. 16; xxvii. 40; Jac. i. 18; 1 Pet. iii. 19 ; v. 13 ; many of which resemble Scholz's 180 in' its rarest variations: moreover MS. c will be found pretty much Avith our am. This most interesting document will be seen to contain not a few errors of the pen.
(d). Lambeth 1185, Carlyle I. 11, is a small quarto of 417 pages, having about 26 lines in a page, on bad paper, vilely written, and in a dirty state : in fact nothing could well be more unpromising than this MS. on a first glance. Todd assigns it to the fifteenth century : I should be disposed to date it somewhat earlier. It comprehends the Acts and the Epistles in the usual Greek order. On pp. ] — 5, is a mutilated virodea-is to the Acts, the table of KecjiaXaia being lost ; pp. 395 — 404 exhibit an ill-written synaxarion of the Praxapostolos ; pp. 405 — 417 vnodea-fis and KecpaXaia of the Epistlcs, from the Galatians to the Hebrews, much torn. In fact the MS. might almost be considered a series of fragments in several different hands: it has the following hiatus ; from Act. ii, 36 on koi to iii. 8 Kai e^aXXoufvos (one leaf): from vii. 3 npos avrov to v. 59 cmKoXovfjievov (three leaves): from xii. 7 Xeyav
ava to V. 25 TrapaXa(3ovTfS Kai tw (onc leaf) : from xiv. 8 ovbeirore nepi to V. 27 per
avTcou (one leaf)^: from xviii. 20 avrois ov to xix. 12 <Tov8apia (one leaf): from xxii. 7 XfyovoTjs p^i to xxiii. 11 6 Kvpios (two leaves): 1 Cor. viii. 12 (rvveihri<nv to ix. 18 Iva "^onc
^ When Mill's text differs from that of my standard, Elzevir 1624, I have assumed from the silence of c and e of the Acts that they correspond with Mill, i. e, with R. Stephens' 3rd edition, nearly. I then cite thein for a reading thus, " c u tadle."
2 The binder has also misplaced Acts xv. 40 — xvi. 10 ; xviii. 20 — xix. 12 is put as pp. 91, 92 in cap. xxvi. The leaves containing the following are torn, Rom. iii. 27 — 30 and iv. 9 — 11; iv. 17 — 19 and v. 2 — 4 ; v. 12 — 15 and 18 — 21; vi. 6 — 12 and 18—21.
i2
60 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
leaf): 2 Cor. part of the vrrodccns to i. 10 iJverai (one leaf): from Eph. iii. 2 oiKovofiiav Tr]s to Phil, i, 24 /xeufiv fu: 2 Tim. iv. 12 anfo-TetXa to Tit. i. G kos avrjp (one leaf) : Hebr. vii. 19 eKnibos to ix. 12 tStou (two leaves). I trace distinctly at least four hands in this copy: pp. 1 — 218 seem to be written by one scribe: pp. 219—21 (1 Cor, ii. 11 — V. 2) are in an antient hand, so small as to be barely legible; there are 31 lines on each page and the ink is pale : p. 222 is a large scrawl, in dark ink, compara- tively modern, containing 1 Cor. v. 2 6 to epyov to v. 12 t^co Kpiveiv. On p. 223 begins 1 Cor. v. 11 vw 8e (so that i;. 11 and part of v. 12 are in two diflerent hands) on tliick ribbed paper, i^erhaps by the writer of pp. 219 — 21, pretty wide and legible but in a wretched style: we have now the form a as an abridge- ment for ei, and the particles of time &c. which were dropped at the beginning of each lesson are here written in red, a unique yet convenient arrangement: in this portion of the MS. aspirates are scarcely used at all but with initial ?;: this scribe breaks off with p. 280, 2 Cor. x. 15 Kavxop.fvos, the last two pages being written very large, in order to cover the space; the part of the text on ribbed paper was therefore posterior in time to what immediately follows. On p. 281 a new hand begins with 2 Cor. x. 8 Kadaipea-iv, so that vv. 8 — 15 are twice written, and their various readings are separately indicated in my collation (d^ for those on p. 280, d^ for those on p. 281). This portion is so much damaged by damp as to be hardly readable in parts (e. g. p. 284) : it may possibly be the work of the scribe that executed pp. 1 — 218, but I could not bring myself to think so: it is full of itacisms, errors of the pen, corrections sec. man., and various read- ings, some of rarity and importance. This hand terminates on p. 312, Eph. iii. 2, after which there occurs an hiatus, and another scribe (p. 313) commences Phil. i. 24, who goes on to the end of the Synaxarion which follows the Hebrews (p. 404) in a rather neat style, closely written, there being 30 lines on each page. The concluding pages 405 — 417 are by the penman of the ribbed-paper portion (pp. 223 — 280), who may be i-egarded as the person that brought this Codex into its present shape. The reader will pardon this long detail when he observes that the genius and worth of the manuscript vary much, according to the periods at which its parts were severally written.
All the Catholic Epistles are preceded by vnodea-tis and tables of Kf(pa\aia : so also are Rom., 1, 2 Corinth. The KfcfyaXaia alone are found before the rest, but Gal. and Eph. have not even these, except at the end, pp. 405 — 417. In the early part of the MS. the breathings and accents are very irregular, the aspirate being almost constant in words beginning with rj or o, e.g. i^Kova-a, i^ytpOrj,
rjTrjrraTO, ovofxa, oTnao), oIkos, 6)(\os, ovra, aiTrjo-as, even eir (Act. XX. 13), o'lKTeipficov (Jac. V.
11), ofivvrjre {v. 12), a^vaov (Rom. X. 7). Some words are but half-written p.m., and there are not a few instances of Sp-oioTeXevTov. N ((f)e'KKvaTiKov is rare, and the itacisms are pretty numerous, some being inserted secundd manu (e. g. Heb. i. 3) ; nvep-a for nvevfia is always uscd, unless the word be abridged. Of peculiar forms
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 61
we have avtiXare Act. ii. 23; Karay-jx'Xeiv iv. 2 ; KaTr^yyeWr] xvii. 13 ; enea-a xxii. 7 ; t)\t.as
(Jac. V. 17); fvKevTpiadco Rom. xi. 19; ovtco, ovx- d^paafi, nearly always: yet the hand which wrote the Hebrews reads a^paap. and has besides aBeXcpos for ace. 2 Thess. iii. 15; aTroXir^aade Col. iii. 24; i8aTe Phil. iv. 15 sec. man,; fpnpocrde 1 Thess i. 3; ii. 19 ; iii. 9 ; 13 ; iopaKaa-i Col. ii. 1 (so v. 18) and such like, and avrtKareaTrjTe (with many other authorities) Heb. xii. 4. The only instance of t subscript is 1 Cor. v. 11. The letter ^3 is put for v (a rare change elsewhere) 1 Cor. xv. 30; xvi. 4; 2 Cor. xi. 25; xiii. 11; Gal. i. 8 ; iv. 9 ; 25; v. 13; Eph. i. 16; ii. 11; Heb. xi. 15 ; besides the ordinary v for j3 2 Cor. xii. 16 ; Gal. iii. 1 ; 27.
Codex d has the apxai, reXr; and proper days for lessons in a coarse rubric at the top and bottom of each page, and capitals at the beginning of each lesson. There are many various readings of a curious character, inversions of order, glosses, &c. throughout the Catholic Epistles, and more than usual in the Pauhne. I subjoin a list of some passages which seem to deserve special notice, and from them it will be seen how much this MS. is countenanced by the best uncials: Act. i. 11; ii. 1 (c); iii. 23 (ACe); iv. 12; v. 16; vi. 14; ix. 21 ; xv. 22 ; xvi. 15 (E); 23 ; xviii. 2 ; xix. 19 ; 29 ; 39 (B); xxi. 5, 6 (ABCE) ; 30 ; XXV. 8 ; 20 ; xxvi. 1 ; xxviii. 16 (c/. A); Jac. ii. 25 (C); 3 Johan. 9 ; Rom. xv. 12; 1 Cor. x. 11 (ABC); 2 Cor. xi. 1 ; 8; Gal. i. 22; iii. 23; v. 8 ; vi. 11; Eph. ii. 8; 10; 2 Thess. iii. 8; Philem. 16; 20; Hebr. i. 3; iv. 5; vi. 9; xi. 23; xii. 9.
(e). Lambeth — of the Acts of the Apostles. I have obtained this unfinished collation of Act. i. 1 — xxvii. 12 from the same source as Sanderson's collation of Codex c, viz. the case of papers at Lambeth numbered 1255 (27 — 33). It was made by the Rev. John Fenton for Professor Carlyle, and was probably broken off at the death of the latter ^
As Codex e is certainly not identical with any of the MSS. I have just described (abed), it must have been one of the two remaining copies of the Acts that were returned in 1817, which were marked Lambeth, 1181 and C (Constan- tinople). Though Mr Fenton's is a well-executed collation (so far at least as we can judge in the absence of the original) I do not find any account of the docu- ment itself among his papers. Lamb. 1181, is termed in the Printed Catalogue " Codex Chartaceus in quarto, Sec. xiv. L 7. Acta Apost. Epist. Cath. et Pauli omnes complectens." C is merely mentioned in Archdeacon Todd's Account of Greelc Manuscripts, &c. p. 68. Fenton, like the rest of Carlyle's friends, collated his copy with Mill's text, but uses no breathings or accents, though he carefully mai-ks the places where the reading of his MS, was dubious or illegible. It con- tained many strong itacisms and so rich an array of variations from the common
1 Professor Carlyle died Vicar of Newcastle, April J2, 1804, tet. 45.
62 DESCRIPTIO.X OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
text, that WG cannot help regretting that we possess not a fuller knowledge of its contents. The following places are more or less remarkable: Acts ii. G (E); iii. 4; 7; 9; 21; iv. 11; 18; 30 (DE); 33; v. 9; 21; 30 (E); 33 (ABE); vi. 7; vii. 34; 38; viii. IG; 24; 37 {hahet cum E et Ehev.); ix. 8; 10; 11; 27; 28; x. 15 (g); 16; 25 (g) ; 31; xi. 21; 28; xii. 25; xiii. 33 (ABC); 34; xiv. 10 (CDa fere); 17; 20; XV. 29 (Da); xvii. 13; 16; 26 (AB) ; xx. 26 (E); 29 (g); xxii. 21; 24;
XXV. 7.
(e). Lambeth 118G, contains St Paul's Epistles and the Apocalypse. It is a fine copy 4to on vellum, of 144 leaves and 23 lines in a page. Todd (who reasonably assigns it to the eleventh century, and has given a fac-simile of Apoc. I. 1, in the Lambeth Catalogue) calls it '-the best in the collection;" yet its critical value in St Paul's Epistles is the least of any I examined in that Library: in the Apocalypse it is indeed of singular weight and importance. It begins Rom. xvi. 15, irap Kai rovs, and ends Apoc. xix. 4, aiJirjv: but there are also hiatus from 1 Cor. iv. 19, raxecos irpos vixas to vi. 1, tx^^ (one leaf); from x. 1, ol npes rnxoiv to V. 21, vaaQf Ttorrjpiov (onc leaf); from Hebr. iii. 14, piroxot- yap ye to ix. 19, Xakrideia-rjs yap; from Apoc. xiv. 16, fni Tr]v secuncl. to XV. 7, coz/ay Tav (one leaf). This MS. is marked I. 12 and 13 in Carlyle's notation. It is written in a good clear hand with a broad margin, although the coi^y is in bad condition, and the ink much faded; the last leaf especially is torn and damaged by mildew. Each Epistle is preceded by an vnodea-is, but not the Apocalypse. The cases of u e^eX- Kva-TLKov in Cod. e are very numerous; in fact, it is quite the ordinary usage: there is no I subscript, though i ascript occurs about 67 times, chiefly with articles and relatives. The Apocalypse has nothing in the margin, but throughout the Ej)istles the titles of the KecpaXaia, the beginnings and endings of lessons, &c. are placed at the tops of the pages, and the following passages have curious marginal notes, prima manu: 1 Cor. xv. 33; 2 Cor. viii. 21; Gal, vi. 15 ; Col. iv. 16; Tit. i. 12, besides references to quotations from the Old Testament. The accents are very carefully given, but the breathings of compound words are often doubled, or otherwise separately written (e.g. Trpoelirov, Gal. v. 21) : we find also
ipyois (1 Tim. V. 10), oiXooiV (1 Cor, ix. 10), a\j/ipd-os, vaKip6ivos, pt]KeTi,daaijTa>s, 6t av, h'lo,
8i oirep, hC oTi, Kaff o, ovKerii note also such abridgements as epwprj, (2 Tim. i. 17), eKc5, where e stands for ev, and iopaKa (1 Cor. ix. 1), iopaKaai, &c. constantly. Itacisms are unusually scarce; I have counted but 29 throughout the whole MS. Alexan- drine forms are so rare that they are rejected even when found in the Elzevir text, e.g. Gal. V. 4 ; 1 Thess. iv. 6 ; Apoc. i. 17 ; v. 14 ; vi. 13 ; xi. 16 ; xvii. 10. There are a few erasures (1 Cor. vi. 15) and changes sec. man. (2 Cor. xiii. 1), and before each book are pale blue initials. Few copies approach so near the com- mon text as this does in the Epistles, yet some good readings maj'^ be selected from it: e.g. 1 Cor. ii. 12; 2 Cor. xi. 23; xiii. 12 (AFG) ; Gal. i. 15; vi. 18; Hebr. x. 7 ; xi. 26 (BD).
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 63
The next three Manuscripts, fgh of the Acts and Epistles, have been described in my " Collation of Greek MSS. of the Holy Gospels," where their readings in the Gospels are recorded : I shall therefore repeat as little as possible of what I said respecting them in that volume.
(f). Codex Theodori {Collation, Introd. p. li.) contains the whole N.T. except the Apocalypse, on vellum, bearing date a.d. 1295. I know not what has be- come of it, and have not seen it since 1845. Its variations in the Gospels I have indicated by the letter q : those in the Acts and Epistles are not extensive.
(g). Codex Wordsworth {Collation, hitrod. p. xliii.) also contains the Gospels (which I have noted by the letter 1), the Acts and all the Epistles. I presume it is still in Canon Wordsworth's possession : it is of the 13th century, on vellum. Many of its readings will be found to accord with e of the Acts.
(h). Codex Butler 2. British Museum, Additional MS. 11837 {Collation, Introd. p. xhv.) contains the whole New Testament on vellum, the various read- ings in the Apocalypse, like those of Lambeth 1186, being of great value. This MS. is our m of the Gospels, and, in common with the two preceding copies, does not differ widely from the received text, though it exhibits many lesser changes of considerable interest. Notice especially several pecuharities in the punctuation. It bears date a.d. 1357.
(j). BuRNEY 48, in the British Museum, contains the Catholic Epistles only. They are found at fol. 221 of the second volume of a large folio paper MS. of Chrysostom's Homilies from the Galatians to the Hebrews, but not in the same hand with them. The Epistles are in a neat and even elegant style, of about the 14th century. This copy accords very often with c and d in their less usual variations, and affords perhaps a more antient text than many others which were written earher; a circumstance easily accounted for, yet always worth notice when we meet with it. Before each epistle is an vnoeeais and cK^eo-ts KecpaXaiav, but of St Jude nothing remains except a part of the vnoBecns. Here we have i ascript and subscript used indifferently, e.g. both in Jac. iii. 7 : V e(t)e\KV(TTiKou, is uot found. There are not above five itacisms in the Catholic Epistles, but in breathings we have eoiKe, Jac. i. 6 ; 23 ; oXoXvCovres, V. 1 ; earrjKev, V. 9 j co8e, a^paafi. This codex is carefully written, having but one example of oiioioreXevTov (2 Johan. 3, 4), but few corrections and one erasure (1 Johan, i. 9), sec. man.: we have, however, KaraXen-e, Jac. iv. 11, p.m.; KUToXovaw, 1 Pet. iii. 16, and npo for Trpos. The following readings should be noticed: Jac. i, 5; 25, p.m.; iii. 3 j 14 ; v. 3 ; 15 ; 16 ; 19 ; 1 Pet. i, 8 (BC) ; 10 ; ii. 19 ; iii. 3; iv. 3 (ABC) ; v. 1 ; 11 ; 12 3 2 Pet. i. 2 ; 4 ; 20 ; ii. 1 ^xm. ; 21 ; iii. 10; 14; 15; 1 Johan. i. 9 ; ii. 4 (AB) ; 7 ; 9, 10 ; 20 ; 23 (ABC); v. 13; 2 Johan, 8 (A) ; 12.
(j). Burney 18 is a mere fragment of the Pauline Epistles, containing Hebr. xii. 17, ptra BciKpvcou, to thc cud of that epistle. It is found in the MS. I have
64 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
described as n of the Gospels {Collation, Introd. p. xlvi.) dated a.d. 13GG, between
fir/Xwo-iy aKpijirjs tcov Kad' eKaarrjv r^iepav avayivaxTKOjiivoiV anocrToXoevayyeXKOv (foil. 210 — 214) and a awa^apiov T(ou fopTo)P rov oXov XP°^°^} SrjXnvv ra o(})eiXopfva aTToa-roXoevayy. avayi-
vaxTKiadai (foil. 218 — 222). It is on five pages (foil. 215 — 217) in the same hand as the Gospels, and with the same decorations, viz. Capitals, apxai, TeXrj, the proper days and commencements of the lessons, all in gold. The last verses Hebr. xiii. 17 — 25 are spread over two pages in a cruciform shaped shewing that this was the end of the whole manuscript, which doubtless once contained the Acts and all the Epistles. Hebr. xii. 24, reads to, with B • v. 26 has ayyai in the margin ; otherwise this fragment is not at all remarkable.
(k). Trin. Coll. Cvntab. B. x. 16. This important MS. is the same as w of the Gospels, and has been fully described above, p. xxxviii.
(1). Christi Coll. Cantab. F. i. 13 is another interesting document, liberally lent me by the Master and Fellows of Christ's College. It is noted by Mill, Cant. 2, and was written on vellum (606 pages, quarto) about the end of the twelfth century : it is 81 inches long by 6 broad. The first leaf being lost, it begins with fH^XeTTovTes Act. i. 11 : there are also hiatus from Act. xviii. 20 xpo to x^- 1^ r}X6op.ev; and from Jac. v. 14 Trpoaev^aa-daxrav to 1 Pet. i. 4 KM ajxapavTov (one leaf) : pp. 115 — 16 (Act. XX. 24—28; 30—32) and p. 170 Jac. i. 6, 7 are torn; pp. 529, 530 are misplaced after p. 542 : the last two leaves are also decayed. Mill states that Thomas Gale had seen this MS. and Wetstein that he had given extracts from its readings to the editor of the Oxford New Testament of 1675, but the first person who examined it throughout was Mill himself, who speaks of it as " sedulo a me collatum" (Proleg. Nov. Testament. § 1419). I have now followed Mill's footsteps over no inconsiderable space, but no where have I found less reason to be satisfied with the accuracy of his labours. The first chapter I tested happened to be Act. xii. wherein he notes but one out of the ten variations that occur in Cant. 2 : in fact the proportion of one in three is a favourable estimate of the readings he cites compared with those he omits. Bentley next collated this MS. and inserted its readings among those of 32 others collected for him by J. J. Wetstein in 1716: his collation remains at Trinity College (B. xvii. 10, 11). It was next used by Jo. Wigley, Fellow of Christ's College, for John Jackson of Leicester, who projected an edition of the Greek Testament, and inserted the results of Wigley's diligence, with many other stores he had accumulated, in the margin of that copy of Mill now preserved at Jesus College, Cambridge (vid. supra, p. xlii.). While very much remains to be done in these studies, it is sad to see so many efforts of honest and well-directed industry thus absolutely
* A few very costly copies exist exhibiting I gelistarium, said to be written in part by the im- throughout a cruciform shape : perhaps the most | perial hand of Alexius Comnenus. splendid of them yet known is the Parhani Evan- I
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. ()5
thrown aAvay^ The fly-leaf of this MS. contains an extract from Jackson's memorandum respecting it in the Jesus College copy of Mill : this extract had previously been published in Sutton's Life of that eccentric and unhappy scholar {Memoirs of the life and loritings of Jachson, 1764, pp. 200, 2G5). He there states that Wigley had brought to light more than five hundred readings of Cant. 2 which Mill had neglected, and adds, " Hie MS. congruit maxime cum Complut. et Leicestr." I have not myself seen Wigley 's or examined Bentley's collation, but after a close comparison of my own papers with the MS. and Mill's edition, I think I may claim the reader's confidence when I say that where I differ from Mill, the error is not mine. There are no vTroBeaeLs before any of the books, or lists of KfcfiaXma ; only that rubric capitals are placed at the beginning of each section, there would be no divisions in the text of each book. Before St James' Epistle alone stands a slight illumination; the whole MS. is written in the same clear bold hand, but a second scribe has made mmuj changes throughout, even in the punctuation : these it is the more necessaiy to note, as Mill perpetually cites the changes of this later pen for the original readings of his Cant. 2; e.g. Rom. xv. 7 ; 2 Cor. i. 21; 1 Thess. v. 21. This Codex con- tains no I subscript, but 60 cases of i ascript, yet in three instances out of four at the end of the line, as if to fill it up. This is one of the most accurately written MSS. extant ; a few errors of the pen however are caused by the rubric capitals, and a few various readings, e.g. Act. xxi. 20; Gal. i. 13. The only unusual breathings are akoavra 1 Tim. v. 18 ; iXi^eis Hebr. i. 12 ; 'A^paafi ('a ruhro) Hebr. vi. 13 ; xi. 8 for the ordinary form a^paafx. No v (cjieXKva-TiKov is found. Of grammatical peculiarities we read avaSoa-avres Act. xxiii. 33 p. m.; ema xxvi. 15 ; evreaav 1 Cor. x.
8; awoKTevvei 2 Cor, iii. 6; e^eirea-are {with Elzev.) Gal. V. 4; TrapayyeXe 1 Tim. iv. 11;
fvpapevos Hebr. ix. 12 ; avT€KaTf(TTr]r€ xii. 4. Of itacisms I count but 47, whereof 23 are interchanges of o and w. Ufieis and vyxets are confused, sometimes even to the detriment of the sense: e.g. 1 Cor. iv. 6; 10; xi. 24 p.m.; xv. 14; 2 Cor. viii. 19; xi. 8; Col. i. 8 ; 1 Thess. ii. 19; 2 Thess. ii. 2; 13. The interrogation (;) is so often omitted when absolutely required, that no great weight can be given to its absence in more doubtful cases. Other forms worth notice are ovtms (always
except 2 Cor. vii. 14), diarovTO, in\ to avro, eir oKr^deias, to. vvv, BiOTravTos, /uV intcrrO'*'.
(even ov nrj), re often, Kpipa and pUos always, Krjpv^, kut (vaitiov (not Col. i. 22), virkp
av(i>, VTTfpeKTrepiaa-ov, i^ avrrjs, Kadrjpepav, andpxrjs, drj'KovoTt, e^evavTias, Karapxas, ovKtri
always, ovx, w5f, fa-Trjo-av. The breathings are sometimes placed falsely over the
1 I will give one more instance of this v:asfe of , a most laborious collation he had made of two energy. No student of late years has ever spent j Bodleian JISS. (Godex Ebnerianus of the Gospels,
an hour in the Bodleian Library, but left it a debtor to the courtesy and zeal of the Rev. H. 0. Coxe. Many years since that gentleman forwarded to one versed in Biblical criticism his ojiJ;/ copy of
Acts and Epistles, and Can. Grfcc. no of the Acts and Epistles). It has not been published so far as I know, nor am I aware of tliere being any prosprct of jniblication. K
()6 DESCRIPTION OF CKRTAIN MANUSCIIIPTS
rubric letters (Act. ix.-23; xiii. 4; xxi. 27; 1 Pet. iii. 15; Rom. xi. 5 ; 1 Thess. i. 4 ; llebr, ii. 11), and the red letter, which is in most MSS. later than the original writing, is here, as in many other instances, often omitted altogether. The title of each epistle is repeated rubro at the head of its first page, and we meet with some scrawling notes in later hands here and there, which deserve no further mention. The various readings of Codex 1 are not so numerous as in some others, but always valuable : it well merits Mill's commendation " liber est probae notse," and will I am sure be the more highly esteemed, now that it may be better known.
1 do not agree with Jackson in perceiving much resemblance to the Leicester MS., but it will often be found in concert with the ^thiopic version (as Mill cites it) and my codices e Act. and j, k. It frequently places simple verbs for their compounds, e.g. Act. ix. 36; xv. 4; 32; xxi. 4; Jac. i. 20; Phil. i. 21; ii. 30; Hebr. ix. 6 ; 27. I subjoin a specimen of the variations in which it is so rich : Act. ii. 14 ; 37 ; 38 ; 41 ; iii. 26 ; iv. 26 p.m.-, v. 2 ; 26 ; vi. 6 ; vii. .3 ; 8 ; 38 ; 50 ; 65 p.m.; viii. 21 ; ix. 1 ; 4 ; 26 ; x. 3 ; 7 ; 17 ; xiii. 7 ; 41 ; 45 ; xiv. 11 ; 12 ; 13 ; XV. 2; 23; 36; xvi. 10; 13; 15; xvii. 12 p.m.', xviii. 12; xx. 25 (E) ; xxi. 14 p.m.; 19; 25 (BD) ; 39; xxii. 7 ; 13; 18; xxiii. 2; 10; 15; 17; 18; 24; xxiv, 12 ; XXV. 26; 27; xxvi. 10; 14; 29; xxvii. 6 (A); 10; 20; 28; xxviii. 6; 14; 21; Jac. i. 25; 27 {Syr. Vulg.); ii. 19; iii. 8; iv. 4 ; 7; 1 Pet. i. 9 ; iii. 17 ; iv. 12 p.m.; 14; 17 p.m.; 18; v. 2; 13 p.m.; 2 Pet. i. 17; iii. 10; 16; 1 Johan. i. 8; ii. 8; 15; iii. 2; 14; iv. 1; 2 Johan. 3; 4; Horn. i. 23; ii. 16; iv. 7; 11; 12; 24; vi. 20; 22 (JEthiop.); vii. 21; viii. 34; ix. 7; 32; x. 11; 16 p.m.; xiii. 9; xiv. 1; 14; XV. 20 2}. m.; 24; 30; 1 Cor. i. 9; viii. 10; x. 29; xi. 17; xii. 2 p.m.; xiii. 13; xiv. 25 p.m.; 37 p.m.; xvi. 1 p.m.; 23 (JEth.); 2 Cor. i. 5; ii. 4; v. 15; vi. 10; 12; viii. 2; 19; ix. 5; 13; xii. 21 {JEth. cf. xiii. 2); Gal. i. 6; 8; ii. 9 p.m.; 16; iv. 19; Eph. i. 10; iii. 10; 18; v. 3 p.m.; Phil. i. 7; 27 {^&h.); iii. 7; iv. 14; Col. i. 15; ii. 2; 16; iii. 13; iv. 9 p.m.; 12; 1 Thess. ii. 9; iv. 3; v. 3 p.m.;
2 Thess. iii. 4 jj.w.; 8; 11; 18; 1 Tim. i. 16; ii. 3 p.m.; v. 9; 13; 2 Tim. i. 17; iv. 18; Tit. i. 9; Philem. 7; 8; 21; Hebr. iii. 6; vii. 19?; viii. 6; ix. 1 (ABD); 15; 22 p.m.; 23 p.yn.; x. 25; 34; xii. 15 p.m.; 19; 24: p.m.; xiii. 21. This MS. is Wetstein's 24 Act., 29 Paul.
(m). Codex Leicesthexsis (which I have called L of the Gospels) has been fully described above, p. xl.
(n). Emmanuel. Coll.: Cantab.: i. 4. 35, is a copy of St. Paul's and part of the Catholic Epistles, in the Library of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, the Master and Fellows of which Society were pleased to lend it me for collation : it is Mill's Cant. 3, Wetstein's Act. 53, Paul. 30. This is the smallest manuscript I have examined, measuring only 4^ inches square. The writing being very minute (though singularly beautiful) and the ink much faded in parts, I was compelled to read it by small portions at a time, and usually with a good glass. It is written on 144 leaves of vellum, with 24 lines on a poge, and is of the 12th
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 67
or 13th century, or perhaps a little earlier. At the beginning of the volume we read . " Collegio Emmanuelis in Testimonium grati animi D.D. Samuel Wright, cjnsdem Collegii alumnus: Anno 1598, Pridie Nonas Julias." It was used by. Walton for his Polyglot, but the readings he extracts from it are very few, and he merely says of it "liber (teste D. James in Cat. libr. MSS. utriusque Aca- demiae) praestans ob antiquitatem, minutis characteribus descriptum" [Polygl. Tom. vi.) Mill first collated it throughout, (and I am glad to be able to add) with much more than his habitual accuracy, though by no means so satisfactorily as to supersede the necessity of another's labours: my collation is quite indepen- dent of his, but its results have been diligently compared with his volume, and with the original document. Unfortunately this valuable book is but a fragment. The first half of p. 1 is quite illegible from damp ; it contained the opening verses of 2 Pet. ii, but the first letters I can read are on line 13, fiapTTjir, v. 4, and much on this leaf can only be deciphered by a glass in a strong light: all the earlier portions of the Catholic Epistles (James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter i.) have perished, and at 1 Johan. iii. 20 rrjs KopBi is an hiatus which continues to the vTToOecns to the Romans (from GEcumenius, given in Mill) ikOeiv Sia^ Another hiatus occurs from 1 Cor. xi. 7, orf^eiXei to xv. 56, davarov t] dfj-apna. The MS. ends Hebr. xi. 27, rov yap. At 1 Tim. vi. 5, ttjv eva-ejSeiav commences another hand, less careful than that of the former scribe; i ascript (which had been used but five times before) now becomes very frequent, nor are the breathings and accents placed so accuratel}': the circumflex especially is often used falsely. We find t subscript 14 times in this MS., and v e(f)fXKvaTiKov is not rare. I number 184 itacisms, chiefly interchanges of « and o, of ?? and ei: of irregular forms only
enenea-av, Rom. XV. 3; fiaprvpav, 2 Cor. i. 23; e^eTrea-are (with Elzev.) Gal. V. 4; irpo-
nTvapiv (with Elzev.) 1 Thess. iv. G, and vyeiaivco often: the augment is neglected, 1 Cor. iii. 14; the reduplication, 2 Pet. ii. 21: aw in composition remains unaltered, Rom. viii. 16; 17; ix. 1, &c. The breathings and accents throughout this MS. are somewhat peculiar, and on a pretty uniform system; compounds have them on both parts of the word-, and many monosyllables receive a double accent, e.g. 8(\ vai , yap, fiep, n^^ intcrr. : but not always; so eVer sometimes. Otherwise the breathings are tolerably regular; we usually find ovk, e'f, a^pnap, and often such forms as ovKfam, ivavTa. Codex n has also bC on, KaQm, 6t av, odev, and often such arrangements as aneppa fo-re : i has frequently no breathing. This copy exhibits several compendious forms of writing which are not very common, e. g.
h = av, h—fp, "^ =ap, ~ — a, '^ = av, " = ay, _ = w, ' = oi/, '"' = &)?, ' = ?;?, " = ou (besides
1 Mill cites Cant. 3 in error for 2 JoLan. 8 : a-ir6\f(Tr)Te. The binder has also misplaced 2 Cor. viii. 6 — ix. 14 by five leaves, and two leaves con- taining part of the virodeci'S, the KecpdXaia and Eph. i. I— ii. 3 stand after Hebr. ii. A few word? are
lost by mutilation of the leaf, Eom. ix. 27 — 29 ; and X. 3 — 5. Hebr. xi. 19 — 26 is but just legible. 2 This practice in our MS. renders the various reading w$ vepl Kaddpfxara i Cor. iv. 13, which I cite after Mill, rather doubtful.]
k2
68
DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANISCKII'TS
» = or, " = v which arc usual) : ry is used for tt, as in codices owz of the Gospels and others : the shape of C is here very peculiar. Of omissions by
lO/xoioTfAeuroi/ I have noted but four in this accurate MS.
Of extraneous matter this document contains the inodea-eis ascribed to OEcumenius and tables of Ke<])a\aia before each epistle : the titles and numbers of the Kec})a\aia are also placed at the top and foot of each page. A later scribe has made some alterations in deeper ink, but many of the marginal notes certainly seem to he pi'imd manu: e.g. Rom. xiii. 7; xiv. 15; 1 Cor. xvi. 22; 2 Cor. xiii. 1 {devTepovofxiov); Gal. V. 14 ; 2 Thess. i. 5. Citations from Scripture are usually indicated by marks of quotation, e.g. 2 Cor. vi. 16 — 18; but this book contains nothing in red or coloured ink. I annex a few of the less usual variations: 1 Johan. iii. 18 (ivlth Ehev.); Rom. xi. 3; xiv. 14; 18; xv. 3; 14 (B); xvi. 19; 1 Cor. ix. 18 (AC); 2 Cor. v. 10; x. 12; Gal. iii. 1(>; Eph. ii. 4; iii. 8 ; Phil. iii. 13p.m.; 15; iv. 22; Col. iii. 1; 1 Thess. ii. 17; iv. 5; 17 ; 2 Thess. ii. 10; 1 Tim. i. 1 (AD*FG) ; iii. 15; 2 Tim. i. 15; iii. 7; Tit. iii. 15 sec. man. (FG) ; Philem. 15; 18; 22; Hebr. i. 9; iii. 15 ; iv. 4 ; v. 4 ; vi. 2; vii. 9; ix. 26; x. 10: some of these appear quite unique.
(o). Cantab. Mm. 6. 9, described above as v of the Gospels, p. xxxv.
(p). Brit. Mus. Additional MS. 20,003. This copy contains only the Acts of the Apostles in a mutilated condition, but it is unquestionably the most valu- able cursive MS. of that book yet known. It was sold to the British Museum in 1854 by Tischendorf, who seems to have brought it from the East, though on this point we lack information. A slight inspection having satisfied me of its great importance, I collated it with much care and minuteness : I have since learnt that it had previously been collated both by Tischendorf^ and Tregelles. The latter Avill no doubt use it for his edition of the Greek Testament. Tischen- dorf has published his report in the "Anecdota Sacra et Profana," pp. 7, 8 ; 130 — 146. I have diligently compared the result of his labours with my own, and find that I have extracted many variations which he has discarded as beside his purpose (e. g. itacisms, peculiarities of spelling, breathing, or accent, and not a few readings of some consideration) ; wheresoever our accounts differed, the original MS. was consulted, so that I may state with confidence that the collation given in the following pnges has been rendered by our joint labours unusually accurate : that made by Tischendorf is certainly open to the charge of careless- ness brought against it by Tregelles. The MS. consists of 57 leaves of vellum in small quarto, with 23 lines on each page. The following serious hiatus occur :
^ In the current number of Tischendorf's N.T., 7tli edition (October, 1858), I observe that this
MS. is cited thnuKrhout the Acts as "lo^i". which
notation will doubtless be explained in his forth- coming Prolegomena.
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT.
69
from iv. S, apxovrfs to vii. 17, o xpo""?, and from xvii. 28, cos kui rives to xxiii. 9, ovdep. Its date appears from the subscription, on fol. o7, p. 1, of which Tischendorf has
given a lithographed facsimile : f'yjoa'f)?; ij TrvevfxaroKfiviTOs ^ Ifpa /3i^Xoy avTi /carfn-i- Tp<i)irelv Tov Kv laKci^ a Xj np "^^ Icoavvov a, diax^eipos tco a ■ erovcr r (fivi^ . iv i^ p- anpi k.
By r ^vi^ Tischendorf and Tregelles understand the year of the Greek sera 6562 or a.d. 1054 : I would rather say a.m. 6552 or a.d. 10441. The hand- writing of this "John the Monk" is small and not inelegant, but it abounds in contractions and sometimes degenerates into a scrawl : in this and some other copies H and N seem almost to interchange their forms. Some of the nume- rous corrections seem prima, mami, (e.g. vii. 47; 52; viii. 15; 28; 29; xvi. 22; 27; xvii. 14; xxiii. 27 pnm. loco; xxvi. 1; xxvii. 1?; xxviii. 7; 20; 21; 25) others (e.g. iii, 3; viii. 5; xi. 14 ; xvii. 10; xxiii. 19; 27 secundo loco; xxiv. 27) are manifestly later. There are no rubrical marks, divisions into chapters, or numerals denoting the usual KecpaXaia, but notes on the beginnings and endings of the Charch Lessons and their dates in a coarse later hand (in viii. 25 re^ seems p.m.), in the text, margin, and at the top and bottom of the pages. We simply read Trpa^eis Tcov aTTocTToKwv in common ink at the head of Chap. i. and the end of Chap, xxviii. On fol. 56, p. 2, the KecfioKaia of St James are commenced, so that this MS. once contained the Catholic Epistles. There occur a few small capitals in black ink, and one or two larger (e. g. Chap, xiv) : marks of citation are pretty constant in the margin, pvimd manu.
As this copy must be supposed to be drawn from some purer and earlier source than usual, it seems speciallj' deserving of notice that its itacisms, 185 in number, but little exceed the average, and are of the ordinary type, only that v is often put for 01, as in kwos, \vnos. I observe no t ascript or subscript, but v ecpeXicvaTtKov with verbs before a consonant is universal, except in ix. 22; xiii. 31; xxiii. 24; xxvi. 5;
xxviii. 7. Such forms as finav, aveikare, KarayyeXo), pavarjs are constant; Xt/xos is
fem. xi. 28 (so Bion, xi. 4); notice also Trapayevap-evos, x. 33; aveiKav, ibid. 39; 8ca~ a-Tfikapada, XV. 24: the following accusatives in av for a are rarer, nvav, vii. 34;
rapaeav, p.m., ix. 11; uapavav, ibid. 35; (iatrikeav, xiii. 21; 8iav, xiv. 12; rpcoaSav, Xvi.
8; pvpav, xxvii. 5. The only stop is ( • ); for unusual punctuation see viii. 32, 33;* xvi. 9; 37; xvii. 6 ; 25; xxvi. 2; 7; 22; 29; xxvii. 40. The breathings are nearly as irregular, and much of the same kind as in the later uncials (e. g. Harl. 5598 and the Parham Evangelistaria) : such are, iarai, ianv, ixa, oUos, oXiyos, Svopa, Spei, ovv (yet a^paap!), but (Koaros, erepos, tXij/i, lepov, &c. The accents are pretty correct,
^ Surely vi^ instead of f/3 for 62 is very strange, if not unprecedented, and both in the original and Tischendorf' s facsimile the mark between v and /3 is not a plain t as elsewhere, but a jagged line, as if a mere shp of the pen : hence I would read
r/S (52), not vij3. Besides, the indiction for A.D. 1054 is 7, for A.D. 1044 is 12, the number given in the subscription. This last fact seems decisive of the question.
70
DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
yet the circumflex is wrongly placed in olbarf, oik(o, navXa, &c.; enclitics often re- ceive an accent, especially re: compound verbs have a double accent, as irfpUrffiev, or on the contrary, a preposition and its case are accented as one word, e.g. 8ia\6yov. A clear idea of the critical value of this document may be obtained by noting the great number of places in which its readings support those of the principal uncials ABCDE against the received text. For this purpose I have merely used Griesbach's and Tischendorf's (1849) editions of the Greek Testament, yet in the 710 verses of which this MS. consists (297 being lost), I count no less than 699 such passages, in 594 of which it agrees with A, in 50 1 with B, in 372 with C, in 225 with U, in 298 with E: bear in mind also that portions of CDE are lost^ and that B is not even yet very accurately known. Now since our MS. accords only 29 times with A alone of the five uncials, but 28 times with B, 10 with C, 4 with D, and 7 with E, it follows that this valuable cursive copy countenances the uncials chieflij ichere two or more of them agree, a plain indication of its sterling worth: and we may remark in passing that this closer agreement of the principal authorities ABC, &c., in the Acts, renders the task of settling the text of this book so far easier than it is in the Gospels. The nearest of my other MSS. to p are doubt- less a (in its more ancient portions), c, and m ; but the nearest to it of all the rest of the cursives may perhaps be considered longo proximus intervallo. In a few remarkable readings it stands quite alone: e.g. i. 20; vii. 28; x. 2; xiii. 37; XV. 12; xxiii. 30; xxiv. 12; xxv. 1; 10; xxvii. 7; 23; 32; xxviii. 26. In short, " the excellence of this MS," (I employ the words of Dr Tregelles, Home's Introd. p. 211, &c.) " can hardly be estimated too highly," while "it differs suffi- ciently from the other copies with Avhich it must be classed, to shew that it cannot be regarded as a mere duplicate of any of them^."
II. 3. It only remains for me to speak briefly of the MSS. of the Apocalypse collated for this volume.
(a). Lambeth, 1186, is e of the Pauline Epistles, and is described above, p. Ixii.
(b). Butler 2, Additional MS. 11837 is m of the Gospels, h of the Acts and Epistles, and is named above, p. Ixiii.
(c). Harleian: 5678, also in the British Museum, as are Codices d e j. The first eight chapters of this copy were very loosely collated for Griesbach by Paulus (31 in Griesbach's list), otherwise it has not been examined before. The volume which contains it is of about the fifteenth century, on glazed paper in quarto, of 244 leaves. On the top of its first page it is inscribed " Coll. Agen. Soc. Jesu,
1 Of these 710 verses, 187 are lost in C, ■256 in D, 72 in E.
2 To the same purport Tischendorf writes "Quo pauciora suramas antiquitatis monumenta textum
actuum conservarunt, eo pluris codex noster sesti- mandus est ; haud dubie enim antiquissirai codicis uncialis, qui ipse periit, exemplum est." Anecd. Scicr. et. Prof. p. 8.
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 71
Cat. InSCr." It embraces (1) fpfirjvfia "Ke^eav Kara (TTOixftov ffxr^fpon^VMV rr]8e rrj /3t/3X<u. (2) yfoapyiov lfpop.vrjp.ovos ttjs iiyKoraTrjs tod deov pfyakTjs eKKkfjaias tov TTa)(vpepov irapacfypaais fts TOV ayiov Upopaprvpa biovvcriov tov apeoirayiTrjV^ , (3) The ApOCalypse Oil the reverse
of the same leaf (223) which finishes Pachjmer's Commentary. The title and initial letter are in rubric ; the broad margin contains no KfC^aXaia or liturgical matter, but there are 17 capital letters throughout the book. This whole volume is written in the same clear neat small hand : at the end we read ruhro tw ^xovti Km ypa<f)avTi ^f pov (rwa-ov. The stops in this copy are , and ; . There is no instance of t ascript or subscript, but v f<p€\KV(TriKov once occurs viii. G, and an hiatus in the place of it two or three times. About four itacisms are met with (x. 7 ; xiii. 1 ; XV. 5; xviii. 13), and the breathings and accents are regular; we have however
faTT]Ka, iii. 20; ia-rrjKev, xiv. 1; rj^ovaiv, Xviii. 8; pvKov, Xviii. 21; ptyia-Tavis, xviii. 23;
laa, xxi. IG; InoKaTw, but a8e. I note one case of SpotoTiXevTov, xiii. 15, and the anomaly tov Spenavov, xiv. 15: the Apocalypse however is so full of violations of the ordinary rules of Greek syntax, that the practice of a single copy should not be noticed, unless it stand nearly alone. This MS. approaches nearer the common text than ab and most others, yet it exhibits many grave variations from it. Rare readings are xii. 9; xiii. G; xiv. 13; xvii. 15; xviii. 13 (AC); 14; 17; xix. 9; xxii. 2; 18, some of which are mere glosses. A second hand has been employed, chiefly in supplying omissions: e.g. iii. 15; v. 10, and about eight other places.
(d). Harleian: 5778, is called by Mill the Sinai MS., because Dr Covell procured it thence {supra, p. xlviii.). It contains the Acts, Epistles and Apoca- lypse. In the two former Dr Bloomfield has examined it after Mill, and on his report of Mill's inaccuracy I took it up for the Apocalypse, which I found to have been most imperfectly collated. The copy is in a very bad state, quite illegible indeed in parts, and it must have been ill treated since Mill's time, for he has preserved many readings of which I could not trace a vestige. In such cases I have cited "d (IMill)," and would wish it to be understood that the variation rests on his authority. In all places where we differ I have ascertained that I am correct, but have not deemed it necessary to be always complaining of my illus- trious predecessor. This MS. is Wetstein's Act. 28, Paul. 34, Apoc. 8, and is on vellum of about the twelfth century (see Mill, N. T. Proleg. § 1488 ) : it has an hiatus from vi. 14 eikia-a-opevov Kai to viii. 1 tco ovpavco (one leaf), and breaks off xxii. 19 dyias Kai tcov. Here V ecpeXKviTTiKov is perpetual, but neither i ascript or subscript. We may note dvarapav i. 11; GvaTtipt] ii. 18; *; (pro »?) iii. 12; firea-av v. 14 (with Elzev.); xi. 16 (with Elzev.); xvi. 19; xvii. 10 (with Elzev.) : f vpes ii. 2; JSe iv. 1;
iarasTai, e(TTr]K€v {not ahvays), 6t av, ToXavTiala, o{i8\ls, (T(l)payi8a, (rcppayia-iv. This is an
1 George Pacbymer flourished about A.D. 1280. j Ecchsiast. Tom. i. p. 144.S, that real treasure to On tbe title UpoixvrjtJ.wv consult Suicer TJiesanrit.s \ the theoloacical student.
72 DESCRIPTION OF ("EllTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
important MS., more resembling ab than c: observe xvii. 1; 14; xviii. 1; xix. 14 &c. I often cite d? in doubtful passages.
(e.). Hauletan : 5013, has also been collated before b}' no less a scholar than Griesbach, who gives the results of his labours very negligently in his edition of the Greek Testament (Act. 60; Paul. 63; Apoc, 29), but more fully in his Sym- bolae Criticee, Tom. i. p. 226, &c. I must confess that I vi^as first led to this MS. by a desire to test Griesbach's exactness as a collator, and was rather startled to find our differences in this single book amounted to more than sixty, all of which except eleven a comparison with the original document shewed to be errors on Griesbach's part: in fact he began his work well enough, but grew careless and weary towards the end. This copy contains also the Acts and Epistles, collated only in 5o select chapters by Griesbach, and well deserving a thorough examina- tion. It is on paper, and at the end of the Epistle to the Hebrews we read
TekeiaBev Kara fx-qva jj-diov, ivSiKTiavos nevre km beKarrjs, erovs e^aKiaxi^ioa-Tov evvaKOcriocrrov
TTfPTeKaiBeKarov (a.d. 1407). Griesbach minutely describes a most interesting vellum fragment in red letters and a semi-uncial character (he calls it early cursive) of about the ninth or tenth century, containing 1 Cor. xv. 52 — 2 Cor. i. 15; x. 13 — xii. 5, and barbarously employed for the binding of the paper volume (Sijmb. Crit.' Tom. ii. p. 162; N. T. Paul. 04) i. In this fragment i subscript is used 3 times, ascript twice, but in the paper MS. we find t subscript almost universally: I have remarked but one (xiv. 15) instance of v ((peXKvariKov. This copy of the Apocalypse ends xxii. 2 Kapwov, one leaf being lost, but is finished from V. IS Xtw to the end of v. 19 on the vellum fly-leaf. It contains about eleven ordinary examples of itacism^ and one of o/xotoreXenroi/ (xiii. 4). Of forms we may observe Biylraaovatv vii. 16; ixaaSois i. 13; fierpos xxi. 17 ; wde, (o8( and a>8e (xiv. 12 &c.), vaa-TTis ter, (avvqs (i. 13 &c), (T(ppayi8as-, a-({)payi(Tiv, but acjipay'iSa vi, 7 ; 9 p. m. In many places this document closely resembles Cod. a, but on the whole it comes closer than some others to the Elzevir text. The following are rare: i. 2; ii. 24; ix. 15; xi. 1; 2; 3 (so xii. 6); xii. 9; 13; 17.
(f). Codex Leicestrensis is L of the Gospels, m of the Acts and Epistles. It is described above p. xl.
(g). Parham No. 17 I believe to yield in value and importance to no copy of the Apocalypse except the three uncials. Mr Curzon tells us in his best manner the history of his acquisition of it in 1837 at Caracalla in Mount Athos {Visits to Monasteries in the Levant, p. 350) : this precious document certainly
^ Tischendorf has recently published these pre- the Hebrews, preserved in the Public Library of cious fragments, together with some leaves of the Hamburgh, in his Anecdola Sarra d Prof ana, pp. same MS., containing portions of the Epistle to 147 — 205,
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 73
had a most narrow escape from the ignorant wastefulness of his friend the Abbot. It is written on vellum, on IG leaves, quarto, the 12th and 13th leaves being misplaced : it breaks ofFxx. 11, Km ronos. In this MS. (which is dirty and damaged, especially near the end) t ascript is uniformly employed, never being omitted, though often inserted falsely (e. g. fwtoi/) : v ec^eXKvo-n/coi/ is found seven times. One great peculiarity regards the breathings, than which nothing can be imagined more capricious : thus in the few opening verses Ave have ea-rjixaviv v. 1 ; ioiauvrjs, elprjVT], iixoTTiov V. 4 ; djiapTicov V. 5 ; botli alcovas and aloivav V. 6. After this it is useless to multiply examples, but we have pretty consistently Svojxa, coSe, tpya, e^ftf, 6^v, opos, inra (not XV. 7), iVttcoi/ : the accents are just as ill put; sometimes they are placed over each part of a compound, and often neglected altogether. Words are repeatedly written twice over, and there are about five examples of 6p.oi.oTf\- evTov: the itacisms are 46, quite of an ordinary complexion. The text of the Apocalypse is surrounded by a commentary in a cramped and less distinct style, evidently however by the same hand, which exhibits several forms of abridgement not very usual, some of them being nearly the same as we met with in Codex n of the Epistles (see above, p. Ixvii.) : such are : = a, '=oy, =av, =as. The comment- ary, which is not very rare in MSS. of the Apocalypse, is a kind of epitome of that of Arethas, Archbishop of the Cappadocian Caesarea in the tenth century (appended to the Paris CEcumenius, 1631); so that this copy cannot well be placed earlier than the eleventh century, nor do I think it later than the twelfth. The title and initial A alone are in rubric; there is no division into sections, but each longer lesson has a capital letter at its commencement : these however are later than the text, for they are often written where the smaller letter was already found : e. g. ii. 5 ; 8. There are perpetual notes of reference to the commentary, above and in the body of the sacred text. This MS. frequently supports the readings of Cod. a, which I presume is of about the same age, and will merit attentive study: yet it is not seldom found to agree with the Elzevir text against the majority of our copies: e.g. xii. 8; 9; 14; xiii. 2; 3; 5; 8; 18; xiv. 3; 4; 7; 8; 19; xvii. 16; xviii. 2; 13; 15; 19; xix. 2; 6; 12; 17; xx. 11: in many of which g is attended by our copies h or n. The alterations in this MS. seem to have been made prima manu (except v. 9), but are certainly early.
(h). Parham, No. 2, contains the Apocalypse complete, on glazed paper, quarto, 22 leaves, with 28 lines on a page, in a very neat hand, which much reminded me of Lambeth 1350 (t of the Gospels: see my Collation, Tntrod. p. Iv): I should assign it to the 14th century. This MS. also came from Caracalla in 1837, and is in beautiful preservation. There is a scrawling inscription at the
end, of which I can decipher ^0T]dr) rov dovXov a-ov laavr] rov Trana brjprjTpKov tov
rpiCxi^vapyaii [??J . . . We find some short glosses or comments in the margin of this book; e.g. on ii, 22 kKiv^v aa-Biveias: these are in a later hand. The title, initial
L
74
DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
letters of the sections, and numerals indicating the KccpaXaia are in pale red: the only traces of a second hand in the text are vii. 17 ; xvii. 10; xix. 10; and a few erasures. The breathings and accents are correct, though a few are omitted: we read aj', fxrj, JSf, dcpov, eaxroii, axpi(Tov, fieraTavra, ovras always; nor is the acccnt of the enclitic ever thrown back, when the preceding word is properispomenon, e. g. eine /xoi. The only v e(})e'KKvcrTiKov is erased xvii. 10: i subscript is used but six times, always with aSrjs and aSova-iv ; t ascript never : the itacisms are but eight, of the commonest kind. This MS. resembles efg most of ours, and is remarkable for coming nearer to the Elzevir text than perhaps any other in existence. The examples (which I have carefully noted in my collation) are so numerous, that it may suffice to state the fact once for all (e.g. i. 5; 14; 17; ii. 1; 5; 7; 10; 17; 25, &c.). Other unusual readings are i. 2; 13 (A); vi. 5 (AC: sic v. 7); 9; viii. 9 (A); 13; X. 4; 7; xi. 3 (AB); xvii. 10; xviii. 3; 17, &c.
(j). British Museum, Additional MS. 17469. This copy of the whole New Testament is one of the most precious of the Biblical MSS. added to our National Library within the last ten years ^ It was purchased from T. Rodd, the book- seller, in 1848. It is a small folio on vellum of 186 leaves and 35 lines in a page; not much earlier, I should imagine, than the 14th century. I have hitherto collated it for the Apocalypse alone, but on inspecting cursorily the other books (we all know by this time how little a cursory inspection is worth) I observed nothing very striking: there is an hiatus about 1 Tim. iii. 16. Before certain liturgical tables at the end of the volume we read rubro ra a-wTeXearr] rav KoXav dco
X^pi'i I * * * (ct line erased) | rrjpi tcov KaXav nXaa-rov ye pov ', | Cot t(o 8o^a Tijxr] Kai Kparos
irpeirei povco\. This document is neatly written, though the abridged forms are rather numerous ; the breathings and accents are full and correct: we find J5f, ovx, pal38os {vid. supra, p.xxxix); eo-rT^crav xviii. 17 ; e|oucrtaj/ xvi. 9 ; olKovpevT]i ibid. 14: ; ovopara xxi. 12, diarovro, and (as in Cod. h &C.) erne poi, ol8a aov, k-t.^. p^ is used
almost always, as is ovras: we read anr{k6a x. 9; eneaav xix. 4; eTreaa ibid. 10. I observe no instance of v ic^ekKvcmKov, and only twelve itacisms : t subscript is per- petual (not however with abrjs or a>hr{), and in four places where it ought not to be (e.g. ii. 11 aKovtraTo). The title and initial letter of each section are in rubric, and six examples of error by opoLOTekevrov occur. This copy is of great value and full of interesting variations from the general mass, especially in the earlier chapters. Of our codices it most resembles ce. There will be found to exist a tendency to omit the article, and the following passages well merit examination: i. 14; 15; 18; 20; ii. 17; xii. 1; xiii. 10; 18; xiv. 4; 14; 20; xviii. 7; xx. 9; xxi. 19; xxii. 6; 12.
^ The following fresh copies, of the Gospels alone, await a patient labourer in this field of Biblical science ; Addit. MSS.: 16183 (12th cent. 1);
16943 (nth cent.?); 1747°; i774i; 17982; 19387 i a noble harvest for some fortunate scholar.
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 75
(k). Liber Canonicus 34 in the Bodleian at Oxford. The Libri Canonici comprise a splendid collection of 576 Greek Manuscripts, purchased by Dr Bandi- nel, the Principal Librarian of the Bodleian, at Venice in 1817, from the heirs of Abbot M. L. Canonici, for the University of Oxford. They are described by Mr Coxe, in the Bodleian Catalogue, Part in. (1854). This document contains the whole New Testament, neatly written in quarto, on 319 paper leaves, having 25 lines on a page, the Pauline Epistles preceding the Acts, as in the Codex Leicestrensis. At the end of the Apocalypse (the only portion of the MS. yet
collated) we read Mi^arjXos daiiaa-Krjvos 6 Kprjs T(o eKXafiTTpoTaTO) km Travao([)coTUT(o icoavvr) <j)pavyyi.(TKco TTiKa fxoipav8ov...i]yep.ovi km Tavrrjv ttjv deiov ^i^\ov . . .■^ev erei arro rrjs ;(ptOTOu
yewTjo-fcoy a(j)cr^, prjvi tovXXico uj (fol. 319), i.e. A.D. 1516. This John Francis Picus was the nephew and biographer of the illustrious John Picus of Mirandola, who died in 1494. A little lower on fol. 319 is written in the same hand eypa(j)r] to irapov ^i^Xiov ev fioipav8ov\ia, [Mirandola, now in the Grand Duchy of ModenaJ and still lower in a later but ancient hand "[Si quis^ h]uic exemplar! parvam fidem adhibendam putet. descriptum noverit e vetustissimo codice manu scripto. Nam ipse Jo. Fran. Picus olim Mirand. dux in Annotationibus Erasmi, quas ipsi in bibliotheca illius invenimus, id manu propria testatum reliquit. Ego hieronymus Teggetaeus, qui in praesenti libri hujus sum possessor, quae vidi hie annotandum putavi; manum aiitem illius nos pi^obe novimus." The truth of this statement is established by the character of the text exhibited in the MS.; the slightest examination will shew that the scribe has not used Erasmus' editio princeps of the Greek Testament, whose Preface by Frobenius bears date March 1, 1516. In the Apocalypse this copy abounds in peculiar readings; in some places much resembling e described above, while in others it stands quite alone : e. g. i. 3, 4 ; 14; 19; ii. 1; iv. 1; 8; vi. 11; vii. 13; viii. 1; ix.l4; 15; x. 1; xi. 7; 18; xii. 3; 14; xiii. 3; 4; 12; xiv. 9; xvi. 5; xvii. 5; 12; 13; 16; xviii. 4; 14; xix. 9; xx. 3; 14; xxii. 12: it often resembles Griesbach's 30 (Guelpherbyt. xvi. 7) in its rarest readings. The writer seems scarcely familiar with Greek (e. g. xvii. 3), and sometimes employs the article rather strangely (e.g. 1 Johan. v. 8, on ol rpeis eia-iv oi paprvpovvTis to irvevpa, k.t.X. omisso versu septimo). From Apoc. ii. 11 to r. 23 km yvaxTovTM there is a chasm, yet the text runs on uno tenore, with no signs of omis- sion (vid. supra, p. xli.). There occur no less than 13 instances of 6p.oioT(\fVTov in the Apocalypse. The breathings and accents are pretty regular, but we have 6pr], ia-TT^Ka, eaTT]Ka)s (fere), xpvcrovs, and such forms as ol8a aov. Of itacisms there are few or none. The augment is omitted x. 7 ; we read x^f^pav x. 5, p. m. Geoy, xP'-^^'^os &c.
^ Mr Coxe reads ai^if, but we find r with a similar shape in Apoc. xviii. 6, not to mention that the Gospels have a like colophon bearing date May 23, 1515 (fol. 131), and the Pauline Epistles are dated October 11, X515 (fol. 229).
2 A few letters are illegible. Mr Coxe supplies "Nemo:" 1 prefer " Si quis," supposing the point after 2^ufet to represent no more than a comma. The second g in Teggetaeus is erased,
l2
76 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
are rarely abridged : we find coSf, ovrcd, orav. It is usual to write i subscriptum (never ascriptum), six times where it should be absent. N tcpf'kKva-Ti.Kov before a consonant is met with three times, the hiatus for lack of it twice. Corrections are few, and seeinp.w. Throughout the MS. is no liturgical or marginal matter: the Apoca- lypse begins on the same page as the Catholic Epistles end, with a simple initial capital letter, ruhro. I am indebted to Dr Bandinel's kind attention for bringing this interesting copy under my notice.
(1). Hauleian: 5537, is Mill's Covell 2, and Wetstein's Act. 25, Paul. 31, Apoc. 7; containing the whole New Testament except the Gospels. This very important copy was loosely collated by Mill, whose readings I have compared with my own throughout the Apocalypse. It is a small quarto of 286 vellum leaves, having 23 lines on each page, in a very neat and clear hand. On fol. 100 b, between the Catholic and Pauhne Epistles, after other matter (which seems to fix the country of the MS. to the shores of the iEgean sea) we read eTeXeiwdrj 6e 6 ayios
airofTToXos fiera km rrjs aTTOKaXvyj/^eas firj fiaio) rjyovv tt) N [i.e. the PenteCOSt] 'iv8.i' er. r^^6 [a.D. 1087]' fiaa-CkivovTos aXe^iov tov KOfjL,...Kai viKoXaov Trarpiapxov. Mill justly remarks
"est certe hie ex libris nostris probatioribus" (Proleg. § 1482). The following specimens of its unusual readings will prove acceptable : i. 5 [Arah.) ; ii. 3 ; 16 {Arab.); iii. 1 p.m.; 11; 18; iv. 5 ; 8 (Arab.); v. 8; 11 (Arab.); vii. 5; viii. 13 (Arab.); ix. 6 ; 12; x. 10 ; xiii. 10; xiv. 10 (A); 11; 15 (Arab.); xv. 2 ; 7; xvi. 3; 15; XX. 10; xxii. 3; 12; 14 {A fere) ; 20. It is often thus found with the polyglot Arabic version almost alone ; also with our h and the Elzevir text, where they are countenanced by few others. We find no i ascriptum or subscriptum, but V ecPi^KvaTiKov is frequent, though mostly erased by a more recent hand, whereof I observe no other trace, except in xxi. 22, which change is very late. An hiatus occurs xi. 6 secund. manu; the augment is omitted xiv.- 18 ; we find reaaapfis and eiteaav (v. 8). Here the itacisms are many and strong, especially ei interchanged with rf : ib(i>6r}, i8ov are almost perpetual. A few breathings are irregular (d/Lt/ioj, oXiyos, iviavros, i(TTr)Ka, IfxaTLo), though even here the usage fluctuates. The circum- flex is often misplaced : e. g. C<^ov, Trparov, oIkov, ^wwj/* on the contrary see pijpas,
iraa-av, yrjv, xP^<^ovs, &C. and such forms as ovKexova-iv, ovKcvpedr], or av, a>v (for a>v), oval
and olai indifferently, but a55e always. There are five instances of 6/xotoreXeuroi/ in the Apocalypse, which has no viroBea-is, and no Kecfiakaia noted in the margin, but rubric capitals often. One rubric title is inserted in the body of the text (iv. 1).
(m). Codex Mediomontanus 1461, olim Meermann. 118, is a MS. on vellum, on 229 leaves 8vo, of the eleventh or twelfth century at the latest, purchased by Sir Thomas Phillipps, Bart, at the Meermann sale in 1824, and now forming a part of his unrivalled collection of Manuscripts at Middle Hill, Worcestershire. It contains the Acts, Epistles and Apocalypse, unhappily in a mutilated condition,
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT.
77
beginning Act. iv. 24 avrois' 6 8ia, ending Apoc. xxi. 12 vluv irjX. Many leaves are lost, though only one other in the Apocalypse, containing from after anapxr] tw 6m xiv. 4 to V. 14 KM eiTi TTjv pe(pe\r]v' several leaves have also been misplaced^. This copy is numbered by Scholz Act. 178, Paul. 242, Apoc. 87 : he probably saiv it abroad, but does not once cite it throughout the whole Apocalypse, which book the present owner most obligingly allowed me to collate at Middle Hill : I do not imagine that the rest of the MS. was ever examined. It is written in a bold clear hand, the number of lines on each page varying from 23 to 31 : it is worn in parts, and occasionally retouched : e. g. in five passages of the Apocalypse (i. 1 ; xiii. 2; xvii. 13, 14; xviii. 1; 22, 23): five cases of SixoioreXevrov occur. Each of the Epistles has an viroBea-ts before it, and both they and the Acts exhibit in the margin the usual KecpaXaia, apxat of Church lessons, liturgical directions and rubric capitals : the Apocalypse however has no vTrodfo-is or Kf({)a\aia, but a small illumi- nation over the title, and flourished capitals to the 72 K((})aKaia in faded red. This MS. abounds with rare and singular readings ; e.g. i. 5 ; 7 (article); 13 ; 16 ; ii. 1 ; 8; 9; 13; 17; iii. 1 ; 7 ; iv. 8 ; v. 2 ; 9 ; vi. 9 ; 11; 17 ; vii. 1; 12; viii. 1; 12; X. 10; xi.2; 14; 19; xii.3; 4; 7; 11; 16; 18 (AC); xiii. 10; 17; xv.2; 3;xvi. 20 (article); xvii. 4; 6 (article); 14; 15; 16; xviii. 6; 7; 10 (article); 13 (ACc); 22 ; xix. 3 ; 6 (c) ; 13 (g) ; 17 ; 21 ; xx. 10 ; xxi. 9 (A). It is often found with our gn. This copy frequently agrees with the Elzevir text with few others : i. 8 ; 9; ii. 7; iii. 2; v. 6; vi. 4; 12; viii. 7; 8; ix. 7; 10; 12; x. 1; xiii. 7; 14; 18; xv. 2; xviii. 19; xix. 20; xx. 8; xxi. 12. We meet with no t ascriptum or suhscrip- tum ; V e(pe\KV(TTiKov is frequent, but less so towards the end of the book. Only eleven ordinary itacisms occur in the Apocalypse: ixeroncop is read once, cj^vaXi) three times (these forms are constant in Codex n, to be described next): many
breathings are irregular, e. g. riyaTrrja-fv, rjvoi^e, ijuoiyrj, -qveaypevov, TjpTjuadr), i^KOva-a, e/xea-ai, OTTia-m, oXiya, ovttco, owmpa, 6(})e\ov, and on the Contrary ij^ova-iv, fla-TTjKei, ia-TrjKores (but
coTtara), wSe. The circumflex is often put over nominatives in t], as awayay^, aToXfjy
"KfVKrj &C., and over the short penultima, as ^aa-raaai, Seplaai, Kaviiarlcrai, dyopaaai, irara^ai, yet we have 7rpo</))jrai, alcovas'. we see also y\co(Tcras, dvarelpois, vno Kara, pfj8ev, ov fi^, both orav and or av.
(n). Baeocc. 48, in the Bodleian, is a volume in small quarto, consisting of various pieces in several hands, some on vellum and others on paper, of about the 15th century. Mr Coxe describes its general contents in his Catalogue^. The Apocalypse commences at fol. 51 b, and ends abruptly at fol. 74 b, after the
* After Apoc. xi. i, read the four following leaves in this order, 4, 2, 3, 1 . After Apoc. xix. i two leaves are transposed and turned upside down. The present is hardly the place for giving- a Hat of the chasms in the Acts and Epistles.
2 On fol. 18 (paper, of the 14th century) are five verses of the Apocalypse (v. i — 5) differing in several places from the text of the copy I have called n. The readings of this small fragment are cited as n^.
78
DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS
words (38f\vynaTa)v qvttjs xvii. 5. It is neatly and clearly written on paper, with 22 lines on the page, and bears date irom the 14th or 15th century. This copy was collated (together with three others at Oxford) for Wetstein's Greek Testament by Caspar Wetstein, his kinsman, Chaplain to the Prince of Wales, and its read- ings are numbered 28 in Wetstein's edition ; but the collator has done his work most negligently, though I have been glad to use his labours for the correction of my own throughout the book. Codex n is one of the most important of our cursive MSS., containing wide and frequent variations from the mass of author- ities : it somewhat resembles our h in its close approximation to the Elzevir text, and next to h, it approaches nearest to bgl. For its resemblance to the Elzevir editions, see i. 6 ; 9; 12; 18; 20; ii. 3; 9; iii. 9 ; 11; v. 14; vi. 8; 9; ix. 2; xvi. 1. The following readings are also remarkable : ii. 20 ; 27; iii. 7 ; 12; 13; 14 ; 18 ; iv. 7 ; 8 ; vi. 5 ; vii. 4 ; 11 ; viii. 12 ; ix. 13 ; xi. 1 ; 5 ; 8 ; 15 ; xii. 1 ; 4 ; xiii. 3; 11; 13; xiv. 6; 8; 16; xvii. 3. In this very recent codex we find no t ascriptum or subscriptum ; v €(})(Xkv(ttikov is read but six times before a con- sonant, the hiatus in its absence once (i. 4). There are five cases of ojioioTiKevrov, and many itacisms, chiefly between o and w : we always have fieronav, (j)va\r], and tScodrj, eppiBt], each twice. Of grammatical forms I note only etSa, ii. 2. There is a slight illumination at the opening of the Apocalypse, and its first three verses are in rubric. The headings of the several K((f)a\aia are interspersed with the text, the K€(})a\aia numbered in the margin, and their commencements marked by rubric capitals. Numerals are invariably expressed by letters, not words. The breathings are not very accurate or consistent, e, g. Ittttos, alua, abovcnv, ^Kovaa, ijvoi^e, rj^ovcri, 68ovTes, oXiya, ovs (auris), (o8e. The accents ai'e more carefully given : we find however vnofiovfj nom., cpcovf) dat, xpyo-as, oida aov, iirjdels, &c. A few corrections seem prima manu, but several are very recent, as are some Latin notes which disfigure the margin, I believe that this manuscript merits peculiar attention.
As it is admitted on all hands that the text of the Apocalypse is less satis- factorily represented in our printed editions than that of any other part of the New Testament, I deeply regret that scholars should have published a revi- sion of it, even within the last few years, without having previously sought to add to our existing store of materials, or at least to test their accuracy. Up to this time we have an exact knowledge of but two copies of this book of Holy Scripture, the Codex Alexandrinus (A) and the Codex Ephraemi (C), the latter a mere fragment. Tischendorf's transcript of the only remaining uncial, the Codex Vaticanus 2066 (B), is, in fact, the result of a hurried collation {Monu- ment, sacr. ined. pp. 407 — 432), made under circumstances I should not wish to happen to me^ I could not doubt therefore that by collating the Manuscripts of
^ I praise as little as any one the childish jea- lousy displayed by the authorities at the Vatican, but it is now their fixed rule to permit no stranger
to collate their more precious manuscript treasures. Tregelles however in 1845, and Tischendorf in 1 843, obtained leave to make facsimiles of one or
OF TPIE GREEK TESTAMENT.
79
the Apocalypse above described, I was helping to place the text of that book on a firmer basis : a task not only less toilsome, but (I will venture to say) less preca- rious in its results than the criticism of the Gospels : so much easier is it in this instance to distinguish the broad tide-wave of ancient evidence from those local currents which bewilder the inexperienced voyager.
In the course of my Biblical studies I met with not a few other MSS. of portions of the Greek Testament which are not only uncollated, but have not yet appeared in any general Catalogue. I have incidentally alluded to several in the foregoing pages {vid. pp. 5, 74 note), I will now mention a few others, which nothing but hard necessity has hindered me from subjecting to a closer examination.
At Middle Hill, in that wonderful collection of more than twenty thousand MSS. in various languages, besides the copy described above, p. 76, I inspected :
(1) A noble MS. of the Gospels (13975) in large foho, with a very full com- mentary in minute letters surrounding the text. It may be of the 12th century, and once belonged to Lord Strangford.
(2) A copy of the Acts and all the Epistles (7681), dated a.d. 1107. This MS. (as w^ell as that in the British Museum, Additional 16943) once formed part of the collection made by the Hon. F. North for the University of Corfu.
(3) An Evangelistarium of the 12th or 13th century was described to me by Sir T. Phillipps, but could not be found at the time.
At Parham, besides the four MSS. I collated, and the two specially named above (p. 47), are about ten more copies of different dates, of which seven con- tain the Gospels, four the Acts and Epistles. A complete collation of all the N. T. MSS. in this Library would be no unworthy task for any one who desired to do good service to Biblical literature.
I am indebted to the kindness of Archdeacon Hale for my acquaintance with three Lectionaries which have long been deposited in Sion College Library, but even there seem to have been quite forgotten. The Archdeacon is engaged in com- piling a critical Catalogue of Biblical Manuscripts now in this country, a work of which I should have been glad indeed to have been able to avail myself.
In addition to those mentioned above, I know of but five MSS. of the Apoca- lypse in these islands (making only twenty in all), which though they have been previously used for Mill's or Wetstein's editions, doubtless need renewed exami- nation ; they are the following :
two passages of Codex B (2066). And now the latter shall tell his own story. " Mihi vero jestate anni 1843, cum concessum esset aliquos codicis versus facsimili exprimere, contigit ut in confi-
oiendo facsimili variantes lectiones omnes editioni mese Lipsiensi adscriberera." (N.T. ed. 1849, Pro- leg, p. Ixxiv.) Contigit tit !
80 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MSS. OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT.
(1) Bodleian : Huntingdon 131, vellum of the 12th century, very poorly col- lated by Mill, whom I followed in capp. x. and xxii.
(2) Bodleian : Barocc. 3, collated by Caspar Wetstein after Mill. The margin of this beautiful little book, of the eleventh century, is crowded with a very full and unique Commentary, published by J. A. Cramer, in his Catena on the Apoca- lypse, Oxon. 1840. It ends xx. 1, exov. I collated cap. x.
(3) and (4-) Christ Church, Oxford, Wake 1 and 2, both collated by C. Wetstein. (5) Cambridge Public Library, Dd. 9, 69, contains besides the Gospels of the
13th century, a more recent copy of the Apocalypse which has not been used since Mill's time.
I cannot help indulging the hope that health and leisure may yet be granted me to pursue my researches among these and similar treasures of our English libraries. But while the harvest is plenteous, the labourers have hitherto been few indeed ; and I should much rejoice if some of those younger scholars who have so generously appreciated my efforts would devote a portion of their own time to investigations which have thus far boi-ne some fruit, and seem to promise yet more, in a department of sacred learning which yields to none in its interest or importance.
ADDENDUM.
The following are the notes in various hands si:)oken of on p. 23 as being written on the last page and covers of the Codex Augiensis.
Ad calcem pagince. Hie liber est monasterii Augi^ Majoris qui per dnm de Wildenst am Abbatem accomodatus fuit magistro Georgio Schoenlin de Schomdorff decretorum doctor! canonico in Sindelfingen tempore basiliensis.
Primd, ut videtur manu : Tu domine universorum qui nullam babes indigentiam.
In libri operculo, ad initimi, scripta sunt {post lineani erasam, antiqud manu scriptam, TempAs
adhtic Veniet post )
Georgii Michaelis Wepferi Schaphusiani.
(Alid manu:) Jam Ludovici Christian! M!eg!i. Emptus hie codex Richardo Bentleio a.d.-'.mdccxviii. [Bentleii manu.]
Alid manu: Codex Augiensis (supposed to have been written in the ninth century) noted F in the second part of Wetstein's N.T. Vid. Marsh's Michaelis. Chap. viii. Sect. vi. 4.
Alid manu: Wetstein's Prolegom. Vol. i. p. 153. Vol. 11. p. 6. Monk's Life of Ben tley, 11. p. 121. Hunc codicem parvi sestimavit Wetstenius ; plurimi Bentleius. vid. ejus not. ms. ad init. Nov. Testa- ment! Oxon. 1675. 8'° (b. 17. 8 inscript!) quocum codicem contulit. J. W[ordsworth]. 1839.
Item eddem manu : This MS. is not written in Anglo-Saxon chai-acters, as has been described ; but in the renovated miuuscule of the Caroline period (Saec. IX vel x). J. 0. W.
In operculo, adfinem voluminis, leguntur : Si Deus nobiscum quis contra nos.
Item Bentleii manu, Monasterium Augiee ; in Belgis, ubi institutus est Goddeschalcus : et alia qucedam, nullius frugis, variis manibus.
|
Date Due |
|||
|
.._,rr— ^ |
r |
||
|
^mniwiiiwwr |
MM |
i |
|
|
^'■.-x,-.-^.^,^-^.. |
|||
|
TwnrmtiDiiXj |
|||
|
J^ 3lA.^^AM |
1 |
||
|
i |
|||
|
^ |
BS2385.S432
Contributions to the criticism of the
Princeton Tlieological Seminary-Speer Librar;
1 1012 00077 1487
mm
<»:*:^'>>^<
■ -^ '- ■ m: i^ '